My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Agenda - Council - 10/14/1980
Ramsey
>
Public
>
Agendas
>
Council
>
1980
>
Agenda - Council - 10/14/1980
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
4/15/2025 2:06:42 PM
Creation date
9/10/2004 12:42:11 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Document Type
Agenda
Meeting Type
Council
Document Date
10/14/1980
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
286
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
III. INVESTIGATION OF EXISTING GAS CONTROL SYSTEM <br /> <br /> Review of Existin9 System - We visited the landfill in August to review <br /> system performance and conditions. Five access ports were installed during <br /> our visit in the underground header pipe to provide information on 9as flow <br /> and vacuum. The data developed by field measurement are presented in Tables 1 <br /> and 2. The gas flow in each header leg appears to be identical (approximately <br /> 700 cfm), and each well can be assumed to extract about 10[} cfm. It should <br /> not be necessary to continually withdraw sas at that high extraction rate to <br /> control migration at the property line. A well flow rate of 35 to 50 cfm <br /> should prove to'be sufficient. <br /> <br /> ~nspection of the access hole in the north leg revealed that mud or <br /> sludge has entered a portion of the header pipe, indicating a pipe rupture to <br /> the east of the access port.' Subsequently we learned that Hell GW-1 was not <br /> connected to the system and the sludge entered the pipe. This will be <br /> remedied by the addition of the control system along the north property line. <br /> <br /> Several alternatives to noise reduction are feasible. The first alter- <br />native involves placing a noise-screen between the discharge gas stream and <br />the line of sig'ht to neighborhood homes. The effectiveness of the system can <br />be checked by holding the screen system in place and determining the nQise <br />reduction. Another alternative involves extending the exhaust pipe up to the <br />landfill slope to increase the distance between the gas dischar§e 'and nearby <br />residences. A combination of screening plus extended exhaust may contribute <br />additional benefits in noise reduction. <br /> <br /> With respect to odors, a ~.as burner (flare) will be needed if odors <br />become objectionable. (A burner system would probably cost between $5,000 and <br />$20,00D.) However, if the gas is discharged sufficiently far from the pro- <br />petty, line, malodors will dissipate before reaching any residences. <br /> <br /> The exhaust fan system for the equipment building should be operated for <br />a short period of time (about f}ve minutes) to exhaust any accumulated gases <br />before anyone enters the building. Alte~atively, the fan could be operated <br />continuously, or the operator could utilize a gas analyzer on entering the <br />building. <br /> <br />4 <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.