&EPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
EPA/600/R-08-116
September 2008
Background Information Document
for Updating AP42 Section 2.4 for
Estimating Emissions from
Municipal Solid Waste Landfills
-------
EPA/600/R-08-116
September 2008
Background Information Document for
Updating AP42 Section 2.4 for Estimating
Emissions from Municipal Solid Waste
Landfills
Prepared by
Eastern Research Group, Inc.
1600 Perimeter Park Dr.
Morrisville, NC 27560
Contract Number: EP-C-07-015
Work Assignment Number: 0-4
EPA Project Officer
Susan Thorneloe
Air Pollution Prevention and Control Division
National Risk Management Research Laboratory
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
Office of Research and Development
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, DC 20460
-------
Notice
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) through its Office of Research and Development
performed and managed the research described in this report. It has been subjected to the Agency's peer
and administrative review and has been approved for publication as an EPA document. Any opinions
expressed in this report are those of the author and do not, necessarily, reflect the official positions and
policies of the EPA. Any mention of products or trade names does not constitute recommendation for use
by the EPA.
-------
Abstract
This document was prepared for U.S. EPA's Office of Research and Development in support of EPA's
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards (OAQPS). The objective is to summarize available data
used to update emissions factors for quantifying landfill gas emissions and combustion by-products using
more up-to-date and representative data for U.S. municipal landfills. This document provides
background information used in developing a draft of the AP-42 section 2.4 which provides guidance for
developing estimates of landfill gas emissions for national, regional, and state emission inventories. EPA
OAQPS will be conducting the review of Section 2.4. Once comments are addressed, the AP-42 section
will be updated and available through EPA's Technology Transfer Network (TTN) Clearinghouse for
Inventories & Emissions (http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ap42/'). This report is considered a stand-alone report
providing details of available data and analysis for developing landfill gas emission factors and
combustion by-products for a wider range of pollutants and technologies.
The inputs that are described in this report are used in EPA's Landfill Gas Emission Model (LandGEM)
for developing inputs for state, regional, and national emission inventories. Data from 62 LFG emissions
tests from landfills with waste in place on or after 1992 were used to develop updated factors for use in
LandGEM. This document also provides updated and additional emission factors for combustion by-
products for control devices such as flares, boilers, and engines.
Of the 293 emissions tests submitted to EPA for this update, over 200 contained inadequate
documentation or information for use in this update. The reports that were used included LFG
composition data and, in some cases, emissions data on LFG combustion by-products. These emissions
tests were screened for quality and compiled to create emission factors for non-methane organic
compounds (NMOC), as well as speciated compounds in LFG. This update expands the list of emission
factors for LFG constituents from 44 to 167 and provides many more "A" quality rated emission factors.
Likewise, combustion by-product emission factors for dioxins/furans were added in this update, along
with improved ratings of the other combustion by-product emission factors as a result of the addition of
new data.
Updated information is provided of changes in the design and operation of U.S. MSW landfills along with
updated statistics on the amount of waste being landfilled. Information on quantifying area source
emissions (OTM10) is provided based on the use of Optical Remote Sensing technology and Radial
Plume Mapping (ORS-RPM). The first-order equation used to estimate LFG emissions has been
modified to add a factor to account for LFG capture efficiency. Due to the increase in the use of leachate
recirculation, a gas production rate to characterize emissions from wet landfills has been added. The rate
constant is based on an optimum moisture content using data from about 30 landfills using leachate
recirculation. Information on air emission concerns regarding construction/demolition waste landfills and
landfill fires have also been added to the AP-42 section.
in
-------
Foreword
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is charged by Congress with protecting the
Nation's land, air, and water resources. Under a mandate of national environmental laws, the Agency
strives to formulate and implement actions leading to a compatible balance between human activities
and the ability of natural systems to support and nurture life. To meet this mandate, EPA's research
program is providing data and technical support for solving environmental problems today and
building a science knowledge base necessary to manage our ecological resources wisely, understand
how pollutants affect our health, and prevent or reduce environmental risks in the future.
The National Risk Management Research Laboratory (NRMRL) is the Agency's center for
investigation of technological and management approaches for preventing and reducing risks from
pollution that threaten human health and the environment. The focus of the Laboratory's research
program is on methods and their cost-effectiveness for prevention and control of pollution to air,
land, water, and subsurface resources; protection of water quality in public water systems;
remediation of contaminated sites, sediments and ground water; prevention and control of indoor air
pollution; and restoration of ecosystems. NRMRL collaborates with both public and private sector
partners to foster technologies that reduce the cost of compliance and to anticipate emerging
problems. NRMRL's research provides solutions to environmental problems by: developing and
promoting technologies that protect and improve the environment; advancing scientific and
engineering information to support regulatory and policy decisions; and providing the technical
support and information transfer to ensure implementation of environmental regulations and
strategies at the national, state, and community levels.
This publication has been produced as part of the Laboratory's strategic long-term research plan. It is
published and made available by EPA's Office of Research and Development to assist the user
community and to link researchers with their clients.
Sally C. Gutierrez, Director
National Risk Management Research Laboratory
IV
-------
Acknowledgements
We would like to thank those providing data and information used to help develop more up-to-date
and credible emission factors for evaluating air emissions from landfills and combustion by-products
from the control of landfill gas emissions. We would also like to thank those helping to review this
report including Jim Topsale of EPA Region III; Tom Driscoll, K.C. Hustvedt, Ron Myers, and
Hillary Ward of EPA's Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards; Rachel Goldstein of EPA's
Landfill Methane Outreach Program (LMOP); and Bob Wright and Andy Miller of EPA's Office of
Research and Development (ORD).
We would also like to thank the Environmental Research and Education Foundation (EREF).
Through a Cooperative Research and Development Agreement (#200-C-09) between EPA ORD and
EREF, co-funding was provided which helped to complete data collection and analysis. Co-funding
was also received from EPA's LMOP program to help complete the data analysis to update
combustion by-products from technologies utilizing methane (i.e., internal combustion engines,
boilers, and turbines).
v
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Notice ii
Abstract iii
Foreword iv
Acknowledgements v
Appendices vii
List of Tables viii
1.0 INTRODUCTION 1
2.0 UNCONTROLLED LANDFILL GAS DATA ANALYSIS RESULTS 4
2.1 Estimation of Uncontrolled Landfill Gas Emissions 4
2.2 Data Summary 10
2.3 NMOCandVOC 14
2.4 Speciated Organics and Reduced Sulfur Compounds 17
2.5 Methane, Carbon Dioxide, Carbon Monoxide, Oxygen and Nitrogen 18
2.6 Hydrogen Chloride 18
2.7 Landfill Gas Constituent Data for Landfills With Waste in Place Prior to 1992 31
2.7.1 Data Gathering and Review 31
2.7.2 Development of Default Concentrations 32
3.0 CONTROLLED LANDFILL GAS DATA ANALYSIS RESULTS 43
3.1 Flares 43
3.1.1 Nitrogen Oxides 43
3.1.2 Carbon Monoxide 44
3.1.3 Particulate Matter 45
3.1.4 Total Dioxin/Furan 45
3.1.5 Flare Summary 45
3.2 Boilers, Engines and Turbines 53
3.2.1 Boiler Combustion By-Product Emissions - Source Characterization, Test
Methods and Results 53
3.2.2 Internal Combustion (1C) Engine Combustion By-Product Emissions - Source
Characterization, Test Methods and Results 55
3.2.3 Gas Turbine Data Summary 61
3.3 Control Device Efficiency Data 63
3.4 Control Device Carbon Dioxide, Sulfur Dioxide, and Hydrogen Chloride Emissions... .64
4.0 MERCURY EMISSIONS DATA ANALYSIS 67
4.1 Mercury in Raw Landfill Gas 67
4.1.1 Total Mercury 67
4.1.2 Elemental Mercury 68
4.1.3 Monomethyl Mercury 68
4.1.4 Dimethyl Mercury 68
4.1.5 Mercury Data Summary 68
4.2 Post-Combustion Mercury Emissions 70
VI
-------
5.0 AP-42 SECTION 2.4 73(DRAFT)
Appendix A: Supporting Information for Landfills with Waste in Place Prior to 1992
Appendix B: List of Emission Test Reports Evaluated in this Update
Appendix C: Raw Landfill Gas Constituents (Uncorrected for Air Infiltration)
Appendix D: Background Data for VOC Emission Factor Calculation
Appendix E: Raw Landfill Gas Data Plots and Statistics
Appendix F: Control Device Efficiency Data and Analysis
Appendix G: Example Combustion Product Calculations
vn
-------
LIST OF TABLES
Table Page
Table 2-1 Recommended Values for k for Use In Modeling Uncontrolled Landfill Gas Emissions 5
Table 2-2 Comparison of Modeled and Empirical LFG Generation Data 6
Table 2-3 Impact of Delays in Collecting Gas from Newer Landfill Cells 7
Table 2-4 Summary of Landfill Gas Emissions Tests 10
Table 2-5 Summary of Test Report Data Contents (Counts of Data Points within Test) 11
Table 2-6 Summary of Testing Results for Non-Methane Organic Compounds (NMOC) -
Corrected and Uncorrected for Air Infiltration 14
Table 2-7 Criteria Used to Determine Recommended Default Emission Factor Ratings 17
Table 2-8 Landfill Gas Constituents 18
Table 2-9 Summary of Methane, Carbon Monoxide, Carbon Dioxide, Nitrogen, and Oxygen
Concentrations of Raw Landfill Gas 24
Table 2-10 Criteria Used to Determine Recommended Default Emission Factor Ratings 32
Table 2-11 Default Concentrations for LFG Constituents for Landfills with Waste in Place Prior to
1992 33
Table 3-1 Summary of Flare Types and Manufacturers for Landfill Gas Flare Combustion By-Product
Emissions Test Data 43
Table 3 -2 Criteria Used to Determine Recommended Default Emission Factor Ratings 45
Table 3-3 Recommended Default Emission Factor Ratings for NOx, CO, PM, and Total Dioxin/Furan
Landfill Flare Combustion By-Products 46
Table 3-4 Landfill Gas Flare NOx Emissions Data Used to Develop Combustion By-Product Emission
Factors 46
Table 3-5 Landfill Gas Flare CO Emissions Data Used to Develop Combustion By-Product Emission
Factors 47
Table 3-6 Landfill Gas Flare PM and Total Dioxin/Furan Emissions Data Used to Develop Combustion
By-Product Emission Factors 47
Table 3-7 Landfill Gas-fired Boiler Emissions Data Used To Develop Combustion By-Product
Emission Factors 55
Table 3-8 Landfill Gas-fired 1C Engine Emissions Data Used To Develop Combustion By-Product
Emission Factors 57
Table 3-9 Landfill Gas-fired Boiler Emissions Data Used To Develop Combustion By-Product
Emission Factors 59
Table 3-10 Landfill Gas-fired 1C Engine Emissions Data Used To Develop Combustion By-Product
Emission Factors 60
Table 3-11 NMOC Control Efficiency Data Analysis Summary 63
Table 4-1 Raw Landfill Gas Mercury Data Used To Determine AP-42 Default Concentrations 69
Vlll
-------
1.0 INTRODUCTION
The document "Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors" (AP-42) has been published
periodically by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) since 1972. New emission source
categories and updates to existing emission factors to supplement the AP-42 have been routinely
published. These supplements are in response to the emission factor needs of the EPA, state, and local air
pollution control programs, and industry. The prior update to this section was performed in 1998 (U.S.
EPA, 1998).
This background information document describes the data analysis undertaken to develop
updated emission factors and guidance for the AP-42 section for Municipal Solid Waste (MSW)
Landfills. The data being used for this update is from industry-supplied information and additional data
collected from state and local regulatory agencies. The most comprehensive set of data from
measurements of five landfills of the header pipe gas and combustion by-products was also used in
developing updated factors. This data is from a field study by EPA's Office of Research and
Development (U.S. EPA, 2007a) which was co-funded by the Environmental Research and Education
Foundation.
The data being used to update landfill gas emission factors is primarily from landfills with waste
in place on or after 1992. Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) Subtitle D regulations,
specifically 40 CFR Part 258, were effective October 9, 1993, but applied to landfills accepting waste on
or after October 9,1991. It is, therefore, likely that landfills began instituting the provisions of Subtitle D
during their operations around 1992. The regulatory provisions limited the types of waste that could be
landfilled with municipal solid waste (MSW). For example, prior to RCRA Subtitle D, hazardous waste
could be co-disposed with MSW. Therefore, a distinction is made between the landfill gas (LFG)
constituents present in data from waste prior to 1992, and those that were measured at landfills with the
majority of their waste in place on or after 1992. The previous update of AP-42 contained the data for
LFG with waste in place on or before 1992. This document includes the addition of data for combustion
by-products from flares, boilers, and engines (control data applies to both pre and post 1992 landfills).
However, no additional data for gas turbines was received for this update. Therefore, the data present for
turbines in the last AP-42 update were unchanged during this update. Chapter 2.7 presents the
background information for the pre-1992 landfills, and supporting information from the previous version
of the background information document is included as Appendix A for historical purposes. To assist the
reader in determining where background information is located for a certain type of emission from a
landfill or control device, the following table is provided to serve as a quick guide on where to go to
obtain background information on the topics found in the AP-42 section:
AP-42 Chapter Topic:
Calculating Uncontrolled Landfill Gas Emissions
Landfill Gas Constituents From Landfills with
Waste in Place On or After 1992
Landfill Gas Constituents From Landfills with
Waste in Place Before 1992
Control Device Emissions (for both pre and post-
1992 Landfills)
Mercury Emissions From Landfills with Waste in
Place on or After 1992
2008 Version of AP-42 Chapter 2.4 Municipal
Solid Waste Landfills
Location in this Background Information
Document:
Chapter 2.1
Chapters 2.2 through 2.6
Chapter 2.7
Chapter 3.0
Chapter 4.0
Chapter 5.0
-------
In addition to the new data analysis detailed in this background document, there were updates to the AP-
42 chapter text which are briefly summarized below:
. The introduction to the AP-42 section contains a description of MSW landfills and related landfill
statistics that were developed prior to the last update in 1998. This information has been updated
including update updated statistics on U.S. waste disposal.
. Information was added on EPA's recommended approach for quantifying emissions from area
sources (OTM 10; http://www.epa.gov/ttn/emc/tmethods.html). This approach uses optical
remote sensing technology and radial plume mapping (ORS-RPM) to quantify uncontrolled
emissions from landfills which includes leaks from header pipes, extraction wells, side slopes,
and landfill cover material. (U.S. EPA, 2007b) Optical remote sensing technologies use an
optical emission detector such as open-path Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy (FTIR),
ultraviolet differential absorption spectroscopy (UV-DOAS), or open-path tunable diode laser
absorption spectroscopy (OP-TDLAS); coupled with radial plume mapping software that
processes path-integrated emission concentration data and meteorological data to yield an
estimate of uncontrolled emissions. More information on ORS-RPM is described in the
Evaluation of Fugitive Emissions Using Ground-Based Optical Remote Sensing Technology
(EPA/600/R-07/032). Ongoing research is helping to develop additional guidance using OTM 10
for landfill applications which can be more complex than other area source emissions such as
waste lagoons and surface impoundments.
Equation (1) in the AP-42 Section is used to estimate emissions from an uncontrolled landfill. In
this update, a factor of 1.3 was added to Equation (1) to account for the fact that L0 is determined
by the amount of gas collected by LFG collection systems. The design of these systems will
typically result in a gas capture efficiency of only 75%. Therefore, 25% of the gas generated by
the landfill is not captured and included in the development of L0. The ratio of total gas to
captured gas is a ratio of 100/75 or equivalent to 1.3. An analysis of the efficiency of typical
LFG collection systems is presented in Appendix E. Previous equation being used did not
account for total emissions which includes the quantity of gas that is collected plus any fugitive
loss from leaks that can occur from header pipes, extraction wells, side slopes, and landfill cover
material.
. There has been an increase in the occurrence of landfills that recirculate leachate to accelerate
waste decomposition. An additional 'k' was added for use in the first-order equation to account
for the increase in gas production from wet landfills. This was derived from a study that
evaluated data from 29 wet landfills (Reinhart, 2005). For the purpose of AP-42, wet landfills are
defined as landfills which add large amounts of liquid to the waste from recycled landfill
leachate, condensate from LFG collection, and other sources of water such as treated wastewater.
The use of petroleum contaminated soil or construction and demolition waste as daily cover may
affect the characteristics of LFG. Primarily, non-methane organic compounds (NMOC)
concentrations may be much higher in landfills where petroleum contaminated soil is used as
daily cover. Likewise, sometimes elevated hydrogen sulfide concentrations are observed where
wall board has been landfilled or recovered gypsum is used as daily cover
Landfill fires, while uncommon, may occur from time to time. These fires may be significant
sources of dioxins and other hazardous air pollutants resulting from incomplete combustion of
material found in MSW.
-------
References
Reinhart, Debra R., Ayman A. Faour, and Huaxin You, First-Order Kinetic Gas Generation
Model Parameters for Wet Landfills, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, (EPA-600/R-
05/072), June 2005
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2007a) Field Test Measurements at Five MSW Landfills
with Combustion Control Technology for Landfill Gas Emissions, Prepared for EPA's Office of
Research and Development (EPA/600/R-07/043, April 2007) - Available at:
http://www.epa.gov/ORD/NRMRL/pubs/600r07043/600r07043.pdf
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2007b) Evaluation of Fugitive Emissions Using Ground-
Based Optical Remote Sensing Technology (EPA/600/R-07/032, March 07) Available at:
http://www.epa. gov/nrmri/pub s/600rO 7032/600rO 7032.pdf.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (1998). Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors,
AP-42, Fifth Edition, Volume I: Stationary Point and Area Sources, Section 2.4 Municipal Solid
Waste Landfills, Research Triangle Park, NC, November 1998.
-------
2.0 UNCONTROLLED LANDFILL GAS DATA ANALYSIS RESULTS
2.1 ESTIMATION OF UNCONTROLLED LANDFILL GAS EMISSIONS
To estimate uncontrolled emissions of the various compounds present in LFG, total uncontrolled
LFG emissions must first be estimated. Emissions for uncontrolled LFG depend on several factors
including: (1) the size, configuration, and operating conditions of the landfill; and (2) the characteristics
of the refuse such as moisture content, age, and composition. Uncontrolled methane (CFLJ emissions
may be estimated for individual landfills by using a theoretical first-order kinetic model of CH4
production. This method of estimating emissions could result in conservative estimates of emissions,
since it provides estimates of LFG generation and not LFG release to the atmosphere. Some capture and
subsequent microbial degradation of organic LFG constituents within the landfill's surface layer may
occur. However, LFG will take the path of least resistance so any leaks in the header pipe, extraction
wells, side slopes, and cover material will be a potential source of fugitive loss. Although laboratory data
is available, field test data on potential oxidation or biodegradation through the soil cover for individual
constituents found in LFG was not available. Therefore the equation being used to estimate LFG
emissions does not include a factor to account for potential reduction of emissions through soil cover.
The first-order kinetic model of CFU production in landfills is based on the following equation
(U.S. EPA, 1991):
QCH4=L0R(e-kc-e-kt) (1)
where:
QCH = Methane generation rate at time t, m^/yr;
L0 = Methane generation potential, m3 CFL/Mg refuse;
R = Average annual refuse acceptance rate during active life, Mg/yr;
e = Base log, unitless;
k = Methane generation rate constant, yr"1;
c = Time since landfill closure, yrs (c = 0 for active landfills); and
t = Time since the initial refuse placement, yrs.
Site-specific landfill information is generally available for variables R, c, and t. When refuse
acceptance rate information is scant or unknown, R can be estimated by dividing the refuse in place by
the age of the landfill (U.S. EPA, 1991). If a facility has documentation that a certain segment (cell) of a
landfill has received only nondegradable refuse, then the waste from this segment of the landfill can be
excluded from the calculation of R. Nondegradable refuse includes, but is not limited to, concrete, brick,
stone, glass, plaster, piping, plastics, and metal objects. The average annual acceptance rate should only
be estimated by this method when there is inadequate information available on the actual annual
acceptance rate.
Values for the variables L0 and k must be estimated. The potential CFU generation capacity of
refuse (L0) is dependent on the organic (primarily cellulose) content of the refuse and can vary widely
[6.2 to 270 m3 CFL/Mg refuse (200 to 8670 ftVton)] (U.S. EPA, 1991). The value of the CH4 generation
constant (k) is dependent on moisture, pH, temperature, and other environmental factors, as well as
landfill operating conditions (U.S. EPA, 1991).
A computer program that uses the theoretical model discussed above was developed by EPA and
is known as Landfill Gas Emission Model or LandGEM (U.S. EPA, 2005). This model and User's Guide
can be accessed from the Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards Technology Transfer Network
-------
Website (OAQPS TTN Web) in the Clearinghouse for Inventories and Emission Factors (CHIEF)
technical area (URL http://www.epa.gov/ttncatcl/products.htmltfsoftware).
LandGEM includes both regulatory default values and recommended AP-42 default values for L0
and k (see below). The regulatory defaults, called "CAA factors," were developed for regulatory
compliance purposes [New Source Performance Standards (NSPS), National Emissions Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) and Emission Guidelines (EG)] and provide conservative default
values for municipal landfills. As a result, the regulatory L0 and k default values may not be
representative of specific landfills, and may not be appropriate for use in an emissions inventory.
Therefore, the LandGEM also includes a set of factors called "inventory factors" that are recommended
for use when estimating LFG emissions for inventory purposes. LandGEM computes the total CFL
generation based on the age of each landfill segment.
The recommended AP-42 defaults for k when estimating CH4 emissions for inventory purposes
are presented in Table 2-1. These recommendations are based on a comparison of gas-yield forecasts
with LFG recovery data (U.S. EPA, 1991).
TABLE 2-1. RECOMMENDED VALUES OF k FOR USE IN MODELING UNCONTROLLED
LANDFILL GAS EMISSIONS
Landfill Conditions
Areas receiving <25 inches/yr rainfall (U.S. EPA, 1991)
Areas receiving >25 inches/yr rainfall (U.S. EPA, 1991)
Wet landfills (Reinhart, 2005)
Inventory k Value
0.02
0.04
0.3
Based on work conducted in the late 1980's and early 1990's, a default L0 value of 100 m3/Mg
(3,530 ftVton) refuse has been recommended for emission inventory purposes (Pelt, 1993). This L0 value
was recommended because it provided the best agreement between emissions derived from empirical
(measured) data to predicted emissions. The results of this comparison are depicted in Table 2-2. It must
be emphasized that when complying with the NSPS and Emission Guideline, the regulatory defaults for k
and L0 must be applied.
As part of this update of landfill emission factors, additional guidance is provided for estimating
the flow rate of LFG from both controlled and uncontrolled landfills. The L0 value mentioned above of
100 m3/Mg was based on data obtained by EPA from tests at 40 landfills conducted in the late 1980's and
early 1990's (U.S. EPA, 1991). When the data from these landfills was used to develop the constants for
the first order decay equation, the amount of gas that is uncontrolled was not accounted for in the
equation. To correct for this, a factor has been added to estimate total emissions (both collected and
uncontrolled).
The overall collection efficiency of a LFG collection system is affected by two factors: the
specific collection efficiency of the gas collection system, and the portion and age of the waste that is
excluded from the collection system. Specific collection efficiencies can range greatly based on the
design of the landfill design and how well it is maintained and operated. A highly efficient collection
system will include a liner under the waste and a cover over the waste that is comprised of a
geomembrane and a thick layer of low-porosity clay. Each gas well in the high efficiency system is
typically sealed to the geomembrane with a thick plug of bentonite clay material. Each gas well in the
system is maintained under a strong vacuum and is monitored monthly. The landfill surface is also
monitored frequently to identify leaks and initiate repairs immediately. Collection efficiencies as high as
95% have been reported for well designed and maintained LFG collection systems. However, the
-------
collection efficiencies for a landfill that is unlined, has only a soil or porous clay cap and does not employ
an aggressive operation and maintenance program might easily be as low as 50% to 60%.
TABLE 2-2. COMPARISON OF MODELED AND EMPIRICAL LFG GENERATION DATA
WHEN Lo IS SET AT 100 m3/Mga
Predicted CH4
Landfillb (106 m3/yr)
a 37.6
b 39.9
c 31.8
d 49.8
e 12.1
f 17.3
g 23.6
h 8.61
i 14.9
j 14.5
k 14.2
1 7.16
m 18.0
n 8.57
o 4.56
p 17.4
q 10.2
r 6.95
s 2.29
t 3.49
Average
Maximum
Minimum
Standard Dev.
Predicted/
Empirical CH4
0.68
0.77
0.73
1.51
0.53
0.82
1.28
0.49
0.93
0.94
0.96
0.50
1.31
0.76
0.48
1.87
1.21
0.87
0.29
0.45
Landfillb
u
V
w
X
y
z
aa
bb
cc
dd
ee
ff
gg
hh
ii
jj
kk
11
mm
nn
Predicted CH4
(106 m3/yr)
4.62
10.5
4.28
5.62
2.39
9.59
5.08
4.93
3.93
2.74
8.37
117
14.4
23.0
29.6
19.3
22.4
41.3
7.14
1.07
Predicted/
Empirical CH4
0.63
1.44
0.72
0.96
0.44
1.84
1.08
1.15
0.93
1.03
3.23
0.83
0.58
1.44
2.19
1.47
1.71
4.00
0.81
0.29
1.10
3.23
0.29
0.73
ak = 0.04
b Landfill names are considered to be confidential.
The second factor which has a very significant influence on collection efficiency is the portion
and age of the waste that is excluded from the gas collection system. There is normally a lag time
between the placement of waste in a new landfill cell and the installation of a gas collection system in the
cell. Landfills that have reached a sufficient size (i.e., waste in place is equal or greater than 2.5 million
tons of waste) and NMOC emissions equal or exceed 50 megagrams per year are required by NSPS and
EG to install a gas collection system. The time table specified in the NSPS/EG is that gas collection is to
-------
be installed in open cells within five years of initial waste placement and in cells that have been closed for
two or more years. As a result, a typical landfill will not have the most recent two to five years of waste
included within its gas collection system. The impact of excluding the most recent portions of their waste
mass from the collection system is magnified by the fact that the LFG emission rate is greatest in the first
years of the waste's life and drops rapidly with time.
Therefore, a system capable of collecting 90% of the gas generated from the landfill cells in
which it is installed is operating at reduced landfill-wide collection efficiency (i.e., less than 90%) due to
the loss of uncollected gas from cells that have yet to be capped and connected to the collection system.
All active landfills contain open cells and waste cells that have yet to be capped and fitted with a gas
collection system. Table 2-3 demonstrates the impact of the delay in collecting gas from newer cells.
The values in this table were generated using the first order decay model (Pelt, 1993) and assuming a L0
of 100 and a k of 0.04. The landfill was assumed to be operating (i.e., accepting waste) over a 20 year
timeframe.
The years of delay between the placement of waste in a cell and the installation of wells in the
cell are presented in the first column of Table 2-3. The effective landfill-wide collection efficiency of the
gas collection system is presented in the second and third columns for gas collection systems with
efficiencies of 90% and 85%, respectively. Large active landfills will typically install gas collection
systems within two to five years after waste placement in a given cell, as required by the NSPS. As
shown in Table 2-3, the effective landfill-wide collection efficiency of a gas collection system which is
installed in waste cells two to five years after they are filled varies from 57% to 77% for systems with
85% to 90% efficiency. If a landfill is closed, all cells will be capped and the landfill-wide collection
efficiency will be the same as the specific efficiency of the collection system, or 85% to 90%.
TABLE 2-3. IMPACT OF DELAYS IN COLLECTING GAS
FROM NEWER LANDFILL CELLS
Time Between
Waste Placement
and Initial Gas
Collection for
Individual Cells
(years)
1
2
o
6
4
5
6
Effective Landfill-
wide Gas Collection
Efficiency
System
Collection
Efficiency
90%
84
77
72
66
60
55
System
Collection
Efficiency
85%
79
73
68
62
57
52
It is assumed that the landfills used to develop L0 and k for use in the first order decay LFG
generation equation included a similar number of both open and closed landfills. Typically these landfills
in the late 1980's and early 1990's would have had specific collection efficiencies of 85% to 90% for the
closed cells where the system was installed. The closed landfills might have an overall efficiency of
85%-90% and the open landfills might have an efficiency ranging from 57% to 77%. Based on these
assumptions, the overall set of landfills used to develop L0 and k would have had overall collection
efficiencies ranging from 57% to 90% and possibly averaging 75%.
-------
Using the analysis presented on the range in gas collection efficiency, a factor is added to account
for the gas that is not collected given that empirical data was used to develop input for the first-order
decomposition rate equation. If on average 75% gas generated at the landfills listed in Table 2-2 is
collected, then actual gas production from landfills would then be 100/75 or 1.3 times greater than the
gas flow measured in the gas collection systems. The first order decay model developed by the EPA
(Pelt, 1993) would then be expressed as:
QCH=1.3L0R(e-kc-e-kt) (2)
where
'CH
QCH = Methane generation rate at time t, m3/yr;
L0 = Methane generation potential, m3 CH/Mg of "wet" or "as received" refuse;
R = Average annual refuse acceptance rate during active life, Mg of "wet" or "as received"
refuse /yr;
e = Base log, unitless;
k = Methane generation rate constant, yr"1;
c = Time since landfill closure, yrs (c = 0 for active landfills); and
t = Time since the initial refuse placement, yrs.
When annual refuse acceptance data is available, the following form of Equation (2) is used. This
is the equation that is used in EPA's Landfill Gas Emissions Model (LandGEM). Due to the complexity
of the double summation, Equation (2 alt) is normally implemented within a computer model. Equation
(2 alt.) is more accurate because it accounts for the varying annual refuse flows and it calculates each
year's gas flow in Vi0th year increments.
n 1
QCH4 = 1 3Z Z k Lo "HI e"kt" (2 alternate)
i=l j=0.1
where:
QCH4 = Methane generation rate at time t, m3/yr;
L0 = Methane generation potential, m3 ClrL/Mg of "wet" or "as received" refuse;
R = Annual refuse acceptance rate for year i, Mg of "wet" or "as received" refuse /yr;
e = Base log, unitless;
k = Methane generation rate constant, yr"1;
c = Time since landfill closure, yrs (c = 0 for active landfills); and
t = Time since the initial refuse placement, yrs.
i = year in life of the landfill
j = Vioth year increment in the calculation.
Equations (2) and (2 alt) are different from the equations used previously by EPA in AP-42 and in other
models such as LandGEM, by the addition of the constant 1.3 at the front of the equation. This 1.3
constant compensates the value of L0 that had been developed based on systems nominally collecting
only an estimated 75% of the LFG emissions.
There is a significant level of uncertainty in Equation 2 and its recommended defaults values for k
and L0 The recommended defaults k and L0 for conventional landfills, based upon the best fit to 40
different landfills, yielded predicted CIL, emissions that ranged from ~30 to 400% of measured values and
-------
had a relative standard deviation of 0.73 (Table 2-2). The default values for wet landfills were based on a
more limited set of data and are expected to contain even greater uncertainty.
When gas generation reaches steady-state conditions, sampled LFG consists of approximately
equal amounts of carbon dioxide (CO2) and CFL,; and only trace amounts of NMOC (typically, less than
two percent). Therefore, the estimate derived for CFL, generation using the landfill model can also be used
to estimate CO2 generation (i.e., CO2 = CFL,) (U.S. EPA, 1991). In addition, total LFG flow can be
assumed to be equal to twice the CFL, flow.
References
Pelt, R., Memorandum "Methodology Used to Revise the Model Inputs in the Solid Waste
Landfills Input Data Bases (Revised)", to the Municipal Solid Waste Landfills Docket No. A-8
09, April 28, 1993.
Reinhart, Debra R., Ayman A. Faour, and Huaxin You, First-Order Kinetic Gas Generation
Model Parameters for Wet Landfills, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, (EPA-600/R-
05/072), June 2005.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Air Emissions from Municipal Solid Waste Landfills
Background Information for Proposed Standards and Guidelines, EPA-450/3-90-011a,
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Park, NC, March 1991.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2005) Landfill Gas Emission Model (LandGEM) -
Software and Manual, EPA-600/R-05/047, May 2005. Available at:
http://www.epa.gov/ORD/NRMRL/pubs/600r05047/600r05047.htm
-------
2.2 DATA SUMMARY
A total of 293 emission tests were submitted to EPA that included LFG composition data. As
listed in Table 2-4, a portion of these were not used because either the report did not present actual test
data (they were based on emission models) or the test report was too incomplete to evaluate the quality of
the data. Of the potentially useful tests, several (22) analyze LFG obtained through use of a "punch-
probe," while 62 tests contain data for gas samples from LFG collection system headers. The emissions
data from the collection system headers are assumed to be representative of the gas generated by the
entire landfill and not selected locations, as may be the case with punch probe analyses. Therefore, in
developing default emission factors for updating AP-42, only the emissions test data for the 62 tests taken
from gas collection system headers are analyzed in this report.
The reference section to this chapter, and in the AP-42 chapter, lists the specific emission tests
from which data were utilized. Appendix B contains the list of all 293 emission tests that were reviewed
as part of this update.
TABLE 2-4. SUMMARY OF LANDFILL GAS EMISSIONS TESTS
Number of emission test reports
Number of reports that were not able to be used due to
inadequate documentation or information
Number of punch-probe tests
Number of gas collection header tests
293
209
22
62
Landfill gas collection system header pipes were sampled for NMOC, reduced sulfur compounds,
and speciated organics. Measured pollutant concentrations (i.e., as measured by EPA Reference Method
25C), must be corrected for air infiltration which can occur by two different mechanisms: LFG sample
dilution and air intrusion into the landfill. These corrections require site-specific data for the LFG CFL,,
CO2, nitrogen (N2), and oxygen (O2) content. If the ratio of N2 to O2 is less than or equal to 4.0 (as found
in ambient air), then the total pollutant concentration is adjusted for sample dilution by assuming that CO2
and CH2 are the primary (100 percent) constituents of LFG, and the following equation is used:
f~^ f ~\ 1 f\ ^ \
Cp (corrected for air infiltration) = - - (3)
where:
CP = Concentration of pollutant P in LFG (i.e., NMOC as hexane), ppmv;
CC02 = CO2 concentration in LFG, ppmv;
QCH = CFL, Concentration in LFG, ppmv; and
1 x 106 = Constant used to correct concentration of P to units of ppmv.
If the ratio of N2 to O2 concentrations (i.e., CN2, C02) is greater than 4.0, then the total pollutant
concentration should be adjusted for air intrusion into the landfill by using Equation (3) and adding the
concentration of N2 (i.e., CN2) to the denominator. Values for CC02, CCH4, CN2, C02, can usually be found
in the source test report for the particular landfill along with the total pollutant concentration data.
Most of the tests contained data on O2, CO2, CFL, and N2 content of the gas, as shown in Table 2-
5, so that corrected values may be calculated. (While no reports present corrected data, Table 2-5 contains
those tests for which corrected values could be calculated.) Table 2-6 displays NMOC values both
10
-------
uncorrected (i.e., as reported) and corrected for air infiltration. For simplicity, the AP-42 chapter and
Table 2-7 of this section present the data that has been corrected for air infiltration only. A summary of
uncorrected data is presented in Appendix C.
TABLE 2-5. SUMMARY OF TEST REPORT DATA CONTENTS
(COUNTS OF DATA POINTS WITHIN TEST)
Test Report
ID
TR-076
TR-084
TR-086
TR-114
TR-115
TR-134
TR-141
TR-145
TR-146
TR-147
TR-148
TR-153
TR-156
TR-157
TR-159
TR-160
TR-165
TR-167
TR-168
TR-169
TR-171
TR-173
TR-175
TR-176
TR-178
TR-179
TR-181
CH,
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
1
1
1
1
1
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
C02
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
1
1
1
1
1
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
N2
1
1
1
1
0
1
1
1
1
0
1
1
1
1
1
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
1
02
1
1
1
0
0
1
1
1
1
0
1
1
1
1
1
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
CO
C
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
uc
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
NMOC
(as hexane)
C
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
1
1
1
1
1
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
1
uc
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Speciated
Organic and
Sulfur
Compounds
C
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
28
3
0
15
0
0
0
0
0
27
27
27
27
27
27
27
21
27
0
27
UC
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
28
3
1
15
0
0
0
0
0
27
27
27
27
27
27
27
21
27
27
27
Total
C
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
30
4
0
17
1
1
1
1
0
28
28
28
28
28
28
29
22
28
0
28
uca
3
3
3
2
1
3
3
34
8
3
21
5
5
5
5
1
32
32
32
32
32
32
33
26
32
31
32
11
-------
TABLE 2-5 (CONTINUED). SUMMARY OF TEST REPORT DATA CONTENTS
(COUNTS OF DATA POINTS WITHIN TEST)
Test Report
ID
TR-182
TR-183
TR-187
TR-188
TR-189
TR-190
TR-191
TR-194
TR-195
TR-196
TR-199
TR-205
TR-207
TR-209
TR-220
TR-226
TR-229
TR-236
TR-241
TR-251
TR-253
TR-255
TR-258
TR-259
TR-260
TR-261
TR-264
TR-266
TR-272
TR-273
TR-284
TR-287
TR-290
CH,
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
1
1
1
1
0
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
1
C02
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
1
1
1
1
0
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
1
N2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
1
1
1
1
0
1
1
1
1
0
1
1
1
1
1
02
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
1
1
1
1
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
CO
c
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
uc
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
NMOC
(as hexane)
C
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
0
1
1
1
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
uc
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Speciated
Organic and
Sulfur
Compounds
C
27
27
47
108
113
107
107
0
0
27
23
27
25
28
22
0
30
0
5
27
27
27
0
27
26
27
27
9
68
67
56
56
27
UC
27
27
47
108
113
107
107
98
526
27
23
27
25
28
22
0
30
7
5
27
27
27
0
27
26
27
27
9
68
67
56
56
27
Total
C
28
28
48
109
114
107
107
0
0
28
24
28
26
29
23
2
31
0
5
28
28
28
0
28
27
28
28
10
69
68
57
57
28
uca
32
32
52
113
118
111
111
102
526
32
28
32
30
34
27
6
35
7
9
32
32
32
1
32
31
32
32
14
75
74
63
63
32
12
-------
TABLE 2-5 (CONTINUED). SUMMARY OF TEST REPORT DATA CONTENTS
(COUNTS OF DATA POINTS WITHIN TEST)
Test Report
ID
TR-292
TR-293a
TR-293b
Total
CH,
2
1
1
56
C02
2
1
1
54
N2
1
1
1
52
02
1
1
1
54
CO
c
0
0
0
6
uc
0
0
0
10
NMOC
(as hexane)
C
1
1
1
44
UC
1
1
1
55
Speciated
Organic and
Sulfur
Compounds
C
33
30
26
1,537
UC
33
30
26
2,196
Total
C
34
31
27
1,585
uca
40
35
31
2,473
C = Corrected for air infiltration
UC = Uncorrected
a Uncorrected Total includes CH4, CO2, N2, and O2 data points.
13
-------
2.3
NMOC AND VOC
Fifty-four test reports contained NMOC data. Forty-three of these contained sufficient data to
calculate a value corrected for air infiltration. The corrected values were calculated using Equation 2.
The data from the 54 test reports, corrected value (if possible to calculate), and the test method are
reported in Table 2-6. In addition, summary statistics are presented at the bottom of the table. Based on
guidance contained in EPA's Procedures for Preparing Emission Factor Documents (U.S. EPA, 1997a),
each of the tests with the corrected value calculated are assumed to be rated as "A," because the tests were
performed by a sound methodology and reported in enough detail for adequate validation. None of the
NMOC concentrations were below the detection limit (BDL).
Taking the mean value of the corrected NMOC data yields a default emission factor of 838 ppmv,
which compares to the pre-1992 AP-42 default value of 595 ppmv for "No or Unknown co-disposal
landfills" (see Table 2.4-2 in the AP-42 chapter, included as section 5.0 of this document). An overall
emission factor ranking of "A" is recommended for NMOC. This rating exemplifies the fact that the
default NMOC emission factors were developed using A-rated test data from a large number of facilities.
The pre-1992 AP-42 default emission factor for NMOC at "No or Unknown co-disposal" landfills is
ranked as "B."
To determine the volatile organic compound (VOC) emission factor, the compounds listed in 40
CFR 51.100(s)(l) which have negligible chemical photoreactivity were removed from the overall NMOC
concentration. This determination was possible for 34 emission tests that contained both speciated data
and NMOC data. Consistent with the previous AP-42 update background document (U.S. EPA, 1997b),
the following compounds from 40 CFR 51.100(s)(l) were removed from the NMOC concentration to
obtain a VOC fraction: ethane, chlorodifluoromethane, acetone, dichloromethane, 1,1,1-Trichloroethane
(methyl chloroform), dichlorodifluoromethane, perchloroethylene. Note that 40 CFR 51.100(s)(l)
contains more compounds than those listed above, but this list envelops the LFG constituents that are
listed in 51.100(s)(l) that are most prevalent in LFG. Since NMOC is presented as hexane (i.e., six
carbons), the non-VOC compound concentrations are converted to be on the same six-carbon basis also so
that they may be subtracted from the NMOC concentration value. The data used to develop the VOC
emission factor and the resulting VOC fraction calculations are presented in Appendix D.
The resulting fraction of NMOC that is VOC is 0.997, based on data from 34 emission test
reports (see Appendix D for data and calculation). All of these test reports are considered to be "A"
quality. This fraction was multiplied by the corrected NMOC concentration value to obtain a VOC
emission factor of 835 ppmv. The recommended emission factor ranking is "A" because a large number
of "A" quality tests were used to develop the emission factor. Appendix E presents statistical data graphs
of the NMOC data.
TABLE 2-6. SUMMARY OF TESTING RESULTS FOR NON-METHANE ORGANIC
COMPOUNDS (NMOC) - CORRECTED AND UNCORRECTED FOR AIR INFILTRATION
Test
Report
ID
TR-076
TR-084
TR-086
Test Method
EPA Method 25C
EPA Method 25C / Method 3C
EPA Method 25C / Method 3C
Corrected Average
Concentration
(ppm as hexane)
Average
Concentration
(ppm as hexane)
157
117
121
14
-------
TABLE 2-6 (CONTINUED). SUMMARY OF TESTING RESULTS FOR NON-METHANE
ORGANIC COMPOUNDS (NMOC) - CORRECTED AND UNCORRECTED FOR AIR
INFILTRATION
Test
Report
ID
TR-114
TR-115
TR-134
TR-141
TR-145
TR-146
TR-147
TR-148
TR-153
TR-156
TR-157
TR-159
TR-160
TR-165
TR-167
TR-168
TR-169
TR-171
TR-173
TR-175
TR-176
TR-178
TR-179
TR-181
TR-182
TR-183
TR-187
TR-196
TR-199
TR-205
TR-207
TR-209
TR-220
TR-226
TR-229
TR-251
TR-253
TR-255
TR-258
TR-259
TR-260
TR-261
Test Method
EPA Method 25C
EPA Method 25C
EPA Method 25C
EPA Method 25C
EPA Method 25C
SCAQMD Method 25.2
EPA Method 25C
EPA Method 18 / EPA Method 25C
EPA Method 25C
EPA Method 25C
EPA Method 25C
NJATM3.9
EPA Method 18
SCAQMD Method 25. 2
SCAQMD Draft Method 25.2
SCAQMD Method 25. 2
SCAQMD Draft Method 25.2
SCAQMD Draft Method 25.2
SCAQMD Method 25.1
SCAQMD Method 25.1
SCAQMD Draft Method 25.2
SCAQMD Method 25.1
SCAQMD Method 25.1
SCAQMD Draft Method 25.2
SCAQMD Draft Method 25.2
SCAQMD Method 25.1
SCAQMD Method 25. 2
EPA Method 25 Modified
SCAQMD Method 25.1
SCAQMD Draft Method 25.2
SCAQMD Method 25.1
EPA Method TO-12 Modified
SCAQMD Draft Method 25.2
NJDEP Method 3.9 (Modified) / GC
SCAQMD Draft Method 25.2
SCAQMD Method 25.1
SCAQMD Draft Method 25.2
SCAQMD Method 25.1
EPA Method TO-12
SCAQMD Draft Method 25.2
SCAQMD Draft Method 25.2
SCAQMD Draft Method 25.2
Corrected Average
Concentration
(ppm as hexane)
635
927
332
721
575
574
31
713
673
1,314
1,389
1,021
1,425
161
623
1,947
649
596
734
870
889
193
647
617
536
704
167
564
1,067
583
1,122
1,349
1,349
1,321
Average
Concentration
(ppm as hexane)
53
82
944
180
628
922
298
331
726
573
571
31
421
698
665
1,294
1,349
993
1,400
110
577
1,882
1,244
627
578
717
847
883
176
627
560
529
668
145
527
1,031
573
1,104
137
1,286
1,294
1,279
15
-------
TABLE 2-6 (CONTINUED). SUMMARY OF TESTING RESULTS FOR NON-METHANE
ORGANIC COMPOUNDS (NMOC) - CORRECTED AND UNCORRECTED FOR AIR
INFILTRATION
Test
Report
ID
TR-264
TR-266
TR-272
TR-273
TR-284
TR-287
TR-290
TR-292
TR-293a
TR-293b
Test Method
SCAQMD Method 25.1
SCAQMD Method 100.1 and EPA Methods
6C and 7E
EPA Method 25C
EPA Method 25C
EPA Method 25C
EPA Method 25C
Fuel Gas Analysis (SCAQMD Draft 25.2)
EPA Method 25C
EPA Method 25C
EPA Method 25C
Number of Test Reports
Minimum
Maximum
Mean
Standard Deviation
95% Confidence Interval
Corrected Average
Concentration
(ppm as hexane)
537
245
386
526
5,387a
868
972
242
378
297
44
31
5,387
838
811
ฑ240
Average
Concentration
(ppm as hexane)
523
151
374
355
5,870a
1,006
954
233
446
317
55
31
5,870
731
824
ฑ218
a The TR-284 landfill utilized petroleum-contaminated soil as daily cover, which helps illustrate the
potential for increased emissions of NMOC when this daily cover is used at a landfill.
To estimate uncontrolled emissions of NMOC or other LFG constituents, such as those listed in
Table 2-7, the following equation should be used:
QP =
V
CH4
X
CCHx(lxl06)
(4)
where:
Qp
QCH4
CP
= Emission rate of pollutant P (i.e., NMOC), m3/yr;
= CH4 generation rate, m3/yr (from Equation 1);
= Concentration of pollutant P in LFG, ppmv; and
= Concentration of CH4 in the LFG (assumed to be 50% expressed as 0.5)
Uncontrolled mass emissions per year of total NMOC (as hexane) and speciated organic and
inorganic compounds can be estimated by the following equation:
UMp=Qpx
MWpxl atm
where:
(8.205xlO~5 m3 - atm/gmol - ฐK) x (lOOOg/kg) x (273+ T)
UMP = Uncontrolled mass emissions of pollutant? (i.e., NMOC), kg/yr;
MWp = Molecular weight of P, g/gmol (i.e., 86.18 for NMOC as hexane);
QP = Emission rate of pollutant P, nvVyr; and
(5)
16
-------
T = Temperature of LFG, ฐC.
This equation assumes that the operating pressure of the system is approximately 1 atmosphere.
If the temperature of the LFG is not known, a temperature of 25 ฐC (77 ฐF) is recommended.
2.4
SPECIATED ORGANICS AND REDUCED SULFUR COMPOUNDS
Forty-seven test reports contained speciated organic and reduced sulfur compound data that could
be corrected for air infiltration. An additional 20 test reports contained data that were not able to be
corrected. For the speciated organic data, EPA Method 25C was used to obtain the majority of the data.
Other methods used to determine speciated organic concentrations were EPA Methods TO-14 and TO-15,
and South Coast Air Quality Management District's (SCAQMD) Method 25.2. For reduced sulfur
measurements, EPA Method 18 and SCAQMD Method 307 were used.
EPA's Procedures for Preparing Emission Factor Documents (U.S. EPA, 1997a), were followed
when addressing BDL test runs. In most cases, there were some runs that were below detection limit and
others that were above. However, for a few compounds, there were no tests (or individual runs) that
measured above the detection limit. Per the EPA's guidance (U.S. EPA, 1997a), in these cases the
emission factor recorded is "BDL," with a reference to the range of method detection limits (MDL)
reported.
Table 2-8 presents the default emission factor information for the speciated organic compounds
and reduced sulfur compounds that were corrected for air infiltration. As discussed earlier, these data will
be presented in the AP-42 chapter. Therefore, only these data have recommended emission factor ratings.
Since all of these tests are considered "A" quality, then the emission factor ranking becomes more of a
function of the number of data points used for that compound. The following criteria, used in developing
ratings in the 1997 AP-42 update (U.S. EPA, 1997b), were used to provide recommended default
emission factor ratings. Statistical data graphs of several of the more prevalent speciated organic
compounds and reduced sulfur compounds are presented in Appendix E.
TABLE 2-7. CRITERIA USED TO DETERMINE RECOMMENDED DEFAULT EMISSION
FACTOR RATINGS
Factor Rating
A
B
C
D
E
# of Data Points
>20
10-19
6-9
3-5
<3
Default emission factors for two compounds presented in Table 2-8 could not be calculated since
the test values were all reported as BDL in the respective test reports. The data for acrylonitrile consisted
of six BDL test values, and there was one BDL test value reported for hexachlorobutadiene. The
acrylonitrile BDL data is consistent with information received from California Air Resources Board
regarding testing for acrylonitrile at a San Diego landfill.
Appendix C presents the data summary for data that is not corrected for air infiltration. While
this uncorrected data will not be presented in AP-42, it is shown here to document that it is available and
was extracted from the test reports. If, in the future, some methodology for assuming a correction factor
17
-------
is available or more information from specific tests is received, then these data may be corrected and
incorporated into the final default emission factors.
2.5 METHANE, CARBON DIOXIDE, CARBON MONOXIDE, OXYGEN AND NITROGEN
Table 2-9 presents a summary of the CH/t, CO2, carbon monoxide (CO), O2 and N2 data. AP-42
presents CO data, but not the other compounds. However, as discussed above, CH4, CO2, O2 and N2 are
used to correct for air infiltration, per Equation 3. CO measurements were performed using various
methods, including EPA Method 10, Modified Method TO- 14. Ten emission tests contained data for CO
(TR-145, TR-147, TR-148, TR-175, TR-188, TR-189, TR-194, TR-209, TR-226, TR-241, and TR-266)
and six of these data points were correctable for air infiltration. The average of the emissions tests results
in a CO default emission factor of 21 ppmv (corrected for air infilteration). Since there are only six data
points, the recommended emission factor rating for CO is C.
2.6
HYDROGEN CHLORIDE
One test report (TR-147) contained data for hydrogen chloride (HC1) present in the raw LFG.
However, due to the lack of data for CH4, CO2, N2, and O2 the HC1 data point could not be corrected for
air infiltration.
TABLE 2-8. LANDFILL GAS CONSTITUENTS
Compound
1,1,1 -Trichloroethane
1 , 1 ,2,2-Tetrachloroethane
l,l,2,3,4,4-Hexachloro-l,3-
butadiene
(Hexachlorobutadiene)
l,l,2-Trichloro-l,2,2-
Trifluoroethane (Freon 113)
1 , 1 ,2-Trichloroethane
1 , 1 -Dichloroethane
l,l-Dichloroethene(l,l-
Dichloroethylene)
1 ,2,3-Trimethylbenzene
1 ,2,4-Trichlorobenzene
1 ,2,4-Trimethylbenzene
1 ,2-Dibromoethane
(Ethylene dibromide)
1,2-Dichloro-l, 1,2,2-
tetrafluoroethane (Freon 114)
1 ,2-Dichloroethane (Ethylene
dichloride)
1 ,2-Dichloroethene
1 ,2-Dichloropropane
1,2-Diethylbenzene
Number
of Test
Reports
33
2
3
9
3
36
34
3
6
13
11
12
34
1
4
3
Minimum
(ppm)
5.15E-03
3.06E-02
1.03E-03
2.06E-03
7.90E-03
2.56E-02
2.06E-03
2.69E-01
1.01E-03
1.95E-01
1.37E-03
7.90E-03
1.03E-03
7.35E-04
1.38E-02
Maximum
(ppm)
8.50E-01
1.04E+00
7.91E-03
4.60E-01
4.08E-01
1.59E+01
1.28E+00
5.20E-01
7.71E-03
2.99E+00
1.90E-02
4.23E-01
2.60E+00
1.99E-01
2.52E-02
Mean
(ppm)
2.43E-01
5.35E-01
3.49E-03
6.72E-02
1.58E-01
2.08E+00
1.60E-01
3.59E-01
5.51E-03
1.37E+00
4.80E-03
1.06E-01
1.59E-01
1.14E+01
5.20E-02
1.99E-02
Standard
Deviation
(ppm)
2.43E-01
7.14E-01
3.83E-03
1.48E-01
2.18E-01
2.87E+00
2.60E-01
1.40E-01
2.70E-03
9.45E-01
5.39E-03
1.15E-01
4.36E-01
9.78E-02
5.75E-03
95%
Confidence
Interval
(ฑ ppm)
8.30E-02
9.89E-01
4.33E-03
9.64E-02
2.47E-01
9.38E-01
8.74E-02
1.58E-01
2.16E-03
5.14E-01
3.18E-03
6.51E-02
1.46E-01
9.58E-02
6.51E-03
Recommended
Emission
Factor Rating
A
E
D
C
D
A
A
D
C
B
B
B
A
E
D
D
18
-------
TABLE 2-8 (CONTINUED). LANDFILL GAS CONSTITUENTS
Compound
1 ,3,5-Trimethylbenzene
1,3-Butadiene (Vinyl
ethylene)
1 ,3-Diethylbenzene
1 ,4-Diethylbenzene
1,4-Dioxane (1,4-Diethylene
dioxide)
1-Butene / 2-Methylbutene
1-Butene / 2-Methylpropene
l-Ethyl-4-methylbenzene (4-
Ethyl toluene)
l-Ethyl-4-methylbenzene (4-
Ethyl toluene) + 1,3,5-
Trimethylbenzene
1-Heptene
l-Hexene/2-Methyl-l-
pentene
1 -Methy Icy clohexene
1 -Methy Icy clopentene
1-Pentene
1-Propanethiol (n-Propyl
mercaptan)
2,2,3-Trimethylbutane
2,2,4-Trimethylpentane
2,2,5-Trimethylhexane
2,2-Dimethylbutane
2,2-Dimethylpentane
2,2-Dimethylpropane
2 , 3 ,4-Trimethy Ipentane
2,3-Dimethylbutane
2, 3-Dimethy Ipentane
2,4-Dimethylhexane
2,4-Dimethylpentane
2,5-Dimethylhexane
2,5-Dimethylthiophene
2-Butanone (Methyl ethyl
ketone)
2-Ethyl-l-butene
2-Ethylthiophene
2-Ethyltoluene
Number
of Test
Reports
9
7
4
4
5
3
1
7
4
2
3
4
4
4
22
4
5
4
4
4
1
4
4
4
4
4
4
1
8
4
1
4
Minimum
(ppm)
1.51E-01
2.27E-02
2.37E-02
9.50E-02
2.09E-03
8.57E-01
1.21E-01
8.17E-02
4.48E-01
1.26E-02
1.32E-02
1.55E-02
3.23E-02
1.46E-04
4.80E-03
3.21E-01
9.44E-02
9.56E-02
4.42E-02
1.78E-01
1.43E-01
2.03E-01
1.74E-01
6.55E-02
1.33E-01
2.81E-01
1.02E-02
1.38E-01
Maximum
(ppm)
1.09E+00
5.89E-01
1.30E-01
5.49E-01
1.39E-02
1.42E+00
2.85E+00
8.42E-01
8.03E-01
2.22E-01
3.89E-02
4.62E-02
4.83E-01
4.86E-01
1.41E-02
8.12E-01
2.50E-01
2.28E-01
7.30E-02
4.73E-01
2.21E-01
3.76E-01
2.61E-01
1.21E-01
1.96E-01
9.54E+00
2.68E-02
6.53E-01
Mean
(ppm)
6.23E-01
1.66E-01
6.55E-02
2.62E-01
8.29E-03
1.22E+00
1.10E+00
9.89E-01
5.79E-01
6.25E-01
8.88E-02
2.27E-02
2.52E-02
2.20E-01
1.25E-01
9.19E-03
6.14E-01
1.56E-01
1.56E-01
6.08E-02
2.74E-02
3.12E-01
1.67E-01
3.10E-01
2.22E-01
l.OOE-01
1.66E-01
6.44E-02
4.01E+00
1.77E-02
6.29E-02
3.23E-01
Standard
Deviation
(ppm)
3.59E-01
2.07E-01
4.53E-02
2.03E-01
4.50E-03
3.12E-01
1.21E+00
3.54E-01
2.51E-01
1.16E-01
1.16E-02
1.45E-02
1.95E-01
1.22E-01
3.86E-03
2.27E-01
7.29E-02
5.49E-02
1.27E-02
1.35E-01
3.59E-02
7.70E-02
3.62E-02
2.42E-02
2.62E-02
3.07E+00
6.98E-03
2.29E-01
95%
Confidence
Interval
(ฑ ppm)
2.35E-01
1.53E-01
4.44E-02
1.99E-01
3.94E-03
3.53E-01
8.97E-01
3.46E-01
3.48E-01
1.31E-01
1.14E-02
1.42E-02
1.91E-01
5.11E-02
3.79E-03
1.99E-01
7.14E-02
5.38E-02
1.25E-02
1.32E-01
3.52E-02
7.54E-02
3.54E-02
2.37E-02
2.57E-02
2.12E+00
6.84E-03
2.25E-01
Recommended
Emission
Factor Rating
C
C
D
D
D
D
E
C
D
E
D
D
D
D
A
D
D
D
D
D
E
D
D
D
D
D
D
E
C
D
E
D
19
-------
TABLE 2-8 (CONTINUED). LANDFILL GAS CONSTITUENTS
Compound
2-Hexanone (Methyl butyl
ketone)
2-Methyl-l-butene
2-Methy 1- 1 -propanethiol
(Isobutyl mercaptan)
2-Methyl-2-butene
2-Methyl-2-propanethiol
(tert-Butylmercaptan)
2-Methylbutane
2-Methy Iheptane
2-Methy Ihexane
2-Methy Ipentane
2-Propanol (Isopropyl
alcohol)
3 ,6-Dimethy loctane
3-Ethyltoluene
3-Methyl-l-pentene
3-Methylheptane
3-Methylhexane
3-Methylpentane
3-Methylthiophene
4-Methy 1- 1 -pentene
4-Methyl-2-pentanone
(MBK)
4-Methy Iheptane
Acetaldehyde
Acetone
Acetonitrile
Acrylonitrile
Benzene
Benzyl chloride
Bromodichloromethane
Bromomethane (Methyl
bromide)
Butane
Carbon disulfide
Carbon tetrachloride
Carbon tetrafluoride (Freon
14)
Carbonyl sulfide (Carbon
oxysulfide)
Number
of Test
Reports
2
4
1
4
1
4
4
4
4
6
4
4
3
4
4
4
1
1
7
4
5
9
20
6
41
24
2
7
9
34
30
1
29
Minimum
(ppm)
5.73E-01
7.17E-02
2.07E-01
2.80E-01
6.01E-01
5.58E-01
5.51E-01
1.17E-01
5.38E-01
3.55E-01
4.33E-03
6.25E-01
7.44E-01
5.72E-01
7.77E-02
1.90E-01
2.19E-02
3.38E-01
1.35E-01
7.52E-02
1.72E-03
2.75E-03
2.36E-03
4.31E-01
2.92E-04
8.55E-04
1.04E-04
Maximum
(ppm)
6.53E-01
3.47E-01
4.12E-01
7.33E+00
9.50E-01
1.02E+00
l.OOE+00
5.72E+00
1.01E+00
1.54E+00
1.09E-02
1.04E+00
1.41E+00
1.08E+00
1.99E+00
3.14E-01
1.65E-01
1.61E+01
2.56E+00
2.20E+01
2.96E-02
1.48E-02
6.77E-02
3.48E+01
3.53E-01
3.29E-02
2.75E-01
Mean
(ppm)
6.13E-01
1.79E-01
1.70E-01
3.03E-01
3.25E-01
2.26E+00
7.16E-01
8.16E-01
6.88E-01
1.80E+00
7.85E-01
7.80E-01
6.99E-03
7.63E-01
1.13E+00
7.40E-01
9.25E-02
2.33E-02
8.83E-01
2.49E-01
7.74E-02
6.70E+00
5.56E-01
BDLa
2.40E+00
1.81E-02
8.78E-03
2.10E-02
6.22E+00
1.47E-01
7.98E-03
1.51E-01
1.22E-01
Standard
Deviation
(ppm)
5.65E-02
1.18E-01
1.03E-01
3.39E+00
1.61E-01
2.11E-01
2.13E-01
2.08E+00
1.99E-01
5.45E-01
3.44E-03
1.91E-01
3.16E-01
2.38E-01
6.63E-01
5.36E-02
6.31E-02
5.34E+00
5.19E-01
3.69E+00
8.16E-03
8.54E-03
2.32E-02
1.09E+01
8.74E-02
7.59E-03
7.12E-02
95%
Confidence
Interval
(ฑ ppm)
7.83E-02
1.16E-01
1.01E-01
3.32E+00
1.57E-01
2.07E-01
2.09E-01
1.66E+00
1.95E-01
5.34E-01
3.89E-03
1.87E-01
3.10E-01
2.34E-01
4.91E-01
5.25E-02
5.53E-02
3.49E+00
2.27E-01
1.13E+00
3.26E-03
1.18E-02
1.72E-02
7.10E+00
2.94E-02
2.72E-03
2.59E-02
Recommended
Emission
Factor Rating
E
D
E
D
E
D
D
D
D
C
D
D
D
D
D
D
E
E
C
D
D
C
A
C
A
A
E
C
C
A
A
E
A
20
-------
TABLE 2-8 (CONTINUED). LANDFILL GAS CONSTITUENTS
Compound
Chlorobenzene
Chlorodifluoromethane
(Freon 22)
Chloroethane (Ethyl
chloride)
Chloromethane (Methyl
chloride)
cis- 1 ,2-Dichloroethene
cis- 1 ,2-Dimethy Icy clohexane
cis- 1 ,3-Dichloropropene
cis- 1 ,3-Dimethy Icy clohexane
cis- 1 ,4-Dimethy Icy clohexane
/ trans- 1 ,3-
Dimethy Icyclohexane
cis-2-Butene
cis-2-Heptene
cis-2-Hexene
cis-2-Octene
cis-2-Pentene
cis-3-Methyl-2-pentene
CO
Cyclohexane
Cyclohexene
Cyclopentane
Cyclopentene
Decane
Dibromochloromethane
Dibromomethane (Methylene
dibromide)
Dichlorobenzene
Dichlorodifluoromethane
(Freon 12)
Dichloromethane (Methylene
chloride)
Diethyl sulfide
Dimethyl disulfide
Dimethyl sulfide
Dodecane (n-Dodecane)
Ethane
Ethanol
Ethyl acetate
Number
of Test
Reports
37
4
10
11
17
4
4
4
4
4
1
4
4
4
4
6
10
4
4
4
4
3
2
58
13
42
1
25
29
4
5
5
6
Minimum
(ppm)
1.79E-02
2.06E-01
9.69E-02
1.24E-02
5.27E-02
5.68E-02
2.33E-04
3.78E-01
2.00E-01
7.08E-02
8.54E-03
1.67E-01
2.14E-02
1.18E-02
4.75E+00
1.19E-01
1.43E-02
1.27E-02
5.13E-03
1.85E+00
7.95E-03
6.37E-04
4.84E-04
1.17E-01
5.09E-03
2.29E-04
7.51E-03
6.79E-02
4.83E+00
2.03E-02
1.63E-01
Maximum
(ppm)
7.44E+00
1.39E+00
2.79E+01
1.16E+00
6.69E+00
1.03E-01
6.68E-03
6.36E-01
2.91E-01
1.58E-01
2.51E-02
2.78E-01
7.47E-02
2.43E-02
7.81E+01
3.03E+00
2.56E-02
3.34E-02
2.78E-02
6.38E+00
2.38E-02
1.03E-03
5.54E+00
6.56E+00
4.12E+01
4.35E-01
1.47E+01
4.64E-01
1.40E+01
3.40E-01
3.97E+00
Mean
(ppm)
4.84E-01
7.96E-01
3.95E+00
2.44E-01
1.24E+00
8.10E-02
3.03E-03
5.01E-01
2.48E-01
1.05E-01
2.45E-02
1.72E-02
2.20E-01
4.79E-02
1.79E-02
2.44E+01
1.01E+00
1.84E-02
2.21E-02
1.21E-02
3.80E+00
1.51E-02
8.35E-04
9.40E-01
1.18E+00
6.15E+00
8.62E-02
1.37E-01
5.66E+00
2.21E-01
9.05E+00
2.30E-01
1.88E+00
Standard
Deviation
(ppm)
1.21E+00
5.00E-01
8.60E+00
3.28E-01
1.56E+00
1.90E-02
2.72E-03
1.25E-01
3.97E-02
3.94E-02
7.16E-03
5.66E-02
2.37E-02
5.92E-03
2.85E+01
8.97E-01
5.19E-03
8.55E-03
1.07E-02
1.94E+00
8.02E-03
2.81E-04
1.32E+00
1.72E+00
8.23E+00
1.03E-01
3.83E+00
1.70E-01
4.23E+00
1.39E-01
1.54E+00
95%
Confidence
Interval
(ฑ ppm)
3.89E-01
4.90E-01
5.33E+00
1.94E-01
7.40E-01
1.86E-02
2.66E-03
1.23E-01
3.89E-02
3.86E-02
7.02E-03
5.55E-02
2.32E-02
5.80E-03
2.28E+01
5.56E-01
5.09E-03
8.38E-03
1.05E-02
1.90E+00
9.08E-03
3.89E-04
3.40E-01
9.34E-01
2.49E+00
4.02E-02
1.39E+00
1.66E-01
3.71E+00
1.21E-01
1.23E+00
Recommended
Emission
Factor Rating
A
D
B
B
B
D
D
D
D
D
E
D
D
D
D
C
B
D
D
D
D
D
E
A
B
A
E
A
A
D
D
D
C
21
-------
TABLE 2-8 (CONTINUED). LANDFILL GAS CONSTITUENTS
Compound
Ethyl mercaptan (Ethanediol)
Ethyl methyl sulfide
Ethylbenzene
Formaldehyde
Heptane
Hexane
Hydrogen sulfide
Indan (2,3-Dihydroindene)
Isobutane (2-Methylpropane)
Isobutylbenzene
Isoprene (2-Methy 1-1,3-
butadiene)
Isopropyl mercaptan
Isopropylbenzene (Cumene)
Methanethiol (Methyl
mercaptan)
Methyl tert-butyl ether
(MTBE)
Methylcyclohexane
Methylcyclopentane
Naphthalene
w-Butylbenzene
Nonane
w-Propylbenzene
(Propylbenzene)
Octane
p-Cymene (l-Methyl-4-
Isopropylbenzene)
Pentane
Propane
Propene
Propyne
sec-Butylbenzene
Styrene (Vinylbenzene)
Tetrachloroethylene
(Perchloroethylene)
Tetrahydrofuran (Diethylene
oxide)
Thiophene
Toluene (Methyl benzene)
Number
of Test
Reports
30
1
16
5
10
17
36
4
4
4
3
24
5
29
5
4
4
4
4
4
5
4
5
9
9
4
1
4
14
40
7
2
40
Minimum
(ppm)
6.05E-05
5.93E-01
3.40E-03
1.29E-01
1.19E-01
1.02E-03
2.38E-02
1.95E+00
1.66E-02
1.16E-02
3.75E-05
7.61E-02
9.80E-04
3.30E-03
l.OOE+00
4.01E-01
7.91E-03
2.24E-02
1.62E+00
1.32E-01
8.46E-01
1.28E+00
4.77E-01
4.79E+00
1.61E+00
2.64E-02
9.59E-03
5.12E-03
1.57E-01
1.25E-01
1.30E+00
Maximum
(ppm)
8.35E-01
8.80E+00
2.51E-02
3.09E+00
2.60E+01
3.34E+02
1.39E-01
1.66E+01
7.55E-02
2.21E-02
1.22E+00
9.60E-01
4.05E+00
2.61E-01
1.51E+00
8.17E-01
2.65E-01
1.40E-01
3.46E+00
7.07E-01
1.38E+00
8.16E+00
2.44E+01
3.67E+01
4.80E+00
1.21E-01
1.21E+00
8.28E+00
1.78E+00
5.72E-01
9.08E+01
Mean
(ppm)
1.98E-01
3.67E-02
4.86E+00
1.17E-02
1.34E+00
3.10E+00
3.20E+01
6.66E-02
8.16E+00
4.07E-02
1.65E-02
1.75E-01
4.30E-01
1.37E+00
1.18E-01
1.29E+00
6.50E-01
1.07E-01
6.80E-02
2.37E+00
4.13E-01
1.08E+00
3.58E+00
4.46E+00
1.55E+01
3.32E+00
3.80E-02
6.75E-02
4.11E-01
2.03E+00
9.69E-01
3.49E-01
2.95E+01
Standard
Deviation
(ppm)
1.97E-01
2.58E+00
9.32E-03
9.90E-01
6.04E+00
5.57E+01
5.12E-02
6.73E+00
2.49E-02
5.28E-03
2.60E-01
3.50E-01
9.55E-01
1.21E-01
2.59E-01
1.77E-01
1.19E-01
5.12E-02
7.95E-01
2.35E-01
2.73E-01
3.10E+00
7.56E+00
1.04E+01
1.41E+00
4.04E-02
4.49E-01
1.89E+00
5.63E-01
3.16E-01
2.30E+01
95%
Confidence
Interval
(ฑ ppm)
7.06E-02
1.27E+00
8.17E-03
6.14E-01
2.87E+00
1.82E+01
5.02E-02
6.59E+00
2.44E-02
5.97E-03
1.04E-01
3.07E-01
3.48E-01
1.06E-01
2.54E-01
1.74E-01
1.17E-01
5.02E-02
7.79E-01
2.06E-01
2.68E-01
2.72E+00
4.94E+00
6.80E+00
1.38E+00
3.96E-02
2.35E-01
5.85E-01
4.17E-01
4.38E-01
7.12E+00
Recommended
Emission
Factor Rating
A
E
B
D
B
B
A
D
D
D
D
A
D
A
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
C
C
D
E
D
B
A
C
E
A
22
-------
TABLE 2-8 (CONTINUED). LANDFILL GAS CONSTITUENTS
Compound
trans- 1 ,2-Dichloroethene
trans- 1,2-
Dimethylcyclohexane
trans-1 ,3-Dichloropropene
trans- 1,4-
Dimethylcyclohexane
trans-2-Butene
trans-2-Heptene
trans-2-Hexene
trans-2-Octene
trans-2-Pentene
trans-3-Methyl-2-pentene
Tribromomethane
(Bromoform)
Trichloroethylene
(Trichloroethene)
Trichlorofluoromethane
(Freonll)
Trichloromethane
(Chloroform)
Undecane
Vinyl acetate
Vinyl chloride
(Chloroethene)
Xylenes (o-, m-,p-,
mixtures)
Number
of Test
Reports
8
4
5
4
4
1
4
4
4
4
4
42
16
34
4
6
40
78
Minimum
(ppm)
3.09E-03
3.19E-01
3.30E-04
1.68E-01
5.41E-02
1.11E-02
1.69E-01
1.66E-02
9.91E-03
4.36E-04
6.55E-03
7.10E-03
2.21E-03
6.45E-01
2.17E-02
6.78E-03
3.09E-01
Maximum
(ppm)
4.60E-02
5.23E-01
3.00E-02
2.50E-01
1.76E-01
3.29E-02
2.96E-01
5.09E-02
2.07E-02
2.68E-02
3.18E+00
7.14E-01
6.82E-01
3.10E+00
1.02E+00
1.72E+01
3.56E+01
Mean
(ppm)
2.87E-02
4.04E-01
9.43E-03
2.05E-01
1.04E-01
2.50E-03
2.06E-02
2.41E-01
3.47E-02
1.55E-02
1.24E-02
8.28E-01
2.48E-01
7.08E-02
1.67E+00
2.48E-01
1.42E+00
9.23E+00
Standard
Deviation
(ppm)
1.52E-02
8.65E-02
1.18E-02
4.12E-02
5.15E-02
9.49E-03
5.32E-02
1.41E-02
4.73E-03
1.12E-02
6.88E-01
2.22E-01
1.46E-01
1.04E+00
3.86E-01
2.88E+00
8.84E+00
95%
Confidence
Interval
(ฑ ppm)
1.05E-02
8.47E-02
1.03E-02
4.04E-02
5.05E-02
9.30E-03
5.21E-02
1.39E-02
4.63E-03
1.09E-02
2.08E-01
1.09E-01
4.91E-02
1.02E+00
3.09E-01
8.92E-01
1.96E+00
Recommended
Emission
Factor Rating
C
D
D
D
D
E
D
D
D
D
D
A
B
A
D
C
A
A
a All tests below detection limit.
03,and2.00E-02ppm
Method detection limits are available for three tests, and are as follows: 2.00E-04, 4.00E-
23
-------
TABLE 2-9. SUMMARY OF METHANE, CARBON MONOXIDE, CARBON DIOXIDE,
NITROGEN, AND OXYGEN CONCENTRATIONS OF RAW LANDFILL GAS
Test
Report ID
TR-076
CH4
(ppmv)
NRa
(% v/v)
NR
CO
(ppmv)
NR
(% v/v)
NR
C02
(ppmv)
NR
(%v/v)
NR
N2
(ppmv)
160,500
(%v/v)
16.1
02
(ppmv)
16,700
(% v/v)
1.7
TR-084 NR NR NR NR NR NR 100,000 10.0 24,000 2.4
TR-086
TR-114
TR-134
TR-141
TR-145
TR-146
TR-147
TR-148
TR-153
TR-156
TR-157
TR-159
TR-165
TR-167
TR-168
TR-169
TR-171
TR-173
TR-175
TR-176
TR-178
TR-179
TR-181
TR-182
TR-183
NR
NR
NR
NR
50,600
525,000
NR
529,000
547,000
389,000
581,000
480,000
443,000
450,000
335,000
316,000
359,000
481,000
379,000
318,000
200,000
459,000
335,500
351,000
326,000
NR
NR
NR
NR
51.0
52.5
NR
52.9
54.7
38.9
58.1
48.0
44.3
45.0
33.5
31.6
35.9
48.1
37.9
31.8
20.0
45.9
33.6
35.1
32.6
NR
NR
NR
NR
13
NR
2.7
4.7
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
5.2
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
0.0
NR
0.0
0.0
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
0.0
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
407,400
413,000
NR
402,000
380,000
349,000
386,000
374,000
356,000
360,000
326,000
316,000
405,000
382,000
301,000
265,000
247,000
331,000
324,000
332,000
309,000
NR
NR
NR
NR
40.7
41.3
NR
40.2
38.0
34.9
38.6
37.4
35.6
36.0
32.6
31.6
40.5
38.2
30.1
26.5
24.7
33.1
32.4
33.2
30.9
21,700
140,000
27,850
50,100
71,400
56,900
NR
66,000
80,000
258,000
27,000
141,000
180,000
178,000
324,000
340,000
209,000
121,000
235,000
344,000
519,000
NR
306,000
287,000
341,000
2.2
14.0
2.8
5.0
7.1
5.7
NR
6.6
8.0
25.8
2.7
14.1
18.0
17.8
32.4
34.0
20.9
12.1
23.5
34.4
51.9
NR
30.6
28.7
34.1
10,000
NR
2,500
20,500
11,100
4,280
NR
2,700
6,000
24,000
2,800
5,300
15,200
14,400
21,000
22,000
22,000
17,400
62,100
73,300
34,000
32,800
23,800
21,800
24,000
1.0
NR
0.3
2.1
1.1
0.4
NR
0.3
0.6
2.4
0.3
0.5
1.5
1.4
2.1
2.2
2.2
1.7
6.2
7.3
3.4
3.3
2.4
2.2
2.4
24
-------
TABLE 2-9 (CONTINUED). SUMMARY OF METHANE, CARBON MONOXIDE, CARBON
DIOXIDE, NITROGEN, AND OXYGEN CONCENTRATIONS OF RAW LANDFILL GAS
Test
Report ID
TR-187
TR-188
TR-189
TR-190
TR-191
TR-194
TR-196
TR-199
TR-205
TR-207
TR-209
TR-220
TR-226
TR-229
TR-241
TR-251
TR-253
TR-255
TR-259
TR-260
TR-261
TR-264
TR-266
TR-272
TR-273
TR-284
TR-287
CH4
(ppmv)
350,000
435,000
557,000
502,000
350,000
611,000
476,000
275,000
345,000
183,000
483,000
350,000
522,000
309,000
212,000
410,000
440,000
445,000
257,000
260,000
259,000
446,000
311,000
467,000
376,000
520,000
617,000
(% v/v)
35.0
43.5
55.7
50.2
35.0
61.1
47.6
27.5
34.5
18.3
48.3
35.0
52.2
30.9
21.2
41.0
44.0
44.5
25.7
26.0
25.9
44.6
31.1
46.7
37.6
52.0
61.7
CO
(ppmv)
NR
77
35
NR
NR
65
NR
NR
NR
NR
0.0
NR
6.5
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
0.0
NR
NR
NR
NR
(% v/v)
NR
0.0
0.0
NR
NR
0.0
NR
NR
NR
NR
0.0
NR
0.0
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
0.0
NR
NR
NR
NR
CO2
(ppmv)
334,000
355,000
405,000
395,000
272,000
389,000
384,000
212,000
328,000
219,500
387,000
295,000
349,000
250,000
263,000
366,000
351,000
375,000
282,000
284,000
281,000
374,000
304,000
374,000
298,000
411,000
430,000
(%v/v)
33.4
35.5
40.5
39.5
27.2
38.9
38.4
21.2
32.8
22.0
38.7
29.5
34.9
25.0
26.3
36.6
35.1
37.5
28.2
28.4
28.1
37.4
30.4
37.4
29.8
41.1
43.0
N2
(ppmv)
289,000
196,000
37,700
103,000
322,000
NR
133,000
427,000
297,000
506,000
118,000
304,000
100,000
374,000
465,000
190,000
191,000
164,000
414,000
415,000
428,000
154,000
NR
131,000
256,000
159,000
112,000
(%v/v)
28.9
19.6
3.8
10.3
32.2
NR
13.3
42.7
29.7
50.6
11.8
30.4
10.0
37.4
46.5
19.0
19.1
16.4
41.4
41.5
42.8
15.4
NR
13.1
25.6
15.9
11.2
02
(ppmv)
27,000
13,700
300
200
56,700
1,000
6,700
86,000
23,000
91,800
10,900
50,500
27,700
72,200
61,000
35,000
46,600
16,000
23,800
24,000
26,900
26,500
3,000
17,000
64,000
16,000
200
(% v/v)
2.7
1.4
0.0
0.0
5.7
0.1
0.7
8.6
2.3
9.2
1.1
5.1
2.8
7.2
6.1
3.5
4.7
1.6
2.4
2.4
2.7
2.7
0.3
1.7
6.4
1.6
0.0
25
-------
TABLE 2-9 (CONTINUED). SUMMARY OF METHANE, CARBON MONOXIDE, CARBON
DIOXIDE, NITROGEN, AND OXYGEN CONCENTRATIONS OF RAW LANDFILL GAS
Test
Report ID
TR-290
TR-292
TR-293a
TR-293b
Minimum
Maximum
Mean
Standard
Deviation
95%
Confidence
Interval
(ฑ)
CH4
(ppmv)
213,000
495,000
607,000
432,000
183,000
617,000
408,000
113,000
31,100
(% v/v)
21.3
49.5
60.7
43.2
18.3
61.7
40.8
11.3
3.1
CO
(ppmv)
NR
NR
NR
NR
77.0
20.9
28.4
17.6
(% v/v)
NR
NR
NR
NR
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
CO2
(ppmv)
348,000
333,000
438,000
374,000
212,000
438,000
342,000
54,800
15,000
(%v/v)
34.8
33.3
43.8
37.4
21.2
43.8
34.2
5.5
1.5
N2
(ppmv)
420,000
136,000
137,000
262,000
21,700
519,000
219,000
135,000
35,900
(%v/v)
42.0
13.6
13.7
26.2
2.2
51.9
21.9
13.5
3.6
02
(ppmv)
8,800
25,700
26,000
24,000
200
91,800
25,400
22,100
5,790
(% v/v)
0.9
2.6
2.6
2.4
0.0
9.2
2.5
2.2
0.6
(a) Not reported
References
California Air Resources Board. Facsimile from Chris Holm to Susan Thorneloe, U.S. EPA.
Otay Landfill Flare Gas Summary. July 19, 2005.
TR-076. New Source Performance Standards Tier 2 Sampling and Analysis for the Flying Cloud
Landfill, Browning-Ferris Industries, 6/30/98.
TR-084. Tier 2 NMOC Emission Rate Report for the Buncombe County Landfill, Buncombe
County Solid Waste Services, 5/12/99.
TR-086. Tier 2 NMOC Emission Rate Report for the White Street Landfill, Duke Engineering
and Services, City of Greensboro Solid Waste Management Division, 5/18/99.
TR-114. Summary Report of Tier 2 Sampling, Analysis, and Landfill Emissions Estimates for
Non-Methane Organic Compounds Chrin Brothers Landfill, Chrin Brothers Sanitary Landfill,
4/24/98.
TR-115. Seneca Landfill - Revised Tier 2 NMOC Emission Rate Report, Seneca Landfill, Inc.,
12/5/96.
TR-134. New Source Performance Standards Tier 2 Sampling, Analysis, and Landfill NMOC
Emission Estimates for the Fort Worth Landfill, Laidlaw Waste Systems, Inc., 4/15/97.
TR-141. Tier 2 NMOC Emission Rate Report for the SPSA Regional Landfill, Southeastern
Public Service Authority, MSA Consulting Engineers, 6/10/97.
26
-------
TR-145. Compliance Testing of a Landfill Flare at Browning-Ferris Gas Services, Inc.'s Facility
in Halifax, Massachusetts, BFI Waste Systems of North America, Inc., May 1996.
TR-146. Compliance Source Testing of a Landfill Flare at Northern Disposal, Inc. East
Bridgewater Landfill, Northern Disposal, Inc., June 1994.
TR-147. Compliance Emissions Test Program for BFI of Ohio, Inc., BFI of Ohio, Inc., 6/26/98.
TR-148. Compliance Testing of Landfill Flare at Browning-Ferris Gas Services, Inc.'s Fall River
Landfill Flare, BFI Waste Systems of North America, Inc., March 1995.
TR-153. Results of the Emission Compliance Test on the Enclosed Flare System at the Carbon
Limestone Landfill, Browning-Ferris Industrial Gas Services, Inc., 8/8/96.
TR-156. Results of the Emission Compliance Test on the Enclosed Flare System at the Lorain
County Landfill No. 2, Browning-Ferris Industrial Gas Services, Inc., 9/5/96.
TR-157. Emission Compliance Testing Browning-Ferris Gas Services, Inc. Willowcreek Landfill,
BFI-Willowcreek, 2/2/98.
TR-159. Compliance Stack Sampling Report, Monmouth County Reclamation Center, SCS
Engineers (Reston, VA), 9/8/95.
TR-160. Source Emission Testing of an Enclosed Landfill Gas Ground Flare, SCS Engineers
(Reston, VA), September 1997.
TR-165. 1997 Annual Compliance Source Testing Results for the Coyote Canyon Landfill Gas
Recovery Facility Flare No. 1, Laidlaw Gas Recovery Systems, January 1998.
TR-167. 1997 Annual Compliance Source Testing Results for the Coyote Canyon Landfill Gas
Recovery Facility Boiler, Laidlaw Gas Recovery Systems, January 1998.
TR-168. Colton Sanitary Landfill Gas Flare No. 2 (John Zink) 1998 Source Tests Results, Bryan
A. Stirrat & Associates, 9/29/98.
TR-169. Colton Sanitary Landfill Gas Flare No. 1 (McGill) 1998 Source Tests Results, Bryan A.
Stirrat & Associates, 9/29/98.
TR-171. High Landfill Gas Flow Rate Source Test Results from One Landfill Gas Flare at FRB
Landfill in Orange County, California, Bryan A. Stirrat & Associates, July 1997.
TR-173. Annual Emissions Test of Landfill Gas Flare #3 Bradley Landfill, Waste Management
Recycling and Disposal Services of California, Inc., 4/12/99.
TR-175. Emissions Tests on Flares #2, #4 and #6 at the Lopez Canyon Landfill, City of Los
Angeles, August 1997.
TR-176. Emissions Test Results on Flares #1, #4 and #9 Calabasas Landfill, County Sanitation
Districts of Los Angeles County, February 1998.
27
-------
TR-178. Annual Emission Test of Landfill Gas Flare #3 Bradley Landfill, Waste Management
Recycling and Disposal Services of California, Inc., 5/21/98.
TR-179. Annual Emissions Test of Landfill Gas Flare #1 Bradley Landfill, Waste Management
Recycling and Disposal Services of California, Inc., 4/13/99.
TR-181. The Mid-Valley Sanitary Landfill Gas Flare No.l (McGill) 1998 Source Test Results,
Bryan A. Stirrat & Associates, 9/29/98.
TR-182. The Mid-Valley Sanitary Landfill Gas Flare No.2 (SurLite) 1998 Source Test Results,
Bryan A. Stirrat & Associates, 9/29/98.
TR-183. Annual Emissions Test of Landfill Gas Flare #2 Bradley Landfill, Waste Management
Recycling and Disposal Services of California, Inc., 4/13/99.
TR-187. Emissions Test of a Landfill Gas Flare - Lowry Landfill/Denver-Arapohoe Disposal
Site, Sur-Lite Corporation, February 1997.
TR-188. Characterization of Emissions from a Power Boiler Fired with Landfill Gas,
Environment Canada Emissions Research and Measurement Division, March 2000.
TR-189. Characterization of Emissions from 925 kWe Reciprocating Engine Fired with Landfill
Gas, Environment Canada Emissions Research and Measurement Division,
December 2000.
TR-190. Characterization of Emissions from 812 kWe Reciprocating Engine Fired with Landfill
Gas, Environment Canada Emissions Research and Measurement Division,
December 1999.
TR-191. Characterization of Emissions from Enclosed Flare - Trail Road Landfill, Environment
Canada Emissions Research and Measurement Division, August 2000.
TR-194. Characterization of Emissions from 1 MWe Reciprocating Engine Fired with Landfill
Gas, Environment Canada Emissions Research and Measurement Division, January 2002.
TR-195. Characteristics of Semi-volatile Organic Compounds from Vented Landfills,
Environment Canada Environmental Technology Advancement Directorate, August 1996.
TR-196. Results of the Biennial Criteria and AB 2588 Air Toxics Source Test on the Simi Valley
Landfill Flare, Simi Valley Landfill and Recycling Center, April 1997.
TR-199. Emission Compliance Test on a Landfill Flare, City of Los Angeles, January 1999.
TR-205. The Mid-Valley Sanitary LFG Flare No. 3 (John Zink) 1998 Source Test Results, Bryan
A. Stirrat & Associates, 9/29/98.
TR-207. Compliance Source Test Report LFG-fired Flare Stations 1-4 and F-2, BKK Landfill,
12/12/97.
TR-209. Emission Test Report Volumes I and II - Source/Compliance Emissions Testing for
Cedar Hills Landfill, King County Solid Waste Division, 1/20/05.
28
-------
TR-220. SCAQMD Performance Tests on the Spadra Energy Recovery from LFG (SPERG)
Facility, County Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County, April 1992.
TR-226. Methane and Nonmethane Organic Destruction Efficiency Tests of an Enclosed LFG
Flare, Newco Waste Systems, April 1992.
TR-229. Scholl Canyon Landfill Gas Flares No. 9, 10 11 and 12 Emission Source Testing April
1999, South Coast Air Quality Management District, April 1999.
TR-236. Landfill Gas Flare Hydrogen Chloride Emissons Atascocita Landfill, Waste
Management of Houston, 4/20/99.
TR-241. Performance Evaluation, Enclosed Landfill Gas Flare, Valley Landfill, Waste Energy
Technology, November 1991.
TR-251. Emission Compliance Test on a Landfill Gas Flare - Flare #1, Frank R. Bowerman
Landfill, Orange County, 1/25/99.
TR-253. Emission Source Testing on Two Flares (Nos. 3 and 6) at the Spadra Landfill, Los
Angeles County Sanitation Districts, 7/21/98.
TR-255. Emission Compliance Test on a Landfill Gas Flare -Olinda Alpha Landfill, Orange
County Integrated Waste Management Department, No Report Date Given.
TR-258. Source Test Report, City of Sacramento Landfill Gas Flare, City of Sacramento, 6/26/96.
TR-259. The Millikan Sanitary Landfill Gas Flare No. 1 (Surlite) 1998 Source Test Results,
South Coast Air Quality Management District, 9/29/98.
TR-260. The Millikan Sanitary Landfill Gas Flare No. 2 (John Zink) 1998 Source Test Results,
South Coast Air Quality Management District, 9/29/98.
TR-261. The Millikan Sanitary Landfill Gas Flare No. 3 (John Zink) 1998 Source Test Results,
South Coast Air Quality Management District, 9/29/98.
TR-264. Emission Compliance Test on a Landfill Gas Flare, Orange County Integrated Waste
Management Department, No Report Date Given.
TR-266. Compliance Source Test Report - Landfill Gas-Fired Engine, Minnesota Methane,
3/3/98.
TR-272. Source Testing Final Report - Landfill A, US EPA Air Pollution Prevention and Control
Division, 10/6/05.
TR-273. Source Testing Final Report - Landfill B, US EPA Air Pollution Prevention and Control
Division, 10/6/05.
TR-284. Source Testing Final Report - Landfill C, US EPA Air Pollution Prevention and Control
Division, 10/6/05.
29
-------
TR-287. Source Testing Final Report - Landfill D, US EPA Air Pollution Prevention and Control
Division, 10/6/05.
TR-290. San Timoteo Sanitary Landfill 1998 Source Test Results, San Bernandino County Solid
Waste Management, 9/29/98.
TR-292. Source Testing Final Report - Landfill E, US EPA Air Pollution Prevention and Control
Division, October 2005.
TR-293. Quantifying Uncontrolled Air Emissions From Two Florida Landfills - Draft Final
Report. U.S. EPA Air Pollution Prevention and Control Division, March 26, 2008.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (1997a). Procedures for Preparing Emission Factor
Documents ,EPA-454/R-95-015, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Research
Triangle Park, NC, November 1997.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (1997b). Emission Factor Documentation for AP-42
Section 2.4 - Municipal Solid Waste Landfills, Revised, Office of Air Quality Planning and
Standards. Research Triangle Park, NC, August 1997.
30
-------
2.7 LANDFILL GAS CONSTITUENT DATA FOR LANDFILLS WITH WASTE IN PLACE
PRIOR TO 1992
The prior Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) Landfills section of AP-42 (U.S. EPA, 1998) contained
uncontrolled LFG constituent default emission factors derived from landfills with the majority of their
waste in place prior to 1992. This data is retained in the AP-42 section as Table 2.4-2. The following
discussion, adapted from the 1997 emission factor documentation report (U.S. EPA, 1997b), documents
the prior activities and analysis performed to derive these emission factors. The supporting raw data
tables from the 1997 report are provided in Appendix A.
2.7.1 Data Gathering and Review
Data gathering was undertaken in advance of the 1998 AP-42 section update. This data gathering
effort included an extensive literature search, contacts to identify ongoing projects within EPA, and
electronic database searches. MSW landfill source test reports were collected during these efforts. After
the data gathering was completed, a review of the information obtained was undertaken to reduce and
synthesize the information for emission factor development.
Reduction of the collected literature and data into a smaller, more pertinent subset for
development of the MSW Landfill AP-42 section was governed by the following:
Only primary references of emissions data were used.
Test report source processes were clearly identified.
Test reports specified whether emissions were controlled or uncontrolled.
Reports referenced for controlled emissions specify the control devices.
Data support (i.e., calculation sheets, sampling and analysis description) was supplied in most cases.
One exception is that some industry responses to the NSPS surveys were deemed satisfactory for
inclusion.
Test report units were convertible to selected reporting units.
Test reports that were positively biased to a particular situation (i.e., test studies involving PCB
analysis because of a known historical problem associated with PCB disposal in a specific MSW
landfill) were excluded.
As delineated by EPA's Emission Inventory Branch (EIB), the reduced subset of emissions data was
ranked for quality. The ranking/rating of the data was used to identify questionable data. Each data set
was ranked as follows:
A - When tests were performed by a sound methodology and reported in enough detail for
adequate validation. These tests are not necessarily EPA reference method tests, although
such reference methods were preferred.
B - When tests were performed by a generally sound methodology, but lack enough detail for
adequate validation.
C - When tests were based on an untested or new methodology or are lacking a significant amount
of background data.
D - When tests were based on a generally unacceptable method but the method may provide an
order-of-magnitude value for the source (U.S. EPA, 1993).
The selected rankings were based on the following criteria:
-------
. Source operation. The manner in which the source was operated is well documented in the report.
The source was operating within typical parameters during the test.
Sampling procedures. If actual procedures deviated from standard methods, the deviations are well
documented. Procedural alterations are often made in testing an uncommon type of source. When
this occurs an evaluation is made of how such alternative procedures could influence the test results.
Sampling and process data. Many variations can occur without warning during testing, sometimes
without being noticed. Such variations can induce wide deviation in sampling results. If a large
spread between test results cannot be explained by information contained in the test report, the data
are suspect and are given a lower rating.
Analysis and calculations. The test reports contain original raw data sheets. The nomenclature and
equations used are compared with those specified by the EPA, to establish equivalency. The depth of
review of the calculations is dictated by the reviewers' confidence in the ability and conscientiousness
of the tester, which in turn is based on factors such as consistency of results and completeness of
other areas of the test report (U.S. EPA, 1993).
2.7.2 Development of Default Concentrations
After review, there were 110 data sources (identified in the references as BID-1 to BID-110) used
to develop the default concentrations. Appendix A lists the compounds presented in each reference. The
Appendix also reflects the co-disposal history of the landfill, if known. Landfills known to have accepted
non-residential wastes (i.e., co-disposal) and those known to have never accepted non-residential wastes
are delineated. For most of these landfills, the disposal history is unknown. The data for co-disposal and
no co-disposal or unknown disposal history are separated for NMOC, benzene, and toluene. There was
no statistical difference among disposal history for any of the other LFG constituents presented (U.S.
EPA, 1997b). As mentioned before, RCRA subtitle D requirements resulted in eliminating the practice of
co-disposal in municipal solid waste landfills, so that co-disposal data segregation is not an issue for the
landfills with waste in place on or after 1992.
Table 2-11 presents default concentration values for the speciated organic compounds and
reduced sulfur compounds that were corrected for air infiltration. As discussed earlier, these data were
presented in the previous version of the AP-42 chapter (U.S. EPA, 1998), and will be presented in the
AP-42 chapter as default concentrations for landfills with waste in place prior to 1992. The following
criteria, used in developing ratings in the 1997 AP-42 update (U.S. EPA, 1997b), were used to provide
recommended default emission factor ratings.
TABLE 2-10. CRITERIA USED TO DETERMINE RECOMMENDED DEFAULT EMISSION
FACTOR RATINGS
Factor Rating
A
B
C
D
E
# of Data Points
>20
10-19
6-9
3-5
<3
32
-------
TABLE 2-11. DEFAULT CONCENTRATIONS FOR LFG CONSTITUENTS FOR LANDFILLS
WITH WASTE IN PLACE PRIOR TO 1992
Compound
NMOC (as hexane)e
Co-disposal (SCC 50300603)
No or Unknown co-disposal (SCC 50100402)
1,1,1 -Trie hloroethane (methyl chloroform)3
1 , 1 ,2,2-Tetrachloroethanea
1,1-Dichloroethane (ethylidene dichloride)3
1,1-Dichloroethene (vinylidene chloride)3
1,2-Dichloroethane (ethylene dichloride)3
1,2-Dichloropropane (propylene dichloride)3
2-Propanol (isopropyl alcohol)
Acetone
Acrylonitrile3
Benzene3
Co-disposal (SCC 50300603)
No or Unknown co-disposal (SCC 50100402)
Bromodichloromethane
Butane
Carbon disulfide3
Carbon monoxideb
Carbon tetrachloride3
Carbonyl sulfide3
Chlorobenzene3
Chlorodifluoromethane
Chloroethane (ethyl chloride)3
Chloroform3
Chloromethane
Dichlorobenzene0
Dichlorodifluoromethane
Dichlorofluoromethane
Dichloromethane (methylene chloride)3
Dimethyl sulfide (methyl sulfide)
Ethane
Ethanol
Ethyl mercaptan (ethanethiol)
Ethylbenzene3
Ethylene dibromide
Fluorotrichloromethane
Molecular Weight
86.18
133.42
167.85
98.95
96.94
98.96
112.98
60.11
58.08
53.06
78.11
163.83
58.12
76.13
28.01
153.84
60.07
112.56
86.47
64.52
119.39
50.49
147
120.91
102.92
84.94
62.13
30.07
46.08
62.13
106.16
187.88
137.38
Default
Concentration
(ppmv)
2,420
595
0.48
1.11
2.35
0.20
0.41
0.18
50.1
7.01
6.33
11.1
1.91
3.13
5.03
0.58
141
0.004
0.49
0.25
1.30
1.25
0.03
1.21
0.21
15.7
2.62
14.3
7.82
889
27.2
2.28
4.61
0.001
0.76
Emission Factor
Rating
D
B
B
C
B
B
B
D
E
B
D
D
B
C
C
C
E
B
D
C
C
B
B
B
E
A
D
A
C
C
E
D
B
E
B
33
-------
Table 2-11 (CONTINUED). DEFAULT CONCENTRATIONS FOR LFG CONSTITUENTS FOR
LANDFILLS WITH WASTE IN PLACE PRIOR TO 1992
Compound
Hexane3
Hydrogen sulfide
Mercury (total)a'd
Methyl ethyl ketone3
Methyl isobutyl ketone3
Methyl mercaptan
Pentane
Perchloroethylene (tetrachloroethylene)3
Propane
t- 1 ,2-dichloroethene
Toluene3
Co-disposal (SCC 50300603)
No or Unknown co-disposal (SCC 50100402)
rrichloroethylene (trichloroethene)3
Vinyl chloride3
Xylenes3
Molecular Weight
86.18
34.08
200.61
72.11
100.16
48.11
72.15
165.83
44.09
96.94
92.13
131.38
62.50
106.16
Default
Concentration
(ppmv)
6.57
35.5
2.92xlO'4
7.09
1.87
2.49
3.29
3.73
11.1
2.84
165
39.3
2.82
7.34
12.1
Emission Factor
Rating
B
B
E
A
B
C
C
B
B
B
D
A
B
B
B
NOTE: This is not an all-inclusive list of potential LFG constituents, only those for which test data were available
at multiple sites.
3 Hazardous Air Pollutants listed in Title III of the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments.
b Carbon monoxide is not a typical constituent of LFG, but does exist in instances involving landfill (underground)
combustion. Therefore, this default value should be used with caution. Of 18 sites where CO was measured, only 2
showed detectable levels of CO.
0 Source tests did not indicate whether this compound was the para- or ortho- isomer. The para isomer is a Title Ill-
listed HAP.
d No data were available to speciate total Hg into the elemental and organic forms.
e For NSPS/Emission Guideline compliance purposes, the default concentration for NMOC as specified in the final
rule must be used. For purposes not associated with NSPS/Emission Guideline compliance, the default VOC
content at co-disposal sites can be estimated by 85% by weight (2,060 ppmv as hexane); at No or Unknown sites
can be estimated by 39% by weight (235 ppmv as hexane).
References
BID-1. Source Test Report No. 86-0375, Vinyl Chloride, Benzene, Toluene (and other Selected
Chlorinated Hydrocarbon Compounds) Present in Landfill Gas Before and After Flaring, South
Coast Air Quality Management District, October 29, 1986.
BID-2. Hazardous Pollutants in Class II Landfills, J.A. Wood and M.L. Porter, South Coast Air
Quality Management District, December 1986.
BID-3. Emissions from a Landfill Gas-Fired Turbine/Generator Set, March 6, 1984, Source Test
Report C-84-33 conducted at L.A. County Sanitation District by South Coast Air Quality
Management District, June 28, 1984.
34
-------
BID-4. Report of Stack Testing at County Sanitation District of Los Angeles Puente Hills
landfill, July 31 and August 3, 1984, prepared by Engineering-Science for County Sanitation
District of Los Angeles, August 15, 1984.
BID-5. Vinyl Chloride (and Other Organic Compounds) Content of Landfill Gas Vented to an
Inoperative Flare, October 15, 1984, Source Test Report 84-496 conducted at David Price
company by South Coast Air Quality Management District, November 30, 1984.
BID-6. Landfill Gas Composition, February 15, 1985, Source Test Report 85-102 Conducted at
Bradley Pit Landfill by South Coast Air Quality Management District, May 22, 1985.
BID-7. Vinyl Chloride and Other Selected Compounds Present in A Landfill Gas Collection
System Prior to and after Flaring, July 31, 1985, Source Test Report 85-369, conducted at L.A.
County Sanitation District by South Coast Air Quality Management District, October 9, 1985.
BID-8. Emissions from a Landfill Exhausting Through a Flare System, September 11, 1985,
Source Test Report 85-461, conducted at Operating Industries by South Coast Air Quality
Management District, October 14, 1985.
BID-9. Emissions from a Landfill Gas Collection System, November 5, 1985, Source Test
Report 85-511, conducted at Sheldon Street Landfill by South Coast Air Quality Management
District, December 9, 1985.
BID-10. Vinyl Chloride and Other Selected Compounds Present in a Landfill Gas Collection
System Prior to and after Flaring, December 6, 1985, Source Test Report 85-597, conducted at
L.A. County Sanitation District's Mission Canyon Landfill by South Coast Air Quality
Management District, January 16, 1986.
BID-11. Emissions from a Landfill Gas-Fired Flare and Sales Gas Constituents from a Landfill
Gas Treatment Plant, May 7, 1986, Source Test Report 86-220, conducted at Azusa Land
Reclamation by South Coast Air Quality Management District, June 30, 1986.
BID-12. Evaluation Test on a Landfill Gas-Fired Flare at the BKK Landfill Facility, West
Covina, California, ARB-SS-87-09, California Air Resources Board, July 1986.
BID-13. Gaseous Composition from a Landfill Gas Collection System and Flare, July 10, 1986,
Source Test Report 86-0342, conducted at Syufy Enterprises by South Coast Air Quality
Management District, August 21, 1986.
BID-14. Emissions for Flare #3 Inlet Fuel Gas Line, April 1, 1987, Source Test Summary
87-0110, conducted at Pacific Lighting Energy Systems (Penrose Landfill) by South Coast Air
Quality Management District, August 5, 1987.
BID-15. Analytical Laboratory Report for Source Test, Azusa Land Reclamation, June 30, 1983,
South Coast Air Quality Management District.
BID-16. Analytical Laboratory Report for Source Test, Mission Canyon Landfill, West L.A. and
Mountain Gate, April 11, 1984, South Coast Air Quality Management District.
BID-17. Source Test Report C-84-202, Bradley Pit Landfill, May 25, 1984, South Coast Air
Quality Management District.
35
-------
BID-18. Source Test Report 84-315, Puente Hills Landfill, February 6, 1985, South Coast Air
Quality Management District.
BID-19. Source Test Report 84-596, Bradley Pit Landfill, March 11, 1985, South Coast Air
Quality Management District.
BID-20. Source Test Report 84-373, L.A. By-Products, March 27, 1985, South Coast air Quality
Management District.
BID-21. Source Test Report 85-36, Azusa Land Reclamation, August 13, 1985, South Coast Air
Quality Management District.
BID-22. Source Test Report 85-403, Palos Verdes Landfill, September 25, 1985, South Coast
Air Quality Management District.
BID-23. Source Test Report 86-0234, Pacific Lighting Energy Systems, July 16, 1986, South
Coast Air Quality Management District.
BID-24. Evaluation Test on a Landfill Gas-Fired Flare at the Los Angeles County Sanitation
District's Puente Hills Landfill Facility, CA, July 1986, [ARB/SS-87-06], South Coast Air
Quality Management District, Sacramento, CA, July 1986.
BID-25. Gas Characterization, Microbial Analysis, and Disposal of Refuse in GRI Landfill
Simulators, [EPA/600/2-86/041], Hazardous Waste Engineering Research Laboratory, Cincinnati,
OH, April 1986.
BID-26. Analysis of Factors Affecting Methane Gas Recovery from Six Landfills, [EPA-600/2-
91-055], U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Air and Energy Engineering Research
Laboratory, Research Triangle Park, NC, September 1991.
BID-27. Source Test Report, Browning-Ferris Industries, Lyon Development Landfill,
August 21, 1990.
BID-28. Source Test Report, Browning-Ferris Industries, Azusa Landfill.
BID-29. Municipal Landfill Gas Condensate, EPA/600/2-87/090, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Office of Research and Development, Cincinnati, OH, October 1987.
BID-30. Measurement of Fugitive Atmospheric Emissions of Poly chlorinated Biphenyls from
Hazardous Waste Landfills, Environmental Science and Technology, v!9nlO p 986-991. October
1985.
BID-31. Barboza M.J., P.E., Air Emissions Study of the Blydenburgh Road Landfill, Paulus
Sokolowski and Sartor, Inc., Malcolm Pirnie, Inc, Mahwah, NJ, April 13, 1991.
BID-32. Ambient Monitoring for PCB after Remedial Cleanup of Two Landfills in the
Bloomington, Indiana Area, EPA/600/4-86/018, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Environmental Monitoring Systems Laboratory, Research Triangle Park, NC, March 1986.
36
-------
BID-33. Barboza M.J., P.E., An Integrated Study of Air Toxics Emissions from an MSW
Landfill, Presented at the National Conference on Environmental Engineering, Paulus,
Sokolowski and Sartor, Inc., Reno, NV, July 8-10, 1991.
BID-34. Study of Vinyl Chloride Formation at Landfill Sites in California, Battelle Pacific
Northwest labs, Prepared for California State Air Resources Board, Sacramento, CA, January
1987.
BID-35. In-Situ Methods to Control Emissions from Surface Impoundments and Landfills,
EPA/600/2-85/124, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Hazardous Waste Engineering
Research Laboratory, Cincinnati, OH, October 1985.
BID-36. Trace-Chemical Characterization of Pollutants Occurring in the Production of Landfill
Gas from the Shoreline Regional Park Sanitary Landfill, Mountain View, California, U.S.
Department of Energy and Pacific Gas and Electric Company, April 1, 1981, DOE/CS/20291--
Tl.
BID-37. Leachate Collection and Gas Migration and Emission Problems at Landfills and Surface
Impoundments, EPA/600/2-86/017, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research
and Development Cincinnati, OH, January 1986.
BID-38. D. Antignano, Energy Tactics Inc., to J.R. Farmer, OAQPS:ESD, November 25, 1987,
Response to questionnaire.
BID-39. G. Rodriguez, Pacific Lighting Energy Systems, to J.R. Farmer, OAQPS:ESD,
December 1, 1987, Response to questionnaire.
BID-40. R W. Van Bladeren, BioGas Technology, Inc., to J.R. Farmer, OAQPS:ESD,
December 2, 1987, Response to questionnaire.
BID-41. M. Nourot, Laidlaw Gas Recovery Systems, to J.R. Farmer, OAQPS:ESD, December 8,
1987, Response to questionnaire.
BID-42. K.A. Flanagan, GSF Energy Inc., to S.A. Thorneloe, OAQPS:EPA:CPB, January 27,
1988, Response to questionnaire.
BID-43. D.A. Stringham and W.H. Wolfe, Waste Management of North America, Inc., to J.R.
Farmer, OAQPS:ESD, January 29, 1988, Response to Section 114 questionnaire.
BID-44. D.L. Kolar, Browning-Ferris Industries, to J.R. Farmer, OAQPS:ESD, February 4,
1988, Response to questionnaire.
BID-45. Air Emissions from Municipal Solid Waste Landfills - Background Information for
Proposed Standards and Guidelines, EPA-450/3-90-011a, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Park, NC, March 1991.
BID-46. Pelt, R., Memorandum "Methodology Used to Revise the Model Inputs in the Solid
Waste Landfills Input Data Bases (Revised)", to the Municipal Solid Waste Landfills Docket No.
A-88-09, April 28, 1993.
BID-47. Landfill Gas Production Curves, Myth Versus Reality, S.W. Zison, Pacific Energy.
37
-------
BID-48. Source Test Report 87-0318, Calabasas Landfill, December 16, 1987, South Coast Air
Quality Management District.
BID-49. Source Test Report 87-0329, Scholl Canyon Landfill, December 4, 1987, South Coast
Air Quality Management District.
BID-50. Source Test Report 87-0391, Puente Hills Landfill, February 5, 1988, South Coast Air
Quality Management District.
BID-51. Source Test Report 87-0376, Palos Verdes Landfill, February 9, 1987, South Coast Air
Quality Management District.
BID-52. Augenstein, D. and J. Pacey, Modeling Landfill Methane Generation, EMCON
Associates, San Jose, CA, 1992.
BID-53. Landfill Gas Characterization, Correspondence between C. Choate and J. Swanson,
Waste Management of North America, Inc, Permit Services Division, Bay Area Quality
Management District, Oakland, CA, 1988.
BID-54. Emission Testing at BFI's Arbor Hills Landfill, Northville, Michigan, September 22
through 25, 1992, Steiner Environmental, Inc., Bakersfield, CA, December 1992.
BID-55. Emission Test Report - Performance Evaluation Landfill-Gas Enclosed Flare, Browning
Ferris Industries, PEI Associates, Inc., Chicopee, MA, 1990.
BID-56. Source Test Report Boiler and Flare Systems, Prepared for Laidlaw Gas Recovery
Systems, Coyote Canyon Landfill, Irvine, CA, by Kleinfelder Inc., Diamond Bar, CA, 1991.
BID-57. McGill Flare Destruction Efficiency Test Report for Landfill Gas at the Durham Road
Landfill, Waste Management of North America, Inc, Bay Area Quality Management District,
Oakland, CA, 1988.
BID-58. Solid Waste Assessment for Otay Valley/Annex Landfill, Correspondence between R.
Yelenosky and B. McEntire., San Diego Air Pollution Control District, San Diego, CA,
December 1988.
BID-59. Emission Test Report - Performance Evaluation Landfill Gas Enclosed Flare, Disposal
Specialists Inc., PEI Associates, Inc., Rockingham, VT, September 1990.
BID-60. Gas Flare Emissions Source Test for Sunshine Canyon Landfill, Browning Ferris
Industries, Sylmar, CA, 1991.
BID-61. Methane and Nonmethane Organic Destruction Efficiency Tests of an Enclosed Landfill
Gas Flare, Scott Environmental Technology, April 1992.
BID-62. Air Pollution Emission Evaluation Report for Ground Flare at Browning Ferris
Industries Greentree Landfill, Kersey, Pennsylvania, BCM Engineers, Planners, Scientists and
Laboratory Services, Pittsburgh, PA, May 1992.
38
-------
BID-63. Stack Emissions Test Report for Ameron Kapaa Quarry, EnvironMETeo Services Inc.,
Correspondence between C. How and F. Enos., Waipahu, HI, January 1994.
BID-64. Report of Emission Levels and Fuel Economies for Eight Waukesha 12V-AT25GL
Units Located at the Johnston, Rhode Island Central Landfill, Waukesha Pearce Industries, Inc.
Houston TX, July 19, 1991.
BID-65. Gaseous Emission Study Performed for Waste Management of North America, Inc.,
CID Environmental Complex Gas Recovery Facility, August 8, 1989, Mostardi-Platt Associates,
Inc., Chicago, IL, August 1989.
BID-66. Gaseous Emission Study Performed for Waste Management of North America, Inc., at
the CID Environmental Complex Gas Recovery Facility, July 12-14, 1989, Mostardi-Platt
Associates, Inc., Chicago, IL, July 1989.
BID-67. Final Report for Emissions Compliance Testing of One Waukesha Engine Generator,
Browning-Ferris Gas Services, Inc., Chicopee, MA, February 1994.
BID-68. Final Report for Emissions Compliance Testing of Three Waukesha Engine Generators,
Browning-Ferris Gas Services, Inc., Richmond, VA, February 1994.
BID-69. Emission Factors for Landfill Gas Flares at the Arizona Street Landfill, Correspondence
between D. Byrnes, A. dela Cruz, and M.R. Lake, Prepared by South Coast Environmental
Company (SCEC) for the San Diego Air Pollution Control District, San Diego, CA, November
1992.
BID-70. Emission Tests on the Puente Hills Energy from Landfill Gas (PERG) Facility - Unit
400, September 1993, Prepared for County Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County by Carnot,
Tustin, CA, November 1993.
BID-71. Gaseous Emission Studies Performed for Waste Management of North America, Inc., at
the CID Facility Centaur Turbine Stack 3, Chicago, Illinois, February 16, 1990, Mostardi-Platt
Associates, Inc., Bensenville, IL, February 1990.
BID-72. Gaseous Emission Study Performed for Waste Management of North America, Inc., at
the Tazewell County Landfill, Peoria, Illinois, No. 1 Gas Recovery Engine Stack, February 22-
23, 1990, Mostardi-Platt Associates, Inc., Bensenville, IL, February 1990.
BID-73. Gaseous Emission Study Performed for Waste Management of North America, Inc., at
the Monroe Livingston Power Production Plant, Scottsville, New York, No. 2 Gas Recovery
Engine Stack, May 2, 1990, Mostardi-Platt Associates, Inc., Bensenville, IL, May 1990.
BID-74. Emissions Test Report for the Tripoli Landfill. Correspondence between J. Tice, Diesel
and Gas Engineering Company, and S. Drake, Beaver Dams, NY, April 1989.
BID-75. Compliance Test Report Landfill Gas Fired Internal Combustion Engine, Oceanside
Landfill Gas Recovery Facility, Energy Tactics, Inc., Oceanside, NY, November 2, 1992.
BID-76. Compliance Test Report Landfill Gas Fired Internal Combustion Engine, Dunbarton
Road Landfill, Manchester, New Hampshire, ROJAC Environmental Services, Inc., Hartford, CT,
June 1990.
39
-------
BID-77. Summary of Source Test Results for Palo Alto Emission Inventory Test, Bay Area Air
Quality Management District, San Francisco, CA, June 1993.
BID-78. Final Test Report for: Northeast Landfill Power-Joint Venture Engine No. 5 at the
Rhode Island Central Landfill, Johnston, Rhode Island, Environmental Science Services,
Providence, RI, May 1994.
BID-79. Report of Emission Levels and Fuel Economies for Eight Waukesha 12V-AT25GL
Units Located at the Johnston, Rhode Island Central Landfill, Waukesha Pearce Industries, Inc.,
Houston TX, November 30, 1990.
BID-80. Landfill Gas Fired Flare Emission Factors for the Bonsall Location, Correspondence
between M. Lake, and D. Byrnes. South Coast Air Quality Management District, CA, April 1994.
BID-81. Landfill Gas Fired Flare Emission Factors for the Hillsborough Location,
Correspondence between M. Lake, and D. Byrnes, South Coast Air Quality Management District,
CA, April 1994.
BID-82. Emission Factors for Landfill Gas Flares at the Bell Jr. High School Landfill,
Correspondence between D. Byrnes, A. dela Cruz, and M.R. Lake, Prepared by South Coast
Environmental Company (SCEC) for the San Diego Air Pollution Control District, San Diego,
CA, November 1992.
BID-83. Source Test Results for Emission Testing of Landfill Energy Partners Engine No. 1 at
San Marcos Landfill, Carnot, Tustin, CA, October 1993.
BID-84. Emission Factors for the Landfill Gas Fired Internal Combustion Engine at Otay
Landfill, Operated by Pacific Energy, Correspondence between D. Byrnes and L. Kramer, San
Diego County Air Pollution Control District, San Diego, CA, October 1991.
BID-85. Testing of Monitored Pollutants in Exhaust Gases at the San Marcos Landfill, San
Diego Air Pollution Control District, San Diego, CA, October 1989.
BID-86. Staff Report, Proposed Amended Rule 431.1, Sulfur Content of Gaseous Fuels, South
Coast Air Quality Management District, Rule Development Division, El Monte, CA, April 1990.
BID-87. Engineering Report: Puente Hills Landfill, Flare #11, Dioxin, Furan, and PCB Test
Results, Sierra Environmental Engineering Inc., Costa Mesa, CA, February 1986.
BID-8 8. Compliance Testing for Spadra Landfill Gas-to-Energy Plant, July 25 and 26, 1990,
Pape & Steiner Environmental Services. Bakersfield, CA, November 1990.
BID-89. AB2588 Source Test Report for Oxnard Landfill, July 23-27, 1990, by Petro Chem
Environmental Services, Inc., for Pacific Energy Systems, Commerce, CA, October 1990.
BID-90. AB2588 Source Test Report for Oxnard Landfill, October 16, 1990, by Petro Chem
Environmental Services, Inc., for Pacific Energy Systems, Commerce, CA, November 1990.
BID-91. Engineering Source Test Report for Oxnard Landfill, December 20, 1990, by Petro
Chem Environmental Services, Inc., for Pacific Energy Systems, Commerce, CA, January 1991.
40
-------
BID-92. AB2588 Emissions Inventory Report for the Salinas Crazy Horse Canyon Landfill,
Pacific Energy, Commerce, CA, October 1990.
BID-93. Newby Island Plant 2 Site 1C Engine's Emission Test, February 7-8, 1990, Laidlaw Gas
Recovery Systems, Newark, CA, February 1990.
BID-94. Landfill Methane Recovery Part II: Gas Characterization, Final Report, Gas Research
Institute, December 1982.
BID-95. Letter from J.D. Thornton, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, to R. Myers, U.S.
EPA, February 1, 1996.
BID-96. Letter and attached documents from M. Sauers, GSF Energy, to S. Thorneloe, U.S.
EPA, May 29, 1996.
BID-97. Landfill Gas Particulate and Metals Concentration and Flow Rate, Mountaingate
Landfill Gas Recovery Plant, Horizon Air Measurement Services, prepared for GSF Energy, Inc.,
May 1992.
BID-98. Landfill Gas Engine Exhaust Emissions Test Report in Support of Modification to
Existing 1C Engine Permit at Bakersfield Landfill Unit #1, Pacific Energy Services, December 4,
1990.
BID-99. Addendum to Source Test Report for Superior Engine #1 at Otay Landfill, Pacific
Energy Services, April 2, 1991.
BID-100. Source Test Report 88-0075 of Emissions from an Internal Combustion Engine Fueled
by Landfill Gas, Penrose Landfill, Pacific Energy Lighting Systems, South Coast Air Quality
Management District, February 24, 1988.
BID-101. Source Test Report 88-0096 of Emissions from an Internal Combustion Engine Fueled
by Landfill Gas, Toyon Canyon Landfill, Pacific Energy Lighting Systems, South Coast Air
Quality Management, March 8, 1988.
BID-102. Letter and attached documents from C. Nesbitt, Los Angeles County Sanitation
Districts, to K. Brust, E.H. Pechan and Associates, Inc., December 6, 1996.
BID-103. Determination of Landfill Gas Composition and Pollutant Emission Rates at Fresh
Kills Landfill, revised Final Report, Radian Corporation, prepared for U.S. EPA, November 10,
1995.
BID-104. Advanced Technology Systems, Inc., Report on Determination of Enclosed Landfill
Gas Flare Performance, Prepared for Y & S Maintenance, Inc., February 1995.
BID-105. Chester Environmental, Report on Ground Flare Emissions Test Results, Prepared for
Seneca Landfill, Inc., October 1993.
BID-106. Smith Environmental Technologies Corporation, Compliance Emission Determination
of the Enclosed Landfill Gas Flare and Leachate Treatment Process Vents, Prepared for Clinton
County Solid Waste Authority, April 1996.
41
-------
BID-107. AirReconV, Division of RECON Environmental Corp., Compliance Stack Test Report
for the Landfill Gas FLare Inlet & Outlet at Bethlehem Landfill, Prepared for LFG Specialties
Inc., December 3, 1996.
BID-108. ROJAC Environmental Services, Inc., Compliance Test Report, Hartford Landfill
Flare Emissions Test Program, November 19, 1993.
BID-109. Normandeau Associates, Inc., Emissions Testing of a Landfill Gas Flare at Contra
Costa Landfill, Antioch, California, March 22, 1994 and April 22, 1994, May 17, 1994.
BID-110. AirRecon, Compliance Stack Emission Evaluation, Gloucester County Solid Waste
Complex, May 14, 1996.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (1997b). Emission Factor Documentation for AP-42
Section 2.4 - Municipal Solid Waste Landfills, Revised, Office of Air Quality Planning and
Standards. Research Triangle Park, NC, August 1997.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (1998). Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors,
AP-42, Fifth Edition, Volume I: Stationary Point and Area Sources, Section 2.4 Municipal Solid
Waste Landfills, Research Triangle Park, NC, November 1998.
42
-------
3.0 CONTROLLED LANDFILL GAS DATA ANALYSIS RESULTS
Emission factors for control devices apply to landfills with waste in place both before and after
1992. Development of emission factors for each combustion control device type is discussed in the
following sections.
3.1
FLARES
Landfill gas flare combustion by-product emissions data for a total of 35 landfills were submitted
to EPA and utilized in emission factor development, comprising a total of 53flares contained in 41 test
reports. Six of the test reports contained test data from two different landfills but represent six different
flares (TR-181, TR-182, and TR-205 for one landfill, and TR-259, TR-260, and TR- 261 for another
landfill). The manufacturer was specified for 23 of the flares (Table 3-1). These flares are assumed to be
enclosed since sampling candle-stick flares is not typically done. Enclosed flares are designed to allow
for performance testing to establish emission reduction capability and potential by-product emissions.
TABLE 3-1. SUMMARY OF NUMBER OF FLARES AND MANUFACTURERS FOR
LANDFILL GAS FLARE COMBUSTION BY-PRODUCT EMISSIONS TEST DATA
Flare Manufacturer
Callidus
John Zink
LFG Specialties
McGill
Perennial Energy
SurLite
Not Specified
Total
Number of Emission
Test Reports
1
14
1
2
3
2
30
53
Nitrogen oxides, carbon monoxide, and particulate matter emissions were sampled and reported
in units of parts per million (ppm), pounds per hour (Ib/hr), or pounds per day (Ib/day). Total
dioxin/furan emissions were reported in nanograms per dry standard cubic meter (ng/dscm). Twenty-five
test reports contained emissions data for NOX, CO, and PM. One test report contained data for NOX, CO,
and total dioxins/furans. Five test reports contained emissions data for both NOX and CO, one test report
contained only NOX emission data, and five test reports contained only CO emissions data. Where
possible, each of the emission data points were converted to kilograms per million dry standard cubic
meters of CH4 (kg/106 dscm CHO to result in comparable emissions for a variety of LFG flares (See
Appendix G for sample calculation).
3.1.1 Nitrogen Oxides
The default NOX emission factor was calculated from 36 test reports containing NOX emissions
data from a total of 48 flares.
The emission rate provided in TR-148 was excluded from the NOX analysis because the flare inlet
gas flow rate was reported in standard cubic feet per minute (scfm) and inlet gas moisture was not
determined as part of the flare testing. Consequently, a NOX emission factor could not be developed on
the basis of dry standard cubic meters of inlet CH4 for TR-148. The emission rate provided for TR-160
43
-------
was excluded from the NOX analysis because flare inlet gas composition data was not provided in the test
report. As a result, an emission factor could not be calculated for TR-160.
One test report (TR-241) revealed NOX emission rates below the method detection limit (<0.59
kg/hr or 392 kg/106 dscm CFL^ for all test runs. Based on guidance for detection limits contained in
EPA's Procedures for Preparing Emission Factor Documents (U.S. EPA, 1997a), half of the method
detection limit was used to represent this flare's average emission rate. Since there are detect values
greater than this non-detect, the value is used in emission factor determination calculations
Two of the 36 test reports (TR-145 and TR-146) contained NOX test data obtained from operating
the flare under two different operating temperatures. For both cases, the data associated with the set of
test runs that most closely matched the average testing temperature from the other 34 test reports (1,552
ฐF) was used for the development of the default NOX emission factor.
Emission rates for the 46 flares (excluding the two flares from TR-148 and TR-160) included in
the analysis range from 211 to 1,373 kg/106 dscm CFLt. The arithmetic mean emission rate for NOX for
these LFG flares is 631 kg/106 dscm CH4. This average rate was selected as the default emission factor to
represent flare NOX in the AP-42 update with an A quality rating. The previous AP-42 default factor
(U.S. EPA, 1998) was 650 kg/106 dscm CH4 with a quality rating of "C."
3.1.2 Carbon Monoxide
The CO default emission factor was calculated from 40 test reports containing emissions data
from 52 flares.
The emission rate provided in TR-148 was excluded from the CO analysis because the flare inlet
gas flow rate was reported in standard cubic feet per minute (scfm) and inlet gas moisture was not
determined as part of the flare testing. Consequently, a CO emission factor could not be developed on the
basis of dry standard cubic meters of inlet CFi4 for TR-148. The emission rate provided for TR-160 was
excluded from the CO analysis because flare inlet gas composition data was not provided in the test
report. As a result, an emission factor could not be calculated for TR-160.
Four test reports (TR-157, TR-175, TR-179, and TR-251) revealed CO emission rates below the
method detection limits. Based on guidance for detection limits contained in EPA's Procedures for
Preparing Emission Factor Documents (U.S. EPA, 1997a), half of the method detection limits were used
to represent the average emission rate. Since there are detect values greater than the non-detect values,
the values are used in emission factor determination calculations
Two of the 40 test reports (TR-145 and TR-146) contained CO test data obtained from operating
the each flare under two different operating temperatures. For both cases, the data associated with the set
of test runs that most closely matched the average testing temperature from the other 36 test reports
(1,551 ฐF) was used for the development of the default CO emission factor.
Carbon monoxide emission rates for the 50 flares (excluding the two flares from TR-148 and TR-
160) included in the analysis range from 0 to 11,500 kg/106 dscm CFi4. The arithmetic mean emission
rate for CO is 737 kg/106 dscm CFi4, which was selected as the default emission factor with an A quality
rating for the AP-42 update. The prior default factor in AP-42 (U.S. EPA, 1998) was 12,000 kg/106 dscm
CFLt with a quality rating of "C." It is worth noting that the new default emission factor is based on over
three times the amount of data as the previous emission factor, which may help explain the large
difference between the default values.
44
-------
3.1.3 Participate Matter
The default PM emission factor was calculated from 28 test reports containing emissions data
from 36 flares.
One of the test reports (TR-146) contained PM test data obtained from operating the flare under
two different operating temperatures. The data associated with the set of test runs that most closely
matched the average testing temperature from the other test reports (1,548 ฐF) was used for the
development of the default CO emission factor.
The emission rate provided in TR-148 was excluded from the PM analysis because the flare inlet
gas flow rate was reported in standard cubic feet per minute (scfm) and inlet gas moisture was not
determined as part of the flare testing. Consequently, a PM emission factor could not be developed on the
basis of dr standard cubic meters of inlet
The PM emission rates from the 35 flares (excluding the flare from TR-148) included in the
analysis range between 84 and 735 kg/106 dscm CFL,. The arithmetic mean emission rate for PM is 238
kg/106 dscm CH4 with an A quality rating. This average rate was selected as the default to represent PM
in the AP-42 update. The prior version of the AP-42 section for MSW landfills (U.S. EPA, 1998) had a
default PM emission factor of 270 kg/106 dscm CFL, with a quality rating of "D."
3.1.4 Total Dioxin/Furan
One test report (TR-273) contained measurement data for dioxins/furans. The total dioxin/furan
emission rate is 6.7 x 10"6 kg/106 dscm CFLt, which was selected as the default emission factor for the AP-
42 update. The previous AP-42 section for MSW landfills (U.S. EPA, 1998) did not include dioxin/furan
emission factors for LFG flares.
3.1.5 Flare Summary
Summaries of the NOX, CO, PM, and total dioxin/furan combustion by-product data included in
the LFG flare analysis for determining default emission factors for the update can be found in Tables 3-4,
3-5, and 3-6. In addition, the three tables provide the test methods used to measure these emissions data.
A data quality rating of A was assigned to each of the flare test reports listed in Tables 3-4, 3-5,
and 3-6. All of the reports containing these data included adequate detail, the methodology appeared to
be sound, and no problems were reported for the test runs. The following criteria, used in developing
ratings in the 1998 AP-42 update, were used to provide recommended default emission factor ratings.
TABLE 3-2. CRITERIA USED TO DETERMINE RECOMMENDED DEFAULT
EMISSION FACTOR RATINGS
Factor Rating
A
B
C
D
E
# of Data Points
>20
10-19
6-9
3-5
<3
An overall data quality rating of A is recommended for the NOX, CO, and PM combustion by-
products from flares default emission factors. This rating exemplifies the fact that the default NOX, CO,
and PM emission factors were developed using A-rated test data and the emission factor ranking is more
45
-------
of a function of the number of data points used to develop the default emission factor. Furthermore, no
specific bias is evident for the NOX, CO, and PM emission factors. An overall data quality rating of E is
recommended for the total dioxin/furan combustion by-product default emission factor since the emission
factor was developed from a single facility which does not represent a random sample of LFG flares
(Table 3-3).
TABLE 3-3. RECOMMENDED DEFAULT EMISSION FACTOR RATINGS FOR NOX, CO,
PM, AND TOTAL DIOXIN/FURAN LANDFILL FLARE COMBUSTION BY-PRODUCTS
Flare Combustion
By-Product
NOx
CO
PM
Total Dioxin/Furan
# of Data Points
30
34
23
1
Recommended Emission
Factor Rating
A
A
A
E
TABLE 3-4. LANDFILL GAS FLARE NOX EMISSIONS DATA USED TO DEVELOP
COMBUSTION BY-PRODUCT EMISSION FACTORS
Test Report
TR-145a
TR-146a
TR-159
TR-165
TR-168
TR-169
TR-171
TR-173
TR-175b
TR-176
TR-178
TR-179
TR-181,TR-182,TR-205C
TR-183
TR-187
TR-196
TR-199
TR-207
TR-209d
TR-229
TR-2416
Test Method
EPA Method 7E
EPA Method 7E
EPA Method 7E
SCAQMD Method 100.1
SCAQMD Method 100.1
SCAQMD Method 100.1
SCAQMD Method 100.1
SCAQMD Method 100.1
SCAQMD Method 100.1
SCAQMD Method 100.1
SCAQMD Method 100.1
SCAQMD Method 100.1
SCAQMD Method 100.1
SCAQMD Method 100.1
SCAQMD Method 100.1
CARB Method 100/EPA Method 7E
SCAQMD Method 100.1
SCAQMD Method 100.1
EPA Method 7E
SCAQMD Method 100.1
EPA Method 7A
Flare Combustion
By-Product
NOX
NOX
NOX
NOX
NOX
NOX
NOX
NOX
NOX
NOX
NOX
NOX
NOX
NOX
NOX
NOX
NOX
NOX
NOX
NOX
NOX
Calculated Emission Factor
(kg/106 dscm CH4)
671
1,200
634
669
341
322
608
563
725
656
458
502
320
520
430
677
449
1,370
1,080
823
392
46
-------
TABLE 3-4 (CONTINUED). LANDFILL GAS FLARE NOX EMISSIONS DATA USED TO DEVELOP
COMBUSTION BY-PRODUCT EMISSION FACTORS
Test Report
TR-251
TR-253
TR-255
TR-258
TR-259, TR-260, TR-261C
TR-264
TR-273
TR-287
TR-290
Test Method
SCAQMD Method 100.1
SCAQMD Method 100.1
SCAQMD Method 100.1
CARB Method 100
SCAQMD Method 100.1
SCAQMD Method 100.1
EPA Method 7E
EPA Method 7E
SCAQMD Method 100.1
Flare Combustion
By-Product
NOX
NOX
NOX
NOX
NOX
NOX
NOX
NOX
NOX
NOX Default Emission Factor
1998 AP-42 NOX Emission Factor1
Calculated Emission Factor
(kg/106 dscm CH4)
848
846
543
554
234
939
741
596
211
631
650
a Average flare temperature for tests where the temperature was not varied is 1552ฐF. For tests performed under multiple
temperatures, the test where the operating temperature was closest to the average was included. See discussion for additional
details.
b Emission factor calculated is based on the average emissions for three flares.
0 Three test reports for three separate flares at the same landfill.
d Emission factor calculated is based on the average emissions for five flares.
e Based on guidance in EPA's Procedures for Preparing Emission Factor Documents for detection limits, half of the method
detection limit was used to represent this landfill's average emission rate. Since there are detect values greater than this non-
detect, the value is used in emission factor determination calculations.
f AP-42, Fifth Edition, Volume I, Section 2.4, Supplement E, November 1998.
TABLE 3-5. LANDFILL GAS FLARE CO EMISSIONS DATA USED TO DEVELOP
COMBUSTION BY-PRODUCT EMISSION FACTORS
Test Report
TR-145a
TR-146a
TR-147
TR-153
TR-156
TR-157b
TR-159
TR-165
TR-168
TR-169
TR-171
TR-173
Test Method
EPA Method 10, 40 CFR 60, Appendix A
EPA Method 10, 40 CFR 60, Appendix A
EPA Method 10, 40 CFR 60, Appendix A
EPA Method 10, 40 CFR 60, Appendix A
EPA Method 10, 40 CFR 60, Appendix A
EPA Method 10, 40 CFR 60, Appendix A
EPA Method 10, 40 CFR 60, Appendix A
SCAQMD Method 100
SCAQMD Method 100
SCAQMD Method 100.1
SCAQMD Method 100.1
SCAQMD Method 100.1
Flare Combustion By-
Product
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
Calculated Emission
Factor
(kg/106 dscm CH,)
533
23
13
105
53
12
911
1,550
11
15
319
263
47
-------
TABLE 3-5 (CONTINUED). LANDFILL GAS FLARE CO EMISSIONS DATA USED TO
DEVELOP COMBUSTION BY-PRODUCT EMISSION FACTORS
Test Report
TR-175b'd
TR-176
TR-178
TR-179b
TR-181,TR-182,TR-205e
TR-183
TR-187
TR-196
TR-199
TR-207
TR-209C
TR-226
TR-229
TR-251b
TR-253
TR-255
TR-258
TR-259,TR-260,TR-261e
TR-264
TR-273
TR-287
TR-290
Test Method
SCAQMD Method 100.1/SCAQMD
Method 10.1TCA/FID
SCAQMD Method 100.1
SCAQMD Method 100.1
SCAQMD Method 100.1
SCAQMD Method 100.1
SCAQMD Method 100.1
SCAQMD Method 100.1
CARB Method 100/EPA Method 10
SCAQMD Method 100.1
SCAQMD Method 100.1
EPA Method 10, 40 CFR 60, Appendix A
EPA Method 10, 40 CFR 60, Appendix A
SCAQMD Method 100.1
SCAQMD Method 25.1
SCAQMD Method 100.1
SCAQMD Method 100.1
CARB Method 100
SCAQMD Method 100.1
SCAQMD Method 100.1
EPA Method 10, 40 CFR 60, Appendix A
EPA Method 10, 40 CFR 60, Appendix A
SCAQMD Method 100.1
Flare Combustion By-
Product
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO Default Emission Factor
1998 AP-42 CO Emission Factor'
Calculated Emission
Factor
(kg/106 dscm CH,)
29
13
276
262
164
541
76
2,010
11,500
639
100
67
28
306
13
434
23
175
780
410
3,420
0
737
12,000
* Average flare temperature for tests where the temperature was not varied is 15 51 ฐF. For tests performed under multiple
temperatures, the test where the operating temperature was closest to the average was included. See discussion for additional
details.
b Based on guidance in EPA's Procedures for Preparing Emission Factor Documents for detection limits, half of the method
detection limit was used to represent this landfill's average emission rate. Since there are detect values greater than this non-
detect, the value is used in emission factor determination calculations.
0 Emission factor calculated is based on the average emissions for five flares.
d Emission factor calculated is based on the average emissions for three flares.
e Three test reports for three separate flares at the same landfill.
f AP-42, Fifth Edition, Volume I, Section 2.4, Supplement E, November 1998.
48
-------
TABLE 3-6. LANDFILL GAS FLARE PM AND TOTAL DIOXIN/FURAN EMISSIONS DATA
USED TO DEVELOP COMBUSTION BY-PRODUCT EMISSION FACTORS
Test Report
TR-145
TR-146a
TR-165
TR-168
TR-171
TR-173
TR-175b
TR-176
TR-178
TR-179
TR-181,TR-182,TR-205C
TR-183
TR-187
TR-196
TR-199
TR-207
TR-229
TR-251
TR-253
TR-255
TR-259, TR-260, TR-261C
TR-264
TR-290
Test Method
EPA Method 0050
EPA Method 0050
SCAQMD Method 5.2
SCAQMD Method 5.1
SCAQMD Method 5.1
SCAQMD Method 5.1
SCAQMD Method 5.1
SCAQMD Method 5.1
SCAQMD Method 5.1
SCAQMD Method 5.1
SCAQMD Method 5.1
SCAQMD Method 5.1
SCAQMD Method 5.1
SCAQMD Method 5.1
SCAQMD Method 5.1
SCAQMD Method 5.2
SCAQMD Method 5.1
SCAQMD Method 5.1
SCAQMD Method 5.1
SCAQMD Method 5.1
SCAQMD Method 5.1
SCAQMD Method 5.1
SCAQMD Method 5.1
Flare Combustion By-
Product
PM
PM
PM
PM
PM
PM
PM
PM
PM
PM
PM
PM
PM
PM
PM
PM
PM
PM
PM
PM
PM
PM
PM
PM Default Emission Factor
1998 AP-42 PM Emission Factor*1
TR-273
EPA Method 23
Dioxin/Furan
Dioxin/Furan Default Emission Factor6
Calculated Emission Factor
(kg/106 dscm CH,)
142
226
187
309
735
256
143
165
531
251
84
193
249
401
184
130
313
277
131
138
97
205
133
238
270
6.7E-06
6.76E-06
a Average flare temperature for tests where the temperature was not varied is 1548ฐF. For tests performed under multiple
temperatures, the test where the operating temperature was closest to the average was included. See discussion for additional
details.
b Emission factor calculated is based on the average emissions for three flares.
0 Three test reports for three separate flares at the same landfill.
d AP-42, Fifth Edition, Volume I, Section 2.4, Supplement E, November 1998.
e New default emission factor. No emission factor for dioxin/furan is in the latest AP-42 update.
49
-------
References
TR-145. Compliance Testing of a Landfill Flare at Browning-Ferris Gas Services, Inc.'s Facility
in Halifax, Massachusetts, BFI Waste Systems of North America, Inc., May 1996.
TR-146. Compliance Source Testing of a Landfill Flare at Northern Disposal, Inc. East
Bridgewater Landfill, Northern Disposal, Inc., June 1994.
TR-147. Compliance Emissions Test Program for BFI of Ohio, Inc., BFI of Ohio, Inc., 6/26/98.
TR-148. Compliance Testing of Landfill Flare at Browning-Ferris Gas Services, Inc.'s Fall River
Landfill Flare, BFI Waste Systems of North America, Inc., March 1995.
TR-153. Results of the Emission Compliance Test on the Enclosed Flare System at the Carbon
Limestone Landfill, Browning-Ferris Industrial Gas Services, Inc., 8/8/96.
TR-156. Results of the Emission Compliance Test on the Enclosed Flare System at the Lorain
County Landfill No. 2, Browning-Ferris Industrial Gas Services, Inc., 9/5/96.
TR-157. Emission Compliance Testing Browning-Ferris Gas Services, Inc. Willowcreek Landfill,
BFI-Willowcreek, 2/2/98.
TR-159. Compliance Stack Sampling Report, Monmouth County Reclamation Center, SCS
Engineers (Reston, VA), 9/8/95.
TR-160. Source Emission Testing of an Enclosed Landfill Gas Ground Flare, SCS Engineers
(Reston, VA), September 1997.
TR-165. 1997 Annual Compliance Source Testing Results for the Coyote Canyon Landfill Gas
Recovery Facility Flare No. 1, Laidlaw Gas Recovery Systems, January 1998.
TR-168. Colton Sanitary Landfill Gas Flare No. 2 (John Zink) 1998 Source Tests Results, Bryan
A. Stirrat & Associates, 9/29/98.
TR-169. Colton Sanitary Landfill Gas Flare No. 1 (McGill) 1998 Source Tests Results, Bryan A.
Stirrat & Associates, 9/29/98.
TR-171. High Landfill Gas Flow Rate Source Test Results from One Landfill Gas Flare at FRB
Landfill in Orange County, California, Bryan A. Stirrat & Associates, July 1997.
TR-173. Annual Emissions Test of Landfill Gas Flare #3 Bradley Landfill, Waste Management
Recycling and Disposal Services of California, Inc., 4/12/99.
TR-175. Emissions Tests on Flares #2, #4 and #6 at the Lopez Canyon Landfill, City of Los
Angeles, August 1997.
TR-176. Emissions Test Results on Flares #1, #4 and #9 Calabasas Landfill, County Sanitation
Districts of Los Angeles County, February 1998.
TR-178. Annual Emission Test of Landfill Gas Flare #3 Bradley Landfill, Waste Management
Recycling and Disposal Services of California, Inc., 5/21/98.
50
-------
TR-179. Annual Emissions Test of Landfill Gas Flare #1 Bradley Landfill, Waste Management
Recycling and Disposal Services of California, Inc., 4/13/99.
TR-181. The Mid-Valley Sanitary Landfill Gas Flare No.l (McGill) 1998 Source Test Results,
Bryan A. Stirrat & Associates, 9/29/98.
TR-182. The Mid-Valley Sanitary Landfill Gas Flare No.2 (SurLite) 1998 Source Test Results,
Bryan A. Stirrat & Associates, 9/29/98.
TR-183. Annual Emissions Test of Landfill Gas Flare #2 Bradley Landfill, Waste Management
Recycling and Disposal Services of California, Inc., 4/13/99.
TR-187. Emissions Test of a Landfill Gas Flare - Lowry Landfill/Denver-Arapohoe Disposal
Site, Sur-Lite Corporation, February 1997.
TR-196. Results of the Biennial Criteria and AB 2588 Air Toxics Source Test on the Simi Valley
Landfill Flare, Simi Valley Landfill and Recycling Center, April 1997.
TR-199. Emission Compliance Test on a Landfill Flare, City of Los Angeles, January 1999.
TR-205. The Mid-Valley Sanitary Landfill Gas Flare No. 3 (John Zink) 1998 Source Test
Results, Bryan A. Stirrat & Associates, 9/29/98.
TR-207. Compliance Source Test Report Landfill Gas-fired Flare Stations 1-4 and F-2, BKK
Landfill, 12/12/97.
TR-209. Emission Test Report Volumes I and II - Source/Compliance Emissions Testing for
Cedar Hills Landfill, King County Solid Waste Division, 1/20/05.
TR-226. Methane and Nonmethane Organic Destruction Efficiency Tests of an Enclosed Landfill
Gas Flare, Newco Waste Systems, April 1992.
TR-229. Scholl Canyon Landfill Gas Flares No. 9, 10 11 and 12 Emission Source Testing April
1999, South Coast Air Quality Management District, April 1999.
TR-241. Performance Evaluation, Enclosed Landfill Gas Flare, Valley Landfill, Waste Energy
Technology, November 1991.
TR-251. Emission Compliance Test on a Landfill Gas Flare - Flare #1, Frank R. Bowerman
Landfill, Orange County, 1/25/99.
TR-253. Emission Source Testing on Two Flares (Nos. 3 and 6) at the Spadra Landfill, Los
Angeles County Sanitation Districts, 7/21/98.
TR-255. Emission Compliance Test on a Landfill Gas Flare -Olinda Alpha Landfill, Orange
County Integrated Waste Management Department, No Report Date Given.
TR-258. Source Test Report, City of Sacramento Landfill Gas Flare, City of Sacramento, 6/26/96.
51
-------
TR-259. The Millikan Sanitary Landfill Gas Flare No. 1 (Surlite) 1998 Source Test Results,
South Coast Air Quality Management District, 9/29/98.
TR-260. The Millikan Sanitary Landfill Gas Flare No. 2 (John Zink) 1998 Source Test Results,
South Coast Air Quality Management District, 9/29/98.
TR-261. The Millikan Sanitary Landfill Gas Flare No. 3 (John Zink) 1998 Source Test Results,
South Coast Air Quality Management District, 9/29/98.
TR-264. Emission Compliance Test on a Landfill Gas Flare, Orange County Integrated Waste
Management Department, No Report Date Given.
TR-273. Source Testing Final Report - Landfill B, US EPA Air Pollution Prevention and Control
Division, 10/6/05.
TR-287. Source Testing Final Report - Landfill D, US EPA Air Pollution Prevention and Control
Division, 10/6/05.
TR-290. San Timoteo Sanitary Landfill 1998 Source Test Results, San Bernandino County Solid
Waste Management, 9/29/98.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (1997a). Procedures for Preparing Emission Factor
Documents ,EPA-454/R-95-015, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Research
Triangle Park, NC, November 1997.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (1998). Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors,
AP-42, Fifth Edition, Volume I: Stationary Point and Area Sources, Section 2.4 Municipal Solid
Waste Landfills, Research Triangle Park, NC, November 1998.
52
-------
3.2 BOILERS, ENGINES AND TURBINES
3.2.1 Boiler Combustion By-Product Emissions - Source Characterization, Test Methods and Results
Combustion by-product emissions data for LFG-fired boilers were submitted to EPA for a total of
seven landfills. However, one boiler test report (TR-163) was excluded from the analysis because the
report provided to EPA is incomplete and does not contain any test method or sampling information.
Nitrogen oxide and carbon monoxide emissions were sampled and reported in units of parts per million
(ppm), pounds per hour (Ib/hr), pounds per day (Ib/day), or grams per cubic meter of CFL, (g/m3 CH/j) for
six boilers. Four of the test reports also contain particulate matter emissions data, given in Ib/hr, Ib/day,
or g/m3 CFi4. Five boiler test reports have total dioxin/furan emissions in nanograms per dry standard
cubic meter (ng/dscm), picograms in toxicity equivalents (TEQ) per cubic meter (pg TEQ/m3), or Ib/hr.
Where possible, each of the emission data points were converted to kilograms per million dry standard
cubic meters of CFi4 (kg/106 dscm CFy to result in comparable emissions for a variety of LFG-fired
boilers.
Of the six boiler test reports used in the analysis, three boilers (TR-167, TR-220, TR-291) are
Zurn steam boilers. One of these boilers is equipped with dual Coen burners such that the LFG may be
supplemented with natural gas in order to maintain acceptable Btu levels. One boiler (TR-292) is a
Combustion Engineering Model 33-7KT-10, A-type package base-load steam boiler. The remaining two
boilers did not specify the type of boiler tested. There were no "A" or "B" quality test reports available
for boilers from the prior AP-42 update that could be utilized in this analysis.
3.2.1.1 Nitrogen Oxides
Five of the six test reports (TR-167, TR-188, TR-220, TR-268, TR-291, TR-292) containing NOX
emissions data were included in the analysis to determine a default emission factor. The emission rate
provided for TR-188 was excluded from the NOX analysis because samples were collected and analyzed
using a portable combustion gas analyzer, which is not considered an acceptable test method for the AP-
42 analysis.
The two lowest emission rates are represented by boilers (TR-167, TR-220) equipped with flue
gas recirculation to reduce NOX formation, although the difference between these two rates and the next
two highest rates is not a significant amount.
Emission rates for the six boilers included in the analysis range from 563 to 1,040 kg/106 dscm
CFL,. The arithmetic mean emission rate for NOX for these LFG-fired boilers is 677 kg/106 dscm CFL,.
This average rate was selected as the default emission factor to represent boiler NOX in the AP-42 update
with a D quality rating. The 1998 default factor in AP-42 (U.S. EPA, 1998) is 530 with a D quality
rating.
3.2.1.2 Carbon Monoxide
Four of the six test reports (TR-167, TR-188, TR-220, TR-268, TR-291, TR-292) containing CO
emissions data were included in the analysis to determine a default emission factor. The emission rate
provided for TR-188 was excluded from the CO analysis because samples were collected and analyzed
using a portable combustion gas analyzer, which is not considered an acceptable test method for the AP-
42 analysis. Another report (TR-291) reveals CO emission rates below the method detection limit (<0.03
kg/hr or 16 kg/106 dscm CFL,) for all test runs. Based on guidance for detection limits contained in EPA's
Procedures for Preparing Emission Factor Documents (U.S. EPA, 1997a), half of the detection limit
(0.014 kg/hr or 8 kg/106 dscm CFL,) should be used to represent the average CO emission rate. However,
53
-------
the halved rate is greater than the detect value for the CO emission rate for another test report (TR-220).
Therefore, as directed in the EPA procedures document, this halved emission rate was not used to
determine a default CO emission factor.
Carbon monoxide emission rates range from 3 to 250 kg/106 dscm CFL,. The arithmetic mean
emission rate for CO is 116 kg/106 dscm CFL,, which was selected as the default emission factor with a
"D" quality rating for the AP-42 update. The prior default factor in AP-42 (U.S. EPA, 1998) is 90 kg/106
dscm CH4 with a quality rating of "E."
3.2.1.3 Particulate Matter
Particulate matter emissions are provided in four boiler test reports (TR-167, TR-188, TR-220,
TR-268). These four PM emission rates range between 10 and 71 kg/106 dscm CFL,. The arithmetic
mean emission rate for PM is 41 kg/106 dscm CFL,. This average rate was selected as the default to
represent PM in the AP-42 update, with a "D" quality rating. The previous AP-42 section for MSW
landfills (U.S. EPA, 1998) has a default PM emission factor of 130 kg/106 dscm CH4 with a quality rating
of'D."
3.2.1.4 Total Dioxin/Furan
Five test reports (TR-188, TR-220, TR-268, TR-291, TR-292) contain measurement data for
dioxins/furans. Emissions data for one boiler test report (TR-188) were excluded from the dioxin/furan
analysis because data were only reported on a TEQ basis but total dioxin/furan on a mass basis was being
used in the analysis to determine a default emission factor. Three test reports (TR-220, TR-268, TR-291)
reveal total dioxin/furan emission rates below the method detection limit for all test runs. Based on
guidance for detection limits contained in EPA's Procedures for Preparing Emission Factor Documents
(U.S. EPA, 1997a), half of the detection limit was used to represent the average emission rate of total
dioxin/furan for these boilers.
Total dioxin/furan emission rates range from 1.4 x 10"6 to 1.5 x 10"5 kg/106 dscm CFi4. The
arithmetic mean emission rate for total dioxin/furan is 5.1 x 10"6 kg/106 dscm CH4, which was selected as
the default emission factor with a "D" quality rating for the AP-42 update. The prior AP-42 section for
MSW landfills (U.S. EPA, 1998) does not include dioxin/furan emission factors for LFG-fired boilers.
3.2.1.5 Boiler Summary
Table 3-7 contains a summary of the combustion by-product data included in the LFG-fired boiler
analysis for determining default emission factors for the AP-42 update. In addition, Table 3-7 provides
the test methods used to measure these emissions data.
A data quality rating of "A" was assigned to each of the boiler test reports listed in Table 3-7. All
of the reports containing these data included adequate detail, the methodology appeared to be sound, and
no problems were reported for the test runs. However, an overall data quality rating of "D" is
recommended for each of the four default emission factors representing combustion by-products from
boilers. This rating exemplifies the fact that the default factors were developed using "A"-rated test data
from a small number of facilities. Although no specific bias is evident, it is not clear if the boilers tested
represent a random sample of the existing LFG-fired boilers in the U.S. given that five or fewer data
points were used to determine each default emission factor.
54
-------
TABLE 3-7. LANDFILL GAS-FIRED BOILER EMISSIONS DATA
USED TO DEVELOP COMBUSTION BY-PRODUCT EMISSION FACTORS
Test Report
Reference
TR-167
TR-220
TR-268
TR-291
TR-292
Test Method
SCAQMD Method 100. 1 sampling with a CEMS
SCAQMD Method 100. 1 sampling with a CEMS
ARE Method 1-100
SCAQMD Method 100. 1 sampling with a CEMS
EPA Method 7E (CEM)
Boiler
Combustion By-
Product
NOX
NOX
NOX
NOX
NOX
NOX Default Emission Factor
1998 NOx Default Emission Factor3
TR-167
TR-220
TR-268
TR-292
SCAQMD Method 100. 1 sampling with a CEMS
SCAQMD Method 100. 1 sampling with a CEMS
ARE Method 1-100
EPA Method 10 (CEM)
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO Default Emission Factor
1998 CO Default Emission Factor3
TR-167
TR-188
TR-220
TR-268
SCAQMD Method 5. 2
Environment Canada Report EPS l/RM/8
"Reference Method for Source Testing:
Measurement of Releases of P articulate from
Stationary Sources"
SCAQMD Method 5.1
EPA Method 5
PM
PM
PM
PM
PM Default Emission Factor
1998 PM Default Emission Factor3
TR-220
TR-268
TR-291
TR-292
CARB Method 428
Modified EPA Method 5 (ASME Semi-VOST)
CARB Method 428
EPA Method 23 and EPA Method 8290
Total dioxin/furan
Total dioxin/furan
Total dioxin/furan
Total dioxin/furan
Total Dioxin/Furan Default Emission Factor
1998 Total Dioxin/Furan Default Emission Factor3
Emission Rate
(kg/106 dscm
CH.)
591
563
1,040
593
593
677
530
94
3
116
250
116
90
48
36
10
71
41
130
2.22xlO'6
1.36xlO'6
1.4xlO'6
1.53xlO'5
5. 1x10 6
Not available
Emission Rate
(lb/106 dscf
CH,)
37
35
65
37
37
42
33
6
0.2
7
16
7
5.7
3
2
1
4
3
8.2
1.38xlO'7
8. 47x1 0'8
8.93xlO'8
9.54xlO'7
3.2xl07
Not available
a - Default emission factor from the November 1998 AP-42 chapter 2.4.
3.2.2 Internal Combustion (1C) Engine Combustion By-Product Emissions - Source Characterization,
Test Methods and Results
Combustion by-product emissions data for LFG-fired 1C engines were submitted to EPA for a
total of six landfills. Nitrogen oxide and carbon monoxide emissions were sampled and reported in units
of ppm, Ib/hr, or g/m3 CH4 for all six engines. Three of the test reports also contain particulate matter
emissions data, given in g/m3 CFL^ Five engine test reports have total dioxin/furan emissions in pg
TEQ/m3, or grams per hour (g/hr). Where possible, each of the emission data points was converted to
kilograms per million dry standard cubic meters of CH4 (kg/106 dscm CFLO to result in comparable
emissions for a variety of LFG-fired engines.
55
-------
Of the six engine test reports used in the analysis, five engines (TR-189, TR-190, TR-266, TR-
272, TR-284) are Caterpillar gas engines. The remaining engine (TR-194) is aWaukeshagas engine.
In addition to the newly-submitted test reports described above, there were data from six engine
test reports used in the prior AP-42 update that were "A" or "B" quality that were also used in this
analysis. Six data points for NOX> five for CO, and one for PM were used from the prior AP-42 update
information.
3.2.2.1 Nitrogen Oxides
Three of the six test reports (TR-266, TR-272, TR-284) containing NOX emissions data were
included in the analysis to determine a default emission factor. The emission rates provided for TR-189,
TR-190, and TR-194 were excluded from the NOX analysis because samples were collected and analyzed
using a portable combustion gas analyzer, which is not considered an acceptable test method.
The maximum emission rate of 60,600 kg/106 dscm CH4 for one engine (TR-284) is a suspected
outlier when compared to the other emission rates. However, this test was witnessed by EPA staff and
was thoroughly audited. Therefore, this potential outlier was included in the analysis because no datum
should be rejected solely on the basis of statistical tests since there is a risk of rejecting an emission rate
that represents actual emissions.
Emission rates for the three engines included in the analysis, plus the six engines from the
previous AP-42 update (BID-64, -67, -68, -98, -99, -101) range from 2,440 to 60,600 kg/106 dscm CH4.
The arithmetic mean emission rate for NOX for these LFG-fired engines is 1 1,600 kg/106 dscm CH^ This
average rate was selected as the default emission factor to represent engine NOX in the AP-42 update,
with a quality rating of "C." However, the user should consider the impact of the individual data point
that is influencing this average when applying the default emission factor. For comparison, the median
value of the engine NOx data points results in a value of 4,740 kg/106 dscm CH4, which compares more
closely with the previous default factor in AP-42 (U.S. EPA, 1998). The previous default emission factor
was 4,000 kg/106 dscm CH^with a quality rating of "D."
3. 2. 2. 2 Carbon Monoxide
Three of the six engine test reports (TR-266, TR-272, TR-284) containing CO emissions data
were included in the analysis to determine a default emission factor. The emission rates provided for TR-
189, TR-190, and TR-194 were excluded from the CO analysis because samples were collected and
analyzed using a portable combustion gas analyzer, which is not considered an acceptable test method for
the AP-42 analysis. There are five emission data points from the prior AP-42 update that are included in
this analysis (BID-64, -67, -98, -99, -101).
Carbon monoxide emission rates range from 6,400 to 1 1,700 kg/106 dscm CHt. The arithmetic
mean emission rate for CO is 8,460 kg/106 dscm CH^, which was selected as the default emission factor
with a "C" quality rating for the AP-42 update. The prior default factor in AP-42 (U.S. EPA, 1998) is
7,500 kg/106 dscm CH4 with a quality rating of "C."
3.2.2.3 Particulate Matter
Particulate matter emissions are provided in three engine test reports (TR-189, TR-190, TR-194)
and one data point from the prior AP-42 update (BID-98). These four PM emission rates range between
43 and 772 kg/106 dscm CH^ The arithmetic mean emission rate for PM is 232 kg/106 dscm CH^ This
56
-------
average rate was selected as the default to represent PM in the AP-42 update, with a quality rating of "D."
The 1998 AP-42 section for MSW landfills (U.S. EPA, 1998) has a default PM emission factor of 770
kg/106 dscm CH4 with a quality rating of "E."
3.2.2.4 Total Dioxin/Furan
Five test reports (TR-189, TR-190, TR-194, TR-272, TR-284) contain measurement data for
dioxins/furans. Emissions data for three engine test reports (TR-189, TR-190, TR-194) were excluded
from the dioxin/furan analysis because data were only reported on a TEQ basis but total dioxin/furan on a
mass basis was being used in the analysis to determine a default emission factor. Emission rates for the
remaining two test reports (TR-272, TR-284) are below the method detection limit for all test runs using
EPA Method 23. The emission rates for each of these reports are <2.15 x 10"10 kg/hr (1.73 x 10"6 kg/106
dscm CHO for TR-272 and <1.12 x 10'10 kg/hr (3.92 x 10'7 kg/106 dscm CFLj) for TR-284. Therefore, a
proper analysis cannot be conducted for total dioxin/furan emissions from LFG-fired engines until
additional data become available. The prior version of the AP-42 section for MSW landfills (U.S. EPA,
1998) does not include dioxin/furan emission factors for engines.
3.2.2.5 1C Engine Summary
Table 3-8 contains a summary of the combustion by-product data included in the LFG-fired 1C
engine analysis for determining default emission factors for the AP-42 update. In addition, Table 3-8
provides the test methods used to measure these emissions data.
A data quality rating of "A" (except for BID-99 and PM for BID-98, which have "B" ratings) was
assigned to each of the 1C engine test reports listed in Table B. All of the reports containing these data
included adequate detail, the methodology appeared to be sound, and no problems were reported for the
test runs. However, overall data quality ratings of "C" for NOx and CO, and "D" for PM, are
recommended for default emission factors representing combustion by-products from engines. These
ratings exemplify the fact that the default factors were developed using "A" and "B"-rated test data from
a reasonable to small number of facilities. Although no specific bias is evident, it is not clear if the
engines tested represent a random sample of the existing LFG-fired engines in the U.S. given that
between four (PM) to nine (NOX) data points were used to determine each default emission factor.
TABLE 3-8. LANDFILL GAS-FIRED 1C ENGINE EMISSIONS DATA
USED TO DEVELOP COMBUSTION BY-PRODUCT EMISSION FACTORS
Test Report
Reference
TR-266
TR-272
TR-284
BID-64
BID-67
BID-68
BID-98
BID-99
BID-101
Test Method
SCAQMD Method 100.1 and EPA Methods 6C
andVE
EPA Method 7E (CEM)
EPA Method 7E (CEM)
EPA Method 10 (CEM)
EPA Method 10 (CEM)
EPA Method 7E (CEM)
CARB Method 1-100
Unspecified
Phenoldisulfonic Acid (PDSA) method
1C Engine
Combustion By-
Product
NOX
NOX
NOX
NOX
NOX
NOX
NOX
NOX
NOX
Emission Rate
(kg/106 dscm
CH,)
8,170
5,680
60,600
2,470
2,500
2,440
4,540
4,740
13,400
Emission Rate
(lb/106 dscf
CH,)
510
355
3,780
154
156
152
283
296
839
57
-------
TABLE 3-8 (CONTINUED). LANDFILL GAS-FIRED 1C ENGINE EMISSIONS DATA
USED TO DEVELOP COMBUSTION BY-PRODUCT EMISSION FACTORS
Test Report
Reference
Test Method
1C Engine
Combustion By-
Product
NOX Default Emission Factor
1998 NOx Default Emission Factor3
TR-266
TR-272
TR-284
BID-64
BID-67
BID-98
BID-99
BID-101
SCAQMD Method 100.1 and EPA Methods 6C
and IE
EPA Method 10 (CEM)
EPA Method 10 (CEM)
EPA Method 7E (CEM)
EPA Method 7E (CEM)
CARB Method 1-100
Unspecified
TCA method
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO Default Emission Factor
1998 CO Default Emission Factor3
TR-189
TR-190
TR-194
BID-98
Environment Canada Report EPS l/RM/8
"Reference Method for Source Testing:
Measurement of Releases of P articulate from
Stationary Sources'"
Environment Canada Report EPS l/RM/8
"Reference Method for Source Testing:
Measurement of Releases of P articulate from
Stationary Sources"
Environment Canada Report EPS l/RM/8
"Reference Method for Source Testing:
Measurement of Releases of P articulate from
Stationary Sources"
EPA Method 5
PM
PM
PM
PM
PM Default Emission Factor
1998 PM Default Emission Factor3
Emission Rate
(kg/106 dscm
CH,)
11,600
4,000
11,100
11,700
7,680
8,150
9,280
6,810
6,400
6,610
8,460
7,500
56.6
54.8
43.1
772
232
770
Emission Rate
(lb/106 dscf
CH,)
725
250
693
728
479
508
579
425
399
413
528
470
3.5
3.4
2.7
48
14.5
48
* - Default emission factor from the November 1998 AP-42 chapter 2.4.
3.2.2.6 Emission Factors in Alternate Units of Measure
The preceding tables present the emission factors in the units used for updating the MSW
Landfills section of AP-42 (U.S. EPA, 1998). However, EPA's Landfill Methane Outreach Program
(LMOP) and other organizations may require emission factors presented in units more convenient to the
LFG energy project or combustion device being studied. Therefore, Table 3-9 presents the boiler data in
units of Ib/MMBtu heat input and Ib/MWh of electricity produced, and Table 3-10 presents the engine
data in Ib/MMBtu heat input, and Ib/MWh and g/brake horsepower-hour (bhph). The heat rate assumed
in these conversions is 10,700 Btu/kWh for boilers, and 11,100 Btu/kWh for engines. These are
consistent with factors used by the LMOP program and are based on engine manufacturer's literature and
other information provided to LMOP by manufacturers and distributors. The heat content of CfL is 1,012
Btu/dscf (Perry, 1963).
58
-------
TABLE 3-9. LANDFILL GAS-FIRED BOILER EMISSIONS DATA
USED TO DEVELOP COMBUSTION BY-PRODUCT EMISSION FACTORS (ALTERNATE
UNIT FACTORS)
Test Report
Reference
TR-167
TR-220
TR-268
TR-291
TR-292
Test Method
SCAQMD Method 100. 1 sampling with a CEMS
SCAQMD Method 100. 1 sampling with a CEMS
ARE Method 1-100
SCAQMD Method 100. 1 sampling with a CEMS
EPA Method 7E (CEM)
Boiler
Combustion By-
Product
NOX
NOX
NOX
NOX
NOX
NOX Default Emission Factor
1998 NOx Default Emission Factor3
TR-167
TR-220
TR-268
TR-292
SCAQMD Method 100. 1 sampling with a CEMS
SCAQMD Method 100. 1 sampling with a CEMS
ARE Method 1-100
EPA Method 10 (CEM)
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO Default Emission Factor
1998 CO Default Emission Factor3
TR-167
TR-188
TR-220
TR-268
SCAQMD Method 5. 2
Environment Canada Report EPS l/RM/8
"Reference Method for Source Testing:
Measurement of Releases of P articulate from
Stationary Sources"
SCAQMD Method 5.1
EPA Method 5
PM
PM
PM
PM
PM Default Emission Factor
1998 PM Default Emission Factor3
TR-220
TR-268
TR-291
TR-292
CARB Method 428
Modified EPA Method 5 (ASME Semi-VOST)
CARB Method 428
EPA Method 23 and EPA Method 8290
Total dioxin/furan
Total dioxin/furan
Total dioxin/furan
Total dioxin/furan
Total Dioxin/Furan Default Emission Factor
1998 Dioxin/Furan Default Emission Factor3
Emission Rate
(Ib/MMBtu)
(fuel input)
0.04
0.03
0.06
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.03
0.01
2.0xlO'4
0.01
0.02
0.01
0.01
3.0xlO'3
2.2x1 0'3
e.oxio'4
4.4x1 0'3
2.5xl03
8. 1x10 3
1.4xlO-10
8.4X10'11
S.SxlO'11
9.4X10'10
3.1xl010
Not available
Emission Rate
(Ib/MWh)
0.4
0.4
0.7
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.3
0.1
2.1xlO'3
0.1
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.03
0.02
0.01
0.05
0.03
0.09
l.SxlO'9
9.0X10'10
9.4X10'10
l.OxlO'8
3.3 xlO 9
Not available
- Default emission factor from the November 1998 AP-42 chapter 2.4, but converted to Ib/MMBtu and Ib/kWh units using
1,012 Btu/dscf CH4 and 10,700 Btu/kWh, as discussed above.
59
-------
TABLE 3-10. LANDFILL GAS-FIRED 1C ENGINE EMISSIONS DATA USED TO DEVELOP
COMBUSTION BY-PRODUCT EMISSION FACTORS (ALTERNATE UNIT FACTORS)
Test
Report
Reference
TR-266
TR-272
TR-284
BID-64
BID-67
BID-68
BID-98
BID-99
BID-101
Test Method
SCAQMD Method 100.1 and EPA Methods
6C and 7E
EPA Method 7E (CEM)
EPA Method 7E (CEM)
EPA Method 10 (CEM)
EPA Method 10 (CEM)
EPA Method 7E (CEM)
CARB Method 1-1 00
Unspecified
Phenoldisulfonic Acid (PDSA) method
1C Engine
Combustion
By-Product
NOX
NOX
NOX
NOX
NOX
NOX
NOX
NOX
NOX
NOx Default Emission Factor
1998 NOX Default Emission Factorb
TR-266
TR-272
TR-284
BID-64
BID-67
BID-98
BID-99
BID-101
SCAQMD Method 100.1 and EPA Methods
6Cand7E
EPA Method 10 (CEM)
EPA Method 10 (CEM)
EPA Method 7E (CEM)
EPA Method 7E (CEM)
CARB Method 1-1 00
Unspecified
TCA method
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO Default Emission Factor
1998 CO Default Emission Factorb
TR-189
TR-190
TR-194
BID-98
Environment Canada Report EPS l/RM/8
"Reference Method for Source Testing:
Measurement of Releases of P articulate from
Stationary Sources"
Environment Canada Report EPS l/RM/8
"Reference Method for Source Testing:
Measurement of Releases of P articulate from
Stationary Sources"
Environment Canada Report EPS l/RM/8
"Reference Method for Source Testing:
Measurement of Releases of P articulate from
Stationary Sources"
EPA Method 5
PM
PM
PM
PM
PM Default Emission Factor
1998 PM Default Emission Facto rb
Emission
Rate
(Ib/MMBtu)
(fuel input)
0.5
0.4
3.7
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.3
0.3
0.8
0.7
0.2
0.7
0.7
0.5
0.5
0.6
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.5
0.5
3.5xlO'3
3.4xlO'3
2.7xlO'3
4.7 xlO'2
1.4xl02
4.7 xlO'2
Emission
Rate
(Ib/MWh)
5.6
3.9
41
1.7
1.7
1.7
3.1
3.2
9.2
8.0
2.7
7.6
8.0
5.3
5.6
6.4
4.7
4.4
4.5
5.8
5.2
3.9xlO'2
3.8xlO'2
3.0xlO'2
5.3x10-'
1.6x10'
5.3 xlO'1
Emission
Rate
(g/bhph)a
2.0
1.4
15
0.6
0.6
0.6
1.1
1.2
3.3
2.8
1.0
2.7
2.8
1.9
2.0
2.3
1.7
1.6
1.6
2.1
1.8
1.4xlO'2
1.3xlO'2
l.lxlO'2
1.9x10-'
5.6xl02
1.9x10'
- Per common practice, assumes a 5% energy loss from engine output in converting shaft energy to electricity.
b - Default emission factor from the November 1998 AP-42 chapter 2.4, but converted to Ib/MMBtu and Ib/kWh units using
1,012 Btu/dscf CH4 and 11,100 Btu/kWh, as discussed above.
60
-------
3.2.3 Gas Turbine Data Summary
Since the last update of the MSW Landfills section of AP-42 (U.S. EPA, 1998), no additional test
data for LFG turbines has been received by EPA. Therefore, these emission factors remain the same as in
the previous update. Supporting background information from the 1997 background information
document for turbines is included in Appendix F to this document.
References
BID-64. Report of Emission Levels and Fuel Economics for Eight Waukesha 12V-AT25GL
Units Located at the Johnston, Rhode Island Central Landfill, Waukesha Pearce Industries, Inc.
Houston, TX , July 19, 1991.
BID-67. Final Report for Emissions Compliance Testing of One Waukesha Engine Generator,
Browning-Ferris Gas Services, Inc., Chicopee, MA, February 1994.
BID-68. Final Report for Emissions Compliance Testing of Three Waukesha Engine Generators,
Browning-Ferris Gas Services, Inc., Richmond, VA, February 1994.
BID-98. Landfill Gas Engine Exhaust Emissions Test Report in Support of Modification to
Existing 1C Engine Permit at Bakersfield Landfill Unit #1, Pacific Energy Services, December 4,
1990.
BID-99. Addendum to Source Test Report for Superior Engine #1 at Otay Landfill, Pacific
Energy Services, April 2, 1991.
BID-101. Source Test Report 88-0096 of Emissions from an Internal Combustion Engine Fueled
by Landfill Gas, Toyon Canyon Landfill, Pacific Energy Lighting Systems, South Coast Air
Quality Management District, March 8, 1988.
Perry, John H., ed. Chemical Engineers Handbook. McGraw-Hill Book Company: NY, 1963,
Page 9-9.
TR-163. Compliance Testing for SPADRA Landfill Gas-to-Energy Plant, Ebasco Constructors,
Inc., November 1990.
TR-167. 1997 Annual Compliance Source Testing Results for the Coyote Canyon Landfill Gas
Recovery Facility Boiler, Laidlaw Gas Recovery Systems, January 1998.
TR-188. Characterization of Emissions from a Power Boiler Fired with Landfill Gas,
Environment Canada, Emissions Research and Measurement Division, March 2000.
TR-189. Characterization of Emissions from 925 kWe Reciprocating Engine Fired with Landfill
Gas, Environment Canada, Emissions Research and Measurement Division, December 2000.
TR-190. Characterization of Emissions from 812 kWe Reciprocating Engine Fired with Landfill
Gas, Environment Canada, Emissions Research and Measurement Division, December 1999.
TR-194. Characterization of Emissions from 1 Mwe Reciprocating Engine Fired with Landfill
Gas, Environment Canada, Emissions Research and Measurement Division, January 2002.
61
-------
TR-220. SCAQMD Performance Tests on the Spadra Energy Recovery from Landfill Gas
(SPERG) Facility, County Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County, April 1992.
TR-266. Compliance Source Test Report - Landfill Gas-Fired Engine, Minnesota Methane,
March 3, 1998.
TR-268. Emission Testing at PERG - Maximum Boiler Load, County Sanitation Districts of Los
Angeles County, December 1986.
TR-272. Source Testing Final Report - Landfill A, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Air
Pollution Prevention and Control Division, October 6, 2005.
TR-284. Source Testing Final Report - Landfill C, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Air
Pollution Prevention and Control Division, October 6, 2005.
TR-291. PCDD/PCDF Emissions Tests on the Palos Verdes Energy Recovery from Landfill Gas
(PVERG) Facility, Unit 2, County Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County, February 1994.
TR-292. Source Testing Final Report - Landfill E, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Air
Pollution Prevention and Control Division, October 2005.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (1997a). Procedures for Preparing Emission Factor
Documents ,EPA-454/R-95-015, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Research
Triangle Park, NC, November 1997.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (1998). Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors,
AP-42, Fifth Edition, Volume I: Stationary Point and Area Sources, Section 2.4 Municipal Solid
Waste Landfills, Research Triangle Park, NC, November 1998.
62
-------
3.3
CONTROL DEVICE EFFICENCY DATA
NMOC data was compiled for the various control devices and analyzed. This data consists of
"A" and "B" data from the prior Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) Landfills section of AP-42 (U.S. EPA,
1998), along with the data available from this update, all of which were rated as "A" quality. The
following table (Table 3-11) summarizes the data, which is also found in Table 2.4-3 of the AP-42
section. Appendix F contains the supporting data and calculations used to determine the control device
efficiencies.
Please note that the Landfill NSPS requirements are in 40 CFR 60.752(b)(2)(iii) for enclosed
combustion devices (e.g., enclosed flares, boilers, engines, turbines) burning untreated LFG require
reduction of NMOC by 98 weight % or reduce the outlet NMOC concentration to less than 20 ppmv, dry
basis as hexane at 3% oxygen. Therefore, although some of the data show that observed control
efficiencies may sometimes be less than 98%, the control device may still meet the regulatory
requirements by meeting the 20 ppmv limit of NMOC (dry basis as hexane at 3% oxygen).
Following the same criteria as described for the emission factors, the control device efficiency
rankings were assigned as follows: Boiler - "D;" Flare - "A;" Engine - "D;" and Turbine - "E."
TABLE 3-11. NMOC CONTROL EFFICIENCY DATA ANALYSIS SUMMARY
Boiler
Flare
Engine
Avg of Boiler, Engine, Flare
Turbine
Number of
Data Points
5
25
3
2
Min (%)
95.9
85.8
94.6
91.5
Max (%)
99.6
100.0
99.7
97.3
Mean (%)
98.6
97.7
97.2
97.8
94.4
Standard
Deviation
1.6
3.4
2.6
4.1
95%
Confidence
Interval
(ฑ %)
1.4
1.3
2.9
134.8
Historically, controlled emissions have been calculated with Equation 6. In this equation it is
assumed that the LFG collection and control system operates 100 percent of the time. Minor durations of
system downtime associated with routine maintenance and repair (i.e., 5 to 7 percent) will not appreciably
affect emission estimates. The first term in Equation 6 accounts for emissions from uncollected LFG,
while the second term accounts for emissions of the pollutant that were collected but not fully combusted
in the control or utilization device:
CMP =
UMpx
'I col
100
UMT
100
Tlcnt
100
(6)
where:
CMP = Controlled mass emissions of pollutant P, kg/yr;
UMP = Uncontrolled mass emissions of P, kg/yr (from Equation 5);
T|coi = Efficiency of the LFG collection system, % (recommended default is 75%); and
rjcnt = Efficiency of the LFG control or utilization device, %.
3.4 CONTROL DEVICE CARBON DIOXIDE, SULFUR DIOXIDE, AND HYDROGEN
CHLORIDE EMISSIONS
63
-------
Controlled emissions of CO2 and sulfur dioxide (SO2) are best estimated using site-specific LFG
constituent concentrations and mass balance methods (Nesbitt, 1996). If site-specific data are not
available, the data in Tables 2-7, 2-8 and 2-9 can be used with the mass balance methods that follow.
Controlled CO2 emissions include emissions from the CO2 component of LFG and additional CO2
formed during the combustion of LFG. The bulk of the CO2 formed during LFG combustion comes from
the combustion of the CH4 fraction. Small quantities will be formed during the combustion of the NMOC
fraction. However, this typically amounts to less than one percent of total CO2 emissions by weight. This
contribution to the overall mass balance picture is also very small and does not have a significant impact
on overall CO2 emissions (Nesbitt, 1996).
The following equation which assumes a 100% combustion efficiency for CFL, can be used to
estimate CO2 emissions from controlled landfills:
CMC02 = UMC02+[UMCH4 x^x2.75J (7)
V /
where:
CMco2 = Controlled mass emissions of CO2, kg/yr (from Equation 5);
UMco2 = Uncontrolled mass emissions of CO2, kg/yr (from Equation 5);
UMcH4 = Uncontrolled mass emissions of CIL,, kg/yr;
T|coi = Efficiency of the LFG collection system, % (recommended default is 75%);
and
2.75 = Ratio of the molecular weight of CO2 to the molecular weight of CFL,.
To prepare estimates of SO2 emissions, data on the concentration of reduced sulfur compounds
within the LFG are needed. The best way to prepare this estimate is with site-specific information on the
total reduced sulfur content of the LFG. Often these data are expressed in ppmv as sulfur (S). Equations
4 and 5 should be used first to determine the uncontrolled mass emission rate of reduced sulfur
compounds as sulfur. Then, the following equation can be used to estimate SO2 emissions:
CMsn =UMsxLx2.0 (8)
2 100
where:
CMso, = Controlled mass emissions of SO2, kg/yr;
UMS = Uncontrolled emissions of reduced sulfur compounds as sulfur, kg/yr;
T|coi = Efficiency of the LFG collection system, %; and
2.0 = Ratio of the molecular weight of SO2 to the molecular weight of S.
The next best method to estimate SO2 concentrations, if site-specific data for total reduced sulfur
compounds as sulfur are not available, is to use site-specific data for speciated reduced sulfur compound
concentrations. These data can be converted to ppmv as S with Equation 9. After the total reduced sulfur
as S has been obtained from Equation 9, then Equations 4, 5, and 8 can be used to derive SO2 emissions.
64
-------
pxSp (9)
1=1
where:
Cs = Concentration of total reduced sulfur compounds, ppmv as S (for use in Equation 4);
Cp = Concentration of each reduced sulfur compound, ppmv;
Sp = Number of moles of S produced from the combustion of each reduced sulfur compound
(i.e., 1 for sulfides, 2 for disulfides); and
n = Number of reduced sulfur compounds available for summation.
If no site-specific data are available, values of 47 and 33 ppmv can be used for Cs in the gas from
landfills having a majority of the waste in place before 1992 and from landfills having a majority of the
waste in place after 1992, respectively. These values were obtained by using the default concentrations
presented in Tables 2-9 and 2-7 for reduced sulfur compounds and Equation 9.
Hydrochloric acid [hydrogen chloride (HC1)] emissions are formed when chlorinated compounds
in LFG are combusted in control equipment. The best methods to estimate HC1 emissions are mass
balance methods that are analogous to those presented above for estimating SO2 emissions. Hence, the
best source of data to estimate HC1 emissions is site-specific LFG data on total chloride [expressed in
ppmv as the chloride ion (Cl~)]. However, emission estimates may be underestimated, since not every
chlorinated compound in the LFG will be represented in the site test report (i.e., only those that the
analytical method specifies). If these data are not available, then total chloride can be estimated from data
on individual chlorinated species using Equation 10 below.
where:
Ccl = Concentration of total chloride, ppmv as Cl" (for use in Equation 4);
Cp = Concentration of each chlorinated compound, ppmv;
Clp = Number of moles of Cl" produced from the combustion of each mole of chlorinated
compound (i.e., 3 for 1,1,1-trichloroethane); and
n = Number of chlorinated compounds available for summation.
After the total chloride concentration (CCi) has been estimated, Equations 4 and 5 should be used
to determine the total uncontrolled mass emission rate of chlorinated compounds as chloride ion (UMC1).
This value is then used in Equation 11, below, to derive HC1 emission estimates:
(11)
where:
CMHC1 = Controlled mass emissions of HCI, kg/yr;
UMC1 = Uncontrolled mass emissions of chlorinated compounds as chloride, kg/yr (from
Equations 4 and 5);
T|coi = Efficiency of the LFG collection system, percent;
1 .03 = Ratio of the molecular weight of HCI to the molecular weight of Cl"; and
r|cnt = Control efficiency of the LFG control or utilization device, percent.
65
-------
In estimating HC1 emissions, it is assumed that all of the chloride ion from the combustion of
chlorinated LFG constituents is converted to HC1. If an estimate of the control efficiency, r|cnt, is not
available, then the control efficiency for the equipment listed in Table 3-11 should be used. This
assumption is recommended to assume that HC1 emissions are not under-estimated.
If site-specific data on total chloride or speciated chlorinated compounds are not available, then
default values of 42 and 74 ppmv can be used for Ca in the gas from landfills having a majority of the
waste in place before 1992 and from landfills having a majority of the waste in place after 1992,
respectively. These values were derived from the default LFG constituent concentrations presented in
Tables 2-11 and 2-8. As mentioned above, use of this default may produce underestimates of HC1
emissions since it is based only on those compounds for which analyses have been performed. The
constituents listed in Table 2-11 and 2-8 are likely not all of the chlorinated compounds present in LFG.
References
Letter and attached documents from C. Nesbitt, Los Angeles County Sanitation Districts, to K.
Brust, E.H. Pechan and Associates, Inc., December 6, 1996.
66
-------
4.0 MERCURY EMISSIONS DATA ANALYSIS
4.1 MERCURY IN RAW LANDFILL GAS
Mercury concentration data for raw LFG were submitted to EPA for a total of 17 landfills. These
landfills are represented by nine emissions test reports because one test report (TR-211) contains mercury
data for eight landfills in the state of Washington and another (TR-293) contains data for two landfills.
This Washington report includes multiple measurements for two of the landfills sampled (TR-21 la, TR-
21 If) because the LFG streams are split between the flare and the energy recovery facility at each landfill.
A single average concentration for each of these landfills was calculated to represent each landfill so as
not to disproportionately affect the overall average concentration being determined to estimate mercury
emissions for an average landfill.
Total mercury, elemental mercury, monomethyl mercury, and dimethyl mercury are the four
forms of mercury sampled and analyzed at these 17 landfills. Mercury concentrations are reported in
either nanograms per cubic meter (ng/m3) or milligrams per dry standard cubic foot (mg/dscf). These
concentrations were converted to common units of parts per million by volume (ppmv), assuming
standard conditions of 20 ฐC and one atmosphere.
4.1.1 Total Mercury
All nine of the test reports (TR-196, TR-211, TR-212, TR-272, TR-273, TR-284, TR-287, TR-
292, TR-293), representing 17 landfills, contain measurement data for total mercury. Concentrations for
two landfills were excluded from the total mercury analysis because samples were collected from a
leachate well open to the atmosphere for one landfill (TR-21 Ic) and from a passive gas well, with
ambient air present, for another landfill (TR-21 Id).
Total mercury was sampled and analyzed using EPA Method 1631 for 14 of the 17 landfills. The
test report for the landfill (TR-196) used CARB Draft Method 436 (adopted as CARB Method 436 in July
1997), Determination of Multiple Metals Emissions from Stationary Sources, to determine total mercury
concentration. This test report reveals total mercury concentrations below the method detection limit
(<4.08 x 10~6 ppmv) for all three test runs. Based on guidance for detection limits contained in EPA's
Procedures for Preparing Emission Factor Documents (U.S. EPA, 1997a), half of the detection limit (2.04
x 10"6 ppmv) was used to represent the average concentration of total mercury for this landfill. This
concentration represents the minimum concentration used in the analysis. Another test report (TR-293)
used method SW-846 Method 7473, "Mercury in Solids and Solutions by Thermal Decomposition,
Mercury Amalgamation, and Atomic Adsorption Spectroscopy" and CFR Part 60 Method 3 OB,
"Determination of Total Vapor Phase Mercury Emissions from Coal-Fired Combustion Sources Using
Carbon Sorbent Tubes" to determine total mercury.
Total mercury concentrations for the 15 landfills included in the analysis range from 2.04 x 10"6
to 9.61 x 10"4 ppmv. The maximum concentration of 9.61 x 10"4 ppmv for one landfill (TR-21 Ig) is a
suspected outlier when compared to the other concentrations. However, the maximum concentration was
included in the analysis because no datum should be rejected solely on the basis of statistical tests since
there is a risk of rejecting a concentration that represents actual emissions. The test report containing this
suspected outlier (TR-211) is for eight landfills in the state of Washington. This report states that total
mercury levels observed at these Washington landfills are in the range of 25 to 8,000 ng/m3 (3.0 x 10"6 to
9.6 x 10"4 ppmv) which generally agrees with concentrations previously reported by Lindberg et al., 2001.
The arithmetic mean concentration for total mercury for the 13 landfills is 1.2 x 10"4ppmv. This
average concentration was selected as the default to represent total mercury in the AP-42 update. The
67
-------
previous default concentration in AP-42 (U.S. EPA, 1998) is 2.92 x 10" ppmv with a quality rating of
"E."
4.1.2 Elemental Mercury
Six test reports (TR-272, TR-273, TR-284, TR-287, TR-292, TR-293), representing seven
landfills, include elemental mercury concentrations that were measured by the LUMEX Instrument.
Elemental mercury concentrations range from 7.0 x 10~6 to 3.9 x 10~4 ppmv. The arithmetic mean
concentration for elemental mercury is 7.7 x 10~5 ppmv, which was selected as the default concentration
for the AP-42 update. The previous version of the AP-42 section for MSW landfills (U.S. EPA, 1998)
does not include elemental mercury because no data were available to speciate total mercury into the
elemental form.
4.1.3 Monomethy 1 Mercury
Monomethyl mercury concentrations are contained in seven test reports (TR-212, TR-272, TR-
273, TR-284, TR-287, TR-292, TR-293) representing eight landfills. Five of these were sampled and
analyzed using EPA draft method 1630. One test report (TR-293) used cold-vapor atomic fluorescence
spectroscopy (CVAFS). The overall range of concentrations is 4.5 x 10"8 to 2.0 x 10"6 ppmv. The
arithmetic mean concentration for monomethyl mercury for the six landfills is 3.8 x 10"7 ppmv. This
average concentration was selected as the default to represent total mercury in the AP-42 update. The
prior AP-42 section for MSW landfills (U.S. EPA, 1998) does not include monomethyl mercury because
no data were available to speciate total mercury into the organic forms.
4.1.4 Dimethyl Mercury
Eight test reports (TR-211, TR-212, TR-272, TR-273, TR-284, TR-287, TR-292, TR-293),
representing 16 landfills, contain measurement data for dimethyl mercury. Concentrations for two
landfills were excluded from the dimethyl mercury analysis because samples were collected from a
leachate well open to the atmosphere for one landfill (TR-21 Ic) and from a passive gas well, with
ambient air present, for another landfill (TR-21 Id). Concentrations thought to be biased low were
excluded for two additional landfills (TR-272, TR-273) because spike recoveries are well below normally
acceptable levels.
Dimethyl mercury was sampled and analyzed using EPA Method 1630 Appendix A for five test
reports. The remaining test report, representing two landfills, used CVAFS.
Dimethyl mercury concentrations range from 2.3 x 10" to 5.5 x 10" ppmv. The arithmetic mean
concentration for dimethyl mercury is 2.5 x 10"6 ppmv, which was selected as the default concentration
for the AP-42 update. The prior version of the AP-42 section for MSW landfills (U.S. EPA, 1998) does
not include dimethyl mercury because no data were available to speciate total mercury into the organic
forms.
4.1.5 Mercury Data Summary
Table 4-1 contains a summary of the mercury data included in the raw LFG analysis for
determining default concentrations for the AP-42 update. Appendix E presents statistical data graphs of
the mercury data.
A data quality rating of "A" was assigned to each of the individual mercury test data contained in
Table 4-1. All of the reports containing these data included adequate detail, the methodology appeared to
68
-------
be sound, and no problems were reported for the valid test runs. An overall data quality rating of "B" for
each of the four default concentrations representing each mercury compound is recommended. This
rating exemplifies the fact that the default concentrations were developed from "A"-rated test data from a
moderate number of facilities. Although no specific bias is evident, is not clear if the landfills tested
represent a random sample of landfills in the U.S. In addition, less than 20 data points were used to
determine each default concentration.
TABLE 4-1. RAW LANDFILL GAS MERCURY DATA USED TO DETERMINE AP-42
DEFAULT CONCENTRATIONS
Test Report
Reference
TR-211a
TR-211b
TR-211e
TR-211f
TR-211g
TR-211h
TR-212
TR-284
TR-287
TR-292
TR-293a
TR-293b
Mercury Test Method
EPA Method 1630 Appendix A
EPA Method 1630 Appendix A
EPA Method 1630 Appendix A
EPA Method 1630 Appendix A
EPA Method 1630 Appendix A
EPA Method 1630 Appendix A
EPA Method 1630 Appendix A
EPA Method 1630 Appendix A
EPA Method 1630 Appendix A
EPA Method 1630 Appendix A
CVAFS
CVAFS
Mercury
Compound
Dimethyl
Dimethyl
Dimethyl
Dimethyl
Dimethyl
Dimethyl
Dimethyl
Dimethyl
Dimethyl
Dimethyl
Dimethyl
Dimethyl
Dimethyl Mercury Default Concentration
TR-272
TR-273
TR-284
TR-287
TR-292
TR-293a
TR-293b
LUMEX Instrument
LUMEX Instrument
LUMEX Instrument
LUMEX Instrument
LUMEX Instrument
LUMEX Instrument
LUMEX Instrument
Elemental
Elemental
Elemental
Elemental
Elemental
Elemental
Elemental
Elemental Mercury Default Concentration
TR-212
TR-272
TR-273
TR-284
TR-287
TR-292
TR-293a
TR-293b
EPA Draft Method 1631
EPA Draft Method 1630
EPA Draft Method 1630
EPA Draft Method 1630
EPA Draft Method 1630
EPA Draft Method 1630
CVAFS
CVAFS
Monomethyl
Monomethyl
Monomethyl
Monomethyl
Monomethyl
Monomethyl
Monomethyl
Monomethyl
Monomethyl Mercury Default Concentration
Concentration
(ppmv)
1.9xlO'6
l.lOxlO'6
7.4 xlO'7
2.59 xlO'6
4.81 x 10'6
3.00 x 10'6
3.97X10'6
1.54X10'6
5.32 x 10'6
5.48 x 10'6
2.3xlO'7
6.8 xlO'7
2.5 x ID'6
3.69 x 10'5
7.0 xlO'6
1.2xlO'5
3.33 x 10'5
5.28 x 10'5
3.9 xlO'4
5.6 xlO'6
7.7 x 10s
1.446xlO'7
4xlO'8
l.SxlO'7
4.4 xlO'7
2.76 x 10'7
6.0 xlO'7
1.4 xlO'6
2.0 xlO'6
3.8 x 10 7
69
-------
TABLE 4-1 (CONTINUED). RAW LANDFILL GAS MERCURY DATA USED TO DETERMINE
AP-42 DEFAULT CONCENTRATIONS
Test Report
Reference
TR-196
TR-211a
TR-211b
TR-211e
TR-211f
TR-211g
TR-211h
TR-212
TR-272
TR-273
TR-284
TR-287
TR-292
TR-293a
TR-293b
Mercury Test Method
CARB Draft Method 436
EPA Method 1631
EPA Method 1631
EPA Method 1631
EPA Method 1631
EPA Method 1631
EPA Method 1631
EPA Method 1631
EPA Method 1631
EPA Method 1631
EPA Method 1631
EPA Method 1631
EPA Method 1631
SW-846 Method 7473 / CFR Part 60 Method 30B
SW-846 Method 7473 / CFR Part 60 Method 30B
Mercury
Compound
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total Mercury Default Concentration
Concentration
(ppmv)
2.04 x 10'6
5.41 x 10'6
1. 4098X10'4
1.13xlO"5
2.767 xlO'5
9.6083 x ID'4
3.029xlO'5
4.89xlQ-5
7.58 xlO'5
2.45 x 10'5
S.lOxlO'5
8.87xlO'5
1.751x10-"
6.0 xlO'4
5.2 xlO'6
1.2 x 10 4
4.2 POST-COMBUSTION MERCURY EMISSIONS
Burning LFG in combustion devices (control devices), including flares, engines, turbines, and
boilers, may change the chemical species of mercury originally in the raw LFG but does not reduce the
total quantity of mercury released. The amount of total mercury released from any combustion outlet is
directly related to the amount of total mercury contained in the raw LFG. In other words, mercury
emissions from landfills will be released to the atmosphere regardless of whether the LFG is combusted.
However, combustion of LFG can convert organic forms of mercury, such as dimethyl mercury and
monomethyl mercury, to less toxic inorganic forms, such as elemental mercury (Lindberg et al, 2001).
The previous version of the AP-42 section for MSW landfills (U.S. EPA, 1998) has the following
footnote for Table 2.4-3. Control Efficiencies for LFG Constituents: "For any equipment, the control
efficiency for mercury should be assumed to be 0." However, we note that use of activated carbon
control technology (e.g., fixed beds) is capable of achieving significant reductions in mercury emission
rates. This technology is used for the control of mercury emissions from small municipal waste and
hospital incinerator units. It is uncertain whether this particular technology is feasible for LFG
combustion applications.
Total mercury concentrations from combustion outlets were provided for five landfills (TR-272,
TR-273, TR-284, TR-287, TR-292), representing outlet emissions from two flares, two engines, and one
boiler. Total mercury was measured using EPA Method 29 for all five landfills. Concentrations for four
of these landfills (TR-272, TR-273, TR-284, TR-287) are below the method detection limit for all three
test runs. Based on guidance for detection limits contained in EPA's Procedures for Preparing Emission
Factor Documents (U.S. EPA, 1997a), half of the detection limit should be used to represent the average
concentration of total mercury for each of these four landfills. However, these halved concentrations are
greater than the detect value for the total mercury concentration from the remaining landfill tested (TR-
292). Therefore, as directed in the EPA procedures document, these four halved concentrations should
not be used in determining a default concentration for post-combustion total mercury emissions. In
70
-------
addition, elemental mercury concentrations were provided for post-combustion engine emissions from
two landfills (TR-272, TR-284), using the LUMEX Instrument.
Due to the limited post-combustion mercury data provided and the knowledge that mercury in
raw LFG is not destroyed through combustion but rather converted from organic to inorganic forms, it is
recommended that default concentrations for post-combustion mercury emissions not be developed at this
time. If additional data become available, then these factors may be explored further.
References
Bloom, N.S. 1999. Method validation study for dimethyl mercury in air. Final report for US
Army Corps of Engineers. Available from Frontier Geosciences, Seattle, WA.
Bloom, N.S., and W.F. Fitzgerald. 1988. Determination of volatile mercury species at the
picogram level by low-temperature gas chromatography with cold-vapour atomic fluorescence
detection. Analytica Chimica Acta 208:151.
Carpi, A., S.E. Lindberg, E.M. Prestbo, and N.S. Bloom. 1997. Methyl mercury contamination
and emission to the atmosphere from soil amended with municipal sewage sludge. Journal of
Environmental Quality 26:1650-1655.
Lindberg, S.E., D. Wallschlager, E.M. Prestbo, N.S. Bloom, J. Price, and D. Reinhart. 2001.
Methylated mercury species in municipal waste landfill gas sampled in Florida, USA.
Atmospheric Environment 35:4011-4015.
TR-196. Results of the Biennial Criteria and AB 2588 Air Toxics Source Test on the Simi Valley
Landfill Flare, Simi Valley Landfill and Recycling Center, April 1997.
TR-211. Determination of Total and Dimethyl Mercury in Raw Landfill Gas with Site Screening
for Elemental Mercury at Eight Washington State Landfills, Washington State Department of
Ecology, July 2003.
TR-212. Determination of Total, and Monomethyl Mercury in Raw Landfill Gas at the Central
Solid Waste Management Center, Delaware Solid Waste Authority, February 2003.
TR-272. Source Testing Final Report - Landfill A, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Air
Pollution Prevention and Control Division, October 6, 2005.
TR-273. Source Testing Final Report - Landfill B, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Air
Pollution Prevention and Control Division, October 6, 2005.
TR-284. Source Testing Final Report - Landfill C, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Air
Pollution Prevention and Control Division, October 6, 2005.
TR-287. Source Testing Final Report - Landfill D, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Air
Pollution Prevention and Control Division, October 6, 2005.
TR-292. Source Testing Final Report - Landfill E, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Air
Pollution Prevention and Control Division, October 2005.
71
-------
TR-293. Quantifying Uncontrolled Air Emissions From Two Florida Landfills - Draft Final
Report. U.S. EPA Air Pollution Prevention and Control Division, March 26, 2008.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (1997a). Procedures for Preparing Emission Factor
Documents ,EPA-454/R-95-015, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Research
Triangle Park, NC, November 1997.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (1998). Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors,
AP-42, Fifth Edition, Volume I: Stationary Point and Area Sources, Section 2.4 Municipal Solid
Waste Landfills, Research Triangle Park, NC, November 1998.
72
-------
5.0 AP-42 SECTION 2.4
Section 2.4 of AP-42 is presented in the following pages as it would appear in the AP-42 update. Please
note that until this is formally released through EPA's Technology Transfer Network (TTN)
Clearinghouse for Inventories & Emissions (http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ap42/). the factors and
information contained in this section are regarded as draft.
2.4 MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE LANDFILLS
2.4.1 General1'4
A municipal solid waste (MSW) landfill unit is a discrete area of land or an excavation that
receives household waste, and that is not a land application unit, surface impoundment, injection well, or
waste pile. An MSW landfill unit may also receive other types of wastes, such as commercial solid
waste, nonhazardous sludge, and industrial solid waste. In addition to household and commercial wastes,
the other waste types potentially accepted by MSW landfills include (most landfills accept only a few of
the following categories):
X Municipal sludge,
X Municipal waste combustion ash,
X Infectious waste,
X Small-quantity generated hazardous waste;
X Waste tires,
X Industrial non-hazardous waste,
X Conditionally exempt small quantity generator (CESQG) hazardous waste,
X Construction and demolition waste,
X Agricultural wastes,
X Oil and gas wastes, and
X Mining wastes.
The information presented in this section applies only to landfills which receive primarily MSW. This
information is not intended to be used to estimate emissions from landfills which receive large quantities
of other waste types such as industrial waste, or construction and demolition wastes. These other wastes
exhibit emissions unique to the waste being landfilled.
In the United States in 2006, approximately 55 percent of solid waste was landfilled, 13 percent
was incinerated, and 32 percent was recycled or composted. There were an estimated 1,754 active MSW
landfills in the United States in 2006. These landfills were estimated to receive 138 million tons of waste
annually, with 55 to 60 percent reported as household waste, and 35 to 45 percent reported as commercial
79
waste.
2.4.2 Process Description
2,5
The majority of landfills currently use the "area fill" method which involves placing waste on a
landfill liner, spreading it in layers, and compacting it with heavy equipment. A daily soil cover is spread
over the compacted waste to prevent wind-blown trash and to protect the trash from scavengers and
vectors. The landfill liners are constructed of soil (i.e., recompacted clay) and synthetics (i.e., high density
polyethylene) to provide an impermeable barrier to leachate (i.e., water that has passed through the
73
-------
landfill) and gas migration from the landfill. Once an area of the landfill is completed, it is covered with a
"cap" or "final cover" composed of various combinations of clay, synthetics, soil and cover vegetation to
control the incursion of precipitation, the erosion of the cover, and the release of gases and odors from the
landfill.
2.4.3 Control Technology2'5'6
The New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) and Emission Guidelines for air emissions from
MSW landfills for certain new and existing landfills were published in the Federal Register on March 1,
1996. Current versions of the NSPS and Emission Guidelines can be found at 40 CFR 60 subparts WWW
and Cb, respectively. The regulation requires that Best Demonstrated Technology (BDT) be used to
reduce MSW landfill emissions from affected new and existing MSW landfills if (1) the landfill has a
design capacity of 2.5 million Mg (2.75 million tons) and 2.5 million cubic meters or more, and (2) the
calculated uncontrolled emissions from the landfill are greater than or equal to 50 Mg/yr (55 tons/yr) of
nonmethane organic compounds (NMOCs). The MSW landfills that are affected by the NSPS/Emission
Guidelines are each new MSW landfill, and each existing MSW landfill that has accepted waste since
November 8, 1987 or that has capacity available for future use. Control systems require: (1) a well-
designed and well-operated gas collection system, and (2) a control device capable of reducing non-
methane organic compounds (NMOCs) in the collected gas by 98 weight-percent (or to 20 ppmv, dry
basis as hexane at 3% oxygen for an enclosed combustion device). Other compliance options include use
of a flare that meets specified design and operating requirements or treatment of landfill gas (LFG) for
use as a fuel. The National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) for MSW
landfills was published in the Federal Register on January 16, 2003. It requires control of the same
landfills, and the same types of gas collection and control systems as the NSPS. The NESHAP also
requires earlier control of bioreactor landfills and contains a few additional reporting requirements for
MSW landfills.
Landfill gas collection systems consist of a series of vertical or horizontal perforated pipes that
penetrate the waste mass and collect the gases produced by the decaying waste. These collection systems
are classified as either active or passive systems. Active collection systems use mechanical blowers or
compressors to create a vacuum in the collection piping to optimize the collection of LFG. Passive
systems use the natural pressure gradient established between the encapsulated waste and the atmosphere
to move the gas through the collection system.
LFG control and treatment options include: (1) combustion of the LFG, and (2) treatment of the
LFG for subsequent sale or use. Combustion techniques include techniques that do not recover energy
(i.e., flares and thermal incinerators), and techniques that recover energy and generate electricity from the
combustion of the LFG (i.e., gas turbines and reciprocating engines). Boilers can also be employed to
recover energy from LFG in the form of steam. Flares combust the LFG without the recovery of energy,
and are classified by their burner design as being either open or enclosed. Purification techniques are
used to process raw LFG to either a medium-BTU gas using dehydration and filtration or as a higher-
BTU gas by removal of inert constituents using adsorption, absorption, and membranes.
2.4.4 Emissions2'7
Methane (CH4) and carbon dioxide (CO2) are the primary constituents of LFG, and are produced
by microorganisms within the landfill under anaerobic conditions. Transformations of CFL, and CO2 are
mediated by microbial populations that are adapted to the cycling of materials in anaerobic environments.
Landfill gas generation proceeds through four phases. The first phase is aerobic [i.e., with oxygen (O2)
available from air trapped in the waste] and the primary gas produced is CO2. The second phase is
characterized by O2 depletion, resulting in an anaerobic environment, where large amounts of CO2 and
some hydrogen (H2) are produced. In the third phase, CFL, production begins, with an accompanying
74
-------
reduction in the amount of CO2 produced. Nitrogen (N2) content is initially high in LFG in the first
phase, and declines sharply as the landfill proceeds through the second and third phases. In the fourth
phase, gas production of CH4, CO2, and N2 becomes fairly steady. The duration of each phase and the
total time of gas generation vary with landfill conditions (i.e., waste composition, design management,
and anaerobic state).
Typically, LFG also contains NMOC and volatile organic compounds (VOC). NMOC result
from either decomposition by-products or volatilization of biodegradable wastes. Although NMOC are
considered trace constituents in LFG, the NMOC and VOC emission rates could be "major" with respect
to Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) and New Source Review (NSR) requirements. This
NMOC fraction often contains various organic hazardous air pollutants (FฃAP), greenhouse gases (GHG),
compounds associated with stratospheric ozone depletion and volatile organic compounds (VOC).
However, in MSW landfills where contaminated soils from storage tank cleanups are used as daily cover,
much higher levels of NMOC have been observed. As LFG migrates through the contaminated soil, it
adsorbs the organics, resulting in the higher concentrations of NMOC and any other contaminant in the
soil. In one landfill where contaminated soil was used as daily cover, the NMOC concentration in the
LFG was 5,870 ppm as compared to the AP-42 average value of 838 ppm. While there is insufficient
data to develop a factor or algorithm for estimating NMOC from contaminated daily cover, the emissions
inventory developer should be aware to expect elevated NMOC concentrations from these landfills.
Other emissions associated with MSW landfills include combustion products from LFG control
and utilization equipment (i.e., flares, engines, turbines, and boilers). These include carbon monoxide
(CO), oxides of nitrogen (NOX), sulfur dioxide (SO2), hydrogen chloride (HC1), particulate matter (PM)
and other combustion products (including HAPs). PM emissions can also be generated in the form of
fugitive dust created by mobile sources (i.e., garbage trucks) traveling along paved and unpaved surfaces.
The reader should consult AP-42 Volume I Sections 13.2.1 and 13.2.2 for information on estimating
fugitive dust emissions from paved and unpaved roads.
One pollutant that can very greatly between landfills is hydrogen sulfide (H2S). H2S is normally
present in LFG at levels ranging from 0 to 90 ppm, with an average concentration of 33 ppm. However, a
recent trend at some landfills has been the use of construction and demolition waste (C&D) as daily
cover. Under certain conditions that are not well understood, some microorganisms will convert the
sulfur in the wall-board of C&D waste to H2S. At these landfills, H2S concentrations can be significantly
higher than at landfills that do not use C&D waste as daily cover. While H2S measurements are not
available for landfills using C&D for daily cover, the State of New Hampshire among others have noted
elevated H2S odor problems at these landfills and have assumed that H2S concentrations have increased,
similarly. In a series of studies at 10 landfills in Florida where a majority of the waste is composed of
C&D material, the concentration of H2S concentration spanned a range from less than the detection limit
of the instrument (0.003 ppmv) up to 12,000 ppmv.8 Another study that was conducted used flux boxes
to measure uncontrolled emissions of H2S at five landfills in Florida. This study reported a range of H2S
emissions between 0.192 and 1.76 mg/(m2-d).9 At any MSW landfill where C&D waste was used as
daily cover or was comingled with the MSW, it is recommended that direct H2S measurements be used to
develop specific H2S emissions for the landfill.
The rate of emissions from a landfill is governed by gas production and transport mechanisms.
Production mechanisms involve the production of the emission constituent in its vapor phase through
vaporization, biological decomposition, or chemical reaction. Transport mechanisms involve the
transportation of a volatile constituent in its vapor phase to the surface of the landfill, through the air
boundary layer above the landfill, and into the atmosphere. The three major transport mechanisms that
enable transport of a volatile constituent in its vapor phase are diffusion, convection, and displacement.
75
-------
Although relatively uncommon, fires can occur on the surface of the landfill or underground. The
smoke from a landfill fire frequently contains many dangerous chemical compounds, including: carbon
monoxide, particulate matter and hazardous gases that are the products of incomplete combustion, and
very elevated concentrations of the many gaseous constituents normally occurring in LFG. Of particular
concern in landfill fires is the emission of dioxins/furans. Accidental fires at landfills and the
uncontrolled burning of residential waste are considered the largest sources of dioxin emissions in the
United States.10 The composition of the gases from landfill fires is highly variable and dependent on
numerous site specific factors, including: the composition of the material burning, the composition of the
surrounding waste, the temperature of the burning waste, and the presence of oxygen. The only reliable
method for estimating the emissions from a landfill fire involves testing the emissions directly. More
information is available on landfill fires and their emissions from reference 11.
2.4.4.1 Uncontrolled Emissions Several methods have been developed by EPA to determine the
uncontrolled emissions of the various compounds present in LFG. The newest measurement method is
optical remote sensing with radial plume mapping (ORS-RPM). This method uses an optical emission
detector such as open-path Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy (FTIR), ultraviolet differential
absorption spectroscopy (UV-DOAS), or open-path tunable diode laser absorption spectroscopy (OP-
TDLAS); coupled with radial plume mapping software that processes path-integrated emission
concentration data and meteorological data to yield an estimate of uncontrolled emissions. More
information on this newest method is described in Evaluation of Fugitive Emissions Using Ground-Based
Optical Remote Sensing Technology (EPA/600/R-07/032).12 Additional research is ongoing to provide
additional guidance on the use of optical remote sensing for application at landfills. Evaluating
uncontrolled emissions from landfills can be a challenge. This is due to the changing nature of landfills,
scale and complexity of the site, topography, and spatial and temporal variability in emissions.
Additional guidance is being developed for application of EPA's test method for area sources emissions.
This is expected to be released by the spring of 2009. For more information, refer to the Emission
Measurement Center of EPA's Technology Transfer Network
Oittp ://www.epa. gov/ttn/emc/tmethods .html). Additional information on ORS technology can also be
found on EPA's website for Measurement and Monitoring Technologies for 21st Century (21M2) which
provided funding to identify improved technologies for quantifying area source emissions
(http://www.clu-in.org/programs/21m2/openpath/).
Often flux data are used to evaluate LFG collection efficiency. The concern with the use of this data is
that it does not capture emission losses from header pipes or extraction wells. The other concern is that
depending upon the design of the study, the emission variability across a landfill surface is not captured.
Emission losses can occur from cracks and fissures or difference in landfill cover material. Often,
alternative cover material is used to help promote infiltration, particularly for wet landfill operation. This
can result in larger loss of fugitive emissions. Another loss of landfill gas is through the leachate
collection pumps and wells. For many of these potential losses, a flux box is not considered adequate to
capture the total loss of fugitive gas. The use of ORS technology is considered more reliable.
When direct measurement data are not available, the most commonly used EPA method to
estimate the uncontrolled emissions associated with LFG is based on a biological decay model. In this
method, the generation of CFL, must first be estimated by using a theoretical first-order kinetic model of
CH4 production developed by the EPA13:
QCH4 = 1.3L0R(e"KC-e"Kt) (1)
where:
QCH4 = Methane generation rate at time t, m3/yr;
76
-------
L0 = Methane generation potential, m3 CH/Mg of "wet" or "as received" refuse;
R = Average annual refuse acceptance rate during active life, Mg of "wet" or "as received"
refuse /yr;
e = Base log, unitless;
k = Methane generation rate constant, yr"1 ;
c = Time since landfill closure, yrs (c = 0 for active landfills); and
t = Time since the initial refuse placement, yrs.
When annual refuse acceptance data is available, the following form of Equation (1) is used. This
is the general form of the equation that is used in EPA's Landfill Gas Emissions Model (LandGEM). Due
to the complexity of the double summation, Equation (lalt) is normally implemented within a computer
model. Equation (1 alt.) is more accurate because it accounts for the varying annual refuse flows and it
calculates each year's gas flow in Vioth year increments.
CH4 Z k Lฐ T e"" (
i=l j=0.1
where:
QCH = Methane generation rate at time t, m3/yr;
L0 = Methane generation potential, m3 CIL/Mg of "wet" or "as received" refuse;
R = Annual refuse acceptance rate for year i, Mg of "wet" or "as received" refuse /yr;
e = Base log, unitless;
k = Methane generation rate constant, yr"1;
c = Time since landfill closure, yrs (c = 0 for active landfills); and
t = Time since the initial refuse placement, yrs.
i = year in life of the landfill
j = V^ year increment in the calculation.
It should be noted that Equation (1) is provided for estimating CIL, emissions to the atmosphere.
Other fates may exist for the gas generated in a landfill, including capture and subsequent microbial
degradation within the landfill's surface layer. Currently, there are no data that adequately address this
fate. It is generally accepted that the bulk of the CH4 generated will be emitted through cracks or other
openings in the landfill surface and that Equation (1) can be used to approximate CtL, emissions from an
uncontrolled landfill. It should also be noted that Equation (1) is different from the equation used in other
models such as LandGEM by the addition of the constant 1.3 at the front of the equation. This constant is
included to compensate for L0 which is typically determined by the amount of gas collected by LFG
collection systems. The design of these systems will typically result in a gas capture efficiency of only
75%. Therefore, 25% of the gas generated by the landfill is not captured and included in the development
of L0. The ratio of total gas to captured gas is a ratio of 100/75 or equivalent to 1.3.
Site-specific landfill information is generally available for variables R, c, and t. When refuse
acceptance rate information is scant or unknown, R can be determined by dividing the refuse in place by
the age of the landfill. If a facility has documentation that a certain segment (cell) of a landfill received
only nondegradable refuse, then the waste from this segment of the landfill can be excluded from the
calculation of R. Nondegradable refuse includes concrete, brick, stone, glass, plaster, wallboard, piping,
plastics, and metal objects. The average annual acceptance rate should only be estimated by this method
when there is inadequate information available on the actual average acceptance rate. The time variable,
t, includes the total number of years that the refuse has been in place (including the number of years that
the landfill has accepted waste and, if applicable, has been closed).
77
-------
Values for variables L0 and k are normally estimated. Estimation of the potential CFL, generation
capacity of refuse (L0) is generally treated as a function of the moisture and organic content of the refuse.
Estimation of the CFL, generation constant (k) is a function of a variety of factors, including moisture, pH,
temperature, and other environmental factors, and landfill operating conditions.
Recommended AP-42 defaults fork are:
k Value
0.02
0.04
0.3
Landfill Conditions
Areas receiving <25 inches/yr rainfall
Areas receiving >25 inches/yr rainfall
Wet landfills14
For the purpose of the above table, wet landfills are defined as landfills which add large amounts of water
to the waste. This added water may be recycled landfill leachates and condensates, or may be other
sources of water such as treated wastewater.
The CFL, generation potential, L0 has been observed to vary from 6 to 270 m3/Mg (200 to 8670
ft3/ton), depending on the organic content of the waste material. A higher organic content results in a
higher L0. Food, textiles, paper, wood, and horticultural waste have the highest L0 value on a dry basis,
while inert materials such as glass, metal and plastic have no L0 value.2 Since moisture does not
contribute to the value of L0, a high moisture content waste, such as food or organic sludge, will have a
lower L0 on an "as received" basis. When using Equation 1 to estimate emissions for typical MSW
landfills in the U.S., a mean L0 value of 100 m3/Mg refuse (3,530 ft3 /ton, "as received" basis) is
recommended.
There is a significant level of uncertainty in Equation 2 and its recommended defaults values for k
and L0 The recommended defaults k and L0 for conventional landfills, based upon the best fit to 40
different landfills, yielded predicted CH4 emissions that ranged from -30 to 400% of measured values and
had a relative standard deviation of 0.73 (Table 2-2). The default values for wet landfills were based on a
more limited set of data and are expected to contain even greater uncertainty.
When gas generation reaches steady state conditions, LFG consists of approximately equal
volumes of CO2 and CFi4. LFG also typically contains as much as five percent N2 and other gases, and
trace amounts of NMOCs. Since the flow of CO2 is approximately equal to the flow of CFL,, the estimate
derived for CFL, generation using Equation (1) can also be used to estimate CO2 generation. Addition of
the CFL, and CO2 emissions will yield an estimate of total LFG emissions. If site-specific information is
available on the actual CFL, and CO2 contents of the LFG, then the site-specific information should be
used.
Most of the NMOC emissions from landfills result from the volatilization of organic compounds
contained in the landfilled waste. Small amounts may also be created by biological processes and
chemical reactions within the landfill. Available data show that the range of values for total NMOC in
LFG is from 31 ppmv to over 5,387 ppmv, and averages 838 ppmv. The proposed regulatory default of
4,000 ppmv for NMOC concentration was developed for regulatory compliance purposes and is
considered more conservative. For emissions inventory purposes, site-specific information should be
taken into account when determining the total NMOC concentration, whenever available. Measured
pollutant concentrations (i.e., as measured by EPA Reference Method 25C), must be corrected for air
infiltration which can occur by two different mechanisms: LFG sample dilution and air intrusion into the
landfill. These corrections require site-specific data for the LFG CH4, CO2, N2, and O2 content. If the
ratio of N2 to O2 is less than or equal to 4.0 (as found in ambient air), then the total pollutant concentration
78
-------
is adjusted for sample dilution by assuming that CO2 and CH2 are the primary constituents of LFG
(assumed to account for 100% of the LGF), and the following equation is used:
Cp (corrected for air infiltration) = - - (2)
where:
CP = Concentration of pollutant? in LFG (i.e., NMOC as hexane), ppmv;
Cco = CO2 concentration in LFG, ppmv;
QCH4 = CFL, Concentration in LFG, ppmv; and
1 x 106 = Constant used to correct concentration of P to units of ppmv.
If the ratio of N2 to O2 concentrations (i.e., CN2, C02) is greater than 4.0, then the total pollutant
concentration should be adjusted for air intrusion into the landfill by using Equation (2) and adding the
concentration of N2 (i.e., CN2) to the denominator. Values for CCo2, CCH4, CN2, C02, can usually be found
in the source test report for the particular landfill along with the total pollutant concentration data.
To estimate uncontrolled emissions of NMOC or other LFG constituents, the following equation
should be used:
- QcH4 X CP
CCH4x(lxl06)
where:
QP = Emission rate of pollutant P (i.e., NMOC), nvVyr;
QcH4 = CFL, generation rate, m3/yr (from Equation 1);
CP = Concentration of pollutant P in LFG, ppmv; and
CCH4 = Concentration of CFL, in the LFG (assumed to be 50% expressed as 0.5)
Uncontrolled mass emissions per year of total NMOC (as hexane) and speciated organic and
inorganic compounds can be estimated by the following equation:
TTA_ ,_ MWpxlatm
UMp=Qpx E (4)
(8.205xlO~5 m3 -atm/gmol- ฐK) x (lOOOg/kg) x (273+ T)
where:
UMP = Uncontrolled mass emissions of pollutant P (i.e., NMOC), kg/yr;
MWp = Molecular weight of P, g/gmol (i.e., 86.18 for NMOC as hexane);
QP = Emission rate of pollutant P, m3/yr; and
T = Temperature of LFG, ฐC.
This equation assumes that the operating pressure of the system is approximately 1 atmosphere.
If the temperature of the LFG is not known, a temperature of 25 ฐC (77 ฐF) is recommended.
Uncontrolled default concentrations of VOC, NMOC and speciated compounds are presented in
Table 2.4-1 for landfills having a majority of the waste in place on or after 1992 and in Table 2.4-2 for
landfills having a majority of the waste in place before 1992. These default concentrations have already
been corrected for air infiltration and can be used as input parameters to Equation (3) for estimating
79
-------
emissions from landfills when site-specific data are not available. An analysis of the data, based on the
co-disposal history (with non-residential wastes) of the individual landfills from which the concentration
data were derived, indicates that for benzene, NMOC, and toluene, there is a difference in the
uncontrolled concentrations.
It is important to note that the compounds listed in Tables 2.4-1 and 2.4-2 are not the only
compounds likely to be present in LFG. The listed compounds are those that were identified through a
review of the available landfill test reports. The reader should be aware that additional compounds are
likely present, such as those associated with consumer or industrial products. Given this information,
extreme caution should be exercised in the use of the default emission concentrations given in Tables 2.4-
1 and 2.4-2. Available data have shown that there is a range of over two orders of magnitude in many of
the pollutant concentrations among gases from various MSW landfills.
2.4.4.2 Controlled Emissions Emissions from landfills are typically controlled by installing a gas
collection system, and either combusting the collected gas through the use of internal combustion engines,
flares, or turbines, or by purifying the gas for direct use in place of a fuel such as natural gas. Gas
collection systems are not 100% efficient in collecting LFG, so emissions of CFL, and NMOC at a landfill
with a gas recovery system still occur. To estimate controlled emissions of CFL,, NMOC, and other
constituents in LFG, the collection efficiency of the system must first be estimated. Reported collection
efficiencies typically range from 50 to 95%, with a default efficiency of 75% recommended by EPA for
inventory purposes. The lower collection efficiencies are experienced at landfills with a large number of
open cells, no liners, shallow soil covers, poor collection system and cap maintenance programs and/or a
large number of cells without gas collection. The higher collection efficiencies may be achieved at closed
sites employing good liners, extensive geomembrane-clay composite caps in conjunction with well
engineered gas collection systems, and aggressive operation and maintenance of the cap and collection
system. If documented site-specific collection efficiencies are available (i.e., through a comprehensive
surface sampling program), then they may be used instead of the 75% average. An analysis showing a
range in the gas collection system taking into account delays from gas collection from initial waste
placement is provided in Section 2.0.
Estimates of controlled emissions may also need to account for the control efficiency of the
control device. Control efficiencies for NMOC and VOC based on test data for the combustion of LFG
with differing control devices are presented in Table 2.4-3. As noted in the table, these control
efficiencies may also be applied to other LFG constituents. Emissions from the control devices need to be
added to the uncollected emissions to estimate total controlled emissions.
Controlled CFL,, NMOC, VOC, and speciated emissions can be determined by either of two
methods developed by EPA. The newest method is the optical remote sensing with radial plume mapping
(ORS-RPM). This method uses an optical emission detector such as open-path Fourier transform infrared
spectroscopy (FTIR), ultraviolet differential absorption spectroscopy (UV-DOAS), or open-path tunable
diode laser absorption spectroscopy (OP-TDLAS); coupled with radial plume mapping software that
processes path-integrated emission concentration data and meteorological data to yield an estimate of
uncontrolled emissions. More information on this newest method is described in Evaluation of Fugitive
Emissions Using Ground-Based Optical Remote Sensing Technology (EPA/600/R-07/032).12
Historically, controlled emissions have been calculated with Equation 5. In this equation it is
assumed that the LFG collection and control system operates 100 percent of the time. Minor durations of
system downtime associated with routine maintenance and repair (i.e., 5 to 7 percent) will not appreciably
effect emission estimates. The first term in Equation 5 accounts for emissions from uncollected LFG,
while the second term accounts for emissions of the pollutant that were collected but not fully combusted
in the control or utilization device:
80
-------
CM =
UMDx 1
100
100
1-
100
(5)
where:
CMP = Controlled mass emissions of pollutant P, kg/yr;
UMp = Uncontrolled mass emissions of P, kg/yr (from Equation 4);
T|coi = Efficiency of the LFG collection system, % (recommended default is 75%); and
T|cnt = Efficiency of the LFG control or utilization device, %.
Emission factors for the secondary compounds, CO, PM, NOX and dioxins/furans exiting the
control device are presented in Table 2.4-4. These emission factors should be used when equipment
vendor emission guarantees are not available.
Controlled emissions of CO2 and sulfur dioxide (SO2) are best estimated using site-specific LFG
constituent concentrations and mass balance methods.15 If site-specific data are not available, the data in
Tables 2.4-1 and 2.4-2 can be used with the mass balance methods that follow.
Controlled CO2 emissions include emissions from the CO2 component of LFG and additional CO2
formed during the combustion of LFG. The bulk of the CO2 formed during LFG combustion comes from
the combustion of the CH4 fraction. Small quantities will be formed during the combustion of the NMOC
fraction. However, this typically amounts to less than 1 percent of total CO2 emissions by weight. Also,
the formation of CO through incomplete combustion of LFG will result in small quantities of CO2 not
being formed. This contribution to the overall mass balance picture is also very small and does not have a
significant impact on overall CO2 emissions.
The following equation which assumes a 100% combustion efficiency for CFL, can be used to
estimate CO2 emissions from controlled landfills:
CMC02 = UMC02
- UM^
x 2.75
(6)
where:
CMCo2
UMCQ2
UMCH4
Tjcol
2.75
Controlled mass emissions of CO2, kg/yr;
Uncontrolled mass emissions of CO2, kg/yr (from Equation 4);
Uncontrolled mass emissions of CFL,, kg/yr (from Equation 4);
Efficiency of the LFG collection system, % (recommended default is 75%);
and
Ratio of the molecular weight of CO2 to the molecular weight of CFL,.
To prepare estimates of SO2 emissions, data on the concentration of reduced sulfur compounds
within the LFG are needed. The best way to prepare this estimate is with site-specific information on the
total reduced sulfur content of the LFG. Often these data are expressed in ppmv as sulfur (S). Equations
3 and 4 should be used first to determine the uncontrolled mass emission rate of reduced sulfur
compounds as sulfur. Then, the following equation can be used to estimate SO2 emissions:
CMSO =
80
100
(7)
81
-------
where:
CMso, = Controlled mass emissions of SO2, kg/yr;
UMS = Uncontrolled emissions of reduced sulfur compounds as sulfur, kg/yr (from
Equations 3 and 4);
T|coi = Efficiency of the LFG collection system, %; and
2.0 = Ratio of the molecular weight of SO2 to the molecular weight of S.
The next best method to estimate SO2 concentrations, if site-specific data for total reduced sulfur
compounds as sulfur are not available, is to use site-specific data for speciated reduced sulfur compound
concentrations. These data can be converted to ppmv as S with Equation 8. After the total reduced sulfur
as S has been obtained from Equation 8, then Equations 3, 4, and 7 can be used to derive SO2 emissions.
Cs=JTcpxSP (8)
1=1
where:
Cs = Concentration of total reduced sulfur compounds, ppmv as S (for use in Equation 3);
Cp = Concentration of each reduced sulfur compound, ppmv;
Sp = Number of moles of S produced from the combustion of each reduced sulfur compound
(i.e., 1 for sulfides, 2 for disulfides); and
n = Number of reduced sulfur compounds available for summation.
If no site-specific data are available, values of 47 and 33 ppmv can be used for Cs in the gas from
landfills having a majority of the waste in place before 1992 and from landfills having a majority of the
waste in place after 1992, respectively. These values were obtained by using the default concentrations
presented in Tables 2.4-1 and 2.4-2 for reduced sulfur compounds and Equation 8.
Hydrochloric acid [Hydrogen Chloride (HC1)] emissions are formed when chlorinated
compounds in LFG are combusted in control equipment. The best methods to estimate HC1 emissions are
mass balance methods that are analogous to those presented above for estimating SO2 emissions. Hence,
the best source of data to estimate HC1 emissions is site-specific LFG data on total chloride [expressed in
ppmv as the chloride ion (Cl~)]. However, emission estimates may be underestimated, since not every
chlorinated compound in the LFG will be represented in the site test report (i.e., only those that the
analytical method specifies). If these data are not available, then total chloride can be estimated from data
on individual chlorinated species using Equation 9 below.
where:
Ccl = Concentration of total chloride, ppmv as Cl" (for use in Equation 3);
Cp = Concentration of each chlorinated compound, ppmv;
Clp = Number of moles of Cl" produced from the combustion of each mole of chlorinated
compound (i.e., 3 for 1,1,1-trichloroethane); and
n = Number of chlorinated compounds available for summation.
After the total chloride concentration (CCi) has been estimated, Equations 3 and 4 should be used
to determine the total uncontrolled mass emission rate of chlorinated compounds as chloride ion (UMCi).
This value is then used in Equation 10, below, to derive HC1 emission estimates:
82
-------
CMHn = UMn x 2L x 1.03 x L (10)
HCl Cl 10Q 10Q
where:
CMHC1 = Controlled mass emissions of HCl, kg/yr;
UMC1 = Uncontrolled mass emissions of chlorinated compounds as chloride, kg/yr (from
Equations 3 and 4);
T|coi = Efficiency of the LFG collection system, percent;
1.03 = Ratio of the molecular weight of HCl to the molecular weight of Cl"; and
r|cnt = Control efficiency of the LFG control or utilization device, percent.
In estimating HCl emissions, it is assumed that all of the chloride ion from the combustion of
chlorinated LFG constituents is converted to HCl. If an estimate of the control efficiency, r|cnt, is not
available, then the control efficiency for the equipment listed in Table 2.4-3 should be used. This
assumption is recommended to assume that HCl emissions are not under-estimated.
If site-specific data on total chloride or speciated chlorinated compounds are not available, then
default values of 42 and 74 ppmv can be used for CCi in the gas from landfills having a majority of the
waste in place before 1992 and from landfills having a majority of the waste in place after 1992,
respectively. These values were derived from the default LFG constituent concentrations presented in
Tables 2.4-1 and 2.4-2. As mentioned above, use of this default may produce underestimates of HCl
emissions since it is based only on those compounds for which analyses have been performed. The
constituents listed in Table 2.4-1 and 2.4-2 are likely not all of the chlorinated compounds present in
LFG.
The reader is referred to AP-42 Volume I, Sections 13.2.1 and 13.2.2 for information on
estimating fugitive dust emissions from paved and unpaved roads, and to Section 13.2.3 for information
on estimating fugitive dust emissions from heavy construction operations; and to AP-42 Volume II
Section II-7 for estimating exhaust emissions from construction equipment.
2.4.5 Updates Since the Fifth Edition
The Fifth Edition was released in January 1995. The November 1998 revision includes major
revisions of the text and recommended emission factors contained in the section. The most significant
revisions to this section since publication in the Fifth Edition are summarized below.
X The equations to calculate the CFL,, CO2 and other constituents were simplified.
X The default L0 and k were revised based upon an expanded base of gas generation data.
X The default ratio of CO2 to CIL, was revised based upon averages observed in available source
test reports.
X The default concentrations of LFG constituents were revised based upon additional data.
References 16-148 are the emission test reports from which data were obtained for this section.
X Additional control efficiencies were included and existing efficiencies were revised based upon
additional emission test data.
83
-------
X Revised and expanded the recommended emission factors for secondary compounds emitted from
typical control devices.
The current (i.e., 2008) update includes text revisions and additional discussion, as well as revised
recommended emission factors contained within the section. The more significant revisions are
summarized below:
X Default concentrations of LFG constituents were developed for landfills with the majority of their
waste in place on or after 1992 (proposal of RCRA Subtitle D). The LFG constituent list from
the last update reflects data from landfills with waste in place prior to 1992, so Table 2.4-2 was
renamed to reflect this.
X Control efficiencies were updated to incorporate additional emission test data and the table was
revised to show the NMOC and VOC control efficiencies.
X Revised and expanded the recommended emission factors for secondary compounds emitted from
typical control devices.
X The description of modern landfills and statistics about waste disposition in the U.S. were
updated with 2006 information.
X EPA's newest measurement method for determining landfill emissions, Optical Remote Sensing
with Radial Plume Mapping (ORS-RPM), was added to the discussion of available options for
measuring landfill emissions.
X A factor of 1.3 was added to Equation (1) to account for the fact that L0 is typically determined by
the amount of CH4 collected at landfills using equipment that typically has a capture efficiency of
only 75%.
X A k value of 0.3 was added to the list of recommended k values for use in Equation (1) to more
accurately model landfill gas emissions from wet landfills.
Table 2.4-1. DEFAULT CONCENTRATIONS FOR LFG CONSTITUENTS FOR LANDFILLS
WITH WASTE IN PLACE ON OR AFTER 1992
Compound
NMOC (as hexane)a
VOC"
1,1,1 -Trichloroethane0
1 ,1 ,2,2-Tetrachloroethaneฐ
l,l,2,3,4,4-Hexachloro-l,3-butadiene
(Hexachlorobutadiene)0
1 ,1 ,2-Trichloro-l ,2,2-Trifluoroethane
(FreonllS)
1,1,2-Trichloroethane0
1 , 1 -Dichloroethane0
1 , 1 -Dichloroethene (1,1-
Dichloroethylene)0
1 ,2,3-Trimethylbenzene
1 ,2,4-Trichlorobenzeneฐ
CAS Number
71556
79345
87683
76131
79005
75343
75354
526738
120821
Molecular Weight
86.18
NA
133.40
167.85
260.76
187.37
133.40
98.96
96.94
120.19
181.45
Default
Concentration
(ppmv)
8.38E+02
8.35E+02
2.43E-01
5.35E-01
3.49E-03
6.72E-02
1.58E-01
2.08E+00
1.60E-01
3.59E-01
5.51E-03
Recommended
Emission Factor
Rating
A
A
A
E
D
C
D
A
A
D
C
84
-------
1 ,2,4-Trimethylbenzene
1,2-Dibromoethane (Ethylene
dibromide)0
1,2-Dichloro- 1,1,2,2-
tetrafluoroethane (Freon 114)
1,2-Dichloroethane (Ethylene
dichloride)0
1 ,2-Dichloroethene
1 ,2-Dichloropropaneฐ
1 ,2-Diethylbenzene
1 ,3 ,5-Trimethylbenzene
1,3 -Butadiene (Vinyl ethylene)0
1 ,3 -Diethylbenzene
1 ,4-Diethylbenzene
1,4-Dioxane (1,4-Diethylene
dioxide)0
1-Butene / 2-Methylbutene
1-Butene / 2-Methylpropene
l-Ethyl-4-methylbenzene (4-Ethyl
toluene)
l-Ethyl-4-methylbenzene (4-Ethyl
toluene) + 1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene
1-Heptene
1-Hexene / 2-Methyl-l-pentene
1 -Methy Icy clohexene
1 -Methy Icyclopentene
1-Pentene
1-Propanethiol (n-Propyl mercaptan)
2,2,3 -Trimethylbutane
2,2,4-Trimethylpentane0
2,2,5-Trimethylhexane
2,2-Dimethylbutane
2,2-Dimethylpentane
2,2-Dimethylpropane
2,3 ,4-Trimethylpentane
2,3 -Dimethylbutane
2,3 -Dimethylpentane
2,4-Dimethylhexane
2,4-Dimethylpentane
2,5-Dimethylhexane
2,5-Dimethylthiophene
2-Butanone (Methyl ethyl ketone)0
2-Ethyl-l-butene
2-Ethylthiophene
2-Ethyltoluene
2-Hexanone (Methyl butyl ketone)
2-Methyl- 1 -butene
2-Methyl-l-propanethiol (Isobutyl
mercaptan)
2-Methyl-2 -butene
95636
106934
76142
107062
540590
78875
135013
108678
106990
141935
105055
123911
106989/513359
106989/115117
622968
622968 / 108678
592767
592416/763291
591491
693890
109671
107039
464062
540841
3522949
75832
590352
463821
565753
79298
565593
589435
108087
592132
638028
78933
760214
872559
611143
591786
563462
513440
513359
120.19
187.86
170.92
98.96
96.94
112.99
134.22
120.19
54.09
134.22
134.22
88.11
56.11/70.13
56.11
120.19
120.19
98.19
84.16
96.17
82.14
70.13
76.16
100.20
114.23
128.26
86.18
100.20
72.15
114.23
86.18
100.20
114.23
100.20
114.23
112.19
72.11
84.16
112.19
120.19
100.16
70.13
90.19
70.13
1.37E+00
4.80E-03
1.06E-01
1.59E-01
1.14E+01
5.20E-02
1.99E-02
6.23E-01
1.66E-01
6.55E-02
2.62E-01
8.29E-03
1.22E+00
1.10E+00
9.89E-01
5.79E-01
6.25E-01
8.88E-02
2.27E-02
2.52E-02
2.20E-01
1.25E-01
9.19E-03
6.14E-01
1.56E-01
1.56E-01
6.08E-02
2.74E-02
3.12E-01
1.67E-01
3.10E-01
2.22E-01
l.OOE-01
1.66E-01
6.44E-02
4.01E+00
1.77E-02
6.29E-02
3.23E-01
6.13E-01
1.79E-01
1.70E-01
3.03E-01
B
B
B
A
E
D
D
C
C
D
D
D
D
E
C
D
E
D
D
D
D
A
D
D
D
D
D
E
D
D
D
D
D
D
E
C
D
E
D
E
D
E
D
85
-------
Table 2.4-l(CONTINUED). DEFAULT CONCENTRATIONS FORLFG CONSTITUENTS FOR LANDFILLS
WITH WASTE IN PLACE ON OR AFTER 1992
Compound
2-Methyl-2-propanethiol (tert-
Butylmercaptan)
2-Methylbutane
2-Methylheptane
2-Methylhexane
2-Methylpentane
2-Propanol (Isopropyl alcohol)
3 ,6-Dimethyloctane
3-Ethyltoluene
3 -Methyl- 1 -pentene
3-Methylheptane
3-Methylhexane
3-Methylpentane
3 -Methy Ithiophene
4-Methyl- 1 -pentene
4-Methyl-2-pentanone (MIBK)C
4-Methylheptane
Acetaldehyde0
Acetone
Acetonitrile0
Acrylonitrileฐ'd
Benzene0
Benzyl chloride0
Bromodichloromethane
Bromomethane (Methyl bromide)0
Butane
Carbon disulfide0
Carbon monoxide
Carbon tetrachloride0
Carbon tetrafluoride (Freon 14)
Carbonyl sulfide (Carbon oxysulfide)0
Chlorobenzene
Chlorodifluoromethane (Freon 22)ฐ
Chloroethane (Ethyl chloride)0
Chloromethane (Methyl chloride)0
cis- ,2-Dichloroethene
cis- ,2-Dimethylcyclohexane
cis- ,3-Dichloropropene
cis- ,3-Dimethylcyclohexane
cis- ,4-Dimethylcyclohexane / trans-
1 ,3 -Dimethylcyclohexane
cis-2-Butene
cis-2-Heptene
cis-2-Hexene
cis-2-Octene
cis-2-Pentene
cis-3 -Methy 1-2 -pentene
Cyclohexane
Cyclohexene
CAS Number
75661
78784
592278
591764
107835
67630
15869940
620144
760203
589811
589344
96140
616444
691372
108101
589537
75070
67641
75058
107131
71432
100447
75274
74839
106978
75150
630080
56235
75730
463581
108907
75456
75003
74873
156592
2207014
10061015
638040
624293 / 2207036
590181
6443921
7688213
7642048
627203
922623
110827
110838
Molecular Weight
90.19
72.15
114.23
100.20
86.18
60.10
142.28
120.19
84.16
114.23
100.20
86.18
98.17
84.16
100.16
114.23
44.05
58.08
41.05
53.06
78.11
126.58
163.83
94.94
58.12
76.14
28.01
153.82
88.00
60.08
112.56
86.47
64.51
50.49
96.94
112.21
110.97
112.21
112.21
56.11
98.19
84.16
112.21
70.13
84.16
84.16
82.14
Default Concentration
(ppmv)
3.25E-01
2.26E+00
7.16E-01
8.16E-01
6.88E-01
1.80E+00
7.85E-01
7.80E-01
6.99E-03
7.63E-01
1.13E+00
7.40E-01
9.25E-02
2.33E-02
8.83E-01
2.49E-01
7.74E-02
6.70E+00
5.56E-01
BDL
2.40E+00
1.81E-02
8.78E-03
2.10E-02
6.22E+00
1.47E-01
2.44E+01
7.98E-03
1.51E-01
1.22E-01
4.84E-01
7.96E-01
3.95E+00
2.44E-01
1.24E+00
8.10E-02
3.03E-03
5.01E-01
2.48E-01
1.05E-01
2.45E-02
1.72E-02
2.20E-01
4.79E-02
1.79E-02
1.01E+00
1.84E-02
Recommended
Emission Factor Rating
E
D
D
D
D
C
D
D
D
D
D
D
E
E
C
D
D
C
A
A
A
E
C
C
A
C
A
E
A
A
D
B
B
B
D
D
D
D
D
E
D
D
D
D
B
D
86
-------
Table 2.4-l(CONTINUED). DEFAULT CONCENTRATIONS FORLFG CONSTITUENTS FOR LANDFILLS
WITH WASTE IN PLACE ON OR AFTER 1992
Compound
Cyclopentane
Cyclopentene
Decane
Dibromochloromethane
Dibromomethane (Methylene dibromide)
Dichlorobenzeneฐ'e
Dichlorodifluoromethane (Freon 12)
Dichloromethane (Methylene chloride)0
Diethyl sulfide
Dimethyl disulfide
Dimethyl sulfide
Dodecane (n-Dodecane)
Ethane
Ethanol
Ethyl acetate
Ethyl mercaptan (Ethanediol)
Ethyl methyl sulfide
Ethylbenzene0
Formaldehyde0
Heptane
Hexane0
Hydrogen sulfide
Indane (2,3-Dihydroindene)
Isobutane (2-Methylpropane)
Isobutylbenzene
Isoprene (2 -Methyl- 1,3 -butadiene)
Isopropyl mercaptan
Isopropylbenzene (Cumene)0
Mercury (total)0
Mercury (elemental)0
Mercury (monomethyl)0
Mercury (dimethyl)0
Methanethiol (Methyl mercaptan)
Methyl tert-butyl ether (MTBE)ฐ
Methylcyclohexane
Methylcyclopentane
Naphthalene0
n-Butylbenzene
Nonane
n-Propylbenzene (Propylbenzene)
Octane
3-Cymene (l-Methyl-4-
Isopropylbenzene)
Pentane
Propane
Propene
Propyne
sec-Butylbenzene
CAS Number
287923
142290
124185
124481
74953
106467
75718
75092
352932
624920
75183
112403
74840
64175
141786
75081
624895
100414
50000
142825
110543
7783064
496117
75285
538932
78795
75332
98828
7439976
7439976
51176126
627441
74931
1634044
108872
96377
91203
104518
111842
103651
111659
99876
109660
74986
115071
74997
135988
Molecular Weight
70.13
68.12
142.28
208.28
173.84
147.00
120.91
84.93
90.19
94.20
62.14
170.33
30.07
46.07
88.11
62.14
76.16
106.17
30.03
100.20
86.18
34.08
34.08
58.12
134.22
68.12
76.16
120.19
200.59
200.59
216.63
258.71
48.11
88.15
98.19
84.16
128.17
134.22
128.26
120.19
114.23
134.22
72.15
44.10
42.08
40.06
134.22
Default Concentration
(ppmv)
2.21E-02
1.21E-02
3.80E+00
1.51E-02
8.35E-04
9.40E-01
1.18E+00
6.15E+00
8.62E-02
1.37E-01
5.66E+00
2.21E-01
9.05E+00
2.30E-01
1.88E+00
1.98E-01
3.67E-02
4.86E+00
1.17E-02
1.34E+00
3.10E+00
3.20E+01
6.66E-02
8.16E+00
4.07E-02
1.65E-02
1.75E-01
4.30E-01
1.22E-04
7.70E-05
3.84E-07
2.53E-06
1.37E+00
1.18E-01
1.29E+00
6.50E-01
1.07E-01
6.80E-02
2.37E+00
4.13E-01
1.08E+00
3.58E+00
4.46E+00
1.55E+01
3.32E+00
3.80E-02
6.75E-02
Recommended
Emission Factor Rating
D
D
D
D
E
A
B
A
E
A
A
D
D
D
C
A
E
B
D
B
B
A
D
D
D
D
A
D
B
C
C
B
A
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
C
C
D
E
D
87
-------
Table 2.4-l(CONTINUED). DEFAULT CONCENTRATIONS FORLFG CONSTITUENTS FOR LANDFILLS
WITH WASTE IN PLACE ON OR AFTER 1992
Compound
Styrene (Vinylbenzene)0
retrachloroethylene
(Perchloroethylene)0
retrahydrofuran (Diethylene oxide)
Thiophene
Toluene (Methyl benzene)0
trans- 1 ,2-Dichloroethene
trans- 1 ,2-Dimethylcyclohexane
trans- 1 ,3 -Dichloropropene
trans- 1 ,4-Dimethylcyclohexane
trans-2-Butene
trans-2-Heptene
trans-2-Hexene
trans-2-Octene
trans-2-Pentene
trans-3 -Methyl-2-pentene
rribromomethane (Bromoform)0
rrichloroethylene (Trichloroethene)0
Trie hlorofluoro methane (Freon 11)
rrichloromethane (Chloroform)0
Undecane
Vinyl acetate0
Vinyl chloride (Chloroethene)0
Xylenes (o-, m-, p-, mixtures)
CAS Number
100425
127184
109999
110021
108883
156605
6876239
10061026
2207047
624646
14686136
4050457
13389429
646048
616126
75252
79016
91315616
8013545
1120214
85306269
75014
8026093
Molecular Weight
104.15
165.83
72.11
84.14
92.14
96.94
112.21
110.97
112.21
56.11
98.19
84.16
112.21
70.13
84.16
252.73
131.39
137.37
119.38
156.31
86.09
62.50
106.17
Default
Concentration
(ppmv)
4.11E-01
2.03E+00
9.69E-01
3.49E-01
2.95E+01
2.87E-02
4.04E-01
9.43E-03
2.05E-01
1.04E-01
2.50E-03
2.06E-02
2.41E-01
3.47E-02
1.55E-02
1.24E-02
8.28E-01
2.48E-01
7.08E-02
1.67E+00
2.48E-01
1.42E+00
9.23E+00
Recommended
Emission Factor
Rating
B
A
C
E
A
C
D
D
D
D
E
D
D
D
D
D
A
B
A
D
C
A
A
NOTE: This is not an all-inclusive list of potential LFG constituents, only those for which test data were available
at multiple sites. References 83-148.
a For NSPS/Emission Guideline compliance purposes, the default concentration for NMOC as specified in the final
rule must be used.
b Calculated as 99.7% of NMOC, based on speciated emission test data.
0 Hazardous Air Pollutant listed in Title III of the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments.
d All tests below detection limit. Method detection limits are available for three tests, and are as follows: MDL = 2.00E-04,
4.00E-03, and 2.00E-02 ppm
e Many source tests did not indicate whether this compound was the ortho-, meta-, or para- isomer. The para isomer
is a Title III listed HAP.
Table 2.4-2. DEFAULT CONCENTRATIONS FOR LFG CONSTITUENTS FOR LANDFILLS WITH
WASTE IN PLACE PRIOR TO 1992 (SCC 50100402, 50300603)
Compound
NMOC (as hexane)6
Co-disposal (SCC 50300603)
No or Unknown co-disposal (SCC 50100402)
1,1,1-Trichloroethane (methyl chloroform/
1 ,1 ,2,2-Tetrachloroethanea
1,1-Dichloroethane (ethylidene dichloride)a
1,1-Dichloroethene (vinylidene chloride)3
Molecular Weight
86.18
133.42
167.85
98.95
96.94
Default Concentration
(ppmv)
2,420
595
0.48
1.11
2.35
0.20
Emission Factor Rating
D
B
B
C
B
B
88
-------
Table 2.4-2 (CONTINUED). DEFAULT CONCENTRATIONS FOR LFG CONSTITUENTS FOR
LANDFILLS WITH WASTE IN PLACE PRIOR TO 1992
(SCC 50100402, 50300603)
Compound
1,2-Dichloroethane (ethylene dichloride)3
1,2-Dichloropropane (propylene dichloride)3
2-Propanol (isopropyl alcohol)
Acetone
Acrylonitrile3
Benzene3
Co-disposal (SCC 50300603)
No or Unknown co-disposal (SCC 50100402)
Bromodichloromethane
Butane
Carbon disulfide3
Carbon monoxideb
Carbon tetrachloride3
Carbonyl sulfide3
Chlorobenzene3
Chlorodifluoromethane
Chloroethane (ethyl chloride)3
Chloroform3
Chloromethane
Dichlorobenzene0
Dichlorodifluoromethane
Dichlorofluoromethane
Dichloromethane (methylene chloride)3
Dimethyl sulfide (methyl sulfide)
Ethane
Ethanol
Ethyl mercaptan (ethanethiol)
Ethylbenzene3
Ethylene dibromide
Fluorotrichloromethane
Hexane3
Hydrogen sulfide
Mercury (total)3'd
Methyl ethyl ketone3
Methyl isobutyl ketone3
Methyl mercaptan
Molecular Weight
98.96
112.98
60.11
58.08
53.06
78.11
163.83
58.12
76.13
28.01
153.84
60.07
112.56
86.47
64.52
119.39
50.49
147
120.91
102.92
84.94
62.13
30.07
46.08
62.13
106.16
187.88
137.38
86.18
34.08
200.61
72.11
100.16
48.11
Default Concentration
(ppmv)
0.41
0.18
50.1
7.01
6.33
11.1
1.91
3.13
5.03
0.58
141
0.004
0.49
0.25
1.30
1.25
0.03
1.21
0.21
15.7
2.62
14.3
7.82
889
27.2
2.28
4.61
0.001
0.76
6.57
35.5
2.92xlO'4
7.09
1.87
2.49
Emission Factor
Rating
B
D
E
B
D
D
B
C
C
C
E
B
D
C
C
B
B
B
E
A
D
A
C
C
E
D
B
E
B
B
B
E
A
B
C
89
-------
Table 2.4-2 (CONTINUED). DEFAULT CONCENTRATIONS FOR LFG CONSTITUENTS FOR
LANDFILLS WITH WASTE IN PLACE PRIOR TO 1992 (SCC 50100402, 50300603)
Compound
Pentane
Perchloroethylene (tetrachloroethylene)3
Propane
t- 1 ,2-dichloroethene
Toluene3
Co-disposal (SCC 50300603)
No or Unknown co-disposal (SCC 50100402)
Trichloroethylene (trichloroethene)3
Vinyl chloride3
Xylenes3
Molecular Weight
72.15
165.83
44.09
96.94
92.13
131.38
62.50
106.16
Default Concentration
(ppmv)
3.29
3.73
11.1
2.84
165
39.3
2.82
7.34
12.1
Emission Factor
Rating
C
B
B
B
D
A
B
B
B
NOTE: This is not an all-inclusive list of potential LFG constituents, only those for which test data were available
at multiple sites. References 16-82. Source Classification Codes in parentheses.
3 Hazardous Air Pollutants listed in Title III of the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments.
b Carbon monoxide is not a typical constituent of LFG, but does exist in instances involving landfill (underground)
combustion. Therefore, this default value should be used with caution. Of 18 sites where CO was measured, only 2
showed detectable levels of CO.
0 Source tests did not indicate whether this compound was the para- or ortho- isomer. The para isomer is a Title Ill-
listed HAP.
d No data were available to speciate total Hg into the elemental and organic forms.
e For NSPS/Emission Guideline compliance purposes, the default concentration for NMOC as specified in the final
rule must be used. For purposes not associated with NSPS/Emission Guideline compliance, the default VOC
content at co-disposal sites can be estimated by 85 percent by weight (2,060 ppmv as hexane); at No or Unknown
sites can be estimated by 39 percent by weight 235 ppmv as hexane).
Table 2.4-3. CONTROL EFFICIENCIES FOR LFG NMOC and VOCa
Control Device
Boiler/Steam Turbine
(50100423)
Flarec
(50100410)
(50300601)
Gas Turbine
(50100420)
1C Engine
(50100421)
Control Efficiency (%)b
Typical
98.6
97.7
94.4
97.2
Range
96-99+
86-99+
92-97
95-99+
Rating
D
A
E
D
3 References 16-148. Source Classification Codes in parentheses.
b Control efficiency may also be applied to LFG constituents in Tables 2-4.1 and 2.4-2, except for
mercury. For any combustion equipment, the control efficiency for Hg should be assumed to be 0.
0 Where information on equipment was given in the reference, test data were taken from enclosed flares.
Control efficiencies are assumed to be equally representative of open flares.
90
-------
Table 2.4-4. EMISSION FACTORS FOR SECONDARY COMPOUNDS
EXITING CONTROL DEVICES3
Control Device
Flarec
(50100410)
(50300601)
1C Engine
(50100421)
Boiler/Steam Turbined
(50100423)
Gas Turbine
(50100420)
Pollutant13
Nitrogen dioxide
Carbon monoxide
Paniculate matter
Dioxin/Furan
Nitrogen dioxide
Carbon monoxide
Paniculate matter
Nitrogen dioxide
Carbon monoxide
Paniculate matter
Dioxin/Furan
Nitrogen dioxide
Carbon monoxide
Paniculate matter
Typical Rate,
kg/106 dscm
CH4
631
737
238
6.7xlO'6
11,620
8,462
232
677
116
41
5.1xlO"6
1,400
3,600
350
Typical Rate,
lb/106dscfCH4
39
46
15
4.2xlO'7
725
528
15
42
7
3
3.2xlO"7
87
230
22
Emission Factor
Rating
A
A
A
E
C
C
D
D
D
D
D
D
E
E
a Source Classification Codes in parentheses.
b No data on PM size distributions were available, however for other gas-fired combustion sources, most of the
paniculate matter is less than 2.5 microns in diameter. Hence, this emission factor can be used to provide estimates
of PM-10 or PM-2.5 emissions. See section 2.4.4.2 for methods to estimate CO2, SO2, and HC1.
0 Where information on equipment was given in the reference, test data were taken from enclosed flares. Control
efficiencies are assumed to be equally representative of open flares.
d All source tests were conducted on boilers, however emission factors should also be representative of steam
turbines. Emission factors are representative of boilers equipped with low-NOx burners and flue gas recirculation.
No data were available for uncontrolled NOX emissions.
References for Section 2.4
1. "Criteria for Municipal Solid Waste Landfills," 40 CFR Part 258, Volume 56, No. 196, October 9,
1991.
2. Air Emissions from Municipal Solid Waste Landfills - Background Information for Proposed
Standards and Guidelines, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, EPA-450/3-90-01 la,
Chapters 3 and 4, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, March
1991.
3. Municipal Solid Waste in the United States: 2006 Facts and Figures, Office of Solid Waste,
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, December 2007.
http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/non-hw/muncpl/msw99.htm
4. Eastern Research Group, Inc., List of Municipal Solid Waste Landfills, Prepared for the
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid Waste, Municipal and Industrial Solid
Waste Division, Washington, DC, September 1992.
5. Suggested Control Measures for Landfill Gas Emissions, State of California Air Resources Board,
Stationary Source Division, Sacramento, CA, August 1990.
6. "Standards of Performance for New Stationary Sources and Guidelines for Control of Existing
Sources: Municipal Solid Waste Landfills; Proposed Rule, Guideline, and Notice of Public
Hearing," 40 CFR Parts 51, 52, and 60, Vol. 56, No. 104, May 30, 1991.
91
-------
7. U.S. DOE, National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Comparison of Models for Predicting Landfill
Methane Recovery, March 1997, Available online:
http://www.nrel.gov/docs/legosti/fy97/26041 .pdf
8. Eun, Sangho, Debra R. Reinhart, C. David Cooper, Timothy G. Townsend, Ayman Faour.
Hydrogen sulfide flux measurements from construction and demolition debris (C&D) landfills.
Waste Management 27 (2007) 220-227. Available online: http://www.sciencedirect.com
9. Lee, Sue, Qiyong Xu, Matthew Booth, Timothy G. Townsend, Paul Chadik and Gabriel Bitton.
Reduced sulfur compounds in gas from construction and demolition debris landfills. Department of
Environmental Engineering Sciences, University of Florida, P.O. Box 116450, Gainesville, FL
32611-6450, United States. October 2005. Available online: http://www.sciencedirect.com
10. Gullett, B.K., P.M. Lemieux, C.C. Lutes, C.K.. Winterrowd and D.L. Winters, 2001. Emissions of
PCDD/F from uncontrolled, domestic waste burning , Chemosphere, Volume 43, Issues 4-7, May
2001, Pages 721-725
11. Landfill Fires, Their Magnitude, Characteristics, and Mitigation, prepared by TriData Corporation,
1000 Wilson Boulevard Arlington, Virginia 22209, for Federal Emergency Management Agency,
United States Fire Administration, National Fire Data Center, May 2002,
http://www.usfa.dhs.gov/downloads/pdf/publications/fa-225.pdf
12. Evaluation of Fugitive Emissions Using Ground-Based Optical Remote Sensing Technology, Office
of Research and Development, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC,
(EPA/600/R-07/032), February 2007.
13. R.L. Peer, et al., Memorandum Me thodology Used to Revise the Model Inputs in the Municipal
Solid Waste Landfills Input Data Bases (Revised), to the Municipal Solid Waste Landfills Docket
No. A-88-09, April 28, 1993.
14. Debra R. Reinhart, Ayman A. Faour, and Huaxin You, First-Order Kinetic Gas Generation Model
Parameters for Wet Landfills, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, (EPA-600/R-05/072), June
2005.
15. Letter and attached documents from C. Nesbitt, Los Angeles County Sanitation Districts, to K.
Brust, E.H. Pechan and Associates, Inc., December 6, 1996.
16. A.R. Chowdhury, Emissions from a Landfill Gas-Fired Turbine/Generator Set, Source Test Report
C-84-33, Los Angeles County Sanitation District, South Coast Air Quality Management District,
June 28, 1984.
17. Engineering-Science, Inc., Report of Stack Testing at County Sanitation District Los Angeles
Puente Hills Landfill, Los Angeles County Sanitation District, August 15, 1984.
18. J.R. Manker, Vinyl Chloride (and Other Organic Compounds) Content of Landfill Gas Vented to an
Inoperative Flare, Source Test Report 84-496, David Price Company, South Coast Air Quality
Management District, November 30, 1984.
19. S. Mainoff, Landfill Gas Composition, Source Test Report 85-102, Bradley Pit Landfill, South
Coast Air Quality Management District, May 22, 1985.
20. J. Liftman, Vinyl Chloride and Other Selected Compounds Present in A Landfill Gas Collection
System Prior to and after Flaring, Source Test Report 85-369, Los Angeles County Sanitation
District, South Coast Air Quality Management District, October 9, 1985.
92
-------
21. W.A. Nakagawa, Emissions from a Landfill Exhausting Through a Flare System, Source Test
Report 85-461, Operating Industries, South Coast Air Quality Management District, October 14,
1985.
22. S. Marinoff, Emissions from a Landfill Gas Collection System, Source Test Report 85-511.
Sheldon Street Landfill, South Coast Air Quality Management District, December 9, 1985.
23. W.A. Nakagawa, Vinyl Chloride and Other Selected Compounds Present in a Landfill Gas
Collection System Prior to and after Flaring, Source Test Report 85-592, Mission Canyon Landfill,
Los Angeles County Sanitation District, South Coast Air Quality Management District, January 16,
1986.
24. California Air Resources Board, Evaluation Test on a Landfill Gas-Fired Flare at the BKKLandfill
Facility, West Covina, CA, ARB-SS-87-09, July 1986.
25. S. Marinoff, Gaseous Composition from a Landfill Gas Collection System and Flare, Source Test
Report 86-0342, Syufy Enterprises, South Coast Air Quality Management District,
August 21, 1986.
26. Analytical Laboratory Report for Source Test, Azusa Land Reclamation, June 30, 1983, South
Coast Air Quality Management District.
27. J.R. Manker, Source Test Report C-84-202, Bradley Pit Landfill, South Coast Air Quality
Management District, May 25, 1984.
28. S. Marinoff, Source Test Report 84-315, Puente Hills Landfill, South Coast Air Quality
Management District, February 6, 1985.
29. P.P. Chavez, Source Test Report 84-596, Bradley Pit Landfill, South Coast Air Quality
Management District, March 11, 1985.
30. S. Marinoff, Source Test Report 84-373, Los Angeles By-Products, South Coast air Quality
Management District, March 27, 1985.
31. J. Liftman, Source Test Report 85-403, Palos Verdes Landfill, South Coast Air Quality
Management District, September 25, 1985.
32. S. Marinoff, Source Test Report 86-0234, Pacific Lighting Energy Systems, South Coast Air
Quality Management District, July 16, 1986.
33. South Coast Air Quality Management District, Evaluation Test on a Landfill Gas-Fired Flare at the
Los Angeles County Sanitation District's Puente Hills Landfill Facility, [ARB/SS-87-06],
Sacramento, CA, July 1986.
34. D.L. Campbell, et al., Analysis of Factors Affecting Methane Gas Recovery from Six Landfills, Air
and Energy Engineering Research Laboratory, EPA-600/2-91-055, U. S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, September 1991.
35. Browning-Ferris Industries, Source Test Report, Lyon Development Landfill, August 21, 1990.
36. X.V. Via, Source Test Report, Browning-Ferris Industries, Azusa Landfill.
37. M. Nourot, Gaseous Composition from a Landfill Gas Collection System and Flare Outlet.
Laidlaw Gas Recovery Systems, to J.R. Farmer, OAQPS:ESD, December 8, 1987.
38. D.A. Stringham and W.H. Wolfe, Waste Management of North America, Inc., to J.R. Farmer,
OAQPS:ESD, January 29, 1988, Response to Section 114 questionnaire.
93
-------
39. V. Espinosa, Source Test Report 87-0318, Los Angeles County Sanitation District Calabasas
Landfill, South Coast Air Quality Management District, December 16, 1987.
40. C.S. Bhatt, Source Test Report 87-0329, Los Angeles County Sanitation District, Scholl Canyon
Landfill, South Coast Air Quality Management District, December 4, 1987.
41. V. Espinosa, Source Test Report 87-0391, Puente Hills Landfill, South Coast Air Quality
Management District, February 5, 1988.
42. V. Espinosa, Source Test Report 87-0376, Palos Verdes Landfill, South Coast Air Quality
Management District, February 9, 1987.
43. Bay Area Air Quality Management District, Landfill Gas Characterization, Oakland, CA, 1988.
44. Steiner Environmental, Inc., Emission Testing at BFI's Arbor Hills Landfill, Northville, Michigan,
September 22 through 25, 1992, Bakersfield, CA, December 1992.
45. PEI Associates, Inc., Emission Test Report - Performance Evaluation Landfill-Gas Enclosed Flare,
Browning Ferris Industries, Chicopee, MA, 1990.
46. Kleinfelder Inc., Source Test Report Boiler and Flare Systems, Prepared for Laidlaw Gas Recovery
Systems, Coyote Canyon Landfill, Diamond Bar, CA, 1991.
47. Bay Area Air Quality Management District, McGill Flare Destruction Efficiency Test Report for
Landfill Gas at the Durham Road Landfill, Oakland, CA, 1988.
48. San Diego Air Pollution Control District, Solid Waste Assessment for Otay Valley/Annex Landfill.
San Diego, CA, December 1988.
49. PEI Associates, Inc., Emission Test Report - Performance Evaluation Landfill Gas Enclosed Flare,
Rockingham, VT, September 1990.
50. Browning-Ferris Industries, Gas Flare Emissions Source Test for Sunshine Canyon Landfill.
Sylmar, CA, 1991.
51. Scott Environmental Technology, Methane and Nonmethane Organic Destruction Efficiency Tests
of an Enclosed Landfill Gas Flare, April 1992.
52. BCM Engineers, Planners, Scientists and Laboratory Services, Air Pollution Emission Evaluation
Report for Ground Flare at Browning Ferris Industries Greentree Landfill, Kersey, Pennsylvania.
Pittsburgh, PA, May 1992.
53. EnvironMETeo Services Inc., Stack Emissions Test Report for Ameron Kapaa Quarry, Waipahu,
HI, January 1994.
54. Waukesha Pearce Industries, Inc., Report of Emission Levels and Fuel Economies for Eight
Waukesha 12V-AT25GL Units Located at the Johnston, Rhode Island Central Landfill, Houston
TX, July 19, 1991.
55. Mostardi-Platt Associates, Inc., Gaseous Emission Study Performed for Waste Management of
North America, Inc., CID Environmental Complex Gas Recovery Facility, August 8, 1989.
Chicago, IL, August 1989.
56. Mostardi-Platt Associates, Inc., Gaseous Emission Study Performed for Waste Management of
North America, Inc., at the CID Environmental Complex Gas Recovery Facility, July 12-14, 1989.
Chicago, IL, July 1989.
94
-------
57. Browning-Ferris Gas Services, Inc., Final Report for Emissions Compliance Testing of One
Waukesha Engine Generator, Chicopee, MA, February 1994.
58. Browning-Ferris Gas Services, Inc., Final Report for Emissions Compliance Testing of Three
Waukesha Engine Generators, Richmond, VA, February 1994.
59. South Coast Environmental Company (SCEC), Emission Factors for Landfill Gas Flares at the
Arizona Street Landfill, Prepared for the San Diego Air Pollution Control District, San Diego, CA,
November 1992.
60. Carnot, Emission Tests on the Puente Hills Energy from Landfill Gas (PERG) Facility - Unit 400,
September 1993, Prepared for County Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County, Tustin, CA,
November 1993.
61. Pape & Steiner Environmental Services, Compliance Testing for Spadra Landfill Gas-to-Energy
Plant, July 25 and 26, 1990, Bakersfield, CA, November 1990.
62. AB2588 Source Test Report for Oxnard Landfill, July 23-27, 1990, by Petro Chem Environmental
Services, Inc., for Pacific Energy Systems, Commerce, CA, October 1990.
63. AB2588 Source Test Report for Oxnard Landfill, October 16, 1990, by Petro Chem Environmental
Services, Inc., for Pacific Energy Systems, Commerce, CA, November 1990.
64. Engineering Source Test Report for Oxnard Landfill, December 20, 1990, by Petro Chem
Environmental Services, Inc., for Pacific Energy Systems, Commerce, CA, January 1991.
65. AB2588 Emissions Inventory Report for the Salinas Crazy Horse Canyon Landfill, Pacific Energy,
Commerce, CA, October 1990.
66. Newby Island Plant 2 Site 1C Engine's Emission Test, February 7-8, 1990, Laidlaw Gas Recovery
Systems, Newark, CA, February 1990.
67. Landfill Methane Recovery Part II: Gas Characterization, Final Report, Gas Research Institute,
December 1982.
68. Letter from J.D. Thornton, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, to R. Myers, U.S. EPA, February
1, 1996.
69. Letter and attached documents from M. Sauers, GSF Energy, to S. Thorneloe, U.S. EPA, May 29,
1996.
70. Landfill Gas Participate and Metals Concentration and Flow Rate, Mountaingate Landfill Gas
Recovery Plant, Horizon Air Measurement Services, prepared for GSF Energy, Inc., May 1992.
71. Landfill Gas Engine Exhaust Emissions Test Report in Support of Modification to Existing 1C
Engine Permit at Bakersfield Landfill Unit #1, Pacific Energy Services, December 4, 1990.
72. Addendum to Source Test Report for Superior Engine #1 at Otay Landfill, Pacific Energy Services,
April 2, 1991.
73. Source Test Report 88-0075 of Emissions from an Internal Combustion Engine Fueled by Landfill
Gas, Penrose Landfill, Pacific Energy Lighting Systems, South Coast Air Quality Management
District, February 24, 1988.
74. Source Test Report 88-0096 of Emissions from an Internal Combustion Engine Fueled by Landfill
Gas, Toyon Canyon Landfill, Pacific Energy Lighting Systems, March 8, 1988.
95
-------
75. Determination of Landfill Gas Composition and Pollutant Emission Rates at Fresh Kills Landfill,
revised Final Report, Radian Corporation, prepared for U.S. EPA, November 10, 1995.
76. Advanced Technology Systems, Inc., Report on Determination of Enclosed Landfill Gas Flare
Performance, Prepared for Y & S Maintenance, Inc., February 1995.
77. Chester Environmental, Report on Ground Flare Emissions Test Results, Prepared for Seneca
Landfill, Inc., October 1993.
78. Smith Environmental Technologies Corporation, Compliance Emission Determination of the
Enclosed Landfill Gas Flare andLeachate Treatment Process Vents, Prepared for Clinton County
Solid Waste Authority, April 1996.
79. AirReconฎ, Division of RECON Environmental Corp., Compliance Stack Test Report for the
Landfill Gas FLare Inlet & Outlet at Bethlehem Landfill, Prepared for LFG Specialties Inc.,
Decembers, 1996.
80. ROJAC Environmental Services, Inc., Compliance Test Report, Hartford Landfill Flare Emissions
Test Program,'November 19, 1993.
81. Normandeau Associates, Inc., Emissions Testing of a Landfill Gas Flare at Contra Costa Landfill,
Antioch, California, March 22, 1994 and April 22, 1994, May 17, 1994.
82. Roe, S.M., et. al., Methodologies for Quantifying Pollution Prevention Benefits from Landfill Gas
Control and Utilization, Prepared for U.S. EPA, Office of Air and Radiation, Air and Energy
Engineering Laboratory, EPA-600/R-95-089, July 1995.
83. TR-076. New Source Performance Standards Tier 2 Sampling and Analysis for the Flying Cloud
Landfill, Browning-Ferris Industries, 6/30/98.
84. TR-084. Tier 2 NMOC Emission Rate Report for the Buncombe County Landfill, Buncombe
County Solid Waste Services, 5/12/99.
85. TR-086. Tier 2 NMOC Emission Rate Report for the White Street Landfill, Duke Engineering and
Services, City of Greensboro Solid Waste Management Division, 5/18/99.
86. TR-114. Summary Report of Tier 2 Sampling, Analysis, and Landfill Emissions Estimates for Non-
Methane Organic Compounds Chrin Brothers Landfill, Chrin Brothers Sanitary Landfill, 4/24/98.
87. TR-115. Seneca Landfill - Revised Tier 2 NMOC Emission Rate Report, Seneca Landfill, Inc.,
12/5/96.
88. TR-134. New Source Performance Standards Tier 2 Sampling, Analysis, and Landfill NMOC
Emission Estimates for the Fort Worth Landfill, Laidlaw Waste Systems, Inc., 4/15/97.
89. TR-141. Tier 2 NMOC Emission Rate Report for the SPSA Regional Landfill, Southeastern Public
Service Authority, MSA Consulting Engineers, 6/10/97.
90. TR-145. Compliance Testing of a Landfill Flare at Browning-Ferris Gas Services, Inc.'s Facility in
Halifax, Massachusetts, BFI Waste Systems of North America, Inc., May 1996.
91. TR-146. Compliance Source Testing of a Landfill Flare at Northern Disposal, Inc. East
Bridgewater Landfill, Northern Disposal, Inc., June 1994.
92. TR-147. Compliance Emissions Test Program for BFI of Ohio, Inc., BFI of Ohio, Inc., 6/26/98.
96
-------
93. TR-148. Compliance Testing of Landfill Flare at Browning-Ferris Gas Services, Inc.'s Fall River
Landfill Flare, BFI Waste Systems of North America, Inc., March 1995.
94. TR-153. Results of the Emission Compliance Test on the Enclosed Flare System at the Carbon
Limestone Landfill, Browning-Ferris Industrial Gas Services, Inc., 8/8/96.
95. TR-156. Results of the Emission Compliance Test on the Enclosed Flare System at the Lorain
County Landfill No. 2, Browning-Ferris Industrial Gas Services, Inc., 9/5/96.
96. TR-157. Emission Compliance Testing Browning-Ferris Gas Services, Inc. Willowcreek Landfill,
BFI-Willowcreek, 2/2/98.
97. TR-159. Compliance Stack Sampling Report, Monmouth County Reclamation Center, SCS
Engineers (Reston, VA), 9/8/95.
98. TR-160. Source Emission Testing of an Enclosed Landfill Gas Ground Flare, SCS Engineers
(Reston, VA), September 1997.
99. TR-163. Compliance Testing for SPADRA Landfill Gas-to-Energy Plant, Ebasco Constructors,
Inc., November 1990.
100. TR-165. 1997 Annual Compliance Source Testing Results for the Coyote Canyon Landfill Gas
Recovery Facility Flare No. 1, Laidlaw Gas Recovery Systems, January 1998.
101. TR-167. 1997 Annual Compliance Source Testing Results for the Coyote Canyon Landfill Gas
Recovery Facility Boiler, Laidlaw Gas Recovery Systems, January 1998.
102. TR-168. Colton Sanitary Landfill Gas Flare No. 2 (John Zink) 1998 Source Tests Results, Bryan A.
Stirrat & Associates, 9/29/98.
103. TR-169. Colton Sanitary Landfill Gas Flare No. 1 (McGill) 1998 Source Tests Results, Bryan A.
Stirrat & Associates, 9/29/98.
104. TR-171. High Landfill Gas Flow Rate Source Test Results from One Landfill Gas Flare at FRB
Landfill in Orange County, California, Bryan A. Stirrat & Associates, July 1997.
105. TR-173. Annual Emissions Test of Landfill Gas Flare #3 Bradley Landfill, Waste Management
Recycling and Disposal Services of California, Inc., 4/12/99.
106. TR-175. Emissions Tests on Flares #2, #4 and #6 at the Lopez Canyon Landfill, City of Los
Angeles, August 1997.
107. TR-176. Emissions Test Results on Flares #1, #4 and #9 Calabasas Landfill, County Sanitation
Districts of Los Angeles County, February 1998.
108. TR-178. Annual Emission Test of Landfill Gas Flare #3 Bradley Landfill, Waste Management
Recycling and Disposal Services of California, Inc., 5/21/98.
109. TR-179. Annual Emissions Test of Landfill Gas Flare #1 Bradley Landfill, Waste Management
Recycling and Disposal Services of California, Inc., 4/13/99.
110. TR-181. The Mid-Valley Sanitary Landfill Gas Flare No.l (McGill) 1998 Source Test Results,
Bryan A. Stirrat & Associates, 9/29/98.
111. TR-182. The Mid-Valley Sanitary Landfill Gas Flare No.2 (SurLite) 1998 Source Test Results,
Bryan A. Stirrat & Associates, 9/29/98.
97
-------
112. TR-183. Annual Emissions Test of Landfill Gas Flare #2 Bradley Landfill, Waste Management
Recycling and Disposal Services of California, Inc., 4/13/99.
113. TR-187. Emissions Test of a Landfill Gas Flare - Lowry Landfill/Denver-Arapohoe Disposal Site,
Sur-Lite Corporation, February 1997.
114. TR-188. Characterization of Emissions from a Power Boiler Fired with Landfill Gas, Environment
Canada Emissions Research and Measurement Division, March 2000.
115. TR-189. Characterization of Emissions from 925 kWe Reciprocating Engine Fired with Landfill
Gas, Environment Canada Emissions Research and Measurement Division, December 2000.
116. TR-190. Characterization of Emissions from 812 kWe Reciprocating Engine Fired with Landfill
Gas, Environment Canada Emissions Research and Measurement Division, December 1999.
117. TR-191. Characterization of Emissions from Enclosed Flare - Trail Road Landfill, Environment
Canada Emissions Research and Measurement Division, August 2000.
118. TR-194. Characterization of Emissions from 1 MWe Reciprocating Engine Fired with Landfill Gas,
Environment Canada Emissions Research and Measurement Division, January 2002.
119. TR-195. Characteristics of Semi-volatile Organic Compounds from Vented Landfills, Environment
Canada Environmental Technology Advancement Directorate, August 1996.
120. TR-196. Results of the Biennial Criteria and AB 2588 Air Toxics Source Test on the Simi Valley
Landfill Flare, Simi Valley Landfill and Recycling Center, April 1997.
121. TR-199. Emission Compliance Test on a Landfill Flare, City of Los Angeles, January 1999.
122. TR-205. The Mid-Valley Sanitary Landfill Gas Flare No. 3 (John Zink) 1998 Source Test Results,
Bryan A. Stirrat & Associates, 9/29/98.
123. TR-207. Compliance Source Test Report Landfill Gas-fired Flare Stations 1-4 and F-2, BKK
Landfill, 12/12/97.
124. TR-209. Emission Test Report Volumes I and II - Source/Compliance Emissions Testing for Cedar
Hills Landfill, King County Solid Waste Division, 1/20/05.
125. TR-211. Determination of Total and Dimethyl Mercury in Raw Landfill Gas with Site Screening
for Elemental Mercury at Eight Washington State Landfills, Washington State Department of
Ecology, July 2003.
126. TR-212. Determination of Total, and Monomethyl Mercury in Raw Landfill Gas at the Central
Solid Waste Management Center, Delaware Solid Waste Authority, February 2003.
127. TR-220. SCAQMD Performance Tests on the Spadra Energy Recovery from Landfill Gas
(SPERG) Facility, County Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County, April 1992.
128. TR-226. Methane and Nonmethane Organic Destruction Efficiency Tests of an Enclosed Landfill
Gas Flare, Newco Waste Systems, April 1992.
129. TR-229. Scholl Canyon Landfill Gas Flares No. 9, 10 11 and 12 Emission Source Testing April
1999, South Coast Air Quality Management District, April 1999.
130. TR-236. Landfill Gas Flare Hydrogen Chloride Emissons Atascocita Landfill, Waste Management
of Houston, 4/20/99.
98
-------
131. TR-241. Performance Evaluation, Enclosed Landfill Gas Flare, Valley Landfill, Waste Energy
Technology, November 1991.
132. TR-251. Emission Compliance Test on aLandfill Gas Flare - Flare #1, Frank R. Bowerman
Landfill, Orange County, 1/25/99.
133. TR-253. Emission Source Testing on Two Flares (Nos. 3 and 6) at the Spadra Landfill, Los
Angeles County Sanitation Districts, 7/21/98.
134. TR-255. Emission Compliance Test on a Landfill Gas Flare -Olinda Alpha Landfill, Orange County
Integrated Waste Management Department, No Report Date Given.
135. TR-258. Source Test Report, City of Sacramento Landfill Gas Flare, City of Sacramento, 6/26/96.
136. TR-259. The Millikan Sanitary Landfill Gas Flare No. 1 (Surlite) 1998 Source Test Results, South
Coast Air Quality Management District, 9/29/98.
137. TR-260. The Millikan Sanitary Landfill Gas Flare No. 2 (John Zink) 1998 Source Test Results,
South Coast Air Quality Management District, 9/29/98.
138. TR-261. The Millikan Sanitary Landfill Gas Flare No. 3 (John Zink) 1998 Source Test Results,
South Coast Air Quality Management District, 9/29/98.
139. TR-264. Emission Compliance Test on a Landfill Gas Flare, Orange County Integrated Waste
Management Department, No Report Date Given.
140. TR-266. Compliance Source Test Report - Landfill Gas-Fired Engine, Minnesota Methane, 3/3/98.
141. TR-268. Emission Testing at PERG - Maximum Boiler Load, County Sanitation Districts of Los
Angeles County, December 1986.
142. TR-272. Source Testing Final Report - Landfill A, US EPA Air Pollution Prevention and Control
Division, 10/6/05.
143. TR-273. Source Testing Final Report - Landfill B, US EPA Air Pollution Prevention and Control
Division, 10/6/05.
144. TR-284. Source Testing Final Report - Landfill C, US EPA Air Pollution Prevention and Control
Division, 10/6/05.
145. TR-287. Source Testing Final Report - Landfill D, US EPA Air Pollution Prevention and Control
Division, 10/6/05.
146. TR-290. San Timoteo Sanitary Landfill 1998 Source Test Results, San Bernandino County Solid
Waste Management, 9/29/98.TR-291. PCDD/PCDF Emissions Tests on the Palos Verdes Energy
Recovery from Landfill Gas (PVERG) Facility, Unit 2, County Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles
County, February 1994.
147. TR-292. Source Testing Final Report - Landfill E, US EPA Air Pollution Prevention and Control
Division, October 2005
148. TR-293. Quantifying Uncontrolled Air Emissions From Two Florida Landfills - Draft Final
Report. U.S. EPA Air Pollution Prevention and Control Division, March 26, 2008.
99
-------
EPA/600/R-08-116
September 2008
Background Information Document for
Updating AP42 Section 2.4 for Estimating
Emissions from Municipal Solid Waste
Landfills
Appendices A through G
-------
Appendix A-1. Summary of Test Report Data (pre-1992 Landfills)
Ref. Landfill
No. Name Location
7 Calabasas California
Operating
8 Industries California
9 Sheldon Street California
10 Mission Canyon California
BKK
1 2 Corporation California
Syufy
1 3 Enterprises California
Compounds Tested
(Uncontrolled)
1,2-Dichloroethane
Benzene
Carbon dioxide
Carbon monoxide
Carbon tetrachloride
Chloroform
Methane
Oxygen
PCE
t-1,2-Dichloroethene
TCA
TCE
Toluene
Vinyl chloride
1,2-Dichloroethane
Benzene
Carbon dioxide
Carbon monoxide
Carbon tetrachloride
Chloroform
Methane
Oxygen
PCE
TCA
TCE
Toluene
Vinyl chloride
Benzene
Carbon dioxide
Carbon monoxide
Carbon tetrachloride
Chloroform
Methane
Oxygen
PCE
TCA
TCE
Toluene
Vinyl chloride
Benzene
Carbon dioxide
Carbon monoxide
Carbon tetrachloride
Chloroform
Methane
PCE
TCA
TCE
Toluene
Vinyl chloride
TCA
1,2-Dichloroethane
Benzene
Carbon monoxide
Carbon tetrachloride
Chloroform
Furans
Methylene chloride
Nitrogen oxides
PCE
TCE
Toluene
Vinyl chloride
Benzene
Carbon dioxide
Carbon monoxide
Carbon tetrachloride
Chloroform
Methane
PCE
TCA
TCE
Toluene
Vinyl chloride
Control Compounds Tested
Device (Controlled)
Flare 1 ,2-Dichloroethane
Benzene
Carbon dioxide
Carbon monoxide
Carbon tetrachloride
Chloroform
Methane
Oxygen
PCE
t-1,2-Dichloroethene
TCA
TCE
Toluene
Vinyl chloride
Flare 1 ,2-Dichloroethane
Benzene
Carbon dioxide
Carbon monoxide
Carbon tetrachloride
Chloroform
Methane
Oxygen
PCE
TCA
TCE
Toluene
Vinyl chloride
Flare Benzene
Carbon dioxide
Carbon monoxide
Carbon tetrachloride
Chloroform
Methane
Oxygen
PCE
TCA
TCE
Toluene
Vinyl chloride
Flare Benzene
Carbon dioxide
Carbon monoxide
Carbon tetrachloride
Chloroform
Methane
PCE
TCA
TCE
Toluene
Vinyl chloride
Flare TCA
1,2-Dichloroethane
Benzene
Carbon monoxide
Carbon tetrachloride
Chloroform
Dioxins
Furans
HCI
Methylene chloride
Nitrogen oxides
PCE
Toluene
Flare Benzene
Carbon dioxide
Carbon monoxide
Carbon tetrachloride
Chloroform
Methane
PCE
TCA
TCE
Toluene
Vinyl chloride
Comments
Test dates 7/31/85, 9/4/84.
6 flares operating, station #1
sampled both dates.
Test date 9/1 1/85. 82 wells,
3 flares. Tested 1 flare. CO
determined by TCA Method.
Test date 11/5/85.
Landfill inactive for 10 years;
two gas collection and flare
stations. One flare tested.
CO determined by TCA Method.
Test date 12/6/85.
Inactive landfill. CO
determined by TCA Method.
Test dates 3/3/86 through 3/7/86;
tested Flare #6. CO determined
by TCA Method.
Test date 7/1 0/86.
Lines from peripheral and
interior wells combined.
Inactive landfill.
A-2
-------
Appendix A-1. Summary of Test Report Data (pre-1992 Landfills)
Ref. Landfill
No. Name Location
Azusa Land
1 5 Reclamation California
17 Bradley Pit California
18 Puente Hills California
19 Bradley Pit California
19 cont. Bradley Pit California
20 Penrose California
Compounds Tested
(Uncontrolled)
1,2-Dichloroethane
Benzene
Carbon dioxide
Carbon disulfide
Carbon tetrachloride
Carbonyl sulfide
Chloroform
Dimethyl sulfide
Hydrogen sulfide
Methane
Methyl mercaptan
PCE
TCA
TCE
Toluene
Vinyl chloride
1,1-Dichloroethene
1,2-Dichloroethane
Benzene
Carbon dioxide
Carbon monoxide
Methane
PCE
TCA
TCE
Toluene
Vinyl chloride
1,2-Dichloroethane
Benzene
Carbon dioxide
Carbon monoxide
Carbon tetrachloride
Chloroform
PCE
t-1,2-Dichloroethene
TCA
TCE
Toluene
Vinyl chloride
1,2-Dichloroethane
Benzene
Carbon dioxide
Carbon monoxide
Carbon tetrachloride
Chloroform
Dimethyl sulfide
Methane
Methyl mercaptan
PCE
Sulfur dioxide
t-1,2-Dichloroethene
TCA
TCE
Toluene
Vinyl chloride
TCA
1,2-Dichloroethane
Benzene
Carbon dioxide
Carbon monoxide
Carbon tetrachloride
Chloroform
Methane
PCE
t-1,2-Dichloroethene
TCE
Toluene
Vinyl chloride
Control Compounds Tested
Device (Controlled)
Flare TCA
Benzene
Carbon tetrachloride
Chloroform
PCE
TCE
Toluene
Vinyl chloride
Boiler/flare
Flare/turbine 1 ,2-Dichloroethane
Benzene
Carbon dioxide
Carbon monoxide
Carbon tetrachloride
Chloroform
Methane
PCE
TCA
TCE
Toluene
Vinyl chloride
Boiler/flare
Boiler/flare
Comments
Test dates 6/1 7/83, 8/29/84, 11/1/84,
7/12/85,5/7/86. Sales gas
results combined with raw gas
results as uncontrolled.
Test date 3/20/84.
Active and inactive landfill
sections. Flare not operating.
Test date 2/6/85. Active
landfill; two gas collection
systems and stations.
Test conducted at West
flaring station (18 flares
and 2 turbines). CO
determined by TCA Method.
Test date 12/1 4/84.
Active and inactive landfill
sections. Flare not operating.
Test date 7/1 1/84. Inactive
landfill; 5 gas collection lines
and flares. Flares not
sampled due to upcoming
modifications.
A-3
-------
Appendix A-1. Summary of Test Report Data (pre-1992 Landfills)
Ref. Landfill
No. Name Location
22 Palos Verdes California
23 Toyon Canyon California
24 Puente Hills California
24 cont. Puente Hills California
26 Confidential Wisconsin
26 Confidential Illinois
Compounds Tested
(Uncontrolled)
TCA
1,2-Dichloroethane
Benzene
Carbon dioxide
Carbon monoxide
Carbon tetrachloride
Chloroform
Methane
Oxygen
PCE
TCE
Toluene
Vinyl chloride
TCA
Benzene
Carbon dioxide
Carbon tetrachloride
Chloroform
Methane
PCE
TCE
TNMHC
Toluene
Vinyl chloride
TCA
Benzene
Carbon monoxide
Carbon tetrachloride
Chloroform
Dioxins
Furans
PCE
TCE
Toluene
Vinyl chloride
Carbon dioxide
Methane
Nitrogen
Oxygen
TNMOC
Carbon dioxide
Methane
Nitrogen
Oxygen
TNMOC
Control Compounds Tested
Device (Controlled)
Flare TCA
1,2-Dichloroethane
Benzene
Carbon dioxide
Carbon monoxide
Carbon tetrachloride
Chloroform
Methane
Oxygen
PCE
TCE
Toluene
Vinyl chloride
ICE Benzene
Carbon dioxide
Carbon disulfide
Carbon tetrachloride
Chloroform
Dimethyl sulfide
Hydrogen sulfide
Methane
Methyl mercaptan
Nitrogen dioxide
PCE
Flare TCA
Benzene
Carbon monoxide
Carbon tetrachloride
Chloroform
Dioxins
Furans
HCI
Nitrogen oxide
PCE
Sulfur dioxide
TCE
Toluene
Vinyl chloride
Turbine
Turbine
Comments
Test date 8/1 4/85. I nactive
landfill, 3 flare stations and
one turbine. CO determined
by TCA Method.
Test date 5/1 6/86.
Inactive landfill, 5 ICE's.
Test dates 2/1 8/86 through
2/21/86. Flare operating at
steady state.
Test date 8/6/90.
U.S. EPA Office of Research
and Development.
Test date 8/7/90.
U.S. EPA Office of Research
and Development.
A-4
-------
Appendix A-1. Summary of Test Report Data (pre-1992 Landfills)
Ref. Landfill
No. Name Location
26 Confidential Pennsylvania
26 Confidential Florida
26 Confidential California
26 Confidential California
Lyon
27 Development Michigan
Lyon
27 cont. Development Michigan
Compounds Tested Control
(Uncontrolled) Device
Carbon dioxide Turbine
Methane
Nitrogen
Oxygen
TNMOC
Carbon dioxide Turbine
Methane
Nitrogen
Oxygen
TNMOC
Carbon dioxide Flare
Methane
Nitrogen
Oxygen
TNMOC
Carbon dioxide ICE
Methane
Nitrogen
Oxygen
TNMOC
TCA None
1,1-Dichloroethane
1,2-Dichloroethane
Benzene
Carbon disulfide
Carbon tetrachloride
Carbonyl sulfide
Chlorobenzene
Chloroform
Dimethyl disulfide
Dimethyl sulfide
Ethylbenzene
Hydrogen sulfide
m+p-Xylene
Methyl mercaptan
Methylene chloride
o-Xylene
PCE
t-1,2-Dichloroethene
TCE
Toluene
Vinyl chloride
Compounds Tested Comments
(Controlled)
Test date 8/8/90.
U.S. EPA Office of Research
and Development.
Test date 8/20/90.
U.S. EPA Office of Research
and Development.
Test date 8/23/90.
U.S. EPA Office of Research
and Development.
Test date 8/24/90.
U.S. EPA Office of Research
and Development.
Test date 8/21/90. Two wells
sampled by canister.
A-5
-------
Appendix A-1. Summary of Test Report Data (pre-1992 Landfills)
Ref. Landfill Compounds Tested
No. Name Location (Uncontrolled)
41 Bradley Pit California TCA
Benzene
Butane
Carbon dioxide
Carbon monoxide
Carbon tetrachloride
Chloroform
Ethane
Heptanes
Hexanes
Methane
Nitrogen
Nonanes
Octanes
Oxygen
PCE
Pentane
Propane
TCE
TNMHC
Toluene
Vinyl chloride
Guadalupe
41 Landfill 1,1-Dichloroethene
1,2 Dimethyl cyclohexane
1,3 Dimethyl cyclohexane
1-Butanol
1-Propanol
2,4 Dimethyl heptane
2-Butanol
2-Butanone
2-Methyl-methylester
2-Methyl heptane
2-Methyl propane
2-Propanol
3-Carene
Butylester butanoic acid
Carbon dioxide
Chloroethene
Guadalupe
41 cont. Landfill Dichloromethane
Ethanol
Ethyl benzene
Ethylester acetic acid
Ethylester propanoic acid
Hydrogen
Isooctanol
Methane
Methylester acetic acid
Methylester butanoic acid
Nitrogen
Oxygen
Propane
Propanoic acid
Propylester acetic acid
Propylester butanoic acid
Tetrachloroethene
Tetrahydrofuran
Thiobismethane
TNMHC
Toluene
Trichloroethene
Xylene
Control Compounds Tested
Device (Controlled)
Boiler/flare TCA
Benzene
Butane
Carbon dioxide
Carbon monoxide
Carbon tetrachloride
Chloroform
Ethane
Heptanes
Hexanes
Methane
Nitrogen
Nonanes
Octanes
Oxygen
PCE
Pentane
Propane
TCE
TNMHC
Toluene
Vinyl chloride
ICE 1,1-Dichloroethene
1,2 Dimethyl cyclohexane
1,2,4-Trimethyl cyclopentane
1,3 Dimethyl cyclohexane
1-Butanol
1-Propanol
2,4 dimethyl heptane
2-Butanol
2-Butanone
2-Methyl-methylester
2-Methyl heptane
2-Methyl propane
2-Propanol
3-Carene
Butane
Butylester butanoic acid
Carbon dioxide
Chlorodifluoromethane
Chloroethene
Dichloromethane
Ethanol
Ethyl benzene
Ethylester acetic acid
Ethylester propanoic acid
Furan
Hydrogen
Isooctanol
Methane
Methylester acetic acid
Methylester butanoic acid
Nitrogen
Oxygen
Propane
Propanoic acid
Propylester acetic acid
Propylester butanoic acid
Tetrachloroethene
Tetrahydrofuran
Thiobismethane
TNMHC
Toluene
Trichloroethene
Comments
Test dates 10/2/85 and 1/24/86.
Questionnaire response.
Scrubber operative 10/2/85.
Flare operativewith no visible
flame 1/24/86 test. CO
determined by TCA Method.
Test date 7/25/84.
Questionnaire response.
A-6
-------
Appendix A-1. Summary of Test Report Data (pre-1992 Landfills)
Ref.
No.
Landfill
Name
Location
Compounds Tested
(Uncontrolled)
Control
Device
Compounds Tested
(Controlled)
Comments
43 34- Confidential Confidential
TCA Varies-
1,1,2,2-Tetra-chloroethane uncontrolled
1 ,1 ,2-Trichloroethane data only.
1,1-Dichloroethane
1,1-Dichloroethene
1 ,2-Dichlorobenzene
1,2-Dichloroethane
1 ,2-Dichloropropane
1 ,3-Dichlorobenzene
1 ,3-Dichloropropane
1 ,4-Dichlorobenzene
2-Chloroethylvinyl ether
Acetone
Acrolein
Acrylonitrile
Benzene
Bromodichloromethane
Bromoform
Bromomethane
Butane
Carbon dioxide
Carbon tetrachloride
Chlorobenzene _
43 cont. 34- Confidential Confidential
Chlorodibromomethane
Chlorodifluoromethane
Chloroethane
Chloroform
Chloromethane
Dichlorodifluoromethane
Ethanol
Ethyl benzene
Flurotrichloromethane
Hexane
Methane
Methyl ethyl ketone
Methyl isobutyl ketone
Methylene chloride
Pentane
Propane
t-1,2-Dichloroethene
Tetrachloroethene
Toluene
Trichloroethene
Vinyl chloride
Xylene
48
Calabasas
Landfill
California
TCA
Benzene
Carbon dioxide
Carbon disulfide
Carbon monoxide
Carbon tetrachloride
Carbonyl sulfide
Chloroform
Dimethyl sulfide
Hydrogen sulfide
Methane
Methyl mercaptan
PCE
TCE
TNMHC
Toluene
Vinyl chloride
Flare
TCA
Benzene
Carbon dioxide
Carbon disulfide
Carbon monoxide
Carbon tetrachloride
Carbonyl sulfide
Chloroform
Dimethyl sulfide
Hydrogen sulfide
Methane
Methyl mercaptan
PCE
TCE
TNMHC
Toluene
Vinyl chloride
Test date 10/9/87. Active
landfill; 6 flares, 3
operational day of testing.
A-7
-------
Appendix A-1. Summary of Test Report Data (pre-1992 Landfills)
Ref. Landfill Compounds Tested Control
No. Name Location (Uncontrolled) Device
49 Scholl Canyon California TCA Flare
Benzene
Carbon dioxide
Carbon disulfide
Carbon monoxide
Carbon tetrachloride
Carbonyl sulfide
Chloroform
Dimethyl sulfide
Hydrogen sulfide
Methane
49 cont. Scholl Canyon California PCE
TCE
TNMHC
Toluene
Vinyl chloride
Xylene
50 Puente Hills California TCA Turbine/flare
1,2 Dichloroethane
Benzene
Carbon dioxide
Carbon disulfide
Carbon monoxide
Carbon tetrachloride
Carbonyl sulfide
Chloroform
Dimethyl sulfide
Hydrogen sulfide
Methane
Methyl mercaptan
PCE
t-1,2 Dichloroethene
TCE
TNMHC
Toluene
Trichloroethane
Vinyl chloride
Xylene
51 Palos Verdes California TCA Flare
Benzene
Carbon tetrachloride
Chloroform
Hydrogen sulfide
Methane
PCE
TCE
TNMHC
Toluene
Vinyl chloride
Xylene
Compounds Tested
(Controlled)
TCA
Benzene
Carbon dioxide
Carbon disulfide
Carbon monoxide
Carbon tetrachloride
Carbonyl sulfide
Chloroform
Dimethyl sulfide
Hydrogen sulfide
Methane
PCE
TCE
TNMHC
Toluene
Vinyl chloride
Xylene
TCA
1,2 Dichloroethane
Benzene
Carbon dioxide
Carbon disulfide
Carbon monoxide
Carbon tetrachloride
Carbonyl sulfide
Chloroform
Dimethyl sulfide
Hydrogen sulfide
Methane
Methyl mercaptan
PCE
t-1,2 Dichloroethene
TCE
TNMHC
Toluene
Trichloroethane
Vinyl chloride
Xylene
TCA
Benzene
Carbon dioxide
Carbon monoxide
Carbon tetrachloride
Chloroform
Hydrogen sulfide
Methane
PCE
TCE
TNMHC
Toluene
Vinyl chloride
Xylene
Comments
Test date 1 0/1 5/87.
Active landfill, 4 operational
flares and 2 standbys.
Flare #2 tested.
Test date 12/1/87. Active
landfill, tested flare #23 and
solar turbine tested.
Test date 1 1 /1 6/87. I nactive
landfill, 3 flare stations (flare
station 1 not operating day
of testing). Flare stations 2
and 3 tested.
A-8
-------
Appendix A-1. Summary of Test Report Data (pre-1992 Landfills)
Ref. Landfill
No. Name
53 Altamont
53 cont. Altamont
54 Arbor Hills
55 BFI Facility,
55 cont. BFI Facility,
Compounds Tested
Location (Uncontrolled)
California 1 ,2-Dichloroethane
Benzene
Carbon dioxide
Carbon tetrachloride
Chloroform
Ethylene dibromide
Methane
Methyl chloroform
Methylene chloride
California Nitrogen
Oxygen
PCE
TCA
TCE
Vinyl chloride
Michigan 1,1-Dichloroethane
1 ,2-Dichloroethane
Benzene
Carbon disulfide
Carbon tetrachloride
Carbonyl sulfide
Chlorobenzene
Chloroform
Dimethyl disulfide
Dimethyl sulfide
Ethyl benzene
Ethylene dibromide
Hydrogen sulfide
Methyl chloroform
Methyl mercaptan
Methylene chloride
PCE
TCE
Toluene
Vinyl chloride
Vinylidene chloride
Xylenes
MA 1,1-Dichloroethane
1 ,2-Dichloroethane
Benzene
Benzyl chloride
Carbon tetrachloride
Chlorobenzene
Chloroform
Dichlorobenzene
Dichloromethane
Dimethyl sulfide
Ethyl mercaptan
Hydrogen sulfide
Methyl chloroform
Methyl mercaptan
PCE
TCE
Toluene
MA Vinyl chloride
Vinylidene chloride
Xylene
Control Compounds Tested
Device (Controlled)
Flare Carbon dioxide
Carbon monoxide
NOx
Oxygen
THC
TNMOC
Flare 1,1-Dichloroethane
1,2-Dichloroethane
Benzene
Carbon disulfide
Carbon monoxide
Carbon tetrachloride
Carbonyl sulfide
Chlorobenzene
Chloroform
Dimethyl disulfide
Dimethyl sulfide
Ethyl benzene
Ethylene dibromide
HCL
Hydrogen sulfide
Methyl chloroform
Methyl mercaptan
Methylene chloride
NOx
PCB
PCE
Quartz
TCE
TNMOC
Toluene
Vinyl chloride
Vinylidene chloride
Xylenes
Zinc
Flare 1,1-Dichloroethane
1,2-Dichloroethane
Benzene
Benzyl chloride
Carbon monoxide
Carbon tetrachloride
Chlorobenzene
Chloroform
Dichlorobenzene
Dichloromethane
Dimethyl sulfide
Ethyl mercaptan
HCI
Hydrogen sulfide
Methyl chloroform
Methyl mercaptan
NOx
PCE
TCE
Toluene
Vinyl chloride
Vinylidene chloride
Xylene
Comments
Test date: 4/7/88.
O2 determined by BAAQMD
Method ST-1 4. CO2
determined by BAAQMD
Method ST-5. NOx
determined by BAAQMD
Method ST-13A. THC and
THMOC determined by
BAAQMD Method ST-7.
CO determined by BAAQMD
Method ST-C.
Test date: 7/15/90.
NOx determined by EPA
Method 7A.
A-9
-------
Appendix A-1. Summary of Test Report Data (pre-1992 Landfills)
Ref. Landfill Compounds Tested
No. Name Location (Uncontrolled)
56 Coyote Canyon California 1,1-Dichloroethane
1,1-Dichloroethylene
1,2-Dichloroethane
Acetonitrile
Benzene
Benzyl chloride
Carbon disulfide
Carbon tetrachloride
Chlorobenzene
Chloroform
Dichlorobenzene
Dichloromethane
Dimethyl disulfide
Dimethyl sulfide
Ethyl mercaptan
Hydrogen sulfide
Methane
Methyl chloroform
Methyl mercaptan
PCE
Sulfur
TCA
TCE
TGNMO
Toluene
Vinyl chloride
Xylenes
57 Durham Rd. California 1 ,2-Dichloroethane
Benzene
Carbon dioxide
Carbon tetrachloride
Chloroform
Ethylene dibromide
Methane
Methyl chloroform
Methylene chloride
Nitrogen
Oxygen
PCE
TCE
Vinyl chloride
58 Otay California Benzene
Carbon tetrachloride
Chloroform
Ethylene dibromide
Ethylene dichloride
Methyl chloroform
Methylene chloride
PCE
TCE
Vinyl chloride
Control Compounds Tested
Device (Controlled)
Boiler/Flare 1,1-Dichloroethane
1,1-Dichloroethylene
1,2-Dichloroethane
Acetonitrile
Arsenic
Benzene
Benzyl chloride
Beryllium
Cadmium
Carbon disulfide
Carbon monoxide
Carbon tetrachloride
Chlorobenzene
Chloroform
Chromium
Copper
Dichlorobenzene
Dichloromethane
Dimethyl disulfide
Dimethyl sulfide
Ethyl mercaptan
Formaldehyde
HCI
Hydrogen sulfide
Manganese
Mercury
Methane
Methyl chloroform
Napthalene
Nickel
Nitrogen
NOx
Oxygen
PAH
Particulate matter
PCE
Selenium
Sulfur dioxide
TCE
TGNMO
Toluene
Total chromium
Vinyl chloride
Xylenes
Flare 1 ,2-Dichloroethane
Benzene
Carbon dioxide
Carbon tetrachloride
Chloroform
Ethylene dibromide
Methane
Methyl chloroform
Methylene chloride
Nitrogen
Oxygen
PCE
TCE
Vinyl chloride
Engine Benzene
Carbon tetrachloride
Chloroform
Ethylene dibromide
Ethylene dichloride
Methyl chloroform
Methylene chloride
PCE
TCE
Vinyl chloride
Comments
Test date: 6/6-14/91.
Tested flare #1 .
Test results were evaluated
seperately for Low flow & High
flow rate runs. NOx & CO were
analyzed using CARB Method
100(Chamilum&GFCNDIR).
Test date: 9/1/88.
O2 and CO2 determined by
BAAQMD Method ST-24.
Test date: June 87.
A-10
-------
Appendix A-1. Summary of Test Report Data (pre-1992 Landfills)
Ref. Landfill Compounds Tested Control
No. Name Location (Uncontrolled) Device
59 Rockingham Vermont 1 ,1 ,2.2-Tetrachloroethane Flare
1,1-Dichloroethane
1,2-Dichloroethane
Acetone
Acrylonitrile
Benzene
Carbon tetrachloride
Chlorobenzene
Chloroform
Dichlorobenzene
Ethyl benzene
Methyl chloroform
Methyl ethyl ketone
Methylene chloride
PCE
Sulfur dioxide
TCE
Toluene
Vinyl chloride
Xylenes
Sunshine
60 Canyon California 2-Propanol Flare
benzene
Butane
Dimethyl sulfide
Ethanol
Ethyl benzene
Ethyl mercaptan
Hydrogen sulfide
Methane
Methyl mercaptan
PCE
Phenol
P ropy I mercaptan
TCE
Toluene
Xylenes
61 Pinelands New Jersey Methane Flare
62 Greentree Pennsylvania Flare
63 Kappaa Quarry Hawaii Gas Turbine
Compounds Tested
(Controlled)
1 ,1 ,2.2-Tetrachloroethane
1,1-Dichloroethane
1,2-Dichloroethane
Acetone
Acrylonitrile
Benzene
Carbon tetrachloride
Chlorobenzene
Chloroform
Dichlorobenzene
Ethyl benzene
HCI
HF
Methyl chloroform
Methyl ethyl ketone
Methylene chloride
NMO
PCE
Sulfur dioxide
TCE
TNMOC
Toluene
Vinyl chloride
Xylenes
2-Propanol
Butane
Carbon monoxide
Dimethyl sulfide
Ethanol
Ethyl benzene
Ethyl mercaptan
HCI
Hydrogen sulfide
Methane
Methyl mercaptan
Nitrogen
NOx
Oxygen
PCE
Perticulates
Phenol
P ropy I mercaptan
SOx
TCE
TNMOC
Toluene
Xylenes
Carbon dioxide
Carbon monoxide
Methane
Oxygen
THC
TNMOC
TNMHC
Methane
NOx
Carbon monoxide
NOx
Sulfur dioxide
Comments
Test date: 8/9-10/90.
SO2 determined by EPA
Method 8.
Test date: 5/21-22/90.
NOx & CO were analyzed using
CARB Method 100.
Test date: 2/28/92.
CO analyzed by EPA Method 10.
Test date: 4/22-23/92.
NOx determined by EPA Method.
7D. CHd content estimated.
Test date: 12/28/93.
NOx & CO were analyzed by EPA
Method 20 & 3.
A-11
-------
Appendix A-1. Summary of Test Report Data (pre-1992 Landfills)
Ref. Landfill
No. Name
64 Johnston
65 CID
66 CID
67 BFI Facility,
Chicopee
68 BFI Facility,
Richmond
69 Arizona St.
Compounds Tested
Location (Uncontrolled)
Rhode Island Argon
Carbon
Carbon dioxide
Carbon monoxide
Ethane
Ethene
Helium
Heptane
Hexane
Hydrogen
Hydrogen sulfide
Isobutane
Methane
n-Pentane
Nitrogen
NOx
Oxygen
Propane
Propylene
TNMHC
Illinois
Illinois
MA
Virginia
California 1 ,2-Dibromoethane
1,2-Dichloroethane
Benzene
Carbon tetrachloride
Chloroform
Methyl chloroform
Methylene chloride
PCE
TCE
Vinyl chloride
Control Compounds Tested
Device (Controlled)
1C Engine Carbon monoxide
NOx
TNMHC
Gas Turbine Carbon monoxide
Oxygen
Gas Turbine NOx
Oxygen
Sulfur dioxide
1C Engine Carbon monoxide
NOx
Oxygen
Sulfur dioxide
TGNMO
1C Engine Carbon dioxide
NOx
Oxygen
Flare 1 ,2-Dibromoethane
1,2-Dichloroethane
Benzene
Carbon monoxide
Carbon tetrachloride
Chloroform
Methyl chloroform
Methylene chloride
NOx
Particulates
PCE
TCE
TNMHC
Vinyl chloride
Comments
Test date: 6/4-66/91.
Lean combustion. NOx & CO
were analyzed by EPA Method
10&7E (Chemilume&NDIR).
Test date: 8/8/89. EPA Method
101
Test date: 7/12-14/89. EPA
Method 20.
Test date: 121493/Lean
combustion. NOx, SO2&CO
determined by EPA Method
7E, 6Cand 10.
Test date: 4/22-23/92.
NOx determined by EPA
Method 7E. O2 and CO2
determined by EPA Method
3A. No engine description.
Test date: 6/25-26/90.
Methane content unknown.
NOx and CO determined
by SDAPCD Method 20.
A-12
-------
Appendix A-1. Summary of Test Report Data (pre-1992 Landfills)
Ref. Landfill Compounds Tested
No. Name Location (Uncontrolled)
70 Puente Hills California TCA
1,1-Dichloroethane
1,1-Dichloroethene
1,2-Dibromoethane
1,2-Dichloroethane
Acetonitrile
Benzene
Benzyl chloride
Carbon disulfide
Carbon tetrachloride
Carbonyl sulfide
Chlorobenzene
Chloroform
70 cont. Puente Hills California Dimethyl disulfide
Dimethyl sulfide
Ethyl mercaptan
Hydrogen sulfide
m-Dichlorobenzene
m-Xylenes
Methane
Methyl mercaptan
Methylene chloride
o+p Xylene
TCE
PCE
Toluene
Vinyl chloride
71 CID Illinois
72 Tazewell Illinois
Control Compounds Tested
Device (Controlled)
Boilers TCA
1,1-Dichloroethane
1,1-Dichloroethene
1,2-Dibromoethane
1,2-Dichloroethane
Acetonitrile
Benzene
Benzyl chloride
Carbon disulfide
Carbon monoxide
Carbon tetrachloride
Carbonyl sulfide
Chlorobenzene
Chloroform
Dimethyl disulfide
Dimethyl sulfide
Ethyl mercaptan
Hydrogen sulfide
m-Dichlorobenzene
m-Xylenes
Methane
Methyl mercaptan
Methylene chloride
NMOC
o+p Dichlorobenzene
o+p Xylene
Sulfur dioxide
TCE
PCE
Toluene
Vinyl chloride
Turbine Carbon
Oxygen
TGNMO
Engine Carbon monoxide
TGNMO
N02
Sulfur dioxide
Comments
Test date: 9/29/93.
NOx & CO were analyzed using
SCAQMD Method 100.
Test date: 2/16/90.
O2 and CO2 determined by
EPA Method 3. TGNMO
determined by EPA Method
(modified) 25.
Test date: 2/22-23/90.
SO2 determined by EPA
Method 6C. NOx determined
by EPA Method 7E. CO
determined by EPA MethodlOA.
A-13
-------
Appendix A-1. Summary of Test Report Data (pre-1992 Landfills)
Ref. Landfill Compounds Tested Control Compounds Tested
No. Name Location (Uncontrolled) Device (Controlled)
73 Scottsville New York Engine 1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane
1,1,2-Tricitloroethane
1,1-Dichloroethane
1,1-Dichloroethene
1,2-Dichloroethane
1 ,2-Dichloropropene
1 ,3-Dichloropropene
2'-Chloroethyl vinyl ether
Acetone
Acrolein
Acrylonitrile
Benzene
Bromodichloromethane
Bromoform
Bromomethane
Carbon monoxide
Carbon monoxide
Carbon tetrachloride
Chlorobenzene
Chlorodibromomethane
Chloroethane chloroform
Chloromethane
Dichlorodofluoromethane
Ethane
Ethyl benzene
Flourotrichloromethane
Mercaptans
Methyl ethyl keytone
Methylene chloride
73 cont. Scottsville New York n-Butane
n-Hexane
n-Pentane
N02
Particulates
Propane
Sulfur dioxide
TCA
Tetra chloroethane
TGNMO
TNMHC
Toluene
Trans -1 ,2-dichloroethene
Trichloroethene
Vinyl chloride
Xylene
74 Tripoli New York 1C Engine Carbon monoxide
NOx
Sulfur dioxide
TNMHC
75 Oceanside New York Hydrogen sulfide 1C Engine Carbon monoxide
NOx
Oxygen
TNMHC
TSP
Comments
Test date: 5/2/90.
Engine No. 2 was used.
SO2 determined by EPA
Method 6C. NOx determined
by EPA Method 7E. CO
determined by EPA MethodlOA.
O2 and CO2 determined by
EPA Method 3A. Particulates
determined by EPA Method 5.
VOC was determined by EPA
Methods 5040/8240.
Test date: 4/3-5/89.
Test date: 10/6-7/92.
NOx & CO were analyzed by
EPA Method 7E& 10.
A-14
-------
Appendix A-1. Summary of Test Report Data (pre-1992 Landfills)
Ref. Landfill
No. Name
76 Dunbarton Rd.
77 Palo Alto
77 cont. Palo Alto
78 Northeast
79 Johnston
80 Bonsai
Compounds Tested
Location (Uncontrolled)
New Hampshire Carbon dioxide
Carbon monoxide
Hydrogen
Methane
Nitrogen
Oxyqen
California 1,1-Dichloroethane
Acetone
Benzene
Bromomethane
Carbon dioxide
Carbon monoxide
Ethyl benzene
Methane
Methylene chloride
Nitrogen
California Oxygen
PCE
TCE
Toluene
Xylenes
Rhode Island Carbon dioxide
Ethane
Hexane
Isobutane
Isopentane
Methane
n-Butane
Nitrogen
Propane
Rhode Island Argon
Carbon
Carbon dioxide
Carbon monoxide
Ethane
Ethene
Helium
Heptane
Hexane
Hydrogen
Hydrogen sulfide
Isobutane
Methane
n-Pentane
Nitrogen
NOx
Oxygen
Propane
Propylene
TNMHC
California
Control Compounds Tested
Device (Controlled)
1C Engine Carbon dioxide
Carbon monoxide
Hydrogen
Methane
NOx
Oxyqen
Engine Benzene
Carbon dioxide
Carbon monoxide
Methane
NOx
Oxygen
THC
TNMOC
VOC
Engine Carbon dioxide
Carbon monoxide
Methane
NOx
Oxygen
TNMHC
Engine Carbon dioxide
Carbon monoxide
Methane
NOx
Oxygen
THC
TNMHC
Flare Carbon monoxide
NOx
Particulate matter
Sulfur dioxide
TNMHC
TOG
Comments
Test date: 6/5/90.
NOx & O2 were analyzed by
EPA Method 20. CO
analyzed by EPA Method 10.
Test date: 6/2/93.
Engines No. 1 and 2 used.
NOx, 02, C02, CO, and THC
were determined by CARB
Method 1-100.
Test date: 5/25/94.
Engine No. 5 used.
O2 and CO2 analyzed by
EPA Method 3A.
NOx analyzed by EPA
Method 7E. CO analyzed
by EPA Method 10.
TNMHC analyzed by EPA
Method 18.
Test date: 10/9-16/90,
and 11/6/90.
Test date: 4/94.
TNMHC determined by
EPA Method 25.
A-15
-------
Appendix A-1. Summary of Test Report Data (pre-1992 Landfills)
Ref. Landfill
No. Name Location
81 Hillsborough California
82 Arizona Street California
83 San Marcos California
84 Otay California
85 San Marcos Cakifornia
87 Puente Hills California
Compounds Tested Control
(Uncontrolled) Device
Flare
Flare
Turbine
Benzene Engine
Dichloromethane
Hydrogen chloride
Methylene chloride
Sulphur
Vinyl chloride
Benzene Turbine
Carbon tetrachloride
Chloroform
Ethylene dibromide
Methylene chloride
PCE
TCA
TCE
Vinyl chloroide
Vinylidene chloride
PCB Flare
Compounds Tested
(Controlled)
Carbon monoxide
NOx
Particulate matter
Sulfur dioxide
TNMHC
TOG
1,2-dibromoethane
1,2-Dichloroethane
Benzene
Carbon monoxide
Carbon tetrachloride
Chloroform
Methylene chloride
NOx
Particulates
Sulfur dioxide
TCA
Tetrachloroethene
TNMHC
Trichloride
Trichloroethene
Vinyl chloride
Carbon dioxide
Carbon monoxide
NOx
Oxygen
Benzene
Carbon dioxide
Carbon monoxide
Carbon tetrachloride
Chloroform
Dichloromethane
EDB
EDC
Formaldehyde
HCI
Hydrogen chloride
Methyl chloroform
Methylene chloride
NOx
Oxygen
PCE
TCE
TNMHC
Vinyl chloride
Benzene
Carbon monoxide
NOx
Sulfur dioxide
Vinyl chloroide
Vinylidene chloride
Carbon dioxide
Carbon monoxide
HCI
Methane
NOx
Oxygen
PCDD
PCDF
Sulfur dioxide
TNMHC
TOC
Water
Comments
Test date: 1/94.
TNMHC determined by
EPA Method 25.
Test date: 3/30-4/7/92.
NOx and Carbon monoxide
analyzed by SDAPCD
Method 20.
Test date: 3/30/93.
Engine No. 1 used.
SDAPCD Methods 3A
and 20.
Test date: 10/20-22/87.
Test date: 6/26-27/89.
Test date:
Flare No. 11 was used.
A-16
-------
Appendix A-1. Summary of Test Report Data (pre-1992 Landfills)
Ref. Landfill Compounds Tested
No. Name Location (Uncontrolled)
88 Spradra California 1,1-Dichloroethane
1,1-Dichloroethane
1,1-Dichloroethene
1 ,2-Dichlorobenzene
1 ,3-Dichlorobenzene
1 ,4-Dichlorobenzene
Acetronitrile
Ammonia
Benzene
Benzyle chloride
Carbon dioxide
Carbon monoxide
Carbon tetrachloride
Chlorobenzene
Chloroform
HCI
Methylene chloride
NOx
Sulfur dioxide
TCA
Trichloroethene
Vinyl chloride
Xylenes
89 Oxnard California Arsenic
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Maganese
Mercury
Nickel
Selenium
Zinc
89 cont. Oxnard California
Control Compounds Tested
Device (Controlled)
Boiler 1,1-Dichloroethane
1,1-Dichloroethane
1,1-Dichloroethene
1 ,2-Dichlorobenzene
1 ,3-Dichlorobenzene
1 ,4-Dichlorobenzene
Acetronitrile
Benzene
Benzyle chloride
Carbon monoxide
Carbon tetrachloride
Chlorobenzene
Chloroform
Methylene chloride
NOx
PAH
Sulfur dioxide
TCA
Trichloroethene
Vinyl chloride
Xylenes
1C Engine Acenaphthene
Acenaphthylene
Anthracene
Arsenic
Benzo(a)anthracene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Benzo(b)floranthene
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene
Benzo(k)floranthene
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium
Chrysene
Copper
Dibenz(a,h)anthracene
Fluoranthene
Fluorene
Formaldehyde
HCI
Hydrogen fluoride
lndeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene
Lead
Manganese
Mercury
Naphthalene
Nickel
Phenanthrene
Pyrene
Selenium
Zinc
Comments
Test date: 7/25/90.
Test date: 7/23-27/90.
PAH determined by CARB
Method 429. Formaldehyde
determined by CARB
Method 430. Metals
determined by CARB
Method 436. Arsenic
determined by CARB
Method 423. Cromium
determined by CARB
Method 425. HCI
determined by CARB
Method 421. HF
determined by EPA
Method 13B.
A-17
-------
Appendix A-1. Summary of Test Report Data (pre-1992 Landfills)
Ref.
No.
Landfill
Name
Location
Compounds Tested
(Uncontrolled)
Control
Device
Compounds Tested
(Controlled)
Comments
90
Oxnard
California
Engine
TCA
1,1,2-Trochloroethane
1,1-Dichloroehtene
1,1-Dichloroethane
1,2-Dibromoethane
1,2-Dichloroethane
1,2-Dichloropropane
1,4-Dichlorobenzene
1,4-Dioxane
2-Butanone, MEK
2-Hexanone
2-Methyl phenol
3,4-Methyl phenol
4-Methyl-2-Pentanone, MIBK
Acetaldehyde
Acetone
Acrolein
Acrylonitrile
Benzene
Bromodichloromethane
Butane
Carbon dioxide
Carbon disulfide
Carbontetrachloride
Chlorobenzene
Chloroethane
Chloroform
Chloromethane
Chloropicrin
Dibromochloromethane
Dichlorobenzene
Dichloromethane
Ethane
Ethyl benzene
Test date: 10/16/90.
Benzene determined by
CARB Method 422.
Formaldehyde, Acrolin,
and Acetaldehyde
determined by CARB
Method 430. Phenol
determined by BAAQMD
ST-16.
D cont. Oxnard
California
Formaldehyde
Hexane
Hydrogen sulfide
Hydrogen sulfide
Methane
Pentane
Phenol
Propane
A-18
-------
Appendix A-1. Summary of Test Report Data (pre-1992 Landfills)
Ref. Landfill Compounds Tested
No. Name Location (Uncontrolled)
91 Oxnard California Carbon dioxide
Carbon monoxide
Ethane
Hexane
Hydrogen sulfide
Hydrogen sulfide
iso-Butane
iso-Pentane
Methane
n-Butane
n-Pentane
Nitrogen
Oxygen
Propane
Sulfur
92 Salinas California
Control Compounds Tested
Device (Controlled)
Engine Styrene
TCE
Tetrachloroethene
Toluene
Trichlorofluoromethane
Trichlorotrifluoroethane
Vinyl chloride
Xylenes
Engine 1 ,1 ,2-Trochloroethane
1,1-Dichloroehtene
1,1-Dichloroethane
1,2-Dibromoethane
1,2-Dichloroethane
1 ,2-Dichloropropane
1 ,4-Dichlorobenzene
1,4-Dioxane
2-Butanone, MEK
2-Hexanone
Acenaphthene
Acenaphthylene
Acetone
Acrylonitrile
Anthracene
Arsenic
Benzene
Benzo(a)anthracene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Benzo(b)floranthene
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene
Benzo(k)floranthene
Beryllium
Bromodichloromethane
Cadmium
Carbon disulfide
Comments
Test date: 12/20/90.
Hydrocarbons determined
by EPA Method 18. O2l
N2, and CO2 determined
by EPA Method 3.
Test date: 7/31-8/2/90.
PAH determined by CARB
Method 429. Formaldehyde,
Acrolein, and Acetaldehyde
determined by CARB
Method 430. Metals
determined by CARB
Method 436. Cadnium
determined by CARB
Method 424. Cromium
determined by CARB
Method 425. HCI
determined by CARB
Method 421. Silica
determined by EPA
Method 5. PCB
determined by EPA
Method 608/8080.
A-19
-------
Appendix A-1. Summary of Test Report Data (pre-1992 Landfills)
Ref.
No.
Landfill
Name
Location
Compounds Tested
(Uncontrolled)
Control
Device
Compounds Tested
(Controlled)
Comments
92 cont. Salinas
California
Carbontetrachloride
Chlorobenzene
Chloroethane
Chloroform
Chloromethane
Chloropicrin
Chromium
Chrysene
Copper
Cristobalite
Dibenz(a,h)anthracene
Dibromochloromethane
Dichloromethane
Ethyl benzene
Fluoranthene
Fluorene
HCI
Hydrogen sulfide
lndeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene
Lead
Manganese
Mercury
Naphthalene
Nickel
Phenanthrene
Phenols
Phosphorus
Pyrene
Quartz
Selenium
Styrene
TCA
TCE
Tetrachloroethene
Toluene
Trichlorofluoromethane
Trichlorotrifluoroethane
Tridymite
Vinyl chloride
Xylenes
Zinc
93 Newby Island California
Carbon dioxide
Carbon monoxide
NOx
Oxygen
THC
TNMHC
Test date: 2/7-8/90.
Active landfill. CARB
Method 1-100 was used.
94
Various
Various
1,1-dichloroethane
1,1-dichloroethylene
1,2-dichloroethylene
Benzene
Chlorobenzene
Dichloromethane
Hexane
I so-octane
Iso-propyl benzene
m,p-xylene
Methyl benzene
Napthalene
Nonane
o-xylene
Pentane
TCA
Tetrachloroethene
Trichloroethene
Various
1,1-dichloroethane
1,1-dichloroethylene
1,2-dichloroethylene
Benzene
Carbon dioxide
Chlorobenzene
Dichloromethane
Hexane
I so-octane
Iso-propyl benzene
m,p-xylene
Mercury
Methane
Methyl benzene
Napthalene
Nitrogen
Nonane
Oxygen
o-xylene
Pentane
TCA
Tetrachloroethene
Trichloroethene
A-20
-------
Appendix A-1. Summary of Test Report Data (pre-1992 Landfills)
Ref. Landfill Compounds Tested
No. Name Location (Uncontrolled)
95 Minnesota Minnesota
"Greater
and "Twin
Metropolitan
96 Fresh Kills New York Mercury
97 Mountaingate California PM
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Manganese
Mercury
Nickel
Selenium
Silver
Thallium
Zinc
98 Bakersfield California NMHC
Butane
Ethane
Methane
Pentane
Propane
99 Otay Landfill California NMHC
1 00 Penrose California NMHC
Methane
Perchloroethylene
Trichloroethylene
101 Toyon Canyon California 1,1,1 -Trichloroethylene
Benzene
Methane
Perchloroethylene
Toluene
Trichloroethylene
Xylene
Control Compounds Tested Comments
Device (Controlled)
Flare 1,1-dichloroethane Testdate: 7/90 to 5/91, and
1,1-dichloroethylene 1-11/92.
1,2-Dichloroethane
1 ,2-dichloroethylene
Carbon dioxide
Carbon disulfide
Carbon monoxide
Carbon tetrachloride
Carbonyl sulfide
Chlorobenzene
Chloroform
Dimethyl disulfide
Dimethyl sulfide
Ethyl mercaptan
HAP
HCI
Hydrogen sulfide
Mercury
Methane
Methyl mercaptan
Methylene chloride
Nitrogen
Nitrogen dioxide
NMOC
Perchloroethylene
PM
Sulfur dioxide
TCA
Trichloroethylene
Vinyl chloride
Testdate: 11/96.
EPA Method 101 A and
SW-846 Method 7471
were used.
Testdate: 5/18-21/92.
1C Engine NMHC Testdate 12/4/90.
Butane
CO
Ethane
Methane
NOx
Pentane
PM
Propane
1C Engine NMHC Test date 4/2/91 .
CO
NOx
PM
1C Engine NMHC Testdate 2/24/88.
Methane
Perchloroethylene
Trichloroethylene
1C Engine 1,1,1-Trichloroethylene Test date 3/8/88.
Benzene
Methane
Perchloroethylene
Toluene
Trichloroethylene
Xylene
A-21
-------
Appendix A-1. Summary of Test Report Data (pre-1992 Landfills)
Ref.
No.
Landfill
Name
Location
Compounds Tested
(Uncontrolled)
Control
Device
Compounds Tested
(Controlled)
Comments
Y&S
104 Maintenance
Pennsylvania
CO
C02
Methane
NMHC
NOx
Flare
CO
C02
Methane
NMHC
NOx
Test date 12/14/94.
NOx was determined by
EPA Method 7D.
105 Seneca Landfill Pennsylvania CO
C02
Methane
NMHC
Oxygen
Wayne
106 Township Pennsylvania CO
C02
Methane
NMVOC
Oxygen
Bethlehem
107 Landfill Pennsylvania NMHC
108 Hartford Landfill Connecticut NMOC
Contra Costa
109 Landfill California 1,1,1-Trichloroethane
1,2-Dichloroethane
Benzene
Carbon tetrachloride
Chloroform
CO
CO2
Ethylene dibromide
Methane
Methylene chloride
Nitrogen
NMOC
Oxygen
Tetrachlorethene
Trichlorethene
Vinyl chloride
Flare CO
C02
Methane
NMHC
NOx
Flare CO
C02
Methane
NMVOC
NOx
Oxygen
Flare CO2
NMHC
NOx
Oxygen
Flare CO
C02
Methane
NMOC
NOx
Oxygen
SO2
THC
Gas Flare 1,1,1 -Trichloroethane
1,2-Dichloroethane
Benzene
Carbon tetrachloride
Chloroform
CO
CO2
Ethylene dibromide
Methane
Methylene chloride
Nitrogen
NMOC
Oxygen
Tetrachlorethene
Trichlorethene
Vinyl chloride
Test date 9/8/93.
NOx and NMHC were
determined by EPA
Methods 7D and 25C,
repectively.
Test date 4/2/96.
NOx and NMVOC were
determined by EPA
Methods 7D and TO-1 4,
repectively.
Test date 10/9/96.
Oxygen and CO2, NOx, and
NMHC, were determined by
EPA Methods 3A, 7E, and
18, respectively.
Test date 11/4/93.
Oxygen, NOx, CO, SO2,
and THCwere determined
by EPA Methods 3A, 7E,
10, 6C, and 25A, respectively.
CO2, NMOC and methane
were determined by EPA
Method 18.
Test date 3/22/94.
EPA Method TO-1 4 was used.
A-22
-------
Reference
53
53
54
54
54
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
12
12
12
17
17
17
17
17
17
19
19
19
19
41
6
6
6
7
7
7
13
13
13
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
55
56
56
56
56
56
56
Appendix
Landfill Name
Altamont
Altamont
Arbor Hills
Arbor Hills
Arbor Hills
Azusa Land Reclamation
Azusa Land Reclamation
Azusa Land Reclamation
Azusa Land Reclamation
Azusa Land Reclamation
Azusa Land Reclamation
Azusa Land Reclamation
Azusa Land Reclamation
Azusa Land Reclamation
BKK Landfill
BKK Landfill
BKK Landfill
Bradley Pit
Bradley Pit
Bradley Pit
Bradley Pit
Bradley Pit
Bradley Pit
Bradley Pit
Bradley Pit
Bradley Pit
Bradley Pit
Bradley Pit
Bradley Pit
Bradley Pit
Bradley Pit
Calabasas
Calabasas
Calabasas
Carson
Carson
Carson
CBI10
CBI11
CBI13
CBI14
CBI15
CBI16
CBI17
CBI18
CBI20
CBI21
CBI23
CBI24
CBI25
CBI27
CBI30
CBI32
CBI4
CBI5
CBI6
CBI8
CBI9
Chicopee
Coyote Canyon
Coyote Canyon
Coyote Canyon
Coyote Canyon
Coyote Canyon
Coyote Canyon
A-2. Default
Co-disposal
(Y, N, or U)*
u
U
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
Y
Y
Y
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
u
u
u
u
Y
Y
Y
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
Y
U
U
U
U
U
Y
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
u
u
u
u
u
u
LFG Constituent Concentrations (pre-1992
Raw
Landfills)
Air Infiltration
Concentration Corrected Cone.
Compound
1,1,1-Trichloroethane
1,1,1-Trichloroethane
1,1,1-Trichloroethane
1,1,1-Trichloroethane
1,1,1-Trichloroethane
1,1,1-Trichloroethane
1,1,1-Trichloroethane
1,1,1-Trichloroethane
1,1,1-Trichloroethane
1,1,1-Trichloroethane
1,1,1-Trichloroethane
1,1,1-Trichloroethane
1,1,1-Trichloroethane
1,1,1-Trichloroethane
1,1,1-Trichloroethane
1,1,1-Trichloroethane
1,1,1-Trichloroethane
1,1,1-Trichloroethane
1,1,1-Trichloroethane
1,1,1-Trichloroethane
1,1,1-Trichloroethane
1,1,1-Trichloroethane
1,1,1-Trichloroethane
1,1,1-Trichloroethane
1,1,1-Trichloroethane
1,1,1-Trichloroethane
1,1,1-Trichloroethane
1,1,1-Trichloroethane
1,1,1-Trichloroethane
1,1,1-Trichloroethane
1,1,1-Trichloroethane
1,1,1-Trichloroethane
1,1,1-Trichloroethane
1,1,1-Trichloroethane
1,1,1-Trichloroethane
1,1,1-Trichloroethane
1,1,1-Trichloroethane
1,1,1-Trichloroethane
1,1,1-Trichloroethane
1,1,1-Trichloroethane
1,1,1-Trichloroethane
1,1,1-Trichloroethane
1,1,1-Trichloroethane
1,1,1-Trichloroethane
1,1,1-Trichloroethane
1,1,1-Trichloroethane
1,1,1-Trichloroethane
1,1,1-Trichloroethane
1,1,1-Trichloroethane
1,1,1-Trichloroethane
1,1,1-Trichloroethane
1,1,1-Trichloroethane
1,1,1-Trichloroethane
1,1,1-Trichloroethane
1,1,1-Trichloroethane
1,1,1-Trichloroethane
1,1,1-Trichloroethane
1,1,1-Trichloroethane
1,1,1-Trichloroethane
1,1,1-Trichloroethane
1,1,1-Trichloroethane
1,1,1-Trichloroethane
1,1,1-Trichloroethane
1,1,1-Trichloroethane
1,1,1-Trichloroethane
(ppmv)
0.28
0.47
0.15
0.14
0.15
0.0023
0.057
0.037
1.80
0.079
0.058
1.70
0.058
0.057
12.00
6.50
22.00
2.10
4.80
5.70
0.57
0.54
2.10
0.98
0.21
2.20
2.30
0.0079
0.73
0.16
0.17
0.33
0.60
3.40
0.025
0.037
0.038
0.25
4.20
0.030
0.48
0.030
0.60
0.20
0.37
0.40
0.60
1.30
0.50
1.24
0.47
0.16
1.35
0.34
0.15
1.15
0.77
1.90
2.20
0.18
0.17
0.17
0.17
0.21
0.18
(ppmv)
0.34
0.55
0.16
0.14
0.15
0.0024
0.059
0.039
1.88
0.082
0.060
1.77
0.060
0.059
26.4
15.3
48.4
2.60
7.38
8.52
0.71
0.68
2.54
1.29
0.28
2.91
3.04
0.011
0.97
0.21
0.23
0.50
1.08
6.14
0.053
0.051
0.051
0.25
4.25
0.036
0.49
0.030
0.61
0.20
0.38
0.40
0.60
1.38
0.51
1.25
0.47
0.16
1.36
0.36
0.15
1.16
0.78
1.92
2.82
0.24
0.22
0.23
0.26
0.30
0.26
Site Avg.**
(ppmv)
0.44
0.15
0.45
30.0
2.72
2.57
0.051
0.25
4.25
0.036
0.49
0.030
0.61
0.20
0.38
0.40
0.60
1.38
0.51
1.25
0.47
0.16
1.36
0.36
0.15
1.16
0.78
1.92
2.82
0.25
Appendix A-2
23
-------
Reference
57
57
57
10
5
5
5
5
58
58
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
51
51
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
18
18
18
18
24
24
50
59
1
1
9
9
9
9
23
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
59
43
54
54
54
43
43
43
43
43
43
Appendix
Landfill Name
Durham Rd.
Durham Rd.
Durham Rd.
Mission Canyon
Mountaingate
Mountaingate
Mountaingate
Mountaingate
Otay Annex
Otay Landfill
Palos Verdes
Palos Verdes
Palos Verdes
Palos Verdes
Palos Verdes
Palos Verdes
Palos Verdes
Palos Verdes
Palos Verdes
Palos Verdes
Palos Verdes
Palos Verdes
Palos Verdes
Palos Verdes
Penrose
Penrose
Penrose
Penrose
Penrose
Penrose
Penrose
Penrose
Puente Hills
Puente Hills
Puente Hills
Puente Hills
Puente Hills
Puente Hills
Puente Hills
Rockingham LF
Scholl Canyon
Scholl Canyon
Sheldon Street
Sheldon Street
Sheldon Street
Sheldon Street
Toyon Canyon
CBI10
CBI15
CBI24
CBI30
CBI5
CBI7
CBI9
Rockingham
CBI11
Arbor Hills
Arbor Hills
Arbor Hills
CBI10
CBI11
CBI12
CBI13
CBI14
CBI15
A-2. Default
Co-disposal
(Y, N, or U)*
u
U
u
N
N
N
N
N
U
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
U
N
N
U
U
U
U
N
U
U
Y
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
LFG Constituent Concentrations (pre-1992 Landfills)
Raw Air Infiltration
Compound
1,1,1-Trichloroethane
1,1,1-Trichloroethane
1,1,1-Trichloroethane
1,1,1-Trichloroethane
1,1,1-Trichloroethane
1,1,1-Trichloroethane
1,1,1-Trichloroethane
1,1,1-Trichloroethane
1,1,1-Trichloroethane
1,1,1-Trichloroethane
1,1,1-Trichloroethane
1,1,1-Trichloroethane
1,1,1-Trichloroethane
1,1,1-Trichloroethane
1,1,1-Trichloroethane
1,1,1-Trichloroethane
1,1,1-Trichloroethane
1,1,1-Trichloroethane
1,1,1-Trichloroethane
1,1,1-Trichloroethane
1,1,1-Trichloroethane
1,1,1-Trichloroethane
1,1,1-Trichloroethane
1,1,1-Trichloroethane
1,1,1-Trichloroethane
1,1,1-Trichloroethane
1,1,1-Trichloroethane
1,1,1-Trichloroethane
1,1,1-Trichloroethane
1,1,1-Trichloroethane
1,1,1-Trichloroethane
1,1,1-Trichloroethane
1,1,1-Trichloroethane
1,1,1-Trichloroethane
1,1,1-Trichloroethane
1,1,1-Trichloroethane
1,1,1-Trichloroethane
1,1,1-Trichloroethane
1,1,1-Trichloroethane
1,1,1-Trichloroethane
1,1,1-Trichloroethane
1,1,1-Trichloroethane
1,1,1-Trichloroethane
1,1,1-Trichloroethane
1,1,1-Trichloroethane
1,1,1-Trichloroethane
1,1,1-Trichloroethane
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane
1,1,2-Trichloroethane
1,1-Dichloroethane
1,1-Dichloroethane
1,1-Dichloroethane
1,1-Dichloroethane
1,1-Dichloroethane
1,1-Dichloroethane
1,1-Dichloroethane
1,1-Dichloroethane
1,1-Dichloroethane
Concentration
(ppmv)
0.67
0.75
2.70
0.016
0.011
0.011
0.012
0.011
0.17
0.010
0.0022
0.010
0.014
0.036
0.0035
0.0022
0.0058
0.0022
0.0058
0.0020
0.0028
0.0042
0.056
0.10
0.021
0.021
0.046
0.045
0.0087
0.012
0.015
0.023
0.91
0.94
0.60
0.50
2.20
1.70
0.73
7.90
0.46
0.14
8.60
0.015
0.05
0.05
0.61
3.65
0.010
2.00
0.11
0.20
2.35
0.20
0.15
0.10
1.59
1.26
1.18
2.30
19.5
0.85
0.30
11.9
0.050
Corrected Cone.
(ppmv)
0.88
0.90
3.21
0.066
0.032
0.032
0.035
0.032
0.18
0.014
0.010
0.044
0.061
0.16
0.015
0.010
0.025
0.010
0.025
0.0087
0.012
0.018
0.14
0.32
0.027
0.027
0.079
0.077
0.021
0.028
0.030
0.045
1.18
1.27
0.80
0.66
3.17
2.35
0.88
10.5
0.74
0.32
17.12
0.030
0.11
0.11
0.66
3.72
0.010
2.03
0.11
0.20
2.41
0.20
0.20
0.10
1.63
1.27
1.20
2.34
19.7
0.94
0.36
12.0
0.050
Site Avg.**
(ppmv)
1.66
0.066
0.032
0.18
0.014
0.061
0.042
1.47
10.5
0.53
4.34
0.66
3.72
0.010
2.03
0.11
0.20
2.41
0.20
0.20
0.10
1.37
2.34
19.7
0.94
0.36
12.0
0.050
Appendix A-2
24
-------
Reference
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
55
56
56
56
56
56
56
27
27
27
27
27
27
59
3
3
54
54
54
15
15
12
12
17
17
17
17
17
17
19
19
19
19
6
6
6
7
7
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
Appendix
Landfill Name
CBI16
CBI17
CBI18
CBI2
CBI20
CBI22
CBI23
CBI24
CBI25
CBI26
CBI27
CBI29
CBI3
CBI30
CBI33
CBI4
CBI5
CBI6
CBI8
CBI9
Chicopee
Coyote Canyon
Coyote Canyon
Coyote Canyon
Coyote Canyon
Coyote Canyon
Coyote Canyon
Lyon Development
Lyon Development
Lyon Development
Lyon Development
Lyon Development
Lyon Development
Rockingham LF
Altamont
Altamont
Arbor Hills
Arbor Hills
Arbor Hills
Azusa Land Reclamation
Azusa Land Reclamation
BKK Landfill
BKK Landfill
Bradley Pit
Bradley Pit
Bradley Pit
Bradley Pit
Bradley Pit
Bradley Pit
Bradley Pit
Bradley Pit
Bradley Pit
Bradley Pit
Bradley Pit
Bradley Pit
Bradley Pit
Calabasas
Calabasas
CBI10
CBI11
CBI12
CBI13
CBI14
CBI19
CBI21
A-2. Default
Co-disposal
(Y, N, or U)*
Y
U
U
U
U
U
U
Y
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
Y
Y
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
Y
Y
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
LFG Constituent Concentrations (pre-1992
Raw
Landfills)
Air Infiltration
Concentration Corrected Cone.
Compound
1,1-Dichloroethane
1,1-Dichloroethane
1,1-Dichloroethane
1,1-Dichloroethane
1,1-Dichloroethane
1,1-Dichloroethane
1,1-Dichloroethane
1,1-Dichloroethane
1,1-Dichloroethane
1,1-Dichloroethane
1,1-Dichloroethane
1,1-Dichloroethane
1,1-Dichloroethane
1,1-Dichloroethane
1,1-Dichloroethane
1,1-Dichloroethane
1,1-Dichloroethane
1,1-Dichloroethane
1,1-Dichloroethane
1,1-Dichloroethane
1,1-Dichloroethane
1,1-Dichloroethane
1,1-Dichloroethane
1,1-Dichloroethane
1,1-Dichloroethane
1,1-Dichloroethane
1,1-Dichloroethane
1,1-dichloroethane
1,1-dichloroethane
1,1-dichloroethane
1,1-dichloroethane
1,1-dichloroethane
1,1-dichloroethane
1,1-Dichloroethane
1,2-Dichloroethane
1,2-Dichloroethane
1,2-Dichloroethane
1,2-Dichloroethane
1,2-Dichloroethane
1,2-Dichloroethane
1,2-Dichloroethane
1,2-Dichloroethane
1,2-Dichloroethane
1,2-Dichloroethane
1,2-Dichloroethane
1,2-Dichloroethane
1,2-Dichloroethane
1,2-Dichloroethane
1,2-Dichloroethane
1,2-Dichloroethane
1,2-Dichloroethane
1,2-Dichloroethane
1,2-Dichloroethane
1,2-Dichloroethane
1,2-Dichloroethane
1,2-Dichloroethane
1,2-Dichloroethane
1,2-Dichloroethane
1,2-Dichloroethane
1,2-Dichloroethane
1,2-Dichloroethane
1,2-Dichloroethane
1,2-Dichloroethane
1,2-Dichloroethane
1,2-Dichloroethane
(ppmv)
0.60
1.75
5.63
0.10
2.75
0.40
2.60
11.9
1.21
0.45
6.33
3.53
0.10
0.71
0.10
2.35
1.60
4.50
8.95
7.90
5.02
2.34
2.52
3.13
2.87
1.80
1.70
1.10
3.00
0.060
0.19
0.15
0.060
43.7
0.55
0.13
0.27
0.34
0.54
0.15
0.15
50.0
10.0
1.80
4.30
4.30
2.20
2.20
1.80
1.60
1.10
0.15
1.30
0.43
0.43
0.43
15.0
18.0
1.80
0.45
0.55
0.020
0.020
0.50
0.78
(ppmv)
0.61
1.77
5.74
0.10
2.77
0.40
2.76
12.1
1.22
0.45
6.37
3.73
0.10
0.72
0.10
2.47
1.62
4.53
9.02
7.98
6.44
3.24
3.36
4.17
4.25
2.62
2.51
1.29
3.57
0.059
0.22
0.18
0.059
58.1
0.66
0.15
0.28
0.34
0.55
0.16
0.16
110
23.5
2.69
5.38
5.38
2.66
2.72
2.77
2.06
1.40
0.23
1.61
0.54
0.59
0.58
27.1
32.5
1.83
0.46
0.61
0.024
0.020
0.50
0.79
Site Avg.**
(ppmv)
0.61
1.77
5.74
0.10
2.77
0.40
2.76
12.1
1.22
0.45
6.37
3.73
0.10
0.72
0.10
2.47
1.62
4.53
9.02
7.98
6.44
3.36
0.90
58.1
0.41
0.39
0.16
66.8
2.20
29.8
1.83
0.46
0.61
0.024
0.020
0.50
0.79
Appendix A-2
25
-------
Reference
43
43
43
55
56
56
56
56
56
56
57
57
57
27
27
27
5
5
5
5
58
84
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
18
18
18
18
59
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
41
41
41
41
41
41
41
43
41
41
Appendix
Landfill Name
CBI31
CBI8
CBI9
Chicopee
Coyote Canyon
Coyote Canyon
Coyote Canyon
Coyote Canyon
Coyote Canyon
Coyote Canyon
Durham Rd.
Durham Rd.
Durham Rd.
Lyon Development
Lyon Development
Lyon Development
Mountaingate
Mountaingate
Mountaingate
Mountaingate
Otay Annex
Otay Landfill
Palos Verdes
Palos Verdes
Palos Verdes
Palos Verdes
Palos Verdes
Palos Verdes
Palos Verdes
Palos Verdes
Palos Verdes
Palos Verdes
Palos Verdes
Palos Verdes
Penrose
Penrose
Penrose
Penrose
Penrose
Penrose
Penrose
Penrose
Puente Hills
Puente Hills
Puente Hills
Puente Hills
Rockingham
CBI11
CBI13
CBI14
CBI24
CBI27
CBI30
CBI5
CBI8
Guadalupe
Guadalupe
Guadalupe
Guadalupe
Guadalupe
Guadalupe
Guadalupe
CBI15
Guadalupe
Guadalupe
A-2. Default
Co-disposal
(Y, N, or U)*
u
U
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
N
N
N
N
U
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
N
N
N
N
U
U
U
U
Y
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
LFG Constituent Concentrations (pre-1992
Raw
Landfills)
Air Infiltration
Concentration Corrected Cone.
Compound
1,2-Dichloroethane
1,2-Dichloroethane
1,2-Dichloroethane
1,2-Dichloroethane
1,2-Dichloroethane
1,2-Dichloroethane
1,2-Dichloroethane
1,2-Dichloroethane
1,2-Dichloroethane
1,2-Dichloroethane
1,2-Dichloroethane
1,2-Dichloroethane
1,2-Dichloroethane
1,2-Dichloroethane
1,2-Dichloroethane
1,2-Dichloroethane
1,2-Dichloroethane
1,2-Dichloroethane
1,2-Dichloroethane
1,2-Dichloroethane
1,2-Dichloroethane
1,2-Dichloroethane
1,2-Dichloroethane
1,2-Dichloroethane
1,2-Dichloroethane
1,2-Dichloroethane
1,2-Dichloroethane
1,2-Dichloroethane
1,2-Dichloroethane
1,2-Dichloroethane
1,2-Dichloroethane
1,2-Dichloroethane
1,2-Dichloroethane
1,2-Dichloroethane
1,2-Dichloroethane
1,2-Dichloroethane
1,2-Dichloroethane
1,2-Dichloroethane
1,2-Dichloroethane
1,2-Dichloroethane
1,2-Dichloroethane
1,2-Dichloroethane
1,2-Dichloroethane
1,2-Dichloroethane
1,2-Dichloroethane
1,2-Dichloroethane
1,2-Dichloroethane
1,2-Dichloro propane
1,2-Dichloro propane
1,2-Dichloro propane
1,2-Dichloro propane
1,2-Dichloro propane
1,2-Dichloro pro pane
1,2-Dichloro pro pane
1,2-Dichloro pro pane
1,2-Dimethyl cyclohexane
1,3-Dimethyl cyclohexane
1,3-Dimethyl cyclopentane
1-Butanol
1-Propanol
2,4-Dimethyl heptane
2-Butanol
2-Chloroethylvinyl ether
2-Hexanone
2-Methyl heptane
(ppmv)
1.90
0.18
0.10
0.11
0.12
0.13
0.23
0.23
0.11
0.10
0.12
0.13
0.14
0.060
0.060
0.060
0.06
0.06
0.06
0.06
0.025
0.025
0.08
0.08
0.08
0.08
0.08
0.08
1.10
0.15
0.15
1.10
1.10
0.81
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
6.00
6.00
6.00
6.00
30.6
1.80
0.06
0.02
0.50
0.27
0.22
0.10
0.12
8.80
5.40
21.4
8.20
3.20
10.5
13.3
2.25
12.6
2.10
(ppmv)
1.90
0.18
0.10
0.14
0.15
0.17
0.30
0.34
0.16
0.14
0.16
0.16
0.17
0.071
0.071
0.060
0.17
0.17
0.17
0.17
0.027
0.034
0.35
0.35
0.35
0.35
0.35
0.35
4.80
0.65
0.65
4.80
4.80
3.53
0.64
0.63
0.86
0.85
1.22
1.18
0.99
0.97
7.79
8.09
8.00
7.95
40.7
1.82
0.07
0.02
0.51
0.27
0.22
0.10
0.12
10.5
6.47
25.6
9.82
3.83
12.6
15.9
2.27
15.1
2.51
Site Avg.**
(ppmv)
1.90
0.18
0.10
0.14
0.21
0.16
0.067
0.17
0.027
0.034
1.78
0.92
7.96
40.7
1.82
0.07
0.02
0.51
0.27
0.22
0.10
0.12
10.5
6.47
25.6
9.82
3.83
12.6
15.9
2.27
15.1
2.51
Appendix A-2
26
-------
Reference
41
41
41
60
41
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
59
56
56
43
43
43
59
53
53
54
54
54
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
12
12
12
17
17
17
17
17
17
41
0
6
6
7
7
7
13
13
13
43
43
Appendix
Landfill Name
Guadalupe
Guadalupe
Guadalupe
Sunshine Canyon
Guadalupe
CBI11
CBI12
CBI14
CBI18
CBI20
CBI21
CBI22
CBI23
CBI24
CBI26
CBI27
CBI3
CBI31
CBI32
CBI33
CBI6
CBI7
CBI9
Rockingham
Coyote Canyon
Coyote Canyon
CBI14
CBI25
CBI4
Rockingham
Altamont
Altamont
Arbor Hills
Arbor Hills
Arbor Hills
Azusa Land Reclamation
Azusa Land Reclamation
Azusa Land Reclamation
Azusa Land Reclamation
Azusa Land Reclamation
Azusa Land Reclamation
Azusa Land Reclamation
Azusa Land Reclamation
Azusa Land Reclamation
BKK Landfill
BKK Landfill
BKK Landfill
Bradley Pit
Bradley Pit
Bradley Pit
Bradley Pit
Bradley Pit
Bradley Pit
Bradley Pit
Bradley Pit
Bradley Pit
Bradley Pit
Calabasas
Calabasas
Calabasas
Carson
Carson
Carson
CBI10
CBI11
A-2. Default
Co-disposal
(Y, N, or U)*
u
U
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
Y
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
Y
Y
Y
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
Y
Y
Y
U
U
U
U
U
LFG Constituent Concentrations (pre-1992
Raw
Landfills)
Air Infiltration
Concentration Corrected Cone.
Compound
2-Methyl propane
2-Methyl-methylester propanoic acid
2-Propanol
2-Propanol
3-Carene
Acetone
Acetone
Acetone
Acetone
Acetone
Acetone
Acetone
Acetone
Acetone
Acetone
Acetone
Acetone
Acetone
Acetone
Acetone
Acetone
Acetone
Acetone
Acetone
Acetonitrile
Acetonitrile
Acrylonitrile
Acrylonitrile
Acrylonitrile
Acrylonitrile
Benzene
Benzene
Benzene
Benzene
Benzene
Benzene
Benzene
Benzene
Benzene
Benzene
Benzene
Benzene
Benzene
Benzene
Benzene
Benzene
Benzene
Benzene
Benzene
Benzene
Benzene
Benzene
Benzene
Benzene
Benzene
Benzene
Benzene
Benzene
Benzene
Benzene
Benzene
Benzene
Benzene
Benzene
Benzene
(ppmv)
4.40
5.60
5.20
54.0
44.1
12.0
2.25
1.84
4.50
6.50
2.25
19.3
1.00
20.0
8.50
5.33
3.40
7.00
2.50
8.00
7.50
32.0
14.0
36.8
0.023
0.019
0.80
7.40
8.93
21.3
3.70
0.91
0.95
0.99
0.84
0.10
0.10
1.90
2.00
2.30
2.80
1.80
2.20
4.10
45.0
34.0
45.0
2.80
3.10
2.30
1.10
2.60
1.10
0.90
1.70
6.10
0.90
18.0
32.0
11.7
4.20
3.70
5.10
1.00
1.95
(ppmv)
5.27
6.71
6.23
64.7
63.7
12.1
2.48
1.86
4.59
6.54
2.27
19.5
1.06
20.3
8.54
5.37
3.41
7.01
2.51
8.02
7.55
32.8
14.1
48.9
0.023
0.019
0.81
7.46
9.38
28.3
4.46
1.06
0.98
1.00
0.86
0.10
0.10
1.98
2.09
2.40
2.92
1.88
2.29
4.28
99.1
79.8
98.9
3.47
3.74
3.54
1.38
3.89
1.38
1.30
2.31
7.63
1.23
32.5
57.8
17.8
6.46
5.69
7.85
1.02
1.97
Site Avg.**
(ppmv)
5.27
6.71
35.4
64.7
63.7
12.1
2.48
1.86
4.59
6.54
2.27
19.5
1.06
20.3
8.54
5.37
3.41
7.01
2.51
8.02
7.55
32.8
14.1
48.9
0.021
0.81
7.46
9.38
28.3
2.76
0.95
2.00
92.6
2.99
36.0
6.67
1.02
1.97
Appendix A-2
27
-------
Reference
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
55
56
56
57
57
57
27
27
27
10
5
5
5
5
8
58
84
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
51
51
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
Appendix
Landfill Name
CBI12
CBI13
CBI14
CBI15
CBI16
CBI17
CBI18
CBI20
CBI21
CBI22
CBI23
CBI24
CBI25
CBI26
CBI27
CBI29
CBI30
CBI31
CBI32
CBI33
CBI4
CBI5
CBI6
CBI7
CBI8
CBI9
Chicopee
Coyote Canyon
Coyote Canyon
Durham Rd.
Durham Rd.
Durham Rd.
Lyon Development
Lyon Development
Lyon Development
Mission Canyon
Mountaingate
Mountaingate
Mountaingate
Mountaingate
Operating Industries
Otay Annex
Otay Landfill
Palos Verdes
Palos Verdes
Palos Verdes
Palos Verdes
Palos Verdes
Palos Verdes
Palos Verdes
Palos Verdes
Palos Verdes
Palos Verdes
Palos Verdes
Palos Verdes
Palos Verdes
Palos Verdes
Penrose
Penrose
Penrose
Penrose
Penrose
Penrose
Penrose
Penrose
A-2. Default
Co-disposal
(Y, N, or U)*
u
U
u
u
Y
U
U
U
U
U
U
Y
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
N
N
N
N
N
U
U
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
LFG Constituent Concentrations (pre-1992
Raw
Landfills)
Air Infiltration
Concentration Corrected Cone.
Compound
Benzene
Benzene
Benzene
Benzene
Benzene
Benzene
Benzene
Benzene
Benzene
Benzene
Benzene
Benzene
Benzene
Benzene
Benzene
Benzene
Benzene
Benzene
Benzene
Benzene
Benzene
Benzene
Benzene
Benzene
Benzene
Benzene
Benzene
Benzene
Benzene
Benzene
Benzene
Benzene
Benzene
Benzene
Benzene
Benzene
Benzene
Benzene
Benzene
Benzene
Benzene
Benzene
Benzene
Benzene
Benzene
Benzene
Benzene
Benzene
Benzene
Benzene
Benzene
Benzene
Benzene
Benzene
Benzene
Benzene
Benzene
Benzene
Benzene
Benzene
Benzene
Benzene
Benzene
Benzene
Benzene
(ppmv)
2.60
1.53
2.76
0.35
0.30
0.10
1.53
0.65
1.05
0.57
1.20
5.53
2.42
0.15
0.77
79.1
2.65
0.60
0.70
0.83
1.04
2.55
0.20
1.50
4.55
1.00
4.82
1.64
1.73
2.30
2.40
3.10
0.55
1.20
0.31
0.036
0.13
0.09
0.10
0.10
4.70
3.36
8.48
13.0
2.50
20.0
1.00
2.30
5.40
0.96
6.00
20.0
5.40
0.96
1.10
9.80
53.0
1.90
2.20
4.00
4.00
1.40
1.40
1.30
1.30
(ppmv)
2.86
1.85
2.79
0.35
0.30
0.10
1.56
0.65
1.06
0.58
1.27
5.61
2.44
0.15
0.78
83.7
2.67
0.60
0.70
0.83
1.09
2.58
0.20
1.54
4.59
1.01
6.19
2.18
2.56
3.03
2.89
3.69
0.65
1.43
0.31
0.15
0.37
0.26
0.29
0.29
9.36
4.57
9.17
56.7
10.9
87.2
4.36
10.0
23.5
4.19
26.2
87.2
23.5
4.19
4.80
31.2
136
2.43
2.78
6.88
6.81
3.41
3.31
2.58
2.53
Site Avg.**
(ppmv)
2.86
1.85
2.79
0.35
0.30
0.10
1.56
0.65
1.06
0.58
1.27
5.61
2.44
0.15
0.78
83.7
2.67
0.60
0.70
0.83
1.09
2.58
0.20
1.54
4.59
1.01
6.19
2.37
3.20
0.79
1.36
0.30
9.36
4.57
9.17
36.4
3.84
Appendix A-2
28
-------
Appendix A-2. Default
Reference
18
18
18
18
24
24
50
59
1
1
9
9
9
9
39
23
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
60
41
54
54
15
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
6
7
56
24
24
24
24
50
1
10
5
5
5
5
Landfill Name
Puente Hills
Puente Hills
Puente Hills
Puente Hills
Puente Hills
Puente Hills
Puente Hills
Rockingham
Scholl Canyon
Scholl Canyon
Sheldon Street
Sheldon Street
Sheldon Street
Sheldon Street
Sunshine Canyon
Toyon Canyon
CBI13
CBI14
CBI24
CBI25
CBI30
CBI4
CBI8
CBI11
CBI14
CBI16
CBI17
CBI18
CBI19
CBI26
CBI27
CBI32
CBI33
CBI34
CBI5
CBI6
CBI9
Sunshine Canyon
Guadalupe
Arbor Hills
Arbor Hills
Azusa Land Reclamation
BKK Landfill
BKK Landfill
BKK Landfill
BKK Landfill
BKK Landfill
BKK Landfill
BKK Landfill
BKK Landfill
BKK Landfill
Bradley Pit
Calabasas
Coyote Canyon
Puente Hills
Puente Hills
Puente Hills
Puente Hills
Puente Hills
Scholl Canyon
Mission Canyon
Mountaingate
Mountaingate
Mountaingate
Mountaingate
Co-disposal
(Y, N, or U)*
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
U
N
N
U
U
U
U
U
N
U
U
Y
U
U
U
U
U
U
Y
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
U
Y
U
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
LFG Constituent Concentrations (pre-1992 Landfills)
Raw Air Infiltration
Compound
Benzene
Benzene
Benzene
Benzene
Benzene
Benzene
Benzene
Benzene
Benzene
Benzene
Benzene
Benzene
Benzene
Benzene
Benzene
Benzene
Bromodichloro methane
Bromodichloro methane
Bromodichloro methane
Bromodichloro methane
Bromodichloro methane
Bromodichloro methane
Bromodichloro methane
Butane
Butane
Butane
Butane
Butane
Butane
Butane
Butane
Butane
Butane
Butane
Butane
Butane
Butane
Butane
Butylester butanoic acid
Carbon disulfide
Carbon disulfide
Carbon disulfide
Carbon disulfide
Carbon disulfide
Carbon disulfide
Carbon disulfide
Carbon disulfide
Carbon disulfide
Carbon disulfide
Carbon disulfide
Carbon disulfide
Carbon disulfide
Carbon disulfide
Carbon disulfide
Carbon disulfide
Carbon disulfide
Carbon disulfide
Carbon disulfide
Carbon disulfide
Carbon disulfide
Carbon tetrachloride
Carbon tetrachloride
Carbon tetrachloride
Carbon tetrachloride
Carbon tetrachloride
Concentration
(ppmv)
12.0
12.0
16.0
15.0
6.60
6.25
8.50
1.30
3.90
0.28
0.50
0.50
0.13
12.0
2.20
2.75
0.22
0.12
2.48
7.85
2.02
1.14
7.80
16.5
18.8
1.00
1.00
0.83
2.50
1.50
6.07
5.00
1.13
0.50
11.8
9.50
32.0
38.0
11.6
0.092
0.093
0.41
0.83
0.66
0.40
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.60
0.30
1.20
0.050
0.070
0.90
0.81
0.85
1.00
0.00005
0.050
0.00040
0.00036
0.00026
0.00026
0.00027
Corrected Cone.
(ppmv)
15.6
16.2
21.3
19.9
9.52
8.66
10.30
1.73
6.26
0.64
1.00
1.00
0.26
23.9
2.32
2.96
0.27
0.12
2.52
7.91
2.04
1.20
7.86
16.7
19.0
1.02
1.01
0.85
2.51
1.51
6.11
5.03
1.13
0.50
11.9
9.57
32.3
40.0
16.8
0.094
0.095
0.43
1.86
1.46
0.86
1.08
1.06
1.45
1.09
1.28
0.67
1.64
0.076
0.10
1.31
1.16
1.18
1.38
0.00006
0.11
0.0016
0.0010
0.00075
0.00075
0.00078
Site Avg.**
(ppmv)
14.5
1.73
3.45
6.53
2.32
2.96
0.27
0.12
2.52
7.91
2.04
1.20
7.86
16.7
19.0
1.02
1.01
0.85
2.51
1.51
6.11
5.03
1.13
0.50
11.9
9.57
32.3
40.0
16.8
0.094
0.43
1.20
1.64
0.076
0.10
1.01
0.11
0.0016
0.00083
Appendix A-2
29
-------
Appendix A-2. Default
Reference
18
18
18
18
24
24
50
1
23
53
53
54
54
54
15
15
19
19
19
19
6
6
6
6
13
13
13
43
55
56
56
56
56
56
56
57
57
57
27
27
27
58
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
59
9
9
9
9
12
12
12
7
7
7
84
22
22
22
Landfill Name
Puente Hills
Puente Hills
Puente Hills
Puente Hills
Puente Hills
Puente Hills
Puente Hills
Scholl Canyon
Toyon Canyon
Altamont
Altamont
Arbor Hills
Arbor Hills
Arbor Hills
Azusa Land Reclamation
Azusa Land Reclamation
Bradley Pit
Bradley Pit
Bradley Pit
Bradley Pit
Bradley Pit
Bradley Pit
Bradley Pit
Bradley Pit
Carson
Carson
Carson
CBI15
Chicopee
Coyote Canyon
Coyote Canyon
Coyote Canyon
Coyote Canyon
Coyote Canyon
Coyote Canyon
Durham Rd.
Durham Rd.
Durham Rd.
Lyon Development
Lyon Development
Lyon Development
Otay Annex
Penrose
Penrose
Penrose
Penrose
Penrose
Penrose
Penrose
Penrose
Rockingham
Sheldon Street
Sheldon Street
Sheldon Street
Sheldon Street
BKK Landfill
BKK Landfill
BKK Landfill
Calabasas
Calabasas
Calabasas
Otay Landfill
Palos Verdes
Palos Verdes
Palos Verdes
Co-disposal
(Y, N, or U)*
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
LFG Constituent Concentrations (pre-1992 Landfills)
Raw Air Infiltration
Compound
Carbon tetrachloride
Carbon tetrachloride
Carbon tetrachloride
Carbon tetrachloride
Carbon tetrachloride
Carbon tetrachloride
Carbon tetrachloride
Carbon tetrachloride
Carbon tetrachloride
Carbon tetrachloride
Carbon tetrachloride
Carbon tetrachloride
Carbon tetrachloride
Carbon tetrachloride
Carbon tetrachloride
Carbon tetrachloride
Carbon tetrachloride
Carbon tetrachloride
Carbon tetrachloride
Carbon tetrachloride
Carbon tetrachloride
Carbon tetrachloride
Carbon tetrachloride
Carbon tetrachloride
Carbon tetrachloride
Carbon tetrachloride
Carbon tetrachloride
Carbon tetrachloride
Carbon tetrachloride
Carbon tetrachloride
Carbon tetrachloride
Carbon tetrachloride
Carbon tetrachloride
Carbon tetrachloride
Carbon tetrachloride
Carbon tetrachloride
Carbon tetrachloride
Carbon tetrachloride
Carbon tetrachloride
Carbon tetrachloride
Carbon tetrachloride
Carbon tetrachloride
Carbon tetrachloride
Carbon tetrachloride
Carbon tetrachloride
Carbon tetrachloride
Carbon tetrachloride
Carbon tetrachloride
Carbon tetrachloride
Carbon tetrachloride
Carbon tetrachloride
Carbon tetrachloride
Carbon tetrachloride
Carbon tetrachloride
Carbon tetrachloride
Carbon tetrachloride
Carbon tetrachloride
Carbon tetrachloride
Carbon tetrachloride
Carbon tetrachloride
Carbon tetrachloride
Carbon tetrachloride
Carbon tetrachloride
Carbon tetrachloride
Carbon tetrachloride
Concentration
(ppmv)
0.030
0.030
0.030
0.030
0.0014
0.0012
0.0050
0.18
0.0025
0.0025
0.0025
0.0025
0.0025
0.0025
0.0014
0.0014
0.0015
0.0015
0.0015
0.0015
0.0001
0.0010
0.0030
0.0040
0.00064
0.10
0.00080
0.050
0.070
0.0005
0.0005
0.0025
0.0025
0.0025
0.0025
0.0025
0.0025
0.0025
0.040
0.040
0.040
0.00020
0.0025
0.0025
0.0025
0.0025
0.0025
0.0025
0.0040
0.0040
0.15
0.0006
0.4100
0.0015
0.00030
0.11
0.094
0.10
0.020
0.015
0.020
0.00020
0.00024
0.000080
0.00046
Corrected Cone.
(ppmv)
0.039
0.040
0.040
0.040
0.0019
0.0017
0.0061
0.41
0.0027
0.0030
0.0029
0.0026
0.0025
0.0025
0.0015
0.0015
0.0019
0.0019
0.0023
0.0019
0.0001
0.0014
0.0041
0.0050
0.00086
0.14
0.0017
0.050
0.090
0.0007
0.0007
0.0033
0.0037
0.0036
0.0037
0.0030
0.0030
0.0030
0.047
0.048
0.040
0.00027
0.0032
0.0032
0.0043
0.0043
0.0061
0.0059
0.0080
0.0078
0.20
0.0012
0.8161
0.0030
0.00060
0.24
0.22
0.22
0.030
0.027
0.036
0.00022
0.0010
0.00035
0.0020
Site Avg.**
(ppmv)
0.024
0.41
0.0027
0.0030
0.0025
0.0015
0.0023
0.047
0.050
0.0899
0.0026
0.0030
0.045
0.00027
0.0053
0.21
0.23
0.031
0.00022
0.0053
Appendix A-2
30
-------
Reference
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
51
51
54
54
15
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
7
24
24
24
24
50
1
54
54
54
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
55
56
56
56
56
56
56
27
27
27
59
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
Appendix
Landfill Name
Palos Verdes
Palos Verdes
Palos Verdes
Palos Verdes
Palos Verdes
Palos Verdes
Palos Verdes
Palos Verdes
Palos Verdes
Palos Verdes
Palos Verdes
Arbor Hills
Arbor Hills
Azusa Land Reclamation
BKK Landfill
BKK Landfill
BKK Landfill
BKK Landfill
BKK Landfill
BKK Landfill
BKK Landfill
Calabasas
Puente Hills
Puente Hills
Puente Hills
Puente Hills
Puente Hills
Scholl Canyon
Arbor Hills
Arbor Hills
Arbor Hills
CBI12
CBI13
CBI15
CBI22
CBI24
CBI29
CBI3
CBI30
CBI5
Chicopee
Coyote Canyon
Coyote Canyon
Coyote Canyon
Coyote Canyon
Coyote Canyon
Coyote Canyon
Lyon Development
Lyon Development
Lyon Development
Rockingham
CBI6
CBI13
CBI14
CBI17
CBI18
CBI19
CBI2
CBI26
CBI30
CBI31
CBI32
CBI34
CBI8
CBI11
A-2. Default
Co-disposal
(Y, N, or U)*
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
U
U
U
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
N
N
N
N
N
N
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
Y
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
LFG Constituent Concentrations (pre-1992
Raw
Landfills)
Air Infiltration
Concentration Corrected Cone.
Compound
Carbon tetrachloride
Carbon tetrachloride
Carbon tetrachloride
Carbon tetrachloride
Carbon tetrachloride
Carbon tetrachloride
Carbon tetrachloride
Carbon tetrachloride
Carbon tetrachloride
Carbon tetrachloride
Carbon tetrachloride
Carbonyl sulfide
Carbonyl sulfide
Carbonyl sulfide
Carbonyl sulfide
Carbonyl sulfide
Carbonyl sulfide
Carbonyl sulfide
Carbonyl sulfide
Carbonyl sulfide
Carbonyl sulfide
Carbonyl sulfide
Carbonyl sulfide
Carbonyl sulfide
Carbonyl sulfide
Carbonyl sulfide
Carbonyl sulfide
Carbonyl sulfide
Chloro benzene
Chloro benzene
Chloro benzene
Chloro benzene
Chloro benzene
Chloro benzene
Chlorobenzene
Chlorobenzene
Chlorobenzene
Chlorobenzene
Chlorobenzene
Chlorobenzene
Chlorobenzene
Chlorobenzene
Chlorobenzene
Chlorobenzene
Chlorobenzene
Chlorobenzene
Chlorobenzene
Chlorobenzene
Chlorobenzene
Chlorobenzene
Chlorobenzene
Chlorodiflouromethane
Chlorodifluoro methane
Chlorodifluoro methane
Chlorodifluoro methane
Chlorodifluoro methane
Chlorodifluoro methane
Chlorodifluoro methane
Chlorodifluoro methane
Chlorodifluoro methane
Chlorodifluoro methane
Chlorodifluoro methane
Chlorodifluoro methane
Chlorodifluoro methane
Chloroethane
(ppmv)
0.00034
0.00015
0.00015
0.0012
0.00012
0.00012
0.00034
0.00026
0.00050
0.010
0.010
0.054
0.058
23.0
1.40
1.40
0.80
0.90
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.05
0.57
0.81
0.49
1.20
0.00005
0.050
0.71
0.74
0.70
0.20
0.15
0.05
0.10
10.0
9.10
0.20
0.43
7.15
0.10
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.50
0.44
0.20
0.27
1.50
0.20
0.25
0.97
12.6
3.85
0.77
1.20
0.10
1.90
1.33
1.00
3.00
0.60
4.79
1.35
(ppmv)
0.0015
0.00065
0.00065
0.0052
0.00052
0.00052
0.0015
0.0011
0.0022
0.032
0.026
0.055
0.059
24.0
3.14
3.09
1.72
1.91
0.54
0.54
0.56
0.08
0.83
1.16
0.68
1.66
0.00006
0.11
0.72
0.74
0.72
0.22
0.18
0.05
0.10
10.2
9.63
0.20
0.43
7.22
0.13
0.013
0.013
0.015
0.015
0.74
0.65
0.24
0.32
1.49
0.27
0.25
1.17
12.7
3.89
0.79
1.20
0.10
1.91
1.34
1.00
3.02
0.60
4.83
1.37
Site Avg.**
(ppmv)
0.057
24.0
1.64
0.08
0.87
0.11
0.60
0.22
0.18
0.05
0.10
10.2
9.63
0.20
0.43
7.22
0.13
0.24
0.68
0.27
0.25
1.17
12.7
3.89
0.79
1.20
0.10
1.91
1.34
1.00
3.02
0.60
4.83
1.37
Appendix A-2
31
-------
Appendix A-2. Default
Reference
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
41
53
53
54
54
54
15
15
15
15
12
12
12
19
19
19
19
6
6
6
6
7
7
7
13
13
13
43
55
56
56
56
56
56
56
57
57
57
27
27
27
10
Landfill Name
CBI12
CBI13
CBI14
CBI15
CBI17
CBI18
CBI19
CBI20
CBI21
CBI23
CBI25
CBI27
CBI3
CBI30
CBI32
CBI33
CBI34
CBI4
CBI5
CBI6
CBI7
CBI8
CBI9
Guadalupe
Altamont
Altamont
Arbor Hills
Arbor Hills
Arbor Hills
Azusa Land Reclamation
Azusa Land Reclamation
Azusa Land Reclamation
Azusa Land Reclamation
BKK Landfill
BKK Landfill
BKK Landfill
Bradley Pit
Bradley Pit
Bradley Pit
Bradley Pit
Bradley Pit
Bradley Pit
Bradley Pit
Bradley Pit
Calabasas
Calabasas
Calabasas
Carson
Carson
Carson
CBI13
Chicopee
Coyote Canyon
Coyote Canyon
Coyote Canyon
Coyote Canyon
Coyote Canyon
Coyote Canyon
Durham Rd.
Durham Rd.
Durham Rd.
Lyon Development
Lyon Development
Lyon Development
Mission Canyon
Co-disposal
(Y, N, or U)*
u
U
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
Y
Y
Y
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
Y
Y
Y
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
N
LFG Constituent Concentrations (pre-1992 Landfills)
Raw Air Infiltration
Compound
Chloroethane
Chloroethane
Chloroethane
Chloroethane
Chloroethane
Chloroethane
Chloroethane
Chloroethane
Chloroethane
Chloroethane
Chloroethane
Chloroethane
Chloroethane
Chloroethane
Chloroethane
Chloroethane
Chloroethane
Chloroethane
Chloroethane
Chloroethane
Chloroethane
Chloroethane
Chloroethane
Chloroethane
Chloroform
Chloroform
Chloroform
Chloroform
Chloroform
Chloroform
Chloroform
Chloroform
Chloroform
Chloroform
Chloroform
Chloroform
Chloroform
Chloroform
Chloroform
Chloroform
Chloroform
Chloroform
Chloroform
Chloroform
Chloroform
Chloroform
Chloroform
Chloroform
Chloroform
Chloroform
Chloroform
Chloroform
Chloroform
Chloroform
Chloroform
Chloroform
Chloroform
Chloroform
Chloroform
Chloroform
Chloroform
Chloroform
Chloroform
Chloroform
Chloroform
Concentration
(ppmv)
0.20
0.43
3.25
0.50
1.60
2.33
0.60
1.45
9.20
4.90
0.76
7.33
0.70
0.11
8.25
4.43
0.30
0.17
1.45
0.85
0.50
0.95
3.70
2.20
0.011
0.010
0.0025
0.0025
0.0025
0.030
0.030
0.030
0.030
1.10
0.66
1.20
0.020
0.020
0.020
0.020
0.0015
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.18
4.00
0.58
0.0025
0.0025
0.0025
1.56
0.10
0.0020
0.0020
0.0030
0.0030
0.0019
0.0019
0.00
0.00
0.02
0.060
0.060
0.060
0.0005
Corrected Cone.
(ppmv)
0.22
0.52
3.29
0.50
1.62
2.38
0.60
1.46
9.27
5.20
0.77
7.38
0.70
0.11
8.29
4.44
0.30
0.18
1.46
0.86
0.51
0.96
3.74
3.18
0.013
0.012
0.0026
0.0025
0.0025
0.031
0.031
0.031
0.031
2.4
1.5
2.6
0.026
0.025
0.030
0.025
0.0022
0.014
0.014
0.013
0.27
7.22
1.05
0.0033
0.0034
0.0053
1.89
0.13
0.0027
0.0027
0.0040
0.0044
0.0028
0.0028
0.00
0.00
0.02
0.071
0.071
0.059
0.0021
Site Avg.**
(ppmv)
0.22
0.52
3.29
0.50
1.62
2.38
0.60
1.46
9.27
5.20
0.77
7.38
0.70
0.11
8.29
4.44
0.30
0.18
1.46
0.86
0.51
0.96
3.74
3.18
0.012
0.0025
0.031
2.20
0.019
2.85
0.0040
1.89
0.0032
0.01
0.067
0.019
Appendix A-2
32
-------
Reference
5
5
5
5
58
58
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
51
51
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
18
18
18
18
24
24
50
59
1
1
9
9
23
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
55
56
56
Appendix
Landfill Name
Mountaingate
Mountaingate
Mountaingate
Mountaingate
Otay Annex
Otay Landfill
Palos Verdes
Palos Verdes
Palos Verdes
Palos Verdes
Palos Verdes
Palos Verdes
Palos Verdes
Palos Verdes
Palos Verdes
Palos Verdes
Palos Verdes
Palos Verdes
Palos Verdes
Palos Verdes
Penrose
Penrose
Penrose
Penrose
Penrose
Penrose
Penrose
Penrose
Puente Hills
Puente Hills
Puente Hills
Puente Hills
Puente Hills
Puente Hills
Puente Hills
Rockingham
Scholl Canyon
Scholl Canyon
Sheldon Street
Sheldon Street
Toyon Canyon
CBI10
CBI11
CBI12
CBI13
CBI14
CBI17
CBI18
CBI19
CBI21
CBI23
CBI24
CBI25
CBI26
CBI27
CBI30
CBI32
CBI4
CBI5
CBI6
CBI8
CBI9
Chicopee
Coyote Canyon
Coyote Canyon
A-2. Default
Co-disposal
(Y, N, or U)*
N
N
N
N
U
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
U
N
N
U
U
N
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
Y
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
LFG Constituent Concentrations (pre-1992
Raw
Landfills)
Air Infiltration
Concentration Corrected Cone.
Compound
Chloroform
Chloroform
Chloroform
Chloroform
Chloroform
Chloroform
Chloroform
Chloroform
Chloroform
Chloroform
Chloroform
Chloroform
Chloroform
Chloroform
Chloroform
Chloroform
Chloroform
Chloroform
Chloroform
Chloroform
Chloroform
Chloroform
Chloroform
Chloroform
Chloroform
Chloroform
Chloroform
Chloroform
Chloroform
Chloroform
Chloroform
Chloroform
Chloroform
Chloroform
Chloroform
Chloroform
Chloroform
Chloroform
Chloroform
Chloroform
Chloroform
Chloromethane
Chloromethane
Chloromethane
Chloromethane
Chloromethane
Chloromethane
Chloromethane
Chloromethane
Chloromethane
Chloromethane
Chloromethane
Chloromethane
Chloromethane
Chloromethane
Chloromethane
Chloromethane
Chloromethane
Chloromethane
Chloromethane
Chloromethane
Chloromethane
Dichlorobenzene
Dichlorobenzene
Dichlorobenzene
(ppmv)
0.0015
0.0015
0.0015
0.0015
0.00050
0.00050
0.0041
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.01
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.01
0.01
0.00
0.25
0.25
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.17
0.17
0.17
0.17
0.24
0.030
0.20
0.20
0.027
0.47
0.00035
0.00035
0.064
0.90
0.60
0.10
1.12
0.90
1.25
0.18
0.20
0.28
1.40
0.70
7.19
1.20
1.33
1.34
6.10
3.73
0.55
0.24
10.2
3.60
0.08
0.23
0.26
(ppmv)
0.0043
0.0043
0.0043
0.0043
0.00054
0.00068
0.018
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.04
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.04
0.03
0.02
0.80
0.64
0.019
0.019
0.034
0.034
0.036
0.035
0.030
0.029
0.21
0.22
0.22
0.22
0.35
0.042
0.24
0.27
0.043
1.08
0.00070
0.00070
0.069
0.92
0.61
0.11
1.36
0.91
1.26
0.18
0.20
0.28
1.49
0.71
7.25
1.21
1.34
1.35
6.13
3.92
0.56
0.24
10.3
3.64
0.10
0.31
0.35
Site Avg.**
(ppmv)
0.0043
0.00054
0.00068
0.12
0.030
0.22
0.27
0.56
0.00070
0.069
0.92
0.61
0.11
1.36
0.91
1.26
0.18
0.20
0.28
1.49
0.71
7.25
1.21
1.34
1.35
6.13
3.92
0.56
0.24
10.3
3.64
0.10
0.33
Appendix A-2
33
-------
Reference
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
53
53
54
54
54
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
55
56
56
Appendix
Landfill Name
CBI10
CBI11
CBI12
CBI14
CBI15
CBI17
CBI18
CBI19
CBI2
CBI20
CBI21
CBI22
CBI24
CBI26
CBI27
CBI3
CBI31
CBI32
CBI33
CBI34
CBI5
CBI6
CBI7
CBI8
CBI9
CBI1
CBI13
CBI14
CBI30
CBI8
Altamont
Altamont
Arbor Hills
Arbor Hills
Arbor Hills
CBI10
CBI11
CBI12
CBI13
CBI14
CBI15
CBI16
CBI17
CBI18
CBI19
CBI2
CBI20
CBI21
CBI22
CBI23
CBI24
CBI25
CBI26
CBI27
CBI30
CBI32
CBI4
CBI5
CBI6
CBI7
CBI8
CBI9
Chicopee
Coyote Canyon
Coyote Canyon
A-2. Default
Co-disposal
(Y, N, or U)*
u
U
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
Y
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
Y
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
Y
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
LFG Constituent Concentrations (pre-1992
Raw
Landfills)
Air Infiltration
Concentration Corrected Cone.
Compound
Dichlorodifluoro methane
Dichlorodifluoro methane
Dichlorodifluoro methane
Dichlorodifluoro methane
Dichlorodifluoro methane
Dichlorodifluoro methane
Dichlorodifluoro methane
Dichlorodifluoro methane
Dichlorodifluoro methane
Dichlorodifluoro methane
Dichlorodifluoro methane
Dichlorodifluoro methane
Dichlorodifluoro methane
Dichlorodifluoro methane
Dichlorodifluoro methane
Dichlorodifluoro methane
Dichlorodifluoro methane
Dichlorodifluoro methane
Dichlorodifluoromethane
Dichlorodifluoromethane
Dichlorodifluoromethane
Dichlorodifluoromethane
Dichlorodifluoromethane
Dichlorodifluoromethane
Dichlorodifluoromethane
Dichlorofluoromethane
Dichlorofluoromethane
Dichlorofluoromethane
Dichlorofluoromethane
Dichlorofluoromethane
Dichloromethane
Dichloromethane
Dichloromethane
Dichloromethane
Dichloromethane
Dichloromethane
Dichloromethane
Dichloromethane
Dichloromethane
Dichloromethane
Dichloromethane
Dichloromethane
Dichloromethane
Dichloromethane
Dichloromethane
Dichloromethane
Dichloromethane
Dichloromethane
Dichloromethane
Dichloromethane
Dichloromethane
Dichloromethane
Dichloromethane
Dichloromethane
Dichloromethane
Dichloromethane
Dichloromethane
Dichloromethane
Dichloromethane
Dichloromethane
Dichloromethane
Dichloromethane
Dichloromethane
Dichloromethane
Dichloromethane
(ppmv)
11.8
7.45
1.30
44.0
11.9
23.3
11.9
14.3
0.50
8.85
33.0
13.3
16.0
11.5
24.5
1.10
19.0
34.5
8.90
2.05
4.90
37.5
16.5
0.19
30.0
4.28
0.36
5.01
0.48
26.1
33.0
13.0
3.55
2.84
2.92
20.0
128
3.25
0.18
38.8
0.20
0.70
8.00
14.0
3.00
2.00
9.25
44.0
0.33
14.0
29.9
24.5
2.00
24.7
1.48
35.0
18.4
6.30
17.0
3.45
51.0
50.0
11.9
7.35
9.65
(ppmv)
12.0
7.53
1.43
44.5
12.0
23.5
12.2
14.3
0.50
8.90
33.2
13.4
16.2
11.5
24.6
1.10
19.0
34.7
8.92
2.05
4.95
37.8
16.9
0.19
30.3
4.40
0.44
5.07
0.48
26.3
39.8
15.1
3.63
2.87
2.98
20.4
129
3.58
0.22
39.3
0.20
0.71
8.08
14.3
3.01
2.02
9.31
44.4
0.33
14.9
30.4
24.7
2.01
24.8
1.49
35.2
19.3
6.36
17.1
3.53
51.4
50.5
15.3
9.79
12.9
Site Avg.**
(ppmv)
12.0
7.53
1.43
44.5
12.0
23.5
12.2
14.3
0.50
8.90
33.2
13.4
16.2
11.5
24.6
1.10
19.0
34.7
8.92
2.05
4.95
37.8
16.9
0.19
30.3
4.40
0.44
5.07
0.48
26.3
27.4
3.16
20.4
129
3.58
0.22
39.3
0.20
0.71
8.08
14.3
3.01
2.02
9.31
44.4
0.33
14.9
30.4
24.7
2.01
24.8
1.49
35.2
19.3
6.36
17.1
3.53
51.4
50.5
15.3
11.3
Appendix A-2
34
-------
Reference
56
56
56
56
56
56
57
57
57
41
58
84
59
54
54
54
54
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
6
7
56
56
56
56
24
24
24
24
50
1
39
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
102
103
41
60
54
54
54
54
54
54
43
43
Appendix
Landfill Name
Coyote Canyon
Coyote Canyon
Coyote Canyon
Coyote Canyon
Coyote Canyon
Coyote Canyon
Durham Rd.
Durham Rd.
Durham Rd.
Guadalupe
Otay Annex
Otay Landfill
Rockingham
Arbor Hills
Arbor Hills
Arbor Hills
Arbor Hills Landfill
Azusa Land Reclamation
Azusa Land Reclamation
Azusa Land Reclamation
Azusa Land Reclamation
Azusa Land Reclamation
Azusa Land Reclamation
Azusa Land Reclamation
BKK Landfill
BKK Landfill
BKK Landfill
BKK Landfill
BKK Landfill
BKK Landfill
BKK Landfill
BKK Landfill
BKK Landfill
Bradley Pit
Calabasas
Coyote Canyon
Coyote Canyon
Coyote Canyon
Coyote Canyon
Puente Hills
Puente Hills
Puente Hills
Puente Hills
Puente Hills
Scholl Canyon
Sunshine Canyon
CBI13
CBI14
CBI24
CBI25
CBI30
CBI4
CBI8
Fresh Kills Landfill
Puente Hills
Guadalupe
Sunshine Canyon
Arbor Hills
Arbor Hills
Arbor Hills
Arbor Hills
Arbor Hills
Arbor Hills
CBI1
CBI10
A-2. Default
Co-disposal
(Y, N, or U)*
u
U
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
Y
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
U
Y
U
U
U
U
N
N
N
N
N
N
U
U
Y
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
LFG Constituent Concentrations (pre-1992
Raw
Landfills)
Air Infiltration
Concentration Corrected Cone.
Compound
Dichloromethane
Dichloromethane
Dichloromethane
Dichloromethane
Dichloromethane
Dichloromethane
Dichloromethane
Dichloromethane
Dichloromethane
Dichloromethane
Dichloromethane
Dichloromethane
Dichloromethane
Dimethyl disulfide
Dimethyl disulfide
Dimethyl sulfide
Dimethyl sulfide
Dimethyl sulfide
Dimethyl sulfide
Dimethyl sulfide
Dimethyl sulfide
Dimethyl sulfide
Dimethyl sulfide
Dimethyl sulfide
Dimethyl sulfide
Dimethyl sulfide
Dimethyl sulfide
Dimethyl sulfide
Dimethyl sulfide
Dimethyl sulfide
Dimethyl sulfide
Dimethyl sulfide
Dimethyl sulfide
Dimethyl sulfide
Dimethyl sulfide
Dimethyl sulfide
Dimethyl sulfide
Dimethyl sulfide
Dimethyl sulfide
Dimethyl sulfide
Dimethyl sulfide
Dimethyl sulfide
Dimethyl sulfide
Dimethyl sulfide
Dimethyl sulfide
Dimethyl sulfide
Ethane
Ethane
Ethane
Ethane
Ethane
Ethane
Ethane
Ethane
Ethane
Ethanol
Ethanol
Ethyl benzene
Ethyl benzene
Ethyl benzene
Ethyl benzene
Ethyl benzene
Ethyl benzene
Ethyl benzene
Ethyl benzene
(ppmv)
7.58
7.12
9.50
9.64
9.70
9.60
6.00
6.10
6.40
6.10
12.4
22.8
24.9
0.11
0.11
3.07
3.23
47.0
74.0
73.0
74.0
74.0
76.0
75.0
6.70
6.60
6.90
5.80
6.30
6.60
6.70
6.70
6.70
7.00
2.20
0.05
0.17
8.70
7.90
8.50
8.00
7.80
7.90
0.0032
1.30
6.20
930
1780
269
1420
930
877
1240
16.9
22.3
5.00
46.0
18.7
19.6
19.0
18.7
19.6
19.0
6.15
5.70
(ppmv)
10.1
9.48
12.6
14.3
14.1
14.2
7.89
7.35
7.62
7.31
16.8
24.6
33.1
0.11
0.11
3.12
3.29
49.0
77.2
76.1
77.2
77.2
79.3
78.2
15.02
14.57
14.90
12.50
13.38
19.08
14.60
14.35
14.92
9.59
3.35
0.07
0.23
12.9
10.5
12.4
11.5
10.8
10.9
0.0039
2.97
6.53
1125
1802
273
1431
938
921
1250
21.9
240.4
5.99
48.4
19.1
19.8
19.4
19.1
19.8
19.4
6.32
5.81
Site Avg.**
(ppmv)
12.5
7.62
7.31
16.8
24.6
33.1
0.11
3.20
73.5
14.81
9.59
3.35
0.15
11.7
9.12
2.97
6.53
1125
1802
273
1431
938
921
1250
21.9
240.4
5.99
48.4
19.4
19.4
6.32
5.81
Appendix A-2
35
-------
Reference
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
41
27
27
27
59
60
54
54
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
56
56
53
53
57
57
57
41
41
41
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
Appendix
Landfill Name
CBI11
CBI12
CBI13
CBI14
CBI15
CBI16
CBI17
CBI18
CBI19
CBI2
CBI20
CBI21
CBI22
CBI23
CBI24
CBI25
CBI26
CBI27
CBI28
CBI29
CBI3
CBI30
CBI31
CBI32
CBI33
CBI4
CBI5
CBI6
CBI7
CBI8
CBI9
Guadalupe
Lyon Development
Lyon Development
Lyon Development
Rocking ham
Sunshine Canyon
Arbor Hills
Arbor Hills
BKK Landfill
BKK Landfill
BKK Landfill
BKK Landfill
BKK Landfill
BKK Landfill
BKK Landfill
BKK Landfill
BKK Landfill
Coyote Canyon
Coyote Canyon
Altamont
Altamont
Durham Rd.
Durham Rd.
Durham Rd.
Guadalupe
Guadalupe
Guadalupe
CBI10
CBI11
CBI12
CBI13
CBI14
CBI15
CBI16
A-2. Default
Co-disposal
(Y, N, or U)*
u
U
u
u
u
Y
U
U
U
U
U
u
u
u
Y
U
U
U
U
U
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
Y
LFG Constituent Concentrations (pre-1992 Landfills)
Raw Air Infiltration
Compound
Ethyl benzene
Ethyl benzene
Ethyl benzene
Ethyl benzene
Ethyl benzene
Ethyl benzene
Ethyl benzene
Ethyl benzene
Ethyl benzene
Ethyl benzene
Ethyl benzene
Ethyl benzene
Ethyl benzene
Ethyl benzene
Ethyl benzene
Ethyl benzene
Ethyl benzene
Ethyl benzene
Ethyl benzene
Ethyl benzene
Ethyl benzene
Ethyl benzene
Ethyl benzene
Ethyl benzene
Ethyl benzene
Ethyl benzene
Ethyl benzene
Ethyl benzene
Ethyl benzene
Ethyl benzene
Ethyl benzene
Ethyl benzene
Ethyl benzene
Ethyl benzene
Ethyl benzene
Ethyl benzene
Ethyl benzene
Ethyl mercaptan
Ethyl mercaptan
Ethyl mercaptan
Ethyl mercaptan
Ethyl mercaptan
Ethyl mercaptan
Ethyl mercaptan
Ethyl mercaptan
Ethyl mercaptan
Ethyl mercaptan
Ethyl mercaptan
Ethyl mercaptan
Ethyl mercaptan
Ethylene dibromide
Ethylene dibromide
Ethylene dibromide
Ethylene dibromide
Ethylene dibromide
Ethylester acetic acid
Ethylester butanoic acid
Ethylester propanoic acid
Fluorotrichloromethane
Fluorotrichloromethane
Fluorotrichloromethane
Fluorotrichloromethane
Fluorotrichloromethane
Fluorotrichloromethane
Fluorotrichloromethane
Concentration
(ppmv)
5.00
4.06
37.0
4.20
0.23
1.30
0.15
7.00
0.20
0.55
10.9
0.25
5.27
4.00
35.4
48.1
0.70
3.73
0.80
38.7
4.40
23.4
4.60
0.65
2.73
16.2
6.75
0.30
22.0
7.22
3.80
3.10
5.50
2.90
3.90
8.00
59.0
0.29
0.13
1.90
1.90
2.20
1.70
2.30
2.90
3.10
2.60
2.70
0.40
1.40
0.00050
0.00050
0.00050
0.00050
0.00050
34.1
25.6
4.70
0.60
2.85
0.48
0.66
1.35
0.73
0.70
Corrected Cone.
(ppmv)
5.06
4.47
44.7
4.25
0.23
1.32
0.15
7.14
0.20
0.55
11.0
0.25
5.32
4.25
35.9
48.5
0.70
3.76
0.80
40.9
4.41
23.6
4.61
0.65
2.74
17.0
6.82
0.30
22.5
7.28
3.84
3.71
6.47
3.45
3.90
10.6
62.1
0.30
0.13
4.26
4.19
4.75
3.66
4.88
8.38
6.75
5.57
6.01
0.60
1.90
0.00060
0.00058
0.00070
0.00060
0.00060
40.8
30.7
5.63
0.61
2.88
0.53
0.80
1.37
0.74
0.71
Site Avg.**
(ppmv)
5.06
4.47
44.7
4.25
0.23
1.32
0.15
7.14
0.20
0.55
11.0
0.25
5.32
4.25
35.9
48.5
0.70
3.76
0.80
40.9
4.41
23.6
4.61
0.65
2.74
17.0
6.82
0.30
22.5
7.28
3.84
3.71
4.61
10.6
62.1
0.21
5.39
1.25
0.00059
0.00063
40.8
30.7
5.63
0.61
2.88
0.53
0.80
1.37
0.74
0.71
Appendix A-2
36
-------
Reference
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
54
54
15
15
15
15
15
15
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
6
6
7
56
56
51
50
1
60
Appendix
Landfill Name
CBI17
CBI18
CBI19
CBI20
CBI21
CBI22
CBI23
CBI24
CBI25
CBI26
CBI27
CBI30
CBI32
CBI33
CBI4
CBI5
CBI6
CBI7
CBI8
CBI9
CBI11
CBI13
CBI14
CBI16
CBI17
CBI18
CBI19
CBI24
CBI25
CBI27
CBI30
CBI31
CBI32
CBI33
CBI4
CBI5
CBI6
CBI8
CBI9
Arbor Hills
Arbor Hills
Azusa Land Reclamation
Azusa Land Reclamation
Azusa Land Reclamation
Azusa Land Reclamation
Azusa Land Reclamation
Azusa Land Reclamation
BKK Landfill
BKK Landfill
BKK Landfill
BKK Landfill
BKK Landfill
BKK Landfill
BKK Landfill
BKK Landfill
BKK Landfill
Bradley Pit
Bradley Pit
Calabasas
Coyote Canyon
Coyote Canyon
Palos Verdes
Puente Hills
Scholl Canyon
Sunshine Canyon
A-2. Default
Co-disposal
(Y, N, or U)*
u
U
u
u
u
u
u
Y
U
U
U
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
Y
u
u
u
Y
U
U
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
U
U
Y
U
U
Y
N
N
U
LFG Constituent Concentrations (pre-1992
Raw
Landfills)
Air Infiltration
Concentration Corrected Cone.
Compound
Fluorotrichloromethane
Fluorotrichloromethane
Fluorotrichloromethane
Fluorotrichloromethane
Fluorotrichloromethane
Fluorotrichloromethane
Fluorotrichloromethane
Fluorotrichloromethane
Fluorotrichloromethane
Fluorotrichloromethane
Fluorotrichloromethane
Fluorotrichloromethane
Fluorotrichloromethane
Fluorotrichloromethane
Fluorotrichloromethane
Fluorotrichloromethane
Fluorotrichloromethane
Fluorotrichloromethane
Fluorotrichloromethane
Fluorotrichloromethane
Hexane
Hexane
Hexane
Hexane
Hexane
Hexane
Hexane
Hexane
Hexane
Hexane
Hexane
Hexane
Hexane
Hexane
Hexane
Hexane
Hexane
Hexane
Hexane
Hydrogen sulfide
Hydrogen sulfide
Hydrogen sulfide
Hydrogen sulfide
Hydrogen sulfide
Hydrogen sulfide
Hydrogen sulfide
Hydrogen sulfide
Hydrogen sulfide
Hydrogen sulfide
Hydrogen sulfide
Hydrogen sulfide
Hydrogen sulfide
Hydrogen sulfide
Hydrogen sulfide
Hydrogen sulfide
Hydrogen sulfide
Hydrogen sulfide
Hydrogen sulfide
Hydrogen sulfide
Hydrogen sulfide
Hydrogen sulfide
Hydrogen sulfide
Hydrogen sulfide
Hydrogen sulfide
Hydrogen sulfide
(ppmv)
2.35
1.30
1.05
3.25
1.08
0.67
2.10
0.06
0.77
0.45
0.50
0.47
7.90
0.10
0.72
0.25
11.9
0.20
0.63
1.10
6.50
2.49
20.8
2.40
3.00
4.17
1.50
6.34
13.4
7.13
6.06
1.00
10.0
3.83
7.30
11.3
7.00
18.0
25.0
20.7
20.4
28.0
28.0
34.0
36.0
39.0
36.0
3.70
5.30
8.20
0.50
2.30
5.80
7.60
8.40
10.0
64.0
54.0
11.3
46.4
42.4
20.0
0.010
5.10
78.0
(ppmv)
2.37
1.33
1.05
3.27
1.09
0.68
2.23
0.06
0.78
0.45
0.50
0.47
7.94
0.10
0.76
0.25
12.0
0.20
0.64
1.11
6.57
3.01
21.1
2.44
3.03
4.26
1.51
6.44
13.5
7.18
6.12
1.00
10.1
3.84
7.67
11.4
7.05
18.1
25.3
21.1
20.8
29.2
29.2
35.5
37.5
40.7
37.5
8.30
11.7
17.7
1.08
4.88
16.8
16.6
18.0
22.3
87.7
74.0
17.2
68.5
56.5
51.2
0.012
11.7
82.1
Site Avg.**
(ppmv)
2.37
1.33
1.05
3.27
1.09
0.68
2.23
0.06
0.78
0.45
0.50
0.47
7.94
0.10
0.76
0.25
12.0
0.20
0.64
1.11
6.57
3.01
21.1
2.44
3.03
4.26
1.51
6.44
13.5
7.18
6.12
1.00
10.1
3.84
7.67
11.4
7.05
18.1
25.3
20.9
29.2
29.2
35.5
37.5
40.7
37.5
13.0
80.8
17.2
62.5
51.2
0.012
11.7
82.1
Appendix A-2
37
-------
Reference
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
41
103
94
94
94
94
94
94
94
94
94
95
95
95
97
41
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
41
59
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
54
54
54
Appendix
Landfill Name
BKK Landfill
BKK Landfill
BKK Landfill
BKK Landfill
BKK Landfill
BKK Landfill
BKK Landfill
BKK Landfill
BKK Landfill
Guadalupe
Fresh Kills Landfill
Landfill A
Landfill B
Landfill C
Landfill D
Landfill E
Landfill F
Landfill G
Landfill H
Landfill I
Landfill A
Landfill B
Landfill C
Mountaingate Landfill
Guadalupe
CBI10
CBI11
CBI12
CBI14
CBI15
CBI18
CBI20
CBI22
CBI23
CBI24
CBI26
CBI27
CBI3
CBI31
CBI32
CBI33
CBI5
CBI6
CBI7
CBI9
Guadalupe
Rockingham
CBI11
CBI12
CBI15
CBI18
CBI20
CBI22
CBI23
CBI24
CBI27
CBI3
CBI31
CBI33
CBI5
CBI7
CBI9
Arbor Hills
Arbor Hills
Arbor Hills
A-2. Default
Co-disposal
(Y, N, or U)*
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
Y
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
Y
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
LFG Constituent Concentrations (pre-1992 Landfills)
Raw Air Infiltration
Compound
i-Propyl mercaptan
i-Propyl mercaptan
i-Propyl mercaptan
i-Propyl mercaptan
i-Propyl mercaptan
i-Propyl mercaptan
i-Propyl mercaptan
i-Propyl mercaptan
i-Propyl mercaptan
Isooctanol
Mercury (total)
Mercury (total)
Mercury (total)
Mercury (total)
Mercury (total)
Mercury (total)
Mercury (total)
Mercury (total)
Mercury (total)
Mercury (total)
Mercury (total)
Mercury (total)
Mercury (total)
Mercury (total)
Methyl cyclohexane
Methyl ethyl ketone
Methyl ethyl ketone
Methyl ethyl ketone
Methyl ethyl ketone
Methyl ethyl ketone
Methyl ethyl ketone
Methyl ethyl ketone
Methyl ethyl ketone
Methyl ethyl ketone
Methyl ethyl ketone
Methyl ethyl ketone
Methyl ethyl ketone
Methyl ethyl ketone
Methyl ethyl ketone
Methyl ethyl ketone
Methyl ethyl ketone
Methyl ethyl ketone
Methyl ethyl ketone
Methyl ethyl ketone
Methyl ethyl ketone
Methyl ethyl ketone
Methyl ethyl ketone
Methyl isobutyl ketone
Methyl isobutyl ketone
Methyl isobutyl ketone
Methyl isobutyl ketone
Methyl isobutyl ketone
Methyl isobutyl ketone
Methyl isobutyl ketone
Methyl isobutyl ketone
Methyl isobutyl ketone
Methyl isobutyl ketone
Methyl isobutyl ketone
Methyl isobutyl ketone
Methyl isobutyl ketone
Methyl isobutyl ketone
Methyl isobutyl ketone
Methyl mercaptan
Methyl mercaptan
Methyl mercaptan
Concentration
(ppmv)
1.80
1.60
1.70
1.70
1.90
2.50
2.30
2.40
2.30
7.20
0.00149
0.000134
0.000134
0.000134
0.000134
0.000134
0.000134
0.000134
0.000134
0.000134
0.000545
0.000246
0.00004
0.000013
26.0
5.00
4.95
12.0
1.48
3.75
7.67
11.0
31.3
5.50
18.8
6.00
5.00
1.60
21.0
3.65
6.33
20.0
4.70
57.5
15.0
13.6
10.8
1.15
0.50
0.45
2.50
4.00
3.33
1.00
5.00
1.00
0.70
1.00
3.33
6.50
11.50
1.20
0.29
0.73
0.51
Corrected Cone.
(ppmv)
4.04
3.53
3.67
3.66
4.03
7.23
5.01
5.14
5.12
8.62
0.00149
0.000134
0.000134
0.000134
0.000134
0.000134
0.000134
0.000134
0.000134
0.000134
0.000545
0.000246
0.00004
0.000013
31.1
5.10
5.01
13.2
1.50
3.79
7.83
11.1
31.6
5.84
19.0
6.03
5.04
1.60
21.0
3.67
6.34
20.2
4.73
58.9
15.2
16.3
14.4
1.16
0.55
0.45
2.55
4.02
3.36
1.06
5.08
1.01
0.70
1.00
3.34
6.57
11.78
1.21
0.30
0.74
0.54
Site Avg.**
(ppmv)
4.60
8.62
0.00149
0.000134
0.000134
0.000134
0.000134
0.000134
0.000134
0.000134
0.000134
0.000134
0.000545
0.000246
0.00004
0.000013
31.1
5.10
5.01
13.2
1.50
3.79
7.83
11.1
31.6
5.84
19.0
6.03
5.04
1.60
21.0
3.67
6.34
20.2
4.73
58.9
15.2
16.3
14.4
1.16
0.55
0.45
2.55
4.02
3.36
1.06
5.08
1.01
0.70
1.00
3.34
6.57
11.78
1.21
0.52
0.54
Appendix A-2
38
-------
Reference
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
6
56
24
24
24
24
50
60
41
41
54
54
54
12
12
12
6
6
17
17
17
17
17
17
19
19
19
19
41
26
26
7
7
7
13
13
13
26
26
10
5
5
5
5
26
22
22
22
22
Appendix
Landfill Name
Azusa Land Reclamation
Azusa Land Reclamation
Azusa Land Reclamation
Azusa Land Reclamation
Azusa Land Reclamation
Azusa Land Reclamation
Azusa Land Reclamation
BKK Landfill
BKK Landfill
BKK Landfill
BKK Landfill
BKK Landfill
BKK Landfill
BKK Landfill
BKK Landfill
BKK Landfill
Bradley Pit
Coyote Canyon
Puente Hills
Puente Hills
Puente Hills
Puente Hills
Puente Hills
Sunshine Canyon
Guadalupe
Guadalupe
Arbor Hills
Arbor Hills
Arbor Hills
BKK Landfill
BKK Landfill
BKK Landfill
Bradley Pit
Bradley Pit
Bradley Pit
Bradley Pit
Bradley Pit
Bradley Pit
Bradley Pit
Bradley Pit
Bradley Pit
Bradley Pit
Bradley Pit
Bradley Pit
Bradley Pit
CA
CA
Calabasas
Calabasas
Calabasas
Carson
Carson
Carson
FL
IL
Mission Canyon
Mountaingate
Mountaingate
Mountaingate
Mountaingate
PA
Palos Verdes
Palos Verdes
Palos Verdes
Palos Verdes
A-2. Default
Co-disposal
(Y, N, or U)*
u
U
u
u
u
u
u
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
U
U
N
N
N
N
N
U
U
U
U
U
U
Y
Y
Y
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
N
U
Y
Y
Y
U
U
U
U
U
N
N
N
N
N
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
LFG Constituent Concentrations (pre-1992
Raw
Landfills)
Air Infiltration
Concentration Corrected Cone.
Compound
Methyl mercaptan
Methyl mercaptan
Methyl mercaptan
Methyl mercaptan
Methyl mercaptan
Methyl mercaptan
Methyl mercaptan
Methyl mercaptan
Methyl mercaptan
Methyl mercaptan
Methyl mercaptan
Methyl mercaptan
Methyl mercaptan
Methyl mercaptan
Methyl mercaptan
Methyl mercaptan
Methyl mercaptan
Methyl mercaptan
Methyl mercaptan
Methyl mercaptan
Methyl mercaptan
Methyl mercaptan
Methyl mercaptan
Methyl mercaptan
Methylester acetic acid
Methylester butanoic acid
NMOC (as hexane)
NMOC (as hexane)
NMOC (as hexane)
NMOC (as hexane)
NMOC (as hexane)
NMOC (as hexane)
NMOC (as hexane)
NMOC (as hexane)
NMOC (as hexane)
NMOC (as hexane)
NMOC (as hexane)
NMOC (as hexane)
NMOC (as hexane)
NMOC (as hexane)
NMOC (as hexane)
NMOC (as hexane)
NMOC (as hexane)
NMOC (as hexane)
NMHC (as hexane)
NMHC (as hexane)
NMHC (as hexane)
NMOC (as hexane)
NMOC (as hexane)
NMOC (as hexane)
NMOC (as hexane)
NMOC (as hexane)
NMOC (as hexane)
NMHC (as hexane)
NMHC (as hexane)
NMOC (as hexane)
NMOC (as hexane)
NMOC (as hexane)
NMOC (as hexane)
NMOC (as hexane)
NMHC (as hexane)
NMOC (as hexane)
NMOC (as hexane)
NMOC (as hexane)
NMOC (as hexane)
(ppmv)
12.0
11.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
11.0
0.88
2.50
2.10
2.40
1.30
1.60
2.10
2.00
2.20
2.10
2.20
1.80
1.10
0.90
1.30
1.30
0.0014
12.0
5.10
49.6
1435
1833
1348
3133
1408
1543
518
757
335
407
848
833
735
705
202
555
723
717
285
162
912
1372
1247
1435
342
305
600
314
210
26
88
70
102
80
411
475
562
190
197
(ppmv)
12.5
11.5
10.4
10.4
10.4
11.5
0.92
5.61
4.64
5.18
2.80
3.40
6.07
4.36
4.71
4.68
3.01
2.40
1.60
1.29
1.81
1.80
0.0017
12.6
6.11
59.4
1469
1850
1374
6902
3306
3392
704
947
419
509
1268
1282
910
851
306
707
932
889
412
183
1586
2432
2296
2590
457
420
1261
319
234
105
254
202
293
230
459
2420
2065
731
771
Site Avg.**
(ppmv)
9.67
4.60
3.01
2.40
1.30
12.6
6.11
59.4
1539
4533
780
940
183
1586
2439
712
319
234
105
245
459
4337
Appendix A-2
39
-------
Reference
22
51
51
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
61
18
18
18
18
24
24
24
24
50
59
1
1
9
9
9
9
60
23
23
26
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
53
53
54
54
54
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
12
12
Appendix
Landfill Name
Palos Verdes
Palos Verdes
Palos Verdes
Penrose
Penrose
Penrose
Penrose
Penrose
Penrose
Penrose
Penrose
Pinelands
Puente Hills
Puente Hills
Puente Hills
Puente Hills
Puente Hills
Puente Hills
Puente Hills
Puente Hills
Puente Hills
Rocking ham
Scholl Canyon
Scholl Canyon
Sheldon Street
Sheldon Street
Sheldon Street
Sheldon Street
Sunshine Canyon
Toyon Canyon
Toyon Canyon
Wl
CBI11
CBI13
CBI14
CBI16
CBI17
CBI18
CBI19
CBI24
CBI26
CBI27
CBI30
CBI32
CBI33
CBI5
CBI6
CBI8
CBI9
Altamont
Altamont
Arbor Hills
Arbor Hills
Arbor Hills
Azusa Land Reclamation
Azusa Land Reclamation
Azusa Land Reclamation
Azusa Land Reclamation
Azusa Land Reclamation
Azusa Land Reclamation
Azusa Land Reclamation
Azusa Land Reclamation
Azusa Land Reclamation
BKK Landfill
BKK Landfill
A-2. Default
Co-disposal
(Y, N, or U)*
Y
Y
Y
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
U
N
N
U
U
U
U
U
N
N
Y
U
U
U
Y
U
U
U
Y
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
Y
Y
LFG Constituent Concentrations (pre-1992
Raw
Landfills)
Air Infiltration
Concentration Corrected Cone.
Compound
NMOC (ashexane)
NMOC (ashexane)
NMOC (ashexane)
NMOC (ashexane)
NMOC (ashexane)
NMOC (as hexane)
NMOC (as hexane)
NMOC (as hexane)
NMOC (as hexane)
NMOC (as hexane)
NMOC (as hexane)
NMOC (as hexane)
NMOC (as hexane)
NMOC (as hexane)
NMOC (as hexane)
NMOC (as hexane)
NMOC (as hexane)
NMOC (as hexane)
NMOC (as hexane)
NMOC (as hexane)
NMOC (as hexane)
NMOC (as hexane)
TGNMHC (hexane)
TGNMHC (hexane)
NMOC (as hexane)
NMOC (as hexane)
NMOC (as hexane)
NMOC (as hexane)
NMOC (as hexane)
TGNMHC (hexane)
TGNMHC (hexane)
NMHC (as hexane)
Pentane
Pentane
Pentane
Pentane
Pentane
Pentane
Pentane
Pentane
Pentane
Pentane
Pentane
Pentane
Pentane
Pentane
Pentane
Pentane
Pentane
Perchloroethylene
Perchloroethylene
Perchloroethylene
Perchloroethylene
Perchloroethylene
Perchloroethylene
Perchloroethylene
Perchloroethylene
Perchloroethylene
Perchloroethylene
Perchloroethylene
Perchloroethylene
Perchloroethylene
Perchloroethylene
Perchloroethylene
Perchloroethylene
(ppmv)
210
8567
527
130
147
177
322
99
102
117
138
145
322
368
342
308
1077
1035
852
903
1118
129
397
672
480
292
113
49.7
733
527
455
296
3.25
0.58
11.1
1.20
0.50
3.83
1.00
0.39
0.50
46.5
3.96
9.00
1.10
17.6
18.0
0.67
45.0
2.30
2.10
7.74
7.78
6.98
3.50
3.60
3.90
1.90
2.30
2.90
0.33
1.40
3.30
24.0
14.0
(ppmv)
787
21910
1677
167
185
304
548
240
241
233
268
166
418
496
456
408
1565
1485
1176
1255
1355
172
593
1166
621
388
315
133
772
571
485
348
3.29
0.70
11.2
1.22
0.51
3.91
1.00
0.40
0.50
46.9
4.00
9.05
1.10
17.8
18.1
0.68
45.5
2.77
2.44
7.92
7.85
7.12
3.65
3.75
4.07
1.98
2.40
3.02
0.34
1.46
3.44
52.9
32.9
Site Avg.**
(ppmv)
273
166
957
172
880
364
772
491
348
3.29
0.70
11.2
1.22
0.51
3.91
1.00
0.40
0.50
46.9
4.00
9.05
1.10
17.8
18.1
0.68
45.5
2.61
7.63
2.68
64.5
Appendix A-2
40
-------
Reference
12
17
17
17
17
17
17
19
19
19
19
41
6
6
6
7
7
7
13
13
13
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
55
56
56
56
56
56
56
57
57
57
41
27
27
Appendix
Landfill Name
BKK Landfill
Bradley Pit
Bradley Pit
Bradley Pit
Bradley Pit
Bradley Pit
Bradley Pit
Bradley Pit
Bradley Pit
Bradley Pit
Bradley Pit
Bradley Pit
Bradley Pit
Bradley Pit
Bradley Pit
Calabasas
Calabasas
Calabasas
Carson
Carson
Carson
CBI1
CBI10
CBI11
CBI12
CBI13
CBI14
CBI15
CBI16
CBI17
CBI18
CBI19
CBI2
CBI20
CBI21
CBI22
CBI23
CBI24
CBI25
CBI26
CBI27
CBI3
CBI30
CBI31
CBI32
CBI33
CBI4
CBI5
CBI6
CBI7
CBI8
CBI9
Chicopee
Coyote Canyon
Coyote Canyon
Coyote Canyon
Coyote Canyon
Coyote Canyon
Coyote Canyon
Durham Rd.
Durham Rd.
Durham Rd.
Guadalupe
Lyon Development
Lyon Development
A-2. Default
Co-disposal
(Y, N, or U)*
Y
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
Y
Y
Y
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
Y
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
Y
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
LFG Constituent Concentrations (pre-1992
Raw
Landfills)
Air Infiltration
Concentration Corrected Cone.
Compound
Perchloroethylene
Perchloroethylene
Perchloroethylene
Perchloroethylene
Perchloroethylene
Perchloroethylene
Perchloroethylene
Perchloroethylene
Perchloroethylene
Perchloroethylene
Perchloroethylene
Perchloroethylene
Perchloroethylene
Perchloroethylene
Perchloroethylene
Perchloroethylene
Perchloroethylene
Perchloroethylene
Perchloroethylene
Perchloroethylene
Perchloroethylene
Perchloroethylene
Perchloroethylene
Perchloroethylene
Perchloroethylene
Perchloroethylene
Perchloroethylene
Perchloroethylene
Perchloroethylene
Perchloroethylene
Perchloroethylene
Perchloroethylene
Perchloroethylene
Perchloroethylene
Perchloroethylene
Perchloroethylene
Perchloroethylene
Perchloroethylene
Perchloroethylene
Perchloroethylene
Perchloroethylene
Perchloroethylene
Perchloroethylene
Perchloroethylene
Perchloroethylene
Perchloroethylene
Perchloroethylene
Perchloroethylene
Perchloroethylene
Perchloroethylene
Perchloroethylene
Perchloroethylene
Perchloroethylene
Perchloroethylene
Perchloroethylene
Perchloroethylene
Perchloroethylene
Perchloroethylene
Perchloroethylene
Perchloroethylene
Perchloroethylene
Perchloroethylene
Perchloroethylene
Perchloroethylene
Perchloroethylene
(ppmv)
49.0
16.0
14.0
16.0
16.0
6.00
7.80
6.20
7.30
3.80
6.50
0.08
2.10
5.80
1.40
6.60
25.0
18.0
0.039
0.028
0.033
4.75
4.60
12.0
2.40
0.74
14.9
0.23
0.30
0.90
5.63
0.25
0.40
12.3
7.10
3.70
11.0
12.6
8.20
0.40
2.63
0.10
6.82
3.80
1.00
1.53
12.1
10.5
0.95
7.75
65.0
9.30
1.59
5.31
5.12
4.73
4.86
7.91
9.18
7.60
8.20
9.10
54.4
2.90
4.40
(ppmv)
108
19.8
21.5
23.9
19.3
7.51
9.76
7.69
9.30
5.77
8.38
0.11
2.85
7.26
1.92
10.1
45.1
32.5
0.082
0.039
0.044
4.88
4.69
12.1
2.64
0.90
15.1
0.23
0.30
0.91
5.74
0.25
0.40
12.3
7.16
3.73
11.7
12.8
8.27
0.40
2.65
0.10
6.88
3.81
1.01
1.53
12.7
10.6
0.96
7.94
65.5
9.39
2.04
7.07
6.82
6.30
7.20
11.53
13.6
10.0
9.88
10.8
65.1
3.41
5.24
Site Avg.**
(ppmv)
10.4
29.2
0.055
4.88
4.69
12.1
2.64
0.90
15.1
0.23
0.30
0.91
5.74
0.25
0.40
12.3
7.16
3.73
11.7
12.8
8.27
0.40
2.65
0.10
6.88
3.81
1.01
1.53
12.7
10.6
0.96
7.94
65.5
9.39
2.04
8.75
10.2
65.1
2.90
Appendix A-2
41
-------
Reference
27
10
5
5
5
5
8
58
84
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
51
51
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
18
18
18
18
24
24
50
59
1
1
9
9
9
9
60
23
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
Appendix
Landfill Name
Lyon Development
Mission Canyon
Mountaingate
Mountaingate
Mountaingate
Mountaingate
Operating Industries
Otay Annex
Otay Landfill
Palos Verdes
Palos Verdes
Palos Verdes
Palos Verdes
Palos Verdes
Palos Verdes
Palos Verdes
Palos Verdes
Palos Verdes
Palos Verdes
Palos Verdes
Palos Verdes
Palos Verdes
Palos Verdes
Penrose
Penrose
Penrose
Penrose
Penrose
Penrose
Penrose
Penrose
Puente Hills
Puente Hills
Puente Hills
Puente Hills
Puente Hills
Puente Hills
Puente Hills
Rockingham
Scholl Canyon
Scholl Canyon
Sheldon Street
Sheldon Street
Sheldon Street
Sheldon Street
Sunshine Canyon
Toyon Canyon
CBI11
CBI13
CBI14
CBI16
CBI17
CBI18
CBI19
CBI24
CBI25
CBI26
CBI27
CBI30
CBI32
CBI33
CBI34
CBI4
CBI5
CBI6
A-2. Default
Co-disposal
(Y, N, or U)*
u
N
N
N
N
N
U
U
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
U
N
N
U
U
U
U
U
N
U
U
U
Y
U
U
U
Y
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
LFG Constituent Concentrations (pre-1992
Raw
Landfills)
Air Infiltration
Concentration Corrected Cone.
Compound
Perchloroethylene
Perchloroethylene
Perchloroethylene
Perchloroethylene
Perchloroethylene
Perchloroethylene
Perchloroethylene
Perchloroethylene
Perchloroethylene
Perchloroethylene
Perchloroethylene
Perchloroethylene
Perchloroethylene
Perchloroethylene
Perchloroethylene
Perchloroethylene
Perchloroethylene
Perchloroethylene
Perchloroethylene
Perchloroethylene
Perchloroethylene
Perchloroethylene
Perchloroethylene
Perchloroethylene
Perchloroethylene
Perchloroethylene
Perchloroethylene
Perchloroethylene
Perchloroethylene
Perchloroethylene
Perchloroethylene
Perchloroethylene
Perchloroethylene
Perchloroethylene
Perchloroethylene
Perchloroethylene
Perchloroethylene
Perchloroethylene
Perchloroethylene
Perchloroethylene
Perchloroethylene
Perchloroethylene
Perchloroethylene
Perchloroethylene
Perchloroethylene
Perchloroethylene
Perchloroethylene
Propane
Propane
Propane
Propane
Propane
Propane
Propane
Propane
Propane
Propane
Propane
Propane
Propane
Propane
Propane
Propane
Propane
Propane
(ppmv)
0.040
0.0026
1.00
1.10
0.91
1.10
0.27
2.94
3.47
0.16
0.42
0.22
0.34
0.69
0.49
0.34
0.15
0.42
0.57
0.09
0.52
3.40
2.50
1.50
1.60
3.00
3.20
0.91
0.97
0.64
1.00
7.90
8.50
7.40
5.90
8.80
0.94
96.0
9.00
2.80
2.10
0.02
4.10
0.04
0.04
13.0
0.98
86.5
9.76
48.8
5.20
7.00
4.67
6.50
4.26
18.2
11.0
1.40
13.1
6.50
0.63
2.50
43.6
32.0
36.5
(ppmv)
0.040
0.011
2.89
3.18
2.61
3.16
0.54
3.18
4.71
0.70
1.83
0.96
1.48
3.01
2.14
1.48
0.65
1.83
2.49
0.41
2.27
10.8
6.39
1.92
2.02
5.16
5.45
2.21
2.29
1.27
1.95
10.3
11.5
9.87
7.81
12.7
1.30
116
12.0
4.49
4.81
0.03
8.16
0.08
0.08
13.7
1.05
87.5
11.8
49.4
5.28
7.07
4.77
6.53
4.33
18.3
11.1
1.41
13.2
6.53
0.63
2.51
45.8
32.3
36.8
Site Avg.**
(ppmv)
0.01
2.89
3.18
2.61
3.16
0.54
3.18
4.71
2.60
2.79
24.25
12.0
4.65
2.09
13.7
1.05
87.5
11.8
49.4
5.28
7.07
4.77
6.53
4.33
18.3
11.1
1.41
13.2
6.53
0.63
2.51
45.8
32.3
36.8
Appendix A-2
42
-------
Reference
43
43
41
60
41
41
19
19
19
19
6
6
6
7
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
27
27
27
5
5
5
5
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
18
18
18
18
41
41
Appendix
Landfill Name
CBI8
CBI9
Guadalupe
Sunshine Canyon
Guadalupe
Guadalupe
Bradley Pit
Bradley Pit
Bradley Pit
Bradley Pit
Bradley Pit
Bradley Pit
Bradley Pit
Calabasas
CBI10
CBI11
CBI12
CBI13
CBI14
CBI15
CBI17
CBI18
CBI19
CBI2
CBI20
CBI21
CBI22
CBI23
CBI24
CBI26
CBI27
CBI28
CBI29
CBI3
CBI30
CBI31
CBI32
CBI33
CBI34
CBI5
CBI6
CBI7
CBI8
CBI9
Lyon Development
Lyon Development
Lyon Development
Mountaingate
Mountaingate
Mountaingate
Mountaingate
Penrose
Penrose
Penrose
Penrose
Penrose
Penrose
Penrose
Penrose
Puente Hills
Puente Hills
Puente Hills
Puente Hills
Guadalupe
Guadalupe
A-2. Default
Co-disposal
(Y, N, or U)*
u
U
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
Y
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
Y
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
N
N
N
N
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
N
N
N
N
U
U
LFG Constituent Concentrations (pre-1992
Raw
Landfills)
Air Infiltration
Concentration Corrected Cone.
Compound
Propane
Propane
Propane
Propyl mercaptan
Propylester acetic acid
Propylester butanoic acid
t-1,2-Dichloroethene
t-1,2-Dichloroethene
t-1,2-Dichloroethene
t-1,2-Dichloroethene
t-1,2-Dichloroethene
t-1,2-Dichloroethene
t-1,2-Dichloroethene
t-1,2-Dichloroethene
t-1,2-Dichloroethene
t-1,2-Dichloroethene
t-1,2-Dichloroethene
t-1,2-Dichloroethene
t-1,2-Dichloroethene
t-1,2-Dichloroethene
t-1,2-Dichloroethene
t-1,2-Dichloroethene
t-1,2-Dichloroethene
t-1,2-Dichloroethene
t-1,2-Dichloroethene
t-1,2-Dichloroethene
t-1,2-Dichloroethene
t-1,2-Dichloroethene
t-1,2-Dichloroethene
t-1,2-Dichloroethene
t-1,2-Dichloroethene
t-1,2-Dichloroethene
t-1,2-Dichloroethene
t-1,2-Dichloroethene
t-1,2-Dichloroethene
t-1,2-Dichloroethene
t-1,2-Dichloroethene
t-1,2-Dichloroethene
t-1,2-Dichloroethene
t-1,2-Dichloroethene
t-1,2-Dichloroethene
t-1,2-Dichloroethene
t-1,2-Dichloroethene
t-1,2-Dichloroethene
t-1,2-Dichloroethene
t-1,2-Dichloroethene
t-1,2-Dichloroethene
t-1,2-Dichloroethene
t-1,2-Dichloroethene
t-1,2-Dichloroethene
t-1,2-Dichloroethene
t-1,2-Dichloroethene
t-1,2-Dichloroethene
t-1,2-Dichloroethene
t-1,2-Dichloroethene
t-1,2-Dichloroethene
t-1,2-Dichloroethene
t-1,2-Dichloroethene
t-1,2-Dichloroethene
t-1,2-Dichloroethene
t-1,2-Dichloroethene
t-1,2-Dichloroethene
t-1,2-Dichloroethene
Tetrahydrofuran
Thiobismethane
(ppmv)
25.3
68.0
4.60
0.25
34.0
86.6
12.0
9.30
2.40
11.0
1.30
0.60
6.40
52.0
6.20
18.5
5.27
0.13
8.58
0.83
1.65
7.82
0.30
0.25
5.45
2.78
6.23
13.00
4.55
0.50
3.93
1.20
11.49
0.60
0.11
8.80
1.20
2.87
0.50
7.35
0.90
1.35
1.30
0.90
0.20
0.41
0.060
0.080
0.080
0.080
0.080
1.50
1.50
1.50
1.50
1.50
1.50
1.80
1.80
17.0
17.0
17.0
17.0
3.40
10.6
(ppmv)
25.5
68.7
5.51
0.26
40.7
104
15.5
11.8
3.64
13.6
1.78
0.82
8.01
93.9
6.32
18.7
5.81
0.16
8.68
0.84
1.67
7.98
0.30
0.25
5.48
2.80
6.29
13.80
4.62
0.50
3.96
1.20
12.16
0.60
0.11
8.82
1.21
2.88
0.50
7.42
0.91
1.38
1.31
0.91
0.24
0.49
0.060
0.23
0.23
0.23
0.23
1.92
1.90
2.58
2.56
3.65
3.55
3.58
3.51
22.1
22.9
22.7
22.5
4.07
12.7
Site Avg.**
(ppmv)
25.5
68.7
5.51
0.26
40.7
104
7.89
93.9
6.32
18.7
5.81
0.16
8.68
0.84
1.67
7.98
0.30
0.25
5.48
2.80
6.29
13.8
4.62
0.50
3.96
1.20
12.2
0.60
0.11
8.82
1.21
2.88
0.50
7.42
0.91
1.38
1.31
0.91
0.26
0.23
2.90
22.5
4.07
12.7
Appendix A-2
43
-------
Reference
54
54
54
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
12
12
12
17
17
17
17
17
17
41
6
6
6
7
7
7
13
13
13
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
Appendix
Landfill Name
Arbor Hills
Arbor Hills
Arbor Hills
Azusa Land Reclamation
Azusa Land Reclamation
Azusa Land Reclamation
Azusa Land Reclamation
Azusa Land Reclamation
Azusa Land Reclamation
Azusa Land Reclamation
Azusa Land Reclamation
Azusa Land Reclamation
BKK Landfill
BKK Landfill
BKK Landfill
Bradley Pit
Bradley Pit
Bradley Pit
Bradley Pit
Bradley Pit
Bradley Pit
Bradley Pit
Bradley Pit
Bradley Pit
Bradley Pit
Calabasas
Calabasas
Calabasas
Carson
Carson
Carson
CBI1
CBI10
CBI11
CBI12
CBI13
CBI14
CBI15
CBI16
CBI17
CBI18
CBI19
CBI2
CBI20
CBI21
CBI22
CBI23
CBI24
CBI25
CBI26
CBI27
CBI28
CBI29
CBI3
CBI30
CBI31
CBI32
CBI33
CBI34
CBI4
CBI5
CBI6
CBI7
CBI8
CBI9
A-2. Default
Co-disposal
(Y, N, or U)*
u
U
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
Y
Y
Y
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
Y
Y
Y
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
Y
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
Y
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
LFG Constituent Concentrations (pre-1992
Raw
Landfills)
Air Infiltration
Concentration Corrected Cone.
Compound
Toluene
Toluene
Toluene
Toluene
Toluene
Toluene
Toluene
Toluene
Toluene
Toluene
Toluene
Toluene
Toluene
Toluene
Toluene
Toluene
Toluene
Toluene
Toluene
Toluene
Toluene
Toluene
Toluene
Toluene
Toluene
Toluene
Toluene
Toluene
Toluene
Toluene
Toluene
Toluene
Toluene
Toluene
Toluene
Toluene
Toluene
Toluene
Toluene
Toluene
Toluene
Toluene
Toluene
Toluene
Toluene
Toluene
Toluene
Toluene
Toluene
Toluene
Toluene
Toluene
Toluene
Toluene
Toluene
Toluene
Toluene
Toluene
Toluene
Toluene
Toluene
Toluene
Toluene
Toluene
Toluene
(ppmv)
69.5
69.7
67.6
21.0
45.0
29.0
32.0
53.0
46.0
44.0
28.0
31.0
180
130
200
34.0
30.0
15.0
14.0
24.0
24.0
4.50
5.80
26.0
18.0
196
110
150
24.0
14.0
16.0
70.8
31.5
40.0
28.2
35.5
60.9
1.45
17.2
3.00
77.2
2.10
2.50
47.5
19.4
23.3
37.0
125
221
5.85
13.9
1.05
347
19.0
123
53.0
12.7
27.2
0.85
37.9
43.5
10.1
68.5
51.0
30.0
(ppmv)
71.1
70.3
68.9
21.9
46.9
30.2
33.4
55.3
48.0
45.9
29.2
32.3
396
305
440
50.8
46.2
18.8
17.5
29.7
29.0
6.50
7.95
32.5
24.5
299
199
271
50.4
19.3
21.4
72.8
32.1
40.4
31.1
43.0
61.6
1.46
17.5
3.03
78.7
2.11
2.52
47.8
19.5
23.5
39.3
127
223
5.88
14.0
1.05
367
19.0
124
53.1
12.8
27.3
0.85
39.8
43.9
10.1
70.2
51.4
30.3
Site Avg.**
(ppmv)
70.1
38.1
380
26.3
256
30.4
72.8
32.1
40.4
31.1
43.0
61.6
1.46
17.5
3.03
78.7
2.11
2.52
47.8
19.5
23.5
39.3
127
223
5.88
14.0
1.05
367
19.0
124
53.1
12.8
27.3
0.85
39.8
43.9
10.1
70.2
51.4
30.3
Appendix A-2
44
-------
Reference
55
56
56
56
56
56
56
41
27
27
27
10
5
5
5
5
8
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
51
51
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
18
18
18
18
24
24
50
59
1
1
9
9
9
9
60
23
53
53
53
53
53
53
53
15
15
15
Appendix
Landfill Name
Chicopee
Coyote Canyon
Coyote Canyon
Coyote Canyon
Coyote Canyon
Coyote Canyon
Coyote Canyon
Guadalupe
Lyon Development
Lyon Development
Lyon Development
Mission Canyon
Mountaingate
Mountaingate
Mountaingate
Mountaingate
Operating Industries
Palos Verdes
Palos Verdes
Palos Verdes
Palos Verdes
Palos Verdes
Palos Verdes
Palos Verdes
Palos Verdes
Palos Verdes
Palos Verdes
Palos Verdes
Palos Verdes
Palos Verdes
Palos Verdes
Penrose
Penrose
Penrose
Penrose
Penrose
Penrose
Penrose
Penrose
Puente Hills
Puente Hills
Puente Hills
Puente Hills
Puente Hills
Puente Hills
Puente Hills
Rockingham
Scholl Canyon
Scholl Canyon
Sheldon Street
Sheldon Street
Sheldon Street
Sheldon Street
Sunshine Canyon
Toyon Canyon
Altamont
Altamont
Altamont
Arbor Hills
Arbor Hills
Arbor Hills
Arbor Hills
Azusa Land Reclamation
Azusa Land Reclamation
Azusa Land Reclamation
A-2. Default
Co-disposal
(Y, N, or U)*
u
U
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
N
N
N
N
N
U
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
U
N
N
U
U
U
U
U
N
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
LFG Constituent Concentrations (pre-1992
Raw
Landfills)
Air Infiltration
Concentration Corrected Cone.
Compound
Toluene
Toluene
Toluene
Toluene
Toluene
Toluene
Toluene
Toluene
Toluene
Toluene
Toluene
Toluene
Toluene
Toluene
Toluene
Toluene
Toluene
Toluene
Toluene
Toluene
Toluene
Toluene
Toluene
Toluene
Toluene
Toluene
Toluene
Toluene
Toluene
Toluene
Toluene
Toluene
Toluene
Toluene
Toluene
Toluene
Toluene
Toluene
Toluene
Toluene
Toluene
Toluene
Toluene
Toluene
Toluene
Toluene
Toluene
Toluene
Toluene
Toluene
Toluene
Toluene
Toluene
Toluene
Toluene
Trichloroethene
Trichloroethene
Trichloroethene
Trichloroethene
Trichloroethene
Trichloroethene
Trichloroethene
Trichloroethene
Trichloroethene
Trichloroethene
(ppmv)
119
57.5
59.8
59.3
60.4
59.8
65.2
160
32.0
23.0
0.40
0.05
1.90
1.80
1.90
3.10
56
1.00
9.50
1.00
4.30
1.10
5.50
12.0
19.0
3.90
9.50
1.00
19.0
22.0
68.0
22.0
21.0
42.0
68.0
14.0
15.0
16.0
28.0
180
190
240
230
57.5
55.5
100
99
47.0
7.50
20.0
0.54
3.90
3.90
100
8.40
6.90
3.10
5.00
4.37
4.14
4.00
4.17
4.30
3.40
8.90
(ppmv)
153
76.6
79.6
79.0
89.5
87.2
96.4
192
37.6
27.4
0.40
0.20
5.49
5.20
5.46
8.91
112
4.36
41.4
4.36
18.7
4.80
24.0
52.3
82.8
17.0
41.4
4.36
82.8
70.1
174
28.2
26.5
72.3
116
34.1
35.5
31.8
54.6
234
256
320
305
83.0
76.9
121
132
75.4
17.2
39.8
1.07
7.76
7.76
105
9.03
8.31
3.60
5.92
4.47
4.18
4.08
4.44
4.48
3.55
9.28
Site Avg.**
(ppmv)
153
84.7
192
21.8
0.20
6.27
112
44.5
49.8
212
121
132
46.3
14.1
105
9.03
4.95
5.92
4.24
4.44
3.72
Appendix A-2
45
-------
Reference
15
15
15
15
15
15
12
12
12
17
17
17
17
17
17
19
19
19
19
6
6
6
6
7
7
7
13
13
13
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
55
56
56
56
56
56
56
Appendix
Landfill Name
Azusa Land Reclamation
Azusa Land Reclamation
Azusa Land Reclamation
Azusa Land Reclamation
Azusa Land Reclamation
Azusa Land Reclamation
BKK Landfill
BKK Landfill
BKK Landfill
Bradley Pit
Bradley Pit
Bradley Pit
Bradley Pit
Bradley Pit
Bradley Pit
Bradley Pit
Bradley Pit
Bradley Pit
Bradley Pit
Bradley Pit
Bradley Pit
Bradley Pit
Bradley Pit
Calabasas
Calabasas
Calabasas
Carson
Carson
Carson
CBI10
CBI11
CBI12
CBI13
CBI14
CBI15
CBI16
CBI17
CBI18
CBI19
CBI2
CBI20
CBI21
CBI22
CBI23
CBI24
CBI25
CBI26
CBI27
CBI30
CBI31
CBI32
CBI33
CBI4
CBI5
CBI6
CBI7
CBI8
CBI9
Chicopee
Coyote Canyon
Coyote Canyon
Coyote Canyon
Coyote Canyon
Coyote Canyon
Coyote Canyon
A-2. Default
Co-disposal
(Y, N, or U)*
u
U
u
u
u
u
Y
Y
Y
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
Y
Y
Y
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
Y
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
Y
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
LFG Constituent Concentrations (pre-1992
Raw
Landfills)
Air Infiltration
Concentration Corrected Cone.
Compound
Trichloroethene
Trichloroethene
Trichloroethene
Trichloroethene
Trichloroethene
Trichloroethene
Trichloroethene
Trichloroethene
Trichloroethene
Trichloroethene
Trichloroethene
Trichloroethene
Trichloroethene
Trichloroethene
Trichloroethene
Trichloroethene
Trichloroethene
Trichloroethene
Trichloroethene
Trichloroethene
Trichloroethene
Trichloroethene
Trichloroethene
Trichloroethene
Trichloroethene
Trichloroethene
Trichloroethene
Trichloroethene
Trichloroethene
Trichloroethene
Trichloroethene
Trichloroethene
Trichloroethene
Trichloroethene
Trichloroethene
Trichloroethene
Trichloroethene
Trichloroethene
Trichloroethene
Trichloroethene
Trichloroethene
Trichloroethene
Trichloroethene
Trichloroethene
Trichloroethene
Trichloroethene
Trichloroethene
Trichloroethene
Trichloroethene
Trichloroethene
Trichloroethene
Trichloroethene
Trichloroethene
Trichloroethene
Trichloroethene
Trichloroethene
Trichloroethene
Trichloroethene
Trichloroethene
Trichloroethene
Trichloroethene
Trichloroethene
Trichloroethene
Trichloroethene
Trichloroethene
(ppmv)
3.30
3.50
0.79
3.60
3.70
0.59
13.0
4.80
21.0
5.90
2.40
1.90
6.20
6.50
5.50
4.90
4.90
1.60
4.60
5.10
0.20
3.70
1.00
0.69
12.0
12.0
0.17
0.16
0.19
3.25
21.5
1.54
0.22
6.96
0.18
0.30
0.40
5.23
0.15
0.20
3.75
1.38
1.63
3.10
13.0
7.85
0.20
1.67
2.02
1.80
1.55
0.50
1.14
3.05
0.45
4.70
7.80
3.40
2.20
2.38
2.23
2.47
2.37
3.01
3.06
(ppmv)
3.44
3.65
0.82
3.75
3.86
0.62
28.6
11.3
46.2
7.30
3.00
2.38
7.49
9.72
8.46
6.47
6.24
2.43
5.71
6.57
0.29
4.63
1.36
0.95
21.7
21.7
0.23
0.22
0.40
3.31
21.7
1.70
0.27
7.04
0.18
0.30
0.40
5.34
0.15
0.20
3.77
1.39
1.64
3.29
13.2
7.91
0.20
1.68
2.04
1.80
1.56
0.50
1.20
3.08
0.45
4.82
7.86
3.43
2.82
3.17
2.97
3.29
3.51
4.39
4.53
Site Avg.**
(ppmv)
28.7
5.15
14.8
0.28
3.31
21.7
1.70
0.27
7.04
0.18
0.30
0.40
5.34
0.15
0.20
3.77
1.39
1.64
3.29
13.2
7.91
0.20
1.68
2.04
1.80
1.56
0.50
1.20
3.08
0.45
4.82
7.86
3.43
2.82
3.64
Appendix A-2
46
-------
Reference
57
57
57
57
41
27
27
27
10
5
5
5
5
8
58
84
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
51
51
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
18
18
18
18
24
24
50
59
1
1
9
9
9
9
60
23
10
5
5
5
5
18
18
18
18
24
24
Appendix
Landfill Name
Durham Rd.
Durham Rd.
Durham Rd.
Durham Rd.
Guadalupe
Lyon Development
Lyon Development
Lyon Development
Mission Canyon
Mountaingate
Mountaingate
Mountaingate
Mountaingate
Operating Industries
Otay Annex
Otay Landfill
Palos Verdes
Palos Verdes
Palos Verdes
Palos Verdes
Palos Verdes
Palos Verdes
Palos Verdes
Palos Verdes
Palos Verdes
Palos Verdes
Palos Verdes
Palos Verdes
Palos Verdes
Palos Verdes
Penrose
Pen rose
Penrose
Penrose
Penrose
Penrose
Penrose
Penrose
Puente Hills
Puente Hills
Puente Hills
Puente Hills
Puente Hills
Puente Hills
Puente Hills
Rocking ham
Scholl Canyon
Scholl Canyon
Sheldon Street
Sheldon Street
Sheldon Street
Sheldon Street
Sunshine Canyon
Toyon Canyon
Mission Canyon
Mountaingate
Mountaingate
Mountaingate
Mountaingate
Puente Hills
Puente Hills
Puente Hills
Puente Hills
Puente Hills
Puente Hills
A-2. Default
Co-disposal
(Y, N, or U)*
u
U
u
u
u
u
u
u
N
N
N
N
N
U
U
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
U
N
N
U
U
U
U
U
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
LFG Constituent Concentrations (pre-1992
Raw
Landfills)
Air Infiltration
Concentration Corrected Cone.
Compound
Trichloroethene
Trichloroethene
Trichloroethene
Trichloroethene
Trichloroethene
Trichloroethene
Trichloroethene
Trichloroethene
Trichloroethene
Trichloroethene
Trichloroethene
Trichloroethene
Trichloroethene
Trichloroethene
Trichloroethene
Trichloroethene
Trichloroethene
Trichloroethene
Trichloroethene
Trichloroethene
Trichloroethene
Trichloroethene
Trichloroethene
Trichloroethene
Trichloroethene
Trichloroethene
Trichloroethene
Trichloroethene
Trichloroethene
Trichloroethene
Trichloroethene
Trichloroethene
Trichloroethene
Trichloroethene
Trichloroethene
Trichloroethene
Trichloroethene
Trichloroethene
Trichloroethene
Trichloroethene
Trichloroethene
Trichloroethene
Trichloroethene
Trichloroethene
Trichloroethene
Trichloroethene
Trichloroethene
Trichloroethene
Trichloroethene
Trichloroethene
Trichloroethene
Trichloroethene
Trichloroethene
Trichloroethene
Vinyl chloride
Vinyl chloride
Vinyl chloride
Vinyl chloride
Vinyl chloride
Vinyl chloride
Vinyl chloride
Vinyl chloride
Vinyl chloride
Vinyl chloride
Vinyl chloride
(ppmv)
2.50
2.60
2.70
2.60
18.7
2.60
2.80
0.040
0.0062
0.54
0.62
0.60
0.63
1.20
2.09
3.23
0.36
0.29
0.32
0.31
0.36
0.28
0.20
0.19
0.29
0.15
0.34
0.09
0.91
0.98
1.20
1.30
1.90
2.00
0.65
0.68
0.61
0.75
3.90
4.30
4.30
3.60
4.40
0.75
13.0
5.30
2.10
0.19
0.19
0.04
0.19
1.20
2.40
0.86
0.05
4.40
4.40
4.20
4.40
18.0
18.0
15.0
14.0
6.80
6.70
(ppmv)
3.29
3.13
3.21
3.19
22.4
3.06
3.33
0.040
0.026
1.55
1.79
1.73
1.81
2.39
2.84
3.49
1.57
1.26
1.40
1.35
1.57
1.22
0.87
0.83
1.26
0.65
1.48
0.38
2.33
3.12
1.54
1.64
3.27
3.41
1.58
1.61
1.21
1.46
5.06
5.80
5.73
4.77
6.35
1.03
15.8
7.05
3.37
0.43
0.38
0.07
0.38
2.39
2.53
0.92
0.22
12.6
12.7
12.1
12.6
23.4
24.3
20.0
18.5
9.81
9.28
Site Avg.**
(ppmv)
3.21
3.19
22.4
2.14
0.026
1.72
2.39
2.84
3.49
1.38
1.97
6.36
7.05
1.90
0.80
2.53
0.92
0.22
12.5
16.7
Appendix A-2
47
-------
Reference
50
1
1
23
53
53
54
54
54
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
19
19
19
19
6
6
6
6
13
13
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
Appendix
Landfill Name
Puente Hills
Scholl Canyon
Scholl Canyon
Toyon Canyon
Altamont
Altamont
Arbor Hills
Arbor Hills
Arbor Hills
Azusa Land Reclamation
Azusa Land Reclamation
Azusa Land Reclamation
Azusa Land Reclamation
Azusa Land Reclamation
Azusa Land Reclamation
Azusa Land Reclamation
Azusa Land Reclamation
Azusa Land Reclamation
Azusa Land Reclamation
Bradley Pit
Bradley Pit
Bradley Pit
Bradley Pit
Bradley Pit
Bradley Pit
Bradley Pit
Bradley Pit
Bradley Pit
Bradley Pit
Bradley Pit
Bradley Pit
Bradley Pit
Bradley Pit
Bradley Pit
Bradley Pit
Bradley Pit
Carson
Carson
CBI10
CBI11
CBI12
CBI13
CBI14
CBI15
CBI17
CBI18
CBI19
CBI2
CBI20
CBI21
CBI22
CBI23
CBI25
CBI26
CBI27
CBI3
CBI30
CBI32
CBI33
CBI34
CBI4
CBI5
CBI6
CBI7
CBI8
A-2. Default
Co-disposal
(Y, N, or U)*
N
N
N
N
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
LFG Constituent Concentrations (pre-1992
Raw
Landfills)
Air Infiltration
Concentration Corrected Cone.
Compound
Vinyl chloride
Vinyl chloride
Vinyl chloride
Vinyl chloride
Vinyl Chloride
Vinyl Chloride
Vinyl Chloride
Vinyl Chloride
Vinyl Chloride
Vinyl chloride
Vinyl chloride
Vinyl chloride
Vinyl chloride
Vinyl chloride
Vinyl chloride
Vinyl chloride
Vinyl chloride
Vinyl chloride
Vinyl chloride
Vinyl chloride
Vinyl chloride
Vinyl chloride
Vinyl chloride
Vinyl chloride
Vinyl chloride
Vinyl chloride
Vinyl chloride
Vinyl chloride
Vinyl chloride
Vinyl chloride
Vinyl chloride
Vinyl chloride
Vinyl chloride
Vinyl chloride
Vinyl chloride
Vinyl chloride
Vinyl chloride
Vinyl chloride
Vinyl chloride
Vinyl chloride
Vinyl chloride
Vinyl chloride
Vinyl chloride
Vinyl chloride
Vinyl chloride
Vinyl chloride
Vinyl chloride
Vinyl chloride
Vinyl chloride
Vinyl chloride
Vinyl chloride
Vinyl chloride
Vinyl chloride
Vinyl chloride
Vinyl chloride
Vinyl chloride
Vinyl chloride
Vinyl chloride
Vinyl chloride
Vinyl chloride
Vinyl chloride
Vinyl chloride
Vinyl chloride
Vinyl chloride
Vinyl chloride
(ppmv)
9.40
6.70
4.10
0.12
55.0
33.0
6.58
6.58
6.61
2.80
2.90
2.80
0.00
2.80
1.10
1.10
2.50
2.80
2.80
13.00
2.30
11.00
11.00
4.00
4.00
13.00
11.00
13.00
20.0
3.40
13.0
11.0
0.80
22.0
5.00
4.80
4.90
4.70
2.05
19.0
8.43
9.98
6.11
2.70
11.4
10.9
1.95
0.40
7.60
15.0
4.93
13.0
15.2
5.20
12.4
1.30
5.61
7.70
14.4
9.60
2.65
7.70
3.25
3.00
3.83
(ppmv)
11.4
10.8
9.38
0.13
66.3
38.4
6.73
6.64
6.74
2.92
3.02
2.92
0.00
2.92
1.15
1.15
2.61
2.92
2.92
17.13
3.03
14.49
14.49
5.27
5.27
17.13
14.49
17.13
25.5
5.16
16.1
14.2
1.16
27.5
6.79
6.58
6.74
6.29
2.09
19.2
9.29
12.08
6.18
2.73
11.5
11.1
1.96
0.40
7.65
15.1
4.97
13.8
15.3
5.23
12.5
1.30
5.66
7.74
14.4
9.62
2.78
7.78
3.27
3.07
3.86
Site Avg.**
(ppmv)
10.1
0.13
52.3
6.70
2.25
12.44
6.52
2.09
19.2
9.29
12.08
6.18
2.73
11.5
11.1
1.96
0.40
7.65
15.1
4.97
13.8
15.3
5.23
12.5
1.30
5.66
7.74
14.4
9.62
2.78
7.78
3.27
3.07
3.86
Appendix A-2
48
-------
Reference
43
55
56
56
56
56
56
56
57
357
57
27
27
27
8
58
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
59
9
9
9
9
12
12
12
7
7
7
43
43
58
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
51
51
54
54
54
17
17
17
17
17
17
43
43
43
43
Appendix
Landfill Name
CBI9
Chicopee
Coyote Canyon
Coyote Canyon
Coyote Canyon
Coyote Canyon
Coyote Canyon
Coyote Canyon
Durham Rd.
Durham Rd.
Durham Rd.
Lyon Development
Lyon Development
Lyon Development
Operating Industries
Otay Annex
Penrose
Penrose
Penrose
Penrose
Penrose
Penrose
Penrose
Penrose
Rockingham
Sheldon Street
Sheldon Street
Sheldon Street
Sheldon Street
BKK Landfill
BKK Landfill
BKK Landfill
Calabasas
Calabasas
Calabasas
CBI16
CBI24
Otay Valley
Palos Verdes
Palos Verdes
Palos Verdes
Palos Verdes
Palos Verdes
Palos Verdes
Palos Verdes
Palos Verdes
Palos Verdes
Palos Verdes
Palos Verdes
Palos Verdes
Palos Verdes
Palos Verdes
Arbor Hills
Arbor Hills
Arbor Hills
Bradley Pit
Bradley Pit
Bradley Pit
Bradley Pit
Bradley Pit
Bradley Pit
CBI10
CBI11
CBI12
CBI13
A-2. Default
Co-disposal
(Y, N, or U)*
u
U
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
LFG Constituent Concentrations (pre-1992
Raw
Landfills)
Air Infiltration
Concentration Corrected Cone.
Compound
Vinyl chloride
Vinyl chloride
Vinyl chloride
Vinyl chloride
Vinyl chloride
Vinyl chloride
Vinyl chloride
Vinyl chloride
Vinyl chloride
Vinyl chloride
Vinyl chloride
Vinyl chloride
Vinyl chloride
Vinyl chloride
Vinyl chloride
Vinyl chloride
Vinyl chloride
Vinyl chloride
Vinyl chloride
Vinyl chloride
Vinyl chloride
Vinyl chloride
Vinyl chloride
Vinyl chloride
Vinyl chloride
Vinyl chloride
Vinyl chloride
Vinyl chloride
Vinyl chloride
Vinyl chloride
Vinyl chloride
Vinyl chloride
Vinyl chloride
Vinyl chloride
Vinyl chloride
Vinyl chloride
Vinyl chloride
Vinyl chloride
Vinyl chloride
Vinyl chloride
Vinyl chloride
Vinyl chloride
Vinyl chloride
Vinyl chloride
Vinyl chloride
Vinyl chloride
Vinyl chloride
Vinyl chloride
Vinyl chloride
Vinyl chloride
Vinyl chloride
Vinyl chloride
Vinylidene chloride
Vinylidene chloride
Vinylidene chloride
Vinylidene chloride
Vinylidene chloride
Vinylidene chloride
Vinylidene chloride
Vinylidene chloride
Vinylidene chloride
Vinylidene chloride
Vinylidene chloride
Vinylidene chloride
Vinylidene chloride
(ppmv)
5.30
8.59
1.90
1.84
1.83
1.83
1.85
1.95
6.00
5.80
6.00
0.87
5.20
0.84
6.80
2.40
0.64
0.46
4.40
4.60
0.73
0.65
1.20
1.30
22.4
0.08
0.25
0.25
2.00
160
77.0
65.0
22.8
30.0
28.0
1.00
16.9
16.4
2.20
2.20
1.80
2.20
0.83
1.80
0.96
2.10
2.20
0.59
2.20
1.30
2.60
1.70
0.24
0.24
0.24
32.0
9.80
9.30
29.0
2.30
2.40
0.10
0.65
0.05
0.08
(ppmv)
5.35
11.0
2.53
2.45
2.44
2.71
2.70
2.88
7.89
6.99
7.14
1.02
6.19
0.83
13.5
3.26
0.82
0.58
7.57
7.84
1.78
1.54
2.39
2.53
29.8
0.16
0.50
0.50
3.98
352
181
143
34.8
54.2
50.5
1.02
17.2
17.7
9.59
9.59
7.85
9.59
3.62
7.85
4.19
9.16
9.59
2.57
9.59
5.67
8.28
4.35
0.24
0.24
0.25
42.2
12.9
12.3
38.2
3.03
3.16
0.10
0.66
0.06
0.10
Site Avg.**
(ppmv)
5.35
11.0
2.62
7.34
2.68
13.5
3.26
3.13
29.8
1.28
225
46.5
1.02
17.2
17.7
7.25
0.24
18.6
0.10
0.66
0.06
0.10
Appendix A-2
49
-------
Reference
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
55
56
56
56
56
56
56
41
54
54
54
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
55
56
56
56
56
56
56
41
51
51
50
Appendix
Landfill Name
CBI14
CBI17
CBI18
CBI20
CBI21
CBI24
CBI27
CBI4
CBI5
CBI6
CBI8
CBI9
Chicopee
Coyote Canyon
Coyote Canyon
Coyote Canyon
Coyote Canyon
Coyote Canyon
Coyote Canyon
Guadalupe
Arbor Hills
Arbor Hills
Arbor Hills
CBI1
CBI10
CBI11
CBI12
CBI13
CBI14
CBI15
CBI16
CBI17
CBI18
CBI19
CBI2
CBI20
CBI21
CBI22
CBI23
CBI24
CBI26
CBI27
CBI28
CBI29
CBI3
CBI30
CBI31
CBI32
CBI33
CBI5
CBI6
CBI7
CBI8
CBI9
Chicopee
Coyote Canyon
Coyote Canyon
Coyote Canyon
Coyote Canyon
Coyote Canyon
Coyote Canyon
Guadalupe
Palos Verdes
Palos Verdes
Puente Hills
A-2. Default
Co-disposal
(Y, N, or U)*
u
U
u
u
u
Y
U
U
U
U
U
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
Y
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
Y
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
Y
Y
N
LFG Constituent Concentrations (pre-1992
Raw
Landfills)
Air Infiltration
Concentration Corrected Cone.
Compound
Vinylidene chloride
Vinylidene chloride
Vinylidene chloride
Vinylidene chloride
Vinylidene chloride
Vinylidene chloride
Vinylidene chloride
Vinylidene chloride
Vinylidene chloride
Vinylidene chloride
Vinylidene chloride
Vinylidene chloride
Vinylidene chloride
Vinylidene chloride
Vinylidene chloride
Vinylidene chloride
Vinylidene chloride
Vinylidene chloride
Vinylidene chloride
Vinylidene chloride
Xylenes
Xylenes
Xylenes
Xylenes
Xylenes
Xylenes
Xylenes
Xylenes
Xylenes
Xylenes
Xylenes
Xylenes
Xylenes
Xylenes
Xylenes
Xylenes
Xylenes
Xylenes
Xylenes
Xylenes
Xylenes
Xylenes
Xylenes
Xylenes
Xylenes
Xylenes
Xylenes
Xylenes
Xylenes
Xylenes
Xylenes
Xylenes
Xylenes
Xylenes
Xylenes
Xylenes
Xylenes
Xylenes
Xylenes
Xylenes
Xylenes
Xylenes
Xylenes
Xylenes
Xylenes
(ppmv)
0.23
0.15
0.18
0.20
0.43
0.75
0.13
0.07
0.10
0.20
0.49
0.20
0.12
0.34
0.33
0.37
0.36
0.36
0.36
28.2
55.8
63.8
51.4
4.66
10.0
12.5
8.55
65.0
2.47
9.78
2.90
0.45
15.3
0.45
1.30
37.5
0.50
13.3
12.0
70.8
1.50
4.63
0.40
28.7
12.0
70.9
12.0
1.55
5.57
24.0
0.75
67.5
22.8
12.0
41.5
34.0
35.3
27.9
27.7
31.0
33.0
9.60
34.0
100
98.0
(ppmv)
0.23
0.15
0.18
0.20
0.43
0.76
0.13
0.07
0.10
0.20
0.49
0.20
0.15
0.46
0.44
0.49
0.53
0.52
0.53
33.8
57.1
64.4
52.4
4.79
10.2
12.6
9.42
78.6
2.50
9.88
2.94
0.45
15.6
0.45
1.31
37.7
0.50
13.5
12.7
71.8
1.51
4.66
0.40
30.4
12.0
71.5
12.0
1.56
5.58
24.2
0.76
69.2
23.0
12.1
53.3
45.2
47.0
37.1
41.0
45.2
48.8
11.5
108
256
119
Site Avg.**
(ppmv)
0.23
0.15
0.18
0.20
0.43
0.76
0.13
0.07
0.10
0.20
0.49
0.20
0.15
0.49
33.8
58.0
4.79
10.2
12.6
9.42
78.6
2.50
9.88
2.94
0.45
15.6
0.45
1.31
37.7
0.50
13.5
12.7
71.8
1.51
4.66
0.40
30.4
12.0
71.5
12.0
1.56
5.58
24.2
0.76
69.2
23.0
12.12
53.3
44.06
11.5
182
119
Appendix A-2
50
-------
Appendix
Reference Landfill Name
59 Rockingham
1 Scholl Canyon
60 Sunshine Canyon
A-2. Default
Co-disposal
(Y, N, or U)*
u
N
U
LFG Constituent Concentrations (pre-1992 Landfills)
Compound
Xylenes
Xylenes
Xylenes
Raw
Concentration
(ppmv)
24.1
3.10
92.0
Air Infiltration
Corrected Cone.
(ppmv)
32.0
7.09
96.8
Site Avg.**
(ppmv)
32.0
7.09
96.8
Appendix A-2
51
-------
Appendix B. List of Test Reports Considered in Update
Test
Report
TR-001
TR-002
TR-003
TR-004
TR-005
TR-006
TR-007
TR-008
TR-009
TR-010
TR-011
TR-012
TR-013
TR-014
TR-015
TR-016
TR-017
TR-018
TR-019
TR-020
TR-021
TR-022
TR-023
TR-024
TR-025
TR-026
Report Title
New Source Performance Standards Tier 2
Sampling and Analysis Summary Report for
the Timberlands Landfill
Tier 2 Nonmethane Organic Compounds
Emission Rate Report for the Pineview
Landfill
Tier 2 Sampling and Analysis Report for the
Morris Farm Sanitary Landfill
New Source Performance Standards Tier 2
Sampling and Analysis Summary Report for
the Saline County Regional Solid Waste
Management District Landfill
Tier 2 Test Report - Modelfill Landfill
New Source Performance Standards Tier 2
Sampling and Analysis Report for the Pen-
Rob Landfill
New Source Performance Standards Tier 2
Sampling, Analysis, and Landfill NMOC
Emission Estimates for the Sierra Estrella
Landfill
New Source Performance Standards Tier 2
Sampling, Analysis, and Landfill NMOC
Emission Estimates for the Northwest
Regional Landfill
Test Report - 27th Ave. Landfill
Limited Tier 2 Testing Results for the Skunk
Creek Landfill
Test Report - Copper Mountain Landfill
Test Report - Cocopah Landfill
Tier 2 Sampling, Analysis, and NMOC
Emission Estimate Report, Arvin Sanitary
Landfill
New Source Performance Standards Tier 2
Sampling, Analysis, and Landfill NMOC
Emission Estimates Neal Road Landfill
Bakersfield Metropolitan Sanitary Landfill Tier
2 Test Results
New Source Performance
Standards/Emissions Guidelines Tier 2
Sampling and Analysis Summary Report for
the Chateau Fresno Landfill
New Source Performance Standards Tier II
Sampling, Analysis, and Landfill NMOC
Emission Estimates Forward Landfill
New Source Performance Standards Tier 2
Sampling, Analysis, and Landfill NMOC
Emission Estimates Highway 59 Landfill
New Source Performance Standards
(NSPS) Tier 2 Sampling, Analysis, and
Landfill NMOC Emission Estimates for the
Eastern Regional Landfill
Tier 2 Sampling, Analysis, and NMOC
Emission Estimate Report, Shafter-Wasco
Sanitary Landfill
New Source Performance Standards Tier 2
Sampling, Analysis, and Landfill NMOC
Emission Estimates Fink Road Sanitary
Landfill
New Source Performance Standards Tier 2
Sampling, Analysis, and Landfill NMOC
Emission Estimates Geer Road Sanitary
Landfill
Tier 2 Sampling, Analysis, and NMOC
Emission Estimate Report, Taft Sanitary
Landfill
New Source Performance Standards Tier 2
Sampling, Analysis, and Landfill NMOC
Emission Estimates B&J Drop Box Sanitary
Landfill
Test Report - Ostrom Road Landfill
Test Report - Yolo County Central Landfill
Landfill Name
Timberlands
Pineview
Morris Farm
Saline County
Regional Solid
Waste
Management
District
Modelfill
Pen-Rob
Sierra Estrella
Northwest
Regional
27th Ave.
Skunk Creek
Copper Mountain
Cocopah
Arvin
Neal Road
Bakersfield
Metropolitan
(Bena)
Chateau Fresno
Forward
Highway 59
Eastern Regional
Shafter-Wasco
Fink Road
Geer Road
Taft
B&J Drop Box
Ostrom Road
Yolo County
Central
Landfill City
Brewton
Dora
Hillsboro
Bauxite
Little Rock
Junction City
Phoenix
Wellton
Yuma
Arvin
Bakersfield
Fresno
Manteca
Merced
Truckee
Shatter
Crows Landing
Taft
Vacaville
Wheatland
Landfill
State
AL
AL
AL
AR
AR
AZ
AZ
AZ
AZ
AZ
AZ
AZ
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
Test Dates
10/19/96
3/3/97
5/24/99
11/22/96
9/17/97-
9/19/97
7/9/96 -
7/10/96
9/3/97 -
9/4/97
9/4/97 -
9/7/97
8/6/97
8/1/97
4/18/98
4/17/98
7/13/98-
7/21/98
12/12/97,
1/5/98 -
1/7/98
5/27/98
5/21/97
12/15/98-
12/16/98
10/27/98,
11/30/98,
12/21/98-
12/22/98
10/30/98
7/7/98 -
7/9/98
9/22/97 -
9/23/97
9/9/98
7/21/98 -
7/22/98
5/5/97 -
5/8/97
5/8/98
11/10/98
Test Origin
Browning-Ferris Gas
Services, Inc.
Alabama Department of
Environmental
Mangement
Browning-Ferris
Industries Inc.
Genesis Environmental
Consulting, Inc.
Browning-Ferris
Industries Inc.
Allied Waste Industries,
Inc.
USA Waste of Arizona
USA Waste of Arizona
No Origin Given
City of Phoenix Public
Works Department
No Origin Given
No Origin Given
Kern County Waste
Management
Department
Butte County
Department of Public
Works
Kern County Waste
Management
Department
Browning-Ferris Gas
Services, Inc.
Allied Waste Industries,
Inc.
Merced County
Department of Public
Works
Placer County
Department of Facility
Services
Kern County Waste
Management
Department
Stanislaus County
Department of Public
Works
Stanislaus County
Department of Public
Works
Kern County Waste
Management
Department
Norcal Waste Systems,
Inc., B&J Drop Box
Corporation
No Origin Given
No Origin Given
Report
Date
11/26/96
8/5/97
7/16/99
12/13/96
1 0/8/97
12/10/96
12/3/97
12/3/97
8/1 2/97
1 0/7/97
5/8/98
5/8/98
September
1998
2/19/98
7/30/98
5/28/97
1/15/99
2/1/99
11/18/98
September
1998
11/7/97
10/13/98
September
1998
5/30/97
5/26/98
11/23/98
Complete
Report?
N
N
Y
N
N
N
N
N
N
Y
N
N
N
Y
N
N
Y
Y
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
Appendix B 052608.xls
Pagel
-------
Appendix B. List of Test Reports Considered in Update
Test
Report
TR-027
TR-028
TR-029
TR-030
TR-031
TR-032
TR-033
TR-034
TR-035
TR-036
TR-037
TR-038
TR-039
TR-040
TR-041
TR-042
TR-043
TR-044
TR-045
TR-046
TR-047
TR-048
TR-049
TR-050
TR-051
TR-052
TR-053
TR-054
TR-055
Report Title
Test Report - Tower Road Landfill
Test Report - Denver Regional Landfill
New Source Performance Standards Tier 2
Sampling and Analysis Summary Report for
the Denver Regional Landfill (South)
New Source Performance Standards Tier 2
Sampling and Analysis Summary Report for
the Fountain Landfill
Test Report - Foothill Jeffco Landfill
Test Report - Landfill Name Confidential #1
Test Report - Southern Solid Waste
Management Center
Test Report - Pigeon Point Landfill
Test Report - Central Solid Waste
Management Center
Test Report - Cherry Island Landfill
Test Report - Hillsborough County/SCLF
Test Report - Huntsville SWDA
New Source Performance Standards Tier 2
Sampling and Analysis Report for the Buford
Landfill
New Source Performance Standards Tier 2
Sampling and Analysis Summary Report for
the Hickory Ridge Landfill
Report of Tier 2 Non-methane Organic
Compound (NMOC) Determination at the
Wayne County Regional Landfill
Documentation of Tier 2 Non-methane
Organic Compound (NMOC) Determination
at the Republic Industries Swift Creek
Environmental Landfill
New Source Performance Standards Tier 2
Sampling and Analysis Report for the Taylor
County Landfill
NSPS Tier 2 Revised Emission Report for
Central Disposal Landfill
New Source Performance Standards Tier 2
Sampling and Analysis Report for the
Brickyard Disposal & Recycling Landfill
Test Report - S. Illinois Regional Landfill
New Source Performance Standards Tier 2
Sampling and Analysis Report for the Upper
Rock Island Landfill
New Source Performance
Standards/Emissions Guidelines Tier 2
Sampling and Analysis Report for the Spoon
Ridge Landfill
Test Report - Illinois Landfill, Inc. (Hoopston)
New Source Performance Standards Tier 2
Sampling and Analysis Summary Report for
the Quad Cities Landfill
NSPS Tier 2 Work at Cahokia Road Landfill
New Source Performance Standards Tier 2
Sampling and Analysis Report for the County
Line Landfill
Test Report - United Refuse Landfill
Test Report - Landfill Name Confidential #2
New Source Performance Standards Tier 2
Sampling, Analysis, and Landfill NMOC
Emission Estimates for the Caldwell Landfill
Landfill Name
Tower Road
Denver Regional
Denver Regional
(South)
Fountain
Foothills
Landfill Name
Confidential #1
Southern Solid
Waste
Management
Center
Pigeon Point
Central Solid
Waste
Management
Center
Cherry Island
Hillsborough
County/SCLF
Huntsville SWDA
Buford
Hickory Ridge
Wayne County
Regional
Swift Creek
Environmental
Taylor County
Central Disposal
Brickyard Disposal
& Recycling
S. Illinois Regional
Upper Rock Island
Spoon Ridge
Hoopeston
Quad Cities
Cahokia Road
County Line
United Refuse
Landfill Name
Confidential #2
Caldwell
Landfill City
Denver
Denver
Erie
Fountain
Golden
Georgetown
New Castle
Sandtown
Wilmington
Huntsville
Buford
Conley
Jesup
Macon
Mauk
Lake Mills
Danville
De Soto
East Moline
Fairview
Hoopeston
Milan
Roxana
Argos
Fort Wayne
Greensburg
Morristown
Landfill
State
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
DE
DE
DE
DE
FL
AL
GA
GA
GA
GA
GA
IA
IL
IL
IL
IL
IL
IL
IL
IN
IN
IN
IN
Test Dates
3/1/99 -
3/4/99
6/7/99
3/3/97 -
3/7/97
10/16/96-
10/19/96
3/8/99,
5/21/99
8/31/98-
9/3/98
Date Not
Given
Date Not
Given
Date Not
Given
Date Not
Given
11/10/97-
11/13/97
3/31/98 -
4/3/98
10/16/96-
10/17/96
10/15/96
9/14/96-
9/24/96
9/17/98
7/16/96-
7/18/96
10/16/96
6/22/96 -
6/25/96
2/24/97 -
2/26/97
6/29/96 -
6/30/96
5/5/97
1/13/99-
1/14/99
11/14/96-
11/17/96
6/10/97
6/26/96 -
6/27/96
2/12/97-
2/15/97
10/21/98-
10/22/98
4/6/98 -
4/7/98
Test Origin
Browning-Ferris Gas
Services, Inc.
No Origin Given
Laidlaw Waste
Systems (Colorado),
Inc.
Browning-Ferris Gas
Services, Inc.
Browning-Ferris Gas
Services, Inc.
No Origin Given
Delaware Solid Waste
Authority
Delaware Solid Waste
Authority
Delaware Solid Waste
Authority
Delaware Solid Waste
Authority
No Origin Given
No Origin Given
Browning-Ferris Gas
Services, Inc.
Browning-Ferris Gas
Services, Inc.
Republic Services, Inc.
Republic Services, Inc.
Allied Waste Industries,
Inc.
Central Disposal
Systems, Inc.
Allied Waste Industries,
Inc.
No Origin Given
Allied Waste Industries,
Inc.
Browning-Ferris Gas
Services, Inc.
No Origin Given
Browning-Ferris Gas
Services, Inc.
Laidlaw/Allied
Allied Waste Industries,
Inc.
No Origin Given
No Origin Given
Caldwell Gravel Sales,
Inc.
Report
Date
3/15/99
6/1 4/99
3/21/97
11/26/96
3/1 5/99,
5/27/99
9/14/98
12/28/99
12/28/99
12/28/99
12/28/99
11/20/97
4/22/98
11/26/96
11/26/96
3/4/97
4/28/99
12/10/96
1 2/6/96
12/10/96
3/20/97
12/10/96
5/28/97
2/1/99
12/4/96
7/1/97
12/10/96
4/11/97
11/10/98
7/22/98
Complete
Report?
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
Y
Y
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
Y
Appendix B 052608.xls
Page 2
-------
Appendix B. List of Test Reports Considered in Update
Test
Report
TR-056
TR-057
TR-058
TR-059
TR-060
TR-061
TR-062
TR-063
TR-064
TR-065
TR-066
TR-067
TR-068
TR-069
TR-070
TR-071
TR-072
TR-073
TR-074
TR-075
TR-076
TR-077
TR-078
TR-079
TR-080
TR-081
TR-082
TR-083
Report Title
Test Report - Newton County Landfill
Test Report - Yaw Hill Landfill
Test Report - Wabash, Indiana Landfill
Report of Tier 2 Non-methane Organic
Compound (NMOC) Determination at
Addington Environmental, Inc.'s Green
Valley Environmental Corp. Landfill
Report of Tier 2 Non-methane Organic
Compound (NMOC) Determination at
Addington Environmental, Inc.'s Ohio Balefill,
Inc. Landfill
New Source Peformance Standards (NSPS)
Tier 2 Results Laurel Ridge Landfill
Test Report - Montgomery County Landfill
Report of Tier 2 Non-methane Organic
Compound (NMOC) Determination at
Addington Environmental, Inc.'s Dozit Co.,
Inc. Landfill
New Source Performance Standards
(NSPS) Tier 2 Results, Local Sanitation
Service, Inc. Landfill
Test Report - Pendleton County Landfill
Report of Tier 2 Non-methane Organic
Compound (NMOC) Determination at
Addington Environmental, Inc.'sTri-K
Landfill, Inc.
Tier 2 Sampling and Analysis Report for the
Crescent Acres Landfill
NSPS Tier 2 Results for the Chicopee
Landfill
NSPS Tier 2 Results for the
Fitchburg/Westminster Landfill
Test Report - Taunton Landfill
New Source Performance
Standards/Emissions Guidelines Tier 2
Sampling, Analysis, and Landfill Emission
Estimates for Non-Methane Organic
Compounds Alpha Ridge Landfill
Test Report - Oaks Landfill
Tier 2 NMOC Emission Rate Report - Landfill
Name Confidential #3
New Source Performance Standards
(NSPS) Tier 2 Results for the Glen's Sanitary
Landfill, Inc.
Test Report - Forest Lawn Landfill
New Source Performance Standards Tier 2
Sampling and Analysis for the Flying Cloud
Landfill
New Source Performance Standards Tier 2
Sampling and Analysis for the Lamar Landfill
Test Report - Mo Pass Landfill
New Source Performance Standards Tier 2
Sampling and Analysis Report for the Butler
County Landfill
NSPS Tier 2 Revised Emission Report for
St. Joseph Landfill
New Source Performance Standards Tier 2
Sampling and Analysis Report for the Show-
He Landfill
New Source Performance Standards Tier 2
Sampling and Analysis Summary Report for
the Big River Landfill
New Source Performance Standards Tier 2
Sampling and Analysis Summary Report for
the Missoula Landfill
Landfill Name
Newton County
Yaw Hill
Wabash
Green Valley
Environmental
Corp.
Ohio Balefill, Inc.
Laurel Ridge
Montgomery
County
Dozit Co., Inc.
Local Sanitation
Service, Inc.
Pendleton County
Tri-K
Crescent Acres
Chicopee
Fitchburg/Westmin
ster
Taunton
Alpha Ridge
Oaks
Landfill Name
Confidential #3
Glen's
Forest Lawn
Flying Cloud
Lamar
Mo Pass
Butler County
City of St. Joseph
Show-Me
Big River
Missoula
Landfill City
Wabash
Ashland
Beaver Dam
Lilly
Morganfield
Morehead
Stanford
New Orleans
Chicopee
Westminster
Taunton
Marriottsville
Laytonsville
Maple City
Three Oaks
Eden Prairie
Lamar
Poplar Bluff
St. Joseph
Warrensburg
Leland
Missoula
Landfill
State
IN
IN
IN
KY
KY
KY
KY
KY
KY
KY
KY
LA
MA
MA
MA
MD
MD
MD
Ml
Ml
MN
MO
MO
MO
MO
MO
MS
MT
Test Dates
7/9/98
2/17/97-
2/20/97,
2/22/97
2/23/98 -
2/24/98
9/20/96
9/16/96,
9/18/96,
11/22/96-
11/23/96
10/9/96-
10/11/96
7/13/98-
7/14/98
9/20/96 -
9/21/96
11/6/96
7/6/98 -
7/8/98
9/17/96-
9/20/96
2/26/99
Date Not
Given
Date Not
Given
6/18/98
9/4/98
11/25/97
2/21/97,
3/27/97
10/7/96
3/3/97 -
3/6/97
5/20/98
10/29/97-
10/31/97
12/8/98
6/20/96 -
6/21/96
Date Not
Given
7/1/96 -
7/2/96
10/21/96-
10/22/96
11/18/96
Test Origin
Allied Waste Industries,
Inc.
No Origin Given
No Origin Given
Republic Services, Inc.
Republic Services, Inc.
United Waste Systems,
Inc.
Rumpke Waste, Inc.
Republic Services, Inc.
Mid-American Waste
Systems, Inc.
Rumpke Waste, Inc.
Republic Services, Inc.
Browning-Ferris
Industries
Connecticut Valley
Sanitary Waste
Disposal, Inc.
Resource Control, Inc.
No Origin Given
Howard County
Department of Public
Works
No Origin Given
Maryland Department
of the Environment
United Waste Systems
No Origin Given
Browning-Ferris
Industries
Browning-Ferris
Industries
No Origin Given
Allied Waste Industries,
Inc.
City of St. Joseph
Department of Public
Works & Transportation
Allied Waste Industries,
Inc.
Browning-Ferris Gas
Services, Inc.
Browning-Ferris Gas
Services, Inc.
Report
Date
7/21/98
3/1 9/97
3/26/98
11/29/96
1 2/6/96
12/4/96
7/21/98
11/29/96
1/17/97
7/21/98
11/29/96
4/2/99
12/10/96
1/9/97
6/30/98
11/16/98
12/9/97
4/28/97
1 2/4/96
3/28/97
6/30/98
1 2/3/97
12/14/98
12/10/96
12/17/96
12/10/96
11/26/96
12/3/96
Complete
Report?
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
Y
Y
N
N
N
N
N
N
Appendix B 052608.xls
Page 3
-------
Appendix B. List of Test Reports Considered in Update
Test
Report
TR-084
TR-085
TR-086
TR-087
TR-088
TR-089
TR-090
TR-091
TR-092
TR-093
TR-094
TR-095
TR-096
TR-097
TR-098
TR-099
TR-100
TR-101
TR-102
TR-103
TR-104
TR-105
TR-106
TR-107
TR-108
TR-109
Report Title
Tier 2 NMOC Emission Rate Report for the
Buncombe County Landfill
Harrisburg Road Landfill Tier 2 NMOC
Emission Rate Report
Tier 2 NMOC Emission Rate Report for the
White Street Landfill
New Source Performance Standards Tier 2
Sampling and Analysis Summary Report for
the Charlotte Motor Speedway #1 -#4 Landfill
New Source Performance Standards Tier 2
Sampling and Analysis Summary Report for
the Charlotte Motor Speedway #5 Landfill
Test Report - Blackburn Landfill
Documentation of Tier 2 Non-methane
Organic Compound (NMOC) Determination
at the Republic Industries Uwharrie
Environmental Landfill
Tier 2 NMOC Emission Rate Report for the
New Hanover County Landfill
Report of Tier 2 Non-methane Organic
Compound (NMOC) Determination at
Addington Environmental, Inc.'s East
Carolina Landfill
Test Report - Hanes Mill Road Landfill
NSPS Tier 2 Revised Emission Report for
Bluff Road Landfill
Test Report - Camino Real Landfill
Test Report - Douglas County Landfill
Test Report - Colonie Landfill
Test Report - Chautauqua County Landfil
Tier 2 Test and Emission Rate Report for the
Monroe County Department of
Environmental Services Mill Seat Landfill
MSW Landfill Tier 2 Test and Emission Rate
Report for the Development Authority of the
North Country Solid Waste Management
Facility
Test Report - Brown County Landfill
New Source Performance
Standards/Emissions Guidelines Tier 2
Sampling and Analysis Summary Report for
the Glenwillow Landfill
Test Report - Beech Hollow Landfill
Test Report - Lewis Landfill
NSPS Tier 2 Revised Emission Report
Southern Plains Landfil
Test Report - Great Plains Landfill
New Source Performance Standards Tier 2
Sampling, Analysis, and Landfill NMOC
Emission Estimates for the Southeast
Landfill
New Source Performance Standards Tier 2
Sampling and Analysis for the Earthtech
Landfill
Test Report - Broken Arrow Landfill
Landfill Name
Buncombe County
Harrisburg Road
White Street
Charlotte Motor
Speedway #1 -#4
Charlotte Motor
Speedway #5
Blackburn
Uwharrie
Environmental
New Hanover
County
East Carolina
Hanes Mill Road
Bluff Road
Camino Real
Douglas County
Colonie
Chautauqua
County
Mill Seat
Development
Authority of the
North Country
Solid Waste
Management
Facility
Brown County
Glenwillow
Beech Hollow
Lewis
Southern Plains
Great Plains
Southeast
Earthtech
Broken Arrow
Landfill City
Asheville
Greensboro
Harrisburg
Harrisburg
Mount Gilead
Wilmington
Aulander
Winston-Salem
Lincoln
Sunland Park
Gardnerville
Colonie
Rodman
Glenwillow
Salem
Chickasha
Oklahoma City
Porter
Broken Arrow
Landfill
State
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NE
NM
NV
NY
NY
NY
NY
OH
OH
OH
OH
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
Test Dates
4/14/99
9/6/96
4/12/99
11/20/96-
11/23/96
11/22/96
5/5/98 -
5/6/98
9/17/98
1/12/99-
1/15/99
8/5/96
11/5/97
Date Not
Given
11/10/98-
11/13/98,
11/17/98-
11/18/98
4/14/98-
4/16/98
11/4/98-
11/6/98
4/10/98
12/9/96
11/4/96
4/22/98 -
4/23/98
5/7/97 -
5/11/97
4/21/98
4/20/99
10/2/96-
10/3/96
10/2/96-
10/3/96
11/9/96-
11/12/96
9/15/97-
9/16/97
7/12/99-
7/15/99
Test Origin
Buncombe County
Solid Waste Services
Mecklenburg County
Duke Engineering and
Services, City of
Greensboro Solid
Waste Management
Division
Browning-Ferris Gas
Services, Inc.
Browning-Ferris Gas
Services, Inc.
No Origin Given
Republic Industries
New Hanover County
Department of
Environmental
Management
Republic Services, Inc.
No Origin Given
City of Lincoln Solid
Waste Division
National Solid Wastes
Management
Association
No Origin Given
Town of Colonie
Chautauqua County
DPW
Monroe County
Department of
Environmental
Services, Clark
Patterson Associates
Development Authority
of the North Country
Rumpke Waste, Inc.
Browning-Ferris Gas
Services, Inc.
Rumpke Waste, Inc.
Browning-Ferris
Industries
Martin & Martin, Inc.
Sanifill
Laidlaw Waste
Systems, Inc.
Browning-Ferris
Industries
Browning-Ferris
Industries
Report
Date
5/12/99
12/5/96
5/1 8/99
2/1 4/97
1 2/3/96
5/1 8/98
12/29/98
3/31/99
9/25/96
11/13/97
1 2/20/96
7/7/99
4/28/98
11/23/98
5/6/98
1/2/97
1 2/2/96
5/1 3/98
5/28/97
5/13/98
4/22/99
12/6/96
10/18/96
12/19/96
10/31/97
7/21/99
Complete
Report?
Y
N
Y
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
Y
N
N
N
N
Y
N
Y
N
N
Y
N
Y
N
N
Appendix B 052608.xls
Page 4
-------
Appendix B. List of Test Reports Considered in Update
Test
Report
TR-110
TR-111
TR-112
TR-113
TR-114
TR-115
TR-116
TR-117
TR-118
TR-119
TR-120
TR-121
TR-122
TR-123
TR-124
TR-125
TR-126
TR-127
TR-128
TR-129
TR-130
TR-131
TR-132
TR-133
Report Title
New Source Performance Standards Tier 2
Sampling, Analysis, and Landfill Non-
Methane Organic Compound Emission
Estimates for the Landfill Name Confidential
#4
R & A Bender, Inc. Landfill Tier 2 NMOC
Emission Rate Report
Revised Nonmethane Organic Compounds
Emissions Calculations Landfill Name
Confidential # 5
New Source Performance
Standards/Emissions Guidelines Tier 2
Sampling and Analysis Summary Report for
the Mon Valley Landfill
Summary Report of Tier 2 Sampling,
Analysis, and Landfill Emissions Estimates
for Non-Methane Organic Compounds Chrin
Brothers Landfill
Seneca Landfill - Revised Tier 2 NMOC
Emission Rate Report
Test Report - Pine Grove Landfill
New Source Peformance Standards Tier 2
Sampling and Analysis Summary Report for
the Ponce Municipal Sanitary Landfill
New Source Performance Standards
(NSPS) Tier 2 Results, Lee County Regional
Recycling & Disposal Facility
Test Report - Landfill Name Confidential #7
Test Report - Landfill Name Confidential #6
Test Report - NW Tennessee Sanitary
Landfil
New Source Performance Standards Tier 2
Sampling and Analysis Report for the
Abilene Landfill
Tier 2 Nonmethane Organic Compounds
Emission Rate Report for the Turkey Creek
Landfill
Test Report - Brazoria County Landfill
New Source Performance Standards Tier 2
Sampling and Analysis Summary Report for
the Baytown Landfill
Tier 2 Nonmethane Organic Compounds
Emission Rate Report for the
Beaumont/Golden Triangle Landfill
Test Report - Victoria Landfill
New Source Peformance Standards Tier 2
Sampling and Analysis Summary Report for
the Southwest Landfill
Tier 2 Nonmethane Organic Compounds
Emission Rate Report for the FM 521/Blue
Ridge Landfill
Tier 2 Sampling and Analysis Report for the
Itasca Landfill
New Source Performance Standards Tier 2
Sampling, Analysis, and Landfill NMOC
Emission Estimates for the Mill Creek Landfill
Tier 2 Non-Methane Organic Compounds
Emission Rate Report for the Hawthorn Park
Landfill
New Source Performance Standards Tier 2
Sampling and Analysis for the Hutchins
Landfill
Landfill Name
Landfill Name
Confidential #4
R& A Bender, Inc.
Landfill Name
Confidential #5
Mon Valley
Chrin Brothers
Seneca
Pine Grove
Ponce Municipal
Lee County
Regional
Recycling &
Disposal Facility
Landfill Name
Confidential #7
Landfill Name
Confidential #6
NW Tennessee
Disposal Corp
Abilene
Turkey Creek
Brazoria County
Baytown
Golden Triangle
Victoria
Southwest
(Amarillo)
FM 521/Blue
Ridge
Itasca
Mill Creek
Hawthorn Park
Hutchins
Landfill City
Boardman
Chambersburg
Charleroi
Easton
Evans City
Pine Grove
Ponce
Bishopville
Union City
Abilene
Alvarado
Baytown
Beaumont
Bloomington
Canyon
Fresno
Itasca
Fort Worth
Houston
Hutchins
Landfill
State
OR
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PR
SC
TN
TN
TN
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
Test Dates
7/29/97 -
7/31/97
11/5/96-
11/7/96,
1/17/97-
1/18/97
Date Not
Given
5/14/97
3/18/98
7/2/96
2/27/98
10/28/96-
10/29/96
11/21/96
10/27/97-
10/30/97
4/6/98 -
4/7/98
3/6/97
12/22/96
11/7/96-
11/8/96
12/2/96-
12/4/96
9/9/96 -
9/12/96
11/26/96
6/23/98 -
6/26/98
10/22/96
11/4/96
3/26/98,
4/13/98
8/6/97,
8/9/97,
8/14/97
9/13/96-
9/16/96
10/17/97
Test Origin
No Origin Given
Martin & Martin, Inc
USA Waste Services
Inc.
Browning-Ferris Gas
Services, Inc.
Chrin Brothers Sanitary
Landfill
Seneca Landfill, Inc.
No Origin Given
Browning-Ferris Gas
Services, Inc.
Mid-American Waste
Systems, Inc.
No Origin Given
No Origin Given
No Origin Given
Browning-Ferris Gas
Services, Inc.
Texas Natural
Resource Conservation
Commission, Laidlaw
USA Waste Services,
Inc.
USA Waste Services,
Inc.
Texas Natural
Resource Conservation
Commission, Browning-
Ferris Industries
Browning-Ferris
Industries
Browning-Ferris Gas
Services, Inc.
Texas Natural
Resource Conservation
Commission, Browning-
Ferris Industries
Browning-Ferris
Industries
Laidlaw Waste
Systems, Inc.
Texas Natural
Resource Conservation
Commission, Sanifill
Browning-Ferris
Industries
Report
Date
9/12/97
3/12/97
an/97
5/28/97
4/24/98
1 2/5/96
3/18/98
11/26/96
1/16/97
11/13/97
4/24/98
3/26/97
2/1 4/97
7/25/97
1 2/9/96
1 2/4/96
7/25/97
7/8/98
11/26/96
7/25/97
5/21/98
10/10/97
4/20/98
11/5/97
Complete
Report?
N
N
N
Y
Y
Y
N
Y
Y
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
Y
Y
N
N
Appendix B 052608.xls
Page 5
-------
Appendix B. List of Test Reports Considered in Update
Test
Report
TR-134
TR-135
TR-136
TR-137
TR-138
TR-139
TR-140
TR-141
TR-142
TR-143
TR-144
TR-145
TR-146
TR-147
TR-148
TR-149
TR-150
TR-151
TR-152
TR-153
TR-154
TR-155
TR-156
TR-157
TR-158
Report Title
New Source Performance Standards Tier 2
Sampling, Analysis, and Landfill NMOC
Emission Estimates for the Fort Worth
Landfill
State of Texas Chapter 1 1 6 Standard
Permitting Applicability Review for the Royal
Oaks Landfill
New Source Performance Standards Tier 2
Sampling, Analysis, and Landfill NMOC
Emission Estimates for the Pinehill Landfill
Tier 2 Nonmethane Organic Compounds
Emission Rate Report for the Mexia Landfill
Test Report - King George Co. Landfill
New Source Performance
Standards/Emissions Guidelines Tier 2
Sampling and Analysis Summary Report for
the Old Dominion Landfill
Tier 1 and Tier 2 NMOC Emission Rate
Reports for the Smith Gap Regional Landfill
Tier 2 NMOC Emission Rate Report for the
SPSA Regional Landfill
Tier 2 NMOC Emission Rate Report for the
Frederick County Regional Landfill
New Source Performance
Standards/Emissions Guidelines Tier 2
Sampling and Analysis Summary Report for
the Lake Area Landfill
New Source Performance Standards
(NSPS) Tier 2 Results Meadowfill Landfill
Compliance Testing of a Landfill Flare at
Browning-Ferris Gas Services, Inc.'s Facility
in Halifax, Massachusetts
Compliance Source Testing of a Landfill
Flare at Northern Dispisal, Inc. East
Bridgewater Landfill
Compliance Emissions Test Program for BFI
of Ohio, Inc.
Compliance Testing of Landfill Flare at
Browning-Ferris Gas Services, Inc.'s Fall
River Landfill Flare
Test Report - BFI Fall River Landfill Unit 2
Results of the Emissions Compliance Test at
the Bigfoot Run Sanitary Landfill
Report on Hydrogen Chloride Testing
Submission of Hydrogen Chloride Test Data
from Landfill Gas Fired Combusion Devices -
Hanover Park, IL
Results of the Emission Compliance Test on
the Enclosed Flare System at the Carbon
Limestone Landfill
Emission Compliance Tests at the Jefferson
Davis Parish Sanitary Landfill Flare
Results of the Emission Compliance Test on
the Enclosed Flare System at the Lorain
County Landfill No. 1
Results of the Emission Compliance Test on
the Enclosed Flare System at the Lorain
County Landfill No. 2
Emission Compliance Testing Browning-
Ferris Gas Services, Inc. Willowcreek Landfill
Submission of Hydrogen Chloride Test Data
from Landfill Gas Fired Combusion Devices -
Santa Ana, CA
Landfill Name
Fort Worth
Royal Oaks
Pinehill
Mexia
King George
County
Old Dominion
Smith Gap
Southeastern
Public Service
Authority Regional
Frederick County
Lake Area
Meadowfill
Halifax
East Bridgewater
Bobmeyer Road
Fall River
Fall River
Bigfoot Run
Laubscher
Meadows
Landfill Name Not
Given
Carbon Limestone
Jefferson Davis
Parish
Lorain County
Lorain County
Willowcreek
Landfill Name Not
Given
Landfill City
Fort Worth
Jacksonville
Kilgore
Mexia
Richmond
Suffolk
Winchester
Sarona
Bridgeport
Halifax
East Bridgewater
Fairfield
Fall River
Fall River
Morrow
Evansville
Hanover Park
Lowellville
Sorrento
Oberlin
Oberlin
Atwater
Santa Ana
Landfill
State
TX
TX
TX
TX
VA
VA
VA
VA
VA
Wl
WV
MA
MA
OH
MA
MA
OH
IN
IL
OH
LA
OH
OH
OH
CA
Test Dates
2/5/97
No Testing
Occurred
4/16/97-
4/19/97
11/22/96
12/8/98
3/19/97
3/18/97
3/20/97,
4/18/97
8/19/97-
8/21/97
5/10/97
11/20/96
4/19/96-
4/22/96
4/19/96-
4/22/96
6/3/98
11/8/94-
11/9/94
3/16/99
11/14/95
3/19/99
Date Not
Given
5/14/96
4/24/98
7/24/96
7/23/96
1/6/98
Date Not
Given
Test Origin
Laidlaw Waste
Systems, Inc.
Laidlaw Waste
Systems, Inc.
Laidlaw Waste
Systems, Inc.
Texas Natural
Conservation
Commission, BFI
Waste Management,
Inc.
Browning-Ferris Gas
Services, Inc.
Roanoke Valley
Resource Authority
Southeastern Public
Service Authority, MSA
Consulting Engineers
Frederick County
Department of Public
Works
Browning-Ferris Gas
Services, Inc.
Mid-American Waste
Systems, Inc.
BFI Waste Systems of
North America, Inc.
Northern Disposal, Inc.
BFI of Ohio, Inc.
BFI Waste Systems of
North America, Inc.
No Origin Given
Browning-Ferris Gas
Services, Inc.
Browning-Ferris
Industries
Waste Industry Air
Coalition
Browning-Ferris
Industrial Gas Services,
Inc.
BFI Waste Systems of
North America, Inc.
Browning-Ferris
Industrial Gas Services,
Inc.
Browning-Ferris
Industrial Gas Services,
Inc.
BFI-Willowcreek
Waste Industry Air
Coalition
Report
Date
4/15/97
2/1 9/97
6/1 0/97
7/25/97
12/14/98
4/7/97
4/23/97
6/1 0/97
10/8/97
5/28/97
1/16/97
May 1996
June 1994
6/26/98
March 1995
No Report
Date Given
1 2/8/95
No Report
Date Given
11/16/99
8/8/96
April 1998
9/5/96
9/5/96
2/2/98
11/16/99
Complete
Report?
Y
N
N
N
N
N
Y
Y
Y
N
N
Y
Y
Y
Y
N
Y
Y
N
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
N
Appendix B 052608.xls
Page 6
-------
Appendix B. List of Test Reports Considered in Update
Test
Report
TR-159
TR-160
TR-161
TR-162
TR-163
TR-164
TR-165
TR-166
TR-167
TR-168
TR-169
TR-170
TR-171
TR-172
TR-173
TR-174
TR-175
TR-176
TR-177
TR-178
TR-179
TR-180
TR-181
TR-182
TR-183
TR-184
TR-185
Report Title
Compliance Stack Sampling Report,
Monmouth County Reclamation Center
Source Emission Testing of an Enclosed
Landfill Gas Ground Flare
Submission of Hydrogen Chloride Test Data
from Landfill Gas Fired Combusion Devices -
Lopez Canyon, CA
Emissions Tests at Puente Hills Energy
Recovery from Landfill Gas Facility
Compliance Testing for SPADRA Landfill
Gas-to-Energy Plant
1995 Annual Source Test Results for
Emission Testing of One Landfill Gas Flare
at Bowerman Landfill
1997 Annual Compliance Source Testing
Results for the Coyote Canyon Landfill Gas
Recovery Facility Flare No. 1
1996 Annual Compliance Source Testing
Results for the Coyote Canyon Landfill Gas
Recovery Facility Flare No. 4
1997 Annual Compliance Source Testing
Results for the Coyote Canyon Landfill Gas
Recovery Facility Boiler
Colton Sanitary Landfill Gas Flare No. 2
(John Zink) 1998 Source Tests Results
Colton Sanitary Landfill Gas Flare No. 1
(McGill) 1998 Source Tests Results
Emissions Test Results of a McGill Landfill
Gas Flare
High Landfill Gas Flow Rate Source Test
Results from One Landfill Gas Flare at FRB
Landfill in Orange County, California
Emissions Test Results of a John Zink
Landfill Gas Flare
Annual Emissions Test of Landfill Gas Flare
#3 Bradley Landfill
Emissions Tests on Flares #3, #4, and #8 at
the Lopez Canyon Landfill
Emissions Tests on Flares #2, #4 and #6 at
the Lopez Canyon Landfill
Emissions Test Results on Flares #1 , #4 and
#9 Calabasas Landfill
Annual Emissions Test of Landfill Gas Flare
#2 Bradley Landfill
Annual Emission Test of Landfill Gas Flare
#3 Bradley Landfill
Annual Emissions Test of Landfill Gas Flare
#1 Bradley Landfill
Emissions Test of a Sur-Lite Landfill Gas
Flare
The Mid-Valley Sanitary Landfill Gas Flare
No.1 (McGill) 1998 Source Test Results
The Mid-Valley Sanitary Landfill Gas Flare
No.2 (SurLite) 1998 Source Test Results
Annual Emissions Test of Landfill Gas Flare
#2 Bradley Landfill
Annual Emissions Test of Landfill Gas Flare
#1 Bradley Landfill
Emissions Tests on Flares #5, #7 and #9 at
the Lopez Canyon Landfill
Landfill Name
Monmouth County
Reclamation
Center
Millersville
Landfill Name Not
Given
Puente Hills
Spadra
Bowerman
Coyote Canyon
Coyote Canyon
Coyote Canyon
Colton
Colton
Colton
Bowerman
Colton
Bradley
Lopez Canyon
Lopez Canyon
Calabasas
Bradley
Bradley
Bradley
Mid Valley
Mid Valley
Mid Valley
Bradley
Bradley
Lopez Canyon
Landfill City
Tinton Falls
Severn
Lopez Canyon
Spadra
Irvine
Irvine
Sun Valley
Lake View
Terrace
Lake View
Terrace
Sun Valley
Sun Valley
Sun Valley
Fontana
Fontana
Fontana
Sun Valley
Sun Valley
Lake View
Terrace
Landfill
State
NJ
MD
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
Test Dates
8/1/95
6/17/97
Date Not
Given
4/2/91
7/25/90 -
7/26/90
8/3/95
12/3/97
11/6/96
12/4/97
7/16/98
7/17/98
6/4/97
6/4/97
6/5/97
3/10/99
8/11/99-
8/13/99
7/30/97 -
8/1/97
2/9/98 -
2/11/98
6/11/97-
6/12/97
5/21/98
3/9/99
6/3/97
7/30/98
7/29/98
3/11/99
5/20/98
8/11/98-
8/13/98
Test Origin
SCS Engineers
(Reston, VA)
SCS Engineers
(Reston, VA)
Waste Industry Air
Coalition
County Sanitation
Districts of Los Angeles
County
Ebasco Constructors,
Inc.
CH2M Hill
Laidlaw Gas Recovery
Systems
Laidlaw Gas Recovery
Systems
Laidlaw Gas Recovery
Systems
Bryan A. Stirrat &
Associates
Bryan A. Stirrat &
Associates
SCS Engineers
Bryan A. Stirrat &
Associates
SCS Engineers
Waste Management
Recycling and Disposal
Services of California,
Inc.
City of Los Angeles
City of Los Angeles
County Sanitation
Districts of Los Angeles
County
Waste Management
Recycling and Disposal
Services of California,
Inc.
Waste Management
Recycling and Disposal
Services of California,
Inc.
Waste Management
Recycling and Disposal
Services of California,
Inc.
SCS Field Services,
Inc.
Bryan A. Stirrat &
Associates
Bryan A. Stirrat &
Associates
Waste Management
Recycling and Disposal
Services of California,
Inc.
Waste Management
Recycling and Disposal
Services of California,
Inc.
City of Los Angeles
Report
Date
9/8/95
September
1997
11/16/99
April 1991
November
1990
October
1995
January
1998
January
1997
January
1998
9/29/98
9/29/98
June 1997
July 1997
June 1997
4/1 2/99
August
1999
August
1997
February
1998
July 1997
5/21/98
4/1 3/99
June 1997
9/29/98
9/29/98
4/1 3/99
May 1998
August
1998
Complete
Report?
Y
Y
N
N
N
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Appendix B 052608.xls
Page 7
-------
Appendix B. List of Test Reports Considered in Update
Test
Report
TR-186
TR-187
TR-188
TR-189
TR-190
TR-191
TR-192
TR-193
TR-194
TR-195
TR-196
TR-197
TR-198
TR-199
TR-200
TR-201
TR-202
TR-203
TR-204
TR-205
TR-206
TR-207
TR-208
TR-209
TR-210
Report Title
Emissions Test of a McGill Landfill Gas Flare
- Mid Valley Landfill
Emissions Test of a Landfill Gas Flare -
Lowry Landfill/Denver-Arapohoe Disposal
Site
Characterization of Emissions from a Power
Boiler Fired with Landfill Gas
Characterization of Emissions from 925 kWe
Reciprocating Engine Fired with Landfill Gas
Characterization of Emissions from 81 2 kWe
Reciprocating Engine Fired with Landfill Gas
Characterization of Emissions from Enclosed
Flare - Trail Road Landfill
Determination of Impact of Waste
Management Activities on Greenhouse Gas
Emissions
Emission Reduction Benefits of LFG
Combustion
Characterization of Emissions from 1 MWe
Reciprocating Engine Fired with Landfill Gas
Characteristics of Semi-volatile Organic
Compounds from Vented Landfills
Results of the Biennial Criteria and AB 2588
Air Toxics Source Test on the Simi Valley
Landfill Flare
Emission Test Results of a Landfill Gas Flare
S. Oak Ridge Landfill Gas Quality
Emission Compliance Test on a Landfill
Flare
Test Report - Newton Landfill
Emission Compliance Test on a Landfill Gas
Flare
Report on Emissions Test of a Landfill Gas
Flare at Santiago Canyon Landfill
Emission Compliance Test on a Landfill
Flare - Chiquita Canyon Landfill
Test Report - BFI Mallard Lake Landfill
The Mid-Valley Sanitary Landfill Gas Flare
No. 3 (John Zink) 1998 Source Test Results
Compliance Source Test Report Landfill Gas-
fired Flare Stations I-4 and F-5
Compliance Source Test Report Landfill Gas-
fired Flare Stations I-4 and F-2
Annual Emissions Test of Landfill Gas Flare
#2 Bradley Landfill
Emission Test Report Volumes I and II -
Source/Compliance Emissions Testing for
Cedar Hills Landfill
Characterization of Ammonia, Total Amine,
Organic Sulfur Compound, and Total Non-
Methane Organic Compound (TGNMOC)
Emissions from Composting Operations
Landfill Name
Mid Valley
Lowry Denver-
Arapahoe
Landfill Name Not
Given
Waterloo Regional
Meloche
Trail Road
Landfill Name Not
Given
Landfill Name Not
Given
Usine de Triage
Lachenaie Ltee
Beare, Cornwall,
Miron, Vaughn and
Cook Road
Simi Valley
San Timoteo
Oak Ridge
Sheldon- Arleta
Newton
Santiago Canyon
Santiago Canyon
Chiquita Canyon
Mallard Lake
Mid Valley
BKK
BKK
Bradley
Cedar Hills
Regional
Landfill Name Not
Given (composting
operations)
Landfill City
Fontana
Aurora
Waterloo
Kirkland
Ottawa-Carleton
None
Toronto
Lachenaie
Simi Valley
Redlands
Valley Park
Sun Valley
Valencia
Fontana
West Covina
West Covina
Sun Valley
Maple Valley
Corona
Landfill
State
CA
CA
Canada
Canada
Canada
Canada
Canada
Canada
Canada
Canada
CA
CA
MO
CA
NC
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
WA
CA
Test Dates
6/3/97
2/12/97-
2/13/97
November
1999
6/21/00 -
6/23/00
9/21/99 -
9/24/99
4/18/00-
4/25/00
3/30/01
February
2002
10/1/01 -
10/4/01
August 1996
3/18/97-
3/21/97,
3/29/97
6/6/97
2/11/99
12/17/98
9/4/97
9/24/98
10/30/97,
12/10/97
8/20/96 -
8/21/96
3/16/99
7/28/98
8/28/96 -
8/30/96
10/16/97,
10/20/97
5/19/98
10/19/04-
10/22/04
11/16/95,
1/24/96,
1/26/96
Test Origin
SCS Field Services,
Inc.
Sur-Lite Corporation
Environment Canada
Emissions Research
and Measurement
Division
Environment Canada
Emissions Research
and Measurement
Division
Environment Canada
Emissions Research
and Measurement
Division
Environment Canada
Emissions Research
and Measurement
Division
Environment Canada
Environment Canada
Environment Canada
Emissions Research
and Measurement
Division
Environment Canada
Environmental
Technology
Advancement
Directorate
Simi Valley Landfill and
Recycling Center
SCS Engineers
No Origin Given
City of Los Angeles
No Origin Given
County of Orange
Integrated Waste
Management
Department
County of Orange
Integrated Waste
Management
Department
EMCON Associates
No Origin Given
Bryan A. Stirrat &
Associates
BKK Landfill
BKK Landfill
Waste Management
Recycling and Disposal
Services of California,
Inc.
King County Solid
Waste Division
South Coast Air Quality
Management District
Report
Date
June 1997
February
1997
March 2000
December
2000
December
1999
August
2000
3/30/01
February
2002
January
2002
August
1996
April 1997
June 1997
3/9/99
January
1999
9/15/97
September
1998
12/24/97
September
1996
No Report
Date Given
9/29/98
10/3/96
12/12/97
7/1 5/98
1/20/05
1996
Complete
Report?
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
N
N
Y
Y
Y
Y
N
Y
N
Y
Y
Y
N
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Appendix B 052608.xls
Page 8
-------
Appendix B. List of Test Reports Considered in Update
Test
Report
TR-211a
TR-211b
TR-211C
TR-211d
TR-211e
TR-211f
TR-211g
TR-211h
TR-212
TR-213
TR-214
TR-215
TR-216
TR-217
TR-218
TR-219
TR-220
TR-221
TR-222
TR-223
TR-224
TR-225
TR-226
Report Title
Determination of Total and Dimethyl Mercury
in Raw Landfill Gas with Site Screening for
Elemental Mercury at Eight Washington
State Landfills
Determination of Total and Dimethyl Mercury
in Raw Landfill Gas with Site Screening for
Elemental Mercury at Eight Washington
State Landfills
Determination of Total and Dimethyl Mercury
in Raw Landfill Gas with Site Screening for
Elemental Mercury at Eight Washington
State Landfills
Determination of Total and Dimethyl Mercury
in Raw Landfill Gas with Site Screening for
Elemental Mercury at Eight Washington
State Landfills
Determination of Total and Dimethyl Mercury
in Raw Landfill Gas with Site Screening for
Elemental Mercury at Eight Washington
State Landfills
Determination of Total and Dimethyl Mercury
in Raw Landfill Gas with Site Screening for
Elemental Mercury at Eight Washington
State Landfills
Determination of Total and Dimethyl Mercury
in Raw Landfill Gas with Site Screening for
Elemental Mercury at Eight Washington
State Landfills
Determination of Total and Dimethyl Mercury
in Raw Landfill Gas with Site Screening for
Elemental Mercury at Eight Washington
State Landfills
Determination of Total, and Monomethyl
Mercury in Raw Landfill Gas at the Central
Solid Waste Management Center
New Source Performance Standards Tier 2
Sampling and Analysis Summary Report for
Landfill Name Confidential #8
Intertek Testing Services NA, Inc. Report
number D97-1 01 94
Characterization of Ammonia, Total Amine,
Organic Sulfur Compound, and Total Non-
Methane Organic Compound (TGNMOC)
Emissions from Composting Operations
New Source Performance Standards Tier 2
Sampling and Analysis Summary Report for
Landfill Name Confidential #9
New Source Performance Standards Tier 2
Sampling and Analysis Summary Report for
Landfill Name Confidential #10
New Source Performance Standards Tier 2
Sampling and Analysis Summary Report for
Landfill Name Confidential #11
New Source Performance Standards Tier 2
Sampling and Analysis Summary Report for
Landfill Name Confidential #12
SCAQMD Performance Tests on the Spadra
Energy Recovery from Landfill Gas (SPERG)
Facility
Tier 2 Calculations for the Butler County
(Kansas) Sanitary Landfill
Results of the August 1994 On-site GC/MS
Landfill Gas Chemical Charicterization at the
Anoka County Landfill
Tier 2 Calculations for the Columbia Sanitary
Landfill
Landfill Gas Characterization for Equipment
at Livermore, CA
Report, Destruction Test, Flare, Durham
Road Landfill
Methane and Nonmethane Organic
Destruction Efficiency Tests of an Enclosed
Landfill Gas Flare
Landfill Name
Landfill Site #1
Landfill Site #2
Landfill Site #3
Landfill Site #4
Landfill Site #5
Landfill Site #6
Landfill Site #7
Landfill Site #8
Central Solid
Waste
Management
Center
Landfill Name
Confidential #8
SEOKE
Landfill Name Not
Given (San
Joaquin
Composting)
Landfill Name
Confidential #9
Landfill Name
Confidential #10
Landfill Name
Confidential #11
Landfill Name
Confidential #12
Spadra
Butler County
Anoka County
Columbia
Calderon
Durham Road
Pinelands Park
Landfill City
Sandtown
Leland
Oklahoma City
Lost Hills
Beaumont
Canyon
Fresno
Mexia
Spadra
El Dorado
Anoka
Columbia
Livermore
Fremont
Landfill
State
WA
WA
WA
WA
WA
WA
WA
WA
DE
MS
OK
CA
TX
TX
TX
TX
CA
KS
MN
MO
CA
CA
NJ
Test Dates
May 2003,
June 2003
May 2003,
June 2003
May 2003,
June 2003
May 2003,
June 2003
May 2003,
June 2003
May 2003,
June 2003
May 2003,
June 2003
May 2003,
June 2003
January 2003
10/21/96-
10/22/96
9/15/97
2/15/96,
3/1/96,
3/11/96
11/25/96
10/22/96
11/4/96-
11/5/96
11/22/96
10/22/91 -
10/24/91
3/11/97-
3/12/97
8/23/94 -
8/25/94
11/15/96-
11/17/96
4/7/88
10/19/88
April 1992
Test Origin
Washington State
Department of Ecology
Washington State
Department of Ecology
Washington State
Department of Ecology
Washington State
Department of Ecology
Washington State
Department of Ecology
Washington State
Department of Ecology
Washington State
Department of Ecology
Washington State
Department of Ecology
Delaware Solid Waste
Authority
Browning-Ferris Gas
Services, Inc.
SCS Engineers
South Coast Air Quality
Management District
Browning-Ferris Gas
Services, Inc.
Browning-Ferris Gas
Services, Inc.
Browning-Ferris Gas
Services, Inc.
Browning-Ferris Gas
Services, Inc.
County Sanitation
Districts of Los Angeles
County
Butler County
Kaltec
City of Columbia
Bay Area Quality
Management District
Waste Management of
North America
Newco Waste Systems
Report
Date
July 2003
July 2003
July 2003
July 2003
July 2003
July 2003
July 2003
July 2003
February
2003
11/26/96
December
1997
No Report
Date Given
12/3/96
11/26/96
1 2/3/96
12/4/96
April 1992
3/28/97
9/9/94
1 2/5/96
6/23/88
10/19/88
April 1992
Complete
Report?
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Appendix B 052608.xls
Page 9
-------
Appendix B. List of Test Reports Considered in Update
Test
Report
TR-227
TR-228
TR-229
TR-230
TR-231
TR-232
TR-233
TR-234
TR-235
TR-236
TR-237
TR-238
TR-239
TR-240
TR-241
TR-242
TR-243
TR-244
TR-245
TR-246
TR-247
TR-248
TR-249
TR-250
TR-251
TR-252
TR-253
TR-254
TR-255
TR-256
TR-257
TR-258
TR-259
Report Title
Stack Test and Modeling Report L & RR
Superfund Site
Landfill Gas Emissions: A study of two
landfills in Prince George's County, Maryland
Scholl Canyon Landfill Gas Flares No. 9, 10
11 and 12 Emission Source Testing April
1999
Test Report - Fitchburg, Massachusetts
Landfill
Test Report - Lowell, Massachusetts Landfill
Test Report - Cranberry Creek Landfill
Test Report - Santiago Canyon Landfill Flare
No. 1
Test Report - Oak Ridge Landfill
Test Report - Coachella Valley Disposal Site
Landfill Gas Flare Hydrogen Chloride
Emissons Atascocita Landfill
Test Report - Shoosmith Landfill
Test Report - Burlington LFG Plant
Test Report - Cumberland County Landfill
Test Report - Roanoke Regional Municipal
Landfill
Performance Evaluation, Enclosed Landfill
Gas Flare, Valley Landfill
Enclosed Flare Inlet at Chester County Solid
Waste Authority Lanchester Landfill
Test Report - ELDA Recycling and Disposal
Facility
Test Report - New Cut Landfill
Test Report - Monmouth County
Reclamation Center Phase II
Test Report - Blackburn Landfill
Test Report - Hanes Mill Road Sanitary
Landfill
Landfill Gas Test Program Oaks Sanitary
Landfill
Test Report - Mead Valley Landfill
Test Report - Mead Valley Landfill
Emission Compliance Test on a Landfill Gas
Flare - Flare #1 , Frank R. Bowerman Landfill
Emission Compliance Test on a Landfill Gas
Flare -Chiquita Canyon Landfill
Emission Source Testing on Two Flares
(Nos. 3 and 6) at the Spadra Landfill
Emission Test on Palos Verdes Flare Station
No. 3
Emission Compliance Test on a Landfill Gas
Flare -Olinda Alpha Landfill
Emission Test Results of a Sur-Lite Landfill
Gas Flare
Compliance Test Report, Gas Flare No. 2
Source Test Report, City of Sacramento
Landfill Gas Flare
The Millikan Sanitary Landfill Gas Flare No. 1
(Surlite) 1998 Source Test Results
Landfill Name
L & RR Superfund
Site
Sandy Hill &
Brown Station
Road
Scholl Canyon
Fitchburg
Lowell
Cranberry Creek
Santiago Canyon
Oak Ridge
Coachella Valley
Disposal Site
Atascocita
Shoosmith
Burlington
Cumberland
County
Roanoke Regional
Municipal
Valley
Lanchester
ELDA Recycling
and Disposal
Facility
New Cut
Monmouth County
Reclamation
Center Phase II
Blackburn
Hanes Mill Road
Oaks
Mead Valley
Mead Valley
Bowerman
Chiquita Canyon
Spadra
Palos Verdes
Olinda Alpha
Milliken
Palos Verdes
City of
Sacramento
Milliken
Landfill City
North Smithfield
Fitchburg
Lowell
Valley Park
Coachella
Humble
Chester
Waitsfield
Millville
Rutrough
Irwin
Honeybrook
Cincinnati
Tinton Falls
Winston-Salem
Laytonsville
Irvine
Valencia
Spadra
Rolling Hills
Estates
Brea
Ontario
Rolling Hills
Estates
Sacramento
Ontario
Landfill
State
NJ
MD
CA
MA
MA
Wl
CA
MO
CA
TX
VA
VA
NJ
VA
PA
PA
OH
MD
NJ
NC
NC
MD
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
Test Dates
1/31/95 -
2/2/95
Various
4/26/99 -
4/29/99
8/5/98
8/5/98
7/5/99
8/2/95
6/13/97
7/1/99
2/4/99
4/30/97
8/20/93
8/10/95
1/19/96
11/26/91
8/28/96
10/16/97
11/8/96,
11/15/96
6/2/94
9/4/97
3/8/95
7/20/95
1/19/99
5/20/99
10/28/98
8/29/95
5/20/98 -
5/21/98
10/11/89-
10/12/89
9/22/98
6/10/97
12/9/97
6/17/96
7/23/98
Test Origin
de maximis, inc.
University of Maryland
South Coast Air Quality
Management District
Organic Waste
Technologies
Organic Waste
Technologies
Superior Services
No Origin Given
Superior Services, Inc.
Riverside County
WRMD
Waste Management of
Houston
Shoosmith Brothers,
Inc.
Zapco Energy Tactics
No Origin Given
Roanoke County
Waste Energy
Technology
Allegheny Energy
Resources
Thompson, Hine &
Flory, PLL
No Origin Given
No Origin Given
No Origin Given
No Origin Given
Montgomery County
Department of
Environmental
Protection
Riverside County
WRMD
Riverside County
WRMD
Orange County
Laidlaw Waste
Systems
Los Angeles County
Sanitation Districts
Los Angeles County
Sanitation Districts
Orange County
Integrated Waste
Management
Department
San Bernandino
County Solid Waste
Management
Los Angeles County
Sanitation Districts
City of Sacramento
South Coast Air Quality
Management District
Report
Date
July 1998
No Report
Date Given
April 1999
8/18/98
8/18/98
7/20/99
9/1 2/95
6/24/97
7/9/99
4/20/99
5/1 3/97
11/10/93
8/23/95
March 1996
November
1991
9/9/96
11/5/97
12/6/96
6/10/94
9/15/97
3/14/95
9/7/95
10/19/99
10/19/99
1/25/99
9/27/95
7/21/98
January
1990
No Report
Date Given
June 1997
2/12/98
6/26/96
9/29/98
Complete
Report?
Y
N
Y
N
N
N
N
N
N
Y
N
N
N
N
Y
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Appendix B 052608.xls
Page 10
-------
Appendix B. List of Test Reports Considered in Update
Test
Report
TR-260
TR-261
TR-262
TR-263
TR-264
TR-265
TR-266
TR-267
TR-268
TR-269
TR-270
TR-271
TR-272
TR-273
TR-274
TR-275
TR-276
TR-277
TR-278
TR-279
TR-280
TR-281
TR-282
TR-283
TR-284
TR-285
TR-286
TR-287
TR-288
TR-289
TR-290
Report Title
The Millikan Sanitary Landfill Gas Flare No. 2
(John Zink) 1998 Source Test Results
The Millikan Sanitary Landfill Gas Flare No. 3
(John Zink) 1998 Source Test Results
Emissions Test Results of a John Zink
Landfill Gas Flare
Annual Emissions Test of a Landfill Gas
Flare
Emission Compliance Test on a Landfill Gas
Flare
Test Report - Burlington County, NJ
Compliance Source Test Report - Landfill
Gas-Fired Engine
Report on Emissions Test of a Landfill Gas
Flare - Olinda Alpha Landfill
Emission Testing at PERG - Maximum Boiler
Load
Test Report - Ox Mountain Landfill
Test Report - Ox Mountain Landfill
Test Report - Seneca Meadows Landfill
Source Testing Final Report - Landfill A
Source Testing Final Report - Landfill B
Test Report - Los Reales Landfill
Test Report - Woodland Landfill
Test Report - Lamb Canyon Landfill
Test Report - Badlands Landfill
Test Report - Edom Hill Landfill
Test Report - Highgrove Landfill
Test Report - Highgrove Landfill
Test Report - Badlands Landfill
Test Report - Corona Landfill
Test Report - West Riverside Landfill
Source Testing Final Report - Landfill C
Test Report - Mead Valley Landfill
Test Report - Nashua, New Hampshire
Landfill
Source Testing Final Report - Landfill D
Test Report - YSDI Landfill
Annual Emissions Test of Landfill Gas Flare
#1 Bradley Landfill
San Timoteo Sanitary Landfill 1998 Source
Test Results
Landfill Name
Milliken
Milliken
Milliken
Pick Your Part
Prima Deshecha
Burlington County
Landfill Name Not
Given
Olinda Alpha
Puente Hills
Ox Mountain
Ox Mountain
Seneca Meadows
Landfill A
Landfill B
Los Reales
Woodland
Lamb Canyon
Badlands
Edom Hill
Highgrove
Highgrove
Badlands
Corona
West Riverside
Landfill C
Mead Valley
Nashua
Landfill D
YSDI
Bradley
San Timoteo
Landfill City
Ontario
Ontario
Ontario
Wilmington
San Juan
Capistrano
Corona
Brea
Half Moon Bay
Half Moon Bay
Tucson
Nashua
Marysville
Sun Valley
Redlands
Landfill
State
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
NJ
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
NY
AZ
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
NH
CA
CA
CA
Test Dates
7/21/98
7/22/98
6/9/97
3/31/94
10/30/98
4/14/99
1/28/98
12/30/96
10/27/86-
10/30/86,
11/22/86,
11/24/86-
11/25/86
4/29/99
10/2/98
3/20/97
11/1/02-
11/2/02
11/4/02-
11/5/02
10/15/97
10/1/97,
10/6/97
12/8/98
11/12/97
1/14/99-
1/15/99
9/8/98
6/17/99
12/8/98
6/17/99
12/8/98
5/13/04-
5/14/04
12/8/98
8/5/98
5/15/04-
5/16/04
1/15/98
6/12/97,
7/8/97
7/14/98
Test Origin
South Coast Air Quality
Management District
South Coast Air Quality
Management District
San Bernandino
County Solid Waste
Management
South Coast Air Quality
Management District
Orange County
Integrated Waste
Management
Department
No Origin Given
Minnesota Methane
Orange County
Integrated Waste
Management
Department
County Sanitation
Districts of Los Angeles
County
Browning-Ferris
Industries
Browning-Ferris
Industries
No Origin Given
US EPA Air Pollution
Prevention and Control
Division
US EPA Air Pollution
Prevention and Control
Division
No Origin Given
No Origin Given
Riverside County
WRMD
Riverside County
WRMD
Riverside County
WRMD
Riverside County
WRMD
Riverside County
WRMD
Riverside County
WRMD
Riverside County
WRMD
Riverside County
WRMD
US EPA Air Pollution
Prevention and Control
Division
Riverside County
WRMD
Organic Waste
Technologies
US EPA Air Pollution
Prevention and Control
Division
Norcal
Waste Management
Recycling and Disposal
Services of California,
Inc.
San Bernandino
County Solid Waste
Management
Report
Date
9/29/98
9/29/98
June 1997
4/22/94
No Report
Date Given
4/26/99
3/3/98
2/28/97
December
1986
5/7/99
10/12/98
4/4/97
10/6/05
1 0/6/05
11/7/97
10/17/97
10/19/99
10/19/99
2/5/99
10/19/99
10/19/99
12/11/98
6/25/99
12/10/98
10/6/05
12/29/98
8/18/98
1 0/6/05
1/19/98
7/23/97
9/29/98
Complete
Report?
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
N
Y
Y
Y
N
N
N
Y
Y
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
Y
N
N
Y
N
Y
Y
Appendix B 052608.xls
Page 11
-------
Appendix B. List of Test Reports Considered in Update
Test
Report
TR-291
TR-292
TR-293
Report Title
'PCDD/PCDF Emissions Tests on the Palos
Verdes Energy Recovery from Landfill Gas
(PVERG) Facility, Unit 2
Source Testing Final Report - Landfill E
Quantifying Uncontrolled Air Emissions from
Two Florida Landfills
Landfill Name
Palos Verdes
Landfill E
Sites 1 and 2
Landfill City
Landfill
State
CA
FL
Test Dates
11/23/93-
11/24/93
6/22/05 -
6/23/05
February and
October 2007
Test Origin
County Sanitation
Districts of Los Angeles
County
US EPA Air Pollution
Prevention and Control
Division
US EPA Air Pollution
Prevention and Control
Division
Report
Date
February
1994
October
2005
3/26/2008
Complete
Report?
Y
Y
Y
Appendix B 052608.xls
Page 12
-------
APPENDIX C. LANDFILL GAS CONSTITUENTS (UNCORRECTED CONCENTRATIONS)
Compound
1,1,1 -Trichloroethane
1 , 1 ,2,2-Tetrachloroethane
1 , 1 ,2,3,4,4-Hexachloro- 1 ,3-butadiene (Hexachlorobutadiene)
l,l,2-Trichloro-l,2,2-Trifluoroethane (Freon 113)
1 , 1 ,2-Trichloroethane
1 , 1 -Dichloroethane
1 , 1 -Dichloroethene (1,1 -Dichloroethy lene)
1,2,3-Trimethylbenzene
1 ,2,4-Trichlorobenzene
1 ,2,4-Trimethylbenzene
1,2-Dibromoethane (Ethylene dibromide)
l,2-Dichloro-l,l,2,2-tetrafluoroethane (Freon 114)
1,2-Diohloroethane (Ethylene dichloride)
1 ,2-Dichloroethene
1 ,2-Dichloropropane
1,2-Diethylbenzene
1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene
1,3-Butadiene (Vinyl ethylene)
1,3-Diethylbenzene
1 ,4-Dichlorobutane
1 ,4-Diethylbenzene
1,4-Dioxane (1,4-Diethylene dioxide)
1-Butene / 2-Methylbutene
1-Butene / 2-Methylpropene
l-Ethyl-4-methylbenzene (4-Ethyl toluene)
l-Ethyl-4-methylbenzene (4-Ethyl toluene) + 1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene
1 -Heptene
1-Hexene / 2-Methyl-l-pentene
1 -Methy Icy clohexene
1 -Methy Icy clopentene
1 -Nonene
1-Octene
1-Pentene
1 -Propanethiol (n-Propyl mercaptan)
2,2,3-Trimethylbutane
2,2,4-Trimethylpentane
2,2,5-Trimethylhexane
2,2-Dimethylbutane
2,2-Dimethylhexane
2,2-Dimethylpentane
2,2-Dimethylpropane
2,3,4-Trimethylpentane
2,3-Dimethylbutane
2,3-Dimethylpentane
2,4-Dimethylhexane
2,4-Dimethylpentane
2, 5 -Dimethy Ihexane
2, 5 -Dimethy Ithiophene
2-Butanone (Methyl ethyl ketone)
2-Ethyl-l-butene
2-Ethylthiophene
2-Ethyltoluene
2-Hexanone (Methyl butyl ketone)
Number of
Test Reports
40
3
3
13
6
43
39
9
11
19
12
18
38
1
6
9
15
7
10
1
10
5
3
7
13
4
2
3
10
10
2
2
10
23
5
11
10
10
4
9
2
10
10
10
9
9
10
1
8
10
1
10
2
Minimum
(ppm)
2.10E-03
2.97E-02
l.OOE-03
2.00E-03
6.54E-03
3.48E-03
2.00E-03
2.53E-01
8.40E-04
1.90E-01
1.33E-03
7.67E-03
l.OOE-03
7.35E-04
1.38E-02
1.47E-01
2.20E-02
2.23E-02
8.96E-02
2.03E-03
8.56E-01
3.47E-01
1.14E-01
7.93E-02
4.22E-01
1.25E-02
1.32E-02
2.83E-03
9.29E-03
1.82E-01
2.21E-02
1.40E-04
4.53E-03
4.83E-02
1.62E-02
1.65E-02
6.58E-03
1.94E-02
7.17E-03
1.40E-02
1.97E-02
2.04E-02
1.74E-01
6.54E-02
1.50E-02
2.73E-01
9.36E-03
1.30E-01
4.41E-01
Maximum
(ppm)
7.84E-01
1.31E+00
5.33E-03
4.47E-01
5.43E-01
1.54E+01
1.17E+00
1.88E+00
1.27E-02
6.31E+00
2.07E-02
4.12E-01
3.54E+00
1.93E-01
2.82E-01
2.20E+00
6.42E-01
2.07E-01
1.02E+00
1.24E-02
1.42E+00
3.62E+00
2.82E+00
9.76E-01
8.03E-01
2.19E-01
8.87E-02
6.59E-02
3.69E-01
5.31E+00
1.02E+00
4.73E-01
1.39E-02
8.03E-01
3.85E-01
2.25E-01
3.48E-01
1.68E-01
2.70E-02
4.66E-01
3.66E-01
3.70E-01
1.57E+00
2.72E-01
1.50E+00
9.43E+00
9.69E-02
1.49E+00
5.57E-01
Mean (ppm)
2.07E-01
6.58E-01
2.61E-03
4.99E-02
1.76E-01
1.79E+00
1.40E-01
8.97E-01
5.29E-03
2.10E+00
4.21E-03
1.24E-01
2.30E-01
1.11E+01
3.86E-02
6.74E-02
8.52E-01
1.73E-01
1.18E-01
3.84E-02
4.93E-01
7.81E-03
1.21E+00
1.18E+00
9.04E-01
5.84E-01
6.12E-01
8.78E-02
3.42E-02
2.87E-02
1.89E-01
2.74E+00
2.09E-01
1.16E-01
9.92E-03
4.54E-01
1.56E-01
1.41E-01
1.32E-01
6.89E-02
1.71E-02
2.40E-01
1.73E-01
2.37E-01
4.30E-01
1.24E-01
3.30E-01
6.42E-02
4.07E+00
3.45E-02
6.27E-02
6.31E-01
4.99E-01
Standard
Deviation
(ppm)
2.21E-01
6.39E-01
2.37E-03
1.20E-01
2.48E-01
2.61E+00
2.29E-01
6.14E-01
3.53E-03
1.75E+00
5.41E-03
1.20E-01
6.67E-01
7.67E-02
8.30E-02
6.06E-01
2.32E-01
6.99E-02
3.37E-01
3.84E-03
3.08E-01
1.11E+00
8.90E-01
4.26E-01
2.69E-01
1.14E-01
2.47E-02
1.92E-02
2.54E-01
3.62E+00
3.17E-01
1.18E-01
3.87E-03
2.47E-01
l.OOE-01
7.30E-02
1.59E-01
4.58E-02
1.40E-02
1.22E-01
9.16E-02
1.04E-01
4.79E-01
6.62E-02
4.44E-01
3.30E+00
3.16E-02
4.78E-01
8.20E-02
95%
Confidence
Limit (ppm)
6.86E-02
7.23E-01
2.68E-03
6.52E-02
1.98E-01
7.81E-01
7.18E-02
4.01E-01
2.08E-03
7.88E-01
3.06E-03
5.53E-02
2.12E-01
6.13E-02
5.42E-02
3.07E-01
1.72E-01
4.33E-02
2.09E-01
3.37E-03
3.48E-01
8.25E-01
4.84E-01
4.17E-01
3.73E-01
1.29E-01
1.53E-02
1.19E-02
3.53E-01
5.02E+00
1.97E-01
4.84E-02
3.39E-03
1.46E-01
6.22E-02
4.52E-02
1.56E-01
2.99E-02
1.94E-02
7.55E-02
5.68E-02
6.47E-02
3.13E-01
4.32E-02
2.75E-01
2.29E+00
1.96E-02
2.97E-01
1.14E-01
-------
APPENDIX C. LANDFILL GAS CONSTITUENTS (UNCORRECTED CONCENTRATIONS)
Compound
2-Methyl-l-butene
2-Methy 1- 1 -propanethiol (Isobutyl mercaptan)
2-Methyl-2-butene
2-Methyl-2-propanethiol (tert-Butylmercaptan)
2-Methylbutane
2-Methylheptane
2-Methylhexane
2-Methylpentane
2-Propanol (Isopropyl alcohol)
3,6-Dimethyloctane
3 -Ethy Itoluene
3 -Methyl- 1 -butene
3 -Methyl- 1 -pentene
3 -Methy Iheptane
3 -Methy Ihexane
3 -Methy Ipentane
3 -Methy Ithiophene
4-Methy 1- 1 -pentene
4-Methyl-2-pentanone (MIBK)
4-Methylheptane
Aoetaldehyde
Acetone
Acetonitrile
Acrylonitrile
Benzene
Benzyl chloride
Bromodichloromethane
Bromomethane (Methyl bromide)
Butane
Carbon disulfide
Carbon tetrachloride
Carbon tetrafluoride (Freon 14)
Carbonyl sulfide (Carbon oxysulfide)
Chlorobenzene
Chlorodifluorom ethane (Freon 22)
Chloroethane (Ethyl chloride)
Chloromethane (Methyl chloride)
cis- 1 ,2-Dichloroethene
cis- 1 ,2-Dimethylcyclohexane
cis- 1 ,3-Dichloropropene
cis-l,3-Dichloropropene / trans-l,3-Dichloropropene
cis- 1 ,3-Dimethylcyclohexane
cis-l,4-Dimethylcyclohexane / trans-l,3-Dimethylcyclohexane
cis-2-Butene
cis-2-Heptene
cis-2-Hexene
cis-2-Octene
cis-2-Pentene
cis-3-Heptene
cis-3-Methyl-2-pentene
cis-4-Methyl-2-pentene
CO
Cyclohexane
Number of
Test Reports
8
1
10
1
10
10
9
10
6
9
10
1
3
10
10
10
1
1
7
10
5
9
20
48
26
4
7
15
35
31
1
30
43
11
17
14
23
9
5
1
10
10
10
4
6
6
9
2
7
4
10
16
Minimum
(ppm)
5.33E-02
9.50E-02
9.49E-02
8.69E-02
1.17E-01
1.63E-01
1.14E-01
1.13E-01
3.35E-01
4.33E-03
2.84E-01
1.17E-01
1.14E-01
7.58E-02
3.14E-02
1.48E-02
3.28E-01
1.32E-01
BDLa
7.30E-02
1.72E-03
2.67E-03
2.50E-03
3.12E-01
2.80E-04
8.30E-04
l.OOE-04
2.07E-02
1.12E-01
1.17E-02
1.79E-03
3.97E-03
3.03E-02
2.27E-04
1.69E-01
7.41E-02
4.37E-02
2.44E-02
8.53E-03
1.50E-03
3.43E-03
8.76E-03
1.18E-02
8.00E-03
O.OOE+00
8.73E-02
Maximum
(ppm)
5.93E-01
4.07E-01
7.23E+00
1.28E+01
2.52E+00
2.41E+00
6.63E+00
1.50E+00
3.13E+00
1.03E-02
1.55E+01
7.34E+00
2.72E+00
2.17E+00
5.03E+00
1.91E-01
1.55E+01
2.47E+00
2.13E+01
2.94E-02
1.64E-01
4.57E-02
3.79E+01
3.40E-01
3.82E-02
2.70E-01
6.76E+00
1.48E+00
3.04E+01
1.26E+00
6.51E+00
2.07E+00
4.91E-02
1.20E+01
6.92E+00
3.30E-01
7.99E-02
2.48E-02
2.74E-01
7.37E-02
1.94E-02
8.62E-02
l.OOE-01
7.70E+01
3.36E+00
Mean (ppm)
1.96E-01
1.70E-01
2.71E-01
3.24E-01
1.13E+00
2.17E+00
8.39E-01
8.49E-01
1.92E+00
7.17E-01
1.35E+00
6.30E-02
6.78E-03
2.50E+00
1.56E+00
9.34E-01
9.23E-02
2.33E-02
8.40E-01
8.03E-01
8.29E-02
6.82E+00
5.32E-01
2.17E+00
1.76E-02
6.80E-02
1.80E-02
4.26E+00
1.40E-01
7.62E-03
1.49E-01
1.21E-01
5.52E-01
6.17E-01
2.51E+00
2.17E-01
1.24E+00
3.23E-01
1.22E-02
8.48E-03
1.89E+00
9.67E-01
1.25E-01
4.70E-02
1.63E-02
1.50E-01
3.69E-02
1.41E-02
2.96E-02
3.92E-02
2.09E+01
1.12E+00
Standard
Deviation
(ppm)
1.86E-01
9.54E-02
2.16E+00
3.92E+00
6.81E-01
5.97E-01
2.44E+00
3.92E-01
9.42E-01
3.09E-03
4.71E+00
2.08E+00
7.08E-01
6.91E-01
1.53E+00
7.61E-02
5.62E+00
5.03E-01
3.34E+00
7.77E-03
7.65E-02
1.62E-02
9.41E+00
8.30E-02
7.92E-03
7.09E-02
1.18E+00
4.62E-01
7.31E+00
3.23E-01
1.38E+00
6.63E-01
2.08E-02
3.66E+00
2.11E+00
8.11E-02
2.62E-02
5.52E-03
1.13E-01
2.59E-02
7.49E-03
2.55E-02
4.34E-02
2.84E+01
1.05E+00
95%
Confidence
Limit (ppm)
1.29E-01
5.91E-02
1.34E+00
2.43E+00
4.45E-01
3.70E-01
1.95E+00
2.56E-01
5.84E-01
3.50E-03
2.92E+00
1.29E+00
4.39E-01
5.12E-01
9.50E-01
6.67E-02
3.67E+00
2.20E-01
9.44E-01
2.99E-03
7.50E-02
1.20E-02
4.76E+00
2.75E-02
2.79E-03
2.54E-02
3.52E-01
2.73E-01
3.48E+00
1.69E-01
5.66E-01
4.33E-01
1.82E-02
2.27E+00
1.31E+00
5.03E-02
2.57E-02
4.42E-03
9.03E-02
1.69E-02
1.04E-02
1.89E-02
4.25E-02
1.76E+01
5.16E-01
-------
APPENDIX C. LANDFILL GAS CONSTITUENTS (UNCORRECTED CONCENTRATIONS)
Compound
Cyolohexene
Cyclopentane
Cyclopentene
Deoane
Dibromochloromethane
Dibromomethane (Methylene dibromide)
Dichlorobenzene
Dichlorodifluorom ethane (Freon 12)
Dichlorofluoromethane (Freon 21)
Dichloromethane (Methylene chloride)
Diethyl sulfide
Dimethyl disulfide
Dimethyl sulfide
Dodecane (n-Dodecane)
Ethane
Ethanol
Ethyl acetate
Ethyl mercaptan (Ethanediol)
Ethyl methyl sulfide
Ethylbenzene
Formaldehyde
Heptane
Hexane
Hexylbenzene
Hydrogen chloride
Hydrogen sulfide
Indan (2,3-Dihydroindene)
Isobutane (2-Methylpropane)
Isobutylbenzene
Isoprene (2-Methyl-l,3-butadiene)
Isopropyl mercaptan
Isopropylbenzene (Cumene)
Methanethiol (Methyl mercaptan)
Methyl tert-butyl ether (MTBE)
Methylcyclohexane
Methylcyclopentane
Naphthalene
n-Butylbenzene
Nonane
n-Propylbenzene (Propylbenzene)
Octane
p-Cymene (l-Methyl-4-lsopropylbenzene)
Pentane
Propane
Propene
Propyne
sec-Butylbenzene
Styrene (Vinylbenzene)
tert-Butylbenzene
Tetrachloroethylene (Perchloroethylene)
Tetrahydrofuran (Diethylene oxide)
Thiophene
Toluene (Methyl benzene)
Number of
Test Reports
9
10
10
10
3
2
74
20
1
50
1
26
30
10
5
5
6
31
1
22
5
16
23
3
1
37
10
10
10
7
25
11
30
5
10
10
10
10
10
11
10
11
15
15
10
2
10
20
4
47
7
2
47
Minimum
(ppm)
3.95E-03
4.57E-03
7.06E-04
1.74E+00
8.67E-03
6.37E-04
2.86E-04
7.69E-02
5.08E-03
2.20E-04
7.20E-03
4.32E-02
4.63E+00
1.97E-02
1.59E-01
5.80E-05
5.76E-01
2.93E-03
1.25E-01
1.16E-01
7.41E-05
9.80E-04
2.24E-02
5.55E-01
1.57E-02
5.12E-03
3.60E-05
7.18E-02
9.40E-04
3.20E-03
2.14E-01
8.74E-02
7.91E-03
2.11E-02
1.46E+00
1.24E-01
2.68E-01
4.20E-01
1.72E-01
1.01E+00
4.90E-01
3.75E-02
2.49E-02
3.93E-03
9.58E-03
1.55E-03
1.53E-01
1.24E-01
1.30E+00
Maximum
(ppm)
3.55E-02
2.34E-01
2.74E-02
7.64E+00
1.60E-02
1.03E-03
5.48E+00
6.38E+00
4.01E+01
4.20E-01
1.43E+01
6.76E-01
1.43E+01
3.94E-01
4.60E+00
8.33E-01
4.02E+01
2.73E-02
9.16E+00
2.84E+01
1.07E-03
3.22E+02
2.76E-01
1.64E+01
1.37E-01
1.27E-01
1.19E+00
3.13E+00
3.91E+00
2.57E-01
1.15E+01
2.92E+00
5.41E-01
2.51E-01
3.27E+01
1.33E+00
3.38E+01
8.05E+00
2.66E+01
4.00E+01
8.47E+00
4.20E-02
2.75E-01
1.27E+00
3.90E-02
8.06E+00
2.06E+00
5.71E-01
1.08E+02
Mean (ppm)
1.91E-02
7.18E-02
9.40E-03
4.47E+00
1.35E-02
8.35E-04
7.76E-01
1.04E+00
1.57E-02
5.15E+00
8.60E-02
1.29E-01
5.55E+00
2.58E-01
8.85E+00
2.22E-01
1.81E+00
1.89E-01
3.66E-02
7.60E+00
1.23E-02
2.00E+00
3.01E+00
6.18E-04
3.50E+00
3.04E+01
1.31E-01
6.20E+00
7.03E-02
4.43E-02
1.68E-01
7.90E-01
1.34E+00
1.06E-01
2.84E+00
9.34E-01
1.77E-01
1.29E-01
6.58E+00
6.06E-01
4.69E+00
3.38E+00
3.21E+00
1.21E+01
2.88E+00
3.98E-02
1.20E-01
3.21E-01
2.40E-02
1.78E+00
9.51E-01
3.48E-01
3.02E+01
Standard
Deviation
(ppm)
1.02E-02
7.07E-02
9.18E-03
2.30E+00
4.15E-03
2.81E-04
1.20E+00
1.37E+00
7.57E+00
9.66E-02
3.71E+00
2.28E-01
4.68E+00
1.45E-01
1.59E+00
1.88E-01
8.89E+00
1.09E-02
2.36E+00
5.74E+00
5.06E-04
5.35E+01
9.28E-02
4.85E+00
4.20E-02
4.41E-02
2.49E-01
8.94E-01
8.93E-01
1.07E-01
3.72E+00
9.73E-01
1.61E-01
8.03E-02
9.97E+00
3.87E-01
1.03E+01
2.77E+00
6.56E+00
1.06E+01
2.35E+00
3.21E-03
7.82E-02
4.30E-01
1.34E-02
1.81E+00
6.29E-01
3.16E-01
2.49E+01
95%
Confidence
Limit (ppm)
6.66E-03
4.38E-02
5.69E-03
1.43E+00
4.70E-03
3.89E-04
2.73E-01
6.02E-01
2.10E+00
3.71E-02
1.33E+00
1.41E-01
4.10E+00
1.27E-01
1.27E+00
6.63E-02
3.72E+00
9.57E-03
1.15E+00
2.35E+00
5.72E-04
1.72E+01
5.75E-02
3.01E+00
2.60E-02
3.27E-02
9.77E-02
5.29E-01
3.19E-01
9.34E-02
2.31E+00
6.03E-01
l.OOE-01
4.98E-02
6.18E+00
2.29E-01
6.40E+00
1.64E+00
3.32E+00
5.35E+00
1.46E+00
4.44E-03
4.85E-02
1.89E-01
1.32E-02
5.19E-01
4.66E-01
4.38E-01
7.11E+00
-------
APPENDIX C. LANDFILL GAS CONSTITUENTS (UNCORRECTED CONCENTRATIONS)
Compound
trans- 1 ,2-Dichloroethene
trans- 1 ,2-Dimethylcyclohexane
trans- 1 ,3-Dichloropropene
trans- 1 ,4-Dimethylcyclohexane
trans-2-Butene
trans-2-Heptene
trans-2-Hexene
trans-2-Ootene
trans-2-Pentene
trans-3-Heptene
trans-3-Methyl-2-pentene
Tribromomethane (Bromoform)
Triohloroethylene (Triohloroethene)
Trichlorofluorom ethane (Freon 11)
Trichlorom ethane (Chloroform)
Undecane
Vinyl acetate
Vinyl chloride (Chloroethene)
Xylenes (o-, m-, p-, mixtures)
Number of
Test Reports
13
10
5
10
9
2
6
7
10
3
7
4
49
22
36
10
6
48
92
Minimum
(ppm)
3.00E-03
1.26E-01
3.20E-04
4.37E-02
2.85E-02
2.49E-03
1.11E-02
1.10E-01
5.72E-03
2.57E-03
4.07E-03
4.23E-04
1.95E-03
6.90E-03
1.46E-03
6.08E-01
2.37E-02
6.20E-03
3.00E-01
Maximum
(ppm)
8.67E-02
7.98E+00
3.27E-02
5.69E+00
3.80E-01
1.71E-02
3.24E-02
1.46E+01
7.43E-02
1.54E-01
7.32E-02
2.61E-02
3.10E+00
6.95E-01
7.43E-01
3.11E+00
6.86E-01
1.56E+01
1.08E+02
Mean (ppm)
3.67E-02
1.25E+00
9.88E-03
8.45E-01
1.25E-01
9.82E-03
2.20E-02
2.74E+00
3.18E-02
8.06E-02
2.26E-02
1.29E-02
7.55E-01
2.14E-01
6.67E-02
1.76E+00
1.92E-01
1.23E+00
1.06E+01
Standard
Deviation
(ppm)
2.32E-02
2.42E+00
1.31E-02
1.74E+00
1.04E-01
1.04E-02
8.15E-03
5.36E+00
2.58E-02
7.60E-02
2.31E-02
1.08E-02
6.55E-01
1.95E-01
1.52E-01
8.73E-01
2.55E-01
2.43E+00
1.39E+01
95%
Confidence
Limit (ppm)
1.26E-02
1.50E+00
1.15E-02
1.08E+00
6.80E-02
1.44E-02
6.52E-03
3.97E+00
1.60E-02
8.60E-02
1.71E-02
1.06E-02
1.83E-01
8.15E-02
4.95E-02
5.41E-01
2.04E-01
6.88E-01
2.83E+00
All tests below detection limit. The method detection limits are available for three tests, and are as follows: 2.00E-04, 4.00E-03, and 2.00E-02 ppm
-------
Appendix D
VOC Fraction Analysis
Summary Statistics
Count 34
Mean 0.997
Min 0.95
Max 1.00
StDev 0.01
95% Cl 0.00
Test Report ID
TR-145
TR-145
TR-145
Compound Synonym
NMOC (as C6H8)
1,1,1-Trichloroethane
Acetone
Corrected Average Concentration (ppm)
6.35E+02
2.02E-01
6.48E+00
VOC Fraction
Carbons
2
3
Compound as hexane (ppm)
6.74E-02
3.24E+00
VOC Fraction
0.99
TR-165
TR-165
NMOC (as C6H8)
1,1,1-Trichloroethane
7.13E+02
9.83E-03
2
3.28E-03
VOC Fraction 1.00
TR-167
TR-167
NMOC (as C6H8)
1,1,1-Trichloroethane
6.73E+02
8.05E-03
2
2.68E-03
VOC Fraction 1.00
TR-168
TR-168
1,1,1-Trichloroethane
NMOC (as C6H8)
1 .94E-01
1.31E+03
2
6.47E-02
VOC Fraction 1.00
TR-169
TR-169
1,1,1-Trichloroethane
NMOC (as C6H8)
2.18E-01
1 .39E+03
2
7.27E-02
VOC Fraction 1.00
TR-171
TR-171
NMOC (as C6H8)
1,1,1-Trichloroethane
1 .02E+03
5.21 E-01
2
1 .74E-01
VOC Fraction 1.00
TR-173
TR-173
NMOC (as C6H8)
1,1,1-Trichloroethane
1 .43E+03
6.82E-02
2
2.27E-02
VOC Fraction 1.00
TR-175
TR-175
NMOC (as C6H8)
1,1,1-Trichloroethane
1.61E+02
9.12E-02
2
3.04E-02
VOC Fraction 1.00
TR-176
TR-176
NMOC (as C6H8)
1,1,1-Trichloroethane
6.23E+02
3.02E-02
2
1.01 E-02
VOC Fraction 1.00
TR-178
TR-178
NMOC (as C6H8)
1,1,1-Trichloroethane
1 .95E+03
3.31 E-02
2
1.10E-02
VOC Fraction 1.00
TR-181
TR-181
NMOC (as C6H8)
1,1,1-Trichloroethane
6.49E+02
2.68E-01
2
8.94E-02
VOC Fraction 1.00
TR-182
TR-182
NMOC (as C6H8)
1,1,1-Trichloroethane
5.96E+02
2.52E-01
2
8.38E-02
VOC Fraction 1.00
TR-183
TR-183
1,1,1-Trichloroethane
NMOC (as C6H8)
2.56E-02
7.34E+02
2
8.54E-03
VOC Fraction 1.00
TR-187
TR-187
NMOC (as C6H8)
1,1,1-Trichloroethane
8.70E+02
7.22E-01
2
2.41 E-01
VOC Fraction
1.00
Appendix D 052608.xls
Page 1
-------
VOC Fraction Analysis
TR-196
TR-196
NMOC (as C6H8)
1,1,1 -Trichloroethane
8.89E+02
1 78E-01
2
5.94E-02
VOC Fraction 1.00
TR-205
TR-205
NMOC (as C6H8)
1,1,1 -Trichloroethane
6.47E+02
2.59E-01
2
8.63E-02
VOC Fraction 1.00
TR-207
TR-207
NMOC (as C6H8)
1,1,1 -Trichloroethane
1 .39E+03
1 .92E+00
2
6.40E-01
VOC Fraction 1.00
TR-209
TR-209
Acetone
NMOC (as C6H8)
8.78E+00
5.36E+02
3
4.39E+00
VOC Fraction 0.99
TR-220
TR-220
NMOC (as C6H8)
1,1,1 -Trichloroethane
7.04E+02
3.16E-01
2
1 .05E-01
VOC Fraction 1.00
TR-229
TR-229
NMOC (as C6H8)
1,1,1 -Trichloroethane
5.64E+02
2.25E-02
2
7.50E-03
VOC Fraction 1.00
TR-251
TR-251
NMOC (as C6H8)
1,1,1 -Trichloroethane
1 .07E+03
2.74E-01
2
9.14E-02
VOC Fraction 1.00
TR-253
TR-253
NMOC (as C6H8)
1,1,1 -Trichloroethane
5.83E+02
1 .88E-01
2
6.28E-02
VOC Fraction 1.00
TR-255
TR-255
NMOC (as C6H8)
1,1,1 -Trichloroethane
1.12E+03
1 .27E-01
2
4.23E-02
VOC Fraction 1.00
TR-259
TR-259
NMOC (as C6H8)
1,1,1 -Trichloroethane
1 .35E+03
5.59E-01
2
1 .86E-01
VOC Fraction 1.00
TR-260
TR-260
1,1,1 -Trichloroethane
NMOC (as C6H8)
5.74E-01
1 .35E+03
2
1.91 E-01
VOC Fraction 1.00
TR-261
TR-261
NMOC (as C6H8)
1,1,1 -Trichloroethane
1 .32E+03
5.91 E-01
2
1 .97E-01
VOC Fraction 1.00
TR-264
TR-264
NMOC (as C6H8)
1,1,1 -Trichloroethane
5.37E+02
1 .61 E-01
2
5.36E-02
VOC Fraction 1.00
TR-266
TR-266
NMOC (as C6H8)
1,1,1 -Trichloroethane
2.45E+02
5.70E-03
2
1 .90E-03
VOC Fraction
1.00
TR-272
TR-272
TR-272
TR-272
Ethane
Acetone
NMOC (as C6H8)
1,1,1 -Trichloroethane
6.35E+00
3.38E-01
3.86E+02
5.15E-03
2
3
2
2.12E+00
1 .69E-01
1.72E-03
VOC Fraction
0.99
Appendix D 052608.xls
Page 2
-------
VOC Fraction Analysis
TR-273
TR-273
TR-273
TR-273
1,1,1 -Trichloroethane
NMOC (as C6H8)
Ethane
Acetone
4.59E-02
5.26E+02
6.87E+00
2.38E+00
2
2
3
1 .53E-02
2.29E+00
1.19E+00
VOC Fraction
1.00
TR-284
TR-284
TR-284
Acetone
NMOC (as C6H8)
Ethane
1 .07E+01
5.39E+03
1 .32E+01
3
2
5.37E+00
4.38E+00
VOC Fraction
1.00
TR-287
TR-287
TR-287
NMOC (as C6H8)
Ethane
Acetone
8.68E+02
4.83E+00
1.11E+01
2
3
1.61E+00
5.53E+00
VOC Fraction
0.99
TR-290
TR-290
NMOC (as C6H8)
1,1,1 -Trichloroethane
9.72E+02
7.99E-01
2
2.66E-01
VOC Fraction
1.00
TR-292
TR-292
TR-292
NMOC (as C6H8)
Ethane
Acetone
2.42E+02
1 .40E+01
1.61E+01
2
3
4.68E+00
8.06E+00
VOC Fraction
0.95
Appendix D 052608.xls
PageS
-------
Appendix E
Raw Landfill Gas Data Plots and Statistics
-------
Appendix E
Table of Contents
Introduction and Explanation 4
Figure 1. Example Statistical Data Plot 4
Group A: NMOC Data and Statistics 6
Figure A-1. NMOC Statistical Data Plot 7
Figure A-2. NMOC Scatter Plot 8
Table A-1. NMOC Data Statistics 8
Group B: Benzene, Toluene, Ethylbenzene, and Xylenes (BTEX) Data and Statistics 9
Figure B-l. BTEX Statistical Data Plot 10
Figure B-2. Benzene Scatter Plot 11
Table B-l. Benzene Data Statistics 11
Figure B-3. Toluene Scatter Plot 12
Table B-2. Toluene Data Statistics 12
Figure B-4. Ethylbenzene Data Plot 13
Table B-3. Ethylbenzene Data Statistics 13
Figure B-5. Xylenes (o-, m-, p-, mixtures) Data Plot 14
Table B-4. Xylenes (o-, m-, p-, mixtures) Data Statistics 14
Group C: Chlorinated Compounds Data and Statistics 15
Figure C-l. Dichlorobenzene, Trichloroethylene, and Tetrachloroethylene Statistical Data Plot.... 16
Figure C-2. Vinyl chloride and 1,1-Dichloroethane Statistical Data Plot 17
Figure C-3. 1,1-Dichloroethene, Trichloromethane, and 1,1,1-Trichloroethane Statistical Data Plot
18
Figure C-4. Dichloromethane Statistical Data Plot 19
Figure C-5. Chlorobenzene Statistical Data Plot 20
Figure C-6. 1,2-Dichloroethane Statistical Data Plot 21
Figure C-7. Carbon Tetrachloride Statistical Data Plot 22
Figure C-8. Dichlorobenzene Data Plot 23
Table C-l. Dichlorobenzene Data Statistics 23
Figure C-9. Dichloromethane Data Plot 24
Table C-2. Dichloromethane Data Statistics 24
Figure C-9. Trichloroethylene Data Plot 25
Table C-3. Trichloroethylene Data Statistics 25
Figure C-10. Tetrachloroethylene Data Plot 26
Table C-4. Tetrachloroethylene Data Statistics 26
Figure C-l 1. Vinyl Chloride Data Plot 27
Table C-5. Vinyl Chloride Data Statistics 27
Figure C-12. Chlorobenzene Data Plot 28
Table C-6. Chlorobenzene Data Statistics 28
Figure C-13. 1,1-Dichloroethane Data Plot 29
Table C-7. 1,1-Dichloroethane Data Statistics 29
Figure C-14. 1,1-Dichloroethene Data Plot 30
Table C-8. 1,1-Dichloroethene Data Statistics 30
Figure C-15. 1,2-Dichloroethane Data Plot 31
Table C-9. 1,2-Dichloroethane Data Statistics 31
-------
Figure C-16. Trichloromethane Data Plot 32
Table C-10. Trichloromethane Data Statistics 32
Figure C-17. 1,1,1-Trichloroethane Data Plot 33
Table C-ll. 1,1,1-Trichloroethane Data Statistics 33
Figure C-18. Carbon Tetrachloride Data Plot 34
Table C-12. Carbon Tetrachloride Data Statistics 34
Group D: Sulfur Compounds Data and Statistics 35
Figure D-l. Hydrogen Sulfide Data Statistics Plot 36
Figure D-2. Carbon Disulfide, Carbonyl Sulfide, and Ethyl Mercaptan Data Statistics Plot 37
Figure D-3. Methyl Mercaptan and Dimethyl Sulfide Data Statistics Plot 38
Figure D-4. Dimethyl Disulfide Data Statistics Plot 39
Figure D-5. Hydrogen Sulfide Data Plot 40
Table D-l. Hydrogen Sulfide Data Statistics 40
Figure D-6. Carbon Disulfide Data Plot 41
Table D-2. Carbon Disulfide Data Statistics 41
Figure D-7. Carbonyl Sulfide Data Plot 42
Table D-3. Carbonyl Sulfide Data Statistics 42
Figure D-8. Methyl Mercaptan Data Plot 43
Table D-4. Methyl Mercaptan Data Statistics 43
Figure D-9. Ethyl Mercaptan Data Plot 44
Table D-5. Ethyl Mercaptan Data Statistics 44
Figure D-10. Dimethyl Sulfide Data Plot 45
Table D-6. Dimethyl Sulfide Data Statistics 45
Figure D-ll. Dimethyl Disulfide Data Plot 46
Table D-7. Dimethyl Disulfide Data Statistics 46
Group E: Mercury Compounds Data and Statistics 47
Figure E-19. Total Mercury and Elemental Mercury Data Statistics Plot 48
Figure E-2. Monomethyl Mercury and Dimethyl Mercury Data Statistics Plot 49
Figure E-3. Total Mercury Data Plot 50
Table E-l. Total Mercury Data Statistics 50
Figure E-4. Elemental Mercury Data Plot 51
Table E-2. Elemental Mercury Data Statistics 51
Figure E-5. Monomethyl Mercury Data Plot 52
Table E-3. Monomethyl Mercury Data Statistics 52
Figure E-6. Dimethyl Mercury Data Plot 53
Table E-4. Dimethyl Mercury Data Statistics 53
-------
Introduction and Explanation
The data presented in this appendix for raw landfill gas constituents are organized according to chemical
similarity (NMOC, benzene-toluene-ethylbenzene-xylenes (BTEX), chlorinated compounds, sulfur
compounds, and mercury compounds). Pollutants in each grouping with similar average concentration
ranges were included on the same plot.
The statistical summary plots graph data as a box representing statistical values for the data set. A solid
line within the box marks the median while a dashed line marks the mean. The boundary of the box
closest to zero indicates the 25th percentile and the boundary of the box farthest from zero indicates the
75th percentile. Error bars above and below the box indicate the 90th and 10th percentiles, respectively.
The percentiles indicate the average concentration (ppmv) values at which a certain percentage of the data
points fall below the respective percentile value. For example, if the 75th percentile is 1,000 ppmv, then
75 percent of the data points in the set have concentration values less than 1,000 ppmv. All outlying data
points are indicated by solid dots. For the data contained in this report, all statistical outliers were
included in the calculations to determine the default concentrations (ppmv) for all raw landfill gas
constituents because no datum should be rejected solely on the basis of statistical tests since there is a risk
of rejecting an emission rate that represents actual emissions.
Figure 1. Example Statistical Data Plot
6000
Q.
5000 -
4000 -
2 3000 -
-l-ป
-------
(Eq.A-1) v=(f)(Xik)+l+(l-f)(Xik)
where,
(Eq.A-2) /
4 J
,
100
p = percentile value (i.e., 10, 25, 75, 90), and
(Eq. A-3) k = the largest integer <-
100
The statistical data plots graph the mean, median, percentile values, and outlier data points for each
pollutant data set. The data plots graph the entire pollutant data set including the mean and the upper and
lower bounds of the 95 percent confidence interval. For all graphs, ordinate axis values <10 4 or >104
were plotted in scientific notation.
A table containing the number of data points (sample size), minimum and maximum values, and data set
statistics accompanies each pollutant data plot. The following statistics were calculated for each data set:
mean, standard deviation, standard error, and 95% confidence interval.
The arithmetic mean (x) was calculated as:
n
(Eq. A-4) x = "
n
The sample standard deviation (s) was calculated as the square root of the mean of the square of
differences from their mean of the data points (x,):
(Eq. A-5)
n-\
The standard error is the standard deviation of the mean. It is calculated as the sample standard deviation
divided by the square root of the number of data points.
(Eq. A-6) Es =
The upper and lower confidence intervals (w) were calculated using the sample standard deviation, the t-
statistic for <ป degrees of freedom (z = 1.96 for 95% confidence, andz = 2.576 for 99% confidence), and
the square root of the number of data points.
(Eq.A-7) ^ = ฑ
-------
Group A: NMOC Data and Statistics
-------
6000
Figure A-l. NMOC Statistical Data Plot
5000 -
4000 -
2 3000 -
-!-
0
O
O 2000
O
0
O)
2 1000 -
o -
i
Outlier Data Point
Mean
-------
Figure A-2. NMOC Scatter Plot
6000
5000 -
S 4000 -
g
S> 3000 -
ง
O 2000 -
O
O)
1000 -
0 -
..ซ...*..." .ซ...!.........
Data Point
Mean
95% Confidence Limit
Table A-l. NMOC Data Statistics
Number of Data Points
Minimum (ppmv)
Maximum (ppmv)
Mean (ppmv)
Median (ppmv)
Standard Deviation (ppmv)
Standard Error (ppmv)
95% Confidence Interval (+/- ppmv)
99% Confidence Interval (+/- ppmv)
44
31
5387
838
648
811
122
247
330
-------
Group B: Benzene, Toluene, Ethylbenzene, and Xylenes (BTEX) Data and
Statistics
-------
100.0
Figure B-l. BTEX Statistical Data Plot
^ 80.0 -
>
Q.
Q_
^ 60.0
O
0) 40.0
O
O
g> 20.0
0)
0.0 -
i
Benzene
Toluene Ethylbenzene Xylenes
Outlier Data Point
Mean
10
-------
Figure B-2. Benzene Scatter Plot
^ 20.0 -
E
Q.
Q.
C
B 15.0 -
CO
"c
0
o
c
3 10.0-
0
0)
CO
0
< 5.0 -
On
.u
9
*
.
*
* '.
"* ." * ". "
Data Point
Mean
Q^% Pnnfirlfannea I imit
Table B-l. Benzene Data Statistics
Number of Data Points
Minimum (ppmv)
Maximum (ppmv)
Mean (ppmv)
Median (ppmv)
Standard Deviation (ppmv)
Standard Error (ppmv)
95% Confidence Interval (+/- ppmv)
99% Confidence Interval (+/- ppmv)
41
7.52E-02
2.20E+01
2.40E+00
1.28E+00
3.69E+00
5.77E-01
1.17E+00
1.56E+00
11
-------
Figure B-3. Toluene Scatter Plot
IUU.U -
S" 80.0 -
E
Q.
C
ฃ eo.o -
-!-
ง
c
3 40.0 -
0
O)
2
0
< 20.0 -
n n
. " .
f
. *
.
. ^
; *
A
Data Point
Mean
95% Confidence Limit
Table B-2. Toluene Data Statistics
Number of Data Points
Minimum (ppmv)
Maximum (ppmv)
Mean (ppmv)
Median (ppmv)
Standard Deviation (ppmv)
Standard Error (ppmv)
95% Confidence Interval (+/- ppmv)
99% Confidence Interval (+/- ppmv)
40
1.30E+00
9.08E+01
2.95E+01
2.54E+01
2.30E+01
3.63E+00
7.34E+00
9.83E+00
12
-------
100.0
Figure B-4. Ethylbenzene Data Plot
Q.
80.0 -
60.0 -
40.0 -
g
1
I
o
O
TO 20.0-
0.0 -
Data Point
Mean
95% Confidence Limit
Table B-3. Ethylbenzene Data Statistics
Number of Data Points
Minimum (ppmv)
Maximum (ppmv)
Mean (ppmv)
Median (ppmv)
Standard Deviation (ppmv)
Standard Error (ppmv)
95% Confidence Interval (+/- ppmv)
99% Confidence Interval (+/- ppmv)
16
5.93E-01
8.80E+00
4.86E+00
4.95E+00
2.58E+00
6.46E-01
1.38E+00
1.90E+00
13
-------
Figure B-5. Xylenes (o-, m-, p-, mixtures) Data Plot
40.0
Q.
Q.
C
g
"co
-!-
0
O
c
o
O
0
O)
CD
0
30.0 -
20.0 -
10.0 -
*
0.0
Data Point
Mean
95% Confidence Limit
Table B-4. Xylenes (o-, m-, p-, mixtures) Data Statistics
Number of Data Points
Minimum (ppmv)
Maximum (ppmv)
Mean (ppmv)
Median (ppmv)
Standard Deviation (ppmv)
Standard Error (ppmv)
95% Confidence Interval (+/- ppmv)
99% Confidence Interval (+/- ppmv)
78
3.09E-01
3.56E+01
9.23E+00
6.27E+00
8.84E+00
l.OOE+00
1.99E+00
2.64E+00
14
-------
Group C: Chlorinated Compounds Data and Statistics
15
-------
Figure C-l. Dichlorobenzene, Trichloroethylene, and Tetrachloroethylene Statistical Data
Plot
10.0
Q.
o
"co
-!-
0
O
c
o
O
8.0 -
6.0 -
4.0 -
S) 2.0-
0.0 -
Dichlorobenzene Trichloroethylene Tetrachloroethylene
Outlier Data Point
Mean
16
-------
Figure C-2. Vinyl chloride and 1,1-Dichloroethane Statistical Data Plot
^
1
Q.
Q.
C
g
"(0
~:
c
c
o
O
0
O)
(0
>
18.0 -
16.0 -
14.0 -
12.0 -
10.0 -
8.0 -
6.0 -
4.0 -
2f\
.0 -
0.0 -
m
1
1 1
\
Vinyl chloride
1 , 1 -Dichloroethane
Outlier Data Point
Mean
17
-------
Figure C-3. 1,1-Dichloroethene, Trichloromethane, and 1,14-Trichloroethane Statistical
Data Plot
1.4
1.2 -
1.0 -
.9 0.8 -
"co
"c
(U 0.6
O)
(0
0.4 -
0.2 -
0.0 -
1,1-Dichloroethene Trichloromethane 1,1,1-Trichloroethane
Outlier Data Point
Mean
18
-------
50.0
Figure C-4. Dichloromethane Statistical Data Plot
40.0 -
30.0 -
20.0 -
1
Q.
Q.
o
'!-
ฃ
ง
c
o
O
TO 10.0
CO
0.0 -
Dichloromethane
Outlier Data Point
Mean
19
-------
8.0
Figure C-5. Chlorobenzene Statistical Data Plot
Q.
6.0 -
'ง 4-ฐ-l
I
O 2.0 -
O)
>
< 0.0 -
Chlorobenzene
Outlier Data Point
Mean
20
-------
3.0
2.5 -
Figure C-6. 1,2-Dichloroethane Statistical Data Plot
Q.
2.0 -
2 1.5 -
ง
O 1.0 -
o
O)
0.5 -
0.0 -
1,2-Dichloroethane
Outlier Data Point
Mean
21
-------
Figure C-7. Carbon Tetrachloride Statistical Data Plot
0.035
1
Q_
Q.
0.030 -
0.025 -
o 0.020 H
|
"c
CD 0.015 H
c
o
0.010 H
CD
O)
0.005 -
0.000 -
Carbon tetrachloride
Outlier Data Point
Mean
22
-------
Figure C-8. Dichlorobenzene Data Plot
o.u -
,-v 5-ฐ -
Q.
^ 4.0 -
O
1
ง 3ฐ-
o
O
g) 2.0-
0
>
10-
On -
.
ป
..
ป- *%% " " .. *.
Data Point
Mean
Table C-l. Dichlorobenzene Data Statistics
Number of Data Points
Minimum (ppmv)
Maximum (ppmv)
Mean (ppmv)
Median (ppmv)
Standard Deviation (ppmv)
Standard Error (ppmv)
95% Confidence Interval (+/- ppmv)
99% Confidence Interval (+/- ppmv)
58
4.84E-04
5.54E+00
9.40E-01
3.39E-01
1.32E+00
1.74E-01
3.48E-01
4.63E-01
23
-------
Figure C-9. Dichloromethane Data Plot
JU.U -
^> 40.0 -
E
Q.
Q.
B 30.0 -
ง
Q 20.0 -
-------
Figure C-9. Trichloroethylene Data Plot
3.0 -
ฐ- 0 K
Q_ 2.5 -
c
o
"(0 2.0 -
Concent
bi
i
0
(0 1.0 -
0
0.5 -
n n -
..
*
* 9
. " "
. .
Data Point
Mean
Limit
Table C-3. Trichloroethylene Data Statistics
Number of Data Points
Minimum (ppmv)
Maximum (ppmv)
Mean (ppmv)
Median (ppmv)
Standard Deviation (ppmv)
Standard Error (ppmv)
95% Confidence Interval (+/- ppmv)
99% Confidence Interval (+/- ppmv)
42
6.55E-03
3.18E+00
8.28E-01
6.72E-01
6.88E-01
1.06E-01
2.14E-01
2.87E-01
25
-------
Figure C-10. Tetrachloroethylene Data Plot
IU.U -
^> 8.0 -
E
Q.
Q.
1 6.0 -
2
^ '
c
I
0 4 n -
o 4-u
CD
0)
2
-------
Figure C-ll. Vinyl Chloride Data Plot
1
Q.
Q.
O
"1 ป
CO
ง
o
o
-------
Figure C-12. Chlorobenzene Data Plot
o.u -
I 6.0-
o
1
ง 4ฐ-
o
O
0)
0 2.0 -
>
o.o -1
r.* ซ
. .' -, ..-... . ..
Data Point
Mean
Table C-6. Chlorobenzene Data Statistics
Number of Data Points
Minimum (ppmv)
Maximum (ppmv)
Mean (ppmv)
Median (ppmv)
Standard Deviation (ppmv)
Standard Error (ppmv)
95% Confidence Interval (+/- ppmv)
99% Confidence Interval (+/- ppmv)
37
1.79E-02
7.44E+00
4.84E-01
2.00E-01
1.21E+00
1.99E-01
4.03E-01
5.40E-01
28
-------
Figure C-13. 1,1-Dichloroethane Data Plot
1
Q.
Q_
tT
O
S
I
O
O
CD
0)
cc
1
16.0 -
14.0 -
12.0 -
10.0 -
8.0 -
6.0 -
4.0 -
.0 -
n n -
.
*
'9"t ^ * i
* ป.
Data Point
Mean
95% Confidence Limit
Table C-7. 1,1-Dichloroethane Data Statistics
Number of Data Points
Minimum (ppmv)
Maximum (ppmv)
Mean (ppmv)
Median (ppmv)
Standard Deviation (ppmv)
Standard Error (ppmv)
95% Confidence Interval (+/- ppmv)
99% Confidence Interval (+/- ppmv)
36
2.56E-02
1.59E+01
2.08E+00
1.07E+00
2.87E+00
4.78E-01
9.71E-01
1.30E+00
29
-------
Figure C-14. 1,1-Dichloroethene Data Plot
1 .t -
1.2 -
1
0
5;
c
g
"co 0.8 -
"c
8
ง 0.6-
O
0
O)
(0 0.4 -
0
0.2 -
n n -
.
u
. . * * . . *
Data Point
Mean
Limit
Table C-8. 1,1-Dichloroethene Data Statistics
Number of Data Points
Minimum (ppmv)
Maximum (ppmv)
Mean (ppmv)
Median (ppmv)
Standard Deviation (ppmv)
Standard Error (ppmv)
95% Confidence Interval (+/- ppmv)
99% Confidence Interval (+/- ppmv)
34
2.06E-03
1.28E+00
1.60E-01
9.30E-02
2.60E-01
4.46E-02
9.07E-02
1.22E-01
30
-------
Figure C-15. 1,2-Dichloroethane Data Plot
3.0
Q.
o
'ง
t-f
ง
c
o
O
0
O)
ฃ
0
2.5 -
2.0 -
1.5 -
1.0 -
0.5 -
0.0
Data Point
Mean
95% Confidence Limit
Table C-9. 1,2-Dichloroethane Data Statistics
Number of Data Points
Minimum (ppmv)
Maximum (ppmv)
Mean (ppmv)
Median (ppmv)
Standard Deviation (ppmv)
Standard Error (ppmv)
95% Confidence Interval (+/- ppmv)
99% Confidence Interval (+/- ppmv)
34
1.03E-03
2.60E+00
1.59E-01
6.48E-02
4.36E-01
7.47E-02
1.52E-01
2.04E-01
31
-------
Figure C-16. Trichloromethane Data Plot
u.o -
I 0.6-
o
1
ง ฐ4-
o
O
0)
0 0.2 -
>
o.o -1
. '
4 - -*
Data Point
Mean
Table C-10. Trichloromethane Data Statistics
Number of Data Points
Minimum (ppmv)
Maximum (ppmv)
Mean (ppmv)
Median (ppmv)
Standard Deviation (ppmv)
Standard Error (ppmv)
95% Confidence Interval (+/- ppmv)
99% Confidence Interval (+/- ppmv)
34
2.21E-03
6.82E-01
7.08E-02
5.20E-03
1.46E-01
2.51E-02
5.10E-02
6.85E-02
32
-------
Figure C-17. 1,1,1-Trichloroethane Data Plot
i .u -
5s 0.8 -
E
Q.
C
B 0.6-
2
c
8
c
0 04 -
o u-^
0
0)
< 0.2 -
n n -
.
.
,
Data Point
- Mean
Limit
Table C-ll. 1,1,1-Trichloroethane Data Statistics
Number of Data Points
Minimum (ppmv)
Maximum (ppmv)
Mean (ppmv)
Median (ppmv)
Standard Deviation (ppmv)
Standard Error (ppmv)
95% Confidence Interval (+/- ppmv)
99% Confidence Interval (+/- ppmv)
33
5.15E-03
8.50E-01
2.43E-01
1.78E-01
2.43E-01
4.24E-02
8.63E-02
1.16E-01
33
-------
Figure C-18. Carbon Tetrachloride Data Plot
\J.\JO-J -
0.030 -
E
a. 0.025 -
c
o
g 0.020 -
8
ง 0.015 -
O
CD
O)
ca 0.010 -
CD
.OOo -
n nnn -
(
.
Data Point
Mean
Table C-12. Carbon Tetrachloride Data Statistics
Number of Data Points
Minimum (ppmv)
Maximum (ppmv)
Mean (ppmv)
Median (ppmv)
Standard Deviation (ppmv)
Standard Error (ppmv)
95% Confidence Interval (+/- ppmv)
99% Confidence Interval (+/- ppmv)
30
8.55E-04
3.29E-02
7.98E-03
5.65E-03
7.59E-03
1.39E-03
2.84E-03
3.82E-03
34
-------
Group D: Sulfur Compounds Data and Statistics
35
-------
Figure D-l. Hydrogen Sulfide Data Statistics Plot
400.0
> 300.0
Q_
Q_
C
o
200.0 -
I
o 100.0
0)
O)
0.0 -
Hydrogen sulfide
Outlier Data Point
Mean
36
-------
Figure D-2. Carbon Disulfide, Carbonyl Sulfide, and Ethyl Mercaptan Data Statistics Plot
1.0
Q.
Q.
0.8 -
0.6 -
| 0.4 H
O
O
0.0 -
t
X
T
IT
T^
Carbon disulfide Carbonyl sulfide Ethyl mercaptan
Outlier Data Point
Mean
37
-------
Figure D-3. Methyl Mercaptan and Dimethyl Sulfide Data Statistics Plot
16.0
Q.
Q.
14.0 -
12.0 -
10.0 -
8.0 H
ง
c 6.0 H
o
O
4.0 H
CD
> 2.0 H
0.0 -
T
I- H
T
Methyl mercaptan
Dimethyl sulfide
Outlier Data Point
Mean
38
-------
Figure D-4. Dimethyl Bisulfide Data Statistics Plot
Q.
o
0.5 -i
0.4 -
0.3 -
0 0.2
o
o
O
0 n 1
O) U.I
0.0 -
T
Dimethyl disulfide
Outlier Data Point
Mean
39
-------
Figure D-5. Hydrogen Sulfide Data Plot
tuu.u -
ง_ 300.0 -
c
o
1
0 200.0 -
c
0
O
0
O)
(0
0 100.0 -
n n
9
. ^^
* * * *
Data Point
Mean
95% Confidence Limit
Table D-l. Hydrogen Sulfide Data Statistics
Number of Data Points
Minimum (ppmv)
Maximum (ppmv)
Mean (ppmv)
Median (ppmv)
Standard Deviation (ppmv)
Standard Error (ppmv)
95% Confidence Interval (+/- ppmv)
99% Confidence Interval (+/- ppmv)
36
1.02E-03
3.34E+02
3.20E+01
1.73E+01
5.57E+01
9.29E+00
1.89E+01
2.53E+01
40
-------
Figure D-6. Carbon Bisulfide Data Plot
^>
ฃ n ^ -
Q_ U'ฐ
&.
g
"ro
n n
.
u .
*
*~
t
'
Data Point
Mean
95% Confidence Limit
Table D-2. Carbon Bisulfide Data Statistics
Number of Data Points
Minimum (ppmv)
Maximum (ppmv)
Mean (ppmv)
Median (ppmv)
Standard Deviation (ppmv)
Standard Error (ppmv)
95% Confidence Interval (+/- ppmv)
99% Confidence Interval (+/- ppmv)
34
2.92E-04
3.53E-01
1.47E-01
1.32E-01
8.74E-02
1.50E-02
3.05E-02
4.10E-02
41
-------
Figure D-7. Carbonyl Sulfide Data Plot
u.ou -
^ 0.25 -
>
Q.
Q.
^ 0.20 -
g
CO
5r n 1 ^ -
o
o
O
a 0.10 -
O)
CO
0
< 0.05 -
ODD -
.UU
.
.
*
Data Point
Mean
Table D-3. Carbonyl Sulfide Data Statistics
Number of Data Points
Minimum (ppmv)
Maximum (ppmv)
Mean (ppmv)
Median (ppmv)
Standard Deviation (ppmv)
Standard Error (ppmv)
95% Confidence Interval (+/- ppmv)
99% Confidence Interval (+/- ppmv)
29
1.04E-04
2.75E-01
1.22E-01
1.34E-01
7.12E-02
1.32E-02
2.71E-02
3.66E-02
42
-------
Figure D-8. Methyl Mercaptan Data Plot
5.0
^> 4.0 -
Q_
a.
c
j= 3.0 H
CD
O
c
o
O
CD
O)
2
(D
2.0 -
1.0 -
0.0
Data Point
Mean
95% Confidence Limit
Table D-4. Methyl Mercaptan Data Statistics
Number of Data Points
Minimum (ppmv)
Maximum (ppmv)
Mean (ppmv)
Median (ppmv)
Standard Deviation (ppmv)
Standard Error (ppmv)
95% Confidence Interval (+/- ppmv)
99% Confidence Interval (+/- ppmv)
29
9.80E-04
4.05E+00
1.37E+00
1.16E+00
9.55E-01
1.77E-01
3.63E-01
4.90E-01
43
-------
Figure D-9. Ethyl Mercaptan Data Plot
^ 0.8 -
E
Q_
a.
c
ฃ 0.6 -
2
*-
CD
O
c
8 ฐ-4-
CD
O)
CO
CD
<
n n
,
.
,
.
9 m
Q
a
' . ป
.
*
Data Point
Mean
95% Confidence Limit
Table D-5. Ethyl Mercaptan Data Statistics
Number of Data Points
Minimum (ppmv)
Maximum (ppmv)
Mean (ppmv)
Median (ppmv)
Standard Deviation (ppmv)
Standard Error (ppmv)
95% Confidence Interval (+/- ppmv)
99% Confidence Interval (+/- ppmv)
30
6.05E-05
8.35E-01
1.98E-01
1.24E-01
1.97E-01
3.60E-02
7.37E-02
9.93E-02
44
-------
Figure D-10. Dimethyl Sulfide Data Plot
^
Q.
Q.
g
"co
L_
"c
o
0
O
0)
CO
o3
>
14.0 -
12.0 -
10.0 -
8.0 -
6.0 -
4.0 -
2.0 -
n n
.
.
.
_
Data Point
Mean
95% Confidence Limit
Table D-6. Dimethyl Sulfide Data Statistics
Number of Data Points
Minimum (ppmv)
Maximum (ppmv)
Mean (ppmv)
Median (ppmv)
Standard Deviation (ppmv)
Standard Error (ppmv)
95% Confidence Interval (+/- ppmv)
99% Confidence Interval (+/- ppmv)
29
7.51E-03
1.47E+01
5.66E+00
5.64E+00
3.83E+00
7.11E-01
1.46E+00
1.96E+00
45
-------
Figure D-ll. Dimethyl Bisulfide Data Plot
0.5
Q_
Q.
0.4 -
ฃ 0.3 -
-------
Group E: Mercury Compounds Data and Statistics
47
-------
Figure E-19. Total Mercury and Elemental Mercury Data Statistics Plot
0.0012 n
c
o
c
CD
O
c
0.0010 -
0.0008 -
0.0006 -
O 0.0004 -
O
CD
O)
ง2
0.0002 -
0.0000 -
Mercury (total)
Mercury (elemental)
Outlier Data Point
Mean
48
-------
Figure E-2. Monomethyl Mercury and Dimethyl Mercury Data Statistics Plot
S.Oe-6
c
o
5.0e-6 -
4.0e-6 -
3.0e-6 -
c
CD
O
O 2.0e-6 -
O
CD
O)
CD
1 .Oe-6 -
0.0
T
Mercury (monomethyl) Mercury (dimethyl)
Outlier Data Point
Mean
49
-------
Figure E-3. Total Mercury Data Plot
0.0012
1
Q.
Q.
0.0010 -
0.0008 -
-------
Figure E-4. Elemental Mercury Data Plot
0.0005
> 0.0004
E
Q.
Q.
B 0.0003
CD
O
Q 0.0002
CD
O)
0)
< 0.0001
0.0000
Data Point
Mean
95% Confidence Limit
Table E-2. Elemental Mercury Data Statistics
Number of Data Points
Minimum (ppmv)
Maximum (ppmv)
Mean (ppmv)
Median (ppmv)
Standard Deviation (ppmv)
Standard Error (ppmv)
95% Confidence Interval (+/- ppmv)
99% Confidence Interval (+/- ppmv)
7
5.64E-06
3.92E-04
7.70E-05
3.33E-05
1.40E-04
5.29E-05
1.29E-04
1.96E-04
51
-------
Figure E-5. Monomethyl Mercury Data Plot
1.6e-6
1.4e-6 -
I. 1.2e-6 H
o 1.0e-6H
"iป
2
m 8.0e-7 -
o
O 6.0e-7 -
CD
O)
o5 4.0e-7 -
2.0e-7 -
0.0
Data Point
Mean
95% Confidence Limit
Table E-3. Monomethyl Mercury Data Statistics
Number of Data Points
Minimum (ppmv)
Maximum (ppmv)
Mean (ppmv)
Median (ppmv)
Standard Deviation (ppmv)
Standard Error (ppmv)
95% Confidence Interval (+/- ppmv)
99% Confidence Interval (+/- ppmv)
8
1.96E-08
1.42E-06
3.84E-07
2.10E-07
4.63E-07
1.64E-07
3.87E-07
5.72E-07
52
-------
Figure E-6. Dimethyl Mercury Data Plot
6.0e-6
1
Q.
o
"Iป
2
^ป
I
o
O
CD
5.0e-6 -
4.0e-6 -
3.0e-6 -
2.0e-6 -
1.0e-6-
0.0
Data Point
Mean
95% Confidence Limit
Table E-4. Dimethyl Mercury Data Statistics
Number of Data Points
Minimum (ppmv)
Maximum (ppmv)
Mean (ppmv)
Median (ppmv)
Standard Deviation (ppmv)
Standard Error (ppmv)
95% Confidence Interval (+/- ppmv)
99% Confidence Interval (+/- ppmv)
16
2.29E-07
5.48E-06
2.53E-06
2.50E-06
1.67E-06
4.17E-07
8.90E-07
1.23E-06
53
-------
Appendix F: BOILERS
Background Data for Control Efficiencies from 1998 AP-42 Update
BID I AP-42 i Date
Ref. I Ref.# I mo/yr
56 i 39 | 6/91
j j
I I
f f
I I
| |
j j
I I
_ pgj~~f
LZZl
j I
j j
i i
f f
LZZl
j I
102 j 68 J11/95
I I
t [
LZll
| I
j j
I I
f f
_J02f_68lfl2ซ2__
| 1
j j
1 1
f f
LZll
j 1
j j
i i
Landfill Name
Coyote Canyon
Puente Hills
Puente Hills
Palos Verdes
Control/
Utilization
Boiler
Boiler #400
Boiler #300
Boiler #1
Compound [ Molecular
I Weight
TGNMO (as hexane) | 86
Benzene | 78.12
lj2J3ic]llCฃ0])ejlz^TO_!_J8.96____
_______ , vifisz
Joluene ZZL^J>ejiz^njLZZL_^Lง?L^_
I Average
Benzene | 78.12
Joluene |___JI2J3___
Xyienes [ IDoTi
i_Ayerac[e___
l^erchioroethyiene | 16583
Methylene Chloride j 84.94
J3ic]ilcfo])ejiz^ne___|__J8.96____
I Average
JGNM^asJiexane[Zf_JL___
Benzene j 78-12
Toluene | 92.13
Xyienes L_JOง1ง__
[ Average
ฃercNoroettiyJej^lZf_ซ>5Ji3__
Iviethyienlchioride | 8494
Dichlorobenzene | 98.96
I Average
Flow Rate Cone. In
(dscfm) I (ppm)
9950 | 1150.00
9950 j 1.73
9950 j 0.10
9950 J 8.55
_9950_J 62.50
9950 | 32.02
j
10870 j~46cT~
_Jl587plZlj33.go_
^^ pf^oT"
j
r_1087p! 1.70
10870 5.40
_JI0870_J 0.50
|
10895 j 3.30
^JI089J5i_16.gO_
10895 MztxT
n
__ | ;j-^
10895 j 1.60
r_NDi ND
_J3557_J 1200.00
3557 | 11.00
3557 j 24.00
r_J355j|_2JJXL
,
_j35J57ZZLjU2_
__ | ^~~
3557 j 1.30
|
Cone. Out
(ppm)
3.8300
0.0459
0.0011
0.0179
0.1220
0.0205
0.0015
0.0037
0.0018
0.0001
0.0003
0.0001
0.0008
0.0026
0.0006
0.0005
0.0016
ND
2.6800
0.0002
0.0005
0.0001
0.0001
0.0001
0.0001
Flow Rate j Rate I Rate
(dscfm) I (Ibs/hr) | (Ibs/hr)
122657 | 155.77591 | 6.39544
122657 j 0.21287 j 0.06962
_J22652lj).01KpljJ.00214_
^^ jZ2W2TTa0576T
_J22K7_|j.06JMfo.21824_
122SS7 |5354lo|a04226~
j j
1 1
69770 jO6Ta34^TlwjCl129~
__J977p_J_5]23149_JjWJ0376_
69770 \^105A2\OM2lT
j j
__J97ro_|jJ;4^KJ9|jJ.00018_
69770 |a789l5Tlwj0028"
__J977jJ_l_aOM14jjWJpJJ11_
| |
64847 j 0.44462 j 0.00064
__J4^4J_|j.5J.23lljJ.00246_
64847 J2Tl97lFTa00065~
LZZZ__[
64847 n^reTToljClOsT
64847 j 0.23439 j 0.00140
__J^Jp_i_JJD_i_ND_
t
__J[ซ15_lj82l0914jjJ.53323_
14615 rijTslsFlaooooT
14615 j 1.24502 j 0.00011
__l4ฑL5S_125529|jJ.OOg02_
j
__J4615_jL_a037M_fo.Og004_
14615 roSj957|ol)0002"
14615 j 0.07244 j 0.00002
i i
>
<
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
>
=
>
=
=
>
>
=
=
=
>
=
>
>
>
Control | EF Comments
Efficiency I Rating I
95.89% C JLacking Backup Data
67.29% | C {data point excluded
_86.52%|_ฃ|
_____| _
_97.59%f_ฃ|
~9a21%| C 1
91.97% j j
_88.03%! j
___| _
_99J3%fj3l ZI
~9a93%| D I
99.88% j j
_99Jปl_JD|LjcJ9a95
_99.9r)4_fl ZI
~9SL81%| D 1
99.40% j D j
__J^_|JJD|
""gi^TT
_99JJ8%f_JDlL^d99. 98
_99J39j>iL_J3|LjcJ9a59
99.97% | D JLacking Backup Data; CE is >99. 94
99.89% i i
Appendix F 072808v2.xls
Pagel
-------
Appendix F: BOILERS
Background Data for Control Efficiencies from 1998 AP-42 Update
BID
Ref.
102
102
102
102
102
102
102
102
AP-42
Ref.#
68
68
68
68
68
68
68
68
Date Landfill Name Control/
mo/yr Utilization
12/94 PalosVerdes Boiler #1
Boiler Average
11/93 PalosVerdes Boiler #2
12/95 PalosVerdes Boiler #2
8/91 Spadra Boiler
^^JJ/gg^JSgadra Boiler
9/93 Spadra Boiler
12/94 Spadra Boiler
_J2/9!^_J3[)adra Boi\eT
Overall Boiler Average NMOC CE
Stdev
95% Conf
Overall Boiler Halo CE
Overall Boiler Non-Halo CE
Compound
TGNMO (as hexane)
JXSNMOJasJiexaneJ^
TGNMO (as hexane)
Benzene
Toluene
Xylenes
Perchloroethylene
jy[ettTy|ene_Chloricle__
Dichlorobenzene
Benzene
Toluene
^(ylenes
.Pj3rchlฃroethylene___
Methylene Chloride
Dichlorobenzene
TNMHC (as hexane)
J]\lMHC_[asJiexaneX_
TNMHC (as hexane)
TNMHC (as hexane)
TMWHC^asJiexaneJL^
Molecular Flow Rate
Weight (dscfm)
86 3296
86 3504
86 3404
78.12 3404
92.13 3404
106.16 3404
__Ayerac[e___^
165.83 3404
84.94 3404
98.96 3404
Average
78.12 3137
92.13 3137
106.16 3137
Average
165.83 3137
84.94 3137
98.96 ND
__Average___^
86 3240
86 3137
86 3752
86 3926
86 3953
Cone. In
(ppm)
827.00
499.00
833.00
11.00
28.00
22.00
0.17
0.11
0.31
4.00
32.00
20.90
4.00
22.00
ND
698.00
1320.00
527.00
603.00
833.00
Cone. Out
(ppm)
0.3330
1.3400
0.9680
0.0028
0.0100
0.0021
0.0005
0.0005
0.0001
0.0060
0.0011
0.0002
0.0001
0.0001
ND
0.7950
1.9300
0.3330
0.3330
9.5000
Flow Rate I Rate I Rate >
(dscfm) I (Ibs/hr) | (Ibs/hr) <
13578 | 37.10839 | 0.06155 >
j j
_^284J_l23i8jJ3J7|jJ.23J36^_^_
___ p^^^p^^, _
_^27M_|jJ;ซ3b5fjWJpJJ4^__>__
__ p^^^i^^ _
12774 j 1.25850 j 0.00045 >
| I
^^j joHiiFTcujooiT" =
__J[277J_J^JJ.Opio3fjWJpJป9__^_
^^j TwrieirTo^oooo-? :
j j
1 I
j
t__zij
_____ jlHsirrTaooioo =
13430 j 1.46402 j 0.00022
__J[M3jJ_|jM01ซj|jWJpJJp^__^_
j
__J^M3jJ_ljJJ3294ofjWJpJป4__^_
ij^j |O92796|(WJ0002 =
ND j ND j ND
1 1
_____ p^^^p^^, _
__J[MM)_lja37i57joj3K82__^_
_____ p^-^^^.^ _
19720 j 32.22901 j 0.08940 >
__jmST_^^ฑ&2S19\2.24^0^_^_
izzzjizzztzzizz:
1 |
i i
i i
Control | EF Comments
Efficiency I Rating I
99.83% i D JLacking Backup Data; CE is >99. 83
99.46% j
_99JJ2%|_JD|L^d9a69
_98.29J>4f_J3lLjcJ99:78
99.02% j j
_99.29%| |
t
[____) ^Z
~9a36%| D 1
99.99% j D j
-_jmPJ5OTli^L_4k5SW2Sj^
"~9978%~~f
_9a99J>iLfj3lLjcJ9a67
99.72% I D JLacking Backup Data; CE is >99. 72
94.99% LRiLacking^ackuฃj3ata
98.64%
~9aOO%| I
1.87% j
2.11% |
98.40% [
97.92% f I
Appendix F 072808v2.xls
Page 2
-------
Appendix F: GAS TURBINES
Background Data for Control Efficiencies from 1998 AP-42 Update
_J3ID_j AP-42
Ref. f~Ref*~~
102 j 68
102~ 1 68
"ib"2""i""68""
102
68
102 68
_J02_J 68
[ZUZZ
j
_____
"""68"""'
__JLPJ?_J 68
|
]
102
_____
102
68
"""68""""
68
_J02_J 68
_!5-LjZj58lZ
102
102
68
68
__ j _
102
68
__Date_J Landfill Name
mo/yr i
5/go JPuente Hills
9/93 JPuente Hills
" "7/g"6" " iPuenteHills
n/gi
Puente Hills
9/93 Puente Hills
HTj/SJlIj Puente Hills
Control/ I C^m2c^id__ljyic^e^.jlarlJ^lOT^^ Cone. Out jj^lowj:tetej_j
<
=
=
......
=
=
=
=
>
.............
>
=
>
=
......I......
=
>
=
=
=
=
............
___Co_ntnD[_]__JEF___J Comments
^fficiencylRatirTg
8DIV/0!
8DIV/0!
gg.07%
g7.48%
gs.28%
"96.88"%""
ge.56%
D j
D 1
-6--|
D
g7.55% D
_^__ p_^__j
_^ZJH?LJZIZZlLZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZIZI
97.81%
gs.35%
D
Lacking Backup Data
gg.8g% | D ]Lacking Backup Data; CE is >gg. 82
99^2% f |
99.97% | D
gg.22%
Lacking Backup Data; CE is >99.93
gg.g7% D L^d99.89
gg.g5% | D ]Lacking Backup Data; CE is >gg.gi
99^95% I
g5.57% I D
gg.03%
D
gg.55% | D
_g475%_ฃ^^
ge.77%
gs.86%
g7.26%
go.og%
D
D
D
92.93% [ D
91.51%
TGNMO were ND in exhaust (99.32
All Ref. 102 Tests are lacking backup data; summary
Appendix F 072808v2.xls
PageS
-------
Appendix F: GAS TURBINES
Background Data for Control Efficiencies from 1998 AP-42 Update
_J3ID_j AP-42
Ref. f~Ref*~~
102
68
102 j 68
102" 1 68
1
102
68
J
[ZUZZ
102
68
I
^^^]
I
j
NOTES:
__Date_J Landfill Name
mo/yr i
12/90 Puente Hills
Contra]/ [ Q5IHE5y!}^
Utilization i
Gas Turbine (#1)
Gas Turbine (#1)
Toluene
Toluene
8/91 JPuente Hills jGas Turbine (#1) JToluene
10/92 JPuente Hills JGas Turbine (#i] Ifoiuene
i [Gas Turbine (#2) [Toluene
11/91 Puente Hills
GasTurbineJ^)^
Vinyl Chloride
Molecular
Weight
92.13
92.13
92.13
92.13
""92.13""
62.5
Flow Rate Cone. In
(scfm) (ppm)
1852 29.00
1751 43.00
Cone. Out jj^lowj:tete__j1.0%).
i
Rate
(Ibs/hr)
0.03432
0.00092
0.00084
0.00125
b.boosb
0.00011
0.00868
0.00025
0.00045
>
<
=
=
=
=
......
=
=
=
=
Control
Efficiency
95.62%
99.92%
99.89%
99.83%
98.81%
"99".6"6"%"
99.12%
EF
Rating
D
D
Comments
D j
D 1
-D-|
D
] J
-^^d^^JZI^lJlZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZII
99.97%
99.19%
D
Effis>99.97
99.93% i D |
~^9a56%[ j
"""99.77"% [
98.76%
99.34%
^J|)878%rn J
ZlElงKZtZZZLZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZI
98.77%
94.39%
4.07%
5.64%
____\__^
~~-~~-~-~~Y-~-~~-^^
Appendix F 072808v2.xls
Page 4
-------
Appendix F: FLARES
Background Data for Control Efficiencies from 1998 AP-42 Update
BID
Ref.
102
102
102 H
102
"102"
102
102
102
102
102
102
102
102
102
__
102
102
102
102
102
102
102
___,
102
__
102
102
102
102
102
102
102
102
102
__
102
102
102
102
102
102
102
___,
102
__
102
102
102
102
102
102
102
102
102
__
102
102
102
102
102
102
102
Date
mo/yr
NMOC
3/92
2/91
10/91
5/96
"12/94"
9/90
11/93
9/90
8/92
9/94
5/96
7/90
7/93
5/96
______
6/95
8/92
6/95
7/90
7/93
6/95
8/92
6/95
7/93
_____
11/91
9/94
11/91
11/94
9/94
11/91
7/93
5/96
1/94
_____
2/92
5/95
2/92
5/95
8/90
1/94
10/91
3/93
4/96
_____
3/95
3/93
2/91
2/92
3/95
3/90
2/92
3/95
3/90
______
3/90
2/94
3/96
2/91
7/95
3/96
3/96
Landfill ID
A
A
A
A
""A
A
A
A
B
B
B
B
B
B
_
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
_
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
C
o-
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
....
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
....
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
Device ID
Flare (#1)
Flare (#3)
Flare (#4)
Flare (#4)
Flare (#5)
Flare (#5)
Flare (#6)
Flare (#6)
Flare (#1)
Flare (#1)
Flare (#1)
Flare (#2)
Flare (#2)
Flare (#2)
_____
Flare (#3)
Flare (#4)
Flare (#4)
Flare (#5)
Flare (#5)
Flare (#5)
Flare (#6)
Flare (#6)
Flare (#7)
________
Flare (#9)
Flare (#9)
Flare (#10)
Flare (#10)
Flare (#11)
Flare (#12)
Flare (#12)
Flare (#12)
Flare (#1)
________
Flare (#2)
Flare (#2)
Flare (#3)
Flare (#3)
Flare (#5)
Flare (#5)
Flare (#6)
Flare (#6)
Flare (#6)
_______
Flare (#1)
Flare (#2)
Flare (#3)
Flare (#3)
Flare (#3)
Flare (#4)
Flare (#4)
Flare (#4)
Flare (#5)
_____
Flare (#6)
Flare (#6)
Flare (#6)
Flare (#7)
Flare (#7)
Flare (#8)
Flare (#9)
Compound
> Average
< D.E. (%)
99.40
> 99.97
97.27
> 99.92
> ""99!80
> 99.90
97.37
= 99.78
99.48
99.66
99.80
99.67
98.3(f
> 99.80
"=" ""9873
> 99.63
99.23
> 99.64
99.56
97.80
99.67
99.41
> 99.66
97.30
> ""9970
98.29
> 98.84
> 98.98
99.47
99.40
98.20
96.90
> 99.7(f
98.90
"=" ""99!i5
99.20
> 99.80
99.60
> 99.80
> 99.79
98.99
99.21
99.06
99.50
"=" ""99!20
> 99.70
97.10
99.42
99.50
> 99.70
> 99.99
99.50
99.501
99.20
"=" ""99!iO
> 99.70
98.80
= 99.78
> : 99.93
= 99.54
99.84
99.84
__J=lsrre__l_Site__
Averagel%}Averagel%)
99.40 99.28
99.97
98.60
99.85
98.58
99.65 99.09
__99.26]
gg^gj
99.44
^ZZZM-SltZZZZZI
__99.54j
[
98.501
98.57
__j
99.40
98.27
98.90 99.33
IZIJEZ2LIZZZI
99.39
__99.26j
[
99~45~ 9931
97.10
99^54]
99.66
99.15"!
99.43
^ZZZM-ZltZZZZZI
99.84J
99.84|
Comments
Appendix F 072808v2.xls
Page 5
-------
Appendix F: FLARES
Background Data for Control Efficiencies from 1998 AP-42 Update
BID
Ref.
102
102
102
102 H
102
"102"
102
102
102
102
102
102
102
102
102
__
102
102
102
102
102
102
102
__,
102
__
102
102
102
102
102
102
102
102
102
__
102
102
102
102
102
102
102
__,
102
__
102
102
102
102
102
Date
mo/yr
10/90
2/93
8/95
10/90
5/94
" 10/90"
2/93
8/95
5/91
5/94
12/91
2/93
3/95
5/91
5/94
_____
3/95
6/90
5/94
6/90
12/93
3/95
6/90
5/92
2/96
_____
12/93
3/95
7/90
5/92
2/96
7/90
12/93
7/90
2/96
_____
12/93
5/91
5/92
12/91
11/92
8/95
5/91
5/92
12/91
______
12/91
11/92
10/90
10/92
8/95
Landfill ID
E
E
E
E
E
""E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
_
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
_
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
_
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
_
E
E
E
E
E
Device ID
Flare (#2)
Flare (#2)
Flare (#2)
Flare (#3)
Flare (#3)
Flare (#4)
Flare (#4)
Flare (#4)
Flare (#5)
Flare (#5)
Flare (#6)
Flare (#6)
Flare (#6)
Flare (#7)
Flare (#7)
_____
Flare (#8)
Flare (#9)
Flare (#9)
Flare (#10)
Flare (#10)
Flare (#10)
Flare (#11)
Flare (#11)
Flare (#11)
______
Flare (#12)
Flare (#12)
Flare (#13)
Flare (#13)
Flare (#13)
Flare (#14)
Flare (#14)
Flare (#15)
Flare (#15)
______
Flare (#16)
Flare (#17)
Flare (#17)
Flare (#18)
Flare (#18)
Flare (#18)
Flare (#19)
Flare (#19)
Flare (#20)
_______
Flare (#22)
Flare (#22)
Flare (#24)
Flare (#24)
Flare (#24)
Compound
j>_j^y^r^g^^_J^lare_|__Site___
< D.E. (%) (A\reragel%}Averagel%)
> 99.66J 97.44 98.50
98.56
94.101
> 99.75] 99.33
98.90
> ""99!69j 96.69
96.57
93.80
3HZH-21J 9f^n\
_ฑ_^?AMZZZZZIEZZZZZI
99.21 99.10
98.50
99.59]
99.36] 98753]
97.70 |
"=" " " 97. i 8 98"34i
> 99.50
> 99.60 98.80
lEZZMMiZZZZZJlZZZZZI
j^__jjงj5j5|IZZj)ง;!zIZZZZZZI
98.90
99.56
> 99-71|_99.4d
99.21] [
99.46 1
> 99!65 99.50 1
99.20
> 99.65
J>ZIj9![Zll 99A3\
_ฑ____?S^[ZZZZZIEZZZZZI
> 99.64
97.33 98.39
99.44]
= 98.241 98793J
> 99.62 |
99.02
97.80 98.25
I^ZZ^lMZZZZIjIZZZZI
_^__9^.27n^j73lLZZZZZI
99.32
92.80
99.21l__99.od
98.79] [
98.98 99.15!
> 99!32 |
99.08 98.54
97.99
J>[]^l9]68] 95^94]
_ฑ__?AMZZZZZIEZZZZZI
90.00
Comments
Appendix F 072808v2.xls
Page 6
-------
Appendix F: FLARES
Background Data for Control Efficiencies from 1998 AP-42 Update
BID
Ref.
104
105
106
107 H
108
"109"
55
59
Date
mo/yr
12/94
10/93
4/96
10/96
11/93
""3/94"
8/90
8/90
J50J 5/9CT"
62
4/92
^J
Landfill ID
F
G
H
I
J
"""k
N
O
P
Q
^___JhTdjyidua[^pec|e^
102
12/94
I
....
102
7/93
1
I
102
2/92
|
^jimm
I
102
2/92
HZj
__J
A
B
C
D
Device ID
Flare
Flare
Flare
Flare
Flare
Flare
Flare
Flare
Flare
Flare
Flare (#5)
Flare (#2)
Flare (#3)
Flare (#4)
Compound
Benzene
Toluene
^Xylenes
Average
Perchloroethylene
Methyiene Chloride
Dichlorobenzene
Average
Benzene
Toluene
Xylenes
Average
Perchloroethylene
Methylene Chloride
Dichlorobenzene
Average
Benzene
Toluene
Xylenes
Average
Perchloroethylene
Methylene Chloride
Dichlorobenzene
Average
Benzene
Toluene
Xylenes
Average
Perchloroethylene
Methylene Chloride
Dichlorobenzene
Average
J>_j^y^rjagj9j^ C^rnrnents
< D.E. (%)(Averagel%}Averagel%)l
99.00J 99.00 99.00
> 99.98 99.98 99.98
99.80] 99.80 99.80
> 99.13] 99.13 99.13
EF rating downgraded primarily due to NOx
> 98.46 98.46 98.46
">" ""9"970| 99.70 99.70
> 84.50
> 97.70
3ZZH-19J I
_^_^ง2^lZZZZZIEZZZZZI
Average 99.23
Stdev 0.48
95% Conf 0.29
> 99.98
> 99.98J |
> 9998s i
> 99.00] i
N/A f
> 99.39
lEZZMMiZZZZltZZZZI
_L__jfflj38JZIIIIlLlIIIIZ
> 99.94
99.96]
> 99.98]
> 99.04
> 99.90
> 99.90
J>[]^l9]9o] j
imzzzziizzzziz
> 99.90
> 99.90
N/A]
J f
> 99.51 [
"> 99798 |
> 99.98
ZEZIMlIiZZZZZiZZZZZI
-ฑ_^ง^|ZZZZZZLlZZZZZ
> 99.22
Lacking Backup Data.
Lacking Backup Data
Lacking Backup Data
not detected at iniet.
Lacking Backup Data.
Lacking Backup Data.
Lacking Backup Data.
Lacking Backup Data.
Lacking Backup Data
Lacking Backup Data
Lacking Backup Data
Lacking Backup Data.
Lacking Backup Data.
Lacking Backup Data.
nlet and outlet concentrations were not detected.
Lacking Backup Data.
Lacking Backup Data.
Lacking Backup Data.
Lacking Backup Data.
Lacking Backup Data.
Appendix F 072808v2.xls
Page 7
-------
Appendix F: FLARES
Background Data for Control Efficiencies from 1998 AP-42 Update
JJIDJ Date
Ref. i mo7yT~
5/90
1
1
__J
_(3&47l992
P 4/1 992
'~~~[~~"~~_~~"~
8/90
HZj
^^JZZZZZ
'^^~^j~
8/90
IIZIj~~~~~~~
-^^JZIZZZ
'"^l^~^"^~"
Landfill ID
E
L
M
N
O
Device ID
Flare (#9)
Flare
Flare
Flare
Flare
Compound
Benzene
Toluene
Xylenes
Average
Perchloroethylene
Methyiene Chloride
Dichlorobenzene
Average
Benzene
Toluene
Xylenes
Average
Perchloroethylene
Methylene Chloride
Dichlorobenzene
Average
Benzene
Toluene
Xylenes
Average
Perchloroethylene
Methylene Chloride
Dichlorobenzene
Average
Benzene
Toluene
Xylenes
Average
Perchloroethylene
Methylene Chloride
Dichlorobenzene
Average
Benzene
Toluene
Xylenes
Average
Perchloroethylene
Methylene Chloride
Dichlorobenzene
Average
JJLJ^^ajjjeJ^^
< D.E. (%) |Avera^eT%fA^/el^igel^
99.57J |
99.86
> 99.88]
1
99.89
> 99"96i
> 99.23
~~~~<~~^^
__^__J38J?0{^^
n/a
n/a
not calcu ?^d_________|__^^
> 94 4QT h
91.80 [
n/a 1
> 93.10
lEZIIIlct^
__J^_^^
n/a
85.90
> 98.4p|___l^^
> 9 6 jQt ~ h ~
n/a f
> '" Q4A5 [
> 98.72
j^__^9^^
_>__Jl9.89ฃ^^^
99.52
> 98.17
n/a !____!______
n/a ~-|-~~~~-^^
> 98.17 f
> 83.40
99.80
IEIZ11Z2LZZZZ1ZZZZZ
_^__Q^2QT^
> 98.90
n/a
^^te^A^^^A^^
v^~^8^r^^^^^T^^^^~"
Comments
Lacking Backup Data.
Lacking Backup Data
Lacking Backup Data.
not used in emission factor development.
test results not used (-73% DE)
test results not used (-54% DE)
Appendix F 072808v2.xls
Page 8
-------
Appendix F: ENGINES
Background Data for Control Efficiencies from 1998 AP-42 Update
BID
Ref.
98
99
100
101
Date
mo/yr
12/90
4/91
2/88
3/88
Device ID
1C Engine
1C Engine
1C Engine
1C Engine
Compound
Methane
Ethane
Propane
Butane
Pentane
NMOC
NMOC
NMOC
Trichloroethylene
Perchloroethylene
Methane
Benzene
Toluene
Xylene
Trichloroethylene
1,1,1 -Trichloroethylene
Perchloroethylene
Methane
>
<
=
=
=
=
>
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
Avg. NMOC
Stdev
95% Conf
Avg. All (non-methane) Species
Avg. Halo Species
Avg. Non-Halo Species
Average CE
(%)
97.80
98.33
90.46
94.53
98.34
97.13
94.59
99.74
98.93
99.41
94.06
25.00
96.67
99.22
94.00
90.00
95.00
62.12
97.15
2.58
2.91
89.99
95.47
86.08
EF
Rating
B
B
B
B
B
B
C
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
Comments
data point excluded
Appendix F 072808v2.xls
Page 9
-------
APPENDIX F: DATA STATS
Background Data for Control Efficiencies from 1998 AP-42 Update
1998 AP-42 Update Data for Equipment NMOC Control Efficiency
Boiler
Flare
Engine
Avg of Boiler, Engine, Flare
Turbine
Number of
Data Points
3
11
3
2
Min (%)
95.9
98.5
94.6
91.5
Max (%)
99.5
100.0
99.7
97.3
Mean (%)
98.0
99.2
97.2
98.1
94.4
Standard
Deviation (%)
1.9
0.5
2.6
4.1
95% Confidence
Limit (%)
2.1
0.3
2.9
5.6
NMOC Control Efficiency - 95% Confidence Intervals in the Mean
102
100
51
98
_ 96
2
+J
ฐ 94
TO
I 92 H
90
199.2
98.0
98.1
97.2
94.4
Boiler
Flare
Engine
Avg of Boiler, Engine,
Flare
Turbine
Note: Error bars represent the 95% confidence interval in the mean.
Note: 95% confidence limit (mean) for turbines is 134.8%.
Appendix F 072808v2.xls
Page 10
-------
New Data from Current Update:
APPENDIX F: BOILER
Background Data for Control Efficiencies from 2008 AP-42 Update
Number of Data Points
Mean CE (%)
Minimum (%)
Maximum (%)
Standard Deviation (%)
95% Conf. Limit (%)
5
98.6
95.9
99.6
1.6
1.4
Test Report ID
TR-167
TR-220
Control
Boiler
Boiler
Compound
NMOC (as CH4)
NMOC (as CH4)
Total Inlet Flow
(scfm)
Control Efficiency
99.40%
99.64%
Appendix F 072808v2.xls
Page 11
-------
APPENDIX F: FLARE
Background Data for Control Efficiencies from 2008 AP-42 Update
Number of Data Points
Mean CE (%)
Minimum (%)
Maximum (%)
Standard Deviation (%)
95% Conf. Limit (%)
25
97.7
85.8
100.0
3.4
1.3
New Data from current update:
Test Report ID
TR-145
TR-145
TR-146
TR-146
TR-147
TR-148
TR-148
TR-153
TR-156
TR-157
TR-160
TR-165
TR-167
TR-168
Control
Flare
Flare
Flare
Flare
Flare
Flare
Flare
Flare
Flare
Flare
Flare
Flare
Flare
Flare
Compound
NMOC (as CH4)
VOC
NMOC (as CH4)
VOC
NMOC (as CH4)
NMOC(asC6H8)
VOC
NMOC (as C)
NMOC (as C)
NMOC (as C)
NMOC
NMOC (as CH4)
NMOC (as CH4)
NMOC(asC6H8)
Molecular Weight
86
86
86
86
12
12
12
Total Inlet Flow
(scfm)
1570
1978
1978
885
2467
2467
2090
780
2460
1388
5940
Inlet Concentration
(ppm)
2533.0
5533.3
5607
1786.3
261
4357
3253
3423
2529
4190
3990
Inlet Flow Rate
(Ib/hr)
54
14.86
149
27.75
22
9
8.65
17.4
4.9
15.78
64.7
14.7
60
27.2
Total Outlet Flow
(scfm)
21522
30380
30380
9770.4
24560
24560
30630
12750
29920
17233
43204
Outlet Concentration
(ppm)
19.5
13.4
13.4
23.0
0.54
<1.2
1.18
<1.0
<2.19
7.98
3.2
Outlet Flow Rate
(Ib/hr)
6
1.0
5.5
1.01
3.1
0.2
0.18
<0.072
0.059
<0.06
<0.056
0.33
0.35
0.28
Control Efficiency
89.4
93.3
96.3
96.4
85.8
97.9
97.9
99.6
98.8
99.6
99.9
97.8
99.4
99.0
Appendix F 072808v2.xls
Page 12
-------
APPENDIX F: ENGINE
Background Data for Control Efficiencies from 2008 AP-42 Update
Number of Data Points
Mean CE (%)
Minimum (%)
Maximum (%)
Standard Deviation (%)
95% Conf. Limit (%)
3 Only used old data points, since new data point below is a negative efficiency.
97.2
94.6
99.7
2.6
2.9
Test Report ID
TR-266
Control
Engine
Compound
NMOC (as hexane)
Total Inlet Flow
(scfm)
254.4
Inlet Concentration
(ppm)
150.7
Inlet Flow Rate
(Ib/hr)
0.51
Total Outlet Flow
(scfm)
1344.7
Outlet Concentration
(ppm)
38.1
Outlet Flow Rate
(Ib/hr)
0.69
Control Efficiency
-34%
Appendix F 072808v2.xls
Page 13
-------
APPENDIX F: COMBINED DATA
Background Data for Control Efficiencies from 1998 and 2008 AP-42 Update
Combined 1998 and 2008 AP-42 Data for Equipment NMOC Control Efficiency
Boiler
Flare
Engine
Avg of Boiler, Engine, Flare
Turbine
Number of
Data Points
5
25
3
2
Min (%)
95.9
85.8
94.6
91.5
Max (%)
99.6
100.0
99.7
97.3
Mean (%)
98.6
97.7
97.2
97.8
94.4
Standard
Deviation (%)
1.6
3.4
2.6
4.1
95% Confidence
Limit (%)
1.4
1.3
2.9
5.6
NMOC Control Efficiency - 95% Confidence Intervals in the Mean
102 n
100 1
o
98
96 H
o
o
TO
0)
94 -
92 -
90
98.6
97.7
97.8
< i 97.2
< i 94.4
Boiler
Flare
Engine
Avg of Boiler, Engine,
Flare
Turbine
Note: Error bars represent the 95% confidence interval in the mean.
Note: 95% confidence limit (mean) for turbines is 134.8%.
The mean CE % for boilers, engines, and flares all lie within the 95% confidence limits of each other.
Appendix F 072808v2.xls
Page 14
-------
Appendix G
Example LFG Combustion By-Product Emission Calculations
The following example calculations walk through the steps necessary to calculate
emission rates in kg/million cubic meters CFL from the data given in emission tests
(differences may occur from listed emission factors due to rounding).
Example 1: TR-266 - NOx for an engine.
Given: 2.42 Ib NOx/hr in exhaust, LFG feed rate of 254.4 dry standard cubic feet/minute
(dscfm), LFG methane content = 31.1%.
hr 2.2046/6 -
254AdscfLFG 60min CH, dscm
- - - x - x .3 11 - - x - = \34.4dscmCH. hr
min hr LFG 35.31 5dscf 4/
Next, convert from cubic feet and multiply out for a million cubic meters of methane:
kgNOx \34.4dscmCH. ksNOx
Uฐ~to* - hr -
WE6= 8'17ฐ mrllrondscmCH,
Example 2: Calculate the above emission factor in alternate units such as Ib/ megawatt-hr
(Ib/MWh) and grams per brake horsepower-hour (g/bhph):
First, express the emission factor in English units (Ib/million dscf CFL;):
510 Ib NOx/million dscf CH4.
Next, the heat content of CH4 and an engine heat rate are needed to calculate Ib/MWh.
For these calculations, a heat rate of 1 1,100 Btu/kWh is assumed, and the heat content of
CH4is 1,012 Btu/scf.
SlOlbNOx m7Btu/ y 1 1 innBtu/ y i nnnkWh/ _ z^lbNOx/
\QE6dscfCH, " ' /dscf*11'100 7kWh x l>ฐฐฐ /MWh'5'6 /MWh
To calculate a g/bhph factor, you must account for a shaft-to-electricity efficiency. This
analysis assumed 95%.
y ^ . y -
MWh x - Ib) " MW x ~ W)^ ' - ' /bhph
------- |