1 / 26

Landfill Gas Monitoring Well Functionality at 20 California Landfills

Landfill Gas Monitoring Well Functionality at 20 California Landfills . presented by: Raymond Huff, R.E.A. SCS Engineers July 15, 2008. Objectives. Determine Functionality of Gas Migration Monitoring Probes

kaz
Download Presentation

Landfill Gas Monitoring Well Functionality at 20 California Landfills

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. Landfill Gas Monitoring Well Functionality at 20 California Landfills presented by: Raymond Huff, R.E.A. SCS Engineers July 15, 2008

  2. Objectives • Determine Functionality of Gas Migration Monitoring Probes • Is monitoring data collected representative of actual soil gas conditions in vicinity of the probe • Based on Findings, Recommend Enhancements to Existing Regulations

  3. Approach • 20 Landfills selected for inclusion in study • 10 in northern California • Clovis, Ukiah, Crazy Horse, Kiefer, Corral Hollow, Hillside, Buena Vista, Anderson, Redding/Benton, Red Bluff • 10 in southern California • Azusa, Bradley, City of HB, Olinda Alpha, Coyote Canyon, Upland, Milliken, South Chollas, South Miramar, Otay Landfill • 10 probes per site • A probe is a single monitoring point that may be located within a well containing multiple depth probes. • 190 Probes in study • 10 probes removed from study because their construction was outside of limits of the equipment (e.g. >100 feet deep)

  4. Functionality Assessment Overview • Pre-Assessment Activities • Initial Condition Assessment • Gas Monitoring • Vacuum Testing • Video Borescope Inspection • Lithology Evaluation

  5. Pre-Assessment Activities • Pre-Notification and On-Site Arrival • Landfill operator notified prior to assessment • Selection of Gas Probes • Determined on-site • Based on age, depth, and accessibility • Ambient Condition Assessment • Ambient atmospheric conditions recorded • Weather, barometric pressure, temperature, wind speed/direction • Recordkeeping

  6. Initial Condition Assessment • Location Assessment • Available site maps were cross-checked against field location of probe • Probe Identification Assessment • Individual probes should be easily identifiable • Probehead Assembly Assessment • Gas monitoring port on every probe • Allows initial pressure monitoring • Surface Emissions Monitoring • Assessment of wellhead completion and seal

  7. Gas Monitoring Assessment • Initial Pressure Readings • Probes with significant variation from ambient (e.g. <> 0 pressure) assumed to be functional • LFG Monitoring • CH4, CO2, O2, CO, and H2S • Ambient Oxygen Analysis • Probes with ambient (e.g. >20%) O2 may be subject to ambient air intrusion • Depth Trend Analysis • Generally, O2 should decrease with depth and CO2 should increase • Methane Concentration • Used to verify functionality more than non-functionality

  8. Vacuum Testing • Known vacuum applied to each probe • Vacuum change over time (e.g. recovery) recorded • 120 second recovery period • Readings every 30 seconds

  9. Video Borescope Inspection • Downhole video logging of each probe in study • Visual inspection of probe integrity and construction • Video data compared to probe construction logs

  10. Lithology Evaluation • Video verified screened intervals compared to lithology logs • For closed landfills §20925(c)(1)(D) indicates that probe screened intervals should be placed, “preferentially adjacent to soils which are most conducive to gas flow”

  11. Findings – Initial Conditions • Location • 1 out of 190 probes incorrectly marked on map • Identification • 15 out of 190 probes difficult to identify • Probehead Assembly • 10 out of 190 were missing caps • Surface Emissions Monitoring • 16 out of 190 had some surface emissions

  12. Initial Conditions

  13. Findings – Gas Monitoring • Initial Pressure • 113 out of 190 probes had 0 pressure • LFG Monitoring • No H2S or CO detected • Some ambient O2 levels • Ambient Oxygen Analysis • 37 out of 190 probes had ambient (>20%) O2 levels • Depth Trend Analysis • 21 out of 75 wells had increasing O2 with depth • Methane Concentration • 23 out of 190 probes had CH4 >5%* *Note: Not all probes included in study were perimeter compliance probes

  14. Findings – Vacuum Testing • Vacuum recovery better for determining functionality, as opposed to determining non-functionality • Significant number of probes had quick vacuum recovery • Not necessarily indicative of a non-functional probe • Probes screened in highly permeable zone would recover quickly • No vacuum recovery indicative of clogged/flooded probe.

  15. Findings – Video Borescope • Probe Construction Observations • Screened interval verification • Pipe connection observation • Threaded vs. screwed couplings • Probe Obstruction Observations • Soil, roots, insects, paper • Construction materials • Bentonite, nails, PVC shavings

  16. Probe Construction Observations

  17. Probe Obstruction Observations

  18. Findings – Lithology Evaluation • Probes generally screened in coarse-grained lithologies • At sites where probes were screened in finer-grained lithologies, no more coarse-grained lithologies were present.

  19. Functionality Determination • “Functional” for this study was based on a combination of observations including condition and location of screens, general condition of well and probe, presence of ambient air in the probe, flooding, and other factors. • Some probes identified as non-functional may easily be deemed “functional” with minimal effort • Change probehead assembly • Additional construction verification • Review of historic readings

  20. Functionality Determination • 32% (61 out of 190) probes determined to be non-functional • Non-functional as determined by this study • 12 probes identified as “indeterminate” • Additional data needed to determine functionality • 117 probes identified as functional

  21. Conclusions • Probe Identification • Proper labels are necessary for valid probe monitoring • Although 25 out of 190 were not properly labeled, only 4 of these were mis-labeled • Surface Emissions • Generally surface emissions around the wells were not found to be of issue

  22. Conclusions (cont.) • Probe Construction • Use of screws for pipe coupling is questionable • Probe wellheads were generally designed to function, with a few exceptions • Depth to water and screened interval should be taken into account when designing/constructing probes • Durability of Materials • With limited exceptions, probe construction materials identified in this study were adequate • PVC, etc.

  23. Recommendations • Probe identification • Individually labeled probes • Well ID • Relative depth (S, M, D) • Screened interval • Example: MP-1-S, 7-10’ • Probes should be constructed with longer screened sections • Covers lithology and reduces possibility for biofouling

  24. Recommendations (cont.) • Probe Assembly • Threaded coupling preferred over slip-coupling and screwed/glued connections • Exceptions noted for wellhead • Probehead assemblies should contain a non-proprietary locking valve (labcock valve, quick connect, etc.) • Probes should be preferentially located away from dense vegetation • Avoid root intrusion where possible

  25. Recommendations (cont.) • Development of a standard probe specification/construction detail • Length of screened interval, wellhead completion, etc. • Require certification of installed probes post-installation, not just during drilling • Include rationale for mid-depth probe placement based on lithology • Perform periodic (appx. Every 10 years) of probes in order to verify functionality

  26. QuestionsandAnswers

More Related