You are on page 1of 499

Prepared by:

URS Corporation
915 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 700
Los Angeles, CA 90017
Prepared for:
City of Los Angeles
Department of Public Works
Bureau of Sanitation
419 S. Spring Street, Suite 900
Los Angeles, CA 90013
Evaluation of Alternative
Solid Waste Processing Technologies
September 2005
To Protect Public Health
and the Environment
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS


CITY OF LOS ANGELES

Evaluation of Alternative Solid Waste
Processing Technologies Report


MAYOR
Antonio R. Villaraigosa


CITY COUNCILMEMBERS
Ed P. Reyes CD 1 Wendy Greuel CD 2
Dennis P. Zine CD 3 Tom LaBonge CD 4
Jack Weiss CD 5 Tony Cardenas CD 6
Alex Padilla CD 7 Bernard Parks CD 8
Jan Perry CD 9 Vacant CD 10
Bill Rosendahl CD 11 Greig Smith CD 12
Eric Garcetti CD 13 Vacant CD 14
Janice Hahn CD 15


BOARD OF PUBLIC WORKS
Cynthia M. Ruiz, President
David Sickler, Vice President
Paula A. Daniels, President Pro-Tempore
Yolanda Fuentes
Valerie Lynne Shaw


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


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

September 2005
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS


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

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

OTHER CITY DEPARTMENTS AND DIVISIONS:

Bureau of Sanitation:
Solid Resources Processing & Construction Division
Solid Resources Citywide Recycling Division
Solid Resources Valley Collection Division
Solid Resources South Collection Division

Department of Water and Power

CONSULTANTS

URS Corporation
Alfonso Rodriguez
Dan Predpall
Shapoor Hamid

JDMT, Inc.
Michael Theroux

Sheri Eiker-Wiles & Associates

CJSeto Support Services, LLC

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Section Page


i
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...............................................................................................ES-1

1.0 IDENTIFY ALTERNATIVE MSW PROCESSING TECHNOLOGIES............. 1-1

1.1 INTRODUCTION............................................................................................... 1-1
1.2 BUSINESS OBJECTIVES.................................................................................. 1-2
1.3 EVALUATION METHODOLOGY ................................................................... 1-2
1.4 ALTERNATIVE MSW PROCESSING TECHNOLOGIES .............................. 1-4
1.5 LIST OF TECHNOLOGY SUPPLIERS............................................................. 1-4

2.0 CHARACTERIZE ALTERNATIVE MSW PROCESSING
TECHNOLOGIES...................................................................................................... 2-1

2.1 INTRODUCTION............................................................................................... 2-1
2.2 THERMAL PROCESSING TECHNOLOGIES ................................................. 2-3

2.2.1 Advanced Thermal Recycling.................................................................. 2-5
2.2.2 Pyrolysis................................................................................................... 2-8
2.2.3 Gasification............................................................................................ 2-15
2.2.4 Plasma Arc Gasification ........................................................................ 2-21

2.3 PHYSICAL PROCESSING TECHNOLOGIES............................................... 2-24

2.3.1 Refuse Derived Fuel .............................................................................. 2-24
2.3.2 MSW Handling Processes...................................................................... 2-26

2.4 BIOLOGICAL AND CHEMICAL PROCESSING TECHNOLOGIES........... 2-29

2.4.1 Introduction............................................................................................ 2-29
2.4.2 Anaerobic Digestion .............................................................................. 2-31
2.4.3 Ethanol Production................................................................................. 2-34
2.4.4 Biodiesel ................................................................................................ 2-36
2.4.5 Other Processes...................................................................................... 2-37

3.0 REGULATIONS AFFECTING ALTERNATIVE MSW PROCESSING
TECHNOLOGY IMPLEMENTATION.................................................................. 3-1

3.1 INTRODUCTION............................................................................................... 3-1
3.2 REGULATORY HISTORY................................................................................ 3-2
TABLE OF CONTENTS

Section Page


ii
3.2.1 Toward Standardized Permitting and Enforcement ................................. 3-2
3.2.2 Renewable Energy Generation ................................................................ 3-3
3.2.3 Life Cycle and Market Assessment ......................................................... 3-5
3.2.4 Current Regulatory Concerns .................................................................. 3-8
3.2.5 Current Status of Definitions ................................................................... 3-9

3.3 REGULATIONS AFFECTING ALTERNATIVE TECHNOLOGY
DEVELOPMENT.............................................................................................. 3-11

3.3.1 Local, State, and Federal Interaction ..................................................... 3-11
3.3.2 California Energy Commission Regulations ......................................... 3-15
3.3.3 California Integrated Waste Management Board Regulations .............. 3-15
3.3.4 Summary of Permitting Requirements................................................... 3-15

3.4 REGULATIONS AFFECTING COMPOST MARKETABILITY................... 3-16

3.4.1 MSW Feedstock Variability .................................................................. 3-17
3.4.2 Process Control Challenges ................................................................... 3-18
3.4.3 Voluntary Quality Control for Compost ................................................ 3-19
3.4.4 Regulatory Oversight Federal ............................................................. 3-20
3.4.5 Regulatory Oversight State................................................................. 3-21
3.4.6 Summary................................................................................................ 3-24

4.0 SCREENING OF ALTERNATIVE MSW PROCESSING TECHNOLOGIES.. 4-1

4.1 INTRODUCTION............................................................................................... 4-1
4.2 TECHNOLOGY SCREENING CRITERIA....................................................... 4-1
4.3 ALTERNATIVE MSW PROCESSING TECHNOLOGY SCREENING.......... 4-2
4.4 WASTE SAMPLING PROGRAM...................................................................... 4-4
4.5 TECHNOLOGY SUPPLIER SCREENING CRITERIA.................................... 4-5
4.6 TECHNOLOGY SUPPLIER SURVEY.............................................................. 4-6
4.7 SCREENED TECHNOLOGY SUPPLIERS....................................................... 4-7

5.0 DETAILED ASSESSMENT OF ALTERNATIVE MSW
PROCESSING TECHNOLOGIES AND SUPPLIERS.......................................... 5-1

5.1 INTRODUCTION............................................................................................... 5-1
5.2 REQUEST FOR QUALIFICATIONS ................................................................ 5-1
5.3 OVERVIEW OF EVALUATION PROCESS..................................................... 5-2
TABLE OF CONTENTS

Section Page


iii
5.3.1 Definitions and Assumptions................................................................... 5-2
5.3.2 Uses for Digestate from Anaerobic Digestion Facilities ......................... 5-3

5.4 SUMMARY OF TECHNOLOGY SUPPLIER EVALUATIONS...................... 5-5

6.0 LIFE CYCLE ANALYSIS......................................................................................... 6-1

6.1 INTRODUCTION............................................................................................... 6-1
6.2 INTRODUCTION TO LIFE CYCLE ANALYSIS............................................. 6-1
6.3 THE CIWMB CONVERSION TECHNOLOGY LIFE CYCLE STUDY.......... 6-3
6.4 ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVE MSW PROCESSING TECHNOLOGIES
FOR THE CITY OF LOS ANGELES................................................................. 6-4

6.4.1 Scenario Development ............................................................................. 6-5
6.4.2 Results.................................................................................................... 6-13

6.5 CONCLUSIONS................................................................................................ 6-20

7.0 COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVE MSW PROCESSING
TECHNOLOGIES AND TECHNOLOGY SUPPLIERS....................................... 7-1

7.1 INTRODUCTION............................................................................................... 7-1
7.2 OVERVIEW........................................................................................................ 7-2

7.2.1 Technical Comparison ............................................................................. 7-3
7.2.2 Environmental Comparison ..................................................................... 7-8
7.2.3 Economic Comparison........................................................................... 7-15

7.3 COMPARISON TO PROJECT OBJECTIVES................................................. 7-17
7.4 RANKING OF ALTERNATIVE WASTE PROCESSING
TECHNOLOGIES............................................................................................. 7-19

7.4.1 Criteria Development............................................................................. 7-20
7.4.2 Establish Performance Levels................................................................ 7-20
7.4.3 Assign Criteria Weights......................................................................... 7-20
7.4.4 Technology Ranking.............................................................................. 7-23

8.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................... 8-1

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Section Page


iv
8.1 SUMMARY OF KEY FINDINGS...................................................................... 8-1
8.2 CONCLUSIONS.................................................................................................. 8-1
8.3 RECOMMENDATIONS..................................................................................... 8-6

8.3.1 Public Outreach........................................................................................ 8-6
8.3.2 Develop a Short List of Suppliers............................................................ 8-8
8.3.3 Initial Siting Study................................................................................... 8-8
8.3.4 Preparation of Request for Proposal and Select Preferred Supplier ........ 8-8
8.3.5 Conduct Facility Permitting and Conceptual Design............................... 8-8
8.3.6 Detailed Design and Construction ........................................................... 8-8

GLOSSARY

List of Tables Page

Table ES-1 Key Findings...................................................................................................ES-4
Table ES-2 Recommended Activities for MSW Processing Facility Development
for the City of Los Angeles.............................................................................ES-9

Table 1-1 Classification of MSW Processing Technologies............................................. 1-5

Table 3-1 Summary of Permits Required for a New Solid Waste Processing Facility..... 3-1

Table 4-1 List of Alternative MSW Processing Technologies.......................................... 4-2
Table 4-2 Alternative MSW Processing Technology Evaluation Matrix ......................... 4-3
Table 4-3 Characteristics of Black Bin Contents, City of Los Angeles, 2004.................. 4-8
Table 4-4 Technology Supplier Short List ........................................................................ 4-9

Table 5-1 Thermal Conversion Facilities.......................................................................... 5-7
Table 5-2 Advanced Thermal Conversion Facilities......................................................... 5-9
Table 5-3 Biological Conversion Facilities..................................................................... 5-10

Table 6-1 Los Angeles Waste Composition...................................................................... 6-6
Table 6-2 Key Assumptions Used in Gasification, Advanced Thermal Recycling,
& Landfill Scenarios ....................................................................................... 6-11
Table 6-3 Key Assumptions Used in AD Scenario......................................................... 6-14
Table 6-4 Summary Level Results for the Scenarios Analyzed for Los Angeles
(per 1,000,000 Tons of Waste Managed)........................................................ 6-14

TABLE OF CONTENTS

List of Tables Page


v
Table 7-1 Characteristics of Technology Groups.............................................................. 7-3
Table 7-2 Criteria Performance Levels and Ratings ....................................................... 7-21
Table 7-3 Scores by Supplier by Criterion...................................................................... 7-24
Table 7-4 Supplier Scores by Sub-category.................................................................... 7-25
Table 7-5 Summary of Highest Scores in Each Scoring Category ................................. 7-25

Table 8-1 Key Findings..................................................................................................... 8-2
Table 8-2 Recommended Activities for MSW Processing Facility Development
for the City of Los Angeles............................................................................... 8-7

List of Figures Page

Figure 1-1 Business Objectives, City of Los Angeles Alternative MSW
Processing Study............................................................................................... 1-3

Figure 2-1 Anatomy of a Conversion Facility.................................................................... 2-2
Figure 2-2 Advanced Thermal Recycling System.............................................................. 2-6
Figure 2-3 Typical Pyrolysis System for Power Generation or Chemicals........................ 2-9
Figure 2-4 Typical Pyrolysis/Steam Reforming System for Power Generation............... 2-12
Figure 2-5 Typical Gasification System for Power Generation (2 Options) or
Chemicals........................................................................................................ 2-16
Figure 2-6 Typical Pyrolysis/Gasification System for Power Generation ....................... 2-19
Figure 2-7 Typical Plasma Gasification System for Power Generation........................... 2-21
Figure 2-8 Typical RDF System....................................................................................... 2-24
Figure 2-9 Typical Steam Processing/Autoclave Process ................................................ 2-28
Figure 2-10 Estimated Bulk Composition of Los Angeles Black Bin
Post-Source Separated MSW.......................................................................... 2-30
Figure 2-11 Simplified Typical MSW Anaerobic Digestion Process Schematic
(after Legrand et al. 1989) .............................................................................. 2-32
Figure 2-12 Simplified Ethanol Production Process Schematic......................................... 2-35
Figure 2-13 Simplified BRI Process Schematic ................................................................. 2-37

Figure 4-1 Average Percent Composition of Post-Source Separated MSW...................... 4-5

Figure 6-1 Life Cycle Inputs and Outputs of a Waste Management Process..................... 6-2
Figure 6-2 Calculation of Total Life Cycle NO
x
Emissions for a Landfill-Based
Waste Management Scenario............................................................................ 6-2
Figure 6-3 Landfill Scenario Illustration............................................................................ 6-7
Figure 6-4 Advanced Thermal Recycling Scenario Illustration......................................... 6-7
TABLE OF CONTENTS

List of Figures Page


vi
Figure 6-5 Advanced Thermal Recycling Process Diagram.............................................. 6-8
Figure 6-6 Pyrolysis/Gasification Scenario Illustration ..................................................... 6-9
Figure 6-7 Pyrolysis/Gasification Process Flow Diagram................................................ 6-10
Figure 6-8 Waste Conversion (Anaerobic Digestion) Scenario ....................................... 6-12
Figure 6-9 Anaerobic Digestion Process Flow Diagram.................................................. 6-12
Figure 6-10 Annual Net Energy Consumption by Scenario............................................... 6-15
Figure 6-11 Annual Net Pounds of Criteria Air Emissions by Scenario............................ 6-17
Figure 6-12 Annual Net Metric Tons of Carbon Equivalent by Scenario.......................... 6-19

Figure 7-1 Alternative Technologies for Treating Black Bin
Post-Source Separated MSW............................................................................ 7-2
Figure 7-2 Throughput by Supplier (TPY)......................................................................... 7-4
Figure 7-3 Net Electricity Production, MW....................................................................... 7-6
Figure 7-4 Energy Efficiency, Net kWh/Ton ..................................................................... 7-6
Figure 7-5 Diversion Rate, Percent of Throughput ............................................................ 7-9
Figure 7-6 Capital Cost, $/TPY........................................................................................ 7-15
Figure 7-7 Total Revenue/Ton by Supplier ...................................................................... 7-16
Figure 7-8 Estimated Breakeven Tipping Fee and
Worst Case Breakeven Tipping Fee ............................................................... 7-18
Figure 7-9 Objectives Hierarchy ...................................................................................... 7-19
Figure 7-10 Total Ranking Score by Supplier.................................................................... 7-26

List of Appendices

Appendix A Master Supply List of Technologies
Appendix B Characterization of Alternative Waste Processing Technologies
Appendix C Europe Facilities Field Reports
Appendix D Life Cycle Analysis Report
Appendix E Supplier Evaluations
Appendix F Alternative Technology RFQ
LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS


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


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

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

ES-1
The City of Los Angeles Department of Public Works, Bureau of Sanitation engaged URS
Corporation to conduct an evaluation of alternative municipal solid waste (MSW) processing
technologies to process residential refuse, or post-source separated MSW. The City uses
three bins to collect solid waste from residences: green bin (green waste), blue bin
(recyclables), and black bin (refuse). The green and blue bin material is recycled. The black
bin refuse, or post-source separated MSW, which is landfilled, is the subject of this study.
The study began with development of the Citys overall project objectives. The highest-level
objective is:
Identify alternative MSW processing technologies that will increase landfill
diversion in an environmentally sound manner, while emphasizing options
that are energy efficient, socially acceptable, and economical.
This objective was subdivided into three lower-level objectives:
Maximize Environmental (Siting) Feasibility (i.e., minimize impacts to the environment
and citizens)
Maximize Technical Feasibility (i.e., search for technologies that are commercially
available within the development timeframe of 2005-2010 and will significantly increase
diversion from landfills)
Maximize Economic Feasibility (i.e., provide an overall cost that is competitive with
other solid waste processing methods)
These objectives were applied, through the use of screening criteria, to identify potential
technologies that could meet the Citys objectives. Technologies initially identified were:
Thermal Technologies
Biological/Chemical Technologies
Physical Technologies
Thermal technologies are those technologies that operate at temperatures greater than 400
degrees F and have higher reaction rates. They typically operate in a temperature range of
700 degrees F to 10,000 degrees F. Most thermal technologies are used to produce electricity
as a primary byproduct. Thermal technologies include advanced thermal recycling (a state-
of-the-art form of waste-to-energy facilities) and thermal conversion (a process that converts
the carbon-based portion of the MSW waste stream into a synthetic gas which is
subsequently used to produce products such as electricity, chemicals, or green fuels).
Biological/chemical technologies operate at lower temperatures and lower reaction rates.
They can accept feedstock with high moisture levels, but require material that is
biodegradable. Some technologies involve the synthesis of products using chemical
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

ES-2
processing carried out in multiple stages. Byproducts can vary, which include: electricity,
compost and chemicals.
Physical technologies involve altering the physical characteristics of the MSW feedstock.
These materials in MSW may be separated, shredded, and/or dried in a processing facility.
The resulting material is referred to as refuse-derived fuel (RDF). It may be densified or
pelletized into homogeneous fuel pellets and transported and combusted as a supplementary
fuel in utility boilers.
All of these technologies are described in Section 2.0. The state and Federal regulations
governing the permitting of these technologies is presented in Section 3.0.
Twenty individual alternative MSW processing technologies were included within these
major categories. The technologies were screened using a set of basic technology capability
and experience criteria. Through this process, ten technologies within the technology groups
of thermal and biological technologies were identified that meet the applicable criteria (see
Section 4.3).
About 225 suppliers were screened, and twenty-six suppliers were selected to submit their
detailed qualifications to the City. These qualifications were to include information about the
suppliers experience, descriptions of several reference facilities, and a preliminary
description of a proposed facility for the City of Los Angeles (see Section 5.1).
Of the twenty-six suppliers requested to submit qualifications, seventeen provided responses.
These suppliers and their technologies were thoroughly evaluated (including several site
visits). This evaluation primarily was based upon the information and data contained in the
submittals received. These submittals ranged from very responsive to incomplete. Each
supplier was requested to provide additional information based on an initial review. Tables
5-1 through 5-3 provide a good summary of the information obtained from each supplier.
Additional detail is presented in Appendix E.
The supplier data contained in Section 5.0 and Appendix E were used to prepare a life cycle
analysis associated with implementation of alternative waste processing technologies in the
Citys integrated solid waste management system. This allows the City of Los Angeles to
more accurately compare these new technologies to existing solid waste management
practices. In a life cycle analysis, the energy and emissions associated with fuels, electrical
energy, and material inputs for all stages of the waste management process (e.g., collection,
transfer, treatment, disposal) also are captured. Similarly, the potential benefits of the process
associated with energy and/or materials recovery displacing (avoiding) energy and/or
materials production from virgin resources are captured. The life cycle analysis is described
in Section 6.0.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

ES-3
Finally, the supplier data were used to conduct a comparative analysis of the technologies,
and rank the suppliers to select technologies for further assessment. The comparative analysis
addressed a number of technical, environmental, and cost issues, including:
Throughput (respondents provided data for different throughput rates)
Electricity production
Net efficiency in kWh/ton feedstock
Diversion rate
Air emissions
Solid wastes
Regulatory issues
Capital cost
Revenues
Estimated tipping fees
A supplier ranking process was employed to help select the most attractive technologies for
treating the Citys black bin post-source separated MSW. Evaluation criteria were defined,
performance levels established, and scores computed to develop a ranking of suppliers and
technologies.
The comparative analysis and ranking is presented in Section 7.0.
FINDINGS
The study evaluated the ability of alternative technologies to process black bin post-source
separated MSW from three perspectives: siting (or environmental) feasibility, technical
feasibility, and economic feasibility. The results of this evaluation, in part, can be expressed
in terms of key findings that impact the overall study conclusions and recommendations that
follow.
Table ES-1 provides a summary of these key findings. The table is arranged by objective
(siting, technical, and economic), and each key finding is described, and discussed in the
context of each technology evaluated. The study began with an evaluation of twenty thermal,
biological/chemical, and physical technologies, and these were screened on the basis of
ability and experience processing black bin post-source separated MSW on a commercial
level to arrive at the following short list of technologies:

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

ES-4
TABLE ES-1
KEY FINDINGS
Key Finding Description Advanced Thermal Recycling Thermal Conversion Biological Conversion
Siting/Environmental
Diversion rate, the percentage of black
bin post-source separated MSW that is
diverted from landfilling, is an important
objective for this project. (7.2.1.5)
At least ninety percent diversion expected,
with a worst-case rate of 80%.
At least ninety percent diversion expected,
with a worst-case rate of 80%.
Eighty percent diversion rate expected with a
worst-case rate of 50%.
Air emissions characteristics will differ
among the alternative technology groups
evaluated. All technology groups will meet
regulatory limits. (7.2.2.1)
Air emission control systems are available to
limit emissions to well below regulatory
limits.
Thermal conversion systems are expected to
result in emissions well below regulatory
limits.
Emissions from biological systems will be
lower than thermal technologies due to lower
operating temperatures.
Wastewater will be generated in relatively
small quantities. This liquid waste will
either be recycled or discharged to a local
sewer. (7.2.2.2)
No significant difference among technologies.
Solid residue will be generated from
material rejects, process waste, and air
emission control systems. (7.2.2.3)
Advanced thermal recycling systems will
generate bottom ash, boiler ash, and fabric
filter ash. Assuming the bottom ash is
recycled, about 5% of the incoming material
will be landfilled.
Similar to advanced recycling systems. Biological systems will typically generate
unmarketable residuals consisting of 15-40%
of the total throughput.
An alternative MSW processing
technology can be sited in urban Los
Angeles. (7.2.2.4)
No fatal siting constraints were identified.
The best sites will be in heavy industrial (M3)
areas of the City.
No fatal siting constraints were identified.
The best sites will be in heavy industrial (M3)
or heavily commercial areas of the City.
No fatal siting constraints were identified. The
best sites will be in heavy industrial (M3) or
heavily commercial areas of the City.
The pathway regarding environmental
regulations differs by technology in
California. (7.2.2.5)
Several waste-to-energy facilities have been
permitted in California. Therefore,
regulations exist for advanced thermal
recycling systems to obtain the required
environmental permits to operate.
The legislature and the CIWMB are
establishing a regulatory framework for
thermal conversion technologies. The lack of
such a framework will complicate permitting
these facilities.
The technology for biological conversion in
this study is anaerobic digestion. Regulations
exist in California for this technology,
although no systems have been permitted for
treatment of MSW.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

TABLE ES-1 (CONTINUED)
KEY FINDINGS
ES-5
Key Finding Description Advanced Thermal Recycling Thermal Conversion Biological Conversion
Life Cycle Analysis of energy
consumption reveals advantages of
employing thermal or biological MSW
processing technologies. (6.5)
Thermal technologies and biological conversion technologies will create significant energy savings when compared to landfilling. This energy
savings results from a combination of syngas and electrical energy production, as well as from materials recovery and recycling. For example,
if a 250,000 TPY per year thermal conversion facility replaced this quantity of black bin post-source separated MSW going to the landfill, the
energy savings would be about 2.6 million MBtu, which is equivalent to a 30 MW power plant operating for one year.
Life Cycle Analysis of criteria pollutant
emissions reveals advantages of
employing thermal or biological MSW
processing technologies. (6.5)
For the criteria air emissions, the advanced thermal recycling, gasification and anaerobic digestion scenarios also performed generally better
than landfilling. The reduced transportation needed to take waste to the landfill contributed to the air emission reductions offered by advanced
thermal recycling, gasification, and anaerobic digestion. For example, if a 250,000 TPY thermal conversion facility treated this quantity of black
bin post-source separated MSW, about 425 tons of NOx emissions per year would be saved (avoided), which is equivalent to the NOx
emissions emitted from a 975 MW natural gas-fired power plant operating for a year.
Technical
The technical maturity of alternative MSW
processing technologies differs.
Combustion of MSW is the most mature of
the alternative MSW processing
technologies evaluated. Approximately 100
such facilities are operational in the U.S.,
with many more in Europe and Japan (these
facilities are predecessors of the new
advanced thermal recycling technology).
Thermal conversion technologies have been
in successful, long-term use around the
world, although typically using more
homogeneous feedstocks such as coal and
biomass. While technical challenges are
expected, because of their relatively short
operating history using MSW as a feedstock,
these challenges are judged to be
manageable.
Biological conversion facilities processing
source separated organics (SSO), and more
recently MSW, are operating in Europe and
elsewhere overseas.
Facility designs are relatively new;
therefore, current facility designs
generally have not achieved the desired
level of optimization.
There is room for improvement in most designs that would better integrate the three major components of a system (pre-processing,
combustion/conversion, and post-processing/byproduct production). This would increase efficiency and reduced cost/ton.
Air emission control systems are
commercially available to limit air
emissions to below regulatory levels for
all technologies. (2.2)
Applies to all technology groups.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

TABLE ES-1 (CONTINUED)
KEY FINDINGS
ES-6
Key Finding Description Advanced Thermal Recycling Thermal Conversion Biological Conversion
Thermal efficiency, the amount of net
electricity generation per ton of feedstock
processed, varies by technology. Higher
efficiencies result in better financial
performance. (7.2.1.3)
Thermal technologies that use a steam turbine for electricity production have thermal
efficiencies in the range of about 500-600 kWh/ton. If a reciprocating engine is used, the
efficiency will increase to about 800-900 kWh/ton.
Thermal efficiency is in the range of 150-200
kWh/ton using reciprocating engines.
Thermal processes recover more energy than
biological ones because they convert
essentially all organics to energy, not just the
biodegradable organics.
Solid residuals generated by these
technologies differ in composition.
(7.2.1.4)
Residuals include boiler and fabric filter fly
ash (assumes bottom ash is recyclable).
This material, although small in terms of
quantity (about 7500 tons/yr for a 400,000
TPY facility), may be classified as
hazardous.
Residuals for low temperature gasification
and pyrolysis include boiler and fabric filter fly
ash, and bottom ash (if not recycled). These
materials, although small in quantity (1000-
6000 tons/yr for a 100,000 TPY facility), may
be classified as hazardous. Residuals (slag)
from high temperature gasification will be
non-hazardous and inert.
Residuals primarily will consist of
unmarketable rejects, which will be landfilled.
Quantities will range from 15,000 to 40,000
tons/yr for a 100,000 TPY facility.
Revenue/ton can be viewed as a
measure of recycling effectiveness, or the
ability of the technology to achieve higher
market value for its byproducts. (7.2.3.2)
Suppliers in this category can achieve
revenues of about $32-36 per ton.
Suppliers in this category can achieve
revenues of up to $40-60 per ton. This higher
range is due to greater pre-processing and
higher thermal efficiencies.
Suppliers in this category can achieve
revenues of about $20-30 per ton. This lower
range is due to the production of compost.
The quality of response from the suppliers
affected the results of this study with
regard to the technical evaluation.
The quality of response from suppliers varied. Some responses were incomplete, and others indicated that some information and data were
confidential. This situation affected the presentation of material in this report, particularly with respect to technical issues and economics.
Economics
The financial feasibility, as measured by a
breakeven tipping fee, varied among
technologies and suppliers. (7.2.3.3)
Advanced thermal recycling systems
exhibited breakeven tipping fees of $56-
$64/ton for 330-380K TPY facilities. The
small range is attributed to the extensive
experience with this technology (i.e. its
predecessor technology) in the U.S.
Thermal conversion breakeven tipping fees
exhibited a wide range ($20-$128/ton for
100K TPY, and $20-$40/ton for 360-400K
TPY facilities). This is attributed to the lack of
experience with these facilities in the U.S.
Biological conversion breakeven tipping fees
exhibited a wide range ($19-$97/ton for a
100K TPY facility).
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

TABLE ES-1 (CONTINUED)
KEY FINDINGS
ES-7
Key Finding Description Advanced Thermal Recycling Thermal Conversion Biological Conversion
Economy of scale is a term that refers to
the variation in project economics with
facility throughput. In general, the tipping
fee decreased with increasing throughput.
(7.2.3.3)
Only one size was proposed
(330-380K TPY)
Several responses addressed throughput
levels from 100K to 400K TPY. In some
cases, significant reductions in tipping fee
result with higher throughputs, although
insufficient data exists to be specific.
Several responses addressed throughput
levels from 100K to 300K TPY. In some
cases, significant reductions in tipping fee
result with higher throughputs, although
insufficient data exists to be specific.
Byproduct marketability is an important
issue. Significant uncertainty with regard
to some materials may impact economic
viability. (7.2.1.5)
Advanced thermal recycling gains most of its
revenue from the sale of electricity. This is a
well-developed market. Although only small
amounts of bottom ash are presently
recycled/reused, this is expected to increase
as designs isolate the potentially hazardous
fly ash from the bottom ash.
Thermal conversion gains most of its
revenue from the sale of electricity, a well-
developed market. Another significant
revenue source for some designs are the
recyclables recovered from pre-processing
the inlet black bin post-source separated
MSW. The market for glass, metals and
paper is also well-developed.
Biological conversion facilities produce both
electricity and compost. The compost is
produced in large quantities (15,000-40,000
tons/yr for a 100K TPY facility). California
compost quality regulations are complex.
Extensive testing is required to ensure
acceptability. In addition, the market for this
material is uncertain.
With regard to conversion technologies,
the relationship of project economics to
supplier experience generally indicates
that the more experienced suppliers
provide higher project costs.
The lowest breakeven tipping fees (in the neighborhood of $15-$30/ton) were provided by
suppliers with the least number of operating units. These results could not be verified in this
study; therefore, additional evaluation is needed.
Pre-processing to remove recoverable
recyclables increases revenues. The
value of uncontaminated recyclables in
the black bin post-source separated MSW
is higher as a recyclable material than as
a feedstock to produce electricity.
Applies to all technology groups.


EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

ES-8
Thermal technologies Advanced thermal recycling, and thermal conversion (includes
pyrolysis, gasification and pyrolysis-gasification)
Biological/chemical Anaerobic digestion
Physical None (Section 4.3)
As a result, the key findings address advanced thermal recycling, thermal conversion, and
biological conversion.
Table ES-1 includes references to report sections where each finding is discussed in more
detail.
CONCLUSIONS
Based upon the key findings from Section 8.1 and the technology ranking presented in
Section 7.4, the following conclusions are made:
An alternative MSW processing facility can be successfully developed in the City of Los
Angeles.
The technologies best suited for processing black bin post-source separated MSW on a
commercial level are the thermal technologies. These include advanced thermal recycling
and thermal conversion (pyrolysis and gasification).
The biological/chemical conversion technologies and physical technologies present
significant technical challenges for treatment of the black bin post-source separated
MSW. While biological conversion technologies show the most promise in this group,
they also bring significant challenges, as explained below.
The technology ranking in Section 7.4 evaluated the thermal and biological technologies
using eight criteria that addressed siting, technical, and economic issues. While the ranking
was conducted using supplier data, the results were used to decide which technology groups
exhibited the best characteristics with regard to successfully processing of black bin post-
source separated MSW.
Based upon the ranking scores in terms of technologies rather than suppliers, the following
conclusions are drawn:
Advanced thermal recycling and thermal conversion received the highest total scores.
Advanced thermal recycling and thermal conversion received the highest environmental
scores, primarily due to advantages with regard to landfill diversion rate.
All three technologies were in the top five scores on engineering.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

ES-9
All three technologies received similar scores on economics, although advanced thermal
recycling and thermal conversion ranked higher on byproduct marketability.
In summary, the advantages of the thermal technologies over biological conversion are:
Higher landfill diversion rates, which is a primary objective of the project
Lower production of solid byproducts and correspondingly greater production of
electricity, a higher value product with a more well-developed and stable market
Less risk with regard to byproduct marketability, particularly in comparison to compost
Significantly higher thermal efficiencies and, therefore, higher revenue/ton because
thermal processes convert essentially all organics (not just biodegradables) to energy
More operational experience at higher throughputs
RECOMMENDATIONS
It is recommended that the City of Los Angeles proceed with the activities shown in Table
8-2 for continued development of an alternative MSW processing facility for black bin post-
source separated MSW utilizing a thermal technology.
TABLE ES-2
RECOMMENDED ACTIVITIES FOR MSW PROCESSING FACILITY
DEVELOPMENT FOR THE CITY OF LOS ANGELES
Activity Approximate Dates
Initiate Public Outreach September 2005, ongoing
Develop Short List of Suppliers September-November 2005
Conduct Initial Siting Study September-November 2005
Prepare Request for Proposal (RFP) November-February 2006
Issue RFP March 2006
RFP Responses Due June 2006
Evaluate RFP Responses June-October 2006
Announce Preferred Supplier(s) October 2006
Conduct Facility Permitting/Conceptual Design October 2006-October 2007
Prepare Detailed Facility Design July 2007-December 2007
Facility Construction January 2008-October 2009
Performance Testing and Start-up October 2009-January 2010
Commercial Operation (February 2010)

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

ES-10
Initiate Public Outreach
Public acceptability will be one of the most important determinants of this projects success.
Siting, permitting and developing a new alternative MSW processing technology for the City
of Los Angeles will lead to many questions from the public with regard to environmental
impacts and public health issues. The key is to consider the public as a partner and present
the facts and benefits as early as possible while being responsive to their concerns at all
times. Developing early relationships with key stakeholder groups is essential.
The public outreach should be conducted in two phases. The first phase begins in 2005, with
two purposes: educate the public about the alternative MSW processing technologies, and
elicit feedback regarding the publics attitude toward the technologies under consideration.
Education about the characteristics of the technologies, compared to existing disposal
methods, their benefits, and their anticipated environmental impacts are critical tasks. Public
outreach is also important at this stage to provide counterpoint to opposing groups. A
communications strategy in the first phase will access the public in broad terms, to reach
large audiences, using techniques such as television spots, radio interviews, press
conferences, and editorial pieces. Selected focus groups, as well as meetings with community
leaders, agency personnel knowledgeable about emerging MSW processing technologies,
and environmental groups also would be helpful.
The second phase of public outreach takes place after the technology supplier is selected and
alternative site locations are known. Then the outreach becomes more specific than before,
and is focused on the communities, which could be directly affected by the project. The
communications strategy in this phase will use techniques that involve the affected
communities, such as Citizens Advisory Committees and specific neighborhood councils.
Develop a Short List of Suppliers
Prior to issuing a Request for Proposal (RFP) to select a supplier for the alternative MSW
processing technology, a list of suppliers eligible for receiving this RFP will be developed.
This short list will be compiled using the following input:
Results of the supplier evaluation conducted during this study
A review of the key uncertainties remaining after the supplier evaluation carried out in
this study. Additional discussion with selected suppliers may be held to address issues
such as methods to improve facility reliability and efficiency, ways to reduce design risks
(use of standardized equipment where feasible), and further evaluation of costs and
revenue projections.
Feedback from the public outreach program scheduled to be initiated in mid-2005 with
regard to technology preferences
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

ES-11
Conduct Initial Siting Study
An RFP must be quite specific with regard to site characteristics in order to encourage the
most detailed and complete responses. Potential bidders will want to know more information
about site environmental constraints and availability of infrastructure. This information must
be compiled while the RFP is being prepared.
Prepare a Request for Proposal and Select Preferred Suppliers
A technology supplier must formally be selected for this project. This will be accomplished
by issuing an RFP to selected bidders. The RFP will contain a detailed set of instructions
about how to reply, and will require the bidder to provide a comprehensive design along with
a detailed cost and revenue estimate and information on performance guarantees and
financing. The responses to the RFP will be evaluated, and a preferred supplier will be
selected.
Conduct Facility Permitting and Conceptual Design
Once a technology supplier has been selected, a conceptual design is prepared to support
preparation of required environmental and permit application documents. In parallel, these
environmental documents will be prepared, and submitted to the appropriate agencies for
processing. A series of public meetings will be held during agency review.
Perform Detailed Design and Construction
Finally, the detailed design is prepared, which will support facility construction, followed by
construction, start-up, and initiation of operation. Commercial operation is targeted for 2010.


SECTION 1.0 IDENTIFY ALTERNATIVE MSW PROCESSING TECHNOLOGIES

1-1
1.1 INTRODUCTION
The City of Los Angeles Department of Public Works, Bureau of Sanitation (hereinafter
referred to as the Bureau) engaged URS Corporation to undertake a study of alternative
Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) processing technologies to process residential refuse, or post-
source separated MSW. The City uses three bins to collect solid waste from residences:
green bin (green waste), blue bin (recyclables), and black bin (refuse). The green and blue
bin material is recycled. The black bin refuse, or post-source separated MSW, which is
landfilled, is the subject of this study.
This report, which provides the results of this study, is organized as follows:
Section 1.0 Identify Alternative MSW Processing Technologies
Section 2.0 Characterize Alternative MSW Processing Technologies
Section 3.0 Regulations Affecting MSW Processing Technology Implementation
Section 4.0 Screening Alternative MSW Processing Technologies
Section 5.0 Detailed Assessment of Alternative MSW Processing Technologies and
Suppliers
Section 6.0 Life Cycle Analysis
Section 7.0 Comparative Analysis of Alternative MSW Processing Technologies and
Suppliers
Section 8.0 Conclusions and Recommendations
The first step in the study was to identify a set of technologies that potentially could process
black bin post-source separated MSW generated by the City of Los Angeles. These
technologies are characterized in Section 2.0. The regulatory environment for permitting
alternative waste processing technologies is presented in Section 3.0. Then the technologies
were screened and potential suppliers identified in Section 4.0. Suppliers were brought into
this study to allow more detailed evaluation of technology designs, environmental impacts,
and economics. Note that the study concludes by identifying suitable technologies.
A Request for Qualifications was sent to the potential suppliers, and the evaluation of
responses is contained in Section 5.0. A life cycle inventory, discussed in Section 6.0, was
prepared to contrast the life cycle of existing waste management processes with alternative
processes evaluated in this study. Then a comparative analysis was completed (Section 7.0)
to identify the most suitable technology or technologies. Conclusions and recommendations
are presented in Section 8.0.
SECTION 1.0 IDENTIFY ALTERNATIVE MSW PROCESSING TECHNOLOGIES

1-2
1.2 BUSINESS OBJECTIVES
The Bureaus overall objective is to identify alternative MSW waste processing
technologies that will increase landfill diversion in an environmentally sound manner, while
emphasizing options that are energy efficient, socially acceptable, and economical. All of
the evaluation criteria used in this study were derived in part from the project objectives.
These criteria were used to select, screen, and rank the technologies and suppliers.
1.3 EVALUATION METHODOLOGY
The method selected to identify screening and ranking criteria is termed top-down, and
starts with defining the Bureaus project objectives that must be satisfied. These broad
objectives are subdivided to define lower-level objectives. Each level of subdivision results
in further definition. This process ceases when the lowest level entries, or criteria, are
defined.
Criteria, in order to be effective, must be complete, so that all issues are considered;
measurable, so that the criteria can be used in the analysis; and non-redundant, so that
double counting of issues is avoided.
One way to conduct the top-down process to define criteria is to use a device called an
objectives hierarchy. This diagram displays the top-level and lower-level project
objectives, and, if drawn to completion, the criteria. Figure 1-1 shows the business objectives
hierarchy developed for this task.
The top-level objective, as mentioned above, is identify alternative MSW waste processing
technologies that will increase landfill diversion in an environmentally sound manner, while
emphasizing options that are energy efficient, socially acceptable, and economical or, in
short, Identify a Suitable Alternative MSW Processing Technology. This is the overarching
objective.
The second level in the figure shows three sub-objectives: Maximize Siting Feasibility;
Maximize Economic Feasibility; and Maximize Technical Feasibility. If these objectives are
satisfied, the overarching objective will be satisfied. The Bureau specified siting, economics,
and technical issues as key project objectives for deciding upon acceptable technologies for
treating post-source separated MSW.
Figure 1-1 includes a third level of sub-objectives. For example, Maximize Siting Feasibility
has been broken down into two parts: Minimize Environmental Impacts and Minimize Social
Impacts, with the idea that meeting these sub-objectives will result in satisfying the siting
objective. Minimize Environmental Impacts can be subdivided into land, water, and air
impacts, and social impacts which would include impacts on people.
SECTION 1.0 IDENTIFY ALTERNATIVE MSW PROCESSING TECHNOLOGIES

1-3
The Maximize Economic Feasibility objective is broken down to minimizing cost and
maximizing revenues, and the ability to generate marketable byproducts.
The Maximize Technical Feasibility is separated into Minimize Development Risk and
Minimize Landfill Residuals. These sub-objectives are further divided into maximizing the
use of commercial and late-emerging technologies, maximizing the treatment efficiency of
black bin post-source separated MSW, and the ability to process at least 200 tons per day
(TPD) of feed at a rate approximately equal to one-third (1/3) of one of the six Los Angeles
waste sheds.
At this point, six sub-objectives have been identified, as shown at the lowest level in Figure
1-1. These definitions are still too general for use as screening or ranking criteria. However,
they can be helpful for defining suitable technologies and, subsequently, technology
suppliers.
FIGURE 1-1
BUSINESS OBJECTIVES
CITY OF LOS ANGELES ALTERNATIVE MSW PROCESSING STUDY
Minimize
Environmental
Impacts
Minimize
Social
Impacts
Maximize
Siting
Feasibility
Minimize
Development
Risk
Maximize
Economic
Feasibility
Maximize
Technical
Feasibility
Identify a Suitable MSW
Treatment Technology
Minimize
Landfill
Residuals
Minimize
Impacts to
People
Maximize Use of
Commercial &
Late Emerging
Technologies
Minimize
Impact on
Land,
Water, & Air
Maximize
Treatment
Efficiency
Meet
Capacity Needs
Maximize
Cost-Benefit
Minimize Cost
Maximize
Revenues
Generate
Marketable
Byproducts
Screening]Ranking Criteria

The result of this task is the definition of lower-level sub-objectives from which screening
and ranking criteria can be defined. Since these lower-level objectives and the associated
criteria are linked to the overarching objective, the overall objective will be met if all of the
criteria are met.
This objectives hierarchy will be used and expanded in subsequent sections of this report.
SECTION 1.0 IDENTIFY ALTERNATIVE MSW PROCESSING TECHNOLOGIES

1-4
1.4 ALTERNATIVE MSW PROCESSING TECHNOLOGIES
For purposes of this study, alternative waste processing technologies can be separated into
three groups or categories:
Thermal Technologies
Biological/Chemical Technologies
Physical Technologies
Thermal technologies operate at temperatures greater than 400F and have higher reaction
rates. They typically operate in a temperature range of 700F to 10,000F. Most thermal
technologies are used to produce electricity as a primary byproduct. Thermal technologies
include advanced thermal recycling and thermal conversion.
Biological/chemical technologies operate at lower temperatures and lower reaction rates.
They can accept feedstock with high moisture levels, but require material that is
biodegradable. Some technologies involve the synthesis of products using physical chemistry
and chemical processing carried out in multiple stages. Byproducts can vary, which include:
electricity, compost, and chemicals.
Physical technologies involve altering the physical characteristics of the organic portion of
the MSW feedstock. These materials in MSW may be separated, shredded, and/or dried in a
processing facility. The resulting material is referred to as refuse-derived fuel (RDF). It may
be densified or pelletized into homogeneous fuel pellets and transported and combusted as a
supplementary fuel in utility boilers.
Table 1-1 shows the technologies expressed in terms of the three major groups (thermal,
biological/chemical, and physical). These technology groups are then subdivided, into about
twenty technologies.
1.5 LIST OF TECHNOLOGY SUPPLIERS
A list of suppliers was compiled of the alternative waste processing technologies listed in
Table 1-1. This list is reproduced as Tables A-1 through A-4 in Appendix A. The table has
three sections corresponding to the three waste processing technology groups. The criteria for
inclusion were the ability to find current contact information and availability of general
information about their technology/design.


SECTION 1.0 IDENTIFY ALTERNATIVE MSW PROCESSING TECHNOLOGIES

1-5
TABLE 1-1
CLASSIFICATION OF MSW PROCESSING TECHNOLOGIES
Technology Group Technology
Advanced Thermal Recycling
Pyrolysis
Pyrolysis/Gasification
Pyrolysis/Steam Reforming
Conventional Gasification Fluid Bed
Conventional Gasification Fixed Bed
Thermal Technologies
Plasma Arc Gasification
Anaerobic Digestion
Aerobic Digestion/Composting
Ethanol Fermentation
Syngas-Ethanol
Biodiesel
Thermal Depolymerization
Biological/Chemical
Catalytic Cracking
Refuse Derived Fuel (RDF)
Densification/Pelletization
Drying
Mechanical Separation
Size Reduction
Physical
Steam Processing/Autoclaving

This list was developed from a number of sources, including the following:
California Integrated Waste Management Board (CIWMB) list included in their report on
conversion technologies
Santa Barbara County list
Riverside County list
City of Alameda list
City of Honolulu list
Collier County, Florida list
City of Toronto, Canada list
City of York, Canada list
Juniper Consultants list
URS database (from recent conversion technology studies and evaluations)
SECTION 1.0 IDENTIFY ALTERNATIVE MSW PROCESSING TECHNOLOGIES

1-6
Southern California Association of Governments list
City of Los Angeles list
In addition, a web search was performed of alternative MSW processing technologies,
concentrating on thermal, biological/chemical, and physical technologies. These results were
added to the list.
Descriptions of the technologies are provided in Section 2.0.

CHARACTERIZE ALTERNATIVE
SECTION 2.0 MSW PROCESSING TECHNOLOGIES

2-1
2.1 INTRODUCTION
The alternative MSW processing technologies identified in Section 1.0 are characterized in
terms of their process description, throughput, feedstock composition, byproducts generated,
and environmental issues. This description is general and only key technology groups are
addressed.
These technologies represent the vast majority of the alternative solid waste processing
technology suppliers. The technologies addressed in this section are:
Thermal
Advanced Thermal Recycling
Pyrolysis
Pyrolysis/Gasification
Pyrolysis/Steam Reforming
Conventional Gasification Fluid Bed
Conventional Gasification Fixed Bed
Plasma Arc Gasification
Biological/Chemical
Anaerobic Digestion
Aerobic Digestion/Composting
Ethanol Fermentation
Syngas-Ethanol
Biodiesel
Thermal Depolymerization
Catalytic Cracking
Physical
Refuse Derived Fuel (RDF)
Densification/Pelletization
Drying
Mechanical Separation
CHARACTERIZE ALTERNATIVE
SECTION 2.0 MSW PROCESSING TECHNOLOGIES

2-2
Size Reduction
Steam Processing/Autoclaving
The solid waste processing technologies evaluated in this study include advanced thermal
recycling and a group of technologies commonly referred to as conversion facilities.
Advanced thermal recycling is a second-generation advancement of technology that utilizes
complete combustion of organic, carbon-based materials in an oxygen-rich environment, as
described in Section 2.2.
A conversion facility typically consists of the four components shown in the rectangles of
Figure 2-1.
FIGURE 2-1
ANATOMY OF A CONVERSION FACILITY
Production Conversion
Pre-
Processing
Post
Conversion
Clean-up &
Processing
MSW
Input
Byproducts Recyclables
Air
Emissions
Solid/Liquid
Residuals
Solid/Liquid
Residuals
Electricity/
Chemicals

The first component involves pre-processing of the feedstock. The purpose of the pre-
processing step is two-fold: to remove any remaining recyclable materials (e.g., glass, metal),
and to prepare feedstock for treatment in the conversion unit. All conversion units have
specific requirements regarding the composition of the feedstock, such as moisture content,
size limitations, and content (e.g., biodegradables versus all other carbon-based material,
such as rubber tires or plastics). The pre-processing system must be designed to create an
acceptable feedstock for the conversion unit. Pre-processing can be very simple (e.g.,
primarily sizing) or quite extensive, depending upon the needs of the conversion unit.
CHARACTERIZE ALTERNATIVE
SECTION 2.0 MSW PROCESSING TECHNOLOGIES

2-3
The second component is the conversion unit. This unit will process the prepared feedstock
and generate certain byproducts, which can usually be marketed. In addition, the conversion
unit may produce a small quantity of solid or liquid residuals that could be disposed in a
landfill.
Some conversion units will produce an output that requires another processing step before
use. For example, if a synthetic fuel gas or biogas is generated, the gas will undergo cleaning
and further processing before being used to produce energy in the fourth component. A small
quantity of solid or liquid residuals may be created in this step as well. Other conversion
systems move from the conversion step directly to the production step.
The final output from the conversion unit is used in a production process. In many cases, a
synthetic gas or biogas is input to a power facility that produces electricity for sale into the
power grid. This production unit does produce air emissions and sometimes a small quantity
of solid residual.
Each of these components is described in more detail in the following sections.
2.2 THERMAL PROCESSING TECHNOLOGIES
The thermal processing technologies being considered for this evaluation are technologies
that thermally process MSW.
These technologies include:
Advanced thermal recycling
Pyrolysis
Pyrolysis/gasification
Pyrolysis/steam reforming
Conventional gasification (fixed bed and fluid bed)
Plasma arc gasification
These technologies are briefly described below:
Advanced Thermal Recycling A second generation advancement of technology that
utilizes complete combustion of organic carbon-based materials in an oxygen-rich
environment, typically at temperatures of 1,300F to 2,500F, producing an exhaust gas
composed primarily of carbon dioxide (CO
2
) and water (H
2
O) with inorganic materials
converted to bottom ash and fly ash. The hot exhaust gases flow through a boiler, where
steam is produced for driving a steam turbine-generator, producing electricity. The cooled
CHARACTERIZE ALTERNATIVE
SECTION 2.0 MSW PROCESSING TECHNOLOGIES

2-4
waste gases flow through an advanced emission control system designed to capture and
recover components in the flue gas, converting them to marketable by-products such as
gypsum (e.g., for wallboard manufacture) and hydrochloric acid (used for water treatment).
The bottom ash and fly ash are segregated, allowing for recovery/recycling of metals from
the bottom ash, and use of the bottom ash as a road base and construction material. The
advanced recycling and emission control systems with recovery/recycling go beyond the
technology utilized at conventional resource recovery plants such as the Commerce Refuse-
to-Energy facility and the Southeast Resource Recovery facility.
Pyrolysis The thermal degradation of organic carbon-based materials through the use of an
indirect, external source of heat, typically at temperatures of 750F to 1,650F, in the
absence or almost complete absence of free oxygen. This thermally decomposes and drives
off the volatile portions of the organic materials, resulting in a syngas composed primarily of
hydrogen (H
2
), carbon monoxide (CO), carbon dioxide (CO
2
), and methane (CH
4
). Some of
the volatile components form tar and oil, which can be removed and reused as a fuel. Most
pyrolysis systems are closed systems and there are no waste gases or air emission sources (if
the syngas is combusted to produce electricity, the power system will have air emissions
through a stack and air emission control system). After cooling and cleaning in emission
control systems, the syngas can be utilized in boilers, gas turbines, or internal combustion
engines to generate electricity or used to make chemicals. The balance of the organic
materials that are not volatile, or liquid that is left as a char material, can be further processed
or used for its adsorption properties (activated carbon). Inorganic materials form a bottom
ash that requires disposal, although some pyrolysis ash can be used for manufacturing brick
materials.
Gasification The thermal conversion of organic carbon-based materials in the presence of
internally produced heat, typically at temperatures of 1,400F to 2,500F, and in a limited
supply of air/oxygen (less than stoichiometric, or less than is needed for complete
combustion) to produce a syngas composed primarily of H
2
and CO. Inorganic materials are
converted either to bottom ash (low-temperature gasification) or to a solid, vitreous slag
(high temperature gasification that operates above the melting temperature of inorganic
components). Some of the oxygen injected into the system is used in reactions that produce
heat, so that pyrolysis (endothermic) gasification reactions can initiate; after which, the
exothermic reactions control and cause the gasification process to be self-sustaining. Most
gasification systems, like pyrolysis, are closed systems and do not generate waste gases or air
emission sources during the gasification phase. After cooling and cleaning in emission
control systems, the syngas can be utilized in boilers, gas turbines, or internal combustion
engines to generate electricity, or to make chemicals.
Plasma Arc Gasification The use of alternating current (AC) and/or direct current (DC)
electricity passed through graphite or carbon electrodes, with steam and/or oxygen/air
CHARACTERIZE ALTERNATIVE
SECTION 2.0 MSW PROCESSING TECHNOLOGIES

2-5
injection (less than stoichiometric), to produce an electrically conducting gas (a plasma)
typically at temperatures greater than 7,000F. This system converts organic carbon-based
materials, including tar, oil, and char, to a syngas composed primarily of H
2
and CO with
inorganic materials converted to a solid, vitreous slag. Like pyrolysis and conventional
gasification, plasma arc gasification is a closed system; therefore there are no waste gases
and no emission sources in the plasma gasification conversion process. After cooling and
cleaning in emission control systems, the syngas produced by plasma arc gasification can be
utilized in boilers, gas turbines, or internal combustion engines to generate electricity or to
make chemicals.
The quality of the syngas produced from thermal conversion technologies varies based on the
pre-treatment technology utilized as well as the characteristics of the conversion process.
Natural gas, which is primarily methane, has a heating value of about 1,000 British thermal
units (Btu)/cubic foot. Syngas from these thermal conversion technologies are composed
primarily of CO and H
2
, which have a heating value of 100-700 Btu/cubic foot. If used for
power generation, the quality of the syngas generally determines what kind of power
generation equipment can be utilized. For example, low heating value syngas is easily
combusted in a boiler, but may not be usable in a commercially available reciprocating
engine due to ignitability issues and flame characteristics. Some manufacturers of
reciprocating engines and gas turbines do produce equipment with modified combustion
chambers to deal with lower heating value syngas.
2.2.1 Advanced Thermal Recycling
2.2.1.1 Process Description
Figure 2-2 presents a basic process description for an advanced thermal recycling system.
These systems are designed for feedstock flexibility, and will accept either raw MSW that is
pre-processed or source separated to remove recyclables or a refuse-derived fuel (RDF).
MSW delivered to an advanced thermal recycling facility may be subjected to some pre-
processing to recover recyclables or prepare the feedstock for processing. In most cases,
however, the waste is dumped into a tipping hall, where some additional processing may be
done before the material is conveyed to the furnace. The furnaces typically operate at
temperatures of 1300F to 2500F with residence times of a few seconds. Steam, flue gas,
and bottom ash leave the furnace. The steam is routed to a steam generator to produce
electricity, the flue gases are directed to the emission control system, and the bottom ash is
collected for reuse.
CHARACTERIZE ALTERNATIVE
SECTION 2.0 MSW PROCESSING TECHNOLOGIES

2-6
FIGURE 2-2
ADVANCED THERMAL RECYCLING SYSTEM

Advanced thermal recycling facilities incorporate significant enhancements in material
handling and emission controls:
Materials handling involves extensive recycling and reuse of solid and liquid residues,
which can include various byproducts, such as hydrochloric acid, gypsum, metal scrap,
and road base. In addition, some facilities will extract recyclables out of the feedstock
before processing. These innovations result in disposal of typically less than five percent
of the residuals, which will be inert.
Emission controls placed in the combustion process and for flue gas cleaning are
designed to reduce the concentrations of conventional air pollutants, particulate matter,
acid gases, and trace constituents to well below allowable limits, as described in Section
2.2.1.5.
2.2.1.2 Throughput
Advanced thermal recycling facilities are capable of treating a few hundred tons of MSW per
day, up to about 4,000 tpd.
CHARACTERIZE ALTERNATIVE
SECTION 2.0 MSW PROCESSING TECHNOLOGIES

2-7
2.2.1.3 Feedstock Characteristics
The feedstock for advanced thermal recycling systems can be unprocessed MSW or RDF.
Using lower moisture content, RDF improves the heating value of the feedstock, resulting in
higher efficiency and lower throughput per kilowatt-hour (kWh) of electricity generated. In
order to improve economics and efficiency, facilities can incorporate pre-processing to
remove marketable recyclables, such as paper, plastics, metals, and glass. Pre-processing of
black bin contents (recyclables already being removed) may not yield the benefits seen with
mixed MSW.
2.2.1.4 Solid Byproducts
In order to improve the operating performance and efficiency, significant effort is made to
recover recyclables in the pre-processing step, as well as recovering, processing, cleaning,
and recycling bottom ash and slag. Most advanced thermal recycling systems produce a
powdery to granular bottom ash. If the grate/furnace system is designed to produce a sintered
ash, it may be more like slag, which is glassy and non-hazardous, and may be able to be used
for making construction materials. Since some hydrochloric acid (HCl) is formed during
combustion (from combustion of chlorine-containing plastics and salt), this can be removed,
cleaned, concentrated, and sold. Sulfur compounds in the MSW are converted to sulfur
dioxide (SO
2
), which can be separately removed with a lime or limestone scrubber, where the
sulfur dioxide is converted to calcium sulfate (CaSO
4
), or gypsum. Chemically produced
gypsum is currently sold around the world for use in manufacturing wallboard and cement.
Depending on the local market, the gypsum may be saleable.
2.2.1.5 Environmental Issues
Air emissions are likely to be a key environmental issue for advanced thermal recycling
facilities. In thermal recycling, combustion of MSW is achieved in the presence of a direct
flame and an over-abundance of combustion air to promote the complete oxidation of the
incoming waste to form primarily carbon dioxide and water vapor that are emitted along with
the excess combustion air (the portion of the incoming air that is not required for oxidation).
The combustion process can be expected to cause emissions of gas-phase air pollutants and
particulate matter (for which California and National ambient air quality standards have been
adopted based on health effects criteria), acid gases, organic compounds and trace
constituents (originating from the incoming waste or formed during combustion). These
constituents are removed in emission control systems to levels well below permit limits.
The South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) would be likely to require a
number of emission control and processing systems that would include some or all of the
following:
CHARACTERIZE ALTERNATIVE
SECTION 2.0 MSW PROCESSING TECHNOLOGIES

2-8
Automated combustion controls and furnace geometry designed to optimize residence
time, temperature, and turbulence to ensure complete combustion.
Selective non-catalytic reduction (SNCR) system in the boiler for reduction of oxides of
nitrogen (NO
x
) emissions. Selective catalytic reduction (SCR), which is more efficient
than SNCR, would be evaluated for potential feasibility.
Baghouse (fabric filter) with activated carbon injection for removal of trace metals and
trace organics concentrated on the particulate matter.
Scrubber for chlorides/HCl (may produce saleable HCl a commonly used commercial
and laboratory chemical).
Scrubber for SO
2
(may produce saleable gypsum a material routinely used in the
cement industry).
Secondary activated carbon for trace organic and metals.
Final baghouse for removal of fine particulate after scrubbers.
All of these emission control systems are well-demonstrated technologies that would be able
to control emissions to levels well below regulatory limits in California.
In addition to air emissions, the key environmental issues relating to constructing and
operating an advanced thermal recycling facility include:
Traffic Facilities must be sized to be economic, which likely will require 100+ trucks
per day to deliver feedstock. Thus, traffic impacts may be significant.
Ash Disposal Advanced thermal recycling systems create about 30% residuals. About
5% of this material will be disposed in a landfill.
Aesthetics and View Corridor These facilities have relatively tall stacks, which may
create visual impacts due to the structure, or plume visibility issues under certain
operating and weather conditions.
To a lesser degree, there will be concerns about noise, dust, and odors.
2.2.2 Pyrolysis
2.2.2.1 Process Description
Figure 2-3 presents a basic process description for a pyrolysis system. Process components
are discussed in the following section.
CHARACTERIZE ALTERNATIVE
SECTION 2.0 MSW PROCESSING TECHNOLOGIES

2-9
FIGURE 2-3
TYPICAL PYROLYSIS SYSTEM FOR POWER GENERATION OR CHEMICALS

2.2.2.1.1 Conventional Pyrolysis. Pyrolysis has a long history of industrial use. Pyrolysis
systems utilize a wide range of designs, temperatures, and pressures to initiate pyrolysis
reactions. Typically, pyrolysis systems use a drum, kiln-shaped structure, or pyrolysis tube,
which is externally heated using either recycled syngas or another fuel or heat source, to heat
the pyrolysis tube/chamber. Basically, the organic materials are cooked in an oven with no
air or oxygen present. No burning takes place.
Most organic compounds are thermally unstable. At high temperatures, the organic
compounds volatilize and bonds thermally crack, breaking larger molecules into gases and
liquids composed of smaller molecules, including hydrocarbon gases and hydrogen gas. The
temperature, pressure, reaction rates, and internal heat transfer rates are used to control
specific pyrolytic reactions in order to produce specific products. At lower temperatures,
liquid pyrolysis oils dominate. At higher temperatures, gaseous byproducts dominate.
Typical reactions that show the thermal degradation of long chain radicals to light
hydrocarbons and eventually basic methane are:
C
10
H
22
C
8
H
17
+ C
2
H
5

C
6
H
13
C
5
H
10
+ CH
3

CHARACTERIZE ALTERNATIVE
SECTION 2.0 MSW PROCESSING TECHNOLOGIES

2-10
CH
3
+ H CH
4

Pyrolysis reactions are endothermic, meaning they require externally supplied heat to occur.
Natural gas, propane, or syngas produced by pyrolysis can be used as a source of external
heat. If the feedstock has a large higher heating value (HHV) measured in Btu/lb, the
pyrolytic process becomes more self-sufficient, and once the process starts, it uses an
extremely small amount of fossil fuel. Also, some partial oxidation (from trapped air as well
as oxygen in the organic compounds, especially when biomass is used) of the methane gas
occurs to form CO, with some CO
2
formed as the carbon reacts:
2CH
4
+ O
2
2CO + 4H
2

CH
4
+ 1O
2
CO + 2H
2
O
C + O
2
CO
C + O
2
CO
2

These reactions are exothermic (producing heat), helping to maintain the internal
temperatures required for pyrolysis. Another reaction that occurs is reformation, where the
products of the reactions noted above begin to combine with each other, forming other
reaction byproducts. Two of the common reactions are: 1) where carbon reacts with water to
form carbon monoxide and hydrogen, the main components of syngas,
C + H
2
O CO + H
2
(water-gas reaction)
and 2) where carbon reacts with carbon dioxide to form two molecules of carbon monoxide:
C + CO
2
2CO (Boudouard reaction)
These reactions are key to pyrolysis. They produce the constituents of syngas, CO and H
2
,
which are combustible gases. They also consume oxidized compounds (CO
2
and H
2
O),
which have no heating value in syngas and dilute it. The reactions are endothermic, using the
heat produced in the exothermic reactions noted above, helping to maintain and control the
overall reactor temperature.
The volume of the MSW feedstock entering the pyrolysis reactor can be reduced by as much
as 90%. Pyrolysis produces gases and liquids, as well as residual solids, including ash and
carbon char. Some common commercial products made through pyrolysis are charcoal (for
barbecuing) and activated carbon (for adsorption of liquid and gaseous emissions), depending
on the nature of the feedstock.
CHARACTERIZE ALTERNATIVE
SECTION 2.0 MSW PROCESSING TECHNOLOGIES

2-11
Since inorganic materials do not enter the thermal conversion reactions, energy, which could
be used to produce pyrolysis reactions, is expended in heating up the inorganic materials to
the pyrolysis reactor temperature. The inorganic materials are cooled in cleanup processes,
and heat is lost. Pre-processing is required to remove inorganic materials such as grit, glass,
and metal, and to enhance the homogeneity of the feedstock. Depending on the specific
pyrolysis process, pre-processing may include several of the physical processes described in
Section 2.3.
Since pyrolysis occurs in the absence of oxygen, the feed system and pyrolysis chamber are
sealed and isolated from outside air during the processing. This is accomplished through the
use of inlet and outlet knife-gates, with ram feeders to feed individual plugs of feedstock
into the reactor as the next plug is being fed into the sealed environment.
In the reactor, pyrolysis may occur over a period of time (as much as an hour in a pyrolysis
or degassing chamber) or very quickly, as in the case of flash pyrolysis, where the
feedstock encounters an extremely hot internal surface and volatilizes in less than a second.
Slow pyrolysis is used to maximize the production of char, as in the case of producing
charcoal or activated carbon. In those cases, the volatile fraction may be vented or used
elsewhere. Slow pyrolysis is used to convert low volatile coal to metallurgical grade coke for
steel making. Coke is a very pure carbon product, which is then used to initiate a reducing
atmosphere for converting iron ore to molten iron.
Following the pyrolysis reactor, the syngas may be:
Burned directly in a thermal oxidizer or boiler, and its heat recovered for making steam
for power generation. The exhaust gases then pass through emission control systems that
may include fabric filters, wet and dry scrubbers, electrostatic precipitators, and/or
activated carbon beds.
Quench cooled, cleaned in emission control systems, and then burned in a boiler,
reciprocating engine, or gas turbine for power generation.
Quench cooled, cleaned in emission control systems, and then utilized for producing
organic chemicals.
Char can be used to make commercial products, such as charcoal or coke, manufactured into
graphite rods for carbon arc steel making, or further processed in gasification reactions (see
below).
Inorganic materials in the feedstock are removed as bottom ash. They are usually combined
with char, and can be separated out for disposal (if char is to be utilized as noted above) or
used in making block materials.
CHARACTERIZE ALTERNATIVE
SECTION 2.0 MSW PROCESSING TECHNOLOGIES

2-12
2.2.2.1.2 Pyrolysis/Steam Reforming. Figure 2-4 presents a typical process description for
a pyrolysis/steam reforming facility.
FIGURE 2-4
TYPICAL PYROLYSIS/STEAM REFORMING SYSTEM
FOR POWER GENERATION

Since the pyrolysis reactions result in the formation of char, liquids, and/or gases, additional
reactions can be initiated to further the thermal breakdown of these organic compounds. One
of the common reactions to follow pyrolysis is steam reforming. As noted below, the water-
gas reaction is used to promote the reaction of carbon and water to form syngas. In this
manner, the char produced in pyrolysis is reacted with steam that is injected into the process
so that:
C + H
2
O CO + H
2
(water-gas reaction)
This reaction is endothermic, using the heat provided by the steam (and from the external
source used for pyrolysis) to further this reaction. In addition, steam reforming of the
methane in the syngas stream can occur, resulting in additional production of hydrogen, a
high-quality fuel:
CH
4
+ H
2
O CO + 3H
2

CHARACTERIZE ALTERNATIVE
SECTION 2.0 MSW PROCESSING TECHNOLOGIES

2-13
The syngas stream is then cooled, cleaned, and used for power generation or chemical
production.
2.2.2.2 Throughput
Existing pyrolysis systems treat up to 300 tpd with pyrolysis/steam reforming systems
operating at 165 tpd. Systems are modular and can be installed in parallel to increase
throughput.
2.2.2.3 Feedstock Characteristics
Pyrolysis systems can process a wide range of carbon-based materials. Any organic or
thermally degradable material can be processed by pyrolysis. Historically, pyrolysis was used
to make charcoal from wood. Pyrolysis also is used to process used tires and produce carbon
black, steel, and fuel to generate power. Currently, some manufacturers are using pyrolysis to
make activated carbon using coconut shells or wood as feedstock. If a homogeneous
feedstock is processed by pyrolysis, a high quality byproduct is produced.
MSW is not a homogenous waste stream. In order to make the pyrolysis process more
efficient, pre-processing of MSW is required. The pre-processing includes the separation of
thermally non-degradable material such as metal, glass, and concrete debris. Also, for some
pyrolytic processes, size reduction and/or densification of the feedstock may be required. If
MSW has a high moisture content, a dryer may be added to the pre-processing stage to lower
the moisture content of the MSW to 25% or lower, because lower moisture content of the
feedstock increases its heating value and the system becomes more efficient. The waste heat
or fuel produced by the system can be used to dry the MSW.
2.2.2.4 Solid Byproducts
The solid byproducts from pyrolysis are mainly carbon char, silica, metal, and non-thermally
degradable material such as glass. In the case of low temperature pyrolysis, where liquid fuel
is the byproduct, a tar or viscous material is also produced. The carbon char from processing
MSW can be used as fuel, additives to construction materials, or for other industrial
purposes. The carbon char produced by pyrolysis can be activated using the steam generated
by the pyrolysis system. The activated carbon can be used in wastewater treatment facilities
or other manufacturing plants for water or air treatment and emission control. Metals can be
separated and sold. The ash can be disposed of in a regular non-hazardous landfill.
2.2.2.5 Environmental Issues
The same air emission constituents noted above for advanced thermal recycling facilities
must also be addressed for thermal conversion technologies. However, due to the nature of
CHARACTERIZE ALTERNATIVE
SECTION 2.0 MSW PROCESSING TECHNOLOGIES

2-14
thermal conversion technologies, they may have inherently lower air emissions and thus offer
environmental benefits when compared to advanced thermal recycling facilities. These
design and operation characteristics include:
Since pyrolysis and gasification processes occur in a reducing environment, typically
using indirect heat, and without free air or oxygen, or with a limited amount of air or
oxygen, the formation of unwanted organic compounds or trace constituents is
minimized.
Pyrolysis and gasification reactors are typically closed, pressurized systems, so that there
are no direct air emission points. Contaminants are removed from the syngas and/or from
the flue gases prior to being exhausted from a stack.
Thermal conversion technologies often incorporate pre-processing subsystems in order to
produce a more homogeneous feedstock; this provides the opportunity to remove
chlorine-containing plastics (as recyclables), which could otherwise contribute to the
formation of organic compounds or trace constituents.
The volume of syngas produced in the conversion of the feedstock is considerably lower
than the volume of flue gases formed in the combustion of MSW in advanced thermal
recycling facilities. Smaller gas volumes are easier and less costly to treat, and allow for
the use of a wider variety of control technologies.
Pre-cleaning of the syngas is possible prior to combustion in a boiler, and is required
when producing chemicals or prior to combustion in a reciprocating engine or gas turbine
in order to reduce the potential for corrosion in this sensitive equipment. Syngas pre-
cleaning serves to reduce overall air emissions.
Syngas produced by thermal conversion technologies is much more homogeneous and
cleaner-burning fuel than MSW.
Air emission control and processing systems that are likely to be required by South Coast Air
Quality Management District (SCAQMD) include some or all of the following:
When the syngas is combusted in a boiler, reciprocating engine, or gas turbine, automated
combustion controls and furnace geometry (for boilers) designed to optimize residence
time, temperature, and turbulence to ensure complete combustion.
For combustion of syngas in a boiler, low-NO
x
burners and/or a Selective Non-catalytic
Reduction (SNCR) system for reduction of NO
x
emissions. Selective Catalytic Reduction
(SCR) is typical for exhaust gases from reciprocating engines and gas turbines.
Baghouse (fabric filter) for removal of particulate matter from flue gases.
CHARACTERIZE ALTERNATIVE
SECTION 2.0 MSW PROCESSING TECHNOLOGIES

2-15
Activated carbon injection (followed by a baghouse) for removal of trace metals (such as
mercury).
Wet scrubber for removal of chlorides/HCl (may produce saleable HCl).
Wet, dry, or semi-dry scrubber for SO
2
(may produce saleable gypsum).
Final baghouse for removal of fine particulate matter after dry or semi-dry scrubbers.
Air emission control equipment to accomplish this syngas and/or flue gas cleanup is
commercially available, and is able to reduce air emissions to levels well below regulatory
limits in California.
In addition to air emissions, the key environmental issues relating to constructing and
operating a pyrolysis facility include:
Traffic If the facility is not located at an existing waste management facility (e.g.,
transfer station), some traffic impacts will occur due to delivery of feedstock.
Solid residue management Inorganic constituents may be produced as bottom ash or
slag, depending on the temperature in the reactor. Bottom ash, if not sold, can be
disposed in a landfill. Slag, which is glassy and non-hazardous, is typically sold for the
uses noted above. If markets are not available, it can be safely landfilled.
Visual and Land Use There may be impacts relating to the visual character of the
facility or issues relating to compatibility of the facility with surrounding land uses.
As with other facilities handling MSW, there will be concerns about odors, litter, noise,
and dust.
2.2.3 Gasification
2.2.3.1 Process Description
Figure 2-5 presents a process description for a typical gasification system. Individual process
components are discussed below.
2.2.3.1.1 Conventional Gasification. Conventional gasification involves the partial
oxidation of carbon-based feedstock to generate a syngas, which can be used as a fuel or for
the production of chemicals. It starts with pyrolysis and goes several more steps to further
gasify the pyrolysis liquids and tars, as well as the carbon char left over from pyrolysis.
Gasification has been used worldwide for making town gas for street lighting and cooking
for over 150 years. It played a major role in the industrial development of Europe. Since
then, many gasification technologies and designs have been developed, primarily in Europe.
CHARACTERIZE ALTERNATIVE
SECTION 2.0 MSW PROCESSING TECHNOLOGIES

2-16
FIGURE 2-5
TYPICAL GASIFICATION SYSTEM FOR
POWER GENERATION (2 OPTIONS) OR CHEMICALS

The Fischer-Tropsch process was developed to take syngas from gasification of coal and
convert it to a wide range of hydrocarbon liquids, including diesel. After WWII, the use of
gasification declined as oil and gasoline became cheaper and more available.
The use of gasification for MSW began in the 1980s in Europe and Japan. In these initial
units, the use of unprocessed MSW resulted in many technical problems, primarily due to the
heterogeneous nature of MSW. This caused handling and feeding problems, as well as issues
with temperature and process control, ash removal, and overall cost. Many of these facilities
were shut down. With the worldwide success in coal and petroleum coke gasification, and
regulatory requirements in Europe and Japan for increased diversion of MSW from landfills,
gasification became an alternative treatment technology for MSW. Most of the development
has occurred in Japan and Europe, at first utilizing MSW combined with other feedstocks,
such as sewage sludge and industrial wastes. In order to feed the MSW by itself,
development and use of pre-processing technologies became critical.
Prior to entering the gasifier, some pre-processing will likely be required, as described above
in the section on pyrolysis. Some gasification technologies (primarily fixed-bed designs) may
accept a minimum amount of pre-processing, such as removal of large appliances, followed
CHARACTERIZE ALTERNATIVE
SECTION 2.0 MSW PROCESSING TECHNOLOGIES

2-17
by shredding and sorting. Others may require a significant amount of removal of recyclables,
sorting, shredding, and drying, in order to provide a more homogeneous feedstock.
In the gasifier, the addition of air or oxygen for gasification of the MSW leads to a small
amount of combustion, forming some CO
2
and releasing heat, which is used in progressing
the pyrolytic reactions:
C + O
2
CO
2

A significant amount of the heating value of the feedstock is used in this reaction. Utilizing
heat, the organic compounds in the feedstock begin to thermally degrade, forming the
pyrolysis gases, oils, liquids and char. As these products move through the bed or
downstream through the gasifier, they encounter air, oxygen, and/or steam, which are
injected to further the gasification reactions. Endothermic water-gas and Boudouard reactions
occur:
C + H
2
O CO + H
2
(water-gas reaction)
Some of the carbon may react with the hydrogen, forming additional methane gas.
C + 2H
2
CH
4
(methanation reaction)
C + CO
2
2CO (Boudouard reaction)
The Boudouard reaction is important in converting the CO
2
from the partial combustion,
which has no heating value and dilutes the syngas, into CO, which is a primary component of
the syngas.
If air is used instead of oxygen, the syngas will include the nitrogen gas that enters with the
air, diluting the syngas and lowering its overall heating value. Gasifier designs are optimized
to feedstock and to specific reaction products. Additional water or steam can be injected to
initiate the water-gas shift reaction, which converts the CO formed in the water-gas and
Boudouard reactions to CO
2
, and then results in the production of a syngas stream higher in
hydrogen concentration:
CO + H
2
O CO
2
+ H
2

The higher hydrogen concentration is important when the syngas will be used for chemical
production. In that scenario, CO
2
can be separated and removed through commercially
available physical, chemical, membrane, or cryogenic processes.
Gasifiers are typically characterized as being horizontal or vertical, and utilize one of three
specific reactor designs: 1) fixed-bed, 2) fluid bed, or 3) entrained flow.
CHARACTERIZE ALTERNATIVE
SECTION 2.0 MSW PROCESSING TECHNOLOGIES

2-18
In fixed-bed gasifiers, the feedstock is usually fed through the system on a stationary or
moving grate. The air or oxygen is injected either up, down, or in a cross flow. In an updraft
gasifier, the air or oxygen is injected from the bottom and the syngas exits at the top. In a
downdraft design, the air enters at or near the top of the gasifier, and the syngas exits the side
or bottom.
In a fluid bed design, the gasifier is filled with inert particles (usually sand or alumina). The
feedstock is fed either directly into or above the bed. A high velocity gas, usually oxygen or
air, is injected below the bed, causing the feedstock and inert particles to be suspended in the
bed. The feedstock and bed materials are continuously stirred, resulting in uniform
temperatures and reactions, and improved heat transfer. Bubbling bed and circulating fluid
bed designs are commonly used to enhance fluidization and turbulence.
Entrained flow gasifiers use large quantities of oxygen injected from the top or side of the
reaction chamber to create higher operating temperatures. This process is capable of
producing a cleaner, tar-free syngas while keeping the gasified byproducts in a molten state,
allowing for easier disposal. This slag is both inert and virtually carbon free.
Following the gasifier, the syngas may be:
Burned directly in a thermal oxidizer or boiler, and its heat recovered for making steam
for power generation. The exhaust gases then pass through emission control systems that
may include fabric filters, wet and dry scrubbers, electrostatic precipitators, and/or
activated carbon beds.
Quench cooled, cleaned in emission control systems, and then burned in a boiler
reciprocating engine or gas turbine for power generation.
Quench cooled, cleaned in emission control systems, and then utilized for producing
organic chemicals.
If low temperature gasification is used, the inorganic materials in the feedstock will be
recovered as a powdery to clinker-like bottom ash. This can be disposed of or used for the
manufacture of block materials. If high-temperature gasification is used (typically above
about 2,000F), the inorganic materials will be subjected to temperatures above their melting
points, forming a molten slag. The slag flows out a tap hole in the bottom of the gasifier, into
a water bath. There, the slag is quench cooled, forming a glassy, non-hazardous slag material.
This can be disposed of safely or used for the production of roofing tiles, sandblasting grit, or
asphalt filler.
2.2.3.1.2 Pyrolysis/Gasification. Some technologies employ a pyrolysis system close-
coupled to a follow-on gasification step or separate reactor. The carbon char produced in the
CHARACTERIZE ALTERNATIVE
SECTION 2.0 MSW PROCESSING TECHNOLOGIES

2-19
pyrolysis or degassing chamber is pushed into the gasification chamber where the char and
any pyrolysis liquids are gasified. While the pyrolysis reactor operates without free oxygen,
the gasification reactor may use air, oxygen, and/or steam to provide the oxygen needed for
gasification reactions. Gasification reactions are mostly exothermic, so that once the
reactions initiate, the process is self-sustaining.
Figure 2-6 presents a typical process description for a pyrolysis/gasification system.
FIGURE 2-6
TYPICAL PYROLYSIS/GASIFICATION SYSTEM FOR POWER GENERATION

2.2.3.2 Throughput
Existing gasification systems operate at throughputs up to 1,000 tpd, with pyrolysis/
gasification systems operating at 800 tpd. Gasifiers and the pre-processing, emission control,
and power generation systems can be installed in parallel to increase throughput and power
generation.
2.2.3.3 Feedstock Characteristics
Gasification systems utilize a wide range of feedstocks. As noted above, gasification has a
long history with coal and petroleum coke. Gasification has also been commercially applied
to biomass, such as rice hulls, wood waste, olive processing solids, and other agricultural
wastes. They have the ability to tolerate very low quality feedstocks. Gasifiers are usually
CHARACTERIZE ALTERNATIVE
SECTION 2.0 MSW PROCESSING TECHNOLOGIES

2-20
designed for a homogeneous feedstock, although they can tolerate some variability. This can
be an issue with gasifiers that use a slurry feed, since significant changes in the feedstock
result in different slurry characteristics, potentially leading to inefficient gasification and
poor carbon conversion. When changes in the feedstock are anticipated, bench-scale or short-
term testing can be used to optimize gasifier operation.
Due to the heterogeneous nature of MSW, significant pre-processing is often required. While
some systems state that they can operate with little or no pre-processing, most include
manual picking for large appliances, followed by primary and secondary rotary/stationary
trommel screens, primary and secondary shredders, air classifiers, and magnetic and eddy-
current separators to remove glass and metals and reduce the feedstock size. Sizing/shredding
varies, with feedstocks ranging from 2 to 12 inches. Many systems incorporate an auger or
ram feeder that compacts the processed MSW feed to as little as 1/10
th
of the original
volume. In order to increase efficiency, some systems incorporate drying to 10-20% moisture
content, using steam or engine exhaust. Depending on the supplier, as much as 2/3 of raw
MSW may be removed prior to being fed into the gasifier.
2.2.3.4 Solid Byproducts
In low temperature gasification (below the melting point of most inorganic constituents), a
powdery to clinker-type of bottom ash is formed. In high temperature gasification, the
inorganic ash materials exit the bottom of the gasifier in a molten state, where the slag falls
into a water bath, and is cooled and crystallized into a glassy, non-hazardous slag. The slag is
crushed to form grit that can be easily handled. Slag can be used in the manufacture of
roofing tiles, sandblasting grit, and as asphalt filler. Bottom ash may require landfilling,
although some suppliers have been able to manufacture ceramic-like bricks or paving stones.
One system that utilizes oxygen injection creates extremely hot temperatures in the bottom of
the gasifier, reaching the melting temperature of some metals. In that process, metals can be
recovered in ingot form.
2.2.3.5 Environmental Issues
With regard to air emissions, the most important environmental issue for gasification, the
discussion in Section 2.2.2.5 applies here as well.
Other environmental issues pertaining to gasification include:
Traffic If the facility is not located at an existing waste management facility (e.g.,
transfer station), some traffic impacts will occur due to delivery of feedstock.
Solid residue management As noted above, the inorganic constituents may be produced
as bottom ash or slag, depending on the temperature in the reactor. Bottom ash, if not
CHARACTERIZE ALTERNATIVE
SECTION 2.0 MSW PROCESSING TECHNOLOGIES

2-21
sold, can be disposed in a landfill. Slag, which is glassy and non-hazardous, is typically
sold for the uses noted above. If markets are not available, it can be safely landfilled.
Visual and Land Use There may be impacts relating to the visual character of the
facility or issues relating to compatibility of the facility with surrounding land uses.
As with other facilities handling MSW, there will be concerns about odors, litter, noise,
and dust.
2.2.4 Plasma Arc Gasification
2.2.4.1 Process Description
Figure 2-7 presents a typical process description for a plasma arc gasification system.
FIGURE 2-7
TYPICAL PLASMA GASIFICATION SYSTEM FOR POWER GENERATION

Plasma is a hot ionized gas resulting from an electrical discharge. Plasma technology uses an
electrical discharge (some use AC, some DC, and some a combination) to heat gas, typically
air, oxygen, nitrogen, hydrogen, or argon, or combinations of these gases, to temperatures
above 7,000F. The heated gas, or plasma, can then be used for welding, cutting, melting, or
treating waste materials.
Most of the use of plasma arc technology has been for melting incinerator ash or for
thermally decomposing hazardous or medical wastes. Only very recently has development
CHARACTERIZE ALTERNATIVE
SECTION 2.0 MSW PROCESSING TECHNOLOGIES

2-22
occurred for using plasma technology integrated with gasification technologies to process
MSW. This has great potential to convert MSW to electricity more efficiently than
conventional pyrolysis and gasification systems, due to its high heat flux, high temperature,
almost complete conversion of carbon-based materials to syngas, and conversion of inorganic
materials to a glassy, non-hazardous slag.
There are two types of plasma torches, the transferred torch and the non-transferred torch.
The transferred torch creates an electric arc between the tip of the torch and either a metal
bath or the conductive lining of the reactor vessel wall. In a non-transferred torch, the arc is
produced within the torch itself. Plasma gas is fed into the torch, heated, and then exits
through the tip of the torch.
There are several approaches to the design of plasma gasification reactors. In one approach,
developed by Westinghouse Plasma Corporation (plasma torch manufacturer) and Hitachi
Metals (plasma gasification system developer and user), a medium pressure gas (usually air
or oxygen) flows through a water-cooled, non-transferred torch, outside of the reactor. The
hot plasma gas then flows into the reactor to gasify the MSW and melt the inorganic
materials.
Another design is an in-situ torch, where the plasma torch is placed inside the reactor. This
torch can either be a transferred or non-transferred torch. When using a transferred torch, the
electrode extends into the gasification reactor and the arc is generated between the tip of the
torch and the molten metal and slag in the reactor bottom or a conducting wall. The low-
pressure gas is heated in the external arc. Alternatively, a non-transferred torch can be used
for creating plasma gas within the torch, which is injected into the reactor.
Several suppliers utilize a completely different approach. In these designs, the reactor is
heated by electric induction coils or an electric arc produced by graphite rods, forming a
molten metal and slag bath. The MSW enters the reactor, where it is subjected to high
temperatures, resulting in partial gasification of the feedstock. From there, the syngas exits
the reactor. The plasma torch is situated either in a secondary reactor or in a recycle line,
which goes back to the first reactor, assuring complete gasification of the feedstock.
Proponents of the in-situ torch claim its advantages include better heat transfer to MSW and
a hotter reactor temperature, resulting in more complete conversion to syngas. The main
disadvantage is the potential corrosion of the torch from hot MSW and gases. An external
torch is more protected from the corrosive effects, which can prolong the mechanical
integrity. A disadvantage of an external torch is the possibility of a somewhat lower reactor
temperature, resulting in lower conversion of the MSW. Electrodes in all designs experience
some corrosion and must be replaced.
CHARACTERIZE ALTERNATIVE
SECTION 2.0 MSW PROCESSING TECHNOLOGIES

2-23
The first two approaches have been applied to small-scale commercial waste and medical
waste processing units. The throughput of the largest external system is approximately four
tons/hour and the throughput of the largest internal system is approximately ten tpd. The
Westinghouse/Hitachi design has been scaled up to 83 tpd per reactor at Utashinai, Japan,
which treats a combination of MSW and auto shredder residue.
Plasma arc gasification typically occurs in a closed, pressurized reactor. The feedstock enters
the reactor, where it comes into contact with the hot plasma gas. In some designs, several
torches arranged circumferentially in the lower portion of the reactor help to provide a more
homogeneous heat flux. When used for gasification, the amount of air or oxygen used in the
torch is controlled to promote gasification reactions.
Syngas can either be burned immediately in a close-coupled combustion chamber or boiler,
or cleaned of contaminants and used in a reciprocating engine or gas turbine. In the first
approach, the exhaust gases are cleaned after combustion, in an emission control system. Hot
gases flow through the boiler, creating steam used for power generation in a conventional
steam turbine. In the second approach, the syngas is cleaned before it enters the engine or gas
turbine.
As noted above, the primary solid output from plasma facilities is a glassy slag, the result of
melting the inorganic fraction of the waste. Any waste processing facility generating an ash
or slag is required by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) to
subject it to a Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP) test. The TCLP test is
designed to measure the amount of eight elements that leach from the material being tested.
Data from existing facilities, even those processing highly hazardous materials or medical
waste, show results that are well below regulatory limits.
While there are only a few plasma torch manufacturers, there are over a dozen companies
that have taken the plasma technology and are developing it for use in MSW gasification.
This has led to several suppliers claiming the same operational experience; i.e., several
suppliers that incorporate Westinghouse plasma torches claim the experience in the Hitachi
Metals plants as being their own or representative of how their system would perform.
2.2.4.2 Throughput
Existing systems operate at throughputs of up to 83 tpd on MSW/auto shredder residue
combination, using two operating and one spare torch per reactor. Plasma torches can be
added to the reactors, along with multiple reactors added to increase total capacity.
2.2.4.3 Feedstock Characteristics
Feedstock preparation is similar to that described above under conventional gasification.
CHARACTERIZE ALTERNATIVE
SECTION 2.0 MSW PROCESSING TECHNOLOGIES

2-24
2.2.4.4 Byproducts
Byproducts of plasma gasification are similar to those produced in high-temperature
gasification, as noted above. Due to the very high temperatures produced in plasma
gasification, carbon conversion nears 100%.
2.2.4.5 Environmental Issues
With regard to air emissions and other environmental issues, the most important
environmental issue for gasification, the discussion in Section 2.2.2.5 applies here as well.
2.3 PHYSICAL PROCESSING TECHNOLOGIES
2.3.1 Refuse Derived Fuel
2.3.1.1 Process Description
Figure 2-8 presents a typical process description for a Refuse Derived Fuel (RDF) system.
FIGURE 2-8
TYPICAL RDF SYSTEM
Dryer
Raw MSW
Metals
Glass
Paper
Plastics
Separation of
Recyclables
Moisture
Sizing
Shredding
Densification
Pelletized
RDF
RDF

RDF is produced from MSW in a number of commercial-scale facilities. The MSW is
subjected to various physical processes that reduce the quantity of total feedstock, increase its
heating value, and provide a feedstock that can be easily handled and fed into on-site and off-
site facilities. This results in improved efficiency and reduced ash production in WTE plants.
RDF is often used in WTE plants as the primary or supplemental feedstock, or co-fired with
coal or other fuels in power plants, in kilns of cement plants, in paper mill boilers, and with
other fuels for industrial steam production.
CHARACTERIZE ALTERNATIVE
SECTION 2.0 MSW PROCESSING TECHNOLOGIES

2-25
The RDF process typically includes thorough pre-separation of recyclables, shredding,
drying, and densification to make a product that is easily handled. Initial processing includes
field-based manual picking and removal of white goods and other large ferrous materials.
Glass and plastics are removed through manual picking and by commercially available
separation devices commonly found in Material Recovery Facilities (MRFs). This is
followed by shredding to reduce the size of the remaining feedstock to about eight inches or
less, for further processing and handling. Magnetic separators are used to remove ferrous
metals. Eddy-current separators are used for aluminum and other non-ferrous metals. The
resulting material contains mostly food wastes, non-separated paper, some plastics
(recyclable and non-recyclable), green wastes, wood, and other materials. Reduction of about
50% of the inlet MSW feed can be accomplished through initial RDF processes.
Drying to less than 12% moisture is typically accomplished through the use of forced-draft
air. Steam from an adjacent boiler can be utilized if RDF is being combusted on-site in a
waste-to-energy facility. Additional sieving and classification equipment may be utilized to
increase the removal of contaminants. After drying, the material often undergoes
densification processing such as pelletizing or cubing to produce a pellet or cube that can be
handled with typical conveying equipment and fed through bunkers and feeders.
The RDF can be immediately combusted on-site or transported to another facility for burning
alone, or with other fuels. The densification is even more important when RDF is transported
off-site to another facility, in order to reduce volumes being transported.
2.3.1.2 Throughput
Existing systems operate at an extremely high throughput, typically with several lines each
can be rated at 1,000 tpd.
2.3.1.3 Feedstock Characteristics
Raw MSW is used as the feedstock to RDF plants. Removal of large appliances, batteries,
and other items is required so that downstream equipment as described below can be
operated efficiently.
2.3.1.4 Solid Byproducts
Most RDF systems recover glass, metal, plastic (if desired), and inerts. The primary product
is a refuse-derived fuel.
2.3.1.5 Environmental Issues
From an air quality standpoint, the production of RDF is largely a mechanical process. The
processing facility itself would not be a source of combustion emissions. The major issues of
CHARACTERIZE ALTERNATIVE
SECTION 2.0 MSW PROCESSING TECHNOLOGIES

2-26
concern would be the control of fugitive dust (PM
10
) generated from the mechanical
equipment during the materials separation process and the generation of potential odors.
Because of the fugitive nature of these emissions, the most effective emissions controls are
minimization of mechanical drop distances, adequate ventilation, and capture of emissions
from handling points and effective emissions controls, using baghouse filtration systems and,
if necessary, activated carbon systems for organic and odor emissions abatement.
RDF systems are typically quite large in throughput. Therefore, an important environmental
issue is traffic impact due to the number of trucks delivering MSW. Other environmental
issues associated with RDF systems typically involve nuisance issues such as noise and litter.
2.3.2 MSW Handling Processes
There are many processes for handling MSW. These processes are common in transfer
facilities and MRFs. Similar processes are employed for preparing conversion facility
feedstock for treatment.
2.3.2.1 Drying
A wide range of drying technologies is commercially available, including:
Rotary dryers
Rotary kilns
Fluid bed dryers
Dryers can use steam or a combustion source such as firing diesel oil or natural gas for direct
contact drying. Indirect contact drying, using a heat exchanger, allows for a wide range of
heat sources that do not come into contact with the MSW, although the result tends to be less
efficient than direct contact drying. Dryers are commercially available and single dryers can
be installed in parallel to process several thousand tpd.
2.3.2.2 Mechanical Separation
Mechanical separation is utilized for removing specific materials or contaminants from the
inlet MSW stream. These processes are well established in RDF production facilities, as well
as in MRFs. Contaminants may include construction and demolition debris, tires, dirt, wet
organics, wet paper, coarse materials, and fine materials. Mechanical separation is utilized
for the removal of textiles, glass, paper, grit, plastic bags, recyclables and large items,
including appliances. These devices include:
CHARACTERIZE ALTERNATIVE
SECTION 2.0 MSW PROCESSING TECHNOLOGIES

2-27
Trommel screens
Sieves
Grizzlies
Vibrating screens
Centrifuges
Air classifiers
Magnetic separators (for ferrous materials)
Eddy-current separators (for non-ferrous materials)
2.3.2.3 Size Reduction
Size reduction is often required to allow for more efficient and easier handling of materials,
particularly when the feed stream is to be used in follow-on processes. These processes help
to isolate contaminants and specific materials, particularly large appliances and tires. Sizing
processes include passive, moving, and vibrating screens, trommels, and grizzlies. In order to
reduce the size of the entire stream, or portions of it, mechanical equipment, such as
shredders, is utilized. This allows for other physical processes, such as dryers, magnetic and
eddy current separators, and densification equipment to work more efficiently. Magnetic and
eddy current separators may be installed both up- and down-stream of shredders to increase
the recovery of metals.
2.3.2.4 Densification
A wide range of commercially processes and equipment are available for densification.
These processes can be part of an RDF facility, as described above, or used separately for the
preparation of MSW into a more easily handled feedstock. Densification processes include:
Pelletization
Cubing
Extrusion
Compaction
Briquetting
Granulating
Baling
Disc agglomeration
CHARACTERIZE ALTERNATIVE
SECTION 2.0 MSW PROCESSING TECHNOLOGIES

2-28
All of these processes are well proven in other industries for metallurgical, animal and
medical wastes, agricultural products, biomass, and minerals, as well as RDF production.
These densification processes can easily be used with MSW. As long as the MSW undergoes
some type of pre-processing to remove metal and glass, some plastics can be handled.
Product sizing and form are dependent on the technology chosen. For example, pelletization
may result in short, long, small, or large pellets. Disc agglomerators form round to oval
pellets, with size dependent on feed characteristics and moisture content.
2.3.2.5 Steam Processing/Autoclaving
Several technologies are available for steam processing and autoclaving MSW. A typical
process is shown in Figure 2-9. Steam Processing takes raw MSW (or MSW with minimal
processing) and subjects it to low or medium pressure steam in a closed, rotating pressure
vessel. The high-temperature steam breaks down cellulosic materials and sterilizes the entire
feed stream. The product material exits the steam pressure vessel or autoclave as a recyclable
or usable fiber, which can be used for:
Fiber board
Door and wall paneling
Insulation
Roofing tiles and shingles
FIGURE 2-9
TYPICAL STEAM PROCESSING/AUTOCLAVE PROCESS
Physical
Separation
Processes
Raw MSW
Metals
Glass
Paper
Plastics
Steam
Autoclave
Sterilized Cellulosic Fiber
De-Labeled Cans and Bottles
Volume Reduction ~ 1/3

CHARACTERIZE ALTERNATIVE
SECTION 2.0 MSW PROCESSING TECHNOLOGIES

2-29
Cans and bottles are de-labeled. Plastics typically are slightly melted, resulting in significant
volume reduction.
The MSW stream is reduced in volume by about one third. From there, the sterilized product
can be further processed using one or more of the physical processes described above. Some
processes take the autoclaved product to pyrolysis or gasification.
Existing systems typically load 25-30 tons at a time, and process it for 30-45 minutes. With
loading and unloading time, an autoclave can process about 150 tpd, and can be operated in
parallel to increase total throughput as needed.
2.3.2.6 Environmental Issues
From an air quality standpoint, the processing of MSW is also largely a mechanical process.
The processing facility may be a source of combustion emissions if steam is utilized for
process or if fuel-fired process dryers are required. Combustion equipment would be a source
of emissions of the major criteria pollutants, including NO
x
, CO, VOC, PM
10
, PM
2.5
, and
SO
2
. Any combustion equipment would need to meet stringent SCAQMD Best Available
Control Technology (BACT) requirements. Assuming natural gas were the fuel, these
emissions would be controlled through commonly used combustion and post-combustion
control process previously described.
The major issues of concern would be the control of fugitive dust (PM
10
) generated from the
mechanical equipment during the materials separation process, and the generation of
potential odors. Because of the fugitive nature of these emissions, the most effective
emissions controls are minimization of mechanical drop distances, adequate ventilation,
capture of emissions from handling points, and effective emissions controls, such as
baghouse filtration systems and, if necessary, activated carbon systems for organic and odor
emissions abatement.
MSW processing systems may be large in throughput. Therefore, an important environmental
issue could be traffic impact due to the number of trucks delivering MSW. Other
environmental issues associated with RDF systems typically involve nuisance issues such as
noise and litter.
2.4 BIOLOGICAL AND CHEMICAL PROCESSING TECHNOLOGIES
2.4.1 Introduction
Biological and chemical conversion technologies are focused on the conversion of organics
in MSW. MSW consists of dry matter and moisture. The dry matter further consists of
organics (i.e., whose molecules are carbon-based), and minerals, also referred to as the ash
CHARACTERIZE ALTERNATIVE
SECTION 2.0 MSW PROCESSING TECHNOLOGIES

2-30
fraction. The organics can be further subdivided into biodegradables or refractory organics,
such as food waste, and non-biodegradables, such as plastic. A preliminary estimate of the
amount of each of these fractions for the City of Los Angeles post-source separated MSW is
provided in Figure 2-10.
FIGURE 2-10
ESTIMATED BULK COMPOSITION OF LOS ANGELES
BLACK BIN POST-SOURCE SEPARATED MSW
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
M
a
s
s

%
Moisture
Biodegr adables
Refractory organics
Miner al

Biological technologies can only convert biodegradables, while chemical processes can
potentially convert any organics. The Los Angeles post-source separated MSW contains
approximately 45% biodegradable matter and 15% plastics, on a dry basis. So, there is much
potential for a combination of biological and chemical technologies to reduce the amount of
MSW going to the landfill.
Biological and chemical conversion technologies are treated together in this section because
they are often intimately intertwined. Note that thermal and physical processes can be
involved in biological and chemical process trains as well.
In this section, we will discuss anaerobic digestion, ethanol production, and biodiesel in some
detail because there are a number of vendors offering these technologies and a number of
commercial scale facilities in operation, at least for anaerobic digestion and biodiesel. We
will also touch on some other processes, but in less detail because each of these processes is
quite unique and offered by only one vendor. These additional processes include syngas-
ethanol, thermal depolymerization, catalytic cracking of plastic, and aerobic digestion.
CHARACTERIZE ALTERNATIVE
SECTION 2.0 MSW PROCESSING TECHNOLOGIES

2-31
2.4.2 Anaerobic Digestion
2.4.2.1 Process Description
In anaerobic digestion (AD), biodegradable material is converted by a series of bacteria
groups into methane and CO
2
. A first group breaks down large organic molecules into small
units like sugar. This step is referred to as hydrolysis. Another group of bacteria converts the
resulting smaller molecules into volatile fatty acids, mainly acetate, but also hydrogen (H
2
)
and CO
2
. This process is called acidification. The last group of bacteria, the methane
producers or methanogens, produce biogas (methane and CO
2
) from the acetate and
hydrogen and CO
2
. This biogas is a medium-Btu gas containing 50 to 70% methane. It can be
used to fuel boilers or reciprocating engines with minimal pretreatment. It can also be
upgraded to pipeline quality and used as compressed natural gas (CNG), a vehicular fuel.
Anaerobic digestion has been used for over a century to process sewage biosolids. If the
MSW feed is processed in the solid phase, AD is often referred to as anaerobic composting.
To distinguish AD from thermal gasification, as described earlier, it is also referred to as
biogasification. In addition to biogas, anaerobic bioconversion generates a residue consisting
of inorganics, non-degradable organics, non-degraded biodegradables, and bacterial biomass.
If the feedstock entering the process is sufficiently free of objectionable materials like
colorful plastic, this residue can have market value as compost.
The contents of the anaerobic digestor can be at different solids concentrations, ranging from
liquid slurry to a solid material. The material leaving the reactor can be dewatered in a press
and the recovered filtrate liquid recirculated. In this manner, the moisture content of the feed
material and that of the reactor contents are decoupled. A fairly dry feed can be digested as
liquid slurry without any significant net addition of water to the system. The dewatered
material emerging from the press is referred to as filter cake or cake.
Some AD processes rely on a two-stage approach (e.g., BTA process), in which the
hydrolysis and acidification reactions are conducted in a first reactor and the methane
fermentation itself in a second reactor. Most digesters are continuous feed and completely
mixed types (as opposed to batch or plug flow reactors). Mixing techniques include: large
impellers; recirculation of effluent (e.g., Dranco process); or injection of pressurized biogas
(e.g., Valorga process). The latter two approaches have the advantage that no moving parts
are present inside the reactor.
Biogas produced can be used on site to generate electricity and heat with a generator
(reciprocating engine, microturbine, conventional turbine, etc.). If a nearby industrial user
exists, the biogas can be conveyed over short distances for such uses as boiler fuel. The
biogas can also be purified extensively (dehydrating, H
2
S removal, CO
2
removal) to pipeline
CHARACTERIZE ALTERNATIVE
SECTION 2.0 MSW PROCESSING TECHNOLOGIES

2-32
a quality and pressurized product, such as compressed natural gas (CNG), a safe and clean
vehicular fuel. Biogas can also be converted into methanol and/or used in fuel cells.
Figure 2-11 shows a summary anaerobic digestion process diagram, with MSW-derived feed.
FIGURE 2-11
SIMPLIFIED TYPICAL MSW ANAEROBIC DIGESTION
PROCESS SCHEMATIC (AFTER LEGRAND ET AL. 1989)
MSW
100.0 tpd
RDF
88.6 tpd
Metals 4.5
Plastics 4.3
Residue 12.7
Biogas
34.2 tpd + 3.5 tpd H2O
872,000 scf/d (@ 55% CH4)
Excess filtrate 10.2 tpd
Cake
40.8
Compost
Landfill
Gasification
Combustion
Anaerobic
Digestion
Preprocessing

2.4.2.2 Throughput
AD facilities processing agricultural and solid industrial waste range up to 1,300 tpd in
capacity, while facilities processing MSW or MSW-derived streams range up to 800 tpd.
2.4.2.3 Feedstock Characteristics
Microorganisms convert biodegradable matter. They do not convert minerals or non-
biodegradables like plastic. From the standpoint of the microorganisms that perform the
conversion, it does not matter if non-degradable materials are present in the fermenting mix.
The presence of non-biodegradables do matter from a materials handling perspective, as
some extraneous materials like metal debris, plastic stringers, etc. can wreak havoc on the
fermentation equipment. Additionally, if the resulting compost has to be marketable, it is
important that as much as possible of these extraneous materials be removed before entering
the process. The ideal feedstock is nearly pure biodegradable material, with as few inorganics
or plastics as possible.
Control Volume
CHARACTERIZE ALTERNATIVE
SECTION 2.0 MSW PROCESSING TECHNOLOGIES

2-33
2.4.2.4 Solid Byproducts
Provided the feed material is sufficiently clean, the main byproduct is an effluent or filter-
cake consisting of undegraded organics and microbial biomass. If the material entering the
AD process is sufficiently devoid of objectionable items like colorful plastic, the effluent can
be formulated into compost; the compost preparation may include an aeration and curing
step. This compost is equally beneficial as a soil amendment as the compost produced in
conventional aerobic facilities (windrow, static pile, etc.). Compared to these processes, AD
has the advantage of requiring only a small footprint, and of being completely enclosed,
which minimizes odor nuisances.
Impurities like colorful pieces of plastic can render the effluent unmarketable as compost,
even with post-processing. In that case, it can still be burned or gasified in an appropriate
facility; it can also be used as landfill cover, since it will not appreciably generate landfill
gas.
2.4.2.5 Environmental Issues
As with other MSW processing facilities, AD will have environmental issues, such as noise,
dust, odor, and litter nuisances at the receiving end of the plant. It may also produce some
wastewater, which would need treatment and disposal. Proper process design and moisture
management can minimize this stream to negligible levels or eliminate it altogether.
As with other MSW processes, there may be potential emissions of fugitive dust (PM
10
) or
odors associated with the materials handling components of the process. Depending on the
extent of potential fugitive dust, proper industrial ventilation design and control with a
baghouse may be required. Organic emissions and odors in material handling areas may also
require local ventilation and control with activated carbon systems.
Assuming that the process vents are completely leak-free, there would be no air emissions or
odor nuisances from the AD process, since it is necessarily fully enclosed. Combustion and
flaring of the biogas would result in emissions of NO
x
, CO, VOC, PM
10
, PM
2.5
, and SO
2
.
Typical combustion and post-combustion process controls (such as SNCR or SCR) may be
required. It is likely that flaring would only be allowed on an emergency upset basis and that
adequate process provisions would need to be in place to ensure distribution of the gas to
conventional combustion equipment that can be adequately controlled.
Depending upon the size of the facility, traffic, and visual impacts may be an issue as well.
CHARACTERIZE ALTERNATIVE
SECTION 2.0 MSW PROCESSING TECHNOLOGIES

2-34
2.4.3 Ethanol Production
2.4.3.1 Process Description
Sugar and starch can be fermented to ethanol. This process lies at the basis of the production
of alcoholic beverages, but also of corn ethanol production. The latter process is used on a
large scale in the US to produce fuel ethanol. Cellulose, the main constituent of most plants,
is actually a polymer of glucose molecules. If the cellulose can be broken down into glucose,
it can be fermented to create ethanol. However, the bonds between glucose molecules in
cellulose are difficult to break. The process of breaking those bonds is known as hydrolysis.
Additionally, cellulose can be encased in hard-to-degrade lignin, as in wood, making it less
accessible for hydrolysis. Considerable effort has been devoted to cost-effectively hydrolyze
fibrous vegetable matter, referred to as lignocellulosics.
Various hydrolysis processes have been developed (concentrated acid, dilute acid,
enzymatic) and demonstrated at pilot scale, some of them at a demonstration scale. They
could be applied to paper and vegetable matter, including wood, in the MSW stream. A
simplified process diagram is provided in Figure 2-12. A purified lignocellulosic material is
chopped up and introduced into a hydrolysis reactor. The effluent of this reactor is mostly a
sugar solution. It is prepared for fermentation, often by neutralizing the pH if strong acid
hydrolysis was used. This detoxified solution is introduced into the fermenter where
microorganisms convert the sugar to ethanol and CO
2
. The ethanol concentration in the
fermenter must remain below 5% otherwise the microorganisms become inhibited. This
dilute fermenting liquid is referred to as a beer. It is next introduced into a combined
distillation and dehydration process to bring the ethanol concentration up to fuel grade (99%
ethanol). The distillation process is particularly energy intensive. A solid residue of
unfermented solids and microbial biomass is recovered (distillers grain) and can be used as
animal feed.
2.4.3.2 Throughput
Currently, corn ethanol facilities process thousands of tpd of corn. However, currently there
is at no full-scale facility producing ethanol from lignocellulosics, although one facility is in
the startup phase in Canada.
2.4.3.3 Feedstock Characteristics
Ideal feedstock for ethanol production from MSW would be a stream containing only paper,
wood, yard waste, and other purely vegetal biomass. Impurities, like inert materials, are a
concern for two reasons. First, they could complicate materials handling by jamming pumps,
clogging pipes, wrapping around mixers, etc. The second concern is that they could
essentially render the solid residue worthless due to contamination.
CHARACTERIZE ALTERNATIVE
SECTION 2.0 MSW PROCESSING TECHNOLOGIES

2-35
FIGURE 2-12
SIMPLIFIED ETHANOL PRODUCTION PROCESS SCHEMATIC
Sorted paper,
other lignocellulosics
Lignin,
other residue
Composting
Gasification
Combustion
Landfilling
Dilute
ethanol
Fuel
ethanol
Hydrolysis
(dilute acid,
concentrated acid,
enzymatic)
Neutralization
detoxification
Ethanol
fermentation
Distillation
dehydration
Sugar
solution

2.4.3.4 Solid Byproducts
Corn ethanol production yields CO
2
and a variety of other products such as distillers grains,
gluten, etc. If MSW is the source of the ethanol, the byproducts are not acceptable for human
consumption, including using CO
2
for beverage carbonation. The marketability of solid
byproducts as animal feed should be investigated, as it is unclear if the animal industry would
be willing to use an MSW-derived material as feed. The marketability of the solid residue as
compost depends on the purity of the feed stream and the resulting appearance of the
compost. Of course, the solid residue could be burned or gasified. The CO
2
stream produced
is relatively pure, and could have industrial applications.
2.4.3.5 Environmental Issues
An ethanol plant is a chemical processing plant. By chemical processing standards, it is fairly
benign from an environmental perspective. However, there will be air emissions, especially
in the production of heat for the distillation step. There will be some handling of hazardous
chemicals in the hydrolysis process. The potential nuisances associated with the delivery of
MSW streams (litter, odor, vermin, etc.) can be minimized via proper design and operation.
CHARACTERIZE ALTERNATIVE
SECTION 2.0 MSW PROCESSING TECHNOLOGIES

2-36
Air emissions from an ethanol plant would include combustion emissions (NO
x
, CO, PM
10
,
PM
2.5
, and SO
2
) associated with the fuel combustion for the generation of process heat or
steam to support the distillation process. In addition to process vents, storage of intermediate
products, raw ethanol and gasoline (required to denature the ethanol), and ethanol loading for
shipment would be sources of VOC emissions. Process vents, storage, and loading equipment
would require vapor recovery equipment with subsequent control, using combustion in onsite
heaters or boilers, a thermal oxidizer, or an activated carbon adsorption system.
2.4.4 Biodiesel
2.4.4.1 Process Description
Fatty or oily wastes, for example waste vegetable oil, are converted to glycerin and diesel
fuel via a process called transesterification. The most common version of this process is
base-catalyzed transesterification, which operates at a temperature of 150F and 300 pounds
per square inch (psi). This is a purely chemical process. It is proven and used on a
commercial scale. It is a viable alternative for separately collected greasy and fatty waste,
which is only a small fraction of the overall MSW stream.
2.4.4.2 Throughput
The U.S. biodiesel industry uses approximately 250,000 tons/year of waste oil and grease,
and is expanding its capacity rapidly.
2.4.4.3 Feedstock Characteristics
The feedstock used is fatty waste like used cooking oil, grease trap restaurant waste, and
waste streams from the oleo-chemical industry. Alcohol must be added at a typical ratio of
one part alcohol to seven parts oily waste.
2.4.4.4 Solid Byproducts
Along with the biodiesel, glycerin is the main byproduct. Glycerin represents about 10% of
the tonnage of biodiesel produced and has industrial applications. Some alcohol and fertilizer
is also produced.
2.4.4.5 Environmental Issues
Biodiesel process equipment may be a source of VOC emissions. Process vents would need
to be fully closed, or, if vented, gases would need to be directed to a vapor collection and
pollution control system using combustion, thermal oxidation, adsorption, or other common
VOC control technique.
CHARACTERIZE ALTERNATIVE
SECTION 2.0 MSW PROCESSING TECHNOLOGIES

2-37
2.4.5 Other Processes
2.4.5.1 Syngas-Ethanol
The syngas-ethanol process is sketched out in Figure 2-13. Organics in MSW are converted
to syngas via thermal gasification (See Section 2.2.3). Hot syngas flows through a waste heat
boiler, cooling it and generating steam. It is then introduced into a fermenter containing a
specialized microbial population that converts the syngas into ethanol and CO
2
. The resulting
dilute ethanol is distilled and dehydrated to fuel grade ethanol. Unconverted syngas from the
fermenter is used to generate electricity via a steam turbine. If desired, some syngas can
bypass the fermenter and go directly to generation.
FIGURE 2-13
SIMPLIFIED BRI PROCESS SCHEMATIC
MSW
Syngas
Excess
syngas
Ethanol
fermentation
Dilute
ethanol
Fuel
ethanol
Distillation,
dehydration
Thermal
gasification
Byproduct
recovery,
residue
Electricity
generation

The main advantage of this process is that it makes all of the organics in MSW accessible to
ethanol production, including plastics and hard-to-degrade woody materials. Therefore, the
ethanol yield per ton of MSW feed is significantly greater than it would be using the
chemical or biochemical hydrolysis route to ethanol. There would be no need for MSW
sorting into a hydrolyzable feed. Finally, this technology would minimize the landfilled
residue to the same extent as gasification. Note also that there would be some flexibility in
the quantity of electricity generated versus ethanol produced, so the facility could adapt to
changing market conditions.
The syngas-ethanol process has been developed to the pilot stage as of this writing.
CHARACTERIZE ALTERNATIVE
SECTION 2.0 MSW PROCESSING TECHNOLOGIES

2-38
2.4.5.2 Thermal Depolymerization
In this process, organics are subjected to two stages of high pressure-high temperature
treatment. The large molecules in the feed are broken down into smaller ones (cracking), and
the waste stream is converted into various products including a liquid fuel. The process has
been proven at pilot scale and a full-scale facility has been built in Carthage, MO (this
facility is undergoing commissioning).
2.4.5.3 Catalytic Cracking
In this process, plastics are cracked into smaller molecules, and eventually converted to a
diesel fuel. This is a purely chemical process. A facility using this process has been operating
in Poland at commercial scale (260 tpd) for a number of years. This process can complement
conventional plastic recycling, especially for low quality commingled plastic streams that
often end up in the landfill.
2.4.5.4 Aerobic Digestion
This process applies mainly to food waste, agricultural waste, and sewage biosolids.
Feedstock material is homogenized into slurry, which is mixed with air in a bioreactor.
Aerobic microorganisms in this reactor oxidize the easily biodegradable material, just like in
an aerobic compost pile, producing substantial heat. The heat and retention time are enough
to pasteurize the material, which is processed into several liquid and solid fertilizers. This
process differs from AD in that no fuel is produced.

REGULATIONS AFFECTING ALTERNATIVE MSW
SECTION 3.0 PROCESSING TECHNOLOGY IMPLEMENTATION

3-1
3.1 INTRODUCTION
The regulatory framework for advanced thermal recycling facilities, as well as other existing
types of solid waste facilities, is well established in California. However, the regulatory
framework for conversion facilities is emerging. This section provides a brief summary of
environmental regulations pertaining to the construction and operation of an alternative solid
waste processing facility as well as some background and current status of regulations
pertaining to conversion facilities in California. In addition, regulatory issues surrounding the
production and sale of compost generated by biological conversion technologies are
discussed.
The development of any solid waste processing facility will require a variety of permits from
Federal, state, and local agencies. The specific permits required will depend upon the nature
of the technology selected and the location; however, Table 3-1 presents a list of key permits
likely to be needed.
TABLE 3-1
SUMMARY OF PERMITS REQUIRED FOR A NEW
SOLID WASTE PROCESSING FACILITY
Subject/Media Regulation Permit
Solid Waste CCR Title 27, Section 21440 Solid Waste Facility Permit
PRC 5001(a) (2) Facility Siting Element
Air Quality SCAQMD Rule 201 Permit to Construct/Operate
SCAQMD Rule 1401 New Source Review of Toxic Air Contaminants (Public Health
Risk Assessment)
SCAQMD Regulation X NESHAPS Hazardous Air Pollutants
SCAQMD Regulation XIII New Source Review
SCAQMD Regulation XVII Prevention of Significant Deterioration Review
SCAQMD Regulation XX RECLAIM
SCAQMD Regulation XXX Title V Operating Permit
40 CFR Part 60, Subpart Eb NSPS Large Municipal Waste Combustors for which
construction is commenced after September 20, 1994 or for which
modification or reconstruction is commenced after June 19, 1996
40 CFR Part 60, Subpart AAAA NSPS Small Municipal Waste Combustion Units for which
construction is commenced after August 30, 1999 or for which
modification or reconstruction is commenced after June 6, 2001
Water CCR Title 27, Section 21710 Water Discharge Requirements
Cal Water Code Chapter 5.9 Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP)
Corps of Engineers Section 404 Waters of the U.S.
Cultural Resources 36 CFR Part 800 Section 106 Consultation for cultural resources
Other CEQA, PRC Section 2100 California Environmental Quality Act
Local permit Conditional Use permit
REGULATIONS AFFECTING ALTERNATIVE MSW
SECTION 3.0 PROCESSING TECHNOLOGY IMPLEMENTATION

3-2
The California Integrated Waste Management Board (CIWMB) began evaluating a new
group of technologies with promise of increasing waste recovery and less landfilling in
California. These conversion technologies have been the subject of legislative actions with
the goal of establishing a permit process in California for these facilities. However, early
attempts resulted in inaccurate and incomplete statutory definitions of these technologies.
The CIWMBs recently published document, Conversion Technologies Report to the
Legislature, offers revised definitions of conversion technologies. Other parties are also
suggesting new regulations, such as AB 177 introduced by Assembly Member Bogh. This
section provides some background on this subject.
In addition, California rules on the use or sale of compost are complex. These rules were not
written for the type of compost generated by conversion technologies. This section presents
background on this topic as well.
3.2 REGULATORY HISTORY
3.2.1 Toward Standardized Permitting and Enforcement
In the fall of 2000, the California Integrated Waste Management Board (CIWMB, or the
Board) began serious consideration of alternative conversion technologies (CTs) as a
mechanism to turn waste disposal toward waste recovery. Waste management options have
not been able to keep pace with waste generation, and market draw for the products of
composting and biomass to energy conversion could at best account for only a third of the
total volume of organic waste collected.
1
Resources were allocated initiating intensive staff
assessment including public forums,
2
and the CT dialogue began in earnest.
By November 2001, sufficient information had been gathered for Board staff to offer the first
key Issue Paper
3
reviewing standing regulations and providing a rough template for
regulating CTs. Concepts were vetted to the public in January 2002, showing a need to
standardize permitting and enforcement for CT methods and scales of operation. From the
report:
PRC (Public Resources Code) 44001 requires an operator of a solid waste facility to
obtain a solid waste facilities permit prior to commencing operations; regulations
adopted in 1994 implemented a tiered regulatory structure for all solid waste
facilities and operations. The regulations established four tiers in addition to the then
existing full solid waste facilities permit. From highest level of regulation to the

1
CIWMB Agenda Item 5 (Res. 2000-435); October 17 & 18, 2000.
2
CIWMB Staff background paper, Conversion technologies for Municipal Residues, in preparation for
May 3-4, 2001, public forum.
3
CIWMB Issue Paper, Regulation of Conversion Technologies. November 27, 2001.
REGULATIONS AFFECTING ALTERNATIVE MSW
SECTION 3.0 PROCESSING TECHNOLOGY IMPLEMENTATION

3-3
lowest, the tiers are: full, standardized, registration, enforcement agency notification,
and excluded. The Board adopts regulations to set minimum standards and place
different types of operations and facilities in the tiers. Conversion technologies
have not been explicitly placed into the permitting tiers. Their inclusion in the
definition of transformation, though, currently makes most of them subject to the
transfer/processing regulations, even though these regulations do not explicitly state
that this is so.
The Board directed staff, at its February 19, 2002 meeting, to initiate a rulemaking to revise
the transfer station/processing operations and facilities regulatory requirements. Revisions
were to regulate CT handling solid waste residuals as feedstock, whether or not the
technologies are specifically included in the statutory definition of transformation.
4
The
Board also directed staff to convene a small working group to further discuss the definition
and diversion credit issues and to return to the Board in April 2002, with recommendations
on these issues.
With much effort and public input, staff prepared a lengthy report considering diversion
credit issues for Board Agenda Item 34 heard during the April 16-17, 2002 meeting. The
Board resolved to follow staff recommendations involving the definition of conversion and
the availability of diversion credits for CTs under certain conditions. The staff defined
conversion as:
Conversion means the processing, through non-combustion thermal means,
chemical means, or biological means, other than composting, of residual solid waste
from which recyclable materials have been substantially diverted and/or removed to
produce electricity, alternative fuels, chemicals, or other products that meet quality
standards for use in the marketplace, with a minimum amount of residuals remaining
after processing.
With this issue resolved, the Board then felt secure in pressing for legislative change.
3.2.2 Renewable Energy Generation
Concurrent with regulatory revision to provide CT implementation with an environmental
safety net of permitting and enforcement, the CIWMB sought legislative change as well.
CTs can turn a liability into an economic plus. Many methods process wastes into fuel for
renewable energy generation. One well-developed method, termed gasification, thermally
converts waste into a synthetic gaseous fuel or syngas. Syngas production from waste for
energy generation was already accepted as renewable, when the source was collection of
syngas from sewage treatment or landfill off-gassing. Conversion of municipal solid waste

4
CIWMB Resolution 2002-80, February 19, 2002.
REGULATIONS AFFECTING ALTERNATIVE MSW
SECTION 3.0 PROCESSING TECHNOLOGY IMPLEMENTATION

3-4
by gasification required incorporation of thermal conversion as another accepted renewable
energy generation practice. Waste conversion via gasification thus became the focus of
CIWMBs initial legislative effort.
Governor Davis signed Senate Bill (SB) 1078, Californias new Renewable Portfolio
Standard (RPS) into law on September 12, 2002.
5
The same day, passage of SB 1038, the
Renewable Energy Program,
6
provided the California Energy Commission (CEC) purview
to implement and enforce the Renewable Portfolio Standard. Eight days later, on September
20, 2002, Assembly Bill (AB) 2770, Solid Waste: Conversion Technologies
7
was enacted.
Senator Barbara Matthews acceptance of compromise language ensured the bills passage,
while seriously undermining the Boards supportive policy. Further, the performance
criteria now encoded in the PRC 40117 had not undergone due diligence for regulatory
appropriateness or technical accuracy.
A facility that manages solid waste in California is called a Solid Waste Facility, under the
jurisdiction of the CIWMB. In compliance with AB 2770, the list of Solid Waste Facility
types now includes a facility employing gasification for conversion of solid waste to fuel
pursuant to PRC 40194 as amended.
If the conversion product is a clean burning fuel used for generation of electricity, and the
conversion facility is in compliance with solid waste management regulations according to
Public Resources Code as amended by AB 2770, that facility may then be certified as an
eligible generator of renewable energy for sale under the provisions of Californias RPS, as
authorized by the Renewable Energy Program overseen by the CEC.
Conversion of waste into energy is a varied and multi-stage path. Regulatory oversight of
this synthesis of advanced technologic processes includes the mutual purview of CIWMB
and CEC: criteria for eligibility as a generator of renewable energy via solid waste
conversion technology per the amended Public Utilities Code (PUC) 383.5 (b)(1)(C) is
essentially duplicated for this new category of Solid Waste Facility pursuant to Public
Resources Code (PRC 40117). Together, the newly enacted laws have been crafted to
ensure that application of important new technology can be made compatible with
Legislative intent to increase the amount of renewable electricity generation for
consumption in California.
8


5
SB 1078, Sher. Renewable Portfolio Standard. Enacted September 12, 2002. Amending the Public Utilities
Code, relating to renewable energy.
6
SB 1038, Sher. Renewable Energy Program. Amending the Public Utilities Code, relating to energy.
7
AB 2770, Matthews. Solid Waste: Conversion Technologies. Amending the Public Resources Code, relating
to solid waste.
8
Public Utilities Code (PUC) 383.5 as amended by SB 1038, the Renewable Energy Program.
REGULATIONS AFFECTING ALTERNATIVE MSW
SECTION 3.0 PROCESSING TECHNOLOGY IMPLEMENTATION

3-5
SB 1038 amendments to the PUC now recognize solid waste conversion as occurring
through application of a strictly defined noncombustion thermal technology process. The
product is a clean burning combustible gaseous fuel, commonly referred to as syngas, with
sufficient heat value for economical renewable energy generation. Gasification per AB
2770 language is defined by minimum standards identical to the Solid Waste Conversion
wording in SB 1038 under CIWMB purview. Gasification, as a technology by which
facilities convert solid waste to electricity, is legally the equivalent to the term Solid Waste
Conversion in the CECs purview.
3.2.3 Life Cycle and Market Assessment
The CIWMBs seminal role in advancing CTs has created a new and untested role of
technical oversight. Certainly, the complement of legislation places primary regulatory
responsibility upon the CIWMB and requires that a regulatory path be defined.
In January 2003, the Board released a request for proposals for Conversion Technology Life
Cycle & Market Impact Assessment, later awarded to RTI International. The stated purpose:
To advance the understanding of conversion technologies, Assembly Bill 2770
requires the CIWMB to prepare a report on new and emerging conversion
technologies that might be able to use these currently disposed materials as
feedstock. This Request for Proposals (RFP) is designed to assist the CIWMB in
addressing two key provisions of AB 2770. Specifically, the CIWMB must describe
and evaluate the lifecycle environmental and public health impacts of conversion
technologies and compare them with impacts from existing solid waste management.
AB 2770 also requires the CIWMB to describe and evaluate the impacts of
conversion technologies on recycling and composting markets.
9

Board staff worked to bring a draft regulatory revision forward, succeeding in release for
limited working group and later broad public review of the first draft in March, 2003.
10
At
its November 3, 2003 meeting, the Permitting and Enforcement Committee approved the
draft regulations, with minor changes, for a 45-day public comment period. Incorporating
comments and additional research, Board staff issued the current draft CT Regulations
package as Attachment 1 to the Board Agenda for the November 19-20, 2003 meeting.
11


9
See www.ciwmb.ca.gov/contracts, and specify Contract #IWMB-C2030.
10
CIWMB staff first working draft, Conversion Technology Regulations. March 18, 2003. Primary CIWMB
staff contact: Brian Larimore.
11
CIWMB Board Meeting, November 19-20, 2003. Agenda Item 8: Discussion and Request for Rulemaking
Direction to Formally Notice Proposed Amendments to the Transfer/Processing Operations and Facilities
Regulatory Requirements Regulations to Address Conversion technology Operations and Facilities.
REGULATIONS AFFECTING ALTERNATIVE MSW
SECTION 3.0 PROCESSING TECHNOLOGY IMPLEMENTATION

3-6
Terms and definitions were vague and inconsistent, and in some cases patently in error.
Impacts of CT implementation were largely unknown, given the few actual applications
available for review globally and the diversity of systems under consideration. Voiced
concerns included: (1) What were the long-term, life-cycle impacts of CTs? (2) How would
competition for acquisition of waste derived feedstock impact the struggling recycling and
resource recovery markets? (3) How do we define each technology, given the inherent
diversity and complexity? (4) How will the Board determine whether a particular technology
constitutes a conversion technology subject to CIWMB oversight, or is simply another
form of manufacturing, outside of this purview?
12

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

The Office of Administrative Law publicly noticed the proposed regulations on October 22,
2004, initiating the 45-day public comment period. The comment period closed December 6,
2004. The Permitting and Enforcement Committee prepared the item for the full Board
meting on December 14 and 15, and the Board heard public comment on the proposed
regulatory package as Agenda Item #22. The proposed revision of Article 6, the Transfer/
Processing regulations, contained revisions reflecting staff research and public comment on
prior revisions.
14
The Board declined to approve the package as revised.
AB 2770 requires development and submission of Report on conversion technologies to the
Legislature. CIWMB staff discussed a draft of the Conversion Technology Report to the
Legislature at the January Sustainability and Market Development Committee and presented
the matter as Item 11 at the January 18, 2005 Board meeting. Written comments were
accepted until February 15, 2005.
15

On March 15, 2005 the CIWMB passed resolution 2005-78. This resolution included the
following statement:
Conversion technologies are distinct from landfills and incineration, and can result in
substantial environmental benefits for California, including the production of
renewable energy, reduced dependency on fossil fuels, and reduction of greenhouse
gases.

12
CIWMB Conversion Technology public workshop, August 1, 2003: Summary & Analysis of Conversion
Technology Regulations Workshop and Subsequent Comments.
13
Personal communications, CIWMB staff Brian Larimore, 7-20-03.
14
Available on-line at http://www.ciwmb.ca.gov/agendas/mtgdocs/2004/12/00017383.doc.
15
Conversion Technologies Report to the Legislature DRAFT March 2005. Available on-line at
http://www.ciwmb.ca.gov/Organics/Conversion/Events/CTWorkshop/DraftReport.pdf.
REGULATIONS AFFECTING ALTERNATIVE MSW
SECTION 3.0 PROCESSING TECHNOLOGY IMPLEMENTATION

3-7
Conversion technologies can enhance landfill diversion efforts and can be
complementary to the existing recycling infrastructure. The Board requirements for
diversion eligibility for such facilities require that conversion technology facilities
complement the local infrastructure and that they maintain or enhance the
environmental benefits and economic sustainability of the integrated waste
management system.
Conversion technologies would be expected to meet federal, state and local air
emissions requirements. Local air districts in California are best equipped to review
and condition conversion technology facilities.
Definitions of conversion technologies in current statute are scientifically inaccurate,
and should be amended.
Furthermore, Resolution 2005-78 contained the following policy recommendations:
The definition of conversion technology approved by the Board in Resolution
Number 2002-177 be promulgated in law, and that more specific definitions of
various conversion technologies be developed during a regulatory process. The
existing definition of gasification is scientifically inaccurate and should be deleted.
The transformation definition be amended to mean the combustion or incineration
of solid waste.
Conversion technologies divert materials from landfills and are distinct from landfills
and incineration.
The Legislature should consider some level of diversion credit for conversion
technology facilities in accordance with the conditions set forth in the Board
Resolution 2002-177.
At the April 19-20th CIWMB meeting, the Waste Board adopted Resolution 2005-114 to
rescind Resolution Number 2005-78. The adoption of Resolution 2005-114 allowed CIWMB
staff to further discuss and consider the Conversion Technology Report due to additional
input from interested parties. No date for release of this report is available.
Legislative actions sponsored by CIWMB are already underway, in recognition of timelines
faced by Legislators this session. On 1/24/2005, Assembly member Bogh introduced AB
177, Solid Waste: Biomass Conversion, as a spot bill to be amended to incorporate
appropriate comments from state and public stakeholders.
REGULATIONS AFFECTING ALTERNATIVE MSW
SECTION 3.0 PROCESSING TECHNOLOGY IMPLEMENTATION

3-8
3.2.4 Current Regulatory Concerns
Concurrent development of AB 2770 with renewable energy regulations was a purposeful
attempt by the Board to ensure that the carefully controlled conversion of waste into energy
and energy products would have a firm legal standing, with access to state oversight and
support.
From the Legislative Counsels Digest for AB 2770 [in part]:
Comments: The CIWMB sponsors this bill for two purposes. First, it creates a new
definition for gasification technologies and separates such technologies from the
umbrella definition contained under the term transformation, thereby removing
such technologies from the apparent stigma of being considered transformation. The
second purpose is to require the CIWMB to evaluate and report to the Governor and
Legislature on so-called conversion technologies for the purpose of determining
whether the state should sanction their use.
This bill defines gasification technology and specifies that such technology must
remove recyclable materials from the feedstock and have minimal environmental
impact. It also removes gasification from the definition of transformation and adds
it to the definition of a solid waste facility. This bill places these facilities under the
regulatory authority of the CIWMB. Finally, this bill requires CIWMB to study and
prepare a report for the legislature on these new and emerging conversion
technologies.
16

Although language in SB 1038 and AB 2770 were essentially identical, certain critical
differences made their way into law. In approaching the CEC to establish and clarify purview
over waste conversion facilities, the Board addressed the language in formal written
comment provided to the Docket of the RPS [in part]:
The term solid waste conversion defined in SB 1038 and the term gasification
defined in AB 2770 are, with a few minor exceptions, identical to each other. Thus, it
is our best interpretation that solid waste conversion in SB 1038 specifically refers
to gasification as narrowly defined in AB 2770. Any solid waste conversion
facility complying with SB 1038s definition should be considered an in-state
renewable electricity generation technology and in compliance with the SB 1078
definition of eligible renewable energy resource. One major question concerns
the provision in the SB 1038 solid waste conversion definition regarding no
discharges of air contaminants or emissions. We interpret this provision as referring

16
Op. cit footnote 8, AB 2770. Legislative Digest Comments: pre-chaptered bill Concurrence discussion
accompanying proposed bill text As Amended, August 28, 2002.
REGULATIONS AFFECTING ALTERNATIVE MSW
SECTION 3.0 PROCESSING TECHNOLOGY IMPLEMENTATION

3-9
to the actual conversion process itself, in which feedstock is converted into gas, but
not as referring to subsequent stages in which gas is run through a turbine to produce
electricity.
17

AB 939, the Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989, established a Waste Management
Hierarchy, as the order of preference of waste management: Reduce, Reuse, Recycle, and
Dispose.
18
PRC 40194 consigned CTs to the Solid Waste Facility Type of Disposal
Facilities, the least preferred type of management option. This probably is the most difficult,
and least warranted, impact of this new law upon advancement of the technology. The
paradox is startling: organics may be used as alternative daily cover (ADC) on a landfill,
19

garnering Diversion Credit for the municipality, yet if those same organics are processed via
a conversion technology facility into syngas and other beneficial uses, this is deemed the
legal equivalent of Disposal. This anomaly was considered by the Board during January
18, 2005 Hearing, recognizing that CTs may indeed need to be slotted elsewhere in the
Waste Management Hierarch on a par with other forms of beneficial reuse and recycling.
Noncombustion thermal conversion, as required by AB 2770,
20
is technically a difficult
requirement with which to comply. In gasification, as described previously in this report, a
minimal amount of combustion occurs. Although there is no real burning or direct
combustion, the pure legislative definition was an issue. To list gasification as a CT, then to
disqualify it by technical definition, was counterproductive. One could argue that pyrolysis in
itself could meet the definition. In essence, the language described pyrolysis, but called it
gasification. Unfortunately, true gasification would not comply with the definition.
At first glance, many have found the implementing language, subsequent performance
criteria, and proposed regulation to be unrealistic. The bills are now law however, and this is
the starting place from which we now must proceed, beginning with the Boards Conversion
Technology Report to the Legislature, and with introduction and subsequent modification of
the spot bill AB 177 (as previously referenced).
3.2.5 Current Status of Definitions
In the current draft revisions to the Transfer/Processing Station regulations,
21
classes of CTs
are defined and placement within the permitting and enforcement tiers are assigned. This

17
RPS Implementation (Docket No. 03-RPS-1078). Board comments, to the CEC dated March 26, 2003.
18
Waste Management Hierarchy The order of preference of waste management techniques, reduce, reuse,
recycle, dispose, as specified in 40051 of the California Public Resources Code.
19
Alternative Daily Cover regulations, 14 CCR Section 18810.
20
Op. cit, footnote 8. AB 2770 Section 1.
21
Op. cit footnote 13; Proposal to amend Public Resources Code, Chapter 3. Minimum Standards for Solid
Waste Handling and Disposal. Article 6.0. Transfer/Processing Operations and Facilities Regulatory
Requirements. Section 17402. Definitions.
REGULATIONS AFFECTING ALTERNATIVE MSW
SECTION 3.0 PROCESSING TECHNOLOGY IMPLEMENTATION

3-10
set of definitions essentially documents the Boards understanding of conversion processes.
These definitions have been subsequently addressed in detail, with many conflicts identified
and providing suggested modifications, within the current draft of the Conversion
Technology Report to the Legislature.
22
The Report now provides the forum for further
discussion.
The Board staff proposed definition presented in the proposed Transfer/Processing regulatory
package defined what Conversion Technologies are:
Conversion Technology means the processing, through non-combustion thermal,
chemical, or biological processes, other than composting, of solid waste, including, but not
limited to organic materials such as paper, yard trimmings, wood wastes, agricultural wastes,
and plastics, from which, to the maximum extent possible, all recyclable materials and
marketable green waste compostable materials have been removed prior to the conversion
process and the owner or operator of the facility certifies that those materials will be recycled
or composted. A conversion technology facility produces products, including, but not limited
to, electricity, alternative fuels, chemicals, or other products that meet quality standards for
use in the marketplace. Conversion Technology includes, but is not limited to, catalytic
cracking, distillation, gasification, hydrolysis, and pyrolysis. Conversion Technology does
not include anaerobic digestion, biomass conversion, composting (aerobic or anaerobic) or
incineration.
In the Boards comments to the RPS Docket (as referenced above), the issue of maximum
extent was also addressed:
We believe that the term maximum extent feasible should refer to both technical
and economic feasibility, i.e. that materials can be recycled cost-effectively within the
relevant regional, national, or global marketplace. We also believe that a proponent
moving forward with a solid waste conversion facility will have made its own
determination that removing all recyclable materials and green waste materials is
both technically and economically feasible, otherwise it would not pursue the
project.
23

The next definition needing further assessment is for Gasification. As encoded in Public
Resources Code Section 40117:
Gasification means a non-combustion thermal process used by a conversion
technology facility to convert solid waste to a clean burning gas or fuel for purposes

22
Op. cit, footnote 17 draft Conversion Technology Report to the Legislature.
23
Op.cit, footnote 18. RPS Docket, CIWMB comments.
REGULATIONS AFFECTING ALTERNATIVE MSW
SECTION 3.0 PROCESSING TECHNOLOGY IMPLEMENTATION

3-11
of generating electricity or producing chemicals or fuels, and that meets the
definition of gasification in PRC section 40117.
24

In the current draft Report to the Legislature, the following recommendation is made to
revise the definition presently encoded, as:
Gasification means the conversion of solid or liquid carbon-based materials by direct
or indirect heating. For direct heating, partial oxidation occurs where the gasification
medium is steam and air or oxygen. Indirect heating uses an external heat source such as
a hot circulating medium and steam as the gasification medium. Gasification produces
a fuel gas (synthesis gas, producer gas), which is principally carbon monoxide,
hydrogen, methane, and lighter hydrocarbons in association with carbon dioxide and
nitrogen depending on the process used.
In the amended PRC 40117, Section 1 (a) through (g), a suite of performance criteria are
encoded that must be strictly complied with in order to be recognized (or certified) by the
state agencies as true gasification for purposes of energy generation. Again, while
pyrolysis may be able to meet these criteria, true gasification would not. The Boards
proposed regulations would extend this implied certification requirement stipulating point-
for-point compliance beyond the legislated intent of use for renewable energy generation, to
include gasification for production of chemicals or fuels.
Many terms related to conversion of waste to products have been addressed in the draft
Report to the Legislature; gasification is the only term suggested as a specific revision of
the encoded language. Status of conversion facility permitting and enforcement regulations
remains deferred until after Legislative review of the report; therefore, definitions in the
proposed regulatory package are also open to later revision.
3.3 REGULATIONS AFFECTING ALTERNATIVE TECHNOLOGY
DEVELOPMENT
This section provides a general overview of the environmental regulations for permitting an
alternative MSW processing facility.
3.3.1 Local, State, and Federal Interaction
Siting, permitting and operating any industrial facility in California entails a very significant
commitment of time and financial resources. California is indeed moving toward

24
In compliance with AB 2770, Section 40117 is added to the Public Resources Code, to read: 40117.
Gasification means a technology that uses a noncombustion thermal process to convert sold waste to a clean
burning fuel for the purpose of generating electricity identifying seven mandatory performance criteria.
REGULATIONS AFFECTING ALTERNATIVE MSW
SECTION 3.0 PROCESSING TECHNOLOGY IMPLEMENTATION

3-12
standardized permitting and enforcement of industrial projects addressing the alternative
processing of MSW and production of useful products. That goal has yet to be accomplished.
Board staff provided
25
a summary of major CT permitting and enforcement actions that a
developer could expect. Given that this represents the Boards understanding, it is also a
good place to begin a more detailed assessment.
The local governing body controls siting of operations using alternative disposal
technologies. These operations are subject to local siting requirements, including
planning and zoning. There are many additional factors in siting an operation,
including access to transportation, utilities, water, sewage, proximity to feedstock
materials, and environmental justice considerations. Local siting requirements vary
widely throughout the State and are determined on a case-by-case basis.
Local governing body control of land use practices may begin with municipal Master Plan
amendment.
General & Specific Plans:
26
In most cases, a project must fit the pattern of the community
land use values and visions surrounding the proposed site. Municipalities must compile and
maintain a General Plan with a series of defined Elements, and must develop Specific
Plans delineating finer gradations of land use. Compliance with local planning and zoning
ordinances are mandatory for obtaining all subsequent state and federal permits. In turn,
these planning statements are local tools that themselves must comply first with state and
federal law; careful attention to receipt of local land use approval greatly reduces the risk of
later state/federal permit rejection.
Disposal Facility Siting Element (DFSE): The DFSE may be considered a subset of the
municipal General Plan (GP). In compliance with AB 939, the municipalitys GP must
include an Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan (SWMP) with a Countywide Siting
Element.
27
The PRC 40117 identification of Gasification as the newest type of Disposal
Facility subject to Board permit and enforcement provisions thus requires amendment to the
local DFSE, usually administered by the local Public Works Department. This step may well
be the first time a specific project proposal is subjected to both agency and public scrutiny.
CEQA & NEPA: Whichever local agency that first must make a binding determination
approving some aspect of a project in their jurisdiction is designated, in general, as the Lead
Agency, and acts as the coordinating entity ensuring compliance with land use and siting

25
Op. cit. footnote 3, Board staff, Issue Paper, November 2001.
26
Government Code Section 65302 et. al.
27
AB 939, Integrated Waste Management Act, 1989. PRC 50001(a) (1), SWMP and (2), Chapter 4. County-
wide Siting Elements.
REGULATIONS AFFECTING ALTERNATIVE MSW
SECTION 3.0 PROCESSING TECHNOLOGY IMPLEMENTATION

3-13
controls. Among the first overarching actions of the Lead Agency is determination regarding
whether the proposed action is a project pursuant to the California Environmental Quality
Act (CEQA)
28
of 1970. Should the project engage federal land, money, or people, a
determination must further be made regarding compliance with the National Environmental
Protection Act (NEPA),
29
enacted in 1969, one year prior to CEQA. CEQA and NEPA both
require proof of compliance with all local, state, and federal agencies with purview over
aspects of the environmental that potentially might be impacted by a project.
Permit to Construct (Rule 201); Permit to Operate (Rule 203):
30
For conversion facilities
not located on permitted Sanitary Landfills, the local Air Quality Management District
(AQMD) may become the Lead Agency with regard to CEQA. Application forms,
regulations, guides and discussions are available on-line. First contacts with the South Coast
AQMD should start with the SCAQMD Business Assistance Office.
New Source Performance Standards (NSPS): There are two NSPS (40 CFR 60 Subpart Eb
and Subpart AAAA) that could potentially apply to a proposed waste conversion facility
depending on whether it is considered a large (>250 ton/day) or small (>35 ton/day 250
ton/day) municipal waste combustor unit. Either NSPS, if applicable based on throughput,
would apply to both conventional municipal waste combustion or gasification/pyrolysis
conversion technologies. The NSPSs regulate emissions of oxides of sulfur (SO
x
), oxides of
nitrogen (NO
x
), carbon monoxide (CO), particulate matter (PM), hydrogen chloride (HCl),
dioxins/furans, cadmium, lead, mercury, fugitive ash and opacity. In addition, the NSPS
specify pre-construction notification, planning, analysis and reporting requirements as well as
operating practices, monitoring, record-keeping and reporting requirements. The emission
limits are anticipated to be achievable by either incineration or gasification/pyrolysis
conversion technologies with the latter anticipated to do so with wider compliance margins.
New Source Review (NSR): The South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD)
will require that any proposed facility complete NSR pursuant to either Regulation XIII
(NSR) or Regulation XXX (RECLAIM). Basic requirements of the NSR process include:
Best Available Control Technology (BACT) analysis demonstrating that the proposed
facility conforms to SCAQMD BACT Guidelines
Demonstration of compliance with all applicable State and Federal ambient air quality
standards by performing air dispersion modeling of the proposed facility impacts using
SCAQMD-approved modeling procedures

28
CEQA: California Environmental Quality Act, PRC Section 2100 et seq., 1970.
29
NEPA: National Environmental Protection Act, 42 U.S.C. Section 4321 et seq., 1969.
30
SCAQMD, Rules, Adopted February 1977. See www.aqmd.gov/rules.
REGULATIONS AFFECTING ALTERNATIVE MSW
SECTION 3.0 PROCESSING TECHNOLOGY IMPLEMENTATION

3-14
Provide offsetting emission reductions for proposed emission increases by surrendering
previously banked emission reduction credit (ERC) certificates
There are established BACT guidelines for municipal waste combustion. No BACT
guidelines have been established for pyrolysis/gasification technologies. The extent of the air
quality impacts and ERC requirements for individual facilities will vary depending on the
type and size of technology.
Toxics: The SCAQMD will complete NSR for air toxics pursuant to Rule 1401. Under this
regulation a proposed facility with potential emissions of air toxics above screening
thresholds would be required to complete a screening level health risk assessment using
SCAQMD-specified procedures. If necessary, a proposed facility may also be required to
complete a refined health risk assessment. In order to be approvable by SCAQMD, a facility
with a maximum cancer risk greater than 1 in a million must demonstrate that it will use
BACT for toxics (T-BACT). SCAQMD will not approve a facility with a maximum cancer
risk greater than 10 in a million.
Water Quality Controls, Local, State and Federal: Regions have been established
statewide to monitor and protect water quality. Each Regional Water Quality Control Board
(RWQCB) maintains purview over specific watershed basins, with individual Basin
Plans quantifying pollutant levels. In the case of cross-jurisdictional oversight: If programs
and/or projects cross regional boundaries, potentially impacting water quality of more than
one basin, purview falls to the State Water Resource Control Board (SWRCB).
31

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

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

31
Porte-Cologne Water Quality Control Act (Cal Water Code, Division 7, Water Quality), see http://leginfo.
ca.gov/calaw.
32
Waste Discharge Requirements:
33
NPDES: US Code Title 33, Chapter 26, Subchapter 4, Section 1342.
34
Cal Water Code Chapter 5.9, Storm Water Enforcement Act of 1998, Section 13399.5 et. Seq.
REGULATIONS AFFECTING ALTERNATIVE MSW
SECTION 3.0 PROCESSING TECHNOLOGY IMPLEMENTATION

3-15
3.3.2 California Energy Commission Regulations
Alternative processing facilities intending to generate energy for sale to the regional Utility
grid during this interim period prior to full regulatory implementation must seek multiple
agency concurrence according to Californias Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS), Energy
Plan (per SB 1038) and the facility oversight (per AB 2770). A case-by-case approach is
necessary.
3.3.3 California Integrated Waste Management Board Regulations
The Integrated Waste Management Act (as referenced) authorized local control for state
waste management permitting and enforcement, establishing a network of Local
Enforcement Agencies (LEA) at the municipal level. The Boards Permitting and Inspection
Branch, in conjunction with the LEA, administer Solid Waste Facilities permitting and
enforcement programs. In regions not prepared to carry out LEA functions, the Board either
can authorize entry into Joint Powers Agreements by which smaller communities share cost
burdens of single LEA contract services, or (as occurs under enforcement proceedings
against the local jurisdiction) the Board can assume the LEA responsibilities. Whoever
performs this function becomes the primary contact for CT project proponents.
The Board regulates solid waste handling, processing, and disposal activities. These include
the operation of landfills, transfer-processing stations, material recovery facilities, compost
facilities, and waste to energy facilities. Until recently, virtually all solid waste handling
activities were subject to the requirement of first obtaining a full solid waste facility permit
or an exemption from the requirement of obtaining this permit from the LEA with
jurisdiction over the proposed site. The CIWMB must concur in the issuance of the full
permit before it is issued.
Some types of solid waste management now require less than a full solid waste facilities
permit, according to placement in the Permit Tiering structure, as has been discussed and
referenced previously in this section. CT project proponent responsibilities regarding proper
notice of intent will be dictated by which tier applies, in terms of detail, timing, fees, and
subsequent process. There are now five Tier levels: (1) Excluded Activities, (2) LEA
Notification, (3) Registration Permit, (4) Standardized Permit, and (5) Full Permit. As with
CT projects selling electricity, a case-by-case assessment by the LEA is mandatory.
3.3.4 Summary of Permitting Requirements
3.3.4.1 State Permits and Regulations
CEQA requirement
CalTrans, if encroaching on state transit routes
REGULATIONS AFFECTING ALTERNATIVE MSW
SECTION 3.0 PROCESSING TECHNOLOGY IMPLEMENTATION

3-16
Air Quality: AQMD Notice to Construct, Notice to Operate, Title V Operating Permit,
New Source Review, Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) Permit, Hazardous
Air Pollutants (NESHAPS)
Water Quality: Waste Discharge Requirements (WDRs, National Pollution Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) permits, Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plans (SWPPPs)
Energy: Power plant licensing permits; certification as Eligible Renewable Generator if
appropriate
Waste Management: LEA Notification, Registration, or Full Solid Waste Facility Permit
3.3.4.2 Federal Permits & Requirements
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requirement, including Endangered Species
Act compliance (if applicable)
Air Quality: NSPS
Waste Management: Subtitle D compliance
3.4 REGULATIONS AFFECTING COMPOST MARKETABILITY
Biological technologies (anaerobic and aerobic digestion or composting in this case)
generates large quantities of solid byproducts that suppliers plan on converting to marketable
commodities. These byproducts introduce quality control and regulatory issues.
Both aerobic and anaerobic biological processes creates a fibrous residue that can be used as
a soil amendment. If this residue has achieved sufficient organic stabilization, it is referred to
as compost. The primary purpose of compost is to improve the physical quality of the soil. In
sandy soils compost increases the water holding capacity, while in heavy soils it improves
soil structure and porosity. In both cases it improves soil quality. Organic stability, i.e., the
absence of any rapidly biodegradable compound, is an essential quality of compost.
Organically unstable soil amendments can lead to nutrient deficiencies as biodegrading
microorganisms out compete plants for nutrients. They can also lead to oxygen deficiency or
acidic conditions and phytotoxicity as organic acids are released.
Automated, highly-controlled in-vessel digestion of wastes can effectively kill plant and
animal pathogens, control odors, and greatly reduce the labor of waste management, in
particular the volume of waste requiring post-treatment management, turning liabilities into
valuable products.
REGULATIONS AFFECTING ALTERNATIVE MSW
SECTION 3.0 PROCESSING TECHNOLOGY IMPLEMENTATION

3-17
According to the US Compost Councils Field Guide to Compost Use,
35

Compost is the product resulting from the controlled biological decomposition of
organic material that has been sanitized through the generation of heat and
processed to further reduce pathogens (PFRP), as defined by the U.S. EPA (Code
of Federal Regulations Title 40, Part 503, Appendix B, Section B), and stabilized to
the point that it is beneficial to plant growth. Compost bears little physical
resemblance to the raw material from which it originated. Compost is an organic
matter source that has the unique ability to improve the chemical, physical, and
biological characteristics of soils or growing media. It contains plant nutrients but is
typically not characterized as a fertilizer.
Control of pathogenic organisms pursuant to the 40CFR Part 503 regulations noted above,
constitutes one of the overarching federal concerns when converting organic debris such as
human sewage, manure, and other wastes into environmentally benign products. Processes
to Reduce Pathogens, and Processes to Further Reduce Pathogens are two carefully
defined methods acceptable under the federal standards. Compost production methods strive
to qualify under the latter guidelines.
36
The other concern is limiting the application of heavy
metals to the soil, as indicated in the 40 CFR, Part 503 regulations.
3.4.1 MSW Feedstock Variability
In-vessel biological process of mixed MSW is an outgrowth of earlier highly controlled and
accelerated digestion of consistent, strictly organic feedstock, typically agricultural wastes
and manures. The AD research of Saint-Joly et. al.
37
noted that, the performance of the
anaerobic digestion process depends deeply on the quality of the waste to be treated; which
could be restated as the common axiom, garbage in, garbage out.
Any conversion to product must be concerned with the consistency of the feedstock. For
MSW, the inherent variability can pose a significant challenge. Waste stream
characterizations
38
confirm that local waste composition changes significantly between
seasons in the profile of organic to inorganic fractions and in the nature and amount of
contaminants. Similarly, different locales even within a city may generate quite different
waste profiles.

35
See: www.compostingcouncil.org.
36
See: http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/waisidx_02/40cfr503_02.html.
37
C. Saint-Joly
*
, S. Desbois
**
and J-P. Lotti
***
. Water Science and Technology Vol 41 No 3 pp 291297
IWA Publishing 2000. Determinant impact of waste collection and composition on anaerobic digestion
performance: industrial results.
38
See http://www.ciwmb.ca.gov/WasteChar/.
REGULATIONS AFFECTING ALTERNATIVE MSW
SECTION 3.0 PROCESSING TECHNOLOGY IMPLEMENTATION

3-18
3.4.2 Process Control Challenges
Even the most thorough pre-processing of MSW must be expected to pass a certain amount
of undesirable fractions through to the digestive process. System efficacy before, during,
and after digestion for management of contaminants requires assessment and monitoring.
Although automation reduces labor costs per ton processed, statistical sampling and
laboratory analyses required for adequate quality assurance and control could counterbalance
operations and maintenance savings.
For production of compost, specific problems could arise from use of MSW as feedstock:
Physical contaminants in the fibrous product may certainly be analyzed, but an
inconsistent feedstock profile may require unacceptably expensive sampling frequency to
approach statistical accuracy. For this reason, standard sampling protocols intended to
insure quality of compost produced from agricultural wastes and manures may be
insufficient.
Raw anaerobic effluent usually needs maturation or finishing. Indeed, aerobic
composting also requires maturation prior to use or else microbial activity may rob soils
of existing macro- and micronutrients.
Minute quantities of antibiotics, growth hormones, and/or long-term residual pesticides
could adversely impact biological activity and compromise compost utility.
39
This is a
concern with any compost and is more likely to be a problem with yard waste and
biosolids composts than with MSW-derived compost.
Finely fractured shards of glass can remain entrained in the fibrous compost end
product.
40
However, below a size of a few millimeters these are generally not considered
to be a problem.
Heavy metals may increase in solubility through processing, potentially leading to
adverse soil loading and bioaccumulation where used as a soil additive over time. This
would be captured in standard quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC) leaching tests
used to verify compliance of the final compost with EPA 503 regulations.
The main issue impacting marketability of an MSW-derived compost is its visual
appearance. Small amounts of colorful plastics or extraneous objects (bottle caps,
syringes, etc.) can render an entire batch of compost unmarketable.

39
See, for example: http://agr.wa.gov/PestFert/Pesticides/Clopyralid.htm; www.puyallup.wsu.edu/soilmgmt/
Clopyralid.htm.
40
See: http://www.smrc.com.au/PDF/SMRC-research-glass-cont-municipal-waste.pdf.
REGULATIONS AFFECTING ALTERNATIVE MSW
SECTION 3.0 PROCESSING TECHNOLOGY IMPLEMENTATION

3-19
The residual of herbicides in the empty containers, bottles, etc. could introduce trace
amounts of Clopyralid. Its detrimental impact on the growing of many garden plants has
caused serious consequences to the greenwaste recycling industry
3.4.3 Voluntary Quality Control for Compost
The California Compost Quality Council (CCQC) provides an on-going voluntary method
for agency and public assurance regarding the quality and consistency of compost, through
producer registration and transparent adherence to established criteria. CCQC standards
have been compiled for aerobic digestion of agricultural waste, manures, and urban
green wastes (tree and yard trimmings). This may not be sufficient for in-vessel
accelerated anaerobic digestion of MSW, considering the cautions listed above. QA/QC
standards are an excellent, well-accepted starting place for establishing market
acceptance.
CCQC recently joined the United States Composting Council (USCC), to better represent
Californias compost community interests in the United States marketplace. The USCC
affords national perspective and depth of collaboration to any who produce or use compost.
The programs of CCQC were developed with guidance and support from the California
Integrated Waste Management Board (CIWMB). The standards are recognized QA/QC
for both producers and users of compost:
The CIWMB has worked to fill the gap by promoting a voluntary, independent
association known as the California Compost Quality Council (CCQC). Compost
producers registered with the CCQC must be in compliance with applicable CIWMB
composting regulations and agree to provide laboratory-verified information about
their products to interested buyers. The CIWMB also has prepared a general guide to
assist consumers in assessing compost characteristics, and is developing a series of
fact sheets that provide guidelines for applying compost and mulch in different
landscaping applications.
41

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


41
See CIWMBs Organics program information on Compost Quality: http://www.ciwmb.ca.gov/organics/
Products/Quality.htm.
42
Personal conversation with Assistant Director Al Rattie (215-256-5259), 12-13-04. See: www.
compostcouncil.org.
REGULATIONS AFFECTING ALTERNATIVE MSW
SECTION 3.0 PROCESSING TECHNOLOGY IMPLEMENTATION

3-20
Seal of Testing Assurance (STA): The USCC adds assessment of compost stability (a
measure of maturation), pathogenicity (fecal coliform or Salmonella), and trace metals
(Title 40 Code of Federal Regulations, Part 503 regulated metals). USCC quality
assurance and quality control (QA/QC) program participation suggests frequency of
sampling based on volume of tons of compost processed per quarter. A large and growing
number of approved labs are identified for member usage. STA Sampling Collection
Protocol and Chain of Custody information is available at no charge. Programs are open
to all that would produce and offer compost for sale. http://tmecc.org/sta/index.html.
Test Methods for the Examination of Composting and Compost (TMECC): TMECC
provides detailed protocols for the composting industry to verify the physical, chemical,
and biological condition of composting feedstocks, material in process and compost
products at the point of sale. Material testing is needed to verify product safety and
market claims. TMECC provides protocols to sample, monitor, and analyze materials at
all stages of the composting process, i.e., prior to, during, and after composting to help
maintain process control, verify product attributes, assure worker safety, and to avoid
degradation of the environment in and around the composting facility.
http://tmecc.org/tmecc/index.html.
Compost Analysis Proficiency (CAP) Testing Program: CAP is a laboratory quality
assurance program consisting of tri-annual exchanges of three compost materials, each
submitted in blind triplicate [3 3 3 = 27] for each of two testing tiers: Tier I-
Inorganic; and Tier II-Inorganic plus Biological. http://tmecc.org/cap/index.html.
3.4.4 Regulatory Oversight Federal
Federal regulations addressing pathogenicity of putrescible material (40CFR Part 503,
referenced above) have been designed for managing sewage sludge, both residential and
industrial. Compost regulations strive to ensure that efficacy of decomposition qualifies as a
Process to Further Reduce Pathogens, pursuant to the federal guidelines.
According to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA):
43

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

43
See: http://www.epa.gov/compost/laws.htm.
REGULATIONS AFFECTING ALTERNATIVE MSW
SECTION 3.0 PROCESSING TECHNOLOGY IMPLEMENTATION

3-21
States have assumed the lead role in regulating composting facilities. Composting
facilities may need approval from the state before operating. The permit
requirements for composting facilities vary among states. Examples of topics covered
in the permitting process include: a detailed facility design, operating plans, a
description of incoming materials, the amount and types of residue to be generated in
the plant, monitoring plans, potential environmental releases, landfills to be used,
and potential markets for the compost.
Under Section 301 of the Clean Water Act (Title 33, Chapter 26, 1311, USC), EPA
has the authority to regulate point source discharges into United States waters
through the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permitting
program.
40 CFR Subpart B: Land Application, Part 503.13 provides the states with specific pollutant
limits for land application.
Table in 503 Rule Table #1 Table #2 Table #3 Table #4
Pollutant
Ceiling
Concentration
Limits*(mg/kg)
Cumulative
Pollutant Loading
Rates (kg/ha)
Monthly Average
Concentration
Limits(mg/kg)
Annual Pollutant
Loading Rates
(kg/ha/yr)
Arsenic 75 41 41 2.0
Cadmium 85 39 39 1.9
Copper 4,300 1,500 1,500 75
Lead 840 300 300 15
Mercury 57 17 17 0.85
Molybdenum** 75 n/a n/a n/a
Nickel 420 420 420 21
Selenium 100 100 100 5.0
Zinc 7,500 2,800 2,800 140
* absolute values
** land application limits for molybdenum are under revision at this time
3.4.5 Regulatory Oversight State
California Integrated Waste Management Board (CIWMB) has primary purview over
composting facility regulation and enforcement. The CIWMB regularly assesses quality and
quantity of compost produced in the state and maintains an extensive support framework for
encouraging both backyard and commercial composting in California.
According to CIWMB, most commercial compost producers are subject to regulation,
including permits, in the State of California. Certain aspects of mulch operations are also
regulated. Local enforcement agencies (LEAs) oversee the permitting and oversight of
REGULATIONS AFFECTING ALTERNATIVE MSW
SECTION 3.0 PROCESSING TECHNOLOGY IMPLEMENTATION

3-22
composting and mulch operations at the local level. CIWMB has implemented regulations,
which exclude some activities from permitting requirements, allowing some to operate after
making a notification to the LEA, and others to operate with less burdensome forms of
permitting. Some activities still require the full solid waste facility permit. The tier in which
an activity is slotted depends not only on the type of activity but also the type and amount of
solid waste being handled.
State law pertaining to Compostable Materials Handling Operations and Facilities Regulatory
Requirements is encoded in Section 40000 of the Public Resources Code. Regulations were
promulgated as Chapter 3.1, beginning with Section 17850 of Title 14, California Code of
Regulations (14CCR). CIWMB recently revised the composting regulations, amending
Chapter 3.1 Composting standards, and 3.2 Enforcement procedures pertinent to
composting.
44

State code Chapters establish standards and regulatory requirements for intentional and
inadvertent composting resulting from the handling of compostable materials. In-vessel or
within-vessel composting operations with capacities greater than fifty cubic yards are subject
to permit. By definition:
Within-vessel Composting Process means a process in which compostable
material is enclosed in a drum, silo, bin, tunnel, reactor, or other container for the
purpose of producing compost maintained under uniform conditions of temperature
and moisture where air-borne emissions are controlled.
45

Animal carcasses, medical waste, and hazardous waste are not allowed to be processed at a
permitted composting facility. Considering the City of Los Angeles MSW profile, the
prohibitions listed in Section 17588 could require a substantial increase in feedstock pre-
processing beyond that of handling of agricultural and sewage sourced feedstock via aerobic
windrow composting permit conditions. Such provisions, and any other QA/QC controls
deemed necessary, could become part of the Composting Facility permit.
California Department of Food and Agriculture (CDFA): CDFA regulates nutritive and
non-nutritive standards for fertilizing materials generated from wastes and bi-products,
intended for transfer and beneficial use in agriculture. According to the CDFA, compost
produced by in-vessel anaerobic and aerobic digestion must be profiled for quality,
consistency, and ingredients including contaminants, to qualify for beneficial usage and to
provide truth in labeling to prospective end-users.

44
See: http://www.ciwmb.ca.gov/RuleArchive/2003/CompMaterial/.
45
14 CCR Section 17850.
REGULATIONS AFFECTING ALTERNATIVE MSW
SECTION 3.0 PROCESSING TECHNOLOGY IMPLEMENTATION

3-23
Title 3 CCR Section 2301 defines Non-Nutritive Standards for inorganic commercial
fertilizer and agricultural mineral products, setting maximums for the non-nutrient metals
arsenic, cadmium and lead:
Effective January 1, 2004, specialty fertilizers shall not exceed: arsenic, ten parts per
million; cadmium, twenty parts per million; and lead, 100 parts per million.
Title 3 CCR Section 2302 expands upon management of the hazardous constituents to be
found in waste materials, which require compliance with both state and federal hazardous
waste management regulations. Processing MSW to generate fertilizing material is expected
to create a product containing some amount of hazardous material. With appropriate
identification, monitoring, and use, the hazardous constituents are considered recycled
materials. The Food and Agricultural Code defers management of such hazardous recycled
materials to provisions of Title 22:
Recyclable material used in fertilizing material manufacture shall be sampled and
tested in accordance with procedures specified in Title 22, CCR, Division 4.5,
Chapter 11 - Identification and Listing of Hazardous Waste, commencing with
Section 66261.1.
In the narrow context of these definitions, a Recyclable Material refers specifically to any
hazardous waste constituent found in products intended for agricultural use.
46

Title 22 CCR, Division 4.5, Environmental Health Standards for Management of Hazardous
Waste, Article 8.5, Requirements for Management of Recycled Materials in Agriculture,
establishes the CDFA s regulatory oversight:
No person shall use a recyclable material in agriculture or transfer such a material
to another person for use in agriculture, without obtaining a letter of approval from
the Department pursuant to subsection (c) of this section prior to such use or
transfer, unless the material is to be transferred to the operator of a facility where it
will be processed for such agricultural use pursuant to a valid license issued by the
California Department of Food and Agriculture.
As used in this chapter, use in agriculture means that a recyclable material (either
in its existing state or in processed products) is applied to the land as a fertilizer, soil
amendment, agricultural mineral, or an auxiliary soil and plant substance, or is used
to produce a food for domestic livestock or wildlife.
47


46
3 CCR Article 1. Sections 2301, 2302.
47
22 CCR Article 8.5. Requirements for Management of Recyclable Materials Used in Agriculture, Section
66266.115. Generator Requirements, (d) and (e).
REGULATIONS AFFECTING ALTERNATIVE MSW
SECTION 3.0 PROCESSING TECHNOLOGY IMPLEMENTATION

3-24
Claims that this compost is a fertilizer, rather than perhaps a simple soil amendment,
must be validated according to standards. Criteria dictating what may and may not be sold as
a fertilizing material can be found in the Title 3 CCR Food and Agriculture Code, Division
7, Chapter 5, Fertilizing Materials.
48

3.4.6 Summary
Various forms of in-vessel aerobic and anaerobic digestion or composting have been fully
commercialized for some time with facilities especially prevalent in Europe. Operational data
is therefore available, placing consideration of such systems in a clearer light than for more
recently emerging MSW conversion technologies.
In addition to volume reduction and pathogen management, bioconversion technologies
generate a fibrous material of undigested and partially digested organics. This material
entrains varying amounts and types of the inorganic constituents passed through the
treatment vessel, and is commonly referred to as compost by the vendors.
In existing European examples, compost quality appears to correlate well with the degree of
care taken in feedstock selection to maximize the organic fraction amenable to digestion and
minimize the presence of metals and other contaminants. In better examples, feedstock is
source-segregated and/or positively sorted to ensure the quality and consistency of the
products. An example is given below for a typical European set of regulations and the results
obtained by a particular AD vendor. For comparison, the EPA Rule 503 compost standards
are provided.
Pollutant Unit
US EPA 503 Rule,
Monthly Average
Concentration Limits
VLACO
(Belgian)
regulations
Typical European
anaerobic compost derived
from biowaste (average)
Arsenic mg/kg 41 NA NA
Cadmium mg/kg 39 1.5 1.0
Copper mg/kg 1,500 90 32
Lead mg/kg 300 120 97
Mercury mg/kg 17 1.5 0.15
Nickel mg/kg 420 20 8
Selenium mg/kg 100 NA NA
Zinc mg/kg 2,800 300 180
Chromium mg/kg NA 70 23
Impurities < 2 mm (% w/w) % by weight NA 2 1.0
Germinating seeds number /L NA 0 0


48
See: http://www.cdfa.ca.gov/is/acrs/fertcode.htm.
REGULATIONS AFFECTING ALTERNATIVE MSW
SECTION 3.0 PROCESSING TECHNOLOGY IMPLEMENTATION

3-25
For our purposes in California, ensuring the quality and consistency of compost is
problematic. Existing compost regulations providing pollution limit guidance and
performance standards are, in general, based upon conversion of sewage and other organic
wastes, not upon application of such technology to mixed municipal solid waste. Further,
statistically based quality control criteria (such as that of the USCC) stipulate the frequency
of product sampling based upon volume, assuming relatively little variability in the material
to be tested. CIWMB waste characterization studies have clearly shown that MSW is a
variable material, changing throughout the year and from region to region. This inherent
variability of MSW requires a sufficiently frequent monitoring process of sampling and lab
analyses to accurately characterize the constantly shifting contaminant profile.
If feedstock under consideration for conversion is source-selected and/or positively sorted for
appropriate materials and then pre-processed to ensure consistency and contaminant
minimization, existing regulations and performance criteria might reasonably be considered
sufficient for ensuring end-user compost product quality control. This is not the proposed
case. Mixed MSW from which recyclables and compostable organics have been source
removed, along with the other recyclable commodities, is the target feedstock.
Not all compost needs to be presented as a horticultural quality product. Vast amounts of
low-quality organic-laden mulch is needed for mining lands reclamation, for which
background levels of allowable metals can be much higher than anything contained in MSW
digestate. The suppliers, however, understandably seek to characterize their compost product
as a high quality, high value, and easily salable material. Increasing feedstock quality through
source selection and pre-processing would increase product valorization, and will certainly
be accompanied by increased cost.
An acceptable cost-to-benefit balance must be established between feedstock preparation and
product quality. Given the many choices for pre-processing, the proper analytical
characterization of nutritive and non-nutritive constituents and multiple markets might be
available to differing grades of biological conversion compost.

SCREENING OF ALTERNATIVE
SECTION 4.0 MSW PROCESSING TECHNOLOGIES

4-1
4.1 INTRODUCTION
This task screened the list of technologies and list of suppliers described in Section 1.0 to
include those technologies and suppliers that might meet the Citys objectives for an
alternative MSW processing facility. The process concluded with a short list of technology
suppliers who were sent a Request for Qualifications (RFQ).
This task consisted of the following steps:
Develop technology screening criteria
Generate a short list of alternative MSW processing technologies
Perform a supplier survey
Screen technology suppliers
Generate a technology supplier short list
4.2 TECHNOLOGY SCREENING CRITERIA
As a first step, a set of technology screening criteria was developed to screen the list of
technologies shown in Table 1-1. Starting with the objectives hierarchy in Figure 1-1, key
screening issues are:
Meet 200 ton/day capacity (throughput) requirement
Consider technologies at the commercial or late-emerging stage
Include technologies that can produce marketable byproducts
Include technologies that are compatible with post-source separated MSW
No environmental or cost/revenue screening criteria were considered because these issues
would require more detailed technical data than was available at this point in the study.
The following technology screening criteria were established:
Waste Treatability: ability of the alternative MSW processing technology to efficiently
treat the organic portion of the black container waste stream
Conversion Performance: ability of the conversion technology to convert the organic
portion of the post-source separated MSW stream into useful products
Throughput Requirement: ability of the alternative processing technology to treat at
least 200 tons/day of post-source separated MSW in 2008-2010
SCREENING OF ALTERNATIVE
SECTION 4.0 MSW PROCESSING TECHNOLOGIES

4-2
Commercial Status: conversion technology that can be developed on a commercial scale
within the project development period (2008-2010)
Technology Capability: Can support the development of conversion technology at
commercial scale and can demonstrate the conversion technology with MSW at a scale of
at least 25 tons/day.
4.3 ALTERNATIVE MSW PROCESSING TECHNOLOGY SCREENING
Table 4-1 shows the list of sixteen out of the twenty alternative MSW processing
technologies presented in Section 2-1. Drying, mechanical separation, size reduction, and
steam processing/autoclaving are considered preprocessing technologies and therefore not
considered for evaluation and screening. The sixteen processes are grouped into three
technologies: thermal, biological/chemical, and physical.
TABLE 4-1
LIST OF ALTERNATIVE MSW PROCESSING TECHNOLOGIES
Waste Processing Technology Group Waste Processing Technology
Thermal Technologies
Advanced Thermal Recycling
Pyrolysis
Pyrolysis/Gasification
Pyrolysis/Steam Reforming
Conventional Gasification-Fluid Bed
Conventional Gasification-Fixed Bed
Plasma Arc Gasification
Biological/Chemical Technologies
Anaerobic Digestion
Aerobic Digestion/Composting
Ethanol Fermentation
Syngas-to-Ethanol
Biodiesel
Thermal Depolymerization
Catalytic Cracking
Physical Technologies
Refuse-Derived Fuel (RDF)
Densification/Pelletization

The criteria described above were applied to each of these technologies to determine which
would be carried forward in the study. Each technology was evaluated using all of the criteria
in a fatal flaw, or pass/fail manner. The results of this evaluation are shown in Table 4-2.
SCREENING OF ALTERNATIVE
SECTION 4.0 MSW PROCESSING TECHNOLOGIES

4-3
TABLE 4-2
ALTERNATIVE MSW PROCESSING TECHNOLOGY EVALUATION MATRIX
Technology
Conv
Perform
Waste
Treatability
Capacity
TPD
Com
Status
Tech
Capability Comments
Thermal
Advanced Thermal Recycling Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass A proven technology on MSW and RDF.
Pyrolysis Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass A proven technology on MSW and many other feedstocks.
Pyrolysis/Gasification Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass A proven technology on MSW and many other feedstocks.
Pyrolysis/Steam Reforming Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass A proven technology on MSW, RDF, and many other feedstocks.
Conventional Gasification Fluid Bed Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass A proven technology on MSW, RDF, and many other feedstocks.
Conventional Gasification Fixed Bed Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass A proven technology on MSW, RDF, and many other feedstocks.
Plasma Arc Gasification Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Proven technology on industrial hazardous waste and for vitrification of
ash. Recently commercial for MSW.
Biological/Chemical
Anaerobic Digestion Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Well-established technology for MSW.
Aerobic Digestion/Composting Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass One 30 tpd plant, much larger plants under construction.
Ethanol Fermentation Pass Fail Pass Pass Fail Well established for sugars and starches, not yet for MSW, although full
scale plants are planned.
Syngas-to-ethanol Pass Pass Pass Fail Fail Great potential and government interest, but only at pilot scale so far.
Biodiesel Pass Fail Fail Pass Fail Well established for oily/fatty waste, but not MSW.
Thermal Depolymerization Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Proven at small scale; 200 tpd plant built and in commissioning.
Catalytic Cracking Pass Fail Fail Pass Pass One 260 tpd plant, but only suitable for plastic.
Physical
Refuse Derived Fuel (RDF) Fail Pass Pass Pass Pass RDF systems do not convert feedstock into a useful product, but only
change physical characteristics of MSW.
Densification/Pelletization Fail Pass Pass Pass Pass RDF systems do not convert feedstock into a useful product, but only
change physical characteristics of MSW.

SCREENING OF ALTERNATIVE
SECTION 4.0 MSW PROCESSING TECHNOLOGIES

4-4
From Table 4-2, the following waste processing technologies failed the fatal flaw screen:
Ethanol Fermentation
Syngas-to-Ethanol
Biodiesel
Catalytic Cracking
Refuse Derived Fuel
Densification
The remaining ten technologies were brought forward:
1. Advanced Thermal Recycling
2. Pyrolysis
3. Pyrolysis/Gasification
4. Pyrolysis/Steam Reforming
5. Conventional Gasification Fluid Bed
6. Conventional Gasification Fixed Bed
7. Plasma Arc Gasification
8. Anaerobic Digestion
9. Aerobic Digestion/Composting
10. Thermal Depolymerization
4.4 WASTE SAMPLING PROGRAM
The composition of post-source separated MSW was needed for preparing a questionnaire for
screening the technology suppliers and as part of the Request for Qualifications. The only
available data was contained in a waste sampling study conducted by Cascadia for the City of
Los Angeles in 2000. In order to provide updated information, the project team decided to
conduct a one-day sampling program at the City-owned transfer station where post-source
separated MSW from all waste sheds in the City of Los Angeles were delivered.
On August 3
rd
, 2004, URS conducted a waste sampling of post-source separated MSW at the
Central Los Angeles Recycling and Transfer Station. Ten samples were taken (including at
least one sample from each of the six waste sheds) and divided into seven specific waste
categories. Figure 4-1 presents the percentages of composition for the different categories.
SCREENING OF ALTERNATIVE
SECTION 4.0 MSW PROCESSING TECHNOLOGIES

4-5
FIGURE 4-1
AVERAGE PERCENT COMPOSITION OF POST-SOURCE SEPARATED MSW
Glass
3.4%
Hazard. Waste
1.4% Construction
6.6%
Metal
9.6%
Plastic
16.6%
Paper
25.7%
Other Organic
36.7%

The percentages compared closely with the 2000 Cascadia sampling, with slight variations in
the Organics category that can be explained from samplings conducted during different
seasons (i.e., waste may be drier in August than in February).
The complete waste sampling analysis is included as Appendix B to this report.
4.5 TECHNOLOGY SUPPLIER SCREENING CRITERIA
In order to screen the technology suppliers, they were sent a brief survey based upon the
technology screening criteria. The criteria were applied as follows:
Waste Treatability: The supplier was screened on whether they have MSW or similar
feedstock processing experience.
Conversion Performance: The supplier was asked if their facility would produce
marketable byproducts.
Throughput Requirement: This criterion was already met because the technology
passed the technology screen discussed in Section 4.2.
Commercial Status: This criterion was already met because the technology passed the
technology screen discussed in Section 4.2.
SCREENING OF ALTERNATIVE
SECTION 4.0 MSW PROCESSING TECHNOLOGIES

4-6
Technology Capability: The supplier was asked if their technology had processed at
least 25 tons/day of feedstock.
4.6 TECHNOLOGY SUPPLIER SURVEY
The next step was to prepare a brief written survey questionnaire to qualify, or screen, waste
processing technology suppliers listed in Appendix A. The purpose of this form was twofold:
Determine interest in the Citys project to develop an alternative MSW processing facility
Determine if the supplier has sufficient experience to respond adequately to the Request
for Qualifications (RFQ)
The questions included in the survey form were as follows:
1. Has your firm developed a conversion technology at least on a demonstration scale
designed to process 25-50 tons/day (TPD) and operated for a minimum of one year
during which at least 5,000 tons of MSW or similar feedstock have been processed?
___Yes ___No
If yes, please provide:
Name of technology ___________________________________________
Location of facility ____________________________________________
Feedstock ___________________________________________________
Design throughput in tons/day ___________________________________
Specific 12-month timeframe when at least 5,000 tons of MSW or similar feedstock was
processed ____________________________________________________
Tons actually processed during that 12-month time period _____________
2. Has your firms technology facility treated MSW at least in a batch process test at a rate
of at least 25 TPD?
___Yes ___No
3. Does your technology produce marketable products and/or by-products?
___Yes ___No
SCREENING OF ALTERNATIVE
SECTION 4.0 MSW PROCESSING TECHNOLOGIES

4-7
If yes, please provide:
Name of primary marketable products and/or by-products: ______________
Finally, the characteristics of black bin post-source separated MSW were attached to the
survey form to provide the suppliers with data about the nature of the waste to be treated.
Table 4-3 shows the waste composition data provided to the suppliers.
4.7 SCREENED TECHNOLOGY SUPPLIERS
Responses to the questionnaire were compiled and evaluated. Results were used to create a
supplier short list of twenty-six suppliers who successfully answered the questions. Table
4-4 shows the suppliers whose responses met the criteria listed in the questionnaire, and
indicated interest in receiving the RFQ.
SCREENING OF ALTERNATIVE
SECTION 4.0 MSW PROCESSING TECHNOLOGIES

4-8
TABLE 4-3
CHARACTERISTICS OF BLACK BIN CONTENTS, CITY OF LOS ANGELES, 2004
Waste Category
Percent of Individual
Waste Type Total Percentage
Paper
Cardboard 9.87% 2.54%
Paper bags 1.87% 0.48%
Newspaper 11.06% 2.85%
Ledger/Office 3.90% 1.00%
Magazines/Catalogs 11.57% 2.98%
Miscellaneous paper 37.02% 9.52%
Mix paper (non-recyclable) 24.70% 6.36%
Category Total 294.70 lbs 25.73%
Glass
Bottles/jars 99.48% 3.37%
Other glass 0.52% 0.02%
Category Total 38.80 lbs 3.39%
Metal
Ferrous containers 5.35% 0.52%
Aluminum beverage cans 1.99% 0.19%
Other aluminum 4.35% 0.42%
Other ferrous 34.54% 3.33%
Other non-ferrous 5.35% 0.52%
Electronics 48.41% 4.66%
Category Total 110.30 lbs 9.63%
Plastic
PET/PETE bottles/jars 9.83% 1.63%
HDPE bottles 9.46% 1.57%
Other misc. containers 6.05% 1.00%
Film plastic 59.52% 9.88%
Miscellaneous plastic 15.14% 2.51%
Category Total 190.20 lbs 16.60%
Organic Materials
Food waste 24.23% 8.89%
Yard waste 10.59% 3.88%
Branches/woody material 2.62% 0.96%
Other wood 10.66% 3.91%
Textiles 17.35% 6.36%
Manure 0.83% 0.31%
Other organics 33.71% 12.36%
Category Total 420.100 lbs 36.67%
SCREENING OF ALTERNATIVE
SECTION 4.0 MSW PROCESSING TECHNOLOGIES

4-9
TABLE 4-4
TECHNOLOGY SUPPLIER SHORT LIST
Technology
Division Technology Supplier Name
Biological Aerobic composting Wright Environmental Management Inc. (Wright)
Biological Aerobic composting American Bio-Tech
Biological Aerobic composting Horstmann Recyclingtechnik GmbH
Biological Anaerobic digestion Canada Composting, Inc. (CCI)
Biological Anaerobic digestion Valorga S.A.S. (Valorga)
Biological Anaerobic digestion Organic Waste Systems N.V. (OWS)
Biological Anaerobic digestion ISKA GmbH
Biological Anaerobic digestion Arrow Ecology Ltd. (Arrow)
Biological Anaerobic digestion Citec
Biological Anaerobic digestion Global Renewables/ISKA
Thermal Thermal Changing World Technologies (CWT)
Thermal Gasification Primenergy (RRA)
Thermal Gasification Omnifuel /Downstream Systems (Omni)
Thermal Gasification Whitten Group /Entech Renewable Energy System (Whitten)
Thermal Gasification Energy Products of Idaho (EPI)
Thermal Gasification Ebara
Thermal Destructive Distillation Pan American Resources (PAR)
Thermal Advanced Thermal Recycling Consutech Systems LLC
Thermal Advanced Thermal Recycling Seghers Keppel Technology, Inc. (Seghers)
Thermal Advanced Thermal Recycling Waste Recovery Seattle, Inc. (WRSI)
Thermal Advanced Thermal Recycling Basic Envirotech Inc.
Thermal Advanced Thermal Recycling Covanta Energy Corp. (Covanta)
Thermal Pyrolysis/Steam Reforming Brightstar Environmental
Thermal Pyrolysis WasteGen Ltd. /TechTrade (WasteGen)
Thermal Pyrolysis Taylor Recycling Facility, LLC /FERCO (Taylor)
Thermal Pyrolysis/Gasification Interstate Waste Technologies/Thermoselect (IWT)


DETAILED ASSESSMENT OF ALTERNATIVE MSW
SECTION 5.0 PROCESSING TECHNOLOGIES AND SUPPLIERS

5-1
5.1 INTRODUCTION
After the list of twenty-six suppliers was identified, a Request for Qualifications (RFQ) was
prepared and sent to these suppliers. This section includes summary evaluations of each of
the responses received from issuance of the RFQ.
5.2 REQUEST FOR QUALIFICATIONS
The task described in Section 4.6 concluded with identification of twenty-six suppliers of
thermal conversion, advanced thermal recycling, and biological conversion technologies. In
order to perform a more detailed assessment of these technologies, and the specific proposals
from the suppliers, additional information was required. An RFQ was composed and sent to
the twenty-six suppliers.
The RFQ asked for a variety of information relating to:
Description of several reference facilities to become familiar with the firms past
accomplishments
Description of a proposed facility for the City project, at 100,000 tons/year throughput
More detailed information about each component of the facility: pre-processing unit,
conversion, or combustion unit, syngas/biogas clean-up, and byproduct production (e.g.,
electricity)
Cost and revenue projections (several assumptions were provided to keep submittals
comparable)
Site layouts and mass balance diagrams
A copy of the complete RFQ is included in Appendix F.
The following firms responded to the RFQ, and their submittals are summarized in Section
5.4 and discussed in detail in Appendix E:
Thermal Technologies:
Ebara
Interstate Waste Technologies (IWT)
Omnifuel (Omni)
Primenergy/RRA
Taylor Biomass Recovery
DETAILED ASSESSMENT OF ALTERNATIVE MSW
SECTION 5.0 PROCESSING TECHNOLOGIES AND SUPPLIERS

5-2
WasteGen Ltd.
Whitten Group
Pan American Resources (PAR)
Advanced Thermal Recycling Technologies:
Waste Recovery Seattle, Inc. (WRSI)
Seghers-Keppel
Covanta
Biological Technologies:
Arrow Ecology (Arrow)
Organic Waste Systems (OWS)
Valorga (WRS Inc.)
Canadian Composting, Inc. (CCI)
Wright Environmental
Global Renewables
5.3 OVERVIEW OF EVALUATION PROCESS
5.3.1 Definitions and Assumptions
Team members familiar with each of the technologies took the lead in assessing the
responses. They were asked to prepare a report for each submittal that addressed the
following:
Technology Description
Byproducts Produced
Environmental Issues
Costs and Revenues
Assessment Summary
An important part of each evaluation was an economic analysis to put all suppliers on the
same basis so that costs and revenues could be compared. This was necessary because the
submittals were quite different with regard to how costs were presented, and the level of
detail provided.
DETAILED ASSESSMENT OF ALTERNATIVE MSW
SECTION 5.0 PROCESSING TECHNOLOGIES AND SUPPLIERS

5-3
For each response, three bottom line figures were presented in the reports: the tipping fee
provided by the supplier (if provided); a calculated breakeven tipping fee; and a worst-case
breakeven tipping fee.
The breakeven tipping fee is defined as the funds required, in dollars/ton of delivered
material, required to balance the costs (annualized capital costs plus operating and
maintenance costs) with revenues.
The worst-case breakeven tipping fee is calculated by assuming that the solid byproducts
cannot be marketed, but can be transported for use as landfill cover material, at a net cost of
$10/ton.
A number of assumptions were used in an attempt to normalize the information provided
by the suppliers and facilitate comparison. The key assumptions are:
Debt service is based upon 100% debt financing at an interest rate of 6% for twenty
years.
Electricity will be sold at $0.06/kWh.
Unmarketable residues are landfilled at a cost of $40/ton.
Bottom ash sold at $5/ton.
Transportation cost for solid residue disposal at $10/ton.
Solid byproducts (e.g., compost) are sold at $10/ton.
Recyclables recovery rate from the delivered black bin refuse is 16%.
Recovery of ferrous metals is 50% at a rate of $50/ton.
Recovery of paper is 12% at a rate of $75/ton.
Recovery of plastics is 2.5% at a rate of $100/ton.
For recovery above 16%, the extra materials are assumed to be landfilled at $40/ton.
For recovery below 16%, the shortfall is removed from the residue amount.
5.3.2 Uses for Digestate from Anaerobic Digestion Facilities
Anaerobic digestion (AD) is the process used for all but one of the biological conversion
technologies evaluated in this study. AD produces a significant tonnage of solid residue (15
to 40% of the tonnage of MSW delivered to the facility), which is generally matured
aerobically and marketed as compost. The method of disposal of this product can have a
significant impact on the overall diversion of waste from the landfill. The available disposal
DETAILED ASSESSMENT OF ALTERNATIVE MSW
SECTION 5.0 PROCESSING TECHNOLOGIES AND SUPPLIERS

5-4
options and their impact are discussed below, and apply to each of the AD systems discussed
in this section.
5.3.2.1 Land Application of Compost
This is the base case of AD respondents, and is the option used by most existing AD
facilities. The focus is on producing marketable compost by removing troublesome
components in pre- and post-processing. The resulting tonnage of compost is obviously fully
diverted from the landfill. However, the pre-and post-processing create reject streams which
are destined for the landfill. In general, the more thorough the processing, the greater those
reject tonnages, but the greater the odds that the compost can be marketed and thus diverted.
Two scenarios can be envisioned:
Usually, the compost is sold for horticultural or agricultural application, generally via a
broker; 100,000 TPY of post-source separated MSW would generate enough compost to
treat 150 acres of land (at a compost application rate of 2 inches per year). This is the
highest use of digestate from the standpoint of profitability and the recycling hierarchy.
Esthetic issues or negative perceptions may make it impossible to market the compost. In
that case, it can be used for reclaiming degraded soils (strip mining & quarry reclamation,
etc.); 100,000 tons of post-source separated MSW would produce enough compost to
reclaim 25 acres (assuming a one-time 1-foot application).
5.3.2.2 Landfill Options
Organic stabilization before landfilling will soon become mandatory in Europe, and AD is
increasingly used for that purpose (De Baere 2004). In this case, the process is geared to
landfilling all AD digestate. Pre- and post-processing are reduced to the minimum
compatible with recyclables recovery and mechanical feasibility of AD, thereby saving
considerably on complexity and costs. Some aerobic maturation is still needed, to achieve
full organic stabilization and its advantages to the landfill. The resulting product may be
unsightly, but it is organically stabilized, i.e., when landfilled, odor, vermin, litter, reheating,
landfill gas production, settling, leachate COD/BOD, etc. would be reduced by roughly one
order of magnitude compared to what happens when MSW is landfilled. The final product
would also be denser than MSW, so the volume landfilled would be cut by two thirds
compared to landfilling unprocessed MSW, thereby tripling landfill life. Two landfilling sub-
options may be negotiated:
Use the digestate as alternative daily cover (ADC); digestate is more voluminous than
conventional ADCs like tarps or foam, but it is also refuse to be disposed, so in reality no
landfill air space is lost to daily cover at all.
DETAILED ASSESSMENT OF ALTERNATIVE MSW
SECTION 5.0 PROCESSING TECHNOLOGIES AND SUPPLIERS

5-5
Landfill it as refuse but get credit (i.e., a reduced tipping fee) for the landfill advantages
listed above; essentially, digestate would be landfilled more like Construction and
Demolition waste than MSW.
5.3.2.3 Thermal and Combustion Options
Digestate can be burned or gasified. Compared to MSW, dewatered digestate is pre-
processed and size-reduced, homogeneous, and has a higher heating value. It would have
much in common with RDF. Product appearance would not be a concern, high-energy
components like plastics would actually be desirable, and no aerobic maturation would be
necessary. So, pre- and post-processing would be simplified, facility costs would be reduced,
and reject tonnage minimized. In fact, the overall landfill diversion from the facility may well
be greater than for the compost options listed above, because reject streams would be
minimized and the only part of the digestate that may have to be landfilled would be the ash
and/or char. This option would also maximize energy recovery. The main thermal and
combustion alternatives are:
Use as feedstock for gasification or pyrolysis
Use as feedstock for an advanced thermal recycling facility
MSW can be gasified or combusted without the added complication of AD. However, ton per
ton, it is cheaper to destroy or convert solids via AD than via thermal or combustion methods
(Legrand et al. 1989). Additionally, biogas is more marketable as a fuel than syngas because
of its higher Btu content, thus providing an additional energy marketing option.
5.4 SUMMARY OF TECHNOLOGY SUPPLIER EVALUATIONS
Responses received from the technology suppliers were evaluated on the basis of the
following general issues:
Supplier experience in terms of operating reference plants
Pre-processing System (if applicable)
Treatment Process
Post-processing Systems
Power Generation System (if applicable)
Environmental Issues
Byproducts Produced
Cost and Revenue Evaluation
DETAILED ASSESSMENT OF ALTERNATIVE MSW
SECTION 5.0 PROCESSING TECHNOLOGIES AND SUPPLIERS

5-6
Overall Assessment of the Submission
A summary of the submissions is shown in Tables 5-1 through 5-3. Additional analyses of
these data are presented in Section 7.0 and Appendix E.
The cost and revenue data included in the tables were calculated based upon the assumptions
described in Section 5.3.1. The complete evaluations for each supplier are included in
Appendix E.

DETAILED ASSESSMENT OF ALTERNATIVE MSW
SECTION 5.0 PROCESSING TECHNOLOGIES AND SUPPLIERS

5-7
TABLE 5-1
THERMAL CONVERSION FACILITIES

Company Name Ebara
Interstate Waste
Technologies (IWT) Omnifuel (Omni) Primenergy (RRA)
Headquarters Tokyo, Japan Malvern, PA Citrus Heights, CA Stanton, CA Company
Biography Operating Plants (MSW/Other) 12 3
2
0/4 1/6
Type Fluid Bed Gasification Pyrolysis / Gasification Fluid Bed Gasification Fixed Bed Gasification Technology
Technical Description
TwinRec (Twin Internally
Circulating Fluidized Bed
Gasification) w/Ash Melting
Thermoselect High
Temperature Gasification
Downstream Systems
Hearst Gasifier
PRM Energy Gasification
Description Shredders Compaction, Degasing MRF makes RDF MRF makes RDF
MSW Delivered (TPY) 100,000 100,000 / 370,000 100,000 360,000
Pre-Processing
Recovers Recyclables (Yes/No) No No Yes Yes
Products Syngas Syngas Syngas Syngas
Residue (tons/yr)
11,365 (slag)
1,230 (metals)
15,000 (slag)
2,563 (metals)
2,600 (hot cyclone ash)
12,677 (rejects)
22,392 (bottom ash)
52,704 (rejects)
Diversion Rate 91% 99% / 99% 85% 85%
Post Processing /
Byproducts
Worst Case Diversion Rate
1
79% 81% / 81% 85% 77%
Type Boiler / Steam Turbine Reciprocating Engine Boiler / Steam Turbine Boiler / Steam Turbine
Quantity (net MW) 5.5 11 / 38 4.4 15
Efficiency (kWh/ton) 376 838 / 875 459 600
Fuel Production
Power Generation
Stack/Building/Tank Height (feet) N/A < 50
3
200
3
100
Capital Costs ($/ton) 730 900 / 700 157 137
Annual O&M ($millions) 8.6 10.0 / 20.3 2.6 5.1
Electricity Revenues ($million) 2.3 5.0 / 19.9 1.6 7.8
Recoverable Revenues ($million) 0.12 0.55 / 1.6 1.3 4.6
Total Revenues ($millions) 2.4 5.6 / 21.5 2.9 12.4
Evaluated
Economics
Worst Case Break Even Tipping
Fee ($/ton)
128 119 / 40 40 20
1
Calculated by normalizing recyclables to 16,500 tons/year and assuming all residuals, compost, or RDF is landfilled.
2
5 additional plants in development
3
Assumed.
DETAILED ASSESSMENT OF ALTERNATIVE MSW
SECTION 5.0 PROCESSING TECHNOLOGIES AND SUPPLIERS

TABLE 5-1 (CONTINUED)
THERMAL CONVERSION FACILITIES
5-8

Company Name Taylor Recycling WasteGen Whitten
Pan American Resources
(PAR)
Headquarters Montgomery, NY Stroud, Glos. UK Longview, WA Pleasanton, CA Company
Biography Operating Plants(MSW/Other) 0/5 2 5/41 0/5
Type
Circulating Fluid Bed
Pyrolysis
Pyrolysis Fixed Bed Gasification
Pyrolysis Technology
Technical Description FERCO Silva Gas Tech Trade Pyrolysis
Entech Renewable Energy
System
Lantz Converter
Description MRF makes RDF Shredder N/A Sorting,Shredding,Drying
MSW Delivered (TPY) 195,750 100,000 100,000 / 400,000 182,500
Pre-Processing
Recovers Recyclables (Yes/No) Yes Yes Yes Yes
Products Syngas Syngas Syngas Syngas
Residue (TPY) 11,745 (hot cyclone ash)
20,000 (bottom ash)
2,241 (inerts)
4,195 (bottom ash)
5,801 (inerts)
38,143 (char, ash)
8,651 (rejects)
Diversion Rate (%) 99% 99% 98% / 98% 74%
Post Processing
Byproducts
Worst Case Diversion Rate (%)
1
87% 79% 89% / 89% 74%
Type Boiler / Steam Turbine Boiler / Steam Turbine Boiler / Steam Turbine Boiler / Steam Turbine
Quantity (net MW) 12 9 7 / 28 6.5
Efficiency (kWh/ton) 728 675 686 / 725 463
Fuel Production
Power Generation
Stack/Building/Tank Height (feet) 110 195 75
2
33
Capital Costs ($/ton) 547 606 560 / 450 163
Annual O&M ($millions) 14.3 4. 6 3.1 / N/A 2.4
Electricity Revenues ($millions) 5.1 4.1 3.4 / N/A 3.4
Recoverable Revenues ($million) 2.5 0.16 1.3 / N/A 0.20
Total Revenues ($millions) 9.6 4.2 4.6 / 19.2 3.6
Evaluated
Economics
Worst Case Break Even Tipping
Fee ($/ton)
67 55 44 / 38 16
1
Calculated by normalizing recyclables to 16,500 tons/year and assuming all residuals, compost, or RDF is landfilled.
2
Assumed.
DETAILED ASSESSMENT OF ALTERNATIVE MSW
SECTION 5.0 PROCESSING TECHNOLOGIES AND SUPPLIERS

5-9
TABLE 5-2
ADVANCED THERMAL CONVERSION FACILITIES

Company Name Covanta
Waste Recovery Seattle Inc.
(WRSI) Seghers Keppel
Headquarters Fairfield, NJ Newcastle, WA Marietta, GA Company
Biography Operating Plants(MSW) 25 1 12
Type Thermal Recycling Thermal Recycling Thermal Recycling Technology
Technical Description Martin GmbH Rugenberger Damm GmbH
DANOdrum /
Water-cooled Grate
Description None None
Sorting and Magnetic Eddy Current,
DANOdrum
MSW Delivered (TPY) 329,000 380,000 368,000
Pre-Processing
Recovers Recyclables (Yes/No) No No Yes
Products Metals, Electricity
Bottom Ash, HCl,
Gypsum, Electricity
Bottom Ash, Boiler Ash,
Flue Gas Residue, Electricity
Combustion Residual (TPY) N/A 76,000 (bottom ash) N/A
Diversion Rate (%) 80% 98% 92%
Combustion Unit /
Byproducts
Worst Case Diversion Rate (%)
1
80% 78% 43%
Type Steam Turbine Steam Turbine Steam Turbine
Quantity (net MW) 23 25 19
Efficiency (kWh/ton) 550 521 647
Fuel Production
Power Generation
Stack/Building/Tank Height (feet) 275 250 250
2
Capital Costs ($/ton) N/A 474 486
Annual O&M ($millions) 10.0 14.7 15.0
Electricity Revenues ($millions) 10.9 11.9 10.6
Recoverable Revenues ($millions) 0.8 2.1 1.7
Total Revenues ($millions) 11.7 14.0 12.3
Evaluated Economics
Worst Case Break Even Tipping Fee ($/ton) 56 59 64
1
Calculated by normalizing recyclables to 16,500 tons/year and assuming all residuals, compost, or RDF is landfilled.
2
Assumed.
DETAILED ASSESSMENT OF ALTERNATIVE MSW
SECTION 5.0 PROCESSING TECHNOLOGIES AND SUPPLIERS

5-10
TABLE 5-3
BIOLOGICAL CONVERSION FACILITIES

Company Name Arrow Ecology
Canada
Composting
(CCI)
Global
Renewables
Organic Waste
Systems (OWS)
Wright
Environmental
(RDF only)
Waste Recovery
Systems Inc.
(Valorga)
Headquarters Wheeling, WV
Newmarket,
ON, Canada
Perth, Australia Gent, Belgium
Richmond Hill,
ON, Canada
Monarch Beach,
CA
Company
Biography
Operating Plants (MSW/Other) 1 3/23 1 4/5 2/4 6/5
Type
Anaerobic
Digestion
Anaerobic
Digestion
Anaerobic
Digestion
Anaerobic
Digestion
Aerobic Composting
(Biodryer)
Anaerobic
Digestion
Technology
Technical Description
The ArrowBio
Process
BTA Process ISKA, SCT DRANCO In-Vessel Valorga
Description
Separation, Bag
Breaking,
Trommel
Sorting, Trommel,
BTA pulper,
Degritting
Mechanical
separation
Separation,
Hammer Mill
Sorting, Trommel,
Shredding
Bag Breaking,
Shredding, Sieve
MSW Delivered (TPY) 100,000 100,000 / 300,000 100,000 100,000 / 300,000 100,000 100,000 / 300,000
Pre-Processing
Recovers Recyclables (Yes/No) Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Products Biogas Biogas Biogas Biogas RDF Biogas
Compost (TPY) based on 100K
MSW throughput
23,000 22,000 21,000 40,000 44,000 20,000
Residue (TPY) based on 100K
MSW throughput
19,000 26,000 16,000 39,000 21,000 21,000
Diversion Rate 81% 74% / 74% 84% 61% / 61% 78% 79% / 79%
Post Processing /
Byproducts
Worst Case Diversion Rate
1
59% 64% / 64% N/A 33% / 33% 42% 55% / 55%
Type
Reciprocating
Engine
Reciprocating
Engine
Reciprocating
Engine
Reciprocating
Engine
RDF Pelletized Fuel
Reciprocating
Engine
Quantity (net MW) 2.6 0.9 / 1.33 0.9 1.4 / 4.1 5.4 1.5 / 4.6
Efficiency (kWh/ton) 268 155 / 155 N/A 116 / 116 N/A 138 / 138
Fuel Production
Power Generation
Stack/Building/Tank Height (feet) 50
2
70 26 65 < 50
2
96
DETAILED ASSESSMENT OF ALTERNATIVE MSW
SECTION 5.0 PROCESSING TECHNOLOGIES AND SUPPLIERS

TABLE 5-3 (CONTINUED)
BIOLOGICAL CONVERSION FACILITIES
5-11

Company Name Arrow Ecology
Canada
Composting
(CCI)
Global
Renewables
Organic Waste
Systems (OWS)
Wright
Environmental
(RDF only)
Waste Recovery
Systems Inc.
(Valorga)
Capital Costs ($/ton) 270 550 / 275 N/A 401 / 294 313 334 / 217
Annual O&M ($millions) 1.2 7.05 / N/A N/A 4.8 / N/A 3.57 3.02 / N/A
Electricity Revenues ($millions) 1.4 0.61 / N/A N/A 0.73 / N/A N/A 0.81 / N/A
Recoverable Revenues ($millions) 1.3 1.3 / N/A N/A 1.25 / N/A 1.25 1.3 / N/A
Total Revenues ($millions) 2.8 2.1 / 6 N/A 2.4 / 7.2 2.8 2.3 / 6.6
Evaluated
Economics
Worst Case Break Even Tipping
Fee ($/ton)
19 97 / 61 N/A 62 / 45 51 42 / 23
1
Calculated by normalizing recyclables to 16,500 tons/year and assuming all residuals, compost, or RDF is landfilled.
2
Assumed.

SECTION 6.0 LIFE CYCLE ANALYSIS

6-1
6.1 INTRODUCTION
An important part of this study is identifying, quantifying, and evaluating the life cycle
environmental benefits (and burdens) associated with including alternative waste disposal
technologies in the Citys integrated solid waste management system. This allows the City of
Los Angeles to more accurately compare these new technologies to existing solid waste
management practices.
RTI International (RTI) was engaged to conduct a life cycle analysis of alternative waste
disposal technologies and more traditional solid waste management options available for the
City of Los Angeles. This study focuses on the management of 1,000,000 tons per year
(TPY) of the citys post-source separated MSW, which is currently being sent to a landfill for
disposal.
6.2 INTRODUCTION TO LIFE CYCLE ANALYSIS
A Life Cycle Analysis (LCA) is a type of systems analysis that accounts for the overall
upstream and downstream (cradle-to-grave) energy and environmental impacts associated
with industrial systems. The technique examines the inputs and outputs from every stage of
the life cycle from the extraction of raw materials, through manufacturing, distribution,
use/reuse, and then final disposal. In the context of an integrated waste management system,
an LCA tracks the energy and environmental burdens associated with all stages of waste
management, including waste collection, transfer, materials recovery, treatment, and final
disposal. For each waste management stage, or operation, energy/material inputs and
emissions and energy/material outputs are calculated as depicted in Figure 6-1. The energy
and emissions associated with fuels, electrical energy, and material inputs also are captured.
Similarly, the potential benefits of the process associated with energy and/or materials
recovery displacing (avoiding) energy and/or materials production from virgin resources are
captured.
As an example, one stage of the waste management process is waste collection, which will
contribute to NO
x
emissions through the combustion of diesel fuel by the collection vehicles.
The City of Los Angeles curbside collection trucks are fueled with liquid natural gas and low
sulfur diesel at a ratio of 80 to 20, respectively. The collection model calculates the quantity
of fuel consumed based upon the amount of waste generated, number of households, travel
distances, and vehicle fuel efficiency. In addition, the model accounts for upstream fuel-
related NO
x
emissions associated with petroleum extraction and diesel fuel production, as
well as maintenance garage and office activities.
Waste collection is just one waste management operation. If the landfilling scenario is
considered, the NO
x
emissions from all of the stages in the life cycle are calculated by
summing the life cycle NO
x
emissions from waste collection, transfer station, transportation,
SECTION 6.0 LIFE CYCLE ANALYSIS

6-2
FIGURE 6-1
LIFE CYCLE INPUTS AND OUTPUTS OF A
WASTE MANAGEMENT PROCESS

Waste Management
Process (e.g., WTE)
Solid
Waste
Energy
(power/steam)


Energy Materials
Air
Emissions
Water
Pollution
Residual
Wastes
Waste Management
Process
Solid
Waste
Energy
(power/steam)
Energy Materials
Air
Emissions
Water
Pollution
Residual
Wastes
Recovered Materials
(for recycling)

All waste management processes that comprise an integrated waste management system consume
energy and materials and produce emissions. Some processes, such as advanced thermal recycling,,
recover energy and materials. The benefits associated with any energy or materials recovered are
captured in the life cycle study.
and landfill, as shown in Figure 6-2. The NO
x
emission offsets (i.e., avoided emissions) from
energy recovery at the landfill are subtracted from this value to obtain the net total life cycle
NO
x
emissions for the landfill scenario.
FIGURE 6-2
CALCULATION OF TOTAL LIFE CYCLE NO
x
EMISSIONS FOR A
LANDFILL-BASED WASTE MANAGEMENT SCENARIO

Total Net
Life Cycle
NOx Emissions
=
Collection
NOx Emissions
Transfer Station
NOx Emissions
Landfill
NOx Emissions
Utility Sector
NOx Emissions
Offset
Transportation
NOx Emissions
+ - + +
Total Net
Life Cycle
NOx Emissions
=
Collection
NOx Emissions
Transfer Station
NOx Emissions
Landfill
NOx Emissions
Utility Sector
NOx Emissions
Offset
Transportation
NOx Emissions
+ - + +

The MSW decision support tool (MSW DST) is a computer-based model used by RTI to
complete the life cycle inventory for the alternative waste disposal technologies and
traditional MSW management options for the City of Los Angeles. This model was
developed by RTI over a period of ten years, in cooperation with the United States
Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) Office of Research and Development. The
MSW DST has undergone extensive stakeholder input and peer review (as well as a separate
SECTION 6.0 LIFE CYCLE ANALYSIS

6-3
peer review by the USEPA) and is regarded as a cutting-edge software tool that can help
solid waste planners make more informed decisions. The MSW DST was used as the
foundation of a conversion technologies life cycle study recently completed for the California
Integrated Waste Management Board (CIWMB).
The data and results generated from the LCA are used to evaluate the life cycle
environmental benefits, burdens, and tradeoffs of alternative waste disposal technologies
versus more traditional MSW management options, with the overall goal of identifying
strategies that are environmentally sustainable. In this respect, an LCA can be a valuable tool
to ensure that a given technology creates actual environmental improvements rather than just
transferring environmental burdens from one life cycle stage to another or from one
environmental medium to another. This study is also useful for screening waste management
strategies to identify the key drivers behind their environmental performance.
6.3 THE CIWMB CONVERSION TECHNOLOGY LIFE CYCLE STUDY
RTI recently completed a study for the CIWMB to analyze the potential life cycle
environmental and market impacts of advanced thermal recycling facilities and MSW
conversion technologies for the Los Angeles and San Francisco regions. These impacts were
then compared to traditional waste management methods, including landfilling, composting
and recycling.
The life cycle study focused on the issues that demonstrate greatest differentiation between
advanced thermal recycling or conversion technologies, and existing traditional solid waste
management processes. These issues were:
Energy Consumption. Energy is consumed by all waste management activities (e.g.,
collection, material recovery facilities [MRFs], transportation, treatment, disposal), as
well as by the processes to produce energy and material inputs that are included in the life
cycle inventory. Energy offsets can result from the production of fuels or electrical
energy and from the recycling of materials
NO
x
Emissions. NO
x
emissions, a criteria pollutant, are largely the result of fuel
combustion processes. NO
x
emission offsets can result from the displacement of
combustion activities, mainly fuels and electrical energy production
SO
x
Emissions. SO
x
emissions also a criteria pollutant, are largely the result of fuel
combustion processes. Likewise, SO
x
emission offsets can result from the displacement
of combustion activities, mainly fuels and electrical energy production, as well as the use
of lower sulfur-containing fuels.
Carbon Monoxide. Carbon monoxide is a component of motor vehicle exhaust, which is
the largest source of CO; other sources include industrial processes, and power
production. CO contributes to the formation of smog.
SECTION 6.0 LIFE CYCLE ANALYSIS

6-4
Carbon Emissions. Carbon emissions contribute to the greenhouse effect; thus, these
emissions can lead to climate change and its associated impacts. Carbon emissions can
result from the combustion of fossil fuels and the biodegradation of organic materials (for
example, methane gas from landfills). Offsets of carbon emissions can result from the
displacement of fossil fuels, materials recycling, and the diversion of organic wastes from
landfills.
The report concluded that the main advantage that thermal technologies have over landfilling
is the reduction of material that is landfilled. Rather, this material is converted into a product
that has a higher and better use such as electricity or alternative fuels. Another advantage is
the reduction of post-closure landfill maintenance and long-term liability, since the landfilled
residues would be inert.
The life cycle studies performed by RTI for the CIWMB formed the basis for the life cycle
inventory presented in the following section.
It is important to point out that this life cycle analysis is based upon generalized technology
concepts, and is not definitive with regard to a specific technology design evaluated in this
study. The purpose of this LCA is to illuminate significant differences between existing
waste management processes, such as landfilling, with alternative MSW processing
technologies, including thermal and biological.
6.4 ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVE MSW PROCESSING TECHNOLOGIES FOR
THE CITY OF LOS ANGELES
For this study, life cycle environmental profiles were developed for four alternative
integrated MSW management scenarios for the current black bin post-source separated MSW
in Los Angeles:
1) Collection, transfer, and disposal in a conventional landfill, with landfill gas collection
for the generation of electricity
2) Collection and transfer of the post-source separated MSW to and combustion in a thermal
recycling facility to generate electricity with recovery of metals from the bottom ash and
disposal of the bottom ash in a landfill
3) Collection and transfer of the post-source separated MSW to an alternative waste disposal
facility, with gasification of the carbonaceous waste constituents and recovery of metal
and glass and disposal of residuals in a conventional landfill
4) Collection and transfer of the post-source separated MSW to an alternative waste disposal
facility, with anaerobic digestion of the biodegradable wastes, and recovery of metal and
glass with disposal of residuals in a landfill
SECTION 6.0 LIFE CYCLE ANALYSIS

6-5
The analysis was conducted using RTIs MSW DST. Additional information about the MSW
DST is provided in Appendix D.
The following basic assumptions were applied to the three scenarios evaluated:
1,000,000 tons of solid waste per year is managed under each scenario considered.
The waste composition of the post-source separated MSW is based on characterization
data as supplied by URS from Cascadia (see Table 6-1). This annual data was judged to
be more applicable to the life cycle inventory than the August 2004 sampling conducted
in this study. At any rate, these databases are quite similar.
6.4.1 Scenario Development
Additional details regarding each scenario are provided in the following sections.
6.4.1.1 Scenario 1 Waste Disposal in a Landfill
This scenario models a truck transfer to landfill scenario and is illustrated in Figure 6-3.
Assumptions related to this scenario are as follows:
Fifty percent of waste is hauled directly to the landfill.
Fifty percent of waste is hauled to transfer station and then to the landfill via transfer
trailer truck.
The average distance from the collection truck route to the transfer station is 10 miles.
Transfer trailer truck haul distance from the transfer station to the landfill is 25 miles.
Landfill is a Subtitle D landfill with a liner system and gas collection system with
electricity generation via internal combustion engines.
6.4.1.2 Scenario 2 Advanced Thermal Recycling (ATR)
This scenario models an advanced thermal recycling facility located in the City of Los
Angeles and is illustrated in Figure 6-4. We assumed that this facility is a new, efficient and
equipped with advanced emission controls, capable of generating electrical power for sale.
The process for advanced thermal recycling is shown in Figure 6-5. The advanced thermal
recycling facility would have three processing trains, each equipped with air emission control
equipment that would include selective non-catalytic reduction (SNCR), spray dry absorbers
with fabric filters (SDA/FF), and carbon injection. The electricity generated by this facility is
assumed to offset the average mix in fuels used for electrical energy production based on the
Western States Coordinating Council power grid: 41% coal, 0.5% oil, 15% natural gas,
12.5% nuclear, 30% hydro, and 1% wood.
SECTION 6.0 LIFE CYCLE ANALYSIS

6-6
TABLE 6-1
LOS ANGELES WASTE COMPOSITION
Greater Los Angeles Area Percent Composition
Total Paper 22.70%
Cardboard 2.30%
Paper bags 1.00%
Newspaper 4.40%
Office paper 0.50%
Ledger paper 0.70%
Magazines and catalogs 1.30%
Miscellaneous paper 5.00%
Remainder (mix) 7.40%
Total Glass 2.10%
Clear bottles 1.10%
Green bottles 0.40%
Brown bottles 0.40%
Other glass 0.20%
Total Metal 4.80%
Ferrous containers 1.40%
Other ferrous 1.10%
Aluminum cans 0.20%
Other aluminum 0.42%
Other non-ferrous 0.20%
Electronics/remainder 1.80%
Total Plastics 10.00%
HDPE containers 0.70%
PETE containers 0.60%
Miscellaneous plastic containers 0.60%
Film plastic 4.50%
Durable plastic 1.10%
Remainder 2.60%
Total Organic 46.70%
Food 26.90%
Grass/leaves 5.20%
Trimmings 2.80%
Branches 0.40%
Textiles 2.80%
Remainder/composite organic 8.60%
Total Construction and Demolition 9.40%
Concrete 1.10%
Lumber 3.50%
Gypsum board 0.60%
Rock, soil, and fines 2.70%
Remainder 1.20%
SECTION 6.0 LIFE CYCLE ANALYSIS

TABLE 6-1 (CONTINUED)
LOS ANGELES WASTE COMPOSITION
6-7
Greater Los Angeles Area Percent Composition
Total Household Hazardous 0.30%
Used oil 0.10%
Batteries 0.10%
Remainder 0.10%
Total Special Waste 0.50%
Ash 0.10%
Bulky items 0.30%
Remainder 0.10%
Total Mixed Residue 3.50%
Mixed residue 3.50%
Total 100.00%

FIGURE 6-3
LANDFILL SCENARIO ILLUSTRATION
Black-Bin
Collection
Truck Transfer
Station
Landfill
50% Direct Haul
50% Black-Bin
Collection
Truck Transfer
Station
Landfill
Black-Bin
Collection
Truck Transfer
Station
Landfill
50% Direct Haul
50%

FIGURE 6-4
ADVANCED THERMAL RECYCLING SCENARIO ILLUSTRATION

Black - Bin
Collection
Transfer
Station
WTE
Combustion
Metals
Recycling
50%
50% Direct Haul
Ash
Landfill
Black - Bin
Collection
Transfer
Station
ATR
Combustion
Metals
Recycling
50%
50% Direct Haul
Ash
Landfill

The process flow diagram shows only major process areas; for simplification, not all internal process
streams are shown.
SECTION 6.0 LIFE CYCLE ANALYSIS

6-8
FIGURE 6-5
ADVANCED THERMAL RECYCLING PROCESS DIAGRAM
Black-bin
W aste
Metals
Recovery
from Ash
Tipping
Floor/
Holding
Area
Electrical
Energy
Production
Steam
Generator
Bank
Combustion
Chamber
Metals
to
Recycling
Ash
Disposal/
Reuse
Feed
Hopper
Baghouse
Filter
Scrubber
Reactor
Boiler
Chimney
Stack
Steam
Flue Gas
Heat
Fi lter Cake
Disposal
Black-bin
W aste
Metals
Recovery
from Ash
Tipping
Floor/
Holding
Area
Electrical
Energy
Production
Steam
Generator
Bank
Combustion
Chamber
Metals
to
Recycling
Ash
Disposal/
Reuse
Feed
Hopper
Baghouse
Filter
Scrubber
Reactor
Boiler
Chimney
Stack
Steam
Flue Gas
Heat
Fi lter Cake
Disposal

The process flow diagram shows only major process areas; for simplification, not all
internal process streams are shown.
We also assumed that the facility would be equipped with post-combustion ferrous and non-
ferrous metal recovery systems for recycling purposes. Using a magnet, the ferrous metal
recovery rate from the combustion ash was assumed to be 90%. The facility would separate
fly ash and bottom ash, and reuse the bottom ash.
Collection and transportation assumptions were as follows:
Fifty percent of waste hauled directly to the advanced thermal recycling facility
Fifty percent of waste hauled to transfer station and then to advanced thermal recycling
facility via transfer trailer truck
Twenty-five miles one-way for ash hauled from the advanced thermal recycling facility
to a landfill
Twenty-five miles one-way for waste hauled by transfer truck from Transfer Station to
the advanced thermal recycling facility
Ten miles one-way by packer truck from collection route to Transfer Station
The assumptions listed above are reasonable approximations. If these assumptions were to
vary significantly, but still be within the expected range of possibility, the effect on the
SECTION 6.0 LIFE CYCLE ANALYSIS

6-9
overall modeled results would be minor. The same is also true for the other modeled
scenarios described below.
6.4.1.3 Scenario 3 Waste Conversion via Pyrolysis/Gasification
This scenario models a waste conversion system using a pyrolysis/gasification technology
(Brightstar Environmental process) as illustrated in Figure 6-6. In gasification, the feedstock
is converted to syngas, primarily CO and H
2
, in an oxygen-deficient atmosphere. Gasification
is compatible with the organic fraction (e.g., yard wastes, wood wastes) and plastic fraction
of the MSW feedstock. Metal, glass, and other recyclables are typically removed in the pre-
processing subsystem. Electricity produced by the facility can be readily integrated into the
power grid.
FIGURE 6-6
PYROLYSIS/GASIFICATION SCENARIO ILLUSTRATION

Black - Bin
Collection
Transfer
Station
WTE
Combustion
Metals
Recycling
50%
50% Direct Haul
Ash
Landfill
Black - Bin
Collection
Transfer
Station
Gasification
Metals &
Glass
Recycling
50%
50% Direct Haul
Ash
Landfill

The process flow diagram shows only major process areas; for simplification, not all internal process
streams are shown.
The detailed process for waste gasification is illustrated in Figure 6-7 and described in the
following section.
Following pre-processing, the feedstock is sent to the main gasification area, where the
feedstock is heated, pyrolyzed, and reformed into syngas, bio-oils, and char. The char is
recovered from the other products via a cyclone, cooled with a water quench, and sent off-
site for disposal. The syngas and bio-oils are scrubbed and cooled to recover bio-oil. Heavy
bio-oils and some of the syngas are combusted to provide the indirect heat needed for
pyrolysis. The majority of the syngas and the light bio-oils are combusted in reciprocating
engines to generate electricity. Waste heat from the engines is converted to steam and hot
water for use in the process and for export to MSW processing. The engine exhaust will be
subject to air emission controls. At a minimum, CO, NO
x
, and VOC controls will likely be
required. For large facilities (for example, greater than 2 MW) such as the one proposed, a
combination oxidation catalyst and selective catalytic reduction (SCR) is used.
SECTION 6.0 LIFE CYCLE ANALYSIS

6-10
FIGURE 6-7
PYROLYSIS/GASIFICATION PROCESS FLOW DIAGRAM
Processed
Waste
Gasifier /
Reformer
Centrifuge
Water Cooler/
Treatment
Cyclone
Gas
Scrubber
De -
Emulsifier
Air Pollution
Control
Engine/
Generator
Set
Waste Heat
Recovery
Gas
Cooler
Mix Tank
Processed
Waste
Gasifier /
Reformer
Centrifuge
Water Cooler/
Treatment
Cyclone
Gas
Scrubber
De -
Emulsifier
Air Pollution
Control
Engine/
Generator
Set
Waste Heat
Recovery
Gas
Cooler
Mix Tank

The process flow diagram shows only major process areas; for simplification, not all internal process
streams are shown.
Process inputs are composed of MSW, combustion air, water, ammonia, and catalysts.
Electricity, wastewater, spent catalysts, char/bottom ash mixture, emulsified bio-oil, and
combustion emissions are the process outputs.
Gasification produces air emissions (for example, NO
x
) from the engines and the pyrolysis
burners. However, all emissions are expected to be controlled with SCR and oxidation
catalysts. Air toxics such as metals and dioxins are expected to be minimal.
Table 6-2 provides a summary of the key assumptions used in the gasification, advanced
thermal recycling and landfill scenarios.
6.4.1.4 Scenario 4 Bioconversion
This scenario models a waste conversion system using an anaerobic digestion technology, as
illustrated in Figure 6-8. Anaerobic digestion is a biological treatment process by which
organic wastes are fermented in anaerobic conditions to produce biogas and a stable compost.
A generic design for a MSW anaerobic digestion facility is shown in Figure 6-9. For an
anaerobic digestion facility accepting MSW, the facility will need to include preprocessing of
the incoming MSW to remove non-degradable recyclables such as metal, glass, and plastic as
well as non-degradable non-recyclable materials (e.g., concrete, dirt, rock, non-recyclable
scrap). Some facilities also recover high-grade paper for recycling. For purposes of this
analysis, we assume that the anaerobic digestion facility recovers metals (ferrous and
aluminum), glass, and plastic for recycling. All paper wastes are assumed to be throughput to
the digester.
SECTION 6.0 LIFE CYCLE ANALYSIS

6-11
TABLE 6-2
KEY ASSUMPTIONS USED IN GASIFICATION,
ADVANCED THERMAL RECYCLING, & LANDFILL SCENARIOS
Parameter Assumption
General
Waste Generation 1,000,000 tons/year
Waste Composition Los Angeles post recovery
1
Waste Collection Frequency 1 time per week
Transportation Distances
Collection to Transfer Station 10 miles one way
Transfer Station to Landfill 25 miles one way
Transfer Station to WTE Facility 25 miles one way
Transfer Station to CT Facility 25 miles one way
WTE Facility to Ash Landfill 25 miles one way
CT Facility to Landfill 25 miles one way
Gasification Facility
Basic design Pyrolysis w/steam reforming; 360,000 tons/year capacity; 16 MW net output
Glass recycling rate 50%
Metal recycling rate 70%
Process contamination rate 5% (percent of glass and metal that pass through)
Product Syngas
Energy recovery system Internal combustion engines
Advanced Thermal Recycling
Basic Design Advanced thermal recycling
Heat Rate 15,000 Btu/kWh
Waste Input Heating Value Varies by waste constituent
Metals Recovery Rate 90% ferrous from ash
Utility Sector Offset Offset is based on the average Western States Coordinating Council grid mix
Landfill
Basic Design Subtitle D with liner
Time Period for Calculating Emissions 100 years
Landfill Gas Collection Efficiency 75%
Landfill Gas Management Gas collection and energy recovery using internal combustion engines
Utility Sector Offset Offset is based on the average Western States Coordinating Council grid mix
1
From Cascadia.

SECTION 6.0 LIFE CYCLE ANALYSIS

6-12
FIGURE 6-8
WASTE CONVERSION (ANAEROBIC DIGESTION) SCENARIO
Black-Bin
Collection
Transfer
Station
Anaerobic
Digestion
Materials
Recycling
50%
50% Direct Haul
Landfill
Product
Black-Bin
Collection
Transfer
Station
Anaerobic
Digestion
Materials
Recycling
50%
50% Direct Haul
Landfill
Product

FIGURE 6-9
ANAEROBIC DIGESTION PROCESS FLOW DIAGRAM
Black-bin
Waste
Materials
Recovery
Organics
Separation
Inorganics
Processing
Power/Heat
Recovery
Screw
Press
Engine/
Generator
Set
Anaerobic
Digester
Liquids
Buffer Tank
Solids
Finishing Compost
Residuals
Disposal
Wastewater
Treatment
Nutrient
Recovery
Black-bin
Waste
Materials
Recovery
Organics
Separation
Inorganics
Processing
Power/Heat
Recovery
Screw
Press
Engine/
Generator
Set
Anaerobic
Digester
Liquids
Buffer Tank
Solids
Finishing Compost
Residuals
Disposal
Wastewater
Treatment
Nutrient
Recovery
Black-bin
Waste
Materials
Recovery
Organics
Separation
Inorganics
Processing
Power/Heat
Recovery
Screw
Press
Engine/
Generator
Set
Anaerobic
Digester
Liquids
Buffer Tank
Solids
Finishing Compost
Residuals
Disposal
Wastewater
Treatment
Nutrient
Recovery

SECTION 6.0 LIFE CYCLE ANALYSIS

6-13
After the preprocessing stage, the organic fraction is sent to the anaerobic digestion tank
where anaerobic microorganisms convert the organic materials into biogas. The biogas
produced is high in methane content (55-65%) and is used to power internal combustion
engines to produce electrical energy. A range of 20-50% of the electrical energy is used for
internal power requirements and the remaining 50-80% is exported to the regional electrical
energy grid. The portion of the organic materials not converted to biogas is recovered,
dewatered, and can be sold as a compost product or for soil amendment. The liquid portion
has a high nutrient content and can be reused in the process, applied to soil as a fertilizer, or
treated and released to the sewer. For this analysis, it was assumed that the liquid process
waste is reused and any remaining portion treated and released to the sewer.
The integrated waste management system design for the anaerobic digestion scenario is
illustrated in Figure 6-8. In the anaerobic digestion scenario, 1,000,000 TPY of post-source
separated MSW is collected and it is assumed that half of the waste is direct-hauled to the
anaerobic digestion facility and half first is routed through a transfer station.
As the waste arrives at the anaerobic digestion facility, it is processed to remove inorganic
and other unwanted materials. It is assumed that 5% (by mass) of the incoming MSW is
recovered for recycling, 25% is unwanted and/or non-recyclable material that is disposed of
in a landfill, and the remaining 70% is usable organic waste for input into the anaerobic
digestion process.
The products of the anaerobic digestion process include biogas, a solid compost fraction, and
a nutrient rich liquid fraction. It is assumed that the biogas is used to power internal
combustion engine generators to produce electrical energy. It is assumed that the solid
compost fraction is applied to the land as a soil amendment (but does not offset the use of
fertilizers or other amendments), and assumed that the liquid waste is recirculated into the
process.
Table 6-3 contains a summary of the key assumptions used in the anaerobic digestion
scenario.
6.4.2 Results
The summary level results for each scenario analyzed are shown in Table 6-4. These results
are presented as net life cycle totals for each scenario. Therefore, a positive value represents
a net life cycle burden, whereas a negative value represents a net life cycle benefit, savings or
avoidance. For example, a negative value for energy consumption in the advanced thermal
recycling, anaerobic digestion, and conversion technology scenarios means that more energy
is generated than consumed, Significant energy offsets are also created through the recovery
and recycling of metals. Detailed results by scenario are included in Appendix D of this
report.
SECTION 6.0 LIFE CYCLE ANALYSIS

6-14
TABLE 6-3
KEY ASSUMPTIONS USED IN AD SCENARIO
Parameter Data/Assumption
Anaerobic Digestion Facility
Basic design High-solids; single stage
Incoming BB waste composition See Table 6-2
Incoming BB waste tonnage (wet) 1,000,000 TPY
Incoming BB waste recovered for recycling 5%
Incoming BB waste as rejects landfilled 25%
Incoming BB waste as AD throughput 70%
Total Solids 70% of wet mass (based on composition)

BVS Conversion Efficiency 75% of BVS
Products Biogas; compost; liquid nutrients
Energy Recovery System ICE generator set (33% conversion efficiency)
Material Recovery Rates 75% of incoming glass and plastic; 90% of
incoming ferrous and aluminum.
Internal power load 30% of power produced
Exported power 70% of power produced
Transportation Distances
From collection route to AD facility 15 miles
From collection route to transfer station 10 miles
From transfer station to AD facility 25 miles
From AD facility to landfill 25 miles
From AD facility to materials remanufacturing Varies by material

TABLE 6-4
SUMMARY LEVEL RESULTS FOR THE SCENARIOS ANALYZED FOR
LOS ANGELES (PER 1,000,000 TONS OF WASTE MANAGED)
Parameter Units Landfill ATR Gasification AD
Energy Consumption MBTU 168,879 -7,979,688 -10,618,761 -4,698,885
Air Emissions
Total Particulate Matter lb -7,576 -676,023 -1,440,538 -717,400
Nitrogen Oxides lb 1,063,535 -139,325 -2,487,030 156,285
Sulfur Oxides lb -1,721,492 -4,219,963 -7,291,912 -2,298,109
Carbon Monoxide lb 2,441,973 126,226 -3,575,318 -379,452
Green House Equivalents MTCE 752,701 -18,279 -78,601 -41,945

SECTION 6.0 LIFE CYCLE ANALYSIS

6-15
6.4.2.1 Net Energy Consumption
Energy, in the form of fuels and electricity, is directly consumed by all waste management
activities (e.g., collection, transportation, treatment, disposal). Energy is also indirectly
consumed in the production of energy and material inputs that are used by waste
management activities. Both direct and indirect consumption of energy are included in the
study.
The table below is the same from the first draft, except this time all the information is not
shown.
Energy is also produced by many waste management activities (e.g., advanced thermal
recycling, landfill gas-to-energy, anaerobic digestion, gasification). If the energy produced by
a waste management system is greater than the direct and indirect energy consumed, then
there is a net energy offset or savings. The benefit of this offset is that emissions associated
with fossil fuel extraction, processing, transportation and combustion are avoided. Energy is
an important parameter in life cycle studies, because it often drives the results of the study
due to the significant amounts of air and water emissions associated with energy production.
As shown in Figure 6-10, the advanced thermal recycling and gasification scenarios for the
City of Los Angeles result in large net energy savings. Anaerobic digestion also creates some
energy savings, although only about half the savings from the thermal technologies.
FIGURE 6-10
ANNUAL NET ENERGY CONSUMPTION BY SCENARIO
-12,000,000
-10,000,000
-8,000,000
-6,000,000
-4,000,000
-2,000,000
0
2,000,000
N
e
t

E
n
e
r
g
y

C
o
n
s
u
m
p
t
i
o
n

(
M
B
t
u
)
ATR Landfill Gasification AD

SECTION 6.0 LIFE CYCLE ANALYSIS

6-16
The net energy savings attributed to the advanced thermal recycling and gasification
scenarios can be summarized as resulting from two key aspects:
Electrical energy produced by combusting the MSW (ATR), or syngas (gasification)
offsets electrical energy produced in the utility sector.
Materials recovered (primarily metal and glass) from the advanced thermal recycling and
gasification offset the extraction of virgin resources and production of virgin materials.
The anaerobic digestion scenario also resulted in a net energy savings. This energy savings is
due to two primary aspects:
Biogas production and utilization to produce electrical energy that is exported to the
electrical energy grid and offsets the production of electrical energy by the utility sector.
Recovery and recycling of glass, metals, and plastic, which offsets the production of
glass, metals, and plastic from virgin resources thus saving energy. This aspect
contributes almost 99% of the total life cycle energy savings.
The landfill with landfill gas collection and electricity generation scenario is a net energy
consumer.
Similar to findings in the CIWMB study, the energy savings potential resulting from the
additional materials recycling is a significant side benefit of the gasification and anaerobic
digestion technologies and contributes approximately twenty percent of the total net energy
savings.
6.4.2.2 Criteria Pollutants
In general, emissions of criteria air emissions, including particulate matter, SO
x
, NO
x
, and
CO, are lower (i.e., exhibit a savings) for the advanced thermal recycling, gasification, and
anaerobic digestion scenarios than for the landfill scenario, as shown in Figure 6-11. This is
largely due to the electrical energy and recycling offsets created by these technologies. The
electrical energy offset in particular is highly correlated to criteria air emissions. The
anaerobic digestion alternative performs about on par with advanced thermal recycling and
gasification, except that it has higher net NO
x
emissions.
6.4.2.2.1 Particulate Emissions. Particulate matter, or PM, is the term for particles found
in the air, including dust, dirt, soot, smoke, and liquid droplets. Particles can be suspended in
the air for long periods of time. They come from a variety of sources and, in the case of
waste management and this study, result largely from fuel combustion in trucks, combustion
of waste, and combustion of fuel for the production of electrical energy. PM is a major
source of haze that reduces visibility, and leads to health effects associated with lung and
heart disease.
SECTION 6.0 LIFE CYCLE ANALYSIS

6-17
FIGURE 6-11
ANNUAL NET POUNDS OF CRITERIA AIR EMISSIONS BY SCENARIO
-8,000,000
-6,000,000
-4,000,000
-2,000,000
0
2,000,000
4,000,000
. . . .
P
o
u
n
d
s

o
f

C
r
i
t
e
r
i
a

A
i
r

E
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
s
ATR
Landfill
Gasification
AD
Particulate
Matter (PM)
Nitrogen
Oxides (NOx)
Sulfur
Oxides (SOx)
Carbon
Monoxide (CO)

As shown in Figure 6-11, advanced thermal recycling, gasification, and anaerobic digestion
showed the lowest net levels of PM emissions. Although the combustion of MSW or syngas
to produce electrical energy generates PM emissions, the net avoidance is a result of
significant offsets of PM emissions associated with the production of electricity and recovery
and the recycling of materials.
The landfill scenario showed a small net savings of PM emissions. The PM associated with
the landfill scenario largely results from the collection and transfer of waste and the fuel
combusted by landfill equipment, such as graders, front-end loaders and compactors.
6.4.2.2.2 Nitrogen Oxide Emissions. NO
x
emissions can lead to such environmental
impacts as smog production, acid deposition, and decreased visibility. NO
x
emissions are
largely the result of fuel combustion processes. Likewise, NO
x
emission offsets can result
from the displacement of combustion activities, mainly fuels and electrical energy
production.
Figure 6-11 illustrates that gasification showed the lowest net levels of NO
x
emissions and
resulted in a significant net NO
x
emissions avoidance. Although the gasification process,
namely the combustion of the syngas to produce electrical energy, generates some NO
x

emissions, the net avoidance is a result of significant offsets of NO
x
emissions associated
with the production of electricity and recovery and the recycling of materials.
SECTION 6.0 LIFE CYCLE ANALYSIS

6-18
Advanced thermal recycling also showed a net NO
x
offset associated with electrical energy,
as well as metal and other solid resources recycling offsets. The anaerobic digestion scenario
showed slightly positive net levels of NO
x
emissions. The significant sources of NO
x

emissions for anaerobic digestion include waste collection and the AD process itself.
The landfill scenario showed the highest levels of NO
x
emissions. The NO
x
associated with
the landfill scenario largely results from the collection and transfer of waste and fuel
combusted by landfill equipment, such as graders, front-end loaders and compactors.
6.4.2.2.3 Sulfur Oxide Emissions. SO
x
emissions can lead to such environmental impacts
as acid deposition, corrosion, and decreased visibility. Similar to NO
x
, SO
x
emissions are
largely the result of fuel combustion processes. Likewise, SO
x
emission offsets can result by
using alternative combustion systems, mainly fuel and electrical energy production, as well
as the use of lower sulfur-containing fuel.
As shown in Figure 6-11, advanced thermal recycling and gasification resulted in the lowest
levels of SO
x
emissions and a significant net avoidance of SO
x
emissions results for electrical
energy production and metals and glass recovery and recycling.
The anaerobic digestion and landfill scenarios exhibited comparable net SO
x
emission
savings. These savings were the result of the offsets of fossil fuel production and combustion
in the utility sector for the landfill scenario.
6.4.2.2.4 Carbon Monoxide Emissions. Carbon monoxide, or CO, is a colorless, odorless
gas that is formed when carbon in fuel is not burned completely. It is a component of motor
vehicle exhaust, which contributes about 56% of all CO emissions nationwide. Other sources
of CO emissions include industrial processes, such as metal processing and chemical
manufacturing, and power production. CO contributes to the formation of smog, which can
trigger serious respiratory problems.
As shown in Figure 6-11, gasification showed the lowest net levels of CO emissions and was
the only scenario that exhibited a net CO emissions saving. Although the gasification
process, namely the combustion of the syngas to produce electrical energy, generates CO
emissions, the net avoidance is a result of significant offsets of CO emissions associated with
the production of electricity and recovery and the recycling of materials.
The anaerobic digestion scenario exhibited slightly negative net levels of CO emissions. The
primary contributor to CO emissions is the AD engine/generator set.
The advanced thermal recycling scenario showed slight positive net CO emissions.
The landfill scenario showed strong positive net CO emissions. The CO associated with the
landfill scenario largely results from the collection and transfer of waste, the combustion of
SECTION 6.0 LIFE CYCLE ANALYSIS

6-19
landfill gas, and the fuel combusted by landfill equipment, such as graders, front-end loaders
and compactors.
6.4.2.2.5 Carbon Emissions. Carbon emissions contribute to the greenhouse effect.
Carbon emissions result from the combustion of fossil fuels and the biodegradation of
organic materials (e.g., methane gas from landfills). Offsets of carbon emissions can result
from the displacement of fossil fuels, materials recycling, and the diversion of organic wastes
from landfills. Carbon emissions are expressed in units of metric ton of carbon equivalent
(MTCE), which is derived as follows:
[(Fossil CO
2
*1 + CH
4
*21)*12/44] / 2000
Note that methane has a 21x multiplier compared to CO
2
with regard to impact on
greenhouse gas activity.
As shown in Figure 6-12, the advanced thermal recycling, gasification, and anaerobic
digestion, scenarios exhibited net carbon emission savings.
FIGURE 6-12
ANNUAL NET METRIC TONS OF CARBON EQUIVALENT BY SCENARIO
-200,000
-100,000
0
100,000
200,000
300,000
400,000
500,000
600,000
700,000
800,000
. . . .
N
e
t

C
a
r
b
o
n

E
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
s

(
M
T
C
E
)
ATR Landfill Gasification AD

The landfill scenario produced the highest levels of carbon emissions, largely due to the
landfill gas (methane) that is not captured by the gas collection system. The gas collection
system was assumed to have had a gas collection system efficiency of 75 percent (i.e., 25
percent of the gas generated vented to the atmosphere). Without any gas collection, the
landfill scenario would produce much higher levels of carbon emissions.
SECTION 6.0 LIFE CYCLE ANALYSIS

6-20
6.5 CONCLUSIONS
The results of the analysis show that incorporating an alternative waste processing
technology as part of the Citys integrated waste management system would be an attractive
option for black bin post-source separated MSW, from a life cycle environmental
perspective. Each of the waste processing technologies evaluated (advanced thermal
recycling, gasification, and anaerobic digestion) will provide substantial savings/reductions
with respect to energy consumption, air emissions of criteria pollutants, and carbon
emissions/climate change issues. This result is especially evident when comparing landfilling
of post-source separated MSW versus treating this material in an advanced thermal waste
processing facility.
The advanced thermal recycling and gasification scenarios exhibited about twice the net
annual energy savings as the anaerobic digestion scenario. This energy savings results from a
combination of syngas and electrical energy production, as well as from materials recovery
and recycling. For example, if a 250,000-ton per year thermal conversion facility replaced
this quantity of post-source separated MSW going to the landfill, the energy savings would
be about 2.6 million MBtu, which is equivalent to a 30 MW power plant operating for one
year.
For the criteria air emissions, the advanced thermal recycling and gasification scenarios also
performed generally better than the anaerobic digestion, or landfilling options. The reduced
transportation needed to bring waste to the landfill contributed to the air emission reductions
offered by advanced thermal recycling and gasification, and anaerobic digestion. For
example, if a 250,000-ton per year thermal conversion facility replaced this quantity of post-
source separated MSW going to the landfill, about 425 tons of NO
x
emissions per year would
be saved (avoided), which is equivalent to the NO
x
emissions emitted from a 975 MW
natural gas-fired power plant operating for a year.
Carbon emissions, which contribute to greenhouse gas/climate change impacts, would be
reduced substantially by replacing landfilling with an alternative waste disposal technology.
For example, if 250,000 tons of black bin post-source separated MSW were diverted to a
thermal conversion facility from landfilling, this would reduce carbon emissions by about
200,000 tons per year, which is equivalent to the carbon emissions from a 130 MW natural
gas-fired power plant operating for a year.
In summary, the key advantage that alternative waste processing facilities have over
landfilling the post-source separated MSW is the significant reduction of material that is
landfilled and converted into products that have a higher and better use, such as electricity. In
addition, because most of the residuals from these technologies are inert, there will be a
reduction in post-closure landfill maintenance and long-term liability.
COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVE MSW
SECTION 7.0 PROCESSING TECHNOLOGIES AND TECHNOLOGY SUPPLIERS

7-1
7.1 INTRODUCTION
The purpose of the comparative analysis is to determine which alternative MSW waste
processing technologies are most suitable for treating the Citys black bin post-source
separated MSW. This objective is accomplished by first evaluating the qualifications
submitted by the suppliers representing these technologies, followed by a determination of
which technology groups should be brought forward in the study. Essentially, the data
provided by suppliers were used as indicators of the technology groups.
Evaluating the alternative MSW processing technologies and the suppliers of the various
technologies is a complex task, with multiple dimensions. There are significant differences in
the technology groups being considered (i.e., thermal and biological MSW treatment
processing), and the specific technologies offered by suppliers within the technology groups
vary widely. Even suppliers of similar technologies, i.e., gasification, have very different
designs for their gasifiers, such as fixed bed or fluid bed reactors, as well as differences in
how they address pre-processing and power generation. Furthermore, the analysis can only
be based upon the data submitted by the various suppliers; this data, in some cases was quite
detailed, and in other instances, less so.
Data provided by the suppliers at this stage of the study is preliminary and subject to change.
This report illustrates and presents this information only for the purpose of a general
comparison of technologies. Because of the preliminary nature of the data provided, the
study generally focused on outliers among the data, in order to identify fatal flaws or major
technical or economic issues. A formal RFP process, utilizing a detailed engineering
specification, would provide more certain and detailed capital and operations and
maintenance (O&M) costs, and more accurate revenues from byproduct sales.
A number of technical and economic assumptions were made to levelize the data submitted
by the suppliers and to facilitate analysis (see Section 5.2.1).
The first step in the assessment of alternatives was to analyze a number of factors that make
it possible to differentiate among technology groups and individual alternatives within
groups (see Section 7.2).
In the second step, the data compiled in Section 7.2 was compared to the project objectives to
identify any fatal flaws (see Section 7.3).
The third step in the comparative analysis was to use essential differences to develop a set of
ranking criteria and rank alternative MSW processing technologies (in terms of their
suppliers) based upon technical, environmental, and economic parameters. The results were
used to select the technologies for use in the succeeding phases of the project (see Section
7.4).
COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVE MSW
SECTION 7.0 PROCESSING TECHNOLOGIES AND TECHNOLOGY SUPPLIERS

7-2
Each of these steps is described below.
7.2 OVERVIEW
The advanced thermal recycling, thermal conversion, and biological conversion, technology
groups under evaluation differ in regard to the three basic sub-systems required for an
alternative MSW processing facility. These sub-systems are:
Pre-processing
Processing Unit
Power Generation
There are also differences in the byproducts, as some technologies produce electricity, while
others produce large quantities of compost or similar material. Figure 7-1, highlights some of
the basic differences among these technology groups. Table 7-1 provides some additional
quantitative information.
FIGURE 7-1
ALTERNATIVE TECHNOLOGIES FOR TREATING
BLACK BIN POST-SOURCE SEPARATED MSW
Adv Thermal Recycling
Adv Thermal Recycling
Thermal Conversion
Thermal Conversion
Biological Conversion
MB&R
MB&R
MB&R
MB&R
C&R
Recyclables
Solid Byproducts
N
o

P
r
e
-
p
r
o
c
e
s
s
i
n
g
P
r
e

-
p
r
o
c
e
s
s
i
n
g
Black
Bin
Contents
Heat
Syngas
Biogas
Syngas
Heat
MB&R: Marketable Byproducts & Residue C&R: Compost & Residue

COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVE MSW
SECTION 7.0 PROCESSING TECHNOLOGIES AND TECHNOLOGY SUPPLIERS

7-3
TABLE 7-1
CHARACTERISTICS OF TECHNOLOGY GROUPS
Feature Thermal Conversion
Advanced Thermal
Recycling
Biological
Conversion
Throughput, Tons Per Year (TPY)
Commercial Operating Experience
<10,000-250,000 75,000-1,000,000 <10,000-200,000
Operating Temperatures, F 750-2,500 1,300-2,500 <200
Technology Pyrolysis and/or Gasification Combustion Anaerobic Digestion
Marketable Byproducts Electricity, bottom ash, slag,
sulfur, metal hydroxides,
carbon char, salts, compost
Electricity, bottom ash,
metals, hydrochloric
acid, gypsum, compost
Electricity, medium
Btu biogas, compost

Advanced thermal recycling uses the heat of combustion of the waste to produce steam in a
boiler, which is then used to generate electricity. Byproducts are recovered either in pre-
processing or post-processing.
If facilities keep fly ash (which may contain hazardous substances) separate from the bottom
ash, the bottom ash can be marketed for use in construction material or road base.
Some thermal conversion technologies direct all incoming waste to the conversion unit.
Others incorporate extensive pre-processing to recover recyclables and produce a more
homogeneous feedstock for the conversion unit. All thermal conversion units produce a
syngas that is used to generate electricity in addition to producing other solid byproducts.
Some combust syngas in a boiler to make steam to drive a turbine generator, and the flue
gases are cleaned in an emission control system. Others clean the syngas first and then
combust it in a reciprocating engine-generator or boiler.
Anaerobic digestion is utilized for the majority of the commercially available bioconversion
technologies. After required pre-processing, it produces biogas, a medium heating value Btu
gas that is generally used to generate electricity. In addition, these technologies produce a
marketable compost or soil amendment.
7.2.1 Technical Comparison
In this section, several technical issues are discussed to compare the individual technology
groups and show essential differences among technologies and designs.
7.2.1.1 Throughput
Data was requested from suppliers based upon a standard 100,000 TPY throughput, so that
meaningful comparisons could be made. This throughput was selected for two reasons: it
COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVE MSW
SECTION 7.0 PROCESSING TECHNOLOGIES AND TECHNOLOGY SUPPLIERS

7-4
matched one-half the size of individual waste sheds in Los Angeles, and it was a size judged
achievable by all suppliers based upon their prior experience. It should be noted that a design
throughput for the proposed facility has not yet been selected.
However, this throughput was not a good match for some suppliers, particularly the advanced
thermal recycling suppliers. Therefore, some responses included designs that better matched
their module (equipment) sizing. The responses primarily fell into one of two categories:
100,000 TPY or 300,000-400,000 TPY. Some suppliers who provided a 100,000 TPY
design, and have operational experience with larger systems, were subsequently asked to
provide basic technical and cost information for the higher throughput level. Therefore,
several examples at the higher throughput levels are presented; they provide insight into how
facility designs and associated technical and cost data vary with different levels of
throughput.
Figure 7-2 shows the design throughputs evaluated in this study. The numbers after the
suppliers in the figures represent the throughput in hundreds of thousands of tons per year.
Higher throughputs also were evaluated for Ebara and WasteGen. However, these data are
not shown in the figures in this section because facility efficiencies and costs per ton did not
vary significantly with facility size. Higher throughputs were considered only for those
suppliers with larger throughput experience.
FIGURE 7-2
THROUGHPUT BY SUPPLIER (TPY)
0
50,000
100,000
150,000
200,000
250,000
300,000
350,000
400,000
450,000
E
b
a
r
a

1
0
0
W
h
i
t
t
e
n

1
0
0
W
h
i
t
t
e
n

4
0
0
I
W
T

1
0
0
I
W
T

3
7
0
R
R
A

3
6
0
O
m
n
i

1
0
0
T
a
y
l
o
r

2
0
0
W
a
s
t
e
G
e
n

1
0
0
P
A
R

1
8
0
C
o
v
a
n
t
a

3
3
0
S
e
g
h
e
r
s

3
7
0
W
R
S
I

3
8
0
A
r
r
o
w

1
0
0
O
W
S

1
0
0
O
W
S

3
0
0
V
a
l
o
r
g
a

1
0
0
V
a
l
o
r
g
a

3
0
0
C
C
I

1
0
0
C
C
I

3
0
0
W
r
i
g
h
t

1
0
0
T
h
r
o
u
g
h
p
u
t
,

T
o
n
s
/
Y
e
a
r
Thermal Conversion
Advanced Thermal Recycling
Biological Conversion

COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVE MSW
SECTION 7.0 PROCESSING TECHNOLOGIES AND TECHNOLOGY SUPPLIERS

7-5
7.2.1.2 Pre-Processing and Recovered Materials
Using the preliminary black bin characterization data provided in the RFQ, most of the
supplier submittals included facilities for recovering additional materials from the inlet
feedstock prior to treatment. Three reasons were typically cited for this inclusion:
To recover recyclables for sale (recycling represents a more lucrative, or higher value use
of these materials)
To reduce feedstock size and/or moisture content in order to prepare a more
homogeneous material for processing
To remove contaminants from the black bin post-source separated MSW, which would
otherwise result in processing problems in the processing unit
WRSI, IWT, and Ebara proposed no mechanical pre-processing for recovery of recyclables;
however, these suppliers do recover recyclables from the byproducts produced in the
combustion/conversion unit or emission control system. WasteGen proposed no pre-
processing for material recovery, but did propose shredders and dryers for pre-processing, as
well as post-processing for recovery of metals.
7.2.1.3 Electricity Production
All responses except Wright Environmental (RDF only) included electricity generation. The
amount of electricity production varies according to the designs and waste throughput.
Net MW (generation) is the amount of electricity that is available for sale on the grid, taking
into consideration the amount of internal use by the facility (i.e., net = gross - internal use).
In general, there is great variability in the thermal conversion designs, where electricity
production ranges from 4 to 38 net MW, depending upon waste throughput and type of
power generation equipment chosen. Advanced thermal recycling facilities generate 18-25
net MW for the 350,000-400,000 TPY throughput level, while thermal conversion facilities
generate about 15-38 net MW for 370,000-380,000 TPY Biological conversion facilities
generate the least amount of electricity, ranging from 0.4 to 4.6 net MW.
The net electricity production by supplier is shown in Figure 7-3. As noted above, electricity
production within technology groups varies widely, mainly due to differences in throughput,
choice of power generation equipment, and production of compost by biological conversion
technologies.
The electricity production expressed as thermal efficiency (net kWh/ton feedstock) is shown
in Figure 7-4. This shows the amount of net electricity generation per ton of feedstock
processed in the conversion or combustion unit. For some technologies, the feedstock would
COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVE MSW
SECTION 7.0 PROCESSING TECHNOLOGIES AND TECHNOLOGY SUPPLIERS

7-6
FIGURE 7-3
NET ELECTRICITY PRODUCTION, MW
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
E
b
a
r
a

1
0
0
W
h
i
t
t
e
n

1
0
0
W
h
i
t
t
e
n

4
0
0
I
W
T

1
0
0
I
W
T

3
7
0
R
R
A

3
6
0
O
m
n
i

1
0
0
T
a
y
l
o
r

2
0
0
W
a
s
t
e
G
e
n

1
0
0
P
A
R

1
8
0
C
o
v
a
n
t
a

3
3
0
S
e
g
h
e
r
s

3
7
0
W
R
S
I

3
8
0
A
r
r
o
w

1
0
0
O
W
S

1
0
0
O
W
S

3
0
0
V
a
l
o
r
g
a

1
0
0
V
a
l
o
r
g
a

3
0
0
C
C
I

1
0
0
C
C
I

3
0
0
W
r
i
g
h
t

1
0
0
E
l
e
c
t
r
i
c
i
t
y
,

M
W
Thermal Conversion
Advanced Thermal Recycling
Biological Conversion

FIGURE 7-4
ENERGY EFFICIENCY, NET kWh/TON
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
1000
E
b
a
r
a

1
0
0
W
h
i
t
t
e
n

1
0
0
W
h
i
t
t
e
n

4
0
0
I
W
T

1
0
0
I
W
T

3
7
0
R
R
A

3
6
0
O
m
n
i

1
0
0
T
a
y
l
o
r

2
0
0
W
a
s
t
e
G
e
n

1
0
0
P
A
R

1
8
0
C
o
v
a
n
t
a

3
6
0
S
e
g
h
e
r
s

3
7
0
W
R
S
I

3
8
0
A
r
r
o
w

1
0
0
O
W
S

1
0
0
O
W
S

3
0
0
V
a
l
o
r
g
a

1
0
0
V
a
l
o
r
g
a

3
0
0
C
C
I

1
0
0
C
C
I

3
0
0
W
r
i
g
h
t

1
0
0
N
e
t

k
W
h
/
t
o
n

f
e
e
d
s
t
o
c
k
Thermal Conversion
Advanced Thermal Recycling
Biological Conversion

COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVE MSW
SECTION 7.0 PROCESSING TECHNOLOGIES AND TECHNOLOGY SUPPLIERS

7-7
be raw black bin post-source separated MSW. For others, significant pre-processing would
be performed to produce the feedstock.
There are several reasons for the variability in efficiency:
A higher quality feedstock, i.e., one with lower moisture and with non-convertible
components with glass and metal removed, generally results in higher facility efficiency.
Higher throughput generally results in higher efficiency.
At these sizes, reciprocating engines are a more efficient method of power generation
than conventional steam turbine generators. Typically, reciprocating engines will have
efficiencies of about 40%, as compared to about 25% for small boilers.
Converting more feedstock into energy is more efficient than producing large quantities
of compost.
7.2.1.4 Solid Byproducts
All of the alternatives being evaluated will produce some solid byproducts (pre-processing or
post-processing) that would be marketable. The nature and quantity varies by technology and
throughput. The types of solid byproducts generated, by technology group, are as follows:
Thermal Conversion:
Metals
Plastic
Paper
Glass
Compost-like material (RRA and Taylor)
Bottom ash or cyclone ash
Slag
Sulfur
Metal hydroxide
Carbon char
Salts
Advanced Thermal Recycling:
Metals
COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVE MSW
SECTION 7.0 PROCESSING TECHNOLOGIES AND TECHNOLOGY SUPPLIERS

7-8
Bottom ash
Hydrochloric acid (WRSI)
Compost (Seghers)
Gypsum (WRSI)
Biological Conversion:
Metals
Plastic
Paper
Compost
Soil Amendment
7.2.1.5 Diversion Rate
Diversion rate, measured in percent of total throughput, represents the amount of black bin
post-source separated MSW that is recovered in pre-processing, processed in the facility, and
recovered in post-processing, leaving unmarketable or unusable residues that must still be
landfilled. This rate can vary depending upon the marketability of the solid materials
produced. Bottom ash and compost materials will be marketable only if they meet regulatory
standards in California.
If no agreement can be reached to use this material as alternative daily cover, some of this
byproduct may require disposal as refuse in an appropriate landfill. Therefore, as a
theoretical worst case, all solid byproducts would be sent to a landfill for disposal. This is
mentioned here to illustrate the potential magnitude of the residue disposal problem should
byproducts prove unmarketable.
Figure 7-5 shows the estimated diversion rate, and the worst-case diversion rate for each
supplier. The former is based upon the evaluated data described in Section 5.0, and for which
recovery rates were levelized, or normalized, for all suppliers. Figure 7-5 shows that the
thermal technologies will provide significantly higher diversion rates than biological
technologies.
7.2.2 Environmental Comparison
In this section, several key environmental and regulatory issues are compared among
technologies and suppliers.

COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVE MSW
SECTION 7.0 PROCESSING TECHNOLOGIES AND TECHNOLOGY SUPPLIERS

7-9
FIGURE 7-5
DIVERSION RATE, PERCENT OF THROUGHPUT
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
E
b
a
r
a

1
0
0
W
h
i
t
t
e
n

1
0
0
W
h
i
t
t
e
n

4
0
0
I
W
T

1
0
0
I
W
T

3
7
0
R
R
A

3
6
0
O
m
n
i

1
0
0
T
a
y
l
o
r

2
0
0
W
a
s
t
e
G
e
n

1
0
0
P
A
R

1
8
0
C
o
v
a
n
t
a

3
3
0
S
e
g
h
e
r
s

3
7
0
W
R
S
I

3
8
0
A
r
r
o
w

1
0
0
O
W
S

1
0
0
O
W
S

3
0
0
V
a
l
o
r
g
a

1
0
0
V
a
l
o
r
g
a

3
0
0
C
C
I

1
0
0
C
C
I

3
0
0
W
r
i
g
h
t

1
0
0
%

D
i
v
e
r
s
i
o
n
Thermal Conversion (Diversion Rate | Worst Case Diversion Rate)
Advanced Thermal Recycling (Diversion Rate | Worst Case Diversion Rate)
Biological Conversion (Diversion Rate | Worst Case Diversion Rate)

7.2.2.1 Air Emissions
Air emission levels and constituents of concern are a function of the specific designs of each
technology, as well as the design of emission control systems. Therefore, this discussion will
be limited to the three designated technology groups.
7.2.2.1.1 Advanced Thermal Recycling. There are several operating thermal recycling
facilities in California (however, they are not advanced thermal recycling, per the definition
presented in Section 2.0). These facilities meet all applicable regulatory limits on air
emissions, including criteria pollutants such as NO
x
and trace constituents such as dioxins,
furans and metals. Concentrations of dioxins and furans are below detection limits. Similar,
or lower, emissions would be expected from the advanced thermal recycling designs
evaluated in this report, as they incorporate state-of-the-art emission control systems.
As described in Section 2.0, advanced thermal recycling facilities are equipped with state-of-
the-art air emission control systems designed to capture and recover components in the flue
gas, converting them to marketable byproducts such as gypsum (for manufacturing
wallboard) and hydrochloric acid (a chemical feedstock that can be used for water treatment).
COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVE MSW
SECTION 7.0 PROCESSING TECHNOLOGIES AND TECHNOLOGY SUPPLIERS

7-10
The advanced thermal recycling emission control systems with recovery/recycling go beyond
the technology utilized at existing resource recovery plants such as the Commerce Refuse-to-
Energy Facility and the Southeast Resource Recovery Facility.
7.2.2.1.2 Thermal Conversion. At this early stage, without a detailed facility design, it
was decided to address air emissions associated with thermal conversion in terms of their
technical design issues as contrasted with advanced thermal recycling systems.
Thermal conversion technologies are much different than advanced thermal recycling
facilities in terms of their design; therefore, air emissions characteristics will differ as well.
As mentioned in Section 2.2.2.5, key design differences include:
Thermal conversion processes occur in a reducing environment, typically using indirect
heat without available air or oxygen, or with a limited amount of air or oxygen. With this
technology the formation of unwanted organic compounds or trace constituents is
precluded or minimized.
Thermal conversion technologies typically are closed, pressurized systems, so that there
are no direct air emission points. Contaminants are removed from the syngas and/or from
the flue gases prior to being exhausted from a stack.
Thermal conversion technologies often incorporate pre-processing subsystems in order to
produce a more homogeneous feedstock. This provides the opportunity to recover
chlorine-containing plastic (as a recyclable), which could otherwise contribute to the
formation of organic compounds and/or trace constituents.
The volume of syngas produced in the conversion of the feedstock is considerably lower
than the volume of flue gases formed in the combustion of MSW in an advanced thermal
recycling facility. Smaller gas volumes are easier and less costly to treat.
Pre-cleaning of syngas is possible prior to combustion in a boiler and is required when
producing chemicals or prior to combustion in a reciprocating engine or gas turbine in
order to reduce the potential for corrosion in this sensitive equipment. Syngas pre-
cleaning also serves to reduce overall air emissions.
Syngas produced by thermal conversion technologies is a much more homogeneous and
cleaner-burning fuel than MSW.
As a result of these design differences, expected concentrations of criteria pollutants and
trace constituents, including dioxins and furans, are expected to be, in general, lower than
concentrations associated with advanced thermal recycling facilities. Therefore, thermal
conversion facilities would meet or exceed all regulatory limits for air emissions.
COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVE MSW
SECTION 7.0 PROCESSING TECHNOLOGIES AND TECHNOLOGY SUPPLIERS

7-11
7.2.2.1.3 Biological Conversion. Biological conversion facilities, specifically anaerobic
digestion facilities, have several potential air emission pathways:
Waste delivery and preprocessing: the emissions from these operations are approximately
the same for all technologies and are adequately controlled by enclosing the operations
inside a negative pressure-controlled building.
Anaerobic digestion requires an airtight system, which precludes any air emissions from
this step.
Digestate processing/composting: could have significant air emissions, which are
controlled by composting either in-vessel or inside a negative pressure-controlled
building.
Biogas combustion has emissions similar to those of any natural gas combustion process,
which can be controlled to meet any air quality regulations.
Emissions per ton of MSW for biological conversion are inherently lower than those of
MSW combustion or thermal conversion since biogas production and combustion is cleaner
(conversion temperature is well below 200F, and biogas combustion is similar to
combusting natural gas). As a result, biological conversion of MSW is not expected to have
significant air emissions concerns.
7.2.2.2 Wastewater Discharges
As with air emissions, water discharge levels and constituents of concern are a function of
the specific designs of each technology, as well as the design of wastewater treatment
systems. In addition, the location of the facility will dictate, to a large degree, what the
discharges will be. For example, at locations where sewer connections are not available, a
zero discharge (100% recycle) could be implemented.
About half of the respondents indicated that they would recycle and reuse their wastewater
and, therefore, would not have any significant wastewater discharges. The others will
discharge about thirty gallons/minute (per 100,000 tons throughput) of treated wastewater
from sources such as wet scrubbers, cooling towers, and boiler blowdown.
Biological conversion systems may produce gray water suitable for irrigation.
Each technology group will meet or exceed wastewater discharge limits.
7.2.2.3 Solid Wastes
Solid waste is defined as material rejects or unmarketable materials and residues that would
be landfilled. Solid waste generation will vary by technology group.
COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVE MSW
SECTION 7.0 PROCESSING TECHNOLOGIES AND TECHNOLOGY SUPPLIERS

7-12
Advanced thermal recycling systems will generate bottom ash, boiler ash, and fabric filter
ash at about 25% of the throughput. Recycling of bottom ash and marketable byproducts
from emission control systems could reduce the quantity of landfilled material to less than
5% (this assumes that all of the recovered material can be sold as a byproduct), which is a
diversion rate of 95%. As a worst-case, assuming these byproducts are not marketable, the
diversion rate could fall to about 80%.
Thermal conversion systems will generate solid waste consisting primarily of pre-processing
rejects and other residuals at an approximate rate of 20% of the throughput. Recycling the
residuals could reduce the quantity of landfilled material to about 2% (this assumes that all of
the recovered material can be sold as a byproduct). As a worst-case, assuming that these
products are not marketable, the diversion rate could fall to about 80%.
Finally, biological conversion systems will generate unmarketable residuals consisting of
about 15-40% of the throughput. As a worst-case, which assumes that the compost produced
will not be marketable, the diversion rate would fall to about 40-50%.
7.2.2.4 Siting Issues
Locating a site for an alternative MSW processing facility in the City of Los Angeles will
primarily depend upon the following factors:
7.2.2.4.1 Availability of Infrastructure. An alternative MSW processing facility will
require suitable infrastructure, typically including electricity interconnection, natural gas
supply, water supply, sewer connection, and adequate road access for delivery of MSW and
removal of byproducts and residuals. A rail siding may be desirable. The infrastructure will
need to provide the capacity required to service the facility.
7.2.2.4.2 Aesthetics or Visual Impacts. Building size and stack height will affect the
visual intrusion of the facility in the community, as well as the existing visual features
adjacent to the site.
7.2.2.4.3 Traffic Impacts. An alternative MSW processing facility will receive deliveries
by truck during normal working hours. If the facility is located at an existing waste
management facility, such as transfer station, impacts to traffic may not be affected
significantly, or may be reduced. If the facility is located at another type of site, the impact
on existing traffic volumes and level of service will become an important siting
consideration.
7.2.2.4.4 Noise, Odors, Litter, and Dust. The local community will be interested in these
nuisance impacts. Mitigation measures will need to be implemented to minimize these
impacts. Sites in industrial areas will be less sensitive to these impacts.
COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVE MSW
SECTION 7.0 PROCESSING TECHNOLOGIES AND TECHNOLOGY SUPPLIERS

7-13
7.2.2.4.5 Land Use Compatibility and Zoning. The waste processing facility must be
reasonably compatible with the adjacent land uses, and compatible with future land use
plans. It is likely that the facility would be constructed in an industrially zoned area (M-3).
While required land area is specific to a particular design, it is likely that the facility can be
built on less than five acres. The need for a buffer with adjacent properties will depend upon
adjacent land uses.
7.2.2.4.6 Air Impacts. Site location will be an important determinant of air emissions
impacts from the standpoint of stack emissions and the potential interaction of stack gas
plumes with nearby structures or topography. The most desirable locations are relatively flat
with good circulation.
7.2.2.4.7 Community Impacts. Perhaps the most important siting issue will be the
perceived and real impacts of the facility upon the local community. Potential issues include
impact on local services, tax benefits, and impacts on the quality of life. A public outreach
program will be essential to identify facility benefits and impacts of concern, and to learn
how to mitigate these impacts.
These factors are site-specific in nature, and can best be evaluated with more detailed
information about the designs applied to identify alternative sites. It is not anticipated that
any of these issues would present an insurmountable challenge during the permitting process.
7.2.2.5 Regulatory Issues
Permitting an alternative MSW processing technology will require compliance with a variety
of federal, California, County, and local environmental regulations. Section 3.0 provides a
discussion of these requirements. Each technology group will face different challenges.
7.2.2.5.1 Advanced Thermal Recycling. Advanced thermal recycling systems have a
clearly established regulatory precedent, in that several resource recovery facilities have
already been permitted in California. The last facility was permitted nearly fifteen years ago.
The key permits that a new facility would require are listed in Section 5.1. The air quality
related permitting will be complex; many new regulations have been promulgated since the
early 1990s. Of particular import are the New Source Review, New Source Performance
Standards (NSPS), and toxics.
Basic requirements of the New Source Review process include:
Best Available Control Technology (BACT) analysis demonstrating that the proposed
facility conforms to SCAQMD BACT Guidelines (there are established BACT guidelines
for municipal waste combustion).
COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVE MSW
SECTION 7.0 PROCESSING TECHNOLOGIES AND TECHNOLOGY SUPPLIERS

7-14
Demonstration of compliance with all applicable State and Federal ambient air quality
standards by performing air dispersion modeling of the proposed facility impacts using
SCAQMD-approved modeling procedures.
Provide offsetting emission reductions for proposed emission increases by surrendering
previously banked emission reduction credit (ERC) certificates.
The NSPSs regulate emissions of oxides of sulfur (SO
x
), oxides of nitrogen (NO
x
), carbon
monoxide (CO), particulate matter (PM), hydrogen chloride (HCl), dioxins/furans, cadmium,
lead, mercury, fugitive ash, and opacity. In addition, the NSPS specify preconstruction
notification, planning, analysis and reporting requirements as well as operating practices,
monitoring, record-keeping, and reporting requirements.
The SCAQMD will complete NSR for air toxics pursuant to Rule 1401. Under this regulation
a proposed facility with potential emissions of air toxics above screening thresholds would be
required to complete a screening level health risk assessment using SCAQMD-specified
procedures.
7.2.2.5.2 Thermal Conversion. Thermal conversion facilities may face the most
challenging regulatory hurdles. Current California regulations addressing conversion
technologies are not clear and contain numerous inconsistencies. While the CIWMB
recognizes this problem, agency personnel are uncertain when regulations that provide a
clear regulatory path will be promulgated. Until then, obtaining permits for a thermal
conversion system will be problematical.
New Source Review, NSPS, and air toxics regulations, as described above for advanced
thermal recycling, will also pertain to thermal conversion facilities.
7.2.2.5.3 Biological Conversion. Bioconversion facilities also have a relatively clear
regulatory path, in that anaerobic digestion and aerobic digestion facilities have already been
permitted in California. These facilities, however, use quite different feedstocks, including
various forms of biomass, such as green waste and biosolids. Perhaps the most important
regulatory hurdle will be meeting the complex regulatory requirements for utilization of
compost materials produced from the post-source separated MSW. While anaerobic digestion
facilities in Europe generally produce compost that is acceptable for marketing, their
feedstocks are usually source-separated biowaste. European feedstock may be different in
composition than the black bin contents.
COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVE MSW
SECTION 7.0 PROCESSING TECHNOLOGIES AND TECHNOLOGY SUPPLIERS

7-15
7.2.3 Economic Comparison
In this section, the economic considerations of the alternatives are compared using capital
costs, total revenues, and a breakeven tipping fee. All costs are preliminary, and can be
expected to change as designs evolve.
7.2.3.1 Capital Cost
Capital cost is a function of technology, design considerations, and throughput. Ranges of
capital cost by technology group were as follows:
Thermal Conversion: $16-90 million (100,000 TPY)
Thermal Conversion: $50-250 million (360,000-400,000 TPY)
Advanced Thermal Recycling: $125-180 million (360,000-380,000 TPY)
Biological Conversion: $27-55 million (100,000 TPY)
Capital cost as cost per ton of annual throughput is shown in Figure 7-6 (Covanta did not
provide a capital cost). The economies of scale achieved at higher throughputs are evident.
FIGURE 7-6
CAPITAL COST, $/TPY
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
1000
E
b
a
r
a

1
0
0
W
h
i
t
t
e
n

1
0
0
W
h
i
t
t
e
n

4
0
0
I
W
T

1
0
0
I
W
T

3
7
0
R
R
A

3
6
0
O
m
n
i

1
0
0
T
a
y
l
o
r

2
0
0
W
a
s
t
e
G
e
n

1
0
0
P
A
R

1
8
0
C
o
v
a
n
t
a

3
3
0
S
e
g
h
e
r
s

3
7
0
W
R
S
I

3
8
0
A
r
r
o
w

1
0
0
O
W
S

1
0
0
O
W
S

3
0
0
V
a
l
o
r
g
a

1
0
0
V
a
l
o
r
g
a

3
0
0
C
C
I

1
0
0
C
C
I

3
0
0
W
r
i
g
h
t

1
0
0
C
a
p
i
t
a
l

C
o
s
t
,

$
/
T
P
Y
Thermal Conversion
Advanced Thermal Recycling
Biological Conversion

COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVE MSW
SECTION 7.0 PROCESSING TECHNOLOGIES AND TECHNOLOGY SUPPLIERS

7-16
7.2.3.2 Annual Revenues
Annual revenues generated by each technology and supplier varied significantly by design
and throughput. While revenues from the sale of electricity are all calculated at $0.06/kWh,
each supplier used different assumptions for the expected recovery and revenue per ton for
recyclables such as ferrous metal, non-ferrous metal, and plastic. Specific assumptions on
recovery and revenues per ton were made to levelize these values for this comparison (see
Section 5.0).
The ranges of annual revenues by technology group, based upon supplier-provided data were
as follows:
Thermal Conversion: $2.4-4.6 million (100,000 TPY)
Thermal Conversion: $12-21 million (360,000-400,000 TPY)
Advanced Thermal Recycling: $9-14 million (360,000-380,000 TPY)
Biological Conversion: $2-3 million (100,000 TPY)
Figure 7-7 shows total revenues as a function of throughput. Total revenues are defined as
the revenues recovered from the sale of all byproducts and electricity, per ton of post-source
separated MSW throughput processed (estimated based upon levelized recovery quantities).
FIGURE 7-7
TOTAL REVENUE/TON BY SUPPLIER
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
E
b
a
r
a

1
0
0
W
h
i
t
t
e
n

1
0
0
W
h
i
t
t
e
n

4
0
0
I
W
T

1
0
0
I
W
T

3
7
0
R
R
A

3
6
0
O
m
n
i

1
0
0
T
a
y
l
o
r

2
0
0
W
a
s
t
e
G
e
n

1
0
0
P
A
R

1
8
0
C
o
v
a
n
t
a

3
3
0
S
e
g
h
e
r
s

3
7
0
W
R
S
I

3
8
0
A
r
r
o
w

1
0
0
O
W
S

1
0
0
O
W
S

3
0
0
V
a
l
o
r
g
a

1
0
0
V
a
l
o
r
g
a

3
0
0
C
C
I

1
0
0
C
C
I

3
0
0
W
r
i
g
h
t

1
0
0
R
e
v
e
n
u
e
,

$
/
t
o
n

t
h
r
o
u
g
h
p
u
t
Thermal Conversion
Advanced Thermal Recycling
Biological Conversion

COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVE MSW
SECTION 7.0 PROCESSING TECHNOLOGIES AND TECHNOLOGY SUPPLIERS

7-17
The variability in Figure 7-7 primarily arises from these sources:
Conversion to more electricity versus compost increases revenue/ton
Pre-processing increases revenue/ton
Higher efficiencies translate into higher revenues/ton
7.2.3.3 Breakeven Tipping Fees
Suppliers were asked to provide a tipping fee required to make their project economic.
Although specific economic parameters were provided in the RFQ, suppliers calculated
tipping fees using differing assumptions and different profit margins (where provided). To
facilitate the evaluation, both a breakeven tipping fee and a worst-case breakeven tipping fee
were calculated for each response. The breakeven tipping fee was estimated by adding capital
recovery and interest charges to annual operating and maintenance costs and subtracting
annual revenues calculated at standard prices using a fixed proportion of recyclables (16.5%)
that would be recovered. The worst-case breakeven tipping fee was calculated by assuming
that some byproducts, such as compost and bottom ash, would not be marketable, and would
be transported to a landfill to be used as daily cover. The full set of assumptions used to
develop the cost analysis is presented in Section 5.0.
Figure 7-8 shows the estimated breakeven tipping fee and worst-case breakeven tipping fees
for each submittal.
7.3 COMPARISON TO PROJECT OBJECTIVES
The objectives hierarchy, shown in Figure 7-9, was refined from Figure 1-1 to accommodate
the more detailed information available at this stage of the study. As mentioned in Section
1.1, the highest level objective is identify alternative MSW processing technologies that will
increase landfill diversion in an environmentally sound manner, while emphasizing options
that are energy efficient, socially acceptable, and economical. Note that Select Suitable
Waste Processing Technology shown in Figure 7-9, is a shorthand for this objective.
The ranking criteria are included in the figure as bulleted items and discussed in the
following section. The high level objectives are described in the following section:
Maximize Environmental Suitability. All responses were evaluated based on expected
environmental issues, including air emissions, siting constraints, and ability to receive
permits. All suppliers should be able to meet environmental requirements needed to obtain
permits, utilizing commercially available emission control equipment and systems. The
differences in environmental impacts are evaluated in the ranking process.
COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVE MSW
SECTION 7.0 PROCESSING TECHNOLOGIES AND TECHNOLOGY SUPPLIERS

7-18
FIGURE 7-8
ESTIMATED BREAKEVEN TIPPING FEE AND
WORST CASE BREAKEVEN TIPPING FEE
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
E
b
a
r
a

1
0
0
W
h
i
t
t
e
n

1
0
0
W
h
i
t
t
e
n

4
0
0
I
W
T

1
0
0
I
W
T

3
7
0
R
R
A

3
6
0
O
m
n
i

1
0
0
T
a
y
l
o
r

2
0
0
W
a
s
t
e
G
e
n
P
A
R

1
8
0
C
o
v
a
n
t
a

3
3
0
S
e
g
h
e
r
s

3
7
0
W
R
S
I

3
8
0
A
r
r
o
w

1
0
0
O
W
S

1
0
0
O
W
S

3
0
0
V
a
l
o
r
g
a

1
0
0
V
a
l
o
r
g
a

3
0
0
C
C
I

1
0
0
C
C
I

3
0
0
W
r
i
g
h
t

1
0
0
T
i
p
p
i
n
g

F
e
e
,

$
Thermal Conversion (Breakeven Tipping Fee | Worst Case Breakeven Tipping Fee)
Advanced Thermal Recycling (Breakeven Tipping Fee | Worst Case Breakeven Tipping Fee)
Biological Conversion (Breakeven Tipping Fee | Worst Case Breakeven Tipping Fee)

Maximize Technical Feasibility. All responses were evaluated with regard to operational
characteristics and the ability of the proposed system to successfully treat post-source
separated MSW. All suppliers appear to have proposed designs that can meet this objective.
The ranking process evaluates the degree to which suppliers can produce acceptable facility
designs.
Maximize Economic Feasibility. Economics will be a very important determinant of project
feasibility. Economics was included in the ranking process, and received a moderate weight
due to the preliminary nature of the data. Figure 7-8 shows the worst-case breakeven tipping
fee calculated for each supplier. Most tipping fees are in the area of $40/ton. There are two
outliers: Ebara at $127/ton and the IWT 100,000 TPY option at $119/ton. Based upon these
relatively high costs, these options are viewed as fatal flaws. Therefore, the IWT 100,000
TPY option is dropped, and Ebara is eliminated (Ebaras cost data for a larger facility
showed that the tipping fee did not change significantly).

COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVE MSW
SECTION 7.0 PROCESSING TECHNOLOGIES AND TECHNOLOGY SUPPLIERS

7-19
FIGURE 7-9
OBJECTIVES HIERARCHY
Select Suitable
Waste Disposal
Technology
Maximize
Economic
Viability
Maximize
Technical
Feasibility
Maximize
Environmental
Suitability
Minimize
Environ
Impacts
Minimize
Landfilling
Maximize
Design
Quality
Minimize
Technical
Risk
Maximize
Revenues
Minimize
Cost
Maximize
Supplier
Resources
Permitability
Visual
Impacts
Operational
Reliability
Engineering
the Complete
System
Diversion Rate Economics
Ability to
Market
Conversion
Byproducts
Supplier
Credibility

7.4 RANKING OF ALTERNATIVE WASTE PROCESSING TECHNOLOGIES
The following procedure was used to develop a ranking of the technology suppliers based
upon technical, environmental, and economic considerations. As stated earlier, the supplier
ranking procedure was used to determine the feasible waste processing technologies.
Define the Decision Criteria. As a first step, the criteria that were used to rank the responses
were developed based upon the set of business objectives described in Section 1.0.
Establish Performance Levels. Criterion scales, or performance levels, were defined for
each criterion based upon the information submitted by the suppliers. These scales are made
as specific and numerical as possible.
Define Criteria Ratings. Numerical ratings were assigned to each performance level. The
best level was assigned 100 points, and the worst level was assigned 0 points. The
intermediate levels were assigned proportionate ratings.
Define Criteria Weights. Weights were assigned to each criterion based upon the collective
judgment of the URS project team and the City of Los Angeles Bureau of Sanitation staff.
COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVE MSW
SECTION 7.0 PROCESSING TECHNOLOGIES AND TECHNOLOGY SUPPLIERS

7-20
Evaluate Criteria. Each suppliers response was reviewed to determine the appropriate
performance level for each criterion.
Calculate Scores. Scores were calculated for each supplier, and the suppliers ranked based
upon these scores. Technologies represented by the best scores will be brought forward in the
study.
The ranking procedure is described in the following sections.
7.4.1 Criteria Development
As described in Section 1.0, criteria were established by constructing an objectives hierarchy.
Overall project objectives are shown at the top of the hierarchy. These objectives are broken
down into a series of sub-objectives, where measurable criteria are defined. Figure 7-9
shows the objectives hierarchy and corresponding criteria developed for ranking supplier
responses. The criteria definitions (attributes) are shown in Table 7-2.
7.4.2 Establish Performance Levels
Performance levels were assigned to each criterion using the data provided by suppliers. The
number of performance levels reflects the variability of the data; based on this, the number of
levels ranged from three to five.
For example, consider the visual impact criterion in Table 7-2. Structure height (buildings,
stacks, and tanks) was used as an indicator of visual impact. Looking at the data furnished by
each supplier, the structure heights varied from less than 50 feet to greater than 200 feet. It
was judged that visual impact would be linear with structure height. Therefore, a scale was
composed of four performance levels, proportional to the height. Ratings were assigned
inverse to the height, with lower structure height being preferred.
The same process was used for Operational Experience, Economics, and Landfill Diversion.
The remaining performance levels were developed using more subjective scales, as shown in
Table 7-2.
7.4.3 Assign Criteria Weights
Weights were assigned to criteria by spreading a total of 100 points among the eight criteria.
Points were assigned based upon the intrinsic importance of the criterion, as well as the range
over the criterion (i.e., a wider range of data implies more importance). Another
consideration was the quality of the data available (in general, where the data was suspect, or
not complete, less weight was assigned).
COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVE MSW
SECTION 7.0 PROCESSING TECHNOLOGIES AND TECHNOLOGY SUPPLIERS

7-21
TABLE 7-2
CRITERIA PERFORMANCE LEVELS AND RATINGS
Criteria Attributes Performance Levels Rating
Ability to
Market
Byproducts
Experience selling
byproducts with strong
markets is desired
1. Experience selling byproducts with strong markets in CA
2. Experience selling byproducts in other markets
3. Experience selling byproducts, but unknown markets in CA
4. No selling experience
100
80
40
0
Visual Impact
of Facility
Facilities with higher stacks
or structures will exhibit
greater visual impacts
1. Stack/building/tank height 200 ft
2. Stack/building/tank height = 90-199 ft
3. Stack/building/tank height = 50-89 ft
4. Stack/building/tank height < 50 ft
0
25
50
100
Operational
Experience
The number of operating
plants is an indication of
overall experience
1. > 20 facilities operational
2. 10-20 units operational
3. 5-10 units operating
4. 2-4 units operating
5. 1 unit operating
6. 0 units operating
100
85
70
50
25
0
Economics Worst Case Breakeven
Tipping Fee (WCBETF)
1. WCBETF = $0-$29/ton
2. WCBETF = $30-$44/ton
3. WCBETF = $45-$59/ton
4. WCBETF = $60-$79/ton
5. WCBETF >$80/ton
100
75
50
25
0
Supplier
Credibility
Suppliers must have
organizations (including
partners) with sufficient
technical and financial
resources
1. Supplier organization has extensive technical and financial
resources
2. Supplier has limited technical and financial resources, or
limited MSW experience
3. Supplier resources are of questionable size
100

50

0
Landfill
Diversion
Percent by weight of inlet
MSW sent to landfill
(includes rejects and
unmarketable materials
worst case)
1. <15%
2. 16-25%
3. 26-35%
4. 36-50%
5. >50%
100
75
50
25
0
Engineering
the Complete
System
Demonstrated ability to
design the complete facility
1. Quality submittal, complete design
2. Quality submittal, some design issues
3. Several significant design issues
4. Many design issues and/or incomplete submittal
100
66
33
0
Permitability This is a function of
expected environmental
impacts, and the potential
for a difficult regulatory
process or pathway
1. No unmanageable permitting difficulties identified
2. Complex and lengthy permitting process anticipated
3. Incomplete regulatory pathway for obtaining permits in
California may lengthen and/or complicate the permitting
process
100
50
0

COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVE MSW
SECTION 7.0 PROCESSING TECHNOLOGIES AND TECHNOLOGY SUPPLIERS

7-22
The weight distribution is as follows:
1. Landfill Diversion 25
2. Engineering the Complete System 15
3. Operational Experience 15
4. Permitability 10
5. Supplier Credibility 10
6. Ability to Market Byproducts 10
7. Economics 10
8. Visual Impact 5
The most critical criterion was judged to be Landfill Diversion, which received a weight of
25 out of 100. Landfill diversion is the highest-level objective of this project, and, therefore,
deserves the highest weight among the criteria. Note that a worst case was assumed, in which
all materials exiting the conversion process are unmarketable, cannot be used as alternative
daily cover, and have to be landfilled.
Engineering the Complete System received a relatively high weight of 15. This criterion
relates to the design information provided by the suppliers, the confidence the project team
has in the ability of the respective suppliers to design an integrated facility, and confidence
that the technologies and designs will perform as proposed.
Operational Experience also received a relatively high weighting of 15. Operational
Experience was viewed as a critical issue that added confidence that the supplier could
successfully implement a project for the City.
Permitability, Economics, and Supplier Credibility received a moderate weight of 10.
Permitability relates to the complex issue of securing environmental permits for the facilities;
however, with so much uncertainty relating to the thermal conversion and advanced thermal
recycling permitting pathways, this criterion was given a moderate weight. Existing
technology being used in the United States, especially Southern California are given a higher
score. Note that permitability relates only to the regulatory process. Public acceptability is
not considered in the ranking.
Economics received a relatively lower weight because the cost and revenue figures provided
at this stage of the study are preliminary and not based on detailed engineering specifications.
Similarly, Supplier Credibility received a moderate weight because detailed information
about the financial condition and ability to fund a development project were not requested
nor evaluated at this preliminary stage.
COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVE MSW
SECTION 7.0 PROCESSING TECHNOLOGIES AND TECHNOLOGY SUPPLIERS

7-23
7.4.4 Technology Ranking
The ranking results are summarized in Tables 7-3 through 7-5. The total scores also are
presented in graphical format in Figure 7-10.
Table 7-3 shows the individual ratings assignments by supplier and the total scores by
supplier. The ratings were assigned based upon supplier data in accord with the performance
levels described in Table 7-2.
Figure 7-10 shows the ranking results based upon the total score. The highest-ranking
suppliers, with scores in the range of 60-75, are IWT, WRSI, Whitten, RRA, and WasteGen,
which represent thermal conversion and advanced thermal recycling technologies. The
second group, roughly in the 54-59 score range, includes two biological conversion suppliers,
OWS and Valorga, as well as Covanta (advanced thermal recycling).
As shown in Table 7-4, the scores also were calculated for the environmental, engineering,
and economics criteria as follows:
Total Score (100% total weight)
All criteria
Environmental (Siting) Score (40% of total weight)
Landfill Diversion
Permitability
Visual Impacts
Engineering Score (30% of total weight)
Engineering the Complete System
Operational Experience
Economics Score (30% of total weight)
Economics
Supplier Credibility
Ability to Market Byproducts
COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVE MSW
SECTION 7.0 PROCESSING TECHNOLOGIES AND TECHNOLOGY SUPPLIERS

7-24
TABLE 7-3
SCORES BY SUPPLIER BY CRITERION


Landfill
Diversion Engineering
Operational
Experience Permitability
Supplier
Credibility Byproducts Economics
Visual
Impacts
Total
Score
Weight 25 15 15 10 10 10 10 5
IWT 75 100 70 0 100 80 75 100 75
Whitten 100 66 70 0 100 0 75 50 65
RRA 75 66 25 0 50 100 100 50 60
WasteGen 75 66 50 0 100 80 50 25 60
Taylor 100 33 0 0 50 80 25 25 47
PAR 50 33 0 0 0 0 75 100 30
Thermal
Conversion
Omnifuel 75 0 0 0 0 100 75 0 36
WRSI 75 100 25 50 100 80 50 0 66
Covanta 75 33 100 50 100 0 50 0 59
Advanced
Thermal
Recycling
Seghers 25 0 85 50 100 0 25 0 37
OWS 0 100 50 100 100 40 50 50 54
Valorga 25 33 70 100 100 40 100 25 57
Wright 0 66 50 100 100 0 50 100 47
Arrow 25 33 25 100 50 40 100 50 46
Biological
Conversion
CCI 25 33 50 100 50 40 25 50 43

COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVE MSW
SECTION 7.0 PROCESSING TECHNOLOGIES AND TECHNOLOGY SUPPLIERS

7-25
TABLE 7-4
SUPPLIER SCORES BY SUB-CATEGORY


Environmental
Score
Engineering
Score
Economics
Score Total Score
Weight 40 30 30 100
IWT 59 85 85 75
Whitten 69 68 58 65
RRA 53 46 83 60
WasteGen 50 58 77 60
Taylor 66 17 52 47
PAR 44 17 25 30
Thermal
Conversion
Omnifuel 47 0 58 36
WRSI 59 63 77 66
Covanta 59 67 50 59
Advanced
Thermal
Recycling
Seghers 28 43 42 37
OWS 31 75 63 54
Valorga 44 52 80 57
Wright 38 58 50 47
Arrow 47 29 63 46
Biological
Conversion
CCI 47 42 38 43

TABLE 7-5
SUMMARY OF HIGHEST SCORES IN EACH SCORING CATEGORY
Score Category Supplier Score Technology
IWT 75 Thermal Conversion
WRSI 66 Advanced Thermal Recycling
Whitten 65 Thermal Conversion
WasteGen 60 Thermal Conversion
Total Score
All Criteria
RRA 60 Thermal Conversion
Whitten 69 Thermal Conversion
Taylor 66 Thermal Conversion
IWT 59 Thermal Conversion
WRSI 59 Advanced Thermal Recycling
Environmental Score
Landfill Diversion
Permitability
Visual Impacts
Covanta 59 Advanced Thermal Recycling
IWT 85 Thermal Conversion
OWS 75 Biological Conversion
Whitten 68 Thermal Conversion
Engineering Score
Engineering Complete System
Operational Experience
Covanta 67 Advanced Thermal Recycling
IWT 85 Thermal Conversion
RRA 83 Thermal Conversion
Valorga 80 Biological Conversion
Waste-Gen 77 Thermal Conversion
Economics Score
Economics
Supplier Credibility
Ability to Market Byproducts
WRSI 77 Advanced Thermal Recycling
COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVE MSW
SECTION 7.0 PROCESSING TECHNOLOGIES AND TECHNOLOGY SUPPLIERS

7-26
FIGURE 7-10
TOTAL RANKING SCORE BY SUPPLIER
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
I
W
T













W
R
S
I
W
h
i
t
t
e
n
W
a
s
t
e
G
e
n

R
R
A








C
o
v
a
n
t
a
V
a
l
o
r
g
a
O
W
S


W
r
i
g
h
t
T
a
y
l
o
r










A
r
r
o
w




C
C
I




S
e
g
h
e
r
s


O
m
n
i
f
u
e
l

P
A
R
S
c
o
r
e
Thermal Conversion
Advanced Thermal Recycling
Biological Conversion

The criteria included in each score are shown in Table 7-4, as well as the weight for each
score subcategory. The environmental score subcategory received the highest proportionate
weight because it includes Landfill Diversion, the criterion with the highest weight.
A summary of the best scores (four highest) in each scoring category is shown in Table 7-5.
The best overall scores included thermal conversion and advanced thermal recycling.
The best environmental scores also included thermal conversion and advanced thermal
recycling. This is consistent with landfill diversion being a criterion in this scoring category.
The best engineering scores included all three technology groups, as was the case for the
economics category.
In summary, the ranking process, which is based upon the Bureaus project objectives,
indicates that thermal technologies (thermal conversion and advanced thermal recycling) are
preferred alternative MSW processing technologies that will best satisfy the projects highest
level objective, i.e., maximize landfill diversion. This result is further discussed in Section
8.0.
SECTION 8.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

8-1
8.1 SUMMARY OF KEY FINDINGS
The study evaluated the ability of alternative technologies to process black bin post-source
separated MSW from three perspectives: siting (or environmental) feasibility, technical
feasibility, and economic feasibility. The results of this evaluation, in part, can be expressed
in terms of key findings that impact the overall study conclusions and recommendations that
follow.
Table 8-1 provides a summary of these key findings. The table is arranged by objective
(siting, technical and economic), and each key finding is described, and discussed in the
context of each technology evaluated. The study began with an evaluation of sixteen thermal,
biological/chemical, and physical technologies, and these were screened on the basis of
ability and experience processing black bin post-source separated MSW on a commercial
level to arrive at the following short list of technologies:
Thermal technologies Advanced thermal recycling, and thermal conversion (includes
pyrolysis, gasification and pyrolysis-gasification)
Biological/chemical Anaerobic digestion
Physical None (Section 4.3)
As a result, the key findings address advanced thermal recycling, thermal conversion, and
biological conversion.
The table includes references to report sections where each finding is discussed in more
detail.
8.2 CONCLUSIONS
Based upon the key findings from Section 8.1 and the technology ranking presented in
Section 7.4, the following conclusions are made:
An alternative MSW processing facility can be successfully developed in the City of Los
Angeles.
The technologies best suited for processing black bin post-source separated MSW on a
commercial level are the thermal technologies. These include advanced thermal recycling
and thermal conversion (pyrolysis and gasification).
The biological/chemical conversion technologies and physical technologies present
significant technical challenges for treatment of the black bin post-source separated
MSW. While biological conversion technologies show the most promise in this group,
they also bring significant challenges, as explained below.
SECTION 8.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

8-2
TABLE 8-1
KEY FINDINGS
Key Finding Description Advanced Thermal Recycling Thermal Conversion Biological Conversion
Siting/Environmental
Diversion rate, the percentage of black
bin post-source separated MSW that is
diverted from landfilling, is an important
objective for this project. (7.2.1.5)
At least ninety percent diversion expected,
with a worst-case rate of 80%.
At least ninety percent diversion expected,
with a worst-case rate of 80%.
Eighty percent diversion rate expected with
a worst-case rate of 50%.
Air emissions characteristics will differ
among the alternative technology groups
evaluated. All technology groups will
meet regulatory limits. (7.2.2.1)
Air emission control systems are available
to limit emissions to well below regulatory
limits.
Thermal conversion systems are expected
to result in emissions well below regulatory
limits.
Emissions from biological systems will be
lower than thermal technologies due to
lower operating temperatures.
Wastewater will be generated in relatively
small quantities. This liquid waste will
either be recycled or discharged to a local
sewer. (7.2.2.2)
No significant difference among technologies.
Solid residue will be generated from
material rejects, process waste, and air
emission control systems. (7.2.2.3)
Advanced thermal recycling systems will
generate bottom ash, boiler ash, and fabric
filter ash. Assuming the bottom ash is
recycled, about 5% of the incoming material
will be landfilled.
Similar to advanced recycling systems. Biological systems will typically generate
unmarketable residuals consisting of 15-
40% of the total throughput.
An alternative MSW processing
technology can be sited in urban Los
Angeles. (7.2.2.4)
No fatal siting constraints were identified.
The best sites will be in heavy industrial (M3)
areas of the City.
No fatal siting constraints were identified.
The best sites will be in heavy industrial (M3)
or heavily commercial areas of the City.
No fatal siting constraints were identified.
The best sites will be in heavy industrial (M3)
or heavily commercial areas of the City.
The pathway regarding environmental
regulations differs by technology in
California. (7.2.2.5)
Several waste-to-energy facilities have
been permitted in California. Therefore,
regulations exist for advanced thermal
recycling systems to obtain the required
environmental permits to operate.
The legislature and the CIWMB are
establishing a regulatory framework for
thermal conversion technologies. The lack
of such a framework will complicate
permitting these facilities.
The technology for biological conversion in
this study is anaerobic digestion.
Regulations exist in California for this
technology, although no systems have
been permitted for treatment of MSW.
SECTION 8.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

TABLE 8-1 (CONTINUED)
KEY FINDINGS
8-3
Key Finding Description Advanced Thermal Recycling Thermal Conversion Biological Conversion
Life Cycle Analysis of energy
consumption reveals advantages of
employing thermal or biological MSW
processing technologies. (6.5)
Thermal technologies and biological conversion technologies will create significant energy savings when compared to landfilling. This
energy savings results from a combination of syngas and electrical energy production, as well as from materials recovery and recycling.
For example, if a 250,000 TPY per year thermal conversion facility replaced this quantity of black bin post-source separated MSW going
to the landfill, the energy savings would be about 2.6 million MBtu, which is equivalent to a 30 MW power plant operating for one year.
Life Cycle Analysis of criteria pollutant
emissions reveals advantages of
employing thermal or biological MSW
processing technologies. (6.5)
For the criteria air emissions, the advanced thermal recycling, gasification and anaerobic digestion scenarios also performed generally
better than landfilling. The reduced transportation needed to take waste to the landfill contributed to the air emission reductions offered by
advanced thermal recycling, gasification, and anaerobic digestion. For example, if a 250,000 TPY thermal conversion facility treated this
quantity of black bin post-source separated MSW, about 425 tons of NOx emissions per year would be saved (avoided), which is
equivalent to the NOx emissions emitted from a 975 MW natural gas-fired power plant operating for a year.
Technical
The technical maturity of alternative MSW
processing technologies differs.
Combustion of MSW is the most mature of
the alternative MSW processing
technologies evaluated. Approximately 100
such facilities are operational in the U.S.,
with many more in Europe and Japan
(these facilities are predecessors of the
new advanced thermal recycling
technology).
Thermal conversion technologies have
been in successful, long-term use around
the world, although typically using more
homogeneous feedstocks such as coal and
biomass. While technical challenges are
expected, because of their relatively short
operating history using MSW as a
feedstock, these challenges are judged to
be manageable.
Biological conversion facilities processing
source separated organics (SSO), and
more recently MSW, are operating in
Europe and elsewhere overseas.
Facility designs are relatively new;
therefore, current facility designs
generally have not achieved the desired
level of optimization.
There is room for improvement in most designs that would better integrate the three major components of a system (pre-processing,
combustion/conversion, and post-processing/byproduct production). This would increase efficiency and reduced cost/ton.
Air emission control systems are
commercially available to limit air
emissions to below regulatory levels for
all technologies. (2.2)
Applies to all technology groups.
SECTION 8.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

TABLE 8-1 (CONTINUED)
KEY FINDINGS
8-4
Key Finding Description Advanced Thermal Recycling Thermal Conversion Biological Conversion
Thermal efficiency, the amount of net
electricity generation per ton of feedstock
processed, varies by technology. Higher
efficiencies result in better financial
performance. (7.2.1.3)
Thermal technologies that use a steam turbine for electricity production have thermal
efficiencies in the range of about 500-600 kWh/ton. If a reciprocating engine is used, the
efficiency will increase to about 800-900 kWh/ton.
Thermal efficiency is in the range of 150-
200 kWh/ton using reciprocating engines.
Thermal processes recover more energy
than biological ones because they convert
essentially all organics to energy, not just
the biodegradable organics.
Solid residuals generated by these
technologies differ in composition.
(7.2.1.4)
Residuals include boiler and fabric filter fly
ash (assumes bottom ash is recyclable).
This material, although small in terms of
quantity (about 7500 tons/yr for a 400,000
TPY facility), may be classified as
hazardous.
Residuals for low temperature gasification
and pyrolysis include boiler and fabric filter
fly ash, and bottom ash (if not recycled).
These materials, although small in quantity
(1000-6000 tons/yr for a 100,000 TPY
facility), may be classified as hazardous.
Residuals (slag) from high temperature
gasification will be non-hazardous and
inert.
Residuals primarily will consist of
unmarketable rejects, which will be
landfilled. Quantities will range from 15,000
to 40,000 tons/yr for a 100,000 TPY facility.
Revenue/ton can be viewed as a
measure of recycling effectiveness, or the
ability of the technology to achieve higher
market value for its byproducts. (7.2.3.2)
Suppliers in this category can achieve
revenues of about $30-35 per ton.
Suppliers in this category can achieve
revenues of up to $40-55 per ton. This
higher range is due to greater pre-
processing and higher thermal efficiencies.
Suppliers in this category can achieve
revenues of about $20-30 per ton. This
lower range is due to the production of
compost.
The quality of response from the
suppliers affected the results of this study
with regard to the technical evaluation.
The quality of response from suppliers varied. Some responses were incomplete, and others indicated that some information and data
were confidential. This situation affected the presentation of material in this report, particularly with respect to technical issues and
economics.
Economics
The financial feasibility, as measured by a
breakeven tipping fee, varied among
technologies and suppliers. (7.2.3.3)
Advanced thermal recycling systems
exhibited breakeven tipping fees of $56-
$64/ton for 330-380K TPY facilities. The
small range is attributed to the extensive
experience with this technology (i.e., its
predecessor technology) in the U.S.
Thermal conversion breakeven tipping fees
exhibited a wide range ($20-$128/ton for
100K TPY, and $20-$40/ton for 360-400K
TPY facilities). This is attributed to the lack
of experience with these facilities in the
U.S.
Biological conversion breakeven tipping
fees exhibited a wide range ($19-$97/ton
for a 100K TPY facility).
SECTION 8.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

TABLE 8-1 (CONTINUED)
KEY FINDINGS
8-5
Key Finding Description Advanced Thermal Recycling Thermal Conversion Biological Conversion
Economy of scale is a term that refers to
the variation in project economics with
facility throughput. In general, the tipping
fee decreased with increasing throughput.
(7.2.3.3)
Only one size was proposed (330-380K
TPY)
Several responses addressed throughput
levels from 100K to 400K TPY. In some
cases, significant reductions in tipping fee
result with higher throughputs, although
insufficient data exists to be specific.
Several responses addressed throughput
levels from 100K to 300K TPY. In some
cases, significant reductions in tipping fee
result with higher throughputs, although
insufficient data exists to be specific.
Byproduct marketability is an important
issue. Significant uncertainty with regard
to some materials may impact economic
viability. (7.2.1.5)
Advanced thermal recycling gains most of
its revenue from the sale of electricity. This
is a well-developed market. Although only
small amounts of bottom ash are presently
recycled/reused, this is expected to
increase as designs isolate the potentially
hazardous fly ash from the bottom ash.
Thermal conversion gains most of its
revenue from the sale of electricity, a well-
developed market. Another significant
revenue source for some designs are the
recyclables recovered from pre-processing
the inlet black bin post-source separated
MSW. The market for glass, metals and
paper is also well-developed.
Biological conversion facilities produce both
electricity and compost. The compost is
produced in large quantities (15,000-40,000
tons/yr for a 100K TPY facility). California
compost quality regulations are complex.
Extensive testing is required to ensure
acceptability. In addition, the market for this
material is uncertain.
With regard to conversion technologies,
the relationship of project economics to
supplier experience generally indicates
that the more experienced suppliers
provide higher project costs.
The lowest breakeven tipping fees (in the neighborhood of $15-$30/ton) were provided by
suppliers with the least number of operating units. These results could not be verified in
this study; therefore, additional evaluation is needed.
Pre-processing to remove recoverable
recyclables increases revenues. The
value of uncontaminated recyclables in
the black bin post-source separated MSW
is higher as a recyclable material than as
a feedstock to produce electricity.
Applies to all technology groups.


SECTION 8.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

8-6
The technology ranking in Section 7.4 evaluated the thermal and biological technologies using
eight criteria that addressed siting, technical, and economic issues. While the ranking was
conducted using supplier data, the results were used to decide which technology groups
exhibited the best characteristics with regard to successfully disposing of black bin post-source
separated MSW.
Based upon the ranking scores in terms of technologies rather than suppliers, the following
conclusions are drawn:
Advanced thermal recycling and thermal conversion received the highest total scores.
Advanced thermal recycling and thermal conversion received the highest environmental
scores, primarily due to advantages with regard to landfill diversion rate.
All three technologies were in the top five scores on engineering.
All three technologies received similar scores on economics, although advanced thermal
recycling and thermal conversion ranked higher on byproduct marketability.
In summary, the advantages of the thermal technologies over biological conversion are:
Higher landfill diversion rates, which is a primary objective of the project
Lower production of solid byproducts and correspondingly greater production of electricity,
a higher value product with a more well-developed and stable market
Less risk with regard to byproduct marketability, particularly in comparison to compost
Significantly higher thermal efficiencies and, therefore, higher revenue/ton because thermal
processes convert essentially all organics (not just biodegradables) to energy
More operational experience at higher throughputs
8.3 RECOMMENDATIONS
It is recommended that the City of Los Angeles proceed with the activities shown in Table 8-2
for continued development of an alternative MSW processing facility for black bin post-source
separated MSW utilizing a thermal technology.
8.3.1 Public Outreach
Public acceptability will be one of the most important determinants of this projects success.
Siting, permitting and developing a new alternative MSW processing technology for the City of
Los Angeles will lead to many questions from the public with regard to environmental impacts
and public health issues. The key is to consider the public as a partner and present the facts and
SECTION 8.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

8-7
TABLE 8-2
RECOMMENDED ACTIVITIES FOR MSW PROCESSING FACILITY
DEVELOPMENT FOR THE CITY OF LOS ANGELES
Activity Approximate Dates
Initiate Public Outreach September 2005, ongoing
Develop Short List of Suppliers September-November 2005
Conduct Initial Siting Study September-November 2005
Prepare Request for Proposal (RFP) November-February 2006
Issue RFP March 2006
RFP Responses Due June 2006
Evaluate RFP Responses June-October 2006
Announce Preferred Supplier(s) October 2006
Conduct Facility Permitting/Conceptual Design October 2006-October 2007
Prepare Detailed Facility Design July 2007-December 2007
Facility Construction January 2008-October 2009
Performance Testing and Start-up October 2009-January 2010
Commercial Operation (February 2010)
Each of the activities in Table 8-2 is discussed in the following sections.
benefits as early as possible while being responsive to their concerns at all times. Developing
early relationships with key stakeholder groups is essential.
The public outreach should be conducted in two phases. The first phase begins in mid-2005,
with two purposes: educate the public about the alternative MSW processing technologies, and
elicit feedback regarding the publics attitude toward the technologies under consideration.
Education about the characteristics of the technologies, compared to existing disposal methods,
their benefits, and their anticipated environmental impacts are critical tasks. Public outreach is
also important at this stage to provide counterpoint to opposing groups. A communications
strategy in the first phase will access the public in broad terms, to reach large audiences, using
techniques such as television spots, radio interviews, press conferences, and editorial pieces.
Selected focus groups, as well as meetings with community leaders, agency personnel
knowledgeable about emerging MSW processing technologies, and environmental groups also
would be helpful.
The second phase of public outreach takes place after the technology supplier is selected and
alternative site locations are known. Then the outreach becomes more specific than before, and
is focused on the communities, which could be directly affected by the project. The
communications strategy in this phase will use techniques that involve the affected
communities, such as Citizens Advisory Committees and specific neighborhood councils.
SECTION 8.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

8-8
8.3.2 Develop a Short List of Suppliers
Prior to issuing a Request for Proposal (RFP) to select a supplier for the alternative MSW
processing technology, a list of suppliers eligible for receiving this RFP will be developed.
This short list will be compiled using the following input:
Results of the supplier evaluation conducted during this study.
A review of the key uncertainties remaining after the supplier evaluation carried out in this
study. Additional discussion with selected suppliers may be held to address issues such as
methods to improve facility reliability and efficiency, ways to reduce design risks (use of
standardized equipment where feasible), and further evaluation of costs and revenue
projections.
Feedback from the public outreach program scheduled to be initiated in mid-2005 with
regard to technology preferences.
8.3.3 Initial Siting Study
An RFP must be quite specific with regard to site characteristics in order to encourage the most
detailed and complete responses. Potential bidders will want to know more information about
site environmental constraints and availability of infrastructure. This information must be
compiled while the RFP is being prepared.
8.3.4 Preparation of Request for Proposal and Select Preferred Supplier
A technology supplier must formally be selected for this project. This will be accomplished by
issuing an RFP to selected bidders. The RFP will contain a detailed set of instructions about
how to reply, and will require the bidder to provide a comprehensive design along with a
detailed cost and revenue estimate and information on performance guarantees and financing.
The responses to the RFP will be evaluated and a preferred supplier will be selected.
8.3.5 Conduct Facility Permitting and Conceptual Design
Once a technology supplier has been selected, a conceptual design is prepared to support
preparation of required environmental and permit application documents. In parallel, these
environmental documents will be prepared, and submitted to the appropriate agencies for
processing. A series of public meetings will be held during agency review.
8.3.6 Detailed Design and Construction
Finally, the detailed design is prepared, which will support facility construction, followed by
construction, start-up, and initiation of operation.













Appendix A

Master Supply List of Technologies

APPENDIX A MASTER SUPPLY LIST OF TECHNOLOGIES

S:\04 PROJ\28906534 LABOS\Draft Report\Draft Report 7-14-05\Appendices\Appendix A.doc A-1
TABLE A-1
LIST OF PHYSICAL CONVERSION TECHNOLOGIES
CITY OF LOS ANGELES BUREAU OF SANITATION ALTERNATIVE MSW DISPOSAL TECHNOLOGY STUDY

Technology
Division Technology Supplier Name Process Primary Feedstock Name Location
Physical Agglomeration CPM/Roskamp Champion California Pellet Mill Co. Multiple Crawfordsville, IN
Physical Agglomeration FEECO International Multiple Green Bay, WI
Physical Agglomeration Advanced Processes, Inc. Ferro-Tech Multiple, fly ash, biosolids,
used tires, metal wastes
Ambridge, PA
Physical Agglomeration Komar Industries, Inc. MSW, solid, industrial,
petrochemical, and medical
waste
Groveport, OH
Physical Autoclaving Brightstar Environmental Solid Waste Energy And
Recycling Facility (SWERF)
MSW Ron Menville Baton Rouge, LA
Physical Autoclaving Estech Europe Fibrecycle MSW Aldridge, West Midlands, UK
Physical Autoclaving Tempico, Inc. Rotoclave MSW, medical waste, animal
waste
Hammond, LA
Physical Densification Marathon Equipment
Company
MSW Vernon, AL
Physical Densification Warren Baerg MSW, wood, paper Dinuba, CA
Physical Densification Lundell Manufacturing, Inc. MSW Cherokee, IA
Physical Drying M-E-C Company. MSW, wood, biomass Richard Chaney Neodesha, KS
Physical RDF Herhof Umwelttechnik GmbH Herhof Stabilat MSW Solms-Niederbiel, Germany
Physical RDF reCulture AB MSW Karlstad, Sweden
Physical RDF DMS Group Uses Herhof process MSW N/A
Physical RDF Energy Answers Corp. Processed Refuse Fuel (PRF) MSW Albany, NY
Physical RDF Sentinel Power Corp. MSW John Philipson/
Arnold McMillan
Strathroy, Ontario, Canada
Physical RDF Renewable Resources
Alliance, LLC
Post Recycled Municipal
Biomass (PRMB)
MSW Paul Relis Stanton, CA
Physical RDF CHAMCO CHAMCO/SELCO MSW Des Plaines, IL
APPENDIX A MASTER SUPPLY LIST OF TECHNOLOGIES

TABLE A-1 (CONTINUED)
LIST OF PHYSICAL CONVERSION TECHNOLOGIES
CITY OF LOS ANGELES BUREAU OF SANITATION ALTERNATIVE MSW DISPOSAL TECHNOLOGY STUDY

S:\04 PROJ\28906534 LABOS\Draft Report\Draft Report 7-14-05\Appendices\Appendix A.doc A-2
Technology
Division Technology Supplier Name Process Primary Feedstock Name Location
Physical Separation/
Delamination
Brian Brady & Associates,
Inc.
Result Technology AG
(Switzerland)
Circuit boards, tires,
telephones, batteries, cables
Brian Brady Toronto, ON, Canada
Physical Separation/RDF Enviro-Services &
Constructors, Inc. (RRT
Design & Construction)
Previously Waste
Management's RRT process
Paper and plastic recycling,
dirty MRFs, mixed-waste
processing, transfer stations,
RDF, yard waste, ash
Nathaniel Egosi Melville, NY
Physical Size Reduction SSI Shredding Systems, Inc. MSW Wilsonville, OR
Physical Size Reduction Granutech-Saturn Systems MSW, plastic, tires Grand Prairie, TX
Physical Size Reduction Blower Application Company,
Inc.
Wood, plastic, tires, metal Germantown, WI
Physical Size Reduction Mayfran International MSW, plastic, metals Cleveland, OH
Physical Size Reduction Peterson Wood Eugene, OR
Physical Size Reduction Shred-Tech MSW, tires, plastic, wood Cambridge, ON, Canada
Canada
Physical Size Reduction Lundell Manufacturing Inc. MSW Cherokee, IA
Physical Size Reduction Continental Biomass
Industries Inc.
MSW, wood Aaron Benway Newton, NH
Physical Steam processing/
Autoclaving
Waste Reduction
Technologies, Inc.
Steam Pressure Pulverization
(SPP)
MSW, cellulose Tony Noll Covington, KY
Physical Steam processing/
Autoclaving
World Waste of America, Inc. N/A Dick Pallett N/A
Physical Steam processing/
Autoclaving
Waste Technology
Partnership
RCR STAG: dry, saturated
steam at 320F to sanitize
MSW, reduce volume by 85%
to fibrous form, de-
lacquer/delabel containers,
provide homogenous outflow.
MSW Dr. Anthony
Haden-Taylor
Wigan, UK
APPENDIX A MASTER SUPPLY LIST OF TECHNOLOGIES

S:\04 PROJ\28906534 LABOS\Draft Report\Draft Report 7-14-05\Appendices\Appendix A.doc A-3
TABLE A-2
LIST OF BIOLOGICAL CONVERSION TECHNOLOGIES
CITY OF LOS ANGELES BUREAU OF SANITATION ALTERNATIVE MSW DISPOSAL TECHNOLOGY STUDY

Technology
Division Technology Supplier Name Process Primary Feedstock Name Location
Biological Aerobic Wright Environmental
Management, Inc.
MSW Richmond Hill, ON, Canada
Biological Aerobic BAV Umwelttechnik MSW Tornesch, Germany
Biological Aerobic Outspoken Industries MSW Lawrence Boul Christchurch, NZ
Biological Aerobic Antrim Industries Canada Ronald Mark
Stafford

Biological Aerobic Waste Options Atlantic N/A N/A
Biological Aerobic EWMCE MSW Jerry Leonard Edmonton AB, Canada
Biological Aerobic Real Earth U.S. Enterprises N/A N/A
Biological Aerobic Conporec MSW Jeffrey Heath Cazenovia, NY
Biological Aerobic Stinnes Enerco MSW Jim Lee Mississauga, ON, Canada
Biological Aerobic American Bio-Tech Yard waste, wood waste,
biosolids
John G.
Laurenson, Jr.
Vancouver, BC, Canada
Biological Aerobic International Bio Recovery
Corporation
Organic waste Haifa, Israel
Biological Anaerobic digestion Arrow Ecology MSW Camarillo, CA
Biological Anaerobic digestion Onsite Power Systems Processed wastewater Orville Moe Santa Monica, CA
Biological Anaerobic digestion BioConverter LLC MSW Gainesville, FL
Biological Anaerobic digestion SEBAC MSW Chynoweth;
David P.
Mnchen, Germany
Biological Anaerobic digestion BTA (Biotechnische
Abfallverwertung)
MSW Harry Wiljan Pasadena, CA
Biological Anaerobic digestion EcoCorp, Inc. MSW Dr. Christian A.
Kaendler
Toronto, ON, Canada
Biological Anaerobic digestion Dufferin Organics
Processing Center
MSW Newmarket, ON, Canada
APPENDIX A MASTER SUPPLY LIST OF TECHNOLOGIES

TABLE A-2 (CONTINUED)
LIST OF BIOLOGICAL CONVERSION TECHNOLOGIES
CITY OF LOS ANGELES BUREAU OF SANITATION ALTERNATIVE MSW DISPOSAL TECHNOLOGY STUDY

S:\04 PROJ\28906534 LABOS\Draft Report\Draft Report 7-14-05\Appendices\Appendix A.doc A-4
Technology
Division Technology Supplier Name Process Primary Feedstock Name Location
Biological Anaerobic digestion Global Renewables/ISKA MSW Greg MacDonald Perth, Australia
Biological Anaerobic digestion Dufferin Organics
Processing Center
MSW Newmarket, ON, Canada
Biological Anaerobic digestion Canada Composting, Inc.
(CCI)
MSW Jim Tully Montpellier, France
Biological Anaerobic digestion Steinmller Valorga MSW Gent, Belgium
Biological Anaerobic digestion Organic Waste Systems MSW Winfried Six Ettlingen, (where?)
Biological Anaerobic digestion ISKA Gumbo N/A Stanton, CA
Biological Anaerobic digestion Pinnacle Biotechnology MSW Brian Duff Atlanta, GA
Biological Anaerobic digestion MCX Environmental Energy
Corporation
Agricultural waste Calumet City, IL
Biological Anaerobic digestion Linde-KCA-Dresden MSW Dr. Gunter
Bruntsch
Aadorf, Switzerland
Biological Anaerobic digestion Nova Energie GmbH Vantaa, Finland
Biological Anaerobic digestion Skanska MSW Emmendingen, Germany
Biological Anaerobic digestion Wehrle Werk AG MSW Mr. H Wienands Glattbrugg, Germany
Biological Anaerobic digestion Kompogas Sorted MSW Theo Huwiler Longstock, Hampshire, UK
Biological Anaerobic digestion Bioplex Ltd. N/A N/A
Biological Anaerobic digestion Eastern Power MSW Frankenburg , Austria
Biological Anaerobic digestion Rotec N/A Horsington, Somerset, UK
Biological Anaerobic digestion Organic Power Ltd. MSW Susan Fazio CA
Biological Anaerobic digestion Gupard Energy, Inc. Agricultural waste Rockwell
Swanson
Larkspur, CA
Biological Anaerobic digestion Microgy Cogeneration
Systems, Inc.
Agricultural waste Jeff Dasovich Shawnee Mission, KS
APPENDIX A MASTER SUPPLY LIST OF TECHNOLOGIES

TABLE A-2 (CONTINUED)
LIST OF BIOLOGICAL CONVERSION TECHNOLOGIES
CITY OF LOS ANGELES BUREAU OF SANITATION ALTERNATIVE MSW DISPOSAL TECHNOLOGY STUDY

S:\04 PROJ\28906534 LABOS\Draft Report\Draft Report 7-14-05\Appendices\Appendix A.doc A-5
Technology
Division Technology Supplier Name Process Primary Feedstock Name Location
Biological Anaerobic digestion WaterSmart Environmental,
Inc.
Agricultural waste Fresno, CA
Biological Ethanol Fermentation Nova Fuels Wood Mike Kaufher Dedhamm, MA
Biological Ethanol fermentation BC International MSW John Doyle Irvine, CA
Biological Ethanol fermentation Arkenol Agricultural/biomass waste Michael Fatigati Birmingham, AL
Biological Ethanol fermentation Masada MSW Ottawa, ON, Canada
Biological Ethanol fermentation Iogen Biomass Jeffrey Tolan Bozeman, MT
Biological Ethanol fermentation Genahol MSW Donald Brelsford N/A
Biological Ethanol fermentation Waste To Energy MSW fractions Greg Shipley Palo Alto, CA
Biological Ethanol fermentation Genencor Biomass Ft. Lupton, CO
Biological Ethanol fermentation PureVision Technology Biomass Dick Wingerson N/A
Biological Ethanol fermentation C2 Envirosource N/A Hudson, OH
Biological Ethanol fermentation GeneSyst International MSW N/A
Biological Ethanol fermentation Global American Energy
Holding Company
N/A Encino, CA
Biological Thermal - ethanol
fermentation
BRI Biomass Jim Stewart N/A

APPENDIX A MASTER SUPPLY LIST OF TECHNOLOGIES

S:\04 PROJ\28906534 LABOS\Draft Report\Draft Report 7-14-05\Appendices\Appendix A.doc A-6
TABLE A-3
LIST OF CHEMICAL CONVERSION TECHNOLOGIES
CITY OF LOS ANGELES BUREAU OF SANITATION ALTERNATIVE MSW DISPOSAL TECHNOLOGY STUDY

Technology
Division Technology Supplier Name Process
Primary Feedstock
Experience Name Location
Chemical Hydrolysis Arkenol Agricultural/biomass waste Michael Fatigati N/A
Chemical Hydrolysis Genahol MSW, biomass Donald Brelsford N/A
Chemical Hydrolysis Iogen Biomass Jeffrey Tolan Ottawa, ON, Canada
Chemical Hydrolysis Genencor Biomass N/A
Chemical Hydrolysis PureVision Technology Biomass Dick Wingerson Ft. Lupton, CO
Chemical Hydrolysis GeneSyst International MSW James Titmas N/A
Chemical Hydrolysis BC International MSW John Doyle N/A
Chemical Hydrolysis C2 Envirosource N/A N/A
Chemical Hydrolysis Global American Energy
Holding Co.
N/A N/A
Chemical Catalysis Power Energy Fuels, Inc. PEFI catalysis
process produces
Ecalene (alcohol)
MSW, carbon-based wastes Lakewood, CO
Chemical Hydrolysis Masada Resource Group CES OxyNol MSW, sewage sludge, waste
paper, green waste
Doug Elliott Vestavia Hills, AL
Chemical Catalytic cracking H.SMARTech, Inc. Plastic waste Portland, OR
Chemical Hydrotreating, wet
gasification
Pacific Northwest National
Lab
Biomass, MSW Richland, WA
APPENDIX A MASTER SUPPLY LIST OF TECHNOLOGIES

TABLE A-3 (CONTINUED)
LIST OF CHEMICAL CONVERSION TECHNOLOGIES
CITY OF LOS ANGELES BUREAU OF SANITATION ALTERNATIVE MSW DISPOSAL TECHNOLOGY STUDY

S:\04 PROJ\28906534 LABOS\Draft Report\Draft Report 7-14-05\Appendices\Appendix A.doc A-7
Technology
Division Technology Supplier Name Process
Primary Feedstock
Experience Name Location
Chemical Other CE-CERT Norbeck, J. M.,
and Johnson, K.
(2000). "Evaluation
of a Process to
Convert Biomass
to Methanol Fuel."
NRMRL-RTP-202,
CE-CERT,
Riverside.
Clean wood Riverside, CA
Chemical Other Pacific Biodiesel Restaurant grease trap oil Bob Armantrout Maui, HI
Chemical Other Biodiesel Industries, Inc. Recycled cooking oil Las Vegas, NV
Chemical Other MCX Environmental Energy
Corporation
SlurryCarb MSW, Solid Wastes Atlanta, GA

APPENDIX A MASTER SUPPLY LIST OF TECHNOLOGIES

S:\04 PROJ\28906534 LABOS\Draft Report\Draft Report 7-14-05\Appendices\Appendix A.doc A-8
TABLE A-4
LIST OF THERMAL TECHNOLOGIES
CITY OF LOS ANGELES BUREAU OF SANITATION ALTERNATIVE MSW DISPOSAL TECHNOLOGY STUDY

Technology
Division Technology Supplier Name Process Primary Feedstock Name Location
Thermal Gasification Primenergy, LLC PRM Energy
gasification
Biomass, RDF, rice hulls, olive
waste
Bill Scott Tulsa, OK
Thermal Gasification Emery Energy Company Emery Energy
gasification
process
Tires, RDF Ben Phillips Salt Lake City, UT
Thermal Gasification Thermogenics, Inc. Thermogenics
Gasification
System
MSW, wood waste, lignin, tires Tom Taylor Albuquerque, NM
Thermal Gasification Chiptec N/A Wood waste Bob Bender Burlington, VT
Thermal Gasification AmbientECO Produces
EnviroFuel, to
gasification
MSW Warren Hyland Inglewood, ON, Canada
Thermal Gasification Global Warming Prevention
Technologies, Inc.
Natural State
Reduction
System (NSRS)
MSW, industrial and medical
waste
Steve Poulos Toronto, ON, Canada
Thermal Gasification SenreQ, LLC Batch gasification MSW Michael Pope Oak Brook, IL
Thermal Gasification Synxx Energy Solutions, Inc. Synxx Zero
Waste Process
MSW Fred Arnold Thornhill, ON, Canada
Thermal Gasification City Clean 2000 Inc. Arlis
System/Terra
Recycling &
Energy GmbH
MSW Peter Meszaros Ft. Myers, FL
Thermal Gasification Omnifuel Technologies, Inc. (previously Down
Stream Systems)
Organic waste, tires, sewage
sludge, biomass
John Black,
Robert
McChesney
Citrus Heights, CA
Thermal Gasification Costich Company MSW Dale Costich Brush Prairie, WA
APPENDIX A MASTER SUPPLY LIST OF TECHNOLOGIES

TABLE A-4 (CONTINUED)
LIST OF THERMAL TECHNOLOGIES
CITY OF LOS ANGELES BUREAU OF SANITATION ALTERNATIVE MSW DISPOSAL TECHNOLOGY STUDY

S:\04 PROJ\28906534 LABOS\Draft Report\Draft Report 7-14-05\Appendices\Appendix A.doc A-9
Technology
Division Technology Supplier Name Process Primary Feedstock Name Location
Thermal Gasification Global Green Energy, LLC MSW Alexander
"Duke" Bascom
Edina, MN
Thermal Gasification Lurgi Energie und
Entsorgung GmbH
Rowitec (go
through Gryphen
Technologies in
USA)
N/A Dsseldorf, Germany
Thermal Gasification Nippon Steel -
Environmental Plant Sales
Div.
Waste Direct
Melting System
MSW U.S. - Masato -
Osamu Suzuki
New York, NY
Thermal Gasification Innovative Logistics
Solutions, Inc.
Pyromex MSW Richard Dietrich Palm Desert, CA
Thermal Gasification Whitten Group International Entech
Renewable
Energy System
MSW, medical and animal food
waste, dried sewage,
hazardous waste
Ron Whitten Longview, WA
Thermal Gasification Eco Waste Solutions 2-stage gasifier
w/close-coupled
thermal oxidizer
MSW, medical, and hazardous
waste
Burlington, ON, Canada
Thermal Gasification Nathaniel Energy Corp. Thermal
Combustor
MSW, RDF Englewood, CO
Thermal Gasification Improved Converters, Inc. Advanced Multi-
Purpose
Converter
MSW, RDF, tires, hazardous
waste
Chris Kasten Sacramento, CA
Thermal Gasification Heuristic Engineering EnvirOcycler MSW, RDF, wood, biomass Dr. Malcolm D.
Lefcort
Vancouver, BC, Canada
Thermal Gasification Kara Energy Systems b.v. Biomass Almelo, Netherlands
Thermal Gasification TPS Termiska Processer AB RDF, wood Lars Waldheim Nykping, Sweden
APPENDIX A MASTER SUPPLY LIST OF TECHNOLOGIES

TABLE A-4 (CONTINUED)
LIST OF THERMAL TECHNOLOGIES
CITY OF LOS ANGELES BUREAU OF SANITATION ALTERNATIVE MSW DISPOSAL TECHNOLOGY STUDY

S:\04 PROJ\28906534 LABOS\Draft Report\Draft Report 7-14-05\Appendices\Appendix A.doc A-10
Technology
Division Technology Supplier Name Process Primary Feedstock Name Location
Thermal Gasification Energy Products of Idaho MSW, RDF, biomass, wood
chips, sawdust, paper mill
sludge, industrial sludge,
plastic, tires, coal
Kent Pope Coeur d'Alene, ID
Thermal Gasification Community Power Corp. Designed by CPA
and Iowa State
Univ.,
manufactured by
EPI
Sawdust, wood chips, chicken
litter
Art Lilley Littleton, CO
Thermal Gasification Trillium Recycling & Energy
Management Corp.
Ebara - Internally
Circulating
Fluidized Bed
Gasification
(ICFG)
MSW, RDF, wood chips Kazuo Kato Mississauga, ON, Canada
Thermal Gasification Trillium Recycling & Energy
Management Corp.
Ebara - TwinRec MSW, RDF Kazuo Kato Mississauga, ON, Canada
Thermal Gasification Enerkem Technologies, Inc.
(part of KEMESTRIE Group,
part of Univ. of Sherbrooke)
Biosyn
Technology, Fluid
bed w/alumina or
silica
MSW, plastic, wood waste,
RDF
Vincent Chornet Sherbrooke, QC, Canada
Thermal Gasification Woodland Chemical
Systems, Inc.
Catalyzed
Pressure
Reduction (CPR)
- gasification and
ethanol formation
Biomass, sewage sludge,
wood waste
No data Burlington, ON, Canada
APPENDIX A MASTER SUPPLY LIST OF TECHNOLOGIES

TABLE A-4 (CONTINUED)
LIST OF THERMAL TECHNOLOGIES
CITY OF LOS ANGELES BUREAU OF SANITATION ALTERNATIVE MSW DISPOSAL TECHNOLOGY STUDY

S:\04 PROJ\28906534 LABOS\Draft Report\Draft Report 7-14-05\Appendices\Appendix A.doc A-11
Technology
Division Technology Supplier Name Process Primary Feedstock Name Location
Thermal Gasification FERCO Enterprises Inc.
(formerly Future Energy
Resources Corp.)
SilvaGas MSW, wood waste, agricultural
waste
James W.
Taylor, Jr.
Montgomery, NY; Norcross, GA
Thermal Gasification Torftech (Canada) Ltd. Torbed process MSW Bob Laughlin Mississauga, ON, Canada
Thermal Gasification NKK Corporation High-
Temperature
Gasifying and
Direct Melting
Furnace
MSW, industrial waste Tokyo, Japan
Thermal Gasification Eco Electric Power Company MSW Las Vegas, NV
Thermal Gasification Malahat Energy N/A N/A
Thermal Gasification Dynecology, Inc. MSW Dr Helmut W
Schulz
Harrison, NY
Thermal Gasification Novera Energy Ltd. Advanced
Thermal
Gasification
MSW Shane Gannon Sydney, Australia
Thermal Gasification Advanced Technology
Concepts, LLC
Gasification,
followed by
conversion to
ethanol
MSW, biomass Alfred R. Dozier Albuquerque, NM
Thermal Gasification Ebara Ebara Twin Rec
TIFG
(Twin Internally
Circulating
Fluidized Bed
Gasification)
N/A Kaoru Shin Tokyo, Japan
Thermal Gasification Nova-Conrex Nova N/A Jov Theodor New York, NY
APPENDIX A MASTER SUPPLY LIST OF TECHNOLOGIES

TABLE A-4 (CONTINUED)
LIST OF THERMAL TECHNOLOGIES
CITY OF LOS ANGELES BUREAU OF SANITATION ALTERNATIVE MSW DISPOSAL TECHNOLOGY STUDY

S:\04 PROJ\28906534 LABOS\Draft Report\Draft Report 7-14-05\Appendices\Appendix A.doc A-12
Technology
Division Technology Supplier Name Process Primary Feedstock Name Location
Thermal Advanced Thermal Recycling Hi Temp Tech Corp. HiTemp
Technology
(HTT) w/rotary
kiln
MSW Steve Parker Flemington, NJ
Thermal Advanced Thermal Recycling EnerWaste International
Corp.
Batch Oxidizing
System
MSW, medical and industrial
waste, wood
Tom Dutcher Bellingham, WA
Thermal Advanced Thermal Recycling Consutech Systems, LLC Consumat MSW, medical and industrial
waste
Bob Lee Richmond, VA
Thermal Advanced Thermal Recycling Tanner Management Corp Pyrotechnix MSW, medical waste Huntington Station, NY
Thermal Advanced Thermal Recycling Pennram Diversified
Manufacturing Corp
MSW, medical waste Andrew Hooker Williamsport, PA
Thermal Advanced Thermal Recycling Seghers Keppel Technology,
Inc.
Seghersdano
drum for pre-
screening and
pulverizing MSW,
followed by
Seghers multi-
stage grate
MSW Dirk Eeraerts Maruietta, GA
Thermal Advanced Thermal Recycling Econergy Biomass, wood-fueled systems Jim Birse Bristol, UK
Thermal Advanced Thermal Recycling Omega Thermal
Technologies
Advanced
Thermal
Recycling
MSW, medical waste, ash Mount Laurel, NJ
Thermal Advanced Thermal Recycling Thermtec, Inc. MSW, medical and industrial
waste,
Sherwood, OR
Thermal Advanced Thermal Recycling Waste Recovery Seattle, Inc. MSW Philipp Schmidt-
Pathmann
N/A
APPENDIX A MASTER SUPPLY LIST OF TECHNOLOGIES

TABLE A-4 (CONTINUED)
LIST OF THERMAL TECHNOLOGIES
CITY OF LOS ANGELES BUREAU OF SANITATION ALTERNATIVE MSW DISPOSAL TECHNOLOGY STUDY

S:\04 PROJ\28906534 LABOS\Draft Report\Draft Report 7-14-05\Appendices\Appendix A.doc A-13
Technology
Division Technology Supplier Name Process Primary Feedstock Name Location
Thermal Advanced Thermal Recycling Alstom Power MSW Christer
Mauritzson
N/A
Thermal Advanced Thermal Recycling Riley Power, Inc. Advanced
Thermal
Recycling
MSW Worcester, MA
Thermal Advanced Thermal Recycling Barlow Projects, Inc. Aireal
combustion
system
MSW Brad Moorman Ft. Collins, CO
Thermal Advanced Thermal Recycling Advanced Combustion
Systems
MSW Mike Milnes Bellingham, WA
Thermal Advanced Thermal Recycling Basic Envirotech, Inc. Basic Pulse
Hearth Boiler
(stoker), w/3-
stage combustion
MSW John Basic, Jr. Naperville IL
Thermal Advanced Thermal Recycling Covanta Energy Corp. (U.S.
rep for Martin GmbH)
Martin MSW Trish Libertell Fairfield, NJ
Thermal Advanced Thermal Recycling Energy Answers Corp. MSW Albany, NY
Thermal Advanced Thermal Recycling Foster Wheeler Power Corp. MSW Clinton, NJ
Thermal Advanced Thermal Recycling KMS Peel, Inc. N/A N/A
Thermal Advanced Thermal Recycling Martin GmbH (Covanta is
U.S. rep)
SYNCOM
(inclined grate)
MSW Erwin Leitmeir
or Ekkehart
Gartner
Munich, Germany
Thermal Advanced Thermal Recycling Onyx Montenay Power Corp. MSW New York, NY
Thermal Advanced Thermal Recycling Von Roll, Inc. Used by
Wheelabrator
MSW Norcross, GA
Thermal Advanced Thermal Recycling Wheelabrator Technologies,
Inc.
Von Roll MSW Richard Stone,
Mark Lyons
Hampton, NH
APPENDIX A MASTER SUPPLY LIST OF TECHNOLOGIES

TABLE A-4 (CONTINUED)
LIST OF THERMAL TECHNOLOGIES
CITY OF LOS ANGELES BUREAU OF SANITATION ALTERNATIVE MSW DISPOSAL TECHNOLOGY STUDY

S:\04 PROJ\28906534 LABOS\Draft Report\Draft Report 7-14-05\Appendices\Appendix A.doc A-14
Technology
Division Technology Supplier Name Process Primary Feedstock Name Location
Thermal Advanced Thermal Recycling International Combustion
Systems, Inc.
No data No data No data No data
Thermal Advanced Thermal Recycling American Ref-Fuel Company MSW Derek Veenhof N/A
Thermal Advanced Thermal Recycling Gryphen Technologies, Inc. Lurgi Rowitec
CFB Advanced
Thermal
Recycling
MSW Irvin Kew Victoria, BC, Canada
Thermal Advanced Thermal Recycling Detroit Stoker Company. MSW, wood, biomass Tom Tillman Monroe, MI
Thermal Other Thermal Molecular Waste
Technologies, Inc.
No data Alan Miller Marietta, GA
Thermal Other Thermal Environmental Waste
International
Reverse
Polymerization
Process (in
nitrogen
environment)
Biological waste, tires Michael Vocilka Ajax, ON, Canada
Thermal Other Thermal Kinectrics Biomedical waste Dave Young Toronto, ON, Canada
Thermal Other thermal Changing World
Technologies, Inc.
Thermal
Conversion
Process (TCP)
MSW, animal waste, organics
to oils
Brian Appel Hempstead, NY
Thermal Plasma Gasification Recovered Energy, Inc. Recovered
Energy System
MSW Richard Lewis Pocatello, ID
Thermal Plasma Gasification Integrated Environmental
Technologies, LLC
Plasma
Enhanced Melter
MSW, hazardous, radioactive,
medical, and industrial waste
and plastic
William J.
Quapp
Richland, WA
APPENDIX A MASTER SUPPLY LIST OF TECHNOLOGIES

TABLE A-4 (CONTINUED)
LIST OF THERMAL TECHNOLOGIES
CITY OF LOS ANGELES BUREAU OF SANITATION ALTERNATIVE MSW DISPOSAL TECHNOLOGY STUDY

S:\04 PROJ\28906534 LABOS\Draft Report\Draft Report 7-14-05\Appendices\Appendix A.doc A-15
Technology
Division Technology Supplier Name Process Primary Feedstock Name Location
Thermal Plasma Gasification Scientific Utilization, Inc. Pyro-Electric
Thermal
Conversion
(PETC)
Medical and hazardous waste Keith Bucher Huntsville, AL
Thermal Plasma Gasification Solena Group Plasma
Gasification
Vitrification
Industrial waste/MSW Richard
Weissman,
Ph.D.
Washington, DC
Thermal Plasma Gasification Try Star Ltd. Westinghouse
plasma torch
MSW Ron Mestach N/A
Thermal Plasma Gasification American Plasma Corp. N/A N/A
Thermal Plasma Gasification RCL Plasma, Inc. (formerly
Resorption Canada Limited)
Phoenix
Solutions or
Europlasma
Biomedical and hazardous
waste
Randy Bennett Gloucester, ON, Canada
Thermal Plasma Gasification U.S. Plasma, Inc. Plasma
Gasification
Process (PGP),
using RCL
Plasma
technology
(plasma torch by
Phoenix
Solutions)
Ash vitrification, industrial,
hazardous and medical waste,
PCBs, solvents
No data Mt. Pleasant, SC
Thermal Plasma Gasification Global Environmental
Technologies of Ontario, Inc.
Westinghouse
plasma torch
No data No data No data
Thermal Plasma Gasification Hi-Tech Enterprise Ltd. IMCO BRT
process (?)
No data No data No data
APPENDIX A MASTER SUPPLY LIST OF TECHNOLOGIES

TABLE A-4 (CONTINUED)
LIST OF THERMAL TECHNOLOGIES
CITY OF LOS ANGELES BUREAU OF SANITATION ALTERNATIVE MSW DISPOSAL TECHNOLOGY STUDY

S:\04 PROJ\28906534 LABOS\Draft Report\Draft Report 7-14-05\Appendices\Appendix A.doc A-16
Technology
Division Technology Supplier Name Process Primary Feedstock Name Location
Thermal Plasma Gasification Geoplasma LLC (part of
Jacoby Development, Inc.)
Plasma Direct
Melting Reactor.
Westinghouse
Plasma torches.
MSW Hilburn Hillestad Atlanta, GA
Thermal Plasma Gasification Pearl Earth Sciences Corp. Plasma Waste
Converter
No data Donna Dickson Ajax, ON, Canada
Thermal Plasma Gasification Plasma Environmental
Technologies, Inc.
Plasma Assisted
Gasifier (PAG).
Also PARCON
process
w/Kinectrics
Hazardous waste No data Burlington, ON, Canada
Thermal Plasma Gasification PyroGenesis, Inc. Plasma Resource
Recovery System
(PRRS)
Hazardous waste, incinerator
ash
P. Peter Pascali Montreal, QC, Canada
Thermal Plasma Gasification Startech Environmental
Corp.
Plasma
Converter
System
No data Joseph Longo Wilton, CT
Thermal Plasma Gasification Plasma Waste Conversion
Corp.
N/A N/A
Thermal Plasma Gasification MPM Technologies, Inc. Skygas plasma
gasification
MSW, industrial waste, wood
waste
Frank Hsu Parsippany, NJ
Thermal Plasma Gasification Phoenix Solutions Company Ash vitrification, industrial,
hazardous and medical waste,
PCBs, solvents
Douglas Frame Crystal, MN
Thermal Plasma Gasification SRL Plasma Ltd. PLASCON
process
Gaseous and liquid waste Rex Williams Narangba, Queensland,
Australia
APPENDIX A MASTER SUPPLY LIST OF TECHNOLOGIES

TABLE A-4 (CONTINUED)
LIST OF THERMAL TECHNOLOGIES
CITY OF LOS ANGELES BUREAU OF SANITATION ALTERNATIVE MSW DISPOSAL TECHNOLOGY STUDY

S:\04 PROJ\28906534 LABOS\Draft Report\Draft Report 7-14-05\Appendices\Appendix A.doc A-17
Technology
Division Technology Supplier Name Process Primary Feedstock Name Location
Thermal Plasma Gasification Thermal Conversion Corp.
(owned by Nuvotec, Inc.)
Induction-
Coupled Plasma
(ICP) Reforming
Process
No data No data Richland, WA
Thermal Plasma Gasification Golden State Energy Plasma-Based
Pyrolysis/Vitrificat
ion (PBPV), using
PEAT system
Destruction of special,
hazardous and medical waste;
vitrification of ash
Dr. Tom
Damberger
(former CEO for
HI Disposal
Systems, LLC)
Carson City, NV
Thermal Plasma Gasification Tetronics Ltd. Vitrification of incinerator and
steel mill ash
Jas Manik Faringdon, Oxon, UK
Thermal Plasma Gasification Hitachi Metals, Inc. Plasma Direct
Melting Furnace
(Westinghouse
Plasma)
MSW Akira Nomura Tokyo, Japan
Thermal Plasma Gasification HI Disposal Systems, LLC Plasma-Based
Pyrolysis/Vitrificat
ion (PBPV), using
PEAT system
Destruction of special,
hazardous and medical waste;
vitrification of ash
Indianapolis, IN
Thermal Plasma Gasification Europlasma Vitrification of ash Laure Chanony Munich, Germany
Thermal Plasma Gasification PEAT International, Inc. Peat Thermal
Destruction and
Recovery (PTDR)
MSW, medical, industrial, and
hazardous waste, fly ash,
bottom ash
Frank Menon Northbrook, IL
Thermal Pyrolysis Conrad Industries 121 Melhart
Road Chehalis,
WA, 98532
Plastic Bill Conrad Chehalis, WA
APPENDIX A MASTER SUPPLY LIST OF TECHNOLOGIES

TABLE A-4 (CONTINUED)
LIST OF THERMAL TECHNOLOGIES
CITY OF LOS ANGELES BUREAU OF SANITATION ALTERNATIVE MSW DISPOSAL TECHNOLOGY STUDY

S:\04 PROJ\28906534 LABOS\Draft Report\Draft Report 7-14-05\Appendices\Appendix A.doc A-18
Technology
Division Technology Supplier Name Process Primary Feedstock Name Location
Thermal Pyrolysis Life Energy & Technology
Holdings
Biosphere
Process
MSW Rick Diederich New Orleans, LA
Thermal Pyrolysis Mitsui Babcock R21 Process MSW David Allen Atlanta, GA
Thermal Pyrolysis WasteGen (UK) Ltd Materials and
Energy Recovery
Plant (MERP)
MSW Colin Hygate Wolvey, Hinckley,
Leicestershire, UK
Thermal Pyrolysis Graveson Energy
Management
GEM High-Speed
Conversion
Technology
MSW Doug Weltz Summit, NJ
Thermal Pyrolysis JF Ventures Ltd. JF Bioenergy N/A
Thermal Pyrolysis/Gasification Interstate Waste
Technologies
Thermoselect MSW Frank Campbell Malvern, PA
Thermal Pyrolysis/Gasification Global Energy Solutions, Inc. Thermal
Converter
MSW Don Allen Sarasota, FL
Thermal Pyrolysis/Gasification Compact Power Holdings
PLC/Compact Power Ltd
MSW John Acton Avonmouth, Bristol, U.K.
Thermal Pyrolysis/Gasification RGR Ambiente Srl MSW, RDF, medical, industrial,
and hazardous waste
No data Verona, Italy
Thermal Pyrolysis/Steam Reforming Brightstar Environmental Solid Waste
Energy Recovery
Facility (SWERF)
MSW Ron Menville Baton Rouge, LA
Thermal Steam reforming/catalysis ThermoChem Recovery
International, Inc.
PulseEnhanced
Steam Reformer
Black liquor, bark, wood waste
and other organic waste
products
Eric Connor Baltimore, MD
Thermal Pyrolysis/Gasification Organic Power ASA MSW Bergen, Norway
Thermal Pyrolysis Waste Gas Technology MSW
APPENDIX A MASTER SUPPLY LIST OF TECHNOLOGIES

TABLE A-4 (CONTINUED)
LIST OF THERMAL TECHNOLOGIES
CITY OF LOS ANGELES BUREAU OF SANITATION ALTERNATIVE MSW DISPOSAL TECHNOLOGY STUDY

S:\04 PROJ\28906534 LABOS\Draft Report\Draft Report 7-14-05\Appendices\Appendix A.doc A-19
Technology
Division Technology Supplier Name Process Primary Feedstock Name Location
Thermal Pyrolysis PyNe Biomass Stefan Czernik Golden, CO
Thermal Pyrolysis Metso Minerals Tires Englewood, CO
Thermal Pyrolysis Unisphere Waste
Conversion Ltd
TDP Process Tires Toronto, ON, Canada
Thermal Pyrolysis Beven Recycling Ltd. TP2000 Tires Upper Rissington, Cheltenham,
Gloucestershire, U.K.
Thermal Pyrolysis Ensyn Renewables, Inc. Rapid Thermal
Processing (RTP)
Biomass Boston, MA
Thermal Pyrolysis Wellman Process
Engineering
Integrated Fast
Pyrolysis
Biomass Richard
McLellan
Oldbury, U.K.
Thermal Pyrolysis Dynamotive BioTherm
(BioOil)
Biomass Los Angeles, CA
Thermal Pyrolysis Thide Environmental Arthelyse MSW Voisins Le Bretonnaux, France
Thermal Pyrolysis Adherent Technologies, Inc Titan
Technologies,
Inc.
Tires Albuquerque, NM
Thermal Pyrolysis BTG Biomass Technology
Group B.V.
Rotating Cone
Pyrolysis
Wood Dr. B.M.
Wagenaar
Enschede, The Netherlands
Thermal Pyrolysis Pyrovac International Pyrocycling
Vacuum
Pyrolysis
Wood bark Michele Dubois Franquet, QC, Canada
Thermal Pyrolysis Titan Technologies Tires Albuquerque, NM
Thermal Pyrolysis Eco Waste Solutions 2-stage pyrolysis MSW Burlington, ON, Canada
Thermal Pyrolysis North American Power
Company
Thermal
Recovery Unit
MSW, industrial and medical
waste, plastic
Edward H.
Stammel III
Las Vegas, NV
APPENDIX A MASTER SUPPLY LIST OF TECHNOLOGIES

TABLE A-4 (CONTINUED)
LIST OF THERMAL TECHNOLOGIES
CITY OF LOS ANGELES BUREAU OF SANITATION ALTERNATIVE MSW DISPOSAL TECHNOLOGY STUDY

S:\04 PROJ\28906534 LABOS\Draft Report\Draft Report 7-14-05\Appendices\Appendix A.doc A-20
Technology
Division Technology Supplier Name Process Primary Feedstock Name Location
Thermal Pyrolysis B.S. Engineering S.A. P.I.T. Pyroflam
System by
Serpac
Environnement
MSW, industrial and animal
waste
L'Arbresle Cedex, France
Thermal Destructure Distillation Pan American Resources N/A John Toman Pleasanton, CA














Appendix B

Characterization of Alternative
Waste Processing Technologies

APPENDIX B TABLE OF CONTENTS

Section Page

S:\04 PROJ\28906534 LABOS\Draft Report\Draft Report 7-14-05\Appendices\Appendix B.doc B-i
B.1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................................................B-1
B.2 INTRODUCTION.......................................................................................................B-2
B.3 8/3/04 MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE (MSW) STUDY...........................................B-3

B.3.1 Sample Data......................................................................................................B-3

B.4 CASCADIA MSW STUDY......................................................................................B-24

B.4.1 2000 Sample Data...........................................................................................B-24

B.5 2000 VS. 8/3/04 COMPARISON.............................................................................B-25

List of Tables

Table B-1 North Central Waste Load Data........................................................................B-4
Table B-2 West L.A. Waste Load Data .............................................................................B-6
Table B-3 West, East Valley, South Central, and Harbor Waste Load Data.....................B-8
Table B-4 Percent Composition of North Central ...........................................................B-10
Table B-5 Percent Composition of West L.A. .................................................................B-12
Table B-6 Percent Composition of East Valley...............................................................B-14
Table B-7 Percent Composition of South Central ...........................................................B-16
Table B-8 Percent Composition of West Valley..............................................................B-18
Table B-9 Percent Composition of Harbor ......................................................................B-20
Table B-10 Paper Waste Totals .........................................................................................B-22
Table B-11 Glass Waste Totals..........................................................................................B-22
Table B-12 Metal Waste Totals .........................................................................................B-22
Table B-13 Plastic Waste Totals........................................................................................B-22
Table B-14 Organic Material Waste Totals .......................................................................B-23
Table B-15 Construction Material Waste Totals ...............................................................B-23

List of Figures

Figure B-1 8/3/04 Percent Composition of All Black Container Waste .............................B-1
Figure B-2 Cascadia 2000 Sample of Single-Family Residences.......................................B-2
Figure B-3 8/3/04 Percent Composition of All Black Container Waste ...........................B-24
Figure B-4 Cascadia 2000 Sample of Single Family Residences .....................................B-25

Attachments

Attachment A Residential Waste Sorting Protocols for the City of Los Angeles
CHARACTERIZATION OF ALTERNATIVE
APPENDIX B WASTE DISPOSAL TECHNOLOGIES

S:\04 PROJ\28906534 LABOS\Draft Report\Draft Report 7-14-05\Appendices\Appendix B.doc B-1
B.1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The scope of this report is to discuss the results of the 8/3/04 Municipal Solid Waste
Sampling Study and compare those results to the Cascadia study from 2000.

On August 3
rd
, 2004 URS conducted a waste sampling of Central Los Angeles Municipal
Solid Waste (MSW). 10 Samples were taken and broken down into seven categories. Below
in Figure B-1 are the percentages of composition for the different categories.

FIGURE B-1
8/3/04 PERCENT COMPOSITION OF ALL BLACK CONTAINER WASTE

Glass
3.4%
Hazard. Waste
1.4%
Construction
6.6%
Metal
9.6%
Plastic
16.6%
Paper
25.7%
Other Organic
36.7%


The percentages compare closely with the 2000 Cascadia sampling, with slight variations in
the Organics category that can be explained from samplings conducted during different
seasons (August, dry vs. February, wet). In addition, Glass, Metal, and Plastic percentages
climbed, possibly due to normal, or market value fluctuations, as well as, the use of
consumer film plastic has increased dramatically since 2000.

The Cascadia categorical percentages are shown in Figure B-2 below for comparison with
the 2004 sampling data. An in depth analysis of the Cascadia vs. 8/3/04 Sampling is included
in Section 5.

CHARACTERIZATION OF ALTERNATIVE
APPENDIX B WASTE DISPOSAL TECHNOLOGIES

S:\04 PROJ\28906534 LABOS\Draft Report\Draft Report 7-14-05\Appendices\Appendix B.doc B-2
FIGURE B-2
CASCADIA 2000 SAMPLE OF SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCES

Hazard. Waste
0.2%
Special Waste
0.5%
Glass
2.1%
Mixed Residue
3.5%
Metal
4.8%
Other Organic
46.7%
Construcion
9.4%
Plastic
10.0%
Paper
22.7%


B.2 INTRODUCTION

URS conducted a waste sampling program at the Central Los Angeles Transfer Station, 2201
East Washington Blvd, on August 3, 2004. A total of 10 samples were evaluated as follows:

Three samples from North Central
Three samples from West Los Angeles
One sample from East Los Angeles
One sample from South Central
One sample from West Valley
One sample from Harbor

CHARACTERIZATION OF ALTERNATIVE
APPENDIX B WASTE DISPOSAL TECHNOLOGIES

S:\04 PROJ\28906534 LABOS\Draft Report\Draft Report 7-14-05\Appendices\Appendix B.doc B-3
B.3 8/3/04 MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE (MSW) STUDY

B.3.1 Sample Data

The data collected from the 10 waste sheds are broken down into 4 different categories from
reporting purposes.

Data Sorted by Waste Load
Data Sorted by Waste Shed
Data Sorted by Waste Category
Individual Waste Category Totals

B.3.1.1 Waste Load Data

Tables B-1 through B-3 shows the data collected from the sampling sorted by waste load.
Table B-1 shows the waste load and the corresponding data from the three trucks for North
Central Los Angeles. Table B-2 shows the data of the three trucks from West Los Angeles
and Table B-3 shows the areas of East Valley, South Central, West Valley, and Harbor.

B.3.1.2 Waste Shed Data

The data contained in Tables B-4 through B-9 are the percentages of composition for the
sampled waste sheds.

B.3.1.3 Individual Waste Category Totals

The waste sheds were broken down into individual categories and then totaled. Tables B-10
through B-15 illustrate the waste categories and the type of waste included within them.


CHARACTERIZATION OF ALTERNATIVE
APPENDIX B WASTE DISPOSAL TECHNOLOGIES

S:\04 PROJ\28906534 LABOS\Draft Report\Draft Report 7-14-05\Appendices\Appendix B.doc B-4
TABLE B-1
NORTH CENTRAL WASTE LOAD DATA

Sample Number 1 2 3
Area of Generation North Central North Central North Central
Truck # 36378 37200 37166
Waste Category
Time of Delivery 9am 9:45am 10am
Paper 30.25% 21.23% 10.65%
Cardboard 16.7 0.5 0
Paper bags 0 0.1 0.2
Newspaper 13 0.1 0
Ledger/Office 7 0.5 0
Magazines/Catalogs 25.5 0.1 2.7
Miscellaneous paper 27.9 27.5 6.4
Mix paper (non-recyclable) 56.8 1.5 1.5
Category Total 146.9 30.3 10.8
Glass 3.01% 2.10% 9.57%
Bottles/jars 14.6 3 9.7
Other glass 0 0 0
Category Total 14.6 3 9.7
Metal 4.88% 11.84% 0.59%
Ferrous containers 0 1.8 0.4
Aluminum beverage cans 0 0.1 0.2
Other aluminum 3 0 0
Other ferrous 20.7 15 0
Other non-ferrous 0 0 0
Electronics 0 0 0
Category Total 23.7 16.9 0.6
Plastic 16.41% 6.94% 23.37%
PET/PETE bottles/jars 5.5 0.5 0.6
HDPE bottles 3.7 1.5 2.7
Other misc. containers 4.4 0.5 0.5
Film plastic 51.7 5.4 17.4
Miscellaneous plastic 14.4 2 2.5
Category Total 79.7 9.9 23.7
Organic Materials 40.70% 41.42% 52.17%
Food waste 11 45.5 19.4
Yard waste 3.5 1.5 16.1
Branches/woody material 0 0 0
Other wood 31.6 4.4 0
Textiles 36 1.9 6.6
Manure 0 0 3.5
Other organics 115.6 5.8 7.3
Category Total 197.7 59.1 52.9
CHARACTERIZATION OF ALTERNATIVE
APPENDIX B WASTE DISPOSAL TECHNOLOGIES

TABLE B-1 (CONTINUED)
NORTH CENTRAL WASTE LOAD DATA

S:\04 PROJ\28906534 LABOS\Draft Report\Draft Report 7-14-05\Appendices\Appendix B.doc B-5
Sample Number 1 2 3
Area of Generation North Central North Central North Central
Truck # 36378 37200 37166
Waste Category
Time of Delivery 9am 9:45am 10am
Construction Materials 4.76% 7.36% 2.27%
Concrete 0 3.5 2
Gypsum board 23.1 3.5 0
Soil, rock, or brick 0 3.5 0.3
Category Total 23.1 10.5 2.3
Mixed Residue 0.00% 9.11% 1.38%
HHW 0 13 1.4
Total Sample Weight (lbs) 485.7 142.7 101.4


CHARACTERIZATION OF ALTERNATIVE
APPENDIX B WASTE DISPOSAL TECHNOLOGIES

S:\04 PROJ\28906534 LABOS\Draft Report\Draft Report 7-14-05\Appendices\Appendix B.doc B-6
TABLE B-2
WEST L.A. WASTE LOAD DATA

Sample Number 4 6 7
Area of Generation West LA West LA West LA
Waste Category
Truck # 36242 37026 37058
Paper 34.82% 23.89% 14.95%
Cardboard 1.9 0.1 2
Paper bags 0 1.5 0.5
Newspaper 0 0 1
Ledger/Office 0 0.5 0.5
Magazines/Catalogs 0 0 3.4
Miscellaneous paper 13.1 19.5 2.7
Mix paper (non-recyclable) 4.5 1.5 1.5
Category Total 19.5 23.1 11.6
Glass 0.36% 0.83% 8.76%
Bottles/jars 0 0.8 6.8
Other glass 0.2 0 0
Category Total 0.2 0.8 6.8
Metal 8.93% 7.03% 60.95%
Ferrous containers 0.5 0.5 0.1
Aluminum beverage cans 0.2 0.1 0.6
Other aluminum 1.5 0.2 0
Other ferrous 0.3 0 0.6
Other non-ferrous 0 1.5 1.5
Electronics 2.5 4.5 44.5
Category Total 5 6.8 47.3
Plastic 14.64% 19.44% 1.68%
PET/PETE bottles/jars 2.5 3 0.5
HDPE bottles 1.5 0.1 0.4
Other misc. containers 0 4 0.1
Film plastic 2.7 10.2 0.1
Miscellaneous plastic 1.5 1.5 0.2
Category Total 8.2 18.8 1.3
Organic Materials 41.25% 24.51% 7.86%
Food waste 2.8 8.7 0
Yard waste 4.6 15 1.8
Branches/woody material 0 0 0
Other wood 0 0 0
Textiles 11.7 0 2.9
Manure 0 0 0
Other organics 4 0 1.4
Category Total 23.1 23.7 6.1
CHARACTERIZATION OF ALTERNATIVE
APPENDIX B WASTE DISPOSAL TECHNOLOGIES

TABLE B-2 (CONTINUED)
WEST L.A. WASTE LOAD DATA

S:\04 PROJ\28906534 LABOS\Draft Report\Draft Report 7-14-05\Appendices\Appendix B.doc B-7
Sample Number 4 6 7
Area of Generation West LA West LA West LA
Waste Category
Truck # 36242 37026 37058
Construction Materials 0.00% 24.30% 5.80%
Concrete 0 1.5 0
Gypsum board 0 1.5 0
Soil, rock, or brick 0 20.5 4.5
Category Total 0 23.5 4.5
Mixed Residue 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
HHW 0 0 0
Total Sample Weight (lbs) 56 96.7 77.6


CHARACTERIZATION OF ALTERNATIVE
APPENDIX B WASTE DISPOSAL TECHNOLOGIES

S:\04 PROJ\28906534 LABOS\Draft Report\Draft Report 7-14-05\Appendices\Appendix B.doc B-8
TABLE B-3
WEST, EAST VALLEY, SOUTH CENTRAL, AND HARBOR WASTE LOAD DATA

Sample Number 5 8 9 10
Area of Generation East Valley South Central West Valley Harbor
Waste Category
Truck # 36477 36389 36666 37134
Paper 16.39% 39.00% 22.74% 34.48%
Cardboard 0 0.3 4.3 3.3
Paper bags 0 2.5 0.5 0.2
Newspaper 0 0 0.5 18
Ledger/Office 1.5 1.5 0 0
Magazines/Catalogs 0 2.4 0 0
Miscellaneous paper 4.5 4.5 2 1
Mix paper (non-recyclable) 1 0.5 2.5 1.5
Category Total 7 11.7 9.8 24
Glass 0.00% 5.33% 4.87% 0.00%
Bottles/jars 0 1.6 2.1 0
Other glass 0 0 0 0
Category Total 0 1.6 2.1 0
Metal 4.45% 3.67% 5.57% 6.61%
Ferrous containers 0 0.7 1.8 0.1
Aluminum beverage cans 0.5 0.1 0.1 0.3
Other aluminum 0 0.1 0 0
Other ferrous 0 0 0 1.5
Other non-ferrous 1.4 0.2 0.5 0.8
Electronics 0 0 0 1.9
Category Total 1.9 1.1 2.4 4.6
Plastic 26.00% 32.33% 24.59% 24.71%
PET/PETE bottles/jars 2.9 1.2 1.1 0.9
HDPE bottles 2 2.6 0.5 3
Other misc. containers 0.5 0.2 0 1.3
Film plastic 5.4 5.6 5 9.7
Miscellaneous plastic 0.3 0.1 4 2.3
Category Total 11.1 9.7 10.6 17.2
Organic Materials 25.76% 16.00% 41.53% 34.20%
Food waste 1.5 0 6 6.9
Yard waste 0.5 0 1.5 0
Branches/woody material 4.5 0 0 6.5
Other wood 0 0 8.8 0
Textiles 4.5 2.5 1.6 5.2
Manure 0 0 0 0
Other organics 0 2.3 0 5.2
Category Total 11 4.8 17.9 23.8
CHARACTERIZATION OF ALTERNATIVE
APPENDIX B WASTE DISPOSAL TECHNOLOGIES

TABLE B-3 (CONTINUED)
WEST, EAST VALLEY, SOUTH CENTRAL, AND HARBOR WASTE LOAD DATA

S:\04 PROJ\28906534 LABOS\Draft Report\Draft Report 7-14-05\Appendices\Appendix B.doc B-9
Sample Number 5 8 9 10
Area of Generation East Valley South Central West Valley Harbor
Waste Category
Truck # 36477 36389 36666 37134
Construction Materials 26.23% 0.00% 0.70% 0.00%
Concrete 0 0 0 0
Gypsum board 0 0 0 0
Soil, rock, or brick 11.2 0 0.3 0
Category Total 11.2 0 0.3 0
Mixed Residue 1.17% 3.67% 0.00% 0.00%
HHW 0.5 1.1 0 0
Total Sample Weight (lbs) 42.7 30 43.1 69.6


CHARACTERIZATION OF ALTERNATIVE
APPENDIX B WASTE DISPOSAL TECHNOLOGIES

S:\04 PROJ\28906534 LABOS\Draft Report\Draft Report 7-14-05\Appendices\Appendix B.doc B-10
TABLE B-4
PERCENT COMPOSITION OF NORTH CENTRAL

Sample Number (1,2,3) North Central
Area of Generation North Central North Central
Percent of Indv. Percent Total


Waste Type Sample
Waste Category
Paper 25.76% 25.76%
Cardboard 9.15% 2.36%
Paper bags 0.16% 0.04%
Newspaper 6.97% 1.80%
Ledger/Office 3.99% 1.03%
Magazines/Catalogs 15.05% 3.88%
Miscellaneous paper 32.87% 8.47%
Mix paper (non-recyclable) 31.81% 8.19%
Category Total 188.00
Glass 3.74% 3.74%
Bottles/jars 100.00% 3.74%
Other glass 0.00% 0.00%
Category Total 27.30
Metal 5.65% 5.62%
Ferrous containers 5.34% 0.30%
Aluminum beverage cans 0.73% 0.01%
Other aluminum 7.28% 0.41%
Other ferrous 86.65% 4.89%
Other non-ferrous 0.00% 0.00%
Electronics 0.00% 0.00%
Category Total 41.20
Plastic 15.52% 15.52%
PET/PETE bottles/jars 5.83% 0.90%
HDPE bottles 6.97% 1.08%
Other misc. containers 4.77% 0.74%
Film plastic 65.75% 10.21%
Miscellaneous plastic 16.68% 2.59%
Category Total 113.30
Organic Materials 42.44% 42.44%
Food waste 24.51% 10.40%
Yard waste 6.81% 2.89%
Branches/woody material 0.00% 0.00%
Other wood 11.62% 4.93%
Textiles 14.37% 6.10%
Manure 1.13% 0.48%
Other organics 41.56% 17.63%
CHARACTERIZATION OF ALTERNATIVE
APPENDIX B WASTE DISPOSAL TECHNOLOGIES

TABLE B-4 (CONTINUED)
PERCENT COMPOSITION OF NORTH CENTRAL

S:\04 PROJ\28906534 LABOS\Draft Report\Draft Report 7-14-05\Appendices\Appendix B.doc B-11
Sample Number (1,2,3) North Central
Area of Generation North Central North Central
Percent of Indv. Percent Total


Waste Type Sample
Waste Category
Organic Materials (continued) 42.44% 42.44%
Category Total 309.70
Construction Materials 4.92% 4.92%
Concrete 15.32% 0.75%
Gypsum board 74.09% 3.64%
Soil, rock, or brick 10.58% 0.52%
Category Total 35.90
Mixed Residue 1.97% 1.97%
HHW 14.40 1.97%
Total Sample Weight (lbs) 729.80 729.80


CHARACTERIZATION OF ALTERNATIVE
APPENDIX B WASTE DISPOSAL TECHNOLOGIES

S:\04 PROJ\28906534 LABOS\Draft Report\Draft Report 7-14-05\Appendices\Appendix B.doc B-12
TABLE B-5
PERCENT COMPOSITION OF WEST L.A.

Sample Number (4,6,7) West LA
Area of Generation West LA West LA
Percent of Indv. Percent Total


Waste Type Sample
Waste Category
Paper 23.53% 23.53%
Cardboard 7.38% 1.74%
Paper bags 3.69% 0.87%
Newspaper 1.85% 0.43%
Ledger/Office 1.85% 0.43%
Magazines/Catalogs 6.27% 1.48%
Miscellaneous paper 65.13% 15.33%
Mix paper (non-recyclable) 13.84% 3.26%
Category Total 54.20
Glass 3.39% 3.39%
Bottles/jars 97.44% 3.30%
Other glass 2.56% 0.09%
Category Total 7.80
Metal 25.66% 25.40%
Ferrous containers 1.86% 0.48%
Aluminum beverage cans 1.52% 0.13%
Other aluminum 2.88% 0.74%
Other ferrous 1.52% 0.39%
Other non-ferrous 5.08% 1.30%
Electronics 87.14% 22.36%
Category Total 59.10
Plastic 12.29% 12.29%
PET/PETE bottles/jars 21.20% 2.61%
HDPE bottles 7.07% 0.87%
Other misc. containers 14.49% 1.78%
Film plastic 45.94% 5.64%
Miscellaneous plastic 11.31% 1.39%
Category Total 28.30
Organic Materials 22.97% 22.97%
Food waste 21.74% 4.99%
Yard waste 40.45% 9.29%
Branches/woody material 0.00% 0.00%
Other wood 0.00% 0.00%
Textiles 27.60% 6.34%
Manure 0.00% 0.00%
Other organics 10.21% 2.34%
CHARACTERIZATION OF ALTERNATIVE
APPENDIX B WASTE DISPOSAL TECHNOLOGIES

TABLE B-5 (CONTINUED)
PERCENT COMPOSITION OF WEST L.A.

S:\04 PROJ\28906534 LABOS\Draft Report\Draft Report 7-14-05\Appendices\Appendix B.doc B-13
Sample Number (4,6,7) West LA
Area of Generation West LA West LA
Percent of Indv. Percent Total


Waste Type Sample
Waste Category
Organic Materials (continued) 22.97% 22.97%
Category Total 52.90
Construction Materials 12.16% 12.16%
Concrete 5.36% 0.65%
Gypsum board 5.36% 0.65%
Soil, rock, or brick 89.29% 10.86%
Category Total 28.00
Mixed Residue 0.00% 0.00%
HHW 0.00 0.00%
Total Sample Weight (lbs) 230.30 230.30


CHARACTERIZATION OF ALTERNATIVE
APPENDIX B WASTE DISPOSAL TECHNOLOGIES

S:\04 PROJ\28906534 LABOS\Draft Report\Draft Report 7-14-05\Appendices\Appendix B.doc B-14
TABLE B-6
PERCENT COMPOSITION OF EAST VALLEY

Sample Number (5) East Valley
Area of Generation East Valley East Valley
Percent of Indv. Percent Total


Waste Type Sample
Waste Category
Paper 16.39%
Cardboard 0.00% 0.00%
Paper bags 0.00% 0.00%
Newspaper 0.00% 0.00%
Ledger/Office 21.43% 3.51%
Magazines/Catalogs 0.00% 0.00%
Miscellaneous paper 64.29% 10.54%
Mix paper (non-recyclable) 14.29% 2.34%
Category Total
Glass 0.00%
Bottles/jars 0.00% 0.00%
Other glass 0.00% 0.00%
Category Total
Metal 4.45%
Ferrous containers 0.00% 0.00%
Aluminum beverage cans 26.32% 1.17%
Other aluminum 0.00% 0.00%
Other ferrous 0.00% 0.00%
Other non-ferrous 73.68% 3.28%
Electronics 0.00% 0.00%
Category Total
Plastic 26.00%
PET/PETE bottles/jars 26.13% 6.79%
HDPE bottles 18.02% 4.68%
Other misc. containers 4.50% 1.17%
Film plastic 48.65% 12.65%
Miscellaneous plastic 2.70% 0.70%
Category Total
Organic Materials 25.76%
Food waste 13.64% 3.51%
Yard waste 4.55% 1.17%
Branches/woody material 40.91% 10.54%
Other wood 0.00% 0.00%
Textiles 40.91% 10.54%
Manure 0.00% 0.00%
Other organics 0.00% 0.00%
CHARACTERIZATION OF ALTERNATIVE
APPENDIX B WASTE DISPOSAL TECHNOLOGIES

TABLE B-6 (CONTINUED)
PERCENT COMPOSITION OF EAST VALLEY

S:\04 PROJ\28906534 LABOS\Draft Report\Draft Report 7-14-05\Appendices\Appendix B.doc B-15
Sample Number (5) East Valley
Area of Generation East Valley East Valley
Percent of Indv. Percent Total


Waste Type Sample
Waste Category
Organic Materials (continued) 25.76%
Category Total
Construction Materials 26.23%
Concrete 0.00% 0.00%
Gypsum board 0.00% 0.00%
Soil, rock, or brick 100.00% 26.23%
Category Total
Mixed Residue 1.17%
HHW 100.00% 1.17%
Total Sample Weight (lbs) 42.7 42.7


CHARACTERIZATION OF ALTERNATIVE
APPENDIX B WASTE DISPOSAL TECHNOLOGIES

S:\04 PROJ\28906534 LABOS\Draft Report\Draft Report 7-14-05\Appendices\Appendix B.doc B-16
TABLE B-7
PERCENT COMPOSTION OF SOUTH CENTRAL

Sample Number (8) South Central
Area of Generation South Central South Central
Percent of Indv. Percent Total


Waste Type Sample
Waste Category
Paper 39.00%
Cardboard 2.56% 1.00%
Paper bags 21.37% 8.33%
Newspaper 0.00% 0.00%
Ledger/Office 12.82% 5.00%
Magazines/Catalogs 20.51% 8.00%
Miscellaneous paper 38.46% 15.00%
Mix paper (non-recyclable) 4.27% 1.67%
Category Total
Glass 5.33%
Bottles/jars 0.00% 5.33%
Other glass 0.00% 0.00%
Category Total
Metal 3.67%
Ferrous containers 63.64% 2.33%
Aluminum beverage cans 9.09% 0.33%
Other aluminum 9.09% 0.33%
Other ferrous 0.00% 0.00%
Other non-ferrous 18.18% 0.67%
Electronics 0.00% 0.00%
Category Total
Plastic 32.33%
PET/PETE bottles/jars 12.37% 4.00%
HDPE bottles 26.80% 8.67%
Other misc. containers 2.06% 0.67%
Film plastic 57.73% 18.67%
Miscellaneous plastic 1.03% 0.33%
Category Total
Organic Materials 16.00%
Food waste 0.00% 0.00%
Yard waste 0.00% 0.00%
Branches/woody material 0.00% 0.00%
Other wood 0.00% 0.00%
Textiles 52.08% 8.33%
Manure 0.00% 0.00%
Other organics 47.92% 7.67%
CHARACTERIZATION OF ALTERNATIVE
APPENDIX B WASTE DISPOSAL TECHNOLOGIES

TABLE B-7 (CONTINUED)
PERCENT COMPOSTION OF SOUTH CENTRAL

S:\04 PROJ\28906534 LABOS\Draft Report\Draft Report 7-14-05\Appendices\Appendix B.doc B-17
Sample Number (8) South Central
Area of Generation South Central South Central
Percent of Indv. Percent Total


Waste Type Sample
Waste Category
Organic Materials (continued) 16.00%
Category Total
Construction Materials 0.00%
Concrete 0.00% 0.00%
Gypsum board 0.00% 0.00%
Soil, rock, or brick 0.00% 0.00%
Category Total
Mixed Residue 3.67%
HHW 100.00% 3.67%
Total Sample Weight (lbs) 30 30


CHARACTERIZATION OF ALTERNATIVE
APPENDIX B WASTE DISPOSAL TECHNOLOGIES

S:\04 PROJ\28906534 LABOS\Draft Report\Draft Report 7-14-05\Appendices\Appendix B.doc B-18
TABLE B-8
PERCENT COMPOSITION OF WEST VALLEY

Sample Number (9) West Valley
Area of Generation West Valley West Valley
Percent of Indv. Percent Total


Waste Type Sample
Waste Category
Paper 22.74%
Cardboard 43.88% 9.98%
Paper bags 5.10% 1.16%
Newspaper 5.10% 1.16%
Ledger/Office 0.00% 0.00%
Magazines/Catalogs 0.00% 0.00%
Miscellaneous paper 20.41% 4.64%
Mix paper (non-recyclable) 25.51% 5.80%
Category Total
Glass 4.87%
Bottles/jars 0.00% 4.87%
Other glass 0.00% 0.00%
Category Total
Metal 5.57%
Ferrous containers 75.00% 4.18%
Aluminum beverage cans 4.17% 0.23%
Other aluminum 0.00% 0.00%
Other ferrous 0.00% 0.00%
Other non-ferrous 20.83% 1.16%
Electronics 0.00% 0.00%
Category Total
Plastic 24.59%
PET/PETE bottles/jars 10.38% 2.55%
HDPE bottles 4.72% 1.16%
Other misc. containers 0.00% 0.00%
Film plastic 47.17% 11.60%
Miscellaneous plastic 37.74% 9.28%
Category Total
Organic Materials 41.53%
Food waste 33.52% 13.92%
Yard waste 8.38% 3.48%
Branches/woody material 0.00% 0.00%
Other wood 49.16% 20.42%
Textiles 8.94% 3.71%
Manure 0.00% 0.00%
Other organics 0.00% 0.00%
CHARACTERIZATION OF ALTERNATIVE
APPENDIX B WASTE DISPOSAL TECHNOLOGIES

TABLE B-8 (CONTINUED)
PERCENT COMPOSITION OF WEST VALLEY

S:\04 PROJ\28906534 LABOS\Draft Report\Draft Report 7-14-05\Appendices\Appendix B.doc B-19
Sample Number (9) West Valley
Area of Generation West Valley West Valley
Percent of Indv. Percent Total


Waste Type Sample
Waste Category
Organic Materials (continued) 41.53%
Category Total
Construction Materials 0.70%
Concrete 0.00% 0.00%
Gypsum board 0.00% 0.00%
Soil, rock, or brick 100.00% 0.70%
Category Total
Mixed Residue 0.00%
HHW
Total Sample Weight (lbs) 43.1 43.1


CHARACTERIZATION OF ALTERNATIVE
APPENDIX B WASTE DISPOSAL TECHNOLOGIES

S:\04 PROJ\28906534 LABOS\Draft Report\Draft Report 7-14-05\Appendices\Appendix B.doc B-20
TABLE B-9
PERCENT COMPOSITION OF HARBOR

Sample Number (10) Harbor
Area of Generation Harbor Harbor
Percent of Indv. Percent Total


Waste Type Sample
Waste Category
Paper 34.48%
Cardboard 13.75% 4.74%
Paper bags 0.83% 0.29%
Newspaper 75.00% 25.86%
Ledger/Office 0.00% 0.00%
Magazines/Catalogs 0.00% 0.00%
Miscellaneous paper 4.17% 1.44%
Mix paper (non-recyclable) 6.25% 2.16%
Category Total
Glass 0.00%
Bottles/jars 0.00% 0.00%
Other glass 0.00% 0.00%
Category Total
Metal 6.61%
Ferrous containers 2.17% 0.14%
Aluminum beverage cans 6.52% 0.43%
Other aluminum 0.00% 0.00%
Other ferrous 32.61% 2.16%
Other non-ferrous 17.39% 1.15%
Electronics 41.30% 2.73%
Category Total
Plastic 24.71%
PET/PETE bottles/jars 5.23% 1.29%
HDPE bottles 17.44% 4.31%
Other misc. containers 7.56% 1.87%
Film plastic 56.40% 13.94%
Miscellaneous plastic 13.37% 3.30%
Category Total
Organic Materials 34.20%
Food waste 28.99% 9.91%
Yard waste 0.00% 0.00%
Branches/woody material 27.31% 9.34%
Other wood 0.00% 0.00%
Textiles 21.85% 7.47%
Manure 0.00% 0.00%
Other organics 21.85% 7.47%
CHARACTERIZATION OF ALTERNATIVE
APPENDIX B WASTE DISPOSAL TECHNOLOGIES

TABLE B-9 (CONTINUED)
PERCENT COMPOSITION OF HARBOR

S:\04 PROJ\28906534 LABOS\Draft Report\Draft Report 7-14-05\Appendices\Appendix B.doc B-21
Sample Number (10) Harbor
Area of Generation Harbor Harbor
Percent of Indv. Percent Total


Waste Type Sample
Waste Category
Organic Materials (continued) 34.20%
Category Total
Construction Materials 0.00%
Concrete 0.00% 0.00%
Gypsum board 0.00% 0.00%
Soil, rock, or brick 0.00% 0.00%
Category Total
Mixed Residue
HHW
Total Sample Weight (lbs) 69.6 69.6
CHARACTERIZATION OF ALTERNATIVE
APPENDIX B WASTE DISPOSAL TECHNOLOGIES

S:\04 PROJ\28906534 LABOS\Draft Report\Draft Report 7-14-05\Appendices\Appendix B.doc B-22
TABLE B-10
PAPER WASTE TOTALS

Paper (294.70) Percent of Individual Waste Type Percent Total of All Samples
Cardboard 9.87% 2.54%
Paper bags 1.87% 0.48%
Newspaper 11.06% 2.85%
Ledger/Office 3.90% 1.00%
Magazines/Catalogs 11.57% 2.98%
Miscellaneous paper 37.02% 9.52%
Mix paper (non-recyclable) 24.70% 6.36%
% of Total Waste --- 25.73%

TABLE B-11
GLASS WASTE TOTALS

Glass (38.80) Percent of Individual Waste Type Percent Total of All Samples
Bottles/jars 99.48% 3.37%
Other glass 0.52% 0.02%
% of Total Waste --- 3.39%

TABLE B-12
METAL WASTE TOTALS

Metal (110.30) Percent of Individual Waste Type Percent Total of All Samples
Ferrous containers 5.35% 0.52%
Aluminum beverage cans 1.99% 0.19%
Other aluminum 4.35% 0.42%
Other ferrous 34.54% 3.33%
Other non-ferrous 5.35% 0.52%
Electronics 48.41% 4.66%
% of Total Waste --- 9.63%

TABLE B-13
PLASTIC WASTE TOTALS

Plastic (190.20) Percent of Individual Waste Type Percent Total of All Samples
PET/PETE bottles/jars 9.83% 1.63%
HDPE bottles 9.46% 1.57%
Other misc. containers 6.05% 1.00%
Film plastic 59.52% 9.88%
Miscellaneous plastic 15.14% 2.51%
% of Total Waste --- 16.60%
CHARACTERIZATION OF ALTERNATIVE
APPENDIX B WASTE DISPOSAL TECHNOLOGIES

S:\04 PROJ\28906534 LABOS\Draft Report\Draft Report 7-14-05\Appendices\Appendix B.doc B-23
TABLE B-14
ORGANIC MATERIAL WASTE TOTALS

Organic Materials (420.10) Percent of Individual Waste Type Percent Total of All Samples
Food waste 24.23% 8.89%
Yard waste 10.59% 3.88%
Branches/woody material 2.62% 0.96%
Other wood 10.66% 3.91%
Textiles 17.35% 6.36%
Manure 0.83% 0.31%
Other organics 33.71% 12.36%
% of Total Waste --- 36.67%

TABLE B-15
CONSTRUCTION MATERIAL WASTE TOTALS

Construction Materials (75.40) Percent of Individual Waste Type Percent Total of All Samples
Concrete 9.28% 0.61%
Gypsum board 37.27% 2.45%
Soil, rock, or brick 53.45% 3.52%
% of Total Waste --- 6.58%



CHARACTERIZATION OF ALTERNATIVE
APPENDIX B WASTE DISPOSAL TECHNOLOGIES

S:\04 PROJ\28906534 LABOS\Draft Report\Draft Report 7-14-05\Appendices\Appendix B.doc B-24
B.3.1.4 Total By Waste Category

When the information from each individual waste category is combined and reported as a
whole, an overall illustration of the waste sampling can be seen. Below in Figure B-3 are the
total percentages of each individual category of all 10 waste sheds.

FIGURE B-3
8/3/04 PERCENT COMPOSITION OF ALL BLACK CONTAINER WASTE

Glass
3.4% Hazardous Waste
1.4%
Construction
6.6%
Metal
9.6%
Plastic
16.6%
Paper
25.7%
Other Organic
36.7%


Other organics, paper and plastic accounts for over 75% of the waste collected from the black
containers in all areas. This value is similar to the Cascadia 2000 samples collected from
single-family residences.

B.4 CASCADIA MSW STUDY

B.4.1 2000 Sample Data

The categories and percentage of composition of those corresponding categories are shown in
Figure B-4 below. The composition is of black container waste from single-family
residences.

CHARACTERIZATION OF ALTERNATIVE
APPENDIX B WASTE DISPOSAL TECHNOLOGIES

S:\04 PROJ\28906534 LABOS\Draft Report\Draft Report 7-14-05\Appendices\Appendix B.doc B-25
FIGURE B-4
CASCADIA 2000 SAMPLE OF SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCES

Hazardous Waste
0.2%
Special Waste
0.5%
Glass
2.1%
Mixed Residue
3.5%
Metal
4.8%
Other Organic
46.7%
Construcion
9.4%
Plastic
10.0%
Paper
22.7%


The most prevalent in family waste are the: other organics, paper, and plastics. Other
organics includes: food waste, grass/leaves, yard trimmings, braches, and textiles, which are
46% of the total waste.

B.5 2000 VS. 8/3/04 COMPARISON

Overall, the results compare favorably with the Cascadia report from 2000. The 2000 sorts
were averaged from a broader sample base are were completed over several seasons.

The differences in the paper category are insignificant. Better recycling efforts may be the
cause of reduction in some of the paper sub-categories, but overall, the numbers are quite
similar.

Glass, metal and plastic percentages rose from the previous sort. Possible reasons for this
discrepancy are:

Normal fluctuations. Since both studies are based on percentages totaling 100, when one
category goes down, others will adjust accordingly.
CHARACTERIZATION OF ALTERNATIVE
APPENDIX B WASTE DISPOSAL TECHNOLOGIES

S:\04 PROJ\28906534 LABOS\Draft Report\Draft Report 7-14-05\Appendices\Appendix B.doc B-26
The market value for these items fluctuates.
The use of consumer film plastic has increased dramatically since 2000.

The Organics category is the most variable in accord with the season. Fluctuations can be
20%. The 2004 study was conducted in August an extremely dry month, so organics, like
grass, brush, etc will be at their low point for the year.

The oddest change in the Organics category is food waste. In 2000, the food waste was
26.9%, versus the 8.9% in the sampling program. The percentage in the sampling event
appears to be valid, however, because the food percentage is consistent in each sub-region.
This category was difficult to sort because food items were often mixed with grass and
leaves. As a result, some food may have been counted in the Yard Waste or other Organics
categories.

The construction percentages are almost exactly the same as the 2000 report. The 8/4/04
sampling event has Lumber in the Organics category Other Wood), rather than the
Construction category, since we are looking at the Btu value of organics. If the Other Wood
category percentage is added to the Construction percentage, the results are very similar to
the 2000 report.
APPENDIX B ATTACHMENT A

S:\04 PROJ\28906534 LABOS\Draft Report\Draft Report 7-14-05\Appendices\Appendix B.doc 1
RESIDENTIAL WASTE SORTING PROTOCOLS
FOR THE CITY OF LOS ANGELES

Introduction The purpose of this study is to confirm or modify the residential waste
composition that was characterized in 2000. The results of this study will enable the Citys
contractor, URS, to recommend the most viable alternative waste technology for residential
waste now received at Sunshine Canyon Landfill. This study is not meant for revision of the
City of Los Angeles Waste Characterization Study, nor is it meant for California Integrated
Waste Management Board (CIWMB) approval. It is not a seasonal or comprehensive study,
but is a quick representation of the residential waste stream. The sampling will be done by
obtaining a cross section of residential waste from the City of Los Angeles. The sampling
will take place at Central Los Angeles Transfer Station, 2201 East Washington Boulevard, on
Tuesday, August 3
rd
, 2004.

Required Materials

Portable platform scale with a minimum of 200-pound capacity, accurate to pound
Traffic cones
Heavy duty plastic tarp, at least 20x20 and 10mm thick
Pre-weighed plastic containers or 5 gallon buckets
Data record forms or hand-held computer
Personal protective equipment (mandatory)
Steel toed boots
Hard hats
Gloves
Safety glasses
Orange safety vests
Level B Hazmat wear long pants and shirt sleeves (Heavy-duty coveralls may be
provided.)

Health and Safety Protection The sampling crew should have an established, on-going
safety and training program. Before sampling at CLA Transfer Station, the crew will identify
and discuss all of the unique hazards, emergency procedures, and operational restrictions that
might be present. The contractor will have written safety procedures and conduct guidelines,
including a Bloodborne Pathogen Exposure Control Plan. Section 304, Article 6 of the
APPENDIX B ATTACHMENT A

S:\04 PROJ\28906534 LABOS\Draft Report\Draft Report 7-14-05\Appendices\Appendix B.doc 2
California Integrated Waste Management Boards California Health and Safety Guidelines
for Waste Characterization Studies may be used for safety training (see Appendix A).

Selection Procedure Vehicles from each of the six regions of the City of Los Angeles will
be sampled. The number of vehicles to be sampled is based on the typical volume of refuse
delivered to either Sunshine Canyon Landfill or the Central Los Angeles Transfer Station.
Samples include two trucks from Valley East, two trucks from Valley West, four trucks from
Western Los Angeles, two trucks South Los Angeles, four trucks from North Central Los
Angeles, and one truck from Harbor for a total of 15 vehicles. Two trucks each from Valley
East and Valley West and one truck from Harbor will be randomly directed by City crews to
the Transfer Station for sorting. Drivers from every 3rd vehicle from the other three areas
will be directed to the sorting area for offloading until all of the samples have been selected.
The selection may be paused at any time during the day by the site manager whenever
logistical or safety issues warrant change in procedure. The site manager will notify the scale
house personnel when to stop and when to resume.

Sorting Procedure Sorting will begin first thing in the morning, and should take
approximately 10 hours including set-up and break down. Sample loads will be dumped in an
elongated pile. One sorting sample from each load will be selected by using an imaginary 16-
cell grid superimposed over the dumped material. The Field Manager will randomly select
and identify the cell to be extracted by using powdered chalk. A landfill loader operator will
then move the selection section of the waste from the pile and place it on a tarp for sorting. If
a loader is not available, samples can be moved from the pile by hand. The remainder of the
pile will then landfilled along with the unsampled waste.

Sorting Samples Once the sample is placed on the tarp, the material will be sorted by hand
into the prescribed component categories. Pre-weighted plastic containers or buckets will be
used to contain the separated components. Sorting crew members typically specialize in
groups of materials, such as papers or plastics, and sort from the baskets containing their
specialty. The Field Manager will monitor the contents of the component baskets as they
accumulate, insuring materials are properly classified. The Field Manager will record the net
weight of each material type into the database or on field sheets (Appendix B) after verifying
the purity of each component as it was weighed. Each sample will be recorded separately,
with the time of delivery, driver and origination of waste for record keeping purposes. When
the sample has been segregated, weighed and recorded, the baskets will be emptied into a
discard pile for landfill disposal.

Category Definitions The categories of waste are based on the higher compositions and
recyclable components of the CIWMBs waste characterization material types. Based on the
2000 composition, this study will only look at seven major categories and 30 sub-categories,
APPENDIX B ATTACHMENT A

S:\04 PROJ\28906534 LABOS\Draft Report\Draft Report 7-14-05\Appendices\Appendix B.doc 3
all with an estimated percentage of 0.5 or higher or are commonly recycled products. Each
category will have its own plastic container.

I. PAPER

A. Cardboard includes uncoated cardboard with a wavy core, chipboard boxes not coated
with wax, plastic or metal and egg cartons.
If the material is contaminated with other materials such as oil, paint, blood, food, or
other organic material, or with permanently attached packing material, such as
Styrofoam, it goes in the Remainder category.
B. Paper Bags or kraft paper typically used for wrapping

C. Newspaper (ONP) printed groundwood newsprint, including glossy advertisements
and inserts typically found in newspapers.

D. Ledger/Office/Office Pack Paper includes: high grade continuous form computer
paper, white paper, including bond, photocopy and notebook paper, colored ledger paper
primarily found in offices, kraft envelopes, bond computer paper, index cards, computer
cards, notebook paper, xerographic and typing paper, manila file folders, white register
receipts, non-glossy fax.
If high grade paper is wet, it should still go into this category because it is assumed to
have become wet after being discarded.
E. Magazines/Catalogs magazines, catalogs, promotional materials printed on glossy
paper; does not include telephone directories or books.
F. Misc. Paper - telephone directories, books, brightly colored paper, calendars, and tablets
with colored glue bindings.
G. Mixed Paper non-recyclable all paper that doesnt fit into the categories specified
above.
It goes in this category if the sorter is 99% sure that the generator intended to reuse
the paper in such a way that it became contaminated for recycling (e.g., paper used to
dispose of chewing gum, paper sprayed with paint).
If it would take an effort to make the paper recyclable, put it into this category (e.g.,
paper or boxboard coated with wax, plastic or metal, tissue papers, paper napkins,
dishware, frozen food packaging).

APPENDIX B ATTACHMENT A

S:\04 PROJ\28906534 LABOS\Draft Report\Draft Report 7-14-05\Appendices\Appendix B.doc 4
II. GLASS

A. Bottles and Jars All clear and colored food and beverage containers
B. Other Glass - all glass that was not originally a food or beverage container, including
plate glass, drinking glasses, cooking utensils, ash trays, mirrors, fragments; any glass
containers not clear, green or brown.
If the glass is broken and not 100% identifiable as food or beverage glass, it belongs
in the Other Glass category.

III. METAL

A. Ferrous Containers steel food and beverage containers, including steel soft drink, beer
and other beverage containers, and steel pet food cans.
B. Aluminum Beverage Containers aluminum beverage containers.
C. Other Aluminum All aluminum except beverage containers, i.e., aluminum foil,
aluminum pie plates, aluminum siding, aluminum lawn chairs.
D. Other Ferrous Ferrous and alloyed ferrous scrap, to which a magnet is attracted,
includes household, commercial and industrial materials, i.e., Clothes hangers, sheet
metal products, pipes, metal scraps.
E. Other Non-Ferrous all other non-magnetic metal, such as brass, copper, that are not
recognized as aluminum.
F. Electronics Computer components, radios, etc.
If the material is not recognizable as aluminum and it is not attracted to a magnet, it
belongs in the Other Non-Ferrous category.

IV. PLASTIC

A. PET/PETE Bottles/Jars plastic bottles and necked jars composed of polyethylene
terephthalate and are labeled #1.
Look for the label 1 on the bottom.
PET and PVC can be differentiated because PET containers have a nub or belly
button while PVC containers have a seam or smile.
APPENDIX B ATTACHMENT A

S:\04 PROJ\28906534 LABOS\Draft Report\Draft Report 7-14-05\Appendices\Appendix B.doc 5
Items not clearly identified as PET go into Other Containers, i.e., beverage bottles,
some bottles for detergent, liquor, toiletries and honey, jars for peanut butter and
mayonnaise.
B. HDPE Bottles high-density polyethylene plastic and are labeled #2
Look for the label 2 on the bottom.
Look for opaque or translucent matte finish.

C. Other Miscellaneous Containers all plastic containers not included the categories
specified above

Containers other than 1 or 2 bottles with necks.
Look for the label 4 or 5 or 6 or 7 on the container.
Examples: Margarine tubs, yogurt cups, cottage cheese containers, pharmaceutical
bottles, mustard bottles, some beverage containers.

D. Film Plastic transport packaging film plastic used for stretch wrapping pallets of
Products and all other flexible plastic film regardless of resin type, including plastic bags
labeled as HDPE, i.e., garbage bags, bread bags, snack bags, plastic grocery bags, food
wrappings, sheet film.

E. Miscellaneous Plastic anything plastic that is not identifiable as one of the categories
above, i.e., molded toys, clothes hangers, cleaning tools, plastic hoses, drinking straws,
individual condiment containers, plastic cards, pens and mixed products consisting
mostly of plastic.

V. ORGANIC MATERIALS

A. Food Waste - Material capable of being decomposed by micro-organisms with sufficient
rapidity as to cause nuisances from odors and gases; putrescibles, i.e., food preparation
waste, food scraps, spoiled food, kitchen wastes, waste parts from butchered animals,
dead animals.
B. Yard Waste Grass and Leaves and other trimmings non-woody plant material, i.e.,
grass, leaves, weeds, cut flowers, twigs less than in diameter.
C. Branches and Woody Material woody plant material such as twigs, brush and
branches more than in diameter, pine cones.
D. Other Wood - treated and none treated, i.e., furniture, wood construction scraps, pallets.
APPENDIX B ATTACHMENT A

S:\04 PROJ\28906534 LABOS\Draft Report\Draft Report 7-14-05\Appendices\Appendix B.doc 6
E. Textiles clothing, bedding, curtains, blankets, other cloth material, leather goods,
carpet.
F. Manure
G. Other Organics Includes diapers, including cotton balls, feminine hygiene products,
hair, small organic fragments.
VI. CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS

A. Concrete
B. Gypsum Board
C. Soil, Rock, or Brick

VII. MIXED RESIDUE

Hazardous waste, batteries, ashes, and anything that cannot be identified in any of the above
categories.














Appendix C

Europe Facilities Field Reports
ve written much in this space about ending
the outdated practice of landfilling our trash
in the City of Los Angeles. Mayor Hahn has
indicated that the City will not dump our
residential waste in the Sunshine Canyon
Landfill after our current contract expires in
June of 2006. Since that date is fast
approaching, the City is closely examining short
and long term alternatives.
Last week, the Bureau of Sanitation released a
report that ranked the proposals of other
companies competing for our waste business.
The report showed that there was a viable
alternative that would allow us to stop dumping
our trash in residential landfills, and is actually
less expensive than any future contract that BFI
has proposed for Sunshine Canyon. This is
exciting news for the short term of waste
management in our City, but we are also looking
toward the future.
The future of waste management is actually
resource management. We already know that
recyclables such as cans, bottles and cardboard
are valuable commodities, for which there is a
market. What is not as well known, is that much
of what we consider to be trash, can be
converted by clean, proven technologies into
renewable green fuels, compost and other
resources. When trash is thrown in a landfill,
thats the end of its useful life and the start of an
environmentally hazardous process that requires
myriad pollution mitigation. When waste is
converted into a resource, a commodity has been
created that provides an economic and
environmental benefit.
I recently had the opportunity to travel to Europe
and visit some waste conversion facilities that
have been on the forefront of creating and
refining these technologies. I saw a good
representation of various thermal-recycling
technologies, which produce clean fuel and raw
materials for manufacturing. I also visited
anaerobic digestion facilities, where high quality
compost and clean, renewable fuel are converted
from waste.
One exciting feature of conversion technologies,
is the total environmental and economic benefit.
By creating renewable fuel sources, we are
reducing pollution as well as dependence on
fossil fuels and foreign oil. High quality
compost is proven to regenerate soil by adding
back the valuable nutrients that are traditionally
depleted with every crop. Soils treated with this
compost require 30% less water and produce a
much higher yield.
In the coming months, the City will be
evaluating these technologies to determine the
most viable for the City of Los Angeles. In the
meantime, if youd like to read a detailed report
about the European facilities I visited, please
visit my website at
www.lacity.org/council/cd12. After the first of
the year, I will be releasing my own long-term
action plan to eliminate waste in the City of Los
Angeles. I am truly excited about the prospects
for resource management in Los Angeles and
look forward to implementing the economic and
environmental benefits of these proven
technologies to end our dependence on
landfilling.
I
LANDFI LLI NG OUR RESOURCES I S A WASTE
by Councilman Greig Smith
November 2004
European Conversion Facilities Tour
Report
MVR - Thermal Recycling Facility

MPA - Pyrolysis Facility

Thermoselect - Gasification/Pyrolysis Facility

Valorga - Anaerobic Digestion Facility

OWS Brecht II DRANCO - Anaerobic Digestion


Facility













Appendix D

Life Cycle Analysis Report
APPENDIX D BACKGROUND INFORMATION ABOUT THE MSW DST

S:\04 PROJ\28906534 LABOS\Draft Report\Draft Report 7-14-05\Appendices\Appendix D.doc D-1
The MSW DST was developed through a cooperative agreement between the U.S. EPAs
Office of Research and Development and RTIs Center for Environmental Analysis to assist
communities and other waste planners in conducting cost and environmental modeling of
MSW management systems. Users can evaluate the numerous MSW management strategies
that are feasible within a community or region and identify the alternatives that are
economically and environmentally efficient, making tradeoffs if necessary.

The MSW DST allows users to analyze existing waste management systems and proposed
future systems based on user-specified information (e.g., waste generation levels, waste
composition, diversion rates, infrastructure). The current components included in the MSW
DST are waste collection, transfer stations, material recovery facilities (MRFs), mixed MSW
and yard waste composting, combustion and refuse-derived fuel production, and
conventional or bioreactor landfills. Existing facilities and/or equipment can be incorporated
as model constraints to ensure that previous capital expenditures are not negated by the
model solution.

As illustrated in Figure D-1, the MSW DST consists of several components, including
process models, waste flow equations, an optimization module, and a graphic user interface
(GUI). The process models consist of a set of spreadsheets developed in Microsoft Excel.
These spreadsheets use a combination of default and user-supplied data to calculate the cost
and life cycle coefficients on a per-unit mass basis for each of the 39 MSW components
being modeled for each solid waste management unit process (collection, transfer, etc.). Each
process model describes and represents the essential activities that take place during the
processing of waste items. For example, the collection model includes parameters for waste
collection frequency, collection vehicle type and capacity, number of crew members, and
number of houses served at each stop. Although national average default values are included
in the MSW DST for such parameters, users can override the default values with site-specific
information. These operational details, which are input by the user to represent an MSW
management system, are then synthesized in the process model to estimate the cost of
processing as a function of the quantity and composition of the waste entering that process.
The resulting cost coefficients from each waste management process model are then used to
estimate the cost of that option.

The MSW DST also contains models for ancillary processes that may be used by different
waste management processes. These models calculate emissions for fuels and electrical
energy production, materials production, and transportation. Electricity, for example, is used
in every waste management process. Based on the user-specified design information and the
emissions associated with generating electricity from each fuel type, the MSW DST
calculates coefficients for emissions related to the use of a kilowatt hour of electricity. These
emissions are then assigned to waste stream components for each facility that uses electricity
APPENDIX D BACKGROUND INFORMATION ABOUT THE MSW DST

S:\04 PROJ\28906534 LABOS\Draft Report\Draft Report 7-14-05\Appendices\Appendix D.doc D-2

FIGURE D-1
CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK FOR THE MSW DST

Input site-specific data in
process models
Requirements:
- Mass
- Regulations
- Targets
Alternative strategies
USER
Cost and life-sycle
inventory coefficients
Optimization
module


and through which the mass flows. For example, MRFs use electricity for conveyors and
facility lighting. The emissions associated with electricity generation would be assigned to
the mass that flowed through that facility. Users can specify whether the emissions associated
with generating electrical energy are based on a national, regional, or user-defined mix of
fuel.

The optimization module is implemented using a commercial linear programming solver
called CPLEX. The model is constrained by mass flow equations that are based on the
quantity and composition of waste entering each unit process and that intricately link the
different unit processes in the waste management system (i.e., collection, recycling,
treatment, and disposal options). These mass flow constraints preclude impossible or
nonsensical model solutions. For example, these mass flow constraints will exclude the
possibility of removing aluminum from the waste stream via a mixed waste MRF and then
sending the recovered aluminum to a landfill. The optimization module uses linear
programming techniques to determine the optimum solution consistent with the user-
specified objective and mass flow, and user-specified constraints. Examples of user-specified
constraints are the use of existing equipment/facilities and a minimum recycling percentage
requirement.
APPENDIX D BACKGROUND INFORMATION ABOUT THE MSW DST

S:\04 PROJ\28906534 LABOS\Draft Report\Draft Report 7-14-05\Appendices\Appendix D.doc D-3

The environmental aspects associated with a defined MSW management strategy are
estimated in terms of annual net cost, energy consumption, and environmental releases (air,
water, solid waste). For example, waste collection vehicles consume fuel and release several
types of air pollutants in their exhaust. The collection process model of the MSW DST uses
information about the quantity and composition of waste generated and a host of collection
route parameters to estimate the amount of fuel consumed and air emissions by waste
constituent collected. In addition, the environmental burdens associated with producing the
fuel used in the collection vehicles are calculated and included in the collection results. All
process modules in the MSW DST operate in a similar manner and express results as a
function of the quantity and composition of the waste entering each process.

In some waste management processes, cost, energy, and emission offsets may occur. For
example, diverting recycling materials from the waste stream results in a revenue stream and
can displace energy consumption and emissions associated with virgin materials production.
Similarly, waste management processes that recover energy (e.g., Advanced Thermal
Recycling (ATR), landfill gas utilization) will displace energy production in the utility sector
and thereby avoid fossil fuel production- and combustion-related emissions. In applying the
MSW DST, any materials or energy recovery-related benefits are netted out of the results for
each process.

Data for all air parameters that were tracked for the City of Los Angeles study for each of the
scenarios analyzed are included in Tables D-1 through D-5.
APPENDIX D BACKGROUND INFORMATION ABOUT THE MSW DST

S:\04 PROJ\28906534 LABOS\Draft Report\Draft Report 7-14-05\Appendices\Appendix D.doc D-4
TABLE D-1
SUMMARY LEVEL RESULTS FOR THE ANAEROBIC DIGESTION AND
OTHER SCENARIO ANALYZED FOR LOS ANGELES
(PER 1,000,000 TONS OF WASTE MANAGED)

Parameter Units Landfill ATR Gasification AD
Energy Consumption MBTU 168,879 -7,979,688 -10,618,761 -4,698,885
Air Emissions
Total Particulate Matter lb -7,576 -676,023 -1,440,538 -717,400
Nitrogen Oxides lb 1,063,535 -139,325 -2,487,030 156,285
Sulfur Oxides lb -1,721,492 -4,219,963 -7,291,912 -2,298,109
Carbon Monoxide lb 2,441,973 126,226 -3,575,318 -379,452
Carbon Dioxide Biomass lb 5,070,517,344 1,138,815,930 2,152,959,115 93,993,304
Carbon Dioxide Fossil lb -204,596,186 -104,837,901 -564,074,507 -298,483,160
Green House Equivalents
1
MTCE 752,701 -18,279 -78,601 -41,945
Hydrocarbons (non CH4) lb -1,385 -518,674 -1,901,594 -674,831
Lead lb -8 33 208,862 27
Ammonia lb -1,054 -2,774 661,605 -956
Methane lb 272,590,657 -1,390,918 -1,452,926 -433,706
Hydrochloric Acid lb 29,895 237,525 -66,555 -16,544
Ancillary Solid Waste lb -37,981,941 -114,732,959 -157,048,321 -78,593,568

1
MTCE is based on carbon dioxide fossil and methane emissions. Carbon dioxide biomass is not included because it is
considered to be part of the natural short-term carbon cycle.
APPENDIX D BACKGROUND INFORMATION ABOUT THE MSW DST

S:\04 PROJ\28906534 LABOS\Draft Report\Draft Report 7-14-05\Appendices\Appendix D.doc D-5
TABLE D-2
LANDFILL SCENARIO RESULTS

Parameter Units Net Total Collection Transfer Transportation Disposal
Energy Consumption MBTU 168,879 427,670 6,765 17,989 -283,545
Air Emissions
Total Particulate Matter lb -7,576 9,607 2,909 3,575 -23,667
Nitrogen Oxides lb 1,063,535 713,598 38,355 24,826 286,757
Sulfur Oxides lb -1,721,492 70,013 4,512 7,045 -1,803,061
Carbon Monoxide lb 2,441,973 119,299 9,629 24,473 2,288,573
Carbon Dioxide Biomass lb 5,070,517,344 17,032 382 693 5,070,499,237
Carbon Dioxide Fossil lb -204,596,186 18,159,457 1,092,719 2,893,750 -226,742,112
Green House Equivalents MTCE 752,701 2,508 150 396 749,648
Hydrocarbons (non CH4) lb -1,385 147,924 4,790 9,989 -164,087
Lead lb -8 1 0 0 -9
Ammonia lb -1,054 0 2 5 -1,060
Methane lb 272,590,657 11,037 194 460 272,578,965
Hydrochloric Acid lb 29,895 71 2 3 29,820
Total Solid Waste lb -37,981,941 366,999 7,368 15,114 -38,371,421

APPENDIX D BACKGROUND INFORMATION ABOUT THE MSW DST

S:\04 PROJ\28906534 LABOS\Draft Report\Draft Report 7-14-05\Appendices\Appendix D.doc D-6
TABLE D-3
ADVANCED THERMAL RECYCLING (ATR) SCENARIO RESULTS

Parameter Units Net Total Collection Transfer WTE Transport Disposal Recycling Offset
Energy Consumption MBTU -7,979,688 427,670 6,765 -4,757,194 32,267 20,246 -3,709,441
Air Emissions
Total Particulate Matter lb -676,023 9,607 2,909 -480,198 6,413 1,256 -216,009
Nitrogen Oxides lb -139,325 713,598 38,355 -913,369 44,532 13,682 -36,123
Sulfur Oxides lb -4,219,963 70,013 4,512 -4,232,669 12,638 2,326 -76,783
Carbon Monoxide lb 126,226 119,299 9,629 478,257 43,898 4,638 -529,495
Carbon Dioxide Biomass lb 1,138,815,930 17,032 382 1,138,797,042 1,243 230 0
Carbon Dioxide Fossil lb -104,837,901 18,159,457 1,092,719 -85,785,645 5,190,663 977,389 -44,472,484
Green House Equivalents MTCE -18,279 2,508 150 -15,610 710 134 -6,170
Hydrocarbons (non CH4) lb -518,674 147,924 4,790 -481,804 17,917 3,498 -210,999
Lead lb 33 1 0 2 0 0 30
Ammonia lb -2,774 0 2 -2,786 8 2 0
Methane lb -1,390,918 11,037 194 -1,366,118 826 173 -37,030
Hydrochloric Acid lb 237,525 71 2 236,666 5 1 781
Total Solid Waste lb -114,732,959 366,999 7,368 -104,177,624 27,110 7,017 -10,963,829



ATR
APPENDIX D BACKGROUND INFORMATION ABOUT THE MSW DST

S:\04 PROJ\28906534 LABOS\Draft Report\Draft Report 7-14-05\Appendices\Appendix D.doc D-7
TABLE D-4
GASIFICATION SCENARIO RESULTS

Parameter Units Net Total Collection Transfer Gasification Transport Landfill Utility Offset
Recycling
Offset
Energy Consumption MBTU -10,618,761 427,670 6,765 141,796 39,221 65,218 -4,892,595 -6,406,836
Air Emissions
Total Particulate Matter lb -1,440,538 9,607 2,909 4,554 7,795 1,305 -599,228 -867,480
Nitrogen Oxides lb -2,487,030 713,598 38,355 707,856 54,129 14,966 -2,022,600 -1,993,334
Sulfur Oxides lb -7,291,912 70,013 4,512 214,072 15,362 2,685 -4,277,928 -3,320,626
Carbon Monoxide lb -3,575,318 119,299 9,629 8,676 53,359 5,539 -333,256 -3,438,564
Carbon Dioxide Biomass lb 2,152,959,115 17,032 382 1,831,338,025 1,511 906 -6,561,717 328,162,975
Carbon Dioxide Fossil lb -564,074,507 18,159,457 1,092,719 272,009,452 6,309,365 1,067,050 -533,986,502 -328,726,049
Green House Equivalents MTCE -78,601 2,508 150 39,992 863 146 -76,295 -45,965
Hydrocarbons (non CH4) lb -1,901,594 147,924 4,790 449 21,779 3,629 -426,989 -1,653,175
Lead lb 208,862 1 0 208,986 0 0 -24 -100
Ammonia lb 661,605 0 2 672,222 10 2 -2,451 -8,180
Methane lb -1,452,926 11,037 194 147,049 1,003 242 -1,214,738 -397,713
Hydrochloric Acid lb -66,555 71 2 116 6 2 -36,193 -30,558
Total Solid Waste lb -157,048,321 366,999 7,368 66,795 32,953 5,853 -92,546,311 -64,981,977

APPENDIX D BACKGROUND INFORMATION ABOUT THE MSW DST

S:\04 PROJ\28906534 LABOS\Draft Report\Draft Report 7-14-05\Appendices\Appendix D.doc D-8
TABLE D-5
ANAEROBIC DIGESTION SCENARIO RESULTS

Parameter Units Net Total Collection Transfer
Anaerobic
Digestion Transport Landfill Utility Offset
Recycling
Offset
Energy Consumption MBTU -4,698,885 427,670 6,765 310,355 21,970 186,249 -397,712 -5,254,181
Air Emissions
Total Particulate Matter lb -717,400 9,607 2,909 86,763 4,366 3,726 -149,571 -675,199
Nitrogen Oxides lb 156,285 713,598 38,355 453,415 30,320 42,739 -504,852 -617,290
Sulfur Oxides lb -2,298,109 70,013 4,512 26,425 8,605 7,667 -1,067,795 -1,347,534
Carbon Monoxide lb -379,452 119,299 9,629 805,810 29,889 15,817 -83,183 -1,276,714
Carbon Dioxide Biomass lb 93,993,304 17,032 382 95,613,606 847 1,395 -1,637,842 -2,115
Carbon Dioxide Fossil lb -298,483,160 18,159,457 1,092,719 17,907,985 3,534,143 3,047,278 -133,286,092 -208,938,650
Green House Equivalents MTCE -41,945 2,508 150 2,857 484 417 -19,044 -29,316
Hydrocarbons (non CH4) lb -674,831 147,924 4,790 401 12,199 10,365 -106,579 -743,930
Lead lb 27 1 0 4 0 0 -6 28
Ammonia lb -956 0 2 9 6 5 -612 -366
Methane lb -433,706 11,037 194 144,969 562 633 -303,205 -287,896
Hydrochloric Acid lb -16,544 71 2 16,398 3 5 -9,034 -23,989
Total Solid Waste lb -78,593,568 366,999 7,368 56,720 18,458 16,713 -23,100,090 -55,959,737














Appendix E

Supplier Evaluations
APPENDIX E SUPPLIER EVALUATIONS

Section Page


S:\04 PROJ\28906534 LABOS\Draft Report\Draft Report 7-14-05\Appendices\Appendix E.doc E-i
E.1 THERMAL CONVERSION TECHNOLOGIES....................................................E-1

E.1.1 Ebara .................................................................................................................E-1
E.1.2 Interstate Waste Technologies ........................................................................E-13
E.1.3 Omnifuel Technologies...................................................................................E-29
E.1.4 Primenergy/RRA.............................................................................................E-42
E.1.5 Taylor Biomass Recovery...............................................................................E-58
E.1.6 WasteGen Ltd .................................................................................................E-71
E.1.7 Whitten Group International ...........................................................................E-88
E.1.8 Pan American Resources, Inc. ......................................................................E-101

E.2 ADVANCED THERMAL RECYCLING............................................................E-115

E.2.1 Waste Recovery Seattle, Inc. ........................................................................E-115
E.2.2 Seghers-Keppel Technology, Inc..................................................................E-134
E.2.3 Covanta Energy Corporation ........................................................................E-144

E.3 BIOCONVERSION TECHNOLOGIES ..............................................................E-154

E.3.1 Arrow Ecology..............................................................................................E-154
E.3.2 Organic Waste Systems NV..........................................................................E-167
E.3.3 Waste Recovery Systems, Inc.......................................................................E-179
E.3.4 Canada Composting, Inc. ..............................................................................E-192
E.3.5 Wright Environmental Management, Inc. ....................................................E-207
E.3.6 Global Renewables .......................................................................................E-221

List of Tables Page

Table E-1 Ebara Reference Facilities .............................................................................E-2
Table E-2 Ebara Summary Mass Balance ......................................................................E-6
Table E-3 Cost Analysis of Proposed Ebara Facility ...................................................E-11
Table E-4 Thermoselect Reference Facilities...............................................................E-14
Table E-5 Thermoselect Facilities in Development .....................................................E-15
Table E-6 Thermoselect Summary Mass Balance 100,000 Tons/Year ........................E-20
Table E-7 Thermoselect Summary Mass Balance 990,000 Tons/Year ........................E-21
Table E-8 Chemical Additive Use................................................................................E-21
Table E-9 Cost Analysis of Proposed IWT Facility 100,000 Tons/Year .....................E-27
Table E-10 Cost Analysis of Proposed IWT Facility 990,000 Tons/Year .....................E-28
Table E-12 Omnifuel Reference Facilities .....................................................................E-30
APPENDIX E SUPPLIER EVALUATIONS

List of Tables Page


S:\04 PROJ\28906534 LABOS\Draft Report\Draft Report 7-14-05\Appendices\Appendix E.doc E-ii
Table E-13 Omnifuel Summary Mass Balance ..............................................................E-33
Table E-14 Cost Analysis of Proposed Omnifuel Facility .............................................E-39
Table E-15 Primenergy and RRA Reference Facilities..................................................E-48
Table E-16 Primenergy-RRA Summary Mass Balance .................................................E-52
Table E-17 Cost Analysis of Proposed Facility..............................................................E-57
Table E-18 Taylor Reference Facilities ..........................................................................E-61
Table E-19 Taylor Summary Mass Balance 195,750 Tons/Year ...................................E-64
Table E-20 Cost Analysis of Proposed Facility..............................................................E-68
Table E-21 WasteGen Reference Facilities....................................................................E-74
Table E-22 WasteGen Summary Mass Balance.............................................................E-77
Table E-23 Cost Analysis of Proposed Facility..............................................................E-87
Table E-24 Entech Reference Facilities..........................................................................E-91
Table E-25 Entech Summary Mass Balance...................................................................E-92
Table E-26 Cost Analysis of Proposed Entech Facility..................................................E-99
Table E-27 Par Reference Facilities .............................................................................E-103
Table E-28 Summary Mass Balance.............................................................................E-106
Table E-29 Cost Analysis of Proposed Facility............................................................E-112
Table E-30 Reference Facilities....................................................................................E-124
Table E-31 Summary Mass Balance.............................................................................E-125
Table E-32 Cost Analysis of Proposed Facility............................................................E-133
Table E-33 Seghers Keppel Reference Facilities .........................................................E-136
Table E-34 Cost Analysis of Proposed Facility............................................................E-142
Table E-35 Reference Facilities....................................................................................E-145
Table E-36 Cost Analysis of 329,000 Tons/Year Facility............................................E-152
Table E-37 Arrow Ecology Reference Facilities..........................................................E-155
Table E-38 Arrow Ecology Summary Mass Balance...................................................E-158
Table E-39 Cost Analysis of Arrow Ecology Conceptual Los Angeles Facility..........E-164
Table E-40 OWS Reference Facilities..........................................................................E-168
Table E-41 OWS Dranco Summary Mass Balance......................................................E-171
Table E-42 Cost Analysis of OWS Conceptual Los Angeles Facility .........................E-176
Table E-43 Valorga Reference Facilities......................................................................E-181
Table E-44 WRSI/Valorga Summary Mass Balance....................................................E-184
Table E-45 Cost Analysis of WRSI/Valorga Conceptual Los Angeles Facility ..........E-190
Table E-46 CCI BTA Reference Facilities > 10,000 TPY........................................E-194
Table E-47 CCI BTA Summary Mass Balance............................................................E-198
Table E-48 Combustion Emissions Biogas ...............................................................E-202
Table E-49 Liquid Effluent Characteristics Example...................................................E-202
Table E-50 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Comparison ...................................................E-203
Table E-51 Cost Analysis of CCI Conceptual Los Angeles Facility............................E-204
APPENDIX E SUPPLIER EVALUATIONS

List of Tables Page


S:\04 PROJ\28906534 LABOS\Draft Report\Draft Report 7-14-05\Appendices\Appendix E.doc E-iii
Table E-52 Some Wright Environmental Reference Facilities ....................................E-209
Table E-53 Wright Environmental Summary Mass Balance........................................E-212
Table E-54 Cost Analysis of Wright Environmental Conceptual
Los Angeles Facility ..................................................................................E-217
Table E-55 Summary Mass Balance.............................................................................E-224

List of Figures Page

Figure E-1 Ebara Reference Facilities .............................................................................E-2
Figure E-2 Schedule of Implementation, Ebara Facility..................................................E-4
Figure E-3 Layout of Proposed Facility...........................................................................E-5
Figure E-4 Process Flow Diagram...................................................................................E-6
Figure E-5 Ebara Twin Rec System (Twin Internally Circulating Fluidized Bed
Gasification with Ash Melting) .....................................................................E-8
Figure E-6 Thermoselect Reference Facilities...............................................................E-15
Figure E-7 Process Areas ...............................................................................................E-16
Figure E-8 Schedule of Implementation ........................................................................E-18
Figure E-9 Thermoselect Process Flow Diagram..........................................................E-19
Figure E-10 Mass Balance 100,000 Tons/Year Facility...............................................E-19
Figure E-11 Mass Balance 990,000 Tons/Year Facility...............................................E-20
Figure E-12 Degassing Channel and Gasifier..................................................................E-22
Figure E-13 Schedule of Implementation, Omnifuel Facility..........................................E-32
Figure E-14 Layout of Proposed Facility.........................................................................E-33
Figure E-15 Omnifuel Pre-Processing Subsystem...........................................................E-35
Figure E-16 Omnifuel Gasification Technology..............................................................E-36
Figure E-17 Site Layout ...................................................................................................E-45
Figure E-18 PRM Energy Systems, Inc. Gasification Technology .................................E-46
Figure E-19 Reference Facilities......................................................................................E-49
Figure E-20 Sample Project Schedule..............................................................................E-51
Figure E-21 Primenergy Gasifier .....................................................................................E-54
Figure E-22 Ferco Silvagas Process Flow Diagram ........................................................E-60
Figure E-23 Ferco Silvagas Reference Facility at McNeil Station, Burlington, VT .......E-62
Figure E-24 Overall WasteGen Process...........................................................................E-72
Figure E-25 WasteGen Reference Facilities....................................................................E-74
Figure E-26 Site Layout ...................................................................................................E-76
Figure E-27 WasteGen Process Flow Diagram ...............................................................E-77
Figure E-28 Tipping Hall .................................................................................................E-79
Figure E-29 Shredder .......................................................................................................E-79
Figure E-30 Kiln Inlet ......................................................................................................E-80
APPENDIX E SUPPLIER EVALUATIONS

List of Figures Page


S:\04 PROJ\28906534 LABOS\Draft Report\Draft Report 7-14-05\Appendices\Appendix E.doc E-iv
Figure E-31 Flue Gas Exits through Insulated Pipes .......................................................E-81
Figure E-32 Water Bath for Solids Removed ..................................................................E-82
Figure E-33 Wet Slag Removal Conveyor.......................................................................E-82
Figure E-34 Bottom Ash Removal Bins ..........................................................................E-83
Figure E-35 Hot Gas Cyclone..........................................................................................E-83
Figure E-36 Double-Valve Arrangement.........................................................................E-84
Figure E-37 Combustion Chamber ..................................................................................E-85
Figure E-38 Entech Renewable Energy System..............................................................E-90
Figure E-39 Entech Reference Facilities..........................................................................E-91
Figure E-40 Pyrolytic Gasification Chamber...................................................................E-95
Figure E-41 Thermal Reactor...........................................................................................E-95
Figure E-42 Energy Utilization Heat Exchanger (Boiler)................................................E-96
Figure E-43 Air Quality Control System.........................................................................E-97
Figure E-44 Reference Facility at Marcal Paper Mills (1982-84) .................................E-103
Figure E-45 Site Layout .................................................................................................E-105
Figure E-46 Process Flow Diagram...............................................................................E-105
Figure E-47 Hydro-Sonic Scrubber ...............................................................................E-110
Figure E-48 MVR Thermal Recycling Process .............................................................E-116
Figure E-49 Tipping Hall ...............................................................................................E-117
Figure E-50 MSW Delivery Point..................................................................................E-118
Figure E-51 Grappling Hook Puts MSW into Shredder ................................................E-118
Figure E-52 Shredded MSW Bunker .............................................................................E-119
Figure E-53 Boiler and Steam Turbine Generator Housing...........................................E-119
Figure E-54 Steam Turbine-Generator...........................................................................E-120
Figure E-55 Bottom Ash Conveyor System...................................................................E-120
Figure E-56 Bottom Ash Storage Facility......................................................................E-121
Figure E-57 Emission Stacks .........................................................................................E-122
Figure E-58 Control Room.............................................................................................E-123
Figure E-59 MVR Plant .................................................................................................E-124
Figure E-60 Process Flow Diagram...............................................................................E-126
Figure E-61 Boiler..........................................................................................................E-128
Figure E-62 Bottom Ash Processing in Furnace............................................................E-129
Figure E-63 Bottom Ash Processing..............................................................................E-129
Figure E-64 Emission Control System Flow Diagram ..................................................E-130
Figure E-65 HCl Rectification System..........................................................................E-131
Figure E-66 Dano Drums ...............................................................................................E-135
Figure E-67 Thermal Recycling Facilities .....................................................................E-137
Figure E-68 Dano Drum Feed Separation......................................................................E-138
Figure E-69 Dano Drum.................................................................................................E-139
APPENDIX E SUPPLIER EVALUATIONS

List of Figures Page


S:\04 PROJ\28906534 LABOS\Draft Report\Draft Report 7-14-05\Appendices\Appendix E.doc E-v
Figure E-70 Dano Drum Internals..................................................................................E-140
Figure E-71 Emission Control System...........................................................................E-141
Figure E-72 Typical Covanta Facility............................................................................E-145
Figure E-73 Reference Facilities....................................................................................E-146
Figure E-74 General Process Flow Diagram .................................................................E-147
Figure E-75 Martin Grate System..................................................................................E-149
Figure E-76 Action of Martin Grate System..................................................................E-149
Figure E-77 3-D Isometric View....................................................................................E-156
Figure E-78 Arrow Ecology Flow Diagram...................................................................E-157
Figure E-79 Preprocessing Subsystem...........................................................................E-160
Figure E-80 Conversion Subsystem...............................................................................E-161
Figure E-81 Brecht II Facility (Foreground); Brecht I is in the Background ................E-169
Figure E-82 Schedule of Implementation, OWS Dranco Facility .................................E-170
Figure E-83 Proposed OWS Facility: Process Flow......................................................E-170
Figure E-84 Dranco Digester .........................................................................................E-174
Figure E-85 Valorga Facility in Barcelona; View of Digesters, Buffer Gas Storage,
and Flare.....................................................................................................E-182
Figure E-86 Valorga Barcelona Process Flow Overview..............................................E-183
Figure E-87 Close-Up of Two of the Three Valorga Digesters in Barcelona................E-186
Figure E-88 Valorga Digester in Freiburg, Germany ....................................................E-189
Figure E-89 130,000 TPY CCI Facility in Newmarket, ON..........................................E-195
Figure E-90 Conceptual CCI Facility: Process Flow and Mass Balance.......................E-197
Figure E-91 CCI Digester, Pulp & Water Storage Newmarket, ON ..........................E-201
Figure E-92 Kirkhill Treatment Plant (Mintlaw Aberdeenshire, Scotland)................E-210
Figure E-93 Proposed Wright Environmental Facility: Process Flow and Mass
Balance (Per Business Day).......................................................................E-211
Figure E-94 Biodryer Schematic....................................................................................E-213
Figure E-95 View of Biodryer Internals ........................................................................E-213
Figure E-96 190,000 TPD Eastern Creek UR-3R Facility, September 2004.................E-222
Figure E-97 Summary UR-3R Process Schematic.........................................................E-224
Figure E-98 ISKA Percolator.........................................................................................E-226

APPENDIX E SUPPLIER EVALUATIONS
Ebara Corporation


S:\04 PROJ\28906534 LABOS\Draft Report\Draft Report 7-14-05\Appendices\Appendix E.doc E-1
E.1 THERMAL CONVERSION TECHNOLOGIES

E.1.1 Ebara Corporation

E.1.1.1 Technology Overview

E.1.1.1.1 Technology Supplier Team. Ebara Corporation, founded in 1912, is a large,
global company involved in environmental engineering systems. Ebara also manufactures
pumps, compressors, gas turbines, fans, and chillers. The companys activities are divided
into four primary areas:

Fluid Machinery & Systems Group
Environmental Engineering Group
Precision Machinery Group
New and Renewable Energy Group

Ebara has 15,200 employees, with annual sales of over $4.8 billion. The Environmental
Engineering Group is the area of Ebara that supplies the MSW conversion technologies.

Firm: Ebara Corporation
Technology: Twin Rec TIFG (Twin Internally Circulating Fluidized Bed
Gasification) with Ash Melting
Throughput: 100,000 tons/year
Principal Contact: Kaoru Shin, General Manager, Sales Division
Address: 1-6-27 Kohnan, Minato-ku,
Tokyo 108-8480, Japan

E.1.1.1.2 Technology Overview. Ebara has developed several different combustion and
gasification technologies for a wide range of feedstocks. The Twin Rec technology is one of
Ebaras most advanced technologies for gasification MSW and other solid and liquid wastes.
Twin Rec is a combination of fluid bed gasification, coupled with immediate combustion of
the syngas in a high-temperature chamber. This gasification process converts the MSW to
syngas, and combustion of the syngas in the high temperature combustion chamber causes
the inorganic component of the MSW (ash) to be converted to a molten slag. The slag is
quench-cooled to form a vitrified (glassy), non-hazardous material. The heat produced from
the combustion of the syngas is used to make steam in a boiler. The steam drives a steam
turbine generator for the generation of 5.5 net MW of electricity. The flue gases are treated in
APPENDIX E SUPPLIER EVALUATIONS
Ebara Corporation


S:\04 PROJ\28906534 LABOS\Draft Report\Draft Report 7-14-05\Appendices\Appendix E.doc E-2
an extensive air emission control system, and cleaned flue gases exist through a stack. Other
than removal of large pieces of metal, i.e., car engines, the only preprocessing required for
the Twin Rec process is shredding to a maximum 12-inch size. No recyclables are removed
from the MSW. Metals and slag are recovered as byproducts from the gasification and ash
melting portions of the process. Overall diversion from landfill is 91%.

E.1.1.1.3 Reference Plants. In the proposal, Ebara listed the five reference plants shown
below in Table E-1.

TABLE E-1
EBARA REFERENCE FACILITIES

Facility City Country
Throughput,
Tons/Year Feedstock
Asahi Clean Center Kawaguchi City Japan 168,000 MSW and bottom ash
Sakata Area Refuse Disposal Union Sakata City Japan 70,000 MSW and night soil sludge
Clean Plaza Chuno Seki City Japan 60,000 MSW
Ube City Environmental Preservation
Center Waste Disposal Plant
Ube City Japan 72,000 MSW, night soil sludge
Nagareyama Clean Center Nagareyama City Japan 75,000 MSW, night soil sludge

Ebara has a total of 12 plants in service, with one plant in development in Kuala Lumpur,
Malaysia, sized for 1,500 tons/day of MSW. It is scheduled for operation in May 2006.

Figure E-1 shows some of the reference facilities.

FIGURE E-1
EBARA REFERENCE FACILITIES



E.1.1.1.4 Commercial Status. With twelve plants in operation using the Twin Rec
technology, this process is considered to be in full-scale development. Ebara has others
APPENDIX E SUPPLIER EVALUATIONS
Ebara Corporation


S:\04 PROJ\28906534 LABOS\Draft Report\Draft Report 7-14-05\Appendices\Appendix E.doc E-3
facilities in operation and development using other Ebara gasification processes, and is
developing enhancements to its gasification technologies. The approximate total existing
capacity for the Twin Rec process is just over 600,000 tons/year.
The processing lines proposed for this project are rated at 7.3 tons/hour. To date, the largest
throughput in any Twin Rec facility is 6.4 tons/hour. This is a 14-15% scale-up, which is not
seen as a significant concern.

E.1.1.2 Detailed Technology Description

E.1.1.2.1 Description of Proposed Facility. The proposed facility would be sized to
process 100,000 tons/year of MSW. The MSW is delivered onto a tipping floor. No removal
of recyclables or rejects is required. The MSW is conveyed into two shredders to reduce the
size of the feedstock to 12 inches. From there, screw feeders are used to feed the MSW
feedstock into the two gasifiers. Gasification of the MSW occurs at low temperatures, in the
range of 1,022-1,166F, forming the syngas. The syngas exits the gasifier and immediately
enters the ash melting furnace portion of the Twin Rec process. Combustion air is injected,
and the syngas is combusted at a temperature of up to 2,542F. At this temperature, the
entrained inorganic materials (ash) are converted to a molten form. The molten slag flows to
the bottom of the ash melter and is drained into a water bath, where it is quench cooled,
crystallizing into a vitrified (glassy), non-hazardous material.

The hot flue gases then pass through the boiler, producing steam, which is used to drive a
steam turbine generator, generating about 8 MW of electricity. After the flue gases are cooled
to about 350F, diatomaceous earth is injected into the stream to help in the removal of
particulates in a fabric filter. The gases then go through a Selective Catalytic Removal (SCR)
system for the removal of nitrogen oxides (NO
x
), then through a wet scrubber for the removal
of acid gases, such as HCl and SO
2
. The cleaned flue gases exit through a stack. Recovered
slag and metals can be sold.

Ebara provided an overall three-year schedule for implementation of the project, which is
shown in Figure E-2.

Site Layout. A proposed layout was provided, covering an area of 4.5 acres. It is shown in
Figure E-3.

Process Flow and Mass Balance. A process flow diagram is shown in Figure E-4. The
process flow and mass balance is summarized in Table E-2.

APPENDIX E SUPPLIER EVALUATIONS
Ebara Corporation


S:\04 PROJ\28906534 LABOS\Draft Report\Draft Report 7-14-05\Appendices\Appendix E.doc E-4
FIGURE E-2
SCHEDULE OF IMPLEMENTATION, EBARA FACILITY




APPENDIX E SUPPLIER EVALUATIONS
Ebara Corporation


S:\04 PROJ\28906534 LABOS\Draft Report\Draft Report 7-14-05\Appendices\Appendix E.doc E-5
FIGURE E-3
LAYOUT OF PROPOSED FACILITY



Operation and Maintenance. MSW is expected to be delivered to the facility 5 days per
week. The preprocessing, conversion unit, and power generation subsystems will be operated
on a continuous basis (24/7), producing syngas and generating electricity for 283 days per
year. Staffing is based on two 12-hour shifts per day, with 7 employees per shift with 4
crews. In addition, a manager, two supervisors, weigh bridge operator, and two waste
receiving platform operators will be required during the day shift. The total staff is 34.

Utility Requirements. Electricity The facility will produce 55.9 million kilowatt hours
(kWh) per year, with an internal requirement of 18.4 million kWh per year, equivalent to a
33 percent internal power load.
APPENDIX E SUPPLIER EVALUATIONS
Ebara Corporation


S:\04 PROJ\28906534 LABOS\Draft Report\Draft Report 7-14-05\Appendices\Appendix E.doc E-6
FIGURE E-4
PROCESS FLOW DIAGRAM



TABLE E-2
EBARA SUMMARY MASS BALANCE

Stream Tons/Year Comments
Inlet MSW 100,000 No preprocessing
Feedstock to each gasifier (2) 50,000 Shredded to <12 inches
Metals recovered from gasifiers (marketable) 1,230 Marketable
Non-combustibles from gasifiers 2,845 Unmarketable
Slag produced in ash melters (marketable) 11,365 Marketable
Boiler and fabric filter ash produced
(unmarketable)
6,378 Unmarketable (includes ferrite, cement, and water
added to produce stabilized material for landfill)

Water The facility will use 167,618 gallons of potable water per day (283 days per year) for
the flue gas cooling, ash conditioning, power generation, and emission control systems.

Wastewater The facility will recycle as much of the process water as possible, by utilizing
it in the wet scrubber. The wet scrubber will have a discharge of wastewater of 39,312
gallons/day.

APPENDIX E SUPPLIER EVALUATIONS
Ebara Corporation


S:\04 PROJ\28906534 LABOS\Draft Report\Draft Report 7-14-05\Appendices\Appendix E.doc E-7
Natural gas The gasifier will require the use of natural gas for start-up and shutdown of the
gasifier, and on an as-needed in the ash melter when the slag does not flow readily. Total use
of natural gas is 6.75 million cubic feet/year.
Chemicals The emission control, power generation, ash conditioning, and wastewater
treatment systems will require various chemicals, common for MSW and power generation
systems, as follows:

Emission control systems: diatomaceous earth, ammonia solution, sodium hydroxide, and
liquid chelate
Power generation (demineralizer and boiler): hydrochloric acid, sodium hydroxide, boiler
compound, deoxidizer, condensate treatment, corrosion inhibitor, anti-corrosive an scale
protection agent, slime treatment agent
Wastewater treatment: hydrochloric acid, sodium hydroxide, ferric chloride, calcium
hypochlorite, calcium chloride, polymer, dispersant, aluminum sulfate, liquid chelate
Other: Deodorizer, insecticide, activated carbon, lubricants

E.1.1.2.2 Pre-Processing Subsystem.

Equipment Description. The delivered MSW is subjected to the following sequence of
operations:

On the tipping floor, any very large pieces of metal, i.e., engines, are removed.
From the tipping floor, the MSW is fed by conveyor to two 7.3 ton/hour shredders to
reduce the maximum size to 12 inches. Each line has 1 operating/1 standby shredder, as
this equipment is subjected to such severe service.
The tipping room building is maintained at a negative pressure to reduce odor problems.
The air is used for fluidizing (gasification) and secondary air ducts (combustion) in the
Conversion Unit Subsystem. During times that the facility is shut down, the air stream
will be ducted through a deodorant system and then exhausted.

Recovered Recyclables. No recyclables are removed from the inlet MSW stream.

Residue Removed from Delivered MSW. No residues, other than very large pieces of
metal, i.e., engines, are removed from the delivered MSW stream.

APPENDIX E SUPPLIER EVALUATIONS
Ebara Corporation


S:\04 PROJ\28906534 LABOS\Draft Report\Draft Report 7-14-05\Appendices\Appendix E.doc E-8
E.1.1.2.3 Conversion Unit Subsystem. Figure E-5 shows the Twin Rec gasification and
ash melting technology. There are two complete processing lines, each with a feeder,
gasifier, ash melting chamber, boiler, gas cooler, and emission control system.

FIGURE E-5
EBARA TWIN REC SYSTEM (TWIN INTERNALLY CIRCULATING
FLUIDIZED BED GASIFICATION WITH ASH MELTING)



Shredded MSW is feed by two 7.3 ton/hour twin screw feeders into the two 7.3 ton/hour
gasifiers. Inside each gasifier, fluidizing (and gasifying) air is blown into a sand bed to
accomplish the fluidizing of the MSW, providing additional turbulence to expose more
surface area for enhanced gasification. Gasification occurs in the range of 1,022-1,166F,
converting the organic components of the MSW into syngas. Inert components such as
metals, ceramics, and glass, as well as some of the ash formed during the gasification
process, are extracted through openings in the bed. They are mechanically separated from the
sand, which is then returned to the fluid bed.

The syngas, along with ash and unreacted organic particles, enter the coupled ash melting
chamber. Air is blown into the chamber, and combustion occurs in the range of 2,372-
2,642F. Due to the high temperature, the ash particles form a molten slag, which flows out
the bottom of the chamber into a water bath. There, it solidifies into a hard, glassy, non-
hazardous material.

The flue gas exits the combustion chamber and enters a boiler, where the hot gas is used to
produce steam for the power generation system. The flue gases cool to 405F at the boiler
exit, and then enter a gas cooler for further temperature reduction prior to the emission
Gasifier Ash Melter
APPENDIX E SUPPLIER EVALUATIONS
Ebara Corporation


S:\04 PROJ\28906534 LABOS\Draft Report\Draft Report 7-14-05\Appendices\Appendix E.doc E-9
control system. Water is sprayed into the gas cooler, reducing the gas temperature to 356F.
Diatomaceous earth is injected into the flue gas stream, absorbing pollutants and helping to
form larger particulates. The particulates are removed in a fabric filter. Following the fabric
filter, the flue gases enter the SCR system, where ammonia is injected over the catalyst bed,
converting NO
x
to nitrogen and water. At this point, the flue gas stream is about 354F. It
then enters the wet scrubber, which uses chelate and sodium hydroxide to remove acid gases
such as HCl and SO
2
. The blowdown stream from the wet scrubber is pumped to an
extensive wastewater treatment system prior to discharge.

An induced draft fan is used to pull the flue gases through the back end of the emission
control system, and the flue gas exits a stack.

Boiler ash and particulates collected in the fabric filter will be blended with ferrite, water,
and cement, in order to condition the ash and form a non-leachable material. This material
will be disposed of in a landfill.

E.1.1.2.4 Power Generation Subsystem. Each line has a dedicated boiler. In the boiler,
steam is produced at 752F and 580 psi. The steam from both boilers flows to a single steam
turbine generator, rated at 8.23 MW gross. With an internal facility load of 2.705 MW, the
net power output is 5.5 MW. Indicators of overall facility efficiency are:

376 net kWh/ton of feedstock
18 tons/year raw MSW per net kW capacity

E.1.1.2.5 Post-Processing. As part of the system, the boiler and fabric filter ash are
conditioned with water, ferrite, and cement, in order to stabilize the ash and produce a non-
leachable material for landfill disposal. Ebara has included this system on its other Twin Rec
facilities.

E.1.1.3 Byproduct Analysis

E.1.1.3.1 Byproducts Generated. The proposed Ebara facility would produce the
following useful byproducts:

Electricity: 5.525 net MW, or 37.5 million kWh/year
Slag: 11,350 tons/year
Metals: 1,228 tons/year

APPENDIX E SUPPLIER EVALUATIONS
Ebara Corporation


S:\04 PROJ\28906534 LABOS\Draft Report\Draft Report 7-14-05\Appendices\Appendix E.doc E-10
E.1.1.3.2 Market Assessment. There is an existing market in California for MSW-
produced renewable electricity. The slag can be readily sold for sand-blasting grit, asphalt
filler, or for manufacture of cement and roofing tiles. The recycled ferrous and non-ferrous
metals will be of sufficient purity to be marketable.

E.1.1.4 Environmental Issues

E.1.1.4.1 Air Emissions/Toxics. A slight negative pressure will be maintained in the
tipping building in order to control odors. The air will be used in the gasification and
combustion processes. Since gasification is a closed process, there is no emission point for
the syngas. The only emission point is the stack, following removal of emissions in the
emission control system. Ebaras proposal states that all regulated emissions will be below
the applicable EU emission limits.

E.1.1.4.2 Wastewater Discharges. The overall process would be designed to recycle and
reuse water in the various subsystems. Recycled water is used for slag cooling, gasifier
cooling water, in the gas cooler, and for conditioning the ash. Following treatment of the wet
scrubber blowdown, a 27 gallon/minute stream would be discharged.

E.1.1.4.3 Solid Wastes/Residuals. The total amount of unmarketable residuals is 9,223
tons/year, or about 9% of the inlet MSW stream. This includes 2,845 tons/year of non-
combustibles removed from the bottom of the gasifier, along with 6,378 tons/year of
conditioned ash from the boiler and fabric filter. The ash is considered as hazardous in
Japan, and is conditioned with water, ferrite, and cement to produce a stable, non-leachable
material for landfill disposal.

E.1.1.4.4 Other Environmental Issues. Although the slag is expected to be marketable,
disposal in a landfill would be required if a market cannot be found. Visibility of the stack
may be a viewshed issue.

E.1.1.5 Costs and Revenues

The cost analysis of the proposed Ebara facility is presented in Table E-3.

E.1.1.6 Assessment Summary

Ebara Corporation is a large, global company that can take on substantial projects. It has a
dozen of its Twin Rec facilities in operation, with more in development. Concerns are listed
below.

APPENDIX E SUPPLIER EVALUATIONS
Ebara Corporation


S:\04 PROJ\28906534 LABOS\Draft Report\Draft Report 7-14-05\Appendices\Appendix E.doc E-11
TABLE E-3
COST ANALYSIS OF PROPOSED EBARA FACILITY


Provided by
Ebara
Evaluated
Cost Reason for Adjustment
Capital Cost $73 million $73 million
Capital Cost, $/TPY $730 $730
Annual O&M $9,000,000 $8,631,080 Separate landfilling of unmarketable ash
Landfilling of Unmarketable Ash Not separated
out
$368,920 Landfilling of 9,228 tons/year @ $40/ton
Annual Capital Recovery + Interest
Costs
$5,990,000 $5,990,000
Total Annual Costs $14,990,000 $14,990,000
Revenues from Sale of Electricity $2,250,000 $2,251,548 5525 kW for 283 days at $0.06/kWh
Revenues from Sale of
Recyclables
$0 $118,150 11,350 tons/year slag @ $5/ton = $56,750
1,228 tons/year metals @$50/ton = $61,400
Total Annual Revenues $2,250,000 $2,369,698
Annual Revenues-Costs ($12,740,000) ($12,620,302)
Tipping Fee $127.40/ton $126.20/ton .
Worst Case Break Even Tipping
Fee
$127.91/ton Assume 11,350 tons/year slag cannot be
marketed, transport slag @$10/ton to landfill
for use as cover. Delete bottom ash revenues
by $56,750. Add $113,500 to O&M costs.

Technical. The throughput of each line proposed for this project would be the largest that
Ebara has designed. It would be a 14-15% scale-up of its largest facility to date, the Asahi
Clan Center in Kawaguchi City, Japan. This is not seen as a significant concern.

Cost. Table E-3 shows that the facility would cost $730/TPY of MSW. From Ebaras
proposal, the other facilities cost figures are:

Asahi Clean Center: $674/TPY
Sakata: $1,116/TPY
Clean Plaza Chuno: $941/TPY
Ube City Environmental Preservation Center Waste Disposal Plant: $1,204/TPY
Nagareyama Clean Center: $1,186/TPY

Based on this cost data, the average facility cost point is $1,024/TPY. This value is 40%
greater than the cost for the proposed facility. However, the cost of the proposed facility is
APPENDIX E SUPPLIER EVALUATIONS
Ebara Corporation


S:\04 PROJ\28906534 LABOS\Draft Report\Draft Report 7-14-05\Appendices\Appendix E.doc E-12
actually 8% higher than that for the Asahi Clean Center, which Ebara uses as their primary
reference facility for design of the proposed facility. These cost issues were brought up with
Ebara in a Request for Additional Information. Ebara responded that the major difference in
cost is due to the sophistication if the buildings customers want as well as local conditions.
This seems to be a very significant cost difference just for the building itself. This variability
could have a significant impact on overall facility costs, which would then impact annual
costs for capital recovery and interest expense. A specification included as part of the
Request for Proposal would need to be very specific as to the design requirements for the
building and infrastructure.

Performance. Since no pre-processing is done, inorganic materials that enter the gasifier are
heated to operating temperatures, and then cooled down, with irreversible losses. This
reduces the heat energy available for producing steam and electricity. With a production of
376 net kWh/ton feedstock, this technology has a very low efficiency rating compared to
other thermal technologies.

APPENDIX E SUPPLIER EVALUATIONS
Interstate Waste Technologies


S:\04 PROJ\28906534 LABOS\Draft Report\Draft Report 7-14-05\Appendices\Appendix E.doc E-13
E.1.2 Interstate Waste Technologies

E.1.2.1 Technology Overview

E.1.2.1.1 Technology Supplier Team. Interstate Waste Technologies, Inc. (IWT) is an
U.S. corporation. They are a part of Interstate General Company, and are a North American
licensee for the Thermoselect Gasification Technology. IWT operates in Central America
and the Caribbean as Caribe Waste Technologies, and is developing several projects there.
Thermoselect, which developed the technology and licenses it, is a Swiss corporation.
Thermoselect has developed its own facilities in Europe, and has acted as a licensor for
facilities in Asia and the Americas.

Firm: Interstate Waste Technologies, Inc.
Technology: Thermoselect Gasification Technology
Throughput: Base proposal: 100,000 tons/year, (370,000 and 990,000 after
receiving the response from the RFQ, additional information was
requested for higher throughputs to examine economy of scale. This
information is included in Section 5, Table 5-1)
Principal Contact: Francis C. (Frank) Campbell, President
Address: 17 Mystic Lane
Malvern, PA 19355
In order to develop this project, IWT has formed the Interstate Waste Management Alliance,
comprised of the following five companies:
IWT (licenses technology and develops, finances, and manages the project)
Thermoselect S.A. (provides the technology and proprietary equipment)
HDR Inc. (permitting, and design of infrastructure and auxiliary systems)
H.B. Zachry Company (construction of facility)
Montenay Power Corporation (operation and maintenance of facility)

IWT submitted a proposal for two different facilities, one processing 100,000 tons/year and
the other 990,000 tons/year. Data for both is included in this report.

E.1.2.1.2 Technology Overview. The Thermoselect technology requires no pre-processing,
and no recyclables are removed from the MSW. Very large pieces of MSW, such as engines
and white goods, are typically removed as rejects in the tipping hall. The Thermoselect
technology is a combination of pyrolysis, followed by high temperature, oxygen-blown, fixed
APPENDIX E SUPPLIER EVALUATIONS
Interstate Waste Technologies


S:\04 PROJ\28906534 LABOS\Draft Report\Draft Report 7-14-05\Appendices\Appendix E.doc E-14
bed gasification. A plug of MSW is fed into an externally heated degassing channel,
where pyrolysis of the MSW occurs. Syngas is produced, leaving a char and ash material
which is then gasified with oxygen in the directly coupled gasification portion of the process.
The addition of oxygen and natural gas into the lower portion of the gasifier chamber results
in extremely high temperatures, and the inorganic portion of the MSW (ash) is converted to a
molten stream of metals and slag. The molten stream is quench-cooled, forming metal shot
and a vitrified (glass), non-hazardous slag aggregate material.

Following production of the syngas, the Thermoselect technology incorporates significant
syngas clean-up, recovery of marketable byproducts, and process wastewater treatment and
clean-up. The cleaned syngas is combusted in reciprocating engines for generation of 11 net
MW of electricity for the 100,000 tons/year facility, and 124 net MW for the 990,000
tons/year facility.

Metals and slag are recovered as byproducts from the gasification, and salts, zinc
concentrate, and sulfur are recovered from the syngas and process water clean-up systems.
Thermoselect has been able to market most or all of the byproducts at other facilities, and
IWT expects to be able to market all of the byproducts generated at the proposed facility for
the City of Los Angeles. Overall diversion from landfill is essentially 100%.

E.1.2.1.3 Reference Plants. In the proposal, IWT listed the reference plants shown below
in Table E-4.
TABLE E-4
THERMOSELECT REFERENCE FACILITIES

Facility City Country
Throughput,
Tons/Year Feedstock
Thermoselect Sudwest Karlsruhe Germany 246,500 MSW
Chiba Chiba Japan 103,500 MSW, and combinations of MSW and industrial waste
Mutsu Facility Mutsu Japan 47,850 MSW

Thermoselect developed its first full-scale facility in Fondotoce, Italy in 1992, with a
throughput of about 34,000 tons/year of MSW. This served as the design basis for
commercial development of the Thermoselect technology. Figure E-6 shows some of the
reference facilities. Kawasaki Steel Corporation (now JFE Holdings) signed a license
agreement with Thermoselect in 1997, and developed the Chiba (1999) and Mutsu (2003)
facilities.

E.1.2.1.4 Commercial Status. With three commercial plants in operation using the
Thermoselect gasification technology, this process is considered to be in full-scale
development. The approximate total existing capacity for the Thermoselect process is almost
APPENDIX E SUPPLIER EVALUATIONS
Interstate Waste Technologies


S:\04 PROJ\28906534 LABOS\Draft Report\Draft Report 7-14-05\Appendices\Appendix E.doc E-15
FIGURE E-6
THERMOSELECT REFERENCE FACILITIES


Karlsruhe Chiba Mutsu

400,000 tons/year. The Karlsruhe facility is owned and operated by Thermoselect Sudwest,
which is a subsidiary of EnBW, the electric utility in the Karlsruhe area. Due to economic
(but not technical) reasons, EnBW has decided to shut down the Karlsruhe facility by the end
of 2004. Another company may acquire the facility and re-start it. JFE is developing five
more facilities in Japan to be started up in 2005, as shown in Table E-5.

TABLE E-5
THERMOSELECT FACILITIES IN DEVELOPMENT

Facility City Country
Throughput,
Tons/Year Feedstock
City of Nagasaki Nagasaki Japan 103,125 MSW
Mizushima Eco Works Kurashiki Japan 191,250 MSW and industrial waste
Yorii Orix Eco Service Yorii Japan 155,000 Industrial Waste
City of Tokushima Tokushima Japan 47,000 MSW
Kyokuto Kaihastsu Izumi Japan 32,800 Industrial waste

IWT is also developing a 220,000 tons/year facility in the U.S. Virgin Islands, and a 1
million tons/year facility in Puerto Rico. By the end of 2005, the Thermoselect technology
will have over 900,000 tons/year of capacity in commercial operation.

The processing lines proposed for this project are rated at:

1 line @ 13.3 tons/hour or 320 tons/day for the 100,000 tons/year facility
8 lines @16.5 tons/hour each or 3,168 tons/day each for the 990,000 tons/year facility

To date, the largest throughput in any operating Thermoselect facility is 11 tons/hour. This is
a 50% scale-up, which is not seen as a significant concern. Individual lines at the Karlsruhe
facility have been tested at throughputs of 16.5 tons/hour on a short basis, in order to
APPENDIX E SUPPLIER EVALUATIONS
Interstate Waste Technologies


S:\04 PROJ\28906534 LABOS\Draft Report\Draft Report 7-14-05\Appendices\Appendix E.doc E-16
determine design enhancements for the 16.5 tons/hour module sized for the proposed facility
and for other projects.

E.1.2.2 Detailed Technology Description

E.1.2.2.1 Description of Proposed Facility. The proposed base facility would be sized to
process 100,000 tons/year of MSW, and the alternate proposal is for processing 990,000
tons/year. The overall Thermoselect technology consists of the process areas shown in
Figure E-7.

FIGURE E-7
PROCESS AREAS



For the proposed facility, the MSW is delivered into the below grade waste bunkers. No
removal of recyclables or rejects is included as part of the process, or is it required. The
MSW is compacted in the bunker area, then picked up by a grapple hook crane and fed to the
overhead degassing chamber feed hoppers. From there, a press is used to feed plugs of the
APPENDIX E SUPPLIER EVALUATIONS
Interstate Waste Technologies


S:\04 PROJ\28906534 LABOS\Draft Report\Draft Report 7-14-05\Appendices\Appendix E.doc E-17
MSW into the degassing channel, and then into the gasifier chamber. Gasification of the
MSW occurs at 2,190F in the gasifier, forming the syngas. In the lower portion of the
gasifier, oxygen and natural gas are injected, resulting in a temperature over 3,600F, melting
the metals and ash components of the MSW.

The syngas exits the gasifier and enters the syngas quenching and scrubbing systems. The
clean syngas is then combusted in reciprocating engines, producing electricity. The exhaust
gases from the engines flow through vents at the top of the building. No stacks are required
for this type of power generation.

The syngas scrubbing system removes and recovers sulfur compounds in the MSW as sulfur.
The process water treatment system removes the chlorine compounds in the MSW as a mixed
sodium and potassium salt compound, and zinc and other heavy metals are recovered in a
concentrated hydroxide form.

IWT provided an overall two-year schedule for implementation of the 100,000 tons/year
facility, and 27 months for the 990,000 tons/year facility. The schedule is shown in Figure
E-8.

Site Layout. The 100,000 tons/year facility would require a land are of 4.5 acres, with 15
acres for the larger 990,000 tons/year facility. IWT provided layouts of the Karlsruhe facility
as an example.

Process Flow and Mass Balance. An overall process flow diagram is shown in Figure E-9.
The mass balances for the two cases are shown in Figures E-10 and E-11, with a summary
mass balances in Tables E-6 and E-7.

Operation and Maintenance. MSW is expected to be delivered to the facility 5 days per
week. The preprocessing, conversion unit, and power generation subsystems will be operated
on a continuous basis (24/7), producing syngas and generating electricity for 312 days per
year. Staffing is 19 for the 100,000 tons/year facility and 32 for the 990,000 tons/year
facility.

Utility Requirements. Electricity The 100,000 tons/year facility will produce 120.9
million kWh per year, with an internal requirement of 37.83 million kWh, equivalent to a 31
percent internal power load. The 990,000 tons/year facility will produce 928.5 million kWh
per year, with an internal requirement of 300.2 million kWh/year, equivalent to 32% internal
power load.

APPENDIX E SUPPLIER EVALUATIONS
Interstate Waste Technologies


S:\04 PROJ\28906534 LABOS\Draft Report\Draft Report 7-14-05\Appendices\Appendix E.doc E-18
FIGURE E-8
SCHEDULE OF IMPLEMENTATION


APPENDIX E SUPPLIER EVALUATIONS
Interstate Waste Technologies


S:\04 PROJ\28906534 LABOS\Draft Report\Draft Report 7-14-05\Appendices\Appendix E.doc E-19
FIGURE E-9
THERMOSELECT PROCESS FLOW DIAGRAM



FIGURE E-10
MASS BALANCE 100,000 TONS/YEAR FACILITY



APPENDIX E SUPPLIER EVALUATIONS
Interstate Waste Technologies


S:\04 PROJ\28906534 LABOS\Draft Report\Draft Report 7-14-05\Appendices\Appendix E.doc E-20
FIGURE E-11
MASS BALANCE 990,000 TONS/YEAR FACILITY


TABLE E-6
THERMOSELECT SUMMARY MASS BALANCE
100,000 TONS/YEAR

Stream Tons/Year Comments
Inlet MSW 100,000 No removal of recyclables
Feedstock to gasifier 100,000
Metals recovered from gasifier 2,563 Marketable
Slag recovered from gasifier 15,000 Marketable
Sulfur produced in syngas treatment system 125 Marketable
Zinc concentrate from process water treatment 844 Marketable

Water The 100,000 tons/year facility will use 293,280 gallons/day of water for the flue gas
cooling, ash conditioning, power generation and emission control systems. The 990,000
tons/day facility will require 2,826,720 gallons/day.

Wastewater The facility will recycle as much of the process water as possible, by utilizing
it in the wet scrubber.

APPENDIX E SUPPLIER EVALUATIONS
Interstate Waste Technologies


S:\04 PROJ\28906534 LABOS\Draft Report\Draft Report 7-14-05\Appendices\Appendix E.doc E-21
TABLE E-7
THERMOSELECT SUMMARY MASS BALANCE
990,000 TONS/YEAR

Stream Tons/Year Comments
Inlet MSW 990,000 No removal of recyclables
Feedstock to each gasifier (8) 123,750
Metals recovered from gasifiers 25,438 Marketable
Slag produced in gasifiers 149,438 Marketable
Sulfur produced in syngas treatment system 1,188 Marketable
Zinc concentrate from process water treatment 8,469 Marketable

Natural gas The 100,000 tons/year gasifier will require the use of 358,000 scf of natural gas
for a cold start-up, i.e., following a maintenance outage. In addition, normal operation
requires 350,000-400,000 scf/day of natural gas as a moderating fuel in the high temperature
reactor. The 990,000 tons/year facility will require the same 358,000 scf per module for cold
start-up, and 3.5-4.0 million scf/day for moderating fuel in the eight modules.

Diesel fuel About 5% of the energy input for each engine is in the form of diesel fuel for
ignition. The 100,000 tons/year facility uses 600-700 gallons/day, and the larger 990,000
tons/year facility uses 6,000-7,000 gallons/day as ignition fuel for the eight engines.

Chemicals Table E-8 shows the chemical additives that are used in the syngas clean-up and
process water treatment systems.
TABLE E-8
CHEMICAL ADDITIVE USE

Chemical
100,000 tons/year Facility
Tons/year gallons/year
990,000 tons/year Facility
Tons/year gallons/year
Sodium Hydroxide 5,874 -- 58,153 --
Hydrochloric acid 998 -- 9,883 --
Iron chelate 49 -- 490 --
Resin 6 -- 59 --
Hydrogen peroxide 34 -- 339 --
Sodium bicarbonate 94 -- 933 --
Urea (NOx control system) 98,438 973,750

Annual use is calculated from daily use figures provided in the proposal, times 312.5 days
(7,500 hours) operation/year as noted by IWT.

E.1.2.2.2 Pre-Processing Subsystem.

Equipment Description. The delivered MSW is handled as follows:
APPENDIX E SUPPLIER EVALUATIONS
Interstate Waste Technologies


S:\04 PROJ\28906534 LABOS\Draft Report\Draft Report 7-14-05\Appendices\Appendix E.doc E-22
Trucks deliver the black bin MSW into the receiving pit. Any very large pieces of metal,
i.e., engines and white goods, are removed. The receiving pit is designed for 3 days of
storage. The receiving area is maintained under a slight negative pressure for odor
control. The evacuated air is utilized in the gasification module. Any excess air is
processed through carbon adsorption filter beds prior to discharge above the building
roofline.
Overhead cranes load the waste into the inlet hopper for each processing line. In-line
scrap metal presses are used to compact the waste to increase its overall density and help
remove moisture and air. The air forced out of the waste is exhausted through the
receiving pit. Removal of air assures more complete pyrolysis in the degassing channel.
From the hopper, a hydraulic ram is used to push the waste in a plug form into and
through the degassing channel.

Recovered Recyclables. No recyclables are removed from the inlet MSW stream.

Residue Removed from Delivered MSW. No residues, other than very large pieces of
metal, i.e., engines and white goods, are removed from the delivered MSW stream.

E.1.2.2.3 Conversion Unit Subsystem. Figure E-12 shows the degassing channel and
gasifier.

FIGURE E-12
DEGASSING CHANNEL AND GASIFIER



The MSW plug moves down the degassing channel for about 60-90 minutes, where radiant
heat from the gasifier raises the temperature in the channel, and pyrolysis occurs at about
570F. The organic fraction of the waste is thermally decomposed into syngas (CO and H
2
).
APPENDIX E SUPPLIER EVALUATIONS
Interstate Waste Technologies


S:\04 PROJ\28906534 LABOS\Draft Report\Draft Report 7-14-05\Appendices\Appendix E.doc E-23
The waste plugs are continuously moved through the degassing channel by feeding new
waste plugs into the degassing channel inlet. At the end of the degassing chamber, the
mixture of char and inorganic materials enters the high-temperature (2,190F) gasification
section of the reactor, where additional reactions (water gas and water gas shift reactions
from the steam formed from the water in the MSW) form more syngas. Oxygen is injected
around the circumference of the gasifier to initiate other gasification reactions. The oxygen
required for the gasification process is provided by an on-site air separation unit. Residence
time in the gasifier is at least 2 seconds. The overall syngas produced, from pyrolysis and
gasification, is:

25-42% H
2

25-42% CO
10-25% CO
2

0% CH
4


Heating value of the syngas is about 250 Btu/scf.

At the bottom of the gasifier, referred to as the homogenization chamber, natural gas is
injected and combusted, raising the temperature to about 3,600F. The homogenization
chamber sees hot, corrosive/erosive conditions. Inside the chamber are copper cooling coils
which are lined with a refractory material. The refractory helps protect the cooling coils and
gasifier from the erosive environment. High silica content in the MSW can lead to more wear
of the refractory.

At this high temperature, the metals and minerals melt. Due to their different densities, they
form two separate layers. These two streams fall into a below grade water quench basin,
where they cool and solidify into granules (see Figure E-12). The cooled slag/water mix is
picked up with a bucket elevator and brought up to an underground conveyor that transports
the slag to the slag storage pit. As the slag is conveyed, magnetic separators and eddy current
separators are used to recover the metals.

The dirty syngas then exits the gasification chamber, and flows into a jet quencher which
quickly cools the syngas to below 203F. The quench system also removes carbon and
mineral dusts formed during gasification, as well as SO
2
and HCl. The quench water flows to
a sedimentation vessel, where particulate matter settles out. This sediment is pumped to the
process water treatment system.

The syngas then flows to a demister to remove water droplets, then to an alkaline scrubber
where remaining HCl and HF are removed in the packed bed which uses recirculating NaOH.
APPENDIX E SUPPLIER EVALUATIONS
Interstate Waste Technologies


S:\04 PROJ\28906534 LABOS\Draft Report\Draft Report 7-14-05\Appendices\Appendix E.doc E-24
Next, the syngas flows through another demister, then to a particulate scrubber. After the
scrubber, the syngas flows through another demister, then to the sulfur removal system. The
H
2
S in the syngas is reduced to elemental sulfur, which is pumped out and processed further
for sale.

The syngas then flows through another demister, and then a gas dryer which uses tri-ethylene
glycol for moisture removal. From there, the syngas flows through a final demister, and then
to the power generation subsystem.

The process water treatment system provides six separate steps to clean up the process water:

Pre-sedimentation
Oxidation
Precipitation and filtering of metal hydroxides
Neutralization
Ion exchange
Salt separation by evaporation

The concentrated byproduct from the process water treatment system contains zinc, lead, and
other heavy metals. It is considered a hazardous waste; therefore, it is collected, contained,
and shipped to a metals reclaimer for further use. The salts in the process water stream are
concentrated by evaporation in a brine concentrator, then flow to a crystallizer. The salts are
removed in a solid form in a centrifuge. The salts, primarily sodium and potassium chloride,
may be marketable.

E.1.2.2.4 Power Generation Subsystem. The cleaned syngas flows to B&V Pielstick, 4-
stroke reciprocating engines. The 100,000 tons/year facility uses 2 engines, producing 16.125
gross MW/11.141 net MW. The 990,000 tons/year facility uses 20 engines, generating
163.84 gross MW/123.82 net MW. Approximately 5% of the energy input to each engine is
diesel pilot fuel for ignition. Based on Thermoselects prior experience with integrating the
overall system, and its work with combusting the syngas in reciprocating engines, the
proposed facility is very well integrated.

The proposed facilities would produce:

100,000 tons/year facility:

838 net kWh/ton of feedstock
APPENDIX E SUPPLIER EVALUATIONS
Interstate Waste Technologies


S:\04 PROJ\28906534 LABOS\Draft Report\Draft Report 7-14-05\Appendices\Appendix E.doc E-25
9 tons/year raw MSW per net kW capacity

990,000 tons/year facility:

938 net kWh/ton of feedstock
8 tons/year raw MSW per net kW capacity

These are very high values for pyrolysis and gasification systems.

E.1.2.3 Byproducts Analysis

E.1.2.3.1 Byproducts Generated. The proposed facility would produce the following
useful byproducts:

100,000 tons/year facility:
Electricity: 11.141 net MW, or 83.6 million kWh/year
Slag: 15,000 tons/year
Metals: 2,563 tons/year
Salts: 2,719 tons/year
Sulfur: 125 tons/year
Zinc concentrate: 844 tons/year

990,000 tons/year facility:

Electricity: 123.8 net MW, or 928.5 million kWh/year
Slag: 149,438 tons/year
Metals: 25,438 tons/year
Salts: 27,063 tons/year
Sulfur: 1,188 tons/year
Zinc concentrate: 8,469 tons/year

E.1.2.3.2 Market Assessment. There is an existing market in California for MSW-
produced renewable electricity. The slag can be readily sold for sand-blasting grit, asphalt
filler, or for manufacture of cement and roofing tiles. The metals can be sold for re-use,
especially with steel prices continuing to rise. The zinc concentrate can be sold to metals
reclaimers for re-use. At the Fondotoce and Chiba facilities, the salts have been sold to the
APPENDIX E SUPPLIER EVALUATIONS
Interstate Waste Technologies


S:\04 PROJ\28906534 LABOS\Draft Report\Draft Report 7-14-05\Appendices\Appendix E.doc E-26
metallurgical industry. At the Karlsruhe facility, the salts are disposed of in an old salt mine.
While there may not be existing markets for all of the byproducts, IWT has stated that they
will guarantee that all can be marketed.

E.1.2.4 Environmental Issues

E.1.2.4.1 Air Emissions. A slight negative pressure will be maintained in the tipping
building in order to control odors. The air will be used in the gasification module, with any
excess air routed to a carbon adsorption process for odor removal prior to being exhausted to
atmosphere. Since gasification is a closed process, there is no emission point for the syngas.
The only emission points are the engine exhaust vents following combustion.

NO
x
and CO control systems will be utilized with the reciprocating engines. Specific
catalysts will be utilized in the emission control system to reduce emissions of NO
x
and CO.

E.1.2.4.2 Wastewater Discharges. The process incorporates an extensive process water
treatment system, so that there is no wastewater discharge.

E.1.2.4.3 Solid Wastes/Residuals. According to IWTs proposal, all byproducts will be
marketable; they will provide a guarantee to back this up.

E.1.2.4.4 Other Environmental Issues. The mass of the post-source separated MSW
required to be landfilled is reduced by essentially 100%.

E.1.2.5 Costs and Revenues

The cost analysis of the proposed 100,000 tons/year IWT facility is presented in Table E-9.
Data for the 990,000 tons/year facility is presented in Table E-10.

E.1.2.6 Assessment Summary

As can be seen from the two different cost tables, there is a considerable economy of scale
that can be realized by going from the 100,000 to the 990,000 tons/year throughput. On a
$/ton/year basis, the larger facility is almost 40% lower in cost. The basic infrastructure for
the 100,000 tons/year process and the associated building have a high initial cost. Adding
additional modules can be done at relatively low incremental cost, with minor additions to
the building. The same goes for construction, operation, maintenance, and administration
costs for the larger facility.

IWT is part of a large corporation, and has formed a significant alliance for development and
implementation of this project. It has two large facilities in operation, with five more to be in
operation by the end of 2005.
APPENDIX E SUPPLIER EVALUATIONS
Interstate Waste Technologies


S:\04 PROJ\28906534 LABOS\Draft Report\Draft Report 7-14-05\Appendices\Appendix E.doc E-27
TABLE E-9
COST ANALYSIS OF PROPOSED IWT FACILITY
100,000 TONS/YEAR


Provided by
Thermoselect Evaluated Cost Reason for Adjustment
Capital Cost $94.153 million $90.153 million Removed land costs
Capital Cost, $/TPY $941.5 $900 Removed land costs
Annual O&M $9,987,500 $9,987,500
Annual Capital Recovery
+ Interest Costs
$6,840,000 $6,709,690 Lower interest and amortization due to removal
of land cost, but higher cost due to 20-year debt
period (Thermoselect provided 30-year period)
Total Annual Costs $16,827,500 $16,697,190
Revenues from Sale of
Electricity
$5,013,900 $5,013,900
Revenues from Sale of
Recyclables
$549,238 $549,238
Total Annual Revenues $5,563,138 $5,563,138
Annual Revenues-Costs ($11,264,362) ($11,134,052)
Tipping Fee $112.64/ton $111.34/ton Reduced annual costs
Worst Case Break Even
Tipping Fee
$118.53/ton Assume 15,000 tons/year slag is transported to
landfill as daily cover @ $10/ton and 3,668
tons/year of other byproducts (except metals) are
sent to landfill for disposal at $40/ton. Reduce
revenues by $421,088. Add $297,520/year to
O&M.

IWT provided a very complete, comprehensive proposal. It was very well put together, with
all spreadsheets filled out, and included back-up tables and detailed mass balances, process
descriptions, equipment lists, and other information. IWT staff was able to provide most of
the answers to the Request for Additional Information without going back to Thermoselect.
This shows that IWT has extensive knowledge and understanding of the technology and how
it works, especially when integrated with power generation. The proposal included detailed
information on the process, photos and performance of other Thermoselect facilities, as well
as environmental performance and emissions information. IWT included details on the
alliance partners, along with descriptions of similar projects that the alliance partners have
developed and/or operated/maintained. The proposal package even included samples of the
slag aggregate and metal shot that are produced in Thermoselect facilities.

Due to the use of engines, instead of a single steam turbine generator, for power generation,
overall availability can be maximized should a single module be taken down for
maintenance.

APPENDIX E SUPPLIER EVALUATIONS
Interstate Waste Technologies


S:\04 PROJ\28906534 LABOS\Draft Report\Draft Report 7-14-05\Appendices\Appendix E.doc E-28
TABLE E-10
COST ANALYSIS OF PROPOSED IWT FACILITY
990,000 TONS/YEAR


Provided by
Thermoselect Evaluated Cost Reason for Adjustment
Capital Cost $566.695 million $551.695 million Removed land costs
Capital Cost, $/TPY $572.42 $557.27 Removed land costs
Annual O&M $45,500,000 $45,500,000
Annual Capital Recovery
+ Interest Costs
$41,170,000 $40,181,000 Lower interest and amortization due to removal of
land cost, but higher cost due to 20-year debt period
(Thermoselect provided 30-year period)
Total Annual Costs $86,670,000 $85,681,000
Revenues from Sale of
Electricity
$55,719,900 $55,719,900
Revenues from Sale of
Recyclables
$5,438,000 $5,438,000
Total Annual Revenues $61,157,900 $61,157,900
Annual Revenues-Costs ($25,512,100) ($24,523,100) Reduced annual costs
Tipping Fee $25.51/ton $24.52/ton Reduced annual costs
Worst Case Break Even
Tipping Fee
$31.65/ton Assume 149,438 tons/year slag is transported to
landfill as daily cover @ $10/ton and 3,668 tons/year
of other byproducts (except metals) are sent to
landfill for disposal at $40/ton. Reduce revenues by
$4,166,100. Add $2,963,180/year to O&M.

Issues and concerns are listed below:

Technical. The throughput of the processing line for the 100,000 tons/year facility is
proposed to be 13.3 tons/hour. The processing lines for the 990,000 tons/year facility are
proposed to be 16.5 tons/hour. The largest Thermoselect modules in service are those at the
Karlsruhe facility, designed for 11 tons/hour. The proposed facilities would utilize the largest
modules that Thermoselect has designed, with a 21% scale-up for the 100,000 tons/year
facility, and 50% scale-up for the 990,000 tons/year facility. IWT has provided information
that shows that the Karlsruhe modules have been operated at times with a throughput of 16.5
tons/hour, and design enhancements have been incorporated into the basis of design that
would be proposed for the City of Los Angeles facilities. Based on these factors, the scale-up
is not considered a significant technical concern.

Performance. With a production of 838 net kWh/ton feedstock, this technology has a very
high efficiency rating compared to other thermal technologies.

APPENDIX E SUPPLIER EVALUATIONS
Omnifuel Technologies


S:\04 PROJ\28906534 LABOS\Draft Report\Draft Report 7-14-05\Appendices\Appendix E.doc E-29
E.1.3 Omnifuel Technologies

E.1.3.1 Technology Overview

E.1.3.1.1 Technology Supplier Team. Omnifuel Technologies, Inc. was formed as an
offshore corporation in 1994 to provide international consulting services. In 2001, Omnifuel
formed a joint venture with Downstream Systems, Inc. to develop power generation projects
based on fluidized bed and entrained bed gasifiers. The relationship with Downstream
Systems, the supplier of the gasification technology, was formalized in 2003 with the
incorporation of Omnifuel Technologies, Inc, in the U.S. It is a very small company with just
three staff, although they have many years of experience with various forms of gasification
technologies, and have developed over 50 recycling systems.

Omnifuel is in discussions with Tri-gen Power Corporation to become part of a public
company with wind and solar technologies, as well as Omnifuels gasification technology.
This relationship would provide more capital for Omnifuel development projects.

Firm: Omnifuel Technologies, Inc.
Technology: Fluidized bed gasification
Throughput: 100,000 tons/year
Principal Contact: Bob McChesney
Address: 8421 Auburn Blvd., Suite 258
Citrus Heights, CA 95610

Omnifuel has determined that the following information is to be confidential:

Discussions regarding Tri-gen Power Corporation
Information related to Omnifuels potential project to site a gasification system using
biomass at an existing industrial facility in Los Angeles (noted in the proposal, but not
discussed in this report)
Use of olivine in the fluidized bed
Use of addition of lime to the bed for removal of sulfur and chlorine contaminants
Prices per ton for sale of recyclables, shown in Table 1 of the proposal
Revenue from sale of recyclables, shown in Table 1 in the proposal

APPENDIX E SUPPLIER EVALUATIONS
Omnifuel Technologies


S:\04 PROJ\28906534 LABOS\Draft Report\Draft Report 7-14-05\Appendices\Appendix E.doc E-30
E.1.3.1.2 Technology Overview. Omnifuel proposes to incorporate an extensive,
prefabricated pre-processing system for removal and recovery of recyclables. About 29% of
the inlet MSW, including paper, metals, glass, and plastic, will be recovered for sale. Rejects
from the pre-processing system will be disposed of in a landfill. The Refuse Derived Fuel
(RDF), shredded to 3 inch size, will be fed to a single 9.6 ton/hour bubbling fluidized bed
gasifier. Lime is added to the RDF for removal of acid gases such as HCl and SO
2
.
Gasification of the RDF occurs at 1,500F, producing syngas. The syngas will flow through a
syngas cleaning system to remove particulate matter, mercury, and ammonia formed during
gasification, and then burned in a boiler to make steam for generation of 4.4 net MW using a
steam turbine generator. No post-combustion emission controls are proposed, although
Omnifuel would plan to assess the need for additional controls during optimization
engineering. Ash recovered in the hot gas cyclones will be disposed of in a landfill. Overall
diversion from landfill is 85%.

E.1.3.1.3 Reference Plants. In the proposal, Omnifuel listed the five reference plants
shown in Table E-12 below. Four are thermal conversion technologies facilities, and one is a
material recovery facility.

TABLE E-12
OMNIFUEL REFERENCE FACILITIES

Facility Type of Process City Country
Throughput,
Tons/Year Feedstock
Levesque
Plywood
Atmospheric fluidized
bed gasification
Hearst, Ontario Canada 54,000 Plywood, veneer,
sawdust, glues,
plastics
Biosyn Oxygen-blown
pressurized fluidized
bed gasification
Ste. Juste de
Bretenniere, Quebec
Canada 164,000 Wood waste and
bark
Tricil Atmospheric fluidized
bed gasification
Kingston, Ontario Canada 8,200 Mixed MSW and
industrial waste
Castle Capital Ablative pyrolysis Halifax, Nova Scotia Canada 16,000
(demonstration)
Mixed MSW and
industrial waste
Banyan-Dade
Resource
Recovery Ltd.
MRF for recovery of
recyclables and RDF
production
Miami, FL U.S. 164,000 MSW

In the proposal, Omnifuel notes that the Levesque Plywood facility is used as the reference
plant for design of the proposed facility. It started up in 1981. The Banyan-Dade facility is a
MRF that was designed by Omnifuels principals in the early 1980s. None of these facilities
are still in operation.

APPENDIX E SUPPLIER EVALUATIONS
Omnifuel Technologies


S:\04 PROJ\28906534 LABOS\Draft Report\Draft Report 7-14-05\Appendices\Appendix E.doc E-31
E.1.3.1.4 Commercial Status. Omnifuel has developed its gasification technology at
commercial scale, and is developing advanced pyrolysis technology at demonstration scale. It
also has commercial scale MRF design and operation experience. Omnifuel facilities have a
total of over 240,000 tons/year of throughput. However, Omnifuel has not developed a full-
scale, commercial facility with power generation using its syngas.

The processing line proposed for this project is rated at 9.6 tons/hour. To date, the largest
throughput in any Omnifuel facility is about 21 tons/hour, so there is no scale-up concern.

E.1.3.2 Detailed Technology Description

E.1.3.2.1 Description of Proposed Facility. The proposed facility would be sized to
process 100,000 tons/year of MSW. The MSW is delivered to the extensive pre-processing
system, where 25% of the inlet MSW is removed for recycling. The system produces RDF,
which is shredded to a maximum 3 inch size as feedstock for the gasifier. The RDF is fed to
the single gasifier using a screw feeder. Lime is added to the RDF for absorption/removal of
acid gases such as HCl and SO
2
. Further removal of acid gases is accomplished in the syngas
cleaning system. The feedstock and air are mixed in a bubbling bed of olivine, which
Omnifuel has selected for its hardness (low attrition rate), high melting temperature, and its
catalytic activity in cracking tars formed during gasification. Gasification of the RDF occurs
in the fluidized bed at a moderate temperature of 1,500F, forming the syngas.

The syngas, containing some tars and ash, exits the gasifier and flows into the primary
cyclone, where the ash, unreacted RDF, and olivine are removed and returned to the gasifier.
The syngas then enters an air preheater, transferring heat to the air used for fluidizing the
bubbling bed. The cooled syngas then enters a secondary cyclone, where most of the ash in
the syngas is removed. From there, the syngas enters a gas heater, a mercury removal system,
and a wet scrubber for removal of acid gases such as HCl and SO
2
. Ash from the secondary
cyclone is collected in an ash hopper. Since the gasification process occurs at a moderate
temperature, the ash remains below its melting point, and is collected in a solid form. Since
the ash is neither sintered nor formed as a glassy slag, it is likely to be leachable, and will be
disposed of in a landfill.

The cleaned syngas is then combusted in a boiler at 2,300-2,600F, and steam is produced to
drive a steam turbine generator for the production of 4.4 net MW of electricity. Although a
low-NO
x
burner will be used, no other post-combustion emission controls are proposed,
although Omnifuel notes that it would re-evaluate this need during the optimization
engineering stage of the project.

APPENDIX E SUPPLIER EVALUATIONS
Omnifuel Technologies


S:\04 PROJ\28906534 LABOS\Draft Report\Draft Report 7-14-05\Appendices\Appendix E.doc E-32
Omnifuel provided an overall 16-month schedule for implementation of the project, which is
shown in Figure E-13.

FIGURE E-13
SCHEDULE OF IMPLEMENTATION, OMNIFUEL FACILITY

Project Schedule Resource Recovery/Gasifier/Power Plant

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
Tasks
1. Engineering Design
2. Procurement
3. Construction
4. Start-up
5. Testing
5. Acceptance
Tasks
Schedule (months)


Site Layout. A proposed layout was provided, covering an area of 4 acres. It is shown in
Figure E-14.

Process Flow and Mass Balance. The mass balance is summarized in Table E-13.

Operation and Maintenance. MSW would be delivered to the facility 5 days per week. The
preprocessing, conversion unit, and power generation subsystems will be operated on a
continuous basis (24/7), producing syngas and generating electricity for 253 days per year.
Omnifuel proposes an average of 4.33 persons/shift for 4 shifts per week.

Utility Requirements. Electricity According to data provided in the proposal text and the
spreadsheets, the facility will produce 29.7 million kilowatt hours (kWh) per year, with an
internal requirement of 3.0 million kWh per year, equivalent to a 10 percent internal power
load. This is based on operation for 253 days/year. Omnifuels cost table provided in
response to a Request for Additional Information shows that the facility would actually use
4.32 million kWh per year, or 44% more. This was prepared on a basis of 360 days/year
operation, which is not consistent with the technical data.

Water The facility will use 110,000 to 140,000 gallons of potable water per day (253 days
per year), primarily for cooling tower operation.

APPENDIX E SUPPLIER EVALUATIONS
Omnifuel Technologies


S:\04 PROJ\28906534 LABOS\Draft Report\Draft Report 7-14-05\Appendices\Appendix E.doc E-33
FIGURE E-14
LAYOUT OF PROPOSED FACILITY



TABLE E-13
OMNIFUEL SUMMARY MASS BALANCE

Stream Tons/Year Comments
Inlet MSW 100,000 Extensive pre-processing to recover recyclables and produce RDF
Recyclables removed 29,143 Metals, glass, paper, plastics
Rejects from pre-processing 12,677 To landfill
Feedstock to gasifier 58,181 RDF shredded to <3 inches
Hot cyclone ash 2,600 To landfill

Wastewater The proposal states that blowdowns will be incorporated for the ammonia
scrubber and the cooling tower. The cooling tower lowdown is expected to be 14,400-28,800
gallons/day. No value was provided for the ammonia scrubber blowdown. However,
APPENDIX E SUPPLIER EVALUATIONS
Omnifuel Technologies


S:\04 PROJ\28906534 LABOS\Draft Report\Draft Report 7-14-05\Appendices\Appendix E.doc E-34
Omnifuel states that alternative processes are available which will eliminate scrubber
blowdown and would investigate these during detailed design.

Natural gas The gasifier will require the use of natural gas for heating up the system prior
to start-up. Omnifuel states that this requirement will be 30 million Btu/start-up. Based on the
cost information provided, this suggests two start-ups per year.

Chemicals Omnifuel did not provide any information on use of chemical additives, i.e., for
emission control systems or power generation. The proposal states that this depends on
input MSW and water quality and will provide after detailed engineering.

E.1.3.2.2 Pre-Processing System.

Equipment Description. Omnifuel proposes to incorporate an extensive, pre-fabricated pre-
processing subsystem. Omnifuels proposal states the pre-processing subsystem is a
prefabricated modular structure, 40 long by 12 wide by 30 high. The system will recover
the recyclables, remove contaminants and prepare a clean, uniform quality RDF. The RDF
will be stored in a 1,000-ton storage bunker.

Figure E-15 is a block flow diagram for the proposed pre-processing system.

The in-feed conveyor (1) discharges the refuse onto the sizer (2), which separates it into a)
fines, b) acceptables, and c) oversize components. The fines discharge onto the fines
conveyor (3) where a separator (4) removes the ferrous materials. The remaining fines are
rejects and will be disposed of in a landfill.

The oversize component is discharged onto a picking conveyor (5) where recyclable, inert
and contaminants are removed and placed in separate forklift bins. The remaining oversize
materials are fed to a low speed shredder (6), which reduces it to minus 3 inch size. The
shredder discharges onto the accepts conveyor (7) where a ferrous separator (8) and a non-
ferrous separator (9) remove the ferrous and nonferrous metals, excluding stainless steel. The
remainder is fed to the density separator (10), which discharges the light fraction (RDF) to
the feedstock conveyor (11), which transfers it to the 1,000 ton RDF storage bin. The heavy
fraction from the density separator is fed to the stainless and glass separator (12) where the
stainless and flint, green and amber glass are recovered and the material remaining rejected.

Recovered Recyclables. The mass flow table provided by Omnifuel shows that the
following amounts of recyclables will be recovered for sale:

Paper: 6,856 tons/year
APPENDIX E SUPPLIER EVALUATIONS
Omnifuel Technologies


S:\04 PROJ\28906534 LABOS\Draft Report\Draft Report 7-14-05\Appendices\Appendix E.doc E-35
FIGURE E-15
OMNIFUEL PRE-PROCESSING SUBSYSTEM



Glass: 2,866 tons/year
Metals: 8,925 tons/year
Plastic: 10,496 tons/year
APPENDIX E SUPPLIER EVALUATIONS
Omnifuel Technologies


S:\04 PROJ\28906534 LABOS\Draft Report\Draft Report 7-14-05\Appendices\Appendix E.doc E-36
Omnifuel prepared an extensive table showing each type of recyclable, its expected recovery
in tons/year, and the expected buyer/user. Total recovery is 29,143 tons/year. This is based
on a 29% recovery of recyclables from the inlet MSW stream. Since the black bin contents
are already subjected to source separation at curbside, it is expected that the post-source
separated MSW would be more contaminated, precluding high recovery.

Residue Removed from Delivered MSW. The pre-processing system creates a reject stream
of 12,677 tons/year, which will be disposed of in a landfill. The rejects include glass, metals,
plastics, organics (such as food and green wastes), construction and demolition wastes, and
household hazardous materials.

E.1.3.2.3 Conversion Unit System. Figure E-16 shows the proposed Omnifuel gasification
technology.

FIGURE E-16
OMNIFUEL GASIFICATION TECHNOLOGY

Omnifuel proposes to utilize one gasification train, sized at approximately 9.6 tons/hour,
operating 253 days per year. The RDF is transferred from storage to a small live-bottom
surge bin before it is fed into the transfer bin by the pressurized feeding system. From the
transfer bin, the RDF is conveyed to a water-cooled screw, which feeds it into the refractory-
lined, ten-foot outer diameter gasifier vessel. Lime is added to the RDF for absorption and
Refuse Feed
Gasifier
Primary
Cyclone
Transfer
Bin
Surge
Bin
Pressurised
Feeder
Ash Hopper
Air
Preheater
Secondary
Cyclone
Boiler
Scrubber
Mercury
Removal
Gas Heater
Air
APPENDIX E SUPPLIER EVALUATIONS
Omnifuel Technologies


S:\04 PROJ\28906534 LABOS\Draft Report\Draft Report 7-14-05\Appendices\Appendix E.doc E-37
removal of acid gases such as HCl and SO
2
. Based on prior experience, Omnifuel assumes
that 50% of the HCl and SO
2
will be present in inorganic form, and will end up in the ash
instead of the syngas. Therefore, they expect that the lime addition will be sufficient for
capture and removal of these contaminants.

The RDF and air (preheated in a downstream step) are mixed in a bubbling bed of olivine,
which is chosen for hardness, high melting temperature and its catalytic activity toward tar
cracking. The RDF is converted to syngas at 1,500F. The syngas stream contains a small
amount of tar and ash, with some residual, unconverted char. The syngas stream flows to a
primary cyclone, where most of the particulate matter is removed and recycled back to the
gasifier.

The syngas leaves the primary gas cyclone and then is ducted to a secondary cyclone to
remove the bulk of the ash from the syngas. The ash is cooled and discharged to a storage
bin, while the syngas is cooled by preheating the gasifier inlet air. The syngas gas then flows
through a bed of activated carbon for removal of mercury. In the gasification process, the
nitrogen bound in the MSW is converted to ammonia, Omnifuel proposes to use a wet
scrubber for removal of ammonia.

E.1.3.2.4 Power Generation System. The cleaned syngas is then combusted in a boiler at
2,300-2,600F, and steam is produced at 850F and 750 psi to drive a steam turbine generator
for the production of 4.4 net MW of electricity. Although a low-NO
x
burner will be used, no
other post-combustion emission controls are proposed. Omnifuel notes that it would re-
evaluate this need during the optimization engineering stage of the project. This could be a
significant technical and cost addition to the project, if required. No other details on the
power generation subsystem were provided.

Indicators of overall facility efficiency are:

459 net kWh/ton of feedstock
23 tons/year raw MSW per net kW capacity

Both of these values show that the proposed facility has a low to moderate overall efficiency
for electricity production.

E.1.3.3 Byproducts Analysis

E.1.3.3.1 Byproducts Generated. The proposed Omnifuel facility would recover 29,143
tons/year of recyclables from the inlet MSW stream. This is a 29% recovery, which is
unlikely from the black bin MSW stream. Omnifuel also expects to recover 93% of the
APPENDIX E SUPPLIER EVALUATIONS
Omnifuel Technologies


S:\04 PROJ\28906534 LABOS\Draft Report\Draft Report 7-14-05\Appendices\Appendix E.doc E-38
metals; 50% recovery is more likely. In addition to producing 26.7 million kWh for sale, the
proposal lists the following amounts of recovered materials:

Paper: 6,856 tons/year
Glass: 2,866 tons/year
Metals: 8,925 tons/year
Plastic: 10,496 tons/year

The revenue values provided by Omnifuel have been adjusted to account for the lower
recovery expected for this black bin MSW stream.

E.1.3.3.2 Market Assessment. There is an existing market in California for MSW-
produced renewable electricity. There is also a robust market for the paper, glass, metals, and
plastic. As noted above, the proposed recovery (of high quality, marketable recyclables) of
29% from the post-source separated MSW is not likely to be achieved, and the proposal is
evaluated based on an overall recovery of 16.5%, or 16,500 tons/year. Omnifuel expects to
recover 93% of the metals; the evaluation is based on recovery of only 50% of the metals.
The proposed 27% recovery of paper is considered to be achievable.

E.1.3.4 Environmental Issues

E.1.3.4.1 Air Emissions/Toxics. A slight negative pressure will be maintained in the
tipping building in order to control odors. The air will be used in the gasifier or routed
through a biological filer. Since gasification is a closed process, there is no emission point for
the syngas. The only emissions point is the stack, which is part of the power generation
module.

Omnifuels submittal states that their facility will meet all emission standards. Since they
have chosen not to include any post-combustion emission controls, this would be a
significant technical, environmental, and cost issue if the lime addition and pre-combustion
syngas cleaning system is not sufficient. Omnifuel did not provide an expected stack height.

E.1.3.4.2 Wastewater Discharges. Blowdowns are expected from the ammonia scrubber
and the cooling tower. The cooling tower blowdown is stated as 10-20 gallons/minute, or
14,400-28,800 gallons/day.

E.1.3.4.3 Solid Wastes/Residuals. The total amount of unmarketable residuals is 15,277
tons/year, or about 15% of the inlet MSW stream. This includes 12,677 tons/year of rejects
from the pre-processing system, as well as 2,600 tons/year of ash from the hot cyclone.
APPENDIX E SUPPLIER EVALUATIONS
Omnifuel Technologies


S:\04 PROJ\28906534 LABOS\Draft Report\Draft Report 7-14-05\Appendices\Appendix E.doc E-39
Other Environmental Issues. Visibility of the stack may be a viewshed issue.

E.1.3.5 Costs and Revenues

The cost analysis of the proposed Omnifuel facility is presented in Table E-14.

TABLE E-14
COST ANALYSIS OF PROPOSED OMNIFUEL FACILITY


Provided by
Omnifuel Evaluated Cost Reason for Adjustment
Capital Cost $15.735 million $15.735 million
Capital Cost, $/TPY
Inlet MSW
$157 $157
Annual O&M $2,724,866 $2,647,826 Internal electricity use is 3,036,000 kWh @$0.06/kWh, for
253 days/year operation, not 360 days/year.
Landfilling of
Unmarketable Materials
$685,064 $611,080 Use $40/ton instead of $20/ton for waste disposal, and
use 12,677 tons/year rejects and 2,600 tons/year cyclone
ash.
Annual Capital
Recovery and Interest
Charges
$1,855,651 $1,855,651
Total Annual Costs $5,265,581 $5,114,557
Revenues from Sale of
Electricity
$2,090,880 $1,603,008 4,400 kWh for 253 days/year @$0.06/kWh
Revenues from Sale of
Byproducts
$3,982,438 $1,250,000 Assume recovery of 2% of all metals ($50/ton), 12% of all
paper ($75/ton), and 2.5% of all plastics ($100/ton) in inlet
stream. Total is 16,500 tons/year.
Total Annual Revenues $6,073,318 $2,853,008 Reduction in revenues from recyclables and electricity.
Annual Revenues-Costs $807,737 ($2,261,549)
Tipping Fee $0/ton $22.62/ton
Worst Case Break Even
Tipping Fee
$40.17/ton Assume balance of recyclables not sold (29,143-16,500
tons/year) are sent to landfill @ $40/ton = $505,720
additional O&M. Should reduce revenues by $3,982,438-
1,250,000 = $2,732,438, but this is almost same as total;
therefore keep total revenues equal to those only from
power sales = $1,603,008.

E.1.3.6 Assessment Summary

Omnifuel is a very small corporation, with three principals. It has been many years since the
two main principals have designed either a gasification or MSW pre-processing system. As
stated in the proposal, Omnifuel is in discussion with a holding company of which it may
become a part. The ability of Omnifuel to take on and complete the proposed facility is
APPENDIX E SUPPLIER EVALUATIONS
Omnifuel Technologies


S:\04 PROJ\28906534 LABOS\Draft Report\Draft Report 7-14-05\Appendices\Appendix E.doc E-40
presently questionable; this may change if it becomes part of the holding company. Other
concerns are listed below.

Technical. The submittal lacked sufficient technical detail for a complete evaluation. The
original submittal mentioned potential use of a gas turbine and other alternatives for the
generation of electricity. Following submittal of the Request for Additional Information to
Omnifuel, they provided a significantly revised response.

The following technical issues remain:

An overall mass balance including the ash material was not included. Data on other
potential streams such as scrubber blowdown was not provided. This is probably because
Omnifuel has not developed a similar system before that includes the pre-processing,
conversion, and power generation subsystems.
Many data items on the spreadsheet for the proposed facility were not provided, and were
left for engineering at a later stage of the project.
The data presented in the proposal and spreadsheet for days of operation and net
electricity generated differ significantly from that used in the cost table. The proposal text
was based on operation 253 days/year (63% availability), but the costs and revenues were
based on 360 days/year (99% availability). Based on the lack of technical clarification
and subsystem integration, and the use of only one module, 99% availability is not likely.
The pre-processing subsystem is described as achieving 29% recovery of recyclables
from the inlet MSW stream, and obtaining a high recovery of individual recyclables. For
this type of mixed, contaminated material in the post-source separated MSW, recovery of
16.5% is assumed.
The pre-processing system is described as a prefabricated modular structure, 40 long by
12 wide by 30 high, essentially sitting on 480 square feet. Based on the size and
performance of commercially available MSW pre-processing equipment, it is unlikely
that such a small facility would be able to process almost 400 tons/day of black bin
MSW.
No overall process flow diagram showing the three subsystems is provided. No overall
integration of the subsystems was described.
Omnifuel provided a rough facility layout not to scale. The overall concept for the
proposed facility, with the integration of all three subsystems, is not yet well-developed
by Omnifuel.
The potential need for post-combustion controls may become a significant technical,
environmental, and cost issue. If required, this would add significant process equipment,
APPENDIX E SUPPLIER EVALUATIONS
Omnifuel Technologies


S:\04 PROJ\28906534 LABOS\Draft Report\Draft Report 7-14-05\Appendices\Appendix E.doc E-41
internal load and additional landfill requirements for the facility for disposal of
contaminated wastes.

Cost. Omnifuels original proposal only provided a range of capital costs. Since Omnifuel
has not provided a conceptual design for an overall facility integrating the three subsystems,
its revised cost estimates are questionable. Since Omnifuel has not designed an overall
conversion technology facility integrating all three subsystems, the capital costs are
questionable. If post-combustion emission controls are required, the costs (capital and O&M)
would be increased significantly. Since revenues are based on significant recovery of
recyclables, and a lower recovery is more likely, especially for metals, revenues are
overstated.

Performance. The performance indicators of 459 net kWh/ton feedstock and 23
tons/year/net kW show that the proposed Omnifuel facility would provide low to moderate
overall efficiency. The availability of only 253 days per year (69%) is very low. This is less
than the 261 days/year of delivery of black bin MSW.

APPENDIX E SUPPLIER EVALUATIONS
Primenergy/RRA


S:\04 PROJ\28906534 LABOS\Draft Report\Draft Report 7-14-05\Appendices\Appendix E.doc E-42
E.1.4 Primenergy/RRA

E.1.4.1 Technology Overview

E.1.4.1.1 Technology Supplier Team. The two companies partnered for this proposal are
Renewable Resources Alliance, LLC (RRA) and Primenergy, LLC (Primenergy). RRA
would provide the pre-processing subsystem, and Primenergy would provide the gasification,
emission control, and power generation subsystems, as well as the overall facility design and
engineering.

Firm: Renewable Resources Alliance, LLC
Technology: Material Recovery Facility
Throughput: 360,000 tons/year
Principal Contact: Paul Relis, President
Address: 11292 Western Avenue
Stanton, California 90680
Firm: Primenergy, LLC
Technology: PRM Energy Systems, Inc. gasification
Throughput: 360,000 tons/year
Principal contact: Bill Scott
Address: 3172 North Toledo Avenue
Tulsa, Oklahoma 74115

RRA is a partnership between CR&R Incorporated and Community Recycling. Both
companies operate large mixed waste material recovery facilities that have a combined
capacity of over 3,000 tons/day. They have been processing MSW similar to the post-source
separated MSW from the Los Angeles region for over 20 years.

CR&R Incorporated is in the process of designing a new state-of-the-art mixed MRF for
installation at its Perris Facility in Riverside County. This facility will incorporate advanced
mixed recovery technology, and will also be fully capable of producing an engineered fuel
for gasification. The facility will have an operating capacity of 3,600 tons/day. Both
companys existing MRFs are capable of producing Post Recycled Municipal Biomass
(PRMB), an engineered fuel specifically designed for the Primenergy gasification system.

APPENDIX E SUPPLIER EVALUATIONS
Primenergy/RRA


S:\04 PROJ\28906534 LABOS\Draft Report\Draft Report 7-14-05\Appendices\Appendix E.doc E-43
RRA was created to combine the resources of both companies for the purpose of
commercializing gasification. RRA has developed processes for refining MSW into PRMB
for gasification. CR&R Incorporated holds more than 30 municipal franchise contracts and is
one of the largest independently held waste and recycling firms in California. It has more
than 1,000 employees, with four operating plants and extensive trucking routes, recycling,
and its marketing of resources.

Community Recycling operates the largest composting facility in California (3,600 tons/day)
utilizing municipal green and food waste. It is also one of the largest C&D recyclers with an
operating capacity of 2,000 tons/day. The company has developed proprietary sorting
technology for mixed wastes from commercial sources.

RRAs partners, CR&R Incorporated and Community Recycling, are well capitalized.
Provided that adequate returns of investment and an appropriate site and permits are
obtainable, RRA states that it is capable of obtaining financing for this venture. RRA is also
teamed with Nexant Corporation for technical support for gasification, Nixon Peabody, LLP
of San Francisco as energy contracting and financing consultants, and Nolte Associates, for
MRF engineering and construction.

Paul Relis, Senior Vice President of CR&R, has an extensive regulatory and project
development background. He is a former Member of the California Integrated Waste
Management Board and has nearly seven years as an executive with CR&R. John
Richardson, Vice President of Community, has a banking and finance background and
extensive project development experience with Community Recyclings composting and
biomass energy projects. Mr. Relis and Mr. Richardson would be the principals for this
project.

Primenergys business is in the engineering, procurement and construction of turnkey,
biomass fueled energy conversion and recovery facilities. They utilize the PRM Energy
Systems, Inc. gasification process, along with proprietary gas cleaning processes that they
have developed.

At their Tulsa headquarters, Primenergy has a fully functional, commercially sized,
gasification test facility complete with a low-pressure boiler and internal combustion engine
generator. This demonstration complex has the capacity to gasify up to 30 tons/day of
various feedstocks. They have tested the following feedstocks: PRMB, other RDF, rice straw,
sugar cane bagasse, poultry litter, paper plant pulp sludge and sewage sludge (biosolids). For
each new gasification test, Primenergy employs a third party testing company to conduct
stack compliance testing in accordance with U.S. EPA test methods and reporting protocol.

APPENDIX E SUPPLIER EVALUATIONS
Primenergy/RRA


S:\04 PROJ\28906534 LABOS\Draft Report\Draft Report 7-14-05\Appendices\Appendix E.doc E-44
The syngas produced in their systems has typically been combusted in a boiler, and the steam
used for various processes; i.e., driving a steam turbine for power generation, rice parboiling
and soybean processing.

Primenergy has developed and patented the Particulate and Aerosol Removal System
(PARS), a process for cooling and cleaning syngas prior to use in an internal combustion
engine or gas turbine. Primenergy will be undertaking an investigation into gas turbine usage
under a program partially funded by the National Energy Technology Laboratories of the
U.S. Department of Energy.

Primenergy marked the following proposal documents as confidential or proprietary:

Proposed site layout
Block flow diagram (process flow diagram)
Portions of the response to the Request for Additional Information
Plot Plan of Riceland Foods Facility
Specific items within the spreadsheets specifically noted as confidential

Primenergy noted in a follow-up communication that the site layout (Figure E-17) may be
used, but not the entire process flow diagram (block flow diagram) or material/energy
balance. Mass flow in, ash flow, and energy output can be disclosed.

E.1.4.1.2 Technology Overview. RRA and its affiliates are in the material recovery facility
business in California. Their technologies are utilized to recover and recycle materials from
residential, commercial, industrial, and construction & demolition solid wastes. RRA has
developed a proprietary system for processing MSW and post-source separated MSW into an
engineered PRMB feedstock, specifically for use in gasification. The PRMB system
includes mechanical and manual systems for removal of paper, glass, metals, and plastics.
This equipment likely includes trommel screens, bag openers, air classifiers, shredders,
dryers, and magnetic and eddy current separators. Materials that cannot be recycled, or are
not appropriate for use in the PRMB feedstock, are removed as rejects for disposal in a
landfill. Nonflammable or potentially hazardous materials are removed from the waste
stream. The recyclable materials are marketed. The balance of the material is the PRMB
feedstock.

Primenergy licenses the fixed-bed gasification technology of PRM Energy Systems, Inc.
PRM Energy Systems, Inc. was originally incorporated in 1973. Their gasification
technology was developed and patented under the direction of Mr. Ron Bailey, Sr. while
APPENDIX E SUPPLIER EVALUATIONS
Primenergy/RRA


S:\04 PROJ\28906534 LABOS\Draft Report\Draft Report 7-14-05\Appendices\Appendix E.doc E-45

FIGURE E-17
SITE LAYOUT

460' - 0" 63' - 0"
5
5
0
'
-
0
"
80' - 0" 100' - 0" 60' - 0" 220' - 0"
EMPLOYEE PARKING
TRUCK ACCESS
EMPLOYEE ACCESS
TRUCK SCALES
SCALE HOUSE
PROCESSING BUILDING
TI PPI NG BUILDING
401' - 0"
924' - 0"
464' - 0"
2
3
4
'
-
0
"
2
5
6
'
-
0
"
6
0
'
-
0
"
1
3
0
'
-
0
"
4
0
'
-
0
"
2
5
'
-
0
"
2
5
'
-
0
"
2
0
'
-
0
"
2
0
'
-
0
"
LIME
STORAGE
TOWERS
COOLING
TANK
RAW WATER
SUBSTATION
TRANSFORMERS
PROCESS
PIPEWAY
ADMINISTATION
BUI LDI NG
TURBINE GENERATOR BUILLDI NG
BIO- FILTER
ASH
STORAGE


President of Producers Rice Mill Inc. The first two gasifiers were installed in 1982 to gasify
rice husks to produce process heat and steam for a large rice parboiling facility. The energy
from the gasification of rice husks in the PRME gasifier displaces natural gas typically used
in the dryers and boiler. Mr. Bailey retired from Producers Rice Mill in 1988 and acquired
PRM Energy Systems, Inc., along with the patents, technology, and trade secrets for the
PRME reactor/gasifier system.

The PRM Energy Systems technology includes a fuel metering bin, the reactor/gasifier, the
combustion tube and chamber, the gasifier cooling water system, water cooled ash discharge
conveyors, multi-zoned combustion air supply, rotary feeders and instrumentation required to
provide automatic control over the process. The entire gasification/combustion process, from
infeed to ash discharge, can be controlled manually or by computer. The PRM Energy
Systems gasifier technology is shown in Figure E-18.

As shown in Figure E-18, the gasifier is basically a vertical cylindrical steel shell, reduced in
diameter in the upper portion and lined with a refractory. The cross sectional area of the
upper portion of the gasifier is reduced to provide the turbulence required to insure proper
APPENDIX E SUPPLIER EVALUATIONS
Primenergy/RRA


S:\04 PROJ\28906534 LABOS\Draft Report\Draft Report 7-14-05\Appendices\Appendix E.doc E-46
FIGURE E-18
PRM ENERGY SYSTEMS, INC. GASIFICATION TECHNOLOGY



mixing of the product gas and the combustion air introduced into the combustion tubes in this
area of the gasifier.

The feedstock is metered to the gasifier from the fuel metering bin. This bin is equipped with
an infeed leveling conveyor and a variable speed outfeed conveyor that delivers fuel to the
gasifier. The speed of the outfeed conveyor is automatically adjusted by the automatic
control system to maintain a preset temperature in the first stage gasification zone. Discharge
APPENDIX E SUPPLIER EVALUATIONS
Primenergy/RRA


S:\04 PROJ\28906534 LABOS\Draft Report\Draft Report 7-14-05\Appendices\Appendix E.doc E-47
from the outfeed conveyor is directed through an impact weigh metering device that provides
precise indication and control of the fuel feed rate. Feedstock is introduced to the gasifier by
a water-cooled screw conveyor that discharges into the drying and heating zone of the
gasifier. The gasification process is controlled by the proportioned application of gasification
and combustion air in a manner that supports efficient gasification.

Residence time in the gasifier is varied by a residence control system that is adjusted to
achieve a target carbon content of the ash residue. In the gasification zone of the gasifier,
approximately 10-12% of the stoichiometric air requirement is admitted into the gasification
air distribution area. The application of gasification air is multi-zoned and is controlled to
maintain the proper temperature required to volatilize the feedstock and allow partial
combustion of the fixed carbon. Temperatures in this zone are controlled in the range of
1,112-2,372F, depending on the particular feedstock and the required ash quality. A low
gasification air flow rate (<0.3 feet/second) through the gasification zone, coupled with a low
feedstock entry point and continuous ash discharge minimizes the amount of particulate
matter entrained in the gasifier exhaust.

Combustion of the gases starts in the combustion tube assembly where the temperature of the
gases is increased to promote thermal cracking of tars and hydrocarbons that were liberated
during gasification. Partial combustion of gases in the combustion tube assembly, the use of
mechanical bed agitation and precise control of the zoning of gasification air produces a
clean, low Btu content gas that can be burned in the combustion tube.

On the PRM Energy Systems website, Primenergy is listed as a licensee of this technology
for North America.

E.1.4.1.2 Reference Plants. The proposal included descriptions of RRA and Primenergy
reference plants. These are shown in Table E-15. Reference plants are depicted in Figure
E-19.

Primenergy is in the final design stages of a facility in Dalton, GA, that will use 25,000
tons/year of shredded carpet and medium density fiberboard dust to produce electricity.

E.1.4.1.4 Commercial Status. Both Primenergys gasification technology and RRAs pre-
processing technology are proven at commercial scale at throughputs over 100,000 tons/year.
Primenergys first commercial facility employing their gasification technology has operated
continuously for over eighteen years. There are seventeen other Primenergy gasifiers in
commercial operation worldwide, using a wide range of biomass feedstocks.

APPENDIX E SUPPLIER EVALUATIONS
Primenergy/RRA


S:\04 PROJ\28906534 LABOS\Draft Report\Draft Report 7-14-05\Appendices\Appendix E.doc E-48

TABLE E-15
PRIMENERGY AND RRA REFERENCE FACILITIES

Facility City Country
Throughput,
Tons/Year Feedstock
Riceland Foods
(steam and power production)
Stuttgart, AR U.S. 195,000 Rice hulls
Rice processor Jonesboro, AR U.S. 115,000 Rice hulls
Olive processing plant
(olive wastes to syngas combusted in internal
combustion engines for power)
Rossano Italy 35,000 Olive waste
Primenergy Demonstration Facility
(steam and power production)
Tulsa, OK U.S. 24 to 30
tons/day
Wide range for testing
CR Transfer
(recovers recyclables, construction and
demolition materials, green waste, biomass
fuel, inerts)
CA U.S. 500,000 Mixed waste from black
bin collection
Community Recycling Transfer Station CA U.S. 450,000 Residential and
commercial solid waste

The facility proposed for the City would have a throughput of 200 tons/day. The largest
Primenergy gasification module in operation is also sized for a throughput of 200 tons/day,
so there would be no scale-up issue. Only the feedstock would be different. Primenergy has
not yet developed a full-scale facility based on PRMB or other MSW or RDF. However,
Primenergy and RRA have tested RRAs PRMB feedstock, and have prepared a preliminary
design for an integrated system to process MSW, remove recyclables, gasify the MSW, and
generate electricity.

RRA and its affiliated companies have long-term commercial experience in materials
recovery facility operation, along with marketing of recyclables, in southern California. The
facility proposed for the City of Los Angeles would have a throughput of 1,000 tons/day,
producing PRMB feedstock. Their existing facilities operate at throughput of 1,700 tons/day.
They are in the design stages of a new MRF with a throughput of 3,600 tons/day in
California. One of RRAs affiliates has also built the largest biofilter in California, used for
odor control.

Overall, the proposed technologies are in operation at full-scale, commercial facilities.

E.1.4.2 Detailed Technology Description

E.1.4.2.1 Description of Proposed Facility. The post-source separated MSW is delivered
to the site 5-1/2 days/week. Odor control will be accomplished by maintaining the pre-
processing building under negative pressure, as well as using a biofilter. The pre-processing
APPENDIX E SUPPLIER EVALUATIONS
Primenergy/RRA


S:\04 PROJ\28906534 LABOS\Draft Report\Draft Report 7-14-05\Appendices\Appendix E.doc E-49

FIGURE E-19
REFERENCE FACILITIES



DEMO FACILITY (TULSA) RICE HULL PROCESSING (STUTTGART, AR)


RICE HULLS PROCESSING OLIVE WASTE PROCESSING
(GREENVILLE, MS) (ROSSANO, ITALY)

subsystem operates 7 days/week to process 1,000 tons/day of inlet waste to produce the
PRMB feedstock. The proprietary process includes pre-sorting, separation, shredding, sizing,
and drying equipment. The feedstock is processed to a maximum size of inch for feed to
the three operating gasifiers. The subsystems will recover conventional recyclables, including
fibers, ferrous metals, aluminum, glass, and plastics. Organic fines are removed for
composting. Overall, forty percent of the inlet feed will be removed, about 2/3 as recyclables,
and the balance as rejects for disposal in a landfill.

APPENDIX E SUPPLIER EVALUATIONS
Primenergy/RRA


S:\04 PROJ\28906534 LABOS\Draft Report\Draft Report 7-14-05\Appendices\Appendix E.doc E-50
The PRMB is then fed into the gasifiers, where gasification occurs at just over 1,500F,
producing syngas. The syngas from the gasifiers flows through a hot gas cyclone for removal
of fly ash. The cleaned syngas is then combusted in a boiler, where steam is produced for
generating 17.6 MW gross and 15 MW net in a steam turbine generator.

The flue gases are treated in an extensive emission control system. Lime is injected into the
flue gases for removal of acid gases, including SO
2
and HCl. Activated carbon is injected for
adsorption of heavy metals, including vaporized mercury. The reaction products and
particulate matter in the flue gas stream are then removed in a fabric filter. NO
x
emissions are
controlled by using Selective Catalytic Reduction (SCR). The cleaned flue gases are
exhausted through a 100 stack. Overall diversion from landfill is 85%.

A construction schedule of 18 months is proposed. A sample, which presents a total 15-
month schedule, is shown in Figure E-20.

E.1.4.2.2 Site Layout. The proposed facility will require an area of 12 acres. A site layout
is presented in Figure E-17.

E.1.4.2.3 Process Flow and Mass Balance. The proposal included an overall process
schematic, noted as confidential. A summary mass balance is presented in Table E-16. The
process flow diagram and the mass balance are not shown because the supplier has indicated
this information to be proprietary and confidential.

E.1.4.2.4 Operation and Maintenance. MSW is expected to be delivered to the facility 5-
1/2 days per week. The pre-processing, conversion unit, and power generation subsystems
will be operated on a continuous basis (24/7), producing syngas and electricity, for 360
days/year. This high reliability is based on the extensive operating experience of both RRA
and Primenergy.

Staffing is proposed to be a total of 47 people, including:

Manager, Assistant Manager and 20 operators for pre-processing system = 22
Plant Manager and 24 operators for conversion and power generation subsystems = 25

E.1.4.2.5 Utility Requirements.

Electricity: The facility would produce 152 million kWh per year, with an internal
requirement of 22.5 million kWh, equivalent to 15 percent internal power load.
Water: The proposed facility would use 7,500 gallons/day, or 2.7 million gallons/year.
APPENDIX E SUPPLIER EVALUATIONS
Primenergy/RRA


S:\04 PROJ\28906534 LABOS\Draft Report\Draft Report 7-14-05\Appendices\Appendix E.doc E-51
FIGURE E-20
SAMPLE PROJECT SCHEDULE



APPENDIX E SUPPLIER EVALUATIONS
Primenergy/RRA


S:\04 PROJ\28906534 LABOS\Draft Report\Draft Report 7-14-05\Appendices\Appendix E.doc E-52
TABLE E-16
PRIMENERGY-RRA SUMMARY MASS BALANCE

Stream Tons/Year Comments
Inlet MSW 360,000 Pre-processing removes 40%
Recyclables removed from inlet stream 92,304 25.6% of inlet; includes organic fines to composting
Rejects to landfill 51,696 14.4% of inlet
Feedstock to gasifier 216,000 PRMB prepared feedstock
Fabric filter ash 1,008 To landfill
Bottom ash 22,392 Marketable

Wastewater: Boiler blowdown will be 5,000 gallons/day, or 1.8 million gallons/year.
Natural gas: Requires 36 million Btu/hour for pre-heating and start-up.
Chemicals: The emission control system will require the following chemicals:

Lime: 648 tons/year
Activated carbon: 216 tons/year
Ammonia: 108 tons/year

E.1.4.2.2 Pre-Processing System.

Equipment Description. The post-source separated MSW will be delivered to the tipping
building. The proposed 1,000 ton/day proprietary pre-processing system includes trommels,
screens, floating devices, magnets, air classifiers, and manual sorting to produce the PRMB
feedstock for the gasifiers. The PRMB is shredded to a maximum size of inch for feed to
the three operating gasifiers. The pre-processing subsystem will remove 40% of the inlet
post-source separated MSW stream as follows:

25.64% (of the total 40%) will be common recyclables, such as paper, metals, glass,
plastics, and fines for composting
14.36% (of the total 40%) will be non-processible rejects which will be disposed of in a
landfill

Primenergy-RRA proposes that steel and aluminum will be recovered at nearly 100%, and
paper, plastics, and organic materials will be sorted for recycling. Nonflammable or
potentially hazardous materials will be removed from the inlet waste stream. The remaining
60% of the inlet stream, mostly marginal paper and mixed plastics, are refined and processed
into the PRMB.
APPENDIX E SUPPLIER EVALUATIONS
Primenergy/RRA


S:\04 PROJ\28906534 LABOS\Draft Report\Draft Report 7-14-05\Appendices\Appendix E.doc E-53
Recovered Recyclables. The proposal lists the following recyclables to be removed from the
inlet stream:

Paper: 47,700 tons/year
Metals: 17,928 tons/year
Glass: 6,012 tons/year
Plastics: 11,520 tons/year
Compost: 9,144 tons/year

This totals 92,304 tons/year, or a recovery of 25.6% of the inlet stream. Based on the
characteristics of the post-source separated MSW, and contamination, only 16.5% recovery is
assumed for this evaluation. Adjustments are made for lower revenues and for higher costs
for landfill of additional non-recyclables in Section E.1.4.5.

Residue Removed from Delivered MSW. The pre-processing system will also remove
51,696 tons/year of non-processible materials, which will be disposed of in a landfill. This
will likely include construction and demolition materials that enter with the inlet stream, as
well as recyclables that cannot be efficiently recovered or used in the PRMB.

E.1.4.2.3 Conversion Unit System. An overall diagram of the gasifier is shown in Figure
E-21. The PRMB will be stored in a concrete lined pit. Internal to the pit will be live-bottom
screws that will transfer the PRMB to a belt conveyor that will deliver the feedstock to the
gasifier metering bin. Each bin is equipped with variable speed discharge conveyors that
deliver the feedstock at a controlled rate to each gasifier. The rate of feed is monitored by a
flow meter that provides the indication of mass flow for the gasifier.

The PRMB enters the fixed-bed gasifier, air is injected, and gasification of the PRMB occurs
as about 1,500F, producing syngas. The syngas has a composition (volume basis) of:

CO - 17%
H
2
- 2%
CH
4
- 6%
CO
2
- 10%
N
2
- 42%
H
2
O - 23%

The heating value is 148 Btu/scf.
APPENDIX E SUPPLIER EVALUATIONS
Primenergy/RRA


S:\04 PROJ\28906534 LABOS\Draft Report\Draft Report 7-14-05\Appendices\Appendix E.doc E-54
FIGURE E-21
PRIMENERGY GASIFIER



Bottom ash is removed from the bottom of the gasifier by an ash conveyor, and then lifted by
a bucket conveyor for storage in a silo.

The hot syngas flows through a two-stage, high efficiency, refractory-lined cyclone, where
the fly ash is removed. After fly ash removal, the syngas is combusted in a multi-stage
combustion chamber at 2,400F. The staged combustion of the syngas converts the
feedstock-bound nitrogen into diatomic nitrogen (N
2
) instead of nitrogen oxides (NO
x
). The
intermediate stage of the combustion chamber is vertically oriented, constructed of
refractory-lined carbon steel. The partially oxidized syngas exits the intermediate combustion
zone, and is ducted to a specially designed syngas burner for final oxidation. The burner
delivers the final combustion and excess air to the syngas, providing flame stability over a
large range of flows and heat input rates while promoting mixing to maximize combustion
efficiency. The syngas burner fires into the furnace section of the waste heat recovery boiler,
where final oxidation of combustible compounds occurs. The boiler produces steam at 900F
and 850 psi. The steam is piped to the steam turbine generator for power generation.

Lime and activated carbon are injected into the cooled flue gas stream for removal of acid
gases (SO
2
and HCl), unburned hydrocarbons, and heavy metals, such as vaporized mercury.
The flue gases then flow through a fabric filter, where the reaction products and particulate
matter are removed. Removed fly ash and other particulates fall into the dust collector
APPENDIX E SUPPLIER EVALUATIONS
Primenergy/RRA


S:\04 PROJ\28906534 LABOS\Draft Report\Draft Report 7-14-05\Appendices\Appendix E.doc E-55
hopper, through the ash discharge valves at the bottom of the hoppers and are then
transferred into the ash storage silo by a pneumatic conveyance system. The cleaned flue
gases then flow through the SCR system, where ammonia is injected over the catalyst bed,
converting NO
x
emissions to nitrogen and water.

E.1.4.2.4 Power Generation System. The boiler package consists of an A style boiler
with a furnace section that provides residence time for complete combustion of the syngas
and an imbedded superheater and desuperheater to produce 900F, 850 psi superheated for
the condensing, extraction steam turbine generator. Boiler accessories include a reverse
osmosis water treatment system sized designed for 15% boiler feedwater makeup, a boiler
feedwater deaerator and dual (one operating and one spare) boiler feedwater pumps. A
chemical treatment package is included to provide necessary chemicals to the deaerator and
boiler.

The generator, rated at 20 MW, is expected to produce 17.6 gross MW. Internal load is 2.6
MW, for a net power output of 15 MW.

The overall facility will produce:

600 net kWh/ton of feedstock
24 tons/year raw MSW per net kW capacity

E.1.4.3 Byproduct Analysis

E.1.4.3.1 Byproducts Generated. The proposed facility would produce the following
useful byproducts:
Electricity: 15 net MW, or 129.6 million net kWh/year
Paper: 47,700 tons/year
Metals: 17,928 tons/year
Glass: 6,012 tons/year
Plastics: 11,520 tons/year
Compost: 9,144 tons/year
Bottom ash: 22,392 tons/year

E.1.4.3.2 Market Assessment. There is an existing market in California for MSW-
produced renewable electricity and for the recyclables. The bottom ash is likely to be
marketable for construction materials or road base.
APPENDIX E SUPPLIER EVALUATIONS
Primenergy/RRA


S:\04 PROJ\28906534 LABOS\Draft Report\Draft Report 7-14-05\Appendices\Appendix E.doc E-56
E.1.4.4 Environmental Issues

E.1.4.4.1 Air Emissions. For odor control, the tipping building will be maintained under
negative pressure. The air will be used in the gasification and/or combustion processes,
destroying the odor-causing compounds. The facility will also use a biofilter for removing
odors from other areas. Since gasification is a closed system, the only emission point will be
the stack, following removal of contaminants in the emission control system.

E.1.4.4.2 Wastewater Discharges. The only wastewater stream identified is the 5,000
gallons/day boiler blowdown stream.

E.1.4.4.3 Solid Wastes/Residuals. The pre-processing system will produce 143.6 tons/day
(51,696 tons/year) of rejects. The conversion unit sub-system will produce 2.8 tons/day
(1,008 tons/year) of contaminated fly ash from the emission control system. The rejects and
the fly ash will be disposed of in a landfill.

E.1.4.4.4 Other Environmental Issues. The 100-foot stack may be a viewshed issue. The
mass of the post-source separated MSW required to be landfilled is reduced by 85%.

E.1.4.5 Costs and Revenues

The cost analysis of the proposed facility is presented in Table E-17.

E.1.4.6 Assessment Summary

The Primenergy-RRA proposal was well put together, with considerable detail provided on
the Primenergy conversion and power generation subsystems. Primenergy and RRA have
worked together to provide a facility that includes overall integration of the three primary
subsystems. Since RRAs PRMB pre-preprocessing system is proprietary, no details were
provided. However, since the proposed pre-processing system is based on RRAs affiliates
actual operating systems, there is little technical concern regarding the ability of the proposed
subsystem to handle the inlet post-source separated MSW stream. Primenergy provided
extensive back-up material, including filled-out spreadsheets, photos and data on existing
facilities, diagrams of their gasification system, detailed process flow and heat and material
balance diagrams (some noted as confidential), and a detailed site layout. Technical and
financial questions were answered quickly and with sufficient detail. Both companies have
large systems in operation, with more in development. The team has the engineering skills to
design the overall facility. Based on implementation of prior and ongoing projects, the team
likely has the financial capability to implement the project.

Additional issues and concerns are as follows:
APPENDIX E SUPPLIER EVALUATIONS
Primenergy/RRA


S:\04 PROJ\28906534 LABOS\Draft Report\Draft Report 7-14-05\Appendices\Appendix E.doc E-57
TABLE E-17
COST ANALYSIS OF PROPOSED FACILITY


Provided by
Primenergy/RRA
Evaluated
Cost Reason for Adjustment
Capital Cost $49.2 million $49.2 million
Capital Cost, $/TPY $137 $137
Annual O&M $7.25 million $5.14 million Separate out landfilling costs
Landfilling of
Unmarketable Materials
Not separated $2.11 million 51,696 tons/year of rejects and 1,008 tons/year of
fabric filter ash @ $40/ton
Annual Capital Recovery
+ Interest Costs
Not provided $3.94 million Calculated over 20 years
Total Annual Costs $7.25 million $11.19 million Includes capital recovery and interest costs
Revenues from Sale of
Electricity
Not provided $7.8 million 15,000 kWh for 360 days/year @ $0.06/kWh
Revenues from Sale of
Recyclables, Compost
and Bottom Ash
Not provided $4.61 million Assume recovery of 2% of all metals ($50/ton),
12% of all paper ($75/ton), and 2.5% of all plastics
($100/ton) in inlet stream. Total is 59,400
tons/year. Assume bottom ash sold at $5/ton.
Total Annual Revenues Not provided $12.41 million
Annual Revenues-Costs ($7.25 million) $1.22 million
Tipping Fee $20.14 $0
Worst Case Break Even
Tipping Fee
$0.89/ton Assume 22,392 tons/year bottom ash transported
to landfill @$10/ton. Assume balance of
recyclables not sold (92,304-59,400 tons/year) are
sent to landfill @ $40/ton = $1.54 million additional
O&M. No reduction in revenues required.

Technical. Primenergy does not have a full-scale system in operation using the PRMB, but it
has processed a wide range of difficult feedstocks at ranges up to 600 tons/day. Primenergy
has also performed extensive tests of the RRA PRMB feedstock in its test gasifier at rates of
about 24 tons/day. Data from those test runs was used to develop an overall preliminary
design for an integrated facility. RRA has assumed a very high recovery of recyclables. Due
to the contamination of the post-source separated MSW, it may not be technically feasible to
obtain such high recovery.

Cost. No pro-forma was provided, so capital recovery and interest costs were calculated.

Performance. With a production of 600 net kWh/ton feedstock, this technology has a
moderate efficiency rating compared to other thermal technologies.

APPENDIX E SUPPLIER EVALUATIONS
Taylor Biomass Recovery


S:\04 PROJ\28906534 LABOS\Draft Report\Draft Report 7-14-05\Appendices\Appendix E.doc E-58
E.1.5 Taylor Biomass Recovery

E.1.5.1 Technology Overview

E.1.5.1.1 Technology Supply Team. Taylor Biomass Recovery LA, LLC is a company
established for the purposes of this proposal/project by the Taylor Group of Companies,
which also owns Taylor Recycling Facility, LLC. Taylors primary business is in separation
and recycling from: 1) construction and demolition waste, 2) land clearing debris, and 3)
gypsum wallboard. Taylor proposes to license the SilvaGas technology from FERCO
Enterprises, Inc., previously known as Future Energy Resources Company. Taylor has no
prior experience in either MSW or RDF processing or in pyrolysis or gasification.

Firm: Taylor Biomass Recovery LA, LLC
Technology: FERCO SilvaGas Fluidized Bed Pyrolysis
Throughput: 195,750 tons/year
Principal Contact: James W. (Jim) Taylor, Jr. Chairman
Address: 350 Neelytown Road
Montgomery, NY 12459

Originally, Taylor was in the tree service and land clearing businesses. Later, it became
involved in construction and demolition debris, using enhancements to its separation
technologies. Its primary facility is in Montgomery, New York. In 2001, the company built a
gypsum recovery operation, selling the recovered material to U.S. Gypsum for their
wallboard plant. During 2004, Taylor Recycling built a construction and demolition
separation and recycling facility in Des Moines, Iowa, processing more than 300 tons/day of
construction and demolition material. While the company has successful significant
experience in processing construction and demolition debris, it has no experience with MSW
or RDF.

The SilvaGas technology was originally developed and tested at pilot scale by Battelle
Memorial Institute in West Jefferson, Ohio. Enhancements to the process were made over a
20-year period. In 1992, after over 22,000 hours of operation of the 10 tons/day pilot unit,
Future Energy Resources Corporation (FERCO) purchased the rights to the technology and
continued the development efforts. Beginning in 1999, it was demonstrated at commercial
scale at Burlington Electric Departments McNeil Station in Burlington, Vermont.

According to Taylors response to a Request or Additional Information, FERCO holds the
rights to the technology and sells licenses to it; it does not want any involvement in project
APPENDIX E SUPPLIER EVALUATIONS
Taylor Biomass Recovery


S:\04 PROJ\28906534 LABOS\Draft Report\Draft Report 7-14-05\Appendices\Appendix E.doc E-59
development. Should Taylor be awarded a project by the City of Los Angeles, Taylor would
hire the inventor of the SilvaGas process, Mark Paisley, as a Taylor employee.

Taylor considers the following documents/items to be confidential:

Pro-forma
Heat and material balance
Pre-processing subsystem descriptions and drawings
Details of byproducts of pre-processing subsystem

E.1.5.1.2 Technology Overview. Taylor proposes to install an extensive pre-processing
system to remove 40% of the materials in the inlet black bin MSW stream, and about 2/3
rds
of
that will be recyclables.

The balance of the materials (60% of the inlet stream) will be the feedstock for the
conversion unit, which will process about 117,450 tons/year. Details of the mass balance are
discussed later, as there were unresolved inconsistencies in the values.

The FERCO SilvaGas technology utilizes two circulating fluidized bed reactors as the
primary process vessels. It is a unique application of pyrolysis for converting MSW into
syngas. Instead of disposing of the leftover pyrolysis char, as other pyrolysis processes do,
the SilvaGas process separates the char from the syngas stream and combusts it in a
combustion chamber. This provides the indirect heat needed for pyrolysis to occur, and the
excess heat is used to make steam for the production of electricity. The syngas from the
gasifier is combusted in a boiler, and the hot flue gas is used to produce more steam for
power generation.

FERCO provides the following basic description of their process. Refer to Figure E-22 for
the areas of the process being described:

1. Wood chips or other biomass materials are fed into the gasifier.
2. In the gasifier, the biomass is mixed with hot sand (1,800F), turning it into SilvaGas and
residual char.
3. The residual char and cooled sand (1,500F) are separated from the SilvaGas by a cyclone
separator and discharged to the combustor.
4. The sand is reheated in the combustor by adding air and burning the residual char. The
reheated sand is removed from the combustion gas by a cyclone separator and returned to
the gasifier.
APPENDIX E SUPPLIER EVALUATIONS
Taylor Biomass Recovery


S:\04 PROJ\28906534 LABOS\Draft Report\Draft Report 7-14-05\Appendices\Appendix E.doc E-60
FIGURE E-22
FERCO SILVAGAS PROCESS FLOW DIAGRAM



5. The SilvaGas is cleaned and can be used for a variety of applications such as direct use in
gas turbines, fuel cells or the production of chemicals.
6. The flue gas is a valuable source of heat that can be recovered for uses such as biomass
drying, steam production, or direct heating.

The overall process proposed for the City of Los Angeles is slightly different, due to the
nature of the feedstock produced in the pre-processing subsystem. It is different and more
heterogeneous than the biomass utilized in the Burlington demonstration facility. For
example, expected process temperatures are slightly different.

The syngas is cleaned of particulate matter and then combusted in a boiler. The steam is
piped to a single 12.5 MW steam turbine generator. The cooled flue gas flows through a
fabric filter for removal of particulates and condensable organics and a Selective Catalytic
Reduction (SCR) system for NO
x
removal.

The char and fluidizing sand removed from the syngas stream flow to the combustion
chamber, where the char is combusted. The hot flue gases are ducted to a cyclone for ash
removal, then to a heat recovery steam generator (HRSG). Steam is produced, and is also
piped to the single steam turbine generator for power production.

APPENDIX E SUPPLIER EVALUATIONS
Taylor Biomass Recovery


S:\04 PROJ\28906534 LABOS\Draft Report\Draft Report 7-14-05\Appendices\Appendix E.doc E-61
Ash removed from the ash cyclone is expected to be marketable. Ash removed from the
fabric filter will include reaction products from the emission control system and will require
disposal in a landfill. The recyclables are also expected to be marketable. Overall diversion
from landfill is 99%.

E.1.5.1.3 Reference Plants. Reference facilities are listed below in Table E-18.

TABLE E-18
TAYLOR REFERENCE FACILITIES

Facility City Country Throughput, Tons/Year Feedstock
Taylor C&D Facility Montgomery,
NY
U.S. 60,000 (based on recent month with
5,000 tons processed)
C&D debris
Taylor C&D Facility Des Moines,
IA
U.S. 60,000 (based on recent month with
5,000 tons processed)
C&D debris
Taylor Wallboard
Recycling Facility
Montgomery,
NY
U.S. Unknown (average is 15 tons/hour,
but not known if operation is day only
or 24/7)
Gypsum wallboard
Battelle Pilot Scale
Facility
West
Jefferson,
OH
U.S. 10-15 tons/day pilot scale system
operated for 22,000 hours over 20
years. Utilized 250 kW gas turbine to
fire the syngas
Wood chips, pulp, bark,
sawdust, hog fuel, wood
waste. Tested 300 tons
source-separated MSW
over 1-year period.
Burlington Electric
Department McNeil
Station
Burlington,
VT
U.S. Designed for about 300 tons/day,
operated at up to 500 tons/day.
Commercial-scale test program of the
SilvaGas process. Syngas was co-
fired in the 50 MW McNeil Stations
wood-fired boiler. The pyrolysis char
was combusted to provide the indirect
heat for the pyrolysis process.
Woody biomass and
wood waste.

The demonstration project in Vermont had several participants, including FERCO, the U.S.
Department of Energy, Battelle Columbus Laboratory, Burlington Electric Department, and
the National Renewable Energy Laboratory.

Figure E-23 depicts reference facility at McNeil Station.

E.1.5.1.4 Commercial Status. The throughput of the proposed facility is 195,750 tons/year
of inlet post-source separated MSW, delivered and processed 261 days/year. The conversion
unit itself will have a throughput of 117,450 tons/year, operating 310 days/year. This equates
to 379 tons/day or about 16 tons/hour. The demonstration system at the McNeil Station was
designed for 300 tons/day, and was able to operate at much larger throughputs. This is about
the same size as proposed for the City of Los Angeles.
APPENDIX E SUPPLIER EVALUATIONS
Taylor Biomass Recovery


S:\04 PROJ\28906534 LABOS\Draft Report\Draft Report 7-14-05\Appendices\Appendix E.doc E-62
FIGURE E-23
FERCO SILVAGAS REFERENCE FACILITY
AT MCNEIL STATION, BURLINGTON, VT



Neither the pilot facility nor the demonstration facility is in operation. The demonstration
facility at McNeil Station was shut down in 2001.

E.1.5.2 Detailed Technology Description

E.1.5.2.1 Description of Proposed Facility. The proposed facility would be sized to
process a throughput of 195,750 tons/year (750 wet tons/day) of post-source separated MSW.
The post-source separated MSW will be delivered to the tipping room 261 days/year, and
processed by the pre-processing subsystem.

The pre-processing system (two lines) will remove 40% (78,300 tons/year) of the inlet post-
source separated MSW stream. Of that amount, the majority will contain marketable
recyclables.

The balance of the inlet feed (117,450 tons/year) is an RDF product that is fed to the
conversion unit. Taylor proposes to operate the conversion unit 310 days/year, for a
throughput of 379 tons/day or about 15.8 tons/hour. The feedstock will enter the fluidized
bed pyrolysis unit, which circulates a mix of feedstock and hot fluidizing sand. Pyrolysis
occurs at 1,545F, decomposing the waste material and forming syngas. The syngas,
pyrolysis char (leftover from pyrolysis of the waste), fluidizing sand, and particulate matter
from the inorganic component of the waste, exit the pyrolysis reactor and enter a hot cyclone.
The pyrolysis char and sand are separated from the syngas, and piped to the bottom of the
APPENDIX E SUPPLIER EVALUATIONS
Taylor Biomass Recovery


S:\04 PROJ\28906534 LABOS\Draft Report\Draft Report 7-14-05\Appendices\Appendix E.doc E-63
combustor. The syngas flows to the boiler, where it is combusted. Steam is produced in the
boiler, and is piped to the steam turbine generator. In the combustion chamber, the char is
combusted, heating the fluidizing sand, which is then returned to the pyrolysis reactor to
provide the indirect heat needed for pyrolysis of the waste. The hot flue gases exiting the
combustion chamber flow to a cyclone for particulate removal, and then to the HRSG, where
additional steam is produced and piped to the steam turbine. The steam turbine generator
produces about 12.5 gross MW.

The combined flue gases from the combustion of the syngas and the char are treated in the
emission control system, composed of a fabric filter and an SCR system. The gases are
exhausted through a 110 stack.

The ash removed in the ash cyclone is expected to be marketable. The ash collected in the
fabric filter will contain contaminants from the combustion of both the syngas and char, and
will not be marketable. This small amount of ash will require disposal in a landfill.

Taylor also proposes to generate 45F chilled water using on-site chillers. At this time, there
is no known user for this chilled water. This can be investigated once a site is selected and
preliminary design begins.

The proposal spreadsheets state that the project will take 24-36 months to complete. No
schedule was submitted.

Site Layout. The proposed facility will require an area of 6 acres. No site layout was
provided. Taylor had included some computer generated layouts of the site, but they included
a gas turbine, which is no longer proposed. Taylor did not re-submit corrected drawings
when the revision using a steam turbine generator option was submitted.

Process Flow and Mass Balance. The mass balance is summarized in Table E-19, and
includes corrections made following numerous RAIs to Taylor. Taylor has applied a margin
of error for both the feedstock preparation and the feedstock use in the conversion unit, so
that the values do not balance. For example, the feed to the conversion unit is shown as 17
tons/hour. However, in order to process 117,450 tons/year over 310 operating days, this
would result in a throughput of 15.8 tons/hour. The summary table shows the expected mass
balance values.

Operation and Maintenance. MSW is expected to be delivered to the facility 5 days per
week. The preprocessing subsystem will be operated 10-12 hours/day, for 5-1/2 days/week.
The preprocessing, conversion unit, and power generation subsystems will be operated on a
continuous basis (24/7), producing syngas and generating electricity for 310 days per year.
APPENDIX E SUPPLIER EVALUATIONS
Taylor Biomass Recovery


S:\04 PROJ\28906534 LABOS\Draft Report\Draft Report 7-14-05\Appendices\Appendix E.doc E-64
TABLE E-19
TAYLOR SUMMARY MASS BALANCE
195,750 TONS/YEAR

Stream Tons/Year Comments
Inlet MSW 195,750 Delivered 261 days/year
Recyclables removed from inlet stream 48,938 Various, Marketable
Feedstock to gasifier 117,450 Operates 310 days/year
Hot cyclone ash 11,745 Marketable
Fabric filter ash 372 To landfill disposal

Staffing is 109 for the pre-processing plant, since the recovery process is very labor
intensive. This includes the following:

3 equipment operators/shift on the tipping floor
1 supervisor/shift
18 laborers/processing line/shift (2 lines)
4 general laborers for the overall plant
6 mechanics per day
Administrative support staff

For the conversion unit and power generation subsystems, staffing is 12 people over two 12-
hour shifts, as follows:
1 plant operator
1 mechanic
1 technician

Utility Requirements. Electricity: The facility will produce 92.7 million kWh per year, with
an internal requirement of 7.1 million kWh, equivalent to a 7 percent internal power load.

Water: The facility will use 5,700 gallons/day of water (310 days per year).
Wastewater: No wastewater is identified in the proposal or mass balances. This data may not
be available due to the preliminary nature of the facility design.

Natural gas: The conversion unit will require 30 million Btu/hr of natural gas for 12 hours
during each start-up.
APPENDIX E SUPPLIER EVALUATIONS
Taylor Biomass Recovery


S:\04 PROJ\28906534 LABOS\Draft Report\Draft Report 7-14-05\Appendices\Appendix E.doc E-65
Chemicals: No chemicals are identified in the proposal. This data may not be available due to
the preliminary nature of the facility design.

E.1.5.2.2 Pre-Processing System.

Equipment Description. MSW is expected to be delivered to the facility 5 days per week.
The preprocessing subsystem will be operated 10-12 hours/day, for 5-1/2 days/week. The
MSW is delivered into a drive-through indoor tipping area, which leads to two processing
lines.

For odor control, Taylor will use four methods: 1) automatically engaged overhead doors, 2)
negative pressure within the building, 3) ambient air pumped through biofilters, and 4)
deodorizer misters. The air drawn from the tipping area will be used in the gasifier and air
preheater, so odor-causing compounds will be destroyed in the conversion unit.

Recovered Recyclables. Taylor provided a detailed table of all of the materials proposed to
be recovered from the inlet MSW stream, however this information is omitted because the
supplier has indicated it to be confidential. Taylor proposes to recover 25% of the inlet
stream as recyclables. Based on the characteristics of the post-source separated MSW, and
contamination, only 16.5% recovery is assumed for this evaluation. Adjustments are made
for lower revenues and for higher costs for landfill of additional non-recyclables in Section
5.0.

Residue Removed from Delivered MSW. Taylor has not identified any reject material from
the pre-processing subsystem.

E.1.5.2.3 Conversion Unit System. The feedstock will be conveyed from the storage
facility to the conversion unit by a drag chain conveyor. The feed system utilizes a rotary
airlock (required to keep air out of the pyrolysis system) a metering bin with a live bottom, a
screw conveyor, and another rotary airlock, prior to entering the pyrolysis reactor.

Inside the reactor, the feedstock contacts hot circulating sand and steam, and pyrolysis occurs
at 1,545F, forming syngas. The mixture of syngas, char, sand, and ash exits the reactor and
enters the overhead cyclone. There, the sand, ash, and char are separated from the syngas and
flow to the bottom of the combustion chamber. The syngas flows through a secondary
cyclone for enhanced removal of fine sand and char. The syngas flows through a 2-step
clean-up system, using a proprietary catalyst system to crack condensable organics from the
syngas, and then an electrostatic precipitator to remove any remaining condensables and
particulate matter. The syngas flows through a syngas cooler, and then is sent to the boiler for
combustion. Steam from the boiler is piped to the steam turbine generator.
APPENDIX E SUPPLIER EVALUATIONS
Taylor Biomass Recovery


S:\04 PROJ\28906534 LABOS\Draft Report\Draft Report 7-14-05\Appendices\Appendix E.doc E-66
The char is combusted in the combustion chamber at 1,845F, producing hot flue gas. At the
top of the chamber, the flue gas and ash enter the combustor cyclone for ash removal. The
hot flue gas then flows to the HRSG for production of steam, which is piped to the steam
turbine generator. An air compressor supplies the air needed for combustion. Ambient air is
routed to the regenerative air heater and then the start-up burner and combustor. Some of the
air is also routed through the make-up fluidizing sand storage silo to convey it to the reactor.

Flue gases from the boiler and the HRSG enter a fabric filter for ash removal. Taylors
response to the RAI shows that they expect that all of the sulfur compounds in the MSW will
be captured in the ash.

E.1.5.2.4 Power Generation System. Taylor proposes to use a package boiler and
condensing steam turbine for power generation. No details on the power generation
subsystem were provided. The overall facility will produce:

728 net kWh/ton of feedstock
17 tons/year raw MSW per net kW capacity

E.1.5.3 Byproducts Analysis

E.1.5.3.1 Byproducts Generated. The proposed facility would produce the following
useful byproducts:

Electricity: 11.5 net MW, or 85.6 million net kWh/year
Hot cyclone ash: 11,745 tons/year
Marketable recyclables were not included because the supplier has indicated that this
information is confidential.
The values for the recyclables are based on 25% recovery in the pre-processing system. This
may not be achievable. A total of 16.5 % recovery is assumed for the evaluation.

E.1.5.3.2 Market Assessment. There is an existing market in California for MSW-
produced renewable electricity and for the recyclables. Taylor expects to use the hot cyclone
ash on-site for making stone products.
E.1.5.4 Environmental Issues

E.1.5.4.1 Air Emissions/Toxics. For odor control, Taylor will use four methods: 1)
automatically engaged overhead doors, 2) negative pressure within the building, 3) ambient
APPENDIX E SUPPLIER EVALUATIONS
Taylor Biomass Recovery


S:\04 PROJ\28906534 LABOS\Draft Report\Draft Report 7-14-05\Appendices\Appendix E.doc E-67
air pumped through biofilters, and 4) deodorizer misters. The air drawn from the tipping are
will be used in the gasifier and air preheater, so odor-causing compounds will be destroyed in
the conversion unit.

Sulfur in the MSW will be captured in the ash as calcium sulfate (gypsum). A fabric filter
will be used for removal of particulate matter, followed by the SCR system for NO
x
removal.
No specific system for the removal of chlorides or HCl is noted.

Since pyrolysis is a closed process, the only emission point is the stack, following removal of
contaminants in the emission control system.
E.1.5.4.2 Wastewater Discharges. No specific wastewater streams are identified. This may
be due to the preliminary nature of the data provided.

E.1.5.4.3 Solid Wastes/Residuals. The combustor ash cyclone will remove 372 ton/year of
ash for disposal in a landfill.

E.1.5.4.4 Other Environmental Issues. The lack of specific emission control equipment
for mercury, sulfur, and chlorine compounds is a concern. Equipment for these purposes is
commercially available. The 110 stack may be a viewshed issue. The mass of the post-
source separated MSW required to be landfilled is reduced by about 99%.

E.1.5.5 Costs and Revenues

The cost analysis of the proposed Taylor facility is presented in Table E-20.

E.1.5.6 Assessment Summary

During the review of Taylors original submittal, it became clear that Taylor was more of a
construction and demolition recycling company than either a MSW processing or pyrolysis
company. While the technical description of the pre-processing subsystem was quite
extensive, the technical descriptions of the pyrolysis and power generation subsystems were
inconsistent. For example, in some sections, the power generation proposal text discussed a
gas turbine, and in others it did not. Taylor did not provide information in the spreadsheets
(as required in the RFQ) in the original submittal; the only technical information available
was what was described in sparse detail in the written proposal. After receiving the Request
for Additional Information, they did supply the spreadsheets.

The RAI questioned Taylors reason for selecting the throughput of 200,000 tons/year,
instead of 100,000 tons/year as specified in the RFQ. In a conversation with Jim Taylor, we
APPENDIX E SUPPLIER EVALUATIONS
Taylor Biomass Recovery


S:\04 PROJ\28906534 LABOS\Draft Report\Draft Report 7-14-05\Appendices\Appendix E.doc E-68

TABLE E-20
COST ANALYSIS OF PROPOSED FACILITY

Provided by Taylor Evaluated Cost Reason for Adjustment
Capital Cost $107 million $107 million
Capital Cost, $/TPY $547 $547
Annual O&M $14.424 million $14.295 million Separate out landfilling costs for
unmarketable materials
Landfilling of Unmarketable
Materials
Not provided $124,520 372 tons/year of filter ash and 2,741
tons/year of paints and hazardous wastes
@$40/ton.
Annual Capital Recovery +
Interest Costs
$6.35 million $6.35 million
Total Annual Costs $20.77 million $20.77 million
Revenues from Sale of
Electricity
$5.14 million $5.14 million
Revenues from Sale of
Recyclables and Ash
$1.47 million $2.5 million Assume recovery of 2% of all metals
($50/ton), 12% of all paper ($75/ton), and
2.5% of all plastics ($100/ton) in inlet
stream. Total is 32,299 tons/year. Assume
11,745 tons/year hot cyclone ash sold at
$5/ton.
Revenues from
Management Fees
$2 million $2 million No adjustment, but source of fees not
identified.
Revenues from Sale of
Chilled Water
$1.04 million $0 No known user
Total Annual Revenues $9.65 million $9.64 million
Annual Revenues-Costs ($11.12 million) ($11.13 million)
Tipping Fee $56.81/ton $56.86/ton Lower cost
Worst Case Break Even
Tipping Fee
$67.16/ton Assume 11,745 tons/year hot cyclone ash
transported to landfill @$10/ton =
$117,450. Assume balance of recyclables
not sold (78,300-32,299 =
46,001tons/year) to landfill @ $40/ton =
$1,840,040. Add total $1,957,490 to O&M.
Reduce ash sales revenues by $58,725.

were told that the minimum economic throughput for the FERCO SilvaGas system is a 300
(dry) ton/day system. This equates to about 400 wet tons/day. Given that they remove 40% of
the materials for recycling, the facility would require the delivery of about 200,000 tons/year,
twice what is available per the RFQ. Mr. Taylor said that it would not be economical for
them to try to design a facility using only 100,000 tons/year of raw MSW, which would only
provide about 150 dry tons/day to the gasifier.

APPENDIX E SUPPLIER EVALUATIONS
Taylor Biomass Recovery


S:\04 PROJ\28906534 LABOS\Draft Report\Draft Report 7-14-05\Appendices\Appendix E.doc E-69
Taylor itself has no direct experience in processing of MSW or RDF, nor in conversion
technologies such as pyrolysis or gasification. The proposal was lacking in technical detail,
with many errors in the proposal and in the data spreadsheets. The initial mass balance did
not add up. In the end, assumptions had to be made in order to make the mass balance work.
Taylor did not seem to have an in-depth understanding of the SilvaGas process nor the
critical knowledge nor experience required to efficiently integrate the pre-processing,
conversion unit and power generation subsystems.

Additional issues and concerns are as follows:

Technical. Taylor is essentially a construction and demolition recovery company. They have
no prior experience either in MSW pre-processing, conversion technology, or power
generation. FERCO, the licensor of the technology, does have full-scale, commercial-sized
experience with the SilvaGas process, primarily on biomass. Taylor states that if it is
awarded this project, the owner of the technology would be hired by Taylor to do the process
design. However, this still leaves out the proven ability to process the black bin MSW and to
design the power generation subsystem, as well as the ability to integrate the overall three
conversion facility subsystems. Taylor has not identified who would be responsible for
overall facility design. This is a concern, especially in the overall integration of the three
critical subsystems.
Taylor proposes that its pre-processing system will remove a total of 40% of the inlet stream,
with 25 of the 40% as recyclables. Since the black bin MSW is considered to be mixed and
contaminated, such a high recovery is not likely. Since a lower recovery is likely, either the
total inlet throughput will need to be reduced, the amount of fines increased, or the gasifier
throughput increased. Otherwise, should the proposed system fail to recovery the expected
amounts, the gasifier would see an increased mass of feedstock, which it may or may not be
able to process.

Taylor states that it expects that the sulfur compounds in the MSW will be captured in the
ash. The description of the emission control system lacks detail, and no specific controls for
sulfur species, HCl, or mercury are proposed. Taylor may not have a full understanding of
the significant difference between the contaminants in MSW, compared to biomass and
construction and demolition debris. This could result in a significant technical (and
environmental) issue.

Cost. If additional emission controls are required, a significant amount of equipment would
need to be added (during preliminary and/or detailed design). There was little discussion of
overall facility integration; this may be because neither Taylor nor FERCO have not yet
APPENDIX E SUPPLIER EVALUATIONS
Taylor Biomass Recovery


S:\04 PROJ\28906534 LABOS\Draft Report\Draft Report 7-14-05\Appendices\Appendix E.doc E-70
developed the overall conceptual design for a conversion technology facility based on the
FERCO SilvaGas, including pre-processing of MSW and power generation.

Performance. The submittal shows an overall performance of 728 net kWh/ton of feedstock,
with an internal load of only 7%. Internal load for a complete conversion technology facility
is likely to be much greater. Again, this may be due to the lack of experience by both Taylor
and FERCO in designing an integrated facility utilizing MSW pre-processing, MSW
conversion, and power generation. It is expected that the actual overall performance would
be considerably lower.

APPENDIX E SUPPLIER EVALUATIONS
WasteGen Ltd.


S:\04 PROJ\28906534 LABOS\Draft Report\Draft Report 7-14-05\Appendices\Appendix E.doc E-71
E.1.6 WasteGen Ltd.

E.1.6.1 Technology Overview
E.1.6.1.1 Technology Supply Team. WasteGen (UK) Ltd. (WasteGen) has a primary
business in developing facilities that use the TechTrade pyrolysis process for treating MSW.
Their process is called the Materials & Energy Recovery Plant. WasteGen is partnering with
several other companies, as follows:
An exclusive agreement with TechTrade GmbH for its pyrolysis technology. TechTrade
is a specialist engineering and design organization based in Cologne, Germany, with a
design team of thermal treatment engineers. The company designs and engineers large-
scale drying and rotary tube furnace equipment for the food, chemical and nuclear
industries. TechTrade would be sub-contracted to design, supply and install the pyrolysis
unit. The companys Chief Executive and owner, Franz-Eicke von Christen, designed and
installed the pyrolysis units at Burgau and Dortmund in Germany (see information below
on reference facilities). He also serves as Technical Director of WasteGen UK, and
would be responsible for all engineering from design to commissioning.
An agreement with Shaw Stone & Webster to provide process guarantees and act as
Engineer, Procurement, and Construction (EPC) contractor. Stone & Webster concluded
a detailed technical and financial due diligence which provided the basis for Shaw Group
to authorize its role as EPC contractor. This enables WasteGen to present a bankable,
commercially available technology.
An agreement with Siemens for the exclusive joint development of combined cycle
power plants using the TechTrade pyrolysis technology and Siemenss Typhoon gas
turbine (this was formerly the Alstom gas turbine technology).

Firm: WasteGen (UK) Ltd.
Technology: TechTrade Pyrolysis
Throughput: 100,000 tons/year
Principal Contact: Colin Hygate, Managing Director
Address: Fort Lee, Rodborough Common, Stroud, Gloucestershire
United Kingdom

E.1.6.1.2 Technology Overview. The TechTrade pyrolysis technology used by WasteGen
processes MSW, converts it to a usable syngas for power generation, and recovers ferrous
and non-ferrous metals from the bottom ash byproduct for recycling. It incorporates the
following steps:
APPENDIX E SUPPLIER EVALUATIONS
WasteGen Ltd.


S:\04 PROJ\28906534 LABOS\Draft Report\Draft Report 7-14-05\Appendices\Appendix E.doc E-72
Shredding for size reduction
Pyrolysis in a rotating kiln to produce the syngas
Particulate removal
Combustion of the syngas
Heat recovery and steam generation in a boiler
Power production using a steam turbine generator
Recovery of metals from bottom ash byproduct
A general overview of the process is shown in Figure E-24.

FIGURE E-24
OVERALL WASTEGEN PROCESS



The incoming MSW is shredded to a 12-inch maximum size, and is then fed by screw feeder
to the pyrolysis kilns. The system is sealed so as to prevent the entry of air, since pyrolysis is
a thermal degradation process that occurs in the absence of air or oxygen. The indirect heat
for pyrolysis is supplied by the recycling of a portion of the hot flue gases combusted
downstream in the process. Some calcium hydroxide is added into the kiln to bind some of
the acid gases such as SO
2
and HCl. Pyrolysis occurs at about 935F, driving off the syngas
and leaving behind the inorganic components of the MSW (ash), mixed with unconverted
APPENDIX E SUPPLIER EVALUATIONS
WasteGen Ltd.


S:\04 PROJ\28906534 LABOS\Draft Report\Draft Report 7-14-05\Appendices\Appendix E.doc E-73
carbon char. The ash/char solids are removed through a water bath system, and removed by a
wet slag removal system. The mixture is then conveyed from the system, and metals are
removed by magnetic and eddy current separators.

In the Burgau facility, the ash/char byproduct is disposed of in a local landfill. At the Hamm-
Uentrop facility, the char is burned along with the syngas in the power plant boiler for steam
generation. WasteGen realizes that for modern MSW treatment, the production of a high
carbon ash creates two concerns:

Energy in the carbon is lost if it is disposed of with the ash
Disposal of the carbon char adds O&M cost
For the proposed facility, WasteGen plans to incorporate a carbon recovery system, which
would process the carbon char/ash mixture in a coupled rotary kiln gasifier, producing more
usable syngas and a potentially marketable bottom ash. Although WasteGen has not done this
at full scale, it notes that such gasification technology is commercially available and would
not be a technical concern. This issue is addressed later in this report.

The syngas is then cleaned of most of its particulate matter, then combusted in the
combustion chamber at 2,300F. The hot flue gases flow through a boiler, where steam is
produced. The steam is piped to a steam turbine generator for the generation of electricity. A
portion of the hot flue gases are routed back to the outer jacket of the kiln, in order to provide
the indirect heat needed for pyrolysis of the MSW.

After the cooled flue gases leave the boiler, sodium bicarbonate and calcium hydroxide are
injected into the flue gas stream to capture acid gases such as SO
2
and HCl. Activated carbon
is also injected, to adsorb heavy metals, such as vaporized mercury. The particulates and
reaction products are removed in a fabric filter, and the cleaned flue gases are exhausted
through a stack. Overall diversion from landfill is 99%.

E.1.6.1.3 Reference Plants. There are two WasteGen plants in operation. Both are in
Germany. Details are provided in Table E-21 and photos of selected facilities are depicted in
Figure E-25.

E.1.6.1.4 Commercial Status. The Burgau facility went into service in 1984, and has been
in continuous operation for 20 years. Its kilns are rated at 2.6 tons/hour. Minor upgrades and
process enhancements have been made to the facility over this period of time. The 100,000
tons/year facility at Hamm-Uentrop went into service in 2001. Its kilns are rated at 7.3
tons/hour each. The proposed facility would use two pyrolysis kilns each rated at 6.9
tons/hour, with a design similar to that used at Hamm-Uentrop. There is no scale-up issue. As
APPENDIX E SUPPLIER EVALUATIONS
WasteGen Ltd.


S:\04 PROJ\28906534 LABOS\Draft Report\Draft Report 7-14-05\Appendices\Appendix E.doc E-74

TABLE E-21
WASTEGEN REFERENCE FACILITIES

Facility City Country
Throughput,
Tons/Year Feedstock
MPA Burgau (power generation from
steam turbine)
Burgau Germany 35,000 MSW
VEW Energie power plant (syngas
and char combusted in existing power
plant boiler)
Hamm-
Uentrop
Germany 100,000 Light fractions from MSW,
industrial waste, auto shredder
residue, plastics

FIGURE E-25
WASTEGEN REFERENCE FACILITIES


BURGAU PLANT KILN AT HAMM-UENTROP PLANT

noted above, WasteGen proposes to incorporate a new carbon recovery process to gasify the
carbon char to make additional syngas and produce a bottom ash byproduct that is free of
carbon char. While WasteGen itself has not incorporated this additional process on a
commercial scale, the technology is commercially available. The proposal states that the
specific technology will be a kiln-based gasification; it may be a technology that TechTrade
itself has developed or will develop.

E.1.6.2 Detailed Technology Description

E.1.6.2.1 Description of the Proposed Facility. The MSW will be delivered 5-1/2
days/week to the tipping hall, which will be kept under negative pressure for odor control.
The air will be utilized in the combustion process. No removal of recyclables is required for
this process, other than removal of very large pieces of metal, i.e., engines and white goods.
APPENDIX E SUPPLIER EVALUATIONS
WasteGen Ltd.


S:\04 PROJ\28906534 LABOS\Draft Report\Draft Report 7-14-05\Appendices\Appendix E.doc E-75
The proposal states that a rotary screen would be used, with magnetic/eddy current separators
and a picking belt, if required.

The facility will process MSW and generate electricity 24/7 for 313 days/year. The MSW
will be picked up by a grapple crane and delivered to a shredder to reduce the size to 12
inches. MSW with a moisture content over 20% will be routed to a dryer. From there, the
shredded MSW will be fed to the pyrolysis kilns, where it will thermally decompose to
syngas at 935F, leaving behind the inorganic components as ash, in a mixture with the
unconverted carbon char.

The ash/char mixture will enter the carbon recovery unit, a rotary gasification kiln, where the
carbon char will be gasified, producing more syngas to be combusted. The proposal states
that the carbon recovery process will be low temperature gasification, so that the byproduct
will be bottom ash, not a vitrified slag byproduct. The bottom ash will be discharged through
a water bath and then transferred onto a conveyor. Magnetic and eddy current separators will
recover ferrous and non-ferrous metals for recycling. Since the hot gas cyclone ash will not
be mixed with the bottom ash, the bottom ash byproduct is expected to be marketable.

The syngas will be cleaned of much of the particulate matter in a hot gas cyclone, then
combusted in the combustion chamber at 2,300F. A portion of the hot flue gas will be routed
back to the outer annuli of both of the kilns, providing the indirect heat required for initiation
of the pyrolysis reactions and thermal degradation of the MSW into syngas. In order to
reduce NO
x
emissions, urea is injected to convert a portion of the NO
x
to nitrogen.

The hot flue gases flow through the boiler, and steam is produced. The steam is piped to the
single steam turbine generator, producing 12 MW gross, and 9 MW net of electricity. After
leaving the boiler, the cooled flue gases are injected with calcium hydroxide and sodium
bicarbonate slurries, alkaline compounds that react with the acid gases in the flue gases,
including SO
2
and HCl. Activated carbon is also injected to adsorb heavy metals, including
vaporized mercury. The flue gases then flow through a fabric filter, where particulate matter
and byproducts from reaction with the acid gasses are captured and removed. The cooled,
cleaned flue gases are exhausted through a single 195 high stack.

WasteGen provided a Microsoft Project schedule for a representative project. Total time to
implement the project from contract award to completion is just under 30 months.

Site Layout. The proposed facility will require an area of 5 acres. The actual plant footprint
would be approximately 400 x 200, or just under 2 acres. The proposed site layout is shown
in Figure E-26.

APPENDIX E SUPPLIER EVALUATIONS
WasteGen Ltd.


S:\04 PROJ\28906534 LABOS\Draft Report\Draft Report 7-14-05\Appendices\Appendix E.doc E-76
FIGURE E-26
SITE LAYOUT



APPENDIX E SUPPLIER EVALUATIONS
WasteGen Ltd.


S:\04 PROJ\28906534 LABOS\Draft Report\Draft Report 7-14-05\Appendices\Appendix E.doc E-77
Process Flow and Mass Balance. A general process flow diagram is shown in Figure E-27.
A specific diagram was not provided for the proposed facility. A summary mass balance is
provided in Table E-22.

FIGURE E-27
WASTEGEN PROCESS FLOW DIAGRAM



TABLE E-22
WASTEGEN SUMMARY MASS BALANCE

Stream Tons/Year Comments
Inlet MSW 100,000 No recyclables removed
Feedstock to pyrolysis kilns 100,000
Bottom ash recovered 20,000 May be marketable
Metals recovered 1,210 Marketable
Fabric filter dust 1,031 Disposed of in landfill

Operation and Maintenance. MSW deliveries will occur 5-1/2 days/week. The MSW
pyrolysis and power generation subsystems will operate 24/7 for 313 days/year. Staffing will
include 5 people on four shifts, with 5 management and administrative staff, for a total of 25.
Design availability is 85%, based on the average 80-90+% availability of the Burgau facility.

APPENDIX E SUPPLIER EVALUATIONS
WasteGen Ltd.


S:\04 PROJ\28906534 LABOS\Draft Report\Draft Report 7-14-05\Appendices\Appendix E.doc E-78
Utility Requirements.

Electricity: The facility will produce 90 million kWh per year, with an internal requirement
of 22.5 million kWh, equivalent to a 25% internal power load.

Water: The facility will use 16,000 gallons/day of water (313 days per year).

Wastewater: No wastewater discharge is expected; none is identified in the proposal or mass
balances.

Fuel oil: On start-up, 8 gallons/hour of fuel oil is required. Total annual use would be based
on the number of start-ups.

Chemicals: The proposal included a table of chemical consumables for the Burgau facility.
Adjusting the values for the higher throughput of the proposed facility, chemical additive use
is:

Calcium hydroxide: 994 tons/year
Sodium bicarbonate: 700
Urea (made by mixing carbamide in water): 132,000 gallons/year
Activated carbon: 23 tons/year
Nitrogen: 22 tons/year

E.1.6.2.2 Pre-Processing Subsystem.

Equipment Description. Pictures from the Burgau and Hamm-Uentrop facilities will be
utilized to show the type of equipment used in the pre-processing subsystem. The MSW will
be delivered to the tipping hall. Below in Figure E-28 is a view of the tipping hall.

A grapple crane will be used to transfer the MSW to the shredder inlet hopper. The two
shredders, one for service and one stand-by, are a critical portion of the pre-processing for
the pyrolysis kiln operation. The maximum particle size allowed to pass to the kiln is 12-
inches. Figure E-29 below shows the shredders in the pre-processing system.

Recovered Recyclables. Magnetic and eddy current separators, as well as a picking
conveyor, may be utilized for pre-processing to remove metals and other recyclables. Further
information on the post-source separated MSW would be required for WasteGen to
determine if this equipment would be utilized.
APPENDIX E SUPPLIER EVALUATIONS
WasteGen Ltd.


S:\04 PROJ\28906534 LABOS\Draft Report\Draft Report 7-14-05\Appendices\Appendix E.doc E-79
FIGURE E-28
TIPPING HALL


FIGURE E-29
SHREDDER



Residue Removed from Delivered MSW. The proposal does not identify any specific
residues or rejects as being separated from the inlet post-source separated MSW.

APPENDIX E SUPPLIER EVALUATIONS
WasteGen Ltd.


S:\04 PROJ\28906534 LABOS\Draft Report\Draft Report 7-14-05\Appendices\Appendix E.doc E-80
E.1.6.2.3 Conversion Unit System. Pictures from the Burgau and Hamm-Uentrop facilities
will be utilized to show the type of equipment used in the conversion unit subsystem.

A grappling hook is then used to feed the shredded waste into the pyrolysis kiln feed chutes.
Calcium hydroxide is added for the removal of SO
2
and HCl in the syngas and flue gas.
Below in Figure E-30 is an illustration of the side gate used to feed the waste into the screw
feeder, and to keep incoming air out of the oxygen out of the feed system. This provides a
seal from outside air and a constant feed to the kiln.

FIGURE E-30
KILN INLET



The screw feeder moves the waste into the kiln inlet (but stays out of the hot syngas stream).
The waste enters the two 6.9 tons/hour rotary pyrolysis kilns, which turn at 1.5 RPM. Each
kiln measures 10 diameter x 74 long, with a wall thickness of 1 inch. The material of
construction is heat resistant steel.

The steel kiln rotates inside an insulated jacket clad in metal. Part of the hot flue gas from the
combustion chamber (at about 2,300F) flows through the jacketed portion of the kiln. The
outside walls of the kilns are then heated indirectly from the hot flue gas in the combustion
chamber at. The outside of the kiln reaches 1,292F, and the inside of the kiln reaches 935F,
resulting in pyrolysis of the organic portion of the MSW and producing the syngas. The
residence time in the kiln is about 1 hour. The cooled flue gas exits at the top of the kiln
through insulated pipes As shown in Figure E-31, and is returned to the top of the boiler,
where it is mixed with the hot flue gas from the combustion chamber.

APPENDIX E SUPPLIER EVALUATIONS
WasteGen Ltd.


S:\04 PROJ\28906534 LABOS\Draft Report\Draft Report 7-14-05\Appendices\Appendix E.doc E-81
FIGURE E-31
FLUE GAS EXITS THROUGH INSULATED PIPES



At the kiln exit, syngas flows on to the next portion of the process, while the ash and char left
over from pyrolysis are directed to a rotary gasification kiln. In this part of the process, the
carbon char is gasified at low temperature, producing more syngas that is mixed with the
syngas from the pyrolysis kiln.

Solids (minerals and glass) from the kiln are discharged through a water bath (in Figure
E-32), which provides a seal against air entering the kiln and a quench for the hot residues.

The bottom ash is removed by a wet slag remover and transferred to a conveyor belt, as seen
in Figures E-33 and E-34.

Magnetic and eddy current separators are used to recover ferrous and non-ferrous metals. The
metals are dumped into large bins for recycling.

The syngas exits the kiln toward the hot gas cyclone. The syngas produced by pyrolysis of
the MSW in the kiln is:

15% H
2

20% CO
39% CO
2

12% CH
4

APPENDIX E SUPPLIER EVALUATIONS
WasteGen Ltd.


S:\04 PROJ\28906534 LABOS\Draft Report\Draft Report 7-14-05\Appendices\Appendix E.doc E-82
FIGURE E-32
WATER BATH FOR SOLIDS REMOVAL



FIGURE E-33
WET SLAG REMOVAL CONVEYOR



13% Hydrocarbons

The syngas has a heating value of 300-400 Btu/scf.
APPENDIX E SUPPLIER EVALUATIONS
WasteGen Ltd.


S:\04 PROJ\28906534 LABOS\Draft Report\Draft Report 7-14-05\Appendices\Appendix E.doc E-83
FIGURE E-34
BOTTOM ASH REMOVAL BINS



The hot, dirty syngas passes through a hot gas cyclone (pictured in Figure E-35), which
removes the majority of particulate matter (PM).

FIGURE E-35
HOT GAS CYCLONE



APPENDIX E SUPPLIER EVALUATIONS
WasteGen Ltd.


S:\04 PROJ\28906534 LABOS\Draft Report\Draft Report 7-14-05\Appendices\Appendix E.doc E-84
The solids are removed through a double valve arrangement (illustrated below in Figure
E-36), to assure that hot syngas is not released.

FIGURE E-36
DOUBLE-VALVE ARRANGEMENT



The syngas is combusted in the combustion chamber (seen below in Figure E-37) at about
2,300F. Combustion air is drawn from the tipping hall, as part of the odor control system.

About 80% of the hot flue gas goes to the boiler. Urea is injected into the flue gas stream,
reacting with NO
x
compounds to form nitrogen, reducing overall NO
x
emissions.

The other 20% of the hot flue gas exits the combustion chamber and flows back to the
pyrolysis kilns to provide indirect heat for pyrolysis, as discussed previously in this report.

Calcium hydroxide and sodium bicarbonate are injected into the cooled flue gas stream in
order to react with acid gases, including SO
2
and HCl. Activated carbon is injected,
adsorbing heavy metals such as vaporized mercury in the flue gas stream. The cooled flue
gas then flows to a fabric filter that removes the reaction products and remaining particulate
matter. Cooled, cleaned flue gases will be exhausted through a 195 stack.

E.1.6.2.4 Power Generation System. Steam from the boiler is piped to the 12 MW steam
turbine generator. Internal load is 3 MW, so that net power output is 9 MW. No details on the
APPENDIX E SUPPLIER EVALUATIONS
WasteGen Ltd.


S:\04 PROJ\28906534 LABOS\Draft Report\Draft Report 7-14-05\Appendices\Appendix E.doc E-85
FIGURE E-37
COMBUSTION CHAMBER



steam turbine generator were provided in the proposal. Note that the proposal made
significant mention of WasteGens partnership with Siemens for use of their Typhoon gas
turbine with eth syngas. However, WasteGen is not proposing to use a gas turbine in this
application. In a response to the Request for Additional Information, WasteGen noted that
they will only install a gas turbine after they have built a full scale operating facility in the
U.K.

The overall facility will produce:
675 net kWh/ton of feedstock
11 tons/year raw MSW per net kW capacity

E.1.6.3 Byproduct Analysis

E.1.6.3.1 Byproducts Generated. Utilizing magnetic and eddy current separators on the
inlet steam and on the bottom ash, essentially full recovery of metals is possible. Byproducts
will be:

Metals: 1,210 tons/year
APPENDIX E SUPPLIER EVALUATIONS
WasteGen Ltd.


S:\04 PROJ\28906534 LABOS\Draft Report\Draft Report 7-14-05\Appendices\Appendix E.doc E-86
Bottom ash: 20,000 tons/year

E.1.6.3.2 Market Assessment. There is an existing market in California for MSW-
produced renewable electricity and for recyclables recovered from the pre-processing and
bottom ash processing systems. Metals will have a ready market. Bottom ash is likely to be
marketable for use in construction materials.

E.1.6.4 Environmental Issues

E.1.6.4.1 Air Emissions. For odor control, WasteGen will maintain the tipping hall under
slight negative pressure. The air drawn from that area will be used as combustion air in the
combustion chamber. Calcium hydroxide will be injected into the kiln and into the flue gas
for capture and reaction with SO
2
and HCl. Urea is injected into the boiler (in a specific
temperature region) to initiate non-catalytic reduction of NO
x
, forming inert nitrogen.
Sodium bicarbonate is injected into the flue gas prior to the fabric filter for reaction with and
capture of acid gases. Activated carbon is injected into the flue gas prior to the fabric filter
for adsorption of heavy metals.

E.1.6.4.2 Wastewater Discharges. No wastewater discharges are noted.

E.1.6.4.3 Solid Wastes/Residuals. The only solid waste identified is the fabric filter ash.
This will be disposed of in a landfill.

E.1.6.4.4 Other Environmental Issues. The 195 stack may be a viewshed issue.
Assuming that the bottom ash is marketable, the mass of the post-source separated MSW
required to be landfilled is reduced by essentially 99%.

E.1.6.5 Costs and Revenues

The cost analysis of the proposed WasteGen facility is presented in Table E-23.

E.1.6.6 Assessment Summary

WasteGen provided a well-written response, but the original submittal did not include
completed spreadsheets. It included numerous references to the existing Burgau facility for
operating and maintenance histories, chemical usage, and emissions. A site layout was
prepared for the proposed facility. A schedule from another project was used as a reference.

However, WasteGen did respond quickly and with detail to the Request for Additional
Information. Extensive information on the technical, operation, maintenance, and
performance of its existing facilities has been provided and was sufficient to evaluate the
APPENDIX E SUPPLIER EVALUATIONS
WasteGen Ltd.


S:\04 PROJ\28906534 LABOS\Draft Report\Draft Report 7-14-05\Appendices\Appendix E.doc E-87
TABLE E-23
COST ANALYSIS OF PROPOSED FACILITY


Provided by
WasteGen Evaluated Cost Reason for Adjustment
Capital Cost $60.63 million $60.63 million
Capital Cost, $/TPY $606 $606
Annual O&M $4.6 million $4.56 million Separate out landfilling of unmarketable
materials @$40/ton
Landfilling of Unmarketable
Materials
Not provided $41,240 1,031 tons/year filter ash @$40/ton
Annual Capital Recovery +
Interest Costs
Not provided $4.8 million Calculated over 20 year period
Total Annual Costs $4.6 million $9.4 million Added capital recovery and interest costs
Revenues from Sale of
Electricity
Not provided $4,050,000 9,000 kW, 24/7 for 312.5 days/year, at
$0.06/kWh
Revenues from Sale of
Recyclables and Ash
Not provided $160,500 Assume 1,210 tons/year metals @ $50/ton and
20,000 tons/year bottom ash @ $5/ton
Total Annual Revenues Not provided $4,210,500 Recovery/sale of metals and bottom ash
included
Annual Revenues-Costs ($4.6 million) ($5.2 million)
Tipping Fee $46/ton $52/ton
Worst Case Break Even
Tipping Fee
$54.90/ton Assume 20,000 tons/year bottom ash not
marketable, and is transported @ $10/ton for use
as landfill daily cover. Add $200,000 to costs.
Reduce bottom ash sales revenues by $100,000.

submittal. In addition, a site visit to the Burgau facility also provided sufficient detail.
WasteGens pyrolysis process is proven at commercial scale, with one facility in operation
for 20 years. The project team that WasteGen proposes would be expected to implement the
entire project. Guarantees from Shaw Stone & Webster add significant value to the project.
Additional issues and concerns are as follows:

Technical. WasteGen has not utilized its proposed carbon recovery unit (rotary kiln
gasification) in a full-scale system. It is not likely that WasteGen has even tested this
proposed subsystem on MSW at a pilot or demonstration scale. However, as previously
discussed in this report, such gasification technology is commercially available, and may not
be a significant technical concern. More detail on its development and integration with the
TechTrade pyrolysis technology will be required from WasteGen.

Performance. With a production of 675 net kWh/ton feedstock, this technology has a
moderate efficiency rating compared to other thermal technologies.
APPENDIX E SUPPLIER EVALUATIONS
Whitten Group International


S:\04 PROJ\28906534 LABOS\Draft Report\Draft Report 7-14-05\Appendices\Appendix E.doc E-88
E.1.7 Whitten Group International

E.1.7.1 Technology Overview

E.1.7.1.1 Technology Supply Team. Whitten Group International (Whitten) is a project
management and development company founded in 1984 to provide construction services to
project developers worldwide. Whitten holds proprietary intellectual properties and
equipment patents. Its clients and partners are international construction developers, gas &
oil companies, and local and federal governments. Whitten provides the following services:

Consulting: engineering, architectural, and construction management
Contracting: maintenance and logistical supervision
Training, commissioning, inspection, and financial assistance
Private investing for key projects
Gas and oil processing plant design and construction
Equipment: including oil and gas processing plants, tankers, trailers, barges, incinerators,
gasification equipment and plants, drilling rigs, and construction equipment

For this project, Whitten is partnering with NTech Environmental to offer the ENTECH
Renewable Energy System (ENTECH RES). Whitten will provide the project development
and management services, while NTech Environmental will provide the engineering services
for the ENTECH RES. The gasification technology is provided by ENTECH.

NTech Environmental was established by bringing together 20 years experience of marketing
gasification worldwide. Through major contractors with proven experience on project
management, NTech Environmental offers turnkey projects using the ENTECH RES.

ENTECH Renewable Energy Technologies Pty. Ltd. (ENTECH) was formed in 1989 for
the purpose of acquiring the technology and assets of Enquip - Energy Equipment, including
a license association with Cleaver-Brooks, the world's largest producer of conventional and
non-standard fuel fired industrial boiler plants. ENTECH is a company comprised of
engineers and manufacturers of renewable energy systems for the conversion of biomass and
waste into energy using their ENTECH Renewable Energy System gasification technology.
They have and extensive background in biomass and waste gasification. ENTECHs
production facility and production staff are located at Armadale in Western Australia.
ENTECH has representatives throughout the world to market the ENTECH Renewable
Energy System. ENTECH supports the representatives by providing sales literature, sizing
guides, specifications, and proposal formats.
APPENDIX E SUPPLIER EVALUATIONS
Whitten Group International


S:\04 PROJ\28906534 LABOS\Draft Report\Draft Report 7-14-05\Appendices\Appendix E.doc E-89
Firm: Whitten Group International
Technology: Entech Renewable Energy System - Gasification
Throughput: 100,000 tons/year and (400,000 after receiving the response from the
RFQ, additional information was requested for higher throughputs to
examine economy of scale. This information is included in Section 5
Table 5-1.)
Principal Contact: Ron Whitten, President
Address: 622 Lilac Street
Longview, Washington 98632

E.1.7.1.2 Technology Overview. The ENTECH Renewable Energy System utilizes low
temperature, fixed-bed gasification with very low amounts of air, nearing pyrolysis, to
convert MSW to syngas. The specific sections of the process are:

Pyrolytic gasification stage conversion of MSW to syngas
Thermal reactor stage combustion of syngas
Energy utilization stage heat recovery boiler for steam production
Air quality control stage emission controls
Flow control stage blowers to exhaust flue gases to stack

Figure E-38 shows the overall Entech Renewable Energy System technology, without any
pre-processing subsystem.

The ENTECH system does not require mechanical presorting/pre-processing of the MSW.
However, for this application, a pre-processing system is proposed in order to remove about
20% of the inlet MSW as recyclables, which reduces the overall cost of the gasification
system and makes the energy recovery system more efficient.

The MSW feedstock is fed into the refractory-lined Pyrolytic Gasification Chamber (PGC),
which operates in with little air to initiate pyrolysis and then gasification reactions. The PGC
uses a stepped hearth design, where the feedstock is moved by ram feeders or gravity fed
down a series of steps in the PGC, providing mixing of the feedstock to ensure that all of it is
subjected to sufficient thermal decomposition and gasification. The inorganic components of
the feedstock become ash and move to the end of the PGC for collection. Metals and glass
are recovered from the ash.

APPENDIX E SUPPLIER EVALUATIONS
Whitten Group International


S:\04 PROJ\28906534 LABOS\Draft Report\Draft Report 7-14-05\Appendices\Appendix E.doc E-90
FIGURE E-38
ENTECH RENEWABLE ENERGY SYSTEM



The syngas is then combusted immediately in the Thermal Reactor, a combustion chamber.
The syngas is combusted at 2,200F, and the hot flue gases flow to the heat recovery boiler
for generation of steam. The steam is piped to a steam turbine generator to produce
electricity. Flue gases exit the boiler and enter the air quality control system, which includes
lime injection to a spray dryer absorber, for removal of contaminants. Following the spray
dryer absorber, activated carbon is injected to mix with the flue gas for the removal of heavy
metals, such as mercury. The byproducts of the emission controls are captured in a fabric
filter. Overall diversion from landfill is 98%.

E.1.7.1.3 Reference Plants. Table E-24 shows the ENTECH reference plants listed in the
proposal. Figure E-39 shows pictures of two of the operating systems.

E.1.7.1.4 Commercial Status. The ENTECHs partial user list shows 46 systems installed
around the world, processing a wide range of wastes. ENTECH notes that they have over 100
installations, and some have been in operation for over 15 years. Ten of the installations
process MSW, and 23 incorporate the entire renewable energy system to make steam and
electricity. Four installations that process MSW use the renewable energy system. This
technology is proven at commercial scale.
APPENDIX E SUPPLIER EVALUATIONS
Whitten Group International


S:\04 PROJ\28906534 LABOS\Draft Report\Draft Report 7-14-05\Appendices\Appendix E.doc E-91
TABLE E-24
ENTECH REFERENCE FACILITIES

Facility City Country Throughput, Tons/Year Feedstock
Genting Corporation Sri Layang Malaysia 22,000 MSW
Singapore Food Industries Buroh Lane Singapore 26,000 Slaughterhouse waste
P.T. Pertamina Maxus Island Indonesia 11,000 MSW
City of Chung Gung Chung Gung Taiwan 11,000 MSW
Government of Hong Kong Lantau Island Hong Kong 22,000 Industrial wastes

FIGURE E-39
ENTECH REFERENCE FACILITIES


CHUNG GUNG, TAIWAN SRI LAYANG, MALAYSIA

The largest existing PGC processing MSW treats 67 ton/day; the largest on any waste treats
79 tons/day. The proposed facility would utilize two operating PGCs, and one stand-by, each
rated at 122 tons/day. This is a PGC scale-up of 55%. The scale-up essentially adds more
cells to the PGCs, allowing for more throughput and residence time. Therefore, this scale-up
is not considered to be a significant technical concern.

E.1.7.2 Detailed Technology Description

E.1.7.2.1 Description of Proposed Facility.

Facility Overview. The proposed facility would be sized to process 100,000 tons/year of
MSW. MSW is delivered 5 days/week to the facility, and processed by a mechanical
system for removal of 18.1% of the post-source separated MSW. This produces a Refuse
Derived Fuel (RDF) feedstock for the conversion unit subsystem. The feedstock is fed into
the two operating PGCs, and gasification of the waste occurs at 1,100F, producing syngas.
Throughput of each PGC module is 122.5 tons/day, or 245 tons/day for the facility. The
APPENDIX E SUPPLIER EVALUATIONS
Whitten Group International


S:\04 PROJ\28906534 LABOS\Draft Report\Draft Report 7-14-05\Appendices\Appendix E.doc E-92
facility would operate approximately 334 days/year to process the 81,900 tons/year of RDF.
Ash produced in the PGCs is collected for disposal. Additional processing with air
classifiers, magnets, screens, and eddy current separators is included for recovery of metals
and glass. The remaining ash will likely be marketable.

The syngas is immediately combusted at 2,200F in the Thermal Reactor, and the hot flue
gases are ducted to the heat recovery steam boiler. Steam is produced in the boiler, and it is
piped to the steam turbine generator, producing 7.7 MW gross and 7 MW net of electricity.

The cooled flue gases exiting the boiler are ducted to the air quality control system. This
system will utilize a single emission control processing line. A lime spray dryer absorber will
be used to capture the acid gases in the flue gas, such as SO
2
and HCl. Following the spray
dryer, activated carbon will be injected to adsorb/remove heavy metals, such as mercury that
has been vaporized in the gasification process. The particulate matter in the flue gas, along
with the reaction byproducts form the spray dryer and the spent activated carbon are captured
in the fabric filter. This ash is not marketable, and will be disposed of in a landfill.

An implementation schedule of 130 weeks (30 months) is proposed.

Site Layout. A proposed layout was provided, covering an area of 4.5 acres.

Mass Balance. A summarized mass balance for the proposed facility is presented in
Table E-25.

TABLE E-25
ENTECH SUMMARY MASS BALANCE

Stream Tons/Year Comments
Inlet MSW 100,000
Recyclables removed from inlet stream 18,100 Mechanical sorting
Feedstock to gasifier 81,900
Bottom ash 4,195 May be marketable
Fabric filter dust and ash 1,706 To landfill

Operation and Maintenance. MSW is expected to be delivered to the facility 5-1/2 days per
week. The preprocessing, conversion unit, and power generation subsystems will be operated
on a continuous basis (24/7), producing syngas and generating electricity for 334 days per
year. Staffing is proposed as follows:

Weigh station: 1 person 40 hrs/week
APPENDIX E SUPPLIER EVALUATIONS
Whitten Group International


S:\04 PROJ\28906534 LABOS\Draft Report\Draft Report 7-14-05\Appendices\Appendix E.doc E-93
Manager: 1 person, 40 hours/week
Supervisor: 2/shift for 5 shifts/week
Operators: 2/shift for 5 shifts/week
Additional for pre-processing to be determined

Based on this, the minimum number of staff is 22, with the number for the pre-processing
system to be determined.

Utility Requirements. Electricity The 100,000 tons/year facility will produce 61.7 million
kWh per year, with an internal requirement of 5.6 million kWh, equivalent to a 9.1% internal
power load. This seems low for this type of technology, and may not be inclusive of the pre-
processing subsystem.

Water The facility will use 13, 965 gallons/day of water (334 days per year).

Wastewater No specific wastewater discharge is noted.

Natural gas The PGCs and the heat recovery steam boiler each have natural gas burners for
start-up. The proposal states that 330 cubic feet of natural gas is required, but the time period
for use is not specified.

Chemicals The emission control and power generation systems will utilize the following
chemical additives:

Lime: 1,202 tons/year
Activated carbon: 321 tons/year
Feedwater treatment chemical: 60 tons/year
E.1.7.2.2 Pre-Processing System.

Equipment Description. The proposal provides very little information on the proposed pre-
processing system. This is likely because the ENTECH RES typically does not require any
pre-processing, and it was included in the proposed facility because:

It reduces the capital cost of the thermal treatment system
It increases the thermal efficiency in the energy recovery process
APPENDIX E SUPPLIER EVALUATIONS
Whitten Group International


S:\04 PROJ\28906534 LABOS\Draft Report\Draft Report 7-14-05\Appendices\Appendix E.doc E-94
It is likely that neither Whitten nor NTech Environmental has prior experience with MSW
pre-processing at the proposed 18,100 tons/year. The proposal does state that for odor
control, they would draw combustion air from the waste storage area.

Recovered Recyclables. The proposal does address recovering the materials recovered in the
pre-processing subsystem as being suitable for recycling. Whitten had planned for removal
of all glass in the post-source separated MSW, as well as all metal and all construction
materials. This totals 19,600 tons/year. Then, they assumed that the amount of fines (mixed
residue) is actually 2.9% of the inlet, instead of 1.4% as noted in the waste characterization.
Therefore, they would assume that they would only recover 19.6-1.5 = 18.1% of the inlet
stream.

Values listed in the proposal for the recyclables are:

Glass: 3,339 tons/year (should be 3,390 tons/year)
Metals: 9,630 tons/year
Inert construction waste: 4,130 tons/year (should be 5,080 tons/year)

Based on the characteristics of the post-source separated MSW, and contamination, only
16.5% recovery is assumed for this evaluation. In a response to the Request for Additional
Information, Entech Environmental noted that it did not take any credit for sale of the
recyclables in its cost estimate. Adjustments are made for revenues and for costs for landfill
of additional non-recyclables in Section E.1.7.5.

Residue Removed from Delivered MSW. No specific residues for disposal are noted in the
submittal, spreadsheets, or mass balance.

E.1.7.2.3 Conversion Unit System. The PGC is shown in Figure E-40.

There will be 2 operating PGCs, with 1 for stand-by service. Each PGC is sized for a
throughput of 5.1 tons/hour, or 122 tons/day. Either a top loader or ram feeder will be used to
feed the waste into the PGCs at regular 15-minute intervals, 24 hours/day. The feeding
device will inject the waste into the first part of the stepped hearth, refractory lined chamber.
Upon entry to the chamber, the waste is gasified at 1,100F, with between 10% and 30% of
the stoichiometric air requirement, forming syngas.

The waste progresses along the chamber wall and will move down the steps. The residence
time of the waste in the PGC is about 24 hours. The movement is assisted by a series of
APPENDIX E SUPPLIER EVALUATIONS
Whitten Group International


S:\04 PROJ\28906534 LABOS\Draft Report\Draft Report 7-14-05\Appendices\Appendix E.doc E-95
churning and stoking rams. This agitation of the waste breaks up any surfaces insulated with
ash and exposes fresh waste surface area to the gasification process.
FIGURE E-40
PYROLYTIC GASIFICATION CHAMBER




The non-combustible components, i.e., ash, are transferred to the rear of the PGC, where it is
discharged automatically, into an ash receptacle or conveyor. Both the waste feed and ash
removal of the stepped hearth system allow for continuous operation of the system without
any shutdowns required for ash removal.

The syngas generated in the PGCs is drawn by the induced draft fan, through refractory lined
ductwork, and into a single Thermal Reactor, shown in Figure E-41.

FIGURE E-41
THERMAL REACTOR


APPENDIX E SUPPLIER EVALUATIONS
Whitten Group International


S:\04 PROJ\28906534 LABOS\Draft Report\Draft Report 7-14-05\Appendices\Appendix E.doc E-96
Combustion of the syngas occurs using air drawn from the waste storage area (for odor
control) at temperatures between 1,850F and 2,200F for a minimum of 2 seconds. The hot
flue gases are rapidly cooled as they flow through the steam boiler, shown in Figure E-42.

FIGURE E-42
ENERGY UTILIZATION HEAT EXCHANGER (BOILER)



The boiler produces steam at 750F and 600 psi. The steam is piped to the steam turbine
generator for production of electricity. The cooled flue gases are cleaned in the air quality
control system, as shown in Figure E-43.

Slurry passes down the center pipe of the head of the lance, with atomizing air down the
outside of the annulus. A fine mist is produced at the outlet, and the slurry mist enters the
flue gas stream, reacting with acid gases such as SO
2
and HCl.

The flue gases then exit the SDA and flow through a venturi mixer chamber, where activated
carbon is injected. The activated carbon adsorbs heavy metals, such as vaporized mercury in
the flue gas.

The flue gases and semi-reacted byproducts from the SDA and mixing chamber then enter
the fabric filter, where particulate matter is captured on the surface of the filter media.
Further reaction of the lime slurry with the acid gases continues as the flue gas permeates the
filter cake.
APPENDIX E SUPPLIER EVALUATIONS
Whitten Group International


S:\04 PROJ\28906534 LABOS\Draft Report\Draft Report 7-14-05\Appendices\Appendix E.doc E-97
FIGURE E-43
AIR QUALITY CONTROL SYSTEM



E.1.7.2.4 Power Generation System. The proposal provides little detail on the power
generation system. Power generation performance is calculated as:

686 net kWh/ton of feedstock
14 tons/year raw MSW per net kW capacity

E.1.7.2.5 Post Processing. The ash residue is sorted to segregate metals and glass for
recycling using a system of air classifiers, eddy current separators, screens, and magnets. The
remaining ash is crushed and utilized in construction materials.

E.1.7.3 Byproduct Analysis

E.1.7.3.1 Byproducts Generated. The proposed facility would produce the following
useful byproducts:
Electricity: 7 net MW, or 56.1 million kWh/year
Metals: 9,630 tons/year
APPENDIX E SUPPLIER EVALUATIONS
Whitten Group International


S:\04 PROJ\28906534 LABOS\Draft Report\Draft Report 7-14-05\Appendices\Appendix E.doc E-98
Glass: 3,390 tons/year
Inert construction waste: 5,080 tons/year
Bottom ash: 4,195 tons/year

E.1.7.3.2 Market Assessment. There is an existing market in California for MSW-
produced renewable electricity. There are existing markets for metals and glass. The inert
construction waste and the bottom ash can likely be marketed for use in construction
materials.

E.1.7.4 Environmental Issues

E.1.7.4.1 Air Emissions. For odor control, the proposed system will draw air form the
waste storage area for combustion in the Thermal Reactor, destroying odor-causing
compounds. Since gasification is a closed process, there is no emission point for the syngas.
The only emission point is the stack that is part of the power generation module.

E.1.7.4.2 Wastewater Discharges. The proposal does not identify any wastewater
discharges. It states that There is zero liquid effluent discharge.

E.1.7.4.3 Solid Wastes/Residuals. The proposal states that no credit has been taken for
income from the sale of the recyclables or other byproducts. It is expected that the only solid
waste that will require landfill disposal is the ash from the fabric filter, produced at a rate of
1,706 tons/year.

E.1.7.4.4 Other Environmental Issues. The mass of the post-source separated MSW
required to be landfilled is reduced by over 98%.

E.1.7.5 Costs and Revenues

The cost analysis of the proposed facility is presented in Table E-26.

E.1.7.6 Assessment Summary

The proposal provided by Whitten and Ntech Environmental was very complete. The
submittal also included detailed equipment lists, pictures of existing facilities, clear process
flow and mass balance diagrams, and emission tables.

All of the questions in the Request for Additional Information and follow-up questions were
handled by NTech Environmental. Whitten was not involved except by copy of e-mail
APPENDIX E SUPPLIER EVALUATIONS
Whitten Group International


S:\04 PROJ\28906534 LABOS\Draft Report\Draft Report 7-14-05\Appendices\Appendix E.doc E-99
TABLE E-26
COST ANALYSIS OF PROPOSED ENTECH FACILITY

Provided by Whitten/NTech Evaluated Cost Reason for Adjustment
Capital Cost $56 million $56 million
Capital Cost, $/TPY $560 $560
Annual O&M $3.2 million $3.13 million Separate out landfilling costs
Landfilling of
Unmarketable Materials
Not separated out $68,420 1,706 tons/year filter ash @
$40/ton
Annual Capital Recovery
+ Interest Costs
$5.7 million $5.7 million
Total Annual Costs $8.9 million $8.9 million
Revenues from Sale of
Electricity
$3,880,800 $3.37 million 7,000 kW for 334 days/year @
$0.06/kWh
Revenues from Sale of
Recyclables
$0 $1.29 million Assume recovery of 2% of all
metals ($50/ton), 12% of all
paper ($75/ton), and 2.5% of all
plastics ($100/ton) in inlet
stream. Total is 16,500
tons/year. Assume 4,195
tons/year bottom ash sold at
$5/ton.
Total Annual Revenues $3,880,800 $4.61 million Revenues from sale of
recyclables; lower revenues from
sale of electricity
Annual Revenues-Costs ($5.02 million) ($4.29 million)
Tipping Fee $50.20/ton $42.90/ton
Worst Case Break Even
Tipping Fee
$44.17/ton Assume 4,195 tons/year bottom
ash transported to landfill
@$10/ton = $41,950. Assume
balance of recyclables not sold
(18,100-16,500 tons/year) are
sent to landfill @ $40/ton =
$64,000. Total is $105,950
additional O&M. Reduce bottom
ash revenues by $20,975.

messages. NTechs responses (they are located in the U.K.) were always very quick and
detailed. The original submittal addressed a throughput of 100,000 metric tons/year of MSW.

After submittal of the Request for Additional Information, NTech provided a revised
response in short tons.

APPENDIX E SUPPLIER EVALUATIONS
Whitten Group International


S:\04 PROJ\28906534 LABOS\Draft Report\Draft Report 7-14-05\Appendices\Appendix E.doc E-100
The following issues and concerns are noted:

Technical. The throughout for the proposed facility will be the largest ENTECH RES system
ever designed. The scale-up for the proposed PGC will be about 55% larger than its largest
operating PGC. As noted previously in this report, the increased throughput is accomplished
by adding more steps to the hearth design. The additional throughput could also be addressed
through a combination of more PGCs, with a smaller scale-up. This could be discussed more
with the Whitten team at a later time.

At the present time, a 143 tons/day system for MSW is being developed in Malaysia, and
NTech Environmental notes that it has other facilities in development with throughput values
of 60,000 to 100,000 tons/year. The design features incorporated in those projects may apply
to the proposed facility, alleviating any remaining technical concerns.

Neither Whitten, ENTECH, nor NTech Environmental provided descriptions of any prior
experience with pre-processing a similar MSW at the throughput considered for this project.
The high recovery rates of some of the recyclables are not considered likely. There is little
detail on the pre-processing or post-processing equipment, but it is all commercially
available.

The proposal provides detailed descriptions of the emission control system, but little for the
power generation system. Overall, the Whitten team seems very strong in conversion unit
technology, with considerably less experience in MSW pre-processing and power generation.
This would be expected to affect the overall integration of the three primary subsystems, and
therefore the overall facility efficiency. Additional engineering expertise on the team, in
MSW pre-processing and power generation, would likely address this concern.
Cost. Due to the lack of experience in MSW pre-processing, the costs for this subsystem may
be understated for the expected recovery. Since the Whitten team did not take credit for sale
of recyclables, the overall tipping fee was reduced by providing a credit for some recyclables
in the cost analysis.

Performance. With a production of 686 net kWh/ton feedstock, this technology has a
moderate efficiency rating compared to other thermal technologies.

APPENDIX E SUPPLIER EVALUATIONS
Pan American Resources, Inc.


S:\04 PROJ\28906534 LABOS\Draft Report\Draft Report 7-14-05\Appendices\Appendix E.doc E-101
E.1.8 Pan American Resources, Inc.
E.1.8.1 Technology Overview
E.1.8.1.1 Technology Supplier Team.
Pan American Resources, Inc. (PAR) has a primary business in developing facilities that use
the Destructive Distillation process, utilizing the Lantz Converter. This is essentially a
pyrolysis process, in that it provides indirectly-applied heat, in the absence of free air or
oxygen, to the feedstock to thermally decompose it into a syngas, leaving behind a carbon
char.

PAR is partnering with several other companies, as follows:

M3 Engineering & Technology Corporation, which would provide all facility design and
construction services
Schuff Steel Corporation, which would fabricate the Lantz converters and associated
equipment
Oxford Research Institute, a firm which specializes in risk analysis and ergonomic
solutions for complicated industrial facilities
Members of the Lantz family who are descendants of Dae Lantz, the inventor of the
Lantz Converter and founder of the corporation

Firm: Pan American Resources, Inc.
Technology: Destructive Distillation (Pyrolysis), using the Lantz Converter
Throughput: 182,500 tons/year
Principal Contact: John Toman, Chairman and CEO
Address: 4222 Bevilacqua Court
Pleasanton, CA 94566

Mr. Toman is the only full-time employee of PAR. The others mentioned in the submittal are
either part-time employees or consultants; they would be brought in as required to implement
the project. PAR notes in their proposal that they have not had operating capital since 1989.
They state that a put-or-pay contract (for the MSW) and a power sales agreement for 20
years would satisfy the collateral needs of financial institutions to finance the project.

E.1.8.1.2 Technology Overview. The Destructive Distillation technology was developed
by Dae C. Lantz, Sr. in the 1930s. Mr. Lantz also formed PAR during that timeframe. While
APPENDIX E SUPPLIER EVALUATIONS
Pan American Resources, Inc.


S:\04 PROJ\28906534 LABOS\Draft Report\Draft Report 7-14-05\Appendices\Appendix E.doc E-102
PAR refers to its technology as Destructive Distillation, this process is more accurately
defined as pyrolysis. The Lantz Converter uses indirectly applied heat, in the absence of free
air or oxygen, to thermally decompose the feedstock into a syngas, leaving behind a carbon
char in a mixture of the inorganic components (ash). This is equivalent to the technical
definition of pyrolysis.

The original Lantz Converter was a batch processing unit, developed to produce usable gas
for farms and ranches. The user would gather up dried horse and cow dung, hay stack
bottoms, and other organic material, place it in the converter, and bolt on the door (to provide
an oxygen-free atmosphere). The converter would be indirectly heated by a burner, thermally
decomposing the dried dung into syngas and carbon char. The syngas was piped to a storage
tank which had water seals that could expand to keep the gas at pressures slightly above
atmospheric. The syngas was piped to the residence and used for cooking, heating, and
lighting. When liquid propane was introduced, the application for the Lantz Converter was
no longer needed and the market for it disappeared.

When using MSW or industrial wastes, a continuous (not batch) process is used. The MSW
is first pre-processed to remove metals, shred it to less than 1-inch size, and dry it to less than
10% moisture. The syngas produced is combusted in a boiler, and the steam produced is
piped to a steam turbine to generate electricity. The flue gases from the boiler are cleaned in
an emission control system, and the clean gases are exhausted through a stack. The
byproducts of the conversion unit are a char/ash mixture, typical of pyrolysis processes. This
may be usable as landfill daily cover.

Overall diversion from landfill is estimated to be 74%.

E.1.8.1.3 Reference Plants. Table E-27 presents the facilities where the Lantz Converters
have been installed. Several were full-scale facilities, and one was a demonstration unit.
None of these are still in operation.

E.1.8.1.4 Commercial Status. None of the Lantz Converters noted in Table E-27 are still
in operation. The largest converter that PAR designed was rated at 50 tons/day, or 18,250
tons/year. The proposed facility would utilize converters sized at just over 100 tons/day, or
twice what PAR has provided for commercial use. A scale-up of two times is not, in itself,
considered to be a significant technical concern.

Of the facilities noted in Table E-27, only the Marcal Paper Mills facility (example presented
in Figure E-44) used a dryer for the inlet waste. It was also the only facility where MSW was
used as the feedstock, and where the syngas was combusted in a boiler to make steam. The
steam was used locally, but not for power generation. PAR has not incorporated the pre-
APPENDIX E SUPPLIER EVALUATIONS
Pan American Resources, Inc.


S:\04 PROJ\28906534 LABOS\Draft Report\Draft Report 7-14-05\Appendices\Appendix E.doc E-103
TABLE E-27
PAR REFERENCE FACILITIES
Facility City Country
Throughput,
Tons/Year Feedstock
Marcal Paper Mills
(used 50 ton/day converter tested at
Ford Motor Company see below)
Elmwood Park, NJ
(1982-84)
DOE demonstration
U.S. 18,250 MSW
Ford Motor Company
(used 50 ton/day converter tested at
Naval Ammunition Depot- see below)
Milpitas, CA
(1968)
U.S. 18,250 Industrial waste
Plum Creek Lumber Pablo, MT
(1964)
U.S. No data Wood chips
Whiting Brothers Land & Timber
Company
Eager, AZ
(1963)
U.S. 36,500 Wood
Naval Ammunition Depot Concord, CA
(1962-64)
U.S. 18,250 Industrial waste,
wood scraps
R&D Facility
(equipment is stored at Schuff Steel)
Upland, CA
(1961-91)
U.S. Demonstration Mixed and
hazardous wastes

FIGURE E-44
REFERENCE FACILITY AT MARCAL PAPER MILLS (1982-84)


APPENDIX E SUPPLIER EVALUATIONS
Pan American Resources, Inc.


S:\04 PROJ\28906534 LABOS\Draft Report\Draft Report 7-14-05\Appendices\Appendix E.doc E-104
processing, conversion and power generation sub-systems in pilot, demonstration, or full-
scale size.

E.1.8.2 Detailed Technology Description

E.1.8.2.1 Description of the Proposed Facility.

Facility Overview. The MSW will be delivered 5 days/week to the tipping hall, which will
be kept under negative pressure for odor control. The facility is designed to process 500
tons/day of post-source separated MSW, or 182,500 tons/year. Since the deliveries of MSW
will be on a 5 day/week basis, this will require 700 tons/day of post-source separated MSW
to be delivered over those 5 days. Of that amount, 500 tons/day are processed, and 200
tons/day are stored for 5 days, so that a total of 1,000 tons will be available for operation on
the two weekend days. The waste is shredded and dried, then fed to the three Lantz
converters for pyrolysis. The syngas is produced at a temperature of 1,200F, and combusted
in three separate boilers (one/ converter). The steam produced is piped to a single steam
turbine generator for production of 8.9 MW gross/6.5 MW net of electricity.

PAR provided sample schedule data from a prior proposal for a 500 tons/day facility. The
submittal states that the total time to implement the project from contract award to
completion is 18 months.

Site Layout. The proposed facility will require an area of up to 5 acres. A conceptual layout
drawing (from a prior proposal for a 500 tons/day facility) is shown in Figure E-45.

Process Flow and Mass Balance. A general process flow diagram is shown in Figure E-46.
It is very similar to the diagram provided in the DOE report, which is publicly available. A
specific diagram for the proposed facility was not provided. A summary mass balance is
provided in Table E-28.

Operation and Maintenance. MSW deliveries will occur 5 days/week, with the thermal
conversion and power generation subsystems in operation 24/7, for 365 days/year. PAR has
proposed the following staff:

Operations: 1 head operator (1 shift), 2 operators (4 shifts)
Maintenance: 1 mechanic (4 shifts), 1 electrical/instrumentation (1 shift)
Waste Handlers: 1 forklift operator (4 shifts); 1 forklift operator (2 shifts)
Waste Separators: 4 separators (2 shifts)
APPENDIX E SUPPLIER EVALUATIONS
Pan American Resources, Inc.


S:\04 PROJ\28906534 LABOS\Draft Report\Draft Report 7-14-05\Appendices\Appendix E.doc E-105
FIGURE E-45
SITE LAYOUT



FIGURE E-46
PROCESS FLOW DIAGRAM



APPENDIX E SUPPLIER EVALUATIONS
Pan American Resources, Inc.


S:\04 PROJ\28906534 LABOS\Draft Report\Draft Report 7-14-05\Appendices\Appendix E.doc E-106
TABLE E-28
SUMMARY MASS BALANCE

Stream Tons/year Comments
Inlet MSW 182,500 PAR assumes 365 day/year operation (see comments on
this in report)
Recyclables Removed 8,139 PAR assumes 100% recovery of ferrous and non-ferrous
metals (see comments on this assumption in report)
Other Inorganics Picked from Inlet Stream 8,651 These are rejects which would be sent to a landfill
Waste Delivered to Dryers 165,710 Shredded to 1 inch size
Water Removed in Dryers 39,493 This moisture is condensed, filtered and reclaimed for
storage and re-use
Solids Removed from Water Vapor Stream in
Dyers
2,409 Removed in cyclone, thickened, and sent to boilers
Dried Waste Fed To Converters 123,808 At 5% moisture
Char/ash Mixture Removed from Converters 38,143 To landfill (21% of inlet stream)

Administrator: 1
Secretary: 1

This is a total of 30 personnel.

Utility Requirements. Electricity Based on PARs assumption of 365 day-per-year
operation, the facility would produce 77.9 million kWh per year, with an internal requirement
of 20.6 million kWh, equivalent to a 26% internal power load. As discussed later in this
report, it is unlikely that the facility would be able to operate at 100% throughput, producing
100% net power output, for 365 days/year.

Water Since the process incorporates condensation/recovery of moisture from the dryer
exhaust, the facility would not (theoretically) need to supplement its water requirements after
initial fill.

Natural gas or propane Less than 4 million Btu/hour (per converter) are required for
heating the converter to 1,200F for start-up. After start-up, 12.7% of the syngas that is
produced is combusted in order to provide the indirect heat need for pyrolysis.

Chemicals 158 tons/year of sodium hydroxide is required in the Hydro-Sonic scrubber for
removal of acid gases. No other chemical requirements are noted, although some chemical
additives would be required for the boiler feedwater and condensate systems.

APPENDIX E SUPPLIER EVALUATIONS
Pan American Resources, Inc.


S:\04 PROJ\28906534 LABOS\Draft Report\Draft Report 7-14-05\Appendices\Appendix E.doc E-107
E.1.8.2.2 Pre-Processing System.

Equipment Description. PAR plans to take delivery of the MSW 5 days/week, and operate
the overall facility 24/7. For the 500 tons/day facility, this would require deliveries of 700
tons/day of MSW, over the 5-day delivery period. The post-source separated MSW would be
delivered to the tipping floor and loaded onto a conveyor belt by a front-end loader. Plastic
bags would be opened and any undesirable objects would be hand picked from the conveyor
belt. An electromagnet would be used to recover ferrous metals, with an eddy current system
to recover non-ferrous metals, prior to entering the shear shredder.

Based on the waste characterization, PAR assumes that they will be able to recover all of the
ferrous and non-ferrous metals. Their estimate shows this as 19.25 tons per day of ferrous
metals and 3.05 tons/day of non-ferrous metals, plus 23.7 tons/day of other inorganic
materials, for a total of 46 tons/day removed from the 500 tons/day inlet post-source
separated MSW stream. The waste stream (454 tons/day) then enters the shear shredders,
where it is shredded to less than 1-inch size.

The waste stream is moved by conveyor belts to the dryers and the remaining 200 tons of wet
shredded waste (of the original 700 tons/day delivered) is moved back to the storage area on
the tipping floor. At the end of the 5-day week, there would be 1,000 tons of MSW on the
tipping floor, which would be processed (500 tons/day) over the next 2 weekend days.

The three 5.6 tons/hour rotating dryers use waste heat from the combustion of syngas used
for producing indirect heat for the converters to dry the shredded waste to a moisture content
of 5%. The outlet gases from the dryers are passed through a cyclone separator, where the
moisture is condensed and then purified through a carbon filter (using activated carbon
separated from the char/ash mixture produced in the converters).

PAR assumes that 108 tons/day (26,000 gallons/day) of water and 6.6 tons/day of solids will
be removed during the drying process. The water would be stored in a 180,000 gallon storage
tank and used for makeup water for the process. The solids are recovered in a thickener and
sent to the boilers, where they become part of the flue gas stream, which is then cleaned of
particulate matter in the emission control system. The dried waste exiting the dryers is moved
to the hydraulic rams, which feed the three converters.

Recovered Recyclables. PAR states that they make a special effort to ensure that no ash is
generated, so that the char/ash mixture consists mainly of sterilized broken glass, and
geologic materials such as gravel, sand, and dirt. In order to accomplish this, PAR proposes
to remove and recover all of the ferrous and non-ferrous metals in the inlet post-source
separated MSW stream. However, it is unlikely that this will be achievable. Based on the
APPENDIX E SUPPLIER EVALUATIONS
Pan American Resources, Inc.


S:\04 PROJ\28906534 LABOS\Draft Report\Draft Report 7-14-05\Appendices\Appendix E.doc E-108
characteristics and contamination of the waste, it is more likely that only 50% of the metals
would be able to be recovered in pre-processing. The un-recovered metals would in fact end
up in the char/ash mixture and be sent to the landfill.
Residue Removed from Delivered MSW. PAR proposes to remove 23.7 tons/day (8,651
tons/year) of inorganics from the inlet post-source separated MSW stream, mostly by hand-
picking. These rejects would be disposed of in a landfill.
E.1.8.2.3 Conversion Unit System. The Lantz Converter consists of a retort and oven. The
retort is the key element in the process; it is a rotating stainless steel cylinder approximately 5
feet in diameter and 40 feet long, within each converter. The retort is enclosed in an insulated
oven, which has an outside width of 7.5 feet. The retort is heated by burners contained in the
oven, which continuously provide indirect heat by the combustion of up to 15% of the
syngas.
The burner system consists of a pre-heater system and a main operating system. The pre-
heater system is fueled by natural gas or propane and is used to start the system and pre-heat
the converter to an initial temperature of 1,200F. The main burner system is located inside
the oven housing and combusts the syngas. The pre-heater burner system automatically shuts
down when the converter is producing enough syngas to sustain the process. The interior
temperature of the converter is continuously monitored to insure that the process temperature
is maintained and to regulate the burner system.

The shredded and dried feedstock is fed continuously into the retort using a ram injection
system, without breaking the air seals. The action of the ram forcing feedstock into the
revolving converter compresses the material into a semi-solid plug, which creates an air-tight
seal. Interlocking seals are located on both ends of the converter to insure that no air enters
the converter (for pyrolysis to occur). Each converter is sized for processing 113 tons/day of
feedstock.

Pyrolysis occurs at 1,200F, and the organic material in the feedstock is thermally
decomposed, producing syngas and leaving behind a solid carbon char/ash mixture.
Residence time in the converter is about 15 minutes.

The syngas has the following analysis:

42% CH
4

35% CO
14.8% CO
2

APPENDIX E SUPPLIER EVALUATIONS
Pan American Resources, Inc.


S:\04 PROJ\28906534 LABOS\Draft Report\Draft Report 7-14-05\Appendices\Appendix E.doc E-109
7% H
2
O
0.12% H
2


PAR states that the heating value of the syngas is 10,611 Btu/lb. PAR did not specify
whether this was on an LHV or HHV basis, or on an as received or dry basis, although this
question was asked in the Request for Additional Information. Heating value on a Btu/scf
basis was requested, but not provided.

An 18-inch diameter flare stack is an integral part of each converter. The flare stack is a
safety feature through which syngas will be flared to the atmosphere if needed. This could
occur during start-ups and shut-downs.

Char is also removed without breaking the air seals. Auto-ignition of the activated char
would normally occur if the char were removed at this temperature and exposed to air. This
combustion is precluded by using a Holo-Flite Tube, which consists of a screw feed system
inside a cool water heat exchanger.

Volatile carbon within the retort forms an onionskin like coating around the small metal
particles in the ash, and encapsulates them into the char. As a consequence, heavy metals are
not easily leached from the char. From the DOE demonstration testing at the Marcal Paper
facility, PAR learned that about 90% of the chlorine (produced mostly from plastics) and
30% of sulfur compounds are chemically bound to the char and are not emitted in the flue
gases.

The syngas exits each of the three converters and is combusted in each of the three boilers at
3,000F. The hot flue gases are used to produce steam for power generation. The cooled flue
gases exiting the boilers are cleaned in a Hydro-Sonic scrubber.

The Hydro-Sonic wet scrubber is a free jet scrubber using a specifically designed water spray
pattern around the periphery of a gas flow nozzle housed within a cylindrical shell. A
diagram of the scrubber is shown in Figure E-47. The scrubber provides a turbulent mixing
zone downstream of the initial contact zone in which particulate matter and acid gases (SO
2

and HCl) are captured by coalescing liquid droplets, which are removed in the
disengagement section. The acid gases react with the sodium hydroxide reagent added in the
scrubber. The major equipment consists of an upstream quench chamber, the scrubber itself,
a downstream liquid droplet disengagement section, an induced draft fan, a 33 foot stack,
ducting, a water recirculation and treatment system, and a sludge disposal system.

Non-condensable vapors generated in the drying process will also be routed through the
Hydro-Sonic scrubbers after other vapors have been condensed into water, as described
APPENDIX E SUPPLIER EVALUATIONS
Pan American Resources, Inc.


S:\04 PROJ\28906534 LABOS\Draft Report\Draft Report 7-14-05\Appendices\Appendix E.doc E-110
FIGURE E-47
HYDRO-SONIC SCRUBBER



above in the pre-processing subsystem section. The Hydro-Sonic scrubber has demonstrated
the following removal levels for specific emissions:

NO
2
: 85%
SO
2
: 95%
HCl: 99.9%
PM: 98.9%

E.1.8.2.4 Power Generation System. The hot flue gases from each converter are routed to
three separate boilers. Steam is produced at 650F and 400 psi. PAR proposes to combine the
steam produced in the three separate boilers and pipe it to a steam turbine-generator, to
produce 8.9 gross MW and 6.5 net MW, with an internal load of 2.4 MW. No details on the
power generation system were provided. PAR has no prior experience with the utilization of
steam produced in its facilities for power generation; this may be the reason for the lack of
detail on this sub-system.
The overall facility would produce:

463 net kWh/ton of feedstock
28 tons/year raw MSW per net kW capacity
APPENDIX E SUPPLIER EVALUATIONS
Pan American Resources, Inc.


S:\04 PROJ\28906534 LABOS\Draft Report\Draft Report 7-14-05\Appendices\Appendix E.doc E-111
E.1.8.3 Byproducts Analysis
E.1.8.3.1 Byproducts Generated.
Electricity: 6546 kW, or 57.3 million kWh/year
Metals: 8,139 tons/year
Char/ash mixture: 38,143 tons/year

Since the recovery of metals is likely to be only half of the proposed amount, the amount of
the char ash mixture would be increased by 4,070 tons/year.
E.1.8.3.2 Market Assessment. There is an existing market in California for MSW-
produced renewable electricity and for the metals removed in the pre-processing system. The
submittal states that in the future, they would plan to centrifuge the char/ash mixture to
remove the ash portion, and crush and pelletize the char for use in commercial filtering
systems such as paint spray operations. The 5% water in the stream is expected to be
sufficient to activate the carbon for these filtering purposes. The ash materials removed may
be usable as road base or construction materials.

E.1.8.4 Environmental Issues

E.1.8.4.1 Air Emissions. The tipping floor building will be maintained under a negative
pressure, with the air processed through a deodorizing system. The Hydro-Sonic scrubber
will be used to treat the flue gases from the boilers and the non-condensable vapors removed
from the dryer exhaust. From there, the cleaned gases are routed to a 33 stack. Since
pyrolysis is a closed system, the only emission point would be the stack, after removal of
contaminants in the emission control system. However, PAR notes that each of the
converters will also have a flare stack as a safety feature. The raw syngas would be flared
(combusted) during infrequent instances, such as when the syngas was not of sufficient
heating value to be combusted in the boiler, or when the boiler and/or emission control
system tripped off or were not available.

E.1.8.4.2 Wastewater Discharges. In the spreadsheet, PAR identified a wet discharge from
the scrubber of about 30 lbs/day. This stream is not identified on the process flow diagram.
PAR has not identified where this discharge would go or if it would require additional
treatment.

E.1.8.4.3 Solid Wastes/Residuals. The facility would produce 8,651 tons/year of hand-
picked inorganics from the inlet black bin MSW stream, as well as 38,143 tons/year of
APPENDIX E SUPPLIER EVALUATIONS
Pan American Resources, Inc.


S:\04 PROJ\28906534 LABOS\Draft Report\Draft Report 7-14-05\Appendices\Appendix E.doc E-112
char/ash mixture. All of this would require disposal in a landfill (see note above on potential
separation of char from ash).

E.1.8.4.4 Other Environmental Issues. The mass of the post-source separated MSW
required to be landfilled is reduced by about 74%.

E.1.8.5 Cost and Revenues

M3 Engineering & Technology provided a very detailed equipment list and cost analysis of
the proposed facility. An overall economic summary is provided in Table E-29.

TABLE E-29
COST ANALYSIS OF PROPOSED FACILITY
Provided by PAR Evaluated Cost Reason for Adjustment
Capital Cost $29,808,500 $29,808,500
Capital Cost, $/TPY $163 $163
Annual O&M $2,380,681 $2,380,681
Landfilling of
Unmarketable Materials
$146,000 $1,525,720 Assume disposal in landfill of 38,143
tons/year of char/ash @$40/ton
Annual Capital Recovery
+ Interest Costs
$2,579,148 $2,579,148
Total Annual Costs $5,105,829 $6,485,549
Revenues from Sale of
Electricity
$3,393,444 $3,440,578 6,546 kW for 8760 hours/year at
$0.06/kWh
Revenues from Sale of
Recyclables
$687,600 $203,475 Recovery of only half of metals, @
$50/ton
Total Annual Revenues $4,081,044 $3,644,053
Annual Revenues-Costs ($1,024,785) ($2,841,496)
Tipping Fee $5.62/ton* $15.57ton*
Worst Case Break Even
Tipping Fee
$16.46/ton* Assume half of metals not recovered
end up in char/ash mixture and are
disposed of in landfill @ $40/ton =
$162,780 for landfilling.
* See discussion on cost concerns in Section E.1.8.6, which would replace this value with a $40/ton processing fee or royalty payment.
E.1.8.6 Assessment Summary

There are significant concerns with the technical and economic portions of PARs submittal.
The submittal incorporated data from different sources and/or proposals, all put together in
one binder. Electronic copies were not in the requested format, and could not be cleanly
converted (especially diagrams and tables). PAR did not provide drawings and other
documents in the requested formats.

APPENDIX E SUPPLIER EVALUATIONS
Pan American Resources, Inc.


S:\04 PROJ\28906534 LABOS\Draft Report\Draft Report 7-14-05\Appendices\Appendix E.doc E-113
While PAR did provide spreadsheet information on the proposed facility, there were no
spreadsheet data for a reference facility, as requested in the RFQ. The submittal provided
detailed information on the founders of the corporation, the initial development of the Lantz
converter, and the facilities that were in operation years ago. There was also significant
information on the proposed partners, including M3 Engineering and Schuff Steel. However,
the fact remains that PAR has only one full-time employee, and no operating capital.

The process flow diagram was essentially the same one provided in the 1985 DOE report. No
project-specific process flow diagram was provided. All of the mass balance data was
provided from M3s METSIM code. When questioned about specific information from the
mass balance in the Request for Additional Information, PARs response was invariably that
they had to use what was in M3s METSIM results, and that it would take a major effort to
provide some of the basic data requested in the spreadsheets.

They were not able to provide information such as the volume (in scfh) of syngas produced
or its heating value in Btu/scf. This is a significant concern as to how the process equipment
would be properly sized.

There were inconsistencies between different sections of the proposal relating to inputs and
outputs and power generation system data, and differences in this same data between the
proposal text and the spreadsheet values. The Request for Additional Information was
required to validate (or correct) basic input and output data. PARs assumption of 100%
recovery of all metals is questionable; they provided no information on experience in pre-
processing MSW in order to back this claim.

There was very little detail provided on the power generation system; PAR provided no
information to show that they (or any of their partners) have any experience with power
generation or with integrating the pre-processing, conversion, and power generation sub-
systems in similar facilities using the PAR technology.

In the spreadsheets, PAR stated that it assumed operation 24 hours/day, for 365 days/year,
and that it could operate without a reduction in throughput or power production with one
converter down. PAR provided no availability information on any of its prior facilities to
back this claim. When questioned on this assumption, PAR noted that with one converter out,
the throughput would actually be reduced by 13% and that the net power production may be
made up by a reduction in the internal use of power. How such a reduction in internal power
usage could be achieved, in order to maintain full power output, was not described.

PAR stated that the facility should never be totally shut down. It is unlikely that such
operation could ever be achieved, especially since the one steam turbine generator would
APPENDIX E SUPPLIER EVALUATIONS
Pan American Resources, Inc.


S:\04 PROJ\28906534 LABOS\Draft Report\Draft Report 7-14-05\Appendices\Appendix E.doc E-114
occasionally require routine maintenance. If the steam turbine generator were shut down for
maintenance, the overall facility would have to be shutdown. PAR states that the proposed
facility would incorporate off the shelf equipment, but they have provided no description
of their experience in integrating a complete facility using such equipment, especially at the
proposed scale. The cost implications of this are discussed below.

Additional issues and concerns are as follows:

Cost. The cost information was provided from a prior proposal for a 500 tons/day facility, in
2001 dollars. This is a concern, particularly due to the significant increases in commodity
prices since 2001 for steel, alloys, and concrete.

As discussed above, PAR claims to be able to operate the facility 365 days/year. While this is
unlikely for the reasons previously noted, the cost analysis was prepared on that basis. All of
the inputs and outputs are all provided on the same (365 days/year) basis; a reduction in
throughput or lower availability would result in a reduction in output; this would have little
or no cost impact on a per-ton basis.

When questioned about its actual experience with pre-processing and power generation
equipment and systems, PAR only noted that this is typically off the shelf equipment, and
that they would evaluate all of the off the shelf equipment during the detailed design
period of an approved project and select the most suitable based on performance and cost.

However, the DOE report notes that As the R&D advanced, it was soon apparent that
because of the varying characteristics and properties of the MSW as well as the resultant
produced gas and char, unique solutions were required. Therefore, costly modification or
redesign of much of the off the shelf equipment supplied to the project had to be made to
meet project requirements.

Because of this issue during the DOE project, and other technical issues noted above, there is
a significant concern regarding PARs ability to properly size and cost the off the shelf
equipment and design an integrated facility.

A more significant concern is that PAR assumes that the City would pay PAR a tipping fee
of $40/ton for each ton of post-source separated MSW processed, if PAR owns/operates the
facility, or a per-ton royalty payment if the City owns/operates it. This would essentially
replace the evaluated and worst case break even tipping fee values noted in the cost analysis
with a value of $40/ton.

Performance. With a production of 463 net kWh/ton feedstock, this technology has a low
efficiency rating compared to other thermal technologies.
APPENDIX E SUPPLIER EVALUATIONS
Waste Recovery Seattle, Inc.


S:\04 PROJ\28906534 LABOS\Draft Report\Draft Report 7-14-05\Appendices\Appendix E.doc E-115
E.2 ADVANCED THERMAL RECYCLING

E.2.1 Waste Recovery Seattle, Inc.

E.2.1.1 Technology Overview

E.2.1.1.1 Technology Supplier Team. Waste Recovery Seattle, Inc. (WRSI) is the U.S.
representative for the thermal recycling technology utilized by MVR Mllverwertung
Rugenberger Damm GmbH & Company KG (MVR), a company owned by Vattenfall,
GmbH, the Swedish energy corporation, in a joint venture with the city/state of Hamburg and
EWE, a utility company in lower Saxony in Germany. The technology includes the MSW
handling, feeding grate boiler, emission controls, bottom ash conditioning, and production of
recyclable byproducts from the emission control and water treatment systems.

Firm: Waste Recovery Seattle, Inc.
Technology: Thermal Recycling
Throughput: 380,000 tons/year
Principal Contact: Philipp Schmidt-Pathmann
Address: 12623 SE 83
rd
Court
Newcastle, WA 98056

WRSI was formed in 1999 by Mr. Schmidt-Pathmann. He has been involved in the thermal
recycling of MSW for over seven years. His father, Dr. Ing-W. Schmidt-Pathmann,
developed a company for the marketing and use of the bottom ash produced by the MVR
plant, first as a road-base material for the new container ship unloading and container
handling facility at the port in Hamburg, Germany. Mr. Schmidt-Pathmanns partner is
Douglas Gilmore, who has directed major, international marketing programs for large
corporations.

Vattenfall generates electricity and heat, delivering energy to approximately 6 million
consumers in Northern Europe. Vattenfall is a wholly owned by the Swedish state and is the
fifth largest energy company in Europe. Their main markets are industrial customers and
energy companies in Finland, Germany, and Poland. They have over 35,000 employees, with
annual sales of over $15 billion.

The WRSI proposal provided information for a base facility and two alternatives, as follows:

A single 380,000 tons/year facility
APPENDIX E SUPPLIER EVALUATIONS
Waste Recovery Seattle, Inc.


S:\04 PROJ\28906534 LABOS\Draft Report\Draft Report 7-14-05\Appendices\Appendix E.doc E-116
A single 1,000,000 tons/year facility
A 400,000 tons/year and a 600,000 tons/year facility at two separate sites

The single 1,000,000 tons/year facility was proposed in case the City of Los Angeles is
interested in a large throughput facility. Since the single large facility requires an extensive
land area, WRSI proposed the smaller, split facilities, which may be easier to site and permit
than the larger facility. Only the base 380,000 tons/year facility is discussed in this report.

E.2.1.1.2 Technology Overview. The proposed facility would have the same basic
throughput and design parameters as the MVR facility, which processes 380,000 tons/year of
raw MSW. An overall diagram of the facility is shown in Figure E-48.

FIGURE E-48
MVR THERMAL RECYCLING PROCESS


WASTE WASTE BOILER EMISSION CONTROL LAB STACK
DELIVERY BUNKER SYSTEM

The MVR facility was visited in October, 2004. Portions of the trip report, including photos,
are used in this report.

The MSW is delivered to the tipping hall (pictured in Figure E-49) by truck. No pre-
processing of the MSW is required for this thermal recycling technology.

APPENDIX E SUPPLIER EVALUATIONS
Waste Recovery Seattle, Inc.


S:\04 PROJ\28906534 LABOS\Draft Report\Draft Report 7-14-05\Appendices\Appendix E.doc E-117
FIGURE E-49
TIPPING HALL



The MSW is dumped into the waste bunkers in the tipping hall seen in Figure E-50, and then
is picked up by a grapple hook and placed in a shredder, as illustrated in Figure E-51.

Shredded waste is stored in an adjacent bunker as seen in Figure E-52 and fed into the
furnace. The plant has two production lines, each with a forward feeding grate boiler sized at
24 tons/hour.

Figure E-53 shows the boilers and steam turbine generator are enclosed in a building. The
furnaces operate at about 1,560F, with a residence time of about 2 seconds. Acoustic
monitoring is used to measure the speed of sound in the flue gases, which is directly
converted to flue gas temperature.

Steam is used for district heating and for power generation in a 30 MW steam turbine-
generator, pictured in Figure E-54.

Bottom ash is created as a byproduct of the thermal processing, at about 80,000 tons/year or
roughly 25% of the inlet MSW stream. It is removed through a water bath seal and then sent
through a crusher. The crushed bottom ash is transferred onto a conveyor (as shown in Figure
E-55), screened and washed with water to lower the chloride content (wastewater is treated
prior to disposal). Ferrous and non-ferrous metals are removed from the bottom ash stream
using magnets and eddy current separators.
APPENDIX E SUPPLIER EVALUATIONS
Waste Recovery Seattle, Inc.


S:\04 PROJ\28906534 LABOS\Draft Report\Draft Report 7-14-05\Appendices\Appendix E.doc E-118
FIGURE E-50
MSW DELIVERY POINT



FIGURE E-51
GRAPPLING HOOK PUTS MSW INTO SHREDDER


APPENDIX E SUPPLIER EVALUATIONS
Waste Recovery Seattle, Inc.


S:\04 PROJ\28906534 LABOS\Draft Report\Draft Report 7-14-05\Appendices\Appendix E.doc E-119
FIGURE E-52
SHREDDED MSW BUNKER



FIGURE E-53
BOILER AND STEAM TURBINE GENERATOR HOUSING



APPENDIX E SUPPLIER EVALUATIONS
Waste Recovery Seattle, Inc.


S:\04 PROJ\28906534 LABOS\Draft Report\Draft Report 7-14-05\Appendices\Appendix E.doc E-120
FIGURE E-54
STEAM TURBINE-GENERATOR



FIGURE E-55
BOTTOM ASH CONVEYOR SYSTEM


APPENDIX E SUPPLIER EVALUATIONS
Waste Recovery Seattle, Inc.


S:\04 PROJ\28906534 LABOS\Draft Report\Draft Report 7-14-05\Appendices\Appendix E.doc E-121
The bottom ash is sprayed with water and then stored in an enclosed facility (see Figure
E-56) for about 3 months. During that period of time, the bottom ash cures, forming more
acceptable metallic oxides, as it stabilizes and becomes harder.

FIGURE E-56
BOTTOM ASH STORAGE FACILITY



After the 90-day period, MVR sells 90,000 TPY for road base/road construction. About
330,000 tons of bottom ash (4 years of production) were used as a base layer for the new
Altenwerder Container Terminal at the port of Hamburg, near the MVR plant.

For NO
x
control, selective non-catalytic reduction (SNCR) system, using urea injection, is
used. The flue gases then enter a 4-stage flue gas cleaning system, including:

Initial bag house with activated carbon injection for removal of mercury and other heavy
metals
Acid scrubber to remove hydrochloric acid
Lime scrubber to remove SO
2

Secondary bag house using fresh activated carbon to remove heavy metals and dioxins/
furans

APPENDIX E SUPPLIER EVALUATIONS
Waste Recovery Seattle, Inc.


S:\04 PROJ\28906534 LABOS\Draft Report\Draft Report 7-14-05\Appendices\Appendix E.doc E-122
Mercury removal is greater than 90% in the first fabric filter and greater than 90% on the
second fabric filter, enabling mercury emissions to be below the detection limit.

Cleaned flue gases exit the stack with water vapor visible on cold days, seen in Figure E-57.

FIGURE E-57
EMISSION STACKS



All operations are controlled from a central control room depicted in Figure E-58.

The facility produces steam for district heating and electricity (30 MW) for sale. They also
produce:

Bottom ash: About 80,000 tons/year of bottom ash are sold for road base/road
construction. The MVR technology is unique in that the bottom ash is kept separate from
contaminated fly ash.
Hydrochloric acid from acid scrubber: 3,800 tons/year of 30% HCl produced, with 1,100
tons/year used in the plant for water treatment, and the balance sold primarily to other
power plants for water treatment.
Gypsum from the lime scrubber (marketable for cement and wallboard about 1,000
tons/year sold locally for about $10/ton).
APPENDIX E SUPPLIER EVALUATIONS
Waste Recovery Seattle, Inc.


S:\04 PROJ\28906534 LABOS\Draft Report\Draft Report 7-14-05\Appendices\Appendix E.doc E-123
FIGURE E-58
CONTROL ROOM



Fly ash is about 3% of the inlet MSW stream. Presently, the fly ash, along with spent
activated carbon, is transported about 120 miles to a deep salt mine for disposal. MVR is
working on marketing the fly ash (heavy metals and dioxins/furans concentrate in fly
ash). If dioxins and furans are reduced to <100 ng/kg, the fly ash is acceptable for
placement even in playgrounds.
Scrap iron - over 8,000 tons/year removed from the bottom ash by magnets.
Non-ferrous metals about 700 tons/year removed from the bottom ash using eddy
current separators.

E.2.1.1.3 Reference Plants. The MVR facility has a throughput of 380,000 tons/year of
MSW. It began operation in 1999. It is the second facility to use the specific thermal
recycling technology proposed for the City of Los Angeles. The first facility was the
Mllverwertung Borsigstrasse Damm (MVB), also located in Hamburg. The MVB plant
began operation in 1994, and produces only steam for district heating (no power generation).
The MVR design was based on the technology designed and proven in operation at MVB.

Table E-30 lists the two reference facilities provided by WRSI, and Figure E-59 is an aerial
photo of the Hamburg facility.

APPENDIX E SUPPLIER EVALUATIONS
Waste Recovery Seattle, Inc.


S:\04 PROJ\28906534 LABOS\Draft Report\Draft Report 7-14-05\Appendices\Appendix E.doc E-124
TABLE E-30
REFERENCE FACILITIES

Facility City Country
Throughput,
Tons/Year Feedstock
MVR Hamburg Germany 380,000 MSW
MVB Hamburg Germany 320,000 MSW

FIGURE E-59
MVR PLANT



E.2.1.1.4 Commercial Status. The MVR technology is proven in two full-scale,
commercial facilities at a throughput of 320,000 to 380,000 tons/year. The proposed facility
would have a throughput of 380,000 tons/year, with each of the two processing lines sized at
the same basic design points as the MVR facility. There would be no scale-up of the
processing lines. There would likely be some differences in MSW characteristics that would
result in minor changes in handling systems and in the emission control system requirements.

APPENDIX E SUPPLIER EVALUATIONS
Waste Recovery Seattle, Inc.


S:\04 PROJ\28906534 LABOS\Draft Report\Draft Report 7-14-05\Appendices\Appendix E.doc E-125
E.2.1.2 Detailed Technology Description

E.2.1.2.1 Description of the Proposed Facility.

Facility Overview. The post-source separated MSW is delivered to the site 5-1/2 days/week.
The proposed facility would be very similar to the MVR facility. Descriptions of that facility
are included in Section 1of this report. Overall diversion from landfill is 98%. An overall
project schedule of 30 months is proposed.

Site Layout. The proposed facility will require an area of 16 acres, including bottom ash
storage.

Process Flow and Mass Balance. A summary mass balance is presented in Table E-31. An
overall process flow diagram is presented in Figure E-60.

TABLE E-31
SUMMARY MASS BALANCE

Stream Tons/Year Comments
Inlet MSW 380,000 No pre-processing required
MSW to furnace 380,000
Bottom ash 76,000
Metals 10,450 Removed from bottom ash
Hydrochloric acid 4,950 From emission control system
Gypsum 1,221 From emission control system
Filter and fly ash 7,590 From emission control system,
disposed of in landfill.
Mixed salts 413 From process water treatment system,
disposed of in landfill.

Operation and Maintenance. MSW is expected to be delivered to the facility 5-1/2 days per
week. The pre-processing, conversion unit, and power generation subsystems will be
operated on a continuous basis (24/7), producing syngas and electricity, for 330 days/year.

Staffing is proposed to be a total of 70 people, including:

Operations and maintenance: 45
Maintenance: 20
Monitoring/QA: 10
APPENDIX E SUPPLIER EVALUATIONS
Waste Recovery Seattle, Inc.


S:\04 PROJ\28906534 LABOS\Draft Report\Draft Report 7-14-05\Appendices\Appendix E.doc E-126
FIGURE E-60
PROCESS FLOW DIAGRAM



Administration: 15

Utility Requirements.

Electricity: the facility will generate 230 million kWh/year, with an internal use of 31.7
million kWh, or an internal load of 13.8%.

Water: 100,000 gallons/day

Wastewater: With the recycling and reuse of water, and the extensive process water treatment
system, the process is considered closed loop, with no discharge.

Fuel oil: 1,200 tons/year (about 355,000 gallons/year)

Chemicals: the following chemicals are used in the facility:

Ammonia (25% solution) 1,650 tons/year
Activated carbon (hearth furnace coke) 644 ton/year
Aluminum chloride 185 tons/year
APPENDIX E SUPPLIER EVALUATIONS
Waste Recovery Seattle, Inc.


S:\04 PROJ\28906534 LABOS\Draft Report\Draft Report 7-14-05\Appendices\Appendix E.doc E-127
Lime 512 tons/year

E.2.1.2.2 Pre-Processing System.

Equipment Description. No pre-processing is required, other than removal of very large
items as waste is unloaded. This includes propane tanks, refrigerators, and bulky wastes
such as concrete and steel bars too large to pass through the system. Due to the nature of the
post-source separated MSW, this would be a negligible amount. For odor control, the waste
delivery area is maintained under a negative pressure, with the air flow channeled to the
emission control system for removal of odor-causing compounds.

Recovered Recyclables. No recyclables are recovered from the inlet MSW stream.

Residue Removed from Delivered MSW. No residues are removed from the inlet MSW
stream.

E.2.1.2.3 Conversion Unit Subsystem. In this process, the conversion unit is a two-line,
thermal recycling technology, including:

Feed bunkers
Cranes and grappling hooks
Grates
Furnace/boiler
Emission control system
Bottom ash and fly ash handling systems
Bottom ash storage area

Each of the two processing lines is sized to process 24 tons/hour (580 tons/day) of post-
source separated MSW. The waste is fed into the furnace, with combustion occurring at
about 1,562F. The boiler extracts heat from the hot flue gases, producing steam at 788F
and 660 psi. The steam from both boilers is piped to a single steam turbine generator. A
diagram of the boiler is shown in Figure E-61.

The bottom ash collects in a water bath at the bottom of the furnace. The bottom ash is sieved
and crushed, after it leaves the ash removal system, with magnets and eddy current separators
used for removal of ferrous and non-ferrous metals. Riddlings and floating and suspended
solids are returned to the waste storage bunker and mixed with the incoming waste. Soluble
APPENDIX E SUPPLIER EVALUATIONS
Waste Recovery Seattle, Inc.


S:\04 PROJ\28906534 LABOS\Draft Report\Draft Report 7-14-05\Appendices\Appendix E.doc E-128
FIGURE E-61
BOILER



salts left in the wash water are pumped to the process water treatment system for cleaning.
The washed, processed bottom ash is then conveyed to the storage area. Figure E-62 shows
the bottom ash processing system in the furnace bottom. Following removal and washing, the
bottom ash is crushed, screened, and conveyed to the storage area. This process is shown in
Figure E-63.

The emission control system is shown as part of the overall process flow diagram, shown
again in Figure E-64.

Urea is injected into a specific temperature area of the boiler, to initiate Selective Non-
Catalytic Reduction (SNCR) to convert NO
x
emissions to nitrogen and water. The hot flue
gases exit the boiler and enter the emission control system. Ash and slightly spent absorbent
from the second fabric filter is injected into the flue gas stream. The materials react with acid
gases, such as SO
2
and HCl. The reaction products and particulate matter in the flue gas
stream are removed in the first fabric filter. This ash is combined with boiler ash and
disposed of in a landfill.

The flue gases then enter the HCl wet scrubber, which uses water to remove highly soluble
HCl from the flue gas stream. A 10-12% HCl solution is formed in the recirculating stream.
APPENDIX E SUPPLIER EVALUATIONS
Waste Recovery Seattle, Inc.


S:\04 PROJ\28906534 LABOS\Draft Report\Draft Report 7-14-05\Appendices\Appendix E.doc E-129

FIGURE E-62
BOTTOM ASH PROCESSING IN FURNACE



FIGURE E-63
BOTTOM ASH PROCESSING


APPENDIX E SUPPLIER EVALUATIONS
Waste Recovery Seattle, Inc.


S:\04 PROJ\28906534 LABOS\Draft Report\Draft Report 7-14-05\Appendices\Appendix E.doc E-130
FIGURE E-64
EMISSION CONTROL SYSTEM FLOW DIAGRAM



The HCl scrubber blowdown is further treated in the HCl rectification system, which cleans
and concentrates the HCl to a 30% solution for sale. The HCl rectification system is shown in
Figure E-65.

The flue gases then enter the SO
2
scrubber, which uses lime to react with and remove SO
2

from the flue gas. The reaction of lime and SO
2,
with the oxygen in the process, forms
calcium sulfate, or gypsum. The gypsum is washed and dewatered in a centrifuge to meet a
specified solids content (<10%) for sale to the cement and wallboard industries.

Activated carbon is injected into the flue gas stream to adsorb heavy metals, such as
vaporized mercury, in the flue gas stream. The cleaned flue gases then enter the second fabric
filter, where remaining reaction products from the emission control system, particulate
matter, and spent activated carbon are removed. The flue gases are exhausted through a 250
stack.

E.2.1.2.4 Power Generation System. High pressure steam from the two boilers is piped to
a single steam turbine generator, rated at 29 MW gross and 25 MW net. The overall facility
will produce:

APPENDIX E SUPPLIER EVALUATIONS
Waste Recovery Seattle, Inc.


S:\04 PROJ\28906534 LABOS\Draft Report\Draft Report 7-14-05\Appendices\Appendix E.doc E-131
FIGURE E-65
HCl RECTIFICATION SYSTEM


521 net kWh/ton of feedstock
15 tons/year raw MSW per net kW capacity

E.2.1.3 Byproduct Analysis

E.2.1.3.1 Byproducts Generated. The proposed facility would produce the following
useful byproducts:

Electricity - 198 million kWh/year
Bottom ash 76,000 tons/year
Metals 10,450 tons/year
HCl 4,950 tons/year
Gypsum 1,221 tons/year

E.2.1.3.2 Market Assessment. There is an existing market in California for MSW-
produced renewable electricity and for the metals. The bottom ash is likely to be marketable
APPENDIX E SUPPLIER EVALUATIONS
Waste Recovery Seattle, Inc.


S:\04 PROJ\28906534 LABOS\Draft Report\Draft Report 7-14-05\Appendices\Appendix E.doc E-132
for construction materials or road base. The HCl and gypsum can be sold for the same uses as
they are in the MVR facility.

E.2.1.4.1 Air Emissions. For odor control, the tipping building will be maintained under
negative pressure. The cleaned flue gases are exhausted through a 250 stack.

E.2.1.4.2 Wastewater Discharges. The process wastewater treatment system precludes the
discharge of wastewater stream.

E.2.1.4.3 Solid Wastes/Residuals. The proposed facility produces 7,590 tons/year of boiler
and fabric filter fly ash, and 413 tons/year of mixed salts, all of which will be disposed of in a
landfill.

E.2.1.4.4 Other Environmental Issues. The thermal recycling technology processes
380,000 tons/year of post-source separated MSW, producing electricity and usable
byproducts. It reduces the mass of post-source separated MSW required to be landfilled 98%.

E.2.1.5 Costs and Revenues

The cost analysis of the proposed facility is presented in Table E-32.

E.2.1.6 Assessment Summary

The WRSI proposal was very complete. It included extensive details on the MVR plant,
including process flow diagrams and mass balances of the individual subsystems, actual
environmental emissions data charts and graphs, and photos of the facilities and equipment.
WRSI also included technical papers on the MVR facility and the integrated processes for
producing the various marketable byproducts, especially the bottom ash. Detailed pro formas
were also included.
Much of the proposal was provided by WRSI. Some of the data on the spreadsheets were
provided by Dr. Zwahr, the Technical Director of the MVR plant. There were some
inconsistencies on the appendices that presented chemical use and byproduct production, but
these were quickly resolved.

The overall thermal recycling technology is well-proven at the scale proposed for the City of
Los Angeles. Since WRSI serves as the U.S. representative for this technology, details on
who would actually provide the design and engineering services would require additional
discussion, i.e., would Dr. Zwahr lead the design team of MVR and/or Vattenfall staff, or
would an outside engineering firm be brought in to implement the project?
APPENDIX E SUPPLIER EVALUATIONS
Waste Recovery Seattle, Inc.


S:\04 PROJ\28906534 LABOS\Draft Report\Draft Report 7-14-05\Appendices\Appendix E.doc E-133
TABLE E-32
COST ANALYSIS OF PROPOSED FACILITY

Provided by WRSI Evaluated Cost Reason for Adjustment
Capital Cost $180 million $180 million
Capital Cost, $/TPY $474 $474
Annual O&M $15 million $14.68 million Separate out landfilling of
unmarketable materials
Landfilling of
Unmarketable
Materials
Not separated out $320,120 7,590 tons/year of boiler and fly
ash and 413 tons/year of mixed
salts to landfill @$40/ton
Annual Capital
Recovery + Interest
Costs
$20.1 million $20.1 million
Total Annual Costs $35.1 million $35.1 million
Revenues from Sale of
Electricity
$12.1 million $11.88 million 25,000 kW for 330 days
Revenues from Sale of
Recyclables, Bottom
Ash, and Other
Byproducts
$1.9 million $2.1 million Adjust bottom ash to $5/ton,
instead of $2.80/ton. Adds
$167,200.
Total Annual
Revenues
$14 million $13.98 million
Annual Revenues-
Costs
($21.1 million) ($21.12 million)
Tipping Fee $55.53/ton $55.58/ton
Worst Case Break
Even Tipping Fee
$58.76/ton Assume 76,000 tons/year bottom
ash transported @$10/ton to landfill
as cover. Assume 1,221 tons/year
gypsum is not saleable, and is
disposed of in landfill at $40/ton.
Reduce bottom ash sales revenues
by $380,000/year and gypsum
revenues by $18,315 and add
$808,840/year to O&M costs.

Additional issues and concerns are as follows:

Technical. No additional issues or concerns.

Cost. No additional issues or concerns.

Performance. With a production of 521 net kWh/ton feedstock, this technology has a
moderate efficiency rating compared to other thermal technologies.

APPENDIX E SUPPLIER EVALUATIONS
Seghers Keppel Technology, Inc.


S:\04 PROJ\28906534 LABOS\Draft Report\Draft Report 7-14-05\Appendices\Appendix E.doc E-134
E.2.2 Seghers Keppel Technology, Inc.

E.2.2.1 Technology Overview

E.2.2.1.1 Description of the Technology Supplier Team. Seghers Keppel Technology,
Inc. (SKT) is part of the Keppel Corporation, a large global company involved in three main
businesses:

Offshore and Marine
Property
Infrastructure

SKT is part of Seghers Keppel Technology Group NV, which operates in the Environmental
Engineering division of the Infrastructure Group. SKT was incorporated in the U.S. in 1986,
and is supported by the Seghers Keppel organization in Europe, which has 225 employees;
40% are engineers. Seghers Keppel develops, owns, and implements proprietary technologies
in the fields of wastewater treatment and thermal treatment of biosolids and solid waste.

Firm: Seghers Keppel Technology, Inc.
Technology: DANO Drum and Thermal Recycling Technologies
Principal Contact: Dirk Eeraerts
Address: 1235-F Kennestone Circle
Marietta, GA 30066

SKT has marked its entire submission This document contains confidential information. It is
intended for internal use by URS Corporation and the City of Los Angeles; only for the on
the cover mentioned project. Section 5 of the SOQ (attachment) is not confidential.

Therefore, all of the information submitted, except the Section 5 information, is to be treated
as confidential. Section 5 includes:
DANO drum reference list and information
Energy-from-waste reference list and information
Air pollution control system reference list and information
Pelletizer reference list and information
Article on the Rapid City, SD facility
APPENDIX E SUPPLIER EVALUATIONS
Seghers Keppel Technology, Inc.


S:\04 PROJ\28906534 LABOS\Draft Report\Draft Report 7-14-05\Appendices\Appendix E.doc E-135
Paper on the reboro, Sweden facility
Letter from W.L. Gore & Associates on its composting system
Brochures on SKT technologies (figures and photos from these documents have been
incorporated into this report, as they are publicly available information)

E.2.2.1.2 Technology Overview. SKT proposes to utilize two of its technologies for this
application. They are:

The Seghers DANO drum preprocessing of the black bin MSW into a Refuse-Derived
Fuel (RDF), compost, and recyclables
The Seghers water-cooled grate for thermal recycling of the RDF into electricity

The DANO drum provides mechanical pre-processing of MSW. It is a horizontally-mounted,
rotating steel cylinder which automatically shreds, mixes, conditions, and sorts MSW into
components for recycling, composting, or thermal treatment. The rotation of the drum (3.6
rpm) leads to breakdown of the softer components of the MSW by constant collision and
attrition as they repeatedly contact the drum wall and the harder elements in the MSW. This
mechanical operation typically produces separated streams of recovered metals, organics, and
high Btu RDF for use in thermal recycling. The organic stream is often used for making
compost. A picture of a pair of DANO drums is shown in Figure E-66.

FIGURE E-66
DANO DRUMS


APPENDIX E SUPPLIER EVALUATIONS
Seghers Keppel Technology, Inc.


S:\04 PROJ\28906534 LABOS\Draft Report\Draft Report 7-14-05\Appendices\Appendix E.doc E-136
SKT also provides a system for thermal recycling of the RDF, utilizing its own water-cooled
grate technology integrated with a boiler, emission control system, power generation system,
and ash handling equipment.

E.2.2.1.3 Reference Plants. In the proposal, SKT provided an extensive list of facilities
that use its DANO drums and its thermal recycling technologies. The list shows DANO
drums in 17 installations around the world, with 23 thermal recycling facilities worldwide.
Table E-33 lists some of the most applicable facilities for each technology.

TABLE E-33
SEGHERS KEPPEL REFERENCE FACILITIES

Facility City Country
Throughput,
Tons/Year Feedstock
City of Rapid City, Solid
Waste Dept.
Rapid City, SD U.S. 80,000 DANO drums for MSW
Reduces volume for landfill;
fines used for compost;
oversize to landfill.
Greater Manchester
Waste Ltd.
Manchester U.K. 624,000 (4 plants) DANO drums for MSW
Fines used for compost;
rejects to thermal recycling;
metals recovered
Municipality of Rosignano
Marittimo
Livorno Italy 100,000 DANO drums for MSW
Fines used for composting
INDAVER Antwerp Belgium 425,000 MSW thermal recycling
ISVAG Antwerp Belgium 135,000 MSW thermal recycling
SAKAB Kumla Sweden 100,000 MSW thermal recycling

Photos of two recent thermal recycling plants are shown in Figure E-67.

E.2.2.1.4 Commercial Status of the Technology. Both the DANO drums and the thermal
recycling technologies have been installed at full scale. The DANO drums are designed for
operation at 23 tons/hour. Some of the DANO drums began operation in 1958. The drums in
Rapid City, SD are designed for 23 tons/hour, but are only operated a few hours per day
(operating philosophy) at a rate of 18.75 tons/hour. SKT thermal recycling plants have
operated at capacities up to 660 tons/day, with single lines operating at 660 tons/day. One of
the SKT thermal recycling plants has been in operation since 1982. The proposed equipment
has been operated at commercial scale.

There are facilities where DANO drums a reused to produce RDF for use in off-site thermal
recycling facilities. However, SKT has no facilities where both the DANO drum and thermal
recycling technologies are integrated on the same site.
APPENDIX E SUPPLIER EVALUATIONS
Seghers Keppel Technology, Inc.


S:\04 PROJ\28906534 LABOS\Draft Report\Draft Report 7-14-05\Appendices\Appendix E.doc E-137
FIGURE E-67
THERMAL RECYCLING FACILITIES


Indaver Isvag
Antwerp, Belgium Antwerp, Belgium

While the proposal addresses pre-processing and thermal conversion of the black bin MSW,
it does not include the equipment (or related costs) necessary for processing the organic fines
into compost. The impact of the additional equipment and the related costs is addressed in
Section 5.0, Costs and Revenues.
E.2.2.2 Detailed Technology Description

E.2.2.2.1 Description of the Proposed Facility.

Facility Overview. The black bin MSW will be delivered to the tipping hall and storage
bunkers. Cranes will be used to transfer the MSW into the DANO drum inlets. The drums
separate the stream into three fractions:

RDF for the thermal recycling subsystem
Organic fines (putrescibles) for composting
Metals for recycling

This separation process is shown in Figure E-68. Water is added to the DANO drum to assist
in the mechanical separation process.

Site Layout. SKT provided a layout for the DANO drum pre-processing facility and one for
the thermal recycling facility. These figures have been omitted because the company
considers this information to be proprietary and confidential.
APPENDIX E SUPPLIER EVALUATIONS
Seghers Keppel Technology, Inc.


S:\04 PROJ\28906534 LABOS\Draft Report\Draft Report 7-14-05\Appendices\Appendix E.doc E-138
FIGURE E-68
DANO DRUM FEED SEPARATION



Process Flow and Mass Balance. This information has been considered confidential by the
company and been omitted from the report.

Utility Requirements.

E.2.2.2.2 Pre-Processing Subsystem.

Equipment Description. The black bin MSW will be delivered to the tipping building, and
into storage bunkers. Water is added to the inlet to assist in the mechanical processing and
breakdown of the material.

The DANO drums are horizontally mounted, rotating steel cylinders which automatically
shred, mix, condition and sort the waste into three separate streams, as follows:

RDF for the thermal recycling system (largest materials)
Metals for recycling (medium fraction)
Organic materials for composting (fines)
The rotation of the drum (3.6 rpm) imparts a tumbling action, leading to breakdown of the
softer components by collision and attrition as they repeatedly contact the drum wall and
harder elements in the waste. The physical breakdown of the soft organic material (green
APPENDIX E SUPPLIER EVALUATIONS
Seghers Keppel Technology, Inc.


S:\04 PROJ\28906534 LABOS\Draft Report\Draft Report 7-14-05\Appendices\Appendix E.doc E-139
waste, food residues, paper and cardboard) in the DANO drum creates a material with a very
large surface area. This assists in biological degradation and makes it easy to screen and
separate the organic fines from the higher heating value (and harder) waste components. Part
of the paper and cardboard reports to the finer fraction, thereby increasing the biodegradable
content for later composting. Added moisture helps to soften and break down the paper and
cardboard. The residence time of the waste in the drum is between 6 and 12 hours.

The DANO drum is shown in Figure E-69. Internal components are shown in Figure E-70.
FIGURE E-69
DANO DRUM



E.2.2.2.3 Conversion Unit System. Figure E-71 is a photograph of the emission controls
system.

E.2.2.2.3 Power Generation System. This information has been omitted because the
company considers it to be proprietary and confidential.

E.2.2.3 Byproduct Analysis

E.2.2.3.1 Summary of Byproducts Generated. The proposed facility would produce the
following useful byproducts:

This information has been omitted for confidentiality reasons.
APPENDIX E SUPPLIER EVALUATIONS
Seghers Keppel Technology, Inc.


S:\04 PROJ\28906534 LABOS\Draft Report\Draft Report 7-14-05\Appendices\Appendix E.doc E-140
FIGURE E-70
DANO DRUM INTERNALS



FIGURE E-71
EMISSION CONTROL SYSTEM




APPENDIX E SUPPLIER EVALUATIONS
Seghers Keppel Technology, Inc.


S:\04 PROJ\28906534 LABOS\Draft Report\Draft Report 7-14-05\Appendices\Appendix E.doc E-141
E.2.2.3.2 Market Assessment. There is an existing market in California for MSW-
produced renewable electricity. There are existing markets for metals and compost, although
further assessment would be required to determine if all of the compost can be utilized.

E.2.2.4 Environmental Issues

E.2.2.4.1 Air Emissions. This information is considered confidential and has been omitted.

E.2.2.4.2 Wastewater Discharges. This information is considered confidential and has
been omitted.

E.2.2.4.3 Solid Wastes/Residuals. This information is considered confidential and has
been omitted.

E.2.2.4.3 Other Environmental Issues. This information is considered confidential and
has been omitted.

E.2.2.5 Costs and Revenues

The cost analysis of the proposed facility is presented in Table E-34.

E.2.2.4 Assessment Summary

The SKT proposal for the DANO drums and thermal conversion facilities was well prepared
and included significant detail on equipment, processes, and existing facilities. Copies of
technical papers describing several of their key installations were also included. Detailed
process flow diagrams and mass balances were provided for all portions of the overall
process. The original proposal was in metric tons, and was revised to the required U.S.
standard units. Minor corrections in the mass balance were required to address the water
added to the DANO drum for processing. The SKT DANO drum and the thermal recycling
technologies are proven at commercial scale, with some installations in operation for over 40
years. SKT has extensive global experience with both of its technologies.

As noted below, the greatest concern with the proposal is that SKTs proposal was
incomplete, in that it did not include a subsystem for processing the organic fines for
compost (almost half of the inlet stream). The proposal is considered to be incomplete on this
basis. The specific concerns and issues in the technical, cost, and performance areas are
noted below.

The following issues and concerns are noted:
APPENDIX E SUPPLIER EVALUATIONS
Seghers Keppel Technology, Inc.


S:\04 PROJ\28906534 LABOS\Draft Report\Draft Report 7-14-05\Appendices\Appendix E.doc E-142
TABLE E-34
COST ANALYSIS OF PROPOSED FACILITY


Provided by
Seghers Keppel Evaluated Cost Reason for Adjustment
Capital Cost confidential $179 million Note: no compost processing included in
submittal. Add $54 million for processing system
to handle ***** of organic fines.
Capital Cost, $/TPY confidential $486 Includes composting system capital costs.
Annual O&M confidential $15.01 million Note: includes composting system O&M of $3.6
million/year
Disposal of Bottom Ash, Fly
Ash, and Boiler Ash
confidential $1.14 million confidential
Annual Capital Recovery +
Interest Costs
confidential $15.72 million Note: includes additional $4.68 million/year for
capital recovery/interest on composting system.
Total Annual Costs confidential $31.87 million Lower disposal costs, plus higher O&M for
composting system added in.
Revenues from Sale of
Electricity
confidential $10.61 million Add $1.74 million revenues from sale of
generation from biogas produced in composting
system.
Revenues from Sale of
Recyclables
confidential $1.7 million Sale of ****tons/year metals @ $50/ton. Compost
sold at $10/ton, assuming 50% conversion of
fines to compost, or $904,000/year.
Total Annual Revenues confidential $12.3 million
Annual Revenues-Costs confidential ($19.57 million)
Tipping Fee confidential $53.17/ton
Worst Case Break Even
Tipping Fee
$64.19/ton Assume compost is not marketable and is
disposed of in landfill @$40/ton = $3.62 million
additional O&M costs. Assume only 2% of metals
in inlet are recovered, at $50/ton = (confidential -
7,360 tons/year) = $431,200 lower revenues, and
balance is sent to landfill @$40/ton = $344,960.
Total Revenues Costs = ($ million).

Technical. The proposed DANO drums will have a capacity of *** (omitted due to
confidentiality). Although the DANO drum is designed for this capacity, there are none that
are actually operated 24/7 at that rate. However, this is not considered to be a significant
technical issue.

However, SKT did not provide the actual equipment to process the fines into compost. While
SKT does work with composting companies, they did not partner with one to provide a
complete system to process the entire MSW stream. In addition, the facility could benefit
from the generation of additional electricity from biogas produced from the composting
process.

APPENDIX E SUPPLIER EVALUATIONS
Seghers Keppel Technology, Inc.


S:\04 PROJ\28906534 LABOS\Draft Report\Draft Report 7-14-05\Appendices\Appendix E.doc E-143
Cost. The SKT proposal does not include any capital, O&M, capital recovery, or interest
costs for a compost processing subsystem. This is expected to be a significant addition to
each of these cost areas, as well as increasing the overall tipping fee and worst case break
even tipping fee. Adjustments were made to the economics, and are presented in Section 5.0
above.

Performance. This technology has a moderate efficiency rating compared to other
evaluated thermal technologies, but somewhat higher than the average thermal recycling
facility in the U.S. This value would be adjusted by the increase in generation from using the
biogas from a composting system.

APPENDIX E SUPPLIER EVALUATIONS
Covanta Energy Corporation


S:\04 PROJ\28906534 LABOS\Draft Report\Draft Report 7-14-05\Appendices\Appendix E.doc E-144
E.2.3 Covanta Energy Corporation

E.2.3.1 Technology Overview

E.2.3.1.1 Technology Supplier Team. Covanta Energy Corporation (Covanta) has a
primary business in the development and operation of thermal recycling facilities. Covanta,
formerly Ogden Corporation, was formed in 1983. Today, it is a wholly-owned subsidiary of
Danielson Holding Corporation. Covanta maintains the core engineering, project
management, business development and O&M personnel and skills developed over 20 years
in this business. Presently, Covanta operates 25 facilities in 14 states, treating 10 million
tons/year of MSW, typically under long-term O&M service agreements with local
governments.

Covanta was initially concerned with the RFQs requirement for processing only 100,000
tons/year of black bin MSW. The average Covanta facility processes 400,000 tons/year of
MSW, and a 100,000 tons/year plant was considered to be un-economical. Following the
guidance to the advanced thermal recycling suppliers to provide information for larger
facilities, Covanta submitted their information based on a facility with a throughput of up to
3,000 tons/day, or 1 million tons/year, of black bin MSW. Some cost information was
provided for a 329,000 tons/year facility; this was used in the economic analysis.
Firm: Covanta Energy Corporation (Covanta)
Technology: Martin GmbH combustion technology
Throughput: Up to 1.3 million tons/year
Principal Contact: John Phillips
Address: 40 Lane Road
Fairfield, NJ 07004

E.2.3.1.2 Technology Overview. The Covanta technology processes as-delivered MSW in
their facility. The MSW is combusted in a furnace, and the heat generated at over 1,800F is
used to generate steam in a boiler. The steam is piped to a steam turbine generator for
generation of electricity. The hot flue gases flow through an extensive emission control
system, for removal/reduction of emissions of NO
x
, mercury, acid gases, and particulate
matter.

Magnetic and eddy current separators are utilized to recover metals from the bottom ash. The
bottom ash is then mixed with the fly ash, and the mixture is disposed of in a landfill. The
total mass of inlet MSW is reduced by about 80% (including recovery of metals). A typical
Covanta facility is shown in Figure E-72.
APPENDIX E SUPPLIER EVALUATIONS
Covanta Energy Corporation


S:\04 PROJ\28906534 LABOS\Draft Report\Draft Report 7-14-05\Appendices\Appendix E.doc E-145
FIGURE E-72
TYPICAL COVANTA FACILITY


E.2.3.1.3 Reference Plants. Covanta provided information on the following reference
facilities as listed in Table E-35.

TABLE E-35
REFERENCE FACILITIES

Facility City Country
Throughput,
Tons/Year Feedstock
Bristol Resource Recovery Facility Bristol, CT U.S. 215,000 MSW
Fairfax County I-95 Energy/Resource
Recovery Facility
Lorton, VA U.S. 1 million MSW
Hillsborough County Solid Waste
Energy Recovery Facility
Tampa, FL U.S. 400,000 MSW
Lee County Resource Recovery
Facility
Ft. Myers, FL U.S. 400,000 MSW
Stanislaus County Resource
Recovery Facility
Crows Landing, CA (25
miles from Modesto)
U.S. 260,000 MSW

Photos of three of their facilities are shown in Figure E-73.

APPENDIX E SUPPLIER EVALUATIONS
Covanta Energy Corporation


S:\04 PROJ\28906534 LABOS\Draft Report\Draft Report 7-14-05\Appendices\Appendix E.doc E-146
FIGURE E-73
REFERENCE FACILITIES


FAIRFAX COUNTY, VA LEE COUNTY, FL MONTGOMERY COUNTY, MD

E.2.3.1.4 Commercial Status. Covanta has 25 full-scale facilities in operation, some for
more than 20 years. Throughputs of existing facilities range from 325-4,000 tons/day
(106,000-1.3 million tons/year) of MSW. Since the technology is modular and expandable,
Covanta could design a facility to handle a throughput in the range envisioned by the City.

E.2.3.2 Detailed Technology Description

E.2.3.2.1 Description of the Proposed Facility.

Facility Overview. Covanta did not propose a specific facility. However, they did provide
detailed information on its process. Since the equipment is modular, the desired throughput
can be achieved by incorporating a sufficient number of modules.

A project implementation schedule of 30-34 months is typical.

Site Layout. No specific site layout was provided. Depending on throughput, an area of 6-20
acres would be required.

Process Flow and Mass Balance. An overall process diagram is shown in Figure E-74.

Operation and Maintenance. MSW is expected to be delivered to the facility 5 days per
week. Depending on the size of the facility, 35-60 staff, on four shifts, is required.

Utility Requirements.
Electricity About 5% of the power output is required for internal requirements
Water no specific information
APPENDIX E SUPPLIER EVALUATIONS
Covanta Energy Corporation


S:\04 PROJ\28906534 LABOS\Draft Report\Draft Report 7-14-05\Appendices\Appendix E.doc E-147
FIGURE E-74
GENERAL PROCESS FLOW DIAGRAM


1. Tipping Floor
2. Refuse Holding Pit
3. Grapple Feed Chute
4. Feed Chute
5. Martin Stoker Grate
6. Combustion Air Fan
7. Martin Ash Discharger
8. Combustion Chamber
9. Radiant Zone (furnace)
10. Convection Zone
11. Superheater
12. Economizer
12. Dry Scrubber
13. Baghouse
14. Fly Ash Handling System
15. Induced Draft Air Fan
16. Stack


Wastewater Covanta notes that its facilities are zero discharge
Natural gas required during start-up and shutdown

E.2.3.2.2 Pre-Processing System.

Equipment Description. The facility processes MSW as delivered, excluding hazardous
waste and any recycled material previously separated from the MSW. The tipping area has
multiple tipping bays, where the MSW is off-loaded from trucks. The storage area is sized to
provide sufficient MSW for operation over the weekend. Typically, three days of storage are
provided. The facility is designed to draw combustion air from above the storage pit. This
maintains a negative pressure in the tipping building in order to control the release of odor-
causing compounds and dust. The odor-causing compounds are then destroyed in the
combustion process.

MSW is transferred by one of two overhead cranes (one is used for peak delivery periods and
as a stand-by) to the feed hoppers and chutes of the furnace, as described below.
APPENDIX E SUPPLIER EVALUATIONS
Covanta Energy Corporation


S:\04 PROJ\28906534 LABOS\Draft Report\Draft Report 7-14-05\Appendices\Appendix E.doc E-148
Recovered Recyclables. No recyclables are removed or recovered from the inlet MSW.

Residue Removed from Delivered MSW. No residue is removed from the delivered MSW.

E.2.3.2.3 Conversion Unit System. The facility typically incorporates 2-4 identical,
parallel combustion/emission control trains to process the MSW. Individual trains are
designed to process from 150-1,000 tons/day of MSW, by widening the train to accept more
stoker grate runs. Covanta facilities larger than 1,200-1,300 tons/day use at least three trains.
Facilities larger than 3,000 tons/day (1 million tons/year) require at least four trains.

Systems are designed to process as-delivered MSW with differing moisture contents ranging
from 3,000 Btu/lb to over 6,000 Btu/lb. On average, the MSW they process has a heating
value of 3,000-6,000 Btu/lb.

An overhead crane mixes the waste in the pit and lifts it up into a feed chute leading to the
furnace. From the feed chute, waste is pushed by hydraulic ram feeders onto a stoker grate.
The grate is sloped downward and is composed of alternate rows of fixed and moving grate
bars. The grate is comprised of individual grate runs across its width, with each grate run
having a separate hydraulic feed ram, gate actuation system, residue discharge roller and
combustion air distribution system. The grate bars are made from wear-resistant and heat-
proof cast steel with a high chromium content.

The reverse-reciprocating action of the Martin grate pushes the MSW upward against the
natural downward movement of the MSW at a rate of 30 to 50 strokes/hour. This agitates the
fuel bed continuously in a manner that causes the MSW to burn from the bottom of the MSW
bed, to ensure complete burnout of combustible matter. A photo of the grate system is shown
in Figure E-75.

In longitudinal direction, the grate is subdivided into several zones, which are individually
supplied with primary combustion air. This system forms a high air resistance thus ensuring
uniform distribution of the combustion air over the surface of each grate zone. This results in
consistent low emissions of hydrocarbons, carbon monoxide and complex organic
compounds.

Secondary (overfire) combustion air (about 35% of the total combustion air) is injected at
high pressure at the front and rear wails of the combustion chamber, providing intense
mixing, turbulence and burn-out, with combustion gases at a temperature greater than
1,830F above the burning MSW. In order to ensure burnout of low-Btu or high moisture
MSW, steam-heat combustion air heaters are provided, preheating the combustion air up to
300F.
APPENDIX E SUPPLIER EVALUATIONS
Covanta Energy Corporation


S:\04 PROJ\28906534 LABOS\Draft Report\Draft Report 7-14-05\Appendices\Appendix E.doc E-149
FIGURE E-75
MARTIN GRATE SYSTEM



The action of the grate system is shown in Figure E-76.

FIGURE E-76
ACTION OF MARTIN GRATE SYSTEM



Each stoker is provided with two Martin ash dischargers. Bottom ash slowly moves to the
end of the grate where it falls into the water quench trough of the ash discharger. A hydraulic
ram pushes the ash up an inclined chute fitted with a vibrator. This action serves to drain the
water from the bottom ash. The bottom ash falls onto the main conveyor, where it flows
through a grizzly to remove large materials, which are then conveyed separately to the
APPENDIX E SUPPLIER EVALUATIONS
Covanta Energy Corporation


S:\04 PROJ\28906534 LABOS\Draft Report\Draft Report 7-14-05\Appendices\Appendix E.doc E-150
bottom ash storage area. Magnetic and eddy current separators are used for recovery of
metals. Fly ash from the boiler and economizer, and emission control system reaction
products, are mixed with the bottom ash for co-disposal in a landfill. Combined fly ash and
bottom ash typically account for 10% of the volume and 25% of the weight of the inlet
MSW.

In the furnace, the residence time of the gases is at least one second at 1,800F. The heat from
the combustion process converts water inside the steel tubes that form the furnace walls and
boilers, to steam. The superheater further heats the steam to 825F and 865 psi before it is
sent to a steam turbine generator to produce electricity. Furnace walls above the grate surface
are protected from high temperature corrosion by application of silicon carbide tile and
gunite refractory coating to a height of about 30 feet. This reduces furnace wall temperatures
and fouling. In the convection and superheater sections of the boiler, stainless steel tube
shields are used on the initial tube rows that face the gas flow. This protects the tubes from
corrosion and/or erosion.

An extensive emission control system is provided for removal/reduction of air emissions.
Processes and equipment include:

Injection of ammonia into a specific temperature region in the boiler for initiation of
Selective Non-catalytic Reduction (SNCR) for reduction of NO
x
emissions
Injection of activated carbon to control mercury emissions
A dry scrubber, with lime slurry injection, for removal of acid gases such as SO
2
and HCl
A fabric filter (baghouse) for removal of the reaction products from the scrubber, as well
as particulate matter in the flue gas

In the SNCR system, aqueous ammonia is injected into the first pass of the boiler, converting
NO
x
to nitrogen and water. Activated carbon is then injected into the flue gas, after the
economizer, for removal of vaporized mercury. The flue gases then enter the dry scrubber,
where the flue gases are contacted with a spray of lime slurry droplets. The acid gases are
neutralized as the droplets dry, leaving a particulate for collection in the high-efficiency
fabric filter.

More than 99% of the particulate matter is removed. Captured fly ash falls into hoppers and
is transported by an enclosed conveyor system to the ash discharger where it is wetted to
prevent dust, and mixed with the bottom ash. The ash mixture is disposed of in a landfill.

Overall diversion from landfill is typically 80%, including the recovery of metals from the
bottom ash.
APPENDIX E SUPPLIER EVALUATIONS
Covanta Energy Corporation


S:\04 PROJ\28906534 LABOS\Draft Report\Draft Report 7-14-05\Appendices\Appendix E.doc E-151
E.2.3.2.4 Power Generation System. The power generation system incorporates the boiler,
as described above, and a steam turbine generator. In the submittal, Covanta provided basic
cost information on a 329,000 tons/year facility. Using the information provided by Covanta
on its existing facilities, this would likely have a power output of about 24 gross MW/23 net
MW. The facility would be expected to provide the following performance:

550 net kWh/ton of feedstock
14 tons/year raw MSW per net kW capacity

E.2.3.3 Product Analysis

E.2.3.3.1 Byproducts Generated. The facility would produce electricity and recovered
metals. Bottom ash, fly ash, and reaction products from the emission control system would
be mixed and disposed of in a landfill.

E.2.3.3.2 Market Assessment. There is an existing market in California for MSW-
produced renewable electricity, as well as for recovered metals.

E.2.3.4 Environmental Issues

E.2.3.4.1 Air Emissions. Odor control is accomplished by drawing combustion air from the
tipping area, and the odor-causing compounds are destroyed in the furnace. The emission
control system reduces emissions of NO
x
, mercury, acid gases, and particulate matter through
the use of:

Aqueous ammonia injection for SNCR, reducing NO
x
emissions
Activated carbon injection for removal of vaporized mercury
Lime spray dryer for removal of acid gases, such as SO
2
and HCl
Fabric filter, for removal of particulate matter, including fly ash and reaction products
from the spray dryer

E.2.3.4.2 Wastewater Discharges. Covanta notes that its facilities are zero discharge.

E.2.3.4.3 Solid Wastes/Residuals. Bottom ash, fly ash, and reaction products from the
emission control system are mixed together and disposed of in a landfill.

E.2.3.4.4 Other Environmental Issues. The 275 stack would likely be a viewshed issue.
The Covanta technology coverts the post-source separated MSW into renewable electricity,
APPENDIX E SUPPLIER EVALUATIONS
Covanta Energy Corporation


S:\04 PROJ\28906534 LABOS\Draft Report\Draft Report 7-14-05\Appendices\Appendix E.doc E-152
and reduces the overall mass of the MSW going to landfill by 80%, including the metals
recovered from the bottom ash

E.2.3.5 Costs and Revenues

The submittal notes that Covanta did not price a small capacity facility. They would provide
more detailed information if given more specific data in the context of an RFP. Once debt
service is fixed, Covanta guarantees a fixed O&M fee. Since Covanta did not propose a
specific-sized facility, no cost data is available for a thorough economic evaluation. Covanta
did note that:
If for example, a 1,000 TPD/329,000 TPY plant costs $20 million a year in debt service and
$10 million a year in operating costs, the $30 million in costs is offset by approximately $5
million if electricity is purchased at 3 cents/kwh. This nets to approximately $25 million in
disposal fees, or roughly $75 per ton of waste processed. Every penny of additional energy
revenues will reduce the tipping fee approximately $5/ton, by this example.

Using this basic data, a cost analysis for this size facility is presented in Table E-36.

TABLE E-36
COST ANALYSIS OF 329,000 TONS/YEAR FACILITY


Provided by
Covanta Evaluated Cost Reason for Adjustment
Capital Cost Not provided Not provided
Capital Cost, $/TPY Not provided Not provided
Annual O&M $10 million $10 million
Disposal of Bottom Ash and
Fly Ash
No data No data
Annual Capital Recovery +
Interest Costs
$20 million $20 million
Total Annual Costs $30 million $30 million
Revenues from Sale of
Electricity
Not provided $10.86 million At 550 net kWh/ton @ $0.06/kWh
Revenues from Sale of
Recyclables
Not provided $792,068 Assume 50% recovery of metals, at
9.63% of inlet MSW, at $50/ton
Total Annual Revenues Not provided $11.65 million
Annual Revenues-Costs Not provided ($18.35 million)
Tipping Fee Not provided $55.78/ton
Worst Case Break Even
Tipping Fee
$55.78/ton Assumes all costs already considered.

APPENDIX E SUPPLIER EVALUATIONS
Covanta Energy Corporation


S:\04 PROJ\28906534 LABOS\Draft Report\Draft Report 7-14-05\Appendices\Appendix E.doc E-153
E.2.3.6 Assessment Summary

As noted previously, Covanta did not submit complete information for a specific-sized
facility. However, with 25 full-scale facilities in operation, they were able to provide detailed
information on their process, and basic cost information. Given this successful, long-term
operation, there are no significant technical issues. Since Covanta presently mixes the bottom
ash with the fly ash and emission control system residues, the bottom ash becomes
contaminated. The submittal notes that, if desired, the bottom ash could be isolated. This may
allow for its recovery and re-use as a road base or construction material, as is done in Europe.
In that case, the diversion from landfill could be further increased.

Performance. With a production of 550 net kWh/ton feedstock, this technology has a
moderate efficiency rating compared to other evaluated thermal technologies.


APPENDIX E SUPPLIER EVALUATIONS
Arrow Ecology


S:\04 PROJ\28906534 LABOS\Draft Report\Draft Report 7-14-05\Appendices\Appendix E.doc E-154
E.3 BIOCONVERSION TECHNOLOGIES

E.3.1 Arrow Ecology

E.3.1.1 Technology Overview

E.3.1.1.1 Technology Supplier Team. The company was founded in 1975 as Hydro-Power
Services Ltd., and the name changed to Arrow Ecology, Ltd. in 1991. The specific
respondent firm, Arrow Ecology & Engineering Overseas (1999) Ltd., like its parent Arrow
Ecology, is a privately held for-profit corporation headquartered in Haifa, Israel. The
companies are represented in the U.S., the U.K., Canada, Spain, Australia, Mexico, and other
countries. The parent company web site is: www.arrowecology.com; the web site specifically
for the ArrowBio Process is: www.arrowbio.com.

Arrow Ecology Ltd. (Certified ISO 2002) is a professional environmental services and
contracting/implementation company providing a comprehensive full service approach to
environmental problems and regulatory compliance. The company offers a wide range of
environmental and industrial services.

The companys financial condition is good; a supportive statement from Bank Leumi was
provided.

Firm: Arrow Ecology and Engineering Overseas (1999) Ltd.
Technology: The ArrowBio Process
Principal Contact: Melvin S. Finstein
Address: Arrow Ecology, Ltd.
105 Carmel Road
Wheeling, WV 26003-1505
USA

E.3.1.1.2 Technology Overview. Arrow Ecology has patented the ArrowBio process for
anaerobic digestion of solid waste. The waste is first subjected to a wet preprocessing chain
to remove recyclables and undesirable compounds. In fact, the first preprocessing step
consists of submerging the waste. The conversion feed resulting from this process goes into
an acetogenic reactor for a brief time. The dissolved and suspended effluent from that reactor
is led to a wastewater digester, of the UASB type (Upflow Anaerobic Sludge Blanket).
Liquid effluent can be cleaned up to high quality irrigation water.

APPENDIX E SUPPLIER EVALUATIONS
Arrow Ecology


S:\04 PROJ\28906534 LABOS\Draft Report\Draft Report 7-14-05\Appendices\Appendix E.doc E-155
E.3.1.1.3 Reference Plants. The existing and planned Arrow Ecology plants as of October
2004 are shown in Table E-37.

TABLE E-37
ARROW ECOLOGY REFERENCE FACILITIES

Throughput
City
Country
Metric
ktons/yr
US short
tons/yr
US short
tons/day *
Feed Startup
Hadera
1
Israel <6 <7 Up to 33 MSW Early 1990s
Tel Aviv Israel 20 23,500 90 MSW Dec. 2003
Tel Aviv (planned) Israel 63 70,000 268 MSW Future
* 261 days/year.
1
This was the technology development facility; it was closed in 2002.

E.3.1.1.4 Commercial Status. The first and only commercial facility has been in operation
since January 2003. Its conversion module is sized for 70,000 tpy MSW delivered, but the
facility is only operating a 24,000 tpy because the available footprint only leaves room for
one preprocessing module at this time.

Considering this, we feel that the technology has passed the demonstration stage, but is still
in the early commercialization stages.

E.3.1.2 Detailed Technology Description

E.3.1.2.1 Description of Conceptual Facility.

Facility Overview. The post-source separated MSW is dropped onto a tipping floor, from
where it is pushed into a vat of recirculated water. MSW components are separated
gravitationally in the vat. From then on, most of the preprocessing occurs in water. During
preprocessing, some recyclables are recovered, and undesirable residue is removed. The
resulting conversion feed is introduced into an acidogenic reactor where it spends a few
hours. From there, it is pumped to the UASB digesters to be biogasified. The digester
operates at approximately 4% dry matter. A large inventory of water is recirculated between
the various processes. Recovered solids will be marketed as compost.
Arrow Ecology estimates that it would take 25 months from award to deliver a fully
functioning facility, with the following phases:

Engineering: 6 months
APPENDIX E SUPPLIER EVALUATIONS
Arrow Ecology


S:\04 PROJ\28906534 LABOS\Draft Report\Draft Report 7-14-05\Appendices\Appendix E.doc E-156
Construction: 12 months
Startup-Testing: 4 months
Acceptance: 3 months

Site Layout. No specific layout was provided, but an isometric view was included in the
response, see Figure E-77.

FIGURE E-77
3-D ISOMETRIC VIEW



Process Flow and Mass Balance. The process flow is summarized in Figure E-78.

In Table E-38, the mass balance of the facility is summarized as mass percent of the
delivered MSW.
APPENDIX E SUPPLIER EVALUATIONS
Arrow Ecology


S:\04 PROJ\28906534 LABOS\Draft Report\Draft Report 7-14-05\Appendices\Appendix E.doc E-157
FIGURE E-78
ARROW ECOLOGY FLOW DIAGRAM

1. Receiving moving floor & inspector. 16. Second chance for Inorganic materials and balancing of liquid.
2. Pre-sorting pool and dumping elements. 17. Liquid reservoir and pumps to Biological Sub-System.
a. Heavy stream moving floor. 20. From hydro-mechanical sub-system.
b. Light stream moving floor. 21. Acidogenic reactor no.1.
3. Drum and bag opener. 22. Acidogenic reactor no.2.
4. Magnet system. 23. Heater.
5. Eddy current system. 24. Methanogenic reactor no.1.
6. Manual sorting of glass, stones, and textiles. 25. Methanogenic reactor no. 2 and biogas reservoir.
7. Glass, stones and textiles containers. 26. Solids liquids separator.
8. Second chance for organics in heavy stream. 27. Water separator and balance tank.
9. Rough shredder. 28. Water treatment and reservoir.
10. Air system for plastics removal. 29. Water reservoir.
11. Manual separation of different plastics. 30. To hydro-mechanical sub-system.
12. Plastics containers. 31. Biogas generator.
13. Hydro-crusher for biodegradable organics. 32. Biogas torch.
14. Filtering of inorganic residue materials. 33. Filter-press for fertilizer.
15. Reservoir for liquids and residue Inorganic materials.

APPENDIX E SUPPLIER EVALUATIONS
Arrow Ecology


S:\04 PROJ\28906534 LABOS\Draft Report\Draft Report 7-14-05\Appendices\Appendix E.doc E-158
TABLE E-38
ARROW ECOLOGY SUMMARY MASS BALANCE

MSW delivered 100%
Recovered recyclables 15%
Conversion throughput 60%
Compost 23%
Landfilled residue (from pre- and post-processing) 19%
Net water production 6%
Diversion rate 81%

Note that the outputs of the balance do not total 100 percent, because it does not include the
mass converted to biogas or the mass evaporated during aerobic maturation. Under the
assumptions for the worst-case scenario discussed in Section 5, the diversion rate decreases
to 59 percent.

The different process steps are described in the following sections.

Operation and Maintenance. The biogas production of the ArrowBio facility is continuous
(24/7). However, waste reception and processing occur on a 5-day per week schedule, two
shifts per day. There is no downtime on the digester itself; it is designed to operate without
interruption for a decade or more. Mechanical equipment, such as conveyor belts, shredder,
generators, etc. has a maintenance schedule including scheduled downtime. For most of this
equipment (for example, the generators), there is sufficient redundancy built in that the
process can continue uninterrupted while one of a set of parallel pieces is stopped for
maintenance. In cases where the entire process is interrupted (for example, shredder
maintenance), there is enough capacity in the system to process that days material flow
during the two shifts. In case of major generator malfunction, the biogas can be flared.

The staffing consists of a first shift of 13 and a second shift of 9. This would result in a total
of 22 employees, but in that case the average loaded annual labor cost is only $22,000
($10.4/hour). In the pro forma, however, they list $30,000/year ($14.4/hr) as their average
loaded labor cost per employee.

Utility Requirements.

Electricity. The facility will produce 29 million kWh per year and will need 6.5 million kWh
per year, equivalent to a 22 percent internal power load. The facility will use that fraction of
the power it generates to satisfy all its power needs. A temporary external power supply may
be needed during startup.
APPENDIX E SUPPLIER EVALUATIONS
Arrow Ecology


S:\04 PROJ\28906534 LABOS\Draft Report\Draft Report 7-14-05\Appendices\Appendix E.doc E-159
Polymer. The facility will use 1300 pounds of polymer per year to aid in dewatering
effluent.

Water. The facility will not require any potable water.
Nutrient supplement. The facility will use approximately 20 tpy of nitrogen fertilizer, and 8
tpy of phosphorus

Wastewater. The ArrowBio facility produces a fairly weak (e.g., COD/BOD = 600/70 mg/L
before treatment, 50/15 after in-plant treatment) wastewater, which ArrowBio sees as a
useful product, to the extent that it can be used for irrigation. The facility will produce
approximately 5500 gal per day of this excess water.

E.3.1.2.2 Preprocessing System.

Equipment Description. A partial view of the preprocessing subsystem at the Tel Aviv
reference facility is provided in Figure E-79.

The delivered MSW is subjected to the following sequence of operations:

The MSW is tipped directly into a water vat, where gravitational separation occurs.
Heavies/sinkers are separated and go through a bag breaker, magnetic removal (ferrous
metals), eddy current device (non-ferrous metals) and a pneumatic (vacuum/forced draft)
station from which film plastic is swept into ductwork. Removed materials are baled.
Overflow from the water vat, screened to exclude large items, passes though smaller
enclosed trommel screens and then to large and small settlers, where the grit is separated
from organics and removed from the system.
Larger floaters and buoyancy-neutral items are lifted to a slow speed shredder and then to
the large trommel screen. The overs from this trommel consist mostly of film plastic
and are removed at a pneumatic station. The unders (material that passed through the
screen) are washed into a non-mechanical device for further solubilization and size
reduction.
The prepared organic-rich flow is pumped continuously via pipeline to the biological
element.

Recovered Recyclables. Arrow Ecology projects a recyclables recovery equivalent to 15%
mass percent of the MSW delivered.

APPENDIX E SUPPLIER EVALUATIONS
Arrow Ecology


S:\04 PROJ\28906534 LABOS\Draft Report\Draft Report 7-14-05\Appendices\Appendix E.doc E-160
FIGURE E-79
PREPROCESSING SUBSYSTEM


Inside the physical separation/preparation plant element, viewed toward the visitor entrance. The
tipping platform is in back of the viewer. For scale, the railing is waist high. (Photo taken in early
testing.)

Residue Removed from Delivered MSW. The residue removed in the preprocessing is
projected to be 19% of the delivered MSW; it will probably be landfilled.

E.3.1.2.3 Conversion System. An overview of the conversion subsystem at the Tel Aviv
reference facility is provided on Figure E-80.

The separated and prepared organic flow (conversion feed) first enters acidogenic
bioreactors for several hours of preliminary treatment. There, readily metabolized substances
already in solution are fermented (e.g., sugars fermented to alcohols), while certain complex
molecules are biologically hydrolyzed to their simpler components (cellulose to sugar, fats to
acetic acid). The overflow, which is rich in such intermediate metabolites and organic
particles under 0.12 inch, then enters the UASB digester. A fibrous residue is recovered from
the acidogenic reactors and used as a soil amendment.

APPENDIX E SUPPLIER EVALUATIONS
Arrow Ecology


S:\04 PROJ\28906534 LABOS\Draft Report\Draft Report 7-14-05\Appendices\Appendix E.doc E-161
FIGURE E-80
CONVERSION SUBSYSTEM



The UASB digester (Upflow Anaerobic Blanket Digester) is a high rate anaerobic digester
that was developed in the 1970s by Lettinga et al. in the Netherlands to treat high strength
wastewaters. A constant upward flow of water is maintained in the reactor, resulting in the
formation of a stable layer of granules containing high densities of microorganisms (the
sludge blanket). This is physically similar to a fluidized bed. The wastewater flows through
this blanket and the organics in it are efficiently biogasified; there is usually a substantial
recirculation, so the feed water flows through the blanket more than once. In the case of
ArrowBio, the MSW is essentially converted into wastewater so the organics can be
converted in a high efficiency UASB reactor; the operating temperature is between 95 and
110F. The hydraulic retention time is on the order of 1 day (the solids retention time is
much longer). Due to a) the nature of the process and b) the large water inventory in the
system, the methane content of the biogas is higher than for a typical high solids AD system
(there may be some opportunity for the CO
2
to dissolve and be released at other points in the
process). As a result, the biogas has a higher heat value exceeding 700 Btu/scf.

Excess granules and water are transferred to a settling tank. Supernatant is pumped to the
physical separation/preparation element as needed for makeup water, or to an aerobic reactor
for polishing if necessary. Water may be stored or used immediately, for example in
irrigation. The solids are dewatered for use as stabilized organic soil amendment.
APPENDIX E SUPPLIER EVALUATIONS
Arrow Ecology


S:\04 PROJ\28906534 LABOS\Draft Report\Draft Report 7-14-05\Appendices\Appendix E.doc E-162
Some of the biogas is used to fire boilers to maintain UASB digestion at an optimum
temperature. Otherwise the gas fuels an electrical generator, is stored, or it is flared. Waste
heat from the generator contributes to the maintenance of digestion temperature. The biogas
generated at the Tel Aviv facility is very low in H
2
S (90 ppm), so it can be used without
further treatment.

E.3.1.2.4 Post-Processing.

Equipment Description. The effluent from the methanogenic reactor and the solids from the
acidogenic reactors are dewatered in a screw press, yielding a filter cake of approximately 30
percent dry matter (TS). This material is fully stabilized, therefore it does not undergo
aerobic post-treatment, and it is used as such. The Los Angeles facility will produce
approximately 45 dry tons/day of this soil amendment; the projected annual production is
reported as 23,400 tons (wet).

Arrow Ecology also generates a product water, which is optionally treated aerobically on site
to 5-20 mg/L BOD and 28-60 mg/L COD. The daily production of this water is estimated at
5500 gallons/day.

E.3.1.3 Product Analysis

E.3.1.3.1 Byproducts Generated. The proposed ArrowBio facility would produce the
following useful products:

Recyclable materials (metals, plastics) (15,300 tpy)
Electricity (2.6 MW net marketed, or 23 million kWh/year) with an efficiency of
268 kWh/ton
Soil amendment (23,400 tpy)
Irrigation water (5,500 gal/day or 6000 tpy)

E.3.1.3.2 Markets Assessment. Arrow Ecology feels that the recycled materials will be of
sufficient purity to be marketable, but there will be some contamination, so they will not
command a high value ($50/ton for ferrous metals, $60/ton for non-ferrous metals, and
$20/ton for plastics).

There should be no problem in marketing the electricity. Note that AD offers the option of
selling medium Btu gas to a nearby industrial user instead of generating electricity. It could
also be purified and compressed, yielding compressed natural gas (CNG), a clean-burning
automotive fuel.
APPENDIX E SUPPLIER EVALUATIONS
Arrow Ecology


S:\04 PROJ\28906534 LABOS\Draft Report\Draft Report 7-14-05\Appendices\Appendix E.doc E-163
The soil amendment is valued at $10/ton. Arrow Ecology is reserved about the marketability
of MSW-derived composts generally. They quote Dr. Harry Hoitink, a compost authority, as
saying that the production of compost from MSW has been virtually abandoned because of
quality inconsistency. Arrow Ecology feels their process is the exception to this rule, that
their soil amendment should be quite marketable because it will be unusually clean due to the
gravity separation in a watery environment. The residue should easily pass the US EPA 503
regulations; in fact, it passes the 503 standards for Class A amendment, except for a minor
cadmium exceedance.

E.3.1.4 Environmental Issues

E.3.1.4.1 Air Emissions. In the ArrowBio process, odor generation is prevented by rapidly
submerging the feed and further processing the biodegradable material is an aqueous slurry
and in closed vessels.

The combustion of biogas in IC engine generators is expected to generate minor air
emissions; Arrow Ecology presently complies with applicable Israeli Ministry of the
Environment standards.

E.3.1.4.2 Wastewater Discharges. Arrow Ecology does not view the excess water
produced as a wastewater, but as a reusable resource. Their process produces unusually
clean water usable for irrigation. The production is approximately 5500 gallons per
operating day.

E.3.1.4.3 Solid Wastes/Residuals. The total amount of unmarketable residuals is
approximately 19,000 tpy; they will probably be landfilled.

E.3.1.4.4 Other Environmental Issues. AD facilities are compact and can be economical
at relatively small sizes, making it possible to build decentralized small facilities, possibly
co-located with the existing transfer stations and MRFs. They are virtually odorless and
inherently have minimal air emissions. Finally, AD produces renewable energy, but it does
so in the form of a medium Btu gas, not just electricity; biogas can be used as a boiler or
turbine fuel with minimal processing; it can also be upgraded to a transportation fuel.
E.3.1.5 Costs and Revenues

The cost analysis of the Arrow Ecology conceptual facility is presented in Table E-39.

The following are the assumptions used to arrive at the evaluated cost and the break-even
tipping fee (BETF):
APPENDIX E SUPPLIER EVALUATIONS
Arrow Ecology


S:\04 PROJ\28906534 LABOS\Draft Report\Draft Report 7-14-05\Appendices\Appendix E.doc E-164
TABLE E-39
COST ANALYSIS OF ARROW ECOLOGY
CONCEPTUAL LOS ANGELES FACILITY

Unit
Costs
provided by
vendor
Evaluated
cost Reason for Adjustment
Costs
Capital cost US$, millions $27.00 Same
$/TPD $70,470 Same
$/TPY $270 Same
O&M without landfilling $ Millions/year $1.23 Same
O&M with landfilling $ Millions/year $1.95 $1.98 Consistency with mass
balance
Debt service $ Millions/year $2.16 $2.35 Cost given assumes 50%
equity (Year 1 shown);
adjusted to standard set
of assumptions
Total annual costs $ Millions/year $4.11 $4.33
Revenues
Sale of electricity $ Millions/year $1.31 $1.35 Adjusted to standard set
of prices
Sale of recyclables $ Millions/year $0.96 $1.25 "
Sale of byproducts $ Millions/year $0.00 $0.23 "
Total annual revenues $ Millions/year $2.27 $2.83
Annual costs minus revenues $ Millions/year $1.84 $1.50
Break-even tipping fee (BETF) $/ton refuse delivered $18 $14
Worst case BETF $/ton refuse delivered $19

Unmarketable residue will be landfilled; the total disposal cost will be $40/ton (hauling
plus landfill tipping fee).
The debt service will be calculated assuming 100% debt financing at an interest rate of
6% per year and a term of 20 years.
Electricity will be sold at 6/kWh.
Solid byproduct will be sold at $10/ton.
50% of the ferrous metals in the post-source separated MSW will be recovered and sold
at $50/ton; this recovered tonnage is equivalent to 2.0% of the delivered post-source
separated MSW.
Paper will be recovered and marketed at $75/ton; the recovered tonnage will be
equivalent to 12% of the delivered post-source separated MSW.
APPENDIX E SUPPLIER EVALUATIONS
Arrow Ecology


S:\04 PROJ\28906534 LABOS\Draft Report\Draft Report 7-14-05\Appendices\Appendix E.doc E-165
Plastics will be recovered and marketed at $100/ton; the recovered tonnage is equivalent
to 2.5% of the delivered post-source separated MSW.
Together, these recycled materials amount to 16.5 mass % of the delivered post-source
separated MSW, or 16,500 tpy for a 100,000-tpy facility, and the resulting revenue is
$1.25 million; this revenue will be the same for all vendors.
If the vendor provided a recyclables recovery higher than 16.5%, then the tonnage
difference between the vendor number and the evaluated number will be added to the
residue to be landfilled at $40/ton.
If the vendor provided a recyclables recovery lower than 16.5%, then the tonnage
difference between the vendor number and the evaluated number will be subtracted from
the residue to be landfilled.
The break-even tipping fee (BETF) will be calculated by adding up the annual costs and
subtracting the revenues from the sale of electricity and products, then dividing the result
by the 100,000 tons of MSW delivered annually.
To calculate the worst-case tipping fee, it will be assumed that the byproduct cannot be
marketed but instead is used as landfill cover, at a net cost to the conversion facility of
$10/ton.

Under these assumptions, the Arrow Ecology BETF is $21/ton. The worst-case BETF is also
$21/ton.

Arrow Ecology worked out a 100,000 tpy case as requested. They did not work out a case at
a higher capacity, but the scale-up information they provided leads us to estimate that at
300,000 tpy the BETF would decline to $14/ton.

E.3.1.6 Assessment Summary

Arrow Ecologys track record is limited: one demonstration facility (now closed), and one
commercial size plant that is sized for 70,000 tpy, but only handles 25,000 tpy at present
because there is only room for one preprocessing train at present, and that is all it can handle.
In the SOQ and subsequent clarifications, the mass balance of the system has remained
somewhat unclear. Arrow Ecology made the point that it is hard to close a mass balance in a
watery system. The financial pro forma was quite elaborate. Arrow Ecology actually
processes MSW; most AD plants process source-separated organics (SSO), which is a more
forgiving feedstock from a mechanical standpoint.

The process is essentially focused on liquefying MSW so it can be converted in a high
efficiency wastewater digester (the UASB). It consists of a wet pretreatment relying partially
APPENDIX E SUPPLIER EVALUATIONS
Arrow Ecology


S:\04 PROJ\28906534 LABOS\Draft Report\Draft Report 7-14-05\Appendices\Appendix E.doc E-166
on gravitational separation, and resulting in a thin slurry, which is pumped to the acidogenic
reactor, then to the UASB digester. The organics that reach the UASB degrade quickly due to
the operational characteristics of the UASB. As a result, the digester is not as large as one
would expect with an AD system running at 4% dry matter. The UASB effluent has low
BOD and can be treated aerobically on site to a good quality for irrigation; apparently, the
use of the UASB process results in the production of a water that is more usable than that
coming from other AD systems. The biogas produced has an unusually high methane content
(75%).

The solid residues of the ArrowBio process will be used as soil amendments as such, without
composting. Arrow Ecology claims that the digestate and acidogenic stage residue are so
well stabilized that aerobic curing is unnecessary, which is surprising. Obviously the
resulting product will have a low value, be it only because it has not been pasteurized. They
feel that marketing MSW-derived compost will be a major challenge, which may be true for
Los Angeles at present; on the other hand, European AD operators manage to sell their
MSW-derived compost. Yet Arrow Ecology argues that in contrast to other AD vendors, they
will produce a superior compost; this claim is based on microscopic examination of
acidogenic stage fibers, not overall appearance, or examination of the digestate.

Their gross methane yield is very high (2.03 MMBtu/ton back bin waste delivered), which is
surprising for a two-phase process in which one would expect that a substantial amount of
organics bypass the bioconversion. They project an internal electricity load of only 20% of
the gross biogas production, which is low; it is not substantiated.

Arrow Ecology is fairly optimistic about recyclables recovery. Facility area requirements are
very low, but it is unclear what this is based on since no layout is provided, just a 3-D
isometric view without a scale. The capital cost of the conceptual facility is very low (the
lowest of all respondents), but no cost detail is provided; they do explain that all their
equipment will be off-the-shelf. Labor cost assumptions are unclear but seem low (either
$10.4 or $14.4/hr/employee, loaded). They provide a more detailed financial pro forma than
other bioconversion respondents; it assumes a 50/50 debt equity ratio. They clearly have the
lowest break-even tipping fee (BETF) of the biological process respondents. Contributing to
this low cost are a) low debt service costs resulting from a low capital cost, b) a very low
annual O&M cost estimate (the lowest of all bioconversion respondents), c) a high methane
yield (the highest of all), combined with d) the lowest internal power load.
APPENDIX E SUPPLIER EVALUATIONS
Organic Waste Systems NV


S:\04 PROJ\28906534 LABOS\Draft Report\Draft Report 7-14-05\Appendices\Appendix E.doc E-167
E.3.2 Organic Waste Systems NV

E.3.2.1 Technology Overview

E.3.2.1.1 Technology Supplier Team. Organic Waste Systems (OWS) is a stock company
under Belgian law, constituted in 1988 with a capital of 1.2 million Euros, and specialized in
biological treatment of solid and semisolid wastes. OWS has 40 employees and historical
revenue of about 10 million Euros per year, although revenues are expected to rise to 15 to
18 million Euros (20 to 25 million U.S. Dollars) in 2004 and 2005 due to the construction of
several new facilities (see Section 1.3). OWS developed the DRANCO process. It converts
solid and semi-solid organic waste into renewable energy, biogas, and a stable humus-like
end product. The conversion takes place in closed digesters under anaerobic conditions, and
the biogas is collected and used as an energy source. OWS has constructed several DRANCO
plants worldwide.

Firm: Organic Waste Systems
Technology: DRANCO (DRy ANaerobic COmposting)
Throughputs: 100,000 tons/year and (300,000 tons/year after receiving the initial
response from the RFQ, additional information was requested for
higher throughputs to examine economy of scale. This information is
included in Section 5, Table 5-3.)
Principal Contact: Luc De Baere, Managing Director
Address: Organic Waste Systems NV
Dok Noord 4
B-9000 Gent
Belgium
E.3.2.1.2 Technology Overview. OWS has patented the DRANCO (DRy ANaerobic
COmposting) anaerobic digestion process. In this process, the digester feed is mixed with a
large amount of recirculating digester effluent. The resulting mix is pumped to the top of the
cylindrical digester where it is introduced into the digester. The contents have approximately
40 percent dry matter; they make their way down through the digester in a few days.
Subsequently, most of the contents are recirculated to the top, so that the average residence
time of the feed is 3 to 4 weeks. The fraction of the effluent removed from the digester
(digestate) is aerobically matured using a static pile process and sold as compost.

E.3.2.1.3 Reference Plants. The existing and planned OWS plants as of October 2004 are
shown in Table E-40. A typical facility is shown on Figure E-81. URS inspected the OWS
Brecht II facility on October 18, 2004. URS reported its observations to the City in late 2004.
APPENDIX E SUPPLIER EVALUATIONS
Organic Waste Systems NV


S:\04 PROJ\28906534 LABOS\Draft Report\Draft Report 7-14-05\Appendices\Appendix E.doc E-168
TABLE E-40
OWS REFERENCE FACILITIES

Throughput
City Country
Metric
Ktons/Yr
US Short
Tons/Yr
US Short
Tons/Day*
Feed Startup
Existing
Brecht I
1
Belgium 20 22,051 84 Biowaste
2
& waste paper 1992
Salzburg Austria 20 22,051 84 Biowaste 1993
Bassum Germany 14 14,884 57 Grey waste
3
1997
Aarberg Switzerland 11 12,128 46 Biowaste 1998
Kaiserslautern Germany 20 22,051 84 Grey Waste 1999
Villeneuve Switzerland 10 11,025 42 Biowaste 1999
Brecht II Belgium 50 55,127 211 Biowaste/waste paper 2000
Alicante Spain 30 33,076 127 Mixed waste 2002
Rome Italy 40 44,101 169 Mixed waste 2003
In Construction/Design
Leonberg Germany 30 33,076 127 Biowaste 2004
Hille Germany 38 41,896 161 Grey waste & dewatered sludge 2005
Terrassa Spain 25 27,563 106 Biowaste 2005
Mnster Germany 24 26,461 101 Grey waste 2005
Pusan South Korea 75 82,690 317 Food waste and paper sludge 2005
Vitoria Spain 20 22,051 84 Mixed waste 2006
* 261 days/year.
1
Will reopen in 2005.
2
Biowaste is synonymous with source-separated organics (SSO).
3
Grey waste = post-recycling MSW (similar to post-source separated MSW).

The information collected during this visit was taken into account in writing the present
report.

E.3.2.1.4 Commercial Status. As can be seen from Table E-40, several facilities are
operating, and several more are being built. The resulting overall processing capacity for
OWS is as follows:

Total existing capacity: 236,500 US tons/year (tpy)
Capacity under construction: 233,700 US tpy
Total projected capacity by 2006: 470,200 US tpy

The first DRANCO demonstration facility was started up in 1984, and the first commercial
unit in 1992, so the technology is commercially and technologically mature.

APPENDIX E SUPPLIER EVALUATIONS
Organic Waste Systems NV


S:\04 PROJ\28906534 LABOS\Draft Report\Draft Report 7-14-05\Appendices\Appendix E.doc E-169
FIGURE E-81
BRECHT II FACILITY (FOREGROUND); BRECHT I IS IN THE BACKGROUND



E.3.2.2 Detailed Technology Description

E.3.2.2.1 Description of the Proposed Facility.

Facility Overview. The post-source separated MSW will be dropped onto a tipping floor,
where it will be pushed to a feed mechanism to enter preprocessing. During preprocessing,
some recyclables will be recovered, and undesirable residue will be removed. The resulting
conversion feed will be mixed with recirculated digester effluent, and the resulting mix will
be injected at the top of the digester. The biogas will be converted to electricity in a set of IC
engine generators. The final effluent from the digester will be subjected to pulping and fine
mesh wet screening. The fine material will be matured for 2 weeks in a static pile to produce
a marketable compost.

OWS provided a two-year schedule of implementation (Figure E-82).
APPENDIX E SUPPLIER EVALUATIONS
Organic Waste Systems NV


S:\04 PROJ\28906534 LABOS\Draft Report\Draft Report 7-14-05\Appendices\Appendix E.doc E-170
FIGURE E-82
SCHEDULE OF IMPLEMENTATION, OWS DRANCO FACILITY



Site Layout. A possible layout was provided covering an area of 4.5 acres. If there are severe
area constraints, OWS can probably shrink the footprint to 3 acres.

Process Flow and Mass Balance. The process flow is summarized in Figure E-83. The mass
balance is not shown because the supplier has indicated this information to be confidential.

FIGURE E-83
PROPOSED OWS FACILITY: PROCESS FLOW

Posttreatment


APPENDIX E SUPPLIER EVALUATIONS
Organic Waste Systems NV


S:\04 PROJ\28906534 LABOS\Draft Report\Draft Report 7-14-05\Appendices\Appendix E.doc E-171
In Table E-41, the mass balance of the facility is summarized as mass percent of the
delivered MSW.

TABLE E-41
OWS DRANCO SUMMARY MASS BALANCE

MSW delivered 100%
Recovered recyclables 4%
Conversion throughput 75%
Compost 40%
Landfilled residue (from pre- and post-processing) 39%
Net water production 0%
Diversion rate 61%

Note that the outputs of the balance do not total 100 percent, because it does not include the
mass converted to biogas or the mass evaporated during aerobic maturation. Under the
assumptions for the worst-case scenario discussed in Section 5, the diversion rate decreases
to 33 percent.

The different process steps are described in the following sections.

Operation and Maintenance. The biogas production of the DRANCO facility is continuous
(24/7). However, waste reception and processing occur on a 5 day per week schedule, two
shifts per day. There is no downtime on the digester itself; it is designed to operate without
interruption for a decade or more. Mechanical equipment, such as conveyor belts, shredder,
generators, etc. have a maintenance schedule including scheduled downtime. For most of this
equipment (for example, the generators), enough redundancy is built in that the process can
continue uninterrupted while one of a set of parallel pieces is stopped for maintenance. In
cases where the entire process is interrupted (for example, shredder maintenance), there is
enough capacity in the system to process that day's material flow during the two shifts.
Should the interruption be longer than 1 day, the tipping floor can stockpile three days worth
of arriving MSW to be processed later. In case of major generator malfunction, the biogas
can be flared.

Staffing: 5 employees per shift, total staff of 12; OWS assumes an average loaded labor rate
of $50,000/yr or $25/hr.

Utility Requirements.

Electricity. The facility will produce 17 million kilowatt hours (kWh) per year and will need
4.8 million kWh per year, equivalent to a 28 percent internal power load. The facility will use
APPENDIX E SUPPLIER EVALUATIONS
Organic Waste Systems NV


S:\04 PROJ\28906534 LABOS\Draft Report\Draft Report 7-14-05\Appendices\Appendix E.doc E-172
that fraction of the power it generates to satisfy all its power needs. A temporary external
power supply may be needed during startup.

Polymer. The facility will use 93 tons of polymer per year to aid in dewatering effluent.

Water. The facility will use 5000 gal of potable water per day (365 days per year) for the
flocculant unit and the steam generator.

Iron chloride. The facility will use approximately 1300 TPY (5 TPD, 261 days/year) of iron
chloride, an industrial waste product.

Wastewater. The facility will be operated in such a way that no net wastewater will be
generated.

E.3.2.2.2 Pre-processing System.

Equipment Description. The delivered MSW is subjected to the following sequence of
operations:

From the tipping floor, it is shoveled onto conveyors which bring it to the hammer mill
The hammer mill reduces most of the organics to less than 1 inches
Ferrous metals are magnetically removed from the shredded waste
The shredded waste is screened in a 1-inch rotating screen; the oversize fraction is
mostly non-degradable and is removed; the undersize fraction is mostly biodegradable
and is conveyed to the digesters dosing unit
Ahead of the dosing unit, an eddy current device removes non-ferrous recyclables from
the undersize material; it will now be referred to as conversion feed

Recovered Recyclables. OWS projects a recyclables recovery equivalent to 4.4 mass percent
of the MSW delivered.

Residue Removed from Delivered MSW. The residue removed in the preprocessing is
projected to be 21 percent of the delivered MSW; it will probably be landfilled.

E.3.2.2.3 Conversion Unit System. The conversion feed coming out of preprocessing is
delivered to the dosing unit, where the following materials are mixed with it:

An amount of digester effluent approximately 6 times larger than the incoming new
conversion feed
APPENDIX E SUPPLIER EVALUATIONS
Organic Waste Systems NV


S:\04 PROJ\28906534 LABOS\Draft Report\Draft Report 7-14-05\Appendices\Appendix E.doc E-173
A small amount of iron chloride (about 5 TPD), an industrial waste material that is used
to remove hydrogen sulfide from the biogas
A small amount of low-pressure steam to warm the mix to 120 to 130F

This mix is then pumped upwards and introduced into the top of the digester. As the material
works its way down the digester, it is subjected to intense anaerobic digestion at 120 to
130F and a dry matter content of approximately 40 percent. It takes about 3-4 days for the
material to arrive at the bottom of the digester. There, it is withdrawn, and a small part is
removed and sent to post processing, while most of it is recirculated after being mixed with
fresh feed, iron chloride, etc. As a result, the conversion feed spends an average of 25 days in
the digester. For a close-up of a DRANCO digester, see Figure E-84.

Two 800,000-gallon steel digesters are planned, approximately 65 feet high and 50 feet in
diameter. Approximately 15,000 dry tons per year are converted to biogas (biogasified),
resulting in about 950,000 scf of biogas per day (365 days per year). The gas is expected to
contain about 55 percent methane, so the gross energy production is approximately 700
MMBtu/day. This gas flows into a buffer storage tank, then it is sent to blowers which
convey it to the IC engine generators. Other than condensate collection, no further treatment
of the gas is needed. Some of the heat of the generators exhaust gases is used to generate
steam to preheat conversion feed in the dosing unit.

E.3.2.2.4 Post-Processing. The material removed from the digester is treated by wet
screening to remove small unsightly particles of plastic, glass, etc. The slurry is dewatered to
45 percent and the centrifuge cake is distributed evenly over a perforated floor where air is
injected into the material to achieve static pile composting. All air exiting the compost pile is
led to a biofilter for treatment. Aerobic metabolism raises the temperature to 60 to 65C (140
to 150F). This maturation continues for 2 weeks, after which the compost is ready for sale.

Compost production is projected to be 40,000 tpy. The residue removed in the wet screening
step is projected to total around 18,500 tpy.

E.3.2.3 Byproduct Analysis

E.3.2.3.1 Byproducts Generated. The proposed DRANCO facility would produce the
following useful products:

Recycled metals (4400 tpy)
Electricity (1.4 megawatt [MW] net marketed, or 12 million kWh/year) with an
efficiency of 116 kWh/ton
Compost (40,000 tpy)
APPENDIX E SUPPLIER EVALUATIONS
Organic Waste Systems NV


S:\04 PROJ\28906534 LABOS\Draft Report\Draft Report 7-14-05\Appendices\Appendix E.doc E-174
FIGURE E-84
DRANCO DIGESTER



E.3.2.3.2 Markets Assessment. The recycled metals will be of sufficient purity to be
marketable, but there will be some contamination, so they will not command a high value.
OWS estimates their value at $37.5/ton.

There should be no problem in marketing the electricity. Note that AD offers the option of
selling medium Btu gas to a nearby industrial user instead of generating electricity. The
APPENDIX E SUPPLIER EVALUATIONS
Organic Waste Systems NV


S:\04 PROJ\28906534 LABOS\Draft Report\Draft Report 7-14-05\Appendices\Appendix E.doc E-175
biogas could also be purified and compressed, yielding compressed natural gas (CNG), a
clean-burning automotive fuel.

The compost is sanitized after 3-4 weeks in a digester at 130F and at least several days at
140 to 150F. It should be visually acceptable and is expected to meet the standards for any
land application except to food crops.

E.3.2.4 Environmental Issues

E.3.2.4.1 Air Emissions. Odors in the facility will be contained by enclosing all operations,
including MSW delivery. The buildings will be operated under a slight negative pressure to
prevent odors from escaping. All the extracted air will be led to the static pile composting
process and injected into the maturing compost. OWS provides a detailed rundown of
possible VOCs emitted during aerobic maturation; however, the air emanating from the
compost piles is led to a biofilter, which will easily destroy them.

The combustion of biogas in IC engine generators is expected to generate minor air
emissions, approximately 650 mg CO/m
3
, 500 mg NO
x
/m
3
, and 500 mg SO
x
/m
3
; the
emergency flare is projected to generate lower levels, i.e., 100 mg CO/m
3
and 200 mg
NO
x
/m
3
.

E.3.2.4.2 Wastewater Discharges. The solids and water balance of the process will be
controlled so as not to produce any waste water.

E.3.2.4.3 Solid Wastes/Residuals. The total amount of unmarketable residuals is
approximately 39,000 tpy; they will probably be landfilled. Note that most of the plastic in
the MSW will end up in this stream.

E.3.2.4.4 Other Environmental Issues. OWS provides an estimate of noise nuisance in
different parts of the facility. Outside the buildings they project a noise level of 60 dB. AD
facilities are compact and can be economical at relatively small sizes, making it possible to
build decentralized small facilities, possibly co-located with the existing transfer stations and
MRFs. They are virtually odorless and inherently have minimal air emissions. Finally, AD
produces renewable energy, but it does so in the form of a medium Btu gas, not just
electricity; biogas can be used as a boiler or turbine fuel with minimal processing; it can also
be upgraded to a transportation fuel.

E.3.2.5 Costs and Revenues

The cost analysis of the OWS conceptual facility is presented in Table E-42.
APPENDIX E SUPPLIER EVALUATIONS
Organic Waste Systems NV


S:\04 PROJ\28906534 LABOS\Draft Report\Draft Report 7-14-05\Appendices\Appendix E.doc E-176
TABLE E-42
COST ANALYSIS OF OWS CONCEPTUAL LOS ANGELES FACILITY

Unit
Using Costs
Provided by Vendor
Evaluated
Cost
Reason for
Adjustment
Costs
Capital cost US$, millions $40.06 Same
$/TPD $104,557 Same
$/TPY $401 Same
O&M without landfilling $ Millions/year $3.23 Same
O&M with landfilling $ Millions/year $4.79 $4.79
Debt service $ Millions/year $3.49 $3.49
Total annual costs $ Millions/year $8.29 $8.29
Revenues
Sale of electricity $ Millions/year $1.52 $0.73 Adjusted to standard
set of prices
Sale of recyclables $ Millions/year $0.15 $1.25 "
Sale of byproducts $ Millions/year $0.23 $0.40 "
Total annual revenues $ Millions/year $1.90 $2.38
Annual costs minus revenues $ Millions/year $6.39 $5.91
Break-even tipping fee (BETF) $/ton refuse delivered $64 $54
Worst case BETF $/ton refuse delivered $62

The following are the assumptions used to arrive at the evaluated cost and the break-even
tipping fee (BETF):

Unmarketable residue will be landfilled; the total disposal cost will be $40/ton (hauling
plus landfill tipping fee).
The debt service will be calculated assuming 100% debt financing at an interest rate of
6% per year and a term of 20 years.
Electricity will be sold at 6/kWh.
Solid byproduct will be sold at $10/ton.
50% of the ferrous metals in the post-source separated MSW will be recovered and sold
at $50/ton; this recovered tonnage is equivalent to 2.0% of the delivered post-source
separated MSW.
Paper will be recovered and marketed at $75/ton; the recovered tonnage will be
equivalent to 12% of the delivered post-source separated MSW.
Plastics will be recovered and marketed at $100/ton; the recovered tonnage is equivalent
to 2.5% of the delivered post-source separated MSW.
APPENDIX E SUPPLIER EVALUATIONS
Organic Waste Systems NV


S:\04 PROJ\28906534 LABOS\Draft Report\Draft Report 7-14-05\Appendices\Appendix E.doc E-177
Together, these recycled materials amount to 16.5 mass % of the delivered post-source
separated MSW, or 16,500 tpy for a 100,000-tpy facility, and the resulting revenue is
$1.25 million; this revenue will be the same for all vendors.
If the vendor provided a recyclables recovery higher than 16.5%, then th