1 

## History of the Development **and Deployment of a Real T**  **ime Multi**   ** Metals CEMS and Fence Line** **Monitor**

**Dan Biv ins**  **Measurement T**

**echnology Group U. S. EP**  **A OA** **QPS**2 

## Why**a re Multi**  **- Metals Monitors Important?**   

### Eight **of EPA’s 33 highest concern pollutants**  

### Persistent **and are typically under reported**   

### Peak exposures can represent **significant fraction**  **of risks**   

### Infrequent/difficult **measurements**  

### Highly **variable and uncertain**   

### High local **concentrations**  

### Can dominate local **exposure**  

### Environmental justice **issue**  

### Right to know **community exposure**   

### Effectively **enforce compliance**  

### Feedback to plant operators to effectively **reduce emissions**  **before they become a problem**  

### Assess and protect **public health**3

**Blast Furnace Upset**  **Stack/Ducted Emissions** 

## Fugitiv**e and Stac k Emission** 4 Fugitive Metal Emissions from a Smelter56



### Xact 620 Ambient Metals Monitor

**PM size -** **selective inlet Te**  **mperature controlled**  **19 inch rack Heater**  **Sampling & Analy** **sis Module Operator**  **interface/control panel**  **Flow c**  **ontrol module**  

## 23 Elements Measured **X -**  **Ray F**  **luorescence**78



### 1000 times more sensitive than Pb NAAQS!9 **24 hr Average**  **is about 250 ng/m3 !!**  **N**

**E W** 

**S** 

### E. St. **Louis Monitor**  **3 AM**  **5 AM**  **(0.65) 7**  **AM (0.58)** 

**9 AM**  **(0.76) 11**  **AM (2,345)**  **1 PM (173)**  **3 PM (1**  **1)**

**5 PM (2.4)** 


## Wi **nd Dir ection**  **(As Concentr at**  **ion, ng/m**  **3** 

## )10 **Distance was 2 miles** 

### Yo **u can ’t fix it if** **y ou**  **can ’t measur** **e it!** 

# E. **St. Louis Monitoring Site Wi**  **nd Dir ection**  **During Maximum Ar** **senic Impact 223**  **° Inciner** **at or**  **Ti me**  **WD WS**  **As n** **g/ m3**  **9 118**  **0. 9**  **0. 76**  **11 223**  **2. 4**  **2,345.00 13**  **275 3.**  **7 173.00** 



## Sc **hools Monitor** 11 

### Profile Comparison and Source **Identification**

Comparison of key elements in FLM data and known source profiles

enables source identification 197812



## Timeline **and Partners for CEMS** 

• **1999 -**  **Cooper Environmental develops prototype CEMS**  • **2000 -**  **Army with our group serving in advisory role, installed**  **prototype on ammunition destruction**  **incinerator** • **2002 –**  **ORD -**  **Environmental Technology Verification on CEMS**  • **2004 –**  **Eli Lilly Company**  **– Alternative**  **monitoring for**  **MACT** • **Lilly costs**  **- 3 to 5 million**  **dollars** • **2005 –**  **Lilly and Cooper wins**  **EPA’s Environmental Excellence**  **Award**13 **Timeline and Partners for Fenceline/Ambient Monitor** 

### • **2005 –**  **Our group explores idea of converting CEMS to ambient**  **monitor** 

### • **2005 –**  **Detection limit study**  **with CARB proved detection**  **limits good**  **for ambient platform**  

### • **2006 –**  **21M 2**  **OSWER grant for**  **fugitive monitor**  **study -**  **$30K** 

### • **2007 –**  **OAQPS helps fund prototype development**  **- $50K**  

### • **2008 –**  **OAQPS funds ambient**  **feasibility study**  **in field -**  **$75K** 

### • **2009 –**  **OAQPS funds ambient**  **accuracy and precision**  **study in MO**  **- $100K**  

### • **2009 –**  **MO/Washington University**  **participated in accuracy**  **and precision study**  **– not**  **cost to EPA**  

### • **2010 –**  **OAQPS funds development**  **of protocol,**  **performance specifications,**  **and QA/QC -**  **$125K**14



## Other **Interested Parties**  

### OECA **– Investigative**  **case**  

### NEIC **– 2 investigative**  **cases**  

### Oregon DEQ **– Schools**   

### Arizona **DEQ and Region 9 –**  **Schools and EJ**  

### SCAQMD **– secondary lead smelters**   

### OTAQ **– airports**  **– Pb in avgas**   

### ORD, NERL **– modeling interest**   

### OAQPS **– School Air Toxics follow** **- up, Pb federal**  **equivalent method, future standards**15 

### Potential Applications for Fenceline/Ambient

**Monitors**  

### MACT  

### Ambient Air Quality **Standards**  

### Source Apportionment  

### Emission Factor Refinement  

### Identification **of unknown sources of metals**  **emissions**16 

## Where are they in operation now?  

## Australia  

## South Korea  

## Canada  

## Missouri  

## China  

## Soon in Ohio

# Tools

 

# Fence Line Monitor  

# Performance Specifications  

# QA Procedures  

# Implementation Protocol  

# Traceability Protocol  

# Apportionment
1718 

## Where do we go from here?  

## Deploy ambient monitor to School Air Toxics **Program in Oregon and then to Ohio for Region V** 

– 

## OAQPS purchased mobile ambient monitor  

## Could deploy ambient monitor at small **airports for Pb in avgas studies for OTAQ**  

## Could deploy ambient monitor for Ariz**ona and**  **Region 9**19



## Conclusions
 **Stack CEMS and instrumental methods**  **are available. No**  **other continuous**  **multi -**  **metal monitors**  **are available.**  **Now we have a proven, real time,**  **direct reading multi -**  **metals ambient**  **monitor available.**   **Can identify intermittent**  **sources not detected by EPA ambient**  **FRM monitors**  **Technology is ready for permitting**  **and enforcement applications**  **for both**  **stacks and in ambient**  **applications.**  **Investment by OAQPS encouraged**  **developer from prototype stage**  **to off** 

**- the** **- shelf** 

– **OAQPS < $400K**

– **Cooper and others $6 -**  **7 Million!**