Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2003-063 e4'ra Nr& rE 'w ,�' .••+. t r i A-'.. yf r -.� wx t 'f ,-6'"„ ' St .9` •.'yu'f;. l n; :> ;s' f ..{ n H: < ' T ire'' i'a •' ar .tItT d' r ` -ir 5 e. 4 ,dt ' t-. r1 + �., :a r f, arf IF ." rvrr } Li°"".rb, .kiIt 3. ,:: d 65# d . r., �,;: - kA. ' .z p €� I, I d air` > ,. ,+s �,+- a P , 1 h' a t < '.� 5` " 'L3 rJ .; x ♦ t .s d r ' 1* '7 ,.� $' Y i . tr ifrf eats j'TO k � r # } rv- :. �4io .jc 5 y ry v.' f' i' r .. �' yv) Y +r�e' T A fY ' -Y° i of (k •b ,+. ..C. ,s., - • . t t€� ' {' { , f " a : ., e r y �F ' P ' r• Nt w ,Ha y t 4 ! "x i 7 -�" z- c r >z , i 7" s ""`•y,- 'T ! yt k 1. 1 r r jr r .,.: , '^1r � v s � '� a - ✓_ , lrr`. i 'r` 4' i• 7 > {'r{ Y At. S to r 1 c> 1 t � r if l t p IA yr . F ` 2{ 7 '. � ^ lz ... ,64. .x'•en . €✓'i`:. . t , ti r i �" >q - .t;. •$s#, i► rrl - � �`' a 4 m S.dr «SFT ,!' r 3+,S�, �-• p $ Xf ' V'Tkr a 'F eIt 'er' � : z. ♦ " I¢ y Pd, '!' }l.£'p�T� x r - �Yd ��- - •�' � - � F +. ys : F �y `. SIC � 1 '1t'x�v • ry-x f Vi0i .,r 'XJv . �- -amu x ..•11 - _. . ~ ✓ 2�-Wit " - Y 'r AV # a + .atetlA'ti'�',rttr � . - j 7F i S m+ P' di,• �"i v ' .' 9 n.�ryr iM 3+_ 3 X F _ '} R� . t" Z t t} d it ' 't; t $( ppx IV 99 r V n r It 3 ijN` �" ,d ` " �#F.' � s -� . rv'�` - - �A""-�.w," a�6 k t` „ �' -,m � b .,. M :5,•, k� drt *�' ej _ r ••,= s ,+ >=-..v ., 4 � .r �,� w r�r.'�; „� �� >� �.;�_ .s�.a. f F'r 'k �. _ �'�rnj}. ` .., 'rye x.,. - -s . �#7 ✓ s.- ', .. .,.'°'� r � � k 4 �t� ��ii• Hit Lift, tl"w 31 17 IV d ` : s 1 � � L { t d ytlYiA yy ki9 I� `y�j 3 D :ay JJ11 , " -911 yah r. Jiy lire .1~ sd^- � •-�, ti ,: n` m e � � �}�ka� r�` �,`�``� .�'�p�may` � e ;,,✓..'#r. a �"- , • ^ •,�` '� a . �+ .. . r x..,r` „ -.'Y >£ 2 ..• t' ,k s" �• a�H1 I_. .3t 're 'Pa t �1,. '3�6`da7'�� a+i � .'1.r+F� ��"�,..�ryy''•rY'Sa� ... 3 S:. � y� s-.P'' tr -,". ,F � Sti{' vF-a it sq " °`�� t+S u'en' f� � � "5 r+ Y m�• I C�ttlr ,' � � _ x Is — f fi I ' RFs Y sw,n, �; },� i •w „ _� ,,..s.^ �- 7 pt i_ . '' i b r Cir+' $<` : .a p ��• i ; 'p}�. 'x (# yds its '..• t�! 119 , An s, �` Y� r �' • ��''' ¢, "� i ;,r14dr !t •In 1� 'f% C.� k , � f t " It,b. k j -A ;'�5, ' `rr r{`{}'a,1r+"' t x C ra't 's k^ bam k r _ ° eta ., -..«u - y, y {�h pyre' Sr44 W. �^"i r ' "N H� gt7 di t �}"5 s•^` :' F{r�'� C, i t'n r r 4 i jcty�y r(a . e Yy t r k , w It. ', f i8At4i�"r S,ry Yr $ri � � .: t - tl�ir + �.f' $ 116C.I .c, � 4 JR .4 1't4ail •,r r .Y� • rt 1- "143W brfIt " + � 6a ' rte" �` # : may f cg `S''f ' +m ,,yf � t� •• t ' 4�• •'£�y b . � v , a F v -, , aIg,rty9 t. 1 '' ' ; tLIII [ £7 ..Jl :� y "" sem ' INI e"c: r +Yryf% a-y _ -1_,.,91 t�- ' .'z 'y- . « Fr. � :. 3 7 Y, . r.. ._. t s yY¢ ey ,'+} k ' 9 u9`.0r. • ' J trE`9� t� t {fy' 1 - k t p? sL,�lt47av ,. � 'iv R vl . . `, �♦ 's ;+• x l �,"F •, 5T ! f� y ' y is.7 € } 8 r y SKS ;: i -� �. G x"f s '� C ` t}l",+tt'ih` ' a *, 5# � $ f rft ` ,Ft c° rb si P'E £r» a ( s"'°� f '.{`F t - }r • • L t .h 3 a ; a ,a' h ie' rx� E! : -x �',f; t � '.� M1:rfY ,.h'.7�' t }l s f tgN9 r ,' t `§k v9rr' . 'r f n y y A of V vie i' • L 1 # s R. c, _J1 r T . d '{ d Y'td'JFray. ! {d P _slJ. . f � � S't} tr't '.7'xa4 ,r,,. �. j§A f TF" k ' rL :•1. !"' ' r: 4 riP �'ki VIP, # # + f4i'y • T4• v t' - �, r '" y - t y . +y' `"ktr oil . r'rr47` a - 1' ,x�r it ." t '13 =f s! •wx 4kr ,� — 1111. AL aNi/ 71 alk c,�>y� ty ¢ � -��� ��F� 'f ' tp' g'{ 'is �,� - 7 .� t.�'.t` � o �'•� .,� ' k + nl 1 r to s ,f ^ ,�' t�� r, It A, �< 11 Ft., , K'C` tnCill t ,f dlY, 7�• .S f,� t r Vf�� 4 ,�"3 _ • 3 • a :; ' �r �'ts. '3Y .1ia 'F. �'• tlati „„t s :.'4" t r . r 1� _ ' rrE r ,,d' ttJsri r s3, ' S'r`i It A, `'wt �.r ', ',1 �,�, y �6 '3S # R �e'. rtr H•�' .. � Y . .ys.J ice • : iS . . . _ � �'.r1 � 7 {3aYFF'' .,,�$ � � s'� jt .r'�j- n £'}J}, +�,d � �.�k`}•2A.r .L���}�+it{ (. �, <- � i���� �{` ssr• . t �' �" :• a��{F`_; - _ tIP• f. • �+,yYry^ ri �r 1N� xS. w r ' tt>~ yt'� , t 4F,y� j at »�,g-'#, w �{^,�.aEt,,�gy " t ,` {lr� ' t. , �w ' �J, td, "s 'F. tIt y4.Er `F t c • "tM W, u 'AF ! # y a w INDIAN RIVER COUNTY CENTRAL WA S TE WA TER TREA TMENT FA CILI TY ODOR CONTROL STUDY February 2003 y 482 South Keller Road Orlando, Florida Phone: 407-647- 7275 h ODOR CONTROL STUDY Executive Summary Odor and sulfur emission inventories and evaluations performed in this study show that the existing Regional Sludge Facility ( RSF ) Scrubbers , Anoxic Tank , and Sludge and Septage Storage Tanks are , in order, the major sources of odorous emissions from the Central WWTF . Hydrogen sulfide ( 1-12S ) and organic sulfides are the major odorants emitted from these sources . Emission data show that the existing RSF scrubbers are not adequately removing H2S and organic sulfides . Evaluations also show that improvements to the RSF scrubbers will provide the most odorant removal . Although recent efforts to eliminate sludge dewatering filtrate and Aerobic Digester emissions have reduced total plant emissions by an estimated 25 to 33 % , air dispersion models shows that additional improvements are needed to further reduce emissions from the major sources . Air dispersion modeling also indicates that 90 % reduction of emissions from the major sources should help make the Central WWTF a Is community- friendly facility" . Several alternative improvements were evaluated for each of the major sources . Based on the advantages , disadvantages , effectiveness , and estimated costs associated with these alternatives , the following improvements ( in order of importance ) are recommended for the Central WWTF and RSF . RSF Scrubber Improvements Install automatic chlorine solution addition facilities to both scrubbers and operate the existing scrubbers in series , as a two-stage system . Install oxidation -reduction potential (ORP ) controls on both scrubbers . The ORP monitors will control the addition of chlorine solution . Add a gas phase chlorine monitor to the last scrubber to ensure adequate chlorine addition in the last stage . Operate the first scrubber with mostly caustic soda . Operate the second scrubber with mostly chlorine solution . Engineering start-up , testing , and training services should be used to help determine appropriate operating conditions . • Install a VFD on the existing blower and add a second smaller blower to the existing scrubber system . Install an automated damper on the exhaust duct from the Dewatering Building and operate the large blower at full speed during sludge dewatering . Operate the small blower at full speed or large blower at half speed when sludge is not being dewatered . The automated damper should partially close when sludge is not being dewatered so that much of the air is drawn from the Sludge and Septage Storage Tanks , I Indian River County, Central Wastewater Treatment Facility 1111 PBSU #071230, February 2003 ODOR CONTROL STUDY • Total construction and engineering costs for the above improvements are estimated to be approximately $270 , 000 . Additional operating costs are estimated to be between $ 30 , 000 and $45 , 000 per year. • Since the RSF dewaters about 13 , 000 wet tons of septage and sludge per year, these conservatively estimated costs equate to approximately $4 . 50 to $ 5 . 75 per wet ton of sludge . Based on our experience , these costs probably represent less than a 10 % increase in sludge dewatering and disposal costs , and are relatively minor compared to costs to relocate the RSF or employ an alternative sludge disposal technology. • Construct and operate a new sodium hypochlorite storage and feed system if the existing chlorine generation facility is found to be inadequate upon further review, or if the new system is desired by the County. Construction and engineering costs for a new sodium hypochlorite system are estimated to be approximately $ 130 , 000 . Anoxic Tank Improvements • Construct and operate an activated sludge internal recycle system to allow improved biological oxidation of odorous compounds in the Anoxic Tank. • Construct aluminum or fiberglass covers over- the Anoxic Tank and collect odorous air from the headspace under the covers . • Construct and operate a modular biofilter for controlling the odorous emissions from the Anoxic Tank. Total construction and engineering costs for the above improvements are estimated to be approximately $ 520 , 000 . Sludge and Septage Storage Tanks Improvements • Add a permanent drain for the mechanical thickener so that all hatches and covers can remain closed . • Open the dampers on the Sludge and Septage Storage Tanks so that the headspace in the tanks can be ventilated more effectively. • Total construction and engineering costs for the above improvements are estimated to be approximately $ 50 , 000 . 1 Lr.i II Indian River County, Central Wastewater Treatment Facility / PBS&J #071230, February 2003 ODOR CONTROL STUDY Other Minor and Transient Sources Improvements • Improve the ventilation in the bar screen dumpster area so that the garage doors can remain closed . Improved ventilation could be accomplished when the Anoxic Tanks are covered and ventilated . The ventilated air could be added to the Anoxic Tank biofilter at a construction cost of approximately $ 80 , 000 . • Openings that exist at slide gates and bar screens on top of the Headworks Structure should be closed with rubber gaskets . The cost for these gaskets is estimated to be less than $ 1 , 000 , assuming County personnel install the gaskets . • The existing grit removal units , dumpsters , and mechanical sludge thickener are the most difficult transient odor sources to control . No improvements are recommended for these sources at this time because they are expensive to cover and few emissions are likely to be controlled . The addition of a local meteorological station (wind speed and direction ) is recommended for the RSF . Data and information from the local meteorological station could be used to make decisions when not to operate these facilities . The cost for a local meteorological station is estimated to be approximately $ 15 , 000 Dewatering Building Improvements • Ambient H2S was measured by the Jerome meter at concentrations between 0 , and 6 ppmv inside the Dewatering Building . H2S measurements were highest near the belt filter presses and the belt filter press sumps . The new belt filter press hoods will probably reduce fugitive emissions in the Dewatering Building . However, open grating over the filtrate sump will likely allow significant emissions to continue to escape into the Dewatering Building . It is not known how ambient H2S concentrations will be affected by the new hoods and open sumps . • The belt press filtrate sump could be eliminated or covered . Piping changes could be made to the belt filter press drains and/or aluminum plates could be used to cover the sumps . Construction and engineering costs for these improvements are estimated to be less than $20 , 000 , assuming County maintenance personnel make these improvements . Proposed Improvement Budget and Schedule Provided below is a summary of a proposed conservative budget for all of the above recommended improvements : :9 III Indian River County, Central Wastewater Treatment Facility PBSW #071230, February 2003 ODOR CONTROL STUDY Construction & Additional Annual Engineerinq Costs Operating Costs Scrubber Improvements $ 270 , 000 $ 30-45 , 000 Sludge & Septage Storage Tanks $ 50 , 000 $ 0 Dewatering Building Filtrate Sump $ 20 , 000 $ 0 Local Meteorological Station $ 157000 $ 0 Total RSF Improvements $ 355, 000 $ 3045; 000 Anoxic Tank $ 520, 000 $ 8- 13, 000 Bar Screen Dumpster Ventilation $ 80, 000 $ 1 , 000 Gaskets on Headworks $ 11000 $ 0 New Hypochlorite Facilities $ 130, 000 $ 11000 Contingency at 10% $ 114, 000 $ 0 TOTAL ALL IMPROVEMENTS $ 1 ,200 , 000 $ 40 -60 , 000 The improvements could be accomplished according to the following schedule : First Phase Improvements — 3 months • - Addition of chlorine solution to the RSF scrubbers • Operation of RSF scrubbers in series • Improved Sludge and Septage Storage Tanks Ventilation • Gaskets on Headworks • Internal recycle for Anoxic Tank • Local meteorological station • Dewatering filtrate sump grating plates and/or drains Second Phase Improvements — 12 months • New blowers and controls for RSF scrubbers • New covers and odor controls for Anoxic Tank • Improved ventilation for bar screen dumpsters • New sodium hypochlorite storage and feed facilities , if required •� Iv Indian River County, Central Wastewater Treatment Facility 1 PBSU 11071230, February 2003 4 ODOR CONTROL STUDY Contents Section 1 . 0 Introduction 1 2 . 0 Mass Odor Emission Inventory 2 2 . 1 Air Emission Testing Methodologies 3 2 . 2 Mass Emission Rates 5 2 . 3 Findings and Observations From Sampling Program g 2 . 3 . 1 -Olfactory Measurements 9 2012 Sulfur Emissions 9 2 . 3 . 3 Regional Sludge Facility Sulfur Mass Balance 10 2 . 3 .4 Impact of Dewatering Operations on Emissions 10 2 . 3 . 5 Impact of Recent Improvements on Emissions 12 2 . 3 . 6 Other Minor .and Transient Sources 13 2 .4 Conclusions from Mass Emissions Inventory 14 3 . 0 Odor Control Alternatives 15 3 . 1 Anoxic Tank 15 3 . 1 . 1 Biological Oxidation 15 3 . 1 . 2 Cover and Conti-ol with-New Scrubber 15 3 . 1 . 3 Cover and Control with New Biofilter 16 3 . 1 .4 Cover and Control with RSF Scrubber 17 3 . 1 . 5 Recommended Improvements 18 3 . 2 Regional Sludge Facility 18 3 . 2 . 1 Existing Odor Scrubber 18 3 . 2 . 2 Sludge and Septage Storage Tanks 20 3 . 2 . 3 Consideration of Alternative Technologies 22 3 . 2 . 4 Recommended Improvements 22 4 . 0 Air Dispersion Modeling 23 4 . 1 Model Limitations 24 4 . 2 Odor Detection Thresholds 24 4 . 3 Air Dispersion Modeling Results 25 4 . 4 Air Dispersion Model Conclusions 25 5 . 0 Cost Benefit Analysis 26 6 . 0 Improvements to Minor and Transient Sources 28 7 . 0 Other Issues 28 8 . 0 Conclusions and Recommendations 29 8 . 1 RSF Scrubber Improvements 29 8 . 2 Anoxic Tank Improvements 30 8 . 3 Sludge and Septage Storage Tanks Improvements 30 8 . 4 Other Minor and Transient Sources Improvements 31 8 . 5 Dewatering Building Improvements 31 8 . 6 Proposed Improvement Budget and Schedule 31 Appendix Utility Advisory Committee Presentation - February 5 , 2003 1 J '9 v Indian River County, Central Wastewater Treatment Facility 1 PBS&J #071230, February 2003 ODOR CONTROL STUDY P Tables Table 1 Odor Detection Thresholds 4 Table 2 Summary of Mass Emission Rates from Sources 6 Table 3 Organic Sulfides Emissions Summary 7 Table 4 VOC Emissions Summary g Table 5 RSF Ambient Hydrogen Sulfide Survey 11 Table 6 Existing RSF Improvement Alternatives 21 Table 7 Alternative Improvements Cost Benefit Analysis 27 ,� A Indian River County, Central Wastewater Treatment Facility 1 PBS&J #071230, February 2003 i ODOR CONTROL STUDY Figures Figure 1 Inventory of Odorous Sources Figure 2 Mass Odor Emissions for Each Source (Odor - D/T Readings ) Figure 3 Mass Sulfur Emissions for Each Source - Jerome Readings Figure 4 Mass Sulfur Emissions for Each Source -Tube Readings Figure 5 Mass Organic Sulfide Emissions for Each Source - GC-MS Readings Figure 6 Odor D/T versus Jerome Readings Figure 7 Comparison of Mass Sulfur Emissions Rates between Tube , Jerome , & -GC/MS Readings Figure 8 Sulfur Mass Balance for RSF Figure 9 Anoxic Tank Emissions (with and without Filtrate ) Figure 10 Oxidation Ditch Emissions (with and without Filtrate ) Figure 11 Emission Reduction (April 2002 — October 2002 ) Figure 12 Maximum Mass Sulfur Emission for Each Source Figure 13 Odor Impact Model for Hydrogen Sulfide From MOP No . 22 , pg . 107 Figure 14 ISCST3 Model Results Existing Conditions (April 2002 ) Figure 15 ISCST3 Model Results Existing Conditions (October 2002 ) Figure 16 ISCST3 Model Results Option 1 - Elimination of RSF Fugitive Emissions Figure 17 ISCST3 Model Results Option 2 - RSF Scrubber Improvements Figure 18 ISCST3 Model Results Option 3 - RSF Scrubber and Fugitive Emissions Improvements Figure 19 ISCST3 Model Results Option 4 - Minimum Anoxic Tank Improvements Figure 20 ISCST3 Model Results Option 5 - Maximum Anoxic Tank Improvements Figure 21 ISCST3 Model Results Option 6 - RSF & Minimum Anoxic Tank Improvements Figure 22 ISCST3 Model Results Option 7 - RSF & Maximum Anoxic Tank Improvements Figure 23 ISCST3 Model Results Option 7 — RSF & Maximum Anoxic Tank Improvements 95 % Control VII Indian River County, Central Wastewater Treatment Facility PM61 PBSU #071230, February 2003 ODOR CONTROL STUDY 1 . 0 Introduction The Indian River County Department of Utility Services has been receiving odor complaints from neighbors of the Central Wastewater Treatment Facility ( Central WWTF ) . The existing Regional Sludge Facility ( RSF ) , which is located on the Central VW/TF site , has been the focus of these complaints . In response to the complaints , the Department of Utility Services commissioned odor control improvements to the RSF . The improvements focused on improving collection of odorous emissions within the belt filter press area of the RSF . Hoods and covers were constructed over the existing belt filter presses and conveyors so that emissions from these sources could be more efficiently collected . More efficient collection of odorous emissions would improve working conditions within the RSF and reduce emissions of odorous gases to the atmosphere . Odorous emissions collected by the hoods and covers would be delivered to the existing odor control scrubber, where they would be treated and removed before the air is discharged to the atmosphere . Understanding that these improvements do not comprehensively address odor emissions from this site , the Department of Utility Services invited PBS &J to visit the Central WWTF and offer guidance on approaches to further reduce odorous emissions . On April 18 , 2002 , PBS &J visited the Central WWTF to observe operations and conduct a preliminary assessment of odorous emissions from all the treatment processes at the Central WWTF . Following the visit, PBS &J suggested that significant odorous emissions might be originating from several facilities other than the RSF . The existing Sludge and Septage Storage Tanks , Aerobic- Digesters , Filtrate Equalization Basin , and Anoxic Tank were specifically identified as -facilities that might be emitting significant odorous emissions . PBS&J recommended a mass odor emission inventory be conducted for these facilities . A mass odor emission inventory involves collecting and analyzing air samples from the suspected odor generation facilities . The inventory quantifies the mass of odor emissions generated at various locations and identifies the odorous compounds that require control and/or treatment . By defining mass odor emission rates at each facility, the County would be able to objectively prioritize the most important odor generation areas and better assess the types of improvements and corresponding odorous compound removals that are needed . In September 2002 , the Department of Utility Services commissioned PBS &J to perform this comprehensive odor control study for the Central WWTF . The objectives of this study were to : • Develop a mass odor emissions inventory of odorous compounds from existing treatment facilities . • Evaluate the performance of recent odor control improvements at the Regional Sludge Facility. • Evaluate and recommend appropriate methods for reducing emissions of odorous compounds . �♦J Indian River County, Central Wastewater Treatment Facility 111 PBS&J #071230, February 2003 r ODOR CONTROL STUDY To achieve these objectives , PBS &J used olfactory and analytical approaches to measure emissions of odors and sulfur-based compounds from most of the treatment processes at the Central WWTF . Sulfur containing compounds , such as hydrogen sulfide ( H2S ) and organic sulfides (such as mercaptans ) , are most often associated with sewage and sludge odors . Measurements of these compounds were taken directly at the treatment processes , where emissions are at their highest level of detection . Taking samples at the treatment processes increases the accuracy of the emissions estimates . Emission rates were then used to prioritize the sources . This report summarizes the results of the mass odor emission inventory and the evaluation of potential approaches for reducing odorous emissions . 2 . 0 Mass Odor Emissions Inventory A mass odor emissions inventory was developed for suspected odorous facilities at the Central WWTF . The development of mass odor emissions for each facility provides the most objective method for quantifying odorous emissions from specific facilities and assessing the potential impact of these emissions on off-site communities . Mass odor emission rates are developed by multiplying the concentration of odorous compounds at the source by an airflow rate . For point sources , such as odor control scrubbers , the mass emission rate is estimated by multiplying the concentration of odorous compounds in the discharge stack by the flow rate of the blower. Scrubbers often have low concentrations of odorous compounds , but they typically have high air flow rates . Thus , scrubbers can have high mass emission rates and create far more odor problems than sources with high concentrations of odorous compounds and low air flow rates . Wastewater and sludge treatment facilities often contain odorous sources that have little or no air flow rates . These facilities are called area sources , which typically consist of tanks filled with liquids and/or solids . Flux chambers have been specifically designed to measure mass emission rates from area sources . Flux chambers convert area sources to point sources by using motive air to sweep across the surface of the area source and discharge the sweep air through an exit port . In general , the flux chamber is a continuous stirred reactor, wherein the gas phase compounds are in dynamic equilibrium with the liquid phase compounds . Thus , the flux camber captures 1-12S2S and other compounds as they are emitted from the liquid surface to the gas inside the flux chamber. Flux chambers were first developed for measuring emissions from hazardous materials landfills . As such , the United States Environmental Protection Agency ( USEPA) has validated the accuracy and adaptability of flux chambers . Since the sweep airflow rate is known and the concentration of the odorant is measured at the exit port, a flux rate (in terms of pounds/day/ft2) is calculated for the quiescent portion of a liquid process . In order to develop a mass odor emission inventory for the Central WWTF , odor emissions from numerous facilities were measured on October 9 and 10 , 2002 . Mal 2 Indian River County, Central Wastewater Treatment Facility PBS&J #071230, February 2003 ODOR CONTROL STUDY Representative samples were taken from point and area sources . Laboratory and field analyses of the samples were performed to identify the odorous compounds found in the emissions . Mass odor emission rates were then calculated for each treatment process . An USEPA validated flux-chamber was used to collect samples from the following area sources : • Anoxic Tank Pre-Oxygen Zone in Oxidation Ditch ( prior to aerators ) Mixed -Aerated Zone in Oxidation Ditch (after aerators ) Sludge Storage Basins • Septage Storage Tanks • Filtrate Sump Samples were also taken and analyzed for several point sources , including : • Headworks Scrubber ( inlet and outlet) • Combined Sludge Storage Duct (duct from Sludge and Septage Storage Tanks to the RSF -Scrubber) • RSF Scrubber -( inlet and outlet) Figure 1 provides an overview of the facilities that were included in the mass odor emissions inventory for the Central WWTF. 2 . 1 Air Emission Testing Methodologies Emissions from Wastewater Treatment Facilities and sludge processing facilities typically contain high amounts of H2S and organic sulfur compounds . These compounds are known to be highly odorous at low concentrations . Table 1 shows that these compounds can be detected by the human olfactory system at less than part per billion by volume ( ppbv) concentrations . Thus , H2S and organic sulfur compounds were the primary odorous compounds measured during the sampling program . H2S concentrations were measured at the plant using a Jerome 631X H2S detector and colorimetric sorption tubes . In addition , samples from all of the area and point sources were analyzed on -site for organic sulfur compounds using a field portable gas chromatography/mass spectrometry (GC/MS ) unit. Samples were also collected in preconditioned Tedlar gas sampling bags and sent to a laboratory for olfactory analysis . Additional information on the testing methodologies used to measure odor emissions from the Central WWTF is provided below: • A Jerome Model 631X total sulfide analyzer was used for real-time measurement of all sulfur compounds , in terms of H2S concentrations . The meter is quantitatively calibrated for H2S . However, organic sulfur compounds are also measured by the analyzer, but at fractional proportions . .� 3 Indian River County, Central Wastewater Treatment Facility J PBSU #071230, February 2003 ODOR CONTROL STUDY Table 1 : Odor Detection Thresholds (ppbv) Source Compound A B C D E Average Hydrogen sulfide 0 .47 0 .47 0 .47 0 .47 0 .47 0 .47 Dimet:W sulfide 0 . 1 1 3 1 1 1 ,22 Dimethyl disulfide 1 — -- -- 1 Methyl mercaptan 1 . 1 1 . 1 0 . 5 1 . 1 0 . 5 0 . 86 Ammonia -- 37 47 37 1 335 MEK -- — 21000 -- -- 21000 Toluene -- -- 170 -- -- 170 Methanol -- -- 4 , 260 -- -- 4 ,260 Acetone -- -- 20 , 000 -- -- 20 , 000 A — Design Manual -Odor and Corrosion Control in Sanitary Sewerage Systems and Treatment Plants B — Handbook of Environmental Data on Organic Chemicals , K. Verscheuren C — Odors from Stationary and Mobile Sources , National Academy of Sciences D — Odor and Volatile Organic Compound Emission Control for Municipal and Industrial Treatment Facilities E — Air Pollution Engineering Manual Indian River County, Central Wastewater Treatment Plant PBS #071230, February 2003 ODOR CONTROL STUDY • Colorimetric sorption tubes were used to measure specific sulfur compounds , including H2S and dimethyl sulfide . The tube quantitatively changes color proportionate to the concentration of the sulfur compounds in the gas sample . • A field portable GC/MS was used to measure various organic sulfur compounds by a modified EPA Method TO - 14 . The field -portable GC/MS eliminates potential sampling errors because the sample is drawn directly from the source . Therefore , there is no sampling container, which can negatively bias results. Other common organic compounds (such as toluene and ketones ) were measured by the GC/MS method employed in this study. However, none of these other organic compounds measured at the Central WWTF are considered relevant to odor emissions . This is because the concentrations found in the samples are far below odor detection thresholds for these compounds . For example , as -shown in Table 1 toluene and acetone have odor detection thresholds of 170 and 20 , 000 ppbv, respectively. The highest concentration of toluene in any of the significant emitting sources at the Central WWTF was 82 ppbv. The highest total volatile organic compound (VOC ) concentration was 710 ppbv . Therefore , these organic compounds are considered to have little to no odor significance . By contrast, some of the significant sources at the Central WWTF contained 3 , 000 to 10 , 000 -ppbv of organic sulfur compounds . These organic sulfur compounds have . significant odor implications considering the detection thresholds are less than 1 ppbv . • Samples for each source were collected in Tedlar bags and sent to Odor Science and Engineering in Bloomfield , Connecticut for olfactory odor analyses performed in accordance with ASTM E -679-91 and E-544-99 . Odor emissions were quantified in terms of dilution -to-threshold ( D[T) ratio and intensity. Subjective characterization of the odors was also provided . 2 .2 Mass Emission Rates Once the samples were collected and analyzed , PBSU summarized the data and estimated mass odor emission rates for each treatment process at the Central WWTF . Summaries of data from the olfactory analyses , field measurements , and GC/MS analyses are provided in Tables 2 , 3 , and 4 respectively. For the point sources , the mass emission rates were calculated by multiplying the concentration of the odorant times the airflow rate of the source . For the area sources , the mass emission rates were calculated by multiplying the emission flux rates (as determined by flux chamber measurements ) times the total area of the source . Pertinent data and information about the treatment processes were obtained from County personnel , plant records , drawings , and field measurements . Airflow rates , volumetric concentrations , and flux emission rates that were used in calculating the mass emission rates for each source are presented in Table 2 . Surface areas and emission flux rates are also provided for each area source . All mass emission rates are given in terms of pounds per day of H2S . PBSJ# 5Indian River County, Central Wastewater Treatment Facility 11 PBS&J #071230, February 2003 f 1 ODOR CONTROL STUDY Table 2 : Summary of Mass Emission Rates from Sources AREA SOURCES DATE TIME DESIGNATION SOURCE LOCATIONS SURFACE AREA Jerome Reading Tube Reading Odor (DR) GC/MS ass ass ass Emission Cone, Emission Mass Emission Cone. Emission 10/10/2002 0746 FC-ODAZ- 1 Anoxic Tank sq. feet Cone. ppmv (lbs/day) ppmv (lbs/day) (DR) Equiv. (DT/day) ppmv (lbs/day) 10/10/2002 1447 FC-ODAZ-2 Anoxic Tank - --- ' - 3. 110 >50 >2.42 110 5.32 545545 1 .9E+07 3. 16 0.15 10110/2002 1453 FC-ODAZ-2R Anoxic Tank 3. 110 48.0 2.32 12 0.58 250250 8.8E+OB 1 . 13 0.05 3, 110 50.0 2.42 32 1 .55 230230 8.1 E+06 1 .53 0.07 10/10/2002 1102 FC-FS Filtrate Sump 21376 46 1 .70 12 0.44 96693 2.6E+OB 10/10/2002 1014 FC-ODAO-1 Mixed-Aerated Zone/Oxidation Ditch w/o Filtrate 1011012002 1650 FC-ODAO-2 Mixed-Aerated Zone/Oxidation Ditch w/ Filtrate 13,520 . 16 0.034 __70 1 <0.02 624 9.6E+04 <0.035 <0.007 13,520 0.008 0.002 ND 211 3.2E+04 <0.035 <0.007 10/10/2002 0904 FC-ODPAO-1 1-18-Oxygen Zone/Oxidation Ditch w/o Filtrate 10!10/2002 1603 FC ODPAO-2 Pre-oxygen Zone/Oxidation Ditch w/ Filtrate 13,520 0.26 0.055 <0.5 <0.11 1 108 1 .7E+04 <0.037 <0.008 Solids Processes 13,520 0. 19 0.040 <0. 1 <0.02 59 1 .1E+04 <0.035 <0.007 10/10!2002 1243 FC-SSB-1 Sludge Storage Basins 10/10/2002 1345 FC-ST Septage Storage Tanks 2,400 >50 1 .866 190 7.09 273045 7.4E+OB 10.99 0.41 456 >50 0.355 60 0.43 229959 1 .2E+06 3.09 0.02 POINT SOURCES DATE TIMEfDESIGN7ATION SOURCE LOCATIONSVENTILATION Jerome Reading Odor (DR) GCIMS Reading asMass Emission Volumetric Flow Emissions Equiv. Cone. Mass Emission 10/9/2002 1550 00915 Combined Slud a Storage Duct Rate (cfm) Conc. ppmv (lbs/day) (D/T) (DT/day) ppmV (lbs/day) 10/9/2002 1640 72100917 Combined Stud a Stora a Duct 930 48.0 5.50 F7.74 0.21 10/10!2002 1038 T2101010 Combined Sludge Storage Duct 930 50.0 5.73 0.14 930 0.89 10/9!2002 1602 RSF Scrubber Outlet10/10/2002 1130 T2101015 RSF Scrubber Outlet 52,000 0.74 4.74 10/10/2002 1147 T2101017 RSSrubber Ouliet 52,000 1 ,20 7.69 1 15 10/10/2002 1445 PT-BE RSF Scrubber Outlet 52,000 1 .70 10.89 . 1 .44 10/10/2002 1337 52,000 2.40 15.38 19,372 4.11E+13 RSF Scrubber Outlet 52,000 1 .25 8.01 10/9/2002 1600 RSF Scrubber Inlet 52,000 10/10/2002 1130 T2101016 RSF Scrubber Inlet 0.94 6.0252,000 10110/2002 1147 T2101021 RSF Scrubber Inlet 4.40 28.20 0 34 2.20 10/10/2002 1337 52,000 4.50 28.84 0.36 2.31 RSF Scrubber Inlet 521000 3.00 19.23 10/10/2002 1540 Measured B Drag er Headworks Scrubber It - DMS 1 ,050 10/10/2002 1540 Measured By Drager Headworks Scrubber Outlet - DMS 100 12.94 1 ,050 4 0.52 Indian River County, Central W astewaler Treatment Plant PBS #071230. Febmary 2003 ODOR CONTROL STUDY Table 3 : Organic Sulfides Emissions Summary AREA SOURCES DATE TIME ZFC-ODAZ-2 N SOURCE LOCATIONS Concentrations, p by (except where noted) oa Carbonyl Methyl Carbon Ethyl Mercaptan/ Dimethyl Total Organic Organic S Sulfide Mercaptain Disulfide Dimethyl Sulfide Disulfide S (ppbv) (ppmv) 10/10/2002 0746 Anoxic Tank 1.70 2,800 63 110 19 10!10/2002 1447 Anoxic Tank 3, 162 3.162 44 940 10/10/2002 1453 FC-ODAZ-2R Anoxic Tank 26 110 11 17131 1 .131 10/10/2002 1014 60 1 ,300 29 130 14 1 ,533 1 .533 FC-ODAO-1 Mixed-Aerated Zone/Oxidation Ditch w/o Filtrate < 70 < 10 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <35 <0.035 10/10/2002 1650 FC-ODAO-2 Mixed-Aerated Zone/Oxidation Ditch w/ Filtrate <10 <10 < 10/10/2002 0904 FC•ODPAO-1 Pre-O an ZonelOxldation Ditch w/o Filtrate 5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <35 <0.035 10/10/2002 1603 FC-ODPAO-2 Pre-Oxygen ZanelOxidatlon Ditch w/ Filtrate 2 <10 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <37 <0.037 10/10/2002 1243 10 <10 <5,p <5 .0 <5.0 <35 <0.035 FC-ST Se to a Stora a Tanks 38 2,800 57 170 28 3,093 3.093 10/10/2002 1345 FC-SSBI Sludge Storage Basins 170 9,600 g7 980 140 10,987 10.987 POINT SOURCES DATE TIME DESIGNATION SOURCE LOCATIONS Concentrations, ppbv (except where noted) oa Carbonyl Methyl Carbon Ethyl Mercaptan/ Dimethyl Total Organic Organic S 1019/2002 1417 Sulfide Mercaptain Disulfide Dimethyl Sulfide Disulflde S (ppbv) (ppmv) 72100913 Heads ace from Slud a Stora a Tank 1 , 100 3,600 460 10/9/2002 1631 T2100918 Headspace from Sludge Storage Tank 47600 16100 10,860 10.86 280 8,400 130 1 ,300 160 10,270 10.27 1019/2002 1550 72100915 Combined Siud a Stora a Duct 180 520 94 880 150 1 ,824 1 .82 10/9/2002 1640 72100917 Combined Slud a Storage Duet 150 330 10/10/2002 1036 72101010 Combined Sludge Storage Duct 60 600 99 1 ,239 1 .24 10/10/2002 1130 72101015 RS Scrubber Outlet 160 6,600 88 760 130 70738 7.74 10/10!2002 1147 72101017 RSF Scrubber Outlet 13 110 <5,0 40 12 180 0.18 16 140 <5,0 50 14 225 0.23 10/10/2002 1130 72101016 RSF Scrubber inlet <10 10/10/2002 1147 72101021 RSF Scrubber Inlet 260 5.7 56 12 344 0.34 12 290 <5.0 54 <10 361 0.36 Indian River County, Central wastewater Treatment Plant PBS #071230, February 2003 � r ODOR CONTROL STUDY , Table 4 : VOC Emissions Summary AREA SOURCES SAMPLE -- DATE TIME DESIGNATION SOURCE LOCATIONS Concentrations, ppbv (except where noted) enzene, 1 . Methyl-3-(1 - Dichloro- Total Limonene Benzene Toluene Xylene Methylethyl) benzene VOC's 10/10/2002 0746 FC-ODAZ-1 Anoxic Tank 35 10/1012002 1447 FC-ODAZ-2 Anoxic Tank 23 33 120 39 470 10/10/2002 1453 FC-ODAZ-2R AnoxicTank 17 12 17 35 370 10/10/2002 1014 FC-ODAOA Mixed-Aerated Zone/Oxidation Ditch w/o Filtrate 22 14 <10 39 120 370 10/10/2002 1650 FC-ODAO-2 Mixed-Aerated Zone/Oxidation Ditch wl Filtrate 34 19 35 60 400 10/10/2002 0904 FC-ODPAO-1 Pre-O en ZonelOxidation Ditch w/o Filtrate 30 < 10 < 10 510 10/10/2002 1603 FC-ODPAO-2 Pre-Oxygen Zone/Oxidation Ditch w/ Filtrate 10/10/2002 1243 FCST Septa a Stora a Tanks 43 78 10/10/2002 1345 FC-SSBI Sludge Storage Basins 410 40 240 < 10 110 1 ,600 3,200 140 11 93 16 120 580 1 ,600 POINT SOURCES DATE TIME DESIGNATION SOURCE LOCATIONS Concentrations, ppbv (except where noted) enzene, - Methyl3-(1 - Dichloro- Total Limonene Benzene Toluene Xylene Methylethyl) benzene VOC's 10/9/2002 1417 T2100913 Heads ace from Slud a Storage Tank 10/9/2002 1631 T2100918 Heads ace from Sludge Storage Tank 40 880 38 2,600 P 9 9 320 11 200 42 3,800 10/912002 1550 72100915 Combined Slud a Stora a Duct 10/9/2002 1640 72100917 Combined Slud a Stora a Duct 30 400 88 - 11700 10/10/2002 1038 T2101010 Combined Sludge Storage Duct 320 18 210 < 10 370 11200 5,900 10/10/2002 1130 T2101015 RSD Scrubber Outlet 60 17 140 190 140 790 10/10/2002 1147 T2101017 RSF Scrubber Outlet 20 82 180 <10 53 710 10/10/2002 1130 72101016 RSF Scrubber Inlet 30 51 110 14 490 10/10/2002 1147 72101021 RSF Scrubber Inlet 25 24 44 13 79 370 34 40 96 18 480 Indian River County, Central Wasle valet Treatment Plant PBS #071230, February 2003 ODOR CONTROL STUDY 2 . 3 Findings And Observations From Sampling Program Over 50 samples were taken at 10 selected wastewater and sludge treatment facility locations . Figures 2 through 5 graphically present the results of the sampling program . Provided below are the significant findings and observations , followed by relevant discussions . 2 . 3 . 1 Olfactory Measurements Olfactory measurements showed the existing RSF scrubber was by far the highest source of odor emissions . Odor emissions from this source were-more than 5 orders-of- magnitude higher than any other source . Figure 2 shows that the Anoxic Tank and the Sludge and Septage Storage Tanks are the next highest source of odorous emissions , as measured by olfactory methods . The Filtrate Sump was the fourth highest source . 2 . 3 .2 Sulfur Emissions Figures 3 through 5 show trends for emissions of sulfur compounds that are similar to trends for olfactory measurements . Mass sulfur flow rates were calculated for the scrubber inlets and the combined sludge storage duct. These flow rates do not represent emissions . The mass sulfur flow rates were developed in order to quantitatively , assess the sources of sulfur. flowing to the existing RSF scrubbers . The importance of the sulfur flow rate is discussed later. Odor concentrations were compared to sulfur concentrations to determine if there was correlation . This comparison is shown on Figure 6 . As can be seen , odor and sulfur emissions correlate well . Since sulfur appears to be the chemical basis of the odor emissions at the Central WWTF , all other analyses in this report will reference mass emissions of sulfur compounds . As indicated above , a Jerome H2S analyzer, colorimetric tubes , and GUMS were used to measure H2S and organic sulfur . compounds . The results of these three measurements are shown on Figures 2 through 5 . Generally, there is good correlation between the GUMS , Jerome , and colorimetric tube readings , as illustrated in Figure 7 . However, in all cases , the mass emission rate calculated from the GC/MS data is significantly lower than the Jerome or colorimetric tube data . The GC/MS measures only organic sulfur compounds , such as dimethyl sulfide , dimethyl disulfide , and various mercaptans . Because hydrogen sulfide has a low molecular weight, it is not measured by the GC/MS . The lower GC/MS readings indicate that the majority of odorous emissions from the Central WWTF are H2S . However, the importance of organic sulfur emissions cannot be underestimated . They are very odorous and require different treatment technologies than H2S . Figures 3 and 5 show that the RSF scrubber exhaust contains the highest sulfur emissions . It is not coincidental that this scrubber is also the highest odor source . Figures 3 and 5 also show that the scrubber only removes approximately 40 to 50 % of the sulfur that enters PM16 9 Indian River County, Central Wastewater Treatment Facility ' PBS&J #071230, February 2003 ODOR CONTROL STUDY the scrubbers . By contrast , the Headworks scrubber appears to be removing 95 % of H2S that enters the scrubber. The low sulfur removal rate for the RSF scrubber is not surprising because the scrubber lacks controls for the dynamic sulfur loads that are delivered to the scrubber. Blowdown rates are also uncontrolled . In addition , the scrubber uses caustic soda (sodium hydroxide ) for H2S removal . Caustic soda is not effective at removing organic sulfur compounds . Organic sulfur compounds must be oxidized by chlorine . Therefore , the chemistry in the scrubber and the controls will have to be changed in order to improve the effectiveness of the RSF scrubber. 2 . 3 . 3 Regional Sludge Facility Sulfur Mass Balance A sulfur mass balance was performed for the RSF in order to assess the effectiveness of existing odor control systems to capture and treat sulfur emissions . Figure 8 shows a sulfur mass balance using Jerome measurements . All concentrations and flow rates represent actual field measurements , except the concentration and flow rate for the Dewatering Building . A proper sampling point could not be located for this point because the new hoods and covers for belt filter presses were not connected at the time of sampling . Therefore , the Dewatering Building concentration and airflow rate were calculated by assuming a closed mass balance . As can be seen in Table 5 , the calculated concentration for the Dewatering Building is nearly equivalent to the measured H2S concentrations in the ambient air within the Dewatering Building . This provides a high degree of confidence in the field measurements and the accuracy of the mass odor emissions inventory. Using this mass balance , fugitive emission rates were computed for the Sludge and Septage Storage Tanks and the overall RSF . A comparison of colorimetric sulfur emissions from the surface of the Sludge and Septage Storage Tanks to the Jerome sulfur flow rate in the combined sludge storage duct shows that approximately 75 % of the emissions from the Sludge and Septage Storage Tanks were captured and delivered to the existing scrubber. This means that 25 % of the sulfur emissions were being emitted into the atmosphere as fugitive emissions . These emissions are escaping the collection system through openings in the top of the tank. Many dampers in the odor collection system were closed during the sampling program . Thus , fugitive emissions could be reduced if the dampers were opened and openings in the tanks were closed . This estimate of fugitive emissions must be considered somewhat soft (could be significantly higher or lower) because of the dynamic nature of the facility and the difficulty in measuring fugitive air emissions . 2 . 3 . 4 Impact of . Dewatering Operations on Emissions Operators at the Central WWTF indicated that odor emissions from the plant appeared to increase when the belt filter presses were dewatering sludge . Specifically, the operators could detect higher odors at the Filtrate Equalization Basin and the liquid treatment processes . Filtrate from the belt filter presses flowed to the Filtrate Equalization Basin , where it is stored and then pumped to the liquid treatment 10 Indian River County, Central Wastewater Treatment Facility PBSW #071230, February 2003 ODOR CONTROL STUDY Table 5 : RSF Ambient Hydrogen Sulfide Survey Time Location Concentration (ppmv) 11 : 37 In front of belt filter press No . 1 at cake chute 0 . 33 11 : 38 In front of belt filter press No . 1 at cake chute 3 11 : 39 In front of belt filter press No . 1 at cake chute 4 . 6 11 :40 Over filtrate sump 2 . 9 11 :41 Over filtrate sump 1 . 4 11 :42 Over filtrate sump 6 . 6 11 :43 Over filtrate sump 1 . 9 11 :44 In truck bay over conveyor 0 . 003 11 :45 In truck bay over conveyor 0 . 006 Indian River County, Central Wastewater Treatment Plant PBS #071230, February 2003 ODOR CONTROL STUDY processes . To test the operator' s observations , odor and sulfur mass emissions were calculated for the Filtrate Equalization Basin and the liquid treatment processes , with and without filtrate . At the time of the sampling program , the Filtrate Equalization Basin had been eliminated , following a recommendation by PBS &J during the site visit in April . Therefore , in order to assess the impact of eliminating the Filtrate Equalization Basin , odor and sulfur flux rates were measured in the Filtrate Sump and mass emission rates were calculated using the flux rate applied over the area of the Filtrate Equalization Basin . This assessment showed that eliminating the Filtrate Equalization Basin had eliminated approximately 1 . 7 pounds of sulfur per day. Odor and sulfur emission rates were also calculated for the Anoxic Tank and the Oxidation Ditches . Odor and sulfur measurements were taken in the Anoxic Tank and the pre-oxygen zone and mixed-aerated zone of the oxidation ditch , prior to and after the introduction of filtrate. The different zones of the oxidation ditch were sampled in order to obtain representative air samples for areas with different aeration patterns . Unfortunately, the night before the sampling program , the return activated sludge (RAS ) pumps failed and did not become operational until 8 : 50 am the day of sampling . The RAS pumps are used to deliver fresh biological microbes to the Anoxic Tanks as part of the liquid treatment process . Since the RAS pumps did not work, the Anoxic Tank appeared to contain only raw wastewater. The lack of return activated sludge allowed the contents of the Anoxic Tank to become somewhat septic and this affected the quality of the influent wastewater to the oxidation ditch . This degradation in raw wastewater appears to have affected the emission rates for all the liquid treatment process . Figures 9 and 10 show that the morning samples (which did not contain filtrate) had higher odor and sulfur emissions than the afternoon samples . Thus , the sampling program did not confirm the operator' s observations . Problems with the return activated sludge pumps appear to have prevented the sampling program from discovering the impact of filtrate on liquid process emissions . However, based on the very low emissions from the oxidation ditch (even under bad influent conditions ) , filtrate in not likely to impact emissions from the oxidation ditches . Overall , calculations indicate that the the oxidation ditch contributes only 0 . 5 % of the total emissions from the Central WWTF . However, the impact of filtrate on Anoxic Tank emissions remains unknown at this time . 2 . 3 . 5 Impact of Recent Improvements on Emissions As indicated above , the Filtrate Equalization Basin had been eliminated at the time of sampling and this eliminated an estimated 1 . 7 pounds of sulfur per day compared to operations in April 2002 . Operators at the plant also eliminated the Aerobic Digesters and . the construction of hoods and covers in the belt filter press area of the Dewatering Building were about to be completed . In order to assess the impact of these 12 Indian River County, Central Wastewater Treatment Facility PBSU #071230, February 2003 ODOR CONTROL STUDY improvements on overall plant emissions , mass sulfur emission rates were estimated for each of these improvements . Applying measured Sludge Storage Tank emission flux rates to the area of the Aerobic Digesters provided an approximate reduction of Aerobic Digester emissions . An estimated 3 .4 pounds of sulfur per day was eliminated for each Aerobic Digester. Applying the Sludge Storage Tank emission flux rate to the area of the belt filter presses provided an approximate reduction in fugitive emissions collected by the hoods and covers . Approximately 1 . 0 pound of sulfur per day will be eliminated when the covers and hoods are completed . Of course these estimates are soft because the sources were not available for direct measurements . The hoods and covers over the belt filter presses should also reduce ambient concentrations of H2S in the Dewatering Building . However, open grating over the filtrate sump will likely allow significant emissions to escape into the Dewatering Building . Based on the observations made , the filtrate sump must be eliminated or covered in order to further reduce H2S concentrations in the Dewatering Building . Taken altogether, it is estimated that the elimination of the Filtrate Equalization Basin and Aerobic Digesters , and the enclosure of the belt filter presses , have reduced total plant emissions by approximately 9 . 6 pounds of sulfur per day. Figure 11 shows that this reduction represents an approximate 25 to 33 % reduction in sulfur emissions . How-ever, approximately 18 . 3 pounds of sulfur are still being emitted from the Central WWTF . As shown in Figure 12 , the highest mass sulfur emissions were found to originate from the RSF Scrubber, the Anoxic Tank, and the Sludge and Septage Storage Tanks (fugitive emissions) . These three sources represent approximately 97 percent of the total mass emissions that are currently emitted from the Central WWTF . 2 . 3 . 6 Other Minor and Transient Sources Other relatively minor and transient odorous sources were observed at the Central WWTF . Emission estimates were not prepared for these sources . However, based on engineering judgment , these source are not believe to create measurable off-site odor impacts . These include : • Open doors in the bar screen dumpster area . Inadequate ventilation in this area reportedly prevents the closure of these doors . • Openings at slide gates and bar screens on top of the Headworks Structure . Rubber gaskets can be used to seal these openings . • Grit removal units , dumpsters , and a mechanical sludge thickener are open to the atmosphere at the Sludge Storage Tanks . Emissions from these sources are transient, but highly odorous . Ceasing operations or enclosing these sources are the only methods of eliminating emissions from these sources . •"9 13 Indian River County, Central Wastewater Treatment Facility 1 PBSU #071230, February 2003 ODOR CONTROL STUDY 2 . 4 Conclusions From Mass Emissions Inventory Based on the air emission sample program and mass emissions inventory, the following conclusions can be made : • Odor emissions are highly related to H2S and organic sulfur emissions at the Central WWTF . Therefore , reductions in sulfur emissions should reduce off-site odor impacts . • The three major odor and sulfur emission sources at the Central WWTF are , in order: ➢ The RSF Scrubber ➢ The Anoxic Tank ➢ The Sludge and Septage Storage Tank Fugitive Emissions • H2S is the primary odorant for most of the sources . However, there is significant H2S and organic sulfur in the exhaust from the RSF Scrubber. The scrubber is only removing 40 to 50 % of the sulfur delivered to the scrubber. Improvements in chemistry and controls will be needed to reduce sulfur content in the scrubber exhaust and improve the effectiveness of the scrubber. • Good sulfur mass balances were performed for the RSF , which provides good confidence in the mass emission rates and the accuracy of the mass -emissions inventory. The mass balance also indicates that fugitive emissions from the existing Dewatering Building do not likely contribute to off:site odor impacts . • Confidence is not as high for estimates of fugitive emissions from the Sludge and Septage Storage Tanks . Emissions from this source are difficult to estimate and are likely to be very dynamic . Emissions from this source may be substantially lower or higher than estimated . Current estimates are that 25 % of the sludge emissions were escaping the existing odor collection systems . Many dampers on the odor collection system were closed during the sampling program . Opening these dampers and closing the openings in the top of the tank will likely improve the capture of fugitive emissions from these sources . • The recent elimination of the Filtrate Equalization Basin , Aerobic Digesters , and completion of the belt filter press hoods and covers have resulted in a 25 to 33 % reduction of sulfur emissions from the Central WWTF . Most of the emission reductions are attributable to the elimination of the Aerobic Digesters and Filtrate Equalization Basin . The new belt filter press hoods will probably reduce fugitive emissions in the Dewatering Building . However, open grating over the filtrate sump will likely allow significant emissions to escape into the Dewatering Building . 1- QT 14 Indian River County, Central Wastewater Treatment Facility PBS&J #071230, February 2003 ODOR CONTROL STUDY • Other relatively minor and transient odor sources exist at the Central WWTF . Reasonable efforts should be taken to eliminate emissions from these sources . 3 . 0 Odor Control Alternatives Several different odor control alternatives were considered for the major sources of odorous emissions . Descriptions and evaluations of the alternatives are provided below. In considering these odor control alternatives , those related to the WWTF are presented in a separate subsection from those related to the RSF . This is because the County is currently considering alternative sludge management options that could potentially cause the existing RSF to cease operation . 3 . 't Wastewater Treatment FacTty - Anoxic Tank Several alternative improvements were considered for reducing odorous emissions from the Anoxic Tank. These alternatives are discussed below. 3 . 1 . 1 Biological Oxidation Since there are no primary clarifiers at the Central WWTF , raw wastewater exits the Headworks and proceeds directly to the Anoxic Tank. The wastewater is pumped over long distances and is therefore likely to be partially septic . It typically contains high concentrations of dissolved sulfides , such as 1-12S . Return activated sludge is added to the raw wastewater in the Anoxic Tank . In many Wastewater Treatment Facilities , anoxic tanks also receive internal recycle from the activated sludge process . There is currently no internal recirculation system utilized at the Central WWTF . The presence of such a system would likely improve biological oxidation of the incoming wastewater and reduce the amount of 1-12S that is released from the Anoxic Tank. Following the sampling program , PBSU recommended that the County install an internal recirculation system to improve biological oxidation of the influent wastewater. Our estimate , absent any site-specific data , is that approximately 50 % of the 1-12S emissions from the Anoxic Tank could be eliminated by the addition of the internal recycle . The construction and engineering costs for the internal recycle system is estimated to be $ 70 , 000 . The operating cost for the internal recycle is estimated at $2 , 000 per year. The reduction of sulfide emissions after the return activated sludge system was restored provides evidence that a "fresher" sludge can significantly reduce sulfide emissions . 3 . 1 .2 Cover and Control with New Scrubber An alternative approach or additional step to reduce emissions from the Anoxic Tank would include the installation of aluminum or fiberglass covers over the Anoxic Tank, collect the air under the covers , and scrub the odorous air with a packed tower scrubber. Based on preliminary calculations , approximately 2 , 500 cfm would be drawn 6 15 Indian River County, Central Wastewater Treatment Facility PBS& #071230, February 2003 ODOR CONTROL STUDY from the headspace under the covers . A new 2-stage scrubber system would be required to scrub the odorous air. The scrubbers would be approximately 3 feet in diameter. These new scrubber facilities would be designed in accordance with National Fire Prevention Association ( NFPA ) Standard 820 . The overall scrubber removal efficiency would be expected to be at least 90 % efficiency and perhaps greater than 95 % . . The construction and engineering costs for this alternative are estimated to be approximately $450 , 000 . The operating costs are estimated to be $ 17 , 000 per year, mostly for chemicals and power. 3 . 1 . 3 Cover and Control with New Biofilter Instead of using a new scrubber to treat emissions from the Anoxic Tank , a modular or custom biofilter could also be used to treat the air from this source . Biofilters consist of porous , moist media , which support the growth of microorganisms . Odorous gas is passed through the biofilter, where odorous compounds are absorbed into the liquid film at the surface of the media and adsorbed on the media and microorganisms . As the odorous compounds come into contact with the surfaces inside the biofilter, microorganisms utilize nutrients in the media to biologically oxidize the odorous compounds . Biofilters are considered a broad -spectrum odor control technology. Biofilters are capable of achieving high removal efficiencies for 1-12S and many VOCs . Organic sulfur removal has been generally good , but less predictable . Compost, bark , sand , peat, and soil are often used as media for biofilters . A modular biofilter is a packaged unit that contains all air and water distribution systems , biofilter media , fans , and ancillary equipment associated with the biofilter. The unit is pre-assembled and shipped on a skid . It is ready to be installed as an end -of-duct treatment device . BIOREM , BioCube , US Filter, and others manufacturers make modular biofilters . The advantages and disadvantages of modular biofilters include the following : Advantages • Easy construction and installation • Small footprint • Low operations and maintenance costs • Good 1-12S and VOC control • Able to be relocated , if necessary Disadvantages • Possible poor removal of organic sulfides • Periodic replacement of media • Relatively high capital costs A custom biofilter is a site-specific biofilter that is constructed of readily available commercial building materials . The materials are assembled on -site , in a sequential manner. Customized biofilters are generally larger than manufactured biofilters because PM61 16 Indian River County, Central Wastewater Treatment Facility PBS&J #071230, February 2003 ODOR CONTROL STUDY the plenum and supply ducts occupy a larger area . The supply ducts are typically constructed from 6 to 8-inch drainage pipe and the plenum consists of hardwood chips . A 50 : 50 mix of hardwood chips and compost could be used for the biofilter media . Drip tubes could be used to provide moisture inside the biofilter. A small moisturizinTp sray chamber is often provided to assure the process gas. is at 100 % humidity at all imes . The advantages and disadvantages of a custom biofilter is as follows : Advantages • Lowest capital costs • Low operations and maintenance costs • Good H2S and VOC control Disadvantages • Possible poor removal of organic sulfur • Periodic reconstruction of biofilter (2-5 year intervals) • Large land area required • Most difficult to construct • Higher engineering and operating costs Because custom biofilters require considerable maintenance and periodic reconstruction , modular biofilters are preferred . It is conservatively estimated that this alternative could reduce sulfide emissions from the Anoxic Tank by approximately 90 % . The construction and engineering costs for a modular biofilter are estimated to be approximately $450 , 000. The operating costs are estimated to be $ 10 , 000 per year, mostly for power. 3 . 1 .4 Cover and Control with RSF Scrubber This alternative is the same as the two alternatives above , except the existing RSF Scrubber would be used in lieu of a new 2-stage scrubber or biofilter. Blowers and a long duct from the Anoxic Tank to the RSF scrubber would be needed . Because there are no primary clarifiers at the Central WWTF, the existing RSF scrubber would have to be modified for National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) , Standard 820 . The existing blowers and controls would need to be modified with explosion-proof motors and intrinsically safe controls . Check valves would also be needed on ducts from the Dewatering Building and Sludge Storage Tanks so that the air from the Anoxic Tank would not be blown into these structures . The existing RSF scrubber would be operated 24 hours per day. The construction and engineering costs for this alternative is estimated to be approximately $ 350 , 000 . The operating costs are estimated at $ 80 , 000 for chemical and power required to operate the scrubber at current conditions for 24 hours per day. J 17 Indian River County, Central Wastewater Treatment Facility PBSU #071230, February 2003 ODOR CONTROL STUDY 3 . 1 . 5 Recommended Improvements Since emissions from the Anoxic Tanks are significant and require aggressive controls , the following improvements are recommended to achieve maximum odor control , • Construct and operate an activated sludge internal recycle system to allow improved biological oxidation of odorous compounds in the Anoxic Tank . • Construct aluminum or fiberglass covers over the Anoxic Tank and collect odorous air from the headspace under the covers . • Construct and operate a modular biofilter for controlling the odorous emissions from the Anoxic Tank . The biofilter has the second lowest capital cost and lowest operating cost of any of the options . • The construction and engineering costs for the above improvements are estimated to be approximately $ 520 , 000 . The annual operating costs for these improvements are estimated to be approximately $ 12 , 000 . 3 .2 Regional Sludge Facility The mass odor emissions inventory revealed that two of the top three odor sources are found at the RSF . Alternative improvements to these facilities are discussed and evaluated below. 3 . 2 . 1 Existing Odor Scrubber Improvements were recently made to the odor collection system within the belt filter press area of the Dewatering Building . As indicated above , these improvements should improve the collection of odors emanating from the belt filter presses and reduce fugitive emissions from this facility. However, if the scrubber is not performing well , odorous gas will still be emitted to the atmosphere . Air from the Sludge and Septic Storage Tanks and the belt filter press dewatering room is scrubbed with an existing scrubber system that consists of two 12-ft diameter packed tower scrubbers . This scrubber system was originally intended to be operated as a two- stage unit. However, the system is currently operated with only one stage operating at a time . The other stage provides system redundancy. Either stage can be operated with caustic soda addition . According to the operators , sufficient caustic soda is added to maintain the scrubber sump pH at a set point of approximately 12 . The County also has the ability to add hypochlorite solution to each of the scrubbers . However, hypochlorite or chlorine solution has not been used for some time . Sludge processing facilities typically emit both H2S and organic sulfides . Organic sulfides are poorly removed with caustic soda scrubbers . An oxidant, such as chlorine or sodium hypochlorite , is required for good removal of organic sulfides . Hypochlorite �°� 18 Indian River County, Central Wastewater Treatment Facility PBSU #071230, February 2003 ODOR CONTROL STUDY solutions have a higher oxidizing power at near neutral pH (--7 ) than at a high pH (� 12 ) . The sampling data indicates that approximately 10 % of the total reduced sulfides entering the scrubber are organic sulfides . Removal efficiencies for the existing scrubbers are approximately 50 % for total reduced sulfides and 35 to 40 % for organic sulfides . Because of the high volume of air that flows through the scrubber, the sulfur mass emission rate is quite high . The H2S and organic sulfide removal efficiency of the existing scrubbers can be increased by: • Operating the scrubbers in series , as a two-stage system . • Adding hypochlorite solution to both scrubbers . • Installing oxidation-reduction potential (ORP ) monitors on both scrubbers . • Adding a chlorine monitor to the last scrubber to ensure adequate chlorine addition . • Operating the first scrubber with mostly caustic soda . Based on our experience , the pH would be set at approximately 10 and the ORP would beset at approximately +600 mV . This stage would remove most of the H2S and some of the organic sulfides . • Operating the second scrubber with mostly -hypochlorite solution . The pH would be set at approximately 8 and the chlorine monitor would be used to pace the addition of chlorine solution . This stage would remove most of the remaining H2S and organic sulfides . The chlorine monitor measures residual gas phase chlorine . A small amount of chlorine in the gas phase indicates that almost all of the liquid phase sulfides have been oxidized . The existing ductwork would allow the system to be operated in two stages . In addition , the existing fan appears capable of overcoming the additional pressure drop required . The County may want to consider a two-speed motor or variable frequency drive (VFD ) for this fan , so that it would operate more efficiently when one stage is off-line for maintenance or when the dewatering facilities are not operating . Based on cursory analysis of the existing sodium hypochlorite feed system , it is believed that the exiting hypochlorite generation facilities can be used to provide hypochlorite solution to the existing RSF scrubbers . This will need to be confirmed by further detailed analysis during design . However, automatic control of hypochlorite addition is essential to successful operation of the scrubbers . It is recommended that ORP sensors be installed adjacent to the existing pH sensors . ORP is an indication of the oxidizing power of the chemical solution . For scrubbers intended to remove organic sulfides , it is recommended that the ORP be maintained at approximately + 700 to + 800 mV and the pH be maintained at approximately 7 to 8 . Of course these values are generic and site-specific operations will dictate the exact values . Ma19 Indian River County, Central Wastewater Treatment Facility 111 PBSW #071230, February 2003 ODOR CONTROL STUDY The existing scrubbing system requires that the operators manually change hypochlorite dose to maintain a set-point ORP . For automatic control , solenoid valves or flow control valves can be added to the feed pipes or new sodium hypochlorite feed pumps could be used instead of the existing hypochlorite generation system . A gas phase chlorine monitor in the last scrubber would help keep adequate hypochlorite in the scrubber sump . The addition of hypochlorite could then be controlled automatically via the ORP and/or gas phase chlorine sensors . If all of these improvements were made , the overall scrubber removal efficiency would be expected to improve to at least 90 % efficiency and perhaps greater than 95 % . The construction and engineering costs for these improvements are estimated to be approximately $ 170 , 000 . If a new hypochlorite storage and feed system is needed , the estimated costs would increase to $300 , 000 . Operating costs for 24 hour per day, 7 days per week operation are conservatively estimated at $ 100 , 000 to $ 140 , 000 per year, mostly for chemicals and power. These estimated operating costs are approximately $ 50 , 000 to $90 , 000 more than existing operating costs because of the additional run time and chemical usage . The construction costs for these improvements include approximately $ 50 , 000 for adding a permanent drain for the mechanical thickener, opening the existing dampers , and pulling more air through the Sludge Storage Tanks . This should increase the negative pressure within the tanks and reduce fugitive emissions . Alternatively, the existing RSF blower could be operated at nearly full speed for 8 hours per day, 5 days per week during sludge dewatering and operated at half speed when sludge is not being dewatered . This would require retrofitting the existing blower with a VFD . When sludge is not being dewatered , the existing blower could be -lowered to approximately half speed and a new automated damper on the exhaust duct from the Dewatering Building could be partially closed so that much of the air would be drawn from the headspace of the Sludge Storage Tanks . The amount of air drawn from the Dewatering Building would be about half the amount drawn during sludge dewatering operations . A second smaller blower could also be used in addition to retrofitting the existing blower with a VFD . This would provide more redundancy for the odor control system . The construction and engineering costs for these improvements are estimated to be approximately $ 320 , 000 . Operating costs for this mode of operation are conservatively estimated at $ 80 , 000 to $ 95 , 000 per year, which is about $ 30 , 000 to $45 , 000 more than current operating costs . Table 6 provides a comparison of estimated costs for alternative improvements to reduce emissions from the RSF . 3 . 2 .2 Sludge and Septage Storage Tanks Instead of using the existing large RSF scrubber to treat emissions from the Sludge and Septage Storage tanks , a smaller odor control device could be used to treat these emissions . A 4 , 000 cfm modular two-stage scrubber could be constructed and operated 24 hours per day, 7 days per week . A modular or custom biofilter could also be used to `' 20 Indian River County, Central Wastewater Treatment Facility PBS&J #071230, February 2003 ODOR CONTROL STUDY Table 6 : Existing RSF Improvement Alternatives RSF Scrubber Sludge & Septage Storage Tanks Existing Existing New Scrubber Biofilter Scrubber Scrubber 4, 000 cfm ( Modular or Operating 24/7 Operating 8/5 Custom ) 4, 000 cfm Construction & Engineering $ 170 , 000 $ 320 , 000 $ 600 , 000 $ 530 , 000 AdditionalO& M $ 90 , 000 $45 , 000 $259000 $ 15 , 000 Present Worth $ 1 , 034 , 000 $ 752 , 000 $ 840 , 000 $ 674 , 000 Indian River County, Central Wastewater Treatment Plant PBS #071230, February 2003 ODOR CONTROL STUDY treat the air from this source . The advantages and disadvantages of modular and custom biofilters were previously discussed . Because emissions from the Sludge and Septage Storage Tanks are likely to contain high concentrations of organic sulfides and biofilters have had problems removing organic sulfides , it is recommended that an independent biofilter not be used to treat emissions from this source . Instead , the emissions from this source should be directed to the existing RSF scrubbers and treated on a 24 hours per day, 7 days per week basis . The dampers on the existing duct system should be opened to improve ventilation and the hatches and covers should remain closed . For the scrubber option , modifications would still be required for the existing RSF scrubber to increase odor removal efficiency when operating during belt filter press operation . Total construction costs and engineering costs for these improvements are estimated to be approximately $600 , 000 . Operating costs for this mode of operation are estimated at $ 75 , 000 per year, which is about $25 , 000 more than current operating costs . 3 . 2 . 3 Consideration of Alternative Technologies Odors from sludge processing facilities contain a complex mixture of hydrogen sulfide , organic sulfides , and other organic compounds . Many technologies that may work well for removal of hydrogen sulfide , such as carbon filters , are -not appropriate for the removal of organic sulfides . Other technologies , such as ozonation , are also ineffective for removal of organic sulfides and are generally cost prohibitive to implement. Packed tower odor control scrubbers operating with a chemical oxidant, such as sodium hypochlorite , are generally recognized in the industry as best available control technology for the removal of organic sulfides . Based on the results of the odor study described herein , PBSU would recommend installation of a two-stage packed tower scrubber for the RSF even if there were currently no odor control on -site . 3 . 2 .4 Recommended Improvements Total construction and operating costs for the various RSF options are shown in Table 6 . Based on the advantages and disadvantages discussed above and the costs shown in Table 6 , the following improvements to the RSF are recommended : • Add a permanent drain for the mechanical thickener so the all hatches and covers can remain closed . • Open the dampers in the ducts on the Sludge and Septage Storage Tanks so that the headspace in the tanks can be ventilated more effectively. • Add chlorine solution and controls to the existing RSF scrubbers as described above and operate both scrubbers in series . •9 22 Indian River County, Central Wastewater Treatment Facility 11 PBS&J #071230, February 2003 ODOR CONTROL STUDY • Install a VFD on the existing blower and add a second smaller blower to the existing scrubber system . Also , install an automated damper on the exhaust duct from the Dewatering Building . Operate the large blower at full speed during sludge dewatering . Operate the small blower at full speed or large blower at approximately half speed when sludge is not being dewatered . • Install a new hypochlorite storage and feed system if the existing hypochlorite generation facility is found to be inadequate upon further review , or if the new hypochlorite system is desired by the County. 4 . 0 Air Dispersion Modeling To estimate the off-site odor impacts of alternative improvements to the major sources of odorous emissions at the Central WWTF , an air dispersion model was developed for the Central WWTF and surrounding areas . The air dispersion model was developed to estimate how the alternative improvements could reduce the sulfide concentrations in surrounding communities , under worse case meteorological conditions . The air dispersion modeling was developed- using the EPA' s Industrial Source Complex Short Term model , third edition ( ISCST3 ) . The ISCST3 model is a Gaussian model capable of predicting off-site concentrations of specific compounds emanating from point and area sources using meteorological data . Local meteorological data for every day for an entire year were analyzed and used with odor emission data developed for this study as inputs to the air dispersion model. The model then calculated maximum hourly and annual average sulfide concentrations at a grid of receptors that surrounded the Central WWTF . Upper and lower atmospheric data from West Palm Beach Morrison Field were used in the model . This was the closet meteorological station with hourly wind speed and direction data . It should be noted that meteorological conditions at the Central WWTF likely vary from those at the West Palm Beach airport . However, the West Palm Beach airport data are the only data available . The model was executed assuming urban conditions and excluded calm hours . The model calculated the downwind sulfur concentrations along a receptor grid that extended for two thousand meters ( 1 . 2 miles ) in all directions from the treatment facility. The receptors were assumed to be at a height of 1 . 5 meters (4 . 9 feet) , which is considered to a typical breathing height . The model was run to calculate the first, second , and third highest 1 -hour average sulfide concentrations for an entire year. Lines of constant concentration , or isopleths , were plotted on a map of the areas surrounding the site . The second highest one-hour concentration was used to calculate the worst-case isopleths to exclude any anomalies that might be associated with the first highest one- hour concentration . 23 Indian River County, Central Wastewater Treatment Facility PBSU #071230, February 2003 ODOR CONTROL STUDY 4 . 1 Model Limitations The results of this model should be considered an illustrative tool and a relative indicator of off-site odor impacts . Various assumptions were not included in this model , including building effects , terrain of the surrounding area , etc. In addition , the model was developed for worst case conditions and does not account for days without detectable wind speed . Therefore , the results should not be used as an absolute indication of off. site sulfide concentrations . Instead , the model results offer evidence of the potential effectiveness of alternative control measures . 4.2 Odor Detection Thresholds The thresholds for odorous sulfide compounds vary depending on the compound , the source , and the sensitivity of the receptors . Although much of the data is subjective , receptor recognition of H2S and organic sulfur compounds is generally about 1 ppbv. Significant research has been performed to estimate detection and complaint thresholds for H2S . Figure 13 depicts the odor threshold sensitivity for H2S . This figure shows the " Odor Impact Model " developed by the Ontario Ministry of the Environment and published in the WEF Manual of Practice No . 22 , Odor Control in Wastewater Treatment Facilities . The three curves shown in the figure show human responses to certain concentrations of H2S . The detection curve indicates the percentage of the panelists that could detect an odor that is faint, but unrecognizable . The complaint and annoyance curves reflect the percentage of panelists that might register a complaint or become annoyed by the specific concentration of H2-S . Other references -cite odor recognition threshold values , which are in between the detection and complaint curves . Odor recognition is when someone can detect an odor and recognize the character of the odor. Even though the H2S model may be more qualitative than quantitative , it shows that almost no panel members detected H2S at- a concentration below 1 ppbv. Similar response levels are expected for organic sulfur compounds such as dimethyl sulfide , mercaptans , and other organic sulfur compounds . Thus , 1 ppbv of H2S is considered a reasonable worse case odor detection threshold and 5 ppbv is considered a reasonable odor recognition threshold . The dispersion model was therefore calibrated to identify the location of these concentrations under worse case meteorological conditions . To visualize and prioritize potential odor control improvements , separate models were developed for several different improvement options . These options correspond to the improvements discussed above . Conservative control efficiencies were assumed for the major odor sources based on efficiencies generally achieved with installation of odor control measures. The conceptual improvements proposed and the potential reduction of odor emissions for each of the options are provided below: Existing Conditions with Filtrate Equalization Basin Emissions (Figure 14) and Aerobic Digester Emissions (April 2002) •J 24 Indian River County, Central Wastewater Treatment Facility 1 PBS&J #071230, February 2003 ODOR CONTROL STUDY Existing Conditions without Filtrate Equalization Basin Emissions (Figure 15) and Aerobic Digester Emissions (October 2002) Option 1 - Elimination of RSF Fugitive Emissions (Figure 16) 100 % Reduction in Fugitive Emissions from Sludge and Septage Storage Tanks via Improved Ventilation and Sealed Covers Option 2 - RSF Scrubber Improvements (Figure 17) 90 % Reduction in Scrubber Emissions via Recommended Scrubber Changes Option 3 - RSF Scrubber and Fugitive Emissions Improvements (Figure 18) Improvements in Options 1 and 2 Option 4 - Minimum Anoxic Tank Improvements (Figure 19) 50 % Reduction in Anoxic Tank Emissions via Internal Recycle Option 5- Maximum Anoxic Tank Improvements (Figure 20) 90 % Reduction in Anoxic Tank Emissions via Covers and Packed Tower Scrubbers Option 6 - RSF Scrubber and Minimum Anoxic Tank Improvements (Figure 21) Improvements in Options 3 and 4 Option 7 - RSF Scrubber and Maximum Anoxic Tank Improvements (Figure 22) Improvements in Options 3 and 5 4. 3 Air Dispersion Model Results The model was run using meteorological data from the year 1991 . The model was also run using meteorological data from previous years and results obtained were similar to the results for the year 1991 . Thus , meteorological data from the year 1991 was assumed to be representative of the atmospheric conditions around the treatment plant . The data from the output file was used to calculate the locations of the 5 and 1 ppbv concentration isopleths . Figures 14 through 22 depict the sulfide concentration isopleths for the second worst hour at the Central WWTF treatment facilities . 4 . 4 Air Dispersion Model Conclusions A comparison of the isopleths shows a significant reduction in the odor detection area with each improvement. As noted above , it is assumed that the area of potential odor detection under worse case meteorological conditions lies within the 1 ppbv isopleth . This isopleth extends beyond the mapping limits in Figures 14 and 15 . As can be seen on the figures , as additional improvements are made , the areas of potential odor detection and recognition decrease significantly. Reduction in RSF Scrubber emissions ( Figure 17 ) reduces the areas the most and reduction of Anoxic Tank emissions by 90 % s9 25 Indian River County, Central Wastewater Treatment Facility 111 PBS&J #071230, February 2003 ODOR CONTROL STUDY ( Figure 20 ) reduces the areas the next most. However, the 1 ppbv isopleth still extends a significant distance from the plant site . When both RSF Scrubber emissions and Anoxic Tank emissions are reduced ( Figures 21 and 22 ) , the potential area of off-site odor impacts reduce significantly. Figure 23 shows that the area reduces even further if the control efficiency for the RSF Scrubber and Anoxic Tank is increased to 95 % . This increased efficiency should be achieved , with proper design and operation of the improved scrubbers . 5 . 0 Cost Benefit Analysis The air dispersion model indicates that controlling the three major odor sources can greatly reduce off-site odor impacts and help make the Central WWTF a "community- friendly facility" . As indicated above , the three most important odor sources , in order of importance , are : • Regional Sludge Facility Scrubber • Anoxic Tank • Sludge and Septage Storage Tank Fugitive Emissions Several options were developed for controlling odorous emissions from these sources . To calculate which option is most cost effective , a cost/benefit analysis was performed . The estimated capital and operating costs for each option were divided by the total amount of sulfur removed . The cost/benefit analysis is shown in Table 7 . A present worth cost estimate is also presented for each option , assuming annual costs are prorated at 8 % interest over 20 years ( PWF = 9 . 6 ) . As can be seen in Table 7 , the costs per pound of sulfur are lowest for Options 1 and 4 . However, if only these improvements are made , there will still be considerable off-site odor impacts under the second worst hour criteria . The greatest amount of sulfur removed involves improving the existing RSF Scrubber system . If the RSF Scrubber improvements are added to Options 1 and 4 , the off-site odor impacts are reduced considerably , as shown on Figure 21 . The costs for installing covers and controlling emissions from the Anoxic Tank (Option 5 ) are significantly higher than any other option , but are expected to greatly reduce off- site odors . Since the Anoxic Tank emissions and costs are independent of the RSF emissions and costs , the total capital and incremental increase in operating costs for the RSF odor control improvements are approximately $270 , 000 and $ 30 , 000 to $45 , 000 per year, respectively . Since the RSF dewaters about 13 , 000 wet tons of septage and sludge per year, these costs equate to approximately $4 . 50 to $ 5 . 75 per wet ton of sludge . Based on our experience , these costs probably represent less than 10 % increase in sludge dewatering and disposal costs and are relatively minor compared to costs to relocate the RSF or employ an alternative sludge disposal technology. 26 Indian River County, Central Wastewater Treatment Facility 1 PBS&J #071230, February 2003 ODOR CONTROL STUDY Table 7 : Alternative Improvements Cost Benefit Analysis Option No. 1 2 3 4 5 g 7 RSF Scrubber RSF Fugitive RSF Scrubber and Fugitive RSF + Min Option Description Emissions Improvements Emissions Mtn , Anoxic Tank Max Anoxic Tank Anoxic RSF + Max Anoxic S Removal Efficient N/A 90 90 50 S Removal Ib/da 90 90+50 90+90 1 . 9 7.6 9 . a 2.6 4.8 12. 1 14. 3 Ca ital Cost $ $ 50,000 $ 270,000 $ 320,000 $ 70,00 O eratin Cost $ $ _ $ 520,000 $ 390,000 $ 8401000 Present Worth Cost $ $ 30,000 $ 45 ,000 $ 2 ,000 $ 12,000 $ 47 ,000 $ 57 ,000 $ 5Q000 $ 558,000 $ 752 ,000 $ 89,200 $ 635,200 $ 841 ,200 $ 1 , 387 ,200 Capital Cost - Benefit $ 1 ,000/# S $ 26 .32 $ 35.53 $ 33 .68 $ 26 .92 $ 108.33 O eratin Cost Benefit $1 ,000/# S $ - $ 3. 95 $ 4.74 $ 32 .23 $ 58.74 Present Worth Cost ($1 ,000/# S $ 26 .32 $ 3 42 $ 0.77 $ 2 .50 $ 3 ,Sg $ g 99 $ 79. 16 $ 34.31 $ 132 .33 $ 69.52 $ 97,01 Indian River County, Central Wastewater Treatment Plant PBS #071230, February 2003 ODOR CONTROL STUDY 6 . 0 Improvements To Minor And Transient Sources As indicated in a previous section , a few minor and transient odor sources were discovered during the air emission sampling program . The amounts of H2S were not quantified because representative samples could not be collected . Based on observed operations , the following improvements could be made to these minor and transient sources : • The garage doors in the bar screen dumpster area can be closed if ventilation in this area is improved . Improved ventilation could be accomplished when the Anoxic Tanks are covered and ventilated . The ventilated air could be added to Anoxic Tank controls at a construction cost of approximately $ 80 , 000 . • Openings exist at slide gates and bar screens on top of the Headworks Structure could be closed with rubber gaskets . The cost for these gaskets is estimated to be less than $ 1 , 000 , assuming County personnel install the gaskets . • The existing grit removal units , dumpsters , and mechanical sludge thickener are open to the atmosphere at the Sludge Storage Tanks . Emissions from these sources are the most difficult to control because these emissions are very transient, highly odorous , and difficult to collect. Ceasing operations or enclosing these sources are the only options for controlling these emissions . Construction costs for covering these sources are estimated to be approximately $450 , 000 . • Since these costs are very high and the amount of sulfur reduction is likely very low, no improvements are recommended for these sources at this time . The addition of a local meteorological station (wind speed and direction ) is recommended for the RSF . Data and information from the local meteorological station could then be used to make decisions when not to operate these facilities . 7 . 0 Other Issues During testing of the Sludge and Septage Storage Tanks , dichlorobenzene was measured by the GC/MS in the headspace of the tanks at concentrations up to 1 , 200 ppbv ( 1 . 2 ppmv) . Significantly lower concentrations (< 100 ppbv) were measured in the RSF Scrubber outlet. There are three different forms of dichlorobenzene : 1 , 2- , 1 , 3. , and 1 ,4-dichlorobenzene . The form emitted at the Central WWTF could not be distinguished by the GC/MS . 1 ,44chlorobenzene is commonly used as a portable toilet deodorant and in moth balls . It is believed that the dichlorobenzene originates in the septage received at the plant. OSHA exposure limits for dichlorobenzene are as follows : • 1 , 24chlorobenzene : STEL — 50 ppmv PEL — 50 ppmv 1 , 34chlorobenzene : STEL — N .A . PEL — N .A. .� 28 Indian River County, Central Wastewater Treatment Facility PBSU #071230, February 2003 R ODOR CONTROL STUDY M • 1 ,4-dichlorobenzene : STEL — N . A . PEL — 75 ppmv The OSHA exposure limits are much , much higher than the concentrations measured at the site . Although no extensive health analysis was performed , 1 , 44chlorobenzene is used in common household products to which people are frequently exposed , and the measured concentrations do not appear to provide concern for adverse health effects for operators or anyone else . 8 . 0 Conclusions and Recommendations Odor and sulfur emission inventories and evaluations performed in this study show that the existing Regional Sludge Facility ( RSF ) Scrubbers , Anoxic Tank , and Sludge and Septage Storage Tanks are , in order, the major sources of odorous emissions from the Central WWTF . H2S and organic sulfides are the major odorants emitted from these sources. Emission data show that the existing RSF scrubbers are not adequately removing H2S and organic sulfides . Evaluations also show that improvements to the RSF scrubbers will provide the most odorant removal . Although recent efforts to eliminate sludge dewatering filtrate and Aerobic Digester emissions have reduced total plant emissions by an estimated 25 to 33 % , air dispersion models shows that additional improvements are needed to further reduce emissions from the major sources . Air dispersion modeling also indicates that 90 % reduction of emissions from the major sources should help make the Central WWTF a "community- friendly facility". Several alternative improvements were evaluated for each of the major sources . Based on the advantages , disadvantages , effectiveness , and estimated costs associated with these alternatives , the following improvements ( in order of importance ) are recommended for the Central WWTF and the RSF . 8 . 1 RSF Scrubber Improvements • Install automatic chlorine solution addition facilities to both scrubbers and operate the existing scrubbers in series , as a two-stage system . • Install oxidation -reduction potential (ORP ) controls on both scrubbers . The ORP monitors will control the addition of chlorine solution . Add a gas phase chlorine monitor to the last scrubber to ensure adequate chlorine addition in the last stage . • Operate the first scrubber with mostly caustic soda . Operate the second scrubber with mostly chlorine solution . Engineering start- up , testing , and training services should be used to help determine appropriate operating conditions . i� 29 Indian River County, Central Wastewater Treatment Facility 111 PBSW #071230, February 2003 Y ODOR CONTROL STUDY • Install a VFD on the existing blower and add a second smaller blower to the existing scrubber system . Install an automated damper on the exhaust duct from the Dewatering Building and operate the large blower at full speed during sludge dewatering . Operate the small blower at full speed or large blower at half speed when sludge is not being dewatered . The automated damper should partially close when sludge is not being dewatered so that much of the air is drawn from the Sludge and Septage Storage Tanks . • Total construction and engineering costs for the above improvements are estimated to be approximately $270 , 000 . Additional operating costs are estimated to be between $ 30 , 000 and $45 , 000 per year. • Since the RSF dewaters about 13 , 000 wet tons of septage and sludge per year, these conservatively estimated costs equate to approximately $4 . 50 to $ 5 . 75 per wet ton of sludge . Based on our experience , these costs probably represent less than a 10 % increase in sludge dewatering and disposal costs ; and are relatively minor compared to costs to relocate the RSF or employ an alternative sludge disposal technology. • Construct and operate and new sodium hypochlorite storage and feed system if the existing chlorine generation facility is found to be inadequate upon further review, or if the new system is desired by the County. Construction and engineering costs for a new sodium hypochlorite system are estimated to be approximately $ 130, 000 . 8 .2 Anoxic Tank Improvements • Construct and operate an activated sludge internal recycle system to allow improved biological oxidation of odorous compounds in the Anoxic Tank . • Construct aluminum or fiberglass covers over the Anoxic Tank and collect odorous air from the headspace under the covers . • Construct and operate a modular biofilter for controlling the odorous emissions from the Anoxic Tank. • Total construction and engineering costs for the above improvements are estimated to be approximately $ 520 , 000 . 8 . 3 Sludge and Septage Storage Tanks Improvements • Add a permanent drain for the mechanical thickener so that all hatches and covers can remain closed . • Open the dampers on the Sludge and Septage Storage Tanks so that the headspace in the tanks can be ventilated more effectively. M'' 30 Indian River County, Central Wastewater Treatment Facility PBSW #071230, February 2003 ODOR CONTROL STUDY M • Total construction and engineering costs for the above improvements are estimated to be approximately $ 50 , 000 . 8 . 4 Other Minor and Transient Sources Improvements • Improve the ventilation in the bar screen dumpster area so that the garage doors can remain closed . Improved ventilation could be accomplished when the Anoxic Tanks are covered and ventilated . The ventilated air could be added to the Anoxic Tank biofilter at a construction cost of approximately $80 , 000 . • Openings that exist at slide gates and bar screens on top of the Headworks Structure should be closed with rubber gaskets . The cost for these gaskets is estimated to be less than $ 1 , 000 , assuming County personnel install the gaskets . • The existing grit removal units , dumpsters , and mechanical sludge thickener are the most difficult transient odor sources to control . No improvements are recommended for these sources at this time because they are expensive to cover and few ernissions are likely to be controlled . The addition of a local meteorological station (wind speed and direction ) is recommended for the RSF . Data and information from the local meteorological station could be used to make decisions when not to operate these facilities . The cost for a local meteorological station is estimated to be approximately $ 15 , 000 . 8 .5 Dewateri-ng Building Improvements • Ambient H2S was measured by the Jerome meter at concentrations between 0 and 6 ppmv inside the Dewatering Building . H2S measurements were highest near the belt filter presses and the belt filter press sumps . The new belt filter press hoods will probably reduce fugitive emissions in the Dewatering Building . However, open grating over the filtrate sump will likely allow significant emissions to continue to escape into the Dewatering Building . It is not known how ambient H2S concentrations will be affected by the new hoods and open sumps . • The belt press filtrate sump could be eliminated or covered . Piping changes could be made to the belt filter press drains and/or aluminum plates could be used to cover the sumps . Construction and engineering costs for these improvements are estimated to be less than $20 , 000 , assuming County maintenance personnel make these improvements . 8 . 6 Proposed Improvement Budget and Schedule Provided below is a summary of a proposed budget for all of the above recommended improvements : 331 Indian River County, Central Wastewater Treatment Facility PBSU #071230, February 2003 ODOR CONTROL STUDY Construction & Additional Annual Engineering Costs Operating Costs Scrubber Improvements $ 270 , 000 $ 30-45 , 000 Sludge & Septage Storage Tanks $ 501000 $ 0 Dewatering Building Filtrate Sump $ 20 , 000 $ 0 Local Meteorological Station $ 15 , 000 $ 0 Total RSF Improvements $ 355, 000 $ 3045, 000 Anoxic Tank $ 520, 000 $ 8- 13, 000 Bar Screen Dumpster Ventilation $ 80, 000 $ 11000 Gaskets on Headworks $ 10000 $ 0 New Hypochlorite Facilities $ 130, 000 $ 12000 Contingency at 10% $ 114, 000 $ 0 TOTAL ALL IMPROVEMENTS $ 1 ,200 , 000 $ 40 -601000 The improvements could be accomplished according to the following schedule : First Phase Improvements — 3 months • Addition of hypochlorite to the RSF scrubbers • Operation of RSF scrubbers in series • Improved Sludge and Septage Storage Tanks Ventilation • Gaskets on Headworks • Internal recycle for Anoxic Tank • Local meteorological station • Dewatering filtrate sump grating plates and/or drains Second Phase Improvements — 12 months • New blowers and controls for RSF scrubbers • New covers and odor controls for Anoxic Tank • Improved ventilation for bar screen dumpsters • New sodium hypochlorite storage and feed facilities , if required 32 Indian River County, Central Wastewater Treatment Facility PWI PBS&J #071230, February 2003 1. • x ' 31 C.*i r 'k;t, , rt *i a t ski i. 'yy. tr ii. ,.??4,7• yq r !i}+ r '�'Lgya "taelj '441a :NI ' ; 1 m ,+ 1411 . • flY ryt I 'Mla �' }, 4 ' . r1; lir ,,4 M,41. l� ijF* ' '4.4°. • etB ;Yi G , ,; • I k; 4as...., •T %U. !i" 5 ' r'.j k y •., ..!••••• kill ii; eat tii,„ .- ; :d' - ' y 1; { , }%Ngia , ,04., `'. 4i : . c , . . i"'• 1,,JJ. � �., ra wp • +.,, • ^,I lr S," . .:,P " .,+• C . ,y.&• \ S i,r�)� `AA TJ39i1^o'': v+`lL�i'�Q R''• f `)r*$ ;`' x J^Iry�^r ,'iJ pFr .I�t.Ig , Ir e • ,, Y ^ •L N t ,1. " , '«4 ° 4 i • 1t0 A,;, ., , ,•: P nl: sA a.. , t .r : 8 .• /•. .•.6r -•.T%" Pr �'i,Y, o ."4 ,- ". 'F�4 • l , V4., -t , u :, , � ,xa',. 'Y6 . Swd1�r_y yy, , .: k 9��:y�y ,y 5 ; ..+. ,. , t?A , f}f,1 h b�'R 1.... .. • e w{' ,fie r 'Y':rtr '• ., t ,r t< p PM•. '. 9.1,'Y /1"..4.64h44-411,111.141440J, • K„ - uP."}, , . , ':0.11 0 `S �1 . i. Y YttJI: M� , .R . v t4� •1t f' 4'' . t6 I {, 1 ':p 1'� YPv +& F' qt a• , x ku . f' n : � i• «"dII«���e,,,7 !!r': tlKEBF, 9" L .jrTY t�,y� . ,:,, x A. - :jj : .tr ' 1 .n , y,::- lryyl ' ' � ' _ t.r.far'n.ty+ }4 ,l''%xiyq� 4 A«. LK a ,� ) ey'L ':' 1 9Y?CJi �h• ' ` rfilittle 1 4i "" iJ ' F S 41 VI i' k(a ,, � r• ' }. L . } •. 1, / :. ��,P �f !4 rt n ,�, . '�.-i; + X1. '°�. rt , ar , rr and �, ":,>�., Irlit+r '�. i . t p • vt , :4 Pw, . . .l .r: t . j � .. 4, • , l+ 1 I t .� ,{' f • ' � Vi " y'i"• A • � x 1 a, t.A! p' ` � It* 4.. ' ,. . , • 4 ss t • F . rNP1 5 �' - ' : , ,sf , .�. . • '� '':V°S' ft ,r :, Ja YW ; _i, . 7 r rtr f.� 1 �v:.s (: • ' ¢e6•_LT , ,s : �• it • 'T" �a* : 11: 'Y al ,;fY: t s1 � f�Y•dTA r , ' A,. ~ 4 } d • t 4 } r . , ' t , • F 'i 1 , .II' } i ',. Y f i : i . J � hr I • ,,,,:l § t d +,• ; a .'x. � { ,p8. ar, f t . Xw., r 14S r Y 11 � fir '� ' N " •, rY r,. r Y { , Y � � r x 1 l � � d k 144:11.4.4t14.::��. � w "d ... y " 4 ' >w I. Ly - ' � : ^ vs : .Y q , �r . _.yM ,�. i1 j* ,y. y i , r:. r : ,. . , t i • ' • '. k " "P, :'wS ,. .^ .iL ur1 "f4. A6'} w " V:'^ \ ', .y1 • 1iy , q A ,t : . :. ( .{ +1 flI� ^i � } , of R� s �rI . t r • I • r N* r 'r : S� a.,f.' '°,f • fp) � 'I t 'I, y f+• Fy' ,- Trt , *yh , i ;} ( .I . ' f ; •4 . „ - .. ' i • t }.4S , ni is +t : t. - •''r + K., • 4IYb • ft, ,•... • y i ,... • it �n Y U - 35 'R:Li I'at r ' it a. " n. : \ i"N ,. ' :r ' 1 . h ^` "- hi ix- - I,,,yY . b ,�', . rt . an ' •:Yn ' s •, t ,.,,.. � k § , Y" "-It. I» " �•• ,, ?5!^.- ,�^+'E , '+'6X, i.°fit ,C�' � , . '; : 1 „1 • C� . '7 a k } 4 . } ry 4 4./4. . ?r� y I M a:.. r , K'+ , r , t - :.ti� 3 ' . ,,1 °I ` °J, ;' te . I ^r r . x^ . t } ', 1 t °} , y •, ' Jr is p ,l , d .. P rYr x ''. • . :Jr , .P . '. 1( 4„ f ' {•; e § ,,, • }!y t, r d . ..' , l4• }. - , h „, ,t,,, t .h It . .1', i ti :Y ‘.1--91.4"? ' F tlY d' P,.# 'Y . R„iV, i w, f , :t Y4 Nt . , �. y., . � 1 ., , �Y n ' . Y o .19%.51r,„;,#11..1 : : _ n d.. mp e , a ""' , wi . 'tk , N, ' Yy x. y `ty` lt :. § r 'r `tr:`».4+ , ^; ., , ' N ? 8,'.':. ,, ;., ' 4, ' �• I� :"h • r45 a.%, „ '1 t ,tnr" < yr^;St, r1 ' . '1; ', r ;gilt 'a "k : ,y ,;, .. • .. :F 'L: t . , I n . }Y , , ,pnr d� fT ,! .Y . .+ ev I , r V 'Iu " ,;j.�. .'wa j • %y , ! x,x•y§rll $Itlh' 'J"4 } ir ' 1} ^7 , a:� .'k . lf;,. ; y■ v . q ' :. •Y , : . L !r - . , 1,,. d • ^ Y , , , ,,r. v,L , ,,,,s, is l' Y>,1 p{ye° r , . J , n iY 'rr} t .:LJr,:�r ,^tz0..M;4 ,epv '?" py F•' . : � .,- : , ! , , '• i . . . •' : w � :,; . , Rt �, q t .. .,, : : 'i 1M �' ..':` ' ; �; ' .qr, . .W+ PSt. Ja 9 ' rr . � 1 nd ul, ; l�t a •L � I!! r;rf:'"+ „ ' . .,v.,.. � SaFi S`h" L kl} , ' `` '7i • •y, yy �. � : '. � •?6 . :. . r ' � . : is., . 1 Y'dr - .. r , . t . �.t .•.II ) t d. r . m. , ar.r _. ^^ : .., �},,,,y r � Y :,.Y , �:� c� + al,:n'.: :,.,�.F 4 „ �y pr.:.l IS 5, ,•.r4,r y,, ' n 7s.. .•tt \ � tR !1`T fir { , � . ."*, 1- , ' - t( n . n � .. . , 'x+`141 :^ !• � M'• tJ 1,'3y,,:. • n.,d ronY Pyl if Iw 144 .:, !�J+nr, vgtiK l7iry hF{ ti It'Mi�^'��.�I,�' W��' e�ri:d,. ' •S , �,'7 � Iw.. ' R• %; � I • (:. ,. . . 1 ' , ' <.,,.,. V• c 4d, q ,. ,4:' ty'S .wr,+< M • t` t;L: �,. . - r w• 1 s It +le i;rl ' k 'b . , , i , t. „ : . . e 1 . , IS : ! , r r ., , ltc , r l; 11 r . 2.44164.12 .• M A 4:• � ' C 7 ' 't • ' �hlvhlLl. "'• i' • h t,fi , • .. 1 : , . t ° ad." a ,. 7,,'3,,, v a� ` ,.1 , F• ,: , ,R. L' Y : } 8{y`q `.�.: : i t ' •r Jr# . , ,. : ',: : . I. ad +��`P fl q . y:1: N, , • � .. .1rr ,�,g MxGs � v1. : '3 : t s4 i d 1 r rt Aly 14°$1 i f '� 1` { , .kl t ', .at . .� ':i t '.•5 F ;: mt� ry 4 . • r 'h�b t. } r �' R. re Aa i f.�S1° 1•'i C+is'Mr r.. - , . ' . 1 f • w rY . , ":1 .. t " , 1 r ' .. • ' ••, : u ,J, , . ir, • 4 �:[ ( .. Yi )3u , �' � t ' r ,"! ` � , : • � Y e�, ::; x• , , • , Z" 'in, 'lr A ', �'''s., ;,s 14 * 1(�i 'r=. r e. '`�}'r ., t' ' I Gr, njjJ, e «, : (cx ..'l+ e , .t . ... r , : : n 1 N f , {� xr, � 4 3 . �+ t : ,m., '4$41• r 'i 1L ' ( . J . , r Y , •I" 7 Y ; y,... . . . . , ,, : . ' l :, .,i v , . 1.5 2 a I ,f. .�t �"r : va2'Y+ yl ,� . i , 1 `� . ,Ri T 4 , }Y.+. , ;, • . ,+ .b Y l r „ r . , . 5 . . - -L. ; . rJ �' .> - :: ri , e j�. r .b-#,• `: a + ` ,. . { it "., . . , '� C ,. 1 : r, {. , } . . ,-• ' s ` _ ,R . '� : :I, .t wp� . nr III 4 nn Y V f n : . ,. .r ., „ y. , , ',r. . : , r ., ,%'L (, S t x rx , I. tta" lt .. r.� ' . '}p 1,RI ;l' , r ,iAti' f 8, J, �_db • 1 ,^ • r .tg ,. f Y JI l. . t . :, > „ a t 1 4 . , r• - � � F , P •• ,,s Y - 1T' . r. "9. ' LL1, Y . ' t' ;1 etit r, , a�. , 1 ; . : ; n,t• . , t , ? { ' 1 . . • , , ,. 'b„ i , • ;, I ,I � " ' ' §, s 4'! }�#•, R1 Fn. t�� R StC p� y , rch � gc .: .. ,. • 1 . ,, . S . & ' F. ,.r C#' faAn' .. . 1 1 I r , ..:.�'-k �itl (S {. . .Ilio . � st .a , c'� J. � ,^! xi b+• ; ;F eve:.�!Y . 6 . y, •.;.,I . ..._ ` , ' . . . c a ,r. a Jn . 5 L, •, '. r , .::1 . t , xr v. ¢ y w,a> k s ,,, ; "x " La 'k,, ,rt •3 { l .(. i' z Y , . « . , i •w• .r0. , it, rs, , ( „ .• ', .> », . n,;,9 4• ',IN,, Or .1 s v.c'A t : t 1 r i' : ; 'A.mYit,.a '14^'J" . "r' , FY�. , ,"i+;,,,,, • f.4 , __ Ja,, 1% ?-t•r 41% - -. 5'k: • l ,, Y. 'r, . ,, - ,, ', , . ., t - . . . • •, , -f .r1 f rvI1 ^; in , r' yY JI: Wj;f: �x - &'} .F .r Y•"1`d" 4 qo:,, Sda.YL"� y ?sda:f"« _ :l,f , { f4tWl v z • ;. '• . .. -:. f . , til. .. $, «3 i .,r . , r, r , A r ,r ..{ n. ., c : .Y ';FL ng • . ,4 rf t ,. . wM kr s , ,. Jrc I t I ' n ' '^ l . ; , , Ft ,. b , f - .» , ' .A^ { las 11 ' x -.#. , fl ,P,',: ,r'p «e '•�5! , �S'.b . , ' :; u:, , . . . •, : . ° ?o. > • • , , . . . ,J '. •: . . , sv � a t'r . �- .. 7e 1Pp �'.� '�d « t r ,� . ut \t at'',r�, . lr ' N, : . . ' ., . ' } : . ;t 1 ... ,: :,Y , Y 'y. .l. : , . , . L . , . , , + ''^� t " ` i IIr ,.!} � e ' k 1 /'�;1t , , . ' ., . . : +cKFr° � � ,;n .y, r, „' r . � , i T'k. , : j +Yr+!' 4. rr : '$d! n,�� F,. • 1q �•}4.. . r, ! . , ,It .. • .: , _! , { . iY °. r : i . p.; i . w e. . , 1" • { 1 rsiahka< ' ',n,,,r : " J , rt 7 t .! ,; w 1.{, -n , ; . . '�, . +� �( , .: 1 J . 1 . . . . Y r L l�. ., . ,, '"r. r � : '- JS . . 111$55 v*Kr, + ' k E'+d:' ��,.M aft F :£:4✓J �'-«°�•� - M'r% , b i e : ,. -, . r • , _ . .. , ,,: 1 . :- .... 4 /44405:../1.1.4.4.'1111' i^ , r n. . ;5q ., Y , Y 4, 'rGt }- _J 1: ';{ f �tt '4. "� , 1 . 1. , „ .. .�. , h, ... , . . ^: , r I .:J , "5 , , ,.: :. 1 , Ih : �., . nri +'�, : , .: , . '7E . .k . ,+Ayy d w• t>.' G' t 1l!.,=: ��kt.�:Ai x : . cy . Ryq ... Y�. 44 pp1 . . .. . , . . ,,: _ .y R,-+ . - ,.. MC ,r , } .1 f : ' .::. >'. :, 141 n 1 . . . 1 . ,' • , v ^ "'�. , . . ,d. Sw , #� : . . .R'• •,l.Vr . _ . y . . �• M1. v����l �� • , � ( f,)) 4 e ,. ln. ; tri .. o _ 9 ' 5 . ,,. . , ., . wp b t . ,44- - - C . s ) l . Im . : t'N i :: . . ', ry, . " : d. ? + ti","Jc «'�?9 N r , .: . u . _r . ,. v r. Y., } . . . 1 .a . .,. . i4. Ir ,P ,. , r l : . h . I;I :. t . h,th l s...r. .,•r, , � . . ,9 . r4 .eh , . n. m=-. '.,• k` % , ._%x �5aw . . . .,' a ;:. a , , ,- . , f . . ., . . .,. '.I v .h ,.. x , w , n r . 11 .. I, fi , ,4M. , „ , t i u., '1 . r.` i. . .; a ,,.. i! . 'I?'1+9 - ,,cn R, .i1x} d: ... , ,. ( ; . Kn , . , `9yr ,r : .. d,, . '. , , . a . , . V,,, # ' 'n:rr : , IIF1 ,,. . ,� , I . . ., .„- 1 y:.. r .. ,, . )t F� : 'wi'. .. q+.«•t .4 .x x t, •• j % ,,,r,..4.;,,, ,. , va y : „4 , .„,. . ‘ „,,.... ,.„, . .,/ ,‘, „ , •: . 7 1.. ^ 1 .a r, .n r ., :Ir . .'.;,, i$. . : :I" 9,f N a-. . Y '7k .4 i y" 1,:., 4.1J'l Y.k r"a".Yl` .. .0 . ':,^ ,\x�wt, +K,W r }' - : ` ds u5x , r',i�k 59 r `r: t' .:i v,:s, s .,ir * . Y . . ;. - R, . I t 1 I .,4;1ePk* i . J . .lilt( . , : k 14 `, ,�., , i 14ti• ° r''(a ' •4 f •'Wa. ° .r ,Mk" yY r+ . 1y . d • 114141 + „1T ' `' ` 1 #;:i a k } '; : l d :. e„< $4111 . . ✓,x7. 6 jy° �. , I o a ; 'I. ! L, i ::. . /a y • Idlrtr c ' .'#:• . .; b. i�& a '" - .,;T 1� • p : ,,P +'= 7 Ai . ,• . :. , b' . r. , 1" " ,r . . . a",'� xa�'�,,,'r. `{ ( , . Jl, •i vl1,z'". x ' �, ,Mt 16J� �'�' :}J'?,1�� .:.a . a *kits ,,,1 �ti.,, �� . y a r77 r �1� I ,4 �. r ,C p ti...../ ! i • � v d A , : 4 .:,.r . . . . . "„ +. " . .. ,1: • t%J } , e . n{',',�a,'9" . • i �xH t!" ;rw PP}� 'Mi "^ §,' 1,' 1�{ � l � , . �I ' yAAy^^,I' x r,. i' d ty. r :! .,re„k1 , •. ' ?r i I V l J4 ' - �, I ' : , ' , , , w' ,: xN, 1N7 qk y-1 ` rIL,M.• I rr:dr ' , •,: d �s a .,,91111&; nrx'" .- . ' i: .r . r� • r{, „ }1t ,I ,, alt • , ,` S�t,ar ..v ' t w �' . •' 7 , . rig: J r , . . ? + . a'; LIa , hi ,Y, P, ' k ' r�. ", +Y?�irvk4 y v r .tom- .n".' # +' Y :t' d ' � _ • r ...1 I. 1 ' :rl:•; N' n ; V`� np'.. . ,t dt '¢, 4 1+ 7, r. .s*`:W' - .,t l.c ; , � e �: : f r"- 1 .1 t : , , yy,�� 1 ,,,: ,,'3 , w4: -._ el , : $ 0 p�yp i'�t! 'C*. i :. +3^ '!P4 . '...\ -to.1 . ., (, P ". • ,. 'P .�'r , „ I:k 1 :: 5 , r f , . , . ,.. [AV ., , , r 1Y v 'IW ex ,$? .a Iq(. §a 1 • } �f, : ..Y t ,( :. r3 ' j; 4 . . n , .. X ` % 1 * °Td y'.•':ia 1N' a 1, 1 '> A7 . r + ,� ': ) F "9: a � , .. ..: c •x R,� q :;r3 t 1.04 fill 1X P .aJAI"` I , �I w xd„ . " i y YnfY ' 9M1'..1•9.1. t!. - J - - . L ' •tx " ' t. • "i . r4--, +{1, 1,. , .. 1 ' � . 4 §: ! r `Y Pt( a 14', 4.r. h• iZ' ..,:r fi;?k, an _ , -di. , -d uk ' ;s P+, yfi" f s • 4: - 're 4' Vin " .tea .' ,., ,, +1v1- : 7 /4., '. .,.? , stl n ,+ ( , : k •A:,i;v :, � ^, il+:+ !, „ ^ ppLL'Zw' SM.. 5. . « "�+' ^I "!M . tE yy� ;5 p J. , ' d % KI ql P . v. ,I ,, v • w1' .�,.yS ` , �}•�:' .._ ' • ' r. 1”02.• ,. M " ti ,F 4 $"��i'y 0. `- L - a . . • } s , 'c ! . � ,.; , r , :; ' " ,, . : ..:.... . Thr, . $ ; ,#y(.•,.. : p.k«. - '! ' oa : � �P au d", . .. •, 3r .. � G , ,. nr . ...: .,,,rr'- � r ' niit.. w . 'Y'F, . . 4 . '1/2'4' ,.qn, 'd .. �y ,� q�• rr rq .�[ IrY,ulri%',' _ A`L' Y t - ,. . . :.:^, • ,:....I.y . . 5Wr t %y ..yYr�. ' r.. .ITLd . . 4. w ,, w n i„ " 'iw S-.e: Ir ,r i',14.4••• a 1 . . j�rlyr�y*• : . ,.} ( 1.71. .. o ,.. .-4‘.. I.1 .,:. ,� y , ,, :.,ptk ,y�$ ,'44 of • 4•, A t, " . . Al'', ' ilyrn4:a : , rr: .. ] , .} M . , ' ... . S?• .I ^ .. .r...t. ' " # r„ ' ;in • ,yt, t!.4 4C 41,i ., , fw . . w1 yu ."e J� nH+ d , .{ r ''7 " ... .. ..!Yu ,a• 4 _ v ,1. a;. ,,,.4,M. ira. ,. u '.}tY:.: 44 .A'• t t a. � `.�' • .y • ., es• t ':F4L': „+M mn 114.44 t •1 1f ?: •r .. ., rP` -, . �, y F. .r }�" i } . . „ „ . , vror s ayk '':r: dF � ' - t P 23. . 4 , � 7:, _ d I 1 .1 :. t ';, ,I { IL.A' rk:- k' " mY+Ey .n .rta R yy M1" N5 . ,d S �e ,��„„,, +t{ ' �_" ' � , l- /A,' lrt .yFi.«'} „}r -,LY( idn't ' :{ . d. , 'l/ ;e . : s� I M 1 h,rT y , . . . (;,:.. tt..�. r. - ., X,,,, , ,ttG°i i7f fI : tt.,1, 'T . 5•1410141:4155"- fYti�; ,r ' - L ' A +.. w +a3 . ..4i', :;;; r ' ?A Y. . � •.• yl a., . iLi :.,s _ ,, " 41 :AU, aa . tar5•5 `. : ( , t 'vr " /... liV ..". , va ; fit+, } .ts ,.k,.. r. SatT . : x +r 'sI �1' r ! '� Y,r , , ,. !Wa . 5: q . : ,: ,}� ,?f . r. 'Sri .^ ;?Yo:: yds!' pJ H: x 7"C, 'r,�y «�, . "t . r h, 7 ,� y .�. 45 f' I ' sr4t, , , � r., , t v1 4 } +kr :I ..F.14, : ':11. a '' "6 . 41. I , _, ; -^ ! J ?i3°p ,@ , 4 }r •a+ +}:�F TM r r 3 .2.4;166t4 ^�r'`za S" • td 7-c. aaA r " 11 AJpp o 4' , .0 •••• yy' -"-•%* ♦ l.h : .. .situ,. ;Pis, Le 1r - . I,-'k,' 4 „1ty .YP• rpt • : , �y �, . h' . 1 ,. v r :,. A ' '!1 ...-. r'< . `' 1 , 1 r, i' 't t 'e6C tR g�;��', rx: 'd . N �7 ,4 yYAEVf3'.} . . klZfi7 • J,r�y9 I '* ��..,6� ^" g �' �.p . i " * Rty ab A°yA1 Y, r,�•.'. N� ; xF . ': , - • F, �f • : x' : IIS nr ' �'. , . . y AF. .'.F , ieti . 't Str ' "' ' o dCrJl!' 1 1 k{ T4 µ � cT 1 v F : • 1 qy�,a� �p.,. � 4 In c 4444 19 r e �1 Ifl$ * z 7z�+�v, -'� �sztGt•..w.` +x� 'r � -- `moi' y, Fe c 6�Si� ,7� ,y�, ^x . • -+at;�,,,c ,r s-} ' .5 > s it r '� t yy{; • • 'aA.a:�ax t.�sm^� aX. 4 r t^�f`CTr�C �� Ykn (� °L'1.M �. FB yam„ ,.t;y X • • • • .vet "av xv r S, S ..#n iE r x ie � .x`.ra+1,�. �ax+�i y � ����'..�°'� • • • • • • c • • } .xs'yrrl� Ut` l ' " wry 8k vr7.Y 1d .� [ tkMx`4 IA�Yr 9ty;� :i 1 w` i tf wM + : fY tm Figure 3 mass Sulfur Emission for Each Source Jerome Readings is - Uj ' Cj E ( ,Fm.� p u ?fi9i rp X IN 461W tV 1 an 9 Z' 1 rgi LL 1 ♦ • • • • 9 a.lol�Y F e dt �rS 11 ♦ iir�'' 6+1 46 • • ' • . • • • • • . Sources Olt gi�• ♦1 ♦. 640 41 • x e w w 1 ;R q may. h0. Si g� }.0 F RM y, My 4 F • "". '='�:v.>n. � �wn�. ai'�� ve}�jt� ' <�` �f� �' ��� � Syti��t�'�n���rh. "s�� ���k�a • • .;i�Giil- Sj G to Ir^r'd2M J ,.e., S�l�{ �� ) 't7Y� `� :�++ s a�`��1iPui,�t�f f rf< f f 1 �r,� • � • . • e • • � ...�az#u.ua'�,`�,y". z�i �.a,4 -:r �' `'`�L ,� ;fie , SL"�" ��z x��u���T�,. l�i� ffy i • L ! ,n Yz << Fr > TV �^ f ?{�ip�k !i k � c � I0 d �1>wf el; l ,�ji iif .e" iy7v' e• B sn • a si �i S � $ ii k{fi PIP 'cy� 3Jka� .6 U L .f���„LL dd 1�q� ei uw rhd � ( � ' ru eS�4 > v ♦ � T4-�ti Y � 4��i �8 Pfd .'�.yiklli� � �Si �l�u -b' eye i �� • • ♦ �� nFy , � {�� ,pa f;l�t A..�gss� r �i a �,:,':: Figure 6 Odor D/T vs . Jerome Readings 1000000 - 100000 ------------ 10000 is v N 0 O 1000 L O 100 10 1 0 . 01 0. 10 1 . 00 10.00 100. 00 H2S PPmv ( log scale) 11 /26/2002 City of Gifford , Central WWTP €p) • i �d .� r +h + i + :0 Q v , a t+ + a n t "'T u r �u IIP14 1 + d5'' . KJ4�1 ld uy, � • . • • _ _ - • 111 r ` 3 -1 • • 111 t : dt�I n xyIF 7 IN S nw >r� t q �xIN �, k '+ 7 — t z i >Y • (� 7 NIF INN pIf ' �A p,Y 1 1 IN I"Iff aff IF t r n IF y Y }n r LF f 1 "�) y 4tz: +, t r tt r ro gg f fa �jv + f 11 IN I • (p" Tx'ck .. • • • 111 J, tt w 3 !x Y•"1 1T w '+.'t r r IN FfLNI,r is < geM 111, If k st ' , All Y X NN, rr 1 • • / 111 � ' ���. ��' � �,°�.� ,t `. r S y If t [ f 1 ENO7 114 —1 Ii 1i IN ttr F IN If t � l wt � ' 'Itt 6 R I 1 1 1 fSr" d� 4 ISII 1vf1 + >N til llJ l �11 ltyy I. �E�t iJ1I � r� n' {II 1 NI I+ t rK11 r i , li } 1 i`� nnCC i�A� �+ ?t t�'"� ;Yt tli)Af 111�lN 111 of tN x111rrA �1 xd �111v lyl iEdor hs r5 f - f Pta XA 7yu 1111 (3 � ( ,n tt';' nu1 htV7eu `hs�l lr t" je r ' rJ r al •r { ., k v tl n 1 ( 1 Er: 1 kG{ V'l, tkM114a{ eiri ! 1i is ills 1 ` i<y : Gkx l 1t 3r f*: rtrchT+ l 1 li a>'ir " , ' r y t 1 a . t tk ' s41 Its +7 Ihl q �, p E��kr 1 of 14h11 b 47^' 4< Yr 1 1 1 i 21 rf r "Ium . Nf� �Va l l YJ;hFtx rh+ i 7 +�1 ( } a'2pyi tJfi r r tc 'Y r91M1 5na, l d1 t ,; I lY 1 k r qr41� S1tw 1ilExf`5'. Yr c S II, P y r/ w�3; n It , N R M1 f�rny r} s y1 } r 1` i, t qjG tt r4tld t'S 1t� 1 Aly t l 1. 61 1 111 1i {fl 114G R`1r . .(t it r7 tl.'15 t/ 1 "P �I yC I1 lyiyt Y .e y r f� y1Vt 1i :1':urt rS 4 a, n l 1 tl S *}.. , + 11 }Y 'r 1 ! .:J tllf 1 ryYh�i `^� ! } tx. t 4 " r1 �tl AliP.R.'1 �'ij„"u I'll 1 z.v {{> .f �1"i �r T + II ss j ,ly �rxK , u S IPS . rI '1k 1 m: tl ti h 1,_ ,{ rk M1 1 r � C - , i,nlr M1 .ngl¢? 11 i ; 3lrols JI II?r Y4'k. 9Rfrrli'sr"s ? I�k � 4 t �i' .:zt of -'Y# f: ,vr�. �f' sr 75 .. tlr}12 pp1 pp " i is G' t yY f, . '� i4F�- r,h.0 r)r; 'w 5t 4 f• .., �_f 111p 3t, a i y +. ^ I y iF ( ti.:pli: r4 1 II t y,lr ' ::r y }P(IIA ;..:. 4tF 1 A( 1 �,IL�!'�1✓ 1t 5,`. :ns "`i T . �{:�T L'ti1 �n`r S ✓�a'eD Sa' - °` z v' N' n} }C i R°F pr:n} f1 c. i ?i t . "n .; r )t,T. = f . , R,, +,I�; `�t 11) y? k 'pr^"' S�w4 e ^ oit' ]:G�Ir7 �� Eifs�1�,4i I �ull � 1 41t � � 1 S.� #'rr rt>i1F'21Nf dt . t"11( .�'r✓ f'�1.' Ryz Ttt as N �:"d err tli `YAer i t 1 o .r f r 1 , 1 r as r Ir1fr X.: U 1 {a r+r In trr t:c' 1�11r'1 Ur1 '+ry f e{ 1 .' ei X aM1 t >Y C1 1'rJ a �)h 11t1�*. t r<r e 'v ry( i Iq it'll 31f e ,tk 1b § } lrl�(. r! 1 9',iEtlilE4 f { �'x 111 7 116 °RJ ho) �:bll�l` Au itr 'i4 ' r1 , ' {s �t f f `` J r };it I� 117 cii I � f6� tirt7n' + rarxJxsll rvY3rs'.r`: 1ltfR t� tkIx eNt F. r a f1 t, 1 § 1 lb7i` ka b 14ryfl 0Ak$ 7 x 1i � r l t 'yyt l�F 111 �{e �? �1r 11 + 1 F 1 ,1+iwhpp IF t i r ^ ' ; t 1fY +_� 1 1 tIV h � tn9RlibNrt9�.4r,,'P r 9 1 ! lr4D t ti'4- rqt it °Ifs Ps ,�Py, 1 `A na"i� � h ati . r ( y i k 'l�l{ r4:+ad@ r'd o4-L+Ge` CS�✓ d, lettot 1ba tilrr t + 41 f� SF IJit' 11I el r+fli'Spt rl '��"`{i 24��11 Y ^J 1 y 5li t st n nitY i I A� kl �dtY:i 'tlll S+ ! f� r1 F s ' % "It kIt t, 1 I! wtiltl arwrit er ell[ i TVA t" } :1F Tal h1! ' ? " lp5 otlTet I'll, r haL I �x5x . r 11 ix lI<EYr xti vs�(�t Zr ; µl ' �ni S }F nvyr . 4 D 4 1)m j ryt' v���•rr• 4 r 1 u > y� Ir Y r v t�l(rl r11y�f1 klStNhdtrr�ll 1 a 1 1 rX r 1J 1r t11 Lq ell ILI tt � S' 1 i' h} Ytr1� 15141{ fll 'ijl'k 1111 4 11 � f� I11 Cti R 2' 1 a 1 y I } kV11xi+ (I Sfnell JtF 41 t 1tl ?t i "t4lt tiu P yr! �„;'. a 1' + 9 M11ua ✓. }ilia } 1 orf flPz rrk �IrY 7 }w.�. " lir 1v 1 iIKI tliV°i1� yU _ f• ti S1 e f,� I ,} FL t rt Ul'fis{ ) pl^if �Ettttt h ti e yJ'flu lnl4f ^I If YF : F tuuF�L f�^ k'v3Str , �: dfik 1 lTY T11 tg11i1 (ry1 El1d'. �h J` 'jd?_ T,%er awl 1 1 � r Ito, P"ji 1 1 ifskCan TM >st¢5p -.�` {tc �No, om tll to I 7„b � o All 1 1 : to <1"f� v sb as4,a dr to. vy T q oL �a}AjVJ F 'r k c- ko- 'u <�` �tt$ • fi i�th . yrp' ksi'J do, r h( to V �lr4v >y3+5 �21br1. . toIt.hr P LL o lo o 'u :xs¢N "itx .yt .p^'7 i -'Styen< yvN o "` ,Ft n ✓ a ret ol Vo orEz> n'c— . t 4. S 1 1, *{ dG1 4 " ptadr`� 5y .sa �y 5 to, 5 5I "Ito r A t1i Ji '( s, bt G 4 f p :5 ' mta `'t " y t, � ` ra x ' m7 �s �y�'k �a� :4'a I Sf {! '' r1A ,�y »P ^'box`s u, to w, I rro"'r' ik .4 *aTa i 4 b� ,s r1[r 5rL :s r d '' �i ,r'3iA a• k¢ n t,, vi' 'y>;�v� 'Lr 1 1 1 aSs .,.sy, ::, 1 +a '+a = . tFi ° -, .,,, , '!r* ; + � � >x a,� Fv ,a a�- ' A $r ? a �" '" 32 '§ S i• }?� t rfi 'hz op., ['J] ykwr. i 1`« f ,1 . p�3 =t,.,. "'a d� uF{ r] l ,i' Y! ,zu+' `1r � 1'}t rarer rsa Gtt .� x .i x• Y �S`5 wr`Ca ; t x 1 � 's rs a }3 '. , r M' r ✓{y{Y �{+ � = Y +d, rc irh { art[ nr to v e r of r+5 toot , y too , ✓t 4 u ,� , i 9 z .t ,C', TM ?,*.@'"a.4^t�mc "' . 9P ` i F d h %, ¢ nil i p ' o 'sr atnG `` "`¢-rx it a, ` cyL�t. , Figure 11 Emission Reduction (April 2002 - October 2002) 30 Discontinue Use of Filtrate Equalization Basin and x Aerobic Digesters ; Improve Odor Collection at RSF s 25 = Dewatering Facility � fl� A y 20 4 < � b � 'r T ° z ' dF �r � 15 c O .N N 'E 10 W 18 .3 18 .3 5 0 April 2002 October 2002 v a � 3 >t� irit a . I 2 `eyla >i a • r� aL �fi a w y : AIN r ' "I s£^ dry rx t � s a� «s w Sr ° � � �i P,•� 2 iFb r'^"7"'Gig;.iisv�4+ rA yRe; �w+.s ` r a •m'm t`r�' p j�'s {� "F -r� JkVs ,�5.'Y i.< < �a '�s "a``' ' `shy t . • • '-"` •,dt ' :[i, ryLJk�� ¢c �rh1. i.,,r, F'�'i. u`x ^F t Fxa ;} J � 7Y';7, yk�ya.pY ti ,y'� q an�x + • I - • • • I • 1 '`� re..p.G iydk��� ��"����N�^ �"`� {,1�, ' yad '"x 'dq„�;,e�'� �66y� sr�� �aY s �' � 1 • I 1 (qdd) uogej;uaauo3 0001. 004 04 4 4 '0 NON %o y %ol. %OZ % OE aoue (ouuy ^� , AW % Oti 4uie�dwo� • m' uoi4oa�aa�� ' M %09 13 O 7 _ N IF %09 e' • •• . - % oL ■ s * %OS 1 °r°os % 001. LOG ' 6d ` ZZ NON dOW wojd spillnS ua6oJpAH ao; lapoW peduul AopO g 1, eAnSld rh111 y t ZTe 141 � IMF -41 y 'f'i_ Fsrk',a• .a"�-0 AY i 0 t XT t lan 7 . -.+��.e >jVsf" s '' �13i. -_ 1•�ry''. `M Y a{ tm , � q ,r- .vim 14 It 5 � k � ���a d � �"�'"� 'tea s a. ��_ `� ".—�*-$a�1J • P � P z�'�>r�.n `.k'`'' .��# �� � $!Y° : ' Y`s' a v " s � H a z : +r-.a^ ► F Y . �"y a � y •-c -1 .F r.. ` �`af" .� � �" T f S - � �` ar. '� f 'r` ' t - s '•' ri tom} � ;� _:^i., _ :ty^ry�, .f ,i+ it �/ Y 7 i 'PP �I I ., �� I 3 �� iv `� mar �� Y a y a � • 11 �Y:e•Yap,,, �' _ .rw. ;;?$. • ",t5,4r a. - .«`c.. G .� i '�• a.¢�'r 3F '� ^[edb cif '' �`„� `,( e$ ' '. " -ryFIn ._ � �-{� . 111 +. PIa' / �� 4 �`• 'S �p `�� �'Y/ i +t`m „� rr�l+�� � � :a;. r � � t � _1 �v*�uejt�iw y �¢ ,�, y�i• r S.„g� #si � y t �a-.moi. y�' . B�F >s .� t ai ea�f �a ✓ sem ,_ f � yi i �_ � " :? . yv � �� _ .'� 'f5'� $ i� � � { • 1 / $ v --*mow^�;=�_-`t��3-„>tyf-,T�i ' 'r 4,''� s t -� • •'�� £=�E's'. ! ,..�.. �,.�/:� pp�c AY . a�+�, �} `Yp z'�it � y�_a`.b�"'��a +��'�*,� - _^_yam 'F-n v �) 3 Y v+ ' a..i..#-` "' �'-� y-T �• ' 3s... -r�o- own Lae T2� �.F,tNTZ, '^yr`. awS ,...yHi �' .--�i;a I � :z.�.� r , �-tom . ai � ' • Y `F1E"s."x\xr,�frf ` ^s+. i 1i[Y ' 1 ti DAN] t V � � ,�' `f"t.�_"S53' J�1v �, 'b yy.�� �''T .� �� � •` +'in � � : .1 .:. � t'�`- �,.,""'_ ��.qr•s �r 2e. S `� �zk."� v�.u'� ] � _ a r e ; -r (, a, l �� 1 � -�,r=,�� '°s"�r` � .z'- .:; �$ y"yf�•�'Y� y, �y �T ��y'�'tfr�x.�.� r`�-' � a :*- �f`�syYy � .tel �` -yam c "ss�'�;r_9��t-� -* z{.c'� 3- Ws ;�.. �Pk� f3m"r`v m v� s r'„a� 1 • pf _-r a v � � 'ke y* "` 1-x, ��' � .. vt -rTW`7' li'S . . ° '�,^” n. ,� `i ��•__ �� • a tea. � �- z A" r $' L � .� �s ^, � t.� �� �; �" +�fu - ''y t ,.+fir � y � " W,rS•• i � � y _ -� '� � _ a > ,�� � ��ry' . �� r y � * - h .. 'rT yY+k% _- _1�e r' s,4siv. �a :»a •i �'�' ,t iee'�7..,�,� i J 3 "� ��-'S''1T 'K'/ F� '� a•• `2'y W }, ' a�„r _. � Y� r , ��P �"C . ✓f.�`- _ � " tf > 13 '. P ! � � ; � � + � • ��s r- ��.g*y' 11 •� rp.,R `f r r �, I i? { '}� -'�' '.� a .s� a � ti � s 3 A *'mss-ar�"�' _ "r"M- —,yY H � _ sYct451�T.8 a '�- •Y—.A� - v., �.” • 111 • ' • SOON . illiP Jill III _. yew aKx�,�,�ii1 ;: �`b p x ... � /11; '�h4 t5{�lr y�.l„ t �yl �✓G1 "f�r1 � � 5.,. a e v rdx r yt ,/,q� r rrL31t r 1 PIUjW a w9 :} r q�1,8., k -+c All yr r +� '� h �.• � r r �k1. s ice` §. 4 �. - / o rh . � P H :. � � 1 e. 141 "Ir y h t ^yF ♦ Y' r,.^{. I t I 7S" 9 a' . j x S, . t Hyl �t� ,. y r J.. i T �i„ fa. � a • r � tr � • � `� •h ts'+ 5 rryi� x �K� h,aa r h a � � f Ai'i( h � - i I l � � 4 ' i � '� ��� � 13 � � -"yF�' 3��t !N� � �' } 1 1 Y Y IA 1 W k � � �� y v ': • 1 ' AAA� YT � �I r 4 i F �s.Yc $ P2 �' ,� ?dt; '%7�`$Fa h C . `�r r ,e /u. � ��y�rr 1� � • • y ♦ r 'f ams,. it r a'rf " p _. 1 y r "4 . 5 +9 ro �, • • • .,F ,aa �.,I_, 1 � ) 1 Y ^ �T4 `�' "� i r a� r b . R. S ' r N + i»tjr 1+1 - • • i ' a JIM kl yy � ��T � i�t' 1` Crx „ �J f d } ' s P` • a�fi ^MK / 1 i 6 { h S ¢j rI� y y I IC All r v. GFst • h� � / { t ' �i. 1 t ,C �' i � a �"` °Ed23 '� £yt � a �+ n �LY 'Sr hP t ,��{ , k h+ � vY9r ' � � ��� I � 9 � A # 13 j j �y. r h t € � r 4 i h� 1 t yy,y • t ♦ r � � . . � � °� f "i'h� may: � ��,�c,3 }�jy� l "% � Jr. ' cuua ' rt I ki i '1[^RII YY4t .. i '�� � 9 . � fe .`.� .f � dptw4` .V�� � n �� � ,OM1 ay� )�;{ � �" VPh �'�� ' • 11 gg k '1 ` t5 i�a\p � ,tyj � t} e 2 1All yir Fw7 Yi 'Pi xj+fl r ;, rG W.ei .'7i vi�t4ili(; ;.•. edt`7,' v rY + kjs Tic s-p All �5- iJW +FkNMIu} 1 111 INNER • � * one r 1 �'y�S irysy 'r � "hi kR` .'s N '�'3,+ I•� i�r�' ' 4 � r �� �� �� � � F �„�� � �� kir �'vlry v `J`�M1rSPng"v. � i i' � �"�"�Y t'[,Iv [ '� V `i��+nw A ° r i t � . 'N 1„ r� � *Z e L'MII� � � � ,Vt° ''�i�4f '�' t' +X7I9' M. 1 � � ) *�- *e 'I`GJ 11 far• 1y �t ,� � ry � ^ [-0 �Y',iyj A' `�d % E7rP') � � � ,�f 1 ly9le v� yp' � n� ide . d e ati, ' VJ 1 ISr ' pJi ib !'� h � � � • 11 t^i t�,��' i I ,j G c 1;1 [�( � � ✓ U � x�y 7 Ev� � I�P(���i „ �f�'L� n4 ji3� �� '9 Y{j���y�r d d�'4�(t lY 4411P . G �' til 5;'41 � v r'+''�FF: �k. i �` • ' 3� r J � � dy„1i� .P " I e �S Q� [ 'vv rc - � � i � ��'f I "l'i'Q' ✓ r,'rr � ryr a Y�. .y P i� l- � - hk�' �P +`L{r�� E3 J : .�� ; ♦ >j 1r v "a 1 a ' Y WM;� t �Yp , t 1 1 1 tili'I I �I 9 �� r r 1 � t �' ", k ' • . ay"""e $ d nF � ' .. � 14 . I i n t ' d r x 1 .j r i 4 � ,� . ed� r • � J rt � trao��'�I� � yl ! 5rct i Y'A PF 1 � 7�1I '� r �M1 y� � s� � � � ' v� 'y �1 �� • 1 w '. � � r�'a� �y' I 7 y,�� �� r�r . 7115 ,� � •i r . . I . � i r � ���� � ,.r iii v.. ; tr �P�' �S'; ,�[.7r;,1 Mii++P- _ ti °, �,h�• r 1; �. . k ,i r ` , sSr ' , �. C;,. • 1 � �; +r� � J �� , F t �" „�'� Fb r ;{ Lira a ' � I}. '✓} � 1 1. 11J' a- � �a • 1 1 � � r Y � �. � 9' , '�� 1 a � 'l` Vy, 1� 11 � ^ �' r � a,r r� i � � ' 1,"1ga � . _. 1d•r � � � t�� d� 1� 7r '�. � � v1i .n at I�i�'3'�.'�� '� s s •.:��' d � 1 X:r� t r� z � � '�, �,��j'�grirllv�� � � 14 „ �.���;7�.[[[ir •y�Z,n"j6i,}� • • • (��y�+ I ' r^�' t �4 » Cl;r1 h5� � �� 1` .l44 �UM1(� kk"�l � j ' • o7� M � (ryryyy A t e (r Aja , W�• C }+;1 SIT � 4 r t I } , Y Af c YILI M.L9 �'�. t � k N r i �t J[ rl it JAI "MI v . s y�” , r � � o i � '+'Sa jk ° j¢r Jfjfu { 1# � N 1 '� ,R •I it r ' / 1 YF r � 9d l 7 f ' n �1411I � � i :alp ' + ♦} 'r� d ir[ t P ^ .r p �` r`I' 15. 5 "l� vMv, f _ 7-vf �`,-wr 4 +� 'A e e w I Ph �t t 1A \y+ . � �i`A �.�1 s� �rcfi'{ Ar"� u � A. i = . YY } A • t l f ( 11'� M1 `a, r ,fFk 1-pjh "ny , r" 9! � { . " I, .�.. 7 : 1 1 F,•d I i 5x r dl, r )$ I 1 � Y✓• '. ' 1 �rY F" nti�ia r I '� ,. I — ur , i' 1 +, Y It R t`r' v1r �!! a •pM1 ,( �i„ Jt 6 =.ra^1✓,�q 1+ r r 5 �,loo �ydr14i 141. `5, ti i �' iarvl wr wl •I S 11 �`x, f • k•' �"rs. {! gr { ' � _'"�, �� * a a` ' � �b Sod. t I , 1 'I ^q ) � k 4 a w : li r x ■ i f s I , m `Mr�I [�"a 4 w' '• ad.tl IIPh Ir3 y nf ,� r .I1 +LLL 4 ` + ' i ( Eaq }r1 �r , ry5>r • 11 i. , 1 a++t ew 1 iii, �a 1517 l �1 � � ti �.Ps,c hw it • �, e J. 6 � + . x . s. 4W' "L, [ u lx, ayfi 1,d. : I Ie- & 111 .�.�F��� � ���� 3 :" 5 �'• R �,.,�f��{.�y"'�t<` y��./,�.. � ? } rid � a✓+ � .a. - 1 1 1 ' " t` ✓ ,r_ ..d�, � 3 .. � a. s .�� / r _ , l_r _ � .. �ai � IJ Yti� i��Y r Emil 51' 1 I • is • yy e s 2u 't�' . �✓ 'fir. -'$` ,; c- � .�h C'i a � 4 r ub 'y 4 £ a ry ; .r 'rn�5 -da' s a "•r.. A - _ ,?c,. r7 � gm i MW WK i �` �' x. ;\ � 2.'�p {�n i � r � p.^- r. a„�r K �.- ! �' � ' � .s}y Yl'� �qe 1 • a a � y i� .: d r tl � }` ?` � J T • , ♦ '.GC �� �F� r�+ .� fir" �k �{ ray ,� 'a—i ✓�i-y k � e� f .,�. 'y�rt; +F �� # Z � � .iE .: a Y 111 111 1 �1E �5e 11^_ x '41INA` i�," i "°.2p {, r llN' •,r't �f�pV'J E f ,* ' f f ��,,55u }i4 'S.i R"'xt,7""R',; 'z'1Yrla" '? fY 1. aK erg z,� ��J l�'<� f � • r � P�;"c � brad hr .h"..m.i +.'3 i�JJ� 2„r3 S 5n ti�h 4$'� »n 3U� h4 �,4 l } ;. ° v p'"Lr t>. r} s�.+II � ay,� 3'+`>d'd&� � ",� . 5 } � �" �E �':� r W'� ""�.Sd '*SfIr�Y � , s+'r ',� I � .t• Ir f '[ 4 i ka 1'Y : J �, a 9er°d` 1... .s h s }>• 11 • c £ � 4Yirc '«,W ti!,I „w �. r ' 1; ' Ir•, {,, ,'�',�, ,. � *7r1 T`.a , 1 t '2 R Jy ,,, >rX. �44Y yJ ! •ixl{'p s ° � �i' K � i,`� s �+< � Stcrae.. } lY4 y1.0 ( S T4 , n h 9 lrV k'�` F � ' J ► kfr �� r`f t la �""`� k, ° v"Ytl } !° r alt t } T R 9 WIT. 11 : _ f i t ed. ' Ih 4tq L 9 rrl'Ai r:C@ " f � rdn^J� -z y ey( I� �11n I7 t4 s. e , . aT�RM. _� wg � f �K �I Il�F�CI ��, t.7 d Y.�^ j!. l„jda � d5 1 � I �' � 43 >,n"k �, • A M r Y .a s ' ky • 4. 4 �� 0Yi q ^ Fit JFP r Y P 1 � g tf j IF IV 6 > t . a , Y 3 dj. rV ' '� r d ^ t �. 1 u �°'•x 4 , > ,f "( 11 .° T 9 ' b ' R _ ,,f",a-. rIF LFr • . '� 8 vr6..e L� K� , , ai 1 '! d al y �`� rxs a r'3 .� n r � � ..!'^,Ry^ „, r� r • ► j � {t�V1�er �y��7 k' 3t � A3 � yt� � ,+r � � t 4 ��� a,rd`'• .> . �(.%Sr� . � � y1•i � t 1 + 1� �G • �'V yf ' � , ,L. d . t ° ?Y :.�1"1 r v �LJi LS 1 f +Pat>;w'. • • 1 "F .? ,r n1 . XPA bv" Y Q� r Xs ,� hfr y ✓'l r, o-``i L x � �� > • 't IM �`^ n 1 t rr Jax �n� - I � E7i' 't, nit s. � tr @� lE ^� '+ } '. 1 i4 • w 11 • + � Y �� � e° '� c �4e}.v la L ��Cti _y'. t�� �1.' !}, • Irtl �¢ � � {'.. �b9 d'.J � �� - �3 , l,p t2 �'��eqd��� {R 7�'9'�1' gyp' N'Y W � � , , TY- {j ��F� I f �Y ) � ' � • !� r r f - 4 .i r5 +r i( " 'Kkfr y as. �^'� lr ae , , 4 �, d, r IF ' 'u'f I ! IdIL,41 • 1a u "d3 «Ikri w fidF,{ r { x t I ! t a , IIL �� 4r � r I�Fw ��3},, 9 4 f: l Ir I �� ���� ��ry � � � WWF �' '+r �i�� �a 5^+�{.tt �T�U'• 74dxwN � E 11 • X` xL WL'Vp '"� r v ' S � ! s +� rn 'Sb l4ti J r n ' . ' .V 'd }fly 4, , ( I 1 3(eu kxrt YY �S� y+��jC� o-wl 4J) �a.t J ell .A1. ewxc ' 1�.1■},.��a�lle pESC I fl-.� +r'� � . . one * • so 1 ♦ Z�Ig "+*�'s+ YI a,. ,� .:� ..r f C � �I c 1$ t � ` - V /.{sig s � �! yu. ,�.x. V N •�^ 'n : _� '� �4h . - Y hr�f�.y �' '�o`3y%'• .y 3ayY"` e J t +'� y �� b � � ....� �'�"s �� • t r s���� r s�r'S ``tea-'w' ". r � s "� .°�., C r a � Y � � ' § �� ° ► M r t.00 3 figAV+ ,� s. .Y >r•'° r�,F �., d f I II' 3�! _ � � Ira r 9��1t r , wt `?� i :- �` . 11 - r � tu tea. -a_ - - - - - - - - oil .�o , 1 a 111 / / / 1 • • • ' • POPPOP 401 ONO AID 10 ems to _ p 40, _ ° �Fq "� xf1 Sass � ,� yp'!"� = r a. ,' d� t d� ,a{ � l � 5 �Ia,�• axF '5-L,4 ,h° e>•d r «t, �r�Y x"� id� � � ��i� � Sta ,rjr5�ra{•r: . �1 � d ��� . a „ f ��k , °?iu S� yr�S � �,1�a��t� � T.7> �: A 'aY a+ / lF : I rIr - ' v r6 I•jn!l a r yk }v'.yWE s f » y a Th4r .yy� 1 I s1�'. '.!h r 4 9 r s pi' 1 ��°T � y'r,y� , e / r� r1 N + F r'. r, tT ly � .L ', I ,ry .� t�, •f`.'y A ..�" ,rh Y^ k 1 nv � d gg y '� . r x rl' .I rt'x,'d Y4y' �+'q,� HppI ' IT • r + . a ! r �a t" r to p w`wK,t� lr ( 11 d IJ, ,1r l • Nii7 {'� >rR �; t r, at t v t o n d ,�, n( , , l ljpl �ItYs� s . W i� it 11 �If I a t t < i � rir : r�,..$J9+' .. , f r ', +rL I�� t4 = x •1 � w �4 �"1"� {r , i �,y} A �Y l ,a• • 4 I ^ 'MyiSa� 1'x '� r fiyrrr5� 'F .,�( £ t I AkTt�jr`.. .� d Y r����/ and k 44,q .. • � ' .i >wn�i f+ r� r, rry °'qx 7 f `4. .. 1. "s xrYv`te. 4. •�:° r t t 54 � i r ' i t a •-� w = �� r � a P� 4r1 " $ r �. .7 r �: rF1 +�P of ^ f P �r .+,� a 1� a "; • � �"l''' b�' �^ 1 � �It • � ( � Cr y. Z4r � r ;I 1�� t � ISih�..,° r y ^i'sy, .e k�� e ? ,5 I' r y • . t F � ,. P c ��.� � �^��1, r�� � It i t f k+`rJ ti r . : t[. Y c N' �I k b Y ' yy sk, `b�-'°� 2� i y-d r • • • r. ri tr r W r tr '17 L t� r fa �h�'Cy>� y w,rg�L i t!'. x4' _, rSN i{ PIT r"• • • x r g k'yxd!- f 1� — • Y CI . t, a•d' { 1 � B' f. •. Iplf E 1 , d" t , e a �Q,,1,11�, +�. y i _ {mac �! ''b � h' � if • } �; r -k ,. � � • • *lVya��` t rp 4 �, } y �3 f� w k4rrl: h ' - by f s ,;Hqy¢"�� t ' 'td�'c . ,.r to I '11r Tf ti• 11 � • N�� ., , ° Tt� f 3@ eA •^r} Jir . 13 � r33Pw Yp' CLLLL 1 r 1 t ' �• )2133 : �� d' Mbk J� . ] It ! Z i a o-` ' ' M, I i,. 14t f t .F f+a, ! °33ddr,, a�,1p ?� ti.`'; c <•. t ° 5 >Y � ak • y. n �Ir f ' At - VA. rr71 �t t y,t N xl t i • � � ) a `pr } Ir = of r � 7 d rr3 Y"A aU �5 kI'4„" 4^Jd �_0 1 „yk�� i u '� JN r G is A PP. fr t+Ljtfi iii x! 11 ' rh L ,TIP I-- )2 '!.r I � dn , f nqG 5 Y rr :r T -r" h•4�i rc k t�P,L,IE'41if, ILI 'I ;I test, In Y fr t xYhi .�y 9r i if1 Pf"• o .� , r U a Y r ; �1 1 il4 ,. / ' nllQ , 4- ..:. t nu hN:,l'. . fwa afro 3"! MY Rt: Jtd '> �a Yrj. li iz }' 'jSM,cwli. , I "LeL anA i �. ,'{J`t'L • 11 L"C °- tk>.".rjd t,F a I; ' Y v, ty 3arrr tg ��lrMa '+ r ( J. �+.4 #' ( ' 'I + t ,f `' tr"Nj g imtat � d - :3�4,3Ef31. dKa ��' P > > aahttkf� iti ` j"�uis�nAw�ta I' �Ar pA� ts ^ i + tar I�Q o4y' Cn Gro 4 C1 e�€"rr. `.kr j,,y..n^ y t 44- 7 Al AIR a +IT • r y e LIT , 111 ."� � � .fi C ✓ ;- .A A w. y 7 .. 5��� T � e �' t � 1 ��" Cy6°al K �E� � ,. s ya r t 3' y F +t.� ♦ w " � Ivy , u $ ..✓ ! �� } Y r a ds� � Y „ s3` 9 kI It All r : G. i �"-: ^!r ms' s ''z`.•.,i y?- 1 f )' V F yt` l {ti 10 E r v q� A o� a a 3� '� S3 P t� � ""` �k � a a�6 •^ � 'sR _ srmh �� , ITS �. s� �"� � l 4 tiy�-y�.S� �p� .P>s f �P'J�-' �"2L'Y� y � ! r � �:� �� i�'V� � • ,� -fila -s1. . M1 '° �t '�? i ��i1 3'f �' • :Fr a,.# '` '`'<+Rr�-.+..,� r ' r =e ➢ F'' �' x �� \./1 J t v ' ^j Y ' i � g{� L 4l ` 'f ♦ . . Y.Sh a a, r * - 3fr • 11 rit � 111 _ _ 1 / • • , • - - - - - 40 40 m r _ 0 i k Iw�d {'i e• �� d� ali . ` r ;e a K f ers�" �" �'a" t �` u d '{f 1 ! " 4'1"Iktata�l 1f!t d! a�a M da, • :xm. d i r � do P v x4f d . "W� r� t ��r'Ya '.1 �� I � j �1 �� �� d it • , r y �gg `A F ( ,`` T p Wf4: r�,�y�i 5 �nitk> ! 1M t7 1� 4' IY Q � [ �,fztiz....m� � Crit �Y 'f 6 � h r n f1.n 1" F.rT•d ..° .� .i�{� rrw,'� �L 'ytJ'`)-�iP 2- / ret l� I ��f 1hrs ` .,' . '&,ihaif74 i� ff ' ! ai * 'a' 4d i, a 'Ls`}�' ��� a remit ` Sf f i � f n .r ---••�_ ;` i d (� ,� � �� tit f. l ryil `7 I V P. y , £ it, 10 1 utlaKK1 , Yl u , �4it yy ' f Ir .. r • gg k 4 �r t6 i f r F r r . . �9 v `�kl r ' ' r yn< s � ' � vx � ph� ^w'Y' �f '' j ' I ! v tc 4 c, �� � � � +� .r¢4�fyf l � t � • RSti f •y,:✓�"" ' '� M1r i "n � 'tM ;� �. '„�,�+, 1 el, q��t "rt b' +W +1 • Ilk - yy. Vp - � �Ao �> � , ,(!$' �' " 1° tf—^^s Y 1 � n1 �tl rIdd 177 ' } ,dd 4 i� r '$sf hct„3.f �+'�'"PA �M,J�.1it - t•�' 3'� fS � �° ,. :{ I,q � ' ���, I� � � C'' ' " f o-t fJ prr '1 }. tfr � sr r F�.fr1 R 3f r r ' f, 7 y f ! 1 ^r v J.. �}fi .j ''E 4 t Ii,LA+i +1 r , `'�y ' "h'EP9� Ylr i�+Jpa ' fie., vs q FY • 1 PI Va' 1' M `1" ° e p �9i y *i'L 4r I Q 7 rf t t 1 r 9r' 1.Y q Y di ell. � S , R7 • lt • � f 5Ya£ ix1 ' M f�, v A Gx, YS x'vf 1 T f ,f 1 { { 4' sIJ 1 1A .YyrL{!q'{1�F1]� Fi ' 1 r Il �{' }1 r y'S/{ 't[f�l V�aJ niGl 1+ roHi k�,Y � 'S"�r.�.,� � � in ��W IIf Hr�tLyjl Fi�� x , ' V 1 9r � � r1F f aA i T ^f f`, m rx ♦ S ) a ! ( � r4 ! � :you f1.G r � '§ � 1_x4` ar'�y ;( f 1 � Sdf. c� Ya R 4 f „ ba"' '. 'k rra g + mill., r � ,, '♦ `^''7 L2 w �'wi �t � t» 'i Pi fi14 x 0.1 ?'r t P � ah�g(,t � 1 t'fl�rty,�Yyt ;vAe l ',C y441. a+AJevu z�s'� .,d,''i u1 ,tw .3J'.l � y en. ,gyp �k k 'p�y� y f l .sn Akt <3W 9..� d ! � ' . ' • 11 b } Porzt u nfdF ¢9 �itr�r � g' F T s ady . ' uYk4k.a� l rdfMA yat� ' T7 Y u + 5f:i .q� 1 itl.�,(+ , vt + ct,• f n C s (F.�i x F§ 7 > sT r !s � , " t � `' "r.a� J Y1 ATf f q�4 :: 11"x' ✓• .o-�,`i„r_ t, f-Yar,,.fr+Gj � � r 1, Y7 '� ee } I tkv I FAr ° nhi 1� � ,�., "1ry.7lr�' a\y r �. 111 X ;a c a � a CL a Project ObTectires OCZOYOT1b"OZ �tl/CZ [Measure Odnr Emrsstoiteiotri117ost 1, dllllZ ZlIYeT' CoulZty Probable Odo1 orr7 ces rrt77in CeirfiaZ �TTi7 RSA 'ellir �Paslewater 'T'eat llezzt 74 - S7r1ft27 'ucilly �i �Z�gio tri? oZids .�11ty =odor' » eli �op3ase1r7tesfriii"ate of 117ass ,DEE,z 3)dn7 �771rC5TOJIS - - LLReducing Odor E7nzssivfrswh iteOdor• Impacts t_ SobdsFavht3,Scmbbers • - 11 t I I _ Ham?' � � '� Alass D11 ZSSZOTZS o �7dm orrs� n _oznlcTs ` - r TTISZZ av,,TT1 y �, ,� �._ �: � ., � D�7177Ject_ 70 �T`IJTOS�'r.J1e1ZC �OndttlOTIS w ,, '► l�ftenAIM t. W,e eT� 7) Z7�tdeiectable �r�' o f �r elr ngRlux io Off-site c. e731Ni7nEE7ttllrtlnTrS ' LO1NIlnpCTCtS - Its I t)cla 5 � ." saw r .'IIt AlaSS ETtIZSSZOZIS 37� d0T 0175 TTTIIpOZZ77CS y '} ; 4 tri E t- j t uflt tFF — aSSinls�JOTtSZltOurEsilj+ Fitt t , - - T �'a3' cTa7nte� �snsrn»ig�tTTd ; a q�' y vTnlrc� rngilils$io�7s 9, OF tpt I/Tfr T � rty T rr ax llatc J --& ea � t t a „ . r chamber tTx �Za7e nx iutFtt' r 9,91ncx :> f x- ,� ` � X17 ,rr�dT�atc��Irambe7•:�T ea '�-�� ,�-� a �� Lit 1� 1'11A1I0T3xlt7Alt' atP 3 � • 11i g. : tim 747 Odor Detection Threshold (pphi, 2— " . 71.:Tir 6., ' •A" .tom�y'7` " V `4.1 IS: It a . _ +3� YXi #. M" �[ . .. f Ste?, _ _Source get „ 4. ti } as .sy 4 i+1"/cGc, .1 r '.. 1 Compound A 1 -PI C I 1) 1 J' -f Avera a ,:ag d_�` "' ?Sett., = F:g :aks• HI ydrogen sulfide 0.47 OA7 O47 -x1.47 113(1 f OA7 ..T, �', I r tt' I 3d 22 .� x . �I ' t . I`r £ 1 nimcli,ya sulfide � •o.� n � .. 3 .� ' 1 L aauu !W .D,mcll>,)'l disulliar 7 ti ,. - = , e � : »c. • yam - 1Vleth} I rmercap)an 110 .7 10 ^ SO x1 :1 " •0 "_ =11.84 v - a _ I4 4 l .yb Ammonia - X97 .'.r37 'e37 - a7 SS 35 - : �I : UUUUCI ,.t � ��.8.0tor.,rr, ' tM K - 000 3,000 inti + 1 ^ ' l y ` �•aloenc ) X70 - :770 = ..p �> -s- .11ell 7 71 1 li ! 1f ,A... a 1/ 9VTelhanol _ _ • _ 'yl !t ! ! rill• < ; 1/ 7s. 1.f. . I • G ?F _ ,4Q. . ixelnne '- j o-- a 20ono .- - 20.000 �` --,• < . Sc oq'. . . A n Mmmi 7 nil rand Corn n Cnfdr I mSan i-an S eraq Systeme and Trealmen a� i [ 7S -'3)amn lcofTrum nmenialnalanwOrgnn r h m mals. 7C V 1 . 14 4� ^ 4 n k t wit tteenOainarmn Stanmrire and Al Inle Snmres National Academy of Sennett ? �, `. / / '�� ��;• . ' � . F• `in - e)d r:intINal hl n amrf mpmmdrmission Control far Municipal and Industrial Trent • •-..:..-- .r-- •r» -,L ,�. >1 r . .. Y . h . .. mak:A 'fo7lnii nA'iiFi cru >;'lViami i w` L �� w :, ._.? Jerome H2S Meter i t , Nsii tt 44,7 • o ,m i ,s 1 s. . r .sem *air — ,F r I � A9 , 1 ' let"- , i _ , >` rAt •I 1CS i 1 - c laa . AC = R �i . Chrbma . .•• . li I.r ,. . �.., „r.. �.u, = + "1111I • I 2.-11.• .r S. A \ V bail [ 4+� xAkM t n • \I � j I pit '• Sz4 ' l'✓ / I/ cin-site GC-MS I'i • e "r ” 3Ara3t.d�. � ay.S:..3.n..:„, ., , ,., . . �{ y � 3(„i4 � ,... J ro Moa Nr..iNae° 4 2 :110204.14•130 rb.fe34Vre. 34330YY44 �Ltr t�c.2`-"._sex,^v,, • •:• ff tl � � ''re 4 m ba •s.***11 tti, . e^ '„ ae 5 l Y�.4 e A.4 ry tr .6 F F.ret+ '�" a`r ,. ktkg it IOSI ,Iy ry 7rr, , 5' ¢. �' 'z S 1 '� C 'li '�, s ` xn ° wx as 'k, .. ;=-. err ! . .. j e : 1 P .+sa d T r rl^ do -4 4 siely7as -pip tfE - < • _ mxo- .S17 -117 .4 Ls tatters: 2 t1171flicsell r1ts. ilareafra S` "2 Via• � m s >' it: 71.1 "t".7.71 [ Q --, .,ccs to K a" •`� 3 ,41est s !pt A#'ra . 7.c5 '. - ,k` r T-: .[i•.•- .'.7^- I f Cia lip- ,, ,-z In a ustGi r11.7:1Pr-il . Eft r; ry =� �--• s . -.� ✓1111 .£f' 3$ a�1 t �"' _ I� T Saha `a r ' .- p r / y i. `aYf . h l > +v�i dN Amilally �� CPP .4•11.8 E' in. Ki r � .-�� ..t 'r` • "`` ^..'yJ'. o. .• . - a s v { - r t .may ..-i 1 e'3+ - 1 I F .!' rj7. 1. 174:a Y .' 4:71t 4 * :rl 44.r ; 7 -:-"< V , z1Nea(lworks Scrubber 1 ° . ti x„ : : „ „ 2 err 1 Air 501 Film .011 „rte ���y a. C.a� 'f' a'> � s1 ^.R S-T+..� bf'Ve• Ydb 1 L N . . F = �xidafionDitch — : Aerated Zone. " - - DxicatronDitch — Unaerated Zonea — _ sv'• Oft far rl .r s . .mm..k: `=; : --. & l is Lqr ' = = Indg °Storage SeptageTanks lu c tbra e ,fi pe taQeWanks �' $ ��h ' "X � } ,pg� j°'�` Slot 1, �.'S. .S tF w ✓3 . ' ,N'€€ S 'n � .FONT .5}1Y2 'w�2 � �1 � R3' rti r•,t t- 1 .ct�Tj . n �� .. �� - ,,;;,,y �a •�`r�^-�. ��' / WrYYA ,.Y"i en R` � -RY%R.'�,•'ry `�Y'^""r� A `4"- i -.4 �'. ':�' Ti+ £.��' �--d"��..f..+-nom � ='x_�.y'1�roa.�a`'� j.sd� �` y�•,y. -���' - jj..�d ypga, ep[ageanks ' � lucsn age- _ ? a ! Y� � �u{m}�w.pay _ .yap 1 x• � s 1 Y5 A33 t .y 1 I � � � ' t t ,.9';fits. Eli ° P E I{ ez g °it /�4K tP} ]�.zfro 110 it .. : 'R 07 t olids Facility Scrubber eh Filter Press Room z .M4 f 'm Fb" �Rif1 S q.{. d _ V • �j T' l felt Filter Press Room r t ` ` Truck oadingRoom a u., NO n a � r• .qy ,.l+.n� ry°sem. a'9ia�� r � � � ��� s kt � �"r�"ri p 5�"• • . r � ��� + 'at s�"�y �l 3�'���3'za ya�i�:.G c. i. I ` „y ,4 Z•�`^ '. �"`"�j�p •� •n yF.—/.R� .f'1. 3a`1��3r ? � -`...% ; Fi � q „gn.�'"S�k�*uv- +.° s � ; +x A � ,.�. � l' � � z s y� "`Prt.�4f�,•Si �' 1 ,..�+.� � ,�j,�+`5' �� F i � � f:Coat. a Fcua izartion Tank �— ;> k < F lira qualization Tank T n. 1 : v e'd• 1f jjj "lt7-b( n N FQ <I �¢ �' All 1. + �' x S x, hlr . : t Y e� n a Irq+ •r .� 4 i L � I k ( ! r . � d �� { rY'• ' .T19 r d, y°F"i h, ' da gt vi7y Alf. kl ra � dr p IN id P r ^un1l � T4 h�$ .-. rIlk -'� 3 a: : I'f' h r y '" r •§ Lr,. '� 1 'Mg . ll T yt V1 ,,' ' p9 P ywyi7 t' IT �'" 3Ck'fLYf 4a Ilk1 S� '. rr•: . � # � ' : ` kAW 0. . .: ! i7 Sks f ' IV, I" I" N . reg • � < 1 1f '. k., ry;—.Ahyyr: i .• ``YYjl 1!� CD f J: A �[y Ilk,,� kl� a ' � F s�4' ,S �aIV ...y Ilk ".. _ a, « "•• lf� n,! d y ' �'� "� k. `arEJ,e n` {rr t w dS 'IL n cf' 4rA 1 Vin. y 74 i "i $ S �7ae t r gyp: i' .t a YLb f dvk �E MOM NEW pY yr r 3, v x +,a r u � y ' « V1All k' A "©t !� yYy '"�t�y'eJ+ t 1 rc�3, ' ` '✓a!l'A d t{�SIf • .m • "y'�" ' kv, 4l 6 n A44t `. 3 a x <d — T « ' rr ' .t '�' r �µy,• , y 1 Cry PR(yX IL N'Lit � J,1 � ., L E r y M1 j 47`'d IT It 1 41 8 L Tyr Y� L�yyyJt 1a. fB � � = IT tIOD I ie n� 1Ar S ri +i k, � + 9 d ; la a l+ a k � 4 F ,q,t till 1 p� 1Ilk y { u 'V kr : � pJ .3e. 4 f Inyal t� ' u E LtY � p ''1t; xd I . e-. 17 �� y �+ Q , � i Hh� „ ,� , o CD 1 4Ce,�,d iq 4 � . I a E 1 tiar;�4 drs U1 Vis@ " ip t ! Ilk r Q v E h e LA 1I ITT ter ti , ftali CC j n gar F'� �bi,4 , ip 4.. � 'ell �� 11 ell el 1 STTl11T11Qy Of DTf? 1SSLOTISDLI Q RBCCITT IT7 IOVG'TT1CT1tS ``. le ."- ell nLe- leel L - 11 _. 1 - 1 lee ill SZtZf1f1 and , ;ff17S51071S ,uT eIi 7zfi _ T b' ) - � DTSCDT1frflTf- sY '�p Related ell Ili ell 1 , Tudg�le�lorggearrTis �CTOTfLC tlflY� SsbT�7ID71 TT IE CA T? S ' " Lee L' %ilTratcTrull Tt�rfimt `�3astrl , r L'fnzr�fit 4. 11 . 11,x ' e L- �i< 5 . . .�dder73 x 3 riz r s 'LLIll . e Le�itdicrvc zTtnsl/} Yzyc$r qen sulficle Y3eslzrersiL. ctzntrTT� .3% �Zeductionuz �rrlJ'saufzaTrrzttic suurxJtTz7ulrz-rzr91 el ir99 L sszzius el'Y ! . 3 : k lie l.l L ell le rr Y z t SuTrzTlzA D DT1r7s5Torts DpId" � u�LL fJ' ...f . Hig7zest Ir SF Snu%cisi art ASF . OTTLZS iTL� tf�,SGr I IJTJLT * v y} Zluli�gyeS}� 1arta11 l le, il lee el rngs �iliV�x wo �YIl�J 07 /lDA � t11 pel . lie el 9 rglrsfirT �zrTxtzd3dm 5nurcesi oTrr z l�Tn 4bAks `,; LL Li y� Y G Y �- '�ulJrul�s.Sc�xli.�Jers I1 � a evil v . , � Isi k k•vap••s#'LE. �r f� 'rkYt, Ij�l ���'j;Il'y'r i � >P".5.. ... ' 45 �� 4.di ���� p:(`� 5 �• '_ ' ,4 to � R1 . 0` hs. 4 � 5 v I r O"'IPr�ryy��� •�� 5"j:. j xrLa7P � �� L3'�j9ytItd4 µ: ® ' RAO two y - 3 f 4 1 u� t '1 . N � 1A-• Y �. .7ttW _ ���''[f�{` i . '� {I L IILr to i ~� � r , o vV. S � F i ! 1 � ^ r '.� 111 1 1 ' s u r. � 4 11 8 pQ I 1 1 I . ti 0 ! ] ° y d � • q �! ! vt IJ A yy i� ,ItA{�i 1 , A • : H r. 1 '�' r „ pO It. ,I r13, � {�a4i: � ,i 1 ! 3 r i x 'S� ill ditlir ij b, ' "S A � ' •� . �( 1 s! n "'F1 t .� '*e �, 1�1 , h� {"Yh � Y1ff<z , h � A d rr J, 7 1QQ � A t4. 31 rli5l ii (1 -h f � e :Ir rr 0 , e ! YIt jt— A fig .1 �i 4R . 1 I 1 , & 1 y4 . Ir 1 - tAV) v _� � 7 fr� } e I•, r �'Qi w ,a ,l q•J jt� `Yt} .1 5 x i i IL • "e1 rw, h 1 � : {"•� N, �! dKd � A :.r� � rpvYG.4Y a�"'J� .%N R r A � iwQ ,ry t 7� �,aM1. Fix "(vt'vN� ti ' 1 ' :iZ . '� • w„ 1 _ �k " a' Q x !1 t i � Q A � f . `- 7 FIZZ 'k �� 7 A U '�`J t�,JzI } .v ° k A "'� y �ri �`$�"`Ir ,•* �I.�. ,.5,.�� Lf • y41 � /'• f.i A r 'Q i • �'(� . h �.� 4 ` 1 rMv t J ! `L� 1 A M! . w 17/1 ~ ( r 1 +' ! 1 d r, , „ s , t '. . .. r +� m ! vw r l ',1 ' " 7 > r i + ',c'*, ' f ° s [•C� �� '7 1 t r }4xlr 1Y � It F' 1 9 A l of jt p51fi . r t _ TIT j fAI R` Q ' � iu,iq 1_ ,� t e '� �� 1' Y ,�7 �, 1 •4 ! 99 7YNi ,� ; it rr 41i 'r 14 a Mti .q Q . . , .� Rf a 1 , :� rh »AN � contT'OZRST [ZTZCZI] ZZOXZC ST , Ot1tIOZR " Zanf/ /.o/Jk'NoLT/ CL'S ` ° a "� zlttd.�g77OXZC $ . 7 ) rte�`F---•-' '' .a+ i 'Llna:77fJ(d1CieSi iZ � n 1-7 M� 1' • S � � k _ 3 e s� va n r • 1 ' • S , r Recommended 7i�t�Tto�tetitettts � � •r _ Recotnntended ly?,p o ejiz�extts 771Arroxcc danlrrtptovent �7ts ' a x rOperate RST�cere7rvn�tage } steln h � �ustr.o7lanTiirnaiiesndruui J�poc7i7nrlte�eerT�ncilifies, � 4�o�istrurtvnd fiiTierale'nirreln�ttercYufgeanYanOr r us7 aY:rclnilntg iDRT find gacliltpce corrfrri7Qc}g7e spcteannJnarne >an7apcu7utafimr n fadarnur � oris jr eed ncrlr ornrJLV', { z rer/rured �'�f �s�virshzrct a7uriizrnhn nrr crZassnrer� 31 z7d redundant naller�aai n8Weniilate� rout sludge "u1�e�thrate5otlrrrmrc rr ¢ioin /ieatentli't7ie vers farvean9c 24Tirs/dad, shrrgljYisyer . :. - f '' .nstnrct8 ��saternrnt�u7irrrfilierfirr-controlling i a3$ormicmrssr�sts ` , t y ighlert� a'eirli%nfitja r'onr�xrstingsludge storage tanks t -4(450 iD0 gCarsriy333,TI00 0�000i. ; , i sturiitie2T ZtS�� % (9.3Ib/hr S) tentmaZ: �0%n (A.87b%hrS)��mntrlf�RSlie�nnvvl �-JO f = , res rt 1m9Ti rstl Ten t:X73-7707CQbS <*; ' � ayYTi ast771ene t• $730-7h0X/lLS a' w . n1a.514, 44. Y �v dl Dichlot obenzette 7-11{ Deoc7ti �< �n {� ' 116It EASZZT Y'IZZ]7 L7�lAI , F* e pt xt�r a` n?chi 1r 7T , .. , tj � � u � ��*aA Mn ril7i�n�iire 3fl,tt�nta� 1p Crr ks F -� .✓GnuINK.�