,,AD-Ai4B 947 SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT OPTIONS FOR NAVAL INSTALLATIONS i/iON GUAN(U) NAVAL CIVIL ENGINEERING LAB PORT HUENEME CRR M ROBERTS OCT 84 NCEL-TN-17ii

UNCLASSIFIED F/G 3/2 N

EnhnhhhlihnE IEmihhhinhhhhhhilEEih|hhhh

11111111102 2.21111111~2.2

11111_L 25 11111..4.. 1.6

MICROCOPY RESOLUTION T~l., CHART

RFPROnnj'FD AT C,\ FPN1MF NT FyPFNq F/

TN NO: N-1711

[U

TIL:SOLID % TF i, N,\(;-EMENT O,1IONSTITLE: .,OR NAVAL INSTALLATIONS ON GUAM

0

'"<1: AUTHOR: R. M. Rol,crts

i DATE: October 1984 .

SPONSOR: Chief of Naval Material

a..m..[[ PROGRAM NO: /0371-01-421A/B

>" NAVAL CIVIL ENGINEERING LABORATORY. PORT HUENEME, CALIFORNIA 93043

Approved for public release; distribution unlimited. i. 7

S "\ '

RFPRO[l( IC'Ff AT C ')VFRNMFNT FY'PFNI.-F

0

SHI

- Fc

0

Uniiclassit wid

REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE WfS A'i I11% 1Rf RE>.' 44 .Cv' A, iSSON NO q ~

TN-1711 D N987U U) 9w/VSO 1. 11) W.-SlI1 %IANAGFMI.N'I OPTIONS I-OR I inl. Jun 181 )8 I 1984

S. N.\AL. INS'IAi.I.eriONS ON GULAM

R. M. Roberts

Port I lueinme, California 03043 I64701 N;

Chjeft ofNaval Material KOctober 1984

K3

Washington, DC 20360 3

UnclassifiedSe OF. cASSFA" fl*%k

a kpproved for puli c release; distribution unlimited.

L~iam, solid \%astc management, resource recover'c waste: to enerp,heat recover\ incinerator

The Navs solid waste (SW) management operations and energy proiductil 01

distribution systems on the islatnd of (,uani wrer inspected and evaluated. Air horce and* ~~Ci% il (vuaoprtos~realso birought into the stud ' in the interest ot exploring

poissib~le integrated concepts. It .% as found th at SW procedures practiced bv the IPsAC ( ac' nfoirm well with N,\\'[-,\C instucti oni and I, PA guidelines. Oppo rtu nit les for resource

DD 1473 -,-. nclasiiciltinieI

I"

[.

K- 112l -ss--i-d

St CuRTV Cc ASSIFICATiON OF T-tS PA5E(When flat. Fni-td

20). Continued

recoer% .r particularly (i aluntinuin .itt.IAn lititird. should be exploited, hossever. [hei

collection and landfill disposal operations can lie C0ontittLCLe for up) to 15 Years lietirek-l1 a tu_1s tiCd ti be fiadcl.

lie1c ii eit cos t .115a ses Iit' terni c dispo& sal a pp roa cItes ss ere perfirnied. Th e ci'n cc ptoft burtin all it the Nass K SW to steam-drive the Nas al stattins air conditioning plant

emelirged" as a possilbility. .\nioihercost benef'icial apocbutl one involving the tither

tirisdictitns. vssl biI)le to creer a tmirln-eleetrme (2.5-MW) facilitv% that mould fire all ofthe SW -Cenerated on (Want1. [hei mass-fired plant %%ould be owned I\ ( o;u.icua and

proleralils tiprared In ai full-service contractor. Since bthl tlte GiivGuant1 and Air F-orce4 1landills 1i.is vers 'lintite1d additional usage and acceptalile ness sites are quite limited. the

cOticept vould sols the serious SW disposal probilemns no\% faced by both oif those

ettt [ties.

Naval i il Inin i-erIing I alirra torySOL ID WVASil EING.NI~ F)' O' OR NAVAl

I NSTAI LATIONS OIN dAN) ( Final). liv R.MN. RobertsI IN-I 711 3 3 pip illus October 1984 ('nclassified

I Solid saste intagemnent 2. Resriurce rcovers 1. 103 71-01-421 :N/

Inlc sisssoli) %%asie i SW) matiagemntr operatoiisiiit eitergv product ion/tlistriliutiionsystem' on the island ii (.lan %cere inspcted Aind eVALuate.). Air lotree and C ivil(oc an

S.perarioins %%rr alsti iriirght into the stiiil in the interest of exploiring pi ii t initigrate.) cmi-l

I cIs t t% Wa- fIUiu that SW piri tedures p i ac rices) b,. the I'W( ( tian confo'rnm well with N A\ :AtInstriititiims ind) I PA gu islelitte. ( ppiirt uities for restiurce recovers. part iril arlv. of alutminumnIi.. )ix)oard. shouild lie expliiirtl, ltrissever. Ihe ctilleetiton an.) landfill .disposal opecrations ea

I Ic continue.) fitr up it) 15 sears )ielire chaniges iniel tii lie tmatde.

Itenefi t /csst anta I ss if alt ernti~ risettsposalI a pproaches, sscrc perfiormet). The co.ncept to

lburtniig ill it the Navy's S~4 to sicarn-Irise the Naval station s air ciindtitiiining plaint emerged as ap-'isdits. A\nther ciost b.enei~tcial approacht, hut iiit invotlving the tither jtiristlictions, sytiul. tie

ts erect a turlii-electric (2. 5-51IW) tacilirs that %srirld t ire all ii) the SW generaret oin (Guam. TIhe

timilirt plait stoitrt lie tissned liv' (,oiisluam an.) prelcralslv tiperated by a fuil-service Conttractoir.Sitic I tr rthe (iis't saii air. Air )'ircc l:i1i,1t0ll htave ser% litted adldititonal usage anti acepiatile

liek A St i a're qu)tlc li mire.), tre co ncelp t iu I. siolye the sentiois SW d)isposal prollenm now% facet)Its both tit !--fI; ±s~4ei- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- ------ -

I. nelassif ied

Ii I , C '' T 1 - , - .

CONTENTS

rPage

INTRODUCTION ........ ......................... I

BACKGROUND ........ .......................... .

i AVAILABLE OPTIONS FOR LONG-TERM SOLID WASTEMANAGEMENT ON GUAM ....... ...................... 4

OPTIONS FOR THE NAVAL SOLID WASTE MANAGERS,PUBLIC WORKS CENTER, GUAM ..... ................... 5

Maintenance of Status Quo 5Solid Waste Densification and Burial .... ... .......... 6Waste-to-Energy-Process Using a Heat Recovery

Incinerator (HRI) ........ ... .................. 7Alternative Energy Schemes ....... .. ............... 8The PWC Guam Proposal ....... ... ................. 8Other Steam Uses ......... ... .................... 9

RESOURCE RECYCLE OPPORTUNITIES .... ............... .10

AN ALL-ISLAND INTEGRATED APPROACH TO SOLIDWASTE MANAGEMENT ON GUAM ..... .................. .11

Overview ........ ........................ .l.11

Alternative Systems ..... .................. .12

CONCLUSIONS ........ .................... ..... 16

6 RECOMMENDATIONS ....... ....................... ... 17

Improve Characterization of Waste Streams ....... 17Review Resource Recovery Programs for Waste

Fractions ...... . ....................... 17Determine GovGuam's and Air Force's Long-Range Solid

Waste Management Situations ... ............. .18Establish Feasibility of an All-Island Waste

Disposal Operation ..... ................. .18Preliminary Engineering Study of HRI/Air Conditioner

Coupled System ...... ................... ... 18 _For

REFERENCES .A .7 8-

• DrtrJh buion/

0

Awil.

INTRODUCTION

The present study was performed at the request of the Commanding* Officer, Public Works Center (PWC) Guam through the Naval Facilities

Engineering Command (NAVFAC). The tasking letter was submitted byPacific Naval Facilities Engineering Command (PACNAVFACENGCOM Itr 04D:sem,Ser 2372 of 18 Mar 1982). The objective of the effort was to examinethe feasibility of utilizing more cost effective waste disposal techniques,particularly of converting the solid waste generated by the Navy (andpossibly by the Air Force and civilian population) into a usable form ofenergy. The study was supported by the Naval Civil Engineering Labora-tory's (NCEL) Facilities Engineering Support Office (FESO) program andNAVFAC's sponsored Solid Waste/Energy project. The scope of the effortrequired:

* 1. Determining the state of the near- and long-term solid wastemanagement and energy policies and operating practices ofPWC Guam.

2. Making a similar assessment of the parallel situations existing

within the Air Force (Andersen AFB) and civic government ofCGuam.

3. Proposing strategies for enhancing the Navy's and the overallisland establishment's position relative to the immediate andfuture solid waste challenge.

* The task was initiated with a field trip by Don E. Brunner of NCEL,who met with all of the concerned parties and inspected all of theprincipal ongoing solid waste operations on the island as well as manyof the energy production facilities. Data appropriate to the study werecollected as was previously generated documentation pertinent to theanalysis.

BACKGROUND

Guam is the largest and southernmost island in the Mariana archi-pelago. It is approximately 30 miles in length with a width varying

4 from 12 miles to 4 miles at the narrowest point. Excluding the coralreef formations which surround it, the 212 square miles of Guam arecomprised of two geological formations. The central and northern por-tions of the island are elevated limestone structures interspersed withvolcanic mounts. The northern cliffs, ranging from 300 to 600 feet inelevation, drop sharply to the sea. The southern features are predomi-

* nantly volcanic with a mountain ridge dividing the inland valleys and

I1

coastline. The highest point on the island is Mount Lamlam, with anelevation of 1,334 feet. The limestone plateau of northern Guam ishydrologically porous, thus serving as a source of ground water thatsupplies a major portion of Guam's drinking water.

The Guam Envirornental Protection Agency (GEPA) has designatedalmost all of this northern portion of the island as "conservation,""resource," and "recharge" zones. By law, waste disposal in theseregions would either not be permitted or leachate control requirementswould, if enforced, discourage the siting of landfills there.

Southern Guam is primarily a surface water province that GEPA hasdemarcated into "conservation" and "general use" areas. Landfillsshould properly be sited in the latter type areas, although only aboutone-sixth of the island is so zoned.

Guam's mean annual temperature is 81F, ranging from the low 70s tothe middle 80s. The coolest and least humid months, marked by prevail-ing westerly tradewinds, are December through February. Annual rainfalltotals 80 to 110 inches. There are two seasons: the dry season, runningfrom December through June; and the rainy season, running through thebalance of the year. Although Guam experiences droughts from time totime, it 's generally regarded as having an adequate water supply. Thiscould change if Guam's role as a military base were expanded.

6 Guam is an unincorporated territory of the U.S., having the rightof civilian rule since the Organic Act of Guam was passed in 1950. Thenative population of about 82,000 people reside in small, mostly coastalvillages. Agana, the capital, is the only large town. The overallpopulation density (civilian and military) on Guam is less than 600people per square mile.

The U.S. Navy is the major business on Guam and, together with theAir Force, owns about one-quarter of the island. The Navy operateswithin 10 different commands that are scattered throughout the island.Most of these installations operate their own barracks, messes, energyplants, housing, exchanges, etc. The Public Works Center (PWC) locatedat Apra Harbor is responsible for collecting solid wastes from all theNaval facilities on Guam, including housing. The material is properlyburied in a Navy-operated sanitary landfill located on the southeastportion of the U.S. Naval Station near Agat Bay.

The Navy landfill is located at a site within what has been desig-nated as a "recharge" zone by the GEPA. Based on GEPA's regulations,any leachate from a landfill would have to be treated for discharge into

0 the subterranean recharge (limestone) structures. Although the landfillis exempt from this requirement, corings have been taken that show noevidence of landfill leachate intrusion into the underlying drainagestrata.

Approximately 1,600 tons of waste are received each month, mostlyMonday through Friday. The waste is relatively free of industrialmaterial, is probably high in calorific value, and contains littleglass. This waste is produced within a community of some 20,000 militaryand their dependents. Landfill life expectancy is about 15 years basedon the current filling rate.

Andersen AFB produces about 600 tons of solid waste per month thatis disposed of at its landfill which is located in a hydrologicallysensitive area. The waste characteristics resemble those of the Navy's

2

0

wastes. Because of suspected contamination of ground water, the GEPAhas requested the Air Force to monitor the site for leachate. The teststhat have been conducted show no evidence of groundwater contamination.The facility is expected to fill in about 3 years.

The Department of Public Works (DPW) of the Government of Guam(GovGuam) is responsible for all the solid waste generated by the civil-ian segment of the population. Residential (excluding military housing)wastes are collected free of charge by DPW trucks. Most of the commer-cial wastes are collected for a fee by the Commercial Sanitation Company.Commercial/residential/municipal wastes in 1978 were estimated to beapproximately 1,600 tons per month (tpm). This does not include asignificant amount of waste that is illegally dumped, typically byroadsides. Current estimates of the waste rate based on demographic andeconomic factors point to about 1,800 tpm, a modest increase of about2.3% per year.

Disposal of these civilian wastes is done at the Ordot landfill,which is located about 5 miles east of Agana in the center of the island.The zoning for the area is for "general use." The Ordot landfill isexpected to fill up within a few years, unless above-grade disposal overthe filled cells is practiced. This could extend the life expectancy toalmost 7 years. Solid waste disposal at Ordot is not being handled in amanner conforming with good sanitary landfill practices. Disease vectorsare not being properly controlled, and the design of the landfill issuch that runoff contamination of the nearby Pago River could be occur-ring during rainy periods.

Resource recovery on the island of Guam is limited. This is largelydue to the absence of or lack of incentives in the market place for such

£commodities. Automobile tires from Navy vehicles are a notable exceptionin this situation. Most good casings are sent to the Philippines, wherethey are recapped and returned to Guam. At Ordot landfill considerablescrap iron has been segregated but cannot be moved because of unattrac-tive economics. At the same landfill, scavengers collect aluminum cansfrom the waste. Boxboard is being flattened and bailed at some of themilitary installations, but the bales are sent to landfills for lack ofbuyers. Waste oils and paints are separated at some Naval facilitiesand recycled by the Guam Oil Company at its refinery. At the Navylandfill, a hard-fill section is operated in which predominantly woodwastes are dumped. Anyone wishing to may, at designated times, workthis material for salvage. As a result, about 80% of these wood wastesare utilized; the balance is burned semiannually.

Electrical power on Guam is largely supplied by the Guam PowerAuthority (GPA), an agency of the civil government. GPA is a partner inthe Island-Wide Power System with PWC Guam under a Power Pool Agreement.The basic Island-Wide Power System is a Navy-owned system built tosupport the military mission on Guam. GPA has attached several powerplants, transmission lines, and substations to the Navy system andoperates them jointly with the Navy. The Navy generators are however,ir, minimum use except when GPA outages occur.

A few studies of the overall solid waste management situation onGuam have been conducted. The earliest was completed in 1976 by NavalFacilities Engineering Command, Pacific Division (PACDIVNAVFACENGCOM)(Ref 1). Dames and Moore (Ref 2) performed a similar study for GEPA in

. 1978.

3

t " ' - '- • "- - - " : '. - - . - - - ., ,,_

The Navy study found that (1) the military solid waste program wasbeing satisfactorily conducted, (2) no serious long-term problems wereobvious, and (3) if improvements were to be realized, these might befound through the application of innovative technology. PWC Guam subse-quently conducted an engineering investigation that recommended (Ref 3)resource recovery would be best achieved through the heat recoveryincineration of solid wastes now being landfilled.

The Dames and Moore (D&M) study focused on the GovGuam solid wastemanagement operations. Its conclusions were that (1) both collectionand disposal procedures were inadequate and poorly managed, (2) upgradingof such practices through proper training was sorely needed, (3) theOrdot landfill would soon be filled and only one smaller fallback sitecould be identified, and (4) consideration of waste-to-heat systems wasthe logical corollary to the unfortunate situation. Based on NCEL'srecent visit to Guam, it would appear that the D&M recommendations, all

of which were well based, had some impact on improving the Ordot opera-tions, although opportunities for further improvement were still verymuch in evidence.

The Department of Energy (DOE) in its Territorial Energy Assessmentprogram retained Barrett and Harris Corp. to characterize solid waste asenergy resources on selected U.S. Pacific islands. This work principallyinvolved Guam and American Samoa. Waste mass flows processed by GovGuamwere estimated but not actually measured over several months. Roughcompositional estimates with calorific value calculations were alsoperformed during the same study interval. The results are to be publishedin 1984. The DOE has no foreseeable plans to carry this work beyond theinventory stage.

International Energy Enterprises, Inc. (IEEI) has an agreement withthe Guam Economic Development Authority to develop strategies for handlingthe solid wastes managed by the territorial goveri.nent. IEEI has recom-mended that an all-island system be considered, preferably a mass-firedturbo-electric plant. They are, however, considering a wide range of

N other concepts. IEEI is prepared to furnish a full service approach toany scheme that may be recommended and approved. Financing is the majorquestion. However, GovGuam is not actively pursuing any future develop-ments in this field. Additionally, the overall financial condition ofGovGuam makes it unlikely that any alternate energy source will bedeveloped in the foreseeable future.

AVAILABLE OPTIONS FOR LONG-TERM SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT ON GUAM

Waste disposal on Guam is a situation of contrasts. The Navalestablishment, even with the Air Force as an added responsibility, isreceptive to determining the feasibility of applying waste-to-energytechnology. The Government of Guam is, on the other hand, frustrated inpursuing such technology due to financial constraints.

The civil administration on Guam is critically dependent on themilitary for its development. This dependence is emphasized by the factthat the Territory of Guam has had a poor performance record in servicinggeneral obligation bonds and thus, is financially disadvantaged inconfronting capital-intensive requirements.

4

The GovGuam Ordot landfill is nearly full, and the fallback site atFadian Point (Ref 3) would fill in about 4 years. Clearly then, thecivil government must explore alternative disposal techniques. This, ofcourse, is already the line of planning followed by -he Navy, which isnot under the stress GovGuam is currently experiencing. It would seemlogical, therefore, that the Navy consider the pursuit of its own (andAir Force) interests so as to include thre welfare of the entire island.That is, any conceptual design and cost analysis of resource recoverysystems envisioned by PWC should be evaluated both as all-island as wellas Navy facility undertakings.

An advantage intrinsic to an all-island approach to any resource"'- recovery scheme is the inherent scale up. This should inot only reduce

unit waste disposal costs but promote expansion capability should theNavy's mission on the island be significantly increased.

In the following discussions, the various options available to theNavy, Air Force, and GovGuam, acting independently or together, areconsidered. The options do, of course, take into account the itwrat igconditions unique to the parties disposing of their wastes, togettherwith the financial and mission constraints that exist.

* OPTIONS FOR THE NAVAL SOLID WASTE MANAGERS, PUBLIC WORKS CENVTEP, t;AM

Maintainance of Status Quo

PWC Guam provides collection and disposal services for all N1 ,va!commands, the Coast Guard Depot, Naval housing, U.S. and allied NavalA vessels, and assorted other facilities, such as the Army Reserve, theGuam observatory, and the Agana and Orote power plants. A small fleetof nine trucks, ranging in capacity from 25 to 40 yd3 , makes the collec-tions. In each housing area, garbage is collected twice weekly andrefuse once a month. The collection frequency at other facilitiesranges from 1 to 7 days a week. The assigned collection rate (Ref 4) isfrom $23.71 to $25/ton based on an assumed trash density of 140 lb/yd 3.This can be compared with a typical Los Angeles area collection cost of$33/ton (Ref 5).

Disposal is accomplished at the sanitary landfill located near theintersection of Shoreline Drive and Exchange Road, close to Agat Bay.Conventional landfill practices are observed. Cells 30 feet in width

* and of about the same depth are built up by running the refuse trucksover the top of the previous cell and dumping the refuse down the work-ing face. The waste is compacted by bulldozers and covered nightly with

- stock piled excavation dirt. The surface is graded to 1% grade andcompacted.

When the present site is filled to grade, and assuming that an* above-grade layer of cells will be constructed, the landfill should have

a life expectancy of at least 15 more years if the present disposal rateis maintained.

The PWC predetermined (Ref 4) disposal cost is $0.60/yd 3 , which is$8.57/ton, assuming a refuse density of 140 lb/yd 3. This tipping costmay be considered high when compared to the costs for the Los Angelesarea ($3.75/ton at the Puente Hills landfill (Ref 5)). East coast CONUScosts, in contrast, are considerably higher, exceeding $20/ton in manymetropolitan areas.

5

0O

Operations and Maintenance (Oal) costs at the Navy landfill can beexpected to increase somewhat when operations with the cells above gradeare instituted. Longer in-haul of fill material and somewha* greaterworking of the machines can be expected to increase tipping costs anestimated 10%. Neglecting inflationary effects, disposal costs mayincrease to about $0.66/yd3 or $9.43/ton based on a refuse density of140 lb/yd 3.

In general, the Navy's present waste management program is quitesatisfactory. Operationally speaking, it conforms well with guidelinesof the U.S. EPA. Costs are in line with those experienced by metropol-itan operations on CONUS. The long-term outlook is good, provided nodrastic expansion in Guam's Naval role occurs. Resource recovery oppor-tunities, particularly waste-fuel-derived energy, are available thatwould reduce costs more effectively than such practices already in placeor previously tried. On the whole, however, continuing with the presentwaste management program constitutes an entirely acceptable option.

Solid Waste Densification and Burial

In the preceding discussion, the possibility of an expanded rolefor Guam in West Pacific operations was raised. In such an event,

0 increased waste generation rates would result in an earlier closure ofthe Navy's landfill and the need to develop fallback facilities. Becauseof the limited number of potential sites, a solution to reducing thefilling rate of available landfill volume is to densify the refusemechanically prior to disposal. This is done by shredding the solidwaste, compacting, and (optionally) baling it.

This process would about double the life expectancy of the landfill,although disposal costs would be significantly increased. If resourcerecovery is practical (markets are available for scrap iron), the increasein cost could be reduced somewhat. This approach, incidentally, wasalso suggested for GovGuam's consideration (Ref 2).

The principle of operation includes shredding the refus. at afacility located near the landfill or transfer stations. The compositionof Navy solid wastes at Guam makes it well suited to such treatment. Itis high in paper, boxboard, and cardboard; contains little glass; and isrelatively low in bulky discards typical of industrial wastes. Shredderenergy and maintenance demand should be on the low side.

Output of the shredder can be landfilled directly, as was done at0 Madison, Wis. A small amount of fill cover can be applied or, as at

Madison, the cell can be left uncovered. Compaction then becomes moreof a cell-shaping process. The experience at Madison was that verminand scavengers were not attracted to uncovered, shredded refuse. Analternative is to bale the shredded refuse. The formed output can thenhe stacked and buried or stored above grade without cover.

The shredding station would be enclosed and consist of a tippingfloor, a recessed belt conveyor that would be charged by a frontendloader, a lift conveyor, the shredder, a discharge conveyor, and ahigh-volume transfer trailer. If a baler is used, it would be substi-tuted for the receiving trailer. Made-up bales would be loaded onto andout-hauled by a vehicle similar to a hay truck.

6

Shredding is typically done in hammermills, although interest hasrecently focused on shear shredders. In comparison to the harniermill ofthe same throughput, the shear shredder draws considerably less power,is much quieter, emits less dust, is less likely to detonate explosives,and experiences much less metal wear. Tie drawback is that the outputof the shear shredder is coarser, which may or may not have significanceto the present application.

Studies have been conducted by Waste Energy Technology, Inc., underthe sponsorship of the City of Charleston, S.C., to determine the compar-ative utilization by vermin of the shredded waste output of the twotypes of machines. NCEL has carried the studies further using the sameequipment and contractor in order to determine the comparative productsize consist and the maintainability of the shear shredder and hammermill.Since that evaluation is still in progress, the hammermill configurationhas been utilized in the present analysis.

Based on a single-shift, 5-day/wk operation, a l0-tph horizontalhammermill is indicated. Given its excellent reliability and an appro-priate spare parts inventory, a backup mill should not be required. A200-hp hammermill (e.g., Williams Model 340) would be suitable.

Total expected costs (including engineering and contingency but notrolling stock) of a shredder plant would be about $425,000, of whichafout $200,000 is equipment cost. Baling equipment would add aboutS120,000 to plant capital costs. The impact on disposal costs (withoutbaling) would add about $5.75/ton, excluding any recycle revenues. Thisis based on the estimates contained in Reference 2, which were updatedusing current Guam labor, power, and other rates contained in Reference 3.The assumptions are that the shredding plant would operate 8 hr/day,C days/wk, with a crew of three. It is assumed that with the reducedtruck traffic and refuse volume at the landfill, one worker could betransferred to the shredding station without cost impact to the process.

If a baler were added to the plant, additional operators would notbe required. Refuse disposal costs would increase by an estimated$1.67/ton for baling alone, or $7.42/ton for shredding and baling,excluding collection. This is based on the assumed productio. of 50-ft 3

bales using 5-gage ties, changing out the air-cooled hydraulic oil every2 years, and an average power draw of 65/ on a 125-hp driver. Costsavings would be available if the hauling distance between the plant andlandfill were minimized.

Waste-to -Energy-Process Using a Heat Recovery Incinerator (HRI)

Refuse volume reduction by densification, while offering distinctaIlvan'ages in land saving, vector control, and resource recovery oppor-tihlity, cannot decrease disposal costs. At proper scale, an economicallysuperior volume reduction technique is to ash refuse while convertingthe energy released into a usable asset. Waste-to-energy systems arealready prevalent throughout the world and enjoy increasing popularity.The key factor is the existence of a market for the product output,either steam or electricity.

Guam uses both, firing imported oil to furnish these utilities.The steam usage for the five larger users (all Naval activities) isshown in Table I (Ref 6) together with the solid waste energy equivalent.

7

It is assumed that the refuse-derived fuel (RDF) produced from the solidwaste has an average calorific value of 4,500 Btu/lb and is fired at athermal efficiency of 60%. It is clear from these data that the steamdemand is considerably lower than the energy available from solid waste.

The 28.6-tpd energy equivalent is less than 55% of what can be produced.

Alternative Energy Schemes

gAnother possible way of utilizing the energy available from solidwaste might be to generate steam for a desalination plant to producepotable water for the island. While this is not considered a major

requirement for Guam at this time, it could develop as such with anexpansion of mission. HRI steam could be used as feed for multi-effectevaporators or a similar process. This option should be addressed with

some sort of feasibility study.Mining the landfill to extract its combustible gas can be considered,

but only as a long-term project. At present, the Navy structure isimmature and too small to work. On filling, however, and assuming anabove-grade lift is installed, there should be about 3 x 106 yd

3 of

biomass cells. The gas output of this process would probably drive a 4-

* to 5-MW gas turbine/generator set that could be coupled later, if desired,to a steam turbine driven by a cogenerative waste heat boiler. Theprincipal question that would have to be addressed would be the qualityof the extracted gas. Because of the probable shallowness of the finishedNavy landfill (probably averaging less than 19 feet), considerable airintrusion into the fuel gas would have to be expected. Gas turbine

Odesign today, however, is such that quite lean gas (down to 200 Btu/ft3 )can be fired in some models. To ensure a gas flow of 250 Btu/ft 3 , thepressure drop in the system would have to be minimized. This would be

accomplished by installing about twice the number of wells (and headers)than are used in deeper landfills. Gas extraction at a rate of about6,000 ft3/min could then be expected for an extended period of time.Experience on the mainland has indicated that the gas extraction ratewould probably not significantly deteriorate before 10 years of continuous

service.In today's dollars, a turn-key plant, including switchgear, would

cost about $5.5 million. Because of the high reliability and low mainte-

nance demand characteristics of gas turbines, O&M costs would probably* only range between $50,000 and $65,000 per year. This is based on an

O&M cost factor of 1.5¢/kW-hr used by the Los Angeles County Sanitation

Districts for its landfill/gas-turbine operations.

The PWC Guam Proposal

* PWC Guam (Ref 3) explored the feasibility of supplying steam to thegalleys at the Naval Station and Naval Medical Center. They proposedthe use of a two-stage refuse-derived fuel (RDF) incinerator (pyrolysisfollowed by combustion of the generated gases). The scheme would involveprocessing 80% of the Navy solid wastes going to landfill and firing allthe RDF produced. The study, however, neglected to perform a process

* heat balance. This would have revealed that far more steam would beproduced than the galleys or the entire facilities of the two commandscould use.

8

The PWC proposal involves the installation of a plant near each

user point, each operating two 50-bhp boilers (6.7 MBtu/hr total, four

boilers). Each boiler would consume 1,000 lb/hr of RDF, or 8 tons/16 hrservice day. Processing would consist of presorting to remove 24%

noncombustibles, the balance being shredded and baled. Thus, the wasteinput to fire four boilers would be 42 tpd per 7-day week, or 80% of the74 tpd collected in a 5-day collection week, based on an assumed full

boiler availability. PWC expected a boiler availability of 92%.Assuming an RDF fuel value of 5,400 Btu/lb (the average calorific

value from Reference 7, which was considered a reasonable comparison, if

possibly on the low side), an input of 15.1 MBtu/hr is calculated forthe two plants. At a thermal efficiency of 60%, steam output from thetwo plants would be 9.2 MBtu/hr. This is equivalent to about 70 bhp,which is 40% higher than the nameplate rating specified in the Refer-ence 3 proposal. The hourly average comsumption rate of steam by the

entire Naval Station and Naval Medical Center is only 3.7 MBtu (Table 1).In the next section, a similar approach is suggested wherein a closerenergy match would result.

Other Steam Uses

* The steam usage at the galleys probably does represent a significant,

large fraction of the steam consumed by the two commands. Furthermore,the flow rate should increase markedly during premeal periods such thatdemand could approach output. It is not practical, however, to try tomatch a higher rated generator to a small load whose peak only occasion-ally meets capacity.

Energy-wise, the Guam Naval activity has small steam usage but avery high air conditioning demand relative to other Naval activities.

At Guam, the air conditioning demand is being fulfilled by electricity.Thus, an alternative approach could be to erect a small HIRI facility toproduce hot water for the Naval Station barracks and galley steam aswell as to provide steam to run steam turbine drivers for a vapor com-

pression air conditioner or heat to an absorption unit.The air conditioning plant at the Naval Station consists of a

600-ton Carrier and a 285-ton Chrysler unit. The former is reported tobe entirely capable of handling the load. Both units are of the hermetictype such that a retrofit coupling with an external driver is not prac-tical. Carrier, in fact, recommended that even attempting to replace

* the hermetic-type chiller with an open-drive unit would not be wise

since the latter would have to be specially engineered to drive thebalance of the system. Such a one-of-a-kind unit would then constitutea special maintenance challenge. Installation of a complete new plantwas therefore considered. Because of the large temperature drops often

required in cooling Guam Naval buildings, it was decided to defer consid-

* eration of absorption-process air conditioning.A 600-hp (3,600-rpm) steam turbine would be coupled to the compressor.

Assuming steam conditions of 400 psia/550'F (10-in. HgA-outlet),12,000 lb/hr of steam would be required at maximum. This would requirean energy output of 14.8 MBtu/hr or a waste firing rate of 2.7 tph,assuming 60% thermal efficiency and a fuel calorific value of 4,500 Btu/lb

[ •(unprocessed). This is about 0.5 tph in excess of what is availablebased on all the solid waste collected by the PWC.

9IS

The average power draw is not accurately known. Ammeters are onlyavailable for the Chrysler air conditioning system, which is not capableby itself of conditioning the entire service volume. The Carrier can,however, condition the air in the entire service volume in the hottestweather. Thus, average demand is probably between 400 and 500 tons.This would imply a waste-fuel firing rate of between 1.8 and 2.3 tph,which is close to the actual Naval facility waste fuel availability(2.2 tph).

SA steam and air conditioning plant conversion based on two HRIseach capable of handling 50% of the maximum load would cost out today atabout the levels shown in Table 2. These costs are based on budgetestimates furnished by companies manufacturing package waste-fired steamgenerators, freight costs out of Chicago (worst case), and standardengineering estimates for island erection and O&M.

A benefit/cost analysis was then performed based on NAVFAC P-442procedures using the NCEL-developed cost model (Ref 8) for HRI systems.The costing parameters and values assigned are given in Table 3. Theresults of the analysis are presented in Table 4. The benefits availableare: (1) the volume reduction of all of the refuse generated by theNaval establishment, (2) fulfillment of the energy demand of the Naval

* Station air conditioning system and part of the water heating requirements,(3) extension of the landfill life expectancy to almost 100 years, and(4) an annual reduction of over 24,000 bbl oil import.

Such systems are, however, capital intensive, require a rather longpayback period and offer a rather modest savings-to-investment ratio.The parameters are fairly sensitive to increases in capital costs, thesavings-to-earning ratio dropping by 40% with a 15% increase in capitalcosts and the payback period increasing to greater than the economiclife of the plan (25 years). Decreases in capital costs, on the otherhand, produce changes in these two parameters that are about directlyproportional to a 15% decrease in capital costs.

RESOURCE RECYCLE OPPORTUNITIES

Various attempts have been made in the past to recover valuablefractions from the wastes generated at Navy and Air Force installationson Guam. Apparently, the only surviving form of this is the segregations

* of metal shop scrap and isolated storage of wood wastes at the Navylandfill. Scavengers are allowed access to these wastes periodically,resulting in a removal of about 80% of the material. The residues arethen burned every 6 months.

Because of the large quantity of aluminum cans observed in thewaste stream, it is strongly recommended that the Naval Station encourage

* an aluminum can recovery system for the various activities on Guam.There are a number of civilian salvors on Guam that will buy this productfor about $0.20/lb. Since there is a baler available at the exchange,collections could be made market-ready without difficulty. It has beensuggested that an employee organization or some other service organiza-tion, such as the Boy Scouts, be allowed to recover these cans from thewaste stream. The aluminum content of municipal solid waste is estimatedat about 1% (Ref 9), which is probably low with respect to Navy waste

10

observed on Guam by NCEL. If that amount (1%) were recovered from Navywastes containing probably 2% aluminum, the annual revenues would be$76,800.

Some boxboard is isolated from waste at some of the Navy activities.The collected material, however, is buried at the landfill, ostensiblyfor lack of a market.

Boxboard is a reasonably valuable waste fraction with good demandin Japan, Korea, Taiwan, and Australia. Most West-Coast-CONUS-usedboxboard is shipped there; virgin factory scrap is mostly recycled inthe same area or plant in which it is produced. Although a very volatilecommodity, current export price is $80/ton freight on board (FOB) LosAngeles. Thus, even better prices could be gotten FOB Apra. Navywastes on Guam are particularly rich in boxboard scrap. If an equivalentof 5% of the mass stream were expressed as recovered and baled boxboard,an annual revenue about equal to that projected for aluminum ($76,800)could be realized.

AN ALL-ISLAND INTEGRATED APPROACH TO SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT ON GUAM

Overview

For the reasons discussed in the BACKGROUND section, an integratedwaste management program for Guam that would serve the military facilitiesand the civilian population merits serious consideration. The island issmall enough to be organized as a single solid waste district. It alsoproduces enough waste to justify consideration of a single metropolitan-type waste processing or disposal center. By using transfer stationsand large-capacity packer vehicles, the existing collection apparatuscould be maintained by the organizations presently responsible (PWC,GovGuam, Air Force), who could route their collections to a centralizedfacility. Alternatively, the entire collection system could be turnedover to GovGuam or a private firm.

The resource recovery system can include any of the concepts dis-cussed previously. A notable difference, of course, will be that thesystem would be significantly scaled up, although still relatively smallin terms of CONUS practice. This will permit the consideration ofbetter proven technology while enjoying the economies of scale. Concom-itantly, however, capital costs become large enough to fall beyond thereach of GovGuam. An all-island project will doubtless require outsidefunding support, as from a third-party financier (owner/operator).

The waste load of a combined operation is estimated as follows:

Solid Waste Source Tons/Mo

Navy facilities 1,600Anderson AFB 600GovGuam 1,800

Total available Solid Waste 4,000

This represents a waste rate of 131.5 tpd for a 7-day/wk plant or 184 tpdfor a 5-day/wk plant.

11

Ii

Alternative Systems

Centralized Solid Waste Mechanical Densification/Refuse RecoveryPlant. The need to conserve landfill volume is considerably more pressingfor GovGuam than it is for the Navy. With Ordot landfill offering anadditional 7 years of use (assuming an additional lift is worked),densification is a logical consideration (Ref 2). As discussed in theSolid Waste Densification and Burial section earlier, solid waste could

*be shredded and baled for compact burial. Shredding without baling isnot recommended since the greater density of the baled product would bea key factor in conserving landfill volume. Landfill volume use wouldbe reduced about 40%, and the present nonsanitary practices observed byNCEL at Ordot would become acceptable. Little or no cover would berequired, and disease vectors would be largely eliminated in buildingLhe cells with baled refuse.

A densification plant could be operated by GovGuam near the Ordotlandfill or, preferably, at the location of a new site, such as FadianPoint (Ref 2). This arrangement would have little impact on the existingcollection and haul operations of GovGuam. It would increase costs forthe Navy and Air Force, although the incremental distances (between the

4 military landfills and the densification plant) are not great. Anotheroption would be to close Ordot and site the densification plant at ornear the Navy landfill. If all the solid wastes of Guam were baled andemplaced in the Navy landfill, it would reduce its life expectancy from15 to 10 years.

The cost of a densification plant capable of handling all of Guam'sC normal solid wastes would be just slightly less than $1 million. Thisis based on the assumption that the plant would process 185 tpd 5 days aweek and one shift per day. If two shifts were employed, capital costswould be reduced to about $650,000.

Processing costs excluding any debt service would be slightly lowerthan for the Navy system proposed in the Solid Waste Densification andBurial section, or about $7.25/ton for shredding and baling, based onone-shift operation. A two-shift operation would involve much higherO&1 costs, coming to almost $11/ton.

Centralized RDF Plant. Another possibility, suggested in the Damesand Moore study (Ref 2), would be to process solid wastes into refuse-derived fuel (RDF) and saleable recovered materials. Various processconfigurations are possible, but typically involve an initial stage ofshredding or flailing followed by size sorting in a trommel or otheractive screening device. Oversize is sometimes subjected to secondaryshredding while underflow is air-classified to reject heavy noncombustibleobjects. The output can be stored in live-bottom bins as input to a

* process, or further processed into bales (as discussed earlier) orpellets. Magnetic iron removal is usually done after the first stage ofshredding. Removal of other fractions, such as glass cullet and non-ferrous scrap, is generally regarded as cost ineffective. Aluminum,boxboard, and paper are best removed at the source.

The RDF produced at such a plant could be exported or be fired in awater-wall furnace retrofitted to or coupled with an existing oil-firedturbo-electric unit. Such combined firing is commonplace in Europe,

12

". .

I

although such systems typically are integrally designed rather thanretrofitted. Refuse is fired to heat boiler feedwater or generate lowenthalpy steam, which is then brought to turbine conditions in a fossil-fuel-fired furnace section. The main advantage of this approach is toreduce the fireside corrosion associated with mass firing refuse alonein water-wall furnaces operating at higher steam temperatures. Thisproblem has now been largely mitigated through the application of morecorrosion-resistant materials, particularly in the superheater sectionsand redesign of overhang sections to reduce flame impingement.

In the present context, retrofitting any existing power plant uniton Guam is probably not feasible because of the type of design representedin that inventory. Retrofitting to produce a tandem-firing arrangement,as discussed above, would entail extensive modifications of the existingboilers, steam, feedwater, and air preheat circuitry to operate satis-4I factorily with a working fluid being input at much higher heat content.Although less modification would be required to achieve a cofiringconfiguration (both fuels burned in the same furnace), gas volumetricslimit the fractional amount of RDF that can be employed. It wouldprobably not be cost effective to modify any oil-fired boiler to accom-modate bottom and fly ash, an increased combustion air requirement, andan RDF feed mechanism and still be able to input perhaps only 50% orless of the energy from RDF. It would thus appear that the most viablerole that an RDF plant could fulfill would be as an integral part of anew plant specifically designed to accept that fuel. This option isconsidered in the next section together with steam generating plantsfiring solid waste in less refined forms.

Centralized Waste-to-Energy Plant. Because the steam demand onGuam is limited and dispersed, a centralized waste-to-energy plantshould probably be exclusively turbo-electric. This would allow greaterfreedom of siting. The plant would receive refuse from the variousjurisdictions, convert it to power for the Island-wide power grid, and

*send rejected materials and ash to an appropriate landfill. Because ofthe hydrological sensitivity of the area, a wet ash handling system thatleaches out solubles should be employed. Then any or all of the landfillsnow operating on Guam could be used to receive such ash. Leaching theash in the quench tank would, however, result in a blowdown that wouldrequire treatment. Economics favor that form of waste processing overthe cost required for the safe burial of untreated ash.

Firing refuse in a waste-to-energy power unit can involve (1) massfiring (no processing of waste other than to remove oversized, noncom-bustible objects); (2) firing waste that has undergone single-stage,coarse shredding, usually with iron removal; or (3) "fluff" RDF firing.Although burnout is somewhat greater the more the fuel is processed, theenergy imparted in achieving the refinement is considerably greater thanthe additional burnout that is incrementally achieved. The principaladvantage of RDF over raw waste is that the former can be fired in sometypes of steam generators that are of conventional design, specificallyspreader-stokers. Extensive preparation of the solid waste otherwiseoffers little benefit in terms of resource recovery since, in the Guamcontext, this would better be done at the source.

13

Mass firing, while requiring a specially designed moving grate andstoker systems, is, on the other hand, not as susceptible to "frontend"( failures that occur in the processing of the refuse.

Also possible is the reduction of variously prepared solid waste inpyrolyzers wherein combustible gas, char, and, under selected conditions,liquids ("garboil") are produced. Although this technology has beenunder study for quite some time, at the present scale it is not con-sidered by NCEL as being adequately proven.

A high-reliability system of simple process design is recommendedfor an all-island, centralized waste-to-energy plant. This is promptedby the tendency to outages already experienced at GPA that would probablyincrease if a complex waste-to-energy system were included in the island-wide power generation system. Processing of the refuse should be heldto a minimum since a majority of process failures do occur in frontendequipment. Thus, refuse should be mass-fired or, at most, subjected toa single stage of shredding with iron removal.

Of the mass-fired systems, the Norfolk Naval Base units should beconsidered. These boilers (one duty, one stand by) fire an average of140 tpd of solid waste that is considerably more industrial in natureand, thus, more difficult to stoke than the Guam solid waste. The

* throughput is just about what is estimated here as being produced onGuam (131.5 tpd). These units have been in service since 1968, andwhile used to generate dockside steam, they could also drive a steam

turbine-generator set.The failure mode, which is largely associated with the industrial

nature of the fuel fired, predominantly involves jamming of the recipro-cating grate. A more reliable moving grate has been identified (JosephusMartin Co.), and plans are going forward to retrofit both units, provided

funds become available and the Naval Base waste fuel is not diverted toa new plant being constructed at the Norfolk Naval Shipyard.

The spreader-stoker boiler is a proven system for firing solidwastes. This device pneumatically charges refuse upwards into the fire

*box, the burning material falling onto an endless-belt grate. The

refuse must be shredded for such firing, but a single stage of coarse(80% < 5 inch) shredding will suffice. Although stoking is more suscep-tible to problems, burnout is superior to what is achieved in a mass-fired unit. Residual carbon is usually less than 2%, while ash from awell-designed mass fired unit may contain up to 5% combustible residue.

The units being installed at the Norfolk Navy Shipyard are of this type,although coal will be cofired with the shredded refuse.

Another mass-fired boiler configuration that has seen service,although not as long and mostly in Japan, utilizes a feedwater-cooled,rotary-drum combustor coupled to a water-wall boiler. This is theO'connor system, which NCEL has observed in operation at a waste-to-

4 energy plant in Galatin, Tenn. The throughput of that plant (150 tpd)is again in the same range as what would be needed at Guam if the all-island steam plant concept is pursued.

The Galatin plant represents a reasonable basis for projectingcosts for Guam, although it is rated at somewhat higher operating capacity(150 tpd design; 200 tpd maximum). The 1980 costs for the Galatin

* installation, including all design engineering, construction contracts,and equipment (which included an Apitron Corp. electrostatic baghouse),were $9.8 million.

14

I

The two-unit plant, which operates continuously, requires a staffof 22 people. Current O&M costs tabulated by the operators have beentotalling $942,000/yr, excluding any debt service. Revenues from steamsales are not relevant since the Guam plant would be turbo-electric. Itis estimated that, at a 131.5-tpd throughput, a power export capabilityof 2.5 MW would be achieved in the Guam plant. At the probable avoidablecost of 6C/kW-hr currently assessed on Guam for electricity, an annualrevenue would be $1.3 million for power. The peak load on Guam, inci-dentally, exceeds 140 MW for all mili--y and civilian users.

A spreader-stoker plant (two 75-tpd units) with a duty and standbyshredder in the input conveyor line (shredded product is not stored) andelectrostatic precipitator would cost about $11.5 million. This isbased on an extrapolation of cost for a like system of larger scaleplanned for the Compton Energy & Resource Recovery Facility in California.4 Annual O&M costs would run about $1 million.

Because of its lower capital and O&M costs, the mass-fired systemwas selected for benefit/cost analysis. The plant consists of two100-tpd reciprocating grate boilers, each operating at about two-thirdsof capacity. Two turbine-generator systems are used, each of which canreceive steam from either or both of the boilers. A 550-ton storage pitis provided, the contents of which would be transferred to the chargingchutes by an overhead bridge crane. Bottom ash would drop into a quenchtank as would the flyash from downstream hoppers after being mechanicallyconveyed back to the quench tank for leaching. Quench tank blowdown andother process water would be processed for solids removal and neutraliza-tion before being sent to the sewer. The Air Pollution Control require-ments would be fulfilled with the installation of an electrostaticprecipitator. The plant structures would be prefabricated to the extentpractical, although the project would be essentially site erected.

The estimated costs for the system that were used in the NCEL modelare given in Table 5. The net present value (NPV) costing bases areshown in Table 6, and the model output data are shown in Table 7.

*Because the model is designed to handle steam plants only, the presentanalysis was approached on that basis. This does significantly impactresults for an electrical plant. That is because the differential costscompared for the HRI and the fossil-fuel-fired equivalent system remainthe same whether steam or electricity is taken as the output product.

The NCEL modelling of the all-island refuse disposal facility showsa reasonable benefit/cost situation. The payback period of 10.7 yearsactually includes 4 years of lead time such that payback following plantcommissioning would take place in 6.7 years. The savings-to-investmentratio, 2.81, is also reasonable, particularly when considering thebenefits that such a plant would make available. These include:(1) sanitarily disposing all the solid waste (other than those producedin catastrophic situations) generated by all the jurisdictions on Guam,(2) extending the life of the only island landfill (Naval Station) withfuture operational potential to about 50 years, (3) reducing the demandon the Island-wide GPA power system by 2.5 M1W, (4) reducing oil importby almost 58,000 bbl/yr, and (5) virtually eliminating t.he existingdisease/vermin vectors and ground water contamination problems.

15

6

CONCLUSIONS

( 1. The Navy has acted on most of the recommendations contained in the1976 NAVFAC study aimed at improving landfill procedures.

2. The same study and the Dames & Moore study (Ref 2) have had lessthan the intended impact on the other jurisdictions: the possibility ofleaching at the Air Force landfill still exists, and the GovGuam Ordot

U landfill is still not fully sanitary.

3. While the Navy's Solid Waste disposal situation is relatively com-fortable, the Air Force and GovGuam face serious short-term problems.

4. Attempts at resource recovery have not been successful, ostensiblybecause of unattractive market conditions. A search for new marketpathways has not, however, been vigorously pursued.

5. Solid waste disposal facilities on Guam would be inadequate if themilitary role there was suddenly expanded.

* •6. Because of the hydrological sensitivity of much of the island,potential new landfill sites are very limited. Some form of wastevolume reduction eventually needs to be practiced.

7. Inadequate information is available concerning the mass flow andcomposition of the various jurisdictional solid waste streams.

8. The most cost-effective means of achieving solid waste volume reduc-tion (about 80%) is through incineration with heat recovery. Suchsystems, which usually operate with reserve capacity, are readily expanded.

9. Because of the poor situations that both the Air Force and GovGuam*contend with, any solid waste disposal project considered by the Navy

should not overlook them. An all-island centralized disposal systemcould well prove beneficial to all jurisdictions over the long run. TheNavy is, of course, not obligated to include GovGuam in a solid wastedisposal scenario because GovGuam faces a problem. There should be goodincentives (i.e., reduced utility rates, elimination or reduction of

* tipping fees, etc.) for the Navy to include GovGuam in any solid wastedisposal plan. GovGuam's past performance in managing and operating asolid waste disposal system has not been outstanding such that the Navyshould be careful in participating in a joint effort. The Navy's solidwaste disposal situation could become more serious rather than better bytrying to assist GovGuam.

10. To avoid involving the Navy in responsibility for handling civilianwastes, any integrated solid waste management operation should properlybe controlled by GovGuam. This could even include collection responsi-bilities. If, however, giving GovGuam control of such an integratedoperation resulted in unsatisfactory system performance, withdrawal of

* the Navy could become necessary. Assurance that DOD activities areproperly serviced would be preemptive.

16

11. A waste-to-energy plant serving Guam would best be of the turbo-electric type, since steam demand is considerably less than the avail-able solid waste fuel can generate.

12. In view of the design of the boilers on Guam, attempting to retrofitany units there to accept refuse fuel appears impractical.

13. Historical experience with the reliability and effectiveness ofrefuse processing discourages consideration of such a plant. The refuse-fired steam generator should be mass-fired or accept feed that hasundergone preparation in a processing train that is simple and rugged.A single stage of in-line shredding would be acceptable, if fuel proces-sing is required at all.

14. The operation of a waste-to-energy plant firing all of the solidwastes collected on Guam would result in an annual reduction of almost58,000 bbls of import oil, would realize payback in an estimated 6.7 yearsfollowing commissioning, and would have a savings-to-investment ratioof 2.81.

15. In the event solid waste management is restricted to Navy-only

scenarios, an opportunity for a waste-to-energy system for supplying air

conditioning requirements exists. The economics are about as attractiveas for the all-island HRI approach.

(RECOMMENDATIONS

Improve Characterization of Waste Streams

Considerable uncertainty exists concerning mass flow and compositionof the waste stream. Available resources in this stream cannot, therefore,be accurately estimated. Volumetric metering of the solid waste flowshould be discontinued, and a weigh station should be installed andoperated at the Naval Station landfill. Technical services should alsobe contracted to determine on a sound statistical basis (e.g., Ref 10)the average composition of the waste stream as a function of season andother variables. These action items should also be recommended toGovGuam and the Air Force.

I

Review Resource Recovery Programs for Waste Fractions

Resource recovery programs previously pursued on Guam should bereviewed for possible reimplementation. Markets and brokers for source-separated aluminum cans, boxboard, and possibly other waste streamfractions should be sought. If local dealers are not motivated to movethese materials, outside brokers should be consulted.

17I

Determine GovGuam's and Air Force's Long-Range Solid WasteManagement Situations

Determine the status of planning for disposal of ciillian solidwastes following closure of the Ordot landfill. Establish GovGua'scurrent disposition towards, and capability of, effectively managing anall-island solid waste operation. The Air Force's long-range :olidwaste management plans should also be better defined.

Establish Feasibility of an All-Island Waste Dispo-al Operation

Studies should be conducted to determine the most :ost-effectivemeans for achieving long-term solutions to Guam's solid waste managementproblems. Components of this ov.,,all task should include:

Centralized Resource Recovery Facility. Establisb the optimum

configuration for realizing an all-island solid waste disposal/resourcerecovery system. Priority should be given to a waste-to-env-yy approach,alternatives being to establish feasibility of an all-isli.id wastedisposal operation and refuse densification with or without ferrI!smetal recovery. Obtain budget estimates for the can 'id't . systems.

Collection System. Based on the use of a centralized, all-islandresource recovery/disposal facility, the collection operations of thethree participating jurisdictions should be revised as required toachieve optimum effectiveness.

Responsibility for Solid Waste Management. Dj,!elor and !nalyze

scenarios defining the economic benefits to the Navy of the managementby GovGuam of various and all components of an integrated managementapparatus for solid waste collection and disposal.

Funding Alternatives. Based on the optimum solid waste management0plan resulting from the study, specify a viable mechanism for acquiring

the required capital and associated incremental O&M costs.

Preliminary Engineering Study of HRI/Air Conditioner Coupid System

Given an overlong term for accomplishing the pre',,ious recommenda-tion, the economic and technical feasibility of fiting solid waste insmaller HRIs to power air conditioner drivers (steam turbines) should beinvestigated. Conceptual designs of systems for serving the NavalStation barracks and the Naval Medical Center air conditioning needsshould be developed if the approach proves cost effective. Absorptionprocess air conditioning should be brought into this analysis.

REFERENCES

1. Naval Facilities Engineering Command. PWC Guam, solid wastes study.Alexandria, Va., 1976.

18

6'

74

2. Guam Environmental Protection Agency. Solid waste management andresource recovery feasibility study for the Territory of Guam, Dames and

-- Moore, Honolulu, Hawaii, Jul 1978.

3. PWC Guam int-rnal letter 101.5/AMS of 25 Mar 1983 Subj: Solid wasterecovery to produce steam for small boilers.

4. PWC Guam Note 7030. Predetermined rates, Apea Harbor, Guam,"* 26 Mar 1982.

5. J. Cosulich. Los Angeles County Sanitation Districts, Personalcommunication, El Monte, Calif., 13 Sep 1983.

6. Monthly fuel and production reports, PWC Guam, Code 602.1. ApraHarbor, Guam, Jan-Dec 1982.

1. SERRF - Special provisions for the construction of the boiler andauxiliarv s:ystems, City of Long Beach/County Sanitation Districts of LosAngeles County. Long Beach, Calif., Oct 1982.

8. Naval Civil Engineering Laboratory, Technical MemorandumM j4-R3-15CR: User's manual for the heat recovery incinerator (HRI)technical/economical senisitivity model. Port Hueneme, Calif., Jul 1983.

9. Naval Civil Engineering Laboratory, Contract Report CR81.014:Trends in Navy waste reduction and materials markets. Gordian Associates,'.ashington, D.C., Jun 1981. (N-683 05-80-C-0064).

10. Naval Civil Engineering Laboratory, Technical Note N-_ PhaseIT of the waste assessment method for Navy Shore Activities: Proposedsurvey method. Port Hueneme, Calif., (in publication).

19

(L) - 60 0 -\

a 0. 0

-00 -n _ 3

o IT 1., 0 0o

0- > 0

0 -- a 0 --T C) "4

M0-4

4. .61-4J 0 +j a-

- M-

I -

t- 0 m. 00 r-> > ->7

Table 2. Estimated Net Present Value (NPV)C Capital and O&M Costs for

Waste-Fired Steam Generator Plantto Drive 600-Ton Air ConditioningSystem at Naval Station, Guam

* Item NPV Cost ($)

Capital Costs

Two package units 2,970,000

Air pollution equipment 250,000

Steam turbine 25,000

New air conditioning system 150,000

* Support facilities 100,000

Concrete facilities 100,000

Other erection costs 300,000

Engineering 150,000

Freight 80,000

Total 4,125,000

*Annual Operating and Maintenance Costs

Operating labor 165,000

Maintenance labor 88,000

Electricity 150,000

Auxiliary fuel 15,000

Chemicals 17,000

Repair parts 32,000

Sewer 20,500

Pest/vermin control 5,000

Ash disposal 33,000

Total 525,500

21

4

I

Table 3. Input Parameters and Values Used in ApplyingNCEL HRI Model to Waste-to-Energy System forNaval Station, Guam Air Conditioning Plant

Costing Base Value

Assumed number of years between analysis and funding 2

Annual inflation percentage rates for:Capital expenditures 5Energy 10Landfill costs 10All other 5

Project lead time, ending project year:Complete architect and engineer input 1Complete capital payouts 2

Economic life of HRI, yr 25

Annual unit costs of consumables:Electricity, $/kW-hr 0.125Diesel fuel, $/gal 1.21

Cost of landfill disposal, $/ton 6.64a

Operating data:Tons of ash/ton waste burned 0.17Thermal efficiency of fossil fuel

boiler compared, % 80Thermal efficiency of HRI, % 60Higher heating values:

Solid waste, Btu/lb 4,500Auxiliary fuel, Btu/gal 130,000

HRI availability, % 85g MBtu/l,000 lb of HRI output steam 1.28

a19 76 base year.

2

I

I

B"

Table 4. Output Data from NCEL Modelling ofWaste-to-Energy System for NavalStation, Guam Air Conditioning Plant

Pa rameter Value

lIfll-ted cost of disposing w . of tne type generated atthe site to the lndfill, $/Lov 16.03

lnitatpd cost of the fossil fuel boiler to which the HlI is

being compared, $/MBtu 9.91

a4 Tons of trash burned annually by the URI 22,429

B',is prodticed .:n!ually b the HRI (considering no downtime) 1.23 x 108

Thc,:sands of p,.uids of ste!m output by the HRI per ton ofwaste burfied 4.24

Fossil fuel offset annually by the HRlI, barrels-of-oil-equivalent 24,052

Tindfili space conser',ed annunily by the HRI, tons 18,616

(.osL f using a boiler to produce the annual no-downtime(Iutntity of steam produced by the HRI and landfilling allwaste, $ 1,600,150

inflated total capital cost of the HRI (includes equipment,support facilities, and construction and setup), $ 5,280,890

4Uniform annuji cost of the HRI (the cost of capital, modifi-cations, labor consumables, residue disposal, downtime, andother costs spread over the economic life of the HRI), $ 1,518,170

Annual no-downtime cost of the }RI (the total of no-downtimeco:.ts spread over the economic life of the HRI), $ 1,270,690

Discounted life cycle cost of using a boiler to produce thelife cycle no-downtime quantity of steam produced by the HRIand landfilling all waste (costs discounted to the point ofinitial funding), $ 20,569,900

Discounted life cycle cost of the HRI, $ 12,301,900

Discounted life cycle cost of auxiliary fuels used by theHuRI, $ 108,078

Discounted life cycle cost of noncombustible waste and ashdisposal, $ 932,173

Continued

23

Table 4. Continued

Parameter Value

Discounted life cycle cost of tRI downtime, $ 64,553

Discounted life cycle savings of the HRI, $ 13,047,900e

I{RI savings-to-investment ratio +2.73

Payback period (includes project lead time), yr 10.1

SThis figure takes into account an HRI capability to increase its com-bustion rate following a failure so as to burn waste stored during thefailure.

0

a

24

.

Table 5. Estimated Net Present Value (NPV) Capital and O&MCosts for Guam Turbo-Electric Plant FiringAll-Island Solid Wastes

Item NPV Cost ($)

Capital Costs

Equipment and instrumentation for two boilers 4,700,000

Air pollution equipment, ductwork and common stack 650,000

Two steam turbine-generators:Systems and switch gear 825,000Support facilities 260,000Concrete structures 800,000Other erection costs 1,500,000Engineering 950,000Freight 150,000

9,835,000

Annual O&M Costs

Operating labor 330,000

Maintenance labor 102,000

Electricity 255,000

Auxiliary fuel 12,500Chemicals 28,000Repair parts 63,000Sewer 41,000Pest/vermin control 10,000Ash disposal 68,000

909,500

25

4

I

Table b. Input Parameters and Values Used in ApplyingNCEL RRI Model to Waste-to-Energy Svstcni forCuam All-Island Waste Disposal Plant

ICo-sting Base -ValIue

Assumed number of years between analysis and funding 2

Annual inflation percentage rates for:Capital expenditures I 5Energy 10Landfill costs 10All other 5

Project lead time:Complete architect and engineer input 3Complete capital payouts r 4

I

Economic life of KRI, yr 25

Annual unit costs of consumables:Electricity, $/kW-hr 0.125

cDiesel fuel, $/gal 1.21

Cost of landfill disposal, $/ton 66

Operating data:Tons of ash/ton waste burned 0.17Thermal efficiency of fossil fuel

boiler compared, % 80Thermal efficiency of IIRI, % 70Higher heating values:

Solid waste, Btu/lb 4,500Auxiliary fuel, Btu/gal 130,000

HRI availability, % 85P* { MBtu/1,000 lb of HrI output steam 1.18

at1976 base year.

I

I

I-

.nnalinlaio pecetae ats or

Table 7. Output Data from NCEL Modelling of

r Waste-to-Energy System for GuamA11-Island Waste Disposal Plant

Pa ramet e r Va l ue

*l flated cost of .1psipos'ng waste of the type generated atthe site to the landfill, $/ton 17.64

Inflated cco rf the fossil fuel boiler to which the HR_ isbeing compared, $/Mftu 10.90

Tons of trash burned annually by the IRI 45,712 a

MBtus praued annually by the HRI (considering no downtime) 2.94 x 108

Thousands of pounds of steam output by the HRI per ton of

waste burned 5.36

Fossil fuel uffset annually by the HRI, barrels-of-oil-equivalent 57,978

Landfill space conserved annually by the HRI, tons 37,941

Sa Cost of using a boiler to produce the annual no-downtimequantity of steam produced by the HRI and landfilling all

I waste, $ 4,045,330

InflaLed total capital cost of the HRI (includes equipment,su|,porL facilities, and coastruction and setup), $ 13,855,600

Uniform annual cozt cf the HRI (the coat of capital, modifi-:ations, labor consumables, residue disposal, downtime, and

1 other costs spread over the economic life of the HRI), $ 3,650,760

Annual no-downtime cost of the HRI (the total of no-downtimecosts spread over the economic life of the HRI), $ 3,139,630

Discounted life cycle cost of using a boiler to produce thelife cycle no-downtime quantity of steam produced by the HRIand landfilling all waste (costs discounted to the point ofinitial funding), $ 49,638,900

Discounted life cycle cost of the HRI, $ 26,992,600

Discounted life cycle cost of auxiliary fuels used by the

HRI, $ 231,286

* Discounted life cycle cost of noncombustible waste and ash

disposal, $ 1,994,680

Continued

27

0 . ; , . : . . , _ . ...

Table 7. Continued

Parameter Value

Discounted life cycle cost of HRI downtime, $ 171,385

Discounted life cycle savings of the HRI, $ 35,142,100

.RI savings-to-investment ratio +2.81

Payback period (includes project lead time), yr 10.7

4 aThis figure takes into account an HRI capability to increase its com-

bustion rate following a failure so as to burn waste stored during thefailure.

I

1

a

I

28

I

._ - ,. - . . .. -. . . _ .. _ ,i - .. _, ._---. __.- m-

D)IST'RIBUTION LIST

()I, (M -. 0 111)l kF~h l 11 \11,i.II FNI 11 I 1-1 h \'l \NF\' I( \\F01 0%.!.T~ ()&. H\ 1 H\ ( M*I I ill , \Ic .kiln- \iiit'Ic l Id MI \\ \.\n

\ \ I I)l "I tI \Ii'tl l "I I c M l li I i.'t Icil ri. F B. '. \IMnplz I. 111.11% i \1 B I IF V ,

I (\ I I IM Ii' Stilr r' I I S c 'r. i \l N rir~i. I

\R\F)\ ()FFN I F1 )( I M I 0' \RF)-l R I I I \1uh. NCIII Sclll 111- \ I F \1ii. S rIc \ .

\ (M I I) I) I F I M I N( R11. V I )1 '-FI F -SF,: I crck iir I'l. \r . Milp i I Iiiihci) \irI

I L' ) NI FI )k I l I 11ir'.1 h il.i I \/ ll4 ~ ~~~\R\I F NI RI iNI I' (IN 1 \(11.1l 1( 'i spci "Ii ' l "I \id1r F' 1,i 1 iiiiii w FFo I 5 I . .\ic.()i

\ R N I)RI' s ()crccI F'r,1\. Rs Ii )II\ .I- IF( )Il' \ I ud ,1 \ I'cc i 'r u1 1 sr.iil. NIlflc irinir

\RN DI N I RII I M NFF( F 1 FNF(sD I F *II NS . I ck-m \ilt F pu. ( % liillc u c. 1.\RMY.NF RI IIN MI (I It I DA ~ SN 111,\1.A I ) I D ). ii-N\ i c.i .\:S( I M''. ) F S I N I 5.ihi.ix. F'ilinld p ii ( 'R

I nu, [)I SNN F Fc cc ([)I,, [uucr. M ini r.S AI'I -uriil i C od tuudl l~l, Ion .M b'la

\h.xrdcnrn iti- 1ud\1( I) \ 1 SN I[ I RA & \11 47.f \\I(' S lcaI S A (11 I IR ) Ico.\,i i\n\A( I )It IfR W M JI)I ,iIm col V DAII AN( I I unckt \3A( IW I P\\l . 1 N ) S ui %I5 \klc i1ILkCIIIJ P

* ~~~ IV )I'M[ I wN I! I )15% .14 Maki-Sta N~;1 Illt o~o .* I )F SI I SAn II' uuIi'cct Ski hcir. Fundon Ic S-S

MI [F) Still Spn- .h iti [ifich. DC:~intiu Co elit 1 t'l (1 W I1)" 'lIlIon I l)-

MN) R S )( (~ici Fittlic 4-it (nc\ Orlcxain . IA-

£ I)~ INS-ARF)( ) Anna F OLI ( Niit 412111 I ISpfiNlI) (IH S I) Al I. 42.~k% B I Mu'.~ 0.KkcaiM nm!)( .Yk~tih a

Ii()\N,\\) (unRit\ Codc \4,urn . GSuamri N

(ARAI I \\SW> UI ANI.-N l'%.'uti OHcii~ Nrtol VA

DI 11F AIm ut ktc .o Cerier. (ot: V

1) 1 SRNII (RS IFo f d c 42. ~ u (impi~d IcNttt C F&RIIDiin np iiuitN:Nnn i!(m

DNSRII ( Id 5RI' 2 hi(I rcI >F-2 Annll.i,ihnui lit* 511 55~~\ I icil I iAc ,' PR hcrr'. \'i it N ~(*N R~cu u I hu'i. IF! ( un phit PA. ( RautcvS Il. Niur iicpt

* ~ ~~ SIlI IR SIR -SI IF (0FSIM I \a,hin n C (

NA! '1 lNI a I )icitu. M

NI-SRINI ( (1411 BASEicl~ (')ic : 1(.- ii Ictc N Cr:lk \1 A im n m lttcN an ~ ii

Pcldcon A 1%D alit olI01D\,( il)B~tvr ~mt~ii h~m ko Cnn Icc29c CV\ . a pPniinCA M m .1.B tcr i\6~k 'lI

IN) C) '!I: I, P\ NI ) ,Icin e I Nk I'\C \\,l% ki' N1 1CU it I.I\ I-,

II, I )I\\C)C I i Mlii'\I ) I'\ .I r ' ill -, N ICC )I (h )t'li N I'\I. III 'ti In )i

IC ~'.N I \ I P "I ~) ti I CI % ,\II %% \i 'i lic' C Ii \ rIi'\\ 'I II,. ,% I I

N 1 C I IIJ [C I N , , 11'- N I V I I ' i'd 1 cL I'ti I)II P\ k \ A I k tI

NJ P\\ \o mmi 1 I !iOk lMl I .

\ \ I N I "C \S~R( C Il F N 11 .%ICC~ti~ "? IIIIIk ,11 '!N II \11 Ni )lC (N 1 C I) I-ne: [C1,it \ N Ita. CC: iriv ':r. I' 1)N I' \I I'ICC'I Si\ I l I L I r n NIKN \ NNAI ICN xi U I II Mi I'I I NiC.tr. I'.iiri1, Ii Nil

N \ C I I Pi,\' IC )'. 1 ii D Ii \ . C

N \1 NC B INN WI IC SIC I .t~~iixlN iN I'C I) I,.'iri liii.. \)'J ciapi. I

N NC R I tCiN lI C PlSI kS \1 N I~in (i\ I li ,% D Ciiili tl) I'C I N lD .N n tc ~l\tc I\ CC11 .iiu i t 0; 1i 1lii,1k I

N \ O )\I(I C\(il 4i\\ DNc I .iknil. (INe. P\CC) Clii( rai Iix r11 1) i'_0' 'C .I'ir tl

N N \111 LI I Nod. I, It\a Pj In., I!t It~ I C\ Nex 1i:\N N AF IM N \ A s I I I .\ W Ainii. I n I )tieii i hi m t.1(T\N~ik V V i I p ,1.

NN lA M PNCI 0. d Yriwxi1 Ncelt F'eiidi (A:-' PCWD C. L'IM! Str 0li,0 01%r t,\11, M 11 !

N (\()NS I it( IG 0'i6Cnnii N.01 C 1 5'. PIOI! ~ t I \IOCT1 A:tCA3 l 'e~l Nixnlii :(i

Nlt1)'i1xRiPR. CX. ('i N I2 'CMlArrI Iniha. NA: PC IId1, 1 )5. 1, II.Aexitlii -N ~ ))

\A NIex \ i N .N C"titlIe A13 A(xitii'it i I NA Iulci:CN N\ O N IN(' f 47 (Ill 6S .lInii'm 111~ MahD :Cde41 Cs.l(: nte4)Cahir'i 1)

VAXI'- I. ) CCi nCFiiri [C B 1 :P () on i[.lA!S

N C NFN I A nta -A l:NN ;14N.(\le 1112\. Nnii. k NA\ CodeL (14 1). Noimerliil. ,Nm d e ILL. A. xi ac eNot Ilk , C.N\* .F ci ,IC I)cpi. C \,tn D ir .A:1.Na 0& 1a 19\ 54r~ . Norfolk t. N cadni VA.Nid 10

\ -II'hlilii.i \'C C\ 'title Ill .I l'ilaeIplii. VA\ 'it 1 ~i~t": t II-(.ale.CrCeI0 N NC\A I \t C )l II [ S l)IL Cod1W 1l P DACl FIFC R Ill (Ain. 4DU. N'i)I&40. Parluto Dor~ I

I ''tint. 'il I ir l'ii. DA'N NCI NCINC I SCL IllI DI\' C oe 111. thanolek in VA, t ti 40. Norfolk. uA. SI:c 4i CoanIt ,,iB

liin'i ( A. I od B)1 San i Diran . CX: fc lihair . Sailirairt. ('rfol. \1121 A n rn'I :11 & I a

* N.\\ f I XFNGiCN ( A IN \ Ii DAIV ANO~Nk\ t. arlaecir. P A: Uir ut I tonir I'ltiiri ( PN: FuLn I C\1

NC LIt 'C Kex, WeA t COLI C IC)' P KeLICtmvik.P, Ca : OI ' NA14 I, >irpii': CO IC .Uo N O~IC, ( '.~ri 111CN iaa

C A: NC II I' Yap NI',( IV ItC.SPA Or lk PE A HA B RM (oc-)'. D & lci im tIIINXONFA )Nt r 'A ICma nder N4IIPeIoRc

N IIX\ I01 V IN (').\ Sllin Mn INIDV d 1.(hrctn ( ot 0 ( Iia\

\\VA I I ANI) M lirr BTs S IV [os MS ~ rnC :U~ 11 tl I .(_.(0.v14 a

NAno.I' )U' ('tile 011r Aleandii~ CANA II Diretili WO IAshIuu lR I .Q amo , ir(fC r~r L11Mt.C .I[t I 1T

NAYPItS('OcI . Ma honia. IT ~ee O ( SuhA s ic ad, T N SOcn.VriiN .-XF'iIA. O ( RA B2rol(' Balboa [ I)w NUriak. NOIX:S 'F Guram o ROW ( 'Ac4iPrtmuh\A

RoNlN('(M' 1) 'V\ N%,, (Id 21) R lCC. 1 Ica~.Ich e l x'n IC NSaI C i ii, C htsi FX.Pon uuNA*RoM U YDC ' [WI. '-IC-A Noifolk. JaAa

NXX' R UA i- C omne (N1) .PSu: ~lSa ~eto i:c F apPIdeo A I! aln

NAYI- ( CO.(I Silnton, Yki.ka aa

NAVORSC()lt\i( 1FF (35 [o KYeee A 0 oe(4A[CCIleei.C'

NAVIEFOF ('oe 30 Aleandra306A PJISDrcor ahnlnD

N ~ ~ ~ , NXN X'\ X 1-4 :Xi t I Ke", XX ixhinugloin. DC(N X SI(I I X I 'XX) X ilimo \ii'ti Fl. P\XI). AdXak XIS. ['XX. Ed/eu Setillantl. PXX I. Pt'ieli Riec'

1N I XX, (R1I. I ('titl 6~4. XXtixIIiiuli'n IW

N ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~i X. \It' 'XI ntli Vaxh. D)C. Seculm ( )II . XX 'iminti' l)(

N XXII II[I AC S( I . 'kot~ukai lap I

" \ I ill'\ II l i'i lrin. \X \ A t'ill inil Xct'xlie Ka.ti.! C I IH 1bm liir I ['licl S'iund. llrciiieiitii

XX l X i x!"~xri; Ic 4001. ['ricr SO'rriid. Critc 410. Mlare Is . Allelit ('.\, C(ti 4411

\iiil NI , loCxxI' p Noi xli. 1, :,I 441o. l'i;iSoundix. Iticniciltin XX A: (C'te 4C, IX~imni l

P\\!) I( -1 1,0 1' 1i 1'zir 11,I, f \ A\. P\\ 1) 1 liiIni Sur, Codc 'iW3. In lH-1t'li A':: ['XXI ('li'Iix

N\a ,hri x NIij l. 11d .P\'XI. liiIHiCitiii X 'i).Xi. P\\X I' S0x1iix!. i 'I c I Ii'

"XX ~ ... RI X,! 1, I lZxxe.kn 'l( 'i Riet' (1.lBiiklkii N'i. ('jj IF'. Reftj ik. Ieeciiux: Dir [riita

1i%\ [XI oI \I I . I II \le~lIr [ncr QXX , rN' t V X' itert lO . It''. spaiii. Il;re- ~i.Ii. t A.

'I) D I I ' \I X1Ikirrch 1. 'i"clt' Rti. [P" 1) 1 lier lDept. 'Xdak. AK. P'XX1) - I mur I% . adi

'\\I K, tLx 'k lcin! lX\ II. \lxxqiiri I I rin, \Itriiix: SCI, Pearl I~ili 1I1

PH VX P \ ' 1[A l'X[I-ii (iti 4 Di\x. Ilimix. %IID

SXS Ill Ne~lit Mrllt Smiij~4N \ Ii R1 %\XIM C [N I'\X I. l~ih Lcicii X .A

1N X lit .\ [( I N S4U1P Lexxcxla II

N IX lit 1, \ 1 AW1, (AI I, rlniiei.x'iiD

\ ( XR )II l)II I IAIIl . Ncxtpx'ii RI

N XXX 'N I N Ixll: 2 1 (Dir S,1L & C c ( hit I ike. CA: C tide 263h China Lake. ['X) ( tide 21661 Chiina

lajke ( AN XXX['N S I X(I,te. ('It, Neck NJI I oinei Dix. P"WI) \'irkttns . VA: SlainI Controil DIt.r. Yiirktokxxn

N\XXX [' NS I A I'\\ (I Itice \ttrklttssn. \

N \\ %k [I'NS I A ['XX [) - XInl C'xlitiol Dix . Chrlcxlti. S(C PXXD - Nicinit. Control ON., - Concord. (A: ['XI)

Sui (cii [net,. Scil licitih. IX. 'XX\) ('tils Neck. N.J: ['XXO. Charleston. SC: PW(). Seal Beach C'A

N. X'XXINSI ['[' IV N (IC Ide I' C I IN

NW [(C C tc III I Xx i' ilec. RI: ('tie I -. I'til lire lume ('A: ('tde 156. ['orl HIuenemen. CA: ('ode 25I iI Port

FIm1cikl. CXA. (tide 4301 (F\ [X fene iulptrt. NIS: ('ode 4711,. (irulfporl. MS: Ihrar . DaxistillQ. RI:

\ITSX\ ('ide Ill 'XXitr') ['til 1FricileVii. C(A: ['XXI (ode 811) Porl Iluenemne. CA: ['XXI. (inlipori.

MS.: I echnici -ilirart . Cilllpotrl XIS

NIR "1I ( x'iintincrN\l\I [-[H\F. IOper~lii'n D)eptN)f ; \A I ilrr Roitki lie. \11)

NI RI .. ('tie 4111 10% StI. Mits. XIS

NS( (I ( l. ittinctieil Rseh F at'. (aklxud C AV C'idc 54.1I Ntilk . VA' CX(ode 7WK Noriolk. VA SCE51. Norfolk,

£ ~ ~ \' X sC 'F. ( iIcs'tll. S(\SI) SI]F, Suie [lix. R.NSXX 4S[~ ('i W;0 Poir[t I llilkneie. ('A

N IC )( '' [W -4fli. I heal I .. kes II.: 5(1:-. Sin D~iegoi C(A

NLI 1.: R RIi.IXl'IRY) ('IXISSII)N IC'. Jiohnston. XXDiCel'.11

NI SC' DI I (tie52 IS. Sehailt Net" 10,'dti, ('I lod 01IA13 IR.S. MUnn). Next li'ondtinCI

(Ill'[! S[.('R[ I XRY ()[ l)I NSF I ),SD I I.& i ir. )Il ['icrps. I'etiltg'n. XXahineliin. DC

I I ( I 'ie 7Nli If- rlinieti'n S

['XI .A( I )lhee Nxiltlk. V (0. (('itl IM,1 Oatklaund. CA. Code I0. (ieal I.akes. If_: (tde i It) .tkliu.

IX: I 'tile O2a1 I.klind. ( .A: ('titl 12S. (iutarn: (tide 154 ilibhrart i. Greal la.kes. II.: ('tile 2W). (heal

laki's II.: (''dut' \I'. Nt'rftolk, VA.: Code 40)1. Great lake'. If.: ('tde 4))). Pearl [Harhtir. Ill. ('''tc 4(9), San

IDiegoi. C'A ('title 421). Oakland. ('A ('titl 424. Noirftilk, \ A: ('tite 51H). Circit lakes,. II., ('tde SlI

( lakind. ('A: 'Code IH))l. Great ake'. Co'tde 71)1. (hecal LksI_ ('tde 71XI1. San Dco. ( A: ('tde

SI011. Sain IDiegio. ('A: lhriirx'. ('tite 120IC. Saun jicio. C'A: Ihbrnrv. Gutam: librart. Noirflk. VA.uirr

[Pearl IIn nit ir Ill: I ibra rt' Puensraetoli, Fl.: I.i litrx Sulie Flax. R .P. : -ihrarvt. 'oktisukri JA: P'routioitl

Officer Norftolk. VA: U hI Dept I R Pascua ) Pearl IHarbotr. Ill: Utilies Officer G.u anm

SP('C ['WI) !I'tde 12111 MeehaniCeshtifa PA

St PANX [I '0. Williamsburg VA['VA Smelst.s. Kntoxvtille, '['cnn.U.S. MERCHIANT! MARINE A('ADEMY King% Point. NY (Reprint Custodian)US PEP'!' OF (CONIMER('E NOAA. Pacific Marine (enter. Seattle WA

* IS I;EIMA)GICAI. SURVEY Off. Marine Geology. Pileleki. Reston VAUS NATIONAL. MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE Hlighlands NY iSands Hlook ILab-Library)

USAF REGIONAl. HIOSPITAL Friirchild AFB. WALUSC'( library lfqt Washington. I)(

31

I NI) XI v N"i\ I" I I M\Iili Ii XX lmiri I) I "I'. Iliodliici I ii'. \Iati,ii XX. I oieq Sciie (L, c ,,-

i\\ui Vtuo u \I I",'I 6LV i, f~~ tiii I"N. I eIt 0N11ije. Sii I \iia

IN\ \ I N(,I\Nt Ii\ \\'XI ) \iii.i'Ji', XII V I r tI 11\1inn NcajtI (in. .\iil''I\.XI) '( \ i[)iMW ml'toli' \lII

-\Ii\ \\N I I) II )(,~t) I Vo" )pI Cii iTimiiilli'.HI1 R1 I I P\\ I [),-, l I1iuivl'ivi i l.

* IlIIKIl XI N N \lI I \11 \I Ntin11,l'eme C in "

XI t ' \1\1 N j N XI I))" \ I qll XN 1)1 -. \ Ni~iiih .\i'ii

\ )\If N &. \1II)uIIRI I IMR \R') IN XN \(,I I1I5. ( \I )R(1 NI I NNI I1 )(A I X\\ , MM~ \ IN I aitto (it\ 'NX S"tine - I iliii)\

1 \16 XIRX X ( I\I I Lin it XiCluiciTmti. ir Kimu. ( 11iiil'riI1LC. NIX

RI 1 \ IN N I\ I I d11 I St 16 1 N I( iiiiciani

I I Il( 11 1 NIX I <NI IN BI IIICnI' N Ilrit I 1I I 1 .1' N0 I. Heetile I. IC11e iileei P'. 0 t MI ui In Iti

N1\ () I IL kI (I I \1I ) R R I\1

Ml INI i RI It 1 (I I) N(I VCi) I1(111 (C N. \V)~i~~.

\1IIN 1 11' Id'NI MA') (I t ") Jelt_ r'.\1 i N I) C11 I IIi- l

\I I 1 M ( iiiitMi, )I \I. C i'ieI \1 itRi i'-5II .I il) ~~iit. ie I I pNI XXI \lt(IM .\ I N S I I ( I t NI FCC. A INS I 7Ni I 1 R Rr)e NI

NtNI NI R(iN ) CII ( I I ihra\ .Xhii N')P(1< NI RI I1I1 0( ) P[ o I n1eL lot I''t I c San Ilic CAI'l 1(1 I t NI\XII(NI I ) I WiLlie. IN 1 I ncr'. I It,)NRI IN II I'lilI. hem I n'-r I at1. Voelio 'ark. CAN I I I I NIX t)I NI1 \\ NA ( IRK Ihilll . Fort SehutIc. NM (I iniluilldlI I \1 XN M X \I\ I NINA I' NI MNCLIcdn~eki. ileLStaion. IN VXB I) liti (I Station. I Xt I I RNI IN IM \1 XIfI )RNI.X Ill RKI II')I ( (I M l).I'Ill1(*[[[1 I.lerkelet CA IIF. l'earsifl:

I I\I RNIt(1 C A H XXX\ RINVCI I I\X[RXICIRI I AlB. I OAR/i Ii jil ( eLl l)L'I't. 1_11) t-IV'SAtI NIX I <sIl' I ) (M 1 M X .X\\RI Nenark. ) I MIItI C (u 1\1iiigiiierilMU'. C he'.'.nitI \1NI I RN$I )I! INXN.NII li))NC IX I I. Ill (StCI *NV Il1 ) I\( N1X I RNI IN ()1 111 INCUS NIcil (L Rin. Irfliii 11: IRIIANN V 1I( IICRARN II NIX I RSI IN (I N)l1B XSIK VI IN ()l N I mncLIll. NI: I1 i11 lee Shell Pll't.II, NI\ I ItN(I IN (MI I N Vs Inst NMaiLci o iIarI. Port .Xvkansa'. IX( I\ I <lIl') CIlI I N\S N I At SIIN AtCMI I\. IN 1111N1'SC)I \% I RslI IN Ik\f s XNIIIN i I (N t IIl-hi0. I) C(iiIkouiI Seatltle. W A:' Scatle XXA Il I IITIuerII NIX I NIl IN ) MXX IS( A INNIN Nilttamikec XX I 1(Ci1 of (iren LAe' Stuici'I

0 XI N I I \ (M NI') I'XX. lirtie m Xenruraji. C N\ IRN)\ .IN XINI ([ XI.XRINI S(1I CiliiiL,tLr l'iint XA (I ibir' IX\<\ 11) ('k XN I ()I NXI.. XXA

11111 I I VISXI) \NI1 AX iUlit. IScl L ILchi) Ih i niiiatn. lDtI I R(C IMN I uiiit. Iliuqlon. INd11f1H1I IINIC \1 I NVINI Il<S INA X ImcliIC.tM \ NIX 'iifilielI10( MMN \N \1 WC )NINC I tORI' liItiipii NY II I) hfit', Cit

*1 \1 XI N N \l lDlI( 11. INC(aiiilriIuLc NMX IXIdlncl IfI

\1101 \\D XNI)iNN C C IRI' I I D) t(l ICINIKI 1(1Mliill I ;I & N1( 11(11 I N(It\[ 1 RN (R 'uliMCul I '11ie ICdah. C

PV Xt l1t \l \i<INI IC IfNC)[ t(C,') Xl1 X \ir)lual.X.

P()1 XNIII) ( Il N1\I XS0C S1(01<11I 1( 01<11I'N SIK()KiII 1<1 1 CI i( RiR \) XN \I )N I\ I I N l\\ItI )N \1 IN( I IC '11l 1 1oil I I )IIpII. l''ii,iiik til. N.I . I X\ -I'li Nili1C 1 I),;)1.

NIMi(tM)D I XittRN\tI<) \itIRIll AD N (1II). Nt II 1t<Nl')I

* Nil\ () XN & INA.XIII StIN INM IgiarzI.InI SeittlL. \\AIll! WX XX.X IM \NXX N'"tI'l l IINS IMC ,Xlliie'ii. \A t~clu'ICti)\11 NII ) IKIMtiI)) I NV). t NA NiraIdi. I mi likL'l~i.NN

I N1l1It) 11CIt H 01 (t(,ll N X\iiiI'. Io'ik' ( I (hiiiliii Sid l)i\ I tI'iii* XI, t1 I .Xi'I I NIC-S H I-1 ll Ill l)CNtIR) . NIX (I 1H 10 I<

XX()( It t\RXD.(l I 1)1 tDC INSI I I AXN I S Ill N( NtI I I \II I I INC o'. IC, ICC1 tSS. liltlil I I ( IN I ai C imid,iKI / li I Iilt i ShrIne. Nil)

32

0

HR( I)'\N %. ( \i I)\ . I I .u ~- I \l OLkIIthI, ( \I ll I N t . < '

\°

0

a;

0•

0 " " " I '' m " - i-. ,,-,m i

INSTRUCTIONS

The Naval Civil Engineering Laboratory has revised its primary distribution lists. The bottom ofC the mailing label has several numbers listed. These numbers correspond to numbers assigned to the list of

Subject Categories. Numbers on the label corresponding to those on the list indicate the subject category andtype of documents you arc presently receiving. If you are satisfied, throw this card away (or file it for laterreference).

If you want to change what you are presently receiving:

S )elete- mark ott number n h ot torn of libel

*Ad d circle flu rnlwr on list.

*Remok e ni% name from Al \our lists cheek bo\ on list.

C(hainge MV address line out incorrect line ind write in correct ion (ATTACH MAILING LABEL).

*Nulmber ot copies shI ould be enitred Aiter the titlei of the tibiee c tegorics y ou select.[:old on line below and drop in the miail.

Note: Numbers on label but not listed on questionnaire are for NCEL use only, please ignore them.

Folrl on line and staple,

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY

POSTAGE AND FEES PAIDNAVAL CIVIL ENGINEERING LABORATORY DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY

PORT HUENEME, CALIFORNIA 93043 DDaSi

OFFICIAL BUSINESSPENALTY FOR PRIVATE USE. $300

1 IND-NCEL.2700/4 (REV. 12-73)

0020.LL.-L7004

Commanding Officer* Code L14

Naval Civil Engineering LaboratoryPort Hueneme, California 93043

DISTRIBUTION QUESTIONNAIRE

The Naval Civil Engineering Laboratory is revising its primary distribution lists.

SUBJECT CATEGORIES 28 ENERGY/POWER GENERATION29 Thermal conservation (thermal engneering of buildings, HVAC

I SHORE FACILITIES systems, energy loss measurement, power generationl2 Construclton methods and materials (ncludng corrosion 30 Controls and electrical conservation leiectrical systems,

controi. coatings) energy monitoring and control systems)3 Waterfront structures (maintenance/deter oration control1 31 Fuel flexibility (liquid fuel,, coal utization. energy4 Utiltes (including power conditioning) from sold waste)5 Explosives safety 32 Alternate energy source (geothermal power, photovoltaic6 Construction equipment and machinery power systems, solar systems, wind systems, energy storage7 Fire prevention and control systems)8 Antenna technology 33 Site data and systems integration (energy resource data, energy9 Structural analysis and design (ncluding numerical and consumption data. integrating energy systems)

computer techniques) 34 ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION10 Protective construction (including hardened shelters, 35 Solid waste management

shock and vibration studies) 36 Hazardous toxic materials management11 Soil/rock mechanics 37 Wastewater management and santary engineering13 BEG 38 Od pollution removal and recovery14 Airfields and pavements 39 Air pollution

15 ADVANCED BASE AND AMPHIBIOUS FACILITIES 40 Noise abatement16 Base faclities including shelters. power generation. water supples) 44 OCEAN ENGINEERING17 Expedient roads/arfelds/bridges 45 Seafloor soir- and foundations18 Amphibious operations (including breakwaters, wave forces) 46 Seafloor construction systems and operations (including

19 Over thteBeach operatons Ibncluding contaner zation, diver and manipulator tools)materiel transfer, ighterage and cranis) 47 Undersea structures and materiais

20 POL storage, transfer and distribution 48 Anchors and moorings24 POLAR ENGINEERING 49 Undersea power systems, electromechancal Lables.24 Same as Advanced Base and Amphibious Faclities, and connectors

except himted to cold region envronments 50 Pressure vessel faclities51 Physical environment (including site surveying)

52 Ocean based concrete structures13 Hyperbaric chambers54 Undersea cable dynamics

TYPES OF DOKCUMENTS

85 Techdats Sheets 86 Technical Reports and Technical Notes 82 NCEL Guide & Updates r' None-

83 Table of Contents & Index to TDS 91 Physical Security remove my name

4i

4.

PLEASE HELP US PUT THE ZIP IN YOURI MAIL! ADD YOUR FOUR NEW ZIP DIGITS

TO YOUR LABEL (OR FACSIMILE),STAPLE I NSI DE TH IS SE LF-MAI LE R, AN DRETURN TO US.

(fold here)

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYI POSTAGE AND FEES PAID

NAVAL CIVL ENGINEERING LABORATORY DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY?(DR- HUENEME CALIFORNIA 93043-5003 DOa*iDOO310U&SMAILj

OFFICIAL BUSINESSPENAL'Y FOR PRIVATE USE. 6300

1 INO.NCEL 2700 4 (REV 12-73)

I 0930-LL-L70-0OdA

Commanding OfficerCode L14Naval Civil Engineering LaboratoryPort Hueneme, California 93043-5003

FILMED

S 2-85

* DTIC