Quantifying Uncontrolled Landfill Gas Emissions from Two Florida ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

2.2.2 Bioreactor Cell The bioreactor cell was located on the northern side of landfill Site #2 (see Figure 1-2). ORS measurements were collected in this cell on February 23 and 24. The bioreactor cell was an active cell, and a soil cover had been recently placed over the surface. Although this cell was classified as a bioreactor cell, according to the site operators, leachate had not been injected into the cell in several months due to excessive rainfall in the area. The VRPM configuration consisted of a scanning OP-FTIR instrument, a scanning OP-TDLAS instrument, and two vertical structures. The OP-FTIR was deployed in the northeastern corner of the cell, the OP TDLAS was deployed in the southwestern corner of the cell, and the two vertical structures were deployed in the northwestern and southeastern corners of the cell, respectively. Figure 2-6 presents a schematic of the measurement configuration used in the bioreactor cell, showing the distances of the VRPM planes. The dashed yellow lines depict the location of the four VRPM measurement planes. The dashed red line indicates the location of the configuration used to collect background measurements at the site. Figure 2-7 shows a photo of the measurement configuration. Figure 2-6. Schematic of measurement configuration at the control cell of Site #2 Figure 2-7. Detail of the measurement configuration at the control cell of Site #2 2-5
2.2.3 Background Measurements Background methane concentration measurements were collected at Site #2 on February 25 using the OP-TDLAS instrument. The measurements were collected at a location south of the control cell, upwind of the landfill cells at the site. The data collected were used to establish an average background methane concentration at the site. 2.3 Total and Speciated Mercury Sampling During the February 2007 field campaign, the total mercury samples (THg) were collected using an iodated charcoal trap as a sorbent. A backup tube was also present to assess any breakthrough. The sorbent tube was heated to above the dew point of the gas stream to prevent condensation on the sorbent. Water vapor from the stream was collected and quantified using a silica gel impinger. A diaphragm air pump was used to pull sample through the train and collect the sample. The volume of gas sampled was monitored and quantified using a volatile organic sampling train (VOST) box. The sample flow rate was nominally 0.8 liters/minute for 37.5 minutes, which equates to a total volume of approximately 30 liters. The traps were returned to the lab where the iodated carbon is leached of collected Hg using hotrefluxing HNO3/H2SO4 and then further oxidized by a 0.01 N BrCl solution. The digested and oxidized leachate sample was analyzed using the FGS-069 CVAFS total Hg analysis method (which served as the basis for U.S. EPA Method 1631, developed, authored, and validated by Frontier Geosciences). During the October 2007 field campaign, carbon tube samples taken from the landfills were analyzed by a modified SW-846 Method 7473, “Mercury in Solids and Solutions by Thermal Decomposition, Mercury Amalgamation, and Atomic Adsorption Spectroscopy” and CFR Part 60 Method 30B, “Determination of Total Vapor Phase Mercury Emissions from Coal-Fired Combustion Sources Using Carbon Sorbent Tubes.” Samples were analyzed using a Lumex RA 915+ Zeeman spectrometer with a RP-M324 decomposition furnace attachment cell. No mercury amalgamation was necessary due to the sensitivity of the instrument. The iodated carbon samples were loaded into a quartz combustion boat and inserted into a decomposition furnace at 775 °C. The mercury species were converted to elemental mercury and detected by the Zeeman atomic adsorption spectrometer. The analyzer was calibrated using NIST certified 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 and the elemental mercury is pulled through the glassware system onto the iodated carbon. The elemental mercury spike was used to assess the recovery the mercury from the carbon tubes. Dimethyl mercury (DMM) was sampled using a slightly different technique. A Carbotrap was used as a sorbent, with a backup tube to assess any breakthrough. A third iodated carbon trap was also present to collect any elemental mercury present. The sorbent tube was heated to a temperature above the dew point of the gas stream to prevent condensation on the sorbent. Water vapor from the stream was collected and quantified using a silica gel impinger. A diaphragm air pump was used to pull the sample through the train and collect the sample. The volume of gas sampled was monitored and quantified using a volatile organic sampling train (VOST) box. The sample flow rate was nominally 0.35 liters/minute for a total volume of approximately 0.5 liters. 2-6
Page 1 and 2: Quantifying Uncontrolled Landfill G
Page 3 and 4: Foreword The U.S. Environmental Pro
Page 5 and 6: 3.1.3 Total Site Methane Emissions
Page 7 and 8: List of Tables Table 1-1. Target Co
Page 9 and 10: Table 3-28. Calculated Methane Flux
Page 11 and 12: Table C-6. Methane Concentrations (
Page 13 and 14: List of Figures Figure 1-1. Map of
Page 15 and 16: Executive Summary Waste decompositi
Page 17 and 18: This page intentionally left blank.
Page 19 and 20: instrument (IMACC, Inc.). Figures 1
Page 21 and 22: Figure 1-3. Scanning Boreal GasFind
Page 23 and 24: wind direction data are collected n
Page 25 and 26: adsorption spectrometer. The analyz
Page 27 and 28: Table 1-2. Schedule of Work Perform
Page 29 and 30: Figure 2-2. Detail of measurement c
Page 31: corners of the cell, respectively.
Page 35 and 36: This page intentionally left blank.
Page 37 and 38: was aligned on the mirror targets i
Page 39 and 40: methane concentrations measured alo
Page 41 and 42: Figure 3-3 Summary of ORS measureme
Page 43 and 44: Table 3-5. Calculated methane flux
Page 45 and 46: Table 3-7. Calculated methane flux
Page 47 and 48: cell to the base. The following equ
Page 49 and 50: Table 3-9. Results of TO-15 analysi
Page 51 and 52: Table 3-10. Results of C1 to C6 and
Page 53 and 54: Table 3-14. Monomethyl Mercury Conc
Page 55 and 56: 3.2 Landfill Site #2 3.2.1 Control
Page 63 and 64: 3.2.2 Bioreactor Cell 3.2.2.1 Febru
Page 69 and 70: Based on the calculations presented
Page 71 and 72: Table 3-34. Results for C1 to C6 an
Page 73 and 74: Table 3-38. Monomethyl Mercury Conc
Page 75 and 76: 3.3 Gas and Mercury Sampling Result
Page 77 and 78: Site #1 with a level of 83 ppmv. Th
Page 79 and 80: The surveys also found significant
Page 81 and 82: Monomethyl mercury concentrations i
Page 83 and 84:
5.1 Equipment Calibration Chapter 5
Page 85 and 86:
The R 2 value was used to assess th
Page 87 and 88:
the measured path-integrated methan
Page 89 and 90:
5.2.7 DQI Check of Total Mercury Sa
Page 91 and 92:
Site #1 5.4 Site #2 77.9 Completene
Page 93 and 94:
This page intentionally left blank.
Page 95 and 96:
U.S. Environmental Protection Agenc
Page 97 and 98:
d f e c b PDCs Y X a 2 12( y)( z) (
Page 99 and 100:
When the VRPM configuration consist
Page 101 and 102:
This page intentionally left blank.
Page 103 and 104:
Table B-3. Distance, and Horizontal
Page 105 and 106:
Table B-7. Distance, and Horizontal
Page 107 and 108:
APPENDIX C Path-Averaged Methane Co
Page 109 and 110:
Table C-3. Methane Concentrations (
Page 111 and 112:
Page 113 and 114:
Page 115 and 116:
Page 117 and 118:
Table C-11. Methane Concentrations
Page 119 and 120:
Page 121 and 122:
Page 123 and 124:
Page 125 and 126:
Page 127 and 128:
show all

Quantifying Uncontrolled Landfill Gas Emissions from Two Florida ...

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?