THÔNG TIN TÀI LIỆU
14 ENGINEERING GEOLOGY/Ground Water Monitoring at Solid Waste Landfills Chai J C, Shen S L, Zhu H h, and Zhang X L (2004) Land susbidence due to groundwater drawdown in Shanghai Geotechnique, LIV 2: 143 148 Cooper AH (1989) Airborne multispectral scanning of sub sidence caused by Permian gypsum dissolution at Ripon, North Yorkshire QJEG 23: 219 239 Evans WB, Wilson AA, Taylor BJ, and Price D (1968) Geology of the Country around Macclesfield, Congleton, Crewe and Middlewich London: Institute of Geological Sciences, HMSO Leddra MJ and Jones ME (1990) Influence of increased effective stress on the permeability of chalks under hydro carbon reervoir conditions In: Proceedings International Chalk Symposium, Brighton, Thomas Telford, London, pp 253 260 Lofgren BN (1979) Changes in aquifer system properties with groundwater depletion In: Saxene SK (ed.) Evalu ation an Prediction of Subsidence Proc Speciality Conf Am Soc Civil Engineers, Gainsville, pp 26 47 Price DG (1989) The collapse of the Heidegroeve: a case history of subsidence over abandoned mine workings in Cretaceous calcarenites In: Proceedings International Chalk Symposium, Brighton, Thomas Telford, London, pp 503 509 Wassmann TH (1980) Mining subsidence in Twente, east Netherlands Geologie en Mijnbouw 59: 225 231 Ground Water Monitoring at Solid Waste Landfills J W Oneacre and D Figueras, BFI, Houston, TX, USA fingerprinting discrete sources, and passive sampling using dedicated sondes ß 2005, Published by Elsevier Ltd Free Carbon Dioxide [CO2] Determination Introduction Subpart E of the Subtitle D regulations in the USA require substantial ground water monitoring at municipal solid waste landfills [MSWLF] Owners and operators must adequately define the geological and hydrogeological conditions and must develop a sampling and analysis plan that includes statistical analysis of the geochemical data These regulations and causes of ground water variability at MSWLFs are discussed in the Further Reading Section at the end of this article Causes for variability include inadequate site characterization, improper well design, drilling, development, and sampling, laboratory artefacts, and misapplication of statistical methods Under 258.54(a)(1)(2) of the Federal regulations and Texas Administrative Code [TAC] 330.234 (a)(1)(2), the executive director may delete any constituent that the owner can document is not reasonably expected to be in or derived from the waste Also, the director can establish an alternative list of inorganic indicator constituents in lieu of some or all of the heavy metals if the alternative constituents provide a reliable indication of inorganic releases from the MSWLF unit to the groundwater This paper presents and proposes several alternative and innovative methods for groundwater monitoring specific to MSWLFs, that the authors believe can meet the regulatory criteria and be cost-effective These methods include free carbon dioxide determination for landfill gas impact, thermal surveys for gas and/or leachate migration, stable isotope analyses for The various phases of gas formation in MSWLFs are presented in Figure Four phases exist and are designated as: Phase I, Aerobic; Phase II, Anaerobic NonMethanogenic; Phase III, Anaerobic Methanogenic Unsteady; and Phase IV, Anaerobic Methanogenic Steady During Phase II, CO2 blooms to 50% and 90% by volume From this peak, CO2 decreases to about 30% to 50% during Phase IV Although CO2 concentration in water is less than mg l at one atmosphere, enrichment to groundwater occurs due to the concentration of CO2 in landfill gas CO2 is much more soluble in water than methane [CH4], 1700 mgl compared to about 50 mg l; therefore, as the CO2 gas Figure Phases of landfill gas formation (after Farquhar and Rovers (1973))
Ngày đăng: 26/10/2022, 10:42
Xem thêm: