I 7D-R173 9ig RODF (REFUSE-DERIVED FUEL) CO-FIRING COST/DENEFIT i/II ARNRLYSI5 USING THE NCEL R.. (U) SYSTECH CORP XENIR OH

H BELENCAN ET ARL. AUG 96 NCEL-CR-B6. 3±2-VOL-IUC L ASSIFEDNM23-83-3DS149 F/O 21/4 NL

1.

1iL -----11 ""0

IIIL 11111.8'L ' I[1111112 "'Ii III1

MICROCOPY RESOLUTION TEST CHARTNA110Nk~ R1JiEA~i OF 11ANOARD 1%3

a',,

.J...

'"

% .o

p''

4a *°, p /*'~~*~. -' a ,' , S a ****. a * ~ .

CR 86 012August 1986

An Investigation Conducted

By SYSTECH CorporationSponsored By Naval Facilities .:-Contract Report Engineering Command

S 4

o FINAL REPORT: RDF CO-FIRING* , COST/BENEFIT ANALYSIS USINGc" THE NCEL RDF COST MODEL

VOLUME I, PROJECT RESULTS

ABSTRACT The object of this effort was to determine the cost effectivenessof co-firing RDF in existing Navy boilers. The cost~henefit analysis was 4performed using the NCEL RDF Cost Model and site specific boiler and costdata acquired from four naval activities that were determired to have thehighest probability of successful co firing. The cost effectiveness wasmeasured by the savings to investment ratio (SIR) and coml)uted over a ranleof cost and operating conditions to determine optimum RDF co-firin!!scenarios for each facility. Basedl on present laidllmvn c ,jl costs and solid--waste disposal charqes, no set of operatjnfJ conditions could be identified

* wherein the use of either co fired RDF 3 or RDF 5 could be economically

W justifie(d. Volume I presents the report; Volume II contains appendixes, and .._JVolume III is the terminal manual of RDF cost model.

N AVA l I \ I .... i' ; : c ,l '; , " i , , , ; , ' , : ,", ,." , ., ,

'.-A . -

- . , --- .. . .. - - .. K . • - . .. . c.,. . . . .2. • .. * . . i .- ,. -S .-

Uncl assifiedSEUIYCL.ASSIFICATION of ToPS PAGE p45.., f)*, Fu.,rd)

REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE 8FREA INSTRUTINS O

REPORT NUMBeRf Z OT ACCESSION NO 3 RECRPLENT'S CATALOG AP,4BIER ~CR 86.012A TITLE .00 SuA-iP. S YE FRPO T6Pjli.CE~Final Report: ROF Co-Firing Cost/Benefi ia%%Analysis Using the NCEL ROE Cost Model - Sep 194 - ug 1986Volume 1, Project Results7 *, ont. 6 COUTRACT OR GRANT NppM8EII,) -

Hele BelncanN00123-83-D-0149Gary Smith

Sftfff 1

N 3

,ORG*U, ZT~oN NAME AND ADDRPESS 'o PROGBAA ELEMENT P140JECI 1*A f..Xirpo ration AREA & 01ORK JNIV NUMBERS

245 North Valley Road WU R0371-013-431CXenia, OH 45385 EOTDT

1, N ZC RO- .. NOFFICE NAA'E -- A EP GT

Naval Civil Engineering LaboratoryAust18Port Hueneme, CA 93043-5003 13 iURORLS

14 MONToRPUG ACENCY NANE & ADRESS-f d,10-1,, 1onC,, - i Ott-,' 5 $ EC,TY CL ASS I.( N,. I.po.1)

Naval Facilities Engineering Command Ucasfe200 Stovall Street -A___ T __

Alexandria, VA 22332-2300 SC DULEO OWGAPN '

%

Ap proved for publ1ic release; distribution is unlimited.

17 OISTRtru TiCN Sr A rEuENt ' 'he h9II1 .,1 , 8114 20 I f 111-1- 00M RtPo.

'a T-FMENTARY NO0

ES

refuse derived fuel, RDE, co-fired waste fuels, refuse fired ,

*boilers, cost/benefit analysis, RDF Cost Model

The object "of ti s ef'fort 'w as t o de te r m ine t he cost effectivenessof co-firing ROF in existing Navy boilers. The cost-benefitanalysis was performed tising the NCEL ROE Cost Model and site Ispecific boiler and cost data acquired from four naval activitiesthat were determined to have the highest probability of success-ful co-firing. The cost effectiveness was measured by the

D 2. 1473 F''s.,.s OSLT Uncl assified ____

SfC,.TO C'LASS 11CAION 01 "IS1 PAuE 5 7~

:- .-

I.f .

AP % l

Unclassified I -SECUITY CLASSFICATION OF 7YMIS PA0[UI . Dee. .. e ... ) %

savings to investment ratio (SIR) and computed over a range ofcost and operating conditions to determine the optimum RDF v*."co-firing scenarios for each facility. Based on present laid-down coal costs and solid waste disposal charges, no set ofoperating conditions could be identified wherein the use ofeither co-fired RDF-3 or RDF-5 could be economically justified.Volume I presents the report; Volume II contains appendiAes,and Volume III is the terminal manual of RDF cost model.

Accession ForNTIS GRA &H'% ""D T I C T A B - " -"Un announced 1!+.Justificat io

Distribution/Availability Codel -.i

Avail and/or i "Dist Special

I ?_

~%

-, . .

* ."*".

"J. '...

Uncl assified

- ' ~~ * ~~ *..~'. A~4. P**.~ A~'~ ~ ~ *' ~ '. .l . . ... .'. X-• U. . % *'**.. ... ".."... ". ". *. " %**..."*.. .. .... ,," , .. . . . . . . ..

-.. /...--

VOLUM I

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Figures . . . .............. .... .. . .. . . v

Tables ...................................... vi

Acknowledgement .......................... vii

Organization of Report ........................ viii

Section Page

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

1.1 Background . . .... . .............. 1-11.2 Objectives . . . . . . .......... . . . 1-11.3 Approach ......... ........................ 1-2

1.4 Model Review ...................... 1-21.4.1 Model Description ................ 1-21.4.2 Technical Description . . . ......... 1-3 .

1.4.3 Modifications to Model .............. 1-6

2.0 Activity Selection and Input Data Collection .......... . 2-1

2.1 Activity Selection ....... .................... . 2-12.2 Initial Data Collection . ................ 2-2

3.0 Case Study Cost/Benefit Analysis ..... .............. ... 3-1

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

3.2 Input Data Review . . . ................. 3-1

3.3 Range of Values Evaluated ..... ................ . 3-4

4.0 Results ..................................... 4-1

4.1 SIR: Baseline and Sensitivity Analysis ........ 4-1

4.2 Best Case Evaluation ...................... 4-13

5.) Summarv - Conclusions and Recommendations .. .......... . 5-1

5.1 Program Summary .......... .................... 5-159. Conclusion Regarding Co-Firing Feasibility .... 5-1...........

9.3 Conclusions Regarding the Sensitivity Analysis . . . .. 5-2

5.3.1 Cost of RDF and Conventional Fuel andCo-Fire Ratio ...... .................. 5-2 .-... _

9.3.2 Steam Demand......... .... . . ... 5-25.3.3 Cost of Ash and MSW Disposal .. .......... 5-3 Z"F').3.4 Excess Air and RDF Quality .. ........... . 5-3

. Recommendations .......................... 5-4

Re t- e i . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . R -1 -'

ill '" "- ", "

" • • "

_ ,.'--p .°°--

.° ° %° -

VOLUME II

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Appendices

A Facility Input Data Questionnaires

B Telephone LogsC Modifications to the NCEL RDF Cost Model

D NCEL RDF Cost Model: Multiplan® Formula Listings

E Complete Operational and Economic Data Outputs for theSensitivity and Best Case Analysis

VOLUME III

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Figures ................................ iv

Tables .'. .............................. v

Section Page

1.0 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I

2.0 Hardware Requirements .. ........... .......... .

3.0 Program Disk Contents . .'. .................. I

4.0 Before Starting - Copying the Program ...... ............. 2

4.1 Multiplan® Program Notes ................ . 24.2 Hard Disk Systems ......... .................... 24.3 Floppy Disk Systems ............ .......... . . 2 '

5.0 Running the Model ............ ...................... 3

5.1 Booting and Loading the Input Data

Sheet (RDFMDLIN) .......... ..................... 35.2 Changing Data Values ......... ................... 35.3 Saving RDFMDLIN .......... ..................... 4

5.4 Executing the Calculations ........ ................ 4

5.5 Printing the Results ......... ................... 4

6.0 Exiting the Program ........ ...................... 6

S-- ... .

,. . " • - "L' " " - " -" ."-" ." "-"-"-i" v • . - - . ."" - - '*. % "" ',' - ' ' ". - - - -

• .9,-

%

FIGURES

Number Page

I-1 NCEL RDF Cost Model Flow Diagram .... ............... .. 1-4

2-1 RDF Cost Model Input Data Questionnaire ..... ........... 2-3 .

4-1 Impact of RDF Cost on the SIR for all Four Activities .. . .. 4-3 .

4-2 Impact of the Co-fire Ratio on the SIR for all Four ",> .€

Activities ............. ..................... 4-4 - S •

4-3 Impact of MSW disposal Cost on the SIR for all Four

Activities ........... .......................... 4-5 *5S .

4-4 Impact of Excess Air Levels on the SIR for all FourActivities ........... .......................... 4-6 .,'-9-

4-5 Impact of the Steam Demand on the SIR for all Four

Activities ........... .......................... 4-7 -

4-6 Impact of the RDF HHV on the SIR for all Four Activities . . . 4-8

4-7 Impact of RDF Percent Ash on the SIR for all FourActivities .......................... 4-9

4-8 Impact of RDF Percent Moisture on the SIR for allFour Activities ......... ....................... 4-10 -

4-9 Impact of the Conventional Fuel Cost on the SIR for allFour Activities ......... ....................... 4-11

4-10 Impact of Ash Disposal Costs on the SIR for all Four

Activities ........... .......................... 4-12

4-11 Range of SIR Values Obtained for Puget Sound from theSensitivity Analysis ........ ..................... 4-14

4-12 Range of SIR Values Obtained for Sub Base Bangor from the

Sensitivity Analysis ........ ..................... 4-15

4-13 Range of Values Obtained for Cherry Point from theSensitivity Analysis ........ ..................... 4-16

4-14 Range of Values Obtained for Little Creek from theSensitivity Analysis ........ ..................... 4-17 -.

4 .' *

TABLES

Number Page

1-1 Multiplan® Spread Sheet File Names and Descriptions . . . .. 1-3

1-2 Areas of the Model Which Were Modified ... ............ . 1-6

2-1 Activities Selected for the Cost Benefit Analysis .... .. 2-1

3-1 Input Data Utilized for the Baseline Evaluation at

Each Facility .... ............. ............ 3-2

3-2 Comparison of Local Economic Factors That Will Impactthe SIR ........................... 3-4 ""

3-3. Input Data Ranges Utilized in the Sensitivity Analysis . . . . 3-5

4-1 SIR Values Obtained as a Result of the Sensitivity

Analysis ........... ........................... 4-2

4-2 Best Case SIR Analysis Results ..... .......... . .4-19

* .-.-

vi

* 4" -

**4***4*, * * **** * .%*..

A

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

This report documents the work performed under Delivery Order ZZ07,Cost/Benefit Analysis of Co-Firing Refuse-Derived Fuel (RDF) in Retrofitted,Existing Navy Boilers Using the NCEL RDF Cost Model. This delivery

order was executed under U.S. Navy Contract No. N00123-83-D-0149. The

Contracting Officer was Mr. Andrew Lendacky, and the Project Engineer was

Mr. R. M. Roberts, Naval Civil Engineering Laboratory (NCEL), Port Hueneme,California.

SYSTECH gratefully acknowledges the guidance and support of Mr. Roberts

In the performance of this work. SYSTECH also wishes to thank the personnelof Naval Amphibious Base, Little Creek, Virginia; Naval Shipyard, Bremerton,Washington; Naval Submarine Base, Bangor, Washington; and Marine Corps Air

Station, Cherry Point, North Carolina, for the effort they extended to provide* us with the data necessary to perform this work effort. Their cooperation* was greatly appreciated.

vii--.

• ~ .

* . ,-.

- . Cq

vii°

ORGANIZATION OF REPORT

This report has been prepared in three volumes. Volume I contains the

results of the cost-benefit analysis using the NCEL RDF Cost Model. Volume II

contains the referenced appendices. These appendices contain program -

listings, modification details, complete program outputs for each activity,and activity data in the form of completed data questionnaires and telephone-logs. Volume III contains the directions for operating the NCEL RDF CostModel.

viii

- .-..J°

.. -,

,..% Q

-.. 4" .

Thi rpor hs eenprpaed n hre vlues Voum Iconais he• -%4

resuts o th cos-benfitanalsis sin theNCE RDFCostModl. VlumeII* ..,,..

continstherefrencd apenice. Tese ppedics cntai prgra ,-'-'

litigs mdfiatondtals cmlee rorm utut oreah civty vi"i-....

and ativiy daa inthe orm f coplete dat quetionaire andtelehone-i ':

logs VoumeIll ontinsthediretios fr oeratng he CELRDF ost?:-::

~~ ~.QMod.KCv2 2- . . >& - -

.-,..,..

SECTION 1.0INTRODUCTION

1.1 BACKGROUND

The Navy has been mandated to reduce its consumption of imported fossil

fuels through the substitution of alternate fuels such as refusc-derived

fuels (RDF), coal, peat, wood chips, landfill gas, and hybridized

compositions such as coal/oil mixtures. A number of projects have been

completed or are now underway to realize that goal. The Naval Civil

Engineering Laboratories (NCEL) has invested considerable effort in the study

of the RDF technology. This has included the determination of optimum heat

recovery incinerator (HRI) design, the systemization of HRI application

economics, and the study of RDF properties and processing. The current effort

concludes the NCEw's research in RDF by providing a cost benefit analysis of

utilizing RDF in existing Navy shore facility boilers.

Several demonstration projects have been conducted to determine if

selected forms of RDF can be successfully co-fired in appropriately configured

boilers that have not been designed for such fuels. Although in some casesthe results were not technically conclusive, the majority of the informationindicates that it is feasible to co-fire RDF and coal if certain modifications

are made to the boiler system. In other cases, extensive modifications were

required. Therefore, it was not clear at the conclusion of these test burns

whether RDF co-firing is cost effective. %

The NCEL RDF Cost Model was developed to establish a methodology for

determining the potential cost benefits of co-firing RDF in Navy boilers .-

ashore under various operating and economic conditions. The model was

intended to evaluate co-firing scenarios under all possible, reasonable

combinations of RDF types, shore facility boiler designs, firing conditions, "

and fuel market conditions. The model was developed using data previously

developed by NCEL, other engineering and cost data available in the open

literature, and data from vendors and engineering firms that supply and erect

such facilities.

1.2 OBJECTIVES

The objective of this effort was to determine the cost effectiveness ofco-firing RDF in existing Navy ooilers. The cost-benefit analysis was to be .

performed using the NCKL RDF Cost Model and site specific boiler and cost data

acquired from naval installations that were previously determined to have the

highest probability of successful co-firing. Prior to performing the

analysis, the model was carefully reviewed for errors, omissions, andappropriateness for the candidate sites. Input variables were evaluated over

a reasonabLe range to determine the sensitivity of the model to these changes.

J1-%

I- "

-. .1 * * k .

The cost effectiveness was measured by the savings to investment ratio (SIR)and computed over a range of cost and operating conditions to determine theoptimum RDF co-firing scenarios for each facility.

1.3 APPROACH

The Naval activities evaluated by the model were selected on the basis ofthe type of boiler currently in use, its current conventional fossil fueltype, and the age of the boiler. This information was obtained from reportsprepared for NCEL by VSE (Reference 1), Gilbert (Reference 2), and WETCO(Reference 3). Operational and economic data were obtained from eachfacility by questionnaires and by telephone conversations with facilityoperators and engineers. The completed questionnaires and telephone logs arepresented in Appendices A and B, respectively.

The model was run for each activity to estimate the cost effectivenessat current operating and economic conditions. A sensitivity analysis wasthen performed to rank the relative impact of the various operating andeconomic data inputs on the resultant SIR. To do this, the model wasexercised over a reasonable range of values for those inputs. The range wasbased on data obtained from RDF and coal co-firing evaluations, RDF .-

characterization studies, and other economic evaluations. From thesensitivity analysis results, a set of optimum conditions was established anda best case evaluation was made.

1.4 MODEL REVIEW

!.4. IModel Description

The NCEL RDF Cost Model is based on the MicrosoftO Multiplan® spreadsheet program. It can be operated on IBM PC, XT, AT, and compatible computerswith single or dual disk drives. Although a hard disk drive is not essential,it does greatly enhance the speed of executing the program.

The model consists of seven interactive spread sheets saved as individualfiles. Table 1-1 lists the names and functions of each sheet. The first ".-sheet accepts input data for one activity. The input data consists of:boiler design and current operating conditions, RDF specifications, andeconomic data, such as current conventional fuel costs ($/ton) and wastedisposal rates ($/ton, tons per year [TPY]). Sheets two and three access theinput data from sheet one to calculate the various boiler flow rates, fuelrequirements, and operating costs for both co-firing and coal only conditions.The fourth, fifth, and sixth sheets are formatted to printout the intermediateflow rates and operating conditions from sheet two. The seventh sheet is usedto print out a summary and comparison of the operational and economic resultsfor the ro-firing and coal only cases which were computed in sheet three.Sheet seven is utilized for comparison of the various operating scenarios ateach activity. Figure 1-1 is a flow schematic of the model. -... , a

1i-

- - * . . %.- % - .-- %-4..

. . . . .'VP2.% .t.

• .~ -.

%A

TABLE 1-1. MULT[PLAN® SPREAD SHEET FILE NAMES AND D)ESCRIPTIONS . ..',

Sheetno. File name Description

1 RDFMDLIN Contains the activity input data

2 Work I Calculates intermediate co-firingoperational data

3 Work 2 Calculates final co-firing operational

and economic data

4 Out I Prints out intermediate co-fire data

-Out 2 Prints out intermediate co-fire data

Out 3 Prints out intermediate co-fire data

7 Out 4 Prints out final co-fire operational

and economic data

The "User Manual for the Refuse-Derived Fuels (RDF) Model," prepared bythe L.I Dimmick Corporation (Reference 4), provides complete Instructions for

operating the model. The modifications made to the model do not affect how itIs operated.

1.4.2 Technical Description

To calculate the final set of RDF co-firing operating and economicresults, the model first calculates various intermediate mass and energy flowrates from the input data. These mass and energy flow rates and the

resultant boiler efficiencies are calculated for both the design conventionalfuel (DCF) and for the current conventional fuel (CF) at the boiler's maximum

continuous rating (MCR). Similarly, flow rates and efficiencies arecalculated for RDF co-firing at an RDF-derated MCR, for an average boiler

load, and for the minimum level of stable operation (or maximum turndown

[TDJ). Cofire MCR and TD flow rates are calculated to estimate the achievablesteam supply range. This co-fire steam range is then compared to the actualsteam demand. When the actual steam demand is within the co-fire steam supplyrange, full credit for avoided CF costs is applied. When the actual demand isabove the co-fire range, the model assigns a partial conventional fuel costsavings. Whe, the demand is below the range, co-firing is not possible and noCF cost savings are realized.

Once th final co-fire capabilities and flow rats are established,

economic factors are evaluated. These evaluations are based primarily onretrofit and operations and maintenance (O&M) co.sts,. The SIR is calculaLd

1-3

* -.. , .-7 ". * * * , .*.*-. S. .

StartNCEL ROF Load Inpt ~Ct M.de 'IMDI

/~E ROFL Loa/

ROF LIN Dat

FMOLIN Frm at:

XFEROAr2lXERtT

-JC

orrI.XFERAT lw

Savl><e 14rk.XERAT( top/ SavoFrntsStart 1,rJ ork.XFERAT

, Load R, :1,11

/ Ovtl /~±']Work.XFERAT

svop/ SaCR Formats:F

tar t Wok.XE

Fi':e -1 NELRD ot moeTfo5iarm

J~oad -7 Read

'p.l oklXERA Al2

* 0* - - -

/ Load. Rea

stop/

Star

~Load% Reads -p fut3 Workl.XFERDAT4

Print-/Save ' Avg co-Vire flows, It

Avq CF flows

/ vt3Av cfr~-$oj~-F~

,Prin~t:Save Summary Results

OL't4Flows & Economrncs

Stm

Figure 1-1. (continued).

1-5

following NAVFAC P-442 Type I economic analysis guidelines (Reference 5). The

SIR is calculated two ways: with and without a credit for the avoided cost ofsolid waste disposal. The credit for solid waste disposal is based on the

assumption that the Navy may be able to dispose (at no or low cost) of half .. q

its solid waste stream at the RDF production facility.

1.4.3 Modifications to Model

Table 1-2 lists the model algorithms which were modified. In general,

the changes were prompted by the need for the model to address more adequately ..

RDF-5 utilization factors. The assumptions used in the original model werefrequently based solely on RDF-3 fuel and combustion characteristics and RDF-3

use requirements, thereby making the model inappropriate for RDF-5applications. For the most part, the modifications consisted of insertinglogic gates which check for the type of RDF to be considered and then applying

RDF-3 or RDF-5 factors accordingly. The algorithms and details of eachmodification are presented in Appendix C. Appendix D contains a completelisting of the Multiplan® formulas.

TABLE 1-2. AREAS OF THE MODEL WHICH WERE MODIFIED

* Air pollution control efficiency algorithm

S Maximum co-fire turn down algorithm

* Co-fire excess air algorithm

* RDF storage algorithm

0 RDF delivery (from storage to boiler) algorithm

0 Ash handling system algorithm

0 RDF delivery to the site algorithm

0 Flyash fraction algorithm

0 Savings: Investment ratio algorithm

0 Input data for boiler efficiency algorithm

1-6

%"%

- .

• °". °. ~-

. "f", re,' .. "- €. ,- e S " , ." - - A . - -.. * -* t

SECTION 2.0 W"ACTIVITY SELECTION AND INPUT DATA COLLECTION %

2. 1 ACTIVITY SELECTION

The activity selected for this evaluation were screened from otherNavy shore-based activities on the basis of their boiler characteristics.

Studies by Gilbert (Reference 2) and VSE (Reference 1), which were summarizedby Wetco (Reference 3), evaluated Navy boilers on the basis of their technical

compatibility with various RDF co-firing scenarios. RDF-3 and RDF-5 were

considered to be the most viable forms of RDF for co-firing situations, andboilers designed for both coal and oil were considered to be technicallycapable of utilizing these fuels. The final selection was ultimately based onthe overall economics of anticipated retrofit costs, but numerous technicallyqualified, low retrofit cost candidates were eliminated from further

consideration due to their age. Many otherwise technically qualified,S stoker-fired boilers built in the late 1940s were considered to have a limited

serviceble life expectancy and, therefore, are not considered suitable for RDF

implementation under this program. Four activities were ultimately selected.

The power plant at each activity is relatively new (one is currently underconstruction); each has stoker-fired boilers and is technically suited toco-firing RDF-5. Table 2-1 lists the activities.

TABLE 2-1. ACTIVITIES SELECTED FOR THE

COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS

1 . Naval Amphibious Base Little CreekNorfolk, Virginia

2. Puget Sound Naval ShipyardBremerton, Washington

3. Naval Submarine Base BangorBremerton, Washington

4. Marine Corps Air StationCherry Point, North Carolina

A--

"7.5

.5.% -.S

2-I•",

oA

' ' '.-,' . .(.i . ' . .. ' : , .. L~ ' . -' -: .' .' " ' .{ . . : ,- ,' :_¢ ., , . '- '- _ '_ 'j~ _ -.. ' .t_'-- ._.. ,, ,._._ ,_•- .. _.. _ .- .,- £. _, -.

.'%.

2.2 INPUT DATA COLLECTION

The economic feasibility of co-firing RDF at each of the selected -.activities, as determined by the RDF Cost Model, is based primarily upon sitespecific operational and design information. This information was obtainedfrom each of the respective activities in response to a questionnaire(Figure 2-1) and follow-up telephone inquiries (Appendix B). Thequestionnaire was derived from the input listings of the cost model.Requests for additional non-input information were incorporated into the ,...questionnaire to aid in cross-checking intermediate model calculations and

to document actual operating conditions.

"p As anticipated, all of the questionnaires were returned, but each hadgaps in the requested information (Appendix A). Various means were employedto acquire the missing, yet required, items of information. Data for fuelcharacteristics were obtained from engineering reference manuals. If designoperating specifications were not available, estimates were made based on .1current conditions. Other items, such as particulate emissions and thermalefficiencies, were derived from test reports submitted by the activities. Themajority of the missing information was acquired via follow-up telephoneinquiries.

.U.,.,

-2-.

4F -e

-q-

-'" Aiii

("" 2-2

,...* .-. S a _ A - )l

NAVA- BASE "J.S# -----. -. --------.. . . . . . . . . . . ... ...... .. . . . ..--- - -I',f l,....,

BOILER .PRIMARY CONTACT PERSONTITLE

OHONE # -- ----------------------- -

DESIGN ,FJ_.... RMPT O_ N-

ES'GN TOTAL FUEL VALE TO BOILER AT MCR (MAXIMUM CONTINUOUS RATING) (BTU/HR)D E S I G N F J E L T Y P E . . .. " .

HIGHR HEATING VALUE OF DESIGN FUEL (BTU/LB)FRPC t!ONPL ASH CONTENT OF DESIGN FUEL. AS RECEIVED IFRACTIONAL M"OST URE CONTENT OF DESIGN FJEL '"YDROGEN MASS FRACTION OF AS RECEIVED DESIGN cuELSPECIFPI PEAT CL

C DESIGN FUELDESI-GN CARBON LOSSES AS PERCENT OF IAX14UM FUEL VALUE TO BOILER AT mLRDESIGN RADIPTI'N LOSSES AS PESRCEV OF MXIJMUM FUEL VALUE 70 BOILER AT MCRDESTGN "EPERATURE Cc DESIGN FUEL AT BOILER BOUNDARY (DES F)DES"N EXCESS Q;4 RE9_I:RED 9OR DES:GN ;UEL AT MCR %)

LLRREN " NFORPAATON

CURRENT UE_ YJECJRREN- FjE. VALUE TO BOILER AT MCR (BTU/HR)(FOR THE FFJDwOINS, SUPPLY FUEL ANALYSIS REPORT. IF AVAILABLE) -- ----qIG .R HEPTING vqL'JE OF CURRENT FUE_ (BhL,/_B

PRACTIONPL ASH CONTENT OF CURRENT FUEL. PS-RECEIVEDRAC TIONAL MOISTURE CONTENT OF CJRRENT PUE- -------------------

HYDROGEN MASS FRPCTION OF AS-RECD CURREkT rUELU SUL:UR MASS FRACTION OF PS-RECD CURR-N FUELSDEI'i '!C HEP OF CURRENT FUELCURRENT CARBON LOSSES PS PERCENT OF MAXIMUM FUEL VALUE TO BOILER AT MCRCURRENT RPDIATION LOSSES AS PERCENT Oz MAX!MUM FUEL VALUE TO 60ILER AT MCR7EMPER-URE OC CURRENT FUEL AT BOILER BOUNDARY (DES F)EXCESS IR REQUIRED FOR CuRRENT UEL AT MCR (%),XI1JM BO-- TL:RNDOWN ACHIEVABL: ":T. CURRENT FLE. --'4EXCESS Ai REQUIRED FOR CURRENT FLE_ AT NEAR MAXIMUM TLRNDOWN (-- -- "------

KOILER AND EkL'PEN" IFORMAT: %

;OP T'4E ILJ3w'G, IVE THE 'ANUFACTURF, EQUIP4ENT DESCRIPTION AND RiTED PACPPjTIES OR T-ROU,,HDLTS,

- E FEED SYSE;

kS n NLNG DYSTET - - --- -

"LL-ICLONES CU CYCLC.E SSCRUBPErS*14

PCHULSE

Figure 2-1. RDF cost model input data questionnaire. %

2-3

-. 4-.'.

v -., 4,,-.. . . . ......... . , '-~ . i o . .. :::

- .- C, INTi Jr.V.s

IS THE BOILER EQUIPPED WITAN~ 10 FAN - - - - - - - - - - - - -

SOOTBLOWERS cOR THE CONVECTIVE --------------

AN ECONOMIZERSOOTBLOWRS FOR 'HiE ECONOMIZERWH~AT TYPE OF ECOiNOMIZER TUBES'

OPERATIONS INFORMA-ION

AVAILABILITY OF EXISTING BOILER FIRED WITH CURRENT FUEL()DOES ADEQUATE BACKUP CAPABILITY EXIST-----------------

DOES BOILER HAVE A HISTURY OF SLAGGINGFOR THE FOLLOWING. SUPPLY TEST REPORTS ON PARTICULATE EMISSIONS COMPLIANCE DR BOILER EFFICIENCY TESTS. IF AVAPPLICABLE PARTICULATE EMISSIONS STANDARD eACTUAL PARTICULATE EMISSIONSSTACK TEMPERATURE (DEG F)STACK VOLUMETRIC FLOW RATE (ACFM)-----------------

AIR TEMP AT cO OR AIR-HEATING INLET (DEG F)PREHEAT COMBUSTION AIR TEMP (DEG F)cUEL TEMP AT BO7LER BOUINDRY (DES P)B0T0m ASH TE!NP AT BOILER BCUNDARY (DES F)-----------------PKY ASH 7EMP AT BOILlER BOUNDARY (DES F) ------------------

* ECONOMIC INFORMATIONBASIC UNBURDENED OPERATOR WAGERATE ($IHR)------------------BURDENING ON BASIC WAGE RATE. A MUL'T7PLIER -------------------CDS7 DP CON1 Y71ONAL FUEL ($/TON)_DST OF ELEC'RICITY (S/KvJH)DISPOSAL COST FOR ASH (5/TON)STEAM DEMAND BY SHIFT PY S'ASON BY 'DAY. AVERAGE HOURLY (BTU/HR)

*SUMlER SHI; ' I SHIFT 2 SHI 3%MON-FR:

CA-*

SUN

SPRING AND FALLi ON-FRI-- - - -- - ----- - - - -- - - -- -- - - - - --

SJY7

DISPOSAL COS, CC MiJNICIPAL SOLID WASTE OR BASE WASTE ($/TON)ORGT;EC ED ~LhEDISPOSAL COST FOR MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE OR BASE WASTE ___

PRO 'E-_E-C I IrE *F LOCPL LANDFILL(S)ANNUPL qpR 7 C~ E O;F BASE WASTES )TON/YR)

*%m ;\ PAOl NUMBER 3r CONTACT PERSON IN CHAREE OF:NAVAL A3'E: D:S2OSA.. AC

TIVIS NAME __POONE 0.OCAL LC ' I R ZOUNTrY SOLID WPS7E AUTHORITY NAME PHO\E #

Figure 2-1. (contInuied).

2-4 .N

% %

- - * -C".*.=

3.1 INTRODUCTION

The NCEL RDF Cost Model can be used to determine the preliminary

feasibility of co-firing RDF in an existing coal-fired Navy boiler. As withany preliminary evaluation, there is uncertainty in the results due to theuse of input values that are not directly obtainable from historical operatingdata or values that are subject to change over time. These inputs must thanba based on engineering judgment or other information sources. It istherefore important to know how the model will react to variations in theinput data. For example, if the analysis Indicates the project is notcurrently feasible, but if landfill tipping fees are projected to riseappreciably in the near future, it is important to know the effect such *

changes will have on the final analysis.

The sensitivity analysis also has the advantage of determining what

the operating and economic conditions must be before the co-firing projectcan he economically feasible. To determine the most economic arrangementfor co-firing at each activity, the model was exercised over a range of

*possible operating and economic conditions by changing individual inputs ona one-at-a-time basis. To establish a mathematical basis for calculatingthese conditions, a "baseline" case was established. The baseline providesa set of activity parameters which can be held constant as other individualvariables are changed. In general, the baseline case utilizes the operatingand economic conditions reported for each facility. It also uses thecharacteristics oif a good quality RDF-5 which is essentially free, havingonly a delivery cost of $2/ton associated with it. Since free RDF is anunrealistic scenario, the reader is cautioned not to make comparisons to

S the baseline case. Again, it is merely a mathematical starting point.Table 3-1 lists the baseline input values for each activity.

3.2 INPUT DATA REVIEW

Generically, the four activities that were evaluated are essentially

the sane. They all have stoker-fired boilers with pneumatic ash handling -

systems. Each activity has a substantial seasonal steam variation, and thecapital costs for retrofitting the units to co-fire RDF vary essentially onlywith the scale of RDF input. However, there are specific local factors thatqeL them apart from each other; those factors will be the reason fordifferences between the activities in the sensitivity analysis. Thesedifferences include solid waste disposal and generation rates, conventionalfuel cost and heating value, and ash disposal cost. For this analysis, basegenerated solid waste is assumed to approximate the composition of municipalsolid waste (MSW). The base waste is presumed to consist of office, housing,and food wastes; minimal industrial/manufacturing type wastes; and no

3-1

m%,%

-• °.-" .. ° -

€

TABLE 3-1. INPUT DATA UTILIZED FOR THE BASELINE EVALUATION AT EACH FACILITY

Act ivIty

(l) IinDut Data Units Cherry Point Pucet Sound L:ttle Cre Bar.c-

FRACTIONAL 4ISTURE CONTENT OF AS RCVD RDF 0.2 0.2 0.2 C.. 2# PRACTIONAL ASH CONTENT OF AS RCVD RDF 0. 0. 0.1 C:,

HYDROGEN MASS FRACTION OF NAF RDF 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.07RDF COST ($0/T + $2/T oelivery) $/TON 2 2 2RDF BUL( DENSITY PC- 35 35 35 35RDF SIZE (PASSES THROUGH SCREEN OPENING) INCHES 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5

• FRACTION OF HIGHER FUEL HEATING VALJE

SUPPLIED TO BOILER BY RDF 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4

FRACTIONAL MOISTURE CONTENT OF AS RCVD CF 0.045 0. 12 0.03 0.05!PRACTIONL ASH CONTENT OF AS RCVD CF 0.06 0. 07 0.07 0.075

* FRACTIONAL EXCESS-AIR NORMALLY REQUIRED

FOR 100% CF AT MCR u. 17 0.3 0.33 0.32TOTAL HIGHER FUEL VALUE TO BOILER WHEN

USING 100% CF AT MCR BTUH 9. 10E+07 1.73E+08 i.02E+08 7.20E+07HIGHER HEATING VALUE OF CF BTU/LB 14724 10500 13800 12300 .

RADIAT!ON LOSSES AS FRACT ON OF DTOTHHVCF 0.0074 0.0041 0.0053 0.0052FRACTION OF CF INPUT FUEL VALUE

LOST DUE TO CARBON LOSSES 0. 05 0.0405 0.0132 0.0038STAC , TEMPERATURE DEG F 540 150 (2) 450 335

CF TEMOERATURE AT BOILER BOUNDARY DEG F 70 70 70 72CF SPECIFIC HEAT BTU/LB/DEG 0.5 0.3 0.3 0..

ROF TEMPERATURE AT BOILER BOUNDARY DEG F 70 70 70 70AIR TEMP AT FR OR AIRHEATER INLET DEG F 70 70 BO 70

PREHEA'ED COMUS7:DN AIR TEMPERATURE DE F 70 70 370 70

qVG AS 'IEMPERATURE LEAVING BOILER BOUNDARY DEG F 130 450 400 5m"COST OF ELECTR:CITY $/WH 0.0535 0.0227 0.021 0.0281U P? (CONENIONPL FJEL) COS$ $/LB 0.0274 0.039 0.0295 0.0281

# DISPOSAL CCS7 POR SOLIDS (as) $/TON 0 !6 15.19 4

D vS OF STORAGE DESIRED FOq RDF DAYS 1 .

ENGT# Cc 4EC-ANICAL TRASFER CONVEYOR MILES 0 0 -61NANCI, L. E q P-1.EL' YEAPS 2 5252D scout tacto at 0% 9.54 9.54 9.54 9.54

PAS:C uNBURDEVED OPERATOR wAGE RA" $/HR 13.5 ,13.68 3.5 13.68AVAILABIlY O EX;S-I\G BILER ;IRED

WITH CF. - RAC. IF LNKNOWN, ENTER ZERO 0.95 0.98 0.9 0.99HDROGE,' MASS FRACTIOn, O; OS RCVD Cc 0.054 0.04 0.045 0.06ADD'- 1ABLE A TJCLATE EMISSIONS S'ANDARD LB/MMBTL, 0.32 0. 1 0.230.1A 0jA. X1ODLCTiON OP IPSW TONS/YR C000 420U,0 7540 5500PuRDE-N:Nk ON BASIC RAIE, A MULTI;PIER 1.3 1.305 1.3 1.305OS* :%U- FEE '/TON 3.4 I0 7.58 9

, RTNSCP' A!ON FEE $/'ON 6 6 6

4 VC;u4AE ASH FREE , EATING VA'E, RDF BTU/LB 900 9000 90Oit) 1001.

• .. %

3-2...

-- '7

TABLE 3-1. (continued)

Activity

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- .

Irlaut Data Urits Cherry Pcirt Puget Sona Little Creek Ba,Zo-

'c THE FOLLOWING STATEMENTS ARE TRUE, ENTERI%~a

EKiLER HAS SOOT BLOWERS FOR THE CONVECTMVBOILER HAS SOOT BLOWERS FOR THE ECONOM~IZER11

801-ER HAS AN ECONOMIZER111

ECONOMIZER. 1P PRESENT. IS BARE TUBE 00

bOILER 4AS A HISTORY OF SLAGGING 0 02

ADEQUW7E PCUP CAPABILITY EXISTS 1I

BO:LER IS EOL'IJPED WITH A E'Q&4JtSE 4 1BOILER :S EOLIDPED WITH AN ESP .

*BOIE IS EQLIPDPD WITH A VENTURI SCRUBBER Q* FOLER E MULTICLONES 1RCCOE 0 0

P OI.ER WAS ORIGINALLY DESIGNED rOR COW_ i

EO>-ER '40S KOVING OR DUMPINS GRPT EIP0O1LER ,AS AN ASH HANDLING SYSTE1

THE CP ASSUMED CO4I'REO !S OIL (10 0 1

-wF Cc ASSUMED C-cIRED IS COAL 1

TH~E CF ASSUMED CO-FIRED IS GAS 0 0 07HE ;URNACE IS PC OR CYCLONE TYPE 00 0 0k-E BCI>ER HAPS AN ID FAN I 1

AL7ERNPA7VS SOL7ID cUE_ IS NOT 33F RJT COAL 0 0 0PLJERNAT-M SOLID FUEL IS RDF-1- 0

PLTERNATVE SOLID FLUEL IS RDF-5 d-RDF):1

Q~D IT I ONL :N PUj REGARDING DRIGINAL BOILER DESIGN

-RAC 7ONAL TNST-RE OF AS RCVD DESIGN CF ('1 248 0. 05

RC2NLAS-' '-'NTEN' OC7 AS RCVD DIP 0." 0.09!3 0.q (0.17

PCTIC;NPL EXCESS AIR RED FOR DCF A- %CR 0.15 0.3u3

O~IFJE' V -LUiE TO BOILER PT MCR

%AMEOLWE : DCF BTUH 1. 1 E+08 !7c_+08 I 1,:-08 72002000C_7GHER E:. VALUE OF DEF E4TU/LB 147,04 !02901 11400'

F, -1ON i -C L -,S7 DUE T] CARBON LOSS 0. 02 0. 0405_ 0. 0: K05315'. -:JE- SPEC:FIL'HEA- BTL/LB/DEG .00.3 0.3

O,1vT C3 DCc PT KOE _,ONEARY DES F 80 80 70 70n

-YDROGE' 1459 PRACTUON T: AS-RCVD CFO 0. u'539 0.0(40j (.0, 1.06o*RqD:'217' _]SSES AS A FRACTION1. tc~ DTOTHVCF 1005 4.0(- .0053 .. ,(S

AS-~ ANDL:.NG SVSC:E'0 CAPACITf TPH ".3 153

* * Averace Seasr-nal Steap DerarS r TL 4. 40c+07 4. EE+7 C. C'I+07 1 iE07

wi~ter BTU 2. OOE+4lB 1.34E+08 1. 50E~v 2. 85E +u-1

*Sorino,,a.' BTU 7. 17E+07 8. 81E+07 1. XE+i8 2. 52E+07

Rar.ces eva'.jatec ir. tie sersi'ivity aralysis:Cr cor-el tC;*.e- e".Ciencv cacuiat,,or,, boiier outlet terioerature of 00 cec. ovas .iser' ir, Ite eVa.UatiC,.

3-3

hazardous waste. When the sensitivity analysis results are compared betweenactivities, it will be important to recognize how these factors vary among the

activities. Table 3-2 summarizes these input variations.

TABLE 3-2. COMPARISON OF LOCAL ECONOMIC FACTORS THAT WILL IMPACT THE SIR

Activity

Puget Sub Base Little CherryVariable Units Sound Bangor Creek Point

Coal heating value Btu/Ib 10,500 12,300 13,800 14,724

Coal cost (delivered) $/ton $78.00 $56.20 $59.00 $54.80

Ash disposal cost TPY $16.00 $ 4.00 $15.19 $16.00

MSW generated TPY 42,000 5,500 7,540 10,000

MSW disposal cost $/ton S16.00 $15.00 $13.58 $ 9.40

The Puget Sound activity has the lowest conventional fuel higher heatingvalue (HHV) and the highest (delivered) coal price. Assuming the RDF ispriced lower than the coal, the cost savings from substituting RDF for coalcould be substantial.

Cherry Point and Bangor both report very low disposal costs for ash.Therefore, the additional ash disposal associated with burning RDF will havevery little impact on these two activities. Conversely, Puget Sound andLittle Creek report much higher ash disposal costs so the additional ashdisposal costs from the RDF will have a more noticeable impact or theSavings/Investment ratio. Depending upon the specific regulations of eachstate, RDF ash may be determined to be a hazardous waste through theExtraction Procedure Toxicity test. Should this occur, the ash would have tobe disposed of in a designated hazardous waste landfill, thus significantly .''. ',

Increasing disposal costs. If an MSW disposal credit is possible, those -.- *

activities that generate large volumes of MSW and currently have highdisposal costs such, as Puget Sound, will benefit most significantly.

3. 3 RANGE OF VALUES EVALUATED

Ten of the model input values can be controlled through either fuelspecifications or boiler operation or can realistically be expected to vary -

over a reasonable range. These variables were utilized in thesavings/investment ratio analysis to represent the possible operating/economic.conditions. The variables were: (1) RDF moisture, (2) RDF ash, (3) RDF

3-4

•~ K" "17" 17' "7"""

moisture-ash-free higher heating value (MAF HHV), (4) co-fire ratio,

(5) conventional fuel price, (6) RDF price, (7) MSW disposal cost, (8) ash

disposal cost, (9) excess air, and (10) steam demand. Table 3-3 summarizes

the values that were evaluated.

TABLE 3-3. INPUT DATA RANGES UTILIZED IN THE SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS

Model inputs Values

RDF moisture 10, 20, 30 percent

RDF ash 10, 20, 30 percent

RDF cost $2, equal to coal, 1/2 coal*

Excess air at MCR Actual, +10 percent, -10 percent

Co-fire ratio 20, 40, 60 percent

Conventional fuel cost Actual, +50 percent, +100 percent

Ash disposal cost Actual, +50 percent, +100 percent

MSW disposal cost Actual, +50 percent, +100 percent

RDF MAF HHV costt 7000, 8000, 9000 Btu/Ib

Steam demand Actual, low season x2, year-roundat peak demand --

*Equivalent to coal on a Btu per ton basis.

tRefuse-derived fuel, moisture-ash-free-higer heating value.

An explanation of the ranges that were evaluated and how those ranges were

selected follows:

1., 2., and 3. The RDF percent moisture, percent ash, and MAF HHV:

The levels selected for these factors were based on results from RDFco-fire test burns and other research evaluations (References 6, 7,8, and 9). Moisture and ash were both evaluated at 10, 20, and30 percent, while RDF MAF HHV was evaluated at 7000, 8000, and9000 Bt,,/lb. ?.%

4. Co-fire ratio: The co-fire ratio represents the RDF fraction of

the total higher heating value supplied to the boiler. The Impactof this factor on the SIR was measured at co-fire ratios of 20, 40,

and 60 percent. RDF has been successfully co-fired at these andhigher ratios (References 6, 7, and 8).

3-5

.. ~~~~° .. ....

.%"

5. Conventional fuel cost: A prime motivation in the past for

evaluating the feasibility of co-firing RDFs has been the rising

prices of conventional fossil fuels. Although the prices for these

fuels are currently lower than they have been in the past, it is ..r %P

not unreasonable to expect that the prices will increase in the .future. Therefore, the impact of conventional fuel prices on the .- %: .

SIR was measured at the current fuel prices (1986), at a 50 percentincrease, and at a 100 percent increase. Such price increases arenot unreasonable, as demonstrated by the coal price paid at the Sub

Base, Bangor, Washington. in 1985, the contract price was$93.64/ton, delivered. The delivered price for 1986 is $43.80

(reference telecon, Appendix B).

6. RDF cost: RDF cost is expected to have the most significant impacton the SIR. To account for the typically lower heat content andhigher ash content, the RDF must be priced below the currentconventional fuel cost. EG&G (Reference 10) has conducted twoeconomic evaluations of RDF-5 production costs. The first, based onvendor quotes for equipment, operation, and maintenance, resulted in

an estimated RDF-5 price (including capital, operation, andmaintenance) of $35 to S43/ton f.o.b. The second analysis utilized acomputer model to evaluate the life cycle cost for an RDF-5 orRDF-3 facility. This analysis yielded a net processing cost per tonof approximately $20 to $40 for RDF-5 and $14 to $25 for RDF-3,depending on the specific type of operation. WETCO reportsRDF-5 prices from $27 to $70/ton and RDF-3 prices of $4 to $18/ton

(Reference 3). A relatively new RDF-5 production facility reportsa price of $18/ton, delivered within a 50-mi radius of the Richmond,Virginia, plant (Reference Appendix B). "

Given this range of prices, it was determined that the effect on theSIR could be most effectively estimated by pricing the RF as AL

equivalent to the cost of the current conventional fuel on a Btubasis, half that cost, and essentially free with a nominal $2/tondelivery fee (as used in the baseline case, which is described inSection 3.1.). The $2/ton rate was chosen as a means of evaluatingbest case effects. If the SIR is not favorable at that level,further consideration would not he required because it Is unlikely,based on the above references, that actual costs would be asfavorable.

7. MSW disposal cost: MSW disposal cost will impact the SIR only ifthe Navy activity realizes a disposal savings by taking their wasteto the RDF production facility at no tipping fee or at o tipping feemuch less than the current fee. However, there will still be a cos..associatpd with collecting the waste and transporting it to theproduction facility. Therefore, the entire disposal cost cannot beavoided. Furthermore, RDF production typically has a 50 percent fuelyield from MSW. This means that the remaining 50 percent willrequire standard disposal. Therefore, credit can only he assignedto 50 percent of the disposal fee. To account ior thlu;, the

3-6

."S"

*.."°%

S. ':,

sensitivity analysis considers both cases (with and without the

disposal credit) at the following waste disposal rates: current,current plus 50 percent, current plus I00 percent.

R. Ash disposal cost: If RDF is co-fired with coal, the ash generationrate will increase due to the higher ash content of RDF compared tocoal. Therefore, ash disposal costs will increase and impact theco-fire SIR by increasing the power plant facility maintenance costs. ; o

The effect of ash disposal costs was evaluated at the current rate,current plus 50 percent, and current plus 100 percent. ..

9. Steam demand: The evaluation of steam demand changes will helpdefine at what steam demands the co-fire option becomes feasible.Although it is highly unlikely that the demands wilt change, a changeor addition to a particular activity mission might require a change(increase) in steam demands. Should such a change occur, the co-fireoption may be reconsidered in light of the increased demand. Currentsteam demands, current low season demand (doubled), and demand levelat the reported peak were evaluated.

10. Excess air: The impact of excess air levels is interesting to notebecause excess air levels are not rigidly defined parameters and areoften subject to operator control. Excess air levels may also haveto be increased (based on RDF quality) in order to maintain stableco-fire combustion conditions.

3-7

'S"

.o .- %

.:.-..

S. .S- . ~ .. * S - - ... ..- . . . .

... .. .. ....... . . . S .'~.-

r.# W -

1N4

. ,-. '. 1.

, r -

SECTION 4.0RESULTS

4.1 SIR: BASELINE AND SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS

To determine the optimum conditions for RDF co-firing, the model wasexercised over a range of input values as discussed in the previous section.Summaries of the evaluated input variables and the resultant SIR for eachNavy activity are presented in Table 4-I. The complete list of operational

and economic outputs for each analysis can be found in Appendix E.

For the baseline case, actual conditions at Cherry Point, Bangor, andLittle Creek yield savings/investment ratios of -0.19, -2.21, and -0.03, -.

respectively. The SIR for Puget Sound was +2.18. Recall, however, that thebaseline case assumes that RDF is essentially free. As the cost of RDFapproaches one-half the cost of the conventional fuel (on a Btu basis), theSIR for Puget Sound drops to -4.5.

When an MSW disposal credit is considered for the baseline case, thesavings/Investment ratios become 0.04 for Cherry Point, -1.73 for Bangor,0.35 for Little Creek, and 4.48 for Puget Sound. Puget Sound exhibits such asignificant increase in the savings/investment ratio with the disposal creditbecause of the large vclume of waste which can be credited (21,000 TPY) andtheir relatively high current disposal cost ($16/ton). MSW disposal costwould have to increase over 100 percent to yield a positive savings/investmentratio for Bangor at the current MSW generation rates.

As pointed out in Section 3.2, although the four Navy activitiesevaluated have technically similar boiler characteristics and operationalrequirements, there are local economic factors that give rise to varying

degrees of response in the resultant SIR. Figures 4-1 through 4-10 illustratethe impact of these differences. Figure 4-1 is a graph of the resulting SIRsfor each activity when the cost of RDF is essentially free, equal to one-halfthe current coal price (on a Btu basis), and equal to the coal price(including delivery). Due to the relatively high price paid for low qualitycoal at Puget Sound, the response of the SIR (as indicated by the slope) to

changes in RDF prices is greater than that of the other facilities. The SIRfor Puget Sound also responds more dramatically to changes in the RDFco-firing ratio as illustrated in Figure 4-2. This is once again primarily

due to the relatively high cost of fuel at Puget Sound and indicates a - ,...

favorable shift in the SIR as a result of displacing this expensive fuel witha less expensive RDF.

The significant effect due to MSW disposal cost at Puget Sound (as seenIn Figure 4-3) Is not only due to the high cost per ton for disposal but

also reflects the impact of the comparatively large quantity of wastegenerated at this facility. Thus, it is the impact of the total cost for

4-1

.

TABLE 4-1. SIR VALUES OBTAINED AS A RESULT OF THE SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS

Cherry Sub-base Little Puget

"e Input vqriable Value Point Bangor Creek Sound

RDF percent moisture 10% 0.04 -2.12 0.27 2.0120%* -0.19 -2.20 -0.03 2.1830% -0.48 -2.33 -0.43 1.36

RDF percent ash 10%* -0.19 -2.20 -0.03 2.18

20% -0.36 -2.33 -0.65 1.1330% -0.54 -2.49 -1.4 0.30

RDF cost $2* -0.19 -2.20 -0.03 2.18= coal -5.29 -6.30 -8.03 -11.21

1/2 coal -2.53 -4.15 -3.82 -4.54

Excess air actual* -0.19 -2.22 -0.03 2.18+10% -0.27 -2.22 -0.19 1.75+20% -0.36 -2.22 -0.35 1.75

Co-fire ratio 20% -1.02 -2.27 -0.92 -0.0640%* -0.19 -2.20 -0.03 2.18

60% 0.79 -1.77 1.05 4.04

Conventional fuel Actual* -0.19 -2.20 -0.03 2.18cost +50% 1.50 -1.49 1.81 5.41

+100 3.18 -0.78 3.65 8.63

Ash disposal costt Actual* -0.19 -2.20 -0.03 2.18+50% -1.12 -2.32 -0.60 1.08

+100% -1.49 -2.43 -1.18 0.42

MSW cost with Actual* 0.04 -1.73 0.35 4.00

disposal credit +50% 0.36 -1.32 0.69 5.82+100% 0.67 -0.92 1.03 7.63

RDF HHV 7000 -0.63 -2.38 -0.62 1.19

8000 -0.38 -2.28 -0.29 1.499000* -0.19 -2.20 -0.03 2.18

Steam demand Actual -0.19 -2.20 -0.03 2.18Low x2 0.38 -1.77 0.34 2.93

Peak 0.55 -1.62 0.34 6.26 %

Baseline SIR without disposal credit -0.19 -2.21 -0.03 2.18Baseline SIR with disposal credit 0.04 -1.73 0.35 4.48

*Value used in the baseline case.tCherry Point reported $0/ton for ash disposal. Analysis based on cost equalto MSW disposal and MSW disposal plus 50 percent.

4-.

4-2d

................................................................-..' .- *%':.- :

T. 7. 7

RDF Cost vs SIR

All Four Facilitles

2I

I

-i -4

-2 -

E-4. -1.

-5

N 9

IN

-N \ .-..I.'% oS..

,- I .-.-

$2/T 1 /2 coal = ;)l.-.;:

RDF Cot, $/ton ". "-13 eherry P^Int 4- Sub Lts Bangor

o Uttie creek, A Puget Sound ,.'

RDF Cost per Ton, Delivered .. "02/T 1/2 coal -coal -"

Cherry Poi nt 012.0O0 015.0O0 630.31

N..

Bangor 02.00 0120.60 0g41.20,..',Little Creek 0i2.00 0119.24 *38.47.t..""Puget Sound 02.0o0 *33.43 $66.86 .''

o .

1 4-3

RDF Cos,.$/t•

" '.

• Ftgure 4-1. Impact of RDF ot pher TIor. eliredtviis.-

Bang-r32.0,32.6'-4.2

Littl Crek 3200 31.24 38.4. ., .. .?.. .. ,-?.'., .- u.-..-- t.<.. Sou....-.-d . -.. 2, . 00%- .%- v- ..- 3....., 6- . 86,..,.,. . . ..- ;-

. . ""....,

Cofire Ratio vs SIR

All Four Facilities

%: -2

,0 II e -.

5..e i-I I '

,V'2c ____ _ __ __ __ _ -___ __ __ __ __ _ __ __ _.._

--.1

iiI --- - - -- -- - -- -I-

20% 40% 60%

Cofire Ratio0 Cherry PoInt * Sub Bae Bangor

- Little Creek A Puget Sound

Figur 4-.Ipato tec-i aioo h

p.'%

-'p.° °

L," ~~Figure 4-2. Impact of the co-fire ratio on the ..'p'

SIR for all four activities.

4-4.. -. 'f .'

X.-

71

E 4.

C.~M

CTAlFu Fclte

acua +5 00

Reaiv-S DsoalCs

0 Chrr ftn Su 1t.-n

0 LiteCek ue on

NS DipslCrdt-VriuIipoa ae

Eiir 4-3 Imato S ipsa oto h I

4-.5

Excess Air vs SIR

All Four Faclities,2.5 .

424

* 0

C 0.5J

o -

-i-1.5

actual +1%+20%

RelatIve Excess Air LevelsPeir.! ~Sub se ~r4-

Little Creek Puaet Sound

Excess Air: Valuesactual +10% +20%

Cherry Point 0.17 0.27 0.37Bangor 0.22 0.32 0.42Little Creek 0.33 0.43 0.53Puget Sound 0.30 0.40 0.50

Figure 4-4. Impact of excess air levels on the SIRfor all four activities. .

4-6

Steamn Demaond vs SIR

-~ Ail Four Facilties

0

* 4j

-- 2

Reatv StaDmn

03 Chrr _________Sub__Boise__________

Figure 4-5 impacteof te steam demand o h I

for all four activities.

% /4-7

ROF HNV vs SIR2. - All Four Factlitles .. ~

21

V~

A..4

_A.5 -

44-

.

SIR versus RDF Percent Ash

25All Four Focllllfle

2.2

A%

L 0.5

-Vi -4

acul+50% +100%

U ttie Creek Puget Sound

-be

4-

e7*

RDF Moisture vs SIRAll Four Faclites

-3 -

c~,eriy Pvercent Moisture

Little Creek A~ Puget Sound

Figure 4-8. Impact of RDF percent moisture onthe SIR for all four activities.

4-10

IOA i

Conventional Fuel Cost vs SIR

All Four Facilities

7-4

0'0

-2

Relltl' +50%tlna Fuel Cost

0 ~hrr~ D~r~tSub acst Bon"o

o Littie are Puget Sound

Conventional Fuel Coat Valuesactual +50Y4 +100%

Cherry Point *54.80 $82.20 0109.60ZBangor 056.20 084.30 0112.40Little Creek $59.00 *88.50 0118.00Puget Sound *78.00 $39.00 $117.00

Ftgure 4-9. Impact of the conventional fuel coston the SIR for alt four ,icti\,ities.

SIR versus Ash Disposal Costs

All Four Facilitles2.5

1.5 JCC

>

I-2

-2.

sh ipslCot iOacul +0 10

ChryPit0.00.0 *48

4-1-1. -I

!%

*i waste disposal that is reflected in this figure. Other figures in this

group have plots with similar slopes indicating that the responses of the SIR

to the various parameters are similar for all facilities.

Another way of looking at the sensitivity of the SIR to changes in

various parameters is to look at the range of the response of the SIR. This -" 'range Is illustrated graphically for each parameter, at each activity, in

, Figures 4-11 through 4-14. It is apparent that changes in the cost of RDF

and current fuel produce the widest range of response in the SIR. For three

of the four activities, the RDF substitution rate (co-fire ratio) has the

next highest impact and reemphasizes the importance of the fuel costs. In

general, the site specific factors of steam demand and ash and MSW disposal

costs have the next highest impacts, with RDF characteristics having the

least impact. Of the RDF characteristics, ash content had the greatest

impact in three out of four cases and moisture content and heating value hadnearly identical impacts. Puget Sound is more sensitive to the effects ofash content due to its higher ash disposal cost.

As RDF costs approach typical market prices (see previous section for

values), the savings/investment ratio makes significant jumps towards the

negative side. The Puget Sound SIR goes from a baseline of 2.18 to -12 as RDF

cost goes from $2/ton (delivery cost only) to $67/ton. The other facilities

exhibit the same reaction to a lesser degree.

As conventional fuel costs rise, the SIR obviously improves. The higher

cost results in a higher savings in avoided conventional fuel costs. With

the exception of Sub Base Bangor, the SIR is positive as the CF price

approaches and exceeds a 50 percent increase.

Steam demand affects the SIR because this is the factor which determines

when co-firing is possible. If the steam demand is low, relative to the

co-fire turndown rating, the model does not assign credit for co-firing. If

the steam demand meets or exceeds the co-fire MCR, then the model assigns

100 percent co-firing capability. Therefore, if cofiring is possible

100 percent of the time, the avoided conventional fuel cost is maximized.However, the economic benefits of the CF avoided costs are dramatically

reduced as RDF price approaches the cost of the CF.

4.2 BEST CASE EVALUATION

The RDF Cost Model represents a mechanism for evaluating RDF co-firing

feasibility at the most preliminary stage. As such, all conditions relating -'-

to the specifics of co-firing, including RDF cost, must be based on

assumptions. Therefore, an "actual" case is not possible. The cases

presented here are intended to represent optimistic assumptions. If, under

these optimistic conditions, the model predicts an inacceptable SIR, co- ..

firing will most certainly not be feasible under "actual" conditions, and

further investigation would not be required. If the SIR is favorable, a more

detailed analysis may be warranted.

4-1 3

. . . . . . , ' * -' . - . --. **. -- r-"--"-"- - •. - . - - " "- " -- - - - - .--- - -

PuQet Sound SIR RanQe Summary

8-5]". I,'I

-- 2> -

>

6' - -JIS-...

-7

-a4

o I

-12 -

ex air ash HHV H20 Oredit steam ash 5ratio ct rdf

Key:

Ex air: percent excess airash : RDF percent ashHHV :RDF heating value, IIAFH120 : RDF percent moistureCredit: I4SW disposal creditsteam : steam demandash 0 : ash disposal costratio :cofire ratiocf 0 : conventional fuel cost ~ .

ROF 9 RDF cost

Figure 4-11. Range of SIR values obtained for Puget Sound

a from the Sensitivity Analysis.

4-- I1"4'-

---- I IU. U V . ' .

%* r~ 0~' .~*. - - *--

17 W.- - :.:.: .,:.

3 -4_. . . , "! .. ..-

-2-

iD

*41

-7 I --1" I I

I j

ex a I HI .,I I I i .I".

Co I

(fl' I .-' '

I , '.:'.-

KeyI

a- i2 -:-V R pe ce s t i .--...

HHV :RDF heating value, MAFH20 : RDF percent moistureCredit: MSW disposal creditsteam :steam demandash 9 : ash disposal coatratio : cofire ratiocf 9 : conventional fuel costRDF 9 : ROF cost

Vat~bt I. .P'.~

Figiire 4-12. .ange of SIR valuies obtained for Suib Base -

IBangor from the Sensitivity Analysts.:---,.

4-1-

-* -**~ - '- ~ L-~ki~i:'.-k--: ,K °oL.

44

~~~Cherry Po~nt £1R Rone £ummorv_.'--

4. 1". ,~

4 T ".- *I

I

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ I _ _ _ _ _

I0-1 4

2I

-1

t- air ash HV H20 Credit steam ash I ratio d S rdf S

'Variable

Key:

Ex air: percent excess airash : RDF percent ashHHV : RDF heating value, flAFH20 : RDF percent moistureCredit: NSW disposal creditsteam : steam demandash 0 : ash disposal costratio :cofire ratiocf 9 conventional fuel cost 5.*

RDF J : RDF cost

JP*

Figure 4-13. Range of values obtained for Cherry Point

from the Sensitivity Analysis.

-

4-16

.. e_% .

-77

-

~. .. °

extl Creah H 20ed stRRnea asmratio ef r

ash : RFpre t

-H : RD, hetigvau, A

-I 1 I

'I.

I I ..

2 4- I1i..

I IIIIoI ! "1 3%

., , -5I I

-2 -1

H2 RD peren moistur

II I%

I Il .

-9 I I I I I I

Crex ar asW iV H20 Credit steam ash $ ratio cf $ rdf $

ratio : rDF h ati vleos eam: sta dmn

cf 0i: conventional fuel costRDF s : RDF coat

Figure 4-14. Range of values obtained for Little Creek

from the Sensitivity Analysis.

4-17

.•. . * . .. . . . S * .* * . * . . . . . S

4 --- r . -' - . .. . ... .- -,-- . -'. . v - - . . . . . . . ... .- - - - - " "

"- "' - " '-: - 'r "- : ..- -- -. .

T -177

In all cases, the optimum economic scenario is achieved when RDF cost,

moisture, percent ash, ash disposal cost, and excess air are minimized; and

conventional fuel cost, steam demand, RDF HHV, co-fire ratio, and MSW disposal ..

cost are maximized.

Even though the range of values evaluated in the best case analysis are .

all theoretically possible, the probability of all of them attaining their

optimum values at the same time is extremely remote. The analysis of this

best possible case does, however, put the economic feasibility of the various

activities into perspective. Table 4-2 presents the results of this best case

analysis along with the results of a more probable "Best Fuel Cost Ratio" case

and the baseline case with disposal credits for MSW. The more probable "Best

Fuel Cost Ratio" case assumes the use of highest quality RDF at a price equal

to one-half the current price of coal (Btu basis), the co-fire ratio is at

60 percent, the price of coal remains at the current price, the MSW disposal

cost doubles, the excess air, steam demand, and ash disposal costs are at

current values.

4-18 Z

° %

* ,1** ",

"4-18%

".. . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ."-.. \ %

* - " - .. p.p -o -. -

TABLE 4-2. BEST CASE SIR ANALYSIS RESULTS

Puget Cherry Little Sub Base

Sound Point Creek Bangor ..

Best possible:

SIR 34.4 9.7 10.4 4.2RDF cost (S/ton) 2 2 2 2Conventional fuel ($/ton) 156 109.6 118 112.4RDF moisture (percent) 10 10 10 10

RDF ash (percent) 10 10 10 10Co-fire ratio (percent) 60 60 60 60Excess air (percent) 30 17 23 32Ash disposal cost ($/ton) 16 0 15.19 4MSW disposal cost ($/ton) 32 18.8 27.16 30RDF MAF HHV (Btu/lb) 9000 9000 9000 9000

Steam demand Peak Peak Low x 2 Peak-e

- Best fuel cost ratio:

SIR 1.7 -2.5 -2.4 -3.1RDF cost ($/ton) 33.43 15 19.24 20.6

Conventional fuel (S/ton) 78 54.8 59 56.2RDF moisture (percent) 10 10 10 10RDF ash (percent) 10 10 10 10SCo-fire ratio (percent) 60 60 60 60

Excess air (percent) 30 17 33 32". Ash disposal cost ($/ton) 16 9.4 15.19 4

MSW disposal cost ($/ton) 32 18.8 27.16 15

RDF MAF HHV (Btu/lh) 9000 9000 9000 9000". Steam demand Actual Actual Actual Ac tua 1 16

Baseline:

SIR 4.5 0 0.4 -1.7RDF cost (S/ton) 2 2 2 2Conventional fuel (S/ton) 78 54.8 59 56.2R)F moisture (percent) 20 20 20 20

ROF ash (percent) 10 TO 10 10% Co-fire ratio (percent) 40 40 40 40

EKcOsS air (percent) 30 17 33 32A';h disposal cost (S/ton) 16 0 15.19 4"1SW disposal cost (S/ton) 16 9.4 13.58 15RDF MAF 11HV (Bti/lb) 9000 9000 9000 9000Steam demand Actual Actual Actual Actual

.-

4-19

% Se

' . % . % '.'_. . ~ . - '.. .. '.#\ . .-. -. ---. .-.. . . ° ... .. . - - - . - , ..4~ ~~, * -. , :.* -' ,"-.,, ,.',ok2 ** -. L. d.-

SECTION 5.0SUMMARY

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

5. 1 PROGRAM SUMMARY

The objective of this project was to determine the cost effectiveness ofco-firing RDF in existing Navy boilers using the NCEL RDF Cost Model and site

specific boiler and cost data. The four Naval activities listed below wereselected on the basis of boiler type and condition as being the mosttechnically suited Naval shore facilities for co-firing RDF.

4 Marine Corp Air Station, Cherry Point, North CarolinaNaval Submarine Base Bangor, Bremerton, Washington A

a Rget Sound Naval Shipyard, Bremerton, WashingtonQ Naval Amphibious Base Little Creek, Norfolk, Virginia

Prior to performing the analysis, the model was carefully reviewed forerrors, omissions, and appropriateness to the candidate sites. Twelvemodifications were made to the model. Input variables were evaluated over areasonable range to determine the sensitivity of the model to these changes.Cost effectiveness was measured by the SIR, which was computed over a range ofcost and operating conditions to establish realistic and optimum RDF co-firingscenarios for each facility. . -

5.2 CONCLUSION REGARDING CO-FIRING FEASIBILITY

Of the four activities, Puget Sound was determined to have the highestprobability for co-firing RDF in a cost-effective manner. The SIRs for theother three activities were at or below zero for all but the most optimisticconditions. There are two site specific factors that give Puget Sound a co-firing advantage over the other activities. Puget Sound is currently payinga higher price for poorer quality coal than any other activity analyzed, andth-y are paying a higher price for disposal of a larger quantity of solidwaste than the others. These current economic disadvantages combine to givePuget Sound the highest potential for cost savings through RDF co-firing(assuming the MSW disposal credit is possible). SIR projections for PugetSound under the baseline conditions, which assumes free RDF at $2/ton (fordelivery only) and a MSW disposal credit, yields a 4.5 SIR. If a reasonableprice is assigned to RDF and optimum but realistic assumptions are maderegarding other site specific economic factors, the model projects a 1.7 SIR.To obtain a break even SIR (1.0) under current operating and economicconditions, the delivered RDF price would have to be $18.20/ton if a MSWdisposal credit was possible, or $7.50/ton if the MSW disposal credit wasnot possible. Based on past and projected RDF prices, such rates are notattainable. Therefore, co-firing at the present time is not economically

5-1

5-I .. L

.. 4

feasible. As illustrated by the sensitivity analysis, coal and MSW disposal '"'

prices would have to double (in terms of current dollars) before co-firing

.1

could be considered on an economic basis. . =

5.3 CONCLUSIONS REGARDING THE SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS -

Ten model inputs were identified as potentially having the most

significant impact on the economic projections of the model. These inputs %

were varied, one at a time, over a realistic range of values, to determine

their individual impact. This one-at-a-time evaluation helps to establish the

relative order of magnitude of each effect; but, due to the highly interactive

nature of the model inputs, it is not possible to develop an absolute ranking.

The inputs are discussed below in groups reflecting their relative order of

impact and their interactions.

5.3.1 Cost of RDF and Conventional Fuel and Co-Fire Ratio

The SIR is maximized when the cost differential between coal and RDF is

at its greatest. In this situation, the displacement of coal by RDF has the

most economic advantage and considerable cost savings can be realized. This

can be further enhanced by increasing the co-firing substitution ratio to

whatever extent possible (100 percent RDF combustion has been successfully

demonstrated in several test burns, References 6, 7, and 8). As RDF becomesmore expensive or as coal prices are depressed, the economic advantage

diminishes and the SIR is significantly lowered. As the cost differentialbetween fuels decreases, the advantage of higher substitution rates also

diminishes. If fuel prices are equal on a Btu basis, there are no cost

savings, and a negative SIR results because of the added capital cost of RDF

firing.

S5.3.2 Steam Demand

THe SIR is maximized when the steam demand of the facility is within the

* achievable co-fire steam supply range. When the demand is outside the

achievable supply, the ability to substitute RDF for conventional fuel is

* restrIcted and the avoided conventional fuel costs are therefore reduced. Anychanges in total steam demand, due to changes in activity mission, couldsignificantly alter the SIR. -77.7

Although it is not generally possible to control total steam demand, co-

. firing can be optimized when multiple boilers are required to meet the

, current demand. One boiler can be designated as the primary co-firing boiler

and operated under optimum co-firing conditions, while the other boiler(s)

provide the balance of the steam demand with conventional fuel or with

Srestricted co-firing. The operational flexibility presented by multiple

- hollers has considerable impact on the time when effective RDF co-firing is .'.e.

possible and, thus, the SIR. Operational flexibility was not addressed by the

RDF Cost Model but should be fully explored if future detailed analyses are .'..

undertaken.

5-2

%**

* .*%*L-.'-- - - - 4' q-*.'*, *,

5.3.3 Cost of Ash and MSW Disposal '

Depending upon local conditions, either the cost of ash disposal orthe avoided cost of MSW disposal can have a greater impact on the SIR. ForPuget Sound, MSW disposal credits dominate because of the large quantity ..- ' :(21,000 TPY) of waste at a relatively high tipping fee ($16/ton). Theability to negotiate a cost reduction for disposal of Puget Sound base solid %waste (via a disposal credit) would have a significant positive impact,raising the baseline SIR from 2.2 to 4.5. If the tipping fee were to double,which is not inconceivable (Reference 12), the baseline SIR would increase to8.2. The composition of base solid waste was not addressed by the model other %than to assume that 50 percent could be converted into RDF; therefore,avoiding one-half of the disposal cost. If significant portions of the totalsotid waste are not suitable for RDF production or are noncombustible innature, extra consideration should be given to the impact of composition onthe solid waste disposal credit.

The reported costs for ash disposal ranged from no cost at Cherry Pointto $16/ton at Puget Sound. Depending on RDF ash content, co-fire ratio, andtotal RDF utilized, the quantity of ash can also vary considerably.Significant increases in RDF ash disposal costs are even more probable thanincreases in MSW disposal costs. Various state environmental departments mayfind RDF ash to be a hazardous waste because of results of the ExtractionProcedure Toxicity (EP Tox) test and various local testing procedures. Such afinding would require that all ash resulting from co-firing be disposed of ina specialty designated hazardous waste landfill. The resulting increasedtipping fees and transportation costs could completely outweigh all otherbenefits of RDF co-firing.

5.3.4 Excess Air and RDF Quality

RDF quality does not impact the SIR as significantly as the previouslydiscussed model inputs. However, disadvantages to low quality RDFs arenumerous and cumulative. High moisture content RDF will adversely affectstorage, handling, and combustion efficiency. High ash content will increasethe potential for slagging and will increase O&M costs. It could also affectcapital costs if upgrading the ash handling system is determined to benecessary. Minimizing ash and moisture content will improve the heating valueof the fuel and will enhance the ability to co-fire at higher substitutionratios. Better fuel quality will also result in more stable combustion andimproved boiler efficiency. Although premium quality RDFs are technicallyachievable, the ability to negotiate a contract Lor a high quality RDF at an ..

advantageous price has not been proven.

Compared to the other model inputs, the value for the excess air levelhas minimal impact on the SIR. However, it is widely recognized thatappropriate control of the excess air levels is advantageous to overall boilerefficiency and economics. <

5-3.7 2"

J1 -VJ J. ~ - ..

5.4 RECOMMENDATIONS

Changes in certain economic conditions will impact the feasibility of

RDF co-firing. It is therefore recommended that the following factors be

monitored on an annual basis:

*Conventional fuel cost.'-.

o MSW disposal cost0 MSW generation rate

0 Ash disposal costs0 RDF production: Markets

Prices

If these factors change such that the model yields an acceptable SIR, asite specific analysis should be done. This analysis would examine factors

that are not covered by the model, such as the ability to balance the steam

demand to maximize the co-fire ratio, determining the composition and

quantity of base-generated solid waste, and local factors such as ash and MSW

costs and regulations.

-5-

%.. -

, . % 5**

'

5-4 " ' "

I

.4

.9,

-J

REFERENCES .9.

I ~

.4..I.,.

*? .9.

t.

-4.

-

R-1

I-'

REFERENCES

1. *'RDF Utilization in a Navy Oil-Fired Boiler." VSE Corporation, Oxnard,CA. Prepared for NCEL (CR83.033). June 1983.

2. Waste Fuiel Utilization in Existing Boilers on U.S. Naval Bases."(ilhert/COMMOnlwealth, Reading, PA. Prepared for NGEL (CR8O.005).

January 1980.

3. "A Mathematical Model to Determine Feasihility of RDF Retrofit Co-FiringWith Conventional Fuels." Waste Energy Technology Corporation, Bedford,MA. Prepared for L.I. Dimmick Corporation, Oxnard, CA. December 1984.

'4 "User Manual for the Refuse-Derived Fuels- (RDF) Model." L.l. DimmickCorporation, Oxnard, CA. Prepared for NCEL (ContractNo. N00123-83-0-0118). August 1985.

"System Notes for the Refuse-Derived Fuels (RDF) Model." L.l. DimmickCorporation, Oxnard, CA. Prepared for NCEL. (ContractNo. 123-83l-D-0118). August 1985.

5."Economic' Analysis Handbook." NAVFAC P-442. July 1980.

h."A Field Test Using Coal:dRDF Blends in Spreader Stoker-Fired Boilers."Sy;stems Technology Corporation, Xenia, OH. Prepared for U1.S. EPA, MERL.Contract No. 68-03-21426. August 1980. 4

7. "aldlFDemonstration Test in an Industrial Spreader Stoker Boiler."Systems Technology Corporation, Xenia, 0H1. Prepared for U.S. EPA, MERL.Cont ract No. 68-03-2426. July 1980.

8. "A FielId Test !1sing dRDF in a Spreader Stoker Hot Water Generator."

Svw;teins Technology Corporation, Xeniai, Oi1. Prepared for AFESC. ReportNo. FISL-TR-8 1-57. Auigust 1981.

9. "Oper.-itiona1 'rest Report: Effects of Moisture and Composition onDen'4ified Refuse-Derived Fuel." SYSTEC- Corporation, Xenia, OH.Prepared For NCKI, (Contract No. N00123-83-0149). March 1986.

10 "n valiintion of Densification Technologies." EG&G, Idaho. Preparedfor [K.S. DOE, Contract No. DE-AC07-761D01570. June 1985.

11. "A 'echnical and Economic Evaluation of the Project in Baltimore, ~Maryland, Vols 1-4." Systems Technology Corporation, Xenia, OH-..I'rcparedl for U.S. KPA, Office of Solid Waste. Contract No. 68-01-4359.Jun1e 1979.

7. NSWA's1985 ripping Fee Survey." Dr. C. A. Johnson and C. L. Pettit.i'?.s te Age. M'arch 1 986.

R-2

%a

'N 2

DISTRIBUTION LIST

.\Fit M~) IM 0( lI'MN iilll . I ind~c\.\N\RMl' ARM)( I ihiiit. IDoicr. NI1. 1(Iit' I no,. I) I N ( \1 -\I. ,%aihingtion. D)( C (it n gi r.

DA.[ N-NII't'. N'Ikit ti' lm. M)(. I R NI)( l )\ SUII i (IM Iup lSir 11 . 1 . 1 1 Nliiiiin1iutl. NJ, R&D) Cryid. 1 j

S I RN( \IS, Rub\ I fin Njli~k % IAN\RMI' .NNIN Nif I If IUN Ill AN\ N\ RIM I I I I 11\\IfII' Ifi Ilk

1IRNI ( Rl-I I ( RRI I I NV I Linmi NHl.NRMNi' MA I , \11:( If RS(I1f ( 1 N, I)R\I'1\ N I It 11OL I ttl~i MA

M PM.N pIf' odc \\) i'l ieii It(cm W ~o~il I W) uloi I

ItI IN I 1 1 I 111I. N' I I'tnl I 1)1111)1 I IftA(,I N'Pi ietn 1)1 ml

Ml 'SN I )I IS ~ PN~t I. ll Iceii.N ''tI tii, 'i~cli

\I R t II \f 1 kiiIic flt I)\ I-i M Il c. In I I it .f i lli. f'' 0 ii~ PA i.( ; f'\0 f~tliI

f I tf( f\ I, I IPik ii it It'N

tISI f'NtI( f'Ii ['IiiIMI MI

* ~ ~~~~ N NSINN IRP It \S[ 11,W ). Nl i "m I\ f ICI,I . V . Iii k In ll I. .) PI'W lCITI.Nl idi.NI:lNI. i- rf n.

MI \Si~i IX. I'N DP KI. lilIi' IX. Ill. I.k (entie IfxkIII PW ). SOMA We.El IW. CA:iff Ic. lW t. S

nrc. mNl'N . V iictti ( I) fii'W() lficIi.I:W iig I.lW) lIin 1.P O

.1i1 : 1 i \m m A l. WN.f )' . NliiIlcII Fild A :P II Nif .N

Nfl U'i IN 11 N l lfe lt MM. I I \r.AI( A: fcr.S PW,1l Niint"efl I.: %1L) NII )1 ." Seillo -NID,

*' Vf I,\ -1I,) \ IN I.m I lpi N Vl If: \W . lsnd~o ilI 1-1 . \l.: MeridiSI . %Nuil .NF . N[I. 'rca

IV\ P \\ Il~iN I ri'I' ( VI fciii. ffiiilon. W l;Et P\ in Be 1emphI 1.11. ( emhi is. IN. 1I SN-I NIrt

Il I I V~ i \\ I , Ilc dtir.N I [SN . G1<51 il I[- Il I Miii K\Nct l Pio ig~dc V ,IN(\I ' I , ( \ Ih it MI l a.ic 6A. ([R -/N fi n ain Witing. L. A O 1101 '.P O

NfIwil II tN l I NI I ko FIIL (N AIIII(.I~ui~t. l.: N I)[I)-SY VA ~ i~if.Ai NI\I't I NN 11(1 SI l I mI N I m I Ii. ('i): Auti NheRile Pa rikin A ri. l) I[ I-I

A\:I I INI I ) I, I ( ,l ( I \1 Itue. SIV AlIT1 (I.i 03re46f. Nal l.A :10 %,( 1 cl IB

\ I I I )I I . ilk l til .o ol At NI. (If- .[IB ti . A\1II I I( \l I ( I I N N\I0,IIN I t. I5 II 3 StI 1iitdrl lie. FL((I S' ithl F .V

\Rif M11 . I I N (11 %1( MlNimi. NIcinul,\dc AI N:DNe pis i.kc'pi N I AI',

i~i ill Iitki I li r ii I U A M Hlu~ MI)or.VI\R\ 111iNl I ff111 (l :1N ,N ( ' R ef Z N l fhmpill. Ifci. (I

\:011 IIV IN II i i I R I~iilil.[cIAnC . llN wi l.AIN I -Y.Iut .A

IfR NC il I N .1 MI V;( )t DI[ cci l 011.11el. A cdlPolitgG n .Nl.IS.R -I,

* N N'~~~th Id .1 Iii ' ftI! N I fcfd l\.11til.. I X; f'NN I. Iii o ig IirhiL . tN .icil.)N C. Nreni 1b

\RM N I I I Ni D ( %IDi N tniih. 1) N. SoNII l N i. AIiti. f' .

N NI0 1( NifI Nkt R II I I NI R I NRt.. NiI 1:1.0 . icht . VAult~ei. SVI( A O Itlck i. A

I SN N II I NtI N N I \\.i A. Sit INR I-\C tlc m .V

W N \ (I~ NH IN IN\Mi\ I .I( N I 'I'( cidr.Do eC

N I\ IN f t I I 11 N IN )It .Mi fI l i Iitl~ INNI N\I iiN I I N II \ I C l i i. I iI I c

N RN %I f 'N1t I I I l f ( INNIl k Iiii ~~il.N'pM

~~~.*-.lt.I') I.gal MN- * ~ - . * *

N XI.(IN( (A IX (si.c (I; A\IIlnsl s. \ . V od'c 11121 . Xc\,I11sI11,i. I (. I II3 I .I Iiul A~cIcxmlLrI~j.

VI I( oX d X, 1 )14 iSL\, iId I 4, . ihcis~ II

\1X~~. It N 's \I( Ol sit W .1 I 4Ws 4j X 1(11 () l iitssiI iii siii (11 %A t. 0.11MS NIN . I "'to

*~~~ ~~ \Is\l I) I4 I Itii I Sll I It~ md1)II, I e I \ I .ii( ixiii \'~

(1 l P (M( ( 5m55i.i.I

1KV. AAl I \MISR( \N M4\IDI( RIKI AU N, ,\ \ I \X( I N(((XI I .'dc. 5 l~iiIii X1 VX 4 ''di. 111 I. IW.iiictli. XX. 4 s11iC l(4NI I s. J\dAIt.Iii X . u'

1 '4 1 1\ 1(1 1~ ~ i.i. 111 11 1li k(44 I( I XI\,ilis (II.' C 4(2 \ XJt \IIII . V ,ti I Ilis

I IsilicII lln~i 4. X\ ,iltii S A. od I I 12. \lc\;Ifiliil I. \XV ( ikdc I14' .X Ic\,i1IIdi,. VANA\A I V N(.( (A I5 It I I M q)\ lc. I I'4()- I . \\.I'llIll~in I)Hl (U. \\,iIlIll L~t oi(. I)

N.5I ( ( A I AI I \\( I IMI 11 m ( . H hIik''ii. \( A,~i~4 .HI.iIc(ii

* ~~~N \\I V I V(, )\I .( .k SI I I I ((Iii. (isclI 14. SitPA ti (V Ii(4> Scr4 (i.Si ~s'.i X\A II M S in It M X. \ I M'.~ ''i c 44) 2.hiti Illtr. (Sa\ P m l

NA X I \(I NI( (I I Y4I ) I S If . 'is. 11,11 ( , . S(iil. I'lo ai~ol

N M' I I ( '5A I M \Iti sllIi I'S. Il 4 ) I s.'tiLit 114 . S,1'H( D I'iir'. A. tli )k S ccrl Ii SnDv~. A

Nrn (XVI I 1(4(. 11) N 0i 0'5 4 NsuI S1 X. '51)ill ulc'sLi XI

N M'. I MN I Isi I INs I SA I S S\\' ISt.IW M11h I

'\ S\ 4 41(1)51 5 ~ ~ 1 'V1 Iitlisi II.i X II) '55(.11 I iiiss. ''

N\ \1515 111 .)] \Nitik . 11\ IS \ oi~o 1

I...'.Nil

N d 551 54 I, ts'l~t N') '54. MSI\spil. If, P.\'M(. liC'i~irc k. Sin Ilim.ci. V \. M'( Suclk'c\% V. f'%% I. I slkis. I

"-.\ I I'1 \4('5 (HM . Ihuitin XN k\ \I I4. N5 l ( I N I )II . I55 Iisc II(ik I sh, r I'' II~ ..X l A ,SS . S I \ c Shu .I l) I'5 4I IlP\\ ihI !rc n. ,

N , 551 \\I XV. l N(;NIA 'V.( Kcs~poll. WA5N \5 (.'N I N ''\5( I I( l (OC 1 4',) Imi.i I i. ( A.

N 11\55I'N I P\M I'.O 4 h,iic'is'i. .M M '54. llciild. A: \ V0. Sc.,l1 Wi~cs . AI

N \~sl N SI \\ (), )oks,\\n.\N \ PP('S Il I N W I'4 1,Ills.. IN

I 11-f I\ %fisk tk X I

I' )I I IIk 1) I t. Y IV )( If & 1 lIio

I 41 I V V\t" I. X ii.. Ill

I'\Si i ii I ~ I 1 ( I'sii",.IIi I I AL (1 . Nslilk I Il Hl. II~~~t I( 5c 134). lScikil kirl. liI m l \(s it I Il' II. (d'I. I i fh 1 \Iiu 1011, ~ n~l ('5: H'Ic liii. IIlI Itst. (' 4. ''sIck~ M2.

It Pii1 .si 1\ "I~ 4.15 , I i kSL MRN O m i

(d ( ')I i( 1( \ sI 0 i k\". SIcsNt\iiis..'issiis ()It, -hcA cl

I~~ ~ "( 1i ;it' I4 NI "111 Nit I 'u Sit. 11S) I'\ . Ciin.. H

N P\ II \m44,1 l 1-11, I~sii sliiI (t. Iicc i. ctil

INI I XII I I 'l Ii nssttst 14 Ii5.tllit

IW ' KN X ' I I Xss Il I \il \d It IH 11 H H IP IN

lI I I St (01 1IN 1 RNI()RF IProtect Fngr Da%% kmn,). IANcrinoe. (A(MI ( )RAI)( I IA I F IJNI\[ RSI It Y(C Dept ( Nelson). Ft Cllins. ((O

% ( )NN[( I I( t l (Alice of Policy 6. XIgi. Lutcrp. Di\. Ilartlord. (TI ).\%I S & XI ( RI lIBRARY Los Autgec' CADI IR RYt 0I I I (;I P'h *\ic, Dept, Sprin 'Liidt. %I0)I I )RII). Nil I .N il I NI\,ii i 1stI 4 )CVAI F11)rg Ilet INIc,\Ilisiert. lioc Raitn. [1,

IA ( I 1, 1 1NI I 4)k ) I. S N & NMI I N~ IN I IN I ihmNr ( 'ais I Nc.XI ANI 'IN \ S 11 1 Ntl \1 (iimiii, iiliipui. PA~Ni

&I XX' A N I I XI I I I It I -444, )( i) /\ir,. A icnionc. (Atlat. ;I I \kr 11 IS \I I St 1)1 I) 1 ~ It ()f-rIili I ii'.N Itchh Ito 'N. lnc lUILIn III

111 INO!N N\IA IIN S I ( SR \ I I ihm .( Urmw I NF (t, R l i. in k .INI )D IWI I 1 1 )( 41 I NI , \1( 111 R I-I Prof It gn'.. Nitd il. IKI I NI ttt IR I II I(S N( i ( U11111.11 Kccc~i n L ,' NI(I

I NIlII 'I I I \I\t' R' I ui' Iiic IN . I IW1~r,t'.n 1uInc 1 i 1) JICI I olen )r . I amnIrtilic 1IN 1 t'. ll c Repdo rt'CI .

MtII\ I M NIA(S I I RI I \NdcM on( IlSc&I:.NRi & )% io olc ,N ) NI tI I( I ()It I NJI R I IRii.I SM iiililFS AII 1d I

* ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ R NI MA Wi) \(.t)' 1 N ( -IR) INSc,,I ( It\. /NJ() I.i nce

N I It t 1i1)~l ( l~ ' 1(1(1dc IA hO"11i4 ;'. ILab'kl. NY11iln. a big.%I ,Lh ehR-pr

's N I(t 441 I CFr n d. - I Sou'. CNY 1,1I t R( S\N 1)1 M ,t l'r;IAH nIt irt e. S101Ir; I~IgI'(S

\1k 1(1 M( I )N I \R15 I MucRe' I N I u i~i.ti IN hI I ucN'sI St 11) I )Ii 1 I NIAI R I I') ( ~p I Sit'. Bicglcri NNjlc

- S~~%I',l IN \I RONitq~ () lRn I nr Stmienl NYls (SP( ) I 1051 P1 )5If It SI I l 'lsin. PolIi.Sa i/CIII N~l I IX % I N[ 't1 I )R I i I. luI~l.N Y:Ntiiiet; 'niIadI ~o .NslJI IX I& I NI\1 RSI l ( I D II'I ( I Ch%, C ttIC11. (tillece \ Arnt.',I Is 1 I I Phllp, (4 hum1INS I n r cill I-n . ()i.;. (A : 'u F 'xr~i lirec. CA IF I)

"1 1I11I11 111 is I) V ) PP I XAl NI-Ili A/ u.(e-iIIer l~ir.n'c. N '';~. II

1. ~ ~ ~ ~ II I t NI I ((11 ) 1I N\ N I)K I~ds tcllt. irI',u. NN : hrir'. f rhing. ri .Xct leRo n . 'mn.

I NI I I& St I IVFNNSA It ( I D p IS cliIlctutler ''nenrnn'l. Stm nrh't NIX1 I 1011 1t )1 tI NI , l(S A I ncir tI nu'. l CASl PIut rinol. PcisNE itcc. :C

I N I] 11(511 1Y 1II Ik I.AS Ni AV S\II lNt (ISIh ). II Ih';i1 .;int. Am . I\1 1 10N 1 R 1 1 St 1 'A]) I IIN% \R (N I Dkigrc (l AI I4 ir uiit Seattle.' IMI N I RSI IX (if IS) ( ININ i it ( I & ik c h Stiti lie'. t. Ii'.'ink WI I .

NI N\Il R-t I NI 1 1 I'X"..N II ci'~II OL(. , X ii ri i t.h rr, 'h m 1 Nt~ eNm 1rma 1

* I I[I I N ()I 1 S I' S [i t's[ St.. %it nut'. C-fI(f111. m c~t

III I SI I )III \1S~ SiWAS A I M eel \ Ildos [cc ilhetif X Pirg,ii incln( NI\\ S IC 4X N l I~ I< 4 V." S Ait 'iit sit IN Det(Ih npo ) utnN

I~ i~ \1% I R-XN)S itISS( N I 4 Iir C if relit'. Iiitti;. WA

III I - IR ()-l I P\\ A''; (.i lf )i' lt. C11IT.ike lnc .* 4 44N511(( (l~oN 111 1 maI X I' in kIi. I

I '4 1 I I f III I it INI II) If)IN 1,111 1NSI 'Im'~.

.14B 114 M NI)W Xl I t. I fol RS mI III Nljte 'riuII.X iel-ic Ni1,%<1 If 1 X) ) I1t I 1 RI' I)ih n(lc i I eh.ht I Ac. I i cc. N

)l 4.1t MB (it IRI I I IAN( III'V s NItih l4iuu it,i. I-tN.I

) INIIX II ( I I I ( XIfS Ie I I' I wtiw (it'.. NIf

I NI NI I I it N I Ns I I NI I R I tt~m.itit ( Ni

\ I I IN"I' I 45 4s P4<' S~ I R1 1' kt IS' 'c~. 11* N~t 411 XII N N ( 141 IMN 1<51< lditidi I 'ti liecl. %IS

II II 11 BXRX\IRN I IN I L 44t 1. I X.I u4 IT.il X0X1I Ii'i I( n Ii M ;i~-, 4p~c11 i N ~~j ,1"1, o c

IN 1"\' I

7- W1 4

PHELPS ASSOU P.A. I'help%. Rhccmn \'alcN (CAPORTLAND (EMEN] ASSOC (orlc%. Skokic. IL.. Klicger. Skokic. 11i R~ch D Ic% [-;i Lih. Skoic. 11.RAi'MONIF) Ii RNAIONAL INC. 1: ('illc Soiil Icch Decpt. P'cmm~iukcii. N.JSAND)IA L.AIL(RAI( RIES Libimir\. I kicmirc. (ASH ANNON & WILSO N. INC I ihimIidfl. Scattle. "'A

l lRO N INC R~ch (Coi I it, IliiI IiIi. N)till ,\NL WA\ LIRWAYS ( )L'RA I I( NS. IMC N SclumIci. ArlingIii. V AIlRVW S) S I I %IS Do.i. Son lhrnoidwon. ( A%

*1, N111:I) lE(l INOIO-iLLS 11,1111111011 Sid Di\. Lib, Wiidsot Linck . (

* ~ ~ ~~'ARID. WoI~SIIENII( )INI A R(H 1l IiiS S:,cr.ncnk. CA\\IlSIIN(I I( I SI 1.1 IRI( (A )I1I. I ihrim\ I'iInsbm j!. PA'AN, ( I.AVVLAB,\S - BI I I LII I diilui Dtfkhinnri NIA\W00)()IWARIM- I )DI> ( 0 NSt 'I I AN I S R ( n'o. Wili cAk. ( ,'

* ~ B lIIIA(WK. I I L ( anada. (A1K Ii R( N. 110) 3 11t Worth I IX%IESSIN(. DA\. \ rrlic..x. NJ

I'IEIV( )(iFL LA RR) W~ncolc. P'A1L'A'. NIERNIEI. Wadtinrooni. DO1ENE R( i RLSMt R( 1I ASS0IT )( \%' Aalt/. I .\crmoi c A

'7

%.

.: .

.4.

4.

p

.1*

'S...,.4

-"-4

- b°4

4 . . .* - -