&EPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
EPA-600/R-05/088
August 2005
Measurement of Fugitive
Emissions at a Landfill
Practicing Leachate
Recirculation and Air
Injection
-------
-------
EPA-600/R-05/088
August 2005
Measurement of Fugitive Emissions at
a Landfill Practicing Leachate
Recirculation and Air Injection
by
Mark Modrak, Ram A. Hashmonay, Ravi Varma, and Robert Kagann
ARCADIS G&M, Inc
4915 Prospectus Dr. Suite F,
Durham, NC27713
Contract Number: EP-C-04-023
Work Assignment Numbers 0-30 and 1-30
Project Officer: Susan Thorneloe
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
National Risk Management Research Laboratory
Air Pollution Prevention and Control Division
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Research and Development
Washington, DC 20460
-------
Abstract
Recently, research has begun on operating bioreactor landfills. The bioreactor process involves
the injection of liquid into the waste mass to accelerate waste degradation. The EPA and
ARCADIS conducted a fugitive emission characterization study at the Three Rivers Solid
Waste Technology Center Landfill located near Jackson, South Carolina. The survey area is a
two acre research and development site that practices leachate recirculation and air injection.
The site is located within the Subtitle D Landfill.
The focus of this study is to evaluate emissions of fugitive gases, such as methane and
hazardous air pollutants, at the site using scanning open-path Fourier transform infrared
spectrometers and open-path tunable diode laser absorption spectroscopy. The study involved
a technique developed through research funded by the EPA National Risk Management
Research Laboratory, which uses ground-based optical remote sensing technology, known as
radial plume mapping. The horizontal radial plume mapping (HRPM) method was used to map
surface methane concentrations, and the vertical radial plume mapping (VRPM) method was
used to measure emissions fluxes downwind of the site.
HRPM surveys detected the presence of a methane hot spot near the center of the site, with peak
concentrations ranging from over 26 ppm to over 48 ppm above ambient background levels.
An additional HRPM survey was conducted, at the request of the site operator, while leachate
was being pumped from a small holding pond located in the southeast corner of the site to
another small holding pond located in the northwest corner of the site. This survey detected an
additional methane hot spot located near the northwest corner of the site with concentrations
greater than 23 ppm above ambient background levels.
The results of the VRPM surveys found upwind methane flux values between 14 and 20 g/s,
and downwind methane flux values between 10 and 18 g/s. The downwind methane flux values
from 21 and 22 January 2004, are probably lower than the corresponding upwind values
because the prevailing winds at the time of the surveys carried a large portion of the plume from
the upwind hot spot outside of the downwind VRPM configurations.
-------
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
in
-------
EPA Review Notice
This report has been peer and administratively reviewed by the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency and approved for publication. Mention of trade names or commercial products does not
constitute endorsement or recommendation for use.
This document is available to the public through the National Technical Information Service,
Springfield, Virginia 22161.
IV
-------
Contents
Section Page
Abstract ii
List of Tables vii
List of Figures ix
Executive Summary ES-1
1. Project Description and Objectives 1-1
1.1 Background 1-1
1.2 Project Description and Purpose 1-2
1.2.1 Horizontal RPM 1-3
1.2.2 Vertical RPM 1-3
1.3 Quality Objectives and Criteria 1-4
1.4 Project Schedule 1-7
2. Testing Procedures 2-1
2.1 HRPM Surveys 2-2
2.2 VRPM Measurements 2-3
2.2.1 VRPM Survey of 20 January 2004 2-3
2.2.2 VRPM Surveys of 21 January 2004 2-3
2.2.3 VRPM Survey of 22 January 2004 2-4
2.3 Single Path Measurement During Leachate Pump Operation 2-4
2.4 OP-TDLAS Measurements 2-4
3. Results and Discussion 3-1
3.1 The Horizontal RPM Results 3-1
3.2 The Vertical RPM Results 3-2
3.2.1 VRPM Survey of 20 January 2004 3-3
3.2.2 VRPM Surveys of 21 January 2004 3-4
3.2.3 VRPM Survey of 22 January 2004 3-6
3.3 Results from the Single-Path Measurement During Leachate
Pump Operation 3-8
3.4 VOC and Ammonia Results 3-8
4. Conclusion 4-1
5. QA/QC 5-1
5.1 Equipment Calibration 5-1
5.2 Assessment of DQI Goals 5-1
5.2.1 DQI Check for Analyte PIC Measurement 5-2
v
-------
Contents (concluded)
Section Page
5.2.2 DQI Checks for Ambient Wind Speed and Wind
Direction Measurements 5-2
5.2.3 DQI Check for Precision and Accuracy of Theodolite Measurements 5-3
5.3 QC Checks of OP-FTIR Instrument Performance 5-3
5.4 Validation of Concentration Data Collected with the OP-FTIR 5-3
5.5 Internal Audit of Data Input Files 5-4
5.6 OP-TDLAS Instrument 5-4
5.7 Difficulties Encountered 5-4
6. References 6-1
Appendix A: OP-FTIR Mirror Coordinates A-l
Appendix B: OP-TDLAS Configuration Path Length Distances B-l
Appendix C: Methane Concentrations C-l
VI
-------
List of Tables
Table Page
ES-1. Average Calculated Methane Fluxes Found During the Upwind and
Downwind VRPM Surveys ES-2
1-1. DQI Goals for Critical Measurements 1-4
1-2. Detection Limits for Target Compounds 1-5
1-3. Schedule of Work Performed at the Site 1-7
3-1. Moving Average of Calculated Methane Flux, CCF, Wind Speed, and
Wind Direction for 01/20/04 Upwind VRPM Survey 3-3
3-2. Moving Average of Calculated Methane Flux, CCF, Wind Speed, and
Wind Direction for 01/21/04 Afternoon Upwind VRPM Survey
(Collected with OP-TDLAS) 3-4
3-3. Moving Average of Calculated Methane Flux, CCF, Wind Speed, and
Wind Direction for 01/21/04 Afternoon Downwind VRPM Survey
(Collected with OP-FTIR) 3-4
3-4. Moving Average of Calculated Methane Flux, CCF, Wind Speed, and
Wind Direction for 01/22/04 Upwind VRPM Survey
(Collected with OP-TDLAS) 3-6
3-5. Moving Average of Calculated Methane Flux, CCF, Wind Speed, and
Wind Direction for 01/22/04 Downwind VRPM Survey
(Collected with OP-FTIR) 3-6
3-6. Average Ammonia and Methanol Concentrations Measured 3-8
4-1. Average Calculated Methane Fluxes Found During the Upwind and Downwind
VRPM Surveys 4-1
5-1. Instrumentation Calibration Frequency and Description 5-1
5-2. DQI Goals for Instrumentation 5-2
A-l. Distance, and Horizontal and Vertical Coordinates of Mirrors Used
in the 01/20/04 Upwind VRPM Survey A-l
A-2. Distance, and Horizontal and Vertical Coordinates of Mirrors Used
in the 01/20/04 Downwind VRPM Survey A-l
A-3. Distance and Horizontal and Vertical Coordinates of Mirrors Used
in the 01/21/04 Upwind VRPM Survey A-l
A-4. Distance and Horizontal and Vertical Coordinates of Mirrors Used
in the 01/21/04 Downwind VRPM Survey A-l
A-5. Distance, and Horizontal Coordinates of Mirrors Used in the 01/21/04
HRPM Survey of Site A-2
vii
-------
List of Tables (concluded)
Table Page
A-6. Distance, and Horizontal Coordinates of Mirrors Used in the 01/22/04
HRPM Survey of Site A-2
A-7. Distance, and Horizontal and Vertical Coordinates of Mirrors Used
in the 01/22/04 VRPM Survey of Site A-2
B-l. Distance and Horizontal and Vertical Coordinates of Mirrors Used
in OP-TDLAS Configuration B-l
C-1. Methane Concentrations (in PPM) found during the 01/20/04 Upwind
VRPM Survey C-l
C-2. Methane Concentrations (in PPM) found during the 01/21/04 Upwind
VRPM Surveys C-l
C-3. Methane Concentrations (in PPM) found during the 01/21/04 Downwind
VRPM Surveys C-2
C-4. Methane Concentrations (in PPM) found during the 01/21/04 HRPM Survey .. C-2
C-5. Methane Concentrations (in PPM) found during the 01/22/04 Downwind
VRPM Surveys C-3
C-6. Methane Concentrations (in PPM) found during the 01/22/04 HRPM Survey .. C-3
Vlll
-------
List of Figures
Figure Page
1-1. Survey Area at the Three Rivers Landfill 1-1
1-2. OP-TDLAS System 1-3
1-3. Example of a HRPM Configuration 1-3
1-4. Example of a VRPM Configuration 1-4
2-1. Schematic of the HRPM Configuration Used During the 01/21/04 Survey 2-2
2-2. Schematic of the HRPM Configuration Used During the 01/22/04 Surveys 2-2
2-3. Map of Three Rivers Landfill Showing the Location of the Survey Site
and the VRPM Configurations Used During 01/20/04 Survey 2-3
2-4. Map of Three Rivers Landfill Showing the Location of the Survey Site
and the VRPM Configurations Used During 01/21 and 01/22/04 Surveys 2-3
2-5. Upwind Configuration from the Morning VRPM Survey on 01/21/04 2-4
2-6. OP-TDLAS Configuration Used at the Site 2-4
3-1. Average Surface Methane Concentration Contour Map from the HRPM
Survey of 01/21/04 3-1
3-2. Average Surface Methane Concentration Contour Map from 01/22/04
Morning HRPM Survey 3-2
3-3. Average Surface Methane Concentration Contour Map from 01/22/04
Afternoon HRPM Survey 3-2
3-4. Average Reconstructed Methane Plume from the 01/20/04 Upwind
VRPM Survey 3-3
3-5. Average Reconstructed Methane Plume from the 01/21/04 Afternoon
Upwind VRPM Survey 3-5
3-6. Average Reconstructed Methane Plume from the 01/21/04 Afternoon
Downwind VRPM Survey 3-5
3-7. Average Reconstructed Methane Plume from the 01/22/04 Upwind
VRPM Survey 3-7
3-8. Average Reconstructed Methane Plume from the 01/22/04 Downwind
VRPM Survey 3-8
5-1. Comparison of a Spectrum Measured at the Site (Blue Trace) to the Reference
Spectra of Methanol (Red Trace) and Ammonia (Purple Trace) 5-4
5-2. Comparison of Methane Concentrations Measured with the OP-TDLAS
and OP-FTIR Instruments 5-5
IX
-------
Measurement of Fugitive Emissions at a Landfill
x
-------
Practicing Leachate Recirculation and Air Injection
Executive Summary
Background and Site Information
There has been much concern over the potential
hazards of landfill gas emissions. The predominant
component of landfill gas emissions is methane,
which is highly flammable and has been identified as
a major greenhouse gas implicated in global warm-
ing. Another issue with landfill gas emissions is odor
nuisance complaints due to trace constituents.
Recently research has begun on operating bioreactor
landfills. The bioreactor process involves the injec-
tion of liquid such as leachate or sludge into the
waste mass. In the case of aerobic bioreactor land-
fills, air is injected into the waste mass in addition to
the liquid material to induce aerobic microorganisms
to degrade the waste more rapidly. The goals of this
technique are to increase landfill space (resulting in
more cost-effective landfill practices), to bring the
waste as close to full maturation as is feasible with
the technology, and to eliminate both potential
environmental threats from concentrated leachate and
hazards associated with methane gas production.
The EPA and ARCADIS conducted a fugitive emis-
sion characterization study at the Three Rivers Solid
Waste Technology Center Landfill located near
Jackson, South Carolina. The survey area is a two-
acre research and development site that practices
leachate recirculation and air injection. The site is
located in Cell 1 of the Three River Regional Subtitle
D Landfill. The focus of this study was to evaluate
emissions of fugitive gases, such as methane and
hazardous air pollutants (HAPs) at the site.
Testing Procedures
Data was collected at the site using two open-path
Fourier transform infrared (OP- FTIR) spectrometers
and an open-path tunable diode laser absorption
spectroscopy (OP- TDLAS) system. Three horizontal
radial plume mapping (HRPM) surveys were done
along the surface of the site to search for surface
emissions hot spots. The last HRPM survey was
conducted while leachate was being pumped (through
a hose that extended diagonally across the surface of
the survey area) from a small holding pond located in
the southeast corner of the site to another small
holding pond located in the northwest corner of the
site. Vertical radial plume mapping (VRPM) surveys
were performed over three days using two vertical
configurations to measure emissions of fugitive gases
and volatile organic compounds (VOCs) upwind and
downwind of the top surface site.
Results and Discussion
HRPM Results
HRPM surveys conducted on 21 and 22 January 2004
detected the presence of a methane hot spot near the
center of the site that had peak concentrations ranging
from over 26 ppm to over 48 ppm above ambient
background levels. An HRPM survey was conducted
on the afternoon of 22 January with leachate being
pumped from a small holding pond at the southeast
corner of the site to another small holding pond
located at the northwest corner of the site. This
survey detected an additional methane hot spot
located near the northwest corner of the site that had
concentrations greater than 23 ppm above ambient
ES-1
-------
Measurement of Fugitive Emissions at a Landfill
background levels. This hot spot is probably associ-
ated with emissions from the leachate being pumped
to the holding pond located at the northwest corner of
the cell.
VRPM Results
VRPM surveys were done at the site on each day of
the field campaign. Table E-l presents the calculated
methane fluxes from each survey.
Table ES-1. Average Calculated Methane Fluxes
Found During the Upwind and Downwind VRPM
Surveys.
Calculated Up-
Survey wind (Western)
Date Methane Flux
(g/s)
1/20/2004
1/21/2004
1/22/2004
15
14b
20b
Calculated Down-
wind (Eastern)
Methane Flux
(g/s)
N/Aa
10C
18C
Downwind methane flux data from the 01/20/2004 VRM Survey
is not available due to software problems in the field.
Upwind methane flux data from 01/21 and 01/22/04 were col-
lected with the OP-TDLAS instrument due to software problems
with the Midac OP-FTIR.
Calculated downwind methane flux values are lower than the
corresponding upwind values because the entire methane plume
was not captured by the downwind VP%PM configuration.
The results of the VRPM surveys found that, in many
cases, the upwind calculated methane fluxes were
higher than the downwind methane fluxes. This was
probably due to the fact that a methane hot spot may
have been present on the side slope located on the
western side of the survey area (directly upwind of
the upwind VRPM configuration). Several relief
wells were observed along the surface of this side
slope, and elevated methane concentrations were
measured along an OP-TDLAS beam path deployed
in the vicinity of these wells. The existence of a
methane hot spot along the side slope is also sup-
ported by the shape of the upwind methane plume
maps generated by the VRPM software (see Section
3.2.1). The downwind methane flux values from 21
and 22 January are probably lower than the corre-
sponding upwind values because the prevailing winds
at the time of the surveys carried a large portion of
the plume from the upwind hot spot outside of the
downwind VRPM configuration, which was substan-
tially shorter than the upwind VRPM configuration.
VOC and Ammonia Results
The datasets from the HRPM and VRPM surveys
were searched for the presence of VOCs and ammo-
nia. The analysis detected ammonia and methanol at
the site. The measured ammonia concentrations
ranged from 2.8 to 37 ppb. Methanol was detected
only during the 21 January single-path measurements
conducted with the leachate pump operating. The
measured methanol concentration was 11 ppb.
ES-2
-------
Practicing Leachate Recirculation and Air Injection
Chapter 1
Project Description and Objectives
1.1 Background
There has been much concern over the potential
hazards of landfill gas emissions. The predominant
component of landfill gas emissions is methane,
which is highly flammable and has been identified as
a major greenhouse gas implicated in global warm-
ing. Another issue with landfill emissions is odor
nuisance complaints due to trace constituents.
Recently, research has begun on operating bioreactor
landfills. The bioreactor process involves the injec-
tion of liquid such as leachate or sludge into the
waste mass. In the case of aerobic bioreactor land-
fills, air is injected into the waste mass in addition to
the liquid to induce aerobic microorganisms to de-
grade the waste more rapidly. The goals of this
technique are to increase landfill space (resulting in
more cost-effective landfill practices), to bring the
waste as close to full maturation as is feasible with
the technology, and to eliminate potential environ-
mental threats due to concentrated leachate and
hazards associated with methane gas production.
EPA and ARCADIS conducted a fugitive emission
characterization study at the Three Rivers Solid
Waste Technology Center Landfill located near
Jackson, SC. The survey site is a two- acre research
and development area located in Cell 1 of the Three
River Regional Subtitle D Landfill (see Figure 1-1).
The landfill system includes a network of piping that
collects and injects leachate from the Three Rivers
Regional Landfill into the waste while, at the same
Figure 1-1. Survey Area at the Three Rivers
Landfill.
time, injecting air into the waste in order to stimulate
aerobic conditions within the landfill to initiate and
maintain the rapid decay of waste. The survey area is
approximately 60 feet deep and consists of about
70,000 cubic yards of waste and daily cover.
The focus of this study is to evaluate emissions of
fugitive gases such as methane and hazardous air
pollutants (HAPs) at the site using an open-path
Fourier transform infrared (OP-FTIR) spectrometer
and an open-path tunable diode laser absorption
spectroscopy (OP-TDLAS). The study involved a
technique developed through research funded by the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Na-
tional Risk Management Research Laboratory
(NRMRL), which uses ground-based optical remote
sensing instrumentation, known as radial plume
mapping (RPM) (Hashmonay and Yost, 1999;
1-1
-------
Measurement of Fugitive Emissions at a Landfill
Hashmonay et al., 1999; Wu et al., 1999; Hashmonay
et al., 2001; Hashmonay et al., 2002). The survey
identified emission hot spots (areas of relatively
higher emissions), investigated source homogeneity,
and calculated an emission flux rate for methane
detected at the site. Concentration maps in the hori-
zontal and downwind vertical planes were generated
using the horizontal radial plume mapping (HRPM),
and vertical radial plume mapping (VRPM) methods,
respectively.
The study consisted of one field campaign performed
during January 2004 by EPA and ARCADIS person-
nel.
1.2 Project Description and Purpose
The optical remote scanning (ORS) techniques used
in this study were designed to characterize the emis-
sions of fugitive gases from area sources. Spatial
information is obtained from multi-path ORS mea-
surements by the use of iterative search algorithms.
The HRPM method involves the use of a configura-
tion of nonoverlapping radial beam geometry to map
the concentration distributions in a horizontal plane.
The VRPM method is applied to a vertical plane
downwind from an area emission source to map the
crosswind and vertical profiles of a plume. By incor-
porating wind information, the flux through the plane
is calculated, which leads to an emission rate of the
upwind area source. An OP-FTIR sensor was chosen
as the primary instrument for the study because of its
capability of accurately measuring a large number of
chemical species that might occur in a plume.
The OP-FTIR spectrometer combined with the RPM
method 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 retro-
reflector (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. Some of the light is absorbed by the mole-
cules in the beam path as the light propagates to the
mirror, and more is absorbed 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 concen-
trations of a multitude of infrared absorbing gaseous
chemicals can be detected and measured simulta-
neously with high temporal resolution.
The OP-TDLAS system (Unisearch Associates) is a
fast, interference-free technique for making continu-
ous concentration measurements of many gases. The
OP-TDLAS used in the current study is capable of
measuring concentrations over an open path up to 1
km in the range of tens of parts per billion for gases
such as carbon monoxide (CO), carbon dioxide
(CO2), ammonia (NH3), and methane (CH4). The laser
emits radiation at a particular wavelength 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 OP-TDLAS used in this study is a
multiple channel TDL instrument that allows fast
scanning electronically (few seconds) among many
beam-paths (presently, 8 beams). The OP-TDLAS
applies a small 4-inch telescope, which launches the
laser beam to a mirror. The laser beam is returned by
the mirror to the telescope, which is connected with
fiber optics to a control box that houses the laser and
a multiple channel detection device. For this particu-
lar field campaign, data from the OP-TDLAS were
used to provide information on methane concentra-
tions at the site. Figure 1-2 shows a picture of the
OP-TDLAS system used in the current study.
Meteorological and survey measurements were also
made during the field campaign. A theodolite was
used to make the survey measurement of the azimuth
and elevation angles and the radial distances to the
mirrors, relative to the OP-FTIR sensor.
The objectives of the study are:
• Collect OP-FTIR data in order to identify major
emissions hot spots by generating surface con-
centration maps in the horizontal plane, and
1-2
-------
Practicing Leachate Recirculation and Air Injection
Figure 1-2. OP-TDLAS System.
• Measure emission fluxes of detectable com-
pounds downwind from major hot spots.
1.2.1 Horizontal RPM
The HRPM approach provides spatial information to
path-integrated measurements acquired in a horizon-
tal plane by an ORS system. This technique yields
information on the two-dimensional distribution of
the concentrations in the form of chemical concentra-
tion contour maps. This form of output readily
identifies chemical "hot spots," the location of high
emissions. This method can be of great benefit for
performing site surveys before, during, and after site
remediation activities.
HRPM scanning is usually performed with the ORS
beams located as close to the ground as is practical.
This enhances the ability to detect minor constituents
emitted from the ground since the emitted plumes
dilute significantly at higher elevations. The survey
area is typically divided into a Cartesian grid of n
times m rectangular cells. In some unique cases, the
survey area may not be rectangular due to obstruc-
tions, and the shape of the cells may be slightly
altered accordingly. A mirror is located in each of
these cells, and the ORS sensor scans to each of these
mirrors, dwelling on each for a set measurement time
(30 seconds in the present study). The system scans
to the mirrors in the order of either increasing or
decreasing azimuth angle. The path-integrated con-
centrations measured at each mirror are averaged
over several scanning cycles to produce concentration
maps that are time-averaged (Hashmonay et al.,
1999). Meteorological measurements are made
concurrent to the scanning measurements.
Figure 1-3 represents a typical HRPM configuration.
In this particular case, n = m = 3. The solid lines
represent the nine optical paths, each terminating at
a mirror.
150h
g 100
Q
2
50
.2
OP-FTIR
x Axis
-50 0 50 100
Typical x Distance (m)
150
Figure 1-3. Example of a HRPM Configuration.
One OP-FTIR instrument (manufactured by EVIACC,
Inc.) was used to collect horizontal RPM data during
the field campaign.
1.2.2 Vertical RPM
The VRPM method maps the concentrations in the
vertical plane by scanning the ORS system in a
vertical plane downwind from an area source. The
plane-integrated concentration can be obtained from
the reconstructed concentration maps. The flux is
calculated by multiplying the plane-integrated con-
centration by the wind speed component perpendicu-
lar 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).
1-3
-------
Measurement of Fugitive Emissions at a Landfill
Figure 1-4 shows a schematic of the experimental
setup used for vertical scanning. Several mirrors are
placed in various locations on a vertical plane in-line
with the scanning OP FTIR. A vertical platform
(scissors jack) is used to place two of the mirrors at a
predetermined height above the surface. The location
of the vertical plane is selected so that it intersects the
mean wind direction as close to perpendicular as
practical. Two OP-FTIR instruments (manufactured
by Midac, Inc. and IMACC, Inc.) were used to
complete the VRPM surveys.
1.3 Quality Objectives and Criteria
Data quality objectives (DQOs) are qualitative and
quantitative statements developed using EPA's DQO
process (U.S. EPA, 2000) that clarify study objec-
tives, define the appropriate type of data, and specify
tolerable levels of potential decision errors that will
be used as the basis for establishing the quality and
quantity of data needed to support decisions. DQOs
define the performance criteria that limit the proba-
bilities of making decision errors by considering the
purpose of collecting the data, defining the appropri-
ate type of data needed, and specifying tolerable
probabilities of making decision errors.
Quantitative objectives are established for critical
measurements using the data quality indicators
(DQIs) of accuracy, precision, and completeness. The
Fugitive Source/
Area of Interest
PI-ORS
Instrument
Figure 1-4. Example of a VRPM Configura-
tion.
acceptance criteria for these DQIs are summarized in
Table 1-1. Accuracy of measurement parameters is
determined by comparing a measured value to a
known standard, assessed in terms of percent bias.
Values must be within the listed tolerance to be
considered acceptable.
Table 1-1. DQI Goals for Critical Measurements.
Parameter
Analyte PIC3
Ambient Wind Speed
Ambient Wind Direction
Distance
Analysis
Method
OP-FTIR: nitrous oxide concen-
trations
Climatronics Met heads side -by-
side comparison in the field
Climatronics Met heads side -by-
side comparison in the field
Theodolite- Topcon
Accuracy
(% bias)
±25%/15%/10%b
±1 m/s
±10°
±lm
Precision
(%RSD)
±10%
±lm/s
±10°
±lm
Completeness
90%
90%
90%
100%
a PIC = path-integrated concentration.
b 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.
1-4
-------
Practicing Leachate Recirculation and Air Injection
Precision is evaluated by making replicate measure-
ments of the same parameter and by assessing the
variations of the results. Precision is assessed in
terms of relative percent difference (RPD), or relative
standard deviation (RSD). Replicate measurements
are expected to fall within the tolerances shown in
Table 1-1. Completeness is expressed as a percentage
of the number of valid measurements compared to the
total number of measurements taken.
Estimated minimum detection limits (MDLs) of the
OP-FTIR instrument are given by compound in Table
1-2. It is important to note that the values listed in
Table 1-2 should be considered first step approxima-
tions because the MDL is highly variable and de-
pends on many factors including atmospheric condi-
tions. Actual MDLs are calculated in the quantifica-
tion software for all measurements taken. Minimum
detection levels for each absorbance spectrum are
determined by calculating the root mean square
(RMS) absorbance noise in the spectral region of the
target absorption feature. The MDL is the target
compound absorbance signal that is five times the
RMS noise level, using a reference spectrum acquired
for a known concentration of the target compound.
Guidance documents such as Compendium Method
TO-16 (U.S. EPA, 1999) and American Society for
Testing and Materials (ASTM) Standard Practices
El982-98 (ASTM, 1999) typically define estimated
minimum detection limits (MDL) as 3 times the RMS
noise. However, signals at this level may be due to
the presence of a given compound or may be false
positives. The estimate of five times the RMS noise
reduces the probability of measuring false positives
and was therefore used in the analysis of the current
data set to provide more conservative results.
Table 1-2. Detection Limits for Target Compounds.
Compound
OP-FTIR Estimated Detection
Limit for Path Length = 100m,
1 min Average
(ppmv)
AP-42 Value as a ratio to an
average methane concentra-
tion of 50 ppma
(ppmv)
1 ,4-Dichlorobenzene
2-Propanol
Acetone
Acrylonitrile
Ammonia
Butane
Chlorobenzene
Chloroform
Chloromethane
Dichlorodifluoromethane
Dimethyl sulfide
Ethane
Ethanol
Ethyl benzene
Ethyl chloride
Ethylene dibromide
0.012
0.0060
0.024
0.010
0.0040
0.0060
0.040
0.012
0.012
0.0040
0.018
0.010
0.0060
0.060
0.0040
0.0060
0.000021
0.0050
0.00070
0.00063
N/Ab
0.00050
0.000025
0.0000030
0.00010
0.0016
0.00078
0.089
0.0027
0.00046
0.00013
0.00000010
continued
1-5
-------
Measurement of Fugitive Emissions at a Landfill
Table 1-2. Detection Limits for Target Compounds (concluded).
Compound
Ethylene dichloride
Fluorotrichloromethane
Hexane
Hydrogen sulfide
Methane
Methanol
Methyl ethyl ketone
Methyl isobutyl ketone
Methyl mercaptan
Methylene chloride
Octane
Pentane
Propane
Propylene dichloride
Tetrachloroethene
Trichlorethylene
Vinyl chloride
Vinylidene chloride
Xylenes
OP-FTIR Estimated Detection
Limit for Path Length = 100m,
1 min Average
(ppmv)
0.030
0.0040
0.0060
6.0
0.024
0.0015
0.030
0.040
0.060
0.014
0.0025
0.0080
0.0080
0.014
0.0040
0.0040
0.010
0.014
0.030
AP-42 Value as a ratio to an
average methane concentra-
tion of 50 ppma
(ppmv)
0.000041
0.000076
0.00066
0.0036
N/A
N/A
0.00071
0.00019
0.00025
0.0014
N/A
0.00033
0.0011
0.000018
0.00037
0.00028
0.00073
0.000020
0.0012
a The AP-42 values represent an average concentration of different pollutants in the raw landfill gas. This is not comparable
to the detection limits for the OP-FTIR which is an average value for a path length of 100 meters across the surface of the
area source being evaluated. However, it does provide an indication of the types of pollutants and range of concentrations
associated with landfill gas emissions in comparison to the detection limits of the OP-FTIR.
b N/A = not available.
1-6
-------
Practicing Leachate Recirculation and Air Injection
1.4 Project Schedule
The field campaign for this study was completed during January 2004. Table 1-3 provides the schedule of ORS
work that was performed.
Table 1-3. Schedule of Work Performed at the Site.
,~nnA\ Detail of Work Performed Notes
(ZUU4}
Tuesday, 20 January PM-VRPM survey of site Due to software problems, downwind VRPM data was
2004 not available from this survey
Wednesday, 21 January AM-VRPM survey of site Data from AM VRPM survey was not reported because
2004 PM-HRPM survey of site the wind data failed to meet the acceptance criteria
PM-VRPM survey of site
Thursday, 22 January AM-HRPM survey of site
2004 PM-VRPM survey of site
PM-HRPM survey of site
while leachate pump was op-
erating
1-7
-------
Measurement of Fugitive Emissions at a Landfill
-------
Practicing Leachate Recirculation and Air Injection
Chapter 2
Testing Procedures
The following subsections describe the testing proce-
dures used at the site. HRPM was performed along
the surface of the survey area to produce surface
concentration maps and to locate any emissions hot
spots. VRPM was performed using two OP-FTIR
instruments, and the OP-TDLAS system. The coordi-
nates of the mirrors used in each configuration (rela-
tive to the position of the ORS instrument) are pre-
sented in Appendix A and B.
OP-FTIR raw data were collected as interferograms.
All data were archived to CD-ROMs. After archiving,
interferograms were transferred to ARCADIS. They
were then transformed to single beam spectra, and
concentrations were calculated using Non-Lin
(Spectrosoft) quantification software. This analysis
was done after completion of the field campaign.
Concentration data were then matched with the
appropriate mirror locations, wind speed, and wind
direction. The ARCADIS RPM software was used to
process the data into horizontal plane or vertical plane
plume visualizations, as appropriate.
Meteorological data including wind direction, wind
speed, temperature, relative humidity, and barometric
pressure were continuously collected during the
measurement campaign with an automated R.M.
Young instrument. It collected real-time data from its
sensors and recorded time-stamped data as one-
second averages to the data collection computer.
Sensing heads for wind direction and speed were used
to collect data at the surface during the HRPM sur-
veys and at 2 and 10 meters heights during the VRPM
survey (the 10-m sensor was placed on top of the
scissors jack that held the mirrors). The sensing
heads for wind direction incorporate an auto-north
function (automatically adjusts to magnetic north)
that eliminates the errors associated with subjective
field alignment to a compass heading. After data
collection, a linear interpolation between the two sets
of data was done to estimate wind velocity as a
function of height.
Once the concentrations maps and wind information
were processed, the concentration values were
integrated, incorporating the wind speed component
normal to the plane at each height level to compute
the flux through the vertical plane. In this stage, the
concentration values were integrated from parts per
million by volume to grams per cubic meter, consid-
ering the molecular weight of the target gas. This
enables the direct calculation of the flux in grams per
second, using wind speed data in meters per second.
The concordance correlation factor (CCF) is used to
represent the level of fit for the reconstruction in the
path-integrated domain—predicted vs. observed
path-integrated concentration (PIC). The CCF is
similar to the Pearson correlation coefficient (r), but
is adjusted to account for shifts in location and scale.
Like the Pearson correlation, CCF values are
bounded between -1 and +1, yet the CCF can never
exceed the absolute value of the Pearson correlation
factor. For example, the CCF will be equal to the
Pearson correlation when the linear regression line
intercepts the ordinate at 0, and its slope equals 1. Its
2-1
-------
Measurement of Fugitive Emissions at a Landfill
absolute value will be lower than the Pearson correla-
tion when the above conditions are not met. For the
purposes of this report, the closer the CCF value is to
+1, the better the fit for the reconstruction in the path-
integrated domain.
In reporting the average calculated flux, a moving
average is used in the calculation of the average flux
values to show temporal variability in the measure-
ments. A moving average involves averaging flux
values calculated from several different consecutive
cycles (a cycle is defined as data collected when
scanning one time through all the mirrors in the
configuration). For example, a data set taken from 5
cycles may be reported using a moving average of 4,
where values from cycles 1 to 4, and 2 to 5 are aver-
,120
100
80
60
40
20
OJ
o
I
-20
70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 -10
x Distance (m)
Figure 2-1. Schematic of the HRPM Config-
uration Used During the 01/21/04 Survey.
aged together to show any variability in the flux
values.
2.1 HRPM Surveys
One HRPM survey was conducted along the surface
of the survey area on 21 January 2004 and two
FIRPM surveys were conducted on 22 January 2004.
During the second FIRPM survey on 22 January,
leachate was being pumped (through a hose that
extended diagonally across the surface of the survey
area from a small holding pond at the southeast
corner of the site to another small holding pond at the
northwest corner of the site. During the HRPM
surveys, the optical paths were configured as close to
the surface of the cell as possible (less than one
meter above the surface). Figures 2-1 and 2-2 present
the HRPM configurations used during the 21 and 22
January HRPM surveys, respectively. The solid lines
represent the nine optical paths used in the configura-
tion, each terminating at a mirror. The same terrain
120
100
80
60
40
20
-20
-20
20 40 60
x Distance (m)
80
Figure 2-2. Schematic of the HRPM Config-
uration Used During the 01/22/04 Surveys.
2-2
-------
Practicing Leachate Recirculation and Air Injection
was surveyed on both days, but the OP-FTIR was
placed in a different corner of the area on each day.
2.2 VRPM Measurements
VRPM surveys were conducted at the site during each
day of the field campaign using two ORS instruments.
The VRPM surveys were completed using two
vertical configurations set up along the eastern and
western boundary of the survey area. Due to geo-
graphical limitations at the site, the VRPM configura-
tion along the eastern boundary of the site was limited
to a distance of 95 meters. Figure 2-3 presents the
overall layout of the site and the location of the
VRPM configurations used during 20 January. Figure
2-4 shows the location of the VRPM configurations
used during 21 and 22 January. In both figures, the
blue cylinders indicate the locations of the ORS
instruments, and the blue squares indicate the loca-
tions of the scissors jacks (vertical structures) used in
the configurations.
OP-TDLAS
Loachate\
IMACC OP-FTIR
VRPM Configuration
N
Wl >E
Midac OP-FTIR
VRPM Configuration
Bioreactor
Cell
I VRPM Configuration
IMACC OP-FTIR
VRPM Configuration
E Bioreactor
Cell
N
W< I IE
Figure 2-4. Map of Three Rivers Landfill Showing
the Location of the Survey Site and the VRPM
Configurations Used During 01/21 and 01/22/04
Surveys.
ration allowed for the identification of any upwind
source and the calculation of a flux value for the
identified sources.
2.2.1 VRPM Survey of 20 January 2004
The observed wind direction was westerly during the
VRPM survey of 20 January. The IMACC instru-
ment was located along the western boundary (up-
wind) of the survey area, and the Midac instrument
was located along the eastern boundary (downwind)
of the area. The upwind configuration consisted of
three mirrors placed along the surface and two
mirrors placed on the upwind scissors jack. Due to
software problems with the scanner controlling the
Midac instrument, data was not collected with this
instrument.
Figure 2-3. Map of Three Rivers Landfill Showing
the Location of the Survey Site and the VRPM
Configurations Used During 01/20/04 Survey.
During each survey, one vertical configuration served
as the upwind measurement of the top surface of the
site, and the other served as the downwind measure-
ment of the top surface, depending on the prevailing
wind direction. The use of an upwind VRPM configu-
2.2.2 VRPM Surveys of 21 January 2004
Two VRPM surveys were conducted at the site on 21
January. During the morning VRPM survey, the
observed wind direction was southeasterly, and the
Midac OP-FTIR was located along the eastern
boundary (upwind) of the survey area and the
IMACC OP-FTIR along the western boundary
(downwind). Each configuration consisted of three
mirrors placed along the surface and two mirrors
2-3
-------
Measurement of Fugitive Emissions at a Landfill
placed on the scissors jack. Figure 2-5 shows a picture
of the upwind configuration used during the survey.
Figure 2-5. Upwind Configuration from the
Morning VRPM Survey on 01/21/04.
During the afternoon VRPM survey, the observed
wind direction was southwesterly. Due to software
problems with the Midac OP-FTIR scanner, the
IMACC OP-FTIR was set up along the eastern
boundary to ensure that downwind data was collected.
The OP-TDLAS system was set up along the cell's
western boundary to collect upwind methane concen-
tration data. The upwind and downwind configura-
tions consisted of three mirrors placed along the
surface, and two mirrors placed on the scissors jack.
2.2.3 VRPM Survey of 22 January 2004
During the VRPM survey of 22 January, the observed
wind direction was westerly. Due to continued techni-
cal problems with the Midac OP-FTIR scanner, the
IMACC OP-FTIR was set up along the eastern
boundary to ensure that downwind data was collected.
The OP-TDLAS system was set up along the western
boundary of the cell to collect upwind methane
concentration data. The upwind and downwind
configurations consisted of three mirrors placed along
the surface, and two mirrors placed on the scissors
jack.
2.3 Single Path Measurement during
Leachate Pump Operation
During the afternoon of 21 January, leachate was
being pumped from a holding pond adjacent to the
site through a hose that extended diagonally across
the surface of the survey area. At the request of the
site operator, data was collected with the OP-FTIR to
measure any emissions coming from the hose. For
this survey, one mirror was placed directly beyond
the leachate hose at a distance of 86.4 meters from
the OP-FTIR instrument.
2.4 OP-TDLAS Measurements
The OP-TDLAS system was deployed for each day
of the field campaign along the western boundary of
the survey area. The OP-TDLAS configuration was
similar to the configuration used on the western side
of the cell during the VRPM surveys of 20 January,
and the morning of 21 January. As mentioned previ-
ously, the OP-TDLAS system was used to provide
upwind data for the VRPM surveys on 21 and 22
January due to technical problems with one of the
OP-FTIR instruments. Figure 2-6 shows a picture of
the OP-TDLAS configuration used at the site.
Figure 2-6. OP-TDLAS Configuration Used
at the Site.
2-4
-------
Practicing Leachate Recirculation and Air Injection
Chapter 3
Results and Discussion
The results from the ORS data collected at the site are
presented in the following subsections. The measured
methane concentrations from the HRPM and VRPM
surveys are presented in Appendix C.
3.1 The Horizontal RPM Results
HRPM surveys were conducted at the site to detect
methane hot spots. Figure 3-1 presents the recon-
structed map of average surface methane concentra-
tions (in parts per million—ppm) found during the
HRPM survey of 21 January. The contours give
methane concentration values (in parts per million)
above ambient background concentrations. The red
dot indicates the location of the OP-FTIR and scan-
ner. The figure shows the presence of a hot spot near
the center of the site (concentrations greater than 48
ppm above ambient background).
Figure 3-2 presents the reconstructed map of average
surface methane concentrations (in parts per million)
found during the HRPM survey done on the morning
of 22 January. The figure shows the presence of a hot
spot near the center of the site (concentrations greater
than 36 ppm above ambient background). The loca-
tion of the methane hot spot found during this survey
is very similar to the results found during the HRPM
survey of 21 January.
Figure 3-3 presents the reconstructed map of average
surface methane concentrations (in parts per million)
found during the HRPM survey done on the after-
noon of 22 January. During this survey, leachate was
being pumped, as described earlier in Section 2.1.
100
80
60
o
§
•4-1
tfl
O
40
20
j i i
50 40 30 20 10
x Distance (m)
Figure 3-1. Average Surface Methane Concen-
tration Contour Map from the HRPM Survey of
01/21/04.
3-1
-------
Measurement of Fugitive Emissions at a Landfill
100
80
SI
o
60
Q
is
40
20
J L
0 20 30 40 50
x Distance (m)
Figure 3-2. Average Surface Methane Concen-
tration Contour Map from 01/22/04 Morning
HRPM Survey.
100
so
0)
o
160
40
20
8
10 20 30 40 50
x Distance (m)
Figure 3-3. Average Surface Methane Concen-
tration Contour Map from 01/22/04 Afternoon
HRPM Survey.
The figure shows the presence of a hot spot near the
center of the site (concentrations greater than 26 ppm
above ambient background), and a hot spot near the
northwest corner (concentrations greater than 23 ppm
above ambient background). The hot spot in the
northwest portion of the site (which was not present
during the previous HRPM surveys) is probably due
to emissions from the leachate being pumped to the
holding pond located in the northwest corner of the
cell.
3.2 The Vertical RPM Results
As mentioned previously, the VRPM surveys were
completed using two vertical configurations set up
along the eastern and western boundary of the survey
area. During each survey, one vertical configuration
served as the upwind measurement of the top surface
of the area, and the other served as the downwind
measurement of the top surface, depending on the
prevailing wind direction.
3-2
-------
Practicing Leachate Recirculation and Air Injection
3.2. 1 VRPM Survey of 20 January 2004
During the 20 January VRPM survey, the observed
wind direction was west-northwest. The upwind
configuration was located along the western bound-
ary of the area, and the downwind configuration was
located along the eastern boundary. Due to software
problems with the Midac OP-FTIR system located
along the eastern boundary of the area, downwind
Hata wa^ not jivjuljiblp for thi^ nartimljir <\iirvpv
LICllCl VV flj 11 wL CIV ClllClU'lVv' Iwl Llll o L/C11 11^/LllCll OLll V ^ V .
Table 3-1 presents the calculated methane fluxes
measured along the upwind VRPM plane.
Table 3-1 . Moving Average of Calculated Methane
Flux, CCF, Wind Speed, and Wind Direction for
01/20/04 Upwind VRPM Survey.
w. , Relative Absolute
„ . „„„ Flux ^ , Wind Wind Dir.
Cycles CCF , . . Speed „. a , , ,
(g's) ( / \ Dir. (deg from
(deg) North)
Ito3 0.908 11 1.7 35 305
2 to 4 0.960 10 1.6 43 313
3 to 5 0.934 13 1.8 35 305
4 to 6 0.855 17 1.8 22 292
1 4 Concentrations are in ppm
Flux = 1 5 g/s
12 •
I10
§ 8
1
6 * 5
—^^^
4 -9-— —^-jlS
2 - ^ —
20 40 60
5 to 7 0.907 17 .9
6 to 8 0.916 13 .5
7 to 9 0.983 14 .5
8 to 10 0.918 18 .4
9 to 11 0.802 20 .5
10 to 12 0.888 15 .3
Std.
T~V Jȣ^
Dev.
13 283
1 271
7 277
17 287
33 303
29 299
a Relative wind direction shown is the angle from a vector normal
to the plane of the configuration.
Figure 3-4 presents the reconstructed methane plume
from the upwind VRPM plane. Contour lines give
methane concentrations (in parts per million) above
ambient background concentration. The average
calculated methane flux from the upwind plane was
15 g/s. The shape of the plume shown in Figure 3-4
is not very broad vertically, and
the concentrations
found along the surface are not homogenous. This
suggests that a methane hot spot
may have been
located in an upwind location close to the VRPM
plane.
MirorS
1
.. — •"""^ u
-***^ V)
4-5-
- Q hfrror4
MITOr i— ' *JO f fjt m
80 100 120 140
Crosswind Distance [m]
Figure 3-4. Average Reconstructed Methane Plume from the 01/20/04
Upwind VRPM Survey.
3-3
-------
Measurement of Fugitive Emissions at a Landfill
3.2.2 VRPM Surveys of 21 January 2004
Two VRPM surveys were conducted at the site on 2 1
January. During the morning VRPM survey, the
observed winds were from the south-southeast. The
necessary wind criteria to obtain valid flux measure-
ments is that the observed wind direction must be ±
70° from perpendicular to the angle of the vertical
planes used in the measurements. A closer analysis of
the wind data collected during the morning VRPM
run revealed that during most of the data collection
period, the winds failed to meet this criteria. Conse-
quently, the data from the morning VRPM survey
will not be reported.
2 to 4
3 to 5
4 to 6
5 to 7
6 to 8
\J i\J O
7 to 9
8 to 10
9 to 11
10 to 12
Std.
Dev.
0.960
0.975
0.996
0.985
0.944
0.936
0.967
0.990
0.997
15
13
11
15
15
15
13
9.7
8.7
2 65
^•U«J
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.2
1.6
1.7
1.8
2.3
2.1
a Relative wind direction shown is the an£
307
313
305
336
359
354
328
302
309
>le from
217
223
215
246
269
264
238
212
219
a vector normal
During the afternoon VRPM survey, the observed
winds were from the southwest. Due to continuing
software problems with the Midac OP-FTIR instru-
ment, the IMACC OP-FTIR was set up along the
eastern boundary of the site to ensure that downwind
data was collected. The OP-TDLAS system was set
up along the western boundary of the cell to collect
upwind methane concentration data. A study was
conducted during the current field campaign to
compare methane concentrations measured with the
OP-FTIR and OP-TDLAS instruments along the
same path length. The results found favorable agree-
ment between the two instruments. More information
on this study can be found in Section 5.6 of this
report.
Tables 3-2 and 3-3 present the calculated methane
fluxes measured along the upwind and downwind
vertical planes during the afternoon VRPM survey,
respectively.
Table 3-2. Moving Average of Calculated Methane
Flux, CCF, Wind Speed, and Wind Direction for
01/21/04 Afternoon Upwind VRPM Survey (Col-
lected with OP-TDLAS)
Cycles CCF f1"*
(g/s)
Wind
Speed
(m/s)
Relative
Wind
Dir.a
(deg)
Absolute
Wind Dir.
(deg from
North)
to the plane of the configuration.
Table 3-3. Moving Average of Calculated Methane
Flux, CCF, Wind Speed, and Wind Direction for
01/21/04 Afternoon Downwind VRPM Survey
(Collected with OP-FTIR)
Cycles
Ito3
2 to 4
3 to 5
4 to 6
5 to 7
6 to 8
7 to 9
8 to 10
9 to 11
10 to 12
Std.
Dev.
CCF
0.813
0.616
0.639
0.940
0.981
0.988
0.990
0.980
0.911
0.998
Flux
(g/s)
9.9
18
21
16
13
11
10
6.7
4.5
7.5
5.16
Speed
(m/s)
2.9
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.2
1.6
1.8
1.8
2.3
2.1
Relative
Wind
Dir.a
(deg)
317
313
322
312
337
359
354
330
306
313
Absolute
Wind Dir.
(deg from
North)
222
218
227
217
242
264
259
235
211
218
Ito3
0.955 18
2.9
311
221
Relative wind direction shown is the angle from a vector normal
to the plane of the configuration.
Figures 3-5 and 3-6 present the reconstructed meth-
ane plume from the upwind and downwind 21 Janu-
ary afternoon VRPM surveys, respectively. Contour
lines give methane concentrations (in parts per
3-4
-------
Practicing Leachate Recirculation and Air Injection
million) above ambient background concentration. the upwind survey and 10 g/s for the downwind
The average calculated methane flux was 14 g/s for survey.
14
12
I10
Concentrations are in ppm
Flux = 14 g/s
40
60 80
Crosswind Distance [m]
100
120
140
Figure 3-5. Average Reconstructed Methane Plume from the 01/21/04
Afternoon Upwind VRPM Survey.
Concentrations are in ppm
Flux= 10 g/s
20
30
40 50 60
Crosswind Distance [m]
70
80
90
Figure 3-6. Average Reconstructed Methane Plume from the 01/21/04
Afternoon Downwind VRPM Survey.
3-5
-------
Measurement of Fugitive Emissions at a Landfill
The shape of the plume from the upwind VRPM
survey shown in Figure 3-5 is not well developed
vertically and not homogeneous in the horizontal
direction, suggesting that a methane hot spot may
have been located upwind, close to the upwind
VRPM plane. This conclusion is supported by the
fact that several relief wells were observed along the
surface of the slope adjacent to the western boundary
of the site, and elevated methane concentrations were
measured along an OP-TDLAS beam path deployed
in the vicinity of these wells.
The average methane flux during the upwind VRPM
survey (14 g/s) was higher than the average flux
measured during the downwind VRPM survey (10
g/s). It should be noted that these flux values are
average values from all of the data collected during
the survey. Tables 3-2 and 3-3 present a moving
average of the calculated methane flux from the
upwind and downwind configurations, respectively.
The maximum calculated methane flux value from
the upwind VRPM survey was 18 g/s, while at the
same time, the maximum calculated methane flux
value from the downwind VRPM survey was 21 g/s.
It is apparent that, under certain wind conditions, the
downwind VRPM survey calculated higher methane
flux values than the upwind VRPM survey.
The flux measurements from the upwind VRPM
survey were probably influenced primarily by emis-
sions from the area of elevated methane located
directly upwind of the site. The prevailing southwest-
erly winds observed during the survey may have
carried most of the emissions from the upwind
methane hot spot through the upwind VRPM configu-
ration (base path length of 145 m). However, the
prevailing winds probably caused most of the emis-
sions from this hot spot to be carried outside of the
much shorter downwind VRPM configuration (base
path length of 95 m). Therefore, the flux measure-
ments from the downwind VRPM survey may have
been only slightly influenced by emissions from the
hot spot upwind of the site. The flux measured from
the downwind survey is probably due to emissions
from the methane hot spot found near the center of
the site during the HRPM survey (see Figure 3-1).
3.2.3 VRPM Survey of 22 January 2004
During the 22 January VRPM survey, the observed
wind direction was from the west-northwest. The
OP-TDLAS system (upwind) was located along the
western boundary of the site, and the IMACC OP-
FTIR (downwind) was located along the eastern
boundary of the cell. Tables 3-4 and 3-5 present the
calculated methane fluxes measured along the up-
wind and downwind vertical planes, respectively.
Table 3-4. Moving Average of Calculated Methane
Flux, CCF, Wind Speed, and Wind Direction for
01/22/04 Upwind VRPM Survey (Collected with
OP-TDLAS)
Cycles
Ito3
2 to 4
5 to 7
6 to 8
7 to 9
Std.
Dev.
CCF
0.966
0.965
0.973
0.973
0.976
Flux
(g/s)
19
20
21
21
21
0.648
Wind
Speed
(m/s)
4.4
4.5
4.2
4.1
4.0
Relative
Wind
Dir.a
(deg)
16
19
9
14
7
Absolute
Wind Dir.
(deg from
North)
286
289
279
284
277
Relative wind direction shown is the angle from a vector normal
to the plane of the configuration.
Table 3-5. Moving Average of Calculated Methane
Flux, CCF, Wind Speed, and Wind Direction for
01/22/04 Downwind VRPM Survey (Collected with
OP-FTIR).
Cycles
Ito3
2 to 4
5 to 7
CCF
0.962
0.958
0.892
Flux
(g/s)
17
20
17
Wind
T T 111U
Speed
(m/s)
4.4
4.5
4.3
Relative
Wind
Dir.a
(deg)
25
28
17
Absolute
Wind Dir.
(deg from
North)
290
293
282
continued
3-6
-------
Measurement of Fugitive Emissions at a Landfill
6 to 8
7 to 9
8 to 10
9 to 11
Std.
Dev.
0.804
0.908
0.894
0.910
18
13
13
16
2.42
4.2
4.0
3.8
4.2
22
15
13
12
287
280
278
277
Relative wind direction shown is the angle from a vector normal
to the plane of the configuration.
Figures 3-7 and 3-8 present the reconstructed meth-
ane plume from the upwind and downwind 22 Janu-
ary VRPM survey, respectively. Contour lines give
methane concentrations (in parts per million) above
ambient background concentration. The average
calculated methane flux was 20 g/s for the upwind
survey and 18 g/s for the downwind survey.
The shape of the plume from the upwind VRPM
survey is not well developed vertically, suggesting
that a methane hot spot may have been located
upwind, close to the upwind VRPM plane. This
finding is consistent with the other upwind VRPM
surveys conducted during this campaign along the
western boundary of the site.
The average methane flux during the upwind VRPM
survey (20 g/s) was higher than the average flux
measured during the downwind VRPM survey (18
g/s). This is probably due to reasons similar to those
discussed in Section 3.2.2. The prevailing northwest-
erly winds observed during the survey probably
carried most of the emissions from the suspected
upwind methane hot spot through the upwind VRPM
configuration. However, the prevailing winds again
caused most of the emissions from this hot spot to be
carried outside of the much shorter downwind VRPM
configuration. Therefore, the flux measurements from
the downwind VRPM survey may have been only
slightly influenced by emissions from the suspected
hot spot upwind of the site. The flux measured from
the downwind survey is therefore primarily due to
emissions from the methane hot spot found near the
center of the site during the HRPM survey (see
Figure 3-2).
Concentrations are in ppm
Flux = 20 g/s
40
60 80
Crosswind Distance [m]
100
120
140
Figure 3-7. Average Reconstructed Methane Plume from the 01/22/04
Upwind VRPM Survey.
3-7
-------
Measurement of Fugitive Emissions at a Landfill
Concentrations are in ppm
Flux= 18g/s
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Crosswind Distance [m]
Figure 3-8. Average Reconstructed Methane Plume from the 01/22/04
Downwind VRPM Survey.
3.3 Results from the Single-Path Mea-
surement during Leachate Pump Oper-
ation
During the afternoon of 21 January, leachate was
being pumped from a holding pond adjacent to the
site through a hose extending diagonally across the
surface of the survey area. One single-path measure-
ment was taken with the OP-FTIR to determine the
emissions coming from the hose, and the path-
averaged methane concentration was 57 ppm with a
range of 32 to 94 ppm. These levels are approxi-
mately twice as high as concentrations found along
comparable paths that can be derived from the HRPM
surface data collected on the same day (see Figure
2-6) while the leachate pump was not operating.
3.4 VOC and Ammonia Results
All data sets from the HRPM and VRPM surveys
were searched for the presence of VOCs and ammo-
nia, and the analysis did detect the presence of
ammonia and methanol at the site. However, levels of
measured methanol were close to the detection limits
of the instrument. Methanol was detected only during
the 21 January single-path measurements conducted
while the leachate pump was operating. Table 3-6
presents the range of measured ammonia and metha-
nol concentrations and the minimum detection level
(MDL) of the OP-FTIR instrument for each com-
pound. See Section 1.3 for more information on the
calculation of the MDL.
Table 3-6. Average Ammonia and Methanol Concentrations Measured.
Data Set
1/20/04 VRPM Upwind Survey
1/21/04 VRPM Downwind Survey
1/21/04 VRPM Single-Path Leachate Path Survey
1/21/04 VRPM Single-Path Leachate Path Survey
1/22/04 VRPM Upwind Survey
1/22/04 HRPM Morning Survey
1/22/04 HRPM Afternoon Survey
Compound
Ammonia
Ammonia
Ammonia
Methanol
Ammonia
Ammonia
Ammonia
Range of Measured
Concentration
(ppb)
2.8 to 22
5.0 to 27
3.0 to 8.9
11
4.4 to 37
6.3 to 25
4.8 to 28
MDL
(ppb)
2.0
3.4
1.9
9.3
4.1
2.8
3.2
-------
Practicing Leachate Recirculation and Air Injection
Chapter 4
Conclusion
This report presents the results from a field campaign
conducted in January 2004 at the Three Rivers Solid
Waste Technology Center Landfill, located near
Aiken, SC. The study used measurements from ORS
instruments and the ORS-RPM method to character-
ize fugitive emissions of methane and VOCs from the
site.
HRPM surveys conducted on 21 and 22 January
detected the presence of a methane hot spot near the
center of the site. The peak concentration of this hot
spot varied from over 26 ppm to over 48 ppm above
ambient background concentrations.
A JrtRPM survey was conducted on the afternoon of
22 January while leachate was being pumped from a
small holding pond in the southeast corner of the site
to another small holding pond in the northwest corner
of the site. This JdRPM survey detected an additional
methane hot spot near the site's northwest corner that
had concentrations greater than 23 ppm above ambi-
ent background levels. This hot spot is probably
associated with emissions from the leachate being
pumped to the holding pond located in the northwest
corner of the cell.
VRPM surveys were done at the site on each day of
the field campaign. During each survey, one vertical
configuration served as the upwind measurement, and
the other served as the downwind measurement,
depending on the prevailing wind direction. The use
of an upwind VRPM configuration allowed for the
calculation of an upwind flux value. Table 4-1
presents the calculated methane fluxes from each
survey.
Table 4-1. Average Calculated Methane Fluxes
Found During the Upwind and Downwind VRPM
Surveys.
Calculated Methane Flux
(g/s)
VKnvi survey -
20 January 2004
21 January 2004
22 January 2004
Upwind
(Western)
15
14
20
Downwind
Eastern
N/Aa
10b
18b
a Downwind methane flux data from the 01/20/04 VRPM survey is
not available due to software problems in the field.
b Calculated downwind methane flux values are lower that the
corresponding upwind values because the entire methane plume
was not captured by the downwind VRPM configuration.
The results of the VRPM surveys suggest that a
methane hot spot may have been located directly
upwind of the upwind VRPM configurations, on the
western side of the top surface. The highest upwind
methane flux value (20 g/s) occurred on 22 January.
The observed wind speeds on this day were almost
twice as high as those observed on 20 January (the
prevailing wind direction on 20 January was compa-
rable to the wind direction on 22 January), which
may have caused increased emissions from the
upwind hot spot.
The downwind average methane flux values from 21
4-1
-------
Measurement of Fugitive Emissions at a Landfill
and 22 January are probably lower than the corre-
sponding upwind values because the prevailing winds
at the time of the surveys carried a large portion of
the plume from the upwind hot spot outside of the
much shorter downwind VRPM configurations.
The location of the plumes in each of the VRPM
maps was very consistent with the prevailing wind
direction during each survey. On 20 and 22 January,
the west-northwesterly winds carried the plume from
the upwind hot spot through the center of the upwind
VRPM configurations. The west-northwesterly winds
of 22 January carried the plume from the hot spot
near the center of the site through the southern
portion of the downwind VRPM configuration. On 21
January, the southwesterly winds carried the plumes
from the upwind hot spot and hot spot near the center
of the site through the northern portion of the upwind
and downwind VRPM configuration, respectively.
The data sets from the HRPM and VRPM surveys
were searched for the presence of VOCs and
ammonia, and the analysis did detect ammonia and
methanol at the site. The measured ammonia concen-
trations ranged from 2.8 to 37 ppm. Methanol was
detected only during the 21 January single-path
measurements conducted while the leachate pump
was operating. The measured methanol concentration
was 11 ppm, which was close to the detection limits
of the OP-FTIR instrument.
4-2
-------
Practicing Leachate Recirculation and Air Injection
Chapter 5
Quality Assurance/Quality Control
5.1 Equipment Calibration
As stated in the ECPD Optical Remote Sensing
Facility Manual (U.S. EPA, 2004), all equipment is
calibrated annually or cal-checked 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 pro-
cedures and frequency are listed in Table 5-1 and
further described in the text.
As part of the preparation for this project, a Category
III Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) was
prepared and approved for each separate field cam-
paign. In addition, standard operating procedures
were in place during the field campaign.
Table 5-1. Instrumentation Calibration Frequency and Description.
Instrument Measurement
Calibration
Date
Calibration Detail
R.M. Young Wind Monitor Wind Speed in mi/h
R.M. Young Wind Monitor Wind direction in de
from North
Topcon Model GTS-21 ID Distance
Theodolite
Topcon Model GTS-21 ID Angle
Theodolite
Calibrated by
Manufacturer
Calibrated by
Manufacturer
1 May 2003
21 May 2003
Calibrated by Manufacturer
Calibrated by Manufacturer
Calibration of Distance:
Actual Distance = 50 ft
Measured Distance = 50.6 and 50.5 ft
Calibration of Angle:
Actual Angle = 360°
Measured Angle = 359°41' 18" and
359°59'55"
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. More informa-
tion on the procedures used to assess DQI goals can
be found in Section 10 of the ECPD Optical Remote
Sensing Facility Manual (U.S. EPA, 2004).
5-1
-------
Measurement of Fugitive Emissions at a Landfill
Table 5-2. DQI Goals for Instrumentation.
Measurement Analysis Method
Accuracy
Precision
Completeness
Analyte PIC
Ambient Wind Speed
Ambient Wind Direction
Distance
OP-FTIR: Nitrous Oxide
Concentrations
Met. heads side-by-side com-
parison in the field
Met. heads side-by-side com-
parison in the field
Theodolite
±25%/15%/10%a
±1 m/s
±10°
±lm
±10%
±1 m/s
±10°
±1 m
90%
90%
90%
100%
The accuracy acceptance criterion of ±25% is for path lengths of less than 50m, ±15% is for path lengths between 50 and 100m, and ±10%
is for path lengths greater than 100m.
5.2.1 DQI Check for Analyte PIC Measure-
ment
The precision and accuracy of the analyte path-
integrated concentration (PIC) measurements was
assessed by analyzing the measured nitrous oxide
(N2O) concentrations in the atmosphere. A typical
background atmospheric concentration for N2O is
about 315 ppb. This value may fluctuate due to
seasonal variations in N2O concentrations or eleva-
tion of the site.
The precision of the analyte PIC measurements was
evaluated by calculating the relative standard devia-
tion 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 N2O concen-
trations from each data subsets to the background
value of 315 ppb. The number of calculated N2O
concentrations that failed to meet the DQI accuracy
criterion in each data subset was recorded.
Overall, 43 data subsets were analyzed from this field
campaign. Based on the DQI criterion set forth for
precision of ±10%, each of the 43 data subsets were
found to be acceptable. The range of calculated
relative standard deviations for the data subsets from
this field campaign was 1.1 to 6.1 ppbm, which
represents 0.35% to 1.9% RSD.
Each data point (calculated N2O concentration) in the
43 data subsets were analyzed to assess whether or
not it met the DQI criterion for accuracy of ±25%
(315 ± 79 ppb) for path lengths less than 50 meters,
±15% (315 ± 47 ppb) for path lengths between 50
and 100 meters, and ±10% (315 ± 32 ppb) for path
lengths greater than 100 meters. A total of 306 data
points were analyzed, and 294 of the points met the
DQI criteria for accuracy for a completeness of 96%.
5.2.2 DQI Checks for Ambient Wind Speed
and Wind Direction Measurements
Section 10 of the ECPD Optical Remote Sensing
Facility Manual (U.S. EPA, 2004) states that the DQI
goals for precision and accuracy of the R.M. Young
meteorological heads are assessed by collecting
meteorological data for 10 min with the two heads set
side-by side. This was not done prior to the current
field campaign because this DQI procedure had not
been implemented at the time of the study. However,
checks for agreement of the wind speed and wind
direction measured from the two heads (at heights of
2 m and 10 m) were done in the field during data
collection. Although it is true that some variability in
the parameters measured at both levels should be
expected, this is a good first-step check for assessing
the performance of the instruments. Another check is
done in the field by comparing the measured wind
5-2
-------
Practicing Leachate Recirculation and Air Injection
direction to the forecasted wind direction for that
particular day.
5.2.3 DQI Check for Precision and Accuracy
of Theodolite Measurements
Although calibration of this instrument did not occur
immediately prior to the current field campaign, the
theodolite was originally calibrated by the manufac-
turer prior to being received by the U.S. EPA. Addi-
tionally, there are several internal checks in the
theodolite software that prevent data collection from
occurring if the instrument is not properly aligned on
the obj ect being measured or if the instrument has not
been balanced correctly. When this occurs, it is
necessary to reinitialize the instrument to collect data.
DQI checks were performed on the theodolite at a
field site near Chapel Hill, NC, prior to the current
field campaign. The calibration of distance measure-
ment was done using a tape measure to compare the
actual distance to the measured distance. This check
was duplicated to test the precision of this measure-
ment. The actual distance measured was 15.2m. The
measured distance during the first test was 15.4m,
and the measured distance during the second test was
15.4m. The results indicate the accuracy (1.3% bias
for test one and two) and precision (0% RSD) of the
distance measurement fell well within the DQI goals.
The check to test the precision and accuracy of the
angle measurement was done by placing two mirror
targets approximately 180 degrees apart. The theodo-
lite was placed in the middle of the imaginary circle
formed by the two mirrors. The actual angle was
360°. The angle measured during the first test was
359°41'18", and the angle measured during the
second test was 359°59'55". The results indicate the
accuracy and precision of the angle measurement fell
well within the DQI goals.
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 U.S. EPA, 2004. At the time of the
current field campaign, the procedures and schedule
of QC checks were still being developed. Conse-
quently, only a select set of checks were performed
on both OP-FTIR instruments prior to deployment
and during the field campaign.
Prior to deployment (15 January), the single beam
ratio, baseline stability, electronic noise, saturation,
linearity, and random baseline noise tests were
performed on the EVIACC OP-FTIR instrument, and
the single beam ratio, signal-to-noise, ZPD stability,
and saturation tests were performed on the Midac
instrument. The results of the tests indicated that both
instruments were operating within the acceptable
criteria range.
On 20 January 2004, the single beam ratio, saturation,
electronic noise, linearity, and random baseline noise
tests were performed on both OP-FTIR instruments.
The results of these tests indicated that the instru-
ments were operating within the acceptable criteria
range.
In addition to the QC checks performed on the OP-
FTIR, the quality of the instrument signal (interfero-
gram) was checked constantly during the field cam-
paign. This was done by ensuring that the intensity of
the signal is at least five 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.
5.4 Validation of Concentration Data
Collected with the OP-FTIR
During the analysis of the OP-FTIR data, a validation
procedure was performed to aid in identifying the
5-3
-------
Measurement of Fugitive Emissions at a Landfill
presence of ammonia and methanol in the dataset.
This validation procedure involves visually compar-
ing an example of the measured spectra to a labora-
tory-measured reference spectrum.
Figure 5-1 shows an example of a validation done
using a spectrum collected during the 21 January
single-path measurements conducted while the
leachate pump was operating. Ammonia and metha-
nol were detected in this particular spectrum. The
ammonia and methanol features can be seen in the
measured field spectrum (blue trace). Classical least
squares (CLS) analysis performed on this spectrum
resulted in determinations of 10.6±4.7 ppb of metha-
nol, and 8.86±0.93 ppb of ammonia. The uncertainty
value is equal to three times the standard error in the
regression fit of the measured spectrum to a cali-
brated reference spectrum, propagated to the concen-
tration determination.
•?i"i --faj.fr JV-KI
Figure 5-1. Comparison of a spectrum measured
at the site (top trace) to the reference spectra of
methanol (middle) and ammonia (bottom).
5.5 Internal Audit of Data Input Files
An internal audit was performed by the ARCADIS
Field Team Leader on a sample of approximately
10% of the data from the field campaign. The audit
investigated the accuracy of the input files used in
running the RPM programs. The input files contain
analyzed concentration data, mirror path lengths, and
wind data. The results of this audit found no prob-
lems with the accuracy of the input files created.
5.6 OP-TDLAS Instrument
The development of calibration and standard operat-
ing procedures for the OP-TDLAS system has re-
sulted in a major improvement in the data collection
process. More information on collecting emissions
measurements with the OP-TDLAS can be found in
MOP 6811 of U.S. EPA, 2004.
The results of the current field campaign present
methane concentrations measured with the OP-FTIR
instrument and the OP-TDLAS system. In order to
evaluate the comparability of measurements from the
two instruments, an experiment was conducted during
this field campaign to compare methane concentra-
tions measured with the OP-TDLAS system and the
EVIACC OP-FTIR. The two instruments were de-
ployed side-by-side at a location near the western
boundary of the site, and aimed at an identical mirror
located at a distance of 89 m. Methane concentration
data were collected with each instrument for a period
of 30 min. The OP-FTIR collected data at the same
resolution (0.5 cm"1) used in the current field cam-
paign. Figure 5-2 shows that methane concentrations
measured with the OP-TDLAS were slightly higher
(3%) than concentrations measured with the OP-
FTIR instrument. The results of this experiment show
that the methane concentration measurements made
from the OP-FTIR and OP-TDLAS instruments can
be used to compare upwind and downwind data
collected during this study.
5.7 Difficulties Encountered
During the course of the field campaign, the project
encountered some difficulties. These included soft-
ware problems with the scanner used to control the
Midac OP-FTIR, difficulty in precisely time synchro-
nizing the data collected from both VRPM configura-
tions, and geographic barriers at the site that limited
the sizes of the configurations used in the study.
On 20 January, the Midac OP-FTIR instrument was
5-4
-------
Practicing Leachate Recirculation and Air Injection
5000
4500
1000 2000 3000 4000
FlIR-Measured PIC (ppm-m)
5000
Figure 5-2. Comparison of Methane Concentra-
tions Measured with the OP-TDLAS and OP-FTIR
Instruments.
set up on the downwind side of the site. However,
problems with the software used to control the
scanner used with this instrument prevented down-
wind flux data from being collected on this day. Soft-
ware problems continued with this instrument, and
the OP-TDLAS instrument was needed to collect flux
data for the duration of the project.
Another problem encountered was difficulty in
precisely time synchronizing the data collected from
the upwind and downwind VRPM configurations.
Although the internal clocks on the data collection
computers (used in the two VRPM configurations)
were synchronized before data collection began, it
was difficult to perfectly synchronize the starting and
ending times of the data loops due to differences in
the initialization and data collection times of the
OP-TDLAS and OP-FTIR instruments. This problem
made it difficult to compare short-term temporal
variations in the upwind and downwind flux values
collected during the VRPM surveys.
The geographical features of the site limited the size
and location of the configurations used for data
collection. The surface of the site along the eastern
boundary was extremely uneven. This limited the
distance of the VRPM configuration on the eastern
side of the site to 95 m, which was much shorter than
the VRPM configuration on the western side of the
site (145 m). In cases where the winds were not close
to perpendicular to the VRPM configurations, the
shorter VRPM configuration along the eastern bound-
ary of the survey area may not have captured the
entire methane plume from the survey area. We
suspect that this limitation contributed to the fact that
the upwind flux values were sometimes greater than
the downwind flux values. This problem could have
been overcome if it had been possible to collect data
for additional days when the prevailing wind direc-
tion had an eastern component (the longer western
boundary would have become the downwind vertical
plane in this case).
Despite these difficulties, the project was successful
in producing surface methane concentration contour
maps, and isolated methane flux values, especially
from the western slope of the survey area (which
were relatively consistent throughout the duration of
the campaign).
5-5
-------
Measurement of Fugitive Emissions at a Landfill
5-6
-------
Practicing Leachate Recirculation and Air Injection
Chapter 6
References
ASTM, 1999. American Society for Testing and Materials
Standard Practice El982-98, Standard Practice for
Open-Path Fourier Transform Infrared (OP/FT-IR)
Monitoring of Gases and Vapors in Air; March.
Hashmonay, R.A., M.G. Yost, D.B. Harris, and E.L.
Thompson, 1998. Simulation study for gaseous fluxes
from an area source using computed tomography and
optical remote sensing, in SPIE, The International Society
for Optical Engineering, Bellingham, WA, 3534,405-410.
Hashmonay, R.A., M.G. Yost, and C. Wu, 1999. Com-
puted tomography of air pollutants using radial scanning
path-integrated optical remote sensing, Atmos. Environ.,
33,267-274.
Hashmonay, R.A., and M.G. Yost, 1999. Innovative
approach for estimating fugitive gaseous fluxes using
computed tomography and remote optical sensing tech-
niques, J. Air Waste Manage. Assoc., 49, 966-972.
Hashmonay, R.A., D.F. Natschke, K.Wagoner, D.B.
Harris, E.L.Thompson, and M.G. Yost, 2001. Field eval-
uation of a method for estimating gaseous fluxes from area
sources using open-path Fourier transform infrared,
Environ. Sci. Technol., 35, 2309-2313.
Hashmonay, R.A., K. Wagoner, D.F. Natschke, D.B.
Harris, and E.L. Thompson, 2002. Radial computed
tomography of air contaminants using optical remote
sensing, in Proceedings of the AWMA 95th Annual
Conference and Exhibition, VIP-110, Air & Waste
Management Association, Pittsburgh, PA.
Platt, U., 1994. Differential optical absorption spectros-
copy (DOAS), in Air Monitoring by Spectroscopic Tech-
niques, Chemical Analysis Series,Vol. 127, John Wiley &
Sons, Inc. pp. 27-84.
Wu, C., M.G. Yost, R.A. Hashmonay, and D.Y. Park,
1999. Experimental evaluation of a radial beam geometry
for mapping air pollutants using optical remote sensing
and computed tomography, Atmos. Environ., 33,
4709-4716,.
U.S. EPA, 1999. CompendiumMethodTO-16: Long-Path
Open-Path Fourier Transform Infrared Monitoring of
Atmospheric Gases; EPA-625/R-96/101b (NTIS PB99-
172355), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Center
for Environmental Research Information-Office of Re-
search and Development: Cincinnati, Ohio, January.
U.S. EPA, 2004. ECPD Optical Remote Sensing Facility
Manual, EPA-600/Q-04/088, National Risk Management
Research Laboratory, Air Pollution Prevention and Con-
trol Division, Research Triangle Park, NC, August.
6-1
-------
Measurement of Fugitive Emissions at a Landfill
6-2
-------
Practicing Leachate Recirculation and Air Injection
Appendix A
OP-FTIR Mirror Coordinates
Table A-1. Distance and Angular Coordinates of
Mirrors Used in the 01/20/04 Upwind VRPM
Survey.
Mirror
Number
1
2
3
4
5
Distance
(m)
48.2
89.2
144
145
146
Horizontal
Angle from
North
(deg)
184
180
179
178
177
Vertical
Angle"
(deg)
0
0
0
2
5
Vertical angle shown is the angle from horizontal (positive values
indicate elevation from the horizontal, negative values indicate
descent from the horizontal).
Table A-3. Distance and Angular Coordinates of
Mirrors Used in the 01/21/04 Upwind VRPM
Survey.
Mirror
Number
1
2
3
4
5
Distance
(m)
32.6
62.3
94.4
94.9
95.6
Horizontal
Angle from
North
(deg)
182
184
185
184
185
Vertical
Angle3
(deg)
0
0
0
1
5
Vertical angle shown is the angle from horizontal (positive values
indicate elevation from the horizontal, negative values indicate
descent from the horizontal).
Table A-2. Distance and Angular Coordinates of
Mirrors Used in the 01/20/04 Downwind VRPM
Survey.
Mirror
Number
1
2
3
Distance
(m)
45.0
93.4
94.6
Horizontal
Angle from
North
(deg)
184
187
186
Vertical
Angle3
(deg)
0
0
4
Vertical angle shown is the angle from horizontal (positive values
indicate elevation from the horizontal, negative values indicate
descent from the horizontal).
Table A-4. Distance and Angular Coordinates of
Mirrors Used in the 01/21/04 Downwind VRPM
Survey.
Mirror
Number
1
2
3
4
5
Distance
(m)
48.2
89.2
144
145
146
Horizontal
Angle from
North
(deg)
184
180
179
178
177
Vertical
Angle3
(deg)
0
0
0
2
5
Vertical angle shown is the angle from horizontal (positive values
indicate elevation from the horizontal, negative values indicate
descent from the horizontal).
A-1
-------
Measurement of Fugitive Emissions at a Landfill
Table A-5. Distance and Angular Coordinates of
Mirrors Used in the 01/21/04 HRPM Survey.
A .. „. , Horizontal An-
Mirror Distance , „. ... ,.
TVT , / x gle from North
Number (m) " , .
(deg)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
59.6 109
42.7 119
89.1 137
39.0 150
84.1 151
118 152
113 161
73.9 168
111 170
Table A-6. Distance and Angular Coordinates of
Mirrors Used in the 01/22/04 HRPM Survey.
, .. ~. , Horizontal An-
Mirror Distance . . ,.T ..
,.T , , , gle from North
Number (m) " , .
(deg)
1
2
107 187
69.1 191
3 117 199
4 120 209
5 39.0 208
6 77.3 211
7 82.3 223
8 45.2 236
9 58.5 253
Table A-7. Distance and Angular Coordinates of
Mirrors Used in the 01/22/04 Downwind VRPM
Survey.
Horizontal ,7 ,. ,
A/T- r»- 4, * i r Vertical
Mirror Distance Angle from . , „
Angle
Number (m) North , , ,
(deg) (d^>
1 32.6 173 0
2 58.5 175 0
3 94.9 170 0
4 95.9 169 2
5 96.6 169 6
a Vertical angle shown is the angle from horizontal (positive values
indicate elevation from the horizontal, negative values indicate
descent from the horizontal).
A-2
-------
Practicing Leachate Recirculation and Air Injection
Appendix B
OP-TDLAS Configuration Path Lengths
Table B-1. Distance and Angular Coordinates of
Mirrors Used in the OP-TDLAS Configuration.
Mirror
Number
1
2
3
4
5
Distance
(m)
47.7
88.5
144
145
146
Horizontal
Angle from
North
(deg)
184
181
179
179
177
Vertical
Angle3
(deg)
0
0
0
3
5
Vertical angle shown is the angle from horizontal (positive values
indicate elevation from the horizontal, negative values indicate
descent from the horizontal).
B-1
-------
Measurement of Fugitive Emissions at a Landfill
B-2
-------
Practicing Leachate Recirculation and Air Injection
Appendix C
Methane Concentrations
Table C-1. Methane Concentrations (in PPM)
found during the 01/20/04 Upwind VRPM Survey.
Mirror Number
cycu
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Table
found
Cyclt
1
2
3
4
1
23.5
17.0
8.90
5.56
18.2
14.1
25.1
34.3
15.0
20.3
29.6
42.1
234
24.4 19.7 11.3
16.3 22.3 14.1
18.2 14.8 8.6
16.1 25.9 13.6
22.2 30.2 9.7
14.3 16.2 10.3
26.1 22.5 12.2
25.0 23.3 15.7
26.6 26.6 14.7
34.7 24.4 21.3
32.7 36.8 16.1
30.0 22.6 15.4
5
11.7
8.97
7.05
7.47
11.3
14.9
9.56
8.05
10.5
22.0
14.4
7.96
C-2. Methane Concentrations (in PPM)
during the 01/21/04 Upwind VRPM Survey.
1
28.8
8.81
6.30
6.52
Mirror Number
234
15.8 9.61 7.38
5.76 4.32 4.04
5.90 6.55 7.10
4.67 4.13 4.36
5
7.21
4.92
3.35
4.70
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
9.27
10.1
13.1
8.25
6.79
6.81
5.79
12.1
12.8
7.54
15.1
31.1
19.0
33.3
8.91
18.9
12.2
23.0
32.3
29.8
32.6
21.5
12.6
19.8
15.9
24.9
6.75
10.5
7.33
4.73
5.89
5.81
4.98
10.4
10.4
15.0
8.40
20.4
14.6
12.3
8.65
7.65
11.2
23.1
20.7
21.4
17.9
15.7
7.64
16.0
14.2
16.1
6.33
12.4
5.91
4.00
3.71
6.70
3.62
8.43
11.0
13.1
8.60
11.8
7.21
8.96
9.01
12.7
6.69
14.8
18.9
16.7
11.2
9.10
19.3
13.0
9.68
14.2
6.88
8.47
7.08
4.44
3.77
4.00
3.00
6.85
6.84
5.94
4.94
12.7
7.83
5.49
5.95
6.01
4.27
12.6
10.4
10.3
6.71
11.8
9.90
7.47
6.57
8.84
5.86
5.71
5.64
3.71
4.69
4.20
2.94
3.82
4.12
5.16
7.69
11.0
8.36
4.76
4.38
5.24
9.20
6.43
8.98
12.3
5.82
5.32
8.18
6.42
6.33
9.37
C-1
-------
Measurement of Fugitive Emissions at a Landfill
Table C-3. Methane Concentrations (in PPM)
found during the 01/21/04 Downwind VRPM
Survey.
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
Mirror Number
1
17.4
18.2
12.2
6.86
25.1
6.36
19.8
10.2
29.7
15.8
16.6
12.9
30.6
15.5
20.9
14.7
20.9
26.3
24.9
16.4
18.6
34.7
29.5
39.6
2
20.9
23.7
9.36
13.5
20.5
21.9
26.0
13.4
25.2
28.4
9.37
19.9
25.9
15.7
12.7
10.2
28.0
12.5
13.3
21.8
20.6
24.5
30.5
23.1
3
16.4
13.9
14.2
21.5
17.8
15.7
15.4
16.7
12.9
21.7
16.0
14.4
14.5
14.7
16.2
19.5
22.0
10.8
20.7
25.0
22.8
11.6
17.1
14.8
4
14.5
10.3
11.3
12.4
15.2
16.0
9.04
15.8
8.33
14.1
11.9
16.0
8.22
10.5
13.4
9.88
15.8
18.1
17.1
17.4
10.0
11.8
11.2
18.9
Table C-4. Methane Concentrations (in
Cycle
1
2
1
12.
19.
.2
.7
2
20.6
22.3
3
29.4
24.0
5
10.5
10.6
9.06
15.6
10.2
10.9
8.61
15.3
7.73
7.06
5.67
16.2
7.58
8.13
13.1
13.2
11.1
10.8
3.23
9.90
7.43
7.88
9.37
13.4
PPM) found during the 01/21/04 HRPM Survey.
Mirror Number
456789
15.1 34.5 30.5 22.5 23.8 19.5
8.50 35.1 20.0 26.6 17.2
C-2
-------
Practicing Leachate Recirculation and Air Injection
Table C-5. Methane Concentrations (in PPM)
found during the 01/22/04 Downwind VRPM
Survey.
Mirror Number
Cycle
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
123
8.48 10.
11.77 9.
10.36 9.
9.54 11.
18.01 17.
9.53 9.
9.34 13.
11.78 9.
11.68 13.
6.58 13.
17.05 11.
4
01 12.80 10.65
86 11.56 9.04
03 11.48 8.39
16 10.83 11.32
60 13.18 8.60
97 9.23 8.89
07 15.15 10.29
48 14.27 6.47
42 15.82 8.79
65 15.44 10.13
29 13.13 8.97
5
6.78
5.15
7.17
9.80
6.69
5.69
9.54
6.25
4.58
9.89
6.52
Table C-6. Methane Concentrations (in PPM) found during the 01/22/04 HRPM Survey.
Cycle
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Mirror Number
1
22.3
23.9
20.9
19.5
25.4
24.3
20.4
19.5
22.9
22.0
18.2
2
35.9
16.6
22.7
21.4
19.1
23.9
17.9
15.0
21.6
20.7
12.4
3
27.3
25.4
25.7
29.4
30.0
26.8
19.3
16.8
27.9
21.6
21.7
4
24.1
24.4
21.5
24.8
24.4
20.4
19.6
18.7
24.6
22.7
19.1
5
15.0
14.5
14.6
13.9
12.4
14.7
13.2
9.14
21.5
23.4
10.3
6
32.7
28.6
24.8
28.0
24.3
17.0
18.2
17.0
19.3
24.8
28.1
7
15.8
13.3
11.2
16.7
21.4
13.2
14.4
13.1
13.4
9.90
11.1
8
13.5
20.5
13.4
22.8
16.7
22.5
9.95
11.6
14.8
10.3
15.0
9
22.6
16.9
16.5
22.1
26.0
13.9
17.2
18.2
20.4
9.34
18.1
C-3
------- |