Quantifying Uncontrolled Landfill Gas Emissions from Two Florida ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

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. 5.2 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 Analysis Method Accuracy Precision Acceptance Criterion (%Bias/Recovery) Completeness (%) Methane PIC OP-TDLAS ±20% ±20% Not applicable 90 Analyte PIC OP-FTIR: Nitrous Oxide Concentrations Ambient Wind Speed Ambient Wind Direction Distance Measurement R.M. Young Met heads postdeployment calibration in EPA Metrology Lab R.M. Young Met heads postdeployment calibration in EPA Metrology Lab ±25%, ±15%, 10%* ±10% Not applicable 90 ±1 m/s ±1 m/s Not applicable 90 ±10º ±10º Not applicable 90 Theodolite- Topcon ±1m ±1m Not applicable 100 Beam angle Theodolite- Topcon ±0.1º ±0.1º Not applicable 100 Mercury concentrations Lumex Mercury Analyzer ±25% ±25% Not applicable 90 Total Mercury Frontier Geosciences Not applicable ±20% 50-150 90 Organo- Mercury Frontier Geosciences Not applicable ±20% 50-150 90 VOCs EPA Method TO-15 Not applicable ±20% 50-150 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. 5.2.1 DQI Check for Methane PIC Measurement with OP-TDLAS The Boreal GasFinder 2.0 OP-TDLAS provides an R 2 value for each concentration measurement. The R 2 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 (R 2 ) between the sample and reference waveforms. 5-2
The R 2 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 R 2 values, and the corresponding accuracy of the measurement. Table 5-3. Accuracy of Concentration Measurements for Different R 2 Value R 2 Measurement Accuracy (%) > 0.95 ± 2 0.9 ± 5 0.7 ± 10 0.5 ± 15 0.4 ± 20 0.3 ± 25 0.15 ± 50 0.1 ± 70 < 0.05 ± 100 The R 2 value of each data point (measured methane concentration) was analyzed to assess whether or not it met the DQI criterion for accuracy of ±20 percent, which corresponds to an R 2 value of greater than 0.4. A total of 21,467 data points were analyzed, and 16,509 met the DQI criteria for accuracy, for a total completeness of 77 percent. This value did not meet the project DQI criteria of 80-percent completeness. The precision of the OP-TDLAS methane concentration measurements was assessed by comparing consecutive methane concentration values measured along the same beam path. Methane path-averaged concentration data values were collected with the OP-TDLAS instrument and input into the VRPM algorithm 5.2.2 DQI Check for Analyte PIC Measurement with OP-FTIR The precision and accuracy of the analyte path-integrated concentration (PIC) measurements collected with the OP-FTIR instrument was assessed by analyzing the measured nitrous oxide concentrations in the atmosphere. A typical background atmospheric concentration for nitrous oxide is about 315 ppb. However, this value may fluctuate due to seasonal variations in nitrous oxide concentrations or elevation of the site. The precision of the analyte PIC measurements was evaluated by calculating the relative standard deviation of each data subset. A subset is defined as the data collected along one particular path length during one particular survey in one survey sub-area. The number of data points in a data subset depends on the number of cycles used in a particular survey. The accuracy of the analyte PIC measurements was evaluated by comparing the calculated nitrous oxide concentrations from each data subsets to the typical background concentration of 5-3
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 and 80: The surveys also found significant
Page 81 and 82: Monomethyl mercury concentrations i
Page 83: 5.1 Equipment Calibration Chapter 5
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?