Document ID: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0030-0189
Agency: epa
Document Type: Supporting & Related Material
Title: 
Posted Date: 2008-01-02T05:00Z

MEMORANDUM

DATE:		December 11, 2007

SUBJECT:	Stationary Spark Ignition Engines using Landfill and Digester
Gas

FROM:	Tanya Parise, Alpha-Gamma Technologies, Inc.

		Lucy Adams, Alpha-Gamma Technologies, Inc.

TO:		Jaime Pagán, EPA Energy Strategies Group

The purpose of this memorandum is to document information gathered on
the operation of stationary spark ignition (SI) engines firing waste
gases such as landfill and digester gas.  Landfill gas is a gaseous
by-product of the land application of municipal refuse typically formed
through anaerobic decomposition of waste materials and is principally
composed of methane (CH4) and carbon dioxide (CO2).  Digester gas is a
gaseous by-product of wastewater treatment typically formed through the
anaerobic decomposition of organic waste materials and is also
principally composed of CH4 and CO2.  A previous version of this
memorandum was developed and is identified in the docket as document ID
number EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0030-0058.  This memorandum provides an update to
the previously developed memorandum.

Summary

Various sanitation districts and landfills were contacted for
information on the operation of stationary engines on landfill and
digester gas fuels.  General information was received on the feasibility
of applying aftertreatment controls on stationary engines burning
landfill and digester gas, typical emission levels of stationary engines
burning waste gases, as well as summaries of recent source tests
conducted on engines burning waste fuels.  The information obtained is
summarized in the following sections.

General

Add-on Controls/Pretreatment

	The Los Angeles County Sanitation Districts (LACSD)1,2 and the Orange
County Sanitation Districts (OCSD)3 were asked whether add-on controls
were being used on stationary engines burning waste gas and if there had
been any recent advances in the area.  The LACSD said that there are
limited controls currently on these engines and that there have not been
any advances in aftertreatment lately.  There are still problems with
siloxanes.  Removal of siloxanes has been tried, but has either proven
to be ineffective or not cost effective.  The only proven method to
remove siloxanes is activated carbon.  The LACSD provided a recent paper
on siloxanes,4 which concluded that it does not appear that siloxane
removal is cost effective in most cases.  The paper indicated that the
only proven method for siloxane removal currently in commercial
operation is activated carbon.  

	The OCSD provided information based on a survey of the National
Association of Clean Water Agencies.  The engines it received data on
(166) used combustion modifications to achieve emission standards. 
These included pre-stratified charge, modified ignition timing, changes
in air/fuel ratios, and pre-combustion air injection.  The survey also
indicated that several new engines utilized low emission engines applied
by manufacturers (i.e., Waukesha turbocharged, intercooled engine with
an automatic air/fuel ratio controller).  The OCSD said that to its
knowledge there are only three attempts of installing catalyst to waste
gas fired engines.  The projects use gas pretreatment to eliminate
siloxanes and sulfur.  The OCSD did not have any details on these
installations.  The OCSD added that several facilities have installed
catalysts on their engines, but only use the catalyst when operating on
natural gas (dual fuel engines).  The OCSD is unaware of any full-scale
pretreatment systems operating on waste gas fired engines.  The OCSD
indicated that LACSD performed some testing a couple of years ago on
pretreatment options.  The OCSD believed that the study indicated that
activated carbon was the best option; however, the OCSD did not believe
the pretreatment system was implemented.

Engine Type

	The sanitation districts were also asked what type of engines are
typically used to burn landfill and digester gas.  The LACSD said that
most (possibly all) landfill gas engines are lean burn engines, but that
in wastewater there are some rich burn engines that are used.  In
California and other places where air emissions are important, only
Caterpillar 3616 and Caterpillar 3520 generator sets can reliably meet
best available control technology (BACT).  The LACSD also indicated that
lean burn engines have been the preferred choice for landfill and
digester gas applications because these engines have the lowest nitrogen
oxides (NOx) emissions without post-combustion control.

Emission Levels

	The LACSD indicated that BACT in southern California is 0.60 grams per
brake horsepower-hour (g/bhp-hr) for NOx, 2.1 g/bhp-hr for carbon
monoxide (CO), and a 98 percent volatile organic compounds (VOC)
reduction or 20 ppm limit as hexane (U.S. NSPS), but that the limits
vary across California and the U.S. a lot.  The South Coast Air Quality
Management District (SCAQMD) requires 0.60 g/bhp-hr for NOx, 2.5
g/bhp-hr for CO, and 0.80 g/bhp-hr for VOC.  Emissions of hazardous air
pollutants (HAP) from landfill and digester gas engines are not
different from natural gas engines, i.e., primarily formaldehyde in the
range of <1 parts per million by volume (ppmv) to >40 ppmv, according to
LACSD.  

Sulfur

	The LACSD indicated that sulfur can be very high, in the 1,000 ppmv
range, if not controlled.  Hydrogen sulfide can range from near zero to
2 percent.  The SCAQMD limits sulfur to 40 ppmv for large digester gas
producers.  Sulfur content of landfill gas is normally about 60 ppmv. 
The SCAQMD limits landfill gas sulfur to 150 ppmv.

Source Tests

Kiefer Landfill

Alpha-Gamma became aware of a landfill gas to energy project in
Sacramento through contact with the LACSD and was able to obtain test
data from the County of Sacramento’s Department of Waste Management &
Recycling.5  Three Caterpillar 3616 generator sets were installed at the
Kiefer Landfill in Sacramento, California in 1999.  The engines are
4,230 horsepower (hp) driving 3.05 megawatt (MW) electrical generators
fueled by landfill gas.  Testing was conducted in 2000 through 2004 and
a summary of emission results are shown in Attachment 1.  

Simi Valley Landfill

	The Ventura County Air Pollution Control District indicated that there
are two new landfill gas fired engines in operation at the Simi Valley
Landfill in Simi Valley, California and provided EPA with recent test
results of these engines.6,7  The engines are Deutz Model TBG 620 V16K
and 1,877 hp in size.  The engines are turbocharged and aftercooled lean
burn engines.  The generators produce up to 1.35 MW.  The engines were
tested in 2004 and 2005 and a summary of the test results is provided in
Attachment 1.

South Coast

	Alpha-Gamma contacted the SCAQMD and the Toxics & Waste Management
Division provided the summary pages of several stationary engines
recently tested.8  A summary of each facility that summary test results
were received for is provided below.  A summary of the test results
received for the facilities described below is provided in Attachment 1
of this memorandum.

Altamont Landfill

	Two 1,877 hp stationary Deutz engines were tested at the Altamont
Landfill in California in 2003 and 2004. 

City of Sunnyvale

	Two 800 kilowatt (kW) (1,072 hp) stationary engines were tested at the
Bay Area Air Quality Management District Plant #733 in the City of
Sunnyvale in 2002.  The fuel is a digester gas landfill gas blend as 20
percent digester gas and 80 percent landfill gas.

Riverside Landfill

	A 1,212 kW (1,624 hp) engine was tested at the Riverside Landfill in
2005.  

Bradley Landfill

	Five engines of were tested at the Bradley Landfill at various times
between 2003 and 2005 for various pollutants.  Engines 1 and 2 are 1,250
kW (1,675 hp).  Engine 5 is 1,350 kW (1,809 hp).  Engines 1 and 2 were
retested for total particulates in 2003.

Lopez Canyon Landfill

	Two landfill gas fired engines at the Lopez Canyon Landfill were tested
every year starting in 2001 through 2005.  The size of the engines was
not provided in the information received.  

Olinda Alpha Landfill

	Two stationary landfill gas fired engines located at the Ridgewood
Power Management Facility at the Olinda Alpha Landfill were tested in
2002.  The engines are 1,743 hp Deutz engines driving 1,250 kW
electrical generators.  These engines are equipped with a continuous
emission monitoring system (CEMS) to continuously record NOx and oxygen
(O2).  The purpose of the testing was to determine the relative accuracy
of the CEMS and to satisfy source test requirements mandated by the
SCAQMD.  The landfill gas fuel contained 43.3 percent CH4 and 33.1 ppmv
total reduced sulfur (TRS) and 42.2 percent CH4 and 31.2 ppmv TRS, for
unit 1 and 2, respectively.

City of Riverside

	Three 1,599 hp stationary engines were tested by the City of Riverside
in 2004.

City of Redlands

	A Deutz landfill gas fired stationary engine was tested at the City of
Redlands Wastewater Treatment Plant in 2003, 2004, and 2005.  The engine
was rated at 1,350 hp.

El Sobrante Landfill

	Three landfill gas fired 1,280 kW (1,715 hp) engines were tested at the
El Sobrante Landfill.  Engines 1 and 2 were both tested in 2003 and 2005
and engine 3 was tested in 2004.  The size of the engines was not
provided in the information received.  

Prima Deshecha Landfill

	Two landfill gas fired engines were tested at the Prima Desheca
Landfill in 2001, 2002, and 2003.  A compliance test and a relative
accuracy test audit were also conducted in 1999.

DuPage County, Illinois

Woodridge-Greene Valley

	Alpha-Gamma identified a cogeneration facility providing power to the
Woodridge-Greene Valley Wastewater Treatment Plant.9  The engine runs on
a blend of diesel fuel, natural gas, and CH4 generated at the wastewater
plant.  The engine is a Fairbanks Morse Enviro-DesignTM 2,100 hp engine
emitting 1 g/bhp-hr of NOx.  

Additional Source Tests

	After the proposed rule was published, an additional six landfill power
generator test reports were obtained.  The Arcadis landfills are located
in the northeast and Midwest U.S., the Minnesota Methane landfill in
California, and the remaining three landfills are in Canada. Information
from those reports is summarized below and in Attachment 2.

Arcadis Landfill A

Landfill A fires landfill gas in a bank of four engine generator sets in
order to destroy the landfill gas and to generate electricity.10  The
engines are Caterpillar CAT 3412 four-stoke engines, adapted for
landfill gas.  The CAT 3412 is a spark-ignited V-12 engine with a
displacement of 1,649 cubic inches.  It is turbocharged and
after-cooled, and has a cylinder bore diameter of 5.4 inches and a
stroke of 6.0 inches.  It is connected to a Caterpillar SR4 Generator,
which is rated at 470 KW.  Testing of Engine #2 took place on November 1
and 2, 2002.

Arcadis Landfill C

Landfill C collects landfill gas, pipes it to a bank of two Caterpillar
generator-sets for destruction of LFG and generation of electricity.11 
The engines are Caterpillar CAT 3516 four-stoke SI engines, adapted for
landfill gas fuel. The CAT 3516 is a spark-ignited V-16 engine with
4,210 cubic inches displacement.  It is turbocharged and after-cooled,
and has a 6.7-inch diameter cylinder bore and a 7.5-inch stroke.  It
drives a Caterpillar SR4 Generator, which is rated at 800 KW (at a 0.8
power factor).  The engines have no pollution control equipment
installed.  Engine #1 was tested on May 13 and 14, 2004.

Corona, CA Landfill

This system uses a Deutz TBG 620 V16K, a spark-ignited V-16 engine with
4,320 cubic inches displacement, specifically designed for landfill gas
applications.12  The engine is rated at 1358 KW and 850 HP.  Testing
took place January 28, 1998.

Waterloo Regional Landfill, Ontario

Landfill gases from the Waterloo landfill are used to fire four
Caterpillar model G3516LE gas engines.13  Sampling was conducted on the
exhaust duct of Engine No. 4, a V-16, 4-stroke-cycle spark ignited 925
kW engine. At the time of testing, the No. 4 Engine had 6,400 operating
hours.  Testing took place on September 20, 1999.

Meloche Landfill, Quebec

Landfill gases from the Meloche landfill are used to fire two
Caterpillar 3516 engine generator sets.14  Sampling was conducted on the
exhaust duct of Engine No. 1, a V-16, 4-stroke-cycle spark ignited 812
kW engine.  Testing took place on September 20, 1999.

BFI Usine de triage Lachenaie Ltee Landfill, Quebec

Four engines are used to produce power from Lachenaie landfill gas.15 
Sampling was conducted on the exhaust duct of the No. 2 Engine, a
Waukesha Model 7042 GLD 1 MW SI gas engine.  At the time of testing, the
No. 2 Engine had close to 25,000 operating hours.  During testing, the
No. 2 Engine maintained an average load of 957 kW, at 1,365 HP.  Testing
took place on October 1 through 4, 2001.  

Summary

	Based on the information gathered and presented in this memorandum, it
appears that few advances have been made towards resolving issues
related to applying catalytic aftertreatment to waste fuel fired
stationary engines.  There are still problems with catalyst fouling by
siloxanes present in the fuel leading to rapid declining performance of
the aftertreatment system.  

	Information and test results summarized in this memorandum for landfill
and digester gas fired stationary engines indicate engine-out NOx levels
in the U.S. can vary from about 0.4 to 1.4 g/bhp-hr, although most
commonly test results show NOx levels around 0.6 g/bhp-hr, consistent
with many permit limits.  Test results show that engine-out CO levels in
the U.S. range from about 1.8 to about 2.5 g/bhp-hr, which is also
consistent with permit limits.  For both NOx and CO, test results from
the Canadian landfills were higher.  Formaldehyde levels vary between
0.03 and 0.3 g/bhp-hr based on available test results.  

References

1.	Email from Greg Adams, Los Angeles County Sanitation Districts to
Tanya Parise, Alpha-Gamma Technologies.  August 29, 2005.

2.	Email from Ed Wheless, Los Angeles County Sanitation Districts to
Tanya Parise, Alpha-Gamma Technologies.  August 29, 2005.

3.	Email from Ed Torres, Orange County Sanitation Districts to Tanya
Parise, Alpha-Gamma Technologies.  September 6, 2005.

4.	Siloxanes in Landfill and Digester Gas Update.  Paper by Ed Wheless,
Los Angeles County Sanitation District, Whittier, California and Jeffrey
Pierce, SCS Energy, Long Beach, California.  

5.	Facsimile from Tim Israel, County of Sacramento Department of Waste
Management & Recycling to Tanya Parise, Alpha-Gamma Technologies. 
October 18, 2005.

6.	Email from Don Price, Ventura County Air Pollution Control District
to Tanya Parise, Alpha-Gamma Technologies.  September 6, 2005.

7.	Facsimile from Don Price, Ventura County Air Pollution Control
District to Tanya Parise, Alpha-Gamma Technologies.  September 6, 2005.

8.	Letter from Charles Tupac, South Coast Air Quality Management
District to Tanya Parise, Alpha-Gamma Technologies.  November 14, 2005.

  HYPERLINK "http://www.dupageco.org/publicworks/generic.cfm?doc_id=878"
 http://www.dupageco.org/publicworks/generic.cfm?doc_id=878 .  DuPage
County, Illinois.  October 18, 2005.

Source Testing Final Report, Landfill A, Revision 1.  Prepared by
ARCADIS G&M Inc. for U.S.EPA, APPCD.  October 6, 2005.

Source Testing Final Report, Landfill C, Revision 1.  Prepared by
ARCADIS G&M Inc. for U.S.EPA, APPCD.  October 6, 2005.

Compliance Source Test Report Landfill Gas-Fired Engine – Corona, CA. 
Prepared by SCEC for Minnesota Methane. March 3, 1998.

Characterization of Emissions from a 925 kWe Reciprocating Engine Fired
with Landfill Gas – Waterloo Regional Landfill, Waterloo, Ontario. 
Report ERMD 2000-04, ERMD, ETAD, Environment Canada. December 2000.

Characterization of Emissions from a 812 kWe Reciprocating Engine Fired
with Landfill Gas – Meloche Landfill, Kirkland, Quebec.  Report ERMD
99-05, ERMD, ETAD, Environment Canada. December 1999.

Characterization of Emissions from a 1 We Reciprocating Engine Fired
with Landfill Gas – BFI Usine de triage Lachenaie Ltee Landfill,
Quebec.  Report ERMD 2001-03, ERMD, ETAD, Environment Canada. January
2002.

Attachment 1:  Summary of Source Tests

Facility	Date(s) Tested	Engine 1	Engine 2	Engine 3	Engine 4	Engine 5

Kiefer Landfill	2000

2001

2002

2003

2004	NOx: 0.40 g/bhp-hr

CO: 1.77 g/bhp-hr

TNMHC: 7.3 ppm as hexane at 3% O2

PM10: 0.074 g/bhp-hr

H2S in the LFG: 0.35 grains/100 dscf	NOx: 0.35 g/bhp-hr

CO: 1.95 g/bhp-hr

TNMHC: 8.6 ppm as hexane at 3% O2

PM10: 0.070 g/bhp-hr

H2S in the LFG: 0.28 grains/100 dscf	NOx: 0.39 g/bhp-hr

CO: 1.83 g/bhp-hr

TNMHC: 7.9 ppm as hexane at 3% O2

PM10: 0.068 g/bhp-hr

H2S in the LFG: 0.21 grains/100 dscf

Simi Valley Landfill	2004

2005	NOx: 0.51 g/bhp-hr

CO: 2.44 g/bhp-hr

ROC: 0.20 g/bhp-hr

Inlet SO2: 35.9 ppmvd

Outlet SOx: 0.04 g/bhp-hr	NOx: 0.41 g/bhp-hr

CO: 1.87 g/bhp-hr

ROC: 0.03 g/bhp-hr

Inlet SO2: 40.82 ppmvd

Outlet SOx: 0.04 g/bhp-hr

	Altamont Landfill	2003

2004	NOx: 0.54 g/bhp-hr

CO: 1.9 g/bhp-hr

NMOC (as CH4): 0.3 g/bhp-hr	NOx: 0.48 g/bhp-hr

CO: 1.90 g/bhp-hr

NMOC (as CH4): 0.126 g/bhp-hr

	City of Sunnyvale	2002	NOx: 1.38 g/bhp-hr

CO: 2.36 g/bhp-hr

TNMHC: 0.018 g/bhp-hr	NOx: 1.38 g/bhp-hr

CO: 1.760 g/bhp-hr

TNMHC: 0.125 g/bhp-hr

	Riverside Landfill	2005	NOx: 0.554 g/bhp-hr

CO: 1.990 g/bhp-hr

ROGs: 0.042 g/bhp-hr

Bradley Landfill	2003

2005 (ROGs only)	NOx: 0.55 g/bhp-hr

CO: 2.173 g/bhp-hr

TNMHC: 0.16 g/bhp-hr

ROGs: 0.04 g/bhp-hr

Total Particulates: 

0.015 gr/dscf

Total Particulates (Retest 9/16/03): 0.00215 gr/dscf	NOx: 0.58 g/bhp-hr

CO: 2.154 g/bhp-hr

TNMHC: 0.15 g/bhp-hr

ROGs: 0.02 g/bhp-hr

Total Particulates: 

0.015 gr/dscf

Total Particulates (Retest 9/16/03): 0.00232 gr/dscf	NOx: 0.53 g/bhp-hr

CO: 2.145 g/bhp-hr

TNMHC: 0.20 g/bhp-hr

ROGs: 0.04 g/bhp-hr

Total Particulates: 

0.004 gr/dscf

	NOx: 0.51 g/bhp-hr

CO: 2.030 g/bhp-hr

TNMHC: 0.17 g/bhp-hr

ROGs: 0.038 g/bhp-hr

Total Particulates: 

0.004 gr/dscf

	NOx: 0.57 g/bhp-hr

CO: 2.358 g/bhp-hr

ROGs: 0.048 g/bhp-hr

Total Particulates: 

0.002 gr/dscf

Lopez Canyon Landfill	2001

2002

2003

2004

2005	NOx: 3.97 lbs/hr

CO: 17.3 lbs/hr

Particulates: 0.0052 gr/dscf

TGNMO/NMHC: 9.6 ppm as hexane at 3% O2

Formaldehyde: 0.14 lbs/hr

TRS/SO2: 15.8 ppmv	NOx: 3.7 lbs/hr

CO: 16.8 lbs/hr

Particulates: 0.0068 gr/dscf

TGNMO/NMHC: 11.3 ppm as hexane at 3% O2

Formaldehyde: 0.14 lbs/hr

TRS/SO2: 15.1 ppmv	N/A	N/A	N/A

Olinda Alpha Landfill	2002	NOx: 0.44 g/bhp-hr

CO: 2.26 g/bhp-hr

SO2: 0.05 g/bhp-hr

Total particulate: 0.122 g/bhp-hr

TGNMO, as carbon: 0.13 g/bhp-hr

Formaldehyde: 0.276 g/bhp-hr	NOx: 0.57 g/bhp-hr

CO: 2.18 g/bhp-hr

SO2: 0.04 g/bhp-hr

Total particulate: 0.113 g/bhp-hr

TGNMO, as carbon: 0.12 g/bhp-hr

Formaldehyde: 0.23 g/bhp-hr	N/A	N/A	N/A

El Sobrante Landfill	2003 (Engines 1 and 2)

2004 (Engine 3)

2005 (Engines 1 and 2)	NOx: 0.56 g/bhp-hr

CO: 2.33 g/bhp-hr

ROGs: 0.03 g/bhp-hr

Total particulates: 

0.005 gr/dscf

Formaldehyde: 0.62 lbs/hr

Exhaust SO2: 5.59 ppmv	NOx: 0.51 g/bhp-hr

CO: 2.19 g/bhp-hr

ROGs: 0.033 g/bhp-hr

Total particulates:

0.005 gr/ dscf Formaldehyde: 0.68 lbs/hr

Exhaust SO2 : 4.78 ppmv	NOx: 0.595 g/bhp-hr

CO: 2.392 g/bhp-hr

ROGs: 0.052 g/bhp-hr

Total particulates:

0.004 gr/dscf

Formaldehyde: 0.043 lbs/hr

Exhaust SO2: 2.64 ppmv	N/A	N/A

City of Riverside	2004	NOx: 1.63 lbs/hr

CO: 5.23 lbs/hr

SO2: 3.91 ppm @15% O2 or 0.16 lbs/hr

TNMHC: 49.50 ppm @15% O2 or 0.71 lbs/hr

Formaldehyde: 0.174 lbs/hr

Total particulates: 0.0167 gr/dscf 

or 0.47 lb/hr	NOx: 1.82 lbs/hr

CO: 6.33 lbs/hr

SO2: 3.11 (ppm at 15% O2) or 0.13 lbs/hr

TNMHC: 40.60 ppm @15% O2 or 0.57 lbs/hr

Formaldehyde: 0.205 lbs/hr

Total particulates: 0.0151 gr/dscf 

or 0.43 lbs/hr	NOx: 1.96 lbs/hr

CO: 4.92 lbs/hr

SO2: 2.10 ppm @15% O2) or 0.09 lbs/hr

TNMHC: 17.25 ppm @15% O2 or 0.26 lbs/hr

Formaldehyde: 0.100 lbs/hr

Total particulates: 0.0028 gr/dscf 

or 0.08 lbs/hr	N/A	N/A

City of Redlands 	2003

2004

2005	NOx: 0.57 g/bhp-hr

CO: 1.74 g/bhp-hr

TGNMO: 6.3 ppm as hexane @3% O2

TGNMO: 0.05 g/bhp-hr as CH4

Formaldehyde: 0.089 lbs/hr

Exhaust SOx: 0.06 lbs/hr	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A

Prima Deshecha Landfill	2001

2002

2003	NOx: 26.8 ppm @15% O2 

CO: 228.6 ppm @15% O2

NMHC: 26.5 ppm as CH4

NMHC: 11.1 ppm as hexane @3% O2

Formaldehyde: 0.110 lbs/hr

SO2: 82.6 ppmv 	NOx: 26.7 ppm @15% O2

CO: 215.7 ppm @15% O2 

NMHC: 18.3 ppm as CH4

NMHC: 5.17 as hexane @3% O2

Formaldehyde: 0.116 lbs/hr

SO2: 77.4 ppmv	N/A	N/A	N/A

Notes: 

dscf – dry standard cubic feet

TNMHC – total nonmethane hydrocarbons

ppmvd – parts per million by volume, dry basis 

TGNMO – total gaseous nonmethane organics 

ROGs – reactive organic gases

Attachment 2:  Summary of Additional Source Tests

Facility	Engine Manufacturer	Engine Model	Engine Size	Testing Dates
Testing Results

ARCADIS - Landfill A	Caterpillar	3412	470 KW	2002	NOx: 166 ppmv

CO: 560 ppmv

SOX: 34 ppmv

THC as Propane: 730 ppmv

THC as Hexane: 365 ppmv

ARCADIS - Landfill C	Caterpillar	3516	800 KW	2004	NOx: 2730 ppmv

CO: 568 ppmv

SOX: 0 ppmv

THC as Propane: 940 ppmv

THC as Hexane: 470 ppmv

Corona Landfill	Deutz	TBG	1358 KW	1998	NOx: 1.29 g/bhp-hr

CO: 1.76 g/bhp-hr

VOC: 0.31 g/bhp-hr

Lachenaie Landfill1	Waukesha	7042 GLD	1 MW	1999	NOx: 1.864 g/bhp-hr

CO: 7.027 g/bhp-hr

SOX: 0 g/bhp-hr

VOC: 0.033 g/bhp-hr

PM: 0.021 g/bhp-hr

Meloche Landfill1	Caterpillar	3516	812 KW	1999	NOx: 1.569 g/bhp-hr

CO: 3.728 g/bhp-hr

SOX: 0 g/bhp-hr

VOC: 0.013 g/bhp-hr

PM: 0.025 g/bhp-hr

Waterloo Regional Landfill2	Caterpillar	G3516LE	925 KW	2001	NOx: 2.977
g/bhp-hr

CO; 7.121 g/bhp-hr

SOX: 0 g/bhp-hr

VOC: 0.016 g/bhp-hr

PM: 0.025 g/bhp-hr

		1 Located in Quebec, Canada

2 Located in Ontario, Canada

 PAGE   

 PAGE   13