IT3/HWC
Baltimore
Baton
2014
Rouge
2016
Source Emission Testing
Comprehensive Performance
Testing Fundamentals
Agenda
IT3/HWC
Baltimore
Baton
2014
Rouge
2016











Source emission testing overview
Commonly used source test methods
Types of hazardous waste incineration units
CPT program and regulatory applicability
CPT QAPP and test plans
CPT Pre-planning
Key CPT field testing components
POHC selection
Data in lieu of testing options
Common CPT failures and lessons learned
Appendix Material
Source Emission Testing Overview
Source Emission Testing can be best defined as:
“Quantifying pollutant emissions from a stationary air emission point source”
IT3/HWC
Baltimore
Baton
2014
Rouge
2016
 Point sources can range from a 2-inch ID process vent to a 20 foot or
larger diameter utility boiler stack.
 Some of the pollutants tested include:
• particulates (filterable, condensible, PM-10, PM-2.5)
• VOCs
• SOx, NOx, CO, THC, NH3
• semivolatile compounds
• acid gases (HCl, HF, H2SO4)
• aldehydes and ketones
• toxic metals
Source Emission Testing Overview
 Why Test?
1. To evaluate or demonstrate compliance with a State or Federal emission
standard
2. To evaluate the emission impacts of a process modification
3. To audit a continuous emission monitoring device
IT3/HWC
4. To generate data in support an emissions inventory or permitting activity,
Baltimore
Baton
2014
Rouge
2016
5. To evaluate the performance of a pollution control device
or
Source Emission Testing Overview, con’t
IT3/HWC
Baltimore
Baton
2014
Rouge
2016
 Source emission testing can:
• Accurately quantify target pollutant emissions to support a number of
objectives (compliance, diagnostic work, optimization, etc)
 Source emission testing can’t necessarily:
• Identify all unknown pollutants in a gas stream. Need to have some
information on process parameters, raw materials, exhaust gas
constituents, etc. to select appropriate test methods.
Source Emission Test Method Categories
 Regulatory agencies (e.g. USEPA and CARB) along with industry trade groups
(e.g. NCASI) have established detailed, validated source test methods for
specific pollutant types.
 These test methods can be divided up into three
general categories –
• Isokinetic, multi-point sample collection
IT3/HWC
Baltimore
Baton
2014
Rouge
2016
• Single-point, nonisokinetic (constant sample rate)
• Instrumental – realtime, on-site analysis
Volumetric Flow Rate Test Methods
 Measuring the volumetric flow rate of a gas stream is included in most
IT3/HWC
Baltimore
Baton
2014
Rouge
2016
source testing programs.
 It is used to relate pollutant concentrations to mass emissions rates (lb/hr)
 The following test equipment are used to evaluate flow rate
• S-type or Standard pitot tubes (USEPA Methods 1 and 2)
• Hot wire anemometers
• Vane anemometers
• Ultrasonic flow meters
• Orifice meters
• Measurement head is traversed across duct to account for particle
stratification
S-Type Pitot Tube Schematic
IT3/HWC
Baltimore
Baton
2014
Rouge
2016
Isokinetic Test Methods
 Isokinetic methods are used to sample for pollutants in a solid or aerosol
state at stack temperature. These methods maintain a sample rate that is
equal to the velocity of the sample stream.
• Particulate or particle-bound pollutant captured on filter media
• The “same velocity” sample rate is important so that the collected
sample is not biased due to varying particle sizes.
IT3/HWC
Baltimore
Baton
2014
Rouge
2016
• Sample nozzle diameter and sample rate are selected to achieve an
isokinetic sampling condition given specific stack gas conditions
• This sample velocity/rate is maintained through-out the test run
regardless of charges to stack flow rate
• Sample velocity/rate criteria for the majority of isokinetic methods is 90-
110% stack flow rate
Isokinetic Test Methods , con’t
 Sample nozzle is traversed across duct to account for particle stratification
 Commonly used Isokinetic test methods:
• USEPA Reference Method 5 (particulates)
• USEPA Reference Method 23 (PCDD/DF)
• USEPA Reference Method 29 (metals)
IT3/HWC
Baltimore
Baton
2014
Rouge
2016
• USEPA Reference Method 201A (PM-2.5 and PM-10)
• CARB Method 429 (PAH)
• SW846 Method 0050 (HCl/Cl 2)
 USEPA Methods 1-4 which measure stack gas flow rate are conducted in
conjunction with above methods
Isokinetic Sample Train Schematic
IT3/HWC
Baltimore
Baton
2014
Rouge
2016
Single Sample Point, Nonisokinetic Test Methods
 Single point nonisokinetic test methods are used to sample pollutants in the
gaseous or vapor state where isokinetic particle effects can be discounted.
• Samples are adsorbed onto a solid sorbent media or absorbed/reacted in
a solution
• Sampling is usually conducted at a single point in the duct or stack as
pollutants are assumed to be in gaseous state and not stratified
IT3/HWC
Baltimore
Baton
2014
Rouge
2016
• Sample rate varies with pollutant, concentration, collection media type
• Samples are typically analyzed off -site, however on-site analysis can be
conducted depending on complexity of the analysis and need for
realtime data.
Instrumental Test Methods
 On-site instrumentation is used to obtain real-time emissions data
 Sampling is conducted at a single point or multi-point traverse depending
on stratification levels.
 Sample is gaseous, so isokinetic particle effects can be discounted.

IT3/HWC
Baltimore
Baton
2014
Rouge
2016
Commonly used on-site analytical procedures include:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Chemiluminescence (NOx)
Pulse Fluorescence (SO2)
Nondispersive infrared (CO, CO2)
Electrochemical (O2)
Paramagnetic (O2)
Flame ionization (Total organics)
Gas chromatography and FTIR (speciated VOCs)
Comprehensive Performance Test Overview

A hazardous waste incinerator comprehensive performance test (CPT) or
“Trial Burn” is one of the most complex and extensive source test programs
a source owner can conduct

A CPT is:
•
•
IT3/HWC
Baltimore
Baton
2014
Rouge
2016
•
•
•
integral component of a facility's waste treatment program
very expensive program with costs typically ranging from $0.5 to
>$1MM
test that requires tremendous amount of upfront planning and process
evaluation prior to testing
a program that requires intensive communication with numerous groups
Typically involves spiking of waster material or surrogates into the APC
inlet stream
Hazardous Waste Combustion Units
There are 3 kinds of hazardous waste combustion units:
 Incinerators
 Boilers
 Industrial Furnaces
IT3/HWC
Baltimore
Baton
2014
Rouge
2016
Hazardous Waste Combustion Units
Incinerators
 An incinerator is an enclosed device using controlled
 flame combustion
 Includes infrared incinerators and plasma arc incinerators
IT3/HWC
Baltimore
Baton
2014
Rouge
2016
 Does not include industrial furnaces, boilers, sludge dryers, and carbon
regeneration units
There are approximately 120 hazardous waste incinerators in the United States
Hazardous Waste Combustion Units
Boilers
 A boiler is an enclosed device using controlled flame combustion that has
an energy recovery system
 The combustion chamber and primary energy recovery system are of
integral design
IT3/HWC
Baltimore
Baton
2014
Rouge
2016
 Thermal energy recovery efficiency must be > 60%
 Energy exportation and utilization must be > 75%
Hazardous Waste Combustion Units
Industrial Furnaces
 An industrial furnace is an enclosed device that is an integral component of a
manufacturing process and uses thermal treatment to recover materials or energy
 Industrial Furnace types Include:
IT3/HWC
Baltimore
Baton
2014
Rouge
2016
•
Cement, lime, phosphate, and aggregate kilns
•
Blast, methane reforming, and halogen acid furnaces
•
Titanium dioxide chloride process oxidation reactors
•
Coke ovens, smelting, melting, refining furnaces
•
Pulping liquor recovery furnaces
•
Combustion devices used in the recovery of sulfur values from spent sulfur
acid
Hazardous Waste Incinerator MACT Regulated Pollutants
IT3/HWC
Baltimore
Baton
2014
Rouge
2016
 The MACT standards limit emissions of:
• Dioxins and furans
• Mercury
• Semi-volatile metals (cadmium and lead)
• Low volatile metals (arsenic, beryllium, and chromium)
• Particulate matter, as a surrogate for non -mercury metal
• hazardous air pollutants (including antimony, manganese, selenium,
nickel, cobalt)
• Hydrogen chloride and chlorine gas
• Organic hazardous air pollutants
Hazardous Waste Incinerator Destruction and Removal
Efficiency (DRE) Requirements
 Units must meet specified DRE requirements:
• 99.99% DRE for each principal organic hazardous constituents (POHC)
• 99.9999% for each POHC if unit burns specific dioxin wastes
• POHCs are established based on the specific waste being combusted
IT3/HWC
Baltimore
Baton
2014
Rouge
2016
Hazardous Waste Incinerator Testing Requirements
 Two periodic test programs required to demonstrate compliance with
emission limits
•
•
IT3/HWC
Baltimore
Baton
2014
Rouge
2016
Comprehensive Performance Test (CPT)
Confirmatory Performance Test (CFPT)
Hazardous Waste Incinerator Testing Requirements
Comprehensive Performance Test
IT3/HWC
Baltimore
Baton
2014
Rouge
2016
 The CPT is the more complex program of the two required compliance tests.
 The Comprehensive Performance Test (CPT) is conducted in order to:
• Demonstrate compliance with emissions standards
• Establish (or revise) limits for operating parameters
• Demonstrate compliance with the performance specifications for
continuous monitoring systems (CMS)
• A CPT plan must be submitted for approval 12 months before the
scheduled test
• Initial CPT must be performed no later than six months after the
compliance date
Hazardous Waste Incinerator Testing Requirements
Comprehensive Performance Test, con’t
•
•
•
IT3/HWC
Baltimore
Baton
2014
Rouge
2016
•
•
CPTs must be conducted every five years with a one month
extension (i.e., 61 months) following the anniversary date of the
previous CPT
Designed to be performed under worst-case operations similar to RCRA
trial burns
Testing must be completed within 60 days of initiating testing
Results must be submitted to the permitting agency 90 days following
completion of the test
Hazardous Waste Incinerator Testing Requirements
Confirmatory Performance Test (CFPT)




IT3/HWC
Baltimore
Baton
2014
Rouge
2016
Significantly less intensive and complex than a CPT
Demonstrate compliance with dioxin/furan emission standards only
Performance evaluation of dioxin/furan CMS
Completed midway between CPTs (every 31 months after commencing CPT)
CPT Timeline
IT3/HWC
Baltimore
Baton
2014
Rouge
2016
 Sources are required to submit plans one year prior to actually
conducting CPT
 Regulatory agencies are to notify facility of intent to approve or
disapprove test plan within 9 months of submittal
 Source owners must notify the lead agency of their intent to test and
issue a public notice no sooner than 60 days prior to testing
 Once started, testing must be completed within 60 days of initiating the
test
 Facilities must submit their CPT results and Notification of Compliance
within 90 days of completing the CPT
 Extension of time provisions exist to both extend the review period, plus
also extend the test timing
CPT Pre-Planning - CPT Plans and Quality Assurance Project
Plans (QAPP)
CPT Plan Overview
IT3/HWC
Baltimore
Baton
2014
Rouge
2016
 Similar to a traditional stack testing protocol that contains information
outlined in 40 CFR 63.1207 which includes:
• Details of the unit(s) to be tested
• Details on the waste(s) treated
• Test location schematics
• Process operating information to demonstrate that the unit(s) will
operate under one or more “worst case” conditions
• Waste feed procedures, spiking, injection rates, and/or surrogate fuels
• Relevant QA/QC processes and activities to validate the data
Key to a successful CPT: Plan, Plan, and then Plan some more!
CPT Plan Content
CPT Component
IT3/HWC
Baltimore
Baton
2014
Rouge
2016
Regulatory Citation
•
Program Summary
40 CFR § 63.1207(f) and § 63.7(c)(2)(i)
•
Test schedule
40 CFR § 63.1207(f), (f)(1)(v) and § 63.7(c)(2)(i)
•
Data Quality Objectives (DQOs)
40 CFR § 63.1207(f) and § 63.7(c)(2)(i)
•
Internal and External Quality Assurance Plan
40 CFR § 63.1207(f) and § 63.7(c)(2)(i)
•
Analysis of feedstreams (as fired)
40 CFR § 63.1207(f)(1)(i)
•
Detailed engineering description of combustor
40 CFR § 63.1207(f)(1)(iii)
•
Description of Waste handling and blending operations
40 CFR § 63.1207(f)(1)(ii)(C)
•
Planned Feed and Operating conditions during the CPT
40 CFR § 63.1207(f)(1)(iv) and 40 CFR §
63.1207(f)(1)(vi) & (vii)
•
Procedures for stopping waste feed and controlling emissions during malfunction
40 CFR § 63.1207(f)(1)(viii)
•
malfunction determination of hazardous waste residence time
40 CFR § 63.1207(f)(1)(ix)
•
Metal feed rate limit extrapolation (if used)
40 CFR § 63.1207(f)(1)(x)
•
CMS and CEMS performance evaluation plans
40 CFR § 63.8(e)(4) and 1207(b)(1)
•
Levels of regulated constituents feedstreams that are not analyzed
40 CFR § 63.1207(f)(1)(xi)
•
Conditioning time needed to reach steady state prior to testing
40 CFR § 63.1207(f)(1)(xii)
CPT Pre-Planning – Mini-burns


IT3/HWC
Baltimore
Baton
2014
Rouge
2016
Conducting a mini-burn is highly recommended - great dry run prior to the
CPT
Mini-burn can be used to:
•
Evaluate selected waste and POHC feed spiking rates
•
Assess compliance with emission limits
•
Evaluate process and control operations
•
Test process set-points and cut-offs
•
Review source test locations and access issues
•
Identify and resolve program logistical problems upfront
Key CPT Field Testing Components
 Schedule – CPTs have a long lead time – establish project timeline early and
be sure to include all subcontractors (spiking firm, on-site FTIR/GC, etc)
 Identify and confirm program personnel and lines of communication
 Prepare thorough CPT plan and QAP and ensure they are thoroughly
reviewed with all program participants
 Meet with CPT program personnel well ahead of field test date to review:
IT3/HWC
• Test locations
Baltimore
Baton
2014
Rouge
2016
• Facility safety procedures, PPE requirements
• Electrical power needs
• Spiking equipment set-up locations
• Process operations
• Field test schedule
Key CPT Field Testing Components, con’t




IT3/HWC
Baltimore
Baton
2014
Rouge
2016

Ensure that field test team calibrates all test equipment and calibration
data is brought on-site
Prepare waste and source test sample labels prior to testing
Schedule sample media delivery from laboratories well in advance of field
testing
Establish all sample shipping and/or transport logistics prior to field
mobilization - often overlooked!
Procure field sample audits from designated laboratories– watch required
lead time
Key CPT Field Testing Components – POHC Selection


IT3/HWC
Baltimore
Baton
2014
Rouge
2016

POHC selection is one of the most important aspects of any CPT program
Be sure and select a POHC that:
•
Is more difficult to combust than organic HAPs
•
Base on historical data and test results, if possible
•
Is not a product of incomplete combustion
•
Is readily available and cost effective
•
Not necessarily native to the waste stream
•
Requires routine test methods to evaluate DRE
Select a POHC injection rate that will show acceptable DRE, but be careful
not to overload sample media
Key CPT Field Testing Components – POHC Selection
IT3/HWC
Baltimore
Baton
2014
Rouge
2016
 POHC Feed rate is critical
 POHC feedrate too low
• Need 104 X difference between lb/hr fed vs emitted to achieve a
99.99% DRE
• Need 106 X difference to achieve a 99.9999% DRE
 POHC feed rate too high
• Overwhelm sampling train
 Confirm that selected POHC cannot be introduced from unexpected
source(s) in waste or process vent systems
Key CPT Field Testing Components – Inorganic Spiking


IT3/HWC
Baltimore
Baton
2014
Rouge
2016

Only conduct inorganic spiking if necessary
Select an inorganic spike material that:
•
Has a physical state compatible with native waste stream
•
Commercially available and cost effective
•
Can be spiked accurately using well established feed systems
•
NIST traceable, if possible
Select an injection rate that is close to established or permitted
emission limits
Data-in-Lieu of Testing (DILO)
IT3/HWC
Baltimore
Baton
2014
Rouge
2016
 Allowed under 40 CFR 63.1207(c)(2)
 DILO testing results can be used in place of actual testing on the same unit
(data from previous RCRA trial burns, compliance programs)
 Can also be used in place of testing on a “identical” or “similar” unit
 Identical units are physical clones with the same manufacturer, with major
aspects of the unit being identical:
• Process and mechanical design
• Feed systems and waste feeds/rates
• Air and auxiliary fuel systems and fuels
• Combustion chamber(s)
• Air pollution control (APC) system
Data-in-Lieu of Testing (DILO), con’t
IT3/HWC
Baltimore
Baton
2014
Rouge
2016
 Similar units - Units are not total clones, but many features are virtually the
same
 Same process design – feed systems, combustion chambers, APC, etc.
 Same feeds, possibly at different feed rates
 Some differences in equipment sizes, but same equipment manufacturers
 Two examples –
1. Two kilns, same style, purpose, similar diameter, different length, or
2. Same combustion chamber geometry and burner configuration, but
slightly different firing capacities, everything else is identical
Data-in-Lieu of Testing (DILO), con’t
Important Considerations for DILO Requests
Incorporate DILO request in CPT Plan
Incorporate with regulatory notification of intent to test
Important to allow for public comment regarding the use of DILO
List major unit features (Feed rate, combustion chamber/burners, APC
design, etc) in CPT Plan
 When using data from earlier test programs:
• Verify feed rate and operating conditions is same as current program
• Verify sample test methods are the same
• Verify QA/QC procedures were consistent with current testing




IT3/HWC
Baltimore
Baton
2014
Rouge
2016
Primary Causes of CPT Failures
IT3/HWC
Baltimore
Baton
2014
Rouge
2016

CPT test conditions not representative of actual or planned operations

Process equipment operational issues
• Pollution control equipment malfunctions
• Incinerator operating problems

Incorrect spiked POHC or waste feed rates (under or overfeeding)

Difficulty maintaining desired test conditions (lack of experience/run time)

Incorrect incinerator DRE performance assumptions or erroneous pretest
data

Errors in CPT field sample collection or analysis
Implications of a Failed CPT


IT3/HWC
Baltimore
Baton
2014
Rouge
2016
Following completion of a CPT a facility has 90 days to submit a notification
of compliance
If a facility determines within the 90 day period that it exceeded an
emissions standard, does not meet the DRE threshold, or does not meet a
CMS performance standard, they must:
•
suspend hazardous waste burning during the tested process operating
condition(s)
•
facility can burn waste for up to 720 hours for the purpose of pre-testing
or confirmatory testing
•
facility can petition regulatory agencies for a waiver to burn waste for
other purposes
•
facility must conduct another CPT under revised process conditions
Questions?
IT3/HWC
Baltimore
Baton
2014
Rouge
2016
Thank You
IT3/HWC
Baltimore
Baton
2014
Rouge
2016
Appendix
Commonly Used Field Emission Testing Equations
IT3/HWC
Baltimore
Baton
2014
Rouge
2016
Acronyms
Sample Train Schematics and Photographs
Reference Citations
Commonly used CPT Testing Equations

Stack Gas Velocity (ft/sec) = K x pitot tube coefficient x ( ΔP)½ x (Ts/Ps x Ms)½

Stack gas Molecular Weight = 0.44 x (%CO 2) + 0.32 x (%O2) + 0.28 x (%N2 + % CO)

Stack Gas Flow Rate (dscf/min) = 3600 x (1
-Bws) x Vs x Stack Area x (TSTD x Ps/Ts x PSTD)
Where:
IT3/HWC
Baltimore
Baton
2014
Rouge
2016
ΔP = pitot tube differential pressure (in H2O)
K= Conversion constant
Ts = Stack Temperature (Deg. R)
Ps = Stack Pressure = (In Hg)
Ms = Stack gas molecular weight
Bws = Stack gas moisture content (percent by vol.)
T STD = Standard temperature (460 Deg. R)
PSTD = Standard pressure (29.92 in Hg)
Commonly used CPT Testing Equations, con’t
 % Isokinetic Sample Rate = 100 x Ts x [(Vm x Volc)/Tm x (Pbar + ΔH/13.6)]
60 x Ps x An x Vs
 Sample Volume (dscm) = Vm x Meter Gamma (Y) x Ts x (Pbar+ ΔH/13.6)
Tm x Ps
IT3/HWC
Baltimore
Baton
2014
Rouge
2016
 Pollutant Concentration (mg/dscm) = Pollutant Mass (mg)
Vm(STD) (m3)
 Pollutant Emission Rate (lb/hr) = Pollutant Conc. (mg/dscm) x volumetric flow
rate (dscm/min) x 60 x K
Exhaust Stream Flow Profile Evaluation
IT3/HWC
Baltimore
Baton
2014
Rouge
2016
Single Point, Nonisokinetic Test Methods
 Example of single point test methods include:
• USEPA Reference Method 6 (SO2)
• USEPA Reference Method 7E (NOx)
• USEPA Reference Method 18 (VOCs)
• USEPA Reference Method 26 (HCl/Cl2)
IT3/HWC
Baltimore
Baton
2014
Rouge
2016
• USEPA Reference Method 308 (Methanol)
• SW846 Method 0051 (HCl/Cl 2)
 USEPA Methods 1-4 which measure stack gas flow rate are conducted
separately from the above methods
Single Point, Nonisokinetic Sample Train Schematic
IT3/HWC
Baltimore
Baton
2014
Rouge
2016
Isokinetic Sample Train Schematic
IT3/HWC
Baltimore
Baton
2014
Rouge
2016
Single Point, Nonisokinetic Sample Train Schematic
IT3/HWC
Baltimore
Baton
2014
Rouge
2016
Single Point, Nonisokinetic Sample Train Schematic – VOST
IT3/HWC
Baltimore
Baton
2014
Rouge
2016
Instrumental Continuous Emissions Analyzers
IT3/HWC
Baltimore
Baton
2014
Rouge
2016
CPT Reference Material
• Guidance on Setting Permit Conditions and Reporting Trial Burn Data – USEPA Document
EPA/625/6-89/019
• Guidance for Quality Assurance Project Plans – USEPA Document EPA/240/R-02/009
• USEPA Reference Test Methods – 40 CFR Part 60, Appendix A
• USEPA CEMS Performance Test Methods – 40 CFR Part 60, Appendix B
• CPT Hazardous Waste Test Methods – USEPA SW846
IT3/HWC
Baltimore
Baton
2014
Rouge
2016
• Memorandum on Trial Burns (Guidance on Trial Burn Failures) – USEPA Document EPA/530/F94/023
• CPT Notification Requirements – 40 CFR Part 63.1210
• CPT Performance Test Requirements – 40 CFR Part 63.1207
• CPT Test Methods – 40 CFR Part 63.1208
• CPT Monitoring Requirements – 40 CFR Part 63.1209
• QA/QC Procedures for Emission Monitors Serving Hazardous Waste Incinerators and
Performance Testing Requirements for CEMS Certifications – Appendix to Subpart EEE