Document mpNrp2916MqZrY7YG2dekVno4

Monsanto C. A. Dobbins (4-7496) Corporate Engineering - F4EF March 2, 1977 . CEA 3246 - ST. LOUIS AREA INCINERATION D. H. Bolliger - F4WB P. F. Cunningham - F3EA J. F. Giblin - F3EB TO : G. L. Wade - F4EB R. M. Kountz - F4WA PROBLEM We need an economic evaluation of Provision for Future Heat Recovery vs No Provision for Future Heat Recovery for the subject project. ACTION By copy of this memo, I request Don Bolliger to provide the back-up and recommendations for this decision. BACKGROUND To make sure we all have the same understanding as to the impact of considering future Waste Heat Recovery for the subject project, I submit the following: As you know, this project is slated for Revenue Bond Financing and when accomplished it. will save 2% interest on $15.OM per year for 30 years ($9.0M). To achieve this financing it is necessary to fill out and sign documents that effectively say to the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) that you are not planning any energy recovery and that there are no provisions in your system/equipment to accommodate recovery at'a later date. There is a great deal more than just leaving "space" in a layout associated with future Heat Recovery. Hydroscience, Inc. con firms that the gas handling system, etc. would require major modifications. In other words, if we want to think in terms of future Heat Recovery, we would want to design into some of the system/equipment the capability to accommodate recovery with minimum change later. If we do design into our system/equipment the capability for future Heat Recovery,_we will lose the value of Revenue Bond Financing; i.e., $9.0M over the next 30 years. We would also be gambling on a possibility only that Heat Recovery will indeed be practical for our particular operation 3-5 years from now. C. c(. C. A. Dobbins CAD/sak 0583604 TOWOLDMONOQ59392