## Memorandum **USEPA Region 5**

**Land and Chemicals Division**

**To: File**

**Date: May 6, 2009**

**From: Todd D. Ramaly Christopher Lambesis** 

**RCRA Programs Branch**

**Re: Calculations of Metal Feed Rates Used During t he 2008 Test Burns at**  **Veolia Environmental Services, LLC, Sauget, IL**

**In October 2008, Veolia Environmental Services, LLC (Veolia) of Sauget,**  **Illinois, submitted results from test burns conduct ed in August and September of 2008 on** 

**each of the three hazardous waste incinerators at t he Sauget facility. These results are**  **contained in the following reports:** Metals Performance Test Report Prepared for the

Fixed Hearth Incinerator Number 2 in Accordance wit h 40 CFR § 63 Subpart EEE

**, ENSR Corporation, October 2008;**  Metals Performance Test Report Prepared for the

Fixed Hearth Incinerator Number 3 in Accordance wit h 40 CFR § 63 Subpart EEE

**, ENSR Corporation, October 2008; and**  Metals Performance Test Report Prepared for the Rotary Kiln Incinerator Number 4 in Accordance with 40 CFR § 63 Subpart EEE **, ENSR Corporation, October 2008.** 

**Analytical laboratory reports submitted as supporti ng documentation to these test**  **burn reports did not specify whether or not the dat a for solid samples was expressed as**  **concentrations in “wet weight” (meaning in the wast e “as is”) or by “dry weight”**  **(meaning in a concentration normalized for moisture content). The concentration of a**  **given element or compound can vary widely with chan ges in moisture content of the**  **media. In case of soils, the concentration of poll utants can change significantly if the**  **sample was collected just after a rainfall versus a fter several days of dry weather. When**  **chemically analyzing the soil, the extra moisture c ontent (such as from rainfall) can dilute**  **the dry concentration of pollutants. Since the con centration of pollutants in the soil can**  **trigger regulatory determinations, influence risk a ssessments, or exceed clean-up goals,** 

**the variation of moisture content must be addressed . Analytical laboratories typically**  **report environmental samples of solids like soil in “dry weight,” and include the mass**  **fraction of the samples that are either moisture or solids (non-moisture) for “dry weight”** 

**data.**

**It is important to know whether or not the chemical analysis of waste feed during**  **a test burn is expressed in “dry weight” or “wet we ight” because the mass balance of the**  **inputs to the incinerator that is needed to calcula te pollutant feed rates and other** 

## 2

**measurements of system performance (such as system removal efficiency) must match**  **the condition of the waste feed as it was charged t o the incinerator. Since the non-liquid**  **waste feeds were sampled in the exact wet form in w hich they were burned and the mass**  **of the waste feeds were measured “as is” or wet, th e analytical results must be in “wet**  **weight” for these calculations. Analytical results based on “dry weight” can be easily**  **converted to “wet weight” by multiplying the “dry w eight” concentration by the value of** 

**one minus the fraction moisture content. The data package submitted by Veolia did not**  **specify under which convention the metals data were reported or provide the mass** 

**fraction moisture or mass fraction solids.**

**On October 29, 2008, the U.S. Environmental Protect ion Agency’s Christopher**  **Lambesis contacted Mike Challis, of Maxxam Analytic al, Inc. (Maxxam), the laboratory**  **that conducted the metal analysis for Veolia, to de termine whether or not the solids data**  **was expressed in “dry weight” or “wet weight” (Atta chment 1). Mr. Challis stated that**  **Veolia’s data in Maxxam’s lab reports were reported in “dry weight.” As such, they**  **would not be appropriate for use in metal feed rate calculations without conversion to**  **“wet weight.” EPA asked Veolia’s Dave Klarich to o btain the dry weight analytical** 

**results from Maxxam and submit to EPA. On December 5, 2008, Veolia’s Doug Harris**  **confirmed in an electronic message that they “found a mistake that lowers the mercury**  **feed in the waste” (Attachment 2). In order to obt ain metal feed rates that matched the**  **burn condition by converting the apparent “dry weig ht” results to “wet weight,” we** 

**recalculated the metal feed rates for the 2008 Veol ia test burns assuming the metals**  **concentrations for solid feed streams (** Container Solids **for all three incinerators, and** Bulk

Solids **for incinerator number 4) are expressed in “dry we ight.” We converted these**  **values to “wet weight” using percent moisture data provided by Veolia’s secondary lab,**  **PSC Republic Environmental Systems (Pennsylvania) L LC (PSC Republic).** 

**We also recalculated system removal efficiencies (S REs) since “wet weight” feed**  **rates must be used in calculating SREs. See Table 1, below, for a summary of the metal**  **feed rates and mercury SREs. The overall effect on the actual feed rate depended on the** 

**metal contribution of solid test burn wastes relati ve to that of metal spikes. In some**  **instances, such as the mercury feed rate for Units 2 and 3, a significant portion of the**  **total mercury burned came from the solid wastes, an d the new calculation of mercury**  **feed rates is significantly different than that ori ginally provided by Veolia. Since the**  **solid wastes burned for Unit’s 2 and 3 provided ins ignificant amounts of SVM and LVM**  **to the test, the dry weight adjustment did not sign ificantly change the claimed test feed** 

**rate for SVM or LVM.**

**Veolia provided EPA with some updated calculations in December 2008**  **however, these were incomplete. In an electronic m essage dated December 10, 2008,**  **Veolia’s Doug Harris provided several spreadsheets which included new updated feed**  **rates and estimated SREs. The information only add ressed mercury feed rates and did**  **not explain the drop in feed rates. Since Veolia’s new reported feed rate for Stack 4**  **mercury is identical to EPA’s (in Table 1), it is l ikely that the new number reflects the**  **“dry weight” correction to “wet weight.” The reduc tions in estimated feed rates for Units**  **2 and 3 did not match EPA’s estimate, however. It was not apparent why the new feed** 

## 3

**rates differed from EPA’s feed rates without a clea r accounting as to whether the data**  **were reported as “wet weight” or “dry weight” and i nformation from Maxxam on the**  **values for moisture content, if they exist. Table 2 summarizes the updated mercury feed**  **rates from Veolia’s electronic message with Veolia’ s original rates and EPA’s** 

**recalculated rates.**

**In March 2009, Veolia responded to requests for cla rification on the issue of wet**  **weight or dry weight. Veolia indicated that Maxxam provided percent moisture for the** 

**solid wastes and that the December recalculations o f mercury feed rates were based on**  **converting dry weight to wet weight using the new M axxam percent moisture data.**  **Maxxam provided new moisture data for container sol ids samples from Unit 2 and Unit 3**  **test burns only. Veolia used existing percent mois ture data from PSC Republic to** 

**recalculate the metal feed rates for Unit 4. Accor ding to the new Maxxam report, the**  **new percent moisture data for Units 2 and 3 came fr om samples analyzed on November**  **20, 2008; approximately 3 months after the samples were received. Analysis for**  **moisture content is typically done soon after the l aboratory receives the samples and a**  **“holding time” restriction is often imposed requiri ng the analysis be completed within 14**  **days of sample receipt. The new results differed g reatly from percent moisture values**  **provided by both Maxxam’s subsidiary lab, PSC Repub lic, and EPA’s Central Regional**  **Laboratory just a few weeks after the test burns. See Table 3 below for a direct**  **comparison.**

**The solids used for most of the tests came from a s ingle waste stream. Bulk**  **solids are expected to have lower moisture content than the container solids because sand**  **was added to achieve a particular test condition. EPA does not know why container**  **solids used for the September rerun of the Unit 2 t est burn would be much drier than**  **container solids used in August. All container sol ids used during the August test burns**  **were consistent in moisture content as reported by PSC Republic. We expect the PSC**  **Republic samples were provided by Maxxam from split samples taken from the original**  **sample set sent to Maxxam directly from the test bu rns as this is a common practice and**  **the samples were noted as received by PSC Republic within approximately 10 days of the**  **test burns. Furthermore, EPA’s laboratory obtained similar results to those of PSC**  **Republic on split samples collected at the test bur ns. Veolia has not explained why the** 

**Maxxam moisture data should be used instead of the values provided by PSC Republic or**  **why they are so different. In addition, Veolia has not explained why they wish to use**  **Maxxam’s new moisture data to correct the dry weigh ts for Units 2 and 3, but continue to**  **use the PSC Republic moisture data for its recalcul ation of Unit 4 feed rates.** 

**From this information, we believe the moisture cont ent analysis from PSC**  **Republic should be used for converting dry weight t o wet weight because the analysis**  **was conducted in a timely manner, the results were consistent for the single waste stream**  **used in the tests, and split samples analyzed by EP A’s laboratory provided similar results.** **4**Table 1. Metal Feed Rate Comparison - Veolia Environmental Services, Inc., Sauget, IllinoisUnitMetalGroupTest Feed RateClaimed by Veoliafrom August-Sept2008 (lbs/hr)Overestimatedby (%)System RemovalEfficiency UsingVeolia’s ClaimedFeed Rates (%)Test Feed RateCalculated byEPA (lbs/hr)System RemovalEfficiency Using TestFeed Rate Calculatedby EPA (%)Percent ofHistoricalFeedrate(%)Highest Feed Ratebetween 7/1/04and 1/1/08 (lbs/hr)Veolia’s ProposedExtrapolated FeedRate (lbs/hr)Mercury 0.0047 154% 82.63% 0.00185 55.51% 34.3% 0.00540 0.017SVM 63 - NC63.6(Aug),62.9(Sept)NC 124.9% 50.6 4592LVM 47 - NC47.2(Aug),46.8(Sept)NC 55.2% 84.5 399Mercury 0.0047 154% 83.22% 0.00185 54.47% 33.9% 0.00545 0.017SVM 63 - NC 64.3 NC 89.1% 72.1 4593LVM 47 - NC 47.7 NC 61.7% 77.3 399Mercury 0.031 19% 96.04% 0.026 95.36% 43.5% 0.059810.257SVM 65.2 2.5% NC 63.6 NC 109.6% 58.4 5004LVM 55.3 10% NC 50.3 NC 71.9% 69.9 500**NC – not calculated**Table 2. Updated Mercury Test Feed Rates – Veolia Environmental Services, LLC, Sauget, IllinoisUnitTest Feed Rate Claimed byVeolia in the October 2008 TestBurn ReportsNew Test Feed Rate Claimed byVeolia in December 2008Test Burn Feed RatesEstimated by EPA ConvertingDry Weight Results to WetWeight2 0.0047 lbs/hr 0.0034 lbs/hr 0.00185 lbs/hr3 0.0047 lbs/hr 0.0044 lbs/hr 0.00185 lbs/hr4 0.031 lbs/hr 0.026 lbs/hr 0.026 lbs/hr**5 Table 3. Comparison of Moisture Content– Veolia En** **vironmental Services, LLC, Sauget, Illinois Sample** **PSC Republic August, September** **2008 EPA CRL** **August 2008 New Maxxam Data** **November 20, 2008 August 2008 Test Burns** **Unit 2 – Run 1 – Container Solids 74% NA 32.3% Unit 2 – Run 2 – Container Solids 74.3% NA 31.4%** **Unit 2 – Run 3 – Container Solids 77% NA 40.0% Unit 3 – Run 1 – Container Solids 75.1% 76.2% 10.4%** **Unit 3 – Run 2 – Container Solids 71.5% NA 16.3% Unit 3 – Run 3 – Container Solids 76.3% NA 19.8%** **Unit 4 – Run 1 – Container Solids 76.6% 78.1% NA Unit 4 – Run 2 – Container Solids 76.2% NA NA** **Unit 4 – Run 3 – Container Solids 78.6% NA NA Unit 4 – Run 1 – Bulk Solids 20.8% 24.6% NA** **Unit 4 – Run 2 – Bulk Solids 22% NA NA Unit 4 – Run 3 – Bulk Solids 34.6% NA NA** **September 2008 Test Burn Unit 2 – Run 1 – Container Solids 31.9% NA 1.9%** **Unit 2 – Run 2 – Container Solids 30.6% NA 2.1% Unit 2 – Run 3 – Container Solids 32% NA 2.4%** 

## Attachment 1

**Conversation Log October 29, 2008 - Chris Lambesis, EPA with Mike Ch**  **allis, Maxxam Analytical, Inc.**

## 7 **Attachment 2**

**Electronic Message December 5, 2008 – Doug Harris, Veolia Environmenta**  **l Services, LLC to Todd Ramaly,**

**EPA**Doug. Harris @ veoliaes veoliaes veoliaes . com

12/05/2008 11:17 AM To Todd Ramaly/R5/USEPA/US@EPA

cc David.Klarich@veoliaes.com

bcc

Subject Mercury SRE Graphs

History: This message has been replied to and forwarded .



### Todd,

Wanted to send you an update on the Mercury SRE Graphs . We found a mistake that lowers the mercury feed in the waste (some questions Chris asked got us thinking and questioning... we owe him lunch!!). We've sent these to Charlie and explained the change. As you'll see by the graphs, although the slopes flattened, all SRE's remain better at the higher feed rates as before. Have a good weekend and give Dave or I a call if you have any questions.

(See attached file: UNIT2_HgSRErevised1125.doc)(See attached file: UNIT3_HgSRErevised1125.doc)(See attached file: UNIT4_HgSRErevised1125.doc)

Doug Harris General Manager Veolia ES Technical Solutions, L.L.C.
#7 Mobile Avenue Sauget, IL 62201

Office: 618-271-2804

Cell: 618-616-7420

Fax: 618-271-2128Unit-2SRE versus Hg feedrate20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%0 0.001 0.002 0.003 0.004 0.005 0.006Hg feedrate (lbs/hr)

Hg SRE (%)SRELinear (SRE)5/20048/2008Testing conducted on May, 2004 (pt 1) was used asdata in lieu for interim MACT standard compliance.Testing conducted onAugust, 2008 (pt 2) was testing conducted as required by June 5, 2008 USEPA letter and to demonstratecompliance with FinalMACT Standards. Pt (2) test was conducted at 3.5 times the Mercury feed rate as pt (1). Pt (2) resulted in higher SRE’s.Unit-3SRE versus Hg feedrate20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%0 0.001 0.002 0.003 0.004 0.005 0.006Hg feedrate (lbs/hr)

Hg SRE (%)SRELinear (SRE)5/20068/2008Testing conducted on May, 2006 (pt 1) at the request of the IEPA was to verify the testing conducted on May, 2004 on Unit #2being used as data in lieu for interim MACT Standard compliance for Unit #3. Testing conducted onAugust, 2008 (pt 2) wastesting conducted as required by June 5, 2008 USEPA letter and to demonstrate compliance with the Final MACT Standards.Pt (2) was conducted at 3.1 times the Mercury feed rate at Pt (1). Pt (2) resulted in higher SRE’s.Unit-4SRE versus Hg feedrate (@ 6 lbs/hr carbon)80%90%100%0 0.005 0.01 0.015 0.02 0.025 0.03 0.035 0.04Hg feedrate (lbs/hr)

Hg SRE (%)SRELinear (SRE)5/20048/2008Testing conducted on May, 2004 (pt 1) was used as data in lieu for interim MACT Standard Compliance.Testing conducted onAugust, 2008 (pt 2) was testing conducted as required by June 5, 2008 USEPA letter and to demonstrate compliance with the FinalMACT Standards. Pt (2) was conducted at 2.2 times the Mercury feed rate as Pt (1). Pt (2) resulted in higher SRE’s.

## 8 **Attachment 3**

**Electronic Message with Attachments December 10, 2008 - Doug Harris, Veolia Environment**  **al Services, LLC to Todd Ramaly, EPA** Doug. Harris @ veoliaes veoliaes veoliaes . com

12/10/2008 01:10 PM To Todd Ramaly/R5/USEPA/US@EPA

cc

bcc

Subject Fw: Hg SRE Spreadsheets



### Todd,

Here's the info. Let me know if you need anything else .

Doug Harris General Manager Veolia ES Technical Solutions, L.L.C.
#7 Mobile Avenue Sauget, IL 62201

Office: 618-271-2804

Cell: 618-616-7420

Fax: 618-271-2128 ----- Forwarded by Doug Harris/OES/ONYX on 12/10/2008 01:08 PM -----

David Klarich/OES/ONYX

To 12/10/2008 09:49 Doug Harris/OES/ONYX@EMAIL

AM cc

Subject Hg SRE Spreadsheets

Here are the spreadsheets with the calculations below the graph .

(See attached file: Unit2HGremovalgraphrevised1125.xls)(See attached file: Unit3HGremovalgraphrevised1125.xls)(See attached file:

Unit4HGremovalgraphrevised1125.xls)Unit-2FEED SRE FEED SRE0 70% May-04 0.00047 51.3% 5/2004 Average 0.000947 71%0.01 80% 0.0017 87.5% 8/2008 Average 0.003433 76%0.02 90% 0.00067 73.4%0.03 100% Aug-08 0.0039 79.7%0.040.0033 75.1%0.050.0031 74.2%0.06MercurySRE versus Hg feedrate20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%0 0.001 0.002 0.003 0.004 0.005 0.006Hg feedrate (lbs/hr)

Hg SRE (%)SRELinear (SRE)5/20048/2008Unit-2FeedEmissionsEmissionsDate(lb/hr)(ug/dscm)(lb/hr)SRE5/5/2004 0.00047 15.8 0.000229 51.35/6/2004 0.0017 13.5 0.000212 87.55/6/2004 0.00067 11.1 0.000178 73.48/11/2008 0.0039 58 0.000791 79.78/12/2008 0.0033 58.2 0.000822 75.18/13/2008 0.0031 57.4 0.000799 74.2Unit-3 Hg removalFEED SRE FEED SRE0 70% May-06 0.00125 27.9% 5/2006 Average 0.001387 33%0.01 80% 0.0014 22.1% 8/2008 Average 0.004367 81%0.02 90% 0.00151 47.8%0.03 100% Aug-08 0.0041 81.8%0.040.0048 80.5%0.050.0042 80.5%0.06MercurySRE versus Hg feedrate20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%0 0.001 0.002 0.003 0.004 0.005 0.006Hg feedrate (lbs/hr)

Hg SRE (%)SRELinear (SRE)5/20068/2008Unit-3 Hg removalFeedEmissionsEmissionsDate(lb/hr)(ug/dscm)(lb/hr)SRE5/10/2006 0.00125 70.3 0.000901 27.95/10/2006 0.0014 61.5 0.00109 22.15/11/2006 0.00151 52.7 0.000788 47.88/5/2008 0.0041 54.8 0.000748 81.88/6/2008 0.0048 61.1 0.000938 80.58/7/2008 0.0042 57.5 0.000818 80.5Unit-4 Hg removalFEED SRE FEED SRE0 70% May-04 0.0115 98% 5/2004 Average 0.0116 94%0.01 80% 0.0131 95% 8/2008 Average 0.026033 95%0.02 90% 0.0102 89%0.03 100% Aug-08 0.0257 94%0.040.026 96%0.050.0264 96%0.06MercurySRE versus Hg feedrate (@ 6 lbs/hr carbon)80%90%100%0 0.005 0.01 0.015 0.02 0.025 0.03 0.035 0.04Hg feedrate (lbs/hr)

Hg SRE (%)SRELinear (SRE)5/20048/2008Unit-4 Hg removalFeedEmissionsEmissionsDate(lb/hr)(ug/dscm)(lb/hr)SRE5/4/2004 0.0115 6.6 0.000253 97.85/4/2004 0.0131 18 0.000703 94.65/4/2004 0.0102 29.1 0.00114 88.88/21/2008 0.0257 37.8 0.00153 94.08/22/2008 0.026 24.3 0.000996 96.28/23/2008 0.0264 25 0.00108 95.9