Quantifying Uncontrolled Landfill Gas Emissions from Two Florida ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

ecoveries for the total mercury samples were 98.2 percent. Total mercury concentrations in the landfill gas at Site #2 ranged from 36 to 47 ng/m 3 with an average of 43 ng/m 3 for all of the samples. Spike recoveries for the total mercury samples were not performed at Site #2. During the October 2007 field campaign, total mercury concentrations in the landfill gas at Site #1 ranged from 21,700 to 25,800 ng/m 3 with an average of 24,500 ng/m 3 for all of the samples. Spike recoveries for the total mercury samples were 102 percent. Total mercury concentrations in the landfill gas at Site #2 ranged from 109 to 526 ng/m 3 with an average of 352 ng/m 3 for all of the samples. There is almost 5 times difference in the total mercury results for Site 1 between the February and October sampling dates (5,022 in February versus 25,400 ng/m 3 in October). For site 2, the difference in total mercury results between February and October is about 6 times higher (43 versus 270 ng/m 3 ). The collection technique and equipment were the same during both sampling campaigns. Spike recoveries for total mercury during both sampling periods were acceptable and showed no degradation or loss of mercury. There was a difference in the analytical method that was used to evaluate the samples between February and the October 2007. The February matrix spike analysis was performed by adding a known amount of mercury to the sample after sampling and leaching (i.e., Method 1631). This post-leaching type of spiking does not assess any potential losses of mercury from sampling, matrix interferences, or the wet leaching procedure. To account for potential mercury losses from sampling or matrix interferences, EPA developed EPA Method 30B, “Determination of Mercury from Coal-Fired Combustion Sources using Carbon Sorbent Traps”. This method requires additional replicates and QA/QC that helps to account for any potential losses of mercury from sampling and matrix interferences. Method 30B is being used for power plants and other mercury sources to demonstrate performance of mercury continuous emission monitors. Therefore, in the October 2007 field sampling campaign, the thermal decomposition mercury analysis technique. Sampling included a prespiked iodated carbon tube traps spiked with elemental mercury and were used to assess matrix recovery at Site #1. Results for the thermal decomposition mercury analysis matrix spike recovery were 102%. The results for total mercury analysis from the October sampling are thought to be more reliable because of the additional QA/QC requirements to account for mercury loss during sampling and analysis. Dimethyl mercury concentrations in the landfill gas at Site #1 ranged from 1.22 to 2.65 ng/m 3 with an average of 1.91 ng/m 3 . Dimethyl mercury concentrations in the landfill gas at Site #2 ranged from 0.69 to 9.19 ng/m 3 with an average of 5.66 ng/m 3 . Spike recoveries for the dimethyl mercury traps were 13.9 percent for Site #1 and 1.9 percent for Site #2. Un-sampled spike traps had recoveries from 87.4 to 89.9 percent with an average of 88.7 percent. Recoveries for the spiked/sampled traps were significantly lower than the acceptance criteria of 50 to 150 percent established in the project QAPP. This is possibly due to the presence of an unknown interfering compound either destroying or masking the detection of the dimethyl mercury. For this reason, all of the dimethyl mercury results from this campaign must be labeled as suspect. Oversampling was performed by the ARCADIS personnel performing the sampling. Sampling was performed at approximated 10 times the necessary volume to collect a valid sample. 4-3
Monomethyl mercury concentrations in the Site #1 gas ranged from 11.2 to 12.4 ng/m 3 with an average of 11.8 ng/m 3 . Monomethyl mercury concentrations in the Site #2 gas ranged from 0.06 to 0.31 ng/m 3 with an average of 0.16 ng/m 3 . Site #1 matrix spike recoveries for the monomethyl samples were 25.7 percent. Spike recoveries for un-sampled impinger solution ranged from 88 to 90 percent with an average of 89 percent. The Site #2 matrix spike recovery for the monomethyl sample was 62.6 percent. Spike recoveries for un-sampled impinger solution ranged from 91 to 102 percent with an average of 97 percent. The lower recoveries may have been due to a preservation issue with the shipping or possible matrix interference as seen in the matrix spike. Elemental mercury concentrations for Site #1 ranged from 3,090 to 3,440 ng/m 3 with an average of 3,270 ng/m 3 for all of the samples. Elemental mercury concentrations at Site #2 ranged from 22 to 64 ng/m 3 with an average of 47 ng/m 3 . 4-4
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 and 32: corners of the cell, respectively.
Page 33 and 34: 2.2.3 Background Measurements Backg
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 57 and 58: Table 3-17. Calculated Methane Flux
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: The surveys also found significant
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 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 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 117 and 118: Table C-11. Methane Concentrations
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?