HomeMy WebLinkAbout1981-08-25 Info PacketV -
City 01 Iowa City
MEMORANDUM
DAflI August 14, 1981
TO: City Council
FROM: City Manager
RE: Informal Agendas and Meeting Schedule
August 17, 1981 Mondav
NO INFORMAL COUNCIL MEETING
August 24, 1981 Mondav
1:30 - 5:00 P.M. Conference Room
1:30 P.M. - Discuss zoning matters
1:45 P.M. - Discuss Zoning Ordinance re. Mobile Home Parks (RMH Zone)
3:15 P.M. - Meet with Resources Conservation Commission
4:15 P.M. - Council agenda, Council time, Council committee reports
4:40 P.M. - Consider an appointment to the Board of Adjustment
August 25, 1981
Tuesda
7:30 P.M. - Regular Council Meeting - Council Chambers
August 31, 1981 Mondav
2:30 - 7:00 P.M. Special Informal Council Meeting - Highlander Inn
2:30 P.M. - Discuss and formulate goals and objectives for Fiscal
Year 1983
6:00 P.M. - Dinner
September 7 1981 Monday
LABOR DAY - No Informal Council Meeting
September 8, 1981 Tuesday
7:30 P.M. - Regular Council Meeting - Council Chambers
PENDING ITEMS
Economic Development Program
Meet with Parks and Recreation Commission regarding parkland acquisition
Appointment to the Human Rights Commission - September 22, 1981
I MICROFILMED BY
'JORM MICROLAB
CEDAR RAPIDS -DES 1401NES
Q4/
i
City of Iowa CIAy
MEMORANUUM
Date: August 12, 1981
To: City Council
From: Assistant City Manager C�
OL
Re: City Code Supplements
Copies of Supplement No. 9 to the City Code of Ordinances, adopted at your
August 11, 1981, meeting, are available at this time. Please bring your
Code books in to Lorraine so that she may include this latest supplement
in your books.
bdw3/4
i MICROFILMED BY
'JORM MICROLAB
CEDAR RAPIDS -DES -MOINES
-.1
011 at,
a
_j
V%_
City of Iowa C^y
MEMORANDUM
Date: August 7, 1981
To: City Manager and City Council
From: Rosemary Vitosh, Director of Finance P -
Re: Purchase of Outstanding Water Revenue Bonds
I have authorized the purchase of $10,000 of Water Revenue Bonds, series
1967. These bonds were being offered for sale by the bond holder and it is
to the City's advantage to purchase outstanding bonds when they are
offered for sale as this usually enables the City to purchase at a price
less than par value. These bonds carry an interest rate of 4.2%.
The bonds are being purchased at a price of 75 and accrued interest.
Therefore the bonds will be purchased for $7,500 plus accrued interest of
$80. By calling these bonds before their maturity date, the City will
save $2,500 in principal payments and $4,330 in interest payments (the
bonds were to have matured on December 1, 1991). Total savings to the
City is $6,830.
The FY82 budget included $50,000 for such purchases of outstanding Water
Revenue Bonds. With this purchase and the purchase made in July, I have
authorized the expenditure of $19,200 out of the total budgeted amount
which leaves approximately $30,000 for any future bond purchases.
bj/sp
MICROFILMED BY
JORM MICROLAB
CEDAR RAPIDS•DES MOINES
Ia93
^i
j�.
POLICE DEPARTMENT MONTHLY REPORT
July, 1981
Citizen generated requests for police services increased by
nearly one -hundred over June. A total of 2435 requests were
received in July as compared to 2386 in June. The offenses
of burglary, larceny/theft, motor vehicle theft, fraud,
vandalism, disorderly conduct, vagrancy, and motor vehicle
accidents accounted for the bulk of the increase noted in
July. All other categories remained substantially the same
as in June or declined slightly.
A total of 1913 traffic ticekts or parking citations were
issued and one -hundred thirty-two criminal arrests effected.
j Animal Control activities due to citizen generated requests
for service increased moderately in July. A total of one -
hundred twenty-two pet licenses were issued in July. Animal
Control revenue for the month totaled $1863.50.
I
Investigative activities continued at about the same level
as in June.
One new officer, Catherine Ockenfels, was hired in July bring-
ing the strength of'the Police Department to three less than
the strength authorized by Council. Three applicants have
accepted offers of employment effective in mid-September.
Officers and staff presented speeches and demonstrations to
four groups totaling one -hundred sixty-eight persons.
Statistical abstracts are appended.
i MICROFILMED BY
'JORM MICRO_ LAB
CEDAR RAPIDS -DES MOINES
_, 1, I_ iL
�1
ARRESTS FOR 1981
I. Cri::.inal Homicide
Lr,
JA:Vj'
rR"Y,;AR_I
�
2.
Rai)e
I
JGI.
3.
Robbery
.00T
:i0:' _
4.
Assault
I,
5.
BurRlary
6.
:-arceny-Theft
7.
'!otor Vehicle Theft
8.
Other Assaults -Simple
?.
A:son
10.
Fort;ery & Counterfeiting
! 1.
fraud
i2.
Em_be_zzIamen t
15
2
20
5
1�
21
-- - (busing,/receiv-
7
13
_
13.
Stolen Property inF possession)
1.4.
Vandalism
15.
6Veanons (carrying, possess ion, etc.
16.
Prostitution/Corimercialized Vice
17.
Sex Offenses
18.
Controlled Substance
i
19.
Gambling
20.
Offenses Against Family & Child -
I%
i
Lr,
JA:Vj'
rR"Y,;AR_I
�
—r
APP,
I
fAY
, _
1
I JU:V
JGI.
i-r\l'G
S[iP
.00T
:i0:' _
DEC
(COTAL
—�
2--
i 2
6
—
27
!r
�
in 2I
15
2
20
5
1�
21
6
2
18
7
13
_
I
i
i
—)—P—
—5-1_3
1
7—
4
_2_
I
_
1
3
1
2
i MICROFILMED BY
JORM MICROLAB
CEDAR RAPIDS -DES -MOINES
rl-
■
23
2
2 1.
0: 17U I
I 1AY
r18'
5
22.
Licuor Law Violations
L U
_G
23.
Intoxication
24.
Disorderly_ Conduct
8
25.
Vagrancv
1
114
26.
All Other Criminal. Viol.
_(no traL-E�c)
27.
Susoicion
15
28.
Juvenile
71
29,
'Iental
30.
Suicide
31.
Sno.-miobile Complaints
32.
Accident -Motor Vehicle
33.
Accident -Other
34.
Assist & Seri%lcrl
35.
Fire
1
36.
Alarm, Silent
�n
37.
Attempt To Locate
38.
Civil Problem
39.
Sudden Death/Bodies Found
10,
Gunshots
:lu
1 1
19
23
2
FEE
FE
15 22
2
APP,
37
9
I 1AY
r18'
5
JU:I
1
4-
JUL
19
7-7-
L U
_G
frOTA11,
L-]
8
17
19
1
114
17
12
15
25
71
21
17
6
1
29
�n
1211
14
27
7
1 1
19
MICROFILMED BY
'JORM MICRO_ LAB
CEDAR RAPIDS -DES 140INES
V-
41. :list . Investigation
42. :disc. Complaint &Ser.�ce Request
43. :1i.sc. Information
44. Lost & Found Property
45, Recovered Stolen Pronert!
46. D,g-Cat-htisc. Animals
47. Livestock
48. Wildlife -Deer Kills
j 49. Nesther-bad, etc.
50. Hazardous Road Condition
IIII 51. Traffic Violations
52. Ab:neoned & Recovered Vehicles
53. Parkin
54. 8oatiii -Recreational Water Com
55. Huntin-- Complaint (excl.trespass)
TOTALS
1 JF.J
I FES
:V -.i
i APR
'MY
0' J
JUL
--r—
1 AUC
ECTOTAL-
I S P ' OCT +OV--DEC..-TOTAL-
----�--
i
i
I
I
Tr
,
�I.
1
I
344
144
]Q
0_
451
481
2179
002
1432
2633
3237
3087
2768
2569 11563
2045
MICROFILMED BY
!JORM MICROLAB
CEDAR RAPIDS -DES MOINES
COP111T.AINTS FOR 1981
JA:i FI_E :ARI
APR
.1L'%
I
_JU:I
1.
Criminal Homicide
SIi11
2.
Rape
DEC
3.
Robber`
4.
Assault
j
5:
Eur5•lary_
6.
Larceny -Theft
7.
S4otor Vehicle Theft
19
48
122
20
8.
Other Assaults-Sinmle
17
64
155
9
9.
Arson
1
16
50
190
24_
10.
For;;ery & CounterfeitinE
11.
Fraud
}
12.
Embezzlement
8
6
1
5
3
1
(buvinr/receiv-
l
1
9
7.3.
Stolen Property ing,possess ion)
16,
Vandalism
15.
Weapons (carrying, possession, etc
1
16.
Prostitution/Commercialized Vice
17.
Sex Offenses
18.
Controlled Substance
19.
Gambling
111
20.
Offenses Against Familv & Child-
103
ren
JA:i FI_E :ARI
APR
.1L'%
I
_JU:I
JUL
I�--
AUG I
SIi11
OCT
NOT
DEC
OTAL
4
1I
19
48
122
20
]E2
23 114
37 143
11 !175
13
12
17
64
155
9
27
.45
161
18
1
15
40
162
12
1
16
50
190
24_
I
_
}
1
2
8
4
I
4
8
6
1
5
3
1
1
4
3
l
1
9
1
1
1
I
L
111
121
112
103
2
10
11
12
13
1 6
18
12—
5-
-1
21
43
1 32
I MICROFILMED BY
'JORM MICRO_ LAB
CEDAR RAPIDS -DES MOINES
1. _ . j __ Aid -
m
1
I
_.IA:1
29
21..
0: i11.1U1
I 28
I JULIAUC
26
I
i
22.
Liquor Law Violaci.ons
I DEC
23.
Intoxication
i 3 1
24.
Disorderly Conduct
6
25.
Vaaranev
26.
All Other Criminal Viol.
20
1 14 27
no traffic)
24
1.7.
Susnicion
i
28.
Juvenile
29.
;len cal
112
30.
Suicide
266
31.
Snowmobile Complaints
32.
Accident-:lotor Vehicle
33.
Accident -Other
2
34.
Assist & Serivice
I
35.
Fire
_
36.
Alarm, Silent
37.
Attempt To Locate
i 41
38.
Civil Problem
57
39.
Sudden Death/Bodies Found
40.
Gunshots
9u
3
39 I 61
�O
i 76
74
63
_.IA:1
29
FE3 11TAR ; APR
21 ! 30I 41
I :iAYY�I—JUN
32
I 28
I JULIAUC
26
I
I SEP
—
I OCT
I NOV
—
I DEC
I frOTAl
2
i 3 1
10
5
6
6
20
1 14 27
24
24
28
24
112
1151 145
241
266
240
285
2
4
I 1
7
_
20
24 ' 18
i 41
57
53
57
_
3
39 I 61
46
i 76
74
63
29
17 I 34
22
27
42
27
i
1 6
5
5
3
3
1
3
11
—2
[
168
144
162
4I
0
� i
_39r, 421
2
45;
1
493
12
423
4
--
456
I
--r
10
15
i
r,
19
23
13
t
141
141
150
149 1
167
46
19
9I
i 13
_1
2 0
_2
1
5
10
7
- i MICROFILMED BY
!JORM MICROLAB
CEDAR RAPIDS -DES MOINES
"I
1
j
41.
!14_c. Investigation
I APR
36
4'L.
Mine. Complaint &Service Request
43.
Plisc. Information
44.
Lost & Found ProDcrcy
45,
Recovered Stolen Pronerty
46.
Dog -Cat -}fisc. Animals
47.
Livestock
43.
Wildlife -Deer K:11s
49.
Wcsther-bad, etc.
50.
Hazardous Road Condition
51.
'Traffic Violations
53.
Abandoned & Recovered Vehicles
53.
Parking
54.
Boating- Recreational ldater Comp.
55.
Hunting Complaint (excl.trespass)
TOTALS
.7
JAN
26
FEE
�7�
'IAR
31
I APR
36
I !L4Y
33
JUN
35
JUL
50
AUG
j SEP
I
I OCT
I :IOVi DEC
TOTAL. -
_
20
18
23
22
30
29
13
92
103,
191
197
178
180
174
!
62
74
98
94
116
102_
92
i
'I
17
8
19
25
17
20
I
I I
55
3
47
82
104
3
1
101
2i
86
I
�l I
2
46
1
45�
-6
C,1
A
70
2
84
4
70
9
80
5
-
184
195
139
135
123.I
1
1
2
t
1855
1912121691241-1,
17934
8
MICROFILMED BY
IJORM MICROLAB
j CEDAR RAPIDS -DES -MOINES
1
\ /\
■
I) -
ANIMAL SHELTER MONTHLY REPOR
MONTH Ju1y 19 81
This Month This Month This Year Last Year
(Last Year) to Date to Date
Dog Comolaints
106
104
659
795
Cat Complaints
30
23
158
153
Total Com taints
136
127
317
948
Impounding Record
Voluntary (Dogs)
Pick Up (Dogs)
Owner (Cats)
Stray (Cats) 1
ICPD N/C
6
20
75
126
U1 4UJ
493
Disposals
Dogs Adopted
Dogs Reclaimed
Cats Adopted
Cats Reclaimed
3
2
22
21
77-
27
SUI Dogs
SU1 Cats
11
16
31
bi
P. .S. Dogs
P.T.S. Cats
RR14
?�0 `1
153
34 41 144
149 '
Revenue in do lars TRAP
Acceptance fees
Adoptions
Deposits
SUI
Rabie Shots
Impounding
License Fees
$64.00
$115.00
$32.00
$319.00
530.00
268.00
140.00 80.00 1068.00
930.00
$130.00 70.00 14'40.00
$1280.00
36.00
$219.00
S54.00 '19.00 202.00
13.00
'390.00 '57 .00 4209.00
33 .0
§470. 1 , 1
7
Licenses Issued
Izz
79
--3T43-
757
Tickets Issued
U
9
73
188
Other animals picked up,
Raccoon
Opposum
Squirrels
Bats
Birds, Fowl
Other
Skunk:
Livestock
Groundhog1
4
3
11
15
s
46
ru t urt e
D
Dog Bites
City
3
County
4
City
6
County
7
City
33
County
24
City
52
County
36
Other Bites
Cat Bites
3rat
err
Bial
c_q
lira
0
12
4
15
2
6
2 2
1 24
5
24
5
Dead Animals Picked Up
Pets
2D 7C
Wild
10
17 t s
3D 1OC
W 3. 1 Li
12
ects
6D 37
it
89
e s
9D 35
42. LCI
. 112
Dumped
City
10Do9l
lUCat
County
11Do
OCat
1 'y
3Dcg
7Cat
owi Y
3Dor,
LCat
i y
P6'Jog
123Cat
cine y
37Don;
6Cac
,>. y
22Do;
LO Ca
can 'y
27Dog
76?at
DEL. FEE
$90,00
$735.00
lag*
_i
MICROFILMED BY
JORM MICROLAB
CEDAR RAPIDS -DES MOINES
1
A Aid
F
V:_
MINUTES OF STAFF MEETING
August 5, 1981
Referrals from the informal Council meeting of August 3 were distributed to
the staff for review and discussion (copy attached).
Items for the agenda of August 11 include:
Resolution authorizing agreement with Plum Grove Acres
Resolution regarding easement on Lot 13, Dean Oakes First Addition
Resolution regarding space needs proposal
Resolution authorizing the filing of CDBG/metro entitlement application
Public hearing on plans, specifications, form of contract and estimate
of cost for Lower Ralston Creek improvements, Phase I Project
Set public hearing on Lafayette Street railroad bridge project
i
iSet public hearing on 5th year hold -harmless entitlement CDBG grantee
performance report
i
Set public hearing on final PAD plan of Court Hill -Scott Boulevard, Part VIII
I
Public hearing on amendment concerning rooming houses
i
Resolution approving preliminary plat of Dean Oakes Third Addition
Resolution accepting policy for public housing
Resolution awarding contract for Scott Boulevard paving project
Set public hearing on water rate increases
Open and award bids for special assessment bonds
Set public hearing on Sheller -Globe on November 10
First reading of the ordinance concerning balconies/decks
Adopt Code Supplement No. 9
Adopt Sign Ordinance amendment
The City Manager announced that we would recommend continuing to have City
Council meetings every other week, except we will change the November 3 meeting
to November 10 and meet every other week thereafter. We will avoid meeting on
election night that way.
The Finance Director will write a memorandum recommending the date for raising
water rates be September 1, 1981.
)a95
j MICROFILMED BY
'JORM MICROLAB
CEDAR RAPIDS -DES I40INES
l,-. ._ _ ,_. _ . w-._ Y._� _ . _ .,.«.ti---� - -- - -- - �- - •� ._ -, sir
The City Manager noted that several department heads had complained about
dealing with the phone company. He has discussed this matter with Nancy Garrett
who is the manager for this area. She has furnished a list of people to call.
This will be furnished to the department heads.
The Director of Human Relations advised that she is working on a draft for
the bonus system. This will be furnished to the staff for comments and will
be discussed at next week's staff meeting.
Within two or three weeks, the Assistant City Manager will have a meeting
after the staff meeting with department heads who are involved with collective
bargaining. The department heads are to suggest division heads who should
attend this meeting. The possibility is being considered of utilizing
division heads on the bargaining team. A memo will be sent to the staff when
a date is selected for this meeting.
The matter of security was briefly discussed. The Fire Department has advised that
the doors are found open frequently during their early evening inspections. The
staff is to be more aware of what can be done to make the building secuire.
Prepared by:
C:7�4
Lorraine Saeger
MICROFILMED BY
'JORM MICROLAB
CEDAR RAPIDS -DES MOINES
L..
1a95
...7
7
August 3, 1981
Informal Council Meeting
DEPARTMENT REFERRALS
SUBJECT
� D
REFERRED
TO
oUE
W
9 �
W
COMMENTS/STATUS
Septic Tank Check
8-3
Public Wks
Check with Johnson County Health
Department re. checks of septic tanks
along Prairie du Chien Road.
Sewer Extension
8-3
Engineering
Contact Tony Frey re. future
extension of sewer from Oakes
3rd Addition.
Brookside Drive Bridge
8-3
Public Wks
Repair damages and pursue claims
against person(s) known to be
responsible. Jim Brachtel check
of warning signs,
n pessibi4ity
reflectors, etc., to slow traffic
on Brookside.
Dumping near Melrose Lake
8-3
Public Wks
Check and advise City Manager ASAP.
Council Packets
8-3
Finance
rint one-sided; no staples exce�.
for agenda.
Funding - Crisis Center
8-3
P&PD
Council requests report and
recommendation from Pam Ramser•
re. request for additional funding.
Christmas decorations
8-3
Assistant
City Mgr.
Okay for downtown - unlighted.
Contact Downtown Association.
U. S. Golf Association
8-3
City Mgr.
Refer to Chamber (Keith Kafer)
for possible response.
L,
MINUTES OF STAFF MEETING
August 12, 1981
Referrals from the informal and formal Council meeting of August 11, 1981,
were distributed for review and discussion (copy attached).
Items for the agenda of August 25 include:
First consideration of the mobile home ordinance
Public hearing on the 5th year CDBG Hold -Harmless Program
Public hearing on the Lafayette Street bridge plans
Resolution on Gilbert Street railroad crossing
Preliminary plat of Oakes Addition
Resolution regarding space study
Public hearing on ordinance regarding water rates
Consideration of ordinance raising water rates
Resolution designating the parking lot north of the Senior Center
as permit only for the Senior Center
Appointment for the Board of Adjustment
First reading of the ordinance concerning rooming houses
Second reading of the ordinance concerning balconies/decks
Two resolutions regarding reclassifications (in Parks and Police)
The Assistant City Manager reminded the staff that quarterly reports are due.
A memo will be distributed to this effect.
The Assistant City Manager furnished copies of an outline concerning collective
bargaining. This subject was briefly discussed. The importance of defining the
role of the negotiator was emphasized. This matter will be discussed at next
week's staff meeting.
Prepared by:
4.
Lorraine Saeger
10195
j MICROFILMED BY
JORM MICROLAB
CEDAR RAPD:=DES MOINES
"I - - - - 1. _ .A _ Ad
-J
Y_.
V—
Informal and Regular Council Meetings DEPARTMENT
August 11, 1981
REFERRALS
MICROFILMED BY
'JORM MICROLAB
CEDAR RAPIDS -DES 1401NES
ALIt
■
w
p
REFS D
DATE
COMMENTS/STATUS
SUBJECT
W
Will be scheduled for informal
meeting on August 24. City Attorney
RMH Zone
8-11
P&PD/Legal
will review, evaluate, and provide
le al anal sis. Notif mobile name
park owners, etc., o n? orma `
discussion scheduling.
City Clerk/
Resolution for Council meeting of
Revised Council meeting schedule
8-11
Legal
August 25.
P&PD/Legal
Revise and present to Council
Amendment to Ordinance re. boards and
8-11
for action.
commissions.
Deferred until 8-25-81. Provide
June disbursements
8-11
Finance
list for agenda packet.
Provide Council with informati'
re. calculation of hourly rates
Space Needs Study
8-11
City Mgr.
Deferred for action at 8-25-81
Evaluate feasibility of Sunday
Sunday Bus Service
8-11
Transit
service. Consider trade-off of
Sunday vs. Saturday night service.
Water Rate Charges
8-11
Finance
September 1 okay for effective
change date.
What is future plan for filled
Tower Court fill project
8-11
Public Wks.
area? Possible road to Neuzil
tract?
MICROFILMED BY
'JORM MICROLAB
CEDAR RAPIDS -DES 1401NES
ALIt
■
Informal and Regular Council MeetinDEPARTMENT
August 11, 1981 u
REFERRALS
SUBJECT
DATE
'
REFERRED
D T
W
F
W ¢
COMMENTS/STATUS
Small buses
8-11
Transit
Discuss with Assistant City Manager
as issue relates to Sunday service.
Reduced parking rates - Senior Center
8-11
City Manage
Discuss with Assistant City Manager
re. recommendation to Council
Special Assessment Bonds8-11
Finance
Memo to Council when future bidding
planDiscuss
Eastdale Mall
8-11
P&PD
with Assistant City Manager
compliance with PAD.
i
1
i
MICROFILMED BY
JORM MICRO_ LAB
CEDAR RAPIDS -DES MOINES
City of Iowa c,_y
MEMORANDUM
OAT11 August 21, 1981
TO: City Council
FROM: City Manager
REI Material in Friday's Packet
Memorandum from the City Manager regarding the Waste -to -Energy Feasibility
Study with copy of the study.
Letter from Mr. Larry Baker regarding noise control.
Memorandum from the Energy Program Coordinator regarding the Council's meeting
with the Resources Conservation Commission.
Memorandum from the Assistant City Engineer regarding fill at the -end of
Tower Court, north of Oakcrest.
Memorandum from the Transit Manager regarding Iowa City transit's tenth
anniversary.
Copy of press release regarding school year -schedule for rush-hour transit
service.
Copy of press release and letter from HUD'regarding approval of Federal
application for Section 8 Moderate Rehabilitation Housing Program i30a
Letter from HUD furnishing comments as a -follow-up to visit to Iowa City to
monitor the Community Development Block Grant programs. /.30 3
Memorandum from Human Services Planner regarding the Crisis Center transient
service funding request. (The letter from the Crisis Center requesting this
funding was on the consent calendar of July 28, 1981.) 13411
Letter from Atty. Meardon re objections to mobile home ordinance 1305
Memo from City Atty. Jansen re legal review of proposed mobile home
zoning classification and mobile home park standards and development
regulations. 1306
0
MICROFILMED BY
JORM MICROLAB
CEDAR RAPIDS -DES MOINES
11, City of Iowa Ci•v
MEMORANDUM
Date: August 18, 1981
To: City Council
From: Ci t�Var ger
Re: Waste -to -Energy Feasibility Study
Enclosed is the Waste -To -Energy Feasibility Study prepared by
Stanley Consultants jointly for the City of Iowa City and the
University of Iowa. The study concludes:
"(W)ithin the time frame considered by this study, waste -
generated steam cannot competitively compete with the cost
of steam generated by coal, but it is significantly less
expensive, than steam generated by either residual oil or
natural gas: The University, as the potential energy
market, supplied an anticipated boiler replacement
schedule which projects the composite mix of coal, oil,
and. gas generation requirements at their power plant.
Given the University does implement the planned
renovation, project benefits fall short of project costs.
"In light of the University -supplied boiler replacement
schedule, this study recommends that a coincineration
facility not be pursued at this time. However, the City
and University are encouraged.to periodically re-examine
project parameters. Uncertainties are' inherent in
projecting alternative energy costs. Over the next few
years, escalation rates other than those used in this
study could enhance feasibility. The City might seek
alternative energy markets aside from the University if
disposal costs increase more rapidly than expected at the
existing landfill. Schedule delays in boiler replacements
could increase the University interest as a coincineration
participation. Much time is left for re-evaluation before
the remaining life of the existing landfill is expended.
Coincineration should continue to be considered as a
viable waste disposal alternative."
Also attached is an article from the August 2, issue of The New York
Times which discusses similar programs.
cc: Chairman, Resources Conservation Commission
/sp
MICROFILMED BY
JORM MICROLAB
CEDAR RAPIDS -DES MOIRES
L."
._T
/07 N _f
Y
Gi.rbage Is Gar sage,
Burning It for Energy Is Difficult
ByJAMESBARRON
PORT WASHINGTON, L.I.
W=E=rnb:�
of Places to
the.tbullt lndner-
stars- m tum It Into electricity and
steam for their home and businesses.
With dumping pounds In the metropolitan arca
fil tg up, many American officials are finding
garbage recycling an increasingly attractive al.
temttve. Butgiven the experience thus faron this
side of the Atlantic, It may be an Idea that simply
doesn'ttravel.
Even relatively straightforward Eutopmn style,
platy built in this country have generated more
than their share of difficulties along with electrici.
ty. For many of the 38 plants relying on mom
so•'
phlsticated technology — the ambitioushnstalla.
tions at Bridgeport; Court. and Garden City, L.I.
to produce a reliable ref m -derived fuel
failure to process as much garbage. as
The New York City Sanitation Commissioner,
Norman Stdxl, remains enthusiastic abort plats
for at lout two garbagetoeaetgy plants In the
city. tate, at the site of the Brooklyn Navy Yard,
would turn 3,000 ton of solid waste — mote than
half at the refuse Brooklyn produces each day —
inm Steam that could be sold to ConsoUdatedEdl-
sonCompany.
. Another, In the Hunts Point section of the Bronx,
would handle 1,500 tons a day— virtually all that
that borough produce — and be built jointly with
the state Power Authority, which would purchase
theeleetrldty.
"I had a certain amount of skepticism of the
European technology when I first got into this,"
sold Mr. Steiml, who wear to Europe and returned
a staunch advocate. But he acknowledged last
weep that plus for the plants were already a year
behind, and It seems likely that political, envlron-
MWW and finaaciol difficulties could delay them
evenlonger. .
TechrMhW Under Attack
77e technology of turning garbage into energy
hoe come under attack not just from envirwmen.
MUM, who fear that tete plants may not be as
camas the Europea ssaytheyare,braalsofrom
budget -minded critics, who question their coat.
The two plants planned for New York would con.
sumeonly a small amount of the 22,000 tons of gar.
bage the city produce each day, and additional
one would have to built to appreciably lessen the
burden on the Fresh IGBs landfill in Sutra Island,
which Is to absorb an Increasing amount of refuse
In tho future as mote and more of the city's dumps
ate dosed forenviranmenal mum.
Why does tushing garbage into energy seem so
easy for Europeans and so hard for Americans?
"The developers in this country were purndng
other technologies that haven't worked; " Mr. std-
ad sold, "and because of their own enttepre
rnmrial [[deters, they tended to bad-mouth what
had gone an in Europe." -
Others suggest It is because American garbage
is different from the Eurpean variety. "The things
Americans throw Out cocain so much more Alas•
tic, which butts poorly and causes real problems
at these Plants," said Vicki Wong, an opponent of
0.0 0.5 1.0. 1.5 2.0. 2.5
,
— Sweden
— NSUterlanM
— geese Kong
Went Germany
Japan
France
t� Austria
Flnand
M Katy
M Canada EuPOpews
"lam lead the way
Sartain
�Caedroeb.ekle Poundsofwaete
Norway processed In reluas-
�UMbdSratw fired energy glnerators
�Australa per capita per day in,
9�,; selected countries
ansa
I &W.0t union Source: U.S. En*o wonW
P ectim Ago y.
the Hempstead Resources Recovery facility In
GardenClty.
That plant, essentially patterned after a paper
mill, use what is called "wet pulp" technology, in
whits refuse is doused with fluid and fuel before it
Is ignited. What seemed feasible in theory has
Proven difficult in practice, however. 710e plant,
which was closed more than a year ago, was found
to be emitting
dioxin. an tact, during tests . Since tbextremely
en, $ 0 million hatoxics been
spent In an effort to make It operate more choly.
7109 BridgePM plant, which was to produce a
Powdery, rehse•derived fuel, was shut in October
after eompfflug an equally depressing record. In a
year and a half of operation, it burned only three
and a halt weeks worth of garbage, producing an
odor one state environmental Inspector called
olm enough to ipL �m " One of the compa-
otheristtyingmR P B� 7
the
gum out what to do with it.
In antrast most successful European plants
use the Ira complicated "mace h ming" tech.
nique. In which dry garbage is burned and the
warmth of the fire beats water in a dosed system,
of pipe surtormding the Incinerator. The garbage
and the water never touch each other, making
such plants simpler to operate.
"It's not A very advanced technology," said
Joan Scberb of the state Department of Environ.
mental Conservation. "But It won't work unless
it's religiously maintained, and In this country we
just won't do that."
On Long Island, where landfills pose a special
risk to groundwater Supplies, at leant two new
refuse-burning
el Plants are contemplated. Like Mr.
Proponents am heeding the lessons of
Bridgeport and Garden City and relying an Euro-
pean technology.
A J50 million plant planned for Port Washington
would be built In conjunction with the state Power
MICROFILMED BY
JORM MICROLAB
CEDAR RAPIDS -DES 1101MES
Mr,
7YNw Ya►11m�/Yes al•,wetu
Tia Hempstead Reaomeea Recovery Plant In Garden
City, Leen bland.
MICROFILMED By
JORM MICROLAB
CEDAR RAPIDS -DES MOVIES
Selected waste -to -energy
plants in the U.S.
Averegetons Start-up
Akron, Ohio 600.700 1979 prepared fuel
Albany, N.Y.
perday
date
Product
Chicago
1,200
1971
steam
Harrisburg. Pa.
600
1973
steam
Nashville. Tenn.
400
1974
steam
Saugus. Mass.
1,150
1976
: steam
Akron, Ohio 600.700 1979 prepared fuel
Albany, N.Y.
n.a.
1981 prepared fuel
Bridgeport. Conn.
shut
1979 prepared fuel
Chicago
30
1976 prepared fuel
Cockeysville. Md. 850-950
1976 prepared fuel
Hempstead, N.Y.
shut
1980 prepared fuel
Milwaukee
050
1975 prepared fuel
New Orleans
650
1976 prepared fuel
Niagara Falls, N.Y.
n.a.
1980 prepared fuel
Baltimore 600 1974 steam
EI Cajon, Calif. n.a. 1977 pyrolysis oil
Authority. Onethlyd the size of the Hempstead
plaaf, it would generate 13,000 kilowatts of elect
tricity, enough to save nearly 6.3 million gallons of
oil a year by tedudW the amount of power ob•
tained from petroleum -powered plants. Prellml-
nary estimates suggest that 273,000 tons of refuse
could be turned Into 91 million kilowatt -hairs of
electricity each year, which could thea be said,
perhaps mthelmg bland lighting Company.
But the plant won't be wady for several years,
and local officials say they have jtm six weeks be.
fore space In the landfill rams out. So far the state
has refused to issue permits necessary to expand
It. The urgency of the town's garbage problem was
umdetscored during the winter when methane ap.
parently escaped from the dump and triggered
small explosions innearby homes,
A few miles away, the town of Oyster Bay is
plarmhtg a plant to replace its landfill in Bethpage,
which ranked third (behind the love Canal in NI-
agar& Falls and a privately operated dump in
Oswego) among New York's most h&ratdpts
waste disposal sites, according to the state enol-
ronmental department.
Oyster Bay hopes the plant will process the 1,000
tons of garbage that the town's 370,000 residents
produce each day. Officials know that even along
European lines, such a plant is a risky proposition,
hurt It apparently seemed less risky than another
proposal they were considering: shipping the
refusetoHaid.
"The idea was to mix New York City sludge and
Oyster Bay garbage, " said James Bell, vice chair-
man of Oyster Bay's Industrial Development Au.
thority. "Tbe Indication was that Haiti would want
it, but there were a lot of doubts about the viability
of a 20.yearcontract."
Q9 67
WASTE -TO -ENERGY
FEASIBILITY STUDY
i
Prepared for:
CITY OF IOWA CITY
UNIVERSITY OF IOWA
July 1981
STANLEY CONSULTANTS
.I I CG01 II' -I[ . i!.
JORM MICROLAB
IJ
STANLEY CONSULTANTS, INC.
STANLEY BUILDING, MUSCATINE. IOWA 52761
TELEPHONE: 319/264.6600
CABLE: STANLEY MUSCATINE IOWA
TELEX: 468402, 468403
July 17, 1981 TWX: 910-525.1430
Mr. Neal Berlin Mr. Duane Nollsch, Director
City Manager Physical Plant Department
Civic Center University of Iowa
Iowa City, Iowa 52242 Iowa City, Iowa 52242
Gentlemen:
Re: Waste -to -Energy Feasibility Study
We are pleased to submit the attached report regarding the technical
and economic feasibility of incinerating Iowa City waste and producing
steam for sale to the University of Iowa. We are hopeful that the
findings of the report will contribute to city and university goals
of improved environmental quality and energy conservation.
We would like to express our appreciation for the assistance provided
by the city and university --particularly those who participated
in the series of Advisory Committee meetings during the course of the
project.
Thank you for the opportunity to perform this study.
Sincerely,
STANLEY CONSULTANTS, INC.
�T9Ht
Michael E. Hunzi�
INTERNATIONAL CONSULTANTS IN ENGINEERING, ARCHITECTURE, PLANNING, AND MANAGEMENT
j
MICROFILMED BY
,JORM MICRO_ LAB
CEDAR RAPIDS -DES MOINES
F
WASTE -TO -ENERGY
FEASIBILITY STUDY
Prepared for:
CITY OF IOWA CITY
UNIVERSITY OF IOWA
July 1981
j MICROFILMED OY
'JORM MICROLAB
11 CEDAR RAPIDS -DES -MOINES
iaq,o
.-I
a
j MICROFILMED BY
JORM MICRO_ LAB
'CEDAR RAPIDS -DES 1401NES
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
vi
EXECUTIVESUMMARY ...............................................
1
PART1 - INTRODUCTION ...........................................
Purpose of Study ............................................
1
Existing Waste Management Practice ..........................
2
4
-
Future Waste Loads ..........................................
PART 2 - TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT ..................................
9
Historical Perspective ......................................
9
—I
12
Technical Requirements ......................................
J
12
Transport ...............................................
Acceptance ..............................................
12
Storage .................................................
13
lIncineration
............................................
13
_
Heat Recovery ...........................................
13
nAir
Pollution Control ...................................
13
=-I
Combustion Residues .....................................
13
14
Incinerator Alternatives ....................................
15
'
Waste Load Characteristics ..................................
17
Steam Specification .........................................
Evaluation of Alternatives ..................................
21
Starved Air Refractory -Lined Incinerator ................
21
^-t
Excess Air Watervall Incinerator ........................
23
Excess Air Water Cooled Rotary Kiln .....................
24
26
PART 3 - REPRESENTATIVE SYSTEM ..................................
26
Assumptions .................................................
Preliminary Design........... ...............................
28
36
Cost Estimates ..............................................
41
Environmental Impacts .......................................
I
7954 i
j MICROFILMED BY
JORM MICRO_ LAB
'CEDAR RAPIDS -DES 1401NES
I
TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED)
Page
PART 4 - ECONOMIC ANALYSIS ......................................
46
General .....................................................
46
Economic Analysis Overview ..................................
46
Existing Waste Disposal Operations ..........................
47
-�
MSW.....................................................
47
MSS .....................................................
48
With -Project Conditions............
Revenues ................................................
50
i
Costs ...................................................
50
Project Breakeven Analysis ..................................
53
I
Revenue from Tipping Tees ...............................
53
Landfill Cost Savings ...................................
53
Haul Cost Savings .......................................
54
MSS Treatment Savings ...................................
55
Capital Cost of Incinerator .............................
56
Operation and Maintenance Costs of Incinerator..........
56
Revenues from Steam Sales ...............................
57
Summary of Project Breakeven Analysis ...................
58
Alternative Cost of Generation to the University............
60
—
Comparison of Incinerator and University Breakeven
Analyses ..................................................
62
Summary ................:....................................
65
I � j
PART 5 - IMPLEMENTATION ANALYSIS ................................ 67
I
i General ..................................................... 67
iRisk Allocation ............................................. 67
i
Federal or State Assistance.................................69
i
Procurement Approaches ...................................... 70
A 6 E.. ................................. 70
Turn Key ................................................ 70
Full Service ............................................ 70
I
I
7954
ii
MICROFILMED BY
.JORM MICRO_ LAB
CEDAR RAPIDS -DES MOVIES
ia96
i MICROFILMED RY
'JORM MICROLAB
CEDAR RAPIDS -DES MOINES
L,
7
1
TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED)
1
Page
PART 5 - IMPLEMENTATION ANALYSIS (Continued)
Institutional Frameworks ....................................
71
Municipal Authority .....................................
71
County Authority
The University of Iowa ..................................
72
'J
Joint Exercise of Governmental Powers ...................
72
^
Private Sector............ ...........
72
Financial Arrangement Options ...............................
73
Public Sector Financing .................................
73
ICurrent
Revenue .....................................
73
_
General Obligation Bonds ............................
73
Revenue Bonds .......................................
74
Private Sector Financing ................................
75
Internal Financing ..................................
75
Industrial Revenue Bonds ............................
75
rjLeveraged
Leasing ...................................
77
`J
REFERENCES......................................................
78
GLOSSARY........................................................
81
APPENDIX A ......................................................
A-1
I
_
TABLES
--t
Number Title
Page
1 Summary of Total Municipal Solid Waste Received -
Iowa City Landfill ....................................
3
-=
2 1980 Census Summary .....................................
5
3 Population and Total Waste Load Estimates ...............
6
-
4 Average Daily HSS Production - Future Iowa City
-
Water Pollution Control Facility ......................
7
5 Composite Coincineration Waste Load Projections.........
8
6 Summary of Heat Input Criteria for Coincineration.......
18
7 Boiler and Turbine Data - University Heating and
Power Plant. ..........................................
19
_J
7954 iii
_
1996
i MICROFILMED RY
'JORM MICROLAB
CEDAR RAPIDS -DES MOINES
L,
7
1
0%
MICROFILMED BY
'JORM MICROLAB
CEDAR RAPIDS -DES MOINES
TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED)
TABLES (CONTINUED)
Number
Title
Page
8
Cost Estimate Summary - Initial Capital Cost
(475 psig/760°F Steam) ................................
37
9
Cost Estimate Summary - Annual Operation and
Maintenance ...........................................
40
10
Estimated Emissions from Incinerator ....................
42
• -- 11
Maximum Predicted Ground Level Concentrations...........
43
— 12
Historical and Projected Waste Quantities Disposed
at Landfill ...........................................
49
13
Disposal Cost and Revenues With- and Without -Project....
51
14
Summary of Base Case Breakeven Project Costs and
Benefits for 220 psig/500°F Steam .....................
54
_
15
Summary of Base Case Breakeven Project Costs and
Benefits for 475 psig/760°F Steam .....................
55
16
Breakeven Steam Price and Tipping Fee for Project
`
Feasibility ......••••••
57
17
Net Cost Savings Generated by the Project Under
Alternative Escalation and Discount Rates .............
59
18
Projected Alternative Steam Generation Costs for
_
the University of Iowa ................................
62
19
Summary of Project Benefit and Cost Alternatives........
63
20
Range of Possible Steam Prices ..........................
65
FIGURES
— '
Follows
Number
Title
Page
1
Steam Flow Schematic - University of Iowa
Beating and Power Plant ...............................
19
2
Location Map - Waste Management with Coincineration.....
27
3
Representative Sites - Proposed Coincineration
Facilities ............................................
27
1954
iv
0%
MICROFILMED BY
'JORM MICROLAB
CEDAR RAPIDS -DES MOINES
I
TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED)
FIGURES (CONTINUED)
j
Follows
Number
Title
Page
^
4
Preliminary Design of Coincineration Facilities –
Plan Views ...........................................
33
5
Preliminary Design of Coincineration Facilities –
_�
Representative Section ...............................
33
6
Preliminary Design of Coincineration Facilities -
_
Architectural Elevations .............................
33
-J
7
Mass and Volume Balances – Waste Management with
17
Coincineration.......................................
35
J
8A
Su®ary of Costs, Revenues and Savings for Breakeven
J
220 psig/500°F Steam Project .........................
58
8B
Summary of Costs, Revenues and Savings for Breakeven
�,
475 psig/760°F Steam Project .........................
58
:-!
9
Projected Percentage of University Steam Use
Generated by Oil/Gas.................................
61
I
10
Historical and Projected National Fuel Casts...........
61
11A
U of I Steam Costs vs Incinerator 220 psig/500°F
Breakeven Steam Price ................................
62
`
11B
U of I Steam Costs vs Incinerator 475 psig/760°F
Breakeven Steam Price ................................
62
12A
Comparison of Possible 220 psig/500°F Benefit
Streams ..............................................
64
—
12B
Comparison of Possible 475 psig/760°F Benefit
I
J
Streams ..............................................
64
1
u
I
7954
v
MICROFILMED BY
'JORM MICROLAB
-CEDAR RAPIDS -DES MOINES
W4
i
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
General
The Iowa City community has the basic ingredients for the successful
implementation of a waste -to -energy project. This study demonstrates the
technical and environmental feasibility of a representative project tai-
lored to the community waste loads. Economic viability is less apparent.
This study examined the technical, environmental, and economic
feasibility of coincinerating municipal solid waste (MSW) and municipal
sewage sludge (MSS). Waste heat from the combustion process would be
recovered to produce steam suitable for use by the University for dis-
trict heat. Technical evaluation began by determining waste loads and
estimating combustion characteristics. Next, the available technology
was evaluated and a preliminary design was developed for a representative
system. Significant detail in the preliminary design was the basis for
reliable capital and O&M cost estimating and critical review of major
environmental impacts. At that point the economic evaluation placed the
coincineration facility in context with the overall waste management
system and determined net benefits as an indication of feasibility.
Potential benefits to the city include reduced waste transport costs,
lower operation and maintenance (06M) expenses at the sanitary landfill,
extended landfill life, savings in sludge treatment costs at the future
Iowa City Water Pollution Control Facility and the possibility of col-
lecting revenues in excess of project costs. As an energy market, the
University of Iowa could gain from project participation by purchasing
waste -generated steam as a substitute for equivalent steam produced at
higher in-house costs.
The results reveal that within the time frame considered by this
study, waste -generated steam cannot competitively compete with the cost
of steam generated by coal, but it is significantly less expensive than
steam generated by either residual oil or natural gas. The University,
as the potential energy market, supplied an anticipated boiler replace-
ment schedule which projects the composite mix of coal, oil, and gas
generation requirements at their power plant. Given the University does
7954 vi
11%
MICROFILMED BY
JORM MICROLAB
CEDAR RAPIDS -DES MOINES
.-I
implement the planned renovation, project benefits fall short of project
! costs.
_ In light of the University -supplied boiler replacement schedule,
this study recommends that a coincineration facility not be pursued at
this time. However, the city and University are encouraged to periodi-
cally re-examine project parameters. Uncertainties are inherent in pro-
jecting alternative energy costs. Over the next few years, escalation
rates other than those used in this study could enhance feasibility. The
city might seek alternative energy markets aside from the University if
disposal costs increase more rapidly than expected at the existing land-
fill. Schedule delays in boiler replacements could increase the Univer-
sity interest as a coincineration participant. Much time is left for re-
evaluation before the remaining life of the existing landfill is ex-
pended. Coincineration should continue to be considered as a viable
waste disposal alternative.
Technical Considerations
The representative facility is based on state-of-the-art application
_ of proven mass -fired incineration technology with heat recovery. Waste
—; loads are relatively small for this project. Therefore, factory -built
controlled -air incinerators are a logical choice. Such systems are as-
sembled in the factory and installed in the facility as one or more
modules tied together to fit the waste load. By controlling air to the
combustion process, expenditures for costly air pollution control are
dramatically reduced. By mass firing, these systems do not require front
end processing, which is typically used with large waste loads when
- separation of recyclables is viable.
IThree modular controlled air systems were evaluated for the waste
_ loads at Iowa City. Each system could conceivably be applied to the
special considerations presented where MSS is included. The comparison
concluded that a system of two water cooled rotary kilns would best fit
— the requirement for this project scope. However, it was also emphasized
that final equipment selection would probably be accomplished by use of a
— performance specification. The water cooled rotary kiln combines the
advantages of highly efficient heat recovery in proven European style
waterwall incinerators with the advantage of handling a wide range of
7954 vii
19%
MICROFILMED BY
JORM MICROLAB
CEDAR RAPIDS -DES MOINES
n
1::—
moisture contents offered by a rotary kiln. Ibis technology, available
in factory built sizes suitable for Iowa City, is considered especially
advantageous because of uncertainty relative to daily variation in waste
moisture content.
Another significant reason for selection of the water cooled rotary
kiln is that its manufacturers will guarantee a relatively high pressure/
temperature steam specification. Most vendors prefer not to exceed 250
psig/500°F in fear of boiler corrosion. The rotary action of the kiln
decreases this potential as its vendors are willing to guarantee 600
psig/600°F. As the two candidate specifications for sale to the Univer-
sity are 250 psig/500°F and 475 psig/760°F, the water cooled rotary kiln
presents a significant advantage in that it minimizes supplemental super-
heat required for achieving the latter specification.
Two 80 -inch water cooled rotary kiln sets were considered for Iowa
City. Together they would conservatively be capable of producing 50,000
The of steam per hour. In concept, this steam would be generated at
either of two candidate sites. Site A is the existing Iowa City Water
Pollution Control Facility. There, a coincineration facility could be
constructed whether or not the new wastewater treatment facility project
proceeds. Site B is near the University Heating and Power plant. If
selected it would probably not interfere with eventual plane for expan-
sion of the existing boiler plant. The steam generated at either site
would be piped underground or aboveground to the existing University
boiler plant.
Approximately 137 tons of combustible MSW and 34 tons of MSS would
be available for incineration 365 days per year at the start of project
in 1985. By twenty years hence, in 2005, the MSU and MSS tonnages would
have increased to 164 tons and 40 tons, respectively. These numbers were
derived from past records for operation of the existing landfill and the
design outline for the planned wastewater treatment facility. The MSW
waste load is increased in proportion to the county population which
almost exclusively uses the landfill. The MSS waste load is limited to
the Iowa City sewer service area. An annual population increase of 0.9
percent per year was used.
7954 viii
MICROFILMED BY
JORM MICROLAB
CEDAR RAPIDS -DES MOINES
I'a96
—.1
Using generally accepted design parameters, the total heat input
from both waste streams to the incinerator is 52.4 million Btu/hr in 1985
and 62.7 million Btu/hr in 2005. The coincineration system would con-
servatively produce 2.13 lbs of steam per lb of composite waste fuel or
— approximately 30,300 lbs/hr at beginning and 36,300 lbs/hr at end of
project, on a 24-hour day, 365 day -year basis. The system would have
sufficient capacity to handle the average load in five days of operation
i
iat end of project. On a daily basis it would handle 25% to 100% of full
load and maintain constant efficiency.
A detailed description with preliminary design drawings is provided
in the text. The present value capital cost of the subject facility in-
cluding site work, building work, mechanical equipment, steam conveyance
and all necessary engineering, design, and construction supervision is
$12,500,000. This estimate is based on producing 600 psig/600°F steam
j which would be pressure reduced and delivered to the University at 250
psig/500°F. Additional temperature would be required to deliver steam at
475 psig/760°F. This would be accomplished by addition of a supplemental
_ superheater which would receive steam output from both kilns and elevate
Jsteam temperature to approximately 800°F prior to transmission. The
present value capital cost estimate for a coincineration facility with
the additional superheat capability is $12,875,000. Detailed O&M costs
were also derived for both alternatives.
Environmental Concerns
The technical evaluation concluded with comments regarding major
environmental impacts which would otherwise be avoided without project.
Impacts on air quality and ultimate disposal were discussed. In general
it was concluded that particulate emissions would be the major control
problem. The Iowa Department of Environmental Quality has indicated bag -
houses would be required. Other emissions such as sulfur oxide and hydro-
gen chloride would not require control technology. Nonetheless their
presence should be significantly reduced by inclusion of water softening
sludge, primarily calcium carbonate, which would convert to free lime in
the incineration process. The presence of free lime should have several
significant advantages including chemical reaction with waste combustion
7954 ix
1A
MICROFILMED BY
'JORM MICRO_ LAB
CEDAR RAPIDS -DES MOIIIES
I
' products, reduction in boiler corrosion potential and improved efficiency
^I
of the baghouses.
The other significant environmental impact, combustion residue
I disposal, is largely positive. The major tradeoff is volume reduction at
the landfill for reduced leachate from a potentially hazardous waste.
Again, the presence of the lime from recalcination of calcium carbonate
should improve ash disposal primarily because lime is otherwise a common
additive to combustion residues for conditioning prior to landfilling.
Incinerator residues with significant lime content should pass standard
! _ hazardous waste tests.
Economic Feasibility
The study proceeded to ascertain the lowest steam sales price that,
when combined with project savings, would cover project costs. The upper
bound to project viability is the highest steam sales price that could be
charged and still be lower than the University's cost of producing the
equivalent steam. The difference between these two prices represents the
range of steam price negotiation between the University and the project
sponsor.
Several alternative project scenarios were examined in this study•
The steam specification provided to the University determined what alter-
native fuel would be displaced. Waste -generated steam supplied at 220
psig/ 500°F, would reduce the steam requirement from coal-fired boilers,
while 475 psig/760°F steam would lower the steam load on oil- and gas-
fired unite. A third scenario compared the breakeven price of waste -
generated, high pressure steam to the composite fuel generation cost
given the University follows their anticipated boiler replacement ached-
ule. This schedule projects installation of three 170,000 lb/hr coal-
fired boilers in 1986, 1992, and 1998 with the retirement of two 65,000
j
lb/ hr gas/coal-based units (5 and 6) in 1989 and two 140,000 lb/hr
gas/oil-fired boilers (7 and 8) in 1995. Alternative escalation and
J discount rates were used in the analyses to determine sensitivity of the
- project to various economic conditions.
Though steam sales are the major source of revenue, they are not the
! sole project support. Changes in current disposal operations can result
f �I
r
7954 x
IA
j MICROFILMED BY
'JORM MICROLAB
CEDAR RAPIDS -DES MOINES
.7
It-
incost savings that can be credited to the project. Table S-1 provides
a summary of savings from these changes. Without the project, combusti-
ble MSW is hauled from a base location at the municipal service garage to
the landfill, a round trip distance of 16 miles. With the project, it is
disposed at the incinerator site within 1/2 mile from the garage. Non-
combustible MSW is taken to the landfill with and without the project, so
no cost savings accrue. Sewage sludge originating at the new Water Pol-
lution Control Facility would be hauled to the landfill without the
project, a 19 -mile roundtrip; with the project, transport would be re-
duced to a 3 -mile roundtrip to the incinerator. Residual ash is gener-
ated with the project and requires hauling to the landfill. Because of
lower volumes of waste being disposed, operation and maintenance expenses
at the landfill are proportionately reduced and its life extended by more
than 20 years. Additional savings are realized in the burning of MSS as
it does not require chemical stablization as under the without -project
alternative. Total savings are assessed at more than $7 million (in 1985
dollars) over the 20 -year project life.
Revenues are generated by the assessment of tipping fees at the
landfill and the incinerator, however, these do not contribute to project
feasibility. The total revenue recieved from tipping fees does not alter
with- and without -project; only the location of disposal changes.
Combining cost savings with the upper and lower bound steam sales
revenues gives alternative total project benefits over the project life.
These benefit levels are compared to incinerator capital outlay and
annual operation and maintenance costs to determine project feasibility.
All alternatives analyzed under the provision of 220 psig/500°F
steam proved infeasible. The cost of steam generation by coal is less
than the steam price required for the project to breakeven. It is anti-
cipated that the cost of coal will escalate faster than the costs
incurred in waste fuel generation, thus there is a future time when this
alternative could•prove viable. Using current projections, preliminary
analysis indicates that this would most likely occur sometime during the
late 1990'x.
7954 xi
MICROFILMED BY
' JORM MICRO_ LAB
CEDAR RAPIDS•DES I40INES
I AU
L',
TABLE S-1
COST SAVINGS GENERATED BY THE PROJECT
Cost Category
Haul to Disposal Site
Combustible MSW
Noncombustible MSW
MSS
Residual Ash
Landfill 06M, Replace-
ment Reserve Fund
Sludge Treatment
Total
1985 Present Value ($1,000)
Without Project With Project Net Benefit
$ 1472.9 $ 0 $1472.9
25.8 25.8 0
658.2 94.0 564.2
0 836.0 -836.6
6847.0 2836.0 4010.2
1812.9 0 1812.9
$10,816.8 $3791.8 $7023.6
Source: Stanley Consultants, Inc.
Table S-2 presents the resulting benefit and cost analyses for pro-
vision of 475 psig/760°F steam. If the University continues to generate
at least 30,000 lb/hr of steam by oil or gas, substantial benefit can be
derived by the purchase of waste -generated steam. The negotiated price
would determine the share of benefits accruing to the University and the
incinerator sponsor. Currently, the University generates about 30 percent
of annual steam requirement by oil or gas. This amounts to approximately
700,000,000 lb/yr or 80,000 lb/hr, if the oil and gas usage were evenly
distributed throughout the year. However, if the University does follow
its anticipated boiler replacement schedule, project benefits fall shy of
costs by $5.7 million over the 20 -year project life.
The power plant renovation schedule projected by the University is an
ambitious plan calling for the installation of three new unite within the
next 20 years. Failure to construct a new boiler or delays in boiler
startup could alter project feasibility. A realistic project scenario
could fall in the range between the oil/gas equivalent and the composite
fuel equivalent alternatives.
7954 xii
MICROFILMED BY
'DORM MICROLAB
CEDAR RAPIDS•OES MOINES
1296
-- a
.7
_I
While this study does not recommend pursuit of a coincineration
project at this time, it does encourage both the University and the city
to periodically re-examine project parameters. Uncertainties are present
in projecting alternative energy costs, future MSW and MSS disposal costa,
availability of federal or state assistance, and potential energy markets.
TABLE S-2
SUMMARY OF ALTERNATIVE PROJECT BENEFITS AND COSTS
($MILLION)
Alternative Steam Price Level (1985 Present Value)
Breakeven Oil Gas Oil/Gas/Coal
Equivalent Equivalent
Benefits
Cost Savings
$ 7.0
$ 7.0
$ 7.0
Steam Sales Revenues
33.4
80.5
27.7
Total
$40.4
$87.5
$34.7
Costs
Capital Outlay
$18.0
$18.0
$18.0
06M
22.4
22.4
22.4
Total
$40.4
$40.4
$40.4
NET BENEFIT
$ 0
$47.1
$-5.7
Source: Stanley Consultants, Inc.
Implementation
The problem of obtaining financing for a coincineration facility
exists regardless of whether it is publicly or privately owed and
operated. Technological risks pertaining to equipment performance and
external risk including changes in the quantity and quality of the
generated steam and the stability of the market for steam need to be
allocated and/or controlled before financial backing can be secured.
Participants in the risk allocation procedure include the manufacturer,
lender, ower, operator and users of the facility. Contracts must be
7954
i MICROFILMED BY
' JORM MICROLAB
`CEDAR RAPIDS -DES I401NES
L _ ,J iL,
la9�
negotiated between the owner and manufacturer to guarantee performance of
the incinerator to design specifications; long-term agreements between
the owner and the waste haulers must be reached to assure adequate fuel
for incineration; and the University must be willing to enter into a
steam purchase contract with given assurances from the owner or operator
as to the availability of the waste -generated steam. The funding entity
and facility owner can then negotiate mutually acceptable terms based
upon the strength of the project contracts.
Federal and state financial assistance programs exist, but their
current status is marginal. It is important to watch the evolution of
such programs over the next few years. One potential funding source that
could be investigated is the special set-aside fund of EPA's Wastewater
Treatment Works Construction Grants Program. The Iowa Energy Policy
Council administers Department of Energy (DOE) grant programs, however,
most monies are given for research and development work and not construc-
tion programs. One additional source to the DOE's Office of Energy from
Municipal Wastes which is empowered to offer loan guarantees, grants, con-
tracts, and financial agreements to encourage MSW demonstration facilities
designed to recover energy.
There are several strategies available to a potential sponsor for
procurement of a coincineration facility. Major differences are in the
risk assumed by the participants. The sponsor can simply contract for
the design of the facility; the design, construction and start-up of the
facility can be hired -out to a contractor; or the system contractor can
provide full services including financing, constructing, awning and
operating the facility.
This study does not intend to recommend an implementation plan incor-
porating who should own and operate the facility and how it should be
financed. The primary intent is to make the city and University aware of
the intricacies involved in the planning of a waste -to -energy project.
Substantial negotiations between the city and the University to ascertain
each entity's commitment to the project are paramount to the decision to
proceed in light of technical, environmental and economic feasibility.
7954 xiv
MICROFILMED BY
'JORM MICROLAB
CEDAR RAPIDS -DES 1401NES
Respectfully submitted,
STANLEY CONSULTANTS, INC.
Prepared by: !/� a4
Michael N. Macauley
Environmental Engineer
Denise D. Ruthenberg
Economist
Approved by:
Michael E. Nunzing
Project Manager
7954
NoERF cF?
m; 7612 '�
??1. STATE OF rFu
xv
I hereby certify that this
report was prepared by me or
under my direct supervision and
that I am a duly registered
Professional Engineer under the
laws of the State of Iowa.
i
i
i
Michael E. Munzing r
j MICROFILMED BY
!JORM MICROLAB
'CEDAR RAPIDS -DES MOINES
1
/`
PART 1 - INTRODUCTION
Purpose
The city of Iowa City and the University of Iowa jointly retained
Stanley Consultants, Inc., (SCI) to evaluate the technical and economic
feasibility of waste disposal involving incineration with energy re-
covery. Several factors support serious consideration of alternative
waste disposal and energy production methods at Iowa City. The cost of
steam production is rapidly increasing at the University heating and
Power plant. Tipping fees assessed to waste haulers at the city's land-
fill are also escalating. Both city and University personnel are con-
cerned about high waste disposal costs associated with municipal sewage
sludge at the future Iowa City Water Pollution Control Facility (WPCF).
Incineration is a method of mass and volume reduction which, when
associated with heat recovery and steam production, may reduce the net
cost of waste disposal and reduce dependence on fossil fuels. One pur-
pose of this study is to provide a representative preliminary design and
cost estimate for a system which would incinerate combustible solid waste
otherwise received at the landfill and sewage sludge filter cake to be
produced from the future Iowa City WPCF. Heat generated from coinciner-
ation of both wastes would be recovered to produce steam acceptable for
purchase by the University of Iowa for its heating and power plant.
An equally important purpose of this study is to determine the
economic impact of waste incineration on the overall waste management
system. This is accomplished by detailed economic analysis which com-
pares cost of existing waste management practices to costs and revenues
with the project. The comparison assumes revenue from the sale of steam,
waste transport and disposal cost savings and reduced chemical require-
ments for sludge stabilization. The final economic comparison is pre-
sented in terms of breakeven analysis which demonstrates the minimum cost
of steam which would be required by the facility operator to cover costs
7954
1
MICROFILMED BY
`JORM MICROLAB
CEDAR RAPIDS -DES MOINES
ia96
-01
and the maximum price the University would pay to replace steam generated
by currently used fuels.
The scope of this study includes the following tasks:
Analyze existing MSW inventory data and project future MSW
quantities tributary to the existing landfill.
i
• Estimate the quantity of MSS and MSW which would logically be
ftaken to an incinerator, combustible fractions of the composite
fuel, and residual solids to be handled after incineration.
• Estimate the fuel value and steam yield based upon generally
Iaccepted criteria and experience.
' Investigate the function of steam at the University heating and
power plant for base load operations and as a replacement of gas
i and oil fuel for equivalent steam production.
Investigate applicable mass fired incineration technologies and
performance criteria for the particular project scope and scale.
Select and develop a representative system with preliminary
j design and cost estimates and discuss primary environmental
impacts.
J Perform economic analysis of the overall waste management system
with- and without -project.
• Analyze institutional factors including organizational issues,
legal issues, and implementation alternatives.
=Prepare a written report summarizing the results of the
I
investigation with conclusions regarding feasibility and
guidelines regarding subsequent activities.
Existing Waste Management Practice
All municipal solid waste in Johnson County is presently landfilled.
Iowa City operates the landfill and keeps detailed records on its daily
operation. A summary of the average monthly tonnage of MSW disposal at
�J the landfill is presented in Table I. The tabulation summarizes data
available for the period 1977 to 1980. As shown, the average daily ton-
nage ranges from approximately 150 to 220 tone per day (TPD). The average
annual landfill rate is 191 TPD and the peak month is 115 percent of the
iannual average.
7954 2
MICROFILMED BY
'JORM MICROLAB
CEDAR RAPIDS -DES MOINES
L.,
ia9`
..7
TABLE 1
SUMMARY OF TOTAL MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE RECEIVED
IOWA CITY LANDFILL
Month
1977
--11-18771
Tone
_9j9
Per Month
1980
Equivalent
Monthly Average
Tone Per Day
January
4563
4695
4629
149
February
4354
3921
4138
148
March
5787
5785
4710
5427
175
April
6125
6628
6117
6290
210
May
6831
7004
6048
6628
214
June
6817
6726
5859
6467
216
July
6393
6985
6334
6571
212
August
7108
7136
6316
6853
221
September
5787
6596
6599
6327
211
October
7463
7067
6466
5534
6633
214
November
5663
5813
5503
4789
5442
185
December
4496
4592
4869
5080
4759
154
Average
191
Source: City of Iowa City
The variation in landfill rate is related to the quantity of demoli-
tion debris, street cleanings, yard wastes, and other seasonal cleanup
operations. The minimum monthly landfill rate is therefore a better in-
dication of the typical per capita production rate. According to the 1980
census, the total Johnson County population is approximately 81,700.
Using that population and the 148 TPD minimum monthly landfill rate, the
average per capita MSW generation rate is approximately 3.6 lbs/capita/
day. Landfill records indicate that roughly 90 to 95 percent of the mini-
mum monthly total, or approximately 3.2 lbs/capita/day, represents the
combustible portion of MSW. Using 3.2 lbs/capita/day, the average land-
fill rate of 191 TPD can be estimated to be composed of 70 percent com-
bustible and 30 percent noncombustible wastes. These figures compare
favorably with national averages and with nearby Ames, Iowa/Story County
(Reference 22).
7954
3
j MICROFILMED BY
'JORM MICROLAB
CEDAR RAPIDS -DES 1401NES
1 296
I
T". _
L."
According to city personnel, the existing landfill has approximately
30 years of remaining life. Prior to closing, a detailed site search and
investigation study would be required. The federal government mandated
the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) which sets mininum
standards for landfill operations. Since the federal criteria are mini-
mum standards, individual states may promulgate their own waste disposal
guidelines which may be more stringent. Siting and permitting of a new
landfill at Iowa City would undoubtedly be more difficult and costly as a
result of new federal and state regulations.
Disposal of MSS from the existing Iowa City sewage treatment plant
is presently a separate management issue. Land application of MSS is the
primary disposal method. Digested sludge is periodically removed by
— dredging from lagoons and hauled to agricultural users for use as a fer-
tilizer supplement. Land application of MSS is a costly and controver-
sial disposal method. Allowable application rates are governed by
physical, biological, and chemical characteristics of the sludge. The
most significant characteristic is the concentration of heavy metals
which often limit the allowable application rates.
` Future Waste Loads
The extent of future Iowa City waste disposal responsibility would
be proportionate to tributary populations accounting for the total MSW
and MSS quantities generated. The waste loads considered in this study
i correspond to separate tributary populations. The landfill receives the
vast majority of MSW generated by the Johnson County population. The
Iowa City WPCF receives wastewater and yields MSS from a more exclusive
tributary population within the corporate limits of Iowa City and Univer-
sity Heights.
Population statistics from the 1980 census are summarized in
Table 2. The official 1980 Johnson County population is 81,717 of which
50,508 are within the corporate limits of Iowa City. County planning
officials indicate that the historical and expected growth rate in
Johnson County is 0.9 percent per year.
—I 7954 4
MICROFILMED BY
JORM MICROLAB
CEDAR RAPIDS -DES MOINES
10196
-.7
TABLE 2
1980 CENSUS SUMMARY
Urban Core
Iowa City (Including Students)
50,508
Coralville
7,687
University Heights
1,069
Subtotal
59,264
Total Municipalities
65,870
Total Johnson County
81,717
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, 1980 Census of Population and
Housing
An assumed implementation schedule for a coincineration facility at
Iowa City would begin construction in 1983 with startup in 1985. The fa-
cility would have a conservative service life of 20 years. Future tribu-
tary populations for MSW and MSS waste loads were estimated for 1985 and
2005 using a 0.9 percent annual growth rate. Waste load forecasts were
subsequently based upon the population estimates using suitable genera-
tion rates. The population and waste load estimates are summarized in
Table 3. The total annual MSW generation is calculated using the his-
torical average generation rate of 4.65 lbs/capita/day. This tonnage
includes all waste which would ordinarily enter the landfill. MSS gener-
ation is based on figures supplied by Veenstra and Rimm, Inc., designers
of the future Iowa City WPCF which is scheduled for completion in 1985
(Reference 9). _
Table 3 summarizes total MSW and MSS waste loads which would require
ultimate disposal in an overall waste management system. If coinciner-
ation were to become an integral means of waste load reduction, only the
combustible fraction of the MSW estimated at 70 percent of total MSW, and
all of the MSS would be affected. The noncombustible fraction or 30 per-
cent of total MSW and the residuals from incineration would continue to
require ultimate disposal in the existing landfill.
-- 7954
5
1a96
MICROFILMED BY
`JORM MICROLAB
CEDAR RAPIDS -DES MOINES
A . Y— — L _ __ '.Lr t
V-
L,.
I
I
r-1
TABLE 3
POPULATION AND TOTAL WASTE LOAD ESTIMATES
Source: Stanley Consultants, Inc.
In the future, all city wastewaters will be directed to a new Iowa
City WPCF, a product of an extensive planning program pursuant to guide-
lines of the EPA Construction Grants Program. At this time the city has
completed estimation of future design requirements and cost effectiveness
analysis of alternative wastewater treatment technologies. Federal and
state regulatory agencies have approved the Iowa City Wastewater Facili-
ties Plan and detailed plans and specifications are being prepared for the
selected alternative (Reference). The new facility will use the conven-
tional activated sludge treatment process. Solids removed in the treat-
ment process will be dewatered to approximately 50 percent moisture
content following lime stabilization. Finally, the lime stabilized MSS
filter cake will be transported to the landfill for final disposal. The
city is also investigating alternative final disposal by low rate land
application on agricultural land.
The proposed sludge dewatering and stabilization process for the new
wastewater treatment facility will differ significantly from the process
presently used. Historically, Iowa City sludge stabilization involved
anaerobic digestion. In that process, biodegradable solids are converted
to methane in the absence of oxygen. The methane is typically recovered
as a substitute for natural gas or burned off and released to the atmos-
phere. Extensive studies by the city have determined that this process
will not be cost effective at the future treatment facility primarily
because Iowa City MSS contains a relatively low percentage of organic
7954 6
i MICROFILMED BY
'JORM MICROLAB
-CEDAR RAPIDS•DES I401NES
W6
MSW at 4.65
lb/capita/day
MSS at 0.64
lb/capita/day
Johnson County
Average Daily
Iowa City
Average Daily
Year
Population
Generation
Population
Generation
1981
82,500
192 TPD
51,000
1985
85,500
199 TPD
52,800
16.9 TPD
2005
102,200
237 TPD
63,200
19.5 TPD
Source: Stanley Consultants, Inc.
In the future, all city wastewaters will be directed to a new Iowa
City WPCF, a product of an extensive planning program pursuant to guide-
lines of the EPA Construction Grants Program. At this time the city has
completed estimation of future design requirements and cost effectiveness
analysis of alternative wastewater treatment technologies. Federal and
state regulatory agencies have approved the Iowa City Wastewater Facili-
ties Plan and detailed plans and specifications are being prepared for the
selected alternative (Reference). The new facility will use the conven-
tional activated sludge treatment process. Solids removed in the treat-
ment process will be dewatered to approximately 50 percent moisture
content following lime stabilization. Finally, the lime stabilized MSS
filter cake will be transported to the landfill for final disposal. The
city is also investigating alternative final disposal by low rate land
application on agricultural land.
The proposed sludge dewatering and stabilization process for the new
wastewater treatment facility will differ significantly from the process
presently used. Historically, Iowa City sludge stabilization involved
anaerobic digestion. In that process, biodegradable solids are converted
to methane in the absence of oxygen. The methane is typically recovered
as a substitute for natural gas or burned off and released to the atmos-
phere. Extensive studies by the city have determined that this process
will not be cost effective at the future treatment facility primarily
because Iowa City MSS contains a relatively low percentage of organic
7954 6
i MICROFILMED BY
'JORM MICROLAB
-CEDAR RAPIDS•DES I401NES
W6
I—
i
solids relative to other cities. According to the city wastewater con-
sultant, the majority of the total dry solids yield at the new WPCF will
originate from two major water treatment operations which discharge pro-
_ 1 cess residuals to the city sewer system. The consultant estimates
(Reference 9) 55 percent of the total dry solids will consist of alum
sludge from the city water filtration plant and lime softening sludge
j originating at the University lime softening plant.
The new Iowa City WPCF will be designed to lime stabilize and
— dewater the average daily dry MSS production summarized in Table 4. The
design production rates are projections for a 20 year planning period.
-' As shown, the average daily dry solids production estimate is 19.45 TPD.
Sludge would enter the dewatering process at approximately 5 percent
i
solids and exit at 50 percent moisture. The dry solids production rate
equates to 0.64 lb MSS/capita/day.
TABLE 4
AVERAGE DAILY MSS PRODUCTION
FUTURE IOWA CITY WATER POLLUTION CONTROL FACILITY
DESIGN YEAR 2000
Dry Solids Filter Cake at 50
Sludge Constituent (TPD) Percent Moisture
Biological Sludge
Normal Primary Sludge
Waste Activated Sludge
Subtotal
Chemical Sludge
City Water Filtration Sludge
University Lime Softening Sludge
Subtotal
TOTAL
Source: City of Iowa City
5.10
3.75
8.85
4.85
5_75
10.60
19.45
10.20
7.50
17.70
9.70
11.50
21.20
38.90
The composite waste load which would be directed to a coincineration
facility is the sum of the combustible MSW fraction and the MSS filter
cake at 50 percent moisture. These waste loads are relevant figures
7954 7
MICROFILMED BY
JORM MICROLAB
CEDAR RAPIDS -DES 1401NES
10M
I, -
V-
-7 which would logically be used as coincineration design criteria. A
..1 further breakdown of coincineration waste loads is presented in Table 5.
At startup in 1985, the composite annual average incinerator waste load
would be approximately 171 TPD including 137 tons of combustible MSW and
34 tons of MSS filter cake. Also in 1985, approximately 62 tons of
-i
� noncombustible MSW and 70 tone of residual ash would be hauled to the
existing landfill.
TABLE 5
COMPOSITE COINCINERATION WASTE LOAD PROJECTIONS
Year
1985 2005
8
85,500
3.20
137
52,800
0.64
34
171
I MICROFILMED BY
.JORM MICROLAB
CEDAR RAPIDS•DES MOINES
102,200
3.20
164
63,200
0.64
40
204
)a94
i
Combustible MSW
Johnson County Population
Generation Rate (ib/capita/day)
i�
Waste Load (TPD)
MSS Filter Cake
Iowa City Popluation
Generation Rate (lb/capita/day)
�I
Waste Load at 50 Percent Moisture (TPD)
_.J
Total Composite Waste Load (TPD)
_
Source: Stanley Consultants, Inc.
8
85,500
3.20
137
52,800
0.64
34
171
I MICROFILMED BY
.JORM MICROLAB
CEDAR RAPIDS•DES MOINES
102,200
3.20
164
63,200
0.64
40
204
)a94
i
V_
L.,.
PART 2 - TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT
r- Historical Perspective
Historical development of waste -to -energy technology has involved
three distinct approaches (References 8, 21, 24). One approach has been
direct combustion of solid waste in a masa burning, European -style de-
vice. A variation on this approach is the small factory -built (modular)
incinerator, strictly of American design, which is applicable to smaller
communities, industries, and institutions. The second approach has in-
volved processing of solid waste into a refuse -derived fuel (RDF) which
`j
may be stored and transported for use in a large furnace as a supplement
to coal and oil or in a smaller furnace as a primary fuel. RDF is
strictly an American approach. It is relatively new and there is not as
much experience with it as with mass burning systems. The third ap-
proach, pyrolysis, involves thermal decomposition of waste without com-
bustion to produce a fuel which may be stored and used in a separate
u
combustion system. The concept of waste pyrolysis has wide application
but remains relatively unproven. Until it is, a community can't depend
on pyrolysis to reliably solve waste disposal and energy shortfall
problems.
Mass burning with waste heat steam production is the most proven
technology primarily because of long-term experience in Europe. It has
wide appeal because of its relative simplicity. American progress with
factory -built modular systems has made mass burning applicable to rela-
tively small waste loads. Refuse -derived fuel is an available technology
that doesn't have the track record of mass burning, but does have appro-
priate applications where fuel is to be produced in a satisfactory long-
term contract arrangement with a large utility. It is also attractive in
77 situations where marketable materials can be separated from the waste
i
stream as an additional revenue source. Practically all successful RDF
installations serve relatively large population centers with waste loads
exceeding 1,000 TPD.
Considering all waste -to -energy technologies, there are many that
--j are successful. One type, the mass burning of unprocessed solid waste as
I
7954
— 9
MICROFILMED BY
'JORM MICROLAB
CEDAR RAPIDS -DES MOINES
iaU
W]
practiced in Europe, is very successful. There are 280 mass -burning
planta worldwide, though only a few in the United States (Reference 22).
One of the reasons for limited success of waste -to -energy systems in the
United States, is that American technologists have spent a great deal of
_ time developing new systems (primarily RDF) while spending very little
time on implementation of proven systems. Emphasis in the U.S. has
shifted to consideration of the more proven mass burning technologies
since the onset of the energy crisis.
Unfortunately, there has been a great deal of bad
j y, g publicity in the
United States concerning incinerators. In the early 1950s, there were
i
many municipal incinerators built in the United States, not for heat
recovery but simply to dispose of waste. Over the years American waste
I
incinerators became notorious as air pollution sources. The memory of
smoke stacks that belched black smoke, smelled like garbage, and made
surrounding neighborhoods filthy are vividly recalled. Later the Clean
_ Air Act was implemented and the owners of such notorious facilities were
required to clean them up. By then, the clean-up coat was not
commerically viable and owners began shutting them down.
During the 19609, virtually all operational incinerators were
uncontrolled air units. To ensure a high degree of combustion, air was
supplied in fixed amounts with a volume considerably more than that re-
quired for complete combustion. The conventional uncontrolled air incin-
erators also required large volumes of underfire air to cool the refuse
bed and thereby prevent grate burnout. Relatively large blowers with
high horsepower motors were necessary to provide the excess air require-
ments. This resulted in large quantities of both combustible and inert
I _ particulates discharged to the atmosphere with the exiting flue gases.
American engineering firms began to focus on the European systems in
the early 19709. By this time, the Europeans had taken the concept of
mass fired waste -to -energy and optimized it. Furthermore, the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) began recognizing the potential of
the European approach, and the Europeans started to actively market their
industry in this country. In the last few years American technologists
1 �
�J
7954 10
la96
MICROFILMED BY
'JORM MICRO_ LAB
CEDAR RAPIDS•DES MOINES
--3
have been marketing their own mass burning systems in what has now become
a competitive marketplace largely based on European experience.
_ The mid -1970's introduced the controlled air incinerator with multi-
ple combustion chambers (Reference 8). The term "controlled air" denotes
^ regulation of the air flowing to the combustion process. The quantity of
air is maintained at a calculated minimum to improve combustion effi-
ciency, lower the horsepower of the fan motors, and reduce the amount of
i
particulates entrained in the flue gases. The air flow can be either
preset to a calculated level based on the amount and type of waste burned
i
I or continuously modulated to produce optimum combustion with the varying
system needs and chamber conditions.
The term "modular," as an adjective for the controlled air incinera-
tor, relates to its factory built origin (Reference 21). The controlled
air incinerator is designed for burning relatively small waste loads.
They are constructed of integral components, one for the primary chamber,
one for the secondary chamber, and so on. Each component is assembled
Jand packaged at the factory for immediate on-site installation. Only
electrical, fuel, water, and gas duct connections are required at the
installation site. When the waste loads exceed the capacity of the in-
J stalled units, additional incinerators are incorporated to meet the in-
creased demand. Since the additional incinerators are constructed and
function as modules, the integrated units become known as modular incin-
erators. While the capacity of the modular incinerators has increased
i
from approximately one to five tons of waste per hour, most of the com-
ponents are still completely assembled and packaged in the factory for
immediate on-site installation.
Presently, the trend of waste -to -energy technology is toward mase
burning. That is not to say that RDF is being abandoned, but a better
balance between proven systems and newer technologies is being estab-
lished. Some of the most significant American advancements of European
- long-term experience with masa incineration have been related to emis-
sions reduction with controlled air combustion and the concept of modular
fabrication, which has made application realistic for relatively small
waste loads.
i
7954 11
W/O
MICROFILMED BY
'JORM MiCROLAB
CEDAR RAPIDS -DES MOINES
17
I
�J
17
Technical Requirements
Waste disposal systems involving incineration require eight basic
considerations:
1. Transport of waste to the incineration facility.
2. Waste acceptance at the facility gate.
3. Short-term storage of waste for controlled incinerator
charging.
4. Charging and firing to the incinerator.
5. Incineration (the actual burning process).
6. Heat recovery from the hot flue gases and associated steam
production.
7. Air -pollution control of emissions in the flue gases.
8. Final disposal of combustion residues.
The total system includes all eight components. Neglect of this basic
concept has caused serious problems with performance in other systems.
Following is a discussion of each component as applied to the Iowa City
waste loads.
Transport - The feasibility constraints of this study indicate that
all wastes would be transported to the incineration facility by truck.
All MSW in Johnson County is currently collected by truck and delivered
to the landfill. The integration of incineration into the waste manage-
ment system would simply mean that the destination for truck loads of
combustible MSW would be the incineration facility. Similarly, MSS fil-
ter cake from the new WPCF would also be delivered by truck. The city
has advised Stanley Consultants that all MSS would be hauled to the in-
cinerator as 50 percent moisture filter cake from the proposed dewatering
operation of the new water pollution control facility. Alternative means
of sludge dewatering, transport, and preparation for incineration are
therefore not germane to the study scope.
Acceptance - Waste vehicles bound for the incinerator will require
systematic screening and weighing prior to entering the facility. A
routine inspection system and rigorous accounting procedures are
mandatory for a successful operation.
7954 12
MICROFILMED BY
`JORM MICROLAB
-CEDAR RAPIDS -DES MOINES
I 9
V„
1".
Storage - All waste received at the incinerator will require
short-term storage. This will be necessary to equalize the relatively
intermittent flow of wastes collected to the continuous incinerator
charging system. At Iowa City, two separate storage systems will be
required, one for MSW and one for MSS. A long-term backup system for MSS
filter cake disposal would be provided by high lime stabilization and
land application or landfilling. The Johnson County landfill is the
ultimate disposal facility for MSW in case of unforeseen extended periods
of incinerator downtime.
Incineration - The most important sizing parameter for an inciner-
ator is its volumetric heat release rate (Btu per hour per cubic foot of
combustion volume). Although several commercially available incinerators
are rated in terms of masa or volume throughput per hour, careful review
of the specifications usually reveals an assumed waste -heat content.
This is especially important in coincineration where MSW and MSS have
very different density and combustion characteristics.
Heat Recovery - Energy recovery from the hot flue gases of waste
incinerators is an established technology which should be considered
within limited circumstances. As the variability of the waste increases,
the potential for outages due to boiler corrosion, slag buildup, etc.
increases. Thus, heat recovery should be considered for high-risk waste
when a steam market exists to utilize a large fraction of the steam gen-
erated on an average annual basis. It should probably not be used when
the steam market requires absolute boiler availability for continued
operation.
Air Pollution Control - Air quality issues are significant in the
siting and operating of the incinerator. The Iowa Department of Environ-
mental Quality (IDEQ) will require control of particulate emissions If an
incinerator is installed at Iowa City. The most likely air pollution
control system would be a baghouse.
Combustion Residues - The incinerator will produce two major residue
streams: residue from the primary combustion chamber (bottom ash) and
particulates removed from the flue gases (fly ash). The magnitude of the
latter stream will be somewhat dependent on the extent of emission
7954 13
MICROFILMED BY
'JORM MICROLAB
CEDAR RAPIDS•DES MOINES
raU
�E
S" -
control required. For smaller facilities, both residue streams would
normally be combined into one wet handling system. The incineration
process would cause substantial volume reduction; however, the combustion
residues would require ultimate disposal in an approved site, probably
the existing landfill.
Incinerator Alternatives
The modern incinerator is not merely a trash burner but a sophisti-
cated utility -type boiler which is specifically designed to use waste as
a fuel. Furnace design is based on knowledge of combustion and ateam
generation principles. While incinerators may vary in design, cost, and
efficiency, the common goal is reliable conversion of municipal waste
into steam with minimum adverse environmental impact.
Given the historical perspective of technology development and the
relatively small scale of the Iowa City waste load projections, it is
reasonable that the approach for this feasibility study should parallel
the trend toward mass burning and heat recovery with modular controlled
air incineration equipment. These systems are grouped under two main
categories according to the degree of combustion, complete or partial, in
the primary chamber. Since the complete combustion requires excess air
and the partial combustion needs starved air conditions, the general
categories are excess air and starved air incinerators. In starved air
incinerators, the air introduced into the primary chamber ranges from 30
to 40 percent of the amount required for stoichiometric combustion, and
the air fed into the secondary chamber ranges from 100 to 150 percent of
the excess air needed to achieve complete combustion. By contrast, air
flow in the excess air incinerators is limited but is sufficient for
excess stoichiometric combustion in both chambers.
In controlled air modular systems waste is fed into the primary
chamber in controlled batches and at prescribed intervals. The batch
size, usually between 1 and 4 cubic yards, varies with the waste charac-
teristics, particularly particle size, bulk density, Btu content, and the
incinerator capacity. Except for the removal of "white goods" such as
kitchen appliances and other large metallic objects, the waste stream
usually need not be preprocessed before it enters the primary chamber.
7954 14
MICROFILMED BY
IJORM MICROLAB
CEDAR RAPIDS -DES MOINES
13,96
.1
V; -
L'.
Three controlled air modular incinerator systems were identified as
alternatives for further evaluation: (1) starved air, refractory -lined
Incinerator with separate waste heat boiler, (2) excess air waterwall
incinerator, and (3) excess air water-cooled rotary kiln. Each alterna-
tive is available in sizes which would be applicable to the subject proj-
ect. These units collectively represent a cross section of state-
of-the-art technology from which a system could be selected for applica-
tion at Iowa City.
Waste Load Characteristics
The ultimate selection of an incineration system applicable to the
waste load characteristics considered in this study would probably be
— accomplished by competitive bidding on a performance specification. It
- is therefore the objective of this study to determine reasonable perfor-
mance requirements and to evaluate a representative system. Every waste -
to -energy project is somewhat unique. The primary consideration which
_ characterizes this particular project is coincineration of two diversely
different waste loads, MSW and MSS. Therefore, engineering criteria for
comparison of alternatives meeting a performance specification must be
tailored to individual characteristics of each waste load as well as the
combined characteristics of the composite.
The composition of MSS filter cake anticipated from the new Iowa City
WPCF was presented in Table 4 (Reference 9). A breakdown by weight
percentage of primary constituents in the MSS is summarized below:
Weight Percent
Constituent (Dry Solids Basis)
Primary Sludge 26
Waste Activated Sludge 19
Water Filtration Plant Sludge 25
Lime Softening Sludge 30
TOTAL 100
i
Only the primary and waste activated sludge constituents have heating
_.l
value. As dry solids they are estimated to contain 7,500 Btu/lb,
7954
15
i MICROFILMED BY
'JORM MICROLAB
CEDAR RAPIDS -DES MOINES
1 aU
'r -
assuming a 75 percent combustible solids fraction at 10,000 Btu/lb
Reference 6). The water treatment plant sludges have essentially no fuel
- value in the combustion process.
The main constituents of University lime softening sludge are
calcium carbonate and magnesium hydroxide. These chemical precipitates
result from removal of water hardness. They have their own unique physi-
cal and chemical characteristics which deserve further attention. The
quantity of magnesium hydroxide precipitate is normally much less than
the quantity of calcium carbonate precipitate for softening of water from
the Iowa River. For purposes of this analysis it is assumed that most of
the magnesium hydroxide precipitate will have gone back into solution by
the time wastewater enters the new water pollution control facility.
^ Therefore the softening sludge will consist
+ B 8 primarily of calcium car-
bonate precipitate (Reference 18).
City wastewater engineers recognize the value of the high calcium
carbonate content in their proposed wastewater treatment process. Their
plans indicate MSS dewatering will be significantly enhanced by its pres-
ence. If incinerated, the dewatered calcium carbonate content of the MSS
r�
will chemically react to form calcium oxide (lime). The available heat
consumed in this chemical reaction, commonly known as recalcination, will
ibe approximately 2,500 Btu/lb of dry calcium carbonate solids. Thus,
water softening sludge will actually have a negative heating value. This
-- requirement is, however, relatively small and would probably be very
—j desirable when compared to the significant environmental benefits asso-
ciated with the presence of lime in air pollution control and disposal of
combustion residuals. The later issues will be further discussed in the
environmental assessment section of this report.
J The net fuel value of MSS depends on its total combustible solids
content, the fuel value of the combustible solids, and the amount of
water present. MSS generally has a high moisture content and, in this
J
case, a fairly high level of inert materials. As a result, its net fuel
value is low. Autogenous combustion (without auxiliary fuel) of Iowa
City MSS would require that the moisture content not be more than 50 per-
cent. Even with the advantage of high calcium carbonate concentration
_ 7954 16
MICROFILMED BY
JORM MICROLAB
CEDAR RAPIDS -DES MOINES
19N
i
in dewatering, 50 percent moisture will be difficult to maintain on a
regular basis by conventional dewatering techniques. Consequently,
supplemental fuel would be required for reliable combustion.
Combining MSS and MSW in a coincineration scheme will provide a
composite fuel with relatively low -moisture content and sufficient fuel
value to sustain dependable combustion. The supplemental fuel for Iowa
City MSS incineration in this project is Johnson County MSW. A typical
fuel value commonly used for mass fired incineration of MSW is 4,500 Btu/
lb at 25 percent moisture content (References 6, 22). This is an average
value which has proven to be sufficiently conservative for many facili-
ties. For purposes of comparison, one pound of combustible MSW from Iowa
City would contain approximately one-half of the heating value from an
equivalent pound of sub -bituminous western coal.
A summary of sizing criteria for selection and evaluation of incin-
eration alternatives is presented in Table 6. These criteria were used
to evaluate the combustion characteristics and estimate steam production
from each of the three alternatives. It will be noted in the table that
the net heating value of the MSS filter cake is 375 Btu/lb. This was
determined by applying 10,000 Btu/lb of dry combustible solids in the
filter cake and subtracting both the heat necessary for vaporization of
the filter cake moisture and the heat required for recalcination of the
calcium carbonate. The total heat input for the composite fuel is the
sum of the heat inputs from each fuel. These final figures are used in
determination of the energy balance of each incineration alternative
including the gross steam production rates.
Steam Specification
Determination of steam pressure and temperature characteristics to
be produced by heat recovery from waste incineration is an important de-
cision which affects equipment selection, performance, and economic fea-
sibility. Technically, the most dangerous hazards to an incinerator's
reliability occur on the gas side of the furnace -boiler system. These
hazards include dew point corrosion, high temperature corrosion, and
fluctuating gas atmosphere. Hydrogen chloride is formed in the combus-
tion of plastics and other constituents of MSW. This is an aggressive
7954 17
MICROFILMED BY
JORM MICROLAB
CEDAR RAPIDS -DES 1401NES
10196
.1
V
compound in the incinerator and presents the potential for corrosion of
the boiler walls and superheater tubes. The dew point corrosion for acids
in the flue gases can be controlled by maintaining the exhaust gas temper-
ature about 300°F. High temperature corrosion is caused by many factors.
In general, boiler metal temperatures should not exceed 650-700°F (Refer-
ences 24, 25).
TABLE 6
SUMMARY OF HEAT INPUT CRITERIA FOR COINCINERATION
Year
1985 2005
Combustible MSW (20 Percent Moisture)
Average Daily Load (TPD)
137
164
Average Firing Rate (1b/hr)
11,442
13,684
Average MSW Heating value (Btu/lb)
4,500
4,500
Net MSW Heat Input (Btu/hr)
51.5 x
106
61.6 x
106
MSS Filter Cake (50 Percent Moisture)
Average Daily Load (TPD)
34
40
Average Firing Rate (lb/hr)
2,816
3,368
Solids Heating Value (Btu/lb)
1,700
1,700
Heat Performance Moisture Content
Vaporization (Btu/lb)
1,000
1,000
Heat Required for Recalcination
(Btu/lb)
375
375
Net MSS Filter Cake Heating Value
(Btu/lb)
325
325
Net MSS Heat Input (Btu/hr)
0.09 x
106
0.11 x
106
Composite Fuel
Average Daily Load (TPD)
171
204
Average Firing Rate (1b/hr)
14,258
17,052
Total Heat Input (Btu/hr)
52.4 x
106
62.7 x
106
Source: Stanley Consultants, Inc.
7954
18
i MICROFILMED BY
JORM MICRO_ LAB
CEDAR RAPIDS•DES MOINES
ra96
L - -,J - _ V_ A -
X.
MICROFILMED BY
'JORM MICRO_ LAB
-CEDAR RAPIDS -DES MOINES
i.
The potential steam customer for this project is the
University of
Iowa heating and power plant. Economic feasibility of implementing coin-
_
cineration will largely depend on the market value of the
steam as nego-
tiated with the University in a long-term contract. The
University boiler
plant is an extraordinarily flexible operation capable of
cogenerating
steam for electrical production and district heat (Reference 17). A steam
flow schematic is presented on Figure 1 showing existing
boilers, tur-
bines, pressure reducing valves (PRV19), and resultant steam
characteris-
tics. Further technical data for interpretation of the steam
flow
i
schematic is presented in Table 7.
TABLE 7
BOILER AND TURBINE DATA
UNIVERSITY HEATING AND POWER PLANT
I
V
Boiler Actual Capacity Maximum
Maximum o
(OF)
No. Fuel (1,000 lb/hr) Pressure (psig)
Temperature
5 Coal/Gas 65 225
500
6 Coal/Gas 65 225
500 i
7 Oil/Gas 140 475
760
8 Oil/Gas 140 475
760
9 Oil/Gas 150 475
760
10 Coal 170 475
760
Throttle
Extraction i
Turbine Generating Pressure
Temp (psig)
Flow Press.
(lb/hr) (psig)
_
No. Capacity Flow (lb/hr) (°F)
1 3,200 kW 100,000 450 150
90,000 15-18
5 3,220 kW 100,000 500 220
90,000 15-18
6 15,000 kW 372,500 750 450
300,000 155
Source: University of Iowa
I
j _
1
Two steam specifications are considered in the technical and economic
analyses of this study. Steam generated by Boilers 5 and
6 is produced
7954 i9
Ia9G
MICROFILMED BY
'JORM MICRO_ LAB
-CEDAR RAPIDS -DES MOINES
&7 ,98 ,99 ,910
BOILER(TYP.)
IV PRV
�I
15-I8 PSIG EXTRACTION
PRVB"H.P.LINES TO NEST CAMPUS,155PSIG
L P LINE TO
CAMPUS, 15-18 PSIG
SS
LINE TO EAST
CAMPUS, 155 PSIG STEAM FLOW SCHEMATIC
UNIVERSITY OF IOWA
HEATING AND POWER PLANT
STANLEY CONSULTANTS Figure 1
j MICROFILMED BY
JORM MICROLAB
CEDAR RAPIDS -DES 1401NES
" D.S.
98
^5 .4'6
155 PSIG
EXTRACTION
8" PRY
(BYPASS)
BYPASS
220 OR
155 PSI6/500°F
J
TURBINE
GENERATOR
(TYP.)
H.P. STEAM TO
POWER PLANT
L•STEAM TO
PRV
POWER PLANT
155 PSI G
15 -IB PSIG
95
_
15-18PSIG
EXTRACTION
�I
15-I8 PSIG EXTRACTION
PRVB"H.P.LINES TO NEST CAMPUS,155PSIG
L P LINE TO
CAMPUS, 15-18 PSIG
SS
LINE TO EAST
CAMPUS, 155 PSIG STEAM FLOW SCHEMATIC
UNIVERSITY OF IOWA
HEATING AND POWER PLANT
STANLEY CONSULTANTS Figure 1
j MICROFILMED BY
JORM MICROLAB
CEDAR RAPIDS -DES 1401NES
at 225 psig/500°F using coal or gas. Steam from Boilers 7, 8, and 9 is
generated with gas or oil at 475 prig/760°F. The lower temperature steam
— can be generated by waste incineration but it is doubtful that the higher
temperature steam could be reliably produced without significant boiler
corrosion. Therefore, this study concludes that providing the higher
temperature steam would require a supplemental oil -fired superheater to
subsequently elevate the temperature of the steam generated by the in-
cinerator before it is delivered to the University system.
Steam temperature losses between the incinerator and University
boiler plant area are anticipated to be about 40°F. Thus, the super -
beater would need to raise the 600°F steam received from the incinerator
to at least 800°F prior to transmittal.
University physical plant personnel indicate that the high temper
__- ature steam will be more valuable because it will undoubtedly reduce
reliance on gas and oil. The lower temperature option is much more
flexibly replaced by combustion of coal at lower cost.
High quality boiler feedwater treatment is an integral unit process
in the steam generation business. The University boiler plant prepares
its own boiler feedwater. Most of this requirement is satisfied by re-
cycling condensed steam which is returned from the campus distribution
system. Supplemental water treatment is necessary to make up for an
average system loss of approximately 6 percent. If steam from a waste
incineration facility is piped to the University boiler plant, the net
result will be equivalent to generating steam in existing University
boilers. The total amount of steam will remain tailored to University
power and heating demand and therefore the total boiler feedwater will
remain unchanged except for its destination. Safeguards for quality
control of net steam production from the combined system will require
i
that the source of boiler feedwater continue to be return condensate and
-- makeup water produced by the University.
Return condensate must be deaerated before it is reused as boiler
feedwater. The University boiler plant deaeration capacity is severely
limited. Therefore, University physical plant personnel have requested
that the incineration facility provide its own process for deaeration of
I
r
7954 20
ON
MICROFILMED BY
JORM MICROLAB
CEDAR RAPIDS -DES 140INES
L.
return condensate bypassed from the University boiler plant. This will
reduce stress on University capacity to deaerate water for equivalent
steam.
Evaluation of Alternatives
In addition to waste load characteristics and steam specification,
several other guidelines should be considered while evaluating the incin-
eration and heat recovery equipment alternatives. First, refractory
maintenance is notoriously high in incinerator plants and tends to re-
quire long warm-up and shut -down periods in order to minimize lining re-
placement. Refractory corrosion may be an issue when plastics are
burned. Secondly, air-cooled, moving grates have historically been a
source of high maintenance costs. Careful attention must be paid to the
method of waste charging used and conveyance through the incinerator;
especially for wastes with extremely variable moisture contents. Third,
it is desirable to minimize excess combustion air so as to minimize
emissions and size of air pollution equipment. This remains a signifi-
cant issue even while limiting consideration to controlled air systems.
Fourth, a water cooled combustion chamber dramatically decreases slagging
while providing higher steaming efficiencies than refractory -lined units
with separate waste heat boilers.
In this section the three controlled air modular incineration alter-
natives are compared with regard to their ability to handle the required
waste quantities and characteristics. They are also compared on the
basis of steaming efficiency at the low temperature specification. Typi-
cal efficiencies were translated into projections of net steam available
at the University heating and power plant.
Starved Air Refractory -Lined Incinerator - The modular -controlled
air refractory furnace is a two-stage combustion process with relatively
clean emmissions in minimum quantities. Its relatively small size allows
compatibility with small waste loads. By combining modules, a system may
be provided with flexibility to accept increasing waste loads. Heat re-
covery boilers, which generate steam from hot flue gases, are designed to
serve each incinerator module or a number of modules. An added benefit
of a number of small units processing waste is that the system can
7954 21
MICROFILMED BY
JORM MICROLAB
CEDAR RAPIDS -DES 1401NES
1.0196
n
function with reasonable efficiency even when maintenance or repair work
is being done.
Mass burning of MSW is the most common, but not the only application
of this alternative. Pilot scale tests for the Linden/Roselle Sewerage
Authority in New Jersey (References 6, 7) and for Auburn, Maine (Refer-
ence 14) indicate that such systems promise to provide a technically
sound and energy efficient way to coincinerate to MSS and MSW. The cru-
cial question about application of this alternative to coincineration
relates to input moisture content of the MSS. Because this is a low -
intensity combustion system, a large quantity of densely packed material,
such as wet MSS, could smother the combustion process by blanketing the
refuse and preventing airflow. Also there is concern that during times
when the refuse load is set, the incinerator would not be able to toler-
ate the addition of more water from the sludge. It is clear from the
pilot testing that pre -drying of MSS would improve the reliability of
coincineration (Reference 20).
In the starved air process, refuse is pushed into the main chamber
by a ram feeding device at preset intervals controlled by a timer and/or
temperature sensing probe. Once the waste enters the main chamber, the
oxygen deficient atmosphere (starved air condition) restricts the burning
rate. Low air velocity is designed to create a very stable burning pro-
cess while effecting a partial oxidation of the waste. The gases gener-
ated during the oxidation process then pass into the secondary chamber
where combustion is completed with the addition of air in excess of that
required for complete combustion of the fuel. The main fuel in the
secondary chamber is the combustible gas driven off in the starved air
chamber, although small amounts of auxiliary fuel may also be required.
Detailed testa show steam generation efficiencies for starved -air
refractory incinerators vary from 50 percent to 65 percent with 55 per-
cent being a typical figure (References 5, 22). After accounting for the
internal steam requirements for deaeration, the net steam available ac
the University heating and power plant from a starved air coincineration
System would amount to approximately 1.74 lbs of steam/lb of composite
fuel. Such a system would probably be limited to displacement of the
7954 22
MICROFILMED BY
'JORM MICROLAB
CEDAR RAPIDS•DES MOINES
V_
L.,.
225 paig/500°F steam specification because of the charging method
maintenance limitations related to the refractory lining.
Excess Air Waterwall Incinerator - Widespread experience in Europe
has shown that the coincineration of MSW and MSS in a masa burning water -
wall furnace with heat recovery is a technically proven and reliable
_- method of codisposal. The sludge handling approach employed in the Euro-
pean codisposal facilities encompasses a wide variety of technologies,
i
ranging from indirect dryers using thickened sludge (4 percent solids at
_ Dieppe, France) to direct dryers using dewatered sludge (25 percent
solids at Krefeld, Germany) (Reference 13). As a mass burning system,
I -
preprocessing of the MSW is not required. The sludge input, which can
be pumped or trucked to the incinerator site as a liquid, is dewatered,
dried, and sent into the sludge dryer. At Krefeld, Germany, the MSS is
i
dried to approximately 85 percent solids followed by pulverization and
pneumatic conveyance into the incinerator where combustion is instantane-
ous above the hearth.
I
Despite the proven reliability of waste -to -energy involving water -
wall combustion, only one American system currently coincinerates MSS and
MSW in this type of system (Harrisburg, Pennsylvania). Both European and
American experiences appear to support the premise that efficient and
reliable coincineration in standard waterwall systems requires that MSS
J be predried (Reference 5). The same fundamental concern inherent to both
waterwall and starved air incineration processes is that uncontrolled MSS
moisture content may smother the flame. Furthermore, MSS with uncontrol-
led moisture content presents significant difficulties associated with
-- MSS materials handling, incinerator feeding, and reduced steaming
--, efficiency.
A waterwall incinerator is a furnace with heat recovery water tubes
constructed as an integral part of the furnace walls. The hot combustion
gases pass through boiler, superheater, and/or economizer sections to
cool the gases and produce steam. The refuse which is stored in a deep
storage pit is transferred with cranes to the furnace feed hopper. Feed
to the furance grate is controlled by the rate of feed to the hopper and
by rate adjustment in the hydraulic ram feed type system. The critical
section of the masa burning waterwall incinerator is the stoker -grate
7954 23
MICROFILMED BY
JORM MICROLAB
CEDAR RAPIDS -DES MOINES
1a96
V.
system. In general, burning is accomplished on the grates with air being
introduced above and below.
One problem that is common to most waterwall incinerators is corro-
sion, erosion, and other metal wastage of the water tubes. A significant
cause of corrosion is hydrochloric acid reaction with the metal tubes.
This can be avoided by maintaining proper quantities of excess air in the
furnace. Typical waterwall incineration systems maintain 100 to 200 per-
cent excess air to prevent corrosion and ensure efficient combustion in
this one -chambered system. The excess air requirement, however, is often
cited as a disadvantage when compared to competing controlled air incin-
station systems because large air pollution control devices are generally
required.
Most waterwall incineration facilities are larger than the probable
size requirement for this project. However, several manufacturers are
currently providing small factory built units which may be assembled in a
modular type concept. The typical energy recovery efficiency reported for
waterwall incineration is approximately 75 percent (References 5, 24). At
that efficiency, a waterwall coincineration system at Iowa City would pro-
vide approximately 2.52 lb of steam per pound of composite fuel available
at the University boiler plant at the low pressure specification.
Excess Air Water Cooled Rotary Kiln - Another type of municipal
�J
refuse incineration system which has seen widespread industrial applica-
tion is the rotary kiln. The kiln is a large, slowly rotating cylinder
which is sloped slightly from the feed to the discharge end so that the
- fuel will move along the length of the cylinder. Ignition occurs at the
front end of the kiln and the combustion progresses until the unburned
material or ash is discharged into an ash pit at the low end. Histori-
cally, kilns used for refuse incineration have been refractory lined.
i
A new type of rotary kiln technology employs a nonrefractory-lined
l rotary kiln type furnace coupled to a conventional vertical tubed, water-
!
i
wall incinerator furnace. Water is circulated through the tubes by means
of a rotary joint at boiler pressures that keep the combustor at satura-
tion temperature throughout its length and circumference. Combustion air
'i is admitted through holes in spaces between the tubes. This means of
introducing the air into the tumbling waste results in intimate mixing
_ 7954 24
I MICROFILMED BY
'JORM MICROLAB
CEDAR RAPIDS -DES MOINES
I a16
W1
�r
i
and complete combustion which reduces the danger of localized reducing
atmosphere and resultant metal corrosion. In theory, the water cooled
rotary kiln is an excess air combustion system but normal excess air
requirements are relatively low, in the range of 40 to 50 percent.
The water cooled rotary kiln has demonstrated ability in the combus-
tion of many types of heterogenous waste including MSW and MSS (Reference
27). In general, higher moisture contents may be handled because the kiln
utilizes pre -heated combustion air and intimate air/fuel mixing. Several
of these systems have been in operation in Japan since the mid -19709.
Based on its Japanese experience and knowledge of European success with
similar waterwall incineration systems, this state-of-the-art technology
is currently planned at two locations in the United States. The Sumner
County Solid Waste Energy Recovery Facility will use two 75 TPD water
cooled rotary combustors for cogeneration of steam and electrical power at
Gallatin, Tennessee (Reference 27). In a larger application, the West
Contra Costa (California) Sanitary District and City of Richmond Municipal
Sewer District, are planning to use three 200 TPD units (Reference 12).
The former project is technically and financially supported by the
Tennessee Valley Authority. The later project is currently in the design
phase and is the result of an exhaustive comparison of available tech-
nologies for coincineration in a location where air pollution control is
severely regulated.
The existing experience with water cooled rotary kilns indicate that
their expected energy recovery efficiency would be approximately 67 per-
cent. Based on waste loads projected for this study, a water cooled
rotary kiln incineration system would provide approximately 2.13 lbs of
steam per pound of composite fuel available at the University boiler
plant at 250 prig/5000F. The equipment supplier for the Gallatin,
Tennessee project indicates that water cooled rotary kiln will produce
steam at 600 psig/600°F. Therefore, the water cooled rotary kiln concept
would also be a likely candidate for providing the 475 psig/760°F steam
specification to the boiler plant if adequate superheat is provided by a
supplemental system. It is estimated that at least 200°F superheat would
be required to guarantee 760°F steam delivery to the University.
7954 25
MICROFILMED BY
'JORM MICROLAB
CEDAR RAPIDS -DES I40INES
iaU
.-I
PART 3 - REPRESENTATIVE SYSTEM
Assumptions
The primary objective of this study is to determine the feasibility
of integrating coincineration of MSW and MSS into the overall waste dis-
posal system at Iowa City. MSW and MSS waste loads eligible for coin-
cineration were estimated in Part 1. A review of appropriate incinera-
tion technology tailored to the scope and scale of waste disposal in Iowa
City was presented in Part 2. The primary thrust of Part 3 is to develop
a representative coincineration system through preliminary design, cost
estimate, and environmental assessment.
Several key assumptions were necessary as the study proceeded. Many
of these were discussed with an ad hoc advisory committee including re-
presentatives from the city, University, and Stanley Consultants. A
clear division of interests was evident in the advisory committee meet-
ings. In general, the city's primary interest in waste -to -energy is
related to improved economics of ultimate waste disposal. City represen-
tatives were keenly aware of tipping fee increases at the landfill and
the inevitable prospect of having to locate a new landfill. They were
also interested in an alternative MSS disposal alternative for the new
WPCF. By contrast, the University expressed its primary interest in
waste incineration as a means of procuring additional steam for its heat-
ing and power plant at a potentially cheaper cost. They fully realized
that the quantity of waste derived steam would have negligible impact on
eventual plans for boiler plant expansion.
Although this report does not include a siting study, two represen-
tative sites for a coincineration facility have been identified. Site A
is the existing Iowa City WPCF which would be abandoned when its replace-
ment is constructed. Because of its historical purpose, surrounding de-
velopment at Site A is limited with regard to residential and commercial
land use. Zoned "heavy industrial," the site is strategically located
for centralized waste collection and steam conveyance to the University
boiler plant. The coincineration facility could be located on the far
northwest corner of the sewage treatment plant site without disrupting
current operation of the WPCF.
7954 26
MICROFILMED BY
JORM MICROLAB
C OAR RAPIDS -DES MOINES
►a96
Ki
It—
Since the energy market considered in this study is the University,
very few other sites could be located which are consistent with existing
land use patterns and allow short distance delivery to the energy market
place. A representative possibility is along and west of Madison Street
-- between the existing University bus barn and CRANDIC Railroad. This site
i
would be consistent with one of several options which the University has
been investigating for eventual construction of a new boiler plant.
Henceforth referred to as Site B, it would also be bounded by nonresiden-
tial development. A clear advantage of Site B is its relatively close
location to the proposed steam market. A relative disadvantage is less
I -
convenient transport access by waste vehicles.
Given either site as a potential location for a coincineration
i
facility and the University as a steam market, two major planning con-
straints facing any hopeful waste -to -energy system are tentatively
-- resolved. It is assumed that subsequent implementation phases would
further study and develop this conclusion if the project is feasible.
_ Rey locations in a prospective Iowa City waste energy system are
shown on Figure 2. This location map points out the site of the future
Iowa City WPCF, the existing wastewater treatment site, the University
iHeating and Power Plant, and the existing landfill. A more detailed
location map, presented as Figure 3, shows representative sites for
coincineration facilities and pipeline easements necessary to connect
into the University Heating and Power Plant from either Site A or B. The
i-- layouts and easements shown on the latter location map were chosen in a
manner which least conflicts with existing and probable future land use
patterns. Most of the land required for this representative layout is
presently owned by either the city or University.
In addition to establishing a representative site, several other
V assumptions were necessary in order to proceed with preliminary design.
One very important assumption relates to the MSS waste load. The city
has dictated that MSS from the future WPCF would be dewatered to an aver-
age 50 percent moisture content. The MSS filter cake product would sub-
sequently be transported by truck to the coincineration facility. If MSS
i filter cake is incinerated, then high lime stabilization would not be
i
i
I
7954 27
MICROFILMED BY
'JORM MICROLAB
CEDAR RAPIDS -DES MOINES
1
la96
.7
a]
MICROFILMED BY
JORM MICROLAB
CEDAR RAPIDS•DES MOINES
i+l :i �T't:ii:Y ' .•-it?i'—_-'v,T=Y �,:---_.,y—x-�¢�_... ..;5`.r �'O=/-�___� _�_--�=��_.:' _.—�—r
::....::..:.
{{ fir.•,...^-�-ir+�. ;jib ....'.<..: ; y :: , a — —
.:..:........
...:::.......... 1t
q;yY.;::;•.: a:+Y:a�fi_�'iJi:.;::::i I,{[.;{id: :}:V'::u �!ii?5:' :T:t•;'. �..- .. i! � 9 __
�"h'h:ei.Y. :•. YL:..4!isi::Y:::::}/Yq::.:S:c:F:V:i}?:i .:I fr_ / t ��
ui1% •
' 1 �\\�\ p••_ P ° •° p De O•p DDD: i
1� °pF0 04�D° p°•e ° °e C p•�e pPO w _—
N / °•o u • eis �°De • ` °�Oi
eeeee dl:;e e•S a°ae °` °oee o°ptn / (Y
UJ v LJ
Via Z Z 8 /
Pd it°e°°O T
a
••�1
4OaDC°eoop O e
fv . <^ azw 8t'Bb9 `
O (:e ;el�e e�vee jDq ey ¢ F w a
�p°y°° a credo oee9° ee`°°p e, a� .�' D
S 6b9 � �iSi2°eL~l •�•°•• 'Oreo p°DD p e
� Vie•; da°;;�a P �,/°•poi e D:S, 2 • �r-•J
0 I L-..gr,:.�• oPt•v
1S N01N38 6:C b9.
e°_De epee i Ve
9 b91;e
O 0000I a°D}PI"ti �eS�SCV
0'6 _[� deep eve oe \; el;: a eD, d
j.e tp< p e : t• d
•.°DooD . is
P� P DDDeD ° °Dep •D4 Q• O)
j 1131V3V� ~
s
4 tY
°,c o oee-0°aZ,•te�3 5•
o�'.GeaO:e:e'v J La
°° .509 '`°♦�°P:. x
Z e °moi 3 •�p� e•; eel p l a} a
1S SEINIOW Sap
f � Dav
r•• 1
'1S 101ldV)'N a 0
C) U u
LLJ
FpJ pO �I
'C�, j •'e v8 �\
1S SSIiN38d
p $/ D
eA :e a
m
�e•plte�,eD �.
•;L•Dd Z Zb9
IS NOS188VH
DDD
7 O r1 p a 17y°N
L 4 U � � • e °DI�AId .
1S 1a
(� �f /� ••��nO:i grIP 1T • D D � F•'
_. G ^ �.• '1_ Pd l)pDire Del a�s` =a
cfl
L
1S No1JNi-18no' a 299
F_ac
0
I F
1=�
I
Q
Z
J
U
z
1SSDNIOW 530
r
15 10ildV)'N
IC� I S S I I f+J -1 N c_!
u
�' L
W W_
Co
J pI
L U U.
LL
Q
Z
Z0
LLIw
x w
CL
wV
cc
O
U
O
w
C0
O
a
O
a
0
3
o
0
a
C>
00
0
G Q J
J � Q
1 D�
z
OF
W
W
G
7
3
W
o
u
�' L
W W_
Co
J pI
L U U.
LL
Q
Z
Z0
LLIw
x w
CL
wV
cc
O
U
O
w
C0
O
a
O
a
Vi_
required. In that case, lime stabilization would present a backup dis-
posal method. This study does not evaluate the cost effectiveness of
sludge dewatering and drying combinations which would optimize MSS pre-
paration for incineration. That is, the likelihood of further improving
MSS disposal economics with supplemental waste heat or indirect steam
predrying before incineration is not considered. Such practices indi-
cated as commonplace in other coincineration systems would deserve fur-
ther evaluation if this project is shown to be feasible.
The last important baseline assumption is that the existing landfill
would continue to be maintained and operated as a receptacle for noncom-
bustible waste and combustion residues from the coincineration system.
-, Both transport and landfill rates would decrease due to mass and volume
reduction of combustible waste loads through the incineration system. An
additional benefit would be an extension of landfill life.
i
Preliminary Design
Based upon the technology assessment, type of wastes to be burned,
_ and steam requirements, the waste incineration system selected for test-
ing project feasibility is the water cooled rotary kiln. The rotary kiln
is considered state-of-the-art technology which combines the historically
proven benefits of European -style waterwall incineration and controlled
air combustion. Like starved air and waterwall furnaces, the water
cooled rotary kiln is available in factory built sizes applicable to the
scale of this project. In reality, the final selection of an incinera-
tion technology for Iowa City will probably be based on a performance
specification. The water cooled rotary kiln has several desirable
_ factors including the following:
The system does not have a refractory lining. Refractory
maintenance is notoriously high in incinerators and tends to
require long warm-up and shutdown periods in order to minimize
jrefractory damage.
I Minimal auxiliary fuel is required except for startup. Startup
time is accelerated as the system does not contain refractory
and is water cooled.
i
I
7954 28
np
MICROFILMED BY
JORM MICROLAB
CEDAR RAPIDS -DES MOINES
r:,_
• No moving or reciprocating grates. Air cooled, moving grates
also are historically a source of high maintenance costs.
• The heat recovery efficiency is relatively high, but is inter-
mediate for the systems compared. Therefore, steam projections
from the rotary kiln should not be biased in economic feasibil-
ity determination.
• Excess air will normally be in the range of 40 to 50 percent.
Typical waterwall incinerators require 150 percent to 300
percent excess air and therefore have much greater impact on air
pollution control requirements.
• Intimate air/fuel mixing which occurs with tumbling in the
rotating kiln, together with preheated combustion air should
allow the system to maintain efficiency while fuel moisture
content varies. This is a desirable asset as MSW moisture will
vary significantly with weather conditions and because precise
control of MSS dewatering is unrealistic.
• The variable controls of the water cooled rotary kiln permit a
turndown ratio of up to 2:1 and still remains efficient.
• The optimum temperature of combustion and low excess air
combines to efficiently incinerate the waste and minimize the
formation of hydrogen chloride and nitrous oxide.
• Relatively high pressure, high temperature steam can be produced
at low corrosion potential. Therefore, the supplemental
superheat requirement is relatively small if the 475 psig/760•F
specification is desired. Manufacturers offer a limit of 600
psig/600•F for this system.
Two 80 -inch diameter water cooled rotary kiln sets would be required
in this project. Each set would have modulating capacity between 50 and
100 percent of 42 million Btu per hour waste heat release. Together the
kilns would provide flexibility over a range of 21 to 84 million Btu per
hour waste heat release. By comparison to the 20 -year waste heat input
projection in Table 6, the system would provide sufficient capacity to
handle the average waste load for seven days in five days of operation.
Therefore, excess capacity would be available for either peak loads or
7954 29
MICROFILMED BY
'JORM MICRO_ LAB
CEDAR RAPIDS•DES MOINES
1a94
down time for maintenance. It is assumed that further capacity for
i•
unexpected waste loads or maintenance requirements would not be justified
because adequate backup disposal will be available at the landfill and
i
adequate steam generating capacity will be available at the University
boiler plant.
• -• Gross steam from the water cooled rotary kilns would be generated at
i 600 psig/600°F and either pressure reduced or superheated to comply with
market requirements. At full throttle, both units would be capable of
_ handling approximately 22,800 lb/hr of composite waste including 4,500
lb/hr MSS filter cake and 18,300 lb/hr MSW in the ratio as generated.
The maximum gross steaming rate would be approximately 52,060 lb/hr of
which 30000 16/hr would be required internally for deaeration of return
�J
condensate. Therefore, not more the 50,000 lb of steam per hour would be r
—j available at the University boiler plant at full load. Approximately
f 2.13 lbs of steam would be generated per lb of composite waste at the tI
expected MSS/MSW generation ratio presented in Table 6 (40 TPD/164 TPD). '
A brief outline of mechanical equipment requirements for the
proposed facility is presented below. Each topic is given sufficient
attention to allow sizing and cost determination.
I. Platform Scale System
J A. Truck scales
1. One 60 ft. by 10 ft., 60 ton scale. I
B. Load cell
1. One 5 K -load cell. p
I
C. One waste management accounting console. i
I
1. Automated instrumentation. i
I � II. MSW Charging
u
A. Two overhead bucket cranes.
1. Cab controlled.
2. 1 1/2 cubic yard bucket capacity.
3. 60 ft. maximum hoist.
i J
-- 7954 30
laq�
i MICROFILMED BY
JORM MICRO_ LAB
} CEDAR RAPIDS -DES MOINES
III. MSS Filter Cake Mass Flow Conveyance
A.
Z -type configuration mass flow conveyor.
1.
One 5 in. by 26 ft. horizontal/60 ft. vertical/16 ft.
horizontal conveyor.
B.
Horizontal
Mass Flow Conveyor
1.
One 5 in. by 48 'ft. conveyor.
2.
Time actuated slide gates above combustor hoppers.
IV. Factory
Built Incinerators
A.
Two
80 -in. water cooled rotary kilns.
1.
Barrel assemblies with wind boxes and frames.
2.
Boilers with steel work and standard trim.
3.
Forced circulation pumps.
4.
Complete ram feed assemblies with hoppers and
hydraulics.
5.
Combustor drive assemblies.
6.
Overfire air fans.
7.
Air heaters.
8.
Start-up burners.
V. Return
Condensate System
A.
Condensate storage tanks.
1.
Two stainless steel tanks with protective liners to
handle return condensate at 180° to 200°F and with suf-
ficient capacity for 1 hour operation at full steam
generation capacity.
B.
Condensate Transfer Pumps
1.
Two motor driven pumps each capable of providing 115 gpm
at 65 ft. of total dynamic head (TDH).
C.
Deaerator
1.
Deaerator to provide 50,000 lbs/hr output. Design for
15 paig pressure.
2.
One 1,000 gallon storage tank capable of storing
deaerated water at full load for 10 minutes.
7954
31
i MICROFILMED BY
`JORM MICROLAB
CEDAR RAPIDS -DES MOINES
Aid
I a96
VI. Boiler Feed Pumps
A. Two full plant capacity units.
1. Motor driven condensate pumps, 120 gpm each at 226°F,
900 ft. TDH.
VII. Instruments and Controls
A. Panel mounted instruments and remote manual operators.
1. Panels located on MSW dump hoppers at inlet level.
B. Instruments
1. Steam flow air flow recorders.
2. Feedwater flow and temperature recorders.
3. Multi—point temperature recorders.
4. Pressure gages.
5. Drum level and deaerator level gages.
C. Controls
1. MSW ram feed controls.
2. MSS conveyor feed controls.
3. Air flow controls.
4. Soot blower control panels.
5. Auxiliary fuel burner controls.
6. Feed water regulators.
7. Rotary kiln speed controls.
8. Ash conveyor speed controls.
9. Ash loading crane controls.
VIII. Air Pollution Controls
A. I.D. fans
1. Two I.D. fans and motors each capable of 20,300 acfm at
410°F.
B. Baghouses
1. Two baghouses each capable of handling 20,300 acfm at
410°F.
2. Air to cloth ratio of 4:1.
7954
32
I MICROFILMED BY
'JORM MICROLAB
CEDAR RAPIDS -DES MOINES
Ia96
7
V-
IX. Chimney
A. Alloy steel chimney with lining.
1. One stack to serve both units, 150 ft. tall, 4.0 ft.
I.D. (Stack complies with height restrictions in
effect for the Iowa City municipal airport.)
2. Chimney ladder, lighting, and accessories.
B. Forced Draft Fans
1. Two forced draft fans, each capable of 20,300 acfm at
418°F, 15 in. water static head.
X. Auxiliary Fuel 011 Unloading, Storage and Pumping
A. Storage
1. One 5,000 gallon tank of coated steel or FRP
construction.
B. Pumping
1. Two postive displacement pumps, 5 gpm at 100 prig,
electric motor driven.
XI. Ash Collection
A. Wet ash carriers.
1. Two 50 ft. by 3 ft. wet ash carrier systems.
B. Belt conveyors
1. One 50 ft. by 1.5 ft. belt conveyor.
C. Screw conveyors
1. Two 40 ft. by 14 in. diameter screw conveyors.
2. Two 20 ft. by 16 in. diameter screw conveyors.
D. Ash loading crane
1. One cubic yard bucket.
2. Remote pendant operation.
A preliminary design utilizing the above summarized mechanical
equipment is presented on Figures 4, 5, and 6. Figure 4 shows upper and
lower level floor plans. Figure 5 shows outside building elevations and
Figure 6 is a representative section through the facility.
The mechanical equipment outline and preliminary design drawings do
not include a supplemental superheater system which would be required to
elevate the waste derived steam from 600°F to approximately 800°F for
7954
33
10196
i MICROFILMED BY
'JORM MICRO_ LAB
-CEDAR RAPIDS -DES MOINES
n-_ � _ ._._._:L.t---� -- — �- I- - •� .� -�_ Aid _
Z
1
i
1
aw-
Z
Q
J
CL
J
W
W
J
cc
W
IL
a
p9
MIND ED
9
iC
�s
Z
Q
J
CL
J
W
W
J
cc
W
IL
a
p9
0
m
O w
W
w�
Pw
zi
Uz u
L¢
J
za
O
Q
ir
W
z
U
z
0
U
LL
O
z
O
W
0
ir
}
z
i
J
W
ir
a
v
of
A�
11 1
m
V
w z
cD
J
Qp�
U
�-
LQL w
J
Z
OJ
f= Q
cc::)
zW
U
f—
Z_=
OU
U¢
U. a
O
z
0
U)
w
0
r
a
z
J
w
LY
a
i
0
a
w
J
w
cc
O
z
0
a
NW
W
LL
O
V -
sale at the 475 prig/760°F specification. One superheater system would
be required to serve both incinerator seta. A vertical tube design would
be recommended which would be enclosed in a steel cylindrical shell to
accomodate the tubes and firing chamber. The shell would be about 10
feet in diameter and have about 15 feet of height. An overall super-
heater efficiency of at least 65 percent could be obtained assuming use
of No. 2 fuel oil. This translated into approximately 150-200 Btu's per
lb. of steam superheated. If additional efficiency is desired, waste
heat from the superheater could be used to preheat boiler feed water for
the incinerators. Supplemental superheat would require an additional
50,000 gallon fuel oil storage system which would be adequate for more
than thirty days operation at maximum plant capacity. Oil was used as a
- representative fuel to fire the superheaters. If detailed studies are
pursued, alternative fuels can be evaluated.
— During actual operation, trucks ladden with waste fuel would be
channeled through a fully automated platform scaling system. Data for
_ individual trucks such as account number, truck number, and tare weight
_ would be read electronically by an accounting console. One full time
attendant would be stationed at the scale to ensure smooth operation and
quality control of waste accepted for incinceration.
i =
j MSW and MSS filter cake would be dumped into separate short-term
I
waste storage pits. MSW would be mixed and lifted to the kiln hoppers by
overhead cranes. MSS filter cake would be fed to a mass flow conveyor
system by a live bottom floor. The filter cake would be discharged from
the closed conveyor system to the kiln hoppers through time actuated
slide gates. A ram feeder would control the flow of composite waste fuel
into each kiln. Primary combustion air would be taken from the waste pit
as a means of odor control. The pit itself would be sized to have
sufficient volume for storage of the average MSW generation rate for
three days.
The ash and slag produced in the combustion process must be removed
from the boiler heating surfaces to avoid interrupting the heat transfer
process from the fire and flue gases. The term ash refers to the dry
7954 34
i
MICROFILMED BY
'JORM MICROLAB
CEDAR RAPIDS -DES MOINES
{aA
I
V;-
residue that is produced and dropped directly into the ash conveying
system below the furnace section of the boiler. Normally the heavy ash
falling out of the furnace is called bottom ash and the fine particulates
entrained in the flue gas are referred to as fly ash. The bottom ash may
be molten and subsequently known as slag. As this molten product builds
up in the furnace walls and tubes, soot blowers are operated to remove
the buildup. Bottom ash from waste incineration would be collected and
conveyed in a wet carrier system consisting of a submerged drag line
conveyor. One wet carrier would be provided for each incinerator. Both
carriers would discharge ash slurry up inclined sections onto a common
belt conveyor. The belt conveyor would in turn discharge wet bottom ash
into a short-term storage pit where it would be unloaded by a overhead
crane into trucks for surface transportation to disposal.
The Iowa Department of Environmental Quality indicated that bag -
houses would be required for air pollution control at an incineration
facility in Iowa City. Two separate baghouses would be installed, one
for each incinerator. The baghouses would be sized according to the de-
sign air temperature and flow rate using an air -to -cloth ratio of 4:1.
The fly ash collected would be conveyed by screw conveyors and discharged
Into the wet ash carriers for combined handling with bottom ash.
The combined ash specific weight for this particular project would
be approximately 85 lb/cu. ft. (pcf) at 25 percent moisture. Overall,
the ash handling facilities would be sized to collect, convey, hold, and
transport approximately 130 TPD which would ultimately be conveyed to the
landfill at 25 percent moisture content. It was conservatively estimated
that the MSW load would be reduced 60 percent by mass and 90 percent by
volume. Similarly, the MSS waste load would be reduced approximately 56
percent by mass and 58 percent by volume. Less reduction is expected by
combustion of MSS filter cake because of the relatively high density and
inert solids composition.
The net effect of coincineration on ultimate disposal in the overall
waste management system is summarized on Figure 7 for the years 1985 and
2005. This presentation graphically demonstrates that inclusion of
incineration will reduce the total mass received at the landfill by
7954 35
MICROFILMED BY
'JORM MICRO_ LAB
CEDAR RAPIDS -DES 1401NES
I a96
�1
i
T°
Ln
co
cn
J
J
i
O J
O
_ Q
z
Z
5
y
p
>
U
J W
w
Zy
�
o
_Q
O
-
NO O
a
a
OO F
F
J
my A
h
F
W N
�
_
r
U
yN
o
p
Z
O
Z
z
O
Z
5
NI
O
O
O
Q
co
J
W
cn
N
Q
3
7_
O
F-
N
m
m
C)
O
U
Z
O
Z
zN
i
O J
_ Q
z
N
O O
y
p
>
U
J W
p
�
o
o r
O
N
� CD
a
c
F -
J
3
jU
m
z
(n =)
O �
w
yN
z
p
Z
Q
O
N C.3
[.1
m
z
�
N
n Z
m
m
m UJ
W
CD
Q
U
o
CD
C
o
N
O
m
Z
O
N
3
z
z
m �
F -
o
y
Q
z
H
W
-
z
5
E O
N
6
y
J
w
d p
W W
N
z
F
rj, i
F d
N
O
W
1
¢
in
z
Z
-
N Z
0
6
O
3
w
J
m
m
m
IUJz
Z
I
W
O
d
N
N
y
F=-
F-
m
_
t;
z
a
t_
2
N
oz
_
O
d
N
�
Co
w
mw
C
m
O
U
NI
O
O
O
Q
co
J
W
cn
N
Q
3
7_
O
F-
N
m
m
C)
O
U
Z
O
Z
zN
i
O J
_ Q
� J
N
O O
y
in N
ME W
>
U
J W
W
�
m
5
5
w o
(j)Z
VO
� J
Qa
J
J W
W
(}
Q
Z
o r
O
N
� CD
a
c
QN F
J
3
jU
m
z
(n =)
O �
w
yN
z
Z
Z
Q
O
N C.3
[.1
m
z
�
N
m
m
CD
W
CD
Q
U
o
z
C
o
-�
O
m
Z
5
5
3
p
i N3 Z U M N
�O mm
U)
U N
w m
O m
w m
O
U
i
F.
O
Q
0
J
W
F-
>- N
U Q
m 3
Z m
H O n m
t- m
N
O m
n O
U
(j)Z
VO
n
m
Qa
a
J W
IL
(}
Q
Z
p
F
m
wV
� CD
Z
j
QN F
J
jU
m
O
(n =)
O �
%�
yN
Z
Q
LA
N C.3
Z
m
COW
3
p
i N3 Z U M N
�O mm
U)
U N
w m
O m
w m
O
U
i
F.
O
Q
0
J
W
F-
>- N
U Q
m 3
Z m
H O n m
t- m
N
O m
n O
U
Q W
z
(}
p
F
i
� CD
Q
j
LA
N W
L
m W
W
C
o
i
~
Q
w
3
z
F -
w
z
y
z
-
z
E O
N
6
J
W
K
d p
W W
N
h
rj, i
F d
N
O
1
¢
in
-
N Z
O
m
m
f
I
O
'-
3
p
i N3 Z U M N
�O mm
U)
U N
w m
O m
w m
O
U
i
F.
O
Q
0
J
W
F-
>- N
U Q
m 3
Z m
H O n m
t- m
N
O m
n O
U
O
Q
0
J
W
F-
>- N
U Q
m 3
Z m
H O n m
t- m
N
O m
n O
U
/—,
approximately 43 percent. Similarly, the overall volume reduction will
amount to approximately 62 percent. Both reduction estimates include
allowances for the ultimate disposal of incinerator residues and the
noncombustible MSW fraction bypassed around the incinerator.
Cost Estimates
Estimates for initial capital cost and for annual operation and
_ maintenance were derived for the representative system. The estimates
are based on a facility at Site A. Other than a longer distance for
steam conveyance and probable differences in access related coats, the
j estimate is applicable to a facility at either Site A or Site B. The
cost estimating was performed in present dollars with the aid of specific
requests from major vendors and knowledge of prevailing costs in recent
projects of similar scope.
The total initial capital cost in spring 1981 dollars for a coin-
-! cineration facility at Site A capable of delivering 475
� B psig/760°F steam
to the University heating and power plant is $12,875,000. This estimate
is summarized in Table 8 and includes all necessary engineering, design,
and construction costs. The estimate does not include cost of land.
I Land is assumed 100 percent salvageable and thus does not impact project
feasibility. This is consistent with EPA rules and regulations governing
municipal wastewater treatment works. The same estimate, minus cost of
supplemental superheat, applies to generation of 250 prig/500°F steam for
sale to the same customer.
A summary of the annual operation and maintenance cost estimate is
—! presented in Table 9. This estimate is given for beginning and end of
project life, in 1980 dollars and escalated dollars. The same tabulation
also shows 06M costs with and without superheat. During the initial year
of operation, the cost of annual 06M is $901,000 if the lower temperature
steam is generated and $1,003,000 if the higher temperature steam is
generated.
The initial capital and annual 06M cost estimates provide the basis
for a rigorous economic analysis orY presented in Part 4. There, the entire
waste management system is compared on with- and without -project bases.
7954 36
M
MICROFILMED BY
'JORM MICROLAB
CEDAR RAPIDS -DES MOINES
.-7
fr-
TABLE 8
COST ESTIMATE SUMMARY
INITIAL CAPITAL COST
(475 psig/760°F Steam)
Present Cost
I SITE WORK
Mobilization
$ 15,000
Demolition
150,000
Clearing and Grubbing
25,000
Excavation
58,600
Structural Fill
24,400
Compacted Fill
7,100
Sewer and Water
17,100
Parking Lot
26,400
Access Road
15,800
Sidewalk
900
Landscaping
3,600
'
II STEAM CONVEYANCE
Trench, Pipe, and Fittings
406,000
Jacking and Casings
39,600
III BUILDING WORK
Footings
64,000
Slab on Grade
140,800
Walls
132,000
Precast Panels
63,200
Structural Steel
54,900
Misc. Steel
18,000
Concrete Block
39,100
Metal Liner Panels
75,500
Translucent Panels
17,000
Grating
19,200
Stair Treads
18,700
Handrail and Toe plate
16,300
7954 37
j MICROFILMED BY
'JORM MICRO_ LAB
CEDAR RAPIDS -DES I40INES
A,_1 _� _ . . _ ._._.� -� - - - �- -- -
L
TABLE 8 (CONT.)
COST ESTIMATE SUMMARY
INITIAL CAPITAL COST
(475 psig/760°F Steam)
j MICROFILMED BY
JORM MICROLAB
CEDAR RAPIOS•DES 140INES
Ia94
.7
6
Present Cost
III BUILDING WORK (CONT.)
Roof and Roof Deck
$ 85,700
Ceiling Tile
4,200
Metal Flashing
5,000
Louver
24,600
Roof Drains
4,600
Glass Windows
4
,900
Doors
22,900
Restroom Acc.
5,000
Maintenance and Storage Room Acc.
2,800
Office Acc.
11,000
Lighting and Wiring
88,000
Electrical and Instrumentation
275,000
Power Conversion
10,000
Mechanical Equipment, Piping, Valves,
Insulated Hangers
380,000
HVAC
110,000
Breeching
35,000
IV MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT
Boiler Sets
4,462,000
B.F. Pumps and Motors
80,900
F.D. Fans and Motors
36,200
Baghouses
540,000
I.D. Fans and Motors
43,400
Chimney and Acc.
325,000
Ash Conveyance
243,600
Ash Loading Crane
53,000
MSW Charging Cranes
370,000
7954 38
j MICROFILMED BY
JORM MICROLAB
CEDAR RAPIOS•DES 140INES
Ia94
.7
6
TABLE 8 (CONT.)
COST ESTIMATE SUMMARY
INITIAL CAPITAL COST
(475 psig/760°F Steam)
Source: Stanley Consultants, Inc.
7954 39
MICROFILMED BY
'JORM MICROLAB
'CtOAR RAPIDS -DES MOINES
I
___3
J
Present Coat
IV
MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT (CONT.)
MSS Mass Flow Conveyance
$ 68,100
Condensate Storage
8,000
Condensate Pumps and Motors
12,400
Deaerator and Storage Tank
24,500
Auxiliary Fuel Storage, Pumps, Motors
7,500
Truck Scaling System
88,000
Miscellaneous Equipment
150,000
V
SUPPLEMENTAL SUPERHEAT
Oil Fired Superheating System
280,000
Additional Fuel Storage, Pumping
20,500
Subtotal
9,330,000
VI
CONTINGENCIES @15%
1,399,000
VII
PROBABLE CONSTRUCTION COST
10,729,000
VIII
ENGINEERING, DESIGN, SUPERVISION,
ADMINISTRATION @ 20%
2,146,000
IX
TOTAL ESTIMATED INITIAL CAPITAL COST
12,875,000
Source: Stanley Consultants, Inc.
7954 39
MICROFILMED BY
'JORM MICROLAB
'CtOAR RAPIDS -DES MOINES
I
___3
J
i
TABLE 9
COST ESTIMATE SUMMARY
ANNUAL OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE
Annual I
1980 Dollars Escalation 1985 Dollars 2005 Dollars
52.4 x 10 Btu Hr 62.7 x 10 Btu Hr Rate 52.4 x 10 Btu Hr 62.7 x 10 Btu Hr
250 psig/500°F Steam
Labor
Power
Sewer and Water
Haintenance and Chemicals
Auxiliary Fuel
General and Administrative
Subtotal
475 psig/760°F Steam
Superheater Fuel
Total
Source: Stanley Consultants, Inc.
93
I�
$400,000
126,000
10,000
200,000
45,000
120,000
$901,000
102,000
$1,003,000
$474,000
150,000
10,000
200,000
54,000
120,000
$1,008,000
122,000
$1,130,000
MICROFILMED BY
'JORM MICRO_ LAB
CEDAR RAPIDS -DES MOINES
6%
10%
10%
6%
10%
6%
$535,000
203,000
16,000
268,000
72,000
161,000
$1,255,000
165,000
$1,420,000
$2,034,000
1,625,000
108,000
858,000
574,000
515,000
$5,714,000
1,322,000
$7,036,000
F
Environmental Impacts
Noneconomic expenditures must also be considered in evaluating
project feasibility. There are two primary environmental impacts which
would otherwise be avoided without this project: air emissions from in-
cineration and final disposal of combustion residuals in the sanitary
landfill. These and other issues should be the subject of a detailed
evaluation if the project proceeds. A closer look at this stage is use-
ful so that environmental impacts may be factored into the decision of
whether or not to proceed.
The emissions from the proposed combustion process will primarily
consist of particulates, nitrogen oxides (Nox), sulfur oxides (SOX),
carbon monoxide (CO), and gaseous hydrogen chloride (HC1). Additional
trace elements may be present depending on daily waste load variations.
Table 10 is a summary of estimated emissions of major pollutants based on
estimated firing rates at beginning and end of project life. Table 11
shows the estimated maximum ground level concentrations which may be
expected to occur in the year 2005. The maximum 1 -hour averages were
derived using screening methods outlined in Guidelines for Air Quality
Maintenance Planning and Analysis Volume LO (Revised): Procedures for
Evaluating Air Quality Impacts on Stationary Sources. Longer time
periods were estimated by accepted scaling methods.
The major air quality impact would be from the uncontrolled emission
of particulates. Uncontrolled particulate emissions consume 77 and 33
percent of the 24-hour and annual National Ambient Air Quality Standards
(NAAQS), respectively. These concentrations will be reduced below signi-
ficant levels when particulate control is applied with a baghouse such as
is required by the Iowa Department of Environmental Quality (IDEQ). The
concentrations of all other major pollutants do not approach their re-
spective standards.
In addition to filter control of particulate emissions, the unique
character of the waste load proposed for this project should further
diminish adverse air quality impacts. It was previously suggested that
the recalcination of lime softening sludge in the incinerator would pro-
duce free lime which may decrease boiler corrosion in the combustion
7954 41
I MICROFILMED DY
JORM MICROLAB
CEDAR RAPIDS•DES I40INES
IQ96
I—
Y
chamber. This same lime would also be expected to enhance particulate
removal in the baghouse and react with other undesirable combustion
products such as SOx and HCl to decrease their presence in the flue
gases. Controlled testing of this potentially positive impact is advised
If emission control becomes a significant issue. Regardless the presence
of lime softening sludge in the waste fuel is considered a unique feature
of this project.
TABLE 10
ESTIMATED EMISSIONS FROM INCINERATOR
Additional data on emissions from a similar sized municipal inciner-
ator 1s available in EPA Project Summary: "Environmental Assessment of a
Waste -to -Energy Process: Braintree Municipal Incinerator, Braintree,
7954 42
I MICROFILMED BY
'JORM MICROLAB
CEDAR RAPIDS -DES 1401NES
1996
Uncontrolled
Expected
Controlled
Emissions
(pounds/day)
Emission
Emissions
Emissions
Pollutant
19851 2
2005
Control
—
(X Reduction)
1985 2005
Particulate
5,810 6,920
99.95
2.9
NOx as NO2
308 367
0.04
3.5
Actual NO2
195 233
0.04
208 367
Actual NO
10 12
0.04
195 233
S02
324 387
0.04
10 12
S03
36 43
0.04
324 387
CO
4,795 5,740
0.0
36 43
4,795 5,740
HC13
2,168 2,632
0.04
2,168 2,632
1Based on 125
TPD MSW, 34 TPD MSS.
2Based on 164
TPD MSW, 40 TPD MSS.
3100 percent from MSW.
4Some portion of these emissions may
with recalcined CaCO3 sludge.
be reduced due
to reactions
Source: Stanley
Consultants, Inc.
Additional data on emissions from a similar sized municipal inciner-
ator 1s available in EPA Project Summary: "Environmental Assessment of a
Waste -to -Energy Process: Braintree Municipal Incinerator, Braintree,
7954 42
I MICROFILMED BY
'JORM MICROLAB
CEDAR RAPIDS -DES 1401NES
1996
V. -
L".
Li
'-1
TABLE 11
MAXIMUM PREDICTED GROUND LEVEL CONCENTRATIONSI
lUncontrolled emissions in micrograms/cubic meter for Year 2005.
23 -hour average assumed to be 0.9 x 1 -hour average.
38 -hour average assumed to be 0.75 x 1 -hour average.
424 -hour average assumed to be 0.3 x 1 -hour average.
5Annual average assumed to be 0.05 x 1 -hour average.
6'-' denotes no NAAQS for this time period.
Source: Stanley Consultants, Inc.
Massachusetts." (September, 1980). This study indicated particulate
control with an electrostatic precipitator (ESP) was insufficient to
satisfy air quality regulations. Fabric filter control technology, such
as a baghouse provides, would minimize this problem. The water cooled
rotary kiln system at Gallatin, Tennessee will combine ESP and baghouse
technology in an ionized assisted baghouse to further improve reliability
(Reference 22).
Disposal of combustion residues from the incinerator presents several
positive impacts when considering volume reduction effects on transport,
landfill life, and leachate generation. However, a potentially adverse
impact of waste incineration is the disposal of combustion residues.
Whether ash disposal at Iowa City would be a significant project deterrent
would depend on whether the incinerator waste is classified hazardous or
nonhazardous.
7954
43
MICROFILMED BY
'JORM MICROLAB
CEDAR RAPIDS -DES 1401NES
1a 96
Pollutant
Averaging
%
% %
Time
Part.
AAQS
NOx
AAQS SOx AAQS
CO
AAQS
HCI AAQS
1 -hour
405
--6
36
- 25 -
335
1
154 -
2-hour2
365
--
32
- 23 2
302
-
139 -
8-hour3
304
--
27
- 19 -
251
1
116 -
24-hour4
122
77
11
- 8 2
101
-
46 -
Annual5
20
33
2
2 1 1
17
-
8 -
lUncontrolled emissions in micrograms/cubic meter for Year 2005.
23 -hour average assumed to be 0.9 x 1 -hour average.
38 -hour average assumed to be 0.75 x 1 -hour average.
424 -hour average assumed to be 0.3 x 1 -hour average.
5Annual average assumed to be 0.05 x 1 -hour average.
6'-' denotes no NAAQS for this time period.
Source: Stanley Consultants, Inc.
Massachusetts." (September, 1980). This study indicated particulate
control with an electrostatic precipitator (ESP) was insufficient to
satisfy air quality regulations. Fabric filter control technology, such
as a baghouse provides, would minimize this problem. The water cooled
rotary kiln system at Gallatin, Tennessee will combine ESP and baghouse
technology in an ionized assisted baghouse to further improve reliability
(Reference 22).
Disposal of combustion residues from the incinerator presents several
positive impacts when considering volume reduction effects on transport,
landfill life, and leachate generation. However, a potentially adverse
impact of waste incineration is the disposal of combustion residues.
Whether ash disposal at Iowa City would be a significant project deterrent
would depend on whether the incinerator waste is classified hazardous or
nonhazardous.
7954
43
MICROFILMED BY
'JORM MICROLAB
CEDAR RAPIDS -DES 1401NES
1a 96
Ashes from municipal incinerators vary in chemical and physical
characteristics depending on the composition of the waste fuel. Further-
more disposal options can be dependent on the specific characteristics of
the residue. The United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA)
and the State of Iowa have adopted testing procedures to evaluate the
degree of potential hazard associated with a particular residue. USEPA
J — has exempted solid wastes generated by households from the hazardous
category (this exemption includes ash generated from a municipal solid
waste incinerators). However, domestic sewage sludge is not exempted
from federal requirements outlined in the Resource Conservation and Re-
covery Act (RCRA). In the case of a mixture of the two, the burden of
I
proof with regard to classification under RCRA is on the generator
—' (Reference 19).
The Iowa Department of Environmental Quality (IDEQ) has authority
.l for permitting solid waste disposal facilities in Iowa. Their require=
ments include a special testing procedure (Reference 10) for combustion
residues. The results of these tests are used to establish design
criteria for landfills.
_I The firing of municipal solid waste and lime conditioned sewage
sludge together will generate a relatively unique residue. A final
disposal plan should be developed with consideration given to the
following points:
Classification under RCRA. The mixture of MSW and MSS will produce
-- a residue that must be evaluated according to RCRA requirements.
. This can be accomplished in conjunction with the testing performed
_... for IDEQ.
IDEQ Requirements. IDEQ permits solid waste disposal facilities in
i
I Iowa. The requirements include a special waste test that can be
performed to satisfy the RCRA rules as well.
The waste classification procedure specifies the consideration of
all extractable cations including calcium. In previous tests run on coal
ash supplemented with four percent lime, calcium ion concentrations were
extremely high, comprising more than half of all cations extracted.
These levels could result in overly restrictive criteria for proposed
7954 44
ia96
MICROFILMED BY
JORM MICROLAB
CEDAR RAPIDS•DES MOINES
V,_.
L."
landfills. If codisposal of incinerator ash and municipal solid waste
is an alternative, the results of the special testing will provide
information on the acceptability of combining the two types of waste.
Another consideration is the decision by the Iowa Environmental
Quality Commission that residues from domestic sewage sludge incinerators
be treated the same as the sludge itself. This policy allows for land
application as an alternative disposal method for ash from sludge. In
fact, IDEQ has recently proposed a rule change that will exclude sludge
ash from permitting requirements where land application is used.
In conclusion, it appears that the environmental impacts of the
proposed project should not restrict economic decision—making provided
state and federally mandated requirements for air pollution control and
waste disposal are followed. The outlook for this project appears
especially promising because of the unique character of the waste. The
recalcination of lime softening sludge would produce free lime which is
otherwise an indicated additive for improved combustion residue disposal.
7954 45
►0196
i MICROFILMED BY
'JORM MICROLAB
CEDAR RAPIDS -DES 1401NES
Iti- '__ I_ . I Ad
-.7
ff
._J
I
�J
J
n
PART 4 — ECONOMIC ANALYSIS
General
The Iowa City community offers a promising opportunity for consider-
ation of a waste -to -energy facility. Two basic ingredients for project
viability, a stable supply of waste fuel and a market for steam, are
available. The city of Iowa City operates a landfill from which wastes
could be diverted to provide fuel for incineration. At the opposite end
of the process, steam produced from burning wastes could be sold to the
University of Iowa to reduce the amount of steam the University must
generate in-house.
The limits of project feasibility are determined by the current and
expected costs of alternative waste disposal and steam generation op-
tions. The project must offer, as a minimum, revenues and savings in
disposal costs equivalent to project costs. The steam sales price cannot
exceed the cost incurred by the University for steam generated by an al-
ternative fuel. If project costs are in excess of savings and revenues
generated by the assessment of competitive tipping fees and steam prices,
feasibility could still be possible given financial assistance from
federal or state sources. The economic and financial elements of this
study will be presented in two separate chapters. The determination of
economic feasibility will be discussed in this part with alternative
financial and implementation schemes presented in Part 5.
Economic Analysis Overview
To determine feasibility, with -project conditions are compared to
existing disposal practices. Cost and revenue differences generated by
the proposed project are quantified where possible and discussed in
general terms where data are unavailable or conditions are uncertain.
The upshot of the analysis is a graphic presentation of project benefits
compared to the existing disposal system. The breakeven steam price
represents that price necessary for a public entity to just cover project
capital and operation and maintenance costs given tipping fees and dis-
posal cost savings. Private enterprises requiring a profit margin would
thus require higher unit prices for steam and/or refuse disposal. A
7954
46
MICROFILMED BY
JORM MICROLAB
CEDAR RAPIDS -DES MOINES
20
V_
discussion of ownersb+-o. or management by a private entity appears in the
subsequent chapter.
Waste -generated steam can be supplied to the University at different
pressure/temperature specifications. This study analyzes the project
costs for the provision of 220 psig/500°F and 475 psig/760°F steam. The
representative system presented in Part 3 will produce 600 psig/600°F
maximum with waste fuel. Cost differences between the two alternatives
are associated with applying supplemental superheat for the 475 psig/
760°F steam alternative. Thus, the incinerator would require a higher
breakeven steam price with 475 psig steam, given tipping fees are equiva-
lent under the two proposals.
An additional requirement for project operation is that the Univer-
sity would supply return condensate and boiler make-up water to the in-
cinerator. Costs incurred by the University in providing this service
should be taken into consideration when negotiating a steam price between
the two parties.
A separate analysis is undertaken to determine the cost of steam
�I
generation to the University of Iowa using alternative fuels. This sets
the ceiling or breakeven price the University would be willing to pay for
-' waste -generated steam. The difference between the incinerator and Uni-
versity breakeven prices over the 20 -year project life, establishes the
upper and lower limits to project viability.
Alternative generation costs for the University would differ
_ substantially depending upon the specification of the waste -generated
steam they would be receiving. Steam supplied at 220 psig/500°F would
reduce the load on coal-fired boilers. Provision of 475 psig/760°F steam
would lower the steam requirement from oil- and gas-fired boilers. The
J
475 psig/760°F project is analyzed under two scenarios; the first
assumes oil and gas as the alternative fuels for the full 20 -year project
life while the second follows the power plant replacement schedule
— supplied by University personnel.
-� Existing Waste Disposal Operations
MSW - Waste disposal in Johnson County is limited to use of the Iowa
City landfill by both private haulers and city refuse collection vehi-
cles. The landfill is a breakeven operation, with the city charging a
I
i
i
7954 47
I
MICROFILMED BY
JORM MICRO_ LAB
CEDAR RAPIDS -DES I401NES
tipping fee to all users in order to cover operation and maintenance
expenses and build a landfill acquisition fund to meet future require-
ments. The current tipping fee is $5.10 per ton with an expected in-
crease on July 1, 1981, to $6.10 per ton. The 180 acre landfill, located
off County Road F-46 approximately 1 1/2 miles west of the city corporate
limits, is anticipated to reach capacity by the year 2014. An annual pay-
ment of $25,000 to a landfill reserve fund has been budgeted to partially
cover the purchase of a new 160 -acre site in 2014.
Table 12 displays historical and anticipated waste quantities
delivered to the landfill, categorized by type of hauler and type of
waste. As shown, total tonnage delivered to the landfill dropped in
1980. This is most likely attributable to the economic slowdown in the
construction industry, since most of the decrease was in waste delivered
by private haulers. The decrease in city -collected tonnage can be at-
tributed to a change in city policy requiring all residential buildings
of 4 units or more to contract privately for refuse collection. The city
only offers refuse collection service to 1, 2, and 3 -unit residential
dwellings.
Total waste quantity projections, derived in Part 1 of this report,
were based on an average of 3.20 pounds of waste per capita per day.
Landfill records indicate that approximately 85 percent of the waste is
delivered by private hauler. Thus, combustible and noncombustible per-
centages of privately hauled wastes are assumed equal to the average an-
nual share estimated in Part 1 at 70 percent and 30 percent respectively.
The city estimated the split between combustible and noncombustible
refuse for its collections. Bulky items discarded from residences, such
as furniture, appliances, and moving debris are collected by a "white
goods" truck. The city keeps separate records on this vehicle revealing
that the "white goods" truck hauls approximately 5 percent of the total
MSW collected by the city. This percentage is used to calculate the
noncombustible (and/or salvageable) portion of the city collected refuse.
MSS - The city is currently in Step 2 of a three step wastewater
improvement program. The final step involves the construction of a new
WPCF approximately 1 1/2 miles south of the present plant which is a
7954 48
MICROFILMED BY
'JORM MICROLAB
CEDAR RAPIDS -DES MOINES
129 6
__f
V_
TABLE 12
HISTORICAL AND PROJECTED WASTE QUANTITIES
DISPOSED AT LANDFILL
Combustible
1978
1979
1980
1985
2005
Total MSW (tone/year)
71,087
72,615
66,002
72,600
86,500
Private Hauler
59,780
60,739
54,811
60,300
71,800
City Collection
11,307
11,876
11,191
12,300
14,700
% City Collection
15.9
16.4
17.0
17.0
17.0
Average TPD
195
199
181
199
237
Private Hauler
164
166
150
165
197
City Collection
31
33
31
34
40
Private Hauler
164
166
150
165
197
Combustible
105
126
Noncombustible
60
71
City Collection
31 33 31 34
40
Combustible
32
38
Noncombustible
2
2
Source: City of Iowa City and Stanley Consultants, Inc.
proposed site alternative for the incineration project. Wastewater
sludge generated at the existing plant is biologically stabilized, dis-
charged to lagoons, and the dredged residue hauled to a land application
site. Disposal operations at the new plant will require chemical stabil-
ization and dewatering to a 50 percent solids filter cake which will be
hauled to the existing landfill. Projected MSS quantities of 16.9 TPD in
1985 and 19.5 TPD in 2005 were given in Table 3, on page 6.
With-Pr)ject Conditions
Implementation of the proposed waste incineration project would
change the complexion of refuse disposal operations from a relatively
low-cost program to a high-cost, capital -intensive endeavor. Revenues
from steam sales provide the main contribution in offsetting increased
costs, however savings in all phases of disposal operations generated by
7954 49
MICROFILMED BY
IJORM MICROLAB
CEDAR RAPIDS -DES 1401NES
I a%
...7
7
the project can be claimed as benefits. Table 13 summarizes cost and
revenue differences with and without the project.
Revenues - Revenues from tipping fees would not necessarily change
between with- and without -project scenarios; only the location of disposal
would change. Without the project, all tipping fees would be collected
at the landfill. With the project, tipping fees on combustible wastes
would be collected at the incinerator and fees for noncombustibles would
still accrue at the landfill. Fees paid by city collection vehicles are
excluded from both with- and without -project analyses because they do not
represent actual revenue to the city. Monies to cover tipping fees are
transferred from the city refuse collection fund to the city landfill
enterprise fund for accounting purposes only.
Revenues from steam sales are only present under with -project
conditions and represent a net positive benefit.
It is important to note that the proportions of revenue collected
from tipping fees and steam sales can be altered as long as the total
revenues received from both sources, coupled with savings in disposal
costs over the existing situation, are at least: equal to the total project
costs. For example, if the project sponsor can sell steam to the Univer-
sity at a price less than it costs the University to produce it but higher
than the breakeven price needed by the project sponsor to cover project
costs, excess revenue is being generated. This allows the project sponsor
the option to lower tipping fees to eliminate the excess or operate at a
profit. The reverse situation can also occur where an increase in tipping
fees can be used to offset a deficit in steam sales revenues. This latter
situation could occur if the cost of alternative steam generation is less
than the breakeven price needed for waste -generated steam.
Costs - Cost items included in disposal activities can be divided
into several categories, as shown in Table 13. Capital and 06M costs for
the incinerator would only occur under with -project conditions. These two
cost items would differ depending on the pressure of steam generated by
the project. Both construction and 06M costs are higher under the 475
paig/760°F steam proposal because of superheater installation and auxil-
iary fuel needed to operate the superheater.
7954 50
I a96
MICROFILMED BY
JORM MICROLAB
CEDAR RAPIDS -DES MOINES
V
Ln
41
A
Ln
W
TABLE 13
DISPOSAL COSTS AND REVENUES WITH- AND WITHOUT -PROJECT
Revenues
Tipping Fees
Private Haulers - MSW
City Collection - MSW,
MSS
Steam Sales
Costs
Incinerator
Capital Cost
06M Expense
Collection
Private
City
Haul to Disposal Site
Private
City - Combustible
- Noncombustible
- MSS
- Ash
MSS Treatment
Landfill 06M
Year Landfill Replacement
Needed
Without -Project
Net Benefit
With -Project With -Project
Fee x tons Fee x tone 0
Same as with -project Same as without -project 0.
0 $/1,000 lbs x The +
0
0
Same as with -project
Same as with -project
Same as with -project
Miles to landfill x
$/truck -mile
Miles to landfill x
$/truck -mile
Miles to landfill x
$/truck -mile
0
Cost lime/ton filter
cake x tons
Current cost escalated
)w
-.P Source: Stanley Consultants, Inc.
j
2014
j MICROFILMED BY
JORM MICROLAB
CEDAR RAPIDS -DES 140INES
Current coat, escalated
Current cost, escalated
Same as without -project
Same as without -project
Same as without -project
Miles to incinerator x
$/truck -mile
Miles to landfill x
$/truck -mile
Miles to incinerator x
$/truck -mile
Miles to landfill x
$/truck -mile
0
(Current cost) x (1-% volume
reduced), escalated
2034
0
0
0
0
Lower with -project collection costs incurred by private haulers
could have an effect on landfill or incinerator operations in that the
haulers may be willing to pay higher tipping fees. However, for this
project, it will be assumed that changes in collection or transportation
costs incurred by private haulers will be passed on by the hauler to the
individual or company contracting with that hauler and thus will not
i
alter with- and without -project conditions.
Some alteration in city refuse collection practices may be required
with the project in order to assure efficient separation of combustible
and noncombustible wastes. The necessity and magnitude of this change is
indeterminant at this stage of analysis but it is not expected to be a
significant cost increase. Thus collection practices are assumed to be
identical under with- and without -project conditions.
City haul costs to a disposal site once wastes have been collected
can be significantly reduced with the project. Using the city mainte-
nance garage at 1200 South Riverside as a base, haul costs for combus-
tible MSW are essentially eliminated as the incinerator would be situated
less than 1/2 mile away given a location at either Site A or B. Noncom-
bustible MSW would still require trucking to the landfill, a roundtrip of
16 miles, and would not represent a change from the existing situation.
iWithout the project, stabilized MSS would be hauled from the WPCF to the
landfill, a 19 -mile roundtrip, as opposed to a 3 -mile roundtrip to the
-- incinerator with the project. One additional transportation cost incur-
red with the project is hauling residual ash from the incinerator to the
landfill.
O&M expenses at the landfill are labor intensive and thus sensitive
to the amount of refuse disposed at the site. With -project landfill 06M
costs are proportionate to the volume reduction at the landfill. Coupled
with the volume reduction is an extended life of the existing landfill.
Both lower 06M costs and extended landfill life are positive benefits to
the project.
One final cost differential is captured by MSS disposal costs with
- and without the project. MSS haul costs have been addressed above.
Existing disposal conditions would necessitate chemical stablization of
i
7954
52
MICROFILMED BY
JORM MICROLAB
CEDAR RAPIDS -DES MOINES
L.,
l a 96
-1.
-.7
�1
Pi_
the MSS filter cake whereas direct incineration of the MSS would not.
This again represents a positive benefit attributable to the project.
— Project Breakeven Analysis
The magnitude of disposal cost savings or increases generated by the
project are assessed against the construction and operation and mainte-
nance costs of the incinerator to determine the revenue needed from steam
sales for the project to be feasible. Base year (1985) costs with and
Without the project are calculated and escalated using several differ-
— ent annual escalation rates. Benefits are expressed in terms of the
present worth of the annual cost savings over a 20 -year period, assuming
a range or discount rates.
I
A base case using an 8 percent average annual escalation rate and a
-' 10 percent discount rate has been selected. Discussion and comparison of
results from this scenario with those from alternative scenarios assuming
J various discount and escalation rates are presented later in this sec-
tion. Tables 14 and 15 summarize net benefits and steam sales revenue
J requirements for the generation of 220 psig/500°F and 475 psig/760°F
_ steam, respectively. Cost and revenue items listed in the tables are
Jdiscussed in detail below.
Revenue from Tipping Fees - Total revenue received from the assess -
I ment of tipping fees with and without the project does not differ. Fees
charged at the incinerator must be competitive with those charged at the
landfill to assure that the required quantity of combustible wastes is
I �
I- brought to the incinerator. For the base condition, tipping fees at both
17 locations are assumed equal and escalated at an 8 percent annual rate,
from a 1981 cost of $6.10 per ton. This yields a 1985 tipping fee of
i
$7.68 per ton.
Landfill Cost Savings - 06M costs decrease proportionately with the
reduction in waste volumes brought to the landfill over the 20 year eco-
nomic life of the incinerator. Thus, with -project 06M coats are assumed
to be 62 percent less than without -project costs. Current landfill O&M
-� expenses have been supplied by the city and escalated 8 percent per year
throughout the project life.
I
7954
`-- 53
1296
MICROFILMED BY
JORM MICROLAB
CEDAR RAPIDS -DES 140INES
V_
_
TABLE 14
SUMMARY OF BASE CASE BREAKEVEN PROJECT COSTS AND
BENEFITS FOR 220 PSIG/500°F STEAM
1985 Present Worth ($1,000)
Without -Project With -Project Net Benefit
Revenue
Tipping Fees
-.-
Landfill $ 7,701.5
$ 2,789.1
$-4,912.4
iIncinerator
0
4,912.4
4,912.4
Steam Sales 0
29,533.3
29,533.3
Total $ 7,701.5
$37,234.8
$29,533.3
Costs
Landfill 06M and Reserve $ 6,847.0
$ 2,836.8
$ 4,010.2
^.
Raul 2,156.9
955.8
1,201.1
_
Combustible MSW 1,472.9
0
1,472.9
Noncombustible MSW 25.8
25.8
0
MSS 658.2
Residual Ash 0
94.0
836.0
564.2
-836.0
Sludge Treatment 1,812.9
0
1,812.9
Capital Outlay -Incinerator 0
17,481.4
-17,481.4
06M - Incinerator 0
19,076.1
-19,076.1
Total $10,816.8
$40,350.1
$-29,533.3
Net Revenue
0
Source: Stanley Consultants, Inc.
_J
—
Haul Cost Savings - Transportation costs
associated
with the dis-
posal of MSW and MSS differ significantly with- and without
-project. As
mentioned earlier, the 16 -mile roundtrip from
the city garage
to the
J
landfill is eliminated for combustible wastes,
the disposal
route for MSS
_
is reduced from a 19 -mile to a 3 -mile roundtrip,
noncombustible haul
costs are unchanged, and an additional 16 -mile
roundtrip
is required for
_i
residual ash disposal. All wastes are assumed
to be carried
in a 24 -
4
cubic yard vehicle with a 1981 cost per mile assessed
at
$2.50. Labor,
fuel, and maintenance costs are included in the per mile
charge and an
-.I
annual escalation rate of 8 percent is again incorporated
in the analysis.
I_
7954 54
1a 94
j MICROFILMED BY
'.JORM MICROLAB
CEDAR RAPIDS -DES MOINES
S
TABLE 15
SUMMARY OF BASE CASE BREAKEVEN PROJECT COSTS AND
BENEFITS FOR 475 PSIG/760°F STEAM
_
1985 Present Worth ($1 000)
Without -Project With -Project Net Benefit
Revenue
Tipping Fees
__.
Landfill $
7,701.5
$ 2,789.1 $-4,912.4
Incinerator
0
4,912.4 4,912.4
Steam Sales
0
33,395.9 33,395.9
Total $
7,701.5
$41,097.4 $33,395.9
Costs
--
Landfill O&H and Reserve $
6,847.0
i
$ 2,836.8 $ 4,010.2
—
Haul
2,156.9
955.8 1,201.1
Combustible MSW
1,472.9
0 1,472.9
Noncombustible MSW
25.8
25.8 0
MSS
Residual Ash
658.2
0
94.0 564.2
836.0 -836.0
Sludge Treatment
1,812.9
0 1,812.9
—1
Capital Outlay—Incinerator
0
18,005.8 —18,005.8
06M - Incinerator
0
22,414.3 -22,414.3
Total $10,816.8
$44,212.7 $-33,395.9
-
Net Revenue
I
0
Source: Stanley Consultants, Inc.
i
-
Thus a benefit of over $1.2 million
can be
realized throughout the
project life.
�
MSS Treatment Savings - Codisposal
of
MSS offers a positive contri-
bution toward project feasibility.
The savings
in MSS haul costs, docu-
mented above, total approximately
$397,000
(haul cost savings of $564,200
leas $167,200 or 20 percent of the
residual
ash disposal cost). The only i
other item concerning MSS disposal
which differs
with- and without -project
i
is chemical stabilization. Without
the project,
the MSS filter cake must
be treated with sufficient quick lime for high
I
pH stabilization. This
—'
adds approximately 10 percent to the MSS mass,
thus the haul costs
_f
7954
55
MICROFILMED BY
'JORM MICROLAB
CEDAR RAPIDS -DES MOINES
L.'.
assessed above included a 10 percent increment in sludge volume trans-
ported to the landfill without the project. With incineration of the
sludge, lime stabilization of MSS is not required. The savings are as-
sumed to be equal to the cost of 200 lbs of lime per ton of filter cake
_ (50 percent solids). Present costs of lime are approximately $65 per ton
which equates to a cost of $6.50 per ton of filter cake. Annual cost
_ escalation is again set at 8 percent, producing a net benefit of $1.8
million from lime savings.
The combined benefit from haul and treatment cost savings of $2.2
million outweighs the additional $70,000 in capital cost of the inciner-
ator for installation of sludge storage and conveyance equipment. A
portion of the OhM expenses can be attributed solely to MSS handling, but
this amount is considered negligible. Burning of the MSS filter cake at
50 percent moisture content requires slightly less energy than it pro-
duces. Realizing the MSS filter cake moisture content will vary signifi-
cantly, the increased heat released by coincineration of MSS with MSW is
I
considered negligible but not negative.
Capital Cost of Incinerator - The construction cost of the
I
incineration facility and its auxiliary units has been fully discussed in
Part 3. The current cost of the facility providing steam at 220 psig/
500°F pressure is $12,500,000. Facility costs increase by $375,000 to
$12,875,000 with the addition of superheaters to generate 475 psig/760°F
steam. Current coats are escalated at 8 percent annually and are con-
verted to 1985 present values under the assumption that half the money
for the project will be borrowed in 1983 and the second half in 1984. An
interest rate of 10 percent is charged for use of money during the 2 year
construction phase.
Operation and Maintenance Costs of Incinerator - Base year 06M costs
for the facility for 220 psig/500°F and 475 psig/760°F steam generation
are $1,255,000 and $1,420,000 in 1985 dollars, respectively. Composite
annual escalation rates of 7.87 percent for 220 psig/500°F steam and
8.33 percent for 475 psig/ 760°F steam yield 2005 00 cost projections of
-- $5,714,000 and $7,036,000. Present worth over the 20 -year project life
i
is discounted at 10 percent.
i
_ 7954 56
1a94
MICROFILMED BY
JORM MICROLAB
CEDAR RAPIDS•DES MOINES
i
�r
E
Revenues from Steam Sales - Summation of the difference between the
above with- and without -project costs and savings yields the present
worth of the revenue required from steam sales over the project life.
The amount of revenue received in 1985 is then divided by the volume of
steam generated during that year to find the base 1985 steam price the
incinerator must charge to cover the life time cost of the facility.
Table 16 presents the relationship between tipping fees and the
breakeven price per 1,000 lbs steam needed by the incinerator project.
Fees and prices are given in 1981 and 1985 dollar equivalents.
TABLE 16
BREAKEVEN STEAM PRICE AND
TIPPING FEE FOR PROJECT FEASIBILITYI
Actual Cost
1981 1985
Revenues: k2a8, 1310
Tipping Fee
$6.10
$7.68
Steam Price
220 psig/500°F
$4.90
$6.67
475 psig/760°F
$5.54
$7.54
Revenues: k-�6, 1-8
Tipping fee
$6.10
$7.27
Steam Price
220 psig/500°F
$5.75
$7.26
475 psig/760°F
$7.20
$9.10
Revenues: k-10, 1-12
Tipping fee
$6.10
$8.12
Steam Price
220 psig/500°F
$4.32
$6.32
475 psig/760°F
$4.84
$7.08 j
'Tipping fee - $/ton, steam price -
$/1,000 lbs
ill
2k - escalation rate
31 - interest rate
Source: Stanley Consultants, Inc.
i
7954 57
la96
i MICROFILMED BY
JORM MICROLAB
CEDAR RAPIDS•DES MOINES
Y__ ._.,._•ice--� - --- L ., �_ _ itr .�
Figures 8A and 8B show the relationship between annual project bene-
fits and costs at a breakeven level of operation. Benefits are composed
of revenues generated by a breakeven steam sales price and savings in
haul, MSS treatment, and landfill ODM costs. Project costs equal the
amortized capital costs (20 years at 10 percent) plus annual 06M ex-
penses. Annual benefits from either the 220 psig/500°F (Benefit 1) or
— 475 psig/760°F (Benefit 2) steam projects do not cover project costs
until 1997 under the breakeven analysis.
_ Alternative benefit levels, controlled by the cost of steam gener-
ation by alternative fuels at the University,
ed
n the
next section. Comparison of the cost and benefit lflows be vover tthe irange of
benefit levels will give a better indication of the financial arrange-
ments which should be pursued to help cover revenue deficits in the early
years of the project.
Summary of Project Breakeven Analysis - Table 16 also gives steam
— prices required under two alternative scenarios, the first of which as-
sumes 6 percent escalation and 8 percent discount and the second 10 per-
cent escalation and 12 percent discount rates. In all cases, tipping fee
revenues have a zero net contribution toward offsetting the costa of the
_ project.
iThe higher escalation and discount rate assumptions have a favorable
_ impact on project steam prices. Current dollar steam prices range from
i
$4.32/1,000 lbs to $5.75/1,000 lbs of 220 psig/500°F steam over the
discount and escalation rates examined. Table 17 illustrates the Impact
- the various rate assumptions have on the net savings the project offers
over existing condition hauling, MSS treatment, and landfill 06M costs.
Discount and escalation rate scenarios were chosen representing
_ recent experience. The past years have witnessed inflation rates of over
12 and 13 percent. Though there is no foreseeable end to these high
^I rates of increase, calculation of annual cost increases of 6 to 10 per-
cent over a long period of time are realistic. Historical increases in
coat elements involved in this project vary. For example, wages have
lost ground to inflation over the last several years while transportation
cost increases have fueled much of the overall escalation.
i—
7954
58
/aLq�
MICROFILMED BY
JORM MICRO_ LAB
CEDAR RAPIDS -DES MOINES
_l
I I II I
-r ;- =T
,
I i
7-___
` -7 BREAKEVENIPROJEC
T REI
I � „ i; l I VENUES PLUS SAVINGS= BENEFIT 1 I
1
12 - L I I,III I;I.
! -
-L i
I I I
I li I
{ 1 _ 1 1 I ' I_I I II-III _ ' �/ I/ h I {_ F •_.
111 _jjt1 11.._I 1 it III Ir,i ~�/ !�'�IIIT-
J 8 �,It /j VIII:
0
�
.. - f I-II I I
11 I
6 _.t....l� .III. II/��:
I II 1 1..!Ji III'• I _ I/ _1 { j_L. j I.
ill_ I' I'I
4
I- I -I `. •- �' �'' i j y✓� l -t -f- {., i l � I f l l l� I I 1 1
2 /�- t �LAND.E-1ILLl_0&M_SAV_I GSA:
J II�.�I�I II�i ilii I'II,:i MSS.TREATMENT- SAVIINGSI,fi i!
'{ I, r _! NAUL,9AV.INGS
I- (STEAM SALES 'REVENUE-
.
I I PROJEOT fI Ili.
I
i - 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005
i
j SUMMARY OF COSTS, REVENUES AND SAVINGS
FOR BREAKEVEN 220 PSig/500°F STEAM PROJECT
-j STANLEY CONSULTANTS Figure HA
M[NY[YNLL COM4R\W[[ N [YpW[[ W0, [M...(LIYR[. N WNM..p WMtlIKNf
MICROFILMED BY
JORM MICRO_ LAB
CEDAR RAPIDS -DES MOINES
i
f
I II
1
r; BRE NEVEN PROJE
CT REVENUES PLUS SAVINGS .=BENEFIT:
- 12 '
:I T - r
t
rl, f
_I
1 _
z_: ,
,; I i1 I- l l a 1 t�.�-.I ' _I/ 1 I-.,.. Li �-I ;-1:. i t-•
1-
^I I
+i"
1
#U] i i fI
`J
t I� 1]J
I l
- I t i -I I r l
I � ,
-i
2. t, f
,LANDFIILl106-SAV I
G
SAVIGS
.IREATMET1SAV I NGS
NAOLA SIII
STEAM !SALES REVENUE
PROJECT COSTS 1
_j
j jii i
0 lillil III ( ,
J 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005
r� SUMMARY OF COSTS, REVENUES AND SAVINGS
FOR BREAKEVEN 475 Psig/760°F STEAM PROJECT
STANLEY CONSULTANTS Figure SB
,� M[1µL1{n1LLOMR[LHICN[WM[11N0,[RCHII[CIUR[. RLHµI.q Lkt.uMlpLYH1 (I
laq f
MICROFILMED BY
'JORM MICROLAB
CEDAR RAPIDS -DES MOINES
i
tom.•„
V° _
Y
TABLE 17
NET COST SAVINGS GENERATED BY THE PROJECT
UNDER ALTERNATIVE ESCALATION AND DISCOUNT RATES
(1985 $000)
Cost Savings
Landfill 06M, Reserve
Haul
Combustible MSW
Noncombustible MSW
MSS
Residual Ash
Sludge Treatment
Total
Project Costs
Capital -220 psig/500°F Steam
06M-220 psig/500°F Steam
Total
Low Medium 1 (Base) High
k-6., 1-8% k�8 10 T 10%, 1-12%
$ 3,696.6 $ 4,010.2 $ 4,095.3
1,134.2 1,201.1 1,271.7
1,389.7 1,472.9 1,560.4
0 0 0
532.2 564.2 596.8
-787.7 -836.0 -885.5
1,709.6 1,812.9 1,922.9
$ 6,540.4 $ 7,024.2 $ 7,289.9
$16,230.4 $17,481.4 $18,803.4
22,984.0 19,076.1 16,058.4
$39,214.4 $26,557.5 $34,861.8
Capital -475 psig/760°F Steam
$16,717.4
$18,005.8
$18,821.5
06M-475 psig/760°F Steam
27,075.7
22,414.3
19,367.5
Total
$43,793.1
$40,420.1
$38,189.0
Revenue Required from Steam Sales
Breakeven 220 paig/500°F Project $32,674.0 $29,533.3 $27,571.9
Breakeven 475 psig/760°F Project $37,252.7 $33,395.9 $30,899.1
Source: Stanley Consultants, Inc.
An evaluation of the appropriate discount rate is heavily dependent
upon the method of financing chosen for project implementation. General
obligation bonds are currently being offered at 10 percent while it is
anticipated that municipally -backed revenue bonds may require a 12 to
7954
59
MICROFILMED BY
JORM MICROLAB
CEDAR RAPIDS -DES MOINES
laq�
15 percent interest rate within the next year. Rates available to pri-
vate entities are higher yet. A more complete discussion of financial
opportunities will be provided in Part 5.
It is not the intent of this study to determine exact tipping fees
and steam prices necessary for project feasibility. Instead, a range of
cost and revenue scenarios have been provided to illustrate the sensi-
tivity of the project to variable economic conditions and opportunities.
The test of project viability can more accurately be assessed by compar-
ing the breakeven analysis presented above with the coat of alternative
sources of steam generation. Derivation of the comparable alternative
steam generation costs that would be incurred by the University without
the project is presented in the next section.
Alternative Cost of Generation to the University
A review of the University power plant steam production specifica-
tions was provided in Table 6. Figure 1 gave a clear picture of where
waste -generated steam would be introduced into the University system.
Steam provided at 220 prig/500"F would reduce the generation requirement
from coal-fired boilers only.
Higher pressure steam would decrease the load on Boilers 7 through
10. Boilers 7, 8, and 9 are oil- and gas-fired units, are more expensive
to operate and thus, would be the likely candidates to have a portion of
their load replaced by waste -generated steam. Currently, the University
generates just over 30 percent of its total yearly load by oil or gas.
This amounts to approximately 700,000,000 lb/yr or 80,000 lb/hr, if the
oil and gas usage were evenly distributed throughout the year. Waste -
generated steam, initially supplied at a rate of 30,000 lb/hr could
potentially halve this requirement as the waste stream grows. Thus, for
project analyses, waste -generated steam provided at 475 prig/760°F is
compared to the cost of a 50-50 oil/gas yearly fuel use throughout the
project life.
Previous studies and conversations with University personnel indi-
cate plans for installation of additional coal-fired capacity to replace
the existing oil and gas units. An alternative scenario is presented
which compares the cost of high pressure waste -generated steam to the
7954 60
la%
MICROFILMED BY
'JORM MICROLAB
CEDAR RAPIDS -DES MOINES
projected coal/oil/gas generation schedule at the University. ^Figure 9
gives the projected percentage of University steam use generated by oil
or gas, as supplied by physical plant staff. As shown, reliance on oil
and gas is expected to increase until 1986. The planned addition of a
new unit in this year increases the coal generation capacity by 170,000
lb/hr and decreases dependence on oil and gas to 2 percent. It is not
totally eliminated because peak hour use could still exceed the maximum
coal generation capacity. The oil and gas generation requirement jumps
up again in 1989 with the projected retirement of two 65,000 lb/hr coal-
fired boilers (5 and 6). A second coal-fired unit is added in 1992 and
drops the oil and gas load to a minimal level. Dismantling of Boilers 7
and 8 in 1995 has little impact on power plant operation as the oil and
gas backup needed at this time can easily be supplied by Boiler 9. The
University power plant is projected to be 100 percent coal-fired by 1998,
with the third 170,000 lb/hr boiler coming on-line. Appendix A contains
the details of the power plant replacement schedule.
University personnel provided historical information on generation,
capacity, and efficiencies of individual boilers and overall power plant
operation. Current costs for coal, oil, and gas were also obtained.
National data on historical and projected fuel costs have been examined
and compared to costs incurred by the University. Figure 10 presents
current and projected national fuel costs and current prices paid by the
University for these fuels expressed in current dollars. For use in this
analysis, University fuel costs were escalated at national rates to
project alternative generation costs throughout the 20 -year project life.
Average annual escalation rates equate to 11.66 percent for coal, 14.61
percent for oil, and 16.19 percent for gas (Reference 3). Table 18 gives
the cost incurred by the University for steam generation by these alter-
native fuels. The coal costs represent the highest price the University
would be willing to pay for waste -generated 220 prig/500°F steam from the
Incinerator. The oil/gas and oil/gas/coal costs give the ceiling prices
the University would pay for 475 psig/760°F steam generated by
incineration.
7954 61
MICROFILMED BY
JORM MICRO_ LAB
CEDAR RAPIDS -DES MOINES
ia96
I V_
1_
I
I -
�
z
�
w
30
I
o-
1
w
20
J
W
Oj.1._1
I 1I.i.l
I�
_..I
CD
CD
F-
�'
CD
1985
0
IAO
i
w
6
I I
I --
1
i
STANLEY CONSULTANTS
nrtx.twncweurxtt�tw�.tttw .x•nrcrux. n•.�..o
MICROFILMED BY
'JORM MICROLAB
CEDAR RAPIDS -DES MOINES
IRY6
.I.
�.
30
I
20
Oj.1._1
I 1I.i.l
I�
_..I
1985
IAO
I I
I --
1
i
STANLEY CONSULTANTS
nrtx.twncweurxtt�tw�.tttw .x•nrcrux. n•.�..o
MICROFILMED BY
'JORM MICROLAB
CEDAR RAPIDS -DES MOINES
IRY6
V-
HISTORICAL AND PROJECTED
NATIONAL FUEL COSTS
MSTANLEY - CONSULTANTS - . ...... FIgure 10
------------- -
MICROFILMED By
IJOIRM MICROLAB
CEDAR RAPIDS•DES 140INES
laY6
--I
1%—
TABLE 18
PROJECTED ALTERNATIVE STEAM GENERATION COSTS FOR THE
UNIVERSITY OF IOWA
1985 Present Worth ($1,000)
of Total Coat Where i -
1981
1985
2005
$/1,000 lb Steam
$ 31,368.8
$25,359.3
$20,802.5
Coal
$2.66
$ 4.14
$ 37.53
Oi"/Gas (50-50)
5.18
9.19
161.16
Coal/Oil/Gas
3.47
6.01
37.53
Steam Volume Replaced by
Waste -fuel Generation
(1,000 lb yr)
-
266,041.2
318,189.5
Total Cost ($1,000)
Coal
-
$ 1,101.4
$11,941.7
Oil/Gas (50-50)
-
2,444.9
51,279.4
Coal/011/Gas
-
1,598.9
11,941.7
1985 Present Worth ($1,000)
of Total Coat Where i -
8%
10%
12%
Coal
$ 31,368.8
$25,359.3
$20,802.5
Oil/Gas (50-50)
101,444.6
80,455.9
64,734.5
Coal/Oil/Gas
33,899.9
27,641.7
22,871.1
Source: Stanley Consultants, Inc.
Comparison of Incinerator and University Breakeven Analyses
The preceding sections have established the lowest acceptable steam
price, represented by the incinerator breakeven analysis, and the highest
acceptable steam price, represented by the alternative generation coat
incurred by the University for steam equivalent to that provided by the
incinerator. This section will discuss how these prices compare under
low and high pressure steam project alternatives and how they relate to
overall project feasibility.
Figures 11A and B show how the steam price needed to breakeven on
incineration operation compares to the coat of alternative fuel gener-
ation. As readily visible on Figure 11A, the cost of steam generation by
coal does not exceed the breakeven price required by the incinerator
until 2000. Thus the University would not be willing to purchase waste -
generated steam until this time.
7954 62
I MICROFILMED BY
'JORM MICRO_ LAB
CEDAR RAPIDS -DES 140INES
19,946
7(
60
w
w
m 40
J
O
O
O
30
20
ml
Kli
I Jou Iaoo jams iaaC zuuu 2005
U OF I STEAM COSTS VS. INCINERATOR
220 psig/500°F BREAKEVEN STEAM PRICE
STANLEY CONSULTANTS Figure' 11A
.l.WµC 1.11 W IMIMW.. IMNITICW.C. R... I.. YY .M
I MICROFILMED BY
JORM MICROLAB
:CEDAR RAPIDS -DES MOINES
►a9 6
...7
t MICROFILMED By
'JORM MICROLAB
CEDAR RAPIDS•DES MOINES
Looking at Figure 1113, it is evident that the cost/1,000 lb of steam
generated by oil and gas is substantially higher than the price required
to operate the incinerator at the breakeven point. Looking at the second
scenario, coal generation coming on-line in 1986 immediately drops the al-
ternative generation cost below the breakeven price, and follows an ir-
regular cost path as the power plant undergoes additions and retirements.
A better idea of how these costa relate to project feasibility can be
gained by present worth comparisons given in Table 19.
TABLE 19
SUMMARY OF PROJECT BENEFIT AND COST ALTERNATIVES
475 psig/760°F Steam
Breakeven $40.4 $40.4 $ 0
Steam Price Equal to Coal/Oil/Gas
Generation Coat Following Boiler
Replacement Schedule $34.7 $40.4 $-5.7
Steam Price Equal to Oil/Gas
Generation Cost $87.5 $40.4 $47.1
1present values figured using a discount rate of 10 percent.
Source: Stanley Consultants, Inc.
The present worth of project costs for provision of low pressure
steam to the University amounts to $36.6 million. Revenues received from
steam sales coupled with savings in haul, MSS treatment, landfill 0&M
costs must offset the costs in order for the project to breakeven over
the 20 -year period. However, the present value of the alternative coal
7954
63
0 96
MICROFILMED BY
IJORM MICROLAB
i CEDAR RAPIDS -DES MOINES
1985 Present
Worth ($
Million)1
Benefits
Costs
Net
220 psig/500°F Steam
Breakeven
$36.6
$36.6
$ 0
Steam Price Equal to
Coal Generation Cost
$32.4
$36.6
$-4.2
475 psig/760°F Steam
Breakeven $40.4 $40.4 $ 0
Steam Price Equal to Coal/Oil/Gas
Generation Coat Following Boiler
Replacement Schedule $34.7 $40.4 $-5.7
Steam Price Equal to Oil/Gas
Generation Cost $87.5 $40.4 $47.1
1present values figured using a discount rate of 10 percent.
Source: Stanley Consultants, Inc.
The present worth of project costs for provision of low pressure
steam to the University amounts to $36.6 million. Revenues received from
steam sales coupled with savings in haul, MSS treatment, landfill 0&M
costs must offset the costs in order for the project to breakeven over
the 20 -year period. However, the present value of the alternative coal
7954
63
0 96
MICROFILMED BY
IJORM MICROLAB
i CEDAR RAPIDS -DES MOINES
V-
generation cost totals $25.4 million. Revenues generated from steam sold
at a coal generation equivalent price coupled with savings of $7 million
provide a total benefit of $32.4 million. This is $4.2 million shy of
the breakeven benefit requirement. A low pressure steam project cannot
be justified without some form of subsidy to reduce the capital or 0&M
costs of the incinerator to a point equal to or less than the coal
equivalent benefit.
For the higher pressure steam project, a total of $40.4 million in
steam sales revenues and cost savings is required over the 20 -year period
to cover project capital and 0&M costs. Revenues from a steam price set
equivalent to the cost of oil and gas generation over the project life,
coupled with project savings yields a total benefit of $87.5 million.
This figure is $47.1 million greater than project coats. Assuming the
University follows its projected power plant replacement schedule, alter-
native generation equivalent revenues plus savings total $34.7 million,
which is $5.7 million deficient in covering project costa.
Alteration of the discount rate assumption does not change project
viability. The 220 paig/500°F project remains infeasible. The 475 prig/
760°F project remains feasible only if the University does not realize
its renovation schedule. Waste generated steam cannot compete with an
upgraded power plant.
Figures 12A and 128 display the possible benefit and cost streams
for the 220 paig/500°F and 475 paig/760°F steam projects respectively.
Benefit 1, shown on Figure 12A is equivalent to the summation of break-
even steam revenues plus project savings shown on Figure 8A. Benefit 3
is composed of revenues from a steam price set equal to the University
coal generation cost plus project savings. As shown, Benefit 3 does not
exceed Benefit 1 until 2000, thus preventing project feasibility without
some form of subsidy.
Figure 12B presents breakeven level benefits (Benefit 2) and project
costa equivalent to those given on Figure 8B. Benefit streams 4 and 5
represent alternative ceiling benefit levels, depending upon future oper-
ations at the University power plant. If new coal-fired boilers are
added, Benefit 4 forms the upper limit to project viability. If no new
7954 64
MICROFILMED BY
JORM MICROLAB
CEDAR RAPIDS•DES 140INES
W6
V,_
I
I
12
10
0
8
f
ar
6
4
2
0
1985
STANLEY CONSULTANTS
n.ux.[nxu couu[w[[ n [wwcenno,.ncxn[c[un[,
1990 1995 2000 2005
COMPARISON OF POSSIBLE
220 psig/500°F BENEFIT STREAMS
Figure 12A
,xnx�.xoxxx�._x, I a9 6
1 MICROFILMED BY
JORM MICROLAB
CEDAR RAPIDS•DES MOINES
1.1
25
0
J
20
erg
15
3
0
I.
I . .I
.; ..
NET PRESENT WORTH
1`
r_T BIENEEIT
i_rf{1'I!
51�
1
BENEF.IT.2 BREAKEVEN�PROJECT
REVENUES'PLUS
SAVINGS! $0
BENEFIT.4 = COAL/O.IL/GAS
EQUIVALENT
REVENUES LUS _: MILLION
{� P $ —5 7 M I
55
--+ SAVINGS
— - — —1
1 ----
BENEFIT 5 010GAS EQUIVALENT
REVENUES
PLUS SAVINGS $47.1 MILLION
I J, _1:BENEFI
—
t
�_
_il
BENEFIT
1if�
I
50
{
;;=lr{fI
-
[Ti-at,ll
.,;l.a,
--
I t ,
PROJECT�COSTS�
1
{—
I
�
�
I
1.
I
45
A A
25
0
J
20
erg
15
3
0
I
—� 1985 1990
I V_,
STANLEY CONSULTANTS
MP1M.IfM4 CMy,u1f� M [gM[Pq. PMxx[[,VM. RPYMq..q VMV[•RN
1995 2000 2005
COMPARISON OF POSSIBLE
475 psig/760°F BENEFITSTREAMS
Figure 12B
Ia96
MICROFILMED BY
JORM MICROLAB
CEDAR RAPIDS -DES MOINES
Ad r.
1
■
1`
r_T BIENEEIT
i_rf{1'I!
51�
1
_
I-..
!
I J, _1:BENEFI
—
_I 1 I {_I 14
�_
_il
BENEFIT
1if�
I
;;=lr{fI
[Ti-at,ll
.,;l.a,
1
PROJECT�COSTS�
{—
I
�
�
I
I
I
�!_,I ,i
;,
I 'Ilii
�, :ifs
I i
1 �•
I
�
I
—� 1985 1990
I V_,
STANLEY CONSULTANTS
MP1M.IfM4 CMy,u1f� M [gM[Pq. PMxx[[,VM. RPYMq..q VMV[•RN
1995 2000 2005
COMPARISON OF POSSIBLE
475 psig/760°F BENEFITSTREAMS
Figure 12B
Ia96
MICROFILMED BY
JORM MICROLAB
CEDAR RAPIDS -DES MOINES
Ad r.
1
■
Ir-
generation capacity is added, Benefit 5 provides the upper bound. Bene-
fit stream 5 exceeds project costs by 1989. Under breakeven conditions,
this does not occur until 1997. Benefit stream 4 does not supply benefits
in excess of costs until late in the year 2000.
It is necessary to realize that following the Benefit 2 curve dic-
tates that the University accrues the entire advantage of reduced steam
costa, while following Benefit stream 5 allows the total advantage to fall
to the incinerator owner. Thus a realistic benefit stream would fall
within the range between these extremes with both the University and the
incinerator owner receiving some portion of the project gains.
Summary
Table 20 defines the range of alternative steam prices which would be
acceptable to the two entities involved in the project, given no grants or
subsidies are available. The tipping fee assumed in the project analysis
Is given at the top of the table as a reference point.
TABLE 20
RANGE OF POSSIBLE STEAM PRICES
Tipping Fee
220 psig/500°F Steam
Steam Price/1,000 lbs (Incinerator Breakeven)
Steam Price/1,000 lbs Equal to Coal Gener-
ation Coat (University Breakeven)
475 psig/760°F Steam
Steam Price/1,000 The (Incinerator Breakeven)
Steam Price/1,000 lbs Equal to Oil/Gas Gener-
ation Cost (University Breakeven)
Steam Price/1,000 lbs Equal to Coal/011/Gas
Generation Cost Projected by University
(University Breakeven)
Source: Stanley Consultants, Inc.
7954 65
i MICROFILMED BY
'JORM MICROLAB
CEDAR RAPIDS•DES MOINES
Actual
1981 1985 2005
$6.10 $7.68 $38.68
$4.90 $6.67 $31.07
$2.66 $4.14 $37.53
$5.54 $7.54 $35.14
$5.18 $9.19 $161.16
$3.47 $6.01 $37.53
I age
V< _
Under the low pressure steam alternative, no mutually acceptable
price can be identified. The price required for the incinerator operator
^ to break even is higher than it would cost the University to generate
equivalent steam by coal.
The range of acceptable steam prices under the higher pressure
alternative is very broad given no power plant renovations. Given
project implementation in 1985, a steam sales price would be negotiated
j somewhere in the range of $7.54 to $9.19/1,000 lb.
I--I Following the projected power plant renovation schedule would not
— produce a feasible project. Prior to the year 2000, the price the Uni-
varsity would be willing to pay for waste -generated steam is less than
the price the incinerator would require for breakeven operation.
_J It should be noted that all costs associated with implementation of
a coincineration facility have been included in the breakeven project
analyses. In calculating the alternative fuel cost streams, however,
only the cost of the fuel itself has been taken into consideration. No
operation and maintenance or construction costs associated with the
J
existing boilers or planned additions have been included. 06M charges
—' were excluded primarily because the 30,000 lb/hr load reduction on the
University boilers was not judged by power plant personnel to cause any
— comparable reduction in 06M costa. Construction costa for new units have
_ also been excluded because the University is not accountable for funds to
effect these improvements. Additionally, University personnel have
J indicated that the availability of 30,000 lb/hr of waste -generated steam
would not alter their expansion plans.
i J
I
f 7954 66
`1
MICROFILMED BY
'JORM MICROLAB
CEDAR RAPIDS -DES MOINES
r-•
f�
J
PART 5 - IMPLEMENTATION ANALYSIS
General
The preceding sections of this report have analyzed the technical,
environmental, and economic feasibility of a waste -to -energy project for
the Iowa City -Johnson County area. There is an adequate supply of waste
to fuel a 200 TPD incinerator for the generation of approximately 30,000
lbs of high-pressure steam per hour. The installation of a baghouse
would ensure environmental acceptability in regards to air pollution and
would be aided by the addition of the lime softening sludge in the MSS
filter cake which would also condition the residual ash to an acceptable
composition for land filling. The steam could be sold to the University
of Iowa at a price lower than it would cost the University to generate
equivalent steam but high enough to permit the operator of the incinera-
tion system to accrue revenues in excess of project costs if the Univer-
sity continues to rely on oil or gas to generate at least 30,000 lb/hr of
steam. Competition with coal or a coal/oil/gas alternative fuel mixture
could be possible if creative financing schemes are employed. The re-
maining topic to be discussed concerns the overall implementation plan
for such a facility. who would operate and own it, how would it be fi-
nanced, and who would assume what portion of the risks involved are an
integral part of project feasibility.
Risk Allocation
Codisposal is a relatively new concept with technological and
external risk factors. Technological risks include the possibility that
the facility will not meet design performance criteria, the possibility
of excessive downtime caused by equipment failure, and the risk of tech-
nological obsolescence. External risks include the possible reduction
in the amount of incoming waste, changes in the composition of the in-
coming waste, and lack of a stable market for steam purchase. The com-
bination of these risks make long-term financing difficult to obtain and
local officials reluctant to undertake a capital -intensive disposal
alternative.
7954 67
MICROFILMED BY
JORM MICROLAB
CEDAR RAPIDS -DES MOINES
l A99
I
The decision to undertake such a project and the eventual procure-
i
ment tools selected for project implementation depend on the willingness
of public and private sectors to allocate the development risks. Parti-
cipants include the equipment manufacturer, contractor, lender, owner,
_ operator, and users of the waste -to -energy system.
The joint sponsorship of this study by the entity that controls the
current disposal operations and the entity that is interested in put -
chasing the waste -generated steam offers a unique opportunity for risk -
sharing. The preceding analyses have indicated a range of mutually
I �
acceptable steam prices. A lower steam price would afford the University
iJ substantial savings over in-house generation costa for equivalent steam,
IIf i whereas, a higher price would see the majority of the benefits accruing
�J to the facility sponsor. The eventual price agreement should be strongly
dependent upon the level of risk assumed by each party.
j --� The University should at least be willing to enter into a long -tern
.steam purchase contract. The facility owner or operator, whether it is
the city, a non-profit waste disposal authority, service agency, a pri-
vate concern, or a combination of the above, should be able to guarantee
the delivery of the steam to the University. Inherent in this provision
is the necessity to acquire financial backing for the project, tie down
equipment performance guarantees from the manufacturer, and establish
waste delivery contracts from private and public haulers. The share of
the front-end project development risks accepted by the University and
i the city will determine a steam sales price that equitably distributes
the project benefits. Substantial negotiations between the city and the
University to ascertain their commitment to the project are paramount to
the decision to proceed. Technical, environmental, and economic elements
_ of the project have pointed to project feasibility. The following
sec -tions will address the various institutional and financial arrangements
available for the procurement of an incineration project. This is in-
y tended to give the project sponsors an overview of the possible implemen-
tation options and not to recommend a specific management framework.
I
7954
68
MICROFILMED BY
JORM MICROLAB
CEDAR RAPIDS -DES MOINES
Ia96
a
N.1
Federal or State Assistance
Traditionally, municipal solid waste disposal hag been a low-cost,
land- and labor-intensive operation involving both public and private
agencies. These factors have prevented the development of federally- or
state-assisted grant, loan, subsidy or bond security programs. This is
in direct contrast to municipal wastewater treatment which has evolved as
a wholly public function where widespread secondary and tertiary treat-
ment requires capital-Intensive facilities. A sizeable federal construc-
tion grants program, authorized under the Federal Water Pollution Control
Act has been established in response to local needs. Because the incin-
eration project involves the codisposal of MSS, there is a possibility
that the portion of the capital cost associated with MSS disposal could
qualify for funding under the new technology incentive program of the
Wastewater Treatment Works Construction Grants (Reference 29). Each year
J states must use at least 1/2 percent of a special set-aside fund to in-
crease federal aid from 75 to 85 percent on projects employing innovative
J technology. Emphasis has been placed on ideas that reuse water, recycle
wastewater constituents, eliminate surface discharge, conserve energy,
j and lower total costs. The coincineration project clearly conserves
i
energy by reducing MSS transportation and treatment costs.
For the state of Iowa, the current amount of this fund is $900,000,
— figured as 3 percent of the total annual grant money allotment of
$30 million. Approximately $700,000 has been awarded. The EPA sanction
of the fund expires in September, 1981, and any money not allocated mist
be returned. State officials do not expect a federal decision on the
continuation of this program until late summer. If it is continued, it
is anticipated the 1982 allotment would equal the present level
—I
(Reference 30).
The Iowa Energy Policy Council is a state agency authorized, among
other duties, to administer major federal conservation programs, includ-
ing grants to schools, hospitals, local government, and public care
- facilities. There are currently no state grant or loan programs, haw-
ever, the council does investigate and recommend legislation to the
j General Assembly on development and use of alternative sources of energy.
J
ri 7954 69
EM
MICROFILMED BY
`JORM MICROLAB
CEDAR RAPIDS -DES 1401NES
—.7
V,—
_J
Current federal programs in operation are largely concerned with solar
incentives. The Department of Energy (DOE) does accept unsolicited pro-
posals in energy and energy-related fields. However, grants are geared
for research and development purposes and not generally for construction
activities.
Another possibility for federal aid lies with the Office of Energy
from Municipal Wastes (Reference 11). The Department of Energy Act of
1978 (P.L. 95-238) increased the availability of funds for the development
of MSW processing facilities. Sections 19 and 20 authorized loan guaran-
tees, grants, contracts, and financial agreements to encourage municipal
waste demonstration facilities designed to recover energy.
The status of this program under the current administration is mar-
ginal. The national staff in Washington, D.C., is operating with eight
people and the budget is uncertain. The acting director is optimistic and
expects the office to continue as a viable entity.
— Procurement Approaches
J There are several procurement strategies available to the potential
sponsor of a codisposal system. The options are briefly explained below.
_i The major differences are with the basis of how responsibilities and risks
of design, construction, and operation are allocated (References 6, 24,
28).
A b E - This is the approach public entities normally take for public
works projects. An architect/engineer is retained to develop plans and
specifications. A construction contractor then builds to these plans.
__1 The facility is owned and normally operated by the public entity, and
public financing is used.
^I Turn Rey - A system contractor is hired via a "competitively" bid
_. Request for Proposal (RFP) to design, build, and start up the facility.
The contractor, therefore, assumes all the risks up to the point the plant
is operating according to specifications. The Contractor could be the
A b E firm hired to do the design of the facility.
Full Service - The system contractor provides a full codisposal
service. The contractor finances, builds, owns, operates, and ensures
performance throughout the life of the contract. The contract specifies
- 7954 70
Ia96
MICROFILMED BY
JORM MICROLAB
CEDAR RAPIDS -DES MOINES
—.7
the tipping fee and steam prices which should be renegotiated over the
life of the plant as operating casts change.
Institutional Frameworks
Municipal Authority - Chapter 364 of the Code of Iowa enables a home
rule city to exercise its general powers subject only to limitations ex-
pressly imposed by a state or city law. Inherent in these general powers
is the duty to provide for the collection treatment
purification, and
disposal of liquid and solid waste, sewage, and industrial waste in a
_ sanitary manner. A city may also grant a franchise to any person for the
_ provision of the above for a term of not more than 25 years.
Fees can be charged, general obligation and revenue bonds may be
issued, and special assessment taxes can be levied for the conduct of
city enterprise and essential corporate purpose. These include "the
acquisition, construction, reconstruction, extension, improvement, and
J
equipping of works and facilities useful for the collection, treatment,
and disposal of sewage and industrial waste in a sanitary manner and for
-� the collection and disposal of solid waste."
A city may create, in accordance with Chapter 386, a self-
liquidating improvement district and authorize and issue revenue bonds
—1 payable from the income and receipts derived from the improvement. A
self-liquidating improvement is defined as any facility or property pro-
posed to be leased in whole or in part to any person or governmental body
�
to further the corporate p purpose of the city.
Contracts let for public improvements in excess of $10,000, must
advertise for sealed bids and are awarded to the lowest bidder.
County Authority - Chapter Section 332.44 of the Code of Iowa
specifically concerns waste disposal powers and duties of the county
Board of Supervisors. Counties and sanitary districts incorporated under
i
the provisions of Chapter 358 have similar enabling and financing powers
to municipalities in regards to solid and liquid waste and sewage facili-
ties and functions. These governing bodies do not have the power to
grant a franchise for provision of waste disposal, to finance a public
J improvement by a special assessment, or to establish a self-liquidating
f improvement district.
7954
71
l a96
MICROFILMED BY
'JORM MICRO_ LAB
CEDAR RAPIDS -DES I401NES
1 :
.r
The Universit�owa - The University is governed by the Board of
1r
Regents. Expressed powers include the right to contract for services for
r University operations, lease properties and facilities for use by the
�
University, construct, own, and operate self-liquidating improvements
., necessary for University welfare; and issue revenue bonds payable solely
and only from student fees and charges and institutional income. Bonds
may only be issued after a determination that annual revenues of the
state are insufficient to finance the immediate building requirements
(Reference 4).
Joint Exercise of Governmental Powers - An
'—' l y powers, privileges, or
authorities invested in a public agency may be exercised jointly with
other public agencies of the state, having equivalent powers, privileges,
and authorities. Public agencies may form agreements with one or more
public or private agency for joint or cooperative actions. Thus, it
would be possible for a city or county to join with a private concern to
7 create a legal authority to issue bonds to finance construction and to
L -i own, operate, or manage a coincineration facility. Benefits to this
r type of ownership and operation can accrue to both the private and public
agencies (Reference 4).
A municipality could construct a large facility through the use of
revenue bonds. The municipality would remain the nominal owner of the
u facility but could provide a long-term lease or purchase arrangement to a
private corporation which would operate and could eventually become the
owner of the facility. The municipality is benefited by freedom from the
day-to-day management requirements of a highly complex facility, while
the private manager is offered the advantages of relatively low-cost
financing. A similar option is for the public owner to contract with a
J private corporation for operation and management of the facility.
iPrivate - As mentioned above, a municipality has the right to
grant a franchise to a private entity for prevision of waste disposal.
u Private operation may be able to provide more expertise in management of
capital Intensive processing facilities than manypublic
ies. Also,
private management tends to be more adaptable totheneeds gofcnew systems
i
I
7954
72
la916
MICROFILMED BY
'JORM MICROLAB
CEDAR RAPIDS -DES 1101NES
B
and the intricacies of financial arrangements. Great care must be exer-
cised in the negotiation of any contracts for the provision of resource
recovery by a private corporation.
Financial Arrangement Options
Public Sector Financing - Municipal and county governments tradi-
tionally have had major involvement in constructing, financing, and oper-
ating waste disposal facilities. Low-cost disposal measures, including
landfills, were often financed through current operating revenues, but
recently instituted standards and pollution controls have resulted in
J substantially increased prices for landfills and incinerators. As proj-
ect costs increased, municipal and county governments have been placed in
Ja position of debt financing. Long-term debt financing for solid waste
disposal has usually been accomplished through the issuance of municipal
bonds, either general obligation (GO) or revenue bonds.
i
Current Revenue - Current revenue generated by solid waste
disposal tipping fees would be inadequate in meeting the costs of a
large-scale coincineration project. This revenue may be adequate to pay
for an individual component of a disposal system. It is expected that
tipping fees would still cover 0&M and transportation costs associated
with the landfill.
JGeneral Obligation Bonds - General obligation bonds are
long-term obligations secured by the "full faith and credit" of a
J political jurisdiction. In Iowa, municipalities have the authority to
issue general obligation bonds to 5 percent of the total assessed value
of all taxable property within the jurisdiction. This indebtedness may
be increased if approved by referendum. County governments can waive
indebtedness restrictions when levies concern waste disposal operations.
-� When establishing the debt limitations for general obligation bonds
—I in a municipality or county, consideration must be given for previous
_f debts. The state also places requirements on municipalities and counties
on the amounts required to meet the payments on general obligation debt
r i
J service. For many units of local government, this "indirect" limitation
can be a more significant restraint to general obligation bonding than
the direct debt ceiling.
7954 73
i
{_
MICROFILMED DY
JORM MICROLAB
CEDAR RAPIDS•DES MOINES
7
J
J
:J
J
J
Because the general obligation bond is secured by full faith and
credit of the issuing governmental subdivision, the credit worthiness is
based upon the general revenue of the issuer, including receivable taxes
and other sources of income. In most instances, this is a very firm
security, resulting in a highly marketable bond which can command lower
interest rates than other types of municipal bonds. Because interest
payments on general obligation bonds are not subject to federal or state
taxes, the bonds carry lower interest rates than comparable corporate
bonds.
This relatively low interest rate is an attractive feature. Also,
because of the backing by full faith and credit of the issuing govern-
mental subdivision, general obligation bonds do not require a detailed
financial assessment of the project which the bonds are intended to fund.
The major constraints of general obligation bonding are related to
the debt ceilings imposed. Since the cost of the codisposal project
could easily utilize a substantial proportion of the bonding capacity of
a governmental unit, a public referendum is almost certain to be re-
quired. Substantial effort in promoting and explaining coincineration
to the voters would be required.
Major waste -to -energy facilities have been financed through general
obligation bonds in Ames, Iowa; Chicago, Illinois; Auburn, Maine; and
Burlington, Vermont (Reference 28).
Revenue Bonds - Revenue bonds are another major means of financ-
ing large projects. These bonds are backed by the revenue generated by
the proposed investment project. Thus, the risk associated with a reve-
nue bond issue relates to the probability that the project will succeed
in paying all of its expenses, including operation costs, interest
charges, and debt retirement. Because the political subdivision does not
back these bonds with full faith and credit, the risk to bondholders is
greater than with general obligation bonds and interest rates are higher.
Long-term contracts for the sale of steam and a guaranteed solid waste
supply are necessary.
Information as to projected costs and revenues of a project are
essential to the prospective bond buyer. Coincineration projects which
7954 74
MICROFILMED BY
JORM MICRO_ LAB
CEDAR RAPIDS -DES 140INES
R94
,r_
utilize new processing methods will not have the operating history neces-
sary to provide firm projections of future revenues and costs. Thus,
these involve relatively high uncertainty compared to projects such as
wastewater treatment facilities or airports which have developed a "track
record."
Revenue bonds have the advantage of not requiring voter referendums
and there are no constraining debt ceilings or debt service maximums.
Revenue bond issues have financed large-scale projects in Harris-
burg, Pennsylvania and Gallatin and Nashville, Tennessee (Reference 28).
Private Sector Financing - The potential of coincineration as a
profit-making enterprise can result in the interest of private enterprise
in developing facilities. Certainly the private'sector faces the same
risks and problems as the public sector in committing capital to new
technological processes. Full service and turnkey procurement options
could involve private sector financing. Profit potential has apparently
been sufficient to enable several companies to take the risks of
implementing coincineration facilities.
Internal Financing - This is the private sector counterpart of
the earlier described use of current revenue in the public sector. Larger
corporations are able to include pilot projects for the development of
major projects as a part of overall operations. Long-term debt financing
through the private bond market is one way in which a corporation can
raise money for a capital expenditure. Use of these traditional
mechanisms, however, has rarely been employed for major projects.
Industrial Revenue Bonds - Industrial revenue bonds are issued by
a local governmental unit for or on behalf of a private enterprise, thus
combining important aspects of public and private debt financing. The
local governmental unit technically awns the facility to be developed with
the funds. A private corporation then leases the facility at a fee which
is sufficient to allow the municipality to service the debt. Thus, the
unit of local government acts as a vehicle through which private enter-
prise can obtain low-cost financing. Furthermore, if the payment arrange-
ments between the corporation and community are structured properly, the
7954 75
MICROFILMED BY
'JORM MICROLAB
-CEDAR RAPIDS -DES MOINES
ia96
i
-.7
corporation may claim ownership of the facility for tax purposes, gaining
benefits in the form of accelerated depreciation and/or investment tax
credit (References 4, 5, 24, 28).
An attractive feature of industrial revenue bonds is the tax-free
interest provision which is similar to that for general obligation bonds
or revenue bonds. This results in lower interest rates than are afforded
by conventional private sector bonds. The security for industrial
revenue bonds consists of the assets of the corporation, leaving the
community free of risk and also requiring less complete financial
j evaluation of the intended project itself.
As with revenue bonds, a major requirement is long-term contracts
— which
guarantee a minimum supply of solid waste and sale of steam. Such
agreements assure revenue derived from tipping fees and sale of waste -
generated steam. This is particular)
y pertinent i
in the
of
ewly
established corporations entering into Innovative ventures.
Suchncorpor-
ations may have limited assets other than the facilities being financed.
In these instances, the security on the industrial revenue bonds are the
specified facility. When a waste -to -energy facility is being developed
77 as a subsidiary to a larger corporation with substantial assets In. other
J manufacturing or commercial enterprises, the security on the bonds is
I — more clearly established.
From the viewpoint of a corporation, the provision of long-term
contracts to acquire municipal wastes is a major, but difficult to at-
tain, requirement. In the Saugus, Massachusetts, resource recovery
project, the corporation which built and maintained the facility wanted
to negotiate 20 -year solid waste supply contracts with 15 to 20 communi-
ties along the north shore region of Boston. Many communities were
reluctant to be committed to a relatively high cost
poral for a ion per ton of waste dis-
g period of time. These problems were gradually overcome
and the facility is now operating.
As codisposal technology develops and becomes proven as a profit -
maker, the risks and uncertainties in financing major facilities will
—' diminish. As this happens, investor hesitancy will be reduced and more
facilities are likely to be built by private enterprise.
I
i `-
1
7954 76
ia96
MICROFILMED BY
'JORM MICROLAB
CEDAR RAPIDS -DES MOINES
MICROFILMED BY
'JORM MICROLAB
CEDAR RAPIDS•DES MOINES
—
Leveraged Leasing - Another means through which a private firm
might, in theory, acquire funds to develop a waste incineration facility
—,
is leveraged leasing. This method operates by interposing a financial
intermediary from a high tax bracket between the corporation requiring
—
capital and the actual source of capital. The intermediary serves only
to hold legal ownership of the equipment, but is therefore entitled to
the tax benefits of ownership including investment tax credit, acceler-
ated depreciation, and the tax exempt status of interest. A tax shelter
is created for the intermediary, but the operating corporation is not
eligible for tax benefits. The intermediary passes on the tax savings in
i
-'
the form of reduced charges for the equipment leased.
It may be possible for the intermediary to obtain the capital to
develop a facility by means of industrial revenue bonds, as previously
mentioned. A leveraged leasing arrangement is currently being investi-
gated for a large resource recovery facility for Onondaga, New York
(Reference 16).
I�
i
i
7954 77
I
MICROFILMED BY
'JORM MICROLAB
CEDAR RAPIDS•DES MOINES
1
i
REFERENCES
1.
A "Cap" on Waste Disposal Costs. Whitney A. Sanders, 11, Public
Works, May, 1981.
2.
AirPollution Aspects of Resource Recovery. George Simone,
California Air Resources Boar , mar—ch--17—,1980.
3.
Annual Report to Congress. Volume 3, Energy Information
ministration, DOE, 1 .
4.
`
Code of Iowa. Volumes I and II, Titles II, IV, V, VII, XII, XIV, XV,
XVIII, Chapters 28F, 76, 93, 135, 262A, 263, 332, 346, 358, 364, 384,
386, 388,
i
419, 455; 1981.
I —
5.
Codisposal of Municipal Solid Waste and Sewerage Sludge An
--
A Y, is of Constraints. Gordian Associates, Inc. U.S. Environmen-
tal
i
Protection Agency Publication SWC -184c, January, 1980.
_ ! 6.
Codisposal of Municipal Solid Waste and Sludge. Public Works
Magazine, pp. 88-89, February, NW.
^' 7.
—
Codisposal Solves Two Problems. Robert Brinker and Thomas Barnett,
res am, Brinker ana Grattan, Inc. Waste Age Magazine, November,
1978.
! 8.
Controlled Air Incineration - Key to Practical Production of Ener
_
or Wastes. Roes F. Hoffmann, Hof ann, soc ates. Pu is Wor s
Magazine, September, 1976.
9.
Design Outline for Water Pollution Control Plant Iowa City, Iowa.
—
Veenstra and Kamm re
Engineers and Planners. Ppared for Valve
`)
Engineering Workshop, January, 1981.
10.
Draft Special Waste Authorization Cation Leaching Curve Procedure.
Iowa Department of Environmental Quality, Air and Land Quality
-
Division, 1980.
11.
Energy from Municipal Waste: A New Focus on Commercialization and
6 D. Donald K. Walter, Acting Director o Office o Energy from
Municipal Waste,
U.S. DOE, September 16, 1980.
12.
Energy from Solid Wastes: Waste Codisposal/Energy Recovery Project.
Cooper
�4drK LQnsulting engineers for West County Agency of
I
i
Contra Costa County, June, 1980.
78
D' 96
MICROFILMED BY
'JORM MICROLAB
CEDAR RAPIDS -DES I40INES
y.,_
REFERENCES (Continued)
13. European Refuse
Volume XIV: Kr
of
Battelle Columbus Laboratories, Ohio. natural iecnnicai inrormacion
Service PB80-115421. Prepared for the United States Environmental
Protection Agency, 1979.
14. Evaluation of the Feasibility of Co -Processing Sewage Sludge with
Municipal Solid Waste. Consumat Systema, Inc. for the City of
Auburn, Maine, March, 1980.
15. Focus on Resource Recovery. County News, February 23, 1981.
16. Garbage In, Garbage out? Alyssa A-Lappen, Fortune, May, 1981.
17. Heating and Power Plant Study. Stanley Consultants for the
Un vera ty of Iowa Physical Plant Department, June, 1978.
18. High H Treatment of Combined Water Softeningand Wastewater Slud es.
Ric r R. Dague, et. al. Journal Water Pollution Control Fe station,
Volume 52, No. 8, pp. 2204-2219, August, 1980.
19. Identification and Listing of Hazardous Waste. 40 CFR, Part 261,
May, 7I 80.
20. Industrial Technology Adapted to Municipal Sludge Drying. Public
Works Magazine, pp. 51-53, October, 1980.
21. Modular Combustion Units. Walter R. Niessen and Thomas C. Pond.
Pu is Works Magazine, May, 1980.
22. Proceedings of the Ninth Biennial Conference. The American Society
OT_;:
Hec apical Engineers, Solid Waste Processing Division, May 11-14,
1980.
23.
- Steam
Stanley
December, 1971.
24. Resource Recovery from Municipal SolidWaste in Ohio. Stanley
Consultants or t e Ohio Environmental
nvironments Protection Agency, November,
1976.
25. TVA Activities in Resource Recovery. Frank G. Parker. Presented to
E ectr c Power Researc Institute Utility Seminar, January, 1980.
79
MICROFILMED BY
'JORM MICROLAB
CEDAR RAPIDS -DES ROINES
I a9 4
I,,,-
REFERENCES
;
REFERENCES (Continued)
26. Waste Incineration and Energy Recovery Feasibility Study. Stanley
1 Consultants for Alcoa Tennessee Operations, 1981.
27. Why the Water -Cooled Rotary Combustion. Glenn Swinehart, Sanders and
Thomas Engineers, January, 1980.
28. Resource Recovery and Waste Reduction Activities, A Nationwide
J
Survey. U.S. EPA, Office
of Water and Wastewater Management,
November, 1979.
29. 1981 Federal Funding Guide, Government Information Services,
—
Washington, D.C., 1981.
30. Iowa Energy Policy Council, telephone interview, April 21, 1981.
J
J
H
1
-1
J
i
i
J
J
-� 80
MICROFILMED BY
'JORM MICROLAB
'CEDAR RAPIDS -DES MOINES
Ir -
GLOSSARY
Best Available Control Technology (BACT): The available technology that
w give the maximum re uction in emissions.
British Thermal Unit (Btu): The quantity of heat required to raise the
temperature of one pound of water one degree Fahrenheit.
Capital Cost: Funds expended for design, engineering, administration and
construction of a plant.
Codisposal: Disposal of solid waste and sewage sludge in one operation.
Cogeneration: An efficient method of producing electric power in
conjunction with process steam or heat which optimally utilizes the energy
supplied by fuel to maximize the energy produced for consumption.
Coincineration: Thermal reduction of solid waste and sewage sludge in the
same incinerator.
Commercial Wastes: Waste material which originates in wholesale, retail
or service establishments, such as office buildings, stores, markets,
theaters, hotels, and warehouses.
Discount Rate: Rate of interest deducted in purchasing a note or other
commercial paper.
Energy Conversion: A process whereby the fuel value of municipal solid
waste is utilized to produce energy. The conversion can be either from
unprocessed municipal solid waste or from refuse -derived fuel.
Escalation Rate: The rate of increase in the cost of goods or services.
Fluidized Bed Furnace: A combustion process in which heat is transferred
from finely divided particles, such as sand, to combustible materials in a
chamber where the particles and materials are supported and fluidizied by
an upward column of moving air.
Industrial Wastes: All types of solid wastes and semi-solid wastes which
result from Industrial processes and manufacturing operations.
— Institutional Wastes: Waste originating from educational, health care,
correctional, research facilities, or similar institutional sources.
Landfill: A disposal site employing a method of disposing solid wastes on
without creating nuisances or hazards to public health or safety by
—' utilizing principles of engineering to confine the wastes to the smallest
practical area, to reduce them to the smallest practical volume, and to
cover them with a layer of suitable cover material at specific designated
_! intervals.
81
MICROFILMED BY
'JORM MICROLAB
CEDAR RAPIDS -DES I40INES
1a96
V.
GLOSSARY (Continued)
Market: Any individual or oganization which will purchase, or acquire by
other means, ownership of recovered waste products.
Mase Firing or Burning: Burning the solid wastes in an as received
condition as opposed to "RDF Firing" where the wastes have been upgraded
! by presorting and separation proteases to have a higher energy content per
^
pound.
Materials Recovery: A system or process where usefl
— etee , a um�and glass, are removed from municipalusolidewaste �inuah as
form which can be marketed.
Modular Controlled -Air Incinerator: Small sized combustion units, usually
^ shop a ricate tat rn waste in a two-stage, controlled air process.
Multiple Hearth Furnace: A combustion unit which contains a series of
horizontal hearths where drying, ignition and combustion consequently
occur as the waste is dropped down to the subsequent hearths.
Present Value: The amount which if invested at a set discount rate, would
yield the sequence of future annual revenues or expenditures.
olysis: The chemical decomposition of a material by heat in the
absence of oxygen.
Refuse: A generally used term for solid waste materials from residence,
—1 commercial establishments and institutions.
Refuse -Derived Fuel (RDF): The combustible, or organic, fraction of
municipal solid waste which has been prepared for use as a fuel by any of
several mechanical processing methods.
J
Residential Waste: Waste materials generated in houses and apartments.
j The materia s include paper, cardboard, beverage and food cans, plastics,
_ I food wastes, glass containers, old clothes, garden wastes, etc.
Resource Recovery: The recovery of any useful resource from municipal
soli waste. It encompasaes both materials recovery and energy conversion
and can range from a simple low—technology manual separation of materials
to a sophisticated high—technology system employing complex mechanical
J materials recovery facilities, production of refuse—derived fuel, and
energy conversion.
Rotary Combustor: A process that is essentially an external fire box
mounted on a waterwall combustion system, where the wastes are burned
in a slowly rotating water—cooled, steel cylinder made of alternating
water tubes separated by welded perforated plates.
�J
82
Ia96
MICROFILMED BY
' JORM MICROLAB
CEDAR RAPIDS -DES I40INES
GLOSSARY (Continued)
Sewage Sludge: Any residue, excluding grit or screenings, removed from
a wastewater, whether in a dry, semi -dry, or liquid form.
i
Solid Waste: All putrescible and nonputrescible solid and semi-solid
wastes, such as garbage, rubbish, paper, ashes, industrial wastes, demoli-
tion and construction wastes, abandoned vehicles and parte thereof, dis-
carded home and industrial appliances, manure, vegetable or animal solid
and semi-solid wastes, and other discarded solid and semi-solid wastes,
and also includes liquid wastes disposed of in conjunction with solid
wastes at solid waste transfer/processing stations or disposal sites but
excludes: (a) sewage collected and treated in a municipal or regional
sewerage system, or (b) materials or substances having commercial value,
which have been salvaged for refuse, recycling, or resale.
Source Se aration: To divide waste into groups of similar materials such
ae paper products, glass, food wastes, and metals, at the source; e.g.,
— , homes and businesses. This is usually done manually.
Suspension Fired Boiler: A furnace constructed with walls of welded steel
tubes through which water Is circulated to absorb the heat of combustion
iand where the wastes are burned partly in suspension as they enter the
furnace and are further combusted on a grate in the bottom of the
combustion chamber.
Tipping Fee: Price charged per ton of refuse disposed at a sanitary
landfill.
I
l
_
83
1x96
MICROFILMED BY
JORM MICROLAB
CEDAR RAPIDS -DES MOINES
I
APPENDIX A
MICROFILMED -BY
!,JORM MICRO_ LAB
CEDAR RAPIDS•DES MOINES
--I
— — le
The University of Iowa
Iowa City, Iowa 52242
Physical Plant Department
r
RECEIVED
CENTRAL DIYISMN
JUN 2?. 1981 _
ST INLr1 CONSULTANTS
I
June 19, 1981
Mr, Mike Hunzinger
Stanley Consultants, Inc.
Stanley Building
Muscatine, Iowa 52761
Dear Mike:
Attached are a series of schedules and a graph showing
our anticipated boiler replacement schedule through the year
2000 to provide the basis for your economic analysis of the
waste -to -steam feasibility study.
The University plans to undergo a series of boiler re-
placements during the next twenty years in order to convert
to a predominantly coal -based st
some aging equipment. eam system and to replace
Table 1 shows our proposed schedule for this conversion
J in terms of total plant capacit
the mix of primary fuels. It is�our aplan l o rm completelyare-
Place boilers 5, 6, 7 and 8 with three 170,000 lb/hr coal-
fired units similar to our new number 10 boiler in this time
frame.
s the
)I capacityu
throughout tthe echange-out lPeriod. Also and firm
Plant catillustra
is the approximate peak campus, steam demand as projecd
ted teto
the 1987 Stanley "Heating and Power Plant Study."
-I The final series of figures illustrate the plant load
profile in 1981, 1990 and 2000 corresponding to the peak
campus steam demand on Figure I. These figures can be used
to estimate the approximate percentage of time that the Uni-
versity will be totally coal -based in its steam generation.
-� At certain peak load times we will .need to use natural gas
or oil to meet the demand. These peak times can also be
estimated with the plant load profiles.
I
i
I
i
r
_J
ia96
i MICROFILMED BY
'JORM MICROLAB
.CEDAR RAPIDS -DES 1401NES
'S
�rMr. Mike Hunzing-.-
i
-2- June 19, 1981
�1 Because of the straight line peak load estimates between
1981 to 1990 and 1990 to 2000, plant load profiles of other
years can be interpolated.
I trust this will resolve any questions you may have re-
garding the University's steam generation plans on the next
twenty years. Please contact me if you have any additional
I questions.
_J
\ i •_J
�J
JDH/kk
enc.
J
�1
_.J
V ry truly ours,
John D. Houck
Assistant to Director
MICROFILMED BY
`JORM MICRO_ LAB
iCEDAR RAPIDS -DES MOINES
la94
j MICROFILMED BY
'JORM MICROLAB
"CEDAR RAPIDS -DES MOINES
I
►aye
TABLE 1
I
Il
BOILER REPLACEMENT
SCHEDULE
i
- ----------------------UNIVERSITY
-OF
IOWA
ITEM
1981
1983
186
1989
1991
C
1995
1998
Total Plant
730
730
900
770
940
660
830
I
Capacity
,
—'
Firm Plant'
560
560
730
600
770
490
660
Capacity
—
Coal -Based
300
300
470
340
510
510
680
Generation
iCapacity
—,
Gas/Oil or
430
430
430
430
430
150
150
Gas Only
Based
Generation
Capacity
---------------------------------------
'�
Note: Steam
figures
are in
MLBS/HR
I
_J
�1
I
-Jj
r+i
�J
j MICROFILMED BY
'JORM MICROLAB
"CEDAR RAPIDS -DES MOINES
I
►aye
unNi v Ul IH
11
8/ 83 BS 87 8'7 y/
j MICROFILMED BY
!JORM MICROLAB
/ CEDAR RAPIDS•DES -NINES
Pl.taplr F=lmtA
R�OJEC72CD
s_ AM
�uPP� y I
TJEF/GT
LaN SriZUGTI CYJ
.i1— 7
u
MICROFILMED BY
`JORM MICROLAB
CEDAR RAPIDS -DES MOINES
1""
I
.. APPROXIMATE ANNUAL STEAM USE
PROFILE BASED
I � )(syiliv.Ll-
1
Iv
ON A PEAK LOAD
A PEAK
OF 450.
MLBS PER HR
G..0 au � Ad s(W/4,M,
�Ad'
1�
�� //��
'i1) Fay: LU� (O _
J91 I Io afk , MM+• OutII- t
PLANT LOAD
RANGE X
OF HOURS X OF HOURS
aia�u•° 16(4r
LOW
HIGH
IN RANGE ( HI LEVEL
1Y0000.
TO
200000.
0.0% 0.0%
200000.
TO
210000.
0.0% 0.0%
210000.
TO
220000,
.3% .3X
,003 O
220000.
TO
230000,
0,0% .3%
230000,
TO
240000.
S.SX), iu 1.4%
,olo ,00l
240000,
TO
250000,
,B%. +a^ 2.2%
7
250000,
TO
260000.
E:SX 11�',:7X
_i09L
,oil.
260000.
TO
270000,
4.7X+ 9.3%
,039
270000.
TO
280000.
4.4%4 :w
280000.
TO
290000,
I:SX _--17.BX
o 3Z... �poq
_.. - 290000.
TO
- 300000,
}° 24,4X.._
6:6X ..
., `---'-
.v17..._
300000.
TO
310000.
_7.f%,_ y 31.5%_.
,U5'o...
310000.
'j
TO
320000.
9 ( .'tT! 41,I%
320000,
TO
330000.
8+¢X gY.._,v
ig
330000.
TO
340000.
6.8% '{N 56.7X_
_
_ Qyj an
340000.
TO
350000,
_
8.SX .Y�_ 65,SX
P;�] _ol(
350000,
TO
360000,
6,3Y �l{'yz_71,8X
"6:e
_
,uiy_�•2y_
1 360000.
TO
370000,
_-_
.
370000,
TO
380000,
19X-iT(P�5,6X-
;otj1_,10
300000,
390000.
TO
70
390001),n,;1.-BB."2X--"-eL7.,___,yiv
400000,
4.IX,W,,; 92 3%
_
400000.
TO
810000.
3.04 .�.96,2X
_._pl@
oto,
410000.
TO
420000,
l.SX -t 97.3%"
._ ,0/7
-
420000,
TO
430000,
r
sQY�g9
.
430000,
TO
440000.
440000.
TO
450000,
,6X__ 0 1aF.ox
450000.
TO
460000,
O.OX 100,0%
679 '(ok Q
460000.
TO
470000,
0.0% 10o.0%
.316
470000,
TO
480000.
0.0% 100,0%
480000,
TO
490000.
I.OX 100,9%
0^ 3T•%
- 490000,.
TO
500000,
0.0% 100.0%
500000.
TO
510000.
o.OX 100.0%
510000.
TO
520000,
0.0% 100,OX
520000,
TO
530000.
0.0% 100,0%
530000.
TO
540000,
0.0% 10010%
540000.
TO
550000.
0,0% 10010%
u
MICROFILMED BY
`JORM MICROLAB
CEDAR RAPIDS -DES MOINES
1""
I
APP
P
PLANT LOA
Lau
19000n. T
200000. T
210000. T
220000. T
230000. T
240000. 1
250000. T
260000, T
270000. 7
280000. 7
290000. 7
300000. 7
310000. T
320000, 1
330000. 1
340000. 1
3S0000. 7
360000. 1
370000. 1
380000. 1
390000. 1
400000. 1
4111000. 1
420000. 1
4311000. 1
440000. 1
450000, 1
460000. 1
470000, 1
480000. 1
4911000, 1
s00000. 1
510000, 1
520000. 1
530000. 1
540000, 1
ROFILEi0XIMATBASED11ON AANNAL APEAK LOADMPUS M USECb•� cg�p,1�y fOfo+' 30 v 10,OF 485. HLBS PER HR ((��
.NIV,' Apptw. ZZS,eoo lil e
MICROFILMED BY
'JORM MICROLAB
CEDAR RAPIDS -DES MOINES
D RANGE X
OF HOURS X OF HOURS
p
HIGH
IN RANGE f = HI LEVEL
•O�_
•L�
1 200000,
0.0% 0.0% .
D 210000•
O.OX 0.0%
D 220000.
0.0% 0.0%
0 230000.
.3X. %+ .3x .. _ .:
o'!$_
D 240000,
0.0X_ .3X
D 250000,
O.OX .3X
n 260000.
_ _
l.1xv .w 1.4X .,
��•�
D 270000.
;Bz - :�„ 2.2%
,Vol. .. .
D 280000.
2.5% �.�... 4 L7X.
D 290000.
4..4X °Y„ 9.0%
0 300000,
4.4% •r._ 13.4%.____
•u1f
0 310000,
0 320000,
4.9X �;._ 21.6X.
D 330000.
6.3% 1{(0 27may.?_
0 340000,
872X...-f..Y.0 36 .
y
0 350000.
9.6% 45.8% 45 8X
-"
_.. _.. .v 5 y....
D 360000.
7:11 �s3A„ S2.9%
J11
0 370000,
'ti:6X :
0 380000,
8.5X s�{ 69,2X
a3i
0 390000,
0 400000,
0 410000.
4':1x636X'----`.'--..�^,yt9--
D 420000,
4,7X r?,. BB.2X._'___.____�Q2.1r
._
0 430000,
3.8X__. 92.1X
0 440000,
,3�6X �1r• 95,3X _'.___,-.,,
,_.. , ,._ _, OI Oi_ ..
0 450000•
1.4X W� 97.OX
,oa'1
0 460000,
0 470000.
az �1,�
'-BX''"+'!F„e 0 7671-
.uo 4
0 480000.
1.1Xi>y
0 490000,
-.3 „ Sby"n
0 S00000,
O.UX 1oo.o%
0 sl0000.
0.0% 100.0%
0 620000.
O,O% too ox
37
0 530000.
0.0% 10(1,0%
(y3?o
0 540000.
0.0% 1oo.0x
0 550000,
O.OX 100.0%
MICROFILMED BY
'JORM MICROLAB
CEDAR RAPIDS -DES MOINES
190000. 10 200000. 0.0% -moi=O,OX
200000.
TO
210000.
0.0% 0.0%
APPROXIMATE ANNUAL CAMPUS STEAM USE
pap Arpcurt(
G 30Oj000
corp �a� s 470000b
I^ PROFILE BASED ON A PEAK LOAD
220000.
TO
OF 490. MLBS PER Hk
0.0% �y 0.0%
=1SL rr0
yvaI Ooa 14/4r
/ 98(p
240000.
,�X.d'� ._._. e3%.
PLANT LOAD RANGE X OF HOURS % OF HOURS
TO
250000.
(cap of
LOW HIGH IN RANGE f = HI LEVEL
�-rr0 �,��
TO
260000.
190000. 10 200000. 0.0% -moi=O,OX
200000.
TO
210000.
0.0% 0.0%
216000.
TO
220000.
0.0% 0.0%
220000.
TO
230000.
0.0% �y 0.0%
2311000.
TO
240000.
,�X.d'� ._._. e3%.
240000.
TO
250000.
0_0X.
�_.
250000.
TO
260000.
__.._.3X . _... _. _.
",3X
... ... __..._
260000.
TO
270000.
�& 1.6%
270000.
10
280000.
2.2X dp3.BX
.004 .. .. ._._.. __. .__....
280000.
TO
290000.
3.672*-Jfv_ 7_472 ____Qt18__._
"""
290000.
TO
300 11`6
_.
3.hX+t' 11,272
�_� _ ..__.._._ ..�._..�2i
v ......
300000.
TO
310000.
�_9%. »._.__15_91 _.__... ...._.
.a73 _.-.. .. ....... .....
31(1000.
TO
320000
4.772 m 20.872
320000.
TO
330000.
-572 .�-2b.o
330000.
TO
340000.
-"7:772 `:It -33_? _rZy
340000.
TO
350000.
l:SX- 42.2%
350000.
10
360000.
"7:71 � '- 49:4X-
360000.
TO
370000.
�7
370000.
TO
380000.
7;9X'1-bT;7
380000.
TO
390000,
5,272
390000,
TO
400000.
-7:172 1.. -"-777
031
400000.
TO
410000.
4.472 V"p 811 4
410000.
10
420000.
b7.3%AF; Lg"'87:7X'^--
420000.
TO
430000
3762
430000.
TO
440000.
3.3% % 94 572
D! -
440000.
TO
450000.
2.zxtkr %_9b.7X
-f
.J
4511000.
TO
460000.
T; X�.fyr 'x,9'7-6
.oOrp
460000.
TO
470000.
-5
002
470000.
TO
480000.
.972+ ., b1;+99.2X
JLl
480000.
TO
490000,
-"8%o W00 -0x-
-'371
490000.
To
so0000.
-6761" `__T66'6%
500000.
510000.
520000.
TO
TO
TO
510000.
520000.
530000,
0.0% ioo.o%
O.OX 100.0%
0.0% 100.0% &2-01
q
530000.
TO
540000.
O.OX 100.O%
540000.
TO
550000,
0.0% 100.OX
MICROFILMED BY
'JORM MICROLAB
CEDAR RAPIDS -DES 1401NES
G
,017
�J
. �l
A
s
APP
P
PLANT LOA
LOW
190000. 1
200000. T
210000. T
220000, T
230000, T
240000. T
250000. T
260000, 7
270000, 7
280000. T
2911000. 1
300000, 1
3io000. T
320000. 1
330000, 1
340000, 1
350000. T
360000. 1
370000, 1
380000. 1
390000, 1
400000. 1
410000. 7
420000, 1
430000, 1
440000. 1
450000, 1
460000, 1
470000, 1
480000, 1
490000, 1
500000, 1
si00oo, 1
520000, 1
530000. 1
S40000. 1
fOXIMATE ANNUAL CAMPUS STEAM USE �� 970
10FILE BASED ON R PEAR LOAD. r �I 4AA OF 520. MLBS PER HR
I oo
RANGE X OF HOURS X OF HOURS /1
HIGH IN RANGE ( HI LEVEL [.r✓' e4
I 200000, O.OX 0.0%
a 210000, 0,0X 0.0%
a 220000, 0.0% 010%
I 230000. 0.0% 0,0%
3 240000. 0.0% "" iyO O,OX
0 2SO000i___i3X----+.3%_—._
I 26000i, ,_O,Q$_ 3%
3 270000, 152g-1.4%
sX ,8%
3 280000, —5X 1.4%
•ac
Lci 0,00D 14#V'
0 290000. -------- -- .001
D 300000, i,67�m9 iz.— _,
0 310000.%
a 2x
3 320000.
4.4X 1C12 b%
D 330000.
3.Z% TC16.2%
3 340000,
4.i r",_Oig_
D 350000.
♦ 7% ✓.025 S%
—
3 360000,
7,4X_
0 370000.
*9.22%__—W 41, 1X
D 380000,
7.4X V 46,15%
D 390000.
yf_S6, 1%
0 400000,
,7.7X
7.Sx 0" 63,3X
D 410000,
i0 .; ,L!!_6913X
o0/
0 420000,
0 430000,_
2X..,_ i'+80,OX----
• 6
0 440000,
0 450000.
D 460000,
7% )*w X
`3-6 M�2�"y91.8X.__ -�C•
0 470000,_
J.6X
o
0 480000=,1z.'i
.
D 490000.
_
rix.
.00Z�36+TX
-
n 580000.
Y..
001
0 520000.
Aol
O 530000,
—�5�L44+.0z.
0.0% 100.0%
r 03(0
n 540000.
D 550000,
0.0% i00.ox
0.0% 100.a%$et�j 9V�
yOZ.
MICROFILMED BY
'JORM MICROLAB
CEDAR RAPIDS -DES MOINES
1r
,zYZ
7(,d)
c
APPROXIMATE ANNUAL CAMPUS STEAM USE r°Paµ _ 3y plod U
A PROFILE BASED ON A PEAK LOAD 4.00 C4. I
OF 530. MLBS PER HR
10 .vO Zyol000 1(41vr
MICROFILMED BY
'JORM MICROLAB
CEDAR RAPIDS -DES MOINES
i
\ Y
' PLANT LOAD RANGE X OF
HOURS
X OF HOURS
LOW
HIGH IN
RANGE
( HI LEVEL
190000.
10
200000.
0.0%
0.0%
200000.
TO
210000.
0.0%
0,0%
210800.
TO
220000.
D.ox
0.0%
( 220000.
TO
230000.
0.0%
o.ox
230000.
TO
240000.
0.0%
0.0%
2411000.
TO
250000,
.3%•3%
25111100.
TO
260000,
0.0%
•3X
260000.
TO
270000.
0.0%
.3%
270000.
10
280000.
1.1%
1.4%
200000,
TO
290000.
290000,
TO
300000.
°
300000,
TO
310000.
2.2%
'1:. 5.$% .- ---
'---
310000.
TO
320000.
4.7%
"Y° 10.1%
°
_
320000.
TO
330000.
346%_2111-13.2Y..__--
--
330008.
To
340000.3.8%
'Z.•, _. 17,59. .._
.. _..... _-_
340000.
TO
350000,
4. X�":N
21.6%
Old -.-
350000.
TO
360000.
6.3%
4b'•• 27.9%
*110 34•S%
-••ate
360000,
TO
370000.
6.6X
ro� 0
'O -f-
370000.
TO
380000.
9.3%
43.8%
'W0 49.9%
-
380000.
TO
390000•
6.0%
-_.._.__.__-.._.pq�-
398800.
TO
400000.
L. a&
400000.
TO
410000.
Z.2X
$!._._64..4'._-
- 410000.
TO
420000,
.5•SX-`-"
_ 69.9x-
-0.
°
420000,
TO
430000,
5,24.
- 430000,
TO
M0000.
S.SX
4401100,
TO
450000,
__
4.1Xl0
017
450000.
1.0
460000�OX_'7'
,
460000.
TO
47OUTF. 3.6% l"
TO
480000.
--'a
96Ab
?
480000.
TO
490000.
1-iS470000.
4901100.
TO
500000.
S.1X
---
L
500000.
TO
510000.
.5X
°
-
510001),
TO
52000o�_i_1x
,Opp
520800.
TO
530000.
.9%
530000.
10
540000.
1).O%
100.0%
,ZS7
540000.
TO
550000,
0,0%
100.0%
MICROFILMED BY
'JORM MICROLAB
CEDAR RAPIDS -DES MOINES
i
\ Y
' APPROXIMATE ANNUAL CAMPUS STEAM USE
PROFILE BASED ON A PEAR LOAD
OF 535, MLBS PER HR
PLANT LOAD RANGE X OF HOURS X OF HOURS
LOU HIGH IN RANGE ( = HI LEVEL
190000, TO 200000. 0.0% 'Y 0.0X
200000, TO '210000. 0.0X" 0.0%
210000. TO 220000, 0.0% 0.0%
220000. TO 230000. 0.0% 0.0%
\ 2300110. 10 240000. 0.0% O.OX
2411000. TO 250000, 0.0% 0.0%
250000. 10 260000. .3X.3X
260000. TO 270000. 0.0% .3X
270000. 10 280000. .5X ,BX
280000. TO 29000
290000. TO 30000
300000. TO 31000
310000. TO 32000
320000. TO 33000
330000. TO 34000
\ 340000, TO 35000
350000. TO 36000
- - 360000. TO 37000
370000. TO 38000
3BO000. TO 39000
390000. 10 40000
400000. TO 41000
410000, 10 42000
420000. TO 43000
430000, TO 44000
440000. TO 45000
it 450000, 10 46000
460000. TO 47000
470000. TO 48000
480000. TO 49000
49"000, TO 50000
500000, TO 51000
510000, TO 52000
520000. TO 53000
530000. 10 54000
540000, TO 55000
� wo
f / r
q ji I U O SLI �V
, Z1.S
Ste() -7 3 `� Z,l % 5� 99 2 °Io
MICROFILMED BY
'JORM MICROLAB
CEDAR RAPIDS -DES MOINES
I
7
0
I
'
_._.
,,,, 0rnra :. 4r-1vLS
0.,, ..,,-r.,o,O°�(G!s.
APPROXIMATE
ANNUAL CAMPUS S1EAM USE
10`
/
6p
PROFILE
BASED ON A PEAR LOAD
•fry
S$O� Gob r/j/lir
�.
OF 545. MLBS PER HR
16A
o6O /
PLANT LOAD
RANGE X OF HOURS % OF HOURS
I_OY
HIGH IN RANGE < = HI LEVEL
r.
190000.
TO
200000. 0.0% 0.0%
200000.
TO
210000. 0.0% 0.0%
,
210000.
TO
220000, 0.0% O.OX
220000.
TO
230000. 0.0% 0.0%
230000.
TO
240000. 0:0% , 0.0%
-
240000.
TO
250000. o oxXyI, O.OX
250000.
TO
260000, .3% .3%
260000,
TO
270000. 010% .3%
270000.
10
280000. 0.0% .3%
j
280000.
TO
290000. i.i% 1.4%
290000.
1'0
300000. .3X 1.6%
300000.
TO
310000. 1.9% 3.6%
310000.
TO
320000. 2.7X 6.3X
'
320000.
TO
330000. 3.SX 10.1%
---- -
330000.
10
340000. 3.8% 14.0%
_.
340000.
TO
3S0000. 3.6% 17.5%
350000.
TO
360000, 4.i% 21.6%
360000.
TO
370000. 6.3% 27.9%
-�
370000.
380000.
TO
TO
380000. 6.6% 34.5%
390000, 7.7% 42.2%
yam
°�/7'''�
.',
390000.
TO
400000. 7.7% 49.9X
l
\
400000.
410000.
TO
TO
410000. 6.6% 56,4%
420000. 6.BX 63.3%
-
p.
420000.
TO
430000. 6.0% - 69.3%
�l
_.
430000,
TO
41DQD ,___5SXt °L- -Ma7-
440000,
TO
450000, 1.7X V;R__..74. SX•
450000,
TO
460000. 4.1%ltr- 63.62
..
•-• -•-�-
460000.
TO
470000• 4.4%°A. SLyz
470000.
TO
480000. 3.6%".A0 91.SX ____�__
.003
0ui
480000.
TO
4.
490000. 3,0%t66. 95%�
490000,
500000.
TO
TO
S UU 2. X_�t•• 96_7X
5TOi137F-1.�ig i _----
-----'--'�'.•P
•003
.-.. __. ._.
550000.
TO
._Y�@
520000 . 3%y' :0 98.1%
_.000
_
-• __ ___
,.'
520000.
TO
• 570DD7>%%� 0 9Q:.YX
�•.
530000.
540000.
TO
TO
-$4BTI0.7- .BY. _-0 997X
550 .3 .,R- SOO.0%
_.....
001...._._..... •-^•
_... _. _.
""' "
.. __...
O
073
i
L.
i MICROFILMED BY
JORM MICROLAB
CEDAR RAPIDS•DES•MOINES
!/J
• / 1.' ` `� 8/17/81
I,
)
Y f f�rr f 1,i �•
G ..
City ii3nagPS
City of Iewra Cit;,
V1 4; .
m Dear Sir:
N
Attached please find a copy of a 1977 noise control ordinance for Norman, Oklahoma.
I send it to you with the hope that a similar ordinance will be instituted for
H Icwa City.
U '0+
m o . I realize that everything about this ordinance might not be feasible here, but my
'45 N recent experience as a hanemer makes me realize hai inadenuate the cument
a: 0 astatutes are in Iona City. The Norman ordinance requires sore form of electronic
� equipment for measuring and enforcement, but I think the real strength of the
ordinance is in its specificity and breadth. Sections 10-305(c) and 10-307(2) are
especially applicable here.
e *U Why this request'
•� v
min a very general way, the opening section(10-301) of the Noonan ordinance aptly
describes the situation here. FIavinq moved here last year, I have tma big
H ••i disappointments about the quality of life in Iava City: the first is the water,
a problem requiring more than a city ordinance; the second is the noise level.
For the last year I just simmered along with the prohldr—cursing the stereos
blaring out in the streets, shaking my-head whenever a motorcycle sans muffler
44 raced dawn dodge Street—but recently I have been unable to ignore the noise.
�mp V In Play, a houseful of students mated in across the street from my wife and I.
C H Since then I have learned to sing along with their music, even though I miqht be
sitting in my kitchen. The police have been called at midnight and 3:30 a.m. about
5 loud noises frau then. Seeking clarification ahout exactly what my rights are, I
0 looked through the city ordinances with the City Clerk and City Attorney. Those
ordinances are few and vague. The City Attorney was not very helpful. Perhaps it
•• his never noisy in her neighborhood. whatever—she dismissed my irritation by
a� infondM me that "noise was sanething you have to expect in a college ta'n.•
PFGj I don't think so.
N 8 College tavns are notorious not only for their noise, but also for their stray dogs
and cats. Iota City does not have the latter problem for a simple reason: there are
n a'fie lacus on the hooks that are rigidly enforced. The solution to the noise
•H p eR seems equally•attainable.
m I would be glad, even eager, to amplify this request in person. I hope you will give
�- this matter some consideration. Thanks very much for your time.
}+ Larry Baker
V) 521 South Dodae
H 337-5511
MICROFILMED By
JORM MICROLAB
CEDAR RAPIDS -DES 140INES
L.,
19-97
(AS AMENDED)
0-7778-9
AN ORDINANCE CREATING SECTIONS 301 THROUGH 315,
CHAPTER 10 OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF NORMAN, OKLAHOMA,
SO AS TO PROVIDE FOR NOISE CONTROL.
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NORMAN, OKLAHOMA:
§ 1. Sec. 301 - 315 of Chapter 10 of the Code of the City of Norman shall
be to read as follows:
Sec. 10-301. Declaration of Policy.
WHEREAS, the making and creation of excessive, unnecessary or
unusually loud noises within the limits of Norman, Oklahoma is a
condition which has existed for some time and the extent and
magnitude of such noises is increasing; and
WHEREAS, the making, creation or maintenance of such excessive,
unnecessary or unusually loud noises which are prolonged, unusual or
unreasonable in their time, place and use affect and are a detriment
to public health, comfort, convenience, safety and welfare of the
residents of Norman, Oklahoma; and
THEREFORE, the necessity in the public interest for the provisions
and prohibitions hereinafter contained and enacted is declared as a
matter of public policy, and the provisions and prohibitions hereinafter
contained and enacted are in pursuance of and for the purpose of
securing and promoting the public health, comfort, convenience, safety,
I welfare, and the peace and quiet of the inhabitants of Norman, Oklahoma.
i
Sec. 10-302. City of Norman Contracts and Purchases.
(a) Compliance of City Contractors and Subcontractors. It is the
policy of the City of Norman to comply with - the noise emission standards,
as set forth in this Chapter, in its own operations and the operations of
its contractors and subcontractors shall be notified of and required to
comply with the provisions of this Ordinance.
i
(b) City Purchases. It is the policy of the City of Norman to
purchase only equipment which complies to the standards established for
the same by this Ordinance.
Sec. 10-303. Definitions and Standards.
Terminology used in this ordinance may be found in Sec, 10-311, and
if not defined therein shall be in conformance with applicable American
National Standards Institute Publications, including but not limited to
Sl. 1-1960, R 1971, or those from its successor publications or bodies.
i
i.
i
W7
MICROFILMED BY
'JORM MICROLAB
CEDAR RAPIDS -DES MOINES
i.
.i, 2 -
Sec. 10-304'N
' e District Noise Levels.
(a) Maximum Permissible Sound Levels. It shall be a violation
of this ordinance for any person to operate or permit to be operated
any stationary source of sound which either:
(i) creates a sound level greater than 15dB(A) above the
ambient sound level (L90) within any land use district
during any measurement period; or
(2) creates a ninetieth percentile sound level (L90) or a
tenth percentile sound level' (LID) for any measurement
period which exceeds the limit's set forth for the following
receiving land use districts when measured at the boundary
or at any point within the property affected by the noise:
L90
Dis
LID
Residential 50dB(A) 55dB(A) 60dB(A) 65dB(A)
Commercial 55dB(A) 60dB.(A) 65dB(A) 70dB(A)
Industrial 65dB(A) 70dB(A) 75dB(A) BDdB(A)
When a noise source can be identified and its.noise measured in more
than one land use category, the limits 'of -the most restrictive use shall
apply at the boundaries between different land use categories. For the
Purpose of enforcing these provisions a measurement period shall not be
less than ten (10) minutes nor more than thirty (30) minutes.
i
(b) Correction for Character of Sound.
i
(1) For any stationary source of sound which emits a pure tone,
cyclically varying sound or repetitive impulsive sound, the ,
limits set forth in Subsection (a) above shall be reduced f
by 5 dB(A). `
(2) Notwithstanding compliance with part (1) of this subsection, it
shall be a violation of this ordinance for any person to
operate or permit to be operated any stationary source of
sound which emits a pure tone, cyclically varying or repetitive
impulsive sound which creates a noise disturbance.
Sec. 10-305. Motor Vehicle Noise.
(a) No person shall drive or move or cause or knowingly permit to
be driven or moved a motor vehicle or combination of vehicles at any time in
such a manner as to exceed the following noise limits for the category of
motor vehicle shown below. The standard measurement height shall be 5 feet
(1.5 meters) and the measurement distance no less than 25 feet (7.5m).
The distance shall be measured from the near side of the nearest monitored
traffic lane to the microphone.
ia4�.
MICROFILMED BY
JORM MICRO_ LAB
CEDAR RAPIDS -DES MOINES
I
-3 -
Sound Level, dB(A)
-------------------
Motor vehicles with a manufacturers
gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR)
or gross combination weight rating 88
(GCWR) of 10,000 pounds or more,
or any combination of vehicles
towed by such motor vehicle.
Motorcycles 78
Any other motor vehicle or any
combination of vehicles towed by 78
any motor vehicle.
'(b) This section shall apply to the total noise from a vehicle
or combination of vehicles and shall not be construed as limiting or
precluding the enforcement of any other provisions of this title
relating to motor vehicle mufflers for noise control.
(c) No person shall operate or cause to be operated any motor
vehicle unless the exhaust system of such vehicle is:
(1) free from defects which affect sound reduction;
(2) equipped with a muffler or other noise dissipative device;
(3) not equipped with any cut-out, by-pass or similar device; and
(4) not modified in a manner which will 'amplify or increase the
noise emitted by the motor of such vehicle above that emitted
by a muffler of the type originally installed on the vehicle.
Sec. 10-306. Sound Level Measurement.
Sound level measurements shall be made with a sound level meter
Type II or better using the "A" weighted scale, in accordance and con-
forming with the standards promulgated by the American National Standards
Institute.
Sec. 10-307. Noises Prohibited.
(a) General Prohibitions: In addition to the specific prohibitions
outlined in Subsection b and Sections 10-304 and 10-312 below of this
ordinance, it shall be unlawful for any person to make, continue, or
cause to be made or continued any noise disturbance within the limits
of Norman.
(b) Specific Prohibitions: The following acts are declared to be
in violation of this ordinance:
(1) Horns and Signaling Devices. Sounding of any horn or .signaling
device on any truck, automobile, motorcycle, emergency vehicle
MICROFILMED By
JORM MICRO_ LAB
CEDAR RAPIDS -DES MOINES
I'M
7
Ir-
or other vehicle on any street or public place therein except
as a danger warning signal as provided in the vehicle code of the
State of Oklahoma, or the sounding of any such signaling device.
for an unnecessary and unreasonable period of time.
(2) Radios, Television Sets, Musical Instruments, and Similar Devices.
(a) Using, operating or permitting the use or operation of any
radio receiving set, musical instrument, television, phono-
graph, drum or other machine or device for the production
or reproduction of sound, except as provided for in
paragraph (3) below, in such a manner as to violate
Section 10-304 or cause a noise disturbance.
(b) The operating of any such device between the hours of
9 p.m, and 7 a.m, the following day in such a manner as to
be plainly audible at the property boundary of the source
or plainly audible at 50 feet (15 meters) from such device
when operated in or on a vehicle on a public right-of-way
or public, space, or in a boat on public waters.
(3) Public Loudspeakers. Using or operating a loudspeaker or sound
amplifying equipment in a fixed or movable position or mounted
upon any sound vehicle in or upon any street, alley, sidewalk,
park, place, or public property for the purpose of commercial
advertising, giving instructions, directions, talks, addresses;
lectures, or transmitting music to any persons or assemblages of
persons in such a manner as to violate Section 10-304'or cause a
noise disturbance unless a permit as provided by Section 10-309
is first obtained.
(4) Hawkers and Peddlers. Selling anything by outcry (vocal,
electrical, or mechanical amplification) within any area of the
City therein zoned primarily for residential uses in such a manner
as to violate Section 10-304 or cause a noise disturbance. The
provisions of this section shall not be construed to prohibit
the selling by outcry of merchandise, food, and beverages at
licensed sporting events, parades, fairs, circuses, and other
similar licensed public entertainment events.
(5) Animals. Owning, keeping, possessing, or harboring any animal
which by frequent or habitual nolsemaking, violates Section 10-304
or causes a noise disturbance. The provisions of this section
shall apply to all private and public facilities, including any
animal pounds, which hold or treat animals.
(6) Loading Operation. Loading, unloading, opening or otherwise
handling boxes, crates, containers, garbage containers or other
objects between the hours of 9 p.m. and 7 a.m, the following day
in such a manner as to violate Section 10-304 or cause a noise
disturbance.
MICROFILMED BY
JORM MICROLAB
CEDAR RAPIDS -DES MOINES
.-I
i. -5
7 Construction Work. Operating, or causing to be used or operated,
fany equipment used in construction, repair, alteration or
J demolition work on buildings, structures, streets, alleys, or
appurtenances thereto:
(a) in residential or commercial land use districts between
the hours of 9 p.m. and 7 a.m, the following day;
(b) in any land use district where such operation exceeds
the sound level limits for an industrial land use
as set forth in Section 10-304.
(8) Domestic Power Equipment. Operating or permitting to be
operated any power equipment used for home or building repair
or grounds maintenance, including, but not limited to power
saw, sander, lawn mower, or garden equipment, in residential
or commercial zones:
(a) outdoors between the hours of 9 p.m. and 7 a.m, the
following day;
(b) any such power equipment which emits a sound level in
excess of 74 dB(A) measured at a distance of 50 feet
(15 meters).
(9) Commercial Power Equipment. Operating or permitting to be
i operated, any power equipment, except construction equipment
used for construction activities, including, but not limited
to chain saws, pavement breakers, log chippers, powered hand
tools:
(a) in residential or commercial land use districts between
the hours of 9 p.m, and 7 a.m. the following day;
(b) in any land use district if such equipment emits a
sound pressure level in excess of 82 dB(A) measured at
a distance of 50 feet (15 meters).
(10) Enclosed Placed of Public Entertainment. Operating or permitting
to be operated in any place of public entertainment any loud-
speaker or other source of sound which produces, at a point
that is normally occupied by a customer, maximum sound levels
of 90 dB(A) or greater as read with the slow response on a sound
level meter, unless a conspicuous and legible sign at least
225 square inches in area is posted near each public entrance
stating:
"WARNING: SOUND LEVELS WITHIN MAY CAUSE HEARING IMPAIRMENT."
This provision shall not be construed to allow the operation of
any loudspeaker or other source of sound in such a manner as to
violate Section 10-304 of this ordinance.
MICROFILMED OY
'JORM MICROLAB
CEDAR RAPIDS -DES MOINES
-6-
(I l) Fireworks or Explosives. The use of explosives or fireworks,
or the firing of guns or other explosive devices so as to be
audible across a property boundary or on a public space or
right-of-way, without first obtaining a permit as provided
by Section 10-309• This provision shall not be construed to
permit conduct prohibited by other statutes, ordinances or
regulations governing such activity.
(12)Racing Events. Permitting any motor vehicle racing event at any
place in such a manner as to violate -Section 10-304 or cause
a noise disturbance, without first obtaining a permit as
provided by Section 10-309.
(13) Powered Model Mechanical Devices. The flying of a model
aircraft powered by internal combustion engines, whether tethered
or not, or the firing or operating of model rocket vehicles or
other similar noise -producing devices, between the hours of
9 p.m. and 7 a.m. the following day or in such a manner as
to violate Section 10-304 or cause a noise disturbance.
(14) 2,2a mic En ine Brakin Devices. (Commonly referred to as
Jacobs Brake. Operating any motor vehicle with a dynamic
engine braking device engaged except for the aversion of
imminent danger.
(15) Defect in Vehicle. Operating or permitting to be operated or
used any truck, automobile, motorcycle, or other motor vehicle
which, by virtue of disrepair or manner of operation, violates
Section 10-304 or causes a noise disturbance..
(16) Refuse Compacting Vehicles. The operating or causing or
permitting to be operated or used any refuse compacting
vehicle which creates a sound pressure level in excess of
74 dB(A) at 50 feet (15 meters) from the vehicle.
(17) Garbage Collection. The collectionof garbage, waste or
refuse between the hours of 9 p.m. and 7 a.m. the following
day:
(a) in any area zoned residential, or within 300 feet of
an area zoned residential;
(b) in any land use district so as to cause a noise disturbance.
(18) Standing Motor Vehicles. The operating or causing or permitting
to be operated any motor vehicle or any auxiliary equipment
attached thereto in such a manner as to violate Section 10-304
or cause a noise disturbance for a consecutive period longer
than 15 minutes during which such vehicle is stationary in a
residential zone.
(19) Quiet Zones. Creating noise in excess of the residential
standard as defined in Section 10-304 within the vicinity of
any school, hospital, nursing homes, institution of learning,
IIagI
MICROFILMED BY
'DORM MICROLAB
CEDAR RAPIDS -DES MOINES
cr'�, or other designated area, v�je the same is in use,
pr_.ided conspicuous signs are disF.ayed in the streets
indicating that the same is a quiet zone.
(20) Bells and Alarms. Sounding, operating or permitting to sound
or operate an electronically amplified signal from any burglar
alarm, bell, chime or clock, including but not limited to
bells, chimes or clocks in schools, houses of religious
worship or governmental buildings, which fails to meet the
sound level standards set forth in Section 10-304'for more
than 5 minutes in any hour.
(21) Fixed Sirens, Whistles and Horns. The sounding or causing
the sounding of any whistle, horn or siren as a signal for
commencing or suspending work, or for any other purpose
except as a sound signal of imminent danger or the testing of
such equipment, in such a manner as to violate Section 10-304
or cause a noise disturbance.
(22) Vehicle, Recreational Vehicle or Motorboat Repairs and Test
Repairing, rebuilding, modifying, or testing any vehicle,
recreational vehicle, motorcycle, or motorboat in such a
manner as to cause a noise disturbance across a residential
real property boundary or within a quiet zone.
(23)Groups or Gatherin s of People. Talking, laughing, yelling,
singing, or otherwise making noise by two or.more people
between the hours of 9:00 p.m, and 7:00 a.m. the following
day in such a manner as to violate Section 10=304 or cause
a noise disturbance.
Sec. 10-308. Exemptions.
The provisions of this ordinance shall not apply to (a) the emission
Of sound for the purpose of alerting persons to the existence of an
emergency, or (b) the emission of sound in the performance of emergency
work.
Sec. 10-309. Permit.
Applications for a permit for relief from the noise restrictions
in these ordinances on the basis of undue hardship may be made to the
City Manager of Norman. Any permit granted by the City Manager or his
authorized representative shall contain all conditions upon which said
Permit has been granted, including but not limited to the effective
dates, time of day, location, sound pressure level, or equipment limita-
tion. The relief requested may be granted upon good and sufficient
showing:
(a) that additional time is necessary for the applicant to alter
or modify his activity or operation to comply with this ordinance; or
(b) that the activity, operation, or noise source will be of
temporary duration and cannot be done in a manner that would comply with
this ordinance; and
(c) that no reasonable alternative is available to the applicant.
The City Manager may prescribe any reasonable conditions or require-
ments deemed necessary to minimize adverse effects upon a community or the
surrounding neighborhood.
MICROFILMED BY
JORM MICRO_ LAB
CEDAR RAPIDS -DES MOINES
V. _
-8-
Section 10-310. Enforcement Responsibility.
The Environmental Protection Officer, City Manager, or designated
representative or agent, will have enforcement responsibility for this
ordinance as it relates to stationary sources, and joint enforcement
responsibility with appropriate law enforcement agencies as it relates
to vehicular sources.
Section 10-311. Terminology.
For the purposes of this ordinance, certain words and phrases used
herein are defined as follows:
(a) A-Weiahted Sound Level: The sound level as measured with a
sound level meter using the A -weighting network. The standard notation
is dB(A) or dBA.
(b) Ambient Sound Pressure Level: The sound pressure level of the
all-encompassing noise associated with.a given environment, usually a
composite of sounds from many sources. It is also the A -weighted sound
pressure level exceeded 90 percent of the time based on a measurement
period of not less than 10 minutes nor more than 30 minutes.
(c) Continuous Sound: Any sound which exists, e5sentially without
interruption, fora period of 10 minutes or more.
(d) Cyclically Varying Noise: Any sound which varies in sound level
such that the same level is obtained repetitively at reasonably uniform
intervals of time.
(e) Decibel: Logarithmic and dimensionless unit of measure used in
describing the amplitude of sound. Decibel is denoted as dB.
(f) Device: Any mechanism which is intended to produce, or which
actually produces, noise when operated or handled.
(9) linamic Braking Device (Commonly referred to as Jacobs Brake):
A device used primarily on trucks for the conversion of the engine from an
internal combustion engine to an air compressor for the purpose of braking
without the use of wheel brakes.
(h) Emer enc Work: Work made necessary to restore property or a
public utility to a sa a condition following a public calamity, or work
required i red to . i ' �'
q protect persons or property from an imminenE exposura 16--dan9eh7—
(i) Emergency Vehicle: A motor vehicle used in response to a public
calamity or to protect persons or property from an imminent exposure to
danger,
(j) Impulsive Noise. A noise containing excursions, usually less
than one second, of sound levels of 20 dB(A),or more over the ambient
sound level using the fast meter characteristic.
1
k MICROFILMED BY
'JORM MICROLAB
CEDAR RAPIDS -DES MOINES
-9-
(k) Motor_ Vehicle- Any vehicle which is self-propelled by
luding but not limited to passenger cars, trucks,
mechanical power, inc
truck-trailers, semi- trailers, campers, motorcycles, minibikes, go-carts,
mo-peds, and racing vehicles,
(1) Muffler: An apparatus consisting of a series of chambers or
baffle plates designed for the purpose of transmitting
sound emanating from such apparatus. gases while reducing
(m) Noise Disturbance: Any sound which annoys or disturbs reasonable
persons with normal sensitivities, or which injures or endangers the comfort,
repose, health, hearing, peace or safety of other persons.
(n) Noise: Any sound which is unwanted or which causes or tends to
cause an adverse Psychological or physiological effect on human beings.
(o) Percentile Sound Pressure Level: Tenth Percentile Noise Level
the A -weighted sound pressure level that is exceeded 10 percent of the
time in any measurement period (such as the level that is exceeded for I
minute in a 10 minute period). It is denoted L10. Ninetieth Percentile
Noise Level __the A -weighted sound pressure leve] that is exceeded
90 percent of the time in any measurement period (such as the level
that is exceeded for 9 minutes in a 10 minute period). It is denoted L9o,
(p) Person: Any human being, firm, association, organization,
partnership, business, trust, corporation, company, contractor, supplier,'
installer, user, owner or operator, including any municipal corporation .
or its officers or employees.
(q) PlainlvAudible Noise: Any noise for which the.informatton
content of that noise is unambiguously transferred to the listener, such
ias but not limited to understanding of spoken speech, comprehension of
i
whether a voice is raised or normal, or comprehension of musical rhythms. I
Bound
structure, -at ptheyg— ground surface,land'itsyverticalexterior
extenslon, who any ich the real property owned b one P
Y person from that owned by another person.
(s) Public Right -of -Way: Any street, avenue, boulevard, highway,'
or alley or similar place which is owned or controlled by a public govern-
mental entity.
(t) Pure Tone: Any sound which can be distinctly heard as a single
pitch ora set of single pitches. For the purposes of measurement, a
pure tone shall exist if the one-third octave band sound pressure level
in the band with the tone exceeds the arithmetic average of the sound
pressure levels of the two contiguous one-third octave bands by 5 dB for
center frequencies of 500 Hz and above, by 8 dB for center frequencies
between 160 and 400 Hz, and by 15 dB for center frequencies less than
or equal to 125 Hz.
MICROFILMED BY
.JORM MICRO_ LAB
CEDAR RAPIDS -DES MOINES
- 10
(u) Reyetitive Impulsive Noise: Any noise which is composed of
impulsive noises that are repeated at sufficiently slow rates such that
a sound level meter set at "fast" meter characteristic will show changes
in sound pressure level greater than 10 dB(A).
(v) Sound: Sound is mechanical energy transmitted by a cyclic
series of compressions and rarefactions of molecules of the material or
materials through which it passes.
(w) Sound Level Meter: An instrument, including a microphone,
amplifier, RMS detector and integrator or time averager, output meter
and/or visual display and weighting networks, used to measure sound
levels. The sound level meter shall conform as a minimum to the
requirements of ANSI S 1.4 - 1971 Type 2 or its successor publication;
and be set to an A -weighted response. An its
calibrator
accurate to within plus or minus one decibel shall be used to verify
the before and after calibration of the sound level meter on each day
noise measurements are taken.
(x) Sound Pressure: The instantaneous difference between the actual
pressure and the average or barometric pressure at a given point in space,
as produced by sound.
(y) Sound Pressure Level: Twenty times the logarithm to the base 10
of the ratio of the RMS sound pressure to the reference pressure of 20
micropascals. The sound pressure level is denoted L or SPL.
(z) Stationary Noise Source: Any device, fixed or movable including
motor vehicles, which is located or used on property other than a
right-of-way. public
(aa) Steady Noise: A sound pressure level which remains essentially
constant during the period of observation, i.e., does•not vary more than
6 dB(A) when measured with the "slow" meter characteristic of a sound
level meter.
(bb) Use District: Those districts established by the Norman Zoning
Ordinances.
Section 10-312. Violation.
Any person violating any provision of this ordinance may be punished
by a fine of not more than $100 or by imprisonment not to exceed 30 days,
or by both such fine and imprisonment. Each day such violation is committed
or permitted to continue shall constitute a separate offense and shall
be punishable as such.
Violations of this Ordinance shall be prosecuted in the same manner
as other violations of City Ordinances; provided, however, that in the
event of violation of Section 10-305 pertaining to motor vehicles, of this
Ordinance, a summons will be issued citing the violator to arraignment.
The violator may decide to effect a repair or bring the vehicle Into
compliance prior to the arraignment date.It will be the responsibility
of the Environmental Protection Officer to test the vehicle for compliance
and, on being found in compliance, recommend dismissal to the court, on
first offenses only.
i
iag7
MICROFILMED By
JORM MICRO_ LAB
CEDAR RAPIDS -DES MOINES
,
Sec. 10-313 Additional Remedies. �.
Violations of Sections 10-304 through 10-309 of this ordinance are
deemed and declared to be a nuisance, and as such may be subject to
summary abatement by means of a restraining order or injunction issued by
a court of competent jurisdiction.
Ser., In -1111, `Uvaralil � I1Y.
If any provision, clause, sentence or paragraph of this ordinance
or the application thereof to any person or circumstance shall be
held to be Invalid, :uch invalidity shall not affect the other provisions
r.
or appiloatlonof this ordinance which can be given effect independent
Oro" tha invalid pravislon or application, and to this end the provisions: --f
of t►ts ordlna-1cc art i•*raby declared to be severable,
ADOPTED this day of
1971.
ATTEST:
C WYCIerk
em
NOT'ADOP.TED this day of
1977.
Mayor
�a97
MICROFILMED BY
'JORM MICRO_ LAB
CEDAR RAPIDS -DES MOINES
�� — — . -- L ., __ Ad
7
City of Iowa Ci`Ay
MEMORANDUM
DATE: August 20, 1981
TO: City Council 9 v
FROM: Roger Tinklenberg, Energy. Program Coordinator L`
RE: Council Meeting with Resources Conservation Commission
The RCC requested the opportunity to meet with you to clarify their
task and direction. To that end, they will present a synopsis of the
estimated energy use and cost in the Iowa City area, then move on to
a discussion of the role of the RCC in light of the local energy
situation, and then touch on some general policy areas in order to
receive additional direction from the Council.
The following is the agenda they want to cover with you:
1. Energy and the local economy.
2. Role of the RCC.
3. Local energy code.
4. Transportation:
a. transit system;
b. traffic control;
C. bicycle use.
S. Promoting energy conservation.
6. Other ideas:
a. financial incentives for energy conservation;
b. Iowa -Illinois Gas and Electric Co. franchise.
7. Conclusion.
I MICROFILMED BY
JORM MICROLAB
CEDAR RAPIDS -DES MOINES
iagff.
City of Iowa City
MEMORANDUM
Date: August 17, 1981
To: Neal Berlin, City Manager, and City Co'1
From: Frank Farmer, Assistant City Engineeunc
r ✓ .,
Re: Fill at End of Tower Court North of Oakcrest
As noted in the letter from Nate Moore, attached to my memo of August 6,
1981, a road to the Neuzil tract was not mentioned. I have again visited
with Paul Moore 'and a road to the Neuzil tract is not part of their plan.
If a private or public drive is planned to this area, Neuzil would have to
obtain easements -or buy property from Moore and Braverman. In either
situation, if this is in conjunction with further development of the
Neuzil tract, it would have to be reviewed by City staff through the
subdivision regulations, etc. I would be happy to discuss this matter
with any concerned member of the City Council.
bdw5/4
cc: Chuck Schmadeke
i MICROFILMED BY
.JORM MICROLAB
CEDAR RAPIDS -DES MOINES
I a99
City of Iowa Ci_ j
MEMORANDUM
Date: August 21, 1981
To: City Manager and City Council
From: Hugh Mose, Transit Manager
Re: Iowa City Transit's Tenth Anniversary
On September 1, 1981, Iowa City Transit will be ten years old. To
recognize this milestone, and also to thank our supporters and attract
some new riders, we are planning a small celebration. We propose to
undertake the following activities to publicize our tenth birthday:
1. Have the Mayor proclaim September 1 as Iowa City Transit Day in Iowa
City.
2. Erect a display table in the Downtown Transit Interchange to dispense
refreshments, promotional items, and transit information.
3. Prepare and distribute a leaflet describing the history of Iowa City
Transit.
4. Arrange fora prototype Neoplan bus (like we will be getting) to be
on display downtown.
5. Publicize our anniversary activities through posters, paid
advertisements, news stories, etc.
Altogether we plan to spend about $1500 to advertise and carry out the
anniversary celebration. This effort will consume about 25% of our
marketing budget for FY82. However, this will be by far our best oppor-
tunity to promote the transit system, and with the new students in town
the timing could hardly be better.
In addition to these promotions, on September 1 we propose to charge a 104
fare in commemoration of our Tenth Anniversary. Not only will this be an
incentive for new riders to try our system, but it should also serve as a
token of appreciation for our current patrons. Based on ridership
projections, this fare reduction will result in about $800 in lost
revenue; however, our promotions should result in increased ridership,
which will serve to offset this amount.
Unless directed otherwise, we will proceed with our plans. The City
Council is cordially invited to ride the bus September 1, stop downtown
and visit our display, and hopefully get a preview of our new Neoplan
buses.
bj4/5
MICROFILMED BY
JORM MICROLAB
CEDAR RAPIDS -DES MOINES
13
CITY CSF .IOW/ CITY
CIVIC CEN(ER 410 E. WASHINGTON ST. IOWA 0- Y, IOWA 52240 (319) 356-5cm
August 19, 1981
PRESS RELEASE
Effective Monday, August 24, Iowa City Transit will resume its school year
schedule, which includes extra rush-hour service to Hawkeye, North
Dubuque, and the near east side. The extra buses will operate in the same
manner as during the 1980-81 school year.
The Hawkeye Express route provides additional service from Hawkeye to
I
North Hospital, as shown below:
i
i
HAWKEYE EXP
i MICROFILMED BY
fJORM MICROLAB
CEDAR RAPIDS -DES MOINES
I zol
p r.
The East Side Special provides additional capacity to parts of the
Towncrest and Court Hill routes, as shown below:
~y ` EAST S I D E
av ` o
•V (7O N
Vl • WehingtonSt. E SPECIAL
C E
n O N
i Burlington St. • •
PM .
w • Court St.
o • 7 •
•
NOTE: BwoWrMMYOVtl baP—cwnlurAah�Iw during AM Murk,
cbrSMM dwbq PM Mw�.
I
The extra North Dubuque bus will operate over the regular North Dubuque
Route.
1
In addition to the resumption of our school year service, the Seventh
Avenue bus route is being rerouted to provide service from the new Senior
Center to the Downtown Transit Interchange. Beginning Monday, this bus
will operate inbound via College Street, Linn Street and Washington
Street, as shown on the following map:
MICRDFILMED BY
IJORM MICROLAB
CEDAR RAPIDS -DES 140INES
1301
_X,
s=-
Market St.
Jefferson St.
_. IOva Ave.
Senior
Center
M ^^ ton St.
tL I Co11ege St.
G. Y.
G. h
u
v
M
C!
7th AVENUE
ROUTE
i
North
The Iowa City Transit "Guide to Streets and Public Transportation", our
red route map, has been updated and reprinted for this school year. All
Iowa City Transit schedule brochures have also been revised, with some
slight time changes affecting certain routes. These maps and schedules
are now available on all Iowa City buses and at our many schedule
distribution,points throughout Iowa City.
Additional transit information can be obtained by calling 356-5151.
MICROFILMED BY
JORM MICRO_ LAB
.CEDAR RAPIDS -DES MOINES
1301
CITY CSF IOWA
CITY
CHIC CENTER 410 E. WASHINGTON ST. IOWA CITY,. IOWA 52240 (319) 356-5000
PRESS RELEASE
August 20, 1981
Re: Notification of Approval of Federal Application for
Section 8 Moderate Rehabilitation Housing Program
The Housing Authority for the City of Iowa City received notice today of
approval for 30 units of moderate rehabilitation housing for lower-income
families.
The program differs from existing housing programs available to lower-
income tenants in the City of Iowa City in that staff will be soliciting
requests from property owners who wish to rehabilitate or repair their
existing housing to meet established minimum standards of the Department
of Housing and Urban Development in order to have their tenants qualify
for rental assistance. Existing programs in the City under Section 8 do
not involve any rehabilitation or repair, but only offer subsidies to
rental units already meeting the minimum standards. The public housing
projects currently under construction for the City will be owned by the
City and will not involve any private landlords.
The goal of the program is to provide a rent subsidy for lower-income
families to help them afford decent housing in the private market. HUD
makes up the difference between what a lower-income household can afford
to pay and the fair market rent for an adequate housing unit. No eligible
tenant need pay more than 25% of their adjusted income toward rent.
i
Housing thus subsidized by HUD must meet certain standards of safety and
I
1300 -
MICROFILMED BY
JORM MICROLAB
CEDAR RAPIDS -DES MOINES
.1
V-
2
sanitation, and rents for these units must fall within the range of fair
market rents as determined by HUD.
Upon completion of the necessary contract documents with the Federal
government, the City of Iowa City Housing Authority will be advertising
the availability of the program and will invite proposals from rental
property owners. Each proposal will then be evaluated and specific
buildings will be identified. If the structures are tenant occupied, the
tenants will be interviewed to determine eligibility for rental
i
assistance. In order to receive rental subsidies, tenants must be lower
income households with incomes amounting to 80% of the city's median
income or less. No dwellings occupied by ineligible tenants will be
considered for the program.
1
In order to determine what repairs are necessary to bring this structure
into conformance with the HUD standards, City staff will inspect the
! property, develop a worklist and cost estimate and present the same to the
owner. If the owner agrees to the initial estimate and required worklist,
he/she must show evidence of having secured rehabilitation financing, if
required. Staff then determines the maximum rent the owner can charge
I I
under the program after the rehabilitation is completed. The owner and
the City then enter into an agreement to provide housing assistance
payments upon the completion of the rehabilitation and acceptance by the
City. The contract to provide assistance to the tenants goes with the
building rather than with the tenant and will extend for a 15 -year period.
130 �-
i MICROFILMED BY
'JORM MICROLAB
CEDAR RAPIDS•DES 140INES
3
Houses can be offered for consideration to the City by private owners,
profit -motivated and non-profit organizations or cooperative
organizations. Additional information on the program can be obtained by
contacting Lyle Seydel, Housing Coordinator for the City of Iowa City, at
356-5138.
-0-
From: Administrative Offices
MICROFILMED BY
!JORM MICROLAB
CEDAR RAPIDS -DES -MOINES
13oa.''
I
I
jI
I
I�—
L,.
CrlInREr� JED I
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
*+� REGION VII
0
,OlwlO wf+f
In Reply Refer to: 7.4FU Service Office
210 Walnut
Des Moines, Iowa 50309
August 18, 1981
Honorable John R. Balmer
Mayor of Iowa City
Civic Center - 410 East Washington
Iowa City, Iowa 52240
Dear Mayor Balmer:
Subject: NOTIFICATION OF APPROVAL OF APPLICATION
Section 8 Moderate Rehabilitation Housing Program
IA05-KO22-001
City of Iowa City, Iowa
1
You are hereby notified that your Application, dated June 30, 1981, for
the Section 8 Moderate Rehabilitation Housing Program is approved and Annual
Contributions Contract Authority in the amount of•$136,080 and $2,041,200
in Budget Authority have been reserved for the number of units and unit
size distribution specified below. The Annual Contributions Contract will
be prepared and forwarded to you for execution upon receipt and approval
of the items listed below. Although the specified funds have been reserved,
it is noted that no HAP Agreements or Contracts with owners may be executed
utilizing these funds until such time as an Annual Contributions Contract
has been executed by this office.
Moderate Rehabilitation Housing
Total number of units - 30
20 - 2 bedroom - Family
10 - 3 bedroom - Large Family
We will execute the Annual Contributions Contract when your agency has
submitted and we have approved the following additional items:
1. Equal Opportunity Housing Plan(Appendix 19 of 7420.3 REV) and
Equal Opportunity Certification, Form HUD -920.
2. An Administrative Plan.
MICROFILMED BY
'JORM MICROLAB
CEDAR RAPIOS•OES MOINES
1303
..7
6
3. Schedule of Allowances for Utilities and Other Services, Foran
HUD -52667, with a justification of the amounts proposed.
4. Estimates.of•Required Annual Contributions, Forms HUD -52671, HUD-
52672, HUD:52673, and supporting documentation.
i
i Please submit Items 1 through 3 within 30 days of the date of this letter.
Forms HUD -52671, 52672, and 52673 may be submitted with the ACC when it
is signed and returned,to this office.
Upon request, this office will be glad to provide any assistance you may
need in the preparation of these items and to provide your agency with
copies of necessary forms. If you have questions, please feel free to
contact Donna R. Martin, Multifamily Housing Representative, at (515) 284- I
4687.
Si rely,
i
{
SmmyH. ayne V
Acting Supervisor l
cc: Lyle Seydel
a
i
I
i
I
i
t
I
i
1303
I MICROFILMED BY
JORM MICROLAB
CEDAR RAPIDS -DES -MOINES
S
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
REGION VII
°JJJr111J"(rI°rnx, RCC_; : =D nllu it 1981
F I
In Reply Refer to: 7.2CM, Clements
Omaha Area 011lce
UNIVAC Building
7100 West Center Road
Omaha, Nebraska 68106
August 5, 1981
Mr Neal Berlin
City Manager
Civic Center
410 East Washington
Iowa City, Iowa 52240
Dear Mr. Berlin:
Subject: B -79 -HN -19-0005, B -80 -DN -19-0048, and B -81 -MC -19-0009
We appreciate the courtesy and cooperation you and your staff extended
to our representatives during their visit to the City on July 14 and
15, 1981, to monitor its Community Development Block Grant programs.
Our monitoring team included Mr. William Clements, Community Planning
and Development Representative; Ms. Karla Eirich, Rehabilitation
Specialist,,' and Mr. Joe Solis, Equal Opportunity Specialist. City
personnel contacted consisted of Mr. James Hencin, Community Development
Block Grant (CDBG) Coordinator; Mr. Pat Keller, Planner; Ms. Bette
Meisel, Senior Center.Coordinator; Ms. Pamela Barnes, Housing Rehabili-
tation Officer; Ms. Ann Carroll, Director of Human Rights Commission;
and Mr. Lyle Seydel, Assisted Housing Coordinator.
As a follow up to the visit, we are'forwarding the following comments:
Program Progress•
Hold Harmless Program - Reports provided by your staff indicate that as
of June 30, 1981, 80.1 percent ($3,577,932) of the funds available for
the 1979 program ($4,466,275), as amended, had been expended and an
additional 12.4 percent ($554,636) had been obligated or under contract.
The only activities that remain to be complete are the Ralston Creek
Improvements, Urban Renewal land disposition, the underground utility
conversion, the Senior Center, Housing Rehabilitation, and general
administration. We understand that you expect all the funds for these
activities to be expended by the end of your program time extension,
September 30, 1981, except for those budgeted for the Ralston Creek
Improvements and the Urban Renewal land disposition. According to your
staff, delays in acquiring property for the North Branch Dam and in
disposing of the two remaining Urban Renewal parcels could preclude the
City from completing these activities by the September target date.
1303
MICROFILMED BY
JORM MICROLAB
CEDAR RAPIDS -DES MONIES
-.7
Ir—
L",
Our staff's reports included comments on the excellent work that has
been done in rehabilitating the old Post Office into a Senior Center. We
commend you and your staff, particularly Ms. Bette Meisel, for a
Job well done.
Small Cities Programs - Your 1979 Small Cities program has been success-
fully completed and closeout is pending HUD release of the Certificate
Of Completion (HUD -4011). With respect to the City's 1980 program,
your records show that 61.2 percent ($474,111) of the total grant
($775,000) had been expended and an additional 37.2 percent ($288,670)
had been obligated by June 30, 1981. Of the 12 parcels of land to be
purchased during the 1980 year, six have already been acquired and
purchase offers on the remaining six have been issued. Your staff
expects five of the acquisitions in process to go to condemnation
which should delay activity completion until October 1981. Five
businesses and five tenants have been relocated to date, and 13 primary
and six accessory buildings will be demolished by November 1981. We
also understand that the contracts for the Lower Ralston Creek improve-
ments should be signed on September 8, 1981. With this action all
1980 funds will be obligated. As a result of the property acquisition
problems, your program's scheduled completion date will extend beyond
September 1, 1981, to November 30, 1981.
Metropolitan City Entitlement Program - As of June 30, 1981, six percent
($4,947) of the
grant amount ($776,000) was expended and 2.4
percent
($18,375) was obligated. The only activity in this program, besides
planning and administration, is the continuation of the Lower Ralston
Creek improvements. All program funds should be under contract in
September 1981. However, as mentioned by your staff, due to the
acquisition delays encountered in the Small Cities program and the close
of the construction season during the winter, the project will not be
completed until September 1982, nine months behind schedule.
In conclusion, the difficulties in implementing your programs' heavy
property acquisition load have adversely affected overall progress,
particularly in the Hold Harmless and Metropolitan City programs. We
encourage you to take the necessary steps to improve your performance.
If you find that the capacity of your Legal Department is not suffi-
cient to expeditiously process scheduled acquisition and condemnation
cases, you could seek the temporary assistance of private attorneys
to correct.the problem. With respect to your Hold Harmless program,
more stringent measures might be necessary. Since the project is
now 13 months beyond the originally approved completion date (June 30,
1980), you might be required to reprogram any funds not obligated by
September 30, 1981, to facilitate program closeout. Of course, a
final decision on the matter would depend on the progress that you have
made by that time. In this regard, please forward a brief report covering
the status of your Hold Harmless program by the end of September 1981.
As discussed with you during our visit, it is possible that the appli-
cation procedure as currently designed will be modified somewhat. Hope-
fully our office should have more specific information available in
September of this year. We suggest you contact our office toward the
end of September 1981.
.1
MICROFILMED BY
JORM MICROLAB
CEDAR RAPIDS -DES I401NES
1363
M
Housina Rehabilitation Program: Our staff's review of your housing rehabi-
litation program included an overview of your records and an on-site
inspection of several properties. In regard to the record overview,
individual case files are generally in good order. However, it was noted
that written procedures to resolve disputes between the homeowner and
contractor were not available. In cases involving disputes which cannot
be resolved, all parties must be allowed "due process" prior to a final
determination. This would necessitate establishing time periods for
settling disputes and identifying unbiased third party arbitrators. The
procedures that you set up will be reviewed during our next monitoring
visit.
The work on the five properties inspected are in various stages of com-
pletion. The work is being performed in a skilled, professional manner.
Our staff did indicate, though, that the rehabilitation area is too
large. In order to have a visible impact either the area should be
reduced or the activity should be concentrated in a few blocks within
the area. In developing rehabilitation areas for your next application,
we suggest that you consider these comments.
Program Benefit: A review of your files and selected site visits sub-
stantiated your programs' benefit to low/moderate-income persons as
identified in the City's respective funding applications.
Housing Assistance Plan (HAP): We have determined that the City's progress
in meeting the goals of its HAP is acceptable at this time. Although you
have only accomplished 18.2 percent (61 units) of your total goals (335
units) with 66 percent of the three year HAP period expired, we recognize
that other steps have been taken to provide assisted housing to the City's
low/moderate-income residents. Among those efforts.are:
1. The recent submission of an application for 30 units of
Section 8/Moderate Rehabilitation which is still under
review by our Des Moines Service Office.
2. The submission and continued consideration of a developer
application for 64 units of Section 8/New Construction.
3. The identification and approval of scattered sites for
Public Housing.
4. Meetings with developers to stimulate interest in housing
programs.
5. The generation of community interest in congregate housing
for the elderly.
We suggest that you continue your efforts to make assisted housing available
to Iowa City residents by responding to future HUD funding notices from
our Des Moines Office.
1303
MICROFILMED BY
JORM MICROLAB
CEDAR RAPIDS -DES 1401NES
.I
4
Citizen Partici ation: your programs P. g ami are In o crequireme requirements-
the community
Development Block Groat citizen participation requirements.
encourage you to continue your efforts to involve substantial numbers of
low/moderate-income persons and residents of blighted neighborhood
However, we
I, program planning, implementation, and assessment. ghb°rhooda
Labor Standards: mm Construcbrief review
ion Company Hamof .your contract files for Burger Construct -
tion Incorporated did not identify any
deficiencies in complying with the labor standard provisions of the Block
Grant program..
i
Pair Housin
L-ARLEfair housing and equual c ortunit The City's performance in meeting HDD s
pportunity requirements is acceptable at this review.
PriateWe would appreciate you taking note of the above comments and _
report adjustments to. your program. We also ask that you submit status
report'as identified is the Pno ppro
concerning the contents of this rogress section. If
I contact Mr. other aspects of�Y questions arise
Clements at (402) 221-9461. Your program,lease
P j
Sincerely,
nYHeeren
:Lrecddddddor, Community planning
and Development Division
I
f
i
1303
MICROFILMED BY
'JORM MICROLAB
CEDAR RAPIDS -DES "MOINES
If
1
September 10, 1981
Ms. Kay Duncan, Director
Iowa City Crisis Intervention Center
112 1/2 East Washington
Iowa City, Iowa 52240
Dear Kay:
At its regular meeting of July 28, the City Council received and
placed on file your letter requesting additional funding for this
fiscal year in the amount of $590.00. The Council has discussed
this request and has authorized the staff to include a resolution
to this effect on the regular agenda. This will be considered at
the City Council meeting of September 22, 1981.
If you should have any questions concerning this matter, please call
me.
Sincerely yours,
Neal G. Berlin
City Manager
Is
cc: City Clerk ✓
Pam Ramser
MICROFILMED BY
'JORM MICROLAB
CEDAR RAPIDS•DES MOINES
IV—
Johnson v
Council
of Goverrirr?nts
0%r
rro
0
Date: August 19, 1981
To: Iowa City City Manager
Iowa City City Council
From: Pam Ramser, Human Services Planner
Re: Crisis Center Transient Service Funding Request
The Crisis Center is requesting an emergency allocation of $590 from Iowa
City for FY82 to enable it to meet an unanticipated increase in demand for
assistance from its Transient Services program. The Crisis Center's
original request from the City for FY82 was $2500. The Council approved
an allocation for the full amount of the request.
The Transient Service was first funded by Iowa City in FY79 in the amount
of $3000. The Council has allocated $2500 to the program each year from
FY80 through the current fiscal year. Based on the small increase in
demand for services experienced during the first half of 1980 (prior to
budget preparation) and on a decision to absorb the program's
administrative costs into the Crisis Center general budget, no need for
increased funding of the program was foreseen.
ANALYSIS OF PROGRAM REQUESTS
The Transient Services program provides vouchers for food, lodging,
gasoline or bus tickets and other assistance, including car repairs,
medicine and diapers, to transient persons who are stranded here and in
dire need of emergency aid. Food assistance (33.7%) and transportation
assistance (44.4%) account for over 3/4ths of the assistance provided by
the program. Assistance is provided on a one-time only basis and only
after all other possible resources, including family, friends, and other
social service agencies, has been investigated. A concerted effort is
also made to put the family or individual in touch with sources of future
assistance in the home community or point of destination.
Despite the adoption of more stringent screening procedures in mid -year
1980, the Transient Service experienced an 8% increase in assistance
provided that year and has experienced a 20% increase over 1980 in
assistance provided thus far in 1981. Prior to 1980 the number of
transient contacts and individuals served had remained constant for
several years.
The increase in the number of requests for Transient Services is
attributable in large part to the state of the economy. Increased numbers
of employee layoffs and a continuing escalation in the cost of living are
two key factors involved. In addition to making it more difficult for
people at the bottom of the economic ladder to subsist, these factors are
causing more people to leave their home communities to seek more promising
employment opportunities elsewhere in the country. Because of Iowa City's
proximity to I-80, many such people pass through the area.
MICROFILMED BY
JORM MICROLAB
CEDAR RAPIDS -DES MOINES
1300
The Crisis Center anticipates that demand for emergency relief services
will continue to increase, particularly as a result of decreased
assistance being provided through traditional governmental assistance
programs. Recent information indicates that four state-wide assistance
programs will be cut by some $8 million, affecting about 30,000 Iowa
residents for the coming (federal) fiscal year. Programs affected are
Food Stamps, Aid to Families with Dependent Children, Title XIX
(Medicaid), and Title XX social service programs. In addition, Salvation
Army funds administered in Johnson County by the local United Way have
helped to supplement the Transient Services Program. The funding
allocation for 1981 has been completely spent, thus making Salvation Army
aid virtually unavailable for the rest of the year. .
The Crisis Center is also seeking additional FY82 funding from its other
local sources: United Way of Johnson County - $590, local churches -
$1000, and the City of Coralville - $220. The churches are being asked to
cover the largest portion of the funding need; $400 of the $1000 needed
from them has already been received.
RECOMMENDATION
The City has not previously granted a mid -year request for emergency
funds, nor to my knowledge has such a request been addressed to the
Council previously. In preparing budget proposals agencies are expected
to anticipate factors which will affect their service demands and
financial need for the budget year. This is a reasonable expectation,
enabling the Council to confine its consideration of funding matters to a
specific time of the year. Similarly, the Human Services Planner's
analysis of local funding requests is limited to a certain portion .of the
year in order that other responsibilities may be carried out during the
remainder of the year.
None of "us desires to spend Blot of time considering numerous requests for
funding. However, situations do arise in which all factors affecting
service demand and financial need cannot be foreseen. As discussed in the
earlier part of this memo, the Transient Services program is in my opinion
such a case. Based on my consideration of this instance and on extensive
study of the history of the transient situation in the Iowa City area, it
is my recommendation that the Crisis Center's funding request of $590 be
granted. In addition, I would like to suggest that the Council consider
adoption of policy and process regarding other such emergency needs of
City -funded human service agencies.
The present state of the economy and the recent radical policy in funding
changes at the federal level are making the task of planning and budgeting
for human services at the local level increasingly difficult. In
addition, the earlier deadline for budget submission required by the local
joint budget hearings has necessitated a lengthier projection of service
demand.
l3 0 5z
MICROFILMED BY
JORM MICROLAB
CEDAR RAPIDS -DES MOINES
For these reasons, it seems that situations of anticipated need, such as
that experienced by the Transient Services Program, will continue to
arise. In order to handle such situations in an orderly and judicious
manner, I urge the Council. to consider and adopt a policy and procedure
regarding interim requests from human service agencies for emergency
funds. My recommendation for such a procedure follows.
I. Adoption by the Council of policy guidelines as suggested
below, to be used by the Human Services Planner in assessment of
specific funding requests. In order for funding to be
considered at all in any given instance, all of these criteria
must be met
The agency is receiving Aid to Agencies funding from Iowa
City for the current fiscal year.
2. The increased financial need could not have reasonably
been anticipated by the agency at the time of the current
year's budget consideration.
3. The increased expense is not incurred through the addition
of new programs or services, capital expenditures, or
other changes in normal program operations as funded for
the budget year.
4. Where possible, other of the agency's funding sources are
also asked to provide a reasonable share of the increased
financial burden.
5. The increased financial need is of an immediate nature and
cannot be delayed until the following fiscal year.
Only if these criteria are met would the Human Services Planner
prepare an analysis and recommendation regarding the particular
request. The analysis would include an assessment of the impact
on the agency and community of not receiving the requested
funds. It would also examine the feasibility of alternatives to
additional funding, such as staffing or other program changes.
Other relevant factors would also be included.
Upon receiving the Human Services Planner's recommendation, the
City Council would consider the matter and make a determination
regarding funding of the request.
II. Creation of a contingency fund as part of the Aid to Agencies
budget allocation process. This contingency fund would be for
use in providing for unanticipated needs of agencies after the
steps outlined above have been followed and upon affirmation of
funding by the Council. The contingency fund would be similar
in nature to that which the City currently reserves within the
CDBG Program.
1304
MICROFILMED BY
JORM MICROLAB
LEDAR RAPIDS•DES MOINES
United Way designates a small portion of its money as
"unallocated reserve". This money is used to assist with the
emergency needs of the agencies funded by United Way. I would
suggest that the Council reserve 2% of the money allocated
through Aid to Agencies for this purpose the first year. (For
FY82, this would have amounted to $2,330.) Any unused portion
of the contingency fund would be carried over to the following
year.
i MICROFILMED BY
'JORM MICRO_ LAB
CEDAR RAPIDS•DES MOINES
130'x'
IC
.I
August 24, 1981
Mayor and Manbers of the Iowa City
City Council
Civic Center
Iowa City, IA 52240
Ladies and Gentlemen:
This letter will supplement my previous objections to the mobile hone ordinance
now before you for enactrmnt. I represent certain mobile hone court owners who
are greatly concerned about the proposed ordinance although my clients recognize
the need for reasonable regulation of mobile home courts. LPe have certain ob-
jections which are of a legal nature. I will not attempt to set forth these
cbjections in this letter which would require an indepth discussion of each and
every provision of it. Rather, I will confine my comments to the general overall
aspect of the proposal. Our objections and ocrmlaints include:
1. The "screening" or "buffering" of an area that is residential in nature
from other residential areas by the planting of trees or the use of other devices
Ais discriminatory. There is a recent case in Michigan which holds that an ordinance
preventing a modern mobile home in any residential area is discriminatory and
,
invalid.
2. The present zoning ordinance is cumulative in nature. The present propos-
'• al seeks to distinguish and degrade the use of a mobile hone as opposed to more
conventional housing. Many of the modern and expensive houses today are using pre-
fabricated units.
3. The proposed ordinance will bring a great change. Present facilities are
declared to be nonconforming. Needless to say, any such declaration depreciates the
value of the property substantially and brings in a host of other technical require-
ments in the event of alteration, modification, involuntary conversion, etc. Before
such a sweeping change is made in an area that is bound to increase in view of the
of the expensive cost of housing, great care should be used and a consultant
knowledgeable in the field should be retained. I direct your attention to a growing
trend in municipal law which may find a regulation valid but compensatory in nature
as a "taking" of a property right. It is my judgment that the ordinance as drawn
if valid will still subject the City of Iowa City to substantial claims.
FL E
S
AUG2 4 1981
ABBIE STOLFUS
CITY CLERK
13os
MICROFILMED BY
'JORM MICROLAB
CEDAR RAPIDS -DES 1401NES
MEARDON, SUEPPEL, DOWNER 61 HAYES
WILLIAM L. MEAROON
WILLIAM F. SUEPPEL
LAWYERS
ROBERT N. DOWNER
!22 SOUTH LINN STREET
JAMES P. HAYES
TELEPHONE
JAMES D.MCCARRAGHER
IOWA CITY, IOWA 52240
338.8222
THOMAS J. CILEK
AREA CODE 319
MARK T. HAMER
THOMAS D. HOBART
MARGARET T. LAINSON
ANGELA M. RYAN
August 24, 1981
Mayor and Manbers of the Iowa City
City Council
Civic Center
Iowa City, IA 52240
Ladies and Gentlemen:
This letter will supplement my previous objections to the mobile hone ordinance
now before you for enactrmnt. I represent certain mobile hone court owners who
are greatly concerned about the proposed ordinance although my clients recognize
the need for reasonable regulation of mobile home courts. LPe have certain ob-
jections which are of a legal nature. I will not attempt to set forth these
cbjections in this letter which would require an indepth discussion of each and
every provision of it. Rather, I will confine my comments to the general overall
aspect of the proposal. Our objections and ocrmlaints include:
1. The "screening" or "buffering" of an area that is residential in nature
from other residential areas by the planting of trees or the use of other devices
Ais discriminatory. There is a recent case in Michigan which holds that an ordinance
preventing a modern mobile home in any residential area is discriminatory and
,
invalid.
2. The present zoning ordinance is cumulative in nature. The present propos-
'• al seeks to distinguish and degrade the use of a mobile hone as opposed to more
conventional housing. Many of the modern and expensive houses today are using pre-
fabricated units.
3. The proposed ordinance will bring a great change. Present facilities are
declared to be nonconforming. Needless to say, any such declaration depreciates the
value of the property substantially and brings in a host of other technical require-
ments in the event of alteration, modification, involuntary conversion, etc. Before
such a sweeping change is made in an area that is bound to increase in view of the
of the expensive cost of housing, great care should be used and a consultant
knowledgeable in the field should be retained. I direct your attention to a growing
trend in municipal law which may find a regulation valid but compensatory in nature
as a "taking" of a property right. It is my judgment that the ordinance as drawn
if valid will still subject the City of Iowa City to substantial claims.
FL E
S
AUG2 4 1981
ABBIE STOLFUS
CITY CLERK
13os
MICROFILMED BY
'JORM MICROLAB
CEDAR RAPIDS -DES 1401NES
Page 2
City of Iowa City
August 24, 1981
4. We specifically object to the lack of any studied cost analysis prior
to the adoption of the proposed ordinance. While the nubile here court owners
will find their property values reduced and themselves in a dilemma concerning
future alteration or modification, the City may well find that the cost of provid-
ing public services to an area will far exceed benefits obtained. I am told that
the modification of an existing court would result in an area which remains non-
conforming and a new area which would be "conforming". In other words, part of the
court would have dedicated public streets, garbage and rubbage collection, mail
service and presumably other City furnished amenities while that portion which is
nonconforming would not have these services. If the interpretation is to affect
the entire court, the result would be a codex revision of all structures,
facilities and other improvements and would in effect confiscate the property by
imposing completely unrealistic, unreasonable and arbitrary regulations.
5. I am sure that the proposed ordinance will substantially increase the
operating cost of every mobile hone court. It is naive to believe that this cost
will be absorbed completely by the court owners. The high cost of money today will
require amortization of the cost of compliance with a proposed ordinance. A large
part of this cast will be passed on to the mobile hone occupants who, in the view
of some, would be living in single family housing if they could afford it. I know
this is a common objection to any proposed ordinance but in this case it appears
to me to be absolutely valid. The adoption of this proposal will penalize those
who can least afford it. I am told that the average cost of a single family house
in this area at this time is in excess of $80,000. A modern and aesthetically
pleasing mobile hane can be acquired for less than $30,000 (there is no land cost
involved in this). I believe that many people with fixed incomes will obtain this
type of housing and that the development of attractive, clean and well run mobile
hoe courts should be encouraged rather than discouraged.
For the above reasons, we urge the Council to obtain a consultant and direct a
restudy of the entire proposition, or, in the alternative, simply adopt the State Code.
WIM:jb
MICROFILMED BY
'JORM MICROLAB
CEDAR RAPIDS -DES MOIRES
/30.5
�1
V
City of Iowa City
MEMORANDUM
DATE: August 24, 1981
TO: City Council
FROM: Robert W. Jansen ` \
RE: Legal Review of Proposed Mobile Home Zoning Classification
and Mobile Home Park Standards and Development Regulations
At your request I have reviewed the proposed Mobile Home Residential
Zone Classification which is in the form of a proposed amendment to
the City's present zoning ordinance and the proposed mobile home park
standards and development regulations governing the improvement of
existing mobile home parks and the establishment of new ones. In pre
paring this review I have talked at length with Doug Boothroy, Senior
Planner, consulted the applicable law and the Iowa City Comprehensive
Plaa. I also took into consideration certain objections posed by
Attorney Meardon in his letter to the Council dated August 11, 1981.
I
PRESENT CITY CODE PROVISIONS
At the outset, it may be useful to look at the present City Code treat-
ment of mobile home parks. Section 8.10.19 of the Zoning Ordinance
i is entitled "Additional Regulations" and currently provides for "trailer
camps" as follows:
1. All inhabited. trailers -in the_.City.shall.be located .in a
trailer camp.
2. Trailer camps shall provide 3,000 square feet of land area for
each trailer.
3. At least 20 feet shall be maintained between trailers.
4. All trailers must front on a paved road having not less than
12 feet of clear, ugobstructed roadway at all times.
i
All trailer camps are presently placed in "C" Commercial District zones.
Current City regulation of mobile homes and mobile home parks is found
in Chapter 22 of the Code of Ordinances. This chapter contains terms
defining mobile home, inspector, licensee, mobile home .park, park, and
permittee. There are also provisions forbidding retaliatory conduct
against tenants. Licensing procedure and requirements are also provided
which simply consist of an application farm for an initial license and
annual renewals.
i
i
1306
MICROFILMED BY
JORM MICROLAB
CEDAR RAPIDS•DES 140INES
City Council
August 24, 1981
Page 2
Applications for initial licenses do require a "complete plan of the
park in conformity wit4Nhe requirements of Section 22.34 of this
chapter where applicable". These requirements are labeled "Park
Standards" and require reasonable drainage, 3,000 square foot lots,
patios, 20 foot clearances, drive -ways, walkways, public lighting,
electrical outlets, service buildings, and off-street parking. in
addition, adequate water supply, sanitation, sewage, garbage and fire
protection requirements are also set forth.
Two matters are before the Council. First of these is the amendement to
the current zoning ordinance to establish the new classification RMIi-
Mobile Nome Residential. In addition, the amendment defines "mobile
home", "mobile home park ", and "modular home". The terminology "trailer
camp" is abolished and the four conditions mentioned above are deleted
since they will be dealt with in the revised regulations ordinance
(new Chapter 22). Permitted actual uses are set out and are basically
those currently allowed in single-family residential zone. Permitted
accessory uses are also provided in the amendment.
The second matter before the Council is the revision of City Code Chapter
22 dealing with park standards and development regulations for existing
and future mobile home parks. The revision follows the same format as
existing Chapter 22 and is divided into 3 Articles --General, Park Licensing
Procedure, and Park Standards.
SUMMARY OF MOBILE HOME PARK STANDARDS AND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS
Article I - General
Sec. 22-2 states that this ordinance shall provide minimum standards
for the design, development, and improvement of all new or existing mobile
home parks. Existing parks not meeting these requirements shall be required
to conform upon "any substantial and material improvement or development".
These terms are defined to mean any change of an existing park layout from
what is shown on tha plan in an amount that, collectively over time, affects
more than 10% of the park's existing area. If the gross area of the park is
increased by more than 10% collectively over time, the minimum standards
will apply to the additional or altered area of the park.
Of special importance to owners is the requirement that all existing parks
shall be required to submit a detailed plan establishing the existing level
of development. The draft of Chapter 22 does not indicate a time limit for
this and language should be inserted to require the plan at the time of annual
license renewal or perhaps a moratarium period to give present owners a full
1301D
MICROFILMED BY
JORM MICROLAB
CEDAR RAPIDS -DES MOINES
year to comply.
�•. City Council
August 24, 1981
Page 3
Article II -Park Licensing
The various requirements are set out for obtaining
approval of a new or improved park. Preliminary and final location
maps and site plans showing improvements, contours, street and alley
grades, etc. are required. These procedures and requirements are similar
to those specified for subdivisions and LSRD's in the City Code.
Upon final plan approval by the City Manager, a license shall be
issued. Final plan approval is an administrative action not requiring
public hearing or Council action. Preliminary plan approval procedures
are the same as those for subdivisions and LSRD's requiring Planning E
Zoning Commission and Council approval.
Article III -Park Standards
Sec. 22-34 sets out the park requirements as to area, drainage,
space, screening from adjoining zones, recreation space/open space,
streets, driveways, parking, sidewalks, patios/decks, public lighting,
and service outlets.
Sec. 22-35 provides the requirements for private streets. The
requirement is that all private streets in the mobile home park shall be
constructed with a 7 inch pavement thickness (cement) or 8.5 inches
asphaltic concrete. This may engender controversy since mobile home park
owners have not been required to meet this specification for streets in
the past.
Sec. 22-36 requires parks to provide sanitary sewers, storm drainage,
water and gas and electric service.
LEGAL ANALYSIS
Any proposed zoning measure or regulation must be measured against certain
legal requirements for it to be valid. All zoning is bottomed upon the
regulation of land use for purposes of public health, safety, and welfare.
The implementation of these purposes is known as the police power.
The courts frequently consider and examine a community's comprehensive plan
in determining the reasonableness of the challenged zoning and require that
1304
MICROFILMED BY
JORM MICROLAB
CEDAR RAPIDS -DES MOINES
..1
City Council
August 24, 1981
Page 4
the zoning regulation be in accordance with the plan or adhere to the
plan. An examination of the City's Plan indicates that, as part of the
stated goals for housing, it is recommended that the City encourage "al-
ternative forms of single-family housing which will allow additional City
residents to purchase their own homes". (Plan Pg 42). Examples given in
the Plan for alternative/single family dwellings are mobile homes. They
are described as "the form of single-family housing with lowest costs.
Owners would like the choice of purchasing their lots in a mobile home sub-
division or renting their lot in a mobile home park". (Plan Pg 39). The
proposed Standards and Development Regulations appear to be in accord with
the City's comprehensive plan.
If the Council chooses to adopt the new RMH zoning classification and
standards for mobile home parks, I would anticipate certain legal challenges.
These are briegly outlined in the letter to the Council from Mr. Meardon
who represent/some of the owners who will be affected. I will try to deal
briefly with these contentions.
The first claim is that the regulatory ordinance "discriminates against
persons residing within mobile home courts". It.is. not clear to me what
this means. However, an educated guess is that zoning may not treat mobile
home differently than other housing types: The closest analogy is in the
case of condominiums. The courts have consistently held that zoning may
not treat condomimiums differently from other types of housing. In addition,
mobile home parks are now being subjected to subdivision site planning con-
trols. The real question is then is whether rental apartment projects are
subject to subdivision control in Iowa City. If so, mobile home rental lot
development should be also. The City's large scale residential development
ordinance (Chapter 27 City Code) does require site planning review for
multi -residential building developments.
The second claim is that the ordinance "imposes unreasonable, arbitrary and
capricious rules and regulations upon mobile home park owners". This claim
can, of course, be levied against most subdivision controls. The crux df
the matter is that the rules and regulations not be so onerous or oppressive
to amount to a "taking" of the park owners property. If the implementation
of the regulations is so costly as to deprive the owner of a fair economic
return, this may amount to a taking. In the case of smaller parks, the costs
of compliance may not bear a reasonable relation to the revenues. It may be
desirable in those cases to provide something akin to a hardship variance or
exemption from some of the site planning requirements.
The third objection states that "within a very limited time every mobile home
park within fowa City will become a nonconforming use. It is our contention
1306
MICROFILMED BY
JORM MICROLAB
CEDAR RAPIDS•DES MOINES
City Council
August 24, 1981
Page 5
that the ordinanceas shown is a 'taking' for which compensation must
be paid". At the present time, the Bon Aire, Baculis, and Thatcher
parks are zoned "Cl" or 11C2" Commercial. Forest View, ffawkeye and Larsen
parks are zoned 11111A" and are nonconforming uses.
It is intended that those parks currently zoned commercial will be re-
zoned and receive the RMH classification and will then be zoned conforming.
The standards and development requirements of Chapter 22 will not have to
be met in order to receive the RMH designation and it should be emphasized
that one is not dependent upon the other in this case. The Forest View,
Hawkeye and Larsen parks will continue as nonconforming uses and if sold at
some point will continue as nonconforming uses unless the use is abandoned
by new owners. However, it should again be emphasized that all existing
parks shall be required to submit a detailed plan establishing the existing
level of development as required by Chapter 22.
i
j Should the Mayor or any of the Council persons have any questions concerning
this opinion, I will be glad to discuss it with them.
I
I
i
i
i
13oG
f
MICROFILMED BY
'JORM MICROLAB
CEDAR RAPIDS•DES MOINES
t
AL