Quantifying Uncontrolled Landfill Gas Emissions from Two Florida ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

calibration procedure differs from the procedure used to perform the annual calibration of the instruments. Additionally, a couple of reasonableness checks are performed in the field on the measured wind direction data. While data collection is occurring, the Field Team Leader compares wind direction measured with the heads to the forecasted wind direction for that particular day. The project team experienced some difficulties with collection of wind data on February 21 at Site #1. Due to problems with the data collection software, wind data were not collected on this day. However, this problem was corrected, and wind data were collected for the duration of the project. There was no indication that the problem experienced in collecting the wind data was caused by a malfunction of the instrumentation. 5.2.5 DQI Check for Precision and Accuracy of Theodolite Measurements Calibration checks are not performed before each field campaign; however, the calibration date of the instrument is verified by referencing the calibration sticker. If the date indicates the instrument is in need of calibration, it should be returned to the manufacturer before use in the field. Before field deployment, ensure the battery packs are charged for this equipment. The following additional checks were made on April 19, 2006. The calibration of distance measurement was done at the ARCADIS facility using a tape measure. The actual distance was 19.6 meters. The distances measured with the theodolite were 19.56 and 19.55 meters. The results indicate accuracy and precision fall well within the DQI goals. The calibration of angle measurement was also performed. The actual angle was 360°. The angles measured with the theodolite were 360°28’47” and 359°39’24”. The results indicate accuracy and precision fall well within the DQI goals, and completeness was 100 percent. Additionally, there are several internal checks in the theodolite software that prevent data collection from occurring if the instrument is not properly aligned on the object being measured, or if the instrument has not been balanced correctly. When this occurs, it is necessary to reinitialize the instrument to collect data. 5.2.6 DQI Check for Lumex Mercury Analyzer The Lumex Mercury Analyzer DQIs of accuracy and precision are checked with a test cell, containing gas from the calibration standard. The cell is built into the instrument, and is accessed by setting the instrument to the “test” mode, and collecting measurements. If the measured value of the mercury vapor concentration in the test cell is within ±25 percent from that of the tabulated value and the standard deviation of the measurements is within ±25 percent, the accuracy and precision of the instrument are deemed acceptable. The Lumex mercury analyzer was zeroed using the internal carbon filter sample conditioner. Yearly calibrations are performed on this analyzer by factory personnel at Ohio Lumex. The precision criteria of ±25 percent established in the QAPP was met for samples collected at Site #1 (4.0% RSD), but not for samples collected at Site #2 (35.6% RSD). 5-6
5.2.7 DQI Check of Total Mercury Samples Laboratory control spike recovery for the total mercury sampling during February 2007 was performed using a NIST 1641D (1.590 mg/kg mercury in water) reference standard. Two spike recoveries were performed with 89.9- and 97.6-percent recovery for an average of 93.8 percent. Analytical spikes were performed on gas sample two with recoveries of 97.4 and 98.9 percent with an average recovery of 98.2 percent. Recovery goals established in the QAPP of 50 to 150 percent were met. Analytical duplicates were performed on gas sample two with values of 150.4 and 160.0 for an average of 155.2 and a relative percent difference of 6.2 percent. Blank values were less than 0.07 ng per trap with an average of 0.02 ng per trap and an MDL of 0.12 ng per trap. The precision assessment was performed using data from duplicate or replicate samples and spikes (when available). Precision was expressed as %RPD for samples that were done in duplicate and as %RSD for samples performed in triplicate. Table 5-4 represents precision values calculated for total mercury of samples at each site. Precision goals established in the QAPP of
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 35 and 36:
This page intentionally left blank.
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 and 56: 3.2 Landfill Site #2 3.2.1 Control
Page 57 and 58: Table 3-17. Calculated Methane Flux
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: the measured path-integrated methan
Page 91 and 92: Site #1 5.4 Site #2 77.9 Completene
Page 93 and 94: This page intentionally left blank.
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 101 and 102: This page intentionally left blank.
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 117 and 118: Table C-11. Methane Concentrations
show all

Quantifying Uncontrolled Landfill Gas Emissions from Two Florida ...

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?