Quantifying Uncontrolled Landfill Gas Emissions from Two Florida ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Table 3-12. Total Mercury Sample Concentrations from Site #1 Sample / Well Location Total Mercury Gas Concentration (ng/m 3 ) Spike Recovery (%) Gas Sample 1 5148 NA Gas Sample 2 4961 98.2 Gas Sample 3 4958 NA Lab Spike NA 89.9 Lab Spike Duplicate NA 97.6 3.1.6 Dimethyl Mercury Measurements Dimethyl mercury concentrations in the landfill gas at Site #1 ranged from 1.22 to 2.65 ng/m 3 with an average of 1.91 ng/m 3 . Spike recoveries for the dimethyl mercury traps were 13.9 percent. Un-sampled spike traps had recoveries from 87.4 to 89.9 percent with an average of 88.7 percent. Recoveries for the spiked/sampled traps were significantly lower than the acceptance criteria of 50 to 150 percent. This is possibly due to the presence of an unknown interfering compound either destroying or masking the detection of the dimethyl mercury. For this reason, all of the dimethyl mercury results from this campaign must be labeled as suspect. Sampling was performed at approximately 10 times the estimated volume necessary to collect a valid sample. Table 3-13 presents the results of the dimethyl mercury concentration data from Site #1. Table 3-13. Dimethyl Mercury Sample Concentrations from Site #1 Sample / Well Location Dimethyl Mercury Gas Concentration (ng/m 3 ) Spike Recovery (%) Gas Sample 1 2.65 103.3 Gas Sample 2 1.22 NA Gas Sample 3 1.86 81.1 Spike Sample (front/back) NA 13.9 2nd Source Standards (1490 ng/L) NA 87.4 2nd Source Standards (1000 ng/L) NA 89.9 3.1.7 Monomethyl Mercury Measurements Monomethyl mercury concentrations in the landfill gas at Site #1 ranged from 11.2 to 12.4 ng/m 3 with an average of 11.8 ng/m 3 . Matrix spike recoveries for the monomethyl samples were 25.7 percent. Spike recoveries for un-sampled impinger solution ranged from 88 to 90 percent with an average of 89 percent. The lower recoveries may have been due to a preservation issue with the shipping or possible matrix interference as seen in the matrix spike and cause these data points to be possibly under-reporting the true monomethyl mercury concentrations.. Table 3-14 presents the monomethyl mercury concentration data from Site #1. 3-17
Table 3-14. Monomethyl Mercury Concentrations (ng/m 3 ) from Site #1 Sample / Well Location Monomethyl Mercury Gas Concentration (ng/m 3 ) Spike Recovery (%) Gas Sample 1 11.16 NA Gas Sample 2 12.44 NA Gas Sample 3 11.86 NA Spike Sample NA 25.7 Analytical Spike NA 88.0 Analytical Spike Duplicate NA 90.4 3.1.8 Elemental Mercury Measurements Lumex elemental mercury continuous measurements at Site #1 ranged from 3094 to 3445 ng/m 3 with an average of 3266±130 ng/m 3 for all of the samples. These samples were collected during a 1.25 hour period on 2/21/2007. Sampling with the Lumex was also performed in conjunction with the total mercury samples at this site. The Lumex concentrations during total mercury Gas Sample 1 was 3277 ng/m 3 , Gas Sample 2 was 3495 ng/m 3 , and Gas Sample 3 was 3400 ng/m 3. 3.1.9 Calculation of NMOC Fluxes The emissions flux value of each compound presented in Table 3-9 was estimated using the method described in Section 1.7 of this document. The net measured methane flux values from each landfill cell were used to estimate the emissions flux value of each compound. In order to perform this calculation, the estimated methane emission values presented in Table 3-8 were used (1,500 kg/day for the control cell and 3,800 kg/day for the bioreactor cell). Table 3-15 presents the estimated flux of each compound (in units of grams per day) from the control and bioreactor cells of Site #1. 3-18
Page 1 and 2: Quantifying Uncontrolled Landfill G
Page 3 and 4: Foreword The U.S. Environmental Pro
Page 5 and 6: 3.1.3 Total Site Methane Emissions
Page 7 and 8: List of Tables Table 1-1. Target Co
Page 9 and 10: Table 3-28. Calculated Methane Flux
Page 11 and 12: Table C-6. Methane Concentrations (
Page 13 and 14: List of Figures Figure 1-1. Map of
Page 15 and 16: Executive Summary Waste decompositi
Page 17 and 18: This page intentionally left blank.
Page 19 and 20: instrument (IMACC, Inc.). Figures 1
Page 21 and 22: Figure 1-3. Scanning Boreal GasFind
Page 23 and 24: wind direction data are collected n
Page 25 and 26: adsorption spectrometer. The analyz
Page 27 and 28: Table 1-2. Schedule of Work Perform
Page 29 and 30: Figure 2-2. Detail of measurement c
Page 31 and 32: corners of the cell, respectively.
Page 33 and 34: 2.2.3 Background Measurements Backg
Page 37 and 38: was aligned on the mirror targets i
Page 39 and 40: methane concentrations measured alo
Page 41 and 42: Figure 3-3 Summary of ORS measureme
Page 43 and 44: Table 3-5. Calculated methane flux
Page 45 and 46: Table 3-7. Calculated methane flux
Page 47 and 48: cell to the base. The following equ
Page 49 and 50: Table 3-9. Results of TO-15 analysi
Page 51: Table 3-10. Results of C1 to C6 and
Page 55 and 56: 3.2 Landfill Site #2 3.2.1 Control
Page 63 and 64: 3.2.2 Bioreactor Cell 3.2.2.1 Febru
Page 69 and 70: Based on the calculations presented
Page 71 and 72: Table 3-34. Results for C1 to C6 an
Page 73 and 74: Table 3-38. Monomethyl Mercury Conc
Page 75 and 76: 3.3 Gas and Mercury Sampling Result
Page 77 and 78: Site #1 with a level of 83 ppmv. Th
Page 79 and 80: The surveys also found significant
Page 81 and 82: Monomethyl mercury concentrations i
Page 83 and 84: 5.1 Equipment Calibration Chapter 5
Page 85 and 86: The R 2 value was used to assess th
Page 87 and 88: the measured path-integrated methan
Page 89 and 90: 5.2.7 DQI Check of Total Mercury Sa
Page 91 and 92: Site #1 5.4 Site #2 77.9 Completene
Page 95 and 96: U.S. Environmental Protection Agenc
Page 97 and 98: d f e c b PDCs Y X a 2 12( y)( z) (
Page 99 and 100: When the VRPM configuration consist
Page 103 and 104:
Table B-3. Distance, and Horizontal
Page 105 and 106:
Table B-7. Distance, and Horizontal
Page 107 and 108:
APPENDIX C Path-Averaged Methane Co
Page 109 and 110:
Table C-3. Methane Concentrations (
Page 111 and 112:
Page 113 and 114:
Page 115 and 116:
Page 117 and 118:
Table C-11. Methane Concentrations
Page 119 and 120:
Page 121 and 122:
Page 123 and 124:
Page 125 and 126:
Page 127 and 128:
show all

Quantifying Uncontrolled Landfill Gas Emissions from Two Florida ...

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?