Quantifying Uncontrolled Landfill Gas Emissions from Two Florida ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

ecoveries were performed with the LCS standard with 87.3- and 87.5-percent recovery for an average of 87.4 percent. Two spike recoveries were performed with the second standard with 94.8- and 85.0-percent recovery for an average of 89.9 percent. The recovery criteria established in the QAPP of 50 to 150 percent was met. Laboratory matrix analytical spikes (sample + 2.000 ng) were performed on a batch QC sample with recoveries of 90.9 and 102.4 percent with an average recovery of 96.6 percent, which meets laboratory acceptance criteria for recovery. Blank values were less than 0.0014 ng per trap with an average of 0.0007 ng per trap and an MDL of 0.0030 ng per trap. Field spike recovery values for Site #1 was 25.7 and 62.6 percent for Site #2. The low spike recoveries were possibly due to an over sampling of the landfill gas and degradation of the matrix spike in the collection solution. Dimethyl mercury results may be higher than reported due to the reactive properties of the landfill gas on the analytes in the acid collection solution. Table 5-6 represents precision values calculated for dimethyl mercury of samples during Landfill F and G sampling campaign. Precision goals established in the QAPP of
Site #1 5.4 Site #2 77.9 Completeness goals for precision established in the QAPP were not met for monomethyl mercury sampling and analysis. 5.2.10 DQI Check of VOC Samples with SUMMA® Canisters Summa® canister samples of the landfill gas were analyzed for the TO-15 list of volatile organic compounds. Triplicate gas samples and nitrogen sampling system blanks were collected at both sites. The reported method detection limits for the TO-15 target list was 0.5 ppbv. Data for the TO-15 gas samples required a flag to designate analytes reported at concentrations less than 5 times the nitrogen blank values due to some background contamination present in the sampling system. The background contamination in the nitrogen blanks were probably due to carry over from previous landfill gas sampling using the same equipment. The Summa canister gas samples were also analyzed for methane, CO2, O2, C1 to C-6 alkanes, NMOC, and N2. The results from Methods 25-C appear to be the more consistent with the gas composition for municipal landfills (U.S. EPA, 2008. Tables 5-8 and 5-9 present the precision values of the Method 25-C and GC/FID/TCD datasets, respectively. Table 5-8. Precision ranges for Method 25-C Measurements at Sites #1 and #2 RSD Methane (%) CO2 (%) NMOC (%) Mass Conc. (%) Site #1 5.4 4.6 3.8 3.9 Site #2 4.8 4.6 0.9 0.9 Table 5-9. Precision ranges for GC/FID/TCD Measurements at Sites #1 and #2 RSD Methane (%) Oxygen (%) Nitrogen (%) Carbon Dioxide (%) Site #1 75.3 30.6 33.2 19.0 Site #2 2.0 3.3 3.2 0.3 5.3 QC Checks of OP-FTIR Instrument Performance Several checks should be performed on the OP-FTIR instrumentation prior to deployment to the field, and during the duration of the field campaign. More information on these checks can be found in MOP 6802 and 6807 of the ECPD Optical Remote Sensing Facility Manual. Prior to deployment to the field, the baseline stability, NEA, random baseline noise, saturation, and single beam ratio tests were performed. The results of the tests indicated that the instrument was operating within the acceptable criteria range. 5-9
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 and 88: the measured path-integrated methan
Page 89: 5.2.7 DQI Check of Total Mercury Sa
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?