2009 UPDATED EPSILON AIR QUALITY STUDIES i
flon
MWPSI
ASSOCIATES INC.
November 20, 2004
t
Mr. Bill Thomson
Northside Carting
210 Holt Road
North Andover,MA 01845
PRINCIPALS Subject: Updates to Air Quality Modeling Report for Proposed Salem Transfer
Station- Revision
Theodore A$amen,PE
Margaret 8 Briggs
Dear Mr.Thomson:
Michael E Bashi,CCM
Samuel G Mygatt,LLB Attached is a revised Attachment A,emission calculations with larger font. We have
also revised the days per week to 5.5 instead of 5, which increases the PM-10 to
Date Racxynski,PE 0.64 tpy, and PM-2.5 to 0.26 tpy. This slightly improves the cost effectiveness of
Cindy Schiessinger the fabric filter, but it is still 10 times more expensive than MassDEP would consider
cost effective. This does not change any of the air modeling results.
Lester B Smith,Jr
Victoria N Fletcher,RLA I apologize for the small font on the calculations. It was not intentional.
Robert 0'Neat,INCE
Sincerely,
ASSOCIATES
Andrew D Magee EPSILON ASSOCIATES, INC.
Michael D Howard,PWS A.� �_
Laura E Rome Dale T. Raczynski, P.E.
Principal
cc: Alan Hanscom, BETA-Inc.
3 Clock Tower Place,Suite 250
Maynard, MA 01754
www.ePslsonassociates.com
978 897 7100
sAx 978$97 0099
a ENSINEERS H ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS
PertonneaiRIE PooJea No:2� Pagel ofd
chackea:bi DetailCd4Y
yl
PM-10 and PM-2.5 Emission Calculations for Northside CaRin Transfer Fac01 Salem AAA
400-500 tons Per day of total waste handling mix of C&O waste munia al solid waste
Facilitywill accept waste 5.5 d r week 9 hours days da so1 of o ration
Loads are dumped on tipping floor from trucks(packers,self dumping trucks),
The dumped load is ins cted and transferred into trailers at lower level
So each ton of material is dumped or loaded Iwice and May othewise be handled use dozerpushing)
Assume that the entire ti in and foagina area is controlled by water Mir,
ists but conservative) assume 50%removal see below
Since CSD waste is a ed to be dustier than MSW to be conservative assume all of the waste Is C&D.
The faciil I have one stack operated a time the feat is handlirm materials
According to EPA AP-CSection 13.2.3 He Construction rations able 13.2.3-1 Recommended EMlssion Factors
for Construction O rations under Construction Phase-Demolition and Debris Remove Loading of Mons Onasme or
Unloading of Debris Owe this Table mmends the use of emission tactor from Section 132.4
Section 13.2.4 is called Acareoate Handfinn and Stora a Has which includes material unloading from trucks onto
Hes and loading of trucks for shipment or transfer to omrocess
E=k 0.tMI32 UJS 1.3 J(M/2)41.4-Equation(1113.2.3.4
where:
E.=emission factor Ibfton
k=particle size m ' ler dimensionless•0.35 for PM-10 articles less than 10 microns In diamete and 0.653 for PM-2.5
U'=mean windspeed milefir
M=material moisture content %
E'=0.35 0.0032 U15 1.31 Mt2^1.4 for PM70
According to EPA,this emission factor is valid over a silt M of carticles less than 75 microns dict content ran a of 0.4419% and
a moisture content ran T-30.25 0.25-4.8%.
This equation will produce higher emissions with lower moisture content. The Vat end of the range is 0.25% indicative of limestone
used in iron and steel a ve d roduct. To be conservative assume all of the 500 d of C&D waste is ve d limestone-this
islaea ve conservative since much of the debris will be whole materials such as lumber infect drywall. sticbdck tronaete
etc. Onl the residual dust from small fractions of the total wel ht of wh le materials(sending dust drywall dust from
edges of broken wall board,-etc would be in the form of silt-R is expected that silt content is at the low end of the above ra e.
While the unloading and loading occurs Indoors them Is air movement caused by the ventilation systfm. is cert ba translated
mto a-Mnd speed-2guivatern by arviolng the vcqump of air now,uythe face area of the room normal to the exhaust ick
A plenum will be located at the back of the C&D Upping area.pickina up 10
000 ctm ducted to fan and out stack
PmrortneC;jLig PlpteU ha73sz9 o Pag9
UWdMe:Aj
Building Dimensions: 98'wide XIOO'long x 35'high
Assume all of this volume is drawn across 98'wide area at lipping floor,and over an avq het M of 20'
(15,000 fM3/min x 119840 SF= 7.65 fUmin
7.65 tUMM x 60 7n/hr x 1 mlle/5280 ft= 0.09 mph
The low end of the range of windspeed for emission factor uation above is 1.3 m h-use this as a default value to account
for arry stray currents caused pit localized air movement
E.=0.35 x 0.0032 x(1.3/6)M,31 0.2512 1.4 = 1 0.0036 Won
0.0036 Ibfton x 500 tonld x 124 hr/day x 2 dros= 0.15 lb/hr 4 hr a uncontrolled PM-10
add controls further below
For PM-2.5 the k mufti ler is 0.053 Instead of 0.35 gM to emission rate: 0.053/0.35 x 0.22= OZ23 ib/hr uncontrolled
Nextconsider pushtn of material for handlin /sortin -use bulldozin ushfn
According to EPA AP-42 Section 13.2.3 Heavy Construction Operations able 13.2.3-1Recommended Emission Factors
for Construction Operations,under Construction Phase-Site Pre aretion-Bulidozin
this Table recommends the use of emission factor from Section 11.9
Section 11.9 is called Western Surface Coal Mining.and Includes bulldozing overburden dirt
E,=1.0 x sA1.5/MA1.4 -Table 11.9.1 PM-15
where:
Q=emission factor Ib/hr
s=material slit content °k
M=material moisture content %
multiplier for PM-10 is 0.75 according to Table 11.9-1
According to EPA this emission factor is valid over a sift M of particles less than 75 microns dia content rale of 3.8-15.1% azxi
a moisture content range of 2.2.16.8%.
Thiseoustion will vroduce higher emissions with lower moisture content The lowest end of the range is 2.2%
To be conservative assume all of the 500 W of C&D waste is at 2.2%moisture this Is higher than above but I st end of ran as for this
This is still conservative since much of the debris will be whole materials such as lumber,intact drywall lastic brick concrete
etc. Onl the residual dust from small fractions of the total we aht of whole materials San din dust drywall dust from
ed sof Droken coati board,etc would be tts the farm of sift-it is a ed that silt content is at the low end of the above ran e.
Use a conservative slit content of 3.8%(higher than the 0.44°A low end of range for the crov a uation above
E�=1.0 x(3.8)-1.5/ 2.2 41.4 2.46 Ib/hr PM-15
2.46 Ib1hr x 0.75= 1.84 Ibmr PM-10
PM2.5 is 10.5%of the PM-30 calculated oer the similar calculation below.
E=5.7 x .6 A121((2241.3 = 1 10.15€bttX PM-30
10.15 Ib/hrx 0.105= 1.07 Ib/hr PW2.5
Assume the entire 500 t d is Dushed rontinouslvfor 3 hoursl9 hour shift. For example.if 50 tons were on the floor at any given
time it would Oe ushetl around for 50!500 x 180 min= 1$.0 minutes er load of material on floor
1.84 Iblhr x 3 hr/da x 1124 hr/da = 0.23 Iblhr 24-hr av PM-10 uncontrolled
1.07 Ib/hr x 3 hrld x 1/24 hr/da = 0.133 ibfir 24-hr PM-2.5 uncontrolled
PeMmmed.DTR Projeq No:jag¢
Chetkae:
Pege9to
Date 112090Q9
Total uncontrolled PM-10 emissions from dum in lowing,Pushinghandiin ofwaste
PM-10 PM-2.5
2dum in actions 0.15 0.02 alb/hrn
3 hours ushin 0.23 0.13
Total 0.38 0.16
Apply Uwateru ression-nominal 50%removal. Bas d on a ran a of 78 to 96%control b wa er s mistsn a ate rocessin crushed stone and ulverized minerals for crushin screenin and transfer oints.
erheads is not as effective covers a as a dose ins ra fora rocess reduce this to a nominal 50%issions internal from water s s0.151bRntx0.50.07in 0.23 Ib/hr x 0.5 0.12
0.38 1b1hr lxU.5 10.19 lb/hr 24-hr av
0.19 Ib/hr x 24 hr/day x 5.5 da /wk x 51 d 02000 Ib/ton= 0.64 to PM-10
2 filum s 0.02 Ib/hr x 0.5 0.01
3 hours ushi 0.13 Ibmr x 0.5 0.07
Total 0.16 Ib/hr x 0.5 10.08 lb/hr24-hr av
0.08 IbRtt x 24 hr/d x 5.5 da Avk x 51 d 2000 Ib/ton= 0.26 to r PM-2.5
Calculate PM-10/PM-2.5 Emissions from loaderand Wck emissions indoors
EPA Mobile 6-PM-10 emissions-Heavv Dutv Diesel Vehicles-0.372 aramalml for slows eed-2.5 mph
Assume 4 vehicles at a time indoors 0.314 /mi for PM-2.5
4 k 0.372 mix 2.5 miPor x 1 Ib/454 = 0.008 Ibrnr 9 hr/d
av
0.003 Ib/hr 24 hr av PM-10
0.0026 Ib/hr 24 hr a PM-2.5
Add idlinq time Indoors-assume 3 minutes idling r truck and 1 loaderidi( 5 minor s/hr
Mobile 6-PM-10 emissions-Hea D Diesel Vehicles-1.25 rama/hr for idlin 1.15 Rn for PM-2.5
115 vehicles/da x 3 min/60 min x 1 da 24 hr + 1 x 5 mIN60 min x 1.25 /hr x 1 Ib/454 0.0009 Iblhr Mmoder,
0.00081bRv Add to above 0.003+0.0009+0.19 Ib/hr= 019 IbRir PM-2.5 0.0026+0.0008+0.08 IbR = 0.081 Ib/hr
.0102 /sec
FWYO ea.=-R %oiepNe:�¢fl DeW7eir�zoaco�e
cheated:N
Stack Parameters �-
Assume 90%capture of PM-10 eni ns that occur Indoors and exit the stack the other 10%exits thru open door
Check air flow thru doors when o n to seen ne alive ressure: _
Each door is 15 wide x 28'fti h
Assume on averarie that 1 door open at a time since fast o emn and dossno doors
will be used end closed most of the time total oPen area is 15x28= 420 SF
Prom above there are 15000 ACFM-vengng from the C&D area air cuminq In thru the doors
15000/420= 36 fpM
This should be enough Inflovying air veto ' to ea ture mora than 90%of the PM-10 emisstons.onginating inside the buildin
Assuming 10%of emissions from door-0.024 fsecx 0.1= 1. 0.0024 Weep PM-10 0.0010 IgIs PM-2.5
Tine stack will be 45 above floor with vertical exhaust 51 f s-2.5 ft diameter
Emission rate from stack
900A of emissions:0.024 Q13ec x 0.9= 0.022 is PM-t0 0.0092 ofs PM-2.5
SACT Analysis i
Evaluate the cost effectiveness of a Fabric Filter for PM control
TOTAL CAPITAL COST CG $M,58 factored from actual costs of fabric finer at TBI North Andover
Direct Operating Costs
1•. operating labor J1 hriday,s20Rv 250 da $5,000 l
2,1 supervisory labor 15%a of o lobo 5750
maintenance labor same as operating labor). $5 000
41 maintenance materials same as mafinenance labor ,000
5}electricity(15,000 c£m,assume W w.c for ductwork,
ba house 70%eff. $0.15Ikwh 2525 hr 5 697
6�compressed air(2 sclm/1000 acf x 15,000 ael n x
$0.2511060 ad x 60 minthr x 2525 h $1,136
Zj reiacement fitter ba s(76x$50 each lace on $3750
Total Direct operating Costs $26 334
I direct O eratin Costs
9 Overhead 60%of sum of 1-4 $9 45
1q Adminsimtion 2°h of TCC 2612
Pt of TCC $1 306
12 Pa
TCC $1.306
13 Capital Racove 0.1175 x TCC 10%interest 20Mrs) $15,343
Total Indirect 0 re Costs $30 017
Total Annualized Cost $56 `
PM removed- 0.64 x 2 x 0.9 no mistinq system If fabric fitter
Cost Effectiveness $/ton $48.915
This is more than ten times hi her than DEP's cost effectiveness ran o for PM
Not cost effective thus not BACT
ow
A 5500 IATE S INC.
November 18, 2009
Mr. Bill Thomson
Northside Carting
210 Holt Road
North Andover, MA 01845
Subject: Updates to Air Quality Modeling Report for Proposed Salem Transfer
PRINCIPALS Station
Theodore A Borten,PE
Margaret B Briggs Dear Mr. Thomson:
Michael E Guski,CCM
To follow up on the hearing at the Salem Board of Health on November 10, 2009,
Samuel G Mygatt,LLB Epsilon has updated the air modeling as follows:
Dale 7 Raczynski,PE # We have increased the future build case from 194 truck trips p per day to 230
Cindy Schlessinger truck trips per day to account for a daily peak of 500 ton per day (tpd) of
Lester 8 Smith,Jr material received at the facility. This increased the maximum total
concentration from Table 4 of the report very slightly as shown in the
Victoria H Fletcher,RLA revised Table 4 below. The future facility (°TBI") truck contribution to the
Robert 0'Neal,INCE total remains extremely small at less than 0.02 pgtm' for all cases. Also the
maximum total concentration at receptor 9 (representing homes at corner of.
ASSOCIATES First and Swampscott , southeast of facility), the closest residential receptor
Andrew D Magee has been added to Table 5, and is very small at less than 0.03 pglm'for PM-
2.5, 24-hr average as an example.
Michael D Howard,PWS
e We have now modeled the PM-10 and PM-2.5 emissions from the building
Laura E Rome operations using the U.S. EPA recommended AERMOD model.
Calculations of these emissions are in Attachment A, and are estimated at
0.58 tons per year (tpy) of PM-10, and 0.24 tpy of PM-2.5 after control with
water mists at a control efficiency of 50%. We have assumed that 10% of
the PM emissions are released thru an open truck door at the north side of
3 Clock Tower Place,Suite 250 the building, and that 90% are vented thru a new stack, 2.5 feet diameter,
Maynard, MA 01754 45 feet high above the tipping floor base at a flow rate of 15,000 actual
www.epsilonassociates.tom cubic feet per minute (ACFM). The 10% from the door is based on the use
9788977100 of fast closing doors that are closed most of the time during indoor
rm 978 897 0099 operations. Even when open, there will be a negative pressure thru the door
that should keep most of the PM contained within the building and then
release via the stack,which improves dispersion. On this basis, I believe the
10% is conservatively high, and that more than 90% of the PM-10 and PM-
2.5 emissions will be released thru the stack. The emissions estimates
SERBIAN= 1 ! HIM ENGINEERS 13 ENVIRONMENTAL r.ONSIIITANT(
Mr. Bill Thomson
Northside Carting
November 18, 2009
include the trucks and loader inside the building. A brief description of the
air quality modeling is presented in Attachment B.
The maximum impacts from the building emissions, including thru the door
and the stack are shown in Table 4, and are well within the National
Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). The NAAQS were developed by
the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to protect the public health
against adverse health effects including the health of sensitive populations
such as asthmatics, children and the elderly with a margin of safety. Table 4
also shows the maximum impacts from the building emissions at receptor 9,
the closest residential receptor, also well below the NAAQS.
Northside Carting has carefully considered what type of air pollution control
equipment, if any, will be appropriate for the facility. If the potential PM-10
or PM-2.5 emissions were greater than 1 tpy, then MassDEP would require
an Air Plan Approval and require the use of Best Available Control
Technology (SACT). For a project of this size and type, DEP would likely
not require a formal BACT analysis, where the most stringent, technically
feasible control technology is evaluated to determine whether it is cost
effective in terms of$/ton of pollutant removed. If the top technology is not
cost effective,the next most stringent is evaluated or selected as BACT. DEP
makes the final determination of BACT. The standard design for transfer
stations has been water mist suppression as proposed for this facility, and we
believe this would be found to be BACT by DEP if subject to Air Plan
Approval. However, we have conducted a preliminary BACT analysis, also
included in the attached calculations. We find that a fabric filter (or
baghouse), which would be the most stringent or top technology is not cost
effective by a wide margin (nearly ten times MaSsDEP'S cost effectiveness
threshold) and should not be required.
Sincerely,
EPSILON ASSOCIATES, INC.
Dale T. Raczynski, P.E.
Principal
cc: Alan Hanscom, BETA-Inc.
2
Table 4 CAL3QHCR Modeling Results For Future Build Conditions- November 2009 Revision
CAL3QHCR Contribution AERMOD Monitored Total
Averaging Future From Future Contribution Background Concentration NAAQS Percentage of
Pollutant Period Vehicles Northside from Concentration (µg/m') (µg/m') NAAQS(%)
Trips(µ$(m') Carting Truck Northside
Trips(gg(mr Stationary
Sources
( (ma)
Impact over all Receptors
PM10. 24-H2H 0.72 <0.02 11.07 58 69.79 150 47%
Annual 0.18 <0.02 2.32 29 31.5 50 63%
PM2.s 24-H8H` 0.32 <0.02 3.49 26 29.81 35 85%
Annual 0.09 <0.02 0.97 9 10.06 15 67%
Impact at Closest Residence
PM10 24-1-121-1 0.09 <0.01 0.56 58 58.65 150 39%
Annual 0.01 <0.01 0.11 29 29.12 50 58%
PM2.s 24-HBH' 0.03 <0.01 0.20 26 26.23 35 75%
Annual <0.01 <0.01 0.05 9 9.06 15 60%
1, The PM10 concentrations represent the highest second highest modeled concentrations while the PM2.5 represents the highest 5" highest
concentrations predicted with the CAL3QHCR Model.
2. The annual concentrations represent the highest maximum concentration.
Mr. Bill Thomson
Northside Carting
November 18, 2009
ATTACHMENT A
Emission Calculations
�Pafor�nwd 0.' Pm)ad W:2W. Page 1o1g
Doe 1111Brzo09
PWID add PI l 7 ftbdit CAiwbd.ns for NodMme"N.9 Tmnabr Faclllry,Salem,MA
400-6901w Der day of feta Wap,naming toils dt M Wems,m.Wdpm apes wap,)
Fadhywm.W,pt Writs 6 days Derwapt 9 home per day,ao 2298 beery,aopendon
Loads are dumped on fidanBlloorhaminNaa(pabke s,aenddmpft lmdmq,
Ina Bumped bad U Impacted amltranpmred mm"OtOO a lower leml
So,eUhmnamataMtb damped I.manes tzme and may smwaiw be womeData dozer Pwofti
Mamma rep nub mane Upping and madlng area Is eoamlbd bywalarmists,W wmaenali amame 60%mmoal(aae below)
Smm CIUY m s,is axpededbo,dupietmen MSW,b b,eonservalM,ess,na no aft Oman,U CBO,
The WRY"som ane perA opemUd any lmb Da fatlGty b harkling mutation
Axson ep to FPAAP42,Section 112.1,WSW Corvalroctbn owro9ant Creole 132.81,Recommended!Embsbo Faders
for Calleiro AIdA Operallone,teem COAS4,40al Pnaaa-Mandli n and DemU Rema"L LoaINrv)a DebH O Ms or
Unmamn9 V NIme ODBkg.DW Table recumedab Ob dee aemUpen baa nom Sm1bn 1324)
Section 13.2.4 Is WW Aggregate Nandonp and Sbmge M,aded Meadft madda unbemnp nom ma,men
p8es antl lamp a buaa for pdpmmm a IrpM[m m Draceaa
E•k(0A032)NWI3I DAM"A-Equation(1)13.23A
where:
E•emhabnbam OLtm}
k-monanus sem(BllOnks.);D35 fadpa410 Dwrtldes bIran n tq mamb a dUmpeO.and 0.051 for M-2.6
U•mean wad speaeed d(meom0meM
N a nadaM!leek Wm omnant(%)
E-0.35(0.0032)(UIWIA IW IA DW MID)
Aaacet9 m EPA Ode mmUpw factor is fined ole a a R(%ofpankma less Dum 15 Moons db)consent range a 0.4419%,and
.moUmre mama mope a 025.1A%.
TnbmqupbiwbprWuw ki)PIm,MobnTobe meKKpaewmea.T11aiOweOtOO mWi ls1rydry4 OM -tl epona
uwdm YvneM Woes,,Mary drymWua To ba emwrvahb.atauma a0crW b00iptlaC80waetaUwrydrygmepane-oda
U deadyvarywmamwn amw manameselect, asawmgmmmedpawoh.e amber,mtea,Otywa,dammarr, mraels,
ac Oaf ObresMumlewi hcm smMimabnsameiapvpmdaw)ole mmmbU(vntlmg duet,drPrm9 dug Sean
.apes abrohen wpiboaa,YIuT vouM Da b ub mm1 of Ne-k Is expected uw aR masa b dub low eM oma above ronBa.
iMNa Db unbapYlp are pedngamae mBoom upro UanmoMememewMeB byOb MCNIUWnsypam.T)Dscea Oafteme a
and a^wind spat'equNaea byd ag not wbme crab Dow,by"low arae am,room mrendid bspteua asmas,
A aenumwR be orate.m nub beet sure CBD uppmp.roe pkpnp up 15,000 a7m,dudetl to bnan0oa amok
SUMM Dimensions: Wwine xIW long x SS nigh
Asmms a a ads,w asee is dawn across 90'wide area a m ang Dos,and em an avg hagm a xm
(15,OOp MNnM)z(1638x2(0 SF a 7.05 NTM
7.65 D/mm x 60 mhvx 1 m9,15210 D• 0A9 mph
The ba ON Of VIA mmge WWW apead for,miesbn fader agUaBon Stye"Is 13 mph-use this as a aamb Mab,m sec."
mY mfy pay OQ(eas wV Epd�`bCagS,d aY of pYYma1R
E-0.35 It 0.0032 x(I 3VIII((D25Qy" DAM DOW
DAM Men x6001oWday x IN mmey x 2 drops• 0.15 m (24&wvrcadm pwlo
(adtl oaaMp mmbr6abw)
Fm PM33.9se knwiipOerU O. mema0 a6.36,appymemUpm mm:COM.35x0.22• om bw wwmow
sM6,imeia,i pupwlp a nmMnm tar tvmBBrvyagrtinp-tee madotmp pug"
ACmranp to EPA AP.4x,8ectbn 112.AlIwvyCmpmdbn Opedmxms(raDb/128t.RBeommeMM Emisabn Fades
mrCaupuwon Opem4ms,aesm ConWupbn Phate-sae PmDmmDa1-StOtlaxmB
IMe Tame recanmenat 0b tea aembebn team Dom 8admn 11.8)
Smarm ii,4bw9ad WeWmSabw Caa MMMp,ata ksomeabu8doimpov,Mimen(aro
E•1.0x M13/M+1.4-Tame 11.81 PM.15
What:
Es embeUnbdm{bDY}
M mpeMlsRumCont
M•mperw mob4ve cmdml(%)
muMpem ler PM-10U 0.75 momanp to Table 11.9-1
Asmdkp m EPA Udo mMnbn fades4 ail am aR(%a panties less news 76 mkrmw pig demand mope a1.8t3.t%,and
e masmm mama resp,a x2-1s.e%.
Thio equabnwb Dmdtw hgM�mmlulontwM brim mdtav,coaeN,The lamas entla9b rape U22%
Tobe wnearvmM,.,some aeafhe iDOipdaC50wape U m 22%maauro Dlds b Mpharman,bow,bmiowpp end a mope ler NU ep.)
Tho b sIPo amwrvauw Mw much a0ro aebda wm be w1rolY mmerbls etch as Iumbm,Mind dryWpl,pbple,mic14 wnaeb.
etc.tiny 0b resat.sup nam amwhatlbna aOb teaveppdawhOte matbrWis{und)mpdug,low amdughoes
Use Sconsena Illcod,ac)wadd barna mn OW0.4-9b eendOf ng eMwmempakin.lowendaiM above mop,.
Use•mlmrvauum e0 wMom 43.8%Ddphminen tlh,0.41%low and Wrong.mr0b Brop equalbn e0ove)
E•1.8z(1.8y1.61DZ-WtA)• 2450mv 1616
2ml bDvz0.7s• 1.84 bar PM-10
PM2.5bi0.5%mm M30, PWmamaa caittdelionbebw.
E•5.7 a(3.B IXD23 13)• 10.15 Inner PM-30
10.16 leAvx 0.406• 1A7 lead PWZ$
Amumamdd be putmed abpushad 500)x 180mat raR homshM.Forexampb,66D mel weromme DompaM Bl van
tlme.a Wade be DusMd amain ler(6W600)z i0p mm• /6.0 mbdet pm bed of seasonal an Door
1.0 Was x 3 haday x 1,24 h9ft 023 bar 2s-mavg PM-10000daml"
1.07mavx3mmayx124hrmay= 0.133 Rau 24nravB PM-2.5uraoamlled
PerfoHrtd:pjg Pmlaq Na:23$4 Page 2m y
- cfxxed:&d Data 1f(termoe
Ta1H mumHOMd Pld•t0ambmiOne Romdumptit•bedtn9,pmhbv 9eanmm0)mamma
PM40 PM .6
2 dunphg scdonm 0.150.02 bda
3hourapnhbt 0230.1E boa
Tenet 0.30 0.16 bMf
M1M'wmHmPPreubn•namina150%removaR Dampen o ren9e mTOb80%wnVd Oyxake sprey mob
W caimmdbn aglaepme PmnasM9(ua9Md 9aM and paMedzedminmiD ax nusMm,u+benOt eaiaentarpola3
6'mn Uro owmna WroyN not AY eaepiva cosanpe u e dna h Wray(oro prone,reduce ws b a pOmhe160%
CaarOMed Hn%eRns{Ogamai 0 W n wffiet ep(rya)
2 dumps 011E mme x0.6 0.07
Seopapashhg 023 mia x0.6 0.12
T^ud 0.30 lbinr x03 0.19 Mhr
0.19 bmfx24 hlAWyx6dayM'kxSi day/,t=0IMon• 0.6s wen N 10a�
2lood" 0.02IGM xoh 0.01
3houapuNMg 0.13 Mohr x0.6 0107
Total 0110 bent x03 0301%fr gd4 saM
0.06 Mae.N WA*x 5 deyMk x 61 d"No2COD,Eton• 024 porky PM•25
Dedicatee PM.i WM36 EmMabna from tepee 402 trvck andsabm NdoOn
EPA MOW 9-PM-10 amBabn.N W Duty Dhnl Vehblas-0.372 gramshnibr elm load-2.5 mph
0514 WpdW PM-2.6
AY W lm t wne%a m a Wne Ndmre
{x0372 gmtlx2.5 mbNx/bMS49• 0.000 floe 9Mmay
OSN boa (24 M an) PWIO
0.0026 MAN, R4hravt PM-2.5
Adds,6-Wne0 emis•aeepne Duty ambt pm Mal.and 1hMOHMWt6g61.15W
Mab0e 0-PM•10 emissions.Hnay Duly Digmm Vehlgea-125 premwOr6xhWt,i.459r%WrPM-25
((116whl*s"x3mh%mhxldW*400t(1x6MKWMWQx125yMxIW4549• 0.0009 Woe PM•10
0.0000 bar PM-2.S
Add to Above 0.00310.0009+0.19 bmr• 0.19 bmr PM•10
0.0240.PW25 0.0MM.O.00061OAWWea= 0Am1 PW25 duPaimonmodaem
0.0102 ghee
SMCki%rame%n
Assume 90%am"mPM-10"isms that oeeur whops And emlhe 9edt0n Wwr f0%pleat One open door
CMttA W 6m then doHq when open to see 0 negate Medals:
Each dopb lVwbe x 29'high -
Ae4reneonawagetA9tdopopenHaWroeWnfa9vppnWgaMdoeRtdaarswRhs umn 9mgnedma9mOM MM, Wd1Hah 15.20- 420 SF
Fmm abohm,these Ma 16000 ACFM waft Rom Mm C6D ems&comwp m go Me dope
15.000M20• 361pm
TMs 91p1M beemxth M6waV 0 yebgtyb ceptor,mpe than W%Of ft PM•10 embNme odgtoe9ng hede We todMft
AswmhV l0%m emNHWaRncn door-0.024tymcx 0.1• OmAgmecPW10 O.OD4O WS PM-25
The 080 al W 46'abmw flow With wdW e d aud,51 fps,2.6 fl dlomelH
90%00 dssbW'Has
BO%mgmleNon;:0.02{yrYec x0.9^ 0.022 ya PM•10 0.0092 9m PM-25
BACTAnalysN
Evaluate,Me dead eMesawtMn VA Famb FRH for PM Income,
TUTPL DAPAN.C0ST(7CC) $130,693 mctomd Rom aqua mate mbblc fiber TBI,Nowt, er
Olmet OpenOrt Costs
1)opeM"table(I Anda),5201%.250 day" S9,OOD
2)mpeM4pyle0H(IM ofopHa9rva Wbm) 5750
3)ma6Menann bbcr(unw,ea operaNt Mb ) SSro00
4)mammenoe matoda%("no,as mHaenann boor) SS.ODO
5)dah d*(15,000 tem.amens 0"wx for ductwmtK baghouse.
70%off..$0.1 MmIL 2295 Myo $6.179
6)mnWaeeed enc(2 scmd100D amx 16,D00 polo 5025'1000 msx
BOn&Mvx2295W 31,033.
7)repleamaa After bap(76 x$54 each,repbee ante" $3,750
Tmm DROd Opomf mp Courts $26,71/
Indirect Openti ng Comb
9)0w�hea0{HD%memnmta} 29,450
10)Adn*wtW n(2%ofl'CC) 22.612
11)Pmpedy Tu(1%m TCC) SIAS
t2)b9waHe{i%mTCCj 51,308
13)Capdal Recouely(0.1175 x TOC,10%Womm,20 yen) $15343
TOW topped OpereMg Onis 530,0/7
TOW AOnWllxed Cost SSS 0
PM pemowd-10"tPy(0.51,x 2 x 0.8) 1 No m m6Rt"Moo Mbbdc flow
509 FJfedharmea(Sean) $53.379
The ft ahrn than ton Ifms hlg1wimmon DEFY nm aMedharmn range Por PM
Not cost edegroe,toned SACT
Mr. Bill Thomson
Northside Carting
November 18, 2009
ATTACHMENT B
AERMOD Air Quality Modeling
Mr. Bill Thomson
Northside Carting
November 18, 2009
Air quality dispersion modeling was used to predict the ambient impacts of
particulate matter from operations at the proposed transfer station in Salem, MA.
The latest version of the EPA approved air quality model, AERMOD model (09292),
was used for this analysis. The AERMOD model is a steady state plume model
using Gaussian distributions that calculates concentrations at each receptor for every
hour in the year. The model is designed for rural or urban applications and can be
used with a rectangular or polar system of receptors that are allowed to vary with
terrain.
AERMOD was run with the regulatory default options with five years of
meteorological data (2004-2008) of hourly surface observations from Boston's
Logan International Airport in conjunction with twice daily upper air soundings
from Gray, ME. The meteorological data was processed with the AERMET processor,
using AERSURFACE to characterize the surface characteristics around the airport for
input to AERMET.
The area within 3 km of the transfer station was determined to be rural for
dispersion characteristics based on the Auer land use typing scheme. Therefore rural
dispersion coefficients were used in the AERMOD modeling.
The PM10 and PM2.5 emissions from the building operations were modeled. We
have assumed that 10% of the PM emissions are released thru an open truck door at
the north side of the building, and that 90% are vented thru a new stack adjacent to
the south side of the building, 2.5 feet diameter, 45 feet high above the tipping floor
base at a flow rate of 15,000 actual cubic feet per minute (ACFM). The building is
98' x 100' with a height of 35'. The stack emissions are assumed to be at ambient
temperature. The stack will be influenced by aerodynamic downwash caused by
the building. The BPIP-Prime model was run to characterize the building
parameters for input into AERMOD. The emission vented through the garage door
was modeled as a volume source release. The dimensions of the garage door are
15'00'. Figure 1 shows the facility layout as modeled in AERMOD. The building,
sources, and fence line receptors are shown. The source parameters and emission
rates are summarized in Table 1.
Au B-I
Mr. Bill Thomson
Northside Carting
November 18, 2009
Table 1 AERMOD Modeled Source Parameters
Point Source Base Release Stack Stack Exit Stack
Elevation Height Diameter Velocity Temperature
Stack 108 ft 45 ft 2.5 ft 50.9 fps Ambient
(32.92 m) (13.7 m) (0.76 m) (15.5 m/s)
Initial Vertical Initial Lateral
Volume Source Base Release Dispersion Dispersion
Elevation Height Parameter Parameter
Open Door Fugitive 108 ft 7.5 ft 6.99 ft 4.93 ft
(32.92 m) (2.29 m) (2.13m) 0.50 m)
Source PM10 PM2.5
Emission Rate(es) Emission Rate( s)
Stack 0.022 gts 0.0092 g1s
Open Door Fugitive 0.0024 s 0.001 gis
The AERMOD modeling included 1108 receptors. Receptors were located along the
facility fence line at 10 m spacing, as well as an extended grid parallel to the fence
line at 25 meter intervals out to 100 meters. In addition, a nested Cartesian grid
extending out to 2 kilometers in each direction was used. The receptor spacing in
the grid was 100 m out to 1 km, and 200 m out to 2 km. The terrain elevation for
each receptor was obtained electronically for the USGS National Elevation Data
(NED). The AERMAP terrain processor was used. Elevations for the fence line
receptors were entered by hand based on contour data in the immediate vicinity of
the project. The AERMOD receptors are presented in Figures 2 and 3.
The predicted air quality levels of the PM10 and PM2.5 impacts due to the
operations at the transfer building were assessed through the modeling analysis.
The AERMOD modeled impacts are added to the measured background from the
Kenmore Square monitoring station for PM10, and the Lynn monitor for PM2.5,
then compared to the NAAQS. Table 2 summarizes the AERMOD predicted
particulate impacts from the stationary sources combined with the maximum mobile
source impacts modeled with CAL3QHCR. Note that the maximum from each
model are conservatively added together, and they are not matched in time or
space. Table 3 summarizes the same impacts at the nearest residential receptor.
An B-2
Mr. Bill Thomson
Northside Carting
November 18, 2009
The total combined impacts of particulate matter are less than the National Ambient
Air Quality Standards for both PM10 and PM2.5.
Table 2 Comparison of Maximum Modeled Concentrations with NAAQS
Standards—All Receptors
Stationary Mobile plus
Source Stationary Monitored NAAQS
AERMOD Source Background Cumulative Standards
Averaging Concentration Concentration Concentration Impacts (µg/M3)
Pollutant Period' m3) (118(m) t m3 ( m')
PM10 24-Hour 11.07 11.79 58 69.79 150
Annual 2.32 2.5 29 31.5 50
PM2.5 24-Hour 3.44 3.81 26 29.81 35
Annual 0.97 1.(6 9 10.06 15
Table 3 Comparison of Maximum Modeled Concentrations with NAAQS
Standards— Nearest Residential Receptor
Stationary Mobile plus
Source Stationary Monitored NAAQS
AERMOD Source Background Cumulative Standards
Averaging Concentration Concentration Concentration Impacts W/m')
Pollutant Period' ( m3) (RWM 449(m) t m�
PM10 24-Hour 0.56 0.65 58 58.65 150
Annual 0.11 0.12 29 29.12 50
PM2.5 24-Hour 1 0.20 J 0.23 26 26.23 35
Annual 0.05 0.06 9 9.06 15
An sa
,� ✓✓y Y�A�'4 � .. 'f'x } 2` �1 t"/i, 4� �, ri�.,�,I + 5 ?
r' r
r g E
,ar f -yi, 1 t " 1,-
z e 1n
x,y7 � �^ ha s� L c,,. yt�,yt���`��t` _^�• r, s`; � �- � e\^ti, N, �
�.,
,S (A�
>1 s + }
+x - 'A ham,. 11
s ..
y w v P y
fAl•rr
r rr
ri•
.r a:
PROJECT TITLE
Figure 2. T81 Transfer Station
Salem,Massachusetts
0
14
0
a
0
0
0
n
iiI v
O
�' T + Y + + � _ ♦ r
n + + T n 1 i • r + i ♦ { + t � i 4
, f
I
. + Y y + i + r + - t - t +. y - ♦ +
ro NSTD2
.r
n
v
339500 340000 340500 341000 341500 342000 342500 343000 343500 344000 344500
COMMENTS: SOURCES: COMPANY NAME
AERMOD Receptor Grid 2 Epsilon Associates,Inc.
RECEPTORS:
1108
..
SCALE: 1:35.078E
psilon
tpTE6 tRE
.
01 1 km
DATE: PROJECT NO.:
11i18f2009 2268
AERMOD Vkv•Lias E Software C:Pmiecb Tasademlaennodpmioomioo6.l=
PROJECT TITLE!
Figure 3. TSI Transfer Station
Salem,Massachusetts
+
+
+
+ + + '+ 4
+
+ +
NI
2t
+
+ +
+
+ + +
F I I I I I I I I I I 1 11
341600 341600 341700 341800 341900 342000 342100
COMMENTS: SOURCES: COMPANY NAME:
AERMOD Receptor Grid 2 Epsilon Associates,Inc.
Site Zoom
RECEPTORS!
1108
SCAM 1:4,682
VWr Epsflon
i
SSOCIATES INC.
06,,--..,N=.mm10.1 km
DATE �SWMT NO
1111812009 2268
AERMOD View Lakes EnvirarwrWAM Softweve CVt01N=TB1SWeM%aeM)DChPMI ONI)MIODSisc
ASSOCIATES INC.
November 20, 2009
Mr. Bill Thomson
Northside Carting
210 Holt Road
North Andover, MA 01845
PRINCIPALS Subject: Updates to Air Quality Modeling Report for Proposed Salem Transfer
Station-Revision
Theodore A Barten,PE
Margaret 8 Briggs
Dear Mr.Thomson:
Michael E Gold,CCM
Samuel G Mygatt,LLB Attached is a revised Attachment A,emission calculations with larger font. We have
also revised the days per week to 5.5 instead of 5, which increases the PM-10 to
Date Racryaski,PE 0.64 tpy, and PM-2.5 to 0.26 tpy. This slightly improves the cost effectiveness of
Cindy Scidessinger the fabric filter, but it is still 10 times more expensive than MassDEP would consider
cost effective. This does not change any of the air modeling results.
Lester B Smith,Jr
Victoria H Fletcher,RLA I apologize for the small font on the calculations. It was not intentional.
Robert IY Neal,INCE
Sincerely,
ASSOCIATES
Andrew D Magee EPSILON /ASSOCIATES, INC.
Michael D Howard,PWS
Laura E Rome pale T. Raczynski, P.E.
Principal
cc: Alan Hanscom, BETA-Inc.
3 Clock Tower Place,Suite 250
Maynard, MA 01754
www.epsilonassociates.com
978 897 7100
rax 978 897 0099
p 4 ERWNEERS® ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS
Penorm°d1,{u@ Protea No.= Page]of
CneeRed:.9 Date,tl¢4�g49
PM-10 and PM-2.5 Emission Calculations for Northside Carting Transfer Facility,Salem MA
400-500 tons per da of total waste handlin mix of C&D waste munid al solid waste
Fsa! will a t waste 5.5 d w eek G hours r da so 2524.5 r of ration
Loads are dumped on Upping floor from trucks ackersself dum i tnroks.
The dumped load is inspected and transferred into trailers at lower level
So each ton of material is dumped or loaded twice and may othewise be handled use dozer ushin
Assume that the entire tlin and Ioadin area is controlfed b water mists but conservative assume 50%removal see below
Since C&D waste is a deg to be dustier than MSW to be conservative assume all of the waste Is C&D.
The facilittcwill have one stack operated any-time,the faali is handling materials
According fo EPA AP-42 Section 13.2.3 Heavy Constmction Oerations able 13.2.3-1 Recommended Emission Factors
fdr Construction O erations under Construction Phase-Demolition and Debris Remove Load n of Debra,On-site or
unloadin of Debds Offsite this Table recommends the use of emission factor from Section 13.2.4
Section 13.2.4 is called A ate Handfin and Storage Piles which includes material unloadfinsi from trucks onto
hes and loading of trucks for shipment or transfer to Drocess
E=k 0.0032 U/5 1.3 t W2 1.4-Equation 1 13.2.3.4
where:
E.=emission factor lbfton
k=pzrticle size multiplier(dimensionless);0.35 for PM-10 articles Tess than 10 microns in diameter),and 0.053 for PM-2.5
U`=moan winds eed mileRtt
M=material moisture courant %
E 0.35 0.0032)(U15)-1.31 12 1.4 for PM10
Xcoordinq to EPA,this emission factor is val'�d over a silt %of parUcles less than 75 microns dia content ran a of 0.44-19°k and
a'moisture content range of 0.25-4.5%.
This ecuation willroduCe hi her emissions with laver moisture content. The 2oweat end of the range is 0.25% indicative of limestone
used in iron and steel ave tl rodud. To be conservative assume all of the 500 d of C&D waste is very cry limestone-this
is!ctearW very conservative since much of the debris will be whole materials sud:as lumber intact drywall astic bride concrete
ate. Oniv the residual dust from small fractions of the total we( ht of wh le matedats sandin dust drvwall dust from
ed es of broken wail board etc would be in the foml of s ft- tis 01st s ft content is at the low end of the above ra e.
While the unloading and loading occurs indoors there is air movement caused by the ventilation Eygarn, This oan be translated
into a"winds eed"equivalent V dividing the volume of air flow, the face area of the room normal to the exhaust pidcu s.
A lenum will be located at the back of the.0&D ti in area. ickin 15 000 cirn ducted to tan and out atack
Proles ua220 - paBe2 an
ChetlreC:ffiI DW011f
Building Dimensions: 1 198'wide x100 ton x 35 h( h
Assumeall of this volume is drawn across 98'wide area at Upolno floor and over an ayg he ht of 20'
(15.000 It-3/min x 1/9$x20 SF= 7.65 fl/min
7.65 itlmin x 60 mirVhr x 1 mt1e152$0 ft= 0.09 mph
The low end of the range of winds eed for emission factor a uation above is 1.3 mph-use this as a default value to account
for any stray currents caused py iocalized air movement
E.=0.35 x 0.0032 x 1.315 1.3 t 25t2 1 A = 0.0036 lb/ton
0.0036 ibfton x 500 ton/day x 1124 hr/da x 2 droPs- 0.15 tbmr 4 tx uncontrolled PM-10
i add controls further below
For PM-2.5 the k multiplier is 0.053 instead of 0.35 a to emission rate: 0.05310.35 x 0.22= 0.023 ibhir uncontrolled
Next consider Pushing of material for handling/sorting -use buildo7ina pushina
According to EPA AP-42 Section 13.2.3 Heayy Construction 013erations able 13.2.3-1 Recommended Emission Factors
for Construction Operallons under Construction Phase-Site Pre oration-Buildozin
this Table recommends the use of emission factor from Seclton 11.9
Section 11.9 is called Western Surface Coal Mining,and includes buildozinct overburden dirt
E,-1.0 x s^1.51 M"1.4 -Table 11.9.1 PM-15
where:
Ei=emission factor Qbfhr
s=material silt content Cl/6) '.
M=material moisture content °h
multiplier for PM-10 is 0.75 according to Table 11.9-1
According to EPA,this em!s--factor is valid over a sift %of articles less than 75 microns dia content re e of 3.8.15.1% and
a moisture content ran a of 22-16.8°k.
This equation will produce Haber emissions with lower moisture content. The lowest end of the range is 22°h
To be conservative assume all of trio 500 1pa of C&D waste is at 2. °%moisture anis is hi her than above but lowest end of ra a for this ea.)
This is still conservative since much of the debris will be whale materials such as lumber,intact drywall lasG brick concrete
etc. Onl the residual dust from small tractions of the total weight of whole materials(sandinq dust d all dust from
edges of broken wall board etc would be in the foam of sift-it is a clad that silt content is at the law end of the above ra e.
Use a conservative silt content of 3.8°h hl her than the 0.44°k tow end of ran a far the dro a ua5on above
Er 1.0x 3.$^1.5/ 22"'1.4 2.46 lb/hr PM-15
2A8 Ib/hr x 0.75= 1.84 Ib/hr PM-10
PM2.5 is 10.5%of the PM-30 calculated er the similar calculation below.
E=5.7 x 3.8^121 .2^1.3 = 10.15 Ib/hr PM-30
10.15 IbRrr x 0.105= 1.07 lb/hr PM-2.5
Assume the entire$00 d is pushed continously for 3 hours/9 hour shift. For example,if 50 tons were on the floor at any Wen
time it would be pushed around for(50152gLx 180 min= 18.0 minutes er toad of material on floor
1.84 1 Iblhr x 3 rulgay x 1124 hr/dg = 0.23 lbfhr 24-hr a PM-10 uncontrolled
1.07 ibthrx 3 hr/d x 1/24 hr/da - 0.133 tbfir 24-hr avq jPM-2.5 uncontrolled
M
ChePerformcked: Pmlea Naygg Pawl(14 .
�ace++rzorzoos
Total uncontrolled PM-10 emissions from dumping.loading pushing(handling)of waste
PM-10 PM-2.5
2.dumping actions 0.15 0.02 Ib/hr
3 hours pushing 0.23 0.13 Ib/hr
Total 0.38 0.16 Ib/hr
Ppply water suppression-nominal 50%removal. Bas d on a ra a of 78 o 96%control b water s mists
in construction aggregate processingcrushed-stone and ulvenzed mfnerais for crushing,scre ning and transfer points.
Since the overhead spray is not as effective coverage as a dose insora) fora process.reduce this to a nominal 50%
Controlled emissions internal from watersprays)
2dum s 0.15 lb/hr x0.5 0.07
3hours pushing 0.23 lb/hr x0.5 0.12
Total 0.38 Ib/hr x 0.5 0.19 lb/hr 24-hr av
0.19 ib/hr x 24 hr/da x 5.5 da Avk x 51 d 2000 Ib/ton= 0.64 tonlyr PM-10
24um s 0.02lb/hr x0.5 0.01
3 hours pushing 0.13 lb/hr x 0.5 0.07
Total I 0.16 Ib/hr x 0.5 0.08 lb/hr 24-hr av
0.08 Ib/hr x 24 hr/day x 5.5 da Avk x 51 d 2000 Ib/ton= - 0.26 to r PM-2.5
Calculate PM-10/PM-2.5 Emissions from loader and truck emissions indoors
EPA Mobile 6-PM-10 emissions-Heavy Duty Diesel Vehicles-0.372 qramsfmi for slow speed-2.5 mph
0.314 affni for PM-2.5
Assume 4 vehicles at a time indoors
4 x 0.372 olml x 2.5 mi/hr x 1 Ib/454 q= 0.008 Ib/hr 9 hr/day
0.003 ib/hr 24 hr a PM-10
0.0026 Ib/hr 24 hr a PM-2.5
Add idling time indoors-assume 3 minutes idling per truck and 1 loader idling5 min s/hr
Mobile 6-PM-10 emissions-HeavyD Diesel Vehicles-1.25 rams/hr for idling,1.15 qIh for PM-2.5
115 vehides/da x 3 min/60 min x 1 da 24 hr + 1 x 5 m min x 1.25 /hr x 1 Ib/454 g= 0.0009 Ib/hr PM-10
0.0008 lb/hr PM-2.5
Add to above 0.003+0.0009+0.19 lb/hr= 0.19 Iblhr PM-10
0.024 alsec input soarsfon modeling
PM-2.5 0.0026+0.0008+0.08 Iblhr= 0.081 Ib/h PM-2.5
.0102 /sec
PertortneE:BIR A;yea N°:2M
Checked:igi
Det,11202009
Staek Parameters
Assume 90%ce ture of PM-10 emissons that occur indoors and exit the stack the other 10%exits thru olien door
Check air flow thru doors when open to see if ne alive ressure:
Each door is 15'wide x 28'hl h
Assume on avere a that 1 door open at a time since fast openina and closing doors
will be used and closed most of the time total open area is 15 x 28= 420 SF
From above there are 15000 ACFM ventina from the C&D area air comma in thru the doors
15,000/420= 36 fpm
This should be enou h infloyAnq air velo . to capture more than 90%of the PM-10 emissions originatina inside the buildin
Assuming 10%of emissions from door-0.024 /seex 0.1= 0.0024 /sec PM-10 0.0010 /s PM-2.5
The stack will be 45'above floor with vertical exhaust 51 s-2.5 ft diameter
Emission rate from stack
90%of emissions:0.024 /sec x 0.9= 0.022 /s PM-10 0.0092 gIs PM-2.5
B
ACAn sis i
e cost effectiveness of a Fabric Filter for PM control
ITAL COST CC $130,583 factored from actual costs of fabric filter at TBI North Andover
ratio Costslabor 1 hdda $20Por 250 da r $5 000
labor 15% $75nce labor same as operating labor $5.000
4 maintenance materials same as maintenance labor $5,00
51 electricity(15,000 cfm,assume 6"w.e for ductwork, -
ba house 70%eff. $0.15/kwh 2525 hr $5,697
6)compressed air(2 scfm/1000 ad x 15,000 acfm x
$b.25/1000 scf x 60 minlhr x 2525 hr r) $1.1361
replacement filter bas 5 x$50 each replace on r -$-3175-0-
Total
3 750Total Direct Operating Costs $26,334
WIn
O ,ratio Costs
eatl 60%of sum of 1-4 $9,450
nstration 2°k of TCC $2.612
PropertyTax 1%of TCC $1306 -
nce 1°h of TCC $1,306
al Reoove st 20 534rectO ,ratio Costs $30 017
nualized Cost $56.35
PM removed- 0.64 x 2 x 0.9 1.152 no misting system if fabric filter
Cost Effectiveness $/ton $48,915
This is more than ten times higher than DEP's cost effectiveness range for PM
Not cost effective thus not BACT
, I e
mu
on
amp
ASSOCIATES INC.
November 18, 2009
Mr. Bill Thomson
Northside Carting
210 Holt Road
North Andover, MA 01845
Subject: Updates to Air Quality Modeling Report for Proposed Salem Transfer
PRINCIPALS Station
Theodore A Borten,PE
Margaret B Briggs Dear Mr. Thomson:
Michael E Guski,CCM
To follow up on the hearing at the Salem Board of Health on November 10, 2009,
Samuel G Mygatt,LLB Epsilon has updated the air modeling as follows:
Dale T Raczynski,PE
• We have increased the future build case from 194 truck trips per day to 230
Cindy Schlessinger truck trips per day to account for a daily peak of 500 ton per day (tpd) of
Lester B Smith,Jr material received at the facility. This increased the maximum total
concentration from Table 4 of the report very slightly as shown in the
Victoria H Fletcher,RLA revised Table 4 below. The future facility MIN) truck contribution to the
Robert 0`Neal,INCE total remains extremely small at less than 0.02 pglm' for all cases. Also the
maximum total concentration at receptor 9 (representing homes at corner of.
ASSOCIATES First and Swampscott , southeast of facility), the closest residential receptor
Andrew 0 Magee has been added to Table 5, and is very small at less than 0.03 pgtm'for PM-
2.5, 24-hr average as an example.
Michael 0 Howard,PWS
• We have now modeled the PM-10 and PM-2.5 emissions from the building
Laura E Rome operations using the U.S. EPA recommended AERMOD model.
Calculations of these emissions are in Attachment A, and are estimated at
0.58 tons per year (tpy) of PM-10, and 0.24 tpy of PM-2.5 after control with
water mists at a control efficiency of 50%. We have assumed that 10% of
the PM emissions are released thru an open truck door at the north side of
3 Clock Tower Place,Suite 250 the building, and that 90% are vented thru a new stack, 2.5 feet diameter,
Maynard, MA 01754 45 feet high above the tipping floor base at a flow rate of 15,000 actual
www.epsitonassociates.com cubic feet per minute (ACFM). The 10% from the door is based on the use
9788977100 of fast closing doors that are closed most of the time during indoor
rAa 978 897 0099 operations. Even when open, there will be a negative pressure thru the door
that should keep most of the PM contained within the building and then
release via the stack,which improves dispersion. On this basis, I believe the
10% is conservatively high, and that more than 90% of the PM-10 and PM-
2.5 emissions will be released thru the stack. The emissions estimates
+ I ± , ENGINEERS IMENVIRGNMENTALCONSUITANTS
Mr. Bill Thomson
Northside Carting
November 18,2009
include the trucks and loader inside the building. A brief description of the
air quality modeling is presented in Attachment B.
• The maximum impacts from the building emissions, including thru the door
and the stack are shown in Table 4, and are well within the National
Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). The NAAQS were developed by
the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to protect the public health
against adverse health effects including the health of sensitive populations
such as asthmatics, children and the elderly with a margin of safety. Table 4
also shows the maximum impacts from the building emissions at receptor 9,
the closest residential receptor, also well below the NAAQS.
• Northside Carting has carefully considered what type of air pollution control
equipment, if any, will be appropriate for the facility. If the potential PM-10
or PM-2.5 emissions were greater than 1 tpy, then MassDEP would require
an Air Plan Approval and require the use of Best Available Control
Technology (BACT). For a project of this size and type, DEP would likely
not require a formal BACT analysis, where the most stringent, technically
feasible control technology is evaluated to determine whether it is cost
effective in terms of$/ton of pollutant removed. If the top technology is not
cost effective,the next most stringent is evaluated or selected as BACT. DEP
makes the final determination of BACT. The standard design for transfer
stations has been water mist suppression as proposed for this facility, and we
believe this would be found to be BACT by DEF if subject to Air Plan
Approval. However, we have conducted a preliminary BACT analysis, also
included in the attached calculations. We find that a fabric filter (or
baghouse), which would be the most stringent or top technology is not cost
effective by a wide margin (nearly ten times MassDEP's cost effectiveness
threshold) and should not be required.
Sincerely,
EPSILON ASSOCIATES, INC.
Date T. Raczynski, P.E.
Principal
cc: Alan Hanscom, BETA-Inc.
2
MEN= M
sa...,,.. ....,.,.., _. .....,.._.
Table 4 CAL3QHCR Modeling Results For Future Build Conditions-November 2009 Revision
CAL3QHCR Contribution AERMOD Monitored Total
Averaging Future From Future Contribution Background Concentration NAAQS Percentage of
Pollutant Period Vehicles Northside from Concentration (µgjm3) (µg(m) NAAQS(%)
Trips (µg(m') Carting Truck Northside (119W)
Trips(118W) Stationary
Sources
impact over all Receptors
PM10 24-H2H 0.72 <0.02 11.07 58 69.79 150 47%
Annual 0.18 <0.02 2.32 29 31.5 50 63%
PM2s 24-H8H' 0.32 <0.02 3.49 26 29.81 35 85%
Annual 0.09 <0.02 0.97 9 10.06 15 67%
Impact at Closest Residence
PMro 24-1-121-1 0.09 <0.01 0.56 58 58.65 150 39%
Annual 0.01 <0.01 0.11 29 29.12 50 58%
PM2.5 24-H8H' 0.03 <0.01 0.20 26 26.23 35 75%
Annual <0.01 <0.01 0.05 9 9.06 15 60%
1. The PM70 concentrations represent the highest second highest modeled concentrations while the PM2.5 represents the highest 51, highest
concentrations predicted with the CAL3QHCR Model.
2. The annual concentrations represent the highest maximum concentration.
Mr. Bill Thomson
Northside Carting
November 18, 2009
ATTACHMENT A
Emission Calculations
cPenaeaotmbd: Pnbeci Ho: @ Dam 111192W 34
PM-10 be Pid�2.d Emberon OAieuhdona ter ihwlhsiae Oprtin6 TRM1Emf Fadmy,eau m,MA
400,600 tons Per day 0 W wage hsnddug(ma 0(AD wsga,msmoipal suM wage)
FaaBy all soMIA wage 6arysJoe ween 0 hound Payday,sa 2295 invyr of opweoan
kale ere dumped on Wing sow Rom tacks(pamM sen cl m lr2luras).
The dumped and Is Napttted and imngenned Into baue s N bwer leap
So,each tan of Menem b dumpa0to,iowtled)selae end may onw iso be herOud 0aa dozer pager')
AsamwOW me emirs nppb0 antl baang area b sentineled by water naps,bW cone !,,assume 60%romawl(sea below)
SNce CamwMR,baspected W M wooden,then MSW,to baanaematFw.asemee a0 NOro wage at CAD.
The%Nay win naw one galy opmtd any nate the iaafdy h handlbg mebaNa
AmordHg to EPA APJ4 Section 13.22,Heavy canefmabn Opmlons(fable 131.31,Recwllmanded Embslon FBaem
ler comwabn Opemnons.wase,Construction P m-Dema Won and Debde Removal,I.M"a Delle On-sM or
Onbaft aOsau 0Oato.0us Table Moomme d*the use of amhNa,nodes,Ran Mown 132.41
Sactbn 132.4 h a0ed Ag MMR,Ifemi ng and Stamp Piens,whbh Wass material unbagrg from boas Man
p0esandbatgabvaA W Ndpmem wftamtetb pmdesa
E•k MMW)(U15rl.3 f PMMA-Equation(1)1321A
wMm
E•am de soonaoasonQ
U-Mao( and muad(m(amsnataleaa);OASMP7310 jpakdN less Man tOmictdnsMdwmNe).and OM fwPM-2A
V•mean wend epee fmMdM
u•mNeMl mo6dns amend(%)
E•Oab(O.W32)N9Yfa I(M2 IA Or PM10)
Ano w"to EPA resaw emheion ff are h veld Mw a Ym{%of pwaga mss Oen TS h0aww do)coma,lap a 0.N-19%.wN
a molaWm amend range a 025.4.8%.
Thbequ0tionwm pvduc8 hlgMJetnla6fwtwMl M$WvahbNeamam,TM bwestend c&l reapimwrydRraamomeNeitgCtt
used Mkonand abµaw Wd Mucus.Tobeco*NWw,nameallNma 300ipdNC3Dwastea pryWrybdck, .tld.
M Gadywry cenYemedse[boo meal of th deRN 240 nB whale mneaeh each as lumbar,WaG dr3we0.PMana back,cawel9,
ode.Oaj M mGduN due ban ameO daaUaa a Ot�wNOM a wtxxe m W anis{eanaNg duef.605veR due ban
edgeaaaroven wa0lxsam,etc?waddne„nt fain aqa-2 b expegad tlng ods andendb g 0t bw anq alba above atop.
KmA¢me umoNbgaM boding occas Mcbws.Otta habmaalwert aauaed gflmvwd6YWtaW%m-Tltlseen bebanGgad
endow+ wapeetl` gthobaWMCvobmeQe pW,bythpll5, Mae NIMram WO to Utea piaupY.
Aplenum wOMbc•maNWe neck a0w C6D RWing are Pkwmg uP 15,000 all,tluaedb WlaM ON pack
DAdho OMtnebna WW"x100"x3Shigb
Auuno 40aW whom IS Mason faces W wide coma A Meant;Oat,all over an evg Mata 0W
(15.0000e3Wn)x(198x20)SF• 7A5 IVmm
TaS Olmin x N mwhr x l mib9290 a 0.09 MPh
The low all ant range Nwbd[Read ler wr0salen Maw equation son.is 1.3 mph-was Wh as a do"vgw to eadum
W any"[manta[used by bca0zed air maremom
EY 0.35 x 0.0032 x(1.36)-1.31((0IV44A)• 0.0036 Eaton
0.00311 Use x NO to0O7ay x 124 told"x 2*Ws' 0.15 Sett (24hresunaraf hePM-10
(add comma Near MOM
Fa Pk42b.Cekmsd4mb0W3mgaeda0.35.appybembYa .110530.35x022• 0.023 OMawaa*W
Gaxf.can•barpugikg ammwWfor -Ysa b'AMoxYg pvsMg
Aaadbg to EPanv-4z,scalae 1322,lhevy censiluctlon aprauaw(,dela i32a-t Reammemea Embabn Feaae
McCalaWctbn0pemdaa.umaw CoagrvabnPMM-ends -&9tlo:h0
men Table meomntMs ill use awnbsron factor Mm 6eabn 11.6)
8aNa ii.6ba6ad Wegaa Waage Coq M)Nng.and twRNec nu0dKM9 oweRwden{db¢
E•1.0 x s-l.bt MN,4-TOMe 11.41 PM-15
whose:
E.Mosgenaaw0bmn)
M•mgadgmdquro indent(%)
nadWer ler PM-10#0.76 socwding W apes ti.91
sgameg b EPA Ods emiaslon faaw 4MW owe a sM(%aparlble5 leu nun 75 mictum Me)contend tinge of 3&15.1%,and
B atiisitnw sondem neige a 22.58.6%.
This M.Mon wmpraaua hgheremissbnsw1h bwermolehrca consent.Tea bwaq enaama ergs M 21%
Tobe wnlen'ah1w,assistesamo dnedo swM wages N22%moistee @stab Npaddly anow,fl b was am,getaihhaq.}
Then bataataema0vwdnan MM
Mwhole 111geaalsautoWkpfbw,dest OI,dkYphgb,IIMM anagen,
W.Only sa mgduN Nod dam wow
fractions Un ante tliall- Is emoOb Ron a IS coodentis aft W tons offset
ban
edeaaMOMnwW noontnd13.0dCa MOt Wmaam-2 Is Outemrflas NOq bweMa6t above mega.
Uxa a amemaWe gbcadem N3.11%(m6Mf Ilan me O.N%taw atl a mope for Oro drop equal)on above)
E=t.0x{lsr"t((22YtA)' 2.46 esu PM-15
Z46 tlu1u x0.75= 1.84 Rohr PW10
peau;to 104%of"PM20.caMatad Raft a5neerraiatnm MWw:
E•b.Tx(Jmyi2!(22"1a)a 10.15 lose PM-30
10.160uhrx0.105• 1.07 solr PM-2,5
Assumslh0aiMe 500 iptlb pusheticatmoueybr3 hourd9 has sem.Fwemmpie,O601onawamadw OowgBlry pban
Ome,0 wpetl be Rased ataan0 br(SN500)x 160 nun• 18.0 minute per bad of matedal mow
1.64PoIhrx3hndeyxi24hd4oy• 023 burr 24-Nen PM-10umo ,Raba
1.07dutcx3hndayxf24hdNy• 0.133 dame 24-lvsn PM-2.6uncomelletl
Cna��ckea P<atara H°' § Page�tofZ
Data 11119009
TOW uneamoOad PM•f0 emisabnafrvm dumping,badnP.PusnNB mamdlmmmwana
PWIO PM-2.6
2 duMPkp sdlmw 0.16 0.02 IMfr
1�pud*V 0230.13 ear
8.380.10 mmr
Apply water suppnsnW•mm�lna160%mmmval.Based on a repo m 78 to 08%WroM bywatmapreym
eoWnmWon apprepal8 prorosabq{ausptdnam atNPUNadsed mM�raisY txtrvWMp,Wmem^PaMtrensktpoWs.
SmW Ns eyemsW fpmyn Wt qs MadM wempa sa a pate n spray Ma PrOaar,reduro Oda b a noWna160%
Coodrow smnakaw wp o rat l Mom water s oo,ml
2 dump, 0.181Mv x0.6 0.07
3 houm PusNnp 023 DNu x0.5 0,12
Total 0.30 iMv x0.6 0.10 Rohr RNvny)
0.19 photo x 24 Wftx 5 pasha:x 610aylyrr=Won, 0.68 wvyr PW10
24umps 0.02 fhou x04 0.01
31wmapusNop 0.131Wm x0.6 0.07
Total 0.161e1u x0.6 0.08 MM,
0.08 Mox241xroayxS W}yWcx Bt MotvQ(lD0@1an. 0.26 PM-24
mr+ST PM-24
Calculate PM-11"14 26 EmnalOMtrom la0afand frvckemnnoa kutoms
EPA MOOW S.PM-10emealoro�Heavy Duty Dnsel VONdas-0.372 premMnl terabw speed-2.5 mph
AMmW 4ymeebbnatmp tnmfms 0.314"AwlW4
4x0.372Pbex2.6mmtox 104649. - 0008 MMr phrase,
0.D(13 Raw t2t way0) PW10
0.0028 2hoto (24 a avp) PM-2.R
AdOkMpfine 8ldoole•tamro 3 mbWleb M8w parNwk an0 t bederlmYlp R mhwtONx
Mo06e8•PM-10 emisabna-Heavy Duy Okad Vehitlea-125 pramMto Or MDnp,t.1b 8%terPW2S
({Stir>NdeVdayxsm080 mmxt daylR4M•(1 x6 mbyE0 ndn)x126 ppxx10W5/0= 0.0008 MIT, PW1O
0.0000 0%r P11$5
Add to Seem, O.OD3.0.0000 r 0.19 Drlu• 0.10 Mto PW10
O.M 91eac Spot to dwpsWon modepnp
PRO." 00028.0.0000.OA8WAw 0.081 b.Au 1,142.6
D.DIM 9nac
Seek p4a. m
Assume 00%caphas of PW10 amnaWa that oowr moo,,and estate Wa othas In 01%sop span deer
ChMA Nr faxMap deal what open to Mee bma9Wye preasm;,
EMW damn 1Cw1ae x z9•hqn
Normo ten avere0etlW ldoarepannafine ekp0 hnopeMnpaW ebd�q tlOmswlObe used and tl0sea matt OlNe Wae.bW opanmoan 16x28= 4200E
From abO e.Nero am 16000ACFM veminp from N0 CaD area ak pop"h bona Ne dome
15.00(1420= 38 Ism
This mould be snquypt wavedeO se,»nmly b capere paws,Oren 80%m 9p PM.10 emnaka mNNMuq hsMa fro bmdOp
ASWWnp In 0 amnakns Som dear-0.024ysae x0.1• 0.0024 plaet PW10 O.Will gtsPW2.5
The Maok"be 46 above poor with vedimt axhourl,61 fps•2.5 It mamater
PMK of n ftsl mo ndc
9D%memnnmO:0A24 p/»cx 0.9= 0.022 BIaPW10 O.0092 ala PM-3b
OACTAnayHs
Evamala Me e con apediwmss m a faek fleas im pM ca,,,q
TOTAICAPRAL COST(TCC) S/3,693 adored Mom actual Wats mbe'k Ntarm TBI.Nmtp Allover
Clunes Opo oCede
4)OPMMbp mbm(I hllday,f20d,250 dam" $5.000
2)apaMamy labm(15%m opereeq lamq $760
3)mNHenarcn show(some,as,opmatkp mhos) 36.9DD
4)mahnneWe mal(dais(came ea maWsnnnce West S5,ODO
5)eleddE4Y(15,900 Conk aeuvro V -C for d"dwmk,Wheat.
In 0...SO.16kwh,2296myq $5,179
8)mmgeamd aM(2 sdmAOW ams 16800 semi x$026/1000 W X
OO WNex220 hdP} $I=
7)bgaWmam NWsags(75 x SW teak hepece brach" 53,760
Total Dked Operaft Coln 525.711
nabem owrafnp Coati
9)OvnMad{eaa mamn O(i-4} 69,461
IMAdmJmlmM,n(2%Ot TCC) $2.612
ti)Pmpedy Tax(I%dTOC) 81,308
12)l.wmnce(1%mTCC) 31,306
13)Ca,"Recewy IDA 175 x TCC,10%kdemss.20 yrs) 315343
ToW IndktC Operaep Cada 53,017
TmMAmluaDmd Cat. 556,]8
Pel mmaystl-1.044 tpy 10.49 x 2 x 02) 1A4C W mntkq system 9 home,finer
CON Ellacthrem om(SAO.) $53,378
Then mate than nn eros lagwoo.W DEFT Wn ntoc"m ss rmge W pat
Not post afadhw,how mm BACT
Mr. Bill Thomson
Northside Carting
November 18, 2009
ATTACHMENT B
AERMOD Air Quality Modeling
Mr. Bill Thomson
Northside Carting
November 18, 2009
Air quality dispersion modeling was used to predict the ambient impacts of
particulate matter from operations at the proposed transfer station in Salem, MA.
The latest version of the EPA approved air quality model, AERMOD model (09292),
was used for this analysis. The AERMOD model is a steady state plume model
using Gaussian distributions that calculates concentrations at each receptor for every
hour in the year. The model is designed for rural or urban applications and can be
used with a rectangular or polar system of receptors that are allowed to vary with
terrain.
AERMOD was run with the regulatory default options with five years of
meteorological data (2004-2008) of hourly surface observations from Boston's
Logan International Airport in conjunction with twice daily upper air soundings
from Gray, ME.The meteorological data was processed with the AERMET processor,
using AERSURFACE to characterize the surface characteristics around the airport for
input to AERMET.
The area within 3 km of the transfer station was determined to be rural for
dispersion characteristics based on the Auer land use typing scheme. Therefore rural
dispersion coefficients were used in the AERMOD modeling.
The PM10 and PM2.5 emissions from the building operations were modeled. We
have assumed that 10% of the PM emissions are released thru an open truck door at
the north side of the building, and that 90% are vented thru a new stack adjacent to
the south side of the building, 2.5 feet diameter, 45 feet high above the tipping floor
base at a flaw rate of 15,000 actual cubic feet per minute (ACFM). The building is
98' x 100' with a height of 35'. The stack emissions are assumed to be at ambient
temperature. The stack will be influenced by aerodynamic downwash caused by
the building. The BPIP-Prime model was run to characterize the building
parameters for input into AERMOD. The emission vented through the garage door
was modeled as a volume source release. The dimensions of the garage door are
15'00'. Figure 1 shows the facility layout as modeled in AERMOD. The building,
sources, and fence fine receptors are shown. The source parameters and emission
rates are summarized in Table 1.
An s-1
Mr. Bill Thomson
Northside Carting
November 18, 2009
Table 1 AERMOD Modeled Source Parameters
Point Source Base Release Stack Stack ExitFTe
tack
Elevation Height Diameter Velocityperature
Stack 108 It 45 ft 2.5 ft 50.9 fps Ambient
(32.92 m) (13.7 m) (0.76 m) I (15.5 mA)
Base Release Initial Vertical Initial Lateral
Volume Source Dispersion Dispersion
Elevation Height Parameter Parameter
Open Door Fugitive 108 ft 7.5 ft 6.49 ft 4.93 ft
(32.92 m) (2.29 m) (2.13m) 0.50 m)
Source PM10 PM2.5
Emission Rate( s Emission Rate s)
Stack 0.022 g1s 0.0092 g1s
Open Door Fugitive 0.0024 g1s 0.001 gis
The AERMOD modeling included 1108 receptors. Receptors were located along the
facility fence line at 10 m spacing, as well as an extended grid parallel to the fence
line at 25 meter intervals out to 100 meters. In addition, a nested Cartesian grid
extending out to 2 kilometers in each direction was used. The receptor spacing in
the grid was 100 m out to 1 km, and 200 m out to 2 km. The terrain elevation for
each receptor was obtained electronically for the USGS National Elevation Data
(NED). The AERMAP terrain processor was used. Elevations for the fence line
receptors were entered by hand based on contour data in the immediate vicinity of
the project. The AERMOD receptors are presented in Figures 2 and 3.
The predicted air quality levels of the PM10 and PM2.5 impacts due to the
operations at the transfer building were assessed through the modeling analysis.
The AERMOD modeled impacts are added to the measured background from the
Kenmore Square monitoring station for PM10, and the Lynn monitor for PM2.5,
then compared to the NAAQS. Table 2 summarizes the AERMOD predicted
particulate impacts from the stationary sources combined with the maximum mobile
source impacts modeled with CAL3QHCR. Note that the maximum from each
model are conservatively added together, and they are not matched in time or
space. Table 3 summarizes the same impacts at the nearest residential receptor.
Aft B-2
Mr. Bili Thomson
Northside Carting
November 18, 2009
The total combined impacts of particulate matter are less than the National Ambient
Air Quality Standards for both PM10 and PM2.5.
Table 2 Comparison of Maximum Modeled Concentrations with NAAQS
Standards—All Receptors
Stationary Mobile plus
Source Stationary Monitored NAAQS
AERMOD Source Background Cumulative Standards
Averaging Concentration Concentration Concentration impacts (pgfm')
Pollutant Period' (99/m) (M3) ( m') (in")
PM10 24-Hour 11.07 11.79 58 69.79 150
Annual 2.32 2.5 29 31.5 50
PM2.5 24-Hour 3.49 3.81 26 24.81 35
Annua! 0.47 1.06 4 10.06 15
Table 3 Comparison of Maximum Modeled Concentrations with NAAQS
Standards—Nearest Residential Receptor
Stationary Mobile plus
Source Stationary Monitored NAAQS
AERMOD Source Background Cumulative Standards
Averaging Concentration Concentration Concentration Impacts (µgym')
Pollutant Period' ( m') ( m) (49W) (P91011)
PM10 24-Hour 0.56 0.65 58 58.65 150
Annual 0.11 0.12 29 29.12 50
PM2.5 24-Hour 0.20 0.23 26 26.23 35
Annual 0.05 0.06 9 9.06 15
Att B-3
i
t x � tFrr maty 44//�/,`,d` `'3 i ''m.,.w 7 < � 7`r✓ 1?'�.�^ '4 /iS• ^s�- u s
f<.N Yj �s�°•Ocp k:' t4 � NT�'. N- Y ^ ' ,4 ,3 S5 `• f ry
0 .1
�'' C• ,£ +. C n� 5 _ it ,*'!
z w
�� yt1 4 r xx
y
.,,,, ?' � < s Y fs a '� f1q v`xa f*ta�,T<V'AZ • t � 1 �, � 1'�r
Avr
y
aT 7y ra°J XI
'" f a�.�b ee6 x. T 4'+y.,a y to 0 ".r•' „ s:: r t"fs%.s,�^`a
r�
$Q)^�� -� T
h
It il. 1 f � f � 'T•.. � � '3 Y j .0
°his r '> `Z�`,5�x<•rN: i ;.a r x„c.- . *:. '} S c" "'t`, {4
-'-. �`'..'Y 5T dfi .'Ci .• s,i" n,--- -` .Y e �•�" ;i`..'
1 fI f :fi : f •ii
COMPANY NAME
Shown are building,fence One, Epsilon Associates,Inc.
fence line receptors.stack and
volume souroes entered in
AERM
• ^•
1
ii
SCALE: 1:1,973
1 0.05 krn
•i
PROJECT TITLE
Figure 2. TBI Transfer Station
Salem,Massachusetts
v
hV
O8
�y, + + + , + r + a ♦ i + + + , h _ +
+
+ + {
rte„ + + i + + r + + + .. i ♦ i + + + ..
Q + + + +
Gh
N
N
4
v
NSTD2
h
339500 340000 340500 341000 341500 342000 342500 343000 343500 344000 344500
COMMENTS: SOURCES: COMPANY NAME:
AERMOD Receptor Grid 2 Epsilon Associates,Inc.
RECEPTORS:
1108
NOW
SCALE: 1:35,078
ps lon
ssOCT Ar es $at,
0 1 Ion
GATE: PROJECT NO.:
11M812009 2268
AERMOD Vt -lakes Emkoxa Ug SOUM C}Pr*GWTWSMem\aem,JoaPMlDpm10DSIse
PROJECTTITLE:
Figure 3. TBI Transfer Station
Salem,Massachusetts
0 -
0 -
+
V
4
+ 73
0 -
+
N1`
O
I t I I I I I I +I I I I t I I I I I
341500 341600 341700 341800 341900 342000 342100
COMMENTS, SOURCES: COMPANY NAME:
AERMOD Receptor Gdd 2 Epsilon Associates,Inc.
Site Zoom
RECEPTORS:
1108
psilon
SCALE: 1:4,882 mw
SSaC1AF£S Tat.
0 0.1 km
DATE: PROJECT NO:
1111812009 2268
AERMOD Vow-takes em*"merm Software Qyk0j8CwTStS8wftawmod�PM1vW00SW
WIN 'Ion
111116
WWp
ASSOCIATES INC.
November 20, 2009
Mr. Bill Thomson
Northside Carting
210 Halt Road
North Andover, MA 01845
PRINCIPALS Subject: Updates to Air Quality Modeling Report for Proposed Salem Transfer
Station-Revision
Theodore A Barten, PE
Margaret 8 Briggs
Dear Mr.Thomsorr.
Michael E Guski,CCM
Samuel G Mygatt,LLB Attached is a revised Attachment A,emission calculations with larger font. We have
also revised the days per week to 5.5 instead of 5, which increases the PM-10 to
Dale T Raczyoskl,PE 0.64 tpy, and PM-2.5 to 0.26 tpy. This slightly improves the cost effectiveness of
Cindy Schlessinger the fabric filter, but it is still 10 times more expensive than MassDEP would consider
cost effective. This does not change any of the air modeling results.
Lester 8 Smith,Jr
Victoria H Fletcher,RLA I apologize for the small font on the calculations. It was not intentional.
Robert 0'Neal,INCE
Sincerely,
ASSOCIATES
Andrew D Magee EPSILON ASSOCIATES, INC.
Michael D Howard,PWS
Laura E Rome Dale T. Raczynski, P.E.
Principal
cc: Alan Hanscom, BETA-Inc.
3 Clock Tower Place,Suite 250
Maynard,MA 01754
www.eps]lonassoolates.com
978 897 7100
rAx 978 897 0099
B B ENGINEERS® ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS
i
Partam°a➢S8 PrW rm. 9 Page]a4
c
oate]tg�
hecked:� .
I
PM-10 and PM-2.5 Emission Calculations for Northside Carthin Transfer Factil Salom MA
400.500 tons per day of total waste handitn mix of C&D waste municipal solid waste
Facility will accept waste 5.5 days per week 9 no r da so 2524.5 hmfvr of operation
Loads are dumped on 01 ckers self dumpingtrucks.
The dumped load is ins dad and transferred into trailers at lower level
So each tan of material is dumped or loaded twice and mav othewise be handled use dozer ushin
Assume that the entire ti in and toadin area h controlled b water mists but conservative assume 50%removal see below
Since C&D waste is expected to be dustier than MSW to be conservative assume all of the waste is C&D.
The facil!tj will have one stack operated arry time the tach' is hancliny materials
Accordino to EPA AP-42 Section 13.2.3 Hea Construction Operation able 132,3-1 Recommended Emissiar Factors
for Construction O erations under Construellon Phase-Demolition and Dehris Remava LOSaing of Debris On-sne or
Unloading of Debris Offsite Phis Table recommends the use of emission factor from Section 13.2.4
Section 13.2.4 is called Aggregate Handlin and Storage Piles which incudes material unloading from tacks onto
iles and loading of tacks for shipment or transfer to proms
E=k 0.0032 (U/5)-1,3 t(M12)-1 A-Equation } 132.3.4
where:
E:=emission factor Ib/ton
k=particle size multi tier dimermsioniess-0.35 for PM-10 rtictes less than 10 microns in diamefer.and 0.053 for PM-2.5
U=mean windspeed(mile/hr)
M.=material moisture content(-/*)
E 0.35 0.0032 U!5"'1.31(M)Al.4 for PM10
According to EPA this emission factor is valid over a silt °�of articles less than 75 microns dip content ran a of 0.4419% and
a moisture content ran of 0.25.4.8°, .
This eciustlon will produce Maher emissions with iower moisture content. The lowest end of the range is 0250/aindicative of limestone
used in iron and steel a very dry product. To be conservative assume all of the 500 bid of C&D waste is very dry limestone-this
isldeartv very conseNative since much of ma debris will be whote materials such as lumber intact Owme.Dfastle.brick concrete
etc. only the residual dust from small fractions dine total wei ht of whole materials sandin dust d II dust from
ed es of broken wall board etol would be in the form of silt-It isexpected that silt content is at the low end of the above ra e.
While the unJoadino and loadlLig occurs indoors there is air movem M caused bv the ventilation system. This can be translated
into a-windspeed-a uivaleM ty alvicing the volume of air now. the face area of fie room normal to the exhaust 2i2TRs.
A plenum will be located at the back of the.C&D tipping area.picicing up 15.000 dm dueled to tan and out stack
CheaceE: Proles No'2 @ P8902 Of.4 .
oaeel]69/2L�
i
BUIldino Dimensions: 98wide x100'long x 35'hi h
Assume'all of this volume Is drawn across 98'wide area at lipping floor,and over an ava height of 20'
15 000 fM3/minx 119$x20 SF= 7.65 fumin
7.65 Cumin x 60 min/hr x 1 mile/5280 ft= 0.09 mph
The low end of the range of wind s eed for emission factor a ua ion above is 1.3 mph-use this as a default value to account
for arv,strav currants caused by localized air movement
E=0.35 x 0.0032 X 1.315^1.3 7 0.2512 1.4 = 0.0036 Mon
0.0036 lbfton x 500 tontda x 1/24 hrldayx 2 drops= 0.15 Ib/hr 24 hr a uncontrolled PM-10
add controls further below
Fbr PM-2.5 the k mutti Her is 0.053 instead of 0.35 apjA to emission rete: 0.053/0.35 x 0.22= 0.023 lb/hr uncontrolled
Nextconsider pushin of material for handling/sorting -use buildozing pushing
According to EPA AP-42 Section 13.2.3 Hea Constructlon erationsable 13.2.3-1 Recommended Emission Factors
M
Construction O erations under Construction Phase-Site Preparation-Bulldozln
this Table recommends the use of emission factor from Section 11.91 1
Section 11.9 is called Wester Surface Coal Minlnq.and includes buildorJna overburden dirt
E:=1.0 x s^1.5/M^1.4 -Table 11.91 PM-15
where:
Ei=emission factor Ib/hr
s=material sift content °k
M=material moisture content %
mutts lier for PM-10 is 0.75 according to Table 11.91
According to EM thisemission factor is valid over a silt °Rr of articles less than 75 microns dia content ra a of 3.8.15.1% and
a moisture content ran ORB 2. i it
2-16.8%.
This a cation will vroduce hiher emissions with lower moi re content. The lowest end of the range is 2.2%
To be conservative assume all of the 500 tpd of C&D waste is at 2.2%moisture this is hi her than above but lowest end of ren as for this eq.)
This is still conservative since much of the debris wilt be whole materials such as lumber,Intact d II as brick concrete
etc. Only the residual dust from small fractions of the total wei ht of whole materials(sending dust drywall dust from
ed sof broken wail board etc would be in the fort of silt-B is that slit content is at the tow end o£the above re e.
U e a conservative silt content of 3.8°h t her than the 0.44%low end of range for the dip enation above
E=1.0 x 3.$^1.5/ 2.2^1.4 2.46 IbAtr PM-15
2.46 Ib/hr x 0.75= 1.84 lb/hr PM-10
PM2.5 is 10.5°h of the PM-30 w.calculated Per the similar calculation below.
E=5.7:X:13,8^f.2t 2.2^1.3 = 10.15 lb/hr PM-30
10.15 Itdlrrx 0.105= 1.07 Ib/hr PM-2.5
Assuma the entire 500 t d is ushed continous for 3 hours/9 hour shift. For example.if 50 tons were on the floor at a an
time k would be pushed around for 50!500 x 180 min= 18.0 l on Boor
minutes er Ipad of maieda
1.84 Ib/hr x 3 hr/da x 1124 hr/da - 0.23 Ib/hr 24-hr av PM-10 uncontrolled
1.07 lb/hr x 3 hrtd x 1124 hrtda = 0.133 MMr 24-hr PM-2.5 uncontrolled
Perrormnd;,Qj)t prMea M1bj6¢¢ page;ore
F�
ChQdMd:,W De 11rzo/2009
Total uncontrolled PM-10 emissions from du loading.Pushing(handling)of waste
PM-10 PM-2.5
2dumping actions 0.150.02. tbthr
3 hours pushing 0.230.13 Ib/hr
Total 0.38 0.16 tbAtt
Apply water su ression-nominal SOO/*removal. Based on a range of 78 to 96%control bY water sp mists
m oonstruction aggregate processing(crushed stone and pulverized minerals for crushing.screening and transfer Points.
Since the overhead spray is not as effective coverage as a dose in sprav fora Process.reduce this to a nominal 50%
Controlled emissions Cinternal from watersprays)
2:dum s 0.15 lblhr 7075-0.07
3hours Pushing 0.23 tbthr x0.5 0.12
Total 0.38 lb/hr x0.5 0.19 Whr 24-hrav
0.19 ihrnr x 24 hr/day x 5.6 da /wk x 51 d20001b)ton= 0.64 tOnNT PM-10
2 dum s 0.02 Ib/hr x 0.5 0.01
3 rs ushi 0.13 ib/hr x 0.5 0. 7
Total 0.16 Ib/hr x 0.5 0.08 ib/hr 24-hr av
0.08 IbRtr x 24 hrtd x 5.5 d twk x 51 d 2 Won= - 0.26 to r PM-2.5
Calculate PM-10/PM-2.5 Emissions from loader and truck emissions indoors
EPA Mobile 6-PM-10 emissions-Heavy Duty Diesel Vehicles-0.372 rams/mi for slow$Feed-2.5 mph
H0.0025
-2.5
Assume 4 vehicles at a time indoors
4 is 0.372 mt x 2.5 mithr x 1 ib/454 = %to 9 hridav
Ib/hr 24hrav PM-10
liNhr 24 hr PM 2.5 Z
Add kilino time indoors-assume 3 minutes idling r tnrek and 1 loader idling 5 minutesthr
Mobile 6-PM-10 emissions-Heayy Un Diesel Vehicles-1.25 rams/hr for Idling.1.15 g1h for PM-2.5
415 vehidestda x 3 min/60 min x 1 da /24 hr + 1 x 5 min/60 min x 1.25 qrnrx 1 ib/454 g= 0.0 09 ibtty PM-10
0.0008 lb/hr PM-2.5
Add to above 0.003+0.0009+0.19 ib/hr= 0.19 tb/hr PM-10
0.024 /secin ut to dis ersion modeling
PM-2.5 0.0026+0.0008+0.08 Ibihr- 0.081 lb/hr PM-2.6
0102 sec
Proles Ntll2@4 P°ge9 W 4
F�Stlt5�Parametem
DM 11/20/2 W
PM-10 eni ons that ocau indoors and exit the stack the other 10%exits thn2 open door
Check air flow thni doors when
open to see if negative! ressure:
Each door is 15'wide x 28'hl h
Assume on average that 1 door open at a time since fast opening and closing doors
vdll be used and dosed most df the time total o area is 15 x 28= 420 SF
From above there are 15000 ACFM ventin from the C&D area air comingin thru the doors
15 0001420= 35fpm
This should be enough infloviing air velocity to ca ture more than 90°k of the PM-10 emissions onginating originatinginside the buldin
Assuming 10%of amiss ions from door-0.02 Ise c x 0.1= 0.0024 alsee PM-10 0.0010 als PM-2.5
The stack will be 45'above floor with vertical exhaust 51 f -2.5 ft diameter
Emission rate from stack
90%of emissions:0.024 !sect x 0.9= 0.022 is PM-10 0.0092 is PM-2.5
ICIAn s'a
Evaluate the cast efectiveness of a Fabric Flter for PM control
TOTAL CAPITAL COST CC $130 583 factored from actual costs of fabric filter at TBt North Andover
Direct Operating Costs
1 oeeratino abor BY,S201hr 250 da r $5.000i
2 su ervis labor 15
maintenance labor so750
000
4 maintenance materials same as maintenance labor $5.000
5)electricity(15,000 cfm,assume 6"w.c for ductwarik,
tie house 70%eff. $0.15Ikwh 2526 hr - $5,697
ep compressed air(2 scfmt1000 ad x 15,000 acfm x
$4.25!1000 sd x 60 minthr x 2525 h $1.136
replacement fitter bas 5 x$50 each lace on $3,760
Total Direct Operating Costs $26,334 .
I direct O ratin Costs
9 Overhead 60%of sum of 1-4. $9.450
10 Adminstmtion 2%of TCC $2,612
111 Proa Tax(1%of TCC $1306
1 Insurance 1%of TCC 1306
1 Ca ital Receve 0.1175 x TCC 10%interest 20yrs) 95,343
Total Indirect Overating Costs $30 017
Total Annualized Cost $56,360
PM removed- 0.64 x 2-X 0.9 1.152 no misting stem if fabric filter
Cost Effectiveness $tton $49915
This is more than ten times hi her than DEP's cost effectiveness range for PM
Not cost effective thus not BACT
� f d
ASSOCIATES INC.
November 20, 2009
Mr. Bill Thomson
Northside Carting
210 Halt Road
North Andover, MA 01845
PRINCIPALS Subject: Updates to Air Quality Modeling Report for Proposed Salem Transfer
Station- Revision
Theodore A Barton,PE
Margaret B Briggs
Dear Mr. Thomson:
Michaet E Guski,CCM
Samuel G Mygatt,LLB Attached is a revised Attachment A,emission calculations with larger font. We have
also revised the days per week to 5.5 instead of 5, which increases the PM-10 to
Date T Ractypski,PE 0.64 tpy, and PM-2.5 to 0.26"tpy. This slightly improves the cast effectiveness of
Cindy Schiessinger the fabric filter, but it is still 10 times more expensive than MassDEP would consider
cost effective. This does not change any of the air modeling results.
Lester 8 Smith,Jr
Victoria N Fletcher,RLA I apologize for the small font on the calculations. It was not intentional.
Robert 0'Neal,INCE
Sincerely,
ASSOCIATES
Andrew D Magee EPSILON ASSOCIATES, INC.
Michael D Howard,PWS f'
Laura E Rom Dale T. Raczynski, P.E.
Principal
cc: Alan Hanscom, BETA-Inc.
3 Clock Tower Place,Suite 250
Maynard,MA 01754
www.epsi}onassoc}ates.core
978 897 7100
rnz 978 897 0099
p i i i ENGINEERS H ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS
Pertmmeeig[jj Pro7eat4T'A Page]a4
cnednxr.AJ
Peel
PM-t0 and PM-2.5 Emission Calculations for Northside Carting Transfer Facility,Salem MA _
400.500 tons per day of total wase handling mix of C&D waste munici el solid waste
Facility will accept waste 5.5 da r week 9 hours per cay.so 1 25245 hrstyr of oteration
Loads are dumped on tipping Floor from trucks ackersself dumomo trucks.
The dumped load is inspected and transferred into trailers at lower level
So each ton of material is dumped or loaded twice and may othewise be handled use dozer ushin
Assume that the entire toDina and loading area Is controlled bv water mists but conservatively assume 50%removal see bet
Since C&D waste is expected to be dustier than MSW to be conservative assume all of the waste IS C&D.
The facility will have one stack operated arry time the facirity is handling materials
According to EPA AP-42 Section 132.3 Rea ConsMn#gn O rattans able 132.3-t Recommended Emission Factors
for Construction gRerations,under Construction Phase-Demofition and Debris Remove Loadin of Debris On-sft or
Unloadin of Dabds Offske #his Table recommends the use of emission factor from Section 13.2.4
Section 13.2.4 is called A re ate Handli and Stora a Piles which includes material unloading from trucks onto
Flees and toadi of trucks for shi ment or transfer to Droocess
£=k 0.0032 Ut5 1,3 t Mt2"t.4-Equation 1 13.2.3.4
where:
E=emission factor(lb/ton)
k= aRirde size multi tier dimensionless 0.35 for PM-10 articles less than 10 microns in diameter and 0.053 for PN(-2.5
U!=mean winds eed milelhr
M=material moisture content %
E 0.35 0.0032 Uf5^1,3! DA12^1.4 forPM10
According to EPA,this emission factor is valid over a silt %of particles less than 75 microns die content ran a of 0.4419°h and
a moisture content range of 0.25.4.8%.
This a vation Witt roduce hi her emissions with lower moisture content. The lowest end R the ra a is 0.25% Indicative of limestone
used in iron and steel ave d roduct. To be conservative assume all of the 500 d of C&D waste is very dry limestone-this
is,clearty very eunservaUve since much of the debris vriR be whole materials such as(umber in#act d ii lass brick cenaete
etc. Only the residual dust from small fractions of the total cosi M of whole materials sandin dust d II dust from
edges of broken wallboard,etc would be in the form of sift-it is exoected that silt content is at the low end of the above ra e.
While the unload n and loadino occurs Indoors there is air movement caused by the ventilation stem. This can be translated
into a'Wind s ed-equivalent by c1tvaling the vorump of air now, the face area of the room normal to the exhaust PICKuDs.
A plenum will be located at the back of the.0&D tipping area. ickin u 15 000 arm ducted to fan and out stack
Padooned'M8 Project Not2w Pe9e2 oil
V",ed:A) gate+rno m4
Building Dimensions: 98'wide xIOO'lonq x 35'hi h
Assume all of this volume is drawn across 96'wide area at tiPpinq floor and over an avg height of 20'
15000 fl31min x 1/98x20 SF= 7.65 ft/min
7.65 tt/min x 60 min/hr x 1 mile/5280 ft= 0.09 mph
The low end of the range of winds eed for emission factor uation above is 1.3 mph-Use this as a default value to account
for s currents caused localized air movement
E.=0.35 x 0.0032 x 1.315 M,3 t 0.25!2 M.4 = 0.0036 ibRon
0.0036 IN itlday x 2 drops= 0.15 wthr 4 hr a uncontrolled PM-10
add controls further below
For PM-2.5 the k mutfi Iler is 0.053 instead of 0.35 aPPlY 10 emission rate: 0.05310.35 x 0.22= 0.023 th/hr uncontrolled
Next consider pushingof material for handlin /sortin -use bulldozin ushin
According to EPA AP-42 Section 13.2.3 Wea Construa'on Operations able 13.2.3.1 Recommended Emission Factors
for Construction Operatic under Cpnstruclton Phase-Site Pre aration-Bulldozin
this Table recommends the use of emission factor from Section 11.8
Section 11.9 is called Western Surface Coal MinIna.and includes bulldozing overburden dirt
E=1.0 x sA1.51 MAI A -Table 11.9-1 PM-15
where:
Eh emission factor Ib/hr
s=material sift content %
M=material moisture content %
multiplier for PM-10 is 0.75 according to Table 11.9-1
According to EPA,this ernission factor is valid over a sift °A,of particles less than 75 microns die content ra a of 3.8.15.1°h amt
a moisture content ran a of 2.2-16.8%.
This equation will roduce ht her emissions with lower moisture content. The lowest end of the ran a is 2.2%
To be conservative assume all of the 500 dot C&D waste is at 2.2%moisture this is hi her than above but lowest end of ran a for this
This is stti conservative since much of the debris WH be whole materials such as lumber,intact d ll antic brick concrete
etc. On the residual dust from small fractions of the total weight of whole materials(sending dust drywall dust from
edges of broken wal o that silt Content is at the tow em!of the above ranqe.
Use a conservative silt Ct7nteM of 3.8°h hf her than the 0.44°h low entl of range for the drop equation above
E=1.0x 3.8 1.5!((2.2)-1.4) 2.46 lb/hr PM-15
2.46 Ib/hr x 0.75= 1.84pr
PM-10
PM2.5 is 10.5%of the PM30 calculated per the similar calculation below:
10.15PM-3010.15 ib/hrx0.105= 1.07PM-2.5
Assume the entire 500 t d is ushed continous for 3 hours/9 hour shift. For exam le if 50 tons were onthe18.0er load of material on floor
1.84 1 Ib/lirx 3 hrl0ay x 1124 hr/da = 0.23 Ib/hr 24-hr av PM-10 uncontrolled
1.07 11i to x 3 hr/dx 1/24 hr/da = 1 0.133 Ib/hr 24-hr PM-2.5 uncontrolled
NOWmetl= Paga$era
ChKked.W DMa llnoag09
Total uncontrolled PM-10 emissions from dumping.loading.jaushinghandiin of waste
PM-10 PM-2.5
2 dum ' actions 0.15 0.02. tb/hr
3hours pushing 0.230.13 Ib/hr
Total 0.38 0.16 lb/hr
water suppression-nominal 500/4 removal. Based on a ra a of 78 to 96414 control by water mists
in construction aqqrepate processing(crushed st, Ing and transfer Doints.
Since the overhead spMy is not as effective coverage as a dose ins ra fora orooess,reduce this to a nominal 50%
I
Controlled emissions internal from water s s
2 dumps - 0.15 lb/hr x 0.5 10.47
3 flours pushing 0.231b/tx x0.5 10.12
Total 0,38 Ibthr x 0.5 10.19 IbPor 24-hr av
0.19 ib/hr x 24 hr/d x 5.5 dayANk x 51 lbtton= 0.64 to PM-10
2 dumps 0.02 lb/hr x 0.5 0.01
3 hours pushing 3.131lb/hr x 0.5 0.0
Total 0.16 Iblhr x 0.5 038 th/hr 24-hr av
4.08 @/M x 24 brfdpy x 5Z,dayyANk x 51 d 12000 ibfton= 0.26 to PM-2.5
Calculate PM-10/PM-2.5 Emissions from loader and truck emissions indoors
EPA Mobile 6-PM-10 emissions-Heavy Duty Diesel Vehicles-0.372 qramr4mi for slowspeed-2.5 mph
0.314 /ml for PM-2S
Assume 4 vehicles at a time indoors
4 z 0.372 mi x 2.5 mithr x 1 lb/454 g= 0.0081bM 9 hrlday
.003 Ib/hr 24 hr av PM-10
0.0026 lblhr 24 hr 2MM PM-2.5
Add Wine time indoors-assume 3 minutes idlina Der truck and 1 loader Wind 5 minutes/hr
Mobile 6-PM-10 emissions--HeavvDutv Diesel Vehicles-1.25 rams/hr for Idlina.1.15 o1h for PM-2.5
915 vehictes/da x 3 mirJ60 minx 1 da 124 hr + 1 x 5 mirt/60 min x 1.25 /hr x/1b/454 - 0.0009 IMhr PM-10
0.0008 lb/hr PM-2.5
Add to above 0.003+0.0009+0.19 Ib/hr= 0.19 tbfhr PM-10
0.024 /sec In ut to dis rsion modeli
PM-2.5 0.0028+0.0008+0.08 WRir- OA811b1M PM-2.5
0102 sec
ProJeG Na2j�+ DM120n011120=a
Portumea:,gZit 0g
Cnetice0:l�
Staek parameters
Assume 90%cz Sure of PM-1Q emisspns that ocwr irxtoors and exit the stack iha other t0%extts thru
open door
Cheek air flow thru doors when o en to sea if ne alive ressure:
Each door is 15'wide x 28'h3 h
Assume on avers a that 1 door en at a rime since fast o ani and otos doom
will be used and dosed most oTttre Uma total o n area is 15 x 28=
420 SF
i
From above there are 15000 ACFM ventin from the G&D area air cumin in thru the doors
2 000t420= 3fi m
This should be ensu h ino Inside the building
Assuming 10%of emissions from deur-0,024 /secx 0.1= 0.0024 /sec PM-10 0.0010
The stack will ba 45 above floor with vertical exhaust 51 -2.5 It diameter
Emission rate from stack 0.022 is PM-10 0.0092 s PM-2.5
9VA of emissions:0.024 Isec x 0.9=
SACT Anal sir
Evaluate the cost effectiveness of a Fabric Filter for PM control
I
TOTAL CAPITAL COST GQ
$130 583(adored hum actual curls of fabdcfiiter at TBI.North Andover
Direct O ni in Costs
1. o emtin labor 1 hr/da $20/hr 250 da r $5 000
2 erviso tabor 15-A of operating tabu $750
maintenance labor same as operating labor $5 000
4 maintenance materials tsame as maintenancetabor $5,000
5)electricity(15,000 dm,assume 6"w.c for ductwork, -
ba house 70%eff. $0.15Ikwh 2525 hr $5,6
6)compressed air(2 schn/1000 ad x 15,000 adm x
$Q.25t1000 ad x 60 minthr x 2525 h $1,136
re tacemant filter bas 5 x$50 each replace on $3.750
Total Direct O eratin Costs W6,334
I direct Operating Costs
9 Overhead 60%of sum of 1.4 $9 450
10 Adminstration(2%of TCC 2612
11 Pro a Tax 1%of TCC $1306
t insurence 1°h of TCC 1306
13 Capital Recovery 0.1175 xTCC 10%interest,20yrs) 15
Total indirect Operating Casts $30,01
Tota)Annualized Cost 6 350
PM removed- 0.64 x 2 x 0.9 1.152 no misting tem if fabric filter
Cost Effediveness $fton $48 915
This is more than ten times higher than DEP's cost effectiveness range for PM
Not cost effective thus not SACT
r
psilon
ASSOCIATES INC.
November 18, 2009
Mr. Bill Thomson
Northside Carting
210 Holt Road
North Andover, MA 01845
Subject: Updates to Air Quality Modeling Report for Proposed Salem Transfer
PRINCIPALS Station
Theodore A Barten,PE
Margaret 8 Briggs Dear Mr. Thomson:
Michael E Guski,CCM
To follow up on the hearing at the Salem Board of Health on November 10, 2009,
Samuel G Mygatt,LLB Epsilon has updated the air modeling as follows:
Dale T Racxynski,PE „ We have increased the future build case from 194 truck trips per day to 230
Cindy Scbiessinger truck trips per day to account for a daily peak of 500 ton per day (tpd) of
Lester 8 Smith,Jr material received at the facility. This increased the maximum total
concentration from Table 4 of the report very slightly as shown in the
Victoria H Fletcher,RLA revised Table 4 below. The future facility ("TBI') truck contribution to the
Robert 0'Neal,INCE total remains extremely small at less than 0.02 uglm' for all cases. Also the
maximum total concentration at receptor 9 (representing homes at corner of
ASSOCIATES First and Swampscott , southeast of facility),.the closest residential receptor
Andrew D Magee has been added to Table 5, and is very small at less than 0.03/Jglm'for PM-
2.5, 24-hr average as an example.
Michael O Howard,PWS
• We have now modeled the PM-10 and PM-2.5 emissions from the building
Laura E Rome operations using the U.S. EPA recommended AERMOD model.
Calculations of these emissions are in Attachment A, and are estimated at
0.58 tons per year (tpy) of PM-10, and 0.24 tpy of PM-2.5 after control with
water mists at a control efficiency of 50%. We have assumed that 10% of
the PM emissions are released thru an open truck door at the north side of
3 clock Tower Place.Salle 250 the building, and that 90% are vented thru a new stack, 2.5 feet diameter,
Maynard,MA 01754 45 feet high above the tipping floor base at a flow rate of 15,000 actual
w"Iticsilonassociates.com cubic feet per minute (ACFM). The 10% from the door is based on the use
9788977100 of fast closing doors that are closed most of the time during indoor
rAx 978 897 0099 operations. Even when open, there will be a negative pressure thru the door
that should keep most of the PM contained within the building and then
release via the stack,which improves dispersion. On this basis, I believe the
10% is conservatively high, and that more than 90% of the PM-10 and PM-
2.5 emissions will be released thru the stack. The emissions estimates
I
Big _ I L ENGINEERS 13 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIIITANTt
Mr. Bill Thomson
Northside Carting
November 18, 2009
include the trucks and loader inside the building. A brief description of the
air quality modeling is presented in Attachment B.
• The maximum impacts from the building emissions, including thru the door
and the stack are shown in Table 4, and are well within the National
Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). The NAAQS were developed by
the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to protect the public health
against adverse health effects including the health of sensitive populations
such as asthmatics, children and the elderly with a margin of safety. Table 4
also shows the maximum impacts from the building emissions at receptor 9,
the closest residential receptor, also well below the NAAQS.
• Northside Carting has carefully considered what type of air pollution control
equipment, if any, will be appropriate for the facility. If the potential PM-10
or PM-2.5 emissions were greater than 1 tpy, then MassDEP would require
an Air Plan Approval and require the use of Best Available Control
Technology (BACT). For a project of this size and type, DEP would likely
not require a formal BACT analysis, where the most stringent, technically
feasible control technology is evaluated to determine whether it is cost
effective in terms of$/ton of pollutant removed. If the top technology is not
cost effective,the next most stringent is evaluated or selected as BACT. DEP
makes the final determination of BACT. The standard design for transfer
stations has been water mist suppression as proposed for this facility, and we
believe this would be found to be BACT by DEP if subject to Air Plan
Approval. However, we have conducted a preliminary BACT analysis, also
included in the attached calculations. We find that a fabric filter (or
baghouse), which would be the most stringent or top technology is not cost
effective by a wide margin (nearly ten times MassDEP's cost effectiveness
threshold) and should not be required.
Sincerely,
EPSILON ASSOCIATES, INC.
Dale T. Raczynski, P.E.
Principal
cc: Alan Hanscom, BETA-Inc.
2
MONISM 11111
sljiplt Am
a .,,, .....,.., . ...,......
Table 4 CAL3QHCR Modeling Results For Future Build Conditions-November 2009 Revision
CAL3QHCR Contribution AERMOD Monitored Total
Averaging Future From Future Contribution Background Concentration NAAQS Percentage of
Pollutant Period Vehicles Northside from Concentration (µg/m3) (pg(m3) NAAQS(%)
Trips(Wm3) Carting Truck Northside {pglm3}
Trips(ttg(M3) Stationary
Sources
( m3)
Impact overall Receptors
PM10 24-1-121-1 0.72 <0.02 11.07 58 69.79 150 47%
Annual 0.18 <0.02 2.32 29 31.5 50 63%
PW5 24-H8H' 0.32 <0.02 3.49 26 29.81 35 85%
Annual 0.09 <0.02 0.97 9 10.06 15 67%
Impact at Closest Residence
PM10 24-1-12H 0.09 <0.01 0.56 58 58.65 150 39%
Annual 0.01 <0.01 0.11 29 29.12 50 58%
PM2.5 24-H8H' 0.03 <0.01 0.20 26 26.23 35 75%
Annual <0.01 <0.01 0.05 9 9.06 15 60%
1. The PM10 concentrations represent the highest second highest modeled concentrations while the PM2.5 represents the highest 5" highest
concentrations predicted with the CAL3QHCR Model.
2. The annual,concentrations represent the highest maximum concentration.
Mr. Bill Thomson
Northside Carting
November 38, 2009
ATTACHMENT A
Emission Calculations
pmbnaad: PrgW bo:2M page 1 dg
Checked:g) oele 111192DO
PM-iD tad PMRS Emisabn diebbebm for NeMaide Ceminp T ammer Faalllty,Sebm,MA
400a W tans Da dq d mol xaalp haWln9{rob N C6O waste,mumdpal Gala waste)
Fammyx[A oNwT xada Sdayp pNweek,gaoma parlay,se 2285 iay+dopem%w
tootle aro dimlPw m apphp am hem Mxs%woekem,sap dumpkp tnmYs).
The dumped load Is Nap Wed as bem(omea Nb Males W moor level
Sc,each Mnetmatmbt b camped(m bad.)woo,wa my Mmaise as,Names(um aoempua"
Asaume Nm Na Gram upping and MMirp area b to tmbd by warn MUM,bW comai Mllwy saw.60 removal(we ass"
SNP C60 wamob"IIs,w dadisM.NSW,m w ealsam ,solum e1 ams w49e Is MD.
The fgimpy are have ow shows,egmed any Omatiro Mossy handl4p mater els
ACcortling M EPA APG$Semlmt 112.5,Mwvy Consbudmn Opeadl m Crabb 152.3.1,Raomlmnded Emission Facloo,
W Cmelructbn OwrMwM,Maar Cmarumbn Phase-Madman SM Cabot,Removsk toodmg d Mas Ornade a
UNeamp of Mae Otbw,itis TabM rvowaveMis me use ofaMMbn bdN baa Eami n 1524)
Setlbn 1524 IS celled AWMWO MwWMnp and WOraw PwM,~Inmudes meterbl unbadmI 1.sucks ana
POw as bwbp d ieaka Mr sillpment N MabMf M pmcom
E a k(0.0052)(18'5)"1.3 I(RWI A-EOUNbn(1)1521A
olmee:
Pamela
Its,
AW
s-seem small
mump(at&"nebnbas);0.55 MrPW10(padMbe bsellan 10 mbonaN tlbmma0.Ma 0.055 brPWib
U.mon wbtl awed lm1dM
M•mdadel mole W e aeman(%)
E-0.3$(0.00.12)O5F tIl y MM-1.4(W PM10)
AaatPop M EPA.see"Mason Mesas sees colaa M(%d pa0cbe bra Ola,75 mutons db)mrasn nape 0 O IM.as
•mWshwe ardaN rape d 026 4.896.
iTisapua{ionx0padbe npM1eraMWonToWwn moblaemdo of Mw OloddCwmngab025%,ii We O.Ns w
uswNYm antl shem,a mrytlry Drauri To be conwmllw,aewmG dila Oro 500Wtl dC60 waembmrytlry Omeatana-Ws
bdseM'mrye0naanaNx wloe mutll ddut tle0d>rm Oawate meledelt eudh GahwWr,NNddryMaA.pMwc,Nkk.Opnr+ats,
els 01dJiM re44kuM shush hW)wo iN know
Moo ads.
matawa(send6ig Gut.NYwweFft of
edas aureus Ww boartl,era)craw N N the MM deo.A b eWomed MM mA costlan b M Uro ka ea deb above renpe.
tMtOe Ob smMGtlOp as mems aura NdOps,Obmb waMmnbn comeU OyOb vadSalmayaMm.TMSOanNban6Memd
Nb e'wbW epea'e0uwakldM NmONp dM vaMme of ab AOA,by Ul0 fw0 area dem Yaem nmvlbl M d'a embum plekupe.
A DbNoll wB w kralw d Ub bora dNe C8D OPPNO gime plrBNg up 16.000 aA14 dudes M Mn ant aW ebck
Bwosq;Wmembee: WWW.x100'"x55'high
Auulne a1 d Ode values,b drown oma W%AM oma M Imang SON.and aver w a1,;hepM of 2 V
(15,005 A-U."x(11OWD)SF= 7.55 Win
7.63 Ah1tln z a mNrtux t Moslem Ss 0A6 aph
711e mw ea W1htl rarpG Ofwind apoed ler Omission fWN GGMMbn doom is 1.5 moll'use NM as a defwll vaMO M scout
Mrmyebayumensawaw bymeegSSC gib movamed
E•0.35 x0.0057 x(1.53)•1.3I(PISM•1A)= 0.50% Nton
0.0=WM x SW MNNy x 1*4 Malay z 2 amps• 0.15 male (24NovuadOdbpM-10
(ash console Mother bGbw)
FNPM-2A.01e kawmpAerb 0.053 Nmwtld0.55,eppyMambmonrate:0.0519.55X0.22= 0.026 mar wworoow
Ma&comMerpustdp ofmaMdm Ox -uw,MAdw:bV DUMdnp
According M EPAAPI2,SWbn 13.2.5,Meavy COna 4 Cperetlms(Tubb 132.11,Raeammeaed Embamn Fa saw
Mr Conwudbn Operations,Ntler CanmeuCwn Phew-Sle Pmpbmbn-&Aloft
WS Tubb reconnandG tib use of emission briar Man Semon 11.9)
SeUfw111.9 b caved VAMOOM Sur6m Com Mbft sM NmWes b ldoz"O"MadeD(doo
E a 1A x N1.NMMA-Toble11.11 PM-15
amov:
E=emmmanhow(boa
s•matmbt elleademl) - .
M•meledm mmmure coolant(%)
muWpwl M PWIO a 0.76 according M Table ii.&1
Mmnma M EPA this eMsebn fft Is"Ad am a ora N dpadidn leu Oran 75 Muom tlb)mnen MW d 5.8.16.5%,as
a mabMre cadets renpe d 22.18.5%.
'Olio equetbn M/predaahpheremlubnswM bneY mebtwe colrtGn.TM boom as deb ralpeb 22%
To be wnservmM,oosome aQNUb 3001POd CMO wale%m 2.2%moimtue OMs m MparMw above,bW immm ea dsange fNNb eq.)
Thio b
GM Om,fhe mdd ulowMast
MOwNmass uacmhadpalemtlabrbwAl bide welMwObpmNaabdwmDePbsual as k11116wGf,pneddtlumry,wtlml,xpaisl must
moo
coarele.
U"adbraalx WKa *Md3,0%Deg r MomwD."% wdedelmm0wneM%mumon eaofOb corn colpo.
Use a eonwlmWa mlemgen ol39%(hpMrtlbn Ilse O.N%bw antl of mlpd Ml Db tlmp e0umbn a0ove)
E•e.Ox(3.Wt.5yu22)"A)= 2.46 mold PW15
2.46 Mae x 0.75- 1.81 seer PW10
PM254 WKof bPM-30.ca6xAdw Par five tlnw CmRdmbn Oeiwt:
E-5.7x(3.8)•12y(R2"1.3)a 10.15 Ift PW30
10.15 bmrx 0.105• 1.07 bbr PW2.5
Atlmmle Ne entre 400lptlbpumbtl mnMtouey Mr3 Mures horn MIA.For ezemple,A60latbwero anla 600rMally Moan
Ome.S wad0 Da Pmhw uourltl Mr(SN50O)z 150 Mn• 18.0 Mendes par Wd of mdaal wlMor
1.64 IMhrx3hMlWx124haNly• 0.23 gad Wvavg PW10unearmolbd
1.07Wvx3hrmeyxi24hlA4y• OAA MIhr 2am.n PM-2.6ummdmla
F.Won e: Im Reign No:ZM Pape 2 a
Made:(y( Dena11i 1812008
Tinel W=Mo%d Pk4lQemesfbrtf WDmeWllpinp,WedWd.MN dOmndko}mvnps
Pk410PM-24
2 dumping monsoon 0.16 D.02 Idrhr
3hompusap 0230.13 Idea
Tots Us,0.10 ago
Appywatsr svppnssbn-nomWM 6D%M1nmKl.Retie and rope W78M48%wmmlyvelar fpmymlpf
W aOnmudbn poodoma;Qla moo WW puhatWednwWmis) ausOnp.suueuop mMumnfor prime.
S6vm iM avwmem spiny b m1 a eRedive devprope of A dote no spry Ma promN,M1Eum IMf b e ndmhW 60%
CorOtdWOemeWons9memrt Ran Wort apM1ys)
2thmps 0.161", x0.5 0.07
3hdenpushd; 023 ben so's 0.12
Tout 0.30 TdM x0.6 0.10 IM, (244w@vM
0.191aax24 hday x50ayMkx 61 dy4rRU00 0Mon• 0.68 mov P61.10
2 dwVs O.0;fo7W z04 0.01
3lmwa pug" 0.13 then x0.5 0.07
Toll 0.15 nom, x0.6 0.00 MN (24-Mavp)
0.08 AMaz24 MAtay z$EeyMW x 51 deyyrTN00ReAnon= 024 tanV PM-25
Calculate PM404P 24 Emessons,the notes,sne Yuck onesfWa iMeon
RPA MOMW 6•PM-10 M"mf-Meavy Duty DWHI Whi les-0.312 game/ml nor Now speo.2.5 mpt
0,314Ong do,PWZ5
Asfumq 4 veRidp rt a Wrm MQCdn
4 x 04729"x 2.6 mNux i WW54 a DD090Mr stages
0.003 color tMbravp) p W
0.0026 Isla (24 Mav9) PM-2.5
AEE Mad mW meden•aeRme 3 ntw[p4 Mpnp pm Muck,aM 1 Watleridyp 6 mwaNr
MdiOe$-PWttl smbabns•t%avY Ouy Obael VeAltla-1.25 gmmeAvbr Malp,1.16 gm M PM2.6
((115wtN & yx3mptellmbxletyi24M).(+x6mkMn"xlMpMx1@M54p• OAon WTr PIM10
0.0006"Ar PM-2.5
AddWawa OA0.140.0009s0.19Mr= 0.19 solo PM4O
0.024 dome Wood to duperabn ROM"
PM-" 0.0028 a&.0009 a CA Wes= 0.00/OMa PW"
0.0102 gode
Slack Paramebn
Among,9D%CoMare O/PM•10 emeedns Um oder bddoro sued ex4iM gw*rite dRWr 10%as*Us,open dea
ChsrS: 0lmdote Minnopenb Ma 0napsivW prossum.
Fain tlwax Js l%15'ode r 2B'Mph
AeMmO on aveM1pelMlf doaapenrtednm Moth lart openWp and danop dmnWlOtaeawoaMapeed am6tpbe OmA.mbtopmame t5x28a 4205E
FM Moons.Ingo em IMM ACFM vedWg Mom Me CSD area air denting In tomtlle dons
15.MOa42836 fast
The OWA be mmgh W5oamg ave"W cap"more long 90%YfOm PM-10 emesidm Won,"WsidefM MOV
AeeubWg 10%OfemLLMons Mantled-0.02/poeax0.1• 0.002490 PM-10 0.0010 gn PM-2.5
no pack Ml be 45 ebM roar vMh vedW e#muat,51 fps•250 dammer
F-mWbe ow,Road stark
90%d onniubo :0.024 yaec x 0.9• 0.022 gh,PM-10 0.0092 e's PM-2.6
MCTAMysts
E,ak sda and and e5et0eenea of 8 Faft F%er for PM caaerai
TOTAL CAPITALCOST(TCC) 5130,58.1 MWrod om actual deals W estate fde,M TSk Nath Aabver
Molds OPM"Co6p
t)operatIng laW(1 Wdy.S201n,260 dayy0 $$.ODD
z SoPera"law(15%ofaPentnpnoba) $750
3)maintenance tibw(sms,as doggig taboo 551000
4)malpenanm maeeae(same a msNssmnce MbdO $5.000
5)eewWfy(15.000 W4 assmae a'-tar Qupwak bepnama.
70%eg.,30.166:wh.22S5My0 $5,178
6)eanpesse0 nor(2 fcOnflO 0 ads 76,000 Mean x$025I100D W
50 miMrx2295 Myo $1=
7)repesmmad for boas(75 x 350 earn,ropesca OMM" $3,750
Task Dost OperaWO Costs s26,71/
Mdlraet Opentn9 Casts
9t Ovemead{o0%otaan W ta} $9,450
1D)AEmMsntm(2%OTCC) 32,612
it)PmpmlyTa(1%o(TCC) $/406
121 tnsaenea{f%pTCt)
$1.30$
13)CepSp Recdvery(0.1 t76 x TCC,IM b110M1p,20 ym) 315.043
Thai ImIrw Opera"Costs We"
Total Amwpind Cop. i 28
PM nmCvad-14"to,(O.68 z 2 x O4) i.ON nomWmg tyaem Wraab Tktet
CCP Eaotvenesf(tion) $53,379
The 6 mat tf W tin Omo4 MpMr9Wn Ows mel a04aIwM0e nrpn nor PM
NO ms effective,Rhus nd MCT
Mr. Bill Thomson
Northside Carting
November 18, 2009
ATTACHMENT B
AERMOR Air Quality Modeling
Mr. Bill Thomson
Northside Carting
November 18, 2009
Air quality dispersion modeling was used to predict the ambient impacts of
particulate matter from operations at the proposed transfer station in Salem, MA.
The latest version of the EPA approved air quality model, AERMOD model (09292),
was used for this analysis. The AERMOD model is a steady state plume model
using Gaussian distributions that calculates concentrations at each receptor for every
hour in the year. The model is designed for rural or urban applications and can be
used with a rectangular or polar system of receptors that are allowed to vary with
terrain.
AERMOD was run with the regulatory default options with five years of
meteorological data (2004-2008) of hourly surface observations from Boston's
Logan International Airport in conjunction with twice daily upper air soundings
from Gray, ME. The meteorological data was processed with the AERMET processor,
using AER5URFACE to characterize the surface characteristics around the airport for
input to AERMET.
The area within 3 km of the transfer station was determined to be rural for
dispersion characteristics based on the Auer land use typing scheme. Therefore rural
dispersion coefficients were used in the AERMOD modeling.
The PM10 and PM2.5 emissions from the building operations were modeled. We
have assumed that 10% of the PM emissions are released thru an open truck door at
the north side of the building, and that 90% are vented thru a new stack adjacent to
the south side of the building, 2.5 feet diameter, 45 feet high above the tipping floor
base at a flow rate of 15,000 actual cubic feet per minute (ACFM). The building is
98' x 100' with a height of 35'. The stack emissions are assumed to be at ambient
temperature. The stack will be influenced by aerodynamic downwash caused by
the building. The BPIP-Prime model was run to characterize the building
parameters for input into AERMOD. The emission vented through the garage door
was modeled as a volume source release. The dimensions of the garage door are
15'x30'. Figure 1 shows the facility layout as modeled in AERMOD. The building,
sources, and fence line receptors are shown. The source parameters and emission
rates are summarized in Table 1.
Aa e-t
Mr. Sill Thomson
Northside Carting
November 18, 2009
Table 1 AERMOD Modeled Source Parameters
Point Source Base Release Stack Stack Exit Stack
Elevation Height Diameter Velocity Temperature
Stack 108 ft 45 ft 2.5 ft 50.9 fps Ambient
(32.92 m) I (13.7 m) (0.76 m) (15.5 m/s)
Initial Vertical Initial Lateral
Volume Source Base Release Dispersion Dispersion
Elevation Height Parameter Parameter
Open Door Fugitive 108 ft 7.5 ft 6.99 ft 4.93 ft
(32.92 m) (2.29 m (2.13m) 0.50 m)
Source PM10 PM2.5
Emission Rate s) Emission Rate{ s
Stack 0.022 s 0.0092 s
Open Door Fugitive 0.0024 s 0.001 s
The AERMOD modeling included 1108 receptors. Receptors were located along the
facility fence line at 10 m spacing, as well as an extended grid parallel to the fence
line at 25 meter intervals out to 100 meters. In addition, a nested Cartesian grid
extending out to 2 kilometers in each direction was used. The receptor spacing in
the grid was 100 m out to 1 km, and 200 m out to 2 km. The terrain elevation for
each receptor was obtained electronically for the USGS National Elevation Data
(NED). The AERMAP terrain processor was used. Elevations for the fence line
receptors were entered by hand based on contour data in the immediate vicinity of
the project. The AERMOD receptors are presented in Figures 2 and 3.
The predicted air quality levels of the PM10 and PM2.5 impacts due to the
operations at the transfer building were assessed through the modeling analysis.
The AERMOD modeled impacts are added to the measured background from the
Kenmore Square monitoring station for PM10, and the Lynn monitor for PM2.5,
then compared to the NAAQS. Table 2 summarizes the AERMOD predicted
particulate impacts from the stationary sources combined with the maximum mobile
source impacts modeled with CAL3QHCR. Note that the maximum from each
model are conservatively added together, and they are not matched in time or
space. Table 3 summarizes the same impacts at the nearest residential receptor.
Aft 8-2
Mr. Bill Thomson
Northside Carting
November 18, 2009
The total combined impacts of particulate matter are less than the National Ambient
Air Quality Standards for both PM10 and PM2.5.
Table 2 Comparison of Maximum Modeled Concentrations with NAAQS
Standards—All Receptors
Stationary Mobile plus
Source Stationary Monitored NAAQS
AERMOD Source Background Cumulative Standards
Averaging Concentration Concentration Concentration Impacts (µSIM)
Pollutant Period' m'} { m') ( m') m'
PM10 24-Hour 11.07 11.79 58 69.79 150
Annual 2.32 2.5 29 31.5 50
PM2.5 24-Hour 3.493.81 26 29.81 35
Annual 0.97 1.06 9 10.06 15
Table 3 Comparison of Maximum Modeled Concentrations with NAAQS
Standards— Nearest Residential Receptor
Stationary Mobile plus
Source Stationary Monitored NAAQS
AERMOD Source Background Cumulative Standards
Averaging Concentration Concentration Concentration Impacts (µSIM')
Pollutant Period' ( m') ( m') ( m') W911111)
PM10 24-Hour 0.56 0.65 58 58.65 150
Annual 0.11 0.12 29 29.12 50
PM2.5 24-Hour 0.20 0.23 26 26.23 35
Annual 0.05 0.06 9 9.06 15
Att 8-3
4-
Al
LJ/J
rx,• /"TSS S 5 f!" i.. h m. 'a'k
17,
R y( Z. A YDI� • � h� j '' '^ � A
- n i
g
z e� f -+aAz #'ei i� p Yti 'A k < °k.•.r 5y '} -.,/ =w
Y 4� drys; 4f 4y . A Rk i1, �iil
.,Y Y �;,A y
C � e k
A Y
F F lel- >,e Y 6-.
3 # Ya Ik kl Y
pp t A
}
• Vl �x did /
H ✓ s�- � w 'Tit "� �' ^`�,''�'``` °{L�'{l4 �� _
I
34
M, M
.!•
PROJECT TITLE
Figure 2. TBI Transfer Station
Salem,Massachusetts
0
N
n
a
0
0
r`
m
v
WWW + + ♦ + x + + r � #
# + + + + a +
+ + t + + #
O +
Tipr+1 F +
i'
+
n
N
y
S
o NSTD2
v
n
v
33950D 340000 340500 341000 341500 342000 342500 343000 343500 344000 364500
COMMENTS: SOURCES: COMPANY NAME
AERMOD Receptor Grid 2 Epsilon Associates,Inc.
RECEPTORS:
1108
scAle. 1:35,078 r
Sflon
ASSOCIATES ik£.
1 km
DATE: PROJECT NO.:
11118/2009 2288
AERMOD View•Lakes Envkarm wSaftwm C9PmIedSVTB1S0ffAmrtW"I4mI006.1sc
PROJECT TITLE
Figure 3. TBI Transfer Station
Salem,Massachusetts
+
+
4
+
nv
+ +I
+ 4 +
+ +
*i- — 1
+ 41 +
+
+
Nf
8 -
4-1
+
+4
+
341500 341600 341700 341800 341900 342000 342100
COMMENTS: SOURCES: COMPAW RARE:
AERMOD Receptor Grid 2 Epsilon Assoclatea,Inc.
She Zoom
RECEPTORS:
1108
Imor Sk
SMIr
SCALE: INTsilon
1:4.682 SS041PIES INC.
0 6 ..d0.1 km
DATE: PROJECT NO,:
11MB12009 2268
AERMOO VvSW Lak9s ErrAMM&M SOU"
t
Hon
psi
AS$0C I ATE INC.
November 18, 2009
Mr. Bill Thomson
Northside Carting
210 Holt Road
North Andover, MA 01845
Subject: Updates to Air Quality Modeling Report for Proposed Salem Transfer
PRINCIPALS Station
Theodore A Barten,PE
Margaret B Briggs Dear Mr. Thomson:
Michael E Guski,CCM
To follow up on the hearing at the Salem Board of Health on November 10, 2009,
Samuel G Mygatt,LLB Epsilon has updated the air modeling as follows:
Dale T Raczynskl,PE 0 We have increased the future build case from 194 truck trips per day to 230
Cindy Schlessinger truck trips per day to account for a daily peak of 500 ton per day (tpd) of
Lester 8 smith,Jr material received at the facility. This increased the maximum total
concentration from Table 4 of the report very slightly as shown in the
Victoria H Fletcher,FLA revised Table 4 below. The future facility (°TBI") truck contribution to the
Roltert 0'Neal,INCE total remains extremely small at less than 0.02 ug/m' for all cases. Also the
maximum total concentration at receptor 9 (representing homes at corner of
ASSOCIATES First and Swampscott , southeast of facility),,the closest residential receptor
Andrew D Magee
has been added to Table 5, and is very small at less than 0.03 ug/m'for PM-
2.5, 24-hr average as an example.
Michael D Howard,PWS
In We have now modeled the PM-10 and PM-2.5 emissions from the building
Laura E Rome operations using the U.S. EPA recommended AERMOD model.
Calculations of these emissions are in Attachment A, and are estimated at
0.58 tons per year (tpy) of PM-10, and 0.24 tpy of PM-2.5 after control with
water mists at a control efficiency of 50%. We have assumed that 10% of
the PM emissions are released thru an open truck door at the north side of
3 clock Tower Place, suite 250 the building, and that 90% are vented thru a new stack, 2.5 feet diameter,
Maynard, MA 01754 45 feet high above the tipping floor base at a flow rate of 15,000 actual
www.epsilonassociates.com cubic feet per minute (ACFM). The 10% from the door is based on the use
9708977100 of fast closing doors that are closed most of the time during indoor
£AX 978 897 0099 operations. Even when open, there will be a negative pressure thru the door
that should keep most of the PM contained within the building and then
release via the stack, which improves dispersion. On this basis, I believe the
10% is conservatively high, and that more than 90% of the PM-10 and PM-
2.5 emissions will be released thru the stack. The emissions estimates
i
ENGINEERS 03 ENVIRONMENTAL CONgOl tAN 1S
Mr. Bill Thomson
Northside Carting
November 18, 2009
include the trucks and loader inside the building.A brief description of the
air quality modeling is presented in Attachment B.
• The maximum impacts from the building emissions, including thru the door
and the stack are shown in Table 4, and are well within the National
Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). The NAAQS were developed by
the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to protect the public health
against adverse health effects including the health of sensitive populations
such as asthmatics, children and the elderly with a margin of safety. Table 4
also shows the maximum impacts from the building emissions at receptor 9,
the closest residential receptor, also well below the NAAQS.
• Northside Carting has carefully considered what type of air pollution control
equipment, if any, will be appropriate for the facility. If the potential PM-10
or PM-2.5 emissions were greater than 1 tpy, then MassDEP would require
an Air Plan Approval and require the use of Best Available Control
Technology (SACT). For a project of this size and type, DEP would likely
not require a formal BACT analysis, where the most stringent, technically
feasible control technology is evaluated to determine whether it is cost
effective in terms of$/ton of pollutant removed. If the top technology is not
cost effective, the next most stringent is evaluated or selected as SACT. DEP
makes the final determination of SACT. The standard design for transfer
stations has been water mist suppression as proposed for this facility, and we
believe this would be found to be BACT by DEP if subject to Air Plan
Approval. However, we have conducted a preliminary BACT analysis, also
included in the attached calculations. We find that a fabric filter (or
baghouse), which would be the most stringent or top technology is not cost
effective by a wide margin (nearly ten times MassDEP's cost effectiveness
threshold)and should not be required.
Sincerely,
EPSILON ASSOCIATES, INC.
Dale T. Raczynski, P.E.
Principal
cc: Alan Hanscom, BETA-Inc.
2
Table 4 CAL3QHCR Modeling Results For Future Build Conditions- November 2009 Revision
CAL3QHCR Contribution AERMOD Monitored Total
Averaging Future From Future Contribution Background Concentration NAAQS Percentage of
Pollutant Period Vehicles Northside from Concentration (pg(m') (gg/m) NAAQS(%)
Trips(pg(m) Carting Truck Northside (pg(m')
Trips(pQ(m') Stationary
Sources
{pg(m3)
Impact overall Receptors
PM10 241-121-1 0.72 <0.02 11.07 58 69.79 150 47%
Annual 0.18 <0.02 2.32 29 31.5 50 63%
PW5 24-H8H' 0.32 <0.02 3.49 26 29.81 35 85%
Annual 0.09 <0.02 0.97 9 10.06 15 67%
Impact at Closest Residence
PM10 24-H2H 0.09 <0.01 0.56 58 58.65 150 39%
Annual 0.01 <0.01 0.11 29 29.12 50 58%
PM25 24-H81-1' 0.03 <0.01 0.20 26 26.23 35 75%
Annual <0.01 <0.01 0,05 9 9.06 15 600/6
1. The PM10 concentrations represent the highest second highest modeled concentrations while the PM2.5 represents the highest 5' highest
concentrations predicted with the CAL3QHCR Model.
2. The annual concentrations represent the highest maximum concentration.
Mr. Bill Thomson
Northside Carting
November 18, 2009
ATTACHMENT A
Emission Calculations
PortormM: TSR Flaloc'i 2M Page i dig
Checked:N Date 11119=9
PM40 and PM-2.5 Emission Calculations for Morcnsme Carting TmnsWFacmfy,Saarm,MA
409500 tons per day eftoblwede handling(mix of C8D waste,municipal eolldwasto)
Fadidy will scceig Wage 5 day.par week.9 bouh pt on,50 2285 maryr of extends
Loads are dumped on tipping flmr from Isucks(packers,self dumping bucks),
The dumped load is inspected and tranaerred into impact a lower level
SO,seed tan m metria M dumped(or handed}TWIG and may of sing.ba MndMd(use dozer pvshing)
Madrid that the entire lipping and leading area is cormsoad by water rings,but con¢arvelvely assume 50%removal(sae one.)
Spend CSD wage is expected to be draliar man MSW.to be chro uNdiss assume as of the waste is CBD.
The facIfty win bare one stack,operated any tend the fadmity Is hands0g Tsang.
Angeles to EPA AP-42,Sealers 13.2.3,Heavy Con stmhIOA Ops hlions(Table 132.31,Rseem mandad Emis.On Factors
Or Constmctlon Operations.under Communion Phase-Damalti00 and Debits Remora,Leading of DoeM Cid-Ede m
tkdmVQof Debris OBsm.IMS Teale rsCanRigMe the vas of emssien fodw NOm Section 13.2.4)
Section 13.24 is called Aggreg¢te Handling and Storage Pund,which induct..mstood[unloading frm tacks onto
qHs and W"M Of tropes for SOPa aanskr to process
E n k(0 0032)(U/5)"130(MQ)^1.4-Equation(1)13.23.4
Whom:
E=amMlMn yens{WAar(
k=Mean gig meepsar(dimanabnbn);035 for PM-10(pantiles less rtes 10 microns in tllameer),ane 0.053 Or vM-25
U-mean wind speed(mneme
M m materMl ma W wa wMeM(%}
E=0.35(0.01132)N/5)^T31(M¢)^tA(for PAAIM
Aacnteng to EPA he emblem factor is valtd over a sal(%Of padWes fess than 75 microns dial einem moon of0.441g%,and
W mOislure content range of 025 4.8%.
Thu equation vela protluda MgnsromMdOnswkh Wwg mobtum OOntag.The ioweg end alive range+s 6.25%,mdigatwe MsmedOne
used In iron and steel,anrydry product, TO be conserwkes,assume all of the 500 first of CBD waste is vary dry limestone-this
is 0learly very conservaiw since much of the debris win be whole mgenels suchaa lumber,intan drywall,p hAd brick,wnemta,
eta.OMp iha ms dust from email baabna Of the time weight Ol whoa morias(sargl dug,tl 41 dust from
edges a broken wall board,gat)weuM be in the form of Sia-4 is expected that silt be me it is at the bw end of the abdw range.
Yw4M Wo 8MWeding OCM airport;ithe wihed Mairnro,by theGesell try nes,mom nn system,eeAdenbeckups d
Into e u Ind speed'aced at th by cofththe volume of air flows,by the lace area ones,room normal10Ise a#mausl pickups.
A plenum will be located at Ina back of the C8D Iippin8 area picking up 15,000 Oft,dulled to tan and ne geek
Building Dimensions: 90'wide x100'long x 35'high
Asstnna as otayseNme Mdhwn across Sol area be oppap goof ant oeram ata beige Of2P
(15,0W AAYmiry x(1/g8xIiM SF= 7.65 Almin
7.55 Armin x ED minmr x l meet5280 It 0OR mph
The low and Mthe range Of wind speed for emission factor equation Mage is 1.3 mph-use In le as a dgaui glad to account
W dry they canerps caused by sustained ea mowmeni
E-0.35 is 0.0032 x(I Y5)^1.31((025*01 A)o 0.W30 Won
O.00M Won x 500 toMdry x Ina hriday x 2 drops= 0.15 Ruhr (24 hr av uncoromlle PM-I0
(add controls author IW Ow)
For PM-2.5,f.k multesris 0.053 Ngead of 0.35,apply to.%MOM rate'.0.053+035x0.22= 0.023 Wmfuncontmaed
para,commaµ¢Mug of maedat tar kgdamghWl,um oulmozmg patern
exceeding to EPA AP-42,Sedge 13.23,Heavy Consthnlon Operations(fable 13 2.31,Rawmmantlad Emission Factors
our Con%nttetl Operational,under CIXMhubMM1 Phase-Sge Phpahtton-sumM V
this Table recommend$the use of emission factor from Edition 11.9)
Sepion i t9 is Gael Ydastem Sual Cod Al".aim gneaesM e-o dwmadsn tits)
E e 10 x 01,S/lil-Table 11.91 PM-15
Whole:
E=emasro sotw Qbtht)
s c mgenal6M e0M¢M(%)
M n material meMlure GMenl(%i
multiplier for PM-10 is 0,75 oncoming to Table 119-1
ACcamNg to EPA,WB emission bot M vaso der a sg Ft of padkb5less Neo T$momma dug con18M ripe Of 3.315.1%.and
a moisture esteem range Of 2218.5%.
ThM""We will prosuG higher amiselOmwah Want monis confact rho lowest ted aihe range Is22%
To bemnserwliva,Wssume all came 500 first Of=waste Mat 2.2%mrrture(Nis is tightness soon,but lowest end ofrange fortbis as)
This Is will conservatir,eine much of the debfis will be whale mgm.1s awh e.lumbar,Intact dryvall,p mfiod brkk,concrele,
go,Only the residual due from small fradiom of the total Wright of whole material{sending then,drywas dust tram
edges of MOW wa0 beers,ing waited be in me tam of silt-A is expected the of Gnbg is 0 the taw end Of me MbOw huge.
Use a commdrativer s@ content a/3.8%(hgher then the CIA%low end of ranee for the drop equation Winds)
E=1.0 z{3 II S I((2.W1.4)= 248 NfT PM-15
2A6 In,x O]5= 1.84 We PM-10
PM25 is 10.516 of0a PM-30 Gkaa d permit dram.Wwo.b9Mw
E e 5]x p.e)"1.2/((22`1.3)a 10.15 Men PM-M
10.151Whrx0.105= 107 Inner PM-2.5
Assume the entire 500 Md M pushed conlinoudy for 3 houml9 hour BMA.For exempla,W501Mswere on the nota any given
time,it would be pushed arum Mr(501/500)x 180 min= tee minutes per bad a material an floor
1,84 eftr x 3 hrlday x lR4 bdday= 0.231omr 24-hravg PM-10 uncontrolled
1,071 Off x 3 brlday x IQ4 hr/day= 0.133 On, 24-111 a, PMd.5 uncermlkd
PerhoomM QTR PajOd No:good P89a 2o y
Checked:Axi Data 11 19120
Taal umx m xjIud PM-t0emla I...from dumping,loads&Pue"go(handMM dwa9m
PM-00 PM-21
2 dumping adlona 0.15 0,02 Iblhr
3 noun,pushing 023013 Man,
Told 0380.18 @AK
Appf,walerauppression-nominal 50%removal. Based an 0 range M]Bta 09%conlml bywelerspray mine
I.canmadaMl a99mgata protea l talunlad none and pW mband monarda}tar ctudd g,Snead eg mor traneta Pains.
Since Ne overhead spray is not es eRedive coverage a5 S tloae m spray for a process,reduce this to a nominal 5D%
Commgad..4shoss nobhumm eamwa w amyys}
2dgmps 0.151bfir x05 0.01
3MwepuaM1hg 02@ea x05 0.12
Total 0.38 ibfir x0.5 0.19 MMr (24-hu evg)
0.191Whr x 24 hOday x S dayMk x 51 dayly0200D Ibnon= 0.58 tow PWO
2 dump' 0.02 oaitr x05 0.01
3 hours pushing 0.131Whr x0.5 0.07
Total 0.16 MOM x0.5 0.0 horn, (24-hr avg)
0o8 Mw x 24 Mtdy x S daytwk x 51 dayNTFAW Won= 024 now Fd,2.5
Oeicdeu PWiWPM-2d EmkBMm from W 101."truck emlost--loull
EPA Mobile6-PM40em1ssion-Meavy Duty Diesel Vehicles 0.372 graMVMi for Slaw speed.2,5 mph
0314ymlbr PM-2d
Aswmt 4 venicba d a time IOdoore
4 x 0.372 ymi x 2.5 Mair x t 1W4549= 0008 IWor 0huday
0,003 MMr (24Mavg} Ptd-10
0.00201Whr (24hrmg) PM-25
Add idling 8Ma Indoom-assume 3 minutes Idbng per track,and 1 loader MMg 5 mameamr
Mobile 6-PM-10 emiealons-Heavy Only Diesel Vehicles,1.25 gremOr for Idling,1.15 ON,PM-2,5
((115vehldaVdayx3miNOminx1dyr24hq+(1x5minl80Min)x1.25Whrv11W454gv O.00M)IWhf PM-10
0.0008 Mrm PM-2.5
Add to above 000380.0009+0.19 NMr= 0.191EMr PM10
0.024 ysec Input to diSpereion modeling
PM-2.5 0.0D28+00008+0.08�'lw= Cut Esta PrMi
0.0102 ysec,
Slack PaMm
Assume 90%capture of PM-10 embsane that occur Indoor'and 64 the stack the other 10%MIS thm open door
Check air now fMu doom when open to bee d neg00ys pressure:
Each door ie 15 wide x 2a'high
AvauMe pat awfagathatttl�ae open 818lima dote fast openkg sats doamgtlwmwill pe UwtlaMpbEed moat otihatime,tolat Ppen area 1615x28= 4295E
From above,theta are 15000 ACFM venting form the C&D area air coming In lhm the doors
t5,00(Y428= 38 to.
Teo mould be enough IdbAhng 2Vvtyddyto capture more Man Myo climb PM-10 emissions orginufing maps the bulltang
Resuming l0%pfemWlans Sam door-0024ywcx 0lo 0.0024 ysec PN410 0A0f0 We PM-26
The stack win ba 45'Show floor won vmtiwl exhaust,51 fps-2.511 diameter
Emission raft Ran snot
90%of emissions:0.024 ysec x 0.9= 0.022 y6 PM-10 0,0092 ys PM-2.5
SACT Analyst.
Evduda the son mese d8 Fabtic File W PM commit
TOTAL CAPITAL COST(TCC) 3130.583 factored ham equal cons of fabric Cher at TBI,North Andover
Chad Operating Costs
1)operating labor(1 hrlday,32011hr.250 deylyr) $5,000
2)supo" wfy ad",051,d opening law 3750
3)murtenFllce labor(coma a5 Operating laboq $5.000
4)Maintenance materiels(fame as maintenance taboo 55,000
5)under"{15.000 San,aswms T vic for duchvwk,baonth w,
70%efl.,50.1611i 2295 hrlyr) 35,179
6)compressed a0(2 adml1o00 ad x 10,000 ache x$0.25/1000 W x
w a*ymrx22Ww" $5,033
2)mpiacemom alter bags(76 x$50 each.replace Mcolyr) $3750
Total Owed Operating Coats $25,711
Indirect Operating Cosh
9)Overfeed(M W a.r 14) $9.450
10)Adminstlation(2%of TCC) $2,612
11)Property Tax(1%of TCC) S1.3o8
12)-5% "V%d TCC) 311338
13)Cadel Recovery(10A 176 x TCC,10%Iutema1,20 Ym) $35.23.
Tape inured Opera40g Coals $30,017
TOW]Annualluced Cost 55,]28
Ple hanavtd-1.944 toy(0.68 x 2 x 0.9) 1094 tit andfinp'Yste-ii fsut 9481
Cost Efledivanesa(Short 353.379
ID4 amom than ten times higher Men DEPS con effectiveness range for PM
Nal cad affectivethus not BACT
Mr. Bill Thomson
Northside Carting
November 18, 2009
ATTACHMENT B
AERMOD Air Quality Modeling
Mr. Bill Thomson
Northside Carting
November 18, 2009
Air quality dispersion modeling was used to predict the ambient impacts of
particulate matter from operations at the proposed transfer station in Salem, MA,
The latest version of the EPA approved air quality model, AERMOD model (09292),
was used for this analysis. The AERMOD model is a steady state plume model
using Gaussian distributions that calculates concentrations at each receptor for every
hour in the year. The model is designed for rural or urban applications and can be
used with a rectangular or polar system of receptors that are allowed to vary with
terrain.
AERMOD was run with the regulatory default options with five years of
meteorological data (2004-2008) of hourly surface observations from Boston's
Logan International Airport in conjunction with twice daily upper air soundings
from Gray, ME. The meteorological data was processed with the AERMET processor,
using AERSURFACE to characterize the surface characteristics around the airport for
input to AERMET.
The area within 3 km of the transfer station was determined to be rural for
dispersion characteristics based on the Auer land use typing scheme. Therefore rural
dispersion coefficients were used in the AERMOD modeling.
The PM10 and PM2.5 emissions from the building operations were modeled. We
have assumed that 10% of the PM emissions are released thru an open truck door at
the north side of the building, and that 90% are vented thru a new stack adjacent to
the south side of the building, 2.5 feet diameter, 45 feet high above the tipping floor
base at a flow rate of 15,000 actual cubic feet per minute (ACFM). The building is
98' x 100' with a height of 35'. The stack emissions are assumed to be at ambient
temperature. The stack will be influenced by aerodynamic downwash caused by
the building. The BPIP-Prime model was run to characterize the building
parameters for input into AERMOD. The emission vented through the garage door
was modeled as a volume source release. The dimensions of the garage door are
15'00'. Figure 1 shows the facility layout as modeled in AERMOD. The building,
sources, and fence line receptors are shown. The source parameters and emission
rates are summarized in Table 1.
Att 8.1
Mr. Bill Thomson
Northside Carting
November 18, 2009
! Table 1 AERMOD Modeled Source Parameters _
Point Source Base Release Stack Stack Exit Stack
Elevation Height Diameter Velocity Temperature
Stack 108 ft 45 ft2.5 ft 50.9 fps Ambient
(32.92 m) (13.7 m) (0.76 m) (15.5 m/s)
Initial Vertical Initial Lateral
Volume Source Base Release Dispersion Dispersion
Elevation Height Parameter Parameter
Open Door Fugitive 108 ft 7.5 ft 6.99 ft 4.93 ft
(32.92 m) (2.29 m) (2.13m) 0.50 m)
Source PM10 PM2.5
Emission Rate ( s) Emission Rate ( s)
Stack 0.022 g1s 0.0092 s
Open Door Fugitive 0.0024 g1s 0.001 S
The AERMOD modeling included 1108 receptors. Receptors were located along the
facility fence line at 10 m spacing, as well as an extended grid parallel to the fence
line at 25 meter intervals out to 100 meters. in addition, a nested Cartesian grid
extending out to 2 kilometers in each direction was used. The receptor spacing in
the grid was 100 m out to 1 km, and 200 m out to 2 km. The terrain elevation for
each receptor was obtained electronically for the USGS National Elevation Data
(NED). The AERMAP terrain processor was used. Elevations for the fence line
receptors were entered by hand based on contour data in the immediate vicinity of
the project. The AERMOD receptors are presented in Figures 2 and 3.
The predicted air quality levels of the PM10 and PM2.5 impacts due to the
operations at the transfer building were assessed through the modeling analysis.
The AERMOD modeled impacts are added to the measured background from the
Kenmore Square monitoring station for PM10, and the Lynn monitor for PM2.5,
then compared to the NAAQS. Table 2 summarizes the AERMOD predicted
particulate impacts from the stationary sources combined with the maximum mobile
source impacts modeled with CAL3QHCR. Note that the maximum from each
model are conservatively added together, and they are not matched in time or
space. Table 3 summarizes the same impacts at the nearest residential receptor.
Att M
i
Mr. Bill Thomson
Northside Carting
November 18, 2009
The total combined impacts of particulate matter are less than the National Ambient
Air Quality Standards for both PM10 and PM2.5.
Table 2 Comparison of Maximum Modeled Concentrations with NAAQS
Standards—All Receptors
Stationary Mobile plus
Source Stationary Monitored NAAQS
AERMOD Source Background Cumulative Standards
Averaging Concentration Concentration Concentration Impacts (µgJm')
Pollutant Period' ( m') ( m') ( m') ( m,)
PM10 24-Hour 11.07 11.79 58 69.79 150
Annual 2.32 2.5 29 31.5 50
PM2.5 24-Hour 3.49 3.81 26 29.81 35
Annual 0.97 1.06 9177756 15
Table 3 Comparison of Maximum Modeled Concentrations with NAAQS
Standards— Nearest Residential Receptor
Stationary Mobile plus
Source Stationary Monitored NAAQS
AERMOD Source Background Cumulative Standards
Averaging Concentration Concentration Concentration Impacts (1191m)
Pollutant Period' ( M3) WWI ( m,) m')
PM10 24-Hour 0.56 0.65 58 58.65 150
Annual 0.11 0.12 29 29.12 50
PM2.5 24-Hour 0.20 0.23 26 26.23 35
Annual 0.05 0.06 9 9.06 15
Aft B-3
� y
R F my^ .F@` �, 1 .•A a`c x ,tiir.F� �1 rt�' �
.� ya,,.� �.✓'.. `yks *"�ti .Pkv 4 - = +k a Y "m�-} �. `� #. - ,
yY P
u xy.� -_m'd � ,'fin �".' � +b� \•)r x .L
SO
x§,
x4`G. "� } $+^ kt-"G'F FX .�a'r,. Sb•Ga.�S R+
� k' <;� ` ° • . fir'"'c- `i>� .a 'p#'�ya. "�'�'.�`�� ,-,.�� �"'€�",�,ms"�""�� 1 ��I�,t' a
Jhi
AlM
b1..--r' ' .� •moi� � �M A w
x :;t •.m r
. 1 11 1 ill i 1 •11
I / 1
11'
PROJECT TITLE:
Figure 2. TBI Transfer Station
Salem,Massachusetts
0
0
0 -
0 -
Os-
0 -
0 :
0
0
0 -
0
NSM2
0
I T77TT , T]�i ,7TTI�iFTT
339500 340000 340500 341000 341500 342000 342500 343000 343500 344000 344500
COMMENTS: SOURCES! COMPANY NAME:
AERMOD Receptor Grid 2 Epsilon Associates, Inc.
RECEPTORS:
1108
1:35.078 NOW flon
Mae
SCALE: 110Fps!
0 1 km
DATE PROJECT NO,:
11118/2009 2268
AERMOD Vrow Lakes Environmental Software C:1Pmjects%TBISalemlaetmDcAPMlftmIO05.iac
PROJECT TITLE:
Figure 3. TBI Transfer Station
Salem,Massachusetts
g ,
M�
0
0
n
0
n
v
0
v
8
+ T �
o BLb- r'1
v 11
-"
23 1 LBN1
6 54 .
;ry
w
0
0
r
v
0
n
0
c
i
r-r rT-m-rn-7-F-FT-r-r-r�-r7_rr-7-r rr-F-TrT-F=
341500 341600 341700 341800 341900 342000 342100
COMMENTS: SOURCES: COMPANY NAME:
AERMOD Receptor Grid 2 Epsilon Associates,Inc.
Site Zoom _
RECEPTORS:
1108
SCALE: 7:4.682 v"
psilon
1 %f5
14c,
0: .,a.,...d0.1 km
DATE: u PROJECT NO.:
11/18/2009 2268
AERMOD Mew-Lakes Endronmentel Software C:tPrgects%TBISalemlaermom M101pm100B.iso
ADORNO & YOSS
✓ A LIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP
1 55 FEDERAL STREET
SUITE 1202
BOSTON, MA 02 1 1 0-1 727
GENERAL PHONE: (61 7) 449-6030
FAx; (617) 292-1869
WWW.ADORNO.COM
KENNM F.WHDTAKER EMAIL: KMAKER@ADORNO.COM
nFr, — November 24, 2009
. 12009
ren
r -.:; LTH
VIA EMAIL AND REGULAR MAIL
Carl D. Goodman, Esq.
Goodman Law Offices
152 Lynnway—Suite 1 E
Lynn, Massachusetts 01902
RE: Salem Transfer Station/ Salem Board of Health Public Hearing
Dear Attorney Goodman;
I am in receipt of your letter of November 10;2009 and associated documents by
which you petition to Intervene and Register as an Abutter, on behalf of Mr. Alan
Samiljan, for purposes of a public hearing held by the City of Salem, MA Board of
Health (the `Board")with regard to a Minor Modification To Site Assignment for the
Swampscott Road Transfer Station. I trust you will recall that during the first session of
the public hearing that was held on Tuesday November 10, 2009 I, as Hearing Officer,
indicated that given the recent submission of your petition the Board did not have the
time to appropriately review that submission but was nonetheless, for purposes of
proceeding with the hearing only,prepared to temporarily afford your client the courtesy
of Intervenor status. Please be aware that this courtesy did not constitute and can not be
considered as a waiver by the Board or the City of Salem of any rights or privileges they
may have to dispute your clients claim to Abutter/Intervenor status at a later time.
I also note that during that hearing you requested that I, as Hearing Officer, rule
as to the appropriateness of proceeding with the hearing on the basis that the proposed
change to operations at the landfill constitutes a Minor Modification to Site Assignment.
As the Board is viewing this matter as a Minor Modification on the basis of several
considerations, including a determination by MassDEP that the proposed project does
constitute a Minor Modification, it is neither necessary nor appropriate for me to rule on
the matter.
CALIFORNIA FLORIDA GEORGIA ILLINOIS MASSACHUSETTS MISSOURI NEW JERSEY NEW YORK TExAS WASHINGTON, D.C.
ATTORNEYS ADM=SOLELY IN TIE JUR1501CTO61 WHERE LISTED OFFICE 15 LOCATED,UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED
L__
November 24, 2009
Page 2
I am also in receipt of your letter of November I 1 in which you submitted a
Motion For Order As To Filing & Service and in which you request copies of projected
computer images used at the Public Hearings to be converted into print documents for
purposes of including them in the public record. I have requested the Applicant to make
such copies and to my knowledge they have been added to the public record at the Salem
Public Library and the offices of the Board of Health. You have also requested that all
plans and diagrams related to the matter be submitted as "full-sized" documents.
Notwithstanding the fact that you have failed to identify what would constitute such a full
sized document 1, as Hearing Officer, and for the purposes of the Public Hearing, do not
agree that such full-sized documents are essential for appropriate public review and
comment. Indeed, there may be some disadvantages to the mandated use of such
documents during the public hearing process. Consequently I will rely on the discretion
of those submitting documents with regard to the public hearing to decide for themselves
what the most appropriate sizing for maps, plans is and other documents.
Very Y trul yours
Kenneth F. Whittaker,Ph.D.
Partner
KFW/ks
Cc: Dr. Barbara Poremba— Salem Board of health
Elizabeth Rennard, Esq. —City of Salem
CALIFORNIA FLORIDA GEORGIA ILLINOIS MASSACHUSETTS MISSOURI NEW JERSEY NEW YORK TEXAS WASHINGTON, D.C.
ATTORNEYS ADM=SOLELY IN THE JURISDIC ON WHERE LISTED OFFICE IS LOCATED,UNLESS OT EE WISE NOTED