EPA/600/R-12/003
January 2012
Quantifying Methane Abatement Efficiency at
Three Municipal Solid Waste Landfills
Final Report
Prepared for:
Susan A. Thorneloe
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Research and Development
National Risk Management Research Laboratory
Air Pollution Prevention and Control Division
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
Prepared by:
ARCADIS U.S., Inc.
4915 Prospectus Drive, Suite F
Durham, North Carolina 27713
Tel 919 544 4535
Fax 919 544 5690
Contract No.: EP-C-09-027
Project No.: RN990271.0007
January 2012
-------
Table of Contents
Chapter 1 Project Description 1-1
1.1 Background 1-1
1.2 OP-TDL and the OTM-10 Method 1-4
1.2.1 Vertical Radial Plume Mapping Methodology 1-4
1.2.2 Open-Path Tunable Diode Laser 1-5
1.2.3 Meteorological Measurements 1-5
1.3 FLIR Infrared Camera 1-6
1.4 Total VOC and NMOC Measurements 1-7
1.5 Elemental Mercury Measurements 1-7
1.6 Calculation of NMOC Fluxes 1-7
1.7 Determination of Methane Emission Factors and Total Cell Fugitive Methane
Emissions 1-8
1.8 Field Schedule 1-9
Chapter 2 Test Procedures 2-1
2.1 OTM-10 Measurements 2-1
2.1.1 Landfill Site A 2-1
2.1.2 Landfill Site B 2-4
2.1.3 Additional Measurements at Site B 2-4
2.1.4 Landfill Site C 2-6
2.2 Summa Canister Sampling 2-8
2.3 Total and Speciated Mercury Sampling 2-8
2.4 Lumex Elemental Mercury Field Sampling 2-9
2.5 Serpentine Monitoring 2-9
Chapter3 Results and Discussion 3-1
3.1 OTM-10 Measurements 3-1
3.1.1 Landfill Site A 3-2
3.1.2 Landfill Site B 3-5
3.1.3 Landfill Site C 3-7
ii
-------
3.2 FLIR Infrared Camera Data 3-9
3.3 Summa Canister Sampling 3-10
3.3.1 Landfill Site A 3-10
3.3.2 Landfill Site B 3-18
3.3.3 Landfill Site C 3-25
3.4 Total and Speciated Mercury Measurements 3-27
3.4.1 Landfill Site A 3-27
3.4.2 Landfill Site B 3-28
3.4.3 Landfill Site C 3-30
3.5 Lumex Elemental Mercury Measurements 3-30
3.5.1 Landfill Site A 3-30
3.5.2 Landfill Site B 3-30
3.5.3 Landfill Site C 3-31
3.6 Total Cell Gas Determination of Methane, O2, CO2,N2, CO, andH2S 3-31
3.7 Serpentine Monitoring 3-31
3.7.1 Landfill Site A 3-31
3.7.2 Landfill Site B 3-34
3.7.3 Landfill Site C 3-36
3.8 Calculation of VOC Fluxes 3-38
3.8.1 Site A 3-38
3.8.2 SiteB 3-41
3.8.3 SiteC 3-43
3.9 Calculation of Landfill Gas Capture Efficiency 3-45
3.9.1 Landfill Site A 3-45
3.9.2 Landfill SiteB 3-46
3.9.3 Landfill SiteC 3-46
Chapter 4 Conclusion 4-1
Chapters Quality Assurance/Quality Control 5-1
5.1 Equipment Calibration 5-1
iii
-------
5.2 Assessment of DQI Goals 5-2
5.2.1 DQI Check for Methane PIC Measurement with OP-TDLAS 5-2
5.2.2 DQI Checks for Ambient Wind Speed and Wind Direction Measurements 5-3
5.2.3 DQI Check for Precision and Accuracy of Theodolite Measurements 5-3
5.2.4 DQI Check for Lumex Elemental Mercury Analyzer and Total Mercury Samples 5-4
5.2.5 DQI Check of VOC Samples with SUMMAź Canisters 5-5
Chapter 6 References 6-1
APPENDIX A Vertical Radial Plume Mapping Method A-l
APPENDIX B Open Path Instrument Mirror Coordinates B-l
APPENDIX C Daily OTM-10 Results C-l
APPENDIX D Sample Calculations of Methane Emission Factors and Measurement Uncertainty D-l
IV
-------
List of Tables
Table E-l. Summary of Fugitive Methane Emissions from the Landfill Sites xiv
Table E-2. Summary of Gas Collection Efficiency from the Landfill Sites xiv
Table E-3. Summary of Total Mercury Measurements from the Landfill Sites xv
Table 1-1. Schedule of Work Performed at the Sites 1-9
Table 3-1. Methane Emission Results from the Fall 2009 Survey at Site A 3-2
Table 3-2. Methane Emission Results from the Spring 2010 Survey at Site A 3-3
Table 3-3. Methane Emission Results from the Summer 2010 Survey of the 86-acre Cell
at Site B 3-5
Table 3-4. Methane Emission Results from the Summer 2010 Survey of the New Cell at Site B 3-6
Table 3-5. Methane Emission Results from the Fall 2009 Survey at Site C 3-7
Table 3-6. Methane Emission Results from the Spring 2010 Survey at Site C 3-8
Table 3-7. Results of TO-15 Analysis from Site A / Fall 2009 3-12
Table 3-8. Results of TO-15 Analysis from Site A / Spring 2010 3-15
Table 3-9. Results for NMOC as Hexane by Method 25-C from Site A / Fall 2009 3-18
Table 3-10. Results for NMOC as Hexane by Method 25-C from Site A / Spring 2009 3-18
Table 3-11. Results of TO-15 Analysis from Site B / Fall 2009 3-19
Table 3-12. Results of TO-15 Analysis from Site B / Spring 2010 3-22
Table 3-13. Results for NMOC as Hexane by Method 25-C from Site B / Fall 2009 3-25
Table 3-14. Results for NMOC as Hexane by Method 25-C from Site B / Spring 2009 3-25
Table 3-15. Results of TO-15 Analysis from Site C / Fall 2009 3-26
Table 3-16. Results of TO-15 Analysis from Site C / Spring 2010 3-29
Table 3-17. Results for NMOC as Hexane by Method 25-C from Site C / Fall 2009 3-27
Table 3-18. Results for NMOC as Hexane by Method 25-C from Site C / Spring 2010 3-27
Table 3-19. Total Mercury Sample Concentrations from Site A/Fall 2009 3-27
Table 3-20. Total Mercury Sample Concentrations from Site A / Spring 2010 3-28
Table 3-21. Total Mercury Sample Concentrations from Site B /Fall 2009 3-28
Table 3-22. Additional Mercury Sampling Conducted at Site B / Fall 2009 3-29
Table 3-23. Total Mercury Sample Concentrations from Site B / Fall 2009 3-29
-------
Table 3-24. Total Mercury Sample Concentrations from Site B / Spring 2010 3-29
Table 3-25. Total Mercury Sample Concentrations from Site C/Fall 2009 3-30
Table 3-26. Total Mercury Sample Concentrations from Site C / Spring 2010 3-30
Table 3-27. Gas Concentrations for the Landfills / Fall 2009 3-31
Table 3-28. Gas Concentrations forthe Landfills / Spring 2010 3-31
Table 3 -29. Locations and Methane Concentrations for Site A from Serpentine Sampling 3-32
Table 3-30. Locations and Methane Concentrations for Site B from Serpentine Sampling 3-34
Table 3-31. Locations and Methane Concentrations for Site C from Serpentine Sampling 3-36
Table 3-32. Summary of Average Methane Flux Values Used for Estimation of VOC Flux
Values at each Site 3-38
Table 3-33. Estimated VOC Flux Values from the Fall 2009 and Spring 2010 Site A Campaigns 3-39
Table 3-34. Estimated VOC Flux Values from the Summer 2010 Site B Campaign 3-41
Table 3-35. Estimated VOC Flux Values from the Fall 2009 and Spring 2010 Site C Campaigns 3-43
Table 3-36. Summary of Data from the Header Pipe Surveys at Site A 3-45
Table 3-37. Summary of Data from the Header Pipe Surveys at Site B 3-46
Table 3-38. Summary of Data from the Header Pipe Surveys at Site C 3-47
Table 4-1. Summary of Fugitive Methane Emissions from the Landfill Sites 4-1
Table 4-2. Summary of Gas Collection Efficiency from the Landfill Sites 4-2
Table 4-3. Summary of Total Mercury Measurements from the Landfill Sites 4-2
Table 5-1. Instrumentation Calibration Frequency and Description 5-1
Table 5-2. DQI Goals for Instrumentation 5-2
Table 5-3. Accuracy of Concentration Measurements for Different R Value 5-3
Table 5-4. Precision Ranges for Total Mercury Measurements at Sites A, B, and C 5-5
Table 5-5. Precision Ranges forNMOC Measurements at Sites A, B, and C 5-5
Table 5-6. Precision Ranges for GC/FID/TCD Measurements at Sites A, B and C for Fall 2009 5-5
Table 5-7. Precision Ranges for GC/FID/TCD Measurements at Sites A, B and C for Spring
2010 5-6
Table B-l. Distance, and Horizontal and Vertical Coordinates of Mirrors Used During the 11/17
AM Survey at Site A B-l
VI
-------
Table B-2. Distance, and Horizontal and Vertical Coordinates of Mirrors Used During the 11/17
PM Survey at Site A B-l
Table B-3. Distance, and Horizontal and Vertical Coordinates of Mirrors Used During the 11/18
Survey at Site A B-2
Table B-4. Distance, and Horizontal and Vertical Coordinates of Mirrors Used During the 11/20
Survey at Site A B-2
Table B-5. Distance, and Horizontal and Vertical Coordinates of Mirrors Used During the 11/24
Survey at Site A B-2
Table B-6. Distance, and Horizontal and Vertical Coordinates of Mirrors Used During the 12/1
AM and 12/1 PM Surveys at Site A B-3
Table B-7. Distance, and Horizontal and Vertical Coordinates of Mirrors Used During the 5/14
Survey at Site A B-3
Table B-8. Distance, and Horizontal and Vertical Coordinates of Mirrors Used During the 5/20
Survey at Site A B-3
Table B-9. Distance, and Horizontal and Vertical Coordinates of Mirrors Used During the 5/21
Survey at Site A B-4
Table B-10. Distance, and Horizontal and Vertical Coordinates of Mirrors Used During the 5/26
and 5/27 Surveys at Site A B-4
Table B-l 1. Distance, and Horizontal and Vertical Coordinates of Mirrors Used During the 6/3
and 6/4 Surveys at Site A B-4
Table B-12. Distance, and Horizontal and Vertical Coordinates of Mirrors Used During the 6/28
Survey at Site B B-5
Table B-13. Distance, and Horizontal and Vertical Coordinates of Mirrors Used During the 6/30
Survey at Site B B-5
Table B-14. Distance, and Horizontal and Vertical Coordinates of Mirrors Used During the 7/1
Survey at Site B B-5
Table B-15. Distance, and Horizontal and Vertical Coordinates of Mirrors Used During the 8/2
Survey at Site B B-6
Table B-l 6. Distance, and Horizontal and Vertical Coordinates of Mirrors Used During the 8/3
Survey at Site B B-6
Table B-l 7. Distance, and Horizontal and Vertical Coordinates of Mirrors Used During the 8/4
Survey at Site B B-6
Table B-18. Distance, and Horizontal and Vertical Coordinates of Mirrors Used During the 8/5
Survey at Site B B-7
Table B-19. Distance, and Horizontal and Vertical Coordinates of Mirrors Used During the 8/10
and 8/11 Surveys at Site B B-7
vn
-------
Table B-20. Distance, and Horizontal and Vertical Coordinates of Mirrors Used During the 12/7
Survey at Site C B-7
Table B-21. Distance, and Horizontal and Vertical Coordinates of Mirrors Used During the 12/8
Survey at Site C B-8
Table B-22. Distance, and Horizontal and Vertical Coordinates of Mirrors Used During the 4/22
and 4/23 Surveys at Site C B-8
Table B-23. Distance, and Horizontal and Vertical Coordinates of Mirrors Used During the 4/28
and 4/30 Surveys at Site C B-8
Table B-24. Distance, and Horizontal and Vertical Coordinates of Mirrors Used During the 5/5
Survey at Site C B-9
Table B-25. Distance, and Horizontal and Vertical Coordinates of Mirrors Used During the 5/6
Survey at Site C B-9
Table B-26. Distance, and Horizontal and Vertical Coordinates of Mirrors Used During the 5/7
Survey at Site C B-9
Table C-l. Calculated Methane Flux and Prevailing Wind Speed and Direction, and ACF
Measured During the 11/17 Morning OTM-10 Survey at Site A C-l
Table C-2. Calculated Methane Flux and Prevailing Wind Speed and Direction, and ACF
Measured During the 11/17 Afternoon OTM-10 Survey at Site A C-2
Table C-3. Calculated Methane Flux and Prevailing Wind Speed and Direction, and ACF
Measured During the 11/18 OTM-10 Survey at Site A C-5
Table C-4. Calculated Methane Flux and Prevailing Wind Speed and Direction, and ACF
Measured During the 11/20 OTM-10 Survey at Site A C-9
Table C-5. Calculated Methane Flux and Prevailing Wind Speed and Direction, and ACF
Measured During the 11/24 OTM-10 Survey at Site A C-13
Table C-6. Calculated Methane Flux and Prevailing Wind Speed and Direction, and ACF
Measured During the 12/1 Morning OTM-10 Survey at Site A C-15
Table C-7. Calculated Methane Flux and Prevailing Wind Speed and Direction, and ACF
Measured During the 12/1 Afternoon OTM-10 Survey at Site A C-17
Table C-8. Calculated Methane Flux and Prevailing Wind Speed and Direction, and ACF
Measured During the 5/14 OTM-10 Survey at Site A C-18
Table C-9. Calculated Methane Flux and Prevailing Wind Speed and Direction, and ACF
Measured During the 5/20 OTM-10 Survey at Site A C-20
Table C-10. Calculated Methane Flux and Prevailing Wind Speed and Direction, and ACF
Measured During the 5/21 OTM-10 Survey at Site A C-22
Table C-l 1. Calculated Methane Flux and Prevailing Wind Speed and Direction, and ACF
Measured During the 5/26 OTM-10 Survey at Site A C-24
Vlll
-------
Table C-12. Calculated Methane Flux and Prevailing Wind Speed and Direction, and ACF
Measured During the 5/27 OTM-10 Survey at Site A C-27
Table C-13. Calculated Methane Flux and Prevailing Wind Speed and Direction, and ACF
Measured During the 6/3 OTM-10 Survey at Site A C-30
Table C-14. Calculated Methane Flux and Prevailing Wind Speed and Direction, and ACF
Measured During the 6/4 OTM-10 Survey at Site A C-32
Table C-15. Calculated Methane Flux and Prevailing Wind Speed and Direction, and ACF
Measured During the 6/28 OTM-10 Survey at Site B C-34
Table C-16. Calculated Methane Flux and Prevailing Wind Speed and Direction, and ACF
Measured During the 6/30 OTM-10 Survey at Site B C-35
Table C-17. Calculated Methane Flux and Prevailing Wind Speed and Direction, and ACF
Measured During the 7/1 OTM-10 Survey at Site B C-38
Table C-18. Calculated Methane Flux and Prevailing Wind Speed and Direction, and ACF
Measured During the 8/2 OTM-10 Survey at Site B C-42
Table C-19. Calculated Methane Flux and Prevailing Wind Speed and Direction, and ACF
Measured During the 8/3 OTM-10 Survey at Site B C-46
Table C-20. Calculated Methane Flux and Prevailing Wind Speed and Direction, and ACF
Measured During the 8/4 OTM-10 Survey at Site B C-49
Table C-21. Calculated Methane Flux and Prevailing Wind Speed and Direction, and ACF
Measured During the 8/5 OTM-10 Survey at Site B C-52
Table C-22. Calculated Methane Flux and Prevailing Wind Speed and Direction, and ACF
Measured During the 8/10 OTM-10 Survey at Site B C-57
Table C-23. Calculated Methane Flux and Prevailing Wind Speed and Direction, and ACF
Measured During the 8/11 OTM-10 Survey at Site B C-60
Table C-24. Calculated Methane Flux and Prevailing Wind Speed and Direction, and ACF
Measured During the 12/7 OTM-10 Survey at Site C C-64
Table C-25. Calculated Methane Flux and Prevailing Wind Speed and Direction, and ACF
Measured During the 12/8 OTM-10 Survey at Site C C-66
Table C-26. Calculated Methane Flux and Prevailing Wind Speed and Direction, and ACF
Measured During the 4/22 OTM-10 Survey at Site C C-70
Table C-27. Calculated Methane Flux and Prevailing Wind Speed and Direction, and ACF
Measured During the 4/23 OTM-10 Survey at Site C C-71
Table C-28. Calculated Methane Flux and Prevailing Wind Speed and Direction, and ACF
Measured During the 4/28 OTM-10 Survey at Site C C-73
Table C-29. Calculated Methane Flux and Prevailing Wind Speed and Direction, and ACF
Measured During the 4/30 OTM-10 Survey at Site C C-76
IX
-------
Table C-30. Calculated Methane Flux and Prevailing Wind Speed and Direction, and ACF
Measured During the 5/5 OTM-10 Survey at Site C C-78
Table C-31. Calculated Methane Flux and Prevailing Wind Speed and Direction, and ACF
Measured During the 5/6 OTM-10 Survey at Site C C-79
Table C-3 2. Calculated Methane Flux and Prevailing Wind Speed and Direction, and ACF
Measured During the 5/7 OTM-10 Survey at Site C C-82
Table D-1. Sample of Methane Flux, Wind Speed, and Wind Direction Data Collected During the
November 17, 2009 OTM-10 Survey at Site A D-l
-------
List of Figures
Figure 1-1. Overhead Map of Site A Detailing the Location of the Survey Cell 1-2
Figure 1-2. Overhead Map of Site B Detailing the Location of the Survey Cells 1-3
Figure 1-3. Overhead Map of Site C Detailing the Location of the Survey Cells 1-4
Figure 1-4. Example OTM 10 VRPM Measurement Configuration 1-5
Figure 1-5. Scanning Boreal Laser GasFinder 2.0 System 1-6
Figure 2-1. Overhead view of Measurement Cell at Site A Showing Areas Covered by OTM-10
Measurements During Fall 2009 Campaign 2-2
Figure 2-2. Overhead view of Measurement Cell at Site A Showing Areas Covered by OTM-10
Measurements During Spring 2010 Campaign 2-2
Figure 2-3. OTM-10 Configuration at Site A 2-3
Figure 2-4. Location of Elevated Well Heads in Measurement Cell at Site A 2-3
Figure 2-5. Overhead view of 86-acre Cell at Site B Showing Areas Covered by OTM-10
Measurements During Summer 2010 Campaign 2-5
Figure 2-6. Overhead view of New Cell at Site B Showing Areas Covered by OTM-10
Measurements During Summer 2010 Campaign 2-5
Figure 2-7. Overhead view of Site B Showing Location of the Hog Farm and the Measurement
Cells (Hog farm was upwind from measurements) 2-6
Figure 2-8. Overhead view of Measurement Cell at Site C Showing Areas Covered by OTM-10
Measurements During Fall 2009 Campaign 2-7
Figure 2-9. Overhead view of Measurement Cell at Site C Showing Areas Covered by OTM-10
Measurements During Spring 2010 Campaign 2-7
Figure 2-10. OTM-10 Configuration at Site C 2-8
Figure 3-1. Plot of Methane Emission Factors from the Fall 2009 Survey at Site A 3-3
Figure 3-2. Plot of Methane Emission Factors from the Spring 2010 Survey at Site A 3-4
Figure 3-3. Plot of Methane Emission Factors from the Survey of the 86-Acre Cell at Site B 3-5
Figure 3 -4. Plot of Methane Emission Factors from the Survey of the New Cell at Site B 3-6
Figure 3-5. Plot of Methane Emission Factors from the Fall 2009 Survey at Site C 3-7
Figure 3-6. Plot of Methane Emission Factors from the Spring 2010 Survey at Site C 3-8
Figure 3 -7. Screenshots from FLIR Camera of Fugitive Leaks from Base of Gas Wells at Site A 3-9
Figure 3-8. Additional Screenshots from FLIR Camera of Fugitive Leaks from Base of Gas
Wells at Site A 3-10
XI
-------
Figure 3-9. Map of Serpentine Sampling Locations at Site A 3-33
Figure 3-10. Map of Serpentine Sampling Locations at Site B 3-35
Figure 3-11. Map of Serpentine Sampling Locations at Site C 3-37
Figure 3-3. General OTM 10 VRPM Measurement Configuration 1
xn
-------
Executive Summary
Biodegradable waste that is buried in municipal solid waste landfills will decompose over many decades
forming methane, carbon dioxide, and trace constituents that include hazardous air pollutants (such as
mercury), volatile organic compounds, and hydrogen sulfide. Usually larger landfills collect landfill gas
to either flare or use in energy projects to produce electricity, heat, or steam. Depending upon the timing
of gas collection and well placement in buried waste, addition of interim and final covers, and design and
operation of the landfill, fugitive emissions can vary as found through the measurement conducted for this
study. Even weather events can be a factor. Droughts can make surface and slope side cracks more
difficult to maintain providing a path of least resistance for gas to pass through. High precipitation events
such as tornados or hurricanes can make gas collection systems more difficult to maintain due to liquid
build-up in collection wells. Landfills typically accept waste for 50 years or more. Even once the landfill
closes, emissions can occur for decades requiring routine maintenance of the interim or final cover in
addition to managing the well field and gas collection and control technology.
Landfills are considered an "area" source (versus point source) where emissions vary spatially and over
time. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has been working to develop technology and
test methods to quantify emissions from area sources such as oil and gas pipelines, animal waste lagoons,
and landfills. Of the area source emissions, landfills are considered the most challenging because of their
size, and ever changing nature due to changes in waste composition, design and operation. Breakthroughs
in technology, data analysis in allocating emissions to the entire footprint, and method development to
standardize operating procedures have resulted in the ability to more accurately quantify fugitive landfill
gas emissions using optical remote sensing technology.
Using the latest area source measurement techniques, a multi-week field campaign was conducted at three
municipal landfills to quantify the methane abatement efficiency. Participation in the study was
voluntary. Each site met requirements under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act and the Clean
Air Act. Each site has a gas collection and control system in place as required by the Clean Air Act New
Source Performance Standards and Emission Guidelines for municipal solid waste landfills. The
measurements were conducted using a scanning GasFinder 2.0 methane Open-Path Tunable Diode Laser
(OP-TDL) instrument (Boreal, Inc).
The schedule in the quality assurance project plan was to conduct two rounds of measurements at each
site beginning in the late fall of 2009 and in the late spring and early summer of 2010. Due to
unseasonable wet and cold weather, measurements were conducted at only two of the three sites during
the initial field campaign in the fall of 2009 and repeated in the spring of 2010. At the third site,
measurements were conducted during the summer of 2010. The cells at sites A and C have not had waste
added for several years. However, officials indicated that waste additions ceased at site B prior to the
field measurement campaign (to go to a new call in the summer of 2010. Site B officials stated that the
gas collection and control system was upgraded in the fall of 2010 (after the field measurement
campaign).
In addition to the optical remote sensing measurements, the header pipe gas was analyzed for flow rate,
composition, and the concentration of trace constituents including mercury and other hazardous air
pollutants (HAPs), volatile organic compounds (VOC), and nonmethane organic compounds (NMOC).
The header pipe gas analysis occurred in the fall of 2009 and the spring of 2010. The results of the
Xlll
-------
header pipe gas analysis combined with the OTM-10 measurements are used to estimate methane
abatement efficiency which is calculated as:
CH4 Abatement Efficiency = QrU Collected / (QrU Collected + QrU Emissions) Equation 1
This calculation is different than what is in the U.S. EPA's guidance for emissions inventory in that it
does not include soil oxidation in the denominator. (U.S. EPA, 2006, 2007) Inclusion of soil oxidation in
the calculation above to allow for direct comparison with conventional collection efficiency1 would result
in lower values. The default gas collection efficiency recommended for EPA's guidance for emissions
inventories is 75% (U.S. EPA, 2008). Two of the sites had interim covers and the third had a final cover
in place.
The total cell fugitive methane flux rate from the five measurement campaigns varied from 2.3 to 52
million grams per day (Table E-l) and the methane abatement efficiency from 38 to 88% (Table E-2).
For two of the sites the landfill methane abatement efficiency ranged from 70 to 88%. Assuming 10%
soil oxidation, the inventory-ready gas collection efficiencies for all sites evaluated ranged from 36% to
87%. Landfill gas collation systems were fully operational during each testing period with no reports of
downtime or operational upsets.
Table E-l. Summary of Fugitive Methane Emissions from the Landfill Sites
Site
Campaign
Cell Cover Type
Average Methane Emission
Factor
(grams/day/m2)
Total Cell Fugitive
Methane Emission Rate
(grams/day)
A
A
B
C
C
Fall 2009
Spring 2010
Summer 2010
Fall 2009
Spring 2010
Interim
Interim
Interim
Final
Final
44 ±10
18±9.1
150 ±46
19± 19
9.2 ±9.7
5.6X1 0s
2.3X1 0s
52 X 10s
5.8X1 0s
2.8X1 0s
Table E-2. Summary of Gas Collection Efficiency from the Landfill Sites
Methane Abatement
Efficiency*
(% value with lower
and upper error
bounds shown in
parenthesis)
Site
Campaign
Total Cell Fugitive
Methane Emission Rate
(grams/day)
Methane Flow Rate in Gas
Collection System
(grams/day)
A
A
B
C
C
Fall 2009
Spring 2010
Summer 2010
Fall 2009
Spring 2010
5.6X1 0s
2.3X1 0s
52 X 10s
5.8X1 0s
2.8X1 0s
1.3X107
7.6X1 0s
3.2 X107
1.6X107
2.0 X107
70 (64,74)
77 (67,84)
38(31,46)
73(51,88)
88 (72,95)
* Calculated as CFI4 Collected / (CFI4 Collected + CFLt Emissions). This is different than conventional
collection efficiency used in AP 42 and other documents which include soil oxidation in the denominator.
CH4 Collection Efficiency = CH4 Collected / (CH4 Collected + CH4 Emissions + CH4 Oxidized)
xiv
-------
In addition to optical remote sensing measurements, serpentine methane gas sampling was performed
along the surface of each landfill using a Thermo TVA-1000 FID portable analyzer according to
specifications by the State of California for conducting surface scans. The data were collected to compare
to the US EPA Other Test Method-10 (OTM-10) measurements. For one of the three landfills, a forward-
looking infrared (FLIR) camera was used to identify potential VOC leaks from the landfill surface and
wellheads. Pictures of leaks are provided from the use of the FLIR.
Trace constituent gas analysis data will be used in any future updates to EPA's AP-42 which provides
guidance for emission inventories. Although the data are provided in this report, the focus is on the
methane abatement efficiency to compare to existing values being used. For mercury, both total and
elemental mercury measurements were conducted at each landfill. For one of the sites, speciated mercury
samples were collected and analyzed in the fall of 2009.
Table E-3 presents a summary of the results of the total mercury measurements at the three landfill sites.
The table presents the average and range of total mercury concentrations from gas header pipes at each
site. For the mercury measurements, there was little variation in the concentration between the fall and
spring measurements. The concentration of total mercury varied between the three sites from 2.9 to 9.0
(ig/m3. Speciated measurements for mercury made at site B during the fall 2009 campaign had an
average of 1.2% oxidized mercury and 98.8% elemental mercury.
Table E-3. Summary of Total Mercury Measurements from the Landfill Sites
Average Total
Site Campaign Rangeof Total Mercury Mercury
r a Concentration (ug/m) Concentration
(ug/m3)
A
A
B
B
C
C
Fall 2009
Spring 2010
Fall 2009
Spring 2010
Fall 2010
Spring 2010
3.4 to 3.7
2.9 to 3.4
8.4 to 8.9
8.0 to 8.4
8.8 to 9.0
8.4 to 9.0
3.5
3.1
8.7
8.2
8.9
8.8
XV
-------
Chapter 1
Project Description
1.1 Background
Landfill gas is created from the anaerobic decomposition of biodegradable waste in a landfill. Most large
municipal solid waste landfills (i.e., containing more than 2.5 million tons of waste) in the U.S. are
required to install and operate gas collection systems that include header pipes, extraction wells, and
blowers to minimize emissions that can escape to the atmosphere. The collected gas is piped under a
slight negative pressure to a flare or energy recovery device. The collected gas is typically metered and
reported as part of regulatory compliance or for energy contracts.
When landfill gas is combusted, methane emissions are traded off for increased carbon dioxide emissions.
However, given that methane is 25 times more potent than carbon dioxide (based on assuming a 100-year
time horizon) combustion of methane is a benefit even with increased emissions of carbon dioxide. A
major issue in quantifying carbon emissions from municipal solid waste landfills is more accurate
accounting of fugitive loss. The air regulatory requirements for municipal solid waste landfills allow
active sites to take up to five years to collect and control landfill gas from initial waste placement. Even
with gas controls in place, not all of the gas is collected due to failure of the cover to contain the gas
resulting from leaks in the cover material, header piping and wells, leachate collection sumps, and cracks
or penetrations in the landfill surface or side slopes. In addition, the Clean Air Act requirements allow
gas systems to be discontinued once the emissions are below the regulatory threshold of 50 Mg
nonmethane organic compounds (NMOC) / year. The fugitive emissions vary both temporally and
spatially and can be difficult to measure as opposed to measuring emissions from a point source (e.g.,
landfill gas header pipe or combustion exhaust stack).
Most of the existing data that is available to evaluate fugitive emissions from landfills is based on flux
box data. These measurements do not account for the majority of losses found at landfills and therefore
can potentially understate the emissions that escape to the atmosphere. With the increased interest in
improving greenhouse gas emission inventories and strategies for emission reductions, there is a need to
better quantify landfill gas collection efficiency.
The U.S. EPA's Office of Research and Development in collaboration with the Office of Air Quality
Planning and Standards has conducted research to advance measurements for quantifying area source
emissions (i.e., Other Test Method-10, U.S. EPA 2006). Landfills are considered one of the more
challenging area source emissions due to the ever changing design and operation, changes in waste
composition overtime, and the temporal and spatial variability of area source emissions (i.e., uncollected
gas). Recent results from the use of tracer gas data and optical remote sensing measurements have
resulted in the development of algorithms for the OTM-10 method to account for fugitive emissions from
surface and side slopes at a landfill (Thoma et al., 2010).
Using updated guidance for evaluating landfill area source emissions, measurements were conducted at
three municipal solid waste landfills to compare fugitive methane emissions to the collected gas (i.e.,
methane abatement efficiency). The measurements were conducted over a multi-week sampling
campaign using EPA Other Test Method-10 (OTM-10) with a scanning GasFinder 2.0 methane Open-
Path Tunable Diode Laser (OP-TDL) instrument (Boreal, Inc). At two of the sites, measurements were
1-1
-------
performed in the fall of 2009 and repeated in the spring of 2010. At the third site, measurements were
conducted during the summer of 2010. Figures 1-1 through 1-3 provide an overhead view of each site
along with the location of the cells where testing of area sources emissions was conducted.
In addition to optical remote sensing measurements, serpentine methane gas sampling was performed
along the surface of each landfill using a Thermo TVA-1000 FID portable analyzer according to
specifications by the State of California for conducting surface scans. The data were collected to compare
to the OTM-10 measurements. For one of the three landfills, a FLIR infrared camera was used to identify
potential VOC leaks from the landfill surface and wellheads.
At each of the three sites, the measurements conducted at the gas header system measured landfill gas
flow rates, velocity, composition, and the concentration of trace constituents including hazardous air
pollutants (HAPs), volatile organic compounds (VOC), and nonmethane organic compounds (NMOC).
For each of the three sites, samples were taken in the fall of 2009 and repeated in the spring of 2010. The
results of the header pipe gas analysis combined with the OTM-10 measurements provide data needed to
quantify fugitive emissions of individual HAPs (including mercury), VOC, and NMOC. For mercury,
both total and elemental mercury measurements were evaluated at each landfill. For one of the sites,
speciated mercury samples were collected and analyzed during the fall 2009 sampling campaign.
Figure 1-1. Overhead Map of Site A Detailing the Location of the Survey Cell
1-2
-------
Figure 1-2. Overhead Map of Site B Detailing the Location of the Survey Cells
1-3
-------
m/m
Figure 1-3. Overhead Map of Site C Detailing the Location of the Survey Cells
1.2 OP-TDL and the OTM-10 Method
Path-integrated methane concentrations were collected at the sites using a scanning OP-TDL and US EPA
Other Test Method-10 (OTM-10). The method has been successfully employed to characterize emissions
from a variety of sources, including landfills, wastewater treatment plants, waste lagoons from hog farms,
and a variety of industrial sites (Thoma et al., 2005, U.S. EPA, 2004, U.S. EPA 2005, U.S. EPA 2007).
1.2.1 Vertical Radial Plume Mapping Meth odology
The Vertical Radial Plume Mapping (VRPM) methodology of OTM-10 was applied to quantify fugitive
methane emissions from the landfill cells. The VRPM method is described in EPA OTM-10 Optical
remote sensing for emission characterization from non-point sources, which provides guidance on
conducting measurements of pollutant mass emission flux from area sources using scanning optical
remote sensing (ORS) instrumentation. The technique utilizes open-path optical remote sensing
instrumentation (such as OP-TDL) to obtain path-integrated concentration information along multiple
optical beam measurement paths. The measurement paths are defined by the distance between a scanning
optical remote sensing instrument and a retro-reflecting mirror which is deployed at some distance from
the scanning instrument. The multi-path concentration data along with meteorological data, collected
concurrently, are processed to yield a mass emission flux from the source. Figure 1-4 shows an example
5-beam VRPM measurement configuration. For the current project, a 5-beam configuration was used with
1-4
-------
2 beams deployed on the surface between the instrument and a vertical structure (scissor lift), and 3
beams extending along the ground, middle, and top of a scissor lift. The OP-TDL instrument beam
collected data along each beam path for 30 seconds, before scanning to the next beam path in the
configuration.
Vertical
Retrorefl ectors
Mono static ORS
Instrument
Ground
Retrorefl ectors
Figure 1-4. Example OTM 10 VRPM Measurement Configuration
Further information on the VRPM method can be found in Appendix A of this document.
1.2.2 Open-Path Tunable Diode Laser
The current study used one GasFinder 2.0 methane Open-Path Tunable Diode Laser (Boreal Laser,
Spruce Grove, AB Canada) to collect path-integrated concentration data at the sites. The instrument was
mounted on a scanner, and collected data along five measurement paths in each configuration.
The scanning Boreal GasFinder 2.0 OP-TDL instrument is designed for area and fugitive source emission
characterization. The infrared laser emits radiation at a particular wavelength in the infrared region when
an electrical current is passed through it. The light wavelength depends on the current and therefore
allows scanning over an absorption feature and analyzing for the target gas concentration, using Beer's
law. The laser signal is transmitted from a single telescope to a retro-reflecting mirror target, which is
usually set up at a range of 100 to 1500 m. The returned light signal is received by the single telescope
and directed to a detector. The instrument provides instantaneous, path-integrated methane concentration
data. Figure 1-5 presents a picture of the GasFinder 2.0 OP-TDL that was used for the current study.
1.2.3 Meteorological Measurements
Wind speed and wind direction data were continuously collected during the measurement campaign with
two R.M. Young model 05103 meteorological heads. The instrument is automated, and collects real-time
data from its sensors and records time-stamped data, which is transmitted to a desktop computer via a
radio frequency modem. During the measurements, one head was deployed at the base of the scissor lift at
a height of approximately 2 meters, and the other head was deployed on top of the scissor lift platform at
a height of approximately 10 meters.
1-5
-------
1.3 FLIR Infrared Camera
Previous studies by EPA Region 6, EPA's Office of Research and Development (ORD) and ARCADIS
have demonstrated that measurements can be improved by plume location using an infrared (IR) imaging
camera to detect major leaks (U.S. EPA, 2009). A FLIR GasFindIR infrared camera was leased for a
portion of the study, and deployed at Site A. The camera was used to gather further information on the
spatial distribution of potential fugitive leaks from the cell.
The camera has a nominal spectra range of 1- 5.4 jam. Using a 30 x 30 jam InSb detector with a 320 x 240
pixel array, the camera has capabilities of varying the integration times from 5 |o,s to 16.5 ms. The detector
is operated at near liquid nitrogen temperatures using an integral Sterling cooler which provides the
system with an NEdT of no more than 18 mK providing excellent sensitivity.
The spectral range is further limited with the use of a notch filter specifically designed for the detection of
hydrocarbon infrared adsorptions in the 3 micron region. The narrow bandpass range of the filter is less
than the infrared spectral absorption of gas phase hexane. The filter notch is positioned such that alkane
gases, such as methane, have a significant response within the bandpass range.
The camera was deployed during the Fall 2009 campaign at Site A to monitor multiple gas wells that in
the landfill cell where ORS measurements were being conducted.
Figure 1-5. Scanning Boreal Laser GasFinder 2.0 System
1-6
-------
1.4 Total VOC and NMOC Measurements
Concentrations of NMOC were determined from samples of landfill gas collected from the gas header
pipe at each site. The samples were collected using an adapted version of EPA Method 0040 - Sampling
of Principal Organic Hazardous Constituents from Combustion Sources Using Tedlar Bags. Analysis of
VOC concentrations was done by Research Triangle Park Laboratories, Inc. using EPA Method TO-15,
Determination of Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) in Air Collected in Specially-Prepared Canisters
and Analyzed by Gas Chromatography/Mass Spectrometry (GC/MS) as seen in the Compendium of
Methods for the Determination of Toxic Organic Compounds in Ambient Air, Second Edition (EPA
625/R-96/010b), and EPA Method 25-C, Determination ofNonmethane Organic Compounds in Landfill
GasTotal Gaseous Non-Methane Organics (TGNMO) as Hexane Analysis. Landfill gases were also
measured using a landfill gas monitor for the measurement of methane, carbon dioxide, oxygen, nitrogen,
and hydrogen sulfide.
1.5 Elemental Mercury Measurements
Elemental mercury measurements were collected from the gas header pipe at all three sites using a Lumex
RA915+ instrument. The Lumex instrument is considered to be ideally suited to quantify and screen
landfill gas samples for elemental mercury. This instrument has been used by US EPA, industry, and
academic groups to quantify elemental mercury in indoor air and to estimate elemental mercury emissions
in industrial process flue gases.
The Lumex RA915+ mercury analyzer produces real-time mercury concentration measurements by
performing atomic absorption spectrometry (at 253.7 nm wavelength) on elemental mercury atoms in a
continuously extracted gas stream. It achieves the low detection limit of 2 ng/m3 by using a multi-path
absorption cell, which has an effective optical path of approximately 10 meters. Selectivity is achieved
primarily by using the Zeeman Effect using high frequency modulation of light polarization (ZAAS-
HFM).
1.6 Calculation of NMOC Fluxes
As described previously, concentrations of NMOC were determined from samples of landfill gas
collected at the gas header pipe at each site. Upon completion of the sample analysis, the concentration of
the detected target compounds (obtained from the EPA Method TO-15 data) was ratioed to the
concentration of the methane in the landfill gas samples (obtained from the EPA Method 25-C data). This
ratio was used with the methane emissions data collected with the OTM-10 method to calculate an
estimated emissions flux value, from the top of the landfill cell for each of the target VOC compounds,
using the following formula:
Ft = f(Ct,F0)/CJlM/MJ (3)
Where
Ft is the flux of the target compound (VOC)
Ct is the measured concentration of the target compound
F0 is the calculated methane flux
C0 is the measured methane concentration with background methane subtracted
Mt is the molecular weight of the target compound
M0 is the molecular weight of methane
1-7
-------
1.7 Determination of Methane Emission Factors and Total Cell Fugitive Methane
Emissions
The methane flux values measured with the OTM 10 method can be used to calculate methane emission
factor values and total cell fugitive methane emissions. Quantifying the emissions from landfill sites is
generally complex due to many factors such as the size and non-homogenous nature of the emission
sources, location of multiple cell sources adjacent to one another, and topography at the sites. In order to
develop standard procedures for characterizing methane emissions at landfill sites using the OTM 10
method, a long-term tracer release study was conducted by US EPA and Waste Management, Inc (Thoma
et al., 2010). The results of the study were used to develop guidance that is applied in the current study to
calculate total site methane emissions using OTM 10 data.
The methane emission factor, in units of grams per day per square meter, is calculated by first
determining the area contributing to the flux (ACF) measured by the OTM 10 configuration. The ACF is
dependent upon the length of the OTM 10 configuration plane, the wind speed during the time of the
measurements, and whether or not the OTM 10 plane is configured to capture emissions from the slope or
flat surface area of the landfill cell. The ACF (in m2) is dependent upon the angle of the wind direction
relative to the measurement place and is calculated using the following formula when the OTM 10 plane
is configured to capture emissions from the flat surface area of the landfill cell:
ACF (m2) = '/2 [(Length to 0% mass capture) *(length of the OTM 10 plane] (4)
The Length to 0% mass capture is calculated using the following equation when the OTM 10 plane is
configured to capture emissions from a flat surface area:
Length to 0% mass capture (m) = [(0.102)*(WS) + 0.712]/0.0031 (5)
Where:
WS = the average prevailing wind speed (in m/s) during the measurement period.
When the OTM 10 plane is configured to capture emissions from the slope of the cell, the Length to 0%
mass capture is calculated using Equation 6 below:
Length to 0% mass capture (m) = [(0.0941) *(WS) + 0.732]/ 0.00334 (6)
Once the ACF value has been calculated, the measured methane flux (g/s) is converted to units of grams
per day and divided by the ACF value to yield a methane emission factor (g/day/m2). The methane
emission factor is then used to calculate total cell methane emissions by incorporating the total surface
area of the cell being monitored. Uncertainty values for the emission factors may be calculated using
standard error coefficients presented in Thoma et al., 2010.
The methane flux measurements and total site emission calculations from each of the three sites are
presented in Section 3 of this document.
1-8
-------
1.8 Field Schedule
Measurement of fugitive methane emissions and analysis of the header pipe gas were to be conducted in
the fall of 2009 and then 6 months later. However, for Site B, the weather was too cold and wet to deploy
so only one round of optical remote sensing measurements were conducted. Table 1-1 presents the dates
that measurements were conducted at each of the three sites.
Table 1-1. Schedule of Work Performed at the Sites
Day
Tuesday, November 17, 2009
Wednesday, November 18, 2009
Wednesday, November 18, 2009
Friday, November 20, 2009
Monday, November 23, 2009
Tuesday, November 24, 2009
Tuesday, December 1, 2009
Tuesday, December 1, 2009
Monday, December 7, 2009
Tuesday, December 8, 2009
Thursday, April 22, 2010
Friday, April 23, 2010
Wednesday, April 28, 2010
Friday, April 30, 2010
Tuesday, May 4, 2010
Wednesday, May 5, 2010
Thursday, May 6, 2010
Thursday, May 6, 2010
Friday, May 7, 2010
Friday, May 14, 2010
Thursday, May 20, 2010
Friday, May 21, 2010
Wednesday, May 26, 2010
Thursday, May 27, 2010
Thursday, June 3, 2010
Friday, June 4, 2010
Site
Site A
Site A
Sites A & C
Site A
SiteB
Site A
Site A
SiteB
SiteC
SiteC
SiteC
SiteC
SiteC
SiteC
SiteC
SiteC
SiteC
SiteC
SiteC
Site A
Site A
Site A
Site A
Site A
Site A
Site A
Detail of Work Performed
OTM-10 measurements collected with two configurations
OTM-10 measurements collected with one configuration
TO-15, Method 25C, total mercury, and landfill gas samples collected
OTM-10 measurements collected with one configuration
TO-15, Method 25C, total mercury, and landfill gas samples collected
OTM-10 measurements collected with one configuration
OTM-10 measurements collected with two configurations
Additional mercury sampling
OTM-10 measurements collected with one configuration
OTM-10 measurements collected with one configuration
OTM-10 measurements collected with one configuration
OTM-10 measurements collected with one configuration
OTM-10 measurements collected with one configuration
OTM-10 measurements collected with one configuration
Serpentine pattern sampling
OTM-10 measurements collected with one configuration
Serpentine pattern sampling
OTM-10 measurements collected with one configuration
OTM-10 measurements collected with one configuration
OTM-10 measurements collected with one configuration
OTM-10 measurements collected with one configuration
OTM-10 measurements collected with one configuration
OTM-10 measurements collected with one configuration
OTM-10 measurements collected with one configuration
OTM-10 measurements collected with one configuration
OTM-10 measurements collected with one configuration
1-9
-------
Day
Thursday, June 17, 2010
Wednesday, June 23, 2010
Thursday, June 24, 2010
Monday, June 28, 2010
Wednesday, June 30, 2010
Thursday, July 1, 2010
Thursday, July 8, 2010
Friday, July 9, 2010
Tuesday, July 13, 2010
Monday, August 2, 2010
Tuesday, August 3, 2010
Wednesday, August 4, 2010
Thursday, August 5, 2010
Monday, August 9, 2010
Tuesday, August 10, 2010
Wednesday, August 11, 2010
Site
Site A
SiteB
SiteC
SiteB
SiteB
SiteB
Site A
SiteC
SiteB
SiteB
SiteB
SiteB
SiteB
SiteB
SiteB
SiteB
Detail of Work Performed
TO-15, Method 25C, total mercury, and landfill gas samples collected
TO-15, Method 25C, total mercury, and landfill gas samples collected
TO-15, Method 25C, total mercury, and landfill gas samples collected
OTM-10 measurements collected with one configuration
OTM-10 measurements collected with one configuration
OTM-10 measurements collected with one configuration
Serpentine pattern sampling
Serpentine pattern sampling
Serpentine pattern sampling
OTM-10 measurements collected with one configuration
OTM-10 measurements collected with one configuration
OTM-10 measurements collected with one configuration
OTM-10 measurements collected with one configuration
Background measurements downwind of hog farm near site
OTM-10 measurements collected with one configuration
OTM-10 measurements collected with one configuration
1-10
-------
Chapter 2
Test Procedures
The following subsections describe the test procedures used during the OTM-10 measurements at each of
the three sites. Refer to Figures 1-1 through 1-3 for the geographical orientation of each cell measured at
Site A, B, and C, respectively. Emissions measurements were collected in each cell using a 5-mirror
OTM-10 configuration and a scanning OP-TDL instrument. The coordinates of the mirrors used in each
configuration are presented in Appendix B of this report. Additionally, the test procedures used to collect
the mercury samples, gas header pipe samples and gas flow measurements, are described.
2.1 OTM-10 Measurements
2.1.1 Landfill Site A
The measurement site at Landfill A is a 32-acre area consisting of 3 landfill sub-cells and an interim
cover. Waste was filled in three phases with the third phase beginning in 1997 (when waste began to be
added) and ended in 2006 (when waste additions stopped). The measurement area was located in the
southwestern corner of the facility. Small quantities of well-digested municipal wastewater sludge and
ash were disposed over the MSW during 2007-2010. The cell had an intermediate cover of mixed soil and
an active LFG collection system. The LFG collection system became operative in 2007, but at low
efficiency due to distant location of the wells (only 20 extraction wells). In 2009, 29 extraction wells were
added to the gas collection system and horizontal trenches were also installed and operative in 2010.
OTM-10 emissions data were collected at the site on November 17-18, November 20, November 24, and
December lof 2009; and May 14, May 20-21, May 26-27, and June 3-4 of 2010.
Figures 2-1 and 2-2 present a close-up view of the measurement cell showing the locations of the OTM-
10 measurements during the fall 2009 and spring 2010 campaigns, respectively. The dashed black lines
depict the boundaries of the flat surface area and the bottom of the slopes of the cell. The multi-colored
boxes depict the approximate area contributing to the measured emission flux (ACF) for each
configuration, or the representative surface cell area sampled during with each configuration, as described
previously in Section 1.7. The orientation of the ACF boundaries shown were based on the orientation of
the average prevailing wind direction during each survey, with respect to the plane of the OTM 10
configuration. The actual ACF values are dependent upon the length of the OTM-10 configuration as well
as the prevailing wind speed during the time of the measurements (higher wind speeds result in larger
ACF values). The ACF values were calculated for each emission flux calculation, and are presented in
Appendix C of this report. In selecting the locations to deploy the OTM-10 configurations at each site, the
goal was to cover as much cell surface area as possible considering prevailing wind conditions, as this
leads to greater confidence that the methane emissions data collected were representative of actual
emissions from the cell. More information on how the ACF value is used to calculate methane emission
factors is presented in Section 3 of this document.
Figure 2-3 shows one of the OTM-10 measurement configurations deployed at the site.
The cell at Site A contained a series of elevated gas wells (as seen in Figure 2-3). The locations of the
wells were measured with a Global Positioning System (GPS), and are presented in Figure 2-4. The wells
and surrounding cell surface were monitored for fugitive leaks during the campaign using a FLIR
2-1
-------
Portable Gas Imaging Camera. The results from the FLIR Camera surveys are presented in Section 3 of
this document.
Figure 2-1. Overhead view of Measurement Cell at Site A Showing Areas Covered by
OTM-10 Measurements During Fall 2009 Campaign.
Figure 2-2. Overhead view of Measurement Cell at Site A Showing Areas Covered by
OTM-10 Measurements During Spring 2010 Campaign.
2-2
-------
Figure 2-3. OTM-10 Configuration at Site A
Figure 2-4. Location of Elevated Well Heads in Measurement Cell at Site A
2-3
-------
2.1.2 Landfill Site B
OTM-10 monitoring was performed within two cells at Site B. The measurement cells were located on
the northern side of the facility. The first cell is an 86-acre area with a gas collection system installed, and
the gas extraction flow rate for the area can be obtained. Site operators estimated that 7.5 million tonnes
of waste were disposed in this cell. This cell began accepting waste in 2000 and stopped accepting waste
just prior to the beginning of the measurement campaign (in 2010). The cell was operated as atraditional
landfill (i.e., no leachate recirculation). In 2003, the site began leachate recirculation. Landfill B had an
active LFG collection system and the collected gas was flared at the time of this study. The gas collection
system became operative in 2006 with the installation of 11 vertical wells in the lower elevations of the
cell. Additional extraction wells were installed in 2008 and 2010 in the upper elevations; however, the
west side-slope and the flat-top area did not have any gas collection wells at the time of this study. The
cell has a mixed-soil intermediate cover, except on the east side-slope which had a geomembrane cover.
The second cell at Landfill Site B where measurements were conducted is a new cell that had only been
accepting waste for approximately 3 months prior to the sampling. The approximate area of the new cell
where waste was being accepted at the time of measurements was 6 acres. Because the cell is new, the gas
collection system had not yet been installed.
OTM-10 emissions data were collected at the 86-acre cell on June 28, June 30, July 1, and August 2-5 of
2010. Data were collected at the new cell on August 10-11, 2010.
Figures 2-5 and 2-6 present a close-up view of the 86-acre and new cells respectively. The figures
identify the locations of the OTM-10 measurements during the summer 2010 campaign. The dashed black
lines depict the boundaries of the flat surface area and the bottom of the slopes of the cell. The multi-
colored boxes depict the area of the cell contributing to the measured emission flux (ACF) for each
configuration, or the representative surface cell area sampled with each configuration.
2.1.3 Additional Measurements at Site B
Upon arrival at Site B, the project team noted a hog farm located approximately 300 meters to the south
of the cells being surveyed (see Figure 2-7). Although the farm was upwind to where the measurements
were conducted and did not appear to be of potential concern, measurements were conducted to determine
if there was any potential issues with methane emissions from the hog farm being detected at the landfill
measurement locations. Methane emissions were not found to be above typical background
concentrations for methane. Additional discussion is presented in Section 3.
2-4
-------
Figure 2-5. Overhead view of 86-acre Cell at Site B Showing Areas Covered by OTM-10
Measurements During Summer 2010 Campaign.
Figure 2-6. Overhead view of New Cell at Site B Showing Areas Covered by OTM-10
Measurements During Summer 2010 Campaign.
2-5
-------
Measurement
Cells
Figure 2-7. Overhead view of Site B Showing Location of the Hog Farm and the
Measurement Cells (Hog farm was upwind from measurements)
2.1.4 Landfill Site C
The measurement cell at Site C is a closed area (closed in 2005) with active gas controls in place. The
area is approximately 76 acres in size and contains a final cover. The measurement area, which is located
near the center of the site, consists of two sub cells, each with steep side slopes. OTM-10 emissions data
were collected at the site on December 7-8, 2009; and April 22-23, April 28, April 30, and May 5-7 of
2010.
Figures 2-8 and 2-9 present a close-up view of the measurement cell showing the locations of the OTM-
10 measurements during the fall 2009 and spring 2010 campaigns, respectively. The dashed black lines
depict the boundaries of the flat surface area and the bottom of the slopes of the cell. The multi-colored
boxes depict the area of the cell contributing to the measured emission flux (ACF) for each configuration,
or the representative surface cell area sampled with each configuration.
Figure 2-10 shows one of the OTM-10 measurement configurations deployed at the site.
Landfill C received MSW since 1972 and consisted of an unlined older cell and a newer piggyback cell.
MSW disposal in the old cell stopped in 1997 and the cell was covered with a mixed-soil cover. An
impermeable bottom linear was installed on one slope of the old cell and MSW was disposed in the
adjacent piggyback and over the old cell. Waste disposal continued in the piggyback cell until 2005 and
the new cell was covered with geosynthetics clay linear. An active LFG collection system with vertical
wells was installed in the old cell in 1997 and in the piggyback cell in 2006. Landfill gas records starting
from 1997 were available, with cumulative quantities from both cells since 2006. Approximately 7.7
million tonnes of MSW was disposed in the two cells.
2-6
-------
Figure 2-8. Overhead view of Measurement Cell at Site C Showing Areas Covered by
OTM-10 Measurements During Fall 2009 Campaign
Figure 2-9. Overhead view of Measurement Cell at Site C Showing Areas Covered by
OTM-10 Measurements During Spring 2010 Campaign
2-7
-------
Figure 2-10. OTM-10 Configuration at Site C
2.2 Summa Canister Sampling
Summa canister samples were collected using a pre-cleaned critical orifice set for 300 mL/min connected
to a 6 liter Summa canister sample container. The vacuum from the canister was used to pull the purge
flow from the landfill gas header pipe through the critical orifice. TO-15 samples were collected for 3
minutes for a total volume of approximately 900 mL to reduce matrix effects and control moisture.
Method 25-C samples were collected for 6 minutes for an approximate volume of 1,800 mL. Summa
canister samples were analyzed using EPA Method TO-15 and EPA Method 25-C. These samples were
collected for each site.
2.3 Total and Speciated Mercury Sampling
For the total mercury measurements, carbon tube samples taken from each site were analyzed by a
modified SW-846 Method 7473, "Mercury in Solids and Solutions by Thermal Decomposition, Mercury
Amalgamation, and Atomic Adsorption Spectroscopy" and CFR Part 60 Method 30B, "Determination of
Total Vapor Phase Mercury Emissions from Coal-Fired Combustion Sources Using Carbon Sorbent
Tubes." Samples were analyzed using a Lumex RA-915+ Zeeman spectrometer with a RP-M324
decomposition furnace attachment cell. No mercury amalgamation was necessary due to the sensitivity of
the instrument. The iodated carbon samples were loaded into a quartz combustion boat and inserted into a
decomposition furnace at 775 °C. The mercury species were converted to elemental mercury and detected
by the Zeeman atomic adsorption spectrometer. The analyzer was calibrated using NIST certified HgCl2
standards from SCP Sciences. Elemental mercury spiking of the carbon tubes was performed using an
impinger containing a stannous chloride solution. The mercury standard was dispensed into the impinger
2-8
-------
and the elemental mercury was pulled through the glassware system onto the iodated carbon. The
elemental mercury spike was used to assess the recovery of the mercury from the carbon tubes.
Speciated measurements were made at Site B during the fall 2009 sampling campaign using specially
designed mercury sampling traps to differentiate between oxidized and elemental mercury in the landfill
header pipe gas samples. These traps have two sections of potassium chloride (KC1) for oxidized mercury
capture and two sections of the iodated carbon for elemental mercury capture. By analyzing each section
separately, the split between the species can be assessed.
2.4 Lumex Elemental Mercury Field Sampling
The Lumex mercury analyzer was used to sample elemental mercury concentration of the landfill gas at
each site. The Lumex mercury analyzer was connected to a standard 500 ml 45/50 impinger using 28/15
connections to knock out excessive moisture. The impinger was cooled using a standard Apex
Instruments cold box with water and ice. Gas was forced by positive pressure through the impinger to the
Lumex analyzer using an atmospheric vent to eliminate over pressurization of the Lumex sample cell.
2.5 Serpentine Monitoring
A Thermo TVA-1000 flame ionization detector (FID) and a Micro FID portable analyzer were used to
detect methane emissions from the landfill surface at each site during the spring 2010 field campaign.
These measurements were collected 5 to 10 cm above the landfill surface. A 500 ppmv methane in air
calibration gas was used to adjust the span of the instrument and a certified clean nitrogen cylinder was
used to adjust the instrument zero. Measurements were collected at 25 foot intervals across the landfill
surface. Methane emissions exceeding the background were recorded in conjunction with GPS readings.
2-9
-------
This page intentionally left blank.
2-10
-------
Chapter 3
Results and Discussion
The results from the measurement campaign are presented in the following subsections, including the
calculated methane emission values from the OTM-10 measurements, FLIR camera data from Site A,
data on VOC, and HAP and mercury analysis of the header pipe gas. This section also includes total cell
fugitive methane emission calculations, and calculation of the landfill gas abatement efficiency at each
site.
3.1 OTM-10 Measurements
The following subsections present a summary of the OTM-10 measurements at each of the three sites.
The subsections contain summary tables reporting the average measured daily methane flux, the average
daily calculated emission factor, and the average methane flux and emission factor from each campaign.
Uncertainty in the average methane emission factor from each campaign was calculated using standard
propagation-of-error calculations with a 95% confidence interval. The uncertainty values associated with
the calculation of average methane emission factors are presented in Table 4-1 of this report. Daily
summary tables showing all measured emission fluxes, wind conditions, and the calculated ACF are
presented in Appendix C of this document. The methane emission flux values are calculated using
methane concentration data collected along the 5-beam paths in each configuration, and wind data
collected concurrently. An emission flux value is calculated for each measurement cycle, where a cycle is
defined as one complete sequential data collection along all beam paths in the OTM-10 configuration.
The methane emission flux values presented in Appendix C, and used to calculate daily average methane
emission flux values presented in this report, were calculated using a moving average of 3 sequential
measurement cycles.
Appendix D presents sample calculations of methane emission factors and measurement uncertainty using
data collected during the fall 2009 campaign at Site A. In reporting the fugitive methane emissions from
each site, the following assumptions are made regarding the representativeness of the measurements
collected:
1) The areas within each landfill cell where measurements were collected are statistically
representative of the entire cell, and an approximately equal number of measurements were
collected from each sample area within the landfill cell.
2) The cover material (either interim or final) is homogeneous for all areas within a particular
measurement cell.
As presented in Section 1.7, the equations used to calculated the Length to 0% Mass Capture differ when
the OTM 10 plane is configured to capture emissions from the flat surface area or slope of the cell (see
Equations 5 and 6). The Length to 0% Mass Capture value is used to calculate the ACF value, which is
used in calculating the methane emission factor from the cell. As shown in Figures 2-1, 2-2, 2-5, 2-6, 2-8,
and 2-9, there were many instances where the ACF of each OTM 10 measurement plane included both
flat surface and slope areas of the measurement cell. In these cases, the Length to 0% Mass Capture was
calculated using the flat surface area equation (Equation 5) if the majority of the ACF was located over
3-1
-------
flat surface areas of the cell, and the slope equation (Equation 6) if the majority of the ACF was located
over slope areas of the cell.
In order to assess any potential bias to the methane emission factor calculation by using this approach, an
additional calculation of methane emission factors was performed for instances where the measurement
plane ACF included both slope and flat surface areas. This additional calculation was done by applying
both Equation 5 and 6, and performing a weighted average calculation based on the apportionment of flat
surface area and slope area within the ACF. The results of this calculation showed negligible differences
in average site methane emission factors when compared to the approach used to calculate methane
emission factors reported in this document.
It should be noted that prior to performing the OTM-10 emission flux calculations, the accepted global
methane background concentration value of 1.7 ppmv was subtracted from all methane concentration
data.
3.1.1 Landfill Site A
OTM-10 emissions data were collected at Site A on November 17-18, November 20, November 24,
December 1 of 2009, and May 14, May 20-21, May 26-27, and June 3-4 of 2010. Tables 3-1 and 3-2
present a summary of the methane emissions measurements from the fall and spring campaigns at Site A,
respectively. The tables present the average daily measured methane flux, as well as the average daily
methane emission factor, which was calculated using the method described in Section 1.7. Figures 3-1
and 3-2 present a plot of all methane emission factor values calculated from the fall and spring campaigns
at Site A, respectively. The figures are presented to illustrate the amount of variability in methane
emissions observed during the campaigns.
Table 3-1. Methane Emission Results from the Fall 2009 Survey at Site A
... Average Daily Number of Flux Average Daily Methane
a^ Methane Flux (g/s) Measurements Emission Factor (g/day/m2)
November 17 11 85 51
November 18 11 142 43
November 20 16 146 36
November 24 15 45 37
December 1 12 83 54
3-2
-------
180
Decl
Figure 3-1. Plot of Methane Emission Factors from the Fall 2009 Survey at Site A
The average methane emission factor for the Fall 2009 measurement campaign at Site A was 44 ± 10
g/day/m2. Figure 3-1 shows that the methane emission factor values were relatively consistent for most of
the campaign, however higher emission factor values (greater than 70 g/day/m2) were calculated from
data collected during the last day of the study. The total cell methane emission rate is calculated by
multiplying the methane emission factor by the total surface area of the cell. The surface area of the cell at
Site A was estimated using Google Earth software. It should be noted that for each site, the Google
Earth overhead depiction of the site was very similar to actual conditions encountered. The estimated cell
surface area is 128,160 m2. Multiplying this value by 44 g/day/m2 yields a total cell methane emission rate
of 5.6 x 106 grams/day.
Table 3-2. Methane Emission Results from the Spring 2010 Survey at Site A
Day
Average Daily Number of Flux Measurements
Methane Flux (g/s)
Average Daily Methane
Emission Factor (g/day/m2)
May 14
May 20
May 21
May 26
May 27
June 3
June 4
4.6
3.3
3.5
15
4.8
7.5
6.1
24
53
45
85
100
70
77
13
10
10
37
14
25
20
3-3
-------
May 1H May20 May21
May 26
May 27
Jun3
Jun4
Figure 3-2. Plot of Methane Emission Factors from the Spring 2010 Survey at Site A
The average methane emission factor for the spring 2010 measurement campaign at Site A was 18 ± 9.1
g/day/m2. Figure 3-2 shows that the methane emission factor values were relatively consistent for most of
the campaign. However, higher emission factor values (greater than 30 g/day/m2) were calculated from
data collected on May 26. In fact, emission factor values calculated on May 26 were approximately twice
as high as emission factor values calculated on May 27, although the landfill area sampled on the two
days was similar (see Figure 2-2). The higher emission values observed on May 26 could be due to a
number of factors, including differences in meteorological conditions on this day as compared to the other
measurement days, differences in the landfill area being measured on May 26, or differences in landfill
operations on this particular day.
In comparing meteorological conditions during the May 26 and May 27 surveys, there were differences in
the average prevailing wind speed and wind direction during data collection. The average prevailing
wind speed and wind direction were 4.2 m/s and 14 degrees, respectively during the May 26 survey, and
2.6 m/s and 22 degrees, respectively, during the May 27 survey. Differences in average prevailing wind
speeds affect the calculation of ACF (see Section 1.7), as stronger wind speeds result in a larger
representative cell area being sampled by the OTM-10 configuration. Since stronger wind speeds were
observed on May 26 than on May 27, the representative cell area sampled on May 26 was larger than on
May 27, meaning that emissions captured from cell areas on May 26 may not have been captured on May
27. Differences in prevailing wind direction also affect the location of the representative cell area sampled
by the OTM-10 configuration. Although the difference in average wind direction during the May 26 and
May 27 surveys is small (8 degrees), this difference shows that the area sampled during the two surveys
was not identical. Because of the differences in the size and orientation of the representative cell area
sampled during the May 26 and May 27 surveys, it is possible that localized methane emission hot spots
captured during the May 26 survey were not captured by the May 27 survey. It is also possible that the
relatively high methane emissions captured during the May 26 survey are the result of differences in
landfill operations on this particular day.
The estimated cell surface area is 128,160 m2. Multiplying this value by 18 g/day/m2 yields a total cell
methane emission rate of 2.3 x 106 grams/day.
3-4
-------
3.1.2 Landfill Site B
OTM-10 emissions data were collected at Site B at the 86-acre cell on June 28, June 30, July 1, and
August 2-5, 2010. Data were collected at the new cell August 10-11, 2010. Tables 3-3 and 3-4 present a
summary of the methane emissions measurements from the 86-acre cell and new cell during the spring
campaign, respectively. The tables present the average daily measured methane flux, as well as the
average daily methane emission factor, which was calculated using the method described in Section 1.7.
Figures 3-3 and 3-4 present a plot of all methane emission factor values calculated from the 86-acre, and
new cells at Site B, respectively.
Table 3-3. Methane Emission Results from the Summer 2010 Survey of the 86-acre Cell at Site B
Day
June 28
June 30
July 1
August 2
August 3
August 4
August 5
Average Daily Number of Flux Measurements
Methane Flux (g/s)
25
62
104
45
74
101
147
9
103
141
63
85
82
161
Average Daily Methane
Emission Factor (g/day/m2)
87
123
207
105
169
148
217
GOO
JunZS Jun30
Jul 1
AugZ
Aug3
Aug A
Aug5
Figure 3-3. Plot of Methane Emission Factors from the Survey of the 86-Acre Cell at Site B
The average methane emission factor for the summer 2010 measurement campaign of the 86-acre cell at
Site B was 150 ± 46 g/day/m2. Figure 3-3 shows that there was a large amount of variability in the
emission factors calculated from the site, with the highest values (greater than 250 g/day/m2) calculated
from data collected August 3-5.
3-5
-------
Converting 86-acres to units of square meters yields a surface area of 348,030 m2. Multiplying this value
by 150 g/day/m2 yields atotal cell methane emission rate of 5.2 x 107 grams/day.
Table 3-4. Methane Emission Results from the Summer 2010 Survey of the New Cell
at Site B
Day
Average Daily Number of Flux Measurements
Methane Flux (g/s)
Average Daily Methane
Emission Factor (g/day/m2
August 10
August 1 1
5.9
5.3
106
145
26
23
AuglO
Augll
Figure 3-4. Plot of Methane Emission Factors from the Survey of the New Cell at Site B
The average methane emission factor for the summer 2010 measurement campaign of the new cell at Site
B was 24 ± 8.6 g/day/m2. As shown in Figure 3-4, the calculated methane emission factors from the
survey did not show a large amount of variability over the two days that data were collected. The
estimated surface area of the new cell is 25,650 m2. Multiplying this value by 24 g/day/m2 yields a total
cell methane emission rate of 6.3 x 105 grams/day.
As discussed in Section 2.2.1, a hog farm was located approximately 300 meters to the south of the cells
being surveyed at Site B (see Figure 2-7). In order to assess whether or not there were any fugitive
methane emissions coming from the farm, methane concentration measurements were conducted directly
downwind of the hog farm on August 9 using a single optical measurement path. Measurements were
collected for atotal of 45 minutes. The average measured methane concentration during the background
measurement was 1.95 ± 0.1311 ppmv. This value is well below the average methane concentration
measured along the 3 ground-level beam paths during the surveys conducted within the 86-acre cell at
Site B (40.2 ppmv). The fact that the methane values measured downwind of the hog farm were well
below values measured within the 86-acre cell, and the hog farm was located 300 meters south of the
3-6
-------
measurement cells suggest that any fugitive methane emissions from the hog farm had a negligible
contribution to emission estimates from Site B. .
3.1.3 Landfill Site C
OTM-10 emissions data were collected at Site C on December 7-8, 2009, and April 22-23, April 28, April
30, and May 5-7, 2010. Tables 3-5 and 3-6 present a summary of the methane emissions measurements
from the fall and spring campaigns at Site C, respectively. The tables present the average daily measured
methane flux, as well as the average daily methane emission factor, which was calculated using the
method described in Section 1.7. Figures 3-5 and 3-6 present a plot of all methane emission factor values
calculated from the fall and spring campaigns at Site C, respectively.
Table 3-5. Methane Emission Results from the Fall 2009 Survey at Site C
Day
December 7
December 8
Average Daily
Methane Flux (g/s)
4.7
4.2
Number of Flux
Measurements
75
157
Average Daily Methane
Emission Factor (g/day/m2)
20
17
Dec 7
Dec8
Figure 3-5. Plot of Methane Emission Factors from the Fall 2009 Survey at Site C
The average methane emission factor for the Fall 2009 measurement campaign at Site C was 19 ± 19
g/day/m2 .Although there was a large amount of variability in the methane emission factor values
calculated during the survey (see Figure 3-5), the average daily methane emission factors were very
similar for the two days of the survey.
The estimated cell surface area is 307,335 m2. Multiplying this value by 19 g/day/m2 yields a total cell
methane emission rate of 5.8 x 106 grams/day.
3-7
-------
Table 3-6. Methane Emission Results from the Spring 2010 Survey at Site C
Day
Average Daily Number of Flux Measurements
Methane Flux (g/s)
Average Daily Methane
Emission Factor (g/day/m2
April 22
April 23
April 28
April 30
May5
May 6
May 7
2.6
8.0
3.9
18
0.63
0.87
2.3
9
61
100
72
4
82
55
5.7
18
5.2
30
1.3
3.2
4.2
*Although the survey area at Site C was considered to be one cell, data was collected May 5-7 in the northern
portion of the survey area. This area could considered a sub-cell within the survey area or a separate cell (see Figure
2-9)
Apr 22 Apr 23
Apr 28
Apr 30
May 5 May 6
May 7
Figure 3-6. Plot of Methane Emission Factors from the Spring 2010 Survey at Site C
The average methane emission factor for the spring 2010 measurement campaign at Site C was 9.2 ± 9.7
g/day/m2. Figure 3-6 shows that there was a large amount of variability in the emission factors calculated
from the site, with the highest values (greater than 15 g/day/m2) calculated from data collected April 23
and April 30. As mentioned previously, differences in observed daily emission values could be due to a
number of factors, including differences in meteorological conditions, differences in the landfill area
being surveyed, or differences in landfill operations on a particular day. It is possible that the
representative cell areas measured on April 23 and April 30 (as defined by the prevailing wind speed,
wind direction, and length of the OTM-10 configuration) contained localized strong methane emission hot
spots, which were not captured by the configurations on the other days of sampling.
3-8
-------
It should also be noted that although the survey area at Site C was considered to be the same landfill cell,
data was collected on May 5, 6, and 7 in the northern portion of the survey area, separate from data
collected during the other days of the survey (see Figure 2-9). This area could be considered a sub-cell
within the survey area or a separate cell, and may explain why methane emission factors from these days
exhibited some of the lowest values found during the survey.
The estimated cell surface area is 307,335 m2. Multiplying this value by 9.2 g/day/m2 yields a total cell
methane emission rate of 2.8 x 106 grams/day.
3.2 FLIR Infrared Camera Data
As mentioned in Section 2 and shown in Figure 2-4, the measurement cell at Site A contained a series of
elevated gas wells. The wells and surrounding cell surface were monitored for fugitive emissions during
the Fall 2009 campaign at Site A using the FLIR Portable Gas Imaging Camera.
The FLIR camera dataset contains multiple movies from several days of monitoring at Site A. Multiple
leak events were confirmed from the dataset, with leaks detected from the base of several gas wells and
various points along the surface of the landfill cell. Figures 3-7 and 3-8 present representative images
from the detected events. The landfill surface observed during the FLIR camera surveys consisted of soil
and grass. It should be noted that it is not possible to reproduce the details of a visible leak (as captured
with video footage) using a single representative snap shot as presented in this report. The leaks, when
viewed in moving video images, are much more pronounced and generally easier to identify.
Figure 3-7. Screenshots from FLIR Camera of Fugitive Leaks from Base of Gas Wells at
Site A.
3-9
-------
Figure 3-8. Additional Screenshots from FLIR Camera of Fugitive Leaks from Base of Gas
Wells at Site A.
3.3 Summa Canister Sampling
3.3.1 Landfill Site A
Summa canister samples were collected from the gas collection header pipe in triplicate at Site A. These
samples represent a composite of landfill gas (LFG) from the entire site. Samples were collected upstream
of the vacuum pump to minimize losses and contamination. A blank was also collected using a nitrogen
gas stream to purge the critical orifice. Samples were analyzed using Methods TO-15 and 25-C, and
permanent gases (CFL,, O2, N2, CO2, CO, and H2S) using a landfill gas monitor. Results are presented in
Tables 3-7 through 3-8. The results from the ambient sample show some detectable compounds. The
results from the TO-15 nitrogen blank are shown and can be seen to be quite low, but above ambient
levels. The TO-15 samples were analyzed by Eastern Research Group (ERG, Morrisville, NC). In
computing averages, when all measurements are ND, the average is reported as ND. When one or more
measurement is above detection, the ND measurement is treated as 50% of the stated MDL. Though not
applicable here, the method further specifies that if the MDL is not reported, a ND measurement is treated
as zero.
After data review, three of the samples collected during the Spring 2010 campaign were found to be
invalid due to a leak either during sampling or transport to the laboratory. Results from this sample were
excluded and a not reported (NR) flag was noted in Tables 3-8, 3-12, and 3-16.
The average TO-15 gas concentration values for the Fall 2009 and Spring 2010 samples shown in the
VOC tables were corrected for air infiltration that can occur from landfill gas sample dilution and air
intrusion into the landfill. The corrections were performed on the following formula provided in the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency document, Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors, AP-42,
Volume 1: Stationary Point and Area Sources, 5th ed., Chapter 2.4 (U.S. EPA, 1997).
3-10
-------
f~^ {~\ 1 /~\ 6 \
(corrected for air infiltration) = (7)
where:
CP = Concentration of pollutant P in LFG (i.e., NMOC as hexane), ppmv;
Cco = CO2 concentration in LFG, ppmv;
CCH = CH4 Concentration in LFG, ppmv; and
1 x 106 = Constant used to correct concentration ofP to units of ppmv.
3-11
-------
Table 3-7. Results of TO-15 Analysis from Site A / Fall 2009
CAS NO.
71-55-6
79-34-5
79-00-5
75-34-3
75-35-4
120-82-1
95-63-6
106-93-4
107-06-2
78-87-5
108-67-8
106-99-0
75-05-8
74-86-2
107-02-8
107-13-1
71^3-2
74-97-5
75-27-4
75-25-2
74-83-9
75-15-0
56-23-5
Sample Type:
Can ID:
COMPOUND
1,1,1 -Trichloroethane
1 , 1 ,2,2-Tetrachloroethane
1 , 1 ,2-Trichloroethane
1,1-Dichloroethane
1,1-Dichloroethene
1 ,2,4-Trichlorobenzene
1 ,2,4-Trimethylbenzene
1,2-Dibromoethane
1,2-Dichloroethane
1,2-Dichloropropane
1 ,3,5-Trimethylbenzene
1,3-Butadiene
Acetonitrile
Acetylene
Acrolein
Acrylonitrile
Benzene
Bromochloromethane
Bromodichloromethane
Bromoform
Bromomethane
Carbon Disulfide
Carbon Tetrachloride
Landfill Gas
Can GS#1
ppbv
7.88
ND
ND
43.7
5.95
3.51
1060
ND
15.6
ND
387
17.7
240
71.8
ND
21.6
294
ND
ND
ND
ND
5.89
ND
Landfill Gas
Can GS#2
ppbv
10.9
ND
ND
64.2
11.1
3.58
1210
ND
22.9
ND
440
26.1
370
98.8
ND
ND
463
ND
ND
ND
ND
9.95
ND
Landfill Gas
Can GS#3
ppbv
9.49
ND
ND
58.8
8.4
2.63
1090
ND
20.7
ND
417
23.9
333
84.5
ND
ND
431
ND
ND
ND
ND
7.94
ND
Landfill Gas
Ambient (#4)
ppbv
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
0.231
ND
ND
ND
0.114
ND
ND
1.83
ND
ND
0.475
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
Nitrogen Blank
Blank (#5)
ppbv
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
1.47
ND
ND
ND
0.770
ND
ND
8.45
ND
ND
4.07
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
Average
Landfill Gas
Concentration
ppbv
9.42
ND
ND
55.6
8.48
3.24
1120
ND
19.7
ND
415
22.6
314
85.0
ND
8.11
396
ND
ND
ND
ND
7.93
ND
Corrected
Landfill Gas
Concentration
ppbv
10.1
ND
ND
59.5
9.08
3.47
1200
ND
21.1
ND
444
24.2
337
91.0
ND
8.68
424
ND
ND
ND
ND
8.49
ND
3-12
-------
CAS NO.
108-90-7
75-00-3
67-66-3
74-87-3
100-44-7
126-99-8
156-59-2
10061-01-5
124-48-1
75-71-8
75-09-2
76-14-2
140-88-5
637-92-3
100-41-4
87-68-3
100-01-6
541-73-1
78-93-3
108-10-1
80-62-6
1634-04-4
111-65-9
95-50-1
95-47-6
Sample Type:
Can ID:
COMPOUND
Chlorobenzene
Chloroethane
Chloroform
Chloromethane
Chloromethylbenzene
Chloroprene
cis-1 ,2-Dichloroethylene
cis-1 ,3-Dichloropropene
Dibromochloromethane
Dichlorodifluoromethane
Dichloromethane
Dichlorotetrafluoroethane
Ethyl Acrylate
Ethyl tert-Butyl Ether
Ethylbenzene
Hexachloro-1 ,3-butadiene
m,p-Xylene
m-Dichlorobenzene
Methyl Ethyl Ketone
Methyl Isobutyl Ketone
Methyl Methacrylate
Methyl tert-Butyl Ether
n-Octane
o-Dichlorobenzene
o-Xylene
Landfill Gas
Can GS#1
ppbv
ND
31.9
ND
17.0
ND
ND
296
ND
ND
336
185
32.8
ND
ND
3380
ND
7590
ND
3710
626
ND
12.0
730
ND
2210
Landfill Gas
Can GS#2
ppbv
ND
51.3
ND
21.1
ND
ND
446
ND
ND
410
269
39.7
ND
ND
4030
ND
8900
ND
5550
748
ND
18.8
948
5.89
2560
Landfill Gas
Can GS#3
ppbv
ND
42.9
ND
19.1
ND
ND
408
ND
ND
366
228
35.0
ND
ND
4000
ND
8650
ND
5300
801
ND
17.0
987
4.67
2580
3-13
Landfill Gas
Ambient (#4)
ppbv
ND
ND
ND
0.390
ND
ND
1.84
ND
ND
0.464
0.358
ND
ND
ND
0.466
ND
0.858
ND
0.591
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
0.292
Nitrogen Blank
Blank (#5)
ppbv
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
4.01
ND
6.83
ND
6.32
ND
ND
ND
0.816
ND
2.05
Average
Landfill Gas
Concentration
ppbv
ND
42.0
ND
19.1
ND
ND
383
ND
ND
371
227
35.8
ND
ND
3800
ND
8380
ND
4850
725
ND
15.9
888
3.59
2450
Corrected
Landfill Gas
Concentration
ppbv
ND
45.0
ND
20.4
ND
ND
410
ND
ND
397
243
38.4
ND
ND
4070
ND
8970
ND
5200
776
ND
17.1
951
3.84
2620
-------
CAS NO.
106-46-7
115-07-1
100-42-5
994-05-8
127-18-4
108-88-3
156-60-5
10061-02-6
79-01-6
75-69-4
76-13-1
75-01-4
Sample Type:
Can ID:
COMPOUND
p-Dichlorobenzene
Propylene
Styrene
tert-Amyl Methyl Ether
Tetrachloroethylene
Toluene
trans-1 ,2-Dichloroethylene
trans-1 ,3-Dichloropropene
Trichloroethylene
Trichlorofluoromethane
Trichlorotrifluoroethane
Vinyl chloride
Landfill Gas
Can GS#1
ppbv
463
3400
541
ND
423
10100
11.9
ND
196
10.4
2.68
310
Landfill Gas
Can GS#2
ppbv
522
4120
636
ND
549
13600
18.3
ND
274
15.6
3.53
427
Landfill Gas
Can GS#3
ppbv
448
3830
623
ND
527
11700
15.4
ND
253
11.9
2.83
384
Landfill Gas
Ambient (#4)
ppbv
0.174
2.57
0.218
ND
ND
1.42
ND
ND
ND
0.223
ND
ND
Nitrogen Blank
Blank (#5)
ppbv
1.83
14.8
2.10
ND
ND
13.2
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
Average
Landfill Gas
Concentration
ppbv
478
3780
600
ND
500
11800
15.2
ND
241
12.6
3.01
374
Corrected
Landfill Gas
Concentration
ppbv
511
4050
642
ND
535
12600
16.3
ND
258
13.5
3.23
400
ND = Not detected
3-14
-------
Table 3-8. Results of TO-15 Analysis from Site A / Spring 2010
CAS NO.
71-55-6
79-34-5
79-00-5
75-34-3
75-35-4
120-82-1
95-63-6
106-93-4
107-06-2
78-87-5
108-67-8
106-99-0
75-05-8
74-86-2
107-02-8
107-13-1
71-43-2
74-97-5
75-27-4
75-25-2
74-83-9
75-15-0
56-23-5
Sample Type:
Can ID:
COMPOUND
1,1,1-Trichloroethane
1 , 1 ,2,2-Tetrachloroethane
1 , 1 ,2-Trichloroethane
1,1-Dichloroethane
1,1-Dichloroethene
1 ,2,4-Trichlorobenzene
1 ,2,4-Trimethylbenzene
1,2-Dibromoethane
1,2-Dichloroethane
1,2-Dichloropropane
1 ,3,5-Trimethylbenzene
1,3-Butadiene
Acetonitrile
Acetylene
Acrolein
Acrylonitrile
Benzene
Bromochloromethane
Bromodichloromethane
Bromoform
Bromomethane
Carbon Disulfide
Carbon Tetrachloride
Landfill Gas
00707030-01
ppbv
6.63
ND
ND
73.8
15.9
7.27
1780
ND
19.9
12.6
708
30.9
389
ND
ND
ND
663
ND
ND
ND
ND
9.29
ND
Landfill Gas
00707030-02
ppbv
6.99
ND
ND
111
16.8
7.43
1860
ND
20.7
ND
738
33.8
453
ND
ND
ND
695
ND
ND
ND
ND
10.6
ND
Landfill Gas
00707030-03
ppbv
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
Nitrogen Blank
00707030-11
ppbv
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
0.132
ND
ND
ND
0.054
ND
0.44
0.422
4.85
ND
0.211
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
0.085
Average
Landfill Gas
- Concentration
ppbv
6.81
ND
ND
75.8
16.4
7.35
1820
ND
20.30
6.81
723
32.4
421
ND
ND
ND
679
ND
ND
ND
ND
9.95
ND
Corrected
Landfill Gas
Concentration
ppbv
6.89
ND
ND
76.6
16.5
7.43
1840
ND
20.5
6.89
731
32.7
426
ND
ND
ND
687
ND
ND
ND
ND
10.1
ND
3-15
-------
CAS NO.
108-90-7
75-00-3
67-66-3
74-87-3
100-44-7
126-99-8
156-59-2
10061-01-5
124-48-1
75-71-8
75-09-2
76-14-2
140-88-5
637-92-3
100-41-4
87-68-3
100-01-6
541-73-1
78-93-3
108-10-1
80-62-6
1634-04-4
111-65-9
95-50-1
Sample Type:
Can ID:
COMPOUND
Chlorobenzene
Chloroethane
Chloroform
Chloromethane
Chloromethylbenzene
Chloroprene
cis-1 ,2-Dichloroethylene
cis-1 ,3-Dichloropropene
Dibromochloromethane
Dichlorodifluoromethane
Dichloromethane
Dichlorotetrafluoroethane
Ethyl Acrylate
Ethyl tert-Butyl Ether
Ethylbenzene
Hexachloro-1 ,3-butadiene
m,p-Xylene
m-Dichlorobenzene
Methyl Ethyl Ketone
Methyl Isobutyl Ketone
Methyl Methacrylate
Methyl tert-Butyl Ether
n-Octane
o-Dichlorobenzene
Landfill Gas
00707030-01
ppbv
64.5
47.5
ND
19.2
ND
ND
511
ND
ND
5.61
341
33.8
ND
ND
5660
ND
11400
ND
9660
1180
ND
26.5
1630
6.34
Landfill Gas
00707030-02
ppbv
78.4
51.1
ND
21.5
ND
ND
539
ND
ND
1.94
362
37.9
ND
ND
5990
ND
12100
ND
10600
1370
ND
28.9
1700
6.5
Landfill Gas
00707030-03
ppbv
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
Nitrogen Blank
00707030-11
ppbv
ND
ND
ND
0.514
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
0.453
0.083
ND
ND
ND
0.321
ND
0.661
ND
0.912
0.122
ND
ND
0.107
ND
Average
Landfill Gas
- Concentration
ppbv
71.5
49.3
ND
20.4
ND
ND
525
ND
ND
3.78
352
35.9
ND
ND
5830
ND
11800
ND
10100
1280
ND
27.7
1670
6
Corrected
Landfill Gas
Concentration
ppbv
72.2
52.8
ND
20.6
ND
ND
530
ND
ND
3.82
355
36.2
ND
ND
5890
ND
11900
ND
10200
1290
ND
28.0
1680
6.49
3-16
-------
CAS NO.
95-47-6
106-46-7
115-07-1
100-42-5
994-05-8
127-18-4
108-88-3
156-60-5
10061-02-6
79-01-6
75-69-4
76-13-1
75-01-4
Sample Type:
Can ID:
COMPOUND
o-Xylene
p-Dichlorobenzene
Propylene
Styrene
tert-Amyl Methyl Ether
Tetrachloroethylene
Toluene
trans-1 ,2-Dichloroethylene
trans-1 ,3-Dichloropropene
Trichloroethylene
Trichlorofluoromethane
Trichlorotrifluoroethane
Vinyl chloride
Landfill Gas
00707030-01
ppbv
3500
683
10.5
1150
ND
662
14000
28.6
84.3
341
17.2
3.83
442
Landfill Gas
00707030-02
ppbv
3680
706
9.87
1200
ND
688
15500
30.1
92.5
354
18.6
4.15
488
Landfill Gas
00707030-03
ppbv
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
Nitrogen Blank
00707030-11
ppbv
0.212
0.05
0.4
0.075
ND
0.045
1.26
ND
ND
ND
0.224
0.082
ND
Average
Landfill Gas
- Concentration
ppbv
3590
695
10
1180
ND
675
14800
29.4
88.4
348
17.9
3.99
465
Corrected
Landfill Gas
Concentration
ppbv
3630
702
10.3
1190
ND
683
14900
29.7
89.4
351
18.1
4.03
470
NR = Not Reported / Can had leak
ND = Not detected
3-17
-------
Table 3-9 shows the results for non-methane organic compounds (NMOC) as hexane by Method 25-C at
Site A for the fall 2009 and Table 3-10 for the spring 2010 sampling. After data review, one of the
samples collected during the spring 2010 campaign (P1002396-003) was found to be invalid due to a leak
either during sampling or transport to the laboratory. Results from this sample were excluded and a not
reported (NR) flag was noted in Table 3-10.
Table 3-9. Results for NMOC as Hexane by Method 25-C from Site A / Fall 2009
Analyte: NMOC
Sample Type Sample ID (ppmv)
Landfill Gas P0904145-001 460
Landfill Gas P0904145-002 460
Landfill Gas P0904145-003 450
Nitrogen Blank P0904145-010 ND
Table 3-10. Results for NMOC as Hexane by Method 25-C from Site A / Spring 2009
Sample Type
Landfill Gas
Landfill Gas
Landfill Gas
Nitrogen Blank
Analyte:
Sample ID
P1 002396-001
P1 002396-002
P1 002396-003
P1 002396-011
NMOC
(ppmv)
460
460
NR
0.81
NR = Not reported / leak during sampling
3.3.2 Landfill Site B
Summa canister samples were collected from the gas collection header pipe in triplicate at Site B. These
samples represent a composite of LFG from the entire site. Samples were collected upstream of the
vacuum pump to minimize losses and contamination. A blank was also collected using a nitrogen gas
stream to purge the sample loop through a slip-stream while the canister was sampled. Samples were
analyzed using Methods TO-15 (VOC) and 25-C (NMOC). Results for the TO-15 samples are presented
in Tables 3-11 and 3-12 for the Fall 2009 and Spring 2010 campaigns. After data review, one VOC
sample from the Spring 2010 sampling campaign (Can ID 00707030-05) had results an order of
magnitude lower than the other two replicates suggesting a leak from the can or a dilution error at the
laboratory and was not reported.
3-18
-------
Table 3-11. Results of TO-15 Analysis from Site B / Fall 2009
CAS NO.
71-55-6
79-34-5
79-00-5
75-34-3
75-35-4
120-82-1
95-63-6
106-93-4
107-06-2
78-87-5
108-67-8
106-99-0
75-05-8
74-86-2
107-02-8
107-13-1
71-43-2
74-97-5
75-27-4
75-25-2
74-83-9
75-15-0
56-23-5
108-90-7
Sample Type:
Can ID:
COMPOUND
1,1,1-Trichloroethane
1 , 1 ,2,2-Tetrachloroethane
1,1,2-Trichloroethane
1,1-Dichloroethane
1,1-Dichloroethene
1 ,2,4-Trichlorobenzene
1 ,2,4-Trimethylbenzene
1,2-Dibromoethane
1,2-Dichloroethane
1,2-Dichloropropane
1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene
1,3-Butadiene
Acetonitrile
Acetylene
Acrolein
Acrylonitrile
Benzene
Bromochloromethane
Bromodichloromethane
Bromoform
Bromomethane
Carbon Disulfide
Carbon Tetrachloride
Chlorobenzene
Landfill
Gas
Can SC#1
ppbv
6.88
ND
ND
35.6
11.5
1.54
1220
ND
238
ND
476
71.8
ND
144
ND
ND
984
ND
ND
ND
ND
24.0
ND
ND
Landfill
Gas
Can SC#2
ppbv
9.09
ND
ND
51.0
16.3
2.42
1420
ND
282
ND
550
93.1
ND
177
ND
ND
1130
ND
ND
ND
ND
31.0
ND
ND
Landfill
Gas
Can SC#3
ppbv
9.05
ND
ND
56.6
17.5
1.95
1380
ND
362
50.4
547
98.7
ND
174
ND
ND
1490
ND
ND
ND
ND
35.4
ND
76.6
Landfill Gas
Can SC#4
ppbv
6.31
ND
ND
38.4
12.8
1.59
1110
ND
234
ND
436
74.0
ND
140
ND
ND
898
ND
ND
ND
ND
24.9
ND
ND
Nitrogen Blank
Blank (#5)
ppbv
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
1.47
ND
ND
ND
0.770
ND
ND
8.45
ND
ND
4.07
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
Average
Landfill Gas
Concentration
ppbv
7.83
ND
ND
45.4
14.5
1.88
1280
ND
279
12.7
502
84.4
ND
159
ND
ND
1130
ND
ND
ND
ND
28.8
ND
19.2
Corrected
Landfill Gas
Concentration
ppbv
7.86
ND
ND
45.6
14.6
1.88
1290
ND
280
12.8
504
84.7
ND
159
ND
ND
1140
ND
ND
ND
ND
28.9
ND
19.3
3-19
-------
CAS NO.
75-00-3
67-66-3
74-87-3
100-44-7
126-99-8
156-59-2
10061-01-5
124-48-1
75-71-8
75-09-2
76-14-2
140-88-5
637-92-3
100-41-4
87-68-3
100-01-6
541-73-1
78-93-3
108-10-1
80-62-6
1634-04-4
111-65-9
95-50-1
95-47-6
106-46-7
Sample Type:
Can ID:
COMPOUND
Chloroethane
Chloroform
Chloromethane
Chloromethylbenzene
Chloroprene
cis-1 ,2-Dichloroethylene
cis-1 ,3-Dichloropropene
Dibromochloromethane
Dichlorodifluoromethane
Dichloromethane
Dichlorotetrafluoroethane
Ethyl Acrylate
Ethyl tert-Butyl Ether
Ethylbenzene
Hexachloro-1 ,3-butadiene
m,p-Xylene
m-Dichlorobenzene
Methyl Ethyl Ketone
Methyl Isobutyl Ketone
Methyl Methacrylate
Methyl tert-Butyl Ether
n-Octane
o-Dichlorobenzene
o-Xylene
p-Dichlorobenzene
Landfill
Gas
Can SC#1
ppbv
41.9
ND
32.5
ND
ND
442
ND
ND
587
98.0
47.7
ND
ND
4430
ND
8560
ND
7950
1360
ND
12.8
1030
7.15
2230
653
Landfill
Gas
Can SC#2
ppbv
58.7
ND
39.4
ND
ND
520
ND
ND
736
136
59.7
ND
ND
4700
ND
9100
ND
8540
1430
ND
20.2
1110
8.66
2450
752
Landfill
Gas
Can SC#3
ppbv
59.7
ND
39.7
ND
ND
630
ND
ND
719
153
59.5
ND
ND
5030
ND
9540
ND
12200
1580
ND
20.8
1330
8.25
2560
732
3-20
Landfill Gas
Can SC#4
ppbv
44.3
ND
31.4
ND
ND
418
ND
ND
596
108
49.0
ND
ND
3890
ND
7460
ND
7680
1170
ND
16.3
950
6.61
2000
586
Nitrogen Blank
Blank (#5)
ppbv
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
4.01
ND
6.83
ND
6.32
ND
ND
ND
0.816
ND
2.05
1.83
Average
Landfill Gas
Concentration
ppbv
51.2
ND
35.8
ND
ND
503
ND
ND
660
124
54.0
ND
ND
4510
ND
8670
ND
9090
1390
ND
17.5
1110
7.67
2310
681
Corrected
Landfill Gas
Concentration
ppbv
51.4
ND
35.9
ND
ND
505
ND
ND
662
124
54.2
ND
ND
4530
ND
8710
ND
9130
1400
ND
17.6
1110
7.70
2320
683
-------
CAS NO.
115-07-1
10CM2-5
994-05-8
127-18-4
108-88-3
156-60-5
10061-02-6
79-01-6
75-69-4
76-13-1
75-01-4
Sample Type:
Can ID:
COMPOUND
Propylene
Styrene
tert-Amyl Methyl Ether
Tetrachloroethylene
Toluene
trans-1 ,2-Dichloroethylene
trans-1 ,3-Dichloropropene
Trichloroethylene
Trichlorofluoromethane
Trichlorotrifluoroethane
Vinyl chloride
Landfill
Gas
Can SC#1
ppbv
8800
1340
ND
765
12200
14.1
ND
279
20.0
2.24
574
Landfill
Gas
Can SC#2
ppbv
10500
1470
ND
804
12200
17.9
ND
275
28.2
3.18
753
Landfill
Gas
Can SC#3
ppbv
10200
1570
ND
954
12100
21.1
ND
376
26.2
2.81
759
Landfill Gas
Can SC#4
ppbv
8430
1200
ND
692
10200
13.7
ND
244
22.3
2.59
591
Nitrogen Blank
Blank (#5)
ppbv
14.8
2.10
ND
ND
13.2
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
Average
Landfill Gas
Concentration
ppbv
9480
1400
ND
804
11700
16.7
ND
294
24.2
2.71
669
Corrected
Landfill Gas
Concentration
ppbv
9520
1410
ND
807
11700
16.8
ND
295
24.3
2.72
672
ND = Not detected
3-21
-------
Table 3-12. Results of TO-15 Analysis from Site B / Spring 2010
CAS NO.
71-55-6
79-34-5
79-00-5
75-34-3
75-35-4
120-82-1
95-63-6
106-93-4
107-06-2
78-87-5
108-67-8
106-99-0
75-05-8
74-86-2
107-02-8
107-13-1
71-43-2
74-97-5
75-27-4
75-25-2
74-83-9
75-15-0
56-23-5
Sample Type:
Can ID:
COMPOUND
1,1,1 -Trichloroethane
1 , 1 ,2,2-Tetrachloroethane
1 , 1 ,2-Trichloroethane
1,1-Dichloroethane
1,1-Dichloroethene
1 ,2,4-Trichlorobenzene
1 ,2,4-Trimethylbenzene
1,2-Dibromoethane
1,2-Dichloroethane
1,2-Dichloropropane
1 ,3,5-Trimethylbenzene
1,3-Butadiene
Acetonitrile
Acetylene
Acrolein
Acrylonitrile
Benzene
Bromochloromethane
Bromodichloromethane
Bromoform
Bromo methane
Carbon Disulfide
Carbon Tetrachloride
Landfill Gas
00707030-04
ppbv
3.10
ND
ND
26.9
22.1
3.73
1820
ND
191
50.8
757
88.1
643
ND
ND
ND
1860
ND
ND
ND
1.00
24.7
ND
Landfill Gas
00707030-05
ppbv
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
Landfill Gas
00707030-06
ppbv
3.76
ND
ND
30.8
28.1
4.01
2110
ND
233
62.3
885
105
785
ND
ND
ND
2250
ND
ND
ND
1.32
31.2
ND
Nitrogen Blank
00707030-11
ppbv
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
0.132
ND
ND
ND
0.054
ND
0.44
0.422
4.85
ND
0.211
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
0.085
Average
Landfill Gas
Concentration
ppbv
3.43
ND
ND
28.9
25.1
3.87
1970
ND
212
56.6
821
96.6
714
ND
ND
ND
2060
ND
ND
ND
1.16
28.0
ND
Corrected Landfill
Gas
Concentration
ppbv
3.53
ND
ND
29.7
25.8
3.99
2020
ND
218
58.2
846
99.4
735
ND
ND
ND
2120
ND
ND
ND
1.19
28.8
ND
3-22
-------
CAS NO.
108-90-7
75-00-3
67-66-3
74-87-3
100-44-7
126-99-8
156-59-2
10061-01-5
124-48-1
75-71-8
75-09-2
76-14-2
140-88-5
637-92-3
100-41-4
87-68-3
100-01-6
541-73-1
78-93-3
108-10-1
80-62-6
1634-04-4
111-65-9
95-50-1
Sample Type:
Can ID:
COMPOUND
Chlorobenzene
Chloroethane
Chloroform
Chloromethane
Chloromethylbenzene
Chloroprene
cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene
cis-1 ,3-Dichloropropene
Dibromochloromethane
Dichlorodifluoromethane
Dichloromethane
Dichlorotetrafluoroethane
Ethyl Acrylate
Ethyl tert-Butyl Ether
Ethylbenzene
Hexachloro-1 ,3-butadiene
m,p-Xylene
m-Dichlorobenzene
Methyl Ethyl Ketone
Methyl Isobutyl Ketone
Methyl Methacrylate
Methyl tert-Butyl Ether
n-Octane
o-Dichlorobenzene
Landfill Gas
00707030-04
ppbv
129
52.7
ND
1.32
ND
ND
526
ND
ND
6.99
142
38.3
ND
ND
6050
ND
10700
ND
16000
1870
ND
23.2
1580
10.3
Landfill Gas
00707030-05
ppbv
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
Landfill Gas
00707030-06
ppbv
139
63.8
ND
7.18
ND
ND
641
ND
ND
76.8
174
46.5
ND
ND
7160
ND
12700
ND
19500
2300
ND
28.6
1910
12
Nitrogen Blank
00707030-11
ppbv
ND
ND
ND
0.514
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
0.453
0.083
ND
ND
ND
0.321
ND
0.661
ND
0.912
0.122
ND
ND
0.107
ND
Average
Landfill Gas
Concentration
ppbv
134
58.3
ND
4.25
ND
ND
584
ND
ND
41.9
158
42.4
ND
ND
6610
ND
11700
ND
17600
2090
ND
25.9
1750
11.2
Corrected Landfill
Gas
Concentration
ppbv
138
60.0
ND
4.38
ND
ND
601
ND
ND
43.1
163
43.7
ND
ND
6800
ND
12000
ND
18300
2150
ND
26.7
1800
11.5
3-23
-------
CAS NO.
95-47-6
106-46-7
115-07-1
100-42-5
994-05-8
127-18-4
108-88-3
156-60-5
10061-02-6
79-01-6
75-69-4
76-13-1
75-01-4
Sample Type:
Can ID:
COMPOUND
o-Xylene
p-Dichlorobenzene
Propylene
Styrene
tert-Amyl Methyl Ether
Tetrachloroethylene
Toluene
trans-1 ,2-Dichloroethylene
trans-1 ,3-Dichloropropene
Trichloroethylene
Trichlorofluoromethane
Trichlorotrifluoroethane
Vinyl chloride
Landfill Gas
00707030-04
ppbv
3000
944
48.2
1990
ND
767
13500
27.7
143
311
26.4
3.2
21.4
Landfill Gas
00707030-05
ppbv
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
Landfill Gas
00707030-06
ppbv
3550
1120
550
2370
ND
917
16000
34.2
181
376
31.8
3.88
45
Nitrogen Blank
00707030-11
ppbv
0.212
0.05
0.4
0.075
ND
0.045
1.26
ND
ND
ND
0.224
0.082
ND
Average
Landfill Gas
Concentration
ppbv
3280
1030
299
2180
ND
842
14800
31.0
162
344
29.1
3.54
33.2
Corrected Landfill
Gas
Concentration
ppbv
3370
1060
308
2250
ND
867
15200
31.9
167
354
30.0
3.60
34.0
NR = Not Reported / Can had leak
ND = Not detected
3-24
-------
Tables 3-13 and 3-14 show the results for NMOC as hexane by Method 25-C at Site B.
Table 3-13. Results for NMOC as Hexane by Method 25-C from Site B / Fall 2009
Analyte: TGNMO
Sample Type Sample ID (ppmv)
Landfill Gas P0904145-007 240
Landfill Gas P0904145-008 1100
Landfill Gas P0904145-009 790
Nitrogen Blank P0904145-010 ND
Table 3-14. Results for NMOC as Hexane by Method 25-C from Site B / Spring 2009
Sample Type
Landfill Gas
Landfill Gas
Landfill Gas
Nitrogen Blank
Analyte:
Sample ID
P1 002396-004
P1 002396-005
P1 002396-006
P1 002396-011
TGNMO
(ppmv)
1,000
1,100
380
0.81
3.3.3 Landfill Site C
Summa canister samples were collected from the gas collection header pipe in triplicate at Site C. These
samples represent a composite of LFG from the entire site. Samples were collected upstream of the
vacuum pump to minimize losses and contamination.
After data review, one of the samples collected at Site C during the spring 2010 campaign (00707030-08)
was found to be invalid due to a leak either during sampling or transport to the laboratory. Results from
this sample were excluded and a not reported (NR) flag was noted in Table 3-16.
Samples for Site C were analyzed using Methods TO-15 and 25-C. Results are presented in Tables 3-15
and 3-16.
3-25
-------
Table 3-15. Results of TO-15 Analysis from Site C / Fall 2009
CAS NO.
71-55-6
79-34-5
79-00-5
75-34-3
75-35-4
120-82-1
95-63-6
106-93-4
107-06-2
78-87-5
108-67-8
106-99-0
75-05-8
74-86-2
107-02-8
107-13-1
71-43-2
74-97-5
75-27^
75-25-2
74-83-9
75-15-0
56-23-5
108-90-7
Sample Type:
Can ID:
COMPOUND
1,1,1-Trichloroethane
1 , 1 ,2,2-Tetrachloroethane
1,1,2-Trichloroethane
1,1-Dichloroethane
1,1-Dichloroethene
1 ,2,4-Trichlorobenzene
1 ,2,4-Trimethylbenzene
1,2-Dibromoethane
1,2-Dichloroethane
1,2-Dichloropropane
1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene
1,3-Butadiene
Acetonitrile
Acetylene
Acrolein
Acrylonitrile
Benzene
Bromochloromethane
Bromodichloromethane
Bromoform
Bromomethane
Carbon Disulfide
Carbon Tetrachloride
Chlorobenzene
Landfill
Gas
Can WS#1
ppbv
2.90
17.8
ND
40.9
9.92
3.32
1380
ND
27.5
ND
538
31.3
504
112
ND
ND
374
ND
ND
ND
ND
4.98
ND
ND
Landfill
Gas
Can WS#2
Ppbv
3.14
ND
ND
49.8
12.2
2.94
1340
ND
33.4
ND
531
37.2
636
121
ND
ND
459
ND
ND
ND
ND
5.87
ND
ND
Landfill
Gas
Can WS#3
ppbv
2.76
ND
ND
41.6
10.1
2.99
1310
ND
28.6
ND
513
31.7
530
105
ND
ND
383
ND
ND
ND
ND
5.07
ND
ND
Landfill Gas
Can WS#4
ppbv
2.68
ND
ND
39.5
9.89
2.83
1280
ND
27.7
ND
502
31.6
472
103
ND
ND
360
ND
ND
ND
ND
4.87
ND
ND
Nitrogen Blank
Blank (#5)
ppbv
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
1.47
ND
ND
ND
0.770
ND
ND
8.45
ND
ND
4.07
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
Average
Landfill Gas
Concentration
ppbv
2.87
4.56
ND
43.0
10.5
3.02
1330
ND
29.3
ND
521
33.0
536
110
ND
ND
394
ND
ND
ND
ND
5.20
ND
ND
Corrected
Landfill Gas
Concentration
ppbv
2.91
4.62
ND
43.5
10.7
3.06
1350
ND
29.7
ND
528
33.4
543
112
ND
ND
399
ND
ND
ND
ND
5.27
ND
ND
3-26
-------
CAS NO.
75-00-3
67-66-3
74-87-3
100-44-7
126-99-8
156-59-2
10061-01-5
124-48-1
75-71-8
75-09-2
76-14-2
140-88-5
637-92-3
100-41-4
87-68-3
100-01-6
541-73-1
78-93-3
108-10-1
80-62-6
1634-04-4
111-65-9
95-50-1
95-47-6
106-46-7
Sample Type:
Can ID:
COMPOUND
Chloroethane
Chloroform
Chloromethane
Chloromethylbenzene
Chloroprene
cis-1 ,2-Dichloroethylene
cis-1 ,3-Dichloropropene
Dibromochloromethane
Dichlorodifluoromethane
Dichloromethane
Dichlorotetrafluoroethane
Ethyl Acrylate
Ethyl tert-Butyl Ether
Ethylbenzene
Hexachloro-1 ,3-butadiene
m,p-Xylene
m-Dichlorobenzene
Methyl Ethyl Ketone
Methyl Isobutyl Ketone
Methyl Methacrylate
Methyl tert-Butyl Ether
n-Octane
o-Dichlorobenzene
o-Xylene
p-Dichlorobenzene
Landfill
Gas
Can WS#1
ppbv
27.6
ND
12.1
ND
ND
451
ND
ND
375
44.7
35.8
ND
ND
3460
ND
7140
ND
4900
983
ND
14.1
931
7.54
2010
628
Landfill
Gas
Can WS#2
Ppbv
32.4
ND
13.5
ND
ND
548
ND
ND
415
50.5
39.5
ND
ND
3680
ND
7560
ND
6030
1160
ND
16.8
1010
7.22
2110
605
Landfill
Gas
Can WS#3
ppbv
28.0
ND
11.6
ND
ND
465
ND
ND
358
43.7
34.2
ND
ND
3300
ND
6820
ND
5010
890
83.7
14.6
904
7.28
1920
605
Landfill Gas
Can WS#4
ppbv
27.6
ND
11.0
ND
ND
443
ND
ND
352
41.7
33.1
ND
ND
3250
ND
6750
ND
4630
795
ND
13.2
878
7.01
1900
581
Nitrogen Blank
Blank (#5)
ppbv
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
4.01
ND
6.83
ND
6.32
ND
ND
ND
0.816
ND
2.05
1.83
Average
Landfill Gas
Concentration
ppbv
28.9
ND
12.1
ND
ND
477
ND
ND
375
45.2
35.7
ND
ND
3420
ND
7070
ND
5140
957
22.0
14.7
931
7.26
1990
605
Corrected
Landfill Gas
Concentration
ppbv
29.3
ND
12.2
ND
ND
483
ND
ND
380
45.7
36.1
ND
ND
3470
ND
7160
ND
5210
970
22.3
14.9
943
7.36
2020
613
3-27
-------
CAS NO.
115-07-1
10CM2-5
994-05-8
127-18-4
108-88-3
156-60-5
10061-02-6
79-01-6
75-69-4
76-13-1
75-01-4
Sample Type:
Can ID:
COMPOUND
Propylene
Styrene
tert-Amyl Methyl Ether
Tetrachloroethylene
Toluene
trans-1 ,2-Dichloroethylene
trans-1 ,3-Dichloropropene
Trichloroethylene
Trichlorofluoromethane
Trichlorotrifluoroethane
Vinyl chloride
Landfill
Gas
Can WS#1
ppbv
2760
605
ND
528
10700
12.8
ND
243
6.25
ND
371
Landfill
Gas
Can WS#2
Ppbv
3000
643
ND
580
11400
16.3
ND
284
7.38
1.96
427
Landfill
Gas
Can WS#3
ppbv
2600
577
ND
519
10300
13.7
ND
244
6.25
ND
366
Landfill Gas
Can WS#4
ppbv
2530
561
ND
502
10300
12.8
ND
230
6.40
ND
357
Nitrogen Blank
Blank (#5)
ppbv
14.8
2.10
ND
ND
13.2
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
Average
Landfill Gas
Concentration
ppbv
2720
597
ND
532
10700
13.9
ND
250
6.57
1.96
380
Corrected
Landfill Gas
Concentration
ppbv
2760
604
ND
539
10800
14.1
ND
254
6.66
1.99
385
ND = Not detected
3-28
-------
Table 3-16. Results of TO-15 Analysis from Site C / Spring 2010
CAS NO.
71-55-6
79-34-5
79-00-5
75-34-3
75-35-4
120-82-1
95-63-6
106-93-4
107-06-2
78-87-5
108-67-8
106-99-0
75-05-8
74-86-2
107-02-8
107-13-1
71-43-2
74-97-5
75-27-4
75-25-2
74-83-9
75-15-0
56-23-5
Sample Type:
Can ID:
COMPOUND
1,1,1-Trichloroethane
1 , 1 ,2,2-Tetrachloroethane
1 , 1 ,2-Trichloroethane
1,1-Dichloroethane
1,1-Dichloroethene
1 ,2,4-Trichlorobenzene
1 ,2,4-Trimethylbenzene
1,2-Dibromoethane
1,2-Dichloroethane
1,2-Dichloropropane
1 ,3,5-Trimethylbenzene
1,3-Butadiene
Acetonitrile
Acetylene
Acrolein
Acrylonitrile
Benzene
Bromochloromethane
Bromodichloromethane
Bromoform
Bromomethane
Carbon Disulfide
Carbon Tetrachloride
Landfill Gas
00707030-07
ppbv
ND
ND
ND
23.4
6.19
5.32
943
ND
8.77
ND
415
12.6
421
ND
ND
ND
222
ND
ND
ND
ND
3.29
ND
Landfill Gas
00707030-08
ppbv
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
Landfill Gas
00707030-09
ppbv
15.3
ND
ND
128
36.1
12.5
3510
ND
49.9
28.2
1480
57.3
1270
ND
ND
ND
1370
ND
ND
ND
ND
19.2
ND
Nitrogen Blank
00707030-11
ppbv
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
0.132
ND
ND
ND
0.054
ND
0.44
0.422
4.85
ND
0.211
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
0.085
Average
Landfill Gas
- Concentration
ppbv
7.86
ND
ND
75.7
21.1
8.91
2230
ND
29.3
14.4
948
35.0
846
ND
ND
ND
796
ND
ND
ND
ND
11.2
ND
Corrected
Landfill Gas
Concentration
ppbv
7.96
ND
ND
76.7
21.4
9.03
2260
ND
29.7
ND
960
35.4
857
ND
ND
ND
806
ND
ND
ND
ND
11.4
ND
3-29
-------
CAS NO.
108-90-7
75-00-3
67-66-3
74-87-3
100-44-7
126-99-8
156-59-2
10061-01-5
124-48-1
75-71-8
75-09-2
76-14-2
140-88-5
637-92-3
100-41-4
87-68-3
100-01-6
541-73-1
78-93-3
108-10-1
80-62-6
1634-04-4
111-65-9
95-50-1
Sample Type:
Can ID:
COMPOUND
Chlorobenzene
Chloroethane
Chloroform
Chloromethane
Chloromethylbenzene
Chloroprene
cis-1 ,2-Dichloroethylene
cis-1 ,3-Dichloropropene
Dibromochloro methane
Dichlorodifluoromethane
Dichloromethane
Dichlorotetrafluoroethane
Ethyl Acrylate
Ethyl tert-Butyl Ether
Ethylbenzene
Hexachloro-1 ,3-butadiene
m,p-Xylene
m-Dichlorobenzene
Methyl Ethyl Ketone
Methyl Isobutyl Ketone
Methyl Methacrylate
Methyl tert-Butyl Ether
n-Octane
o-Dichlorobenzene
Landfill Gas
00707030-07
ppbv
37.3
14
ND
ND
ND
ND
164
ND
ND
ND
20.5
16.2
ND
ND
2050
ND
4090
ND
2990
485
ND
ND
519
8.35
Landfill Gas
00707030-08
ppbv
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
Landfill Gas
00707030-09
ppbv
172
122
ND
46.3
ND
ND
1230
ND
ND
153
885
89.8
ND
ND
8560
ND
15800
ND
18200
2870
ND
61.1
3590
13.4
Nitrogen Blank
00707030-11
ppbv
ND
ND
ND
0.514
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
0.453
0.083
ND
ND
ND
0.321
ND
0.661
ND
0.912
0.122
ND
ND
0.107
ND
Average
Landfill Gas
- Concentration
ppbv
105
68.0
ND
23.3
ND
ND
697
ND
ND
76.6
453
89.8
ND
ND
5310
ND
9950
ND
10600
1680
ND
30.6
2060
13.4
Corrected
Landfill Gas
Concentration
ppbv
ND
68.9
ND
23.6
ND
ND
706
ND
ND
78
458
91.0
ND
ND
3470
ND
7160
ND
5210
1700
ND
31.1
2080
13.6
3-30
-------
CAS NO.
95-47-6
106-46-7
115-07-1
100-42-5
994-05-8
127-18-4
108-88-3
156-60-5
10061-02-6
79-01-6
75-69-4
76-13-1
75-01-4
Sample Type:
Can ID:
COMPOUND
o-Xylene
p-Dichlorobenzene
Propylene
Styrene
tert-Amyl Methyl Ether
Tetrachloroethylene
Toluene
trans-1 ,2-Dichloroethylene
trans-1 ,3-Dichloropropene
Trichloroethylene
Trichlorofluoromethane
Trichlorotrifluoroethane
Vinyl chloride
Landfill Gas
00707030-07
ppbv
1250
362
ND
249
ND
136
5310
ND
18.6
75.9
4.33
2.08
181
Landfill Gas
00707030-08
ppbv
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
Landfill Gas
00707030-09
ppbv
6260
1440
ND
2450
ND
1420
15500
66.7
187
745
43.6
9.49
1000
Nitrogen Blank
00707030-11
ppbv
0.212
0.05
0.4
0.075
ND
0.045
1.26
ND
ND
ND
0.224
0.082
ND
Average
Landfill Gas
- Concentration
ppbv
3760
901
ND
1350
ND
778
10405
33.5
103
410
43.6
9.49
591
Corrected
Landfill Gas
Concentration
ppbv
2020
913
ND
1370
ND
788
10800
33.9
ND
416
44.2
9.61
598
NR= Not Reported / Can had leak
ND = Not detected
3-31
-------
Table 3-17 and 3-18 show the results for nonmethane organic compounds (NMOC) as hexane by Method
25-C at Site C.
Table 3-17. Results for NMOC as Hexane by Method 25-C from Site C / Fall 2009
Analyte: TGNMO
Sample Type Sample ID (ppmv)
Landfill Gas P0904145-001 650
Landfill Gas P0904145-002 610
Landfill Gas P0904145-003 600
Nitrogen Blank P0904145-010 ND
Table 3-18. Results for NMOC as Hexane by Method 25-C from Site C / Spring 2010
Analyte: TGNMO
Sample Type Sample ID (ppmv)
Landfill Gas P1002396-007 170
Landfill Gas P1002396-008 270
Landfill Gas P1002396-009 280
Nitrogen Blank P1002396-011 0.81
3.4 Total and Speciated Mercury Measurements
3.4.1 Landfill Site A
During the Fall 2009 sampling, the total mercury concentrations in the landfill gas from Site A ranged
from 3.4 to 3.7 (ig/m3, with an average of 3.5 (ig/m3 and a relative standard deviation (RSD) of 5 percent.
Table 3-19 presents the total mercury concentration data from Site A. The sample data have been
corrected to 20 °C, 760 mm Hg, and dry volumes.
Table 3-19. Total Mercury Sample Concentrations from Site A / Fall 2009
Sample #
Gas Sample 1
Gas Sample 2
Gas Sample 3
RSD
Total Mercury Gas
Concentration (|jg/m
3.7
3.4
3.4
5%
3)
During the Spring 2010 sampling, the total mercury concentrations in the landfill gas from Site A ranged
from 2.9 to 3.4 (ig/m3, with an average of 3.1 (ig/m3 and a relative standard deviation (RSD) of 10
3-27
-------
percent. Table 3-20 presents the total mercury concentration data from Site A. The sample data have been
corrected to 20 °C, 760 mm Hg, and dry volumes.
Table 3-20. Total Mercury Sample Concentrations from Site A / Spring 2010
Sample # Total Mercury Gas.
K Concentration (|jg/m )
Gas Sample 1
Gas Sample 2
Gas Sample 3
RSD
3.4
3.0
2.9
10%
3.4.2 Landfill Site B
During the fall 2009 sampling, the total mercury concentrations in the landfill gas from Site B ranged
from 8.4 to 8.9 (ig/m3, with an average of 8.7 (ig/m3 and an RSD of 3 percent. The elemental spike
recovery for the total mercury sample was 60 percent. Table 3-21 presents the total mercury concentration
data from Site B collected on November 23, 2009.
Table 3-21. Total Mercury Sample Concentrations from Site B / Fall 2009
Sample/Well Location al e^, Gf 3, Spike Recovery
r Concentration (|jg/m ) (%)
Gas Sample 1 8.9
Gas Sample 2 8.9 60
Gas Sample 3 8.4
RSD 3%
During the fall 2009 sampling, the total mercury concentrations in the landfill gas from Site B ranged
from 8.4 to 8.9 (ig/m3, with an average of 8.7 (ig/m3 and an RSD of 3 percent. The elemental mercury
spike recovery for the total mercury sample was 60%. This low elemental mercury spike recovery was
due to a much lower spike level (10 ng) compared to the Hg mass loading from the landfill gas sampling
(184 ng). Method 30B requires the spike level to be with 50 to 150% of the estimated sample mass
loading to be considered a valid measurement to eliminate the difficulty of subtracting orders of
magnitude when determining spike recoveries. The spike level determination does require some
information on the expected concentrations in the gas which was unknown prior to sampling. This lower
elemental spike recovery would have little effect on the accuracy of the mercury concentration result
presented and would only effect spike recovery. Table 3-21 presents the total mercury concentration data
from Site B collected on November 23, 2009.
Following the initial round of sampling at all three sites, additional sampling was performed at Site B on
December 1, 2009 to collect some additional samples, spikes, and some speciated tube measurements to
determine the split between oxidized and elemental mercury. Table 3-22 summarizes the spike results.
Ten additional samples were collected with an average concentration of 5.9 ± 0.3 (ig/m3 and an RSD of 5
percent. Elemental spike recoveries for A and B were 94 and 98 percent, respectively and showed good
capture of the mercury without interferences from the landfill gas. The sample data have been corrected
to 20 °C, 760 mm Hg, and dry volumes.
3-28
-------
Speciated measurements were made at this site during the fall 2009 sampling campaign using a
combination trap that uses two sections of potassium chloride (KC1) for oxidized and two iodated carbon
sections for elemental mercury. Results for the speciated samples collected are presented in Table 3-23.
The speciated samples had an average of 1.2% oxidized and 98.8% elemental mercury.
Table 3-22. Additional Mercury Sampling Conducted at Site B / Fall 2009
Total Mercury Gas Sampling
Average Concentration
N =
Standard Deviation
RSD
Elemental Spike Recovery A
Elemental Spike Recovery B
Speciated Elemental A
Speciated Elemental B
Speciated Elemental C
5.9 |jg/m3
10
0.3 |jg/m3
4.6%
94%
98%
99%
99%
98%
Table 3-23. Total Mercury Sample Concentrations from Site B / Fall 2009
Sample/Well Location Oxidized Mercury (%) Elemental Mercury (%)
Speciated Sample 1 0.7 99.3
Speciated Sample 2 0.4 98.6
Speciated Sample 3 1.6 98.4
RSD 38% 0.47%
During the spring 2010 sampling, the total mercury concentrations in the landfill gas from Site B ranged
from 8.0 to 8.4 (ig/m3, with an average of 8.2 (ig/m3 and a relative standard deviation (RSD) of 3 percent.
Table 3-24 presents the total mercury concentration data from Site B. The sample data have been
corrected to 20 °C, 760 mm Hg, and dry volumes.
Table 3-24. Total Mercury Sample Concentrations from Site B / Spring 2010
Sample #
Gas Sample 1
Gas Sample 2
Gas Sample 3
RSD
Total Mercury Gas
Concentration (ug/m
8.4
8.0
8.1
3%
3)
3-29
-------
3.4.3 Landfill Site C
Total mercury concentrations in the landfill gas from Site C ranged from 8.8 to 9.0 (ig/m3, with an
average of 8.9 (ig/m3 and an RSD of 1 percent. Table 3-25 presents the total mercury concentration data
from Site C. The sample data have been corrected to 20 °C, 760 mm Hg, and dry volumes.
Table 3-25. Total Mercury Sample Concentrations from Site C / Fall 2009
Gas Sample 1 9.0
Gas Sample 2 8.9
Gas Sample 3 8.8
RSD 1%
During the Spring 2010 sampling, the total mercury concentrations in the landfill gas from Site C ranged
from 8.4 to 9.0 (ig/m3, with an average of 8.8 (ig/m3 and a relative standard deviation (RSD) of 4 percent.
Table 3-26 presents the total mercury concentration data from Site C. The sample data have been
corrected to 20 °C, 760 mm Hg, and dry volumes.
Table 3-26. Total Mercury Sample Concentrations from Site C / Spring 2010
T°tal MerCUry GaS
Concentration (|jg/m3)
Gas Sample 1
Gas Sample 2
Gas Sample 3
RSD
9.0
8.4
9.0
4%
3.5 Lumex Elemental Mercury Measurements
3.5.1 Landfill Site A
Lumex elemental mercury continuous measurements at Site A were not performed during the Fall 2009
testing due to high negative vacuum at the sampling location. The Lumex elemental mercury
measurements require a sample under positive pressure to operate. A sampling location downstream of
the fan was installed during the Spring 2010 sampling trip. The Lumex elemental mercury continuous
sampling concentrations from Site A ranged from 980 to 2355 ng/m3 with an average of 1733 ng/m3.
These samples were collected during a 1 hour period on June 17, 2010. The sampling with the Lumex was
also performed in conjunction with the total mercury samples at this site.
3.5.2 Landfill Site B
During the Fall 2009 sampling trip, the Lumex elemental mercury continuous sampling concentrations
from Site #B ranged from 6226 to 6267 ng/m3 with an average of 6243 ng/m3. These samples were
collected during a 2 hour period on November 23, 2009. During the spring 2010 sampling trip, the Lumex
3-30
-------
elemental mercury continuous sampling concentrations from Site B ranged from 1586 to 2897 ng/m3 with
an average of 2494 ng/m3. These samples were collected during a 2 hour period on June 23, 2010. The
sampling with the Lumex was also performed in conjunction with the total mercury samples at this site.
3.5.3 Landfill Site C
During the fall 2009 sampling trip, the Lumex elemental mercury continuous sampling concentrations
from Site C ranged from 940 to 1010 ng/m3 with an average of 975 ng/m3. These samples were collected
during a 1 hour period on November 18, 2009. During the spring 2010 sampling trip, the Lumex
elemental mercury continuous sampling concentrations from Site C ranged from 697 to 826 ng/m3 with
an average of 747 ng/m3. These samples were collected during a 2 hour period on June 24, 2010. The
sampling with the Lumex was also performed in conjunction with the total mercury samples at this site.
3.6 Total Cell Gas Determination of Methane, O2, CO2, N2, CO, and H2S
Analysis for gas header pipe methane, O2, CO2, N2, CO, and H2S concentrations was performed using a
Lantec GEM 2000+ landfill gas monitor rented from Ashtead Rentals. This monitor has an internal pump
to draw sample from the header pipe and various chemical sensors to determine constituent
concentrations. Calibration of the analyzer was performed using a certified mixture of these compounds
to be obtained from the rental vendor. Tables 3-27 and 3-28 present the data collected at the landfills.
During the monitoring for carbon monoxide for the fall 2009 sampling campaign, the landfill gas monitor
displayed and error for this constituent.
Table 3-27. Gas Concentrations for the Landfills / Fall 2009
Site
A
B
C
CH4 (%)
53.8
57.4
56.3
O2 (%)
2.1
0.2
1.2
C02 (%)
39.6
42.2
42.4
N2(%)
4.5
0.2
0.1
CO (ppmv)
NA
NA
NA
H2S (ppmv)
3
0
7
NA = Not Available
Table 3-28. Gas Concentrations for the Landfills / Spring 2010
Site
A
B
C
CH4 (%)
60.4
61.2
55.5
O2 (%)
0
0
0
C02(%)
38.5
35.9
44.5
N2 (%)
0
0
0
CO (ppmv)
56
385
30
H2S (ppmv)
7
0
36
3.7 Serpentine Monitoring
5.7.7 Landfill Site A
On July 8, 2010 serpentine gas sampling was performed along the cap of the landfill using a Thermo
TVA-1000 FID portable analyzer. All measurements were collected within 5 to 10 centimeters of the
landfill surface. A DeLorme Earthmate PN-60 GPS was used to mark to location of the hits that were
measured at the site. The results from the serpentine sampling at Site A are presented in Table 3-29.
These results show a total of 18 points exceeding background levels (65 to 5000 ppmv) out of a total of
3-31
-------
692 sampled points. The integrated concentration of methane measured at Landfill A was 44.6 ppmv.
The location of the monitoring instruments, within the landfill cell, are shown in Figure 3-9.
Table 3-29. Locations and Methane Concentrations for Site A from Serpentine Sampling
Waypoint I.D. Concentration (ppmv methane) Latitude (N)
GI-1
GI-2
GI-3
GI-4
GI-5
GI-6
GI-7
GI-8
GI-9
GI-10
GI-1 2
GI-1 3
GI-1 4
GI-1 5
GI-1 6
GI-1 7
GI-1 66
65
415
578
4200
1500
3000
2600
3800
250
1600
4000
740
5000
500
700
140
1800
36.10601
36.10607
36.10639
36.10621
36.10557
36.10632
36.10572
36.10606
36.10544
36.10544
36.10597
36.10565
36.10593
36.10569
36.10599
36.10592
36.10629
Longitude (W)
79.7318
79.7318
79.7316
79.7314
79.7313
79.7314
79.7308
79.7308
79.7305
79.7302
79.7300
79.7301
79.7297
79.7296
79.7288
79.7295
79.7285
3-32
-------
Data use subject to license.
©DeLorme. Topo North America 9
www.delorme.com
MM (8.3" W)
0 100 200 300 400 500
Data Zoom 15-0
Figure 3-9. Map of Serpentine Sampling Locations at Site A
3-33
-------
5.7.2 Landfill Site B
On July 13, 2010 serpentine gas sampling was performed along the cap of the landfill using a Thermo
TVA-1000 FID portable analyzer. All measurements were collected within 5 to 10 centimeters of the
landfill surface. A DeLorme Earthmate PN-60 GPS was used to mark to location of the hits that were
measured at the site. Note that the wind speeds were between 5 to 10 MPH. The wind direction was
blowing directly off the open cells. The site was also spraying runoff water on top of this cell at the time
of sampling. The site was still accepting trash in one section of the cap. The results from the serpentine
sampling at Site B are presented in Table 3-30. These results show a total of 12 points exceeding
background levels (350 to 4000 ppmv) out of a total of 903 sampled points. The integrated concentration
of methane measured at Landfill A was 22.0 ppmv. The location of the monitoring locations, within the
landfill cell, are shown in Figure 3-10.
Table 3-30. Locations and Methane Concentrations for Site B from Serpentine Sampling
Waypoint I.D. Concentration (ppmv methane) Latitude (N)
S-1
S-2
S-3
S-4
S-5
S-6
S-7
S-8
S-9
S-10
S-11
S-1 2
1400
800
350
1000
3500
1000
1400
1000
1000
600
3800
4000
34.98198
34.98192
34.98161
34.98157
34.98147
34.98076
34.98122
34.98103
34.98121
34.98133
34.98111
34.98134
Longitude (W)
78.4571
78.4565
78.4570
78.4567
78.4565
78.4559
78.4558
78.4561
78.4561
78.456
78.4567
78.4565
3-34
-------
Topo lloitli America 9
Data use subject to license.
© DeLorme. Topo North America 9.
www.deforme.com
MN(8.9°W)
0 120 240 360 480 600
Data Zoom 14-7
Figure 3-10. Map of Serpentine Sampling Locations at Site B
3-35
-------
5.7.5 Landfill Site C
On May 4, 2010 serpentine gas sampling was started along the cap of the landfill using a Micro FID
portable analyzer. All measurements were collected within 5 to 10 centimeters of the landfill surface. The
batteries on the analyzers failed shortly after testing had started.
On May 6, 2010 Serpentine gas sampling was continued at site C. There were four hits recorded but there
was no GPS information recorded. The locations are spotted on the map below.
On July 9, 2010 serpentine gas sampling was continued at site C using a Thermo TVA-1000 FID portable
analyzer. A DeLorme Earthmate PN-60 GPS was used to mark to location of the serpentine pattern
samples. The readings in Table 3-31 for Site C were collected before using the GPS. The approximate
areas of these measurements were bounded by gas wells Vw-201, Vw-212, and Vw-222.
The results from the serpentine sampling at Site C are presented in Table 3-30. These results show a total
of 4 points exceeding background levels (180 to 1430 ppmv) out of a total of 1798 sampled points. The
integrated concentration of methane measured at Landfill A was 2.1 ppmv. The coordinates of the
monitoring locations, within the landfill cell, are shown in Figure 3-11.
Table 3-31. Locations and Methane Concentrations for Site C from Serpentine Sampling
Waypoint I.D. Concentration (ppmv methane) Latitude (W) Longitude (N)
W-1
W-2
W-3
W-4
1400
180
1430
750
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA = Not Available / No GPS used at Site C
3-36
-------
Data use subjectio license.
©DeLorme. Topo North America 9.
www .delortne .com
MN(7.9"W)
0 80 160 240 320 400 480
Data Zoom 15-1
Figure 3-11. Map of Serpentine Sampling Locations at Site C
3-37
-------
3.8 Calculation of VOC Fluxes
The emissions flux value of each speciated VOC was estimated using the rationing method described in
Section 1.6 of this document. The average measured methane flux values from each landfill cell were
used to estimate the emissions flux value of each VOC. Table 3-32 presents the average methane flux
values used to estimate VOC flux values from each campaign.
Table 3-32. Summary of Average Methane Flux Values Used for Estimation of VOC Flux Values
at each Site
Site
A
A
B
C
C
Campaign
Fall 2009
Spring 2010
Summer 2010
Fall 2009
Spring 2010
Average Methane Flux Value (g/s)
13
6.9
97
4.3
6.4
3.8.1 Site A
Table 3-33 presents the estimated flux of each speciated VOC from the fall 2009 and spring 2010 Site A
Campaigns.
3-38
-------
Table 3-33. Estimated VOC Flux Values from the Fall 2009 and Spring 2010 Site A Campaigns
Corrected Fall 2009
Landfill
Compound Qas Concentratjon
(ppbv)
1,1,1-Trichloroethane
1 , 1 ,2,2-Tetrachloroethane
1,1,2-Trichloroethane
1,1-Dichloroethane
1,1-Dichloroethene
1 ,2,4-Trichlorobenzene
1 ,2,4-Trimethylbenzene
1,2-Dibromoethane
1,2-Dichloroethane
1,2-Dichloropropane
1 ,3,5-Trimethylbenzene
1,3-Butadiene
Acetonitrile
Acetylene
Acrolein
Acrylonitrile
Benzene
Bromochloromethane
Bromodichloromethane
Bromoform
Bromomethane
Carbon Disulfide
Carbon Tetrachloride
Chlorobenzene
Chloroethane
Chloroform
Chloromethane
Chloromethylbenzene
Chloroprene
cis-1 ,2-Dichloroethylene
cis-1 ,3-Dichloropropene
Dibromochloromethane
Dichlorodifluoromethane
Dichloromethane
10.1
ND
ND
59.5
9.08
3.47
1200
ND
21.1
ND
444
24.2
337
91
ND
8.68
424
ND
ND
ND
ND
8.49
ND
ND
45
ND
20.4
ND
ND
410
ND
ND
397
243
Fall 2009
Estimated Flux
Value
(grams per day)
0.17
ND
ND
0.75
0.11
0.080
18
ND
0.27
ND
6.8
0.17
1.8
0.30
ND
0.059
4.2
ND
ND
ND
ND
0.082
ND
ND
0.37
ND
0.13
ND
ND
5.1
ND
ND
6.1
2.6
Corrected Spring
2010 Landfill
Gas Concentration
(ppbv)
6.89
ND
ND
76.6
16.5
7.43
1840
ND
20.5
6.89
731
32.7
426
ND
ND
ND
687
ND
ND
ND
ND
10.1
ND
72.2
52.8
ND
20.6
ND
ND
531
ND
ND
3.82
355
Spring 2010
Estimated Flux
Value
(grams per day)
0.057
ND
ND
0.47
0.10
0.084
14
ND
0.13
0.048
5.4
0.11
1.1
ND
ND
ND
3.3
ND
ND
ND
ND
0.047
ND
0.50
0.21
ND
0.064
ND
ND
3.2
ND
ND
0.029
1.9
3-39
-------
Corrected Fall 2009
Compound Landfi" r
r Gas Concentration
(ppbv)
Dichlorotetrafluoroethane
Ethyl Acrylate
Ethyl tert-Butyl Ether
Ethylbenzene
Hexachloro-1 ,3-butadiene
m,p-Xylene
m-Dichlorobenzene
Methyl Ethyl Ketone
Methyl Isobutyl Ketone
Methyl Methacrylate
Methyl tert-Butyl Ether
n-Octane
o-Dichlorobenzene
o-Xylene
p-Dichlorobenzene
Propylene
Styrene
tert-Amyl Methyl Ether
Tetrachloroethylene
Toluene
trans-1 ,2-Dichloroethylene
trans-1 ,3-Dichloropropene
Trichloroethylene
Trichlorofluoromethane
Trichlorotrifluoroethane
Vinyl chloride
38.4
ND
ND
4070
ND
8970
ND
5200
776
ND
17.1
951
3.84
2620
511
4050
642
ND
535
12600
16.3
ND
258
13.5
3.23
400
Fall 2009
Estimated Flux
Value
(grams per day)
0.83
ND
ND
55
ND
120
ND
48
9.9
ND
0.19
14
0.072
35
9.6
22
8
ND
11
150
0.20
ND
4.3
0.24
0.077
3.2
Corrected Spring
2010 Landfill
Gas Concentration
(ppbv)
36.2
ND
ND
5890
ND
11900
ND
10200
1290
ND
28.0
1680
6.49
3630
702
10.3
1190
ND
683
14900
29.7
89.4
351
18.1
4.03
471
Spring 2010
Estimated Flux
Value
(grams per day)
0.38
ND
ND
39
ND
78
ND
46
8.0
ND
0.15
12
0.059
24
6.4
0.027
7.7
ND
7.0
85
0.18
0.61
2.9
0.15
0.047
1.8
*ND indicates NMOC was not detected above instrument MDL
3-40
-------
3.8.2 SiteB
Table 3-34 presents the estimated flux of each VOC from the summer 2010 Site B Campaign.
Table 3-34. Estimated VOC Flux Values from the Summer 2010 Site B Campaign
Corrected Spring 2010
Compound Landfill Gas Concentration
(ppbv)
1,1,1 -Trichloroethane
1 ,1 ,2,2-Tetrachloroethane
1,1,2-Trichloroethane
1,1-Dichloroethane
1,1-Dichloroethene
1 ,2,4-Trichlorobenzene
1 ,2,4-Trimethylbenzene
1,2-Dibromoethane
1,2-Dichloroethane
1,2-Dichloropropane
1 ,3,5-Trimethylbenzene
1,3-Butadiene
Acetonitrile
Acetylene
Acrolein
Acrylonitrile
Benzene
Bromochloromethane
Bromodichloromethane
Bromoform
Bromomethane
Carbon Disulfide
Carbon Tetrachloride
Chlorobenzene
Chloroethane
Chloroform
Chloromethane
Chloromethylbenzene
Chloroprene
cis-1 ,2-Dichloroethylene
cis-1 ,3-Dichloropropene
3.53
ND
ND
29.7
25.8
4.00
2020
ND
218
58.2
846
99.4
735
ND
ND
ND
2120
ND
ND
ND
1.19
28.8
ND
138
60.0
ND
4.38
ND
ND
601
ND
Spring 2010 Estimated
Flux Value
(grams per day)
0.40
ND
ND
2.5
2.1
0.62
210
ND
18
5.6
87
4.6
26
ND
ND
ND
140
ND
ND
ND
0.10
1.9
ND
13
3.3
ND
0.19
ND
ND
50
ND
3-41
-------
Corrected Spring 2010
Compound Landfill Gas Concentration
(ppbv)
Dibromochloromethane
Dichlorodifluoromethane
Dichloromethane
Dichlorotetrafluoroethane
Ethyl Acrylate
Ethyl tert-Butyl Ether
Ethylbenzene
Hexachloro-1 ,3-butadiene
m,p-Xylene
m-Dichlorobenzene
Methyl Ethyl Ketone
Methyl Isobutyl Ketone
Methyl Methacrylate
Methyl tert-Butyl Ether
n-Octane
o-Dichlorobenzene
o-Xylene
p-Dichlorobenzene
Propylene
Styrene
tert-Amyl Methyl Ether
Tetrachloroethylene
Toluene
trans-1 ,2-Dichloroethylene
trans-1 ,3-Dichloropropene
Trichloroethylene
Trichlorofluoromethane
Trichlorotrifluoroethane
Vinyl chloride
ND
43.1
163
43.7
ND
ND
6800
ND
12000
ND
18300
2150
ND
26.7
1800
11.5
3370
1060
308
2250
ND
867
15200
31.9
167
354
30.0
3.60
34
Spring 2010 Estimated
Flux Value
(grams per day)
ND
4.4
12
6.4
ND
ND
610
ND
1100
ND
1100
180
ND
2.0
180
1.4
310
130
11
200
ND
120
1200
2.6
16
39
3.5
0.58
1.8
*ND indicates VOC was not detected above instrument MDL
3-42
-------
3.8.3 SiteC
Table 3-35 presents the estimated flux of each VOC from the Fall 2009 and Spring 2010 Site C
Campaigns.
Table 3-35. Estimated VOC Flux Values from the Fall 2009 and Spring 2010 Site C Campaigns
Corrected Fall 2009
Landfill
Compound Qas Concentratjon
(ppbv)
1,1,1-Trichloroethane
1 , 1 ,2,2-Tetrachloroethane
1,1,2-Trichloroethane
1,1-Dichloroethane
1,1-Dichloroethene
1 ,2,4-Trichlorobenzene
1 ,2,4-Trimethylbenzene
1,2-Dibromoethane
1,2-Dichloroethane
1,2-Dichloropropane
1 ,3,5-Trimethylbenzene
1,3-Butadiene
Acetonitrile
Acetylene
Acrolein
Acrylonitrile
Benzene
Bromochloromethane
Bromodichloromethane
Bromoform
Bromomethane
Carbon Disulfide
Carbon Tetrachloride
Chlorobenzene
Chloroethane
Chloroform
Chloromethane
Chloromethylbenzene
Chloroprene
cis-1 ,2-Dichloroethylene
2.91
4.62
ND
43.5
10.7
3.06
1350
ND
29.7
ND
528
33.4
543
112
ND
ND
399
ND
ND
ND
ND
5.27
ND
ND
29.3
ND
12.2
ND
ND
483
Fall 2009
Estimated Flux
Value
(grams per day)
0.016
0.032
ND
0.18
0.043
0.023
6.7
ND
0.12
ND
2.6
0.075
0.93
0.12
ND
ND
1.3
ND
ND
ND
ND
0.017
ND
ND
0.079
ND
0.026
ND
ND
1.9
Corrected Spring
2010 Landfill
Gas Concentration
(ppbv)
7.96
ND
ND
76.7
21.4
9.03
2260
ND
29.7
ND
960
35.4
857
ND
ND
ND
806
ND
ND
ND
ND
11.4
ND
ND
68.9
ND
23.6
ND
ND
706
Spring 2010
Estimated Flux
Value
(grams per day)
0.066
ND
ND
0.47
0.13
0.10
17
ND
0.18
ND
7.1
0.12
2.2
ND
ND
ND
3.9
ND
ND
ND
ND
0.053
ND
ND
0.27
ND
0.074
ND
ND
4.2
3-43
-------
Corrected Fall 2009
Compound Landfi" r
r Gas Concentration
(ppbv)
cis-1 ,3-Dichloropropene
Dibromochloromethane
Dichlorodifluoromethane
Dichloromethane
Dichlorotetrafluoroethane
Ethyl Acrylate
Ethyl tert-Butyl Ether
Ethylbenzene
Hexachloro-1 ,3-butadiene
m,p-Xylene
m-Dichlorobenzene
Methyl Ethyl Ketone
Methyl Isobutyl Ketone
Methyl Methacrylate
Methyl tert-Butyl Ether
n-Octane
o-Dichlorobenzene
o-Xylene
p-Dichlorobenzene
Propylene
Styrene
tert-Amyl Methyl Ether
Tetrachloroethylene
Toluene
trans-1 ,2-Dichloroethylene
trans-1 ,3-Dichloropropene
Trichloroethylene
Trichlorofluoromethane
Trichlorotrifluoroethane
Vinyl chloride
ND
ND
380
45.7
36.1
ND
ND
3470
ND
7160
ND
5210
970
22.3
14.9
943
7.36
2020
613
2760
604
ND
539
10800
14.1
ND
254
6.66
1.99
385
Fall 2009
Estimated Flux
Value
(grams per day)
ND
ND
1.9
0.16
0.26
ND
ND
15
ND
32
ND
16
4.0
0.093
0.053
4.5
0.045
8.9
3.7
4.8
2.6
ND
3.7
41
0.057
ND
1.4
0.038
0.015
1.0
Corrected Spring
2010 Landfill
Gas Concentration
(ppbv)
ND
ND
78
459
91.0
ND
ND
3470
ND
7160
ND
5210
1700
ND
31.1
2080
13.6
2020
913
ND
1370
ND
788
10800
33.9
ND
416
44.2
9.61
598
Spring 2010
Estimated Flux
Value
(grams per day)
ND
ND
0.58
2.4
0.96
ND
ND
23
ND
47
ND
23
11
ND
0.16
15
0.12
13
8.3
ND
8.8
ND
8.1
61
0.20
ND
3.4
0.37
0.11
2.3
*ND indicates VOC was not detected above instrument MDL
3-44
-------
3.9 Calculation of Landfill Gas Abatement Efficiency
The efficiency of the landfill gas collection system can be calculated by comparing the fugitive methane
emission values (reported in Section 3.1) to the quantity of collected gas from the header pipe analysis.
The following sections present data from the header pipe analysis, the calculated abatement efficiency at
each site, and a sample calculation of the abatement efficiency from Site A using the Fall 2009 ORS data.
The calculation of an inventory-ready collection efficiency which considers the potential impacts of soil
oxidation, is also presented.
3.9.1 Landfill Site A
In order to calculate the efficiency of the gas collection system at Site A, data from the header pipe
surveys were used to calculate the mass flow rate of landfill gas captured by the system. Table 3-36
presents a summary of data from the header pipe surveys at Landfill Site A.
Table 3-36. Summary of Data from the Header Pipe Surveys at Site A
Study
Fall 2009
Spring 2010
Header Pipe
Flow Rate (cfm)
897
496
% Methane in
Header Pipe
53.8
60.4
Methane Flow
Rate in Header
Pipe (cfm)
483
300
Temperature
(°F)
60
94
Pressure
(inches H2O)
-14
-14
In order to calculate the mass flow rate of methane gas captured by the collection system during the Fall
campaign, the methane flow rate in the header pipe (in cfm), is calculated by multiplying the total header
pipe flow rate (897 cfm) by the percent methane in the header pipe (53.8%) to yield a methane flow rate
of 482 cfm. This value is then converted from volumetric flow (cfm) to mass flow (g/s) by considering
the temperature and pressure during the time of the measurements. The equivalent mass flow rate of
methane captured by the gas collection system is 149 g/s, or 1.29 x 107 g/day. The flow rate from the gas
collection system is then compared to the total cell fugitive methane emission measured during the Fall
2009 survey at Site A using the OTM-10 technique (5.6 x 106 g/day). The abatement efficiency of the gas
collection system is calculated by dividing the methane flow rate in the gas collection system by the sum
of the methane flow rate in the gas collection system and the total cell fugitive methane emission rate:
1.29 x 107 (g/day) / 1.85 x 107 (g/day) = 70% gas abatement efficiency during fall 2009, with lower and
upper error bounds of 64% and 74%, respectively.
The lower and upper error bounds of the gas abatement efficiency values were calculated using standard
propagation-of-error calculations with a 95% confidence interval. The calculations included uncertainty
associated with the average methane emission factor calculated from each site, and the measurement of
total header pipe flow rate and percent methane in the header pipe. It should be noted that there is
uncertainty associated with the estimate of the total surface area of each landfill cell. However, applying
different levels of uncertainty in the total surface area values did not change the final uncertainty
estimates significantly, so this uncertainty was not included in the propagation-of-error calculations.
The same procedure was applied to calculate the abatement efficiency from all campaigns at each of the
sites. Using the header pipe survey data from the Spring 2010 Site A campaign (shown in Table 3-35) and
the total cell fugitive methane emission measured during the Spring 2010 survey at Site A (2.3 x 106
g/day), the calculated abatement efficiency during the Spring 2009 campaign was 77%, with lower and
upper error bounds of 67% and 84%, respectively.
3-45
-------
Soil oxidation was not assessed during this study; however, emissions inventories rely on default
collection efficiencies calculated as CFL, Collected / (CFL, Collected + CFL, Emissions + CFL, Oxidized in
cover soils). A default soil oxidation rate of 10% of uncollected gas is often used. Estimates of the
amount of methane oxidized were calculated using assumed soil oxidation rates of 5 to 20%. An example
calculation is provided below based on the default soil oxidation of 10%. 5.6 xlO6 g/day x 10% / (1 -
10%) = 0.62 x 106 g/day estimated soil oxidation at 20% during Fall 2009
An inventory-ready collection efficiency is calculated using the equation outlined above:
1.29 x 107 g/day / 1.9 x 107 g/day = 68% inventory-ready gas collection efficiency during fall 2009
5% soil oxidation yields an inventory-ready collection efficiency of 69%, and a 20% soil oxidation yields
a collection efficiency of 65%. During the spring campaign, calculated inventory collection efficiencies
ranged from 73% - 76% for the soil oxidation rates of 5-20%.
3.9.2 Landfill Site B
In order to calculate the efficiency of the gas collection system at Site B, data from the header pipe survey
were used to calculate the mass flow rate of gas captured by the system. Table 3-37 presents a summary
of data from the header pipe survey at Landfill Site B. It should be noted that although a header pipe
survey was conducted during the fall 2009 at Site B, the data is not presented in this section because
OTM-10 measurements were not collected at Site B during the fall 2009.
Table 3-37. Summary of Data from the Header Pipe Surveys at Site B
Study
Spring 2010
Header Pipe
Flow Rate (cfm)
2084
% Methane in
Header Pipe
61.2
Methane Flow
Rate in Header
Pipe (cfm)
1275
Temperature
(°F)
112
Pressure
(inches H2O)
-12
Using the header pipe survey data from the Spring 2010 Site B campaign (shown in Table 3-36) and the
total cell fugitive methane emission measured in the 86-acre cell during the Spring 2010 survey (5.2 x
107 g/day), the calculated abatement efficiency during the Spring 2010 campaign was 38%, with lower
and upper error bounds of 31% and 46%, respectively. During the Spring campaign, calculated
inventory-ready collection efficiencies ranged from 33% - 37% for the soil oxidation rates of 20% and 5%
respectively.lt should also be noted that fugitive methane emission data from the new cell surveys at Site
B were not included in this calculation because the new cell was not connected to the gas collection
system at the time of the survey.
3.9.3 Landfill Site C
In order to calculate the efficiency of the gas collection system at Site C, data from the header pipe
surveys were used to calculate the mass flow rate of gas captured by the system. Table 3-38 presents a
summary of data from the header pipe surveys at Landfill Site C.
3-46
-------
Table 3-38. Summary of Data from the Header Pipe Surveys at Site C
Study
Fall 2009
Spring 2010
Header Pipe
Flow Rate (cfm)
1101
1400
% Methane in
Header Pipe
56.3
55.5
Methane Flow
Rate in Header
Pipe (cfm)
620
770
Temperature
(°F)
79.1
86.0
Pressure
(inches H2O)
-10
-45
Using the header pipe survey data from the Fall 2009 Site C campaign (shown in Table 3-38) and the total
cell fugitive methane emission measured during the Fall 2009 survey at Site C (5.8 x 106 g/day), the
calculated abatement efficiency during the Fall 2009 campaign was 73%, with lower and upper error
bounds of 51% and 88%, respectively. Calculated inventory-ready collection efficiencies ranged from
69% - 72% for the soil oxidation rates of 20% and 5% respectively.
The calculated abatement efficiency during the Spring 2010 campaign (calculated using data in Table 3-
38 and a total cell fugitive methane emission rate of 2.8 x 106 g/day) was 88%, with lower and upper error
bounds of 72% and 95%, respectively. Calculated inventory-ready collection efficiencies ranged from
85% - 87% for the soil oxidation rates of 20% and 5% respectively.
3-47
-------
Chapter 4
Conclusion
Field measurements were conducted at three municipal solid waste landfills to compare fugitive methane
to collected methane (i.e., abatement efficiency). The measurements were conducted during several
multi-week sampling campaign using a scanning GasFinder 2.0 methane Open-Path Tunable Diode Laser
(OP-TDL) instrument (Boreal, Inc). At two of the sites, measurements were performed in the fall of
2009 and repeated in the spring of 2010. At the third site, measurements were conducted during the
summer of 2010 and not during the first phase due to unseasonable wet and cold weather.
In addition to the optical remote sensing measurements, the header pipe gas was analyzed for flow rate,
composition, and the concentration of trace constituents including mercury and other hazardous air
pollutants (FIAPs), volatile organic compounds (VOC), and nonmethane organic compounds (NMOC).
The header pipe gas analysis occurred in the fall of 2009 and the spring of 2010. The results of the
header pipe gas analysis combined with the OTM-10 measurements are used to estimate methane
abatement efficiency which is calculated as:
CFL, Abatement Efficiency = CFL, Collected / (CFL, Collected + CFL, Emissions) Equation 1
This calculation is different than what is in the U.S. EPA's guidance for emissions inventory in that it
does not include soil oxidation in the denominator. (U.S. EPA, 2006, 2007) Inclusion of soil oxidation in
the calculation above to allow for direct comparison with conventional collection efficiency would result
in lower values. The default gas collection efficiency recommended for EPA's guidance for emissions
inventories is 75% (U.S. EPA, 2008). Two of the sites had interim covers and the third had a final cover
in place.
The total cell fugitive methane flux rate from the five measurement campaigns varied from 2.3 to 52
million grams per day (Table 4-1) and the methane abatement efficiency from 38 to 88% (Table 4-2). For
two of the sites the landfill methane abatement efficiency ranged from 70 to 88%. Landfill gas collation
systems were fully operational during each testing period with no reports of downtime or operational
upsets.
Table 4-1. Summary of Fugitive Methane Emissions from the Landfill Sites
Site Campaign Cell Cover Type Average Methane Emission
Factor (grams/day/m) (grams/day)
A
A
B
C
C
Fall 2009
Spring 2010
Summer2010
Fall 2009
Spring 2010
Interim
Interim
Interim
Final
Final
44 ±10
18±9.1
150 ±46
19± 19
9.2 ±9.7
5.6X1 0s
2.3X1 0s
5.2 X107
5.8X1 0s
2.8X1 0s
4-1
-------
Table 4-2. Summary of Methane Abatement Efficiency from the Landfill Sites
Total Cell Fugitive
Site Campaign Methane Emission Rate
(grams/day)
Methane Flow Rate in Gas
Collection System
(grams/day)
Methane Abatement
Efficiency*
(% value with lower
and upper error
bounds shown in
parenthesis)
A
A
B
C
C
Fall 2009
Spring 2010
Summer 2010
Fall 2009
Spring 2010
5.6X1 0s
2.3X1 0s
52 X 10s
5.8X1 0s
2.8X1 0s
13X106
7.6X1 0s
32 X 10s
16X106
20 X 10s
70 (64,74)
77 (67,84)
38(31,46)
73(51,88)
88 (72,95)
* Calculated as CH4 Collected / (QrU Collected + CH4 Emissions). This is different than conventional
collection efficiency used in AP 42 and other documents which include soil oxidation in the denominator.
Measurements were conducted at the new cell at Landfill B where waste had been accepted for about 3
months prior to sampling. The approximate area of the new cell was 6 acres and because the cell is new,
the gas collection system had not yet been installed. The average methane emission factor for the summer
2010 measurement campaign of the new cell at Site B was 24 ± 8.6 g/day/m2. As shown in Figure 3-4, the
calculated methane emission factors from the survey did not show a large amount of variability over the
two days that data were collected. The estimated surface area of the new cell is 25,650 m2. Multiplying
this value by 24 g/day/m2 yields a total cell methane emission rate of 6.3 x 105 grams/day. This
conclusion is considered important in that most models assume no methane generation for at least 6
months from initial waste placement. The data clearly show that at least for this site, that is an incorrect
assumption.
In addition to optical remote sensing measurements, serpentine methane gas sampling was performed
along the surface of each landfill using a Thermo TVA-1000 FID portable analyzer according to
specifications by the State of California for conducting surface scans. The data were collected to compare
to the US EPA Other Test Method-10 (OTM-10) measurements. For site A, a FLIR camera was used to
identify VOC leaks from the landfill surface and wellheads.
Trace constituent gas data will be used in updates to EPA's AP-42 providing emission factors for
municipal solid waste landfills. Although the data are provided in this report, the focus is on the methane
abatement efficiency to compare to existing values being used. For mercury, both total and elemental
mercury measurements were conducted at each landfill. For one of the sites, speciated mercury samples
were collected and analyzed in the fall of 2009.
Table 4-3 presents a summary of the results of the total mercury measurements at the three landfill sites.
The table presents the average and range of total mercury concentrations from gas header pipes at each
site. For the mercury measurements, there was little variation in the concentration between the fall and
spring measurements. The concentration of total mercury varied between the three sites from 2.9 to 9.0
(ig/m3. Speciated measurements for mercury made at Site B during the fall 2009 campaign had an
average of 1.2% oxidized mercury and 98.8% elemental mercury.
Table 4-3. Summary of Total Mercury Measurements from the Landfill Sites
Site
Campaign
Range of Total Mercury
Concentration (ug/m3)
Average Total Mercury
Concentration (ug/m3)
4-2
-------
A
A
B
B
C
C
Fall 2009
Spring 2010
Fall 2009
Spring 2010
Fall 2010
Spring 2010
3.4 to 3.7
2.9 to 3.4
8.4 to 8.9
8.0 to 8.4
8.8 to 9.0
8.4 to 9.0
3.5
3.1
8.7
8.2
8.9
8.8
Next steps include developing more specific guidance for OTM-10 measurements at landfills working
with U.S. EPA's Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards. Landfills are dynamic and constantly in
flux so that attempting to quantify methane abatement efficiency is more difficult than other area sources.
Regardless, based on the statistical analysis of the results and the relatively good agreement between the
different measurement campaigns suggests promise with the use of OTM-10 for quantifying whole
landfill emissions. Guidance is being developed to incorporate findings from this work for the future use
of OTM-10 at landfills. The data provided in this report is considered the best available data to date to
evaluate methane abatement efficiency by measuring emissions across the surface and side slopes using a
scanning GasFinder 2.0 methane Open-Path Tunable Diode Laser (OP-TDL) instrument (Boreal, Inc).
Each of the landfills met applicable regulatory requirements and volunteered to participate in this
research. Ideally we would like to get additional data for multiple landfills at different time periods in the
life of the landfill and different design and operating parameters.
The methane abatement efficiency was found to range from 38 to 88%. The site that was found to have
38% efficiency upgraded the gas collection system just a few months after the field measurements were
conducted. It would be helpful to re-test to see what level of reduction occurred as a result of
improvements in the gas collection system. The data collected does not support the use of collection
efficiency values of 90% or greater as has been published in other studies.. We suspect that the use of
flux boxes will lead to higher gas collection efficiencies because cracks and leaks across surface and side
slopes were not accounted for. As additional data are gathered through either OTM-10 or other
technologies that consider landfill emissions across the entire surface and side slopes, more accurate
estimates can be made regarding carbon emissions from landfills and collection efficiencies.
4-3
-------
Chapter 5
Quality Assurance/Quality Control
5.1 Equipment Calibration
All project instrumentation is calibrated annually or cal-checked as part of standard operating procedures.
Certificates of calibration are kept on file. Maintenance records are kept for any equipment adjustments or
repairs in bound project notebooks that include the data and description of maintenance performed.
Instrument calibration procedures and frequency are listed in Table 5-1 and further described in the text.
Table 5-1. Instrumentation Calibration Frequency and Description
Instrument
Boreal Methane GasFinder 2.0
OP-TDLAS
R.M. Young
Meteorological Head
R.M. Young
Meteorological Head
Lumex 915+ Mercury Analyzer
Topcon Model GTS-211D
Theodolite
Topcon Model GTS-211D
Theodolite
Measurement
Methane PIC
Wind Speed in meters per
second
Wind direction in degrees
from North
Elemental Mercury
Concentration
Distance Measurement
Angle Measurement
Calibration Date
Pre-deployment and in-field
checks
6 May 2009
6 May 2009
Pre-deployment and in-field
checks
1 1 November 2009
1 1 November 2009
Calibration Detail
Reference cell calibration
Calibrated by manufacturer during routine
maintenance
Calibrated by manufacturer during routine
maintenance
Insertion of test cell
Calibration of distance measurement.
Actual distance #1=1 2.32m
#1 Measured distance= 12.39 m
Actual distance #2= 10.13
#2 Measured distance= 10.17 m
Actual distance #3= 8.99
#3 Measured distance= 8.93 m
Calibration of angle measurement.
Actual angle= 360°
#1 Measured angle= 359°57'05"
#2 Measured angle= 359°58'58"
#3 Measure angle= 359°59'33"
As part of the preparation for this project, a Category III Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) was
prepared and approved for the field campaigns. In addition, standard operating procedures were in place
during the field campaigns.
5-1
-------
5.2 Assessment of DQI Goals
The critical measurements associated with this project and the established data quality indicator (DQI)
goals in terms of accuracy, precision, and completeness are listed in Table 5-2.
Table 5-2. DQI Goals for Instrumentation
Measurement
Parameter
Methane PIC
Ambient Wind
Speed
Ambient Wind
Direction
Distance
Measurement
Beam angle
Mercury
concentrations
Total Mercury
VOCs
Analysis Method
OP-TDLAS
R.M. Young Met heads post-
deployment calibration in EPA
Metrology Lab
R.M. Young Met heads post-
deployment calibration in EPA
Metrology Lab
Theodolite- Topcon
Theodolite- Topcon
Lumex Mercury Analyzer
Thermal Decomposition / SOB
EPA Method TO-1 5
Accuracy
±20%
±1 m/s
±10°
±1m
±0.1°
±25%
Not applicable
Not applicable
Precision
±20%
±1 m/s
±10°
±1m
±0.1°
±25%
±20%
±20%
Acceptance Criterion
(%Bias/Recovery)
Not applicable
Not applicable
Not applicable
Not applicable
Not applicable
Not applicable
50-1 50% recovery
50-1 50% recovery
Completeness
90%
90%
90%
100%
100%
90%
90%
90%
* The accuracy acceptance criterion of ±25% is for pathlengths of less than 50m, ±15% is for pathlengths between 50 and
100m, and ±10% is for pathlengths greater than 100m.
5.2.7 DQI Check for Methane PIC Measurement with OP-TDLAS
The Boreal GasFinder 2.0 OP-TDLAS provides an R2 value for each concentration measurement. The R2
value is calculated by the internal software of the instrument, and is an indication of the similarity
between the waveform of the sample gas and the reference cell gas. When the instrument detector
receives the returning laser signal after it has passed through the sample beam path, it converts the signal
to the shape of a specific waveform (sample waveform). The instrument also receives a similar laser
signal after the laser has passed through the reference cell in the instrument (reference waveform). The
two waveforms are then digitized and compared as two numeric arrays. The instrument software then
performs a Linear Least Squares Regression for each measurement, to evaluate the similarity (R2)
between the sample and reference waveforms.
The R2 value was used to assess the accuracy of each concentration measurement from this project. Table
5-3, taken from the Boreal Laser, Inc. GasFinder 2.0 Operation Manual, presents a range of R2 values,
and the corresponding accuracy of the measurement.
5-2
-------
Table 5-3. Accuracy of Concentration Measurements for Different R2 Value
R2
>0.95
0.9
0.7
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.15
0.1
<0.05
Measurement Accuracy
±2%
±5%
±10%
±15%
± 20%
± 25%
± 50%
± 70%
± 100%
The R2 value of each data point (measured methane concentration) was analyzed to assess whether or not
it met the DQI criterion for accuracy of ±20%, which corresponds to an R2 value of greater than 0.4. A
total of 96,987 data points were analyzed, and 93,271 met the DQI criteria for accuracy, for a total
completeness of 96%. This value met the project DQI criteria of 90% completeness.
The precision of the OP-TDLAS methane concentration measurements was assessed by analyzing
methane concentration values measured along the same beam path during the August 9 background
survey at Site B. Data were collected along the measurement path for 45 minutes. Based on the DQI
criterion set forth for precision of ±20%, the data were found to be acceptable for a completeness of
100%. The calculated relative standard deviationof the data from this survey were 0.1311 ppmv, which
represents 7.7% RSD.
5.2.2 DQI Checks for Ambient Wind Speed and Wind Direction Measurements
The meteorological heads are checked annually as part of the standard calibration procedure. Before
deployment to the field, the team verified the calibration date of the instrument by referencing the
calibration sticker. The meteorological heads used for the current campaign were calibrated on May 6,
2009 by the instrument manufacturer (R.M. Young) during routine servicing. Additionally, a
reasonableness check was performed in the field on the measured wind direction data. While data
collection was occurring, the field team leader compared the wind direction measured with the heads to
the forecasted wind direction for that particular day
5.2.5 DQI Check for Precision and Accuracy of Theodolite Measurements
Calibration checks are not performed before each field campaign; however, the user should verify the
calibration date of the instrument by referencing the calibration sticker. If the date indicates the
instrument is in need of calibration, it should be returned to the manufacturer before use in the field.
Before field deployment, ensure the battery packs are charged for this equipment. The following
additional checks were made on November 11, 2009. The calibration of distance measurement was done
in the field at Site A using a tape measure. Three separate calibration experiments were performed. The
actual distances for experiments #1, #2, and #3 were 12.32, 10.13, and 8.99 meters, respectively. The
distances measured with the theodolite were 12.39, 10.17, and 8.93 meters, respectively. The results
indicate accuracy fell well within the DQI goal. The calibration of angle measurement was also
performed. The actual angle was 360°. The angles measured with the theodolite were 359°57'05",
5-3
-------
359°58'58", and 359°59'33". The results indicate accuracy and precision fall well within the DQI goals,
and completeness was 100%.
Additionally, there are several internal checks in the theodolite software that prevent data collection from
occurring if the instrument is not properly aligned on the object being measured, or if the instrument has
not been balanced correctly. When this occurs, it is necessary to re-initialize the instrument to collect
data.
5.2.4 DQI Check for Lumex Elemental Mercury Analyzer and Total Mercury Samples
The Lumex Mercury Analyzer DQIs of accuracy and precision are checked by the insertion of a test cell,
containing gas from the calibration standard. The cell is built into the instrument, and is accessed by
setting the instrument to the "test" mode, and collecting measurements. If the measured value of the
mercury vapor concentration in the test cell is within ±25% from that of the tabulated value and the
standard deviation of the measurements is within ±25%, the accuracy and precision of the instrument are
deemed acceptable. For the real-time elemental mercury analysis, the Lumex mercury analyzer was
zeroed using the internal carbon filter sample conditioner. Yearly calibrations are performed on this
analyzer by factory personnel at Ohio Lumex.
The total and speciated mercury traps were analyzed using the Lumex analyzer and a combustion furnace
to decompose the mercury on the carbon tubes to elemental mercury for detection. The precision criteria
of ±25 % established in the QAPP was met for samples collected at Site A (5.3 % RSD), Site B (3.3 %
RSD), and Site C (1.0 % RSD) during DQI Check of total mercury samples during the Fall 2009
sampling campaign. The precision of the total mercury sampling during the Spring 2010 sampling was
10%, 3%, and 4% for Sites A, B, and C respectively.
Laboratory control spike recovery for the total mercury sampling was performed using a NIST traceable
standard prepared by SCP Science (100.3 mg/kg mercury in water) reference standard. Three spike
recoveries were performed with 60%, 94%, and 98% recovery for an average of 93.8%. Analytical spikes
were performed on at Site B during the Fall 2009 sampling had recoveries of 93.9% and 97.9% with an
average recovery of 95.9%. Continuous calibration verification standards during the Fall 2009 sampling
had recoveries of 102% and 94%. Continuous calibration verification standards during the Spring 2010
sampling had recoveries of 97% and 102%. Recovery goals established in the QAPP of 50 to 150% were
met.
During the Fall 2009 sampling campaign, analytical replicates were performed on Site B with 10 values
ranging from 5.5 to 6.1 ng/m3for an average of 5.9 ng/m3 and a relative percent difference of 4.6%. Blank
values were less than 0.07 ng per trap with an average of 0.02 ng per trap. The analyzer has a MDL of
0.21 ng per trap.
The precision assessment was performed using data from duplicate or replicate samples and spikes (when
available). Precision was expressed as %RPD for samples that were done in duplicate and as %RSD for
samples performed in triplicate. Table 5-4 represents precision values calculated for total mercury of
samples at each site. Precision goals established in the QAPP of <20%for total mercury were met for all
samples for a completeness of 100%.
5-4
-------
Table 5-4. Precision Ranges for Total Mercury Measuremenl
Location
Site A
SiteB
SiteC
Fall 2009 RSD (%)
5.3
4.6
1.0
Spring 2010 RSD (%)
9.7
2.7
4.1
5.2.5 DQI Check of VOCSamples with SUMMAź Canisters
Summa canister samples of the landfill gas were analyzed for the TO-15 list of volatile organic
compounds. Triplicate gas samples were collected at each site, one nitrogen sampling system blank, and
one ambient sample were also collected. The reported method detection limits for the TO-15 target list
was 0.5 ppbv. The recovery goals for accuracy for this project were met by the laboratory, but the
precision between replicates and completeness goals were not met during the spring 2010 field campaign
possibly due to leaks on the Summa cans or dilution errors. The completeness for the VOCs by TO-15
for the fall 2009 campaign was 100% and for the spring 2010 campaign was 67%
A set of Summa can samples was analyzed for NMOC by Method 25-C. The results from the Methods
25-C have good reproducibility for Site A and C, but Site B had a higher relative standard deviation of
results. Tables 5-5, 5-6 and 5-7 present the precision values of the Method, 25-C and landfill gas
monitoring datasets respectively. While no goals were set for these measurements in the QAPP, one
sample from Site C during the spring 2010 campaign had leaked during sampling resulting in an overall
94% completeness for these measurements. Completeness for the NMOC measurements by Method-25
for the fall 2009 campaign was 100% and for the spring 2010 campaign was 89%.
Table 5-5.
Location
Site A
SiteB
SiteC
Precision Ranges
Fall 2009 RSD (%)
1.3
61.3
4.3
for NMOC Measurements at Sit
Spring 2010 RSD (%)
0.0
47
25
Table 5-6. Precision Ranges for GC/FID/TCD Measurements at Sites A, B and C for Fall 2009
RSD (%) Methane Oxygen
Nitrogen Carbon Dioxide
Site A
SiteB
SiteC
6.1
NA
NA
13.1
NA
NA
11.4
NA
NA
7.2
NA
NA
NA = only single measurements taken
5-5
-------
Table 5-7. Precision Ranges for GC/FID/TCD Measurements at Sites A, B and C for Spring 2010
RSD (%)
Site A
SiteB
SiteC
Methane
0.4
2.1
0.9
Oxygen
0
0
0
Nitrogen
0
0
0
Carbon Dioxide
1.1
1.8
1.1
Hydrogen
Sulfide
0
0
6.0
Carbon
Monoxide
90
8.8
41
NA = only single measurements taken
5-6
-------
Chapter 6
References
Hashmonay, R.A., and M.G. Yost, Innovative approach for estimating fugitive gaseous fluxes using
computed tomography and remote optical sensing techniques, J. Air Waste Manage. Assoc., 49, 966-972,
1999.
Hashmonay, R.A., D.F. Natschke, K.Wagoner, D.B. Harris, E.L.Thompson, and M.G. Yost, Field
evaluation of a method for estimating gaseous fluxes from area sources using open-path Fourier transform
infrared, Environ. Sci. Technol, 35, 2309-2313, 2001.
Hashmonay, R.A., M.G. Yost, D.B. Harris, and E.L. Thompson, Simulation study for gaseous fluxes from
an area source using computed tomography and optical remote sensing, presented at SPIE Conference on
Environmental Monitoring and Remediation Technologies, Boston, MA, Nov., 1998, in SPIE Vol. 3534,
405-410.
Hashmonay, R.A., RM. Varma, M.T. Modrak, R.H. Kagann, R.R. Segall, and P.O. Sullivan, Radial
Plume Mapping: A US EPA Test Method for Area and Fugitive Source Emission Monitoring Using
Optical Remote Sensing, Advanced Environmental Monitoring, 21-36, edited by Y.J. Kim and U. Platt,
Springer, 2008.
Thoma, E.D., Shores, R.C, Thompson, E.L., Harris, D.B., Thorneloe, S.A., Varma, R.V., Hashmonay,
R.A.., Modrak, M.T., Natschke, D.F., and Gamble, H. A., Open path tunable diode laser absorption
spectroscopy for acquisition of fugitive emission flux data, J. Air & Waste Manage Assoc., 55, 658-668,
2005.
Thoma, E. D., R. B. Green, G. R. Hater, C. D. Goldsmith, N. D. Swan, M. J. Chase, and R. A.
Hashmonay. Development of EPA OTM 10 for Landfill Applications. Journal of Environmental
Engineering. American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), Reston, VA, Vol 136, No. 8, pp. 769-776,
2010.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2004) Measurement of Fugitive Emissions at Region I Landfill
(EPA-600/R-04-001,January 2004). Available at: http://www.epa.gov/appcdwww/apb/EPA-600-R-04-
OOl.pdf
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2005a) Guidance for Evaluating Landfill Gas Emissions from
Closed or Abandoned Facilities (EPA-600/R-05/123a). Available at:
http://www.epa.gov/ORD/NRMRL/pubs/600r05123/600r05123.pdf
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2005b) Guidance for Evaluating Landfill Gas Emissions from
Closed or Abandoned Facilities: Appendix C - Quality Assurance Project Plan (EPA-600/R-05/123b),
available at: http://www.epa.gov/ORD/NRMRL/pubs/600r05123/600r05123b.pdf
6-1
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2005c) Evaluation of Former Landfill Site in Fort Collins,
Colorado Using Ground-Based Optical Remote Sensing Technology (EPA-600/R-05/-42, April 2005).
Available at: http://www.epa.gov/ORD/NRMRL/pubs/600r05042/600r05042.pdf
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2005d) Evaluation of Former Landfill Site in Colorado Springs,
Colorado Using Ground-Based Optical Remote Sensing Technology (EPA-600/R-05/-41, April 2005).
Available at: http://www.epa.gov/ORD/NRMRL/pubs/600r05041/600r05041.pdf
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Other Test Method 10, Optical Remote Sensing for Emission
Characterization from Non-point Sources, June 2006, available at:
http://www.epa.gov/ttn/emc/prelim/otmlO.pdf
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Evaluation of Fugitive Emissions Using Ground-Based Optical
Remote Sensing Technology (EPA/600/R-07/032), Feb 2007; available at:
http://www.epa.gov/nrmrl/pubs/600r07032/600r07032.pdfl.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, background Information Document for Updating AP42 Section
2.4 for Estimating Emissions from Municipal Solid Waste Landfills (valuation of Fugitive Emissions
Using Ground-Based Optical Remote Sensing Technology (EPA/600/R-08/116), Sept 2008; available at:
http://www.epa.gov/nrmrl/pubs/600r08116/600r08116.htm
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Investigation of Fugitive Emissions from Petrochemical
Transport Barges Using Optical Remote Sensing (EPA/600/R-07/032), Sept 2009; available at:
http://www.epa.gov/nrmrl/pubs/600r09136/600r09136.pdf
6-2
-------
APPENDIX A
Vertical Radial Plume Mapping Method
The VRPM method is generally discussed in EPA OTM 10, Optical remote sensing for emission
characterization from non-point sources, which describes direct measurement of pollutant mass emission
flux from area sources using ground-based optical remote sensing (ORS). The technique utilizes scanning
open-path spectroscopic instrumentation to obtain path-integrated pollutant concentration information
along multiple plane-configured optical paths, which are defined as the distance between the ORS
instrument and a mirror placed in the field. The multi-path pollutant concentration data along with wind
vector information are processed with a plane-integrating computer algorithm to yield a mass emission
flux for the source. Figure 3-3 shows a schematic of a general VRPM measurement configuration.
Vertical
Retrorefl ectors
Monostatic ORS
Instrument
Ground
Retrorefl ectors
Figure 3-3. General OTM 10 VRPM Measurement Configuration
The VRPM computer algorithm uses a smooth basis function minimization (SBFM) routine of a bivarate
Gaussian function to generate mass emission flux information from species concentration and wind data.
In the two-phase SBFM approach, a one-dimensional SBFM reconstruction procedure is first applied in
order to reconstruct the smoothed ground level and crosswind concentration profile. The reconstructed
parameters are then substituted into the bivariate Gaussian function when applying a two-dimensional
SBFM procedure.
A one-dimensional SBFM reconstruction is applied to the ground level segmented beam paths of the
same beam geometry to find the cross wind concentration profile. A univariate Gaussian function is fitted
to measured PIC ground-level values.
The error function for the minimization procedure is the Sum of Squared Errors (SSE) function and is
defined in the one-dimensional SBFM approach as follows:
A-l
-------
SSE(Bf,my.
-------
The standard deviation and peak location retrieved in the one-dimensional SBFM procedure are
substituted in Equation 3 to yield:
(4)
Where:
A \
cxp<
27l
-------
Where:
-------
APPENDIX B
Open Path Instrument Mirror Coordinates
Table B-l. Distance, and Horizontal and Vertical Coordinates of Mirrors Used During the 11/17
AM Survey at Site A.
Mirror
Number
1
2
3
4
5
Distance
(meters)
40.7
84.7
127.9
128.4
128.5
Horizontal Angle from
North (deg)
307° 10'
304° 58'
304° 03'
304° 01'
304° 1653'
Vertical Angle*
(deg)
0°00'
0°00'
0°00'
2° 39'
4° 44'
"Vertical angle shown is the angle from horizontal (positive values indicate elevation from the horizontal,
negative values indicate descent from the horizontal).
Table B-2. Distance, and Horizontal and Vertical Coordinates of Mirrors Used During the 11/17
PM Survey at Site A.
Mirror
Number
1
2
3
4
5
Distance
(meters)
38.0
75.8
114.5
115.2
115.5
Horizontal Angle from
North (deg)
326° 42'
329° 11'
327° 11'
327° 07'
328° 25'
Vertical Angle*
(deg)
0°00'
0°00'
0°00'
1°51'
5°03'
"Vertical angle shown is the angle from horizontal (positive values indicate elevation from the horizontal,
negative values indicate descent from the horizontal).
B-l
-------
Table B-3. Distance, and Horizontal and Vertical Coordinates of Mirrors Used During the 11/18
Survey at Site A.
Mirror Distance Horizontal Angle from Vertical Angle*
Number (meters) North (deg) (deg)
45.0
90.0
136.3
136.6
136.7
325° 13'
322° 43'
323° 34'
323° 41'
324° 01'
0°00'
0°00'
0°00'
2° 20'
4° 18'
"Vertical angle shown is the angle from horizontal (positive values indicate elevation from the horizontal,
negative values indicate descent from the horizontal).
Table B-4. Distance, and Horizontal and Vertical Coordinates of Mirrors Used During the 11/20
Survey at Site A.
Mirror
Number
1
2
3
4
5
Distance
(meters)
85.5
171.4
257.9
258.8
259.0
Horizontal Angle from
North (deg)
309° 59'
307° 03'
307° 24'
307° 20'
307° 34'
Vertical Angle*
(deg)
0°00'
0°00'
0°00'
1°17'
2°49'
"Vertical angle shown is the angle from horizontal (positive values indicate elevation from the horizontal,
negative values indicate descent from the horizontal).
Table B-5. Distance, and Horizontal and Vertical Coordinates of Mirrors Used During the 11/24
Survey at Site A.
Mirror Distance Horizontal Angle from Vertical Angle*
Number (meters) North (deg) (deg)
77.3
155.5
232.6
233.7
233.7
316° 41'
313° 29'
315° 25'
315° 20'
315° 27'
0°00'
0°00'
0°00'
1°10'
2° 51'
"Vertical angle shown is the angle from horizontal (positive values indicate elevation from the horizontal,
negative values indicate descent from the horizontal).
B-2
-------
Table B-6. Distance, and Horizontal and Vertical Coordinates of Mirrors Used During the 12/1
AM and 12/1 PM Surveys at Site A.
Mirror
Number
1
2
3
4
5
Distance
(meters)
46.6
93.5
141.3
141.7
141.8
Horizontal Angle from
North (deg)
325° 23'
327° 29'
326° 04'
325° 59'
326° 20'
Vertical Angle*
(deg)
0°00'
0°00'
0°00'
2° 42'
4° 34'
"Vertical angle shown is the angle from horizontal (positive values indicate elevation from the horizontal,
negative values indicate descent from the horizontal).
Table B-7. Distance, and Horizontal and Vertical Coordinates of Mirrors Used During the 5/14
Survey at Site A.
Mirror
Number
1
2
3
4
5
Distance
(meters)
80.1
136.0
204.6
205.4
205.2
Horizontal Angle from
North (deg)
97° 59'
97° 22'
97° 35'
97° 01'
97° 08'
Vertical Angle*
(deg)
0°00'
0°00'
0°00'
1°27'
2° 44'
"Vertical angle shown is the angle from horizontal (positive values indicate elevation from the horizontal,
negative values indicate descent from the horizontal).
Table B-8. Distance, and Horizontal and Vertical Coordinates of Mirrors Used During the 5/20
Survey at Site A.
Mirror
Number
1
2
3
4
5
Distance
(meters)
75.5
136.1
209.5
210.2
209.8
Horizontal Angle from
North (deg)
79° 39'
77° 29'
78° 53'
78° 21'
78° 25'
Vertical Angle*
(deg)
0°00'
0°00'
0°00'
1°34'
2° 48'
"Vertical angle shown is the angle from horizontal (positive values indicate elevation from the horizontal,
negative values indicate descent from the horizontal).
-------
Table B-9. Distance, and Horizontal and Vertical Coordinates of Mirrors Used During the 5/21
Survey at Site A.
Mirror Distance Horizontal Angle from Vertical Angle*
Number (meters) North (deg) (deg)
1 76.0 97° 15' 0°00'
2 136.6 95° 31' 0° 00'
3 210.0 97° 57' 0° 00'
4 210.7 96° 25' 1°33'
5 210.3 98° 46' 2° 40'
"Vertical angle shown is the angle from horizontal (positive values indicate elevation from the horizontal,
negative values indicate descent from the horizontal).
Table B-10. Distance, and Horizontal and Vertical Coordinates of Mirrors Used During the 5/26
and 5/27 Surveys at Site A.
Mirror
Number
1
2
3
4
5
Distance
(meters)
69.7
133.6
191.3
191.9
191.4
Horizontal Angle from
North (deg)
11 2° 43'
11 3° 37'
11 4° 22'
11 4° 40'
114° 15'
Vertical Angle*
(deg)
0°00'
0°00'
0°00'
1°48'
3° 07'
"Vertical angle shown is the angle from horizontal (positive values indicate elevation from the horizontal,
negative values indicate descent from the horizontal).
Table B-ll. Distance, and Horizontal and Vertical Coordinates of Mirrors Used During the 6/3
and 6/4 Surveys at Site A.
Mirror Distance Horizontal Angle from Vertical Angle*
Number (meters) North (deg) (deg)
1 72.2 99° 53' 0° 00'
2 120.2 99° 13' 0°00'
3 188.5 98° 47' 0° 00'
4 189.2 99° 19' 1°48'
5 188.7 99° 00' 3° 10'
"Vertical angle shown is the angle from horizontal (positive values indicate elevation from the horizontal,
negative values indicate descent from the horizontal).
B-4
-------
Table B-12. Distance, and Horizontal and Vertical Coordinates of Mirrors Used During the 6/28
Survey at Site B.
Mirror Distance Horizontal Angle from Vertical Angle*
Number (meters) North (deg) (deg)
1 43.7 334° 23' 0° 00'
2 83.6 335° 25' 0° 00'
3 130.2 336° 55' 0° 00'
4 131.5 336° 27' 1°82'
5 130.9 336° 46' 2° 95'
"Vertical angle shown is the angle from horizontal (positive values indicate elevation from the horizontal,
negative values indicate descent from the horizontal).
Table B-13. Distance, and Horizontal and Vertical Coordinates of Mirrors Used During the 6/30
Survey at Site B.
Mirror
Number
1
2
3
4
5
Distance
(meters)
95.6
190.4
289.6
289.5
288.9
Horizontal Angle from
North (deg)
327° 59'
328° 22'
329° 32'
330° 05'
330° 15'
Vertical Angle*
(deg)
0°00'
0°00'
0°00'
0°56'
2° 24'
"Vertical angle shown is the angle from horizontal (positive values indicate elevation from the horizontal, negative values
indicate descent from the horizontal)
Table B-14. Distance, and Horizontal and Vertical Coordinates of Mirrors Used During the 7/1
Survey at Site B.
Mirror
Number
1
2
3
4
5
Distance
(meters)
94.2
189.1
288.3
288.2
287.6
Horizontal Angle from
North (deg)
336° 17'
336° 35'
337° 40'
338° 12'
338° 20'
Vertical Angle*
(deg)
0°00'
0°00'
0°00'
ror
2° 17'
"Vertical angle shown is the angle from horizontal (positive values indicate elevation from the horizontal, negative values
indicate descent from the horizontal).
B-5
-------
Table B-15. Distance, and Horizontal and Vertical Coordinates of Mirrors Used During the 8/2
Survey at Site B.
Mirror
Number
1
2
3
4
5
Distance
(meters)
93.8
187.0
280.6
281.5
281.1
Horizontal Angle from
North (deg)
331° 41'
332° 31'
331° 38'
331° 25'
331° 30'
Vertical Angle*
(deg)
0°00'
0°00'
0°00'
0°59'
2° 07'
"Vertical angle shown is the angle from horizontal (positive values indicate elevation from the horizontal, negative values
indicate descent from the horizontal).
Table B-16. Distance, and Horizontal and Vertical Coordinates of Mirrors Used During the 8/3
Survey at Site B.
Mirror
Number
1
2
3
4
5
Distance
(meters)
99.9
194.7
275.3
276.4
275.9
Horizontal Angle from
North (deg)
342° 31'
341° 26'
343° 03'
342° 46'
343° 00'
Vertical Angle*
(deg)
0°00'
0°00'
0°00'
1°25'
2° 33'
"Vertical angle shown is the angle from horizontal (positive values indicate elevation from the horizontal, negative values
indicate descent from the horizontal).
Table B-17. Distance, and Horizontal and Vertical Coordinates of Mirrors Used During the 8/4
Survey at Site B.
Mirror
Number
1
2
3
4
5
Distance
(meters)
113.0
228.5
329.5
330.5
330.1
Horizontal Angle from
North (deg)
303° 08'
303° 06'
302° 12'
301° 54'
302° 02'
Vertical Angle*
(deg)
0°00'
0°00'
0°00'
0°47'
1°23'
"Vertical angle shown is the angle from horizontal (positive values indicate elevation from the horizontal, negative values
indicate descent from the horizontal).
B-6
-------
Table B-18. Distance, and Horizontal and Vertical Coordinates of Mirrors Used During the 8/5
Survey at Site B.
Mirror
Number
1
2
3
4
5
Distance
(meters)
94.8
187.7
278.3
279.5
278.9
Horizontal Angle from
North (deg)
334° 03'
334° 42'
338° 31'
338° 15'
338° 24'
Vertical Angle*
(deg)
0°00'
0°00'
0°00'
1°13'
2° 28'
"Vertical angle shown is the angle from horizontal (positive values indicate elevation from the horizontal, negative values
indicate descent from the horizontal).
Table B-19. Distance, and Horizontal and Vertical Coordinates of Mirrors Used During the 8/10
and 8/11 Surveys at Site B.
Mirror
Number
1
2
3
4
5
Distance
(meters)
44.6
85.1
129.7
130.3
130.0
Horizontal Angle from
North (deg)
139° 23'
140° 16'
140° 47'
140° 15'
140° 36'
Vertical Angle*
(deg)
0°00'
0°00'
0°00'
2° 36'
4° 15'
"Vertical angle shown is the angle from horizontal (positive values indicate elevation from the horizontal, negative values
indicate descent from the horizontal).
Table B-20. Distance, and Horizontal and Vertical Coordinates of Mirrors Used During the 12/7
Survey at Site C.
Mirror
Number
1
2
3
4
5
Distance
(meters)
43.4
83.4
130.2
130.7
131.0
Horizontal Angle from
North (deg)
167° 01'
167° 34'
168° 11'
168° 07'
168° 25'
Vertical Angle*
(deg)
0°00'
0°00'
0°00'
4° 36'
6° 37'
"Vertical angle shown is the angle from horizontal (positive values indicate elevation from the horizontal, negative values
indicate descent from the horizontal).
B-7
-------
Table B-21. Distance, and Horizontal and Vertical Coordinates of Mirrors Used During the 12/8
Survey at Site C.
Mirror Distance Horizontal Angle from Vertical Angle*
Number (meters) North (deg) (deg)
1 43.3 167° 19' 0°00'
2 87.2 167° 51' 0° 00'
3 130.0 168° 28' 0° 00'
4 130.5 168° 28' 4° 20'
5 130.8 168° 48' 6° 44'
"Vertical angle shown is the angle from horizontal (positive values indicate elevation from the
indicate descent from the horizontal).
Table B-22. Distance, and Horizontal and Vertical Coordinates of Mirrors
and 4/23 Surveys at Site C.
Mirror Distance Horizontal Angle from Vertical Angle*
Number (meters) North (deg) (deg)
1 96.2 16° 42' 0°00'
2 137.6 15° 56' 0° 00'
3 306.3 15° 32' 0° 00'
4 306.6 15° 26' 1°47'
5 306.2 15° 25' 2° 30'
"Vertical angle shown is the angle from horizontal (positive values indicate elevation from the
indicate descent from the horizontal).
Table B-23. Distance, and Horizontal and Vertical Coordinates of Mirrors
and 4/30 Surveys at Site C.
Mirror Distance Horizontal Angle from Vertical Angle*
Number (meters) North (deg) (deg)
1 109.4 34° 03' 0°00'
2 174.8 34° 34' 0° 00'
3 328.5 34° 28' 0° 00'
4 328.4 34° 32' 1°39'
5 328.0 34° 20' 2° 25'
horizontal, negative values
Used During the 4/22
horizontal, negative values
Used During the 4/28
"Vertical angle shown is the angle from horizontal (positive values indicate elevation from the horizontal, negative values
indicate descent from the horizontal)
-------
Table B-24. Distance, and Horizontal and Vertical Coordinates of Mirrors Used During the 5/5
Survey at Site C.
Mirror
Number
1
2
3
4
5
Distance
(meters)
82.6
176.4
265.4
265.2
264.8
Horizontal Angle from
North (deg)
332° 28'
329° 00'
327° 32'
327° 16'
327° 03'
Vertical Angle*
(deg)
0°00'
0°00'
0°00'
1°12'
2° 08'
"Vertical angle shown is the angle from horizontal (positive values indicate elevation from the horizontal, negative values
indicate descent from the horizontal)
Table B-25. Distance, and Horizontal and Vertical Coordinates of Mirrors Used During the 5/6
Survey at Site C.
Mirror
Number
1
2
3
4
5
Distance
(meters)
57.1
106.6
168.0
168.0
167.5
Horizontal Angle from
North (deg)
357° 23'
1° 10'
3° 37'
3° 37'
3° 37'
Vertical Angle*
(deg)
0°00'
0°00'
0°00'
1°37'
3° 07'
"Vertical angle shown is the angle from horizontal (positive values indicate elevation from the horizontal, negative values
indicate descent from the horizontal)
Table B-26. Distance, and Horizontal and Vertical Coordinates of Mirrors Used During the 5/7
Survey at Site C.
Mirror
Number
1
2
3
4
5
Distance
(meters)
100.2
206.9
300.0
300.1
299.9
Horizontal Angle from
North (deg)
57° 15'
58° 21'
59° 43'
59° 22'
59° 07'
Vertical Angle*
(deg)
0°00'
0°00'
0°00'
0°23'
1°14'
"Vertical angle shown is the angle from horizontal (positive values indicate elevation from the horizontal, negative values
indicate descent from the horizontal)
B-9
-------
This page intentionally left blank.
B-10
-------
APPENDIX C
Daily OTM-10 Results
Table C-l. Calculated Methane Flux and Prevailing Wind Speed and Direction, and ACF
Measured During the 11/17 Morning OTM-10 Survey at Site A
Time
11:21:51
11:39:48
12:21:30
12:24:02
12:26:38
Average
StdDev
Methane Flux
(9/s)
6.2
8.5
5.9
6.3
9.0
7.2
7.44
Prevailing Wind Direction
(degrees from North)
74
74
74
74
70
Prevailing Wind Speed
(m/s)
2.9
3.3
2.5
2.7
2.7
2.8
ACF
(m2)
20806
21649
19964
20385
20385
C-l
-------
Table C-2. Calculated Methane Flux and Prevailing Wind Speed and Direction, and ACF
Measured During the 11/17 Afternoon OTM-10 Survey at Site A
Time
13:47:24
13:52:45
13:55:19
13:57:54
14:03:16
14:05:51
14:08:24
14:10:55
14:13:29
14:16:01
14:18:37
14:21:09
14:23:40
14:26:15
14:28:46
14:31:21
14:33:55
14:36:24
14:38:59
14:41:31
14:44:06
14:46:39
14:49:09
14:51:44
14:54:16
14:56:52
14:59:24
15:01:54
15:04:28
15:07:01
15:09:37
15:12:09
15:14:39
15:17:14
15:19:45
15:22:21
Methane Flux
(9/8)
7.1
8.0
13
12
11
8.4
7.5
8.5
8.9
8.4
8.3
7.5
8.8
11
13
12
13
13
12
12
12
11
8.5
9.5
9.5
12
10
11
9.6
9.2
9.4
11
11
12
11
11
Prevailing Wind Direction
(degrees from North)
69
79
75
71
61
71
73
78
77
79
78
79
77
69
67
67
69
71
70
69
64
68
82
86
81
71
72
73
76
78
80
77
75
71
71
72
Prevailing Wind Speed
(m/s)
2.2
2.1
2.1
2.1
2.2
2.2
2.1
2.3
2.4
2.7
2.7
2.7
2.6
2.7
2.9
2.9
2.9
2.8
2.9
2.8
2.6
2.3
2.2
2.2
2.4
2.7
3.1
3.4
3.0
2.8
2.9
3.2
3.4
3.2
3.1
2.7
ACF
(m2)
17369
17180
17180
17180
17369
17369
17180
17558
17747
18315
18315
18315
18125
18315
18693
18693
18693
18504
18693
18504
18125
17558
17369
17369
17747
18315
19071
19639
18882
18504
18693
19261
19639
19261
19071
18315
C-2
-------
Time
15:24:54
15:27:27
15:29:58
15:32:33
15:35:08
15:37:39
15:40:09
15:42:45
15:45:18
15:47:53
15:50:24
15:52:57
15:55:30
15:58:03
16:00:38
16:03:07
16:05:42
16:08:13
16:10:48
16:13:22
16:15:54
16:18:27
16:21:00
16:23:33
16:26:06
16:28:39
16:31:12
16:33:45
16:36:18
16:38:51
16:41:24
16:43:57
16:47:47
16:50:18
16:52:52
16:56:42
16:59:15
Methane Flux
(9/s)
10
9.3
9.4
14
14
12
10
11
8.6
8.8
12
14
13
14
16
18
14
9.7
10
9.1
13
12
12
10
11
10
11
9.3
10
9.8
10
9.7
11
9.6
10
10
11
Prevailing Wind Direction
(degrees from North)
71
69
69
70
73
76
80
79
81
79
73
68
63
60
57
58
59
67
66
64
61
63
66
67
68
69
70
70
71
72
73
73
71
72
72
73
70
Prevailing Wind Speed
(mis)
2.6
2.7
2.6
2.5
2.4
2.6
2.7
2.9
2.9
2.9
2.8
2.5
2.5
2.7
2.9
3.1
2.9
2.6
2.2
2.4
2.6
3.0
3.2
3.3
3.1
3.1
3.1
2.8
2.4
2.4
2.7
2.8
2.9
2.7
2.7
2.4
2.4
ACF
(m2)
18125
18315
18125
17936
17747
18125
18315
18693
18693
18693
18504
17936
17936
18315
18693
19071
18693
18125
17369
17747
18125
18882
19261
19450
19071
19071
19071
18504
17747
17747
18315
18504
18693
18315
18315
17747
17747
C-2
-------
Time
17:01:48
17:04:21
17:06:56
17:09:27
17:12:12
17:14:33
17:17:06
Average
StdDev
Methane Flux
(9/s)
10
8.3
9.3
9.6
10
11
12
11
1.94
Prevailing Wind Direction
(degrees from North)
70
70
71
71
72
71
69
Prevailing Wind Speed
(mis)
2.3
2.4
2.6
2.9
3.1
3.1
3.1
2.7
ACF
(m2)
17558
17747
18125
18693
19071
19071
19071
C-4
-------
Table C-3. Calculated Methane Flux and Prevailing Wind Speed and Direction, and ACF
Measured During the 11/18 OTM-10 Survey at Site A
Time
9:51:38
9:54:20
9:56:53
9:59:27
10:02:02
10:04:35
10:07:05
10:09:43
10:12:19
10:14:51
10:17:25
10:20:00
10:22:37
10:25:08
10:27:40
10:30:16
10:32:52
10:35:22
10:37:57
10:40:32
10:43:05
10:45:43
10:48:15
10:50:49
10:53:21
10:55:54
10:58:29
11:01:05
11:03:36
11:06:11
11:08:45
11:11:19
11:13:57
11:16:27
11:19:03
11:21:36
Methane Flux
(9/8)
7.7
9.1
8.4
9.8
8.4
9.7
8.6
10
10
9.6
10
8.1
7.5
6.8
7.2
7.7
10
9.0
9.9
11
10
11
9.2
8.7
10
9.6
12
12
12
9.1
9.6
9.6
8.3
6.4
6.4
6.5
Prevailing Wind Direction
(degrees from North)
57
52
52
52
56
55
53
51
53
55
56
56
57
61
62
58
52
50
51
53
55
57
63
64
61
56
50
51
51
57
59
60
62
65
68
64
Prevailing Wind Speed
(m/s)
3.6
3.8
3.9
3.7
3.4
3.4
3.7
3.9
3.9
3.8
3.7
3.8
3.7
3.6
3.5
3.3
3.4
3.4
3.4
3.5
3.4
3.5
3.5
3.5
3.1
2.9
3.2
3.4
3.5
3.3
2.9
2.7
2.4
2.1
1.9
1.8
ACF
(m2)
23847
24298
24523
24072
23396
23396
24072
24523
24523
24298
24072
24298
24072
23847
23621
23171
23396
23396
23396
23621
23396
23621
23621
23621
22720
22269
22945
23396
23621
23171
22269
21818
21142
20466
20015
19790
C-5
-------
Time
11:24:13
11:26:46
11:29:20
11:31:54
11:34:26
11:37:00
11:39:34
11:42:07
11:44:43
11:47:15
11:49:48
11:52:23
11:55:00
11:57:26
12:00:06
12:02:41
12:05:11
12:07:49
12:10:24
12:12:57
12:15:31
12:18:05
12:20:38
12:23:10
12:25:44
12:28:18
12:30:55
12:33:24
12:36:23
12:38:57
12:41:53
12:44:29
12:47:03
12:49:34
12:52:09
12:54:43
12:57:24
Methane Flux
(9/s)
8.9
8.7
9.7
9.4
10
11
9.9
9.9
10
9.1
9.9
8.8
8.1
8.0
9.9
10
11
10
10
8.9
10
9.9
13
12
11
12
13
12
9.6
11
13
13
12
12
13
13
12
Prevailing Wind Direction
(degrees from North)
57
57
58
59
55
53
50
52
54
59
61
62
62
59
59
56
56
59
62
66
63
61
55
53
52
52
52
49
47
48
50
51
53
57
56
56
55
Prevailing Wind Speed
(mis)
2.3
2.9
3.1
3.3
3.1
3.0
3.0
3.1
3.1
3.0
3.1
3.0
2.7
2.4
2.4
2.4
2.5
2.7
2.9
3.1
3.0
3.2
2.9
3.2
3.3
3.9
3.8
3.5
3.0
3.2
3.6
3.9
3.9
4.0
4.1
3.9
3.9
ACF
(m2)
20917
22269
22720
23171
22720
22495
22495
22720
22720
22495
22720
22495
21818
21142
21142
21142
21368
21818
22269
22720
22495
22945
22269
22945
23171
24523
24298
23621
22495
22945
23847
24523
24523
24748
24974
24523
24523
C-6
-------
Time
12:59:51
13:02:23
13:05:02
13:07:33
13:10:09
13:12:45
13:15:14
13:17:49
13:20:24
13:22:59
13:25:29
13:28:05
13:30:41
13:33:15
13:35:48
13:38:21
13:40:55
13:43:29
13:46:03
13:48:39
13:51:11
13:53:45
13:56:19
13:58:55
14:01:27
14:05:15
14:07:46
14:11:35
14:14:44
14:17:17
14:19:50
14:23:03
14:25:37
14:28:10
14:30:43
14:33:15
14:35:48
Methane Flux
(9/s)
11
12
10
9.9
9.0
9.5
8.9
11
10
8.3
8.4
12
13
15
13
12
11
10
10
12
13
13
12
11
9.4
11
12
14
15
16
15
15
12
13
13
14
15
Prevailing Wind Direction
(degrees from North)
56
55
60
63
66
63
62
60
58
59
62
57
54
55
56
57
54
55
51
50
50
52
50
48
45
46
45
46
47
48
48
43
42
44
50
48
45
Prevailing Wind Speed
(mis)
3.7
3.8
3.5
3.6
3.3
3.2
3.1
3.3
3.4
3.4
2.9
2.9
3.1
3.6
3.6
3.3
3.0
2.8
2.6
2.6
2.8
2.7
2.7
2.4
2.4
2.5
2.6
2.7
2.5
2.8
2.8
3.2
2.9
2.9
2.6
2.6
2.7
ACF
(m2)
24072
24298
23621
23847
23171
22945
22720
23171
23396
23396
22269
22269
22720
23847
23847
23171
22495
22044
21593
21593
22044
21818
21818
21142
21142
21368
21593
21818
21368
22044
22044
22945
22269
22269
21593
21593
21818
C-7
-------
Time
14:38:21
14:40:54
14:43:25
14:45:59
14:48:36
14:51:05
14:53:39
14:56:15
14:58:44
15:01:19
15:03:52
15:06:24
15:08:56
15:11:30
15:14:04
15:16:36
15:19:09
15:21:42
15:24:15
15:26:47
15:29:20
15:31:51
15:34:25
15:37:01
15:39:37
15:42:03
15:44:35
15:47:12
15:49:48
15:52:18
15:54:54
15:57:24
Average
StdDev
Methane Flux
(9/s)
18
18
15
13
13
10
13
13
15
13
12
12
10
12
9.5
9.6
7.1
7.2
9.1
10
11
12
15
14
15
13
14
13
13
9.7
10
11
11
2.27
Prevailing Wind Direction
(degrees from North)
41
44
46
48
49
50
49
49
51
54
52
50
50
54
57
57
57
57
59
58
54
50
45
46
47
50
51
51
50
50
49
49
Prevailing Wind Speed
(mis)
3.0
3.1
3.0
2.9
3.1
3.1
2.9
2.8
2.7
2.8
2.6
2.6
2.7
3.0
3.0
2.8
2.4
2.3
2.5
2.8
2.8
2.7
2.7
2.8
3.0
3.0
3.1
2.9
3.0
2.8
2.8
2.7
3.1
ACF
(m2)
22495
22720
22495
22269
22720
22720
22269
22044
21818
22044
21593
21593
21818
22495
22495
22044
21142
20917
21368
22044
22044
21818
21818
22044
22495
22495
22720
22269
22495
22044
22044
21818
-------
Table C-4. Calculated Methane Flux and Prevailing Wind Speed and Direction, and ACF
Measured During the 11/20 OTM-10 Survey at Site A
Time
9:34:49
9:37:21
9:39:53
9:42:24
9:44:57
9:47:28
9:50:01
9:52:32
9:55:04
9:57:37
10:00:10
10:02:42
10:05:13
10:07:44
10:10:18
10:12:50
10:15:20
10:17:53
10:20:26
10:22:58
10:25:30
10:28:54
10:31:24
10:34:45
10:37:18
10:39:49
10:42:21
10:44:53
10:47:26
10:49:57
10:52:29
10:55:01
10:57:33
11:00:05
11:02:38
11:05:09
11:07:41
11:10:14
11:12:45
11:15:17
11:17:49
Methane Flux
(9/8)
18
19
18
15
13
13
17
19
17
15
14
12
16
19
13
16
14
14
14
15
16
18
18
15
14
14
12
12
15
17
19
18
13
14
14
13
15
18
19
18
13
Prevailing Wind Direction
(degrees from North)
30
39
48
51
49
48
47
44
44
42
44
41
42
45
50
52
49
39
39
40
52
54
52
47
45
48
46
45
42
40
41
40
28
7
12
15
34
37
39
39
38
Prevailing Wind Speed
(mis)
3.4
3.1
3.4
3.5
3.6
3.8
4.0
4.2
4.1
4.3
3.9
3.3
2.7
3.3
3.7
4.3
4.2
4.2
3.7
3.6
4.3
4.6
4.4
3.7
3.8
3.8
4.1
4.7
4.4
4.2
4.1
4.0
3.4
3.1
3.3
3.0
3.4
3.6
4.5
4.8
4.8
ACF
(m2)
40786
39692
40786
41151
41516
42246
42975
43705
43340
44070
42611
40421
38232
40421
41881
44070
43705
43705
41881
41516
44070
45164
44435
41881
42246
42246
43340
45529
44435
43705
43340
42975
40786
39692
40421
39327
40786
41516
44800
45894
45894
C-9
-------
Time
11:20:21
11:22:53
11:25:25
11:27:57
11:30:29
11:33:00
11:35:33
11:38:04
11:40:37
11:43:09
11:45:41
11:48:13
11:50:44
11:53:17
11:55:49
11:58:21
12:00:54
12:03:25
12:05:58
12:08:29
12:11:01
12:13:33
12:16:05
12:18:38
12:21:10
12:23:42
12:26:14
12:28:45
12:35:09
12:37:42
12:40:14
12:59:18
13:01:48
13:04:23
13:06:55
13:09:27
13:11:58
13:14:30
13:17:03
13:19:35
13:22:05
13:24:38
13:27:10
Methane Flux
(9/s)
11
11
11
15
16
18
14
17
12
15
14
11
13
16
12
14
13
17
17
14
19
14
12
10
10
13
14
12
10
8.8
10
9.5
7.5
14
13
10
11
11
13
13
12
13
13
Prevailing Wind Direction
(degrees from North)
39
32
30
31
35
37
31
27
27
25
28
36
46
46
43
44
42
43
46
52
49
29
18
13
23
17
3
357
14
12
8
357
2
21
23
31
37
43
40
31
25
26
37
Prevailing Wind Speed
(mis)
4.4
3.9
4.2
4.5
4.7
4.4
4.3
4.3
3.8
3.3
2.6
2.9
3.4
3.8
3.8
3.8
3.3
3.2
2.7
2.8
2.9
2.9
3.1
2.7
2.5
2.5
2.7
3.0
2.3
1.9
2.4
2.5
2.4
2.9
3.2
3.7
3.5
3.6
3.4
3.0
2.8
2.9
3.4
ACF
(m2)
44435
42611
43705
44800
45529
44435
44070
44070
42246
40421
37868
38962
40786
42246
42246
42246
40421
40057
38232
38597
38962
38962
39692
38232
37503
37503
38232
39327
36773
35314
37138
37138
38962
40057
41881
41151
41516
40786
39327
38597
38962
40786
40421
C-10
-------
Time
13:29:42
13:32:15
13:34:46
13:39:51
13:42:23
13:44:54
13:47:24
13:49:58
13:52:31
13:55:03
13:57:34
14:00:06
14:02:39
14:05:11
14:07:42
14:10:15
14:12:47
14:15:20
14:17:49
14:20:22
14:22:54
14:25:26
14:27:59
14:30:30
14:35:35
14:38:07
14:40:41
14:43:12
14:48:15
14:58:23
15:00:55
15:03:25
15:05:58
15:08:30
15:11:01
15:13:35
15:16:07
15:18:38
15:21:11
15:23:41
15:26:15
15:28:48
15:31:18
Methane Flux
(9/s)
14
12
12
12
10
10
8.6
14
12
18
14
17
19
13
11
12
14
15
19
14
13
14
15
18
16
15
17
11
12
16
24
23
18
16
23
23
14
16
18
11
14
15
24
Prevailing Wind Direction
(degrees from North)
36
32
6
359
23
56
64
34
21
15
35
44
54
54
54
59
56
39
33
40
50
53
35
8
23
60
70
76
77
74
50
30
28
24
32
38
39
44
45
58
63
65
60
Prevailing Wind Speed
(mis)
3.3
2.9
2.6
2.8
2.4
2.2
1.8
1.3
1.5
1.9
2.3
2.7
3.2
2.7
2.3
1.7
1.6
2.0
2.7
3.5
3.3
3.1
2.4
2.2
1.3
1.6
1.9
2.2
1.8
1.8
2.2
2.3
2.6
2.1
2.0
1.9
1.6
1.3
1.3
1.4
1.5
1.5
1.8
ACF
(m2)
38962
37868
38597
37138
36408
34949
33124
33854
35314
36773
38232
40057
38232
36773
34584
34219
35678
38232
41151
40421
39692
37138
36408
33124
34219
35314
36408
34949
34949
36408
36773
37868
36043
35678
35314
34219
33124
33124
33489
33854
33854
34949
36043
C-ll
-------
Time
15:33:51
15:36:23
15:38:54
15:41:26
15:43:59
15:46:33
15:49:03
15:51:34
15:54:06
15:56:39
15:59:11
16:01:44
16:04:14
16:21:59
16:24:30
16:27:02
16:29:35
16:32:06
16:34:38
16:37:10
Average
StdDev
Methane Flux
(9/s)
29
28
15
14
28
29
28
25
26
23
28
23
24
16
13
16
16
16
17
18
16
4.37
Prevailing Wind Direction
(degrees from North)
53
48
41
31
38
52
65
72
71
72
69
74
76
77
74
73
74
72
71
70
Prevailing Wind Speed
(mis)
2.1
2.0
1.9
1.6
1.8
1.9
2.2
2.1
2.2
2.1
2.2
2.1
1.9
1.5
1.3
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
2.9
ACF
(m2)
35678
35314
34219
34949
35314
36408
36043
36408
36043
36408
36043
35314
33854
33124
32760
32760
32760
32760
32760
40786
C-12
-------
Table C-5. Calculated Methane Flux and Prevailing Wind Speed and Direction, and ACF
Measured During the 11/24 OTM-10 Survey at Site A
Time
11:44:05
11:46:38
11:49:14
11:51:46
11:54:21
11:56:57
11:59:29
12:02:03
12:04:36
12:07:10
12:09:45
12:12:20
12:14:53
12:17:56
12:20:30
12:24:21
12:27:25
12:31:14
12:33:47
12:36:20
12:46:37
12:49:11
12:51:43
12:54:20
12:56:52
12:59:26
13:02:01
13:04:36
13:07:09
13:09:44
13:12:18
13:27:42
13:30:17
13:32:48
13:35:23
13:37:57
Methane Flux
(9/8)
19
17
15
13
15
16
13
11
14
18
22
17
18
14
12
12
15
17
19
15
16
20
21
23
18
14
11
13
11
12
16
14
13
15
13
13
Prevailing Wind Direction
(degrees from North)
359
353
353
348
350
355
5
11
13
22
27
28
26
21
28
20
13
6
15
33
32
19
22
22
33
17
19
14
31
41
42
41
24
22
33
42
Prevailing Wind Speed
(mis)
3.0
2.9
2.8
2.4
2.4
2.6
2.8
2.6
2.4
2.6
3.3
3.5
3.3
2.9
2.4
2.8
2.8
3.2
3.1
2.9
2.2
2.5
2.7
2.2
1.7
1.7
1.8
2.0
2.2
2.5
2.2
2.3
1.8
1.5
1.8
2.0
ACF
(m2)
38257
37874
37490
35957
35957
36724
37490
36724
35957
36724
39407
40174
39407
37874
35957
37490
37490
39024
38640
37874
35191
36340
37107
35191
33274
33274
33657
34424
35191
36340
35191
35574
33657
32507
33657
34424
C-13
-------
Time
13:40:31
13:55:54
13:58:29
14:01:02
14:03:37
14:06:11
14:31:51
14:34:25
14:36:59
Average
Std Dev
Methane Flux
(9/s)
8.5
9.2
15
15
16
9.4
16
17
14
15
3.20
Prevailing Wind Direction
(degrees from North)
39
38
29
23
17
31
33
34
41
Prevailing Wind Speed
(mis)
1.9
2.5
2.4
2.1
1.7
1.5
2.3
2.4
2.4
2.4
ACF
(m2)
34041
36340
35957
34807
33274
32507
35574
35957
35957
C-14
-------
Table C-6. Calculated Methane Flux and Prevailing Wind Speed and Direction, and ACF
Measured During the 12/1 Morning OTM-10 Survey at Site A
Time
10:17:43
10:20:15
10:22:54
10:25:25
10:27:56
10:30:33
10:33:06
10:35:41
10:38:15
10:40:48
10:43:22
10:45:57
10:48:33
10:51:04
10:53:39
10:56:15
10:58:45
11:01:16
11:16:58
11:19:32
11:22:08
11:24:42
11:32:23
11:34:57
11:37:31
11:40:04
11:42:39
11:45:12
11:47:44
11:50:20
11:52:54
11:55:30
11:58:03
12:00:35
12:03:10
12:05:44
Methane Flux
(9/8)
13
11
10
6.8
6.5
8.7
12
13
12
8.7
9.3
8.3
9.2
10
9.4
11
7.5
7.9
7.0
6.1
7.3
9.3
10
12
12
14
15
15
13
13
14
13
13
11
13
12
Prevailing Wind Direction
(degrees from North)
234
229
237
240
247
250
259
259
263
264
258
245
249
254
259
247
259
272
270
252
250
261
270
242
239
242
254
256
271
261
250
235
230
231
247
259
Prevailing Wind Speed
(mis)
2.9
3.3
3.2
2.8
2.4
2.2
2.4
2.5
2.6
2.5
2.6
2.7
2.5
2.2
1.9
1.9
2.0
1.7
1.7
2.2
2.2
1.8
1.9
2.0
1.9
1.9
1.9
2.0
1.9
2.0
1.9
2.0
1.8
1.8
1.6
1.7
ACF
(m2)
21361
22162
21962
21161
20361
19961
20361
20561
20761
20561
20761
20961
20561
19961
19361
19361
19561
18961
18961
19961
19961
19161
19361
19561
19361
19361
19361
19561
19361
19561
19361
19561
19161
19161
18761
18961
C-15
-------
Time
12:08:20
12:10:53
12:13:26
12:18:01
12:20:33
12:23:09
12:35:24
12:37:59
12:40:35
12:43:07
12:45:40
13:39:35
13:42:08
13:54:57
13:57:32
14:00:06
14:02:40
14:05:14
14:07:49
14:10:23
14:12:54
14:25:46
14:28:19
14:30:55
14:33:28
Average
StdDev
Methane Flux
(9/s)
13
13
17
19
18
14
8.4
7.9
7.9
7.3
7.0
2.5
4.4
4.7
4.6
8.0
10
11
10
8.7
6.3
10
12
13
11
10
3.19
Prevailing Wind Direction
(degrees from North)
249
240
230
237
244
262
271
263
256
249
247
178
209
269
259
246
234
221
217
223
224
259
255
240
225
Prevailing Wind Speed
(mis)
1.9
2.3
2.4
2.2
1.8
1.6
2.2
2.4
2.0
1.8
1.3
1.3
1.2
1.0
1.1
1.5
1.7
1.8
1.6
1.4
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.2
2.1
2.0
ACF
(m2)
19361
20161
20361
19961
19161
18761
19961
20361
19561
19161
18161
17961
17561
17761
18561
18961
19161
18761
18361
17561
18561
19561
19961
19761
21361
C-16
-------
Table C-7. Calculated Methane Flux and Prevailing Wind Speed and Direction, and ACF
Measured During the 12/1 Afternoon OTM-10 Survey at Site A
Time
14:36:02
14:38:36
14:43:44
14:46:17
14:48:52
14:51:26
14:53:59
14:56:33
14:59:08
15:01:41
15:24:48
15:27:23
15:29:58
15:42:47
15:45:20
15:47:53
15:50:28
15:53:02
15:55:35
15:58:08
16:00:44
16:03:19
16:05:50
Average
StdDev
Methane Flux
(9/8)
8.7
8.6
8.3
8.4
12
13
10
8.6
7.8
10
18
15
8.2
16
24
17
19
18
21
23
26
23
18
15
5.97
Prevailing Wind Direction
(degrees from North)
205
200
205
210
231
226
215
200
202
203
230
212
204
198
207
204
205
200
203
206
215
206
197
Prevailing Wind Speed
(mis)
1.9
1.8
1.3
1.3
1.4
1.6
1.4
1.7
1.7
1.9
1.0
1.1
1.2
1.6
1.8
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.6
1.7
1.7
1.6
1.4
1.5
ACF
(m2)
19361
19161
18161
18161
18361
18761
18361
18961
18961
19361
17561
17761
17961
18761
19161
18561
18561
18561
18761
18961
18961
18761
18361
C-17
-------
Table C-8. Calculated Methane Flux and Prevailing Wind Speed and Direction, and ACF
Measured During the 5/14 OTM-10 Survey at Site A
Time
13:32:05
13:34:37
13:37:08
13:39:39
13:42:10
14:22:26
14:24:57
14:27:28
14:47:37
14:50:07
14:52:39
15:05:12
15:07:44
15:10:15
15:12:47
15:15:17
15:17:48
15:20:19
15:22:50
15:25:21
15:27:52
15:30:23
15:32:54
15:35:25
13:32:05
13:34:37
13:37:08
13:39:39
13:42:10
14:22:26
14:24:57
14:27:28
14:47:37
14:50:07
14:52:39
15:05:12
Methane Flux
(9/8)
2.6
2.3
2.4
3.2
3.5
4.3
4.1
3.6
5.2
7.6
8.8
5.2
5.5
4.8
5.9
5.9
6.5
5.4
4.9
3.6
3.2
3.3
4.0
4.7
2.6
2.3
2.4
3.2
3.5
4.3
4.1
3.6
5.2
7.6
8.8
5.2
Prevailing Wind Direction
(degrees from North)
211
206
195
209
220
227
200
214
227
213
220
206
196
194
215
225
225
228
218
202
191
192
206
213
211
206
195
209
220
227
200
214
227
213
220
206
Prevailing Wind Speed
(m/s)
1.8
1.8
1.5
1.7
2
1.7
1.9
2
1.9
1.5
1.7
2
2.2
2.3
2.3
2.3
2.4
2.3
2.3
2.2
2.8
2.8
3
3
1.8
1.8
1.5
1.7
2
1.7
1.9
2
1.9
1.5
1.7
2
ACF
(m2)
25430
25430
24561
25140
26009
25140
25719
26009
25719
24561
25140
26009
26588
26878
26878
26878
27168
26878
26878
26588
28326
28326
28905
28905
25430
25430
24561
25140
26009
25140
25719
26009
25719
24561
25140
26009
C-18
-------
Time
15:07:44
15:10:15
15:12:47
15:15:17
15:17:48
15:20:19
15:22:50
15:25:21
15:27:52
15:30:23
15:32:54
15:35:25
Average
StdDev
Methane Flux
(9/s)
5.5
4.8
5.9
5.9
6.5
5.4
4.9
3.6
3.2
3.3
4.0
4.7
4.6
1.61
Prevailing Wind Direction
(degrees from North)
196
194
215
225
225
228
218
202
191
192
206
213
Prevailing Wind Speed
(mis)
2.2
2.3
2.3
2.3
2.4
2.3
2.3
2.2
2.8
2.8
3
3
2.1
ACF
(m2)
26588
26878
26878
26878
27168
26878
26878
26588
28326
28326
28905
28905
C-19
-------
Table C-9. Calculated Methane Flux and Prevailing Wind Speed and Direction, and ACF
Measured During the 5/20 OTM-10 Survey at Site A
Time
10:20:05
10:22:36
10:25:09
11:05:40
11:10:45
11:13:17
11:26:21
11:28:54
11:31:26
11:33:57
11:36:27
11:39:02
11:41:34
11:44:04
11:46:37
11:56:48
11:59:18
12:01:48
12:04:22
12:06:54
12:09:24
12:24:41
12:27:10
12:34:45
12:37:18
12:39:50
12:42:21
12:44:54
12:47:25
12:49:59
12:52:30
12:55:03
12:57:34
13:00:05
13:02:40
13:05:10
Methane Flux
(9/8)
3.6
3.9
2.7
1.8
2.4
2.5
1.3
2.3
3.4
3.2
3.5
4.6
4.8
3.6
1.8
2.1
4.3
6.5
6.0
3.4
2.4
3.4
4.1
5.4
3.1
2.2
1.7
3.8
4.4
4.1
3.1
2.7
2.7
3.1
3.8
2.8
Prevailing Wind Direction
(degrees from North)
3
9
20
28
23
27
11
7
13
15
14
355
0
358
19
21
351
339
327
322
6
17
335
337
5
16
356
347
347
355
350
348
345
327
326
358
Prevailing Wind Speed
(m/s)
1.8
1.7
1.7
1.4
1.9
2.2
1.0
1.5
1.8
1.7
1.8
1.8
1.6
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.8
1.9
1.4
0.80
0.80
1.0
1.1
1.5
1.8
1.7
1.2
1.8
2.3
2.4
2.0
1.5
1.3
1.2
1.2
1.1
ACF
(m2)
26050
25753
25753
24863
26347
27237
23677
25160
26050
25753
26050
26050
25457
23677
23677
23677
26050
26347
24863
23083
23083
23677
23973
25160
26050
25753
24270
26050
27533
27830
26643
25160
24567
24270
24270
23973
C-20
-------
Time
13:50:45
13:53:18
13:55:48
13:58:22
14:03:24
14:05:57
14:08:31
14:11:03
14:13:34
14:18:38
14:21:11
14:23:44
14:26:13
14:28:46
14:31:18
14:33:50
14:36:21
Average
StdDev
Methane Flux
(9/s)
1.9
2.8
3.2
1.4
3.8
5.1
3.5
2.3
1.9
2.2
4.0
5.7
4.4
3.4
2.7
2.6
1.2
3.3
7.22
Prevailing Wind Direction
(degrees from North)
29
333
320
316
354
346
339
358
28
23
7
3
359
352
352
352
356
Prevailing Wind Speed
(mis)
1.2
1.2
1.6
0.90
1.6
1.9
1.5
1.0
1.1
1.2
1.9
2.4
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.60
1.5
ACF
(m2)
24270
24270
25457
23380
25457
26347
25160
23677
23973
24270
26347
27830
28127
26643
25160
23677
22490
C-21
-------
Table C-10. Calculated Methane Flux and Prevailing Wind Speed and Direction, and ACF
Measured During the 5/21 OTM-10 Survey at Site A
Time
11:37:36
11:40:09
11:42:41
11:45:12
12:35:52
12:38:26
12:51:05
12:53:36
12:56:06
12:58:40
13:16:24
13:18:56
13:21:27
13:24:24
14:03:50
14:06:24
14:08:54
14:11:27
14:14:00
14:16:32
14:19:04
14:21:36
14:24:08
14:26:39
14:29:12
14:31:42
14:34:15
14:36:47
14:39:20
14:41:52
14:44:24
14:46:55
14:49:27
14:52:01
14:54:30
14:57:03
Methane Flux
(9/8)
3.6
3.1
2.9
2.0
1.7
2.9
3.4
2.7
2.7
2.1
1.8
2.0
2.9
2.0
4.1
3.7
3.6
4.4
5.3
4.7
3.6
2.9
2.8
3.0
3.2
3.2
3.6
3.5
2.5
2.0
2.0
3.2
5.4
5.7
6.4
4.9
Prevailing Wind Direction
(degrees from North)
158
158
160
155
155
150
153
148
147
145
150
176
169
163
148
153
171
190
182
164
154
177
195
199
195
188
187
178
173
164
154
147
147
157
164
166
Prevailing Wind Speed
(m/s)
2.5
2.5
2.2
2.0
1.3
1.8
2.3
2.2
2.3
2.5
1.1
1.3
1.6
1.8
2.5
2.4
2.2
2.1
1.9
1.6
1.8
1.8
2.0
1.8
1.8
1.7
2.0
1.8
1.5
1.2
1.2
1.5
1.6
1.7
1.8
1.9
ACF
(m2)
28087
28087
27198
26606
24532
26013
27495
27198
27495
28087
23939
24532
25421
26013
28087
27791
27198
26902
26310
25421
26013
26013
26606
26013
26013
25717
26606
26013
25124
24236
24236
25124
25421
25717
26013
26310
C-22
-------
Time
14:59:37
15:02:06
15:04:40
15:07:12
15:09:45
15:12:19
15:14:52
15:17:20
15:19:46
Average
StdDev
Methane Flux
(9/s)
4.2
3.5
2.9
3.8
5.1
5.8
4.3
4.3
4.6
3.5
7.24
Prevailing Wind Direction
(degrees from North)
171
187
204
187
165
159
163
173
176
Prevailing Wind Speed
(mis)
1.5
1.3
1.1
1.2
1.8
2.3
2.0
1.6
1.6
1.8
ACF
(m2)
25124
24532
23939
24236
26013
27495
26606
25421
25421
C-23
-------
Table C-ll. Calculated Methane Flux and Prevailing Wind Speed and Direction, and ACF
Measured During the 5/26 OTM-10 Survey at Site A
Time
12:13:05
12:15:32
12:18:03
12:20:34
12:23:03
12:25:36
12:28:05
12:30:37
12:33:09
12:35:35
12:38:11
12:40:42
12:43:09
12:45:42
12:48:15
12:50:44
12:53:14
12:55:48
12:58:19
13:00:47
13:03:20
13:05:52
13:08:21
13:10:54
13:13:25
13:15:56
13:18:27
13:20:58
13:23:27
13:25:59
13:28:28
13:31:00
13:33:32
13:36:04
13:38:35
13:41:06
Methane Flux
(9/8)
13
11
10
12
12
14
12
14
15
15
12
10
9
11
11
12
11
14
15
15
13
13
12
14
13
16
17
18
15
15
11
12
13
16
14
14
Prevailing Wind Direction
(degrees from North)
358
7
19
21
13
12
5
13
12
24
29
27
351
354
14
34
43
32
25
14
5
359
353
348
352
1
13
16
20
20
22
14
357
354
354
357
Prevailing Wind Speed
(m/s)
4.0
3.4
2.9
3.6
3.5
3.8
3.4
3.6
3.6
3.2
2.9
2.1
2.2
2.9
3.3
3.7
3.3
3.3
3.6
3.8
3.8
3.9
4.0
3.7
3.3
3.5
4.1
4.6
4.4
4.0
3.2
2.4
2.7
3.7
4.4
4.5
ACF
(m2)
29630
28011
26661
28550
28280
29090
28011
28550
28550
27471
26661
24503
24772
26661
27741
28820
27741
27741
28550
29090
29090
29360
29630
28820
27741
28280
29899
31249
30709
29630
27471
25312
26122
28820
30709
30979
C-24
-------
Time
13:43:37
13:46:09
13:48:39
13:51:10
13:53:40
13:56:12
13:58:44
14:01:13
14:03:46
14:06:16
14:08:47
14:13:48
14:16:20
14:18:51
14:21:20
14:23:54
14:26:24
14:28:56
14:31:26
14:33:57
14:36:29
14:39:39
14:41:29
14:44:01
14:46:32
14:49:01
14:51:33
14:54:09
14:56:36
14:59:07
15:01:39
15:04:09
15:06:38
15:09:11
15:11:42
15:14:13
15:16:44
Methane Flux
(9/s)
15
15
16
14
14
15
18
19
13
11
12
13
14
16
18
18
17
16
16
15
16
16
17
14
16
16
17
17
16
15
16
16
17
15
16
16
16
Prevailing Wind Direction
(degrees from North)
356
357
4
15
24
30
31
31
27
5
348
348
359
9
16
11
5
3
10
19
26
31
28
19
12
15
17
16
17
23
29
35
36
34
20
16
22
Prevailing Wind Speed
(mis)
4.6
4.6
4.8
4.5
4.6
4.6
4.9
4.9
3.8
3.3
4.2
4.7
4.6
4.7
4.6
4.6
5.2
5.6
4.5
4.1
4.2
4.6
4.7
4.3
4.8
4.7
4.9
5.1
5.2
5.3
5.2
5.0
4.2
3.8
4.0
4.5
4.5
ACF
(m2)
31249
31249
31788
30979
31249
31249
32058
32058
29090
27741
30169
31519
31249
31519
31249
31249
32868
33947
30979
29899
30169
31249
31519
30439
31788
31519
32058
32598
32868
33138
32868
32328
30169
29090
29630
30979
30979
C-25
-------
Time
15:19:15
15:21:46
15:24:19
15:26:45
15:29:19
15:31:50
15:34:19
15:36:53
15:39:21
15:41:54
15:44:26
15:46:54
Average
Std Dev
Methane Flux
(9/s)
15
16
16
18
17
17
15
16
16
19
18
20
15
2.29
Prevailing Wind Direction
(degrees from North)
29
26
31
33
36
26
13
359
360
7
13
16
Prevailing Wind Speed
(mis)
4.7
4.3
4.5
4.7
5.4
5.3
4.7
4.5
4.5
5.0
5.3
5.0
4.2
ACF
(m2)
31519
30439
30979
31519
33407
33138
31519
30979
30979
32328
33138
32328
C-26
-------
Table C-12. Calculated Methane Flux and Prevailing Wind Speed and Direction, and ACF
Measured During the 5/27 OTM-10 Survey at Site A
Time
9:32:22
9:34:53
9:37:24
9:39:55
9:42:24
9:44:57
9:47:29
9:49:57
9:52:31
9:55:00
9:57:30
10:00:03
10:02:33
10:05:06
10:07:36
10:10:07
10:12:37
10:15:08
10:17:38
10:20:09
10:22:40
10:25:10
10:27:44
10:30:18
10:32:42
10:35:18
10:37:48
10:40:19
10:42:50
10:45:21
10:47:53
10:50:23
10:52:57
10:55:27
11:02:59
11:05:29
11:07:59
11:10:31
11:13:04
11:15:33
11:18:04
Methane Flux
(9/8)
4.0
4.5
4.9
4.4
5.2
4.3
4.3
4.0
4.1
3.8
3.7
4.5
4.9
5.8
5.3
6.6
5.7
6.0
5.9
5.8
5.2
5.1
3.6
3.4
3.1
5.3
4.9
4.7
3.5
2.7
2.7
2.9
2.7
1.5
2.1
2.1
2.3
2.8
3.3
2.7
3.3
Prevailing Wind Direction
(degrees from North)
13
15
21
13
18
24
35
37
31
28
29
41
47
50
49
45
42
36
32
27
26
31
36
42
44
34
25
14
19
17
21
23
28
34
34
21
33
42
42
33
32
Prevailing Wind Speed
(mis)
1.4
1.8
2.2
2.1
2.1
2.2
2.6
2.6
2.6
2.2
2.0
2.0
2.5
2.8
2.9
3.1
3.1
3.0
2.5
2.5
2.6
2.8
2.6
2.6
2.6
2.6
2.6
2.4
2.1
1.8
1.8
1.8
1.7
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.6
1.9
2.2
2.0
2.1
ACF
(m2)
22582
23660
24738
24468
24468
24738
25815
25815
25815
24738
24199
24199
25546
26354
26624
27163
27163
26893
25546
25546
25815
26354
25815
25815
25815
25815
25815
25276
24468
23660
23660
23660
23390
21773
22043
22312
23121
23929
24738
24199
24468
C-27
-------
Time
11:20:35
11:23:06
11:25:37
11:28:09
11:30:39
11:33:10
11:35:41
11:38:12
11:40:43
11:43:14
11:45:45
11:48:16
11:50:47
11:53:18
11:55:49
11:58:21
12:00:51
12:03:22
12:05:53
12:08:24
12:10:56
12:13:26
12:15:59
12:18:29
12:20:59
12:23:31
12:26:01
12:28:32
12:31:03
12:33:34
12:36:05
12:38:37
12:41:07
12:43:38
12:46:09
12:48:40
12:51:12
12:53:42
12:56:13
12:58:44
13:01:15
13:03:47
13:06:17
Methane Flux
(9/s)
3.2
3.0
2.7
3.0
4.2
5.4
4.9
4.4
4.1
4.8
5.3
6.6
7.6
7.6
5.9
5.2
4.9
5.0
5.8
5.9
5.7
5.2
4.5
4.1
3.9
4.7
4.3
4.7
5.2
4.5
3.6
3.3
4.6
6.8
8.0
8.1
5.9
4.8
4.8
5.1
5.9
5.3
6.0
Prevailing Wind Direction
(degrees from North)
35
40
30
31
41
30
22
14
26
22
14
6
6
4
2
5
9
3
354
355
4
1
354
347
353
1
16
19
17
12
16
9
7
15
31
39
37
35
33
35
35
24
7
Prevailing Wind Speed
(mis)
2.3
2.2
2.0
2.1
2.5
2.8
2.5
2.7
2.7
3.1
3.2
3.6
3.9
4.2
3.9
3.1
2.6
2.4
2.7
2.7
2.7
2.5
2.4
2.3
2.3
2.1
2.1
2.1
2.5
2.6
2.5
2.5
2.6
3.0
3.2
4.0
3.7
3.4
3.2
3.2
3.3
2.8
2.5
ACF
(m2)
25007
24738
24199
24468
25546
26354
25546
26085
26085
27163
27432
28510
29318
30127
29318
27163
25815
25276
26085
26085
26085
25546
25276
25007
25007
24468
24468
24468
25546
25815
25546
25546
25815
26893
27432
29588
28779
27971
27432
27432
27702
26354
25546
C-28
-------
Time
13:08:48
13:11:19
13:13:50
13:16:21
13:18:52
13:21:23
13:23:54
13:26:25
13:28:56
13:31:27
13:33:58
13:36:29
13:39:00
13:41:31
13:44:02
13:46:33
13:49:04
13:51:37
13:54:06
13:56:37
13:59:09
14:01:39
14:31:52
14:34:22
14:36:53
14:45:39
Average
StdDev
Methane Flux
(9/s)
5.7
6.2
6.2
6.4
6.8
6.0
6.2
6.2
7.1
7.2
6.7
6.5
6.2
6.1
4.2
4.2
3.3
3.5
3.1
3.9
2.9
2.5
4.1
6.1
8.9
7.8
4.8
1.56
Prevailing Wind Direction
(degrees from North)
353
360
10
17
16
10
11
14
20
22
27
35
39
44
42
44
47
47
32
5
351
346
359
351
351
6
Prevailing Wind Speed
(mis)
2.6
2.9
3.3
3.7
3.5
3.3
3.1
3.5
3.6
3.5
3.1
2.8
2.8
2.9
2.9
2.7
2.4
2.0
1.6
1.6
1.6
1.4
1.4
2.7
4.0
3.6
2.6
ACF
(m2)
25815
26624
27702
28779
28241
27702
27163
28241
28510
28241
27163
26354
26354
26624
26624
26085
25276
24199
23121
23121
23121
22582
22582
26085
29588
28510
C-29
-------
Table C-13. Calculated Methane Flux and Prevailing Wind Speed and Direction, and ACF
Measured During the 6/3 OTM-10 Survey at Site A
Time
12:53:52
12:56:21
12:58:54
13:09:02
13:11:35
13:14:07
13:16:39
13:29:18
13:31:50
13:34:23
13:36:54
13:39:27
14:02:15
14:04:46
14:07:18
14:09:50
14:12:23
14:14:55
14:17:27
14:19:59
14:22:30
14:25:03
14:27:34
14:30:06
14:32:39
14:35:09
14:40:14
14:42:47
14:45:19
14:47:51
14:50:22
14:52:54
14:55:27
14:57:59
15:00:30
15:03:00
Methane Flux
(9/8)
4.4
5.4
5.4
4.3
5.3
4.6
3.4
3.3
5.0
5.4
5.5
3.3
5.5
9.2
7.8
6.8
8.0
8.3
8.2
7.7
8.0
8.3
9.4
9.2
7.0
6.2
6.3
8.8
8.5
7.8
7.6
8.9
8.4
8.2
8.5
8.8
Prevailing Wind Direction
(degrees from North)
228
223
230
219
217
215
222
224
204
208
221
228
228
209
197
191
193
201
202
204
205
200
195
194
203
220
221
204
198
201
203
195
196
195
197
196
Prevailing Wind Speed
(m/s)
1.7
1.8
1.5
1.5
1.7
1.5
1.4
1.3
1.1
1.5
2.0
1.9
1.7
2.3
2.4
2.4
2.4
2.7
3.1
3.0
3.1
3.0
2.9
2.8
2.6
2.6
2.7
2.7
3.1
2.8
2.9
2.7
2.7
2.7
2.9
2.9
ACF
(m2)
23145
23412
22612
22612
23145
22612
22345
22079
21545
22612
23945
23679
23145
24745
25012
25012
25012
25812
26878
26612
26878
26612
26345
26078
25545
25545
25812
25812
26878
26078
26345
25812
25812
25812
26345
26345
C-30
-------
Time
15:05:34
15:08:07
15:10:39
15:13:10
15:15:42
15:18:14
15:20:47
15:23:18
15:25:50
15:28:23
15:30:54
15:33:26
15:35:58
15:38:30
15:41:02
15:43:35
15:46:06
15:48:38
15:51:11
15:53:44
15:56:15
15:58:46
16:01:18
16:03:51
16:06:24
16:08:54
16:11:26
16:13:58
16:16:31
16:19:04
16:21:34
16:24:06
16:26:38
16:29:11
Average
StdDev
Methane Flux
(9/s)
9.8
8.9
9.5
6.9
5.5
6.1
7.7
9.9
8.8
8.4
7.7
7.8
9.1
8.7
7.4
7.2
10.5
11.3
10.5
6.7
7.7
9.2
10.7
8.3
7.6
7.0
7.6
7.6
7.4
7.3
7.9
8.6
7.9
7.4
7.5
1.82
Prevailing Wind Direction
(degrees from North)
194
196
204
215
222
208
189
184
182
187
187
188
190
191
194
192
185
181
188
197
193
186
179
179
174
176
177
172
164
169
180
177
166
162
Prevailing Wind Speed
(mis)
2.8
2.7
2.6
2.7
2.6
2.7
2.3
2.5
2.4
2.5
2.3
2.3
2.5
2.7
2.5
2.3
2.3
2.5
2.8
2.6
2.6
2.7
2.9
2.5
2.3
2.4
2.7
2.5
2.2
2.0
2.1
2.2
2.4
2.5
2.4
ACF
(m2)
26078
25812
25545
25812
25545
25812
24745
25278
25012
25278
24745
24745
25278
25812
25278
24745
24745
25278
26078
25545
25545
25812
26345
25278
24745
25012
25812
25278
24479
23945
24212
24479
25012
25278
C-31
-------
Table C-14. Calculated Methane Flux and Prevailing Wind Speed and Direction, and ACF
Measured During the 6/4 OTM-10 Survey at Site A
Time
9:43:01
9:45:33
9:48:05
9:50:36
9:53:07
10:05:49
10:10:50
10:13:21
11:06:37
11:26:52
11:29:25
11:31:57
11:34:28
11:37:04
11:39:33
11:42:05
11:44:36
11:47:08
11:49:41
11:52:13
11:54:45
11:57:16
11:59:48
12:02:21
12:04:53
12:07:23
12:09:56
12:12:29
12:15:15
12:17:32
12:20:07
12:22:36
12:25:07
12:27:39
12:42:53
12:45:24
Methane Flux
(9/8)
3.9
4.2
6.2
7.0
5.3
4.7
4.7
4.6
4.4
5.9
6.7
5.9
4.7
4.9
5.3
5.6
5.4
4.9
4.8
4.6
5.2
5.8
5.8
6.1
4.8
4.3
4.6
6.0
6.9
6.8
5.4
6.2
6.7
5.6
6.4
8.3
Prevailing Wind Direction
(degrees from North)
232
230
219
209
220
225
224
226
227
227
223
222
223
223
219
218
216
224
226
228
225
220
217
215
222
228
224
212
209
211
220
218
219
227
217
209
Prevailing Wind Speed
(m/s)
1.5
1.5
1.7
1.5
1.4
2.3
1.9
2.0
2.5
1.6
1.9
2.4
2.7
2.6
2.5
2.3
2.4
2.5
2.9
2.9
2.8
2.5
2.5
2.2
1.9
1.8
2.2
2.3
2.7
2.7
3.0
2.7
2.3
2.1
1.8
2.2
ACF
(m2)
22644
22644
23178
22644
22377
24780
23712
23979
25314
22911
23712
25047
25848
25581
25314
24780
25047
25314
26382
26382
26115
25314
25314
24513
23712
23445
24513
24780
25848
25848
26649
25848
24780
24246
23445
24513
C-32
-------
Time
12:47:57
12:50:28
13:13:17
13:15:48
13:18:20
13:20:52
13:23:24
13:25:57
13:28:28
13:31:00
13:33:33
13:36:03
13:38:36
13:41:08
13:43:40
13:46:12
13:48:44
13:51:16
13:53:48
14:01:24
14:03:57
14:06:28
14:09:00
14:11:34
14:14:04
14:16:36
14:19:09
14:21:40
14:24:12
14:26:44
14:29:16
14:31:49
14:34:20
14:36:53
14:39:24
14:41:57
14:44:29
Methane Flux
(9/s)
6.0
4.6
5.3
5.4
4.7
5.5
5.5
5.8
6.4
6.5
6.5
5.2
5.4
6.1
5.4
5.8
5.9
5.1
4.4
6.5
5.4
6.6
7.0
8.6
9.0
8.7
7.5
7.0
6.4
6.3
6.9
8.5
7.9
7.9
7.1
6.3
7.0
Prevailing Wind Direction
(degrees from North)
219
225
230
226
230
225
218
210
209
212
214
219
216
206
201
206
214
219
229
217
220
217
210
196
188
191
199
210
220
220
209
202
201
203
204
207
207
Prevailing Wind Speed
(mis)
2.3
2.0
2.3
2.2
2.7
2.6
2.5
2.4
2.4
2.5
2.4
2.4
1.9
1.5
1.4
1.7
1.9
1.9
1.9
2.2
2.8
2.9
3.1
3.0
3.1
2.7
2.7
2.7
2.7
2.2
2.6
2.9
3.3
2.9
2.9
2.6
2.8
ACF
(m2)
24780
23979
24780
24513
25848
25581
25314
25047
25047
25314
25047
25047
23712
22644
22377
23178
23712
23712
23712
24513
26115
26382
26916
26649
26916
25848
25848
25848
25848
24513
25581
26382
27450
26382
26382
25581
26115
C-33
-------
Time
14:47:00
14:49:32
14:52:04
14:54:36
Average
StdDev
Table C-15.
Methane Flux
(9/8)
6.9
8.6
9.5
11
6.7
7.43
Prevailing Wind Direction
(degrees from North)
208
204
199
198
Calculated Methane Flux and Prevailing
Prevailing Wind
(mis)
2.9
3.0
3.3
3.1
2.4
Speed ACF
(m2)
26382
26649
27450
26916
Wind Speed and Direction, and ACF
Measured During the 6/28 OTM-10 Survey at Site B
Time
14:26:26
14:28:59
14:33:33
14:35:31
14:38:04
14:42:05
14:44:35
14:47:11
14:49:44
Average
StdDev
Methane Flux
(9/8)
17
19
21
18
20
24
28
37
39
25
8.35
Prevailing Wind Direction
(degrees from North)
303
296
281
279
279
281
272
264
254
Prevailing Wind
(mis)
4.6
4.8
4.6
4.9
4.7
4.6
4.7
5.2
5.5
4.8
Speed ACF
(m2)
21432
21802
21432
21988
21617
21432
21617
22543
23098
C-34
-------
Table C-16. Calculated Methane Flux and Prevailing Wind Speed and Direction, and ACF
Measured During the 6/30 OTM-10 Survey at Site B
Time
11:35:03
11:47:48
11:50:18
11:52:47
11:55:19
11:57:51
12:00:20
12:04:12
12:09:19
12:34:31
12:37:14
12:39:47
12:42:18
12:44:47
12:47:20
12:49:49
12:52:23
12:54:52
12:57:22
12:59:54
13:02:26
13:04:57
13:07:28
13:09:59
13:12:29
13:15:01
13:17:31
13:20:03
13:22:34
13:25:05
13:27:36
13:30:08
13:32:38
13:35:09
13:37:40
13:40:11
Methane Flux
(9/8)
44
38
72
84
89
82
36
28
54
43
48
72
61
70
69
74
58
66
57
43
52
47
68
66
89
68
63
72
61
71
70
96
82
85
111
123
Prevailing Wind Direction
(degrees from North)
59
17
15
14
12
7
3
5
10
355
353
354
355
357
358
352
350
352
359
1
2
359
358
358
359
1
1
0
355
355
354
355
352
350
351
354
Prevailing Wind Speed
(m/s)
0.9
1.3
1.6
1.4
1.7
1.9
1.8
1.1
1.1
2.1
2.1
2.1
1.9
1.9
1.8
1.9
2.0
2.3
2.6
2.8
2.9
2.8
2.6
2.6
2.8
3.1
3.3
3.3
3.3
3.0
2.9
3.0
3.2
3.2
3.0
2.9
ACF
(m2)
32175
33808
35033
34217
35442
36258
35850
32992
32992
37075
37075
37075
36258
36258
35850
36258
36666
37891
39116
39933
40341
39933
39116
39116
39933
41158
41974
41974
41974
40749
40341
40749
41566
41566
40749
40341
C-35
-------
Time
13:42:42
13:45:13
13:47:45
13:50:16
13:52:46
13:55:18
13:57:47
14:00:19
14:02:50
14:05:21
14:07:51
14:10:23
14:12:54
14:15:24
14:17:57
14:20:26
14:22:58
14:25:28
14:28:01
14:30:30
14:33:02
14:35:33
14:38:06
14:40:36
14:43:06
14:45:37
14:48:07
14:50:40
14:53:10
14:55:41
14:58:15
15:00:42
15:03:14
15:05:44
15:08:16
15:10:49
15:13:18
Methane Flux
(9/s)
162
138
100
71
68
75
61
26
34
42
57
55
47
45
53
55
50
41
37
34
63
59
79
63
58
55
57
56
61
59
64
67
63
67
70
64
106
Prevailing Wind Direction
(degrees from North)
356
354
350
346
346
347
344
339
339
343
348
347
343
342
343
346
344
342
340
340
343
347
350
353
358
2
8
9
9
4
1
355
351
345
343
339
341
Prevailing Wind Speed
(mis)
3.1
3.0
2.8
2.5
2.4
2.4
2.4
2.4
2.3
2.3
2.2
2.1
2.0
2.0
2.0
1.9
1.9
1.9
1.9
1.9
1.9
2.0
2.2
2.4
2.5
2.6
2.7
2.7
3.0
2.9
2.8
2.4
2.3
2.3
2.5
2.7
2.9
ACF
(m2)
41158
40749
39933
38708
38300
38300
38300
38300
37891
37891
37483
37075
36666
36666
36666
36258
36258
36258
36258
36258
36258
36666
37483
38300
38708
39116
39524
39524
40749
40341
39933
38300
37891
37891
38708
39524
40341
C-36
-------
Time
15:15:50
15:18:20
15:46:36
15:49:12
15:51:39
15:54:11
15:56:42
15:59:15
16:01:44
16:04:19
16:06:48
16:09:18
16:11:49
16:14:21
16:16:51
16:19:23
16:21:53
16:24:27
16:26:55
16:29:26
16:31:55
16:34:31
16:36:57
16:39:30
16:42:42
16:44:31
16:47:02
16:49:35
16:52:04
16:54:34
Average
StdDev
Methane Flux
(9/s)
59
70
73
58
58
49
53
46
49
51
61
64
70
64
65
59
51
43
34
34
55
46
55
62
56
61
72
52
44
41
62
21.1
Prevailing Wind Direction
(degrees from North)
347
352
14
13
14
13
13
12
13
12
10
11
16
17
15
10
8
8
5
0
359
360
3
6
9
11
10
8
4
3
Prevailing Wind Speed
(mis)
3.2
3.2
3.5
3.2
3.1
3.0
3.0
2.9
2.9
2.6
2.9
3.2
3.8
3.8
3.4
3.0
2.8
2.8
2.6
2.6
2.6
2.7
2.9
3.0
3.1
3.1
3.1
3.1
3.2
3.2
2.6
ACF
(m2)
41566
41566
42791
41566
41158
40749
40749
40341
40341
39116
40341
41566
44016
44016
42383
40749
39933
39933
39116
39116
39116
39524
40341
40749
41158
41158
41158
41158
41566
41566
C-37
-------
Table C-17. Calculated Methane Flux and Prevailing Wind Speed and Direction, and ACF
Measured During the 7/1 OTM-10 Survey at Site B
Time
9:29:13
9:31:38
9:34:09
9:36:39
9:39:10
9:41:40
9:44:13
9:46:44
9:49:15
9:51:44
9:54:15
9:56:47
9:59:18
10:01:50
10:04:20
10:06:51
10:09:21
10:17:42
10:20:12
10:22:44
10:31:06
10:33:33
10:36:06
10:38:36
10:41:07
10:43:37
11:08:21
11:12:12
11:14:32
11:17:00
11:19:32
11:22:05
11:24:33
11:27:03
11:29:38
11:42:33
Methane Flux
(9/8)
98
96
92
85
107
112
129
127
117
103
106
105
109
81
86
86
103
100
116
114
119
105
113
104
115
118
118
126
125
118
101
106
103
116
110
121
Prevailing Wind Direction
(degrees from North)
60
56
59
57
55
49
43
42
41
40
38
42
47
51
52
56
60
51
51
52
67
63
56
46
46
50
48
50
55
64
70
70
66
67
70
69
Prevailing Wind Speed
(m/s)
3.7
3.3
3.1
3.0
3.7
4.0
4.4
4.4
4.4
4.3
4.6
4.5
4.5
4.0
4.0
4.0
3.8
3.7
3.6
3.6
3.6
3.6
4.0
4.1
4.4
4.4
3.8
4.2
4.6
4.3
4.1
4.2
4.1
4.0
3.8
3.7
ACF
(m2)
43456
41829
41015
40608
43456
44677
46305
46305
46305
45898
47118
46712
46712
44677
44677
44677
43863
43456
43050
43050
43050
43050
44677
45084
46305
46305
43863
45491
47118
45898
45084
45491
45084
44677
43863
43456
C-38
-------
Time
11:45:03
11:47:35
11:50:04
11:52:39
11:55:06
12:04:12
12:31:09
12:33:25
12:37:14
12:39:47
12:43:31
12:46:00
12:48:30
12:51:01
12:53:33
12:56:04
12:58:35
13:01:06
13:03:36
13:06:07
13:08:39
13:11:12
13:13:41
13:16:12
13:18:43
13:21:13
13:32:59
13:35:21
13:37:53
13:40:23
13:42:56
13:45:25
13:47:57
13:50:27
13:52:59
13:55:28
13:58:01
Methane Flux
(9/s)
122
126
114
119
118
98
93
95
88
102
102
126
120
106
101
75
94
84
80
62
78
96
93
81
84
92
112
105
120
131
132
131
148
143
162
128
126
Prevailing Wind Direction
(degrees from North)
60
67
72
76
73
62
57
47
31
30
40
45
69
92
97
78
60
54
61
56
40
44
75
86
83
65
54
63
68
81
83
83
77
71
58
59
67
Prevailing Wind Speed
(mis)
4.0
4.5
4.6
4.3
3.9
3.2
2.5
2.3
2.7
3.2
3.3
2.7
2.4
2.7
3.3
2.6
2.8
2.8
2.5
2.0
2.2
2.5
2.4
2.6
3.1
3.3
3.6
3.5
4.0
4.5
4.6
4.9
4.5
4.0
4.0
4.2
4.6
ACF
(m2)
44677
46712
47118
45898
44270
41422
38574
37760
39388
41422
41829
39388
38167
39388
41829
38981
39795
39795
38574
36540
37353
38574
38167
38981
41015
41829
43050
42643
44677
46712
47118
48339
46712
44677
44677
45491
47118
C-39
-------
Time
14:00:32
14:03:04
14:05:34
14:08:06
14:10:34
14:13:08
14:15:38
14:18:09
14:20:39
14:23:12
14:25:41
14:28:12
14:30:45
14:33:15
14:35:47
14:38:17
14:40:46
14:43:18
14:45:50
14:48:22
14:50:52
14:53:24
14:55:55
14:58:23
15:00:56
15:03:27
15:05:57
15:08:29
15:11:01
15:13:30
15:16:01
15:18:33
15:21:06
15:23:35
15:26:07
15:28:37
15:31:09
Methane Flux
(9/s)
112
108
96
99
98
105
92
98
122
120
105
112
109
128
85
149
134
142
128
113
98
107
104
123
116
126
113
84
84
90
106
102
98
87
80
82
84
Prevailing Wind Direction
(degrees from North)
74
77
67
57
65
84
97
73
57
54
60
54
51
56
67
75
72
66
59
65
73
74
78
75
74
67
71
79
85
87
80
66
50
52
67
77
81
Prevailing Wind Speed
(mis)
4.4
4.1
3.4
3.2
3.2
3.5
3.1
2.5
3.3
4.1
4.0
3.5
3.0
3.3
3.2
3.9
3.7
4.0
3.9
3.6
3.3
2.8
2.6
2.8
3.2
3.6
3.3
2.5
2.1
2.6
2.9
3.1
2.8
2.5
2.4
2.4
2.4
ACF
(m2)
46305
45084
42236
41422
41422
42643
41015
38574
41829
45084
44677
42643
40608
41829
41422
44270
43456
44677
44270
43050
41829
39795
38981
39795
41422
43050
41829
38574
36946
38981
40201
41015
39795
38574
38167
38167
38167
C-40
-------
Time
15:33:38
15:36:10
15:38:40
15:41:12
15:43:41
15:46:14
15:48:45
15:51:15
15:53:47
15:56:17
15:58:48
16:01:20
16:03:51
16:06:21
16:08:55
16:12:47
16:15:12
16:17:43
16:21:30
16:24:01
16:26:31
16:39:23
16:42:10
16:44:40
16:47:02
16:50:09
16:52:44
16:55:32
16:58:02
17:00:37
17:03:06
Average
StdDev
Methane Flux
(9/s)
85
84
99
101
109
84
83
71
86
85
86
80
89
104
113
110
111
112
95
88
95
92
85
83
79
88
92
98
91
99
104
704
77.6
Prevailing Wind Direction
(degrees from North)
82
84
86
86
81
69
45
43
53
70
82
88
78
64
51
59
59
61
58
62
53
66
58
59
65
56
48
39
35
38
40
Prevailing Wind Speed
(mis)
2.1
2.1
2.2
2.1
1.7
1.4
1.5
1.8
1.8
1.7
1.7
1.9
2.2
2.5
2.9
2.8
2.9
2.9
2.8
2.7
2.9
2.1
2.4
2.3
2.3
2.3
2.4
2.8
3.2
3.6
3.6
3.3
ACF
(m2)
36946
36946
37353
36946
35319
34098
34505
35726
35726
35319
35319
36133
37353
38574
40201
39795
40201
40201
39795
39388
40201
36946
38167
37760
37760
37760
38167
39795
41422
43050
43050
C-41
-------
Table C-18. Calculated Methane Flux and Prevailing Wind Speed and Direction, and ACF
Measured During the 8/2 OTM-10 Survey at Site B
Time
13:02:47
13:05:18
13:07:49
13:10:19
13:12:51
13:15:24
13:22:54
13:25:27
13:27:57
13:30:29
13:32:59
13:35:29
13:37:58
13:40:31
13:43:05
13:45:34
13:48:06
13:50:36
13:53:06
13:55:37
13:58:09
14:00:40
14:03:11
14:05:42
14:08:12
14:10:43
14:15:45
14:18:19
14:20:48
14:23:18
14:25:49
14:38:26
14:40:58
14:43:30
15:03:37
15:06:05
Methane Flux
(9/8)
45
25
28
14
8
1
48
126
96
64
49
22
11
25
111
70
49
46
65
66
34
59
36
51
29
22
18
48
73
42
32
10
35
47
35
65
Prevailing Wind Direction
(degrees from North)
76
100
104
126
140
157
15
24
26
18
13
7
357
9
32
55
77
108
86
33
3
13
9
14
16
30
55
47
41
37
35
348
354
355
32
36
Prevailing Wind Speed
(m/s)
1.6
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.4
1.4
1.4
1.8
1.6
1.6
1.4
1.4
1.2
1.6
1.9
1.7
1.4
1.1
0.8
0.9
1.6
2.0
1.6
1.5
1.4
1.2
1.0
1.5
2.2
1.6
1.4
1.7
2.0
1.6
1.2
2.1
ACF
(m2)
34015
32826
32826
32826
33223
33223
33223
34808
34015
34015
33223
33223
32430
34015
35205
34412
33223
32033
30844
31240
34015
35601
34015
33619
33223
32430
31637
33619
36394
34015
33223
34412
35601
34015
32430
35998
C-42
-------
Time
15:08:36
15:11:08
15:13:39
15:16:10
15:18:41
15:21:09
15:23:42
15:26:14
15:31:16
15:33:47
15:38:51
15:41:20
15:43:51
15:46:22
15:48:53
15:51:23
15:53:55
15:56:27
15:58:57
16:01:28
16:03:59
16:06:29
16:09:01
16:11:32
16:14:03
16:16:34
16:19:05
13:02:47
13:05:18
13:07:49
13:10:19
13:12:51
13:15:24
13:22:54
13:25:27
13:27:57
13:30:29
Methane Flux
(9/s)
89
59
48
30
18
24
35
29
13
8
34
46
57
34
22
2
2
35
76
117
61
62
67
70
70
74
77
45
25
28
14
8.2
1.0
48
126
96
64
Prevailing Wind Direction
(degrees from North)
28
21
14
17
28
54
62
70
6
3
22
21
26
20
356
336
338
357
7
9
14
25
37
40
34
29
27
76
100
104
126
140
157
15
24
26
18
Prevailing Wind Speed
(mis)
2.6
2.7
2.4
1.8
1.1
1.0
1.0
0.9
1.0
1.1
1.3
1.9
2.2
2.1
2.1
2.2
2.3
2.5
3.4
3.5
3.2
2.7
2.7
2.6
2.8
2.9
3.0
1.6
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.4
1.4
1.4
1.8
1.6
1.6
ACF
(m2)
37980
38376
37187
34808
32033
31637
31637
31240
31637
32033
32826
35205
36394
35998
35998
36394
36790
37583
41151
41548
40358
38376
38376
37980
38773
39169
39565
34015
32826
32826
32826
33223
33223
33223
34808
34015
34015
C-43
-------
Time
13:32:59
13:35:29
13:37:58
13:40:31
13:43:05
13:45:34
13:48:06
13:50:36
13:53:06
13:55:37
13:58:09
14:00:40
14:03:11
14:05:42
14:08:12
14:10:43
14:15:45
14:18:19
14:20:48
14:23:18
14:25:49
14:38:26
14:40:58
14:43:30
15:03:37
15:06:05
15:08:36
15:11:08
15:13:39
15:16:10
15:18:41
15:21:09
15:23:42
15:26:14
15:31:16
15:33:47
15:38:51
Methane Flux
(9/s)
49
22
11
25
111
70
49
46
65
66
34
59
36
51
29
22
18
48
73
42
32
10
35
47
35
65
89
59
48
30
18
24
35
29
13
8
34
Prevailing Wind Direction
(degrees from North)
13
7
357
9
32
55
77
108
86
33
3
13
9
14
16
30
55
47
41
37
35
348
354
355
32
36
28
21
14
17
28
54
62
70
6
3
22
Prevailing Wind Speed
(mis)
1.4
1.4
1.2
1.6
1.9
1.7
1.4
1.1
0.8
0.9
1.6
2.0
1.6
1.5
1.4
1.2
1.0
1.5
2.2
1.6
1.4
1.7
2.0
1.6
1.2
2.1
2.6
2.7
2.4
1.8
1.1
1.0
1.0
0.9
1.0
1.1
1.3
ACF
(m2)
33223
33223
32430
34015
35205
34412
33223
32033
30844
31240
34015
35601
34015
33619
33223
32430
31637
33619
36394
34015
33223
34412
35601
34015
32430
35998
37980
38376
37187
34808
32033
31637
31637
31240
31637
32033
32826
C-44
-------
Time
15:41:20
15:43:51
15:46:22
15:48:53
15:51:23
15:53:55
15:56:27
15:58:57
16:01:28
16:03:59
16:06:29
16:09:01
16:11:32
16:14:03
16:16:34
16:19:05
Average
Std Dev
Methane Flux
(9/s)
46
57
34
22
2.4
2.6
35
76
117
61
62
67
70
70
74
77
45
27.9
Prevailing Wind Direction
(degrees from North)
21
26
20
356
336
338
357
7
9
14
25
37
40
34
29
27
Prevailing Wind Speed
(mis)
1.9
2.2
2.1
2.1
2.2
2.3
2.5
3.4
3.5
3.2
2.7
2.7
2.6
2.8
2.9
3.0
1.8
ACF
(m2)
35205
36394
35998
35998
36394
36790
37583
41151
41548
40358
38376
38376
37980
38773
39169
39565
C-45
-------
Table C-19. Calculated Methane Flux and Prevailing Wind Speed and Direction, and ACF
Measured During the 8/3 OTM-10 Survey at Site B
Time
12:09:45
12:12:18
12:14:50
12:17:20
12:19:52
12:22:24
12:24:58
12:27:30
12:30:05
12:32:34
12:35:03
12:37:40
12:40:09
12:42:40
12:45:12
12:50:18
12:52:48
12:55:19
12:57:52
13:00:26
13:08:02
13:10:30
13:13:04
13:15:37
13:18:07
13:20:40
13:23:13
13:25:45
13:28:18
13:30:47
13:33:23
13:35:54
13:38:26
13:40:58
13:56:08
13:58:42
Methane Flux
(9/8)
95
76
70
53
71
62
68
38
36
49
91
92
82
62
47
37
53
74
74
37
36
30
19
9
18
23
37
25
33
46
64
59
42
41
33
70
Prevailing Wind Direction
(degrees from North)
74
80
95
114
109
115
100
109
89
68
50
37
37
37
45
58
48
40
38
48
23
15
6
2
6
8
15
17
20
26
41
42
41
28
63
55
Prevailing Wind Speed
(m/s)
2.2
1.9
2.0
2.2
2.2
2.2
2.0
1.4
1.2
1.3
2.1
2.2
2.1
1.5
1.0
1.1
1.5
1.5
1.6
1.1
1.3
1.5
1.8
1.2
1.4
1.5
1.9
1.5
1.2
1.5
1.8
1.6
1.2
1.3
1.1
1.6
ACF
(m2)
35797
34627
35017
35797
35797
35797
35017
32677
31898
32288
35407
35797
35407
33067
31118
31508
33067
33067
33457
31508
32288
33067
34237
31898
32677
33067
34627
33067
31898
33067
34237
33457
31898
32288
31508
33457
C-46
-------
Time
14:01:12
14:03:45
14:06:18
14:08:50
14:11:22
14:13:54
14:16:24
14:18:56
14:21:28
14:24:02
14:26:33
14:29:00
14:31:36
14:34:10
14:36:42
14:39:10
14:41:46
14:44:17
14:46:49
14:49:21
14:51:53
14:54:24
14:56:57
14:59:26
15:02:00
15:04:28
15:07:04
15:09:37
15:12:06
15:14:41
15:17:12
15:19:46
15:22:19
15:24:49
15:27:24
15:29:53
15:32:25
Methane Flux
(9/s)
77
54
62
57
58
31
38
43
63
68
96
114
136
126
117
132
124
134
95
96
102
129
125
91
84
117
142
138
122
107
91
89
82
67
79
105
115
Prevailing Wind Direction
(degrees from North)
44
32
38
43
52
44
60
83
100
118
99
75
60
54
58
64
88
99
110
113
116
108
80
51
27
41
59
74
78
79
82
81
87
67
67
62
72
Prevailing Wind Speed
(mis)
1.8
1.9
1.8
1.7
1.9
1.5
1.5
1.3
1.8
1.4
1.2
1.5
2.3
2.5
2.4
2.5
2.9
3.2
3.2
2.9
2.5
2.4
2.2
2.2
2.8
3.1
3.8
4.3
4.1
3.6
3.5
3.0
2.6
2.0
2.1
2.7
3.0
ACF
(m2)
34237
34627
34237
33847
34627
33067
33067
32288
34237
32677
31898
33067
36187
36967
36577
36967
38526
39696
39696
38526
36967
36577
35797
35797
38136
39306
42036
43985
43206
41256
40866
38916
37357
35017
35407
37747
38916
C-47
-------
Time
15:34:58
15:37:30
15:40:01
15:42:33
15:45:05
15:47:36
15:50:09
15:52:42
15:55:13
15:57:45
16:00:15
16:02:48
Average
Std Dev
Methane Flux
(9/s)
90
75
75
77
73
68
56
69
69
92
98
91
74
32.4
Prevailing Wind Direction
(degrees from North)
80
81
86
88
104
103
95
81
81
83
87
83
Prevailing Wind Speed
(mis)
2.6
2.1
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.3
2.2
2.6
2.7
2.5
2.4
2.0
2.1
ACF
(m2)
37357
35407
35017
35017
35017
36187
35797
37357
37747
36967
36577
35017
C-48
-------
Table C-20. Calculated Methane Flux and Prevailing Wind Speed and Direction, and ACF
Measured During the 8/4 OTM-10 Survey at Site B
Time
14:04:48
14:07:21
14:09:51
14:12:20
14:14:52
14:17:24
14:19:54
14:22:26
14:24:56
14:27:28
14:29:58
14:32:28
14:42:12
14:44:44
14:47:15
14:56:58
14:59:30
15:02:02
15:04:34
15:07:08
15:09:37
15:12:07
15:14:40
15:17:12
15:19:45
15:22:18
15:24:51
15:27:22
15:29:53
15:32:26
15:34:59
15:37:28
15:40:03
15:42:37
15:45:07
15:47:39
Methane Flux
(9/8)
66
65
62
57
56
53
56
58
48
51
55
49
43
45
58
108
109
106
105
104
91
88
93
98
96
89
79
82
81
94
81
95
109
110
87
94
Prevailing Wind Direction
(degrees from North)
218
223
234
246
244
240
230
229
230
230
243
244
257
253
251
231
236
239
241
239
236
228
229
230
237
236
235
231
236
240
244
250
253
251
237
226
Prevailing Wind Speed
(m/s)
4.5
4.6
4.4
4.4
4.3
4.3
4.1
3.7
3.2
3.1
3.0
3.3
3.7
3.7
3.7
3.8
4.2
4.3
4.3
4.1
4.0
4.0
3.7
3.8
3.6
3.6
3.3
3.2
3.2
3.3
3.4
3.5
3.6
3.7
3.6
4.0
ACF
(m2)
53524
53990
53057
53057
52591
52591
51659
49794
47463
46997
46530
47929
49794
49794
49794
50260
52125
52591
52591
51659
51193
51193
49794
50260
49328
49328
47929
47463
47463
47929
48395
48861
49328
49794
49328
51193
C-49
-------
Time
15:50:11
15:52:43
15:55:14
15:57:47
16:00:19
16:02:51
16:05:23
16:07:55
16:10:27
16:13:01
16:15:29
16:18:04
16:20:36
16:23:07
16:25:40
16:28:12
16:30:43
16:33:15
16:35:48
16:38:17
16:40:50
16:43:26
16:45:56
16:48:27
16:51:01
16:53:30
17:05:30
17:08:03
17:10:35
17:13:08
17:15:39
17:18:10
17:20:44
17:23:15
17:25:47
17:28:19
17:30:52
Methane Flux
(9/s)
101
102
109
123
145
125
133
134
144
107
111
97
113
90
80
78
95
104
103
108
105
103
105
131
137
145
93
107
115
127
144
126
128
118
112
104
121
Prevailing Wind Direction
(degrees from North)
222
225
231
235
236
234
226
219
219
226
231
230
226
232
237
242
237
228
223
221
228
230
224
219
216
216
223
226
229
230
221
219
219
233
235
237
227
Prevailing Wind Speed
(mis)
4.2
4.2
4.2
4.4
4.6
4.6
4.7
5.0
4.8
4.5
4.4
4.5
4.6
4.2
3.8
3.4
3.6
4.2
4.8
5.0
4.4
3.9
3.9
4.3
4.7
5.0
4.7
4.5
4.3
3.9
4.0
3.8
3.8
3.8
4.2
4.4
4.5
ACF
(m2)
52125
52125
52125
53057
53990
53990
54456
55855
54922
53524
53057
53524
53990
52125
50260
48395
49328
52125
54922
55855
53057
50726
50726
52591
54456
55855
54456
53524
52591
50726
51193
50260
50260
50260
52125
53057
53524
C-50
-------
Time
17:33:24
17:35:55
17:38:29
17:41:00
17:43:32
17:46:03
17:48:37
17:51:09
17:53:40
Average
StdDev
Methane Flux
(9/s)
140
146
142
150
125
112
120
129
137
101
28.1
Prevailing Wind Direction
(degrees from North)
221
219
220
222
223
219
223
220
221
Prevailing Wind Speed
(mis)
5.0
5.2
5.1
4.4
3.8
3.9
4.3
4.9
5.0
4.1
ACF
(m2)
55855
56787
56321
53057
50260
50726
52591
55389
55855
C-51
-------
Table C-21. Calculated Methane Flux and Prevailing Wind Speed and Direction, and ACF
Measured During the 8/5 OTM-10 Survey at Site B
Time
10:49:48
10:52:23
10:54:52
10:57:23
10:59:56
11:02:29
11:05:00
11:07:32
11:10:04
11:12:36
11:15:06
11:17:40
11:20:11
11:22:45
11:25:17
11:27:46
11:30:20
11:32:53
11:35:21
11:37:57
11:40:25
11:42:59
11:45:33
11:48:00
11:50:36
11:53:09
11:55:39
11:58:12
12:00:43
12:03:16
12:05:48
12:08:21
12:10:53
12:13:24
12:15:56
12:18:28
Methane Flux
(9/8)
207
194
199
95
117
167
162
160
136
149
169
116
173
147
133
159
182
129
162
181
164
76
132
146
160
119
151
245
196
258
82
170
165
184
133
171
Prevailing Wind Direction
(degrees from North)
216
218
213
212
209
210
209
211
213
214
207
206
205
205
199
196
195
195
197
202
200
193
196
206
216
209
208
212
217
219
213
215
212
208
200
202
Prevailing Wind Speed
(m/s)
6.4
6.2
6.5
6.4
6.0
5.5
5.6
5.4
5.7
5.8
6.2
6.4
6.2
6.0
5.8
5.7
5.6
6.2
6.1
5.9
5.4
5.2
5.1
5.0
4.8
4.7
5.0
5.3
5.7
5.4
5.1
4.6
4.7
5.2
6.0
5.6
ACF
(m2)
52741
51953
53135
52741
51164
49193
49588
48799
49982
50376
51953
52741
51953
51164
50376
49982
49588
51953
51558
50770
48799
48011
47617
47223
46434
46040
47223
48405
49982
48799
47617
45646
46040
48011
51164
49588
C-52
-------
Time
12:21:00
12:23:33
12:26:05
12:28:37
12:31:08
12:33:38
12:36:13
12:38:45
12:41:15
12:43:48
12:46:17
12:48:51
12:51:24
12:53:57
12:56:24
12:59:00
13:01:32
13:04:03
13:06:34
13:09:09
13:11:41
13:14:12
13:16:44
13:19:15
13:21:49
13:24:20
13:26:51
13:29:24
13:31:55
13:34:29
13:37:04
13:39:33
13:42:04
13:44:36
13:47:08
13:49:40
13:52:12
Methane Flux
(9/s)
176
171
196
171
143
101
96
106
119
110
142
196
219
241
210
149
70
100
229
249
225
131
134
134
136
127
173
169
138
175
149
186
139
149
135
114
142
Prevailing Wind Direction
(degrees from North)
203
204
203
206
207
207
209
214
217
218
217
206
202
206
217
222
217
218
223
224
216
201
199
205
211
210
206
211
216
219
212
208
213
223
223
222
222
Prevailing Wind Speed
(mis)
5.6
5.5
6.3
5.9
6.1
5.9
6.0
6.2
6.5
6.6
6.0
5.7
5.8
5.6
5.6
5.8
5.9
5.9
5.6
5.9
5.7
6.1
6.6
6.6
7.1
6.9
7.0
6.6
6.6
6.5
6.2
5.6
5.4
6.2
6.9
6.8
6.1
ACF
(m2)
49588
49193
52347
50770
51558
50770
51164
51953
53135
53529
51164
49982
50376
49588
49588
50376
50770
50770
49588
50770
49982
51558
53529
53529
55500
54712
55106
53529
53529
53135
51953
49588
48799
51953
54712
54318
51558
C-53
-------
Time
13:54:45
13:57:16
13:59:48
14:02:21
14:04:51
14:07:26
14:09:56
14:12:28
14:15:00
14:17:29
14:20:04
14:22:39
14:25:09
14:27:40
14:30:12
14:32:44
14:35:16
14:37:49
14:40:21
14:42:52
14:45:21
14:47:54
14:50:26
14:53:01
14:55:33
14:58:03
15:00:34
15:03:07
15:05:39
15:08:13
15:10:45
15:13:13
15:15:47
15:18:19
15:20:52
15:23:24
15:25:54
Methane Flux
(9/s)
141
158
120
116
160
190
196
148
106
92
100
121
181
163
189
158
139
99
91
94
109
86
80
112
141
165
177
141
119
90
111
134
115
99
102
103
81
Prevailing Wind Direction
(degrees from North)
226
224
219
217
220
225
216
202
199
208
220
224
223
218
222
219
216
208
206
205
203
202
203
201
203
199
206
205
209
204
208
208
208
203
201
201
197
Prevailing Wind Speed
(mis)
6.4
7.2
7.9
7.9
7.0
6.3
5.8
6.3
6.6
6.7
6.4
6.2
6.4
6.6
6.3
6.1
6.0
6.9
6.9
7.0
7.2
7.2
7.3
6.7
6.5
6.1
6.0
6.2
6.5
7.0
7.1
6.9
6.0
5.9
5.8
6.0
6.1
ACF
(m2)
52741
55894
58653
58653
55106
52347
50376
52347
53529
53923
52741
51953
52741
53529
52347
51558
51164
54712
54712
55106
55894
55894
56288
53923
53135
51558
51164
51953
53135
55106
55500
54712
51164
50770
50376
51164
51558
C-54
-------
Time
15:28:28
15:31:01
15:33:31
15:36:04
15:38:35
15:41:09
15:43:39
15:46:10
15:48:43
15:51:15
15:53:51
15:56:20
15:58:50
16:01:24
16:03:56
16:06:25
16:09:01
16:11:31
16:14:04
16:16:36
16:19:08
16:21:39
16:24:11
16:26:45
16:29:15
16:31:48
16:34:19
16:36:51
16:41:56
16:44:28
16:47:01
16:49:30
16:52:04
16:54:34
16:57:09
16:59:39
17:02:12
Methane Flux
(9/s)
96
114
159
151
198
180
195
149
168
154
118
116
88
111
123
148
129
142
140
172
130
98
134
131
188
133
136
150
248
134
174
156
177
202
180
136
118
Prevailing Wind Direction
(degrees from North)
193
201
214
220
212
203
202
201
200
198
197
197
195
195
195
201
204
208
209
210
208
198
195
195
200
200
202
201
198
195
198
201
211
214
214
205
196
Prevailing Wind Speed
(mis)
6.5
6.4
6.1
5.9
6.3
7.4
7.8
7.3
6.7
6.6
6.6
6.4
6.0
6.1
6.4
6.8
7.0
6.4
6.8
6.8
6.8
5.8
5.4
6.1
6.8
7.1
7.3
7.8
7.8
7.3
6.6
6.3
6.2
6.3
6.1
5.7
6.0
ACF
(m2)
53135
52741
51558
50770
52347
56683
58259
56288
53923
53529
53529
52741
51164
51558
52741
54318
55106
52741
54318
54318
54318
50376
48799
51558
54318
55500
56288
58259
58259
56288
53529
52347
51953
52347
51558
49982
51164
C-55
-------
Time
17:04:44
17:07:14
17:09:48
17:12:21
17:14:51
17:17:25
17:19:55
17:22:27
17:25:00
17:27:33
17:30:04
17:32:35
17:35:08
Average
StdDev
Methane Flux
(9/s)
91
117
109
110
128
112
150
139
162
169
171
175
173
747
38.29
Prevailing Wind Direction
(degrees from North)
193
200
211
217
213
203
195
196
205
213
213
210
209
Prevailing Wind Speed
(mis)
6.2
6.3
6.4
6.7
6.3
6.1
5.9
6.4
6.4
6.4
5.7
5.7
5.8
6.2
ACF
(m2)
51953
52347
52741
53923
52347
51558
50770
52741
52741
52741
49982
49982
50376
C-56
-------
Table C-22. Calculated Methane Flux and Prevailing Wind Speed and Direction, and ACF
Measured During the 8/10 OTM-10 Survey at Site B
Time
12:11:46
12:14:17
12:16:50
12:19:24
12:21:57
12:24:33
12:27:06
12:29:40
12:32:16
12:34:49
12:37:23
12:39:58
12:42:32
12:45:04
12:47:39
12:50:15
12:52:42
12:55:21
12:57:55
13:00:27
13:03:04
13:05:36
13:08:13
13:10:45
13:13:17
13:15:55
13:18:27
13:21:01
13:23:35
13:26:08
13:28:42
13:31:15
13:33:51
13:36:25
13:38:58
13:41:33
Methane Flux
(9/8)
8.2
10.0
12.0
5.1
4.4
3.7
3.8
2.7
3.0
3.2
3.5
2.7
5.2
3.9
9.3
11.0
6.6
2.9
2.1
2.2
4.8
6.2
6.0
2.9
3.5
3.0
2.8
1.7
2.9
3.3
4.5
3.9
3.9
3.3
2.0
3.4
Prevailing Wind Direction
(degrees from North)
193
193
181
199
219
254
252
258
238
242
225
218
213
215
204
192
191
213
241
243
190
171
164
181
214
245
264
287
284
242
218
192
196
192
193
176
Prevailing Wind Speed
(m/s)
2.4
2.3
2.4
1.6
1.6
2.1
1.7
1.4
1.2
1.4
1.2
1.3
1.5
2.2
2.2
2.1
1.5
1.3
1.1
1.0
1.2
1.7
1.9
1.3
1.4
1.6
1.3
1.2
1.3
1.3
1.6
2.3
2.4
2.6
2.0
1.4
ACF
(m2)
17228
17045
17228
15759
15759
16677
15943
15392
15024
15392
15024
15208
15575
16861
16861
16677
15575
15208
14841
14657
15024
15943
16310
15208
15392
15759
15208
15024
15208
15208
15759
17045
17228
17596
16494
15392
C-57
-------
Time
13:44:07
13:46:41
13:49:14
13:51:47
13:54:23
13:56:57
13:59:30
14:02:06
14:04:41
14:07:13
14:09:47
14:12:20
14:14:51
14:27:36
14:30:07
14:32:42
14:35:15
14:37:50
14:40:26
14:42:57
14:45:32
14:48:06
14:50:39
14:53:13
14:55:48
14:58:22
15:00:56
15:03:29
15:06:03
15:08:37
15:11:13
15:13:46
15:16:19
15:18:52
15:21:28
15:24:02
15:26:35
Methane Flux
(9/s)
3.8
6.7
4.5
4.1
8.2
10.0
13.0
7.1
6.0
5.6
5.8
7.4
7.4
9.2
7.2
5.6
3.2
4.1
4.5
6.9
5.0
7.5
7.9
8.8
9.9
6.9
6.0
8.4
9.4
7.3
5.1
5.0
3.7
3.2
4.3
6.1
6.4
Prevailing Wind Direction
(degrees from North)
160
166
173
173
163
169
173
183
184
193
187
182
176
172
172
170
171
157
179
205
218
215
210
199
206
202
202
195
194
197
214
232
258
259
245
232
224
Prevailing Wind Speed
(mis)
1.5
1.9
1.9
2.1
2.8
3.2
3.2
3.1
2.5
2.0
2.0
2.3
2.7
2.9
2.6
1.8
1.5
1.5
1.9
2.2
2.7
2.3
1.8
1.8
2.3
2.3
2.5
2.7
3.0
3.1
2.3
1.9
1.9
2.0
1.8
2.3
2.6
ACF
(m2)
15575
16310
16310
16677
17963
18697
18697
18514
17412
16494
16494
17045
17779
18146
17596
16126
15575
15575
16310
16861
17779
17045
16126
16126
17045
17045
17412
17779
18330
18514
17045
16310
16310
16494
16126
17045
17596
C-58
-------
Time
15:29:09
15:31:44
15:34:18
15:36:51
15:39:25
15:42:00
15:44:34
15:47:08
15:49:41
15:52:15
15:54:50
15:57:24
15:59:59
16:02:33
16:05:04
16:07:40
16:10:13
16:12:45
16:15:21
16:17:56
16:20:29
16:23:04
16:25:38
16:28:13
16:30:43
16:33:20
16:35:54
16:38:27
16:41:00
16:43:39
16:46:08
16:48:41
16:51:16
Average
StdDev
Methane Flux
(9/s)
5.1
6.8
6.1
4.9
3.7
4.6
4.6
6.7
6.8
11.0
9.7
9.0
6.2
5.5
5.0
7.6
13.0
13.0
8.2
4.5
4.8
4.0
4.1
4.5
5.3
5.8
5.2
5.0
5.3
9.4
12.0
9.3
5.1
5.9
2.64
Prevailing Wind Direction
(degrees from North)
237
239
243
234
227
208
200
183
178
171
172
176
187
195
190
180
173
177
192
205
202
192
188
185
184
177
180
180
185
179
178
184
193
Prevailing Wind Speed
(mis)
2.9
2.4
2.3
1.9
1.9
1.9
2.0
2.5
2.8
3.4
3.6
3.3
3.1
2.8
2.8
2.9
3.1
3.2
2.7
2.6
2.6
2.5
2.4
2.7
3.1
3.3
3.2
3.1
3.0
2.9
2.8
2.7
2.8
2.2
ACF
(m2)
18146
17228
17045
16310
16310
16310
16494
17412
17963
19065
19432
18881
18514
17963
17963
18146
18514
18697
17779
17596
17596
17412
17228
17779
18514
18881
18697
18514
18330
18146
17963
17779
17963
C-59
-------
Table C-23. Calculated Methane Flux and Prevailing Wind Speed and Direction, and ACF
Measured During the 8/11 OTM-10 Survey at Site B
Time
8:57:15
8:59:48
9:02:22
9:04:54
9:07:27
9:10:00
9:12:32
9:15:05
9:17:40
9:20:12
9:22:46
9:25:18
9:27:51
9:30:24
9:32:57
9:35:29
9:38:03
9:40:36
9:43:09
9:45:42
9:48:16
9:50:49
9:53:21
9:55:55
9:58:28
10:01:00
10:03:33
10:06:06
10:08:38
10:11:12
10:13:45
10:16:18
10:18:54
10:21:24
10:23:57
10:26:32
Methane Flux
(9/8)
5.0
6.4
6.3
7.4
7.4
6.9
5.4
5.2
5.5
5.9
4.8
5.3
5.1
5.1
4.6
4.0
4.6
5.0
6.0
7.1
5.5
4.4
4.7
6.6
7.9
6.5
5.0
4.3
4.0
4.0
4.2
4.6
4.6
4.2
3.8
4.7
Prevailing Wind Direction
(degrees from North)
241
238
237
230
227
239
246
249
238
236
246
258
263
251
247
253
260
253
246
235
239
243
248
244
225
219
218
226
222
228
227
236
233
236
238
229
Prevailing Wind Speed
(m/s)
2.8
2.9
2.9
2.7
2.6
2.7
2.7
2.6
2.3
2.4
2.8
3.0
2.8
2.5
2.4
2.7
3.1
3.1
2.9
2.7
2.4
2.3
2.3
2.5
2.8
2.5
2.4
2.3
2.7
2.9
2.9
2.9
2.7
2.6
2.3
2.4
ACF
(m2)
17963
18146
18146
17779
17596
17779
17779
17596
17045
17228
17963
18330
17963
17412
17228
17779
18514
18514
18146
17779
17228
17045
17045
17412
17963
17412
17228
17045
17779
18146
18146
18146
17779
17596
17045
17228
C-60
-------
Time
10:29:03
10:31:37
10:34:10
10:36:41
10:39:16
10:41:48
10:44:21
10:46:54
10:49:27
10:52:00
10:54:33
10:57:03
10:59:39
11:02:12
11:04:45
11:07:18
11:09:51
11:12:24
11:14:56
11:17:30
11:20:03
11:22:36
11:25:09
11:27:42
11:30:15
11:32:48
11:35:22
11:37:54
11:40:27
11:43:00
11:45:33
11:48:07
11:50:40
11:53:13
11:55:46
11:58:19
12:00:52
Methane Flux
(9/s)
4.3
4.3
4.4
4.3
4.2
4.9
5.9
7.0
6.1
6.4
5.4
4.4
4.6
5.1
4.8
4.0
4.3
5.2
6.2
5.2
4.9
4.3
4.5
4.2
4.5
5.6
5.8
5.6
4.5
2.9
3.5
2.8
5.5
4.2
4.6
4.8
4.5
Prevailing Wind Direction
(degrees from North)
234
243
251
262
261
251
240
234
237
229
234
242
254
252
249
230
209
201
202
205
208
215
222
219
214
217
220
227
236
252
251
241
246
243
232
215
221
Prevailing Wind Speed
(mis)
2.3
2.3
2.4
2.5
2.7
2.8
2.9
2.9
2.8
2.7
2.7
2.5
2.7
2.8
2.7
2.5
2.5
3.0
3.3
3.3
3.1
3.1
3.1
3.0
2.9
2.8
3.0
2.8
2.7
2.5
2.2
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.6
2.4
ACF
(m2)
17045
17045
17228
17412
17779
17963
18146
18146
17963
17779
17779
17412
17779
17963
17779
17412
17412
18330
18881
18881
18514
18514
18514
18330
18146
17963
18330
17963
17779
17412
16861
16494
16494
16494
16494
17596
17228
C-61
-------
Time
12:03:23
12:05:58
12:08:34
12:11:04
12:13:37
12:16:10
12:18:43
12:21:16
12:23:49
12:26:22
12:28:55
12:31:28
12:34:01
12:36:34
12:39:07
12:41:36
12:44:13
12:46:46
12:49:18
12:51:51
12:54:25
12:56:58
12:59:31
13:02:06
13:04:37
13:07:05
13:09:43
13:12:14
13:14:50
13:17:20
13:19:55
13:22:28
13:25:01
13:39:51
13:42:24
13:44:56
13:47:27
Methane Flux
(9/s)
3.8
3.8
3.6
3.9
3.5
4.1
4.4
5.2
5.4
5.1
4.3
4.3
4.7
6.1
5.5
5.3
4.5
6.4
6.3
6.7
4.7
5.5
7.4
12
13
9.8
6.6
5.3
6.7
5.9
6.0
5.3
6.0
5.7
3.9
4.6
4.7
Prevailing Wind Direction
(degrees from North)
241
263
270
253
232
218
220
231
232
226
217
223
234
237
228
233
221
216
206
216
231
230
219
197
198
219
242
243
231
214
215
212
216
218
226
222
228
Prevailing Wind Speed
(mis)
2.2
2.4
2.7
2.9
2.8
3.2
3.0
3.2
3.3
3.3
3.2
3.0
2.8
2.8
2.4
2.1
1.9
1.9
2.3
2.6
2.7
2.9
2.7
3.1
2.8
2.5
2.6
2.6
2.2
2.2
2.5
2.9
3.0
2.3
2.1
2.5
2.7
ACF
(m2)
16861
17228
17779
18146
17963
18697
18330
18697
18881
18881
18697
18330
17963
17963
17228
16677
16310
16310
17045
17596
17779
18146
17779
18514
17963
17412
17596
17596
16861
16861
17412
18146
18330
17045
16677
17412
17779
C-62
-------
Time
13:49:59
13:52:32
13:55:04
13:57:36
14:00:07
14:02:40
14:05:14
14:07:44
14:10:17
14:12:47
14:15:22
14:17:52
14:20:24
14:22:57
14:25:29
14:28:00
14:30:33
14:33:03
14:35:37
14:38:10
14:40:38
14:43:12
14:45:42
14:48:14
14:50:49
14:53:18
14:55:50
14:58:24
15:00:56
15:03:28
15:06:00
15:08:32
15:11:04
15:13:36
15:16:09
Average
StdDev
Methane Flux
(9/s)
4.6
4.5
4.0
4.5
4.8
6.2
5.2
4.4
4.0
5.4
5.3
10
9.9
12
7.6
5.4
4.5
3.7
4.4
5.6
6.0
4.9
5.1
5.4
5.8
5.4
5.0
4.4
4.1
4.2
4.8
5.5
5.6
5.2
5.5
5.3
7.56
Prevailing Wind Direction
(degrees from North)
234
240
260
260
263
243
236
240
243
229
211
198
199
196
204
216
239
254
253
253
241
243
231
234
228
224
219
226
239
249
251
242
246
257
254
Prevailing Wind Speed
(mis)
2.5
2.2
2.4
2.7
2.5
2.1
2.0
2.4
2.6
2.6
2.6
2.7
2.7
3.0
2.9
2.6
2.2
2.1
1.8
2.2
2.5
2.7
2.8
2.6
2.8
2.7
2.9
2.6
2.5
2.6
2.8
3.1
3.0
3.1
2.8
2.6
ACF
(m2)
17412
16861
17228
17779
17412
16677
16494
17228
17596
17596
17596
17779
17779
18330
18146
17596
16861
16677
16126
16861
17412
17779
17963
17596
17963
17779
18146
17596
17412
17596
17963
18514
18330
18514
17963
C-63
-------
Table C-24. Calculated Methane Flux and Prevailing Wind Speed and Direction, and ACF
Measured During the 12/7 OTM-10 Survey at Site C
Time
12:46:51
12:49:23
12:51:56
13:20:00
13:22:40
13:25:08
13:27:39
13:30:14
13:32:44
13:35:17
13:37:51
13:40:24
13:44:02
13:46:37
13:50:13
13:52:48
13:55:15
13:57:51
14:00:22
14:02:54
14:05:27
14:07:59
14:10:30
14:13:03
14:15:36
14:18:09
14:20:40
14:23:12
14:25:41
14:28:16
14:30:48
14:33:21
14:35:52
14:38:23
14:40:59
14:43:27
14:47:36
14:50:57
14:53:27
14:58:27
15:00:59
Methane Flux
(9/8)
2.8
2.3
2.7
2.8
3.7
5.6
5.1
6.0
6.7
7.1
7.1
5.4
5.3
4.8
5.0
5.1
6.1
5.7
6.4
4.2
4.3
4.7
5.2
6.9
5.9
6.7
8.9
6.5
5.4
6.7
4.4
4.2
3.5
3.5
3.9
4.3
4.5
3.5
2.5
2.4
3.3
Prevailing Wind Direction
(degrees from North)
230
222
223
221
229
237
242
243
231
221
228
242
250
251
253
255
253
244
242
241
239
229
223
226
240
251
255
250
250
255
263
266
261
261
254
242
235
235
238
236
244
Prevailing Wind Speed
(mis)
2.2
2.5
2.5
2.3
2.6
2.7
2.6
2.2
2.1
2.4
2.7
2.7
2.5
2.5
2.6
2.6
2.4
2.4
2.5
2.4
2.2
2.1
2.4
2.7
2.8
2.7
2.8
2.8
3.0
3.1
2.8
2.9
2.6
2.4
2.3
2.4
2.8
2.7
2.7
2.8
2.9
ACF
(m2)
16991
17546
17546
17176
17731
17916
17731
16991
16805
17361
17916
17916
17546
17546
17731
17731
17361
17361
17546
17361
16991
16805
17361
17916
18101
17916
18101
18101
18471
18656
18101
18286
17731
17361
17176
17361
18101
17916
17916
18101
18286
C-64
-------
Time
15:04:18
15:06:52
15:09:24
15:12:42
15:15:12
15:17:45
15:20:17
15:22:50
15:25:27
15:28:01
15:30:30
15:33:04
15:35:36
15:38:12
15:40:42
15:43:16
15:45:47
15:48:22
15:50:57
15:53:26
15:55:59
15:58:34
16:01:09
16:03:42
16:06:12
16:08:46
16:11:18
16:13:51
16:16:27
16:18:57
16:21:32
16:24:06
16:26:37
16:29:09
Average
StdDev
Methane Flux
(9/s)
3.0
3.3
2.5
2.0
2.5
3.5
3.9
3.8
3.5
4.9
6.2
5.8
5.6
5.9
6.1
4.5
3.9
4.9
5.4
5.5
4.7
6.7
5.8
6.4
8.3
7.9
5.6
4.0
2.4
2.6
2.2
2.5
2.0
2.4
4.7
1.64
Prevailing Wind Direction
(degrees from North)
253
261
264
267
263
256
248
247
247
240
238
240
247
252
253
254
256
253
252
247
253
251
252
248
249
247
250
265
274
275
273
278
291
297
Prevailing Wind Speed
(mis)
2.7
2.5
2.4
2.7
3.0
3.0
3.1
3.0
2.9
3.1
3.4
3.7
3.7
3.5
3.3
3.3
3.8
4.0
3.9
3.3
3.0
3.0
3.2
3.0
3.0
2.5
2.0
1.7
1.8
2.0
1.8
1.6
1.3
1.5
2.7
ACF
(m2)
17916
17546
17361
17916
18471
18471
18656
18471
18286
18656
19211
19767
19767
19397
19026
19026
19952
20322
20137
19026
18471
18471
18841
18471
18471
17546
16620
16065
16250
16620
16250
15880
15325
15695
C-65
-------
Table C-25. Calculated Methane Flux and Prevailing Wind Speed and Direction, and ACF
Measured During the 12/8 OTM-10 Survey at Site C
Time
8:44:39
8:47:27
8:50:53
8:53:25
8:56:24
9:10:41
9:13:13
9:15:45
9:18:17
9:29:30
9:33:10
9:35:42
9:38:14
9:40:46
9:48:21
9:59:13
10:02:28
10:05:00
10:07:32
10:10:06
10:12:37
10:15:09
10:17:40
10:20:12
10:22:44
10:25:17
10:29:08
10:31:41
10:34:13
10:38:05
10:40:36
10:43:09
10:45:40
10:48:12
10:50:45
10:53:17
Methane Flux
(9/8)
2.9
2.9
3.7
3.8
3.7
2.6
3.1
2.4
3.9
1.9
1.6
1.8
2.0
1.8
2.1
2.3
2.1
2.3
2.9
2.8
2.4
2.7
3.1
2.3
2.7
2.7
3.8
3.3
4.3
4.3
4.2
3.6
4.0
4.3
3.5
3.1
Prevailing Wind Direction
(degrees from North)
72
73
78
82
85
57
56
58
64
52
42
44
43
38
38
52
51
50
53
50
48
45
48
46
46
44
46
48
52
58
58
57
57
55
48
42
Prevailing Wind Speed
(m/s)
2.0
2.0
2.1
2.2
2.3
2.5
2.5
2.7
2.9
2.6
2.6
2.7
2.8
2.8
2.9
3.3
3.0
3.0
2.9
3.3
3.4
3.5
3.5
3.4
3.5
3.7
4.1
4.2
4.4
4.5
4.5
4.4
4.4
4.7
4.5
4.8
ACF
(m2)
16620
16620
16805
16991
17176
17546
17546
17916
18286
17731
17731
17916
18101
18101
18286
19026
18471
18471
18286
19026
19211
19397
19397
19211
19397
19767
20507
20692
21062
21247
21247
21062
21062
21617
21247
21802
C-66
-------
Time
10:55:49
10:58:21
11:00:52
11:03:25
11:05:55
11:08:29
11:11:03
11:13:32
11:16:05
11:18:37
11:21:09
11:23:40
11:26:12
11:28:45
11:31:17
11:33:49
11:36:20
11:38:54
11:41:25
11:43:59
11:46:29
11:49:01
11:51:31
11:54:04
11:56:35
11:59:04
12:01:40
12:04:14
12:06:45
12:09:19
12:11:49
12:14:20
12:16:53
12:19:23
12:21:56
12:24:29
12:27:00
Methane Flux
(9/s)
2.9
3.5
3.8
4.3
5.8
3.9
5.1
2.8
3.1
3.8
4.7
4.6
4.3
5.5
6.0
5.8
8.0
5.5
5.2
4.1
4.2
4.8
4.6
4.8
5.1
4.4
3.5
3.9
4.9
4.6
5.8
5.0
4.2
3.3
4.3
6.9
5.8
Prevailing Wind Direction
(degrees from North)
37
41
47
53
55
52
53
51
51
52
54
55
52
50
50
51
52
53
55
57
56
56
58
61
61
60
61
66
66
65
58
55
49
48
50
52
50
Prevailing Wind Speed
(mis)
4.2
3.9
3.5
3.8
3.9
3.8
3.6
3.6
3.6
3.6
3.7
3.6
3.3
3.1
3.3
3.8
4.0
3.9
3.4
3.0
2.8
3.0
3.0
3.3
3.4
3.5
3.6
3.2
3.1
2.8
2.9
2.8
2.9
2.8
3.0
3.1
3.5
ACF
(m2)
20692
20137
19397
19952
20137
19952
19582
19582
19582
19582
19767
19582
19026
18656
19026
19952
20322
20137
19211
18471
18101
18471
18471
19026
19211
19397
19582
18841
18656
18101
18286
18101
18286
18101
18471
18656
19397
C-67
-------
Time
12:29:33
12:32:04
12:32:04
12:34:37
12:37:09
12:39:41
12:42:13
12:44:44
12:47:17
12:49:48
12:52:20
12:54:51
12:57:24
12:59:57
13:02:29
13:05:01
13:07:31
13:10:05
13:12:37
13:15:08
13:17:41
13:20:13
13:22:46
13:25:18
13:27:49
13:30:21
13:32:53
13:35:26
13:37:56
13:40:30
13:43:01
13:45:32
13:48:06
13:50:36
13:53:08
13:55:41
13:58:13
Methane Flux
(9/s)
4.2
5.2
5.2
4.9
5.3
5.0
4.2
4.8
4.9
5.0
4.3
3.4
5.3
6.0
7.9
6.9
7.0
4.3
5.1
7.3
6.1
4.7
3.8
3.4
4.1
5.1
7.9
8.0
10.0
7.1
8.2
7.3
9.3
8.9
6.3
4.8
5.6
Prevailing Wind Direction
(degrees from North)
46
46
46
50
50
49
46
50
51
49
46
43
47
48
49
48
48
47
50
54
54
53
50
49
50
54
62
61
58
56
54
54
52
53
54
55
56
Prevailing Wind Speed
(mis)
3.5
3.9
3.9
3.7
3.7
3.5
3.6
3.7
3.7
3.8
3.9
3.9
3.8
4.1
4.5
5.0
5.3
5.3
5.2
4.6
4.1
3.5
3.4
3.6
3.8
3.6
3.7
4.3
4.9
4.5
3.7
3.6
4.0
4.3
3.9
3.5
3.4
ACF
(m2)
19397
20137
19767
19767
19397
19582
19767
19767
19952
20137
20137
19952
20507
21247
22173
22728
22728
22543
21432
20507
19397
19211
19582
19952
19582
19767
20877
21988
21247
19767
19582
20322
20877
20137
19397
19211
19952
C-68
-------
Time
14:00:45
14:03:17
14:05:48
14:08:20
14:21:49
14:25:09
14:27:39
14:32:46
14:35:19
14:37:50
14:40:23
14:42:53
14:45:26
14:48:48
14:50:30
14:53:03
14:55:33
14:58:06
15:00:36
15:03:10
15:05:44
15:08:13
15:10:44
15:13:18
15:15:50
15:18:29
15:21:02
15:23:33
15:26:13
15:28:45
15:31:16
15:33:48
15:36:20
15:38:51
15:41:25
15:43:58
15:46:30
Methane Flux
(9/s)
4.3
5.1
3.0
2.3
2.2
2.1
2.0
2.4
2.5
4.4
4.3
4.3
2.5
2.5
2.9
2.4
3.0
3.6
3.9
5.1
5.9
4.2
2.5
1.9
1.7
2.1
3.8
5.4
6.3
6.4
5.8
5.0
3.4
2.5
2.2
3.6
3.0
Prevailing Wind Direction
(degrees from North)
52
51
46
44
38
38
39
39
39
44
42
45
44
42
40
40
44
48
55
62
58
51
44
39
37
41
50
57
61
58
56
52
48
42
38
39
41
Prevailing Wind Speed
(mis)
3.8
4.0
3.6
2.7
2.6
2.8
2.9
2.9
2.8
3.1
3.3
3.5
3.3
3.3
2.9
2.6
2.5
2.3
2.3
2.2
2.7
2.7
2.8
2.5
2.2
2.0
1.9
1.9
2.1
2.3
2.6
2.8
2.8
3.2
3.2
2.9
2.5
ACF
(m2)
20322
19582
17916
17731
18101
18286
18286
18101
18656
19026
19397
19026
19026
18286
17731
17546
17176
17176
16991
17916
17916
18101
17546
16991
16620
16435
16435
16805
17176
17731
18101
18101
18841
18841
18286
17546
17731
C-69
-------
Time
15:49:00
15:51:31
15:54:06
15:56:36
15:59:08
16:01:41
16:04:14
16:06:46
16:09:18
16:11:48
16:14:22
Average
StdDev
Table C-26.
Time
15:48:19
15:50:51
15:53:23
15:55:54
16:16:13
16:18:45
16:21:17
16:23:48
16:26:21
Average
StdDev
Methane Flux
(9/s)
3.2
2.9
4.3
3.7
2.9
2.0
2.5
3.5
4.1
3.0
2.1
4.2
1.67
Prevailing Wind Direction
(degrees from North)
46
50
54
54
48
45
45
45
45
43
41
Prevailing Wind
(mis)
2.6
3.0
2.8
2.5
2.2
2.3
2.4
2.6
2.8
2.8
2.7
3.3
Speed ACF
(m2)
18471
18101
17546
16991
17176
17361
17731
18101
18101
17916
16620
Calculated Methane Flux and Prevailing Wind Speed and Direction, and ACF
Measured During the 4/22 OTM-10 Survey at Site C
Methane Flux
(9/8)
2.1
3.5
3.2
1.6
4.6
3.3
2.5
1.2
1.6
2.6
1.11
Prevailing Wind Direction
(degrees from North)
262
299
305
311
276
314
322
315
322
Prevailing Wind
(mis)
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.0
1.5
2.3
2.9
2.5
2.0
1.8
Speed ACF
(m2)
34932
35365
35797
34500
36662
40120
42714
40985
38823
C-70
-------
Table C-27. Calculated Methane Flux and Prevailing Wind Speed and Direction, and ACF
Measured During the 4/23 OTM-10 Survey at Site C
Time
10:20:07
10:22:39
10:25:10
10:27:42
10:30:15
10:32:47
11:15:51
11:18:23
11:20:56
11:23:27
11:25:59
11:28:32
11:43:45
11:46:17
11:48:48
11:51:20
11:53:53
11:56:25
12:01:28
12:04:00
12:06:33
12:14:08
12:16:41
12:19:13
12:21:46
12:24:16
12:26:48
12:29:21
12:31:53
12:34:25
12:36:56
12:39:29
12:42:01
12:44:33
12:47:05
13:14:57
Methane Flux
(9/8)
6.4
6.6
7.8
8.3
7.4
6.1
7.9
13
8.5
7.7
6.4
5.0
4.4
5.2
5.9
6.2
6.5
6.6
6.9
6.7
5.6
8.3
10
11
13
14
14
18
18
14
12
9.2
6.8
10
6.1
5.5
Prevailing Wind Direction
(degrees from North)
245
245
252
256
260
259
256
291
311
316
318
324
321
291
283
258
250
247
249
246
252
247
258
263
274
283
289
291
288
282
282
287
302
314
325
321
Prevailing Wind Speed
(m/s)
1.0
1.0
1.1
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.3
1.4
1.6
1.6
1.5
1.4
1.1
1.0
1.1
1.2
1.2
1.1
1.2
1.2
1.0
1.6
1.9
1.9
1.9
1.8
1.9
1.8
1.8
1.6
1.4
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.1
1.1
ACF
(m2)
34500
34500
34932
34500
34500
34500
35797
36229
37094
37094
36662
36229
34932
34500
34932
35365
35365
34932
35365
35365
34500
37094
38391
38391
38391
37959
38391
37959
37959
37094
36229
34500
34500
34500
34932
34932
C-71
-------
Time
13:17:31
13:20:02
13:55:30
13:58:01
14:00:34
14:03:06
14:05:38
14:08:09
14:10:41
14:13:14
14:15:46
14:18:18
14:20:49
14:23:21
14:25:54
14:28:26
14:30:57
14:38:34
14:41:06
14:43:37
14:51:14
14:53:46
14:56:17
14:58:50
15:01:22
Average
StdDev
Methane Flux
(9/s)
7.8
5.0
6.4
8.2
11
10
12
5.8
6.6
9.3
8.1
7.5
8.5
6.8
7.0
5.4
4.2
5.0
5.5
4.6
4.8
6.4
6.4
5.3
4.0
8.0
3.18
Prevailing Wind Direction
(degrees from North)
305
260
247
251
253
256
261
258
258
255
256
266
285
310
315
317
313
277
282
304
297
269
263
278
306
Prevailing Wind Speed
(mis)
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.1
1.2
1.1
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.1
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.2
1.3
1.1
1.0
1.2
ACF
(m2)
34500
34500
34500
34500
34500
34500
34500
34500
34500
34932
35365
34932
34500
34500
34500
34932
34500
34500
34500
34500
34500
35365
35797
34932
34500
C-72
-------
Table C-28. Calculated Methane Flux and Prevailing Wind Speed and Direction, and ACF
Measured During the 4/28 OTM-10 Survey at Site C
Time
11:25:05
11:29:21
11:31:51
11:34:19
11:36:52
11:39:21
11:41:52
11:44:21
11:46:51
11:49:23
11:51:51
11:54:24
11:56:52
11:59:21
12:01:53
12:04:22
12:06:51
12:09:21
12:11:52
12:14:21
12:16:53
12:19:22
12:21:52
12:24:21
12:26:52
12:29:22
12:31:51
12:34:22
12:36:51
12:39:21
12:41:53
12:44:21
12:46:51
12:49:22
12:51:52
12:54:21
Methane Flux
(g/s)
3.5
2.8
3.3
3.1
3.5
4.8
5.2
5.2
4.4
5.3
4.7
4.4
3.9
3.6
3.9
4.4
4.8
4.3
4.4
4.2
4.0
3.9
3.7
3.0
1.8
2.4
3.8
5.1
5.4
4.4
3.9
3.8
4.5
5.4
5.5
5.5
Prevailing Wind Direction
(degrees from North)
329
335
332
334
330
326
319
318
320
320
319
317
324
330
334
324
322
318
324
320
318
314
307
304
304
307
300
293
293
297
294
295
288
297
305
310
Prevailing Wind Speed
(m/s)
5.6
5.6
5.9
5.4
5.7
6.0
7.1
6.8
6.9
6.4
6.3
6.1
6.1
5.9
6.3
6.0
6.5
6.1
6.3
5.7
5.1
5.1
4.9
4.8
3.4
2.9
4.1
5.5
6.2
5.3
4.8
4.8
5.4
6.1
6.4
6.6
ACF
(m2)
58297
58297
59687
57370
58760
60150
65247
63857
64321
62004
61540
60614
60614
59687
61540
60150
62467
60614
61540
58760
55980
55980
55053
54589
48102
45785
51346
57833
61077
56906
54589
54589
57370
60614
62004
62930
C-73
-------
Time
12:56:52
12:59:21
13:01:52
13:04:21
13:06:51
13:09:21
13:11:52
13:14:21
13:16:51
13:19:22
13:21:49
13:24:23
13:26:52
13:29:12
13:36:38
13:39:08
13:41:38
13:48:55
13:51:25
13:53:57
13:56:28
13:58:59
14:01:30
14:04:00
14:06:32
14:09:02
14:11:33
14:14:04
14:16:36
14:19:05
14:21:37
14:24:07
14:31:40
14:34:09
14:36:42
14:39:12
14:41:43
Methane Flux
(9/s)
4.8
4.3
3.9
4.4
5.2
5.5
5.2
3.9
3.5
2.6
3.5
3.1
3.5
4.2
4.8
2.7
2.0
3.7
4.3
4.3
4.5
4.8
4.1
3.2
2.1
2.8
4.5
4.4
3.3
0.8
0.6
0.4
3.0
3.3
4.3
4.2
4.1
Prevailing Wind Direction
(degrees from North)
308
297
282
275
276
282
286
283
277
275
270
266
264
273
285
291
294
313
312
308
307
310
314
310
305
305
302
292
288
289
302
291
265
280
296
295
290
Prevailing Wind Speed
(mis)
5.4
4.9
4.6
5.9
6.8
6.6
6.0
4.6
4.0
3.2
4.1
4.6
5.2
5.4
6.2
6.5
6.6
7.0
6.6
6.0
5.9
5.7
5.5
4.6
4.5
4.7
5.0
4.7
3.9
2.4
1.6
1.1
5.0
4.6
5.5
5.7
6.1
ACF
(m2)
57370
55053
53663
59687
63857
62930
60150
53663
50882
47175
51346
53663
56443
57370
61077
62467
62930
64784
62930
60150
59687
58760
57833
53663
53199
54126
55516
54126
50419
43468
39761
37444
55516
53663
57833
58760
60614
C-74
-------
Time
14:44:13
14:46:45
14:49:17
14:51:46
14:54:19
14:56:47
14:59:18
15:01:50
15:04:19
15:06:52
15:09:21
15:11:52
15:14:24
15:16:54
15:19:25
15:21:56
15:28:45
15:31:17
15:33:48
15:50:45
16:44:45
16:48:09
16:50:39
16:53:12
16:55:44
16:58:15
Average
StdDev
Methane Flux
(9/s)
3.7
3.9
4.0
4.5
5.0
5.3
4.8
3.9
3.7
3.6
3.3
3.3
3.8
4.1
3.3
2.8
3.7
4.3
4.7
2.5
5.8
4.4
4.2
4.1
4.0
4.4
3.9
7.02
Prevailing Wind Direction
(degrees from North)
282
282
291
296
292
286
281
279
283
295
303
306
302
305
306
294
271
267
265
291
297
294
287
273
276
297
Prevailing Wind Speed
(mis)
5.4
5.4
5.5
6.1
7.2
6.9
6.3
5.1
4.8
4.9
4.9
5.2
5.4
5.6
5.0
4.5
5.6
6.1
6.0
2.3
6.3
5.2
4.7
4.6
4.5
5.0
5.3
ACF
(m2)
57370
57370
57833
60614
65711
64321
61540
55980
54589
55053
55053
56443
57370
58297
55516
53199
58297
60614
60150
43005
61540
56443
54126
53663
53199
55516
C-75
-------
Table C-29. Calculated Methane Flux and Prevailing Wind Speed and Direction, and ACF
Measured During the 4/30 OTM-10 Survey at Site C
Time
11:26:25
11:28:57
11:31:28
11:34:00
11:36:33
11:39:05
11:41:36
11:44:08
11:46:40
11:49:13
11:51:45
11:54:16
11:56:48
11:59:20
12:01:53
12:04:24
12:06:56
12:09:29
12:12:00
12:14:33
12:17:04
12:19:36
12:22:09
12:24:41
12:27:13
12:29:44
12:32:18
12:34:49
12:37:21
12:39:53
12:42:25
12:44:57
12:47:29
12:50:00
12:52:32
12:55:05
12:57:36
13:29:46
13:32:15
14:12:46
14:23:58
Methane Flux
(9/8)
21
19
20
19
21
22
23
22
22
21
21
20
19
19
18
19
20
23
24
23
18
16
15
17
19
22
22
23
21
20
17
18
18
17
17
17
18
19
20
20
20
Prevailing Wind Direction
(degrees from North)
237
239
239
239
240
240
239
235
235
234
237
239
233
233
230
234
229
229
233
238
233
223
213
213
216
220
228
231
226
221
215
226
235
241
227
216
208
216
217
239
247
Prevailing Wind Speed
(mis)
4.6
4.0
4.1
3.9
4.5
4.7
5.1
4.9
4.8
4.4
4.5
4.2
4.1
3.8
3.7
3.8
4.0
4.6
4.7
4.7
4.1
3.6
3.4
3.9
4.3
4.5
4.1
4.3
4.2
4.3
3.9
3.9
3.9
3.8
3.9
4.3
4.5
4.4
4.4
4.6
4.8
ACF
(m2)
53587
50811
51273
50348
53124
54050
55901
54975
54512
52661
53124
51736
51273
49885
49422
49885
50811
53587
54050
54050
51273
48960
48034
50348
52199
53124
51273
52199
51736
52199
50348
50348
50348
49885
50348
52199
53124
52661
52661
53587
54512
C-76
-------
Time
14:26:26
14:29:02
14:31:32
14:34:05
14:36:38
14:39:10
15:03:38
15:06:08
15:08:42
15:28:32
15:33:11
15:35:43
15:38:13
15:40:46
15:43:18
15:45:49
15:48:23
15:50:54
15:53:28
15:55:59
15:58:33
16:01:03
16:03:36
16:06:06
16:08:39
16:11:09
16:13:44
16:16:13
16:18:45
16:21:16
16:23:49
Average
StdDev
Methane Flux
(9/s)
20
18
18
18
17
14
15
18
18
15
13
14
15
15
15
17
17
19
19
19
19
19
20
18
17
13
14
14
17
18
21
18
2.58
Prevailing Wind Direction
(degrees from North)
249
249
231
220
219
217
237
248
252
213
203
199
201
202
198
199
197
206
211
211
207
206
210
210
211
206
211
212
219
219
226
Prevailing Wind Speed
(mis)
4.5
4.1
4.0
4.2
4.1
3.3
3.7
4.5
4.4
3.5
3.3
3.7
3.8
3.7
4.0
4.6
4.5
4.6
4.5
4.8
4.9
5.0
5.2
4.7
4.2
3.5
3.3
3.3
3.9
4.3
4.6
4.2
ACF
(m2)
53124
51273
50811
51736
51273
47571
49422
53124
52661
48497
47571
49422
49885
49422
50811
53587
53124
53587
53124
54512
54975
55438
56363
54050
51736
48497
47571
47571
50348
52199
53587
C-77
-------
Table C-30. Calculated Methane Flux and Prevailing Wind Speed and Direction, and ACF
Measured During the 5/5 OTM-10 Survey at Site C
Time
15:54:24
15:56:56
15:59:28
16:02:00
Average
StdDev
Methane Flux
(9/8)
0.88
0.69
0.64
0.31
0.63
0.237
Prevailing Wind Direction
(degrees from North)
252
252
247
238
Prevailing Wind Speed
(m/s)
2.9
3.2
2.4
1.7
2.6
ACF
(m2)
36991
38114
35119
32498
C-78
-------
Table C-31. Calculated Methane Flux and Prevailing Wind Speed and Direction, and ACF
Measured During the 5/6 OTM-10 Survey at Site C
Time
9:22:13
9:25:17
9:44:31
9:47:06
9:49:39
10:36:57
10:39:30
10:42:02
10:44:36
10:57:21
10:59:54
11:02:26
11:05:00
11:07:33
11:15:12
11:17:44
11:20:18
11:22:50
11:25:23
11:27:57
11:30:30
11:33:02
11:35:36
11:38:08
11:40:42
11:43:14
11:50:53
11:53:27
11:55:59
11:58:33
12:01:07
12:03:38
12:06:12
12:08:45
12:11:21
12:13:51
Methane Flux
(9/8)
1.9
1.9
2.5
2.6
2.5
1.7
1.9
1.8
1.6
1.5
1.8
2.0
1.0
0.80
0.74
0.91
0.87
1.3
0.78
0.75
0.93
1.0
0.91
1.1
1.2
0.80
1.3
0.86
0.56
0.63
0.70
1.0
0.62
0.61
0.79
0.78
Prevailing Wind Direction
(degrees from North)
235
235
233
233
236
237
240
239
238
243
247
243
238
234
245
254
263
254
241
236
238
246
249
252
249
235
239
250
260
266
268
265
261
249
249
250
Prevailing Wind Speed
(m/s)
1.7
1.8
2.1
2.0
2.1
2.8
2.8
3.0
3.1
3.2
3.0
2.9
3.0
3.0
2.9
2.8
2.7
2.7
2.9
2.9
3.4
3.1
3.2
2.7
3.0
3.1
3.1
2.9
2.9
3.1
3.1
2.9
2.6
2.6
2.8
3.1
ACF
(m2)
20574
20811
21522
21285
21522
23181
23181
23655
23892
24129
23655
23418
23655
23655
23418
23181
22944
22944
23418
23418
24603
23892
24129
22944
23655
23892
23892
23418
23418
23892
23892
23418
22707
22707
23181
23892
C-79
-------
Time
12:16:22
12:18:57
12:21:30
12:24:03
12:26:36
12:29:12
12:36:50
12:39:22
12:41:54
12:44:30
12:47:00
12:49:34
12:52:06
12:54:39
12:57:12
12:59:46
13:02:18
13:04:52
13:07:29
13:09:57
13:12:30
13:15:03
13:17:36
13:20:08
13:22:43
13:25:15
13:27:54
13:42:12
13:45:00
13:47:33
13:55:12
13:57:45
14:00:18
14:02:51
14:05:24
14:07:57
14:10:30
Methane Flux
(9/s)
0.78
0.56
0.67
0.72
0.75
1.3
1.2
0.61
0.36
0.39
0.42
0.47
1.1
0.80
0.67
0.48
0.41
0.34
0.40
0.45
0.42
0.37
0.39
0.58
0.49
0.37
0.32
0.71
0.31
0.30
1.0
0.64
0.42
0.24
0.27
0.35
0.51
Prevailing Wind Direction
(degrees from North)
253
245
239
240
242
240
235
243
247
247
257
259
256
249
254
267
274
269
251
243
234
233
247
261
263
255
256
288
296
258
237
249
285
302
303
278
279
Prevailing Wind Speed
(mis)
3.2
3.1
3.4
3.2
2.9
2.4
3.4
2.7
2.0
1.6
1.5
1.8
2.5
3.3
3.6
3.2
2.6
2.1
1.9
2.1
2.3
2.0
2.1
2.0
2.2
1.9
1.5
1.8
2.0
1.8
2.6
2.4
1.5
1.7
1.6
1.8
2.3
ACF
(m2)
24129
23892
24603
24129
23418
22233
24603
22944
21285
20337
20100
20811
22470
24366
25077
24129
22707
21522
21048
21522
21996
21285
21522
21285
21759
21048
20100
20811
21285
20811
22707
22233
20100
20574
20337
20811
21996
C-80
-------
Time
14:13:03
14:15:36
14:18:09
14:20:42
14:23:16
14:25:47
14:28:22
14:30:52
14:33:25
Average
StdDev
Methane Flux
(9/s)
0.75
0.56
0.35
0.57
0.62
0.81
0.59
1.1
0.88
0.87
0.538
Prevailing Wind Direction
(degrees from North)
273
284
269
279
266
284
283
271
251
Prevailing Wind Speed
(mis)
2.5
2.2
1.6
1.7
1.8
1.6
1.5
2.2
2.5
2.5
ACF
(m2)
22470
21759
20337
20574
20811
20337
20100
21759
22470
C-81
-------
Table C-32. Calculated Methane Flux and Prevailing Wind Speed and Direction, and ACF
Measured During the 5/7 OTM-10 Survey at Site C
Time
11:58:45
12:01:16
12:36:29
12:39:01
12:41:32
12:49:05
12:51:37
12:54:08
12:56:38
12:59:09
13:01:41
13:04:12
13:06:41
13:09:15
13:11:44
13:14:13
13:16:46
13:19:15
13:21:48
13:24:19
13:26:53
13:29:21
13:31:52
13:34:23
13:36:54
13:39:25
13:41:56
13:44:26
13:46:58
13:49:30
13:52:03
13:54:31
13:57:00
13:59:33
14:02:04
14:04:36
Methane Flux
(9/8)
1.1
1.5
1.7
1.8
1.3
1.6
2.3
2.6
2.3
2.1
2.2
2.1
2.0
1.7
2.1
2.5
2.4
2.8
2.5
2.0
1.9
2.1
2.4
2.7
2.4
2.6
2.4
2.7
2.0
2.2
2.1
2.5
2.5
2.4
2.0
2.3
Prevailing Wind Direction
(degrees from North)
123
131
114
132
143
166
166
158
162
144
144
140
153
154
142
130
129
125
121
125
137
139
137
135
149
154
157
142
141
144
158
162
162
155
149
148
Prevailing Wind Speed
(m/s)
1.0
1.0
2.3
2.3
1.4
1.7
2.5
2.4
2.1
1.8
2.3
2.3
2.0
1.4
1.9
2.8
3.6
3.2
2.7
1.8
1.9
2.3
2.4
2.6
2.1
2.4
2.6
3.5
3.7
3.5
3.2
3.2
3.6
3.5
3.4
2.9
ACF
(m2)
33776
33776
39278
39278
35469
36739
40124
39701
38432
37162
39278
39278
38008
35469
37585
41394
44780
43087
40971
37162
37585
39278
39701
40548
38432
39701
40548
44357
45203
44357
43087
43087
44780
44357
43934
41817
C-82
-------
Time
14:07:04
14:09:37
14:12:09
14:14:40
14:17:08
14:19:41
14:22:12
14:24:42
14:27:15
14:29:46
14:32:16
14:34:50
14:37:15
14:39:50
14:42:20
14:44:51
14:49:53
14:52:26
14:54:56
Average
StdDev
Methane Flux
(9/s)
2.3
2.6
2.8
3.0
2.7
2.4
2.1
2.1
2.2
2.0
2.1
2.0
2.8
3.1
2.8
2.4
2.9
2.3
2.1
2.3
0.411
Prevailing Wind Direction
(degrees from North)
147
135
133
125
135
147
160
170
168
172
168
165
157
149
167
186
171
155
154
Prevailing Wind Speed
(mis)
2.8
3.0
3.6
4.1
3.6
3.3
2.9
3.3
3.4
3.9
3.9
3.7
3.9
3.7
3.6
3.5
3.3
3.1
3.1
2.8
ACF
(m2)
41394
42241
44780
46896
44780
43510
41817
43510
43934
46050
46050
45203
46050
45203
44780
44357
43510
42664
42664
C-83
-------
This page intentionally left black.
C-84
-------
APPENDIX D
Sample Calculations of Methane Emission Factors and
Measurement Uncertainty
The following sections describe the method used for calculating the methane emission factors, and
measurement uncertainty for all measurement campaigns during the project. The example calculations
are performed using data collected during the Fall 2009 measurement campaign at Site A. Table C-l
presents a sample of the methane emission flux, wind speed, and wind direction collected during the
measurements conducted on November 17, 2009.
Table D-l. Sample of Methane Flux, Wind Speed, and Wind Direction Data Collected During the
November 17, 2009 OTM-10 Survey at Site A
Time
13:47:24
Methane Flux (g/s)
7.1
Wind Speed
(mis)
2.2
Wind Direction
(deg)
69
Length of OTM-10
Plane
(m)
115
As shown in Figure 2-1 of the document, the upwind area contributing to the measured flux (ACF) was
located on the flat surface of the cell being surveyed. As discussed in Section 1.7, the first step in
calculating the corresponding methane emission factor is to calculate the ACF value. The ACF is defined
using the following equation:
ACF(m2) = J/2 [(Length to 0% mass capture) *(length of the OTM10 plane]
(D-l)
The Length to 0% mass capture is calculated using the following equation when the OTM 10 plane is
configured to capture emissions from a flat surface area:
Length to 0% mass capture (m) = [(0.102)*(WS) + 0.712]/ 0.0031
(D-2)
Where:
WS = the average prevailing wind speed (in m/s) during the measurement period.
In order to calculate a methane emission factor value that incorporates the error associated with the
calculation of ACF, the standard error coefficient of 5.10 X 10"4 associated with the calculation of the
Length to 0% mass capture (Thoma et al., 2010) is incorporated into Equation C-2 as follows:
Length to 0% mass capture (m) = [(0.102)*(WS) + 0.712]/[0.0031 ± 0.000510]
(D-3)
D-l
-------
Using the data presented in Table D-l and Equation D-3, the lower and upper bounds of the Length to 0%
mass capture value are calculated (259.4 meters and 361.5 meters, respectively). These values are inserted
into Equation D-l to yield the lower and upper bounds of the ACF value (14,915 m2 and 20,788 m2,
respectively).
In order to calculate the lower and upper bounds of the methane emission factor value, the measured flux
(7.1 g/s) is converted to units of grams per day, and divided by the lower and upper bound ACF values,
yielding lower and upper bound values of 29.5 and 41.1 grams/day/m2, respectively.
In order to incorporate the uncertainty associated with the methane flux measurement of ± 20%, the
following equations are applied to calculate the overall lower and upper bound of the emission factor
values:
Overall lower bound methane emission factor (grams/day/m2) = 29.5 - (0.2*29.5) = 23.6 grams/day/m2
Overall upper bound methane emission factor (grams/day/m2) = 41.1 + (0.2*41.1) = 49.4 grams/day/m2
The average methane emission factor, incorporating error associated with the ACF calculation and
uncertainty associated with the flux measurement is the average of the overall lower and upper bound
methane emission factor values, which is 36.5 grams/day/m2. The methane emission factor values
calculated from data acquired each day are averaged to yield a daily average methane emission factor.
In order to calculate the uncertainty associated with the calculation of the average methane emission
factor from each site, it is necessary to consider the fact that a different number of measurements were
collected on each day of a campaign at a particular site. This is important in assessing the
representativeness of the emission factor calculated for each site.
During the Fall 2009 campaign at Site A, the following average daily methane emission factor values (in
units of g/day/m2) were calculated:
{51,43,36,37,54}
The average methane emission factor for the site was found by averaging the five daily average methane
emission factor values (44 g/day/m2). The uncertainty in the average site methane emission factor is
found by first calculating the standard error of the five daily average methane emission factor values
(3.624914), and multiplying this value by the ^-distribution critical value for a 95% confidence interval
based on four degrees of freedom (2.776). The result of this calculation yields an uncertainty value of
± 10 g/day/m2.
D-2
------- |