application for authority to construct

APPLICATION FOR AUTHORITY TO CONSTRUCT Bridgeton Landfill, LLC > Bridgeton, Missouri

Privileged and Confidential Business Information

Prepared By:

TRINITY CONSULTANTS 16252 Westwoods Business Park Drive

Ellisville, Missouri 63021 Phone: (636) 530-4600

September 2015

Project 152601.0066

Environmental solutions delivered uncommonly well


Bridgeton Landfill, LLC | Application for Authority to Construct Trinity Consultants i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1-1

2. PROJECT DESCRIPTION 2-1 2.1. Overview ...................................................................................................................................................................... 2-1

2.1.1. Emission Units........................................................................................................................................................................ 2-1 2.1.1.1. FL100: Flare #1 (3,500 scfm) ........................................................................................................................................ 2-2 2.1.1.2. FL120: Flare #2 (4,000 scfm) ........................................................................................................................................ 2-2 2.1.1.3. FL140: Flare #3 (4,000 scfm) ........................................................................................................................................ 2-2 2.1.1.4. FXA1212: LFG CSU Flare (2,500 scfm) ...................................................................................................................... 2-2 2.1.1.5. RTO 1 & 2 (2.75 MMBtu/hr each) ............................................................................................................................... 2-2

3. EMISSION CALCULATIONS 3-1 3.1. Objective ...................................................................................................................................................................... 3-1 3.2. Project Emissions Increase ................................................................................................................................... 3-1 3.3. Flare Emission Calculations .................................................................................................................................. 3-1

3.3.1. SO2 Emission Calculations ................................................................................................................................................. 3-2 3.3.1.1. Sample Test Data and Future Actual SO2 Emissions ........................................................................................... 3-2 3.3.1.2. Past Actual SO2 Emissions .............................................................................................................................................. 3-2 3.3.1.3. Formulas Used ..................................................................................................................................................................... 3-2

3.3.2. VOC Emissions ........................................................................................................................................................................ 3-3 3.3.3. Other Flare Pollutant Emissions ..................................................................................................................................... 3-4

3.4. RTO Emission Calculations .................................................................................................................................... 3-4

4. REGULATORY ANALYSIS 4-1 4.1. State Regulations ...................................................................................................................................................... 4-1

4.1.1. 10 CSR 10-5.490 .................................................................................................................................................................... 4-1 4.1.2. 10 CSR 10-6.060 .................................................................................................................................................................... 4-1 4.1.3. 10 CSR 10-6.165 .................................................................................................................................................................... 4-1 4.1.4. 10 CSR 10-6.170 .................................................................................................................................................................... 4-2

4.2. Federal Regulations ................................................................................................................................................. 4-2 4.2.1. 40 CFR 60, NSPS Subpart WWW ..................................................................................................................................... 4-2 4.2.2. 40 CFR 63, NESHAP Subpart AAAA ................................................................................................................................ 4-2

5. AIR QUALITY ANALYSIS 5-1 5.1. Modeled Sources ....................................................................................................................................................... 5-1 5.2. Model Results ............................................................................................................................................................. 5-2

6. EMISSION OFFSETS 6-1

7. BACT/LAER ANALYSIS 7-1

8. ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES 8-1

9. CLASS I AREA IMPACTS ANALYSIS 9-1

APPENDIX A: LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND VARIABLES A-1

APPENDIX B: FACILITY DIAGRAMS B-1


Bridgeton Landfill, LLC | Application for Authority to Construct Trinity Consultants ii

APPENDIX C: LEACHATE PRETREATMENT SYSTEM REPORT C-1

APPENDIX D: EMISSION CALCULATIONS D-1

APPENDIX E: MISSOURI CONSTRUCTION PERMIT APPLICATION FORMS E-1

APPENDIX F: MODELING PROTOCOL F-1

APPENDIX G: MODELING FILES ON CD G-1

APPENDIX H: BACT REPORT H-1


Bridgeton Landfill, LLC | Application for Authority to Construct Trinity Consultants iii

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 2-1. Location of Bridgeton Landfill 2-1

Figure 9-1. Distance from Bridgeton Landfill to Mingo National Wilderness Area 9-2


Bridgeton Landfill, LLC | Application for Authority to Construct Trinity Consultants iv

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1-1. Project Potential Emissions for PSD Applicability 1-2

Table 1-2. Project Potential Emissions for Missouri De Minimis Level (Section 6) and Nonattainment NSR Applicability (Section 7) 1-2

Table 3-1. Emissions Increase Summary 3-1

Table 5-1. Summary of Modeled SO2 Sources and Emission Rates 5-1

Table 5-2. Modeling Parameters for Bridgeton Landfill Project Sources 5-2

Table 5-3. Summary of Modeled Concentrations Compared to 3-Hour SO2 Increment Standards 5-3

Table 5-4. Summary of Modeled Concentrations Compared to 24-Hour SO2 Increment Standards 5-3

Table 5-5. Summary of Bridgeton Landfill Concentrations Compared to Annual SO2 SILs at Receptors Demonstrating Increment Exceedance 5-3


Bridgeton Landfill, LLC | Application for Authority to Construct Trinity Consultants v

APPENDIX: LIST OF TABLES

Appendix Table D-1. Emissions Summary D-2

Appendix Table D-2. TRS Test Data and SO2 Emissions D-3

Appendix Table D-3. Past Actual and Future Potential SO2 Emission Determinations (Flares and RTOs) D-4

Appendix Table D-4. Flare Emissions D-5

Appendix Table D-5. Flare HAP Emissions D-6

Appendix Table D-6. Emissions from the Two 2.75 MMBtu/hr RTOs Due to Natural Gas Combustion D-7

Appendix Table D-7. Potential HAP Emissions from RTOs D-7

Appendix Table D-8. Summary of RTO Emissions D-8

Appendix Table D-9. 1,000 kW Engine Criteria Pollutant Emissions D-11

Appendix Table D-10. 1,000 kW Engine HAP Emissions D-11

Appendix Table D-11. 543 kW Engine Criteria Pollutant Emissions D-12

Appendix Table D-12. 543 kW Engine HAP Emissions D-12

Appendix Table D-13. 175 kW Engine Criteria Pollutant Emissions D-13

Appendix Table D-14. 175 kW Engine HAP Emissions D-13

Appendix Table D-15. Insignificant Emission Units (1 of 2) D-14

Appendix Table D-16. Insignificant Emission Factors (1 of 2) D-14

Appendix Table D-17. Insignificant Emission Calculations (1 of 2) D-14

Appendix Table D-18. Insignificant HAP Emission Calculations (1 of 2) D-14

Appendix Table D-19. Insignificant Emission Units (2 of 2) D-15

Appendix Table D-20. Insignificant Emission Factors (2 of 2) D-15

Appendix Table D-21. Insignificant Emission Calculations (2 of 2) D-15

Appendix Table D-22. Insignificant HAP Emission Calculations (2 of 2) D-15


Bridgeton Landfill, LLC | Application for Authority to Construct Trinity Consultants 1-1

1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Bridgeton Landfill, LLC (Bridgeton Landfill) owns and operates a solid waste facility located at 13570 Saint Charles Rock Road in Bridgeton, Missouri. The landfill is closed and current operations at the inactive landfill facility are focused on controlling odors and managing gas and liquids from the landfill.

Bridgeton Landfill was issued three new construction permits and one modified construction permit (permit numbers 7787, 7788, 7790, and 7736) on August 7, 2013 for replacement flares. These flares replaced previous existing flares that had been in operation at the site for many years prior to this date.

In a letter from Ms. Leanne Tippett Mosby of the Missouri Department of Natural Resources (MDNR) to Mr. James Getting of Bridgeton Landfill dated March 25, 2015, Ms. Mosby requested that an updated permit application pursuant to 10 Code of State Regulations (CSR) 10-6.060, Construction Permits Required, be submitted for two 4,000 standard cubic feet per minute (scfm) John Zink candlestick flares, one 2,500 scfm LFG Specialties candlestick flare, and one 3,500 scfm1 John Zink candlestick flare. The letter from Ms. Mosby also requests that the application include the following components:

A control strategy, or process changes, that results in sulfur dioxide (SO2) emissions reductions equivalent to best available control technology (BACT). The control strategy analysis shall be based upon the United States Environmental Protection Agency’s (US EPA’s) “top-down” method for determining BACT.

Potential to emit (PTE) calculations for each pollutant found in 10 CSR 10-6.020(3)(A), “Table 1 – De Minimis Emission Levels”, on an emission units basis for the entire installation. The PTE calculations must take into account the proposed control strategy. The submittal must include supporting explanations and documentation for each of the calculations.

An air quality impact analysis for SO2 and any pollutant whose PTE exceeds the de minimis levels found in 10 CSR-6.020(3)(A), “Table 1 – De Minimis Emission Levels”.

A compliance schedule, including a completion date for construction of control technologies and/or implementation of process changes identified.

The contents of this application submittal serve to fulfill the above requests in addition to updating St. Louis County Department of Health’s Air Pollution Control Program (APCP) Permits 7864 and 7865 due to planned process changes to the facility’s leachate pretreatment process per the request of Ms. Kathrina Donegan of the APCP. Application forms can be found in Appendix E.

Due to the levels of emission increases associated with this project, this application is being submitted as a combination Section 6 (“General Permit Requirements for Construction or Emissions Increase Greater Than De Minimis Levels”) permit application for SO2 emissions and also includes elements of a Section 7 (“Nonattainment Area Permits”) permit application due to the fact that SO2 is a precursor pollutant to particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter of 2.5 microns or less (PM2.5) and St. Louis County is in a nonattainment area for the 1997 annual PM2.5 National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS). According recent communication with the MDNR, it is expected that this area will be reclassified to attainment or unclassifiable in the near future.

In completing emission increase calculations for this application, Bridgeton Landfill used actual landfill gas (LFG) flow data dating back to 2005 to calculate a 24-month average baseline of 69.6 tons per year (tpy) of SO2

1 Note, correspondence from the MDNR identified this flare as 2,500 scfm. This flare was previously re-permitted to a 3,500 scfm flare.



emissions. The use of total reduced sulfur (TRS) test data and flow rates from testing completed from March 2015 through August 2015 was used to calculate the future actual SO2 emissions for this project (252 tpy). Adding a 20 percent safety factor to the future actuals number, the application uses 302 tpy of SO2 emissions as the future actual emissions for this project. Adding in a PTE of five tpy of SO2 emissions from the regenerative thermal oxidizers (RTOs) brings the future actual emissions to 307 tpy. Taking the future actual emissions of 307 tpy and subtracting the baseline actual emissions of 69.6 tpy results in a project emissions increase is 237.4 tpy, which is below the Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) major source level of 250 tpy. These numbers are depicted below in Table 1-1.

Table 1-1. Project Potential Emissions for PSD Applicability

Pollutant Baseline Actuals

(tpy)

Future Actuals + 20% Safety Factor

(tpy)

Leachate Pre-treatment

System PTE (tpy)

Project Emissions Increase

(tpy)

PSD Major Source Levels

(tpy)

SO2 69.6 302.0 5.0 237.4 250.0

Although the project emissions increase is below the PSD major source level of 250 tpy, the emissions are greater than the Missouri state de minimis levels of 40 tpy SO2, thus a Section 6 permit is required. Additionally, SO2 is a precursor pollutant to PM2.5 and St. Louis County is currently in moderate nonattainment for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS. The project SO2 emissions increase (as a precursor to PM2.5) is greater than the 100 tpy threshold for Nonattainment Area Permits, thus a Section 7 permit is required.

Table 1-2. Project Potential Emissions for Missouri De Minimis Level (Section 6) and Nonattainment NSR Applicability (Section 7)

Pollutant

Project Emissions Increase

(tpy)

MO De Minimis

Level (tpy)

NANSR Major Source

Levels (tpy)

SO2a 237.4 40.0 100.0

a St. Louis County is classified as a nonattainment area for PM2.5. Since SO2 is a precursor to PM2.5, SO2 emissions are being compared to both the de minimis and NANSR major source levels.

This application contains the required elements of both Section 6 and Section 7 permit applications per 10 CSR 10-6.060.



2. PROJECT DESCRIPTION

2.1. OVERVIEW

Bridgeton Landfill is submitting this application per the request of the MDNR and the St. Louis County APCP to revise construction permit numbers 7787, 7788, 7790, 7736, 7864, and 7865. These permits were acquired by Bridgeton Landfill for the construction/modification of four candlestick flares (7787, 7788, 7790, and 7736) and the construction of the facility’s leachate pretreatment process. The updates to the flare permits are due to increased TRS concentration levels present in the LFG since the permits were issued, and the proposed revisions to the leachate pretreatment process are detailed in Appendix C. Bridgeton Landfill is located in St. Louis County. Figure 2-1 provides as area map showing the location of the facility.

Figure 2-1. Location of Bridgeton Landfill

2.1.1. Emission Units

Bridgeton Landfill is a closed municipal solid waste landfill located in Bridgeton, Missouri and is no longer accepting waste. Bridgeton began landfilling operations in 1952 and has been closed since 2005, with a final capacity of approximately 17,000,000 cubic yards. The landfill utilizes a flare controlled gas collection and control system (GCCS) to comply with applicable standards. Additionally, the facility treats leachate onsite at a leachate pretreatment plant (LPTP). Emissions from the LPTP are controlled by two RTOs.

This section includes a description of the nature, design capacity, and projected actual operations of each affected emission control unit. The following is a list of equipment included in this project:



FL100: Flare #1 (3,500 scfm) [EP-011] FL120: Flare #2 (4,000 scfm) [EP-012] FL140: Flare#3 (4,000 scfm) [EP-013] FXA1212: LFG CSU Flare (2,500 scfm) [EP-014] RTOs 1 & 2 (2.75 million British thermal units per hour (MMBtu/hr) each) [EP-18A&B]

The LFG generated at the landfill is sent through a GCCS to the above flares for combustion.

All flares at the facility will not be operating at their maximum (combined) design flow rate (or capacity) but rather at a flow rate consistent with the total gas collected from the waste mass (i.e., a value significantly below the capacity of the flares). More information on these calculations and flow rates is included in Section 3.

The annual emission rate estimates (or PTE) included in this application are not based on the capacity of each flare, but more appropriately on the total anticipated gas collection for the facility. Flare redundancy at this facility is purposeful, and total capacity was not planned as an indicator of future or anticipated flow rates. Simply put, the total control capacity at the facility is not utilized to estimate future potential emissions for the site.

2.1.1.1. FL100: Flare #1 (3,500 scfm)

This flare is known as EP-011 in the Emission Inventory Questionnaire (EIQ) (Installation ID: Flare #1). This was initially a 2,500 scfm utility backup/candlestick open flare manufactured by John Zink. This flare was subsequently permitted to increase its flow capacity to 3,500 scfm. This flare is permitted under construction permit CP #7736 and has a start-up date of October 1, 2013.

2.1.1.2. FL120: Flare #2 (4,000 scfm)

This flare is known as EP-012 in the EIQ (Installation ID: Flare #2). This flare is a John Zink Candlestick Open Flare that replaced a previously existing 3,500 scfm flare. This flare is permitted under construction permit CP #7787 and has a start-up date of September 24, 2013.

2.1.1.3. FL140: Flare #3 (4,000 scfm)

This flare is known as EP-013 in the EIQ (Installation ID: Flare #3). This flare is a John Zink Candlestick Open Flare that replaced a previously existing 3,500 scfm flare. This flare is permitted under construction permit CP #7788 and has a start-up date of September 20, 2013.

2.1.1.4. FXA1212: LFG CSU Flare (2,500 scfm)

This flare is known as EP-014 in the EIQ (installation ID: flare LFG CSU). This is a LFG Specialties Candlestick Open Flare that is permitted under construction permit CP #7790 and has a start-up date of October 1, 2013. Bridgeton Landfill uses this portable back up flare only when other flares are not operational.

2.1.1.5. RTO 1 & 2 (2.75 MMBtu/hr each)

The two RTOs, each rated at 2.75 MMBtu/hr, were permitted as part of the leachate management system (LMS) project under construction permits #7864 and #7865 which were issued on August 25, 2014. The LMS begins with raw leachate pumped from the closed landfill into a 316,000 gallon (gal) leachate treatment equalization tank (TK-200) for aeration and equalization. The leachate is then conveyed to the LPTP building to prepare the raw leachate for biological aerobic treatment. Preparation of leachate for biological treatment includes pH adjustment and metals removal. After pretreatment the leachate is sent to one of the four 1 million gallon (MMgal) leachate treatment tanks (TK-307A – D) where it undergoes aeration and biological treatment to



remove biodegradable organic and nitrogen components. After being biologically treated, the wastewater is send to three ultrafiltration units (UF-308A – C) before being pumped to a 96,000 gal holding tank. The holding tank discharges the treated leachate to the municipal sewage district (MSD) while removed waste solids are sent back to the landfill. Vented air from the various process units are controlled by the two natural gas fired RTOs. A change in the method of operation of this system is detailed in Appendix C. The process change (included in this application per St. Louis County APCP) includes a minimal increase of SO2 emissions resulting from the change in the both the process and method of operation.



3. EMISSION CALCULATIONS

The following section details the methodology and calculations used in determining the potential emissions that will result from the combustion of existing flares. Formula and data sources are described here along with example calculations. The results for these calculations as applied to all emission units are documented and presented in Appendix D.

3.1. OBJECTIVE

Bridgeton Landfill proposes to revise the emission limits for the flares operating at the facility. The change in emissions is associated with the TRS content in the LFG. The emission limits for other criteria pollutants (with the exception of VOC) were also calculated but their calculations methodologies are not discussed further in this application.

3.2. PROJECT EMISSIONS INCREASE

The facility is an existing non-major source for both PSD and Nonattainment New Source Review (NANSR). A summary of the project emissions increases are listed in Table 3-1 below. The various flares in this application have been permitted at the facility throughout the past several decades. While there is no test data providing the exact TRS concentration in combusted LFG in the previously permitted flares, we are confident that a PTE must be associated with past, current, and future flare operations at the facility. It can be observed that the net increase in SO2 emissions (and other criteria pollutants) is less than the 250 tpy which is the threshold for PSD permitting, but greater than 100 tpy which is the threshold for NANSR permitting due to the fact that SO2 is a precursor pollutant to PM2.5.

Table 3-1. Emissions Increase Summary

Pollutant Project

Emissions Increase

SO2 237.4 CO 0.0

PM10 0.0 PM2.5 0.0 NOX 0.0 VOC 2.2 Pb 0.0

GHGs 0.0 HAPs 0.0

Single HAP (HCl) 0.0

3.3. FLARE EMISSION CALCULATIONS

Emission calculations for the flares are discussed below. The discussion is limited to emissions of SO2 and volatile organic compounds (VOC).



3.3.1. SO2 Emission Calculations

3.3.1.1. Sample Test Data and Future Actual SO2 Emissions

In order to determine the increase in project SO2 emissions, paired TRS and flow data from the site are utilized in this application. In performing these calculations, the corrected dry flow data must be paired with the instantaneous TRS concentration results. In general, there is a near linear relationship between the concentration and flow pairings. Typically, a higher flow is associated with a lower concentration (due to issues like air intrusion and dilution). Bridgeton Landfill has been collecting sample test data for the TRS content and the corresponding LFG flow to the flares on a weekly basis starting on March 12, 2015. The data used for averaging is from March 12, 2015 to August 25, 2015. From each week’s test, the paired TRS concentration (in parts per million, volume basis (ppmv)) and flow data (scfm) were used to calculate the SO2 emission rate. An average SO2 emission rate was calculated from these weekly emission rates. A conservative safety factor of 20 percent was applied to this average emissions rate to estimate a final SO2 emission rate from the flares. This is considered to be the future actual SO2 emission rate. The increase in SO2 emissions from this project was calculated by taking a difference of the future actual SO2 emission rate and the past actual baseline SO2 emission rate.

3.3.1.2. Past Actual SO2 Emissions

Past actual SO2 emissions were calculated as a baseline in order to estimate the project emissions increase. The lowest concentration for all the “paired” TRS test data was used in calculating a past actual SO2 baseline emission rate to provide for a conservatively low baseline (or past actuals). The flow rate used in this calculation was based on the actual flow data dating back to 2005. This flow data from 2005 to 2012 were compiled based on site specific data recorded during that time frame. The years 2005 and 2006 were chosen to calculate the baseline SO2 emission rate as these years have the consecutive highest SO2 emission rate in the past ten years and are representative of normal operations.

3.3.1.3. Formulas Used

The SO2 emission rate was calculated in the following steps. The test data for TRS concentration (in ppmv) and flow data (in scfm) were both used in the calculations. The methodology used here is consistent with the Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors (AP-42), Chapter 2.4 – “Municipal Solid Waste Landfills.”2 The steps are described as follows:

𝑄𝑆 = 𝐹𝐿𝐹𝐺 ∗𝐶𝑆

106∗ 0.02832

m3

ft3 Equation 3-1

where:

QS is the emission rate of sulfur in cubic meters per year (m3/yr), FLFG is the LFG flow rate in cubic feet per year (ft3/yr), and Cs is the sulfur concentration in ppmv.

Then, the uncontrolled mass emission rate of sulfur (UMS) in units of kilograms per year (kg/yr) is calculated as follows:

2 “Municipal Solid Waste Landfills.” Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors (AP-42). US EPA. Nov 1998. <http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ap42/ch02/final/c02s04.pdf>.



𝑈𝑀𝑆 =𝑄𝑆 ∗ (𝑀𝑊𝑆 ∗ 1 atm)

8.205 ∗ 10−5 m3 ∙ atmgmol ∙ K

∗ 1,000g

kg∗ (273 + 𝑇)

Equation 3-2

where:

MWS is the molecular weight of sulfur (32.06 g/gmol) and T is the temperature of LFG in degree Celsius. (25°C was used for the calculations.)

Finally, once the UMS is calculated, the controlled mass emission rate of SO2 is calculated as follows:

𝐶𝑀𝑆𝑂2= 𝑈𝑀𝑠 ∗ 𝑀𝑊𝑅 ∗ 𝜂𝑆 ∗ 2.205

lb

kg∗ 0.0005

ton

lb Equation 3-3

where:

CMSO2 is the controlled emission rate of SO2 in tpy, MWR is the ratio of the molecular weight of SO2 to the molecular weight of sulfur (used value of 2), and ηS is the sulfur to SO2 conversion factor (assumed value of 1).

3.3.2. VOC Emissions

VOC emissions from the existing flare permits were compiled. The future actual VOC emissions were then calculated using site specific flare flow data. The increase in VOC emissions was then calculated by taking a difference between the permitted and newly calculated VOC emissions. This increase is included as part of this application. The new VOC emissions were calculated by using site specific LFG flow rate of 6,031 scfm and VOC concentration of 6,857 ppmv. The emissions are calculated as follows:

𝑄𝑉𝑂𝐶 = 𝐹𝐿𝐹𝐺 ∗𝐶𝑉𝑂𝐶

106∗ 0.02832

m3

ft3 Equation 3-4

where:

QVOC is the emission rate of VOC in m3/yr and CVOC is the VOC concentration in ppmv

Then, the uncontrolled mass emission rate of VOC (UMVOC) is calculated as follows:

𝑈𝑀𝑉𝑂𝐶 =𝑄𝑉𝑂𝐶 ∗ (𝑀𝑊𝑉𝑂𝐶 ∗ 1 atm)

8.205 ∗ 10−5 m3 ∙ atmgmol ∙ K

∗ 1,000g

kg∗ (273 + 𝑇)

Equation 3-5

where MWVOC is the molecular weight of VOC. A value of 86.18 grams per gram-mole (g/gmol) was used in the calculations.

Finally, once the UMVOC is calculated, the controlled mass emission rate of VOC is calculated as follows:

𝐶𝑀𝑉𝑂𝐶 = 𝑈𝑀𝑉𝑂𝐶 ∗ (1 − 𝜂𝑐𝑛𝑡) ∗ 2.205lb

kg∗ 0.0005

ton

lb Equation 3-6



where:

CMVOC is the controlled emission rate of VOC in tpy, and ηcnt is the non-methane organic compounds (NMOC) destruction efficiency in the flare as a decimal.

3.3.3. Other Flare Pollutant Emissions

The other flare pollutants (carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen oxides (NOX), greenhouse gases (GHGs) including carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), and nitrous oxide (N2O), particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter of 10 microns or less (PM10), PM2.5, and hazardous air pollutants (HAPs)) were also calculated using standard AP-42 emission factors and 40 CFR Part 98, Subpart C (for GHGs), but Bridgeton Landfill is not requesting revised emission limits for these pollutants as the current permitted emission levels are larger than the newly calculated emission levels. More detail on these calculations is given in Appendix D.

3.4. RTO EMISSION CALCULATIONS

As requested by St. Louis County APCP, process changes to the LPTP and RTOs are being included in this application. SO2 emissions are the only emissions for the RTOs which are being revised as part of this permit. The LPTP is proposing to undergo a minor process change which is discussed in detail in Appendix C. The slight increase in SO2 emissions from the RTOs are evaluated by assuming that all sulfur in the vapors sent to the RTOs will be converted to SO2. The SO2 emissions of waste feed combustion are based on a mass balance approach per the calculations attached in Appendix D.



4. REGULATORY ANALYSIS

Emission sources at Bridgeton Landfill are subject to certain federal and state air quality regulations. This section summarizes key regulations that apply to the facility.

4.1. STATE REGULATIONS

4.1.1. 10 CSR 10-5.490

Municipal Solid Waste Landfills (10 CSR 10-5.490) applies to all municipal solid waste (MSW) landfills in the St. Louis nonattainment area for ozone that has accepted waste since November 8, 1987.3 Since Bridgeton Landfill is within St. Louis County and has accepted waste since this date, the facility is subject to this rule.

4.1.2. 10 CSR 10-6.060

Construction Permits Required (10 CSR 10-6.060) lists the requirements for construction permitting through the MDNR. Specifically, this permit application will be a hybrid of both Section 6 (“General Permit Requirements for Construction or Emissions Increase Greater than De Minimis Levels”) and Section 7 (“Nonattainment Area Permits”) due to the fact that SO2 emissions are greater than the Missouri state de minimis level of 40 tpy and also the major source for nonattainment levels at 100 tpy.

Bridgeton Landfill is located in St. Louis County, which has been designated by the US EPA as part of a moderate nonattainment area for PM2.5 and as a nonattainment for the 8 hour ozone standard. As a major source of SO2, as a precursor to PM2.5, the facility will be subject to NANSR. The Missouri NANSR requirements are codified in 10 CSR 10-6.060(7). In addition to the requirements under 10 CSR 10-6.060(6), the following is required for a NANSR permit:4

Emission offsets Lowest achievable emission rate (LAER) analysis Alternate site analysis Class I area impacts

Detailed discussions for the above requirements are provided in subsequent sections of this application.

4.1.3. 10 CSR 10-6.165

Bridgeton Landfill is subject to Restriction of Emission of Odors (10 CSR 10-6.165) as an emitter of odorous matter.5

3 Municipal Solid Waste Landfills. 10 CSR 10-5.490(1)(A). 30 May 2011.

4 Construction Permits Required. 10 CSR 10-6.060(7)(B). 30 Oct 2013.

5 Restriction of Emission of Odors. 10 CSR 10-6.165(1). 30 Sep 2014.



4.1.4. 10 CSR 10-6.170

Restriction of Particulate Matter to the Ambient Air Beyond the Premises of Origin (10 CSR 10-6.170) applies to particulate matter (PM) sources.6 Specifically, Bridgeton Landfill’s haul roads are subject to this rule.

4.2. FEDERAL REGULATIONS

4.2.1. 40 CFR 60, NSPS Subpart WWW

Standards of Performance for Municipal Solid Waste Landfills (40 CFR 60, Subpart WWW) applies to MSW landfills for which construction, modification, or reconstruction commenced after May 30, 1991.7 Since Bridgeton Landfill obtained a vertical expansion in 1998, this Subpart applies. St. Louis County APCP has the delegated authority to ensure compliance with this rule.

4.2.2. 40 CFR 63, NESHAP Subpart AAAA

Since Bridgeton Landfill has accepted waste since November 8, 1987 and meets the requirements under §63.1935(a)(3), it meets the requirements set forth in 40 CFR 63.1935(a). Therefore, National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Municipal Solid Waste Landfills (40 CFR 63, Subpart AAAA) applies to the facility.

6 Restriction of Particulate Matter to the Ambient Air Beyond the Premises of Origin. 10 CSR 10-6.170(1). 30 Aug 1998.

7 Standards of Performance for Municipal Solid Waste Landfills. 40 CFR 60.750(a). 16 Jun 1998.



5. AIR QUALITY ANALYSIS

In accordance with the MDNR guidelines, all Section 6 permit applications are required to demonstrate that a proposed project will not cause or contribute to a violation of the NAAQS or Increment modeling standards. The first step of this demonstration is a project significance analysis. A project significance analysis consists of modeling the emissions from the updated calculation methodology per the request of the MDNR. SO2 is the only pollutant associated with the project that entails a significant emission increase. The maximum concentrations predicted by the model for the significance analysis are compared to the Class II Significant Impact Levels (SILs). If a significant impact (i.e., an ambient impact above the Class II SIL) is not predicted by the model, no further modeling (i.e., a NAAQS and Class II increment analyses) is required for that pollutant. If a significant impact is shown, further analysis is necessary to determine compliance with the NAAQS and Class II Increments.

SO2 is the only pollutant that has a significant emission increase for the proposed project. Thus, SO2 is the only pollutant that requires an air dispersion modeling analysis as part of this Section 6 permit application. Bridgeton Landfill previously submitted air dispersion modeling analysis to the MDNR which demonstrated compliance with the NAAQS as detailed in the modeling protocol. Please refer to Appendix F for full details on the modeling protocol. The following sections describe the air dispersion modeling that was conducted for the SO2 Increment Compliance Demonstration. Note the dispersion modeling was conducted using the latest version of the US EPA’s AERMOD dispersion model, AERMOD 15181.

5.1. MODELED SOURCES

The sources included in the SO2 project increment compliance modeling and the emission increases for each source are summarized in Table 5-1.

Table 5-1. Summary of Modeled SO2 Sources and Emission Rates

Emission Source

SO2 Emission Rate (lb/hr)

SO2 Emission Rate (tpy)

RTO 1.142 5.00 F100 17.828 78.09 F120 24.843 108.81 F140 26.279 115.10

PFLARE1 26.279 115.10 PFLARE2 26.279 115.10 PFLARE3 26.279 115.10

PGEN1 0.480 2.10 PGEN2 0.480 2.10 PGEN3 0.480 2.10

The stack parameters for the sources shown in Table 5-1 are summarized in Table 5-2.



Table 5-2. Modeling Parameters for Bridgeton Landfill Project Sources

Emission Source

UTM X (m)

UTM Y (m)

Elevation (m)

Stack Height

(ft)

Stack Temperature

(°F)

Stack Velocity

(ft/s)

Stack Diameter

(ft)

RTO 722,016.8 4,294,017.0 139.59 670 140.0 24.92 4.67

F100 722,301.1 4,293,985.0 147.11 54.07 1,831.7 65.62 4.01

F120 722,337.8 4,294,010.0 146.98 61.49 1,831.7 65.62 4.73

F140 722,287.6 4,293,961.0 147.05 61.94 1,831.7 65.62 4.87

PFLARE1 722,315.4 4,294,004.1 147.21 46.94 1,831.7 65.62 4.87

PFLARE2 721,863.2 4,293,704.2 139.47 46.94 1,831.7 65.62 4.87

PFLARE3 722,121.4 4,294,028.2 139.03 46.94 1,831.7 65.62 4.87

PGEN1 722,315.4 4,294,004.1 147.21 8.30 1,250.9 128.22 0.42

PGEN2 721,863.2 4,293,704.2 139.47 8.30 1,250.9 128.22 0.42

PGEN3 722,121.4 4,294,028.2 139.03 8.30 1,250.9 128.22 0.42

Please note, emission source PGEN is always collocated with PFLARE, as PGEN is the portable generator that provides power to PFLARE, the portable flare. There are three different possible locations where the tandem can be located, each representing an emission source in the model. Each of the three locations are modeled as distinct scenarios in the model, each showing compliance with the Missouri increment standards. Modeling meteorological data, coordinate system, treatment of terrain, receptor grid, building downwash, and increment consuming sources are all explained in detail in the attached modeling protocol in Appendix F.

5.2. MODEL RESULTS

The first portion of modeling involved determining the location of all of the receptors above the SIL using maximum threshold files for the 3-hour and 24-hour SO2 standards, as well as determining any receptors demonstrating an exceedance of the SO2 annual increment standard. The 3-hour, 24-hour, and annual SILs are 25, 5, and 1 microgram per cubic meter (g/m3), respectively. Table 5-3 summarizes the highest second high modeled concentration for all of the receptors above the SIL for the 3-hour standard and compares the concentrations to the SO2 SIL. Table 5-4 summarizes the highest second high modeled concentration for all of the receptors above the SIL for the 24-hour standard and compares the concentration to the SO2 SIL as well. As evident in the table, no receptor demonstrates an exceedance of the MDNR Increment Standard where Bridgeton Landfill has a significant impact. Table 5-5 summarizes the maximum modeled concentrations as a result of only the Bridgeton Landfill compared to the annual SO2 increment standard. As demonstrated in the table, the Bridgeton Landfill facility does not significantly impact any of the receptors demonstrating an exceedance of the SO2 annual increment standard.



Table 5-3. Summary of Modeled Concentrations Compared to 3-Hour SO2 Increment Standards

Year 3-hour SO2 Standard (g/m3)

3-hour SO2 Highest 2nd High Impact of Receptors Significantly Impacted by Bridgeton Landfill Pass?

(Scenario 1) (Scenario 2) (Scenario 3)

2010 512 271.55 271.54 271.55 Yes

2011 512 224.15 224.16 224.35 Yes

2012 512 248.54 248.54 248.54 Yes

2013 512 245.22 245.19 245.29 Yes

2014 512 252.21 252.21 252.21 Yes

Table 5-4. Summary of Modeled Concentrations Compared to 24-Hour SO2 Increment Standards

Year 24-hour SO2

Standard (g/m3)

24-hour SO2 Highest 2nd High Impact of Receptors Significantly Impacted by Bridgeton Landfill Pass?


2010 91 61.97 60.27 60.97 Yes

2011 91 43.66 42.99 43.12 Yes

2012 91 54.64 54.41 54.69 Yes

2013 91 49.34 48.59 49.68 Yes

2014 91 57.62 57.62 57.62 Yes

Table 5-5. Summary of Bridgeton Landfill Concentrations Compared to Annual SO2 SILs at Receptors Demonstrating Increment Exceedance

Year Annual SO2 SIL

(g/m3)

Maximum Bridgeton Landfill Impact at Receptors Demonstrating Increment Exceedance Pass?


2010 1 0.10 0.11 0.10 Yes

2011 1 0.09 0.09 0.09 Yes

2012 1 0.18 0.19 0.20 Yes

2013 1 0.11 0.12 0.12 Yes

2014 1 0.11 0.11 0.11 Yes



Table 5-3 and Table 5-4 show that the modeled concentrations for both the 3-hour and 24-hour averaging periods are below the increment compliance standards at all receptors where the Bridgeton Landfill significantly impacts ambient conditions. One-hour and annual averaging periods are below the SIL, thus no further modeling is required. Table 5-5 shows that the modeled concentrations for only the Bridgeton Landfill at receptors showing annual averaging period exceedances are below the thresholds for significance, thus the Bridgeton Landfill does not show deterioration of ambient air.



6. EMISSION OFFSETS

Per the requirements of 10 CSR 10-6.060(7)(B)(1), Bridgeton Landfill will procure emissions offsets for emissions of SO2 as a precursor to PM2.5. The metropolitan St. Louis area is designated moderate nonattainment for PM2.5 under the 1997 NAAQS. Pursuant to 10 CSR 6.020(O)(1), any ratio of decrease to increase greater than one to one (1:1) constitutes offset. Appendix S of 40 CFR 51 does not list an offset ratio for PM2.5 precursors; therefore, SO2 offsets will be obtained on a ratio of 1:1.

Bridgeton Landfill’s potential facility-wide SO2 emissions increase from this project are 237.4 tpy; therefore, Bridgeton Landfill will procure at least 237.4 tons of SO2 emissions within the St. Louis nonattainment area. A detailed list of the sources from which Bridgeton Landfill procures these offsets will be submitted to the MDNR prior to finalization of the construction permit. Additionally, Bridgeton Landfill has begun the process of obtaining offsets by completing Form MO 780-1875 (1-04) Emissions Banking and Trading. These emissions offsets will ensure that this project will not interfere with reasonable further progress toward attainment of the PM2.5 standards, as set forth in Section 173 of the Clean Air Act (CAA).



7. BACT/LAER ANALYSIS

While the March 25, 2015 letter from the MDNR requests a “control strategy analysis” based upon US EPA’s “top-down” method for determining BACT, this application demonstrates that the BACT requirement of PSD is not applicable to this application (as the facility is not an existing major PSD source and this application is not major by itself). However, as previously identified, this application (at the current time) may be subject to NANSR requirements considering SO2 as a precursor pollutant for PM2.5. While Bridgeton Landfill believes that the application can and should be processed following a near imminent change in the PM2.5 attainment status for the regional air shed, this application has been prepared to address the specific NANSR requirements including LAER. LAER is defined at 40 CFR 51.165(a)(1)(xiii) as follows:

Lowest achievable emission rate (LAER) means, for any source, the more stringent rate of emissions based on the following:

(A) The most stringent emissions limitation which is contained in the implementation plan of any State for such class or category of stationary source, unless the owner or operator of the proposed stationary source demonstrates that such limitations are not achievable; or

(B) The most stringent emissions limitation which is achieved in practice by such class or category of stationary sources. This limitation, when applied to a modification, means the lowest achievable emissions rate for the new or modified emissions units within or stationary source. In no event shall the application of the term permit a proposed new or modified stationary source to emit any pollutant in excess of the amount allowable under an applicable new source standard of performance.

The report from SCS Engineers in Appendix H includes a “top down” analysis of potential control technologies for reducing SO2 emissions from the Bridgeton Landfill. While only a few technologies have been determined to possibly be technically feasible for removing dimethyl sulfide (and other TRS) from the LFG, it is critical to note that these technologies have not been utilized in the landfill setting (or similar sources) and a related reduction in TRS has not been achieved in practice. In addition to the lack of “in practice” data or success, the required BACT analysis concludes that the cost per ton to remove TRS (and ultimately SO2) is excessive (if not absurd) and therefore no technology is considered BACT for the removal of elevated levels of dimethyl sulfide and other (non-hydrogen sulfide) TRS species from the landfill gas (to minimize SO2 emissions). Although economic feasibility is not often considered for a LAER determination,8 the US EPA has indicated that “LAER costs should be considered only to the degree that they reflect unusual circumstances which, in some manner, differentiate the cost of control for that source from the costs of control for the rest of that industry”. Clearly the uniqueness of this landfill with high levels of non-hydrogen sulfide TRS species has been identified and extensively discussed with the MDNR and the US EPA. All parties have agreed that there are no other landfills with similar landfill gas concentrations of non-hydrogen sulfide TRS species. Considering the reality of the gas constituents at Bridgeton Landfill, the inability to effectively remove the TRS species from the LFG, the low methane content (and heating value) of the LFG (requiring the use of candlestick flares), the hydrogen content of the LFG, and the dynamic nature of the landfill (that will likely see considerable decreases in gas generation over the next 12-24 months), there are no technologies that can be considered LAER for this source.

8 Calcagni, J. Guidance on Determining Lowest Achievable Emission Rate (LAER). 28 Feb 1989. <http://www.epa.gov/nsr/ttnnsr01/naa1/n26_8.html>.



Please refer to the attached report in Appendix H for the complete BACT analysis.



8. ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES

Although an analysis of alternatives for a NANSR project is typically required, due to the unique nature of this application and the fact that the flares are already in operation at the Bridgeton Landfill, an alternative site analysis is not feasible for this application.



9. CLASS I AREA IMPACTS ANALYSIS

The CAA, as amended in August 1977, establishes a detailed policy and regulatory program to protect the quality of the air in regions of the United States in which the air is cleaner than required by the NAAQS. In addition to protecting public health and welfare, the program is designed to preserve the air quality in natural parks and other historic areas.

Under these provisions, Congress established a land classification scheme for those areas of the country with air quality better than the NAAQS – Class I allows very little deterioration of air quality, Class II allows moderate deterioration, and Class III allows more deterioration - but in all cases, the pollution concentrations should not violate any of the NAAQS. Certain existing areas were designated as mandatory Class I that preclude re-designation to a less restrictive class, in order to acknowledge the value of maintaining these areas in relatively pristine condition. The Federal Land Managers (FLM) have been tasked with the responsibility to protect Class I areas from the adverse impacts of air pollution. These Class I areas include:

international parks, national wilderness areas and national memorial parks in excess of 5,000 acres, and national parks in excess of 6,000 acres.

The MDNR has issued guidance document, “Class I, Class II, and Class III Areas”,9 which describes that an analysis is required for projects occurring within 50 kilometers (km) of a Class I area. The two closest Class I areas to the Bridgeton Landfill are the Mingo National Wilderness Area (Mingo) and the Hercules Glade National Wilderness Area (Hercules Glade). Of the two Class I areas, Mingo is the closest to the Bridgeton Landfill. Figure 9-1 below illustrates the distance from Mingo to the Bridgeton Landfill.

9 Federal Land Manager’s Air Quality Related Values Work Group (FLAG) Phase I Report – Revised 2010. National Park Service. Oct 2010. <http://dnr.mo.gov/env/apcp/docs/classarea.pdf>.



Figure 9-1. Distance from Bridgeton Landfill to Mingo National Wilderness Area

The shortest distance between the Bridgeton Landfill and Mingo is 193 km, and the distance between the Bridgeton Landfill and Hercules Glade is even greater. Therefore, a Class I analysis is not required per the 50 km distance criteria. The MDNR guidance memorandum goes on to explain that for projects proposed to take place at a location that is more than 50 km from a Class I area, another analysis is required. If the following equation is satisfied for projects occurring more than 50 km from a Class I area, then the FLM considers the emissions from such a project to have a negligible effect on the Class I area and does not require further analysis.

𝑄/𝐷 ≤ 10 Equation 9-1

Here, Q is the sum of emissions in tpy, based on 24-hour maximum allowable emissions of SO2, NOX, PM10, and sulfuric acid (H2SO4) mist, and D is the shortest distance from the Class I area in km. For this project, D equals 193 km and Q equals 237.4 tpy,10 so

237.4/193 = 1.23 ≤ 10 Equation 9-2

10 See Appendix D for detailed emission calculations. Emissions of H2SO4 mist are not expected from this project. For calculating SO2 emissions, it was assumed that all sulfur would be converted to SO2. Since SO2 and H2SO4 both contain the same amount of sulfur, the same total of emissions would be calculated whether the emissions were considered to be SO2, H2SO4, or any combination of the two.



The equation is satisfied; therefore, the FLM considers the emissions from this project to have a negligible impact on the Mingo Class I area and no further analysis is required. Furthermore, the same criteria is satisfied for the Hercules Glade area, because it is an even further distance from the Bridgeton Landfill.


Bridgeton Landfill, LLC | Application for Authority to Construct A-1 Trinity Consultants

APPENDIX A: LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND VARIABLES

°C Degree(s) Celsius

°F Degree(s) Fahrenheit

ηCNT Flare NMOC destruction efficiency

ηS Sulfur to SO2 conversion factor

µg/m3 Microgram(s) per cubic meter

AP-42 Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors

APCP Air Pollution Control Program

ASOS Automated Surface Observation Stations

BACT Best available control technology

BPIP PRIME Building Profile Input Program, PRIME version

Bridgeton Landfill Bridgeton Landfill, LLC

CAA Clean Air Act

CFR Code of Federal Regulations

CH4 Methane

CMSO2 Controlled emission rate of SO2

CMVOC Controlled emission rate of VOC

CO Carbon monoxide

CO2 Carbon dioxide

CS Sulfur concentration

CSR Code of State Regulations

CVOC VOC concentration

D Shortest distance between Bridgeton Landfill and nearest Class I area

EIQ Emission Inventory Questionnaire

FLAG Federal Land Manager's Air Quality Related Values Work Group

FLFG LFG flow rate

FLM Federal Land Managers

ft Feet

ft/s Feet per second

ft3/yr Cubic feet per year

g/gmol Grams per gram-mole

gal Gallon(s)

GCCS Gas collection and control system

GEP Good engineering practice

GHG Greenhouse gas

GMT Greenwich Mean Time

Guideline Guideline on Air Quality Models

H2S Hydrogen sulfide

H2SO4 Sulfuric acid

HAP Hazardous air pollutant

HCl Hydrogen chloride



Hercules Glade Hercules Glade National Wilderness Area

K Kelvin

kg/yr Kilogram(s) per year

km Kilometer(s)

LAER Lowest achievable emission rate

lb/hr Pound(s) per hour

LFG Landfill gas

LMS Leachate management system

LPTP Leachate pretreatment plant

LULC Land use and land cover

m Meter(s)

m/s Meter(s) per second

m3/yr Cubic meters per year

MDNR Missouri Department of Natural Resources

Mingo Mingo National Wilderness Area

MMBtu/hr Million British thermal unit(s) per hour

MMgal Million gallon(s)

MSD Municipal sewage district

MSW Municipal solid waste

MWR Ratio of molecular weight of SO2 to molecular weight of sulfur

MWS Molecular weight of sulfur

MWVOC Molecular weight of VOC

N2O Nitrous oxide

NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards

NAD83 North American Datum 1983

NANSR Nonattainment New Source Review

NCDC National Data Climatic Center

NED National Elevation Dataset

NMOC Non-methane organic compounds

NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

NOX Nitrogen oxides

NSPS New Source Performance Standards

NWS National Weather Service

Pb Lead

PM Particulate matter

PM10 Particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter of 10 microns of less

PM2.5 Particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter of 2.5 microns of less

ppmv Part(s) per million, volumetric basis

PRIME Plume Rise Modeling Enhancements

PSD Prevention of Significant Deterioration

PTE Potential to emit

Q Class I area emission total

QA/QC Quality assurance/quality control



QS Sulfur emission rate

QVOC VOC emission rate

RTO Regenerative thermal oxidizer

scfm Standard cubic feet per minute

SIL Significant Impact Level

SO2 Sulfur dioxide

T Temperature

tpy Ton(s) per year

TRS Total reduced sulfur

UMS Uncontrolled mass emission rate of sulfur

UMVOC Uncontrolled mass emission rate of VOC

US EPA United States Environmental Protection Agency

USGS United States Geological Survey

UTM Universal Transverse Mercator

VOC Volatile organic compound


Bridgeton Landfill, LLC | Application for Authority to Construct B-1 Trinity Consultants

APPENDIX B: FACILITY DIAGRAMS

Since there have been no changes to the plant layout, please refer to the most recent permit application submittal for a plant layout diagram.

Since there have been no changes to the flares, please refer to the most recent permit application for a process flow diagram. Process flow diagrams for the LMS can be found with the leachate pretreatment systems report in Appendix C.


Bridgeton Landfill, LLC | Application for Authority to Construct C-1 Trinity Consultants

APPENDIX C: LEACHATE PRETREATMENT SYSTEM REPORT

BRIDGETON LEACHATE PRETREATMENT PROCESS

PRIMARY SYSTEM PROCESS IMPROVEMENT

CARBON DIOXIDE PH NEUTRALIZATION

Prepared for:

BRIDGETON LANDFILL

13570 SAINT CHARLES ROCK RD

BRIDGETON, MISSOURI 63044

Prepared by:

CIVIL & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS, INC.

4848 PARK 370 BLVD, SUITE F

HAZELWOOD, MO 63042

CEC Project 130-484

AUGUST 2015

Bridgeton Landfill CEC Project 130-484

Pretreatment Facility Process Improvements i August, 2015

Carbon Dioxide pH Neutralization

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

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

1.1 Leachate Pretreatment Plant Description ...................................................................1

1.2 Basis for Process Modification ...................................................................................4

2.0 Primary Process Improvements Description ......................................................................5

TABLES

Table 1.1 LPTP Wastewater Characteristics

Table 1.2 LPTP Discharge Requirements

Table 2.1 Equipment List: Carbon Dioxide pH Neutralization System

FIGURES

Figure P300 Current LPTP Process Flow Diagrams



Figure P501C Proposed System Layout

Figure P404 Carbon Dioxide Feed System Process Diagram


Pretreatment Facility Process Improvements 1 August, 2015


1.0 INTRODUCTION

The following memorandum provides the basis of design and process description for the use of

carbon dioxide as a neutralization reagent for pretreated wastewater for the Leachate

Pretreatment Process (LPTP) at Bridgeton Landfill located in Bridgeton, Missouri.

1.1 LEACHATE PRETREATMENT PLANT DESCRIPTION

Bridgeton Landfill has built and commissioned a leachate pretreatment plant (LPTP) at its site in

Bridgeton, Missouri. The facility has been in initial operation since October 2014. The project is

part of the overall work at the site encompassing leachate extraction, gas extraction, and other

landfill work.

Table 1.1 provides the basic wastewater design characteristics for the LPTP.

Table 1.1: LPTP Wastewater Design Characteristics

Item Value

Flow, design maximum flow, gpd 300,000

Biochemical Oxygen Demand, mg/l 31,000

Chemical Oxygen Demand, mg/l 71,000

Total Suspended Solids, mg/l 2,600

Zinc, mg/l 50

Iron, mg/l 800

Table 1.2 provides the treatment requirements, for the system, which include the discharge

permit for the St. Louis Metropolitan Sanitary District (MSD).

Table 1.2: LPTP Discharge Limits

Parameter, mg/l Daily Average Limit Daily Maximum Limit

Large River Small River Large River Small River

Antimony 0.5 0.5 1.5 1.5

Arsenic 0.77* 0.3 1.2 0.9

Barium 10.0 30.0 30.0 30.0

Beryllium 0.4 0.1 1.2 0.3




Table 1.2: LPTP Discharge Limits

Parameter, mg/l Daily Average Limit Daily Maximum Limit

Large River Small River Large River Small River

Cadmium 0.7 0.07 1.2 0.21

Chromium 5.0 5.0 15.0 15.0

Copper 2.7 0.7 4.5 2.1

Cyanide, Amenable 0.4 0.1 1.2 0.3

Iron 150.0 25.0 450.0 75

Lead 0.4 0.2 0.6 0.3

Mercury 0.01 0.01 0.03 0.03

Nickel 2.3 1.0 4.1 3.0

Total Oil & Grease 200 200 200 200

Phenolic Compounds 7.0 7.0 21.0 21.0

Selenium 0.2 0.2 0.6 0.6

Silver 0.5 0.5 1.5 1.5

Zinc

3.0 3.0 9.0 9.0

*Current Variance

Figures P300, P301, and P302 provide the current general process flow diagram for the leachate

pretreatment process. The LPTP consists of the following unit operations:

1. Equalization Tankage- to receive the site leachate, gas well liquid, miscellaneous

pretreatment facility recycle streams, and provide buffering/leveling of wastewater

characteristics. The 316,000 gallon equalization tank utilizes a jet (venturi) type mixing

and aeration system, along with antifoam feed and odor control support systems. The

landfill wastewaters are received through a grit removal station to remove large

particulates that could interfere with pumping/mechanical equipment at the LPTP. The

equalization tankage is serviced by twin pumping systems, the first to load out tankers for

off-site management of leachate (if necessary), and the second to feed influent to the

pretreatment unit in a controlled manner. An odor control system processes the air

discharge from the equalization tank.




2. Physical/Chemical Pretreatment- to remove suspended solids and metals from the

influent wastewater through screening, pH adjustment and chemical addition (coagulant

and flocculant), followed by clarification through a rotary drum thickener. Pretreatment

effluent is collected in a transfer tank (TK-415) along with effluent from two (2) rotary

screw presses and a second rotary drum thickener and transferred to a clarifier (CLR-204)

for additional suspended removal. The clarified effluent flows into a pH adjustment tank-

TK-205 (a portion is strained and used as spray wash water for the strainers, rotary drum

thickeners, and screw presses). The material overflows into the Transfer Tank (T-206)

and combines with return activated solids from the ultrafiltration units prior to feeding to

the biological treatment units. The pretreatment operation utilizes an odor control

system. The system was previously modified to include the addition of sodium carbonate

(soda ash) to reduce the calcium scaling potential of the wastewater.

3. Biological Treatment- to remove biodegradable organic and nitrogen components of the

wastewater; the system consists of four (4) One Million Gallon Aeration Tanks that

utilize jet aeration/mixing to affect biological treatment. The biological system is

supported with foam control, instrumentation (level, dissolved oxygen, pH),

heating/cooling and odor control systems.

4. Ultrafiltration Units- to separate treated effluent from the aeration tanks mixed liquor

and facilitate solids processing by returning solids to the aeration tanks and sending waste

solids for thickening and dewatering. Three ultrafiltration units complete with

instrumentation, pumps, and clean-in-place (CIP) systems are utilized at the LPTP. The

UF System is designed for expansion to include a fourth membrane unit with only minor

modifications and upgrades.

5. Solids Thickening- to pre-concentrate the waste solids from the Physical/Chemical

Pretreatment and Biological (MBR) operations for subsequent dewatering. Rotary drum

thickeners, with a flocculant feed systems are utilized to prepare the solids for

dewatering.

6. Solids Dewatering- to process the waste solids generated from the Physical/Chemical

Pretreatment and Biological Treatment operations. Two (2) screw presses, with a

flocculant feed system are used to dewater the thickened sludges. An odor control

system services the solids processing building and roll-off box areas.




7. Effluent Collection/Discharge-permeate from the ultrafiltration units is pumped into a

96,000 gallon holding tank. The material is then discharged to the Metropolitan Sanitary

District (MSD) sanitary collection system.

8. Cooling System-to provide stable operating temperatures for biological processing by

cooling the aeration tanks. The system consists of heat exchangers to transfer heat from

the mixed liquor to cooling water. Forced air circulation cooling towers are utilized to

remove the transferred heat from the cooling water. Potable water is utilized as make-up

for the cooling water. Chemical feed systems are utilized to provide corrosion, scaling,

and microbial control in the cooling system.

9. Odor Control-to mitigate potential odor from the LPTP operations. Regenerative

Thermal Oxidizers (RTOs) are used to process collective exhaust from various LPTP

operations/areas. The system destroys up to 99% of volatile organic compounds and

recovers approximately 95% of the energy.

There are additionally chemical feed systems that support the above mentioned unit operations.

Utility sumps and other pumping systems are used to collect miscellaneous process streams such

as thickening/dewatering units’ effluent, clean-up waters, blow downs and transfer the material

back to the process tanks.

1.2 BASIS FOR PROCESS MODIFICATION

Sulfuric acid is presently utilized to lower the pH of the primary treated wastewater prior to

biological treatment. There are potential concerns with the use of sulfuric acid for this purpose:

1. Sulfates from the neutralization can react with calcium sulfate to form a scale on

ultrafiltration membranes leading to additional cleaning and reduced membrane life,

2. Hydrogen sulfide may form in the during periods of process disruptions like power

outages, and

3. The use of carbon dioxide has a benefit to the operational costs of the system.

Hydrochloric acid was also considered an alternate neutralization reagent. The concern with

hydrochloric acid, in conjunction with the current level of chlorides in the wastewater, involves

compatibility with stainless equipment and piping utilized at the facility. Carbon Dioxide is a

potential neutralization solution that does not pose the material of construction concerns of

hydrochloric acid, or the issues associated with sulfuric acid. This document provides the design




information and operating description for the carbon dioxide system planned for implementation

at the Bridgeton Leachate Pretreatment Facility.

2.0 PRIMARY PROCESS IMPROVEMENTS DESCRIPTION

The following describes the process modifications to the treatment process. The carbon dioxide

pH neutralization occurs within the initial treatment stage after the equalization tank and before

the influent wastewaters are transferred to the biological system. Figure P-404 provides the

piping and instrumentation diagram for the system. Liquefied, refrigerated carbon dioxide is

stored in an 8.5 ft. inside diameter tank which is 33.8 ft. tall and holds approximately 43.6 tons

of carbon dioxide.

The system features an inventory monitoring and telemetry system to alert the vendor so that

storage tank is refilled. The carbon dioxide addition is control by an existing pH analyzer/control

loop in the existing pH Adjustment Tank (TK-205). Carbon dioxide is discharged through a

gasifier into the pH adjustment tank through diffusers. The diffusion efficiency for carbon

dioxide systems is typically over 90%. Additionally there is an atmospheric carbon dioxide

monitoring system to alert personnel of elevated levels of carbon dioxide that could be indicative

of system leakage.

The equipment list for the system is provided in Table 2.1. Figure P-501C provides a layout

drawing of the carbon dioxide system. The storage tank is placed on a concrete slab. The tank

area is fenced off, with an access gate. The storage tank system is located on the south side of the

leachate pretreatment building. The sparger nozzle locations for the pH Adjustment tank (TK-

205) are provided on Figure P501C as well.




Table 2.1 Equipment List: Carbon Dioxide pH Neutralization System

Tag # Unit Name Description Qty

TK-205 Effluent pH Adjustment Tank Existing tank with 3 x 6" nozzles added on roof 3

TK-1200 Carbon Dioxide Tank

43.6 tons, 114.1875" OD, 102" ID, 406" tall,

cryogenic storage, with level indicator, and vendor contact telemetry

1

VAP-1210 Pressure Building Vaporizer 480V/3 PH /60 HZ, 18 amp 1

VAP-1220 Direct to Process Vaporizer 480V /3 PH /60 HZ, 72 amp 1

ISV-1201 Isolation Valve

1

PRV-1230 Pressure Relief Valve

1

PRV-1235 Pressure Relief Valve

1

XV-1202 Control Valves 2" control valves, I/P converter 1

MIX-205 CO2 spargers (6) 2" (assumed for bid) 304 SS spargers, 200

lbs./hr. each (3 spare) 1

Carbon Dioxide Alarm CO2 Alarms for 2 locations 2

Alarm Box NEMA 4X enclosure 2

FIGURES

8

A

B

34567 12

C

D

E

F

G

H

8 34567 12

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

BR

IDG

ETO

N L

AN

DFI

LL, L

LC13

570

ST.

CH

AR

LES

RO

CK

RO

AD

BR

IDG

ETO

N, M

O 6

3044

PH

ON

E: (

314)

744

-819

5FA

X: (

314)

656

-210

7

111

/05/

13C

ON

STR

UC

TIO

N/C

OO

RD

INA

TIO

N S

ET

201

/09/

14P

RO

GR

ES

S D

RA

WIN

G S

ET

306

/05/

14P

RO

GR

ES

S D

RA

WIN

G S

ET

##

##

##

##

#

##

##

##

##

#

##

##

##

##

#

##

##

##

##

#

##

##

##

##

#

BR

IDG

ETO

N L

AN

DFI

LL13

570

ST.

CH

AR

LES

RO

CK

RO

AD

PR

OC

ES

S F

LOW

DIA

GR

AM

130-

484

NO

T TO

SC

ALE

JULY

201

3JK

S

DR

AFT

DR

AFT

1 3

P-300

8

A

B

34567 12

C

D

E

F

G

H

8 34567 12

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

BR

IDG

ETO

N L

AN

DFI

LL, L

LC13

570

ST.

CH

AR

LES

RO

CK

RO

AD

BR

IDG

ETO

N, M

O 6

3044

PH

ON

E: (

314)

744

-819

5FA

X: (

314)

656

-210

7

111

/05/

13C

ON

STR

UC

TIO

N/C

OO

RD

INA

TIO

N S

ET

306

/09/

14P

RO

GR

ES

S D

RA

WIN

G S

ET

##

##

##

##

#

##

##

##

##

#

##

##

##

##

#

##

##

##

##

#

##

##

##

##

#

BR

IDG

ETO

N L

AN

DFI

LL13

570

ST.

CH

AR

LES

RO

CK

RO

AD

PR

OC

ES

S F

LOW

DIA

GR

AM

130-

484

NO

T TO

SC

ALE

JULY

201

3JK

S

DR

AFT

DR

AFT

2 3

P-301

201

/09/

14P

RO

GR

ES

S D

RA

WIN

G S

ET

8

A

B

34567 12

C

D

E

F

G

H

8 34567 12

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

BR

IDG

ETO

N L

AN

DFI

LL, L

LC13

570

ST.

CH

AR

LES

RO

CK

RO

AD

BR

IDG

ETO

N, M

O 6

3044

PH

ON

E: (

314)

744

-819

5FA

X: (

314)

656

-210

7

17-

24-1

3R

EM

OV

ED

BLO

WE

R A

ND

AE

RA

TIO

N F

RO

M H

OLD

ING

TA

NK

(TK

-410

) &

INS

TALL

ED

MIX

ER

(M

X-4

10)

211

/05/

13C

ON

STR

UC

TIO

N/C

OO

RD

INA

TIO

N S

ET

406

/09/

14 P

RO

GR

ES

S D

RA

WIN

G S

ET

##

##

##

##

#

##

##

##

##

#

##

##

##

##

#

##

##

##

##

#

BR

IDG

ETO

N L

AN

DFI

LL13

570

ST.

CH

AR

LES

RO

CK

RO

AD

PR

OC

ES

S F

LOW

DIA

GR

AM

130-

484

NO

T TO

SC

ALE

JULY

201

3JK

S

DR

AFT

DR

AFT

3 3

P-302

301

/09/

14P

RO

GR

ES

S D

RA

WIN

G S

ET

NORTH

8

A

B

34567 12

C

D

E

F

G

H

8 34567 12

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

BR

IDG

ETO

N L

AN

DFI

LL, L

LC13

570

ST.

CH

AR

LES

RO

CK

RO

AD

BR

IDG

ETO

N, M

O 6

3044

PH

ON

E: (

314)

744

-819

5FA

X: (

314)

656

-210

7

111

-5-2

013

CO

NS

TRU

CTI

ON

/CO

OR

DIN

ATI

ON

SE

T

204

/03/

2015

FILT

RA

TE U

LTR

AFI

LTE

R F

EE

D A

ND

AD

DE

D W

ATE

R R

EU

SE

OP

TIO

N

##

##

##

##

#

##

##

##

##

#

##

##

##

##

#

##

##

##

##

#

##

##

##

##

#

##

##

##

##

#

BR

IDG

ETO

N L

AN

DFI

LL13

570

ST.

CH

AR

LES

RO

CK

RO

AD

TRE

ATM

EN

T B

UIL

DIN

G

130-

484

1/8"

=1'

-0"

JUN

E 2

015

JKS

DR

AFT

DR

AFT

1 1

8

A

B

34567 12

C

D

E

F

G

H

8 34567 12

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

BR

IDG

ETO

N L

AN

DFI

LL13

570

ST.

CH

AR

LES

RO

CK

RO

AD

PR

OC

ES

S &

INS

TRU

ME

NTA

TIO

N D

IAG

RA

MC

AR

BO

N D

IOX

IDE

FE

ED

SY

STE

M

130-

484

NO

T TO

SC

ALE

MA

Y 2

015

JKS

DR

AFT

DR

AFT

P-404

BR

IDG

ETO

N L

AN

DFI

LL, L

LC13

570

ST.

CH

AR

LES

RO

CK

RO

AD

BR

IDG

ETO

N, M

O 6

3044

PH

ON

E: (

314)

744

-819

5FA

X: (

314)

656

-411

7

CARBON DIOXIDE FEED SYSTEM(BASIS: PRAXAIR PROPOSAL MAY 27, 2015)

NOTES:


Bridgeton Landfill, LLC | Application for Authority to Construct D-1 Trinity Consultants

APPENDIX D: EMISSION CALCULATIONS


Equipment/Project EmissionPoint SO2 CO PM10 PM2.5 NOX VOC Pb GHGs HAPs SingleHAPLandfillwithGCCS N/A ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 89,028.22 ‐ ‐

JZZTOFEnclosedFlare(3,500scfm) EP‐8FL100:Flare#1(3,500scfm) EP‐11FL120:Flare#2(4,000scfm) EP‐12FL140:Flare#3(4,000scfm) EP‐13

FXA1212:LFGCSUFlare(2,500scfm) EP‐14RTO1&2SO2EmissionsIncrease EP‐18A&B 5.00

Upto24FracTanks EP‐15 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐316,000galLeachatetank,2.2MMBtu/hrRTO,withtwo

360cfmaerationblowers(720cfmintotal) EP‐16A ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 0.06 ‐ ‐ 0.01 ‐

Tanks1&2;Tanks3&4(Each1MMgal) EP‐17A ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 0.72 ‐ ‐ 0.05 ‐

RTO1&2 EP‐18A&B 5.00 1.98 0.18 0.18 2.35 0.13 1.18E‐05 2,839.82 0.04 ‐EmergencyGenerator(1000kW) EP‐19 0.14 0.10 0.01 0.01 3.64 0.01 ‐ 403.56 0.01 ‐EmergencyGenerator(175kW) EP‐20 2.11 5.91 0.34 0.34 3.38 3.38 ‐ 1,177.24 0.02 ‐EmergencyGenerator(543kW) EP‐21 0.37 1.05 0.06 0.06 1.92 1.05 ‐ 195.61 3.71E‐03 ‐TwoPortableDieselPumps

(28.1kWeach) EP‐I01&EP‐I02 0.16 0.64 2.58E‐03 2.58E‐03 0.05 0.02 ‐ 89.77 2.13E‐03 ‐

TwoPortableLightPlants(17.5kWeach) EP‐I03&EP‐I04 0.10 0.40 1.60E‐03 1.60E‐03 0.03 0.02 ‐ 55.91 1.32E‐03 ‐

TwoPortableBakerPumps(104kWeach) EP‐I05&EP‐I06 0.59 1.67 0.10 0.10 1.91 0.72 ‐ 332.24 0.01 ‐

TwoPortableAirCompressors(224kWeach) EP‐I07&EP‐I08 0.31 0.86 0.05 0.05 0.99 0.37 ‐ 172.02 4.07E‐03 ‐

One500gallonDieselTank EP‐I09 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 6.00E‐04 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐97,000galTankforTreatedLeachate EP‐I10 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 1.50 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

310.8 149.1 8.2 8.2 44.2 27.1 1.2E‐05 145,106.1 7.0 6.1302.0 136.5 7.5 7.5 29.9 19.1 ‐ 50,811.8 6.9 6.1307.0 136.5 7.5 7.5 29.9 19.1 ‐ 50,811.8 6.9 6.136.3 243.1 10.8 10.8 44.7 2.4 ‐ ‐ 10.4 9.310.1 67.5 3.0 3.0 12.4 13.5 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐14.1 38.3 4.2 4.2 20.4 0.9 ‐ ‐ 3.2 2.760.6 349.0 18.1 18.1 77.5 16.9 0.0E+00 ‐ 13.6 12.0307.0 <250 18.1 18.1 77.5 19.1 0.0E+00 50,811.8 13.6 12.0237.4 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 2.2 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00241.2 <250 18.8 18.8 91.8 27.1 1.2E‐05 145,106.1 13.7 <10

D.1. BRIDGETON LANDFILL POTENTIAL TO EMIT

FacilityWidePotentialtoEmitProjectEmissionsIncrease

CurrentApplicationEmissions1PermittedPTEforallfiveFlares

PermittedEmissionsforEnclosedFlarePermittedEmissionsforLFGSpecialtiesFlare

PermittedEmissionsforReplacementFlareApplicationTotalsforFiveFlares(&RTOSO2Emissions)

AppendixTableD‐1.EmissionsSummary

1.ThecurrentapplicationemissionsforSO2arebasedonsitespecificTRSandflowdatawithanaddedsafetyfactor.TheVOCemissionsarebasedonsitespecifictestdata.TheCOemissionsforthewholefacilityaretakentobelessthan250tons/yr.Theemissionsfortherestofthepollutantsarebasedonthecurrentpermittedemissionsofallflares.

6.89 6.08

TotalEmissionsforallEquipment

302.00 136.51 7.48 7.48 29.95 19.14 50,811.77‐

TotalforFiveFlares

Bridgeton Landfill, LLC | Application for Authority to ConstructTrinity Consultants D-2


SAMPLE OXYGEN FLOW TRS TRS(Avg)1 QS2 UMS

3 CMSO24

EVENT# % dscfm ppmvd ppmvd m3/yr kg/yr (tpy)1 3/12/2015 10.4 4,033 1,518 1,518 91,132.59421 119,492.98 263.5

15.3 81714.2 87411.5 83211.5 83412.0 88111.8 9229.6 1,2009.6 1,30011.0 1,40010.0 1,10011.0 1,1009.9 1,70010.0 1,3009.7 1,20010.0 1,20010.0 1,10010.0 1,3009.7 1,20011.0 1,30011.0 1,30010.0 1,4009.9 1,5009.9 1,4009.9 1,4009.6 1,3009.7 1,3009.7 1,6009.6 2,2009.7 1,6009.9 1,4009.9 1,70010.0 1,70010.0 1,30010.0 1,40013.0 9109.7 1,30011.0 1,20010.0 1,4009.9 1,3008.9 1,5009.5 1,2007.9 1,5008.4 1,6007.5 1,400NR 1,300NR 1,900NR 1,300NR 1,500NR 1,500NR 1,500

4,446 1,345 87,046 114,135 252

MaximumTRSdata 1,900 ppmvMinimumTRSdata 833 ppmvAverageflowdata 4,446 dscfm

AverageSO2emissionsbasedonTRStestdata5 252 tpy

SO2emissionswithasafetyfactorof20%6 302 tpy

1.AnaverageoftheTRSdata(ppmv)wastakenwhenmultiplesamplesweretakenonthesametestday.2.TheemissionrateofSulfur(QS,m

3/yr)wascalculatedasfollows.ThismethodologyisconsistentwithAP‐42,Chapter2.4‐MunicipalSolidWasteLandfills.

whereMWS=32.06g/g‐molT=TemperatureoflandfillgasinCelsius.Avalueof25oCwasusedforallcalculations

6.Asafetyfactorof20%wasusedtoestablishaconservativeSO2emissionlimit.5.AverageSO2emissionratewasdeterminedbasedontheannualcontrolledemissionratecalculatedforeachoftheflowandTRSconcentrationdatapairings.

2=RatioofthemolecularweightofSO2tothemolecularweightofSwhereƞS=1assumingthatallSulfurinthecompoundsisconvertedtoSO2CMSO2=UMSx2.0xƞSx(2.205lbs/kg)x(ton/2000lbs)

4.ControlledmassemissionrateofSO2iscalculatedasfollows.ThismethodologyisconsistentwithAP‐42,Chapter2.4‐MunicipalSolidWasteLandfills.

D.2. TRS DATA AND SULFUR DIOXIDE EMISSIONS

AppendixTableD‐2.TRSTestDataandSO2 Emissions

AveragedData

3.UncontrolledmassemissionrateofSulfur(UMS)iscalculatedasfollows.ThismethodologyisconsistentwithAP‐42,Chapter2.4‐MunicipalSolidWasteLandfills.=LFGFlowRate(ft3/yr)xSulfurConcentrationfromAP‐42(ppmv)/106x(0.02832m3/ft3)QS=EmissionRateofSulfur(m

3/yr)

UMS=[(8.205x10‐5m3‐atm/gmol‐°K)(1000g/kg)(273+T°K)]

QSx[MWSx1atm]

DATE

2 3/18/2015 4,702 846 59,181.74241 77,599.05 171.1

3 3/24/2015 4,815 833

1,076 75,935.60339 99,566.70 219.5

59,697.98318 78,275.95 172.6

4 4/1/2015 4,742

6 4/14/2015

5 4/8/2015

4,888 1,400 101,856.33538 133,553.94 294.5

1,250 92,740.08532 121,600.72 268.14,984

8 4/28/2015

7 4/21/2015

4,752 1,150 81,350.31478 106,666.47 235.2

1,250 88,398.94265 115,908.62 255.64,751

10 5/12/2015

9 5/5/2015

4,695 1,300 90,850.54867 119,123.16 262.7

1,250 77,656.39345 101,823.00 224.54,174

12 5/26/2015

11 5/19/2015

4,581 1,400 95,463.40769 125,171.54 276.0

1,450 96,692.90803 126,783.66 279.64,480

14 6/10/2015

13 6/2/2015

4,237 1,900 119,828.65110 157,119.23 346.4

1,300 84,909.94836 111,333.85 245.54,388

16 6/23/2015

15 6/16/2015

4,077 1,700 103,166.39105 135,271.69 298.3

1,500 92,837.69510 121,728.71 268.44,158

18 7/7/2015

17 7/1/2015

4,163 1,105 68,472.67497 89,781.32 198.0

1,350 87,532.68396 114,772.78 253.14,356

20 7/21/2015

19 7/14/2015

4,104 1,400 85,523.21004 112,137.96 247.3

1,300 83,284.50724 109,202.58 240.84,304

22 8/4/2015

21 7/28/2015

3,218 1,500 71,849.85638 94,209.47 207.7

1,350 79,273.74614 103,943.67 229.23,945

25 8/25/2015 4,771 1,500 106,524.44525 139,674.77 308.0

1,600 96,311.85224 126,284.02 278.5

24 8/18/2015

23 8/11/2015 4,044

4,112 1,400 85,689.92195 112,356.56 247.7



MinimumrecordedTRSdata1 833 ppmvLFGTemperature 25 C

ƞS 1MolWt.ofSulfur 32.06 g/gmol

YearFlow

(SCF/day)2Flow

(SCFM)2

EmissionRateofSO2(QSO2)

3

(m3/yr)

UncontrolledMassEmissionsofReducedSulfur

Compounds(UMS)4

(kg/yr)

ControlledMassEmissionsofSO2

(CMSO2)5

(tpy)

2005 997,258,801 1,897.4 23,525.9 30,847.1 68.02006 1,042,401,600 1,983.3 24,590.8 32,243.5 71.12007 859,080,559 1,634.5 20,266.2 26,573.0 58.62008 640,852,848 1,215.9 15,076.8 19,768.7 43.62009 676,595,992 1,287.3 15,961.3 20,928.4 46.12010 770,475,329 1,465.9 18,175.9 23,832.3 52.62011 1,003,311,477 1,908.9 23,668.7 31,034.4 68.42012 2,168,505,372 4,114.5 51,016.5 66,892.8 147.52013 2,427,769,168 4,619.0 57,272.4 75,095.6 165.62014 2,938,773,172 5,591.3 69,327.3 90,901.9 200.4

AverageSO2EmissionsbasedonTRSdata6 302.0 tpy

BaselineSO2Emissions 69.6 tpyProjectemissionsincrease7,8 232.4 tpy

RTOSO2Emissions9 5.00 tpy

TotalSO2Emissions 237.44 tpy

1.TRSdataof833ppmvwasselectedinanefforttocalculateaconservative(low)baselineannualemissionratefortheflaresatthefacility.2.Sitespecificflowdata.Thesevaluewascalculatedbasedonestimatesofactualgascollectionperyear.

QS=EmissionRateofSulfur(m3/yr)

=LFGFlowRate(ft3/yr)xSulfurConcentrationfromAP‐42(ppmv)/106x(0.02832m3/ft3)

whereMWS=32.06g/g‐molT=TemperatureoflandfillgasinCelsius.Avalueof25oCwasused

CMSO2=UMSx2.0xƞSx(2.205lbs/kg)x(ton/2000lbs)whereƞS=1assumingthatallSulfurinthecompoundsisconvertedtoSO2

2=RatioofthemolecularweightofSO2tothemolecularweightofS6.SO2emissionsdatawascalculatedbasedonsitespecificTRSandflowdatapairingswithanadded25%safetyfactor.

5.ControlledmassemissionrateofSO2iscalculatedasfollows.ThismethodologyisconsistentwithAP‐42,Chapter2.4‐MunicipalSolidWasteLandfills.

7.IncreaseinSO2emissionsfortheprojectiscalculatedfromthedifferenceoftheSO2emissionsfromTRStestdataandtheaverageofthepastactualconsecutive24‐monthsofemissionsdata(2005and2006).ThetriggerforPreventionofSignificantDeterioration(PSD)thresholdforBridgetonlandfillfortheSO2emissionsis250tons/yrandthisisappliedtowardstheincreaseinSO2emissionsfromtheprojectasthefacilityisanexistingminorsourceforSO2PSD.PerthePSDrules,theprojectemissionsincreaseforexistingunitsusesthedifferenceofprojectedactualemissionsandthebaselineactualemissionstodetermineaPSDapplicability.

8.Theaverageofpastactualconsecutive24‐monthsofemissionsdata(2005and2006)fora10‐yearlookbackofemissionsisallowedperthePSDrules.9.TheSO2emissionsfromtheRTOarebeingrolledintothisflareconstructionpermit.TheactualSO2emissionsfortheRTOswerecalculatedtobelessthan5tons/yr.However,the5tons/yrofSO2emissionswereusedfortheRTOsheretobeconservative.

D.3. FLARE AND RTO SULFUR DIOXIDE EMISSIONS

AppendixTableD‐3.PastActualandFuturePotentialSO2EmissionDeterminations(FlaresandRTOs)

3.TheemissionrateofSulfur(QS,m3/yr)wascalculatedasfollows.ThismethodologyisconsistentwithAP‐42,

Chapter2.4‐MunicipalSolidWasteLandfills.

4.UncontrolledmassemissionrateofSulfur(UMS)iscalculatedasfollows.ThismethodologyisconsistentwithAP‐42,Chapter2.4‐MunicipalSolidWasteLandfills.

UMS=[(8.205x10‐5m3‐atm/gmol‐°K)(1000g/kg)(273+T°K)]

QSx[MWSx1atm]

PastActualDataActualLFGFlowData


Privileged and Confidential Information

Flowoflandfillgas(LFG)1 6,031 SCFMAnnualhoursofoperation 8,760 hoursLandfillgasheatingvalue2 277.83 Btu/scf

CH4percentageinLFG3 28%

MolWt.ofSulfur 32.06 g/gmolMolWt.ofVOC 86.18 g/gmol

TemperatureofLFG 25 Cƞcnt

4 99.2%ƞS

5 1VOCconcentration6 6,857 ppmv‐hexane

1ft3= 28.32 Liter1μg= 2.20E‐09 lbs1kg= 2.20462 lbs1m3= 35.31467 ft3

VOCemissionrateofhexane(QVOC)7 615,593.27 m3/yr

UncontrolledmassemissionsofVOC(UMVOC)8 2,169,729.06 kg/yr

ControlledmassemissionrateofVOC(CMVOC)9 19.14 tpy

lb/hr tpyCO 0.31 lb/MMBtu 31.17 136.5 AP‐42,Chapter13.5,Table13.5‐2NOX 0.068 lb/MMBtu 6.84 29.9 AP‐42,Chapter13.5,Table13.5‐1

PM/PM10/PM2.5 270 kg/MMdscmCH4 1.71 7.5 AP‐42,Chapter2.4,Table2.4‐4SO2

10 68.95 302.0 BasedonTRStestdataVOC11 6,857 ppmv 4.37 19.1 SitespecificVOCconcentrationdataCO2 52.07 kg/MMBtu 11,541.52 50,551.8 40CFRPart98,TableC‐1(Landfillgas)CH4 0.0032 kg/MMBtu 0.71 3.1N2O 0.00063 kg/MMBtu 0.14 0.6CO2e

12 N/A N/A 11,600.86 50,811.8 N/A

2.Sitespecificlandfillgasheatingvalue.Thisvaluewasbiasedhighforcalculationpurposes.

4.NMOCdestructionefficiencyinflaresperAP‐42,Chapter2.4,Table2.4‐3.5.AssumedthatallthesulfurcompoundsinLFGareconvertedtoSO2.6.SitespecificVOCconcentrationdata.7.QVOCistheemissionofVOC(m

3/yr),whichiscalculatedasfollows.ThismethodologyisconsistentwithAP‐42,Chapter2.4‐MunicipalSolidWasteLandfills.=LFGFlowRate(ft3/yr)xVOCConcentrationsashexane(ppmv)/10^6x(0.02832m3/ft3)

where,MWVOCisthemolecularweightofHexaneperAP‐42methodologyT=TemperatureoflandfillgasinCelsius.Avalueof25oCwasused

CMVOC=UMVOCx(1‐ƞcnt)x(2.205lbs/kg)x(ton/2000lbs)where,ƞcnt=NMOCDestructioninFlare(%)

10.SO2emissionsarebasedonthetestdataforTRSandflowwherealloftheTRSinppmvisassumedtobeconvertedtoSO2.11.VOCemissionfactoriscalculatedbasedonsitespecificVOCconcentrationdata.

CO2 1CH4 25N2O 298

GlobalWarmingPotentials(GWPs)

[(8.205x10‐5m3‐atm/gmol‐°K)(1000g/kg)(273+T°K)]

QVOCx[MWVOCx1atm]UMVOC=

9.CMVOCisthecontrolledmassemissionrateofVOC(tpy),whichiscalculatedasfollows.ThismethodologyisconsistentwithAP‐42,Chapter2.4‐MunicipalSolidWasteLandfills.

12.TheGHGemissionsarecalculatedusingequationA‐1from40CFRPart98,SubpartA.ThismethodologyusesGlobalWarmingPotentials(GWPs).GlobalWarmingPotentials(GWPs)aretakenfrom40CFRPart98,SubpartA,TableA‐1.

D.4. EMISSION CALCULATIONS FOR ALL FLARES (EP-011, EP-012, EP-013, EP-014 & EP-008)

AppendixTableD‐4.FlareEmissions

1.Theflowdataisbasedonthe2015flowdatafrom1/1/2015to4/30/2015andwithanaddedsafetyfactorof20%.Thissafetyfactorwasselectedasaconservative(high)estimateoffuturepotentialemissions.

3.SitespecificMethaneconcentrationvalueis28%byvolume.Thiswasusedtocalculateparticulatematteremissionsastheparticulatematteremissionfactorwasinunitsofkg/MMdscmCH4perAP‐42,Chapter2.4,Table2.4‐4.

8.UMVOCisuncontrolledmassemissionsofVOC(kg/yr),whichiscalculatedasfollows.ThismethodologyisconsistentwithAP‐42,Chapter2.4‐MunicipalSolidWasteLandfills.

EmissionFactorSource

40CFRPart98,TableC‐2(Biomassgaseousfuels)

PollutantAllFlares

EmissionFactor EFUnits

N/A



CombinedFlowofEP‐011toEP‐014flares1 6,031 SCFM 3,170,052,596 SCF/YRƞcnt

2 98%ƞcol

3 100%TemperatureofLFG 25 C

1kg= 2.20462RatioofMolWt.ofHCltotheMolWt.ofCl 1.03

QHAP5 UMHAP

6

m3/yr kg/yr lb/yr tpy1,1,1‐Trichloroethane(methylchloroform) Yes No 133.41 0.48 98% 43.1 235.1 10.37 0.0052

1,1,2,2‐Tetrachloroethane Yes Yes 167.85 1.11 98% 99.7 684.1 30.16 0.01511,1‐Dichloroethane(ethylidenedichloride) Yes Yes 98.97 2.35 98% 211.0 854.0 37.65 0.01881,1‐Dichloroethene(vinylidenechloride) Yes Yes 96.94 0.2 98% 18.0 71.2 3.14 0.00161,2‐Dichloroethane(ethylenedichloride) Yes Yes 98.96 0.41 98% 36.8 149.0 6.57 0.0033

1,2‐Dichloropropane(propylenedichloride) Yes Yes 112.99 0.18 98% 16.2 74.7 3.29 0.00162‐Propanol(isopropylalcohol) No Yes 60.11 50.1 98% 4,497.8 11,057.3 487.54 0.2438

Acetone No No 58.08 7.01 98% 629.3 1,494.9 65.91 0.0330Acrylonitrile Yes Yes 53.06 6.33 98% 568.3 1,233.2 54.38 0.0272

Bromodichloromethane No Yes 163.83 3.13 98% 281.0 1,882.8 83.02 0.0415Butane No Yes 58.12 5.03 98% 451.6 1,073.4 47.33 0.0237

Carbondisulfide Yes Yes 76.13 0.58 98% 52.1 162.1 7.15 0.0036Carbonmonoxide No No 28.01 141 98% 12,658.4 14,501.0 639.38 0.3197

Carbontetrachloride Yes Yes 153.84 0.004 98% 0.4 2.3 0.10 0.0000Carbonylsulfide Yes Yes 60.07 0.49 98% 44.0 108.1 4.77 0.0024Chlorobenzene Yes Yes 112.56 0.25 98% 22.4 103.3 4.56 0.0023

Chlorodifluoromethane No No 86.47 1.3 98% 116.7 412.7 18.20 0.0091Chloroethane(ethylchloride) Yes Yes 64.52 1.25 98% 112.2 296.1 13.06 0.0065

Chloroform Yes Yes 119.39 0.03 98% 2.7 13.2 0.58 0.0003Chloromethane Yes Yes 50.49 1.21 98% 108.6 224.3 9.89 0.0049

Dichlorobenzene(1,4‐Dichlorobenzene) Yes Yes 147 0.21 98% 18.9 113.3 5.00 0.0025Dichlorodifluoromethane No No 120.91 15.7 98% 1,409.5 6,969.9 307.32 0.1537Dichlorofluoromethane No No 102.92 2.62 98% 235.2 990.1 43.65 0.0218

Dichloromethane(methylenechloride) Yes No 84.94 14.3 98% 1,283.8 4,459.8 196.64 0.0983Dimethylsulfide(methylsulfide) No Yes 62.13 7.82 98% 702.0 1,783.9 78.66 0.0393

Ethane No No 30.07 889 98% 79,810.8 98,152.2 4,327.77 2.1639Ethanol No Yes 46.08 27.2 98% 2,441.9 4,602.0 202.91 0.1015

Ethylbenzene Yes Yes 106.16 4.61 98% 413.9 1,796.9 79.23 0.0396Ethylmercaptan(ethanethiol) No Yes 62.13 1.25 98% 112.2 285.2 12.57 0.0063

Ethylenedibromide Yes Yes 187.88 0.001 98% 0.1 0.7 0.03 0.0000Fluorotrichloromethane No No 137.38 0.76 98% 68.2 383.4 16.90 0.0085

Hexane Yes Yes 86.18 6.57 98% 589.8 2,078.9 91.66 0.0458Hydrogensulfide No No 34.08 35.5 98% 3,187.0 4,442.1 195.86 0.0979Mercury(total)8 Yes No 200.61 0.000292 0% 0.0 0.2 0.47 0.0002

Methylethylketone No Yes 72.11 7.09 98% 636.5 1,877.2 82.77 0.0414Methylisobutylketone Yes Yes 100.16 1.87 98% 167.9 687.7 30.32 0.0152Methylmercaptan No Yes 48.11 2.49 98% 223.5 439.8 19.39 0.0097

Pentane No Yes 72.15 3.29 98% 295.4 871.6 38.43 0.0192Perchloroethylene(tetrachloroethylene) Yes No 165.83 3.73 98% 334.9 2,271.1 100.14 0.0501

Propane No Yes 44.09 11.1 98% 996.5 1,796.9 79.23 0.0396Toluene(methylbenzene) Yes Yes 92.14 39.3 98% 3,528.2 13,295.5 586.23 0.2931

Trichloroethylene(trichloroethene) Yes Yes 131.4 2.82 98% 253.2 1,360.5 59.99 0.0300t‐1,2‐dichloroethene No Yes 96.94 2.84 98% 255.0 1,010.8 44.57 0.0223

Vinylchloride Yes Yes 62.5 7.34 98% 659.0 1,684.4 74.27 0.0371Xylenes Yes Yes 106.16 12.1 98% 1,086.3 4,716.4 207.96 0.1040

HydrogenChloride8,9 Yes No 35.453 42 0% 3,770.6 5,467.2 12,166.46 6.08326.896.080.29

2.Destructionefficiencyofflare.Conservativelyassumesthatallpollutantsarehalogenated.3.%ofcollectedlandfillgasroutedtoflare,Assuming100%.4.HAPcompoundtakenfromTable2.4‐1,Chapter2.4‐"MunicipalSolidWasteLandfills".5.QHAPistheHAPemissionrate(m

3/yr),whichiscalculatedasfollows.ThismethodologyisconsistentwithAP‐42,Chapter2.4‐MunicipalSolidWasteLandfills.=LandfillGasFlowRate(ft3/yr)xHAPConcentrations(ppmv)/10^6x(0.02832m3/ft3)

6.UMHAPisuncontrolledmassemissionsofHAP(kg/yr),whichiscalculatedasfollows.ThismethodologyisconsistentwithAP‐42,Chapter2.4‐MunicipalSolidWasteLandfills.=QHAPx(MWHAPx1atm)/[(8.205x10‐5m

3‐atm/gmol‐°K)(1000g/kg)(273+T°K)]where,MWHAPisthemolecularweightofHAPandTistemperatureoflandfillgasinCelsius.

7.CMHAPisthecontrolledmassemissionrateofHAP(tpy),whichiscalculatedasfollows.ThismethodologyisconsistentwithAP‐42,Chapter2.4‐MunicipalSolidWasteLandfills.CMHAP=UMHAPx(1‐ƞcnt)x(2.205lbs/kg)x(ton/2000lbs)where,ƞcnt=DestructionefficiencyofFlare(%)

8.Flarecontrolefficiencyisnotapplied.

CMHCl=UMCl*ƞcol*1.03*ƞcntwhere,ƞcolisthe%ofcollectedlandfillgasroutedtoflare,assuming100%

1.Thetotalactualscaled2015flareflowforallfiveflares(6,031SCFM)isdividedbetweenflaresbasedontheirmaximumflowcapacity.Here,theflowisforEP‐011,EP‐012,EP‐013andEP‐014.

9.UncontrolledemissionoftotalchlorinatedcompoundsasChlorideUMCliscalculatedusingtheequationtocalculateUMHAPasshownin6,basedonthedefaultClconcentrationof42ppmvrecommendedinAP‐42,Section2.4(11/98).ControlledemissionofHCliscalculatedusingequation10inAP‐42,Section2.4.

D.5. HAP EMISSIONS FOR ALL FLARES (EP-011, EP-012, EP-013, EP-014 & EP-008)

AppendixTableD‐5.FlareHAPEmissions

MaxSingleHAP(notHCl)MaxSingleHAP(HCl)

TotalHAPs

AP‐42HAPCompoundList4FlareExhaust7HAP(Y/N) VOC(Y/N) Molecular

WeightRawLFGatFlareInlet FlareCE(%)



ThermalOxidizerRTOFiringRate 5.5 MMBtu/hrNaturalgasHHV1 1,024 Btu/scfWorkingHours 8,760 hrs

ControlEfficiencyofRTO 98%

EFlb/MMscf lb/hr tpy

NOX 100 0.54 2.35CO 84 0.45 1.98

PM/PM10/PM2.54 7.6 0.04 0.18

SO2 0.6 0.003 0.01VOC 5.5 0.03 0.13

Lead(Pb) 0.0005 2.69E‐06 1.18E‐05CO2 120000 644.53 2,823.05CH4 2.3 0.01 0.05N2O 2.2 0.01 0.05CO2e

5 N/A 648.36 2,839.82

3.36 tpy

lb/hr lb/yr tpy

2‐Methylnaphthalene 2.40E‐05 1.29E‐07 1.13E‐03 5.65E‐073‐Methylchloranthrene 1.80E‐06 9.67E‐09 8.47E‐05 4.23E‐08

7,12‐Dimethylbenz(a)anthracene 1.60E‐05 8.59E‐08 7.53E‐04 3.76E‐07Acenaphthene 1.80E‐06 9.67E‐09 8.47E‐05 4.23E‐08Acenaphthylene 1.80E‐06 9.67E‐09 8.47E‐05 4.23E‐08Anthracene 2.40E‐06 1.29E‐08 1.13E‐04 5.65E‐08

Benz(a)anthracene 1.80E‐06 9.67E‐09 8.47E‐05 4.23E‐08Benzene 2.10E‐03 1.13E‐05 9.88E‐02 4.94E‐05

Benzo(a)pyrene 1.20E‐06 6.45E‐09 5.65E‐05 2.82E‐08Benzo(b)fluoranthene 1.80E‐06 9.67E‐09 8.47E‐05 4.23E‐08Benzo(g,h,i)perylene 1.20E‐06 6.45E‐09 5.65E‐05 2.82E‐08Benzo(k)fluoranthene 1.80E‐06 9.67E‐09 8.47E‐05 4.23E‐08

Chrysene 1.80E‐06 9.67E‐09 8.47E‐05 4.23E‐08Dibenz(a,h)anthracene 1.20E‐06 6.45E‐09 5.65E‐05 2.82E‐08

Dichlorobenzene 1.20E‐03 6.45E‐06 5.65E‐02 2.82E‐05Fluoranthene 3.00E‐06 1.61E‐08 1.41E‐04 7.06E‐08Fluorene 2.80E‐06 1.50E‐08 1.32E‐04 6.59E‐08

Formaldehyde 7.50E‐02 4.03E‐04 3.53E+00 1.76E‐03Hexane 1.80E+00 9.67E‐03 8.47E+01 4.23E‐02

Indeno(1,2,3‐cd)pyrene 1.80E‐06 9.67E‐09 8.47E‐05 4.23E‐08Naphthalene 6.10E‐04 3.28E‐06 2.87E‐02 1.44E‐05Phenanthrene 1.70E‐05 9.13E‐08 8.00E‐04 4.00E‐07

Pyrene 5.00E‐06 2.69E‐08 2.35E‐04 1.18E‐07Toluene 3.40E‐03 1.83E‐05 1.60E‐01 8.00E‐05Arsenic 2.00E‐04 1.07E‐06 9.41E‐03 4.71E‐06Beryllium 1.20E‐05 6.45E‐08 5.65E‐04 2.82E‐07Cadmium 1.10E‐03 5.91E‐06 5.18E‐02 2.59E‐05Chromium 1.40E‐03 7.52E‐06 6.59E‐02 3.29E‐05Cobalt 8.40E‐05 4.51E‐07 3.95E‐03 1.98E‐06

Manganese 3.80E‐04 2.04E‐06 1.79E‐02 8.94E‐06Mercury 2.60E‐04 1.40E‐06 1.22E‐02 6.12E‐06Nickel 2.10E‐03 1.13E‐05 9.88E‐02 4.94E‐05

Selenium 2.40E‐05 1.29E‐07 1.13E‐03 5.65E‐070.01 89 0.04

AppendixTableD‐6.EmissionsfromtheTwo2.75MMBtu/hrRTOsDuetoNaturalGasCombustion

AppendixTableD‐7.PotentialHAPEmissionsfromRTOs

PollutantEmissions

AP‐42,Table1.4‐2(7/98)

Totals

SO2EmissionsdueSulfurinleachatetanks6

AP‐42,Table1.4‐2(7/98)AP‐42,Table1.4‐2(7/98)AP‐42,Table1.4‐2(7/98)40CFRPart98TablesA‐1

HAPsEmissionFactor(lb/MMscf)7

D.6. RTO PTE EMISSION CALCULATIONS

298251

N2OCH4

CO2GlobalWarmingPotentials(GWPs)2

HAPEmissions

EmissionFactorSource3

AP‐42,Table1.4‐1(7/98)AP‐42,Table1.4‐1(7/98)AP‐42,Table1.4‐2(7/98)AP‐42,Table1.4‐2(7/98)AP‐42,Table1.4‐2(7/98)



Pollutant Emissions(tpy)

NOX 2.35CO 1.98

PM/PM10/PM2.5 0.18SO2

8 5.00VOC 0.13HAPs 0.04

Lead(Pb) 1.18E‐05CO2 2,823.05CH4 0.05N2O 0.05CO2e 2,839.82

1.DatatakenfromthePart70(TitleV)permitapplicationsubmittedtotheMDNRonSeptember15,2014.2.GlobalWarmingPotentials(GWPs)aretakenfrom40CFRPart98,SubpartA,TableA‐1.

4.ItisassumedthattheemissionsofPM,PM10andPM2.5arethesametocalculateaconservativeestimate.5.TheGHGemissionsarecalculatedusingequationA‐1from40CFRPart98,SubpartA.ThismethodologyusesGlobalWarmingPotentials(GWPs).

6.AdditionalSO2emissionsareexpectedduetotheSulfurvaporsthatvolatilizeandroutetotheRTOfromtheleachatetreatmenttanks.7.HAPemissionfactorsaretakenfromAP‐42,Chapter1.4,Table1.4‐3andTable1.4‐4(7/98).

AppendixTableD‐8.SummaryofRTOEmissions

3.ItisassumedthatthecombustionofnaturalgasinanRTOissimilartothatofaboilerandhenceAP‐42emissionfactorsfornaturalgascombustionwereusedforcalculatingemissions.

8.TheactualSO2emissionsfromtheRTOweretakenas5tpytobeconservative.Thisincludestheemissionsfromcombustionofnaturalgasandalsotheleachatetankvaporsthatcontainsulfur.



99 tpy1.70%1.68 tpy

Completecombustionof1moleofsulfurwouldgenerate1moleofSO2.

32.065 lb/lb‐mol64.066 lb/lb‐mol

1.68 tpy3366.00 lbs

MolesofSulfurroutedtotheRTO 104.97 molesEquivalentmolesofSO2generated 104.97 moles

6725.28 lbs/yr3.363 tpy

PreviouslypermittedSO2emissions2 0.014 tpy

TotalSO2 emissions 3.38 tpyNetincreaseinSO2emissions 3.36 tpy

AllowedSO2emissions3 5.00 tpy

1.Basedonsampletestdata.2.DatatakenfromtheSt.LouisCountyConstructionPermit#7864and#7865.3.ThefacilityhasoptedtouseahigheractualSO2emissionratetobeconservative.

D.7. SULFUR DIOXIDE EMISSIONS FROM RTO

Molecularweightofsulfur

EquivalentamountofSO2generated

MolecularweightofSO2

AmountofSulfurroutedtoRTO

Every32lbsofsulfur(1molex32lb/lb‐mol)wouldgenerate64lbsofSO2(1mole*64lbs/lb‐mol).

AmountofSulfurinleachatetanks1

PercentageofSulfurvolatilized1

MassofvolatilizedSulfur

EquationD‐1.S+O2→SO2

1moleofsulfur(S)≅1moleofsulfurdioxide(SO2) EquationD‐2.



LandfillGasTemperature 536.67 RLandfillGasPressure 1 atm

PercentageofCO2inLandfillgas 50%MolecularweightofCH4 16.04 lb/lb‐molMolecularweightofCO2 44.01 lb/lb‐mol

GlobalWarmingPotentialforCO21 1

Totalflareflowcapacity2 6,031 SCFMMaximumcollectedCO2

3 3,015.65 SCFMMaximumCO2emissions

4 89,028.2 tpyEquivalentCO2eemissions(GHGs) 89,028.2 tpy

1.40CFRPart98,TableA‐1.

3.ThevolumepercentageofCO2inthelandfillisestimatedtobe50%.

D.8 LANDFILL GHG EMISSIONS

2.Thetotalflareflowisbasedonmaximumdesignflowcapacityofallflares.

4.Emissionsarecalculatedusingequation4fromChapter2.4,AP‐42whenconvertedtoUSUnits.Therevisedequationis:

EmissionsofCO2(tpy)=360*PollutantFlow(SCFM)*MolecularWeightofCO2(lb/lb‐mol)*P(atm)/T(Rankine)



EngineRating 1,000 kWAnnualHoursofOperation 500 hrs

1kW= 1.341022 hp500 ppm0.05 %

1gram= 0.0022046 lbs1kilogram= 2.20462 lbs

FuelCombustion1 72 gal/hrDensityofDiesel2 7.1 lb/gal

Averagedieselheatingvalue2 19,300 Btu/lbFiringRate 9.87 MMBtu/hr

PollutantEmissionFactor3

Units lb/hr tpy PollutantEmissionFactor

(lb/MMBtu)5lb/hr tpy

NOX 4.93 g/hp‐hr 14.58 3.64 Benzene 7.76E‐04 7.66E‐03 1.91E‐03CO 0.13 g/hp‐hr 0.38 0.10 Toluene 2.81E‐04 2.77E‐03 6.93E‐04

PM/PM10/PM2.5 0.018 g/hp‐hr 0.05 0.01 Xylenes 1.93E‐04 1.90E‐03 4.76E‐04VOC 0.01 g/hp‐hr 0.03 0.01 Propylene 2.79E‐03 2.75E‐02 6.88E‐03SO2

4 0.0004045 lb/hp‐hr 0.54 0.14 Formaldehyde 7.89E‐05 7.78E‐04 1.95E‐04HAPs N/A N/A 0.04 0.01 Acetaldehyde 2.52E‐05 2.49E‐04 6.22E‐05CO2 73.96 kg/MMBtu 1,608.71 402.18 Acrolein 7.88E‐06 7.77E‐05 1.94E‐05CH4 0.003 kg/MMBtu 0.07 0.02 Naphthalene 1.30E‐04 1.28E‐03 3.21E‐04N2O 0.0006 kg/MMBtu 0.01 0.003CO2e

6 N/A N/A 1,614.23 403.56

1.Themaximumfuelconsumptionoftheengineis72gal/hratfullload.2.FootnoteatoAP‐42Section3.4,Table3.4‐1.

4.AP‐42Section3.4LargeStationaryDieselAndAllStationaryDual‐fuelEngines,Table3.4‐1.Emissionfactorof8.09E‐03*SwasusedwhereS=0.05.5.HAPemissionfactorsarefromAP‐42Section3.4,Table3.4‐3andTable3.4‐4.HAPemissioncalculationsarebasedonannualfuelconsumptions.

GlobalWarmingPotentials(GWPs)CO2 1CH4 25N2O 298

3.ManufacturerguaranteedemissionfactorsforNOX,CO,PM/PM10/PM2.5andVOC.ItwasalsoassumedthattheemissionsofPM,PM10andPM2.5aresametobeconservative.


Sulfurcontent

D.9. 1,000 kW ENGINE EMISSION CALCULATOINS

AppendixTableD‐10.1,000kWEngineHAPEmissionsAppendixTableD‐9.1,000kWEngineCriteriaPollutantEmissions



EngineRating 543 kWAnnualHoursofOperation 500 hrs

1kW= 1.341022 hp500 ppm0.05 %

1gram= 0.0022046 lbs1kilogram= 2.20462 lbs

FuelCombustion1 34.9 gal/hrDensityofDiesel2 7.1 lb/gal

Averagedieselheatingvalue2 19,300 Btu/lbFiringRate 4.78 MMBtu/hr




NOX 6.4 g/kW‐hr 7.66 1.92 Benzene 9.33E‐04 4.46E‐03 1.12E‐03CO 3.5 g/kW‐hr 4.19 1.05 Toluene 4.09E‐04 1.96E‐03 4.89E‐04

PM/PM10/PM2.5 0.2 g/kW‐hr 0.24 0.06 Xylenes 2.85E‐04 1.36E‐03 3.41E‐04VOC4 0.00247 lb/hp‐hr 1.80 0.45 Propylene 3.91E‐05 1.87E‐04 4.67E‐05SO2

4 0.00205 lb/hp‐hr 1.49 0.37 Formaldehyde 1.18E‐03 5.64E‐03 1.41E‐03HAPs N/A N/A 0.01 0.004 Acetaldehyde 7.67E‐05 3.67E‐04 9.17E‐05CO2 73.96 kg/MMBtu 779.78 194.94 Acrolein 9.25E‐05 4.42E‐04 1.11E‐04CH4 0.003 kg/MMBtu 0.03 0.01 Naphthalene 8.48E‐05 4.06E‐04 1.01E‐04N2O 0.0006 kg/MMBtu 0.01 0.002CO2e

6 N/A N/A 782.46 195.61

1.Themaximumfuelconsumptionoftheengineis34.9gal/hrat110%load.2.FootnoteatoAP‐42Section3.4,Table3.4‐1.

4.AP‐42Section3.4LargeStationaryDieselAndAllStationaryDual‐fuelEngines,Table3.4‐1.Emissionfactorof8.09E‐03*SwasusedwhereS=0.05.5.AP‐42Section3.3,Table3.3‐2,hazardousairpollutantslistedintheCleanAirActbasedonannualfuelconsumptions.


3.ManufacturerguaranteedemissionfactorsforNOX,CO,andPM/PM10/PM2.5.ItwasalsoassumedthattheemissionsofPM,PM10andPM2.5aresametobeconservative


Sulfurcontent

D.10. 543 kW ENGINE EMISSION CALCULATIONS

AppendixTableD‐11.543kWEngineCriteriaPollutantEmissions AppendixTableD‐12.543kWEngineHAPEmissions



234.7 hp175 kW

AnnualHoursofOperation 8,760 hrs1kW= 1.341022 hp

500 ppm0.05 %

1gram= 0.0022046 lbs1kilogram= 2.20462 lbsAverageBSFC1 7,000 Btu/hp‐hr

FiringRate 1.64 MMBtu/hr




NOX 2 g/kW‐hr 0.77 3.38 Benzene 9.33E‐04 1.53E‐03 6.71E‐03CO 3.5 g/kW‐hr 1.35 5.91 Toluene 4.09E‐04 6.72E‐04 2.94E‐03

PM/PM10/PM2.5 0.2 g/kW‐hr 0.08 0.34 Xylenes 2.85E‐04 4.68E‐04 2.05E‐03VOC 2 g/kW‐hr 0.77 3.38 1,3‐Butadiene 3.91E‐05 6.42E‐05 2.81E‐04SO2

4 0.00205 lb/hp‐hr 0.48 2.11 Formaldehyde 1.18E‐03 1.94E‐03 8.49E‐03HAPs N/A N/A 0.005 0.022 Acetaldehyde 7.67E‐05 1.26E‐04 5.52E‐04CO2 73.96 kg/MMBtu 267.86 1,173.21 Acrolein 9.25E‐05 1.52E‐04 6.66E‐04CH4 0.003 kg/MMBtu 0.01 0.048 Naphthalene 8.48E‐05 1.39E‐04 6.10E‐04N2O 0.0006 kg/MMBtu 0.002 0.0095CO2e

6 N/A N/A 268.78 1,177.24

1.AP‐42Section3.3GasolineandDieselIndustrialEngines,Table3.3‐1,Footnotea.

Assumption1:EngineexhaustcontainsequalamountofNOxandNMHCemissions;andAssumption2:100%NMHCisconsideredVOC.

4.AP42Section3.3GasolineandDieselIndustrialEngines,Table3.3‐1.5.AP‐42Section3.3,Table3.3‐2,hazardousairpollutantslistedintheCleanAirAct.


2.EmissionfactorsforNOX,COandPM/PM10/PM2.5databasedonmanufacturerspecs.ItwasalsoassumedthattheemissionsofPM,PM10andPM2.5aresametobeconservative

3.In40CFR89.112Table1,theemissionstandardforNOxandnon‐methanehydrocarbons(NMHC)combinedis4.0g/kW‐hr.ThefollowingassumptionsaremadetoquantifyNOxandVOCemissions:


Sulfurcontent

EngineRating

D.11. 175 kW ENGINE EMISSION CALCULATIONS

AppendixTableD‐13.175kWEngineCriteriaPollutantEmissions AppendixTableD‐14.175kWEngineHAPEmissions

Bridgeton Landfill, LLC | Application for Authority to ConstructTrinity Consultans D-13


EmissionPoint HorsepowerRating KilowattRating MMBtu/hr Pollutant

EmissionFactor2,4

Units

EP‐I01 37.7 28.1 0.26 NOX 0.4 g/kW‐hrEP‐I02 37.7 28.1 0.26 CO 5 g/kW‐hrEP‐I03 23.5 17.5 0.16 PM/PM10/PM2.5 0.02 g/kW‐hrEP‐I04 23.5 17.5 0.16 VOC 0.19 g/kW‐hr

SO23 0.00205 lb/hp‐hr

Estimatedhoursofoperation 2,080 hr/yr CO2 73.96 kg/MMBtuAverageBSFC1 7,000 Btu/hp‐hr CH4 0.003 kg/MMBtu

1gram= 0.0022046 lbs N2O 0.0006 kg/MMBtu1kg= 2.20462 lbs1kw= 1.341022 hp

lb/hr tpy lb/hr tpy lb/hr tpy lb/hr tpyNOX 0.02 0.03 0.02 0.03 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02CO 0.31 0.32 0.31 0.32 0.19 0.20 0.19 0.20

PM/PM10/PM2.5 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001VOC 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01SO2 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05HAPs 1.02E‐03 1.06E‐03 1.02E‐03 1.06E‐03 6.36E‐04 6.62E‐04 6.36E‐04 6.62E‐04CO2 43.0 44.73 43.0 44.73 26.8 27.86 26.8 27.86CH4 0.002 0.002 0.002 0.002 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001N2O 0.0003 0.0004 0.0003 0.0004 0.0002 0.0002 0.0002 0.0002CO2e

5 43.16 44.88 43.158 44.884 26.88 27.95 26.88 27.95

lb/hr tpy lb/hr tpy lb/hr tpy lb/hr tpyBenzene 9.33E‐04 2.46E‐04 2.56E‐04 2.46E‐04 2.56E‐04 1.53E‐04 1.59E‐04 1.53E‐04 1.59E‐04Toluene 4.09E‐04 1.08E‐04 1.12E‐04 1.08E‐04 1.12E‐04 6.72E‐05 6.99E‐05 6.72E‐05 6.99E‐05Xylenes 2.85E‐04 7.52E‐05 7.82E‐05 7.52E‐05 7.82E‐05 4.68E‐05 4.87E‐05 4.68E‐05 4.87E‐05

1,3‐Butadiene 3.91E‐05 1.03E‐05 1.07E‐05 1.03E‐05 1.07E‐05 6.42E‐06 6.68E‐06 6.42E‐06 6.68E‐06Formaldehyde 1.18E‐03 3.11E‐04 3.24E‐04 3.11E‐04 3.24E‐04 1.94E‐04 2.02E‐04 1.94E‐04 2.02E‐04Acetaldehyde 7.67E‐04 2.02E‐04 2.10E‐04 2.02E‐04 2.10E‐04 1.26E‐04 1.31E‐04 1.26E‐04 1.31E‐04Acrolein 9.25E‐05 2.44E‐05 2.54E‐05 2.44E‐05 2.54E‐05 1.52E‐05 1.58E‐05 1.52E‐05 1.58E‐05

Naphthalene 5.06E‐06 1.33E‐06 1.39E‐06 1.33E‐06 1.39E‐06 8.31E‐07 8.64E‐07 8.31E‐07 8.64E‐07OtherPAH 1.63E‐04 4.30E‐05 4.47E‐05 4.30E‐05 4.47E‐05 2.68E‐05 2.78E‐05 2.68E‐05 2.78E‐05

1.AP42Section3.3GasolineandDieselIndustrialEngines,Table3.3‐1,Footnotea.2.Basedonmanufacturerspecs,theseenginesmeettheUSEPATier4interimemissionstandards.3.AP‐42Section3.3GasolineandDieselIndustrialEngines,Table3.3‐1.4.GHGemissionfactorsarefrom40CFR98SubpartC,TableC‐1andC‐2.


6.AP‐42Section3.3,Table3.3‐2,hazardousairpollutantslistedintheCleanAirAct.

AppendixTableD‐16.InsignificantEmissionFactors(1of2)


D.12. INSIGNIFICANT EMISSION UNITS (EP-I01, EP-I02, EP-I03 and EP-I04)

AppendixTableD‐15.InsignificantEmissionUnits(1of2)

AppendixTableD‐17.InsignificantEmissionCalculations(1of2)

AppendixTableD‐18.InsignificantHAPEmissionCalculations(1of2)

PollutantEP‐I01 EP‐I02 EP‐I03 EP‐I04

EP‐I04Pollutant

EmissionFactor(lb/MMBtu)6

EP‐I01 EP‐I02 EP‐I03



EmissionPoint HorsepowerRating KilowattRating MMBtu/hr Pollutant EmissionFactor2 EFUnits

EP‐I01 139 104 0.98 NOX 4 g/kW‐hrEP‐I02 139 104 0.98 CO 3.5 g/kW‐hrEP‐I03 300 224 2.10 PM/PM10/PM2.5 0.2 g/kW‐hrEP‐I04 300 224 2.10 VOC 0.00247 lb/hp‐hr

SO23 0.00205 lb/hp‐hr

Hoursofoperationforportables 2,080 hr/yr CO2 73.96 kg/MMBtuAverageBSFC1 7,000 Btu/hp‐hr CH4 0.003 kg/MMBtu

1gram= 0.0022046 lbs N2O 0.0006 kg/MMBtu1kg= 2.20462 lbs1kw= 1.341022 hp

Hoursofoperationforstationary 500 hr/yr

lb/hr tpy lb/hr tpy lb/hr tpy lb/hr tpyNOX 0.92 0.95 0.92 0.95 1.98 0.49 1.98 0.49CO 0.80 0.83 0.80 0.83 1.73 0.43 1.73 0.43

PM/PM10/PM2.5 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.10 0.02 0.10 0.02VOC 0.34 0.36 0.34 0.36 0.74 0.19 0.74 0.19SO2 0.29 0.30 0.29 0.30 0.62 0.15 0.62 0.15HAPs 3.78E‐03 3.93E‐03 3.78E‐03 3.93E‐03 8.15E‐03 2.04E‐03 8.15E‐03 2.04E‐03CO2 159.2 165.55 159.2 165.55 342.9 85.71 342.9 85.71CH4 0.006 0.007 0.006 0.007 0.01 0.003 0.01 0.003N2O 0.001 0.001 0.0013 0.001 0.003 0.001 0.003 0.001CO2e

5 159.73 166.12 159.730 166.12 344.03 86.01 344.03 86.01

lb/hr tpy lb/hr tpy lb/hr tpy lb/hr tpyBenzene 9.33E‐04 9.11E‐04 9.47E‐04 9.11E‐04 9.47E‐04 1.96E‐03 4.90E‐04 1.96E‐03 4.90E‐04Toluene 4.09E‐04 3.99E‐04 4.15E‐04 3.99E‐04 4.15E‐04 8.60E‐04 2.15E‐04 8.60E‐04 2.15E‐04Xylenes 2.85E‐04 2.78E‐04 2.89E‐04 2.78E‐04 2.89E‐04 5.99E‐04 1.50E‐04 5.99E‐04 1.50E‐04

1,3‐Butadiene 3.91E‐05 3.82E‐05 3.97E‐05 3.82E‐05 3.97E‐05 8.22E‐05 2.06E‐05 8.22E‐05 2.06E‐05Formaldehyde 1.18E‐03 1.15E‐03 1.20E‐03 1.15E‐03 1.20E‐03 2.48E‐03 6.20E‐04 2.48E‐03 6.20E‐04Acetaldehyde 7.67E‐04 7.49E‐04 7.79E‐04 7.49E‐04 7.79E‐04 1.61E‐03 4.03E‐04 1.61E‐03 4.03E‐04Acrolein 9.25E‐05 9.03E‐05 9.39E‐05 9.03E‐05 9.39E‐05 1.95E‐04 4.86E‐05 1.95E‐04 4.86E‐05

Naphthalene 5.06E‐06 4.94E‐06 5.14E‐06 4.94E‐06 5.14E‐06 1.06E‐05 2.66E‐06 1.06E‐05 2.66E‐06OtherPAH 1.63E‐04 1.59E‐04 1.65E‐04 1.59E‐04 1.65E‐04 3.43E‐04 8.57E‐05 3.43E‐04 8.57E‐05

1.AP42Section3.3GasolineandDieselIndustrialEngines,Table3.3‐1,Footnotea.2.ThesedieselenginesmeetUSEPATier3EmissionStandards(40CFR98.112)basedonthemanufacturerspecs.3.AP‐42Section3.4Table1.4.GHGemissionfactorsarefrom40CFR98SubpartC,TableC‐1andC‐2.


6.AP‐42Section3.3,Table3.3‐2,hazardousairpollutantslistedintheCleanAirAct.

AppendixTableD‐20.InsignificantEmissionFactors(2of2)


D.13. INSIGNIFICANT EMISSION UNITS (EP-I05, EP-I06, EP-I07 and EP-I08)

AppendixTableD‐19.InsignificantEmissionUnits(2of2)

AppendixTableD‐21.InsignificantEmissionCalculations(2of2)

AppendixTableD‐22.InsignificantHAPEmissionCalculations(2of2)

PollutantEP‐I05 EP‐I06 EP‐I07 EP‐I08

PollutantEmissionFactor(lb/MMBtu)6

EP‐I05 EP‐I06 EP‐I07 EP‐I08



Bridgeton Landfill, LLC | Application for Authority to Construct E-1 Trinity Consultants

APPENDIX E: MISSOURI CONSTRUCTION PERMIT APPLICATION FORMS

24.) PROJECT DECSRIPTION AND NARRATIVE

MO 780-1323 (03-15)

Please refer to Section 2 of this application.

Emission Information for Air Construction Permit ApplicationForm 1.1 Process Flow Diagram for Facility According to Proposed ApplicationINSTALLATION NAME (A.) FIPS COUNTY NO. (B.) PLANT NO. (C.)

For a new installation, show the entire installation. For an addition to an existing installation, show only the new processes/equipment/emission points and begin the ID numbering where the existing EIQ emission point numbers leave off. If theapplication is for a modification or an addition to an existing emission point or unit, show the upstream and downstream point(s) or theequipment that this modification will affect.

MO 780-1323 (03-15)

Bridgeton Landfill, LLC 189 0312

No changes from most recent permit application submittal for flares. Changes to RTO-1 and RTO-2 can be found in Appendix C.

Emission Information for Air Construction Permit ApplicationForm 1.2 Summary of Emission Points Affected by this Application (duplicate this form as needed)

INSTALLATION NAME (A.) FIPS COUNTY NO B.) PLANT NO. (C.)

POINT NO. (I.E. EP-01, EP-02, ETC.) (D.)

POINT DESCRIPTION (USE same description on FORM 2.0) (E.) REFERENCE WORKSHEET(S) FORM NUMBERS USED WITH FORM 2.0 (F.)

MO 780-1323 (03-15)


EP-008 Enclosed Flare Form 2.1

EP-011 Open Flare Form 2.1




RTO-1 2.75 MMbtu/hr RTO Form 2.1

RTO-2 2.75 MMbtu/hr RTO Form 2.1

Emission Information for Air Construction Permit Application Form 1.3 Plant Layout Diagram

INSTALLATION NAME (A.) FIPS COUNTY NO.(B.) PLANT NO. (C.)

Use this page or a separate sheet to provide a Plant Layout Diagram.Refer to the Permits Instruction Packet for details.

MO 780-1323 (03-15)


No changes from most recent permit application submittal.

Emission Information for Air Construction Permit ApplicationForm 2.0 Emission Point Information (duplicate this form as needed.)

INSTALLATION NAME (A.) FIPS COUNTY NO. (B.) PLANT NO. (C.)

POINT IDENTIFICATION POINT NO. (D.) POINT DESCRIPTION (E.)

SOURCE CLASSIFICATION CODE (SCC) (F.) MAKE (G.) MODEL (H.) YEAR (I.)

STACK/VENT PARAMETERS STACK NO. (J.) HEIGHT (FT) (K.) DIAMETER (FT) (L.)

TEMPERATURE (F) (M.) VELOCITY (FT/MIN) (N.) FLOW RATE (STANDARD CUBIC FT/MIN) (O.)

OPERATING RATE/SCHEDULE EXPECTED ANNUAL THROUGHPUT (P.) UNITS (Q.)

MAXIMUM HOURLY DESIGN RATE (R.)

UNITS/HR (S.)

HOURS/DAY (T.)

DAYS/WEEK WEEKS/YEAR

AIR POLLUTION CONTROLS

DEVICE NO. (U.) CONTROL DEVICE DESCRIPTION (V.)

Control Device Destruction/Removal Efficiency % (w.)

PM10 SOx NOx VOC CO HAPs

DEVICE NO. DESCRIPTION OF COLLECTION/SUPPRESSION SYSTEM (X.)

CALCULATION SECTION (Y.)

POLLUTANT EMISSION FACTOR EMISSION FACTOR UNITS

OVERALL CONTROL EFFICIENCY EMISSION RATE (LB/HR) POTENTIAL EMISSIONS

(TONS/YR)

MO 780-1323 (03-15)

Refer to Appendix D of the application.

* Flow rates and design values are based on a combined flow for all flares as shown in Section 3 of the permit application.


EP-008 Enclosed Flare

50100410 John Zink ZTOF

SN07 40 11

1273 K 3937 4446*

2337* MMSCF 0.27* MMSCF

24 7 52

N/A

N/A

Emission Information for Air Construction Permit ApplicationForm 2.1 Fuel Combustion Information (duplicate this form as needed.)


COMBUSTION EQUIPMENT INFORMATION POINT NO. (D.) SCC (E.)

(F.) EQUIPMENT DESCRIPTION (MAKE/MODEL) (G.) YEAR PUT IN SERVICE (H.) MAXIMUM DESIGN RATE (MILLION BTU/HR)

Sum of Total Maximum Hourly Design Rates

FUEL INFORMATION (I.) FUEL TYPE

Oil Gas Coal Other

Distillate (Fuel Oil 1-4) Natural Gas Anthracite Refuse Residual Fuel Oil (5-6) LPG/Propane Bituminous Trade Wastes Waste Oil Lignite Other (specify)

FUEL (J.) ANNUAL THROUGHPUT (K.) UNITS (L.) % SULFUR BY WEIGHT (M.)

% ASH BY WEIGHT (N.)

FUEL TOTALS AND WEIGHTED AVERAGES Comments:

MO 780-1323 (03-15)



EP-008 50100410

John Zink Enclosed Flare 2013 74.1*

74.1

✔

Landfill Gas 2337* MMSCF 1345 ppmv N/A









UNITS/HR (S.)

HOURS/DAY (T.)










(TONS/YR)

MO 780-1323 (03-15)




EP-011 Open Flare

50100410 John Zink

S-011 40 1.2

1273 K 3937 4446*


24 7 52

N/A

N/A







Oil Gas Coal Other





MO 780-1323 (03-15)



EP-011 50100410

John Zink Open Flare 2013 74.1*

74.1

✔










UNITS/HR (S.)

HOURS/DAY (T.)










(TONS/YR)

MO 780-1323 (03-15)




EP-012 Open Flare

50100410 John Zink

S-012 45 1.3

1273 K 3937 4446*


24 7 52

N/A

N/A







Oil Gas Coal Other





MO 780-1323 (03-15)



EP-012 50100410


74.1

✔










UNITS/HR (S.)

HOURS/DAY (T.)










(TONS/YR)

MO 780-1323 (03-15)




EP-013 Open Flare

50100410 John Zink

S-013 45 1.3

1273 K 3937 4446*


24 7 52

N/A

N/A







Oil Gas Coal Other





MO 780-1323 (03-15)



EP-013 50100410


74.1

✔










UNITS/HR (S.)

HOURS/DAY (T.)










(TONS/YR)

MO 780-1323 (03-15)




EP-014 Open Flare

50100410 John Zink

S-014 35 1

1273 K 3937 4446*


24 7 52

N/A

N/A







Oil Gas Coal Other





MO 780-1323 (03-15)



EP-014 50100410


74.1

✔










UNITS/HR (S.)

HOURS/DAY (T.)










(TONS/YR)

MO 780-1323 (03-15)



RTO-1 2.75 MMbtu/hr RTO

50100410

RTO-1 RTO with 2.75 MMbtu/hr capacity 98% 98%

N/A







Oil Gas Coal Other





MO 780-1323 (03-15)


RTO-1 50100410

Cycle Therm RTO 2014 2.75

2.75

✔









UNITS/HR (S.)

HOURS/DAY (T.)










(TONS/YR)

MO 780-1323 (03-15)



RTO-2 2.75 MMbtu/hr RTO

50100410

RTO-2 RTO with 2.75 MMbtu/hr capacity 98% 98%

N/A







Oil Gas Coal Other





MO 780-1323 (03-15)


RTO-2 50100410

Cycle Therm RTO 2014 2.75

2.75

✔

`


Bridgeton Landfill, LLC | Application for Authority to Construct F-1 Trinity Consultants

APPENDIX F: MODELING PROTOCOL

SULFUR DIOXIDE INCREMENT MODELING PROTOCOL

Bridgeton Landfill, LLC > Bridgeton, Missouri


Prepared By:

Jeremias Szust – Senior Consultant George Schewe – Principal Consultant

TRINITY CONSULTANTS

16252 Westwoods Business Park Drive Ellisville, Missouri 63021

Phone: (636) 530-4600

September 2015

Environmental solutions delivered uncommonly well


Bridgeton Landfill, LLC | Sulfur Dioxide Increment Modeling Protocol Trinity Consultants i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. INTRODUCTION 1-1

2. DESCRIPTION OF FACILITY AND PROJECT 2-1 2.1. Description of Facility ............................................................................................................................................. 2-1 2.2. Pollutants Evaluated ................................................................................................................................................ 2-1 2.3. General Modeling Approach ................................................................................................................................. 2-1

3. AIR QUALITY DISPERSION MODELING 3-1 3.1. Dispersion Model Selection .................................................................................................................................. 3-1 3.2. Meteorological Data ................................................................................................................................................. 3-2 3.3. Coordinate System ................................................................................................................................................... 3-4 3.4. Treatment of Terrain .............................................................................................................................................. 3-4 3.5. Receptor Grids ........................................................................................................................................................... 3-5 3.6. Building Downwash ................................................................................................................................................. 3-5 3.7. Background Concentrations ................................................................................................................................. 3-6 3.8. Flare Modeling Representation ........................................................................................................................... 3-6

4. POSTPROCESSING, MODELING RESULTS, AND FILES 4-1

ATTACHMENT A: BRIDGETON LANDFILL SITE MAP A-1

ATTACHMENT B: INVENTORY SOURCE SPREADSHEET B-1

ATTACHMENT C: JOHN ZINK HAMWORTHY FLARE RADIANT HEAT FRACTION LETTER C-1


Bridgeton Landfill, LLC | Sulfur Dioxide Increment Modeling Protocol Trinity Consultants ii

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 2-1. Bridgeton Landfill Facility 2-2


Bridgeton Landfill, LLC | Sulfur Dioxide Increment Modeling Protocol Trinity Consultants 1-1

1. INTRODUCTION

Bridgeton Landfill, LLC (Bridgeton Landfill) owns and operates a solid waste facility located at 13570 Saint Charles Rock Road in Bridgeton, Missouri. The landfill is inactive and no longer accepts solid waste.

Current operations at the inactive landfill facility are focused on controlling odors and managing landfill gas and liquids from the landfill. Concerning these operations, Bridgeton Landfill has conducted a control strategy and evaluation analysis of odor resulting in the Sulfur Removal Technology Evaluation, Stage 2 which was submitted to the Missouri Department of Natural Resources (MDNR) on January 23, 2015. In response, Kendall Hale of the MDNR, sent a letter to Mr. James Getting, Bridgeton Landfill, dated February 11, 2015 describing the steps and actions to take in order to satisfy the agency requirements for permit preparation and demonstrated compliance with the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for sulfur dioxide (SO2). Part of those steps were to provide a dispersion modeling analysis for SO2 concentrations from the facility (including background) for which a modeling protocol was submitted for approval to MDNR. On May 1, 2015, Leanne Tippett Mosby, MDNR, provided conditional approval for the modeling protocol submitted to the MDNR on April 20, 2015 for NAAQS modeling of SO2 at Bridgeton Landfill. On May 29, 2015, Bridgeton Landfill submitted a final NAAQS Modeling Report demonstrating compliance with the SO2 1-hour, 3-hour, 24-hour, and Annual SO2 NAAQS.

To this end, Bridgeton Landfill is submitting this second modeling protocol to perform additional dispersion modeling of SO2 for Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) increment impacts due to emissions associated with this construction permit application. This additional modeling was required by the March 25, 2015 letter sent by Leanne Tippett Mosby. Because compliance of the NAAQS has already been demonstrated in the May 29, 2015 report to the MDNR, the objective of this second protocol is to present the methodology to perform SO2 increment modeling to demonstrate compliance with the MDNR increment standards1 for SO2 at all locations around the facility.

Bridgeton Landfill is submitting this air quality modeling protocol to the MDNR as a written description of the proposed modeling procedures, model selection and applicability, and data resources in order to properly determine Bridgeton Landfill’s compliance with the increment standards. All modeling will be conducted in accordance with this protocol. The modeling focuses on SO2 emissions from the four onsite flares which serve to destroy captured landfill gases from the overall gas extraction system at the facility but also includes emissions from an onsite leachate treatment system and diesel generator. Of particular interest are the associated emissions of hydrogen sulfide (H2S), and other sulfur bearing compounds as a source of SO2 emissions and the related ambient air impact estimates in the surrounding communities.

1 Increment Standards. Missouri Department of Natural Resources. 12 Nov 2013. <http://dnr.mo.gov/env/apcp/docs/isincrementstandards.pdf>.



2. DESCRIPTION OF FACILITY AND PROJECT

2.1. DESCRIPTION OF FACILITY

Bridgeton Landfill operates under Title V permit OP-2010-063, which was issued on June 23, 2010. Since then, a renewal application has been submitted by Bridgeton Landfill (project number 0120-131-11-02) on September 15, 2014. The facility is located at 13570 St. Charles Rock Road in Bridgeton, Missouri. Figure 2-1 shows the general outline of the facility with pertinent flares, leachate system, and generator to be modeled along with buildings located in the southern portion of the landfill. The landfill is permitted for municipal solid waste disposal, which it began accepting in 1979 and ceased accepting in 2005. The landfill utilizes a gas collection and control system (GCCS) to comply with New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) Subpart WWW.

2.2. POLLUTANTS EVALUATED

The modeling analysis will address the impacts of SO2 emissions from the four flares, the regenerative thermal oxidizers (RTOs) on the leachate treatment system, and a portable non-road engine in order to ascertain that the Bridgeton Landfill is in compliance with the MDNR increment standards for SO2. All modeled concentrations will be presented with respect to the increment standards, which are 512 micrograms per cubic meter (g/m3) for a 3-hour averaging period, 91 (g/m3) for a 24-hour averaging period, and 20 g/m3 for an Annual averaging period.

2.3. GENERAL MODELING APPROACH

The air dispersion modeling analysis to be used for this project will be conducted in a manner that conforms to the applicable guidance and requirements of the dispersion modeling as given below:

United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA): Guideline on Air Quality Models (Guideline)2 MDNR: Permit Modeling Guidance3

This air dispersion modeling protocol is being submitted alongside the construction permit application and air dispersion modeling results.

2 Guideline on Air Quality Models. 40 CFR 51, Appendix W. 2005.

3 Permit Modeling Guidance. Missouri Department of Natural Resources. n.d. <http://dnr.mo.gov/env/apcp/permitmodelingguidance.htm>.



Figure 2-1. Bridgeton Landfill Facility4

4 A PDF with further detail is provided as Attachment A.



3. AIR QUALITY DISPERSION MODELING

Bridgeton Landfill has prepared this modeling protocol to describe the modeling methodologies and data resources that will be used to conduct this modeling analysis.

3.1. DISPERSION MODEL SELECTION

Dispersion models predict the downwind constituent concentration by simulating the evolution of the constituent plume over time and space given data inputs. These data inputs include the quantity of emissions and the initial conditions of the stack exhaust to the atmosphere. According to the Guideline, the extent to which a specific air quality model is suitable for the evaluation of source impact depends on:

the meteorological and topographical complexities of the area, the level of detail and accuracy needed in the analysis, the technical competence of those undertaking such simulation modeling, the resources available, and the accuracy of the database (i.e., emissions inventory, meteorological, and air quality data).

Taking these factors into consideration and per the Guideline document, Bridgeton Landfill proposes to conduct dispersion modeling using the American Meteorological Society/Environmental Protection Agency Regulatory Model, AERMOD (Version 15181) to determine the areas of highest concentration of SO2. AERMOD is the default model for evaluating impacts attributable to industrial facilities in the near-field (i.e., source receptor distances of less than 50 kilometers (km)), and is the recommended model in the Guideline. AERMOD is also a refined dispersion model that is widely used and accepted in the air quality community for various non-traditional and non-regulatory modeling applications.

AERMOD is a refined, steady-state, multiple source, Gaussian dispersion model that was promulgated in December 2005 as the preferred model in this type of air quality analysis. Incorporated into the AERMOD Model is the Plume Rise Modeling Enhancements (PRIME) algorithms, which allow the direction-specific building downwash dimensions determined by the Building Profile Input Program, PRIME version (BPIP PRIME) (Version 04274)5 to be used in AERMOD. All buildings and structures that could potentially result in plume downwash of effluent from a stack or vent or flare are incorporated into the modeling analysis. BPIP PRIME is designed to incorporate the concepts and procedures expressed in the good engineering practice (GEP) Technical Support Document, the Building Downwash Guidance document, and other related documents while incorporating the PRIME enhancements to improve prediction of ambient impacts in building cavities and wake regions.6

5 Addendum to the ISC3 User’s Guide, The PRIME Plume Rise and Building Downwash Model. Earth Tech, Inc. Nov 1997. <http://www.epa.gov/scram001/7thconf/iscprime/useguide.pdf>.

6 Guideline for Determination of Good Engineering Practice Stack Height (Technical Support Document for the Stack Height Regulations) (Revised). United States Environmental Protection Agency. Jun 1985. EPA-450/4-80-023R.



The AERMOD modeling system is composed of three modular components:

AERMAP - The terrain preprocessor AERMET – The meteorological preprocessor AERMOD – The control module and modeling processor

AERMAP is the terrain preprocessor that is used to import terrain elevations for selected model objects and generate the receptor hill height scale data that are used by AERMOD to drive advanced terrain processing algorithms. National Elevation Dataset (NED) at 1/3-arc second resolution will be used to interpolate surveyed elevations for user specified receptor grids as well as the critical hill heights as required for terrain processing in AERMOD. The building and source elevations were based on proprietary in-house data within the Republic Services archives for the Bridgeton Landfill.

AERMET generates surface file and vertical profile file to pass meteorological observations and turbulence parameters to AERMOD. AERMET meteorological data are refined for a particular analysis based on the choice of micrometeorological parameters that are linked to the land use and land cover (LULC) around the particular facility and/or meteorological site. By using the raw surface and upper air station National Weather Service (NWS) observation data in AERMET, Bridgeton Landfill will create a complete set of model-ready meteorological data specific to this project. The details of AERMET processing are provided in Section 3.2 below.

Bridgeton Landfill will use BREEZE®-AERMOD v7.10.0.20 and the BREEZE®-AERMET v7.6 software, developed by Trinity Consultants, to assist in developing the model input files for AERMOD and AERMET, respectively. These software Graphical User Interface programs will incorporate the most recent versions of AERMOD (15181) and AERMAP (11103) to estimate SO2 concentrations from the modeled sources at Bridgeton Landfill. An older version of AERMET (14134) was used as it was the version used to create the initial meteorological file for Bridgeton Landfill NAAQS compliance model. Bridgeton Landfill will use the same meteorological file to maintain consistency between models. Using the procedures outlined in the Guideline as a reference, the AERMOD dispersion modeling for Bridgeton Landfill will be performed using all regulatory default options.

3.2. METEOROLOGICAL DATA

Site-specific dispersion models require a sequential hourly record of dispersion meteorology representative of the regions within which the source is located. In the absence of site-specific measurements, the Guideline suggests five years of reliable, quality assured and representative meteorological data to be used in regulatory modeling analyses. The representatives of a particular observation site should be evaluated with respect to four factors:

1. The proximity of the meteorological monitoring site to the area under construction 2. The complexity of the terrain 3. The exposure of the meteorological monitoring site 4. The period of time during which data are collected Regulatory air quality modeling using the AERMOD system requires quality-assured meteorological data that includes hourly records of the following observed or calculated parameters:

Wind speed Wind direction Air temperature Micrometeorological parameters (e.g., friction velocity, Monin-Obukhov length)



Mechanical mixing height Convective mixing height

The first three of these parameters are directly measured by monitoring equipment located at typical surface observation stations. The friction velocity, Monin-Obukhov length, and mixing heights are derived from characteristic micrometeorological parameters and from observed and correlated values of cloud cover, solar insolation, time of day and year, and latitude of the surface observations station. Surface observation stations form a relatively dense network, are found primarily at airports which are typically operated by the NWS. Data are generally archived in an hourly format at the National Data Climatic Center (NCDC) in Asheville, North Carolina. Fewer upper air stations exist than surface observing points because the upper atmosphere is less susceptible to local effects caused by terrain or other land influences and is therefore less variable. The NWS operates virtually all available upper air measurement stations in the United States.

For the Bridgeton Landfill modeling the nearby St. Louis Lambert International Airport (STL, WBAN# 13994) surface NWS observation station will be used as a representative station for the modeling task. In accordance with the Guideline the most recent, readily available five years of meteorological data from the Lambert Airport station (i.e., 2010 to 2014) will be used in the air quality modeling analysis. During the five year data period, the anemometer height and base elevation for the St. Louis Lambert International Airport surface station were 10.06 meters (m) and 161.85 m, respectively as confirmed by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) web pages.7,8 Based on the proximity of Bridgeton Landfill, the Lincoln, Illinois (SPI, WBAN# 04833) upper air observation station was selected to provide the twice-daily upper air soundings to AERMET.

AERMET, the meteorological preprocessing program from AERMOD, is a 3-stage system. The first stage reads in and performs quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC) on the raw NWS surface and upper air data files. The second stage synchronizes the observation times and merges the surface and upper air files together. The last stage incorporates user-specified micrometeorological parameters (albedo, Bowen Ratio, and surface roughness) with the observational data to compute the necessary variables for AERMOD (e.g., friction velocity, Monin-Obukhov length, etc.). Meteorological input files for this modeling analysis were created by Bridgeton Landfill using the current version of AERMET (Version 14134) following the procedures described below.

The raw NWS surface data files and the raw upper air data will be reviewed and subject to QA/QC prior to processing in Stage 1 of AERMET. Once the surface and upper air data QA/QC and processing is completed, Stage 2 of AERMET combined this data into a single file and incorporates the hourly average wind speeds and directions calculated in AERMINUTE. Since, the upper air data are based on Greenwich Mean Time (GMT), the observation times must be synchronized as well. Once the merge files are created, they will be combined with land use-specific surface characteristics (albedo, Bowen Ratio, and surface roughness) in Stage 3 in order to create the AERMOD ready dataset. AERMET accepts surface characteristics as annual, seasonal, or monthly averages, over the number of user-specified horizontal sectors based on wind direction, ranging from one to twelve. When applying the AERMET meteorological processor to process meteorological data for the AERMOD model, the user must determine appropriate values for three surface characteristics: surface roughness length (zo), albedo (r), and Bowen ratio (Bo). The AERSURFACE tool has been developed to aid users in obtaining realistic and reproducible surface characteristic values, including albedo, Bowen ratio, and surface roughness

7 Hourly/Sub-Hourly Observational Data. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. n.d. <https://gis.ncdc.noaa.gov/map/viewer/#app=cdo&cfg=cdo&theme=hourly&layers=1>

8 Surface Observations Program. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 14 Nov 2012. <http://www.nws.noaa.gov/ops2/Surface/asosimplementation.htm>.



length, for input to AERMET. The tool uses publicly available national land cover datasets and look-up tables of surface characteristics that vary by land cover type and season.

In the past several years the US EPA has released AERMINUTE, a program capable of compiling hourly average wind speeds and wind directions using 1-minute wind data collected at Automated Surface Observation Stations (ASOS).9 The use of 1-minute wind data has been shown to reduce the number of calms and variable wind conditions ultimately processed in the final AERMOD computations. Bridgeton Landfill obtained five years of 1-minute wind data for the St. Louis Lambert International Airport surface station and compiled hourly averages using AERMINUTE (Version 14337) for incorporation into Stage 2 processing of AERMET.

The Stage 3 processor combines the observational data with the surface characteristics to calculate the micrometeorological input parameters required by the AERMOD model. These parameters are output in the .SFC and .PFL files that compose an AERMOD ready dataset. The surface characteristics will be input directly in Stage 3 of AERMET with no manipulations.

3.3. COORDINATE SYSTEM

The location of emission sources, structures, and receptors will be represented in the Universal Transverse Mercator (UTM) coordinate system. The UTM grid divides the world into coordinates that are measured in north meters (measured from the equator) and east meters (measured from the central meridian of a particular zone, which is set at 500 km). The datum for this modeling analysis is based on North American Datum 1983 (NAD83). Bridgeton Landfill is approximately centered at UTM, Zone 16, coordinates 722,044.1 m East and 4,294,058.7 m North using NAD83. UTM coordinates for this analysis all reside within UTM Zone 16. Bridgeton Landfill will use to-scale plots and site plans for the facility projected in UTM NAD83 Zone 16 to digitize all model objects.

3.4. TREATMENT OF TERRAIN

Terrain will be included in the dispersion modeling to account for the differences between source base elevation and receptor elevations. The relations between the terrain feature and its associated receptors and each source depends on the individual source’s effective plume height (physical height plume rise) and base elevation. AERMOD is capable of estimating impacts in both simple (less than stack height) and complex terrain (above stack height). Source elevations for receptors and base elevations for all inventory sources required by AERMOD will be determined using the AERMAP terrain preprocessor (Version 11103), if necessary. Source elevations for all sources within Bridgeton Landfill’s boundary will be determined using to-scale plot plans that include site specific elevation data. Terrain elevations from the United States Geological Survey (USGS) 1/3-arc-second NED data will be used for the AERMAP processing of receptors and inventory sources.

AERMAP will also calculate the hill height scale which is required for each receptor to allow AERMOD’s terrain algorithm to property determine the impact of each source at each receptor. AERMOD computes the impact at a receptor as a weighted interpolation between horizontal (plume goes around a terrain feature) and terrain-following states (plume goes over a terrain feature) using a critical dividing streamline approach. This scheme assumes that part of the plume mass will have enough energy to ascend and traverse over a terrain feature and the remainder will impinge and traverse around a terrain feature under certain meteorological conditions. The hill height scale is computed by the AERMAP terrain pre-processor for each receptor as a measure of the one

9 AERMINUTE program is also compatible with the previous (Version 14134) and current versions of AERMET (Version 15181).



terrain feature in the modeling domain that would have the greatest effect on plume behavior at that receptor. The hill height scale does not represent the critical dividing streamline height itself, but supplies the computational algorithms with an indication of the relative relief within the modeling domain for the determination of the critical dividing streamline height for each hour of meteorological data.

3.5. RECEPTOR GRIDS10

In the air dispersion modeling analysis, ground level concentration will be calculated with four Cartesian receptor grids. These grids, along with fence-line receptors, cover an 11 km radius measured from the center of the facility. Missouri guidance stipulates the full receptor grid should extend at least 10 km from every point in the property boundary; the furthest point of the property boundary from the center of the facility is approximately 1 km from the center-point, hence the 11 km radius grid. The receptor grids proposed for this modeling analysis include:

Fence Line Receptors: Fence line receptors will be arranged along Bridgeton Landfill’s fence line boundary at 50 m intervals.

100-m Cartesian Grid: A fine grid will be arranged around the facility at a 100-m spaced receptors extending 1 km from the property boundary.

250-m Cartesian Grid: A medium grid will be arranged around the facility at a 250-m spacing extending 2.5 km from the property boundary, exclusive of the receptors in the fine grid.

500-m Cartesian Grid: A coarse grid will be arranged around the facility at a 500-m spacing extending in a 5 km radius from the property boundary, exclusive of receptors in the medium grid.

1,000-m Cartesian Grid: An extra coarse grid will be arranged around the facility at a 1,000-m spacing extending in a 10 km radius from the property boundary, exclusive of receptors in the coarse grid.

For modeled concentrations greater than half the increment standard outside the 100 m grid described above, a nested 100 m receptor grid will be placed on that receptor extending one half km in the four cardinal directions (1 km square). Please note that no receptor will be placed within the property that is restricted to the public (i.e., fence line and buildings) and Bridgeton Landfill will ensure fencing is in place surrounding the modeled property boundary to restrict access.

3.6. BUILDING DOWNWASH

The Guideline requires the evaluation of the potential for physical structures to affect the dispersion of emissions from stack sources. The exhaust from stacks that are located within specified distances of buildings may be subject to “aerodynamic building downwash” under certain meteorological conditions. This determination is made by comparing actual stack height to the GEP stack height. The modeled emission units and associated stacks and vents at Bridgeton Landfill will be evaluated in terms of their proximity to nearby structures. The locations and dimensions of the buildings that are used in the modeling analysis will be provided in the modeling report.

All Bridgeton Landfill stacks will be assumed to be subject to the effects of downwash if the release height is less than the minimum GEP stack height, which is defined by the following formula:

10 All grids designed in accordance with the MDNR Receptor Grids, Terrain, and Locational Data modeling guidance. Receptor Grids, Terrain, and Locational Data. Missouri Department of Natural Resources. 12 Nov 2013. <http://dnr.mo.gov/env/apcp/docs/locationaldatareceptorgridsandterrain.pdf>.



𝐻𝐺𝐸𝑃 = 𝐻 + 1.5𝐿 Equation 3-1 where,

HGEP is the US EPA formula height, H is the structure height, and L is the lesser dimension of the structure (height or maximum projected width).

This equation is limited to stacks located within 5L of a structure. Stacks located at a distance greater than 5L are not subject to wake effects of the structure.

Direction-specific equivalent building dimensions used as input to the AERMOD model to simulate impacts of downwash are calculated using the BREEZE®-AERMOD v7.10.0.20 software developed by Trinity Consultants. This software incorporates the algorithms of the US EPA – sanctioned BPIP PRIME. Using the building coordinates and dimensions, a GEP analysis of all stacks in relation to each building for each of the 36 wind directions will be performed to evaluate which building height and dimension have the greatest influence in terms of building downwash (enhanced dispersion) on the dispersion of each emission source. The complete results of the GEP analysis and building downwash input and output files will be provided in the final modeling report as part of the electronic modeling files.

3.7. BACKGROUND CONCENTRATIONS

All of the inventory sources within a 10 km radius that are to be included in the increment model were provided by Ms. Dawn Froning of the MDNR to Jeremias Szust of Trinity Consultants via electronic mail correspondence on August 27, 2015. A spreadsheet of inventory sources provided by Ms. Froning are included in Attachment B of the modeling protocol.

3.8. FLARE MODELING REPRESENTATION

The flare emission rates were calculated using average volumetric concentration measurements for each of the constituent sulfur species, an assumed 98 percent complete combustion factor for all of the sulfur species, and an average landfill gas flow rate in units of standard cubic feet per minute (scfm).

The effective stack heights, stack diameters, stack exit velocities and stack exit temperatures will all be provided based on the guidance of the MDNR for air dispersion modeling of flares.11 In particular, stack gas exit velocities and stack gas exit temperatures will be 20 meters per second (m/s) and 1,273 Kelvin (K) for all of the flares. Effective stack heights and effective stack diameters will be calculated as a function of total potential gross heat release and net heat available for plume rise, respectively. By default, net heat available for plume rise is typically calculated as 45 percent of total potential gross heat release, which operates under the assumption that the flare experiences a radiative heat loss factor of 55 percent, leaving only 45 percent of heat available for plume rise. Due to the unique composition of landfill gas collected by the Bridgeton Landfill GCCS, an appropriate site specific radiative heat loss factor of 8 percent was developed by the flare manufacturer John Zink Hamworthy and applied to the model. A letter describing the parameters used to calculate the site specific radiative heat loss are included in Attachment C of the modeling protocol. The flares in this model will utilize

11 Point Source. Missouri Department of Natural Resources. 12 Nov 2013. <http://dnr.mo.gov/env/apcp/docs/pointsources.pdf>.



the average radiant fraction calculated in Scenario 2 of John Zink’s calculations, as the flare heating values in this model match the heating value of those in Scenario 2 of John Zink’s calculations.



4. POSTPROCESSING, MODELING RESULTS, AND FILES

Modeling for increment standard periods for SO2 will be presented in the modeling report in a tabular format. Project impacts will be compared to the SO2 3-hour, 24-hour, and Annual standards in the form of a direct comparison between each in units of μg/m3. Coordinates for each of the highest impacts will be provided. Plots showing the locations of highest impacts can also be provided upon request.

The air dispersion modeling analysis input and output data files, as well as the meteorological data and downwash files used, will be provided to the MDNR in electronic form. Hard copies of additional modeling output files (e.g., building downwash) will be submitted upon request of the MDNR.


Bridgeton Landfill, LLC | Sulfur Dioxide Increment Modeling Protocol A-1 Trinity Consultants

ATTACHMENT A: BRIDGETON LANDFILL SITE MAP

jszust

Oval

jszust

Oval

jszust

Oval

jszust

Rectangle

jszust

Sticky Note

Unmarked set by jszust

jszust

Oval

jszust

Text Box

POSSIBLE PORTABLE FLARE AND GENERATOR LOCATIONS


Bridgeton Landfill, LLC | Sulfur Dioxide Increment Modeling Protocol B-1 Trinity Consultants

ATTACHMENT B: INVENTORY SOURCE SPREADSHEET

Landfill Location DistanceFacility ID Plant Name Permit Number Release Type UTM_E_X UTM_N_Y UTM_E_X UTM_N_Y Meters Kilometers Elevation Model I.D. Grams/Second Height Temperature Velocity Diameter Release Height Initial Lateral Initial Vertical

1891507 Centocor Biologics, LLC 6784 Point 731291.96 4290277.73 722107.35 4294454.70 10089.80 10.09 129.13 STLC1 5.8023E-04 12.192 366.4833333 9.70229 0.60961891507 Centocor Biologics, LLC 6784 Point 731291.96 4290277.73 722107.35 4294454.70 10089.80 10.09 129.13 STLC2 2.4269E-03 12.192 366.4833333 9.70229 0.60961891507 Centocor Biologics, LLC Point 731291.96 4290277.73 722107.35 4294454.70 10089.80 10.09 129.13 STLC3 6.1386E-01 4.572 810.9277778 9.70229 0.30481891221 Centaur Concrete Company 6846 Volume 701626.21 4280419.81 722107.35 4294454.70 24828.51 24.83 185.82 STLC4 3.3099E-01 5 1.1628 4.6511891083 Hauser & Miller Co. 4805 Volume 732824.96 4267061.08 722107.35 4294454.70 29415.60 29.42 127.16 STLC5 1.1507E-02 5 1.1628 4.6511891083 Hauser & Miller Co. 4806 Volume 732824.96 4267061.08 722107.35 4294454.70 29415.60 29.42 127.16 STLC6 1.1507E-02 5 1.1628 4.6511891170 Humane Society 6727 Point 724399.92 4287621.61 722107.35 4294454.70 7207.43 7.21 199.39 STLC7 5.2971E-03 6.096 1172.038889 4.7498 0.45721891273 John Fabick Tractor Co. 6866 Point 723026.49 4268923.04 722107.35 4294454.70 25548.20 25.55 166.70 STLC8 4.7803E-02 7.62 310.9277778 0.001 0.30481891060 Jefferson Smurfit Container 4639 Point 705936.51 4282363.86 722107.35 4294454.70 20191.19 20.19 159.59 STLC9 1.5064E-03 13.716 505.3722222 21.336 0.71121891299 IBM Global Services, Inc 6334 Point 728048.07 4294130.02 722107.35 4294454.70 5949.59 5.95 139.50 STLC10 3.3803E+00 9.144 477.5944444 48.8696 0.45721890111 Simpson Asphalt, North 4276 Point 721978.25 4294053.48 722107.35 4294454.70 421.47 0.42 177.28 STLC11 8.5842E-02 6.096 449.8166667 13.4518 1.5241890111 Simpson Asphalt, North Volume 721978.25 4294053.48 722107.35 4294454.70 421.47 0.42 177.28 STLC12 1.7663E-01 2.5 0.6977 2.32561891226 Simpson Asphalt 5989 Point 716103.40 4268523.71 722107.35 4294454.70 26616.98 26.62 174.58 STLC13 5.6101E-01 12.802 422.0388889 11.7334 1.280161891226 Simpson Asphalt 5989 Volume 716103.40 4268523.71 722107.35 4294454.70 26616.98 26.62 174.58 STLC14 4.4398E-04 2.5 0.6977 2.32561890284 Spirit Asphalt, Inc 5626 Volume 729269.89 4293383.43 722107.35 4294454.70 7242.21 7.24 156.30 STLC15 2.8766E-04 5 1.1628 4.6511890284 Spirit Asphalt, Inc 7020 Volume 729269.89 4293383.43 722107.35 4294454.70 7242.21 7.24 156.30 STLC16 3.1751E-04 5 1.1628 4.6511891496 Peerless Resource Recovery 6730 Volume 717790.59 4268917.09 722107.35 4294454.70 25899.88 25.90 192.88 STLC17 8.9716E-02 2.5 0.6977 2.32561890032 Pharmacia Corporation 6984 Volume 712452.70 4282653.00 722107.35 4294454.70 15247.70 15.25 196.45 STLC18 3.7396E-02 5 1.1628 4.6511890312 Bridgeton Landfill, LLC 5924 Point 721996.71 4294193.63 722107.35 4294454.70 283.54 0.28 179.61 STLC19 3.8324E-03 3.048 963.7055556 20 0.0534921890312 Bridgeton Landfill, LLC 5454 Point 721996.71 4294193.63 722107.35 4294454.70 283.54 0.28 179.61 STLC20 8.0367E-02 12.192 963.7055556 20 0.0534921891250 Fred Weber, North Asphalt B-G 4116 Point 720608.69 4291184.33 722107.35 4294454.70 3597.40 3.60 182.39 STLC21 7.2796E-02 9.4488 383.15 17.018 1.2893041891249 Fred Weber, North Asphalt H&B 4117 Point 720608.69 4291184.33 722107.35 4294454.70 3597.40 3.60 182.39 STLC22 1.1072E-01 9.4488 383.15 17.018 1.2893041891249 Fred Weber, North Asphalt H&B 4117 Volume 720608.69 4291184.33 722107.35 4294454.70 3597.40 3.60 182.39 STLC23 4.7949E-03 2.5 0.6977 2.32561890012 Temple Inland 6748 Point 720572.32 4269316.78 722107.35 4294454.70 25184.74 25.18 170.06 STLC24 2.3729E-03 3.6576 449.8166667 7.49808 0.6644641890012 Temple Inland 6748 Point 720572.32 4269316.78 722107.35 4294454.70 25184.74 25.18 170.06 STLC25 5.4724E-04 3.6576 449.8166667 7.49808 0.6644641890226 Trilla-Nesco Corporation 6297 Volume 722525.53 4269815.37 722107.35 4294454.70 24642.88 24.64 168.77 STLC26 1.8900E-01 2.5 0.6977 2.32561890226 Trilla-Nesco Corporation 6298 Volume 722525.53 4269815.37 722107.35 4294454.70 24642.88 24.64 168.77 STLC27 7.5598E-05 2.5 0.6977 2.32561891052 Veterans Adminstration Medical Cente 5281 Point 737206.35 4263978.11 722107.35 4294454.70 34011.79 34.01 176.20 STLC28 3.2360E-03 60.96 Ambient 0.001 2.43841891052 Veterans Adminstration Medical Cente 5281 Point 737206.35 4263978.11 722107.35 4294454.70 34011.79 34.01 176.20 STLC29 5.0689E-01 60.96 Ambient 0.001 2.43841891040 Vahalla Cemetery 4358 Point 733125.49 4286023.06 722107.35 4294454.70 13874.15 13.87 120.95 STLC30 8.2813E-05 12.192 1144.261111 3.90144 0.365761890128 Valley Heat Treating 3606 Volume 719438.39 4270008.58 722107.35 4294454.70 24591.38 24.59 187.28 STLC31 2.5609E-05 2.5 0.6977 2.32561890287 Vanguard Plastics 5655 Volume 730274.21 4285504.56 722107.35 4294454.70 12116.21 12.12 140.21 STLC32 6.6527E-01 2.5 0.6977 2.32561890287 Vanguard Plastics 5576 Volume 730274.21 4285504.56 722107.35 4294454.70 12116.21 12.12 140.21 STLC33 6.6527E-01 2.5 0.6977 2.32561890287 Vanguard Plastics 5661 Volume 730274.21 4285504.56 722107.35 4294454.70 12116.21 12.12 140.21 STLC34 6.6527E-01 2.5 0.6977 2.32561890287 Vanguard Plastics 5658 Volume 730274.21 4285504.56 722107.35 4294454.70 12116.21 12.12 140.21 STLC35 6.6527E-01 2.5 0.6977 2.32561890287 Vanguard Plastics 5216 Volume 730274.21 4285504.56 722107.35 4294454.70 12116.21 12.12 140.21 STLC36 6.6527E-01 2.5 0.6977 2.32561890287 Vanguard Plastics 5657 Volume 730274.21 4285504.56 722107.35 4294454.70 12116.21 12.12 140.21 STLC37 6.6527E-01 2.5 0.6977 2.32561890287 Vanguard Plastics 5577 Volume 730274.21 4285504.56 722107.35 4294454.70 12116.21 12.12 140.21 STLC38 6.6527E-01 2.5 0.6977 2.32561890287 Vanguard Plastics 5874 Volume 730274.21 4285504.56 722107.35 4294454.70 12116.21 12.12 140.21 STLC39 6.6527E-01 2.5 0.6977 2.32561890287 Vanguard Plastics 5656 Volume 730274.21 4285504.56 722107.35 4294454.70 12116.21 12.12 140.21 STLC40 6.6527E-01 2.5 0.6977 2.32561890021 US Silica, Inc. 5122 Point 698523.10 4262759.35 722107.35 4294454.70 39507.11 39.51 131.74 STLC41 6.5249E-04 24.384 338.7055556 15.24 0.91441891059 Christian Hospital Northeas 6771 Point 739723.86 4295637.27 722107.35 4294454.70 17656.16 17.66 123.60 STLC42 1.0356E-03 10.668 405.3722222 0.24267 1.21921891059 Christian Hospital Northeas 6771 Point 739723.86 4295637.27 722107.35 4294454.70 17656.16 17.66 123.60 STLC43 9.9188E-01 10.668 405.3722222 0.24267 1.21921891547 Community Tire Retreading 6959 Point 724385.13 4287341.83 722107.35 4294454.70 7468.68 7.47 187.89 STLC44 1.2600E-03 1.8288 Ambient 5.66217 0.60961890041 General Material Company 5172 Point 725086.99 4265532.21 722107.35 4294454.70 29075.57 29.08 162.18 STLC45 2.3261E-04 13.716 422.0388889 21.336 0.91441891269 Glideaway Mfg. Company 6190 Point 731847.19 4287288.48 722107.35 4294454.70 12092.11 12.09 128.19 STLC46 1.4558E-04 8.5344 330.9277778 7.366 0.2529841891562 ECO Recycling Inc. 7006 Point 734813.19 4284135.13 722107.35 4294454.70 16368.62 16.37 121.80 STLC47 2.5577E-02 2.4384 Ambient 28.4734 0.15241891029 DePaul Health Center 4816 Point 723020.65 4292232.05 722107.35 4294454.70 2402.97 2.40 182.72 STLC48 1.5093E-03 13.716 449.8166667 6.68528 0.91441891029 DePaul Health Center 4816 Point 723020.65 4292232.05 722107.35 4294454.70 2402.97 2.40 182.72 STLC49 1.5130E+00 13.716 449.8166667 6.68528 0.91441891465 Fleming and Company #2 6359 Point 720926.68 4268911.00 722107.35 4294454.70 25570.97 25.57 164.59 STLC50 7.9709E-04 5.4864 Ambient 0.001 0.091441891489 GKN North America 6953 Point 728996.69 4293916.48 722107.35 4294454.70 6910.33 6.91 159.19 STLC51 1.1657E-03 13.716 445.9277778 18.7655 1.21921891489 GKN North America 6954 Point 728996.69 4293916.48 722107.35 4294454.70 6910.33 6.91 159.19 STLC52 1.0006E-03 13.716 445.9277778 18.7655 1.21921891259 MACLAN Industries, Inc 6144 Volume 741994.05 4291500.76 722107.35 4294454.70 20104.89 20.10 126.78 STLC53 9.0718E-06 5 1.1628 4.651

Metric Units

Landfill Location DistanceFacility ID Plant Name Permit Number Release Type UTM_E_X UTM_N_Y UTM_E_X UTM_N_Y Meters Kilometers Elevation Model I.D. Grams/Second Height Temperature Velocity Diameter Release Height Initial Lateral Initial Vertical

1891196 Mallinckrodt, Inc 4457 Volume 727042.50 4294840.92 722107.35 4294454.70 4950.24 4.95 148.07 STLC54 9.1474E-04 5 1.1628 4.6511891196 Mallinckrodt, Inc 5887 Volume 727042.50 4294840.92 722107.35 4294454.70 4950.24 4.95 148.07 STLC55 9.4498E-05 5 1.1628 4.6511891196 Mallinckrodt, Inc 5886 Volume 727042.50 4294840.92 722107.35 4294454.70 4950.24 4.95 148.07 STLC56 3.9538E-04 5 1.1628 4.6511891196 Mallinckrodt, Inc 5885 Volume 727042.50 4294840.92 722107.35 4294454.70 4950.24 4.95 148.07 STLC57 3.9538E-04 5 1.1628 4.6511891048 Mallinckrodt, Inc 6380 Volume 724252.88 4287831.79 722107.35 4294454.70 6961.77 6.96 193.65 STLC58 1.2701E-03 5 1.1628 4.6511891048 Mallinckrodt, Inc 5731 Volume 724252.88 4287831.79 722107.35 4294454.70 6961.77 6.96 193.65 STLC59 9.4498E-04 5 1.1628 4.6511891048 Mallinckrodt, Inc 7018 Volume 724252.88 4287831.79 722107.35 4294454.70 6961.77 6.96 193.65 STLC60 9.4498E-04 5 1.1628 4.6511891538 KV Pharmaceuticals 6920 Point 720450.63 4295308.96 722107.35 4294454.70 1864.00 1.86 161.73 STLC61 9.7873E-05 10.973 Ambient 0.001 0.4053841891538 KV Pharmaceuticals 6915 Point 720450.63 4295308.96 722107.35 4294454.70 1864.00 1.86 161.73 STLC62 3.7799E-04 10.058 Ambient 0.001 0.35561891474 Lacede Gas Company 6624 Point 736603.96 4302260.25 722107.35 4294454.70 16464.46 16.46 126.83 STLC63 1.4800E-04 3.9624 Ambient 0.001 0.2042161891474 Lacede Gas Company 6624 Point 736603.96 4302260.25 722107.35 4294454.70 16464.46 16.46 126.83 STLC64 1.2852E-02 12.192 Ambient 0.001 0.60961891474 Lacede Gas Company 6624 Point 736603.96 4302260.25 722107.35 4294454.70 16464.46 16.46 126.83 STLC65 2.5703E-02 12.192 Ambient 0.001 0.60961891474 Lacede Gas Company 6659 Point 736603.96 4302260.25 722107.35 4294454.70 16464.46 16.46 126.83 STLC66 1.5120E-02 5.4864 Ambient 0.001 1.21921891474 Lacede Gas Company 6661 Point 736603.96 4302260.25 722107.35 4294454.70 16464.46 16.46 126.83 STLC67 1.6050E-01 4.8768 Ambient 0.001 0.15241891474 Lacede Gas Company 6623 Point 736603.96 4302260.25 722107.35 4294454.70 16464.46 16.46 126.83 STLC68 2.6394E-04 7.62 Ambient 0.001 0.2529841891182 Laird Technologies Point 720697.59 4293474.18 722107.35 4294454.70 1717.22 1.72 161.14 STLC69 3.7799E-04 10.363 Ambient 0.001 0.40641891114 Logan College 5788 Point 713934.29 4278726.19 722107.35 4294454.70 17725.26 17.73 192.44 STLC70 2.1873E-04 12.802 472.0388889 3.3782 0.396241891175 St. Marcus Cemetery 6375 Point 735313.39 4271347.39 722107.35 4294454.70 26614.79 26.61 123.69 STLC71 8.4357E-03 5.4864 583.15 5.1562 0.45721891074 North American Galvanizing CO 6726 Volume 727577.04 4285144.29 722107.35 4294454.70 10798.20 10.80 161.93 STLC72 1.2600E-03 2.5 0.6977 2.32561890131 Zeller Electric, Inc 4599 Point 735592.13 4269499.07 722107.35 4294454.70 28365.87 28.37 124.96 STLC73 1.1340E-03 8.4734 Ambient 0.001 0.5090161891227 The Gateway Company 6125 Volume 730757.29 4292768.81 722107.35 4294454.70 8812.70 8.81 154.45 STLC74 4.5359E-04 2.5 0.6977 2.32561890069 The Quikrete Companies 5021 Point 719720.04 4269914.29 722107.35 4294454.70 24656.25 24.66 178.93 STLC75 7.5734E+00 16.764 355.3722222 0.001 1.82881890032 Pharmacia Company 7032 Volume 712542.76 4282316.32 722107.35 4294454.70 15453.85 15.45 189.10 STLC76 1.1214E+00 5 1.1628 4.6511890032 Pharmacia Company 7032 Volume 712542.76 4282316.32 722107.35 4294454.70 15453.85 15.45 189.10 STLC77 3.7799E-01 5 1.1628 4.6511890208 Printpack, Inc 7045 Volume 728125.54 4294077.09 722107.35 4294454.70 6030.02 6.03 140.83 STLC78 1.2600E-03 5 1.1628 4.6511890022 St. Johns Mercy Medical Cente 7043 Volume 722354.38 4280402.54 722107.35 4294454.70 14054.33 14.05 174.89 STLC79 1.3860E-02 5 1.1628 4.6511890022 St. Johns Mercy Medical Cente 7043 Volume 722354.38 4280402.54 722107.35 4294454.70 14054.33 14.05 174.89 STLC80 1.1531E+01 5 1.1628 4.6511891093 Bodine Aluminum, Inc 6999 Volume 730789.83 4285924.63 722107.35 4294454.70 12171.58 12.17 144.83 STLC81 1.2600E-04 5 1.1628 4.6511891564 Jost Chemical 7022 Volume 731872.62 4287746.03 722107.35 4294454.70 11847.65 11.85 117.96 STLC82 1.2600E-03 5 1.1628 4.6511890281 Missouri Pass Landfil 6882 Volume 724980.45 4285181.45 722107.35 4294454.70 9708.14 9.71 181.31 STLC83 5.0273E+00 2.5 0.6977 2.32561891720 Millstone-Weber - Airport 7861 Volume 726087.98 4292518.43 722107.35 4294454.70 4426.57 4.43 157.48 STLC84 1.3549E-03 5 1.1628 4.6511891720 Millstone-Weber - Airport 7861 Volume 726087.98 4292518.43 722107.35 4294454.70 4426.57 4.43 157.48 STLC85 2.2680E-02 2.5 0.6977 2.32561890329 Lafarge Bridgeton Docks 7879 Volume 719555.51 4295777.24 722107.35 4294454.70 2874.20 2.87 155.25 STLC86 2.5829E-02 2.5 0.6977 2.32561890021 U.S. Silica Corporation 7869 Volume 698244.91 4262010.04 722107.35 4294454.70 40274.95 40.27 134.12 STLC87 3.7799E-03 2.5 0.6977 2.32561890221 PM Resources 7821 Point 722483.25 4294399.14 722107.35 4294454.70 379.99 0.38 175.19 STLC88 5.7533E-04 9.906 491.4833333 3.71699 0.45721891489 GKN North America Volume 729005.49 4293562.36 722107.35 4294454.70 6955.62 6.96 153.67 STLC89 1.1507E-03 2.5 0.6977 2.32561891052 Veterans Admin Medical Center Volume 737206.35 4263978.11 722107.35 4294454.70 34011.79 34.01 176.20 STLC90 6.7098E+00 5 1.1628 4.6511891052 Veterans Admin Medical Center Volume 737206.35 4263978.11 722107.35 4294454.70 34011.79 34.01 176.20 STLC91 2.7530E-01 2.5 0.6977 2.32561891698 Loving Hearts Pet Memorial Services 7792 Volume 704021.40 4264414.32 722107.35 4294454.70 35064.59 35.06 216.91 STLC92 4.3437E-02 5 1.1628 4.6511891507 Gallus BioPharmaceuticals, LLC Point 731393.21 4290195.85 722107.35 4294454.70 10215.92 10.22 132.69 STLC93 4.8797E-03 12.192 366.4833333 9.70209 0.60961891698 Loving Hearts Pet Memorial Services Volume 704021.40 4264414.32 722107.35 4294454.70 35064.59 35.06 216.91 STLC94 3.1643E-02 5 1.1628 4.6511890281 Missouri Pass Landfil 7738 Point 724496.53 4287246.79 722107.35 4294454.70 7593.56 7.59 196.24 STLC95 1.2600E-01 12.192 1088.705556 0.1617 3.0481891562 ECO Recycling 7742 Volume 734708.62 4284050.72 722107.35 4294454.70 16341.20 16.34 121.81 STLC96 1.0615E-01 2.5 0.6977 2.32561891133 Memorial Park Crematory Point 736164.03 4288282.79 722107.35 4294454.70 15351.96 15.35 126.59 STLC97 5.5232E-04 5.7912 866.4833333 6.096 0.487681891155 St. Anthony's Medical Center 7526 Volume 728489.70 4265428.04 722107.35 4294454.70 29720.04 29.72 124.86 STLC98 6.9279E-01 5 1.1628 4.6511890308 Fred Weber Inc - Landfil Point 720945.00 4291085.00 722107.35 4294454.70 3564.54 3.56 187.87 STLC99 4.3091E-01 11.43 626.3 29.09 1.221890308 Fred Weber Inc - Landfil Point 720936.47 4291085.00 722107.35 4294454.70 3567.33 3.57 187.93 STLC100 4.3091E-01 11.43 626.3 29.09 1.221890308 Fred Weber Inc - Landfil Point 720953.53 4291085.00 722107.35 4294454.70 3561.76 3.56 187.67 STLC101 4.3091E-01 11.43 626.3 29.09 1.221890308 Fred Weber Inc - Landfil Point 720872.31 4291099.90 722107.35 4294454.70 3574.91 3.57 189.44 STLC102 8.6308E-02 7.77 1144.1 3.58 1.5241890042 Washington University Point 734425.40 4281363.46 722107.35 4294454.70 17975.40 17.98 136.99 STLC103 5.1829E+00 16.764 430.9277778 25.6489 0.204216

Metric Units

Landfill Location DistanceFEDERAL_ID NAME_PLANT NAME_SITE Release Type UTM_E_X UTM_N_Y UTM_E_X UTM_N_Y Meters Kilometers Elevation Model I.D. PTE_HR Grams/Second Height Temperature Velocity Diameter Release Height Initial Lateral Initial Vertical

295100003 ANHEUSER-BUSCH INC ST. LOUIS Point 743027.943 4275660.608 722107.349 4294454.697 28122.74941 28.12274941 140.54 STL1 832.53 104.8969289 68.58 438.7055556 6.46176 3.048295100003 ANHEUSER-BUSCH INC ST. LOUIS Point 743027.943 4275660.608 722107.349 4294454.697 28122.74941 28.12274941 140.54 STL2 0.13 0.016559664 68.58 438.7055556 6.46176 3.048295100003 ANHEUSER-BUSCH INC ST. LOUIS Point 743027.943 4275660.608 722107.349 4294454.697 28122.74941 28.12274941 140.54 STL3 0.13 0.016746845 30.48 449.8166667 14.37284 0.9144295100003 ANHEUSER-BUSCH INC ST. LOUIS Point 743027.943 4275660.608 722107.349 4294454.697 28122.74941 28.12274941 140.54 STL4 266.52 33.58059823 68.58 449.8166667 5.62864 3.048295100003 ANHEUSER-BUSCH INC ST. LOUIS Point 743027.943 4275660.608 722107.349 4294454.697 28122.74941 28.12274941 140.54 STL5 201.11 25.33884555 68.58 449.8166667 5.62864 3.048295100003 ANHEUSER-BUSCH INC ST. LOUIS Point 743027.943 4275660.608 722107.349 4294454.697 28122.74941 28.12274941 140.54 STL6 0.06 0.007128923 68.58 449.8166667 5.62864 3.048295100003 ANHEUSER-BUSCH INC ST. LOUIS Point 743027.943 4275660.608 722107.349 4294454.697 28122.74941 28.12274941 140.54 STL7 8.54 1.076200865 68.58 449.8166667 5.62864 3.048295100003 ANHEUSER-BUSCH INC ST. LOUIS Point 743027.943 4275660.608 722107.349 4294454.697 28122.74941 28.12274941 140.54 STL8 307.20 38.70641607 68.58 449.8166667 5.62864 3.048295100003 ANHEUSER-BUSCH INC ST. LOUIS Point 743027.943 4275660.608 722107.349 4294454.697 28122.74941 28.12274941 140.54 STL9 195.05 24.57586719 68.58 449.8166667 5.62864 3.048295100003 ANHEUSER-BUSCH INC ST. LOUIS Point 743027.943 4275660.608 722107.349 4294454.697 28122.74941 28.12274941 140.54 STL10 0.06 0.007127864 68.58 449.8166667 5.62864 3.048295100003 ANHEUSER-BUSCH INC ST. LOUIS Point 743027.943 4275660.608 722107.349 4294454.697 28122.74941 28.12274941 140.54 STL11 2.11 0.266145253 68.58 449.8166667 5.62864 3.048295100003 ANHEUSER-BUSCH INC ST. LOUIS Point 743027.943 4275660.608 722107.349 4294454.697 28122.74941 28.12274941 140.54 STL12 17.52 2.20716453 41.148 783.15 59.04992 0.4572295100003 ANHEUSER-BUSCH INC ST. LOUIS Volume 743027.943 4275660.608 722107.349 4294454.697 28122.74941 28.12274941 140.54 STL13 5.29 0.666682802 5 1.1628 4.651295100038 TRIGEN-ST. LOUIS ENERGY CORP ASHLEY STREET STATION Point 745321.301 4280225.013 722107.349 4294454.697 27228.13755 27.22813755 128.51 STL14 0.23 0.028505108 33.8328 422.0388889 22.21992 1.2192295100038 TRIGEN-ST. LOUIS ENERGY CORP ASHLEY STREET STATION Point 745321.301 4280225.013 722107.349 4294454.697 27228.13755 27.22813755 128.51 STL15 0.06 0.00815706 33.8328 422.0388889 22.21992 1.2192295100038 TRIGEN-ST. LOUIS ENERGY CORP ASHLEY STREET STATION Point 745321.301 4280225.013 722107.349 4294454.697 27228.13755 27.22813755 128.51 STL16 0.23 0.028505108 33.8328 422.0388889 22.21992 1.2192295100038 TRIGEN-ST. LOUIS ENERGY CORP ASHLEY STREET STATION Point 745321.301 4280225.013 722107.349 4294454.697 27228.13755 27.22813755 128.51 STL17 0.06 0.00815706 33.8328 422.0388889 22.21992 1.2192295100038 TRIGEN-ST. LOUIS ENERGY CORP ASHLEY STREET STATION Point 745321.301 4280225.013 722107.349 4294454.697 27228.13755 27.22813755 128.51 STL18 1.17 0.147618346 35.052 410.9277778 12.52728 1.524295100038 TRIGEN-ST. LOUIS ENERGY CORP ASHLEY STREET STATION Point 745321.301 4280225.013 722107.349 4294454.697 27228.13755 27.22813755 128.51 STL19 0.06 0.007635432 35.052 410.9277778 12.52728 1.524295100038 TRIGEN-ST. LOUIS ENERGY CORP ASHLEY STREET STATION Point 745321.301 4280225.013 722107.349 4294454.697 27228.13755 27.22813755 128.51 STL20 1.17 0.147618346 35.052 410.9277778 12.52728 1.524295100038 TRIGEN-ST. LOUIS ENERGY CORP ASHLEY STREET STATION Point 745321.301 4280225.013 722107.349 4294454.697 27228.13755 27.22813755 128.51 STL21 0.06 0.007635432 35.052 410.9277778 12.52728 1.524295100038 TRIGEN-ST. LOUIS ENERGY CORP ASHLEY STREET STATION Point 745321.301 4280225.013 722107.349 4294454.697 27228.13755 27.22813755 128.51 STL22 0.32 0.040185277 9.144 797.0388889 72.44588 0.252984295100038 TRIGEN-ST. LOUIS ENERGY CORP ASHLEY STREET STATION Point 745321.301 4280225.013 722107.349 4294454.697 27228.13755 27.22813755 128.51 STL23 25.91 3.263958042 49.0728 394.2611111 10.39368 1.2192295100038 TRIGEN-ST. LOUIS ENERGY CORP ASHLEY STREET STATION Point 745321.301 4280225.013 722107.349 4294454.697 27228.13755 27.22813755 128.51 STL24 5.09 0.641466978 49.0728 394.2611111 10.39368 1.2192295100038 TRIGEN-ST. LOUIS ENERGY CORP ASHLEY STREET STATION Point 745321.301 4280225.013 722107.349 4294454.697 27228.13755 27.22813755 128.51 STL25 0.06 0.007128923 49.0728 394.2611111 10.39368 1.2192295100040 WASHINGTON UNIV MEDICAL SCHOOL BOILER PLANT Point 738281.444 4279714.363 722107.349 4294454.697 21883.29947 21.88329947 158.46 STL26 47.17 5.942696785 67.056 435.3722222 1.108964 2.310384295100040 WASHINGTON UNIV MEDICAL SCHOOL BOILER PLANT Point 738281.444 4279714.363 722107.349 4294454.697 21883.29947 21.88329947 158.46 STL27 0.05 0.006698012 67.056 435.3722222 1.108964 2.310384295100040 WASHINGTON UNIV MEDICAL SCHOOL BOILER PLANT Point 738281.444 4279714.363 722107.349 4294454.697 21883.29947 21.88329947 158.46 STL28 42.60 5.367481667 67.056 435.3722222 1.108964 2.310384295100040 WASHINGTON UNIV MEDICAL SCHOOL BOILER PLANT Point 738281.444 4279714.363 722107.349 4294454.697 21883.29947 21.88329947 158.46 STL29 0.05 0.006047867 67.056 435.3722222 1.108964 2.310384295100040 WASHINGTON UNIV MEDICAL SCHOOL BOILER PLANT Point 738281.444 4279714.363 722107.349 4294454.697 21883.29947 21.88329947 158.46 STL30 42.60 5.367481667 67.056 435.3722222 1.108964 2.310384295100040 WASHINGTON UNIV MEDICAL SCHOOL BOILER PLANT Point 738281.444 4279714.363 722107.349 4294454.697 21883.29947 21.88329947 158.46 STL31 0.05 0.006047867 67.056 435.3722222 1.108964 2.310384295100040 WASHINGTON UNIV MEDICAL SCHOOL BOILER PLANT Volume 738281.444 4279714.363 722107.349 4294454.697 21883.29947 21.88329947 158.46 STL32 0.01 0.001784121 5 1.1628 4.651295100040 WASHINGTON UNIV MEDICAL SCHOOL BOILER PLANT Point 738281.444 4279714.363 722107.349 4294454.697 21883.29947 21.88329947 158.46 STL33 44.63 5.623072198 21.0312 442.5944444 1.51384 1.0668295100040 WASHINGTON UNIV MEDICAL SCHOOL BOILER PLANT Point 738281.444 4279714.363 722107.349 4294454.697 21883.29947 21.88329947 158.46 STL34 0.05 0.00633514 21.0312 442.5944444 1.51384 1.0668295100040 WASHINGTON UNIV MEDICAL SCHOOL BOILER PLANT Point 738281.444 4279714.363 722107.349 4294454.697 21883.29947 21.88329947 158.46 STL35 43.11 5.431381536 67.056 435.3722222 1.108964 2.310384295100040 WASHINGTON UNIV MEDICAL SCHOOL BOILER PLANT Point 738281.444 4279714.363 722107.349 4294454.697 21883.29947 21.88329947 158.46 STL36 0.05 0.006123465 67.056 435.3722222 1.108964 2.310384295100040 WASHINGTON UNIV MEDICAL SCHOOL BOILER PLANT Volume 738281.444 4279714.363 722107.349 4294454.697 21883.29947 21.88329947 158.46 STL37 0.00 5.92691E-08 5 1.1628 4.651295100040 WASHINGTON UNIV MEDICAL SCHOOL BOILER PLANT Volume 738281.444 4279714.363 722107.349 4294454.697 21883.29947 21.88329947 158.46 STL38 11.91 1.500626917 5 1.1628 4.651295100056 VETERANS ADMIN MEDICAL CENTER JOHN COCHRANE DIV Point 741047.518 4280704.989 722107.349 4294454.697 23404.79592 23.40479592 163.99 STL39 14.77 1.860726978 15.24 494.2611111 10.668 0.6096295100056 VETERANS ADMIN MEDICAL CENTER JOHN COCHRANE DIV Point 741047.518 4280704.989 722107.349 4294454.697 23404.79592 23.40479592 163.99 STL40 0.01 0.001050817 15.24 494.2611111 10.668 0.6096295100056 VETERANS ADMIN MEDICAL CENTER JOHN COCHRANE DIV Point 741047.518 4280704.989 722107.349 4294454.697 23404.79592 23.40479592 163.99 STL41 0.01 0.001058377 15.24 494.2611111 10.668 0.6096295100056 VETERANS ADMIN MEDICAL CENTER JOHN COCHRANE DIV Point 741047.518 4280704.989 722107.349 4294454.697 23404.79592 23.40479592 163.99 STL42 25.47 3.209754037 15.24 410.9277778 10.668 0.6096295100056 VETERANS ADMIN MEDICAL CENTER JOHN COCHRANE DIV Point 741047.518 4280704.989 722107.349 4294454.697 23404.79592 23.40479592 163.99 STL43 0.01 0.0018068 15.24 410.9277778 10.668 0.6096295100056 VETERANS ADMIN MEDICAL CENTER JOHN COCHRANE DIV Point 741047.518 4280704.989 722107.349 4294454.697 23404.79592 23.40479592 163.99 STL44 25.42 3.202597394 15.24 410.9277778 10.668 0.6096295100056 VETERANS ADMIN MEDICAL CENTER JOHN COCHRANE DIV Point 741047.518 4280704.989 722107.349 4294454.697 23404.79592 23.40479592 163.99 STL45 0.01 0.0018068 15.24 410.9277778 10.668 0.6096295100056 VETERANS ADMIN MEDICAL CENTER JOHN COCHRANE DIV Volume 741047.518 4280704.989 722107.349 4294454.697 23404.79592 23.40479592 163.99 STL46 4.98 0.627262051 5 1.1628 4.651295100057 PROCTER AND GAMBLE ST. LOUIS Point 743543.348 4284162.694 722107.349 4294454.697 23778.71693 23.77871693 130.03 STL47 41.08 5.176041487 24.6888 438.7055556 6.11124 0.70104295100057 PROCTER AND GAMBLE ST. LOUIS Point 743543.348 4284162.694 722107.349 4294454.697 23778.71693 23.77871693 130.03 STL48 0.04 0.00447716 24.6888 438.7055556 6.11124 0.70104295100057 PROCTER AND GAMBLE ST. LOUIS Point 743543.348 4284162.694 722107.349 4294454.697 23778.71693 23.77871693 130.03 STL49 4.11 0.517604149 24.6888 438.7055556 6.11124 0.70104295100057 PROCTER AND GAMBLE ST. LOUIS Point 743543.348 4284162.694 722107.349 4294454.697 23778.71693 23.77871693 130.03 STL50 0.04 0.004475421 24.6888 438.7055556 6.11124 0.70104295100070 ICL PERFORMANCE PRODUCTS LP CARONDELET PLANT Point 738002.832 4269553.876 722107.349 4294454.697 29541.78847 29.54178847 121.79 STL51 0.02 0.002624942 9.7536 322.0388889 4.711192 0.6096295100070 ICL PERFORMANCE PRODUCTS LP CARONDELET PLANT Point 738002.832 4269553.876 722107.349 4294454.697 29541.78847 29.54178847 121.79 STL52 0.01 0.000718184 146.6088 366.4833333 2.874692 0.9144295100070 ICL PERFORMANCE PRODUCTS LP CARONDELET PLANT Point 738002.832 4269553.876 722107.349 4294454.697 29541.78847 29.54178847 121.79 STL53 68.10 8.580134143 17.0688 477.5944444 4.853483 1.2192295100070 ICL PERFORMANCE PRODUCTS LP CARONDELET PLANT Point 738002.832 4269553.876 722107.349 4294454.697 29541.78847 29.54178847 121.79 STL54 0.04 0.004730263 17.0688 477.5944444 4.853483 1.2192295100070 ICL PERFORMANCE PRODUCTS LP CARONDELET PLANT Point 738002.832 4269553.876 722107.349 4294454.697 29541.78847 29.54178847 121.79 STL55 0.01 0.001439997 13.716 323.15 46.96968 0.6096295100070 ICL PERFORMANCE PRODUCTS LP CARONDELET PLANT Point 738002.832 4269553.876 722107.349 4294454.697 29541.78847 29.54178847 121.79 STL56 0.01 0.000647953 24.384 350.3722222 21.23948 0.6096295100070 ICL PERFORMANCE PRODUCTS LP CARONDELET PLANT Point 738002.832 4269553.876 722107.349 4294454.697 29541.78847 29.54178847 121.79 STL57 0.00 0.00018 23.7744 353.15 26.96972 0.356616295100070 ICL PERFORMANCE PRODUCTS LP CARONDELET PLANT Volume 738002.832 4269553.876 722107.349 4294454.697 29541.78847 29.54178847 121.79 STL58 0.00 0.000241159 5 1.1628 4.651295100070 ICL PERFORMANCE PRODUCTS LP CARONDELET PLANT Volume 738002.832 4269553.876 722107.349 4294454.697 29541.78847 29.54178847 121.79 STL59 7.50E-05 9.44979E-06 2.5 0.6977 2.3256295100070 ICL PERFORMANCE PRODUCTS LP CARONDELET PLANT Volume 738002.832 4269553.876 722107.349 4294454.697 29541.78847 29.54178847 121.79 STL60 0.40 0.050398889 2.5 0.6977 2.3256295100070 ICL PERFORMANCE PRODUCTS LP CARONDELET PLANT Volume 738002.832 4269553.876 722107.349 4294454.697 29541.78847 29.54178847 121.79 STL61 0.26 0.03283315 2.5 0.6977 2.3256295100070 ICL PERFORMANCE PRODUCTS LP CARONDELET PLANT Point 738002.832 4269553.876 722107.349 4294454.697 29541.78847 29.54178847 121.79 STL62 94.33 11.88539357 12.8016 444.2611111 11.51382 1.2192295100070 ICL PERFORMANCE PRODUCTS LP CARONDELET PLANT Point 738002.832 4269553.876 722107.349 4294454.697 29541.78847 29.54178847 121.79 STL63 0.05 0.00669582 12.8016 444.2611111 11.51382 1.2192295100099 ST. LOUIS PAINT ST. LOUIS PAINT Volume 741670.133 4276514.341 722107.349 4294454.697 26543.52824 26.54352824 158.86 STL64 17.23 2.171184133 5 1.1628 4.651

Landfill Location DistanceFEDERAL_ID NAME_PLANT NAME_SITE Release Type UTM_E_X UTM_N_Y UTM_E_X UTM_N_Y Meters Kilometers Elevation Model I.D. PTE_HR Grams/Second Height Temperature Velocity Diameter Release Height Initial Lateral Initial Vertical

295100204 BARNES JEWISH HOSPITAL ST LOUIS Point 738163.288 4279618.261 722107.349 4294454.697 21861.22161 21.86122161 157.62 STL65 16.43 2.070506053 60.96 405.3722222 5.40512 0.85344295100204 BARNES JEWISH HOSPITAL ST LOUIS Point 738163.288 4279618.261 722107.349 4294454.697 21861.22161 21.86122161 157.62 STL66 0.04 0.004665476 60.96 405.3722222 5.40512 0.85344295100204 BARNES JEWISH HOSPITAL ST LOUIS Volume 738163.288 4279618.261 722107.349 4294454.697 21861.22161 21.86122161 157.62 STL67 1.94 0.244387098 5 1.1628 4.651295100204 BARNES JEWISH HOSPITAL ST LOUIS Volume 738163.288 4279618.261 722107.349 4294454.697 21861.22161 21.86122161 157.62 STL68 2.42 0.304772325 5 1.1628 4.651295100204 BARNES JEWISH HOSPITAL ST LOUIS Volume 738163.288 4279618.261 722107.349 4294454.697 21861.22161 21.86122161 157.62 STL69 0.40 0.050376046 5 1.1628 4.651295100204 BARNES JEWISH HOSPITAL ST LOUIS Volume 738163.288 4279618.261 722107.349 4294454.697 21861.22161 21.86122161 157.62 STL70 0.40 0.050376046 5 1.1628 4.651295100204 BARNES JEWISH HOSPITAL ST LOUIS Volume 738163.288 4279618.261 722107.349 4294454.697 21861.22161 21.86122161 157.62 STL71 0.40 0.050376046 5 1.1628 4.651295100204 BARNES JEWISH HOSPITAL ST LOUIS Volume 738163.288 4279618.261 722107.349 4294454.697 21861.22161 21.86122161 157.62 STL72 11.57 1.457754006 5 1.1628 4.651295100204 BARNES JEWISH HOSPITAL ST LOUIS Volume 738163.288 4279618.261 722107.349 4294454.697 21861.22161 21.86122161 157.62 STL73 0.58 0.0732456 5 1.1628 4.651295100204 BARNES JEWISH HOSPITAL ST LOUIS Volume 738163.288 4279618.261 722107.349 4294454.697 21861.22161 21.86122161 157.62 STL74 0.98 0.123051407 5 1.1628 4.651295100204 BARNES JEWISH HOSPITAL ST LOUIS Point 738163.288 4279618.261 722107.349 4294454.697 21861.22161 21.86122161 157.62 STL75 33.47 4.217306385 28.3464 477.5944444 0.59436 1.8288295100204 BARNES JEWISH HOSPITAL ST LOUIS Point 738163.288 4279618.261 722107.349 4294454.697 21861.22161 21.86122161 157.62 STL76 0.08 0.009503769 28.3464 477.5944444 0.59436 1.8288295100204 BARNES JEWISH HOSPITAL ST LOUIS Point 738163.288 4279618.261 722107.349 4294454.697 21861.22161 21.86122161 157.62 STL77 15.21 1.916955821 28.3464 477.5944444 0.59436 1.8288295100204 BARNES JEWISH HOSPITAL ST LOUIS Point 738163.288 4279618.261 722107.349 4294454.697 21861.22161 21.86122161 157.62 STL78 0.03 0.004319916 28.3464 477.5944444 0.59436 1.8288295100204 BARNES JEWISH HOSPITAL ST LOUIS Volume 738163.288 4279618.261 722107.349 4294454.697 21861.22161 21.86122161 157.62 STL79 4.36 0.548799272 5 1.1628 4.651295100204 BARNES JEWISH HOSPITAL ST LOUIS Volume 738163.288 4279618.261 722107.349 4294454.697 21861.22161 21.86122161 157.62 STL80 3.63 0.457336061 5 1.1628 4.651295100204 BARNES JEWISH HOSPITAL ST LOUIS Volume 738163.288 4279618.261 722107.349 4294454.697 21861.22161 21.86122161 157.62 STL81 0.29 0.036515255 5 1.1628 4.651295100204 BARNES JEWISH HOSPITAL ST LOUIS Volume 738163.288 4279618.261 722107.349 4294454.697 21861.22161 21.86122161 157.62 STL82 1.39 0.174572931 5 1.1628 4.651295100204 BARNES JEWISH HOSPITAL ST LOUIS Volume 738163.288 4279618.261 722107.349 4294454.697 21861.22161 21.86122161 157.62 STL83 0.00 0.000204116 2.5 0.6977 2.3256295100204 BARNES JEWISH HOSPITAL ST LOUIS Volume 738163.288 4279618.261 722107.349 4294454.697 21861.22161 21.86122161 157.62 STL84 0.00 0.00043847 2.5 0.6977 2.3256295100204 BARNES JEWISH HOSPITAL ST LOUIS Volume 738163.288 4279618.261 722107.349 4294454.697 21861.22161 21.86122161 157.62 STL85 0.00 0.000340193 2.5 0.6977 2.3256295100204 BARNES JEWISH HOSPITAL ST LOUIS Volume 738163.288 4279618.261 722107.349 4294454.697 21861.22161 21.86122161 157.62 STL86 7.55E-04 9.51027E-05 2.5 0.6977 2.3256295101363 ALSCO, INC ST. LOUIS Volume 743368.562 4275609.254 722107.349 4294454.697 28411.08763 28.41108763 129.13 STL87 23.33 2.93934031 5 1.1628 4.651295101363 ALSCO, INC ST. LOUIS Volume 743368.562 4275609.254 722107.349 4294454.697 28411.08763 28.41108763 129.13 STL88 0.01 0.001655981 5 1.1628 4.651295101370 NATIONAL GEOSPATIAL-INTELLIGENCE AGENCY ST LOUIS Point 742923.827 4275101.977 722107.349 4294454.697 28422.76425 28.42276425 133.5 STL89 0.01 0.000937419 6.7056 477.5944444 5.25272 0.6096295101370 NATIONAL GEOSPATIAL-INTELLIGENCE AGENCY ST LOUIS Volume 742923.827 4275101.977 722107.349 4294454.697 28422.76425 28.42276425 133.5 STL90 0.02 0.002449386 5 1.1628 4.651295101370 NATIONAL GEOSPATIAL-INTELLIGENCE AGENCY ST LOUIS Point 742923.827 4275101.977 722107.349 4294454.697 28422.76425 28.42276425 133.5 STL91 0.02 0.002449386 6.7056 477.5944444 5.25272 0.6096295101370 NATIONAL GEOSPATIAL-INTELLIGENCE AGENCY ST LOUIS Point 742923.827 4275101.977 722107.349 4294454.697 28422.76425 28.42276425 133.5 STL92 0.01 0.00090718 6.7056 477.5944444 5.25272 0.6096295101370 NATIONAL GEOSPATIAL-INTELLIGENCE AGENCY ST LOUIS Volume 742923.827 4275101.977 722107.349 4294454.697 28422.76425 28.42276425 133.5 STL93 0.00 0.000520603 5 1.1628 4.651295101370 NATIONAL GEOSPATIAL-INTELLIGENCE AGENCY ST LOUIS Volume 742923.827 4275101.977 722107.349 4294454.697 28422.76425 28.42276425 133.5 STL94 0.00 0.000196556 5 1.1628 4.651295101370 NATIONAL GEOSPATIAL-INTELLIGENCE AGENCY ST LOUIS Point 742923.827 4275101.977 722107.349 4294454.697 28422.76425 28.42276425 133.5 STL95 0.02 0.002602963 6.7056 410.3722222 4.15036 0.6096295101370 NATIONAL GEOSPATIAL-INTELLIGENCE AGENCY ST LOUIS Point 742923.827 4275101.977 722107.349 4294454.697 28422.76425 28.42276425 133.5 STL96 0.01 0.00096403 6.7056 410.3722222 4.15036 0.6096295101370 NATIONAL GEOSPATIAL-INTELLIGENCE AGENCY ST LOUIS Point 742923.827 4275101.977 722107.349 4294454.697 28422.76425 28.42276425 133.5 STL97 14.22 1.79124833 6.096 477.5944444 2.72288 0.1524295101407 SOUTHERN METAL PROCESSING SOUTHERN METAL PROCESSING Point 739639.516 4270906.564 722107.349 4294454.697 29357.9878 29.3579878 129.68 STL98 12.80 1.612764444 9.4488 1138.705556 5.868924 0.762295101407 SOUTHERN METAL PROCESSING SOUTHERN METAL PROCESSING Point 739639.516 4270906.564 722107.349 4294454.697 29357.9878 29.3579878 129.68 STL99 12.80 1.612764444 9.4488 1138.705556 5.868924 0.762295101505 ENERGY CENTER (THE) ST. LOUIS UNIV HEALTH SCIENCES CENTER Point 740404.805 4278327.68 722107.349 4294454.697 24390.11221 24.39011221 167.9 STL100 61.72 7.77634696 67.056 449.8166667 30.48 1.524295101505 ENERGY CENTER (THE) ST. LOUIS UNIV HEALTH SCIENCES CENTER Point 740404.805 4278327.68 722107.349 4294454.697 24390.11221 24.39011221 167.9 STL101 0.03 0.004316665 67.056 449.8166667 30.48 1.524295101505 ENERGY CENTER (THE) ST. LOUIS UNIV HEALTH SCIENCES CENTER Point 740404.805 4278327.68 722107.349 4294454.697 24390.11221 24.39011221 167.9 STL102 25.72 3.24044696 67.056 449.8166667 30.48 1.524295101505 ENERGY CENTER (THE) ST. LOUIS UNIV HEALTH SCIENCES CENTER Point 740404.805 4278327.68 722107.349 4294454.697 24390.11221 24.39011221 167.9 STL103 0.01 0.00179924 67.056 449.8166667 30.48 1.524295101505 ENERGY CENTER (THE) ST. LOUIS UNIV HEALTH SCIENCES CENTER Point 740404.805 4278327.68 722107.349 4294454.697 24390.11221 24.39011221 167.9 STL104 25.72 3.24044696 67.056 449.8166667 30.48 1.524295101505 ENERGY CENTER (THE) ST. LOUIS UNIV HEALTH SCIENCES CENTER Point 740404.805 4278327.68 722107.349 4294454.697 24390.11221 24.39011221 167.9 STL105 0.01 0.00179924 67.056 449.8166667 30.48 1.524295101505 ENERGY CENTER (THE) ST. LOUIS UNIV HEALTH SCIENCES CENTER Point 740404.805 4278327.68 722107.349 4294454.697 24390.11221 24.39011221 167.9 STL106 61.72 7.77634696 67.056 449.8166667 30.48 1.524295101505 ENERGY CENTER (THE) ST. LOUIS UNIV HEALTH SCIENCES CENTER Point 740404.805 4278327.68 722107.349 4294454.697 24390.11221 24.39011221 167.9 STL107 0.03 0.004316665 67.056 449.8166667 30.48 1.524295101505 ENERGY CENTER (THE) ST. LOUIS UNIV HEALTH SCIENCES CENTER Volume 740404.805 4278327.68 722107.349 4294454.697 24390.11221 24.39011221 167.9 STL108 5.13 0.645932572 5 1.1628 4.651295101505 ENERGY CENTER (THE) ST. LOUIS UNIV HEALTH SCIENCES CENTER Volume 740404.805 4278327.68 722107.349 4294454.697 24390.11221 24.39011221 167.9 STL109 6.08 0.765681088 5 1.1628 4.651295101761 NESTLE PURINA PETCARE COMPANY ST. LOUIS Point 743952.179 4277910.655 722107.349 4294454.697 27402.58972 27.40258972 139.71 STL110 12.77 1.608455339 24.384 466.4833333 10.29208 0.6096295101761 NESTLE PURINA PETCARE COMPANY ST. LOUIS Point 743952.179 4277910.655 722107.349 4294454.697 27402.58972 27.40258972 139.71 STL111 0.01 0.001867203 24.384 466.4833333 10.29208 0.6096295101761 NESTLE PURINA PETCARE COMPANY ST. LOUIS Point 743952.179 4277910.655 722107.349 4294454.697 27402.58972 27.40258972 139.71 STL112 3.08E-05 3.88111E-06 1.8288 898.15 106.68 0.09144295101761 NESTLE PURINA PETCARE COMPANY ST. LOUIS Point 743952.179 4277910.655 722107.349 4294454.697 27402.58972 27.40258972 139.71 STL113 1.54E-06 1.94077E-07 1.8288 853.15 46.228 0.09144295101761 NESTLE PURINA PETCARE COMPANY ST. LOUIS Point 743952.179 4277910.655 722107.349 4294454.697 27402.58972 27.40258972 139.71 STL114 1.22E-05 1.53219E-06 4.572 783.15 82.14301 0.203302295101761 NESTLE PURINA PETCARE COMPANY ST. LOUIS Point 743952.179 4277910.655 722107.349 4294454.697 27402.58972 27.40258972 139.71 STL115 0.03 0.004006825 24.384 480.3722222 10.29208 0.6096295101761 NESTLE PURINA PETCARE COMPANY ST. LOUIS Point 743952.179 4277910.655 722107.349 4294454.697 27402.58972 27.40258972 139.71 STL116 0.01 0.001549766 24.384 480.3722222 10.29208 0.6096295101761 NESTLE PURINA PETCARE COMPANY ST. LOUIS Point 743952.179 4277910.655 722107.349 4294454.697 27402.58972 27.40258972 139.71 STL117 0.03 0.004006825 24.384 480.3722222 10.29208 0.6096295101761 NESTLE PURINA PETCARE COMPANY ST. LOUIS Point 743952.179 4277910.655 722107.349 4294454.697 27402.58972 27.40258972 139.71 STL118 0.01 0.001549766 24.384 480.3722222 10.29208 0.6096295101761 NESTLE PURINA PETCARE COMPANY ST. LOUIS Point 743952.179 4277910.655 722107.349 4294454.697 27402.58972 27.40258972 139.71 STL119 1.03E-03 0.000129741 4.572 814.8166667 15.55993 0.204216295101761 NESTLE PURINA PETCARE COMPANY ST. LOUIS Point 743952.179 4277910.655 722107.349 4294454.697 27402.58972 27.40258972 139.71 STL120 1.24 0.156458311 4.572 807.5944444 68.94554 0.204216295101761 NESTLE PURINA PETCARE COMPANY ST. LOUIS Volume 743952.179 4277910.655 722107.349 4294454.697 27402.58972 27.40258972 139.71 STL121 0.00 0.000181436 5 1.1628 4.651295101761 NESTLE PURINA PETCARE COMPANY ST. LOUIS Point 743952.179 4277910.655 722107.349 4294454.697 27402.58972 27.40258972 139.71 STL122 2.52 0.317132488 1.8288 898.15 106.68 0.09144295101761 NESTLE PURINA PETCARE COMPANY ST. LOUIS Point 743952.179 4277910.655 722107.349 4294454.697 27402.58972 27.40258972 139.71 STL123 0.78 0.098541168 1.8288 853.15 46.228 0.09144295101761 NESTLE PURINA PETCARE COMPANY ST. LOUIS Point 743952.179 4277910.655 722107.349 4294454.697 27402.58972 27.40258972 139.71 STL124 0.00 0.000169989 2.71272 708.15 11.53371 0.25085295102545 SOUTHWESTERN BELL TELEPHONE COMPANY SOUTHWESTERN BELL TELEPHONE COMPANY Point 744282.943 4278969.999 722107.349 4294454.697 27046.8638 27.0468638 139.84 STL125 0.96 0.121448723 88.392 494.8166667 24.14524 0.6096295102545 SOUTHWESTERN BELL TELEPHONE COMPANY SOUTHWESTERN BELL TELEPHONE COMPANY Point 744282.943 4278969.999 722107.349 4294454.697 27046.8638 27.0468638 139.84 STL126 0.96 0.121448723 88.392 508.15 24.14524 0.6096295102545 SOUTHWESTERN BELL TELEPHONE COMPANY SOUTHWESTERN BELL TELEPHONE COMPANY Point 744282.943 4278969.999 722107.349 4294454.697 27046.8638 27.0468638 139.84 STL127 0.96 0.121448723 88.392 493.15 24.14524 0.6096295102545 SOUTHWESTERN BELL TELEPHONE COMPANY SOUTHWESTERN BELL TELEPHONE COMPANY Point 744282.943 4278969.999 722107.349 4294454.697 27046.8638 27.0468638 139.84 STL128 0.31 0.038747926 172.212 802.5944444 7.02056 0.204216295102545 SOUTHWESTERN BELL TELEPHONE COMPANY SOUTHWESTERN BELL TELEPHONE COMPANY Point 744282.943 4278969.999 722107.349 4294454.697 27046.8638 27.0468638 139.84 STL129 0.31 0.038747926 172.212 802.5944444 7.02056 0.204216295102545 SOUTHWESTERN BELL TELEPHONE COMPANY SOUTHWESTERN BELL TELEPHONE COMPANY Point 744282.943 4278969.999 722107.349 4294454.697 27046.8638 27.0468638 139.84 STL130 0.31 0.038747926 172.212 802.5944444 7.02056 0.204216295102545 SOUTHWESTERN BELL TELEPHONE COMPANY SOUTHWESTERN BELL TELEPHONE COMPANY Point 744282.943 4278969.999 722107.349 4294454.697 27046.8638 27.0468638 139.84 STL131 0.00 0.000604787 201.168 422.0388889 7.02056 0.4572295102545 SOUTHWESTERN BELL TELEPHONE COMPANY SOUTHWESTERN BELL TELEPHONE COMPANY Point 744282.943 4278969.999 722107.349 4294454.697 27046.8638 27.0468638 139.84 STL132 0.00 0.000604787 201.168 422.0388889 7.02056 0.4572295102545 SOUTHWESTERN BELL TELEPHONE COMPANY SOUTHWESTERN BELL TELEPHONE COMPANY Point 744282.943 4278969.999 722107.349 4294454.697 27046.8638 27.0468638 139.84 STL133 0.72 0.091247188 118.872 788.7055556 7.02056 2.8956295102545 SOUTHWESTERN BELL TELEPHONE COMPANY SOUTHWESTERN BELL TELEPHONE COMPANY Point 744282.943 4278969.999 722107.349 4294454.697 27046.8638 27.0468638 139.84 STL134 0.72 0.091247188 118.872 788.7055556 7.02056 2.8956295102545 SOUTHWESTERN BELL TELEPHONE COMPANY SOUTHWESTERN BELL TELEPHONE COMPANY Point 744282.943 4278969.999 722107.349 4294454.697 27046.8638 27.0468638 139.84 STL135 1.20 0.151650257 88.392 656.4833333 29.38272 0.6096295102545 SOUTHWESTERN BELL TELEPHONE COMPANY SOUTHWESTERN BELL TELEPHONE COMPANY Point 744282.943 4278969.999 722107.349 4294454.697 27046.8638 27.0468638 139.84 STL136 0.90 0.113737693 88.392 656.4833333 29.38272 0.6096295102545 SOUTHWESTERN BELL TELEPHONE COMPANY SOUTHWESTERN BELL TELEPHONE COMPANY Point 744282.943 4278969.999 722107.349 4294454.697 27046.8638 27.0468638 139.84 STL137 1.44 0.180832473 88.392 656.4833333 29.38272 0.6096295102545 SOUTHWESTERN BELL TELEPHONE COMPANY SOUTHWESTERN BELL TELEPHONE COMPANY Point 744282.943 4278969.999 722107.349 4294454.697 27046.8638 27.0468638 139.84 STL138 1.44 0.180832473 88.392 656.4833333 29.38272 0.6096295102802 SSM CARDINAL GLENNON CHILDRENS HOSPITAL SOUTH GRAND Point 740356.45 4278375.058 722107.349 4294454.697 24322.50969 24.32250969 164.56 STL139 3.40 0.427788289 12.192 366.4833333 6.604 0.9144295102802 SSM CARDINAL GLENNON CHILDRENS HOSPITAL SOUTH GRAND Point 740356.45 4278375.058 722107.349 4294454.697 24322.50969 24.32250969 164.56 STL140 0.04 0.004929011 12.192 366.4833333 6.604 0.9144295102802 SSM CARDINAL GLENNON CHILDRENS HOSPITAL SOUTH GRAND Point 740356.45 4278375.058 722107.349 4294454.697 24322.50969 24.32250969 164.56 STL141 0.85 0.106954229 12.192 366.4833333 6.604 0.9144295102802 SSM CARDINAL GLENNON CHILDRENS HOSPITAL SOUTH GRAND Point 740356.45 4278375.058 722107.349 4294454.697 24322.50969 24.32250969 164.56 STL142 0.01 0.001232253 12.192 366.4833333 6.604 0.9144295102802 SSM CARDINAL GLENNON CHILDRENS HOSPITAL SOUTH GRAND Point 740356.45 4278375.058 722107.349 4294454.697 24322.50969 24.32250969 164.56 STL143 12.41 1.563653247 12.192 366.4833333 6.604 0.6096

Landfill Location DistanceFacility ID Plant Name Permit Number Release Type UTM_E_X UTM_N_Y UTM_E_X UTM_N_Y Meters Kilometers Elevation Model I.D. Grams/Second Height Temperature Velocity Diameter Release Height Initial Lateral Initial VerticalAP0001830001 Union Electric Co, Sioux Plant 0695-016 Point 735060.80 4310853.11 722107.35 4294454.70 20897.37 20.90 134.37 STC1 1.1933E-01 64.6176 435.9278 15.2400 1.3716AP0001830001 Union Electric Co, Sioux Plant 1198-011 Point 735060.80 4310853.11 722107.35 4294454.70 20897.37 20.90 134.37 STC2 4.3170E+01 182.8800 427.5944 29.2608 5.7912AP0001830001 Union Electric Co, Sioux Plant 1198-011 Point 735060.80 4310853.11 722107.35 4294454.70 20897.37 20.90 134.37 STC3 5.6338E+00 182.8800 427.5944 29.2608 5.7912AP0001830001 Union Electric Co, Sioux Plant 1198-011 Point 735060.80 4310853.11 722107.35 4294454.70 20897.37 20.90 134.37 STC4 4.9129E+01 182.8800 427.5944 29.2608 5.7912AP0001830001 Union Electric Co, Sioux Plant 1198-011 Point 735060.80 4310853.11 722107.35 4294454.70 20897.37 20.90 134.37 STC5 4.5711E+00 182.8800 427.5944 29.2608 5.7912AP0001830001 Union Electric Co, Sioux Plant 032004-021 Point 735060.80 4310853.11 722107.35 4294454.70 20897.37 20.90 134.37 STC6 1.5924E-02 9.1440 672.0389 19.5631 0.6858AP0001830004 Fred Weber, Inc.-O'Fallon Asphalt Plant 012000-006 Volume 696013.46 4297706.78 722107.35 4294454.70 26295.76 26.30 166.35 STC7 1.8900E-01 2.5 0.6977 2.3256AP0001830009 Fred Weber - New Melle Quarry 0395-003 Volume 683293.16 4283400.28 722107.35 4294454.70 40357.67 40.36 218.24 STC8 1.6653E-01 5 1.1628 4.651AP0001830010 Boeing-McDonnell Douglas-Electronic 0997-007 Point 719468.22 4299081.07 722107.35 4294454.70 5326.19 5.33 137.18 STC9 2.8846E-04 12.1920 477.5944 12.9540 0.6096AP0001830010 Boeing-McDonnell Douglas-Electronic 0997-007 Point 719468.22 4299081.07 722107.35 4294454.70 5326.19 5.33 137.18 STC10 2.8846E-04 12.1920 477.5944 12.9540 0.6096AP0001830019 St Joseph Health Center 1297-012 Point 718496.93 4295462.50 722107.35 4294454.70 3748.44 3.75 158.94 STC11 3.5480E-04 15.2400 810.9278 44.3179 0.7102AP0001830019 St Joseph Health Center 1297-012 Point 718496.93 4295462.50 722107.35 4294454.70 3748.44 3.75 158.94 STC12 2.8846E-04 15.2400 810.9278 44.3179 0.7102AP0001830019 St Joseph Health Center 1297-012 Point 718496.93 4295462.50 722107.35 4294454.70 3748.44 3.75 158.94 STC13 3.5480E-04 15.2400 810.9278 44.3179 0.6096AP0001830019 St Joseph Health Center 1297-012 Point 718496.93 4295462.50 722107.35 4294454.70 3748.44 3.75 158.94 STC14 2.8846E-04 15.2400 810.9278 44.3179 0.6096AP0001830019 St Joseph Health Center 1297-012 Point 718496.93 4295462.50 722107.35 4294454.70 3748.44 3.75 158.94 STC15 3.5480E-04 15.2400 810.9278 44.3179 0.6096AP0001830019 St Joseph Health Center 1297-012 Point 718496.93 4295462.50 722107.35 4294454.70 3748.44 3.75 158.94 STC16 2.8846E-04 15.2400 810.9278 44.3179 0.6096AP0001830027 MEMC - St Peters Plant 0879-007 Point 703176.88 4298443.68 722107.35 4294454.70 19346.18 19.35 148.84 STC17 4.3268E-04 9.1440 449.8167 10.6680 0.3658AP0001830027 MEMC - St Peters Plant 0694-004c Point 703176.88 4298443.68 722107.35 4294454.70 19346.18 19.35 148.84 STC18 2.6178E-02 11.8872 298.1500 12.9997 0.3962AP0001830027 MEMC - St Peters Plant 0694-004c Point 703176.88 4298443.68 722107.35 4294454.70 19346.18 19.35 148.84 STC19 2.8846E-04 9.1440 449.8167 10.6680 0.3658AP0001830027 MEMC - St Peters Plant 0694-004c Point 703176.88 4298443.68 722107.35 4294454.70 19346.18 19.35 148.84 STC20 1.6153E-04 9.1440 449.8167 10.6680 0.3658AP0001830027 MEMC - St Peters Plant 0498-012 Point 703176.88 4298443.68 722107.35 4294454.70 19346.18 19.35 148.84 STC21 1.0546E-03 9.1440 449.8167 0.0010 0.3658AP0001830027 MEMC - St Peters Plant 0498-012 Volume 703176.88 4298443.68 722107.35 4294454.70 19346.18 19.35 148.84 STC22 1.0546E-03 5 1.1628 4.651AP0001830027 MEMC - St Peters Plant 0498-012 Volume 703176.88 4298443.68 722107.35 4294454.70 19346.18 19.35 148.84 STC23 1.0546E-03 5 1.1628 4.651AP0001830027 MEMC - St Peters Plant 0498-012 Point 703176.88 4298443.68 722107.35 4294454.70 19346.18 19.35 148.84 STC24 1.0546E-03 11.5824 388.7056 10.6680 0.6096AP0001830027 MEMC - St Peters Plant 0498-012 Point 703176.88 4298443.68 722107.35 4294454.70 19346.18 19.35 148.84 STC25 1.0546E-03 11.5824 388.7056 10.6680 0.6096AP0001830027 MEMC - St Peters Plant 0498-012 Volume 703176.88 4298443.68 722107.35 4294454.70 19346.18 19.35 148.84 STC26 1.0287E-03 2.5 0.6977 2.3256AP0001830027 MEMC - St Peters Plant 0997-044 Point 703176.88 4298443.68 722107.35 4294454.70 19346.18 19.35 148.84 STC27 5.7691E-04 11.5824 388.7056 10.1600 0.6096AP0001830027 MEMC - St Peters Plant 0997-044 Point 703176.88 4298443.68 722107.35 4294454.70 19346.18 19.35 148.84 STC28 4.3268E-04 11.5824 388.7056 10.1600 0.6096AP0001830027 MEMC - St Peters Plant 1195-016A Point 703176.88 4298443.68 722107.35 4294454.70 19346.18 19.35 148.84 STC29 1.0529E-04 9.1440 449.8167 10.6680 0.3658AP0001830027 MEMC - St Peters Plant 1195-016A Point 703176.88 4298443.68 722107.35 4294454.70 19346.18 19.35 148.84 STC30 1.9326E-04 9.1440 449.8167 10.6680 0.3658AP0001830027 MEMC - St Peters Plant 1195-016A Volume 703176.88 4298443.68 722107.35 4294454.70 19346.18 19.35 148.84 STC31 1.6573E-02 5 1.1628 4.651AP0001830027 MEMC - St Peters Plant 1195-016A Volume 703176.88 4298443.68 722107.35 4294454.70 19346.18 19.35 148.84 STC32 2.5926E-02 5 1.1628 4.651APA001830029 Reckitt & Colman (Formerly Airwick) 0896-006 Volume 704568.85 4298467.22 722107.35 4294454.70 17991.65 17.99 148.71 STC33 2.2716E-04 5 1.1628 4.651AP0001830038 Leonard's Metal, Inc. 0498-016A Volume 719459.35 4299301.35 722107.35 4294454.70 5522.86 5.52 134.82 STC34 2.8846E-02 5 1.1628 4.651AP0001830076 General Motors 0580-003.. Point 689196.52 4298903.30 722107.35 4294454.70 33210.13 33.21 188.86 STC35 1.1575E+01 76.2000 458.1500 0.0660 3.0480AP0001830076 General Motors 0580-003.. Point 689196.52 4298903.30 722107.35 4294454.70 33210.13 33.21 188.86 STC36 6.1587E-03 10.9728 438.7056 0.1880 0.3658APA001830079 St. Charles County Concrete/Hunt Concrete Company 072002-007 Volume 683554.50 4297271.23 722107.35 4294454.70 38655.59 38.66 201.72 STC37 9.4498E-04 5 1.1628 4.651APA001830079 St. Charles County Concrete/Hunt Concrete Company 072002-007 Volume 683554.50 4297271.23 722107.35 4294454.70 38655.59 38.66 201.72 STC38 1.8144E-01 5 1.1628 4.651AP0001830103 St Joseph Hospital West 0199-012 Point 693168.21 4297207.75 722107.35 4294454.70 29069.80 29.07 158.45 STC39 0.0000E+00 20.1168 366.4833 0.0010 0.9144AP0001830103 St Joseph Hospital West 0199-012 Point 693168.21 4297207.75 722107.35 4294454.70 29069.80 29.07 158.45 STC40 2.8846E-04 20.1168 366.4833 0.0010 0.9144AP0001830103 St Joseph Hospital West 042007-002 Volume 693168.21 4297207.75 722107.35 4294454.70 29069.80 29.07 158.45 STC41 1.3245E+00 5 1.1628 4.651AP0001830103 St Joseph Hospital West 042007-002 Volume 693168.21 4297207.75 722107.35 4294454.70 29069.80 29.07 158.45 STC42 1.4364E-03 5 1.1628 4.651

Metric Units

Landfill Location DistanceFacility ID Plant Name Permit Number Release Type UTM_E_X UTM_N_Y UTM_E_X UTM_N_Y Meters Kilometers Elevation Model I.D. Grams/Second Height Temperature Velocity Diameter Release Height Initial Lateral Initial VerticalAP0001830110 Zoltek Carbon Fibers 0191-005 Point 701578.75 4286201.89 722107.35 4294454.70 22125.38 22.13 183.24 STC43 1.4855E-04 12.1920 885.9278 6.4262 0.7010AP0001830110 Zoltek Carbon Fibers 0191-005 Volume 701578.75 4286201.89 722107.35 4294454.70 22125.38 22.13 183.24 STC44 1.1538E-01 2.5 0.6977 2.3256AP0001830110 Zoltek Carbon Fibers 0191-005 Point 701578.75 4286201.89 722107.35 4294454.70 22125.38 22.13 183.24 STC45 2.9711E-04 14.2342 513.1500 8.7478 0.4267AP0001830110 Zoltek Carbon Fibers 0191-005 Point 701578.75 4286201.89 722107.35 4294454.70 22125.38 22.13 183.24 STC46 2.8846E-05 14.2342 513.1500 8.7478 0.4267AP0001830110 Zoltek Carbon Fibers 0191-005 Point 701578.75 4286201.89 722107.35 4294454.70 22125.38 22.13 183.24 STC47 2.9538E-06 10.9728 1020.9278 9.3472 0.3810AP0001830110 Zoltek Carbon Fibers 0497-016 Point 701578.75 4286201.89 722107.35 4294454.70 22125.38 22.13 183.24 STC48 1.1355E-04 12.1920 783.1500 8.3820 0.6614AP0001830110 Zoltek Carbon Fibers 0997-046 Point 701578.75 4286201.89 722107.35 4294454.70 22125.38 22.13 183.24 STC49 4.3268E-05 14.2342 538.1500 14.3256 0.6096AP0001830179 Novus International Research Center 1183-002 Point 701342.65 4286936.86 722107.35 4294454.70 22083.71 22.08 178.26 STC50 6.4259E-04 7.3152 1088.7056 6.0960 0.7620AP0001830179 Novus International Research Center 0586-001 Point 701342.65 4286936.86 722107.35 4294454.70 22083.71 22.08 178.26 STC51 1.6380E-04 5.7912 922.0389 7.6200 0.5578AP0001830182 Schiermeier Quarry 0899-024 Volume 680246.08 4279452.37 722107.35 4294454.70 44468.37 44.47 205.72 STC52 1.0079E+00 5 1.1628 4.651AP0001830182 Schiermeier Quarry 072003-005 Volume 680246.08 4279452.37 722107.35 4294454.70 44468.37 44.47 205.72 STC53 3.2739E-01 2.5 0.6977 2.3256AP0001830183 St Charles County Animal Control 0699-032 Point 705336.50 4292280.00 722107.35 4294454.70 16911.26 16.91 139.38 STC54 1.5750E-02 7.3152 1033.1500 6.2789 0.3048AP0001830184 True Manufacturing 042004-009A Point 702824.82 4298051.13 722107.35 4294454.70 19615.05 19.62 147.40 STC55 5.4431E-04 9.1440 291.4833 5.4559 0.4054AP0001830184 True Manufacturing 042004-009A Point 702824.82 4298051.13 722107.35 4294454.70 19615.05 19.62 147.40 STC56 5.2061E-04 9.1440 477.5944 12.9337 0.3048AP0001830184 True Manufacturing 042004-009A Volume 702824.82 4298051.13 722107.35 4294454.70 19615.05 19.62 147.40 STC57 6.6175E-04 5 1.1628 4.651AP0001830199 Landvatter Ready Mix, Inc 022007-009 Volume 716032.98 4301626.63 722107.35 4294454.70 9398.65 9.40 134.71 STC58 4.6871E-04 2.5 0.6977 2.3256AP0001830201 T & J Realty, LLC Concrete 062002-008A Volume 678300.65 4297897.04 722107.35 4294454.70 43941.75 43.94 211.24 STC59 2.7215E-01 5 1.1628 4.651AP0001830223 Chemico Systems 052005-013 Point 708031.36 4290638.95 722107.35 4294454.70 14584.02 14.58 150.39 STC60 3.6345E-03 7.0104 1033.1500 5.7404 0.6096AP0001830232 Metro Fill Development 122006-016 Volume 716500.47 4291862.49 722107.35 4294454.70 6177.11 6.18 139.76 STC61 9.4760E-06 2.5 0.6977 2.3256AP0001835015 Nike-IHM 052002-008 Point 701583.68 4286203.80 722107.35 4294454.70 22120.09 22.12 183.72 STC62 1.0080E-03 6.0960 1033.1500 0.0925 0.5334AP0001835015 Nike-IHM 092004-018 Point 701583.68 4286203.80 722107.35 4294454.70 22120.09 22.12 183.72 STC63 1.0080E-03 7.1628 1033.1500 0.0925 0.5334AP0001830130 Blast-Co Contracting Inc. 0795-001 Volume 690179.45 4297813.11 722107.35 4294454.70 32104.05 32.10 167.10 STC64 2.8349E-04 2.5 0.6977 2.3256AP0001830130 Blast-Co Contracting Inc. 0795-001 Volume 690179.45 4297813.11 722107.35 4294454.70 32104.05 32.10 167.10 STC65 3.1449E-02 5 1.1628 4.651APA001830135 St Charles Memorial Garden 0496-002A Point 711283.04 4296674.87 722107.35 4294454.70 11049.65 11.05 150.35 STC66 2.3596E-03 9.1440 922.0389 5.0800 0.5090APA001830135 St Charles Memorial Garden 0496-002A Point 711283.04 4296674.87 722107.35 4294454.70 11049.65 11.05 150.35 STC67 1.7307E-05 9.1440 922.0389 5.0800 0.5090APA001839001 LaFarge Construction Materials-West 072000-012A Volume 685097.79 4297582.66 722107.35 4294454.70 37141.50 37.14 196.81 STC68 1.7974E-06 5 1.1628 4.6512009-04-009 Fred Weber, - O'Fallon Stone Plant 052009-020 Volume 696059.10 4297536.65 722107.35 4294454.70 26229.94 26.23 168.68 STC69 2.0714E-01 5 1.1628 4.6512009-09-040 Pitman Cremation Services 112009-008 Volume 684302.00 4299519.00 722107.35 4294454.70 38143.04 38.14 189.07 STC70 1.0004E-04 2.5 0.6977 2.32562009-09-040 Pitman Cremation Services 112009-008 Volume 684302.00 4299519.00 722107.35 4294454.70 38143.04 38.14 189.07 STC71 1.3734E-02 2.5 0.6977 2.32562007-08-072 Smart Office Advisors 012008-009 Volume 697354.00 4297765.00 722107.35 4294454.70 24973.71 24.97 184.30 STC72 4.1516E-04 5 1.1628 4.6512008-02-001 Western Ready Mix 072009-001 Volume 690122.81 4298937.15 722107.35 4294454.70 32297.10 32.30 184.43 STC73 1.2600E-04 5 1.1628 4.651AP0001830143 Alpla Inc. 112011-010 Volume 704579.75 4298266.33 722107.35 4294454.70 17937.26 17.94 148.26 STC74 1.9640E-06 2.5 0.6977 2.3256AP0001830242 Baue Pet Services 052010-005 Point 711083.11 4297080.45 722107.35 4294454.70 11332.63 11.33 161.62 STC75 7.5598E-03 5.1816 975.9278 0.0975 0.6096AP0001830248 Broder Funeral Services 092011-007 Volume 712323.11 4297917.83 722107.35 4294454.70 10379.05 10.38 146.69 STC76 2.3939E-02 2.5 0.6977 2.3256AP0001830077 O'Fallon Casting, LLC 062011-001 Volume 702942.15 4297573.84 722107.35 4294454.70 19417.36 19.42 151.20 STC77 2.0160E-06 2.5 0.6977 2.3256AP0001830077 O'Fallon Casting, LLC 062011-001 Volume 702942.15 4297573.84 722107.35 4294454.70 19417.36 19.42 151.20 STC78 2.0160E-05 2.5 0.6977 2.3256AP0001830077 O'Fallon Casting, LLC 062011-001 Volume 702942.15 4297573.84 722107.35 4294454.70 19417.36 19.42 151.20 STC79 3.7799E-04 2.5 0.6977 2.3256AP0001830077 O'Fallon Casting, LLC 062011-001 Volume 702942.15 4297573.84 722107.35 4294454.70 19417.36 19.42 151.20 STC80 1.2600E-04 2.5 0.6977 2.3256AP0001830077 O'Fallon Casting, LLC 062011-001 Volume 702942.15 4297573.84 722107.35 4294454.70 19417.36 19.42 151.20 STC81 1.2600E-04 2.5 0.6977 2.3256AP0001830077 O'Fallon Casting, LLC 062011-001 Volume 702942.15 4297573.84 722107.35 4294454.70 19417.36 19.42 151.20 STC82 1.2600E-04 2.5 0.6977 2.3256AP0001830077 O'Fallon Casting, LLC 062011-001 Volume 702942.15 4297573.84 722107.35 4294454.70 19417.36 19.42 151.20 STC83 4.6619E-04 2.5 0.6977 2.3256AP0001830077 O'Fallon Casting, LLC 062011-001 Volume 702942.15 4297573.84 722107.35 4294454.70 19417.36 19.42 151.20 STC84 5.0399E-04 2.5 0.6977 2.3256AP0001830077 O'Fallon Casting, LLC 062011-001 Volume 702942.15 4297573.84 722107.35 4294454.70 19417.36 19.42 151.20 STC85 2.5199E-05 2.5 0.6977 2.3256AP0001830244 Stygar Funeral Service 122010-005 Volume 705425.18 4291770.23 722107.35 4294454.70 16896.78 16.90 143.56 STC86 1.8900E-02 2.5 0.6977 2.3256AP0001830201 T & J Realty, LLC Concrete 012012-005 Volume 678300.65 4297897.04 722107.35 4294454.70 43941.75 43.94 211.24 STC87 9.5014E-04 5 1.1628 4.651AP0001830259 Ground Effects, LLC 112014-006 Volume 687833.12 4299669.99 722107.35 4294454.70 34668.75 34.67 190.21 STC88 2.5199E-04 2.5 0.6977 2.3256AP0001830257 Leonard's Metal Inc. Fountain Lakes 012014-005 Volume 719459.35 4299301.35 722107.35 4294454.70 5522.86 5.52 134.82 STC89 6.1294E-04 5 1.1628 4.651

Metric Units

Landfill Location DistanceFacility ID Plant Name Permit Number Release Type UTM_E_X UTM_N_Y UTM_E_X UTM_N_Y Meters Kilometers Elevation Model I.D. Grams/Second Height Temperature Velocity Diameter Release Height Initial Lateral Initial VerticalAP0000710022 William D. Dawson Inc Quarry 112004-013 Volume 674273.49 4260532.07 722107.35 4294454.70 58641.48 58.64 193.84 Frank1 2.6405E-02 5 1.1628 4.651AP0000710137 Barrett Materials, Inc. 072002-012 Volume 662247.72 4271413.65 722107.35 4294454.70 64140.98 64.14 169.00 Frank2 2.6258E-02 5 1.1628 4.651AP0000710140 Esselte Pendaflex Corporation 092003-003 Point 672137.30 4258703.08 722107.35 4294454.70 61442.53 61.44 178.13 Frank3 1.0096E-04 8.5344 333.1500 2.7940 0.6706AP0000710154 Marble Decor, Inc 092001-017 Volume 674176.76 4261138.81 722107.35 4294454.70 58372.00 58.37 213.58 Frank4 4.1394E-05 2.5 0.6977 2.3256AP0000710157 Plaze, Inc. 0498-018E Volume 675960.95 4247844.89 722107.35 4294454.70 65589.36 65.59 213.55 Frank5 2.3116E-04 5 1.1628 4.651AP0000710157 Plaze, Inc. 1095-004 Volume 675960.95 4247844.89 722107.35 4294454.70 65589.36 65.59 213.55 Frank6 1.1509E-04 5 1.1628 4.651AP0000710158 Shure Manufacturing Corp 0795-015 Volume 670700.53 4271370.95 722107.35 4294454.70 56351.75 56.35 152.01 Frank7 3.9462E-04 2.5 0.6977 2.3256APA000710159 Cupples Products Inc 0995-002 Volume 672687.47 4257973.52 722107.35 4294454.70 61426.39 61.43 171.68 Frank8 1.2371E-04 2.5 0.6977 2.3256APA000710159 Cupples Products Inc 0995-002 Volume 672687.47 4257973.52 722107.35 4294454.70 61426.39 61.43 171.68 Frank9 1.3440E-04 2.5 0.6977 2.3256APA000710159 Cupples Products Inc 0995-002 Volume 672687.47 4257973.52 722107.35 4294454.70 61426.39 61.43 171.68 Frank10 1.3692E-04 2.5 0.6977 2.3256APA000710159 Cupples Products Inc 0995-002 Volume 672687.47 4257973.52 722107.35 4294454.70 61426.39 61.43 171.68 Frank11 1.2007E-04 2.5 0.6977 2.3256AP0000710176 Franklin County Concrete, LLC-Pacific fa 0897-004 Volume 695792.15 4258817.64 722107.35 4294454.70 44300.00 44.30 140.71 Frank12 3.6345E-05 5 1.1628 4.651AP0000710201 Rawlings Sporting Goods 092001-008 Volume 670147.46 4271032.00 722107.35 4294454.70 56995.20 57.00 163.10 Frank13 1.1025E-04 2.5 0.6977 2.3256AP0000710201 Rawlings Sporting Goods 092001-008 Volume 670147.46 4271032.00 722107.35 4294454.70 56995.20 57.00 163.10 Frank14 3.6287E-04 5 1.1628 4.651AP0000710201 Rawlings Sporting Goods 092001-008 Volume 670147.46 4271032.00 722107.35 4294454.70 56995.20 57.00 163.10 Frank15 1.3311E-01 5 1.1628 4.651AP0000710201 Rawlings Sporting Goods 092001-008 Volume 670147.46 4271032.00 722107.35 4294454.70 56995.20 57.00 163.10 Frank16 1.0019E-02 2.5 0.6977 2.3256AP0000710201 Rawlings Sporting Goods 092001-008 Volume 670147.46 4271032.00 722107.35 4294454.70 56995.20 57.00 163.10 Frank17 1.0019E-02 2.5 0.6977 2.3256AP0000710201 Rawlings Sporting Goods 052003-005 Volume 670147.46 4271032.00 722107.35 4294454.70 56995.20 57.00 163.10 Frank18 1.3230E-05 2.5 0.6977 2.3256AP0000710201 Rawlings Sporting Goods 052003-005 Volume 670147.46 4271032.00 722107.35 4294454.70 56995.20 57.00 163.10 Frank19 1.3230E-05 2.5 0.6977 2.3256APA000710124 Gray Summit Research Farm 1286-007 Point 689118.42 4262867.42 722107.35 4294454.70 45673.03 45.67 173.28 Frank20 1.5750E-02 1.8288 894.2611 8.5344 0.2032APA000710124 Gray Summit Research Farm 1193-019 Volume 689118.42 4262867.42 722107.35 4294454.70 45673.03 45.67 173.28 Frank21 1.2600E-02 5 1.1628 4.651APA000710159 Cupples Products Inc 0995-002 Volume 672687.47 4257973.52 722107.35 4294454.70 61426.39 61.43 171.68 Frank22 2.3057E-04 2.5 0.6977 2.3256APA000710159 Cupples Products Inc 0995-002 Volume 672687.47 4257973.52 722107.35 4294454.70 61426.39 61.43 171.68 Frank23 1.4000E-04 2.5 0.6977 2.3256APA000710159 Cupples Products Inc 0995-002 Volume 672687.47 4257973.52 722107.35 4294454.70 61426.39 61.43 171.68 Frank24 1.4000E-04 2.5 0.6977 2.3256APA000710159 Cupples Products Inc 0995-002 Volume 672687.47 4257973.52 722107.35 4294454.70 61426.39 61.43 171.68 Frank25 1.2007E-04 5 1.1628 4.651071-0140 Esselte Pendaflex Corporation 022009-002 Volume 672237.84 4258629.76 722107.35 4294454.70 61403.54 61.40 176.42 Frank26 5.0399E-04 2.5 0.6977 2.3256071-0202 Mid-Missouri Asphalt LLC 012008-001 Volume 673720.90 4245186.18 722107.35 4294454.70 69055.31 69.06 248.47 Frank27 1.9750E+00 5 1.1628 4.651071-0202 Mid-Missouri Asphalt LLC 012008-001 Volume 673720.90 4245186.18 722107.35 4294454.70 69055.31 69.06 248.47 Frank28 2.3221E-01 2.5 0.6977 2.3256071-0181 Pauwels Transformers 012009-010 Volume 669300.87 4270354.32 722107.35 4294454.70 58046.12 58.05 155.19 Frank29 1.2600E-04 2.5 0.6977 2.3256071-0205 True Manufacturing Co. 012008-002 Volume 693325.42 4261620.56 722107.35 4294454.70 43663.26 43.66 156.57 Frank30 7.5598E-03 5 1.1628 4.651AP0000710230 Plaze, Inc 042010-017 Volume 693193.41 4261430.39 722107.35 4294454.70 43893.29 43.89 154.89 Frank31 3.7799E-04 5 1.1628 4.651AP0000710226 Washington Metal Fabricators 012011-006 Volume 672103.29 4260446.24 722107.35 4294454.70 60472.98 60.47 224.18 Frank32 1.1841E-04 2.5 0.6977 2.3256AP0000710226 Washington Metal Fabricators 012011-006 Volume 672103.29 4260446.24 722107.35 4294454.70 60472.98 60.47 224.18 Frank33 7.5181E-04 2.5 0.6977 2.3256AP0000710226 Washington Metal Fabricators 012011-006 Volume 672103.29 4260446.24 722107.35 4294454.70 60472.98 60.47 224.18 Frank34 9.0214E-05 2.5 0.6977 2.3256AP0000710154 Precision Stone Fabricators 072014-005 Volume 674101.35 4261599.18 722107.35 4294454.70 58172.68 58.17 215.74 Frank35 1.7454E-03 2.5 0.6977 2.3256

Metric Units


Bridgeton Landfill, LLC | Sulfur Dioxide Increment Modeling Protocol C-1 Trinity Consultants

ATTACHMENT C: JOHN ZINK HAMWORTHY FLARE RADIANT HEAT FRACTION LETTER

International Headquarters Ingrid McKoy 11920 E. Apache Street Vapor Controls Project Manager Tulsa, Oklahoma 74116 918/234-2917

TO: Mr. Jim Getting.

Bridgeton Landfill LLC, Environmental Manager

DATE: May 28, 2015

REFERENCE: Sales Orders 9128755 & 9136795

Elevated ZEF™ Flare Radiant Heat Fraction

______________________________________ John Zink Hamworthy Combustion (John Zink) has over more than 80 years of combustion experience

and has remained a global leader in emissions-control and clean-air systems, delivering next-generation

technologies backed by proven experience and expertise, along with unmatched service and support.

Since our establishment in 1929, John Zink has more installed equipment than any other manufacturer in

our industry. We have more than 250 U.S. patents (and hundreds more worldwide). Our three research

and development test centers make up the largest and most advanced combustion testing complex in the

industry. Finally, The John Zink Combustion Handbook is an industry standard reference and has been a

top-seller since 2006.

John Zink provided three Elevated ZEF Flares to Bridgeton Landfill LLC (Bridgeton Landfill), one of

which is 14” diameter, (FL-100) and the other two are 16” diameter (FL-120 and FL-140). John Zink

understands that Bridgeton Landfill is required to perform air emission modeling for these flares that, in

part, is based on the calculated radiant heat fraction of the flares.

As part of our design process, John Zink utilizes a proprietary design program that incorporates methods

based on the American Petroleum Institute (API) Standard 521 as well as our own proprietary methods.

This topic is addressed in The John Zink Combustion Handbook and the John Zink Company, Flare

Radiation paper included. The calculation method considers a number of factors including flare tip exit

area, gas composition, and gas flow rate. Our design program is proprietary and as a result we cannot

provide detailed information on the equations that are incorporated in this program. John Zink was asked

by Bridgeton Landfill to run the design program for two scenarios for each of the three flares.

Bridgeton Landfill 05/28/15

John Zink Reference – Sales Orders 9128755 & 9136795

PROPRIETARY AND CONFIDENTIAL Page | 2

johnzinkhamworthy.com/trademarks

The following are the inputs that were entered and the resulting average radiant fraction (for determining

thermal radiation levels at a given point):

Scenario 1- Flare FL-100:

Methane (%): 28

Carbon Dioxide (%): 38

Oxygen (%): 5

Nitrogen (%): 19

Hydrogen (%): 10

Nominal Diameter (in): 14

Gas Temperature (˚F): 100

Flow rate (scfm): 2,327

Calculated Average Radiant Fraction = 0.11


Methane (%): 28


Oxygen (%): 5

Nitrogen (%): 19

Hydrogen (%): 10






Methane (%): 28


Oxygen (%): 5

Nitrogen (%): 19

Hydrogen (%): 10



Flow rate (scfm): 3,430 (exceeds maximum velocity limitation per 40 CFR 60.18)


Bridgeton Landfill 05/28/15

John Zink Reference – Sales Orders 9128755 & 9136795

PROPRIETARY AND CONFIDENTIAL Page | 3

johnzinkhamworthy.com/trademarks


Methane (%): 9.11

Carbon Dioxide (%): 38.99

Oxygen (%): 8.24

Nitrogen (%): 32.52

Hydrogen (%): 11.02

Carbon Monoxide (%): 0.12



Flow rate (scfm): 955



Methane (%): 9.11


Oxygen (%): 8.24

Nitrogen (%): 32.52

Hydrogen (%): 11.02







Methane (%): 9.11


Oxygen (%): 8.24

Nitrogen (%): 32.52

Hydrogen (%): 11.02







Bridgeton Landfill, LLC | Application for Authority to Construct G-1 Trinity Consultants

APPENDIX G: MODELING FILES ON CD


Bridgeton Landfill, LLC | Application for Authority to Construct H-1 Trinity Consultants

APPENDIX H: BACT REPORT

Bes t Avai lable Cont ro l Technology Analys is

Presented to:

B r i d g e t o n La nd f i l l , LL C

13570 Saint Charles Rock Road Bridgeton, Missouri 63044

(314) 706-4558

Presented by:

S C S E N G I N E E R S 4 Executive Boulevard, Suite 303

Suffern, New York 10901 (845) 357-1510

September 18, 2015 File No. 23211003.23

Offices Nationwide www.scsengineers.com

B r i d g e t o n L a n d f i l l , L L C

B A C T A n a l y s i s S e p t e m b e r 1 8 , 2 0 1 5 i

T a b l e o f C o n t e n t s Section Page 1 Introduction .............................................................................................................................................. 1

Landfill Gas Control System ................................................................................................................. 1 Dimethyl Sulfide ...................................................................................................................................... 6

2 All Possible Control Technologies ........................................................................................................ 7 Post-Combustion Flue Gas Desulfurization ......................................................................................... 7 Pre-Combustion Gas Desulfurization ................................................................................................... 8

Physical Adsorption ..................................................................................................................... 8 Solid Chemical Adsorption ......................................................................................................... 9

Iron Sponge ..................................................................................................................... 10 SulfaTreat® and SulfaRite® .......................................................................................... 10

Liquid Phase Absorption .......................................................................................................... 10 Solvent Processes ...................................................................................................................... 11

Physical Solvent .............................................................................................................. 11 Chemical Solvent ............................................................................................................ 12

Liquid Redox .............................................................................................................................. 12 Biological Processes .................................................................................................................. 12

Biocube ............................................................................................................................ 12 Thiopaq ............................................................................................................................ 13

3 Technically Infeasible Options ........................................................................................................... 14 Post-Combustion Flue Gas Desulfurization ...................................................................................... 14 Pre-Combustion Gas Desulfurization ................................................................................................ 14

4 Review of the Remaining Control Technologies.............................................................................. 16 Chemical Scrubbing ............................................................................................................................. 16

Hydros ......................................................................................................................................... 17 Advanced Air Technologies (AAT) ......................................................................................... 18 Duall ............................................................................................................................................ 19 Alternative Scrubber Reagents .............................................................................................. 19 Summary of Chemical Scrubbing ........................................................................................... 19

Liquid Solvent ....................................................................................................................................... 20 Solid Media .......................................................................................................................................... 21

HydroCat .................................................................................................................................... 22 Norit ............................................................................................................................................ 23 TDA Research ............................................................................................................................. 24 Calgon Carbon Corporation................................................................................................... 25 Summary of Solid Media ........................................................................................................ 25

Biological Process ................................................................................................................................ 25 5 Pilot Tests ............................................................................................................................................... 27 6 Evaluation of Chemical Scrubbing .................................................................................................... 28

Control Effectiveness ........................................................................................................................... 28 Emissions................................................................................................................................................. 28 Energy Impacts ..................................................................................................................................... 29


B A C T A n a l y s i s S e p t e m b e r 1 8 , 2 0 1 5 i i

Environmental Impacts ......................................................................................................................... 29 Economic Impacts ................................................................................................................................. 29

7 Evaluation of TDA ................................................................................................................................ 30 Control Effectiveness ........................................................................................................................... 30 Emissions................................................................................................................................................. 30 Energy Impacts ..................................................................................................................................... 30 Environmental Impacts ......................................................................................................................... 31 Economic Impacts ................................................................................................................................. 31

8 Select BACT........................................................................................................................................... 32

L i s t o f F i g u r e s No. Page

All Sulfur Compounds ................................................................................................................. 4 Figure 1. Top Three Sulfur Compounds .................................................................................................... 5 Figure 2. Scrubber Schematic .................................................................................................................. 16 Figure 3. Flow Process of the Nrgtek Process ....................................................................................... 21 Figure 4. Solid Media Schematic ............................................................................................................ 22 Figure 5.

L i s t o f T a b l e s

No. Page Table 1. LFG Flow and Composition ....................................................................................................... 2 Table 2. Sulfur Data (concentrations in ppm ......................................................................................... 3 Table 3. List of Technologies and Fatal Flaw Review ........................................................................ 14 Table 4. Cost Summary ............................................................................................................................ 29 Table 5. Cost Summary ............................................................................................................................ 31

A p p e n d i c e s Appendix A Chemical Scrubbing Cost Estimates Appendix B TDA Cost Estimates


B A C T A n a l y s i s S e p t e m b e r 1 8 , 2 0 1 5

1

1 INTRODUCT ION

Section 165(a)(4) of the Clean Air Act, at 40 CFR 52.21 and 10 CSR 10-0.60(8)(B) outlines the requirement for Best Available Control Technology (BACT) analysis. Although PSD regulation is not applicable, the MDNR has asked that Bridgeton Landfill LLC (Bridgeton LF) proceed with a BACT analysis consistent with this document. The pollutant emitted by Bridgeton Landfill (Landfill) that is subject to analysis is collectively sulfur oxides (SOx), sulfur dioxide and sulfur trioxide.

The BACT requirement is defined in Missouri Rule 10 CSR 10-6.020 as an emission limit based on the maximum degree of pollution reduction achievable on a case-by-case basis taking into consideration energy, environmental, economic and other cost factors. The statutory BACT definition declares that the permitting authority must take into account economic impacts when determining BACT on a case-by-case basis.1 If the cost of reducing emissions with the top control alternative, expressed in dollars per ton, is on the same order as the cost previously borne by other sources of the same type in applying that control alternative, the alternative should initially be considered economically achievable, and therefore acceptable as BACT. To justify elimination of an alternative on these grounds, the applicant can demonstrate that costs of pollutant removal (e.g., dollars per total ton removed) for the control alternative are disproportionately high when compared to the cost of control for the pollutant in recent BACT determinations.

This BACT analysis was conducted in accordance with USEPA “Top Down” method found in the October 1990 draft version of the New Source Review Workshop Manual2. Although PSD and the BACT requirements are not applicable, this same “Top Down” methodology can be utilized for the purposes of demonstrating LAER for a particular project.

The steps outlined in the USEPA manual are as follows:

• Step 1: Identify all control technologies. • Step 2: Eliminate technically infeasible options. • Step 3: Rank the remaining control technologies by control effectiveness. • Step 4: Evaluate the most effective controls and document the results. • Step 5: Select BACT.

L A ND F I L L GA S C O N TR OL S Y S T EM

The landfill gas (LFG) control system at the Bridgeton Landfill consists of the main flare yard located between the North and South Quarries, and a portable back-up flare located in the amphitheater on the west side near the pretreatment facility. On a regular basis, the collected

1 See 42 U.S.C. § 7479(3). 2 U.S. EPA, New Source Review Workshop Manual (Draft): Prevention of Significant Deterioration and Nonattainment Area Permitting, October 1990.


B A C T A n a l y s i s S e p t e m b e r 1 8 , 2 0 1 5 2

LFG is routed to the main flare yard. The portable back-up flare serves as a backup unit to the main flare yard.

The major equipment in the main flare yard consists of an air-cooled heat exchanger (11,500 standard cubic feet per minute (scfm) capacity), the main blower skid (11,100 scfm capacity), and three utility flares (11,500 scfm total capacity). Additionally, there are air compressors and a 1.3 megawatt backup generator located in the main flare yard.

An air-cooled heat exchanger is installed upstream of the blower skid. The fan on this heat exchanger is driven by a 25-horsepower (hp) motor. The heat exchanger performance is dependent on the ambient air temperature, and the LFG inlet temperature and flow. With a LFG inlet temperature of 125 degrees Fahrenheit (F), LFG flow of 11,500 scfm, and ambient air temperature of 90 F, the outlet LFG temperature is designed to be 104 F.

The blower skid contains four Gardner Denver blowers. Each blower can move 3,700 scfm of LFG at an inlet temperature of 140 F. The blower skid can operate up to three blowers simultaneously, with the fourth blower being used as a backup.

Three utility flares are operational. Each utility flare has its own flow meter and can be controlled independently from the other flares. For flash-back protection, each flare has a liquid seal along the main header line to the flare. Each flare also has a bypass line, so that maintenance of the liquid seals or knock-out vessels can be done without taking the flare out of service.

The characteristics of the collected LFG are summarized in Tables 1 and 2.

T a b l e 1 . L F G F l o w a n d C o m p o s i t i o n

Parameter Value Units Total reduced sulfur concentration, inlet LFG (see detail in Table 2)

1,141 ppmv

LFG flow rate (see section 3 of application)

6031 scfm

Methane (CH4) 9 percent Carbon dioxide (CO2) 35 percent Oxygen (O2) 10 percent Nitrogen N2) 37 percent Hydrogen (H2) 9 percent Inlet LFG temperature 120 °F LFG moisture content 100 %, saturated Inlet LFG pressure 20-30 in-w.c. gauge



T a b l e 2 . S u l f u r D a t a ( c o n c e n t r a t i o n i n p p m )

Parameter Average Minimum Maximum Dimethyl Sulfide (DMS) 795 390 1079 Ethyl Mercaptan 1.52 0.40 2.2 Diethyl Sulfide 0.17 0.04 0.44 Dimethyl Disulfide (DMDS) 81 15 310 Methyl ethyl Sulfide 1.92 0.04 5.78 Hydrogen Sulfide (H2S) 18.30 0.23 32.6 Isopropyl Mercaptan 0.43 0.10 0.76 Methyl Mercaptan 152 100 250 Carbonyl Sulfide 0.27 0.20 0.36 Carbon Disulfide 0.26 0.22 0.33 Total Reduced Sulfur as H2S 1,141 599 1,700

The sulfur data used for this BACT analysis and the June 2015 pilot tests include analytical data from July 2014 through April 2015. The flow design point considers recent flow verification work undertaken by Bridgeton LF and its other consultants over the past three months. Graphs of the data are presented on the following pages.



4

1. Testing data provided by Bridgeton LF; PDF entitled, ""Bridgeton Sulfur Analytical Reports April 2014 through April 2015.

A l l S u l f u r C o m p o u n d s F i g u r e 1 .

0.01

0.1

1

10

100

1000

10000

ppm

v



. Note: Testing data provided by Bridgeton LF; PDF entitled, ""Bridgeton Sulfur Analytical Reports April 2014 through April 2015"

T o p T h r e e S u l f u r C o m p o u n d s F i g u r e 2 .

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1800

Dimethyl Sulfide (DMS) Dimethyl Disulfide (DMDS) Methyl Mercaptan Total Reduced Sulfur as H2S

ppm

v

Average: 795 ppmv Max: 1079 ppmv



Average: 1141 ppm Max: 1700 ppmv



6

D I M E TH Y L S U L F I D E

As shown in Table 2, dimethyl sulfide (CH3SCH3, DMS) represents about 70 percent of the total reduced sulfur (TRS), while hydrogen sulfide (H2S) is less than 2 percent of the TRS. Typically, H2S represents over 90 percent of the TRS in a typical LFG stream. There are numerous sulfur removal technologies that specifically target H2S.

Chemically, DMS is an extremely stable molecule and normally undergoes reactions only at the sulfur atom. In liquid form (boiling point of 99°F), DMS is miscible with most common organic solvents. DMS is capable of dissolving a wide range of both organic and inorganic materials, and forms stable complexes with many inorganic compounds.

DMS is oxidized by many reagents such as hydrogen peroxide, nitrogen dioxide, nitric acid, permanganate, chromic oxide, chromate ion, hypochlorite, ozone and others. The oxidation takes place in stepwise fashion and stops at the sulfoxide stage under anhydrous conditions, when nitrogen dioxide, tetroxide or air, containing nitrogen oxide as catalyst, is used. The other oxidants can be used to yield either the sulfoxide or the sulfone (e.g., dimethyl sulfoxide (DMSO) or dimethyl sulfone (DMSO2)).

Most sulfur removal technologies, as detailed below, are available to remove H2S, but most of these are not effective in removing complex organic sulfur compounds, such as DMS. Further, iron sponge and iron-oxide based scavengers also catalyze formation of complex di- and tri-sulfides in the presence of water, which are more difficult to remove than the original H2S or mercaptan. DMS is often the most difficult organic sulfur compound to remove.



7

2 ALL POSS IB LE CONTROL TECHNOLOGIES

Combustion of LFG in a flare usually results in emissions of SOx, which are regulated by the Landfill’s permit. SOx emissions can be reduced through a number of different processes and control technologies. The two principal approaches to SOx emissions reductions are post-combustion flue gas desulfurization and pre-combustion treatment of the gas to remove sulfur compounds. P OS T -C OMB U S T I ON F LU E GA S D ES U L F U R I Z A T I O N

Flue gas desulfurization (FGD) processes, also referred to as “back end” or “post-combustion” treatment, are commonly utilized at power plants and industrial processes where removal of sulfur compounds prior to combustion is infeasible. FGD processes typically utilize chemicals such as lime, sodium carbonate or magnesium oxide to “scrub” SOx compounds from the flue gas through either wet or dry absorption systems. Generally, FGD processes must treat hot gases (greater than 1000 degrees F) at relatively high volumetric flow rates (due to increased temperature and the inclusion of combustion air), compared to pre-combustion treatment systems.

Due to the size and complexity of FGD systems, and the fact that more practical pretreatment options are typically available for the control of SOx emissions from LFG combustion, FGD systems are technically infeasible for typical LFG applications. Bridgeton Landfill LLC, their consultants, and SCS have not been able to find any information or project examples related to use of a FGD system at a landfill for a landfill gas project or any other similar biogas application. Moreover, use of an FGD post combustion treatment system is not possible in conjunction with utility flare devices, such as those used at the Landfill, since the flue gases are not contained. In order for FGD technology to be employed at the Landfill, Bridgeton LF would need to replace the existing utility flares with an alternative combustion technology (e.g., enclosed thermal oxidizer technology), which is generally considered unsuitable for this project, due to the unique nature of the Bridgeton Landfill and the operational requirements of the gas collection and control system.

In 2013, the current utility flares were permitted and installed as replacement control devices for the then-existing enclosed flares. As noted in the Saint Louis County air permit (#7787, 7788, and 7790; modification to #7736), the utility flares are better suited than enclosed flares for combusting the quality of landfill gas which is generated at the landfill. The replacement of enclosed flares with utility flares at the facility were a proactive measure sought by the Bridgeton Landfill team and approved by Saint Louis County to improve flare operational reliability, and minimize the potential for downtime and other operational issues. Utility flares were selected due to the need to accommodate changing LFG flow conditions at the site, low levels of methane in the LFG, the presence of hydrogen in the LFG, the dynamic nature of gas collection (i.e., varying volume) at the facility, and the need for a flare technology with a high turndown ratio (i.e., the ability to handle high and low flows in one device).

Use of enclosed combustion devices for LFG control at the Landfill, particularly operationally-sensitive combustion technology such as a thermal oxidizer, is considered technically infeasible because use of this combustion technology at Bridgeton landfill would result in increased



8

downtime and decreased reliability of the LFG collection and control system. Increased downtime and decreased reliability would negatively impact on achievement of the primary objectives of the Bridgeton landfill LFG system, which is control of landfill emissions, control of landfill gas odors and control of landfill gas subsurface migration.

P R E -C O MB U S T I O N GA S D ES U L FU R I Z A T I O N

Pretreatment or “scrubbing” of sulfur-containing compounds from LFG prior to combustion is the typical approach to reducing SOx emissions associated with LFG systems. H2S typically comprises greater than 90 percent of the sulfur compounds present in LFG, so the most practical approach to reducing SOx emissions is usually through removal of H2S from the LFG prior to combustion. Further, there are many H2S removal technologies that are commercially available.

However, as shown in Table 2, most of the sulfur in the LFG at the Landfill is not in the form of H2S. Additionally, there are limited removal technologies that target sulfur compounds other than H2S and, in particular, technologies that can remove DMS.

Sulfur removal technologies are typically grouped per the following process categories:

• Physical Adsorption • Solid Chemical Adsorption • Liquid Phase Absorption • Solvent Processes • Liquid Redox • Biological Processes

One advantage for some of the processes is that regeneration of the scrubbing media can often be accomplished. Changing the media temperature or pressure, or by purging the media with a purge gas, can release the sulfur compounds from the media, after separation from the process gas stream.

However, for some processes, regeneration of the media results in the sulfur compounds returning to the gas phase, in a concentrated form. This concentrated sulfur-laden gas must then be disposed, which is not an option for this project. Hence, any process that results in a gaseous waste stream is not a viable option for the Landfill.

In addition to the below treatment methods, the feasibility of DMS removal via condensation (by cooling the gas) and then liquid-phase treatment of a condensed DMS stream was also considered. However, evaluation of this treatment concept found this to be technically infeasible, based on an engineering analysis of the vapor-liquid equilibrium of the LFG stream using the Deshmukh-Mather model. Less than 0.2 percent of the DMS condenses when the LFG is cooled to 40 F.

P h y s i c a l A d s o r p t i o n

Physical adsorption relies on adsorption of a gas-phase particle onto the surface of a solid media adsorbent. The physical adsorption process passes the raw gas through an adsorption bed of



9

media, which selectively adsorbs the contaminant. One of the benefits of physical adsorption processes is that adsorption can achieve sulfur removal at ambient pressures and temperatures.

Adsorption processes using adsorbents (e.g., zeolites, activated carbon, activated alumina) are widely used to remove a wide range of sulfur compounds from gaseous emissions. The adsorption media eventually becomes saturated with the contaminant and the media must be replaced or regenerated. For continuous removal, two similar beds are typically designed in parallel so that one is being used for adsorption while the other one is being regenerated or replaced.

Regeneration of the media can often be accomplished. Changing the media temperature (temperature swing adsorption), pressure (pressure swing adsorption), or by purging the media with a specified purge gas can release the adsorbed contaminant from the media bed. Regeneration of the adsorption bed results in the contaminant returning to the gas phase, in a concentrated form. This concentrated contaminant gas must be then be disposed, which is not possible for our specific case at the Landfill.

Non-regenerative physical adsorption processes can be used but the media costs will be higher in comparison to a regenerative process.

High porosity and surface area are desirable attributes in the adsorption media, allowing more physical contact area for adsorption. Activated carbons are porous sorbents that can be utilized in removing sulfur compounds, but offer relatively low sulfur-adsorption capacity at ambient temperature. The adsorption capacity of activated carbons is determined by their physical or porous structure, but is also strongly influenced by their chemical structure. To improve the sorbent performance, surface modification by oxidation or metal impregnation has been used. Iron-loaded carbon has been found to be relatively more efficient for DMS removal.

Moisture content can have an effect on the adsorption and selectivity of the sorbent. Depending on the sorbent and the nature of the sulfur species, water either competes for adsorption sites or induces side reactions. For example, zeolites and activated alumina are used in commercial drying applications because they are hydrophilic and adsorb water strongly. LFG dehydration is likely needed, if a physical adsorption process is used.

S o l i d C h e m i c a l A d s o r p t i o n

Solid chemical adsorption differs from physical adsorption in that there is a chemical interaction between the contaminant and the surface of the adsorbent which forms a new chemical compound. As a result, the chemical reactions are less easily reversed and spent adsorbent media often cannot be regenerated for reuse. Solid chemical adsorption processes are commonly referred to as “solid scavengers”.

Solid scavengers use a hydrated metallic oxide or alkaline-based adsorbent media packed in a tower or vessel through which the raw gas passes to selectively remove sulfur compounds. The metallic oxide adsorbent media uses a variety of different metals including iron, nickel and zinc.

Some common approaches are discussed below.



1 0

Iron Sponge

The iron sponge technology is one of the oldest sulfur removal technologies available and has been proven effective in LFG applications for H2S removal. An iron sponge uses an oxidation bed made of wood chips impregnated with hydrated iron oxide, Fe2O3 (iron sponge media). The process consists of passing the gas through a packed bed of iron sponge media in a vessel. Pressure loss through the media bed is generally below 1 pound per square inch gauge (psig).

The iron oxide reacts with H2S and mercaptans to produce iron sulfide and water. To perform effectively, the process must be maintained within a specified moisture level range. This moisture level is usually met if the gas is saturated with water vapor, as is generally the case with LFG. However, additional water may need to be sprayed at the top of the media bed to maintain ideal moisture levels.

Based on discussions in 2014, as well as prior success with the installation and implementation of odor mitigation technology at landfills, MV Technologies (MVT), an iron sponge vendor, was identified as a potential candidate technology for odor mitigation at the Bridgeton Landfill. Working with Bridgeton and MVT personnel, SCS developed a pilot test work plan, and presented it to St. Louis County, SWMP on July 17, 2014, and MDNR SWMP on July 24, 2014. the Pilot system. The results of the pilot tests, conducted in August and September 2014, indicated that the MVT technology is not effective at the removal of DMS. H2S and mercaptans were removed by the MVT technology.

SulfaTreat® and SulfaRite®

SulfaTreat® and SulfaRite® are fixed-bed processes for the removal of H2S, which use similar technology and have similar operating costs. The processes use dry, granular, iron-based reactant (ferric oxide and triferric tetroxide) in a packed steel or fiberglass vessel. Systems can be designed with either a single vessel, or in a lead-lag configuration with two vessels, which increases the efficiency of the media usage in terms of sulfur removal capacity and provides system redundancy during media change-outs. During the sulfur removal process, media is converted to an environmentally-safe compound FeS2, which is iron pyrite or “fool’s gold”.

L i q u i d P h a s e A b s o r p t i o n

Liquid phase absorption processes, commonly referred to as wet scrubbers or liquid scavengers, encompass a variety of technologies, based on different chemical reactions and processes. Generally, liquid scavengers cause sulfur compounds to be absorbed into the scrubbing liquid by maximizing contact between the gas and liquid. Liquid scrubbers typically utilize packed bubble towers, spray towers or venturi absorbers. These technologies are typically more complex and expensive to operate then solid scavenger systems, but are generally less capital intensive to construct.

Acid gases like H2S react with alkaline salt and caustic-based solutions such as sodium hydroxide or caustic soda (NaOH), sodium carbonate (NaCO2), sodium nitrite (NaON), potassium carbonate (K2CO3), and various other alkaline metal salts. Caustic-based hydroxide solutions are usually effective at removing H2S and the caustic can be regenerated.



1 1

If a significant CO2 concentration is present, a side reaction can consume a substantial amount of caustic and form deposits, due to the limited solubility of Na2CO3 in water. The other concern in a caustic scrubber system is the dependence on acid/base equilibrium. The spent solution will liberate H2S, if the pH is not maintained above 9.

Triazine is an aminal-based oxidizing compound that, unlike amine absorption, removes H2S selectively and not CO2. Triazines are produced from the reaction of primary amines with aldehydes, specifically formaldehyde. Triazine solutions are typically non-regenerative, and used either in a packed absorption bubble tower or spray injection tower designed specifically for the project application. Triazine-based compounds generally have high pH, greater than 10, and low flash point temperatures, between 120°F and 140°F. While removal of H2S is documented for triazines, scavenging of mercaptans is less efficient than that for hydrogen sulfide.

S o l v e n t P r o c e s s e s

The solvent-type processes can be subdivided into three generic types:

• Physical solvent

• Chemical solvent

• Mixed chemical/physical

There are many commercial installations of each type, treating a variety of gases. For synthesis gas treating, the principal chemical-type solvents are aqueous amines, with MDEA (methyl diethanol amine) being a typical selection. Amine-based solvents have been preferred by the natural gas industry over the physical solvents. The physical solvents co-absorb hydrocarbons to a much greater extent than the amines, causing loss of valuable hydrocarbons. However, since LFG does not contain appreciable quantities of hydrocarbons besides methane, physical solvents are also used for LFG clean-up.

Examples of physical solvents are methanol and dimethyl ether of polyethylene glycol, as represented by the Rectisol and the Selexol processes, respectively. The mixed chemical/physical processes usually employ mixtures of an amine and a physical solvent in an effort to capture the best characteristics of each solvent. The best known example of the mixed/chemical solvent process is Sulfinol, a mixture of sulfolane (tetrahydrothiophene dioxide) and an aqueous solution of an amine, either DIPA (diisopropanol amine) or MDEA.

Physical Solvent

Physical solvent processes can be configured to take advantage of their high H2S/CO2 selectivity. This is usually accomplished by staging absorption for high H2S removal, followed by CO2 removal.

A number of physical solvents are available for use in gas treating processes. Four of the solvents are: dimethyl ether of polyethylene glycol (DEPG), propylene carbonate (PC), N-methyl-2-pyrrolidone (NMP), and methanol (MeOH). The selection of a physical solvent process depends on process objectives and characteristics of the solvents.



1 2

DEPG is a mixture of dimethyl ethers of polyethylene glycol used to physically absorb H2S, CO2, and mercaptans from gas streams. Solvents containing DEPG are licensed and/or manufactured by several companies including Coastal Chemical Company (as Coastal AGR), Dow (Selexol), and UOP (Selexol). Other process suppliers, such as Clariant, offer similar solvents, including a family of dialkyl ethers of polyethylene glycol under the Genosorb® name

The solvent’s capacity for absorbing acid gases increases as the temperature is decreased. The simplest version of a physical solvent process involves absorption followed by regeneration of the solvent by flashing to atmospheric pressure or vacuum, or by inert gas stripping.

Chemical Solvent

Amine scrubbing processes are based on chemical absorption, where removal of a gas depends on a loose chemical bond between the gas component and the amine. Three main types of amines are used commercially:

• Primary amine, usually MEA (monoethanolamine)

• Secondary amine, usually DEA (diethanol amine)

• Tertiary amine, usually MDEA (methyl diethanol amine)

The primary amines form the most stable bond with the gas, followed by the secondary amines. The least stable bond is formed by the tertiary amine. The regeneration of chemical solvents is achieved by the application of heat.

L i q u i d R e d o x

The wet oxidation processes are based on reduction-oxidation (redox) chemistry to oxidize H2S to elemental sulfur in an alkaline solution containing an oxygen carrier. Iron is one of the oxygen carriers that are used.

The best examples of the processes using iron as a carrier are LO-CAT and SulFerox. LO-CAT was developed by ARI Technologies in the 1970s. The SulFerox process was developed by Shell Oil and Dow Chemical in the 1980s.

B i o l o g i c a l P r o c e s s e s

Biologically-enhanced treatment processes utilize bacteria to enhance sulfur removal through use of either a biologically-active media or through biological regeneration of a liquid absorbant solution. A few technologies are discussed below.

Biocube

The Biocube process, developed by Biorem Technologies, uses a biologically active compost-type media, composed of organic carbon and nutrients. A liquid film surrounding the particles of the media absorb contaminants (H2S and other odorous compounds) from the gas. The biologically-active media contains microbes that oxidize the contaminants to sulfates, water and carbon dioxide using ambient oxygen and enzymes produced by the microbes. Water is



1 3

pumped over the filter continually to enhance bacterial growth and contaminant removal efficiency.

Thiopaq

The Thiopaq process is a bio-desulfurization technology developed by Shell-Paques. The Thiopaq process combines the use of a liquid scrubber with a biological regeneration process, which produces elemental sulfur as an end product.



1 4

3 TECHN ICALLY INFEAS IB LE OPT IONS

P OS T -C OMB U S T I ON F LU E GA S D ES U L F U R I Z A T I O N

For the reasons discussed in Section 2 of this document, use of an FGD post combustion treatment system is technically infeasible for use with utility flare devices, such as those used at the Landfill. The utility flares are better suited than enclosed flares for combusting the quality and unique characteristics of landfill gas, which is currently collected from the Bridgeton Landfill. Further, SCS, Bridgeton Landfill, and the many contractors and experts consulted during the past year have no knowledge of FGD technology being applied to landfills and landfill gas control equipment.

P R E -C O MB U S T I O N GA S D ES U L FU R I Z A T I O N

Numerous vendors for pre-combustion treatment systems were contacted about the project and provided with the LFG characteristics and design parameters. Based on discussions with the vendors, fatal flaws relative to that particular vendor/technology, if any, were identified. The list of vendors is provided in Table 3. Fatal flaws are listed in Table 3 for certain technologies, which are then considered technically infeasible.

T a b l e 3 . L i s t o f T e c h n o l o g i e s a n d F a t a l F l a w R e v i e w

Vendor Technology Consider further?; if no, list Fatal Flaw

HydroCat Industries Granular media; solid chemical adsorption

Yes, consider further; see Section 4

Marcab Iron sponge; solid chemical adsorption

No, ineffective on heavy, organic sulfur compounds

MiSwaco SulfaTreat; solid chemical adsorption

No, ineffective removal of DMS

Cameron Thiopaq; biological process No, ineffective removal of DMS Carbtrol Activated carbon; physical

adsorption No, unpredictable removal of sulfur compounds at inlet conc. exceeding 100 ppm

Norit Activated carbon; physical adsorption


TDA Research/SulfaTrap

Proprietary adsorbent; physical adsorption


Calgon Carbon Corporation

Activated carbon; physical adsorption


Merichem Lo-CAT; liquid redox No, ineffective removal of DMS Hydros Chemical scrubber; liquid

phase absorption Yes, consider further; see Section 4

Advanced Air Technologies (AAT)

Chemical scrubber; liquid phase absorption


Dow Selexol; physical solvent No, gaseous waste stream Shell CANSOLV; post-combustion No, gaseous waste stream Interra Global Molecular sieve; physical

adsorption No, ineffective removal of DMS



1 5

T a b l e 3 . L i s t o f T e c h n o l o g i e s a n d F a t a l F l a w R e v i e w ( C o n t ’ d )

Vendor Technology Consider further? If no, list Fatal Flaw?

BASF Selexsorb adsorbent; physical adsorption

No, ineffective removal of DMS

Clariant Genosorb; physical solvent No, gaseous waste stream Air Liquide Rectisol; physical solvent No, process stream too small IES Triethylene glycol; physical

solvent No, ineffective removal of sulfur compounds

UOP TSA; physical solvent No, process stream too small Guild Process designer No, gaseous waste stream John Zink Liquid seals with adsorbent No, liquid seals are designed for a

specific purpose and process. Performance of the liquid seal would decline. Adsorbent to use is unknown.

MV Technologies Iron Sponge; solid chemical adsorbent

No, ineffective removal of DMS; see pilot test report dated November 2014

BioAir Solutions Biotrickling filter; biological process


Biorem Biofilter; biotrickling filter; biological process

No, Biorem not comfortable providing a biological system for the high levels of sulfur compounds

KCH Scrubber; liquid phase scrubber

No, DMS removal is not a KCH scrubber application

NRGtek Liquid solvent scrubber; physical solvent


PRD Tech Biotrickling filter; biological process

No; no performance or other data provided

Q2 Amine scavenger; chemical solvent

No, triazine-based products will not remove DMS

Envirogen Biofilter; biological process No, Envirogen has no experience with DMS, which is one of the most difficult compounds to treat

Gasho/Theia Air Biotrickling filter; biological process

No; no performance or other data provided

Duall Air Chemical scrubber; liquid phase scrubber


Coastal Chemical Amines, glycols, media, desiccants; various technology

No, technologies are not applicable at 1 psig operating pressure



1 6

4 REV I EW OF THE R EMA IN ING CONTROL TECHNOLOGIES

Based on the initial review presented in Section 3, 9 of the 32 pre-combustion treatment systems (three general process technologies) appear potentially viable. Each of the potentially viable systems is discussed and reviewed below, grouped by process category.

C H E M I C A L S C R U B B I NG

Chemical scrubbing technologies (i.e., liquid phase absorption; wet scrubbers; liquid scavengers) encompass a variety of technologies, based on different chemical reactions and processes. Generally, chemical scrubbers cause sulfur compounds to be absorbed into the scrubbing liquid by maximizing contact between the gas and liquid. Liquid scrubbers typically utilize packed bubble towers, spray towers or venturi absorbers.

Three vendor systems, presented in Table 3, rely on chemical scrubbing and include:

• Hydros Environmental Diagnostics Inc. (Hydros) • Advanced Air Technologies (AAT) • Duall

Generally, each of these systems uses a scrubber, which is operated with the vendor’s selected liquid removal agent (see generic schematic below). Further information on the above three vendors are discussed below.

S c r u b b e r S c h e m a t i c F i g u r e 3 .



1 7

H y d r o s

Hydros has developed a scrubber system, which utilizes oxidation/absorption using sodium hypochlorite (NaOCl; bleach) and sodium hydroxide (NaOH; caustic soda) to selectively remove sulfur compounds from LFG. NaOCl is used as an oxidizing agent and NaOH is used to regulate pH and promote efficient absorption of oxidized sulfur compounds. The process regulates pH and ORP (oxygen-reduction potential) to target removal of sulfur compounds and to limit use of chemicals.

The system produces an aqueous effluent with sulfur-based salt and oxidized DMS by-products, in addition to sodium chloride. The reaction of sulfur compounds with NaOCl creates sulfoxides, sulfones and sulfates. These by-products are water-soluble, stable and treatable under certain conditions.

A description of the scrubber operation is as follows:

1. Gas from the landfill enters the scrubber from the bottom and passes up through a matrix.

2. Blended reagents sodium hydroxide, sodium hypochlorite and water are sprayed from above into the matrix, and the sulfur compounds are converted from a gas to a liquid.

3. The waste liquid from the reaction, which contains 95 percent water, is directed to treatment and disposal.

4. The treated gas exits the top of the scrubber and is directed to the flare.

The major equipment and components include scrubber vessels, chemical storage tanks, process piping, chemical pumps, and controls. Hydros recommends a 3-vessel system, which would utilize 2 vessels on-line at a time, operating in series. The scrubbing solutions are circulated individually through each vessel. There is a connection, however, that allows transfer of a portion of the second scrubber recirculating solution to the first scrubber recirculating solution. This configuration essentially allows the second scrubber to maintain a fresh solution for polishing without wasting any solution, as the remaining activity of the solution is used at the first scrubber. This also allows fresh solution to be fed at only one location, directly to the second scrubber. The spent solution should also be discharged at only one location; i.e., from the first vessel recirculating line.

This configuration is recommended by Hydros as the first vessel can provide bulk sulfur removal, while the second can provide polishing of any remaining sulfur compounds in order to consistently meet the removal goal.

The materials selected for fabrication of the system are not expected to have compatibility issues. The instrumentation and associated equipment proposed by Hydros were reviewed and appeared to be fairly comprehensive. Sizing calculations and vessel design were not provided. Hydros prefers that the scrubber system be located on the vacuum side of the blower system. Hydros estimates the head loss as 12 to 18 inches of water column (in-w.c.), but adjustments to the design can reduce the head loss, as necessary.



1 8

Hydros initially estimated a chemical usage of 14 gallons per hour (GPH) for both NaOCl and NaOH, and water usage at 3000 to 5000 gallons per day.

Our primary concern with the proposed Hydros system is the dosage estimate for the oxidizing chemical (NaOCl). At optimal conditions, 1 mole of NaOCl can theoretically remove a maximum of 1 mole of a sulfur-based compound. This stoichiometry assumes, however, that only the dimethyl sulfoxide (DMSO) product is created. The actual stoichiometry is expected to be higher, due to a number of other reactions that can take place.

At high enough molar ratios and alkaline pH, NaOCl will further oxidize DMSO to dimethyl sulfone at a 1:1 mole ratio. In addition, a number of other reactions may take place that produce formaldehyde, methanesulfonyl chloride, and several other by-products. As high molar ratios and alkaline pH will be necessary to promote efficient reaction kinetics and mass transfer, it is expected that more than 2 moles of NaOCl will be required to remove 1 mole of sulfur. Given the amount and type of sulfur contaminants present, it was initially estimated that 4 to 5 grams of NaOCl will be required to remove 1 gram of sulfur.

Given this criteria, it is estimated that about 300 GPH of NaOCl will be needed. Thus, the 14 GPH dosage indicated by Hydros is far lower than our estimate. Moreover, the pilot test results indicate an even higher chemical consumption. (A summary of field tests is provided in Section 5.)

Spent solution disposal needs to be evaluated based on the requirements for wastewater disposal (e.g., pH, chlorine, sulfur).

A d v a n c e d A i r T e c h n o l o g i e s ( A A T )

Advanced Air Technologies (AAT) can also provide a scrubber system for sulfur removal utilizing NaOCl as an oxidizing agent and NaOH to regulate pH and promote efficient reaction of sulfur compounds. The system produces an aqueous effluent with sulfur-based salt by-products and sodium chloride. The reaction of sulfur compounds with NaOCl creates sulfoxides, sulfones and sulfates. These by-products are water-soluble, stable and treatable at the correct conditions.

AAT recommends a single-scrubber system (30-foot tall vessel on 11-foot by 11-foot pad). Gas is directed from the blower discharge to the scrubber. The scrubber uses a vertical counter-flow packed column to bring the gas into intimate contact with a recirculating scrubbing solution. The scrubbing solution is NaOH and NaOCl, whose levels are maintained by monitoring pH and ORP, respectively. Water is continuously added, producing a gravity overflow to a drain.

The scrubber uses two (2) operating 10-hp recirculation pumps. AAT estimates water usage at 1 to 2 gpm and scrubber pressure drop at 4 in-w.c. These estimates need to be refined during the testing and design phase.

AAT estimates a chemical usage of 280 GPH for NaOCl (12.5% vol.) and 25 GPH for NaOH (50% vol.). The chemical dosage is much higher in comparison to Hydros’ estimate. Our initial estimates for chemical usage are closer to AAT than Hydros. Estimates for chemical dosage



1 9

have to be developed based on an on-site pilot test. (A summary of field tests is provided in Section 5.)

Spent solution disposal needs to be evaluated based on requirements for water disposal (e.g., pH, chlorine, sulfur).

D u a l l

Duall Air can also provide a scrubber vessel for sulfur removal utilizing any desired additive for sulfur removal and pH control agent. Limited information was provided by Duall to date, but, if a chemical scrubber system is selected, a quote could be solicited from Duall.

A l t e r n a t i v e S c r u b b e r R e a g e n t s

Nexo Solutions (Nexo) investigated use of alternative scrubber reagents (hydrogen peroxide and ozone) and on-site generation of necessary chemicals (using chlorine gas or solid calcium hypochlorite). These are process concepts suggested by Nexo, not by the vendors.

Hydrogen peroxide (H2O2) and ozone (O3) can be used separately or in combination with one another (i.e., peroxone). The reaction of sulfur compounds with H2O2 and/or O3 creates sulfoxides, sulfones and sulfates. These by-products are water-soluble, stable and readily treatable under correct conditions. A chemical usage requirement of 8.7 GPH for H2O2 (50% vol.) alone and 25 GPH for NaOH (50% vol.) is projected. If O3 is utilized, a generator would need to be installed to convert oxygen in air to O3. This ozone gas would then be dissolved into water using an ozone injection system.

In combination, H2O2 and O3 oxidize sulfur contaminants via a different mechanism than when added alone. The H2O2/O3 combination produces hydroxyl radicals that have a much higher redox potential than H2O2 or O3 by themselves. The stoichiometry required for sulfur contamination removal is lowered as well, and hence a smaller amount of each chemical is required. The total amount (and ratio) of chemicals required may in fact be much less. For this reason, it is recommended that the optimal dosage of H2O2/O3 be estimated through field testing and compared to that required for hypochlorite solution. The efficiency of each oxidant should be compared during field testing. A field test was conducted in June 2015; a summary of field tests is provided in Section 5.

S u m m a r y o f C h e m i c a l S c r u b b i n g

From a technical standpoint, the most effective solution appears to be a scrubbing system with hypochlorite solution, as proposed by Hydros and AAT. This option has proven and demonstrated efficacy for H2S removal from LFG, and has been used previously in other industries. However, for DMS removal, the efficiency of each oxidant needs to be demonstrated during field testing. A field test was conducted in June 2015; a summary of field tests is provided in Section 5.



2 0

L I Q U I D S O LV ENT

A number of physical solvents are available for use in gas treating processes, including dimethyl ether of polyethylene glycol (DEPG), propylene carbonate (PC), N-methyl-2-pyrrolidone (NMP), and methanol (MeOH). The selection of a physical solvent process depends on process objectives and characteristics of the solvents. Of note, DMS has a relatively high solubility in NMP.

Nrgtek, Inc. recommended a multi-stage removal system for DMS. A 2-stage system was recommended in which each system operates in parallel. Material compatibility, packing and solvent selection, operating conditions, and sizing parameters need to be assessed.

The Nrgtek process consists of a two-stage liquid scrubber solvent media, selected for preferential absorption / dissolution of dimethyl sulfide and other organic sulfur species, in preference to methane, hydrogen, carbon dioxide and other contaminants. The solvent media, once saturated with sulfur species, is then passed through two special vessels, the electrochemical catalytic converter (ECC), wherein the dimethyl sulfide is oxidized to sulfoxide in one system, and the hydrogen sulfide and mercaptan species are electro-chemically converted to elemental sulfur in the other system. The solvent is continuously recycled to the scrubber system for further removal of sulfur species from the landfill gas, in a closed loop.

A conceptual process flow diagram of the Nrgtek process for sulfur removal is as follows:



2 1

F l o w P r o c e s s o f t h e N r g t e k P r o c e s s F i g u r e 4 . Nrgtek’s proposed sulfur treatment system is stated to be capable of reducing the sulfide levels (both H2S and organic sulfur species) by at least 90 percent. Operating requirements include solvent replacement and electrical energy.

While it is a promising technology, the reliability of Nrgtek’s proposed system and the amount of maintenance and labor required for its efficient operation is unknown at this stage, and the potential for unexpected shutdowns or poor performance is of concern. The lack of case history for this technology in this application carries risk. The theory of the system’s operation appears sound, but the field performance of the system (especially for DMS removal) is not well known. Reliability issues are also of concern due to the process equipment. Inefficient absorption of sulfur contamination into the scrubbing solvent and poor conversion or separation efficiency in the electrochemical catalytic converter are potential challenges the system may encounter. Field testing of the system is needed to address the potential system reliability issues. A field test was conducted in June 2015; a summary of field tests is provided in Section 5.

S OL I D M ED I A

Four of the nine potentially viable systems rely on physical or chemical adsorption and include:



2 2

• HydroCat Industries • Calgon Carbon • Norit • TDA Research

With chemical adsorption, there is a chemical interaction between the contaminant and the surface of the adsorbent which forms a new chemical compound. As a result, the chemical reactions are not easily reversed and spent adsorbent media often cannot be regenerated for reuse. Solid chemical adsorption processes are commonly referred to as “solid scavengers”.

Solid scavengers typically use a hydrated metallic oxide or alkaline-based adsorbent media packed in a tower or vessel through which the raw gas passes to selectively remove sulfur compounds. The metallic oxide adsorbent media uses a variety of different metals including iron, nickel and zinc.

Generally, each of these systems use a series of vessels, which are filled with the vendor’s selected media (see below generic schematic). Further information on the above four vendors are discussed below.

S o l i d M e d i a S c h e m a t i c F i g u r e 5 .

H y d r o C a t

HydroCat Industries (HydroCat) offers a granular media to remove sulfur compounds from gas streams. The media is designed for use in the removal of H2S, mercaptans, and organic sulfides. The media is mixed iron-oxides formed on a substrate base, along with an inorganic adsorption



2 3

phase, specific for heavier sulfur compounds. Oxygen increases reaction speed and improves sulfur removal capacity. The reaction produces sulfur and stable iron sulfides.

However, HydroCat has only treated natural gas with high levels of H2S in comparison to heavier organic sulfur compounds. HydroCat needs more H2S than mercaptans to effectively remove the mercaptans (which is not the case at Bridgeton). HydroCat proposed use of its GTS2101 product, which is “specifically designed to polish total sulfurs in lightly contaminated gasses or after heavy concentrations of H2S and mercaptans are removed by other HydroCat products or other processes”. HydroCat states that its GTS2101 product is for removal of H2S, mercaptans, and carbonyl sulfide (COS), along with low levels of heavier organic sulfur from gas streams. HydroCat does not know whether the DMS will activate the media sufficiently to remove both the organic sulfides and mercaptans to a reasonably low level. The Bridgeton application is outside of its normal commercial experience. A pilot test would be needed to confirm the media capability for the Bridgeton LFG and sulfur contaminants.

HydroCat provided a couple of historical cases where over 80 percent of DMS removal was achieved. However, in those cases, the gas contained much higher concentrations of H2S and much lower concentrations of DMS. The highest single level of DMS encountered by HydroCat and treated to greater than 50 percent DMS removal is 77 ppmv inlet in a gas stream containing 98 percent CO2. Most of the HydroCat’s experiences are with less than 10 ppm DMS.

HydroCat stated that, based on field and pilot work, the GTS2101 product will remove about 80 percent of the DMS initially, but the removal efficiency will decline to about 50 percent at the end of the media life. Overall, HydroCat expects more than 50 percent total sulfur removal at end of life, due to the presence of other sulfur compounds (e.g., mercaptans, H2S), for which HydroCat has better removal results than with DMS. As noted above, a pilot test would be needed to confirm media capability.

In summary, the HydroCat media has not been demonstrated to remove sulfide components, such as DMS, at the high levels seen in this application. The media requires higher proportions of H2S relative to mercaptans in order to activate the media and remove all sulfur components. Further, it is unknown whether or not DMS can effectively activate the media in a similar fashion. It is expected that the system will be able to remove less than 80 percent of the sulfur compounds at a reasonable sulfur capacity due to these conditions, as inefficient removal would be encountered prior to reaching capacity of the bed. It is further likely that sulfide compounds will not react efficiently with the mixed metal oxide media or inorganic adsorbent, nor will they activate the media as their reactivity is low compared to H2S. For these reasons, we recommend that HydroCat not be considered further.

N o r i t

Darko H2S, manufactured by Norit, is an activated carbon designed to remove hydrogen sulfide from gas streams. Norit estimated a 30 percent loading rate (i.e., 30 pounds of sulfur removed per 100 pounds of activate carbon used).

Norit stated that it would provide information as to the effectiveness of activated carbon in removing DMS, but no information has been provided. Further, based on research conducted by



2 4

TDA (see below), Norit activated carbon exhibited low adsorption capacity for DMS during testing. For these reasons, we recommend that Norit not be considered further.

T D A R e s e a r c h

TDA Research (TDA) has conducted research on removal technologies for clean-up of natural gas for use in fuel cells. TDA develops sorbent-based materials for desulfurization of various hydrocarbon streams.

According to TDA, among the organic sulfur species, DMS is the most difficult to remove using adsorbents. TDA has conducted bench-scale studies on sorbents, including the following:

• Norit RGM3 activated carbon • Siemens sample 4 • Siemens sample 5 • Grace zeolite X • TDA Sulfatrap BR3

The sulfur adsorption capacity measured in the large-scale tests and small-scale accelerated tests were in good agreement (3.2% wt. capacity vs. 3.12% wt., for TDA SulfaTrapTM-R3, and 0.18% vs. 0.13% for Norit RGM3). TDA sorbent had the highest sulfur adsorption capacity. Norit had the lowest capacity. SulfaTrapTM-R3 sorbent, and its dry capacity was approximately 800% better than that of zeolite X, and 1600% better than activated carbon. The presence of water reduced the sulfur adsorption capacity of all sorbents. The capacity of the zeolite-X was reduced the most, by approximately 83%, showing zeolite-X’s high affinity for the water vapor. Activated carbon had minimal drop in capacity in the presence of water. The capacity of the SulfaTrapTM-R3 sample was also reduced in the presence of 50 ppmv water vapor by 24%. As the temperature increases, the sorbent capacity decreases (at 40/45oC, the sulfur capacity of the sorbent is reduced by 35-40% in comparison to that achieved at 19/22oC ). Because the LFG contains complex sulfur compounds, TDA suggested using a combination of R2F/R8F (primarily for DMS and disulfides) and R7 sorbents (due to its lower cost for H2S and lower mercaptans). For other applications, TDA has proposed a two-stage system, including a solid scavenger as the first stage and then a TDA sorbent as the second stage, with a chiller in between the two stages.

SulfaTrapTM sorbent is regenerable, and once the sorbent reaches its capacity, all the sulfur-bearing odorants can be driven off from the surface with a mild temperature swing by heating the bed to 300oC. The sorbent could maintain its sulfur adsorption capacity through many adsorption/regeneration cycles by simple heating, but the waste stream is gaseous, which is a fatal flaw for this application.



2 5

C a l g o n C a r b o n C o r p o r a t i o n

Calgon Carbon Corporation (Calgon) offers carbon technologies for use in over 700 distinct market applications. SULFUSORB is a granular activated carbon, impregnated with copper oxide (CuO), specifically designed for removal of hydrogen sulfide and low molecular weight organic sulfur compounds from gas streams. Vapor phase react (VPR) carbon, which is not impregnated, can be used for DMS removal.

Calgon indicated that the Bridgeton LFG contains too high a concentration of DMS to be an effective activated carbon application. Calgon stated that the concentrations would overwhelm a carbon bed of typical sizing and constant change outs would be required.

Calgon recommended that activated carbon not be used for the Bridgeton Landfill. Using a vessel appropriately sized for the Landfill flow rate, media changeout would be required as frequently as every 1.5 days. Calgon stated that activated carbon is simply not an appropriate technology for this application. Calgon would not provide a quote for a system that it does not recommend.

S u m m a r y o f S o l i d M e d i a

Performance of solid media systems with high inlet concentrations of DMS and water content is unknown. For reasons noted above, HydroCat and Norit are not considered further.

TDA is considered further. For this system, a LFG dehydration system will be needed upstream to remove some water and VOCs from the LFG to extend the media life.

B I OL O GI C A L P R O C ES S

BioAir Solutions (BioAir) offers a system that uses a biological process. A typical schematic is illustrated below.



2 6

BioAir proposes its EcoFilter technology (i.e., biotrickling filter), which treats reduced sulfur and VOC compounds within a single vessel. The process includes once-through irrigation to allow stratification of various biological cultures to address different compounds within a single reactor. The combined technology includes adsorbent media after a biological step, to make sure anything that is not treated biologically is removed. BioAir guarantees biological removal to make sure carbon is not used as a main treatment, but rather just a polishing step.

For landfill applications, BioAir recommends introducing dilution air to keep methane and hydrogen concentrations below flammable levels. The system would then be safe to operate as a biological odor removal system, especially considering the oxygen is going to be lower than atmospheric concentration. Sulfur and VOC removal would occur in a single reactor, and, depending on the removal requirement, might be the only technology necessary for treatment of the air flow. BioAir proposes to vent the treated gas (i.e., combustion is not required). Further, by diluting the LFG as part of its process, unassisted combustion would not be possible.

BioAir provided a study, which indicated simultaneous sulfur and VOC removal within a single vessel. Current DMS performance data is for lower concentrations, but BioAir is confident that, with longer residence times, its system would be able to remove higher concentrations from a DMS dominant stream. BioAir has over 120 installations worldwide.

BioAir is not considered further for the following reasons:

• Limited performance data, including DMS removal data. • Reliance on a biological solution, followed by venting of the treated gas. The treated

gas would still contain methane and hydrogen, but in diluted form.



2 7

5 P I LOT TESTS

Due to the lack of commercial technologies and lack of experience with treating gas with high levels of DMS, Bridgeton Landfill, LLC (Bridgeton LF) decided to conduct two pilot tests on the process technologies identified in Section 4 with the highest potential as viable solutions for sulfur removal at the Landfill: chemical scrubbing and liquid solvent. The purpose of the pilot tests was to evaluate the proposed sulfur removal technologies for possible full-scale implementation at Bridgeton Landfill. Pilot testing was needed to confirm sulfur removal efficiency and to identify process parameters needed to design a full-scale facility.

Pilot testing was conducted during the weeks of June 15 and June 22, 2015. A separate report, dated July 22, 2015, was prepared to document the pilot tests.

The results of the pilot tests are summarized as follows:

• Six tests were conducted using the chemical scrubbing technology, using varying combinations of chemical reagents. Sodium hypochlorite (i.e., bleach) was effective in removing DMS and other sulfur compounds from the gas stream. However, the consumption rate of bleach was an order of magnitude higher than expected. Increasing the pH of the scrubbing solution appeared to cause a reduction in bleach consumption, when comparing two of the tests. Operations at a higher pH may result in a further reduction in bleach consumption.

• Four tests were conducted using the liquid solvent technology, using varying combinations of chemical reagents and liquid solvents. All tests resulted in ineffective removal of DMS and other sulfur compounds from the gas stream.

Additionally, a very limited test of activated carbon was conducted on a small slip stream of LFG, using an inline carbon filter. Analysis of LFG samples, before and after the carbon filter, indicated that the carbon was effective in removing DMS and other sulfur compounds from the gas stream. TDA, which is a specific type of activated carbon, is further evaluated in this report (see Section 7).



2 8

6 EVALUAT ION OF CHEM ICAL SCRUBB ING

In this section, chemical scrubbing is further evaluated, taking into consideration energy, environmental, economic and other factors, including the following:

• Control effectiveness (percent pollutant removed)

• Emissions, including expected emission rate and emission reduction (tons per year)

• Energy impacts

• Environmental impacts

• Economic impacts

C ON TR OL E F F EC T I V EN ES S

During the pilot test, the maximum removal efficiency per sulfur compound was as follows:

• DMS: 97 percent.

• Methyl mercaptan: 99+ percent.

• H2S: 99+ percent.

Other sulfur compounds were not measured during the test so the control efficiency is unknown.

Based on the pilot test and for use in the emissions calculations, the average removal efficiency per sulfur compound is estimated as follows:


• Methyl mercaptan: 99.5 percent.

• H2S: 99.5 percent.

• Other sulfur compounds: 0 percent.

E M I S S I ONS

Without chemical scrubbing and based on a LFG flow rate of 6031 scfm, SOx emissions are estimated to be 305 tons per year (TPY). 3

3 Potential or actual emissions represented by this document may not be consistent with pending permit application submittals. The values in this document are for informational purposes only and were prepared prior to completion of a permit application.



2 9

Based on the average removal efficiency noted above, SOx emissions, with chemical scrubbing, are estimated to be 90 TPY. Hence, implementation of chemical scrubbing is estimated to remove 215 TPY of SOx.

E N ER GY I MP A C TS

Energy use by the chemical scrubbing system, including pumps and auxiliary equipment, is estimated as 341,220 kWh per year.

Additional electricity usage would be required to treat the wastewater effluent from the chemical scrubbing system, but this usage has not been quantified.

E NV I R O NM E NT A L I MP A C TS

Implementation of chemical scrubbing would require transportation and use of bleach and caustic. There would be potential for chemical spills during transportation and use on site.

Implementation of chemical scrubbing would result in generation of wastewater, containing sulfur compounds. Treatment of the wastewater may result in solid residue, containing sulfur compounds that would then require disposal in a landfill.

E C ON OM I C I MP A C TS

A summary of the costs to implement chemical scrubbing is as follows:

T a b l e 4 . C o s t S u m m a r y

Capital Cost Annual Operating Cost Control Cost (per ton SO2 removed)

$450,000 $64 million $300,000 Details for the cost estimates are provided in Appendix A.



3 0

7 EVALUAT ION OF TDA

In this section, a TDA sorbent-based system is further evaluated, taking into consideration energy, environmental, economic and other factors, including the following:

• Control effectiveness (percent pollutant removed)

• Emissions, including expected emission rate and emission reduction (tons per year)

• Energy impacts

• Environmental impacts

• Economic impacts

C ON TR OL E F F EC T I V EN ES S

For use in the emissions calculations, the average removal efficiency per sulfur compound is estimated as follows:


• Methyl mercaptan: 99.5 percent.

• H2S: 99.5 percent.

• Other sulfur compounds: 50 percent.

E M I S S I ONS

Without the TDA system and based on a LFG flow rate of 6031 scfm, SOx emissions are estimated to be 305 tons per year (TPY). 4

Based on the average removal efficiency noted above, SOx emissions, with the TDA system, are estimated to be 45 TPY. Hence, implementation of the TDA system is estimated to remove 260 TPY of SOx.

E N ER GY I MP A C TS

Energy use by the TDA system, including blowers, dehydration and auxiliary equipment, is estimated as 2,000,000 kWh per year.

4 Potential or actual emissions represented by this document may not be consistent with pending permit application submittals. The values in this document are for informational purposes only and were prepared prior to completion of a permit application.



3 1

E NV I R O NM E NT A L I MP A C TS

Implementation of the TDA system would require transportation and use of sorbent materials. There would be potential for chemical spills during transportation and use on site.

E C ON OM I C I MP A C TS

A summary of the costs to implement the TDA system is as follows:

T a b l e 5 . C o s t S u m m a r y

Capital Cost Annual Operating

Cost

Control Cost (per ton SO2

removed)

$3,100,000 $147 million $560,000

Details for the cost estimates are provided in Appendix B.



3 2

8 SELECT BACT

Based on the cost per ton to remove SOx, no technology is considered BACT for this project. Please refer to the updated permit application for further details on BACT and LAER considerations.



1

A p p e nd i x A

C he m i ca l S c r ub b i ng C o s t E s t i ma t e s

I:\PROJECTS\FY11\23211003.23\BACT Analysis\Chem Scrubber Cost Analysis v9-18-15.xlsx 9/21/2015

SULFUR BACT ANALYSISEXHIBIT A-1. CHEMICAL SCRUBBER CAPITAL COST ESTIMATE

COST CATEGORY1 COST FACTOR COST

Direct Costs

Scrubber and Auxiliary Equipment 2 (A): n/a $154,850Instrumentation1: 0.10 A $15,485Sales Taxes4: 0.08363 A $12,950Freight1: 0.05 A $7,743Purchased Equipment Cost (B): 1.23 A $191,028

Direct Installation Costs 1 :Foundation & Supports: 0.12 B $22,923Handling & Erection 0.40 B $76,411Electrical 0.01 B $1,910Piping 0.30 B $57,308Insulation 0.01 B $1,910Painting 0.01 B $1,910

Total Direct Installation Costs: 0.85 B $162,373

Site Preparation SP $16,210Buildings Bldg. $10,000

Total Direct Costs (DC) : 1.85 B $379,611

Indirect Costs (Installation)1

Engineering3: 0.10 B $19,103Contracting Fees 0.05 B $9,551Supervision 0.05 B $9,551

Construction and Field Expenses: 0.10 B $19,103Contractor Fees: 0.10 B $19,103Start-up: 0.01 B $1,910Performance Test: 0.01 B $1,910Contingencies: 0.03 B $5,731Total Indirect Costs (IC) : 0.35 B $66,860

TOTAL CAPITAL INVESTMENT DC+IC $446,471ANNUALIZED CAPITAL COST @10% int., 10 years $72,661

1 Cost categories and factors based on USEPA Office of Air Quality Planning and

Standards (OAQPS) Control Cost Manual, 6th edition, dated January 2002, for

Gas Absorbers (pg. 532)2 Equipment capital cost based on scrubber cost provided by vendor.3 Engineering costs split evenly between contracting fees and supervision.4 Sales taxes based on actual cost to project in Bridgeton, Missouri.

I:\PROJECTS\FY11\23211003.23\BACT Analysis\Chem Scrubber Cost Analysis v9-18-15.xlsx 9/21/2015

SULFUR BACT ANALYSISEXHIBIT A-2. CHEMICAL SCRUBBER ANNUAL COST ESTIMATE

COST CATEGORY1 COST FACTOR/CALCULATION COST

Direct Annual Costs:Operating Labor

Operator5: 416 hours/year, $50 /hour $20,800Supervisor: 15% of operator cost $3,120Operating Materials

Chemicals2:Sodium Hypochlorite Based on annual Consumption $63,154,034Sodium Hydroxide Based on annual Consumption $633,979Water Based on annual Consumption $7,884Wastewater Disposal3: (throughput/yr) x (waste fraction) $157,680MaintenanceLabor: 416 hours/year, $50 /hour $20,800Material: 100% of maintenance labor $20,800Electricity: (consumption rate) x (hours/yr) x (unit cost) $40,946

Total Direct Costs (DC): $64,060,043

Indirect Annual Costs:

Overhead1: 60% of operating labor and mtce. cost $39,312Administrative Charges1: 2% of Total Capital Investment $8,929Property Tax1: 1% of Total Capital Investment $4,465Insurance1: 1% of Total Capital Investment $4,465Capital Recovery6: 0.163 from capital cost analysis $72,661Total Indirect Costs (IC): $129,832

TOTAL ANNUAL COSTS: DC+IC $64,189,875



for Gas Absorbers (pg. 533).2 Chemical usage based on pilot test preformed June 18, 2015. Pilot test results

scaled to full scale sulfur removal system3 Wastewater disposal based vendor wasterwater estimate x wastewater

disposal cost of $0.06 / gal4 Electricity based vendor electric estimate x $0.12 / kWh5 $50 /hour based on RSI staff rate6 Assuming a 10-year life at 10%

I:\PROJECTS\FY11\23211003.23\BACT Analysis\Chem Scrubber Cost Analysis v9-18-15.xlsxRemoval Summary 9/21/2015

Annual SOx Removal (tons/year)

Chemical Scrubber

215 n/a 64,189,875$ 298,102$

SULFUR BACT ANALYSIS

Annual Removal above Top-Case BACT (tpy)

Annualized Cost ($)Control Cost

($/ton removed)

EXHIBIT A-3. CHEMICAL SCRUBBER BACT SUMMARY

Scrubber and Auxiliary Equipment: $154,850 AAT July 2014 quoteBridgeton, MO Sales Tax 0.08363Site Preparation $16,210 See Civil Site WorkBuildings $10,000 SCS estimate for trailer

Operator hours/year 416RSI operator cost/hr $50Flow Rate: 6031 scfmSodium Hypochlorite 2.59$ per gallon; Brenntag

63,154,034.03$ per year (see Chemical Usage Tab)Sodium Hydroxide 0.26$ per gallon; Brenntag

6,680 gallons per day; 10% of bleach

Water 0.003$ per gallon; Nexo estimate7200 gallons per day, Nexo estimate

$7,884 per yearWaste Water Disposal 5 gal/min

$0.060 per gallon; Bridgeton estimate$157,680 Total Cost

Electricity $0.12 per kWh, SCS estimate341,220 kWh/yr (See Scrubber Backup Tab)$40,946 per year

For Scrubber - Operating

For Scrubber - Capital

Exhibit A-4: Input Sheet

Equipment Vendor/SupplierHydros or AAT or Duall Steve Boyd, Hydros, 508-759-5994

Randal G. Nicolli, AAT, 989-743-5544Verne Buehler, Duall, 989-725-8184

System Design ConceptChemical scrubbing; liquid-phase sulfur by-product

Modifications Required to Existing LFG Control System:Upgrade Landfill Gas Blower? no 12-18 in-w.c. headloss estimated by vendorProcess Piping/Valves yes see piping and valves on SCS site plan

Chemicals/Water/Electric RequiredChemicals sodium hydroxide, sodium hypochlorite Hazardous material? likely, may need spill containmentWater Usage 7,200 gal/day, Nexo estimateMotors 12 hp 9 kW, Hydros estimateOther power 30 kW Nexo estimate

By-productsPhase liquidCharacteristics: sulfur compoundsQuantity 5 gal/minHazardous material? noDisposal cost 157,680$ per year $0.060 per gallon, Bridgeton estimate

System OperationStaff labor 416 man-hours/year 8 hours per weekStaff cost 20,800$ per year 50$ per hour, RSI rateElectrical Usage 341,220 kWh/yr 8,760 hours per yearElectric cost 40,946$ per year $0.12 per kWh, SCS estimateWater cost 7,884$ per year $0.003 per gallon, Nexo estimate

EXHIBIT A-5: CHEMICAL SCRUBBER ESTIMATES

Constants Pilot Test ResultsDegrees Rankine 520

Gas constant 0.7302 DMS removedDMS Moleular Weight 62.13 0.0002 lbs per cf

Gallons 12.5% NaOCI per lbs DMS50.477

Given:DMS ppmv In 1183 ppmv Full Scale Chemical Usage

DMS ppmv Out 252 ppmvGas Flow Rate 150 scfm Given

Test Duration 130 min12.5% NaOCl 150 gallons Flow Rate: 6031 scfm

$ per gallon NaOCI 2.59$ Calculations:

Scaled calculations per 130 min. Pilot TestDMS pre Scrubber DMS post Scrubber

3.775 lbs 0.803 lbs 0.92 lbs DMS Removed per minute46.39 Gallons NaOCI per minute

120.16$ per minute

173,024.75$ NaOCI Cost per Day 63,154,034.03$ NaOCI Cost per Year

DMS removed2.972 lbs 0.00015 lbs/cf

Gallons 12.5% NaOCl per lbs DMS50.477

Note:Test ran from 7:20 to 9:30 totalling 130 minutes.

Pilot Test Chemical Usage Calculations Full Scale Facility Chemical Usage Based on Pilot Test

Pilot Test June 18, 2015

Scrubber

EXHIBIT A-6: CHEMICAL SCRUBBER ESTIMATES

ITEM UNIT QUANTITY UNIT PRICE ITEM PRICE

EROSION CONTROL:Hydroseed areas disturbed during construction AC 0.2 $2,500 $500Seed and Straw AC 0.2 $1,600 $320Silt fence LF 100 $4 $350

STONE:Grade and 6" of rock SF 1440 $4 $5,040

OTHERFence LF 0 $40 $0Area Lighting LS 1 $10,000 $10,000

TOTAL $16,210

EXHIBIT A-7: CIVIL/SITE COST ESTIMATE

Gas Flow (SCFM) 6031Dimethyl

sulfide (DMS) Methyl

mercaptan Hydrogen

sulfide (H2S) Other as

H2S TotalComponent Concentration (ppmv) 795 152 18 176Component Molecular Weight (g/mol) 62.13 48.11 34.08 34.08Removal Efficiency (%): 80% 99.5% 99.5% 0.0%SOx Emissions Without Controls (tons/year) 212.61 40.65 4.81 47.07 305SOx Emissions With Controls (tons/year) 42.52 0.20 0.02 47.07 90

Difference 215

Note: ppmv concentrations for DMS, methyl mercaptan and H2S are the averages of testing performed by Republic; PDF entitled, " Bridgeton Sulfur Analytical Reports April 2014 through April 2015"

EXHIBIT A-8: EMISSIONS ESTIMATE



2

A p p e nd i x B

T D A C o s t E s t i ma t e s

I:\PROJECTS\FY11\23211003.23\BACT Analysis\TDA Cost Analysis v9-18-15.xlsx 9/21/2015

SULFUR BACT ANALYSISEXHIBIT B-1. CARBON VESSEL CAPITAL COST ESTIMATE

COST CATEGORY1 COST FACTOR COST

Direct Costs

Vessels, Dehy, Blowers and Auxiliary Equip n/a $1,528,250Instrumentation1: 0.10 A $152,825Sales Taxes4: 0.08363 A $127,808Freight1: 0.05 A $76,413Purchased Equipment Cost (B): 1.23 A $1,885,295

Direct Installation Costs 1 :Foundation & Supports: 0.08 B $150,824Handling & Erection 0.14 B $263,941Electrical 0.04 B $75,412Piping 0.02 B $37,706Insulation 0.01 B $18,853Painting 0.01 B $18,853

Total Direct Installation Costs: 0.30 B $565,589

Site Preparation SP $16,210Buildings Bldg. $10,000

Total Direct Costs (DC) : 1.30 B $2,477,094

Indirect Costs (Installation)1

Engineering3: 0.10 B $188,530Contracting Fees 0.05 B $94,265Supervision 0.05 B $94,265

Construction and Field Expenses: 0.05 B $94,265Contractor Fees: 0.10 B $188,530Start-up: 0.02 B $37,706Performance Test: 0.01 B $18,853Contingencies: 0.03 B $56,559Total Indirect Costs (IC) : 0.31 B $584,441

TOTAL CAPITAL INVESTMENT DC+IC $3,061,535ANNUALIZED CAPITAL COST @10% int., 10 years $498,251



Carbon Absorbers (pg. 216)2 Equipment capital cost based on vessel cost provided by HydroCat.3 Engineering costs split evenly between contracting fees and supervision.4 Sales taxes based on actual cost to project in Bridgeton, Missouri.

I:\PROJECTS\FY11\23211003.23\BACT Analysis\TDA Cost Analysis v9-18-15.xlsx 9/21/2015

SULFUR BACT ANALYSISEXHIBIT B-2. TDA CARBON ANNUAL COST ESTIMATE

COST CATEGORY1 COST FACTOR/CALCULATION COST

Direct Annual Costs:Operating Labor

Operator5: 416 hours/year, $50 /hour $20,800Supervisor: 15% of operator cost $3,120Operating Materials

Chemicals2:Expendable carbon Based on annual Consumption 146,000,000 Other Based on annual Consumption $0Water Based on annual Consumption $0Wastewater Disposal3: (throughput/yr) x (waste fraction) $0MaintenanceLabor: 416 hours/year, $50 /hour $20,800Material: 100% of maintenance labor $20,800Electricity: (consumption rate) x (hours/yr) x (unit cost) $140,000

Total Direct Costs (DC): $146,205,520

Indirect Annual Costs:

Overhead1: 60% of operating labor and mtce. cost $39,312Administrative Charges1: 2% of Total Capital Investment $61,231Property Tax1: 1% of Total Capital Investment $30,615Insurance1: 1% of Total Capital Investment $30,615Capital Recovery6: 0.163 from capital cost analysis $498,251Total Indirect Costs (IC): $660,024

TOTAL ANNUAL COSTS: DC+IC $146,865,544



for Gas Absorbers (pg. 533).2 Chemical usage based on pilot test preformed June 18, 2015. Pilot test results

scaled to full scale sulfur removal system3 Wastewater disposal based vendor wasterwater estimate x wastewater

disposal cost of $0.06 / gal4 Electricity based vendor electric estimate x $0.12 / kWh5 $50 /hour based on RSI staff rate6 Assuming a 10-year life at 10%

I:\PROJECTS\FY11\23211003.23\BACT Analysis\TDA Cost Analysis v9-18-15.xlsxRemoval Summary 9/21/2015

Annual SOx Removal (tons/year)

Chemical Scrubber

260 n/a 146,865,544$ 564,598$

SULFUR BACT ANALYSIS

Annual Removal above Top-Case BACT (tpy)

Annualized Cost ($)Control Cost

($/ton removed)

EXHIBIT B-3. TDA CARBON BACT SUMMARY

Vessels: $900,000 HydroCat August 2015 estimateBlowers and Dehydration $628,250 Glauber August 2015 estimateBridgeton, MO Sales Tax 0.08363Site Preparation $16,210 See Civil Site WorkBuildings $10,000 SCS estimate for trailer

Operator hours/year 416RSI operator cost/hr $50Flow Rate: 6031 scfmExpendable carbon 400,000$ per day; TDA 11-14-14

146,000,000$ per year Other -$ per day; TDA 11-14-14

- gallons per day; 10% of bleachWater -$ per gallon

0 gallons per day$0 per year

Waste Water Disposal - gal/min$0.000 per gallon

$0 Total CostElectricity $0.07 per kWh

2,000,000 kWh/yr; 200-hp motor+100-hp$140,000 per year

For Carbon Vessels - Operating

Exhibit B-4: Input Sheet

For Carbon Vessels - Capital

ITEM UNIT QUANTITY UNIT PRICE ITEM PRICE

EROSION CONTROL:Hydroseed areas disturbed during construction AC 0.2 $2,500 $500Seed and Straw AC 0.2 $1,600 $320Silt fence LF 100 $4 $350

STONE:Grade and 6" of rock SF 1440 $4 $5,040

OTHERFence LF 0 $40 $0Area Lighting LS 1 $10,000 $10,000

TOTAL $16,210

EXHIBIT B-5: CIVIL/SITE COST ESTIMATE

Gas Flow (SCFM) 6031Dimethyl

sulfide (DMS) Methyl

mercaptan Hydrogen

sulfide (H2S) Other as

H2S TotalComponent Concentration (ppmv) 795 152 18 176Component Molecular Weight (g/mol) 62.13 48.11 34.08 34.08Removal Efficiency (%): 90% 99.5% 99.5% 50.0%SOx Emissions Without Controls (tons/year) 212.61 40.65 4.81 47.07 305SOx Emissions With Controls (tons/year) 21.26 0.20 0.02 23.53 45

Difference 260

Note: ppmv concentrations for DMS, methyl mercaptan and H2S are the averages of testing performed by Republic; PDF entitled, " Bridgeton Sulfur Analytical Reports April 2014 through April 2015"

EXHIBIT B-6: EMISSIONS ESTIMATE

application for authority to construct

Documents