Laserfiche WebLink
were developed from the combined datasets.WIAC surveyed five codisposal sites and 70 MSW- <br /> only sites.The WIAC toluene and benzene data were separately analyzed by disposal site type. <br /> No significant differences were found between types of disposal sites for other compounds with <br /> one exception.Carbon tetrachloride was detected at one codisposal site but at none of the MSW- <br /> only disposal sites.The WIAC value for carbon tetrachloride includes the codisposal sites as <br /> these had only a slight effect on the calculated value.The value is reported in Table 2 as a <br /> `nondetect'with a footnote indicating that it was found at one codisposal site. <br /> Data Summary <br /> The WIAC results are compared with AP-42 default concentrations in Table 2.WIAC 1 and 2 <br /> show the data prepared using past AP-42 and WIAC updated averaging methods,respectively <br /> (see Data Averaging above).The WIAC 1 and 2 concentrations are similarly reduced from AP-42 <br /> values by 761/6 and 80%,respectively.However simple alkane and alcohol compounds for which <br /> relatively few analyses were available disproportionately skewed the results.Omitting these <br /> compounds shows identical 56%overall reductions.Nearly identical reductions are also noted for <br /> aromatic(58%)and chlorinated(79%)compounds.Even though the AP-42 and WIAC averaging <br /> methods do not have any large overall effect,the two methods did lead to very significant <br /> differences for individual compounds(e.g.,note those for 1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane). <br /> Discussion <br /> AP-42 and WIAC Differences <br /> The differences between the AP-42 default values and the WIAC survey results may be,traced to , <br /> various factors.It was noted above that there are differences in the age of analyses between:the <br /> AP-42 and WIAC data sets.Trends in LFG constituents have been well documented an&ate <br /> addressed in the next section.Apart from differences in the age of analyses,it was found that <br /> procedures used in U.S.EPA's preparation of the AP-42 defaults departed from the AP-42 <br /> guidance6 in its use of nondetects and the minimum number of sources used for developing <br /> default values. <br /> The guidance specifies that nondetects should be used in the development of default values. <br /> However all nondetects were discarded in at least one AP-42 update.'Nondetects may be <br /> discarded under certain circumstances specified by the guidance where these are much greater in <br /> magnitude than detects(doing otherwise would bias the default values high).However,the AP-42 <br /> documentation does not identify which values are detects or nondetects making it impossible to <br /> implement this procedure.Finally,the guidance states that default values developed entirely from <br /> nondetects should be clearly identified as such.Since nondetects are not documented,this <br /> procedure cannot be carried out. <br /> 6"Procedures for Preparing Emission Factor Documents"Office of Air quality Planning and Standards, <br /> Office of Air and Radiation,U.S.Environmental Protection Agency,Research Triangle Park,NC, <br /> November 1997(EPA-454/R-95-015 REVISED). <br /> 7 Phone communication(June 2000)with Stephen Roe,U.S.EPA contractor for past AP-42 revisions. <br /> 4 <br />