### 1



# Execution o f Comprehensive Performance Test Using

Particulate , HC l a nd Metals Continuous Emissions Monitoring Sy stems

Paper #26

Keith Beach 1 

### , P.E., Thomas G. Busmann 2 

### , P.E.

, Chris E. McBride 2 

### , P.E.

, Richard H Lambert 3



### , and Krag Petterson 4

1 

### Evonik Deguss a Corporation, Tippecanoe Laboratories, 1650 L illy Road, Lafay ette, IN 47909

USA

2 

### Focus Environmental Inc., 4700 Papermill Drive, Knoxville, TN 37909 USA

3 

### Eli L illy and Company , Lilly

Corporate Center, Indianapolis, IN 46285 USA

4 

### Cooper Environmental LLC

**,** 10180 SW Nimbus Ave. Suite J6

, Portland, OR 97223 USA



## ABSTRACT
Evonik Degussa Corporation, Tippecanoe Laboratories successfully demonstrated compliance with the HWC MACT Comprehensive Performance Test (CPT) requirements utilizing the

continuous emis sion monitors for particulate matter (PM), hy drochloric acid (HCl), and metals as the compliance anal ys es for stack emissions. I t is the authors’ belief that this is the first CPT conducted in the United States utilizing this approach.

This paper will bri efl y review the history of the CEMs development on the solid

- liquid incinerator, provide an overview of the CPT plan and objectives, discuss the performance of the CEMs prior to and during the CPT, and present the performance test results. T his performanc e test demonstration illustrates that the use of CEMs for performance test demonstration is a n efficient, effective, and viable approach for compliance demonstration on hazardous waste

incinerators

. 

## INTRODUCTION
Evonik Degussa Corporation (Evonik) operates a Hazardous Waste Incinerator that burns solids and liquid organic and aqueous waste at their newly acquired facility , Tippecanoe Laboratories (Tippe) , in Lafay ette, IN. The site was acquired by Evonik in 2010 from Eli L illy and Compan y (L illy ) and has c ontinued to manufacture pharmaceutical and animal health compounds for Lilly

.

S elected incinerator operating parameters limits and emissions limits are specified b y t he U. S. EPA Hazardous Waste Combustor Maximum Achievable Control Technology (HWC MACT)

rule in order to minimize emissions of Hazardous Air Pollutants (HAPs). Since the earl y 1990s when the MACT rules were initially being considered , EPA has often expressed a desire to use Continuous Emissions Measurement Sy stems (CEMS) technology as a mean s to directly demonstrate compliance by measuring emissions directly , rather than use operating parameters to infer compliance . Several ye ars ago Tippe embarked on a program to evaluate and appl y available CEMS technologies for particulate matter and h ydro gen chloride, and to assist in developing a novel CEMS technology for metals.

### 2

Evonik successfull y completed a Comprehensive Performance Test (CPT) in 2010 utilizing CEMs for HCl, particulate and the HWC/MACT metals in lieu of standard EPA test methods for those pollutants. I t is the authors’ belief that this is the first CPT conducted in the United States utilizing this approach.



## HISTORY AND BACKGROUND A previous Lilly affiliate facility in Ireland employed particulate matter (PM) CEMS and

infrared multi

- component CEMS under a different regulatory structure for a several ye ars as indicators of compliance. EPA included the requirement for the application of PM CEMS to

hazardous waste incinerators in the proposed HWC MACT rule in 1996 . Tippe, along with a number of industry

peers, demonstrated the limitations of the se technologies on certain t ypes of hazardous waste incineration sy stems. EPA subsequently deferred the requirement to implement

PM CEMS under the HWC MACT. While demonstrating the viability of the PM CEMS, Tippe joined forces with Cooper Environmental Services to develop practical application of X

- ray fluorescence as a multi

- metals CEMS technology use on a solid

- liquid waste incinerator.

Tippe has been involved with the testing, evaluation and development of CEMs beginning with installations on the liquids incinerators in the 1990s and subsequentl y on the solids and liquids

incinerators in the earl y 2000s.

This development of the use of these CEMS technologies met a couple key Tippe concerns

. F irst, using CEMS data for compliance reduced or eliminated the need for sampling and anal ys is

of individual containers to develop waste characterization. This addressed the concerns Tippe had regarding the costs and potential exposure required by ty pical sampling and anal yt ical

program s. Due to the nature of high

- potency pharmaceutical wastes, reducing or eliminating the

ty pical sampling and analy sis activities provided significant safet y, operational, and economic

benefits

. Second, Tippe was also intere sted in the benefits from operational flexibility that could be

realized by removing many of the prescribed HWC MACT operating parameters limits on the incinerator’s air pollution control sy stem.

Tippe installed continuous monitoring of the combustion (sta ck) gas emissions on the solid and liquid waste incinerator designated T149 utilizing three CEMS:

 An EcoChem MC3 or equivalent for CO, O 2 

### , and HCl

 A Sigrist CTNR or equivalent for particulate emissions

 A Cooper Environmental Services XACT or equivalent for metals.

Since the required use of CEMs for parameters other than CO and O 2 

### was removed from the HWC MACT requirements, the use of CEMs for PM, HCl and multi

- metals required the submission and approval of an alternative monitoring petition. The requiremen ts for petitioning the EPA for alternative monitoring for compliance is found in 40 CFR Part 63.8 (f), the General Provisions of the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) for Source Categories. Paragraph (f)(4)(ii) states:

“The application must contain a description of the proposed alternative monitoring sy stem which addresses the four elements contained in the definition

### 3

of monitoring in §63.2 and a performance evaluation test plan, if required, as specified in paragraph (e)(3) of this section. In addition, the application must include information justifying the owner or operator's request for an alternative monitoring method, such as the technical or economic infeasibility , or the impracticality , of the affected source using the required method.”

Tippe initiated the process for the alternative monitoring petition (AMP) in earl y 2003. The AMP was approved b y the EPA in January 2006. Implementation of the AMP then required a major modification to the facility ’s Title V permit.



## CPT **OBJECTIVES** To demonstrate compliance with the HWC MACT performance standards and emission limits, Tippe proposed a single, low

- temperature, combustion chamber test condition, treating solid and liquid wastes with enhanced ash, metals and chloride contents . This single test condition demonstrated the ability

of the combustion sy stem to comply with the applicable performance

standards at the worst

- case conditions of minimum combustion temperatures and maximum combustion air flow, and maximum waste, ash, and chloride feed rates

.
Since T149 has not been modified in a way which would affect its ability to meet the DRE

standard since DRE testing was conducted in September 2005 , Tippe did not conduct a DRE test during the testing described here. This is in accor dance with the provisions of 40 CFR 63.1206(b)(7)(i)(A), the HWC MACT Replacement Standard requires that compliance with the destruction and removal efficiency (DRE) standard must only be documented once, provided that

the source is not modified after the DRE test in a way that could affect the ability of the source to

achieve the DRE standard

.

U nder the provisions of the AMP approved i n a letter dated January 27, 2006

, the use of a particulate matter CEMS, a multi

- metals CEMS, and an HCl CEMS to demonstrat e compliance with the particulate matter, metals, and HCl/Cl 2 

### HWC MACT emission standards was approved and Tippe used that provision to demonstrate compliance for this CPT test

. The performance standards established that are applicable for the T149 inciner ator are
summarized in Table 1

.
Table 1 . HWC MACT Replacement Rule Performance Standards

Performance

Standard HWC MACT 40 CFR 63 Subpart EEE

Replacement Standard

- existing sources

Citation Standard

Org anic DRE 40 CFR 63.1219(c)(1) 99.99%

CO Emissions 40 CFR

63.1219(a)(5)(i) 100 ppmdv 1



### HC Emissions 40 CFR

63.1219(a)(5)(i) 10 ppmdv 1 

### , as propane

Particulate Emissions 40 CFR 63.1219(a)(7) 0.013 gr/dscf 1



### HCl/Cl 2 

### Emissions 40 CFR 63.1219(a)(6) 32 ppmdv HC l/Cl 2 

### combined as Cl 

### equivalents 1



### Metals Emissions 40 CFR 63.1219(a)(3) Cd & Pb combined: 230  g/dscm 1

### 4

Performance

Standard HWC MACT 40 CFR 63 Subpart EEE

Replacement Standard

- existing sources 40 CFR 63.1219(a)(4) As, Be & Cr combined: 92  g/dscm 1



### 40 CFR 63.1219(a)(2) Hg: 130  g/dscm 1



### Dioxin/furan

emissions 40 CFR

63.1219(a)(1)(ii) 0.40  g/dscm TEQ 1

1. CORRECTED TO 7% O XYGEN.



## CONTINUOUS MONITORING SYSTEMS PERFORMANCE

**EVALUATION T EST** 
As a part of the CPT , a performance evaluation of the C E MS was conducted in accordance with the CMS PET Plan. The evaluation showed that the Evonik’s CMS was operating in compliance with the HWC MACT requirements [40 CFR 63.1209(a)

- (b)] as:

The CEMS monitoring CO and O 2 

### stack gas concentrations met the appropriate performance specifications promulgated by the EPA.

The CEMS monitoring metals, HCl, and particulate met the appropriate performance specifications and requirements in the approved AMP usin g the annual auditing process.

Table 2

. CEMS Audit Summary

**Monitoring System**  **Audit Description Audit Date**  **Result**

CO CEMS Relative Accuracy Test Audit (RATA) 8/24/2010 Pass

CO CEMS Calibration Drift 8/18

- 24/2010 Pass

CO CEMS Cal ibration Error 8/24/2010 Pass

CO CEMS Response Time 8/24/2010 Pass

O 2 

### CEMS Relative Accuracy Test Audit (RATA) 8/24/2010 Pass

O 2 

### CEMS Calibration Drift 8/18

- 24/2010 Pass

O 2 

### CEMS Calibration Error 8/24/2010 Pass

O 2 

### CEMS Response Time 8/24/2010 Pass

PM CEMS Response Correlation Audit (RCA) 8/11

- 12/2010 New

Calibration

Curve

PM CEMS Absolute Correlation Audit (ACA) 8/12/2010 Pass

HCL CEMS Accuracy (Dy namic Spiking) 8/24/2010 Pass

HCL CEMS Seven Day Drift 8/22/2010 Pass

Metals CEMS Total Sy stem Flow ( Sample

Volume) 8/4/2010 Pass

### 5

Metals CEMS X

- Ray Fluorescence Calibration

Audit 8/9/2010 Pass

Metals CEMS Accuracy (Dy namic Spiking) 8/5

- 6/2010 Pass



## HCl CEMs Audit Methodology The accuracy

and precision of the HCl CEMS is determined by dy namically spikin g a known concentration of HCl reference gas into the sample sy stem and subsequently measuring the reference spike with the HCl CEMS.

Daily , prior to testing, the zero and upscale drift is checked and recorded. The HCl CEMS must pass the daily

calibration requirements prior to an y testing.

This testing was conducted as part of the CMS performance evaluation test.

Figure 1 provides an overview of the regression analy sis for the HCl dy namic spiking indicating the resulting performance for the HCl CEMs

. Figur e 1 . Regression analy sis of the HCl dy namic spiking accuracy testing

**Crite ri**  **a Acce**  **pt an**  **ce Limit**  **s Re**  **su lt**  **s Pas**  **s/ Fa**  **il (Bi**  **as )** 

Correlat ion Coeffic ient ( r ) > 0 .9 0 1 Pa ss

Slope 0. 85 - 1.15 1 Pa ss

In te rc ept 15 8. 3 Pa ss y = 0. 9891x

- 8. 3018

R2 = 0 .9 991

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 **2010 HC**  **L CEM**  **S Accuracy** 

**Measured HC**  **L ppm** **S p** **i k** **e d** **H C** **L p** **p m** 



## PM CEMs Audit Methodology The objective of the annu al relative calibration audit is to verify that the current calibration

correlation is within statistical re quirements for predicting total particulate mass based upon previous calibration to a particulate mass Reference Method (Method 5).

The RCA is performed by collecting a minimum of 12 valid (meets quality assurance requirements) particulate mass Reference M ethod samples (Method 5) over the expected operating range of the control device. The response of the PM CEMS is recorded during each Method 5 test and the data averaged to provide a PM CEMS response value (PL A) which correlates to a Method 5 data point ( mg/scm).

Dual train Reference Method 5 sampling trains are used during the testing ensure the qualit y of the Reference Method particulate mass data.

Once all data is collected, both the Reference Method 5 and PM CEMS data are screened, according the Perfor

mance Specification 11 and Procedure 2 guidance, and only valid data is

used for the calibration correlation check.

### 6

Using the current calibration correlation as the baseline, the Method 5 data is plotted against the respective PM CEMS averaged response. A minimum of 75% of the RCA data must fall within the current tolerance intervals of the existing calibration correlation.

If the new data does not meet this requirement, Performance Specification 11 provides guidance on how to establish a new or updated c alibration correlation.

**PM CEMS Operating Range** The operating range of the PM CEMS is 0

– 1 PLA. This range will be used for operation of the

PM CEMS.

**PM CEMS Daily Linearity Check** Daily , prior to any

RCA testing, the linearity of the Sigrist photomete r is checked. The Sigrist must pass applicable quality assurance requirements, daily , and prior to the relative calibration audit testing.

**Reference Method 5 Data Quality Assurance** Reference Method 5 data collected during the RCA is anal yz ed to ensure it meets applicable quality control requirements. This is completed by performing relative standard deviation for each Method 5 test pair (dual train) along with linear regression anal ys is. In addition, a standardized residual test along with a bias check of the data may be used to ensure the Reference Method paired data sets are statistically sound for use in the relative calibration audit test. Reference Method data which does not meet the quality assurance guidance may

be discarded, as long as a minimum of 12 Reference Method data points remain.

### 7 0 5 10 15 20Method5(mg/scm)

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5

Sigrist (PLA)

Linear Fit

Method 5 (mg/scm) = 1.2031621 + 35.764502*Sigrist (PLA)

RSquare

RSquare Adj

Root Mean Square Error

Mean of Response

Observations (or Sum W gts) 0.976932

0.975779

0.958086

9.171818

22 **Summary**

**of Fit**

Model

Error

C. Total **Source**

1

20

21 **DF**

777.50316

18.35857

795.86173 **Sum of**

**Squares**

777.503

0.918 **Mean Square**

847.0193

**F Ratio**

<.0001 * **Prob > F An**  **aly sis of Variance** 

Intercept

Sigrist (PLA) **Term**

1.2031621

35.764502 **Estimate**

0.341602

1.228869 **Std Error**

3.52

29.10 **t Ratio**

0.0021 *

<.0001 * **Prob>|t| Parameter Estimates**  **Linear Fit Bivariate Fit of Method 5 (mg/scm) By**  **Sigrist (PLA**

**) Year=2010**



### Figure 2 . Calibration Correlation between the Sigrist PM CEMs and Method 5 train

**Particulate Emission Range of Data during the Relative Calibration Audit**

The range of the total pa rticulate emissions during the RCA should represent expected particulate emission levels during normal operation of the incinerator.

Per the T149 Alternative Monitoring Petition, Evonik will strive to provide a range of particulate

emissions in which a m inimum of 20% of the data falls into each of three ranges (1) 0

- 50% (2)

25

- 75% (3) 50

- 100%, with 100% being the highest Sigrist output observed during the testing. In addition, the data set of particulate mass emissions should fall within the data range r epresented by the current calibration correlation. The total particulate emission data collected, based upon the mg/scm concentrations, fell within three distinct ranges

### 8 -5 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35Method5(mg/scm)

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5

Sigrist (PLA)

Linear Fit Year=="2006"

Linear Fit Year=="2007"

Linear Fit Year=="2009"

Linear Fit Year=="2010"

Linear Fit Year=="Existing"

Linear Fit **Bivariate Fit of Method 5 (mg/scm) By Sigrist (PLA)**



### Figure 3 . Performance Test Fit of Data for Sigrist PM CE Ms



## Xact Multi

**- Metal CEMs Audit Methodology**  The annual audit requirements for the Xact multi

- metal CEMS are to perform a sample volume audit, a thin film standard audit, and an accuracy test. The accuracy

test, per the T149 Alternative Monitoring Petition , is performed using d ynamic spiking of lead, cadmium, arsenic, chromium, and mercury . Linear regression is used to assess the accuracy and precision of the

Xact CEMS. The Xact CEMS met each of the audit requirements.

The accuracy

and precision of the Xac t CEMS is demonstrated by quantitatively

spiking each of the regulated metals (arsenic, chromium, cadmium, lead, mercury ) at a minimum of three levels. The metals are contained in a stock nitric acid solution and quantitatively spiked into the sample

sy st em, directly

in back of the sample probe, using a quantitative aerosol generator. The concentration for each spiking trial is controlled by altering the mass loss rate of the aerosol generator and/or changing the concentration of the stock metals solution.

The range of metal concentrations tested encompasses the regulatory limits for each metal and are within the linear range of the Xact CEMS.

### 9

For each test level, a minimum of nine sample points are recorded. The output of the Xact multi

metals CEMS, for each MACT metal, is plotted against the reference metal value from the dy namic spiking. Regression analy sis is performed and the correlation coefficient, slope, and intercept, for each MACT metal recorded.

**Pl ot**  **te d**  **Li near** 

**R egressi**  **on fo**  **r L ead** 

y = 1 .0 387x + 2 .2 754

R 2 = 0 .9 948

0.00 50. 00 100. 00 150. 00 200. 00 250. 00

0. 00 50. 00 100. 00 150. 00 200. 00

**Re fe**  **re nce**  **C once**  **ntra ti**  **on (μg/**  **ds cm**  **) X** **a c** **t C** **o n** **c e** **n t** **r a** **t i** **o n** **( μ** **g /** **d s** **c m** **)**



### Figure 4 . Plot of L inear Regression for Lead from Xact CEMs

**Pl ot**  **ted L**  **in ear** 

**R egressi**  **on fo**  **r Merc ury** 

y = 1 .0 219x + 1 .8 43

R 2 = 0 .9 941

0 50 100 150 200

0 50 100 150 200

**Re fe**  **re nce**  **C onc**  **en tra**  **ti on (**  **μg /ds**  **cm )** **X a** **c t** **C o** **n c** **e n** **t r** **a t** **i o** **n (** **μ g** **/ d** **s c** **m )** 



### Figure 5 . Plot of L inear Regression for Mercury from Xact CEMs

**Pl ot**  **te d**  **Li near** 

**R egr**  **essi on**  **fo r Ars**  **eni c** 

y = 1 .0 611x + 1 .6 166

R 2 = 0 .9 95

0 50 100 150 200 250

0 50 100 150 200

**Re fe**  **re nce**  **C onc**  **en tra**  **ti on (**  **μg /ds**  **cm )** **X a** **c t** **C o** **n c** **e n** **t r** **a t** **i o** **n (** **μ g** **/ d** **s c** **m )** 



### Figure 6 . Plot of L inear Regression for Arsenic from Xact CEMs

### 10 **Pl ot**  **ted L**  **in ear** 

**R egr**  **essi on**  **fo r C**  **adm iu**  **m**

y = 1 .1 066x + 2 .9 945

R 2 = 0 .9 912

0 50 100 150 200 250

0. 00 50. 00 100. 00 150. 00 200. 00

**Re fe**  **re nc**  **e Co**  **nce nt**  **ra ti**  **on (μg**  **/ds cm**  **) X** **a c** **t C** **o n** **c e** **n t** **r a** **t i** **o n** **( μ** **g /** **d s** **c m** **)**



### Figure 7 . Plot of L inear Regression for Cadmium from Xact CEMs

**Pl ot**  **te d**  **Li near** 

**R egr**  **essi on**  **fo r C**  **hr om**  **iu m** 

y = 0 .9 747x + 3 .7 603

R 2 = 0 .9 96

0 50 100 150 200

0. 00 50. 00 100. 00 150. 00 200. 00

**Re fe**  **re nce**  **C once**  **nt ra**  **ti on (**  **μg /ds**  **cm )** **X a** **c t** **C o** **n c** **e n** **t r** **a t** **i o** **n (** **μ g** **/ d** **s c** **m )** 



### Figure 8 . Plot of L inear Regression for Chromium from Xact CEMs



## COMPREHENSIVE PERFORMANCE TEST RESULTS

The T149 CPT was conducted September 28

- 29, 2010 , utilizing t he of a particulate matter CEMS, a multi

- metals CEMS, and an HCl CEMS

.

### 11 **Table 3**  **. T149 HWC MACT Compliance Performance and Emissions Summary**

**HWC**

**MACT T149 2010 CPT Results** 

**Parameter Units**  **Standard Run 1**  **Run 2 Run 3**  **Average**

Stack gas particulate matter (Note a) gr/dscf 0.013 0.013 0.012 0.012 0.012
Stack gas HCl/Cl 2 

### (Notes a, b) ppmv, dry 32 4.2 3.0 3.9 3.7 Stack gas LVM (Note a) μg/dscm 92 < 2.7 < 2.7 < 3. 3 < 2. 9 Stack gas SVM (Note a) μg/dscm 230 19 17 18 18 Stack gas mercury

(Note a) μg/dscm 130 21 2 3 18 2 1

Notes: (a) Corrected to 7% ox ygen. (b) HCl and Cl 2 

### combined, expressed as HCl or Cl 

### equivalents.

### 12 **Pa ra**  **met er**  **Un it**  **s Ave**  **ra ge** 

**St ac**  **k Samp**  **lin g Pa**  **ra met**  **er s** 

Sta ck g as f

low r at e ds cf m 18, 378 18, 279 18, 452 18, 370

ds cm/min 520. 5 517. 7 522. 6 520. 2

Sta ck g as o xyg en co nt ent vo l %, d ry 9. 0 9. 0 9. 4 9. 1

**Pa rti**  **cu la**  **te E**  **mis**

**si ons**  **b y**  **Sigr is** 

**t CT**  **NR CEM**  **S**

Pa rt ic ul at e co nc ent rat io n gr /d scf 0. 0127 0. 0120 0. 0125 0. 0124

gr/ ds cf @ 7 % O 2 0. 0129 0. 0115 0. 0116 0. 0120

mg/ds cm 29. 1 27. 4 28. 5 28. 3

mg /d scm @ 7 % O 2 29. 5 26. 4 26. 6 27. 5

Pa rt ic ul at e em issio n rat e lb /h r 2. 00 1. 88 1. 97 1. 95

g/ s 0. 252 0. 237 0. 248 0. 246

**Ch lo**  **ri de**  **E mis** 

**si ons**  **by E coChe**  **m MC 3**  **CEM S** 

ppm v, d ry 2. 76 1. 69 2. 44 2. 30

ppm v, d ry @ 7% O 2 4. 23 2. 98 3. 93 3. 71

lb /h r 0. 284 0. 173 0. 252 0. 236

g/ s 0. 0358 0. 0217 0. 0317 0. 0297

lb /h r 0. 276 0. 168 0. 245 0. 230

g/ s 0. 0348 0. 0211 0. 0308 0. 0289

**Ars en**  **ic by**  **C oope**  **r E nv**  **ir onm**  **en ta**  **l Se rvi**  **ce s**  **XA CT**  **C EM**  **S**

Me ta l co nc ent rat io n ug/ ds cm 0. 95 0. 88 1. 04 0. 96

ug/ ds cm @ 7 % O 2 1. 11 1. 02 1. 26 1. 13

Me ta l e missio n rat e lb /h r 6. 5E -05 6. 0E -0 5 7. 2E -05 6. 6E -05

g/ s 8. 2E -06 7. 6E -0 6 9. 1E -06 8. 3E -06 Sta ck g as H Cl co nc ent rat io n as H Cl

or Cl

Sta ck g as H Cl e mis si on rat e as H Cl

Sta ck g as H Cl e mis si on rat e as C l

- **Ru n 1**  **Ru n 2**  **Run 3**  

### Table **4**

**. T149 CPT Particulate, HCl, and**  **Arsenic Emissions Summary** 

### 13 **Par am**  **et er**  **Un it**  **s Ave**  **ra ge** 

**Ca dmium by** 

**C oope**  **r En**  **vi ronm**  **en ta**  **l Se rvi**  **ce s**  **XA CT**  **C EM**  **S**

Me ta l co nc ent ra ti on ug/ ds cm 2. 40 2. 57 2. 52 2. 49

ug/ ds cm @ 7 % O 2 2. 80 3. 00 3. 04 2. 95

Me ta l e missio n rat e lb /h r 1. 7E -04 1. 8E -04 1. 7E -04 1. 7E -04

g/ s 2. 1E -05 2. 2E -05 2. 2E -05 2. 2E -05

**Ch rom**  **ium by**

**C oope**  **r En**  **vi ronm**  **en ta**  **l Se rvi**  **ce s**  **XA CT**  **C EM**  **S**

Me ta l co nc ent ra ti on ug/ ds cm 1. 26 1. 36 1. 63 1. 42

ug/ ds cm @ 7 % O 2 1. 48 1. 59 1. 97 1. 68

Me ta l e missio n rat e lb /h r 8. 6E -05 9. 3E -05 1. 1E -04 9. 7E -05

g/ s 1. 1E -05 1. 2E -05 1. 4E -05 1. 2E -05

**Le ad**  **by C**  **oope r**  **En vi**  **ronm en**  **ta l Se**  **rvi ce**  **s XA**  **CT C**  **EM S** 

Me ta l co nc ent ra ti on ug/ ds cm 13. 82 12. 23 12. 77 12. 94

ug/ ds cm @ 7 % O 2 16. 10 14. 33 15. 45 15. 29

Me ta l e missio n rat e lb /h r 9. 5E -04 8. 4E -04 8. 8E -04 8. 9E -04 g/ s 1. 2E -04 1. 1E -04 1. 1E -04 1. 1E -04

**Me rc**  **ury by C**  **oope r**  **En vi**  **ronm en**  **ta l Se**  **rv ic**  **es XA**  **CT CE**  **MS**

Me ta l co nc ent ra ti on ug/ ds cm 18. 38 19. 69 14. 80 17. 62

ug/ ds cm @ 7 % O 2 21. 42 23. 04 17. 82 20. 76

Me ta l e missio n rat e lb /h r 1. 3E -03 1. 3E -03 1. 0E -03 1. 2E -03 g/ s 1. 6E -04 1. 7E -04 1. 3E -04 1. 5E -04

Not e: d scf

= D ry sta ndard cu bi c f eet

d scf

m = D ry sta ndard cu bi c f eet p er min ut e
Sta ndard co ndit ions a re 6 8°F, 2 9. 92 in . H g (20°C, 7 60 mm H g) **Ru n 1**  **Run 2**  **Ru n 3**  

### Table **5**

**. T149 CPT**  **Cadmium, Chromium, Lead and Mercury Metals Emissions Summary** 

### 14

The following figures (Figures 9

- 13) sho w the operating data from theT149 CEMs sy stems during the performance of the CPT.

20 30 40Particulatemass1-minute-PMmg/dscm(1-minuteuncompressed)28Sep201010:21:45AM28Sep201011:13:45AM28Sep201012:05:45PM28Sep201012:57:45PM29Sep20108:03:45AM29Sep20108:55:45AM29Sep20109:47:45AM29Sep201010:39:45AM29Sep201011:31:45AM29Sep20102:16:45PM29Sep20103:08:45PM29Sep20104:00:45PM29Sep20104:52:45PM29Sep20106:05:45PM

Sigrist 1 min time **Levey Jennings of Particulate mass 1-minute - PM mg/dscm (1-minute uncompressed)** 



### Figure 9

.

### 15 20 25 30 35Particulatemass15-minuteblockaveragemg/dscm@7%O2(15-minuteuncompressed) 1 2 309/28/201010:30AM09/28/201011:30AM09/28/201012:30PM09/28/20101:30PM09/29/20108:45AM09/29/20109:45AM09/29/201010:45AM09/29/201011:45AM09/29/20102:30PM09/29/20103:30PM09/29/20104:30PM09/29/20105:30PM09/29/20106:30PM

MACT Metals 15 Minute data sample end

date/time (triggered and uncompressed) **Individual Measurement of Particulate mass 15-minute block average mg/dscm @ 7% O2 (15-minute uncompressed)**



### Figure 10

.

### 16 -5 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35MACTMetals-Hgug/dscm@7%O2(triggeredanduncompressed) 1 2 3 3after09/28/201011:45AM09/29/20108:30AM09/29/201011:00AM09/29/20103:15PM09/29/20105:45PM

MACT Metals 15 Minute data sample end

date/time (triggered and uncompressed) 

### Levey Jennings of MA **CT Metals - Hg ug/dscm @ 7% O2 (triggered and uncompressed)** 



### Figure 11

.

### 17 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14MACTMetals-LVMug/dscm@7%O2(triggeredanduncompressed) 1 2 3 3after09/28/201011:45AM09/29/20108:30AM09/29/201011:00AM09/29/20103:15PM09/29/20105:45PM

MACT Metals 15 Minute data sample end

date/time (triggered and uncompressed) **Levey Jennings of MACT Metals - LVM ug/dscm @ 7% O2 (triggered and uncompressed)**



### Figure 12

.

### 18 -40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70MACTMetals-SVMug/dscm@7%O2(triggeredanduncompressed) 1 2 3 3after09/28/201011:45AM09/29/20108:30AM09/29/201011:00AM09/29/20103:15PM09/29/20105:45PM

MACT Metals 15 Minute data sample end

date/time (triggered and uncompressed) **Levey Jennings of MACT Metals - SVM ug/dscm @ 7% O2 (triggered and uncompressed)**



### Figure 13

.

Table 6 . Metals SRE Comparison

**Metal 2010 (CEMs)**  **2005 (Method 29)**

To tal L VM 99.998% 99.998%

Pumpable L

VM 99.93% 99.85%

SVM 99.83% 99.74%

Hg 45.70% 17.6%

### 19



## SUMMARY Specific conclusions drawn fro m the 2010 CPT are as follows:

 

### PM emission standard was met. A m aximum ash feed rate limit can be appropriatel y developed from the T149 CPT results.

 

### Metal emission standards were met for Hg, SVM, and LVM. M aximum metal

feed rates can be reliably a nd appr opriatel y determined using the T149 CPT

results.

 

### Stack gas HCl/Cl 2 

### emission standard was met. A m aximum total chlorine feed rate limit can be appropriately established from the T149 CPT results.

Use of CEMs is a viable approach for CPT compliance demonstr ation.

For certain incineration facility , a number of benefits can be realized through use of CEMs for demonstration of compliance for emissions:

 Improved safet y, improved operation efficiency, and economic advantages for waste

characterization

 Operational flexibility for the incineration sy stem

 Optimization of the establishment of operating parameter limits during the performance

of the CPT.



## ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

**REFERENCES**

1. Am erican Society for Testing and Materials, "Annual Book of ASTM Standards," latest an nual

edition.

2. Code of Federal Regulations, 40 CFR 264, 40 CFR 270, 40 CFR 63 Subpart EEE, and 40 CFR 63 Subpart A.

3. USEPA, "New Source Performance Standards, Test Methods and Procedures,” Appendix A, 40

CFR 60.

4. USEPA, "Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Wa st es," Third Edition, 1986, and Updates.

5. T149 SOLID

- LIQUID W ASTE INCINERATOR, COMPREHENSIVE PERFORMANCE TEST PLAN, Evonik Degussa Corporation., Tippecanoe Laboratories, September 2009

6. CONTINUOUS MONITORING SYSTEMS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION TEST REPORT, ,

Evonik Degussa Corporation., Tippecanoe Laboratories, December, 2010

7. T149 SOLID

- LIQUID W ASTE INCINERATOR, COMPREHENSIVE PERFORMANCE TEST REPORT, Evonik Degussa Corporation., Tippecanoe Laboratories, December 2010

### 20

8. INTIAL PERFORMANCE TEST AND USE OF ALTERNATIVE MO NITORING SYSTEMS FOR METALS, PM AND HCL FOR COMPLIANCE W IT H THE HAZARDOUS W AST E COMBUSTOR

MACT , Eli Lilly and Company, Richard H Lambert, Michael L Foster



## KEY WORDS
1. Continuous Emission Monitoring Sy stems

2. Hazardous Waste Combustor MACT Emission Compl iance

3. I ncinerator Emission Monitoring

4. Multi

- Metals Continuous Emission Monitoring

5. Total Particulate Continuous Emission Monitoring

6. Hy drogen Chloride Continuous Emission Monitoring

7. Comprehensive Performance Test