EPA/600/R-09/046
May 2009
Quantifying Uncontrolled Landfill Gas
Emissions from Two Florida Landfills
Final Report
Prepared by:
ARCADIS U.S., Inc.
4915 Prospectus Drive, Suite F
Durham, North Carolina 27713
Tel 919 544 4535
EPA Contract No.: EP-C-04-023
Work Assignment Number: 4-26
Project No.: RN990234.0026
Prepared for:
EPA Project Officer
Susan Alice Thorneloe
Air Pollution Prevention and Control Division
National Risk Management and Research Laboratory
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
February 2009
-------
Notice
The information in this document has been funded wholly or in part by the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) in fulfillment of Contract No. EP-C-04-023 to ARCADIS U.S., Inc. It has been subject
to the Agency's peer and administrative review, and it has been approved for publication as an EPA
document. Mention of trade names of commercial products does not constitute an endorsement or
recommendation for use.
11
-------
Foreword
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is charged by Congress with protecting the
Nation's land, air, and water resources. Under a mandate of national environmental laws, the
Agency strives to formulate and implement actions leading to a compatible balance between
human activities and the ability of natural systems to support and nurture life. To meet this
mandate, EPA's research program is providing data and technical support for solving
environmental problems today and building a science knowledge base necessary to manage our
ecological resources wisely, understand how pollutants affect our health, and prevent or reduce
environmental risks in the future.
The National Risk Management Research Laboratory (NRMRL) is the Agency's center for
investigation of technological and management approaches for preventing and reducing risks
from pollution that threaten human health and the environment. The focus of the Laboratory's
research program is on methods and their cost-effectiveness for prevention and control of
pollution to air, land, water, and subsurface resources; protection of water quality in public water
systems; remediation of contaminated sites, sediments and ground water; prevention and control
of indoor air pollution; and restoration of ecosystems. NRMRL collaborates with both public and
private sector partners to foster technologies that reduce the cost of compliance and to anticipate
emerging problems. NRMRL's research provides solutions to environmental problems by:
developing and promoting technologies that protect and improve the environment;
advancing scientific and engineering information to support regulatory and policy decisions; and
providing the technical support and information transfer to ensure implementation of
environmental regulations and strategies at the national, state, and community levels.
This publication has been produced as part of the Laboratory's strategic long-term research plan.
It is published and made available by EPA's Office of Research and Development to assist the
user community and to link researchers with their clients.
Sally Gutierrez, Director
National Risk Management Research Laboratory
-------
Table of Contents
Executive Summary xiii
Chapter 1 Project Description 1-1
1.1 Background 1-1
1.2 Optical Remote Sensing Instrumentation 1-3
1.3 Vertical Radial Plume Mapping Method 1-5
1.4 Total NMOC Measurements 1-7
1.5 Total and Organo-Mercury Measurements 1-7
1.6 Elemental Mercury Measurements 1-8
1.7 Calculation of NMOC Fluxes 1-9
1.8 Field Schedule 1-9
Chapter 2 Test Procedures 2-1
2.1 Optical Remote Sensing Measurements at Landfill Site #1 2-1
2.1.1 Control Cell 2-1
2.1.2 Bioreactor Cell 2-2
2.1.3 Background Measurements 2-3
2.2 Optical Remote Sensing Measurements at Landfill Site #2 2-3
2.2.1 Control Cell 2-3
2.2.2 Bioreactor Cell 2-5
2.2.3 Background Measurements 2-6
2.3 Total and Speciated Mercury Sampling 2-6
2.4 Lumex Elemental Mercury Field Sampling 2-7
2.5 Summa Canister Sampling 2-7
Chapter 3 Results and Discussion 3-1
3.1 Landfill Site #1 3-1
3.1.1 Control Cell 3-1
3.1.2 Bioreactor Cell 3-5
3.1.2.1 February 22 3-5
ii
-------
3.1.3 Total Site Methane Emissions 3-10
3.1.4 Summa Canister Sampling 3-13
3.1.5 Total Mercury Measurements 3-16
3.1.6 Dimethyl Mercury Measurements 3-17
3.1.7 Monomethyl Mercury Measurements 3-17
3.1.8 Elemental Mercury Measurements 3-18
3.1.9 Calculation of NMOC Fluxes 3-18
3.2 Landfill Site #2 3-20
3.2.1 Control Cell 3-20
3.2.1.1 February 24 3-20
3.2.1.2 February 25 3-24
3.2.2 Bioreactor Cell 3-28
3.2.2.1 February 23 3-28
3.2.2.2 February 24 3-31
3.2.3 Total Site Methane Emissions 3-33
3.2.4 Summa Canister Sampling 3-34
3.2.5 Total Mercury Measurements 3-36
3.2.6 Dimethyl Mercury Measurements 3-37
3.2.7 Monomethyl Mercury Measurements 3-37
3.2.8 Elemental Mercury Measurements 3-38
3.2.9 Calculation of NMOC Fluxes 3-38
3.3 Gas and Mercury Sampling Results from the October 2007 Field Campaign 3-40
3.3.1 Total Mercury Concentrations 3-40
3.3.2 Gas Sampling Results 3-41
Chapter 4 Conclusion 4-1
Chapter 5 Quality Assurance/Quality Control 5-1
5.1 Equipment Calibration 5-1
5.2 Assessment of DQI Goals 5-2
5.2.1 DQI Check for Methane PIC Measurement with OP-TDLAS 5-2
5.2.2 DQI Check for Analyte PIC Measurement with OP-FTIR 5-3
5.2.3 Inter-comparison Study of OP-FTIR and OP-TDLAS Instruments 5-4
5.2.4 DQI Checks for Ambient Wind Speed and Wind Direction Measurements 5-5
iii
-------
5.2.5 DQI Check for Precision and Accuracy of Theodolite Measurements 5-6
5.2.6 DQI Check for Lumex Mercury Analyzer 5-6
5.2.7 DQI Check of Total Mercury Samples 5-7
5.2.8 DQI Check of Dimethyl Mercury Samples 5-7
5.2.9 DQI Check of Monomethyl Mercury Samples 5-8
5.2.10 DQI Check of VOC Samples with SUMMA® Canisters 5-9
5.3 QC Checks of OP-FTIR Instrument Performance 5-9
Chapter 6 References 6-1
APPENDIX A Vertical Radial Plume Mapping (VRPM) Algorithm 1
APPENDIX B Open Path Instrument Mirror Coordinates 1
APPENDIX C Path-Averaged Methane Concentration Values Used for Emissions
Calculations 1
IV
-------
List of Tables
Table 1-1. Target Compound List 1-8
Table 1-2. Schedule of Work Performed at the Sites 1-10
Table 3-1. Calculated methane flux and prevailing wind speed and direction measured
along the northern VRPM configuration in the control cell of Site #1 3-4
Table 3-2. Calculated methane flux and prevailing wind speed and direction measured
along the eastern VRPM configuration in the control cell of Site #1 3-4
Table 3-3. Calculated methane flux and prevailing wind speed and direction measured
along the western VRPM configuration in the control cell of Site #1 3-4
Table 3-4. Calculated methane flux and prevailing wind speed and direction measured on
February 22 along the northern VRPM configuration in the bioreactor cell of
Site#l 3-7
Table 3-5. Calculated methane flux and prevailing wind speed and direction measured on
February 22 along the eastern VRPM configuration in the bioreactor cell of Site
#1 3-8
Table 3-6. Calculated methane flux and prevailing wind speed and direction measured on
February 22 along the southern VRPM configuration in the bioreactor cell of
Site#l 3-9
Table 3-7. Calculated methane flux and prevailing wind speed and direction measured on
February 22 along the western VRPM configuration in the bioreactor cell of
Site#l 3-10
Table 3-8. Summary of total site methane emissions calculations from Site #1 3-12
Table 3-9. Results of TO-15 analysis from Site #1 3-14
Table 3-10. Results of Cl to C6 and permanent gases by GC/FID/TCD from Site #1 3-16
Table 3-11. Results of Method 25-C analysis from Site#l 3-16
Table 3-12. Total Mercury Sample Concentrations from Site #1 3-17
Table 3-13. Dimethyl Mercury Sample Concentrations from Site #1 3-17
Table 3-14. Monomethyl Mercury Concentrations (ng/m3) from Site #1 3-18
Table 3-15. Estimated NMOC Flux Values from the Control and Bioreactor Cells of Site #1 ..3-19
-------
Table 3-16. Calculated Methane Flux and Prevailing Wind Speed and Direction Measured
on February 24 along the Northern VRPM Configuration in the Control Cell of
Site #2 3-21
Table 3-17. Calculated Methane Flux and Prevailing Wind Speed and Direction Measured
on February 24 along the Eastern VRPM Configuration in the Control Cell of
Site #2 3-22
Table 3-18. Calculated Methane Flux and Prevailing Wind Speed and Direction Measured
on February 24 along the Southern VRPM Configuration in the Control Cell of
Site #2 3-23
Table 3-19. Calculated Methane Flux and Prevailing Wind Speed and Direction Measured
on February 24 along the Western VRPM Configuration in the Control Cell of
Site #2 3-24
Table 3-20. Calculated Methane Flux and Prevailing Wind Speed and Direction Measured
on February 25 along the Northern VRPM Configuration in the Control Cell of
Site #2 3-26
Table 3-21. Calculated Methane Flux and Prevailing Wind Speed and Direction Measured
on February 25 along the Eastern VRPM Configuration in the Control Cell of
Site #2 3-26
Table 3-22. Calculated Methane Flux and Prevailing Wind Speed and Direction Measured
on February 25 along the Southern VRPM Configuration in the Control Cell of
Site #2 3-27
Table 3-23. Calculated Methane Flux and Prevailing Wind Speed and Direction Measured
on February 25 along the Western VRPM Configuration in the Control Cell of
Site #2 3-27
Table 3-24. Calculated Methane Flux and Prevailing Wind Speed and Direction Measured
on February 23 along the Northern VRPM Configuration in the Bioreactor Cell
of Site #2 3-29
Table 3-25. Calculated Methane Flux and Prevailing Wind Speed and Direction Measured
on February 23 along the Eastern VRPM Configuration in the Bioreactor Cell
of Site #2 3-29
Table 3-26. Calculated Methane Flux and Prevailing Wind Speed and Direction Measured
on February 23 along the Southern VRPM Configuration in the Bioreactor Cell
of Site #2 3-30
Table 3-27. Calculated Methane Flux and Prevailing Wind Speed and Direction Measured
on February 23 along the Western VRPM Configuration in the Bioreactor Cell
of Site #2 3-30
VI
-------
Table 3-28. Calculated Methane Flux and Prevailing Wind Speed and Direction Measured
on February 24 along the Northern VRPM Configuration in the Bioreactor Cell
of Site #2 3-32
Table 3-29. Calculated Methane Flux and Prevailing Wind Speed and Direction Measured
on February 24 along the Eastern VRPM Configuration in the Bioreactor Cell
of Site #2 3-32
Table 3-30. Calculated Methane Flux and Prevailing Wind Speed and Direction Measured
on February 24 along the Southern VRPM Configuration in the Bioreactor Cell
of Site #2 3-32
Table 3-31. Calculated Methane Flux and Prevailing Wind Speed and Direction Measured
on February 24 along the Western VRPM Configuration in the Bioreactor Cell
of Site #2 3-33
Table 3-32. Summary of Total Site Methane Emissions Calculations from Site #2 3-33
Table 3-33. Results for TO-15 Analysis from Site #2 3-34
Table 3-34. Results for Cl to C6 and Permanent Gases by GC/FID/TCD from Site #2 3-36
Table 3-35. Results for Method 25-C Analysis from Site #2 3-36
Table 3-36. Total Mercury Sample Concentrations from Site #2 3-37
Table 3-37. Dimethyl Mercury Sample Concentrations from Site #2 3-37
Table 3-38. Monomethyl Mercury Concentrations (ng/m3) from Site #2 3-38
Table 3-39. Estimated NMOC Flux Values from the Control and Bioreactor Cells of Site #2 ..3-39
Table 3-40. Total Mercury Concentrations Measured at Site #1 during the October 2007
Field Campaign 3-40
Table 3-41. Total Mercury Concentrations Measured at Site #2 during the October 2007
Field Campaign 3-41
Table 3-42. Landfill Gas Composition Data Collected at Sites #1 and #2 during the October
2007 Field Campaign 3-41
Table 4-1. Average Calculated Methane Flux (g/s) Value From Each Landfill Cell 4-1
Table 4-2. Average Concentrations of Total, Dimethyl, Monomethyl, and Elemental
Mercury Measured at Each Site 4-2
Table 5-1. Instrumentation Calibration Frequency and Description 5-1
Table 5-2. DQI Goals for Instrumentation 5-2
Table 5-3. Accuracy of Concentration Measurements for Different R2 Value 5-3
vn
-------
Table 5-4. Precision Ranges for Total Mercury Measurements at Sites #1 and #2 (February
2007) 5-7
Table 5-5. Precision Ranges for Total Mercury Measurements at Sites #1 and #2 (October
2008) 5-7
Table 5-6. Precision ranges for Dimethyl Mercury Measurements for Sites #1 and #2 5-8
Table 5-7. Precision Ranges for Monomethyl Mercury Measurements for Sites #1 and #2 5-8
Table 5-8. Precision ranges for Method 25-C Measurements at Sites #1 and #2 5-9
Table 5-9. Precision ranges for GC/FID/TCD Measurements at Sites #1 and #2 5-9
Table B-l. Distance, and Horizontal and Vertical Coordinates of Mirrors Used by the
Boreal OP-TDLAS in the Control Cell VRPM Survey at Site #1 B-l
Table B-2. Distance, and Horizontal and Vertical Coordinates of Mirrors Used by the
IMACC OP-FTIR in the Control Cell VRPM Survey at Site #1 B-l
Table B-4 Distance, and Horizontal and Vertical Coordinates of Mirrors Used by the
IMACC OP-FTIR in the Bioreactor cell VRPM Survey at Site #1 B-2
Table B-5. Distance, and Horizontal and Vertical Coordinates of Mirrors Used by the
Boreal OP-TDLAS in the Bioreactor cell VRPM Survey at Site #2 B-3
Table B-6 Distance, and Horizontal and Vertical Coordinates of Mirrors Used by the
IMACC OP-FTIR in the Bioreactor cell VRPM Survey at Site #2 B-3
Table B-7. Distance, and Horizontal and Vertical Coordinates of Mirrors Used by the
Boreal OP-TDLAS in the Control Cell VRPM Survey at Site #2 B-4
Table B-8. Distance, and Horizontal and Vertical Coordinates of Mirrors Used by the
IMACC OP-FTIR in the Control Cell VRPM Survey at Site #2 B-4
Table C-l. Methane Concentrations (in PPM) Found Along the Northern VRPM
Configuration in the Control Cell of Site #1 C-l
Table C-2. Methane Concentrations (in PPM) Found Along the Eastern VRPM
Configuration in the Control Cell of Site #1 C-2
Table C-3. Methane Concentrations (in PPM) Found Along the Western VRPM
Configuration in the Control Cell of Site #1 C-3
Table C-4. Methane Concentrations (in PPM) Found Along the Southern Beam Path in the
Control Cell of Site #1 C-4
Table C-5. Methane Concentrations (in PPM) Found on February 22 along the Northern
VRPM Configuration in the Bioreactor cell of Site #1 C-5
Vlll
-------
Table C-6. Methane Concentrations (in PPM) Found on February 22 along the Eastern
VRPM Configuration in the Bioreactor cell of Site #1 C-6
Table C-7. Methane Concentrations (in PPM) Found on February 22 along the Southern
VRPM Configuration in the Bioreactor cell of Site #1 C-7
Table C-8. Methane Concentrations (in PPM) Found on February 22 along the Western
VRPM Configuration in the Bioreactor cell of Site #1 C-8
Table C-9. Methane Concentrations (in PPM) Found on February 24 along the Northern
VRPM Configuration in the Control Cell of Site #2 C-9
Table C-10. Methane Concentrations (in PPM) Found on February 24 along the Eastern
VRPM Configuration in the Control Cell of Site #2 C-10
Table C-l 1. Methane Concentrations (in PPM) Found on February 24 along the Southern
VRPM Configuration in the Control Cell of Site #2 C-ll
Table C-l2. Methane Concentrations (in PPM) Found on February 24 along the Western
VRPM Configuration in the Control Cell of Site #2 C-12
Table C-l3. Methane Concentrations (in PPM) Found on February 25 along the Northern
VRPM Configuration in the Control Cell of Site #2 C-13
Table C-l4. Methane Concentrations (in PPM) Found on February 25 along the Eastern
VRPM Configuration in the Control Cell of Site #2 C-14
Table C-l5. Methane Concentrations (in PPM) Found on February 25 along the Southern
VRPM Configuration in the Control Cell of Site #2 C-15
Table C-l6. Methane Concentrations (in PPM) Found on February 25 along the Western
VRPM Configuration in the Control Cell of Site #2 C-16
Table C-l7. Methane Concentrations (in PPM) Found on February 23 along the Northern
VRPM Configuration in the Bioreactor cell of Site #2 C-17
Table C-l8. Methane Concentrations (in PPM) Found on February 23 along the Eastern
VRPM Configuration in the Bioreactor cell of Site #2 C-18
Table C-l9. Methane Concentrations (in PPM) Found on February 23 along the Southern
VRPM Configuration in the Bioreactor cell of Site #2 C-19
Table C-20. Methane Concentrations (in PPM) Found on February 23 along the Western
VRPM Configuration in the Bioreactor cell of Site #2 C-19
Table C-21. Methane Concentrations (in PPM) Found on February 24 along the Northern
VRPM Configuration in the Bioreactor cell of Site #2 C-20
Table C-22. Methane Concentrations (in PPM) Found on February 24 along the Eastern
VRPM Configuration in the Bioreactor cell of Site #2 C-20
IX
-------
Table C-23. Methane Concentrations (in PPM) Found on February 24 along the Southern
VRPM Configuration in the Bioreactor cell of Site #2 C-21
Table C-24. Methane Concentrations (in PPM) Found on February 24 along the Western
VRPM Configuration in the Bioreactor cell of Site #2 C-21
-------
List of Figures
Figure 1-1. Map of Site #1 detailing the location of the survey cells 1-2
Figure 1-2. Map of Site #2 detailing the location of the survey cells 1-3
Figure 1-3. Scanning Boreal GasFinder 2.0 instrument 1-4
Figure 1-4. Scanning IMACC OP-FTIR instrument 1-5
Figure 1-5. Schematic of the VRPM configuration used during this study 1-6
Figure 2-1. Schematic of measurement configuration at the control cell of Site #1 2-1
Figure 2-2. Detail of measurement configuration at the control cell of Site #1 2-2
Figure 2-4. Schematic of measurement configuration at the control cell of Site #2 2-4
Figure 2-5. Detail of the measurement configuration at the control cell of Site #2 2-4
Figure 2-6. Schematic of measurement configuration at the control cell of Site #2 2-5
Figure 2-7. Detail of the measurement configuration at the control cell of Site #2 2-5
Figure 3-1. Summary of ORS measurements from the 4:00 pm survey of the control cell of
Site#l 3-2
Figure 3-2. Summary of ORS measurements from the 5:00 pm survey of the control cell of
Site#l 3-3
Figure 3-3. Summary of ORS measurements conducted on February 22 in the bioreactor
cell of Site #1 3-6
Figure 3-4. Summary of ORS measurements conducted on Feb. 24 in the control cell of
Site #2 3-20
Figure 3-5. Summary of ORS measurements conducted on Feb. 25 in the control cell of
Site #2 3-25
Figure 3-6. Summary of ORS measurements conducted on Feb. 23 in bioreactor cell of Site
#2 3-28
Figure 3-7 Summary of ORS measurements conducted on Feb. 24 in the bioreactor cell of
Site #2 3-31
Figure 5-1. Results of the Methane Gasfmder Calibration Experiment 5-5
Figure A-l. Example of a VRPM Configuration Setup A-2
XI
-------
This page intentionally left blank.
xn
-------
Executive Summary
Waste decomposition in a municipal landfill is a biological process which occurs over multiple
decades from initial waste placement. Use of leachate recirculation is getting more widespread
use in the U.S. because it results in accelerating waste decomposition and extending landfill air
space (allowing more waste to be deposited in the landfill). Differences in how leachate and
other liquids are added and how the site is designed and managed will lead to differences in the
quantity of landfill gas that is not collected and controlled. Some landfills are designed and
operated to minimize fugitive loss such as the landfill site in Yolo County, California where
liquid is not added until synthetic liners are in place surrounding the waste mass including the
top of the cell (http://www.yolocounty.org/). Other sites are operated to add liquid as soon as
waste is placed in the landfill at the working face (U.S. EPA, 2005a). With this type of
operation, there is no ability to collect and control fugitive loss.
There are limited data on which to base the performance of wet landfills to traditional landfill
operation (i.e., not leachate recirculation). The most extensive work to date was released in 2005
and evaluated gas extraction data from twenty-nine wet landfill sites (U.S. EPA, 2005b; Faour et
al., 2007). The data were used to develop inputs for gas generation using a first-order
decomposition rate equation. For a few sites there were longer term data to evaluate trends over
time. However, most of the data were from a single sampling event (only one point in time).
None of the sites provided data on potential fugitive loss such as delays in gas collection from
waste placement or leaks in the surface cover or landfill gas header pipes and extraction wells.
The purpose of this study is to evaluate fugitive loss from two different municipal landfills which
were reported to be operating as a wet or bioreactor landfill and have an area regarded as a
"control" cell (where no additional liquid was added). Fugitive methane emissions were
measured at both sites for the "wet" and "control" cells using optical remote sensing (ORS)
technology. Two different instruments were used - an open-path tunable diode laser (OP-
TDLAS) instrument by Boreal, Inc (the Gas-Finder 2.0) and an open-path Fourier transform
infrared (OP-FTIR) instrument by IMACC, Inc. The measurements were conducted using
vertical radial plume mapping (VRPM) to calculate net methane-flux emission values from the
top and side slopes of each landfill cell. In addition to the ORS measurements, SUMMA canister
samples were collected from the gas header pipes at the sites to obtain data on trace constituents
in landfills gas including non-methane organic compounds (NMOC), hydrogen sulfide, mercury,
and other hazardous air pollutants (HAPs).
Problems were encountered during the field test. An intercomparison study was planned to
ensure no bias in measurements when using two different ORS instruments (i.e., OP-FTIR and
TDL). A regression analysis indicated that the TDL-AS instrument indicating a potential 40%
bias. However, the very limited number of measurements (n = 7) and the poor regression
coefficient (r2 = 0.20), raise questions as to the validity of the intercomparison results. Previous
xiii
-------
experience with OP-FTIR and TDL instruments and in other projects has demonstrated that the
two instrument exhibit good comparability. Therefore, methane flux results from the two
instruments are assumed to be comparable.
Ideally longer term data are desired than what was conducted for this study. Additionally, given
the range in landfill design and operation, data from a wider variety sites are preferred to better
account for differences in fugitive loss. For example, one of the sites added fresh layer of soil to
the bioreactor cell immediately before the testing. How would emission results compare if field
testing could have been conducted before the soil layer was added or six months later? As wider
application of wet landfill operation is used, improvements will occur in design and operation.
How will this affect fugitive loss? How do uncontrolled emissions compare for sites where
liquid is added directly to the work face (where there is no ability to collect and control) versus
landfills where leachate recirculation or other liquid addition is delayed until liners are in place
surrounding the waste mass (including the top of the waste mass)?
Using the OP-ORS data, methane emission flux rates were calculated for each cell. The methane
flux results for landfill #1 indicate that fugitive methane emissions from the bioreactor cell were
about twice that of the control cell (1,500 vs 3,800 kg/day). At landfill #2, methane emissions
from the control cell were found to be about 5 times higher than the bioreactor cell (-6,000 vs
1,200 kg/day). This is attributed to the fact that no liquid additions had been added to the
bioreactor for several months because of heavy rainfall from a recent series of hurricanes. In
addition, a fresh layer of soil had just been added to the surface of the bioreactor cell just prior to
when the field measurements were conducted. An estimate of the total site emissions were
calculated for Site #1 (5,300 kg/day) and site #2 (7,300 kg/day).
This report provides the results from field tests for two landfills. Work is underway through
EPA to develop additional guidance for the use of OTM-10 for landfill applications. It is hoped
that, as additional tests are conducted, data will be available to better understand the amount of
uncontrolled landfill gas and potential differences in fugitive loss between wet versus traditional
landfill design and operation. For further information on EPA emission factors for landfill gas,
please refer to EPA's Section 2-4 in AP42 (http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ap42/ch02/index.html,
U.S. EPA, 2008).
xiv
-------
This page intentionally left blank.
xv
-------
Chapter 1
Project Description
1.1 Background
Landfill gas emissions, if left uncontrolled, contribute to air toxics, climate change, tropospheric
ozone, and urban smog. Measuring emissions from landfills presents unique challenges due to
the large and variable source area, spatial and temporal variability of emissions, and the wide
variety of target pollutants. Recent advancements have been made for improved quantification of
uncontrolled emissions from area sources. This technology is referred to as radial plume
mapping (RPM) using optical remote sensing (ORS) instrumentation to quantify uncontrolled
emissions. The method has been applied to perform multiple emissions measurement campaigns
at former landfill sites (U.S. EPA, 2004; U.S. EPA, 2005c; U.S. EPA, 2005d). A summary of
ORS measurements at landfills as well as an overview of this technology was published in an
EPA report in 2007 [Evaluation of Fugitive Emissions Using Ground-Based Optical Remote
Sensing Technology (EPA/600/R-07/032), Feb 2007; available at
http://www.epa.gov/nrmrl/pubs/ 600r07032/600r07032.pdf1. This technology can be used at
landfills to quantify uncontrolled emissions for: (1) input to obtaining Title V permits for landfill
expansion; (2) establishing emission estimates for greenhouse gas inventories; (3) evaluating the
suitability of a site for recreational use or development; and (4) evaluating the performance of
technology changes such as use of alternative landfill cover materials or operation of
wet/bioreactor landfills.
For older sites, site-specific data on waste acceptance rates, waste composition, and other data
needed for modeling landfill gas emissions are often not available. In EPA's guidance for
evaluating landfill gas emissions from older landfills being considered for Brownfield
development or recreational use, radial plume mapping is suggested as a preferred approach to
reliance on modeling landfill gas emissions. [Guidance for Evaluating Landfill Gas Emissions
from Closed or Abandoned Facilities (EPA-600/R-05/123a). Available at:
http://www.epa.gov/ORD/NRMRL/pubs/600r05123/600r05123.pdf1.
At sites where new technology is being used in the design and operation of landfills, radial
plume mapping can help to establish a comparison of emissions from different landfill practices.
For this report, data were collected at two municipal sites in Florida that were operating landfills
as a bioreactor to accelerate waste decomposition. This report provides results from
measurements collected in the areas being operated as a bioreactor and at other areas that were
considered by the site operator to be a control cell.
ARCADIS and EPA conducted a measurement campaign at each site using one scanning
GasFinder 2.0 methane OP-TDLAS instrument (Boreal, Inc) and one scanning OP-FTIR
1-1
-------
instrument (IMACC, Inc.). Figures 1-1 and 1-2 present the overall layout of Site #1 and Site #2,
respectively, detailing the geographic location of each measurement cell.
In addition to the ORS measurements, SUMMA® canister samples were collected from the gas
header pipes at the sites to obtain data on volatile organic compound (VOC) constituents in the
landfill gas. The primary goals of the study were to evaluate and compare emissions of methane
and hazardous air pollutants (HAP) from bioreactor and control cells at the sites and generate an
estimate of total site methane emissions. The data collected at the sites were used to calculate an
emission flux rate from the cells for each compound investigated.
A second focus of this study was to quantify the level of mercury concentrations in landfill gas.
Data on total, elemental and organo-mercury (including methyl and dimethyl mercury) were
collected in the vicinity of the gas header pipes at the site.
Figure 1-1. Map of Site #1 detailing the location of the survey cells
1-2
-------
Figure 1-2. Map of Site #2 detailing the location of the survey cells
1.2 Optical Remote Sensing Instrumentation
The current study used two optical remote sensing instruments to collect path-integrated
concentration data at the sites. Each instrument was mounted on a scanner, and collected path-
integrated methane concentration data along multiple path lengths.
The Boreal GasFinder 2.0 OP-TDLAS instrument is designed for area and fugitive source
emission characterization. The infrared laser emits radiation at a particular wavelength in the
infrared region when an electrical current is passed through it. The light wavelength depends on
the current and therefore allows scanning over an absorption feature and analyzing for the target
gas concentration, using Beer's law. The laser signal is transmitted from a single telescope to a
retro-reflecting mirror target, which is usually set up at a range of 100 to 1500 m. The returned
light signal is received by the single telescope and directed to a detector. The instrument provides
instantaneous, path-integrated methane concentration data. The single channel methane
GasFinder 2.0 was used for the current campaign. Figure 1-3 presents a picture of the GasFinder
2.0 instrument that was used for this study.
1-3
-------
Figure 1-3. Scanning Boreal GasFinder 2.0 instrument
The IMACC OP-FTIR Spectrometer is designed for both fence-line monitoring applications, and
real-time, on-site, remediation monitoring and source characterization. An infrared light beam,
modulated by a Michelson interferometer, is transmitted from a single telescope to a mirror
target, which is usually set up at a range of 100 to 500 meters. The returned light signal is
received by the single telescope and directed to a detector. The light is absorbed by the
molecules in the beam path as the light propagates to the mirror and again as the light is reflected
back to the analyzer. Thus, the round-trip path of the light doubles the chemical absorption
signal. One advantage of OP-FTIR monitoring is that the concentrations of a multitude of
infrared absorbing gaseous chemicals can be detected and measured simultaneously, with high
temporal resolution. Figure 1-4 presents a picture of the IMACC OP-FTIR used for the current
study.
1-4
-------
Figure 1-4. Scanning IMACC OP-FTIR instrument
1.3 Vertical Radial Plume Mapping Method
The vertical radial plume mapping (VRPM) method maps pollutant concentrations in the vertical
plane by scanning the ORS instrument in a vertical plane downwind from an area source. One
can obtain the plane-integrated concentration from the reconstructed concentration maps. The
downwind emissions flux is calculated by multiplying the plane-integrated concentration by the
wind speed component perpendicular to the vertical plane. Thus, the VRPM method leads to a
direct measurement-based determination of the upwind source emission rate (Hashmonay et al.,
1998; Hashmonay and Yost, 1999; Hashmonay et al., 2001; Hashmonay et al., 2008). Under the
auspices of the U.S. Department of Defense's (DoD) Environmental Security Technology
Certification Program (ESTCP) and the U.S. EPA a radial plume mapping (RPM) methodology
to directly characterize gaseous emissions from area sources has been demonstrated and
validated, and a protocol has been developed and peer reviewed. This EPA "Other Test Method"
was made available for use on the U.S. EPA website in July 2006, and can be found at
www. epa. gov/ttn/emc/tmethods. html.
The VRPM configuration consists of a scanning ORS instrument, a scissors jack or similar
vertical structure (between 5 and 15 meters high) deployed between 50 and 300 meters from the
instrument, and multiple mirrors. Typically, three mirrors are deployed along the ground
between the ORS instrument and the vertical structure, one mirror is mounted midway up the
vertical structure, and one mirror is mounted on top of the vertical structure. Wind speed and
1-5
-------
wind direction data are collected near the base of the vertical structure, and at the top of the
vertical structure.
During previous measurement projects, there have been questions about whether or not
emissions from major hot spots in the landfill cells were being completely captured by the
VRPM configuration. In the past, surface measurement surveys were done to locate the position
of the emission hot spots in the landfill cells, and the VRPM configuration was deployed directly
downwind of the hot spots. The exact location of the VRPM configuration was based on
prevailing or forecasted wind directions.
In order to address concerns related to emissions capture, an improved VRPM configuration was
used for the current study. The improved configuration allowed the project team to collect data
regardless of the prevailing wind direction and ensured that emissions from major surface hot
spots in the cells were captured by the measurement configuration. The improved configuration
also enabled the project team to characterize any emissions originating from the slopes of the
landfill cells.
The improved configuration consisted of deploying four separate VRPM configurations using
two vertical structures and two scanning ORS systems. Figure 1-5 presents an overhead
schematic of the improved VRPM configuration.
Figure 1-5. Schematic of the VRPM configuration used during this study
1-6
-------
The two scanning ORS instruments were deployed on top of each measurement area, in opposite
corners of the landfill cells. Each instrument was used to scan to two five-mirror VRPM
configurations. Path-integrated concentration data were collected along each beam path in the
configuration. These data were input into the VRPM algorithm with wind data (collected
concurrently) to produce an emissions plume map and downwind emissions flux value. More
information on the VRPM algorithm can be found in Appendix A of this document.
1.4 Total NMOC Measurements
Concentrations of NMOC were determined from samples of landfill gas collected from the gas
header pipe at each site. The samples were collected using an adapted version of EPA Method
0040 - Sampling of Principal Organic Hazardous Constituents from Combustion Sources Using
Tedlar Bags. This modified Method 0040 used the same analytical technique detailed in the
method, but used the samples collected in a Summa canister. Analysis of VOC concentrations
was done by Research Triangle Park Laboratories, Inc. using EPA Method TO-15,
Determination of Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) in Air Collected in Specially-Prepared
Canisters and Analyzed by Gas Chromatography/Mass Spectrometry (GC/MS) as seen in the
Compendium of Methods for the Determination of Toxic Organic Compounds in Ambient Air,
Second Edition (EPA 62 5/R-9 6/01 Ob), and EPA Method 25-C, Determination ofNonmethane
Organic Compounds in Landfill Gas. Landfill gases were also measured using a landfill gas
monitor for the measurement of methane, carbon dioxide, oxygen, nitrogen, and hydrogen
sulfide. Table 1-1 presents a list of target compounds for the GC/MS analysis. The list includes
compounds identified as landfill gas constituents in Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission
Factors, AP-42 (U.S. EPA, 1997).
1.5 Total and Organo-Mercury Measurements
Total and organo- mercury samples were collected at a location in the vicinity of a gas header
pipe at each site. The total mercury samples were collected using an iodated charcoal trap as a
sorbent. A backup tube was also present to assess any breakthrough. Additional samples were
collected to analyze concentrations of organo-mercury (monomethyl and dimethyl). The
methods, developed by Frontier Geosciences, involve drawing a measured volume of sample gas
through different adsorbers, at a draw rate of approximately 400 L/min. The method used to
collect samples for monomethylmercury (MMM) used a condenser train consisting of several
water impingers in an ice bath. Dimethylmercury (DMM) is collected on a carbotrap cartridge.
Samples were recovered, digested, and analyzed for mercury by cold-vapor atomic fluorescence
spectroscopy (CVAFS).
Total mercury sorbent tubes were also collected from the landfills and analyzed by a modified
SW-846 Method 7473, "Mercury in Solids and Solutions by Thermal Decomposition, Mercury
Amalgamation, and Atomic Adsorption Spectroscopy" and CFR Part 60 Method SOB,
"Determination of Total Vapor Phase Mercury Emissions from Coal-Fired Combustion Sources
Using Carbon Sorbent Tubes." Samples were analyzed using the Lumex RA-915+ Zeeman
spectrometer with a RP-M324 decomposition furnace attachment cell. No mercury
amalgamation was necessary due to the sensitivity of the instrument. The iodated carbon samples
were loaded into a quartz combustion boat and inserted into a decomposition furnace at 775 deg
C. The mercury species are converted to elemental mercury and detected by the Zeeman atomic
1-7
-------
adsorption spectrometer. The analyzed is calibrated using NIST certified HgCb standards from
SCP Sciences. Elemental mercury spiking of the carbon tubes were performed using an impinger
containing a stannous chloride solution. The mercury standard is dispensed into the impinger and
the elemental mercury is pulled through the glassware system onto the iodated carbon. The
elemental mercury spike is used to assess the recovery the mercury from the carbon tubes.
1.6 Elemental Mercury Measurements
Elemental mercury measurements were collected in the vicinity of a gas header pipe at both sites
using a Lumex RA-915+ instrument. The Lumex instrument is considered to be ideally suited to
quantify and screen landfill gas samples for elemental mercury. This instrument has been used
by U.S. EPA, industry, and academic groups to quantify elemental mercury in indoor air and to
estimate elemental mercury emissions in industrial process flue gases.
The Lumex RA-915+ mercury analyzer produces real-time mercury concentration measurements
by performing atomic absorption spectrometry (at 253.7 nm wavelength) on elemental mercury
atoms in a continuously extracted gas stream. It achieves the low detection limit of 2 ng/m3 by
using a multi-path absorption cell, which has an effective optical path of approximately 10
meters. Using the Zeeman Effect, selectivity is achieved using high frequency modulation of
light polarization (ZAAS-HFM). For landfill gases, where mercury concentrations are expected
to be high, it may be beneficial to use the shorter-path-length cell (6.25 cm) and at the lower
sample flow rate (5.0 1pm), to take advantage of the detection limit of approximately 320 ng/m3
and higher linear calibration range.
Table 1-1. Target Compound List
Compound
Benzene
Butane
Carbonyl sulfide
Chloromethane
Dichlorodifluoromethane
Ethane
Ethyl chloride
Fluorotrichloromethane
Pentane
Propane
Acetone
Acrylonitrile
Carbon disulfide
Carbon tetrachloride
Chlorobenzene
Chloroform
Dimethyl sulfide
Ethylene dibromide
AP-42 Value a(ppmv) Compound AP-42 Value (ppmv)
1.91
5.03
0.49
1.21
15.7
889
1.25
0.76
3.29
11.1
7.01
6.33
0.58
0.004
0.25
0.03
7.82
0.001
Ethylene dichloride
Hexane
Methane
Methyl isobutyl ketone
Methylene chloride
Propylene dichloride
Tetrachloroethene
Trichlorethylene
Vinyl chloride
Vinylidene chloride
Ethanol
Methyl ethyl ketone
2-Propanol
1,4-Dichlorobenzene
Ethyl benzene
Xylenes
Hydrogen sulfide
Methyl mercaptan
0.41
6.57
N/A
1.87
14.3
0.18
3.73
2.82
7.34
0.20
27.2
7.09
50.1
0.21
4.61
12.1
35.5
2.49
N/A = not available
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors, AP-42, Volume 1:
Stationary Point and Area Sources, 5th ed., Chapter 2.4, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, US EPA,
Research Triangle Park, NC, 1997. Available at: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ap42/ch02/final/c02s04.pdf
1-8
-------
1.7 Calculation of NMOC Fluxes
As described previously, concentrations of NMOC were determined from samples of landfill gas
collected at the gas header pipe at each site. The samples were analyzed for the target
compounds listed in Table 1-1. Upon completion of the sample analysis, the concentration of the
detected target compounds (obtained from the EPA Method TO-15 data) was ratioed to the
concentration of the methane in the landfill gas samples (obtained from the EPA Method 25-C
data). This ratio was used with the methane emissions data collected with the ORS
instrumentation to calculate an estimated emissions flux value, from the top of the landfill cell
for each of the target VOC compounds, using the following formula:
Ft=[(Ct*F0)/Co][Mt/Mo] (1)
Where
Ft is the flux of the target compound (VOC)
Q is the measured concentration of the target compound
F0 is the calculated methane flux
C0 is the measured methane concentration
Mt is the molecular weight of the target compound
M0 is the molecular weight of methane
1.8 Field Schedule
Two field campaigns were completed for this study at two separate sites during February and
October 2007. During the February 2007 field campaign, methane concentration data were
collected using the ORS instrumentation, and gas and mercury samples were collected near the
landfill header pipes. Due to questionable gas and mercury data from the February 2007
campaign, additional gas and mercury samples were collected during a second campaign
conducted in October 2007. Table 1-2 presents the schedule of work that was performed.
1-9
-------
Table 1-2. Schedule of Work Performed at the Sites
Day
Site
Detail of Work Performed
Sunday, February 18 Site #1
Monday, February 19 Site #1
Tuesday, February 20 Site #1
Wednesday, February 21 Site #1
Thursday, February 22 Site #1
Friday, February 23 Site #2
Travel to Site #1
AM-Site Orientation
PM-Deployment of ORS Equipment at Control Cell; gas and
mercury sampling
ORS Data Collected at Control Cell; gas and mercury sampling
AM- Deployment of ORS Equipment at Bioreactor Cell
PM- ORS Data Collected at Bioreactor Cell; gas and mercury
sampling
AM- ORS Data Collected at Bioreactor Cell
PM- Travel to Site #2
AM- Site Orientation and Deployment of ORS Equipment at
Bioreactor Cell
PM- ORS Data Collected at Bioreactor Cell; gas and mercury
sampling
Saturday, February 24
Sunday, February 25
Sunday, October 21
Monday, October 22
Tuesday, October 23
Wednesday, October 24
Site #2
Site #2
Site #1
Site #1
Site #2
Site #1
AM- ORS Data Collected at Bioreactor Cell
PM- Deployment of ORS Equipment and ORS Data Collected at
Control Cell; gas and mercury sampling
ORS Data Collected at Control Cell; gas and mercury sampling
Travel to Site #1
Perform gas sampling / Travel to site #2
Perform gas and mercury sampling /. Travel to site #1
Perform gas and mercury sampling /Travel back to RTP
1-10
-------
Chapter 2
Test Procedures
The following subsections describe the test procedures used during the optical remote sensing
measurements at each of the survey cells at the two sites. Refer to Figures 1-1 and 1-2 for the
geographical orientation of each survey cell. For the ORS measurements, 10 mirrors were used
with each ORS instrument for a total of 20 mirrors for each survey within each landfill cell. The
coordinates of the mirrors used in each configuration are presented in Appendix B of this report.
Additionally, the test procedures used to collect the mercury samples, Summa canister samples,
and gas flow measurements, are described below.
2.1 Optical Remote Sensing Measurements at Landfill Site #1
2.1.1 Control Cell
The control cell was located on the western side of landfill Site #1 (see Figure 1-1). ORS
measurements were collected in this cell on February 20. The Control Cell was a closed cell, and
a synthetic liner was installed over the surface of the cell in November 2001. The VRPM
configuration consisted of a scanning OP-FTIR instrument, a scanning OP-TDLAS instrument,
and two vertical structures. The OP-FTIR was deployed in the northwestern corner of the cell,
the OP-TDLAS was deployed in the southeastern corner of the cell, and the two vertical
structures were deployed in the northeastern and southwestern corners of the cell, respectively.
Figure 2-1 presents a schematic of the measurement configuration used in the control cell,
showing the distances of the VRPM planes. The dashed black lines depict the location of the four
VRPM measurement planes. Figure 2-2 shows a photo of the measurement configuration.
Figure 2-1. Schematic of measurement configuration at the control cell of Site #1
2-1
-------
Figure 2-2. Detail of measurement configuration at the control cell of Site #1
2.1.2 Bioreactor Cell
The bioreactor cell was located on the eastern side of landfill Site #1 (see Figure 1-1). ORS
measurements were collected in this cell on February 22. The bioreactor cell was accepting
waste during the time of the measurements, so it was not possible to deploy the instrumentation
over the entire footprint of the cell due to heavy machinery traffic associated with landfill
operations. The VRPM configuration consisted of a scanning OP-FTIR instrument, a scanning
OP-TDLAS instrument, and two vertical structures. The OP-FTIR was deployed in the
northwestern corner of the cell, the OP-TDLAS was deployed in the southeastern corner of the
cell, and the two vertical structures were deployed in the northeastern and southwestern corners
of the cell, respectively. The work face was located in the eastern portion of the landfill cell.
Figure 2-3 presents a schematic of the measurement configuration used in the Bioreactor Cell,
showing the distances of the VRPM planes. The dashed black lines depict the location of the four
VRPM measurement planes. The dashed yellow line indicates the configuration used to collect
background measurements at the site.
2-2
-------
Figure 2-3. Schematic of measurement configuration at the control cell of Site #1
2.1.3 Background Measurements
Background methane concentration measurements were collected at Site #1 on February 21
using the OP-TDLAS instrument. The measurements were collected at a location south of the
bioreactor cell, upwind of the landfill cells at the site. The data collected were used to establish
an average background methane concentration at the site.
2.2 Optical Remote Sensing Measurements at Landfill Site #2
2.2.1 Control Cell
The control cell was located on the southern side of landfill Site #2 (see Figure 1-2). This cell
was referred to as the "control cell" because it was not being operated as a bioreactor cell.
However, the cell was still accepting waste during the time of the measurements. ORS
measurements were collected in this cell on February 24 and 25. Since the control cell was
accepting waste during the time of the measurements, it was not possible to deploy the
instrumentation over the entire footprint of the cell due to heavy machinery traffic associated
with landfill operations. The VRPM configuration consisted of a scanning OP-FTIR instrument,
a scanning OP-TDLAS instrument, and two vertical structures. The OP-FTIR was deployed in
the northwestern corner of the cell, the OP-TDLAS was deployed in the southeastern corner of
the cell, and the two vertical structures were deployed in the northeastern and southwestern
2-3
-------
corners of the cell, respectively. Figure 2-4 presents a schematic of the measurement
configuration used in the control cell, showing the distances of the VRPM planes. The dashed
yellow lines depict the location of the four VRPM measurement planes. Figure 2-5 shows a
photo of the measurement configuration.
Figure 2-4. Schematic of measurement configuration at the control cell of Site #2
Figure 2-5. Detail of the measurement configuration at the control cell of Site #2
2-4
-------
2.2.2 Bioreactor Cell
The bioreactor cell was located on the northern side of landfill Site #2 (see Figure 1-2). ORS
measurements were collected in this cell on February 23 and 24. The bioreactor cell was an
active cell, and a soil cover had been recently placed over the surface. Although this cell was
classified as a bioreactor cell, according to the site operators, leachate had not been injected into
the cell in several months due to excessive rainfall in the area. The VRPM configuration
consisted of a scanning OP-FTIR instrument, a scanning OP-TDLAS instrument, and two
vertical structures. The OP-FTIR was deployed in the northeastern corner of the cell, the OP-
TDLAS was deployed in the southwestern corner of the cell, and the two vertical structures were
deployed in the northwestern and southeastern corners of the cell, respectively. Figure 2-6
presents a schematic of the measurement configuration used in the bioreactor cell, showing the
distances of the VRPM planes. The dashed yellow lines depict the location of the four VRPM
measurement planes. The dashed red line indicates the location of the configuration used to
collect background measurements at the site. Figure 2-7 shows a photo of the measurement
configuration.
Figure 2-6. Schematic of measurement configuration at the control cell of Site #2
Figure 2-7. Detail of the measurement configuration at the control cell of Site #2
2-5
-------
2.2.3 Background Measurements
Background methane concentration measurements were collected at Site #2 on February 25
using the OP-TDLAS instrument. The measurements were collected at a location south of the
control cell, upwind of the landfill cells at the site. The data collected were used to establish an
average background methane concentration at the site.
2.3 Total and Speciated Mercury Sampling
During the February 2007 field campaign, the total mercury samples (THg) were collected using
an iodated charcoal trap as a sorbent. A backup tube was also present to assess any breakthrough.
The sorbent tube was heated to above the dew point of the gas stream to prevent condensation on
the sorbent. Water vapor from the stream was collected and quantified using a silica gel
impinger. A diaphragm air pump was used to pull sample through the train and collect the
sample. The volume of gas sampled was monitored and quantified using a volatile organic
sampling train (VOST) box. The sample flow rate was nominally 0.8 liters/minute for 37.5
minutes, which equates to a total volume of approximately 30 liters.
The traps were returned to the lab where the iodated carbon is leached of collected Hg using hot-
refluxing HNO3/H2SO4 and then further oxidized by a 0.01 N BrCl solution. The digested and
oxidized leachate sample was analyzed using the FGS-069 CVAFS total Hg analysis method
(which served as the basis for U.S. EPA Method 1631, developed, authored, and validated by
Frontier Geosciences).
During the October 2007 field campaign, carbon tube samples taken from the landfills were
analyzed by a modified SW-846 Method 7473, "Mercury in Solids and Solutions by Thermal
Decomposition, Mercury Amalgamation, and Atomic Adsorption Spectroscopy" and CFR Part
60 Method 30B, "Determination of Total Vapor Phase Mercury Emissions from Coal-Fired
Combustion Sources Using Carbon Sorbent Tubes." Samples were analyzed using a Lumex RA-
915+ Zeeman spectrometer with a RP-M324 decomposition furnace attachment cell. No mercury
amalgamation was necessary due to the sensitivity of the instrument. The iodated carbon samples
were loaded into a quartz combustion boat and inserted into a decomposition furnace at 775 °C.
The mercury species were converted to elemental mercury and detected by the Zeeman atomic
adsorption spectrometer. The analyzer was calibrated using NIST certified HgCb standards from
SCP Sciences. Elemental mercury spiking of the carbon tubes was performed using an impinger
containing a stannous chloride solution. The mercury standard was dispensed into the impinger
and the elemental mercury is pulled through the glassware system onto the iodated carbon. The
elemental mercury spike was used to assess the recovery the mercury from the carbon tubes.
Dimethyl mercury (DMM) was sampled using a slightly different technique. A Carbotrap was
used as a sorbent, with a backup tube to assess any breakthrough. A third iodated carbon trap
was also present to collect any elemental mercury present. The sorbent tube was heated to a
temperature above the dew point of the gas stream to prevent condensation on the sorbent. Water
vapor from the stream was collected and quantified using a silica gel impinger. A diaphragm air
pump was used to pull the sample through the train and collect the sample. The volume of gas
sampled was monitored and quantified using a volatile organic sampling train (VOST) box. The
sample flow rate was nominally 0.35 liters/minute for a total volume of approximately 0.5 liters.
2-6
-------
An acidic neutralization tube was placed in front of the DMM sorbent to reduce the possibility of
analyte degradation.
The DMM content of the Carbotraps was determined by thermal-desorption, gas
chromatography, and cold vapor atomic fluorescence spectrometry (TD-GC-CVAFS). The
analytical system was calibrated by purging precise quantities of DMM in methanol (1 to 500
pg) from deionized water onto Carbotraps and then thermally desorbing (45 seconds at a 25 to
450 °C ramp) them directly into the isothermal GC (1 m 4 mm ID column of 15% OV-3 on
Chromasorb WAW-DMCS 80/100 mesh) held at 80 °C. The output of the GC was passed
through a pyrolytic cracking column held at 700 °C, converting the organomercury compounds
to elemental form. DMM was identified by retention time and quantified by peak height.
To collect the monomethyl mercury sample, a set of three impingers filled with 0.001 M HC1
was used. An empty fourth impinger was used to remove any impinger solution carryover to the
pump and meter system. A diaphragm air pump was used to pull sample through the train and
collect the sample. The volume of gas sampled was monitored and quantified using a volatile
organic sampling train (VOST) box. The sample flow rate was nominally 0.8 liters/minute for
37.5 minutes, which equates to a total volume of approximately 30 liters.
The analysis method uses distillation, ethylation, Carbotrap preconcentration, thermal
desorption, gas-chromatography separation, thermal conversion, and CVAFS detection.
2.4 Lumex Elemental Mercury Field Sampling
The Lumex mercury analyzer was used to sample elemental mercury concentration of the landfill
gas. The Lumex mercury analyzer was connected to a standard 500 ml 45/50 impinger using
28/15 connections to knock out excessive moisture. The impinger was cooled using a standard
Apex Instruments cold box with water and ice. Gas was forced through positive pressure through
the impinger to the Lumex analyzer using an atmospheric vent to eliminate over pressurization of
the Lumex sample cell.
2.5 Summa Canister Sampling
Summa canister samples were collected using an EPA Method 0040 VOST sample conditioning
train connected to a 6 liter Summa canister sample container. A sample pump was used to pull
the purge flow from the landfill gas header pipe through the VOC sampling system. Summa
canister samples were analyzed using EPA Method TO-15 and EPA Method 25-C.
2-7
-------
This page intentionally left blank.
2-8
-------
Chapter 3
Results and Discussion
The results from the measurement campaign are presented in the following subsections,
including the calculated methane flux values from each landfill cell, total site methane emission
rates, data on VOC constituents in the landfill gas from each site, and data on total, elemental
and organo-mercury (including methyl- and dimethyl- mercury) collected in the vicinity of the
gas header pipes at the sites. The methane concentrations used to calculate methane flux values
from each cell are presented in Appendix C of this document.
As mentioned previously, background methane concentration measurements were collected at
each site to establish a background methane concentration value. Although measurements were
collected at Site #1 in an area upwind of the measurement cells, the measurement location was
still within the boundaries of the landfill facility. The average methane concentration found from
the background survey at Site #1 was 3.1 ± 1.68 ppm. The fact that the standard deviation of the
measurement is high (almost equal to the expected atmospheric background value of 1.7 ppm)
indicates that there were methane sources captured by the background measurement
configuration. Therefore, the background data collected at Site #1 does not represent a true site
background measurement. Due to this, we used an accepted global methane background value of
1.7 ppm. The average methane concentration from the background survey performed at Site #2
was 1.7 ± 0.376 ppm. The background values from each site were subtracted from all raw
methane concentrations prior to calculating methane flux values from the sites.
During the Site #1 measurement campaign, an inter-comparison study was performed between
the OP-FTIR and OP-TDLAS instruments. The objective of the study was to assess the
comparability of the two instruments by deploying them along the same optical path and
comparing the measured path-averaged methane concentrations. Due to project time constraints,
the inter-comparison study was not performed over an adequate period of time to obtain reliable
data. Ideally this should have been done during the study at each site. However, for the
reporting of this data and based on previous studies where both instruments were compared over
adequate time periods, it is assumed that the two instruments provide identical results for
methane concentration measurements. Further information is presented in Section 5.
3.1 Landfill Site #1
3.1.1 Control Cell
ORS measurements were collected in the control cell on February 20. A schematic of the ORS
measurement configuration from this cell can be found in Figure 2-1. Although measurements
were collected in this cell for several hours, problems were encountered with the alignment of
the OP-TDLAS beams on the retro-reflecting mirror targets, as the synthetic liner on the surface
of the cell did not provide a firm surface to deploy the OP-TDLAS scanner. After the instrument
3-1
-------
was aligned on the mirror targets in the configuration, the scanner positions drifted after a short
period of time due to slight movement of the scanner base, and eventually the instrument was
completely misaligned on all mirrors. Consequently, it was necessary to stop data acquisition,
and re-align the instrument on all mirrors in the configuration. This problem was especially
evident along the long VRPM configuration, located along the southern boundary of the cell.
Due to this problem, there are limited ORS data from this survey, especially data from the long
OP-TDLAS configuration located along the southern boundary of the cell. In fact, data was
collected along only the longest surface beam path of this configuration (mirror target located at
the base of the vertical structure) in order to obtain enough information to estimate the methane
flux value along this VRPM plane. Emissions data presented in this section are from two
surveys. The flux values presented in the tables in this section represent a moving average of
three measurement cycles, where a cycle is defined as data collected along each measurement
path in the configuration. The time of the flux measurements presented in the tables represents
the midpoint time of the averaging period, where the averaging period is approximately 15
minutes. Figure 3-1 presents a summary of the actual measurement configurations used in the
cell, as well as the measurement results from the first survey conducted at 4:00 p.m. Figure 3-2
presents the measurement results from the second survey conducted at 5:00 p.m. The figures
depict the average calculated methane flux values along each VRPM measurement plane during
each survey. The blue arrow depicts the prevailing wind values during the time of the
measurements.
Figure 3-1. Summary of ORS measurements from the 4:00 pm survey of the control cell of
Site #1
3-2
-------
Figure 3-2 Summary of ORS measurements from the 5:00 pm survey of the control cell of
Site #1
The figures show that the prevailing winds were from the southwest during the time of the
measurements. Based on the prevailing wind direction, the southern and western VRPM planes
are located upwind of the actual landfill cell, so flux values measured along these VRPM planes
represent methane emissions from the southern and western slopes of the cell. The VRPM planes
located along the northern and eastern boundaries of the cell are downwind of the landfill cell.
The methane flux values measured during the 4:00 p.m. survey along the northern, eastern,
southern, and western VRPM measurement planes were 3.8, 4.8, 0, and 3.3 grams per second,
respectively (the value of 0 grams per second is used because the methane concentration
measurements from the southern VRPM plane were below the atmospheric background value of
1.7 ppm). The difference between the sum of the fluxes measured along the northern and eastern
planes (8.6 g/s) and the southern and western planes (3.3 g/s), 5.3 grams per second, represents
the calculated methane flux value from the top of the landfill cell (defined as the flat surface area
where instrumentation was deployed). The sum of the flux values measured along the southern
and western planes, 3.3 grams per second, represents the calculated methane flux value from the
southern and western slopes of the landfill cell.
The methane flux values measured during the 5:00 p.m. survey along the northern, eastern,
southern, and western VRPM measurement planes were 2.0, 12, 5.2, and 0.77 grams per second,
respectively. The difference between the sum of the fluxes measured along the northern and
eastern planes (14 g/s) and the southern and western planes (6.0 g/s), 8.0 grams per second,
represents the calculated methane flux value from the top of the landfill cell (defined as the flat
surface area where instrumentation was deployed). The sum of the flux values measured along
the southern and western planes, 6.0 grams per second, represents the calculated methane flux
value from the southern and western slopes of the landfill cell.
As mentioned previously, due to problems with alignment of the OP-TDLAS instrument, data
was collected along only one beam path of the southern VRPM plane. By comparing the
3-3
-------
methane concentrations measured along this beam path with the methane concentrations
measured along the corresponding beam path of the eastern VRPM configuration, it was possible
to estimate the methane flux value along the southern VRPM configuration, assuming similar
source size and distance of the source (hotspot) from both VRPM planes. The following formula
was used to estimate the methane flux value along the southern boundary of the cell.
= [Mi/M2][F2]
(2)
Where:
FI = methane flux value along the southern VRPM configuration
MI = path-integrated methane concentration measured along longest surface beam path of
the southern VRPM configuration
M2 = path-integrated methane concentration measured along longest surface beam path of
the eastern VRPM configuration
p2 = calculated methane flux value along the eastern VRPM configuration
Tables 3-1,3-2, and 3-3 present the calculated methane flux, measurement time, prevailing wind
speed, and prevailing wind direction during the time of the VRPM measurements (4:00 p.m. and
5:00 p.m. surveys) along the northern, eastern, and western VRPM configurations, respectively.
Table 3-1. Calculated methane flux and prevailing wind speed and direction measured
along the northern VRPM configuration in the control cell of Site #1
Survey
4 p.m.
5 p.m.
Time
16:11:52
17:15:51
Methane Flux
(9/8)
3.8
1.9
Prevailing Wind Direction
(degrees from North)
228
255
Prevailing Wind Speed
(mis)
4.1
2.7
Table 3-2. Calculated methane flux and prevailing wind speed and direction measured
along the eastern VRPM configuration in the control cell of Site #1
Survey
4 p.m.
4 p.m.
5 p.m.
Time
15:59:30
16:04:48
17:17:04
Methane Flux
(9/8)
7.1
2.6
12
Prevailing Wind Direction
(degrees from North)
220
228
258
Prevailing Wind Speed
(mis)
5.3
4.7
2.7
Table 3-3. Calculated methane flux and prevailing wind speed and direction measured
along the western VRPM configuration in the control cell of Site #1
Survey
4 p.m.
5 p.m.
Time
16:08:37
17:12:38
Methane Flux Prevailing Wind Direction
(g/s) (degrees from North)
3.3
0.77
227
253
Prevailing Wind Speed
(mis)
4.4
3
3-4
-------
3.1.2 Bioreactor Cell
3.1.2.1 February 22
ORS measurements were collected in the bioreactor cell during the morning and early afternoon
of February 22. A schematic of the ORS measurement configuration from this cell can be found
in Figure 2-3. Figure 3-3 presents a summary of the actual measurement configurations used in
the cell, as well as the measurement results. The figure depicts the average calculated methane
flux values along each VRPM measurement plane. The blue arrow depicts the prevailing wind
values during the time of the measurements.
The figure shows that the prevailing winds were from the northwest during the time of the
measurements. Based on the prevailing wind direction, the northern and western VRPM planes
are located upwind of the actual landfill cell, and the VRPM planes located along the southern
and eastern boundaries of the cell are downwind of the landfill cell. By convention of the
measurement method, the sum of the flux values from measurement planes located upwind of the
landfill cell is subtracted from the sum of the flux values from the downwind measurement
planes to yield emissions from the cell of interest. Flux values measured along the northern and
western upwind VRPM planes represent methane emissions from the northern and western
slopes of the cell, respectively.
The methane flux values measured along the northern, eastern, southern, and western VRPM
measurement planes were 15, 13, 9.1, and 0.76 grams per second, respectively. The difference
between the sum of the fluxes measured along the southern and eastern planes (22 g/s) and the
northern and western planes (16 g/s), 6.0 grams per second, represents the calculated methane
flux value from the top of the landfill cell (defined as the flat surface area where instrumentation
was deployed). The sum of the flux values measured along the northern and western planes, 16
grams per second, represents the calculated methane flux value from the northern and western
slopes of the landfill cell.
3-5
-------
Figure 3-3 Summary of ORS measurements conducted on February 22 in the bioreactor
cell of Site #1.
Tables 3-4, 3-5, 3-6, and 3-7 present the calculated methane flux, measurement time, prevailing
wind speed, and prevailing wind direction during the time of the VRPM measurements along the
northern, eastern, southern, and western VRPM configurations, respectively.
3-6
-------
Table 3-4. Calculated methane flux and prevailing wind speed and direction measured
on February 22 along the northern VRPM configuration in the bioreactor
cell of Site #1
Time
11:16:52
11:23:52
11:30:51
11:37:52
11:44:52
12:23:52
12:30:51
12:37:52
13:13:52
13:20:52
13:59:52
14:06:51
Methane Flux
(9/8)
18
24
19
15
16
12
15
14
5.1
6.1
17
13
Average = 15
Prevailing Wind Direction
(degrees from North)
315
313
311
315
322
318
332
338
313
306
306
301
Prevailing Wind Speed
(mis)
3.6
3.5
3.2
2.9
2.8
3.3
3.5
3.4
3.2
3.3
2.8
3.3
Standard Dev.= 5.24
3-7
-------
Table 3-5. Calculated methane flux and prevailing wind speed and direction measured
on February 22 along the eastern VRPM configuration in the bioreactor cell
of Site #1
Time
11:17:30
11:23:09
11:28:30
11:33:50
11:52:37
11:58:59
12:04:19
12:09:39
12:15:00
12:20:19
12:44:53
12:50:14
12:55:35
13:03:43
13:09:03
13:14:24
13:19:44
13:25:04
13:30:24
13:35:44
13:41:03
13:46:23
13:51:43
13:57:03
14:02:24
14:07:44
Methane Flux
(9/8)
11
9.9
12
19
11
11
12
12
14
12
8.8
14
15
13
8.9
12
12
14
16
16
15
16
11
13
18
23
Average= 13
Standard Dev.=3.23
Prevailing Wind Direction
(degrees from North)
318
315
311
309
310
310
311
308
306
309
328
317
313
318
319
311
306
307
309
312
312
307
310
309
301
300
Prevailing Wind Speed
(m/s)
3.4
3.7
3.5
3.1
2.7
2.7
3.2
3.4
3.5
3.4
3.1
2.7
2.7
2.7
2.9
3.3
3.4
3.6
3.5
3.4
2.9
3.7
3.1
3.1
2.8
3.1
3-8
-------
Table 3-6. Calculated methane flux and prevailing wind speed and direction measured
on February 22 along the southern VRPM configuration in the bioreactor
cell of Site #1
Time
11:20:29
11:25:50
11:31:10
11:56:20
12:01:39
12:07:01
12:12:20
12:17:39
12:23:00
12:28:32
12:33:52
12:38:04
13:01:04
13:06:24
13:11:44
13:17:04
13:22:23
13:27:43
13:33:03
13:38:24
13:43:44
13:49:04
13:54:24
13:59:44
14:05:04
14:10:23
14:16:01
Methane Flux
(9/8)
15
20
18
10
9.7
8.1
7.2
8.6
14
14
9.9
8.6
6.1
8.8
6.8
7.5
6.1
6.5
7.4
7.6
5.6
8.6
7.8
6.7
4.3
5.5
8.6
Average= 9.1
Standard Dev.=3.79
Prevailing Wind Direction
(degrees from North)
319
314
308
312
309
312
307
306
317
330
340
338
316
320
313
310
306
307
311
312
308
309
308
308
299
301
316
Prevailing Wind Speed
(m/s)
3.5
3.4
3.3
2.7
2.9
3.3
3.5
3.4
3.5
3.4
3.8
3.4
2.6
2.9
2.9
3.4
3.5
3.6
3.2
3.3
3.1
3.4
3.4
2.7
3.1
3.4
3.4
3-9
-------
Table 3-7. Calculated methane flux and prevailing wind speed and direction measured
on February 22 along the western VRPM configuration in the bioreactor cell
of Site #1
Time
11:20:43
11:27:38
11:34:36
11:41:53
11:48:38
12:20:43
12:27:38
12:34:36
12:41:53
12:48:38
12:56:07
13:03:26
13:10:36
13:17:42
13:24:38
13:57:01
14:03:38
14:10:36
Methane Flux (g/s)
0.23
1.4
1.4
0.45
0.56
1.1
0.38
2.8
1.9
0.28
1.1
0.48
1.1
2.4
2.2
1.5
2.0
3.7
Average= 0.76
Standard Dev.=1.51
Prevailing Wind Direction
(degrees from North)
317
312
311
319
317
314
326
339
337
320
312
318
316
310
307
307
301
306
Prevailing Wind Speed
(mis)
3.5
3.5
3.1
2.9
2.8
3.5
3.4
3.5
3.4
2.8
2.6
2.8
3
3.3
3.6
3.3
2.9
3.3
3.1.3 Total Site Methane Emissions
Total site methane emissions were estimated using the methane flux results from the VRPM
measurements. The first step in estimating the total methane emissions is to estimate the total
surface area of the control and bioreactor cells, including the surface areas of the corresponding
slopes. This was done using distance measurements taken during the measurement surveys. The
surface area of the slopes was estimated by multiplying the length of the corresponding VRPM
measurement plane by 100 meters, which is the estimated distance from the top of the cell to the
bottom of the landfill mound.
The next step is to calculate methane emission factors for the top area of each cell, and the
corresponding cell slopes. The methane emission factor for the top area of the cell is calculated
by dividing the net methane flux from the top of the cell by the surface area of the cell, and then
converting the value to units of grams per day per meter squared. The following calculation
details how to calculate the methane emission factor for the top of the control area:
3-10
-------
[6.5 g/s CH4 / 8800 m2 surface area] *3600 sec/hr *24 hr/day = 64 g/day/m2 CH4 (2)
The methane emission factor from the slopes is estimated by calculating the methane emission
factor for each of the two source slope areas contributing to the methane emissions measured
during the time of the VRPM surveys. For the control area, this is the southern and western
slopes, based on the prevailing wind direction during the time of the measurements (see Section
3.1.1). The total surface area of each slope was calculated. Because the prevailing wind
direction was not perpendicular to the configuration plane of the survey area while the
measurements were conducted, it is likely the measurements only capture a portion of the
methane emissions. So the results will be biased low.
Previous validation studies using trace gas released have been used to evaluate plume capture. If
the trace gas is released up to 100 meters upwind of the configuration for a plane length of 200
meters. This is under ideal wind conditions that are close to perpendicular to the configuration
place (U.S. EPA, 2007). In order to more accurately estimate the methane emission factors from
the slope areas, a slope area is defined as an area bounded by the distance of the VRPM
configuration and a distance one-half the distance of the VRPM configuration. In the case of the
control area, the distance of the southern VRPM configuration plane was 180 meters and the
distance of the western VRPM plane was 51 meters. The following steps detail the calculation of
the contributing emission surface areas from the southern and western slopes of the control cell:
1) 180 meters * 90 meters = 16,200 m2, which is the contributing emission surface area from the
southern slope of the cell
2) 51 meters * 25.5 meters = 1,300 m2, which is the contributing emission surface area from the
western slope
These values were input into Equation 2 with the values of the methane flux values measured
along each VRPM configuration to calculate the emission factors from the southern and western
slopes. The calculated emission factors from the southern and western slopes were 14 g/day/m2
and 130 g/day/m2, respectively.
The next step is to calculate the average measured methane emission factor from the two slopes.
This was done using a weighted average calculation. According to the calculations above, the
contributing emissions surface area from the western slope is approximately 7 percent of the total
contributing emission surface area. The surface area from the southern slope is approximately
93 percent of the total contributing emission surface area. The following details the calculation
of the weighted average measured methane emission factor from the two slopes of the control
cell:
0.07 *130 g/day/m2 methane western slope + 0.93 * 14 g/day/m2 methane southern slope =
22 g/day/m2 from the slopes of control cell
As mentioned previously, the total surface area of the top of the cell was 8800 m2. The total
surface area of the slopes of the cell was estimated by multiplying the length of the VRPM
configuration plane by 100 meters, which was the estimated distance from the top of the landfill
3-11
-------
cell to the base. The following equation shows the calculation of the total surface area of the
slopes:
(180m *100m) + (160m *100m) + (52m * 100m) + (51m * 100m) = 44,300 m2
In order to calculate the total methane emission factor from the control cell, a weighted average
calculation was used. According to the calculations above, the surface area of the slopes is
approximately 84 percent of the total surface area of the cell. The surface area of the top is
approximately 16 percent of the total surface area of the cell. The following details the
calculation of the weighted average measured methane emission factor from the control cell:
0.16 * 64 g/day/m2 methane top of cell + 0.84 * 22 g/day/m2 methane slopes =
29 g/day/m2 methane control cell
This value is converted to kilograms of methane per day by multiplying by the total surface area
of the cell, and dividing by 1000 to yield a cell emissions value of 1,500 kg/day.
The total site methane emissions are found by adding the values of the total methane emissions
from the control and bioreactor cells.
Table 3-8 presents the results of these calculations for Site #1.
Table 3-8. Summary of total site methane emissions calculations from Site #1
Calculation Control Cell Bioreactor Cell
Total Surface Area of Top of Cell 8,800m2 13,500m2
Total Surface Area of Slopes 44,300 m2 47,700 m2
Methane Emission Factor of Top of Cell 64 g/day/m2 40 g/day/m2
Methane Emission Factor of Slopes 22 g/day/m2 68 g/day/m2
Total Methane Emission Factor of Cell 29 g/day/m2 62 g/day/m2
Total Cell Methane Emissions 1,500 kg/day 3,800 kg/day
Total Site Methane Emissions= 5,300 kg/day
Based on the calculations presented in Table 3-8, the total methane emissions from Site #1 are
estimated to be 5,300 kilograms per day. It should be noted that this estimated value is
extrapolated from a limited amount of flux data, and does not take into account diurnal or
seasonal trends in methane emissions.
3-12
-------
3.1.4 Summa Can ister Sampling
Summa canister samples were collected from the gas collection header pipe in triplicate at Site
#1. These samples represent a composite of LFG from the entire site. Samples were collected
upstream of the vacuum pump to minimize loses and contamination. Blanks were also collected
using a nitrogen gas stream to purge the VOST train condensers and glassware. Samples were
analyzed using Methods TO- 15, 25-C, a Cl through C6 alkane hydrocarbons analysis by
GC/FID, and a permanent gases (Ch, N2, CO?) analysis by GC/TCD. Results are presented in
Tables 3-9 through 3-11. TO- 15 results are qualified using results from the nitrogen blank. Any
compounds reported in samples that are less than 5 times the concentration found in the blank are
considered to be non-detects and qualified "UB". As specified in the National Functional
Guidelines for Organic Data Review (October 1999) compounds reported in samples that were
less than 5 times the concentration found in the method blank were considered to be non-detects
and qualified "UB". In computing averages, when all measurements are ND, the average is
reported as ND. When one or more measurement is above detection, the ND measurement is
treated as 50% of the stated MDL. Though not applicable here, the method further specifies that
If MDL is not reported, a ND measurement is treated as zero.
The average gas concentration values shown in Table 3-9 were corrected for air infiltration that
can occur from landfill gas sample dilution and air intrusion into the landfill. The corrections
were performed on the following formula provided in the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
document, Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors, AP-42, Volume 1: Stationary Point
and Area Sources, 5th ed., Chapter 2.4 (U.S. EPA, 1997).
Jr> ...,., CP x(lxl06)
Cp (corrected for air infiltration) = — - - - - -
where:
CP = Concentration of pollutant? in LFG (i.e., NMOC as hexane), ppmv;
CC02 = CO2 concentration in LFG, ppmv;
QCH = CFL, Concentration in LFG, ppmv; and
1 x 106 = Constant used to correct concentration of P to units of ppmv.
3-13
-------
Table 3-9. Results of TO-15 analysis from Site #1
Sample Type: Landfill Gas
CAS NO.
75-71-8
76-14-2
74-87-3
75-01^
106-99-0
74-83-9
75-00-3
75-69-4
75-35-4
76-13-1
64-17-5
75-15-0
67-63-0
75-09-2
67-64-1
156-60-5
11-05-3
1634-04-4
75-34-3
108-05-4
156-59-2
110-82-7
67-66-3
141-78-6
109-99-9
71-55-6
56-23-5
78-93-3
142-82-5
71-43-2
Can ID:
COMPOUND
Dichlorodifluoromethane
(Freon 12)
1,2-Chloro-1, 1,2,2-
Tetrafluoroethane
Chloromethane
Vinyl chloride
1,3-Butadiene
Bromo methane
Chloroethane
Trichloromonofluoromethane
1,1-dichloroethene
1,1,2-trichloro-1,2,2-
trifluoroethane
Ethanol
Carbon disulfide
Isopropyl alcohol
Methylene chloride
Acetone
t-1,2-dichloroethene
Hexane
Methyl-t-butyl ether (MTBE)
1,1-Dichloroethane
Vinyl acetate
cis-1 ,2-dichloroethene
Cyclohexane
Chloroform
Ethyl Acetate
Tetrahydrofuran
1,1,1-trichloroethane
Carbon Tetrachloride
2-Butanone
Heptane
Benzene
Can F-2
ppbv
48.7
5.1
449-9UB
ND
ND
1.7
ND
2.0
ND
ND
ND
ND
133.1
ND
395.2
ND
33.1UB
ND
ND
4.5
17.3
399uB
ft£UB
159.4
107.6
ND
ND
424.8
4^UB
90.8
Landfill Gas
Can F-3
Ppbv
221.0
26.2
1/I2.7UB
119.7
ND
3.4
ND
11.8
ND
ND
ND
99.8
1773
408.4
2913
ND
177.5
3.2
ND
127.6
85.2
222.0
32.6UB
857.5
514.6
ND
ND
2353
ND
447.3
Landfill Gas
CanF-4
ppbv
150.2
19.9
367 3UB
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
121. 2UB
ND
489.7
ND
1926
ND
136.9
ND
ND
6.7
ND
86.6
62.9
554.5
374.0
ND
ND
1603
ND
319.6
Nitrogen AverageLandfill
Blank Concentration
Can F-5
ppbv
ND
ND
99.6
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
36.0
ND
19.4
ND
19.4
ND
7.0
ND
ND
ND
ND
10.7
8.6
9.6
5.6
ND
ND
ND
13.8
12.5
ppbv
139.9
17.1
ND
40.1
ND
1.8
ND
4.7
ND
ND
ND
33.4
798.6
136.3
1745
ND
104.9
1.2
ND
46.2
34.3
103.0
31.6
523.8
332.1
ND
ND
1460
ND
285.9
Corrected
Landfill Gas
Concentration
ppbv
143.8
17.6
ND
41.2
ND
1.8
ND
4.8
ND
ND
ND
34.4
820.8
140.1
1793
ND
107.8
1.3
ND
47.5
35.2
105.8
32.4
538.3
341.3
ND
ND
1501
ND
293.8
3-14
-------
Sample Type: Landfill Gas
CAS NO.
107-06-2
79-01-6
78-87-5
75-27-4
123-91-1
Can ID:
COMPOUND
1,2-dichloroethane
Trichloroethylene
1,2-dichloropropane
Bromodichloromethane
1,4-dioxane
1 0061-01-5 cis-1,3-dichloropropene
108-88-3
108-10-1
1006-02-6
127-18-4
79-00-5
124-48-1
106-93-4
591-78-6
100-41-4
108-90-7
1330-20-7
95-47-6
100-42-5
75-25-2
79-34-5
622-96-8
108-67-8
95-63-6
541-73-1
106-46-7
100-44-7
95-50-1
87-68-3
120-82-1
Toluene
4-Methyl-2-pentanone
(MIBK)
t-1 ,3-dichloropropene
Tetrachloroethylene
1 , 1 ,2-trichloroethane
Dibromochloromethane
1,2-dibromoethane
2-Hexanone
Ethylbenzene
Chlorobenzene
m/p-Xylene
o-Xylene
Styrene
Tribromomethane
1 , 1 ,2,2-tetrachloroethane
1-ethyl-4-methylbenzene
1 ,3,5-trimethylbenzene
1 ,2,4-trimethylbenzene
1 ,3-dichlorobenzene
1,4-dichlorobenzene
Benzyl chloride
1 ,2-dichlorobenzene
1 , 1 ,2,3,4,4-hexachloro-1 ,3-
butadiene
1 ,2,4-trichlorobenzene
Can F-2
ppbv
ND
9.5
ND
ND
ND
ND
954.5
61.1
ND
9.1
ND
ND
ND
ND
762.1
ND
1397
373.1
4ftSUB
ND
ND
ND
210.5
221.1
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
Landfill Gas
Can F-3
Ppbv
ND
50.1
ND
ND
ND
ND
4259
295.7
ND
43.3
ND
ND
ND
ND
3281
ND
6005
1679
201.7
26.1
ND
ND
922.4
930.6
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
Landfill Gas
CanF-4
ppbv
ND
47.4
ND
ND
ND
ND
3110
193.1
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
2337
ND
4416
1222
131.1
ND
ND
ND
659.2
694.1
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
Nitrogen Average Landfill
Blank _ . ..
Concentration
Can F-5
ppbv
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
144.8
6.8
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
155.9
47.6
11.8
ND
ND
ND
11.8
14.2
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ppbv
ND
35.7
ND
ND
ND
ND
2775
183.3
ND
17.5
ND
ND
ND
ND
2127
ND
3939
1091
111.0
8.9
ND
ND
597.4
615.2
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
Corrected
Landfill Gas
Concentration
ppbv
ND
36.7
ND
ND
ND
ND
2852
188.4
ND
18.0
ND
ND
ND
ND
2186
ND
4049
1122
114.1
9.1
ND
ND
614.0
632.3
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
UB = Sample concentration less than 5 times the blank concentration
ND = Not detected
3-15
-------
Table 3-10. Results of Cl to C6 and permanent gases by GC/FID/TCD from Site #1
Sample Type
Landfill Gas
Landfill Gas
Landfill Gas
Nitrogen Blank
Analyte:
Sample ID
F-2
F-3
F-4
F-5
Methane
(%)
6.1
33.2
15.5
0.0032
Ethane
(ppmv)
8.6
9.5
5.9
ND
Propane
(ppmv)
3.5
11.7
6.1
ND
Butane
(ppmv)
3.4
5.5
4.4
ND
Pentane
(ppmv)
ND
7.5
7
ND
Hexane
(ppmv)
ND
12.6
ND
ND
02
(%)
20.1
10.6
17.7
4
N2
(%)
79
39.1
66.8
101
CO2
(%)
ND
25.7
19.6
ND
Table 3-11. Results of Method 25-C analysis from Site #1
Sample Type
Landfill Gas
Landfill Gas
Landfill Gas
Nitrogen Blank
Analyte:
Sample ID
F-2
F-3
F-4
F-5
Methane
(%)
64.4
59.4
58.2
ND
CO2
(%)
46.1
43.2
42.2
ND
NMOC
(ppmv)
2576
2782
2677
ND
Mass Cone.
(mg/m3)
1286
1389
1337
ND
The results in Table 3-10 show a possible leak during the analysis, and should be considered as
suspect data. Concentrations of 62, methane, and CC>2, are not typical of a mature gas producing
landfill, as Q^ concentrations should be less than 2 percent, methane greater than 50 percent, and
CC>2 greater than 35 percent. The sum of the concentrations for methane, C>2, N2, and CC>2 also
exceed 100% in all cases due to problems in the analysis. In response to these questionable
results, additional landfill gas measurements were taken during the October 2007 field campaign.
These results are presented in Section 3.3 of this document.
The results shown in Table 3-11 appear to be the most valid results for methane and CC>2 because
this method was specifically designed for measuring landfill gas concentrations. With the
exception sample F-2, the sum of the concentrations for methane and CC>2 more closely balance
to 100% than the results presented in Table 3-10.
3.1.5 Total Mercury Measurements
Total mercury concentrations in the landfill gas from Site #1 ranged from 4958 to 5148 ng/m3
with an average of 5022 ng/m3 for all of the samples. Matrix spike recovery for the total mercury
sample was 98.2 percent. Table 3-12 presents the total mercury concentration data from Site #1.
3-16
-------
Table 3-12. Total Mercury Sample Concentrations from Site #1
Sample/Well Location ™al ™e[curV Gas Spike Recovery
r Concentration (ng/m) (%)
Gas Sample 1
Gas Sample 2
Gas Sample 3
Lab Spike
Lab Spike Duplicate
5148
4961
4958
NA
NA
NA
98.2
NA
89.9
97.6
3.1.6 Dimethyl Mercury Measurements
Dimethyl mercury concentrations in the landfill gas at Site #1 ranged from 1.22 to 2.65 ng/m3
with an average of 1.91 ng/m3. Spike recoveries for the dimethyl mercury traps were 13.9
percent. Un-sampled spike traps had recoveries from 87.4 to 89.9 percent with an average of
88.7 percent. Recoveries for the spiked/sampled traps were significantly lower than the
acceptance criteria of 50 to 150 percent. This is possibly due to the presence of an unknown
interfering compound either destroying or masking the detection of the dimethyl mercury. For
this reason, all of the dimethyl mercury results from this campaign must be labeled as suspect.
Sampling was performed at approximately 10 times the estimated volume necessary to collect a
valid sample. Table 3-13 presents the results of the dimethyl mercury concentration data from
Site#l.
Table 3-13. Dimethyl Mercury Sample Concentrations from Site #1
Sample /Well Location
Gas Sample 1
Gas Sample 2
Gas Sample 3
Spike Sample (front/back)
2nd Source Standards (1490 ng/L)
2nd Source Standards (1000 ng/L)
Dimethyl Mercury Gas
Concentration (ng/m3)
2.65
1.22
1.86
NA
NA
NA
Spike Recovery
(%)
103.3
NA
81.1
13.9
87.4
89.9
3.1.7 Monomethyl Mercury Measurements
Monomethyl mercury concentrations in the landfill gas at Site #1 ranged from 11.2 to 12.4 ng/m3
with an average of 11.8 ng/m3. Matrix spike recoveries for the monomethyl samples were 25.7
percent. Spike recoveries for un-sampled impinger solution ranged from 88 to 90 percent with an
average of 89 percent. The lower recoveries may have been due to a preservation issue with the
shipping or possible matrix interference as seen in the matrix spike and cause these data points to
be possibly under-reporting the true monomethyl mercury concentrations.. Table 3-14 presents
the monomethyl mercury concentration data from Site #1.
3-17
-------
Table 3-14. Monomethyl Mercury Concentrations (ng/m3) from Site #1
Sample / Well Location Monomethyl Mercury Gas Spike Recovery
r Concentration (ng/m) (%)
Gas Sample 1
Gas Sample 2
Gas Sample 3
Spike Sample
Analytical Spike
Analytical Spike Duplicate
11.16
12.44
11.86
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
25.7
88.0
90.4
3.1.8 Elemental Mercury Measurements
Lumex elemental mercury continuous measurements at Site #1 ranged from 3094 to 3445 ng/m3
with an average of 3266±130 ng/m3 for all of the samples. These samples were collected during
a 1.25 hour period on 2/21/2007. Sampling with the Lumex was also performed in conjunction
with the total mercury samples at this site. The Lumex concentrations during total mercury Gas
Sample 1 was 3277 ng/m3, Gas Sample 2 was 3495 ng/m3, and Gas Sample 3 was 3400 ng/m3'
3.1.9 Calculation ofNMOC Fluxes
The emissions flux value of each compound presented in Table 3-9 was estimated using the
method described in Section 1.7 of this document. The net measured methane flux values from
each landfill cell were used to estimate the emissions flux value of each compound. In order to
perform this calculation, the estimated methane emission values presented in Table 3-8 were
used (1,500 kg/day for the control cell and 3,800 kg/day for the bioreactor cell).
Table 3-15 presents the estimated flux of each compound (in units of grams per day) from the
control and bioreactor cells of Site #1.
3-18
-------
Table 3-15. Estimated NMOC Flux Values from the Control and Bioreactor Cells of Site
#1
Compound
Dichlorodifluoromethane (Freon 12)
1 ,2-Chloro-1 , 1 ,2,2-Tetrafluoroethane
Vinyl chloride
Bromomethane
Trichloromonofluoromethane
Carbon disulfide
Isopropyl alcohol
Methylene chloride
Acetone
Hexane
Methyl-t-butyl ether (MTBE)
Vinyl acetate
cis-1 ,2-dichloroethene
Cyclohexane
Chloroform
Ethyl Acetate
Tetrahydrofuran
2-Butanone
Benzene
Trichloroethylene
Toluene
4-Methyl-2-pentanone (MIBK)
Tetrachloroethylene
Ethylbenzene
m/p-Xylene
o-Xylene
Styrene
Tribromomethane
1 ,3,5-trimethylbenzene
1 ,2,4-trimethylbenzene
Corrected Landfill
Gas Concentration
(ppbv)
143.8
17.6
41.2
1.8
4.8
34.4
820.8
140.1
1793
107.8
1.3
47.5
35.2
105.8
32.4
538.3
341.3
1501
293.8
36.7
2852
183.3
18.0
2186
4049
1122
114.1
9.1
614.0
632.3
Estimated Flux
Value from Control
Cell
(grams per day)
3.4
0.60
0.51
0.030
0.13
0.52
9.7
2.4
21
1.8
0.020
0.81
0.68
1.8
0.76
9.4
4.9
21
4.5
0.95
52
3.6
0.59
46
85
24
2.4
0.46
15
15
Estimated Flux
Value from
Bioreactor Cell
(grams per day)
8.7
1.5
1.3
0.090
0.33
1.3
25
6.0
52
4.7
0.060
2.1
1.7
4.5
1.9
24
12
54
11
2.4
130
9.2
1.5
120
220
60
6.0
1.2
37
38
3-19
-------
3.2 Landfill Site #2
3.2.1 Control Cell
3.2.1.1 February 24
ORS measurements were collected in the control cell during the afternoon of February 24. A
schematic of the ORS measurement configuration from this cell can be found in Figure 2-4.
Figure 3-4 presents a summary of the actual measurement configurations used in the cell, as well
as the measurement results. The figure depicts the average calculated methane flux values along
each VRPM measurement plane. The blue arrow depicts the prevailing wind values during the
time of the measurements.
i^^1P;l^'H^'^iiS
^^rr^l^^feilS^^
;•»•*:»**<• <, • - •: :--ij^»s^^
m
;°':'lvf;
;W$
Figure 3-4 Summary of ORS measurements conducted on Feb. 24 in the control cell of Site
#2
The figure shows that the prevailing winds were from the southeast during the time of the
measurements. Based on the prevailing wind direction, the southern and eastern VRPM planes
are located upwind of the actual landfill cell, so flux values measured along these VRPM planes
represent methane emissions from the southern and eastern slopes of the cell (by convention of
the measurement method, flux values from measurement planes located upwind of the landfill
cell are shown as negative values). The VRPM planes located along the northern and western
boundaries of the cell are downwind of the landfill cell (by convention, flux values from
measurement planes located downwind of the landfill cell are shown as positive values).
The methane flux values measured along the northern, eastern, southern, and western VRPM
measurement planes were 14, 7.8, 20, and 2.8 grams per second, respectively. The difference
between the sum of the fluxes measured along the northern and western planes (17 g/s) and the
3-20
-------
southern and eastern planes (28 g/s), is a negative value. This is most likely due to the fact that
the methane flux values measured along the northern and western VRPM planes (14 and 2.8
grams per second, respectively) represent slight underestimations of the actual fluxes. The
prevailing winds during the time of the measurements were from the southeast, directly towards
the location of the OP-FTIR instrument, or convergence of the optical beams used in the OP-
FTIR measurements (see Figure 2-4). Flux values calculated with the VRPM method during
these conditions often result in an underestimation of the flux values. Based on this information,
the methane flux value from the top of the landfill cell is estimated to be negligible. This
conclusion is supported by the results of the ORS measurements collected in the control cell on
February 25, which are presented in section 3.2.1.2.
The sum of the flux values measured along the southern and eastern planes, 28 grams per second,
represents the calculated methane flux value from the southern and eastern slopes of the landfill
cell.
Tables 3-16, 3-17, 3-18, and 3-19 present the calculated methane flux, measurement time,
prevailing wind speed, and prevailing wind direction during the time of the VRPM
measurements along the northern, eastern, southern, and western VRPM configurations,
respectively. The measurement time shown represents the midpoint of the averaging period,
which lasts approximately 15 minutes.
Table 3-16. Calculated Methane Flux and Prevailing Wind Speed and Direction
Measured on February 24 along the Northern VRPM Configuration in the
Control Cell of Site #2
Time
15:11:22
15:18:21
15:24:51
15:31:52
15:38:52
15:45:51
15:52:52
15:59:52
16:06:51
16:13:22
16:20:22
16:26:52
16:33:51
16:40:52
16:47:52
16:54:51
17:01:52
Methane Flux
(g/s)
8.2
11
19
21
17
18
15
15
14
12
14
14
17
14
12
11
9.8
Average= 14
Standard Dev.=3.43
Prevailing Wind Direction
(degrees from North)
127
136
147
153
151
153
147
144
148
144
143
139
142
135
132
130
131
Prevailing Wind Speed
(m/s)
5.1
6.2
7.6
7.6
7.1
7.1
6.2
6.6
6.2
5.7
6.3
6.7
7.2
5.3
5.8
5.7
6.1
3-21
-------
Table 3-17. Calculated Methane Flux and Prevailing Wind Speed and Direction
Measured on February 24 along the Eastern VRPM Configuration in the
Control Cell of Site #2
Time
15:17:40
15:22:59
15:29:08
15:35:31
15:40:51
15:46:09
15:52:33
15:57:52
16:03:11
16:08:30
16:13:50
16:19:08
16:24:28
16:29:47
16:35:06
16:40:24
16:45:43
16:51:02
16:56:21
17:01:41
Methane Flux
(9/8)
7.4
6.3
5.6
5.7
5.1
5.8
6.4
7.1
7.4
7.5
7.5
8.3
9.6
9.1
9.9
9.6
9.3
9.4
10
9.3
Average= 7.8
Standard Dev.=1.64
Prevailing Wind Direction
(degrees from North)
134
147
151
151
154
154
147
144
146
147
145
141
143
141
141
137
134
127
131
131
Prevailing Wind Speed
(mis)
6.1
7.2
7.8
7.6
6.9
7.2
6.7
6.4
6.3
6.2
5.8
5.8
7.5
6.9
6.8
5.8
5.6
5.4
6.3
5.9
3-22
-------
Table 3-18. Calculated Methane Flux and Prevailing Wind Speed and Direction
Measured on February 24 along the Southern VRPM Configuration in the
Control Cell of Site #2
Time
15:15:18
15:20:19
15:26:29
15:31:48
15:38:12
15:43:31
15:49:54
15:55:13
16:00:32
16:05:51
16:11:11
16:16:30
16:21:48
16:27:07
16:32:26
16:37:45
16:43:05
16:48:23
16:53:43
16:59:01
17:04:21
Methane Flux
(9/8)
24
28
35
26
27
26
16
22
22
18
14
19
19
23
18
14
15
13
14
18
18
Average= 20
Standard Dev.= 5.68
Prevailing Wind Direction
(degrees from North)
125
139
152
148
151
156
148
142
147
146
148
144
143
142
142
137
138
129
129
130
132
Prevailing Wind Speed
(m/s)
5.9
6.2
8.2
7.1
7.2
7.2
6.7
6.2
6.7
6.2
6.2
5.9
6.6
7.2
7.2
5.8
5.7
5.5
5.8
5.9
6.3
3-23
-------
Table 3-19. Calculated Methane Flux and Prevailing Wind Speed and Direction
Measured on February 24 along the Western VRPM Configuration in the
Control Cell of Site #2
Time
15:08:07
15:15:07
15:21:38
15:28:36
15:35:51
15:42:38
15:49:36
15:57:01
16:03:38
16:10:06
16:17:11
16:23:44
16:30:38
16:37:36
16:44:55
16:51:38
16:58:36
Methane Flux
(9/8)
2.7
3.5
2.7
2.7
2.5
2.2
2.4
2.7
2.3
2.1
2.5
3.2
3.4
3.2
3.2
3.3
3.4
Prevailing Wind Direction
(degrees from North)
136
127
143
149
153
154
150
144
147
148
143
143
141
138
135
130
131
Prevailing Wind Speed
(m/s)
5.1
5.9
6.6
7.3
7.9
7
6.9
6.6
6.3
6.3
5.8
7.2
6.9
6.2
5.9
5.5
6.3
Average= 2.8
Standard Dev.=0.46
3.2.1.2 February 25
ORS measurements were collected in the control cell during the morning and early afternoon of
February 25. The ORS measurement configuration used on February 25 was identical to the
configuration used on February 24 (see Figure 2-4). Figure 3-5 presents a summary of the actual
measurement configurations used in the cell, as well as the measurement results. The figure
depicts the average calculated methane flux values along each VRPM measurement plane. The
blue arrow depicts the prevailing wind values during the time of the measurements.
The figure shows that the prevailing winds were from the southwest during the time of the
measurements. Based on the prevailing wind direction, the southern and western VRPM planes
are located upwind of the actual landfill cell, so flux values measured along these VRPM planes
represent methane emissions from the southern and western slopes of the cell (by convention of
the measurement method, flux values from measurement planes located upwind of the landfill
cell are shown as negative values). The VRPM planes located along the northern and eastern
boundaries of the cell are downwind of the landfill cell (by convention, flux values from
measurement planes located downwind of the landfill cell are shown as positive values).
3-24
-------
Figure 3-5 Summary of ORS measurements conducted on Feb. 25 in the control cell of
Site #2.
The methane flux values measured along the northern, eastern, southern, and western VRPM
measurement planes were 13, 2.3, 13, and 3.3 grams per second, respectively. The difference
between the sum of the fluxes measured along the northern and eastern planes (15 g/s) and the
southern and western planes (16 g/s), is a negative value close to 0, and is within the uncertainty
range of the measurement method. Based on this, the estimated methane flux value from the top
of the landfill cell is negligible.
The sum of the flux values measured along the southern and western planes, 16 grams per
second, represents the calculated methane flux value from the southern and western slopes of the
landfill cell.
Tables 3-20, 3-21, 3-22, and 3-23 present the calculated methane flux, measurement time,
prevailing wind speed, and prevailing wind direction during the time of the VRPM
measurements along the northern, eastern, southern, and western VRPM configurations,
respectively.
3-25
-------
Table 3-20. Calculated Methane Flux and Prevailing Wind Speed and Direction
Measured on February 25 along the Northern VRPM Configuration in the
Control Cell of Site #2
Time
11:57:21
12:04:22
12:11:52
12:46:22
13:18:51
13:25:52
13:32:52
13:39:51
13:46:52
Table 3-21.
Time
11:59:07
12:10:31
12:15:50
12:21:54
12:27:12
12:32:32
12:39:05
12:44:25
12:49:44
13:12:28
13:18:10
13:23:29
13:28:48
13:34:06
13:39:26
13:44:44
13:50:35
Methane Flux
(9/8)
15
12
5.3
16
14
15
15
15
13
Average= 13
Standard Dev.=3.30
Prevailing Wind Direction
(degrees from North)
199
202
179
188
215
212
216
216
222
Prevailing Wind Speed
(mis)
4.2
3.4
1.4
4.9
5.6
5.6
5.4
5.6
5.3
Calculated Methane Flux and Prevailing Wind Speed and Direction
Measured on February 25 along the Eastern VRPM Configuration in the
Control Cell of Site #2
Methane Flux (g/s)
3.1
0.19
0.07
0.40
0.39
0.51
0.17
0.58
0.51
3.5
3.0
2.0
3.1
4.5
4.9
6.0
6.8
Average= 2.3
Standard Dev.=2.25
Prevailing Wind Direction
(degrees from North)
204
173
179
189
190
188
182
186
189
217
215
210
216
214
215
218
226
Prevailing Wind Speed
(mis)
4.4
1.2
2.9
3.5
3.1
3.8
4.5
5
5
5.4
5.6
5.5
5.7
5.5
5.5
5.4
5.3
3-26
-------
Table 3-22. Calculated Methane Flux and Prevailing Wind Speed and Direction
Measured on February 25 along the Southern VRPM Configuration in the
Control Cell of Site #2
Time
12:01:46
12:07:51
12:13:10
12:18:29
12:24:33
12:29:53
12:35:12
12:47:04
12:55:21
13:01:55
13:07:14
13:15:30
13:20:49
13:26:08
13:31:27
13:36:46
13:42:05
13:47:24
Table 3-23.
Time
11:54:29
12:01:07
12:08:37
12:43:06
13:15:38
13:22:36
13:29:48
13:36:38
13:43:36
Methane Flux
(9/8)
11
3.8
6.1
14
11
11
23
19
13
12
8.8
12
9.9
19
8.3
14
12
12
Average= 13
Standard Dev.= 4.71
Prevailing Wind Direction
(degrees from North)
208
162
179
178
182
187
187
187
202
208
217
214
211
213
214
216
216
219
Prevailing Wind Speed
(mis)
3.7
1.1
1.7
4.1
3.6
3.4
3.9
5
5
5
5.3
5.5
5.3
5.5
5.5
5.6
5.4
5.3
Calculated Methane Flux and Prevailing Wind Speed and Direction
Measured on February 25 along the Western VRPM Configuration in the
Control Cell of Site #2
Methane Flux
(9/8)
2.8
1.7
0.21
0.58
6.2
4.9
5.1
4.5
4.3
Average= 3.3
Standard Dev.=4.71
Prevailing Wind Direction
(degrees from North)
199
203
173
186
213
212
214
215
217
Prevailing Wind Speed
(mis)
4.5
3.7
1.2
5
5.5
5.3
5.6
5.5
5.4
3-27
-------
3.2.2 Bioreactor Cell
3.2.2.1 February 23
ORS measurements were collected in the bioreactor cell on February 23. A schematic of the
ORS measurement configuration from this cell can be found in Figure 2-6. Figure 3-6 presents a
summary of the actual measurement configurations used in the cell, as well as the measurement
results. The figure depicts the average calculated methane flux values along each VRPM
measurement plane. The blue arrow depicts the prevailing wind values during the time of the
measurements.
?&&M'1%^?* ^'&£$*3?' " ,.&'%%&£&&£;•£?&%&* ^^>\**»!;Xv;ft\,,i Xi^ipis
*jl'£ "<:...'v:.TVl. .lv.<..xVy ^^' ;-xii|,|;
Figure 3-6 Summary of ORS measurements conducted on Feb. 23 in bioreactor cell of Site
#2.
The figure shows that the prevailing winds were from the northeast during the time of the
measurements. Based on the prevailing wind direction, the northern and eastern VRPM planes
are located upwind of the actual landfill cell, so flux values measured along these VRPM planes
represent methane emissions from the northern and eastern slopes of the cell (by convention of
the measurement method, flux values from measurement planes located upwind of the landfill
cell are shown as negative values). The VRPM planes located along the southern and western
boundaries of the cell are downwind of the landfill cell (by convention, flux values from
measurement planes located downwind of the landfill cell are shown as positive values).
The methane flux values measured along the northern, eastern, southern, and western VRPM
measurement planes were 3.7, 0.69, 5.0, and 5.1 grams per second, respectively. The difference
between the sum of the fluxes measured along the southern and western planes (10 g/s) and the
northern and eastern planes (4.4 g/s), 5.6 grams per second, represents the calculated methane
flux value from the top of the landfill cell (defined as the flat surface area where instrumentation
was deployed). The sum of the flux values measured along the northern and eastern planes, 4.4
grams per second, represents the calculated methane flux value from the northern and eastern
slopes of the landfill cell.
Tables 3-24, 3-25, 3-26, and 3-27 present the calculated methane flux, measurement time,
prevailing wind speed, and prevailing wind direction during the time of the VRPM
3-28
-------
measurements along the northern, eastern, southern, and western VRPM configurations,
respectively.
Table 3-24. Calculated Methane Flux and Prevailing Wind Speed and Direction
Measured on February 23 along the Northern VRPM Configuration in the
Bioreactor Cell of Site #2
Time
16:08:52
16:15:51
16:22:52
16:57:21
17:04:22
17:11:52
17:18:51
Table 3-25.
Time
16:06:06
16:12:38
16:19:36
16:26:46
16:33:38
16:40:06
16:47:26
16:54:29
17:01:07
17:08:37
17:15:38
Methane Flux
(9/8)
2.8
2.6
2.6
4.4
4.8
4.4
4.2
Average= 3.7
Standard Dev.=0.98
Prevailing Wind Direction
(degrees from North)
51
52
55
59
57
61
65
Prevailing Wind Speed
(mis)
4.2
4.1
4.4
4
4.2
4.2
4.5
Calculated Methane Flux and Prevailing Wind Speed and Direction
Measured on February 23 along the Eastern VRPM Configuration in the
Bioreactor Cell of Site #2
Methane Flux
(9/8)
0.75
0.77
0.67
0.57
0.64
0.81
0.66
0.71
0.64
0.67
0.68
Average= 0.69
Standard Dev.=0.068
Prevailing Wind Direction
(degrees from North)
47
51
52
52
61
65
65
60
56
58
65
Prevailing Wind Speed
(mis)
4.3
4.1
4.3
4.4
4.8
5.1
4.5
4.1
4.1
4.2
4.4
3-29
-------
Table 3-26. Calculated Methane Flux and Prevailing Wind Speed and Direction
Measured on February 23 along the Southern VRPM Configuration in the
Bioreactor Cell of Site #2
Time
16:12:40
16:18:30
16:24:20
16:30:15
16:36:05
16:41:26
16:46:47
16:52:10
16:57:33
17:02:54
17:08:16
17:13:38
17:19:01
Table 3-27.
Time
16:10:29
16:15:50
16:38:45
16:44:07
16:49:30
16:54:51
17:00:12
17:05:35
17:10:58
17:16:19
17:21:42
Methane Flux
(9/8)
4.8
5.4
5.2
5.2
4.7
4.8
4.3
4.6
4.9
5.6
5.8
5.2
4.6
Average= 5.0
Standard Dev.=0.43
Prevailing Wind Direction
(degrees from North)
52
53
53
56
65
66
67
62
58
55
56
63
67
Prevailing Wind Speed
(m/s)
4.0
4.3
4.4
4.6
5.0
5.2
4.6
4.2
4.0
4.1
4.3
4.3
4.4
Calculated Methane Flux and Prevailing Wind Speed and Direction
Measured on February 23 along the Western VRPM Configuration in the
Bioreactor Cell of Site #2
Methane Flux
(9/8)
16
9.1
2.6
2.6
2.8
3.7
3.1
3.1
3.8
4.5
4.9
Average= 5.1
Standard Dev.=4.01
Prevailing Wind Direction
(degrees from North)
49
53
66
68
63
63
54
54
60
66
66
Prevailing Wind Speed
(m/s)
3.8
4.1
5.2
4.8
4.4
4.1
4.1
4.2
4.3
4.5
4.3
3-30
-------
3.2.2.2 February 24
ORS measurements were collected in the bioreactor cell during the morning hours of February
24 using the same configuration used on February 23. Figure 3-7 presents a summary of the
actual measurement configurations used in the cell, as well as the measurement results. The
figure depicts the average calculated methane flux values along each VRPM measurement plane.
The blue arrow depicts the prevailing wind values during the time of the measurements.
^•i^f!^m
' '>,/*.->f»/ (t rKv 'J' f-iririniim 1 ill ''- " - ity i. ,'», ...^ 'o
'k&';-£ >
^;;€^^i|^^^^^ |^,, ;:|%^vl|-,;|;|, ?^t't .-t-fi^^
t-: t i': r< '-^'4 vf ;?:^^',' '£i*4;-': ?r^-' -f: f • ,4 >«:":;{: tf" .f • jV *^"^-'Cv >& •f
^^L' W^,r :,^;^;;:,^: :^^^,-;.^X-^it-t>;:'
\'-.-;^ I."::^stiR^>;r';T
-^-"--1 —,'*• ^i ='. * f ' '»
Figure 3-7 Summary of ORS measurements conducted on Feb. 24 in the bioreactor cell of
Site #2
The figure shows that the prevailing winds were from the southeast during the time of the
measurements. Based on the prevailing wind direction, the southern and eastern VRPM planes
are located upwind of the actual landfill cell, so flux values measured along these VRPM planes
represent methane emissions from the southern and eastern slopes of the cell (by convention of
the measurement method, flux values from measurement planes located upwind of the landfill
cell are shown as negative values). The VRPM planes located along the northern and western
boundaries of the cell are downwind of the landfill cell (by convention, flux values from
measurement planes located downwind of the landfill cell are shown as positive values).
The methane flux values measured along the northern, eastern, southern, and western VRPM
measurement planes were 0.35, 0.83, 3.1, and 5.9 grams per second, respectively. The difference
between the sum of the fluxes measured along the northern and western planes (6.3 g/s) and the
southern and eastern planes (3.9 g/s), 2.4 grams per second, represents the calculated methane
flux value from the top of the landfill cell (defined as the flat surface area where instrumentation
was deployed). The sum of the flux values measured along the southern and eastern planes, 3.9
grams per second, represents the calculated methane flux value from the southern and eastern
slopes of the landfill cell.
Tables 3-28, 3-29, 3-30, and 3-31 present the calculated methane flux, measurement time,
prevailing wind speed, and prevailing wind direction during the time of the VRPM
measurements along the northern, eastern, southern, and western VRPM configurations,
respectively.
3-31
-------
Table 3-28. Calculated Methane Flux and Prevailing Wind Speed and Direction
Measured on February 24 along the Northern VRPM Configuration in the
Bioreactor Cell of Site #2
Time
9:56:52
10:03:51
10:33:51
Table 3-29.
Time
9:54:54
10:00:38
10:30:38
Table 3-30.
Time
9:57:37
10:03:44
10:12:18
10:21:27
Methane Flux
(9/8)
0.39
0.66
0.01
Average= 0.35
Standard Dev. =0.327
Prevailing Wind Direction
(degrees from North)
106
111
98
Prevailing Wind Speed
(m/s)
7.3
7
6.7
Calculated Methane Flux and Prevailing Wind Speed and Direction
Measured on February 24 along the Eastern VRPM Configuration in the
Bioreactor Cell of Site #2
Methane Flux
(9/8)
0.87
0.97
0.65
Average=0.83
Standard Dev. =0.164
Prevailing Wind Direction
(degrees from North)
104
107
97
Prevailing Wind Speed
(m/s)
7.3
7.0
6.8
Calculated Methane Flux and Prevailing Wind Speed and Direction
Measured on February 24 along the Southern VRPM Configuration in the
Bioreactor Cell of Site #2
Methane Flux (g/s)
2.5
4.7
2.7
2.5
Average= 3.1
Standard Dev.=1.04
Prevailing Wind Direction
(degrees from North)
106
111
107
100
Prevailing Wind Speed
(m/s)
7.2
7.0
7.1
7.1
3-32
-------
Table 3-31. Calculated Methane Flux and Prevailing Wind Speed and Direction
Measured on February 24 along the Western VRPM Configuration in the
Bioreactor Cell of Site #2
Time
9:53:43
10:01:03
10:09:37
10:16:18
10:21:27
Methane Flux
(9/8)
10
6.1
4.2
3.2
5.8
Prevailing Wind Direction
(degrees from North)
104
107
109
104
98
Prevailing Wind Speed
(m/s)
7.2
6.9
7.0
6.9
6.9
Average= 5.9
Standard Dev.=2.72
3.2.3 Total Site Methane Emissions
The total site methane emissions for Site #2 were calculated using the methods described in
Section 3.1.3 of this document. Table 3-32 presents the results of these calculations for Site #2:
Table 3-32. Summary of Total Site Methane Emissions Calculations from Site #2
Calculation
Control Cell
Bioreactor Cell
Total Surface Area of Top of Cell
Total Surface Area of Slopes
Methane Emission Factor of Top of Cell
Methane Emission Factor of Slopes
Total Methane Emission Factor of Cell
Total Cell Methane Emissions
19,000m2
78,600 m2
0 g/day/m2 2/24/07 survey
0 g/day/m2 2/25/07 survey
92 g/day/m22/24/07 survey
60 g/day/m22/25/07 survey
74 g/day/m2 2/24/07 survey
48 g/day/m2 2/25/07 survey
7,200 kg/day 2/24/07 survey
4,700 kg/day 2/25/07 survey
Total Site Methane Emissions= 7300 kg/day
7,900 m2
50,700 m2
62 g/day/m22/23/07 survey
25 g/day/m22/24/07 survey
15 g/day/m22/23/07 survey
14 g/day/m22/24/07 survey
22 g/day/m2 2/23/07 survey
15 g/day/m2 2/24/07 survey
1,300 kg/day 2/23/07 survey
900 kg/day 2/24/07 survey
The results show that the total cell methane emission factors calculated from the two surveys of
the Control Cell (74 g/day/m2 and 48 g/day/m2, respectively) were much higher than the total
cell methane emission factors calculated from the surveys of the bioreactor cell (22 g/day/m2
and 15 g/day/m2, respectively). This may be due to a fresh soil cover being added to the surface
of the cell prior to the measurement campaign. In addition, because of high levels of moisture in
the cell due to heavy rainfall, there were no additions of leachate or other liquids for several
months. The exact moisture content of either cell was not provided during the field sampling
campaign.
3-33
-------
Based on the calculations presented in Table 3-33, the total methane emissions from Site #2 are
estimated by calculating the sum of the average of the total methane emissions from the
bioreactor and control cells, which is 7,300 kilograms per day. It should be noted that this
estimated value is extrapolated from a limited amount of flux data, and does not take into
account diurnal or seasonal trends in methane emissions.
3.2.4 Summa Canister Sampling
Summa canister samples were collected from the gas collection header pipe in triplicate at Site
#2. These samples represent a composite of LFG from the entire site. Samples were collected
upstream of the vacuum pump to minimize loses and contamination. Blanks were also collected
using a nitrogen gas stream to purge the VOST train condensers and glassware. Samples were
analyzed using Methods TO-15, 25-C, a Cl through C6 alkane hydrocarbons analysis by
GC/FID, and a permanent gases (Ch, N2, CO2) analysis by GC/TCD. Results are presented in
Tables 3-33 through 3-35. TO-15 results are qualified using results from the nitrogen blank. Any
compounds reported in samples that are <5 times the concentration found in the blank are
considered to be non-detects and qualified "UB".
Table 3-33. Results for TO-15 Analysis from Site #2
CAS NO.
75-71-8
76-14-2
74-87-3
75-01^
106-99-0
74-83-9
75-00-3
75-69-4
75-35-4
76-13-1
64-17-5
75-15-0
67-63-0
75-09-2
67-64-1
156-60-5
11-05-3
1634-04-4
75-34-3
108-05^
Sample Type: Landfill Gas
Can ID: Can G-1
COMPOUND ppbv
Dichlorodifluoromethane
(Freon 12)
1,2-Chloro-1, 1,2,2-
Tetrafluoroethane
Chloromethane
Vinyl chloride
1,3-Butadiene
Bromomethane
Chloroethane
Trichloromonofluorometha
ne
1,1-dichloroethene
1,1,2-trichloro-1,2,2-
trifluoroethane
Ethanol
Carbon disulfide
Isopropyl alcohol
Methylene chloride
Acetone
t-1 ,2-dichloroethene
Hexane
Methyl-t-butyl ether
(MTBE)
1,1-Dichloroethane
Vinyl acetate
131.1
15.2
178.0
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
325.2
ND
683 7UB
2041
3766
ND
263.8
ND
ND
ND
Landfill Gas
Can G-2
ppbv
99.1
11.6
138.0
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
2444UB
245.0
156.3UB
1373
2264
ND
190.1
ND
ND
^UB
Landfill Gas
Can G-3
ppbv
110.6
12.1
123.8
ND
ND
30.3
ND
ND
ND
ND
222 6UB
ND
357.8UB
1176
1612
ND
174.7
ND
ND
4^4*
Nitrogen
Blank
Can G-4
Ppbv
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
1.8
ND
ND
ND
ND
56.0
ND
194.5
ND
39.2
ND
2.8
ND
ND
70.4
Average Landfill
Gas
Concentration
ppbv
113.6
12.9
146.6
ND
ND
10.3
ND
ND
ND
ND
108.6
81.8
ND
1530
2547
ND
209.5
ND
ND
ND
Corrected
Landfill Gas
Concentration
ppbv
116.5
13.2
150.4
ND
ND
10.5
ND
ND
ND
ND
111.3
83.9
ND
1569
2612
ND
214.9
ND
ND
ND
3-34
-------
Sample Type: Landfill Gas Landfill Gas
CAS NO.
156-59-2
110-82-7
67-66-3
141-78-6
109-99-9
71-55-6
56-23-5
78-93-3
142-82-5
71-43-2
107-06-2
79-01-6
78-87-5
75-27^
123-91-1
10061-01-5
108-88-3
108-10-1
1006-02-6
127-18-4
79-00-5
124-48-1
106-93-4
591-78-6
100-41-4
108-90-7
1330-20-7
95-47-6
100-42-5
75-25-2
79-34-5
622-96-8
108-67-8
95-63-6
541-73-1
106-46-7
100-44-7
95-50-1
87-68-3
120-82-1
UB =
ND =
Can ID:
COMPOUND
cis-1 ,2-dichloroethene
Cyclohexane
Chloroform
Ethyl Acetate
Tetrahydrofuran
1,1,1-trichloroethane
Carbon Tetrachloride
2-Butanone
Heptane
Benzene
1,2-dichloroethane
Trichloroethylene
1,2-dichloropropane
Bromodichloromethane
1,4-dioxane
cis-1 ,3-dichloropropene
Toluene
4-Methyl-2-pentanone
(MIBK)
t-1 ,3-dichloropropene
Tetrachloroethylene
1 , 1 ,2-trichloroethane
Dibromochloromethane
1,2-dibromoethane
2-Hexanone
Ethylbenzene
Chlorobenzene
m/p-Xylene
o-Xylene
Styrene
Tribromomethane
1 , 1 ,2,2-tetrachloroethane
1-ethyl-4-methylbenzene
1 ,3,5-trimethylbenzene
1 ,2,4-trimethylbenzene
1,3-dichlorobenzene
1,4-dichlorobenzene
Benzyl chloride
1,2-dichlorobenzene
1,1,2,3,4,4-hexachloro-
1,3-butadiene
1 ,2,4-trichlorobenzene
Can G-1
ppbv
107.4
447.1
124.9
204.3
195.1
ND
ND
ND
141.0
306.1
ND
45.0
ND
ND
ND
ND
2082
86.5
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
3593
129
269.0
ND
ND
ND
707.7
906.8
411.2
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
Sample concentration less than 5 times the
Not detected
Can G-2
ppbv
79.1
314.0
120.2
114.2
119.4
ND
ND
ND
122.7
238.1
ND
61.4
ND
ND
ND
ND
1505
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
1647
ND
2653
1014
240.9
ND
ND
ND
567.8
754.1
345.0
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
Landfill Gas
Can G-3
ppbv
73.6
218.2
99.6
159.1
144.2
ND
ND
ND
112.3
216.6
ND
80.7
ND
ND
ND
ND
1648
6^4-
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
1677
ND
2782
1037
211.5
ND
ND
ND
578.5
760.8
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
Nitrogen
Blank
Can G-4
Ppbv
ND
10.1
6.2
5.8
3.5
ND
ND
51.7
ND
3.0
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
59.6
13.3
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
71.9
19.5
4.0
ND
ND
ND
8.0
7.8
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
Average Landfill
Gas
Concentration
ppbv
86.7
326.4
114.9
159.2
152.9
ND
ND
ND
125.3
253.6
ND
62.4
ND
ND
ND
ND
1745
29.0
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
1108
ND
3010
1115
240.4
ND
ND
ND
618.0
807.2
258.6
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
Corrected
Landfill Gas
Concentration
ppbv
88.9
334.8
117.8
163.3
156.8
ND
ND
ND
128.5
260.1
ND
64.0
ND
ND
ND
ND
1790
29.7
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
1136
ND
3086
1143
246.6
ND
ND
ND
633.7
827.8
258.6
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
blank concentration
3-35
-------
Table 3-34. Results for Cl to C6 and Permanent Gases by GC/FID/TCD from Site #2
Landfill Gas
Landfill Gas
Landfill Gas
Nitrogen Blank
Sample
ID
G-1
G-2
G-3
G4
Methane
15.0
15.2
15.6
0.0238
Ethane
(ppmv)
6.7
5.9
6.0
ND
Propane
(ppmv)
9.7
10.6
9.8
2.0
Butane
(ppmv)
4.6
4.4
4.5
ND
Pentane
(ppmv)
7.4
7.0
7.2
ND
Hexane
(ppmv)
ND
11.8
ND
ND
Oxygen
13.3
13.8
14.2
2.5
Nitrogen
57.7
60.0
61.5
97.1
Carbon Dioxide
19
18.9
18.9
ND
Table 3-35. Results for Method 25-C Analysis from Site #2
Landfill Gas
Landfill Gas
Landfill Gas
Nitrogen Blank
Sample
ID
G-1
G-2
G-3
G-4
Methane
(%)
45.7
42.4
41.5
ND
CO2
(%)
39.5
36.5
36.3
ND
NMOC
ppmv
1922
1897
1891
17.0
Mass Cone
mg/m3
960
947
944
9.0
The results presented in Table 3-34 show a possible leak during the analysis, and should be
considered as suspect data. Concentrations of O2, methane, and CO2, are not typical of a mature
gas producing landfill, as O2 concentrations should be less than 2 percent, methane greater than
50 percent, and CO2 greater than 35 percent. In response to these questionable results, additional
landfill gas measurements were taken during the October 2007 field campaign. These results are
presented in Section 3.3 of this document.
The results shown in Table 3-35 appear to be the most valid results for methane and CO2.
3.2.5 Total Mercury Measurements
Total mercury concentrations in the landfill gas at Site #2 ranged from 36 to 47 ng/m3, with an
average of 43 ng/m3for all of the samples. Spike recoveries for the total mercury samples were
89.9 and 97.6 percent. Table 3-36 presents the total mercury concentration data from Site #2.
3-36
-------
Table 3-36. Total Mercury Sample Concentrations from Site #2
Sample/
Well Location
Gas Sample 1
Gas Sample 2
Gas Sample 3
Lab Spike
Lab Spike Duplicate
Total Mercury Gas
Concentration (ng/m3)
36
47
47
NA
NA
Spike Recovery
(%)
NA
NA
NA
89.9
97.6
3.2.6 Dimethyl Mercury Measurements
Dimethyl mercury concentrations in the landfill gas at Site #2 ranged from 0.69 to 9.19 ng/m3
with an average of 5.66 ng/m3. Spike recoveries for the dimethyl mercury traps were 1.9 percent.
Un-sampled spike traps had recoveries from 87.4 to 89.9 percent with an average of 88.7
percent. Recoveries for the spiked/sampled traps were significantly lower than the acceptance
criteria of 50 to 150 percent. This is possibly due to the presence of an unknown interfering
compound either destroying or masking the detection of the dimethyl mercury. For this reason,
all of the dimethyl mercury results from this campaign must be labeled as suspect. Sampling was
performed at approximately 10 times the necessary volume to collect a valid sample. Table 3-37
presents the dimethyl mercury concentration data from Site #2.
Table 3-37. Dimethyl Mercury Sample Concentrations from Site #2
_ ,,,.,,,, A. Dimethyl Mercury Gas Spike Recovery
Sample / Well Location Concentration ng/m3) (%)
Gas Sample 1
Gas Sample 2
Gas Sample 3
Spike Sample(front/back)
2nd Source Standards (1490 ng/L)
2nd Source Standards (1000 ng/L)
7.09
0.69
9.19
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
1.9
87.4
89.9
3.2.7 Monomethyl Mercury Measurements
Monomethyl mercury concentrations in the landfill gas at Site #2 ranged from 0.06 to 0.31 ng/m3
with an average of 0.16 ng/m3. The matrix spike recovery for the monomethyl sample was 62.6
percent. Spike recoveries for un-sampled impinger solution ranged from 91 to 102 percent with
an average of 97 percent. The lower recoveries may have been due to a preservation issue with
the shipping or possible matrix interference as seen in the matrix spike. Table 3-38 presents the
monomethyl mercury concentration and QA/QC data from Site #2.
3-37
-------
Table 3-38. Monomethyl Mercury Concentrations (ng/m3) from Site #2
Sample / Well Location Monomethyl Mercury Gas Spike Recovery
r Concentration (ng/m) (%)
Gas Sample 1
Gas Sample 2
Gas Sample 3
Spike Sample
Analytical Spike
Analytical Spike Duplicate
0.12
0.06
0.31
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
62.6
90.9
102.4
3.2.8 Elemental Mercury Measurements
Lumex elemental mercury continuous sampling concentrations from Site #2 ranged from 22 to
64 ng/m3 with an average of 47±17 ng/m3. These samples were collected during a 4 hour period
on 2/23/2007. The sampling with the Lumex was also performed in conjunction with the total
mercury samples at this site.
3.2.9 Calculation ofNMOC Fluxes
The emissions flux value of each compound presented in Table 3-34 was estimated using the
method described in Section 1.7 of this document. The net measured methane flux values from
each landfill cell were used to estimate the emissions flux value of each compound. In order to
perform this calculation, the estimated methane emission values presented in Table 3-33 were
used (5,950 kg/day for the control cell and 1,100 kg/day for the bioreactor cell).
Tables 3-39 presents the estimated flux of each compound (in units of grams per day) from the
control and bioreactor cells of Site #2.
3-38
-------
Table 3-39. Estimated NMOC Flux Values from the Control and Bioreactor Cells of Site
#2
Compound
Dichlorodifluoromethane
1 ,2-Chloro-1 , 1 ,2,2-Tetrafluoroethane
Chloromethane
Bromomethane
Ethanol
Carbon disulfide
Methylene chloride
Acetone
Hexane
cis-1,2-dicloroethene
Cyclohexane
Chloroform
Ethyl Acetate
Tetrahydrofuran
Heptane
Benzene
Trichloroethylene
Toluene
4-Methyl-2-pentanone
Ethylbenzene
m/p-Xylene
o-Xylene
Styrene
1 ,3,5-trimethylbenzene
1 ,2,4-trimethylbenzene
1,3-dichlorobenzene
Corrected Landfill Gas
Concentration (ppbv)
116.5
13.2
150.4
10.5
111.3
83.9
1569
2612
214.9
88.9
334.8
117.8
163.3
156.8
128.8
260.1
64.0
1790
29.7
1136
3086
1143
246.6
633.7
827.8
258.6
Estimated Flux Value
from Control Cell
(grams per day)
11
1.8
5.9
0.78
4.0
5.0
100
120
14
6.7
22
11
11
8.8
10
16
6.5
130
2.3
94
250
94
20
59
77
30
Estimated Flux Value
from Bioreactor Cell
(grams per day)
2.5
0.41
1.4
0.18
0.92
1.2
24
27
3.3
1.6
5.1
2.5
2.6
2.0
2.3
3.7
1.5
30
0.53
22
29
22
4.6
14
18
6.8
3-39
-------
3.3 Gas and Mercury Sampling Results from the October 2007 Field Campaign
As mentioned in previous sections, the dimethyl mercury data, methane, and permanent gas
analysis data from the February 2007 field campaign were labeled as suspect. In response to
these results, an additional field campaign was conducted during October 2007 at both sites to
collect additional gas and mercury samples. Due to limited project resources, carbon tube
samples were collected and analyzed only for total mercury concentrations using a thermal
decomposition furnace attached to a cold-vapor atomic adsorption mercury analyzer
manufactured by Ohio Lumex.
In addition to the mercury data, landfill gas composition data was collected with a Landtec GEM
2000+ landfill gas monitor. The results of the October 2007 campaign are presented in the
following sections.
3.3.1 Total Mercury Concentrations
The total mercury concentrations measured at Site #1 and Site #2 are presented in Tables 3-40
and 3-41, respectively.
Table 3-40. Total Mercury Concentrations Measured at Site #1 during the October 2007
Field Campaign
Tube*
1
2
3
4
CCV
Spike Recovery (%)
102
104
Cone (|jg/m3)
25
22
26
25
Average=20
Date
10/24/2007
10/24/2007
10/24/2007
10/24/2007
Total mercury concentrations in the landfill gas at Site #1 ranged from 22 to 26 |ig/m3, with an
average of 25 |ig/m3for all of the samples. Sampled matrix spike recovery for the total mercury
samples were 102 percent, and continuous calibration verification (CCV) recoveries were 104
percent.
3-40
-------
Table 3-41. Total Mercury Concentrations Measured at Site #2 during the October 2007
Field Campaign
Tube # Spike Recovery (%)
1
2
3
CCV 106
Cone ((jg/m3)
0.53
0.42
0.11
Average=0.35
Date
10/23/2007
10/23/2007
10/23/2007
Total mercury concentrations in the landfill gas at Site #2 ranged from 0.11 to 0.53 |ig/m3, with
an average of 0.35 |ig/m3 for all of the samples. Continuous calibration verification (CCV)
recoveries were 106%.
3.3.2 Gas Sampling Results
Table 3-42 presents the results of the gas composition data collected at Sites #1 and #2 with the
Landtec GEM 2000+ landfill gas monitor. Gas flowrates were measured using an Airfoil pitot
probe with the Shortridge ADM-870 Airdata Multimeter to determine gas velocities.
Table 3-42. Landfill Gas Composition Data Collected at Sites #1 and #2 during the
October 2007 Field Campaign
Duct Diameter (inches)
Area (square feet)
Gas Velocity (feet/minute)
Gas Flow Rate (CFM)
Methane (%)
Carbon Dioxide (%)
Oxygen (%)
N2 Balance (%)
Hydrogen Sulfide (ppmv)
Carbon Monoxide (ppmv)
Site #1
11
0.66
2880
1901
47.4
36.2
2.6
13.7
83
Oto3
Site #2
9
0.44
1679
742
36.5
34.8
2.4
26.2
Invalid Data
0
Gas sampling results from the landfill gas monitor were consistent with readings taken from
other landfills of similar size and age. The Landtec landfill gas monitor was calibrated using a
gas cylinder containing a mixture of 50-percent methane and 35-percent carbon dioxide in a
balance of nitrogen. The landfill gas monitor has a manufacturer's specified accuracy of ±3
percent for methane and carbon dioxide, and an accuracy of ±1 percent for oxygen.
A small amount of carbon monoxide was detected at Site #1 possibly due to a small fire present
in the landfill. Carbon monoxide was not detected at Site #2. Hydrogen sulfide was detected at
3-41
-------
Site #1 with a level of 83 ppmv. The hydrogen sulfide levels at Site #2 were above the range of
the instrument which had a range of 0 to 200 ppmv. The high levels of hydrogen sulfide at Site
#2 may have been due to a large amount of construction and demolition debris disposed in the
landfill and the conversion of sulfate to sulfide from gypsum in wallboard.
3-42
-------
Chapter 4
Conclusion
This report provides the results from two field campaigns conducted at two municipal landfill
sites in Florida. The field project team collected methane fugitive emissions measurements using
two optical remote sensing (ORS) instruments, one scanning GasFinder 2.0 OP-TDLAS
instrument (Boreal, Inc.) and one scanning OP-FTIR instrument (EVIACC, Inc.). The data was
then used with an improved vertical radial plume mapping configuration to calculate net methane
flux emission values from the top of each landfill cell, and from the slopes of the cells.
Measurements were collected in the bioreactor and control cells at each site (a control cell is
defined as an area within the site operated as a conventional landfill, with no leachate or other
liquid additions to accelerate waste decomposition). Table 4-1 presents the average calculated
methane fluxes from the top and slopes of each landfill cell.
Table 4-1. Average Calculated Methane Flux (g/s) Value From Each Landfill Cell
Site
Survey Area
Methane Flux from 1
Top of Landfill Cell ^
Site #1
Site #1
Site #1
Site #2
Site #2
Site #2
Site #2
Control Cell (2/20/07, 4:00pm)
Control Cell (2/20/07, 5:00pm)
Bioreactor Cell (2/22/07)
Control Cell (2/24/07)
Control Cell (2/25/07)
Bioreactor Cell (2/23/07)
Bioreactor Cell (2/24/07)
5.3 2
7.6 2
6.3
0
0
5.7
2.3
3.3 2
(Southern and Western Slopes)
6.0 2
(Southern and Western Slopes)
16
(Northern and Western Slopes)
28
(Southern and Eastern Slopes)
16
(Southern and Eastern Slopes)
4.4
(Northern and Eastern Slopes)
3.9
(Northern and Eastern Slopes)
1 The slopes from which the total methane flux values are calculated is dependent upon the prevailing wind direction
during the time of the measurements
2 Due to problems with alignment of the OP-TDLAS instrument that prevented collection of a complete dataset,
an alternate method was used to calculate the methane flux values from the Site #1 control cell. Therefore, the
methane flux values presented from the Site #1 control cell are considered estimated values. Additional
information is provided in Section 3.
The surveys found that methane emissions from the top of the control and bioreactor cells of Site
#1 were comparable. However, methane emissions from the top of the control cell of Site #2
were negligible, while emissions from the top of the bioreactor cell of Site #2 were significant.
4-1
-------
The surveys also found significant methane emissions from the slopes of each landfill cell,
especially from the bioreactor cell of Site #1, and the control cell of Site #2. In fact, total
methane emissions from the slopes of each cell surveyed during the campaign were more
significant than emissions from the top of the landfill cells when considering the much larger
surface areas of the slopes compared to the tops of the cells.
Overall, total methane emissions from the bioreactor cell of Site #1 were much greater than
emissions from the control cell of Site #1, as expected. However, total methane emissions from
the bioreactor cell of Site #2 were significantly lower than emissions from the control cell of Site
#2. This may be due to the fact that leachate had not been injected into the bioreactor cell at the
site in several months due to excessive rainfall. Another factor that may have contributed to the
relatively lower emissions from the bioreactor cell of Site #2 was the presence of a fresh soil
cover that had been added to the surface of the cell prior to the measurement campaign. Using
the data presented in Table 4-1, the calculated total site methane emissions was 5,300 kg/day
from Site #1 and 5,600 kg/day for Site #2.
For each of the two sites, Summa® canister samples were collected at the gas header pipe
upstream of any gas treatment. The header pipe samples were analyzed to provide data on gas
composition (methane and carbon dioxide), NMOC, and trace organic constituents including
HAPs, H2S, and volatile organic compounds (VOC). Data were also obtained on mercury in the
header pipe gas. Data were collected using header pipe gas measurements for total, elemental
and organo-mercury (including methyl- and dimethyl-mercury). Table 4-2 presents a summary
of the mercury results for both sites from sampling occurring in February and October 2007.
Table 4-2. Average Concentrations of Total, Dimethyl, Monomethyl, and Elemental
Mercury Measured at Each Site1
Site #1
Compound
Total Mercury-
February 2007
Total Mercury-
October 2007
Dimethyl Mercury2
Monomethyl
Mercury
Elemental Mercury
Average
Concentration
(ng/m3)
5,022
24,495
1.91
11.8
3,266
Range
(ng/m3)
4,958 to 5,148
21, 689 to 25,770
1.22 to 2.65
11.1 to 12.4
3,094 to 3,445
Site #2
Average
Concentrati
on (ng/m3)
43
270
5.66
0.16
47
Range
(ng/m3)
36 to 47
109 to 526
0.69 to 9. 19
0.06 to 0.31
22 to 64
1Total mercury measurements were repeated in the field sampling occurring in October 2007. Organo-mercury and
elemental mercury analysis was not repeated. Although there were no observed differences in sampling between
field campaigns, there was a difference in analytical methods for total mercury analysis. This is explained in the text
supporting this table.
2Spike recoveries for the dimethyl mercury samples were significantly lower than the QAPP acceptance criteria.
During the February 2007 field campaign, total mercury concentrations in the landfill gas at Site
#1 ranged from 5,000to 5,200 ng/m3 with an average of 5,000 ng/m3 for all of the samples. Spike
4-2
-------
recoveries for the total mercury samples were 98.2 percent. Total mercury concentrations in the
landfill gas at Site #2 ranged from 36 to 47 ng/m3 with an average of 43 ng/m3 for all of the
samples. Spike recoveries for the total mercury samples were not performed at Site #2.
During the October 2007 field campaign, total mercury concentrations in the landfill gas at Site
#1 ranged from 21,700 to 25,800 ng/m3 with an average of 24,500 ng/m3 for all of the samples.
Spike recoveries for the total mercury samples were 102 percent. Total mercury concentrations
in the landfill gas at Site #2 ranged from 109 to 526 ng/m3 with an average of 352 ng/m3 for all of
the samples.
There is almost 5 times difference in the total mercury results for Site 1 between the February
and October sampling dates (5,022 in February versus 25,400 ng/m3 in October). For site 2, the
difference in total mercury results between February and October is about 6 times higher (43
versus 270 ng/m3). The collection technique and equipment were the same during both sampling
campaigns. Spike recoveries for total mercury during both sampling periods were acceptable and
showed no degradation or loss of mercury.
There was a difference in the analytical method that was used to evaluate the samples between
February and the October 2007. The February matrix spike analysis was performed by adding a
known amount of mercury to the sample after sampling and leaching (i.e., Method 1631). This
post-leaching type of spiking does not assess any potential losses of mercury from sampling,
matrix interferences, or the wet leaching procedure.
To account for potential mercury losses from sampling or matrix interferences, EPA developed
EPA Method 3 OB, "Determination of Mercury from Coal-Fired Combustion Sources using
Carbon Sorbent Traps". This method requires additional replicates and QA/QC that helps to
account for any potential losses of mercury from sampling and matrix interferences. Method
30B is being used for power plants and other mercury sources to demonstrate performance of
mercury continuous emission monitors. Therefore, in the October 2007 field sampling
campaign, the thermal decomposition mercury analysis technique. Sampling included a pre-
spiked iodated carbon tube traps spiked with elemental mercury and were used to assess matrix
recovery at Site #1. Results for the thermal decomposition mercury analysis matrix spike
recovery were 102%. The results for total mercury analysis from the October sampling are
thought to be more reliable because of the additional QA/QC requirements to account for
mercury loss during sampling and analysis.
Dimethyl mercury concentrations in the landfill gas at Site #1 ranged from 1.22 to 2.65 ng/m3
with an average of 1.91 ng/m3. Dimethyl mercury concentrations in the landfill gas at Site #2
ranged from 0.69 to 9.19 ng/m3 with an average of 5.66 ng/m3. Spike recoveries for the dimethyl
mercury traps were 13.9 percent for Site #1 and 1.9 percent for Site #2. Un-sampled spike traps
had recoveries from 87.4 to 89.9 percent with an average of 88.7 percent. Recoveries for the
spiked/sampled traps were significantly lower than the acceptance criteria of 50 to 150 percent
established in the project QAPP. This is possibly due to the presence of an unknown interfering
compound either destroying or masking the detection of the dimethyl mercury. For this reason,
all of the dimethyl mercury results from this campaign must be labeled as suspect. Over-
sampling was performed by the ARCADIS personnel performing the sampling. Sampling was
performed at approximated 10 times the necessary volume to collect a valid sample.
4-3
-------
3
Monomethyl mercury concentrations in the Site #1 gas ranged from 11.2 to 12.4 ng/m with an
3
average of 11.8 ng/m . Monomethyl mercury concentrations in the Site #2 gas ranged from 0.06
to 0.31 ng/m3 with an average of 0.16 ng/m3. Site #1 matrix spike recoveries for the monomethyl
samples were 25.7 percent. Spike recoveries for un-sampled impinger solution ranged from 88 to
90 percent with an average of 89 percent. The Site #2 matrix spike recovery for the monomethyl
sample was 62.6 percent. Spike recoveries for un-sampled impinger solution ranged from 91 to
102 percent with an average of 97 percent. The lower recoveries may have been due to a
preservation issue with the shipping or possible matrix interference as seen in the matrix spike.
Elemental mercury concentrations for Site #1 ranged from 3,090 to 3,440 ng/m3 with an average
of 3,270 ng/m3 for all of the samples. Elemental mercury concentrations at Site #2 ranged from
22 to 64 ng/m3 with an average of 47 ng/m3.
4-4
-------
This page intentionally left blank.
4-5
-------
Chapter 5
Quality Assurance/Quality Control
5.1 Equipment Calibration
All project instrumentation is calibrated annually or verified as part of standard operating
procedures. Certificates of calibration are kept on file. Maintenance records are kept for any
equipment adjustments or repairs in bound project notebooks that include the data and
description of maintenance performed. Instrument calibration procedures and frequency are
listed in Table 5-1 and further described in the text.
Table 5-1. Instrumentation Calibration Frequency and Description
Instrument
Measurement
Calibration Date
Calibration Detail
Boreal Methane GasFinder 2.0
OP-TDLAS
R.M. Young
Meteorological Head
R.M. Young
Meteorological Head
Lumex 915+ Mercury Analyzer
Landtec GEM2000+ Landfill Gas
Monitor
Shortridge ADM-870 Airdata
Multimeter
Environmental Supply VOST
Meter Box
Topcon Model GTS-211D
Theodolite
Topcon Model GTS-211D
Theodolite
Methane PIC
Wind Speed in meters per
second
Wind direction in degrees
from North
Elemental Mercury
Concentration
02,C02,CH4,CO,H2S,
and balance N2
Pre-deployment and in-field
checks
7 June 2006
14 July 2006
Pre-deployment and in-field
checks
Pre-deployment and in-field
checks
Header pipe gas velocity 8 July 2007
Gas sample volume for 3 October 2007
sorbent tubes
Distance Measurement 19 April 2006
Angle Measurement
19 April 2006
Reference cell calibration
APPCD Metrology Lab Cal. Records on file
APPCD Metrology Lab Cal. Records on file
Insertion of test cell
Calibrated at rental location before testing
and in-field checks using calibration gas
cylinder
Yearly factory certified NIST traceable
calibration
EPA Method 2A
Calibration of distance measurement.
Actual distance= 19.6m
#1 Measured distance= 19.56 m
#2 Measured distance= 19.55 m
Calibration of angle measurement.
Actual angle= 360°
#1 Measured angle= 360°28'47"
HZ Measured angle= 359°39'24"
5-1
-------
As part of the preparation for this project, a Category III Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP)
was prepared and approved for the field campaigns. In addition, standard operating procedures
were in place during the field campaigns.
5.2 Assessment of DQI Goals
The critical measurements associated with this project and the established data quality indicator
(DQI) goals in terms of accuracy, precision, and completeness are listed in Table 5-2.
Table 5-2. DQI Goals for Instrumentation
Measurement
Parameter
Methane PIC
Analyte PIC
Ambient Wind
Speed
Ambient Wind
Direction
Distance
Measurement
Beam angle
Mercury
concentrations
Total Mercury
Organo- Mercury
VOCs
Analysis Method
OP-TDLAS
OP-FTIR: Nitrous Oxide
Concentrations
R.M. Young Met heads post-
deployment calibration in EPA
Metrology Lab
R.M. Young Met heads post-
deployment calibration in EPA
Metrology Lab
Theodolite- Topcon
Theodolite- Topcon
Lumex Mercury Analyzer
Frontier Geosciences
Frontier Geosciences
EPA Method TO-1 5
Accuracy
±20%
±25%, ±15%, 10%*
±1 m/s
±10°
±1m
±0.1°
±25%
Not applicable
Not applicable
Not applicable
Precision
±20%
±10%
±1 m/s
±10°
±1m
±0.1°
±25%
±20%
±20%
±20%
Acceptance Criterion
(%Bias/Recovery)
Not applicable
Not applicable
Not applicable
Not applicable
Not applicable
Not applicable
Not applicable
50-150
50-150
50-150
Completeness
(%)
90
90
90
90
100
100
90
90
90
90
* The accuracy acceptance criterion of ±25% is for pathlengths of less than 50m, ±15% is for pathlengths between 50 and
100m, and ±10% is for pathlengths greater than 100m.
5.2.7 DQI Check for Methane PIC Measurement with OP-TDLAS
The Boreal GasFinder 2.0 OP-TDLAS provides an R2 value for each concentration
measurement. The R2 value is calculated by the internal software of the instrument, and is an
indication of the similarity between the waveform of the sample gas and the reference cell gas.
When the instrument detector receives the returning laser signal after it has passed through the
sample beam path, it converts the signal to the shape of a specific waveform (sample waveform).
The instrument also receives a similar laser signal after the laser has passed through the reference
cell in the instrument (reference waveform). The two waveforms are then digitized and compared
as two numeric arrays. The instrument software then performs a Linear Least Squares Regression
for each measurement, to evaluate the similarity (R2) between the sample and reference
waveforms.
5-2
-------
The R2 value was used to assess the accuracy of each concentration measurement from this
project. Table 5-3, taken from the Boreal Laser, Inc. GasFinder 2.0 Operation Manual, presents
a range of R2 values, and the corresponding accuracy of the measurement.
Table 5-3. Accuracy of Concentration Measurements for Different R2 Value
R2
>0.95
0.9
0.7
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.15
0.1
<0.05
Measurement
Accuracy (%)
±2
±5
±10
±15
±20
±25
±50
±70
±100
The R2 value of each data point (measured methane concentration) was analyzed to assess
whether or not it met the DQI criterion for accuracy of ±20 percent, which corresponds to an R2
value of greater than 0.4. A total of 21,467 data points were analyzed, and 16,509 met the DQI
criteria for accuracy, for a total completeness of 77 percent. This value did not meet the project
DQI criteria of 80-percent completeness.
The precision of the OP-TDLAS methane concentration measurements was assessed by
comparing consecutive methane concentration values measured along the same beam path.
Methane path-averaged concentration data values were collected with the OP-TDLAS instrument
and input into the VRPM algorithm
5.2.2 DQI Check for Analyte PIC Measurement with OP-FTIR
The precision and accuracy of the analyte path-integrated concentration (PIC) measurements
collected with the OP-FTIR instrument was assessed by analyzing the measured nitrous oxide
concentrations in the atmosphere. A typical background atmospheric concentration for nitrous
oxide is about 315 ppb. However, this value may fluctuate due to seasonal variations in nitrous
oxide concentrations or elevation of the site.
The precision of the analyte PIC measurements was evaluated by calculating the relative
standard deviation of each data subset. A subset is defined as the data collected along one
particular path length during one particular survey in one survey sub-area. The number of data
points in a data subset depends on the number of cycles used in a particular survey.
The accuracy of the analyte PIC measurements was evaluated by comparing the calculated
nitrous oxide concentrations from each data subsets to the typical background concentration of
5-3
-------
315 ppb. The number of calculated nitrous oxide concentrations that failed to meet the DQI
accuracy criterion in each data subset was recorded.
Overall, 180 data subsets were analyzed from this field campaign. Based on the DQI criterion set
forth for precision of ±10 percent, all of the data subsets were found to be acceptable for a
completeness of 100 percent. The range of calculated relative standard deviations for the data
subsets from this field campaign was 0.36 to 17.4 ppb, which represents 0.11- to 5.5-percent
RSD.
Each data point (calculated nitrous oxide concentration) in the data subsets was analyzed to
assess whether or not it met the DQI criterion for accuracy of ±25 percent (315 ± 79 ppb) for
path lengths less than 50 meters, ±15 percent (315 ± 47 ppb) for path lengths between 50 and
100 meters, and ±10 percent (315 ± 32 ppb) for path lengths greater than 100 meters. A total of
1569 data points were analyzed, and 1482 met the DQI criteria for accuracy, for a total
completeness of 94 percent.
5.2.5 Inter-comparison Study ofOP-FTIR and OP-TDLAS Instruments
Operational difficulties were encountered in the field that resulted in scaling back the study to
the extent that the results are not considered reliable. Whenever two different types of
instruments are used (i.e., OP-FTIR and OP-TDLAS), field interlaboratory comparison is
recommended. This is to ensure that there is no potential bias between measurements. At each
survey area, the instruments were to be located diagonally across the survey area and operated
for -30 minutes to collect methane concentration data across the same optical path.
The study was performed for Site #1 using the same optical path with a distance of-200 meters.
Data were collected with the OP-FTIR for approximately 10 minutes and with the OP-TDLAS
for about 20 minutes. Overlapping data for the comparison were available for only 7 minutes. If
these data are fitted to a linear regression, the results indicated the OP-TDLAS is approximately
40% greater than the concentrations measured with the OP-FTIR. The very limited number of
measurements (n = 7) and the poor regression coefficient of determination (r2 = 0.205) raise
question as to the validity of the inter-comparison results.
Although the instruments were deployed along an identical beam path, the difference in the
concentrations measured with both instruments may be due to a difference in the height of the
scanners, resulting in a difference in the height of the beam paths. The OP-FTIR scanner mount
is higher than the OP-TDLAS scanner mount, resulting in the OP-FTIR optical beam path being
higher than the OP-TDLAS beam path. The higher concentrations measured with the OP-
TDLAS may be due to the fact that the OP-TDLAS beam path was located closer to the surface
of the landfill cell. The field team personnel have extensive experience with use of both OP-
FTIR and OP-TDLAS instruments and have observed and documented through other studies that
the two instruments exhibit good comparability. (U.S. EPA, 2004; U. S. EPA, 2005a; U.S. EPA,
2005c; U.S. EPA, 2005e, U.S. EPA, 2005f. U. S. EPA, 2007).
Immediately prior to this field study, Boreal Laser, Inc. performed a bench top calibration
experiment with the OP-TDLAS instrument in a laboratory environment. The experiment
consisted of inserting a known concentration of methane into a calibration cell, and comparing
5-4
-------
the measured path-integrated methane concentration to the known path-integrated methane
concentration in the calibration cell (9950 ppm-meter). Measurements were collected with the
GasFinder OP-TDL instrument for approximately 3 minutes, and the results are shown in Figure
5-1. The average measured path-integrated concentration was 9,926 ppm meter, which yielded a
percent error of -0.2%. The certificate of calibration is presented as an appendix to this report.
Therefore, it was decided since the intercomparison results for these particular tests were not
reliable, to report the results assuming that there was agreement based on previous experience.
However, future tests should allow enough time to conduct intercomparison studies when two
different types of optical instruments are in use.
CH4OP-1001 16/01/2007 Concentration in ppmm
CH4OP-1001_2007_01_16_113834.avi
10500
Average ppmm = 9926
9500
9000
B500
aooo
01/16/07 13:30:00
01/16/07 13:30:43
01/16/07 13:31:26
Time
01/16/07 13:32:10
01/16/07 13:32:53
Figure 5-1. Results of the Methane Gasfinder Calibration Experiment
5.2.4 DQI Checks for Ambient Wind Speed and Wind Direction Measurements
The meteorological head DQIs are checked annually as part of the routine calibration procedure.
Before deployment to the field, the user is to verify the calibration date of the instrument by
referencing the calibration sticker. If the date indicates the instrument is in need of calibration,
the proper procedure is to return it to the APPCD Metrology Laboratory before deployment to
the field. The precision and accuracy of the heads is assessed by conducting a post-deployment
calibration in the EPA Metrology Lab using the exhaust from a bench top wind tunnel. This
5-5
-------
calibration procedure differs from the procedure used to perform the annual calibration of the
instruments.
Additionally, a couple of reasonableness checks are performed in the field on the measured wind
direction data. While data collection is occurring, the Field Team Leader compares wind
direction measured with the heads to the forecasted wind direction for that particular day.
The project team experienced some difficulties with collection of wind data on February 21 at
Site #1. Due to problems with the data collection software, wind data were not collected on this
day. However, this problem was corrected, and wind data were collected for the duration of the
project. There was no indication that the problem experienced in collecting the wind data was
caused by a malfunction of the instrumentation.
5.2.5 DQI Check for Precision and Accuracy of Theodolite Measurements
Calibration checks are not performed before each field campaign; however, the calibration date
of the instrument is verified by referencing the calibration sticker. If the date indicates the
instrument is in need of calibration, it should be returned to the manufacturer before use in the
field. Before field deployment, ensure the battery packs are charged for this equipment. The
following additional checks were made on April 19, 2006. The calibration of distance
measurement was done at the ARCADIS facility using a tape measure. The actual distance was
19.6 meters. The distances measured with the theodolite were 19.56 and 19.55 meters. The
results indicate accuracy and precision fall well within the DQI goals. The calibration of angle
measurement was also performed. The actual angle was 360°. The angles measured with the
theodolite were 360°28'47" and 359°39'24". The results indicate accuracy and precision fall
well within the DQI goals, and completeness was 100 percent.
Additionally, there are several internal checks in the theodolite software that prevent data
collection from occurring if the instrument is not properly aligned on the object being measured,
or if the instrument has not been balanced correctly. When this occurs, it is necessary to re-
initialize the instrument to collect data.
5.2.6 DQI Check for Lumex Mercury Analyzer
The Lumex Mercury Analyzer DQIs of accuracy and precision are checked with a test cell,
containing gas from the calibration standard. The cell is built into the instrument, and is accessed
by setting the instrument to the "test" mode, and collecting measurements. If the measured value
of the mercury vapor concentration in the test cell is within ±25 percent from that of the
tabulated value and the standard deviation of the measurements is within ±25 percent, the
accuracy and precision of the instrument are deemed acceptable.
The Lumex mercury analyzer was zeroed using the internal carbon filter sample conditioner.
Yearly calibrations are performed on this analyzer by factory personnel at Ohio Lumex. The
precision criteria of ±25 percent established in the QAPP was met for samples collected at Site
#1 (4.0% RSD), but not for samples collected at Site #2 (35.6% RSD).
5-6
-------
5.2.7 DQI Check of Total Mercury Samples
Laboratory control spike recovery for the total mercury sampling during February 2007 was
performed using aNIST 1641D (1.590 mg/kg mercury in water) reference standard. Two spike
recoveries were performed with 89.9- and 97.6-percent recovery for an average of 93.8 percent.
Analytical spikes were performed on gas sample two with recoveries of 97.4 and 98.9 percent
with an average recovery of 98.2 percent. Recovery goals established in the QAPP of 50 to 150
percent were met.
Analytical duplicates were performed on gas sample two with values of 150.4 and 160.0 for an
average of 155.2 and a relative percent difference of 6.2 percent. Blank values were less than
0.07 ng per trap with an average of 0.02 ng per trap and an MDL of 0.12 ng per trap.
The precision assessment was performed using data from duplicate or replicate samples and
spikes (when available). Precision was expressed as %RPD for samples that were done in
duplicate and as %RSD for samples performed in triplicate. Table 5-4 represents precision values
calculated for total mercury of samples at each site. Precision goals established in the QAPP of
<20 percent for total mercury were met for all samples for a completeness of 100 percent.
Table 5-4. Precision Ranges for Total Mercury Measurements at Sites #1 and #2
(February 2007)
Location RSD (%)
Site #1 2.2
Site #2 15.1
Instrument calibration for the total mercury samples from the October 2007 sampling had
average continuous calibration verification (CCV) response of 105.1 percent. The Lumex
thermal decomposition mercury analyzer had a MDL of 0.21 ng. Table 5-5 represents the
precision range for the total mercury samples collected at Sites #1 and #2. Precision goals
established in the QAPP of <20 percent for total mercury were not met for all samples for a
completeness of 57 percent.
Table 5-5. Precision Ranges for Total Mercury Measurements at Sites #1 and #2
(October 2008)
Location RSD (%)
Site#1 7.7
Site #2 62
5.2.8 DQI Ch eck of Dimethyl Mercury Samples
Laboratory control spike recovery for the dimethyl mercury sampling was performed using a
LCS reference standard (1490 ng/L) and a second source standard (1000 ng/L). Two spike
5-7
-------
recoveries were performed with the LCS standard with 87.3- and 87.5-percent recovery for an
average of 87.4 percent. Two spike recoveries were performed with the second standard with
94.8- and 85.0-percent recovery for an average of 89.9 percent. The recovery criteria established
in the QAPP of 50 to 150 percent was met.
Laboratory matrix analytical spikes (sample + 2.000 ng) were performed on a batch QC sample
with recoveries of 90.9 and 102.4 percent with an average recovery of 96.6 percent, which meets
laboratory acceptance criteria for recovery. Blank values were less than 0.0014 ng per trap with
an average of 0.0007 ng per trap and an MDL of 0.0030 ng per trap.
Field spike recovery values for Site #1 was 25.7 and 62.6 percent for Site #2. The low spike
recoveries were possibly due to an over sampling of the landfill gas and degradation of the
matrix spike in the collection solution. Dimethyl mercury results may be higher than reported
due to the reactive properties of the landfill gas on the analytes in the acid collection solution.
Table 5-6 represents precision values calculated for dimethyl mercury of samples during Landfill
F and G sampling campaign. Precision goals established in the QAPP of <20 percent for
dimethyl mercury were not met for any samples.
Table 5-6. Precision ranges for Dimethyl Mercury Measurements for Sites #1 and #2
Location
Site #1
Site #2
RSD (%)
37.4
78.3
Completeness goals established in the QAPP for dimethyl mercury sampling and analysis were
not met.
5.2.9 DQI Check of Monomethyl Mercury Samples
Laboratory control spike recovery for the total mercury sampling was performed using standard
monomethyl mercury source (Absolute Standards) solution. Two spike recoveries were
performed with the laboratory control standard with 109- and 107-percent recovery for an
average of 108 percent. The acceptance criteria for laboratory control spike recovery was met.
Blank values were less than 0.007 ng/L with an average of 0.006 ng/L and an MDL of 0.006
ng/L.
Table 5-7 represents precision values calculated for monomethyl mercury of samples at both
sites. Precision goals established in the QAPP of <20 percent for monomethyl 1 mercury were
met at Site #1 but not at Site #2. The poor precision for the monomethyl mercury at Site #2 may
have been due to the much lower concentrations as compared to Site #1, as Site #1 contains
approximately 71 times more monomethyl mercury than Site #2.
Table 5-7. Precision Ranges for Monomethyl Mercury Measurements for Sites #1 and #2
Location RSD (%)
5-8
-------
Site #1 5.4
Site #2 77.9
Completeness goals for precision established in the QAPP were not met for monomethyl
mercury sampling and analysis.
5.2.10 DQI Check of VOCSamples with SUMMA® Canisters
Summa® canister samples of the landfill gas were analyzed for the TO-15 list of volatile organic
compounds. Triplicate gas samples and nitrogen sampling system blanks were collected at both
sites. The reported method detection limits for the TO-15 target list was 0.5 ppbv. Data for the
TO-15 gas samples required a flag to designate analytes reported at concentrations less than 5
times the nitrogen blank values due to some background contamination present in the sampling
system. The background contamination in the nitrogen blanks were probably due to carry over
from previous landfill gas sampling using the same equipment.
The Summa canister gas samples were also analyzed for methane, CO2, 62, Ci to C-e alkanes,
NMOC, and N2. The results from Methods 25-C appear to be the more consistent with the gas
composition for municipal landfills (U.S. EPA, 2008. Tables 5-8 and 5-9 present the precision
values of the Method 25-C and GC/FID/TCD datasets, respectively.
Table 5-8. Precision ranges for Method 25-C Measurements at Sites #1 and #2
R_n Methane CO2 NMOC Mass Cone.
Site #1
Site #2
5.4
4.8
4.6
4.6
3.8
0.9
3.9
0.9
Table 5-9. Precision ranges for GC/FID/TCD Measurements at Sites #1 and #2
R_n Methane Oxygen Nitrogen Carbon Dioxide
Site #1
Site #2
75.3
2.0
30.6
3.3
33.2
3.2
19.0
0.3
5.3 QC Checks of OP-FTIR Instrument Performance
Several checks should be performed on the OP-FTIR instrumentation prior to deployment to the
field, and during the duration of the field campaign. More information on these checks can be
found in MOP 6802 and 6807 of the ECPD Optical Remote Sensing Facility Manual. Prior to
deployment to the field, the baseline stability, NEA, random baseline noise, saturation, and
single beam ratio tests were performed. The results of the tests indicated that the instrument was
operating within the acceptable criteria range.
5-9
-------
On the first day of the field campaign (February 19), the single beam ratio, saturation, random
baseline noise, stray light, and NEA tests were performed on the IMACC OP-FTIR. The results
of the tests indicated that the instrument was operating within the acceptable criteria range.
On each subsequent day of the field campaign, the single beam ratio test was performed on the
IMACC OP-FTIR during the morning before data were collected. The results of these tests
indicated that the instrument was operating within the acceptable criteria range.
In addition to the QC checks performed on the OP-FTIR, the quality of the instrument signal
(interferogram) was checked constantly during the field campaign. This was done by ensuring
that the intensity of the signal is at least 5 times the intensity of the stray light signal (the stray
light signal is collected as background data prior to actual data collection, and measures internal
stray light from the instrument itself). In addition to checking the strength of the signal, checks
were done constantly in the field to ensure that the data were being collected and stored to the
data collection computer. During the campaign, a member of the field team constantly monitored
the data collection computer to make sure these checks were completed.
5-10
-------
This page intentionally left blank.
5-11
-------
Chapter 6
References
Faour, A., D. Reinhart, H. You, First-order kinetic gas generation model parameters for wet
landfills, Waste Management 27 (2007) 946-953.
Hashmonay, R.A., and M.G. Yost, Innovative approach for estimating fugitive gaseous fluxes
using computed tomography and remote optical sensing techniques, J. Air Waste Manage.
Assoc., 49, 966-972, 1999.
Hashmonay, R.A., D.F. Natschke, K.Wagoner, D.B. Harris, E.L.Thompson, and M.G. Yost,
Field evaluation of a method for estimating gaseous fluxes from area sources using open-path
Fourier transform infrared, Environ. Sci. Technol., 35, 2309-2313, 2001.
Hashmonay, R.A., M.G. Yost, D.B. Harris, and E.L. Thompson, Simulation study for gaseous
fluxes from an area source using computed tomography and optical remote sensing, presented at
SPIE Conference on Environmental Monitoring and Remediation Technologies, Boston, MA,
Nov., 1998, in SPIE Vol. 3534, 405-410.
Hashmonay, R.A., R.M. Varma, M.T. Modrak, R.H. Kagann, R.R. Segall, and P.O. Sullivan,
Radial Plume Mapping: A US EPA Test Method for Area and Fugitive Source Emission
Monitoring Using Optical Remote Sensing, Advanced Environmental Monitoring, 21-36, edited
by Y.J. Kim and U. Platt, Springer, 2008.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors, AP-42,
Volume 1: Stationary Point and Area Sources, 5th ed., Chapter 2.4, Office of Air Quality
Planning and Standards, US EPA, Research Triangle Park, NC, 1997. Available at:
http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ap42/ch02/final/c02s04.pdf
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (2004) Measurement of Fugitive Emissions at Region I
Landfill (EPA-6QQ/R-Q4-QQI,January 2004). Available at:
http://www.epa.gov/appcdwww/apb/EPA-600-R-04-001.pdf
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2005a) Measurement of Fugitive Emissions at a
Bioreactor Landfill (EPA 600/R-05-Aug 2005);
http://www.epa.gov/ORD/NRMRL/pubs/600r05096/600r05096.pdf.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2005b), First-Order Kinetic Gas Generation Model
Parameters for Wet Landfills (EPA-600/R 05/072);
http://www.epa.gov/ORD/NRMRL/pubs/600r05072/600r05072.htm
6-1
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2005c) Guidance for Evaluating Landfill Gas Emissions
from Closed or Abandoned Facilities (EPA-600/R-05/123b). Available at:
http://www.epa.gov/ORD/NRMRL/pubs/600r05123/600r05123.pdf
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2005d) Guidance for Evaluating Landfill Gas Emissions
from Closed or Abandoned Facilities: Appendix C - Quality Assurance Project Plan (EPA-
600/R-05/123b), available at:
http://www.epa.gov/ORD/NRMRL/pubs/600r05123/600r05123b.pdf
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2005e) Evaluation of Former Landfill Site in Fort
Collins, Colorado Using Ground-Based Optical Remote Sensing Technology (EPA-600/R-05/-
42, April 2005). Available at:
http://www.epa.gov/ORD/NRMRL/pubs/600r05042/600r05042.pdf
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2005f) Evaluation of Former Landfill Site in Colorado
Springs, Colorado Using Ground-Based Optical Remote Sensing Technology (EPA-600/R-05/-
41, April 2005). Available at:
http://www.epa.gov/ORD/NRMRL/pubs/600r05041/600r05041.pdf
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2007) Evaluation of Fugitive Emissions Using Ground-
Based Optical Remote Sensing Technology (EPA/600/R-07/032), Feb 2007; available at:
http://www.epa.gov/nrmrl/pubs/600r07032/600r07032.pdf.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Background Information Document for Updating AF'42
Section 2.4 for Estimating Emissions from Municipal Solid Waste Landfills (EPA/600/R-08-116,
September 2008); Available at: http://www.epa.gov/nrmrl/pubs/600r08116/600r08116.htm .
6-2
-------
APPENDIX A
Vertical Radial Plume Mapping (VRPM) Algorithm
The VRPM methodology is used to estimate the rate of fugitive gaseous emissions from an area
source. A vertical scanning plane, downwind of the source, is used to directly measure the
gaseous flux. Two different beam configurations of the VRPM methodology are recommended:
the five-beam (or more) and the three-beam VRPM configuration. Figure A-l illustrates the
setup for these two VRPM beam configurations. In the five-beam (or more) configuration, the
ORS instrument sequentially scans over five optical paths. Three paths are along the ground-
level crosswind direction (beams a, b, and c in Figure A-l), and the other two are elevated on a
vertical structure (beams e and fin Figure A-l). The additional beam (d) in Figure A-l is for 6-
beam configuration, which provides better spatial definition of the plume in the crosswind
direction. In the three-beam configuration, the ORS instrument sequentially scans over three
PDCs. Only one beam is along the ground level (beam c or d in Figure A-l) and the other two
are elevated on a vertical structure (beams e and fin Figure A-l).
A two-phase smooth basis function minimization (SBFM) approach is applied where there are
three or more beams along the ground level (5-beam, or more, configuration). In the two-phase
SBFM approach, a one-dimensional SBFM reconstruction procedure is first applied in order to
reconstruct the smoothed ground level and crosswind concentration profile. The reconstructed
parameters are then substituted into the bivariate Gaussian function when applying a two-
dimensional SBFM procedure.
A one-dimensional SBFM reconstruction is applied to the ground level segmented beam paths
(Figure A-l) of the same beam geometry to find the cross wind concentration profile. A
univariate Gaussian function is fitted to measured PIC ground-level values.
The error function for the minimization procedure is the Sum of Squared Errors (SSE) function
and is defined in the one-dimensional SBFM approach as follows:
Where:
D
exp
mv -r
yj
dr
(1)
B = equal to the area under the one-dimensional Gaussian distribution (integrated
concentration);
rt = the pathlength of the/'f/7beam;
my = the mean (peak location);
oy = the standard deviation of they* Gaussian function; and
= the measured PIC value of the ith path
A-l
-------
PI-ORS
Instrument
Figure A-l. Example of a VRPM Configuration Setup
The SSE function is minimized using the Simplex minimization procedure to solve for the
unknown parameters (Press et al., 1992). When there are more than three beams at the ground
level, two Gaussian functions are fitted to retrieve skewed and sometimes bi-modal
concentration profiles. This is the reason for the indexy in Equation 1.
Once the one-dimensional phase is completed, the two-dimensional phase of the two-phase
process is applied. To derive the bivariate Gaussian function used in the second phase, it is
convenient to express the generic bivariate function G in polar coordinates r and 6:
G(r,0) =
-mAr
sin^-wj (r-sin^-wj
(2)
A-2
-------
The bivariate Gaussian has six unknown independent parameters:
A = normalizing coefficient which adjusts for the peak value of the bivariate surface;
pi2 = correlation coefficient which defines the direction of the distribution-
independent variations in relation to the Cartesian directions^ and z (pi2=0
means that the distribution variations overlap the Cartesian coordinates);
my and mz = peak locations in Cartesian coordinates; and
ay and oz = standard deviations in Cartesian coordinates.
Six independent beam paths are sufficient to determine one bivariate Gaussian that has six
independent unknown parameters. Some reasonable assumptions are made when applying the
VRPM methodology to this problem, to reduce the number of unknown parameters. The first is
setting the correlation parameter p12 equal to zero. This assumes that the reconstructed bivariate
Gaussian is limited only to changes in the vertical and crosswind directions. Secondly, when
ground level emissions are known to exist, the ground level PIC is expected to be the largest of
the vertical beams. Therefore, the peak location in the vertical direction can be fixed to the
ground level. In the above ground-level scenario, Equation 2 reduces into Equation 3:
G(r,0) =
1
exp)2
(3)
The standard deviation and peak location retrieved in the one-dimensional SBFM procedure are
substituted in Equation 3 to yield:
G(A,
-------
When the VRPM configuration consists only of three beam paths—one at the ground level and
the other two elevated—the one-dimensional phase can be skipped, assuming that the plume is
very wide. In this scenario, peak location can be arbitrarily assigned to be in the middle of the
configuration. Therefore, the three-beam VRPM configuration is most suitable for area sources
or for sources with a series of point and fugitive sources that are known to be distributed across
the upwind area. In this case, the bivariate Gaussian has the same two unknown parameters as in
the second phase (Equation 4), but information about the plume width or location is not known.
The standard deviation in the crosswind direction is typically assumed to be about 10 times that
of the ground level beam path (length of vertical plane). If r} represents the length of the vertical
plane, the bivariate Gaussian would be as follows:
A
(6)
This process is for determining the vertical gradient in concentration. It allows an accurate
integration of concentrations across the vertical plane as the long-beam ground-level PIC
provides a direct integration of concentration at the lowest level.
Once the parameters of the function are found for a specific run, the VRPM procedure calculates
the concentration values for every square elementary unit in a vertical plane. Then, the VRPM
procedure integrates the values, incorporating wind speed data at each height level to compute
the flux. The concentration values are converted from parts per million by volume (ppmv) to
grams per cubic meter (g/m3), taking into consideration the molecular weight of the target gas.
This enables the direct calculation of the flux in grams per second (g/s), using wind speed data in
meters per second (m/s).
As described in earlier studies (Hashmonay et al., 2001), the Concordance Correlation Factor
(CCF) was used to represent the level of fit for the reconstruction in the path-integrated domain
(predicted versus measured PIC). CCF is defined as the product of two components:
Where:
CCF = rA (7)
r = the Pearson correlation coefficient;
A = a correction factor for the shift in population and location.
This shift is a function of the relationship between the averages and standard deviations of the
measured and predicted PIC vectors:
A =
-------
Where:
0.90). However, when both r and A are low one
can assume that the flux calculation is inaccurate.
A-5
-------
This page intentionally left blank.
A-6
-------
APPENDIX B
Open Path Instrument Mirror Coordinates
Table B-l. Distance, and Horizontal and Vertical Coordinates of Mirrors Used by the
Boreal OP-TDLAS in the Control Cell VRPM Survey at Site #1.
Mirror
Number
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Distance
(meters)
61.2
118.9
180.4
180.4
179.7
17.4
35.5
51.0
52.6
52.5
Horizontal Angle from
North (deg)
270° 41'
269° 14'
273° 19'
273° 05'
272° 53'
346° 56'
347° 15'
354° 22'
353° 24'
354° 26'
Vertical Angle*
(deg)
0°00'
0°00'
0°00'
1°17'
2° 33'
0°00'
0°00'
0°00'
7° 26'
12° 41'
"Vertical angle shown is the angle from horizontal (positive values indicate elevation from the horizontal,
negative values indicate descent from the horizontal).
Table B-2. Distance, and Horizontal and Vertical Coordinates of Mirrors Used by the
IMACC OP-FTIR in the Control Cell VRPM Survey at Site #1.
Mirror
Number
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Distance
(meters)
19.6
35.9
51.3
52.2
51.3
53.1
106.0
159.4
159.8
159.5
Horizontal Angle from
North (deg)
209° 28'
203° 35'
196° 35'
196° 35'
196° 29'
94° 27'
98° 19'
99° 15'
99° 18'
99° 08'
Vertical Angle*
(deg)
0°00'
0°00'
0°00'
3° 53'
6° 48'
0°00'
0°00'
0°00'
2° 02'
3° 25'
"Vertical angle shown is the angle from horizontal (positive values indicate elevation from the horizontal,
negative values indicate descent from the horizontal).
B-l
-------
Table B-3. Distance, and Horizontal and Vertical Coordinates of Mirrors Used by the Boreal
OP-TDLAS in the bioreactor cell VRPM Survey at Site #1.
Mirror
Number
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Distance
(meters)
30.7
58.9
82.4
84.0
83.7
40.1
79.6
119.4
119.7
118.8
Horizontal Angle from
North (deg)
3° 07'
4° 55'
6° 13'
5° 06'
5° 51'
278° 23'
281° 00'
282° 09'
281° 34'
281° 29'
Vertical Angle*
(deg)
0°00'
0°00'
0°00'
4° 14'
7° 28'
0°00'
0°00'
0°00'
2° 26'
4° 43'
"Vertical angle shown is the angle from horizontal (positive values indicate elevation from the horizontal,
negative values indicate descent from the horizontal).
Table B-4 Distance, and Horizontal and Vertical Coordinates of Mirrors Used by the
IMACC OP-FTIR in the Bioreactor cell VRPM Survey at Site #1.
Mirror
Number
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Distance
(meters)
34.3
69.0
103.0
102.8
102.5
47.6
96.8
172.4
172.3
172.1
Horizontal Angle from
North (deg)
151° 14'
144° 19'
143° 19'
143° 21'
143° 47'
76° 43'
80° 37'
87° 50'
87° 55'
87° 40'
Vertical Angle*
(deg)
0°00'
0°00'
0°00'
2° or
4° 02'
0°00'
0°00'
0°00'
1°33'
2° 45'
"Vertical angle shown is the angle from horizontal (positive values indicate elevation from the horizontal,
negative values indicate descent from the horizontal).
B-2
-------
Table B-5. Distance, and Horizontal and Vertical Coordinates of Mirrors Used by the
Boreal OP-TDLAS in the Bioreactor cell VRPM Survey at Site #2.
Mirror
Number
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
8
9
10
Distance
(meters)
9.8
19.7
29.0
29.9
30.4
73.5
146.2
217.1
217.2
216.5
Horizontal Angle from
North (deg)
354° 52'
359° 49'
4° 37'
4° 48'
6° 49'
88° 46'
89° 31'
93° 27'
93° 17'
93° 37'
Vertical Angle*
(deg)
0°00'
0°00'
0°00'
11° 14'
20° 21'
0°00'
0°00'
0°00'
0°49'
2° 02'
"Vertical angle shown is the angle from horizontal (positive values indicate elevation from the horizontal,
negative values indicate descent from the horizontal).
Table B-6 Distance, and Horizontal and Vertical Coordinates of Mirrors Used by the
IMACC OP-FTIR in the Bioreactor cell VRPM Survey at Site #2.
Mirror
Number
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Distance
(meters)
16.7
29.5
43.0
43.1
43.5
76.2
148.9
218.1
218.7
218.6
Horizontal Angle from
North (deg)
199° 59'
200° 06'
196° 22'
-1 94° 27'
194° 01'
278° 38'
280° 12'
280° 20'
280° 36'
280° 47'
Vertical Angle*
(deg)
0°00'
0°00'
0°00'
5° 59'
10° 57'
0°00'
0°00'
0°00'
1°56'
2° 53'
"Vertical angle shown is the angle from horizontal (positive values indicate elevation from the horizontal,
negative values indicate descent from the horizontal).
B-3
-------
Table B-7. Distance, and Horizontal and Vertical Coordinates of Mirrors Used by the
Boreal OP-TDLAS in the Control Cell VRPM Survey at Site #2.
Mirror
Number
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Distance
(meters)
66.8
135.2
203.4
203.2
202.9
35.4
70.1
105.4
105.6
104.9
Horizontal Angle from
North (deg)
271° 03'
269° 52'
270° 54'
271° 12'
271° 27'
358° 07'
357° 19'
0°52'
0°34'
359° 52'
Vertical Angle*
(deg)
0°00'
0°00'
0°00'
1°06'
2° 29'
0°00'
0°00'
0°00'
2° 52'
5° 29'
"Vertical angle shown is the angle from horizontal (positive values indicate elevation from the horizontal,
negative values indicate descent from the horizontal).
Table B-8. Distance, and Horizontal and Vertical Coordinates of Mirrors Used by the
IMACC OP-FTIR in the Control Cell VRPM Survey at Site #2.
Mirror
Number
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Distance
(meters)
26.2
52.8
78.9
79.1
79.2
69.6
139.9
208.7
208.7
208.6
Horizontal Angle from
North (deg)
176° 52'
178° 27'
175° 44'
177° 02'
177° 27'
75° 45'
80° 06'
82° 19'
82° 21'
82° 37'
Vertical Angle*
(deg)
0°00'
0°00'
0°00'
3° 52'
6° 33'
0°00'
0°00'
0°00'
1°57'
2° 55'
"Vertical angle shown is the angle from horizontal (positive values indicate elevation from the horizontal,
negative values indicate descent from the horizontal).
B-4
-------
This page intentionally left blank.
B-5
-------
APPENDIX C
Path-Averaged Methane Concentration Values Used for Emissions
Calculations
Table C-l. Methane Concentrations (in PPM) Found Along the Northern VRPM
Configuration in the Control Cell of Site #1
Cycle
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
Mirror 1
16.41
4.80
12.26
18.65
4.43
6.02
9.18
9.63
5.18
10.05
4.52
5.03
23.49
4.86
10.44
6.04
4.66
5.75
4.96
19.96
7.91
Mirror 2
16.60
5.32
9.35
11.48
3.21
4.06
9.85
9.26
2.90
29.61
3.49
6.26
17.30
7.61
25.69
4.78
4.50
3.99
4.21
4.49
3.83
Mirror 3
14.71
18.17
8.81
5.90
29.75
28.50
4.97
10.79
2.91
29.82
4.14
4.48
24.07
33.59
25.17
8.21
3.56
4.26
3.64
15.14
10.63
Mirror 4
4.47
3.73
5.45
8.57
12.09
5.59
3.23
8.48
4.00
7.54
3.06
3.81
6.43
11.60
3.27
2.62
1.98
3.25
2.45
2.23
2.22
Mirror 5
5.24
3.43
5.29
3.85
3.08
3.56
3.43
3.85
5.60
6.18
2.61
2.24
4.77
5.21
7.08
2.93
2.00
2.65
2.34
2.47
2.60
C-l
-------
Table C-2. Methane Concentrations (in PPM) Found Along the Eastern VRPM
Configuration in the Control Cell of Site #1
Cycle
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
Mirror 1
23.23
5.69
15.43
20.14
21.45
24.13
35.02
22.53
20.86
24.45
34.57
15.19
21.29
23.14
23.70
22.68
18.47
32.10
35.13
4.08
3.38
5.96
7.21
3.35
3.96
2.84
4.85
4.77
3.46
Mirror 2
0.00
11.43
4.22
7.02
0.00
4.54
8.35
69.07
4.18
9.04
40.21
5.05
6.18
6.41
13.83
9.89
7.27
10.00
0.00
2.25
2.00
5.17
5.63
2.70
4.10
4.22
3.76
5.69
0.00
Mirror 3
7.24
6.11
4.97
5.59
0.00
7.80
7.37
11.39
7.35
8.86
17.16
7.23
6.61
5.16
12.82
8.54
6.32
9.29
0.00
12.20
4.33
8.06
6.02
1.64
0.88
0.67
0.96
1.62
0.00
Mirror 4
3.84
3.26
1.97
2.73
0.00
3.99
3.16
4.44
4.38
4.19
12.02
3.62
2.67
2.24
5.17
3.76
2.72
3.27
0.00
86.32
50.39
57.72
38.35
23.45
27.44
35.46
27.14
15.48
0.00
Mirror 5
2.58
2.16
0.00
0.00
2.83
3.43
2.14
4.68
3.52
3.14
6.83
2.93
2.97
2.65
4.05
3.87
3.61
2.67
0.00
2.29
0.00
0.02
0.78
0.01
2.86
5.94
5.39
7.52
0.00
C-2
-------
Table C-3. Methane Concentrations (in PPM) Found Along the Western VRPM
Configuration in the Control Cell of Site #1
Cycle
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
Mirror!
14.50
12.15
17.23
14.73
10.73
7.84
4.36
7.18
10.54
10.80
4.62
9.53
8.85
-
8.26
5.89
2.68
3.01
9.20
9.69
4.45
Mirror 2
10.16
6.32
7.45
10.46
7.78
6.72
3.27
2.30
10.64
7.00
3.65
6.96
5.49
-
5.44
2.78
3.15
4.19
4.10
4.73
5.71
Mirror 3
7.48
4.50
6.48
6.69
5.65
6.35
3.76
4.60
6.48
5.47
4.46
2.56
4.74
-
4.15
2.37
2.62
3.65
4.63
4.62
3.63
Mirror 4
4.69
4.00
5.72
4.49
5.00
5.10
5.40
3.49
3.33
3.47
3.28
4.51
3.49
-
2.96
1.92
2.84
2.47
3.85
3.45
2.95
MirrorS
5.93
5.27
5.52
3.44
4.72
5.41
4.66
2.55
5.36
4.15
4.15
4.20
3.98
-
2.67
2.03
2.73
3.20
4.41
4.01
3.61
C-3
-------
Table C-4. Methane Concentrations (in PPM) Found Along the Southern Beam Path in
the Control Cell of Site #1
Cycle Mirror!
1 10.76
2 11.69
3 11.06
4 8.45
5 8.29
6 10.14
7 5.98
8 6.27
9 7.95
C-4
-------
Table C-5. Methane Concentrations (in PPM) Found on February 22 along the
Northern VRPM Configuration in the Bioreactor cell of Site #1
Cycle
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
Mirror 1
7.31
5.63
4.49
6.07
15.26
5.05
16.13
5.57
5.94
7.15
6.04
9.46
12.08
5.78
4.73
7.72
5.61
8.55
8.43
7.18
7.56
12.63
19.15
10.02
16.03
6.27
8.55
6.05
6.07
7.53
7.21
6.99
6.21
16.09
15.06
8.57
6.03
8.71
5.86
10.86
9.85
5.33
Mirror 2
7.89
9.56
8.63
7.96
9.97
4.68
10.01
6.44
7.65
6.04
10.98
6.96
8.14
8.82
7.19
5.46
6.86
14.71
7.26
8.66
10.63
10.41
12.61
10.16
17.9
8.53
14.41
6.94
11.58
11.25
10.36
10.77
8.89
16.97
11.16
12.41
16.59
12.97
7.45
7.11
16.57
8.74
Mirror 3
4.24
5.22
5.18
3.67
10.69
6.96
9.51
6.07
4.83
9.01
8.13
9.28
9.35
8.77
6.16
12.16
5.31
10.44
10.39
7.54
6.68
8.69
9.13
10.81
8.46
9.35
8.51
6.52
11.34
9.63
9.31
9.72
9.49
9.17
11.61
10.13
12.71
12.93
11.46
5.22
10.68
9.33
Mirror 4
3.36
3.17
4.07
2.94
6.19
6.03
5.28
2.94
5.10
3.24
5.03
5.48
8.34
4.12
5.62
8.64
4.75
5.46
10.17
5.43
5.01
5.48
4.65
8.59
7.81
4.37
7.92
7.63
6.63
5.53
3.35
4.85
4.98
4.84
4.65
6.08
11.06
7.72
8.59
3.67
3.95
5.65
MirrorS
5.05
3.19
2.45
6.01
9.69
3.01
5.88
2.51
3.25
3.82
3.19
8.19
8.13
2.95
4.55
6.85
6.43
4.21
6.94
6.74
4.58
8.64
5.64
5.44
5.68
3.19
2.56
11.73
4.75
4.83
4.19
4.57
3.98
5.47
2.86
7.02
15.88
3.84
14.79
5.41
2.44
4.61
C-5
-------
Table C-6. Methane Concentrations (in PPM) Found on February 22 along the Eastern
VRPM Configuration in the Bioreactor cell of Site #1
Cycle
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
Mirror 1
9.35
1.58
7.07
2.22
0.37
0.27
6.65
18.68
8.34
5.24
12.83
11.97
14.93
6.64
5.43
4.61
7.55
3.13
4.17
6.36
5.99
19.51
11.43
9.96
13.77
13.43
12.11
16.33
7.72
15.93
17.13
8.37
8.50
15.22
9.86
17.16
5.41
13.44
7.56
11.68
12.64
Mirror 2
17.56
20.75
15.48
16.79
26.90
18.83
17.39
24.03
18.79
15.24
24.17
19.40
24.24
23.86
22.18
18.60
41.28
22.83
21.99
19.13
22.77
20.39
20.24
16.30
19.01
20.07
26.32
30.16
20.95
21.83
17.34
31.60
21.64
20.86
15.85
31.96
19.51
27.61
19.53
22.98
0.00
Mirror 3
2.32
0.19
4.62
1.90
9.27
0.00
8.71
23.82
15.96
19.77
11.39
8.20
14.01
7.63
0.00
13.65
28.06
14.21
12.26
17.12
24.40
17.68
13.25
6.58
8.14
10.69
18.61
16.27
3.58
16.56
4.39
15.74
5.62
17.42
5.90
10.04
2.97
4.21
14.70
15.56
0.00
Mirror 4
11.65
7.26
6.13
11.30
17.02
0.00
9.69
8.58
13.36
13.97
9.70
7.94
18.95
6.69
0.00
10.02
12.68
10.52
23.65
13.59
11.67
6.70
12.53
8.08
11.87
14.28
12.76
16.22
10.68
10.95
25.35
20.41
13.93
9.78
12.55
16.61
10.59
13.13
6.21
10.85
0.00
Mirror 5
11.60
4.37
5.31
15.27
10.36
0.00
6.72
6.76
8.10
6.13
5.52
8.36
5.81
5.10
0.00
5.79
6.94
8.43
17.07
4.98
8.43
9.19
7.82
10.16
7.70
12.12
8.93
8.48
3.72
8.33
10.13
12.35
8.87
5.54
9.35
12.23
3.78
5.65
5.70
8.14
0.00
C-6
-------
Table C-7. Methane Concentrations (in PPM) Found on February 22 along the Southern
VRPM Configuration in the Bioreactor cell of Site #1
Cycle
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
Mirror 1
22.97
14.06
5.57
13.95
5.55
1.32
30.95
10.51
3.01
1.95
6.98
0.33
6.71
0.00
146.53
91.91
3.01
31.30
5.17
7.78
5.08
7.85
9.24
5.99
17.38
3.55
5.65
13.97
44.29
23.26
11.59
2.86
6.03
5.39
64.13
11.51
4.82
3.79
3.85
Mirror 2
22.84
23.03
17.37
23.35
16.83
14.73
18.71
12.78
13.22
11.33
10.42
4.19
7.39
0.00
12.44
11.05
12.45
41.16
13.04
7.73
3.59
5.48
5.57
0.46
8.23
0.49
0.00
1.07
39.55
0.00
0.42
0.00
0.92
5.66
7.09
4.90
0.02
0.41
2.56
MirrorS
18.78
20.72
53.90
22.24
14.40
21.59
39.85
22.66
23.18
25.30
25.60
22.26
24.93
0.00
0.00
0.00
17.52
28.48
18.92
24.25
20.20
17.75
22.91
19.51
27.18
18.55
16.30
19.81
24.65
17.11
21.96
16.44
13.85
16.34
9.41
12.26
10.98
12.95
16.36
Mirror 4
8.66
10.13
31.85
11.04
13.00
7.47
16.44
9.76
6.94
5.18
8.01
8.05
9.50
0.00
6.33
7.59
8.57
8.92
5.46
10.64
8.03
6.19
9.04
6.57
6.60
7.02
5.46
15.28
8.45
5.05
8.11
9.74
6.44
6.64
5.97
6.42
5.26
8.17
8.48
Mirror 5
9.96
9.12
9.46
6.35
4.86
4.18
9.30
7.68
3.76
4.08
6.25
18.87
9.32
5.02
3.56
0.00
3.90
7.15
2.45
8.12
5.39
4.44
4.50
3.89
3.60
6.86
2.36
9.85
3.19
8.79
4.12
0.00
4.44
8.57
4.28
5.54
5.60
8.23
6.98
C-7
-------
Table C-8. Methane Concentrations (in PPM) Found on February 22 along the Western
VRPM Configuration in the Bioreactor cell of Site #1
Cycle
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
Mirror 1
16.71
9.43
17.88
20.28
14.82
17.18
15.35
13.35
8.75
16.33
13.31
12.46
14.16
11.98
15.88
20.88
15.63
10.84
—
17.23
8.42
23.28
24.51
14.98
11.44
—
25.63
23.56
17.89
21.57
13.83
—
16.27
8.49
9.44
16.57
29.33
14.28
—
15.47
8.39
17.53
Mirror 2
16.62
10.71
12.3e
12.67
11.11
14.12
8.17
13.95
8.73
11.81
17.72
10.87
14.15
6.88
16.11
9.85
12.43
17.33
-
15.38
10.51
16.43
14.43
13.83
5.21
-
12.36
11.61
12.68
16.84
14.97
—
18.22
15.24
6.54
15.51
20.34
13.67
—
11.28
8.84
13.95
Mirror 3
8.28
9.18
8.57
8.67
7.61
13.92
9.26
11.19
8.08
9.61
10.72
9.65
9.35
9.87
10.63
8.97
11.81
12.43
—
8.89
9.85
12.88
9.05
10.3
4.46
-
7.77
6.92
13.25
9.79
12.04
-
13.75
9.25
10.86
12.44
13.23
9.88
-
8.53
4.75
8.99
Mirror 4
7.56
7.54
5.7
6.57
5.85
7.98
7.26
6.45
5.88
5.41
7.16
6.59
9.23
7.84
8.35
6.14
10.7
8.59
—
6.98
7.62
6.54
6.73
8.26
4.83
—
6.55
4.95
7.32
8.08
8.94
—
8.89
10.09
8.20
3.49
7.56
6.44
—
5.95
3.99
7.83
MirrorS
5.97
5.75
6.15
6.07
5.68
8.38
4.18
7.56
4.19
6.86
8.34
8.54
6.95
8.08
7.71
5.96
7.05
6.44
-
8.37
6.57
5.78
7.69
7.13
6.31
—
7.51
6.38
4.54
4.73
8.95
—
12.25
6.71
7.69
8.16
7.58
6.71
—
5.72
3.25
4.69
-------
Table C-9. Methane Concentrations (in PPM) Found on February 24 along the
Northern VRPM Configuration in the Control Cell of Site #2
Cycle
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
Mirror 1
27.99
26.89
21.69
20.93
26.80
28.82
26.86
30.25
24.11
27.46
22.48
19.48
18.85
Mirror 2
14.63
14.87
11.64
12.03
13.91
14.71
14.54
14.64
13.23
12.22
11.82
13.77
13.65
Mirror 3
10.74
10.56
12.81
9.37
10.49
9.84
10.22
11.63
11.05
8.75
10.25
10.08
10.46
Mirror 4
6.67
5.24
6.88
6.39
7.80
7.22
6.06
7.41
7.60
6.78
6.92
5.78
7.04
Mirror 5
4.25
5.93
5.30
5.27
5.97
6.18
5.97
5.67
6.23
5.49
5.00
5.08
5.29
C-9
-------
Table C-10. Methane Concentrations (in
VRPM Configuration in the
PPM) Found on February 24 along the Eastern
Control Cell of Site #2
Cycle
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
Mirror 1
14.06
14.77
20.94
10.93
15.13
6.41
3.31
13.68
4.95
15.22
13.25
16.16
11.86
7.85
20.42
22.73
18.21
15.17
18.38
20.09
27.06
27.63
24.82
24.85
22.08
22.40
21.50
26.08
26.58
Mirror 2
5.45
10.80
9.97
5.70
10.84
7.66
11.85
14.13
12.53
15.34
11.05
12.56
13.51
12.00
13.02
11.59
14.74
12.87
12.90
16.07
14.07
16.49
16.19
12.80
14.41
13.56
12.47
10.47
16.54
MirrorS
5.22
5.75
6.53
4.39
13.51
17.30
17.46
13.91
13.95
16.17
12.54
17.60
14.78
12.28
12.94
13.37
12.58
15.03
12.84
15.81
16.20
16.48
16.88
16.89
14.51
16.01
16.14
13.07
14.28
Mirror 4
6.43
1.88
12.97
12.19
6.75
7.43
6.74
4.36
5.07
5.91
4.56
5.11
5.53
3.86
3.80
5.60
4.35
4.63
4.77
5.45
5.20
5.52
6.37
8.36
5.37
4.98
5.04
6.04
4.89
Mirror 5
7.03
11.50
14.69
10.49
2.82
3.44
5.60
4.05
2.79
4.43
2.94
2.59
2.21
4.01
4.34
4.07
4.22
4.59
5.03
4.57
4.25
5.42
7.35
5.46
3.83
5.01
4.05
4.45
4.41
C-10
-------
Table C-ll. Methane Concentrations (in PPM) Found on February 24 along the Southern
VRPM Configuration in the Control Cell of Site #2
Cycle
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
Mirror 1
4.37
0.00
7.24
4.36
6.56
6.12
6.89
6.65
6.79
7.28
6.37
7.32
8.10
6.78
6.94
8.29
7.64
7.30
8.33
7.95
9.10
8.57
9.40
8.08
8.85
8.66
Mirror 2
6.87
4.67
16.31
14.17
16.84
11.39
12.11
11.48
13.96
15.04
12.88
16.93
15.88
18.23
18.91
16.74
14.39
12.63
16.08
16.42
18.56
17.26
17.54
18.27
17.45
18.07
MirrorS
5.02
4.28
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
10.91
10.68
7.99
6.22
13.51
15.93
10.96
11.63
10.64
5.17
16.70
20.23
4.65
3.49
3.24
4.24
7.19
7.62
13.18
Mirror 4
4.88
3.94
4.32
5.30
4.56
4.69
4.74
5.48
4.23
4.46
5.06
5.25
5.26
5.37
5.16
5.47
5.35
5.06
5.71
6.05
6.21
5.09
5.72
5.91
5.12
6.35
Mirror 5
3.82
2.88
3.18
2.71
2.56
2.45
3.36
3.45
3.67
3.73
3.14
2.47
3.54
2.81
3.83
3.37
2.93
4.25
2.87
3.51
3.45
2.15
2.88
3.13
2.93
2.87
C-ll
-------
Table C-12. Methane Concentrations (in PPM) Found on February 24 along the Western
VRPM Configuration in the Control Cell of Site #2
Cycle
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
Mirror 6
14.04
15.41
14.67
16.85
15.18
13.36
13.89
13.91
15.45
17.02
17.24
17.52
16.84
Mirror?
10.61
10.04
10.65
10.88
10.50
11.15
10.99
11.94
10.14
10.16
10.71
10.04
10.05
Mirror 8
7.90
7.61
8.15
7.83
7.93
7.68
8.63
8.59
7.74
8.05
7.75
8.51
8.12
Mirror 9
5.14
5.36
5.74
5.24
5.58
5.22
5.74
4.91
5.48
5.96
5.92
5.79
5.59
Mirror 10
4.68
4.67
5.13
4.96
5.04
4.17
4.49
5.35
4.36
5.42
4.63
4.51
5.64
C-12
-------
Table C-13. Methane Concentrations (in PPM) Found on February 25 along the
Northern VRPM Configuration in the Control Cell of Site #2
Cycle
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
Mirror 1
23.42
20.66
23.68
26.67
18.44
20.79
16.27
31.3
22.66
24.49
17.8
25.47
21.45
25.56
24.31
29.34
20.91
24.23
24.06
30.65
30.24
24.95
27.35
Mirror 2
13.24
10.32
9.23
12.16
10.96
10.33
12.12
11.41
12.54
8.29
13.15
12.15
13.04
11.79
16.79
9.88
15.33
15.28
16.34
13.26
12.93
8.94
11.95
Mirror 3
9.85
6.39
7.08
8.33
11.88
8.22
8.32
8.02
6.75
8.36
10.46
8.61
11.48
8.05
13.33
13.22
10.52
11.57
9.54
11.35
10.86
7.42
8.48
Mirror 4
6.32
4.49
3.64
4.93
7.34
9.51
5.95
4.43
5.96
6.31
5.69
6.22
5.21
6.05
10.15
8.14
8.16
6.92
7.73
6.03
5.38
4.27
4.37
MirrorS
5.56
3.48
3.97
3.74
7.82
4.81
3.87
3.60
5.12
3.47
3.56
6.55
4.65
4.86
4.48
3.91
4.16
4.15
3.85
4.36
3.97
3.46
3.27
C-13
-------
Table C-14. Methane Concentrations (in PPM) Found on February 25 along the Eastern
VRPM Configuration in the Control Cell of Site #2
Cycle
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
Mirror 1
7.88
6.07
6.10
0.00
5.21
8.35
4.41
4.38
2.74
6.56
5.66
3.15
4.88
5.47
8.61
4.32
8.89
4.17
4.00
7.22
3.26
6.58
4.50
3.16
3.04
5.15
4.50
4.94
14.65
9.86
Mirror 2
11.79
8.82
6.00
0.00
5.75
6.52
5.04
4.52
1.47
3.87
0.00
0.00
4.04
7.62
5.95
5.09
5.25
4.10
6.17
4.27
5.30
6.71
6.19
4.36
4.31
4.50
8.16
7.76
13.00
0.00
Mirror 3
5.71
5.93
2.84
0.00
6.74
6.46
4.19
3.55
1.52
6.37
3.83
3.21
4.57
9.66
8.47
2.84
3.72
5.69
2.30
7.47
5.11
11.05
8.47
6.81
5.51
7.66
10.64
12.52
9.67
0.00
Mirror 4
4.39
5.14
6.48
0.00
2.72
2.72
3.72
3.19
5.65
3.00
2.67
1.93
3.80
5.39
2.26
2.44
5.20
6.32
3.67
3.56
3.40
4.04
3.76
3.88
2.25
5.62
3.01
6.41
3.83
0.00
Mirror 5
2.11
2.73
3.79
0.31
2.19
0.98
2.92
1.10
4.26
1.62
1.92
4.35
2.03
0.00
2.04
3.04
3.81
6.25
5.85
3.64
5.95
5.29
4.15
5.13
3.11
5.01
3.07
6.03
4.13
0.00
C-14
-------
Table C-15. Methane Concentrations (in PPM) Found on February 25 along the Southern
VRPM Configuration in the Control Cell of Site #2
Cycle
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
Mirror 1
17.72
0.16
1.79
0.76
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.60
5.28
7.43
7.18
5.98
20.30
5.48
10.25
8.46
7.34
9.70
7.33
13.51
19.51
13.96
10.33
11.34
10.85
12.37
20.55
14.13
Mirror 2
9.67
12.88
14.36
9.31
9.88
9.14
7.40
10.28
13.05
8.10
7.30
8.92
7.45
11.50
6.27
11.16
11.41
7.64
7.49
9.60
11.19
13.12
12.24
10.86
9.42
14.51
11.12
9.28
12.82
Mirror 3
12.76
12.01
13.70
13.24
11.18
12.37
12.87
14.69
12.48
9.07
9.88
10.18
9.96
12.07
10.07
12.17
14.17
9.58
8.92
8.66
11.91
12.23
11.21
13.99
13.38
14.71
13.11
21.09
13.82
Mirror 4
5.82
5.04
4.62
5.97
4.17
3.75
4.96
4.98
5.48
3.83
3.43
4.77
3.44
4.04
4.28
4.56
5.01
4.10
4.17
3.34
5.02
3.60
4.09
6.33
5.86
6.85
5.12
7.41
5.31
Mirror 5
2.91
2.93
4.22
5.40
4.83
3.15
4.09
3.76
2.39
4.02
4.00
4.67
3.54
4.70
3.27
4.60
4.22
3.56
3.43
2.68
3.97
2.96
4.06
4.03
5.39
4.26
2.58
5.16
4.78
C-15
-------
Table C-16. Methane Concentrations (in PPM) Found on February 25 along the Western
VRPM Configuration in the Control Cell of Site #2
Cycle
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
Mirror 1
11.33
11.43
12.56
11.48
12.79
14.22
11.31
13.16
12.36
14.86
12.52
14.49
12.82
14.52
13.29
15.16
12.96
15.42
12.15
14.23
13.97
13.07
13.31
Mirror 2
8.97
10.12
9.69
10.17
10.66
10.81
9.68
9.97
10.59
11.57
10.74
12.73
11.68
10.13
10.13
10.35
10.34
10.80
10.28
10.68
9.77
9.54
9.05
Mirror 3
8.62
9.25
9.33
8.66
7.93
9.87
9.88
8.82
8.85
8.56
9.99
9.48
8.71
9.48
9.41
8.48
8.96
9.58
9.72
9.85
8.96
9.23
9.21
Mirror 4
5.24
4.48
5.45
5.33
5.12
6.67
6.46
5.31
5.42
4.77
7.05
5.35
5.22
5.93
5.49
5.84
6.22
6.28
6.63
5.86
6.27
5.77
6.09
Mirror 5
4.57
5.21
5.57
4.24
4.34
4.85
6.49
4.53
5.78
4.52
4.69
4.56
4.71
5.31
4.61
4.35
5.76
4.84
6.26
4.98
4.97
5.34
5.50
C-16
-------
Table C-17. Methane Concentrations (in PPM) Found on February 23 along the
Northern VRPM Configuration in the Bioreactor cell of Site #2
Cycle
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
Mirror 1
4.44
3.75
4.73
3.44
4.36
4.67
3.52
4.49
3.02
4.52
3.27
3.56
3.55
3.55
2.66
2.99
3.15
2.69
3.16
2.89
3.73
3.39
Mirror 2
4.25
3.23
6.37
4.54
3.55
5.47
3.61
5.95
7.27
9.98
5.01
3.77
7.03
4.91
6.42
5.71
6.07
5.71
5.72
5.67
4.92
4.87
Mirror 3
4.34
5.97
3.96
3.57
4.19
2.68
3.99
3.08
4.65
5.13
4.66
4.05
3.77
2.68
3.15
3.13
3.78
3.72
2.78
2.62
2.72
2.65
Mirror 4
2.25
2.61
2.81
2.62
2.57
2.17
2.16
2.42
2.72
2.33
2.72
2.58
2.17
1.91
1.97
2.17
2.74
2.14
2.17
1.95
2.02
1.95
MirrorS
3.18
2.54
2.48
2.36
3.12
2.15
2.15
2.44
2.63
1.93
2.08
1.94
2.54
1.64
1.67
1.92
2.47
1.81
1.56
0.26
0.23
0.23
C-17
-------
Table C-18. Methane Concentrations (in PPM) Found on February 23 along the Eastern
VRPM Configuration in the Bioreactor cell of Site #2
Cycle
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
Mirror 1
3.13
3.54
3.52
3.19
3.62
3.73
3.19
3.45
3.22
3.86
3.18
3.33
2.95
-
3.44
3.78
3.48
3.66
3.73
3.04
2.97
3.06
Mirror 2
3.85
3.58
3.54
3.48
3.44
3.35
3.52
3.88
3.63
4.26
3.67
3.74
3.34
-
3.46
3.68
3.53
4.05
3.63
3.55
3.03
3.48
Mirror 3
3.92
3.58
3.78
3.87
3.81
3.52
3.63
4.33
4.22
4.91
3.94
4.14
3.79
-
3.75
3.95
3.81
3.77
4.06
3.69
3.54
3.63
Mirror 4
2.32
2.27
2.13
1.93
2.17
1.95
2.16
2.14
2.14
2.37
2.04
2.09
2.12
-
2.04
2.12
2.07
1.97
2.13
2.09
1.91
1.94
Mirror 5
2.39
2.18
2.15
2.13
2.08
1.99
2.05
2.11
1.98
2.07
1.99
2.07
1.98
-
3.74
4.23
3.79
3.76
3.96
4.14
3.64
3.74
C-18
-------
Table C-19. Methane Concentrations (in PPM) Found on February 23 along the Southern
VRPM Configuration in the Bioreactor cell of Site #2
Cycle
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
Table C-20.
Cycle
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
Mirror 1
10.57
15.74
13.36
15.25
9.82
11.93
14.95
10.59
3.13
13.33
9.82
3.72
5.45
12.14
7.03
17.39
21.89
21.53
Mirror 2
0.00
9.49
5.83
7.51
6.24
6.41
8.85
10.92
9.04
9.24
14.95
9.05
8.14
11.60
12.85
8.61
6.72
111
Methane Concentrations (in
VRPM Configuration in the
MirrorB
0.00
11.95
13.79
12.58
10.78
10.76
8.89
11.82
13.91
10.77
12.73
11.55
10.24
10.29
8.26
12.61
12.33
Mirror?
8.08
8.58
6.64
7.49
7.39
6.14
6.07
7.53
7.08
6.86
8.03
8.16
6.84
7.51
6.59
7.10
6.37
MirrorS
0.00
14.15
16.30
6.33
5.13
3.52
6.26
4.46
7.58
10.18
12.66
9.81
9.98
13.74
14.37
14.10
14.25
0.00
Mirror 4
0.00
15.31
15.48
20.07
425.52
8.24
7.46
8.52
7.72
7.94
5.31
6.36
9.60
11.97
10.42
10.47
5.05
0.00
PPM) Found on February 23 along
Bioreactor cell of Site #2
MirrorS
5.23
7.39
6.10
6.19
5.65
4.98
5.28
5.39
5.81
5.96
5.04
7.24
5.37
3.44
5.83
5.71
4.75
Mirror 9
2.71
4.42
4.53
4.52
4.48
4.59
4.72
5.11
5.42
4.53
4.70
5.01
4.63
4.82
4.43
4.55
3.93
Mirror 5
0.00
19.04
22.35
10.35
10.49
0.14
0.49
0.01
3.52
5.37
11.66
4.22
2.46
7.96
2.93
5.74
2.74
0.00
the Western
Mirror 10
2.04
2.71
2.59
2.75
2.69
2.78
3.60
2.79
2.80
3.28
2.93
3.85
3.64
3.65
3.78
3.15
3.02
C-19
-------
Table C-21. Methane Concentrations (in PPM) Found on February 24 along the
Northern VRPM Configuration in the Bioreactor cell of Site #2
Cycle
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Table C-22.
Cycle
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Mirror 1
26.08
25.17
28.15
24.46
20.43
24.30
24.93
26.33
27.97
23.21
Mirror 2
15.92
13.78
16.19
13.13
9.65
15.14
11.40
12.58
13.52
11.89
Methane Concentrations (in
VRPM Configuration in the
Mirror 1
12.26
15.01
13.72
20.14
17.17
13.15
13.10
12.96
15.50
13.12
Mirror 2
10.69
10.15
11.70
11.80
8.38
11.24
9.81
10.16
11.31
10.07
Mirror 3
12.46
8.15
11.04
13.16
10.17
11.17
9.26
8.76
10.51
10.46
Mirror 4
6.61
7.27
6.73
7.76
7.49
7.90
4.57
6.80
5.47
7.55
PPM) Found on February 24
Bioreactor cell of Site #2
Mirror 3
7.57
7.88
9.06
7.38
8.25
8.39
7.34
8.52
8.23
7.14
Mirror 4
5.12
6.61
5.85
4.00
5.70
5.99
4.97
5.80
5.34
5.75
Mirror 5
5.15
5.50
6.77
6.65
4.45
6.20
6.04
6.91
5.30
5.03
along the Eastern
MirrorS
5.63
5.88
5.19
6.28
5.28
5.09
4.17
5.21
4.67
4.19
C-20
-------
Table C-23. Methane Concentrations (in PPM) Found on February 24 along the Southern
VRPM Configuration in the Bioreactor cell of Site #2
Cycle
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Table C-24.
Cycle
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Mirror 1
25.61
32.16
23.27
19.48
24.91
11.70
13.68
16.27
20.54
13.03
Mirror 2
13.41
11.26
10.21
10.01
9.81
7.06
6.65
7.55
10.27
8.11
Methane Concentrations (in
VRPM Configuration in the
Mirror 6
4.61
0.00
18.32
8.21
1.54
4.18
0.08
7.97
0.00
0.19
Mirror 7
7.59
6.23
5.91
5.79
5.54
5.01
5.45
0.00
5.20
5.05
MirrorS
5.14
6.58
8.50
8.22
7.18
4.46
5.58
3.84
6.41
5.00
Mirror 4
11.35
11.37
0.78
1.19
1.71
0.00
7.97
7.62
8.09
9.79
PPM) Found on February 24 along
Bioreactor cell of Site #2
Mirror 8
2.92
2.56
3.02
3.52
4.01
2.08
2.46
0.00
4.14
4.11
Mirror 9
2.98
2.44
4.38
2.59
4.03
2.24
3.21
0.00
3.74
4.16
Mirror 5
9.18
9.75
8.29
8.09
3.35
2.49
7.86
0.35
0.08
0.44
the Western
Mirror 10
3.03
2.85
3.43
2.30
3.33
3.25
3.70
0.00
3.61
3.75
C-21
-------
This page intentionally left blank.
C-22
------- |