1. Army Landfill Gas to Electricity Feasibility Study Mary Matthews Hains, PE AMEC Environment and Infrastructure

2. Learning Objectives Understand the criteria that can be applied to identify strong landfill candidates for production of methane gas for electricity Understand the technical and economic factors that prove the feasibility of landfill gas to electricity projects 10-3-12Net Zero through Emerging Technologies2

3. Purpose of Study Identify renewable energy potential from landfill gases at all Army installations in CONUS 121 sites considered 10-3-12Net Zero through Emerging Technologies3

4. Process Develop evaluation criteria; score database Identify strongest candidates through questionnaires, modeling, and on-site records review with stakeholders Identify equipment specs and preliminary cost to calculate potential feasibility Conduct charrette of feasible options; prepare programming documents 3-4-124 Net Zero through Emerging Technologies

5. Evaluation Criteria 3-4-125 Net Zero through Emerging Technologies Waste Compo- sition Local Electric Rates Size (Waste in Place) Landfill Age Gas Collection System Net Zero Installation Excellent MSW reported >10 ¢/kWh >1.5 M Tons Active or Closed <5 yrs. agoYes Good/ Marginal NA >7.5 ¢/kWh >0.75 M Tons Closed >5 and <10 yrs. agoNA Poor NA <7.5 ¢/kWh <0.75 M Tons Closed >10 yrs. agoNA Most important Least important

6. Initial Screening Southern DoD Landfill Database –Desktop analysis; uses broad assumptions Unknown waste composition? Assume some MSW –Supplemented with other databases DoD Solid Waste Annual Reporting –Shows remaining waste volume, projected closure date, and gas collection system type EPA’s Landfill Methane Outreach Program –Defines candidates as active or closed 1M tons of waste, and no planned/operational LFG project 3-4-126 Net Zero through Emerging Technologies

7. O&M + Replacement Costs Lifetime Savings Project SIR Fort Belvoir 0 $ 1,050,000 $ 1,021,733 $ 2,207,520 1.07 Fort Lewis-McChord 2 $ 1,900,000 $1,509,267 $ 2,365,200 0.69 Fort Meade 0 $ 1,050,000 $ 551,880 $ 3,090,528 1.93 Fort Riley 1 1,050,000 315,360 883,008 0.65 Fort Hood 0 $ 1,900,000 $10,479,960 $ 23,935,824 1.93 Fort Roberts Preliminary modeling indicates insufficient gas quantities. Fort Pickett 1 1,050,000 $ 197,100 $788,400 0.63 Fort Irwin 0 $ 11,250,000 $ 6 3,087,293 $ 145,349,424 1.96 Sierra Army Depot Preliminary modeling indicates insufficient gas quantities. Fort Bliss Preliminary modeling indicates insufficient gas quantities. Yuma Proving Ground 2 $ 1,900,000 $ 4,539,980 $ 6,527,952 1.01 3-4-12XD Report7

8. Results of Initial Screening 32 landfills of 121 in the database were recommended for further consideration –Produced red-yellow–green measles chart To refine the data, questionnaires were sent to 32 locations; 28 responded Scored to reflect completeness of the data received, the year closed, landfill size, % MSW, type of gas management system, and electricity rates 3-4-128 Net Zero through Emerging Technologies

9. Scoring and Refining 3-4-129 Score = (A + (B + C) x D + E) x F; where: A = Completeness of data set (values = 0, 1, or 2) Not Submitted – 0; Partially Complete – 1; Substantially Complete – 2 B = Closure date (values = 0, 1, 2, 3, or 4) Unknown – 0; Prior to 2001 – 1; 2001-2006 – 2; 2006-2011 – 3; Active – 4 C = Landfill Size (values = 0, 1, 2, or 3) >1.5 m tons (large) – 3; >0.75 m tons (mid) – 2; <0.75 m tons (small) – 1; Unknown – 0 D = Percent Municipal Solid Waste (values = 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, or 5) None – 0; Unknown – 1; 75% - 5 E = Gas Management System (values = 0, 1, or 2) None – 0; Passive – 1; Active – 2 F = Local electric rate (values in cents/kWh) Net Zero through Emerging Technologies

10. Top 11 Candidates after Questionnaire/Scoring 3-4-1210 Net Zero through Emerging Technologies Fort Irwin, CA Fort Hood, TX* Fort Bliss, TX* Yuma Proving Ground, AZ Fort George G Meade, MD Fort Riley, KS Fort Belvoir, VA Camp Roberts, CA Fort Lewis-McChord, WA* Sierra Army Depot, CA* Fort Pickett, VA *Net Zero Base

11. Scored better than Fort Pickett but discarded... 3-4-1211 Net Zero through Emerging Technologies White Sands Missile Range, CA* Fort Hunter Liggett, CA* Fort Sill, OK** Fort Jackson, SC** * Lack of a gas collection system, low precipitation levels, and methane monitoring reports showing only a few ppm methane ** Low % MSW, low ($0.06- $0.08/kwh) electric rates

12. Preliminary Modeling Used EPA’s LandGEM software to model potential methane output Model estimates savings-to-investment ratio for proposed plant (>1.0 = feasible) –Using data, scoring, modeling results and discussions with client, further investigation through records review was proposed –Pickett, Belvoir, Meade, Hood, Yuma, Bliss, Lewis-McChord chosen 3-4-1212 Net Zero through Emerging Technologies

13. Ex: Fort Meade: Methane Produced vs. Captured, Cells 1 and 2 3-4-1213 Net Zero through Emerging Technologies

14. Fort Meade: Methane Production by Cell 3-4-1214 Net Zero through Emerging Technologies

15. Fort Meade: Energy Density 3-4-12Net Zero through Emerging Technologies15

16. Refinements from On-site Records Review Some electric rates were incorrectly reported, skewing results Trade-offs are challenging to evaluate: –Some cultural barriers exist in defending the “closed landfill” status –Non-attainment areas biased against installation of new plant equipment If you are going to wander around landfills, you need to watch out for ticks 3-4-1216 Net Zero through Emerging Technologies

17. 3-4-12Net Zero through Emerging Technologies17 Location Waste in Place Closure Year Electric Rates Annual Precipi- tation % MSW Gas Collection System Methane Present? Fort Meade0.51m tonsPre-2001$0.14/kWh41 in.83%PassiveYes SmallBadGood Fort Pickett0.51m tonsPre-2001$0.10/kWh43 in.100%PassiveYes SmallBadGood Fort Hood3.14m tonsActive*$0.053/kWh32 in.95%NoneYes LargeGoodBadGood Fort Bliss2.16m tons2013$0.08/kWh9 in.82%PassiveYes LargeGoodOKBadGood JB Lewis- McChord 1.20m tons2004$0.038/kWh41 in.79%PassiveYes MidOKBadGood Results of Records Review, Second Screening State why Yuma and Belvoir are gone

18. Design Considerations LFG plants have an estimated installed cost of $5000/kW The potential plant output from this study group ranges between 250 - 848 kW –Small compared to total base demand –$1.2M - $4.2 M capital investment Meade, Hood and Bliss will likely prove to have a reasonable payback period and sites with SIRs> 1.0 3-4-1218 Net Zero through Emerging Technologies