&EPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
EPA-600/R-05/096
August 2005
MEASUREMENT OF
FUGITIVE EMISSIONS AT A
BIOREACTOR LANDFILL
/ / /* >
I, / /\ I
-------
EPA-600/R-05/096
August 2005
Measurement of Fugitive Emissions
at a Bioreactor Landfill
by
Mark Modrak, Ram Hashmonay, Ravi Varma, and Robert Kagann
ARCADIS
4915 Prospectus Dr., Suite F
Durham, NC 27713
Contract Number EP-C-04-023
EPA Project Officer: Ms. Susan Thorneloe
Office of Research and Development (ORD)
National Risk Management Research Laboratory (NRMRL)
Air Pollution Prevention and Control Division (APPCD)
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Research and Development
Washingtion, DC 20460
-------
Abstract
The data presented in this report are from three field campaigns performed during September 2002, May 2003,
and September 2003 by ARCADIS and the United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) to mea-
sure fugitive emissions at a bioreactor landfill in Louisville, Kentucky, using an open-path Fourier transform
infrared (OP-FTIR) spectrometer. The study involved a technique developed through research funded by U.S.
EPA's National Risk Management Research Laboratory (NRMRL) that uses optical remote sensing-radial plume
mapping (ORS-RPM). The horizontal radial plume mapping (HRPM) method was used to map surface concen-
trations, and the vertical radial plume mapping (VRPM) method was used to measure emissions fluxes down-
wind of the site.
Surveys were conducted in five areas at the Louisville facility: As-Built (an area designed as a bioreactor land-
fill), Retrofit (an area converted to a bioreactor landfill), Control, Biocover, and Compost.
In general, the As-Built area was found to have the highest methane fluxes. In addition to VRPM surveys, HRPM
surveys were performed in the As-Built and Retrofit areas. Two definitive methane hot spots, having concentra-
tions over 80 ppmv were found at the Retrofit area during the September 2002 campaign. During the May 2003
campaign, four hot spots were found in the As-Built area (the most intense having concentrations over 210
ppmv), and two hot spots were found in the Retrofit area (the most intense having concentrations over 78 ppmv).
During the September 2003 campaign, three hot spots were found in the As-Built area (the most intense having
concentrations over 89 ppmv), and two hot spots were found in the Retrofit area (the most intense having con-
centrations over 34 ppmv).
Further evaluation is needed to establish trends in fugitive emissions as the bioreactor areas continue to operate
over time. Additional field testing is being considered to evaluate changes in fugitive emissions in response to
design and operational changes. These data are also needed to help establish emission trends for the bioreactor
portions of the landfill.
-------
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. NRMRLs 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, Vir-
ginia 22161.
IV
-------
Table of Contents
Section Page
Abstract ii
Foreword iii
List of Figures vii
List of Tables ix
Executive Summary ES-1
1. Introduction 1
1.1 Background 1
1.2 Project Description/Purpose 2
.2.1 Horizontal RPM(HRPM) 3
.2.2 Vertical RPM (VRPM) 4
.2.3 Mercury Speciation 5
.2.4 As-Built Area 6
.2.5 Retrofit Area 7
.2.6 Control Area 7
.2.7 BiocoverArea 7
.2.8 Compost Area 7
1.3 Quality Objectives and Criteria 7
1.4 Schedule ofWork Performed forthe Project 11
2. Testing Procedures, Results, and Discussion from the Field Campaigns 13
2.1 As-Built Area 14
.1 Testing Procedures used during the September 2002 Field Campaign 14
.2 Results and Discussion from the September 2002 Field Campaign 15
.3 Testing Procedures Used During the May 2003 Field Campaign 16
.4 Results and Discussion from the May 2003 Field Campaign 17
.5 Testing Procedures Used During the September 2003 Field Campaign 19
.6 Results and Discussion from the September 2003 Field Campaign 22
2.2 Retrofit Area 28
2.2.1 Testing Procedures Used During the September 2002 Field Campaign 28
2.2.2 Results and Discussion from the September 2002 Field Campaign 28
2.2.3 Testing Procedures Used During the May 2003 Field Campaign 31
2.2.4 Results and Discussion from the May 2003 Field Campaign 32
2.2.5 Testing Procedures Used During the September 2003 Field Campaign 33
2.2.6 Results and Discussion from the September 2003 Field Campaign 33
2.3 Control Area 37
2.3.1 Testing Procedures Used During the September 2002 Field Campaign 37
2.3.2 Results and Discussion from the September 2002 Field Campaign 37
2.3.3 Testing Procedures Used During the May 2003 Field Campaign 37
2.3.4 Results and Discussion from the May 2003 Field Campaign 38
-------
2.4 BiocoverArea 39
2.4.1 Testing Procedures Used During the September 2002 Field Campaign 39
2.4.2 Results and Discussion from the September 2002 Field Campaign 39
2.4.3 Testing Procedures Used During the May 2003 Field Campaign 43
2.4.4 Results and Discussion From the May 2003 Field Campaign 43
2.5 Compost Area 44
2.5.1 Testing Procedures Used During the September 2002 Field Campaign 44
2.5.2 Results and Discussion From the September 2002 Field Campaign 45
2.6 VOC and Ammonia Measurements 45
2.6.1 Results and Discussion from the September 2002 Field Campaign 46
2.6.2 Results and Discussion from the May 2003 Field Campaign 47
2.6.3 Results and Discussion from the September 2003 Field Campaign 48
2.7 Mercury Sampling 48
2.7.1 Testing Procedures Used for Mercury Sampling 48
2.7.1.1 September 2002 Campaign 48
2.7.1.2 September 2003 Campaign 49
2.7.2 Results and Discussion from the September 2002 Field Campaign 50
2.7.2.1 Total Mercury 50
2.7.2.2 Dimethyl Mercury 50
2.7.2.3 Monomethyl Mercury 51
2.7.3 Results and Discussion From the September 2003 Field Campaign 51
2.7.3.1 Total Mercury 51
2.7.3.2 Dimethyl Mercury (Carbotrap) 51
2.7.3.3 Dimethyl Mercury (Methanol) 51
2.7.3.4 Monomethyl Mercury 52
2.7.3.5 Lumex Sampling 52
3. Concluding Statements 53
4. Qality Assurance/Quality Control 57
4.1 Assessment of DQI Goals 57
4.1.1 DQI Check for Analyte PIC Measurement 58
4.1.1.1 May 2003 Field Campaign 58
4.1.1.2 September 2003 Field Campaign 59
4.1.1.3 Discussion of the Results from the DQI Check for Analyte PIC Measurement 59
4.1.2 DQI Checks for Ambient Wind Speed and Wind Direction Measurements 59
4.1.3 DQI Check for Precision and Accuracy of Theodolite Measurements 60
4.2 QC Checks of OP-FTIR Instrument Performance During Data Collection 60
4.3 Validation of VOC Concentration Analysis 61
4.4 September 2002 Site Audit 62
4.5 Internal Audit of Data Input Files 63
4.6 Mercury Samples 63
4.6.1 September 2002 Field Campaign 63
4.6.2 September 2003 Field Campaign 64
4.7 Problems and Limitations 64
4.7.1 September 2002 Field Campaign 64
4.7.2 May 2003 Field Campaign 65
4.7.3 September 2003 Field Campaign 65
5. List of References 67
Appendix A A-l
Appendix B B-l
Appendix C C-l
Appendix D D-l
vi
-------
List of Figures
Figure Page
E-l Waste Management, Inc. Outer Loop Facility, Louisville KY ES-2
1 Waste Management, Inc. Outer Loop Facility, Louisville KY 2
2 Example of a Typical Horizontal Radial Plume Mapping (HRPM) Configuration 4
3 Example of a Typical Vertical Radial Plume Mapping (VRPM) Configuration 5
4 Map of As-Built Area Showing Instrumentation during the September 2002 Field Campaign 15
5 Average Reconstructed Methane Plume from the September 2002 As-Built VRPM Survey 16
6 HRPM Configuration Used to Survey the As-Built Lower Cell During the May 2003
Field Campaign 17
7 Map of As-Built Area Upper Cell Showing the Location of Vertical Planes Used
During the May 2003 Field Campaign 17
8 Map of As-Built Area Lower Cell Showing the Location of Vertical Planes Used
During the May 2003 Field Campaign 18
9 VRPM Configuration Used for the Survey of the Upper Cell During the May 2003 Field Campaign . 18
10 Reconstructed Methane Surface Concentrations (in ppm) for the As-Built Upper Cell During
the May 2003 Field Campaign 18
11 Reconstructed Methane Surface Concentrations (in ppmv) for the As-Built Lower Cell During
the May 2003 Field Campaign 19
12 Average Reconstructed Methane Plume from the May 2003 Downwind As-Built Upper
VRPM Survey 20
13 Average Reconstructed Methane Plume from the May 2003 As-Built Lower VRPM Survey 20
14 Map of As-Built Area Upper Cell Showing the Location of Vertical Planes Used
During the September 2003 Field Campaign 21
15 Map of As-Built Area Lower Cell Showing the Location of Vertical Planes Used
During the September 2003 Field Campaign 21
16 Reconstructed Methane Surface Concentrations (in ppm) for the As-Built Upper Cell During
the September 2003 Field Campaign 22
17 Reconstructed Methane Surface Concentrations (in ppmv) for the As-Built Lower Cell During
the September 2003 Field Campaign 22
18 Average Reconstructed Methane Plume from the September 2003 Upwind As-Built Upper Cell
VRPM Survey 24
19 Average Reconstructed Methane Plume from the September 2003 Downwind As-Built Upper Cell
VRPM Survey 25
20 Average Reconstructed Methane Plume from the September 2003 Upwind As-Built Lower
VRPM Survey 27
21 Average Reconstructed Methane Plume from the September 2003 Downwind As-Built Lower
VRPM Survey 27
22 HRPM Configuration Used in the Retrofit Area During the September 2002 Field Campaign 28
23 Map of Retrofit Area (north and south) Showing the Location of the Vertical Planes and
Background Measurements During the September 2002 Field Campaign 28
Vll
-------
Figure Page
24 Reconstructed Methane Surface Concentrations for the Retrofit North and South Areas
During the September 2002 Field Campaign 29
25 Average Reconstructed Methane Plume from the September 2002 Retrofit North VRPM Survey 30
26 Average Reconstructed Methane Plume from the September 2002 Retrofit South VRPM Survey 30
27 Map of the Retrofit Area Showing the Location of Vertical Planes and Background
Measurements During the May 2003 Field Campaign 31
28 VRPM Configuration Used in the Retrofit Area during the May 2003 Field Campaign 31
29 Reconstructed Mentane Surface Concentrations (in ppmv) for the Retrofit North Area
During the May 2003 Field Campaign 32
30 Reconstructed Mentane Surface Concentrations (in ppmv) for the Retrofit South Area
During the May 2003 Field Campaign 32
31 Average Reconstructed Methane Plume from the May 2003 Upwind Retrofit VRPM Survey 34
32 Average Reconstructed Methane Plume from the May 2003 Downwind Retrofit VRPM Survey 34
33 Map of Retrofit Area (north and south) Showing the Location of the Vertical Plane
and Background Measurements During the September 2003 Field Campaign 35
34 Reconstructed Methane Surface Concen-trations (in ppmv) for the Retrofit North and
South Areas During the September 2003 Field Campaign 35
3 5 Average Reconstructed Methane Plume from the September 2003 Retrofit VRPM Survey 36
36 Map of Control Area Showing the Location of the Vertical Plane and Background
Measurements During the September 2002 Field Campaign 37
3 7 Average Reconstructed Methane Plume from the September 2002 Control Area VRPM Survey 38
38 Map of Control Area Showing Location of Vertical Plane and Background Measurements
During the May 2003 Field Campaign 38
39 Average Reconstructed Methane Plume from the May 2003 Control Area Upwind Vertical Survey .... 40
40 Average Reconstructed Methane Plume from the May 2003 Control Area Downwind
ertical Survey 40
41 Map of Biocover Area Showing Location of Vertical Plane and Background Measurements
During the September 2002 Field Campaign 41
42 VRPM Configuration Used for the September 2002 Survey of the Biocover Area 41
43 Average Reconstructed Methane Plume from the September 2002 Biocover Area VRPM Survey 42
44 Time Series of Calculated Methane Flux Vs. Measured Wind Direction for the Biocover
(using moving average of 4 loops) During the September 2002 Field Campaign 42
45 Map of Biocover Area Showing the Location of the Vertical Plane and Background
Measurements During the May 2003 Field Campaign 43
46 Average Reconstructed Methane Plume from the May 2003 Biocover Area Upwind VRPM Survey... 44
47 Average Reconstructed Methane Plume from the May 2003 Biocover Area Downwind
VRPM Survey 45
48 Map of Compost Area Showing Locations of Vertical Planes and Location of Background
Measurements During the September 2002 Field Campaign 45
49 Average Reconstructed Ethanol Plume from the May 2003 As-Built Upper VRPM Survey 48
50 Mercury Sampling Conducted at a Landfill Gas Header Access Point Located Upstream
of the Main Flare Station 48
51 Comparison of a Spectrum Measured at the As Built Area to Reference Spectra of
Ethanol, Ammonia, andMethanol 61
52 Distance of the Reconstructed Plume from the Average Plume, and Average CCF
from the September 2002 Retrofit Area North HRPM Survey 62
53 Distance of the Reconstructed Plume from the Average Plume, and Average CCF from
the September 2002 Retrofit Area North HRPM Survey 63
54 Distance of the Reconstructed Plume from the Average Plume, and Average CCF from
the September 2002 Retrofit Area South HRPM Survey 63
Vlll
-------
List of Tables
Table Page
E-l Average Calculated Methane Flux and Range at Each Survey Area ES-5
1 DQI Goals for Critical Measurements 8
2 Detection Limits for Target Compounds 9
3 Schedule of ORS Work Performed at the Outer Loop Facility 11
4 Moving Average of the Calculated Methane Flux, CCF, Wind Speed, and Wind Direction for
the As-Built Area During the September 2002 Field Campaign 15
5 Moving Average of Calculated Methane Flux, CCF, Wind Speed, and Wind Direction for the
Downwind As-Built Area Upper Cell During the May 2003 Field Campaign 19
6 Moving Average of Calculated Methane Flux, CCF, Wind Speed, and Wind Direction for the
As-Built Area Lower Cell During the May 2003 Field Campaign 21
7 Moving Average of Calculated Methane Flux, CCF, Wind Speed, and Wind Direction for the
Upwind As-Built Area Upper Cell During the September 2003 Field Campaign 23
8 Moving Average of Calculated Methane Flux, Wind Speed, and Wind Direction for the
Downwind As-Built Area Upper Cell During the September 2003 Field Campaign 23
9 Moving Average of Calculated Methane Flux, CCF, Wind Speed, and Wind Direction for the
Upwind As-Built Area Lower Cell During the September 2003 Campaign 25
10 Moving Average of Calculated Methane Flux, CCF, Wind Speed, and Wind Direction for the
Downwind As-Built Area Lower Cell During the September 2003 Field Campaign 26
11 Moving Average of Calculated Methane Flux, CCF, Wind Speed, and Wind Direction for
the Retrofit North Area During the September 2002 Field Campaign 29
12 Moving Average of Calculated Methane Flux, CCF, Wind Speed, and Wind Direction for
the Retrofit South Area During the September 2002 Field Campaign 29
13 Moving Average of Calculated Methane Flux, Wind Speed, and Wind Directions for the
Upwind Vertical Survey of the Retrofit Area During the May 2003 Field Campaign 32
14 Moving Average of Calculated Methane Flux, CCF, Wind Speed, and Wind Directions for
the Downwind Vertical Survey of the Retrofit Area During the May 2003 Field Campaign 33
15 Moving Average of Calculated Methane Flux, CCF, Wind Speed, and Wind Direction
Downwind of the Retrofit Area During the September 2003 Field Campaign 36
16 Moving Average of Calculated Methane Flux, CCF, Wind Speed, and Wind Direction for the
VRPM Survey of the Control Area During the September 2002 Field Campaign 37
17 Moving Average of Calculated Methane Flux, Wind Speed, and Wind Direction for the
Upwind Control Area VRPM Survey During the May 2003 Field Campaign 38
18 Moving Average of Calculated Methane Flux, CCF, Wind Speed, and Wind Direction for the
Downwind Control Area VRPM Survey During the May 2003 Field Campaign 39
19 Moving Average of Calculated Methane Flux, CCF, Wind Speed, and Wind Direction for the
Downwind VRPM Survey of the Biocover Area During the September 2002 Field Campaign 41
20 Moving Average of Calculated Methane Flux, Wind Speed, and Wind Direction for the
Upwind Vertical Survey of the Biocover Area During the May 2003 Field Campaign 43
IX
-------
Measurement of Fugitive Emissions
Table Page
21 Moving Average of Calculated Methane Flux, CCF, Wind Speed, and Wind Direction for the
Downwind Vertical Survey of the Biocover Area During the May 2003 Field Campaign 44
22 Average Concentration and Estimated Flux of VOCs and Ammonia During the
September 2002 As-Built VRPM Run 1 46
23 Average Concentration and Estimated Flux of VOCs During the September 2002
As-Built VRPM Run 2 46
24 Average Concentration and Estimated Flux of VOCs and Ammonia During the September 2002
Control Area VRPM Run 1 46
25 Average Concentration and Estimated Flux of VOCs and Ammonia During the September 2002
Control Area VRPM Run 2 46
26 Average Concentration of VOCs, Ammonia, and Methane Found on Mirror 1 of the
September 2002 Biocover Area Survey 47
27 Average Concentration of VOCs, Ammonia, and Methane for the May 2003 As-Built
Upper HRPM Survey 47
28 Average Concentration of VOCs, Ammonia, and Methane for the May 2003 HRPM Survey
of the Slope between the Upper and Lower Cells of the As-Built Area 47
29 Average Concentration and Estimated Flux of VOCs and Ammonia for the As-Built
Upper VRPM Survey During the May 2003 Field Campaign 47
30 Average Concentrations, and Range of Concentrations of Total Mercury Measured in the
Retrofit Area, As-Built Area, Control Area, and Flare Gas 50
31 Average Concentrations, and Range of Concentrations of Dimethyl Mercury Measured
(using the Carbotrap method) in the Retrofit Area, As-Built Area, Control Area, and Flare Gas 51
32 Average Concentrations, and Range of Concentrations of Monomethly Mercury
Measured in the Retrofit Area, As-Built Area, Control, and Flare Gas 51
33 Average Concentrations, and Range of Concentrations of Total Mercury Measured in the
Retrofit Area, As-Built Area, Control Area, and Flare Gas 51
34 Average Concentrations, and Range of Concentrations of Dimethyl Mercury Measured
(using the Carbotrap method) in the Retrofit Area, As-Built Area, Control Area, and Flare Gas 51
35 Average Concentrations, and Range of Concentrations of Dimethyl Mercury Measured
(using the Methanol method) in the Retrofit Area, As-Built Area, Control Area, and Flare Gas 52
36 Average Concentrations, and Range of Concentrations of Monomethly Mercury
Measured in the Retrofit Area, As-Built Area, Control Area, and Flare Gas 52
37 Average Calculated Methane Flux and Range of Values Found at Each Survey Area 53
38 Average Concentrations of Total, Dimethyl, and Monomethyl Mercury Found in the
Retrofit Area, Control Areal, and Flare Gas During the September 2002 Field Campaign 54
39 Average Concentrations of Total, Dimethyl, and Monomethyl Mercury Found in the
Bioreactor, Control Cell, and Flare Gas During the September 2003 Field Campaign 55
40 Instrumentation Calibration Frequency and Description 57
41 DQI Goals for Instrumentation 58
42 Results of DQI Checks for Accuracy from the May 2003 Field Campaign Based on Different
DQI Criteria and Different Data Subset Path Lengths 59
43 QC Checks Performed on the OP-FTIR Instrument 60
44 Precision Ranges for Mercury Measurements During the September 2002 Campaign 64
45 Precision Ranges for Mercury Measurements During the September 2003 Campaign 64
-------
At a Bioreactor Landfill
Executive Summary
Background/Site Information
This research was conducted in support of a multi-year
Cooperative Research and Development Agreement
(CRADA) between the United States Environmental Pro-
tection Agency (U.S. EPA) and Waste Management, Inc.
(WMI) which was signed on October 27, 2000. The pur-
pose of this agreement is to evaluate two techniques for
landfill bioreactor construction and operation. In concept,
bioreactor landfills are designed to accelerate the biologi-
cal stabilization of landfilled waste through increased mois-
ture addition and other management techniques or proce-
dures so as to enhance the microbial decomposition of or-
ganic matter (Reinhart and Townsend, 1998). Data pre-
sented in this report follow a quality assurance project plan
(QAPP) established by researchers prior to commencement
of the project. The focus of the research is to evaluate fugi-
tive gas emissions for both landfill bioreactor types at the
Outer Loop Landfill in Louisville, Kentucky. In addition,
measurements were conducted byARCADIS and U.S. EPA
personnel to evaluate mercury emissions in the header pipe
gas, the performance of a compost "biocover" used as in-
terim cover, and emissions from a compost operation at
this site.
The data presented in this report are from three field cam-
paigns performed during September 2002, May 2003, and
September 2003 by ARCADIS and U.S. EPA to measure
fugitive emissions using an open-path Fourier transform
infrared (OP-FTIR) spectrometer. The study involved a
technique developed through research funded by U.S. EPAs
National Risk Management Research Laboratory
(NRMRL), which uses optical remote sensing-radial plume
mapping (ORS-RPM).
The scanning OP-FTIR instrument collected path-inte-
grated concentration (PIC) data to generate a long-term
average concentration along each beam path in a configu-
ration. The information is then directly translated using an
iterative algorithm into time-averaged concentration maps
along a horizontal or vertical plane (Hashmonay et al., 1999;
Wu et al., 1999; Hashmonay et al., 1998; Hashmonay and
Yost, 1999). By scanning in a vertical plane downwind
from an area source, one can obtain plume concentration
profiles and calculate the plane-integrated concentrations.
The flux is calculated by multiplying the plane-integrated
concentration by the wind speed component perpendicu-
lar to the vertical plane.
Figure E-l is a map of the Outer Loop Site showing the
general location of each survey area used in the study.
Surveys were conducted in five areas at the Louisville fa-
cility: As-Built (an area designed as a bioreactor landfill),
Retrofit (an area converted to a bioreactor landfill), Con-
trol, Biocover, and Compost.
As-Built Area
The As-Built Area is an active landfill site where liquid is
added to accelerate waste decomposition. The initial op-
eration is to moisten the waste and inject air to encourage
aerobic decomposition. WMI believes this will reduce the
ammonia concentration in the leachate and accelerate the
decomposition of proteins and fatty acids. According to
WMI, the length of this initial phase can vary from 30 to
100 days depending upon the temperature of ambient air
and the waste mass. At the end of the aerobic phase, the
waste mass is moistened with landfill leachate and other
liquids to establish anaerobic conditions. This is done to
further accelerate waste degradation.
During these field sampling campaigns, the As-Built Area
consisted of two cells with a combined area of twelve acres.
Horizontal radial plume mapping (HRPM) was carried out
in this area during each field campaign. Additionally, ver-
tical radial plume mapping (VRPM) was carried out dur-
ing each field campaign to measure the emission flux of
methane downwind of the area. Background methane con-
centrations were measured using a bistatic, non-scanning
OP-FTIR. Mercury measurements of the header pipe gas
were conducted in the As-Built Area.
ES-1
-------
Measurement of Fugitive Emissions
Figure E-1. Waste Management, Inc., Outer Loop Facility, Louisfille KY
Retrofit Area
The Retrofit Area is a 26-acre existing landfill that has not
accepted waste since March 2001. Nitrate-containing
leachate has been added to the landfill cell to accelerate
waste stabilization. Testing was performed on the 8-acre
flat area on top of this cell. HRPM was carried out in this
area during each field campaign to identify emission hot
spots, and VRPM was performed during each field cam-
paign to calculate average methane fluxes. Background
methane concentrations were measured using a bistatic,
non-scanning OP-FTIR. Mercury measurements of the
header pipe gas were conducted in the Retrofit Area.
Control Area
The Control Area at the site was not selected specifically
for this effort, but for the overall CRADA project, but Con-
trol Area measurements were used for this study to aid in
isolating emissions from each separate survey area at the
site. The control study area is east of the As-Built Area.
During the September 2002 field campaign, a vertical con-
figuration was set up on the east side of the Control Area,
and data were collected during periods that the observed
wind direction consisted of a westerly component. During
the May 2003 campaign, an upwind and downwind verti-
cal configuration was set up in this area to measure the
incoming and outgoing flux of methane. No measurements
were made in this area during the September 2003 field
campaign. Changes in geometry and access to the control
cell limited the usefulness of data collected in this area
from the initial field campaigns to the September 2003
campaign, and it was difficult to isolate emissions from
the Control Area because of the size and proximity of this
area to the As-Built section. Further explanation on selec-
tion of the Control Area is provided in U.S. EPA, 2003.
BiocoverArea
The Biocover Area is not operated as a bioreactor (with
leachate and other liquid additions); rather, a compost layer
ES-2
-------
At a Bioreactor Landfill
is used as an interim cover. The survey area is approxi-
mately 1 acre. During the September 2002 field campaign,
a VRPM configuration was placed to the west of the sur-
vey area to determine the emission flux of methane. Data
for the Biocover Area study were collected during periods
that the observed wind direction consisted of an easterly
component. During the May 2003 campaign, vertical con-
figurations were used to measure methane flux. Surveying
was not performed in this area during the September 2003
field campaign because the area was inaccessible for data
collection. Background methane concentrations were mea-
sured using a bistatic, non-scanning OP-FTIR
Compost Area
Measurements of the Compost Area were conducted dur-
ing the first field campaign. The compost area consisted of
several piles of shredded vegetative waste, approximately
50 ft long and 20 ft high, which are being decomposed
under controlled conditions. Two piles were surveyed in
the Compost Area using a monostatic OP-FTIR. The pri-
mary concern in the Compost Area was to evaluate emis-
sions of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and ammo-
nia from the compost piles. An optical configuration was
set up adjacent to each pile, and vertical configurations
were set up downwind of the sources to capture any plumes
originating from the piles and measure emission fluxes for
each pile. Additionally, a bistatic, non-scanning OP-FTIR
was operated for the determination of background mea-
surements.
Results and Discussions
Emissions of methane, VOCs, and mercury were measured
during field campaigns in September 2002, May 2003, and
September 2003. Methane flux in grams per second was
measured with a VRPM system and converted to units of
grams per square meter per day by multiplying by 86,400
s/day and dividing by the area (in meters squared) of the
upwind survey area. The size of the upwind survey area
was calculated based on survey measurements taken dur-
ing the field campaign. In addition, methane hot spots were
located using a HRPM configuration.
As-Built Area
September 2002 Field Campaign
VRPM surveys were done using one vertical configura-
tion on the downwind side of each cell. The average calcu-
lated methane flux from all vertical runs at the As-Built
Area was 140 g/s, or 1400 g/m2/day. The background sur-
vey from the As-Built Area found an average background
methane concentration of 8.6 ppmv.
May 2003 Field Campaign
HRPM detected the presence of three methane hot spots in
the As-Built Area. The most intense hot spot (estimated as
greater than 210 ppmv) was in the lower cell. Each of the
three hot spots were adjacent to a slope separating the two
cells. This suggests that the slope area may be a significant
methane source.
VRPM surveys were done using one vertical configura-
tion on the downwind side of each cell. The average flux
for the downwind side of the upper cell was 32 g/s, which
is equivalent to approximately 250 g/m2/day. The average
methane flux for the downwind side of the lower cell was
99 g/s, which is equivalent to approximately 660 g/m2/day.
This is not surprising, since the most intense methane hot
spot was found in the lower cell of the As-Built Area.
September 2003 Field Campaign
HRPM detected the presence of four methane hot spots in
the As-Built Area. The most intense hot spot (estimated as
greater than 89 ppmv) was in the upper cell. Three of the
hot spots were adjacent to a slope separating the two cells.
This suggests that the slope area may be a significant meth-
ane source.
VRPM was carried out on both the upwind and downwind
side of each cell. The average methane flux for the upwind
and downwind sides of the upper cell was 200g/s (equiva-
lent to approximately 1300 g/m2/day) and 210 g/s (equiva-
lent to approximately 1400 g/m2/day), respectively. The
average methane flux for the upwind and downwind side
of the lower cell was 140 g/s (equivalent to approximately
1200 g/m2/day) and 200 g/s (equivalent to approximately
1400 g/m2/day), respectively.
Retrofit Area
September 2002 Field Campaign
HRPM at the Retrofit Area detected the presence of two
methane hot spots, or areas where methane concentrations
were shown to be close to 80 ppmv by the reconstructed
surface methane concentration map.
VRPM was done in the northern and southern halves of
the Retrofit Area. The average calculated methane flux from
the Retrofit Area was found to be 19 g/s for the northern
half (equivalent to approximately 310 g/m2/day), and 18
g/s for the southern half (equivalent to approximately 330
g/m2/day). This is consistent with the fact that the methane
concentrations found in the hot spots for each area (which
would be the major contributor to methane flux values)
ES-3
-------
Measurement of Fugitive Emissions
are similar in magnitude. Additionally, the spatial resolu-
tion of the plumes in the horizontal direction is consistent
with the location of the hot spots found in the HRPM sur-
vey.
The bistatic OP-FTIR instrument was operated to collect
background methane data in the Retrofit Area. However,
due to instrumentation problems, the data were unavail-
able for this area. Looking at the boundaries of the HRPM
results, the background concentrations can be estimated to
be about 10 ppmv.
May 2003 Field Campaign
HRPM at the Retrofit Area detected the presence of two
methane hot spots. The most intense hot spot (estimated to
be greater than 78 ppmv) was in the northeastern corner of
the northern half of the Retrofit Area.
VRPM was done on the upwind and downwind sides of
the Retrofit Area. The average methane flux for the up-
wind side and downwind sides was llg/s (equivalent to
approximately 100 g/m2/day) and 27g/s (equivalent to ap-
proximately 250 g/m2/day), respectively.
September 2003 Field Campaign
HRPM at the Retrofit Area detected the presence of two
methane hot spots. The most intense (estimated to be greater
than 34 ppmv) was along the western edge Retrofit Area.
Due to limited access to the area, it was not possible to set
up an upwind vertical configuration, and VRPM was only
carried out on the downwind side of the Retrofit Area. As
an alternative to an upwind VRPM, the path-averaged meth-
ane concentration data from the bistatic OP-FTIR were used
to provide information on upwind methane concentrations.
The average methane flux for the downwind side of the
area was 54 g/s (equivalent to approximately 440 g/m2/
day). The data from the bistatic OP-FTIR found an aver-
age upwind methane concentration of 2.3 ppmv.
Control Area
September 2002 Field Campaign
The average calculated methane flux for the Control Area
study was 6.0 g/s (equivalent to approximately 100 g/m2/
day). However, this value may be a low estimate of the
total methane flux because the winds were highly variable
during the period of data collection (Hashmonay et al,
2001).
May 2003 Field Campaign
VRPM was done on both the upwind and downwind sides
of the Control Area. The average methane flux for the up-
wind side and downwind sides was 4.3 g/s (equivalent to
approximately 160 g/m2/day) and 14 g/s (equivalent to
approximately 350 g/m2/day), respectively.
BiocoverArea
September 2002 Field Campaign
Several VRPM surveys were done at the Biocover Area.
The average calculated methane flux was 24 g/s (equiva-
lent to approximately 410 g/m2/day).
The bistatic OP-FTIR instrument was operated to collect
background methane data in the Biocover Area, but the
data were unavailable for this area because of instrumen-
tation problems.
May 2003 Field Campaign
VRPM was done on the upwind and downwind sides of
the Biocover Area. The average methane flux for the up-
wind side and downwind sides was 91g/s (equivalent to
approximately 1300 g/m2/day) and 80 g/s (equivalent to
approximately 890 g/m2/day), respectively. The fact that
the average calculated upwind flux was higher than the
average calculated downwind flux indicates that the mea-
sured methane flux was not located in the Biocover Area.
Because of the close proximity of the Biocover to the As-
Built Area and the fact that the prevailing winds were from
the southwest during the survey, it is likely that a methane
plume from the As-Built Area caused the elevated meth-
ane levels measured in this area.
Compost Area
During the September 2002 Field Campaign, the study did
not detect any VOCs or ammonia in the Compost Area.
Additionally, the survey did not detect any methane plumes
originating from the compost piles, which one would ex-
pect since it is an aerobic operation.
VOC and Ammonia Measurements
Additional analysis of the complete dataset was done to
search for the presence of VOCs and ammonia in the land-
fill gas. Prior to the field campaign, it was anticipated that
the VOCs and ammonia concentrations at the site would
often be below the minimum detection limit of the instru-
mentation. This was the case. However, ammonia and
VOCs were found in the As-Built, Control, and Biocover
ES-4
-------
At a Bioreactor Landfill
areas at the site. Emission fluxes for these trace compounds
were calculated by proportioning to the methane flux data.
Mercury Measurements
The landfill gas at the site was sampled and analyzed dur-
ing the September 2002 campaign for total mercury, dim-
ethyl mercury, and monomethyl mercury by Frontier Geo-
sciences with sampling support from ARCADIS. During
this campaign, total mercury concentrations in the landfill
gas ranged from 224 to 671 ng/m3 with an average of 522
ng/m3 for all of the samples, excluding the As-Built data.
The data from the As-Built area were not included in cal-
culating the average because it was not attached to the rest
of the landfill gas system during this campaign. Dimethyl
mercury concentrations in the landfill gas ranged from not
detected to 18 ng/m3 and averaged 5.9 ng/m3. There was
no dimethyl mercury detected in the flare gas.
Spike recoveries in the dimethyl mercury traps were sig-
nificantly lower than the 50% to 150% acceptance criteria
listed. This was 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. Monomethyl mercury concentrations
in the landfill gas ranged from 0.4 to 4.4 ng/m3 and aver-
aged 2.4 ng/m3.
During the September 2003 campaign, the landfill gas at
the site was sampled and analyzed by Frontier Geosciences,
with sampling support from ARCADIS, for total mercury,
dimethyl mercury, and monomethyl mercury. Total mer-
cury concentrations in the landfill gas ranged from 123 to
4670 ng/m3 with an average of 1171 ng/m3 for all of the
samples. It should be noted that the average of the Control
Area is biased high because of the data from unit 73 A. The
vertical gas collection well sampled during this campaign
was under positive pressure; therefore, the data are sus-
pect. Dimethyl mercury concentrations in the landfill gas
ranged from 22.1 to 128.3 ng/m3 and averaged 53.3 ng/m3
as measured by the Carbotrap method. One data point from
the Retrofit Area was not included because it was improp-
erly sampled. Dimethyl mercury concentrations in the land-
fill gas ranged from 49.3 to 363 ng/m3 and averaged 116.5
ng/m3 as measured by the methanol impinger method.
Monomethyl mercury concentrations in the landfill gas
ranged from 0.55 to 2.10 ng/m3 and averaged 1.37 ng/m3.
Recoveries for the spiked/sampled monomethyl impingers
were significantly lower than the acceptance criteria of 50%
to 150%. For this reason, all of the monomethyl mercury
results from this campaign must be labeled as suspect. Spike
recoveries for the total mercury samples were 93%. Spike
recoveries for the dimethyl mercury traps ranged from
60.3% to 101.1%. These recoveries are considerably bet-
ter than the recoveries during the September 2002 cam-
paign probably due to decreasing the sample volume from
9.0 liters to 0.5 liters. However, more method development
is needed to further improve spike recoveries.
Conclusions
Fugitive emissions at the Outer Loop Landfill operated by
Waste Management Inc. in Louisville, Kentucky, were
evaluated using an OP-FTIR spectrometer and the ORS-
RPM technique. Methane fluxes were calculated at four
areas in the landfill. Table E-1 lists the average calculated
methane fluxes found during each field campaign.
Table E-1. Average Calculated Methane Flux and Range at Each Survey Area.
Area
As-Built
Upper cell
As-Built
Lower Cell
Retrofit
Control
Average Flux Range Average Flux Range Average Flux Range
(g/s) (g/s) (g/s) (g/s) (g/s) (g/s)
Restricted access and
equipment malfunction
140b 120to180b
37 31 to 44
6.0 6.0
32
99
27
14
9.4 to 88
76 to 180
18 to 39
5.2 to 24
21 Oa 84 to 330
200a 25 to 380
54C 35 to 75
No control available
a Gas collection system not operating because of leachate build-up in the extraction wells.
b Gas collection system was not operational in the As-Built cells during the September 2002 field campaign.
c The week prior to the field test, the interim cap was replaced with a fresh topsoil/clay cover, and the gas
collection system was upgraded.
ES-5
-------
Measurement of Fugitive Emissions
In general, the As-Built Area was found to have the high-
est methane fluxes. In addition to VRPM, HRPM was done
in the As-Built and Retrofit Areas. Two definitive methane
hot spots having concentrations over 80 ppmv were found
at the Retrofit Area during the September 2002 campaign.
During the May 2003 campaign, four hot spots were found
in the As-Built Area (the most intense having concentra-
tions over 210 ppmv), and two hot spots were found in the
Retrofit Area (the most intense having concentrations over
78 ppmv). During the September 2003 campaign, three hot
spots were found in the As-Built Area (the most intense
having concentrations over 89 ppmv), and two hot spots
were found in the Retrofit Area (the most intense having
concentrations over 34 ppmv).
Further evaluation is needed to establish trends in fugitive
emissions as the two bioreactor types continue to operate
over time. Additional field testing is being considered to
evaluate changes in fugitive emissions in response to de-
sign and operational changes. These data are also needed
to help establish emission trends for the retrofit and as-
built bioreactor portions of the Outer Loop landfill.
ES-6
-------
At a Bioreactor Landfill
1. Introduction
1.1 Background
Recently, there has been a dramatic amount of interest in
operating landfills as "bioreactors." In concept, bioreactor
landfills are designed to accelerate the biological stabili-
zation of landfilled waste through increased moisture (i.e.,
leachate, sludge, and other liquids) and other management
techniques or procedures to enhance the microbial decom-
position of organic matter (Reinhart and Townsend, 1998).
Generally, bioreactors are designed with gas collection and
control. However, there are sites without gas collection and
control.
Landfill gas emissions have been found to be a concern to
human health and the environment due to the explosive
potential of the gas, emissions of hazardous air pollutants
and volatile organic compounds (VOCs), emissions of
methane that contribute to climate change, and odor nui-
sance associated with landfill gas. The United States Envi-
ronmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) has promulgated
regulations under the Clean Air Act to address the public
health and welfare concerns of landfill gas emissions. The
final rule and guidelines are contained in 40 CFR Parts 51,
52, and 60, Standards of Performance for New Stationary
Sources and Guidelines for Control of Existing Sources:
Municipal Solid Waste Landfills. The U.S. EPA has also
considered bioreactor landfill emissions by promulgating
regulations (contained in 40 CFR Part 63, Subpart AAA)
that require certain bioreactor landfills to install and oper-
ate a gas collection and control system on an accelerated
schedule.
A Cooperative Research and Development Agreement
(CRADA) between the U.S. EPA and Waste Management,
Inc. (WMI) was signed on October 27, 2000, to develop
data that will enable U.S. EPA and the industry to compare
conventional Subtitle D design and operation versus land-
fill bioreactors. The first of these studies is being conducted
at the Outer Loop Landfill in Louisville, Kentucky. For
further background information, refer to the existing Qual-
ity Assurance Project Plans (QAPP) for each field cam-
paign. An interim report of the findings to date from this
CRADA was released in September 2003 (U.S. EPA, 2003).
The focus of this effort was to evaluate fugitive emissions
associated with the operation of bioreactors either as a ret-
rofit (an existing landfill that is converted to a bioreactor
landfill), or as-built (a landfill that was designed as a
bioreactor landfill). Fugitive emissions at the Outer Loop
Landfill site were evaluated over a one-year period. The
study consisted of three field campaigns conducted during
September 2002, May 2003, and September 2003. The pri-
mary purpose of this study was to evaluate if there is an
increase in both short-term and long-term fugitive emis-
sions associated with the operation of bioreactor landfills.
Additionally, samples were collected during the Septem-
ber 2002 and September 2003 campaigns to evaluate con-
centrations of total, dimethyl, and monomethyl mercury at
the site. Emissions of methyl and dimethyl mercury have
been detected at four municipal solid waste landfills in
Florida (Lindberg and Price, 1999; Lindberg et al, 2001).
Questions have been raised about the fate of mercury and
other metals that are introduced as a result of adding septic
sewage, leachate, and other liquids to the waste mass (U.S.
EPA, 2002).
Five sites within the Outer Loop Facility were included in
the initial field campaign. These were the As-Built Area,
the Retrofit Area, the Control Area, the Biocover Area and
the Compost Area. During the May 2003 campaign, the
As-Built, Retrofit, Biocover, and Control areas were sur-
veyed. During the September 2003 field campaign, only
the As-Built, and Retrofit Areas were surveyed because it
had been difficult to establishing a true "Control" area dur-
ing the two previous field campaigns and because the
Biocover Area was no longer in operation. Referto Figure
1 for an overview of the Outer Loop Facility and the gen-
eral locations of each survey area.
-------
Measurement of Fugitive Emissions
Figure 1. Waste Management, Inc., Outer Loop Facility, Louisfille KY
1.2 Project Description/Purpose
The optical remote sensing (ORS) techniques used in the
Outer Loop study were designed to characterize the fugi-
tive emissions from area sources. These techniques were
developed in research and development programs funded
by U.S. EPA's National Risk Management Research Labo-
ratory (NRMRL). Detailed spatial information is obtained
from path-integrated ORS measurements by the use of it-
erative algorithms. The method involves the use of a con-
figuration of non-overlapping radial beam geometry to map
the concentration distributions in a horizontal plane. This
method, optical remotes sensing-radial plume mapping
(ORS-RPM), can also be applied to a vertical plane down-
wind from an area emission source to map the crosswind
and vertical profiles of a plume. By incorporating wind
information, the flux through the plane can be 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 mea-
suring a large number of chemical species that might oc-
cur in a plume.
The OP-FTIR Spectrometer combined with the ORS-RPM
method is designed for both fence-line monitoring appli-
cations, 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 retroreflector (mirror) target, which is usu-
ally set up at a range of 100 to 500 m. 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 retroreflector and again
as the light is reflected back to the analyzer. Thus, the round-
trip path of the light doubles the chemical absorption sig-
nal. In the case of a bistatic OP-FTIR (which was used to
collect upwind information on methane concentrations
along a single, fixed path), the instrument contains the re-
ceiving telescope and detector, and the infrared source is
-------
At a Bioreactor Landfill
located separately from the instrument. One advantage of
OP-FTIR monitoring is that the concentrations of a multi-
tude of infrared absorbing gaseous chemicals can be de-
tected and measured simultaneously and with high tempo-
ral resolution.
Meteorological and survey measurements were also made
during the field campaigns. A theodolite was used to make
the survey measurement of the azimuth and elevation angles
and the radial distances to the retroreflectors relative to the
OP-FTIR sensor.
The objectives of the study were to
• Collect OP-FTIR data in order to identify major emis-
sions hot spots by generating surface concentration
maps in the horizontal plane,
• Measure emission fluxes of detectable compounds
downwind from major hot spots,
• Collect meteorological and survey data, and
• Collect samples to evaluate total, monomethyl, and
dimethyl mercury concentrations at the site.
1.2.1 Horizontal RPM (HRPM)
The horizontal RPM (HRPM) approach provides spatial
information to path-integrated measurements by ORS. This
technique yields information on the two-dimensional dis-
tribution of the concentrations in the form of chemical-
concentration contour maps (Hashmonay et al., 1999; Wu
et al., 1999; Hashmonay et al., 2002, Shores et al., 2005,
Modrak et al., 2005b). This form of output readily identi-
fies chemical hot spots (the location of high emissions).
This method can be of great benefit for performing site
surveys prior to site remediation activities.
HRPM 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 el-
evations. The survey area is divided into a Cartesian grid
of n times m rectangular cells. A retroreflector is located in
each of these cells, and the ORS sensor scans to each of
these retroreflectors, dwelling on each for a set measure-
ment time (30 s in the present study). The system scans to
the retroreflectors in the order of either increasing or de-
creasing azimuth angle. The path-integrated concentrations
measured at each retroreflector are averaged over several
scanning cycles.
The reconstruction algorithm for obtaining concentration
contour maps consists of two stages. First, an iterative in-
version algorithm is used to retrieve average concentra-
tion in each of the cells. Then, an interpolation procedure
is applied to these concentration values to calculate con-
centration in higher spatial resolution. HRPM is performed
using Matlob (MathWorks) software. For the first stage of
reconstructing the average cell concentrations, an iterative
algebraic deconvolution algorithm is applied. The path-
integrated concentration (PIC), as a function of the field of
concentration, is given by
PIC, = I
(1)
where K is a kernel matrix that incorporates the specific
beam geometry with the cell dimensions; k is the number
index for the beam paths; m is the number index for the
cells; and c is the average concentration in the nf1 cell.
Each value in the kernel matrix K is the length of the f^1
beam in the m^ cell; therefore, the matrix is specific to the
beam geometry. To solve for the average concentrations
(one for each cell), the non negative least squares (NNLS)
was applied. The NNLS is similar to a classical least square
optimization algorithm but is constrained to provide the
best fit of non-negative values. This iterative procedure
proceeds until the difference of the criteria parameter be-
tween sequential steps drops below a very small threshold
value (tolerance). The tolerance value depends on many
factors, such as the area dimensions, and number of beams
used in the survey. A typical value for the tolerance is
around 10~n. Multiplying the resulted vertical vector of
averaged concentration by the matrix K yields the end vec-
tor of predicted PIC data.
The second stage of the plume reconstruction is interpola-
tion among the nine points, providing a peak concentra-
tion not limited to only the center of the cells. This stage is
done using the triangle-based cubic interpolation proce-
dure. To extrapolate data values beyond the peripheral cell
centers and within the rectangle measurement domain, the
concentration of each corner cell is assigned to the corre-
sponding corner of the domain.
Figure 2 represents atypical HRPM configuration. In this
particular case, n = m = 3. The black dot shows the loca-
tion of the scanning OP-FTIR. The solid lines represent
the nine optical paths, each terminating at a retroreflector
(Hashmonay et al., 2002).
One OP-FTIR instrument (manufactured by Midac, Inc.)
was used to collect HRPM data during the September 2002
field campaign, one OP-FTIR instrument (manufactured
by Unisearch Associates) was used to collect HRPM data
during the May 2003 campaign, and two OP-FTIR instru-
-------
Measurement of Fugitive Emissions
o
'o.
150
100
A
OP-FTIR
x Axis
-50 0 50 100
Typical x Distance (m)
150
Figure 2. Example of a Typical Horizontal Radial Plume
Mapping (HRPM) Configuration.
ments (one manufactured by Unisearch Associates and the
other by IMACC, Inc.) were used to collect HRPM data
during the September 2003 field campaign.
1.2.2 Vertical RPM (VRPM)
The vertical RPM (VRPM) method maps the concentra-
tions in the plane of the measurement. By scanning in a
vertical plane downwind from an area source, plume con-
centration profiles can be obtained and the plane-integrated
concentrations calculated. The smooth basis function mini-
mization (SBFM) reconstruction approach is used, with a
two-dimensional smooth basis function (bivariate
Gaussian) in orderto reconstruct the smoothed mass equiva-
lent concentration map. The smoothed mass equivalent
concentration map is reconstructed using Matlab
(MathWorks) software. In the SBFM approach, a smooth
basis function is assumed to describe the distribution of
concentrations, and the search is for the unknown param-
eters of the basis function. Since the interest is in the plane
integrated concentration and not the exact map of concen-
trations in the plane, only one smoothed basis function (one
bivariate Gaussian) is fit to reconstruct the smoothed map.
In each iterative step of the SBFM search procedure, the
measured PIC values are compared with assumed PIC val-
ues, calculated from the new set of parameters. In orderto
compute the assumed PIC values, the basis function is in-
tegrated along the beam path's direction and path-length.
In the RPM beam geometry, it is convenient to express the
smooth basis function G in polar coordinates r and 9.
iTKJ-
exp
2F,
F2 In F F F2
2 r\1 2 3 3
(2)
where
F2 = r • cos0- m
F3 = r • sin#- mz
The bivariate Gaussian has six unknown independent pa-
rameters:
•A- normalizing coefficient that adjusts for the peak
value of the bivariate surface
• p12 - correlation coefficient that defines the direction
of the distribution-independent variations in relation
to the Cartesian directions y and z (pi2=0 means that
the distribution variations overlap the Cartesian coor-
dinates)
• my and mz - peak locations in Cartesian coordinates
• and oy and
-------
At a Bioreactor Landfill
\2
sin#- mj
(4)
Also, the peak location in the vertical direction can be fixed
to the ground level when ground level emissions are known
to exist, as in the current study. However, in this method-
ology, there is no requirement to apply a priori informa-
tion on the source location and configuration.
Once the parameters of the function were found for a spe-
cific run, the concentration values are calculated for every
square elementary unit in a vertical domain. Then, these
values are integrated, incorporating wind speed data at each
height, level to compute the flux. In this stage, the concen-
tration values are converted from parts per million by vol-
ume to grams per cubic meter, considering the molecular
weight of the target gas and ambient temperature. This
enables the flux to be calculated in grams per second (g/s),
using wind speed data in meters per second.
The flux leads directly to a determination of the emission
rate (Hashmonay et al., 1998; Hashmonay and Yost, 1999,
Hashmonay et al., 2001, Modrak et al., 2004, Modrak et
al., 2005a, Thoma et al., 2005). Thus, VRPM leads to a
direct measurement-based determination of the upwind
source emission rate.
Figure 3 shows a schematic of the experimental setup used
for VRPM. Several retroreflectors 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 retroreflectors 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 per-
pendicular as practical.
One OP-FTIR instrument (manufactured by Midac, Inc.)
was used to collect Vertical RPM data during the Septem-
ber 2002 field campaign to form one vertical plane down-
wind from the source area. During the May 2003 and Sep-
tember 2003 field campaigns, two OP-FTIR instruments
(one manufactured by Unisearch Associates and the other
by IMACC, Inc.) were used to create two vertical planes,
one upwind and one downwind of the source area. This
configuration made it possible to calculate an upwind emis-
sion flux from the upwind vertical plane measurements and
a downwind emission flux from the downwind vertical
plane measurements. The difference between the two fluxes
yields the actual emission flux from the survey area. More
> Scanning
OP-FTIR
Figure 3. Example of a Typical Vertical Radial Plume
Mapping (VRPM) Configuration.
information on the configurations used in each survey area
can be found in Section 2 of this report.
1.2.3 Mercury Speciation
During the September 2002 campaign, Frontier Geo-
sciences, with sampling support from ARCADIS, sampled
and analyzed the Outer Loop Landfill gas for concentra-
tions of total mercury, dimethyl mercury, and monomethyl
mercury. ARCADIS personnel did the sampling during the
September 2003 campaign. Samples were collected from
the extracted gas pipelines at the Retrofit and the As-Built
Areas.
To collect the total mercury samples, an iodated charcoal
trap was used as a sorbent, and a backup tube was present
to assess any breakthrough. 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 sample
through the train and collect the sample. The volume of
gas sampled was monitored and quantified using a volatile
-------
Measurement of Fugitive Emissions
organic sampling train (VOST) box. The sample flow rate
was nominally 0.8 L/min for 37.5 min, which equates to a
total volume of approximately 30 L. The traps were re-
turned to the lab where the iodated carbon was 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 cold vapor atomic fluorescence spectrometry (CVAFS)
total Hg analysis method (which served as the basis for
U.S. EPA Method 1631 that was developed, authored, and
validated by Frontier Geosciences).
Dimethyl mercury (DMHg) 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 tem-
perature 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 VOST box. The
sample flow rate was nominally 0.35 L/min for a total vol-
ume of approximately 0.5 L.
The DMHg content of the Carbotraps was determined by
thermal-desorption (TD), gas chromatography (GC), and
CVAFS. The analytical system was calibrated by purging
precise quantities of DMHg in methanol (1-500 pg) from
deionized water onto Carbotraps and then thermally des-
orbing (45 s at a 25 to 450 °C ramp) them directly into the
isothermal GC (1 m x 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 crack-
ing column held at 700 °C, converting the organomercury
compounds to elemental form. DMHg was identified by
retention time and quantified by peak height.
In addition to collecting DMHg using the Carbotrap
method, an alternative was performed using a methanol
impinger. The primary purpose of using an alternative
method was to further evaluate the accuracy of the
Carbotrap method. In general, samples were collected us-
ing the same equipment and techniques as those outlined
below for the collection of monomethyl mercury. The only
difference was that methanol was used as an impinger so-
lution rather than 0.001 M HC1. 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 VOST box. The sample flow rate was
nominally 0.8 L/min for 37.5 min, which equates to a total
volume of approximately 30 L.
Samples were analyzed at the laboratory using procedure
listed in FGS-070 using a direct aqueous purge of small
aliquots of the MeOH solutions. The DMHg evolved from
the analytical sparging vessels was collected onto the
Carbotrap and introduced into the TD-GC-CVAFS instru-
ment as described above.
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 knock out any impinger solu-
tion 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 moni-
tored and quantified using a VOST box. The sample flow
rate was nominally 0.8 L/min for 37.5 min, which equates
to a total volume of approximately 30 L.
The analysis method uses distillation, ethylation, Carbotrap
preconcentration, thermal desorption, gas-chromatography
separation, thermal conversion, and CVAFS detection. See
the Appendix A SOPs FGS-070 and FGS-013 for intro-
ductory pages to the respective methods. This analytical
method for monomethyl mercury in a water matrix was
the basis for U.S. EPA Draft Method 1631.
1.2.4 As-Built Area
The As-Built Area is an active landfill site where liquid is
added to accelerate waste decomposition. The initial op-
eration is to moisten the waste and inject air to encourage
aerobic decomposition. This is believed by WMI to result
in reducing the concentration of ammonia in the leachate
in addition to accelerating the decomposition of proteins
and fatty acids. According to WMI, the length of this ini-
tial phase can vary from 30 to 100 days depending upon
the temperature of ambient air and the waste mass. At the
end of the aerobic phase, the waste mass is moistened with
landfill leachate and other liquids to establish anaerobic
conditions. This is done to further accelerate waste degra-
dation.
A horizontal piping system was installed to facilitate con-
trol of the condition in the waste body as waste is added to
the cell. This piping system serves three functions: injec-
tion of air, injection of liquids, and extraction of gas.
The As-Built study consisted of cells 4A and 4B of Unit 7.
Testing was done on the face of each of these cells. Over
the course of the long-term study, some gas collection and
-------
At a Bioreactor Landfill
control measures were in place in some areas of cells 4A
and4B.
Surveying was conducted in this area during the Septem-
ber 2002, May 2003, and September 2003 field campaigns.
1.2.5 Retrofit Area
The Retrofit Area study was conducted in Unit 5, a 26-
acre landfill that has not accepted waste since March 2001.
Perforated pipes were installed in cells in Unit 5 North and
Unit 5 South, and six vertical gas extraction wells were
installed in each of these cells. Testing was performed on
the eight-acre flat area on top of this multi-cell unit.
The study in this area is being conducted to test the effi-
ciency of accelerating waste stabilization by injecting ni-
trate-containing leachate into an existing landfill cell. The
expectation is that microorganisms present in the waste
will use the nitrate to promote and accelerate degradation
of the waste.
Surveying was conducted in this area during the Septem-
ber 2002, May 2003, and September 2003 field campaigns.
1.2.6 Control Area
A Control Area was chosen to determine a typical back-
ground methane concentration for the entire site. The Con-
trol Area at the site was not selected specifically for this
effort, but for the overall CRADA project. The purpose of
the Control Area study was to aid in isolating emissions
from each separate survey area at the site. The Control Area
was located adjacent to the Biocover Area and to the east
of the As-Built Area. Further explanation on selection of
the Control Area is provided in U.S. EPA, 2003.
Surveying was conducted in the Control Area during the
September 2002 and May 2003 field campaigns, but this
area was not surveyed during the September 2003 field
campaign due to the difficulty of establishing a control area
representative of an operating landfill. Changes occurred
with regard to geometry of the control cell, which limited
the usefulness of data collected in this area from the initial
field campaigns to the September 2003 campaign. Also, it
was difficult to isolate emissions from the Control Area
because of its central location within the landfill.
1.2.7 Biocover Area
Another focus of this study was to determine if emissions
reduction is enhanced through use of a WMI-proposed
biocover, which is one in which the clay cap is replaced by
a layer of compost material. The compost layer is used to
reduce any fugitive emissions. Characterization of the gas
emissions from a landfill with a compost cover was per-
formed at a site located in the northeast quadrant of Unit 7.
This unit consists of a fifty-acre conventional landfill
capped with clay. The clay-cover of a one-acre area was
scraped and replaced with a compost layer.
Surveying was conducted in this area during the Septem-
ber 2002 and May 2003 field campaigns. Surveying was
not conducted in this area during the September 2003 cam-
paign because the Biocover was no longer operational.
1.2.8 Compost Area
The Outer Loop Facility also includes a Compost Area.
This area consists of shredded vegetative waste in several
piles approximately 50 feet long by 20 feet tall, which are
being decomposed under controlled conditions. At the re-
quest of WMI, and with the concurrence of the project of-
ficer, sampling of fugitive emissions was also performed
at this location as a one-time survey. The primary concern
in the Compost Area was to evaluate emissions of volatile
organic compounds (VOCs) from the compost piles. This
area was surveyed during the September 2002 field cam-
paign.
1.3 Quality Objectives and Criteria
Data quality objectives (DQOs) are qualitative and quanti-
tative statements developed using U.S. EPA's DQO Pro-
cess (U.S. EPA, 1996) that clarify study objectives, 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 sup-
port decisions. DQOs define the performance criteria that
limit the probabilities of making decision errors by con-
sidering the purpose of collecting the data, defining the
appropriate type of data needed, and specifying tolerable
probabilities of making decision errors.
Quantitative objectives are established for critical measure-
ments using the data quality indicators of accuracy, preci-
sion, and completeness. The acceptance criteria for these
data quality indicators (DQI) are summarized in Table 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.
Precision is evaluated by making replicate measurements
of the same parameter and by assessing the variations of
the results. Precision is assessed in terms of relative per-
cent difference (RPD), or relative standard deviation (RSD).
-------
Measurement of Fugitive Emissions
Replicate measurements are expected to fall within the tol-
erances shown in Table 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, by compound, are
given in Table 2. It is important to note that the values
listed in Table 2 should be considered first step approxi-
mations because the minimum detection limit is highly
variable and depends on many factors including atmo-
spheric conditions. Actual minimum detection levels are
calculated in the quantification software for all measure-
ments 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 minimum detection level
is the absorbance signal (of the target compound) that is
five times the RMS noise level, using a reference spec-
trum acquired for a known concentration of the target com-
pound.
Table 1. DQI Goals for Critical Measurements
Measurement Parameter
Analysis Method
Accuracy
Precision Detection Limit Completeness
Analyte PIC
Ambient Wind Speed
Ambient Wind Direction
OP-FTIR +5% +10%
Climatronics Met heads side- +1 m/s +1 m/s
by-side comparison in the
field
Climatronics Met heads side- +10° +10°
by-side comparison in the
field
see Table 2
90%
90%
90%
Distance Measurement
Elemental Mercury
Total Mercury3
Dimethyl Mercury
(Carbotrap)3
Monomethyl Mercury3
Total Mercuryb
Dimethyl Mercury
(Carbotrap)b
Dimethyl Mercury
(methanol)b
Monomethyl Mercury"
Theodolite- Topcon
Lumex (direct method)
TD-GC-AFSC
TD-GC-pyrolysis-CVAFSd
TD-GC-CVAFS
TD-GC-AFS
TD-GC-pyrolysis-CVAFS
TD-GC-CVAFS
TD-GC-CVAFS
+1 m
+20%
50-1 50%
recovery
50-1 50%
50-1 50%
50-1 50%
50-1 50%
50-1 50%
50-1 50%
+1 m
+20%
+20%
+20%
+20%
+20%
+20%
+20%
+20%
0.1 m
2-500ng/m3e
33 ng/m3f
1.1 ng/m3s
0.63 ng/m3 h
33 ng/m3f
19.8 ng/m3i
0.34 ng/m3f
0.34 ng/m3f
100%
90%
90%
90%
90%
90%
90%
90%
90%
3 September 2002 campaign.
b September 2003 campaign.
c TD = thermal desorption; GC = gas chromatography; AFS = atomic fluorescence spectrometry
d CVAFS = cold vapor atomic fluorescence spectrometry.
e Estimated detection limit for natural and industrial gases. The landfill gas would have to be assayed to determine the actual
detection limit of the instrument.
f Estimated detection limit for a 30 L sample.
9 Estimated detection limit for a 9.0 L sample.
h Estimated detection limit for a 16.0 L sample.
1 Estimated detection limit for a 0.5 L sample.
All of the detection limits listed for the Frontier methods are method limits, which are essentially 10x the detection limit.
-------
At a Bioreactor Landfill
Table 2. Detection Limits for Target Compounds.
Est. Detect.
-— sa»--^p
(ppmv)
Acetaldehyde
Acetone
Acrylonitrile
Benzene
Bromodichloromethane
Butane
1 ,3-Butadiene
Carbon disulfide
Carbon tetrachloride
Carbonyl sulfide
Chlorobenzene
Chloroform
Chloromethane
1 ,4-Dichlorobenzene
Dichlorodifluoromethane
t-1 ,2-Dichloroethene
Dichlorofluoromethane
Dimethyl sulfide
Ethane
Ethanol
Ethyl benzene
Ethyl chloride
Ethyl mercaptan
Ethylene dibromide
Ethylene dichloride
Fluorotrichloromethane
Formaldehyde
Hexane
Hydrogen sulfide
Methane
Methyl chloroform
Methyl ethyl ketone
Methyl isobutyl ketone
Methyl mercaptan
Methylene chloride
Pentane
Propane
2-Propanol
Propylene dichloride
Tetrachloroethene
Toluene
FTIR
FTIR
FTIR
FTIR
FTIR
FTIR
FTIR
FTIR
FTIR
FTIR
FTIR
FTIR
FTIR
FTIR
FTIR
FTIR
FTIR
FTIR
FTIR
FTIR
FTIR
FTIR
FTIR
FTIR
FTIR
FTIR
FTIR
FTIR
FTIR
FTIR
FTIR
FTIR
FTIR
FTIR
FTIR
FTIR
FTIR
FTIR
FTIR
FTIR
FTIR
0.010
0.024
0.010
0.040
N/A
0.006
0.012
0.028
0.008
0.006
0.040
0.012
0.012
0.012
0.004
N/A
N/A
0.018
0.010
0.006
0.060
0.004
N/A
0.006
0.030
0.004
0.006
0.006
6.0
0.024
0.006
0.030
0.040
0.060
0.014
0.008
0.008
0.006
0.014
0.004
0.040
AP-42 Value3
(ppmv)
N/Ab
7.01
6.33
N/A
3.13
5.03
N/A
0.58
0.004
0.49
0.25
0.03
1.21
0.21
15.7
2.84
2.62
7.82
889.
27.2
4.61
1.25
2.28
0.001
0.41
0.76
N/A
6.57
35.5
N/A
N/A
7.09
1.87
2.49
14.3
3.29
11.1
50.1
0.18
3.73
N/A
continued
-------
Measurement of Fugitive Emissions
Table 2 (concluded). Detection Limits for Target Compounds.
Est. Detect.
Compound
Trichloroethylene
Vinyl chloride
Vinylidene chloride
Xylenes
Elemental mercury
Total mercury0
Dimethyl mercury
(carbotrap)0
Monomethyl mercury0
Total mercuryd
Dimethyl mercury
(carbotrap)d
Demethy mercury
(methanol)d
Monomethyl mercury
"sassf '
FTIR
FTIR
FTIR
FTIR
Lumex
(direct method)
TD-GC-AFSe
TD-GC-pyrolysis-
CVAFS'
TD-GC-CVAFS
TD-GC-AFS
TD-GC-pyrolysis-
CVAFS
TD-GC-CVAFSf
TD-GC-CVAFSf
l_MIMl IUI I- dll 1
1 min AVG.
(ppmv)
0.004
0.010
0.014
0.030
2-500 ng/m3 ^
33 ng/m3h
1.1 ng/m3i
0.63 ng/m3'
33 ng/m3h
19.8 ng/m3k
0.34 ng/m3h
0.34 ng/m3h
AP-42 Value3
(ppmv)
2.82
7.34
0.20
12.1
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 m across the sur-
face of the area source being evaluated. However, it does provide an indica-
tion 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 applicable.
c September 2002 campaign.
d September 2003 campaign.
e TD = thermal desorption; GC = gas chromatography; AFS = atomic
fluorescence spectrometry
f CVAFS = cold vapor atomic fluorescence, spectrometry
9 Estimated detection limit for natural and industrial gases. The landfill gas
would have to be assayed to determine the actual detection limit of the
instrument.
h Estimated detection limit for a 30 L sample.
' Estimated detection limit for a 9.0 L sample.
' Estimated detection limit for a 16.0 L sample.
k Estimated detection limit for a 0.5 L sample.
All of the detection limits listed for the Frontier methods are method limits, which
are essentially 10X the detection limit.
10
-------
At a Bioreactor Landfill
1.4 Schedule of Work Performed for
the Project
Three field measurement campaigns were completed for
this study. Surveying was done at the site during Septem-
ber 2002, May 2003, and September 2003. Table 3 pro-
vides the schedule of ORS work that was performed dur-
ing each field campaign.
Table 3. Schedule of ORS Work Performed at the Outer Loop Facility.
Field Campaign
Date
Day of Week
Detail of Work Performed
September 2002 6 September Friday
September 2002
September 2002
September 2002
September 2002
September 2002
September 2002
May 2003
May 2003
May 2003
May 2003
May 2003
May 2003
May 2003
7 September
8 September
9 September
10 September
11 September
12 September
27 May
28 May
29 May
30 May
31 May
2 June
3 June
Saturday
Sunday
Monday
Tuesday
Wednesday
Thursday
Tuesday
Wednesday
Thursday
Friday
Saturday
Monday
Tuesday
AM - Arrive at site
PM - Begin survey/set-up work
VRPM of Compost Area
HRPM and VRPM of As-Built Area
VRPM of Biocover Area
VRPM of Control Area
HRPM of Retrofit Area
VRPM of Retrofit Area
AM - Arrive at site
PM-HRPM of As-Built Area
HRPM of As-Built Area
VRPM of As-Built Area
VRPM of As-Built and Biocover Areas
VRPM of Biocover and Control Areas
HRPM of Retrofit Area
VRPM of Retrofit Area
September 2003
September 2003
September 2003
September 2003
September 2003
24 September
25 September
26 September
27 September
28 September
Wednesday
Thursday
Friday
Saturday
Sunday
AM - Arrive at site
PM- HRPM of As-Built Area
HRPM and VRPM of As-Built Area
HRPM and VRPM of As-Built Area
VRPM of Retrofit Area
HRPM of Retrofit Area
11
-------
Measurement of Fugitive Emissions
12
-------
At a Bioreactor Landfill
2. Testing Procedures, Results, and Discussion from the
Field Campaigns
The following subsections describe the testing procedures,
results, and a discussion of the results from the three field
campaigns completed at the Outer Loop Facility.
The discussion of the testing procedures includes a figure
detailing the orientation of the instruments in each survey
area. The figures represent magnifications of the pertinent
areas from Figure 1. These figures depict the locations of
the scanner/OP-FTIR instruments (indicated by the cylin-
drical figure), as well as the optical paths of the OP-FTIR
instruments. The location of the scissors jack is indicated
by a square. It should be noted that the orientation of the
instruments in each survey area changed slightly for each
subsequent field campaign.
The distance and horizontal and vertical position of each
retroreflector (mirror) were taken during each field cam-
paign and are presented in Appendix A of this report. Ad-
ditionally, a Global Positioning System (GPS) was used in
the May 2003, and September 2003 field campaign to
measure the coordinates of the boundaries of each survey
area. The GPS measurements are presented in Appendix D
of this report.
OP-FTIR data were collected as interferograms. All data
were archived to CD-ROMs. After archiving, interfero-
grams were transformed to absorbance spectra and then
calculated concentrations using a combination of
AutoQuant (Midac) and Non-Lin (Spectrosoft) quantifica-
tion software. This analysis was done after completion of
the field campaign. Concentration data were matched with
the appropriate mirror locations, wind speed, and wind di-
rection. MatLab (Math-works) software was used to pro-
cess the data into horizontal plane concentration maps or
vertical plane plume visualizations, as appropriate. The
fluxes are then determined as the sum across the matrix of
the point-wise multiplication of the concentrations times
the wind speed.
Meteorological data including wind direction, wind speed,
temperature, relative humidity, and barometric pressure
were continuously collected during the sampling/measure-
ment campaign with a Climatronics model 101990-
Glinstrument, which is automated. It collects real-time data
from its sensors and records time-stamped data as one-
minute averages to a data logger. Wind direction and speed-
sensing heads were used to collect data at two heights,
nominally at two and ten meters (the ten meter sensor was
placed on top of the scissors jack). The sensing heads for
wind direction incorporate an auto-northing function (au-
tomatically adjusts to magnetic north) that eliminates the
errors associated with subjective field alignment to a com-
pass heading. The sensing heads incorporate standard cup-
type wind speed sensors. Post-collection, a linear interpo-
lation between the two sets of data is done to estimate wind
velocity as a function of height.
The results from the ORS-RPM data collected at the Outer
Loop Facility are also presented in the following subsec-
tions. Statistical analysis was performed on several of the
data sets to assess data quality and consistency. At this time,
it is necessary to provide some background information
on some of the statistical parameters presented in this sec-
tion.
The concordance correlation factor (CCF) is used to repre-
sent the level of fit for the reconstruction in the path-inte-
grated domain (predicted vs observed PIC). The CCF is
similar to the Pearson correlation coefficient (r), but is ad-
justed to account for shifts in location and scale. Like the
Pearson correlation coefficient, CCF values are bounded
between -1 and 1, yet the CCF can never exceed the abso-
lute 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 absolute value will be lower than the
Pearson correlation when the above conditions are not met.
13
-------
Measurement of Fugitive Emissions
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 fluxes, a moving aver-
age is used in several of the tables to show temporal vari-
ability in the flux values. A moving average involves aver-
aging flux values calculated from several consecutive loops
(a loop is defined as data collected when scanning one time
through all the mirrors in the configuration). For example,
a data set taken from 5 loops may be reported using amov-
ing average of 4, where values from loops 1 to 4, and 2 to
5 are averaged together to show any variability in the flux
values.
During each of the three field campaigns, U.S. EPA per-
sonnel set up a bistatic OP-FTIR in an upwind location at
each survey area and operated it in a classical non-scan-
ning configuration. Refer to the maps of configurations
used in each area that are included in the subsections be-
low for the location of the bistatic instrument. Path-aver-
aged methane concentration data collected by this instru-
ment were used to establish background concentrations
from ambient, or upwind, sources. This was especially im-
portant during the September 2002 field campaign, since
only one monostatic OP-FTIR was used during this cam-
paign.
During the May 2003 field campaign, upwind data were
collected in each survey area with a second monostatic OP-
FTIR. The use of an upwind vertical configuration using
multiple mirrors allowed for the calculation of an upwind
flux value. Refer to the maps of configurations used in
each area for the location of the upwind configuration.
During the September 2003 field campaign, upwind data
were collected with a second monostatic OP-FTIR in the
As-Built Area. However, it was not possible to set up an
upwind vertical configuration in the Retrofit Area because
access to this area was limited. The bistatic OP-FTIR was
operating during the Retrofit VRPM survey (see Figure 33
for the location of the bistatic OP-FTIR configuration). The
path-averaged methane concentration data from this instru-
ment are presented below as an alternative to upwind flux
measurements.
The following sections contain figures depicting the re-
constructed methane plume map and calculated methane
flux generated from the collected data using the VRPM
method. It should be noted that the shape of the plume
maps generated by this method are used to give informa-
tion on the homogeneity of the plume and do not affect the
calculated flux values. The shape of the maps generated
represents the best fit of the limited data to a symmetric
Gaussian function, and this fit may drive the plume shape
outside of the configuration. The plume shapes depicted
should not be used to assess whether or not the plume was
captured by the VRPM configuration.
The calculated methane flux values are presented in grams
per second (g/s). However, the majority of the existing lit-
erature relating to methane emissions from landfills present
methane flux values in units of mass per unit area per time.
In order to normalize the calculated flux values to unit area,
the values are also presented in units of grams per square
meter per day (g/m2/day). The area of each emissions area
was estimated by multiplying the length of the VRPM con-
figuration by 50 m (the estimated upwind or downwind
distance that would be the largest contributor to measured
methane emissions).
2.1 As-Built Area
This section describes procedures and summarizes results
for the As-Built Area for the September 2002, May 2003,
and September 2003 field campaigns. It should be noted
that the dimensions of the As-Built area surveyed during
the May 2003, and September 2003 campaigns were not
consistent with the dimensions of the area provided during
the September 2002 campaign.
2.1.1 Testing Procedures used during the
September 2002 Field Campaign
Figure 4 shows the optical configurations used at the As-
Built Area during the September 2002 field campaign. Al-
though a full HRPM survey of the area was planned, this
was not possible due to the operations schedule in the As-
Built Area, and the limitations of the scanner equipment.
As an alternative, four surface non-scanning experiments
were performed prior to the VRPM survey. Although these
four surface scans do not permit construction of a contour
map of surface concentrations, they do provide the best
data available on concentrations of methane and volatile
organic compounds.
The VRPM configuration was set up along the southern
boundary of the As-Built Area (see Figure 4). The con-
figuration used one monostatic OP-FTIR, and five retrore-
flectors. Although it was desired to set up the configura-
tion along the entire southern boundary of the As-Built
Area, this was not possible due to limitations in the
monostatic OP-FTIR instrumentation.
14
-------
At a Bioreactor Landfill
Surface
Survey
Bistatic
Instrument
Prevailing
Wind
Direction
Upper Cell
Lower Cell
Surface
Survey^
OP-FTIR
Figure 4. Map of As-Built Area Showing Instrumentation
during the September 2002 Field Campaign.
Concurrent meteorological data were collected during these
tests. The bistatic OP-FTIR instrument was operated by
U.S. EPApersonnel along the western boundary ofthe As-
Built Area to collect background concentration data.
2.1.2 Results and Discussion from the
September 2002 Field Campaign
Table 4 presents the methane emission flux from the VRPM
survey ofthe As-Built Area (refer to Figure 4 for a map of
this site and the optical configurations there). The first col-
umn of this table refers to a running average calculation
from the several loops of data collected. The second col-
umn shows the calculated CCF. The third, fourth, and fifth
columns show the calculated methane flux (in g/s) as well
as the average wind speed and wind direction, respectively,
during the time the measurements were taken. The aver-
age wind speed and wind direction values were obtained
from the ORS-RPM software. The methane concentrations
used to create this table can be found in Appendix B.
Figure 5 presents a map ofthe reconstructed methane plume
from the As-Built VRPM survey. Contour lines give meth-
ane concentrations in ppmv. The average calculated meth-
ane flux from the As-Built Area was 140 g/s (this average
is the average of all ofthe loops used in the flux calcula-
tion, while the average reported in Table 4 is an average of
the fluxes calculated using amoving average of four loops).
This value is converted to units of grams per square meter,
per day (g/m2/day) by multiplying by 86,400 s/day, and
dividing by the area (in meters squared) ofthe upwind sur-
Table 4. Moving Average of the Calculated Methane Flux,
CCF, Wind Speed, and Wind Direction for the As-Built Area
During the September 2002 Field Campaign.
Loops
1 to 4
2 to 5
3 to 6
4 to 7
Average
Std. Dev. of Mean
CCF
0.980
0.977
0.962
0.958
0.969
0.0108
Flux
(g/s)
170
180
170
120
Wind
Speed
(m/s)
1.9
2.4
2.5
2.2
Wind
Direction3
(deg)
51
33
36
43
Measured from a vector normal to the configuration plane.
vey area. The area of the upwind survey area was calcu-
lated based on survey measurements taken during the field
campaign. The methane flux value ofthe As-Built Area
was 1400 g/m2/day.
Concentrations of various compounds were calculated from
the four surface non-scanning experiments as well as the
from VRPM experiments. The measured concentrations are
presented in the Appendix B of this report.
Background data collected with the bistatic OP-FTIR found
an average methane concentration of 8.6 ppmv. Figure 4
shows that the bistatic OP-FTIR configuration was located
along the western boundary ofthe As-Built Area. Although
the prevailing wind direction was from the northeast dur-
ing the VRPM surveys (see Figure 4), the prevailing winds
were generally from the west-northwest during the time
that background data was collected. However, closer in-
spection ofthe wind data collected at the time ofthe back-
ground measurements found that the wind directions were
variable, and some of the background data probably in-
cluded some methane emissions from the landfill. Conse-
quently, the background measurements were probably not
indicative of a true background methane measurement for
the As-Built Area.
Due to time constraints and instrument limitations discussed
previously, a complete HRPM survey ofthe As-Built Area
was not performed to identify the exact location of hot spots,
which may have contributed to the calculated methane flux.
However, a non-scanning surface survey was performed
in the As-Built using four beams. This survey was con-
ducted over the western and central areas ofthe As-Built
Area (see Figure 4). Analysis ofthe wind data revealed
that the prevailing wind direction during the VRPM sur-
vey was from the northeast. Using this wind data, and the
15
-------
Measurement of Fugitive Emissions
Concentrations are in ppm
Flux = 140g/s
20
60 180 100
Crosswind Distance (m)
120
140
160
Figure 5. Average Reconstructed Methane Plume from the September 2002 As-Built VRPM Survey.
fact that much lower methane concentrations were found
during the surface survey of the western and central por-
tions of the As-Built Area, the conclusion can be drawn
based on the method described by Hashmonay and Yost
[ 1999] that any hot spots contributing to the methane fluxes
calculated were probably located in the eastern portion of
the As-Built Area (consisting of cells 4A and 4B).
The average calculated methane flux from the As-Built Area
was 140 g/s. However, this value may be a low estimate of
the total methane flux from the As-Built Area. The observed
wind direction during the VRPM survey was variable, and
environments having variable wind directions are classi-
fied as unstable. Other studies have found that calculated
fluxes could underestimate actual fluxes by as much as
35% in unstable environments [Hashmonay et al., 2001].
Additionally, the axis of the VRPM configuration was ori-
ented along the southern boundary of the As-Built Area
(see Figure 4). However, due to limitations in the optical
range of the OP-FTIR instrument (see Section 4.7.1 for
further discussion), it was not possible for the VRPM con-
figuration to include the entire southern boundary of the
survey area. Thus, it is possible that the entire methane
plume from the As-Built was not captured by the vertical
configuration. Consequently, the calculated methane flux
from the As-Built Area may be underestimating the actual
flux, but the major identified hot spot was fully quantified.
This is supported by the results shown in Figure 5, which
shows that the plume concentrations are not homogenous
along the crosswind axis. This indicates that the source of
the methane plume (hot spot) is located in close proximity
to the vertical configuration, which greatly increases the
chances that all emissions from this hot spot were cap-
tured by the vertical configuration.
2.1.3 Testing Procedures Used During the
May 2003 Field Campaign
During the May 2003 field campaign, HRPM and VRPM
were conducted in the As-Built Area, which consisted of
an upper cell (4A) and a lower cell (4B). Due to the size of
the As-Built Area and the large slope that existed between
the two cells, the cells were surveyed separately during
this field campaign. The GPS coordinates of the bound-
aries of the cells are presented in Appendix D.
16
-------
At a Bioreactor Landfill
HRPM of both cells was completed separately using one
monostatic OP-FTIR. For the horizontal survey of the lower
cell, the OP-FTIR/scanner was placed in the southwest
corner of the cell, and eight retroreflectors were placed
along the surface of the area. The HRPM survey of the
upper cell was conducted using eight retroreflectors as well,
with the OP-FTIR/scanner placed in the southeastern cor-
ner of the cell. Figure 6 shows the HRPM configuration
used for the survey of the lower cell.
VRPM surveys of both cells were completed using two
monostatic OP-FTIR instruments and two scissors jacks.
The configuration formed two vertical planes (one upwind
and one downwind). Two retroreflectors were used in the
upwind vertical plane, and six retroreflectors were used in
Figure 6. HRPM Configuration Used to Survey the As-
Built Lower Cell During the May 2003 Field Campaign.
the downwind vertical plane. Figures 7 and 8 show the
vertical configurations used for the upper and lower cells,
respectively, of the As-Built Area. Figure 9 is a photograph
of the VRPM configuration used in the survey of the up-
per cell.
In addition to the HRPM and VRPM surveys, a more de-
tailed HRPM survey was done on a large slope that sepa-
rated the lower and upper cells of the As-Built Area. Dur-
ing the field campaign, a large number of shredded tires
were observed along the surface of the slope. Five retrore-
flectors were set up across the surface of the slope to col-
lect data. The monostatic OP-FTIR was located on the up-
per cell, and scanned downward across the surface of the
slope to the five retroreflectors.
Concurrent meteorological data were collected during these
tests. Additionally, the bistatic OP-FTIR instrument was
OP-FTIR #1
OP-FTIR #2
Upper Cell
Prevailing
Wind
Direction
N
W< >E
Lower Cell
Figure 7. Map of As-Built Area Upper Cell Showing the
Location of Vertical Planes Used During the May 2003 Field
Campaign.
operated by U.S. EPA personnel in a location south of the
As-Built Area.
2.1.4 Results and Discussion from the May
2003 Field Campaign
As mentioned above, HRPM and VRPM were performed
in both cells of the As-Built Area. The HRPM surveys were
performed to identify methane hot spots. Figures 10 and
11 present a contour map of reconstructed methane con-
centrations (in parts per million by volume) for the upper
and lower cells, respectively. The figures show the pres-
ence of two methane hot spots in the upper cell and two
hot spots in the lower cell. The most intense hot spot (over
210 ppmv) was located in the lower cell.
Table 5 presents the methane emission flux from the down-
wind VRPM survey of the As-Built upper area. Due to
differences in the temporal resolution of the upwind and
downwind collected data, the upwind data from this area
were not included in this report. The upwind vertical con-
figuration was scanned manually, with the OP-FTIR dwell-
ing on each retroreflector for 30 min, while the downwind
configuration was scanned automatically with the OP-FTIR
dwelling on each retroreflector for 30 s. The resulting dif-
ferences in resolution between the two configurations made
it extremely difficult to produce a valid comparison of the
17
-------
Measurement of Fugitive Emissions
Upper Cell
N
. Prevailing
\ Wind
\ Direction
\
OP-FTIR #2
OP-FTIR#1
Lower Cell
Figure 8. Map of As-Built Area Lower Cell Showing the
Location of Vertical Planes Used During the May 2003 Field
Campaign.
Figure 9. VRPM Configuration Used for the Survey of the
Upper Cell During the May 2003 Field Campaign.
upwind and downwind fluxes. Refer to Figure 5 for a map
of the cell and the optical configurations used there. The
methane concentrations used to create this table can be
found in Appendix B.
Figure 12 is a map of the reconstructed methane plume
from the downwind As-Built upper cell VRPM survey.
180 '
20 40
Distance (m)
Figure 10. Reconstructed Methane Surface Concen-
trations (in ppm) for the As-Built Upper Cell During the
May 2003 Field Campaign.
Contour lines give methane concentrations in parts per
million by volume. The average calculated methane flux
from this survey was 32 g/s, which is equivalent to ap-
proximately 250 g/m2/day.
Table 6 presents the methane emission flux from the down-
wind VRPM survey of the As-Built lower area. Due to prob-
lems with data processing, the results of the upwind sur-
vey from this area are not available. Refer to Figure 8 for a
map of the cell and the optical configurations used there.
The methane concentrations used to create this table can
be found in Appendix B.
Figure 13 is a map of the reconstructed methane plume
from the downwind As-Built lower cell VRPM survey.
Contour lines give methane concentrations in parts per
18
-------
At a Bioreactor Landfill
20
40
60
140 160
180
80 100 120
Distance (m)
Figure 11. Reconstructed Methane Surface Concentrations (in ppmv) for the As-Built
During the May 2003 Field Campaign.
200
Lower Cell
Table 5. Moving Average of Calculated Methane Flux, CCF,
Wind Speed, and Wind Direction for the Downwind As-
Built Area Upper Cell During the May 2003 Field Campaign.
Loops
1 to 4
2 to 5
3 to 6
4 to 7
5 to 8
6 to 9
7 to 10
8 to 11
9 to 12
10 to 13
11 to 14
12 to 15
13 to 16
14 to 17
1 5 to 1 8
1 6 to 1 9
1 7 to 20
18 to 21
1 9 to 22
20 to 23
21 to 24
22 to 25
23 to 26
24 to 27
25 to 28
26 to 29
Average
Std. Dev.
CCF
0.881
0.889
0.961
0.941
0.945
0.984
0.932
0.919
0.907
0.976
0.994
0.963
0.990
0.893
0.942
0.916
0.826
0.899
0.998
0.880
0.822
0.898
0.963
0.974
0.983
0.867
0.929
0.0503
Flux
(g/s)
55
69
88
75
62
65
59
43
41
17
12
9.5
9.4
37
37
32
28
29
32
30
43
59
53
48
37
33
II IU
Speed
(m/s)
4.2
3.7
3.6
3.5
3.3
3.0
2.8
2.6
2.6
2.6
2.6
2.6
2.8
2.7
2.6
2.0
2.8
2.5
2.7
3.0
3.5
3.6
3.4
3.3
3.3
3.5
Wind Dir.a
(deg)
61
51
49
53
55
59
61
65
65
65
65
65
64
57
64
65
71
65
64
64
58
55
56
60
64
70
a Wind direction shown is measured from a vector
normal to the plane of the configuration.
million by volume. The average calculated methane flux
from this survey was 99 g/s, which is equivalent to ap-
proximately 660 g/m2/day.
As mentioned above, two methane hot spots were detected
along the surface of the upper cell, and two hot spots were
detected along the surface of the lower cell. Three of the
hot spots detected were located adjacent to the slope sepa-
rating the two cells, indicating that this area may be a sig-
nificant source of methane emissions in the As-Built Area.
The average calculated methane flux from the upper and
lower cells was 32 g/s and 99 g/s, respectively. The meth-
ane flux values measured in the lower cell were much higher
than those measured in the upper cell. This is probably due
to the fact that the observed winds during the vertical sur-
vey of the lower cell were closer to perpendicular to the
vertical plane than during the vertical surveys of the upper
cell. This allowed a greater portion of the methane emis-
sions to be captured by the vertical plane of the lower cell
survey.
2.1.5 Testing Procedures Used During the
September 2003 Field Campaign
HRPM and VRPM were conducted in the As-Built Area
during the September 2003 field campaign. The topogra-
phy of the As-Built Area was identical to the May 2003
field campaign, so the two cells were again surveyed sepa-
rately. The GPS coordinates of the boundaries of the cells
are presented in Appendix D.
HRPM of both cells was completed separately using one
monostatic OP-FTIR. For the horizontal survey of the lower
19
-------
Measurement of Fugitive Emissions
Concentrations are in ppm
Flux = 32 g/s
2 -
40 60
80 100 120 140
Crosswind Distance (m)
160 180 200 220
Figure 12. Average Reconstructed Methane Plume from the May 2003 Downwind As-Built Upper VRPM Survey.
25
20
I 15
.0)
I
10
- Concentrations are in ppm
Flux = 99 g/s
Mirror 3
Mirror 5
Mirror 4
50
200
Crosswind Distance (m)
Mirror 6
i •
250
Figure 13. Average Reconstructed Methane Plume from the May 2003 As-Built Lower VRPM Survey.
20
-------
At a Bioreactor Landfill
Table 6. Moving Average of Calculated Methane Flux, CCF,
Wind Speed, and Wind Direction for the As-Built Area
Lower Cell During the May 2003 Field Campaign.
Loops
1 to 4
2 to 5
3 to 6
4 to 7
5 to 8
6 to 9
7 to 10
8 to 11
9 to 12
10 to 13
11 to 14
12 to 15
13 to 16
14 to 17
1 5 to 1 8
1 6 to 1 9
1 7 to 20
18 to 21
1 9 to 22
20 to 23
Average
Std. Dev.
CCF
0.999
0.999
0.999
0.999
0.999
0.996
0.995
0.988
0.997
0.975
0.980
0.982
0.982
0.986
0.999
0.997
0.997
0.997
0.997
0.996
0.993
0.0076
Flux
(g/s)
140
130
110
94
79
130
98
95
140
150
140
140
120
110
76
160
170
170
180
170
Wind
Speed
(m/s)
4.9
4.5
4.5
4.2
4.6
4.6
4.4
4.6
3.9
3.8
3.6
3.6
3.6
4.0
4.8
5.2
5.5
5.3
5.1
4.9
Wind Dir.a
(deg)
297
294
296
292
293
296
291
291
297
306
306
306
304
297
296
296
295
297
299
301
was being set up, the breeze was out of the north, and the
downwind plane had six retroreflectors. But the breeze
shifted to out of the south as Figure 14 shows when mea-
surements began, putting the six retroreflectors in the up-
wind direction. Figures 14 and 15 show the vertical con-
figurations used for the upper and lower cells of the As-
Built Area.
OP-FTIR#1
OP-FTIR#2
Upper Cell
Prevailing
Wind
Direction
Lower Cell
a Wind direction shown is measured from a vector
normal to the plane of the configuration.
Figure 14. Map of As-Built Area Upper Cell Showing
Location of Vertical Planes Used During the September
2003 Field Campaign.
cell, the OP-FTIR was placed in the southwest corner of
the cell, and eight retroreflectors were placed along the
surface of the area. The HRPM survey of the upper cell
was done using eight retroreflectors as well, with the OP-
FTIR placed in the southwestern corner of the cell.
VRPM surveys of both cells were completed using two
monostatic OP-FTIR instruments, and two scissors jacks.
The configuration formed two vertical planes (one upwind
plane, and one downwind plane). For the VRPM survey of
the lower cell, three retroreflectors were used in the up-
wind vertical plane located along the southern boundary
of the cell, and six retroreflectors were used in the down-
wind vertical plane located along the northern boundary
of the cell. For the VRPM survey of the upper cell, only
two retroreflectors were used in the downwind vertical
plane along the northern boundary of the cell, and six ret-
roreflectors were used in the upwind vertical plane located
along the southern boundary of the cell. When the VRPM
Upper Cell
OP-FTIR #2
Lower Cell
OP-FTIR #1
t
Prevailing
Wind
Direction
.
Figure 15. Map of As-Built Area Lower Cell Showing
Location of Vertical Planes Used During the September
2003 Field Campaign.
21
-------
Measurement of Fugitive Emissions
Meteorological data were collected concurrently with the
emissions data during these tests. Additionally, the bistatic
OP-FTIR instrument was operated by U.S. EPA personnel
in a location south of the As-Built Area.
for the upper and lower cells, respectively. The figures show
the presence of one methane hot spot in the upper cell and
two methane hot spots in the lower cell. The three hot spots
detected were similar in magnitude.
2.1.6 Results and Discussion from the
September 2003 Field Campaign
HRPM and VRPM were performed in the both cells of the
As-Built Area. The HRPM surveys were performed to iden-
tify methane hot spots. Figures 16 and 17 are a contour
map of reconstructed methane concentrations (in ppmv)
Tables 7 and 8 present the methane emission flux from the
upwind and downwind VRPM survey, respectively, of the
As-Built upper area. It should be noted that, in general, the
highest calculated methane fluxes occur during periods
when the observed wind direction is close to perpendicu-
lar to the plane of the configuration. Refer to Figure 14 for
N
0>
c
re
60
40
20
50
100
Distance (m)
150
200
Figure 16. Reconstructed Methane Surface Concentrations (in ppmv) for the As-Built Upper Cell During the September
2003 Field Campaign.
N
70
60
£ 50
^40
§ 30
4-1
V)
0 20
10
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Distance (m)
140 160 180 200
Figure 17. Reconstructed Methane Surface Concentrations (in ppmv) for the As-Built Lower Cell During the September
2003 Field Campaign.
22
-------
At a Bioreactor Landfill
Table 7. Moving Average of Calculated Methane Flux, CCF, Tab|e 8 (concluded). Moving Average of Calculated
Wind Speed, and Wind Direction for the Upwind As-Built Methane Flux, Wind Speed, and Wind Direction for the
Area Upper Cell During the September 2003 Field Downwind As-Built Area Upper Cell During the September
Campaign. 2003 Field Campaign.
f\f\w- Flux — . Wind Dir.a
Loops CCF , , , Speed , . ,
(g ' (mis) { 9) . Flux ™md. WindDir.b
1
3
4
5
6
7
to 4
to 5
to 6
to 7
to 8
to 9
to 10
Average
Std. Dev.
a
0.938
Of\f\f\
.990
0.987
0.990
0.984
0.965
0.967
0.974
0.0192
230
H ~7f\
170
201
220
240
200
150
Wind direction shown is measured from
normal to the plane of the configuration.
5.8 38
6f\ Ort
.0 29
5.6 22
4.7 13
5.1 21
4.6 33
4.5 49
a vector
Table 8. Moving Average of Calculated Methane Flux, Wind
Speed, and Wind Direction for the Downwind As-Built Area
Upper Cell During the September 2003 Field Campaign. a
Loops
1 to 4
2 to 5
3 to 6
4 to 7
5 to 8
6 to 9
7 to 10
8 to 11
9 to 12
10 to 13
11 to 14
12 to 15
13 to 16
14 to 17
15 to 18
16 to 19
1 7 to 20
18 to 21
1 9 to 22
20 to 23
21 to 24
22 to 25
23 to 26
24 to 27
25 to 28
26 to 29
27 to 30
Flux
(g/s)
200
210
230
280
280
260
200
150
150
130
130
150
160
250
330
310
290
260
230
200
190
170
160
99
98
110
140
Speed
(m/s)
6.7
6.5
6.1
6.2
6.5
6.6
6.8
6.5
6.3
5.4
5.0
4.6
4.5
5.6
6.4
6.7
6.1
5.7
4.5
3.8
3.5
3.6
4.4
4.6
4.9
4.7
5.2
Wind Dir.b
(deg)
50
46
39
34
34
37
50
57
51
48
42
36
34
25
14
10
6
6
3
2
10
27
47
67
70
66
59
continued
i_uup&
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
to
to
to
to
to
to
to
to
to
to
to
to
to
to
to
to
to
to
to
to
to
to
to
to
to
to
to
to
to
to
to
to
to
to
to
ot
to
to
to
to
a CCF
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
(g/s)
130
84
120
190
190
270
290
290
230
180
200
230
220
220
190
160
200
210
220
240
230
230
220
170
150
130
110
140
160
210
250
230
180
120
96
98
120
140
150
160
values were all 1
mirrors were
opeeu
(m/s)
5.3
4.8
5.3
6.1
6.2
6.3
6.1
6.3
6.0
5.3
5.5
5.3
4.8
4.8
4.6
4.0
4.9
5.4
5.9
6.7
7.0
6.9
6.7
6.5
6.1
5.8
5.1
4.8
4.3
4.3
4.4
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.9
4.9
4.9
4.9
5.2
5.1
.00 because only
used in the reconstruction.
(deg)
57
67
64
45
39
29
26
29
37
37
33
25
20
19
21
25
21
27
34
35
42
42
42
49
50
48
44
32
23
17
15
28
41
55
64
62
58
49
48
44
two
so CCFs
are not included.
b Wind direction shown
normal to the
plane of
is measured from
the configuration.
a vector
23
-------
Measurement of Fugitive Emissions
a map of the cell and the optical configurations used there.
The methane concentrations used to create these tables can
be found in Appendix B.
Figures 18 and 19 are maps of the reconstructed methane
plume from the upwind and downwind As-Built upper cell
VRPM surveys, respectively. Contour lines give methane
concentrations in ppmv. The average calculated methane
flux from the upwind survey was 200 g/s, which is equiva-
lent to approximately 1300 g/m2/day. The average calcu-
lated methane flux from the downwind survey was 210 g/
s, which is equivalent to approximately 1400 g/m2/day.
Although the difference between the average calculated
upwind and downwind methane fluxes is about 10 g/s, a
more accurate representation of the methane fluxes from
this area is obtained by looking at the peak methane values
from the upwind and downwind surveys because peak
fluxes typically occur when wind directions are closer to
being perpendicular to the configurations. When wind di-
rections are diagonal to the configurations, hot spots out-
side of the survey area could influence one vertical plane
and miss the other, introducing error to the flux difference
between the planes. Table 7 shows that the peak upwind
methane fluxes occur during times that the winds are the
most perpendicular to the upwind configuration (220 g/s
when the winds are 13° from perpendicular and 240 g/s
when the winds are 21 ° from perpendicular). Table 8 shows
that the peak downwind methane fluxes also occur during
times that the winds are the most perpendicular to the con-
figuration (330 g/s when the winds are 14° from perpen-
dicular and 310 g/s when the winds are 10° from perpen-
dicular). Since the truest representation of net methane flux
from the area occurs when the winds are perpendicular to
the vertical configurations, it is likely that the actual net
methane flux from the As-Built Upper cell is approximately
90 g/s.
Tables 9 and 10 present the methane emission flux from
the upwind and downwind VRPM survey of the As-Built
lower area, respectively. Refer to Figure 15 for a map of
the cell and the optical configurations used there. The meth-
ane concentrations used to create these tables can be found
in Appendix B.
Figures 20 and 21 present maps of the reconstructed meth-
ane plume from the upwind and downwind As-Built lower
cell VRPM surveys, respectively. Contour lines give meth-
ane concentrations in ppmv. The average calculated meth-
ane flux from the upwind survey was approximately 140
16
14
12
O)
'o>
I
Concentrations are in ppmv
Flux = 200
Methane Concentration
Mirror 5
50
Mirror 1 100 150
Crosswind Distance (m)
200
250
Figure 18. Average Reconstructed Methane Plume from the September 2003 Upwind As-Built Upper Cell VRPM Survey.
24
-------
At a Bioreactor Landfill
8
1 6
£
O)
X 4
2
Concentrations are in ppmv
Flux = 210 g/s
9-1
•10 -I
0-7 o
54 3
^r
50
The flat shape of the plume might
be due to the 2-rrwrQr OP-FTIR
configuration rather than the plume itself.
Methane Concentration >~
91 «">
1H 1
1-7 1
jc Q — -"""""^
^-^~
~-^*~"^36 °
54 3
dr> A
i Mirror 1 1 i
100
150
4rT
n-i n
1
200
Mirror_2
_--— ~
36.2 —
-54.3
j
250
Crosswind Distance (m)
Figure 19. Average Reconstructed Methane Plume from
Survey.
g/s, which is equivalent to approximately 1200 g/m2/day.
The average calculated methane flux from the downwind
survey was approximately 200 g/s, which is equivalent to
approximately 1400 g/m2/day.
Table 9. Moving Average of Calculated
Methane Flux, CCF,
Wind Speed, and Wind Direction for the Upwind As-Built
Area Lower Cell During the September 2003 Campaign.
Loops CCF . , \
(g/s)
1to4 0.913 430
2 to 5 0.922 420
3 to 6 0.916 390
4 to 7 0.881 350
5 to 8 0.786 280
6 to 9 0.736 250
7 to 10 0.682 220
8 to 11 0.813 200
9 to 12 0.753 190
10 to 13 0.782 160
11 to 14 0.881 130
12 to 15 0.859 150
13 to 16 0.914 160
14 to 17 0.880 170
15 to 18 0.827 140
16 to 19 0.759 110
17 to 20 0.708 85
18 to 21 0.827 87
Wind Wjnd Dj|.a
(mis) ^ g)
5.1 14
5.2 12
5.1 12
4.8 14
4.6 22
4.1 21
3.7 17
3.4 17
3.6 15
3.5 23
3.4 33
3.3 27
3.3 20
3.6 25
3.4 26
3.2 27
2.6 16
2.2 3
the September
Loops
1 9 to 22
20 to 23
21 to 24
22 to 25
23 to 26
24 to 27
25 to 28
26 to 29
27 to 30
28 to 31
29 to 32
30 to 33
31 to 34
32 to 35
33 to 36
34 to 37
35 to 38
36 to 39
37 to 40
38 to 41
39 to 42
40 to 43
41 to 44
42 to 45
43 to 46
44 to 47
45 to 48
2003 Downwind As-Built Upper Cell VRPM
CCF
0.800
0.864
0.855
0.865
0.888
0.837
0.804
0.788
0.872
0.926
0.918
0.864
0.803
0.832
0.792
0.835
0.873
0.809
0.711
0.664
0.962
0.935
0.930
0.884
0.839
0.825
0.828
F|ux ^T^ Wind Dir-a
<9fe> IE!)" «*•>
110 2.8 6
130 3.5 23
130 3.9 45
120 4.1 52
130 3.8 43
150 3.6 30
150 3.6 19
120 3.2 6
130 3.2 1
150 3.6 3
160 3.5 16
170 3.7 29
170 3.7 31
160 3.5 29
150 3.7 18
120 3.4 5
100 3.2 360
100 3.2 358
82 2.9 2
48 2.5 38
47 2.0 41
45
56
53
57
1 .5 354
1.7 9
1.6 10
1.6 22
84 2.4 23
110 2.7 19
continued
continued
25
-------
Measurement of Fugitive Emissions
Table 9 (concluded). Moving Average of Calculated
Methane Flux, CCF, Wind Speed, and Wind Direction for
the Upwind As-Built Area Lower Cell During the September
2003 Campaign.
Loops CCF / / \ Speed , . ,
(9/sj (mi^\ \"®9/
46 to 49
47 to 50
48 to 51
49 to 52
50 to 53
51 to 54
52 to 55
53 to 56
54 to 57
55 to 58
56 to 59
57 to 60
58 to 61
59 to 62
60 to 63
61 to 64
62 to 65
63 to 66
64 to 67
65 to 68
66 to 69
67 to 70
68 to 71
69 to 72
Average
Std. Dev.
0.852
0.856
0.750
0.803
0.814
0.846
0.895
0.855
0.832
0.689
0.541
0.777
0.554
0.713
0.725
0.475
0.629
0.703
0.734
0.848
0.727
0.817
0.884
0.940
0.810
0.0961
a Wind direction shown is
160
200
220
220
210
230
230
260
210
140
84
64
66
67
120
130
170
190
140
92
46
23
15
24
measured from
3.5
4.1
4.5
4.2
3.9
4.3
4.3
4.8
4.6
3.9
2.8
2.2
2.7
2.7
3.6
4.2
4.5
5.0
4.9
4.3
3.6
2.8
2.1
2.3
a vector
14
8
7
5
355
350
346
347
359
358
342
336
330
325
344
352
359
14
22
15
6
339
313
308
normal to the plane of the configuration.
Table 10.
CCF, Wind
Moving Average of Calculated Methane Flux,
Speed, and Wind Direction for the Downwind
As-Built Area Lower Cell
Campaign.
Loops
1 to 4
2 to 5
3 to 6
4 to 7
5 to 8
6 to 9
7 to 10
8 to 11
CCF
0.878
1.000
0.941
0.999
0.976
0.720
0.914
0.780
During the September 2003 Field
Flux ,
(q/s)
\5J'W/
110
92
97
100
150
130
140
140
Wind
Speed
(m/s)
3.5
3.4
3.2
3.0
2.9
2.7
2.9
2.9
W'nddeg'r'a
311
310
307
305
308
314
322
328
continued
Table 10 (concluded). Moving Average of Calculated
Methane Flux, CCF, Wind Speed, and Wind Direction for
the Downwind As-Built Area Lower Cell During the
September 2003 Field Campaign.
Loop, CCF 55 sg™'
9 to 12
10 to 13
11 to 14
12 to 15
13 to 16
14 to 17
1 5 to 1 8
1 6 to 1 9
1 7 to 20
18 to 21
1 9 to 22
20 to 23
21 to 24
22 to 25
23 to 26
24 to 27
25 to 28
26 to 29
27 to 30
28 to 31
29 to 32
30 to 33
31 to 34
32 to 35
33 to 36
34 to 37
35 to 38
36 to 39
37 to 40
38 to 41
39 to 42
40 to 43
41 to 44
42 to 45
43 to 46
44 to 47
45 to 48
46 to 49
47 to 50
Average
Std. Dev.
0.994
0.986
0.977
0.958
0.967
0.942
0.947
0.678
0.624
0.908
0.638
0.722
0.921
0.752
0.948
0.735
0.966
0.699
0.709
0.739
0.627
0.874
0.864
0.613
0.610
0.940
1.000
0.992
0.995
0.946
0.921
0.811
0.940
0.632
0.680
0.650
0.699
0.957
0.976
0.846
0.1376
a Wind direction shown is
normal to
66
75
82
130
130
150
150
130
120
130
91
84
120
73
99
160
220
310
370
380
340
380
370
320
310
270
190
150
150
90
92
95
73
74
67
61
52
40
25
measured from
2.9
3.0
2.9
3.6
4.2
4.5
4.7
4.3
3.9
3.6
3.3
3.2
3.2
3.2
3.3
4.0
5.3
6.6
8.2
8.4
7.7
6.9
5.8
5.5
5.2
5.1
4.6
4.2
3.9
3.6
3.7
3.7
3.7
3.5
3.5
3.4
3.3
3.1
2.5
a vector
326
323
318
321
325
328
330
331
333
331
337
336
335
339
337
343
348
349
355
357
359
1
3
8
8
13
17
16
23
32
32
30
22
19
18
14
14
19
55
the plane of the configuration.
26
-------
At a Bioreactor Landfill
10
E 8
O)
'53
Concentrations are in ppmv
Flux= 140 g/s
The flat shape of the plume might
bo due to the 3-mirror OP-FTIR
configuration rather than the plume itself
Methane Concentration
20 40 60 80""" v> 100 120 140 160 180 200
Mirror 2
Crosswind Distance (m)
Figure 20. Average Reconstructed Methane Plume from the September 2003 Upwind As-Built Lower VRPM Survey.
14
12
10
Concentrations are in ppmv
Flux = 200 g/s
Methane
Concentration
50
100 Mirror 2 150
Crosswind Distance (m)
200
250
Figure 21. Average Reconstructed Methane Plume from the September 2003 Downwind As-Built Lower VRPM Survey.
27
-------
Measurement of Fugitive Emissions
2.2 Retrofit Area
The Retrofit Area is located in the northeast quadrant of
the Outer Loop Facility (see Figure 1) and is directly adja-
cent to the Louisville International Airport. Testing for this
project was performed on the eight-acre flat area on top of
this multi-cell unit. Due to the site's elevation, proximity
to the airport, and the height of the fully extended scissors
jacks used in this project, approval from the Federal Avia-
tion Administration (FAA) for narrowly defined scissors
jack locations was required. In some cases, this limited the
possible configuration locations used for the VRPM sur-
veys in this area. This section describes procedures and
summarizes results from the Retrofit Area for the Septem-
ber 2002, May 2003, and September 2003 field campaigns.
2.2.1 Testing Procedures Used During the
September 2002 Field Campaign
HRPM and VRPM were performed at the Retrofit Area
test site. Due to the size and dimensions of the site and
limitations of the OP-FTIR used for this campaign, ex-
periments of each type were performed on the northern
and southern areas of this plateau.
HRPM was done at the Retrofit Area using one monostatic
OP-FTIR instrument. For the survey of the northern area,
eight retroreflectors were used, and the OP-FTIR was
placed in the southwest corner of the area. The survey of
the southern area was completed using eight retroreflec-
tors as well, and the OP-FTIR was placed in the northwest
corner of the area. Figure 22 shows a picture of the HRPM
configuration used for the survey.
The vertical surveys of the two areas were completed us-
ing one monostatic OP-FTIR instrument, and one scissors
Figure 22. HRPM Configuration Used in the Retrofit Area
During the September 2002 Field Campaign.
jack. The configuration for each area used five retroreflec-
tors, and the vertical plane formed was located on the west-
ern boundary (downwind side) of the survey area. Figure
23 shows the location of the vertical configurations used
at the Retrofit Area test site.
Meteorological data were collected concurrently during
these tests. U.S. EPA personnel operated a non-scanning
bistatic OP-FTIR in an upwind location concurrent with
these tests.
*
Bistatic
FTIR
"
North Scan
OP-FTIR
South Scan
Prevailing
Wind
Direction
Plateau
Area
Figure 23. Map of Retrofit Area (north and south) Showing
the Location of the Vertical Planes and Background
Measurements During the September 2002 Field
Campaign.
2.2.2 Results and Discussion from the
September 2002 Field Campaign
The HRPM survey was performed to identify methane hot
spots. Figure 24 is a contour map of reconstructed meth-
ane concentrations (in ppmv) from this area. The figure
shows the presence of two hot spots (areas where methane
concentrations were close to 80 ppmv). The circles show
the locations often gas extraction pipes observed in the
Retrofit Area.
28
-------
At a Bioreactor Landfill
Concentrations are in ppmv
200
180
16O
14O
Table 11. Moving Average of Calculated Methane Flux,
CCF, Wind Speed, and Wind Direction for the Retrofit North
Area During the September 2002 Field Campaign.
120 .E.
S
100 .£
80
6O
4O
2O
5O 4O 30 20 10
Distance (m)
o -10
Figure 24. Reconstructed Methane Surface Concen-
trations for the Retrofit North and South Areas During the
September 2002 Field Campaign.
Tables 11 and 12 present methane emission flux determi-
nations for the northern and southern halves of the Retrofit
Area, respectively. Refer to Figure 23 for a map of this site
and the optical configurations there. The methane concen-
trations used to create these tables can be found in Appen-
dix B.
Figures 25 and 26 present the reconstructed methane plume
from Retrofit North and South VRPM survey, respectively.
Contour lines give methane concentrations in ppmv. The
average calculated methane flux for the northern half of
the Retrofit Area was 19 g/s, which is equivalent to ap-
proximately 310 g/m2/day, and the average calculated meth-
ane flux for the southern half was 18 g/s, which is equiva-
lent to approximately 330 g/m2/day.
Loops
1 to 4
2 to 5
Average
Std. Dev.
CCF
0.980
0.987
0.983
0.0049
Flux
(g/s)
20
18
Wind ..... _.
Speed , . , '
1 fl^fl 1
(m/s) (ae9>
3.1 355
3.3 356
a Wind direction shown is measured from a vector
normal to the plane of the configuration.
Table 12. Moving Average of Calculated Methane Flux,
CCF, Wind Speed, and Wind Direction for the Retrofit South
Area During the September 2002 Field Campaign.
Loops
1 to 4
2 to 5
3 to 6
4 to 7
5 to 8
6 to 9
7 to 10
8 to 11
9 to 12
10 to 13
11 to 14
12 to 15
13 to 16
Average
Std. Dev.
CCF
0.976
0.937
0.924
0.939
0.931
0.941
0.968
0.954
0.986
0.992
0.981
0.991
0.989
0.962
0.0253
Flux
(g/s)
13
21
24
22
19
25
22
22
21
17
15
19
19
Wind
Speed
(m/s)
3.3
3.9
4.1
4.1
3.9
3.9
3.8
3.5
3.6
3.7
3.4
3.6
3.7
Wind Dir.a
(deg)
11
3
360
328
348
1
17
17
345
338
329
344
15
a Wind direction shown is measured from a vector
normal to the plane of the configuration.
As mentioned earlier, Figure 24 shows that two distinct
methane hot spots were found in the Retrofit Area. The
peak methane concentrations found in each hot spot were
similar (greater than 80 ppmv). One hot spot was located
in the Retrofit North area, and one in the Retrofit South
area. The proximity of these hot spots to the location of the
gas extraction pipes (indicated by red circles), and analy-
sis of wind data at the time of the measurements, suggests
the pipes may be a significant source of methane emis-
sions.
Closer inspection of the average reconstructed methane
plume from Retrofit North and South VRPM survey (Fig-
ures 25 and 26, respectively) shows that the average cal-
29
-------
Measurement of Fugitive Emissions
10
O)
'« 6
Concentrations are in ppmv
Flux= 19g/s
Methane Concentration
Mirror 5
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Crosswind Distance (m)
Figure 25. Average Reconstructed Methane Plume from the September 2002 Retrofit North VRPM Survey.
10
Concentrations are in ppmv
Flux = 18 g/s
Methane Concentration
£
S>
-------
At a Bioreactor Landfill
culated methane fluxes for each area are very similar. This
is not surprising, since the methane concentrations found
in the hot spots for each area (which would be the major
contributor to methane flux values) are similar in magni-
tude. Additionally, the spatial distribution of the plumes in
the horizontal direction is consistent with the location of
the hot spots. The center of the Retrofit North hot spot is
located about 45 meters north of the position of the OP-
FTIR. Figure 25 shows that the center of the methane plume
found in the Retrofit North area is located about 40 meters
from the scanner position. The center of the Retrofit South
hot spot is located about 30 meters south of the position of
the OP-FTIR. Figure 26 shows that the center of the meth-
ane plume found in the Retrofit South area is located about
35 meters from the scanner position. It appears that there
was very good agreement between the locations of hot spots
found during the HRPM surveys, and the plume recon-
struction from the VRPM surveys.
Observed wind directions during the Retrofit Area VRPM
surveys were not variable. This would be indicative of a
stable atmosphere. Hashmonay et al. (2001) found that
fluxes calculated during stable environments may under-
estimate the actual flux by around 10%.
The background methane concentration data from the
bistatic OP-FTIR were unavailable due to instrumentation
problems. However, in looking at the boundaries of the
HRPM results, one can estimate the background concen-
trations to be about 10 ppmv.
2.2.3 Testing Procedures Used During the
May 2003 Field Campaign
HRPM and VRPM were performed at the Retrofit Area
test site. Due to the size and dimensions of the site, the
area was divided into two halves for the HRPM survey,
but an improvement in the instrumentation from the previ-
ous field campaign made it possible to perform one VRPM
survey for the entire Retrofit Area. The GPS coordinates
of the boundaries of the area are presented in Appendix D.
HRPM was conducted using one monostatic OP-FTIR in-
strument. For the survey of the northern area, eight ret-
roreflectors were used, and the OP-FTIR was placed in the
southwest corner of the area. The survey of the southern
area was completed using eight retroreflectors as well, and
the OP-FTIR was placed in the northwest corner of the
area.
The vertical survey of the Retrofit Area was completed
using two monostatic OP-FTIR instruments, and two scis-
sors jacks. The configuration formed two vertical planes
(one upwind and one downwind). Two retroreflectors were
used in the upwind vertical plane, and eight were used in
the downwind vertical plane. Figure 27 shows the location
of the vertical configurations used at the Retrofit Area test
site. Figure 28 shows a picture of the configuration.
/-"
/
1
1
j OP-FTIR #2 j
OP-FTIR #1
Plateau
Area
Prevailing
Wind
^ D i rection
I
W< >E
1 ^ 1
\^
'
B
OF
<
(
static
'-FTIR
1
»
Figure 27. Map of the Retrofit Area Showing the Location
of Vertical Planes and Background Measurements During
the May 2003 Field Campaign.
Figure 28. VRPM Configuration Used in the Retrofit Area
during the May 2003 Field Campaign.
31
-------
Measurement of Fugitive Emissions
Meteorological data were collected concurrent with these
tests. U.S. EPA personnel operated a non-scanning bistatic
OP-FTIR in an upwind location concurrent with these tests.
2.2.4 Results and Discussion from the May
2003 Field Campaign
The HRPM survey was performed to identify methane hot
spots. Figures 29 and 30 are contourmaps of reconstructed
methane concentrations (in parts per million by volume)
for the northern and southern halves of the Retrofit Area,
respectively. The figures show the presence of one hot spot
on the eastern side of the northern half and one hot spot in
the southwestern corner of the southern half of the Retrofit
Area.
Tables 13 and 14 present methane emission flux determi-
nations from the upwind and downwind vertical surveys,
respectively. Refer to Figure 27 for a map of this site and
the optical configurations there. The methane concentra-
tions used to create these tables can be found in Appendix
B.
N
100
4)
U
c
TO
b
10
20 30 40
Distance (m)
50
60
Figure 29. Reconstructed Mentane Surface Concen-
trations (in ppmv) for the Retrofit North Area During the
May 2003 Field Campaign.
Distance (m)
10 20 30
40
50
90 -
Figure 30. Reconstructed Mentane Surface Concen-
trations (in ppmv) for the Retrofit South Area During the
May 2003 Field Campaign.
Table 13. Moving Average of Calculated Methane Flux,
Wind Speed, and Wind Directions for the Upwind Vertical
Survey of the Retrofit Area During the May 2003 Field
Campaign.
Loops
1 to 4
2 to 5
3 to 6
4 to 7
5 to 8
6 to 9
7 to 10
Flux
(g/s)
11
9.9
9.6
8.9
10
11
11
VV M IU
Speed
(m/s)
2.9
3.1
3.0
3.0
2.9
2.6
2.6
Wind Dir.b
(deg)
14
9
5
3
6
12
13
a CCF values were all 1.00 because only two
mirrors were used in the reconstruction, so CCFs
are not included.
b Wind direction shown is measured from a vector
normal to the plane of the configuration.
32
-------
At a Bioreactor Landfill
Table 14. Moving Average of Calculated Methane Flux,
CCF, Wind Speed, and Wind Directions for the Downwind
Vertical Survey of the Retrofit Area During the May 2003
Field Campaign.
Loops
1 to 4
2 to 5
3 to 6
4 to 7
5 to 8
6 to 9
7 to 10
8 to 11
9 to 12
10 to 13
11 to 14
12 to 15
13 to 16
14 to 17
1 5 to 1 8
1 6 to 1 9
1 7 to 20
18 to 21
1 9 to 22
20 to 23
21 to 24
22 to 25
23 to 26
24 to 27
25 to 28
26 to 29
27 to 30
28 to 31
29 to 32
30 to 33
31 to 34
Average
Std. Dev.
a Wind direction
CCF
0.996
0.996
0.996
0.997
0.998
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
0.999
0.999
0.999
1.000
0.999
0.999
0.999
0.999
0.999
0.989
0.988
0.990
0.994
0.999
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
0.998
0.0033
shown is
Flux
(g/s)
29
31
35
32
31
26
24
23
21
22
23
22
22
22
21
21
19
18
18
19
20
30
3
39
36
32
33
25
24
20
18
measured
Wind
Speed
(mls\
II 1 I/O 1
2.9
2.9
3.0
3.0
2.8
2.8
2.9
3.0
3.0
3.1
3.0
3.0
3.2
3.2
3.2
3.1
2.9
2.9
2.8
2.8
2.9
2.7
2.6
2.5
2.2
2.1
2.1
2.2
2.6
3.2
3.4
from a vector
Wind Dir.a
(deg)
19
16
15
15
16
14
12
10
9
8
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
358
359
1
3
13
17
23
27
22
21
13
6
360
354
The VRPM survey of the Retrofit Area found a difference
in calculated flux values between the upwind and down-
wind vertical planes of approximately 16 g/s. Easterly
winds were observed during the time of the survey. The
measured upwind flux value of 1 1 g/s suggests that the
slope along the eastern edge of the Retrofit Area may also
i\f* n con tv* f1 OT mf^ni 5\v\f*
uc d sumcc \JL me uictiic .
2.2.5 Testing Procedures Used During the
September 2003 Field Campaign
Both HRPM and VRPM were performed at the Retrofit
Area test site . The week prior to the September 2003 field
campaign, a layer of top soil was added to this area, and
the gas collection system was upgraded to minimize fugi-
tive gas emissions. The concern is that fugitive emissions
may not be representative of future emissions, given that
these improvements were made just prior to the field test.
Due to continued improvements in the instrumentation and
equipment used from the previous field campaign, it was
possible to perform a single HRPM and VRPM survey for
the entire area. The GPS coordinates of the boundaries of
the area are presented in Appendix D.
HRPM was performed using one monostatic OP-FTIR in-
strument. The OP-FTIR was located in the southeast cor-
ner of the site, and fifteen retroreflectors were placed
throughout the area.
VRPM was done using one monostatic OP-FTIR instru-
ment and one scissors jack. The configuration used six ret-
roreflectors and was located along the eastern boundary
(downwind) of the area. Due to limited access roads in the
Retrofit Area, it was not possible to maneuver some of the
equipment into the desired locations. Consequently, it was
not possible to set up a second (upwind) vertical configu-
ration in this area. As an alternative, the path-averaged
methane concentration data from the bistatic OP-FTIR are
presented below. Figure 33 shows the location of the verti-
cal configurations used at the Retrofit Area test site.
normal to the plane of the configuration.
Figures 31 and 32 present the reconstructed methane plume
from the upwind and downwind sides of the Retrofit Area,
respectively. Contour lines give methane concentrations
in parts per million. The average calculated methane flux
for the upwind side was 11 g/s, which is equivalent to ap-
proximately 100 g/m2/day. The average calculated meth-
ane flux for the downwind side was 27 g/s, which is equiva-
lent to approximately 250 g/m2/day.
Both meteorological data and data from a non-scanning
bistatic OP-FTIR operated in an upwind location by U.S.
EPA personnel were collected concurrent with these tests.
2.2.6 Results and Discussion from the
September 2003 Field Campaign
The HRPM survey was performed to identify methane hot
spots. Figure 34 presents a contour map of reconstructed
methane concentrations (in parts per million by volume)
for this area. The figure shows that two hot spots were
33
-------
Measurement of Fugitive Emissions
Concentrations are in ppmv
Flux = 210g/s
The flat shape oi the p^ume might
Be due to me 2-mirror OP-FTIR
configufatsort rarher Ehan the plume alseH
Methane Concentration
40
60 80 100 120
Crosswind Distance (m)
140
160 180
Figure 31. Average Reconstructed Methane Plume from the May 2003 Upwind Retrofit VRPM Survey.
20
18
16
14
E. 12
^^
0)
'Z 10
Concentrations are in ppmv
Flux = 27 g/s
20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180
Crosswind Distance
Figure 32. Average Reconstructed Methane Plume from the May 2003 Downwind Retrofit VRPM Survey.
34
-------
At a Bioreactor Landfill
Bistatic
Instrument
Figure 33. Map of Retrofit Area (north and south) Showing
the Location of the Vertical Plane and Background
Measurements During the September 2003 Field
Campaign.
located along the surface of the Retrofit Area. The most
intense hot spot (greater than 33 ppmv) was located along
the western edge of the area. Another less intense hot spot
(greater than 14 ppmv) was located in the northeastern
corner of the area.
Table 15 presents methane emission flux determinations
from the downwind vertical survey of the entire area. Re-
fer to Figure 33 for a map of this site and the optical con-
figurations there. The methane concentrations used to cre-
ate these tables can be found in Appendix B.
Figure 35 presents the reconstructed methane plume from
the downwind side of the Retrofit Area. Contour lines give
methane concentrations in parts per million by volume.
The average calculated methane flux for the Retrofit Area
was 54 g/s, which is equivalent to approximately 440 g/
m2/day.
The data from the bistatic OP-FTIR found an average back-
ground methane concentration of 2.3 ppmv. Figure 33
shows that the bistatic OP-FTIR configuration was located
along the western boundary of the As-Built Area, and the
observed mean wind direction was from the west during
the time data were collected.
N
200 -
180 -
160 -
140 -
O
0
I
tfi
120 -
100 -
20 40
Distance (m)
60
Figure 34. Reconstructed Methane Surface Concen-
trations (in ppmv) for the Retrofit North and South Areas
During the September 2003 Field Campaign.
35
-------
Measurement of Fugitive Emissions
Table 15. Moving Average of Calculated Methane Flux,
CCF, Wind Speed, and Wind Direction Downwind of the
Retrofit Area During the September 2003 Field Campaign.
Loops
1 to 4
2 to 5
3 to 6
4 to 7
5 to 8
6 to 9
7 to 10
8 to 11
9 to 12
10 to 13
11 to 14
12 to 15
13 to 16
14 to 17
1 5 to 1 8
1 6 to 1 9
1 7 to 20
18 to 21
1 9 to 22
20 to 23
CCF
0.999
0.997
0.989
0.994
0.998
0.999
0.999
0.996
0.996
0.995
0.997
0.989
0.992
0.999
0.991
1.000
0.997
0.995
0.997
0.997
Flux
(g/s)
74
68
75
74
67
64
56
50
49
53
57
56
52
40
37
40
40
44
45
39
Wind
Speed
(m/s)
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
10
9.6
10
9.9
10
(deg) '
355
354
352
348
341
339
332
327
325
324
325
325
323
317
315
318
320
323
324
319
Table 15 (concluded). Moving Average of Calculated
Methane Flux, CCF, Wind Speed, and Wind Direction
Downwind of the Retrofit Area During the September 2003
Field Campaign.
Loops
21 to 24
22 to 25
23 to 26
24 to 27
25 to 28
26 to 29
27 to 30
28 to 31
29 to 32
30 to 33
31 to 34
32 to 35
33 to 36
34 to 37
35 to 38
36 to 39
37 to 40
Average
Std. Dev.
CCF
0.998
0.999
0.991
0.996
0.995
0.985
1.000
0.998
0.999
1.000
0.966
0.945
0.954
0.973
0.998
1.000
0.997
0.992
0.0125
Flux
(g/s)
42
35
35
40
36
47
58
56
55
52
41
46
55
58
58
54
53
VV II IU
(m/s)
11
11
12
12
12
12
13
12
11
10
9.2
9.5
10
11
11
11
11
Tegf
316
315
314
318
317
324
329
329
329
325
322
326
329
331
331
330
327
continued
1 Wind direction shown is measured from a vector
normal to the plane of the configuration.
10
& R
QJ D
I
Concentrations are in ppmv
Flux = 54 g/s
Methane Concentration
20
40
60
160
180
Mirror 6
80 100 120 140
Crosswind Distance (m)
Figure 35. Average Reconstructed Methane Plume from the September 2003 Retrofit VRPM Survey.
36
200
-------
At a Bioreactor Landfill
2.3 Control Area
The Control Area survey was done to determine a typical
background methane flux for the entire site. The Control
Area was provided to ARCADIS and U.S. EPA by WMI.
The area selected was located adjacent to the Biocover Area
and to the east of the As-Built Area. This area was chosen
as a favorable control site because of its relatively central
location within the landfill facility. The dimensions and
actual location of this area changed slightly between the
September 2002 and May 2003 field campaigns due to to-
pographical changes in the site associated with normal land-
fill operations. Because of the small dimensions of the
Control Area, HRPM was not done in this area. As men-
tioned previously, surveying was not performed in this area
during the September 2003 field campaign due to the dif-
ficulty of establishing a control area representative of an
operating landfill. Changes occurred with regard to geom-
etry of the control cell, which limited the usefulness of
data collected in this area from the initial field campaigns
to the September 2003 campaign. Additionally, it was dif-
ficult to isolate emissions from the Control Area due its
central location within the landfill.
2.3.1 Testing Procedures Used During the
September 2002 Field Campaign
The VRPM survey was conducted using one monostatic
OP-FTIR and one scissors jack. The configuration used
five retroreflectors and was set up on the eastern boundary
of the Control Area. Data were collected during periods
that westerly winds were observed at the test site. Figure
36 shows the vertical configuration used in the Control
Area.
Both meteorological data and data from a non-scanning
bistatic OP-FTIR operated in an upwind location by U.S.
EPA personnel were collected concurrent with these tests.
2.3.2 Results and Discussion from the
September 2002 Field Campaign
Methane fluxes were calculated in the Control Area for
instances when westerly winds were observed, and these
fluxes are presented in Table 16. The methane concentra-
tions used to create these tables can be found in Appendix
B.
Figure 37 presents the reconstructed methane plume from
the VRPM survey of the Control Area. Contour lines give
methane concentrations in parts per million. The average
calculated methane flux was 6.0 g/s, which is equivalent
to approximately 100 g/m2/day.
Bistatic
Instrument
Figure 36. Map of Control Area Showing the Location of
the Vertical Plane and Background Measurements During
the September 2002 Field Campaign.
Table 16. Moving Average of Calculated Methane Flux,
CCF, Wind Speed, and Wind Direction for the VRPM Survey
of the Control Area During the September 2002 Field
Campaign.
Loops
1 to 4
CCF
0.973
Flux
(g/s)
5.0
Speed
(m/s)
0.95
Wind Dir.a
(deg)
332
a Wind direction shown is measured from a vector
normal to the plane of the configuration.
The background methane concentration data from the
bistatic OP-FTIR were unavailable due to instrumentation
problems.
2.3.3 Testing Procedures Used During the
May 2003 Field Campaign
The VRPM survey was completed using two monostatic
OP-FTIR instruments and two scissors jacks. The configu-
ration formed two vertical planes (one upwind plane, and
one downwind plane). Two retroreflectors were used in
the upwind vertical plane, and six retroreflectors were used
in the downwind vertical plane. Figure 38 shows the loca-
tion of the vertical configurations used at the Control Area
37
-------
Measurement of Fugitive Emissions
12
10
- Concentrations are in ppmv
Flux = 6
x
Mirror 3
10 20 30 40 50 60
Crosswind Distance (m)
70
60
90
100
Figure 37. Average Reconstructed Methane Plume from the September 2002 Control Area VRPM Survey.
Bistatic
Instrument #2
T
o
OP-FTIR#1
OP-FTIR#2
N
Bistatic
Instrument #1
Prevailing
Wind
Direction
Figure 38. Map of Control Area Showing Location of
Vertical Plane and Background Measurements During the
May 2003 Field Campaign.
test site. The GPS coordinates of the boundaries of the area
are presented in Appendix D.
2.3.4 Results and Discussion from the May
2003 Field Campaign
Methane fluxes were calculated in the Control Area from
data taken along the upwind and downwind vertical planes.
Tables 17 and 18 present calculated methane fluxes for the
upwind and downwind sides of the Control Area, respec-
tively. The methane concentrations used to create these
tables can be found in Appendix B.
Table 17. Moving Average of Calculated Methane Flux,
Wind Speed, and Wind Direction for the Upwind Control
Area VRPM Survey During the May 2003 Field Campaign.
Loops
Flux
(g/s)
Wind
Speed
(m/s)
Wind Dir.b
(deg)
1 to 4
4.3
7.4
317
a CCF values were all 1.00 because only two
mirrors were used in the reconstruction, so CCFs
are not included.
b Wind direction shown is measured from a vector
normal to the plane of the configuration.
38
-------
At a Bioreactor Landfill
Table 18. Moving Average of Calculated Methane Flux,
CCF, Wind Speed, and Wind Direction for the Upwind
Control Area VRPM Survey During the May 2003 Field
Campaign.
Flux Wind
Loops CCF ™ Speed
(m/s)
Wind Dir.a
1 to 4
2 to 5
3 to 6
4 to 7
5 to 8
6 to 9
7 to 10
8 to 11
9 to 12
10 to 13
11 to 14
12 to 15
13 to 16
14 to 17
1 5 to 1 8
1 6 to 1 9
1 7 to 20
18 to 21
1 9 to 22
20 to 23
21 to 24
22 to 25
23 to 26
24 to 27
25 to 28
26 to 29
27 to 30
28 to 31
29 to 32
30 to 33
31 to 34
32 to 35
33 to 36
34 to 37
Average
Std. Dev.
0.980
0.937
0.974
0.963
0.985
0.998
0.996
0.998
0.996
0.998
0.974
0.699
0.792
0.792
0.737
0.993
0.997
0.992
0.999
0.993
0.813
0.886
1.000
0.605
0.594
0.565
0.601
0.616
0.587
0.603
0.571
0.568
0.579
0.560
0.822
0.1833
8.1
6.9
6.9
5.5
6.3
6.5
8.6
8.4
11
7.9
7.6
11
8.6
8.3
12
7.9
7.7
8.8
5.5
5.2
11
8.1
25
21
14
14
11
11
14
14
17
22
23
20
7.9
7.8
7.7
7.4
7.2
7.7
7.6
7.7
7.7
7.3
7.4
7.5
7.5
7.6
7.8
7.8
7.6
7.4
7.0
6.5
6.9
7.3
7.5
7.8
7.6
7.6
7.6
7.6
7.6
7.1
7.3
7.3
7.4
7.3
290
293
296
298
302
309
312
314
313
310
313
313
313
315
314
313
314
311
307
308
308
306
308
307
308
310
312
317
320
327
330
331
333
332
1 Wind direction shown is measured from a vector
normal to the plane of the configuration.
Figures 39 and 40 present the reconstructed methane plume
from the upwind and downwind VRPM survey of the Con-
trol Area, respectively. Contour lines give methane con-
centrations in parts per million by volume. The average
calculated methane flux was 4.3 g/s (equivalent to approxi-
mately 160 g/m2/day) for the upwind vertical survey, and
14 g/s (equivalent to approximately 350 g/m2/day) for the
downwind vertical survey.
2.4 Biocover Area
The Biocover Area was located northeast of the As-Built
Area (see Figure 1). The dimensions of this area changed
slightly between the September 2002 and May 2003 field
campaigns due to topographical changes in the site associ-
ated with normal landfill operations. Because of the small
dimensions of the Biocover Area, HRPM was not per-
formed in this area. As mentioned previously, the Septem-
ber 2003 field campaign did not include a survey of the
Biocover Area because the area was no longer operational.
2.4.1 Testing Procedures Used During the
September 2002 Field Campaign
The VRPM survey was performed using one monostatic
OP-FTIR and one scissors jack. The configuration was set
up along the western boundary of the area using four ret-
roreflectors, with a fifth retroreflector used to collect sur-
face data along the diagonal of the Biocover Area. The
favorable wind direction for this configuration would con-
sist of an easterly component. During the period of the
survey, westerly, as well as easterly winds were observed
at the test site. Actual emission data from the Biocover
Area were gathered during periods of easterly winds. Fig-
ure 41 shows the location of the vertical configurations
used at the Biocover Area test site. Figure 42 shows apic-
ture of the VRPM configuration used for the survey.
Both meteorological data and data from a non-scanning
bistatic OP-FTIR operated in an upwind location by U.S.
EPA personnel were collected concurrently with these tests.
2.4.2 Results and Discussion from the
September 2002 Field Campaign
Methane fluxes were calculated at the Biocover Area for
instances where the vertical configuration was downwind
of the actual survey area. Table 19 presents calculated
methane fluxes measured at the site. The methane concen-
trations used to create these tables can be found in Appen-
dix B.
The background methane concentration data from the
bistatic OP-FTIR were unavailable due to instrumentation
problems.
Figure 43 presents the reconstructed methane plume from
the VRPM survey of the Biocover Area. Contour lines give
methane concentrations in parts per million by volume.
The average calculated methane flux for the Biocover Area
39
-------
Measurement of Fugitive Emissions
£
CD
'33
x
Concentrations are in ppmv
Flux = 4.3 g/s
The flat shape of the plume might
be due to the 2-mirror OP-FTIR
configuration rather than the plume Itself.
Methane Concentration •
-1.1-
5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
Crosswind Distance (m)
Figure 39. Average Reconstructed Methane Plume from the May 2003 Control Area Upwind Vertical Survey.
10
Concentrations are in ppmv
Flux= 14 g/s
o>
'3
I
20
30 40 50
Crosswind Distance (m)
60
70
Figure 40. Average Reconstructed Methane Plume from the May 2003 Control Area Downwind Vertical Survey.
40
-------
At a Bioreactor Landfill
Figure 41. Map of Biocover Area Showing Location of
Vertical Plane and Background Measurements During the
September 2002 Field Campaign.
Figure 42. VRPM Configuration Used for the September
2002 Survey of the Biocover Area.
Table 19. Moving Average of Calculated Methane Flux,
CCF, Wind Speed, and Wind Direction for the Downwind
VRPM Survey of the Biocover Area During the September
2002 Field Campaign.
Loops
1 to 4
2 to 5
3 to 6
4 to 7
5 to 8
6 to 9
7 to 10
8 to 11
9 to 12
10 to 13
11 to 14
12 to 15
13 to 16
14 to 17
1 5 to 1 8
1 6 to 1 9
1 7 to 20
18 to 21
1 9 to 22
20 to 23
21 to 24
22 to 25
23 to 26
24 to 27
25 to 28
26 to 29
27 to 30
28 to 31
29 to 32
30 to 33
31 to 34
32 to 35
Average
Std. Dev.
CCF
0.981
0.994
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
0.996
0.990
0.994
0.983
0.994
0.985
0.980
0.976
0.966
0.973
0.974
0.979
0.983
0.984
0.975
0.982
0.996
0.999
1.000
0.997
0.931
0.936
0.949
0.953
0.992
0.993
0.932
0.0183
Flux
(g/s)
27
22
18
17
16
15
18
19
18
15
18
16
16
17
22
25
36
35
23
24
28
12
25
27
25
32
45
37
34
33
28
28
HIM .
(m/s)
1.1
1.1
0.87
0.67
0.83
0.99
1.2
1.4
1.5
1.4
1.3
1.1
0.89
0.83
1.1
1.6
2.7
3.3
3.6
3.9
3.0
3.3
3.6
3.7
4.4
4.7
4.9
4.9
4.7
4.1
3.9
4.0
Tegf
332
341
349
354
327
320
355
348
347
19
348
356
2
333
324
314
316
346
356
3
355
317
315
319
321
329
334
339
337
338
6
4
a Wind direction shown is measured from a vector
normal to the plane of the configuration.
was 24 g/s, which is equivalent to approximately 410 g/
m2/day.
In order to analyze the results of the flux measurements, a
comparison of methane flux calculations and wind data
was made. Figure 44 presents atime series of methane flux
and wind direction for instances when the vertical con-
figuration was located downwind of the survey area (the
41
-------
Measurement of Fugitive Emissions
12
10
Concentrations are in ppmv
Flux = 24 g/s
10 20 30 40 60 60 70
Crosswind Distance (m)
90 100
Figure 43. Average Reconstructed Methane Plume from the September
2002 Biocover Area VRPM Survey.
50.00
45.00
40.I
35.i
X 30.i
J3
u_
0)
c
ra
5.00
-Methane Flux
•Wind Direction
30.00
20.00 —^
°0
0.00 -I—.—•—i 1—•—•—•—•—•—i—•—•—•—i—i 1—•—i—i—i—•—i—•—i—•—•—•—i 1—•—i—I- -50.00
1 2 3 4 56 78 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32
Starting Loop Number
Figure 44. Time Series of Calculated Methane Flux Vs. Measured Wind Direction for the Biocover (using moving
average of 4 loops) During the September 2002 Field Campaign.
42
-------
At a Bioreactor Landfill
data used to create this graph can be found in Appendix
B). There appears to be a relationship between calculated
methane flux and observed wind direction. The highest
methane concentrations occur shortly after the observed
wind direction has a northeasterly component (indicated
as a wind direction of-30° to -40° in the figure). This
suggests that methane is being transported through the ver-
tical configuration, from a hot spot located somewhere to
the northeast of the Biocover Area.
Observed wind directions during the Biocover Area VRPM
survey were highly variable, which indicates an unstable
environment. This suggests that the calculated methane flux
values could be underestimating the actual methane flux
values in this area (Hashmonay et al., 2001).
2.4.3 Testing Procedures Used During the
May 2003 Field Campaign
The VRPM survey was completed using two monostatic
OP-FTIR instruments and two scissors jacks. The configu-
ration formed two vertical planes (one upwind plane, and
one downwind plane). Two retroreflectors were used in
the upwind vertical plane, and six retroreflectors were used
in the downwind vertical plane. Figure 45 shows the loca-
tion of the vertical configurations used at the Biocover Area
test site. The GPS coordinates of the boundaries of the area
are presented in Appendix D.
^ Bistatic
Instrument
N
W4-
Prevailing
Wind
Direction
\
OP-FTIR #1
OP-FTIR #2
Figure 45. Map of Biocover Area Showing the Location of
the Vertical Plane and Background Measurements During
the May 2003 Field Campaign.
Both meteorological data and data from a non-scanning
bistatic OP-FTIR operated in an upwind location by U.S.
EPA personnel were collected concurrently with these tests.
2.4.4 Results and Discussion From the May
2003 Field Campaign
Methane fluxes were calculated at the Biocover Area along
the upwind and downwind vertical planes. Tables 20 and
21 present the calculated methane fluxes measured along
the upwind and downwind vertical planes, respectively.
The methane concentrations used to create these tables can
be found in Appendix B.
Figures 46 and 47 present the reconstructed methane plume
from the upwind and downwind VRPM survey of the
Biocover Area, respectively. Contour lines give methane
concentrations in parts per million by volume. The aver-
age calculated methane flux was 91 g/s (equivalent to ap-
proximately 1300 g/m2/day) for the upwind vertical sur-
vey, and 80 g/s (equivalent to approximately 890 g/m2/day)
for the downwind vertical survey.
The average calculated upwind methane flux was similar
to the downwind flux, which indicates that the measured
methane source was not located in the Biocover Area. The
Biocover Area is located directly northeast of the As-Built
Area (see Figure 1), and the observed winds during the
time of the vertical survey were from the southwest. This
suggests that a methane plume from the As-Built Area may
have been carried by the prevailing winds into the vertical
configurations set up in the Biocover Area. Also, the size
of the Biocover Area is small relative to the size of the
vertical configuration, and the source is immediately up-
wind of the configuration. If the methane source was lo-
cated in the Biocover Area, a very narrow plume would be
expected. The fact that the shape of the reconstructed meth-
ane plume (in Figure 47) is very broad horizontally sup-
ports the conclusion that the source of methane measured
is not the Biocover Area.
Table 20. Moving Average of Calculated Methane Flux,
Wind Speed, and Wind Direction for the Upwind Vertical
Survey of the Biocover Area During the May 2003 Field
Campaign.
Flux Wind
L°°PS (q/s) SPeed
(g/s) (m/s)
Wind Dir.b
(deg)
1 to 4
91
7.1
347
a CCF values were all 1.00 because only two
mirrors were used in the reconstruction, so CCFs
are not included.
b Wind direction shown is measured from a vector
normal to the plane of the configuration.
43
-------
Measurement of Fugitive Emissions
Table 21 . Moving Average of Calculated Methane Flux,
CCF, Wind
Speed, and Wind Direction for the Downwind
Vertical Survey of the
Biocover Area
During the May 2003
Field Campaign.
Loops
1 to 4
2 to 5
3 to 6
4 to 7
5 to 8
6 to 9
7 to 10
8 to 11
9 to 12
10 to 13
11 to 14
12 to 15
13 to 16
14 to 17
1 5 to 1 8
1 6 to 1 9
1 7 to 20
18 to 21
1 9 to 22
20 to 23
21 to 24
22 to 25
12
10
1 8
.C
0)
fll £
I« b
4
2
CCF
0.652
0.728
0.722
0.674
0.756
0.760
0.784
0.786
0.807
0.810
0.848
0.870
0.869
0.899
0.900
0.885
0.909
0.917
0.924
0.953
0.982
0.982
Flux
82
75
76
55
65
71
67
73
94
99
110
120
100
110
110
84
94
77
63
74
54
58
" Concentrations are
Flux =
-
_
-
_
_
,— — — — ~~
yi g/s
1 R
4 n A
i y.t
n
e.
_ -
I
20
Wind
S(nVs)d
8.1
8.2
8.2
7.5
6.9
6.5
6.2
6.3
6.4
7.1
7.1
7.5
8.1
7.9
8.0
7.9
6.9
6.7
6.1
5.8
5.9
6.1
in ppmv
~? ^
/ .0
R
— *t
i
40
Wind Dir.a
333
336
338
338
332
325
319
314
318
318
320
322
323
326
328
329
327
323
320
319
316
319
continued
i
3n
117
~r-——
I
60
Table 21 (concluded). Moving Average of Calculated
Methane Flux, CCF, Wind Speed, and Wind Direction for
the Downwind Vertical Survey of the Biocover Area During
the May 2003 Field Campaign.
Flux Wind Dira
^ (g/s) (rn/s} (^e9)
23 to 26 0.986 64 6.8 323
24 to 27 0.985 57 7.2 322
25 to 28 0.984 80 7.7 325
Average 0.855
Std.Dev. 0.1020
a Wind direction shown is measured from a vector
normal to the plane of the configuration.
2.5 Compost Area
The Compost Area was located southwest of the Retrofit
Area (see Figure 1). Surveying was conducted in this area
as a one-time test during the September 2002 campaign
and was not the focus of the overall effort. Since this is an
aerobic operation, we did not expect to find high methane
emissions in this area. HRPM was not performed in this
area because it consisted of several small compost piles.
2.5.1 Testing Procedures Used During the
September 2002 Field Campaign
Figure 48 shows the Compost Area and the optical con-
figurations used during testing here. The large red ellipses
denote the locations of the compost piles surveyed. At the
Compost Area, two VRPM configurations were set up di-
i i
The flat shape of the plume might
be due to the 2 mirror OP-FTIR
configuration rather than the plume itself.
Methane Concentration -,
3n
~7 n
117
07 o
Mirror 1|
i i i
80 100 120
Crosswind Distance (m)
Figure 46. Average Reconstructed Methane Plume from the May 2003 Biocover Area Upwind VRPM Survey.
44
-------
At a Bioreactor Landfill
10
Concentrations are in ppmv
Flux = 80 g/s
Methane Concentration
-3.9
g>
40
60 80 100
Crosswind Distance (m)
120
140
Figure 47. Average Reconstructed Methane Plume from the May 2003 Biocover Area Downwind
VRPM Survey.
rectly adj acent to two compost piles. It is important to note
that physical barriers such as a fence-line and the actual
location of the compost piles limited the locations in which
a vertical configuration could be set up to survey Pile 1 .The
winds during the time of the survey fluctuated but were
predominately from the west-northwest. Since the VRPM
configuration for pile 1 was oriented to the west of the
pile, this scanning configuration was considered an upwind
measurement. The scanning configuration used to survey
Pile 2 was located east of the compost pile, so this was
considered a downwind measurement.
Both meteorological data and data from a non-scanning
bistatic OP-FTIR operated along the eastern boundary by
U.S. EPA personnel were collected concurrently with these
tests.
2.5.2 Results and Discussion From the
September 2002 Field Campaign
The survey of the Compost Area survey did not detect any
VOCs at concentrations above the minimum detection lev-
els of the OP-FTIR. Additionally, the survey did not detect
any methane plumes originating from the compost piles,
which is consistent with what was expected. The methane
concentrations measured in this area are presented in Ap-
pendix B.
OP-FTIR #1
Pilel
Prevailing
Wind
Direction
Pile 2
Biststic
Instrumnet
OP-FTIR #2
Figure 48. Map of Compost Area Showing Locations of
Vertical Planes and Location of Background Measurements
During the September 2002 Field Campaign.
2.6 VOC and Ammonia Measurements
ARCADIS performed additional analysis of the complete
datasetto search for the presence of volatile organic com-
pounds (VOCs) and ammonia. It is known that methane
comprises approximately 50% of landfill gas. Proportion-
ing an estimated methane concentration of 500,000 ppmv
to the highest methane concentration found at the site and
ratioing this to the AP-42 value for each target VOC (found
45
-------
Measurement of Fugitive Emissions
in Table 2), the expected VOC concentrations were calcu-
lated to often be below the estimated minimum detection
limit of the instrumentation (for the target compound) and,
consequently, were not detectable. This was anticipated
prior to performance of the experiments. However, ammo-
nia and VOCs were detected in some areas of the landfill.
Consistent with the Quality Assurance Project Plan, emis-
sion fluxes for these trace compounds were calculated by
proportioning to the methane flux data. These calculations
are estimated emission fluxes and were only performed on
data collected during VRPM surveys. This data is presented
in the sections below.
2.6.1 Results and Discussion from the
September 2002 Field Campaign
The presence of VOCs and ammonia was detected in the
As-Built, Control, and Biocover Areas during the Septem-
ber 2002 field campaign. Tables 22 and 23 present con-
centrations and calculated fluxes (in grams per second) of
VOCs and ammonia measured during runs 1 and 2, re-
spectively, of the As-Built Area VRPM survey. Straight-
chain hydrocarbons refer to the unbranched members of
the alkane group (n-butane, n-pentane, n-hexane, etc.),
while bent-chain hydrocarbons refer to the branched mem-
Table 22. Average Concentration and Estimated Flux of
VOCs and Ammonia During the September 2002 As-Built
VRPM Run 1.
MDLa Avg. Con.
Flux
OUIII|JUUMU
Ammonia
Straight-chain
Hydrocarbons
Bent-chain
Hydrocarbons
Methane
(ppmv)
0.002
0.490
0.084
(ppmv)
0.005
1.97
0.472
109.
(g/s)
0.01
11.3
2.3
120.
(g/m2/day)
0.11
120.
24
bers of this group (isobutane, isopentane, isohexane, etc.).
The estimated fluxes were calculated by ratioing the mea-
sured methane concentrations with the measured concen-
trations of VOCs and ammonia. The measurements used
to create these tables can be found in Tables B-6 and B-7
of Appendix B.
Tables 24 and 25 present concentrations and calculated
fluxes (in g/s) of VOCs and ammonia measured during
runs 1 and 2, respectively, of the Control VRPM survey.
The measurements used to create these tables can be found
in Tables B-26 and B-27 of Appendix B.
Table 26 presents concentrations of VOCs and Ammonia
measured on mirror 1 of the Biocover Area survey. The
measurements used to create this table can be found in Table
B-30 of Appendix B.
Methyl tert-butyl ether (MTBE) was also detected in the
As-Built, Control, and Biocover areas during the Septem-
ber 2002 campaign (measured concentrations ranged from
Table 24. Average Concentration and Estimated Flux of
VOCs and Ammonia During the September 2002 Control
Area VRPM Run1.
MDLa Avg. Con.
Flux
VxUlllpUUIIl
TFMb
CFMC
Ethanol
Ammonia
Methane
(ppmv)
0.002
0.010
0.011
0.004
(ppmv)
0.005
0.034
0.087
0.020
66.5
(g/s)
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.01
5.0
(g/m2/day)
0.17
0.34
0.51
0.17
a MDL = minimum detection level.
b TFM = trichlorofluoromethane.
c CFM = chlorofluoromethane.
1 MDL = minimum detection level.
Table 23. Average Concentration and Estimated Flux of
VOCs During the September 2002 As-Built VRPM Run 2.
MDLa Avg. Con.
Flux
VxUlllpUUIIU
Straight-chain
Hydrocarbons
Bent-chain
Hydrocarbons
Methane
(ppmv)
0.490
0.271
(ppmv)
2.03
1.38
147.
(g/s)
12.
6.9
170.
(g/m2/day)
120.
71
a MDL = minimum detection level.
Table 25. Average Concentration and Estimated Flux of
VOCs and Ammonia During the September 2002 Control
Area VRPM Run 2.
MDLa Avg. Con.
Flux
VxUlllpUUIIl
CFMb
Ethanol
Ammonia
Methane
(ppmv)
0.001
0.001
0.003
(ppmv)
0.031
0.065
0.019
57.0
(g/s)
0.02
0.02
0.01
5.0
(g/m2/day)
0.34
0.34
0.17
a MDL = minimum detection level.
b CFM = chlorofluoromethane.
46
-------
At a Bioreactor Landfill
Table 26. Average Concentration of VOCs, Ammonia, and
Methane Found on Mirror 1 of the September 2002
Biocover Area Survey.
Compound
Ethylene
CFMb
Ethanol
TFMC
Ammonia
Methane
MDLa
(ppmv)
0.002
0.002
0.003
0.003
0.007
Avg. Con.
(ppmv)
0.008
0.031
0.104
0.006
0.021
38.0
a MDL = minimum detection level.
b CFM = chlorofluoromethane.
c TFM = trichlorofluoromethane.
on mirror 5 of the HRPM survey, and mirror 4 of the sur-
face survey of the slope between the two cells of the As-
Built Area, respectively. The measurements used to create
these tables can be found in Tables B-9 and B-10 of Ap-
pendix B.
Table 29 presents concentrations and calculated fluxes (in
grams per second) of VOCs and ammonia measured dur-
ing the VRPM survey of the upper cell. The VOC fluxes
were calculated by forming the ratio of the measured meth-
ane concentrations to the measured concentrations of VOCs
and ammonia. The measurements used to create this table
can be found in Table B-13 of Appendix B.
0.006 to 0.060 ppmv). MTBE is primarily used as an addi-
tive to gasoline to improve combustion and reduce emis-
sions of carbon monoxide. Since it is possible that the
source of the detected MTBE was gasoline used in the field
operations, the results of the MTBE data were not included
in Tables 22 through 26.
2.6.2 Results and Discussion from the May
2003 Field Campaign
Ammonia and VOCs were detected in the As-Built Area
during the May 2003 field campaign. Tables 27 and 28
present concentrations of VOCs and Ammonia measured
Table 29. Average Concentration and Estimated Flux of
VOCs and Ammonia for the As-Built Upper VRPM Survey
During the May 2003 Field Campaign.
MDLa Avg. Con.
Flux
VxUlllpUUIIl
Ammonia
Methanol
Ethanol
Methane
(ppmv)
0.003
0.005
0.005
(ppmv)
0.021
0.032
0.103
16.0
(g/s)
0.04
0.12
0.59
32.
(g/m2/day)
0.31
0.92
4.5
a MDL = minimum detection level.
Table 27. Average Concentration of VOCs, Ammonia, and
Methane for the May 2003 As-Built Upper HRPM Survey.
Compound
Ammonia
Methanol
Ethanol
Methane
MDLa
(ppmv)
0.002
0.003
0.003
Avg. Con.
(ppmv)
0.005
0.023
0.017
34.0
a MDL = minimum detection level.
Table 28. Average Concentration of VOCs, Ammonia, and
Methane for the May 2003 HRPM Survey of the Slope
between the Upper and Lower Cells of the As-Built Area.
Compound
Ammonia
Methanol
Ethanol
Methane
MDLa
(ppmv)
0.002
0.004
0.004
Avg. Con.
(ppmv)
0.011
0.015
0.069
22.0
a MDL = minimum detection level.
Due to the relatively high concentrations of ethanol de-
tected during the VRPM survey of the As-Built Upper Cell
(see Table 29), further analysis was done on the ethanol
data to create a plume reconstruction and calculated etha-
nol flux using the VRPM algorithm. Figure 49 presents
the reconstructed ethanol plume from the downwind VRPM
survey of the As-Built Upper Cell (Figure 51 presents a
validation of the data used to reconstruct the ethanol plume).
Contour lines give ethanol concentrations in parts per mil-
lion by volume. The average calculated ethanol flux was
2.2 g/s. The flux value of 2.2 g/s (equivalent to approxi-
mately 17 g/m2/day) calculated using the VRPM method
is about four times the ethanol flux value of 0.59g/s (equiva-
lent to approximately 4.5 g/m2/day) found using the ratio
method (see Table 29). This is due to the fact that data
from 29 loops were used to report the average ethanol con-
centration and flux reported in Table 29, although the ac-
tual ethanol event was much shorter. In fact, only 9 loops
of data were used to create Figure 49. These 9 loops repre-
sent the actual period of peak ethanol concentrations, re-
sulting in higher flux values.
47
-------
Measurement of Fugitive Emissions
20
Concentrations are in ppmv
Flux = 2.2 g/s
15
& 10
40
60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200
Crosswind Distance (m)
220
Figure 49. Average Reconstructed Ethanol Plume from the May 2003 As-Built Upper VRPM Survey.
2.6.3 Results and Discussion from the
September 2003 Field Campaign
The entire data set from the September 2003 campaign was
analyzed for VOCs and ammonia. However, the analysis
failed to detect the presence of these compounds at levels
higher than the minimum detection level of the instrumen-
tation.
2.7 Mercury Sampling
Mercury sampling was done at the site during the Septem-
ber 2002 and September 2003 field campaigns. Sampling
was performed for total, monomethyl, and dimethyl mer-
cury. During the September 2002 campaign, mercury sam-
pling was done in the As-Built Area (only one total mer-
cury sample was taken), Retrofit Areas (unit 5), and the
control areas (units 73A and 73B). It should be noted that
the As-Built Area was not connected to the rest of the land-
fill gas system during this campaign. Additional sampling
was performed at the two flares located within the site.
Figure 50 shows mercury sampling being conducted at a
landfill gas header access point located upstream of the
main flare station. During the September 2003 campaign,
mercury sampling was performed in the As-Built Area,
Retrofit Areas (unit 5), and the control areas (units 73A
and 73B). Additional sampling was performed at the two
flares located within the site. A summary of the data col-
Figure 50. Mercury Sampling Conducted at a Landfill Gas
Header Access Point Located Upstream of the Main Flare
Station.
lected is contained in the following sections. The entire
data set is included in Appendix C of the report.
2.7.1 Testing Procedures Used for Mercury
Sampling
2.7.1.1 September 2002 Campaign
To collect the total mercury samples, an iodated charcoal
trap was used as a sorbent, and a backup tube was present
48
-------
At a Bioreactor Landfill
to assess any breakthrough. The sorbent tube was heated
to above the dew point of the gas stream to prevent con-
densation on the sorbent. Water vapor from the stream was
collected and quantified using a silica gel impinger. A dia-
phragm air pump was used to pull the gas stream through
the train and collect the sample. The volume of gas sampled
was monitored and quantified by amass flow meter (MFM).
The gas stream flow rate was nominally 0.8 L/min for 37.5
min, which equates to a total volume of about 30 L.
The traps were returned to the lab where the iodated car-
bon was leached of collected Hg using hot-refluxing HNO3/
H2SO4 and then further oxidized by a 0.01 N BrCl solu-
tion. The digested and oxidized leachate sample was ana-
lyzed using the FGS-069 cold vapor atomic fluorescence
spectrometer (CVAFS) total Hg analysis method (which
served as the basis for U.S. EPA Method 1631, developed,
authored, and validated by Frontier Geosciences).
Dimethyl mercury (DMHg) was sampled using a slightly
different technique. A Carbotrap was used as a sorbent,
with a backup tube to assess any breakthrough, and a third
iodated carbon trap was used to collect any elemental mer-
cury present. 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 the gas stream through the train and col-
lect the sample. The volume of gas sampled was moni-
tored and quantified by a MFM. The sample flow rate was
nominally 0.35 L/min for a total volume of about 9.0 L.
The DMHg content of the Carbotraps was determined by
thermal desorption (TD) and gas chromatography (GC),
and CVAFS. The analytical system was calibrated by purg-
ing precise quantities of DMHg in methanol (1-500 pg)
from deionized water onto Carbotraps and then thermally
desorbing (45 s at a 25 to 450 °C ramp) them directly into
the isothermal GC (1 m x 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 crack-
ing column held at 700 °C, converting the organic mer-
cury compounds to elemental form. DMHg 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 knockout any impinger solu-
tion carryover to the pump and meter system. A diaphragm
air pump was used to pull the gas stream through the train
and collect the sample. The volume of gas sampled was
monitored and quantified by a MFM. The sample flow rate
was nominally 0.8 L/min for 20.0 min, which equates to a
total volume of approximately 16 L.
The analysis method uses distillation, ethylation, Carbotrap
preconcentration, thermal desorption, gas-chromatography
separation, thermal conversion, and CVAFS detection. See
the Appendix A standard operating procedures (SOPs),
FGS-070, and FGS-013 for introductory pages to the re-
spective methods. This analytical method for monomethyl
mercury in a water matrix is the basis for U.S. EPA Draft
Method 1631.
2.7.1.2 September 2003 Campaign
To collect the total mercury samples, an iodated charcoal
trap was used as a sorbent, and a backup tube was present
to assess any breakthrough. The sorbent tube was heated
to above the dew point of the gas stream to prevent con-
densation on the sorbent. Water vapor from the stream was
collected and quantified using a silica gel impinger. A dia-
phragm air pump was used to pull the gas stream through
the train and collect the sample. The volume of gas sampled
was monitored and quantified using a volatile organic sam-
pling train (VOST) box. The sample flow rate was nomi-
nally 0.8 L/min for 37.5 min, which equates to a total vol-
ume of approximately 30 L.
The traps are returned to the lab where the iodated carbon
was leached of collected Hg using hot-refluxing HNO3/
H2SO4 and then further oxidized by a 0.01 N BrCl solu-
tion. The digested and oxidized leachate sample is ana-
lyzed using the FGS-069 CVAFS total Hg analysis method.
Dimethyl mercury was sampled using a slightly different
technique. A Carbotrap was used as a sorbent, with a backup
tube to assess any breakthrough and a third iodated carbon
trap to collect any elemental mercury present. 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 the gas
stream through the train and collect the sample. The vol-
ume of gas sampled was monitored and quantified using a
VOST box. The sample flow rate was nominally 0.35 L/
min for a total volume of approximately 0.5 L.
The DMHg content of the Carbotraps was determined by
TD-GC/CVAFS. The analytical system was calibrated by
purging precise quantities of DMHg in methanol (1-500
pg) from deionized water onto Carbotraps and then ther-
mally desorbing (45 s at a 25 to 450 °C ramp) them di-
49
-------
Measurement of Fugitive Emissions
rectly into the isothermal GC (1 m x 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
organic mercury compounds to elemental form. DMHg was
identified by retention time and quantified by peak height.
In addition to collecting dimethyl mercury using the
Carbotrap method, an alternative was performed using a
methanol impinger. The primary purpose of using an alter-
native method was to further evaluate the accuracy of the
Carbotrap method. In general, samples were collected us-
ing the same equipment and techniques as those outlined
below for the collection of monomethyl mercury. The only
difference was that methanol was used as an impinger so-
lution rather than 0.001 M HCL. A diaphragm air pump
was used to pull the gas stream through the train and col-
lect the sample. The volume of gas sampled was moni-
tored and quantified using a VOST box. The sample flow
rate was nominally 0.8 L/min for 37.5 min, which equates
to a total volume of approximately 30 L.
Samples were analyzed at the laboratory using procedure
listed in FGS-070 using a direct aqueous purge of small
aliquots of the MeOH solutions. The DMHg evolved from
the analytical sparging vessels was collected onto Carbotrap
and introduced into the TD-GC/CVAFS instrument as de-
scribed above.
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 knockout any impinger solu-
tion carryover to the pump and meter system. A diaphragm
air pump was used to pull the gas stream through the train
and collect the sample. The volume of gas sampled was
monitored and quantified using a VOST box. The sample
flow rate was nominally 0.8 L/min for 37.5 min, which
equates to a total volume of approximately 30 L.
The analysis method used distillation, ethylation, Carbotrap
preconcentration, thermal desorption, gas-chromatography
separation, thermal conversion, and CVAFS detection. See
the Appendix A SOPs FGS-070 and FGS-013 for intro-
ductory pages to the respective methods. This analytical
method for monomethyl mercury in a water matrix is the
basis for U.S. EPA Draft Method 1631.
2.7.2 Results and Discussion from the
September 2002 Field Campaign
2.7.2.1 Total Mercury
Total mercury concentrations in the landfill gas ranged from
224 to 671 ng/m3 with an average of 522 ng/m3 for all of
the samples excluding the As-Built data. The data from the
As-Built Area were not included in calculating the average
because it was not attached to the rest of the landfill gas
system during this campaign. Spike recoveries for the to-
tal mercury samples were 100%. Table 30 presents the av-
erage concentration and range of concentrations of total
mercury measured in each of the four survey areas.
Table 30. Average Concentrations, and Range of Concen-
trations of Total Mercury Measured in the Retrofit Area,
As-Built Area, Control Area, and Flare Gas.
Area
Total Hg Concentration
(ng/m3)
Retrofit (Unit 5)
As-Built
Control (Units 73 A and 73 B)
Flare
Average
260
21
615
645
Range
61 9 to 671
21
585 to 61 9
61 9 to 671
2.7.2.2 Dimethyl Mercury
Dimethyl mercury concentrations in the landfill gas ranged
from not detected (ND) to 18 ng/m3 with an average of 5.9
ng/m3. The As-built area was not sampled for DMHg dur-
ing this campaign, and there was no dimethyl mercury gas
detected in the flare gas. Spike recoveries for the DMHg
traps were 7% for the flare and ND for the Control Area
landfill gas. Unsampled spike traps had recoveries from
69% to 105% with an average of 87%. Recoveries for the
spiked/sampled traps were significantly lower than the ac-
ceptance criteria of 5 0-150% given in Table 1. This is pos-
sibly due to the presence of an unknown interfering com-
pound either destroying or masking the detection of the
DMHg. For this reason, all of the DMHg results from this
campaign must be labeled as suspect. Further development
of this sampling procedure is being performed by Frontier
Geosciences to minimize this interference and more accu-
rately determine the actual concentrations. Table 31 pre-
sents the average concentration and range of concentra-
tion of DMHg measured in each of the three survey areas
using the Carbotrap method.
50
-------
At a Bioreactor Landfill
Table 31. Average Concentrations, and Range of Concen-
trations of Dimethyl Mercury Measured (using the
Carbotrap method) in the Retrofit Area, As-Built Area,
Control Area, and Flare Gas.
DMHga Concentration
(ng/m3)
Area
Average Range
Retrofit (Unit 5)
As-Built
Control (Units 73 A
and
73 B)
not
12.6
sampled
1.85
3. 7 to
1.7
18
a DMHg = dimethyl mercury
2.7.2.3 Monomethyl Mercury
Monomethyl mercury concentrations in the landfill gas
ranged from 0.4 to 4.4 ng/m3 with an average of 2.4 ng/m3.
Spike recoveries for the monomethyl samples were 97%
for the flare and 91 % for the control area landfill gas. Spike
recoveries for unsampled impinger solution ranged from
5 l%to 79% with an average of 65%. The lower recoveries
may have been due to a preservation issue with the ship-
ping. Table 32 presents the average concentration and range
of concentrations of monomethyl mercury measured in each
of the three survey areas.
Table 32. Average Concentrations, and Range of Concen-
trations of Monomethly Mercury Measured in the Retrofit
Area, As-Built Area, Control, and Flare Gas.
Area
MMHga Concentration
(ng/m3)
Average
Retrofit (Unit 5)
As-Built
Control (Units 73 A
Flare
aMMHg
and
= monomethyl
73 B)
not
4.15
sampled
2.75
3.5
Range
3.9
2.3
to
to
3.5
4.4
3.2
mercury
2.7.3 Results and Discussion From the
September 2003 Field Campaign
2.7.3.1 Total Mercury
Total mercury concentrations in the landfill gas ranged from
123 to 4670 ng/m3 with an average of 1171 ng/m3 for all of
the samples. It should be noted that the average of the con-
trol area is biased high because of the data from unit 73A.
The vertical gas collection well sampled during this cam-
paign was under positive pressure; therefore the data are
suspect. Spike recoveries for the total mercury samples were
93%. Table 33 presents the average concentration and range
of concentrations of total mercury measured in each of the
four survey areas.
Table 33. Average Concentrations, and Range of Concen-
trations of Total Mercury Measured in the Retrofit Area,
As-Built Area, Control Area, and Flare Gas.
Total Hg Concentration
Area (ng/m3)
Retrofit (Unit 5)
As-Built
Control (Units 73 A and 73 B)
Flare
Average
237
334
2803
986
Range
123 to 350
334
935 to 4670
957 to 1040
2.7.3.2 Dimethyl Mercury (Carbotrap)
Dimethyl mercury concentrations in the landfill gas ranged
from 22.1 to 128.3 ng/m3 with an average of 53.3 ng/m3.
One data point from the retrofit area was not included be-
cause it was improperly sampled. Spike recoveries for the
dimethyl mercury traps ranged from 60.3% to 101.1% with
an average of 77.2%. Unsampled spike traps had recover-
ies from 85% to 94% with an average of 88.8%. Table 34
presents the average concentration and range of concen-
trations of dimethyl mercury measured in each of the four
survey areas using the Carbotrap method.
Table 34. Average Concentrations, and Range of Concen-
trations of Dimethyl Mercury Measured (using the
Carbotrap method) in the Retrofit Area, As-Built Area,
Control Area, and Flare Gas.
DMHga Concentration
Area (ng/m3)
Average Range
Retrofit (Unit 5)
As-Built
Control (Units 73 A and 73 B)
Flare
22.1 22.1
128 128
71.5 60.2 to 82.7
26.7 23.1 to 29.9
a DMHg = dimethyl mercury
2.7.3.3 Dimethyl Mercury (Methanol)
Dimethyl mercury concentrations in the landfill gas ranged
from 45.5 to 363 ng/m3 with an average of 116.5 ng/m3.
Spike recoveries for the dimethyl mercury impingers ranged
from 85.7% to 89.5%. Unsampled spike traps had recov-
eries of 90.4% for each of the two spiked impingers. Table
35 presents the average concentration and range of con-
centrations of dimethyl mercury measured in each of the
four survey areas using the methanol method.
51
-------
Measurement of Fugitive Emissions
Table 35. Average Concentrations, and Range of Concen-
trations of Dimethyl Mercury Measured (using the Methanol
method) in the Retrofit Area, As-Built Area, Control Area,
and Flare Gas.
DMHga Concentration
Area (ng/m3)
Retrofit (Unit 5)
As-Built
Control (Units 73 A and 73 B)
Flare
Average
47.4
363
66.8
58.0
Range
45.5 to 49.3
363
66.8
58.0
a DMHg = dimethyl mercury
2.7.3.4 Monomethyl Mercury
Monomethyl mercury concentrations in the landfill gas
ranged from 0.55 to 2.10 ng/m3 with an average of 1.37
ng/m3. Spike recoveries for the monomethyl samples were
26% for the flare, 26% for the retrofit area, and ranged
from ND to 28% for the control area. Recoveries for the
spiked/sampled monomethyl impingers were significantly
lower than the acceptance criteria of 50-150% given in
Table 1. Spike recoveries for the unsampled impinger so-
lution were not determined by Frontier Scientific. The low
spike recoveries in the sampled traps are most probably
due to improper preparation of the spike solution by Fron-
tier Scientific. Apparently this spike solution was made at
a concentration of 0.25 ng/L instead of 1.0 ng/L. For this
reason, all of the monomethyl mercury results from this
campaign must be labeled as suspect. Table 36 presents
the average concentration and range of concentrations of
monomethyl mercury measured in each of the four survey
areas.
Table 36. Average Concentrations, and Range of Concen-
trations of Monomethly Mercury Measured in the Retrofit
Area, As-Built Area, Control Area, and Flare Gas.
Area
MMHga Concentration
(ng/m3)
Retrofit (Unit 5)
As-Built
Control (Units 73 A and 73 B)
Flare
Average
2.03
0.55
0.66
0.67
Range
1.95 to 2. 10
0.55
0.54 to 0.78
1 .48 to 2.05
1 MMHg = monomethyl mercury
2.7.3.5 Lumex Sampling
Sampling was performed at the As-Built Area using the
Lumex mercury analyzer. Particular emphasis was placed
on sampling from cracks/fissures which were emitting
steam. Twenty-seven points were measured to be below
detection indicating that none of the gas phase mercury at
unit 74 is in the elemental form.
52
-------
At a Bioreactor Landfill
3. Concluding Statements
This report provides the results from three field campaigns
performed at the Outer Loop Landfill in Louisville, Ken-
tucky, over a one-year period. The campaigns were con-
ducted during September 2002, May 2003, and September
2003. The long-term goal of this study was to evaluate the
performance of landfill bioreactor operations over a pe-
riod of time. The site has two different bioreactor opera-
tions, an As-Built Area and a Retrofit Area. The As-Built
Area, where liquid additions are introduced at the work
face, consists of two cells, which were surveyed separately
during the May 2003 and September 2003 field campaigns.
The Retrofit Area was split into north and south sections
that were evaluated independently for the September 2002
and May 2003 field campaigns. In addition to evaluating
the two types of bioreactors, the use of vegetative cover
(biocover) to reduce fugitive emissions was evaluated dur-
ing the first two field campaigns. Emissions from the
facility's composting operation were evaluated during the
first field campaign. Since this is an aerobic operation,
methane emissions were not expected nor were they found.
Table 37 presents the average calculated methane fluxes
and the range of flux values measured in each area over
the course of the long-term study.
The As-Built Area was found to have the highest methane
flux values during each of the three field campaigns. The
flux values found in the Biocover Area during the May
2003 field campaign were relatively high, but it was deter-
mined that this was probably caused by a source of meth-
ane from the As-Built Area. The lowest methane fluxes
found at the site were from the Control Area. The Compost
Area was not found to be significant source of methane,
which one would expect since it is an aerobic operation.
Horizontal radial plume mapping was performed in the As-
Built Area during the May and September 2003 field cam-
paigns and in the Retrofit Area during each of the three
campaigns. During the September 2002 field campaign,
two methane hot spots, having concentrations over 80
ppmv, were found at the Retrofit Area. During the May
2003 field campaign, four methane hot spots were found
in the As-Built Area; the most intense (over 210 ppmv)
was in the lower cell. Three of the hot spots occurred adja-
cent to the slope separating the two cells of the As-Built
Area, suggesting the slope may be a significant source of
methane. Two methane hot spots were found in the Retro-
fit Area during this campaign, the most intense of which
(over 78 ppmv) was in the northeastern corner of the north-
ern half of the Retrofit Area.
During the September 2003 campaign, three methane hot
spots were found in the As-Built Area; the most intense
Table 37. Average Calculated Methane Flux and Range of Values Found at Each Survey Area.
September 2002
May 2003
September 2003
Survey Area
As-Built Upper Cell
As-Built Lower Cell
Retrofit
Control
Methane Flux Range Methane Flux Range Methane Flux Range
(g/s) (g/s) (g/s) (g/s) (g/s) (g/s)
RAEIW
140C
37
6.0
RAEM
120 to 180C
31 to 44
6.0
32
99
27
14
9.4 to 88
76 to 80
18 to 39
5.2 to 24
21 Ob
200b
54d
N/Ae
84 to 330
25 to 380
35 to 75
N/A
a RAEM = restricted access and equipment malfunction.
b Gas collection system not operating due to leachate build-up in the extraction wells.
0 The landfill gas collection system was not operational in the As-Built cells during the September 2002 field campaign.
d The week prior to the test, the interim cap was replaced with a fresh topsoil/clay cover, and the gas collection system was
upgraded.
e N/A = no control available.
53
-------
Measurement of Fugitive Emissions
(over 89 ppmv) was in the upper cell. Two methane hot
spots were found in the Retrofit Area during this campaign,
the most intense of which (over 33 ppmv) was along the
western edge of the Retrofit Area.
Sampling and analysis of concentrations of total mercury,
dimethyl mercury, and mononmethyl mercury was per-
formed at the site during the September 2002 and Septem-
ber 2003 campaigns by Frontier Geosciences with sam-
pling support from ARC ADI S.
During the September 2002 campaign, total mercury con-
centrations in the landfill gas ranged from 224 to 671 ng/
m3 with an average of 522 ng/m3 for all of the samples
excluding the As-Built data. The data from the As-Built
area were not included in calculating the average because
it was not attached to the rest of the landfill gas system
during this campaign. Spike recoveries for the total mer-
cury samples were 100%. Dimethyl mercury concentra-
tions in the landfill gas ranged from ND to 18 ng/m3 with
an average of 5.9 ng/m3. There was no dimethyl mercury
gas detected in the flare gas. Spike recoveries for the dim-
ethyl mercury traps were 7% for the flare and ND for the
control area landfill gas. Unsampled spike traps had re-
coveries from 69% to 105% with an average of 87%. Re-
coveries were low in the spiked traps possibly due to the
presence of an unknown interfering compound either de-
stroying or masking the detection of the dimethyl mercury.
For this reason it is believed that the dimethyl mercury
concentrations are at least the levels reported or may be
higher. Monomethyl mercury concentrations in the land-
fill gas ranged from 0.4 to 4.4 ng/m3 with an average of 2.4
ng/m3. Spike recoveries for unsampled impinger solution
ranged from 51% to 79% with an average of 65%. The
lower recoveries may have been due to a preservation is-
sue with the shipping. Table 38 lists the average concen-
trations (in nanograms per cubic meter) of total mercury,
dimethyl mercury, and monomethyl mercury measured at
the site during the September 2002 field campaign.
Sampling and analysis of concentrations of total mercury,
dimethyl mercury, and monomethyl mercury was per-
formed at the site during the September 2003 campaign.
Total mercury concentrations in the landfill gas ranged from
Table 38. Average Concentrations of Total, Dimethyl, and
Monomethyl Mercury Found in the Retrofit Area, Control
Areal, and Flare Gas During the September 2002 Field
Campaign.
Compound
Total Hg
DMHga
MMHgb
Retrofit
(ng/m3)
260.
12.6
2.9
Control
(ng/m3)
614
2.3
2.8
Flare
(ng/m3)
645
0
3.5
a DMHg = dimethyl mercury.
b MMHg = monomethly mercury.
123 to 4670 ng/m3 with an average of 1171 ng/m3 for all of
the samples. It should be noted that the average of the con-
trol area is biased high because of the data from unit 73A.
The vertical gas collection well sampled during this cam-
paign was under positive pressure; therefore, the data are
suspect. Spike recoveries for the total mercury samples were
93%. Dimethyl mercury concentrations in the landfill gas
ranged from 22.1 to 128.3 ng/m3 with an average of 53.3
ng/m3 as measured by the Carbotrap method. One data point
from the retrofit area was not included because it was im-
properly sampled. Spike recoveries for the dimethyl mer-
cury traps ranged from 60.3%to 101.1%. Unsampled spike
traps had recoveries from 85% to 94% with an average of
88.8%. Dimethyl mercury concentrations in the landfill gas
ranged from 49.3 to 363 ng/m3 with an average of 116.5
ng/m3 as measured by the methanol impinger method. Spike
recoveries for the dimethyl mercury impingers ranged from
85.7% to 89.5%. Unsampled spike traps had recoveries of
90.4% for each of the two spiked impingers. Monomethyl
mercury concentrations in the landfill gas ranged from 0.55
to 2.10 ng/m3 with an average of 1.37 ng/m3. Spike recov-
eries for the monomethyl samples were 26% for the flare,
26% for the retrofit area, and ranged from ND to 28% for
the control area. Spike recoveries for the unsampled
impinger solution was not determined by Frontier Scien-
tific. The low spike recoveries are most probably due to
improper preparation of the spike solution by Frontier Sci-
entific. Apparently this spike solution was made at a con-
centration of 0.25 ng/L instead of 1.0 ng/L. Table 39 lists
the average concentrations (in nanograms per cubic meter)
of total mercury, dimethyl mercury, and monomethyl mer-
cury measured at the site during the September 2003 field
campaign.
54
-------
At a Bioreactor Landfill
Table 39. Average Concentrations of Total, Dimethyl, and Monomethyl Mercury Found in the
Bioreactor, Control Cell, and Flare Gas During the September 2003 Field Campaign.
Compound
Total Hg
DMHga (carbotrap)
DMHg (methanol)
MMHgb
Retrofit
Area/Unit 5
(ng/m3)
237
22.1
47.4
2.03
As-Built
(ng/m3)
334
128
363
0.55
Control Area/
Units 73A and 74a
(ng/m3)
2803
71.5
66.8
0.66
Flare Gas
(ng/m3)
986
26.7
58
1.67
a DMHg = dimethyl mercury.
b MMHg = monomethly mercury.
55
-------
Measurement of Fugitive Emissions
56
-------
At a Bioreactor Landfill
4. Quality Assurance/Quality Control
The development of quality assurance and control mea-
sures for studies done using ORS methods has been an
ongoing process over the duration of this long-term project.
Many improvements to the QA process have been devel-
oped and implemented since the September 2002 campaign.
As a result, different levels of QA measures were in place
during the data collection and analysis phase of each field
campaign. The most significant improvements to the QA
process were implemented during the September 2003 field
campaign. Some of the major QA improvements imple-
mented during the September 2003 campaign include:
• A more thorough documentation of the calibration
schedule for the theodolite and meteorological heads,
• The development of pre-deployment tests to check the
precision and accuracy of the meteorological heads,
• The development of pre-deployment and in-field
checks of the OP-FTIR instruments to detect potential
problems that may effect data quality,
• A more detailed explanation of checks that should be
done on the OP-FTIR during data collection to ensure
signal strength and proper mirror alignment,
• The development of a procedure to check the accu-
racy of analyzed concentration data,
• A more detailed explanation of checks in place in the
RPM algorithms to filter data that is incomplete or not
useful, and
• The development of manual checks that can be done
to verify the accuracy of the surface concentration con-
tour maps, and the reconstructed plume maps.
All equipment is calibrated annually or cal-checked as part
of standard operating procedures. Certificates of calibra-
tion are kept on file. Maintenance records are kept for any
equipment adjustments or repairs in bound project note-
books that include the data and description of maintenance
performed. Instrument calibration procedures and fre-
quency are listed in Table 40 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 campaign. In addition,
standard operating procedures were in place during the
survey, and the September 2002 campaign was audited in
the field.
4.1 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
41.
Table 40. Instrumentation Calibration Frequency and Description.
Instrument
Measurement
Calibration
Date
Calibration detail
Climatronics Model 101990-G1
meteorological heads
Climatronics Model 101990-G1
meteorological heads
Topcon Model GTS-211D
theodolite
Topcon Model GTS-211D
theodolite
Wind speed in mi/hr
Wind direction in
degrees from North
Distance
Angle
22 April 2003
22 April 2003
1 May 2003
21 May 2003
57
APPCD Metrology Lab calibration records
on file
APPCD Metrology Lab calibration records
on file
Calibration: actual distance = 50ft;
measured distance = 50.6 and 50.5 ft.
Calibration: actual angle = 360°; measured
angle = 359° 41' 18" and 359° 59'55".
-------
Measurement of Fugitive Emissions
Table 41. DQI Goals for Instrumentation.
Measurement
Parameter
Analyte PICa
Ambient wind speed
Ambient wind direction
Distance Measurement
Elemental Mercury
Total Mercuryd
Dimethyl Mercury
(Carbotrap)d
Monomethyl Mercuryd
Total Mercury'
Dimethyl Mercury
(Carbotrap)'
Dimethyl Mercury
(methanol)'
Monomethyl Mercury'
Analysis Method
OP-FTIR
Climatronics Met heads side-by-
side comparison in the field
Climatronics Met heads side-by-
side comparison in the field
Theodolite-Topcon
Lumex (direct method)
TD-GC-AFS6
TD-GC-pyrolysis-CVAFSg
TD-GC-CVAFS
TD-GC-AFS
TD-GC-pyrolysis-CVAFS
TD-GC-CVAFS
TD-GC-CVAFS
Accuracy
+5%
+1 m/s
+10°
+1 m
+20%
50-150%
recovery
50-150%
50-150%
50-150%
50-150%
50-150%
50-150%
Precision
+5%
+1 m/s
+10°
+1 m
+20%
+20%
+20%
+20%
+20%
+20%
+20%
+20%
Detection
Limit
See Table 2
N/Ab
N/A
0.1 m
2 - 500 ng/m3 c
33 ng/m3f
1.1 ng/m3h
0.63 ng/m3i
33 ng/m3f
19.8 ng/m3k
0.34 ng/m3f
0.34 ng/m3 f
Completeness
90%
90%
90%
100%
90%
90%
90%
90%
90%
90%
90%
90%
a PIC = path-integrated concentration.
b N/A = not applicable.
c Estimated detection limit for natural and industrial gases. The landfill gas would have to be assayed to determine the actual
detection limit of the instrument.
d September 2002 campaign.
e TD = thermal desorption; GC = gas chromatography; AFS = atomic fluorescence spectrometry.
f Estimated detection limit for a 30 L sample.
9 CVAFS = cold vapor atomic fluorescence spectrometry.
h Estimated detection limit for a 9.0 L sample.
' Estimated detection limit for a 16.0 L sample.
' September 2003 campaign.
k Estimated detection limit for a 0.5 L sample.
All of the detection limits listed for the Frontier methods are method limits, which are essentially 10X the detection limit.
As previously mentioned, different levels of QA measures
were in place during the data collection and analysis phase
of each separate field campaign. As a result of this, DQI
checks had not been developed, or were not in place for
each of the measurement parameters used during each field
campaign.
4.1.1 DQI Check for Analyte PIC Measurement
The precision and accuracy of the analyte PIC measure-
ments were assessed by analyzing the measured nitrous
oxide concentrations in the atmosphere. A typical back-
ground atmospheric concentration for nitrous oxide is about
310 ppb. However, this value may fluctuate due to sea-
sonal variations in nitrous oxide concentrations.
The precision of the analyte PIC measurements was evalu-
ated 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 loops used in a particular
survey.
The accuracy of the analyte PIC measurements was evalu-
ated by comparing the calculated nitrous oxide concentra-
tions from each data subsets to the background global con-
centration of 310 ppb. The number of calculated nitrous
oxide concentrations that failed to meet the DQI accuracy
criterion in each data subset was recorded.
This particular DQI check was developed before the May
2003 field campaign. Consequently, this DQI check was
only performed on data collected during the May 2003 and
September 2003 field campaigns.
4.1.1.1 May 2003 Field Campaign
Overall, 160 data subsets were analyzed from this field
campaign. Based on the DQI criterion set forth for preci-
sion of ±10%, each of the 160 data subsets were found to
be acceptable. The range of calculated relative standard
58
-------
At a Bioreactor Landfill
deviations for the data subsets from this field campaign
was 0.61 to 17.7 ppb, which represents 0.19%to 5.7% RSD.
Each data point (calculated nitrous oxide concentration) in
the 160 data subsets was analyzed to assess whether or not
it met the DQI criterion for accuracy of ±5% (310 ± 16
ppb nitrous oxide). A total of 2250 data points were ana-
lyzed. Based on the DQI criterion set forth for accuracy,
1315 data points were found to be acceptable, for a total
completeness of 58.4%.
A closer inspection of the results of the accuracy check
found that, in many instances, the data points failed to meet
the accuracy criterion by a narrow margin. In response to
this, the DQI criteria check for accuracy was performed
again with the criterion of ±10% (310 ± 31 ppb nitrous
oxide). Based on this criterion, 1943 data points were found
to be acceptable, for a total completeness of 86.4%.
Another observation resulting from the DQI accuracy check
was that there was a correlation between the distance of
the data subset path length and the number of data points
from that particular subset which failed to meet the accu-
racy criterion. This is not surprising since the standard glo-
bal background nitrous oxide concentration of 310 ppb is
close to the detection limits for this compound using OP-
FTIR. Table 42 presents a more detailed look at the DQI
check for accuracy that separates the results of the DQI
accuracy check based on the subset path length. It is ap-
parent from the results presented in Table 42 that many of
the unacceptable data points occurred along path lengths
less than 100 meters.
Table 42. Results of DQI Checks for Accuracy from the
May 2003 Field Campaign Based on Different DQI Criteria
and Different Data Subset Path Lengths.
Data
Subset
Path
Length
<100 m
>100 m
<100 m
>100 m
Accuracy
Criterion
+5%
+5%
+10%
+10%
Number
of Data
points
817
1433
817
1433
Number
of Failed
Data
Points
645
290
213
94
Complete-
ness
21%
80%
73.9%
93.4%
4.1.1.2 September 2003 Field Campaign
Overall, 86 data subsets were analyzed from this field cam-
paign. Based on the DQI criteria set forth for precision of
±10%, each of the 86 data subsets were found to be ac-
ceptable. The range of calculated relative standard devia-
tions for the data subsets from this field campaign was 0.47
to 27.9 ppb, which represents 0.15% to 9.0% RSD.
Each data point (calculated nitrous oxide concentration) in
the 86 data subsets was analyzed to assess whether or not
it met the DQI criterion for accuracy of ±5% (310 ± 16
ppb nitrous oxide). A total of 1712 data points were ana-
lyzed. Based on the DQI criterion set forth for accuracy,
1603 data points were found to be acceptable, for a total
completeness of 93.6%. The same check was performed a
second time with the criterion of ±10% (310 ± 31 ppb ni-
trous oxide). Based on this criterion, 1684 data points were
found to be acceptable, for a total completeness of 98.4%.
4.1.1.3 Discussion of the Results from the DQI Check
for Analyte PIC Measurement
Based on the results of the DQI checks that were performed
to assess the precision and accuracy of the analyte PIC
measurements, a couple of changes to the DQI criteria will
be proposed for future field campaigns.
An analysis of the calculated nitrous oxide concentrations
found that in most cases, the acceptable concentrations
approached the upper limits of the acceptable criterion. The
current standard global background nitrous oxide concen-
tration used (310 ppb) is taken from an ASTM standard
practice (ASTM, 2002). However, several studies have
found global background nitrous oxide concentration val-
ues slightly higher (320 ppb) than the 310 ppb value cur-
rently used. In response to the analysis done associated
with the DQI check for analyte PIC measurement, the glo-
bal background value used to assess accuracy should be
changed to 315 ppb for future field campaigns, which rep-
resents an average of the values cited in available refer-
ences.
In addition, it is apparent from the results that the accep-
tance criterion goal for accuracy is too narrow and should
be expanded slightly based on the findings of this DQI
check. In addition to expanding the range of the criterion
goal, the acceptance criterion goal should be differentiated
based on the path length being analyzed. This is supported
by the results presented in Table 42. In response to this, it
is proposed that the acceptance criterion goal be changed
to 315 ppb ± 20% for path lengths less than 100 m, and
315 ppb ± 10% for path lengths greater than 100 m.
4.1.2 DQI Checks for Ambient Wind Speed
and Wind Direction Measurements
The meteorological equipment was calibrated prior to the
May 2003 field campaign by the APPCD Metrology Lab
59
-------
Measurement of Fugitive Emissions
(see Table 40). Although calibration of the meteorological
heads did not occur prior to the September 2002 field study,
checks for agreement of the wind speed and wind direc-
tion measured from the two heads (2 m and 10m) 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
direction to the forecasted wind direction for that particu-
lar day.
4.1.3 DQI Check for Precision and Accuracy
of Theodolite Measurements
Although calibration of this instrument did not occur im-
mediately prior to the September 2002 field campaign, the
theodolite was originally calibrated by the manufacturer
prior to being received by the U.S. EPA.
Additionally, there are several internal checks in the the-
odolite software that prevent data collection from occur-
ring 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.
The following DQI checks were performed on the theodo-
lite at a field site near Chapel Hill, NC prior to the May
2003 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 dupli-
cated to test the precision of this measurement. The actual
distance measured was 15.2 m. The measured distance
during the first test was 15.4m and was 15.4m during the
second test. The results indicate the accuracy (1.3% bias
for test one and two) and precision (0% RSD) of the dis-
tance 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 ap-
proximately 180° apart. The theodolite 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 fall well
within the DQI goals.
4.2 QC Checks of OP-FTIR Instrument
Performance during Data Collection
As mentioned previously, many improvements to the QA
process have been developed and implemented over the
course of this long-term study. One of these improvements
involves the development of QC checks performed on the
OP-FTIR instrumentation in the field. Several checks are
performed on the OP-FTIR instrumentation on the first day
of a particular field campaign, and a couple of checks are
performed at the beginning of each day in the field. Table
43 provides more information on the OP-FTIR QC checks.
These QC checks were developed before the September
2003 field campaign. Consequently, they were not per-
formed during the September 2002 and May 2003 field
campaigns. However, there were QC procedures in place
during the September 2002 and May 2003 field campaigns
to ensure the strength of the signal being measured with
the OP-FTIR. During the field campaigns, the quality of
the instrument signal (interferogram) is checked constantly.
This is done by ensuring that the intensity of the signal is
Table 43. QC Checks Performed on the OP-FTIR Instrument.
QC Check
Detail of Test
Frequency
Single Beam Ratio Test
Stray Light
Noise Equivalent Absorbance
Saturation of Instrument
Random Baseline Noise
Ratio of the signal strength at two points in a collected
interferogram is calculated. Used to ensure that the infrared
beam is properly aligned through the Michelson interferometer.
Used to identify and quantify any stray light present in the
instrument detector. If stray light is present, the stray light
spectrum will be used to correct the collected data.
Used to measure amount of instrument noise and is generally
used as an instrument quality metric.
Used to test for instrument detector saturation, which can lead
to nonlinear responses to changes in infrared intensity.
Used to assess the random baseline noise of the instrument.
60
Daily
Daily
First day of field
campaign
First day of field
campaign
First day of field
campaign
-------
At a Bioreactor Landfill
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 are done constantly in the field to
ensure that the data are being collected and stored to the
data collection computer. During sampling, a member of
the field team constantly monitors the data collection com-
puter to make sure these checks are completed.
The Single Beam Ratio, Electronic Noise, Saturation, Lin-
earity, and Random Baseline Noise tests were performed
on the Unisearch OP-FTIR on September 25, 2003. The
results of these tests found that the Unisearch OP-FTIR
was operating efficiently.
The same tests were performed on the IMACC OP-FTIR
on September 26, 2003. The results of these tests found
that this instrument was operating favorably as well. Al-
though this series of tests should have been performed on
the IMACC OP-FTIR on the first day of the field cam-
paign (September 25), this was not possible due to the in-
tense schedule of the first full day of the field campaign.
In addition to the tests described above, the Single Beam
Ratio Test, and collection of a stray light spectrum was
performed on each day of the field campaign. The results
of the Single Beam Ratio Test indicated that both instru-
ments were operating favorably during the entire field cam-
paign.
4.3 Validation of VOC Concentration
Analysis
During the analysis of data from all of the field campaigns,
a validation procedure was performed on the data to aid in
identifying the presence of ammonia and VOCs in the data
set. This validation procedure involves visually compar-
ing an example of the measured spectra to a laboratory-
measured reference spectrum.
Figure 51 shows an example of a validation done using a
spectrum collected in the As-Built Area during the May
2003 field campaign. Ethanol, ammonia, and methanol
were detected in this particular spectrum. The Classical
Least Squares (CLS) analysis performed on this spectrum
resulted in determinations of 761.2 ± 5.8 ppb of ethanol,
• MIDAC GRAMS/386
File Edil View Collect Peaks Report ArtrYnelic Options Help Mdac EZ
Absorbance / Wavenumber (cm-1)
OverlayX Zoom SCROLL
&3Q/2003 10:66 AM Rcc-Nono
MHO. 'SCML 2(132004
J
MIDAC GBAMS/3SS
-•£
Figure 51. Comparison of a Spectrum Measured (red trace) at the As Built Area to Reference Spectra of Ethanol (blue
trace), Ammonia (green trace), and Methanol (purple trace).
61
-------
Measurement of Fugitive Emissions
81.3 ± 4.2 ppb of ammonia and 49.4 ± 6.2 ppb of metha-
nol. The plus and minus values are equal to three times the
standard error in the regression fit of the measured spec-
trum to a calibrated reference spectrum, propagated to the
concentration determination. The appearance of methanol
in this spectrum is distorted by the overlapping ethanol
and ammonia bands and has been further validated in an-
other spectrum in which there was little absorption by etha-
nol. Nevertheless, the methane features can be seen in the
spectrum shown in Figure 51, at 1033 cm"1.
4.4 September 2002 Site Audit
At the request of the work assignment manager, an onsite
U.S. EPA process audit was performed during the Septem-
ber 2002 field campaign. U.S. EPA auditors were present
during a portion of the campaign and observed the data
collection phase of the project. The audit continued during
the data analysis process, which occurred after the field
campaign.
In general, the auditors reported that ARC ADIS was doing
a favorable job of measuring fugitive emissions at the land-
fill, and that project personnel and OP-FTIR instrumenta-
tion performed well. However, the auditors offered sug-
gestions for future field tests encompassing:
• Recommendations for improved data management,
• Clarification of the U.S. EPA's role and responsibili-
ties in performing field measurements in collaboration
with ARCADIS personnel,
• Suggestions on quantifying and reporting the quality
of the emission flux measurements, and
• Recommendations for providing more explicit opera-
tional procedures for meteorological, path length, and
OP-FTIR measurements.
In response to the audit, work began on developing the
EPCD Optical Remote Sensing Facility Manual (U.S. EPA,
2004). The document contains the chain of custody used
in the data collection and analysis process, the role of all
personnel in the field, and standard operating procedures
for all instrumentation used in the field.
Additionally, a statistical analysis of a few of the data sets
was done to establish the minimum number of consecutive
OP-FTIR measurement loops needed to permit a valid
emission flux estimate. The analysis looked at trends in
methane concentrations, standard deviations, and the av-
erage CCF when a different number of loops is used for
the moving average.
The statistical analysis suggests that a moving average of
four loops is sufficient to provide a valid emission flux.
Figure 52 shows the average methane flux and average
CCF calculated using many different numbers of loops for
the moving average. The figure shows that the average
calculated methane flux increases slightly (as the number
of loops used for the moving average increases) but begins
to level off after four loops. Additionally, the figure shows
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
Number of Loops Used for Moving Average
Figure 52. Distance of the Reconstructed Plume from the Average Plume, and Average CCF from the September 2002
Retrofit Area North HRPM Survey.
62
-------
At a Bioreactor Landfill
that the standard deviation of methane fluxes decreases
rapidly after four loops. The CCF plot shows a similar trend,
with values leveling off after four loops and standard de-
viations decreasing as well.
Figures 53 and 54 show the distance of the reconstructed
methane plume from the average plume, and the average
uo
•3 0.00
1000
0.080
6.00
|
E
3.00
occ
• o.aso
o f *:
1 2 3 4 B B 7 6 9 10 11 12 13 H
Number of Loops Used for Moving Average
Figure 53. Distance of the Reconstructed Plume from the
Average Plume, and Average CCF from the September
2002 Retrofit Area North HRPM Survey.
£. "
1
1 4
- Distance of Plume from Average Plume
-CCF
0.995
039
u.
B
0975
0.355
1 2 3 4 5 0 7 0 9 10 It 12 13 14
Number of Loops Used for Moving Average
Figure 54. Distance of the Reconstructed Plume from the
Average Plume, and Average CCF from the September
2002 Retrofit Area South HRPM Survey.
CCF for the Retrofit Area north and south HRPM surveys,
respectively. Both figures show that the distance of the
average plume from the reconstructed plume decreases
sharply (as the number of loops used for the moving aver-
age increases) but begins to level off after four loops. Ad-
ditionally, the figures show that the standard deviations
decrease after four loops. The CCF plots for both figures
show a similar trend, with values leveling off after four
loops and standard deviations decreasing as well.
4.5 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 each field campaign. The audit investigated the
accuracy of the input files used in running the RPM pro-
grams. The input files contain analyzed concentration data,
mirror path lengths, and wind data. The results of this au-
dit found no problems with the accuracy of the input files
created.
4.6 Mercury Samples
Mercury samples were collected during the September 2002
and September 2003 field campaigns.
4.6.1 September 2002 Field Campaign
During the September 2002 campaign, the data from the
As-Built Area were not included in calculating the average
because it was not attached to the rest of the landfill gas
system during this campaign. Spike recoveries for the to-
tal mercury samples were 100%. Spike recoveries for the
dimethyl mercury traps were 7% for the flare and not de-
tected for the control area landfill gas. Unsampled spike
traps had recoveries from 69% to 105% and averaged 87%.
Recoveries were low in the spiked traps possibly due to
the presence of an unknown interfering compound either
destroying or masking the detection of the dimethyl mer-
cury. For this reason it is believed that the dimethyl mer-
cury concentrations determined for the September 2002
field campaign are at least the levels reported herein or
may be higher. Spike recoveries for the monomethyl mer-
cury impinger solution ranged from 51 % to 79% and aver-
aged 65%. The lower recoveries may have been due to a
preservation issue with the shipping.
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 44 presents precision values calculated for
each type of samples during the September 2002 campaign.
Precision goals established in the QAPP of <20% total
63
-------
Measurement of Fugitive Emissions
mercury and <20% organic mercury were met for all
samples.
Table 44. Precision Ranges for Mercury Measurements
During the September 2002 Campaign.
Total mercury
Monomethylmercury
Dimethylmercury
0-8.1%(RPD)
12%(RPD)
11.8% (RPD)
Total mercury met DQI goals for accuracy and precision
for all samples and was, therefore, 100% complete.
Monomethyl mercury met DQI goals for accuracy and pre-
cision for all samples and was, therefore, 100% complete.
Dimethyl mercury sampling met DQI goals for precision
but did not meet recovery criteria due to a matrix effect.
Therefore, completeness goals were not met for this
method.
4.6.2 September 2003 Field Campaign
It should be noted that the average of the Control Area
mercury measurements is considered to be biased high for
the September 2003 campaign. The vertical gas extraction
well sampled during this campaign was under positive pres-
sure, and the data are therefore suspect. Spike recoveries
for the total mercury samples were 93%. One dimethyl
mercury data point from the Retrofit Area was not included
because it was improperly sampled. Spike recoveries for
the dimethyl mercury traps ranged from 60.3% to 101.1%.
These recoveries are considerably better than the recover-
ies during the September 2002 campaign most probably
due to decreasing the sample volume from 9.0 L to 0.5 L.
However, more method development is needed to further
improve spike recoveries. Unsampled spike traps had re-
coveries from 85% to 94% and averaged 88.8%. Spike re-
coveries for the dimethyl mercury impingers ranged from
85.7% to 89.5%. Unsampled spike traps had recoveries of
90.4% for each of the two spiked impingers. Spike recov-
eries for the monomethyl samples were 26% for the flare,
26% for the retrofit area, and ranged from ND to 28% for
the control area. Spike recoveries for the unsampled
impinger solution were not determined by Frontier Scien-
tific. The low spike recoveries are most probably due to
improper preparation of the spike solution by Frontier Sci-
entific. Apparently this spike solution was made at a con-
centration of 0.25 ng/L instead of 1.0 ng/L.
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 45 represents precision values calculated
for each type of samples during the September 2003 cam-
paign. Precision goals established in the QAPP of <20%
total mercury and <20% organic mercury were met for all
samples.
Table 45. Precision Ranges for Mercury Measurements
During the September 2003 Campaign.
Total mercury
Monomethylmercury
Dimethylmercury
4.7% (RSD)
6.5-19.8% (RSD)
11.4% (RSD)
Total mercury met DQI goals for accuracy and precision
for all samples and was, therefore, 100% complete.
Monomethyl mercury met DQI goals for precision but did
not meet recovery criteria due to a spiking error. Com-
pleteness goals were not met for this method. Dimethyl
mercury sampling met DQI goals for accuracy and preci-
sion for all samples and was, therefore, 100% complete.
4.7 Problems and Limitations
4.7.1 September 2002 Field Campaign
During the course of the September 2002 field campaign,
the project ran into some instrumentation problems and
limitations that slightly hindered some aspects of the data
collection process. These included geographic barriers at
the site, limitations in the optical range of the OP-FTIR
instrument, and scanner errors that occurred primarily in
the Retrofit Area.
The optical range of the OP-FTIR instrument used in this
study was approximately 200 m. The optical range is af-
fected by many factors such as weather conditions and to-
pography at the site. This limitation primarily affected
measurements taken in the As-Built Area. As mentioned in
Section 2.1.1, the VRPM survey was oriented along the
southern boundary of the As-Built survey area. Because of
the limitation in the optical range of the OP-FTIR instru-
ment, it was not possible for the configuration to include
the entire southern boundary of the As-Built Area. There-
fore, it is possible that the calculated methane flux from
the As-Built Area may be underestimating the actual flux.
More advanced OP-FTIR instruments can easily have a
range of 500 m in similar conditions.
Scanning errors occurred when the actual scanner (used to
scan the OP-FTIR between each retroreflector in a con-
figuration) stopped scanning. When this problem occurred,
64
-------
At a Bioreactor Landfill
it prevented the completion of the survey, and the scan-
ning program had to be reprogrammed. It is unclear what
caused the scanning errors, but these errors occurred most
frequently in the Retrofit Area, which may receive electro-
magnetic energy from air traffic in the area.
4.7.2 May 2003 Field Campaign
Due to the use of improved instrumentation, the project
did not encounter any instrument-related problems during
the May 2003 field campaign. The only problem encoun-
tered was difficulty in establishing a true Control Area to
use for this field campaign. The location of the Control
Area was provided to the team by Waste Management per-
sonnel. The location and dimensions of the Control Area
were not consistent with the area provided for the Septem-
ber 2002 field campaign.
4.7.3 September 2003 Field Campaign
Due to the continued use of improved instrumentation, the
project did not encounter any instrument-related problems
during the September 2003 field campaign. However, due
to the continued difficulty in establishing a true Control
Area for the site, U.S. EPA personnel elected not to per-
form data collection in the Control Area provided by Waste
Management personnel.
Another difficulty encountered was access to some of the
survey sub areas. The Biocover Area was inaccessible for
data collection because of the presence of equipment used
by WMI. This equipment blocked the access road to the
Biocover Area. Due to this, and the tight schedule of the
field campaign, U.S. EPA personnel elected not to perform
data collection in the Biocover Area.
The Retrofit Area was only accessible by a gravel road
that had been installed by Waste Management. The road
was installed along the eastern edge of the area. Due to the
softness of the surface in the Retrofit Area, Waste Man-
agement advised the team to only access the Retrofit Area
via the gravel road. Because of this, it was not possible to
set up a VRPM plane along the western boundary of the
site, and only one vertical plane was used in this area.
65
-------
Measurement of Fugitive Emissions
66
-------
At a Bioreactor Landfill
5. List of References
ASTM (2002), Standard Practice for Open-Path Fourier Trans-
form Infrared (OP/FT-IR) Monitoring of Gases and Vapors in
Air, ASTM Standard E1982-98, ASTM International, 100 Ban-
Harbor Drive, PO Box C700, West Conshohocken, PA, 19428-
2959.
Childers, J.W., E.L. Thompson, D.B. Harris, D.A. Kirchgessner,
M. Clayton, D.F. Natschke, and W.J. Phillips (2001), Multi-pol-
lutant Concentration Measurements Around a Concentrated
Swine Production Facility Using Open-Path FTIR Spectrom-
etiy, Atmos. Environ.,35:ll, 1923-1936.
Childers, J.W., W.J. Phillips, E.L. Thompson, D.B. Harris, D.A.
Kirchgessner, D.F. Natschke, and M. Clayton (2002), Compari-
son of an Innovative Nonlinear Algorithm to Classical Least-
Squares for Analyzing Open-Path Fourier-Transform Infra-Red
Spectra Collected at a Concentrated Swine Production Facility,
J.Appl. Spectr., 56:3, 325-336.
Hashmonay, R.A., and M.G. Yost (1999), Localizing Gaseous
Fugitive Emission Sources by Combining Real-Time Optical
Remote Sensing and Wind Data, J. Air Waste Manage. Assoc.,
49:11, 1374-1379.
Hashmonay, R.A., D.F. Natschke, K.Wagoner, D.B. Harris,
E.L.Thompson, and M.G. Yost (2001), Field Evaluation of a
Method for Estimating Gaseous Fluxes from Area Sources Us-
ing Open-Path Fourier Transform Infrared, Environ. Sci.
Technol., 35:11, 2309-2313.
Hashmonay, R.A. (1999), Innovative Approach for Estimating
Fugitive Gaseous Fluxes Using Computed Tomography and
Remote Optical Sensing Techiniques, J. Air Waste Manage.
Assoc., 49:8, 966-972.
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, presented June
23-27, 2002 at the AWMA 95th Annual Conference and Exhi-
bition, Baltimore, MD.
Hashmonay, R.A., M.G. Yost, and C. Wu (1999), Computed
Tomography of Air Pollutants Using Radial Scanning Path-In-
tegrated Optical Remote Sensing, Atmos. Environ., 33:2, 267-
274.
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 Sens-
ing, presented at SPIE Conference on Environmental Monitor-
ing and Remediation Technologies, Boston, MA, Nov., 1998, in
SPIE 3534, 405-410.
Lindberg, S.E., and J.L. Price (1999), Airborne emissions of
mercury from municipal landfill operations: a short-term mea-
surement study in Florida, J. Air Waste Manage. Assoc., 49:5,
520-532.
Lindberg, S.E., D. Wallschlager, E.M. Prestbo, J. Price, and D.
Reinhart (2001), Methylated Mercury Species in Municipal
Waste Landfill Gas Sampled in Florida, USA, Atmos. Environ.,
35:23, 4011-4015.
Modrak, M.T., R.A. Hashmonay, R. Kagann (2004). Measure-
ment of Fugitive Emissions at a Region I Landfill, EPA-600/R-
04-001 (NTIS PB2004-103034), U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Office of Research and Development, Research Tri-
angle Park, NC, January.
Modrak, M.T., R.A. Hashmonay, R. Varma, R. Kagann (2005a),
Evaluation of Fugitive Emissions at a Brownfield Landfill in Ft.
Collins, Colorado Using Ground-Based Optical Remote Sens-
ing Technology, EPA-600/R-05/042 (NTIS PB2006-102403),
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and
Development, Research Triangle Park, NC, March.
Modrak, M.T., R.A. Hashmonay, R. Varma, R. Kagann (2005b),
Evaluation of Fugitive Emissions at a Brownfield Landfill in
Colorado Springs, Colorado Using Ground-Based Optical Re-
mote Sensing Technology, EPA-600/R-05/041 (NTIS PB2006-
103429), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Re-
search and Development, Research Triangle Park, NC, March.
Natschke, D.F., R.A. Hashmonay, K. Wagoner, D.B. Harris, E.L.
Thompson, and C.A. Vogel (2001), Seasonal Emissions of Am-
monia and Methane from a Hog Waste Lagoon with Bioactive
Cover, presented at International Symposium on Addressing
Animal Production and Environmental Issues, Research Triangle
Park, NC, Oct.
Reinhart, D.R., and T.G Townsend, Landfill Bioreactor Design
and Operation, Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton, Florida, 1998.
Russwurm, G.M., and J.W. Childers (1999), FT-IR Open-Path
Monitoring Guidance Document, 3rd ed., TR-4423-99-03, Hu-
67
-------
Measurement of Fugitive Emissions
man Exposure and Atmospheric Sciences Division, National
Exposure Research Laboratory: Research Triangle Park, NC,.
Shores, R.C., D.B. Harris, E.L. Thompson, C.A. Vogel, D.
Natschke, R.A. Hashmonay, K.R. Wagoner., M. Modrak(2005),
Plane-Integrated Open-Path Fourier Transform Infrared Spec-
trometry Methodology for Anaerobic Swine Lagoon Emission
Measurements, Applied Engineering in Agriculture, 21:3, 487-
492.
Thoma, E.D., R.C. Shores, E.L. Thompson, D.B. Harris, S.A.
Thorneloe, R.M. Varma, R.A. Hashmonay, M.T Modrak, D.F.
Natschke, andH.A. Gamble (2005), Open-Path Tunable Diode
Laser Absorption Spectroscopy for Acquisition of Fugitive
Emission Flux Data; J. Air Waste Manage. Assoc., 55:, 658-
668.
U.S. EPA(1997a), Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Fac-
tors, AP-42, 5th ed., Supplement C, U.S. Environmental Protec-
tion Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Re-
search Triangle Park, NC.
U.S. EPA (1997B), Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Fac-
tors, AP-42, Volume 1: Stationary Point and Area Sources, 5th
ed., Chapter 2.4, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office
of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Park,
NC.
U.S. EPA (1999), Compendium Method TO-16: Long-Path
Open-Path Fourier Transform Infrared Monitoring of Atmo-
spheric Gases, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Center
for Environmental Research Information-Office of Research and
Development, Cincinnati, Ohio, January.
U. S .EPA (2000), Guidance for the Data Quality Objectives Pro-
cess, EPA QA/G-4, EPA-600/R-96/055, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency Office of Environmental Information, Wash-
ington, DC, August.
U.S .EPA (2002), State of the Practice for Bioreactor Landfills,
presented at the Workshop on Bioreactor Landfills, Arlington,
Virginia, September 6-7, 2000, U.S. EPA National Risk Man-
agement Research Laboratory, Office of Research and Devel-
opment, January.
U.S. EPA (2003), Landfills asBioreactors: Research at the Outer
Loop Landfill, Louisville, Kentucky, First Interim Report, U.S.
EPA Office of Research and Development, Cincinnati, Ohio,
September.
U.S. EPA (2004), ECPB Optical Remote Sensing Facility
Manual, EPA-600/Q-04/088, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Office of Research and Development, Research Tri-
angle Park, NC, April.
Wu, C., M.G Yost, R.A. Hashmonay, and D.Y. Park (1999),
Experimental Evaluation of a Radial Beam Geometry for Map-
ping Air Pollutants Using Optical Remote Sensing and Com-
puted Tomography, Atmos. Environ., 33:28, 4709-4716.
68
-------
At a Bioreactor Landfill
Appendix A
Mirror Coordinates
A-l
-------
Measurement of Fugitive Emissions
Table A-1 . Mirror Coordinates for the VRPM Survey of the
As-Built Area During the September 2002
„. . . Horizontal
Mirror nSSS An9le from
Number Dls.ta"ce North
( ' (deg)
1 67.1 270
2 116 276
3 1 67 274
4 117 275
5 118 276
Field Campaign.
Vertical Angle3
(deg)
0
0
0
3
6
a Vertical angle is the angle from horizontal (positive values
are above the horizontal, and negative values are below
horizontal.)
Table A-4. Mirror Coordinates for the HRPM Survey of the
As-Built Area
Campaign.
Lower Cell During the
Mirror Number Standard Distance
(mi
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
201
153
209
103
163
60.7
112
70.6
May 2003 Field
Horizontal Angle
from North
(deg)
88
86
78
76
73
61
56
25
Table A-2. Mirror Coordinates for the HRPM Survey of the
As-Built Area During the September 2002
L
Mirror Number StandardJDistance
Lower Cell
1 70.5
2 79.8
Upper Cell
1 109
2 110
Field Campaign.
. . t 1 A 1
Tom^ortn19 "
Table A-5. Mirror Coordinates for the VRPM Survey of the
As-Built Area
Campaign.
Upper Cell During the
C4._CTj_.,j nori^oniai
Mirror Standard Ang|e from
291
60
244
121
Table A-3. Mirror Coordinates for the HRPM Survey of the
As-Built Area Upper Cell During the
Campaign.
Mirror Number Standard Distance *
1 R4 4
2 47.9
3 106
4 141
5 192
6 87.9
7 135
8 181
May 2003 Field
H°fromntNorth9le
(deg)
TOO
303
298
290
281
278
272
267
Number
Upwind
i
1
2
Downwind
1
2
3
4
5
6
a Vertical angle
are above the
horizontal.)
. . — North
(m> (deg)
?1 Q QO
C- \ <3 <3\J
220 90
54.7 98
124 98
195 99
196 99
196 99
225 100
May 2003 Field
Vertical Angle3
(deg)
i
1
4
0
0
1
2
4
1
is the angle from horizontal (positive values
horizontal, and negative values are below
A-2
-------
At a Bioreactor Landfill
Table A-6. Mirror Coordinates for the VRPM Survey of the
As-Built Area Lower Cell During the May 2003 Field
Campaign.
Mirror
Number
Upwind
1
2
Downwind
1
2
3
4
5
6
Standard
Distance
(m)
190
191
64.0
128
192
193
195
259
Horizontal
Angle from
North
(deg)
86
86
86
89
90
89
89
87
Vertical Angle3
(deg)
0
4
0
0
0
3
5
0
Table A-9. Mirror Coordinates for the VRPM Survey of the
As-Built Area Upper Cell During the September 2003 Field
Campaign.
Mirror
Number
Upwind
1
2
3
4
5
6
Downwind
1
2
Standard
Distance
(m)
74.2
138
203
204
205
264
263
143
Horizontal
Angle from
North
(deg)
82
84
84
84
84
83
80
80
Vertical Angle3
(deg)
0
0
0
2
4
0
1
0
1 Vertical angle is the angle from horizontal (positive values
are above the horizontal, and negative values are below
horizontal.)
1 Vertical angle is the angle from horizontal (positive values
are above the horizontal, and negative values are below
horizontal.)
Table A-7. Mirror Coordinates for the HRPM Survey of the
As-Built Area Upper Cell During the September 2003 Field
Campaign.
Standard Distance Horizontal Angle
Table A-10. Mirror Coordinates for the VRPM Survey of
the As-Built Area Lower Cell During the September 2003
Field Campaign.
mirror INI
1
2
3
5
6
7
8
Table A-8.
.moer (m) n
84.6
135
190
OH O
61 .8
237
121
178
238
Mirror Coordinates for the HRPM
om ixiorin
(deg)
37
58
66
CO
66
72
76
78
82
Survey of the
As-Built Area Lower Cell During the September 2003 Field
Campaign.
Mirror
Number
Upwind
1
2
3
Downwind
1
2
3
4
5
6
a Vertical angle
Standard
Distance
/m\
jmj
84.4
200
201
73.9
138
203
204
204
252
is the angle
Horizontal
Angle from
North
(deg)
89
87
87
89
90
89
89
89
92
from horizontal
Vertical Angle3
(deg)
0
0
3
0
0
0
2
4
0
(positive values
M,,,o,Numbe,
are above the horizontal, and negative values are below
horizontal.)
(deg|
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
79.9
122
53.9
161
101
214
154
201
29
53
55
62
72
73
77
83
A-3
-------
Measurement of Fugitive Emissions
Table A-11. Mirror Coordinates for the HRPM Survey of
the Retrofit Area During the September 2002 Field
Campaign.
Mirror Number Standard Distance Ho£™S,3j8le
(m> (deg)
North
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
South
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Table A-12.
the Retrofit
Campaign.
Mirror
Number
North
1
2
3
4
5
South
1
2
3
4
5
55.5
72.2
34.3
92.7
115
56.4
84.3
108.8
89.1
69.7
52.2
104
84.7
34.1
67.5
55.7
67
47
44
36
30
25
18
13
181
175
163
160
154
143
142
125
Mirror Coordinates for the VRPM Survey of
Area During the September
St d d Horizontal
(m) (deg)
29.7 4
65.7 13
102 8
103 7
104 8
31.8 158
58 .2 1 72
88.7 177
91.9 176
93.1 177
2002 Field
(deg)
0
0
0
2
6
0
0
0
3
7
Table A-13. Mirror Coordinates for the HRPM Survey of
the Retrofit Area During the May 2003 Field Campaign.
Mirror Number Standard Distance ""J^E^818
(m' (deg)
North
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
South
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
94.4
71.8
50.1
105
87.6
37.7
74.5
60.2
52.5
33.6
67.2
83.0
100.3
50.6
70.1
90.4
Table A-14. Mirror Coordinates for the
7
11
19
25
34
48
48
72
104
129
130
144
152
157
165
169
VRPM Survey of
the Retrofit Area During the May 2003 Field Campaign.
Mirror
Number
Upwind
1
2
Downwind
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
a Vertical angle
are above the
horizontal.)
Standard A-f^ii**—!,
Distance g|rtn
(deg)
183 179
184 179
48.6 181
78.7 185
107 182
144 183
183 181
184 181
185 181
Vertical Angle3
(deg)
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
2
10
is the angle from horizontal (positive values
horizontal, and negative values are below
' Vertical angle is the angle from horizontal (positive values
are above the horizontal, and negative values are below
horizontal.)
A-4
-------
At a Bioreactor Landfill
Table A-15.
the Retrofit
Campaign.
Mirror Coordinates for the
HRPM Survey of
Area During the September 2003 Field
Mirror Number StandardJDistance
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
Table A-16.
the Retrofit
Campaign.
Mirror
Number
1
2
3
4
5
6
62.9
55.2
97.8
45.9
90.7
134
172
127
212
85.9
170
127
205
170
206
Horizontal Angle
from North
(deg)
312
322
332
339
340
342
348
349
351
352
354
356
356
358
0
Mirror Coordinates for the VRPM Survey of
Area During the September 2003 Field
0. . . Horizontal
DisS Atertfr
(m) (d°eg)
71.6 1
114 356
164 359
209 357
210 357
210 357
Vertical Angle3
(deg)
0
0
0
0
1
3
Table A-17. Mirror Coordinates for the VRPM Survey of
the Biocoverand Control Areas During the September 2002
Field Campaign.
St d d Horizontal
Mirror n. . Angle from Vertical Angle3
Number Distance North (deg)
(m> (deg)
Upwind
1 46.7 19 0
2 47.8 19 2
Downwind
1 36.4 90 0
2 50.8 86 0
3 68.1 88 0
4 69.0 87 2
5 69.3 88 5
a Vertical angle is the angle from horizontal (positive values
are above the horizontal, and negative values are below
horizontal.)
Table A-18. Mirror Coordinates for the VRPM Survey of
the Control Area During the May 2003 Field Campaign.
otanHarH Horizontal
Mirror aranaara Angle from Vertical Angle3
Number Liisiance North (deg)
(m> (deg)
Upwind
1 46.7 19 0
2 47.8 19 2
Downwind
1 56.6 66 0
2 36.4 90 1
a Vertical angle is the angle from horizontal (positive values
are above the horizontal, and negative values are below
horizontal.)
1 Vertical angle is the angle from horizontal (positive values
are above the horizontal, and negative values are below
horizontal.)
A-5
-------
Measurement of Fugitive Emissions
Fable A-19. Mirror Coordinates for the VRPM Survey of
he Biocover Area During the
Mirror
Number
ii • ^i
upwind
1
2
Downwind
1
2
3
4
5
6
a Vertical angle
are above the
Standard
Distance
(m)
121
121
65.1
87.0
128
129
129
156
May 2003
Horizontal
Angle from
North
(deg)
2
2
24
22
24
23
24
26
is the angle from horizontal
horizontal, and
Field Campaign.
Vertical Angle3
(deg)
0
3
0
0
0
1
3
0
(positive values
negative values are below
Table A-20. Mirror Coordinates for the VRPM Survey of
the Compost
Campaign.
Mirror
Number
Upwind
1
2
3
4
2
Downwind
1
2
0
o
4
Area During
Standard
Distance
(m)
39.3
103
133
135
136
23.4
49.8
f?1 Q
o i .y
52.8
the September
2002 Field
Horizontal
Angle from Vertical Angle3
North (deg)
frte*n\
(aeg)
183
185
184
182
183
325
330
QQt;
O£_O
328
0
0
0
1
3
0
0
A
i+
8
horizontal.)
1 Vertical angle is the angle from horizontal (positive values
are above the horizontal, and negative values are below
horizontal.)
A-6
-------
At a Bioreactor Landfill
Appendix B
Methane, Ammonia, and VOC Concentrations
B-l
-------
Measurement of Fugitive Emissions
Contents
Table Page
B -1 Methane Concentrations Found During the September 2002 VRPM Survey of the As-Built Area B -3
B-2 Concentrations of Methane, VOCs, and Ammonia Measured on the Mirror 1 Path During the
September 2002HRPM Survey of the As-Built Area Lower Cell B-3
B-3 Concentrations of Methane, VOCs, and Ammonia Measured on the Mirror 2 Path During the
September 2002 HRPM Survey of the As-Built Area Lower Cell B-4
B-4 Concentrations of Methane and VOCs Measured on the Mirror 1 Path During the September
2002 HRPM Survey of the As-Built Area Upper Cell B-4
B-5 Concentrations of Methane, VOCs, and Ammonia Measured on the Mirror 2 Path During the
September 2002 HRPM Survey of the As-Built Area Upper Cell B-5
B-6 Concentrations of Ammonia and VOCs Measured During Run 1 of the September 2002 VRPM
Survey of the As-Built Area B-5
B-7 Concentrations of Ammonia and VOCs Measured During Run 2 of the September 2002 VRPM
Survey of the As-Built Area B-5
B-8 Methane Concentrations Found During the May 2003 HRPM Survey of the As-Built Area Upper Cell B-6
B-9 Concentrations of Ammonia and VOCs Measured on the Mirror 5 Path During the May 2003
HRPM Survey of the As-Built Area Upper Cell B-6
B-10 Concentrations of Ammonia and VOCs Measured on the Mirror 4 Path During the May 2003
HRPM Survey of the As-Built Area Slope B-6
B-ll Methane Concentrations Found During the May 2003 HRPM Survey of the As-Built Area Lower Cell B-7
B-12 Methane Concentrations Found During the May 2003 VRPM Survey of the As-Built Area Upper Cell B-7
B-13 Concentrations of Ammonia and VOCs Measured During the May 2003 VRPM Survey of the
As-Built Area Upper Cell B-8
B-14 Methane Concentrations Found During the May 2003 VRPM Survey of the As-Built Area Lower Cell B-9
B-15 Methane Concentrations Found During the September 2003 HRPM Survey of the As-Built Area Upper Cell B-10
B-16 Methane Concentrations Found During the September 2003 HRPM Survey of the As-Built Area Lower Cell B-10
B-17 Methane Concentrations Found During the September 2003 VRPM Survey of the As-Built Area Upper Cell B-ll
B-18 Methane Concentrations Found During the September 2003 VRPM Survey of the As-Built Area Lower Cell B-ll
B-19a Methane Concentrations Found During the September 2002 HRPM Survey of the Retrofit Area's Northern Part... B-13
B-19b Methane Concentrations Found During the September 2002 HRPM Survey of the Retrofit Area's Southern Part... B-13
B-20a Methane Concentrations Found During the September 2002 VRPM Survey of the Retrofit Area's Northern Part... B-14
B-20b Methane Concentrations Found During the September 2002 VRPM Survey of the Retrofit Area's Southern Part... B-14
B-21a Methane Concentrations Found During the May 2003 HRPM Survey of the Retrofit Area's Northern Part B-15
B-21b Methane Concentrations Found During the May 2003 HRPM Survey of the Retrofit Area's Southern Part B-15
B-22 Methane Concentrations Found During the May 2003 VRPM Survey of the Retrofit Area B-16
B-23 Methane Concentrations Found During the September 2003 HRPM Survey of the Retrofit Area B-17
B-24 Methane Concentrations Found During the September 2003 VRPM Survey of the Retrofit Area B-18
B-25 Methane Concentrations Found During the September 2002 VRPM Survey of the Control Area B-19
B-26 Concentrations of Ammonia and VOCs Found During the September 2002 VRPM Survey
of the Control Area Run 1 B-19
B-27 Concentrations of Ammonia and VOCs Found During the September 2002 VRPM Survey
of the Control Area Run 2 B-20
B-28 Methane Concentrations Found During the May 2003 VRPM Survey of the Control Area B-21
B-29 Methane Concentrations Found During the September 2002 VRPM Survey of the Biocover Area B-22
B-30 Methane, Ammonia, and VOC Concentrations Found Along the Path to Mirror 1 During
the September 2002 VRPM Survey of the Biocover Area B-23
B-31 Methane Concentrations Found During the May 2003 VRPM Survey of the Biocover Area B-23
B-32 Methane Concentrations Found During the September 2002 Downwind VRPM Survey of the Compost Area B-24
B-33 Methane Concentrations Found During the September 2002 Upwind VRPM Survey of the Compost Area B-24
B-2
-------
At a Bioreactor Landfill
Table B-1. Methane Concentrations Found During the September 2002 VRPM Survey
of the As-Built Area.
Methane Concentration Detected in Path to Mirror Number
Loop (Ppmv)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
Mirror 1
135
194
189
158
117
104
221
137
51.3
222
192
182
203
101
191
219
Mirror 2
123
128
159
128
134
102
148
211
96.7
186
168
162
194
91
188
131
Mirror 3
91.9
90.1
110
117
135
58.7
121
150
110
143
150
147
164
143
151
161
Mirror 4
74.9
65.5
50.6
35.8
56.3
59.2
62.8
132
94.5
96.3
104
91.1
102
100
92.8
Mirror 5
77.3
71.9
60.2
65.1
58.2
110
73.8
35.9
137
71.2
71.2
97.1
47.9
91.9
61.4
Table B-2. Concentrations of Methane, VOCs, and Ammonia Measured on the Mirror 1
Path During the September 2002 HRPM Survey of the As-Built Area Lower Cell.
VOC Concentration along Path to Mirror 1
(Ppmv)
Methane Acetylene Ethanol _. r^l9HC
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
Average
26 0.038
27
21 0.031
24
31
41
32
31
31 0.033
35 0.055
31 0.064
26 0.018
21
23 0.035
29
22 0.038 0.057
32
23
23
23
28
B-3
-------
Measurement of Fugitive Emissions
Table B-3. Concentrations of Methane, VOCs, and Ammonia Measured on the Mirror 2 Path During the
September 2002 HRPM Survey of the As-Built Area Lower Cell.
1 f\f\n
LOOp —
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
Average
VOC Concentration along Path to Mirror 2
(ppmv)
Methane
13
15
13
22
22
17
21
21
13
23
19
17
14
11
11
18
19
11
21
11
17
Ethanol
0.0075
0.0074
0.0095
Table B-4. Concentrations of
HRPM Survey of the As-Built
Loop
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
Average
.„„__:_ Straight- Bent-
Ammonia Chajn HCs Chajn HCs
0.0095
0.0086
0.0060
0.0063
0.015
0.012 0.022
0.0066
0.0058 0.017
0.014
0.0055
0.0063
Methane and VOCs Measured on the Mirror 1 Path During the September 2002
Area Upper Cell.
VOC Concentration along Path to Mirror 1
(ppmv)
Methane Ethylene Acetylene Ethanol MTBEa
24
18
27
25
32
19
29
33
37
28
29
23
29
19
26
25
31
27
25
28
27
0.0098
0.0082 0.028
0.0082 0.024
0.0067
0.0055
0.012
0.015
0.015
0.021
0.020 0.0047
0.022
0.0082 0.019 0.025
1 MTBE = methyl tert-butyl ether.
B-4
-------
At a Bioreactor Landfill
Table B-5. Concentrations of Methane, VOCs, and Ammonia Measured on the Mirror 2 Path
During the September 2002 HRPM Survey of the As-Built Area Upper Cell.
Loop
Concentration of Substance along Path to Mirror 5
(ppmv)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
Average
Methane
26
21
27
24
28
15
39
31
24
31
16
13
12
22
35
24
22
27
33
36
25
Ethylene Acetylene
0.0038
0.00077
0.0057 0.01 1
0.0054
0.0087 0.022
0.0036
0.0041
0.0053 0.017
0.0049
0.0092 0.020
0.011
0.0079 0.017
0.012
0.0072
Ethanol Ammonia
0.011
0.0078
0.0038
0.0035
0.025
0.01 1 0.0023
Table B-6. Concentrations of Ammonia and VOCs Measured During Run 1 of the September 2002 VRPM
Survey of the As-Built Area.
Concentration of Substance in Mirrors 1 to 5
(ppmv)
Loop
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
1
0.004
0.004
0.004
Ammonia
234
0.005
0.007
Straight-Chain Hydrocarbons
512345
0.13
0.56
3.69
0.98 2.80
2.64
2.95
2.01
Bent-Chain
1 2
0.39
0.222 1.16
Hydrocarbons
345
0.41
0.18
Table B-7. Concentrations of Ammonia and VOCs Measured During Run 2 of the
September 2002 VRPM Survey of the As-Built Area.
Concentration of Substance in Mirrors 1 to 5
(ppmv)
Loop
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Straight-Chain Hydrocarbons
12345
2.03
Bent-Chain
1 2
0.728
2.03
Hydrocarbons
345
B-5
-------
Measurement of Fugitive Emissions
Table B-8. Methane Concentrations Found During the May 2003 HRPM Survey of the As-Built Area Upper Cell.
Methane Concentration for Path to Mirror Number
Loop (Ppmv)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
Table B-9.
Mirror 1
34
35
42
50
94
61
45
19
26
36
44
42
67
67
66
46
68
107
24
25
23
60
Mirror 2 Mirror 3 Mirror 4 Mirror 5 Mirror 6 Mirror?
30
27
30
41
56
28
26
21
22
29
30
31
52
81
82
120
153
71
23
49
103
84
31
37
45
29
45
51
55
24
14
20
25
30
31
38
50
68
73
42
13
17
52
62
35
44
44
28
40
67
52
28
18
19
34
20
22
42
38
75
62
26
11
24
51
48
Concentrations of Ammonia and VOCs
Measured on the Mirror 5 Path During the May 2003 HRPM
Survey of the As-Built Area
Upper Cell.
Concentration of Substance
Loop
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
Ammonia
0.009
0.004
0.006
0.005
0.004
0.005
0.004
to Mirror 5
(ppmv)
Methanol
0.025
0.020
0.015
0.034
0.010
0.021
0.029
0.042
0.029
0.017
0.023
0.024
0.016
along Path
Ethanol
0.007
0.014
0.011
0.022
0.021
0.019
0.022
0.030
0.024
0.007
0.011
0.015
0.018
0.021
0.014
26
36
23
33
27
81
34
21
15
14
18
25
27
46
61
68
46
23
13
28
47
38
Table B-10.
31 15
33 28
16 15
21 21
40 26
80 62
39 27
34 21
15 25
19 13
19 28
22 19
74 68
50 61
80 82
129 97
96 62
65 35
97 43
44 25
77 65
112 91
Mirror 8
16
24
19
27
22
35
13
16
15
13
12
15
77
51
95
117
43
23
22
64
77
49
Concentrations of Ammonia and VOCs
Measured on the Mirror 4 Path During the May 2003 HRPM
Survey of the
Loop
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
As-Built Area Slope.
Concentration of Substance
to Mirror 4
(ppmv)
Ammonia Methanol
0.017
0.018 0.022
0.006
0.006
0.010
0.010
0.014
0.010 0.011
0.013
0.017 0.013
0.010 0.014
0.007 0.017
0.005 0.012
0.014 0.016
0.010
0.011 0.012
0.019 0.013
along Path
Ethanol
0.126
0.199
0.041
0.049
0.095
0.041
0.029
0.052
0.033
0.028
B-6
-------
At a Bioreactor Landfill
Table B-11.
Loop
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
TableB-12.
Methane
Concentrations
Found During
the May
2003 HRPM Survey
Methane Concentration for Path to Mirror
(ppmv)
Mirror 1
55
52
41
45
42
47
49
52
49
50
42
45
60
47
55
35
57
53
22
13
19
24
25
26
12
31
51
Methane
Loop
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
Mirror 2
53
44
50
53
43
72
52
43
43
53
45
44
66
44
58
17
12
41
19
37
12
26
16
24
16
51
28
Concentrations
Mirror 3
81
87
69
58
56
53
62
71
67
86
72
78
86
80
55
24
48
56
39
46
26
50
27
41
34
61
56
Found During
Mirror
85
68
52
71
61
79
62
60
63
78
65
73
85
75
70
40
29
28
34
38
27
29
35
30
52
63
29
the May
4 Mirror 5
65
59
54
77
61
72
65
60
75
71
83
70
67
86
103
77
48
42
60
59
54
41
57
48
51
55
40
2003 VRPM Survey
Methane Concentration for Path to Mirror
(ppmv)
Mirror 1
14
10
22
33
4
29
15
6
31
20
12
21
29
26
6
14
Mirror 2
14
19
13
35
5
34
16
16
31
21
21
22
26
19
6
11
Mirror
22
21
8
33
6
25
16
21
19
18
19
32
22
6
6
8
3 Mirror 4
14
23
9
25
7
22
12
7
17
11
14
23
25
7
6
5
of the As-Built
Number
Area Lower
Mirror 6 Mirror 7
21
38
34
36
42
43
37
35
48
58
51
49
45
51
34
15
27
31
26
33
41
27
43
38
16
16
33
of the As-Built
Number
164
146
116
130
199
157
142
172
116
143
148
146
167
134
179
46
125
76
69
110
82
36
56
86
115
106
37
Area Upper
Cell.
Mirror 8
47
45
49
42
52
43
42
43
49
66
49
49
52
58
50
56
47
47
45
46
55
36
44
58
43
63
49
Cell.
Mirror 5 Mirror 6
19
15
14
11
7
23
15
10
10
16
10
9
21
7
10
10
17
22
24
12
11
24
15
15
7
25
16
21
29
10
23
12
cotinued
B-7
-------
Measurement of Fugitive Emissions
Table B-1 2 (concluded). Methane Concentrations Found During the May 2003 VRPM Survey of the As-Built Area
Upper Cell.
Methane Concentration for Path to Mirror Number
Loop (ppmv)
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
Mirror 1
14
37
14
11
7
8
8
30
12
16
8
27
18
23
Mirror 2
19
23
9
8
9
13
5
21
12
18
15
28
14
17
Mirror 3
20
15
10
15
16
14
6
17
13
29
21
15
12
10
Mirror 4
21
11
12
13
20
19
10
9
7
14
29
11
6
5
Mirror 5
12
6
7
5
9
10
8
6
7
16
17
6
3
7
Mirror 6
19
8
19
8
16
13
12
16
19
16
26
10
7
19
Table B-13. Concentrations of Ammonia and VOCs
Measured During the May 2003 VRPM Survey of the As-
Built Area Upper Cell.
Table B-13 (concluded). Concentrations of Ammonia and
VOCs Measured During the May 2003 VRPM Survey of
the As-Built Area Upper Cell.
Loop
Concentration of Substance
(ppmv)
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
Ammonia
0.006
0.011
0.018
0.081
0.015
0.026
0.007
0.019
0.013
0.008
0.012
0.018
0.023
0.015
0.014
Methanol
0.022
0.010
0.017
0.020
0.030
0.017
0.049
0.017
0.036
0.030
0.099
0.136
0.062
0.036
0.027
0.048
0.013
0.019
Ethanol
0.038
0.056
0.030
0.026
0.050
0.092
0.067
0.761
0.048
0.055
0.206
0.118
0.010
0.196
0.154
0.115
0.068
0.061
0.121
0.058
0.077
0.072
Loop
Concentration of Substance
(PPmv)
continued
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
Ammonia
0.012
0.027
0.031
0.013
0.011
0.008
0.099
0.008
0.029
0.010
0.029
0.008
0.017
0.024
0.017
0.018
0.028
0.008
0.021
0.025
Methanol
0.024
0.021
0.031
0.013
0.026
0.014
0.031
0.032
0.032
0.016
0.016
0.018
Ethanol
0.119
0.062
0.231
0.048
0.067
0.052
0.139
0.123
0.173
0.081
0.096
0.055
0.021
0.014
0.054
0.088
B-8
-------
At a Bioreactor Landfill
Table B-14. Methane C
Loop
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
oncentrations Found During the May 2003 VRPM Survey of the As-Built Area Lower Cell.
Methane Concentration for Path to Mirror Number
(ppmv)
Mirror 1
33
33
12
41
26
33
42
34
35
40
45
46
37
34
48
39
36
45
44
41
40
48
66
42
65
58
59
57
49
36
36
37
37
51
59
52
Mirror 2
34
35
16
39
39
35
35
22
38
35
28
37
38
39
46
44
41
47
38
38
36
44
62
40
59
69
59
70
39
33
37
35
41
41
50
47
Mirror 3
28
19
19
29
37
43
35
23
32
43
38
40
33
34
36
31
36
41
32
34
27
41
62
35
54
46
45
57
39
38
35
45
42
33
49
47
Mirror 4
19
28
11
13
23
17
17
16
20
28
21
20
11
14
17
28
19
18
15
20
15
24
28
23
27
24
17
17
18
13
14
16
18
12
20
19
Mirror 5
12
18
9
9
11
10
10
8
9
13
12
15
12
10
13
22
20
11
16
8
9
19
18
12
16
17
12
9
13
11
10
10
12
12
13
15
Mirror 6
83
63
59
48
51
66
64
49
36
41
61
58
63
57
48
94
53
53
80
59
80
58
84
70
68
61
85
72
49
63
64
84
60
59
75
69
B-9
-------
Measurement of Fugitive Emissions
TableB-15.
Loop
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
TableB-16.
Methane
Mirror 1
111
66
66
94
83
82
63
73
73
79
67
63
57
67
38
51
43
51
46
54
22
23
31
55
72
47
51
38
21
28
Methane
Concentrations
Mirror 2
120
91
91
86
81
111
104
56
79
92
74
95
78
98
54
60
63
57
77
49
42
37
45
41
34
44
48
59
26
81
Concentrations
Found During the September 2003 HRPM Survey of the
Methane Concentration for Path to Mirror Number
(ppmv)
Mirror 3
93
88
84
85
105
118
63
53
77
87
103
83
79
70
67
66
59
77
46
64
38
37
47
67
55
50
36
40
39
48
Found During
Mirror 4
98
55
79
69
57
72
105
71
55
77
73
52
51
60
50
29
24
23
26
19
29
18
38
45
29
23
29
20
18
30
Mirror 5
76
45
56
78
86
71
60
58
79
77
101
55
56
68
54
62
66
36
40
16
37
41
49
23
21
41
27
25
24
27
the September 2003 HRPM
Methane Concentration
Loop
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
Mirror 6
88
77
81
91
87
93
80
79
81
76
80
81
72
73
59
83
76
46
74
70
59
69
61
74
59
66
60
57
74
63
Survey of the
As-Built Area
Mirror 7
59
59
76
82
97
82
66
68
83
74
78
54
73
65
64
57
52
32
50
48
40
47
42
51
40
45
41
39
51
43
As-Built Area
Upper Cell.
Mirror 8
41
54
53
66
75
55
59
55
57
67
66
49
46
51
44
59
34
22
30
24
31
33
36
33
38
29
34
18
22
22
Lower Cell.
for Path to Mirror Number
(ppmv)
Mirror 1
58
41
33
37
94
44
51
63
67
42
89
29
44
54
53
Mirror 2
46
47
22
56
59
37
31
48
52
51
43
40
56
40
52
Mirror 3
94
26
24
80
77
58
78
67
77
46
74
85
68
76
45
Mirror 4
40
46
44
47
52
56
64
56
60
56
61
60
56
63
60
Mirror 5
65
49
42
50
84
48
53
65
38
69
79
63
43
63
100
Mirror 6
44
48
50
47
54
53
48
51
47
53
51
54
50
44
80
Mirror 7
65
46
51
56
49
48
58
54
63
53
54
60
60
69
61
Mirror 8
47
47
60
62
71
81
65
54
65
73
65
69
75
46
66
B-10
-------
At a Bioreactor Landfill
Table B-17. Methane
Loop
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
TableB-18. Methane
Loop
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
Concentrations
Mirror 1
13
22
38
59
42
11
21
32
52
45
47
56
24
61
46
55
26
32
32
26
56
44
38
34
53
52
Concentrations
Found During the September 2003 VRPM Survey of the
Methane Concentration for Path to Mirror Number
(ppmv)
Mirror 2
21
19
44
72
47
14
53
25
45
56
45
85
34
57
57
50
34
43
48
40
46
36
74
77
88
77
Found During
Mirror 3
28
21
74
47
36
29
48
20
39
56
44
76
53
42
46
37
41
27
35
47
46
58
62
65
73
65
As-Built Area Upper Cell.
Mirror 4 Mirror 5 Mirror 6
33
21
42
42
24
34
23
13
21
33
19
40
29
23
24
15
43
13
21
20
36
25
46
43
42
35
14
19
24
22
21
5
14
6
13
13
9
28
12
13
13
19
39
15
15
9
18
21
20
20
23
22
the September 2003 VRPM Survey of the
Methane Concentration for Path to Mirror
(ppmv)
Mirror 1
46
35
25
45
27
45
62
29
50
52
47
54
45
51
65
57
Mirror 2
36
55
32
24
46
42
50
44
57
56
41
50
51
66
50
63
Mirror
26
49
28
22
28
42
24
33
37
40
38
38
43
49
37
37
3 Mirror 4
22
34
26
29
37
45
32
35
25
32
29
29
27
42
36
28
Number
Mirror 5
23
20
14
15
24
25
30
48
17
16
15
20
24
27
29
16
33
44
33
30
21
11
30
26
40
47
25
42
37
48
37
47
40
34
38
45
53
52
52
44
49
61
As-Built Area Lower Cell.
Mirror 6
50
37
34
32
38
61
37
53
37
46
34
39
42
50
44
36
continued
B-ll
-------
Measurement of Fugitive Emissions
Table B-18 (concluded).
Area Lower Cell.
Loop
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
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
Methane Concentrations Found During the September 2003 VRPM Survey of the As-Built
Methane Concentration for Path to Mirror Number
(ppmv)
Mirror 1
45
46
70
39
30
24
53
33
23
23
38
38
33
23
20
26
27
35
27
23
18
13
21
22
40
30
31
35
34
34
32
17
17
50
Mirror 2
58
37
56
17
29
32
34
29
39
29
18
35
34
25
28
36
38
50
45
31
21
19
24
32
56
31
34
36
41
42
33
16
27
43
Mirror 3
35
35
24
31
27
18
21
22
25
27
22
28
18
17
29
27
28
34
47
31
41
14
17
30
36
22
16
23
22
27
16
12
27
24
Mirror 4
20
30
20
27
23
14
29
17
19
18
24
32
15
15
26
19
26
34
31
20
38
9
18
24
27
18
15
17
15
12
14
11
22
21
Mirror 5
28
18
28
22
20
16
22
14
13
16
23
18
23
13
23
20
30
29
31
21
20
8
12
25
13
13
19
18
17
10
11
9
11
18
Mirror 6
51
49
47
35
32
39
30
29
32
28
34
30
30
22
32
25
42
27
26
19
19
22
28
23
30
20
34
31
28
24
14
17
30
25
B-12
-------
At a Bioreactor Landfill
Table B-19a. Methane Concentrations Found During the September 2002 HRPM Survey of
Part.
Methane Concentration for Path to Mirror Number
Loop (Ppmv)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
Mirror 1
26
31
24
25
19
34
16
18
495
496
494
492
4
16
26
28
Mirror 2
21
36
29
28
29
38
34
27
529
533
564
563
25
27
34
26
Mirror 3
53
36
42
53
48
55
41
41
482
439
484
486
10
46
22
12
Mirror 4
49
26
43
54
40
40
39
31
538
592
635
624
20
31
26
17
Mirror 5
48
26
61
35
42
50
29
43
607
880
924
771
24
56
25
37
Mirror 6
69
52
85
78
58
47
39
49
577
526
567
564
29
54
37
53
the Retrofit Area's Northern
Mirror 7
58
63
51
81
49
48
59
43
549
547
561
534
69
50
61
67
Mirror 8
63
30
42
50
29
26
558
604
732
685
32
52
56
46
Table B-19b. Methane Concentrations Found During the September 2002 HRPM Survey of the Retrofit Area's Southern
Part.
Methane Concentration for Path to Mirror Number
Loop (Ppmv)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
Mirror 1
32
26
51
34
45
33
34
36
499
509
506
502
34
31
30
25
Mirror 2
38
47
44
53
48
46
52
46
505
514
511
509
46
49
45
42
Mirror 3
53
70
74
92
49
62
47
81
538
523
537
520
54
42
59
38
Mirror 4
49
60
49
67
63
45
37
38
558
560
558
551
35
36
37
32
Mirror 5
52
52
31
44
44
32
37
37
549
526
538
531
42
29
38
31
Mirror 6
66
39
35
51
35
35
31
41
499
479
490
494
26
16
19
23
Mirror 7
45
27
39
31
31
22
39
42
524
519
520
524
34
33
33
37
Mirror 8
33
28
29
53
37
50
18
41
491
483
499
485
34
26
46
29
B-13
-------
Measurement of Fugitive Emissions
Table B-20a. Methane Concentrations Found During the September 2002 VRPM Survey of the Retrofit Area's Northern
Part
Methane Concentration for Path to Mirror Number
LOOD (PPmv)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
aN/A =
Table B-20b. Methane
Part.
Mirror 1
45
98
69
54
77
98
43
72
77
76
116
144
131
67
57
not available.
Concentrations
Mirror 2
134
104
115
106
110
93
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Mirror 3
78
60
58
60
66
67
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Mirror 4
30
24
16
19
20
15
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Mirror 5
24
14
9
19
9
N/Aa
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Found During the September 2002 VRPM Survey of the Retrofit Area's Southern
Methane Concentration for Path
Loop
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
Mirror 1
52
26
56
53
22
76
75
60
53
31
81
48
91
46
37
27
51
35
37
78
31
27
33
29
52
Mirror 2
55
62
78
69
24
68
65
60
71
73
72
63
67
57
68
66
68
55
76
66
73
34
74
68
72
(ppmv)
Mirror 3
42
50
48
50
17
42
41
52
34
52
49
27
53
49
33
52
53
43
66
51
53
29
49
55
60
to Mirror Number
Mirror 4
24
N/Aa
20
20
19
N/A
27
28
31
24
24
23
28
N/A
32
26
22
30
29
25
20
32
18
15
27
Mirror 5
23
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
19
17
14
N/A
12
30
20
N/A
33
23
12
31
28
15
16
13
14
16
13
continued
B-14
-------
At a Bioreactor Landfill
Table B-20b
Area's Southe
(conclud
jrn Part.
Loop
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
ed). Methane Concentrations Found During the September 2002
Methane Concentration for Path to Mirror Number
(ppmv)
Mirror 1 Mirror 2 Mirror 3 Mirror 4
103
N/A
41
56
42
41
60
62
N/A
47
77
70
61
55
57 24
36 26
27 33
N/A N/A
65 25
42 23
28 22
Mirror 5
24
20
18
N/A
22
20
26
VRPM Survey of the Retrofit
a N/A = not available.
Table B-21a.
Loop
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
Table B-21b.
Loop
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Methane
Concentrations
Found During
the May 2003
HRPM
Methane Concentration for Path to
(ppmv)
Mirror 1
20
22
26
16
16
17
15
14
16
16
19
20
20
17
18
16
Methane
Mirror 2
27
26
28
19
20
23
21
19
17
24
22
27
22
22
24
23
Concentrations
Mirror 3
37
25
18
26
29
20
20
9
9
17
6
10
6
20
25
20
Found During
Mirror 4
36
33
29
23
27
26
21
27
32
26
29
36
38
25
25
24
the May 2003
Survey of the
Mirror Number
Mirror 5 Mirror 6
44
43
44
32
35
35
31
39
21
35
40
46
37
32
36
25
HRPM
Methane Concentration for Path to
(ppmv)
Mirror 1
15
10
17
15
12
12
20
9
10
20
Mirror 2
13
17
14
10
12
16
12
11
9
13
Mirror 3
14
17
13
15
21
22
16
15
16
16
Mirror 4
17
16
17
16
21
21
18
18
18
18
12
6
12
10
12
11
4
12
8
5
5
6
4
9
8
5
Retrofit Area's
Mirror 7
23
19
24
14
15
18
3
5
5
4
7
19
8
17
8
3
Survey of the Retrofit Area's
Mirror Number
Mirror 5 Mirror 6
16
19
15
20
20
20
17
21
16
19
16
12
18
15
18
20
14
19
16
18
Mirror 7
13
16
15
14
20
13
13
12
13
20
Northern Part.
Mirror 8
13
13
8
5
7
9
5
11
4
6
7
12
9
10
4
4
Southern Part.
Mirror 8
16
24
20
22
22
17
14
17
17
24
B-15
continued
-------
Measurement of Fugitive Emissions
Table B-21b (concluded).
Southern Part.
Loop
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
Table B-22.
Loop
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
Methane
Concentrations
Found During
the May 2003 HRPM Survey
Methane Concentration for Path to Mirror
(ppmv)
Mirror
19
18
15
7
12
20
23
12
8
15
10
14
12
17
7
13
15
12
20
19
1
Mirror 2
8
10
10
11
13
12
16
11
11
13
10
18
14
14
23
8
12
11
7
16
Methane Concentrations
Mirror 3
13
14
22
16
19
19
17
14
20
10
19
20
16
12
28
18
15
16
14
19
Mirror 4
17
18
28
47
15
22
20
13
20
20
23
19
28
22
24
30
14
18
20
18
Mirror 5
17
23
30
28
17
29
23
20
22
21
19
22
23
16
21
27
16
24
22
19
Found During the May 2003 VRPM Survey
Of
the
Retrofit Area's
Number
Mirror 6 Mirror 7
17
22
22
21
14
30
18
22
19
18
20
15
24
14
16
24
15
18
18
17
of the
13
17
19
18
14
19
17
15
17
17
20
18
25
9
14
19
25
15
13
15
Mirror 8
18
20
24
21
25
21
18
17
19
22
23
20
21
21
19
21
21
30
15
22
Retrofit Area.
Methane Concentration for Path to Mirror Number
(ppmv)
Mirror 1
29
51
27
29
28
34
33
36
25
26
22
25
27
23
29
27
28
34
27
35
38
Mirror 2 Mirror 3
30
38
16
24
20
26
32
31
20
32
19
25
23
19
13
18
22
23
16
17
14
34
30
24
17
27
30
31
32
22
27
21
25
24
22
21
23
26
25
22
22
20
Mirror 4
28
27
21
21
22
26
27
21
19
20
21
14
20
20
20
18
18
23
16
21
18
Mirror 5
26
23
28
23
25
26
24
32
17
21
18
24
17
20
16
20
17
21
18
21
15
Mirror 6
11
11
9
8
10
10
11
10
8
7
8
9
8
8
7
8
7
7
7
7
7
Mirror 7
10
6
5
5
9
6
6
5
5
5
4
4
5
4
5
4
5
4
4
5
4
B-16
continued
-------
At a Bioreactor Landfill
Table B-22 (concluded). Methane Concentrations Found During the May 2003 VRPM Survey of
Loop
Mirror 1
22 24
23 29
24 28
25 31
26 52
27 30
28 35
29 42
30 39
31 43
32 33
33 22
34 22
Methane Concentration for Path
(ppmv)
Mirror
15
27
35
26
36
34
36
47
24
25
15
10
13
2 Mirror 3
19
21
32
23
37
30
35
29
30
36
24
18
19
Mirror 4
18
20
26
23
37
31
31
37
29
25
20
16
16
to Mirror
Mirror
19
22
22
29
30
36
34
34
27
22
19
14
16
Number
5 Mirror 6
7
8
10
17
12
19
13
16
10
8
6
6
7
the Retrofit Area.
Mirror 7
4
5
7
13
8
9
6
8
5
4
4
3
4
Table B-23. Methane Concentrations Found During the September 2003 HRPM Survey of the Retrofit Area.
Loop
Methane Concentration for Path to Mirror Number
(Ppmv)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
1
9
17
7
19
10
23
8
13
18
11
29
15
18
22
26
20
2
16
13
8
13
8
7
7
16
15
22
12
25
10
27
21
18
3
22
20
23
22
18
20
16
17
20
12
19
17
16
14
17
16
4
17
8
6
15
8
6
6
6
11
14
13
20
11
27
19
16
5
11
14
20
16
14
14
15
23
13
14
15
20
15
15
17
19
6
28
25
20
17
19
20
22
24
16
20
22
24
19
20
22
25
7
21
14
14
20
20
14
18
19
13
15
16
18
16
19
16
19
8
29
22
26
21
28
21
27
24
19
27
27
28
28
23
25
25
9
18
14
17
18
17
14
11
13
13
15
15
18
16
14
18
15
10
16
23
14
18
20
16
16
17
18
16
18
20
17
21
17
15
11
16
15
10
14
16
16
15
20
12
15
16
21
14
15
17
12
12
20
18
15
20
15
16
12
20
14
15
17
18
15
16
16
17
13
11
14
16
12
14
13
13
10
12
12
14
13
13
14
14
11
14
14
13
15
12
16
14
11
10
11
13
17
11
14
15
11
13
15
15
14
14
15
15
14
14
10
13
12
18
12
14
13
13
13
B-17
-------
Measurement of Fugitive Emissions
Table B-24. Methar
Loop
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
ie Concentrations Found During the September 2003 VRPM Survey of the Retrofit Area.
Methane Concentration for Path to Mirror Number
Mirror 1
15
17
18
12
18
12
13
11
12
19
13
11
7
11
6
6
13
7
13
9
15
8
6
8
8
11
6
7
13
13
10
11
7
7
9
12
8
14
18
16
Mirror 2
15
15
14
13
14
13
18
14
15
9
12
12
13
13
10
17
12
14
12
11
14
13
10
10
9
12
10
15
17
13
11
12
10
13
10
18
12
13
15
10
Mirror 3
13
14
14
14
14
14
16
13
16
15
13
13
13
11
11
10
17
13
8
12
13
13
10
12
10
8
8
12
14
13
11
13
13
17
14
12
13
12
19
8
Mirror 4
15
13
11
11
13
15
12
11
13
11
12
13
16
13
10
11
15
12
11
11
14
12
11
15
7
10
11
11
13
12
13
11
14
12
13
14
13
10
15
13
Mirror 5
8
7
8
9
9
9
7
7
9
10
8
7
8
9
7
10
8
8
8
7
8
8
6
8
8
6
6
7
7
12
7
8
7
8
7
7
8
10
8
9
Mirror 6
8
6
7
5
5
5
5
5
7
7
7
5
6
5
8
7
5
5
7
6
6
5
5
6
6
6
5
5
6
6
5
6
8
7
6
5
6
6
5
6
B-18
-------
At a Bioreactor Landfill
Table B-25. Methane Concentrations Found During the September 2002 VRPM Survey of the Control Area.
Methane Concentration for Path to Mirror Number
Loop (Ppmv)
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 2
125
131
132
127
136
83.7
77.3
88.2
56.5
54.3
119
73.5
66.8
61.5
N/A
83.5
94.9
80.0
66.8
76.5
82.3
66.8
62.5
67.6
56.0
77.7
61.5
50.3
80.7
56.8
Mirror 3
102
87.6
107
122
87.2
100
92.1
137
72.5
54.3
82.8
77.0
67.7
106
N/A
90.2
78.6
73.1
67.3
63.0
86.6
91.8
83.2
79.0
80.6
68.4
65.9
60.7
98.6
75.8
Mirror 4
77.2
82.4
67.4
77.6
46.7
75.3
87.3
37.1
27.9
39.0
60.2
51.0
45.5
52.7
N/A
53.3
50.9
N/A
71.2
56.2
62.3
45.0
41.8
46.4
63.3
51.6
37.0
42.2
54.1
35.8
Mirror 5
77.1
68.6
67.5
66.6
N/Aa
75.0
78.1
27.5
28.1
24.9
24.9
46.6
36.6
61.9
N/A
53.0
35.5
N/A
46.8
37.8
42.5
41.9
38.2
42.6
33.2
28.0
39.9
41.6
39.7
26.9
a N/A = not available.
Table B-26. Concentrations of Ammonia and VOCs Found During the September 2002 VRPM Survey of the Control
Area Run 1.
Ammonia and VOC Concentration for Path to Mirror Number
Compound Loop (ppmv)
Mirror 1 Mirror 2 Mirror 3 Mirror 4 Mirror 5
TFMa
CFMb
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
0.006
0.004
0.023
0.035 0.043 0.038
continued
B-19
-------
Measurement of Fugitive Emissions
Table B-26 (concluded). Concentrations of Ammonia and VOCs Found During the September 2002 VRPM Survey of
the Control Area Run 1.
Compound Loop
Ammonia and VOC Concentration for Path to Mirror Number
(ppmv)
Ethanol
Ammonia
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
Mirror 1
0.106
0.012
0.007
0.023
0.028
0.026
Mirror 2 Mirror 3
0.098
0.193
0.105
0.054
0.021 0.027
0.027 0.029
0.019 0.024
Mirror 4
0.063
0.134
0.097
0.034
0.015
0.034
0.025
0.029
Mirror 5
0.044
0.026
0.017
0.029
0.024
a TFM = trichloromethane.
b CFM = chlorodifluoromethane.
Table B-27. Concentrations of Ammonia and VOCs Found During the September 2002 VRPM Survey of the Control
Area Run 2.
Ammonia and VOC Concentration for Path to Mirror Number
(ppmv)
Mirror 1 Mirror 2 Mirror 3 Mirror 4 Mirror 5
CFMa
Ethanol
Ammonia
1 0.029 0.033 0.022 0.038
2 0.031 0.037 0.021
3
4
5
6
1 0.022
2 0.022 0.119
3 0.076
4
5
6 0.085
1 0.032 0.028 0.025 0.025 0.023
2 0.021 0.018 0.018 0.022 0.019
3 0.017 0.019 0.009
4
5
6
CFM = chlorodifluoromethane.
B-20
-------
At a Bioreactor Landfill
Table B-28. Metf
Loop
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
43
44
lane Concentrations Found During the May 2003 VRPM Survey of
Methane Concentration for Path to Mirror Number
(ppmv)
Mirror 1
29
24
17
26
34
33
29
27
18
15
14
15
23
12
8
9
9
12
9
9
7
11
10
10
12
10
15
10
18
11
13
12
15
15
10
11
7
9
12
13
14
8
12
21
Mirror 2
21
27
39
26
22
26
35
36
40
31
27
13
26
10
7
6
9
14
8
7
7
11
12
6
8
11
18
12
18
9
13
11
16
13
9
7
8
6
6
8
6
5
8
9
Mirror 3
17
27
33
29
33
28
27
22
26
22
26
14
11
8
8
7
7
11
10
7
8
11
12
6
6
11
15
9
17
10
11
14
11
14
12
6
8
7
6
13
6
14
10
7
Mirror 4
21
33
16
22
26
21
20
22
22
21
21
12
10
10
10
7
8
7
10
6
10
6
11
8
8
8
20
7
12
7
7
10
9
13
8
8
12
15
8
11
13
16
15
7
Mirror 5
17
22
25
20
23
23
26
28
17
23
20
13
9
8
10
7
7
8
8
6
8
6
8
5
10
8
14
9
8
6
8
10
10
10
6
8
7
7
6
10
9
12
8
6
the Control Area.
Mirror 6
24
29
21
20
23
16
26
24
10
13
10
10
8
5
7
7
6
6
10
5
4
9
8
4
7
5
4
11
5
6
8
10
10
9
6
8
7
7
6
10
9
12
8
6
B-21
-------
Measurement of Fugitive Emissions
Table B-29. Methane Conce
Loop
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
jntrations Found During the September 2002 VRPM Survey of the Biocover Area.
Methane Concentration for Path to Mirror Number
(ppmv)
Mirror 2
53.5
65.8
74.2
103
93.4
90.2
76.3
64.8
69.5
80.0
102
63.0
109
70.0
60.3
74.7
24.9
57.6
44.3
33.7
35.2
42.8
38.9
86.2
74.3
71.2
42.9
77.8
109
40.1
85.5
73.2
55.1
42.4
42.6
44.8
58.5
79.8
46.8
41.1
49.9
60.8
Mirror 3
60.0
66.5
57.9
70.3
57.0
59.1
60.0
66.5
57.9
70.3
57.0
59.1
90.8
72.6
42.5
68.1
29.6
61.2
48.5
33.3
42.3
65.5
94.7
68.7
59.4
54.8
49.6
78.2
50.5
43.7
68.8
85.7
66.2
41.3
41.2
51.6
48.0
82.9
53.7
40.8
60.7
56.1
Mirror 4
41.6
50.2
41.1
55.8
56.3
52.9
42.3
54.4
45.0
34.9
21.9
57.5
42.9
56.5
22.1
46.9
16.5
47.0
20.2
22.2
21.7
23.3
41.5
33.6
45.0
50.8
51.0
55.3
37.6
33.8
48.6
54.1
34.6
25.3
23.1
25.6
28.7
68.0
28.7
26.1
25.7
26.1
Mirror 5
34.7
39.1
44.0
55.1
53.2
52.3
31.9
30.9
42.0
36.0
25.3
46.0
24.4
45.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
20.4
19.2
17.1
17.7
42.8
17.8
63.4
44.9
37.1
50.5
19.4
19.9
36.8
21.3
40.6
23.8
13.8
34.0
29.5
37.0
22.8
16.2
25.4
26.3
B-22
-------
At a Bioreactor Landfill
Table B-30. Methane, Ammonia, and VOC Concentrations Found Along the Path to Mirror 1 During the September 2002
VRPM Survey of the Biocover Area.
Loop
Concentration along Path to Mirror 1 of the Biocover Area
(ppmv)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Average
Methane
51
54
41
38
42
32
38
28
16
38
TFMa CFMb Ethanol MTBEC Ammonia Ethylene
0.0057 0.104 0.012
0.0068
0.023
0.028
0.035 0.026
0.028 0.031
0.031 0.021 0.0077
0.016
0.0059
0.021
a TFM = trichlorofluoromethane.
b CFM = chlorofluoromethane.
c MTBE = methyl tert-butyl ether.
Table B-31. Methane Concentrations Found During the May 2003 VRPM Survey of the Biocover Area.
Methane Concentration for Path to Mirror Number
(ppmv)
,- _
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
Mirror 1
23
54
32
48
17
10
61
51
64
86
46
71
30
85
33
28
24
36
31
17
26
35
36
44
34
33
30
Mirror 2
38
28
30
40
27
20
43
47
60
93
57
61
30
57
36
28
20
29
25
18
26
33
31
32
30
26
24
Mirror 3
56
41
47
25
31
24
54
28
45
63
61
63
56
55
29
25
17
22
21
22
24
24
32
27
27
27
23
Mirror 4
72
37
17
12
28
21
46
31
46
59
69
63
63
40
19
16
19
10
14
11
13
19
21
21
21
22
18
Mirror 5
54
19
18
51
40
16
30
46
18
31
46
34
34
36
19
16
19
10
14
11
13
19
21
21
21
22
18
Mirror 6
90
55
67
74
71
67
60
66
53
53
71
29
39
57
21
19
22
14
17
14
21
28
27
26
25
26
25
B-23
continued
-------
Measurement of Fugitive Emissions
Table B-31 (concluded). Methane Concentrations Found During the May 2003
Methane Concentration for Path to Mirror
Loop (Ppmv)
Mirror 1 Mirror 2 Mirror 3 Mirror 4
28 22 21 24 17
29 31 26 21 20
30 27 24 22 15
31 24 26 28 23
32 27 23 27 16
33 25 27 22 14
34 33 33 30 27
35 39 37 34 26
36 42 38 34 21
37 39 34 32 28
38 34 29 24 19
39 31 21 23 22
40 35 24 22 15
41 29 33 28 22
42 29 26 23 22
VRPM Survey of the Biocover Area.
Number
Mirror 5
16
19
13
20
15
10
24
20
16
24
10
18
12
17
Mirror 6
18
24
19
25
20
22
29
25
22
27
17
23
20
24
20
Table B-32. Methane Concentrations Found During the Table B-33. Methane Concentrations Found During the
September 2002 Downwind VRPM Survey of the Compost September 2002 Upwind VRPM Survey of the Compost
Area. Area.
Methane Concentration for Path to Mirror Number Methane Concentration for Path to Mirror Number
Loop (Ppmv) Lo0p (ppmv)
Mirror 1 Mirror 2 Mirror 3 Mirror 4
1 5.8 5.1 5.8 4.2 1
2 5.8 5.1 5.3 5.5 2
3 5.3 5.3 6.0 4.3 3
4 5.2 5.3 6.8 5.6 4
5 6.4 5.4 6.2 4.6 5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
Mirror 1
10
7.3
10
7.7
8.7
10
8.5
19
13
28
22
12
5.4
5.4
5.7
6.1
6.0
6.0
Mirror 2
13
11
10
9.1
10
11
15
20
28
30
26
23
6.1
7.2
6.3
7.5
7.1
8.0
Mirror 3
13
9.5
9.3
8.4
10
11
15
19
27
27
23
21
5.9
6.4
6.4
7.4
6.0
5.7
Mirror 4
12
10
10
8.6
10
13
15
20
29
28
24
22
4.7
5.5
4.8
5.7
5.4
6.1
Mirror 5
11
10
10
8.8
11
13
16
22
28
26
24
21
6.7
8.3
6.9
7.1
5.4
9.0
B-24
-------
At a Bioreactor Landfill
Appendix C
Mercury Data
C-l
-------
Measurement of Fugitive Emissions
C-2
-------
At a Bioreactor Landfill
Table C-1 . Total Mercury Measured During the September
2002 Field Campaign.
Mercury Spike
Site Location Cone, in Gas Recovery
fnn/m3t l%.\
Flare
Flare
Flare
Flare
Control
Control
Control
Control
Retrofit
Retrofit
aN/A =
Table
Primary
Duplicate
Spike
Spike Duplicate
Well 73 A
Well 73 A
Well 73 B
Well 73 B
U5 North
U5 South
not available.
C-2. Dimethyl Mercury
\"3"" /
619
671
680
680
585
642
619
21
224
296
N/Aa
N/A
100
100
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Table C-4. Total Mercury Measured During the September
2003 Field Campaign.
Mercury Spike
Site Location Cone, in Gas Recovery
(ng/m3) (%)
Flare
Flare
Flare
Flare
Flare
Control13
Control
As-Built
Retrofit
Retrofit
Primary
Duplicate
Triplicate
Spike
Spike Duplicate
Well 73 A
Well 73 B
Well 74B
U5 North
U5 South
957
1040
962
4670
935
334
123
350
N/Aa
N/A
N/A
92
94
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
a N/A = not available.
b Under positive pressure.
Measured
During the
September 2002 Field Campaign.
Mercury
Site Location Cone, in Gas
Flare
Flare
Flare
Control
Control
Control
Retrofit
Retrofit
Retrofit
-
-
aND =
bN/A =
Field Blank
Primary
Spike
Well 73 A
Well 73 A Spike
Well 73 B
U5 North
U5 South
U5 South Duplicate
Trip Spike 1
Trip Spike 2
not detected
not available.
(ng/m3)
NDa
ND
ND
1.7
3.3
2.0
3.7
16
18
N/A
N/A
Spike
Recovery
(%)
N/Ab
N/A
7
N/A
0
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
105
69
Table C-5
Carbotrap
Campaign.
Site
Flare
Flare
Control
Control
Control
As-Built
As-Built
Retrofit
Retrofit0
Retrofit
Retrofit
-
-
. Dimethyl Mercury
Method During the
Location
Primary
Primary Spike
Well 73 A
Well 73 A Spike
Well 73 B
Well 74B
Primary Spike
U5 North
U5 South
Primary Spike
Secondary Spike
Trip Spike 1
Trip Spike 2
Measured
September
Mercury
Cone, in Gas
(ng/m3)
58.0
66.8
363
45.5
49.3
Using the
2003 Field
Spike
Recovery
(%)
N/Aa
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
90.4
90.4
89.5
85.7
a N/A = not available.
b No sample collected.
Table C-3. Monomethyl Mercury Measured During the
September 2002 Field Campaign.
Site
Flare
Flare
Conventional
Conventional
Conventional
Retrofit
Retrofit
Retrofit
-
-
Mercury Spike
Location Cone, in Gas Recovery
(ng/m3) (%)
Primary
Spike
Well 73 A
Well 73 B
Well 73 B Spike
U5 North Primary
U5 North Duplicate
U45 South
Spike Solution A
Spike Solution B
3.4
3.6
2.3
3.2
2.9
4.4
3.9
0.4
N/A
N/A
N/Aa
97
N/A
N/A
91
N/A
N/A
N/A
51
79
a N/A = not available.
C-3
-------
Measurement of Fugitive Emissions
Table C-6. Dimethyl Mercury Measured Using the Methanol
Impinger Method During the September 2003 Field
Campaign.
Mercury Spike
Site Location Cone, in Gas Recovery
Table C-7. Monomethyl Mercury Measured During the
September 2003 Field Campaign.
Site
Mercury Spike
Location Cone, in Gas Recovery
(ng/m3)
Flare
Flare
Control
Control
Control
As-Built
As-Built
Retrofit
Retrofit0
Retrofit
Retrofit
—
—
(ng/m3)
Primary 58.0
Primary Spike
Well 73A 66.8
Well 73 A Spike
Well 73 B
Well 74B 363
Primary Spike
U5 North 45.5
U5 South 49.3
Primary Spike
Secondary Spike
Trip Spike 1
Trip Spike 2
(%)
N/Aa
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
90.4
90.4
89.5
85.7
Flare
Flare
Flare
Flare
Control
Control
Control"
As-Built
As-Built
Retrofit
Retrofit
Retrofit
—
-
Primary
Duplicate
Triplicate
Primary Spike
Well 73 A
Well 73 B
Well 73 B Spike
Well 74B
Primary Spike
U5 North Primary
U5 North Duplicate
Primary Spike
Spike Solution A
Spike Solution B
1.48
1.48
2.05
0.542
0.778
0.551
1.95
2.10
N/Aa
N/A
N/A
26
N/A
N/A
BDC
28
N/A
N/A
26
51
79
N/A = not available.
b No sample collected.
a N/A = not available.
b No spike solution.
c BD = below detection level.
C-4
-------
At a Bioreactor Landfill
Appendix D
GPS Coordinates of Survey Areas
D-l
-------
Measurement of Fugitive Emissions
D-2
-------
At a Bioreactor Landfill
Table D-1. GPS Coordinates of the As-Built Cells for the May 2003 Field Campaign.
Position Latitude Longitude Altitude
NW Corner of Upper Cell
SW Corner of Upper Cell
NE Comer of Upper Cell
SE Corner of Upper Cell
NW Corner of Lower Cell
SW Corner of Lower Cell
NE Comer of Lower Cell
SE Corner of Lower Cell
38° 08.28'
38° 08.25'
38° 08.27'
38° 08.28'
38° 08.23'
38° 08.19'
38° 08 .23'
38° 08. 19'
85° 44.11'
85° 44.11'
85° 43.98'
85° 43.98'
85° 44.11'
85° 44.11'
85° 43.98'
85° 43.98'
158
158
157
161
148
148
154
152
Table D-2. GPS Coordinates of the As-Built Cells for the September 2003 Field Campaign.
Position
Latitude
Longitude Altitude
NW Corner of Upper Cell
SW Corner of Upper Cell
NE Comer of Upper Cell
SE Corner of Upper Cell
NW Corner of Lower Cell
SW Corner of Lower Cell
NE Comer of Lower Cell
SE Corner of Lower Cell
38° 08 .27'
38° 08 .24'
38° 08 .27'
38° 08 .24'
38° 08 .24'
38° 08. 18'
38° 08 .24'
38° 08. 19'
85° 44.17'
85° 44.17'
85° 43.96'
85° 43.97'
85° 44.17'
85° 44.19'
85° 43.97'
85° 43.97'
159
156
165
157
156
147
157
144
Table D-3. GPS Coordinates of the Retrofit Area for the
May 2003 Field Campaign.
Position
Latitude
Longitude Altitude
NW Corner
SW Comer
NE Comer
SE Corner
38° 08 .99'
38° 08.82'
38° 08 .99'
38° 08.82'
85° 43.27'
85° 43.28'
85° 43.23'
85° 43.23'
161
159
160
155
Table D-5. GPS Coordinates of the Control Area for the
May 2003 Field Campaign.
Position
Latitude
Longitude Altitude
NW Corner
SW Corner
NE Corner
SE Corner
38° 08 .34'
38° 08 .31'
38° 08 .34'
38° 08 .31'
85° 43.92'
85° 43.91'
85° 43.87'
85° 43.87'
157
154
155
157
Table D-4. GPS Coordinates of the Retrofit Area for the
September 2003 Field Campaign.
Position
Latitude
Longitude Altitude
NW Corner
SW Comer
NE Comer
SE Corner
38° 08 .99'
38° 08.82'
38° 08 .99'
38° 08.82'
85° 43.27'
85° 43.28'
85° 43.23'
85° 43.23'
161
159
160
155
Table D-6. GPS Coordinates of the Biocover Area for the
May 2003 Field Campaign.
Position
Latitude
Longitude Altitude
NW Corner
SW Corner
NE Corner
SE Corner
38° 08 .32'
38° 08 .24'
38° 08 .32'
38° 08 .28'
85° 43.93'
85° 43.94'
85° 43.86'
85° 43.90'
152
147
153
154
D-3
------- |