EPA-600/2-91-055
September 19'91
ANALYSIS OF FACTORS AFFECTING
METHANE GAS RECOVERY
FROM SIX LANDFILLS
By: •
Darcy Campbell, David Epperson, Lee Davis,
Rebecca Peer, and Walter Gray
Radian Corporation
Post Office Box 13000
Research Triangle Park, NC 27709
EPA Contract No. 68-D9-0054
Work Assignment No. 31
EPA Project Officer: Susan Thorneloe
Prepared for:
Air ry
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Research and Development
Washington, D.C. 20460
-------
Regional Center ior Environmental Informatioii
L'SEl'A Rc^inn HI
1650 Arch St.
Philadelphia, PA 19103
-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
(Please read Instructions on the reverse before compleii'
1. REPORT NO.
EPA-600/2-91-055
2.
3. '
PB 9'2-10t351
4. TITLE ANDSUBTITLE
Analysis of Factors Affecting Methane Gas Recovery
from Six Landfills
5. REPORT DATE
September 1991
6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION. CODE
7. AUTHOR(S)
Darcy Campbell, David Epperson, Lee Davis,
Rebecca Peer, and Walter Gray
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO
9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
Radian Corporation
P. O. Box 13000
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27709
11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.
68-D9-0054, Task 31
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
EPA, Office of Research and Development
Air and Energy Engineering Research Laboratory.
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
Task final; 7/90 - 7/91
14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
EPA/600/13
is.SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES AEERL pro;ject officer is Susan A> Thorneloe. MailDrop63, 9197
541-2709,
s. ABSTRACT-,pne repOrt gives results of a pilot study of six U. S. landfills that have me-
thane (CH4) gas recovery systems. (NOTE: The study was a first step in developing
a field testing program to gather data to identify key variables that affect CH4 gen-
eration and to develop an empjLrical model of CH4 generation based on those vari- /
ables. The field test program development, in turn, is part of EPA/AEERL's re-
search program aimed at improving global landfill CH4 emissions estimates.) To
evaluate the effects of climate on CH4 production and recovery, the six sites repre-
sented a variety of moisture and temperature patterns (i. e., hot and wet, cool and
wet, hot and dry). Landfill gas was tested at each landfill to evaluate the quality of
the gas recovery data, available at each. The testing included assessing the adequacy
of on-site instrumentation and scanning the landfill surfaces for organic vapors that
would indicate emissions of CH4. In addition, information on waste composition and
landfill characteristics was sought for each landfill. Except for flow measurements,
the test procedures selected were well suited to the types of gas recovery installa-
tions encountered at the landfills visited. Based on comparisons between EPA Ref-
erence Method 3C and instrument analyses of the landfill gas composition, all on-
site analysis instruments appeared to be operating with reasonable
7.
KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
DESCRIPTORS
b.lDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS
c. COSATI Field/Group
Pollution
Methane
Earth Fills
Mathematical Models
Wastes
Pollution Control
Stationary Sources
Global Emissions
13B
07 C
13C
12A
14G
8. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
Release to Public
19. SECURITY CLASS (ThisReport)
Unclassified
21.
20. SECURITY CLASS (This page)
Unclassified
rRefe
22. PRICE
^nlTT
EPA Form 2220-1 (9-73)
JcenterforEnvirSnrnenta
Philadelphia. PA
-------
NOTICE
This document has been reviewed in accordance with
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency policy and
approved for publication. Mention of trade names
or commercial products does not constitute endorse-
ment or recommendation for use.
U.S. EPA Region III
Regional Center for Environmental
Information
1650 Arch Street (3PM52)
Philadelphia, PA 18103
11
-------
ABSTRACT
In 1990, EPA's Air and Energy Engineering Research Laboratory (AEERL)
began a research program with the goal of improving global landfill methane
(CH4) emissions estimates. Part of AEERL's program includes developing a
field testing program to gather data to identify key variables that affect
methane generation and to develop an empirical model of methane generation
based on those variables.
The first step in developing the field testing program was a pilot study
of six U.S. landfills that have CH4 gas recovery systems. Landfill gas
testing was conducted at each of the six landfills to evaluate the quality of
the gas recovery data available at each site. The testing program included
assessing the adequacy of on-site instrumentation and scanning the landfill
surfaces for the presence of organic vapors that would indicate emissions of
CH4. In addition, information on waste composition and landfill
characteristics was sought for each landfill. In order to evaluate the
effects of climate on CH4 production and recovery, the sites were chosen to
represent a variety of moisture and temperature patterns (i.e., hot and wet,
cool and wet, hot and dry).
With the exception of flow measurements, the test procedures selected
for this project were well suited to the types of gas recovery installation
encountered at the landfills visited. Based on comparisons between the RM 3C
and instrument analyses of the landfill gas composition, all on-site analysis
instruments appeared to be operating within reasonable accuracy ranges.
Review of calibration procedures and records indicate that long-term
instrument accuracy should be comparable to the accuracies noted during
on-site testing. A negative correlation between refuse age and CH4 recovery
per ton was found; a weak positive correlation was found for normal annual
precipitation and CH4 recovery per ton. The results of this small study are
sufficiently encouraging to warrant further data gathering and analyses.
T.I i
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Page
ABSTRACT ii
1.0 INTRODUCTION 1-1
1.1 Background 1-1
1.2 Objectives 1-2
2.0 SITE SELECTION AND DESCRIPTION 2-1
2.1 Site Selection 2-1
2.2 Site Descriptions '. . . 2-1
Landfill 1 2-4
Landfill 2 2-4
Landfill 3 2-4
Landfill 4 2-5
Landfill 5 2-5
Landfill 6 2-5
3.0 LANDFILL GAS TEST PROCEDURES 3-1
3.1 General Test Procedures 3-1
3.1.1 Methane, Carbon Dioxide, Oxygen, and Nitrogen
Test Method 3-1
3.1.2 Nonmethane Organic Compounds Test Method . . . 3-1
3.1.3 Moisture Test Methods 3-1
3.1.4 Volumetric Gas Flow Rate Test Method 3-4
3.1.5 Landfill Surface Organic Vapor Testing .... 3-4
3.2 Site-Specific Test Procedures 3-4
3.2.1 Test Procedures at Landfills 1 Through 4 ... 3-4
3.2.2 Test Procedures at Landfill 5 3-6
3.2.3 Test Procedures at Landfill 6 3-7
4.0 TEST RESULTS 4-1
4.1 Methane and Carbon Dioxide 4-1
4.2 Nonmethane Organic Compounds 4-3
4.3 Landfill Gas Flow Rate 4-11
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
Section Page
5.0 STATISTICAL METHODS DEVELOPMENT 5-1
5.1 Description of Data 5-1
5.1.1 Landfill CH4 Data 5-1
5.1.2 Weather Data 5-3
5.2 Data Preparation 5-3
5.2.1 Landfill CH4 Data 5-3
5.2.2 Weather Data 5-5
5.3 Statistical Methods and Results 5-5
5.4 Discussion '. . . 5-7
6.0 CONCLUSIONS 6-1
7.0 REFERENCES 7-1
APPENDIX A: Landfill Survey Form ...... ... . ... ... A-l
APPENDIX Bl: Landfill Characteristics Bl-1
APPENDIX B2: Summary of Information Gathered B2-1
APPENDIX C: Test Procedures and Laboratory Analysis . . C-l
APPENDIX D: Quality Assurance Project Plan D-i
APPENDIX E: Field Data Sheets E-i
APPENDIX F: Results of Reference Method 25C -
Determination of Nonmethane Organic
Compounds (NMOC) in Landfill Gases F-l
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure Page
2-1
2-2
3-1
3-2
3-3
3-4
3-5
Precipitation Normals (30-year) for the Landfill Sites . .
Mean Temperature Normals for the Landfill Sites
Sampling System for Reference Methods 3C and 25C
Sampling System for Reference Method 4 .•
Landfills 1-4: Gas Recovery and Turbine Electrical
Generation Process Flow Diagram
Landfill 5: Gas Recovery Process Flow Diagram
Landfill 6: Gas Recovery and Internal Combustion Engine
Electrical Generation Process Flow Diagram
2-2
2-3
3-2
3-3
3-5
3-8
3-9
5-1 Annual CH4 Flow Rate Per Tons of Refuse Versus
Normal Precipitation 5-8
-------
LIST OF TABLES
Table Page
4-1 RM 3C Test Results 4-2
4-2 Relative Accuracy Results for Landfill 1 4-4
4-3 Relative Accuracy Results for Landfill 2 4-5
4-4 Relative Accuracy Results for Landfill 3 4-6
4-5 Relative Accuracy Results for Landfill 4 4-7
4-6 Relative Accuracy Results for Landfill 5 4-8
4-7 Relative Accuracy Results for Landfill 6 4-9
4-8 Nonmethane Organic Compounds Test Results 4-10
5-1 Summary Statistics for Each Landfill Calculated
from Daily CH4 and Weather Data 5-2
5-2 Correlation Coefficients of CH4 Recovery Variables
with Landfill Parameters and Summarized
Weather Data (n=6) 5-6
-------
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 BACKGROUND
In response to concerns about global warming, the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency's (EPA's) Office of Research and Development (ORD) has
initiated a program to characterize the causes and effects of global climate
change, and to identify and quantify emission sources of greenhouse gases. To
assist in this undertaking, EPA's Air and Energy Engineering Research
Laboratory (AEERL) has begun research to improve emissions inventories of
greenhouse gases in the United States and throughout the world.
One greenhouse gas of particular concern is methane (CH4). Methane's
radiative-forcing potential is thought to be much greater than that of carbon
dioxide (C02). Although the major sources of CH4 emissions are known, there
is considerable uncertainty about the quantitative emissions from each source.
However, as much as 15 percent of all CH4 generated annually is thought to
come from landfills (Thorneloe and Peer, 1990). One of AEERL's goals is to
develop a database that can be used to accurately estimate CH4 emissions from
landfills on a global basis.
In 1990, AEERL began a research program with the goal of improving global
landfill CH4 emissions estimates (Thorneloe and Peer, 1990). This work began
with a review of the currently available models and data (Peer et al., 1991).
It was determined that current methodologies could be improved using available
data or data from research currently underway. One important limitation of
global emissions methodologies is the lack of data sufficient to model the
effects of climate, refuse composition, and refuse age on methane generation
in landfills. Theoretical models and laboratory experiments have been used to
estimate the methane production in individual landfills, but methane recovery
systems in landfills are generally collecting less than predicted.
In order to determine the factors that affect CH4 generation in landfills
on a global basis, a model is needed that is responsive to a wide range of
climates and types of waste. Understanding the effects of climate on CH4
production is especially important to climate modelers who are studying
feedback effects of global climate change. Part of AEERL's program to create
a CH4 landfill emissions database, therefore, includes developing a field
testing program to gather data to:
(1) Identify key variables that affect methane generation; and
1-1
-------
(2) Develop an empirical model of methane generation based on those
variables.
From the literature review, several variables were identified as
potentially important. These include refuse moisture content, refuse
composition, refuse age, pH, and a variety of other variables related to
landfill characteristics and waste-handling practices. However, the global
scope of this database effort limits the number and type of variables that can
be considered.
Landfills with gas recovery systems offer unique opportunities for
studying methane production from landfills. The landfill gas is being
collected and measured by the gas recovery operators; if those data can be
verified to be reasonably accurate, and if sufficient data are available on
the landfill itself, the landfill gas measurements collected over several
years may be used to estimate total methane generation. If sufficient sites
are available to provide a representative sample of current U.S. landfills,
then an empirical model may be developed using data from these sites.
Eventually, this model can be expanded to model landfills globally. Gas
recovery systems are being.used widely in Europe, and are beginning to be more
common in other parts of the world. They represent an important source of
data for estimating global landfill CH4 emissions, and may be used to
calibrate the model.
1.2 OBJECTIVES
The first step in developing the field testing program was a pilot study
of six U.S. landfills that have GH4 gas recovery systems. The objectives of
the pilot study were to:
(1) Determine the types and quality of landfill data on CH4
recovery rates, gas composition, and refuse
characteristics available at landfills with gas recovery
systems;
(2) Use these data to determine trends in the effects of
climate, refuse age, and landfill characteristics on CH4
recovery; and
(3) Use the results of the emissions testing and data analysis
to assess the relationship between gas recovery and gas
generation, and assess the feasibility of expanding the
study to include other sites.
1-2
-------
To meet these objectives, a pilot study of six sites chosen to represent
a range of climates was undertaken. The general procedures and methodologies
planned were:
• Identify potential sites;
• Visit the landfills to collect data records from the facility;
• Independently measure landfill gas flow;
• Assess accuracy and adequacy of the data; and
• Develop statistical methods for analysis of the data.
Although the CH4 content of the landfill gas is of most importance at
this time, other constituents were also measured (carbon dioxide, oxygen,
nitrogen, and nonmethane organic compounds). Eventually, this inventory
development program may be extended to include other gases. The procedures
and results of the pilot study are described in this report.
1-3
-------
2.0 SITE SELECTION AND DESCRIPTION
2.1 SITE SELECTION
The pilot study included visits to six landfills in the United States to
gather data on CH4 recovery rates and factors thought to influence these
rates. The primary criterion in selecting a landfill for study was that it
have a gas recovery system in place. The recovery system needed to be well-
controlled (i.e., operating under good engineering practices to minimize leaks
and maximize CH4 recovery) so that the CH4 recovery data would be useful in
estimating total CH4 production at the site. In addition, well-maintained
records on routine monitoring for possible gas migration at the perimeter and-
surface of the landfill were needed.
In order to evaluate the effects of climate on CH4 production and
recovery, sites were sought in geographic regions representing a variety of
moisture and temperature patterns (i.e., hot and wet, cool and wet, hot and
dry). Initial recommendations provided by landfill gas recovery experts i-n
the United States were used to identify potential sites. Final site selection
was largely influenced by:
• Assurance that long-term gas production and refuse composition data
were available at the site;
• Suitability of the site for sample acquisition; and
• The landfill operator's willingness to cooperate in the study.
A Landfill Survey Form (Appendix A) was sent to the operators of the
selected sites prior to visiting the landfills .so that they could begin
gathering the records. Site visits took place between August 6 and August 24,
1990.
2.2 SITE DESCRIPTIONS
The following paragraphs briefly describe each of the landfills selected
for the pilot study. The monthly precipitation normals (30-year) for each
site are shown in Figure 2-1; the monthly mean temperature normals are shown
in Figure 2-2. (Climate data sources and statistical methodology are
described in Section 5.0.) More detailed descriptions of the sites are
presented in Appendix Bl.
2-1
-------
30 A
p—I—II I J 1 I—I
AUG SEP
JAN
DEC
Month
Figure 2-1. Precipitation normals (30-year) for the landfill sites
-------
30-
01
3
•rt
m
1-1
o>
o
m
01
u
c
o>
0)
TJ
0)
C
D
4J
m
c
01
a
o
-10-
JAN
FEB
OCT
NOV
DEC
Figure 2-2. Mean temperature normals for the landfill sites.
-------
' Landfill 1 is located in Wisconsin. The site is considered
representative of a cool, wet climate. The 35-hectare landfill was closed in
1989. Cap thickness is reported to be at least 1.5 meters.
Refuse was placed at this site beginning in the 1950s; hazardous waste
was also accepted (and placed in separate cells) until the early 1980s. An
estimated 9 to 11 million cubic meters, or 6.3 x 106 Mg, of refuse are in
place at the landfill. Gas recovery began on December 31, 1985. As of
July 1, 1990, 1.8 x 108 cubic meters of gas had been recovered (approximately
162,823 cubic meters per day). At the time of the study, 45 wells were in
place, and three Solar Centaur turbines were in place and operating full time.
Landfill 2 is located in Illinois and also represents a cool, wet
climate. Gas is being recovered from approximately 54 hectares: An older
closed section of the landfill encompasses 26 hectares, and a newer closed
section covers 28 hectares. The original owners were very inconsistent in cap
placement and thickness, and the surface of the older section varies from
0.15 to 2.4 meters. The cap thickness on the newer section of the site
averages 0.9 meters.
Refuse was first placed on the older section in 1968. Refuse acceptance
at the newer section began in November 1982. A Solar Centaur turbine was
installed in January 1989, and a Solar Saturn turbine was slated to go on-line
in the fall of 1990. Sixty-five wells were on-line at the time of the study.
Total combined gas recovery from both sections of the landfill is about
56,600 cubic meters per day.
Landfill 3 is located in Pennsylvania. Like Landfills 1 and 2, it
represents a cool, wet climate. Gas is recovered from a 51-hectare portion
that began accepting refuse in 1970 and was essentially closed in 1988,
although refuse is still being added in small amounts as settling occurs.
Hazardous wastes were accepted until 1981, and make up about 1 percent of
total refuse. An estimated 8.4 x 106 cubic meters .of refuse are currently in
place. The clay cap averages 0.6 meters in thickness.
Gas was originally vented to the atmosphere to prevent off-site
migration. A Solar Centaur turbine was installed in January 1988, and a
second one was added in June 1989. At the time of the pilot study, both
turbines were operating full time. There are a total of 31 wells on-site. An
estimated 1.2 x 105 cubic meters of gas are recovered daily.
2-4
-------
Landfill 4. located in Florida, represents a hot, wet climate. Gas is
recovered from a closed portion of the landfill that covers about 57 hectares.
Average refuse height in this portion is 56 meters above sea level including a
0.5-meter cap on the uppermost 16 hectares. (The landfill is shaped like a
pyramid.) Refuse acceptance began in 1971 and ceased in 1989. Portions of
the landfill accepted and continue to accept sludge from a nearby wastewater
treatment plant. Most (94 percent) of the compacted 13.8 x 106 Mg of refuse
estimated in place at the closed portion is thought to be CH4-producing.
Final cover on the closed areas of the landfill is 45.7 cm of topsoil,
45.7 cm of clay (rock tailings), and 45.7 cm of sand. The cover is very
permeable to rainfall and this permeability limits the amount of vacuum that
can be applied.
This landfill has 111 wells in place; five Solar turbines were started up
in 1989. Four turbines are currently in continuous operation at 95 percent
capacity. At the time the study was conducted, the maximum gas recovery rate
attained was 293,170 cubic meters per day, but recovery had leveled off to
about 156,000 cubic meters per day.
Landfill 5. located in southern California, was the only .site in a hot,
dry climate. Gas is being recovered in a closed portion covering 32 hectares.
Refuse acceptance began in 1952. The closed portion of the landfill has
approximately 11 x 106 Mg of refuse in place, of which approximately
8.7 x 106 Mg are decomposable. Reinjection of condensate to boost moisture in
the refuse was permitted until 1985. Since this practice ceased, however,
there has been no appreciable drop in either gas or condensate production.
At the time of the study, the closed portion of the landfill did not have
a final cover in place, although one was scheduled to be installed in the fall
of 1990. The area is currently covered with a permeable silty sand and is not
vegetated. Refuse moisture content is estimated to be 12 percent.
There are a total of 102 wells on site. Gas collection began in 1976,
originally using either an internal combustion engine'or flaring the gas.
Currently, a Solar skid is used for gas compression prior to flaring, and
condensate is treated in an oil/water separator.
Landfill 6 is located in north central California, another relatively hot
and dry climate. Gas is recovered from closed portions of the landfill. This
landfill was the only one visited where gas recovery and refuse composition
data could be gathered for three separate portions within the landfill.
Area 1 covers 27 hectares' and contains about 1.74 x 106 Mg of refuse; Area 2
2-5
-------
covers 10 hectares and contains 5.8 x 105 Mg of refuse; and Area 3 covers
3 hectares and contains 2.5 x 105 Mg of refuse.* The final covers on Areas 1
and 2 and part of Area 3 consist of a 1.2-meter clay cap and a 0.3-meter soil
cover, with vegetation established. Parts of Area 3 had not yet been seeded
with vegetation.
Information on refuse was gathered for the entire site. Refuse was
accepted at different times in different areas between 1975 and 1989. Average
moisture content of the refuse is reported to be 23 percent, with paper waste
comprising about 46 percent (wet weight) of the total waste.
Gas recovery began at this site in 1988. The current system consists of
three internal combustion engines and a backup flare. The flare burns
constantly (fueled with propane and a small stream of CH4) and on-site
personnel indicated that the amount of CH4 burned in the flare has been
steadily decreasing over time. Of the 68 wells located on site, 47 are in
Area 1, 17 in Area 2, and 4 in Area 3. The estimated landfill gas flow for
the entire site is 40,766 cubic meters per day, with 50 to 52 percent CH4.
This area does not include the 6.7 hectares and 11 wells brought on line in May
1990.
2-6
-------
3.0 LANDFILL GAS TEST PROCEDURES
Landfill gas testing was conducted at each of the six landfills in the
pilot study in order to evaluate the quality of the gas recovery data
available at each site. The testing program included assessing the adequacy
of on-site instrumentation and scanning the landfill surfaces for the presence
of organic vapors that would indicate emissions of CH4.
This section of the report identifies the methods used in the testing
program and describes the site-specific testing procedures used at each of the
landfills visited. A more detailed description of the test methods, site-
specific procedures, and laboratory analyses are given in Appendix C. The
program's quality assurance procedures are presented in Appendix D.
3.1 GENERAL TEST PROCEDURES
3.1.1 Methane, Carbon Dioxide, Oxygen, and Nitrogen Test Method
The EPA Reference Method (RM) 3C (U.S. EPA, 1991a) was used to determine
the composition of the landfill production gas. This method was developed and
proposed for use at municipal landfills for determining CH4, C02, nitrogen
(N2), and oxygen (02) levels. Figure 3-1 shows a diagram of the RM 3C
sampling system.
3.1.2 Nonmethane Organic Compounds Test Method
Nonmethane organic compounds (NMOC) in the landfill gas were determined
using EPA RM 25C (U.S. EPA, 1991b). Samples were taken using the same
procedures as for RM 3C (figure 3-1). After a 5-minute leak check procedure,
starting vacuum pressures were recorded and samples were extracted into
evacuated stainless steel canisters. Canisters were shipped off-site for GC
analysis.
3.1.3 Moisture Test Methods
Moisture content of the landfill gas was determined using EPA RM 4
(U.S. EPA, 1989a). This method uses a chilled impinger train to condense and
trap water from the landfill gas. The water is then weighed and related to
the volume of gas sampled. Figure 3-2 shows a diagram of the RM 4 sampling
system.
3-1
-------
LandflU
Gaa
Line
Vacuum Gauge
JJY
Sample Line
L
raoto
3-Way Valve
Canister Valve
Figure 3-1. Sampling System for Reference Methods 3C and 25C
-------
Arf
<*>
LandfUl
Gas
Une
Sample
Port
Sample
Port
JAT
Sample Una
Ice
Portable
Meter Box
Figure 3-2. Sampling System for Reference Method 4
-------
3.1.4 Volumetric Gas Flow Rate Test Method
Initially, the volumetric flow rates of the landfill gas production were
to be measured using EPA RM 2 (U.S. EPA, 1989b). This method requires that a
pitot tube with a diameter of about 0.5 to 1.0 cm be inserted into the gas
transport pipe. At the landfills visited, however, there were no sample ports
on the gas transport pipes large enough to insert a pitot tube. Therefore,
field measurement for gas flow rate was not possible. In lieu of this test,
copies of recent calibration records of on-site flow measurement instruments
were obtained for three of the six landfills.
3.1.5 Landfill Surface Organic Vapor Testing
Tests for the presence of organic vapors near the landfill surface were
conducted using an organic vapor analyzer (OVA). An OVA basically consists of
a sample probe, a vacuum pump to draw the sample through the analyzer, a flame
ionization detector, and a display that indicates the concentration in, parts
per million (ppm) of organic vapors.
Prior to surface testing at each site, the OVA was calibrated using three
calibration standards, with air containing (1) 0 ppm organic vapor;
(2) 100 ppm CH4; and (3) 500 ppm CH4. Field tests were conducted by sampling
at various points in the landfill at a distance of about 10 cm above the
surface. Areas of vegetative stress were sampled, as well as any cracks or
fissures in the landfill surface. As each point was tested, its location, a
brief description of the surface characteristics, and the organic vapor
concentration measured were recorded in the project notebook.
3.2 SITE-SPECIFIC TEST PROCEDURES
3.2.1 Test Procedures at Landfills 1 through 4
Landfills 1, 2, 3, and 4 have very similar landfill gas recovery and
electrical generation equipment. Figure 3-3 shows a schematic diagram of the
gas recovery and electric generation process.
At Landfills 1 through 4, RM 3C (CH4, C02, N?, and 02) samples were taken
from a sample port on the landfill gas line that feeds the gas turbine. This
port corresponds to sample port A on Figure 3-3. At this point, the landfill
gas has been processed to remove condensate and particulate. The sample port
is also on the same line from which samples are withdrawn by the on-site
automatic gas analyzer.
Landfills 1 through 4 all have an automatic GC analyzer that periodically
samples and analyzes the composition of the gas entering the turbines. The
3-4
-------
Gas Wells
Main Landfill Gas Header
Coalescing Gas Filler/
Knockout
Sample Port A
To Utility Substation
Figure 3-3. Landfills 1-4: Gas Recovery and Turbine Electrical Generation
Process Flow Diagram
-------
analyzer determines the percentage of CH4, C02, 02, and N2 in the gas. Sample
frequency is computer controlled, and samples are taken every 3 minutes.
Six RM 3C samples were taken at each of the landfills. Each sample was
extracted over a period of 10 to 20 minutes, and total sampling time for all
six samples was 1.5 to 2 hours. After RM 3C field testing was complete, gas
composition data printouts generated by the automatic analyzer during field
testing were obtained from the gas plant operator. These gas composition data
would be compared to the composition determined from laboratory analysis of
the field samples.
Reference Method 25C (NMOC) samples from Landfills 1 through 4 were taken
from the main gas header as far upstream from gas conditioning equipment as
possible. The sampling point for RM 25C corresponds to sample port B on
Figure 3-3. It should be noted, however, that at Landfill 1, the first sample
port on the main leader was located downstream from a condensate collection
tank, and no sample could be taken further upstream. For Landfills 2, 3,
and 4, there was no treatment of the gas upstream of the sampling point.
At each of the sites, six RM 25C samples were taken. Each sample was .
extracted over a period of about 10 to 20 minutes, and collection of all six
samples required 1.5 to 2 hours.
Reference Method 4 (moisture) samples were taken from the same sample
port that the RM 25C samples were taken from (sample port B on Figure 3-3).
Six samples were taken at each of the landfills. Each RM 4 sample was
collected over a period of about 20 minutes. Total sampling time at each
landfill for the six moisture samples was 3 to 4 hours.
Organic vapor analysis testing was performed at only Landfills 2 and 4.
At Landfill 2, landfill personnel were asked to point out locations on the
landfill where there were known vegetative stress problems, and OVA tests were
performed at these locations. At Landfill 4, there were no specific gas
migration problem areas, and tests were performed at random locations on the
landfill surface. Organic vapor analysis testing was not'performed at
Landfills 1 and 3 because high winds were continually sweeping over the
landfill surfaces, removing any buildup of organic vapor that might have been
detectable.
3.2.2 Test Procedures at Landfill 5
At Landfill 5, there are two separate gas collection systems. An
interior gas collection system collects the landfill production gas, and a
perimeter collection system collects gas that migrates to the perimeter of the
3-6
-------
landfill. Figure 3-4 shows a diagram of the gas recovery and treatment
processes at Landfill 5.
Reference Method 3C samples were taken from the perimeter collection main
header. The sampling point corresponds to sample port A on Figure 3-4.
Landfill gas from the perimeter wells is not treated prior to combustion in
the flare.
Routine on-site gas composition testing by landfill personnel is
performed by taking grab samples in Tedlar bags and analyzing the samples with
a GC located in the gas plant control room. For this test program, field
sampling for RM 3C was coordinated with on-site sampling and analysis.
Reference Method 3C sampling by the field team and grab sampling by a landfill
employee were performed alternately. A total of six RM 3C samples were
extracted. The grab samples were~then analyzed by landfill personnel, and the
results were given to the field team. Therefore, the RM 3C results obtained
through laboratory analysis can be compared to the results of on-site testing.
Reference Method 25C samples were taken from the main header serving the
interior production gas wells. Samples were taken upstream of any gas
treatment. The sample point for RM 25C sampling corresponds to sample port B
on Figure 3-3. A total of six RM 25C samples were extracted.
Moisture samples were also taken from the main production gas header at
the same point as the RM 25C samples (sample port B on Figure 3-3). A total
of three moisture samples were taken.
Organic vapor analysis was performed at Landfill 5. Surface test
readings were taken from several points at the perimeter of the landfill as
well as from the surface of the interior production portion of the landfill.
3.2.3 Test Procedures at Landfill 6
There are three separate gas collection areas at Landfill 6. These three
areas were filled with refuse and capped at different times. Separate headers
carry landfill gas from each of these areas to one main header which then
transports the gas to the gas recovery plant. Figure 3-5 shows a flow diagram
of the landfill gas recovery and electrical generation process at Landfill 6.
Reference Method 3C samples were collected from each of the three
separate landfill areas. The sample points correspond to test ports A, B,
and C on Figure 3-5. Landfill personnel routinely test for methane
concentration at these three ports using a hand-held methane analyzer.
A total of nine RM 3C samples were taken at Landfill 6, three samples
from each area. A landfill employee performed methane testing using the
3-7
-------
Perimeter Well Main Header
00
To Flare
Interior Gas Production
Wete
To Gas Sales
Sample Port B J
Active Well Perimeter Migration Wells
Main Header
Qontrol
Room
Figure3-4, Landfills: Gas Recovery Process Flow Diagram
Flares
-------
Electrical
Generator
i
t •!— fc-
rugn
Voltage
Transformer
Internal
Combustion
Engines (3)
1
Condensate
Removal
Area 3
Gas Wells
Area 2 Header
Sample Port B
Main Header
-Sample Port D
To Utility
Substation
t
Gas
Cooler
Centrifugal
Blower
A
<
Control
Room
Flare
Figure 3-5. Landfill 6: Gas Recovery and Internal Combustion Engine Electrical
Generation Process Flow Diagram
-------
hand-held analyzer prior to extraction of each of the RM 3C field samples.
The results from the laboratory analyses of the field samples can then be
correlated with the methane concentration results recorded during routine
on-site testing.
It should be noted that for Area 1, the sample port on the Area 1 header
(sample port A) is located upstream from the junction of a pipe carrying
landfill gas from one section of Area 1. This port is used for routine
sampling by landfill personnel, and the data obtained is integrated into the
historical gas production data for Landfill 6. However, landfill gas from a
segment of Area 1 is not represented in test results obtained from sample
port A or in the data collected routinely by landfill personnel.
Reference Method 25C samples were taken in the same manner as RM 3C
samples above. A total of nine samples were taken, three from each of
Areas 1, 2, and 3 (sample ports A, B, and C on Figure 3-5).
Moisture samples were taken from the main landfill gas header that
transports gas from all three areas to the gas plant. Samples were taken
upstream of any gas treatment. The sample point for the moisture testing
corresponds to sample port D on Figure 3-5. A total of three moisture samples
were taken at Landfill 6.
Organic vapor analysis testing was performed on Area 1 of Landfill 6.
Several areas in the landfill surface had fissures 3 to 4 cm wide and about a
meter deep. These fissures were tested for organic vapor.
3-10
-------
4.0 TEST RESULTS
This section presents the results of the comparative testing between the
source operated analysis equipment and EPA reference methods. These
comparisons are made for composition monitoring only due to problems
encountered with the velocity testing sites. A discussion of these problems
is presented later in this section. Field data sheets are included in
Appendix D.
4.1 METHANE AND CARBON DIOXIDE
Table 4-1 presents the results of the RM 3C tests of CH4 and C02 from
each of the six landfills. (Note that the sums of CH4 and C02 are less than
100 percent due to the presence of other constituents in the gas stream.)
Sample locations for the RM 3C testing were selected to acquire a gas
composition value which would be representative of the landfill gases
collected from the site as monitored and recorded by the site operators. The
procedures described in Section 3.1.1 were used to collect the samples for
analysis by GC. Samples for Landfills 1 through 4 were collected at the gas
line feeding the power turbines. This location was adjacent to the sampling
point used by the on-site analyzers, and provided the ability to acquire
concurrent samples with the site analyzers for subsequent accuracy
evaluations. Gas samples for CH4 and C02 analysis from Landfills 5 and 6 were
collected from the locations normally used by site personnel for the routine
checks made of composition. Sampling for gas composition at these two sites
is performed manually and arrangements were made to collect samples
concurrently for later accuracy comparisons.
On-site analysis of the landfill gas composition was made by an automated
GC system obtaining a sample from one location at Landfills 1 through 4.
Landfill 5 employed manual sample collection from a number of locations for
operational data to maintain control of fugitive emissions as well as
measurement of production gas compositions. Samples collected during the
course of the day were analyzed using a GC operated in a manual batch
processing mode. Gas composition measurements at Landfill 6 are made at
various locations to permit balancing of the gas collection system. Samples
are analyzed using a combustibles analyzer.
4-1
-------
Table 4-1
RM 3C Test Results
Sample
Landfill 1
Landfill 2
Landfill 3
I.D. CO2
(vol %)
4T42* 45.30
4T64
4T50
4T57
4T21
343
4T54
4T56
4T28
4T5
4T48
4T8
4T52
6156
6148
6103
6177
6181
36.81
37.83
33.52
36.48
34.53
35.70
31.36
37.09
39.29
35.92
35.73
38.29
37.82
38.20
38.34
38.62
36.81
CH4
(vol %)
60.81
49.81
52.27
44.90
51.48
47.50
50.78
46.35
52.72
56.49
51.47
54.29
51.46
51.13
51.91
52.78
52.26
50.10
Sample
Landfill 4
Landfill 5
Landfill 6
I.D. C02
(vol %)
39
45
150
175
44.97
43.44
44.82
46.24
70 * 44.91
89
102
179
109
57
181
142
87
156
183
126
108
44.21
31.89
31.00
24.38
37.10
38.58
39.88
36.40
39.62
39.93
44.34
43.43
CH4
(vol %)
53.38
54.47
53.35
53.76
55.28
52.73
30.73
30.60
23! 89
47.21
46.49
47.97
46.30
48.68
50.02
51.16
51.17
•The sum of CH4 and CO2 is greater than 100% -- results are attributed to
sampling error.
4-2
-------
Accuracy evaluations of the on-site instrumentation was performed
similarly to the procedures established by EPA to assess continuous emission
monitoring systems. This evaluation process involves determining the actual
gas species concentration simultaneously with the instrument under scrutiny.
The two resulting emission values are then compared and the differences
between the reference method (in this instance RM 3C) and the analyzer are
recorded. From this group of differences between the instrument and the
reference method a confidence level is assessed and an accuracy value relative
to the emission rate is calculated. (More detailed discussion of the
calculation procedures is contained in Appendix B of 40 CFR 60, "Performance
Specifications for Continuous Emission Analyzers.") Tables 4-2 through 4-7
present the results of the comparisons between CH4 and C02 concentrations
measured and those of the on-site analyzers. (Landfill 6 did not perform
analysis of C02 at the time of testing, so C02 accuracy calculations were not
possible.) The relative accuracy of each instrument, determined using the
procedures listed in 40 CFR 60, Appendix B, are also presented in these
tables.
There are currently no evaluation criteria established for accuracy.of
this type of instrumentation, so the following observations are made based on
experience with other types of analyzers. In general, all of the instruments
were observed to be operating in manner consistent with good operating
practices. Calibration of the analyzers is performed by landfill personnel on
a routine basis, and the instruments appeared to be included in a regular
maintenance program. Three CH4 analyzers exhibited relative accuracies better
than 10% (Landfills 3, 4,' and 6), and 5 of the 6 were within about 12%. Three
of the five C02 instruments tested were found to have relative accuracies
better than 15% (Landfills 1, 4, and 5). (An instrument is considered to be
more accurate as the relative accuracy approaches zero.)
4.2 NONMETHANE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS
Results of the NMOC tests are presented in Table 4-8. Sample points for
Landfills 1 through 4 were located as close as practicable to the collection
field. At these sites however, this location was downstream of condensate
collection tanks. It is not known to what extent NMOC concentrations may be
reduced by these collection tanks. Samples collected at Landfills 5 and 6
were acquired before any gas cleaning took place, and should be representative
4-3
-------
Table 4-2
Relative Accuracy Results for Landfill 1
Sample Reference Method Site Analyzer Difference
ID CO2 CH4 CO2 CH4 CO2 CH4
(vol %) (vol %) (vol «) (vol %) (vol %) (vol %)
4T42
4T64
4T50
4T57
4T21
343
45.30 60.81
36.81 49.81
37.83 52.27
33.52 44.90
36.48 51.48
34.53 47.50
39.39 51.78
39.33 51.78
39.41 51.81
39.36 51.83
39.35 51.83
39.33 51.81
avg= 35.83 49.19 avg =
sum x =
sum x*2 =
d . undud dmitiian sd =
CC-confkknoecorfTiaM CC =
RA - icliti** tocuncy
RA =
* *
2.52 1.97
1.58 -0.46
5.85 6.94
2.87 0.35
4.80 4.30
2.94 2.18
17.63 13.10
74.35 70.81
1.75 2.91
2.17 3.61
14.25 • li:77
- since the sum of the reference method analyses was greater than
100% this test was not used in the calculations
4-4
-------
Table 4-3
Relative Accuracy Results for Landfill 2
Sample Reference Method Site Analyzer Difference
ID CO2 CH4 C02 CH4 CO2 CH4
(vol %) (vol %) (vol %) (vol *) (vol %) (vol %)
4T54
4T56
4T28
4T5
4T48
4T8
35.70 50.78
31.36 46.35
37.09 52.72
39.29 56.49
35.92 51.47
35.73 54.29
39.13 53.29
39.12 53.28
39.13 53.30
39.11 53.31
39.11 53.30
avg= 35.87 51.56 avg =
sum x =
sum x*2 =
9d =
•i - unUid dcvblion : CC =
CC - ocofldenK cooffidoa
RA - rduiwmincy RA =
3.43 2.51
7.77 6.93
2.04 0.57
-0.18 -3.18
3.19 1.82
3.25 1.73
16.25 8.65
86.49 68.03
2.90 3.64
3.60 4.52
l£lO I5L12
4-5
-------
Table 4-4
Relative Accuracy Results for Landfill 3
Sample Reference Method Site Analyzer Difference
ID CO2 CH4 CO2 CH4 CO2 CH4
(vol %) (vol %) (vol %) (vol %) (vol %) (vol %)
4T52
6156
6148
6103
6177
6181
38.29 51.46
37.82 51.13
38.20 51.91
38.34 52.78
38.62 52.26
36.81 50.10
43.39 55.11
43.40 55.10
43.40 55.10
43.40 55.10
43.40 55.11
43.41 55.10
avg= 38.01 51.61 avg =
sum x =
sum i*2 =
ad =
•d _ oudaid devulioD " CC =
CC - carfidm oorfTna*
RA - relative ucuncy RA =
5.10 3.65
5.59 3.97
5.20 3.19
5.06 2.32
4.77 2.85
6.59 5.00
5.39 3.50
32.31 20.98
176.13 77.78
0.65 0.94
0.68 0.98
-;•'•. ••.J5.9S ••'•:;•:•:•:: t&
4-6
-------
Table 4-5
Relative Accuracy Results for Landfill 4
Sample Reference
ID C02
(vol *)
39
45
150
175
70
89
44.97
43.44
44.82
46.24
44.91
44.21
avg = 44.76
at . oaadtid deration
CC • **«rfV4jT-1-T-r- JxjTJlfPj IJBJ
RA-iebliveioaincy
Method Site Analyzer Difference
CH4 C02
(vol %) (vol %)
53.38
54.47
53.35
53.76
55.28
52.73
43.37
43.37
43.36
43.35
43.34
43.36
53.83
CH4 CO2
(vol %) (vol %)
53.67
53.65
53.62
53.63
53.62
53.61
avg =
sum x =
sum x*2 =
sd =
CC =
RA =
-1.60
-0.07
-1.46
-2.89
-1.57
-0.85
-1.41
-8.45
16.26
0.94
1.06
:;:::B:;Cs.5r:
CH4
(vol %)
0.29
-0.82
0.27
-0.14
-1.65
0.88
-0.20
-1.17
4.35
0.91
1.03
:/, Ox
4-7
-------
Table 4-6
Relative Accuracy Results for Landfill 5
Sample Reference Method Site Analyzer Difference
ID CO2 CH4 CO2 CH4 CO2 CH4
(vol %) (vol %) (vol %) (vol %) (vol %) (vol %)
102
179
109
115
135
900
31.89 30.73
31.00 30.60
24.38 23.89
46.53 55.29
48.23 56.54
47.37 55.67
29.66 29.76
28.81 28.91
29.06 29.14
44.29 49.11
44.86 48.50
44.84 48.64
avg = 41.00 45.77 avg =
sum x =
sum x*2 =
ad =
•1 . UBUrd deviuoo CC =
HA " niuiw Money RA =
-2.23 -0.97
-2.19 -1.69
* *
-2.24 -6.18
-3.37 -8.04
-2.53 -7.03
-2.51 -4.78
-12.56 -23.91
32.53 156.04
0.50 3.23
0.62 4.01
• : 7.64 ' 19.21
* - this test was not used in the calculations because there is a greater than 20% difference
between the values from this test and the average values from the previous two tests.
4-8
-------
Table 4-7
Relative Accuracy Results for Landfill 6
Sample Reference Method Site Analyzer Difference
ID C02 CH4 C02 CH4 CO2 CH4
(vol %) (vol %) (vol %) (vol %) (vol %) (vol %)
57
181
142
87
156
183
126
108
37.10 47.21
38.58 46.49
39.88 47.97
36.40 46.30
39.62 48.68
39.93 50.02
44.34 51.16
43.43 51.17
51.00
51.00
51.00
48.50
51.00
52.00
51.00
51.00
avg= 38.59 47.78 avg =
sum x =
sum x*2 =
sd =
od - MuKhrd deviation C C ==
CC " coofidoioe caetfiacal
HA - reUlive aocuncy RA =
3.79
4.51
3.03
2.20
2.32
1.98
-0.16
-0.17
2.97
17.83
58.03
1.62
1.35
'•V::::i45:
4-9
-------
Table 4-8
Nonmethane Organic Compounds Teat Results
Sample
Identification
Total Caseous
Nonmethane Organic*
(mg C/mA3)
Landfill 1
Average =
Landfill 2
Average •
Landfill 3
951
1463
SOS
679
802
620
886.7
841
491
771
547
555
563
628.0
Average =
1316
1288
2130
765
665
1226
1231.7
Sample
Identification
Total Gaseous
Nonmethane Organics
(mg C/m'3)
Landfill 4
Average =
LandfillS
Average •
Landfill 6
902
933
1019
888
726
1166
939.0
2712
2736
2741
2729.7
Average =
503
384
408
405
642
461
601
486.3
4-10
-------
of total landfill NMOC's generated. A wide range of the NMOC concentrations
were noted at the six sites (486 mg C/m3 to 2730 mg C/m3).
The large degree of variability between the NMOC results for the six
sites may be caused by several factors. The primary influence is most likely
the differences in landfill composition. Of a secondary, but potentially
significant impact, is the use of condensate collection tanks at sites 1
through 4. It is suspected that these tanks, located prior to the sampling
locations, may remove a certain amount of NMOC's from the landfill gas.
4.3 LANDFILL GAS FLOW RATE
During the test program development, measurement of total landfill gas
flow rate was believed to be possible utilizing EPA Reference Method 2. Due •
to various operating conditions and constraints encountered in the field, it
was not possible to perform velocity measurements for eventual comparisons to
site instrumentation. The two principal constraints on using RM 2 for
determining gas flow rates were the lack of sample ports adjacent to the
on-site flow monitors and operational and safety considerations relating to
the working pressures at the monitoring site.
At Landfills 1 through 4 the flow monitor (an orifice and differential
pressure monitor) was located in the high pressure exhaust line of the gas
compressor. Working pressures at this location were typically between 150 and
170 psi, precluding use of standard test equipment. Also, the only access for
sampling would have been through one of the pressure tap ports of the
differential pressure gauge, effectively disabling the flow monitor during the
test. At Landfills 4 and 5 the problem encountered was one of limitations
based upon site operational constraints. The available sample ports were
located in the vacuum side of the gas collection lines. Insertion of the
pitot tube in the ports would have caused significant air infiltration into
the gas supply lines, causing problems with operating equipment. It was not
the intention of this test program to impose any adverse or potentially
dangerous operating conditions on any of the sites, so testing was not
performed. Because no pre-site visit was possible before selecting a test
method, there was no contingency plan for alternative sampling procedures.
An alternative approach was taken to assess the accuracy of the flow
monitors used by the sites to record total gas flow from the landfills. The
landfill operators were asked to describe the calibration procedures used for
routine checks of the differential pressure gauges used at their landfill.
4-11
-------
Each site routinely calibrates the differential pressure gauge against a
standard reference. These procedures, as well as the frequency of
calibration, were evaluated to determine if it would be possible to
qualitatively identify the relative accuracy of the flow monitors. Based on
the information supplied by the landfill operators, the flow monitors appeared
to be reasonably accurate. Given the calibration procedures and instrument
types, the expected accuracy of the flow monitors is about 10%.
4-12
-------
5.0 STATISTICAL METHODS DEVELOPMENT
The ultimate objective of this research program is to determine which
variables relating to refuse characteristics, landfill characteristics, or
climate are significant determinants of gas production. This pilot study
addressed a small number of sites and the results were not intended to be
representative of all landfills. Rather, the study was intended to provide
the basis for development of statistical methods for use in a larger study, to
identify data quality issues, and to look for trends. This section describes
the landfill and climatological data, the statistical methods used, and the
results of the analysis.
The data obtained from each landfill consisted of computer printouts or
handwritten datasheets listing total gas flow, percent CH4 composition of the
total gas flow, and other information applicable to the individual landfills.
The data were usually in the form of daily averages of hourly flow rates, and
were reported for each on-line gas recovery unit.
The descriptive data for each landfill are summarized in Table 5-1. The
average CH4 flow in standard cubic feet per minute (CFM) was calculated
from daily averages supplied by site operators. Although the between-landfill
variation is large, ranging from 590 CFM to 3477 CFM (16.71 to 98.47 m3/min),
the day-to-day variability is relatively small, as shown by the coefficients
of variation, which were generally below 10% except for Landfill 6 (12.4%).
Data sources, limitations, and preparation are described in the next
two sections.
5.1 DESCRIPTION OF DATA
5.1.1 Landfill CH4 Data
Data were reported and summarized for each of the three on-line turbines
at Landfill 1; for one on-line turbine at Landfill 2; for each of the two
turbines at Landfill 3; and for each of the five turbines at Landfill 4.
Applicable data for these four landfills include daily averages of total gas
flow in cubic feet per hour and percent CH4 composition of the gas streams for
each turbine. Other available data include percent composition of other
gases, temperature, pressure, run time, and other parameters.
Flow rate at 25°C and 1 atmosphere.
5-1
-------
TABLE 5-1. SUMMARY STATISTICS FOR EACH LANDFILL CALCULATED FROM DAILY CH4 AND WEATHER DATA
Parameter
Analysis Period
Number of wells
Average well depth (meters)
Number of hectares
Refuse mass (10* Hg)
Average landfill depth (meters)
1990 average age (years)
Total Methane Flow
Number of days
Mean (mVmin) (CFM)
Standard deviation
Coefficient of variation (%)
Temperature
Mean (°C) during analysis period
30-year normal
Precipitation
Total (cm) during analysis period
30-year normal
Landfill
1
5/89 to 4/90
45
14
35
6.3
67
8
194
55.36 (1955)
2.12
3.80
7.34
7.51
80.53
73.15
2
10/89 to 7/90
65 (44 VA)*
14
55
6.1
26
10
302
18.04 (637)
1.19
6.60
7.67
9.28
86.36
90.42
3
8/89 to 7/90
31
23
51
7.3
66
10
314
40.07 (1415)
2.32
5.80
10.51
12.23
. 111.51
107.7 J
4
7/89 to 6/90
111
21
57
13.8
56
9.50
85
98.47 (3477)
1.33
1.40
24.96
23.96
101.6
156
5
1/90 to 8/90
102
34
32
10.9
46
15
209
24.86 (878)
1.70
6.80
16.12
17.12
22.86
43.18
6
5/89 to 4/90
68
10
40
2.6
10
7
37
16.71 (590)
2.07
12.40
16.57
16.18
42.16
45.5
en
rv>
*VA = very active; other wells were primarily for odor control.
-------
Data from Landfill 5 were reported and summarized for each well type.
Wells at this site are classified as either "production" or "perimeter" wells.
Applicable data include production and perimeter well gas flows, total CH4
sold, and percent CH4 composition of the production and perimeter well gas
flows. The gas flow arid gas sales data were all reported as daily averages in
CFM.
Data from Landfill 6 were reported and summarized for each of five
specific areas. Applicable data include daily averages of total gas flow in
CFM and percent CH4 composition for each area. Other data available at
Landfill 6 include daily averages of CH4 flow in CFM per refuse wet weight per
year for each area.
5.1.2 Weather Data
Daily temperature and precipitation data were obtained from the State
Climatologist's Office in each respective state for a cooperative National
Weather Service (NWS) station nearest each landfill. In most cases, the State
Climatologist made copies of the appropriate pages from Climatological Data
(U.S. Department of Commerce, 1989-1990). At the time of this study, the
current issue of Climatological Data was June 1990; thus, daily weather data
were available for most of the same time period as the available CH4 data.
In addition to the daily weather data, 30-year averages of monthly and
annual temperature and precipitation were obtained for the NWS stations (U.S.
Department of Commerce, 19B2). These 30-year averages are referred to as the
"normal" values.
Weekly values of the Palmer Drought Severity Index (PDSI), which are
reported by climatic division within a state, were obtained for all reporting
weeks in 1989 and 1990 from the Weekly Weather and Crops Bulletin (NOAA/USDA
Joint Agricultural Weather Facility). The PDSI reflects the long-term
moisture balance, which affects groundwater volume. The PDSI is generally
reported every other week between April and October.
5.2 DATA PREPARATION
5.2.1 Landfill CH4 Data
Because the landfill CH4 data arrived in the form of paper printouts, the
data applicable to this study were first entered into computer files for
further processing. Exploratory data analysis was then performed for total
gas flow and percent CH4 composition on a turbine-by-turbine basis for
Landfills 1 through 4, on'a well type (i.e., producing wells versus migration
5-3
-------
collection wells) basis for Landfill 5, and on an area-by-area basis for
Landfill 6. This exploratory analysis consisted primarily of summary
statistics, including a listing of the five largest and smallest extreme
values, and time series plots of the data. The intent of the exploratory
analysis was to remove outliers and any other data deemed unrepresentative of
the true population.
No rigid procedure was adopted for outlier removal because outliers were
very obvious. However, in removing outliers, two general steps were followed.
In the first step, any of the five largest or smallest extreme values that
were obviously different from the other extreme values, or that were obviously
far from the bulk of the data (as indicated by Box plots) were removed. In
the second step, the remaining data were plotted in time series fashion. Any
data points that were located outside the region of general variability of the
majority of the data were removed. Most of the points removed in the second
step were associated with periods leading to downtimes, with periods beginning
from start-up.times, or when there were other problems with the gas collection
system. For borderline data points, landfill operators were sometimes
contacted to verify that problems existed at the time data were collected.
After the outliers and questionable data were removed, CH4 flow rates
were calculated for each turbine, well type, or area by multiplying the total
gas flow rate by the percent CH4 composition. Because landfill parameters
were unknown for individual turbines, well types, or areas at most landfills,
a total CH4 flow rate for each landfill was calculated by summing the CH4 flow
from all gas recovery systems. These sums were calculated only when all •
systems were operating, or when data were reported from all well types or
areas. When necessary, total CH4 flow rates were converted to CFM for
between-landfill comparisons.
Time series plots were then made of the total CH4 flow rates for each
landfill. Because the total CH4 was calculated only when all turbines, well
types, or areas were reporting, there were gaps in the plots at each landfill.
Thus, it was decided to further analyze only the one-year span that contained
the most complete data.
The time series plot for Landfill 2 revealed noticeably different CH4
flow rates before September 1989 compared to those after September 1989. The
landfill operator was contacted and it was found that 30 additional wells were
brought on-line in September 1989. Thus, data before and after that time were
5-4
-------
not comparable and a one-year period of comparable data did not exist. The
period between September 1989 and July 1990 was selected for further analysis.
5.2.2 Weather Data
The daily weather data for all but one site also arrived in the form of
paper copies from Climatological Data (U.S. Department of Commerce, 1989-90).
As with the landfill CH4 data, the weather data were entered into computer
files for further processing. However, the only screening necessary for the
weather data was a quality check to ensure that the correct numbers had been
entered from the printouts. Data in Climatological Data publications have
already been screened for accuracy and are officially certified.
The monthly normals of the weather data and the weekly PDSI data
originated from paper copies and were also entered into computer files for
further processing. As with the daily weather data, no additional screening
was necessary, except for ensuring that the numbers had been entered
correctly.
5.3 STATISTICAL METHODS AND RESULTS
One objective of this study was to determine if sufficient data were
available for a time series analysis of methane emission rates from individual
landfills. Methane recovery is a relatively new process, and none of these
landfills had records for methane emissions of sufficient length (several
years) and completeness for time series analysis. It is highly probable that
emissions are autocorrelated so that any attempt to find correlations between
methane recovery and weather data on a daily or monthly basis is likely to be
confounded by autocorrelations in the data. Since the strength of
autocorrelation decreases with averaging period, only annual averages were
used in the statistical analysis of the relationship between long-term CH4
emissions and weather data between landfills. The annual CH4 averages were
correlated to annual averages of temperature and precipitation obtained from
30 years of data, as well as to other landfill parameters.
Table 5-2 shows the Pearson correlation coefficients between annual CH4
flow rates and CH4 flow rates per unit mass with the annual and long term
(normal) weather data and other landfill parameters for the six landfills.
Only two correlations with CH4 flow rate were found to be significant at the
95 percent confidence level and no correlation coefficients were significant
with the CH4 flow rate per unit mass. The low number of significant
correlations can be attributed, at least in part, to the low number of
5-5
-------
TABLE 5-2. CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS OF CH. RECOVERY VARIABLES
WITH LANDFILL PARAMETERS
AND SUMMARIZED WEATHER DATA (n=6)
Dependent
Variables
Annual Methane
Annual Methane Recovery
Recovery Rate Rate per Unit Mass
Independent Variables
Annual temperature (1989-1990)
Normal annual temperature
Annual precipitation (1989-1990)
Normal annual precipitation
1990 mean age of landfill
Number of wells
Tons of refuse
Mean depth of landfill
Area of landfill
Volume of landfill
Mean well depth
0.56
0.51
0.55
0.81*
-0.15
0.37
0.71
0.62
0.37
0.74*
0.10
0.12
0.01
0.33
0.25
-0.80**
-0.15
-0.18
0.26
-0.04
0.24
-0.58
Correlation coefficient significant at 95 percent confidence level.
"Correlation coefficient significant at 90 percent confidence level.
5-6
-------
observations. The normal annual precipitation correlated fairly Well with the
one-year annual mean CH4 flow rate, and even though it was not significant for
the CH4 flow rate per unit mass, it had the largest positive correlation.
coefficient. The correlation coefficient for refuse mass with CH4 flow rate
was just under the cutoff point for significance at the 95 percent confidence
level, but its value of 0.71 suggests that perhaps with more data it would be
significant.
Figure 5-1 shows the scatter plot of mean annual CH4 flow rate per unit
mass versus 30-year annual mean precipitation for the six landfills (as
numbered). The least squares regression line is also shown to indicate the
trend. With only six data points, it is impossible to determine any
significant relationship.
5.4 DISCUSSION
These comparisons yielded promising results and are worth pursuing
further. The strongest correlation was the positive relationship between CH4
flow rate and weight of refuse in place—not a surprising result. Variability
of flow rate data appears to increase with larger landfills, but this effect
needs to be analyzed further. It is possible that larger landfills vary more
in depth than smaller ones, which may affect production rates. However, this
is not likely to be important for estimating global emissions.
The CH4 flow correlated well with landfill volume, land area, and other
measures of size. For global CH4 estimation, refuse mass is the only relevant
size variable and, fortunately, CH4 flow appears to be a linear function of
mass. In order to determine the effects of climate on CH4 production, the
effect of mass needs to be removed. Therefore, results that relate to CH4 per
total refuse weight in place were the most pertinent for estimating global CH4
production.
Three variables are of particular interest: normal annual mean ambient
temperature, normal annual precipitation, and age of refuse. The production
of CH4 per ton of refuse is expected to show a lag in the early years, rise
fairly rapidly to a maximum, and then to decline slowly with age of the
refuse. The length of the lag can be very short, particularly under optimal
conditions. Since the population of landfills within a country represent the
entire range of ages, all that is of interest, ultimately, is the average
annual CH4 produced per ton of refuse. However, since refuse age does appear
to have a strong effect, it needs to be included in the analysis.
5-7
-------
300-
.^s
I/I
**
0
iH
£
u
^ 200-
(A
U
•»H
u
-------
To accurately quantify the effects of climate on the rate of CH4 production,
interactions between refuse age or landfill characteristics and climatic
effects need to be identified.
It is likely that long-term (normal) precipitation affects methane
production. Although a cap may impede rainfall infiltration, some rainfall
may enter before the final cap is in place. When a site is open and refuse is
being added, precipitation can accumulate. The patchiness of moisture in
landfills is borne out by the boring logs of two of the landfills in the
study. A well dug at one location in a landfill found very dry conditions,
with little or no degradation of the waste; another well in a different
location within the same landfill found saturated conditions, with completely
decayed wastes. These difference may be due, in part, to the moisture in the
waste itself, but it is more likely that they are the result of whether or not
it was raining the day the refuse was put in place and covered.
5-9
-------
6.0 CONCLUSIONS
With the exception of flow measurements, the test procedures selected for
this project were well suited to the types of gas recovery installations
encountered at the landfills visited. Alternative flow measurement methods
that are more appropriate to the site conditions must be identified if flow
measurements are desired in the future. Since all sites record flow data,
however, a quality assurance program could be used to determine the
acceptability of the on-site data.
Based on comparisons between the RM 3C and instrument analyses of the
landfill gas composition, all on-site analysis instruments appeared to be .
operating within reasonable accuracy ranges. Review of calibration procedures
and records indicate that long-term instrument accuracy should be comparable
to the accuracies noted during on-site testing.
NMOC results for the sites exhibited moderate to significant variability.
The NMOC data variability is most likely due to differences in waste
composition. Of a secondary, but potentially significant impact, is the use
of condensate collection tanks upstream of sample collection points at some of
the sites. The method used for these tests requires extensive field
collection, analytical, and data reduction time. Should further NMOC
measurements be needed in the future, alternative methods are available that
will improve turn-around of results with very little, if any, loss in data
accuracy.
Although the results of this small study are sufficiently.encouraging to
warrant further data gathering and analyses, some limitations need to be
recognized. The main problem was that the collection efficiencies of the CH4
recovery systems were not known. Where emission control was one (or the only)
reason for the collection system's existence, efficiency appeared to be high.
However, this is a qualitative assessment based on visual inspection of the
landfills and an assessment of operating practices at the-landfills. Perhaps
landfills where CH4 recovery systems are used for emissions control can be
used as the benchmark, if enough of them can be found. Again, the end-use of
the gas should be part of the site selection process.
One key piece of information is missing from most landfills: the average
composition of the refuse. Not only would it be useful to know the total
percent of the refuse that is biodegradable, it would also help to know the
percentage of putrescibles (i.e., rapidly decomposing garbage such as kitchen
6-1
-------
wastes), paper and textiles, and slowly decomposing organics such as leather
and wood. Waste composition undoubtedly contributes to data variability but,
unfortunately, it is not possible to get composition information for most
landfills in the United States.
Also, it is impossible to fully account for differences in the structure
and operating characteristics of landfills. All of these unknowns contribute
to the variability of the CH4 flow rate data. Although it should be possible
to explain some of the variability, a certain amount will always remain.
It is likely that the functional relationships between CH4 per ton of
refuse and age and climate are nonlinear, or that interactions between these
variables produce nqnlinearities. With a larger sample size, it may be
possible to identify these nonl ineari.ties, and fit the data to the appropriate
model.
Finally, these analyses illustrate the importance of carefully select-ing
study sites. By chance, the larger landfills in the pilot study were located
in regions with the highest precipitation. This resulted in a strong positive
correlation between precipitation and tons of refuse. While this relationship
can be removed to a large extent by using CH4 per ton of refuse as the
dependent variable, it makes identification of possible interactions between
precipitation and landfill size impossible. In the next phase of the study,
as much data as possible on physical characteristics and operating procedures
should be gathered to facilitate site selection. An equal number of large and
small landfills should be chosen from wet and dry regions. A greater
proportion of the sites should be from extremely wet or dry climates. This
will make it more likely that significant effects are detected, if they exist.
6-2
-------
7.0 REFERENCES
Peer, R.L., A.E. Leininger, B.B. Emmel, and S.K. Lynch (Radian
Corporation). 1991. Approach for Estimating Global Landfill Methane
Emissions. Prepared for Air and Energy Engineering Research Laboratory,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC.
EPA-600/7-91-002 (NTIS PB91-149534).
Thorneloe, S.A. and R.L. Peer. 1990. Landfill Gas and the Greenhouse
Effect. Presented at the International Conference on Landfill Gas:
Energy and the Environment, October 17, 1990, Bournemouth, England.
U.S. Department of Commerce, NOAA, Climatological Data, [STATE]
Vol. 93-94, 1989-90.
U.S. Department of Commerce, NOAA, National Climatic Data Center.
Monthly Normals of Temperature, Precipitation, and Heating and Cooling
Degree Days, [STATE] 1951-1980, 1982.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1989a. EPA Reference Method 4:
Determination of Moisture Content in Stack Gases; 40 CFR Pt. 60,
Appendix A, pp. 676-685.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1989b. EPA Reference Method 2:
Determination of Stack Gas Velocity and Volumetric Flow Rate (Type S
Pitot Tube); 40 CFR Pt. 60, Appendix A, pp. 641-659.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1991a. EPA Reference Method 3C
(Proposed): Determination of Carbon Dioxide, Nitrogen, and Oxygen from
Stationary Sources. Proposed in the U.S. EPA's Standards of Performance
for New Stationary Sources and Guidelines for Control of Existing
Sources: Municipal Solid Waste Landfills.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1991b. EPA Reference Method 25C
(Proposed): Determination of Nonmethane Organic Compounds (NMOC) in
Landfill Gases. Proposed in the U.S. EPA's Standards of Performance for
New Stationary Sources and Guidelines for Control of Existing Sources:
Municipal Solid Waste Landfills.
7-1
-------
APPENDIX A
LANDFILL SURVEY FORM
Call Hade By Date Call Made
Landfill Facility Name:
Address:
Contact at Landfill: Phone Number:
Please provide the following information for only that portion of your landfill where methane is being
recovered. Please provide this information for the period of time that data has been collected. For items
such as the number of wells that may have changed over time, please provide the current information.
PRIORITY DATA
Active Landfill?
Date Waste Acceptance Began
Date Waste Acceptance Ceased
Date Methane Recovery Began
Gas End Use
Annual Methane Production Rate
Tons of Refuse in Place
Age of the Refuse
Number of Acres ;
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION (provide as necessary)
Number of Active Wells (Regular- or High-Flow Wells)
Number of Low-Flow Wells
Bepth of Active Wells: Minimum Average Maximum
Depth of Low-Flow Wells: Minimum ; Average Maximum
Depth of Landfill: Minimum Average Maximum
Methane Recovery System (i.e., turbine, 1C engine, other):
Landfill Design (i.e., cell, canyon, trench, or other)
Cap Composition ; Cap Thickness
Cap Permeability
No. of Flares (if applicable)
Acceptance Rate of Waste by Year
Total Capacity (by weight):
[If capacity is provided by volume, what is the average refuse density?]
Daily Soil Cover Information (does volume number include ALL refuse or soil and refuse?).-
Results of Routine Testing for Surface or Perimeter Leaks
Any other data available on:
Refuse Composition?
Gas Composition?
Moisture Content of Refuse?
Compliance Testing of Power Generation or Control Equipment Exhaust?
A-l
-------
APPENDIX Bl
LANDFILL CHARACTERISTICS
The following discussion will present a brief description of each
landfill tested. Following these descriptions will be a general discussion of
the type of information gathered at each site. Historical refuse composition
data of interest includes the age, acceptance rates, the type of refuse in
place (preferably as shown on a map of the landfill), and any history of
hazardous waste codisposal. Other information of interest includes the
groundwater proximity to the refuse in place, rainfall patterns, cap
permeability, and leachate collection (to give some indication of refuse
moisture content and any changes in conditions).
Landfill 1
The first landfill was visited August 6, 1990. Located in Wisconsin,
this site is considered to be representative of sites in cool, wet climates.
The landfill covers about 35 hectares, with a refuse height of 67 meters.
Refuse was originally placed at this site in the 1950s. The original owners
filled approximately three cells. The site also accepted hazardous waste
until the early 1980s (placed in separate cells). The current owners
purchased this site in 1972. Refuse acceptance ceased June 1989, and the
landfill was closed.
An estimated 9 to 11 x 106 cubic meters of refuse are in place at this
site. On-site personnel at Landfill 1 do not typically report refuse by
weight, but the Corporate-Office stated that a total of 6.3 x 106 Mg of refuse
are in place.
Cap thickness on the landfill is reported to be at least 1.5 meters;
rainfall percolation through the cap is estimated by on-site personnel to be
less than 2.5 cm/yr.
Gas recovery began at this site December 31, 1985. Three Solar Centaur
turbines are currently in place and operating full time (at 3,300 kW/turbine).
Forty-five wells are in place, 25 along the perimeter of the site that were
installed in 1985 and 20 on the interior portion of the site that were added
in 1987. Six wells are over the refuse placed by the original owner, and
average well depth is 12 to 15 meters. The wells installed most recently are
24 to 27 meters deep.
Bl-1
-------
As of July 1, 1990, 1.8 x 108 cubic meters have been recovered (producing
141,202,025 kW-hrs of energy). The Corporate Office stated that 162,823 cubic
meters are recovered per day.
On-site personnel estimate leachate production (primarily due to
rainfall) to range from 1.5 to 1.7 x 106 liters/month.
Landfill personnel do not routinely monitor for surface or perimeter
leaks. Problem areas are usually identified by visual inspection of the
surface for vegetative stress. Once a problem area is identified, the
decision is made as to whether or not to install a new well. They are
currently dealing with a problem area that shows methane levels of 20 to
30 percent (no details provided on the size of this area).
Except for roadbeds, the entire surface was seeded with grass. The only
fissures noted in landfill surface appeared to be due to water erosion. On
the day of the site visit, it was too windy to detect gas odor or conduct OVA
sampling.
Landfill 2
The second landfill tested (August 7, -1990) is located in Illinois. Gas
is being recovered from the two closed sections of Landfill 2. The oldest
closed section of the recovery area covers about 28 hectares, and the average
refuse height is about 30 meters. The newer closed section of the landfill
covers about 26 hectares, and the average height is also about 30 meters.
Refuse was first placed in the older section of the landfill in 1968, and the
previous owner filled about 8 hectares. The current owner took over the site
in 1980. Refuse acceptance at the newer section of the landfill began
November 1982.
Approximately 3.6 x 106 Mg of refuse are in place in the older closed
section, and 2.5 x 106 Mg in place in the newer closed section.
The original owners were very inconsistent in cap placement and cap
thickness. Cap thickness in the older section varies from 0.15 to 2.4 meters.
The newer section of the site has. an average clay cap thickness of 0.9 meters.
The current owner uses visual vegetation inspection and routine surface
monitoring to identify areas that need to have a new or a thicker clay cap
installed.
The current owners of this facility installed a flare system in 1988, and
converted to Solar turbines in January of 1989. The facility has two turbines
manufactured by Solar, but only the Centaur (3,300 kW) is currently active.
Bl-2
-------
The other turbine, a Saturn (933 kW), is slated to go on-line after more wells
are installed in the fall of 1990.
There are 65 wells currently on-line (72 wells total). Of the 65 wells
on-line, 45 are considered very active and 17 are "tubed" (very low flow,
installed primarily to control odors). The oldest section of the landfill has
40 wells in place, and the other 30 are on the newer section.
Total combined gas recovery from both sections of the landfill is about
56,600 cubic meters per day.
The oldest section of the landfill produces from 19,000 to 30,000 liters
of leachate per week. The leachate and the landfill gas condensate are
transported by truck to a local wastewater treatment plant. The newer section
of the 'landfill produces a much smaller quantity of leachate (not quantified,
however).
Routine gas monitoring reports of permanent probe.testing for pressure,
percent methane, and water levels are prepared by landfill personnel. Wells
are added as needed to improve gas recovery. The landfill operators place a
great emphasis on controlling any gas migration problems to prevent odor
complaints and vegetative stress.
A visual inspection of the vegetation growing on the landfill surface
revealed only one area with vegetative stress; a well had already been
installed to correct the problem, but it was not under a vacuum yet. Gas was
bubbling through the water that had collected in the bottom of the well. No
odors were detected in any other parts of the collection area. Although
gusting winds were present at the time of the site visit, OVA tests for
ambient methane were conducted. The only location at which measurable
concentrations could be found was within a new well enclosure. No other
significant leaks were found.
Landfill 3
Landfill 3, in Pennsylvania, was visited August 9, 1990. 'Gas is
recovered from the closed portion of Landfill 3, which covers about
51 hectares. The active portion covers about 24 hectares, and will also have
gas recovery. The height of the closed portion is about 66 meters, with no
refuse below ground level. Refuse acceptance began in 1970 and essentially
ceased in 1988 for the portion of the landfill with gas recovery. The
original owner placed refuse on about 21 hectares (lined with 1.6 cm thick
asphalt). Hazardous wastes were accepted until 1981, and make up about 1% of
Bl-3
-------
the total refuse. The current owner took over the site in 1981. 'Refuse is
still being added in small amounts to the closed portion as settling occurs.
Annual refuse intake can only be estimated for the previous owner's, years
of operation; the current estimate is that a total of 8.4 x 10s Mg are in
place (29,000 Mg/month). Average clay cap thickness is 0.6 meters.
Gas was originally vented to the atmosphere to control off-site
migration. Gas recovery began with the installation of a Solar Centaur
turbine (3,300 kW) in January 1988. A second Centaur turbine was added June
1989. Both turbines are currently operating full time.
A total of 31 wells are on the site, with an average well depth of 100
feet. The Corporate Office estimates that this site recovers 1.2 x 105 cubic
meters of gas per day.
Landfill personnel estimate that approximately 132,000 liters of liquid
are collected each month. Included in this estimate are about 19,000 liters
condensate generated each week.
Landfill personnel report that they are encountering problems on the
eastern slope of the recovery area, with organic vapor surface probe readings
of 25 to 48 percent as methane. One suspected reason for this problem is the
fact that this slope has several leachate manholes that are not tied into the
gas collection system. They are currently trying to address this problem.
There were a few areas with sparse vegetation, but it could not be
concluded that these areas had migration problems because the topsoil applied
to the site was very poor quality (very rocky), and there had been a 6-week
period with very little rain. On the eastern slope, there was a very strong
gas odor in at least five separate areas (even with a brisk wind), but there
were no signs of vegetative stress. Most of these areas, however, were
probably located near leachate manholes. On the day of the site visit it was
too windy to attempt OVA sampling.
Landfill 4
During the second week of testing, a landfill in Florida was visited
(August 20, 1990). This climate is considered representative of hot, wet
areas. Gas is recovered from the closed portion of Landfill 4. Another
portion of the landfill is currently accepting refuse. The average refuse
height on the closed portion is 56 meters above sea level, including a
0.5 meter thick cap on the uppermost 16 hectares. The closed portion covers
about 57 hectares and is shaped like a pyramid. Refuse acceptance began in
Bl-4
-------
1971 and ceased in April 1989. The next portion was then opened. Portions of
the landfill also accepted sludge from a nearby wastewater treatment plant in
the past and continue to do so.
The total volume of the part of the landfill with gas recovery is
14 x 106 cubic meters. Using a compacted density of 889 to 1,067 kg/cubic
meters, there are 12.5 to 15.0 x 106 Mg of refuse in place. Monthly gate
receipt information was gathered for 1987 through July 1990. This information
shows both cubic meters (yard waste and construction and demolition debris)
and Mg (garbage) brought to the landfill. On-site personnel recommended that
a conversion factor of 237 kg/cubic meter be used for the refuse measured in
cubic meters, and indicated that construction and demolition debris account
for about 15.5% of the cubic meters reported. After converting cubic meters
to Mg, it appears that construction and demolition debris make up from 5.5 to
6% of the total volume. Given an average compacted refuse density of
978 kg/cubic meter, of the 13.8 x 106 Mg of refuse in place in the closed
portion of the landfill, 5.75% (793,553 Mg) can be assumed to be construction
and demolition debris. Removing this non-organic fraction yields an estimated
methane producing total tonnage of 13 x 106 Mg.
Final cover on the closed areas of Landfill 4 is 45.7 cm of topsoil,
45.7 cm of clay (rock tailings), and 45.7 cm of sand. This cover is very
permeable to rainfall and the permeability also limits the amount of vacuum
that can be applied.
Landfill 4 currently has 111 wells in place. Average well depth is
21 meters, with depths ranging from 18 to 46 meters. • Five Solar turbines
(each with a rated capacity of 300 kW) were installed and brought on-line
during March and April of 1989. Official start-up began July 1989. Previous
to this time, recovered gas was processed in a former gas plant and/or flared.
Currently, the facility is continuously operating four turbines at 95%
capacity. At the time the study was conducted, the maximum gas recovery rate
attained was 283,170 cubic meters per day, but recovery had leveled off to
about 156,000 cubic meters per day. The Plant Manager hopes to increase
recovery by installing eight new deep wells. There are also plans to tie the
other closed cells into the gas recovery system. Gas recovery in closed areas
can begin 6 months after construction is started.
The Plant Manager estimated leachate collection to range up to
5.3 million liters/month, depending on rainfall. Because the cap is so
permeable, the amount of leachate produced will be greatly affected by
Bl-5
-------
rainfall amounts. Leachate and condensate from the area currently accepting
waste are shipped off site to a wastewater treatment facility. The portion of
the landfill with gas recovery does not have a true leachate collection
system.
Permanent bore holes have not been installed for routine perimeter gas
migration monitoring. Buildings near the perimeter of the site (up to
305 meters from the landfill) are routinely tested for gas levels.
Organic vapor analyzer measurements were restricted due to gusting wind
conditions. During close visual inspection of the vegetative stress areas,
OVA readings up to 400 ppm were noted. Due to the variable wind conditions,
it is not known if this was a peak concentration or not.
On-site personnel indicated that when vegetation stress is identified, •
they first try to adjust the vacuum on nearby wells. If required, a decision
is made as to whether a new well should be added to alleviate the vegetative
stress. Soil dehydration due to lateral gas lines may also result in
vegetative stress.
Landfill 5
Landfill 5, located in southern California, was the only site in a hot,
dry climate, tested (August 23, 1990). Gas is being recovered from the closed
portions of the landfill. The refuse was (and still is) placed 'in the pit
left from a gravel mining operation. The average refuse height is 46 meters,
with a maximum of 76 meters. No refuse will be placed above grade. The
closed portion of the landfill is about 32 hectares. Refuse acceptance began
at this site in 1952, and there is no known history of co-disposal of
hazardous waste. During the 1950s and 1960s, the site primarily received
inert waste, but at that time the waste also contained a high proportion of
orange trees. The very center portion of the landfill reportedly contains a
high proportion of construction and demolition debris, but there is still some
gas produced at wells in this area. Reinjection of condensate to boost
moisture in the refuse was permitted by the local authorities until 1985.
Landfill personnel note, however, that since this practice ceased, there has
not been any appreciable drop in either gas or condensate production.
The closed portion of the landfill has approximately 11 x 106 Mg of
refuse in place, and the active portion of the site accepts another
1.4 x 106 Mg each year. Total capacity of the site is permitted to be
23 x 106 Mg tons over 122 hectares. Examination of gate receipt records for
Bl-6
-------
1987 through February 1989 shows a breakout of solid waste (Class 3
decomposable waste) and inert wastes. On the average, inert wastes account
for approximately 20% of the total wastes received. Much of these inert
wastes are debris from the adjacent gravel mining operation. Thus, it may be
estimated that of the 11 x 106 Mg of refuse in place, approximately
8.7 x 106 Mg are decomposable waste.
A 1984 report on gas production at this facility indicates that at that
time, 8 x 106 Mg of refuse were in place, of which inerts accounted for 10% of
the total.
The closed portion of the landfill does not have a final cover in place
yet (will be installed Fall 1990). The area is currently covered with a
permeable silty sand and is not vegetated. Landfill personnel estimate the '
moisture content of the refuse in place to be 12%.
Gas collection first began at this site in 1976; the previous owners
periodically used an internal combustion engine to produce energy or flared
the gas. The site was purchased by the current owners in 1987.
The closed portion of this landfill has a total of 102 wells. These •
wells are divided as interior (42) and perimeter (60) wells. Orifice plates
are used on each well to measure and control gas flow. The lines connecting
these two well systems are kept separate and lead to flares on the perimeter
of the site. There are three flares at the site, one for each well system and
one for backup use only. The interior wells are better producers than the
perimeter wells, with high gas flow and higher methane content of the gas (48
vs 32%). The depth of the interior wells ranges from 46 to 76 meters, while
the perimeter wells, designed primarily for migration control, are much
shallower.
A Solar skid is used for gas compression prior to flaring, and
condensate is treated in an oil-water separator. Landfill personnel estimate
that hydrocarbons account for 1% of the condensate. The water is transported
to an off site wastewater treatment facility, and the hydrocarbon fraction is
handled as a hazardous waste and burned off site as kiln fuel.
There is currently only a sporadic market for gas sales at this facility.
Local regulations often limit customer use of landfill gas. Operators of this
facility are optimistic that gas sales will increase in the future, and
predict that as waste acceptance rates increase, gas recovery rates will also
increase.
Bl-7
-------
Because of the age of this landfill, there is currently no leachate
collection system in places where gas is being collected.
Perimeter gas migration is controlled by the 60 shallow perimeter wells
that encircle the closed portion of the landfill. Monthly surface test data
(2.5 samples/hectare) typically indicate organic vapor readings below 50 parts
per million.
No measurable organic vapors levels were detected. Vegetation has not
been established on any portion of the landfill.
Landfill 6
Landfill 6, located in northern California, was visited August 24, 1990.
This landfill was the only one visited where gas recovery and refuse
composition data could be gathered for separate portions of the landfill. As
shown in Figure 3-5, three portions of the landfill had separate gas recovery
lines. The dates of refuse acceptance at these three areas were estimated
through discussions with landfill personnel.
Gas is recovered from the closed portions of the landfill (Areas 1, 2,
and 3). Refuse is currently being placed in another area. The acreage and
the estimated 'volume of refuse in place for each of the closed units are shown
below:
• Area 1: 27 hectares, 1.74 x 10B Mg refuse;
• Area 2: 10 hectares, 5.8 x 105 Mg refuse; and
• Area 3: 3 hectares, 2.5 x 105 Mg refuse.*
There are an estimated total of 2.6 x 106 Mg of refuse over 40 hectares at
this site.
Refuse was first accepted at this site in 1975. The refuse placement
dates for the closed portions of this site are:
• Area 1: 1975-1983, 1987, 1988;
• Area 2: 1983-1986; and
• Area 3: 1984-1986, 1989.
This area does not include the 6.7 hectares and 11 wells brought on-line May
1990.
Bl-8
-------
Area 1 did not accept any refuse from approximately 1983 through 1986. After
this period, landfill personnel decided to add another 4.6 meters of compacted
refuse to the top of Area 1 units, and this addition was completed in 1988.
The height of the refuse placed on the 3 areas ranges from 9.7 to 13.7 meters,
all above ground level. The final cover on Areas 1 and 2 and part of Area 3
consists of a 1.2-meter clay cap, a 0.3-meter soil cover, with vegetation
established. Parts of Area 3 have not been seeded with vegetation yet.
Information was also gathered on the refuse composition for the entire
site. The average refuse moisture content is reported to be 23%, and the
composition is listed below by wet weight percent:
Component . Percent
Paper Waste 46
Garden Waste 13
Glass/Ceramics 10
Food Waste 10
Metals 9
Plastics/Rubber 8
Textiles 2
Wood- 1
Ash/Dirt/Rock 1_
Total 100
Gas recovery began at this site in August of 1988. The current system
consists of three internal combustion engines and a backup flare that is used
if one of the engines fails. This flare is constantly burning, and normally
runs on propane (with only a small stream of recovered methane). On-site
personnel indicate that the amount of methane burned in the flare has been
steadily decreasing over time. Gas is collected from the closed portions of
the landfill from three separate areas. These areas correspond to the acres
listed for Areas 1 through 3 as shown above. All header and subheader lines
Bl-9
-------
are on the surface of the fill areas. There are a total of 68 wells, and the
number of wells in each unit is listed below:
• Area 1: 47;
• Area 2: 17; and
• Area 3: 4.
The estimated landfill gas flow for this entire site is 40,766 cubic
meters per day, with 50 to 52% methane. Gas is cooled to about 34°F prior to
entering the internal combustion engines. This pretreatment of the gas
results in the formation of a thick sludge (3.8 to 7.6 liters/8 hours). On-
site personnel indicated that this sludge will be tested for its toxicity and
the sludge will be landfilled, if it is permissible.
Condensate collected at the well heads is fed back into the fill area.
Condensate collected at the gas recovery plant is combined with the leachate
collected from the landfill and transferred to one of two surface collection
ponds. The liquid is then allowed to stand until it reaches a solids to
liquid ratio of 50:50. After testing the mixture's toxicity, it is placed in
the landfill if permitted.
Information received from the County Environmental Health group, the
party responsible for gas migration testing, showed that there are no areas
with any significant gas migration problems.
At the time of year this testing was performed, all vegetation was dry
and in a generally dormant condition. Visual inspection indicated one small
area (-28 m2) of possible distress during the last growing season. The cap is
full of large cracks, caused by excessive dryness of the soil. Use of the OVA
in the larger cracks did not indicate leaks, however.
Bl-10
-------
APPENDIX B2
SUMMARY OF INFORMATION GATHERED
The amount of information obtained from the landfills varied from one
landfill to another and is summarized below. This information is best used
when examining the gas recovery variances. The recent waste composition
data gathered may be useful in predicting future methane rates. In addition,
the topographic site maps can be used to estimate the amount of refuse in
place if a compacted refuse density is available. These estimates could then
be compared to the amount of refuse in place provided by the landfill
operators.
B2-1
-------
Landfill 1
Refuse Filling Plans - 1985 through 1989:
These give projected volumes of waste to be landfilled, the portion of
the landfill to be filled, and the type of cover for each of the above
years. These also contain brief discussions of gas well installation
plans. Refuse composition is not discussed in any of these plans.
Waste Acceptance Data - 1985 through 1989:
All total cubic yard data is listed by month from 1/85 to 6/90. It is
also broken down as loose, packed, roll-off, compacted, loads,
demolition, and miscellaneous. The break-out categories change from year
to year and are not consistent over the 5-year period.
Calibration Data:
Four sets, of calibration reports for flow, temperature, and pressure
instruments were obtained. Calibrations are done quarterly and dates are
3/89, 6/89, 9/89, and 1/90.
Gas Composition Data:
Daily average gas composition data (CH4, C02, N2, 02) are listed for 5/89
through 7/90. One month, 9/89, seems to be missing. There are gaps of
several days during most months where data was not collected. These must
be days when the turbine was down. These data sheets also contain values
for Btu, pressure, temperature, and gravity.
Site Maps:
These accompany the refuse filling plans.
B2-2
-------
Landfill 2
Waste Acceptance Data:
Have data for the period of 1/90 to 7/90. Cubic yards are broken out by
loose, compacted, contaminated soil, sludge, industrial waste, and
asbestos. Older data was not available.
Calibration Data:
Have Quarterly calibration reports for temperature, flow, and pressure
were obtained. Report dates are for 4/89, 8/89, 11/89, 2/90, and 5/90.
Gas Composition Data:
Daily average gas composition data is listed for each month from 1/89 to
July 1990. No gaps in data (except for downtimes).
Perimeter Gas .Migration Data:
Monitoring data for the perimeter gas wells is included for years 1985 to
1990. The 1985 report is not an official report or data sheet, but the
others are. Gas monitoring was also performed in area buildings.
Figures are included that show the locations of the wells and buildings.
Leachate Data:
One report (1984) of leachate chemical analysis was provided.
Recovery Well Boring Logs-:
Provides information on borings for the gas wells. Information includes
degree of decomposition, qualitative moisture content, waste composition,
and temperature at various drilling depths.
B2-3
-------
Landfill 3
Gas Production Data:
Annual gas production and refuse-in-place data are listed for 1970 to
1989.
Gas Composition Data:
Data for CH4, N2, C02, 02, pressure, temperature, gravity, and Btu are
listed daily for each month from 5/88 through 7/90. Data for 8/88, 9/88,
and 1/89 are missing.
Gas Migration Data:
1989 and 1990 reports of perimeter gas well and building monitoring are
included. These also contain figures showing the locations of the sample
locations.
Recovery Well Boring Logs:
There are several reports describing well installation and drilling data.
Site Closure Plans:
Describes different landfill sections, sizes, liners, leachate
collection, and cover plans.
Calibration Data:
Calibration reports for the pressure transmitters and the flow computer
are included for 3/89, 7/89, 10/89, 1/90, and 3/90.
Site Maps:
Two site maps were provided by landfill personnel.
B2-4
-------
Landfill 4
Waste Acceptance Data:
Monthly cubic yardage and tonnage data for waste accepted (1/87 to 7/90)
is listed along with calculations showing the percent of construction and
demolition debris. The amount of sludge received is broken out
separately for each month from 1986 to 1989.
Gas Production Data:
Give total gas production and use for the whole plant (and by turbine)
for each month from 7/89 to 7/SO. Condensate and leachate (total liquid
volume) are also provided for each month.
Gas Composition Data:
Average monthly values for CH4, N2, 02, and C02 for the period 8/89 to
6/90 are provided. Weekly average values are listed over the period
4/10/90 to 8/21/90.
Gas Production Data Sheet:
Gives total annual refuse and gas production for the years 1971 to 1989.
Site Map:
A site map was provided that shows current and past fill areas.
Ambient Temperature Data:
Shows monthly average temperatures for 1989.
B2-5
-------
Landfill 5
Waste Acceptance Data:
Daily weight records (tonnage) for waste received is listed for each
month from 8/88 to 7/90. Also provided total amount of refuse in place.
Flare Exhaust Reports:
These give the composition of the flare inlet gas and the exhaust gas
from flares 1 and 2 (one sample from each flare).
Gas Production and Composition Data:
Describes composition of gas, gas plant, and gas quantities.
Sampling Results:
From 4/89 to 6/90, the following data are summarized:
• Integrated surface sampling analyses (methane, non-methane
hydrocarbons, total organic compounds, and toxic contaminants).
• Landfill gas (CH4, C02, NMOC, toxics).
• Perimeter samples (CH4, C02, NMOC, TOC, toxics).
• Ambient air (CH4, NMOC, TOC, toxics).
Gas Production Data:
Daily gas production (sales gas and migration collection) is listed for
each month from 1/90 to 8/90. It is broken down into the following
categories: CH4 concentration, Btu's, flare CFM, CFM sold, and total
CFM. Other data may be sent on historical gas production, if found.
These data may not have been complete in the past.
B2-6
-------
Landfill 6
Waste Acceptance Data:
Total tonnage values are listed for years 1976 to 1989. Monthly values
are given for 1/88 through 6/90.
Waste Composition Data:
A 1990 breakdown of average waste composition and moisture content is
given. About 10 waste types are listed.
Gas Flow and Composition Data:
Gas flow and methane composition data are listed for areas 1 through 3
for the period 8/88 to 8/90. About two to three samples are taken per
week. Samples are not taken every day of the week. This data sheet also
includes total refuse volume and depth for the three landfill areas.
Site Map:
A site map was provided that indicates gas recovery lines, surface
elevations, and past and current fill areas.
B2-7
-------
APPENDIX C
TEST PROCEDURES AND LABORATORY ANALYSIS
Methane. Carbon Dioxide. Oxygen, and Nitrogen Test Method
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Reference Method (RM) 3C was used
for determining the composition of the landfill production gas. This method
has been developed and proposed for use at.municipal landfills for
determination of methane, carbon dioxide (C02), nitrogen (N2), and oxygen (02)
levels. Landfill gas samples are taken using evacuated leak-free stainless
steel canisters. Sampling lines are securely connected to the landfill gas
line sample port and the sample canister. A three-way valve and a vacuum
gauge are connected in the sampling line. Prior to extracting the sample gas,
a leak check is performed. The three-way valve is positioned to isolate the
sampling line between the vacuum gauge and the sample canister. The sample
canister valve is then opened, and the vacuum pressure is noted. After
5 minutes, the vacuum pressure is noted again. If the vacuum pressure has not
changed during this time, the canister is leak-free, and the gas sampling is
initiated.
To begin sampling, the starting vacuum pressure is recorded, and the
three-way valve is positioned to open the line between the gas sample port and
the sample canister. The valve is adjusted such that the sample gas is
extracted slowly and evenly over a period of 10 to 20 minutes. When the
vacuum gauge pressure drops to zero, sample extraction is complete. The
three-way valve is then positioned to shut off the flow of sample gas to the
canister, and the canister valve is closed. A cover nut is attached to the
canister sample connection to protect and securely seal the canister. Sample
canisters were shipped for laboratory analysis using gas chromatography (GC).
Nonmethane Organic Carbon Test Method
Nonmethane organic carbon (NMOC) in the landfill gas was determined using
EPA Reference Method 25C. Samples were taken using the same procedures as for
Reference Method 3C. After a 5-minute leak check procedure, starting vacuum
pressures were recorded and samples were extracted into evacuated stainless
steel canisters. Canisters were then shipped for GC analysis.
C-l
-------
Moisture Test Methods
Moisture content of the landfill gas was determined using EPA Reference
Method 4. This method uses a chilled impinger train to condense and trap
water from the landfill gas; the water is then weighed and related to the
volume of gas sampled. To collect gas for moisture analysis, the sample line
is connected to the landfill gas sample port and to a gas volume meter box.
The meter box contains a vacuum pump which draws the sample through a chilled
impinger train consisting of four impinger bottles submerged in ice. The
first impinger bottle is empty, the second two contain measured volumes of
water, and the fourth contains a known weight of dry silica gel.
Prior to gas sampling, the sampling train is checked for leaks. The
vacuum pump is started with the landfill gas sample port valve closed. If the
gas meter shows no gas flow after evacuation of sample lines and impinger
bottles, the sample train contains no leaks, and gas sampling can begin.
To begin sampling, the starting gas meter reading is recorded and then
the sample port valve is opened to allow landfill gas to be drawn through the
sampling train. Sampling is conducted for 20 minutes per sample. Impinger
temperature, sample gas temperature, and gas meter readings are recorded every
5 minutes. At the end of 20 minutes, the sample valve is closed, the vacuum
pump is stopped, and the final gas meter reading is recorded. The first three
impinger bottles are then emptied into a graduated cylinder and-the volume of
water is recorded. The silica gel from the fourth bottle is emptied into a
tared sample bottle, to be weighed at a later time.
Moisture in the gas is determined by relating the increased volume of
water in the first three impinger bottles and the increased weight of the
silica gel to the volume of landfill gas extracted through the sample train.
Volumetric Gas Flow Rate Test Method
The volumetric flow rates of the landfill gas production at the six
landfills were to be measured using EPA Reference Method 2. • This method
requires that a pitot tube with a diameter of about 0.5 to 1.0 centimeters
(cm) be inserted into the gas transport pipe. At the landfills visited,
however, there were no sample ports on the landfill gas transport pipes large
enough to insert a pitot tube. Therefore, field measurement for gas flow rate
was not possible. In lieu of this test, for three of the six landfills copies
of recent calibration records of the on-site flow measurement instruments were
obtained.
C-2
-------
Landfill Surface Organic Vapor Testing
Tests for the presence of organic vapors near the landfill surface were
conducted using an organic vapor analyzer (OVA). An OVA basically consists of
a.sample probe, a vacuum pump to draw sample through the analyzer, a flame
ionization detector, and a display that indicates the concentration in parts
per million (ppm) of organic vapors.
Prior to surface testing at each of the landfill sites, the OVA was
calibrated using three calibration standards with air containing: 1) 0 ppm
organic vapor; 2) 100 ppm methane; and 3) 500 ppm methane. Field tests were
conducted by sampling at various points on the landfill surface at a distance
of about 10 cm above the surface. Areas of vegetative stress were sampled, as
well as any cracks or fissures in the landfill surface. As each point was
tested, its location, a brief description of the surface characteristics, and
the organic vapor concentration measured were recorded in the project
notebook.
C-3
-------
LABORATORY ANALYSES
Methane. Carbon Dioxide. Oxygen, and Nitrogen
Determination of C02, CH4, 02, and N2 concentrations of the landfill gases
was performed using proposed Reference Method 3C (RM 3C). As described by
RM 3C, sample analysis is conducted using a GC with a thermal conductivity
detector. For this project, a Shimadzu Model GC3-B GC, associated automatic
integrator, and column supplied by Alltech Inc. were utilized to analyze the
landfill gas samples. Calibration of the GC was performed by injecting
replicate samples of a gas mixture containing known concentrations of the
three gases of interest. To establish a calibration curve, three different
concentrations covering the expected range of landfill gas concentrations were
used. Calibrations were repeated at regular intervals to detect instrument
drift.
The sample is analyzed by injecting a known aliquot (1-mL total volume)
into the GC column. The column separates the sample constituents, which are
eluted at different rates depending on the chemical characteristics of the
column and the specific gas. After being separated, the sample passes through
a thermal conductivity detector. The resulting output of the detector is
recorded on an integrating recorder for determination of the concentration of
the gas. Samples were analyzed a minimum of three times.
Nonmethane Organic Carbon
Measurement of Nonmethane Organic Carbon (NMOC) concentrations in the
landfill gas was performed using proposed EPA Reference Method 25C. This
method utilizes evacuated canisters to collect a sample for subsequent
analysis. After sample collection was completed, the canisters were returned
to Radian for recovery and analysis. The Radian laboratories are not
currently performing RM 25C analyses on a routine basis, so Research Triangle
Laboratories, Inc. were used to insure timely turn around of sample results.
The sample tank is analyzed by injecting an aliquot via a 1-mL sample
loop into a GC column, which is maintained at a constant 85°C. Methane and
then C02 elute through the column to an oxidation catalyst, reduction
catalyst, and finally to a flame ionization detector (FID). The column is
then backflushed to elute the organic fraction, which is analyzed in a similar
fraction. Triplicate injections are made for all samples. The NMOC analysis
system is calibrated frequently to insure proper operation.
C-4
-------
APPENDIX D
Quality Assurance Project Plan
for
Field Testing Air Emissions From
Municipal Solid Waste Landfills
EPA Project Officer:
Susan A. Thorneloe
Contract No.: 68-02-4288
Task No.: 52
Prepared by:
Radian Corporation
3200 Progress Center
Post Office Box 13000
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27709
Approvals:
Walter Gray
Radian Project Director Signature Date
Susan Thorneloe
EPA Project Director Signature Date
Judy Ford • .
AEERL Quality Assurance Officer Signature Date
D-i
-------
Section 1
Revision No. 1
August 3, 1990
Page 1 of 4
1.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
In response to concerns about global warming, the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency's (EPA) Office of Research and Development (ORD) has
initiated a program to characterize the effects of global climate change. The
program includes identifying and quantifying emission sources of greenhouse
gases. As part of this effort, EPA's Air and Energy Engineering Research
Laboratory (AEERL) has begun research to improve emissions inventories for the
United States and the world.
Methane (CH4) is of particular concern because its radiative forcing
potential is thought to be much greater than that of carbon dioxide (C02).
Although the major sources of CH4 are known qualitatively, considerable
uncertainty exists about the quantitative emissions from each source. One of
the goals of AEERL's global climate research program is to develop a more
accurate inventory for CH4 emissions from landfills.
As part of the ORD Global Climate Change program, AEERL is developing a
database that can be used to estimate CH4 emissions from landfills. This
effort began with an analysis of available models that estimate CH4 production
and an assessment of the data available to parameterize the models
(Peer et al., 1990). Available models were found to be very simplistic.
These models use the CH4 potential of the refuse (which is a function of its
organic content) and the.age of the landfill to predict annual emissions. The
best available models were designed to predict emissions from a single
landfill. One of these, the Landfill Air Emissions Estimation Model, which is
based on the Scholl Canyon model, was developed for use by regulatory agencies
for estimating landfill air emissions. The rate constant in this model was
chosen by fitting best estimates of CH4 emissions from approximately
50 landfills in the United States.
In order to determine the factors that affect CH4 production in landfills
on a global basis, a model that is more responsive to the wide range of
climates and wastes found throughout the world is needed. Understanding
climatic effects is considered especially important to climate modelers who
are studying feedback effects of global climate change. To this end, the
AEERL is developing a field testing program to gather data that can be used to
nja.052
D-l
-------
Section 1
Revision No. 1
August 3, 1990
Page 2 of 4
create a model that demonstrates the relationship between climatic and
landfill characteristics and CH4 production.
The project is divided into the following subtasks:
• Task 1: Project Management
• Task 2: Site Selection
Develop selection and evaluation criteria,
Complete preliminary screening of potential sites,
Select final list of candidate facilities, and
Contact facilities and obtain permission for testing.
• Task 3: Test Plan/Quality Assurance Project Plan Development
Prepare Test Plan for landfill gas composition and flow rate
measurements, and
Develop Category II QA project plan for testing program to be
performed under this work assignment.
• Task 4: Landfill Emission Testing and Instrument Evaluation
Perform landfill gas composition and flow rate measurements,
Collect historical operations data, and
Complete all sample analysis and preliminary data reduction.
• Task 5: Data Analysis and Report Preparation
Compile historical data into a format compatible with model
requirements,
Complete model runs using historical data,
Assess accuracy and precision of site determined composition
and flow data,
Compare emission rates predicted by model with observed
emission rates, and
Prepare a report assessing site selection criteria, test
methods, and test results.
The field testing to be completed in Task 4 includes the following:
nja.052
D-2
-------
Section 1
Revision No. 1
August 3, 1990
Page 3 of 4
• Landfill Gas Composition: expected concentrations are 40 to 50%
methane, 40 to 45% carbon dioxide (C02), 5 to 15% water vapor,
0.5 to 1% nonmethane organic compounds, and balance nitrogen.
• Landfill Gas Production Rate: rates may vary from 28,317 standard
cubic meters per day to 240,694 standard cubic meters per day.
The specific sites have not yet been selected so only a generic
description can be presented at this time. At each site a number of
collection wells have been constructed based upon the size and configuration
of the landfill. These wells collect the methane, C02, and other generated
gases and direct them to a common manifold. This manifold feeds either an
energy recovery facility or control device (such as a flare). Sampling would
be performed in the manifold at existing test ports.
This Quality Assurance Project Plan .(QAPP) details the methods which will
be used by Radian Corporation to assure that quality data are collected during
the field program. Table 1-1 lists the measurements to be performed by Radian
personnel. In addition to these measurements, information from each site will
be collected regarding: 1) past gas production, 2) waste composition, and 3)
historical meteorological data required by the model.
This QAPP has been prepared in accordance with AEERL quality assurance
procedures specified in the document "AEERL Quality Assurance Procedures for
Contractors and Financial Assistance Recipients." The emissions testing and
data validation conform to Category II requirements. Radian is committed to
implementing this QAPP and conducting the testing portion of this program in a
fashion which will generate quality data.
nja.052
D-3
-------
TABLE 1-1. EMISSION MEASUREMENTS
Section 1
Revision No. 1
August 3, 1990
.Page 4 of 4
Gas species
Methodology
Number of tests
Methane
Nonmethane organic carbon
Carbon dioxide
Oxygen
Moisture
Velocity
EPA Reference Method-3C
EPA Reference Method-25
EPA Reference Method-3C
EPA Reference Method-3C
EPA Reference Method-4
EPA Reference Method-2C
6
6
6
6
6
6
D-4
-------
Section 2
Revision No. 1
August 3, 1990
Page 1 of 2
2.0 PROJECT ORGANIZATION
The Program Organization is shown in Figure 2-1. Mr. Clint Burklin is
the Radian Program Manager and Mr. Walter Gray is the technical Project
Director for Radian. The Radian QA/QC officer is Ms. Linda Brown.
Administratively, Ms. Brown is independent of the technical project
management. For the purposes of this project she will coordinate her
activities through the Project Director and report her findings to him at
appropriate intervals.
As task leaders for the on-site testing program and the data analysis,
Mr. Walter Gray and Ms. Darcy Campbell will be responsible for implementing
the task specific quality control (QC) activities. They will conduct any
needed training sessions and proficiency evaluations, schedule QC activities,
establish sampling/analytical protocols, insure that all equipment
calibrations are completed,, and coordinate record keeping and data
review/validation.
As Project Director Mr. Gray is responsible for the overall technical
effort. This includes responsibility for the timely, cost-effective execution
of all project activities. He will also coordinate preparation of a final
data quality report.
This organization of QA/QC has proven effective in past Radian
sampling/analysis programs. As problem areas and/or project priorities arise,
the field team members who execute daily QC efforts bring them to the
attention of the field task leaders for appropriate action. The QA officer
provides independent review of QC activities and independent performance
checks through QA audits.
nja.052
D-5
-------
EPA PROJECT OFFICER
Susan Thorneloe
PROGRAM MANAGER
Clint Burklin
QA/QC OFFICER
Linda Brown
PROJECT DIRECTOR
Walter Gray
en
TASK 2
SITE SELECTION
D. Campbell
TASK 3
TEST PLAN/QAPP
W. Gray
•Lee Davis
TASK 4
FIELD TESTING
W. Gray
•Linda Brown
PEER REVIEW
M. Hartman
R. Peer
R. Jongleux
TASK 5
DATA ANALYSIS/REPORTING
D. Campbell/W. Gray
Darcy Campbell
•Lee Davis
-Darrell Doerle
•D. Campbell
-Lee Davis
~O 3> 33 CO
03 tO < o
C -..<-«•
(/> o-> —«.
ro r-* --. o
O 3
O CO 3
-*>- ro
Figure 2-1. Project Organization
10
o *-
-------
Section 3
Revision No. 1
August 3, 1990
Page 1 of 3
3.0 DATA QUALITY OBJECTIVES
The objectives of the quality assurance efforts for this program is to
assess and document the precision, accuracy, and adequacy of the data
collection systems including sample collection and laboratory analysis.
Table 3-1 summarizes the QA objectives for each major measurement parameter.
Data comparability will be achieved by using standard units of measure as
specified in the methods indicated in Table 3-1.
At this time it is not possible to set Data Quality Objectives for the
comparison of real (historical) emission data to predicted (modeled) emission
data. The reasons for this include the following:
• The amount of historical data is not yet known.
• The quality of available historical data is unknown.
• Collection of historical data will be performed by facility
operators or owners.
• Records verifying quality of the instrumental data may be incomplete
or inadequate.
Each of these concerns may have an impact on the usefulness of data
collected from the host facilities. It is not, however, within the scope of
this project to determine what level of data quality is needed for comparison
with the Scholl Canyon model. Rather, it is one of this project's goals is to
determine what information is available and what the best methods of obtaining
it are. Further assessments of the quality of data obtained from the host
facilities will be made under a separate scope of work.
In selection of the types of test methods to be used and the number of
test runs required, the following criteria were considered:
• Is there a current or proposed Reference Method for the parameter to
be measured.
• Is the method selected appropriate for anticipated concentrations.
nja.052
D-7
-------
Section 3
Revision No. 1
August 3, 1990
Page 2 of 3
TABLE 3-1. DATA QUALITY INDICATORS
Parameter
Volumetric flow rate
Methane, carbon dioxide,
oxygen, nitrogen
Moisture
Nonmethane organic carbon
Precision3
Methodology (%)
Reference Method 2C
Reference Method 3C
Reference Method 4
Reference Method 25
6v
10
5o/b
%
20 %
5 %
Accuracy3
±10
±10
±10
±10
3Based on EPA collaborative tests.
Precision required by methodology.
D-8
-------
Section 3
Revision No. 1
August 3, 1990
Page 3 of 3
• Can the selected method meet the required level of accuracy and
precision.
• How much data is needed for the evaluation of facility operated
instrumentation.
Each of the test methods selected for this project are either promulgated
Reference Methods (40 CFR 60, Appendix A) or have been developed specifically
for testing landfill emissions. The use of a standardized method is thus
assured.
After selection of the test procedure, an assessment of the potential
ranges of emission concentrations was made to determine if it was within the
detection limits of the proposed method. In each case the method specified
was either capable of measurements over the anticipated ranges or contained
procedures to make the method applicable.
Accuracy and precision of the methods has been determined through
collaborative tests sponsored by EPA. Since it is believed that order of
magnitude comparisons will be made with data collected during this program the
data quality goals set in Table 3-1 are more than adequate.
Selection of the number of test runs to perform used the requirements of
40 CFR 60, Appendix F "Quality Assurance Guidelines for Continuous Emission
Monitors" for guidance. In this procedure a Relative Accuracy of the
instrument in question is checked with either calibration gases or a
comparison with a reference method value. A total of three comparisons is
made by either method. For this test series six test runs were selected to
guard against unforseen data loss and to provide a potential excess of data by
which to evaluate the effectiveness of the procedures used.
nja.052
D-9
-------
Section 4
Revision No. 1
August 3, 1990
Page 1 of 6
4.0 SAMPLING AND ANALYTICAL PROCEDURES
Included in this section are the sampling and analytical techniques to be
used to characterize landfill emissions during this pilot program. Also is
included a tentative test schedule and sampling matrix that will be used.
4.1 SITE DESCRIPTION
Sites for this program have not yet been selected. As such there are no
specifics available for a discussion of the test locations.
4.2 TEST SCHEDULE AND SAMPLING MATRIX
The proposed sampling/analysis matrix for the emissions tests is
presented in Table 4-1. The tentative test schedule is presented in
Table 4-2.
4.3 VOLUMETRIC GAS FLOW RATE SAMPLING PROCEDURES
The volumetric gas flow rate of the landfill production gas will be
determined using procedures described in EPA Reference Method 2. Based on
this method, the volumetric flow rate is determined by measuring the
cross-sectional area of the transport pipe and the average linear velocity of
the gas stream.
The average gas velocity is calculated from the temperature, wet
molecular weight, static pressure, and differential pressure induces in a
pitot tube by the gas flow. The temperature and pressure profile will be
obtained by traversing the pipe. The number of sampling points and distances
from the pipe walls will be determined based on the configuration of the
piping and the requirements of Reference Method 2.
Temperature and differential pressure profile data will be measured at
each of the sampling points using an S-type pitot tube and K-type
thermocouple. The static gas pressure will be measured at several points and
averaged for a single value. An example of the data sheet used is presented
in Figure 4-1.
nja.052
D-10
-------
Section 4
Revision No. 1
August 3, 1990
Page 2 of 6
TABLE 4-1
Sampling/Analysis Matrix
Parameter
Flow rate
Methane, carbon
dioxide, oxygen,
nitrogen
Moisture
Non-Methane
organic compounds
Sampling Method
RM 2
RM 3C
(integrated grab
sample)
RM 4'
RM 25C
(grab sample)
Analytical Method
pitot troverse
GC with thermal
conductivity
sensor
Analytical
balance
GC/FID
Sampl ing
Frequency
6 tests per site
6 tests per site
6 tests per site
6 tests per site
nja.052
D-ll
-------
Section 4
Revision No. 1,
August 3, 1990
Page 3 of 6
TABLE 4-2. ITINERARY FOR LANDFILL FIELD TEST WORK*
Sunday, August 5
Monday, August 6
Tuesday, August 7
Wednesday, August 8
Thursday, August 9
Friday, August 10
Monday, August 20
Tuesday, August 21
Wednesday, August 22
Thursday, August 23
Friday, August 24
Saturday, August 25
Travel to Wisconsin
Site visit/Field Test - Wisconsin Landfill
Travel to Illinois
Site visit to Illinois Landfill
Travel to Pennsylvania
Site visit to Pennsylvania Landfill
Travel Home
Travel to Florida
Site visit to Florida Landfill
Travel to Southern California
Site visit to Southern California Landfill
Travel to Northern California -
Site visit to Northern California Landfill
Travel Home
*These are proposed dates and are being confirmed with each site.
nja.052
D-12
-------
RADIAN
VELOCITY TRAVERSE
Section 4
Revision No. 1
August 3, 1990
Page 4 of 6
OATf
LQCATinn
STICK in ,
BAmHCTRtC PKES
STACK GAUGE PfIC
OPMATOM , ,
UJ«f ,m. Mf
uimf i. Mjd
TRAVERSE
POIITT
NUMER
AVERAGE
VEUJOTY
HEAO
STACK
SCHEMATIC V TRAVtRSC POIRT UkYOUT
nuvcBi
POUTT
MBtt
AVOtAfit
veLOcrnr
HCAO
-------
Section 4
Revision No. 1
August 3, 1990
Page 5 of 6
4.4 METHANE, CARBON DIOXIDE, OXYGEN, AND NITROGEN SAMPLING/ANALYSIS
PROCEDURES
The composition of the landfill production gas will be determined using
proposed EPA Reference Method 3C. This method has been developed and proposed
for use at municipal landfills for the determination of methane, carbon
dioxide (C02), nitrogen (N.), and oxygen (02). A sample of the landfill
production gas is extracted into a leak-free stainless steel canister. This
sample is collected (integrated) over a period contiguous with the other
emission measurements.
Once the sample has been collected it is analyzed using a gas
chromatograph (GC) with thermal conductivity (TC) detector. The analyzer is
calibrated using three gas mixtures of known concentration to establish a
calibration curve for the detector's response to gas constituents. A portion
of the sample is injected into the GC and the response is recorded for
calculation of the various component concentrations. Replicate analyses are
performed until the average difference between values is less than or equal to
five percent.
4.5 MOISTURE SAMPLING/ANALYSIS PROCEDURES
The moisture content of the landfill gas will be determined using EPA
Reference Method 4. In this test method, a known volume of particulate-free
gas is bubbled through a chilled impinger train. The quantity of condensed
water is determined and related to the volume of gas sampled to determine the
moisture content.
4.6 NONMETHANE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS SAMPLING/ANALYSIS PROCEDURES
Nonmethane organic compounds will be determined using EPA Reference
Method 25C. This method utilizes a dry ice cooled trap and evacuated canister
to collect the sample from the effluent stream. The trap and flask are then
returned to the laboratory where the NMOC is flushed into an NMOC analyzer
consisting of a GC equipped for back purging, an oxidation section, a
reduction section, and a Flame lonization Detector (FID).
Analysis of the sample begins by separating the NMOC components present
in the trap and canister by using the GC system. Any NMOC species collected
on the GC column are then flushed off into an intermediate collection vessel.
nja.052
D-14
-------
Section 4
Revision No. 1
August 3, 1990
Page 6 of 6
Next, the NMOC present in the sample is converted to C02 in the oxidizer
section of the analyzer and is then quantitatively reduced to methane. This
insures that the detector will give a consistent response for all species of
NMOC present in the sample.
nja.052
D-15
-------
Section 5
Revision No. 1
August 3, 1990
Page 1 of 6
5.0 SAMPLE CUSTODY
Sample custody procedures for this program are based on EPA procedures
recommended in "Quality Assurance Handbook for Air Pollution Measurements".
Since samples will be analyzed both on and off site, the custody procedures
emphasize: 1) careful documentation of sample collection, analytical, and
quality control data, and 2) the use of chain-of-custody records for samples
being transhipped.
All field data sheets will be completed at the end of each test run and
will be initialed by the operator conducting the test and by the field team
leader at the end of the day. All samples which are to be shipped will be
clearly labeled and sealed prior to packing. An example of the sample labels
and seals is presented in Figures 5-1 and 5-2. A sample chain-of-custody form
will be completed for each sample as they are packaged for shipment. Examples
of all data sheets to be used in this project are included as Figures 5-3
through 5-6.
All gas samples will be returned to the Radian laboratory and to Research
Triangle Laboratory for analysis. All RM 3C samples will be analyzed at the
Radian RTP facility within two weeks of collection. All RM 25C samples will
be analyzed at the Research Triangle Laboratory facilities within two weeks of
collection. Each sample canister will be shipped in its own individual box,
and will be completely labelled before packaging by the field crew.
nja.052
0-16
-------
Section 5
Revision No. 1
August 3, 1990
Page 2 of 6
RADIAN
900 P«hm«ttf Pirfc
Morrlsvlll«. NC 27MO
(919)481-0212
SAMPLE TYPE:
LOCATION:
DATE:
REMARK:
PRELIM. NO:
.CONTRACT:
FINAL WT:
TARE:
SAMPLE WT:
Figure 5-1. Example Sample Label
ATTENTION:
BEFORE OPENING
NOTE I* BOTTLE WA« SAMPLE CODE'
TAMPERED WITH.
Progimt Cfratii 1200 C Crue«i HIII mi
N«MnHignw«yfPO 801 13000
. MC ]7709/l«l«M1-9iaO
ATTENTION:
Begone OPENING
NOTE \f BOTUE WAS
TAMPERED WITH.
Figure 5-2. Example Sample Seal
D-17
-------
Section 5
Revision No. 1
August 3, 1990
Page 3 of 6
RADIAN
CO«»0««TIOM
VELOCITY TRAVERSE
?t AHT
DATE _
LOCATION
STACK 1.0.
BAROMETRIC PRESSURE, in. «|
STACK GAUGE PRESSURE, m. Nj
OPERATORS
SCHEMATIC OF TRAVERSE POINT LAYOUT
TRAVERSE
POINT
NUM8EX
AVERAGE
VELOaTY
HEAD
tot^.a-HjO
STACK
TEVCRATURC
IT,), f
EPA (OviZB
4/7J
TRAVEfBE
POUT
mma
AVOtAfiC
VELOCITY
HEAD
(A#,). i«J«^)
STACK
TEWEXATURE
(Tf I. «r
Figure 5-3. Method 2C Velocity Traverse
D-]8
-------
Section 5
Revision No. 1
August 3, 1990
Page 4 of 6
MOISTURE RECOVERY FORM FOR METHOD 4
Plant
Date
Sample Identification Code:
Sampling location
Sample type
Run number
Sample box number
Clean-up person __
Solvent rinses
Amount of
Impinger Impinger Solution Implnger Tip
Number Solution (Q) Configuration
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Imoinger Weiqht (grams}
Weigh:
Final Initial Gain
Total Weight Gain (grams)
Figure 5-4. Moisture Recovery Form for Method 4
D-19
-------
RADIAN
Run Nunber
DATE
Samplers Initials.
SAMPLE NO.
SAMPLE
TIME
a ASK
I/VOLUME
TEMPERATURE
•F
INITIAL
FINAL
FLASK PR
"Ha
INITIAL
ESSURE
FINAL
BAROMETRIC
PRESSURE "Ha
INITIAL
FINAL
RECOVERY
DATE/TIME
o
o
MOTES:
-0 3> 73 00
(X) C fp OJ
C -•• r-i-
tn <
O '
_i. o
O 3
3
cn
Figure 5-5. Method 3C Field Sampling Data Sheet
en i— i o
vo
o
-------
RADIAN
Run Nunber
DATE
Staplers Initials.
SAMPLE NO.
SAMPLE
TIME
a ASK
I/VOLUME
TEMPERATURE
•F
INITIAL
FINAL
FLASK PR
"Ho
INITIAL
ESSURE
FINAL
BAROMETRIC
PRESSURE NHq
INITIAL
FINAL
RECOVERY
DATE/TIME
UOTES:
Figure 5-6. Method 25C Field Sampling Data Sheet
ft) C fD rt>
IO tO < 0
n> c -• r^
in ts> — ••
O1 r+- — '• O
O D
O CO 3
"— ' O
vo •
UD
O «—
-------
Section 6
Revision No. 1
August 3, 1990
Page 1 of 9
6.0 CALIBRATION PROCEDURES
Information is presented in this section pertaining to the calibration of
both sampling and analytical systems. Included is a description of the
procedure or reference to an applicable standard operating procedure, the
frequency and the calibration standards to be used.
6.1 SAMPLING EQUIPMENT CALIBRATION PROCEDURES
The checkout and calibration of source sampling equipment is an important
function in maintaining data quality: Referenced calibration procedures will
be strictly followed when available and the results will be properly
documented and retained. If a referenced calibration technique for a piece of
equipment is not available, then a state-of-the-art technique will be used.
Calibration requirements are summarized in Table 6-1.
6.1.1 Type-S Pltot Tube Calibration
EPA has specified guidelines concerning the construction and geometry of
an acceptable Type-S pitot tube. If the specific design and construction
guidelines are met, a pitot tube coefficient of 0.84 can be used. Information
relating to the design and construction of Type-S pitot tubes is presented in
detail in Section 3.1.1 of the EPA document "Quality Assurance Handbook for
Air Pollution Measurements - Volume III" and in Section 2 of 40 CFR 60
Appendix A, Reference Method 2. Type-S pitot tubes not meeting referenced
specifications will not be used during this project. Pitot tubes will be
inspected and documented as meeting specifications prior to the field
sampling. An example of the pitot specification sheet is shown .as Figure 6-1.
6.1.2 Dry Gas Meter Calibration
Meter boxes will be used for RM 4 (moisture determination). The meter
box houses a dry gas meter, sample pump, and flow metering/control hardware.
Figure 6-2 shows the meter box calibration form used to check to inspect the
operation of the components and to calibrate the dry gas meter. Space is
provided for leak checks of the dry gas mester, calibration of vacuum gauges
and flow meters, and for calibration of temperature sensors (thermometers or
nja.052
D-22
-------
' Section 6
Revision No. 1
August 3, 1990
Page 2 of 9
TABLE 6-1. EQUIPMENT REQUIRING CALIBRATION
Equipment
Type S Pi tot
Meter Box
Sampl ing Method
Reference Method 2C
Reference Method 4
Calibration Data Sheets
Figure 6-1
Figure 6-1
nja.052
0-23
-------
Section 6
Revision No. 1
August 3, 1990
Page 3 of 9
Dae* (DDMMYY):
Initial* of Calibracor:
Nozzle .
Idenciflcacion
No.
Oi
(laches)
DI
(laches)
.DI
(laches)
Average
Oiamecer
(laches)
Noes: The aaxlauB acceptable differeace becveen any cvo measurements is
0.004 laches. If chls coleraace caanoc be sec, Che aozzle should nee
be used.
Figure 6-1. Nozzle Calibration Data Sheet
D-24
-------
Date:
Calib. by:_
DRY GAS METER CALIBRATION DATA
(English Units) Pretest Post Teat
Calibration meter #:
Y =
Barometric Pressure (in. Hg):_
Dry Gas meter #:
OrflloB
Manometer
Selling
AHin.H
< O
Figure 6-2. Meter Box Calibration Data Sheet
-^ <-+• — O
O 3
O oo 13
t>- O\
•z.
to •— o
UD •
UO
O ^
-------
Section 6
Revision No. 1
August 3, 1990
Page 5 of 9
thermocouples) at ice and ambient temperatures against, an NBS traceable
mercury-in-glass thermometer. The dry gas meter will be calibrated
(documented correction factor at standard conditions) prior to the shipment of
the equipment to the test site. A post-test calibration check will be
performed as soon as possible after the equipment has returned to Radian/RTP.
Pre- and post-test calibrations should agree within 5 percent. The same data
form is used for both pre- and- post-test calibrations.
Dry gas meters will be calibrated using the calibration system
illustrated in Figure 6-3. Prior to calibration, a positive pressure
leak-check of the system will be performed using the procedure outlined in the
EPA Quality Assurance Handbook. The system is placed under approximately ten
inches of water column pressure and a manometer is used to determine if a
change in pressure occurs over a one minute period. If leaks are detected
(indicated by a drop in pressure), corrective actions will be taken before
calibrations are begun.
6.2 ANALYTICAL EQUIPMENT CALIBRATION
Chemical and physical characterization of field samples will require
calibration of analytical instruments. Analytical calibration requirements
are summarized in Table 6-2. Calibration procedures are briefly discussed
below.
6.2.1 Analytical Balance Calibration
Analytical balances will be calibrated over the expected range of use
with standard weights (NBS Class S). Measured values must agree within +2 mg.
The balances will be calibrated prior to the field measurement program and
again at the completion of the program. Balance calibration data will be
recorded in the laboratory and project notebooks.
6.2.2 Gas Chromatograph Calibration
Prior to analysis of any samples the gas chromatograph (GC) is setup
based on manufacturer's specifications for temperature and carrier gas flow
rates, and permitted to reach stable conditions. After the GC has stabilized
(about 1 hour) the instrument is checked for linearity of response and
calibration. Using three gas mixtures spanning the expected concentration
range of the samples, verify the detector linearity for each gas component of
nja.052
D-26
-------
Manometer
Surge Valve
Figure 6-3. Meter Calibration System
Air Inlet
Impinger or
Saturator
5416358R
fyj f~* (^ fO
t^*) i f~j ^ (*^
ro c — • r-i-
o :3
so
vb
o
-------
Section 6
Revision No. 1
August 3, 1990
Page 7 of 9
TABLE 6-2. ANALYTICAL EQUIPMENT CALIBRATION
Equipment
Analytical Balance
Gas Chromatograph
Non-methane Organic Analyzer
Type of Calibration
Multipoint
Multipoint
Multipoint
Frequency
Semi -Annual
Daily .
Daily
nja.052
D-28
-------
Section 6
Revision No. 1
August 3, 1990
Page 8 of 9
interest. This check also serves as the initial calibration of the GC. For
this and all subsequent calibrations the carrier flow rates, instrument'
temperatures, injection times, component concentrations, and sample loop
volumes will be recorded. Figure 6-4 presents an example of the calibration
data sheet. A plot of peak height versus concentration will be prepared and
used to determine proper operation of the instrument.
All samples will be analyzed in duplicate. Consecutive analyses of the
same sample must agree within ±5%. If they do not agree, additional samples
will be analyzed until consistent answers are obtained.
6.2.3 Nonmethane Organic Compounds Analyzer Calibration
Procedures for the initial performance check and calibration of the
Nonmethane Organic Compounds analyzer are contained in 40 CFR 60 Appendix A,
Section 5. Analyzer calibrations will be conducted each day (or for each set
of samples analyzed, whichever is more frequent) and results will be recorded
in the laboratory notebook. An instrument linearity check will also be
performed before each set of samples are analyzed. Propane standards
(specified in RM 25) wi-11 be used to assess instrument response over the
expected concentration range of the sample. Analyzer linearity is acceptable
if the response to each standard gas is ±5% of the average of the three
replicate injections and the standard deviation is less than ±5%.
nja.052 D-29
-------
RADIAN
CORPORATION
Gas Chromatograph Calibration Data
mple Loop Volume (cc):
Carrier Flow (cc/min):
o
o
Temperature (deg F):
Carrier Gas:
Low
Cone.
Inj. Time
Reponse
Mid
Cone.
Inj. Time
Reponse
High
Cone.
Inj. Time
Reponse
Figure 6-4. Gas Chromatograph Calibration Data Sheet
"O 3> X) (/)
tu c n> at
ua to < r»
(B C —. r*
l/> in -M.
l£> r-l- -.. o
O 3
O CO 3
-h- o>
•z.
If) \—• o
V£> •
VO
O >—
-------
Section 7
Revision No. 0
August 1, 1990
Page 1 of 8
7.0 DATA REDUCTION, VALIDATION, AND REPORTING
Table 7-1 contains a list of data reduction, validation, and reporting
tasks along with the individual(s) responsible for completion of that task.
Also included in Table 7-1 are those individuals responsible for data review.
7.1 DATA REDUCTION
Calculations for determining flow rates, moisture contents, and emission
concentrations are very repetitive in nature and have been converted into
computerized data analysis programs. These programs use the calculation
procedures specified in EPA Reference Methods 2, 3C, 4, and 25C. The program
has been validated by independent checks and simplifies data review to
verification of correct input values. Data are input to the program from
field data sheets.
Examples of the calculations being performed are presented in Figures 7-1
through 7-4.
7.2 DATA VALIDATION
All measurement data will be validated based upon representative process
conditions during sampling or testing, acceptable sample collection/testing
procedures, consistency with expected and/or other results, adherence to
prescribed QC procedures, and the specific acceptance criteria outlined in
Section 6 for calibration procedures and in Section 8 for internal quality
control procedures. Any suspect data will be flagged and identified with
respect to the nature of the problem with validity. Suspected outliers will
be tested using the Dixon Criteria at the five percent significant level.
Several of the data validation acceptable criteria presented in
Sections 6 and 8 involve specific calculations. Representative examples of
these are presented below.
7.2.1 Instrument Response Linearity
Acceptance criteria for instrument response linearity checks are based
upon the correlation coefficient, r, of the best fit line for the calibration
data points.
nja.052
D-31
-------
Section 7
Revision No. 0
August 1, 1990
Page 2 of 8
TABLE 7-1. SUMMARY OF DATA REDUCTION AND REVIEW RESPONSIBILITIES
Task
Test Plan and QAPP
Test Data Summaries
QC Data Summary
Final Data Summary
Data Reduction
Test Team Members
Test Team Members
Review and
Validation
M. Hartman
Lee Davis
D. Campbell
W. Gray
Reporting
W. -Gray
W. Gray
W. Gray
C. Burklin.
nja.052
0-32
-------
Section 7
Revision No. 0
August 1, 1990
Page 3 of 8
Javg Ts
V Ps M
s
Qs - 3,600 (l-Bw)
Pstd
2
Where: A = Cross sectional area, ft .
B = Water vapor in gas stream, fraction.
w
C = Pitot tube coefficient.
K = Pitot tube constant = 85.49.
M = Molecular weight of gas stream, wet basis,
P = Absolute gas pressure, in Hg.
P . . = Standard pressure, in Hg.
P = Velocity head of gas stream, in N-O.
Q = Volumetric flow rate, dscf/hr.
T = Gas temperature, °R.
T . . = Standard temperature, °R.
Figure 7-1. RM2 Calculations.
D-33
-------
Section 7
P p Revision No. 0
bw = —2— August 1, 1990
p Page 4 of 8
DdY*
c . - -A-
R(1-BW)
Where: A = GC Response (sample area).
B = Moisture content in the sample, fraction.
W
C = Component concentration, dry basis, ppm.
P. = Barometric pressure, mm Hg.
P = Vapor pressure of H-0, mm Hg.
W £
R = Mean calibration response factor for specific component,
area/ppm.
Figure 7-2. RM3C Calculation.
D-34
-------
Section 7
i v i\i \i \ Revision No. 0
wc = Kl ^Vfi " V August 1, 1990
Page 5 of 8
- K2 Y Vm PB
std Tm
B V
ws we
V + V
wc mstd
Where: B = Water content of gas stream, fraction.
WS
Kj = 0.04707
K2 = 17.64
PD = Barometric pressure, in Hg.
T = Temperature of meter, °R.
V. = Initial volume of liquid in impinger.
Vr = Final volume of liquid in impinger.
V = Standard volume of waer collected.
WC
V = Actual volume of sample.
m
V = Standard volume of sample collected.
mstd
Y' = Dry gas meter coefficient.
Figure 7-3. RM 4 Calculations,
D-35
-------
w
bar
pt
Tt
ptf
Ttf
-
pti
Tti
1
(1-BJr
Section 7
Revision No. 0
August 1, 1990
Page 6 of 8
tm
J=l
Where:
W
tm
P.
P
W
L.
= Moisture content in the sample, fraction.
= Calculated NMOC concentration, ppm C equivalent.
= Measured NMOC concentration, ppm C equivalent.
= Barometric pressure, mm Hg.
= Gas sample tank pressure after evacuation, mm Hg absolute.
= Gas sample tank pressure after sampling, but before
pressurizing, mm Hg absolute.
= Final gas sample tank pressure after, pessurizing, mm Hg
absolute.
= Vapor pressure of H~0, mm Hg.
u
= Sample tank temperature at completion of sampling, °K.
T. = Sample tank temperature at completion of sampling, °K.
T^ = Sample tank temperature after pressurizing, °K.
r = Total number of analyzer injections of sample tank during
analysis (where j = injection number, l...r).
Figure 7-4. RM 25C Calculations,
D-36
-------
Section 7
Revision No. 0
August 1, 1990
Page 7 of 8
The correlation coefficient reflects the linearity of response to the
calibration gas mixtures and is calculated as:
(7-1)
([n(£x2) - (£x)2] [n(£y2) -
where:
x = calibration concentrations
y = instrument response (peak area)
n = number of calibration points (x,y data pairs)
7.2.2 Precision
Control limits for control sample analyses, acceptability limits for
replicate analyses, and response factor agreement criteria specified in
Sections 6 and 8 are based upon precision, in terms of the coefficient of
variation (CV), i.e,. the relative standard deviation. . The standard deviation
of a sample set is calculated as:
S = standard deviation =./£(x - x)2
V n - 1
where:
x = individual measurement
x = mean value for the individual measurements
n = number of measurements
The CV in percent is then calculated as:
CV = S x 100%
Pooled CV = S CVj DF(
E DF,-
where:
CV; = CV of data set i
»
nja.052
D-37
-------
Section 7
Revision No. 0
August 1, 1990
Page 8 of 8
7.3 REPORTING
Reporting responsibilities for this project are outlined in Table 7-1.
These include both formal reports (e.g., QA Project Plan, final reports, etc.)
and internal reports (e.g., test data summaries, QC data summaries, etc.).
Upon completion testing, the Field Team Leaders will be responsible for
preparation of a complete data summary including calculation results and raw
data sheets. They will be assisted in this effort, by other field team
members. Following the performance and systems audits, the Project Director
will prepare a summary audit report which details the audit activities and
results. This summary report will be included as part of the final project
report.
nja.052
D-38
-------
Section 8
Revision No. 0
August 1, 1990
Page 1 of 4
8.0 INTERNAL QUALITY CONTROL PROCEDURES
Prior to actual sampling on site, all of the applicable sampling
equipment will be thoroughly checked to ensure that each component is clean
and operable. Each of the equipment calibration data forms will be reviewed
for completeness and adequacy to ensure the acceptability of the equipment.
Each component of the various sampling systems will be carefully packaged for
shipment, and upon arrival at the site, the equipment will be unloaded,
inspected, and assembled for use.
General quality control procedures for flue gas sampling (i.e., EPA
Methods 2C, 3C, 4, and 25C) will include the following:
Each sampling train will be visually inspected for proper assembly
before every use.
All sampling data will be recorded on standard data forms.
Any unusual conditions or occurrences will be noted during each run
on the appropriate data form.
Field sampling team leaders will review sampling data sheets daily.
In addition to the general QC procedures listed above, QC procedures
specific to each sampling method will also be followed. These method-specific
procedures are discussed below.
8.2.1 Quality Control Procedures for Velocity/Volumetric Flow Rate
Determination
Data required to determine the volumetric gas flow rate will be
collected using Method 2C. Quality control will focus on the following
procedures:
The S-type pitot tube will be visually inspected before sampling.
nja.052
D-39
-------
Section 8
Revision No. 0
August 1, 1990
Page 2 of 4
Both the low pressure and high pressure legs of the pitot tube will
be leak checked before sampling.
The oil manometer or Magnehelic gauge used to indicate the
differential pressure (AP) across the S-type pitot tube will be
leveled and zeroed.
The number and location of the sampling traverse points will be
checked before taking measurements.
»
The temperature measurement system will be visually checked for
damage and operability by measuring the ambient temperature prior to
each traverse.
All sampling data and calculations will be recorded on Preformatted
data sheets.
8.2.2 Quality Control Procedures for C0:. 0:. N,. and Methane
Determination
Data required to calculate molecular weight of the gas stream will be
collected using EPA Method 3C. Quality control for Method 3C sampling will
focus on the following:
The sampling train will be leak-checked before and after each
sampling run.
A constant sampling rate (±10%) will be used in withdrawing a
sample.
The sampling train will be purged prior to sample collection.
The sampling port will be properly sealed to prevent air in leakage.
nja.052
D-40
-------
Section 8
Revision No. 0
August 1, 1990
Page 3 of 4
Analytical quality control for Method 3C will include the following:
Instrument will be set to manufacturer's specifications before use.
Instrument linearity will be checked daily.
Instrument calibration will be checked before and after each series
of runs are completed.
8.2.3' Quality Control Procedures for Moisture Determination
The moisture content of the gas streams will be determined using the
technique specified in Method 4. The following internal QC checks will be
performed as part of the moisture determinations:
Each impinger will be weighed to the nearest 0.02 grams before and
after sampling.
The sampling train, including impingers, will be leak-checked before
and after each run.
Ice will be maintained in the ice bath throughout the run.
Dry gas meter readings will be made at the start and end of each
sampling segment.
The sampling train will be purged following each run.
Sampling and impinger catch data will be recorded on preformatted
data sheets.
nja.052
D-41
-------
Section 8
Revision No. 0
August 1, 1990
Page 4 of 4
8.2.4 Quality Control Procedures for NMOC Determination
Data required to calculate NMOC concentration of the effluent stream will
be collected according to EPA RM 25C. Quality control for RM 25C sampling
will include:
The sampling train will be leak-checked before and after each
sampling run.
A constant sampling rate (±10%) will be maintained when collecting
the sample.
The sample train will be purged before sample collection.
Analytical quality control for Method 25C will include the following:
Instrument will -be set to manufacturer's specifications before use.
Instrument linearity will be checked daily.
Instrument calibration will be checked before and after each series
of runs are completed.
nja.052
D-42
-------
Section 9
Revision No. 0
August 3, 1990
Page 1 of 2
9.0 PERFORMANCE AND SYSTEMS AUDITS
A quality assurance audit is an independent assessment of a measurement
system. It typically includes performance evaluation using apparatus and/or
standards that are different from those used in the measurement system. It
also may include an evaluation of the potential of the system to produce data
of adequate quality to satisfy the objectives of the measurement efforts. The
independent, objective nature of the audit requires that the auditor be
functionally independent of the sampling/analytical team.
Quality assurance audits play an important role in Radian's overall QA/QC
program. This section describes the role of the QA auditor and the nature of
both performance and systems audits.
9.1 AUDIT APPROACH
The QA Coordinator or her designee will perform an independent
performance and systems audits. The function of the auditor will be to:
Check and verify records of calibration,
Assess the effectiveness of and adherence to the prescribed QC
procedures,
Review document control procedures,
Identify and correct any weaknesses in the sampling/analytical
approach and techniques, and
Assess the overall data quality of the various sampling/analytical
systems.
Generally, the role of the auditor is to observe and document the overall
performance of each of the various sampling and analytical systems. Audit
standards and test equipment which are traceable to acceptable reference
nja.052
D-43
-------
Section 9
Revision No. 0
August 3, 1990
Page 2 of 2
standards may be used to assess the performance of each analytical method
and/or measurement device (performance audit). Based on the audit results,
the auditor may, as necessary, initiate corrective action at the project
level, through the Program Manager or Project Director.
During the field testing portion of this program, an individual not
directly involved with operation of the sampling equipment will periodically
check the tester's compliance with all QA/QC functions appropriate for the
testing. These observations will be recorded in a permanently bound notebook
assigned specifically for this project.
In addition to the field QA/QC, all laboratory QA/QC activities will be
similarly documented. An internal laboratory audit will also be performed to
assess the effectiveness of the QA/QC program.
nja.052
D-44
-------
Section 10
Revision No. 0
August 1, 1990
Page 1 of 3
10.0 PREVENTIVE MAINTENANCE
The primary objective of a comprehensive preventive maintenance program
is to help ensure the timely and effective completion of a measurement effort.
Radian's preventive maintenance program is designed to minimize the downtime
of crucial sampling and/or analytical equipment due to component failure.
Details of the preventive maintenance efforts for this project are discussed
below.
10.1 GENERAL
Prior to this field program, all sampling and analytical systems will be
assembled and checked for proper operation. At this time, any worn or
inoperative components will be identified and replaced.
The component parts of the sampling system will be checked on a daily
basis to ensure that the equipment is operating properly. The checklists
similar to those shown in Figure 10-1 will be used to document the daily
system check and routine maintenance activities. Any major problems requiring
unscheduled maintenance will be recorded in the field log, which will be a
bound paginated laboratory notebook. Pertinent information to be recorded
will include:
name of operator,
date,
maintenance activity,
problems encountered,
cause of problem, and
corrective actions taken.
All entries will be made in ink and signed. Any corrections will be made
by drawing a single line through the improper entry and entering the correct
information.
nja.052
D-45
-------
lOPfHAIIONAL
I
PARAMEIERSi SAMPLING
TEST 10
.. -
OA1E
.
TINE!
PROBE
PROPERLY
LOCATED
SAMPLE
LINE
HEATING
..
GAS CONO. I
BAIH TEMP. I
(DEC. Fl
-
-
AMPLE GAS I
CONO. FLOMI
ISCFH)
_
^
_
INSTRUMENT
AREA TEMP.
IOEG. Fl
..
.
6LOMBACK
FREQUENCY
(MINUIES)
'
t
EXCESS
HANIfOlO
ELOH
NOTES:
Figure 10-1. Example Operator Check!ist
TO J> 73 00
o> c n> (t>
U3 IQ < O
n> c -•• n-
ts> in ->•
r\> «-»•-•• o
O 3
O •—• 3
u> i—• o
U3 •
<£>
O O
-------
Section 10
Revision No. 0
August 1, 1990
Page 3 of 3
10.2 SPARE PARTS
The maintenance activities described above, and an adequate inventory of
spare parts will be required to minimize equipment downtime. This inventory
will emphasize those parts (and supplies) which:
are subject to frequent failure,
have limited useful lifetimes, or
cannot be obtained in a timely manner should failure occur.
nja.052
D-47
-------
Section 11
Revision No. 0
August 1, 1990
Page 1 of 4
11.0 ASSESSMENT OF PRECISION, ACCURACY, AND COMPLETENESS
The performance audits and QC analyses conducted during the testing
program are designed to provide a quantitative assessment of the measurement
system data. The two aspects of data quality which are of primary concern are
precision and accuracy. Accuracy reflects the degree to which the measured
value represents the actual or "true" value for a given parameter, and
includes elements of both bias and precision. Precision is a measure of the
variability associated with the measurement system. The completeness of the
data will be evaluated based upon the valid data percentage of the total tests
conducted.
11.1 PRECISION
Precision, by the definition presented in the EPA Qualitv Assurance
Handbook for Air Pollution Measurement Systems, Volume I. Principles (EPA-
600/9-76-005) is "a measure of mutual agreement among individual measurements
of the same property, usually under prescribed similar conditions." Different
measures of precision exist, depending upon these "prescribed similar
conditions."
Quality control procedures, such as control sample analyses and replicate
analyses, represent the primary mechanism for evaluating measurement data
variability or precision. Replicate analyses will be used to define
analytical replicability, while results for replicate samples may be used to
define the total variability (replicability) of the sampling/analytical system
as a whole.
Precision of the measurement data for this program will be based upon
replicate analyses (replicability) and control sample analyses
(repeatability). Variability will be expressed in terms of the coefficient of
nja.052
D-48
-------
Section 11
Revision No. 0
August 1, 1990
Page 2 of 4
variation (CV) for the replicate and repeat analyses where,
«rw _ Standard Deviation ,QO
Mean
This term is independent of the error (accuracy) of the analyses and
reflects only the degree to which the measurements agree with one another, not
the degree to which they agree with the "true" value for the parameter
measured. The CV is in units of percent since it is the standard deviation of
the mean expressed as percent of the mean (relative standard deviation).
For the CEMS data, the daily drift checks will provide another means of
controlling and assessing monitor data precision. These data will be
summarized in terms of percent drift for each monitor as discussed in
Section 8.0.
11.2 ACCURACY
Accuracy, according to EPA's definition is "the degree of agreement of a
measurement (or an average of measurements of the sam thing),.X, with an
accepted reference or true value T." This definition actually encompasses two
concepts, which creates a strong potential for confusion if the difference
between the concepts is not clearly understood. The confusion arises due to
the discrepancy between the concept of accuracy of individual measurements and
the concept of accuracy of average values obtained from replicate or repeat
measurements of a given parameter. In the case of accuracy of individual
measurements, accuracy includes components of bias and precision (i.e., both
systematic and random error). On the other hand, accuracy of the average of
individual measurements equates accuracy with bias and represents an attempt
to quantitate systematic error (bias) independent of random error (precision).
Under this approach, a set of measurements could be said to the accurate
without being precise. Under the other approach, where individual
measurements are considered, precision is a requisite of accuracy since random
variability is a component of the total measurement error and does not get
"averaged out." The validity of significance of the estimate of bias is
directly related to the number of individual measurements used to compute the
average. It is based on the principle that as the number of individual
nja.052
D-49
-------
Section 11
Revision No. 0
August 1, 1990
Page 3 of 4
measurements is increased indefinitely, the sample mean, X, approaches a
definite value, u. The difference between u and the true value, T represents
the magnitude of the measurement bias, or systematic bias plus random error
due to imprecision.
Performance audits represent one mechanism for defining measurement
system error. Typically, repeated measurements are made of the parameter of
interest for the same audit sample or using additional samples at different
levels, and the average error is calculated. As discussed above, this error
value represents an estimate of measurement bias or systematic error, although
it is often simply referred to as "accuracy." The significance of the bias
estimate may be evaluated using confidence intervals. An approximate 95%
confidence interval for the mean error (bias) can be calculated using:
M fv\ j. + Standard Deviation
Mean(X) ± t Q2S> (rM) ^ps
where n is the number of measurements used to compute the average and standard
deviation and t is a table statistical value (.025 confidence level, n-1
degrees of freedom; when n is greater than 10, 5 approaches 2.0).
As an example, for a particular set of nine measurements, assume an
overall mean of 20 ppm is reported, and the standard deviation of these data
is 10 ppm. Also, assume that the true concentration is 30 ppm. For these
measurements, the 95% confidence internal is:
IP.
20 ± 2.3 (9)* or 20 ± 7.7
which is the interval (12,28). Since this interval does not include the true
value, 30 ppm, a conclusion of bias is justified. The magnitude of this bias
is between 2 and 18 ppm. The uncertainty in the estimate is due to
variability arising from random error.
The choice of definitions of accuracy should be made based on the
specific application. Regardless of the definition chosen, performance audit
results provide only a point-in-time measure of accuracy, and actually reflect
only the capability of the system. In most cases, the results provide some
insight into the precision, as well as the bias of measurements. These data
supplement data generated by the internal QC procedures. Extrapolation of the
audit and QC data to actual samples and measurements provides the primary
nja.052
D-50
-------
Section 11
Revision No. 0
August 1, 1990
Page 4 of 4
mechanism whereby error limits for various measurements may be estimated and
the confidence in the measurement data defined.
Daily control samples analyses may be used to assess measurement bias.
While performance audit results represent a point-in-time assessment of
measurement error, the average degree of agreement between measured values and
actual values for control samples provides a long-term, or average estimate of
measurement bias, as well as precision (repeatability).
11.3 COMPLETENESS
Measurement data completeness is a measure of the extent to which the
database resulting from a measurement effort fulfills objectives for the
amount of data required. For this program, completeness will be defined as
the valid data percentage of the total tests planned.
nja.052
D-51
-------
Section 12
Revision No. 0
August 1, 1990
Page 1 of 2
12.0 CORRECTIVE ACTION
During the course of the LIMB testing program, it will be the
responsibility of the Field Task Leader and the sampling team members to see
that all measurement procedures are followed as specified and that measurement
data meet the prescribed acceptance criteria. In the event a problem arises,
it is imperative that prompt action be taken to correct the problem'(s). The
Field Team Leaders will initiate corrective action in the event of QC results
which exceed acceptability limits. Corrective action may also be initiated by
the team leaders upon identification of some other problem or potential
problem. Corrective action may be initiated by the QA Coordinator based upon
QC data or audit results. The corrective action scheme is shown in the form
of a flow chart in Figure 12-1. Acceptability limits and prescribed
corrective action related to the various internal QC checks are discussed.in
Section 8 and are summarized in Table 8-1.
nja.052
0-52
-------
Section 12
Revision No. 0
August 1, 1990
Page 2 of 2
Notify
Team Leader
Perform Initial
Evaluation
Modification of Prescribe
Procedures Required for Resolution
of Problem?
Notify
Project Director
Formulate
Solution
Implement
Solution
Major
Modification
Required?
Problem
Resolved?
Review Problem and
Formulate Solution
Scope of Work ^-— Yes
Modification Required?
Project Officer
Approval?
Implement Solution
Problem
Resolved?
I Yea
Issue In House
Problem Report
Notify Project Officer
Figure 12-1. Corrective Action Flow Scheme
D-53
-------
Section 13
Revision No. 0
August 1, 1990
Page 1 of 1
13.0 QUALITY ASSURANCE REPORTING
Effective management of a field sampling and analytical effort requires
timely assessment and review of field activities. This will require effective
interaction and feedback between the Field Team Leader, the Project Director
and the QA Coordinator.
During the project, the Field Team Leader will be responsible for
submitting QC reports to the EPA Project Manager, the Radian Project Director,
• and the Radian QA Coordinator(s). These monthly reports will address the
following:
summary of activities and general program status,
summary of corrective action activities,
assessment and summary of data completeness, and
summary of any significant QA/QC problems and recommended and/or
implemented solutions not included above.
The QA Coordinator (or her designee) will prepare an audit report
following the'performance and systems audits. The audit report will address
data accuracy, the qualitative assessment of overall system performance. This
report will be submitted to the Project Director. The project final report
will include a separate QA/QC section which summarizes the audit results, as
well as the QC data collected throughout the duration of the program.
Problems requiring swift resolution will be brought to the immediate
attention of the Project Director via the malfunction reporting/corrective
action scheme discussed in Section 12.0.
nja.052
D-54
-------
Section 14
Revision No. 1
August 3, 1990
Page 1 of 1
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
14.0 REFERENCES
"Handbook: Continuous Air Pollution Source Monitoring Systems," United
States Environmental Protection, EPA 625/6-79-005. Technology Transfer,
Cincinnati, Ohio. June 1979, pp. 11-16 to 11-19.
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, "Quality Assurance Handbook for
Air Pollution Measurement Systems, Volume III, Stationary Source Specific
Methods," EPA 600-4-77-027 b, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina.
August 1977. .
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency "AEERL Quality Assurance Procedures
for Contractors and Financial Assistance Recipients", Research Triangle
Park, North Carolina. May 1988.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1989a. EPA Reference Method 4:
Determination of Moisture Content in Stack Gases; 40 CFR Pt. 60,
Appendix A, pp. 676-685.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1989b. . EPA Reference Method 2:
Determination of Stack Gas Velocity and Volumetric Flow Rate (Type S
Pitot Tube); 40 CFR Pt. 60, Appendix A, pp. 641-659.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1991a. EPA Reference Method 3C
(Proposed): Determination of Carbon Dioxide, Nitrogen, and Oxygen from
Stationary Sources. Proposed in the U.S. EPA's Standards of Performance
for New Stationary Sources and Guidelines for Control of Existing
Sources: Municipal Solid Waste Landfills.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1991b. EPA Reference Method 25C
(Proposed): Determination of Nonmethane Organic Compounds (NMOC) in
Landfill Gases. Proposed in the U.S. EPA's Standards of Performance for
New Stationary Sources and Guidelines for Control of Existing Sources:
Municipal Solid Waste Landfills.
nja.052
D-55
-------
APPENDIX E
Field Data Sheets
(Appendix E sheets are numbered
to correspond with site
numbers; e.g., sheet El-1 is
for run No. 1 and sheet E2-1 is
for run No. 2. The gas
analysis reports for Sites 2
and 4 were retyped due to poor
copy quality of the originals.)
E-i
-------
S.t-e. I
DATE
Sutlers
SAMPLE NO.
/
2
3
y
SAMPLE
TINE
Hie?
l^ZO
)*"±7
1lo°5"
a ASK
I/VOLUHE
(p til
$7
Ik
£*f
TEMPERATURE
•F
INITIAL
*-y
*?
74
7*
FINAL
j. . ,
FLASK PRESSURE
"Ma
INITIAL | FINAL
/fc/r"
/^^
l/^^
/^r^
BAROMETRIC
PRESSURE "Ha
INITIAL
^.^_
FINAL
RECOVERY
DATE/TIME
MOTES:
Method 25C Field Sampling Data Sheet
-------
Site. \
DATE
Suffers
SAMPLE NO.
S
b
SAMPLE
TIME
/£/*
11* A 7
a ASK
I/VOLUME
V6
b/0 t
TEMPERATURE
•F
INITIAL
?*
->f
FINAL
FLASK PR
•Ha
INITIAL
/6.^
/i.r
ESSURE
FINAL
BAROMETRIC
PRESSURE 'Hq
INITIAL
FIHAL
RECOVERY
DATE/TIME
NOTES:
Method 25C Field Sampling Data Sheet
-------
Run Ntabei 6ifC 1
DATE
Ultlilt
SAMPLE NO.
/
3L
3
v
SAMPLE
TIME
IZjS'
tZ3*
i^^l
nc(*
a ASK
I/VOLUME
HT-^
yrt»*t
Hrso
HT^7
TEMPERATURE
•F
INITIAL
*?
VI
30
%
FINAL
FLASK PR
-HQ
INITIAL
n
S&.ti
/£>.^
/6>.
-------
Run Nurture
DATE
SMpltrs UitUU
SAMPLE NO.
.r
Is
SAMPLE
TINE
/3.ZC>
12 ?°
•&&-
a ASK
I/VOLUHE
HTa-\
3^/3
TEMPERATURE
•F
INITIAL
/O
/OA_
FINAL
FLASK PR
•Ha
INITIAL
l(*.?r
/^.r"
ESSURE
FINAL
BAROMETRIC
PRESSURE "Hd
INITIAL
FINAL
RECOVERY
DATE/TIME
MOTES:
Method 3C Field Sampling Data Sheet
-------
RADIAN
IATIOM
FIELD DMA
nut
•U//|f IP . ....
MttWDBDltlUM '.
VMPII MlBUMI*
IU
tucMiKOf HAKIM NMI UIQUI
•IMMOMCMAMLMUIVHI •
CMCIM
rUMMAIUUIIIK
WAIIIMIUIIM
• tUIKI »,
WIU r
Illlt
I
tn
IIMIHI
NIOCIII
MM
3 . 36
Mirici rwtuMi
urruuiui
U«.«H,0|
IIMX
-LS3L
lIVtUIUH
H.II
J
xjr
Wllfl
^
go
^7
rur
U
HI
IMTlt Ul
ItVMMUH
un
IIVtMIUtt
on
tOO
I1I
Heproducsd from /T7N
beat available copy. V\j
-------
RADIAN
FIllODMA
too
-------
RADjAN
FltlDOAIA
riMi
Mil
M/ /I t ID
OTfMIM
•Mil lUTf iilMt
MNKIMCMfOUH.
tune MUM. ir i _
ltl*N
CIWIM
rnHMJi
MAIIIMIUIIM
UAH mi ruu uvoui NIIU r
•f«DMOHCOm«ilDAUI«li« •Wilt
.2
IU
rg
LL*J
MIOClIf
Mlf KI rtf OUK
HUH* KIUM
11,1.1
2M*
HVCUBTIfi
II OUllII
^/
st
JLL.
35
SMTII Ml
UVtiMUM
urwui
UI
1
IMS
-------
RADIAN
FIELD DMA
rtui.
Mil.
1MPII IWf
oniuioi___—
MUf H lUPI lAlMt
, 7"
tUtC MUM. t',1-
I till MM! M
MUM If WIN MO lift.
MI/IEIO _
MIUHOMMIUM '.
IMTtl MIUM1R
MIUMIKMHI
• III «H
ClfcCUM
rMMMMUUIIIK.
iuitui
Will r
lilt
i
00
CMMtUM
wt.r
, .3
WlOUlf
Mtt
anuarttOMi
MffMMUU.
HIM* IKIMI
uta
IUP1MIUU
«^
MTCMHIU
Mil
ll.J.H
OUUCI
7?
wunt m
MVMCU
IIVtMIUM.
1
CUVJ 111
-------
RADIAN
AVION
FIELD DMA
r«u«
M//U ID . .
MIUHBNNtlUII
• IIIMI
M lUTf •AlWf
UMB IMC r«fS)UU
MMK MUUM. If J
ft III HMM Ml
• IU ••
CIWIM
__
• HttKl»,.
IMVIut roMi utni HUH r
HMMO«COnMlMUIVt«.
Jilt
*o
luvim
nwi
oo
n 10
CMMIU
MtOUlI
MM
OWtCfrWDUK
BtfftttMlM.
u«. • H/h
MUHO KlttU
IIMX
41.11
MICttMIU
•tCI Wild
UVIMIlM
t
IMV
-------
RADIAN
(AVION
FIELD DATA
rtui.
Mil _
IMTII lift
•w mmt*.
1 1 KIN AMI IIP!
iD _ ......
MiUMOBMllUII •. _ .
tUNCrMUUK.ir.l
I
t—»
o
itwini
r
-------
ANALYSIS
DATE: 0:3-'96."'90
TiME: 12:21
ANALYZER*: 0
COMP NAME COMP CODE
ANALYSIS TIME: 165
CVCLE TIME: 186
MODE: RUN
MOLE :•; B. T. IJ. *
STREAM SEQUENCE: 12
STREAM*: 1
CYCLE START TIME: 12:
SP. GR. *
C 0 £
OXYGEN
NITROGEN
METHANE
117
116
114
108
39. 434
0. 59£
3. 3:3-3
51. 586
0. 00
a 00
13.1313
522. 95
0. 69>3i3
9. 0065
0. 9307
0. £857
TOTALS
100. 000
522. 05
0. 9729
iS 14.730 PS IA DRV «, UNCORRECTED FOR COMPRESSIBILITY
COMPRESS IBILI TV FACTOR <1/Z> = 1.0030
DRV B. T. U. 5 14.730 PS IA t, 60 DEC. F CORRECTED FOR •:. l.-'Z) = 5£3. 6
SAT B. T. U. C 14.738 PSIA £ 60 BEG. F CORRECTED FOR < 1,'Z> = 514.5
REAL SPECIFIC GRAUITV = 0. 9753
UNNORriALIZED TOTAL = 99.77
ANALYSIS
DATE: 08x06x90
TIME: 12:24
COMP NAME COMP CODE
ANALVSIS TIME:
CYCLE TIME:
MODE:
MOLE ''.
165 STREAM SEQUENCE: 1£
180 STREAM*: 1
RUN CVCLE START TIME: 12:£1
B. T. U. * SP. GR. *
C 0 2
OXYGEN
NITROGEN
METHANE
117
116
114
100
39. 386
0.554
8.306
51.752
0.60
0.00
0.03
523. 73
0. 5985
0.0061
0. 0804
0. 2867
TOTALS
106. 006
523. 73
* C 14.730 PSIA DRY 4 UNCORRECTED FOR COMPRESSIBILITY
COMPRESSIBILITY FACTOR ( lxZ>
DRY B. T. U. £ 14.730 PSIA & 60 DEC. F CORRECTED FOR <:i/Z>
SAT B. T. U. C 14.730 PSIA & 60 DEC. F CORRECTED FOR (. 1/Z)
REAL SPECIFIC CRAUITY
UNrtORMALIZED TOTAL
0.9716
1.0030
525. 3
516. 1
9. 9740
99. 77
-------
ANALVSIS
IiriTE: Q8sQ6<-"*Q
Tini: 12: £7
-iHALVZER*:
ANALVSIS TIME:
CVCLE TIME:
O MODE:
con? NAME con? CODE
HOLE •;
165
RUM
B. T. U. *
STREAM SEQUENCE: 1£
STREAM*: 1
CVCLE START TIME: 1£:£4
SP. GR. *
C 0 £
OXYGEN
NITROGEN
METHANE
117
116
114
199
39. 396
' ' 0. 54'?
8. 319
51.736
0.00
0. 00
.0.00
523. 57
9. 5986
0. 006 1
0. 0805
0. 2366
rOTALS
100. 000
5£3. 57
* C 14.730 PSIA DRV 8, UNCORRECTED FOR COMPRESS IB ILITV
COMPRESSIBILITV FACTOR v1-Z>
DRV B. T. U. C 14.730 PS In & 60 DEG. F CORRECTED FOR -::i.-'2>
SAT B. T.-U. IB 14.730 PS IA & 60 DEG. F CORRECTED FOR ',1<-Z>
REAL SPECIFIC GRA'JITV
LiNNORMALIZED TOTAL
0. 9717
= 1. 0030
= 525. 1
= 516. 0
= 0.9741
= 99. 57
ANALVSIS
DATE: oa-'06<"90
TIME: 12:30
ANALVZERK:
0
COM? NAME COM? CODE
ANALVSIS TIME:
CVCLE TIME:
MODE:
MOLE '/.
165 STREAM SEQUENCE: l£
130 STREAM*: 1
RUN CVCLE START TIME: 12: £7
B. T. U. * SP. GR. *
C 0 2
OXVGEM
NITROGEN
METHANE
117
116
114
100
39. 433
0.541
8. £66
51.759
0.00
0.00
0.00
523. 3 1
0. 599£
0. 0060
0. 0799
0. 2867
TOTALS
100. 000
523. 81
* i5 14.730 PSIA DRV 6 UNCORRECTED FOR COMPRESS IB ILITV
COt 1PRESSIB ILITV FACTOR
DRV B. T. U. i5 14.730 PSIA & 60 DEC. F CORRECTED FOR
-------
ANALYSIS
M,?..-'06.'90
Tlill: 1£:33
riMnLVZERtt:
ANALYSIS TIME:
CYCLE TIME:
MODE:
165
139
RUN
STREAM SEQUENCE: lc
STREAM*: 1
CYCLE START TIMF: 12:36
COUP NAME conp CODE
noiE .••:
E. T. U. :*
SP. OR. *
C 0 £
OXYGEN
NITROGEN
METHANE
117
116
114
199
39. 345
0. 547
3. 316
51.793
0. @0
0.90
0.00
524. 14
9. 5978
9. 0960
9. 0804
0. 2869
TOTALS
100. 000
5£4. 14
0. 9712
* C 14.739 .PS IA DRY & UNCORRECTED FOR COMPRESSIBILITY
COMPRESSIBILITY FACTOR < l.-'Z> = 1.0030
DRY B. T. U. . ij 14.730 PS IA 8, 60 DEC. F CORRECTED FOR = 525.6
SAT B. T. U. C 14.730 PSIA 8, 60 DEC. F CORRECTED FOR < 1/Z) = 516.4
REAL SPECIFIC GRAUITY = 9.9736
UNNGRMALIZED TOTAL = 99.41
El-13
-------
ANALYSIS
DriTE: 88' 06- 90
TIH£: 12:39
COMF NAME COMP CODE
ANALYSIS TIME: 165
CYCLE TIME: 138
MODE: RUN
MOLE '-'. E. T. U.
STREW SEQUENCE: .12
STREAM: 1
CVCLE START TIME: IS: 36
3P. GR. *
C 0 2
OXYGEN
ilTROGEN
METHANE
117
116
114
100
39. 323
8. 553
8. 353
51.771
0.08
0.00
0.08
523. 93
8. 5975
8. 086 1
O. 0808
0. 2363
TOTALS 1G0.0Q0 5£3. 93
* i» 14. 730 PSIA DRV 4 UMCORRECTID FOR COMPRISSIBILITV
COMPRESSIBILITY FACTOR (1/-Z)
DRY B. T. U. '3 14.738 PSIA 8. 68 DEG. F CORRECTED FOR C l.'Z>
SAT B. T. U. IB 14.730 PSIA 8, 60 DEG. F CORRECTED FOR C \/Z>
REAL -'SPECIFIC GRAUITV
UNMORMALIZED TOTAL -
0. 9712
= 1.003Q
= 525.5
= 516. 3
= 0.9735
= 99. 35
AMALVSIS
DATE:
TIME:
06' 90
12:52
0
COMP MAME COMP CODE
ANALYSIS TIME: 165
CYCLE TIME: 138
MODF: RUN
MOLE •< B. T. U.
STREAM SEQUENCE: 12
STREAM#: 1
CVCLE START TIME: 12:39
SP. GR. *
C 0 2
OXYGEN
NITROGEN
ME m^riE—
117
116
114
108
39. 406
8. 533
8.247
- 51.HM4 -
3. 08
8.130
0.88
- -5P4.1I*
0. 5988
8. 8859
8. 8798
- • - 0. 2878
TOTALS
188. 868
524.36
3.9714
* « 14.738 PSIA DRV ?, UMCORRECTED FOR COMPRESSIBILITV
COMPRESSIBILITV FACTOR <1/Z> = 1.0838
DRV B. T. U. C 14.738 PSIA 8, 68 DEG. F CORRECTED FOR < 1/2) = 525.9
SAT B. T. U. C 14. 738 PSIA 8. 68 DEG. F CORRECTED FOR C 1/Z> = 516. 8
REAL SPECIFIC GRAUITV = 8.9738
UNNORMALIZED TOTAL
El-14
= 99. 47
Reproduced from
b»st available copy.
-------
ANALYSIS
TIKI: 13:16
nNhl.VZER*: 9
COM? MANE COUP CODI
116
114
108
OXYGEN
HITROGEN
MIFHANE
ANALYSIS TIME:
CVCLE TinE:
MODE:
MOLE ••;
39. 38£
9. 523
8. ££6 '
51.369
165
133
RUM
B. T. U. * •
0. 69
0. 00
0. 00
524.91
STREAM SEQUFNQE: IS
STREAM*: 1
CYCLE START TIME: 13:13
SP. OR. *
Q. 5984
0. 3053
0. 0796
0. 2873
TOTALS
100. 000
524. 91
0.9711
* C 14.730 PSIA DRV ::i UMCORRECTID FOR COMPRESSIBILITY
COMPRESSIBILITY FACTOR < 1/Z>
DRV B. T. U. C 14.730 PSIA 4 60 DEC.
SAT B. T. U. 5 14.730 PSIA & 60 DEC.
RIAL SPECIFIC CRAUITY
iJMHQRMALIZED TOTAL . .
F CORRECTED FOR <1x2)
F CORRECTED FOR < 1/-Z)
1.0030
526.5
517. 3
0. 3734
99.43
ANALYSIS
DriTE: 0S.-'06/90
TIME: 13:19
AMHLVZER*: 0
COMP MAME COn? CODE
C 0 £
OXVGEM
NITROGEN
T1ETHANE
TOTALS
117
116
114
100
ANALYSIS TIME:
CYCLE TIME:
MODE:
MOLE '•'.
39. 340
0. 533
3.323
51.300
165
130
RUN
B. T. U. *
0.00
0.00
0.00
524.21
100. 000
524. 21
STREAM SEQUENCE: 1£
3TREAf1#: 1
CYCLE START TIME: 13:16
SP. GR. *
0. 5978
0. 0059
0.0805
0. 2369
0.9711
* 5 14.730 PSIA DRY t, UNCORRECTED FOR COMPRESSIBILITY
COMPRESSIBILITY FACTOR <
DRY B. T. U. i! 14.730 PSIA & 60 DEC.
SAT B. T. U. 5 14.730 PSIA & 60 DEG.
REAL SPECIFIC GRAUITV
UNNORMALIZED TOTAL El-15
F CORRECTED FOR <1/Z?
F CORRECTED FOR <1/Z)
= 1.0630
= 525.8
= 516.6
= 0.9735
= 99. 27
-------
ANALYSIS
DATE: 08/06.- 90
Tin£: 13:32
ANALYSIS TIME: 165
CYCLE TIME: 130
MODE: RUM
STREAM SEQUENCE: 12
STREAM*: 1
CVCLE START TIME: 13:19
COMP NAME COUP CODE
MOLE •:
E. T. U. *
SP. OR.*
C 0 £
OXYGEN
NITROGEN
METHANE
117
116
114
180
39. 361
0. 532
8. £71
51.336
0. 00
0.00
0. 00
524. 53
0. 5981
0. 0059
0. 0800
0.2871
TOTALS
100. 000
5£4. 58
0. 9711
* C 14.730 PS IA DRV a, UMCORRECTED FOR COMPRESS IB ILI TV
COMPRESS IBI LI TV FACTOR <1/Z> = 1.0030
DRV B. T. U. 8 14.730 PSIA & 60 DEC. F CORRECTED FOR <.\sZ) = 526. 1
SAT B. T. U. C 14.730 PSIA & 60 DEC. F CORRECTED FOR <. 1/Z> = 517.0
REAL SPECIFIC GRAUITV = 0.9735
uNNORMALIZED TOTAL = 99. £9
AMALVSIS
DATE: 08x06/90
TIME: 13:25
AMALVZER*:
0
ANALVSIS TIME: 165
CVCLE TIME: 188
MODE: RUH
STREAM SEQUENCE: 12
STREAM*: 1
CVCLE START TIME: 13:££
COMP MAME COriP CODE
MOLE :'.
B. T. U. :*
SP. OR.*
C 0 2
OXVGEM
NITROGEN
METHAME
117
116
114
188
39. 337
8. 533
8.296
51. 333
0.80
8.00
0.00
524. 55
0. 5977
0. 0859
6. 9802
8.2871
TOTALS
100. 606
524. 55
8. 9710
* 8 14.730 PSIA DRV 8, UNCORRECTED FOR COMPRESSIBILITV
COMPRESSIBILITV FACTOR <1''Z> = 1.0030
DRV B. T. U. 5 14.738 PSIA & 68 DEC. T CORRECTED FOR <.\/Z> = 526.1
SAT B. T. U. C 14.730 PSIA 8, 60 DEC. F CORRECTED FOR (l'Z> = 517.0
REAL SPECIFIC GRfKJITV = 0.9733
Uf'frCRMALIZED TOTAL £1-16 = "'38
-------
ANALYSIS
iJriTE: 08- 06 '^Q
TIHZ: 1-3: £5
H.hALVZER**: 3
con? NAME con? COLE
C 0 2
OXYGEN
NITROGEN
METHANE
TOTALS
117
116
114
100
ANALYSIS TIME:
CYCLE TIME:
MODE:
MOLE :•:
39. 345
0. 530
8. 309
51.316
165
130
RUN
B. T. U. *
0. 00
0. 00
0. 90
524. 38
190. 000
5E4. 38
STREAM SEQUENCE: 1£
STREAM*: 1
CYCLE START TIME: 13: £5
SP. GR. *
0. 5978
0. 0059
0. 0804
0. 2370
l! 14.730 PSIA DRY & UMCORRZCTED TOR COMPRESSIBILITY
COMPRESSIBILITY FACTOR <1^2)
DRY E. T. U. C 14.738 PS IA 4 60 LEG. F CORRECTED FOR
SAT B. T. U. C 14. 730 PSIA 8< 60 DEC. F CORRECTED FOR <
REAL SPECIFIC GRAUITY
UNNORMALIZED TOTAL
0. 9711
= 1. 0030
= 525. 9
= 516.8
= 0.3735
= 99. £3
AMiUYSIS
DATE: 08-'06/90
TIME: 13:31
ANALYZER**:
0
COMP NAME COMP CODE
ANALYSIS TIME:
CYCLE TIME:
MODE:
MOLE '<
165 STREAM SEQUENCE: 12
180 STREAM*: i
RUN CYCLE START TIME: 13:£8
B. T. U. * SP. GR. *
C 0 £
OXYGEN
NITROGEN
METHANE
117
116
114
100
39. 328
0. 536
8.387
51.329
0.00
0.00
0.00
524.51
0. 5976
0. 0059
0. 0803
0.2871
TOTALS
100. 060
524. 51
* C 14.730 PSIA DRY & UhCORRECTED FOR COMPRESSIBILITY
COMPRESSIBILITY FACTOR <
DRY B. T. U. C 14.7:30 PSIA 8, 60 DIG. F CORRECTED FOR < l/Z>
SAT B. T. U. C 14.730 PSIA I 60 DEC. F CORRECTED FOR < 1/'Z>
REAL SPECIFIC CRAUITV
UNNORMALIZED TOTAL 11-17
0. 9709
1.0030
526. 1
516.9
0. 9733
99. 27
-------
AMftLVS I £
DriTE: 08''06'-"90
TIME: 13:34
nNALVZERtt: 0
con? rinriE COM? CODE
C 0 £
OXVGEM
NITROGEN
METHANE
117
116
114
100
ANALYSIS TIME:
CYCLE TIME:
MODE:
MOLE ';
39.319
0. 543
8. 319
51. 3 19
165
130
RUN
E. T. U. *
0. 00
0.00
0.00
524. 4 1
STREAM SEQUENCE: 12
3TRErtM#: 1
CYCLE START TIME: 13:31
SP. GR. *
O. 5975
0. 0060
0. 0805
0.237Q
TOTALS
109. 006
524. 41
0. 9709
C 14.730 P3IA DRV 4 UHCORRECTED FOR COMPRE33IBILITV
COMPRESS IE! LI TV FACTOR Cl^'Z:- = 1.0030
DRV B. T. U. U 14.730 P3IA S, 60 DEG. F CORRECTED FOR ( 1/Z> = 526.0
SAT B. T. U. C 14.730 PSIA 8< 60 DEG. F CORRECTED FOR < 1-'Z> = 516.8
REAL SPECIFIC GRHUITY = 0.9733
UNNORMrtLIZED TOTAL = 99. £3
AMALVSI3
DATE: 08--06-'90
TINE: 13:37
rihALYZER*:
0
ANALYSIS TIME: 165
CVCLI TIMES 180
MODE: RUN
STREAM SEQUENCE: 12
STREAM*: 1
CVCLE START TIME: 13:34
COM? NAME COM? CODE
MOLE
B. T. U. *
SP. GR. *
C 0 2
OXVGEN
NITROGEN
METHANE
117
116
114
100
39. 347
0. 534
8.344
51.775
0.00
0. 00
0.00
523. 97
0. 5979
0. 0059
0. 0807
0. 2363
TOTALS
100.000
523.
0.9713
* C 14.730 PSIA DRV & UNCQRRECTED FOR COMPRESSIBILITY
COMPRESSIBILITY FACTOR Cl'Z) = 1.0030
DRV B. T. U. C 14.730 PSIA & 60 DEC. F CORRECTED FOR < \'T> = 525.5
SAT B. T. U. 6 14.730 PSIA & 60 DEG. F CORRECTED FOR < 1/Z> = 516.4
REAL SPECIFIC GRAUITV = 0.9736
UNNORMALIZED TOTAL = 99. 15
El-18
-------
rtflrtLVSIS
DATE: OS--06--'90
TIME: li£:55
ANAL VS IS TIME:
CYCLE TIME:
MODE:
13i3
RUM
STREAM SEQUENCE: l£
3TREflM#: 1
CVCLE START TIME: 12:52
LUMP MArlE COM? CODE
MOLE ••.
B. T. U. :*
3P. GR. *
.: o £
OXYGEN
MITROGEN
nETHrtME
117
116
114
39. 413
0. 537
8. £48
51.3132
0.00
0.00
0. 08
524. 24
0. 5989
0. 0059
0. 0798
0. 2369
TOTALS
100. 900
524. £4
0. 9715
14.730 PSIrt DRV 4 UMCORRECTED FOR COMPRESSIBILITY
COMPRESSIBILITV_FACTOR ClsZ>
DRY E. T. U. IS 14.739 P3IA S, 60 DEC.
SAT B. T.U. (5 14.730 PSIA & 60 DEC.
REAL SPECIFIC GRAUITY
UMNORMftLIZED TOTAL
F CORRECTED FOR <1-'Z>
F CORRECTED FOR (l-Z)
1.0030
525. S
516. 6
0. 9739
99. £9
El-19
-------
Run
DATE
SupUrs laltlalt ALP
SAMPLE NO.
/
2.
-*?
H
SAMPLE
TIME
m*>
IM
nV
/i z?
a ASK
I/VOLUME
/*-/
V7
y/r
Zo^,
TEMPERATURE
•F
INITIAL
^^
7^
*£
^3>
FINAL
FLASK PR
•Ha
INITIAL
M-£
n.3
/^.•y.
/y. «
ESSURE
FINAL
BAROMETRIC
PRESSURE 'llq
INITIAL
30d7
//
//
So- /?
FINAL
RECOVERY
DATE/1 WE
r\>
MOTES:
Method 25C Field Sampling Data Sheet
-------
RADIAN
Run Niober
Site 3L
DATE
10
UUUIt
SAMPLE NO.
5T
6
SAMPLE
TIME
/3W
/3r7
a ASK
f/VOLUHE
M3
3r/
. -
TEMPERATURE
•F
INITIAL
03
83
FINAL
FLASK PR
"Ha
INITIAL
IH.?
l1>Y
ESSURE
FINAL
BAROMETRIC
PRESSURE "llq
INITIAL
3°-/8
ii
FINAL
RECOVERY
DATE/TIME
MOTES:
Method 25C Field Sampling Data Sheet
-------
RADIAN
Run Muter 5ite
DATE
- 7 -
Sutlers laltUli
SAMPLE NO.
/
3L
J3
H
SAMPLE
TIME
09- ^V
Je&JL
(Ote
i02.C>
a ASK
I/VOLUME
x/r,rV
ITS**
Irzsr
yrr-
TEMPERATURE
•F
INITIAL
2^
r&>
^^r
«&
FINAL
FLASK PR
•Ha
INITIAL
ti-1
rt.t
n*
/V f
ESSURE
FINAL
BAROMETRIC
PRESSURE "Hq
INITIAL
^
-------
Run Nurittr 5'»te_ol
DATE
UUUIf.
SAMPLE MO.
5T
6
SAMPLE
TINE
/03^
(OV
i
NOTES:
Method 3C Field Sampling Data Sheet
-------
RADIAN
AVION
FIELD OAfA
ro
i
in
tMflMClf
IMTtl I HI
•MHflMI
OPCUItt .
«•§••! Ill
lUIKfMI
fUHMi
ICM»1M_|
[
AJ
rfMiuu
uM.ir.i
HIM
0/**v-rf* AMJULJl
r
f
L G
'71?
3£>..IS.
icwMiic of IMVI «f r
HMMOMCmAllUUmai
HMI
«£T\£i
• ____
4r* Ll A, .IV
• »»
vfiauv
MM
MUIUMIBINH
Mrruiaiiu.
BfUKO
r~
1"
WlttU
_._•_.
Mil UIOUI
f^l
IIMR
IUPIUIMI
11,11
1
AtUMOK
ukvif n
CttClM*
fWUM*
HAIIIM
• HUM
MIC! r
It
- ... — .
l™~:i^
IUU11UK
• Ull»&
£&l
lUNUfUK
•111
*7^L
/»6?
/o^
//^
lit
OUIlll
«///
c) ^^~
A f~*
1 ^
9 *7
VAOR*.
• III
turtt MI
/,7t>
f
-'0^>
WBKfH
IIVIMIUH.
f
&s~
7o2_
7AL
S> fi^
-------
RADIAN
IATIOM
FIELD DMA
orfMin ._ ....
•MM iurt BAIMI ___2_5-^-
lUIKflK
fail*
3g>./ fT
nan
MU/UIO
tlUMOHNllUM -.
IMPIIMIKUMIN.
HIIIM1WMIH_
• lia*Htf
CUCIM
Jf,l-
MMUMIIIIIW.
• IIMKt «|
tUMMIICOf IMVIMf fMIUIWI MUlr
MMMOKCOWHIMUIVtII MHI1I
ro
I
at
tSL^^
10
!£
^X
MIOCIIT
MM
MtflUPUtHMI
HUUO MIUM.
luriuiuu
11.1.1
MfUIHIM
lUrtUTUK
rn.it wut i
ML
LLL
-•n
vuni MI
IIVUMUM
•f
MTHUR
UVtMIUH
1
-------
RADIAN
IAVIOM
FltLDOATA
nui
Mil J
•UUtfOMMIIUM •.
OTfMItt
MUM lUrtftklMtt
ruu
•CIUMI
• IU4H-
CMCIM
rMH«*
•(Mil Ml it 1 1
tuKMiMM IMVIW romi uioui
MMMOMCMOMl (UUIVill.
NIIU r
III
rv>
IMS
-------
RADIAN
IATIOM
FIELD DATA
ro
i
00
iMvimi
nut -^n <^x oc
Dill •£ <-1 ~1'O
IMP! UK 1C
wrti iwi
•UftMMI
••••I HI
IUIKMI
MUM MM
"S. dianai
•^•"NnSw
m n
IH I*"*
(H ~LSl
/ V 32_
/^ 57
C1IMM
t ; : .
Mttiuti 73
fwauM 30. /y
IUM.|P|_
HIM • ..
"7T"
5^?. Vosr
^^f J ^ B ^
^^^j*^ Tl
S5"/. P
VJ~V. 307
icMMicor iunw ri
MMMOMCMOftU MUI«lll
M10CIII
MM
anriamauM
•rruuiui '
IMU. • N/H
MUM*
—
•CIUM.
wi uiaui
™^M
ii«a
H,I.«I
PRUM 1IW
HO//U ID
•IIUMOMO
UWll Ml
• III Ml
•til* AN,
ClACIM.
PMH«»
MAIIIM
MfltHCf
Mil* r
II
;IMMOHP
^
tilUK '.
•UMIt
ill Mac
-
ZOt,
MVU1MIII
IMMftAIUM
Mil
IUJ-*
fl
1 1>9
//3
IH
OUIItl
4-7
•y 7
^7
? ^
^ ?
rur
• Hi
UVtl Ml
IIWIIUIIM.
•1
UPMUR
UVIMIlM.
•»
yjr
^-7
(jO
Hf
73
/oz
•f-
/€? 7-
IMt
-------
RADIAN
FIELD DATA
nui
UKlNAWt llfl
IMtflHC IOUIIM
IMPIl Ifft
•MMMII
orfuioi _
UBftl M1
•fill MI
IMCMfBUtt
i
CUCIM ___ _
PMHNf«IUUIIIK
uiKMiicor iiuitu roai UIMI wiu r
ttAPMOMCMOULOAIMVUt MUIII
r\>
i
vo
IMt
-------
RADIAN
AVION
FIELD DATA
nui
Site
~~
IfHClNMOIlPt
rv>
SHPII mi
Hiii| BU£| |
amum _
MMM in
tl*IK Ml
ftlfIMM
KM*m
fa
fUOMM 32
ncnuM 3^'llf
umi •ORMMII_
• III Ml MM •
• III«NV
C i
T77. ^
5~P/- ^
5"frJT. /o v
WIOCIII
MM
"oWfUttBluI"1
BIVMD
MIW1
IIMR
IUPIUIM1
11,1.1
U
.:. - .-
311
WlCMHIfl
IWtMlUK
mil
tr?
in
119
Iff
lib
Wllfl
/ o~z
/PI
/£>V
/0£-l
/o{
Kme
VAOMT
• m
uartini
•i
UVtMIUM
•1
£S"
^ V
5^
iy— 7
c/6
/ °Y
•*"
/<7
-------
ANALYSIS
DATE: 08/07/90
TIME: 09:46
ANALYZER: 72092
ANALYSIS TIME:
CYCLE TIME:
MODE:
COMP NAME COMP CODE
C O 2
OXYGEN
NITROGEN
METHANE
117
116
114
100
MOLE %
39.121
0.131
7.475
53.273
165 STREAM SEQUENCE: 1
180 STREAM#: 1
RUN CYCLE START TIME: 09:43
B.T.U.*
0.00
0.00
0.00
539.13
SP. GR. *
0.5944
0.0014
0.0723
0.2951
TOTALS 100.000 539.13 0.9633
* 6 14.730 PSIA DRY & UNCORRECTED FOR COMPRESSIBILITY
COMPRESSIBILITY FACTOR (1/Z)
DRY B.T.U. @ 14.730 PSIA & 60 DE.
SAT B.T.U. @ 14.730 PSIA & 60 DE.
REAL SPECIFIC GRAVITY
UNNORMALIZED TOTAL
F CORRECTED FOR (1/Z)
F CORRECTED FOR (1/Z)
1.0030
540.7
531.3
0.9657
99.62
ANALYSIS
DATE: 08/07/90
TIME: 09:49
ANALYZER: 72092
ANALYSIS TIME:
CYCLE TIME:
MODE:
COMP NAME COMP CODE
C O 2
OXYGEN
NITROGEN
METHANE
117
116
114
100
MOLE %
39.111
0.131
7.508
53.250
165 STREAM SEQUENCE: 1
180 STREAM#: 1
RUN CYCLE START TIME: 09:46
B.T.U.*
0.00
0.00
0.00
538.89
SP. GR. *
0.5943
0.0014
0.0726
0.2950
TOTALS 100.000 538.89 0.9633
* @ 14.730 PSIA DRY & UNCORRECTED FOR COMPRESSIBILITY
COMPRESSIBILITY FACTOR (1/Z)
DRY B.T.U. 6 14.730 PSIA & 60 DE.
SAT B.T.U. § 14.730 PSIA & 60 DE.
REAL SPECIFIC GRAVITY
UNNORMALIZED TOTAL
F CORRECTED FOR (1/Z)
F CORRECTED FOR (1/Z)
1.0030
540.5
531.1
0.9657
99.56
E2-11
-------
ANALYSIS
DATE: 08/07/90
TIME: 09:52
ANALYZER: 72092
ANALYSIS TIME:
CYCLE TIME:
MODE:
COMP NAME COMP CODE
C 0 2
OXYGEN
NITROGEN
METHANE
117
116
114
100
MOLE %
39.118
0.130
7.470
53.282
165 STREAM SEQUENCE: 1
180 STREAM#: 1
RUN CYCLE START TIME: 09:49
B.T.U.*
0.00
0.00
0.00
539.21
SP. GR. *
0.5944
0.0014
0.0723
0.2951
TOTALS 100.000 539.21 0.9632
* § 14.730 PSIA DRY & UNCORRECTED FOR COMPRESSIBILITY
COMPRESSIBILITY FACTOR (1/Z)
DRY B.T.U. @ 14.730 PSIA & 60 DE.
SAT B.T.U. @ 14.730 PSIA & 60 DE.
REAL SPECIFIC GRAVITY
UNNORMALIZED TOTAL
F CORRECTED FOR (1/Z)
F CORRECTED FOR (1/Z)
1.0030
540.8
531.4
0.9656
99.56
ANALYSIS
DATE: 08/07/90
TIME: 09:55
ANALYZER: 72092
ANALYSIS TIME:
CYCLE TIME:
MODE:
COMP NAME COMP CODE
C 0 2
OXYGEN
NITROGEN
METHANE
TOTALS
117
116
114
100
MOLE %
39.138
0.129
7.417
53.317
100.000
165 STREAM SEQUENCE: 1
180 STREAM#: 1
RUN CYCLE START TIME: 09:52
B.T.U.*
0.00
0.00
0.00
539.56
539.56
SP. GR. *
0.5947
0.0014
0717
2953
0
0
0.9632
* @ 14.730 PSIA DRY & UNCORRECTED FOR COMPRESSIBILITY
COMPRESSIBILITY FACTOR (1/Z)
DRY B.T.U. @ 14.730 PSIA & 60 DE. F CORRECTED FOR (1/Z)
SAT B1T.U. @ 14.730 PSIA & 60 DE. F CORRECTED FOR (1/Z)
REAL SPECIFIC GRAVITY
UNNORMALIZED TOTAL
1.0030
541.2
531.8
0.9656
99.64
E2-12
-------
ANALYSIS
DATE: 08/07/90
TIME: 09:58
ANALYZER: 72092
ANALYSIS TIME:
CYCLE TIME:
MODE:
COMP NAME
C O 2
OXYGEN
NITROGEN
METHANE
TOTALS
COMP CODE
117
116
114
100
MOLE %
39.127
0.129
7.480
53.263
100.000
165 STREAM SEQUENCE: 1
180 STREAM#: 1
RUN CYCLE START TIME: 09:55
B.T.U.*
0.00
0.00
0.00
539.02
539.02
SP. GR. *
0.5945
0.0014
0.0724
0.2950
0.9633
14.730 PSIA DRY & UNCORRECTED FOR COMPRESSIBILITY
COMPRESSIBILITY FACTOR (1/Z)
DRY B.T.U. @ 14.730 PSIA & 60 DE.
SAT B.T.U. 0 14.730 PSIA & 60 DE.
REAL SPECIFIC GRAVITY
UNNORMALIZED TOTAL
F CORRECTED FOR (1/Z)
F CORRECTED FOR (1/Z)
1.0030
540.6
531.2
0.9657
99.51
ANALYSIS
DATE: 08/07/90
TIME: 10:01
ANALYZER: 72092
ANALYSIS TIME:
CYCLE TIME:
MODE:
COMP NAME COMP CODE
C O 2
OXYGEN
NITROGEN
METHANE
117
116
114
100
MOLE %
39.120
0.130
7.467
53.284
165 STREAM SEQUENCE: 1
180 STREAM#: 1
RUN CYCLE START TIME: 09:58
B.T.U.*
0.00
0.00
0.00
539.23
SP. GR. *
0.5944
0.0014
0.0722
0.2951
TOTALS 100.000 539.23 0.9632
* @ 14.730 PSIA DRY & UNCORRECTED FOR COMPRESSIBILITY
COMPRESSIBILITY FACTOR (1/Z)
DRY B.T.U. 6 14.730 PSIA & 60 DE.
SAT B.T.U. € 14.730 PSIA & 60 DE.
REAL SPECIFIC GRAVITY
UNNORMALIZED TOTAL
F CORRECTED FOR (1/Z)
F CORRECTED FOR (1/Z)
1.0030
540.8
531.4
0.9656
99.53
E2-13
-------
ANALYSIS
DATE: 08/07/90
TIME: 10:04
ANALYZER: 72092
ANALYSIS TIME:
CYCLE TIME:
MODE:
COMP NAME
C 012
OXYGEN
NITROGEN
METHANE
COMP CODE
117
116
114
100
MOLE %
39.119
0.130
7.468
53.283
165 STREAM SEQUENCE: 1
180 STREAM#: 1
RUN CYCLE START TIME: 10:01
B.T.U.*
0.00
0.00
0.00
539.22
SP. GR. *
0.5944
0.0014
0.0722
0.2951
TOTALS 100.000 539.22 0.9632
* e 14.730 PSIA DRY & UNCORRECTED FOR COMPRESSIBILITY
COMPRESSIBILITY FACTOR (1/Z)
DRY B.T.U. @ 14.730 PSIA & 60 DE. F CORRECTED FOR (1/Z) =
SAT B.T.U. @ 14.730 PSIA & 60 DE. F CORRECTED FOR (1/Z) =
REAL SPECIFIC GRAVITY
UNNORMALIZED TOTAL
1.0030
540.8
531.4
0.9656
99.59
ANALYSIS
DATE: 08/07/90
TIME: 10:07
ANALYZER: 72092
ANALYSIS TIME:
CYCLE TIME:
MODE:
COMP NAME
C O 2
OXYGEN
NITROGEN
METHANE
COMP CODE
117
116
114
100
MOLE %
39.126
0.130
7.466
53.278
165 STREAM SEQUENCE: 1
180 STREAM#: 1
RUN CYCLE START TIME: 10:04
B.T.U.*
0.00
0.00
0.00
539.17
SP. GR. *
0.5945
0.0014
0.0722
0.2951
TOTALS 100.000 539.17 0.9633
* @ 14.730 PSIA DRY & UNCORRECTED FOR COMPRESSIBILITY
COMPRESSIBILITY FACTOR (1/Z)
DRY B.T.U. @ 14.730 PSIA & 60 DE.
SAT B.T.U. @ 14.730 PSIA & 60 DE.
REAL SPECIFIC GRAVITY
UNNORMALIZED TOTAL
F CORRECTED FOR (1/Z)
F CORRECTED FOR (1/Z)
1.0030
540.8
531.4
0.9657
99.48
E2-14
-------
ANALYSIS
DATE: 08/07/90
TIME: 10:10
ANALYZER: 72092
ANALYSIS TIME:
CYCLE TIME:
MODE:
COMP NAME
C O 2
OXYGEN
NITROGEN
METHANE
COMP CODE
117
116
114
100
MOLE %
39.105
0.129
7.477
53.288
165 STREAM SEQUENCE: 1
180 STREAM#: 1
RUN CYCLE START TIME: 10:07
B.T.U.*
0.00
0.00
0.00
539.28
SP. GR. *
0.5942
0.0014
0.0723
0.2952
TOTALS 100.000 539.28 0.9631
* @ 14.730 PSIA DRY & UNCORRECTED FOR COMPRESSIBILITY
COMPRESSIBILITY FACTOR (1/Z)
DRY B.T.U. @ 14.730 PSIA & 60 DE.
SAT B.T.U. § 14.730 PSIA & 60 DE.
REAL SPECIFIC GRAVITY
UNNORMALIZED TOTAL
F CORRECTED FOR (1/Z)
F CORRECTED FOR (1/Z)
1.0030
540.9
531.5
0.9655
99.53
ANALYSIS
DATE: 08/07/90
TIME: 10:13
ANALYZER: 72092
ANALYSIS TIME:
CYCLE TIME:
MODE:
165 STREAM SEQUENCE: 1
180 STREAM#: 1
RUN CYCLE START TIME: 10:10
COMP NAME
C 0 2
OXYGEN
NITROGEN
METHANE
TOTALS
COMP CODE
117
116
114
100
MOLE %
39.128
0.128
7.403
53.341
100.000
B.T.U.*
0.00
0.00
0.00
539.81
539.81
SP. GR. *
0.5945
0.0014
0.0716
0.2955
0.9630
* 6 14.730 PSIA DRY & UNCORRECTED FOR COMPRESSIBILITY
COMPRESSIBILITY FACTOR (1/Z) = 1.0030
DRY B.T.U. @ 14.730 PSIA & 60 DE. F CORRECTED FOR (1/Z) = 541.4
SAT B.T.U. @ 14.730 PSIA & 60 DE. F CORRECTED FOR (1/Z) = 532.0
REAL SPECIFIC GRAVITY = 0.9654
UNNORMALIZED TOTAL = 99.60
E2-15
-------
ANALYSIS
DATE: 08/07/90
TIME: 10:16
ANALYZER: 72092
ANALYSIS TIME:
CYCLE TIME:
MODE:
165 STREAM SEQUENCE: 1
180 STREAM#: 1
RUN CYCLE START TIME: 10:13
COMP NAME
C O 2
OXYGEN
NITROGEN
METHANE
TOTALS
COMP CODE
117
116
114
100
MOLE %
39.139
0.134
7.509
53.219
100.000
B.T.U.*
0.00
0.00
0.00
538.58
538.58
SP. GR. *
0.5947
0.0015
0.0726
0.2948
0.9636
* e 14.730 PSIA DRY & UNCORRECTED FOR COMPRESSIBILITY
COMPRESSIBILITY FACTOR (1/Z) = 1.0030'
DRY B.T.U. @ 14.730 PSIA & 60 DE. F CORRECTED FOR (1/Z) = 540.2
SAT B.T.U. @ 14.730 PSIA & 60 DE. F CORRECTED FOR (1/Z) = 530.8
REAL SPECIFIC GRAVITY = 0.9660
UNNORMALIZED TOTAL = 99.39
ANALYSIS
DATE: 08/07/90
TIME: 10:19
ANALYZER: 72092
ANALYSIS TIME:
CYCLE TIME:
MODE:
COMP NAME COMP CODE
C 0 2
OXYGEN
NITROGEN
METHANE
117
116
114
100
MOLE %
39.119
0.128
7.427
53.326
165 STREAM SEQUENCE: 1
180 STREAM#: 1
RUN CYCLE START TIME: 10:16
B.T.U.*
0.00
0.00
0.00
539.65
SP. GR.
0.5944
0.0014
0.0718
0.2954
TOTALS 100.000 539.65 0.9630
* @ 14.730 PSIA DRY & UNCORRECTED FOR COMPRESSIBILITY
COMPRESSIBILITY FACTOR (1/Z)
DRY B.T.U. € 14.730 PSIA & 60 DE.
SAT B.T.U. 0 14.730 PSIA & 60 DE.
REAL SPECIFIC GRAVITY
UNNORMALIZED TOTAL
F CORRECTED FOR (1/Z)
F CORRECTED FOR (1/Z)
1.0030
541.3
531.9
0.9654
99.60
E2-16
-------
ANALYSIS
DATE: 08/07/90
TIME: 10:22
ANALYZER: 72092
ANALYSIS TIME:
CYCLE TIME:
MODE:
COMP NAME COMP CODE
C O 2
OXYGEN
NITROGEN
METHANE
117
116
114
100
MOLE %
39.106
0.130
7.496
'53.268
165 STREAM SEQUENCE: 1
180 STREAM#: 1
RUN CYCLE START TIME: 10:19
B.T.U.*
0.00
0.00
0.00
539.08
SP. GR. *
0.5942
0.0014
0.0725
0.2951
TOTALS 100.000 539.08 0.9632
* @ 14.730 PSIA DRY & UNCORRECTED FOR COMPRESSIBILITY
COMPRESSIBILITY FACTOR (1/Z)
DRY B.T.U. @ 14.730 PSIA & 60 DE. F CORRECTED FOR (1/Z) =
SAT B.T.U. § 14.730 PSIA & 60 DE. F CORRECTED FOR (1/Z) =
REAL SPECIFIC GRAVITY
UNNORMALIZED TOTAL
1.0030
540.7
531.3
0.9656
99.53
ANALYSIS
DATE: 08/07/90
TIME: 10:25
ANALYZER: 72092
ANALYSIS TIME:
CYCLE TIME:
MODE:
165 STREAM SEQUENCE: 1
180 STREAM/: 1
RUN CYCLE START TIME: 10:22
COMP NAME
C 0 2
OXYGEN
NITROGEN
METHANE
COMP CODE
117
116
114
100
MOLE %
39.094
0.129
7.468
53.309
B.T.U.*
0.00
0.00
0.00
539.49
SP. GR. *
0.5940
0.0014
0.0722
0.2953
TOTALS 100.000 539.49 0.9630
* @ 14.730 PSIA DRY & UNCORRECTED FOR COMPRESSIBILITY
COMPRESSIBILITY FACTOR (1/Z)
DRY B.T.U. @ 14.730 PSIA & 60 DE. F CORRECTED FOR (1/Z) =
SAT B.T.U. @ 14.730 PSIA & 60 DE. F CORRECTED FOR (1/Z) =
REAL SPECIFIC GRAVITY
UNNORMALIZED TOTAL
1.0030
541.1
531.7
0.9654
99.58
E2-17
-------
ANALYSIS
DATE: 08/07/90
TIME: 10:28
ANALYZER: 72092
ANALYSIS TIME:
CYCLE TIME:
MODE:
165 STREAM SEQUENCE: 1
180 STREAM#: 1
RUN CYCLE START TIME: 10:25
COMP NAME COMP CODE
C O 2
OXYGEN
NITROGEN
METHANE
117
116
114
100
MOLE %
39.109
0.129
7.449
53.313
B.T.U.*
0.00
0.00
0.00
539.52
SP. GR. *
0.5943
0.0014
0.0721
0.2953
TOTALS 100.000 539.52 0.9630
* § 14.730 PSIA DRY & UNCORRECTED FOR COMPRESSIBILITY
COMPRESSIBILITY FACTOR (1/Z)
DRY B.T.U. @ 14.730 PSIA & 60 DE.
SAT B.T.U. @ 14.730 PSIA & 60 DE.
REAL SPECIFIC GRAVITY
UNNORMALIZED TOTAL
F CORRECTED FOR (1/Z)
F CORRECTED FOR (1/Z)
1.0030
541.1
531.7
0.9654
99.65
ANALYSIS
DATE: 08/07/90
TIME: 10:31
ANALYZER: 72092
ANALYSIS TIME:
CYCLE TIME:
MODE:
COMP NAME
C 0 2
OXYGEN
NITROGEN
METHANE
COMP CODE
117
116
114
100
MOLE %
39.119
0.128
7.433
53.320
165 STREAM SEQUENCE: 1
180 STREAM#: 1
RUN CYCLE START TIME: 10:28
B.T.U.*
0.00
0.00
0.00
539.59
SP. GR. *
0.5944
0.0014
0.0719
0.2953
TOTALS 100.000 539.59 0.9631
* @ 14.730 PSIA DRY & UNCORRECTED FOR COMPRESSIBILITY
COMPRESSIBILITY FACTOR (1/Z)
DRY B.T.U. @ 14.730 PSIA & 60 DE.
SAT B.T.U. @ 14.730 PSIA & 60 DE.
REAL SPECIFIC GRAVITY
UNNORMALIZED TOTAL
F CORRECTED FOR (1/Z)
F CORRECTED FOR (1/Z)
1.0030
541.2
531.8
0.9654
99.56
E2-18
-------
ANALYSIS
DATE: 08/07/90
TIME: 10:34
ANALYZER: 72092
ANALYSIS TIME:
CYCLE TIME:
MODE:
COMP NAME
C O 2
OXYGEN
NITROGEN
METHANE
COMP CODE
117
116
114
100
MOLE %
39.107
0.128
7.426
53.339
165 STREAM SEQUENCE: 1
180 STREAM#: 1
RUN CYCLE START TIME: 10:31
B.T.U.*
0.00
0.00
0.00
539.79
SP. GR.
0.5942
0.0014
0.0718
0.2954
TOTALS 100.000 539.79 0.9629
* @ 14.730 PSIA DRY & UNCORRECTED FOR COMPRESSIBILITY
COMPRESSIBILITY FACTOR (1/Z)
DRY B.T.U. @ 14.730 PSIA & 60 DE.
SAT B.T.U. @ 14.730 PSIA & 60 DE.
REAL SPECIFIC GRAVITY
UNNORMALIZED TOTAL
F CORRECTED FOR (1/Z)
F CORRECTED FOR (1/Z)
1.0030
541.4
532.0
0.9653
99.62
ANALYSIS
DATE: 08/07/90
TIME: 10:37
ANALYZER: 72092
ANALYSIS TIME:
CYCLE TIME:
MODE:
COMP NAME COMP CODE
C O 2
OXYGEN
NITROGEN
METHANE
117
116
114
100
MOLE %
39.115
0.129
7.489
53.266
165 STREAM SEQUENCE: 1
180 STREAM#: 1
RUN CYCLE START TIME: 10:34
B.T.U.*
0.00
0.00
0.00
539.05
SP. GR. *
0.5944
0.0014
0.0724
0.2950
TOTALS 100.000 539.05 0.9633
* @ 14.730 PSIA DRY & UNCORRECTED FOR COMPRESSIBILITY
COMPRESSIBILITY FACTOR (1/Z)
DRY B.T.U. @ 14.730 PSIA & 60 DE.
SAT B.T.U. @ 1'4.730 PSIA & 60 DE.
REAL SPECIFIC GRAVITY
UNNORMALIZED TOTAL
F CORRECTED FOR (1/Z)
F CORRECTED FOR (1/Z)
1.0030
540.7
531.3
0.9656
99.58
E2-19
-------
ANALYSIS
DATE: 08/07/90
TIME: 10:40
ANALYZER: 72092
ANALYSIS TIME:
CYCLE TIME:
MODE:
COMP NAME
C O 2
OXYGEN
NITROGEN
METHANE
TOTALS
COMP CODE
117
116
114
100
MOLE %
39.103
0.129
7.470
53.298
100.000
165 STREAM SEQUENCE: I1
180 STREAM#: 1
RUN CYCLE START TIME: 10:37
B.T.U.*
0.00
0.00
0.00
539.38
539.38
SP. GR. *
0.5942
0.0014
0.0723
0.2952
0.9631
14.730 PSIA DRY & UNCORRECTED FOR COMPRESSIBILITY
COMPRESSIBILITY FACTOR (1/Z)
DRY B.T.U. @ 14.730 PSIA & 60 DE.
SAT B.T.U. @ 14.730 PSIA & 60 DE.
REAL SPECIFIC GRAVITY
UNNORMALIZED TOTAL
F CORRECTED FOR (1/Z)
F CORRECTED FOR (1/Z)
1.0030
541.0
531.6
0.9654
99.51
ANALYSIS
DATE: 08/07/90
TIME: 10:43
ANALYZER: 72092
ANALYSIS TIME;
CYCLE TIME:
MODE:
COMP NAME
C O 2
OXYGEN
NITROGEN
METHANE
COMP CODE
117
116
114
100
MOLE %
39.104
0.129
7.476
53.292
165 STREAM SEQUENCE: 1
180 STREAM#: 1
RUN CYCLE START TIME: 10:40
B.T.U.*
0.00
0.00
0.00
539.31
SP. GR. *
0.5942
0.0014
0.0723
0.2952
TOTALS 100.000 539.31 0.9631
* @ 14.730 PSIA DRY & UNCORRECTED FOR COMPRESSIBILITY
COMPRESSIBILITY FACTOR (1/Z)
DRY B.T.U. @ 14.730 PSIA & 60 DE.
SAT B.T.U. @ 14.730 PSIA & 60 DE.
REAL SPECIFIC GRAVITY
UNNORMALIZED TOTAL
F CORRECTED FOR (1/Z)
F CORRECTED FOR (1/Z)
1.0030
540.9
531.5
0.9655
99.56
E2-20
-------
ANALYSIS
DATE: 08/07/90
TIME: 10:46
ANALYZER: 72092
ANALYSIS TIME:
CYCLE TIME:
MODE:
COMP NAME COMP CODE
C O 2
OXYGEN
NITROGEN
METHANE
TOTALS
117
116
114
100
MOLE %
39.135
0.128
7.406
53.331
100.000
165 STREAM SEQUENCE: 1
180 STREAM#: 1
RUN CYCLE START TIME: 10:43
B.T.U.*
0.00
0.00
0.00
539.71
539.71
SP. GR. *
0.5947
0.0014
0.0716
0.2954
0.9631
14.730 PSIA DRY & UNCORRECTED FOR COMPRESSIBILITY
COMPRESSIBILITY FACTOR (1/Z)
DRY B.T.U. @ 14.730 PSIA & 60 DE.
SAT B.T.U. @ 14.730 PSIA & 60 DE.
REAL SPECIFIC GRAVITY
UNNORMALIZED TOTAL
F CORRECTED FOR (1/Z)
F CORRECTED FOR (1/Z)
1.0030
541.3
531.9
0.9655
99.57
E2-21
-------
Run Muter Site 3
SMpUrs UUU1t__
DATE
*Ji /io
SAMPLE NO.
/
:z_
•5
Y
SAMPLE
TIME
/oof
/°/1
/035T
/^/vl
a ASK
I/VOLUME
31
134
133
*
-------
Run Nurter
3
DATE
SAMPLE NO.
5"
6
SAMPLE
TIME
/Z3o
/2/t3'
a ASK
f/VOLUME
7_e.z_
•T*
TEMPERATURE
•r
INITIAL
FINAL
FLASK PR
"Ho
INITIAL
ll*.b
iLr
ESSURE
FINAL
BAROMETRIC
PRESSURE "Hq
INITIAL
30. (
(i
FINAL
RECOVERY
BATE/TIME
OJ
I
r\>
HOTES:
Method 25C Field Sampling Data Sheet
-------
RADIAN
Run Heater
5»te.
DATE
/?/*
Sutlers Initial!
SAHPlt HO.
I
2,
3
4
SAMPLE
TINE
/fc.^>
/*:3'
/^•4i
/T'-O
a ASK
I/VOLUME
HfS'L
61^
6IHf
6 1 *5
TEMPERATURE
•F
INITIAL
7^
»/
/(
//
FINAL
FLASK PR
"Hg
INITIAL
;
-------
Run Niaber
3
DATE
SAMPLE NO.
s~
.6
SAMPLE
TIME
/..C'oz
/5"-V /
a ASK
I/VOLUME
&I11
bill
1EMPCRATURE
•F
INITIAL
77
.11
FINAL
FLASK PR
"Ha
INITIAL
/^.3
/^ y
ESSURE
FINAL
BAROMETRIC
PRESSURE 'Hq
INITIAL
3o- /
r
FINAL
RECOVERY
DATE/TIME
NOTES:
Method 3C Field Sampling Data Sheet
-------
RADIAN
FIELD DATA
Site.
Half . «£ /"?' 10
uutfiMGiocAiKM z.ou-fl/c>x<.' rnU-K
IUPII irrf '
aim nfH*4f| /
ori uin _
MMM III
aTlMIMf ") *°
•AMMIHCMftUMf T>0 |
nwii
luncrut
lllUMaH
Ns^a«aii«i
— -__
/O;s"/
jo: 5"^
// 0^
1 1 : o
<^ 1
^T— -
$""*—
^"Z—
rur
VACIU
••Hi
1AVUM1
,'PO
IlkTlMIUM.
1
5-4
C"4>
£7_
-------
RADIAN
I AVION
FIELD DAIA
Site. 3
uirtwciockiM*.
tMPtf int
•MttMtl
Off U1M
«•*•!!
MU/ICIO
tUUKDMNtllMI
• IIIMIMMIB _
Kill »MB_ _ _
CIMICM
NNMf Nf«IUiflllK
CO
I
Ol
fftlUMMIM.
UMMiicw uuvtfturi
•1*0 AW MCMO Ut DM* IVtM
mil
UMI
•s*\5
• — - . — _
1C. 20
II . 37
11 "$>
II '- 3 5~
/( '<*«
.
"""i!"?*1""
y^^f . fojf
^o5-! •v<-
t>o"7-«
6)0-3
fclH- ID'S
VUOCIIt
MAO
MtflCt ntttHUH
ttrrtninu
UUII. «. M/k
MUHD
MlttM.
MI uroui
IIDCR
UVllAIUit
.!,••»
ariMKi
MIC* r
II
>
//.r
omfiM«n«
HVflUIUK
Mil
sr
1 1
«j3
e^-1^
-77^
OUIttl
?l
:*T-'
^T-"
**3
^"i-
VUOUi.
• Hi
VMTtt MI
ItVfMIIK
.^ ^
I»IKI«
UVIMIUM
6V
XJ <^>
i 3
-7"2_
6V
-------
RADIAN
IAVION
FIELD OAIA
nui
MIC _
3
IMflUKlOCAIMM.
lirf
MOM
•Of/If ID .
•MUKDHNUUM
MMM lUTIlAlMf
UMKIMCPHtUH .
CMCIM
MMIRMIUIIM.
— HHRIKl *,
KDCMIKOf IRAVIIU rOMI UIQUI Wl[| r
U«OUD«COIIOM.LII*Ul¥t« MUlll
OJ
I
•Hf
[•II
-------
RADIAN
IATIOM
FIELD DATA
o>
OAII
^" ur
ItlURf *
t
•IHUUB
•flUUIBUMIR
Mill »H^
• uMMincMfnuar $<& . (
tuiic rwiuuiMr.i
IIUIUM
KNfMiic or iMviHf n
UM> MD MCOMO H.I 0*1* IVIMI
uwini
ram
\ttCClWI
"
)ZL V9
/,2 jr"V
/•^ ^4
J 3 7
7309
USMIHUAWK
4? «? 7. V^O
J/ .
-------
RADIAN
IATIOM
. nai_ Site.
FIELD DATA
•UIMBMI.
OPCUIM .
MUM If WIN MO IIP(
•D//UIO- ..........
MUMEDMNIIUM '. _ .
IMPIIIOIMMUR.
• UIWIUHfH
MMKM lUVf tilMl
CUCHM
r&iitvMUw.
tCMMiicof iiMitu row ukioui Mtu r
tf«OUOMCMO*iLD*l*l«III MUII1
iO
roan
aoaiiai
CMK1MM
w».r
. 3
vtiacm
MM
uwictnuBWtt
Mrrutiiuu.
UW. » HjOl
Of MID KIIUl
iIJtU
lurtMiwf
11,1.1
M.C1
IUJ.1
ouiiti
-^
rur
««aui
•m
IMTLt 101
UVtRMUKI
urncrR
IIBPIMIUH
4J£-
•II
-------
RADIAN
lAVION
FIELD OAIA
riMi_
MU_
UVIIMHOCAIM.
writ i in
tUNWIMI
OPIUIM
MMM 1UK •A1MI
PtUflf UKlNMOItPl.
to//uip . .......
AlUMOUIilUH -. _ -
U«Pll «INUMIR_
MIIIMIHMMH
• III »M
OttIM
rMKMI«IUU11IW_
WMIIMIUHW
i
i—*
o
tCMMIICM IIMtMf POM U10UI
imi
-------
ANALVSIS
DATE: 08/69x90
TIME: 14:24
ANALYZER*: 51386
COMP NAME COMP CODE
COS
OXVGEN
NITROGEN
METHANE
117
116
114
100
ANALYSIS TIME:
CVCLE TIME:
MODE:
MOLE y.
43.384
6. 689
1.412
55. 115
165 STREAM SEflUEICE: 1
180 STREAM*: 1
PGM CVCLE START T):HE: 14:E2
B. T. LI. * SP. GR. *
0.00
0. 00
0.00
557. 76
0. «53Z
0.0010
0. 0137
0. 3853
TOTALS 100.000 557.76
* (5 14.730 PSIA I"RV & UNCORRECTEIi FOR COMPRESSIBILITY
0.
COMPRESSIBILITY FACTOR <1/2)
DRY B. T. U. IS 14.730 PSIA t, 60 DEC.
SAT B.T.LI. 6 14. 730 PSIA 8, 60 DEC.
REAL SPECIFIC GRAUITV
LINNORMALIZED TOTAL
F CORRECTED FOR <1/Z>
F CORRECTED FOR <1/Z>
1.0033
559. 6
549. 9
0.9819
98. 43
ANALVSIS
DATE: 08/09/90
TIME: 14:27
ANALYZER*: 51386
COUP NAME COriP CODE
C 0 2 117
OXVGEN 116
NITROGEN 114
METHANE 100
TOTALS
ANALYSIS TIME:
CYCLE TIME:
MODE:
MOLE y.
43. 400
0.689
1.405
55. 107
100.000
165 STREAM SIGIUINCI: 1
180 STREAM*: 1
PGM CVCLE START TIME: 14:24
B. T. U. * SP. GR. *
0.00
0.60
0.00
557. 68
0. .6^95
0.0010
0. 813<
0. 3052
557.68
* C 14-.730 PSIA DRY 8. UNCORRECTED FOR COMPRESSIBILITY
COMPRESSIBILITY FACTOR <1/Z)
DRY B. T. U. C 14.730 PSIA I, 60 DEC.
SAT B. T. U. 6 14.730 PSIA & 60 DEC.
RKftL SPECIFIC GRAUITY
UNNORMALIZED TOTAL
F CORRECTED FOR <1/Z)
F CORRECTED FOR <1/Z>
0.9793
1.003:3
559.5
549.3
0. 9820
98.68
E3-11
-------
ANALYSIS
DATE:
TIMI: 14:2:0
ANALYZER*: 51386
COMP NAME COMP CODE
COS
OXVGEH
NITROGEN
fllTHANE
TOTALS
117
116
114
iee
ANALYSIS TIME:
CVCLE TIME:
MODE:
MOLE >;
43. 390
8.069
1.411
55. 110
100.080
165 STREAM SEQUENCE: 1
180 STREAM*: 1
PGM CVCLE START UKE: 14:27
B. T. U. * SP. GR. *
0.00
0.68
0.00
557. 71
0. 65-33
0.0010
ei.t313.f-
0. 3853
557.71
*
F CORRECTED FOR <1/Z)
COMPRESSIBILITY FACTOR
DRV B. T. U. C 14.730 PSIA 8. 60 DEC.
SAT B. T. U. (S 14. 730 PSIA 8, 68 DEC.
RlrtL SPECIFIC GRftUITV
UNNORMALIZED TOTAL
0. 9792
1.0933
559.6
549. 8
0. 9820
98. 52
ANALYSIS
DATE: 08/09/90
TIDE: 14:33
ANALYZER*: 51386
COMP NAME COMP CODE
C 0 2
OXVKEN
NITROGEN
HETHANE
117
116
114
100
ANALYSIS TIME:
CYCLE TIME:
MODI:
MOLE X
43. 388
8.890
1.413
55. 189
165 STREAM SEQUENCE: 1
180 STREAM*: 1
PGM CYCLE START TIME: 14:30
B. T. U. * SP. GR. *
0.00
0. 00
0.00
557.71
0. «593
0.0010
0. 9137
0. 3052
TOTALS 100.008 557.71
* C 14.730 PSIA DRY t, UNCORRECTED FOR COMPRESSIBILITY
COMPRESSIBILITY FACTOR <1/Z)
BRV B. T. U. C 14.730 PSIA t< 68 DEC.
SAT B. T. U. C 14. 738 PSIA 8, 68 DEG.
REfU SPECIFIC GRAUITY
UNNORMALIZED TOTAL
F CORRECTED FOR < 1/'Z>
F CORRECTED FOR < 1/Z>
0. 9792
1.0833
559. 6
549.. £:
0.9819
98. 48
E3-12
-------
ANALYSIS
HATE: 08/09X-98
TIME: 1-4:36
ANALYZER*: 51336
COMP NAME COMP CODE
C 0 2
OXYGEN
NITROGEN
HETHANE
117
116
114
106
ANALYSIS TIME:
CVCLE TIME:
MODE:
MOLE ''.
43. 422
6. 989
1.407
55. 082
165 STREAM SEQUENCE: 1
180 STREAM*: 1
?GH CVCLE START TIME: 14:33
B. T. U. * SP. GR. *
0.08
9.60
0.00
557. 43
0. 65
DRV B.T.LI. 5 14.730 PSIA «. 60 PEG.
SAT B. T. U.
-------
ANALVSIS
DATE: 03/09/90
IMI: 14: 412
AMALVZERI: 51336
COM? NAME COUP CODE
COS
OXYGEN
NITROGEN
HETHANE
117
116
114
100
ANALYSIS TIME: 165
CVCLE TIME: 188
HOLE: PGH
STREAM SEQUENCE i
STREAMS: i
CVCLE START TIME: 14:39
MOLE >.
43.394
0. 689
1.406
55. 11£
B. T. U. *
TOTALS 100.080 557.73
* 8 14.730 PSIA DRV I UNCORRECTED FOR COMPRESSIBILITY
COMPRESSIBILITY FACTOR <1/Z>
DRV B. T. U. C 14.738 PSIA t, 66 DEC.
SAT B. T. U. 6 14.730 PSIA & 60 DEC.
REAL SPECIFIC. GRAY I TV
UNNORMALIZED TOTAL
SP. GR. *
8. 00
0. 00
0.00
557. 73
0. .4594
0.0010
0. e 1 3*
0. 3053
0.9792
F CORRECTED FOR (l/Z)
F CORRECTED FOR <1/Z>
559.6
54'9. 9
0. 9820
98.48
ANALVSIS
DATE: 08/09/90
TIME: 14:45
ANALVZERi: 51386
CONP NAME COtlP CODE
COS
OXVCEN
NITROGEN
METHANE
117
116
114
100
ANALVSIS TIME:
CVCLE TIME:
MODE:
MOLE \
43.412
0.089
1.406
55. 093
165 STREAM SEQUENCE: 1
180 STREAM*: 1
PGM CVCLE START TIME: 14:42
B. T. U. * SP. GR. *
0.00
0.00
0.00
557. 54
0.6596
0.0010
0.0136
0. 3052
TOTALS 100.000 557.54
* C 14.730 PSIA DRV t, UNCORRECTED FOR COMPRESSIBILITY
COMPRESSIBILITY FACTOR <1/Z)
DRV B. T. U. 6 14.730 PSIA t, 60 DEC.
SAT B. T. U. C 14.730 PSIA 8, 60 DEC.
REAL SPECIFIC GRAUITV
UNNORMALIZED TOTAL
F CORRECTED FOR <1/Z)
F CORRECTED FOR <1/Z>
0.9794
1. 8833
559.4
549.7
0.9821
98. 49
E3-14
-------
ANALYSIS
DATE: 08.'89/98
IMi: ' 14:4:3
fWiLYZER*: 51386
COMP NAME COMP CODE
ANALYSIS TIME: 165
CVCLE TIME: 18@ .
MODE: PGM
MOLE '/.
B. T. U. *
STREAM SIQUB-ICI1
STREAM*: 1
CYCLE START TIME: 14:45
SP. GR. *
COS
OXYGEN
NITROGEN
flETHANE
117
116
114
106
43.403
6.689
1.409
55. 099
0.00
0. 66
0.00
557. 66
0. «53i
0.6016
0.8136
0. 305£
TOTALS
180.888
557. 68
* e 14.738 PSIA DRV «, UNCORRECTED FOR COMPRESSIBILITY
COMPRESSIBILITY FACTOR <1/Z)
DRV B. T. U. C 14.736 PSIA «, 66 DEC. F CORRECTED FOR Cl'Z)
SAT B. T. U. e 14.730 PSIA 8, 60 DEC. F CORRECTED FOR < 1/Z>
RE^L SPECIFIC GRAVITY
UNNORMALIZED TOTAL
0.9793
1.0033
559.5
549.7
0.9821
98.50
ANALYSIS
DATE: .08/09/90
TIME: 14:51
ANALYZER*: 51386
COMP NAME COMP CODE
COS 117
OXVGEN 116
NITROGEN 114
MITHANE 180
TOTALS
ANALYSIS TIME:
CYCLE TIME:
MODE:
MOLE ''.
100.000
165 STREAM SEttUIMC!:: 1
186 STREAM*: 1
PGM CYCLE START TIME: 14:48
B. T. U. * SP. GR. *
43. 389
8.689
1.406
55.116
6.00
6.66
0.06
557.78
0.6593
0.6010
0.011
6. 3053
557. 78
* f H.730 PSIA DRY *, UNCORRECTED FOR COMPRESSIBILITY
COMPRESSIBILITY FACTOR <1/Z)
DRV B. T. U. C 14.738 PSIA «, 66 DEC. F CORRECTED FOR <1<-Z>
SAT B. T. U. C 14.738 PSIA i 60 DEC. F CORRECTED FOR Cl/Z)
RIAL SPECIFIC GRAUITV
UNNORMALIZED TOTAL
9793
1.8033
559.6
549.?)
0.9819
98. 54
E3-15
-------
ANALYSIS
DATE: 08/99/90
TIME: 14:54
ANALYZER*: 51386
COMP NAME COUP CODE
COS
OXVGEN
NITROGEN
METHANE
117
116
114
180
ANALVSIS TIME:
CVCLE TIME:
MODI:
MOLE >.
43. 399
6. 688
1.400
55. 11£
165
18@
PGM
B. T. LI. *
0. 08
e. 00
0.00
557. 73
STREAM SEQUENCE: 1
STREAM*: 1
CVCLE START TIRE: 14:51
SP. GR. *
e. 65<35
0.0010
TOTALS 180.000 557.73
* C 14.738 F'SIA DRV 8, UNCORRECTED FOR COMPRESSIBILITY
COMPRESSIBILITY FACTOR <1/Z)
DRY B.T.LI, e 14.730 PSIA &, 68 DEC.
SAT B. T. U. C 14.730 PSIA 3, 60 DEC.
F?EAL SPECIFIC GRAUITY
UNNORMALIZED TOTAL
F CORRECTED FOR <1/Z)
F CORRECTED FOR <1/Z)
0. 3853
0*9 79 2
1.003:3
559. 6
549. 9
0. 9828
98.51
ANALYSIS
DftTE: 88/09/90
TIHE: 14:57
ANALYZER*: 51386
COMP NAME COM? CODE
COS
OXYGEN
NITROGEN
flETHANE
117
116
114
100
ANALYSIS TIME:
CVCLE TIME:
MODE:
MOLE y.
43. 408
6. 089
1.405
55. 898
165
189
PGM
B. T. U. *
0. 08
0.08
0.08
557. 59
STREAM SIQUEMCE : 1
STREAM*: 1
CYCLE START TIIME: 14:54
SP. GR. *
TOTALS 100.000 557.59
* 6 14.730 PSIA DRY & UNCORRECTED FOR COMPRESSIBILITY
COMPRESSIBILITY FACTOR <1/Z)
DRV B. T. U. 8 14.730 PSIA «, 68 DEC.
SAT B. T. U. C 14.730 PSIA & 60 DEC.
RIM SPECIFIC GRAVITY
UNNORMALIZED TOTAL
F CORRECTED FOR <1/2)
F CORRECTED FOR <1/Z)
e.
0.0010
8. 9136
0. 3052
0. 9793
= 1.003:3
= 559. 4
= 54'9. 7
= 0.9821
= 98. -<4
E3-16
-------
ANALYSIS
DATE: 03/09/90
TIHE: 1.5 :«6
ANALV2ER*: 51386
COMP NAME COMP CODE
ANALVSIS TIME:
CVCLE TIME:
MODE:
MOLE •/•;
165 STREAM SEQUENCE: 1
188 STREAM*: 1
PGM CVCLE START TIME: 14:57
B. T. U. * SP. GR. *
C 0 2
OXYGEN
NITROGEN
11 ETHANE
117
116
114
100
43.400
0.090
1.410
55. 180
0.00
0.00
0.00
557.62
9.6595
0.0810
9. 8:i 3*
8. 3852
TOTALS
100.008
557. 62
* C H. 730 PSIA DRV t UNCORRECTED FOR COMPRESSIBILITY
COMPRESSIBILITY FACTOR <1/2)
DRV B. T.U. 5 14.738 PSIA $< 60 DEC. F CORRECTED FOR < 1/Z)
SAT B. T. U. C 14.738 PSIA «, 68 DEC. F CORRECTED FOR < 1/Z)
RIM SPECIFIC GRAUITV
UNNORttALIZED TOTAL
0. 9" 33
1.0033
559.5
549.7'
0.9821
98.47
ANALVSIS
DATE: 88/89/98
MHI: 15:63
AMALVZER*: 51386
COMP NAME COMP CODE
ANALVSIS TIME: 165
CVCLE TIME: 188
MODE: ?GM
MOLE y.
B. T. U. *
STREAM SEQUENCE: J.
STREAM*: 1
CVCLE START TIME! 15:08
SP. GR. *
C 0 2
OXVGEN
NITROGEN
METHANE
117
116
114
188
43. 406
8.889
1.486
55. 099
8.88
8.08 •
8.88
557.68
8. £594
8.8910
0.0131*
0. 3052
TOTALS 188.888 557.60
* 6 14.739 PSIA DRV 8, UNCORRECTED FOR COMPRESSIBILITY
COMPRESSIBILITY FACTOR (1/Z>
BRV B. T. U. 6 14.738 PSIA 8, 68 DEC. F CORRECTED FOR < 1/Z)
SAT B. T.U. C 14.738 PSIA 8, 69 DEC. F CORRECTED FOR < 1/Z)
H:U SPECIFIC GRAUITV
UNNORMALIZED TOTAL
9. 9793
1.8933
559.5
-'
8.9821
98.. 66
E3-17
-------
ANALYSIS
DATE: 08/09/90
T'lPIE: 1:5:86
ANALYZER*: 51386
COMP NAME COnP CODE
COS
OX WEN
NITROGEN
METHANE
117
116
114
100
ANALYSIS TIME:
CVCLE TIME:
MODE:
MOLE V.
43.387
8. D89
1.486
55. 116
165 STREAM SEQUEHOE: 1
188 STREAM*: 1
PGM CVCLE START TIM!: 15:83
B. T. U. * SP. GR. *
6.00 0.65593
0. 00 8. 0019
8.90 8.13134
557. 79 0. 3053
TOTALS 108.080 557.79
* C 14.736 PS.TA DRV & UNCORRECTED FOR COMPRESSIBILITV
COMPRESSIBILITY FACTOR (1/2)
DRV B. T. U. 5 14.730 PSIA 8. 68 DIG.
SAT B. T. U. (B 14.730 PSIA & 60 DEC.
RKftL SPECIFIC GRAUITV
UNNORMALIZED TOTAL
F CORRECTED FOR <1/Z)
F CORRECTED FOR <1/Z>
0. 9"
:L.K!:i33
559.6
549. 9
0.9819
98.. 48
ANALYSIS
DATE: 08/09/90
riMI: 15:89
ANALYZER*: 51386
COMP NAME COMP'CODE
COS
OXYGEN
NITROGEN
MITHANE
117
116
114
100
ANALYSIS TIME:
CVCLE TIME:
MODE:
MOLE 3i
43. 393
6. 090
1.407
55. 111
165 STREAM SEQUENCE: 1
180 STREAM*: 1
PGM CVCLE START TIME: 15:06
B.T. U. * SP. GR. *
0. 00 0. 6593
e. 00 0.0010
0.00 0.0136
557. 72 0. 3053
TOTALS 100.000 557.73
* 6 14.739 PEilA DRV & UNCORRECTED FOR COMPRESSIBILITY
COMPRESSIBILITY FACTOR <1/Z>
DRY B. T. U. 8 14.730 PSIA «. 60 DEG.
SAT B. T. U. 6 14. 730 PSIA & 60 DEG.
REAL SPECIFIC GRAUITY
UNflORMALIZED TOTAL
F CORRECTED FOR <1/Z)
F CORRECTED FOR U/Z)
0. 9792
1.0033
559.6
5:49. 8
0. 9820
•?€:. 50
E3-18
-------
ANALYSIS
DAT!: 08/09/90
TIME: 15:12
ANALYZER*: 51386
COM? NAME COMP CODE
COS
OXYGEN
MITROGEN
flETHANE
TOTALS
117
116
114
100
ANALYSIS TIME:
CYCLE TIME:
MODE:
MOLE y.
.43.400
0.090
1.407
55. 103
100.000
165
180
PGM
B. T. U. *
0.00
0.00
0.00
557. 65
557.65
STREAM SEQUENCE: 1
STREAM*: 1
CYCLE START TIME: 15:09
SP. GR. *
0.0010
0. «:l 3t>
0. 3058
* C 14.730 PSIA DRY 3, UNCORRECTED FOR COMPRESSIBILITY
COMPRESSIBILITY FACTOR <1/Z>
DRV B. T. U. 8 14.730 PSIA 1 60 DEC.
SAT B. T. U. C 14.730 PSIA 8, 60 DEC.
RKftL SPECIFIC GRAUITY
UNNORMALIZED TOTAL
F CORRECTED FOR (1/Z)
F CORRECTED FOR <1/Z>
1.003:3
559.5
0. 98E0
98., 53
ANALYSIS
DATE: 09/09/90
TIME: 15s15
ANALYZER*: 51386
COMP NAME COMP CODE
COS
OXYGEN
NITROGEN
METHANE
117
116
114
100
ANALYSIS TIME:
CYCLE TIME:
MODE:
MOLE '/•.
43. 409
0.689
1.400
55. 10S
165 STREAM SKlUINCI: 1
180 STREAM*: 1
PGM CYCLE START TIHI: 15:12
B. T. U. * SP. GR. *
0. 00 0. 6596
0.00 0.0010
0.00 a 8135
557. 63 0. 3052
TOTALS 100.000 557.63
* § 14-.730 PSIA DRY t, UNCORRECTED FOR COMPRESSIBILITY
COMPRESSIBILITY FACTOR <1/Z>
BRY B. T. U. C 14.730 PSIA k 60 DEC.
SAT B. T. U. (B 14.730 PSIA 8, 60 DEC.
REAL SPECIFIC GRAUITV
UNNORMALIZED TOTAL
F CORRECTED FOR <1/Z)
F CORRECTED FOR <1/Z)
0.9793
1.0033
559.5
549..E:
0.9821
98. 5:3
E3-19
-------
ANALVSIS
DATE: 08/09/90
TiriE: 15:18
ANALVZER*: 51386
COMP NAME
COS
OXVGEN
NITROGEN
flETHANE
TOTALS
COMP CODE
117
116
114
100
ANALVSIS TIME
CVCLE TIME:
MODE:
MOLE '<:
43. 388
0.089
1.404
55. 119
100.000
: 165 STREAM SEQUEN
180 STREAM*: 1
PGM CVCLE START T
B. T. U. *
0.00
0.60
0.00
557. 81
557.81
SP. GR. *
0. 6593
0.0010
0. 3053
0. 9791
* C 14. 730 PSIA DRV 8, UNCORRECTED FOR COMPRESSIBILITV
COMPRESSIBILITV FACTOR (1/Z) = 1.0033
DRV B. T. U. C 14.730 PSIft & 68 DEG. F CORRECTED FOR < 1/Z) = 559.7
SAT B.T.U. 6 14.730 PSIA S, 60 DEG. F CORRECTED FOR <1/Z) = S49..9
RFrtL SPECIFIC GRAUITV = 0.9819
UNNORMALIZED TOTAL = 98. R5
ANALVSIS
DATE: 03/09/90
TIME: 15:21
ANALVZER*: 51386
COMP NAME COMP CODE
ANALVSIS TIME:
CVCLE TIME:
MODE:
MOLE •/:
165 STREAM SIClUIMCI: 1
180 STREAM*: 1
PGM CVCLE START TIME: 15:18
B. T. U. * SP. GR. *
COS
OXVGEN
NITROGEN
MKTHANE
117
116
114
100
43.419
0. 089
1.405
55. 887
0.80
0.00
0.80
557. 48
0. «59I
0.0010
6. 0136
8.3051
TOTALS
100.000
557. 48
C
-------
ANALVSIS RAW T\f\Tf\
DATE: 08/89/90
TIME: 14:3:3
ANALVZER#: 51386
ANALVSIS TIME: 165
CVCLE TIME: 180
MODE: PGM
STREAM SEQUENCE: 1
STREAM*: 1
CVCLE START TIME: 14:22
PlftK
1
2
3
4
RETENTION
TIME
43. 9
90. 1
iee. 5
124.7
PEAK
AREA
1.81748 E+87
60549.8
907074
3.07438 1+07
PEAK
HEIGHT
237861
834. 375
10183.1
166083
GRI
1
5
0 205
206
206
62 820
ANALYSIS RAW DATA
DATE: 08/89/90
TIKE: 14:2*
ANALVZER#:
PEAK
1
2
3
4
GRI Prtl:
0 205
5 206
12 206
66 821
11386
RETENTION
TIME
44.6
90. 1
100.5
124.7
ANALVSIS TIME: 165
CVCLE TIME: 180
MODE: PGM
PEAK
AREA
1.82116 E+07
60585. 0
903834
3.87907 E+07
STREAM si:aui:rici:: i.
STREAM*: 1
CVCLE START TIRE: 14:24
PEAK
HEIGHT
237871
833. 922
18153.5
166300
E3-21
-------
ANALV81S RAU DATA
DATE: 08/89/90
TIME: 14:29
ANALYZER*: 51386
ANALVSIS TIME:
CVCLE TIME:
MODE:
165
186
PCM
STREAM SEQUENCE: 1
STREAM*: i
CVCLE START lliME: 14:27
F'EAH
#
1
2
3
4
GRI
71
0 296
4 206
8 206
821
RETENTION
TIME
4-4.61
98. 1
100.5
124.7
PEAK
AREA
1. -81938 E+07
60576. 0
907356
3.07684 E+07
PEAK
HEIGHT
237687
3-35. 672
18180.2
166235
ANALVSIS RAU DATA
DATE: 08/09/90
TIHJi: 14:3S
ANALVZERf: 51386
ANALVSIS TIME: 165
CVCLE TIME: 180
NODE: PGM
STREAM SEQUENCE: i
STREAMt: 1
CVCLE START TIME: 14:30
PEflK
#
1
2
3
4
RITEIfr ION
TIME
44. B
90. 1
100.5
124.7
PEAK
AREA
1.81842 E+07
61095.0
988073
3.07541 E+07
PEAK
HEIGHT
237613
838. 9212
18195.8
166682
GR I
0 206
0 206
4 206
61 820
E3-22
-------
flNALYSIS RAW DATA
DATE: 08/09/90
Tim:: i<.:35
ANALYZER*: 51386
ANALYSIS TIME: 165
CYCLE TIME: 180
MODE! PGM
STREAM SEQUENCE: .1
STREAM*: 1
CVCLE START TIME: 14:33
1
2
3
4
RETENTION
TIME
43.9
90. 1
100.5
124.7
PEAK
AREA
1.8E026 E+07
60238.8
904689
3.87453 E+07
PEAK
HEIGHT
237874
832. 25e
10166.2
166100
GRI
0 205
1 206
5 206
63 821
HHALVSIS RAW DATA
DATE: 08/09/-90
TIME: 14:38
ANALYZER*: 51386
ANALYSIS TIME: 165
CVCLE TIME: 188
MODE: PGM
STREAM :;I:QIJE:HCE: i
STREAM*: 1
CVCLE START TIME: 14:34
T'EAK
tt
1
2
3
4
GRI
0 205
1 206
4 206
62 821
RETENTION
TIME
44. 0
98. 1
108.5
124.7
PEAK
AREA
1.81888 E+07
60330. 0
906879
3.07461 E+07
PEAK
HEIGHT
237881
830.047
10183.6
166839
E3-23
-------
ANflLVS IS RAU DATA
DATE: 08/09/90
run:: 14:41
ANALVZER*: 51386
ANALVSIS TIME: 165
CS-'CLE TIME: 180
I10DE: PGM
STREAM SEQUENCE: 1
STREAH#: 1
CVCLE START TIME: 14:39
PEAK
*
1
2
3
4
GRI PA;>
0 205
1 206
5 206
62 820
RETENTION
TIME
44. B
90. 1
160. 5
124.7
PEAK
AREA
1.818-4 E+07
60390.0
903531
3.07571 E+07
PEAK
HEIGHT
237860
833.922
10159.5
166145
ANALVSIS RAW DATA
DATE: 08/09/90
TIM:E: 14:44
AMALYZERt: 51386
ANALVSIS TIME: 165
CVCLE TIME: 180
MODE: PGM
STREAM SEQUENCE: 1
STREAM*: 1
CVCLE START 71 HE: 14:42
PErtK
i
1
2
3
4
RETENTION
TIME
44. Ei
90. 1
100.5
124.7
PEAK
AREA
1.81961 E+07
60366. 0
904841
3.07480 E+07
PEAK
HEIGHT
237951
829. 9c:a
10159.8
166096
GRI
0 205
1 206
4 206
61 820
E3-24
-------
ANAL VS IS: RrtU DATA
HATE: 03/09/90
TIME: 14:47
ANALVZER*: 51386
ANALVSIS TIME: 165
CVCLE TIME: 180
RODE: PGM
STREAM SKJUINCE: 1
STREAM: i
CVCLE START HUE: 14:45
ft
1
RETENTION
TIME
43. '?
90. 1
160.5
124.7
PEAK
AREA
1.81942 E+67
60174.6
905835
3. 07547 E+07
PEAK
HEIGHT
237610
829.375
16172.1
166160
GRI FAZ
0 206
4 206
12 206
66 821
ANALVSIS RAW DATA
DATE: 88/09/90
TIME: 14:58
51386
ANALVSIS TIME: 165
CYCLE TIME: 180
MODE: PCH
STREAM SEQUENCE: 1
STREAM*: 1
CVCLE START TIME: 14:48
PEAK
*
1
2
3
4
GRI PfiZ
0 206
5 206
8 206
70 826
RETENTION
TIME
44. 0
90. 1
100.5
124.7
PEAK
AREA
1.81967 E+07
60588.0
904206
3.07789 E+07
PEAK
HEIGHT
237628
834. 305
10146.3
166259
E3-25
-------
AHALYSIS RAW DATA
DATE: 68'09'90
TIME:. 14:553
ANALYZER*: 51386
ANALYSIS TIME: 165
CVCLE TIME: 186
MODE: PGM
STREAM SEQUENCES
STREAM*: 1
CVCLE START TinE
14:51
1
2
••3
4
RiETENTIOM
TIME
43. 9
90. 1
106.5
124.7
PEAK
AREA
1.81946
60174.0
906S94
3. 07656 E+07
PEAK
HEIGHT
237616
829. 3^5
16118. 1
16615€i
GRI
0 206
0 206
4 206
62 821
ANALYSIS RAW DATA
DATE: 0S/-09/90
TIME: 14:56 -
ANALYZER*: 51386
ANALYSIS TIME: 165
CVCLE TIME: 180
MODE: PGM
STREAM SZQUIHCI: 1
STREAM*: 1
CVCLE START TIME: 14:54
PIfiK
#
1
2
GRI PA 2
0 206
0 206
4 206
62 521
RETENTION
TIME
43; 9
90. 1
100.5
124.7
PEAK
AREA
1.81861 E+07
60438.0
902964
3.87370 £+07
PEAK
HEIGHT
237620
838. 566
10140.6
166035
E3-26
-------
ANALYSIS RAW DATA
DATE: 68/69/96
Tiril: 14:59
ANALYZER*: 51386
ANALVSIS TIME: 165
CVCLE TIME: 186
MODE: PGM
STREAM SEQUKNCi:: ].
STREAM*: 1
CVCLE START TIME: 14:5?
PEAK
t
1
2
:3
4
RETENTION
TIME
43.9
98. 1
100.5
124.7
PEAK
AREA
1.81876 E+67
61065.6
905949
3.87455 E+07
PEAK
HEIGHT
237863
839. 6£:5
10172.3
166099
GRI
1
5
6 265
266
206
62 820
ANALYSIS RAW DATA
DATE: 08/09/96
TIME: 15:02
ANALYZER*: 51386
ANALYSIS TIME: 165
CVCLE TIME: 186
MODE: PGM
STREAM SIIQUI.-MCE: i
STREAM*: 1
CYCLE START TIME: 15:00
PIrtK
#
1
2
GRI
6 266
4 266
12 266
65 821
RETENTION
TIME
44.8
96. 1
166. 5
124.7
PEAK
AREA
1.82150 E+67
60864.6
904485
3.67880 E+07
PEAK
HEIGHT
237626
840.508
10163.6
166295
E3-27
-------
ANAIVSIS RAW DATA
DATE: 08/09/90
TIME: 15:95
ANALYZER*: 51386
ANALYSIS TIME: 165
CYCLE TIME: 186
NODE: PGM
STREAM SEQUENCE: i
STREAM*: i
CVCLE START TIME: 15:03
PEAK
ft
RETENTION
TIME
PEAK
AREA
PEAK
HEIGHT
1
90. 1
106. 5
124.?
1.81838 E+97
60660. 0
3.07592 E+07
237363
835.375
10138.3
166065
GRI
0 206
4 206
8 206
69 820
ANALYSIS RAW DATA
DATE: 08/09/90
TIME: is: es
ANALYZER*: 51386
ANALYSIS TIME: 165
CYCLE TIME: 180
MODE: PGM
STREAM SIQUIMCI: 1
STREAM*: 1
CYCLE START TltlE: 15:06
PEftK
*
RETENTION
TIME
PEAK
AREA
PEAK
HEIGHT
1
2
GRI Pf\2
0 206
5 206
•8 206
71 820
44. 0
90. 1
100. 5
124.7
1.81896 E+07
60957.0
904692
3.07613 E+07
237612
838.922
10157.6
166207
E3-28
-------
ftNftLYSIS RAW DATA
DATE: 08/09^90
HUE: l!5:il
ANALYZER*: 51386
ANALYSIS TIME: 165
CVCLE TIME: 186
MODE: PGH
STREAM SEQUEHCI: i
STREAM*: 1
CVCLE START TIME: 15:83
1
2
RETENTION
TIME
44. 0
90. 1
. 100.5
124.7
PEAK
AREA
1.81994 E+07
61026.9
904914
3.07684 E+07
PEAK
HEIGHT
237616
842.375
10162.9
166224
GRI PflZ
0 206
4 206
8 206
70 820
ANALYSIS RAU DATA
08x09/90
TIHi: IS: 14
ANALYZERS: 51386
ANALYSIS TIME: 165
CYCLE TIME: 186
MODE: PGM
STREAM SEQUENCE! 1
STREAM*: 1
CYCLE START TIME: 15:12
PEiflK
tt
1
2
3
4
RETENTION
TIME
44.0
90. 1
190.5
124.7
PEAK
AREA
1.88126
60891.0
906534
3.07833 E+07
PEAK
HEIGHT
237686
837. 37'5
10119.6
166355
GRI PA2
0 206
5 206
9 206
70 820
E3-29
-------
ANALVSIS RAW DATA
HATE: 08/09/90
Till!:: 15:17
ANALVZER*: 51386
ANALVSIS TIME:
CVCLE TIME:
ttODE:
165
ie0
STREAM SIl3'J!HC!:: 1
STREAM*: 1
CYCLE START TliME: 15:15
PEAK
1
2
RE:TEMTI:OH
TIME
90. 1
100.5
124.7
PEAK
AREA
1.81986 I-t-07
60369.0
902871
3.87829 E+87
PEAK
HEIGHT
237616
832. 3*i5
10131.9
16631(1
GRI
0 206
5 206
9 206
71 821
ANALVSIS RAU DATA
DATE: 08/09/98
TIME: 15:S6
ANALVZER*: 51386
ANALVSIS TIME: 165
CV'CLE TIME: 180
HOPE: PGM
STREAM SEQUENCE: i
STREAM*: 1
CVCLE START TIM!: 15:18
1
2
3
4
GRI
0 266
-1 206
3 206
60 826
RETENTION
TIME
43. <3
90. 1
100.5
124.7
PEAK
AREA
1.81895 E+07
60483.0
902901
3.07285 E+07
PEAK
HEIGHT
237628
832. 3Ei5
10139.8
166055
E3-30
-------
Site
DATE
Staplers UUUli
SAW LE NO.
/
.2
J?
V
SAMPLE
TINE
/lo^
nzs-
IW3
&t-
a ASK
I/VOLUNE
/^^^
/^. ^
&<»$
0^
TEMPERATURE
•F
INITIAL
?
-------
Run Niaber 5it"C
DATE
Sutlers Initials.
SAMPLE NO.
S"
&
• » *
SAMPLE
TINE
/3»7
/33o
-
r
a ASK
I/VOLUME
£3£
141
TEMPERATURE
•F
INITIAL
^D
«;
FINAL
FLASK PR
•Ha
INITIAL
2JT. £
ZC.J
ESSURE
FINAL
BAROMETRIC
PRESSURE "Hq
INITIAL
s^'/r
•i
FINAL
'
RECOVERY
DATE/TIME
J40TES:
Method 25C Field Sampling Data Sheet
-------
RADIAN
Run Niabcr Site
DATE
Sutlers Initials
SAMPLE NO.
/
2-
3
V
SAMPLE
TIME
IO)-L
/oz$
/6*>i
to Hi
a ASK
I/VOLUME
^37
OV.T
/^~o
/75"
TEMPERATURE
•F
INITIAL
"Id
/»
/(
/•/
FINAL
FLASK PR
"Ha
INITIAL
^7.2.
Z5",o
2?. 3
zn
ESSURE
FINAL
BAROMETRIC
PRESSURE 'Hq
INITIAL
3o,/r
;/
n
>l
FINAL
RECOVERY
DATE/TIME
MOTES:
Method 3C Field Sampling Data Sheet
-------
RADIAN
Run timber
DATE
/
Sutlers Initials
SAMPLE NO.
<
£
SAMPLE
TIME
105-5-
//oy
a ASK
I/VOLUME
-------
RADIAN
IAVIOM
FIELD DATA
PlMI
0»li.
UWIMC IDCAIItt /n If T-"!
IMPII ITPI //. C?
•IIMMil.
OPIUIM .
«MHII lUPfUlMt
EiacrunuM
IINCINMD IIP!
Mo/mio _ ... _
•IIUKD •NIIUH . '.
IMFlf lOllUNBIR.
HUIKIHHUR
• III «H,
C MCIM
PMHKAIUUIIIK
MMII Ml If IIM
scMtMiicor luvimi POUI uroui
UAOUOMCWOAUOMMVim W
Kin r
flt
iiwiim
i
//
II
iJL
(«•![• H
•V"1
* 5-
VflOCIIf
MM
U»,». • N/t
Minct PM ouv
oirruiaiiu
1*41.1.11,0) .
HUHO IttllUl
[III
UVtUtUK
III
OUIllI
HVfMflMI
lot
*
•IS
Reproduced from
best available copy.
-------
RADIAN
ATIOM
FIELD DATA
0*11 0 <* 1 ~ 7 <-^
SMPU ur
•IIWMMI
OPfWIM _
i .
«•!!•! lUrUAIUIE
ftMl
mmut
OMCIIl
ir* io*i in
UMKIttC
lUIKftfl
ft !(••!•
^^N^
~* - — __
J2 O tf
/A. I -3 ,
t'2_ I tf
1^£. <£-$
7-5. L?? *?
/j^ 3 Y
mau»
umt p i
UBf.1
CMKUIUMMK
w.iV
/JT7--3 J 5^
^~S7—^^
-. / ^T^ 7 /
/ '/T' S'^"
/^7
-------
RADIAN
•TIOH
FIELD DATA
_
IRAVItU
ran
•Mil I.
riui
DAIf
tAmWGlO
WVIf Iffl
•JRMJM*
oriiAin _
••••1 IU
UMMIHC
tune nit
rtlHMH
N. aocxi«
IM.M N^OCIi
" __
/•>c/s"
/^S~&
/ 3 J -i
/ ft*/ C^
/ cy f) V~~
/w &
- ' ^ . f . _ . .
^ ^-/ ' v*-^
CtlHM
r
3
niAiMi
Htaimt '*>£>.(£'
tOf |» 1
"•w
CMKIIinMMK
|V^I, r
/ (aO • 3>%2-
/Co . rf
1 60 • ^>
/£>/ -IT0
/-£/. ro
/6/,
-------
RADIAN
C~L-
/ w 5^7
j
CamiUMMMC
•V r
1^,1 . S?CT
/6i 70
7^3. bz c»
/ O Y1
VIIOCIIV
MM
omncf nuDun
urruiHiiu.
UW. » H|0|
DfMKO
•CIUU
lUPfMIMI
0«T CM Mill
IIMtMIUK
Mil
II. J.1
^^
«7 /
"]!
^i 1
OUIICI
rur
VACUUI
• *
vurtt MI
HOPtMIUif.
•»
/ C?V
nroKfR
IIOTlMIIMt.
M
&'l
6?
j-j-
-------
RADIAN
IATIOM
FIELD DATA
riuii
Dklf Y T ' - ^0
lUrLUKIOUini
UMPtt iwi
•MMMU _. t>
oriMin _
IMKIf III
VIlAllMI
•iiuKon
umim
•fill MI
• III «H
CfACIOfl
UMMIMCMfllUH \O /J
rmiNfk
(HUM '. _
iHio^qq
......_
1 ~-
'
— . . —
lUUItlK
tMncnNiHM.ir.1 MMIIIOIUIIMC
IRMIM
HMI
MWI
' rtifftwi
^KN?
J • —
/ V S/
/VM c>
/vr/
/vr^»
/ f ° 1
/ r^^
HUM
ICMfl
MMMDMC
a*"n"3*BMt
/&'3. or9"
/-6_^- ^7
/ 6 3> • ^3
/ C3, "7 f
J(.^i-0 T-
f CV dJJ
vtiocitv
itiicor iMvtwri
On«lLB*UIV(M
UMl. m. NjOl
HUKO
•CIIUl
Ml UIOUI
IIAOl
IIVIUIIME
MfilfWI
NIIU r
It
/ O(y
on cu KIII
lIVfMTUK
M.II
10
1*
=70
fo
OUHII
rur
VUUUI.
lunini
•f
( &T
IIWIIMKM.
•1
^y
6>G
AV
6."O
-------
RADIAN
CORPORATION
FIELD DATA
rtMi wJ/ / c- /
UMTIWCIO
... -^ 5 .... . T
rfllMI HKlHMOUr
•0//UIO _ ...
1
1MPI 1 1 »PI ._ UflPI 1 Ml •!••! •
Ml •!••!• _ la ..
MMM lUPf lAlUK
tuiic mi
rtlUMM
•HtHMI ^ O > / J
KMI.IPI
lf*IH - .
icMuuitcof iiivimi PC
UM> WO MONO All OAUI VIDI
E1
sssja
' ~-_
is 'ojiffftto
iz\ c
/ f*-^
i <* ^^
y S 3°
/3"35"
CMMinnMNK
|V_k. F
/AS-ZJf/
/6'f-fT
/6S .?r
/ 4^ ?x*
/^J". Zo
/ 6" 5" • 3'£V
_,
*•
^
VflOCIII
KM)
U»,l • HjO
•iricf mnwK
MrrtifNiuti
UMI. •. M/h
BfUMO
KIIU1
.
Ml UTOUI
mi
IIUK
IWCUIlM
HKIK
• II* •
CIACIM
rHOHH
MtAIIMI
Hftlfl
WKR
[|
11
".
«
M>
CI
r
-- tIR
• •
IUUIIIK
istilac
AA
turtMiuK
MLfl
*1
t>1
~l
i~i"
U3
<^5~
5"Y
CMHMI
If* lOxi in
-------
ANALYSIS
DATE: 08/21/90
TIME: 10:12
ANALYZER: 802903
ANALYSIS TIME:
CYCLE TIME:
MODE:
COMP NAME COMP CODE
C O 2
OXYGEN
NITROGEN
METHANE
117
116
114
100
MOLE %
43.385
0.485
2.452
53.678
165 STREAM SEQUENCE: 1
180 STREAM#: 1
RUN CYCLE START TIME: 10:09
B.T.U.*
0.00
0.00
0.00
543.22
SP. GR. *
0.6592
0.0054
0.0237
0.2973
TOTALS 100.000 543.22 0.9856
* 6 14.730 PSIA DRY & UNCORRECTED FOR COMPRESSIBILITY
COMPRESSIBILITY FACTOR (1/Z)
DRY B.T.U. @ 14.730 PSIA & 60 DE.
SAT B.T.U. @ 14.730 PSIA & 60 DE.
REAL SPECIFIC GRAVITY
UNNORMALIZED TOTAL
F CORRECTED FOR (1/Z)
F CORRECTED FOR (1/Z)
1.0033
545.0
535.5
0.9884
99.08
ANALYSIS
DATE: 08/21/90
TIME: 10:15
ANALYZER: 802903
ANALYSIS TIME:
CYCLE TIME:
MODE.:
COMP NAME COMP CODE
C 0 2
OXYGEN
NITROGEN
METHANE
117
116
114
100
MOLE %
43.353
0.483
2.496
53.667
165 STREAM SEQUENCE: 1
180 STREAM#: 1
RUN CYCLE START TIME: 10:12
B.T.U.*
0.00
0.00
0.00
543.11
SP. GR. *
0.6588
0.0053
0.0241
0.2973
TOTALS 100.000 543.11 0.9855
* @ 14.730 PSIA DRY & UNCORRECTED FOR COMPRESSIBILITY
COMPRESSIBILITY FACTOR (1/Z)
DRY B.T.U. @ 14.730 PSIA & 60 DE.
SAT B.T.U. @ 14.730 PSIA & 60 DE.
REAL SPECIFIC GRAVITY
UNNORMALIZED TOTAL
F CORRECTED FOR (1/Z)
F CORRECTED FOR (1/Z)
1.0033
544.9
535.4
0.9882
99.12
E4-11
-------
ANALYSIS
DATE: 08/21/90
TIME: 10:18
ANALYZER: 802903
ANALYSIS TIME:
CYCLE TIME:
MODE:
COMP NAME COMP CODE
C O 2
OXYGEN
NITROGEN
METHANE
117
116
114
100
MOLE %
43.373
0.480
2.490
53.656
165 STREAM SEQUENCE: 1
180 STREAM#: 1
RUN CYCLE START TIME: 10:15
B.T.U.*
0.00
0.00
0.00
543.00
SP. GR. *
0.6591
0.0053
0.0241
0.2972
TOTALS 100.000 543.00 0.9856
* @ 14.730 PSIA DRY & UNCORRECTED FOR COMPRESSIBILITY
COMPRESSIBILITY FACTOR (1/Z)
DRY B.T.U. § 14.730 PSIA & 60 DE.
SAT B.T.U. © 14.730 PSIA & 60 DE.
REAL SPECIFIC GRAVITY
UNNORMALIZED TOTAL
F CORRECTED FOR (1/Z)
F CORRECTED FOR (1/Z)
1.0033
544.8
535.3
0.9884
99.10
ANALYSIS
DATE: OB/21/90
TIME: 10:21
ANALYZER: 802903
ANALYSIS TIME:
CYCLE TIME:
MODE:
COMP NAME COMP CODE
C 0 2
OXYGEN
NITROGEN
METHANE
117
116
114
100
MOLE %
43.356
0.481
2.490
53.673
165 STREAM SEQUENCE: 1
180 STREAM#: 1
RUN CYCLE START TIME: 10:18
B.T.U.*
0.00
0.00
0.00
543.17
SP. GR. *
0.6588
0.0053
0.0241
0.2973
TOTALS 100.000 543.17 0.9855
* @ 14.730 PSIA DRY & UNCORRECTED FOR COMPRESSIBILITY
COMPRESSIBILITY FACTOR (1/Z)
DRY B.T.U. 6 14.730 PSIA & 60 DE.
SAT B.T.U. € 14.730 PSIA & 60 DE.
REAL SPECIFIC GRAVITY
UNNORMALIZED TOTAL
= 1.0033
F CORRECTED FOR (1/Z)
F CORRECTED FOR (1/Z)
= 0.9882
= 99.30
545.0
535.5
E4-12
-------
ANALYSIS
DATE: 08/21/90
TIME: 10:24
ANALYZER: 802903
ANALYSIS TIME:
CYCLE TIME:
MODE:
COMP NAME COMP CODE
C O 2
OXYGEN
NITROGEN
METHANE
117
116
114
100
MOLE %
43.371
0.482
2.504
53.643
165 STREAM SEQUENCE: 1
180 STREAM#: 1
RUN CYCLE START TIME: 1O:21
B.T.U.*
0.00
0.00
0.00
542.87
SP. GR. *
0.6590
0.0053
0.0242
0.2971
TOTALS 100.000 542.87 0.9857
* @ 14.730 PSIA DRY & UNCORRECTED FOR COMPRESSIBILITY
COMPRESSIBILITY FACTOR (1/Z)
DRY B.T.U. @ 14.730 PSIA & 60 DE.
SAT B.T.U. § 14.730 PSIA & 60 DE.
REAL SPECIFIC GRAVITY
UNNORMALIZED TOTAL
F CORRECTED FOR (1/Z)
F CORRECTED FOR (1/Z)
1.0033
544.7
535.2
0.9884
99.29
ANALYSIS
DATE: 08/21/90
TIME: 10:27
ANALYZER: 802903
ANALYSIS TIME:
CYCLE TIME:
MODE:
COMP NAME COMP CODE
C 0 2
OXYGEN
NITROGEN
METHANE
117
116.
114
100
MOLE %
43.375
0.482
2.488
53.655
165 STREAM SEQUENCE: 1
180 STREAM#: 1
RUN CYCLE START TIME: 10:24
B.T.U.*
0.00
0.00
0.00
542.98
SP. GR. *
0.6591
0.0053
0.0241
0.2972
TOTALS 100.000 542.98 0.9857
* @ 14.730 PSIA DRY & UNCORRECTED FOR COMPRESSIBILITY
COMPRESSIBILITY FACTOR (1/Z)
DRY B.T.U. € 14.730 PSIA & 60 DE.
SAT B.T.U. @ 14.730 PSIA & 60 DE.
REAL SPECIFIC GRAVITY
UNNORMALIZED TOTAL
F CORRECTED FOR (1/Z)
F CORRECTED FOR (1/Z)
1.0033
544.8
535.3
0.9884
99.29
E4-13
-------
ANALYSIS
DATE: 08/21/90
TIME: 10:30
ANALYZER: 802903
ANALYSIS TIME:
CYCLE TIME:
MODE:
165 STREAM SEQUENCE: 1
180 STREAM#: 1
RUN CYCLE START TIME: 10:27
COMP NAME COMP CODE
C O 2
OXYGEN
NITROGEN
METHANE.
117
116
114
100
MOLE %
43.365
0.480
2.511
53.644
B.T.U.*
0.00
0.00
0.00
542.87
SP. GR. *
0.6589
0.0053
0.0243
0.2971
TOTALS 100.000 542.87 0.9857
* 8 14.730 PSIA DRY & UNCORRECTED FOR COMPRESSIBILITY
COMPRESSIBILITY FACTOR (1/Z)
DRY B.T.U. § 14.730 PSIA & 60 DE.
SAT B.T.U. § 14.730 PSIA & 60 DE.
REAL SPECIFIC GRAVITY
UNNORMALIZED TOTAL
F CORRECTED FOR (1/Z)
F CORRECTED FOR (1/Z)
1.0033
544.7
535.2
0.9884
99.19
ANALYSIS
DATE: 08/21/90
TIME: 10:33
ANALYZER: 802903
ANALYSIS TIME:
CYCLE TIME:
MODE:
COMP NAME
C O 2
OXYGEN
NITROGEN
METHANE
COMP CODE
117 .
116
114
100
MOLE %
43.369
0.483
2.501
53.647
165 STREAM SEQUENCE: 1
180 STREAM#: 1
RUN CYCLE START TIME: 10:30
B.T.U.*
0.00
0.00
0.00
542.91
SP. GR. *
0.6590
0.0053
0.0242
0.2972
TOTALS 100.000 542.91 0.9857
* 6 14.730 PSIA DRY & UNCORRECTED FOR COMPRESSIBILITY
COMPRESSIBILITY FACTOR (1/Z)
DRY B.T.U. § 14.730 PSIA & 60 DE.
SAT B.T.U. @ 14.730 PSIA •& 60 DE.
REAL SPECIFIC GRAVITY
UNNORMALIZED TOTAL
F CORRECTED FOR (1/Z)
F CORRECTED FOR (1/Z)
1.0033
544.7
535.2
0.9884
99.14
E4-14
-------
ANALYSIS
DATE: 08/21/90
TIME: 10:36
ANALYZER; 802903
ANALYSIS TIME:
CYCLE TIME:
MODE:
COMP NAME COMP CODE
C O 2
OXYGEN
NITROGEN
METHANE
117
116
114
100
MOLE %
43.364
0.480
2.511
53.645
165 STREAM SEQUENCE: 1
180 STREAM#: 1
RUN CYCLE START TIME: 10:33
B.T.U.*
0.00
0.00
0.00
542.89
SP. GR. *
0.6589
0.0053
0.0243
0.2971
TOTALS 100.000 542.89 0.9856
* § 14.730 PSIA DRY & UNCORRECTED FOR COMPRESSIBILITY
COMPRESSIBILITY FACTOR (1/Z)
DRY B.T.U. @ 14.730 PSIA & 60 DE.
SAT B.T.U. § 14.730 PSIA & 60 DE.
REAL SPECIFIC GRAVITY
UNNORMALIZED TOTAL
F CORRECTED FOR (1/Z)
F CORRECTED FOR (1/Z)
1.0033
544.7
535.2
0.9884
99.27
ANALYSIS
DATE: 08/21/90
TIME.: 10:39
ANALYZER: 802903
ANALYSIS TIME:
CYCLE TIME:
MODE:
COMP NAME COMP CODE
C O 2
OXYGEN
NITROGEN
METHANE
117
116
114
100
MOLE %
43.355
0.486
2.549
53.610
165 STREAM SEQUENCE: 1
180 STREAM#: 1
RUN CYCLE START TIME: 10:36
B.T.U.*
0.00
0.00
0.00
542.54
SP. GR. *
0.6588
0.0054
0.0246
0.2969
TOTALS 100.000 542.54 0.9857
* € 14.730 PSIA DRY & UNCORRECTED FOR COMPRESSIBILITY
COMPRESSIBILITY FACTOR (1/Z)
DRY B.T.U. @ 14.730 PSIA & 60 DE.
SAT B.T.U. @ 14.730 PSIA •& 60 DE.
REAL SPECIFIC GRAVITY
UNNORMALIZED TOTAL
F CORRECTED FOR (1/Z)
F CORRECTED FOR (1/Z)
1.0033
544.3
534.8
0.9885
99.21
E4-15
-------
ANALYSIS
DATE: 08/21/90
TIME: 10:42
ANALYZER: 802903
ANALYSIS TIME:
CYCLE TIME:
MODE:
COMP NAME COMP CODE
C O 2
OXYGEN
NITROGEN
METHANE
TOTALS
117
116
114
100
MOLE %
43.355
0.482
2.531
53.632
100.000
165 STREAM SEQUENCE: 1
180 STREAM/: 1
RUN CYCLE START TIME: 10:39
B.T.U.*
0.00
0.00
0.00
542.75
542.75
SP. GR. *
0.6588
0.0053
0.0245
0.2971
0.9857
* @ 14.730 PSIA DRY & UNCORRECTED FOR COMPRESSIBILITY
COMPRESSIBILITY FACTOR (1/Z)
DRY B.T.U. @ 14.730 PSIA & 60 DE. F CORRECTED FOR (1/Z)
SAT B.T.U. @ 14.730 PSIA & 60 DE. F CORRECTED FOR (1/Z)
REAL SPECIFIC GRAVITY
UNNORMALIZED TOTAL
1.0033
544.5
535.1
0.9884
99.16
ANALYSIS
DATE: OB/21/90
TIME: 10:45
ANALYZER: 802903
ANALYSIS TIME:
CYCLE TIME:
MODE:
COMP NAME COMP CODE
C O 2
OXYGEN
NITROGEN
METHANE
117
116
114
100
MOLE %
43.351
0.483
2.562
53.604
165 STREAM SEQUENCE: 1
180 STREAM#: 1
RUN CYCLE START TIME: 10:42
B.T.U.*
0.00
0.00
0.00
542.48
SP. GR. *
0.6587
0.0053
0.0248
0.2969
TOTALS 100.000 542.48 0.9857
* @ 14.730 PSIA DRY & UNCORRECTED FOR COMPRESSIBILITY
COMPRESSIBILITY FACTOR (1/Z)
DRY B.T.U. § 14.730 PSIA & 60 DE.
SAT B.T.U. @ 14.730 PSIA & 60 DE.
REAL SPECIFIC GRAVITY
UNNORMALIZED TOTAL
F CORRECTED FOR (1/Z)
F CORRECTED FOR (1/Z)
1.0033
544.3
534.8
0.9885
99.08
E4-16
-------
ANALYSIS
DATE: 08/21/90
TIME: 10:48
ANALYZER: S02903
ANALYSIS TIME:
CYCLE TIME:
MODE:
COMP NAME COMP CODE
C O 2
OXYGEN
NITROGEN
METHANE
117
116
114
100
MOLE %
43.347
0.483
2.542
53.628
165 STREAM SEQUENCE: 1
180 STREAM#: 1
RUN CYCLE START TIME: 10:45
B.T.U.*
0.00
0.00
0.00
542.71
SP. GR.
0.6587
0.0053
0.0246
0.2970
TOTALS 100.000 542.71 0.9856
* @ 14.730 PSIA DRY & UNCORRECTED FOR COMPRESSIBILITY
COMPRESSIBILITY FACTOR (1/Z)
DRY B.T.U. @ 14.730 PSIA & 60 DE.
SAT B.T.U. §14.730 PSIA & 60 DE.
REAL SPECIFIC GRAVITY
UNNORMALIZED TOTAL
F CORRECTED FOR (1/Z)
F CORRECTED FOR (1/Z)
1.0033
544.5
535.0
0.9884
99.23
ANALYSIS
DATE: 08/21/90
TIME: 10:51
ANALYZER: 802903
ANALYSIS TIME:
CYCLE TIME:
MODE:
COMP NAME COMP CODE
C O 2
OXYGEN
NITROGEN
METHANE
117
116
114
100
MOLE %
43.361
0.484
2.514
53.641
165 STREAM SEQUENCE: 1
180 STREAM#: 1
RUN CYCLE START TIME: 10:48
B.T.U.*
0.00
0.00
0.00
542.85
SP. GR. *
0.6589
0.0053
0.0243
0.2971
TOTALS 100.000 542.85 0.9856
* 6 14.730 PSIA DRY & UNCORRECTED FOR COMPRESSIBILITY
COMPRESSIBILITY FACTOR (1/Z)
DRY B.T.U. @ 14.730 PSIA & 60 DE. F CORRECTED FOR (1/Z) =
SAT B.T.U. @ 14.730 PSIA & 60 DE. F CORRECTED FOR (1/Z) =
REAL SPECIFIC GRAVITY
UNNORMALIZED TOTAL
1.0033
544.6
535.2
0.9884
99.27
E4-17
-------
ANALYSIS
DATE: 08/21/90
TIME: 10:54
ANALYZER: 802903
ANALYSIS TIME:
CYCLE TIME:
MODE:
COMP NAME COMP CODE
C O 2
OXYGEN
NITROGEN
METHANE
117
116
114
100
MOLE %
43.342
0.489
2.564
53.606
165 STREAM SEQUENCE: 1
180 STREAM#: 1
RUN CYCLE START TIME: 10:51
B.T.U.*
0.00
0.00
0.00
542.49
SP. GR. *
0.6586
0.0054
0.0248
0.2969
TOTALS 100.000 542.49 0.9857
* @ 14.730 PSIA DRY & UNCORRECTED FOR COMPRESSIBILITY
COMPRESSIBILITY FACTOR (1/Z)
DRY B.T.U. @ 14.730 PSIA & 60 DE.
SAT B.T.U. @ 14.730 PSIA & 60 DE.
REAL SPECIFIC GRAVITY
UNNORMALIZED TOTAL
F CORRECTED FOR (1/Z)
F CORRECTED FOR (1/Z)
1.0033
544.3
534.8
0.9884
99.04
ANALYSIS
DATE: 08/21/90
TIME: 10:57
ANALYZER: 802903
ANALYSIS TIME:
CYCLE TIME:
MODE:
COMP NAME COMP CODE
C O 2
OXYGEN
NITROGEN
METHANE
117
116
114
100
MOLE %
43.341
0.479
2.531
53.649
165 STREAM SEQUENCE: 1
180 STREAM#: 1
RUN CYCLE START TIME: 10:54
B.T.U.*
0.00
0.00
0.00
542.93
SP. GR. *
0.6586
0.0053
0.0245
0.2972
TOTALS 100.000 542.93 0.9855
* § 14.730 PSIA DRY & UNCORRECTED FOR COMPRESSIBILITY
COMPRESSIBILITY FACTOR (1/Z)
DRY B.T.U. @ 14.730 PSIA & 60 DE. F CORRECTED FOR (1/Z) =
SAT B.T.U. © 14.730 PSIA & 60 DE. F CORRECTED FOR (1/Z) =
REAL SPECIFIC GRAVITY
UNNORMALIZED TOTAL
1.0033
544.7
535.2
0.9882
99.26
E4-18
-------
ANALYSIS
DATE: 08/21/90
TIME: 11:00
ANALYZER: 802903
ANALYSIS TIME:
CYCLE TIME:
MODE:
COMP NAME COMP CODE
C O 2
OXYGEN
NITROGEN
METHANE
TOTALS
117
116
114
100
MOLE %
43.350
0.484
2.558
53.607
100.000
165 STREAM SEQUENCE: 1
180 STREAM#: 1
RUN CYCLE START TIME: 10:57
B.T.U.*
0.00
0.00
0.00
542.51
542.51
SP. GR.
0.6587
0.0054
0.0247
0.2969
0.9857
* @ 14.730 PSIA DRY & UNCORRECTED FOR COMPRESSIBILITY
COMPRESSIBILITY FACTOR (1/Z)
DRY B.T.U. @ 14.730 PSIA & 60 DE. F CORRECTED FOR (1/Z)
SAT B.T.U. @ 14.730 PSIA & 60 DE. F CORRECTED FOR (1/Z)
REAL SPECIFIC GRAVITY
UNNORMALIZED TOTAL
1.0033
544.3
534.8
0.9885
99.17
ANALYSIS
DATE: 08/21/90
TIME: 11:03
ANALYZER: 802903
ANALYSIS TIME:
CYCLE TIME:
MODE:
165 STREAM SEQUENCE: 1
180 STREAM#: 1
RUN CYCLE START TIME: 11:00
COMP NAME COMP CODE
C O 2
OXYGEN
NITROGEN
METHANE
117
116
114
100
MOLE %
43.341
0.488
2.568
53.603
B.T.U.*
0.00
0.00
0.00
542.46
SP. GR. *
0.6586
0.0054
0.0248
0.2969
TOTALS 100.000 542.46 0.9857
* @ 14.730 PSIA DRY & UNCORRECTED FOR COMPRESSIBILITY
COMPRESSIBILITY FACTOR (1/Z)
DRY B.T.U. 6 14.730 PSIA & 60 DE. F CORRECTED FOR (1/Z) =
SAT B.T.U. @ 14.730 PSIA & 60 DE. F CORRECTED FOR (1/Z) =
REAL SPECIFIC GRAVITY
UNNORMALIZED TOTAL
1.0033
544.2
534.8
0.9884
99.14
E4-19
-------
ANALYSIS
DATE: 08/21/90
TIME: 11:06
ANALYZER: 802903
ANALYSIS TIME:
CYCLE TIME:
MODE:
165 STREAM SEQUENCE: 1
180 STREAM#: 1
RUN CYCLE START TIME: 11:03
COMP NAME COMP CODE
C 0 2
OXYGEN
NITROGEN
METHANE
TOTALS
117
116
114
100
MOLE %
43.344
0.482
2.547
53.627
100.000
B.T.U.*
0.00
0.00
0.00
542.70
542.70
SP. GR. *
0.6586
0.0053
0.0246
0.2970
0.9856
* @ 14.730 PSIA DRY & UNCORRECTED FOR COMPRESSIBILITY
COMPRESSIBILITY FACTOR (1/Z) = 1.0033
DRY B.T.U. § 14.730 PSIA & 60 DE. F CORRECTED FOR (1/Z) = 544.5
SAT B.T.U. @ 14.730 PSIA & 60 DE. F CORRECTED FOR (1/Z) = 535.0
REAL SPECIFIC GRAVITY = 0.9883
UNNORMALIZED TOTAL =99.01
ANALYSIS
DATE: OB/21/90
TIME: 11:09
ANALYZER: 802903
ANALYSIS TIME:
CYCLE TIME:
MODE:
165 STREAM SEQUENCE: 1
180 STREAM#: 1
RUN CYCLE START TIME: 11:06
COMP NAME COMP CODE
C 0 2
OXYGEN
NITROGEN
METHANE
117
116
114
100
MOLE %
43.364
0.490
2.545
53.601
B.T.U.*
0.00
0.00
0.00
542.44
SP. GR. *
0.6589
0.0054
0.0246
0.2969
TOTALS 100.000 542.44 0.9858
* @ 14.730 PSIA DRY & UNCORRECTED FOR COMPRESSIBILITY
COMPRESSIBILITY FACTOR (1/Z)
DRY B.T.U. 6 14.730 PSIA & 60 DE.
SAT B.T.U. @ 14.730 PSIA & 60 DE.
REAL SPECIFIC GRAVITY
UNNORMALIZED TOTAL
F.CORRECTED FOR (1/Z)
F CORRECTED FOR (1/Z)
1.0033
544.2
534.8
0.9886
99.00
E4-20
-------
ANALYSIS'
DATE: 08/21/90
TIME: 11:12
ANALYZER: 802903
ANALYSIS TIME:
CYCLE TIME:
MODE:
COMP NAME COMP CODE
C O 2
OXYGEN
NITROGEN
METHANE
117
116
114
100
MOLE %
43.347
0.485
2.548
53.620
165 STREAM SEQUENCE: 1
180 STREAM#: 1
RUN CYCLE START TIME: 11:09
B.T.U.*
0.00
0.00
0.00
542.63
SP. GR. *
0.6587
0.0054
0.0246
0.2970
TOTALS 100.000 542.63 0.9857
* § 14.730 PSIA DRY & UNCORRECTED FOR COMPRESSIBILITY
COMPRESSIBILITY FACTOR (1/Z)
DRY B.T.U. 6 14.730 PSIA & 60 DE.
SAT B.T.U. @ 14.730 PSIA & 60 DE.
REAL SPECIFIC GRAVITY
UNNORMALIZED TOTAL
F CORRECTED FOR (1/Z)
F CORRECTED FOR (1/Z)
1.0033'
544.4
534.9
0.9884
99.04
E4-21
-------
Run
Suffers
S ~
DATE
SAMPLE HO.
/
2-
3
SAMPLE
TIME
^5"/
/ooo
ion
a ASK
I/VOLUME
/0-2-
7-7 7
ivl
TEMPERATURE
•F
INITIAL
-7 IT
-7?
7*
FINAL
FLASK PR
"Ma
INITIAL
25"* r
2^75-
11,0
ESSURE
FINAL
BAROME
PRESSUR
INITIAL
z^^r
* /
'/
me
E "Hq
FINAL
RECOVERY
OATE/UHC
tn
HOTES:
Method 3C Field Sampling Data Sheet
-------
Run
5ite5 -
DATE
SMpUrs UUUIt /lL Q
SAMPLE NO.
i
?
6
SAMPLE
TIME
4&/I2S-
iim
y/^3
a ASK
I/VOLUME
US'
/3r
^t?p
TEMPERATURE
•F
INITIAL
^^
?/
m
FINAL
FLASK PR
•Ha
INITIAL
2-'*. /
2£-0
2f. r
ESSURE
FINAL
BAROMETRIC
PRESSURE *Hq
INITIAL
Z^-92-
27. rz.
i?-n
FINAL
RECOVERY
DATE/TIME
tn
i
ro
NOTES:
Method 25C Field Sampling Data Sheet
-------
RADIAN
IATION
FIELD DAM
riMi
Mil _
UMriMCIOCAIUH.
i iwi
fiUW IfKlHMOUPI
•1 lUTf HAIUM
flMCIWWM
lUiKMfiuK.irt.
tUCMIICW IMVf«f POUI UtIQUI
AltUKDMDitlUM '.
UmiMlMMUR
MIUMUUUN _
• III AH
CfACIM
rtou MAIUUIIIK
MAIUMIifllM
MflMKI *,
WKI r
in
i
luvini
rail
N. dean*
' ~ _
T3"7
f1^Z-
T-fL
1 5^2.
1 % 7
f'O 02.
M«OMDMCOm>MlOAU|viM MWIIt i
CMMIUV1MK
iVgt. •
7^.5'. v^ o
/ 65" • U3
/6£. //
l£(> • d 1
1 64 . ^75"
VflOCIU
MAD
nifiurwauu
vrrutiiuu.
UMI. •. K,0l
HHHD
ACIUA1
tIACI
turiuim
OnCAlKIU
HVtMTUK
•til
T?
•Tf
7^
-7S-
11
"7?
OUHCI
"•«!»"*
rur
VACUUM
• N|
U»U Ml
lUrfMIUM.
•»
/ ^0 /M/
UVIKIM
UVIMIUM
•1
5"-^
Gi
60
s~y
5^
5-7
fill
-------
RADIAN
AVION
FIELD DATA
riMi.
Mil _
IMPII IMt
•II MM!
OPfMIOI _
MIKIf
ItKINUODPI.
HO//ICIO .
MUWDMUllUlf '. _
UWtl niUMBIN _
Hill Ml WWII __
Cf«CIM
PMMM«IUifllMC
tOMUICOr IMVf MC POIII UUQUI NCUIr
«M>UOKCMOAUI>AUmi(__ MWIIi
/O >o
I DO
-------
RADIAN
AVION
FIELD DATA
MlUKOMNtlUM '.
IMPIIMIWWIH
•fill
tUUCMUUK.lPJ-
fllHMMMM
ICNEMIICOf IMVffttf POtfl UIUII
UAOUOHCMOAUOArMVUl •
MOM MAIUUIIUK
H*I|IMIUIIM_
UHUm.ll,
MIC* r
Ullt
tn
T 5
nmt
^N. aooi M
" — • —
lOfl
/V*/7
1052.
toSI
HO 2_
/fOl
CMMIHMIflK
rt,".r
/6?. V3c>
7 ^ ?• 7 o
16% • %
J () 1 ~L^>
t / & t~i~i
I O / • " /
(i 7. 7ZO
VtlOCIU
MM
IM/ • N]0
MiriaruouK
nrrtMiiui
U«. •. N|0l
HUMO
MIIU1
u«a
IUPCM1MI
HVtlUTUa
H.II
'g-L
^3
93
•^w
<^4
tv
flUUIl
"•«*•*'
•
ru*
tuxut.
•m
uurii m
limiMUM
•r
/C>i>
u»Mcr«
IEVIIAIUM.
•1
6y
(• 3
63
A C?
r-r
Ellt
-------
•iRHHbL Ft IHJbL;! 08/23/yy
FH" i 6| i5S
ER 6
LhbflH
•JLE 1=
METHOD 1.
5.95
Q8/23/98 89=525 84
RUN 384 INDEX 1
CH=
NflNP
L-02
. 3
02
N?
6
CH4
TUTRLS
SUMMflRV REPORT
NfirtE
C02 • ' .
"= 1 !-"'
N2
CH4
44. 288
0.
0. 894
6. 511
8=
49. 197
. 100.
INDEX
V
44. 288
8. 894
6. 511
49. 107
1.
3.
3.
4.
4.
5.
1
CT--
•_'C.
21
49
1
.58
85
4
RT FiREfi BC RF
1. 26 18245 82
8344744 83
519 82
8666 83
625737 88
152 85
5.85 4858685 81
13848668
FILE 1. CH= "FS'
1.
2. 831
1. 961
0. 829
1=
ill 3 J_J_ i.
. 2.296
2. 69 1-''
.284
.• :i .- •
±, ai_>
—• —• •-, --:
_>= —•£- —
PS= 1.
TOTRL
E5-6
-------
=TT i BT- i_>b
, 60
\, _...- 1= it
-==1LT -1 T T tfl'i llo
_ —— —
— T '- ~" *Cl
_P «T ^fi
ER 0
LFGflS
FILE 1. METHOD 1.
NflrlE K
i 0.
2 0.
3 0.
4 0=
CO 2 29- S6
6 0.
7 0.
02 40. o7S
CH4 29= 762
TOTflLS 100.
- " •- ^i = M Ci Cf * ! •"• s — ~i i ~i r~s T T L i Ti ^ '. .»
.:•-.:? :-:1rlKv «c.rUpL i inJUt/i
NRfME. K
C02 29.^66
02 40. 578
N2 0.
CH4 23. 762
TOTRL 100.
08/23
RUN 385
RT
0= 6
1= 14
1- 36
1. 44
i. 63
3. 31
3.46
3.95
. cr .-1-7
•-• . -L !
/30 10^64s04 CH= "REi FS= 1=
INDEX 2
' fiREfi BC RF RRT
7R3 02 0= 368
65 02 0=639
8860 02 0. 8j£4
.'. si "T- ^ "• t^ -~: i"!i :— ' '— '• ~'
5421137 03 1. 1.
456 02 2.031
392334 09 2= 12J
3651264 01 2. 031 2. 423
2381332 01 2. 284 3. 172
11868200
2 FI
\^
LE 1. CH= "fl" PS= i.
v^v^
E5-7
-------
- ;H>;
CH= "fl" PS=
METHOD 1--
RUN 33.5
INDEX
K: Mr-IP
flREfl BC
RF
RRT
i
2
3
^4
:_. :_: X
6
:J .^
M2
0 h 4
TOT8LS
SOMMfiRV REPORT
-=-••=-•-
?*: "7:
OH4
0,
0.
0.
0 =
28= 80S
0,
4.242
jy. 043
23= 907
100.
INDEX
-.=q pflp
4. 242
38. 043
28. 907
0 =
1.
1.
1.
1.
_;• ±
"•
_.' B
_j-3
5.
2
\»
£—;
14
j-S
44
63
31
46
95
17
^
V
789
6-5
3860
11363
5421137
456
392934
3651264
2331332
11868200
FILE 1.
^
V v^
r-"1 ji
02
fi'~'
02
03
02
09
01
01
i:
A
±,
2.031
1, 961
2. 284
-Lj_ I! i-j II ~n~- —
_-n~ n = •-= —
^tb.
Pi=
0!
0.
0,
-i. 3
ii=
2.
2.
^ .
j.
363
699
334
O O —•
@3i
.•i -~:~-
423
172
••
• O'iriL
E5-8
-------
^•" 1
=
^•*-
H
DM i at ioi
li0 =59
ir -4** -L" -"-•
\y T iti Sr Tla
£T
. . I.* .— , ^ .—
h! i i^i-:
^
5Z54 .- ,._-
LFQfiS
FILE 1= METHOD 1.
HHME ' X
-•i.
_L
V
~-
4
5
C02
i"
Uii
tj'~'
UH4
11
12
05
0.
0.
0.
8.
29, 062
0.
4. 156
37. 641
29. 141
0.
0.
— -
11
US/
RUH _;.
RT
0= 3
0. 59
1. 14
1. 36
1= 44
1. 62
3.31
3, 46
3. 95
5.17
5. 94
6. 24
TOTfiLS 180.
!-:\ jMh
•-•3MC
• "j il i : :_
C02
02
H2
CH4
IHRV REPORT INDEX
V
f*fl
29. 062
4. 156
37.641
29. 141
3
*k
%^*Ok
NM>
^k ^H ^V^r
5, 17
23/90 10=16:53
b-f . :.HDEX 3
RREfl BC
1414 02
835 03
48 02
:— * *— ? -•" ~^ • -•* "j-1
11374 02
5467858 82
462 82
284959 88
2612843 83
2480283 32
47 82
41 82
11888116
FILE 1. CH=
f
*
•M .It
fc1^ Jt/1
•^T^ • ^M^^^^r
±, 4b
CH= :!H" PS= i =
RF RRT
0. 185
8= 364
8. 7y4
8. 34
8. 889
1= 1=
2. 843
2. 831 2. 136
1. 961 2. 438
2. 284 3= 191
s. 667
3=852
"fl" PS= 1.
! i ! i H!
.86=
E5-9
-------
ER 9
METHOD 1.
CH= "ft"
RUN 387
.INDEX 4
NFiME
CH4
TOTRLS
SUMMRRV REPORT
NHME
44. 86
0.
0= 006
0.
6. 634
48. 5
100.
INDEX
44. 86
@. 066
6, 634
48. 5
100 =
RT flREfl BC
•1 27 21775 02
52 8492990 82
99 12608 Qi
22 498 02
49 10895 03
1 640577 61
05 4019699 01
13199042
4 FILE 1.
1.
2.031
1.961
2,284
RRT
0=836
1.
1. 967
2. 118
2, 296
2. 697
CH= "Hn PS= i...
E5-10
-------
w H N ri t L H
(=7T i jEjf 256
it .-, .-
|
—
ER 8
i_FGflS
FILE i= METHOD i.
NflrlE K
1 0.
C02 44. 836
3 0.
02 ,- 0. 005
5 0.
N2 6. 522
CH4 48. 637
TOTflLS 100.
SUMMHRV REPORT INDEX
HflME '/.
C02 44. 836
:"l -~t - :~i :~i :""i C"
'.: w. ^1- D ^C.5 ^3 -_!
N2 6, 522
CH4 48. 637
=== 5.05
138/23/90 10^35^31 CH= "fl" PS= 1.
RUN 388 INDEX 5
..' RT . MRER BC RF RRT ..
1. 26 22416 02 0= 829
1= 52 8443952 02 1. 1=
2, 98 - 79©5 03 1. 961
3. 26 498 02 2= 031 2, 145
3. 49 9934 03 . 2. 296
4.1 626396 01 1.961 2. 69F
5.05 4009955 01 2.284 3.322
13121056
5 FILE 1, CH= "ft" PS= i.
•
^^ /
TOTHL
E5-11
-------
Run (hater
DATE
9o
Staplers laUtalt
SAMPLE NO.
/
2L
3
SAMPLE
TINE
A2./0
iz^y
)^<&>
a ASIC
I/VOLUME
/**-
03f
Wo
TEMPERATURE
•F
INITIAL
^
?*r
7^
FINAL
FLASK PR
"Ha
INITIAL
<2.X.^
<2K,S~
M.<0
ESSURE
FINAL
'
BAROMETRIC
PRESSURE "Hq
INITIAL
FINAL
RECOVERY
DATE/I IM£
MOTES:
Method 25C Field Sampling Data Sheet
-------
Site (D
Run Nwber
DATE
Suffers laltlali
SAMPLE NO.
1
^
SAMPLE
TIME
IOW
/oiff
a ASK
I/VOLUME
£>/?
1*9
TEMPERATURE
•F
INITIAL
&str
fa.ir
FINAL
FLASK PR
•Ha
INITIAL
2^«^"
^^^
ESSURE
FINAL
BAROMETRIC
PRESSURE "IM
INITIAL
FINAL
RECOVERY
DATE/TIME
NOTES:
Method 25C Field Sampling Data Sheet
-------
Run Mister
A
(o
M
DATE
Suffers Inltlali
SAMPLE NO.
/
2-
SANPLE
TINE
1/03
JAI&
a ASK
I/VOIUME
^c?/
US'
TEHPERATURE
•F
INITIAL
70
**/
FINAL
FLASK PR
"Ha
INITIAL
22.0
ZHi-o
ESSURE
FINAL
BAROMETRIC
PRESSURE "Hq
INITIAL
FINAL
RECOVERY
DATE/TIME
at
OJ
HOTES:
Method 25C Field Sampling Data Sheet
-------
Run Niaber
Suplcrs
DATE
SAMPLE NO.
/
-2
^
SAMPLE
TIME
in^
iiif
a ASK
I/VOLUME
A*&
1*3
TEMPERATURE
•F
INITIAL
^^
&J~
FINAL
s
FLASK PR
"Ha
INITIAL
£3*o
c2# -7-5"
ESSURE
FINAL
-~
BAROMETRIC
PRESSURE "Hq
INITIAL
. 7
FINAL
RECOVERY
DATE/TIME
MOTES:
Method 3C Field Sampling Data Sheet
-------
Run Niabcr
DATE
SnpUrs Initials,
SAMPLE HO.
/
a ASK
I/VOLUME
£>tf?
170 -
TENPERATURE
•F
INITIAL
6*r"
4^J^
FINAL
FLASK PR
"Hq
INITIAL
^o
-^-iTTo
ESSURE
FINAL
BAROMETRIC
PRESSURE "Hq
INITIAL
FINAL
RECOVERY
DATE/TIME
NOTES:
Method 3C Field Sampling Data Sheet
-------
01
i
01
site
Run
DATE
SAMPLE NO.
1
/
'*L
-3
SAMPLE
TINE
//yo
aft
lZo&
a ASK
I/VOLUME
0f~?
JW
/¥*.
TENPERATURE
•F
INITIAL
JO.
7/-
71
FINAL
FLASK PR
MHa
INITIAL
*v"
2J"
2*.t>
ESSURE
FINAL
BAROMETRIC
PRESSURE -Hq
INITIAL
FINAL
RECOVERY
DATE/TIME
MOTES:
Method 3C Field Sampling Data Sheet
-------
RADIAN
AVION
FIELD DATA
I
•vl
riwi oiTG ^>
DAIf *- i.t- 70
UMPlUCIfltAMM
Mam i»n
•mwjMfi
OPfUIM.
i _ .„
AAMM 1MMIAIUII "?i
UAVIM
PIMM
•AMHiaC
ITA1K fU 1
fllHMH
sr^S
" — • _
12. VS"
/ 2, ^
/ 1_5"5"
/ ioo
/3>o5T
<"!><*?
i
Mfouif "Z.T.»«
UM IP,)..
HI 111 . - .
CMHIHttAMt
/^ ?. 77/
770.00
/ 7O .7^4
/l^ -4*1
/ 70. 67
f-fO ,fg•)'
OUHil
VACUUM
• Mf
iAVU MI
UVtDAIUIf
•f
r'QO >^/
igplKIR
uaruMutt.
•I
6*?
^ o
^^
^"L^
•It
-------
RADIAN
IftVION
FIELD DATA
en
I
00
luvint
nwi
••!•
riMi
Mlf
UMTIMCM
iMPit ur
•mWBMI
ONUIM .
MMM It
•UMHtt
tutc n«i
fllUM
iMr^X"^*
IMI.M N*"*
" • ____
/3l7
/32.Z,
/3 Z7
/ 3 i £
/V* "7
/ JVL,
/3V7
7^5-2.
ZDITC. UJ
^ ~ z»*t *• ^ &
ICAIHM
«
1 "^
fiLslJ
VfUIIMf "IS"
pftMBf X^-TY
oiM.ir,! .
HIM . .
**™y""
/70 , 1T2.
I'll / "i
/ ij. 2.S
111, XI
lit . t>%
I^LJLI
f~io • lyl
KHfl
MMMBMC
mocnv
MM
Uf ,». • HjO
III 1C M II
MO ML 01
MlflCtl
MfruB
UM. •
HUMO
»n«f r
tUIVfM
VI BUM
UIUU.
'"l*
•CltUl
Mil Ulttll
MU|
IIACM
luruuiuif
ll§l.*f
>
MOW III
•SUJMOMC
• III Ml
CMCIM*
ritauiif*
HlAUl H
MHIIKI
NCI» r
[1
Hnu
ICMt
W.C1
•^fe
^
S7
^f
S""7
•^-7
^ 7
uf
GIN AM> III
IM HIM •
IBIMtl
WMfR
lUif IIIK
kUIIM
1 OO
1MIII
unw
OUIlfl
i
— _ —
_ , ..
•
nmr
VACIU.
•.HI
— • —
— ..
uafti «u
"'
/Qt>
urwcm
HViUIUtt .
•1
£»
-------
RADIAN
IATIOM
nwi.
Mil _
Sife-.k
FIELD DATA
UmMCLOCAIKM.
1MTU Ifff
mnmmit
ore UIM
IMCHKBUM
PiOM HWIH *Mt I If I
MUlIf 10 . ________
MIUHOKNKUH '. _ .
umt m iiuwt* _
• HBW1MMIH _
• III •« __
fllU
IIU
CIMIM
rmw «*
MMIIM1UIIM
IDCMMCM IMVIMi rOUH UTOUI
at
i
VO
rtwii
MUI
Nv aon m
IK.M N^0*
" — - — _
/ 3S'tf
/ v^'i»
/ y- c? 'S
y •/ / 3
i \j i &
/ U -7 ~i
I^Z V
/ x>
"•"wSJ1""
/ 7 / . 9s"5j-
/TZ, <3-^
1 -l^.it
t -1*2- 11
f 11, -*n
1 7£ •
-------
APPENDIX F
RESULTS OF REFERENCE METHOD 25C -
DETERMINATION OF NONMETHANE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS (NMOC)
IN LANDFILL GASES
Reference Method 25C (RM 25C) is applicable to the sampling and
measurement of nonmethane organic compounds (NMOC) as carbon in landfill
gases. A sample of the landfill gas was first extracted with an evacuated
cylinder. The NMOC content of the gas was determined by injecting a portion
of the gas into a gas chromatographic column to separate the NMOC from carbon
monoxide (CO), carbon dioxide (C02), and methane (-CHJ; the NMOC are oxidized
to C02, reduced to CH4, and measured by a flame ionization detector (FID). In
this manner, the variable response of the FID associated with different types
of organics is eliminated. This Appendix presents the RM 25C laboratory
analysis.
F-l
-------
sdl_m25/jym3/hpD
1 RES
Company Name:
Pun f /
Description
Pre-Test
Post-Test
Run i 2.
Description
Pre-Ttest
Post-Test
Run f j
Description
Pre-Test
Post-Test
Run ff tf
Description
Pre-Test
Post-Test
Run 1 3 —
Description
Pre-Test
Post-Test
Run ff k
Description
Pre-4tast
Post-Test
SEARCH T R ]
fioJ/.*^
Tank f jj^£ —
.
Tank Vacuum
g HUH? B^in.Hg
3.7. J^"
£>
Tank 1 /;££_
Tank Vacuum
g mnHg cj in.Hg
-27. -T*
<£?
Tank! o^t
Tank Vacuum
g ifflfig ^y in.Hq
At.S^
t>
Tank ff £7/^
Tank Vacuum
Q nnfij g^in.Hg
r?J^"f
O
Tank 1 £>4 a*
Tank Vacua
^sfTy'
o
Tank f /y7
Tank vacuum
^•..f
/rt
\.^r
[ANGLE LA!
METHOD 25 SAMPLD
&>fp.
f
Trap f
Barometric
jressun*
3*. /S^
30>/S~
Trap #
Barometric
Pressure
^BMK&V ^J 4 •« I&V
g uutij CT jji«ny
30. /£~
X&./JT'
Trap f
Barometric
Pressure
— VMLI«V .. 4 •» **
n iim»j n A*i«nj
j^//«^^
-2^,/J —
Trap f
Barometric
Pressure
g ntHg g in.Hg
?»,/5—
30, /S^
Trap I
Barometric
ftessure
n onHgf jtin*H5
J<£>/X_T^
-so. /S^
Trap 1
Barometric
Rressure
g nifij •» in.Hj
^3^,/J —
^<*> y <^^
•3 *^ 4 9*^ 1
F-2
50RATORIEJ
C DATA
Absolute
Pressure
g nrfij g in.Htj
Absolute
Pressure
___^^>^_ ^j J _•• Cbia
n uiiiBtj g jji« i*j
^
Absolute
Pressure
g miHg g in.H^
Absolute
Pressure
g mHj g in.Hg
Absolute
Measure
g mH9f Q m«H5f
Absolute
Pressure
g ItirHj g in«H9
Riproducid from ,
b»t avallabla copy. '
; , INC.
20 space limit
Temperature
degrees
D C jf F
r?
s"?
20 space limit
Te3greesre
D c ^ F
^?
f?
20 space limit
Temperature
degrees
0 C* A F
8"?
X?
20 space limit
Temperature
degrees
D C* ^y F
f7
*9
20 space limit
Temperature
degrees
D ™ XT
?D
9O
20 space limit
¥FZ~T
9&
^O
i *^
-;;v:'i; :;1
ii?
-------
Bdl_B25/jyn3/hpD
IRE £
Company Name:
Run f 7
Description
Pre-Test
Post-Test
Run f ^
Description
Pre-Test
Post-Test
Run 1
Tank f OJ/
« t • t i
Tank Vacuum
_ ^M£*^V i M tfcv
n iiuiAj o^ xn«ng
<2 f.J^
0
Tank 1 yyo
Tank Vacuum
n iWHcj Bf m«n^y
^•c / • ^^
0
Tank # ^/y
Tank Vacuum
-ZS'. S^
£>
Tank 1 £>0/>
Tank Vacuum
g nnflcj fl^ln«Hg
«2 J? . 0
O
Tank f /^^
Tank Vacuum
o **/ «^
O
[ANGLE LAI
METHOD 25 SAKPLD
Cerp.
y
Trap *
Baronetric
Pressure
_ HMlA^V ^ 4 ** ••—
Q iTfiiHg tfloi.rij
x.?.**
*z?. sf
Trap *
Barometric
Pressure
^BM^LM _• 4 M ffra
n uiiifj ia_xn«nE?
^f. ^^
31.9V
Trap *
Barometric
Pressure
g nwHg tf in.Hg
J? f . ^fi^
*Af. 8*
Trap t
Barometric
Pressure
g nuHj g in.Hg
-29. gy
3.9.88'
Trap f
Barometric
Pressure
<2 f. »r
^f. J'S'
Trap |
Barometric
Pressure
g onHg g in.Hg
2 &%'
J9.**
JORATORIE!
C DKEA
Absolute
Pressure
^ vBiAbv ^^ 4 «K tTn
Q llllll^ JK JJl«rKj
Absolute
Pressure
g mnHg g in.Hg
Absolute
Pressure
g onHg g in.Hg
Absolute
Pressure
g nnHg g in.Hg
Absolute
Pressure
g BoHg g In.Hg
Absolute
Pressure
g mmffcr g In.Hg
•
3 , INC.
20 space limit
Temperature
degrees
D C* ^ F
7*
?*/
20 space limit
g C *.F
7o"~
7U' —
20 space limit
Temperature
degrees
g C R F
7-r~
7-5-~
20 space limit
Temperature
degrees
D C* K F
£ 7
£ 9
| 20 space limit
Tenperature
degrees
0 c X. F
70
90
20 space limit
Temperature
degrees
g C* * F
£>f
£*
F-3
-------
sdl_«as/jym3/hpD
RESEARCH TRIANGLE LABORATORIES, INC.
MEHCO 25 SAMPLING DMA
Pun
Tank f
Trap #
Description
20 space limit
Tank Vacuum
Q Ullflj
Ddi uiKi LJL ic
Pre
mtttj
Absolute
Pre
unHg
ture
F
PLU Test
Pest-Test
r>
Run
T«*f
Trap #
Description
20 space limit
Tank Vacuum
Q mHj
Barcmetric
Absolute
Pressure
nnftj Q in.Hcf
ture
a c
Pre-Tfest
Post-Test
Run f
Tankl
Description
Trap f
20 space limit
Tank Vacuum
jgin.Hg
Barcnetric
Pressure
Q nnHj jtt in.Hcf
Absoluts
.H?
Temperature
degrees
c* F
Pre-Tflst
^Lf.
Tank f
Trap f
Description
20 space limit
Tank Vacuua
Barometric
Pressure
nnttj Q in>Hcf
Absoluts
Pressure
Q nnHg Q in.Hg
F
Pie Test
8V
Run |
Tank f
Trap f
Description
j 20 apace
limit
Tank Vacua
BBTODBtriC
nifio, B'in.
Absolute
Piiniiiiif
0 nnHg, Q in.Hg
An *
Tank 1
Trap f
Discriptian
20 space limit
Tank Vacua
BaroBBtric
Pressure
Q vuHg Q in.Hj
Absolute
H}
test-Tost
F-4
-------
RESEARCH
TRIANGLE
LABORATORIES
METHOD 25 REPORT
prepared for
RADIAN CORPORATION
by
RESEARCH TRIANGLE LABORATORIES, INC.
Gene Mull
Chemist
RTL ID# 90-275
August 28, 1990
1612 Carpenter Fletcher Road • Durham, North Carolina 27713 • (919) 544-5775 • FAX: (919) 544-3770
A Member of die Andenen Technology Group
F-5
-------
RESEARCH TRIANGLE LABORATORIES, INC.
METHOD 25 TABLE OF RESULTS
Name: Radian Corporation
ID *90-Ul-275 Date: 8/20-22/90
Number Description CO+CH4 C02 Noncon-
densibles
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
434032
116264
114879
408519
111716
113253
874051
637980
139108
142354
642138
132075
120613
118510
121396
126594
116812
117211
296449
196976
191109
278376
189487
192639
651608
420544
237992
243972
419894
225284
205833
202461
209779
218626
201279
203412
1904
2930
1613
1360
1606
1242
1684
983
1545
1095
1112
1128
2635
2580
4266
1532
1331
2455
cppmc)
Conden-
sibles
0
0
0
0
0 '
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1 Mass Cone
TGNMO (mgC/cu.mi
1904
2930
1613
1360
1606
1242
1684
983
1545
1095
1112
1128
2635
2580
4266
1532
1331
2455
951
1463
805
679
802
620
841
491
771
547
555
563
1316
1288
2130
765
665
1226
F-6
-------
RESEARCH TRIANGLE LABORATORIES, INC.
COMMENTS ON THE ANALYSES
Report #90-141-275
Samples #2,3,5,6,9,10,12-18:
For these samples, electrometer overload prevented proper integration of the
areas for CH4 and CO2 and therefore the reported concentrations are lower
than the actual tank concentrations. For the six other samples, the
electrometer range was increased which resulted in properly integrated areas.
For these samples, the areas were multiplied by 10 to bring them in line with
the other areas.
F-7
-------
RESEARCH TRIANGLE LABORATORIES, INC.
METHOD 25 EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURE
Calibration
A propane calibration gas mixture of 82 ppm CO, 68 ppm CH,, 2.07% CO,, and 75
ppm propane is injected via a 1-raL sampling loop into the analyzer. The injections are
repeated until three integrated areas indicate reasonable agreement A 1.18% CO,
standard is run daily with the same requirement. The average daily response factors must
agree within 5% of the RF(CO,) and the RF(NMO) from the initial performance check.
Daily Performance Checks are performed at the beginning of each work day.
Calibrations are performed daily or between customer sets of samples, whichever comes
first. Additionally, a System Background Check is performed between each set of samples.
Duplicate injections of 1.0% CO, are made after the final sample each day.
Response factors (average integrated area/concentration in ppmC) are calculated
daily from the initial triplicate injections.
i
Analysis .
Each trap is stored under dry ice until just prior to analysis and is flushed of CO,
by passing zero air through it at -78 °C and via the CO, NDIR to the sample tank.
Flushing is continued until no NDIR response is noted. The trap is baked at 200 °C with
zero air flushing through the trap and via the oxidation catalyst and the NDIR into the
collection vessel. Collection is continued until no NDIR response is noted. The trap is
transferred to an oven set at 350 °C and baking is continued for 30 minutes. This ensures
the cleanliness of the trap for a subsequent sampling. The trap is taken out of the oven
and allowed to cool; it is then capped and stored for shipment.
The sample tank is analyzed by injecting an aliquot via a 1-mL sample loop into the
GC column, which is held at 85 °C to elute the CO+CH. and then the CO, which is
passed to the oxidation. catalyst, reduction catalyst, and FID. The column is then
backflushed at 195 "C to elute the organic fraction. The collection vessel is analyzed
identically. In both cases, triplicate injections are made. The sample tank is pumped for
5 minutes (to less than 5 mmHg) and air is then allowed in via a paper fiber filter; this
procedure is repeated. The tank is pumped 10 minutes and allowed to stand overnight.
The tank is then connected to a pressure gauge to test for leaks (maximum permissible leak
rate = 10 mmHg/day). If the tank passes the leak test, it is filled with zero air to slightly
greater than atmospheric pressure and stored for shipment
Calculations
Calculations are done in accord with EPA Method 25 procedures. A sample
calculation is provided using client/RTL data.
F-8
-------
RESEARCH TRIANGLE LABORATORIES, INC.
METHOD 25 SAMPLE CALCULATION
Note: All pressure values have been converted when necessary to m Hg and all temperature values to Kelvi
Name: Radian Corporation
Sample * 1
DATA
Tank 6191:
Volume (cu.m) - 0.005785
Pressure Temp.(K)
(on Hg)
Presampling 368.0 302.0
Poscsampling 767.1
Final 1052.0
ID *90-141-275 Date: 8/20-22/90
Trap NA Collection Vessel:
Volume (cu.m) - 0.004551
Pressure Temp.(K)
(mm Hg)
302.0
299.2
Final
0.0
273.2
Calibration Data:
C02 Backflush
Response Factor (area units/ppmC) 880.5 902.0
Blank (ppmC) 6.6
Blank Area (area units) 33183
Areas:
CO + CH4 150,834,200 150,684.700 150,857,900
C02 102,969.400 102.999,900 103,009,500
Noncondensibles 763.820 729,530 639,410
Condensibles 000
CALCULATIONS
Measured Concentrations. corrected for blank:
Cm(CO+CH4) - Ar««(CO+CH4)/RF(C02)
- 1.508342E+08 /880.5 - 171305.2
- 1.506847E+08 /880.5 - 171135.4
- 1-.508579E+08 /880.5 - 171332.1
Cm(C02) - Area(C02)/RF(C02)
- 1.029694E-H08 /880.5 - 116944.3
- 1.029999E+08 /880.5 - 116978.9
• 1.030095E+G8 /880.5 - 116989.8
Ca(Noncondensibles) - [Area(Noncondensibl«s) - Blank Area(NMO)]/RF(NMO)
- ( 763820 - 33183)/902.0 - 810.0
- ( 729530 - 33183)/902.0 - 772.0
- ( 639410 - 33183)/902.0 - 672.1
Cm(Condensibles) - Area(Condensibles)/RF(C02) - Blank(C02)
- 0 /880.5 - 6.6 - -6.6
- 0 /880.5 - 6.6 - -6.6
- 0 /880.5 - 6.6 - -6.6
F-9
-------
- 2 -
RESEARCH TRIANGLE LABORATORIES, INC. METHOD 25 SAMPLE CALCULATION
Pressure -Temperature Ratio . Qfl) - Pf
postsampling tank: Q(l) - 767.08 / 302.0389 - 2.539673
presampling tank: Q(2) - 347.98 / 302.0389 - 1.152103
final tank: Q(3) - 1052 / 299.15 - 3.516631
final CV: Q(4) - 0 / 273.15 - 0
Volume Sampled (dscm) - 0.3857 x Tank Volume x (Q(1)-Q(2)]
- 0.3857 x .005785 x [2.5397 - 1.1521]
- 0.003096
Averages and % Relative Standard Deviations (%RSD) of Cm's are calculated.
(%RSD of C - %RSD of Cm)
Calculated Concentrations:
C(CO+CH4) - Q(3)/[Q(1)-Q(2)] x Cm(CO+CH4)
- 3.5166/(2.5397 - 1.1521) x 171257.6 - 434032.0
C(C02) - Q(3)/[Q(1)-Q(2)] x Cm(C02>
- 3.5166/(2.5397 - 1.1521) x 116971.0 - 296449.1
C(Noncondensibles) - Q(3)/[Q(1) -Q(2) ] x Cm(Noncondensibles)
- 3.5166/(2.5397 - 1.1521) x 751.4 - 1904.3
C(Condensibles)
- Volume(CV)/Volune(Tank) x Q(4)/pQ(l) -Q(2) ] x Cm(Condensibles)
- 0.004551/0.005785 x 0.0000/(2.5397 - 1.1521) x -6.6 - 0.0
Total Gaseous Non-Methane Organics(TGNMO)-C(Noncondensibles)+C(Condensibles)
1904.3 + 0.0
1904.3
Mass Concentration - 0.4993 x TGNMO
- 0.4993 x 1904.3 - 950.8
F-10
-------
1
RESEARCH TRIANGLE LABORATORIES, INC.
METHOD 25 SAMPLE QA/QC DATA & CALIBRATION CHECK/A
5.1.1 Carrier Gas and Auxiliary Oxygen Blank (1/3/90)
CO + CH, + CO, ••• MHO - 0 ppn Requirement: < 5 ppn
5.1.2 Cataivst Efficiency Check (1/4/90)
CO, - 9982 ppmC Requirement: CO, - 10000 + 200 ppmC
5.1.3 System Performance Check (1/4/9087)
Average Percent
Recovery IRSD
50 uL hexane/decane 107.6/103.6 0.1/0.5
10 uL hexane/decane 102.1/103.2 0.5/0.9
Requirement 100 ±10% < 5
5.2.1 Oxidation Catalyst Efficiency Check (1/5/90)
FID Response with Reduction Catalyst Out - 0.25%
Requirement < 1%
5.2.2 Reduction Catalyst Efficiency Check (1/5/90)
Response of CO, vlth Oxidation Catalyst and Reduction
Catalyst operative was 100.3% of response with catalyst
out.
Requirement 100 ± 5%
5.2 J Analyzer Linearity Check and NMO Calibration (1/2/90)
RF values agree within 2.5% Requirement: within 2.5%
%RSD values for triplicates < 2% • < 2%
except Propane 4th Dilution (22 ppmc) %RSD - 2.4%
(deviation by Gene Hull, Manager and Joseph Adamovlc,
Laboratory Manager)
- 1.015 Requirement: RF(fflQ) - 1.0 ±0.1
RP(CO,) " RF(CO,)
5.2.4 System Performance Check (1/5/90-4/10/90)
Measured Value Expected Value Requirement
Propane Mix 75.0 ppm 75.0 pp« ± 5%
Hexane
Toluene
Methanol
55.4 ppm
54.9 ppm
* ppm
55.2 ppm
54.5 ppm
ppm
± 5*
± 5%
± 3%
* Methanol is currently being analyzed.
F-ll
-------
5.3 NMO Analyzer Daily Calibration
Triplicate injections of a mixture containing propane and high-
level CO, are made at the beginning of each aet of samples or
every 24 hours, whichever cooes first.
Requirements *: DRF(NMO) - (RF(NMO) -915] ± 51
DRF
-------
RESEARCH TRIANGLE LABORATORIES, INC.
METHOD 25 DATA REPORT
Name: Radian Corporation ID *90-141-275 Dace: 8/20-22/90
Sample » I
TANK 6191: TRAP NA COLLECTION VESSEL:
Volume (cu.m) - 0.005785 Volume (cu.m) - 0.004551
Pressure Temp.(K) Pressure Temp.(K)
(mm Hg) (mm Hg)
Presampling 348.0 302.0
Postsampling 767.1 302.0
Final 1052.0 299.2 Final 0.0 273.2
Volume Sampled (dscm) - 0.003096
Calibration Data:
C02 Backflush
Response Factor (area units/ppmC) 880.5 902.0
Blank (ppmC) 6.6
Blank Area (area units) 33183
Areas:
CO + CH4 150.834.200 150,684.700 150,857,900
C02 102.969.400 102.999,900 103,009.500
Noncondensibles 763,820 729.530 639,410
Condensibles 000
Concentrations (ppmC): %RSD
CO + CH4 434032.0000 0.0623
C02 296449.1000 0.0203
Noncondensibles 1904.2620 , 9.4814
Condensibles 0.0000 0.0000
TGNMO 1904.2620
(- 950.7978 mgC/cu.m)
F-13
-------
RESEARCH TRIANGLE LABORATORIES, INC.
METHOD 25 DATA REPORT
Name: Radian Corporation
ID *90-141-275 Date: 8/20-22/90
Sample # 2
TANK new 87:
Volume (cu.m) - 0.004435
Presampling
Postsanpling
Final
Pressure
(mo Hg)
340.4
767.1
1053.0
Temp.(K)
301.5
301.5
300.2
TRAP NA COLLECTION VESSEL:
Volume (cu.m) - 0.004551
Pressure Temp.(K)
(mm Hg)
Final
Volume Sampled (dscm) - 0.002421
Calibration Data:
C02 Backflush
Response Factor (area units/ppmC) 880.5 902.0
Blank (ppmC) 6.6
Blank Area (area units) 33183
Areas:
CO + CH4 41,097,790 41,305,950 41,500,100
C02 69.691,330 70,112.900 70,115.580
Noncondensibles 1,024,969 1.142,894 1,129.982
Condensibles 000
Concentrations (ppmC):
CO + CH4 116263.8000
C02 196976.0000
Noncondensibles 2929.5530
Condensibles
TGNMO
0.0000
2929.5530
0.0
273.2
%RSD
0.4871
0.3490
6.0670
0.0000
(- 1462.7260 mgC/cu.m)
F-14
-------
RESEARCH TRIANGLE LABORATORIES, INC.
METHOD 25 DATA REPORT
Najne: Radian Corporation ID *90-l41-275 Date: 8/20-22/90
Sample * 3
TANK new 16: TRAP NA COLLECTION VESSEL:
Volume (cu.m) - 0.004358 Volume (cu.m) - 0.004551
Pressure Temp.(K) Pressure Temp.(K)
(ma Hg) (mm Hg)
Presampltng 340.4 299.3
Postsampllng 767.1 299.3
Final 1066.0 301.2 Final 0.0 273.2
Volume Sampled (dscm) - 0.002397
Calibration Data:
C02 Backflush
Response Factor (area units/ppmC) 880.5 902.0
Blank (ppmC) 6.6
Blank Area (area units) 33183
Areas:
CO + CH4 40,164,670 41,210,500 40,863,970
C02 67,869,890 67,864,580 67,618,240
Noncondensibles 633,807 577,029 646,652
Condensibles 000
Concentrations (ppmC): %RSD
CO + CH4 114879.2000 1.3074
C02 191109.0000 0.2121
Noncondensiblas 1612.7160 6.3227
Condensibles 0.0000 0.0000
TCNMO 1612.7160
(- 805.2288 mgC/cu.m)
F-15
-------
RESEARCH TRIANGLE LABORATORIES, INC.
METHOD 25 DATA REPORT
Name: Radian Corporation
ID #90-141-275 Date: 8/20-22/90
Sample * 4
TANK new 225:
Volume (cu.m) - 0.004500
Pressure
(ma Hg)
Presampling 370.8
Postsaapling 767.1
Final 1031.0
Temp.(K)
298.7
298.7
299.7
TRAP NA COLLECTION VESSEL:
Volume (cu.m) - 0.004551
Pressure Temp.(K)
(mm Hg)
Final
Volume Sampled (dscm) - 0.002302
Calibration Data:
C02 Backflush
Response Factor (area units/ppmC) 880.5 902.0
Blank (ppmC) 6.6
Blank Area (area units) 33183
Areas:
CO + CH4 138.436,200 138,868,400 138,733,600
C02 94,549,180 94,449,920 94,500,420
Noncondensibles 480,780 519,310 518,190
Condensibles 0 0 0
Concentrations (ppmC):
CO + CH4
C02
Noncondensibles
Condensibles
TGNMO
408516.7000
278375.5000
1359.8830
0.0000
1359.8830
0.0
273.2
%RSD
0.1595
0.0525
4.6371
0.0000
(- 678.9897 ogC/cu.m)
F-16
-------
RESEARCH TRIANGLE LABORATORIES, INC.
METHOD 25 DATA REPORT
Name: Radian Corporation
ID #90-141-275 Dace: 8/20-22/90
Sample * 5
TANK new 46:
Volume (cu.m) - 0.004577
Presampling
Postsampling
Final
Pressure
(mo Hg)
340.4
767.1
1058.0
Temp.(K)
298.7
298.7
302.2
TRAP NA COLLECTION VESSEL:
Volume (cu.m) - 0.004551
Pressure Temp.(K)
(mm Hg)
Final
Volume Sampled (dscm) - 0.002522
Calibration Data:
C02 Backflush
Response Factor (area units/ppmC) 893.2 923.1
Blank (ppmC) 6.6
Blank Area (area units) 8938
Areas:
CO + CH4 40,713.790 40,618,500 40.797,440
C02 68,973,120 68,698,180 69,479,010
Noncondensibles 546.647 517,922 776,632
Condensibles 000
Concentrations (ppmC):
CO + CH4
C02
Noncondensibles
Condensibles
TGNMO
111715.9000
189486.9000
1605.9180
0.0000
1605.9180
0.0
273.2
%RSD
0.2199
0.5736
23.4465
0.0000
(- 801.8349 mgC/cu.m)
F-17
-------
RESEARCH TRIANGLE LABORATORIES, INC.
METHOD 25 DATA REPORT
Name: Radian Corporation
ID *90-141-275 Date: 8/20-22/90
Sample # 6
TANK 6101:
Volume (cu.m) - 0.005756
Presampling
Postsampling
Final
Pressure
(mo Hg)
340.4
767.1
1065.0
Temp.(K)
299.3
299.3
302.2
TRAP NA COLLECTION VESSEL:
Volume (cu.m) - 0.004551
Pressure Temp.(K)
(mm Hg)
Final
Volume Sampled (dscm) - 0.003166
Calibration Data:
C02 Eackflush
Response Factor (area units/ppmC) 893.2 923.1
Blank (ppmC) 6.6
Blank Area (area units) 8938
Areas:
CO + CH4 40,998,370 40.910,500 40,858,750
C02 70,092,930 69,043,010 69,687,490
Noncondensibles 438,800 465,803 513,266
Condensibles 000
Concentrations (ppmC):
CO + CH4
C02
Noncondensibles
Condensibles
TGNMO
113252.6000
192638.8000
1241.6770
0.0000
1241.6770
0.0
273.2
%RSD
0.1725
0.7607
8.1302
0.0000
(- 619.9695 mgC/cu.m)
F-18
-------
RESEARCH TRIANGLE LABORATORIES, INC.
METHOD 25 DATA REPORT
Name: Radian Corporation
ID *90-141-275 Date: 8/20-22/90
Sample # 7
TANK new 151:
Volume (cu.m) - 0.004551
Presampling
Postsampling
Final
Pressure Temp.(K)
(mm Kg)
398.0 303.2
766.3 303.2
1085.0 300.2
TRAP NA COLLECTION VESSEL:
Volume (cu.m) - 0.004551
Pressure Temp.(K)
(mm Hg)
Final
Volume Sampled (dscm) - 0.002133
Calibration Data:
C02 Backflush
Response Factor (area units/ppmC) 880.5 902.0
Blank (ppmC) 6.6
Blank Area (area units) 33183
Areas:
CO + CH4 258,153,000 258,596.800 259,211,700
C02 192,904,000 192,964,000 192,614,000
Noncondenslbles 536,260 518,070 576,350
Condensibles 0 00
Concentrations (ppmC):
CO + CH4
C02
Noncondensibles
Condensibles
TGNMO
874051.0000
651608.1000
1683.5730
0.0000
1683.5730
a.o
273.2
%RSD
0.2055
0.0971
5.8423
0.0000
(- 840.6078 mgC/cu.m)
F-19
-------
RESEARCH TRIANGLE LABORATORIES, INC.
METHOD 25 DATA REPORT
Name: Radian Corporation
ID #90-141-275 Dace: 8/20-22/90
Sample * 8
TANK new 47:
Volume (cu.n) - 0.004563'
Presaopling
Postsampling
Final
Pressure Temp.(K)
(aim Hg)
390.4 303.2
766.3 303.2
1058.0 300.2
TRAP NA COLLECTION VESSEL:
Volume (cu.m) - 0.004551
Pressure Temp.(K)
(nun Hg)
Final
Volume Sampled (dscm) - 0.002182
Calibration Data:
C02 Backflush
Response Factor (area units/ppmC) 880.5 902.0
Blank (ppmC) 6.6
Blank Area (area units) 33185
Areas:
CO + CH4 196,188,200 197,900,000 198,766,200
C02 129,548,700 130,610.800 130.638,300
Noncondensibles 333,470 339.000 363.200
Condensibles 000
Concentrations (ppmC):
CO + CH4
C02
Noncondensibles
Condensibles
TGNMO
637979.8000
420543.6000
983.3562
0.0000
983.3562
0.0
273.2
%RSD
0.6639
0.4769
5.0673
0.0000
(- 490.9898 mgC/cu.m)
F-20
-------
RESEARCH TRIANGLE LABORATORIES, INC
METHOD 25 DATA REPORT
Name: Radian Corporation
ID *90-141-275 Dace: 8/20-22/90
Sample * 9
TANK new 115:
Volume (cu.m) - 0.004566
Fresampling
Postsampling
Final
Pressure
(mm Hg)
390.4
766.3
1070.0
Temp.(K)
303.2
303.2
301.2
TRAP NA COLLECTION VESSEL:
Volume (cu.m) - 0.004551
Pressure Temp.(K)
(mo Hg)
Final
Volume Sampled (dscm) - 0.002184
Calibration Data:
C02 Backflush
Response Factor (area unics/ppmC) 893.2 923.1
Blank (ppmC) 6.6
Blank Area (area units) 33183
Areas:
CO + CH4 43,409,700 43,317,830 43,367,040
C02 74,286.280 74,241.350 74,043,330
Noncondensibles 539,259 557,536 495,752
Condensibles 000
Concentrations (ppmC):
CO + CH4 139108.1000
C02 237991.6000
Noncondensibles 1544.7290
Condensibles • 0.0000
TCNMO 1544.7290
0.0
273.2
%RSD
0.1060
0.1742
6.3776
0.0000
(- 771.2832 mgC/cu.m)
F-21
-------
RESEARCH TRIANGLE LABORATORIES, INC
METHOD 25 DATA REPORT
Name: Radian Corporation
ID #90-141-275 Dace: 8/20-22/90
Sample * 10
TANK new 202:
Volume (cu.m) - 0.004489
Presampling
Postsampling
Final
Pressure
(mn Hg)
390.7
766.6
1090.0
Temp.(K)
301.5
301.5
301.2
TRAP NA COLLECTION VESSEL:
Volume (cu.m) - 0.004551
Pressure Temp.(K)
(mm Hg)
Final
Volume Sampled (dscm) - 0.002159
Calibration Data:
C02 Backflush
Response Factor (area units/ppmC) 880.5 902.0
Blank (ppmC) 6.6
Blank Area (area units) 33183
Areas:
CO + CH4 43.263.550 43,325,190 42,952,530
C02 74,336,000 74,503,880 73,173,120
Noncondensibles 366,712 377,219 376,010
Condensibles 000
Concentrations (ppmC):
CO + CH4
C02
Noncondensibles
Condensibles
TGNMO
142353.8000
243971.6000
1094.5880
0.0000
1094.5880
0.0 273.2
%RSD
0.4626
0.9793
1.6903
0.0000
(- 546.5279 mgC/cu.m)
F-22
-------
RESEARCH TRIANGLE LABORATORIES, INC.
METHOD 25 DATA REPORT
Name: Radian Corporation
ID ft90-141-275 Date: 8/20-22/90
Sample ft 11
TANK new 193:
Volume (cu.n) - 0.004484
Presampling
Poscsampling
Final
Pressure
(mm Hg)
390.7
766.6
1058.0
Temp.(K)
301.5
301.5
301 2
TRAP NA COLLECTION VESSEL:
Volume (cu.m) - 0.004551
Pressure Temp.(K)
(mm Hg)
Final
Volume Sampled (dscm) - 0.002156
Calibration Data:
C02 Backflush
Response Factor (area units/ppmC) 880.5 902.0
Blank (ppmC) 6.6
Blank Area (area units) 33183
Areas:
CO + CH4 200,253.100 200,259,500 201,503,600
C02 131.071,500 130,977,400 131,609,900
Noncondensibles 422,970 356,430 387,840
Condensibles 000
Concentrations (ppmC):
CO + CH4
C02
Noncondensibles
Condensibles
TGNMO
642137.6000
419894.5000
1111.7020
0.0000
1111.7020
0.0
273.2
%RSD
0.3588
0.2601
9.3531
0.0000
(- 555.0730 mgC/cu.m)
F-?3
-------
RESEARCH TRIANGLE LABORATORIES, INC.
METHOD 25 DATA REPORT
Name: Radian Corporation
ID *90-141-275 Date: 8/20-22/90
Sample * 12
TANK new 351:
Volume (cu.m) - 0.004534
Presampling
Postsampling
Final
Pressure Temp.(K)
(mm Hg)
390.7 301.5
766.6 301.5
1030.0 299.7
TRAP NA COLLECTION VESSEL:
Volume (cu.m) - 0.004551
Pressure Temp.(K)
(mm Hg)
Final
Volume Sampled (dscm) - 0.002181
Calibration Data:
C02 Backflush
Response Factor (area units/ppmC) 880.5 902.0
Blank (ppmC) 6.6
Blank Area (area units) 33183
Areas:
CO + CH4 42.433.860 42,360,260 41,760,930
C02 72,648,320 72,416,580 70,803,780
Noncondensibles 396,154 401,885 408,586
Condensibles 000
Concentrations (ppmC):
CO + CH4
C02
Noncondensibles
Condensibles
TGNMO
132074.7000
225283.8000
1127.8220
0.0000
1127.8220
0.0
273.2
%RSD
0.8750
1.3963
1.6861
0.0000
(- 563.1214 mgC/cu.m)
F-24
-------
RESEARCH TRIANGLE LABORATORIES, INC.
METHOD 25 DATA REPORT
Name: Radian Corporation
ID *90-141-275 Dace: 8/20-22/90
Sample * 13
TANK new 31:
Volume (cu.m) - 0.004566
Presampling
Postsampling
Final
Pressure
(mm Hg)
350.5
764.5
1070.0
Temp.(K)
297.6
297.6
299.2
TRAP NA COLLECTION VESSEL:
Volume (cu.m) - 0.004551
Pressure Temp.(K)
(nun Hg)
Final
Volume Sampled (dscm) - 0.002450
Calibration Data:
C02 Backflush
Response Factor (area units/ppmC) 893.2 923.1
Blank (ppmC) 6.6
Blank Area (area units) 33183
Areas:
CO + CH4 41,905,540 41,975,970 41.827,460
C02 71,868.860 71.328,710 71.332.160
Noncondensibles 1,055,117 948,219 934.921
Condensibles 0 0 0
Concentrations (ppmC):
CO + CH4
C02
Noncondensibles
Condensibles
TGNMO
120613.1000
205833.4000
2635.4150
0.0000
2635.4150
0.0
273.2
%RSD
0.1773
0.4347
6.9637
0.0000
(- 1315.8630 mgC/cu.m)
F-25
-------
RESEARCH TRIANGLE LABORATORIES, INC.
METHOD 25 DATA REPORT
Name: Radian Corporation
ID #90-141-275 Date: 8/20-22/90
Sample * L4
TANK new 134:
Voluoe (cu.m) - 0.004554
Presampling
Postsampling
Final
Pressure
(mm Hg)
348.0
764.5
1049.0
Temp.(K)
297.6
297.6
301.2
TRAP NA COLLECTION VESSEL:
Volume (cu.m) - 0.004551
Pressure Temp.(K)
(mm Hg)
Final
Volume Sampled (dscm) - 0.002459
Calibration Data:
C02 Backflush
Response Factor (area units/ppmC) 893.2 923.1
Blank (ppmC) 6.6
Blank Area (area units) 33183
Areas:
CO + CH4 42,971,750 42.678,400 41,959,680
C02 71,899,260 73,905,600 72,202,370
Noncondensibles 1,005,653 954,375 1,010,856
Condensibles 000
Concentrations (ppmC):
CO + CH4
C02
Noncondensibles
Condensibles
TGNMO
118509.8000
202460.8000
2580.2030
0.0000
2S80.2030
0.0
273.2
%RSD
1.2242
1.4883
3.2615
0.0000
(- 1288.2950 mgC/cu.m)
F-26
-------
RESEARCH TRIANGLE LABORATORIES, INC
METHOD 25 DATA REPORT
Name: Radian Corporation
ID #90-141-275 Dace: 8/20-22/90
Sample * IS
TANK new 133:
Volume (cu.m) - 0.004555
Presanpling
Postsampling
Final
Pressure
(mm Hg)
348.0
764.5
1042.0
Temp.(K)
297.6
297.6
300.2
TRAP NA COLLECTION VESSEL:
Volume (cu.m) - 0.004551
Pressure Temp.(K)
(aim Hg)
Final
Volume Sampled (dscm) - 0.002459
Calibracion Data:
C02 Backflush
Response Factor (area units/ppmC) 880.5 902.0
Blank (ppmC) 6.6
Blank Area (area units) 33183
Areas:
CO + CH4 43,000,230 43.294,740 42,998,910
C02 73,924,230 74.849,220 74,653,700
Noncondensibles 1,618.009 1,528,139 1,607,910
Condensibles 000
Concentrations (ppmC):
CO + CH4
C02
Noncondensibles
Condensibles
TGNMO
121395.9000
209779.0000
4266.0190
0.0000
4266.0190
0.0
273.2
%RSD
0.3954
0.6546
3.1731
0.0000
(- 2130.0240 mgC/cu.m)
F-27
-------
RESEARCH TRIANGLE LABORATORIES, INC.
METHOD 25 DATA REPORT
Name: Radian Corporation
ID *90-141-275 Date: 8/20-22/90
Sample * 16
TANK new 84:
Volume (cu.m) - 0.004583
Presanpllng
Postsaapling
Final
Pressure
(on Hg)
340.4
764.5
1126.0
Teop.(K)
297.6
297.6
301.2
TRAP NA COLLECTION VESSEL:
Volume (cu.m) - 0.004551
Pressure' Temp.(K)
(nun Hg)
Final
Volume Sampled (dscm) - 0.002520
Calibration Data:
C02 Backflush
Response Factor (area units/ppmC) 880.5 902.0
Blank (ppmC) 6.6
Blank Area (area units) 33183
Areas :
CO + CH4 41,935,490 43,041,990 42,499,520
C02 72,634,660 74,528,260 72,989,180
Noncondensibles 569,587 570,168 540,546
Condensibles 000
Concentrations (ppmC) :
CO + CH4
C02
Noncondensibles
Condensibles
TGNMO
126593.5000
218626.3000
1532.3790
0.0000
1532.3790
0.0
273.2
%RSD
1.3021
1.3718
3.2144
0.0000
765.1167 mgC/cu.m)
F-28
-------
RESEARCH TRIANGLE LABORATORIES, INC.
METHOD 25 DATA REPORT
Name: Radian Corporation
ID #90-141-275 Dace: 8/20-22/90
Sample * 17
TANK new 222:
Volume (cu.m) - 0.004496
Presampling
Postsampling
Final
Pressure
(mm Hg)
342.9
764.5
1067.0 -
Temp.(K)
297.6
297.6
302.2
TRAP NA COLLECTION VESSEL:
Volume (cu.m) - 0.004551
Pressure Teap.(K)
(mn Hg)
Final
Volume Sampled (dscm) - 0.002457
Calibration Data:
C02 Backflush
Response Factor (area units/ppmC) 893.2 923.1
Blank (ppmC) 6.6
Blank Area (area units) 8938
Areas:
CO + CH4 41.805,730 41,607.870 42.170,050
C02 , 72.230.530 71,571,460 72,591,620
Noncondensibles 482,187 503,635 520,218
Condensibles 000
Concentrations (ppmC):
CO + CH4
C02
Noncondensibles
Condensibles
TGNMO
116812.2000
201279.4000
1331.3410
0.0000
1331.3410
0.0
273.2
%RSD
0.6812
0.7171
3.8670
0.0000
(- 664.7388 mgC/cu.n)
F-29
-------
RESEARCH TRIANGLE LABORATORIES, INC.
METHOD 25 DATA REPORT
Name: Radian Corporation
ID #90-141-275' Date: 8/20-22/90
Sample * IB
TANK new 79:
Volume (cu.m) - 0.004559
Fresampling
Postsampling
Final
Pressure
(mm Hg)
345.4
764.5
1058.0
Temp.(K)
297.6
297.6
300:2
TRAP NA COLLECTION VESSEL:
Volume (cu.m) - 0.004551
Pressure Temp.(K)
(mm Hg)
Final
Volume Sampled (dscm) - 0.002476
Calibration Data:
C02 Backflush
Response Factor (area units/ppmC) 893.2 923.1
Blank (ppmC) 6.6
Blank Area (area units) 8938
Areas:
CO + CH4 41.919,590 41.710,910 41.852,550
C02 72,664,260 72,416,580 72,686,280
Noneondensiblea 884,386 978,659 880,483
Condensibles 000
Concentrations (ppmC):
CO + CH4
C02
Noncondensibles
Condensibles
TGNMO
117211.3000
203412.1000
2455.4350
0.0000
2455.4350
0.0
273.2
%RSD
0.2547
0.2063
6.1386
0.0000
(- 1225.9990 mgC/cu.m)
F-30
-------
RESEARCH
TRIANGLE
LABORATORIES
METHOD 25 REPORT
prepared for
RADIAN CORPORATION
by
RESEARCH TRIANGLE LABORATORIES, INC.
( L
Gene Mull /JJhn Y. Mofimoto, Ph.D.
Chemist [ Chemist
RTL ID# 90-304
September 25, 1990
1612 Carpenter Retcher Road • Durham, North Carolina 27713 • (919) 544-5775 • FAX: (919) 544-3770
A Mcmter of Ac Andmen Tedtnoiofy Gimp
F-31
-------
RESEARCH TRIANGLE LABORATORIES, INC.
METHOD 25 TABLE OF RESULTS
Name: Radian Corporation
ID *90-141-304 Date: 9/18-9/L9/90
sample
# Description
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
Run
Run
Run
Run
Run
Run
Run
Run
Run
Run
Run
Run
Run
Run
Run
Run
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
CO
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
CH4 C02 Noncon- Conden-
densibles sibles
588777
576308
579089
576860
620554
605251
547630
559645
559157
516040
586596
523619
548983
552874
565403
556735
440273
429887
427375
426636
461827
449943
397193
408619
405974
378688
445773
388038
410480
465279
482293
473719
1807
1869
2040
1778
1454
2336
1007
770
817
812
1286
923
1203
5431
5480
5489
0
0
0
0
• o
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
— I Mass
TGNMO Cope .
(mgC/cu. m)
1807
1869
2040
1778
1454
2336
1007
770
817
812
1286
923
1203
5431
5480
5489
902
933
1019
888
726
1166
503
384
. 408
405
642
461
601
2712
2736
2741
F-32
-------
Radian Corporation
90-141-306
Tank Pressure* HisCor
tt
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
Tank »
155
122
068
' 019
038
147
105
031
140
014
001
189
185
115
135
900
Pressure (Temperature)
After Connection
619 (26)
609 (26)
588 (26.5)
577 (28)
612 (28)
647 (29)
666 (29)
670 (29)
699 (30)
696 (27.5)
691 (26)
701 (27)
682 (28)
687 (29)
691 (29)
683 (30)
Pressure (Temperature)
After' Presaurization
1057 (26)
1033 (26)
1104 (26.5)
1115 (28)
1126 (28)
1094 (29)
1080 (29)
1055 (29)
1087 (30)
1124 (27.5)
1084 (26)
1068 (27)
1070 (28)
1303 (29)
1116 (29)
1085 (30)
Pressure (Temperature)
After Analysis
885 (26)
960 (26.5)
1050 (-27)
1080 (28)
1074 (29)
1027 (28)
1045 (29)
1020 (30)
950 (30)
1027 (27)
1014 (28)
988 (28)
986 (29)
1114 (30)
1077 (30)
1048 (30)
Pressure, noHg: Temperature, *C
F-33
-------
RESEARCH TRIANGLE LABORATORIES, INC
COMMENTS ON THE ANALYSES
Report #90-141-304
All samples: CH4 and CO2 were analyzed with the electrometer set at a range 100 times
less sensitive than normal in order to prevent signal overload. The areas
were multiplied by 100 before calculations. The NMO were analyzed at the
normal electrometer range.
All NMO peaks tailed badly: this may have resulted in some degree of
integration error.
Since tank volumes were not supplied, a volume of 2 L was used for all
samples. The only results affected by this are the volume sampled and the
[zero value] condensibles concentrations.
F-34
-------
RESEARCH TRIANGLE LABORATORIES, INC.
METHOD 25 EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURE
Calibration
A propane calibration gas mixture of 82 ppm CO, 68 ppm CH,. 2.07% CO,, and 75
ppm propane is injected via a 1-mL sampling loop into the analyzer. The injections are
repeated until three integrated areas indicate reasonable agreement. A 1.18% CO,
standard is run daily with the same requirement. The average daily response factors must
agree within 5% of the RF(CQ,) and the RF(NMO) from the initial performance check.
Daily Performance Checks are performed at the beginning of each work day.
Calibrations are performed daily or between customer sets of samples, whichever comes
first. Additionally, a System Background Check is performed between each set of samples.
Duplicate injections of 1.0% CO, are made after the Final sample each day.
Response factors (average integrated area/concentration in ppmC) are calculated
daily from the initial triplicate injections.
Analysis
Each trap is stored under dry ice until just prior to analysis and is flushed of CO,
by passing zero air through it at -78 °C and via the CO, NDIR to the sample tank.
Flushing is continued until no NDIR response is noted. The trap is baked at 200 °C with
zero air flushing through the trap and via the oxidation catalyst and the NDIR into the
collection vessel. Collection is continued until no NDIR response is noted. The trap is
transferred to an oven set at 350 "C and baking is continued for 30 minutes. This ensures
the cleanliness of the trap for a subsequent sampling. The trap is taken out of the oven
and allowed to cool; it is then capped and stored for shipment.
The sample tank is analyzed by injecting an aliquot via a 1-mL sample loop into the
GC column, which is held at 85 "C to elute the CO+CH, and then the CO, which is
passed to the oxidation catalyst, reduction catalyst, and FID. The column is then
backflushed at 195 'C to elute the organic fraction. The collection vessel is analyzed
identically. In both cases, triplicate injections are made. The sample tank is pumped for
5 minutes (to less than 5 mrnHg) and air is then allowed in via a paper fiber filter; this
procedure is repeated. The tank is pumped 10 minutes and allowed to stand overnight.
The tank is then connected to a pressure gauge to test for leaks (maximum permissible leak
rate = 10 mmHg/day). If the tank passes the leak test, it is filled with zero air to slightly
greater than atmospheric pressure and stored for shipment
Calculations
Calculations are dene in accord with EPA Method 25 procedures. A sample
calculation is provided using client/RTL data.
F-35
-------
RESEARCH TRIANGLE LABORATORIES, INC.
METHOD 25 SAMPLE CALCULATION
Note: All prewure valuta have be«n converted when necessary to IBB Hg and all temperature values to Kelvin.
Name: Radian Corporation ID *90-141-304 Date: 9/18-9/19/90
Sample * 1 Run 1
DATA
Tank 155:
Volume (cu.m) - 0.002000
Pressure Temp.(K)
(mm Hg)
Presampling 67.3 304.8
Postsampling 765.8 304.8
Final 1057.0 299.2
Trap
Collection Vessel:
Volume (cu.m) - 0.004551
Pressure Temp.(K)
(mm Hg)
Final
0.0
Calibration Data:
C02 Backflush
Response Factor (area units/ppmC) 890.4 911.2
Blank (ppmC) 21.4
Blank Area (area units) 7710
Areas:
CO
CH4
C02
Noncondensibles
Condensibles
340,139,800
253,890,600
1,047.863
0
339,868,800
254,771,800
1,115,551
0
339,988,000
254,066,900
1,064,129
0
273.2
CALCULATIONS
Measured Concentration*. corrected for blank:
Cm(CO) - Area(CO)/RF(C02)
- 0 /890.4 - 0.0
- 0 /890-.4 - 0.0
- 0 /890.4 - 0.0
Cm(CH4) - Area(CH4)/Rf(C02)
- 3.401398E+08 /890.4 - 382007.9
- 3.398688E+08 /890.4 - 381703.5
- 3.39988E+08 /890.4 - 381837.4
Cm(C02) - Area(C02)/RF(C02)
- 2.538906E+08 /890.4 - 285142.2
- 2.547718E+08 /890.4 - 286131.9
- 2.540669E+08 /890.4 - 285340.2
F-36
-------
- 2 -
RESEARCH TRIANGLE LABORATORIES, INC. METHOD 25 SAMPLE CALCULATION
Cm(Noncondenslbles) - [Area(Noncondensibles) - Blank Area(NMO) ]/RF(NMO)
- ( 1047863 - 7710)/911.2 - 1141.5
- ( 1115551 - 7710)/911.2 - 1215.8
- ( 1064129 - 7710)/911.2 - 1159.4
Cm(Condensibles) - Area(Condensibles)/RF(C02) - Blank(C02)
- 0 /890.4 - 21.4 - -21.4
- 0 /890.4 - 21.4 - -21.4
- 0 /890.4 - 21.4 - -21.4
Pressure -Temperature Ratio. 0(1) - P(U/T(i):
postsampling tank: Q(l) - 765.81 / 304.8167 - 2.512363
presampling tank: Q(2) - 67.30999 / 304.8167 - .2208212
final tank: Q(3) - 1057 / 299.15 - 3.533345
final CV: Q(4) - 0 / 273.15 - 0
Volume Sampled (dscm) - 0.3857 x Tank Volume x [Q(1)-Q(2)1
- 0.3857 x .002 x [2.5124 - 0.2208]
- 0.001768
Averages and % Relative Standard Deviations (%RSO) of Cm's are calculated.
(%RSD of C - %RSD of Cm)
Calculated Concentrations:
C(CO) - Q(3)/[Q(1)-Q<2)] x Cm(CO)
- 3.5333/(2.5124 - 0.2208) x 0.0 - 0.0
C(CH4) - Q(3)/[Q(1)-Q<2)] x Cm(CH4)
-. 3.5333/(2.5124 - 0.2208) x 381849.6 - 588776.6
C(C02) - Q(3)/[Q(1)-Q(2)] x Cm(C02)
• 3.5333/(2.5124 - 0.2208) x 285538.0 - 440273.2
C(Noncondansibl«s) - Q(3)/[Q(1) -Q(2) ] x Cm(Noncondensibles)
- 3.5333/(2.5124 - 0.2208) x 1172.2 - 1807.5
C(Condansibles)
- Volume (CV)/Voluae (Tank) x Q(4)/[Q(1) -Q(2) J x Cm(Condensibles)
- 0.004551/0.002000 x 0.0000/(2. 5124 - 0.2208) x -21.4 - 0.0
Total Gaseous Non-Methane Organics(TGNMO)-C(Noncondensibles)+C(Condensibles)
- 1807.5 + 0.0
- ISO? . 5
Mass Concentration - 0.4993 x TGNMO
- 0.4993 x 1807.5 - 902.5
F-37
-------
1
RESEARCH TRIANGLE LABORATORIES, INC.
METHOD 25 SAMPLE QA/QC DATA & CALIBRATION CHECK/A
5.1.1 Carrier Gas and Auxiliary Oxygen Blanfr (1/3/90)
CO + CH, + CO, + NMO - 0 ppm Requirement: < 5 ppm
5.1.2 Catalyst Efficiency Check (1/4/90)
CO, - 9982 ppmC Requirement: CO, - LOOOO + 200 ppmC
5.1.3 System Performance Check (1/4/901
Average Percent
Recovery IRSD
50 uL hexane/decane 107.6/103.6 0.1/0.5
10 uL hexane/decane 102.1/103.2 0.5/0.9
Requirement 100 ± 10% < 5
5.2.1 Oxidation Catalyst Efficiency Check (1/5/90)
FID Response with Reduction Catalyst Out - 0.25%
Requirement < 1%
5.2.2 Reduction Catalyst Efficiency Check (1/5/90)
Response of CO, with Oxidation Catalyst and Reduction
Catalyst operative was 100.3% of response with catalyst
out.
Requirement 100 + 5%
5.2.3 Analyzer Linearity Check and NMO Calibration (1/2/90)
RF values agree within 2.5% Requirement: within 2.5%
%RSD values for triplicates < 2% " < 2%
except Propane 4th Dilution (22 ppmc) %RSD - 2.4%
(deviation by Gene Hull, Manager and Joseph Adanovic,
Laboratory Manager)
- 1.015 Requirement: ****** - 1.0 * 0.1
RF(CO,) H RF(CO,)
5.2.4 System Performance Check (1/5/90-4/10/90)
Measured Value Expected Value Requirement
Propane Mix 75.0 ppm 75.0 ppm + 5%
Hexane 55.4 ppm 55.2 ppm + 5%
Toluene 54.9 ppa 54.5 ppm ± 5%
Methanol * ppm ppa ±5%
* Methanol is currently being analyzed.
F-38
-------
5.3 NMO Analyzer Daily Calibration
Triplicate injections of a mixture containing propane and high-
level CO, are made at the beginning of each set of samples or
every 24 hours, whichever comes first.
Requirements *: DRF(NMO) - (RF(NMO) - 915) ± 5%
DRF(CO,) = (RF(C07) =862] ± 5%
* Original calibration values were 91.5. and 86.2; on 5/30/90,
electrometer range was lowered by a factor of 10, increasing each
response factor by a factor of 10.
F-39
-------
RESEARCH TRIANGLE LABORATORIES, INC.
METHOD 25 DATA REPORT
Name: Radian Corporation
ID #90-141-304 Date: 9/18-9/19/90
Sample * 1 Run 1
TANK 155:
Volume (cu.m) - 0.002000
TRAP
Presampling
Postsampling
Final
Pressure
(am Hg)
67.3
765.8
1057.0
Temp.(K)
304.8
304.8
299.2
COLLECTION VESSEL:
Volume (cu.m) - 0.004551
Pressure Temp.(K)
(mm Hg)
Final
Volume Sampled (dscm) - 0.001768
Calibration Data:
C02 Backflush
Response Factor (area units/ppmC) 890.4 911.2
Blank (ppmC) 21.4
Blank Area (area units) 7710
Areas:
CO 000
CH4 340,139,800 339,868,800 339,988,000
C02 253,890,600 254,771,800 254,066,900
Noncondensibles 1,047,863 1,115,551 1,064,129
Condensibles 000
Concentrations (ppmC):
CO 0.0000
CH4 588776.6000
C02 440273.2000
Noncondensibles 1807.4730
Condensiblea 0.0000
TGNMO 1807.4730
0.0
273.2
%RSD
0.0000
0.0400
0.1834
3.3079
0.0000
(- 902.4711 mgC/cu.n)
F-40
-------
RESEARCH TRIANGLE LABORATORIES, INC.
METHOD 25 DATA REPORT
Name: Radian Corporation
ID *90-141-304 Date: 9/18-9/19/90
Sample # 2 Run 2
TANK 122:
Volume (cu.m) - 0.002000
Pressure
(mm Hg)
Presampling 67.3
Postsampling 765.8
Final 1033.0
TRAP
Temp.(K)
304.8
304.8
299.2
COLLECTION VESSEL:
Volume (cu.m) - 0.004551
Pressure Temp.(K)
(mm Hg)
Final
Volume Sampled (dscm) - 0.001768
Calibration Data:
C02 Backflush
Response Factor (area units/ppmC) 890.4 911.2
Blank (ppmC) 21.4
Blank Area (area units) 7710
Areas:
CO 000
CH4 340,554,400 340,540,500 340,497.800
C02 254,036,500 254.076,000 253,927,000
Noncondensibles 1,029,935 1,152.579 1,231,263
Condensibles 000
Concentrations
CO
CH4
C02
(ppmC):
0.0000
576308.4000
429887.4000
Noncondensibles
Condensibles
TGNMO
1869.0940
0.0000
1869.0940
0.0
273.2 .
%RSD
0.0000
0.0087
0.0304
8.9771
0.0000
(- 933.2387 mgC/cu.m)
F-41
-------
RESEARCH TRIANGLE LABORATORIES, INC.
METHOD 25 DATA REPORT
Name: Radian Corporation
ID #90-141-304 Date: 9/18-9/19/90
Sample *» 3 Run 3
TANK 068:
Volume (cu.m) - 0.002000
TRAP
Presampling
Postsampling
Final
Pressure Temp.(K)
(mm Hg)
92.7 303.7
765.8 ' 303.7
1104.0 299.7
COLLECTION VESSEL:
Volume (cu.m) - 0.004551
Pressure Temp.(K)
(mm Hg)
Final
Volume Sampled (dscm) - 0.001710
Calibration Data:
C02 Backflush
Response Factor (area units/ppmC) 890.4 911.2
Blank (ppmC) 21.4
Blank Area (area units) 7710
Areas :
CO 000
CH4 309.882,600 310,270,400 310,363,400
C02 228,621,800 228,515,400 229,595.700
Noncondensibles 1,045,804 1,178.481 1,153,974
Condensibles 000
Concentrations (ppmC):
CO 0.0000
CH4 579089.4000
C02 427375.3000
Noncondensibles 2040.3390
Condensibles 0.0000
TGNMO 2040.3390
%RSD
0.0000
0.0822
.2601
,3126
0.
6.
0.0
273.2
0.0000
(- 1018.7410 mgC/cu.m)
F-42
-------
RESEARCH TRIANGLE LABORATORIES, INC.
METHOD 25 DATA REPORT
Name: Radian Corporation
ID #90-141-304 Date: 9/18-9/19/90
Sample * 4
Run 4
TANK 019:
Volume (cu.m) - 0.002000
TRAP
Presampllng
Postsampling
Final
Pressure
(am Hg)
108.0
765.8-
1115.0
Teop.(K)
304.8
304.8
301.2
COLLECTION VESSEL:
Volume (cu.m) - 0.004551
Pressure Temp.(K)
(mm Hg)
Final
Volume Sampled (dscm) - 0.001665
Calibration Data:
C02 Backflush
Response Factor (area units/ppmC) 890.4 911.2
Blank (ppmC) 21.4
Blank Area (area units) 7710
Areas:
CO 000
CH4 299,183,700 299,508,200 299,521,000
C02 221.236.500 221.205,400 221,862.100
Noncondensibles 928,609 927,797 1,000.344
Condensibles 000
Concentrations (ppmC):
CO 0.0000
CH4 . 576859.5000
C02 426636.2000
Noncondensibles 1778.2950
Condensibles 0.0000
TGNMO 1778.2950
0.0
273.2
%RSD
0.0000
0.0638
0.1673
4.4098
0.0000
(- 887.9027 mgC/cu.n)
F-43
-------
RESEARCH TRIANGLE LABORATORIES, INC.
METHOD 25 DATA REPORT
Mane: Radian Corporation ID #90-141-304 Dace: 9/18-9/19/90
Sample * 5 Run 5
TANK 038: TRAP COLLECTION VESSEL:
Volume (cu.m) - 0.002000 Volume (cu.m) - 0.004551
Pressure Temp.(K) Pressure Temp.(K)
(mm Hg) (mm Hg)
Presampllng 110.5 305.4
Poscsampllng 765.8 305.4
Final 1126.0 301.2 Final 0.0 273.2
Volume Sampled (dscm) - 0.001655
Calibration Data:
C02 Backflush
Response Factor (area units/ppmC) 890.4 911.2
Blank (ppmC) 21.4
Blank Area (area units) 7710
Areas:
CO 000
CH4 317,011,400 317.370.900 316.999.000
C02 236.101,800 236.354.100 235,577.300
Noncondenslbles 759,143 792.136 752.935
Condenslbles 0 . 0 0
Concentrations (ppmC): %RSD
CO 0.0000 0.0000
CH4 620554.3000 0.0666
C02 461826.5000 0.1679
Noncondensibles 1453.9110 2.7711
Condensibles 0.0000 0.0000
TGNMO 1453.9110
(- 725.9380 mgC/cu.m)
F-44
-------
RESEARCH TRIANGLE LABORATORIES, INC
METHOD 25 DATA REPORT
Name: Radian Corporation
ID «90-141-304 Date: 9/18-9/19/90
Sample * 6 Run 6
TANK 147:
Volume (cu.m) - 0.002000
TRAP
Presampling
Postsampling
Final
Pressure Tenp.(K)
(mm Hg)
85.1 305.4
765.8 305.4
1094.0 302.2
COLLECTION VESSEL:
Volume (cu.m) - 0.004551
Pressure Temp.(K)
(mm Hg}
Final
Volume Sampled (dscm) - 0.001720
Calibration Data:
C02 Backflush
Response Factor (area units/ppmC) 890.4 911.2
Blank (ppmC) 21.4
Blank Area (area units) 7710
Areas:
CO 000
CH4 331.748,500 331,744,500 331.881,300
C02 246,575,200 246,731.000 246,653,300
Noncondensibles 1,312,223 1,337.616 1,304,746
Condensibles .0 00
Concentrations (ppmC):
CO 0.0000
CH4 605251.4000
C02 449942.8000
Noncondensibles 2336.0070
Condensibles 0.0000
TGNMO 2336.0070
•o.o
273.2
%RSD
0.0000
0.0235
0.0316
1.3147
0.0000
(- 1166.3680 ogC/cu.m)
F-45
-------
RESEARCH TRIANGLE LABORATORIES, INC.
METHOD 25 DATA REPORT
Name: Radian Corporation
ID #90-141-304 Date: 9/18-9/19/90
Sample # 7 Run 7
TANK 105:
Volume (cu.nt) - 0.002000
TRAP
Presampling
Postsampling
Final
Pressure
(mm Hg)
35.1
759.0
1080.0
Temp.(K)
296.5
296.5
302.2
COLLECTION VESSEL:
Volume (cu.m) - 0.004551
Pressure Temp.(K)
(mm Hg)
Final
Volume Sampled (dscm) - 0.001883
Calibration Data:
C02 Backflush
Response Factor (area units/ppmC) 890.4 911.2
Blank (ppmC) 21.4
Blank Area (area units) 7710
Areas:
CO 000
CH4 333,049,600 333,093,500 333,098,900
C02 241,706.200 241,573.400 241,465,800
Noncondensibles 628,062 647,449 627,329
Condensibles 000
Concentrations (ppmC):
CO
CH4
C02
Noncondensibles
Condensibles
TGNMO
0.0000
.547629.9000
397193.3000
1006.6510
0.0000
1006.6510
0.0
273.2
%RSD
0.0000
0.0081
0.0498
1.8211
0.0000
(- 502.6207 mgC/cu.m)
F-46
-------
RESEARCH TRIANGLE LABORATORIES, INC.
METHOD 25 DATA REPORT
Name: Radian Corporation
ID #90-141-304 Dace: 9/18-9/19/90
Sample * 8 Run 8
TANK 031:
Volume (cu.m) - 0.002000
TRAP
Presampling
Postsampling
Final
Pressure
(mm Hg)
35.1
759.0
1055.0
Temp.(K)
297.0
297.0
302.2
COLLECTION VESSEL:
Volume (cu.m) - 0.004551
Pressure Temp.(K)
(mm Hg)
Final
Volume Sampled (dscm) - 0.001880
Calibration Data:
C02 Backflush
Response Factor (area units/ppmC) 890.4 911.2
Blank (ppmC) 21.4
Blank Area (area units) 7710
Areas:
CO 000
CH4 347,793,000 347,856,800 347,759,400
C02 253,837,400 253,846,400 254,149,400
Noncondensibles 495,672 519,682 475,993
Condensibles 000
Concentrations (ppmC):
CO
CH4
C02
Noncondensibles
Condensibles
TGNMO
0.0000
559645.3000
408618.5000'
769.5199
0.0000
769.5199
0.0
273.2
%RSD
0.0000
0.0142
0.0699
4.4708
0.0000
(- 384.2213 mgC/cu.m)
F-47
-------
RESEARCH TRIANGLE LABORATORIES, INC.
METHOD 25 DATA REPORT
Name: Radian Corporation
ID *90-141-304 Dace: 9/18-9/L9/90
Sample * 9 Run 9
TANK 140:
Volume (cu.m) - 0.002000
TRAP
Presampling
Postsampling
Final
Pressure
(ma Hg)
22.4
759.0
1087.0
Temp.(K)
297.0
297.0
303.2
COLLECTION VESSEL:
Volume (cu.m) - 0.004551
Pressure Temp.(K)
(mm Hg)
Final
Volume Sampled (dscm) - 0.001913
Calibration Data:
C02 Backflush
Response Factor (area units/ppmC) 890.4 911.2
Blank (ppmC) 21.4
Blank Area (area units) 7710
Areas:
CO 000
CH4 344.U1.800 344.357,000 344,468,600
C02 250.368,200 249.554,200 250.059,400
Noncondensibles 512,900 539,399 515,176
Condensibles 000
Concentrations (ppmC):
CO 0.0000
CH4 559157.0000
C02 405973.7000
Noncondensibles 816.8888
Condensibles 0.0000
TGNMO 816.8888
0.0
273.2
%RSD
0..0000
0.0482
0.1644
2.8529
0.0000
(- 407.8726 mgC/cu.m)
F-48
-------
RESEARCH TRIANGLE LABORATORIES, INC.
METHOD 25 DATA REPORT
Name: Radian Corporation
ID #90-141-304 Date: 9/18-9/19/90
Sample » 10
Run 10
TANK 014:
Volume (cu.m) - 0.002000
TRAP
Presampling
Poscsampling
Final
Pressure Temp.(K)
(mm Hg)
35.1 293.7
759.0 293.7
1124.0 300.7
COLLECTION VESSEL:
Volume (cu.m) - 0.004551
Pressure Temp.(K)
(mm Hg)
Final
):
0.0000
516039 . 8000 .
378687.7000
811.7649
0.0000
811.7649
«RSD
0.0000
0.0328
0.0584
2.3633
0.0000
0.0
273.2
Volume Sampled (dscm) - 0.001901
Calibration Data:
C02 Backflush
Response Factor (area units/ppmC) 888.0 897.0
Blank (ppmC) 21.4
Blank Area (area units) 3918
Areas:
CO 000
CH4 302,808,200 302,995.400 302,960.000
C02 221,618,100 221,622,100 221,844,200
Noncondensibles 485,521 471,923 494,452
Condensibles 000
Concentrations (ppmC):
CO
CH4
C02
Noncondensibles
Condensibles
TCNMO
(- 405.3142 mgC/cu.m)
F-49
-------
RESEARCH TRIANGLE LABORATORIES, INC.
METHOD 25 DATA REPORT
Name: Radian Corporacion
ID #90-141-304 Date: 9/18-9/19/90,,
Sample * 11 Run 11
TANK 001:
Volume (cu.m) - 0.002000
TRAP
Presampling
Poscsampling
Final
Pressure Temp.(K)
(am Hg)
200.2 294.3
759.0 294.3
1084.0 299.2
COLLECTION VESSEL:
Volume (cu.m) - 0.004551
Pressure Temp.(K)
(mm Hg)
Final
Volume Sampled (dscm) - 0.001465
Calibration Data:
C02 Backflush
Response Factor (area units/ppmC) 888.0 897.0
Blank (ppmC) 21.4
Blank Area (area units) 3918
Areas:
CO 000
CH4 273.855,800 273,897,600 273.407.800
C02 207.763,900 207.334.200 207.247,200
Noncondensibles 580,017 628.954 616.222
Condensibles 000
Concentrations (ppmC):
CO 0.0000
CH4 586595.6000
C02 445773.2000
Noncondensibles 1285.8970
Condens ibles 0.0000
TGNMO 1285.8970
%RSD
0.0000
.0992
.1334
.2002
0.
0.
4.
0.0
273.2
0.0000
(- 642.0481 mgC/cu.m)
F-50
-------
RESEARCH TRIANGLE LABORATORIES, INC.
METHOD 25 DATA REPORT
Name: Radian Corporation
ID *90-141-304 Date: 9/18-9/19/90
Sample * 12
Run 12
TANK 189:
Volume (cu.m) - 0.002000
TRAP
Presampling
Postsampling
Final
Pressure
(mm Hg)
27.4
759.0
1068.0
Temp.(K)
293.7
293.7
300.2
COLLECTION VESSEL:
Volume (cu.m) - 0.004551
Pressure Temp.(K)
(mm Hg)
Final
):
0 . 0000
523618.6000
388037 . 7000
922.7015
0.0000
922.7015
%RSD
0.0000
0.0860
0.0911
4.6156
0 . 0000
0.0
273.2
Volume Sampled (dscm) - 0.001921
Calibration Data:
C02 Backflush
Response Factor (area unlts/ppmC) 888.0 897.0
Blank (ppmC) 21.4
Blank Area (area units) 3918
Areas:
CO 000
CH4 326,599,800 326,399,700 326,045,300
C02 241,062,600 241,073.300 241,448.500
Noncondenslbles 613,481 562.669 573.629
Condonsibles 000
Concentrations (ppnC):
CO
CH4
C02
None ondens iblea
Condenslbles
TGNMO
(- 460.7049 mgC/cu.a)
F-51
-------
RESEARCH TRIANGLE LABORATORIES, INC.
METHOD 25 DATA REPORT
Name: Radian Corporation
ID #90-141-304 Date: 9/18-9/19/90
Sample * 13 Run 13
TANK 185:
Volume (cu.m) - 0.002000
TRAP
Presampling
Postsampling
Final
Pressure
(am Hg)
149.4
759.0
1070.0
Temp.(K)
296.5
296.5
301.2
COLLECTION VESSEL:
Volume (cu.m) - 0.004551
Pressure Temp.(K)
(mm Hg)
Final
Volume Sampled (dscm) - 0.001586
Calibration Data:
C02 Backflush
Response Factor (area units/ppmC) 888.0 897.0
Blank (ppmC) 21.4
Blank Area (area units) 3918
Areas:
CO 000
CH4 282,945,800 282,846,900 282.819,700
C02 210,669.600 210,938,700 211,196.500
Noncondensibles 611.123 646,701 627,839
Condensibles 000
Concentrations (ppmC):
CO
CH4
C02
Noncondensibles
Condensibles
TGNMO
0.0000
548983.4000
410479.8000
1203.3470
0.0000
1203.3470
0.0
273.2 '
%RSD
0.0000
0.0235
0.1249
2.8496
0.0000
(- 600.8314 ogC/cu.m)
F-52
-------
RESEARCH TRIANGLE LABORATORIES, INC.
METHOD 25 DATA REPORT
Name: Radian Corporation
ID #90-141.304 Date: 9/18-9/19/90
Sample * 14
Run 14
TANK 115:
Volume (cu.m) - 0.002000
TRAP
Presampling
Postsampllng
Final
Pressure
(am Hg)
46.2
760.0
1303.0
Temp.(K)
299.8
299.8
302.2
COLLECTION VESSEL:
Volume (cu.m) - 0.004551
Pressure Temp.(K)
(mm Hg)
Final
Volume Sampled (dscm) - 0.001836
Calibration Data:
C02 Backflush
Response Factor (area units/ppmC) 888.0 897.0
Blank (ppmC) 21.4
Blank Area (area units) 3918
Areas:
CO 0 00
CH4 271,662.100 271,904,500 271,691,200
C02 228,319.700 228,023.700 227,899,700
Noncondensibles 2,697,226 2,681,410 2,701,270
Condensibles 000
Concentrations (ppmC):
CO O.OOOQ
CH4 552873.9000
C02 465279.2000
Noncondensibles 5431.2260
Condensibles 0.0000
TGNMO 5431.2260
%RSD
0.0000
0.0487
0.0946
0.3903
0.0000
0.0
273.2-
(- 2711.8110 BgC/cu.m)
F-53
-------
RESEARCH TRIANGLE LABORATORIES, INC.
METHOD 25 DATA REPORT
Name: Radian Corporation
ID *90-141-304 Date: 9/18-9/19/90
Sample * 15 Run 15
TANK 135:
Volume (cu.m) - 0.002000
TRAP
Presampling
Postsampling
Final
Pressure
(mm Hg)
48.8
760.0"
1116.0
Temp.(K)
300.4
300.4
302.2
COLLECTION VESSEL:
Volume (cu.m) - 0.004551
Pressure Temp.(K)
(mm Hg)
Final
!):
0 . 0000
565403.0000
482293.1000
5480.4360
0.0000
5480.4360
%RSD
0 . 0000
0.2284
0.4425
2. 5145
0.0000
0.0
273.2
Volume Sampled (dscm) - 0.001826
Calibration Data:
C02 Backflush
Response Factor (area units/ppmC) 888.0 897.0
Blank (ppmC) 21.4
Blank Area (area units) 3918
Areas:
CO 000
CH4 322,280,200 323,576,500 322.320,500
C02 274,264,500 275,876,200 273,495,800
Noncondensibles 3,108.126 3,110,944 3,246,762
Condensibles 000
Concentrations (ppmC):
CO
CH4 •
C02
Noncondensibles
Condensibles
TGNMO
(- 2736.3820 mgC/cu.m)
F-54
-------
RESEARCH TRIANGLE LABORATORIES, INC.
METHOD 25 DATA REPORT
Name: Radian Corporation
ID »90-141O04 Date: 9/18-9/19/90
Saaple * 16 Run 16
TANK 900.-
Volume (cu.n) - 0.002000
TRAP
Pr«sampling
Pastsanpling
final
Pressure
(mm Hg)
36.1
760.0
1085.0
Temp.(K)
300.4
300.4
303.2
COLLECTION VESSEL:
Volume (cu.m) - 0.004551
Pressure Teop.(K)
(nan Hg)
Final
Volume Sampled (dsca) - 0.001859
Calibration Data:
C02 Baekflush
Response Factor (area units/ppmC) 888.0 897.0
Blank (ppmC) 21.4
Blank Area (area units) 3918
Areas:
CO 0 0 0
CH4 333,794,900 334,197.400 333,394.100
C02 281,729,600 283.869,600 284,171,000
Noncondansibles 3,263,488 3,342,518 3,351.486
Condensibles 000
Concentrations (ppoC):
CO
CH4
C02
Noncondansibles
Condensibles
TGMMO
0.0000
5S6735.1000
473718.8000
5488.7910
0.0000
3488.7910
0.0
273.2
IRSD
0.0000
0.1203
0.4699
1.4607
0.0000
(- 2740.5530 BgC/cu.a)
F-55
-------
*f
••§
*W ^u •"--
4. V- 0)
M_ 3.——
±C
0£.So
w f*
•DC
(0*855^
p L. E^
Zo.!2.£
Reproduced by NTIS
National Technical Information Service
Springfield, VA 22161
This report was printed specifically for your order
from nearly 3 million titles available in our collection.
For economy and efficiency, NTIS does not maintain stock of its vast
collection of technical reports. Rather, most documents are printed for
each order. Documents that are not in electronic format are reproduced
from master archival copies and are the best possible reproductions
available. If you have any questions concerning this document or any
order you have placed with NTIS, please call our Customer Service
Department at (703) 605-6050.
About NTIS
NTIS collects scientific, technical, engineering, and business related
information — then organizes, maintains, and disseminates that
information in a variety of formats — from microfiche to online services.
The NTIS collection of nearly 3 million titles includes reports describing
research conducted or sponsored by federal agencies and their
contractors; statistical and business information; U.S. military
publications; multimedia/training products; computer software and
electronic databases developed by federal agencies; training tools; and
technical reports prepared by research organizations worldwide.
Approximately 100,000 new titles are added and indexed into the NTIS
collection annually.
For more information about NTIS products and services, call NTIS
at 1-800-553-NTIS (6847) or (703) 605-6000 and request the free
NTIS Products Catalog, PR-827LPG, or visit the NTIS Web site
http://www.ntis.gov.
NTIS
Your indispensable resource for government-sponsored
information—U.S. and worldwide
------- |