&EPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of Air Quality EMB Report 85-HWS-1
Planning and Standards May 1985
Research Triangle Park NC 27711
Air
Hazardous Waste
Treatment, Storage and
Disposal Facility
Area Sources
VOC Air Emissions
Emission Test Report
IT Corporation
Benicia Facility
Benicia, California
Volume 1
-*•"»£ ~-%!%?• ~*J
-------
DCN 85-222-078-17-02
EMISSION TEST REPORT NO. 85-HWS-l
HAZARDOUS WASTE TREATMENT,
STORAGE, AND DISPOSAL FACILITY
AREA SOURCES
VOC Air Emissions at
IT Corporation
Benicia Facility
Benicia, California
EPA Contract No. 68-02-3171
Work Assignment 75
Prepared by:
Radian Corporation
P. 0. Box 9948
Austin, Texas 78766
Prepared for:
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Emission Standards and Engineering Division, MD-13
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
May 1985
-------
This report has been reviewed by the Emission Standards and
Engineering Division, Office of Air Quality Planning and Stan-
dards, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and approved for
publication. Mention of company or product names does not con-
stitute endorsement by EPA. Copies are available free of charge
to federal employees, current contractors and grantees, and non-
profit organizations—as supplies permit—from the Library Ser-
vices Office, MD-35, Environmental Protection Agency, Research
Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711.
Order: EMB Report 85-HWS-l, Volume 1
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Page
1 Introduction 1-1
1.1 Site Description. : 1-1
1.2 Testing Program 1-2
2 Summary and Discussion of Results 2-1
2.1 Active Landfill 2-4
2.2 Miscellaneous Surface Impoundments 2-10
3 Process Description 3-1
3.1 Process Description 3-1
3.1.1 Landfill 3-1
3.1.2 Surface Impoundments 3-3
3.1.3 Sludge Drying Area 3-3
3.2 Waste Characterization..... 3-3
4 Samp ling Locat ions 4-1
4.1 Active Landfill #1 4-1
4.2 Retention Ponds 4-1
5 Sampling and Analytical Procedures 5-1
5.1 Air Emission Measurements 5-1
5.1.1 Emission Isolation Flux Chamber 5-1
5.2 Air Sample Collection 5-4
5.3 Liquid Sample Collection 5-4
5.4 Soil Sample Collection 5-5
5.5 Analytical Techniques 5-5
5.5.1 Real-Time Monitors.. 5-5
5.5.2 On-Site Gas Chromatographs 5-8
5.5.3 Off-Site Gas Chromatographs 5-8
5.5.4 Gas Chromatograph/Mass Spectrometry 5-12
6 Data Quality 6-1
6.1 Measurement Variability.. 6-3
6.1.1 Flux Chamber Measurements 6-3
6.1.2 Liquid Concentration Measurements. 6-10
6.1.3 Soil Core Concentration Measurements 6-10
6.2 GC-MS Confirmation of Selected Canister Samples 6-10
7 References 7-1
ii
-------
TABLES
Number Page
2-1 Summary of Field Sampling and Analysis 2-2
2-2 Average Emission Rates Measured at the IT Benicia
Facility for Landfill #1 2-3
2-3 Measured Mass Emission Rates (kg/day) for Landfill
#1 (06/26/84) 2-5
2-4 Measured Soil Core Concentrations (yg/m ) for Landfill
#1 (06/26/84) 2-7
2-5 Summary of Landfill Physical Data 2-9
2-6 Comparison of Measured Emission Rates and Soil Core
Concentrations for Landfill #1 (06/26/84) 2-11
2-7 Summary of Calculated Mass Transfer Coefficient Values
(m/sec) for Landfill #1 (06/26/84) 2-13
2-8 Measured Concentrations (mg/L) of Liquid Samples from
Miscellaneous Surface Impoundments (06/25/84) 2-15
3-1 Waste Material Received at Landfill #1 During June 1984... 3-4
3-2 Waste Material Received by Various Treatment, Storage,
or Disposal Processes During June 1984 3-4
5-1 Description of .Portable TEC Monitors 5-7
5-2 Instrument Conditions for On-Site Gas Chromatograph 5-9
5-3 Instrument Conditions for GC-FID/PID-HECD Analyses 5-11
5-4 GC-MS Conditions for Analysis of Gas Canister Samples..... 5-13
6-1 Precision Estimates for Flux Chamber/Gas Syringe
Sample Results 6-5
6-2 Precision Estimates for Flux Chamber/Gas Canister
Samp le Results 6-6
6-3 Estimates of Variabilities of Parameters Associated
with Emission Flux Chamber Measurements 6-7
6-4 Precision Estimates for Flux Chamber/Gas Syringe
Emission Rates..... 6-8
iii
-------
TABLES (Continued)
Number Page
6-5 Precision Estimates for Flux Chamber/Gas Canister
Emission Rates 6-9
6-6 Precision Estimates for Liquid Sample Results 6-11
6-7 Precision Estimates for Soil Core Sample Results 6-12
6-8 GC^iS Confirmation of Canister Samples 6-13
iv
-------
FIGURES
Number Page
3-1 Facility plot plan 3-2
4-1 Diagram of active landfill #1 4-2
4-2 Diagram of sampling locations at active landfill #1,
Site #8 4-4
5-1 Cutaway side view of emission isolation flux chamber
and samp ling apparatus 5-3
5-2 Soil core sample sleeve 5-6
5-3 Block diagram of the gas chromatography system 5-10
v
-------
SECTION 1
INTRODUCTION
EPA's Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards (OAQPS) is
developing an air emissions data base for treatment, storage, and disposal
facilities (TSDFs) in support of a background information document. The
emissions data base will include fugitive air emissions from landfills,
surface impoundments, storage tanks, containers (drums), solvent recovery
processes, and land treatment technologies at TSDFs. Although the fugitive
emissions from such sources may include a variety of inorganic and organic
particulate emissions and vapor phase inorganic and organic emissions, the
current emphasis is on volatile organic compounds.
Data for the air emissions data base are being obtained through both
direct measurements and predictive models. Sampling approaches have been
1 2
developed and demonstrated for emission measurements ' and sampling and
analytical protocols documented for obtaining field data for input to the
predictive models (Section 5.0). ' TSDFs are identified and screened as to
their representativeness and suitability for sampling. During the prelimi-
nary visit to a site, process data are obtained and grab samples collected.
Based upon this information, the site may be selected to perform emission
measurements. This test report documents the results of such emission
measurements at the IT Corporation, Benicia facility.
1.1 SITE DESCRIPTION
Benicia is a commercial hazardous waste management facility located
northeast of San Francisco, California. The current owners (IT Corporation)
took over the site in 1975. The site accepts a variety of hazardous wastes.
1-1
-------
Potential air emission sources at the site include:
• active landfill, and
• surface impoundments.
1.2 TESTING PROGRAM
Emission measurements were performed at the Benicia facility June 25
and 26, 1984. Testing was conducted by Radian Corporation, under the direc-
tion of Dr. Charles Schmidt. Process data were obtained by a representative
from GCA/Technology Division, Bedford, Connecticut, under contract to EPA,
and representatives from the Environmental Protection Agency observed
testing. The objectives of the testing program were:
• to obtain emission rate data at the active landfill using
the emission isolation flux chamber approach;
• to obtain data on the concentration of volatile organic
compounds in the landfill soil/waste for comparison to
compounds identified during emission measurements and as
future input to predictive models; and
• to obtain data on the concentration of volatile organic
compounds in the surface impoundments as future input to
predictive models.
1-2
-------
SECTION 2
SUMMARY AND DISCUSSION OF RESULTS
A summary of the field sampling and analysis performed for the IT
Benicia facility is shown in Table 2-1. The field tests at this TSDF have
provided data on the emission rates of volatile organic compounds (VOCs)
from the active landfill. The average emission rates measured for select
compounds emitted from the landfill are shown in Table 2-2. The compounds
shown represent a list of major hazardous waste constituents identified by
EPA personnel and which could be detected (1 ppbv-C) by the analytical
system. For a complete list of compounds detected, refer to Appendix D,
Analytical Results. In general, the volatile compounds detected from the
4
flux chamber samples corresponded to the compounds detected in the soil core
samples (Table 2-6). The results of the emission measurements indicated two
areas of significantly different emissions; specifically, a moist unloading
area and the larger area where the waste was spread. It is expected that
the data obtained are representative of the landfill as a whole, for the
conditions under which the measurements were made.
Additionally, data were obtained on the VOC composition of a number of
the surface impoundments at the facility. These individual samples may not
necessarily be representative of the pond's composition. The quantity of
volatile organic compounds in these ponds ranged from 2 mg/L to 20 mg/L
TNMHC.
A more detailed presentation of the data are provided in the sections
below.
2-1
-------
TABLE 2-1. SUMMARY OF FIELD SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS
Source
Sampling
Approach
Samples
Obtained
Samples
Analyzed
Comment s
Active landfill Flux chamber
Soil samples
Miscellaneous
surface im-
poundments
Liquid samples
9 syringe
samples
9 canister
samples
9 core
samples
9 bulk
samples
13 grab
samples
All
All
All
All
Includes 1
duplicate &
1 control
Includes 1
duplicate &
1 control
Includes 1
duplicate &
1 control
Physical
analysis
2-2
-------
TABLE 2-2. AVERAGE EMISSION RATES (KG/DAY) MEASURED AT THE
IT BENICIA FACILITY FOR LANDFILL #1
COMPOUND
1,3-BUTAOIENE
ACRYLONITRILE
BENZENE
TOLUENE
ETHYL8ENZENE
P-XYLENE/M-XYLENE
STYRENE
0-XYLENE
ISOPROPVLBENZENE
N-PROPYLBENZENE
NAPHTHALENE
CHLOROMETHANE
VINYL CHL7RIOE
Itl-DICHLOROETHYLENE
HETHYLENE CHLORIDE
CHLOROFORM
1»1,1-TRICHLOROETHANE
CARBON TETRACHLORIOE
1,2-OICHLOROPROPANE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE
CHLOR08ENZENE
P-OICHLOROBENZENE
1,1-DICHLOROETHANE
BENZYL CHLORIDE
lf2-OI9ROMOETHANE
2-CHLORO-1.3-BUTAOIENE
TRICHLORETHYLENE
EPICHLOROHYDRIN
1«1 f2t2-TETRACHLOROETHANE
3-CHLORO-t-oROPENE
ACETALDEHYOE
METHYL ACETATE
ACROLEIN
PROPYLENE OXIDE
PARAPFIVS
OLEFINS
TOTAL AROMATICS
TOTAL HALORENATED HC
TOTAL OXYGENATED HC
SULFUR SPECIES
UNIDENTIFIED VOC
TOTAL NNHC
LANDFILL »1
CKS/DAY)
0.711
6.16
2.72
7.06
3.37
1.33
2.15
0.3B7
0.21
.0018
.0027
1.2fl
0.146
4.81
.0057
9.06
0.203
.0018
.0364
55.3
20.5
53.3
20
0.194
0.973
147
NO
NO
«0. 001, 1.66)
( 2.58.9.74)
C 1.36.4.07)
f 3.?*, 10. 2)
NO
( 1.67,5.08)
< 0. 34, 2. 32)
( O.fl25»3.47)
f 0.0952, .679)
«0. 001, .535)
f<0. 001, .007)
«0. 001. .011)
«0. 001. 3. 59)
«0. 001, .532)
«0. 001, 13.1 J
ND
«0. 001, .023)
«0. 001. 18. 4)
«0. 001. .809)
« 0.0*01*. 007)
{
-------
2.1 ACTIVE LANDFILL
Emission rates measured at the active landfill using the flux chamber
are tabulated in Table 2-3, as calculated using the results of the canister
samples. Also shown are the average emission rates and the associated 95%
confidence intervals. The variability between emission rates measured at
individual gridpoints is generally at the same level as the sampling and
analytical variability associated with the flux chamber measurement tech-
nique (see Section 6). The variability of the emission rates between grid-
points, based on the on-site analyses, was consistent with the canister
results. This implies that the differences between gridpoints are not
significant, and that the average emission rate is representative of the
gridded area of the landfill as a whole. Note that the emission rates
measured at gridpoint 1' are significantly different than the other grid-
points. This location was in a separate section of the landfill which was
not considered part of the gridded area (see Section 4).
Soil cores were obtained at each of the locations where flux chamber
measurements were made. The results of the analyses of these cores are
presented in Table 2-4, along with the average concentrations and 95% confi-
dence intervals. The variability between concentrations at individual grid-
points was compared to the sampling and analytical variability of the soil
core procedure (see Section 6.0). Generally, the variability between cores
is slightly greater than the sampling and analytical variability alone,
indicating that the differences between cores (gridpoints) may be signifi-
cant. The spatial variability for the soil cores is greater than that shown
by the flux chamber measurements.
Table 2-5 summarizes additional physical data for the soil at the
landfill. The soil temperatures varied with the time of day, showing typi-
cal diurnal trends. Differences between soil temperatures inside and out-
side the flux chamber were typically less than 2°C. Soil moisture, bulk
density, and specific gravity were measured for a single soil sample and the
associated soil porosity calculated. This data may not necessarily be
2-4
-------
TABLE 2-3. MEASURED MASS EMISSION RATES (KG/DAY) FOR LANDFILL //I (06/26/84)
COMPOUND
NJ
I
lt3-BUTADIENE
ACRYLONITRILE
BENZENE
TOLUENE
ETHYLPENZENE
P-XYLENE/M-X
STYRENE
0-XYLEVE
ISOPROPYLBENZENE
N-PROPYLBENZENE
NAPHTHALENE
CHLOROMETMANE
VINYL CHLORIDE
1,1-OICHLOI
METHYLENE
CHLOROFORM
ltl«l-THIC
CARBON TCT
1,2-DICHLO
TETRACHLOR
CHLOROBENZENE
P-DICHLOROBEN
lil-DICHLOROE
BENZYL CHLORIDE
li2-OIBROMOETHA
2-CHLORO-1t3-BU
TRICHLORETHYLENE
ACETALDEHYOE
METHYL ACETATE
ACROLEIN
PROPYLCNE OXIOE
PARAFFINS
OLEFINS
TOTAL AROMATICS
TOTAL HALOGEN*
TOTAL OXYGENAT
SULFUR SPECIES
UNIDENTIFIED VOC
SAMPLE ID
LOCATION
EMISSION RATE
E
E
YLENE
ZENE
ENE
C
OE
ETHYLENE
LOR IDE
OPOE1HANE
CHLORIDE
PROPANE
THYLENE
E
NZENE
ETHANE
IDE
THANE
-BUTADIENE
LENE
RIN
ACHLOROETHANE
ROPENE
TE
IDE
ICS
NATED HC
IATED HC
ES
VOC
A- 10?
GRID 1
(KG/DAY)
ND
ND
0.375
9.33
3.99
8.96
NO
4.8
2.41
2.?3
1.02
0.584
NO
ND
ND
0.04B
1.33
ND
ND
8.77
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
NO
ND
ND
NO
NO
71.9
23.4
73
12.6
0.242
ND
1.08
A-109
GRID 1
(KG/DAY).
ND
ND
0.101
a.863
0.554
1.7
ND
0.609
0.079
0.72
0.135
0.0974
ND
ND
1.81
0.014
1.35
NO
ND
1.53
ND
ND
0.0787
NO
ND
ND
ND
ND
NO
ND
ND
NO
ND
ND
11.8
4.68
10.4
£.05
0.0566
ND
0.234
A-103
GRID 6
(KG/DAY)
NO
NO
0.466
12.3
5.19
14.1
ND
7.6
4.05
5.62
1.02
0.232
ND
ND
0.14
NO
0.71
NO
NO
7.23
ND
NO
ND
ND
ND
NO
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
NO
ND
NO
156
51
103
10.7
0.494
ND
0.17
A-104
GRID 6
•KG/DAY)
•
NO
ND
0.19
4.3
?.31
5. 69
ND
3.05
1.15
2.34
0.276
ND
ND
NO
0.0583
ND
0.249
ND
ND
7.68
NO
ND
ND
NO
ND
NO
NO
ND
NO
NO
ND
ND
ND
NO
54.4
18.1
49.8
3.74
0.1*6
ND
1.39
A-106
GRID 8
(KG/DAY)
NO
NO
0.249
5.fl9
3.02
7.45
NO
3.91
1.64
2.82
0.159
ND
NO
NO
ND
0.0353
0.298
NO
NO
2.25
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
NO
NO
NO
ND
ND
NO
NO
51.4
20.2
53.4
3.5
0.185
ND
0.501
A-107
GRID 10
(KG/DAY)
ND
ND
0.0646
0.768
0.649
2.06
NO
0.805
0.137
0.336
0.0855
NO
ND
NO
0.027
NO
0.0842
ND
ND
0.402
ND
NO
ND
NO
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
NO
ND
ND
ND
NO
9.69
6.37
15. 6
0.808
0.0474
ND
0.323
TOTAL NMHC
182
33.2
127
129
30.8
-------
TABLE 2-3. (Continued)
I
CT>
SAMPLE ID
LOCATION
COMPOUND EMISSION RATE
1,3-BUTADIENE
ACRYLOH1TRILE
BENZENE
TOLUENE
ETHYLBENZENE
P-XYLE»IE'M-XVLENE
STYRENE
0-XYLENE
ISOPROPYLBENZENE
N-PROPYLBENZENE
NAPHTHALENE
CHLOROMETHANE
VINYL CHLORIDE
1,1-DICHLOROETHYLENE
METHYLENE CHLORIDE
CHLOROFORM
1,1.1-TRICHLOROETHANE
CARBON TETRACHLORIDC
1,2-DICHLOROPROPANE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE
CHLOROBENZENE
P-OICHLOROBENZENE
1,1-DICHLOROETHANE
BENZYL CHLORIDE
1,2-DIBROMOETHANE
2-CHLOK"-l,S-BUTADIENE
TRICHLORETHYLENE
EPICHLOROHYPRIN
1,1,2,2-TETRACHLOROFTHANE
3-CHLORO-J-PR3PENE
ACETALDEHYOE
HETHYL ACETATE
ACROLEIM
PROPYLENE OXIDE
PARAFFINS
OLEFINS
TOTAL AROMATICS
TOTAL tIALOGENATED HC
TOTAL OXYGENATED HC
SULFUR SPECIES
UNIDENTIFIED VOC
A-10B
ERIO 16
(KG/DAY)
NO
ND
0.612
3.75
1.49
4.57
ND
1.87
0.451
1.15
0.11
NO
ND
ND
0.689
ND
4.1
ND
ND
8.86
ND
ND
1.234
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
25.4
12.4
28.4
18.1
0.0956
ND
0.47
A-105
GRID 20
IKG/DAY>
ND
ND
1.19
7.46
3.19
9.76
ND
4.12
1.02
2.67
0.284
ND
NO
ND
1.5
0.057
8. 82
ND
ND
18.7
ND
ND
NO
NO
ND
ND
NO
NO
ND
ND
NO
ND
NO
NO
53.3
25. 2
63.7
38.5
0.178
ND
2.79
MEAN (95X C
(KG/DAYI
0.711
6.16
2.?2
7.06
3.37
1.33
2.15
0.387
0.21
.OOlflS
.00269
1.28
0.148
4.fll
.00569
9.06
0.203
,001fl3
0.0364
55.3
20.5
50.3
20
0.194
O.A73
K0.001,
2.58.
1.36.
3.K9,
1.67,
0.34,
0.825,
10.0952*
U0.001,
UO.OOl,
K0.001,
KO.POl,
KO.OOli
«0.001 ,
1(0.001.
(e o.ooit
«0.001 ,
K0.001,
.1.)
1.66)
9.74>
4.C7)
10. 2)
S. OS)
2. "2)
3.47)
0.679)
O.SJf )
.00736)
0.0107)
3.59)
0.5.'?)
13.1)
0.0226)
IB. 4)
0.809)
.00727)
«0. 001,0.0984)
( 20.8,
< 9.74,
< 27,
«0.001,
(O.OR4?,
( 0.221,
K9.8)
31.2)
73.5)
46.3)
0.10M
1.5?)
A-101
GRID !•
(KG/DAY)
ND
NO
4.78
15.2
3.63
10.6
NO
3.77
0.835
1.43
0.406
1.49
0.0265
0.03R6
11.3
1.A6
40.7
ND
0.0815
45.9
2.92
0.0262
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
NO
ND
ND
69.9
24.5
61.4
131
0.336
MD
0.915
TOTAL NMHC
84.7
184
-------
TABLE 2-4. MEASURED SOIL CORE CONCENTRATIONS (}Jg/m ) FOR LANDFILL //I (06/26/84)
r-o
I
SAMPLE ID
LOCATION
COMPOUND CONCENTRATION
1.3-BUTADIENr
ACRYLONITR1LE
BENZENE
TOLUENE
ETHYLHENZENE
P-XYLENE/H-XYLENE
STYRENE
0-XYLENE
ISOPRO^YLBENZENE
H-PROPYLBENZENE
NAPHTHALENE
CHLORONETHANE
VINYL CHLORIDE
lil-OICHLOROETHYLENE
MF.THYLENE CHLORIDE
CHLOROFORM
It 1 .1-TRICHLOROETHANE
CARBON TETRACHLORIDE
lt2-DICHLOROPROPANE
TETR'CHLDROETHYLENE
CHLOR01ENZENE
P-OICHLOROBENZENE
1,1-DICHLOROETHANE
BENZYL CHLORIDE
lt2-OIBROMOETHANE
2-CHLORO-lt3-BUTADIENE
TRICHLORETHYLENE
EPKHLOROHYORIN
l,lt2.2-TF.TRACHLOROETHANE
3-CHLORO-J-PROPENE
ACETALOEHYDE
METHYL ACETATE
ACROLElN
PROPYLENE OXIDE
PARAFFINS
OLEFINS
TOTAL AROHATICS
TOTAL HALOGfNATED HC
TOTAL OXYGENATED HC
SULFUR SPECIES
UNIDENTIFIED VOC
U-10?
GRID 1
ND
HO
147
2200
300
592
MO
1000
104
184
ND
20700
ND
193
5160
59400
743000
ND
ND
66700
409
ND
178000
ND
WD
NO
ND
ND
ND
NO
ND
ND
HO
ND
17100
2570
11400
614000
300
ND
513
u-ioa
GRID 1
IUG/M..J)
ND
ND
ND
ND
NO
ND
NO
ND
ND
NO
NO
17200
ND
ND
69700
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
ND
ND
NO
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
NO
NO
ND
ND
ND
90.2
ND
577
96700
ND
NO
ND
U-I 03
GRID 6
(UG/M««3>
NO
NO
624
8410
2440
5300
NO
2620
744
1360
NO
1020
NO
ND
NO
NO
ND
41.7
ND
lf>3
ND
NO
NO
NO
ND
NO
ND
HD
ND
ND
NO
ND
NO
ND
93100
72100
37300
1670
3670
NO
9350
U-109
GRID 6
(UG/M..J)
ND
ND
NO
ND
ND
NO
NO
229
ND
NO
ND
8970
ND
ND
11500
MD
ND
ND
NO
NO
WD
NO
NO
ND
NO
ND
NO
NO
ND
NO
ND
NO
ND
ND
203
77.9
1POO
2H200
NO
ND
57.5
U-105
GRID 8
NO
ND
NO
ND
ND
ND
VO
221
NO
NO
NO
2040
NO
507
33700
1670
146000
ND
NO
66600
ND
NO
14000
NO
NO
ND
NO
NO
NO
NO
ND
NO
NO
NO
3570
80.3
978
669000
ND
NO
285
U-106
GRID 10
ND
ND
ND
MD
NO
ND
ND
ND
NO
ND
ND
4510
ND
ND
9?7
NO
ND
ND
NO
ND
NO
ND
ND
NO
ND
ND
NO
NO
NO
ND
ND
NO
ND
NO
1910
94.1
703
5440
106
ND
1 f-9
TOTAL 'IMHC
646000
99400
163000
29600
674000
8310
-------
TABLE 2-4. (Continued)
I
co
SAMPLE 10
LOCATION
C01POUND CONCENTRATION
l,3-«UTAOJFNr.
ACRYLONITRILE
BEM7ENE
TOLUENE
ETHYLBEN?ENE
P-XYLENE/M-XYLENE
STYRENf
0-XYLENr
ISOPROPYLHENZENE
N-PROPYLBENZENE
NAPHTHALENE
CHLOROMETHANE
VINYL CHLORIDE
1,1-niCHLOROETMYLENE
"ETHYLENE CHLORIDE
CHLOROFORM
1,1 , 1-TRT CHL OR OE THANE
CARBON TETRACHLORIOE
1,2-D1CHLOROPROPANE
TETRACHLQROETHYLENE
CHLOROSEMZrtJE
P-DICHLOROBENZENE
1,1-niCHLOROETHANE
BEN7YL CHtORJOE
1 ,2-nJBROMOETHANE
2-CHLORO-l,3-BUTADIENE
TRICHLOPETHYLENE
EPICMLOROHYDRIN
1.1.2 ,2-TETRACHLOROETHANE
S-CHLORO-l-PRO'ENE
ACETALOEHYDF
METHYL ACETATE
ACROLEIN
PROPYLCNE OXIPE
PAHAFFINS
OLEFINS
TOTAL AROMATICS
TOTAL HALOGEKATEO HC
TOTAL 1»YGEUA|CO HC
SULFUR SPECIES
IINIOENT IFIEO VUC
y-J07
GRID 16
(IIC/M..J)
Nn
NO
ND
no
«0
NO
NH
NO
NO
ND
ND
6760
ND
ND
ND
161
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
HO
ND
NO
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
NO
ND
232
23J
541
B920
ND
ND
NO
V-104
GR I P 20
UlG/M««3)
NO
ND
90400
203000
3520
91500
ND
MflOD
NO
?31PO
NO
26RO
ND
9270
1170000
(.3200
1710000
2100
6120
896000
17500
352
626000
ND
NO
ND
NO
NO
NO
NO
1540
•10
ND
ND
1520000
308000
563000
7150000
90400
MO
67510
MEAN
10600
25300
776
11400
4200
120
2860
7660
1170
151000
1W200
256000
249
712
129000
2340
4P.9
10*000
180
193000
1°300
7?600
10JOE3
11000
9130
(95X C.I.I
UG/«M«3)
«0.532« 34200)
«0.^l>, 77900)
«0.543» H00>
«0.*i**t 35100)
«0.543f 12*00)
«0.-S«6, 317)
«0.*46, 8850)
( 2030, 133(10)
« 1.96, 3570)
« 3.47«452DOO)
« 4.Bfl, 40500)
« ?.73.6')1000>
« 6.29, 796)
« 1.54, 2310)
»<• 3.39,359000)
«0.76P, 6690)
« 1 , 13?)
« 2.12,266000)
«0.902, 5A3)
«0.5(>n, 587000)
« 0.57*119000)
«O.MI,21ROOC>
« 1.64, 2660000)
«0.7«6, 3450PI
«0. 6?3, 26600)
U-101
GRID !•
-------
TABLE 2-5. SUMMARY OF LANDFILL PHYSICAL DATA
Parameter Value Comments
Soil temperature 26-36°C Range of surface tem-
perature encountered
Moisture
Bulk density (dry)
Specific gravity
Porosity
22.8%
1.51 gm/cm3
2.21 gm/cm3
31.7%
W103a
W103a
W103a
Calculated
1Sample ID for sample from which data were obtained
2-9
-------
representative of the landfill as a whole. It was observed that the un-
loading area was more moist in general than the spreading area.
The measured emission rates were compared to the results of the soil
core analyses in order to verify that the flux chamber was measuring emis-
sions from the landfill. Table 2-6 presents this comparison for each of the
individual gridpoints. Qualitatively, the flux chamber generally did detect
the volatile components in the soil. A quantitative comparison was made
based upon a comparison of mass transfer coefficients (i.e., emission
rate/concentration) implied from the comparison in Table 2-6. The tabulated
mass transfer coefficients are listed in Table 2-7 for each of the indivi-
dual gridpoints, the resulting averages (Method 1) and for the average
emission rate and core concentrations for the landfill (Method 2). No
attempt has been made to normalize the mass transfer coefficients for tem-
perature. A general agreement from gridpoint to gridpoint for an individual
compound would imply good inherent precision in the sampling and analytical
methods (i.e., flux chamber and soil cores). The physical reasonableness of
the 'values for the individual compound mass transfer coefficients would
imply that there is no large bias for the measurements of the specific
compounds .
2.2 MISCELLANEOUS SURFACE IMPOUNDMENTS
Liquid samples were obtained from the selected surface impoundments
within the facility. Grab samples were collected from one or two locations
in the impoundment, depending on the physical appearance of the surface.
While these samples may not necessarily be representative of the individual
impoundments as a whole, they can be used as an indication of the composi-
tion. Table 2-8 lists the results for samples from each of the impound-
ments.
2-10
-------
TABLE 2-6. COMPARISON OF MEASURED EMISSION RATES AND SOIL CORE CONCENTRATION FOR
LANDFILL //I (06/26/84)
NJ
H
GRID 1
GRID t
GRID ft
GRID 10
GRID 16
ER
COMPOUND . (UC./M2-SEC)
lt3-BUTADIEUE
ACRYLONITRILE
BENZENE
TOLUENE
ETHYLBENZENE
P-XYLENE'M-XYLENE
STYRENE
0-XYLENE
ISOPROPYLBENZENE
N-PR3PYLBENZENE
NAPHTHALENE
CHLOROMETHANF
VINYL CHLORIDE
1.1-DICHLOROETHYLENE
METHYLENE CHLORIDE
CHLOROFORM
Itl .1-TRICHLOROETHAME
CARBON TETRACHLORIDE
1,2-OICIiLOROPROPANE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE
CHLOROBENZENE
P-DICHLOROBENZENE
If 1-DICHLOROETHANE
BENZYL CHtORIOt
1,2-OIBROMOFTHANE
2-CHL OK 0-1. 5 -BUTADIENE
TMCHLORETHYLENE
EPICHLOROMYDRIN
1<1 ,2.2-IETRACHLOROETHANE
3-CHLORO-l-PROPENE
ACETALDFHYOE
METHYL ACETATE
ACROLEIN
PROPYLENE OXIDE
PARAFFINS
OLEFINS
TOTAL AROHATICS
TOTAL HALOGENATEO HC
TOTAL 1XYGENATLQ HC
SULFUR SPECIES
UNIOENTIFIEO VOC
NO
NO
O.U5
3.53
1.57
3. 69
NO
1.87
0.664
0.648
0.399
0.236
ND
NO
0.626
.0215
0.928
NO
ND
3.57
ND
ND
.0273
ND
Nf)
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
NO
NO
ND
ND
29
9.72
28.9
6.45
o.ioj
NT
0.454
CONC ER
(UG/H3) IUG/M2-SEC)
NO
ND
73.3
1100
ISO
296
ND
501
51.8
91.9
ND
1R900
NG
96.4
3740U
29700
121E3
ND
ND
33400
205
ND
H9100
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
NO
NO
NO
NO
ND
nn
R610
1290
5980
356EJ
150
ND
256
ND
ND
0.132
2.98
1.6
3.94
ND
2.11
0.8
1.62
0.191
ND
ND
ND
.0404
NO
0.172
ND
ND
1.86
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
NO
ND
NO
ND
ND
ND
ND
37.7
12.6
34.5
2.6
0.115
NO
0.96
CONC
(UG/H3
ND
NO
312
4200
1220
2650
ND
1420
372
680
ND
5000
ND
ND
P260
ND
ND
20.8
ND
91.7
ND
NO
NO
ND
NO
ND
ND
ND
ND
NO
NO
ND
ND
NO
46700
11100
19100
14900
1830
NO
4700
ER
/H2-SECJ
NO
NO
0.173
3.53
2.1
5.16
NO
2.71
1.14
1.96
0.11
ND
ND
ND
ND
.0245
B.207
NO
ND
1.56
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
NO
ND
ND
NO
NO
ND
NO
ND
35.6
14
37
2.42
8.129
ND
0.348
CONC ER
(UG/H3)
-------
TABLE 2-6. (Continued')
COMPOUND
1,3-3UTAD JENE
ACRYL3VITRILE
BENZENE
TOLUENE
ETHYLBENZENF
P-XYLENE/H-XYLENE
STYRENE
0-XYLENE
ISOPROPYLBENZENE
N-PROPYLBENZENL
NAPHTHALENE
CHLOROHETHANE
VINYL CHLORIDE
1,1-OtCHLOROETHYLENE
HETHYLENE CHLORIDE
CHLOKQFORM
1,1,1-TRlCHLOPOETllAME
CARBON TETRACHLORIDF
1,2-OICMLUROPRnPANE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE
CHLOROBENZENE
P-DICHLOROBENZENE
lil-OICHLOROETHANE
BEN7YL CHLORIDE
1,2-DIBROMOETHANE
2-CHLORO-l,3-BUTADIENE
TRICHLORETHYLFNE
EPICHLOROHYDRIN
It I •2i2-TETRACHLOROETHANE
3-CHLORO-l-PROPENE
ACETALDEHYDE
METHYL ACETATE
ACROLEIN
PROPYLENE OXIDE
PARAFFIMS
OLEFINS
T3TAL AROHATICS
TOTAL MAL06ENATEO HC
TOTAL OXYGENATED HC
SULFUR SPECIES
UNIDENTIFIED VOC
TOTAL NHHC
GRID
f g
L ™
IUG/M2-SEC)
NO
ND
0.828
5.18
2.21
6.77
ND
2.86
0.705
1.65
0. J97
ND
ND
ND
i. at
.0395
6.12
ND
NO
13
NO
ND
NO
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
NO
ND
NO
ND
ND
NO
37
17.5
44.2
26.7
0.123
ND
1.94
127
20
C ONC
(UG/M3)
ND
ND
10400
203E3
3520
91500
ND
31800
NO
23100
ND
2680
NO
9270
117E4
63200
171E4
2100
6120
898E3
17500
J52
626E3
ND
NO
ND
ND
NO
ND
ND
1540
ND
ND
ND
152E4
30BC3
563E3
715E4
90400
NO
67500
961E4
EMISSION PATf
C UG /H2 ~SEC I
MEAN (95* C.I.)
0.505 ND , 1.31)
3.58 1.26, 5.9)
1.57 0.928. 2.2)
4.26 2.4St 6.06)
1.95 1.16t 2.74)
0.647 0.31,0.984)
1.2 0.591, 1.B1I
0.18 .0664,0.293)
0.109 NO ,0.376)
.0013 NO ,0.006)
.0019 ND 1.0087)
0.889 ND t 2.83)
0.103 ND tO.429)
3.57 ND , 10.6)
.0039 NO ,.0183)
6.31 ND t 14.4)
0.141 NO ,0.655)
.0013 ND ».0059)
.0294 NO i. 0871)
28.7 16.4, 41.1)
11.5 7.25, 15.8)
29.9 lR.3f 41.5)
14.3 ND i 36.8)
0.105 .0563,0.153)
0.703 10.126, 1.2A)
85.1 ( 41.1, !?<>)
SOIL CONC
( U G / '1 3 )
MEAN C95X C.I.)
14100 ND ,46800)
32703 NO ,106E3)
806 NO , 2040)
14700 NO ,47600)
5290 ND ,16600)
87.5 ND t 232)
3700 -40 ,12000)
6500 672,12300)
1540 ND , 4860)
194E3 ND ,61IE3>
18500 ND ,43300)
318E3 ND |9|6E3>
321 NO . 1010)
949 NO , 3160)
164E3 ND ,480E3)
3010 NO , 9270)
54.6 ND , 1P2)
122E3 NO ,341E3)
240 1 ND , 798)
248E3 ND ,794E3)
50300 ND ,161E3>
92500 NO ,?94E3)
131E4 ND ,?82E4)
14400 ND ,46100)
11400 ( ND ,35500)
171E4 ( ND ,510E4)
GRID
E R
IUG/M2-SEC)
NO
ND
3.31
10.5
2.52
7.36
NO
2.61
0.679
0.993
0.282
1.03
.0184
.0267
7.85
1.29
28.2
NO
.0565
31.8
2.02
.0182
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
NO
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
40.4
17
42.6
90.5
0.233
ND
0.634
199
1 •
CONC
(UG/M3)
ND
ND
124
5770
696
959
NO
471
312
ND
ND
ND
NO
177
3690
54100
172E3
NO
ND
130E3
3790
ND
129E3
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
NO
NO
ND
ND
ND
25800
C710
13400
537E3
313
ND
989
5B3E3
-------
TABLE 2-7. SUMMARY OF CALCULATED MASS TRANSFER COEFFICIENT VALUES (M/SEC) FOR LANDFILL
//I (06/26/84)
NJ
I
COMPOUND
i . *
1,3-BUTADIENE
ACRYLONITRILE
BENZENE
TOLUENE
CTHYLBENZENE
P-XYLENE/H-XYLENE
STYRENE
0-XYLENE
ISOPROPYLBENZENE
N-PROPYLBCNZENE
NAPHTHALENE
CHLOROHETHANE
VINYL CHLORIDE
1,1-01 CHLOROCTHYLENE
METHYLENE CHLORIDE
CHLOROFORH
Itlil-TRICHLOROETHANE
CARBON TETRACHLORIOE
1,2-DICHLOKOPROPANE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE
CHLOROBENfENE
P-OICHLOROBENZENE
1,1-DICHLOROETHANE
BENZYL CHtORIOE
1,2-niBRClMOrTHANE
a-CHLOR
-------
TABLE 2-7. (Continued)
MFAN I95X C.I.)
NJ
I
COMPOUND
1,3 -BUTADIENE
ACRYLOMITRILE
BENZENE
TOLUENE
ETHYCBENZENE
P-XYLENE/M-XYLENE
STYRENE
0-XYLENE
IS3PROPYLBENZENE
N-PROPYLBEN2ENE
NAPHTHALENE
CHLORT1ETHANE
VINYL CHLORIDE
1, 1-OICHLOKOCTHYLENE
METHYLENE CHLORIDE
CHLOROFORM
1,1 ,1-TR1CHLOROET»ANE
CARBON TfTHACHLORIDE
•1,2-DICMLOROPROPANE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE
CHLOROBENZENE
P-91CHLOROBEHZENE
1,1-OICHL'OROETtlANE
BENZYL CHLORIDE
1,2-OlBRONOETHANE
2-CHLORO-l«3-BUTADIENE
TRICHL1RETHYLENE
EPICHLOROHYORIN
1,1 ,2,?-TETRACHLOROETHANE
3-CHLORO-I-PROPENE
ACET1LDEHTDE
METHYL ACETATE
ACROLEIN
PRIJPYLENE OXIDE
PARAFFINS
OLEFINS
TOTAL AROMATICS
TOTAIt HALOOENATED HC
TOTAL OXYGENATED HC
SULFUR SPECIES
IINIOENTIFICn VOC
TOTAL' N1HC
H
.00*3
.0014
.0041
.0051
.0043
O.OOB
.0019
12F-6
.0002
.0002
77E-7
2SE-6
.0046
.0009
ME-8
.0147
.0416
.0148
.0005
.0003
.0009
.0015
ETHOO 1
-.007i0.016>
-4E-4,.0031»
-.002, .0097)
-.002, .01?! )
-7E-4t.0097)
-.005, .0215)
-.001,0.0121
I-3E-4, 0.001)
(-4E-6.19E-6)
l-SE-5»97E-6)
(-.005, .0143)
l-.012t.D411>
(-.018, 0.101)
(-6E-4..0303)
«-2r-4,.0008>
I-2E-5..0007)
(.0002, .00161
(-5E-4,.0016>
t
36E-6
.0001
.0019
.0003
.0004
.0074
.0003
17E-6
I2E-7
46E-7
56E-7
11E-6
41E-7
JBE-f,
47E-£
23E-6
24E-«
.0001
.000?
.0003
11E-6
73E-7
62E-f.
SOE-6
ETHOD 2
-1E-4,.0002)
-2E-4,.0004>
-.00?, 0.0 Oft)
-&E-4,.0011)
-5E-4,.0013)
-.015, 0.03)
-1E-3..0016)
l-lE-5,21E-t>
<-2E-5,31E-6>
<-3E-5,51E-6»
(-6E-5,.0001)
-lE-4i .0004)
-3E-4,.OF07)
-404,0.001)
-2E-5.S8E-B)
-!E-5,?6E-6)
<-9E-S,.000?>
i-5E-5,.onn2)
A
GRID 1
ND
VO
.02*7
.0018
.0036
.0077
ND
.0095
.0018
ND
NO
ND
NO
.0002
.0021
24E-6
.0002
HO
ND
.0002
.0005
NO
NO
NO
NO
ND
NO
NO
ND
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
.0019
.0025
.009?
.0002
.0007
ND
.0006
.0003
ND - COMPOUND WAS NOT DETECTED IN CITHER THE AMBIENT SAMPLE OR THE SOIL SAMPLE.
-------
TABLE 2-8. MEASURED CONCENTRATIONS (mg/L) OF LIQUID SAMPLES FROM MISCELLANEOUS
SURFACE IMPOUNDMENTS (06/25/84)
to
I
Ul
SAMPLE ID
LOCATION
C01PDUHD CONCENTRATION
Ill-Bill ADUNE
ACRYLOMITRUE
BENZENE
TOLUENE
ETHYLBENZENE
P-XYLENT/M-XYLENE
STYRENE
0-XYLENE
ISOPHIPtLBFNZENE
M-PROPYLBEHZENE
NAPHTHALENE
CHLOROMETHANE
VINYL CHLORIHE
Itl-DICMLPROETHYLENE
HF.THYLENE CHLORIDE
CHLOROFORM
lilil-TRICHLOROETMANE
CAHRDN TCTRACHLORIDE
lt2-DICHLOROPROPANE
TETRACHLQROETHYLENE
CHLOROBENZfNr
P-OKHLOR1BFNZENE
lil-OICHLOROETHANE
BENZYL CHLORinE
lt?-D1BROMOrTHANl
2-CHLORO-lf3-BUTA01ENE
TR1CHLCIRETMYLENE
rPICHLTROHYORIN
Itl |2 tZ-TETRACHLOROETHANC
3-CHLORO-l-PROPENE
ACETALnEHYOr
METHYL ACETATE
ACROLE1N
PROPYLENE OXIOE
PAR AFFINS
OLEFINS
TOTAL AROMATICS
TOTAL HALOGENATED HC
TOTAL OXYGENATED HC
SULFUR SPECIES
UNIDENTIFIED VOC
TOTAL NMHC
EPA-L-IOI
s-ie
(HS/L)
NO
NO
D.l-55
0.603
ND
0.353
ND
0.136
ND
MO
NO
0.1*3
ND
NO
0.761
ND
0.0?16
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
NO
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
NO
ND
ND
1.H2
0.204
1.54
0.9*1
6. 53
ND
0.227
4.76
FPA-L-102
S-17
(MG/L)
NO
ND
MO
0.137
ND
0.1 IB
0.1-57
0.051
ND
ND
0.0527
0.225
0.0516
NO
6.65
0.612
ND
ND
ND
NO
0.0701
ND
ND
ND
NO
ND
NO
NO
NO
ND
NO
ND
ND
ND
9.01
0.?57
0.6C3
7.K1
ND
ND
0.632
18.4
EPA-L-105
S-2?
IMG/L)
NO
ND
ND
0.166
ND
ND
NO
ND
MO
ND
ND
0.438
0.313
ND
1.15
ND
ND
NO
ND
ND
NO
ND
ND
ND
ND
HO
ND
NO
NO
NO
ND
ND
NO
ND
11
0.6211
0.166
3
0.781
ND
3.49
lfl.3 •
EPA-L-104
S-19
«M«;/L)
ND
NO
0.0275
0.0494
0.225
0.305
NO
ND
0.269
ND
0.0311
0.0322
ND
ND
0.0906
(.00995
WD
ND
NO
ND
ND
ND
ND
NO
NO
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
NO
ND
NO
(.44
!.•»
l.?9
0.14°
2.75
ND
0.475
10.3
EPA-L-105
S-19A
• M'S/L*
ND
NO
0.0509
0.0774
Ml
ND
NO
ND
ND
MO
NO
0.288
ND
3.17
0.884
NO
ND
ND
ND
ND
NO
NO
NO
N9
ND
NO
ND
ND
NO
NO
NO
ND
ND
ND
IP. 6
2.17
0.12B
4.41
1.92
«ID
3.59
20."
EPA-L-106
S-20
»MI?/L>
NO
NO
NO
0.0169
.00752
0.0232
NO
NO
MO
NO
ND
3.52
0.354
0.0107
0.22R
ND
0.074
NO
ND
NO
NO
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
NO
NO
NO
NO
ND
2.79
ND
O.OPB
4.63
0.214
ND
0.4R3
H.l"
EPA-L-107
S-U
(MR /LI
ND
NO
.002"?
.0«7?5
.0064?
0.0251
ND
.00929
»'D
MO
ND
0.0141
MO
MO
0.313
NO
NO
«D
ND
NO
NO
ND
VD
ND
ND
NO
ND
WD
ND
ND
NO
ND
ND
ND
0.1C3
0.0297
0.046
?.16
0.33H
MD
0.1»7
?.53
CPA-L-U?
S-HA
(»G/L>
ND
•11
ND
0.0214
0.022
0.1122
•JO
ND
ND
«4P
0.0213
n.37j
0.0431
«40
0.331
0.0713
MO
MO
ND
<. 00691
ND
NO
N!>
NO
NO
NO
ND
NO
ND
NO
ND
NO
ND
MO
0.794
0.30H
n.l-i5
P.fl?.2
NO
ND
O.f-17
?.&•»
NOTE: MG/L is EQUIVALENT TO PPM ASSUMING A DENSITY IF i GM/HL.
-------
TABLE 2-8. (Continued)
NJ
I
| SAMPLE IP
j LOCATION
COMPOUND 1 CONCENTRATION
. __!_
It 3 -BUTADIENE
ACRYLOMITRILE
BENZENE
TOLUENE
ETHYLBENZrNE
P-XYLENE/M-XYLENE
STYRENE
0-XYLENE
ISOPROPYLBFNZENE
N-PROPYLBENZENE
NAPHTHALENE
CHLOR01ETHANE
VINYL CHLORIDE
1,1-OJCHLORQfTMYLENE
1ETHYLE*E CHLORIDE
CHLOROFORM
1 il il-TRICHLOROET»>ANE
CARBON TrtRACHLORIDE
1,2-DICI'LOROPRO»ANE
TETBACHLOROETHYLENE
CHLOROBEMZENE
P-OICMLOROBENZENE
IiI-OlCHLOROFTHANE
BENZYL CHLORIDE
1|2-OIBROMOFTHANE
2-rHLORO-ltl-9UTADIENE
TRICHLJRETHYLfNE
CPICHLOROHYORIN
1»1,2,2-TETRICHLOROETHANE
A-CHLORn-1-PROPENE
ACETALOEHYDE
METHYL ACETATE
ACROLETN
PHOPYLENE OXIDE
PARAFFINS
OLEFINS
TOTAL AROHATICS
TOTAL HALOGENATED HC
TOTAL 1YYGENATED HC
SULFUR SPFCIFS
UNIDENTIFIED VOC
TOTAL NMMC
EPA-L-lOfl
S-6C
IH5/L)
NO
ND
NO
O.llj
0.0878
NO
0.0391
ND
NO
0.0115
NO
NO
NO
NO
0.664
ttn
O.OTIS
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
ND
WD
ND
ND
ND
ND
MD
NO
ND
ND
0.358
0.016
0.362
1.07
1.04
NO
1.155
l."»6
EPA-L-101
S-6B
MO
ND
0.049?
0.0594
0.01)*)
0.0404
.00902
ND
NO
ND
.00901
NO
ND
ND
0.465
NO
0.0912
NO
NO
NO
ND
ND
NO
NO
ND
MD
NO
ND
ND
NO
ND
NO
MO
ND
0.46A
0.119
0.253
0.586
l.t.5
NO
1.07
3.49
EPA-L-110
S-1A
(HO/L)
ND
ND
NO
0.0345
0.0658
0.0134
MD
MD
ND
MD
ND
0.425
ND
ND
0.236
ND
<. 00556
ND
NO
ND
ND
NO
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
•JO
ND
•ND
2. 68
0.187
0.194
Imf 7
0.324
un
I.fl2
6.56
EPA-L-111
S-7
IHG/L)
ND
ND
.00387
.OOH78
0.0133
MD
MO
ND
MD
NO
ND
0.61
ND
NO
0.627
ND
ND
MD
NO
<. 00691
MD
NO
ND
ND
NO
ND
NO
NO
ND
NO
MD
NO
WO
MO
0.531
.00666
0.0259
1.24
0.2R4
MO
0.0104
l."l
EPA-L-113
S-17
(M>-,/L)
0.0051
ND
ND
0.257
1.15
(ID
0.04?9
NCI
ND
0.0224
NO
0.0226
N9
M3
0.707
(.00595
0.247
NO
0.01R3
0.0206
NT
NO
0.0179
NO
VD
MO
ND
ND
NO
NO
NO
MO
MO
NO
0.7J9
0.108
1.54
1.16
0.611
NO
0.0358
3.58
NOTE: HG/L is EQUIVALENT TO PPH ASSUMING A DENSITY IF i GM/HL.
-------
SECTION 3
PROCESS DESCRIPTION
The following section details the treatment, storage, and disposal
facilities found at the IT facility. Each operation type is discussed
separately. A general plot plan of the facility is shown in Figure 3-1.
3.1 PROCESS DESCRIPTION
3.1.1 Landfill
The open landfill covers approximately 17,000 square meters and is
contained within the confines of the natural topography and an earthern
embankment. No liner is used because of the low permeability of the natural
soil (clay). The landfill does not include any type of leachate collection
system, nor any gas ventilation. This landfill has been worked for approxi-
mately four years. One more lift is planned for the landfill before closing
it. The landfill accepts only hazardous waste, primarily inorganic pig-
ments, solids such as organic contaminated soils, and organic sludges. No
liquids are accepted into th.e landfill, and no fixation is performed. Any
drums that are received are crushed prior to placement into the landfill.
Material is unloaded in the north corner and spread over the surface by
bulldozers. Compactors then go over the waste surface, prior to additional
waste being spread. Periodically dirt is brought in to be mixed with the
waste being spread, but no attempt is made to cover the landfill on a daily
basis. Activity at the landfill is on an as-needed basis.
3-1
-------
1" - 574'
Figure 3-1. Facility plot plan,
3-2
-------
3.1.2 Surface Impoundments
The receiving pond (17) covers approximately 2 acres by 15 feet deep
and accepts oily materials. No chlorinated organics, or organic wastes with
concentrations of volatile organic compounds greater than 300 ppm TNMHC, are
accepted into the pond. All incoming wastes are tested prior to being
processed. Pond 17 also receives run-off from the washing out of trucks
bringing waste to the site. At the time of the site visit, 50% of the
surface of pond 17 was sludge. The remaining liquid surface had a visible
oily layer. A second pond (18) also receives organic wastes. This pond is
approximately an acre in size and 10 feet deep.
Ponds-0, P, and Q are used to store TiC^ sludges. These sludge ponds
are cleaned on a regular basis, while the other ponds are cleaned on an as-
needed basis.
3.1.3 Sludge Drying Area
The sludge drying area (13A) covers 1.5-2 acres. The sludges applied
to this area include wastes from the facility ponds and wastes from other
generators. Application of sludges to this area is not conducted on a
routine basis. At the time of the site visit, there was no activity in this
area, and apparently there had not been any for some time.
3.2 WASTE CHARACTERIZATION
IT Corporation accepts a variety of hazardous waste at this facility.
Tables 3-1 and 3-2 provide a listing of the waste materials received at this
site during the month of June 1984 (i.e., June 1 through 26, 1984.)
3-3
-------
TABLE 3-1. WASTE MATERIAL RECEIVED AT LANDFILL #1 DURING JUNE 1984
Waste Description
Quantity Received
(cubic yards)
Solvent/organic contaminated solids
Sulfurous wastes and sludges
Oily wastes
Metal contaminated sludges and solids
SDA tar
Lead and organic contaminated soil
Drilling muds
Beehives contaminated with Vapona and Dursban
Acidic wastes (solids)
Coke wastes
Figment dust and associated solids
Contaminated filters
FCB contaminated solids
Alkaline wastes (solids)
Pesticide contaminated solids
Asbestos contaminated solids
Hydrogen sulfide cylinder
3318
1778
1774
1266
532
462
265
145
77
64
40
31
22
20
16
1
1
TABLE 3-2. WASTE MATERIAL RECEIVED BY VARIOUS TREATMENT, STORAGE,
OR DISPOSAL PROCESSES DURING JUNE 1984
TSD Process
Landfill #2
Pond #4
Pond #8
Pond #10
Pond #17
Waste Description
Drilling mud
Metal contaminated solids
Oily wastes
Metal contaminated wastewater
Oily wastes
Sludges
Sulfur /vanadium wastes
Metal contaminated wastes
PCB contaminated wastes
Quantity Received
10 yd3
20 yd3
240 bbl
10,133 bbl
12,155 bbl
6,618 bbl
580 bbl
34 bbl
28 bbl
3-4
-------
SECTION 4
SAMPLING LOCATIONS
The following section presents the location of sampling activities at
the TSDF. Included are schematic diagrams showing the emission sources and
sampling grids, the rationale for the sampling point selections, and any
statements necessary to qualify or limit the results. The presentation has
been organized by source.
4.1 ACTIVE LANDFILL #1
The active, or open, landfill is shown in Figure 4-1. The sampling
grid was established over the eastern side of the landfill and included
approximately 93% of the total exposed area. The western side of the land-
fill was only sampled at one, non—randomly selected point due to the ex-
tremely moist sampling surface and the relatively small surface area of this
side. Figure 4-1 shows the location of the sampling points. Sampling
points within the grid were randomly selected. The area appeared to be
homogeneous. The sampling locations are thought to be representative of the
landfill as a whole. At each point, emission measurements were made using
the flux chamber and soil core samples collected.
4.2 RETENTION PONDS
The site includes a number of surface impoundments situated in a cas-
cading fashion in the site's hills. Single grab samples were collected near
the bank at each pond where sampling was feasible. Samples may not neces-
sarily be representative of the average composition for each pond.
4-1
-------
I
M
N
Waste
1* denotes non-random sampling location
XXX denotes truck dumping areas
// denotes direction of wautu spreading
Approximate exposed surface urea of landfill: 215,000 ft
Area of grldded area: 200,000 ft2
Q^) Denotes sampling point
2
Grid System
Drawing not to scale
Figure 4-1. Diagram of active landfill //I-
-------
The ponds sampled at Site #8 were:
• 1A • 17
• 6B • 18
• 6C • 19
• 7 • 19A
• 11 • 20
• 11A • 22
4-3
-------
SECTION 5
SAMPLING AND ANALYTICAL PROCEDURES
This section describes those procedures used for sample collection and
analysis. Included are discussions of air emission measurement approaches,
air, solid and liquid sampling and analytical techniques.
5.1 AIR EMISSION MEASUREMENTS
Air emission measurements were made using two approaches, specifically:
emission isolation flux chamber and mass balance. These approaches are
described below, and should be differentiated from the sampling and analyti-
cal techniques used to collect and/or analyze the samples. The sampling and
analytical techniques associated with these approaches are described in
Sections 5.2, 5.3 and 5.6.
5.1.1 Emission Isolation Flux Chamber
The emission isolation flux chamber is a device used to make a direct
emission measurement. The enclosure approach has been used by researchers
to measure emission fluxes of sulfur and volatile organic species. ' '
The approach uses an enclosure device (flux chamber) to sample gaseous
emissions from a defined surface area. Clean, dry, sweep air is added to
the chamber at a fixed controlled rate. The volumetric flow rate of sweep
air through the chamber is recorded and the concentration of the species of
interest is measured at the exit of the chamber. The emission rate is
expressed as:
Ei = Ci.R/A (Equation 1)
5-1
-------
where ,
E^ = emission rate of component i, yg/m -sec
C^ = concentration of component i in the air flowing from the chamber,
o
R = flow rate of air through the chamber, m /sec
o
A = surface area enclosed by the chamber, m
All parameters in Equation 1 are measured directly.
A diagram of the flux chamber apparatus used for measuring emission
rates is shown in Figure 5—1. The sampling equipment consists of a stain-
less steel/acrylic chamber with impeller, ultra high purity sweep air and
rotameter for measuring flow into the chamber, and a sampling manifold for
monitoring and/or collection of the specie(s) of interest. Concentrations
of total hydrocarbons are monitored continuously in the chamber outlet gas
stream using portable flame ionization detector (FIB)- and/or photoioniza-
tion detector (PID)-based analyzers. Samples are collected for subsequent
gas chromatographic (GC) analysis once a steady-state emission rate is
obtained. Air and soil/liquid temperatures are measured using a thermo-
couple.
To determine the emission rate for a source of much greater area than
that isolated by the flux chamber, a sufficient number of measurements must
be taken at different locations to provide statistical confidence limits for
the mean emission rate. The area sources measured were gridded and a mini-
mum of six (6) measurements made (when possible) to account for spatial
variability. Additionally, a single point was selected as a control point
to define temporal variability. On-site GC analyses were performed for all
flux chamber measurements and canister samples were collected for each area
to allow off-site, detailed GC analysis. Prior to using the chamber, blank
and species recovery data were obtained.
5-2
-------
Oi
I
u>
TEMPERATURE
READOUT
SAMPLE COLLECTION
AND/OR ANALYSIS
FLOWMETER
5 Ipm
CARRIER
GAS
\
ON/OFF FLOW
CONTROL
GRAB SAMPLE
PORT
PLEXIGLASS
DOME
STAINLESS
STEEL COLLAR
Figure 5-1. Cutaway side view of emission isolation flux chamber and sampling apparatus.
-------
5.2 AIR SAMPLE COLLECTION
Two methods were used to collect air samples for analysis during the
sampling discussed above. A gas tight syringe was used to collect gas
samples for analysis on site using a gas cbromatograph (GC) and evacuated
stainless steel canisters were used to collect gas samples to be shipped to
Radian's Austin laboratories for detailed GC analysis. The gas tight
syringes were 100 cc volume, constructed of glass and teflon, and protected
from sunlight. Gas aliquots were taken from the syringe for injection into
the on-site GC (Section 5.5.2).
The stainless steel canisters were cleaned and evacuated in Radian's
Austin, Texas laboratories and sent to the field. The canister sampling
system included a sintered stainless steel filter to protect the system from
suspended particulate matter and a vacuum flow regulator to provide a con-
stant sampling rate over the 20-minute sampling periods. Following sample
collection, the canisters were shipped back to Radian's laboratories. The
canisters were pressurized to 10-15 psig with UHP nitrogen to provide posi-
tive pressure for removing the sample for analysis and to dilute oxygen and
moisture in the sample to minimize sample component reactions. Canister
dilution is calculated from the absolute pressure before and after sample
collection, and after addition of UHP N2.
5.3 LIQUID SAMPLE COLLECTION
Liquid samples were taken from surface impoundments for volatile or-
ganic analysis (VOA) using the purge and trap technique (Section 5.5.3).
Samples were collected following the guidelines outlined in ASTM D3370,
"Standard Practices for Sampling Water." Samples were collected in glass
VOA vials with teflon-lined caps. The VOA vials were filled to the brim and
capped. Samples were stored at reduced temperatures prior to analysis.
5-4
-------
5.4 SOIL SAMPLE COLLECTION
Soil samples were collected for volatile organic analysis using a
headspace technique (Section 5.5.3). Samples were collected with a thin
wall, brass core sampler. The sampler (Figure 5-2) was driven or pressed
into the soil surface far enough to fill the sampler, but not compress the
soil core. The sampler was then removed and the ends capped. Samples were
stored at ambient temperatures prior to analysis.
Bulk soil samples were also collected for measurement of moisture
content and specific gravity. These samples were typically composites ob-
tained using an open-blade type auger. Samples were placed in glass jars
and sealed to prevent moisture loss.
5.5 ANALYTICAL TECHNIQUES
The analytical techniques used on site are discussed in Sections 5.5.1
and 5.5.2 while the off-site analytical techniques are discussed in Sections
5.5.3 and 5.5.4. A mobile laboratory served as a base of operation during
field testing.
5.5.1 Real-Time Monitors
Real-time continuous monitors were used on site to determine general
levels of THCs and to indicate the point in time at which gas syringe and
gas canister samples should be collected. For example, the instruments were
used to determine when steady-state conditions had been reached during flux
chamber measurements, and to survey potential sampling points at the drum
storage and handling area. The following monitors were available during the
field tests: HNU Model PI-lOls, Century System Model OVA-108s, and AIL,
Inc. Model 580. Performance data on the monitors are summarized in Table
5-1.
5-5
-------
-WING NUT
END CAP
1/4" SWAGELOK
FITTING
SCREENS
THREADED ROD
i BRASS CORE SLEEVE*
-CAP
•LOCK WASHER
TEFLON RING
TEFLON CAP LINER
Figure 5-2. Soil core sample sleeve.
-------
TABLE 5-1. DESCRIPTION OF PORTABLE THC MONITORS
END
Model PI 101
Century System
OVA-108
Analytical Instrument
Development, Inc .
OVM-580
Technique
Precision
Photoionization
+F.S.
GC/FID
+10 for standard
Photoionization
+F.S.
Sensitivity
Response Time
Range
Power Supply
Service Life
(continuous
use/charge)
Weight
0.1 ppmv
<5 sec
0.1-2000 ppmv
DC
10 hrs
8 Ibs
analyses
1 ppmv (methane)
2 sec
1-10,000 ppmv
1-100,000 ppmv
logarithmic
DC
8 hrs
14 Ibs
0.1 ppm (benzene)
2 sec
0-200 ppm
AC/DC
8 hrs
8.2 Ibs
5-7
-------
5.5.2 On-Site Gas Chromatographs
The HNU field portable GC-FID/PID was used to provide rudimentary
speciation data and total hydrocarbon data on air samples (syringe) col-
lected during flux chamber measurements. The GC was operated in an isother-
mal mode with a 20% SP-2100/0.1% CW1500 column. Quantitation was based on
standards of benzene in hydrocarbon-free air. Retention times were gener-
ated from a multicomponent standard. Instrument conditions are summarized
in Table 5-2.
5.5.3 Off-Site Gas Chromatographs
All gas canister samples and selected solid and liquid samples were
analzyed in Radian's Austin laboratories for £2^10 hydrocarbon species
using a Varian Model 3700 gas chromatograph. Sample analysis involved
cryogenic concentration, gas chromatographic separation, detection by mul-
tiple detectors,-and data evaluation. The use of multiple detectors pro-
vided species-specific response for halogenated compounds (Hall Electrolytic
Conductivity Detector - HECD), unsaturated compounds (photoionization detec-
tor - PID), and hydrocarbon species in general (flame ionization detector -
FID) . The liquid samples were analyzed using a purge and trap technique
modified to integrate with the cryogenic concentration. The solid samples
were analyzed using a headspace technique with direct syringe injection.
Speciation was based upon retention times relative to toluene, toluene
normalized response factors, and specific halogenated standards. VOCs were
quantitated against propane and hexane standards and reported as ppbv-C and
mass concentrations of the compound based upon molecular weight. Utiliza-
tion of this gas chromatography system with multiple detectors has been
Q
previously described. A diagram of the system is shown in Figure 5-3
and the operating conditions are listed in Table 5-3.
5-8
-------
TABLE 5-2. INSTRUMENT CONDITIONS FOR ON-SITE GAS CHROMATOGRAPH
Instrument: HNU Model 301 equipped with flame ionization and photo-
ionization detectors
Injection System: Gas-tight syringe injection (1.0 ml) into a heated inlet
GC Column: 6' x 1/8" O.D. stainless steel packed with 20% SP-2100/0.1Z
CW 1500 on 100/120 mesh Supelcoport
Carrier Gas: Zero grade N- at 40 mL/min
Temperature Program: Isothermal at 100°C
Data System: HP 3390A plotting integrator
5-9
-------
t_n
I
Figure 5-3. Block diagram of the gas chromatography system.
-------
TABLE 5-3. INSTRUMENT CONDITIONS FOR GC-FID/PID-HECD ANALYSES
Injection System: Cryogenic focusing type with heat-traced (60°C) stainless
steel transfer lines and valving
Sample Dryer: 40" x 1/8" O.D. single tube Perma Pure®
Purge Gas: UHP air at 1 L/min
Sample Flow Rate: 100 mL/min
Cryogenic Trap: 6" x 1/8" O.D. stainless steel loop packed with 80/100
mesh glass beads
Trapping Temperature: -186°C (liquid Oj)
Desorption Temperature: Boiling water to 90°C; heating cartridge to
180°C
Samp IP Volume Determination: Pressure differential in vacuum reservoir
plumbed to cryotrap outlet; Wallace and
Tiernan high-precision vacuum' gauge
Chromatographic System: Varian 3700 capillary chromatograph with flame
.ionization, photoionization, and Hall Electrolytic
Conductivity detectors
Analytical Column: 2-60 m x 0.35 mm I.D. SE-30 wide bore fused silica
capillary
Carrier Gas: UHP He at 2 mL/min; 19 psig head pressure
Effluent Splitter: SCE 0.22 mm I.D. fused silica
PID/FID Split Ratio: 75/25
Oven Program: -50°C for 2 min to 100°C at 6°C/min; 100°C until elution
completed
FID: Varian
Detector Gases: Hj at 30 mL/min; air at 300 mL/min
Makeup Gas: UHP N2 at 30 mL/min
PID: HNU Model 52
Lamp: UV; 10 eV
Detector Temperature: 225°C
Makeup Gas: UHP N2 at 30 mL/min
HECD: Tracer Model 700A Reactor Temperature: 900°C
Halogen Mode Electrolyte Flow Rate: 0.9 mL/min
Data System: Plotting integrator type with computer interface
Peak Integration and Plotting: Varian Vista 401
Peak Identification and Data Reduction: Apple II Plus microcomputer
with Radian-developed software
5-11
-------
5.5.4 Gas Chromatograph/Mass Spectrometry
The identity of the major compounds observed in the samples were con-
firmed by GC-MS using a protocol similar to that used for the GC-FID/PID/
HECD analysis. A limited number of samples were selected for GC-MS analysis
based upon their representativeness following GC analysis. The operating
conditions of the GC-MS are summarized in Table 5-4.
5-12
-------
TABLE 5-4. GC-MS CONDITIONS FOR ANALYSIS OF GAS CANISTER SAMPLES
GC-MS Conditions
Instrument
lonization voltage
Scan rate
Scan range
Column
Initial temperature
Program rate
Final temperature
Interface
HP 5982
70 eV
1 scan/1.5 sec
36-300 ami
60-meter DB-5 fused silica
wide bore, thick film
-50 °C
6°/min
150 °C
Open split
•5-13
-------
SECTION 6
DATA QUALITY
There is always some amount of uncertainty associated with any measure-
ment data due to inherent limitations of the system used to make the mea-
surements . The usefulness of the measurement data is dependent to some
extent upon the degree to which the magnitude of this uncertainty is known
and upon its relative impact. The TSDF testing described in this report
included a quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC) program. The objec-
tives of the QA/QC efforts were twofold. First, they provided the mechanism
for controlling data quality within acceptable limits. Second, they form
the basis for estimates of uncertainty by providing the necessary informa-
tion for defining error limits associated with the measurement data.
The quality control part of the QA/QC effort consisted of numerous
procedures designed to provide ongoing checks of the primary components of
the various measurement systems. Examples of these procedures include
instrument calibration checks (single points) linearity checks (i.e., multi-
point calibrations), control standard analyses, blanks (see Appendix H) and
duplicate samples and analyses (see Appendix I). These procedures, along
with required frequencies and acceptance criteria for each QC check, are
described in detail in the Test Plan/Quality Assurance Project Plan prepared
for this field test.
The evaluative part of the QA/QC effort was designed to provide a basis
for quantitative estimates of uncertainty in the measurement data. Uncer-
»
tainty estimates for individual measurements, such as the concentration of a
particular class of VOC compounds, for example, provided the basis for
estimates of overall uncertainty in the approaches for measuring emission
rates and/or concentrations. Independent QA audits were not performed as
6-1
-------
part of the sampling and analysis effort for this site. As such, no speci-
fic comments have been made concerning the accuracy of the measurements.
Recovery tests were run using methane for the flux chamber system. The
average recovery for the flux chamber measurement procedure was 95%. This
is consistent with prior experience. Those results are included in Appen-
dix G. Appendix H presents blank values for both the sampling and analyti-
cal systems.
Uncertainty estimates should be viewed as the uncertainty involved in
making a single measurement. As such, they can be compared to the overall
uncertainty of a group of field measurements to determine if the variability
is predominantly due to the method or temporal/spatial fluctuations. The
overall variability should be equal to or greater than the estimated sam-
pling and analytical variability. The degree to which it is greater indi-
cates the significance of temporal/spatial variations in the set of field
measurement.
The variability reported in this section has been expressed as a coef-
ficient of variation (C.V.) which is defined as:
S
C.V. = x x 10°
where, S is the standard deviation and X is the mean of the individual
measurements.
The results presented in Section 2 include 95% confidence intervals for
mean emission rates and concentrations. The 95% confidence interval is
estimated by:
X +tS/
6-2
-------
where, n is the number of measurements used to compute the average, X, and
standard deviation, S, and t is a tabled statistical value (0.025 confidence
level, n-1 degrees of freedom; when n is greater than 10, t approaches 2).
A comparison can then be made between the estimate of precision, C.V.,
and the 95% confidence interval where the 95% confidence interval is com-
puted using the C.V.:
/C.V. x X\
x± t
6.1 MEASUREMENT VARIABILITY
With any measurement effort, a primary data quality consideration is
measurement variability, or precision. For this program, duplicate samples
and/or analyses were used to quantitate sampling and analytical variability
for the various measurement parameters and techniques (see Appendix I). In
order to increase the representativeness of these estimates of variability,
results for this site were pooled with the results from field tests per-
formed by the same field crew, with the same equipment and during the same
time frame. The resulting precision estimates represent the amount of
variability which was due to random error in the samp ling /analytical pro-
cess, independent of actual variability in the parameter measured.
6.1.1 Flux Chamber Measurements
Flux chambers were used to make direct emission measurements (see
Section 5.1.1). Two sampling/analytical techniques were used in this mea-
surement approach. One technique consisted of collecting samples in eva-
cuated stainless steel canisters which were then returned to Austin for GC
analysis. The other technique involved collecting samples in a gas syringe
for on-site analysis by GC . Duplicate flux chamber samples were collected
using both the canister (2 sets) and syringe (4 sets) sampling techniques.
6-3
-------
Syringe samples collected during the program were analyzed in duplicate
(i.e., duplicate analyses of a single sample). Results for duplicate
analyses (32 sets) were used to estimate analytical precision for the on-
site GC analyses. Results for duplicate samples (6 sets) were used to
estimate overall sampling and analytical variability of the VOC concentra-
tion measurements associated with the flux chamber technique. Precision
estimates are summarized in Table 6-1.
The precision estimates shown in Table 6-1 are expressed in terms of
pooled (i.e., "average") coefficients of variation for duplicate samples and
duplicate analyses. The coefficient of variation represents the standard
deviation of the measured values expressed as a percentage of the mean. Two
estimates are presented for each class of compounds. One is for species in
each class (e.g., paraffin species), and represents the pooled CV for indi-
vidual compounds in that class. The other estimate represents the preci-
sion, or variability, for class totals (e.g., total paraffins).
Similar estimates of precision for flux chamber canister samples (4
sets) are also presented in Table 6-2.
Additionally, an estimate of the emission rate variability was made
based on a Monte Carlo simulation. Values were input to the emission rate
equation using typical magnitudes and uncertainties. Table 6-3 lists the
values assumed. The values of the VOC concentrations and variabilities are
those listed above. Two hundred trial calculations were made of the emis-
sion rate allowing the input values to vary within the assigned range. The
calculated emission rates were then used to determine the uncertainty of the
measured emission rate. These results are summarized in Tables 6-4 and 6-5
for flux chamber emission rates calculated using gas syringe samples and gas
canister samples, respectively.
6-4
-------
TABLE 6-1. PRECISION ESTIMATES FOR FLUX CHAMBER/GAS SYRINGE
SAMPLE RESULTS
Mean Sampling Plus
Hydrocarbon Classa Cone, (mg/nr) Analytical53 Analytical0
(CV, 2) (CV, 2)
Paraffin Species
Total Paraffins
Olefin Species
Total Olefins
Aromatic Species
Total Aromatics
Halogenated HC Species
Total Halogenated HC
All Species6
Total NMHCe
24.3
59.2
50.5
71.2
10.4
10.4
35.0
35.0
33.1
218
55.6
53.2
27. 2d
67. 4d
-
-
36. 4d
36. 4d
47.4
51.1 '
36.8
34.4
14.2
36.7
16.2
16.2
36.4
36.4
28.6
48.1
aSpecies CV represents agreement between replicate values for summation of
identified species of the class indicated; CV for total reflects agreement
of values for class totals based on total peak area for a given class.
Estimate of total variability in sampling/analytical process, based on
results for duplicate samples.
cEstimate of analytical variability, independent of sampling variability,
based on results for duplicate analyses.
Estimate is based on a single duplicate sample result for less than three
compounds .
eExcludes oxygenated HC species.
6-5
-------
TABLE 6-2. PRECISION ESTIMATES FOR FLUX CHAMBER/GAS CANISTER
SAMPLE RESULTS
Hydrocarbon Class3
Paraffin Species
Total Paraffins
Olefin Species
Total Olefins
Aromatic Species
Total Aromatics
Halogenated HC Species
Total Halogenated HC
All Speciesd
Total NMHCd
Mean
Cone, (pg/m3)
2410
11900
936
17400
4090
55100
6920
44800
3350
237000
Sampling Plus
Analytical13
(CV, 2)
53.8
48.3
55.6
49.2
51.8
34.8
51.7
47.5
51.7
43.8
Analytical0
(CV, %)
23.9
23.5
25.0
46.4
20.2
23.4
51.7
43.4
28^.7
43.8
aSpecies CV represents agreement between replicate values for summation of
identified species of the class indicated; CV for total reflects agreement
of values for class totals based on total peak area for a given class.
^Estimate of total variability in sampling/analytical process, based on
results for duplicate samples.
cEstimate of analytical variability, independent of sampling variability,
based on results for duplicate analyses.
Excludes oxygenated HC species.
6-6
-------
TABLE 6-3. ESTIMATES OF VARIABILITIES OF PARAMETERS ASSOCIATED
WITH EMISSION FLUX CHAMBER MEASUREMENTS
Parameter
Value
Variability Estimate
Used in Simulations3
Concentration of species
Sweep air flow rate
Exposed surface area
5 1/min
0.13 m2
102
5Z
Variability estimates are expressed as a percent of the mean.
The values of the VOC concentration are those shown in Tables 6-1 and 6-2.
Coefficient of variation is estimated from the duplicate sample and
analytical results shown in Tables 6-1 and 6-2.
6-7
-------
TABLE 6-4. PRECISION ESTIMATES FOR FLUX CHAMBER/GAS SYRINGE
EMISSION RATES
Hydrocarbon Class3
Paraffin Species
Total Paraffins
Olefin Species
Total Olefins
Aromatic Species
Total Aromatics
Halogenated HC Species
Total Halogenated HC
All Speciesd
Total NMHCd
Mean Emission
Rate
(yg/m2-sec)
15.6
38.0
32.4
45.7
6.68
6.68
22.5
22.5
21.3
140
Sampling Plus
Analytical
(CV, %)
53.8
54.4
28.3
66.4
-
-
37.2
37.2
47.2
50.3
Analytical0
(CV, %)
41.8
35.4
18.0
38.8
20.7
20.7
37.2
37.2
29.6
46.2
aSpecies CV represents agreement between replicate values for summation of
identified species of the class indicated; CV for total reflects agreement
of values for class totals based on total peak area for a given class.
Estimate of total variability in sampling/analytical process, based on
results for duplicate samples.
cEstimate of analytical variability, independent of sampling variability,
based on results for duplicate analyses.
Excludes oxygenated HC species.
6-8
-------
TABLE 6-5. PRECISION ESTIMATES FOR FLUX CHAMBER/GAS CANISTER
EMISSION RATES
Hydrocarbon Class3
Paraffin Species
Total Paraffins
Olefin Species
Total Olefins
Aromatic Species
Total Aromatics
Halogenated HC Species
Total Halogenated HC
All Speciesd
Total NMHCd
Mean Emission
Rate
(yg/m2-sec)
1.55
76.4
0.601
11.2
2.63
35.4
4.45
28.8
2.15
152
Sampling Plus
Analytical
(CV, %)
57.0
53.3
56.3
47.0
51.0
38.8
53.4
52.3
55.8
46.2
Analytical0
(CV, %)
25.8
27.0
27.4
46.5
22.5
23.5
53.4
43.2
32.7
46.2
aSpecies CV represents agreement between replicate values for summation of
identified species of the class indicated; CV for total reflects agreement
of values for class totals based on total peak area for a given class.
Estimate of total variability in sampling/analytical process, based on
results for duplicate samples.
cEstimate of analytical variability, independent of sampling variability,
based on results for duplicate analyses.
Excludes oxygenated HC species.
6-9
-------
6.1.2 Liquid Concentration Measurements
Liquid samples were obtained to determine the concentration of volatile
species present in the ponds (see Section 5.3). The samples were obtined in
VGA vials and returned to Austin for analysis by GC, as with the canister
samples. The results of duplicate analyses (3 sets) from a single sample
were used to estimate the analytical precision. Results for analysis of
duplicate samples (2 sets) were used to estimate the sampling and analytical
variability of the liquid concentration measurements as a whole. These
precision estimates are summarized in Table 6-6.
6.1.3 Soil Core Concentration Measurements
Soil core samples were obtained to determine the concentration of
volatile species in the landfills (see Section 5.4). The samples were
obtained using a thin walled tube sampler which was capped on site and
returned to Austin for analysis by GC, as with the canister and liquid
samples. The rersults of duplicate analyses (4 sets) from a single sample
were used to estimate the analytical precision. Results for analysis of
duplicate samples (2 sets) were used to estimate the sampling and analytical
variability of the soil core concentration measurements as a whole. These
precision estimates are summarized in Table 6-7.
6.2 GC-MS CONFIRMATION OF SELECTED CANISTER SAMPLES
As part of the analytical quality control for the project, several air
samples that had previously been analyzed by GC-FID/PID/HECD were selected
for confirmation of compound identity by GC-MS. The results obtained from
the samples selected for confirmation are presented in Table 6-8. The GC-MS
analytical protocol used for the confirmation was designed to provide quali-
tative information on the major components observed in the samples. The
sensitivity of the instrument and the sample size analyzed were selected
with this fact in mind. The compounds which were listed were not
6-10
-------
TABLE 6-6. PRECISION ESTIMATES FOR LIQUID SAMPLE RESULTS
Hydrocarbon Class3
Paraffin Species
Total Paraffins
Olefin Species
Total Olefins
Aromatic Species
Total Aroma tics
Halogenated HC Species
Total Halogenated HC
All Speciesd
Total NMHCd
Mean
Cone. (mg/L)
2.19
45.3
1.91
31.5
2.33
53.2
2.47
34.3
2.24
166
Sampling Plus
Analytical
(CV, 2)
55.4
20.5
67.5
43.0
56.9
29.2
56.5
45.1
58.4
26.1
Analytical0
(CV, 2)
40.7
21.4
42.3
43.0
28.9
19.1
25.4
14.9
34.8
17.9
aSpecies CV represents agreement between replicate values for summation of
identified species of the class indicated; CV for total reflects agreement
of values for class totals based on total peak area for a given class.
Estimate of total variability in sampling/analytical process, based on
results for duplicate samples.
cEstimate of analytical variability, independent of sampling variability,
based on results for duplicate analyses.
^Excludes oxygenated HC species.
6-11
-------
TABLE 6-7. PRECISION ESTIMATES FOR SOIL CORE SAMPLE RESULTS
Hydrocarbon Class3
Paraffin Species
Total Paraffins
Olefin Species
Total Olefins
Aromatic Species
Total Aroma tics
Halogenated HC Species
Total Halogenated HC
All Species6
Total NMHCe
Mean
Cone, (ug/m3)
854
17000
2040
1810
222
611
3970
16700
2350
39000
Sampling Plus
Analytical
(CV, %)
113
116
103d
135
114
133
106
105
111
85
Analytical0
(CV, %)
105
116
-
135
16.7
59
105
105
90
82
aSpecies CV represents agreement between replicate values for summation of
identified species of the class indicated; CV for total reflects agreement
of values for class totals based on total peak area for a given class.
Estimate of total variability in sampling/analytical process, based on
results for duplicate samples.
cEstimate of analytical variability, independent of sampling variability,
based on results for duplicate analyses.
Estimate is based on a single duplicate sample result for less than three
compounds .
eExcludes oxygenated HC species.
6-12
-------
TABLE 6-8. GC-MS CONFIRMATION OF CANISTER SAMPLES
Compound
1,3-Butadiene
Acrylonitrile
Benzene
Toluene
Ethylbenzene
p-Xy lene/m-Xy lene
Styrene
o-Xylene
Isopropylbenzene
n-Propylbenzene
Naphthalene
Chlorome thane
Vinyl Chloride
1 , 1-Dichloroethylene
Methylene Chloride
Chloroform
1 ,1,1-Trichloroethane
Carbon Tetrachloride
1 , 2-Dichloropropane
Tetrachloroethylene
Chlorobenzene
p-Dichlorobenzene
1 , 1-Dichloroethane
Benzyl Chloride
1 ,2-Dibromoethane
2-Chloro-l ,3-butadiene
Trichloroethylene
Epichlorohydrin
1 ,1 ,2,2-Tetrachloroethane
3-Chloro-l-propene
Acetaldehyde
Methyl Acetate
Acrolein
Propylene Oxide
Cone .a
(yg/m3)
ND
ND
5153.5
16359.1
3920.1
11456.2
ND
4066.7
901.3
1545.9
438.3
1611.1
28.6
41.6
12222.9
2012.0
43921.3
ND
88.0
49502.9
3147.0
28.3
ND
ND
ND
ND
15477.9
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
A-101
Compound
Confirmed
Xb
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
aData obtained from the GC/FID/PID/HECD analysis
bX = Confirmed
6-13
-------
necessarily the major components in the samples selected. As a result, the
number of compounds from the target list confirmed is relatively low.
6-14
-------
Section 7
REFERENCES
1. Radian Corporation. Evaluation of Air Emissions from Hazardous Waste
Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities. EPA Contract No. 68-02-
3171, Task Number 63, Austin, Texas, June 1984.
2. Balfour, W. D. and C. E. Schmidt. Sampling Approaches for Measuring
Emission Rates from Hazardous Waste Disposal Facilities. In Pro-
ceedings of the 77th Annual Meeting of the Air Pollution Control
Association, San Francisco, California, June 1984.
3. Radian Corporation. Protocols for Sampling and Analysis of Surface
Impoundments and Landtreatment/Disposal Sites for VOCs. EPA Contract
No. 68-02-3850, Work Assignment 11, Austin, Texas, September 1984.
4. Ford, P. J., et. al.. Characterization of Hazardous Waste Sites—A
Methods Manual: Volume II—Available Sampling Methods. EPA-600/4-83-
040, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Las Vegas, Nevada, 1983.
5. Hill, F. B., V. P. Aneja, and R. M. Felder. A Technique for Measure-
ments of Biogenic Sulfur Emission Fluxes. J. Environ. Sci. Health
AIB(3), pp. 199-225, 1978.
6. Adams, D. F., M. R. Pack, W. L. Bamesberger, and A. E. Sherrard,
"Measurement of Biogenic Sulfur-Containing Gas Emissions from Soils and
Vegetation." In Proceedings of 71st Annual APCA Meeting, Houston, TX,
1978, 78-76.
7-1
-------
7. Schmidt, C. E., W. D. Balfour, and R. D. Cox. Sampling Techniques for
Emissions Measurements at Hazardous Waste Sites. In Proceedings of 3rd
National Conference and Exhibition on Management of Uncontrolled Waste
Sites, Washington, B.C., 1982.
8. Cox, R. D., K. J. Baughman, and R. F. Earp. A Generalized Screening
and Analysis Procedure for Organic Emissions from Hazardous Waste
Disposal Sites. In Proceedings of 3rd National Conference and Exhibi-
tion on Management of Uncontrolled Waste Sites, Washington, B.C., 1982.
7-2
------- |