EA Guidlines Gas - Treatment - Jan - 2003

Guidance on Gas Treatment
Technologies for Landfill Gas Engines
Draft for Consultation: December 2002

Publishing Organisation
Environment Agency, Rio House, Waterside Drive, Aztec West, Almondsbury
BRISTOL, BS32 4UD
Tel: 01454 624400 Fax: 01454 624409

Website: www.environment-agency.gov.uk
© Environment Agency 2002
All rights reserved. No part of this document may be produced, stored in a retrieval system, or
transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or
otherwise without the prior permission of the Environment Agency.The Environment Agency does
not accept any liability whatsoever for any loss or damage arising from the interpretation or use of
the information, or reliance upon the views contained herein.
Dissemination Status
Internal: Consultation
External: Consultation
Statement of Use
This guidance is one of a series relating to the management of landfill gas emissions. It provides
guidance on determining the need for pre- and post-combustion gas cleanup for landfill gas
utilisation plant, identifies current options available for treatment of landfill gas and exhaust
emissions, and shows how cost benefit techniques should be used to assess whether and what
technologies should be employed on an objective basis. It should be read in conjunction with the
Environment Agency guidance for monitoring landfill gas engine emissions, and IPPC Horizontal
Guidance Note H1 on ‘Environmental Assessment and Appraisal of BAT’.
This document constitutes best practice guidance issued by the Environment Agency and is
primarily targeted at its regulatory officers who may use it during their regulatory and enforcement
activities. It may also be of use to operators, contractors, consultants and Local Authorities
concerned with landfill gas emissions.
Keywords
Landfill gas, gas utilisation, gas cleanup, gas emissions, reticulation, dry scrubbing, engine
management system
Contractor
The majority of this document was produced under R&D Project P1-330 by:
Land Quality Management Ltd, SChEME, University of Nottingham, University Park,
Nottingham, NG7 2RD. Subcontractors supporting Land Quality Management on this contract
were Berwick Manley Associates Ltd, Diesel Consult, and Landfills+ Inc.
Environment Agency Project Board

The Environment Agency’s Project Board for R&D Project P1-330 was comprised of:
Chris Deed (Project Manager) North West
Jan Gronow Head Office
Richard Smith Head Office, Centre for Risk & Forecasting
Alan Rosevear Thames
Peter Braithwaite Head Office
Peter Stanley Wales
GUIDANCE ON GAS TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR LANDFILL GAS ENGINES
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The bulk of emissions from modern landfills are through the gas management system and landfill
surface. The gas management system may include enclosed flares and/or utilisation plant, which
destroy a significant proportion of the methane and volatile organic compounds within landfill gas,
but can produce additional combustion products. The quality of engine emissions is dependent on
the landfill gas supply, design of the generating set and the engine management system.
This guidance document sets out the technical background for methods of gas cleanup and a
consistent approach for the cost benefit analysis to determine the level of cleanup required. All
decisions should be transparent and made to demonstrate to the Agency that the technology
chosen represents best practice. A number of case studies have been considered that are reported
elsewhere.
This guidance sets out an assessment procedure that follows a cost-benefit appraisal approach to deciding whether
gas cleanup is necessary or practicable. The assessment procedure has the following steps:
1. define the objective of the assessment and the options for pollution control;
2. quantify the emissions from each option;
3. quantify the environmental impacts of each option;
4. compare options to identify the one with the lowest environmental impact;
5. evaluate the costs to implement each option; and
6. identify the option which represents the optimum choice or best available technique.
If these steps are followed, the decision procedure for selecting or rejecting a particular cleanup technology
is transparent and an audit trail is apparent.
Gas cleanup is a multi-stage operation that can help reduce environmental emissions and reduce engine
maintenance costs. Gas cleanup involves both financial and environmental costs for the operator. This
involves improving gas supply to conform with engine manufacturers requirements and achieve emission
standards.
Pre-treatment processes fall into two groups:
• primary pre-treatment processes aimed at dewatering and particulate removal, and common to
all landfills with gas collection and combustion facilities; and
• secondary pre-treatment processes aimed at removing a percentage of specific components of
the supply gas e.g. halogens, sulphur or siloxane compounds.
Combustion treatment technologies are available for:

• in-engine technology for treating the effects of siloxanes and for NOx reduction; and
• post-combustion processes to reduce CO, unburnt hydrocarbons, HCl and HF emissions.
Changes in air quality regulation and tightening of emissions from all processes mean that landfill
operators will need to consider gas cleanup technologies in their PPC permit application.
ENVIRONMENT AGENCY i Draft for Consultation: December 2002

ENVIRONMENT AGENCY ii Draft for Consultation: December 2002

CONTENTS
Executive Summary
List of Abbreviations
1. INTRODUCTION..................................................................................................... 1
1.1 Target Audience ......................................................................................................... 1
1.2 Structure of the Guidance ............................................................................................ 1
1.3 Relationship with other Guidance Documents ................................................................ 3
1.4 Technical Background................................................................................................. 3
1.5 Policy Background...................................................................................................... 6
1.5.1 Renewable energy drivers................................................................................. 6
1.5.2 Regulatory drivers ........................................................................................... 6
2. SUPPLY GAS QUALITY, EMISSIONS STANDARDS AND OPERATIONAL
REQUIREMENTS .................................................................................................... 9
2.1 Introduction................................................................................................................ 9
2.2 Engine Manufacturers’ Specifications ........................................................................... 9
2.2.1 Calorific value ................................................................................................ 9
2.2.2 Sulphur gases .................................................................................................10
2.2.3 Halogenated compounds..................................................................................10
2.2.4 Ammonia........................................................................................................11
2.2.5 Silicon compounds and Siloxanes ....................................................................11
2.2.6 Dust...............................................................................................................15
2.2.7 Lubricating oil ...............................................................................................15
2.3 Destruction Efficiencies of Gas Engines .......................................................................16
2.4 Engine Emissions and their Significance .......................................................................17
2.5 Crankcase Emissions..................................................................................................19
3. THE DECISION PROCESS FOR ASSESSING THE USE OF CLEANUP
TECHNOLOGIES ...................................................................................................21
3.1 Approaches to Cleanup...............................................................................................21
3.2 Potential for Substitute Natural Gas as a Fuel for Landfill Gas Engines ...........................23
3.3 The Framework for Gas Cleanup Assessment ..............................................................24
3.4 Collating Basic Information for the Cost Appraisal ........................................................25
3.5 How to Perform a Cost Benefit Assessment for Gas Cleanup ........................................28
3.5.1 Step 1. Define the objective of the assessment and the options to be considered ..31
3.5.2 Step 2. Quantify the emissions from each treatment option ................................31
3.5.3 Step 3. Quantify the environmental impacts resulting from the emissions ...........33
3.5.4 Step 4. Compare options and rank in order of best environmental performance ..33
3.5.5 Step 5. Evaluate the costs to implement each option ..........................................36
3.5.6 Step 6. Identify the option which represents the cost-effective technique .............37
4. PRIMARY PRETREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES ...................................................41
4.1 Introduction...............................................................................................................41
4.2 Water/condensate Knockout .......................................................................................41
4.3 Liquid Water Capture.................................................................................................41
4.4 Foam Removal ..........................................................................................................42
4.5 Vapour Reduction ......................................................................................................43
4.6 Contaminated Water Management...............................................................................45
4.7 Particulate Filtration ...................................................................................................46
4.8 Dealing with Wastes from Primary Cleanup Processes ..................................................46
5. SECONDARY PRETREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES..............................................47
5.1 Introduction...............................................................................................................47
ENVIRONMENT AGENCY iii Draft for Consultation: December 2002

5.2 Hydrogen Sulphide Pre-treatment................................................................................47

5.2.1 Hydrogen sulphide dry scrubbing ....................................................................47
5.2.2 Hydrogen sulphide wet scrubbing ....................................................................48
5.3 Pre-treatment of Halogenated Organic Species..............................................................49
5.3.1 Membrane separation techniques.....................................................................49
5.3.2 Pressure swing processes ................................................................................51
5.3.3 Liquid absorption/solvent scrubbing processes .................................................54
5.3.4 Water scrubbing processes ..............................................................................57
5.3.5 Cryogenic processes .......................................................................................58
5.4 Siloxane Pre-treatment ...............................................................................................60
5.5 Developmental Technologies.......................................................................................62
5.5.1 Hydrogen Sulphide scrubbing..........................................................................62
5.5.2 Halogenated organic scrubbing .......................................................................62
5.5.3 Humid Absorption Processes ...........................................................................62
5.6 Dealing with Wastes from Secondary Cleanup Processes...............................................62
5.6.1 Contaminated carbon dioxide off-gas...............................................................62
5.6.2 Contaminated aqueous condensates .................................................................63
5.6.3 Contaminated solids .......................................................................................63
6. ENGINE MANAGEMENT, IN-ENGINE AND EXHAUST GAS TREATMENT
PROCESSES............................................................................................................65
6.1 Introduction...............................................................................................................65
6.2 Gas Engines and their Operation..................................................................................65
6.3 Engine Management Systems and NOx........................................................................66
6.4 In-engine Treatments .................................................................................................67
6.4.1 Water injection to reduce NOx.........................................................................67
6.4.2 Oxygen enrichment .........................................................................................67
6.4.3 Exhaust gas re-circulation...............................................................................67
6.4.4 Chemical injection..........................................................................................68
6.5 Exhaust After-treatments ............................................................................................69
6.5.1 Post combustion thermal oxidation of CO ........................................................69
6.5.2 Post combustion catalytic oxidation of NOx .....................................................69
6.5.3 Halide scrubbing ............................................................................................70
7. CONCLUSIONS......................................................................................................71
REFERENCES ..................................................................................................................73
GLOSSARY......................................................................................................................77
ENVIRONMENT AGENCY iv Draft for Consultation: December 2002

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
ADA anthroquinone disulphonic acid

BAT best available technology
BOD biochemical oxygen demand
C&D construction and demolition
CBA cost benefit analysis
CFC chlorofluorocarbon
CFC-11 trichlorofluoromethane
CFC-12 dichlorodifluoromethane
CH4 methane
CHP combined heat and power
CLAIR™ clean air
CO carbon monoxide
CO2 carbon dioxide
COD chemical oxygen demand
CV calorific value
DCF discounted cash flow analysis
DEA diethanolamine
EAL Environmental Assessment Level
EMS engine management system
H2S hydrogen sulphide
HCl hydrogen chloride /hydrochloric acid (when damp)
HF hydrogen fluoride /hydrofluoric acid (when damp)
HMIP Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Pollution
IPPC integrated pollution prevention (and) control
LEL lower explosive limit
LLD lower limit of detection (also as LDL, LOD)
MDEA methyldiethanolamine
MEA monoethanolamine
NMVOC non-methane volatile organic compound
NFFO Non-fossil fuel obligation
NOx nitrogen oxides
PCDD polychlorinateddibenzodioxin (dioxins)
PCDF polychlorinateddibenzofuran (furans)
PPC pollution prevention (and) control
ppm parts per million (usually by volume – ppm v/v)
RO Renewables obligation
ENVIRONMENT AGENCY v Draft for Consultation: December 2002

RPI retail price index

SCR selective catalytic reduction
Selexol™ dimethyl ether polyethylene glycol
SNG synthetic (or substitute) natural gas
SOx sulphur oxides
TBN total base number (oil)
TCE trichloroethylene
TDS total dissolved solids
TRS total reduced sulphur
TEG triethylene glycol
TLV threshold limit value
TRS total reduced sulphur
UEL upper explosive limit
VOC volatile organic compound(s)
v/v by volume (i.e. volume for volume)
WDG waste derived gas
w/w by weight (i.e. weight for weight)
ENVIRONMENT AGENCY vi Draft for Consultation: December 2002

1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 Target Audience

The guidance document is aimed primarily at Environment Agency (the Agency) staff tasked with
the regulation of landfill gas emissions from utilisation plant. The guidance document should only
be applied if emissions exceed the current emission threshold values for individual components of
the exhaust gases, or if emissions could pose a risk to an identified receptor following a site-
specific risk assessment (Chapter 2 and Environment Agency, 2002a). The guidance document
should be used to evaluate whether, on cost versus environmental benefit grounds, the secondary
cleanup of landfill gas is:
• necessary; and
• practicable.
This guidance is also intended to be used by the waste management industry, utilisation plant
operators, and other interested parties to inform and help assess the merits, costs and benefits of
gas cleanup to minimise emissions (and/or achieve emission standards), and to maximise engine
component life. The staged assessment process should be used by operators if required by Agency
officers to do so.
1.2 Structure of the Guidance

This guidance is accessible at various levels, but is intended to be used in the manner shown in
Figure 1.1. In order to understand the setting in which the assessment process is carried out, some
background information may be required. This is provided in Section 1.4 (Technical Background),
Section 1.5 (Policy Background), and Chapter 2 which describes how the supply gas quality may
affect emissions, and how manufacturers specify gas supply standards to help maintain the gas
engine in good operational condition between service intervals; standards which may serve as a
surrogate indicator of potential problems.
If it is considered that gas treatment may be required, the approach is outlined in Chapter 3. This
approach relies heavily on other Agency guidance, in particular Horizontal Guidance Note H1
(Environment Agency, 2002d). Figure 1.1 shows which particular sections of Chapter 3 and the
supporting chapters are relevant to each stage of the decision making process.
Chapters 4 – 6 document the technologies which are currently considered to be applicable to

landfill gas engines. Chapter 4 covers primary pre-treatment. These technologies are generally in
common use. If additional gas treatment is indicated at a particular site, the technologies in this
Chapter should be considered first, since they are the most straightforward to apply. Chapter 5
covers secondary pre-treatment technologies, which are generally more complex and costly.
Chapter 6 covers in-engine and post-combustion treatment technologies, which, unlike secondary
pre-treatment technologies, tend to be cheaper than primary pre-treatment technologies. There is
an element of “end-of-pipe” emissions management about some of these technologies which does
not address the issue of managing the emission at the point of origin.
ENVIRONMENT AGENCY 1 Draft for Consultation: December 2002

Chapter 1.4 Do I need to know Chapter 1.5

Technical background to about the technical or Policy background
gas utilisation policy background to to gas utilisation
Yes gas utilisation? Yes
No
Do I need to
Chapter 2 know about the supply
Supply Gas Quality, gas quality or primary
Emission Standards and pretreatments, engine operation or
Operational emission standards before evaluating
Yes
Requirements Chapter cleanup
4 options?
Primary pretreatment
technologies
No
Define the objective of the assessment Chapter 3.5

Chapter 5
Secondary Pretreatment
Technologies
Chapter 6
Quantify the emissions from each
Engine Management, In-
treatment option available
Engine and Exhaust Gas
Treatment
Chapter 3.5
How to perform a CBA Quantify the environmental impacts
H1 Guidance
Chapter 3.5
Compare options and rank in order of
How to perform a CBA
best environmental performance
H1 Guidance
Chapter 3.4
Collating basic
Evaluate the costs to implement each information for the cost
option appraisal
H1 Guidance
Chapter 3.5
How to perform a CBA Identify the option (if any) which
H1 Guidance represents the cost-effective technique
Figure 1.1 How to use this guidance in an assessment of cost-effective techniques

1.3 Relationship with other Guidance Documents

This is one of a series of linked documents which support the overarching document Guidance on
the Management of Landfill Gas (Environmnet Agency, 2002c). The full series comprises:
• Guidance for monitoring trace components in landfill gas;

• Guidance on landfill gas flaring;
• Guidance for monitoring enclosed landfill gas flares;
• Guidance for monitoring landfill gas engine emissions;
• Guidance for monitoring landfill gas surface emissions; and
• Guidance on gas treatment technologies for landfill gas engines.
This document addresses the availability and cost of technologies for:
• pre-combustion landfill gas supply cleanup;
• gas cleanup using in-combustion and engine management system techniques; and
• post-combustion exhaust gas cleanup.
It sets out the formal decision making processes to proceed with when deciding whether gas
cleanup technologies in any form, including the use of engine management systems is a cost
effective solution to managing combustion emissions.
This document will not necessarily provide definitive answers to gas management issues. Gas
cleanup needs to be assessed on a cost versus environmental and engine maintenance benefit basis
and is therefore a site-specific matter. The guidance seeks to inform the user of the available
technologies and their application to landfill gas treatment. Due to the low take up of these
technologies and the poor demonstrable revenue performance of early cleanup methods, estimates
of capital and operating costs for gas engines are poor. It has been possible to estimate capital
costs for some technologies, and also calculate the cost per tonne of the pollutant abated, or the
approximate cost of running such a cleanup plant for a year on a 1MWe gas engine. As more
technologies become routinely available, cost benefit analysis (CBA) should be used to determine
the best solution for a particular problem.
Cleanup costs should be obtained on a site specific basis for a number of suitable technologies and
a CBA performed as described in Chapter 3 below and in more detail in the Agency’s Horizontal
Guidance Note H1, “Environmental Impact and Assessment of BAT” (Environment Agency,
2002d). The CBA will give the costs versus the potential environmental and other benefits of
emissions management and reduction from using such technologies. When the cost per tonne of
pollutant abated (capital and operating costs considered) has been calculated, judgement can be
made on whether the process is cost-effective or not, based on the Agency’s interim
recommendations of cleanup cost thresholds.
1.4 Technical Background

The bulk of atmospheric emissions from modern landfills are through the gas management system
and landfill surface. The gas management system may include enclosed flares and/or utilisation
plant, which destroy a great proportion of the methane and volatile organic compounds within
landfill gas, but can produce additional combustion products.

The quality of the exhaust emissions is dependent on:
• the quality of the landfill gas supply;
• the design of the generating set (dual fuel engines will have different emissions signatures to
spark ignition engines); and
• the manner in which the engine management system is set up to manage and control the gas.
The Agency and industry research (Environment Agency, 2002e; Gillett et al, 2002) has provided
information on both the emissions from gas utilisation plant and the effect of cleanup technologies
on landfill gas prior to combustion or in-engine/post-combustion treatments. Gas cleanup has been
historically minimal in the UK. In the US and EU, and more recently in the UK, it has been used
successfully to produce synthetic natural gas (SNG) to good effect. This guidance relies on much
work that has been done internationally, though not necessarily for the purposes of emissions
reduction or maintenance of landfill gas engines.
In the context of this guidance, utilisation is power generation from landfill gas, although many
cleanup technologies are more often used in similar biogas-fuelled projects or for reticulation
(SNG) projects.
Gas cleanup can be justified through:
• the risk assessment of emissions, with the purpose of managing environmental impact, and
which needs to be considered as part of the PPC application; and
• the potential reduction of gas engine downtime, balancing the cost of implementation of
cleanup technologies against savings in lost revenue during downtime, and the additional
maintenance costs when engines fail due to contaminants in the gas supply.
Both objectives can be achieved with the right choice of cleanup technology if the choice of gas
cleanup technology is made on cost versus environmental/maintenance benefit grounds.
Simple practices may reduce the need or the extent of gas cleanup required. For example, the
location of the engine(s) should be carefully considered and the exhaust outlet design should be
vertically oriented to encourage dissipation and prevent early grounding of exhaust plumes.
Combustion destroys typically more than 99% of the volatile components in landfill gas. Pre-
combustion gas cleanup should normally only be considered for landfill gas if any of the following
types of contaminants are present in the gas above the gas engine manufacturer’s recommended
maximum concentration limits:
• hydrogen sulphide and other sulphur gases, because these lead to chemical corrosion of the
gas engine (and resultant emissions of acidic gases);
• halogenated organics, because these lead to chemical corrosion of the gas engine, and due to
their subsequent potential contribution to emissions of acid gases HCl and HF, and PCDDs/
PCDFs (dioxins and furans); and
• silicon compounds, because of the physical wear they cause to the gas engine.
In most cases, the decision to pretreat will be based on economic rather than environmental
factors, since seldom will the resulting emissions of SOx, HCl and HF exceed emission standards
(see Chapter 2 below). However some sites with atypical supply gas will justify gas cleanup on
environmental grounds.

In-engine cleanup should be considered if silicon compounds are present in the gas above the gas
engine manufacturer’s recommended maximum concentration limit. They should also be
considered for NOx emissions reduction, if NOx exceeds the Agency’s emission standards (see
Chapter 2).
Post-combustion exhaust gas cleanup should be considered if any of the following emissions
exceed the Agency’s emission standards or safe concentrations determined by risk assessment (see
Chapter 2):
• carbon monoxide;
• methane and non-methane VOCs;
• hydrogen chloride;
• hydrogen fluoride; and
• sulphur oxides.
Engine management systems and post combustion gas cleanup systems are the only effective
ways to manage oxides of nitrogen (NOx) and carbon monoxide (CO) emissions, because these
gases are actually formed during the combustion process.
Gas engine management and emissions reduction are closely linked. Practices which may be
employed for the purposes of engine efficiency may reduce (or increase) specific emissions, and
consideration of the following inter-relationships is important:
(1) technologies or approaches for improving gas engine performance and reducing
maintenance costs; and
(2) technologies or approaches simply for achieving emissions reduction.
Established practices which already have a role in gas cleanup, include:
• aftercooling and pre-chilling;
• cyclone separation and other dewatering technologies;
• particle filtration; and
• gas engine modifications and other engine management techniques (both in engine and after
combustion) for NOx, CO and particulate emissions.
Emerging and more specialist technologies include:
• wet or dry hydrogen sulphide scrubbing;
• activated charcoal/carbon/zeolites;
• liquid and/or oil absorption;
• cryogenic separation;
• solvent extraction;

• membrane separation for carbon dioxide, oxygen, and other gas scrubbing/ separation
techniques (which while predominantly used in the production of SNG may have application
for generating sets);
• thermal oxidation;
• catalytic conversion; and
• in-engine treatments.
Most of the more specialist techniques listed above have been used in combination on various
pilot/demonstration projects, but few have been applied regularly to landfill gas engines.
1.5 Policy Background
1.5.1 Renewable energy drivers
The key economic drivers for the continued increase in numbers of landfill gas utilisation schemes
in the past decade have been twofold:
• the Non Fossil Fuel Obligation (NFFO), which drove the increase in renewable electricity
generation capacity during the 1990s and continues to be significant due to the large number
of contracted projects still to be built; and
• the Renewables Obligation, which was introduced in April 2002, which will be a significant
economic stimulus to utilise any landfill gas resources not already contracted under the NFFO.
The utilisation of landfill gas increased dramatically during the 1990s as a result of the NFFO. As
of September 2001, 400 MW of the 700MW capacity awarded had been constructed.
There will be no further NFFO orders made, as the Renewable Obligation (RO) has superseded
the NFFO as the driver for new renewable energy in the UK. The RO places an obligation on
electricity suppliers to source a certain percentage of their output from renewable sources. The
obligation for 2002 is set at 3% of total sales of electricity rising to 4.3% in 2003, 4.9% in 2004,
increasing annually to 10.4% in 2010, and maintained at this level until 2027.
There is a shortfall in available power generated by renewable sources, and so this is a particularly
powerful economic incentive for landfill gas utilisation for electricity generation under the RO. The
potential for higher prices has lead to increased interest in smaller landfill gas projects or projects
which may be shorter lived and which would not have been economic under the NFFO system.
1.5.2 Regulatory drivers
The management of landfill gas at permitted or licensed landfills comes under two separate pieces
of European legislation:
• IPPC Directive; and
• Landfill Directive.
The Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control Directive (Council of the European Union, 1996)
requires that preventative measures are taken to manage the gas, through flaring and utilisation.
This has been implemented in England and Wales through the Pollution Prevention and Control
(England and Wales) Regulations 2000 and in Scotland through the Pollution Prevention and

Control (Scotland) Regulations 2000 SSI No 323 (the 2000 Regulations) under the PPC Act 1999.
A separate system will be introduced to apply to the PPC Directive in Northern Ireland.
Landfills in England and Wales have been regulated under the Waste Management Licensing
Regulations 1994. These Regulations still apply to landfills no longer accepting waste but which
continue to hold a waste management licence. All other landfills will be regulated under the
Landfill (England and Wales) Regulations (the 2002 Regulations) which implements the Landfill
Directive (council of the European Union, 1999).
Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control (IPPC) is a regulatory system that employs an
integrated approach to control the environmental impacts of certain industrial activities. One of the
main features of IPPC is the requirement to use Best Available Technology (BAT). Whether a
landfill gas utilisation plant is subject to BAT depends on the arrangement between the landfill site
operator and the gas utilisation company.
Operators utilising landfill gas will have landfill site licences or permits that include utilisation plant.
Utilisation under the Landfill Directive generally constitutes best practice. The application of
secondary gas cleanup will constitute best practice only if it is required to meet current emission or
air quality standards or to reduce the risk to specific receptors.
Utilisation companies operating on a “gas to flange” type agreement may have a PPC combustion
permit which will require BAT. The essence of BAT is that the selection of techniques to protect
the environment should achieve an appropriate balance between realising environmental benefits
and costs incurred.
These two conditions are subtly different. However, both should involve a comparable assessment
process, and one licensing arrangement should not result in a utilisation plant being required to
employ clean up technology whereas the other licensing arrangement would not require it.
It is clear that the drivers for renewable energy have to be acknowledged when considering
emissions limits and the need for gas cleanup to meet emissions limits. Many of the early NFFO
schemes had higher prices paid per unit of electricity sold but the capital costs were comparatively
much higher. None of the schemes commissioned to date have considered gas cleanup when
bidding for a utilisation contract. This guidance document should therefore be used to determine
not only whether a technology could be of benefit, but whether it is cost effective to implement.
Whether the cost-effectiveness constitutes BAT only applies in the case of utilisation plant with a
PPC permit provided under the 2000 Regulations.


2. SUPPLY GAS QUALIT Y, EMISSIONS STANDARDS AND

OPERATIONAL REQUIREMENTS
2.1 Introduction
The calorific value of landfill gas is predominantly determined by the methane/carbon dioxide
ratio. Landfill gas has been found to contain as many as 577 trace components, including
halogenated hydrocarbons, higher alkanes (≥ C2) and aromatic hydrocarbons (Environment
Agency, 2002f). Normally trace components constitute only about 1% by volume of landfill gas.
Most higher hydrocarbons will burn, although if their calorific value is less than methane, they will
lower the calorific value of the gas. Some of the aromatics (e.g. benzene) and chlorinated
hydrocarbons (e.g. chloroethene) give rise to health concerns, others are highly odorous (e.g.
terpenes, esters and thiols) and some can damage gas utilisation plant (e.g. organohalogens,
sulphur species and siloxanes).
Therefore, the overall trace component composition of landfill gas has important health and
environmental implications and impacts on the gas engine performance. The engine
manufacturers’ specifications represent a gas quality standard at which supply gas cleanup might
need to be considered. The Agency’s guidance on monitoring for landfill gas engines
(Environment Agency, 2002a) provides factors for consideration of exhaust gas treatment or in-
engine treatment (and in some cases, supply gas cleanup for some acid gas emissions).
2.2 Engine Manufacturers’ Specifications

When considering possible treatments for removal of trace components from landfill gas, it is
important to take into account the requirements placed on supply gas by the engine manufacturers.
Table 2.1 provides a comprehensive summary of current gas quality specifications from major
suppliers of lean burn engines now being used in the EU and US. This includes two US
manufacturers (Caterpillar and Waukesha), an Austrian manufacturer (Jenbacher), and a German
manufacturer (Deutz).
These produce a useful starting point for site-specific calculations regarding gas quality and to
assess the need for pre-combustion treatment. As engine manufacturers link these specifications
for gas quality to their warranty agreements, it is important that the inlet gas is periodically tested
using a method and schedule approved by the manufacturer. The original measurement units, as
provided by the manufacturer, have been converted to SI units. It should also be noted that these
specifications may vary with engine type and may be revised from time to time.
2.2.1 Calorific value
The calorific, or heat value of the fuel is determined predominantly by the percentage of methane
present. Typically this is 35% to 55% v/v for landfill gas in the UK. Pure methane, which has a
heat value 9.97 kWe Nm-3, is the only significant hydrocarbon constituent in landfill gas that is
converted into mechanical/electrical energy by the engine combustion process. The lower the
methane content, the greater the volume of gas that must pass through the engine to achieve the
same power output. This means that potentially more aggressive gas constituents enter the engine
for a lower methane value. It is for this reason that manufacturers’ limits for aggressive gas
constituents are defined “per 100% methane”.
Engine air to fuel ratio controllers have the ability to automatically adjust this ratio as the methane
content of the supply gas changes, although system modification may be necessary for significant
variation outside the operating range of 45% ± 15% CH4 v/v.
The calorific value gives no indication of the aggressiveness of the supply gas or likely emissions.
Bulking of supply gas typically occurs with low calorific value gas. The higher inlet pressure of the
gas will generally result in increased emissions of methane, NMVOCs and other products of

incomplete combustion. In order to control and minimise this effect, continuous monitoring of
flow rate and methane is necessary (Environment Agency 2002a).
2.2.2 Sulphur gases
Landfill gas contains a variety of (often odorous) sulphur compounds. These include sulphides/
disulphides (such as hydrogen sulphide, dimethyl sulphide, dimethyl disulphide, diethyl disulphide
and carbon disulphide) and thiols (such as methanethiol (methyl mercaptan), ethanethiol and
propanethiol). Sulphur compounds are corrosive in the presence of free water or the moisture that
is found within the engine oil and/or landfill gas. These can lead to wear on engine piston rings and
cylinder linings. Gas recirculation systems may also increase the availability of moisture within the
engine system. This also impacts on oil quality leading to the need for increased frequency of oil
changes. For these reasons individual engine manufacturers recommend limits for the inlet landfill
gas quality for total sulphur compounds (see Table 2.1) rather than individual compounds.
The primary mechanism for production of H2S in landfills is the reduction of sulphate under
anaerobic conditions by sulphate-reducing microorganisms. Therefore, landfills expected to have
higher concentrations of H2S within landfill gas include:
• unlined landfills in sulphate-rich geological materials such as gypsum (CaSO4.2H2O) quarries

or gypsiferous soils;
• landfills where large quantities of gypsum plasterboard or sulphate-enriched sludges (from e.g.
wastewater treatment or flue gas desulphurisation) have been buried;
• landfills where sulphate-rich soils have been used as intermediate cover materials; and
• landfills where construction and demolition (C&D) debris containing substantial quantities of
gypsum wallboard has been ground down and re-cycled as daily or intermediate cover.
Typically, landfill gas contains < 100 ppm v/v H2S, but on landfills where the sulphate loading is
high, values for H2S can be as high as several thousand ppm v/v. Since combustion of H2S will
achieve typically 99% destruction in the gas engine, on most landfill sites, it is likely that treatment
for H2S in the supply gas will only need to be considered if non-routine maintenance periods are
frequent, and a cost saving can be envisaged. In the absence of an emissions limit value for SOx,
emissions of SOx from combustion of H2S are likely to be below any local risk threshold but local
air quality issues must be considered on a site-specific basis.
2.2.3 Halogenated compounds
Halogenated compounds containing chlorine, bromine and fluorine (e.g. carbon tetrachloride,
chlorobenzene, chloroform and trifluoromethane) are broken down during the combustion process
and can form the acid gases HCl and HF in the presence of moisture. These are responsible for
corrosion of metal piping and engine components. Combustion of halogenated compounds in the
presence of hydrocarbons within the landfill gas can also lead to the subsequent formation of
compounds such as PCDDs and PCDFs (dioxins and furans), particularly as the combusted gases
cool below 400°C.
Absorbtion of chlorine compounds into the engine oil is usually used to determine the frequency of
oil changes in landfill gas engines. The major engine manufacturers recommend limits for the inlet
landfill gas quality for total chlorine and fluorine content as specified in Table 2.1.
Most halogenated species in landfill gas are the result of direct volatilisation from solid waste
components and their presence depends on vapour pressure relationships under landfill conditions.
Temperatures within landfills are typically between 25 and 40 °C, with total pressure slightly
higher than atmospheric pressure.

The most common trace components within landfill gas mirror the gaseous aromatic and
chlorinated compounds produced in the largest quantities by the chemical industry for use in
consumer products. A notable exception is chloroethene (vinyl chloride). This compound and
certain di-chlorinated species can be produced in situ within landfills by anaerobic micro
organisms through reductive dechlorination of higher chlorinated species such as trichloroethylene
(TCE) (Molten et al., 1987).
The most common fluorinated species are the chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), which were widely
used as refrigerants, propellants, and in insulating foams until their production was greatly reduced
after recognition of their role in stratospheric ozone depletion (Rowland and Molina, 1974; World
Meteorological Organisation, 1998). The most abundant CFCs in landfill gas are CFC-12
(dichlorodifluoromethane) and CFC-11 (trichlorofluoromethane). These appear to persist at low
concentrations in landfills due to their slow volatilisation from old waste.
Landfill gas quality appears to be improving, in general, with the withdrawal of certain substances
from widespread use (e.g. HCFCs), and the future banning of liquids (e.g. solvents) to landfill.
These practices are reducing the chlorine and fluorine content of landfill gas and the emissions are
likely to be concomitantly reduced in HCl and HF, and PCDDs/PCDFs (dioxins and furans).
However, sites which had previously accepted large quantities of these wastes may continue to
exhibit high total chlorine and fluorine concentrations in landfill gas and similarly exhaust emissions
of HCl, HF and PCDDs/PCDFs may be above the norm.
While a third of UK landfills have aggressive gas characteristics requiring high Total Base Number
(TBN) lubricating oils, only a small percentage of these may produce HCl and HF in exhaust
emissions at concentrations which may require treatment. These emissions might need to be
addressed at landfills where industrial waste has been accepted and where concentrations in the
exhaust are shown to be potentially harmful as determined by a site specific risk
assessment/emission standard.
2.2.4 Ammonia
Ammonia is a problem for digester gas engines, and it is strictly limited by manufacturers on
engines burning digester gas. It may also be found in landfill gas and the manufacturers may apply
similar limits. The combustion of ammonia leads to the formation of nitrogen oxide (NO) which
can react to form NOx in the atmosphere.
2.2.5 Silicon compounds and Siloxanes
Discarded consumer products including cosmetics in the landfill tend to be the source of silicon in
the supply gas. Many consumer products (hair care, skin care, underarm deodorants) and
commercial lubricants contain silicones, a large group of related organosilicon polymers. The term
siloxane refers to a subgroup of the silicones containing Si-O bonds with organic radicals bonded
to the Si; the organic radicals can include methyl, ethyl, and other organic functional groups.
Siloxanes are present in landfills through both: a) the direct disposal of containers with small
amounts of remaining product; and b) through land filling of wastewater treatment sludges, in
which siloxanes are retained through the process steps.
Organosiloxanes are semi-volatile organosilicon compounds which, while not an aggressive gas
component in terms of emissions, can be converted to solid inorganic siliceous deposits within the
engine combustion chamber. They form a coating or lacquer on all surfaces contacted by the
lubricating oil and can alter the oil retaining surface finish of cylinder liners.

Table 2.1 Supply gas specifications from some commonly used landfill gas engine manufacturers1
Constituent Jenbacher Deutz Caterpillar Waukesha

Max variation:
Calorific value and
< 0.5% CH 4 (v/v) per 30 seconds
≥ 14.4 MJ Nm-3 15.7 - 23.6 MJ Nm -3 >15.73 MJ Nm -3
variability (recommended range)
Total S content 2000 mg Nm -3 CH4 (with catalyst) < 2200 mg Nm -3 CH4 < 2140 mg H 2S Nm -3 CH4 < 715 mg Nm -3 CH4
1150 mg Nm -3 CH4 (without catalyst) (total S as H 2S) 2 (total S bearing compounds)
(total S as H 2S)
H2S content - < 0.15% v/v - -
Ammonia < 55 mg Nm -3 CH4 (pertains mostly to anaerobic - < 105 mg NH3 Nm -3 -
digester gas – combined specifications for all biogas (pertains mostly to anaerobic
systems) digester gas – combined
specifications for all biogas
systems) 2
Total Cl content see Sum of Cl and F < 100 mg Nm -3 CH4 See Sum of Cl and F see Sum of Cl and F
Total F content see Sum of Cl and F < 50 mg Nm -3 CH4 See Sum of Cl and F see Sum of Cl and F
Sum of Cl and F Without catalyst 3 < 100 mg Nm -3 CH4 < 713 mg Cl Nm -3 CH4 ≥ 300 mg Nm -3 CH4
< 100 mg Nm -3 CH4 (weighted as 1 part Cl and 2 (total halide compounds as Cl) 2 (total organic halides as Cl) 4
parts F) without warranty
restriction; 100–400 mg Nm -3 CH4 with warranty
restriction; > 400 mg Nm -3 CH4 no warranty at all
with catalyst : 0 mg Nm -3 CH4
Si old standard < 10 mg/Nm -3 CH4 < 21 mg Nm -3 CH4 2 < 50 mg Nm -3 CH4
without catalyst 2: < 20 mg Nm -3 CH4 without total siloxanes
warranty restriction; ( > 20 mg Nm -3 CH4 with (models with prechamber
restriction) fuel system only)4
new standard
without catalyst: see below 5
with catalyst : old or new standard 0 mg Nm -3 CH4
Dust < 50 mg Nm -3 CH4 < 10 mg/Nm -3 CH4 < 30 mg Nm -3 CH4 removal of particles > 0.3 µm
(particles < 3µm) (particles < 1 µm)2
Oil/ Residual Oil < 5 mg Nm -3 CH4 < 400 mg/Nm -3 CH4 < 45 mg Nm -3 CH4 (oil) < 2% v/v “liquid fuel hydro-carbons” at
(oil vapors > C 5) coldest inlet temperature
Miscellaneous Project specific limits: no glycol
“hydrocarbon solvent vapors”
Relative humidity/ < 80% < 60-80% < 80% zero liquid water; recommend chilling
Moisture with zero condensate at minimum fuel temperature gas to 4 °C followed by coalescing filter
and then reheating to 29-35 °C; dew
point should be at least 11 °C below
temperature of inlet gas

Pressure at inlet Turbocharged engines: 80-200 mbar up to 2000 mbar - -

Pre-combustion Chamber :
Models 612-616: 2500-4000 mbar
Model 620: 3000-4000 mbar
gas pressure < 10 mbar/sec < 10% of set value at a frequency of - -
fluctuations < 10 per hour
Inlet gas < 40 °C 10-50 °C - > -29 °C and < 60°C
temperature
CH4 ( % v / v ) - ≥ 40% Recommended ratio of CH4:CO2 is -
1.1-1.2
Methane number - Approx. 140 for landfill gas - -
H2 ( % v / v ) - - - < 12%
Notes:
1 Dates of information as follows: Jenbacher, 2000 (TI 1000-0300); Deutz, 1999; Caterpillar, 1997; Waukesha, 2000.
2 Manufacturers stated specification in mg MJ-1, converted to Nm3 CH4 assuming Calorific Value CH4 is 37.5 MJ Nm-3.
3 Other conditions. A single exceedance of 30% above 100 mg Nm -3 CH4 is permissible out of four analyses per year. Limiting values for used oil and sump capacity must be
observed (see Jenbacher Technical Instruction No. 1000 – 0099).
4 Manufacturers stated specification in µg l-1 landfill gas, converted to Nm3 CH4 assuming 50% CH4 (v/v).
5 Relative limiting value of < 0.02 according to the following calculation (without catalyst):
Relative limiting value = (mg kg-1 Si in engine oil) X (total oil quantity in liters)
(engine power in kW) X (oil service time in hours)

Siloxanes may enter the engine as insoluble matter in the gas fuel, forming a white deposit in the
combustion chamber, or be produced in the combustion chamber itself, or form a golden lacquer
on components outside of the combustion chamber. This can be especially evident on the piston-
ring wiped surface of the cylinder liner. The lacquer has a tendency to “fill” the oil retaining
honing pattern but rarely builds to the extent of requiring attention prior to routine overhaul (see
Plate 2.1).
Plate 2.1. Golden lacquer of siloxane build up evident on cylinder liner
Silicon, silicon dioxide, and siloxanes all behave in different ways. Two “high silicon sites” using
an identical engine can result in widely varying effects and “trial and error” solutions are the
current norm. At the combustion conditions within landfill gas fuelled engines, organic silicon
compounds contained in the landfill gas may be deposited on the cylinder head as solid inorganic
silicon compounds. This deposited material is white to light grey, somewhat laminar, generally
opaque, and may exhibit a partial to poor crystalline structure. There have been few analyses of
these deposits in the open literature and the existing data indicates that crystalline SiO 2 is present,
as well as other metals in solid forms (Niemann et al., 1997; Hagmann et al, 1999; Niemann,
2001, personal communication).
These deposits severely reduce engine life, since the engine needs to be stripped down and the
solids manually scraped off the piston, cylinder head and valves. Through the combustion
process, some silicon compounds are also partitioned to the engine oil, which needs to be changed
more frequently at sites with high siloxane levels in the inlet gas fuel. Engine manufacturers thus
recommend direct monitoring of silicon build-up in the engine oil. Judging by the increasing use of
these compounds in consumer and commercial products, problems with volatile siloxanes in
landfill gas-fuelled engines are likely to increase.
At the present time, there is no standard method for analysis of volatile siloxanes in a gaseous
matrix and at least ten or more methods are being used at the present time (e.g. Aramata and
Saitoh, 1997; Grumping et al., 1998; Hone and Fry, 1994; Huppman et al., 1996; Kala et al.,
1997; Schweigkofler and Niessner, 1999; Stoddart et al., 1999; Varaprath and Lehmann, 1997;
Wachholz et al., 1995). There is no general consensus within the landfill gas industry regarding
which siloxane method to use, and there has been no rigorous comparison of several methods for
a common set of samples.

Observations on individual well samples and composite landfill gas samples vary between <1 and
>100 ppm v/v total organic Si, based on a gas chromatography/atomic emission detection method
(GC/AED). For some applications, especially evaluation of potential treatment methods,
determination of speciated siloxanes may be desirable using a combined GC/AED-MS (mass
spectrometry) method (e.g. Schweigkofler and Niessner, 1999).
Siloxanes do not directly cause problems with gas engine exhaust emissions, although the
increased wear may show itself as an increase in SOx emissions as lubricating oil is burnt.
Typically, this is unlikely to exceed any risk-based criterion for emissions management and the
decision to implement gas cleanup for siloxane management purposes is entirely economic.
2.2.6 Dust
Dust can be drawn into engines either in the landfill gas itself or in the combustion air.
Particulate filters or cyclones (see Chapter 4) are employed universally at the present time for
removal of particulates from the supply gas. However, because of the dusty external environment,
attention is also paid to the combustion air drawn into the engine container or building and
especially to the air drawn into the engine. Two stages of inlet air filtration are therefore involved:
• on the engine enclosure inlet at filtration levels determined to prevent an unacceptable, visual
build up of dust on engine and ancillary plant; and
• at the engine inlet itself. This filtration is of particular importance as abrasive silica is a major
culprit of premature component wear (down to 5 micron on the cell inlet filter and down to 2
micron on the secondary engine mounted filtration).
Should the location have ‘desert’ conditions or should industrial processes be within the vicinity of
the generating plant (such as cement production) ‘cyclone’ or ‘oil-wetted’ filters can be employed.
All utilisation plant should have dust filtration equipment installed if particulates in the supply gas
are identified as a particular problem. Further information is given in Chapter 4 of this guidance.
2.2.7 Lubricating oil
The most frequently encountered aggressive constituents of landfill gas, in the UK, are siloxanes
and organohalogen compounds that introduce acids into the lubricating oil. It is known from the
volume of high total base number (TBN) oil formulations used on landfill gas engines that
approximately one third of UK landfill gas users suffer from aggressive concentrations of
organohalogens (Hussein Younis, Exxon Mobil, personal communication 2002).
The acid forming chloride, fluoride and sulphur compounds contaminate the lubricating oil mostly
by bypassing the piston rings (blow-by) and to a lesser extent via the air and exhaust valve guides.
The effect of these acids may be reduced by keeping the engine operating temperatures of jacket
cooling water and associated lubricating oil temperatures high, to avoid dew points. Higher oil
temperature does however reduce crankshaft bearing oil film thickness and an optimum balance
must be achieved.
Corrosion prevention is achieved by both keeping the oil alkaline and by use of corrosion resistant
components, especially at the crankshaft, camshaft and other bearings. Aluminium-tin bearings are
an example of bearings that may be used to replace ‘yellow metal’ bearings such as copper or
phosphor bronze.
Alkalinity is retained by use of lubricating oil additives, additives that have non-combustible
properties and hence produce more ash. Some ash can be beneficial as it serves as a lubricant for
valve seats. However, if there is too much and maintenance intervals become more frequent, in-

cylinder temperature sensors become less effective, with premature detonation owing to build-up
of deposits.
An optimum balance has therefore to be achieved between very high alkalinity (high TBN) oil and
the frequency of oil replacement. Longer periods between oil changes may be achieved with larger
engine sump capacities. An engine approaching overhaul will allow greater absorption owing to
increased blow-by. Typical oil replacement frequencies fall in the range 750 to 850 hours. Shutting
down the engine to undertake oil replacement usually coincides with spark plug replacement.
2.3 Destruction Efficiencies of Gas Engines

The destruction of some components of landfill gas in the combustion chamber can be beneficial
to the environment (particularly if the alternative is uncontrolled surface emission). However,
because of the short residence time in the gas engine, no trace gas component can be destroyed
with 100% efficiency, and indeed other components are produced (particularly HCl, HF and SOx)
to maintain the mass balance of chlorine, fluorine, and sulphur compounds in the landfill gas.
Table 2.2 provides a summary of the typical destruction efficiencies observed during the
monitoring of a number of landfill gas engines (Gillett et al., 2002). Some of the minima presented
are only estimates, and the real destruction efficiency is greater than that stated due to reaching the
analytical detection limit for the compound within the engine exhaust. In many cases, therefore,
the destruction efficiencies are expected to be much higher than the minima quoted.
Methane destruction (to carbon dioxide) is typically 96% to 99.6%. Longer chain alkanes are
typically destroyed with between 92% and > 99.9% efficiency, with some exceptions. Gillett et al.
(2002) reported that butane was destroyed by only 70%, and some light alkanes appear to be
formed. Simple substituted alkanes (alcohols, aldehydes and ketones) also showed a high
destruction (up to 99.9%), but again some destruction efficiencies appear low. The combustion
chamber and exhaust system of a gas engine is a highly reactive chemical environment, and it is
possible that some simple compounds are preferentially formed from the destruction of other
complex organic species.
The unburnt methane and other hydrocarbons leaving the exhaust is a relatively small fraction of
the fuel, and the amount of methane “slippage” is a feature of principal engine design. Some
methane escapes the combustion chamber before it is “closed”, and some remains after
combustion to be discharged on the non combustion stroke.
Aromatic compounds are destroyed at between 92% and 99.9% efficiency. Terpenes (responsible
for some odour events on landfills) are destroyed at > 99.9% efficiency. Sulphur compounds,
responsible for most odour complaints, are destroyed at between 8.7% and 96.6% efficiency.
Hydrogen sulphide, the most common sulphur compound, has been found to undergo 70.6 – 96.6
% destruction in a gas engine (an observation counter to claims that the gas is flammable and is
therefore completely destroyed).
Halogenated compounds, potentially some of the most toxic compounds in landfill gas, are
destroyed at between 70% and 99.7%. However, existing research indicates some of the
anomalous calculated destruction efficiencies are a result of very small amounts of these
compounds being present

Table 2.2 Typical range of observed landfill gas engine destruction efficiencies for
functional groups (after Gillett et al., 2002)
Functional group Minimum (%) Maximum (%)
Methane 96.0 99.6

Alkanes 70.2 >99.9
Alkenes 50.1 >99.6
Alcohols 84.1 >99.8
Aldehydes >42.4 95.9
Ketones >87.4 99.9
Aromatic hydrocarbons 92.0 >99.9
Terpenes - >99.9
Halogenated hydrocarbons >70.1 >99.7
Sulphur compounds > 8.7 >96.6
These observed destruction efficiencies measured on UK plant tend to confirm that gas engines
are capable of destroying the trace components to high degrees of efficiency. While the
observations show actual performance, the theory states that the higher the peak combustion
temperature, the greater the efficiency of destruction of VOCs etc. However, this brings other
factors into account.
The higher the thermal efficiency of an internal combustion engine, the lower the emission of
unburnt hydrocarbons, but the higher the thermal efficiency, the higher the peak combustion
temperature which is a direct function of NOx production.
NOx emissions can be reduced by principal engine design that effectively reduces thermal
efficiency, by humidification of the inlet air/gas mixture prior to actual combustion thus lowering
the peak combustion temperature, or by constantly adjusting engine operational
parameters/thermal efficiency within a relatively small band. The latter is controlled by the engine
management system (EMS).
Most modern engines are designed and adjusted by the EMS, to retain design parameters, and
may be set, for example, to hold a NOx emission of 500mg Nm-3. Some engine types become
more expensive to operate at this setting owing to a greater load being placed on the ignition
system, but the situation is manageable. Different engine types, having varying amounts of
adjustment, produce different levels of unburnt hydrocarbons at a given NOx setting.
2.4 Engine Emissions and their Significance

The Agency has published indicative emission standards for the major exhaust gas emissions from
landfill gas engines, and has provided guidance on which trace components should be assessed by
risk assessment (Environment Agency, 2002a). The emission standards are given in Table 2.3
below (Environment Agency, 2002a).

Table 2.3 Emission standards for Landfill Gas Engines (after Environment Agency, 2002a).
Component in exhaust Emission standard for Spark Ignition Engines, mg Nm-3
Commissioned between Commissioned after 01/11/04

01/01/98 – 01/11/04
NOx 650 500
CO 1500 1400
Total VOCs 1750 1000

(including CH4)
NMVOCs 150 75
Other component Determined by site specific Determined by site specific risk

risk assessment assessment
Particulates, Determined by site specific Determined by site specific risk

PCDDs/PCDFs, heavy risk assessment assessment
metals, HCl, HF, H2S
Note: these are minimum standards based on normal operating conditions and site-specific risk assessments may require
a stricter emissions standard to be applied. Risk assessment must be carried out for plant commissioned before 01/01/98.
If the concentration in the exhaust gas exceeds the indicated emission standard for any of the
named components, then some action is needed. In the first instance this could be attention to the
engine management system (EMS) or further emissions monitoring. If this is not considered to be
appropriate action, then a more formal process of evaluation of why the emissions gave exceeded
the emission standard should be made, and a decision on the need for gas cleanup should be
made.
In some locations there may be sensitive receptors close to or influenced by the exhaust stack. If
the concentration of particulates, PCDDs/PCDFs, heavy metals, HCl, HF or H2S in the emissions
is found, by site specific risk assessment, to be higher than the agreed tolerable concentration at
the site boundary, then again, a decision on the need for gas cleanup should be made. The
approach for this site specific risk assessment is documented in the Agency’s Guidance on the
Management of Landfill Gas (Environment Agency, 2002c). In order to perform a site specific
risk assessment, the operator must first develop a conceptual model of the site, and then apply a
tiered risk assessment process, which will include dispersion modelling.
Development of the conceptual site model involves defining the nature of the landfill, the gas
utilisation plant and the baseline environmental conditions, as well as identifying the source term
releases, pathways and receptors for the plant emissions, and the processes that are likely to occur
along each of the source-pathway-receptor linkages. In this situation, the pathway is most likely to
be atmospheric dispersion of the exhaust plume.
The hazard identification and risk screening stage should then consider the sensitivity of the
receptors, and there should be an initial selection of the appropriate environmental benchmark for
each receptor (e.g. Environmental Assessment Levels or EALs, for human health, or the national
air quality objectives). Long term and short term EALs are provided in Horizontal Guidance Note
H1 (Environment Agency, 2002d).
An atmospheric dispersion model of the fate of the exhaust plume should form part of the PPC
application, and this information will also be used in the risk assessment. The procedures which
the entire CBA process should follow are given in Chapter 3 of this document..

2.5 Crankcase Emissions

The engine exhaust is not the only source of atmospheric emissions from gas engines. Combustion
products that pass the piston rings (blow-by) and, to a lesser extent, escape past valve guide
clearances, cause a positive pressure in the engine crankcase and contaminate the lubricating oil.
Historically, a crankcase vacuum of around 1 inch water gauge was used to counter this pressure
and to assist prevention of lubricating oil leaks. However, extraction serves a further purpose for
landfill gas engines; namely a reduction in the rate of contamination of the lubricating oil and
hence a direct saving in oil costs.
Exhaust from the extractor fan has a visual impact in that it is exhibited in the form of low volume
flow-rate smoke. This exhaust, or crankcase fumes are often passed through a length of pipework
that promotes condensation of the oil with the remaining vapour passed through a coalescer/filter.
Simply exhausting below water has also been employed. Increasing the volume of flow to
positively purge the crankcase may be considered to be a form of in-engine clean-up.
Gillett et al (2002) has quantified untreated crankcase exhaust as having high concentrations of
aggressive gases but at very low mass flow. This volume can be up to 30% of the total mass
emission rates of unburnt hydrocarbons and SOx from the engine and treatment is considered best
practice. The direct release of crankcase exhaust emissions is no longer acceptable.
Options for management of this emission source are:
• re-circulation of the crankcase fumes into the combustion chamber inlet. This affects
component life and the emissions are combined and diluted in the exhaust;
• re-circulation by injection after combustion. This promotes longevity of engine components

and the emissions are combined and diluted in the exhaust; and
• installation of coalescer and filter. This promotes component longevity but produces an
additional, low volume waste stream.
The cheapest option is to re-circulate; an option that is adopted by most engine makers.
A coalescer and filter could be fitted at a relatively low cost of between £1,500 and £3,000 capital
cost subject to flow rate and degree of reduction, plus the costs of disposal of the waste stream (if
a highly acidic supply gas is used).


3. THE DECISION PROCESS FOR ASSESSING THE USE OF

CLEANUP TECHNOLOGIES
3.1 Approaches to Cleanup
Landfill gas in its raw form (i.e. as produced at the landfill site) is a complex and variable mixture
of gases and vapours. Any form of active management of such a gas mixture will be affected to a
greater or lesser extent by the contaminants. The role of pre-combustion gas cleanup is to reduce
the effects of the contaminants on the handling plant and promote a high degree of operational
effectiveness. This in turn will improve the effectiveness of management of secondary waste
streams including emissions to atmosphere. Engine management systems and post-combustion
activities may also be employed to manage emissions to atmosphere.
Cleanup options range from commonly adopted simple water trapping and filtration to complex
integrated systems linking the energy exploitation plant (for example, a reciprocating engine driving
an alternator to produce electricity) to the landfill gas abstraction plant.
A typical utilisation scheme will generally include the basic features illustrated in Figure 3.1. The
raw gas will enter the utilisation compound via a de-watering and filtration knockout device to
remove moisture and particulates to ensure flare burners do not become blocked and improve
combustion performance within the engine cylinders. A gas compressor (or booster) increases the
landfill gas pressure to ensure effective operation of the flare burners and adequate supply to the
gas engine. Flow metering devices and a slam-shut valve, provide the volume flow-rate to the flare
or engine and provide a final safety control device. The flame arrestors are used to prevent
flashback of a flame to the fuel feeder pipe.
High temperature flare
Slam-shut
valve
Gas compressor / booster Flow metering
Burners
Flame arrestors Pilot
from landfill
Filter
Slam-shut
valve
Flow metering
Knockout vessel Engine
Alternator
Figure 3.1 Typical Utilisation Scheme with Basic Components Identified

The simple systems may be defined as ‘Primary Processing’ and the more complex systems as
‘Secondary Processing’. In broad terms, the options may be summarised as shown in the process
block diagram given as Figure 3.2. A summary table of examples of pre-combustion gas cleanup
processes is provided in Table 3.1.
Raw Gas Control
Exhaust
Clean Gas
Primary Pre - Engine Post-
Cleanup combustion combustion
Waste 1
Waste 3 Exhaust
Compression Vehicle
& Polishing Engine
Flue Gas
Secondary
Pre - Post-
Cleanup
combustion
Boiler combustion
SNG
Waste 2 Waste 3
By Product (CO2 )
Figure 3.2 Basic Block Diagram for Cleanup Options and Emissions Management
The range of options for cleanup of landfill gas is quite extensive and some attempt at categorising
the options has been made to cover the numerous examples which have been reported in the
literature. Table 3.1 shows that there are several systems which do not sit neatly in any one
category - the so called ‘multiple systems’. In reality, all landfill gas cleanup processes are multiple
in nature since there is no single process which takes raw landfill gas and produces a ‘clean fuel’
product. Initial development of the processes followed a requirement to produce SNG, which
required the removal not only of trace contaminants but also all non-combustibles (principally
carbon dioxide and nitrogen). The fact that utilisation of the processed gas resulted in ‘clean
combustion’ minimising damage to the utilisation plant and lessening the atmospheric burden is a
bonus which has attracted the attention of some operators (and some regulators) of more recent
systems which utilise essentially unprocessed landfill gas. This approach has not been taken up in
the UK (see Section 3.2 below).
In this guidance, therefore, the applicability of a certain process may be for the cleanup of more
than one contaminant in the landfill gas, and so if the cost of abatement is calculated, this should
be shared by more than one contaminant (if present).

Table 3.1 Some Examples of Secondary Pretreatment Cleanup Processes
Generic Process Example Locatio Dates Size Costs Costs

Type Type n [m3 h-1] Capital O&M
[£M] [£M pa]
Solvent Oil spray UK 600
Scrubbing Depogas Berlin-Wansee Germany 4000 1.59 0.11
Phytec Germany 600 0.19 0.01
Herbst Germany 600 0.90 0.05
Selexol™ Fresh Kills USA
Selexol™ Mountaingate USA
Selexol™ Olinda USA
Selexol™ Monterey USA
Selexol™ Calumet USA
MDEA Pompano USA 1985 4170
DEA Scranton USA
Water SMB Tilburg Holland 2000 2.93
Scrubbing Sonzay France
Pressure NSR Biogas Filborna Sweden 15 0.13
Swing Carbiogas Neunen Holland 1200 2.17 0.39
Adsorption Carbiogas Wijster Holland 1200 1.37
(PSA) Oxygen- Wijster-Beilen Holland 1000 1.99 0.40
Sulphuric acid
Norit 600
Cirmac 600 0.30
AC (Batch) Belgium Belgium 1200 0.003 0.05
Gemini V Rumke
Membrane Polyamide Vasse Holland 1992 200 0.43 0.15
Separation Polyamide Weperpolder Holland 1100
(Mem) Separex Puente Hills USA
Monsanto Prism Florence USA 1983 60
Molecular GSF Zeolite Palos Verdes USA 1975 590
Sieve Mountain View USA
Multiple ONSI Flanders Road USA
Systems GSF (Molecular McCarty Road USA
sieve + Mem)
Water wash + Monteboro Italy 350 0.45
PSA
GRS (PSA + Kilverstone UK 1000 0.5 - 1.0
Mem)
GRS (PSA + Coxhoe UK
Mem)
Oxide bed Cinnaminson USA 1978 300
Note: there has been no full-scale long term use of secondary treatment processes in the UK.
3.2 Potential for Substitute Natural Gas as a Fuel for Landfill Gas Engines
The current global gas markets are such that SNG produced from landfill gas is likely to be
financially marginal at best – the case studies considered in Environment Agency (2002h) confirm
this – and therefore developing plant to exploit this market (at least in the UK) is unlikely to satisfy
investment criteria. However, there are various options within the inventory of cleanup processes
which are likely to be worthy of careful development to enhance the operation of existing and
future systems aiming to utilise ‘raw landfill gas’. The focus of such development will be on
removal of trace contaminants (especially halogenated organics and siloxanes) without necessarily
having to remove the non-combustibles. However, the economics of the cleanup options is
currently far from clear, and a thorough review could show that minimising the total mass flow
prior to cleanup (i.e. firstly using a low cost process to remove the non-combustibles - essentially
carbon dioxide) may offer significant operational and financial advantages.

Carbon dioxide removal processes (which effectively ‘upgrade’ the calorific value of the gas) fall
into four basic categories:
• absorption by a liquid (solvent);

• adsorption by a granular solid;
• differential transport (membrane separation); and
• cryogenic separation.
The underlying process principles defining these categories are described in Chapter 5. However,
in the light of future applicability of landfill gas cleanup, the most appropriate (and by implication
the lowest cost) option is likely to be liquid absorption using water as the solvent. However,
further evaluation and financial analysis may show otherwise, and at this stage, none of the
options described should be ruled out.
The principal requirement of gas cleanup technology when producing SNG is to remove (or
minimise) the concentrations of reactive trace components. This can be achieved in part during the
‘upgrade’ process (carbon dioxide removal) but to be fully effective, it requires additional
processing stages. These stages are likely to be derived from specialised development of sorption
processes which target individual or groups of reactive contaminants. Of the most attractive
options, activated carbon and proprietary compounds based on activated carbon show greatest
promise. However, solvent absorption offers the distinct advantage of enabling continuous
processing and therefore, pending more detailed analysis, this option should not be ruled out.
3.3 The Framework for Gas Cleanup Assessment

The basis for this approach is identified in the Horizontal Guidance Note IPPC H1, Environmental
Assessment and Appraisal of Best Available Techniques (BAT) (Environment Agency, 2002d).
Rigorous cost benefit analysis (CBA) of the various gas cleanup options has not been carried out
in this guidance for three reasons:
• lack of adequate cost and performance data for comparable systems;
• information on multiple systems was focussed on an SNG product and not landfill gas engine
use; and
• a certain reticence from the industry to discuss the costs of implementation of any technology
unless a real situation were involved.
The mechanism by which a rigorous CBA should take place is described, for situations when
these data become available for a site specific requirement.
The aim of Horizontal Guidance Note H1 (Environment Agency, 2002d) is to provide information
on the preferred methods for quantifying environmental impacts to all media (air, water and land)
and to calculate costs and provide guidelines on how to resolve any cross media conflicts. The
methods outlined in H1 can be used to conduct a costs/benefit appraisal of options to determine
best practice or BAT (where applicable) for selected releases from any installation. Spreadsheets
are provided within H1 in order to appraise the options or assess the overall environmental impact
of emissions. In order to gain a PPC Permit, Operators will have to show that their proposals
represent best practice (or BAT where applicable) to prevent and minimise pollution from their
installation.

The following basic steps in the assessment methodology apply:
1. define the objective of the assessment and the options to be considered;
2. quantify the emissions from each option;
3. quantify the environmental impacts resulting from the emissions;
4. compare options and rank in order of best overall environmental performance;
5. evaluate the costs to implement each option; and
6. identify the option which represents the cost-effective technique (or BAT where applicable)
by balancing environmental benefits against costs.
3.4 Collating Basic Information for the Cost Appraisal

This section is aimed at collecting all the information required to perform a cost benefit assessment
of gas cleanup options and providing a method for unambiguous presentation of the costs of
cleanup versus the environmental benefits to be gained by the cleanup process.
In order to understand the implementation of the cost appraisal it is necessary to define the terms
used within the assessment.
Discount rate
The discount rate usually reflects the cost of the capital investment to the operator, typically
varying between 6% and 12% per annum depending on the level of risk associated with the
company, industrial sector or particular project. The same discount rate should be used for all
options being considered for the cleanup process, and the selection of a particular value should be
justified by the operator (particularly if it is outside the typical range). The discount rate should be
expressed as a decimal and not as a percentage value, e.g. 0.06 and not 6%.
Assumed life
The assumed life of the cleanup option should be based on the asset life. Current UK guideline
values for the different assets are given in Table 3.2. It is recognised that without cleanup an
atypical gas will reduce asset life further and this should be factored into the cost benefit analysis.
Operators should justify variations from the factors stated in Table 3.2.
Table 3.2 Current UK asset life guideline values to be used in cost appraisals
Asset Lifetime
Buildings 20 years
Major components (e.g. landfill gas engines, generators, 15 years
pollution control equipment)
Intermediate components (e.g. compressors, some filters, and 10 years
ground handling equipment)
Minor components (e.g. motors, servos, filters) 5 years

Capital costs
Capital costs include all costs required to purchase equipment needed for the pollution control
techniques, the costs of labour and materials for installing that equipment, costs of site preparation
(including dismantling) and buildings and certain other indirect installation costs. Capital costs
should include not only those associated with stand-alone pollution control equipment, but also
costs of making integrated process changes or installing control and monitoring systems.
The limits of the activity or components to which the costs apply should be described. For
example, choice of one type of technology, which is inherently less polluting, would require all
components of that technology to be included in this limit.
Estimates of engineering costs are generally satisfactory for cost submissions, although any
significant uncertainties should be described. This is especially relevant for those components
which could have a major influence on a decision between different options. Where available, the
cost of each major piece of equipment should be documented, with data supplied by an equipment
vendor or a referenced source.
If capital costs are spread over more than one year, these should be reduced to the present value
in the first year as indicated in Table 3.3.
Table 3.3 Calculation of the present value of capital costs
Year 1 2 3
Capital expenditure 2000 2000 2000
Discount rate 0.1 0.1
Value today 2000 2000 x 0.9 2000 x 0.9 x 0.9
Equals 2000 1800 1620
Present value in first year 5420
The template for the breakdown of capital and investment costs is presented in Table 3.4. These
costs should be provided as either £000's or % of total capital costs and the anticipated year of
expenditure stated.
Operating costs and revenues
It is not anticipated that for the case of landfill gas cleanup for reciprocating engines any additional
revenues would be forthcoming arising from the products of the gas cleanup. However, the
inclusion of revenues would be appropriate for the case of gas cleanup for providing synthetic
natural gas (SNG) for selling to the national grid or for cases where improved energy production
and efficiency may arise from the benefits of cleanup.

Table 3.4 Breakdown of capital/investment costs
Included in Costs Year

Specific cost breakdown Capital Costs £ 000’s/ % of total
3 = Yes capital cost/ Other
7 = No (specify units)
Pollution control equipment costs:
• primary pollution control equipment
• auxiliary equipment
• instrumentation
• modifications to existing equipment
Installation costs:
• Land costs
• General site preparation
• Buildings and civil works
• Labour and materials
Other capital costs:
• Project definition, design and planning
• Testing and start-up costs
• Contingency
• Working Capital
• End of Life - Clean up costs (note: this
cost would be typically discounted to a
present value)
The recurring annual costs for pollution control systems consist of three elements:
1. direct (variable and semi-variable) costs;
2. indirect (fixed) costs; and
3. recovery credits.
The recurring annual change in operating costs for options consists of the additional costs, minus
any cost savings, resulting from the implementation of that option. This should include any
changes in production capacity.
The direct costs are those which tend to be proportional or partially proportional to the quantity of
releases processed by the control system per unit time or, in the case of cleaner processes, the
amount of material processed or manufactured per unit time. They include costs for raw
materials, utilities (steam, electricity, process and cooling water etc.), waste treatment and
disposal, maintenance materials, replacement parts, and operating, supervisory, and maintenance
labour.
Indirect, or “fixed”, annual costs are those whose values are totally independent of the release
flow rate and which would in fact be incurred even if the pollution control system were shut
down. They include such categories as overhead, administrative charges, insurance, and business
rates.
The direct and indirect annual costs may be partially offset by recovery credits, arising from
materials or energy recovered by the control system. These may be sold, recycled to the process,
or reused elsewhere at the site. These credits, in turn, should be offset by the costs necessary for
their processing, storage, transportation, and any other steps required to make the recovered
materials or energy reusable or resaleable. They also include reduced labour requirements,

enhanced production efficiencies or improvements to product quality. For the case of gas cleanup
for landfill gas engines the increase in servicing intervals, reduction of oil consumption, and
increase in engine efficiency should be taken into account to offset the annual operating costs.
The template for the breakdown of operating and revenue costs is presented in Table 3.5. These
costs should be provided as either £000's or % of total capital costs and the anticipated year of
expenditure stated.
Table 3.5 Breakdown of operating costs and revenues
Included in Total Cost/ Year

Specific cost breakdown Operating Costs £ 000’s per year
3 = Yes / % of total
7 = No operating cost/
Other
(specify units)
Additional Costs:
• Additional labour for operation and
maintenance
• Water/ Sewage
• Fuel/ Energy costs (specify energy/
fuel type)
• Waste Treatment and Disposal
• Other materials and parts (specify
details)
• Costs of any additional pollution
abatement equipment operation
(specify details)
• Insurance
• Taxes on Property
• Other general overheads
Cost Savings/ Revenues:
• Energy savings
• By-products recovered/sold
• Environmental tax/charge savings
• Other
The templates provided above are based on the guidelines issued by the European Environment
Agency (1999) and provide the basis for the operator to detail costs breakdown. They have been
adapted to show elements more appropriate to the waste management sector. The operator should
at the minimum include a tick to indicate which elements have been included in the assessment of
capital and operating costs.
3.5 How to Perform a Cost Benefit Assessment for Gas Cleanup

There are six key contaminants or contaminant groups which are potentially treatable, and there is
also the option of producing SNG. This last option is well described in the various Case Studies in
Environment Agency (2002h). This section of the guidance is intended to deal with removal of
selected components from the supply gas (namely hydrogen sulphide, halogenated organics and
siloxanes) or the exhaust gas (NOx, carbon monoxide, and hydrogen chloride/hydrogen fluoride)
for the purpose of achieving emissions reduction or improved economics of operation.
Figure 3.3 below lists the six groups of compounds and the most appropriate cleanup technology
to treat each group individually.

The technologies considered are reviewed and discussed in Chapters 4 - 6 of this guidance
document. It is considered that primary treatment (Chapter 4) will be required on all landfills to
one degree or another, and the relatively low cost of implementing primary gas cleanup means that
these techniques should be used whenever and wherever they are needed.
The secondary treatment sector is an emerging industry and, as such, new information on
available technologies will supersede the information contained within this guidance within a few
years. While many of the technologies identified have been around since the start of the landfill
gas industry itself, many others are new, and some are just reinventions and repackaging of old
chemistry. Availability, suitability and cost should be the deciding factors when short listing
technology for further consideration.
The text below follows two examples through the process:
• removal of hydrogen sulphide; and
• removal of halogenated solvents.

Figure 3.3 The options of gas cleanup technology for particular components requiring treatment
PRE-COMBUSTION IN-ENGINE AND POST-COMBUSTION

TREATMENTS Components TREATMENTS
requiring treatment
Hydrogen Halogenated
sulphide organics Siloxanes NOx CO HCl/HF
Dry scrubbing Water scrubbing Activated carbon EMS Thermal oxidation Catalytic scrubbing
(AC) and solidification
Water scrubbing Solvent scrubbing Water injection Oxygen enrichment
AC + heat exchanger at inlet (potential for
Solvent scrubbing Membrane Exhaust gas high NOx)
separation AC + chilling recirculation
Pressure swing AC + cryogenic Catalytic oxidation

adsorption treatment (also requires pre-
treatment of
Molecular sieve Water wash halogenated
organics)
Cryogenic In-engine chemical
injection
CO2 liquefaction

3.5.1 Step 1. Define the objective of the assessment and the options to be considered
The first step in the assessment process is to clearly identify the objective(s) of the assessment
and to state all the potential options which are going to be considered.
The objectives for the two examples considered, and the potential options for gas cleanup are as
follows:
Example 1.
Treatment of high hydrogen sulphide concentrations in landfill gas is required to reduce engine
wear and to also reduce subsequent atmospheric emissions of SOx in a sensitive location – a
need which has been indicated by site-specific risk assessment.
Hydrogen sulphide cleanup may be achieved by dry or wet desulphurisation. Both techniques
are pre-combustion secondary cleanup technologies and information on these can be found in
Chapter 5 and Case Studies 1 – 4 in R&D Technical Report P1-330/TR (Environment
Agency, 2002h).
Example 2.
Treatment of high chlorine concentrations in the supply gas or treatment of high HCl
emissions in the exhaust – a need which has been indicated by site-specific risk assessment.
Cleanup of chlorine in the supply gas has been determined to be available by pressure water
scrubbing, pressure swing adsorption, or membrane separation techniques as pre-combustion
secondary cleanup techniques (see Chapter 5 and Case Studies 5 – 11), or by exhaust dry
scrubbing (Chapter 6 and Case Study 18 in R&D Technical Report P1-330/TR).
3 . 5 . 2 S t e p 2 . Q u a n t i f y t h e e m i s s i o n s f r o m e a c h t r e a t m en t o p t i o n
In the case of bulk emissions where emission standards have been set by the Agency, it is a
straightforward task to ascertain the level of cleanup required to achieve the emission standard.
Normally, any cleanup technology implemented should lower the emission of a particular
compound or substance to below its emission standard.
If the emissions are above the emission standard, or above the risk threshold agreed between the
operator and the Agency (e.g. in the case of site-specific risk assessments on trace components
without generic emission standards), then some decision on the efficiency of the cleanup
technology will be required.
The degree of gas cleanup required will depend on the exceedance beyond the emission standard.
For example, a technology offering 99.9% cleanup would not be justified if the emissions are only
25% above the emission standards, assuming an alternative technology is available that can meet
the standard.

Example 1.
Table 3.6 shows that the efficiency of the dry desulphurisation process increases from 75% to
98% with increasing sulphur load in the supply gas. This site has a total sulphur content of
approximately 2700 mg S Nm-3 in the supply gas. This is equivalent to Case Study 2b in
Environment Agency (2002h), and 98% cleanup could be achieved (giving a supply gas
quality to the gas engine of 135 mg S Nm-3). Once combusted, the exhaust will probably
contain only ~1% of this as hydrogen sulphide, i.e. ~1.4 mg Nm-3.
Table 3.6 also shows that the wet desulphurisation process achieves 99% gas cleanup,
although the information does not confirm whether this is achievable with the higher S
loadings found in our landfill gas supply.
Both technologies would be suitable for further consideration with these cleanup efficiencies.
Example 2.
Table 3.6 shows that the cleanup efficiencies vary for the component of interest. In this case,
removal of chlorinated compounds should be achievable at 95% efficiency for all the
secondary pre-treatment options (pressure water scrubbing, pressure swing adsorption, or
membrane separation), and at 93% for post combustion dry scrubbing.
There is 560 mg Cl Nm-3 in the supply gas and so all technologies are appropriate.
In certain circumstances a “no action” baseline condition should be considered in addition to other
technologies to help assess the environmental benefit of any cleanup treatment considered.
For components in the supply gas that affect the emissions of other gases, then the impact of the
supply gas quality on emissions must be calculated. For example, removal of chlorine in the supply
gas in Example 2 may reduce the emissions of PCDDs and PCDFs from the exhaust stack.
Quantification of the emissions and emissions reduction from each treatment option can be made
on the basis of measurements at an existing installation, or (if this does not exist) on the basis of
manufacturer’s information on the process (bearing in mind that both methods have inherent
uncertainties). Table 3.6 gives some estimates of emissions reduction due to variations in stack
height for the processes described in some of the case studies (see Environment Agency, 2002h),
and these data are used to illustrate the examples in this section..
The H1 method (Environment Agency, 2002d and 2002c) recommends calculation of the landfill
gas engine contribution of emissions to air according to the following approach, if more complex
modelling is not required:
PCair = DF × RR
Where:
PCair = process contribution (µg m-3)

RR = release rate of substance in g s-1
DF = dispersion factor, expressed as the maximum average ground level concentration per
unit mass release rate (µg m-3 g-1 s-1) based on annual average for long term releases.
Conservative dispersion factors are given in Table 3.6 below.

Table 3.6 Dispersion factors for various effective release heights
Effective height of release (m) Dispersion factor (µg m-3 g-1 s-1)
Long term: maximum annual Short term: maximum hourly
average average
0 148 3900
10 32 580
Releases which warrant no further consideration (i.e. no action on emissions cleanup are required)
are defined thus:
PClong term < 1% of the long term environmental benchmark.
PCshort term < 20% of the short term environmental benchmark.
The long-term emissions criterion is typically most applicable to landfill gas operations. The
criterion for screening long term emissions that are unlikely to lead to significant environmental
impacts is proposed as 1% of the relevant environmental benchmark. This is based on judgement
of the level at which it is unlikely that an emission will make a significant contribution to any
impact even if an EQS or EAL is exceeded.
Further guidance on discharge stack heights for polluting emissions is given in Technical Guidance
Note (Dispersion) D1 (HMIP, 1993).
3.5.3 Step 3. Quantify the environmental impacts resulting from the emissions
Each cleanup option identified will have its own environmental impact. Matter can neither be
created nor destroyed, and the pollutant abatement process will inevitably produce other waste
streams. The environmental impact of these (whether they are hazardous and costly to dispose, or
whether they create another environmental burden in another emissions pathway such as
groundwater) must be considered. Unfortunately, manufacturers do not highlight information on
waste streams produced by gas cleanup processes quite as readily as they do the benefits of the
technologies.
It would not be appropriate to select a cleanup option which had a significant environmental
impact in another media. For example, production of a hazardous waste oil or sludge as a result of
the cleanup process might be harder to manage than the atmospheric emission already taking
place.
In the absence of much information at the present time on the likely wastes arising from the
technologies in the two examples considered here, all technologies are considered equal in their
negative environmental impact.
3.5.4 Step 4. Compare options and rank in order of best environmental performance
Table 3.7 gives examples of a number of processes that can achieve gas cleanup for hydrogen
sulphide or halogenated organic compounds (or both). Nearly all have high cleanup efficiencies,
indicating that any of the options could be employed and little noticeable difference in emissions
reduction between the technologies would be evident. In such a situation, the costs (both capital
and operation and maintenance costs) would be a driving factor in the choice of technology.
If full CBA is not carried out, comparison of the capital costs, the cost per tonne of pollutant
abated, and annual operating cost are good indicators for assessing comparative costs, provided
the information for all options are comparable.

Interestingly, Table 3.7 also indicates that at lower pollutant loadings, the technology in case study
2 has a lower cleanup efficiency. It is equally possible that other technologies would perform
better at lower pollutant loadings than higher ones. The capability of the technology to treat the
gas quality of the site has an additional bearing on the comparison of technologies for their
environmental impact.

Table 3.7 Summary of factual information for Examples in text
Reference Case Study technology Substances requiring Assumed Raw inlet S or Cl gas Quantity of Cl or S Operating cost to abate Annual operating cost Capital costs for
No. of Case abatement cleanup concentration abated 1 tonne substance(£) to treat lfg plant (£million)
Study in efficiency (%) (mg Nm-3) (mg Nm-3) (excl of SNG or S sales, supply/exhaust for
Environment (see note 1) rounded to the nearest 1MWe engine @ 95%
Agency £100) uptime, £ (excl of SNG
(2002h) or S sales, rounded to
the nearest £100)
(see note 2)
2a Dry desulphurisation Sulphur 98 6720 6585 2600 81200 0.013
2b Dry desulphurisation Sulphur 95 2688 2553 2500 30000 0.006
2c Dry desulphurisation Sulphur 75 134 101 21600 10300 0.005
3 Wet desulphurisation Sulphur 99 376 373 11700 20600 5.039
4 Pressure water CFCs (total 95 560 532 158500 400000 4.150
scrubbing chlorine)
7 Pressure Swing Sulphur 99 376 373 94300 166700 1.370
Adsorption CFCs (total 95 376 358 98300 166700 1.370
chlorine)
8 Pressure Swing Sulphur 99 376 373 108300 191600 2.170
Adsorption CFCs (total 95 560 532 75900 191600 2.170
chlorine)
9 Membrane separation Sulphur 99 376 373 122500 216600 0.430
CFCs (total 95 560 532 85900 216600 0.430
chlorine)
11 Multiple System Sulphur 99 376 373 481000 850200 1.000
14 HCl/HF dry scrubbing HCl/HF (as total 93 440 410 1800 24500 0.015
(exhaust) chlorine)
Notes (1) maximum inlet gas concentrations for H2S and total Chlorine (as HCl) observed by Gillett et al. (2002) used for case studies 3-14,
total Cl concentration would give exhaust concentration of 81 mg/Nm3 (@5% O2
For case study 2a,b,c various inlet H2S gas concentrations assumed as per quote provided by supplier
(2) quantity of landfill gas required to maintain 1MWe engine assumed to be 570 m3 h-1

3.5.5 Step 5. Evaluate the costs to implement each option
When the appropriate technology(ies) have been selected for consideration, detailed capital,
operational, maintenance, waste disposal and manpower costs are required. The operator is
required to complete this process when more than one option exists for the mitigation of the
environmental impact of the installation. However, if the operator proposes to implement the
option from Step 4, which represents the lowest environmental impact, then an evaluation of costs
is not required.
The preferred method for appraising the various cleanup options is based on conventional
discounted cash flow (DCF) analysis, in which the future cash flows over the lifetime of an option
are converted to an equivalent annualised costs (dependent upon the discount rate chosen by the
operator). This facilitates the comparison of different cleanup options, which may be performed
over different timescales and cost profiles. The information required to perform such an analysis
should be collated on the forms shown in Section 3.4 above.
As previously stated, the case study cost information in Table 3.6 does not loan itself to true DCF
analysis because of the estimated and aggregated nature of some of the cost estimates obtained.
However, in Table 3.6 an attempt has been made to assess the capital cost of plant construction,
cost per tonne of pollutant abated (excluding capital costs) and yearly operational costs for a
1MWe landfill gas engine from the information obtained.
For the operator producing a cost evaluation, for each cleanup option, the annualised cost for each
option must be determined. The various steps and calculations required are summarised in Table
3.8.
The present value of the capital cost in the first year in Table 3.8 represents the sum of the
discounted capital costs spread over the term of the cleanup operation, as determined using the
discount rate. The average annual operating cost represents the average balance between operating
and revenue costs over the term of the cleanup operations. This is corrected to present value costs
using the present value factor.
In order to appraise the various cleanup options available the equivalent annual costs for each
option should be summarised and presented as indicated in Table 3.9.
Table 3.8 Calculating the annualised cost for each cleanup option
Step Result Unit

Discount rate, r (Operator input) = Fraction
Assumed life of the option, n (Operator input) = Years
Equivalent annual cost factor = =
r
+r
(1 + r ) n − 1
Present value factor = 1 / equivalent annual cost = £
factor
Present value cost of the option = (Annual average = £
operating costs x present value factor) + capital
costs
Equivalent annual cost = Present value cost of the = £
option x equivalent annual cost factor.

Table 3.9 Comparison of the equivalent annual costs for each cleanup option
Cost category / factor Option 1 Option 2 … … Option

n
Capital Cost (£ ‘000s)
Operating costs (£ ‘000s year-1)
Life of option (n) (years)

Discount rate (r)
Equivalent annual cost (£ ‘000s)
In the case of the two examples given here, even without performing a true CBA, the following
conclusions can be drawn.
Example 1.
The hazardous nature of the treatment process chemicals and some process wastes makes the wet
desulphurisation (Stretford) process unacceptable in environmental impact terms. The inordinately
high capital cost of the plant is too high, and the cost per tonne of S abated is significantly higher
than the dry desulphurisation process.
The dry desulphurisation process has a low capital investment cost and a moderate cost per tonne
of S abated (£2500 tonne-1 S abated).
Example 2.
Most of the secondary pretreatment processes have inordinately high capital costs and equally high
operational costs. Post-combustion dry scrubbing technology has the lowest capital cost and again
a moderate cost per tonne of Cl abated (£1800 tonne-1 Cl abated).
3.5.6 Step 6. Identify the option which represents the cost-effective technique
The selection of the option which represents the most cost-effective technique involves
consideration of both the economic and environmental appraisals. The option resulting in lowest
impact on the environment as a whole is considered to be the most appropriate one, unless
economic considerations make it unavailable.
If sufficient options are available to be appraised economically then it may be possible to generate
a curve of the cost against the environmental benefit (Figure 3.4). This process may help to
identify the point (the cost effective point, or BAT point, where applicable) at which the cost of
abatement rises rapidly, indicative that value for money begins to decrease rapidly.

Options
High cost
techniques
£
Low cost techniques
Cost “The Knee”
The cost
effective
point
Mass of Pollution avoided
Figure 3.4 Cleanup option cost versus environmental benefit
Where only one technology is applicable, or only one technology survives the assessment process
to this point, this method will not work. In these cases, calculating a cost per tonne of emissions
abated using the same cost information will give a number that can be assessed for cost
effectiveness.
The Agency is developing a database of costs of pollutant abatement so that judgements on

whether a cleanup technology should be implemented or not can be made against this database of
cost-effectiveness. These are termed cost effectiveness benchmarks, and are used to judge
whether a given technique should be implemented (Environment Agency, 2002h).
At the current time, only NOx emissions have been assessed in detail, but values also exist for
SOx, CO2, CH4, NMVOCs and PM10. Table 3.10 gives these indicative cost effectiveness
benchmarks (Note, these values will change with time).
Table 3.10. Indicative Cost Effectiveness Benchmarks (from Environment Agency, 2002g)
Emission Cost £ tonne-1 Study source
NOx 1400 Agency database
SOx 1600 Dutch database
CO2 25 - 30 DTI and ETSU
CH4 27 Dutch database
NMVOCs 3000 - 3100 Dutch/World Bank databases
PM10 1469 - 1600 AEA/Dutch database
CO has a typical persistence in the atmosphere of approximately two months. Post-combustion

oxidation to carbon dioxide should only be considered necessary if the site is near a sensitive

receptor and modelled dispersion characteristics indicate a potential risk. In such circumstances, a
cost effectiveness benchmark of £350 per tonne is considered indicative. The lower pricing
relative to NOx reflects the availability of the technology as well as the rate at which CO oxidises
in the air if no sensitive receptor is present. This guidance cost per tonne is provided in the
absence of any actual costs and may be subject to negotiation between the operator and the
regulator.
In other cases (such as siloxanes, which impact mainly on the longevity of engine components
rather than emissions) the decision to implement abatement technology will be purely a
commercial one, but nevertheless one which can be made on the basis of informed benefits versus
costs.
The need for gas cleanup will be determined by a number of factors, but the cost per tonne of
component abated is the clearest indicator of whether a process should be implemented or not.
If the result of the cost benefit analysis suggests that of all the available technologies, none is
sufficiently cost effective in relation to the banding, then implementation of the cleanup technology
will not be required.


4. PRIMARY PRETREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES
4.1 I n t ro d u c t i o n
Primary pre-treatment technologies represent the first stage in reducing the amount of
contaminants in the landfill gas and typically use simple physical process operations. The main
contaminants removed (or reduced) are water (albeit contaminated), referred to as ‘condensate’
and particulates. These technologies have been in use for many years and are now relatively
standard fits to active landfill gas management plants. Typical equipment and its operation are
described in the following subsections.
4.2 Water/condensate Knockout

The presence of liquid water in landfill gas pipework can have a detrimental effect on the plant
performance. Firstly, accumulation of water reduces the space available for gas flow which
means that the pressure loss will be raised, and, secondly, the unstable nature of two-phase flows
(i.e. liquid and gas combined) gives rise to oscillations which in turn means that a steady and
controllable operation cannot be achieved. The presence of contaminated water can also lead to
deposit formation on the pipe walls which reduces the smoothness and further increases the
pressure loss. Hence, the presence of liquid water in landfill gas pipes should be controlled and
minimised.
There are three components which can be treated, depending both on the source of the gas and
application or proposed usage of the treated landfill gas, namely:
• slugs of liquid;
• gas-liquid foam; and
• uncondensed water vapour.
The level of complexity (and therefore cost) increases down the list above and this has determined
that many installations in the UK rely solely on passive ‘slug catching’ vessels. However, some
schemes have adopted foam and droplet arresting systems to minimise the effects on engine intake
and control systems. Removal of uncondensed vapour is infrequently practised although there are
examples in the UK of plant which treat the landfill gas to yield a dew point of 2 °C. The basic
principles of each of the treatment options are described below.
4.3 Liquid Water Capture

In-line dewatering features are frequently adopted by landfill operators and these are usually
installed within the landfill gas collection network. However, there is invariably a need to
incorporate additional control measures to prevent onward transmission of liquid water. In some
cases, drains and water traps may be adequate for the supply gas specification.
A further common practice, usually forming the final element of dewatering is a knockout drum,
often called a ‘condensate knockout pot’ (occasionally called a ‘slug catcher’). This is located as
close as practicable to the inlet to the gas booster. The purpose of the knockout drum is to lower
the gas velocity sufficiently to enable ‘dropout’ of liquid which may then be drained or pumped to
discharge. Such devices are simple and capable of handling large gas flows (up to 10 000 m3 h-1)
and removing over 1 litre min -1 of water (see Figure 4.1).

4.4 Foam Removal

An often adopted refinement to water control systems is the incorporation of coalescing (or
demisting) meshes in the gas pipes entering and leaving a condensate knockout drum which
collapse entrained foam and prevent carryover. Typically the meshes are woven stainless steel
pads which provide a large surface area to trap the foam and allow it to drain under gravity to the
collection drum.
As an alternative (or in addition) to the knockout drum, some equipment manufacturers provide
cyclones which impart swirl to the incoming gas flow and thereby enhance the rate of liquid
removal from the gas stream.
Often several elements (for example, dewatering manifold, knockout drum and secondary cyclone
vessel) are built into a skid-mounted module which is linked directly to the landfill gas booster
inlet. Cyclones are reported by manufacturers to be able to capture 99% of droplets greater than
10 µm1.
Water and condensates in landfill gas represent possibly the most intractable contaminant from the
gas abstraction perspective, since accumulation in pipework is difficult to eliminate completely and
this can cause blockage. In addition, the acidic condensate can give rise to relatively high rates of
corrosion of carbon-steel pipework. A simplified flowsheet for a more sophisticated (as compared
to that depicted in Figure 3.1) primary pre-treatment system is shown in Figure 4.1. The additions,
compared to the typical primary pre-treatment system shown in Chapter 3 are a cyclone separator
and filter prior to the gas booster and an after cooler, chiller and secondary knockout pot between
the booster and the gas engine/flare.
High temperature flare
Slam-shut
valve
Flow metering
Gas compressor / booster
Burners
Flame arrestors Pilot

After
Cooler
Filter
Slam-shut
valve
om landfill Flow metering
Cyclone
Engine
separator
Knockout Chiller
vessel
Secondary
Knockout
Alternator
Condensate to landfill or treatment
Figure 4.1 More sophisticated primary processing system
1
High efficiency knockout cyclone gas separators. Kelburn Engineering Ltd.

4.5 Vapour Reduction

Raising the pressure of a gas mixture leads to an increase in temperature. Whilst some of the heat
of compression will be dissipated at source1, the delivery gas stream will inevitably be at a
temperature significantly higher than ambient. This may give rise to the need to cool the gas to
protect control valve seats, prevent over-stressing of polyethylene (PE) pipework2 and meet other
criteria for reliable metering or consumer safety considerations.
For applications where gas conditioning is specified (to reduce the amount of water vapour and
lower the dew point), the thermal load on the conditioning unit may be limited such that a pre-
chilling step may be required. Pre-chilling and aftercooling, whilst carried out for different reasons,
involve the same basic process, namely heat removal from the high pressure delivery gas stream.
The amount of heat to be removed will depend upon the specific heat capacity of the gas mixture,
the booster exit temperature, the mass flowrate of gas and the specified final temperature. For
typical primary cleanup processes, using for example a centrifugal gas booster, the heat load is
unlikely to require specialist equipment and a length of 5 to 10 m of corrosion protected steel
pipework may be sufficient. However, some cases where, for example, space is restricted, may
benefit from using a forced draught cooling stage.
It should be noted that in any instance of aftercooling, depending on the condition of the gas
stream leaving the landfill (in terms of specific moisture content), compression will reduce the
relative humidity which will be reversed on cooling. This can give rise to condensation in the
delivery line which can cause problems for the consumer. It is therefore essential to review and
measure the temperature profile along the pipework, and if necessary, install insulation or lagging
(or trace heating) of the downstream end of the pipe.
More complex (and much less widely used) types of gas cooling are available, these include: shell
and tube heat exchangers; spray towers and chilled water recuperators.
For some applications, there is a requirement to reduce the moisture content of the gas stream
such that at any point in the delivery pipework the relative saturation is always well below 100%.
In order to achieve this, the gas stream requires ‘conditioning’ using a dehumidification process.
There are three basic options which may be adopted to achieve this function: refrigeration drying;
deliquescent bed absorption; and glycol stripping. The former uses a refrigeration unit to chill the
wet gas to around 2ºC, causing condensation of a proportion of the water vapour. This is followed
by reheating of the cooled gas to between 10ºC and 15ºC. Greater levels of drying can be
achieved by cooling to -18ºC, although to prevent pipeline icing-up, the gas stream has to be
spiked with glycol, which is later removed from the product gas.
Deliquescent dryers involve passing the wet gas stream through a tower or vessel containing a
moisture absorbent material (for example, common salt) which physically absorbs the moisture.
These techniques lead to a pressure loss in the supply that should be allowed for in the
specification of the gas booster and its operational settings. In addition, the techniques can add a
significant amount to the gas processing costs - refrigeration units have an electrical load
(constituting a relatively large parasitic loss) whereas deliquescent dryers require regular ‘topping-
up’ of the granular absorbent. The techniques, by their nature, give rise to a contaminated water
stream which should be treated or disposed appropriately.
1
The heat of compression is described as adiabatic if there is no heat loss, isothermal if all of the heat of
compression is dissipated and polytropic for situations between the two limits. Practical gas boosters
and compressors operate polytropically.
2
Rated pressures for PE pipe fall off dramatically at temperatures above around 50 oC.

The glycol stripping process is more applicable to larger gas flow rates and involves passing the
wet gas through a counter current contact tower employing for example triethylene glycol (TEG).
Simplified process flowsheets for a refrigeration drying system and a TEG drying system are
shown in Figure 4.2 and Figure 4.3, respectively. These may be compared with the basic primary
processing arrangement shown in Figure 4.1.
Pretreated Gas
Compressor
Air Blast Cooler
Primary
Heat Exchanger
Refrigeration Cooler Condensate

'Conditioned' Landfill Gas
Figure 4.2 Typical Refrigeration-type Gas Conditioning System

Dried Landfill Gas
Raw Landfill
Gas
Glycol
Water
Glycol Contactor
Knockout Vapour
Compressor
Drum
Stripper
Glycol
Chiller
Evaporator
Condensate
Figure 4.3 Simplified Gas Drying Process using triethylene glycol (TEG)
4.6 Contaminated Water Management

The dewatering steps described in the previous paragraphs give rise to a waste stream comprising
a slightly acidic contaminated water with many of the characteristics of landfill leachate. The
chemical composition of the waste water will not allow untreated discharge and therefore the
following treatment routes are likely: return to landfill; storage in a local storage tank (an open
lagoon is unlikely to be acceptable owing to potential odour impacts); or piped to an on-site
leachate treatment facility. Analysis of condensates from field drainage points compared to plant
drainage points and from a range of landfill sites are given in Table 4.1 adapted from Knox (1991)
with additional data from Robinson (1995).
Table 4.1 Characteristics of Landfill Gas Condensates
Component/parameter Plant Field drains Range Mean

1
(Knox, 1991) (Knox, 1991) (Robinson, 1995) (Robinson, 1995)
pH 4.0 - 7.6 3.1 - 3.9 3.5 - 7.5 5.04
Conductivity 76 - 5700 200 - 340 111 - 5190 1342
Chloride 1 - 73 <1 – 4 <2 – 10 9
Ammoniacal nitrogen <1 - 850 3 – 15 0.6 – 764 133
Total Organic Carbon 222 - 4400 720 - 9300 36 - 5080 1969
COD 804 - 14 000 4600 27 - 18000 6884
BOD5 446 - 8800 2900 30 - 11200 3757
Phenols 3 - 33 4 - 17
Total volatile acids 141 - 4021 730 - 4360 <5 - 2995 629
-1 -1
Notes: 1. All values in mg litre except pH (dimensionless) and conductivity (mS cm )

4.7 Particulate Filtration

Particulates can arise in a landfill gas stream for a variety of reasons, and if allowed to pass
downstream to a supply plant or consumer can give rise to damage and wear of systems and
equipment. Parry (1992) highlighted the need for vigilance whenever knockout drums are used in
systems supplying gas engine generating sets. The issue of concern is bacterial growth in the vessel
which leads to particulates that can seriously affect engine operation.
Particles can be controlled either by passing the gas stream through a filter pad (typically made of
stainless steel wire) which can also double as a foam coalescing mesh, or alternatively using a
cyclone separator. Cyclones are capable of removing particles down to 15 µm (or even 5 µm for a
high efficiency cyclone) whereas filter pads are effective down to 2 µm. Both systems are prone
to blockage and therefore require frequent maintenance to remove accumulated solids.
A further approach to filtration (used in Austria by Entec Environment Technology

Umwelttechnik GmbH) is based on passing the raw landfill gas through a gravel pack or through a
ceramic filter pack. This removes particulates (down to 150 µm) and water droplets from the gas
stream.
4.8 Dealing with Wastes from Primary Cleanup Processes

The aims of primary treatment are to prevent transmission of liquid water and particulates to the
energy utilisation plant. It follows that the waste arisings from this treatment will comprise
predominantly contaminated water or condensate with similar characteristics and composition to
that of landfill leachate (Table 4.1). Assuming most of the liquids can be arrested within the gas
field network, the loading at the plant should be in the range 1 litre min -1 to 3 litre min -1 of liquid
condensate for every 1000 m3 h-1 of landfill gas flow (Robinson, 1995). This equates to
approximately 500 to 1500 tonne year-1 of contaminated water per 1000 m3 h-1 of landfill gas
processed which would require treatment. The solid particulate material is likely to comprise a
mixture of ‘biomass’ and mineral deposits, the latter rich in iron, calcium and silicon. There are no
known reported data on actual compositions or arisings of this waste stream. A significant
proportion of the waste stream may be removed in association with the condensate, while the
remainder is likely to arise following plant maintenance in for example, replaceable filter cartridges.
Spent filters will ultimately be disposed to landfill.

5. SECONDARY PRETREA TMENT TECHNOLOGIES
5.1 Introduction
Currently in the UK, landfill gas is used in utilisation plant only after primary pre-treatment.
However, there is now a growing body of evidence which indicates that in some instances this
practice can be detrimental both to the utilisation plant and to the environment. A range of
processes exist that are designed to provide a much greater level of gas cleaning than possible
using primary systems only. Such processes, which include both physical and chemical treatments
may be defined collectively as secondary pre-treatment.
To date, there has been relatively sparse uptake of secondary pre-treatment in the UK, although
operators of electricity generating plant have considered advanced cleanup systems owing to the
increasing number of engine failures.
The lead for the development of secondary pre-treatment systems has come primarily from the
USA, which had large scale plant in operation over twenty years ago, primarily for the production
of Synthetic Natural Gas (SNG). Within the EU more recently, there has been interest in
producing SNG by cleaning-up landfill gas, and some of the techniques used in SNG manufacture
are applicable to landfill gas pre-treatment for gas engines also.
A review of the experience in the US and Netherlands with cleanup technologies has enabled the
following information to be drawn together.
Pre-combustion cleanup of landfill gas trace constituents has no effect on bulk emissions of CO
and NOx and is therefore only of value in reducing aggressive gas constituents that either harm the
engine or produce unacceptable emission levels. This section addresses those secondary pre-
treatment options that are available for hydrogen sulphide, halogenated compounds and siloxanes.
The gas engine operator might consider these treatment options if:
• hydrogen sulphide is causing engine wear;
• halogenated solvents are causing engine wear;
• siloxanes are causing engine wear; and/or
• emissions of H2S, SO2, HCl, HF, PCDDs and PCDFs exceed safe concentrations as
determined by site-specific risk assessment.
5.2 Hydrogen Sulphide Pre-treatment

There are a number of methods of removing or stripping hydrogen sulphide from gas streams,
involving both wet and dry scrubbing techniques. Wet scrubbing techniques are usually employed
to remove not just hydrogen sulphide but a number of components.
5.2.1 Hydrogen sulphide dry scrubbing
An early solid chemical treatment for H2S widely employed for coke-oven gas was the use of an
‘iron sponge’ or a material of wood chips impregnated with hydrated ferric oxide (Environment
Agency 2002h: Case Study 1). The H2S within the gas reacts with the ‘iron sponge’ to form iron
sulphide, with cleanup efficiencies up to 99.98%.
Early utilisation schemes made use of iron oxide boxes to reduce the concentration of hydrogen
sulphide. For example, in the late 1970s, Cinnaminson landfill in New Jersey, USA provided gas at
a rate of around 300 m3 h-1 with 62% v/v methane to the Hoeganaes steel plant. The gas was
treated with partial success to reduce hydrogen sulphide by passing it through a bed of wood
shavings impregnated with iron oxide. Different scales of operation have been employed ranging

from gas flow rates of ~2500m3 CH4 h-1 (e.g. Avenue Coking Works) down to much smaller scale
plants ~100m3 CH4 h-1 (e.g. SCA paper recycling plant, Lucca, Italy; Camelshead Waste Water
Treatment Works, Plymouth, UK).
The SCA paper recycling plant uses two gas purifier units (Varec Vapor Control Inc.) which can
reduce outlet H2S concentrations to 4.5 ppm v/v. The spent adsorption beds can be reactivated by
air injection which converts the iron sulphide formed back to iron oxide and elemental sulphur,
providing a 5 year life span for each unit.
A system marketed as Sulphur-Rite (Gas Technology Products) uses an unspecified iron-based

medium to form iron sulphide to treat operations with H2S emission loads of <180 kg day-1 with
pre-engineered units handling gas flow rates up to 4300 m3 h-1 (i.e. H2S gas concentrations < 1765
mg m-3). This product claims to remove 3-5 times more H2S than a simple iron sponge system.
The system consists of one or two vertical reacting vessels, and the spent material is sent to
landfill.
Activated carbon filters (as powder, granules or fibres) are generated chemically and/or in a high
temperature steam environment to produce an extensive network of impregnated pores. These
pores provide the sites for the physical adsorption of H2S (and also water, CO2 and halogenated
compounds). These are most effectively used for polishing gases after other treatment(s) and the
high costs of replacement/regeneration and spent carbon disposal make such schemes expensive
for landfill gas operations.
Another system marketed as GAS RAP  is described in Case Study 2 of Environment Agency
(2002h). This system has the potential to cleanup H2S within the inlet supply gas down to levels of
between 25 and 50 ppm for landfill gas with typically 100 ppm v/v in the supply gas, and to
between 100 and 200 ppm for a landfill gas supply at high H2S concentrations (> 2000 ppm v/v).
The technology appears to be most cost-effective for landfill gas with high H2S concentrations
(> 2000 ppm v/v).
5.2.2 Hydrogen sulphide wet scrubbing
Chemicals used in the wet scrubbing of H2S can be solid or liquid and may be applied in batch
contactor towers or injected directly into the gas pipeline. The by-product of the reaction is usually
separated and disposed of as a waste. The chemical is consumed and the absorbent can be
regenerated.
A liquid chemical process employed for removing H2S from numerous gas streams (including coke
oven gas) is the Stretford process (Environment Agency, 2002h - Case Study 3). This employed
a caustic washing solution (containing sodium carbonate and pentavalent vanadium) to produce
elemental sulphur. A catalyst of anthraquinone disulfonic acid (ADA) combined with air injection
was used to regenerate (re-oxidise) the tetravalent vanadium and separate the sulphur. A removal
efficiency of H2S of 99.99% was achieved using this process (Moyes et al., 1974), which at
Smithy Wood was capable of treating gas at 8200 m3 h-1 with a H2S loading of 103 kg h-1.
A current proprietary liquid redox system that uses a chelated iron catalyst to convert H2S to
elemental sulphur (LO-CAT  process, Gas Technology Products) is designed for 99.9% removal
of H2S. The iron catalyst is held in solution by organic chelating agents which prevent precipitation
of iron sulphide or iron hydroxide so that the reduced (ferrous) iron can be reoxidised to ferric iron
in the oxidiser and the catalyst regenerated for the absorber stage, with the formation of elemental
sulphur. This system has been employed at the Central Sanitary Landfill (Broward County,
Florida, US) to treat 11000 m3 h-1 of landfill gas containing up to 5000 ppm v/v of H2S, prior to
use in gas turbines.
The landfill gas at Sonzay Landfill (Tours, France) has been treated using a fully operational water
scrubbing operation since 1994, with the capability to upgrade the gas for use as vehicle fuel

(Balbo, 1997). The landfill gas is initially compressed to 14 bars, water cooled and then passed
through a water packed counter-current wet scrubber. This physically absorbs most of the H2S
and CO2 (both of which have higher relative aqueous solubility compared to CH4). The water is
regenerated using ambient air, with the exhaust stream being cleaned using a biofilter. The
scrubbed gas is passed through dual adsorption columns (operational and regenerating) to dry the
gas, prior to secondary compression. This process produces a compressed natural gas (CNG) of
between 86 and 97% (v/v) CH4, with oxygen < 0.5% (v/v) and H2S < 5 ppm v/v (Roe et al,
1998). It is estimated that 2 litres of CNG can be produced per tonne of landfilled waste over a 15
year period (Balbo, 1997).
Other liquid absorption techniques use proprietary solvents rather than water to selectively remove
the H2S (plus CO2 and halogenated compounds) from the landfill gas stream, where the reduced
sulphur species that have been stripped can be recovered as elemental sulphur (typically at
between 95 and 99% recovery rates for H2S). The solvent Selexol™ (dimethyl ether of
polyethylene glycol) has been used to upgrade landfill gas to pipeline quality at a number of landfill
sites (Kohl and Nielsen, 1997) (see also Section 5.3 below).
A caustic wash process which relies on liquid absorption and salt formation to remove H2S (CO2
and mercaptans), uses either solutions of sodium or potassium hydroxide (NaOH or KOH) to
form stable salts such as sodium carbonate (Na2CO3) and sodium sulphide (Na2S). However, this
is not a good choice for landfill gas operations which have high concentrations of H2S or CO2
(Kohl and Nielsen, 1997). A liquid absorption process, important for industrial processes at a
larger scale than landfill gas operations (i.e. treatment of natural gas), uses various water soluble
solvents or alkanolamines to selectively absorb H2S (and CO2). Alkanolamines such as mono-, di-,
methyl-ethanolamine (MEA, DEA and MDEA) and di-isoproanolamine (DIPA) are widely used.
The gas under high pressure is purified via contact with the DEA solution in an absorber column
(trays or random packing). The DEA solution is released from the absorber under low pressure,
allowing escape of dissolved hydrocarbons which are usually passed to the fuel gas system. The
DEA solution is regenerated upon contact with steam in a stripping column, with the solvent raised
to its boiling point (110 °C) and stripped by the steam. On cooling to 40 °C the DEA solution is
re-circulated to the absorber column (typically up to 50 times per hour), whilst the H2S gas is fed
to a sulphur recovery unit to remove 99.9% of the sulphur.
A wet scrubbing system developed by Q2 Technologies uses a patented amine-based material

referred to as Enviro-Scrub. Company literature (Q2 Technologies, 1993) states that the amine-
based scrubbing compound used has an advantage over other common scrubbing compounds
(such as MEA, DEA, MDEA and NaOH) because the salts formed by the latter release H2S upon
heating or acidification. The Enviro-Scrub systems uses a triazine compound called 1,3,5-tri(2-
hydroxyethyl)-hexahydro-s-triazine (Environment Agency, 2002h - Case Study 4).
5.3 Pre-treatment of Halogenated Organic Species

A number of processes are available which are capable of treating most halogenated organic
compounds. These treatments also have an additional effect of scrubbing carbon dioxide and other
trace components. Historically, most of the operational experience to date has concentrated on the
removal of carbon dioxide and the information in the following paragraphs reflects this position.
5.3.1 Membrane separation techniques
The basis of this process is the differential permeability of gases through polymeric membranes.
The separation polymers typically comprise bundles of very large numbers of hollow fibres
arranged in a pressure vessel. When landfill gas is introduced into the vessel, carbon dioxide
passes through whilst methane is held back. This gives rise to a high pressure methane-rich gas on
the outside of the fibres and a lower pressure carbon dioxide enriched gas inside the fibres.
A single stage separation unit cannot provide very complete separation of methane and carbon
dioxide and typically, the low pressure off-gas (carbon dioxide enriched) may contain as much as

12% v/v methane. The product gas contains around 88% v/v methane. However, multistage
separation processes can achieve 98% v/v methane though pressures required for this operation
can be as high as 4 MPa.
The technology was developed originally by Monsanto in the USA (initially to remove carbon
dioxide from natural gas) but has also been used in Holland and Japan. The process (known as
‘Prism’) uses hollow silicone-coated polysulphone fibres contained within a steel pressure shell.
Throughputs of up to 100 m3 h-1 have been achieved. Another process (known as ‘Separex’) was
developed using spiral-wound cellulose acetate membranes packed in pressure tubes. This was
used for flows of up to 2360 m3 h-1 at Portland landfill in Oregon. The Puente Hills Separex plant
is illustrated in Plate 5.1 below.
One of the first membrane separation plants to operate on landfill gas was at Florence, Alabama
which, in 1983 produced approximately 60 m3 h-1 of SNG containing 90% v/v methane.

Plate 5.1 The Separex membrane separation plant at Puente Hills
In Holland, two plants have been set up to produce SNG from landfill gas. One at Vasse
(Tubbergen) with a design capacity of 200 m3 h-1 of SNG commenced operation in May 1992 and
the other, with a slightly smaller capacity (150 m3 h-1) commenced operation in mid-1993. Further
details of the Vasse plant are given in Environment Agency (2002h) Case Study 10, and
Weberpolder in Case Study 11.
5.3.2 Pressure swing processes
Pressure swing processes rely on the selective adsorption of carbon dioxide on the surface of
special porous solid adsorbents. The adsorption takes place at elevated pressure and the separation
takes place when the pressure on the adsorbent is relieved - hence the name, ‘Pressure swing’
adsorption or PSA. Cleanup plant utilising PSA operate in four steps:
• high pressure adsorption;

• depressurisation to ambient;
• vacuum stripping of carbon dioxide; and
• repressurisation of product.
There are two basic adsorbent types that have seen some use in the development of landfill gas
cleanup:
• molecular sieves; and

• activated carbon beds.
These are discussed in the following subsections.

Molecular sieve processes
A molecular sieve is essentially a packed bed of granular material that has special adsorption
properties which vary depending on the type of gas. The granular materials which can be used are
typically aluminosilicate minerals called zeolites. These materials are characterised by large open
structures with numerous open channels which can effectively adsorb carbon dioxide.
The process can only be operated in a batch-wise way, so that an operational treatment plant
requires multiple cascaded vessels, some of which act to remove carbon dioxide and others (with
spent zeolite) operate in a recharge mode. For a molecular sieve to be effective, the raw landfill
gas must be pretreated to remove sulphides (especially hydrogen sulphide), dried to remove water
and water vapour and have a low concentration of nitrogen (nitrogen is not removed by the
molecular sieve).
A simplified process flowsheet for a molecular sieve gas cleanup plant is shown in Figure 5.1.
The process was developed by GSF Energy Inc. in the USA and operated for a time at the Palos
Verdes site in California. A similar system was also developed for the Mountain View landfill, also
in California.
Activated carbon beds
High pressure landfill gas is adsorbed on a bed of activated carbon. The bed is then depressurised
and methane and carbon dioxide desorb at different rates allowing a separation to be made. In
order to provide a continuous flow product (since the process is batch-wise), a number of vessels
are configured such that some are adsorbing whilst others are yielding product in the desorption
phase.
A simplified flowsheet for this process is shown in Figure 5.2.
A scheme using this process was developed in Germany by Bergbau-Forshung GmbH comprising
three separate beds made up with a proprietary ‘carbon molecular sieve' material.
Examples of pressure swing adsorption technologies are given in Environment Agency (2002h)
Case Studies 7 – 9, and Case Studies 12 – 13 where the technology is used in series with other
cleanup approaches.

Raw Landfill Gas
Sieve 'n'
Operating
Sieve 1
Sieve 2
Sieves
Knockout Compressor
Drum
Sieve 'n'
Sieve 1
Sieve 2
Drier &
H 2 S Stripper
Condensate
Regenerating
Sieves
Condensate
Compressor
SNG Product
Figure 5.1 Simplified Flowsheet for a Molecular Sieve Gas Cleanup Plant
Recycle/Fuel Feed
Raw Landfill Gas
Active and Regenerating Beds
Knockout Compressor
Drum
Cooler
Condensate
Treated Gas
Condensate Regenerator Gas Heater
Figure 5.2 Simplified Flowsheet for a Pressure Swing Adsorption Plant using Activated
Carbon beds

5.3.3 Liquid absorption/solvent scrubbing processes
There are a number of proprietary and developmental processes which use organic solvents to
treat raw landfill gas to remove carbon dioxide, moisture and contaminants such as hydrogen
sulphide. The processes, which originated in the USA, all operate on the same principal and differ
from one another mainly in the solvent used. The basic objective of the process is to treat raw
landfill gas and produce a saleable SNG product.
One example, installed at Pompano landfill, Florida in 1985 had a throughput of over 4000 m3 h-1
of raw landfill gas giving around 2000 m3 h-1 of SNG. This plant used a 50% aqueous solution of
a tertiary amine as the solvent (MDEA, or methyldiethanolamine) which removed almost all of the
carbon dioxide and hydrogen sulphide.
The process was described by Dinsmore (1987) and may be summarised as comprising three
basic stages:
• compression of raw landfill gas to 2 mpa (around 20 bar);

• treatment in an amine contactor column; and
• drying and further compression (to 43 mg m-3 and 3.45 mpa, respectively) for onward
transmission.
A simplified flowsheet for the process is shown in Figure 5.3.
Raw Landfill Gas Lean Amine

Water vapour
Wet SNG
Amine Contact Tower
CO2
CO2 Flash
CO2 Stripper
Drying
Unit
2-Stage
Compressor
Hydrocarbon Dry SNG

Condensate Rich Amine Condensate
Single-Stage
Compressor
SNG Product
Figure 5.3 Simplified Flowsheet for Solvent (MDEA) Scrubbing Cleanup Plant
A variation on the theme of solvent scrubbing is a process developed to pilot scale in the UK
which utilised a hydrocarbon oil as a solvent. The trace components in the landfill gas were partly
removed in a counter current tower down which the solvent oil flowed. The contaminated oil was
regenerated in a vacuum stripping tower and the gaseous contaminants flared off. Pilot scale trials

showed successful reduction of concentrations of chlorinated compounds and siloxanes. However,

removal of the complex mixture of halogenated compounds in the raw landfill gas at the design
flow (600 m3 h-1) was not achieved. Further details of this process are given in Case Study 6 of
Environment Agency (2002h). Photographs of the decommissioned plant are given in Plate 5.2
below.
Plate 5.2 A UK based pilot scale hydrocarbon oil-based scrubbing plant
The key characteristics of a solvent with potential use in gas cleanup are as follows:
• high affinity for acid gases (in particular carbon dioxide);

• low bond strength with absorbed gases;
• low affinity for alkanes (methane);
• low vapour pressure at ambient temperatures; and
• high motility (i.e. low viscosity).
There are several solvents which are reputed to meet these requirements and as a result have seen
use in gas cleanup, as outlined below.

Selexol™
Selexol™ is a proprietary solvent derived from a dimethyl ether of polyethylene glycol (originally
developed by Allied Chemical Corp. and later licensed by GSF). In addition to the properties listed
above, it is both non-toxic and non-corrosive and is suitable for removing carbon dioxide,
hydrogen sulphide and water vapour. Its chief disadvantage is a relatively high cost (the equivalent
of £4.40 (year 2000) litre-1). The 'Rich' solvent (i.e. that which has passed through the process
and is saturated with the gas contaminants) can be regenerated using a series of flash
depressurisation and air stripping columns. The solvent has been used at a number of US landfills
(for example, Monterey Park, California; Calumet City, Illinois; and Fresh Kills, NY). Some
colour plates illustrating the process plant at Brea Olinda and Mountain Gate (California) are given
in Plate 5.3 below.
Plate 5.3 Selexol™ plants at Brea Olinda and Mountain Gate, California
New plant costs are estimated at £500,000 for 3500 m3 h-1 plant including contactor, chiller,
pumping, and above ground pipework. Existing U.S. plants (all owned and operated by GSF
Energy LLC) include Staten Island NY, Brea-Olinda CA, West Los Angeles CA, Kearney NJ and
Houston TX. Typical feed gas flow rates on these sites is 5000 to 10000 m3 h-1 and is delivered to
the unit at approximately 2.8 Mpa. The Selexol™ circulation rate is approximately 30 litres s-1.
Kryosol
The Kryosol process uses methanol pressurised to 2.8 MPa and chilled to around -70 °C and can
absorb carbon dioxide, acid gases and water vapour. Typically, the process is split into two
streams, in one the gas is dehydrated and the other has carbon dioxide removed. The 'Rich'
solvent streams (i.e. those which have passed through the process and are saturated with the gas
contaminants) are regenerated by a combination of flash evaporation and light heating.
Urcarsol-CR (DEA)
This process was developed by the John Zink Co and uses a proprietary solvent called Ucarsol-
CR. Alternatively, Diethanolamine (DEA) can be used. Both solvents remove carbon dioxide and
the process requires pre-treatment stages to remove moisture and other hydrocarbons by a
combination of refrigeration and adsorption on activated carbon. The system has been used at
Scranton landfill, Pennsylvania.

MEA (Monoethanolamine)
Developed originally for processing natural gas by removing carbon dioxide and hydrogen
sulphide, the process uses an aqueous solution of Monoethanolamine (MEA) in a pressurised
scrubbing tower, followed by regeneration by flash evaporation and steam stripping. Use of the
solvent suffers a number of disadvantages, principally the high rate of loss of MEA during
regeneration; the high process thermal load; and breakdown by-product formation. In addition, the
'Rich' solvent (saturated with carbon dioxide) is extremely corrosive. Further detail is given by
Zimmerman et al. (1985) and Henrich (1983).
5.3.4 Water scrubbing processes
The basis of the process is high pressure scrubbing of the raw landfill gas with pressurised water.
This removes a significant proportion of the acid gas contaminants including carbon dioxide which
can be released from the wash water in an air or steam stripping tower. The resulting 'regenerated'
water can be recirculated for further use. The chief disadvantage of water scrubbing is the very
large power consumption associated with pumping and handling the circulating flows. Without
such flows, the product yield would not have a suitably low concentration of carbon dioxide. The
process also removes hydrogen sulphide.
A simplified flowsheet for this process is shown in Figure 5.4 and a case study is discussed in
Environment Agency (2002h) Case Study 5.
A proprietary process using water was developed by Central Plants Inc. and called the Binax
Process. The product gas contains up to 98% v/v methane and less than 2% v/v carbon dioxide.
Plant sizes range from 300 m3 h-1 to 1770 m3 h-1.
A variation on water scrubbing which could offer lower operational costs for landfill gas cleanup is
scrubbing with an aqueous solution of potassium carbonate - the so-called ‘hot carbonate’ process.
This process has been in existence for many years and was originally developed for use in
treatment of ‘sour’ natural gas. The process is well-suited to treatment of gases with moderate
concentrations of carbon dioxide and low concentrations of hydrogen sulphide.

'Acid' Gas
Landfill Gas
Landfill Gas
Treated
Raw
Absorption
Knockout
Column
Compressor
Column
Stripper
Drum
Steam
Condensate Heat Exchanger
Figure 5.4 Simplified flowsheet for Cleanup Plant Using Water Scrubber
Typically, the carbonate solution is relatively stable although it can be neutralised by the presence
of sulphur dioxide and degraded by the presence of carbon monoxide. The overall efficiency of
the process is not that high (unlikely to be able to yield a high grade SNG) although doping of the
solution with additives called promoters (typically amines which selectively enhance the rates of
sorption) can improve performance.
Benfield, Catacarb and Flexsorb HP are all examples of commercial developments of the process
that have seen use in the natural gas processing industry. These processes are capable of reducing
carbon dioxide concentration to less than 2% v/v and hydrogen sulphide to about 10 ppm v/v.
5.3.5 Cryogenic processes
Cryogenic processes involve gas cooling and liquefaction to afford separation and purification.
There are two approaches to gas cleanup using cryogenic stages:
• liquefaction of methane; and

• liquefaction of carbon dioxide.
In the case of cleanup of landfill gas, the technique is most appropriately applied to the
liquefaction of methane from a pretreated stream from which carbon dioxide has been removed.
The basic aim is to remove nitrogen, which, when present in the raw landfill gas, passes directly
through other cleanup techniques.
The boiling point of methane is –162°C and therefore, to achieve liquefaction, the process should
have adequate refrigeration and heat exchange capacity to achieve this temperature. Typically,
several stages of counter current heat exchange are employed to cool the gas stream prior to
treatment in a partial condensing rectification tower. The waste stream comprises a mixture of
mainly nitrogen with a small amount of residual methane which is either vented to atmosphere or
blended and flared.
The outline flowsheet is shown in Figure 5.5.

Pretreated Gas Nitrogen-rich Offgas
Compressor
Refrigeration Tower
Primary Secondary
Heat Exchanger Heat Exchanger
Methane Gas Liquid Methane
Figure 5.5 Cryogenic Treatment to Remove Nitrogen
The alternative approach is to treat raw landfill gas, liquefy a proportion of the carbon dioxide
content and fractionate the methane carbon dioxide mixture. This requires operation at a pressure
of around 5 MPa and a temperature no lower than about -70 0C. Prior to the cooling stage, the
raw gas is treated to remove water vapour using an adsorption technique (molecular sieve or
activated carbon bed). This gives rise to a product stream with 90% v/v methane. To increase the
methane content further requires a second stage of purification which may be:
• further liquefaction using additional refrigeration;

• liquid absorption of carbon dioxide followed by secondary drying; or
• secondary adsorption of carbon dioxide.
A simplified flowsheet for this process is shown in Figure 5.6.

Landfill Gas
Landfill Gas
Treated
Refrigeration
Raw
Knockout
Column
Compressor Heat
Drying
Drum
Demethanising
Recovery
'Acid' Gas
Column
Condensate Heat Exchanger
Figure 5.6 Simplified Flowsheet for Carbon Dioxide Liquefaction
5.4 Siloxane Pre-treatment

Organic silicon compounds within landfill gas are predominantly in the form of organo-siloxanes or
silicones. Some of the major sources of these compounds within landfill gas include household and
industrial sources: cosmetics (carrier oils); detergents (anti-frothing agents); building materials
(impregnating oils); paper coatings and textiles. The detrimental effect of siloxanes has been
described in Section 2.2.5. There is currently no standard method for treating landfill gas to
eliminate or minimise siloxanes. Caterpillar and Waukesha, in the US, favour dropping the gas
temperature to about 4 °C in a chilling step, followed by a coalescing filter/separator to remove
additional moisture. The analytical data reported from a consortium study in the US involving
Caterpillar, Dow Corning, and others were inconclusive regarding silicon reduction (Niemann et
al., 1997). Effective activated carbon treatment systems reported by industry sources can be
costly since the spent carbon cannot be regenerated, may incur expensive disposal costs, and
active sites in the carbon will retain water vapour and halogenated compounds which decrease
carbon life.
In the UK, Shanks experimented with a solvent liquid absorption system using a hydrocarbon oil,
aimed primarily at scrubbing halogenated organics (see Section 5.3 above). This system also
achieved 60% removal of siloxanes (Stoddart et al., 1999).
Prabucki et al. (2001) describe three methods for removing organic, stated as being capable of
reducing the treated gas to < 1mg m-3 siloxanes. A summary outlining the procedures,
effectiveness of each method and the recommended range for each application is presented in
Table 5.1.
For all three modules drying of the gas is required to prevent condensation of water vapour and
blockage of the activated carbon sites. The first module uses a heat exchanger (from the water
cooling system of the gas engine) to heat the gas to between 35 and 40 °C which prevents build up
of moisture within the adsorption unit. No cleaning prior to the activated carbon unit is used,
resulting is higher replacement costs compared to the other two processes. The second module

uses a compressor and heat exchanger to first cool and then warm up the gas prior to the
adsorption unit. The cooling produces a watery condensate containing up to 25% of siloxanes,
which also traps some hydrocarbons (olefins) increasing the useful life of the activated carbon.
The gas is heated to 10 °C to take advantage of the observed increased siloxane loading capacity
of the activated carbon. The third module uses a freezing procedure to initially remove up to 90%
of siloxanes within the inlet gas. This saves considerable costs on the usage of the activated carbon
but requires additional electrical power for the compressors and a method of discharging the ice
formed. This is a more economic method for inlet gases ranging in siloxane concentrations of
between 200 and 1000 mg m-3.
Table 5.1 Summary of the procedures and effectiveness of siloxane cleanup (after Prabucki
et al 2001)
Type Stage 1 Cleanup Stage 2 Siloxane Application range

(gas drying) efficiency1 (adsorbtion) level
GRW warm gas 35- 0% activated carbon < 1mg m-3 Siloxanes < 10 mg m-3
40 °C Gas flow rate < 150 m3 h-1
GRK Cool gas to 2 up to 25% activated carbon < 1mg m-3 Siloxanes < 30 mg m-3
°C Gas flow rate > 150 m3 h-1
Post-warm up
to 10 °C
GRTK Cool gas to < up to 90% activated carbon < 1mg m-3 Siloxanes 200 - 1000 mg m-
3
-30 °C
Post-warm up
to 10 °C
Note: 1 this is dependant upon the type of siloxane within the gas
For each of the three modules, two activated carbon adsorption units are arranged in series (for a
designed gas volume flow rate and pressure loss) with sampling valves used to monitor gas quality.
Such an arrangement enables continuous operation of the module when siloxane breakthrough
occurs, as one container can be reloaded whilst the other is in operation.
Hagman et al. (2001) reported cleanup efficiencies, covering a range of volatile siloxanes found
within landfill gas, for a number of individual techniques: cooling to -25 °C (continuous
technique), 25.9% cleanup efficiency; freezing to -70 °C (continuous technique), 99.3% cleanup
efficiency; activated carbon (non-continuous technique), > 99.1% cleanup efficiency; and solvent
washing (continuous technique), 60.0% cleanup efficiency.
In addition to those already described, there have been several studies, within Germany ,
addressing the problem of removal of siloxanes. Schmidt (1997) discussed the use of a light
heating oil scrubbing system. Lenschow and Martens of Haase Energietechnik GmbH proposed
the use of a water wash process (Eur. Patent Appl. EP 955352, 1999) while Albertsen (1998)
mentions an oxidation system (ESOF Process), a liquid absorption system (EASi-Wash), and
activated carbon as the three systems capable of removing > 70% of the total silicon.
American Purification, Inc. in the US has been testing a regenerative adsorption system for
removing siloxanes from landfill gas. This process consists of solid polymeric adsorbents that can
be regenerated using a microwave treatment system. However, according to company literature, in
field testing at two Californian landfills, siloxane breakthrough was observed after only 12 hours.
At the present time, there is no consensus regarding siloxane treatment alternatives for landfill gas.
There is no quantitative understanding of the mass balance and partitioning of silicon through a
landfill gas combustion system, and there have been only a few investigations focusing on the
chemistry of the gaseous, liquid (condensate, engine oil), and solid silicon phases. Case Study (18)

in Environment Agency (2002h) relates to in-engine siloxane treatment, which is an alternative

approach.
5.5 Developmental Technologies
5.5.1 Hydrogen Sulphide scrubbing
A novel process for removal of hydrogen sulphide has been developed in Austria for cleanup of
digester biogas and it is capable of adaptation for cleaning up landfill gas. The method, known as
the ‘Biosulfex’ process1, is based on the bacterial treatment in a packed bed reaction tower. The
process is aerobic and requires the addition of air to the landfill gas prior to treatment. This is
likely to cause some difficulties in using the treated gas in a gas engine. However, high removal
efficiencies are claimed, in the range of 90% to 95%, for H2S concentrations of up to 2% v/v (20
000 ppm).
5.5.2 Halogenated or ganic scrubbing
A recently introduced Canadian process2 may also be suitable for treating landfill gas. The process
utilises a bed of natural material (for example wood chips) appropriately seeded by micro-
organisms which can remove VOCs and halogenated organics. The process appears to offer
significant cost advantages and is claimed to give a high performance (90 to 99% removal of
BTEX and halogenated compounds) whilst producing no hazardous waste products. However, the
process was developed for treating contaminated air and it may require significant development to
make it suitable for landfill gas cleanup. A similar process is offered by Dessau-Soprin 3. Again,
this is an aerobic process and the treated gas may not be suitable for energy production.
5.5.3 Humid Absorption Processes
A further treatment option could be derived from ‘humid absorption’ technology 4 which is based
on treating gases with a selected solvent in a packed tower. The process has been developed to
suit gaseous effluents from, for example, chemical plants and waste incinerators and is reported to
be able to remove acid gases, VOCs, NOx , SOx , H2S and Ammonia. Capital costs for the process
are reported as in the range £0.2 million to £6.6 million for gas flows of 1700 m3 h-1 and 85 000
m3 h-1, respectively.
5.6 Dealing with Wastes from Secondary Cleanup Processes

Wastes from secondary pre-treatment may be grouped into one of three categories:
• contaminated carbon dioxide offgas;

• contaminated aqueous condensates; and
• contaminated solids.
5.6.1 Contaminated carbon dioxide off-gas
The off-gas streams represent the largest arising and typically will amount to up to 5000 tonnes
per annum of carbon dioxide and up to 1000 tonnes per annum nitrogen for every 1000 m3 h-1 of
1
Entec Environment Technology Umwelttechnik GmbH
2
AirScience Technology, Montreal, Quebec H3K 1G6
3
Dessau-Soprin, Montreal, Quebec H3G 1TZ
4
Mesar-Environair Inc. Quebec, Canada

raw landfill gas processed. Since the off-gas stream also contains some methane (5 - 10 % v/v),
the usual approach to treatment would be to flare the stream blended with a proportion of raw
landfill gas. However, early process plant, especially those producing high grade SNG (methane
~98% v/v) frequently vented the off-gas direct to atmosphere.
5.6.2 Contaminated aqueous condensates
The aqueous condensates arise in varying, although generally small rates and, typically, the
majority is drained and returned direct to landfill. Condensates may also arise which may be
contaminated with the process solvents and these may require specialised treatment or disposal.
The magnitude of such streams is unlikely to exceed ‘a few tonnes’ per year, since the process
will be designed to minimise loss of relatively costly solvents. However, in order that the sulphur
and chlorine compounds should not be returned to the landfill, best practice is to have these
condensates treated, or destroyed either chemically or by incineration. The sulphur and chlorine
removed should not be returned to the landfill to re-enter the gas management system.
5.6.3 Contaminated solids
Contaminated solid wastes will comprise numerous materials, depending on the type of cleanup
process. For example, pressure swing adsorption plant will produce batches of ‘spent’ adsorbent
(of the order of 5 - 10 tonnes per year) which will typically be ‘regenerated’ to recover the
adsorbent. The fate of the wastes that arise within the ‘regeneration’ part of the process is not
known, although it is likely that high temperature incineration would be used for disposal. Other
forms of solid wastes comprise:
• spent oxides (from desulphurising units), again of the order of 5 - 10 tonnes annually, which
can also be regenerated;
• filter pads and meshes; and
• other maintenance consumables.
The latter would have most likely been disposed to landfill. However, to avoid the recycling of the
sulphur and chlorine compounds in this particular waste management cycle, these substances,
which may well be hazardous in nature, should be separately monofilled in a non-gas generating
monofill.


6. ENGINE MANAGEMENT, IN-ENGINE AND EXHAUST GAS

TREATMENT PROCESSES
6.1 Introduction
Secondary pre-treatment of landfill gas can be an expensive management option. In this section of
the guidance document, engine management, in-engine and post combustion (exhaust) treatments
are considered. Many of these are available at a much lower capital and operational cost and it is
likely that these technologies will dominate future solutions to emissions management.
Engine management systems and in-engine treatments can be used to reduce NOx and siloxanes,
and post-combustion systems can be used for NOx, CO, aldehydes, and acid halides.
6.2 G a s E n g i n e s a n d t h e i r O p e ra t i o n
When considering engine management, it is first necessary to understand the operation of the gas
engine.
The two principal methods used to ignite the gas and air mixture in the combustion chamber of a
reciprocating engine are by injection of a small quantity of diesel fuel (dual fuel engines) or with
use of a high voltage spark (spark ignition engines). More than 98% of engines used for power
generation from landfill gas are of the spark ignition type, owing to the mass production of
nominal 1 MWe output generating sets that happen to be especially suitable for the quantity of gas
that is available from most landfill sites in the UK. These engines are also of a simpler
construction and do not incur the added cost of diesel fuel or its on-site handling.
Gas turbines are in use, but are not currently considered a realistic option for power generation
from landfill gas. This is because there is virtually no commercially viable applications for the
significant waste exhaust heat that results from their lower thermal efficiency (25 – 28% in a gas
turbine, compared to 38 – 42% in a spark ignition engine). Difficulties experienced in compressing
the gas to the required pressure, owing to condensation and corrosion and the fact that such units
tend to be sized at 3 MWe and above, further detracts from their selection.
Setting aside fuel constituents, the following principal engine design features influence power
output, efficiency and exhaust gas emissions:
• engine speed;
• bore diameter; and
• piston stroke.
Detailed design of combustion chamber related components, including cylinder heads, liners, and
valves have a secondary influence. All such design aspects are addressed when an engine type
receives certification to a defined emission standard, as in the TA-Luft approach. Once in
production, with very significant numbers of a particular engine type in service, variation to this
principal design is not normally an option to significantly improve emission levels.
The most common variation on design is that of ‘wet’ or ‘dry’ exhaust manifolds. Use of ‘wet’
(water cooled) exhaust manifolds means that energy is removed from the exhaust gases which
reduces the power of the turbocharger (that compresses the engine inlet air). The result is a less
thermally efficient engine, lower output and lower NOx.
Any form of thermal efficiency reduction poses penalties in the form of a higher capital cost per
kWe installed and lost revenue. For example, a 5% reduction in output for plant earning 3p per
unit equates to a nominal £12,000 per annum loss. When considering adoption of a cleanup

technology, the operator's main consideration relates directly to the need (engine longevity and
environmental need) and overall cost that determines the commercial viability of the project for
electrical power generation.
Four key areas are addressed when considering the optimum balance between engine thermal
efficiency, longevity and exhaust emissions:
• electronic engine management systems (EMS);
• in-engine treatment at pre-combustion or post combustion stages;
• exhaust gas after-treatment; and
• supply gas clean-up.
Supply gas cleanup has already been considered in Chapters 4 and 5. Here, the other options are
considered.
6.3 Engine Management Systems and NOx

The combustion process in a modern gas engine is controlled and balanced by the electronic
Engine Management System (EMS). Continuous, computer controlled adjustment of parameters
such as engine ignition timing, air-flow from the turbocharger and cooling water temperature, is
available on all modern gas engines fitted with analogue or digital transducers at key locations.
Sampling of parameters is usually around once every 50 ms. The capability of these systems has
steadily improved and further advances are anticipated.
The complete EMS system is designed as an integrated suite of panels including control of
ancillary motors, synchronising to the external electrical network, pre-detonation adjustment and
telemetry functions for remote monitoring, control and historic record. For the purpose of this
guidance, these functions are not of interest.
The operator interface is usually driven via a fascia mounted touch screen with full graphic
representation of the system. Faults, real time values and historic data can all be displayed. This is
actually described as a Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition or SCADA system. Examples
include the Caterpillar “Lima”, Deutz “Tem”, and the Jenbacher “Diane” systems. These names
should not be confused with major system components such as the air to fuel controller (e.g. the
Caterpillar’s “Techjet”).
The operating conditions chosen on the EMS must achieve the balance between greater thermal
efficiency (that brings with it high NOx), and the “lean-burn” condition with better destruction of
VOCs and lower NOx. Most gas engines are operated in “lean burn” mode.
Due to the ease of user interaction, setting the EMS of a typical 1MWe spark ignition engine to
operate at the level of 500 mg Nm-3 NOx rather than the currently typical value used in the UK of
650 mg Nm-3 is a very cost-effective way to reduce NOx emissions, and it is recommended that
this practice is carried out. Reducing NOx below this level can create other operational problems
and should not be deliberately encouraged. This will result in higher CO emissions than at 650 mg
Nm-3 NOx output and it is important to be aware that these gases tend to exhibit an antithetic
relationship and that a balance needs to be achieved between the two emissions.

It is preferential to hold NOx at 500 mg Nm-3 and allow CO emissions to rise, since NOx is
typically the pollutant which requires primary control. CO will oxidise to CO2 although care should
be taken with high CO emissions in enclosed areas.
6.4 In-engine Treatments
6.4.1 Water injection to reduce NOx
Humidification or injection of de-ionised water (which quickly becomes steam), into the engine
before combustion is a proven technology used extensively to reduce NOx in large industrial and
marine diesel engines. The technique has been tried with encouraging results on landfill gas
burning engines and on those sites which need to reduce NOx, whilst retaining good thermal
efficiency it is likely to attract greater interest. The ‘Biometer’ system that has been tested is
reported to reduce NOx by 50% (see Case Study 17 of Environment Agency, 2002h)).
An added advantage of the system, if properly controlled, is to assist the removal of combustion
deposits (and potentially silica from siloxanes) from components and thus extend maintenance
periods. Good control is essential as a moist atmosphere combined with hydrogen chloride and
hydrogen fluoride produced from halogenated organic compounds in the supply gas may lead to a
rapid deterioration of engine components.
Capital costs are likely to be low if “humidification kits” are produced in quantity, although the
fine balance currently achieved with lubricating oil formulation and other material influences would
need to be addressed.
6.4.2 Oxygen enrichment
Increasing the oxygen content of the engine inlet air by a few percent, with associated engine
tuning, can enable liquid and gaseous fuels to burn more efficiently. This has been well known for
decades, although has not been commercially viable owing to the relatively high cost of
commercially produced oxygen and additional care for storage. Development in recent years on
liquid fuel engines has enabled adequate air inlet enhancement with use of patented technology
resulting in a nominal 3m x 3m x 3m “air inlet filter” for a 1MWe engine. Refinement is expected
to enable smaller unit sizes, although most industrial installations can accommodate the additional
space required.
Methane slippage, which tends to represent around 98% of VOCs in the exhaust, is expected to be
reduced and CO levels to fall dramatically if this developing technology were implemented. A
reduction in the peak cylinder pressure also assists in reducing the onset of pre-ignition (knock)
and therefore a higher output may be anticipated.
The disadvantage to the process is the high levels of NOx generation, which is produced directly
as a result of higher peak combustion temperatures. Subsequent after-treatment of NOx to achieve
acceptable emissions is unlikely to be commercially viable.
Capital costs are likely to be relatively low, if air inlet “kits” were to be produced in quantity.
6.4.3 Exhaust gas re-circulation
This system employs re-circulation of inert exhaust gas that reduces the peak combustion
temperature and engine efficiency. It is not currently used on landfill gas engines. If it were to be
used, between 10 and 50% NOx reduction may be anticipated at minimal cost, with the added
likely benefit of a reduction in methane slippage. However, the quantity of power loss involved
and the extent of accelerated engine deterioration as a result of re-circulating aggressive gas
constituents needs to be clarified.

6.4.4 Chemical injection
The presence of siloxanes in the supply gas can have a similar effect to the presence of acid
forming gases in terms of engine wear, although unlike the ‘acid’ problems, keeping engine
operating temperatures well above dew points provides no benefits in this case. Extensive trials
have been undertaken with injection of a chemical formulation via stainless steel nozzles, located
within the air inlet manifold. An automated dosing unit is programmed for frequency of application
and spray duration to treat the particular characteristics of the contaminant, engine and operating
environment. The cleaning fluid is believed to be non-toxic and reacts to release a fine dry powder
that travels harmlessly through the engine and passes out with the exhaust gases.
Plate 6.1 Boroscope photographs of exhaust valves (1MWe landfill gas engine)
Trials have been carried out at six landfill site installations up to the end of 2001. It is claimed they
show that siloxane build-up in a 1MWe engine can be effectively managed using a total of between
1.5 to 2 litres of fluid per day administered in 6 doses.
The capital cost is approximately £5,500 and £5 per litre running cost per 1MWe engine. A case
study is discussed in Environment Agency (2002h) (Case Study 18).

6.5 Exhaust After-treatments

Engine exhaust after-treatment is not currently used for landfill engines in the UK. If and when it
is, it will be necessary to determine which primary contaminants are to be treated.
6.5.1 Post combustion thermal oxidation of CO
Post-combustion thermal oxidation is a process which is primarily intended for oxidation of CO to

CO2. An additional benefit is oxidation of unburnt NMVOCs and particularly aldehydes such as
formaldehyde (methanal). One such system produced by Jenbacher is the CLAIR system
designed specifically for biogas lean-burn engines. Further details can be found in Case Study 14
of Environment Agency (2002h). Caterpillar market a similar system.
The exhaust gas is re-heated from around 540 to 800 °C, with the residual hydrocarbons (CH4
and NMVOCs) as well as CO oxidised to form water vapour and CO2 by the residual oxygen
within the exhaust gas. It should be noted that NOx is not reduced. Reported emission levels
achievable are CO 150 mg Nm-3, total unburnt hydrocarbons 150 mg Nm-3 (as CH4) and
formaldehyde 15 mg Nm-3. These are below the Agency’s emission standards (Table 2.3).
Dimensions of the entire system are around 6.7m in length by 4.2m width and 3.9m in height for a
nominal 1MWe generating set. Capital outlay is approximately 30% of the generating set package
with efficiency savings that the manufacturers consider result in only a few percent additional
overall cost.
Use of systems such as this for oxidation of CO to CO2 should be a matter of judgement, since
CO will oxidise naturally over a two-month cycle in the atmosphere. They should only be
considered if the Agency’s emission standard is otherwise unachievable.
6.5.2 Post com bustion catalytic oxidation of NOx
This process is known as the selective catalytic converter or SCR process. The technology is
proven and consists of passing the oxygen bearing exhaust gas treated with a reactant ammonia or
urea solution ((NH2)2CO) through a fine tubed honeycomb-patterned converter. The NOx is
reduced to nitrogen, and water is liberated on the active SCR surface. HUG Engineering offer an
additional catalytic oxidation stage to reduce hydrocarbons and CO to CO2 and H2, by passing the
SCR treated exhaust through a ceramic honeycomb coated with noble metals. It has been
successfully used in marine engines. This catalytic process is not generally applicable to landfill gas
engines without additional pre-combustion gas cleanup, due to catalyst poisoning.
A 95% reduction in NOx can be achieved with heat recovery – a bonus if associated with a CHP
scheme. The aspects of this technology which detract from its general use on landfill gas engines
are:
• landfill gas installations in the UK infrequently lend themselves to CHP;

• the catalyst can be quickly poisoned by acid forming compounds within landfill gas; and
• these would have to be removed (via the use of wet scrubbing pretreatment for example)
which would add significantly to the cost.

6 . 5 . 3 H a li d e s c r u b b i n g
On some landfills with very high chloride loadings and, if pre-combustion gas cleanup for
halogenated solvents has not been adopted, HCl and HF emissions may need to be the subject of
site-specific risk assessment. If the risk assessment shows that treatment is required, there is a
product which claims to be able to reduce HCl and HF emissions to sub-TA-Luft standards from
even the highest observed concentrations of these components in exhaust gases.
The Absorption Modular System, described in Case Studies 15 and 16 of Environment Agency
(2002h), has the potential for application to cleanup of hydrogen chloride (HCl) and hydrogen
fluoride (HF) emissions from landfill gas engine exhausts. The exhaust gas containing the halides
flows through a reactor containing calcium hydroxide bonded to a honeycomb providing a large
contact surface area. The waste produced is a mixture of calcium chloride and calcium fluoride,
and residual calcium hydroxide. A standard unit is capable of treating exhaust flow rates of
between 9000-10000 Nm3 h-1, and the replacement of the molecular monolith blocks is dependent
on the inlet loading of HCl and HF in the exhaust.
It should be noted that this technology has not yet been applied to landfill gas engines.

7. CONCLUS IONS
The treatment of landfill gas used in power generation will have both financial and environmental
costs. A cost benefit analysis should be conducted on the financial and environmental factors that
will arise from employing a particular treatment on the supply gas to or emissions from the engine.
Although the financial issues such as reducing maintenance costs and economic viability of the
utilisation scheme will be of concern to operators and power producers, the principal concern of
the Agency is the cost benefit balance on environmental factors. Benchmark figures are given to
judge whether the cost of abatement of a particular emission will be beneficial.
The primary pretreament of the supply gas to remove particles, liquids and vapours enhances the
performance of the engines and normally gives significant financial benefits to the operator in
terms of reduced wear on the engine and better overall performance. The environmental costs are
generally low and there will also be some environmental benefits. Hence, one or more methods for
primary pretreatment of landfill gas prior to use are typically installed.
Secondary pretreatment to remove chemical components in the supply gas has substantial financial
costs and will carry some environmental cost, particularly in the management of the secondary
waste arisings. A careful assessment of costs and benefits must be conducted following the
recommended procedure in order to clarify the financial and environmental impact of a particular
treatment relative to the status quo.
In-engine and post-combustion emissions treatment removes some of the bulk (and trace) gas
products of combustion that can impact on air quality. The cost of these processes should be
considered in both the capital cost of the equipment and the reduced power output that normally
accompanies employment of such methods. The environmental costs are generally low and the
environmental benefits may be significant for some gas streams at particularly sensitive locations.
A site-specific cost-benefit analysis is needed to determine whether in-engine treatment is justified.
This should follow the systematic cost-benefit procedure recommended here to provide an
auditable and common basis for comparison.
The benchmark figures for the introduction of particular abatement technology require low
process costs to warrant treatment for reducing methane and carbon monoxide emissions,
intermediate process costs will justify treatment to reduce NOx emissions but much higher cost
processes are justified to abate elevated PM10 and NMVOC emissions.


REFERENCES
Albertsen A (1998). Silizium in deponiegas – risikominimierung durch Vorbehandlung. in M.

Merten et al., eds., 1s t die Nachsorgephase vor dem Hintergrund der Sickerwasserreinigung
und Deponiegasverwertung ein wirtschaftlich kalkulierbares Risiko, published by Klenkes
Druck und Verlag, GmbH, Aachen, Germany. (in German).
Aramata M, and Saitoh K (1997). A new analytical method for Silicone determination in the
Environment by pyrolysis GC/AED. American Laboratory, 29, 19.
Balbo M (1997). Landfill gas fuelled vehicles: the Sonzay experience. Proceedings Wastetech
1997, Tempe, Arizona, published by National Solid Waste Management Association,
Washington, D.C.
Council of the European Communities (1991). Council Directive 75/442/EEC on waste”, as
amended by “Council Directive 91/156/EEC concerning The Framework Directive on
Waste. Official Journal of the European Communities, L78, 33-37 .
Council of the European Union (1996). Council Directive 96/61/EC concerning Integrated
Pollution Prevention and Control. Official Journal of the European Communities, L257, 26-
40.
Council of the European Union(1999). “Council Directive 1999/31/EC on the landfill of waste.
Official Journal of the European Communities, L182, p1-p19.
Dinsmore, H L (1987). High BTU landfill gas recovery utilizing pressure swing MDEA process.
Waste Management & Research Vol 5, 133-139.
Environment Agency (2002a). Guidance for monitoring landfill gas engines. External Consultation
Draft. Environment Agency, Bristol.
Environment Agency (2002b). Guidance for monitoring enclosed landfill gas flares. External
Consultation Draft. Environment Agency, Bristol.
Environment Agency (2002c). Guidance on the management of landfill gas. External Consultation
Draft. Environment Agency, Bristol.
Environment Agency (2002d). Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control (IPPC).
Environmental Assessment and Appraisal of BAT. Guidance Note H1. Environment
Agency, Bristol.
Environment Agency (2002e). Engine emissions data. R&D Project Report P1-406. (In
preparation) Environment Agency, Bristol.
Environment Agency (2002f). Investigation of the composition and emissions of trace components
in landfill gas. R&D Technical Report P1-438/TR. Environment Agency, Bristol.
Environment Agency (2002g). Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control. Cost Effectiveness
Benchmarks. Guidance Note H6 . (In preparation) Environment Agency, Bristol.
Environment Agency (2002h) Gas treatment technologies for landfill gas engines: case studies,
R&D Technical Report P1-330/TR. Environment Agency, Bristol.
European Environment Agency (1999). Guidelines for defining and documenting data on costs of
possible environmental protection measures. Technical Report No. 27. EEA, Copenhagen.
Gillett AG, Gregory, RG, Blowes JH and Hartnell, G (2002). Landfill Gas Engine and Flare
Emissions. LQM report 158. Available at www.lqm.co.uk and www.r-p-a.org websites and
from Shanks First Fund.

Grumping R, Mikolajczak D, and Hirner A (1998). Determination of trimethylsilanol in the

environment by LT-GC/ICP-OES and GC-MS. Fresenius J. Analytical Chemistry, 361,
133-139.
Hagmann, M, Hesse, E, Hentschel, P and Bauer, T (2001). Purification of biogas - removal of
volatile silicones. In Proceedings Sardinia 2001 Eighth International Waste Management and
Landfill Symposium, Volume II, pp. 641-644.CISA, Cagliari, Sardinia.
Henrich, RA (1983). Landfill and digester gas purification by water extraction. Energy from
Biomass and Wastes VII. Lake Buena Vista, Florida. January 1983. Institute of Gas
Technology, Chicago, Illinios.
Her Majesty’s Insptectorate of Pollution (1993). Guidance on discharge stack heights for polluting
emissions. Technical Guidance Note (Dispersion) D1. ISBN 0 11 752794 7.
Hone J, and Fry C (1994). Volatile silicon compound measurements in the landfill gas at Puente
Hills landfill. Report prepared for County Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County,
Whittier, CA by Carnot, Tustin, California.
Huppmann R, Lohoff H, and Schroeder H (1996). Cyclic siloxanes in the biological wastewater
treatment process – determination, quantification, and possibilities of elimination. Fresenius
J. of Analytical Chemistry, 354, 66-71.
Kala S, Lykissa E, and Lebovitz R (1997). Detection and characterization of
poly(dimethylsiloxane)s in biological tissue by GC/AED and GC/MS. Analytical Chemistry,
69, 1267-1272.
Knox, K (1991). The relationship between leachate and gas. Proceedings International
Conference: Landfill Gas Energy and Environment ‘90. Bournemouth, October 1990.
ISBN 0 7058 1628 1ETSU, Culham, UK.
Kohl A, and Nielsen R (1997). Gas Purification. Gulf Publishing, Houston, Texas.
Molten P, Halle, R, and Pyne J (1987). Study of vinyl chloride formation at landfill sites in
California. Report to State of California Air Resources Board by Materials and Chemical
Sciences Center, Battelle Pacific Northwest Laboratories, Richland, Washington, under
Contracts A4-154-32 and 2311206978. Published by Battelle, USA.
Moyes A.J., Wilkinson J.S. and Mills B. (1974). The desulphurisation of coke oven gas by the
Holmes-Stretford process. The Coke Oven Managers Association Year-Book. Derry &
Sons, Nottingham, England.
Niemann M, et al. (1997) Characterization of Si compounds in landfill gas. Proceedings Solid
Waste Association of North America (SWANA) 20th Annual Landfill Gas Symposium,
Monterey, California, published by SWANA, Silver Spring, Maryland.
Parry, C G (1992). The quality of landfill gas for utilisation in engines. Proceedings Power
Generation from Landfill Gas Workshop, Solihull, 13 Nov 1991. ETSU, Culham, UK.
Prabucki, M-J, Doczyck, W and Asmus, D (2001). Removal of organic silicon compounds from
landfill and sewer gas. In Proceedings Sardinia 2001 Eighth International Waste
Management and Landfill Symposium, Volume II, pp. 631-639. CISA, Cagliari, Sardinia.
Q2 Technologies (1993). ENVIRO-SCRUB® TRS Control Agents. Q2 Technologies, Conroe,
Texas, USA.
Robinson, H D (1995). A Review of the composition of leachates from domestic wastes in
landfill sites. Department of theEnvironment Report R CWM 072/95.Environment Agency,
Bristol.

Roe, S, Reisman, J, Strait, R and Doorn, M (1998). Emerging technologies for the management
and utilisation of landfill gas. Contract No. 68-D30035. United States Environment
Protection Agency report no-600/R-98-021. (www.epa.gov).
Rowland F S, and Molina M (1974). Stratospheric sink for chlorofluoromethanes: chlorine atom
catalysed destruction of ozone. Nature, 249, 810-812.
Schmidt C (1997). Economic optimisation of a landfill gas processing installation. Trierer Ber.
Abfallwirtsch, 11, 109-126. (in German).
Schweigkofler M, and Niessner R (1999). Determination of siloxanes and VOC’s in landfill gas
and sewage gas by canister sampling and GC-MS/AES. Environmental Science and
Technology 33, 3680-3685.
SI 1559 (2002). The Landfill (England and Wales) Regulations 2002. ISBN 0 11 039590 5. The
Stationery Office, London.
SI 1973 (2000). The Pollution Prevention and Control (England and Wales) Regulations 2000.
ISBN 011 099621 6. The Stationery Office, London
Stoddart J, Zhu M, Staines J, Rothery E, and Lewicki R (1999). Experience with halogenated
hydrocarbons removal from landfill gas. In Proceedings Sardinia 1999 Seventh International
Waste Management and Landfill Symposium, Volume II pp. 489-498. CISA, Cagliari,
Sardinia.
Varaprath S and Lehmann R (1997). Speciation and quantification of degradation products of
silicones (silane/siloxane diols) by gas chromatography-mass spectrometry and stability of
dimethylsilanediol. Journal of Environmental Polymer Degradation, 5, 17-31.
Wachholz S, Keidel F, Just U, Geissler H, and Kaeppler K (1995). Analysis of a mixture of linear
and cyclic siloxanes by cryo-gas chromatography – Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy
and sas chromatography-mass spectrometry. J. Chromatography A, 693, 89-99.
World Meteorological Organization (1999). Scientific Assessment of Ozone Depletion: 1998.
Global Ozone Research and Monitoring Project – Report No. 44. WMO, Geneva.
Zimmerman, RE, Walsh, J J et al. (1985). Landfill Gas: Resource evaluation and development.
Gas Research Institute, where published.


GLOSSARY
1MW e 1 megawatt electrical output – the nominal output of most internal combustion
spark ignition gas engines used in the industry today. Approximately 3MW
thermal input is required to produce 1MW of electrical output.
abatement reducing the degree or intensity of, or eliminating, pollution
absorption removal of a pollutant from a liquid or gaseous supply by the uptake and
retention of the pollutant into a solid or liquid
acidification continuing loss of capacity to neutralise acid inputs indicated by declining
alkalinity and increasing hydrogen ion concentration (i.e. the decrease in pH of
a solution resulting from increases in acidic anion inputs such as sulphate)
activated carbon a highly adsorbent form of carbon used to remove odours and toxic substances
from a liquid or gaseous supply
adsorption removal of a pollutant from a liquid or gaseous supply by collecting the
pollutant on the surface of a solid material
aerobic in the presence of oxygen
after-burner a burner located so that the combustion gases are made to pass through its
flame in order to remove particulates, unburnt hydrocarbons and odours
after-cooling treatment process to separate and remove water vapour and liquids from a
compressed gas supply to prevent condensation downstream
alkaline the condition of the gaseous or liquid supply which contains a sufficient amount
of alkali substance to raise the pH above 7.0
alkalinity the capacity of bases to neutralize acids, for example the addition of lime
decreases acidity
alkanes a group of straight chain, saturated hydrocarbons containing no double or triple
bonds, includes methane
alkenes a class of unsaturated aliphatic hydrocarbons having one or more double bonds
anaerobic in the absence of oxygen
back-pressure a pressure that can cause gas or liquid to backflow into the upstream inlet gas or
liquid supply if the system is at a higher pressure than that upstream
biodegradation breakdown by micro-organisms
biogas a methane-based fuel that is produced through the bio-digestion of organic
material
biomass term used to refer to the mass of biologically active material contained in a
reactor, such as a landfill
blow-down the cyclic or constant removal of water from a boiler to deter the collection of
solids
borehole (also see wells) a hole drilled in or outside the wastes in order to obtain samples, also used as a
means of venting or withdrawing gas
boroscope a long thin rod-like device providing visual access into inaccessible areas (such
as engine combustion chambers), using a long narrow tube containing a high
intensity light source and high definition optics system, which can be connected
to camera systems for obtaining images
bulk density the mass per unit volume of a substance
calorific value (CV) the number of heat units obtained by the complete combustion of a unit of
gaseous fuel, usually defined in terms of energy (MJ) released per unit volume
(m3)
capital costs costs assigned to the setting up (commissioning), design, and construction of a
plant for cleanup operations
capping the covering of a landfill, usually with low permeability material: permanent
capping is part of the final restoration following completion of landfill/tipping;
temporary capping is an intermediate cap which may be removed on
resumption of tipping
catalyst a substance that changes the speed or yield of a chemical reaction without being
consumed or chemically changed by the chemical reaction

catalytic oxidation (1) an oxidation process that is speeded up by the presence of a substance that is
itself not consumed in the reaction
catalytic oxidation (2) method of measurement for flammable gas: portable detectors measure the
difference in resistance of two pellistors, one control and one which lies in a
sample chamber. Flammable gas within the sample being monitored, will oxidise
close to the surface of the pellistor changing its temperature and resistance; the
amount of temperature change is proportional to the amount of flammable gas
in the sample.
catalytic oxidation (3) a method for post-combustion gas cleanup, usually for CO and unburnt
hydrocarbons, but not normally used on landfill gas engines since the many
other components in landfill gas can poison the catalyst, rendering the cleanup
technique ineffective
caustic any strongly alkaline material that has a corrosive or irritating effect on living
tissue, such as caustic soda (NaOH)
chiller a device that generates a cold liquid that is circulated through an air-handling
unit's cooling coil to cool a gas supply, used to dewater inlet supply gas
chlorinated solvent an organic solvent containing chlorine atoms (e.g., methylene chloride or 1,1,1-
trichloromethane)
cleanup efficiency the quantity of the contaminant removed from the gas inlet due to the cleanup
process relative to the quantity within the gas inlet, usually expressed as a
percentage
coal gas gas produced in the old towns gas works by subjecting coal to heat and pressure
cogeneration the simultaneous generation of useful thermal and electric energy from the
same gaseous fuel source
combustion burning, or rapid oxidation, of a gas accompanied by the release of energy in
the form of heat and light, producing carbon dioxide and water, incomplete
combustion will also produce intermediate and unburnt hydrocarbons, as well
as carbon monoxide
compression ratio an engine's static compression ratio is defined as the volume above the piston at
bottom-dead-center (BDC), divided by the volume above the piston at top-
dead-center (TDC). High compression ratios are generally associated with
engine performance and efficiency.
condensate liquid formed when warm landfill gas cools as it travels through a collection or
cleanup system, made up of mostly water with some trace hydrocarbons
present
condensation the change of state of a substance from the vapour to the liquid (or solid) form,
also a type of chemical reaction in which two or more molecules combine with
the separation of water, alcohol, or other simple substance
corrosion the electrochemical degradation of metals or alloys caused by reaction with
their environment, which is accelerated by the presence of acids or bases
covalent bond sharing of electrons by a pair of atoms
cyclone a device that uses centrifugal force to remove large particles from a gas stream
cylinder the round hole in the engine block in which the piston(s) ride
cylinder block the main structural member of an engine in which is found the cylinders,
crankshaft and other principal parts
cylinder head the detachable portion of the engine, usually fastened to the top of the cylinder
block and containing all or most of the combustion chambers
decomposition natural breakdown of organic materials by the action of micro-organisms,
chemical reaction, or physical processes
degradation see decomposition
demineralising (deionising) a method for purifying water that first converts soluble salts into acids by
passing through a hydrogen exchanger and then removes them by an acid
adsorbent or synthetic resin
demister cooled gas enters a demister which uses a fine spray or aerosol to separate out
contaminants which can discharged

desorption the process of removing an adsorbed material from the solid on which it is
adsorbed, accomplished by heating, reduction of pressure, presence of another
more strongly adsorbed substance, or a combination of these means
desulphurisation removal of sulphur from a gaseous fuel supply by means of wet or dry
scrubbing
detonation the extremely rapid, self-propagating decomposition of an explosion
accompanied by a high-pressure-temperature wave moving at 1000-9000 m/s
diethyl sulphide chemical added to mains gas to give it an odour, also found within landfill gas
differential pressure a difference in pressure between two points, indicative of a pressure drop
across a section of piping, orifice or vessel
diffusion gas movement from a region of high concentration to a more dilute region due
to the difference in concentration
digester a closed tank or unit in which bacterial action is induced and accelerated in
order to break down organic matter and establish the proper carbon to nitrogen
ratio
drying the process of reducing or removing moisture from the gas supply
effluent the medium discharged from a process, such as landfill gas vented from carbon
canisters or liquid released from a treatment system
emission a material which is expelled or released to the environment, usually applied to
gaseous or odorous discharges to atmosphere
end-of-pipe technologies such as scrubbers on exhaust stacks and catalytic converters that
reduce emissions of pollutants after they have formed
environmental impact the total effect of any operation on the environment
exhaust valve device to discharge the burned gases from the combustion chambers
exhaust manifold that part of the exhaust system that carries the exhaust gases from cylinders to
the exhaust pipe
exothermic reaction a chemical or biochemical reaction which results in the production of energy
filtration a treatment process for removing solid (particulate) matter from gases or
liquids by means of porous media
flame ionisation detector detector based on the principle of conduction by ions produced when the
analyte is ionised in a hydrogen/air flame, the resulting voltage change is
proportional to the concentration of the analyte
flammability limits limits of the flammable range
flammability range range over which the concentration of a flammable compound and oxygen are
such that the mixture can burn
flammable a substance supporting combustion in air
flue gas exhaust gas coming out of a chimney or stack after combustion in the burner it
is venting; can include nitrogen oxides, carbon oxides, water vapor, sulphur
oxides, particles and many trace pollutants
fluorocarbon a number of organic compounds analogous to hydrocarbons in which the
hydrogen atoms have been replaced with fluorine
freon trademark for a series of fluorocarbon products used in refrigeration and air-
conditioning equipment, as blowing agents, fire-extinguishing agents, cleaning
fluids and solvents
gas aggressiveness index an index commonly used to indicate the degree of acidic components (Cl and F)
of the landfill gas for a site, determined as (total Cl + 2 total F ) 100% ,

CH 4 %
where total Cl and total F are the chlorine and fluorine concentrations (mg/m3)
and CH4 % is the methane concentration (%v/v) of the inlet gas
gas chromatograph analytical method that utilises a gaseous mobile phase with either a liquid (GLC)
or solid stationary (GSC) phase
halocarbon a hydrocarbon which contains a halogen functional group (e.g. fluoride,
chloride, bromide, etc)

halon bromine-containing compounds with long atmospheric lifetimes whose

breakdown in the stratosphere causes depletion of ozone (often used in
firefighting)
head pressure often used in the context of pressure exerted by a standing fluid,
usually water
heat exchanger a reaction chamber in which the flow of hot exhaust gases can be reversed via a
switching unit in order to minimise heat losses and energy requirements
honeycomb structure or supported network within a container, providing a large surface
area of a compound ensuring even flow of process gas with which it interacts to
remove specific contaminants
hydration the reaction of molecules of water with a substance in which the H-OH bond is
not split, also the strong affinity of water molecules for particles of dissolved or
suspended substances
hydrocarbon a chemical compound containing hydrogen and carbon
hydrogen sulphide (H2S) gas emitted during organic decomposition, with an odour of rotten eggs and
which, in high concentration, can kill or poison
ignitable capable of burning or causing a fire
infra-red detector an instrument that measures adsorption in the infra-red range of the
electromagnetic spectrum
in-situ in its original place, remaining at the site or in the subsurface
landfill gas all gases generated from landfilled waste
lean burn method of combusting weak fuel-air mixtures which are homogenous in
character in order to reduce the emission pollutants of carbon monoxide, nitric
oxide and hydrocarbons and at the same time improve fuel consumption
efficiency, thereby lowering carbon dioxide emissions
limit of detection (LOD) the minimum concentration of a substance being analysed that
lower detection limit (LDL) has a 99 percent probability of being identified; the smallest
lower limit of detection signal above background noise an instrument can reliably
(LLD) detect.
lower explosive limit (LEL) the lowest percentage by volume of a chemical with air which will allow an
explosion to occur in a confined space at 25oC and normal atmospheric
pressure, and where an ignition source is present (% v/v)
mains gas a gas of natural origin distributed through underground pipes to domestic,
commercial and industrial customers
mass spectrometer analytical method by which components within a mixture are separated
according to their molecular weight
membrane separation a gaseous fuel is compressed and filtered to remove carbon dioxide using a
selective membrane (polyamide) unit
methane the hydrocarbon of typically highest concentration in landfill gas
micrometeorology atmospheric characteristics in the immediate vicinity of the study area
mist liquid particles measuring 40 to 500 µm, are formed by condensation of vapor
moisture content percentage of water or steam contained in a sample of landfill gas, usually
determined by sorption onto an inert absorbent medium
molecular sieve a microporous structure composed of either crystalline aluminosilicates (such
as zeolites), with an ability to selectively adsorb water or gaseous molecules
within the sieve cavities
multiple system a system consisting of a number of cleanup processes in sequence, often
associated with production of synthetic natural gas
neutralisation decreasing the acidity or alkalinity of a substance by adding alkaline or acidic
materials, respectively
operating costs costs assigned to the operation of the plant which will include the cost of
replacement or regeneration of reagents used in the cleanup process, labour
costs are not generally included unless otherwise stated

organic (strictly) pertaining to the chemistry of carbon, from a time when organic
chemicals were synthesised from living matter; (broadly) any molecule
containing a combination of carbon, hydrogen and possibly other elements
organosilicon an inorganic compound in which silicon is bonded to carbon (organosilane), the
silicon carbon bond is about as strong as the carbon-carbon bond and has
similar properties to all-carbon compounds
osmosis the passage of a liquid from a weak solution to a more concentrated solution
across a semipermeable membrane that allows passage of the solvent (water)
but not the dissolved solids
oxidation the chemical addition of oxygen to break down pollutants or organic waste, e.g.
destruction of chemicals such as cyanides, phenols, and organic sulphur
compounds by bacterial and chemical means
packed tower a device that forces dirty gas through a tower packed with e.g. crushed rock or
wood chips and (in a dry tower) the solid reactant medium, or (in a wet tower)
the reactant liquid. In a wet tower the liquid is sprayed downwards over the
packing material, with the gas flowing counter-current. Components of the gas
either dissolve or chemically react with the liquid or solid reactant medium.
parts per million (ppm) Method of measuring concentration: 10000 ppm v/v equates to 1% gas at STP
by volume (ppm v/v = part per million by volume)
partial pressure refers to the pressure of an individual gas constituent as part of a mixture
pH an expression of the intensity of the basic or acid condition of a gas or liquid;
may range from 0 to 14, where 0 is the most acid and 7 is neutral
piston ring an open-ended ring that fits into a groove on the outer diameter of the piston,
chief function is to form a seal between the piston and cylinder wall
polycyclic (organic) chemical compound where the atoms form more than one ring
structure
pre-treatment processes used to reduce, eliminate, or alter the nature of gaseous pollutants
sources before they are discharged into the main treatment system
pre-chilling treatment process to separate and remove water vapour and liquids from a
compressed gas supply to prevent condensation prior to entry into a system
pressure swing adsorption a process whereby the landfill gas is compressed, dried and upgraded to remove
the carbon dioxide to yield a product containing 95% to 98% methane
pressure water scrubbing separation of landfill gas, to yield a purified methane product, usually taking
place in a countercurrent water spray tower
primary treatment first steps in gas treatment, usually associated with the removal of particulates
purifier system which removes extraneous materials (impurities) by one or more
separation techniques
radical an ionic group having one or more charges, either positive or negative (e.g. OH-
or NH4 +)
reagent any substance used in a reaction for the purpose of detecting, measuring,
examining or analysing other substances
reduction the addition of hydrogen, removal of oxygen, or addition of electrons to an
element or compound
regeneration restoration of a material to its original condition after it has undergone
chemical modification
relative humidity ratio of the amount of water vapor actually in the air compared to the amount
of water vapor required for saturation at that particular temperature and
pressure, expressed as a percentage
reprocessing treatment of spent material after it has undergone chemical modification to
recover the unconsumed fraction of the material
retail price index (RPI) used to convert costs between two different years, taking into account inflation
and other factors
reticulation landfill gas filtered to (or approaching) standards of natural gas with a high
methane content (> 85% v/v) via the use of suitable cleanup technology(ies),
for supply to the national gas grid
retrofit addition of a pollution control device on an existing facility without making
major changes to the generating plant, also called backfit

reverse osmosis a treatment process used in gaseous and liquid systems by adding pressure to
force the gas or liquid through a semi-permeable membrane, to remove
contaminants
saturation the condition of a liquid or gas when it has taken into solution the maximum
possible quantity of a given substance at a given temperature and pressure
scrubber pollution device that uses a spray of water or reactant or a dry process to trap
components of the gas mixture
secondary treatment the second stage in a waste treatment system in which organic parts of the waste
are treated, accomplished by bringing together waste, bacteria, and oxygen in
trickling filters or in an activated process to remove floating and settleable
solids and about 90 percent of the oxygen-demanding substances and
suspended solids
sewer gas gas produced by the decomposition of organic compounds in sewerage
silicone organosiloxane, any of a large group of siloxane polymers based on a structure
consisting of alternate silicon and oxygen atoms with various organic radicals
attached to the silicon
siloxane,oxosilane a straight chain compound consisting of silicon atoms single bonded to oxygen
and arranged so that each silicon atom is linked with four oxygen atoms
solubility the amount of mass of a compound that will dissolve in a unit volume of
solution, aqueous solubility is the maximum concentration of a chemical that
will dissolve in pure water at a reference temperature
solvent a substance capable of dissolving another substance (solute) to form a
uniformly dispersed mixture (solution) at the molecular or ionic size level,
includes water and organic solvents
sorption the action of soaking up or attracting substances, used in many pollution
control systems
spray tower scrubber a device that sprays an alkaline solution into a chamber where acid gases are
present to aid in neutralizing the gas
sour gas a gas containing hydrogen sulphide (H2S)
substitute or synthetic any gaseous fuel approximately equivalent in performance to natural gas
natural gas (SNG) that is created from other gases
sump a pit or tank that catches liquid runoff for drainage or disposal
surfactant a detergent compound that promotes lathering
tertiary treatment advanced cleaning of gas that goes beyond the secondary or biological stage,
removing nutrients such as phosphorus, nitrogen, and most BOD and suspended
solids
thermal conductivity meter detector which compares the thermal conductivity of a sample with an internal
standard: the higher the total flammable gas concentration the higher the
thermal conductivity
thermal treatment use of elevated temperatures to treat exhaust emissions
total dissolved solids (TDS) the total mass of dissolved mineral constituents and chemical compounds in
water, which form a residue that remains after evaporation and drying
total reduced sulphur (TRS) total reduced sulphur comprises the sulphur present in hydrogen sulphide,
mercaptans, dimethyl sulfide, dimethyl disulphide or other organic compounds,
all expressed as hydrogen sulphide (does not include sulphur dioxide, sulphur
trioxide, or sulphuric acid)
turbocharger an exhaust driven pump that compresses intake air and forces it into the
combustion chambers at higher than atmospheric pressures, the increased air
pressure allows more fuel to be burned and results in increased power output
upper detection limit the largest concentration that an instrument can reliably detect
upper explosive limit (UEL) the highest concentration of mixture of a compound and air which will support
an explosion at 25oC and normal atmospheric pressure and in the presence of a
flame (%v/v)
uptime the period of time (stated as a percentage) over which the landfill gas engine is
running continuously at full load or power output rating
valve a device that controls the pressure, direction of flow or rate of flow of the
combusted gas within an engine

valve seat on the valve inlet (orifice or seat) the disk (or plug or seal) that seals against the
orifice
vapour pressure a measure of a substance's propensity to evaporate, vapour pressure is the
force per unit area exerted by vapour in an equilibrium state with surroundings
at a given pressure. It increases exponentially with an increase in temperature.
A relative measure of chemical volatility, vapour pressure is used to calculate
water partition coefficients and volatilization rate constants.
volatile organic compounds organic compounds that are volatile or in a gaseous state at ambient
temperature and are found within landfill gas in trace quantities
well head the top portion of a well, usually containing a valve, and various monitoring
parts
well a shaft installed in wastes or strata for the extraction of landfill gas (also see
borehole)
Wobbe Index ratio of the calorific value of a gas per unit volume and the square root of its
relative density under the same reference conditions, it reflects the gas/air
relationship and combustion characteristics expressing the heat impact which a
burner is exposed to during combustion
working area the area or areas of a landfill in which waste is currently being deposited

EA Guidlines Gas - Treatment - Jan - 2003

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Descrizione originale:

Titolo originale

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

EA Guidlines Gas - Treatment - Jan - 2003

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Guidance on Gas Treatment

Technologies for Landfill Gas Engines

Draft for Consultation: December 2002

Tel: 01454 624400 Fax: 01454 624409

© Environment Agency 2002

Environment Agency Project Board

Pre-treatment processes fall into two groups:

Combustion treatment technologies are available for:

ENVIRONMENT AGENCY i Draft for Consultation: December 2002

ENVIRONMENT AGENCY ii Draft for Consultation: December 2002

ENVIRONMENT AGENCY iii Draft for Consultation: December 2002

5.2 Hydrogen Sulphide Pre-treatment................................................................................47

ENVIRONMENT AGENCY iv Draft for Consultation: December 2002

ADA anthroquinone disulphonic acid

ENVIRONMENT AGENCY v Draft for Consultation: December 2002

RPI retail price index

ENVIRONMENT AGENCY vi Draft for Consultation: December 2002

1.1 Target Audience

1.2 Structure of the Guidance

Chapters 4 – 6 document the technologies which are currently considered to be applicable to

ENVIRONMENT AGENCY 1 Draft for Consultation: December 2002

Chapter 1.4 Do I need to know Chapter 1.5

Define the objective of the assessment Chapter 3.5

Figure 1.1 How to use this guidance in an assessment of cost-effective techniques

ENVIRONMENT AGENCY 2 Draft for Consultation: December 2002

1.3 Relationship with other Guidance Documents

• Guidance for monitoring trace components in landfill gas;

This document addresses the availability and cost of technologies for:

• pre-combustion landfill gas supply cleanup;

• post-combustion exhaust gas cleanup.

1.4 Technical Background

ENVIRONMENT AGENCY 3 Draft for Consultation: December 2002

The quality of the exhaust emissions is dependent on:

• the quality of the landfill gas supply;

Gas cleanup can be justified through:

ENVIRONMENT AGENCY 4 Draft for Consultation: December 2002

• methane and non-methane VOCs;

• hydrogen fluoride; and

(2) technologies or approaches simply for achieving emissions reduction.

Established practices which already have a role in gas cleanup, include:

• aftercooling and pre-chilling;

• cyclone separation and other dewatering technologies;

• particle filtration; and

Emerging and more specialist technologies include:

• wet or dry hydrogen sulphide scrubbing;

• liquid and/or oil absorption;

ENVIRONMENT AGENCY 5 Draft for Consultation: December 2002

• catalytic conversion; and

1.5 Policy Background

1.5.1 Renewable energy drivers

1.5.2 Regulatory drivers

• IPPC Directive; and

ENVIRONMENT AGENCY 6 Draft for Consultation: December 2002

ENVIRONMENT AGENCY 7 Draft for Consultation: December 2002

ENVIRONMENT AGENCY 8 Draft for Consultation: December 2002

2. SUPPLY GAS QUALIT Y, EMISSIONS STANDARDS AND

2.2 Engine Manufacturers’ Specifications

2.2.1 Calorific value

ENVIRONMENT AGENCY 9 Draft for Consultation: December 2002

2.2.2 Sulphur gases

• unlined landfills in sulphate-rich geological materials such as gypsum (CaSO4.2H2O) quarries

2.2.3 Halogenated compounds