Quantifying Uncontrolled Landfill Gas Emissions from Two Florida ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

southern and eastern planes (28 g/s), is a negative value. This is most likely due to the fact that the methane flux values measured along the northern and western VRPM planes (14 and 2.8 grams per second, respectively) represent slight underestimations of the actual fluxes. The prevailing winds during the time of the measurements were from the southeast, directly towards the location of the OP-FTIR instrument, or convergence of the optical beams used in the OP FTIR measurements (see Figure 2-4). Flux values calculated with the VRPM method during these conditions often result in an underestimation of the flux values. Based on this information, the methane flux value from the top of the landfill cell is estimated to be negligible. This conclusion is supported by the results of the ORS measurements collected in the control cell on February 25, which are presented in section 3.2.1.2. The sum of the flux values measured along the southern and eastern planes, 28 grams per second, represents the calculated methane flux value from the southern and eastern slopes of the landfill cell. Tables 3-16, 3-17, 3-18, and 3-19 present the calculated methane flux, measurement time, prevailing wind speed, and prevailing wind direction during the time of the VRPM measurements along the northern, eastern, southern, and western VRPM configurations, respectively. The measurement time shown represents the midpoint of the averaging period, which lasts approximately 15 minutes. Table 3-16. Calculated Methane Flux and Prevailing Wind Speed and Direction Measured on February 24 along the Northern VRPM Configuration in the Control Cell of Site #2 Time Methane Flux (g/s) Prevailing Wind Direction (degrees from North) Prevailing Wind Speed (m/s) 15:11:22 8.2 127 5.1 15:18:21 11 136 6.2 15:24:51 19 147 7.6 15:31:52 21 153 7.6 15:38:52 17 151 7.1 15:45:51 18 153 7.1 15:52:52 15 147 6.2 15:59:52 15 144 6.6 16:06:51 14 148 6.2 16:13:22 12 144 5.7 16:20:22 14 143 6.3 16:26:52 14 139 6.7 16:33:51 17 142 7.2 16:40:52 14 135 5.3 16:47:52 12 132 5.8 16:54:51 11 130 5.7 17:01:52 9.8 Average= 14 Standard Dev.=3.43 131 6.1 3-21
Table 3-17. Calculated Methane Flux and Prevailing Wind Speed and Direction Measured on February 24 along the Eastern VRPM Configuration in the Control Cell of Site #2 Time Methane Flux (g/s) Prevailing Wind Direction (degrees from North) Prevailing Wind Speed (m/s) 15:17:40 7.4 134 6.1 15:22:59 6.3 147 7.2 15:29:08 5.6 151 7.8 15:35:31 5.7 151 7.6 15:40:51 5.1 154 6.9 15:46:09 5.8 154 7.2 15:52:33 6.4 147 6.7 15:57:52 7.1 144 6.4 16:03:11 7.4 146 6.3 16:08:30 7.5 147 6.2 16:13:50 7.5 145 5.8 16:19:08 8.3 141 5.8 16:24:28 9.6 143 7.5 16:29:47 9.1 141 6.9 16:35:06 9.9 141 6.8 16:40:24 9.6 137 5.8 16:45:43 9.3 134 5.6 16:51:02 9.4 127 5.4 16:56:21 10 131 6.3 17:01:41 9.3 131 5.9 Average= 7.8 Standard Dev.=1.64 3-22
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 and 52: Table 3-10. Results of C1 to C6 and
Page 53 and 54: Table 3-14. Monomethyl Mercury Conc
Page 55: 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 ...

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?