EP A/600/A-96/037
96-WA77.01
Testing the Performance of Continuous Emission Monitors for
Measuring Trace Metal and Organic Species Emissions from Incinerators
Larry R. Waterland
Acurex Environmental Corporation
555 Clyde Avenue
Mountain View, California 94043
Marta K. Richards
U.S. EPA/Office of Research and Development
26 W. Martin Luther King Drive
Cincinnati, Ohio 45268
S. Behrooz Ghorishi
Acurex Environmental Corporation
Incineration Research Facility
Jefferson, Arkansas 72079
Dan B. Burns
Westinghouse Savannah River Company
Savannah River Technical Center
Aiken, South Carolina 29802

-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
„ {Please read Instructions on Ike mem before complelin
I
i. report no. a.
EPA/600/A-96/037
3. «
4. TITLE ANO SUBTITLE
Testing the Performance of Continuous Emission Monitors
for Measuring Trace Metal and Organic Species
Emissions from Incinerators
S. REPORT DATE

1. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION COOE
1. AUTHOR(S)
L.R. Waterland; M.K. Richards; B. Gorishi; and,
D.B. Burns
¦.PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO.
I. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME ANO AODRESS
Acurex Environmental Corporation
Incineration Research Facility
Jefferson, Arkansas 72079
10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
11. CONTRACT/GRANf No.
68-C4-0044
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME ANO ADORESS
National Risk Management Research Laboratory
Office of Research and Development
US Environmental Protection Agency
Cincinnati, Ohio 45268
13. TYPE OF REPORT ANO PERIOD COVERED
Proceedina
14. SPONSORING AGENCY COOE
EPA/600/14
18. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
Technical Project Officer: Marta K. Richards 513/569-7692
IS. ABSTRACT
In a recently completed test program at the U.S. EPA Incineration Research Facility
(IRF), 10 prototype or developing continuous emission monitors (CEMs) for measuring
trace metal or trace organic species concentrations were tested. Of the 10 CEMs tested,
four measured concentrations of several specific volatile organic compounds, one
measured total particulate-bound polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbon concentrations, two
measured concentrations of up to 14 trace metals, and tnree measured mercury concentra-
tions. While the testing consisted of obtaining quantitative measurement data on the j
four measures of CEM performance checked in a relative accuracy test audit as described!
in 40 CFR 60 Appendix F-relative accuracy (RA), calibration drift, zero drift, and
response time-the primary project objective focused on the RA measurement. Thf RA
measurement was achieved by comparing the monitored analyte concentration reported by
the CEM to the concentration determined by the EPA reference method (RM) for the
analyte. Four series of tests were performed, each simultaneously testing up to three
monitors measuring the same or similar analyte type. Each test series consisted of
performing triplicate RM measurements at each of three target flue gas monitored analyte
concentrations while the tested CEMs were in operation. All measurements were taken in
the wet scrubber exit flue gas from the pilot-scale rotary kiln incineration system at
the IRF.
The test program results clearly showed the prototype nature of most approaches tested,
and the clear need for further development. ' '
17. KEY WORDS ANO DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
1. DESCRIPTORS
b.IDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENOEO TERMS
c. COSATI Field/Group

Monitors
Emissions
Measurement
Flue Gas
Combustion
Organic Compounds
Metals

It. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
Release to Public
18. SECURITY CLASS (Thll Report!
UNCLASSIFIED
21. NO. OF PAGES
20. SECURITY CLASS (Thispage!
UNCLASSIFIED
22. PRICE
EPA Fo»» 2220-1 (R«*. 4-77) previous edition is obsolete

-------
96-WA77.01
INTRODUCTION
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is currently developing more stringent emission
standards and considering changes in the way that permits for waste combustion facilities are
handled. More public involvement in the process has been proposed. Because the public's apparent
perception of incinerators is that high concentrations of hazardous compounds are continually being
released from the stacks of the thermal treatment devices, a means by which the "real-time" (defined
as ranging from instantaneous to a within-several-hours time frame) organic and metals emissions can
be monitored would be of great benefit to both regulators and the regulated community. The ability
to have "immediate" knowledge of stack emissions would provide assurances that the thermal
treatment device is operating correctly or indicate the change of operating conditions needed to adjust
stack emissions. Thus, EPA's Office of Solid Waste (OSW) and the Office of Solid Waste and
Emergency Response (OSWER) would like this monitoring capability as a means of responding to
and allaying the public's fears by showing that good, safe, and clean combustion practices can be
demonstrated.
The immediate needs of the thermal treatment community include the capability of performing "real-
time" monitoring of organic compounds and metals as these exit the stack. Conventional procedures
usually involve sample collection over an extended period of time and then sample analysis at a later
time. "Real-time" monitoring, on the other hand, involves the virtually immediate analysis of trace
quantities of pollutants. Several developers have designed monitoring units that they claim will
measure various regulated hazardous compounds using a number of different innovative concepts and
technologies. The development of these continuous emission monitor (CEM) approaches for both
trace metal and trace organic analyte classes has advanced to the state that several candidate
approaches are now in the prototype instrument stage. Given this, the general objective of the project
reported herein was to test several prototype instruments and establish or estimate for each unit the
effectiveness, reliability, accuracy, and detection limit. Support for this project came from both the
EPA's National Risk Management Research Laboratory (NRMRL), and the Department of Energy's
(DOE's) Office of Technology Development (OTD) through the Savannah River Technical Center
(SRTC), and the Education, Research, and Development Association of Georgia Universities
(ERDA).
To solicit candidate instruments for testing in the project, an announcement was published in the
January 4, 1995 Commerce Business Daily (CBD). Several proposals were received in response to
this announcement. Proposals addressing both trace metals measurement and trace organic compound
measurements were received. The selection of which CEMs to be included in this project was
subsequently made taking into consideration the recommendations of a program coordination
committee organized by ERDA, with support from SRTC. The selection process resulted in 11
offerings being identified for testing in this program. These are listed in Table 1 by monitored
analyte class. As shown, included in the list of CEMs selected for testing in this program are one
semivolatile organic constituent (SVOC), four volatile organic constituent (VOC), two multi-metal,
and four mercury CEMs.
2

-------
96-WA77.01
TEST PROGRAM
The selected approaches were evaluated in this test program, performed in the pilot-scale rotary kiln
incineration system (RKS) at EPA's Incineration Research Facility (IRF), located in Jefferson,
Arkansas. The testing consisted of obtaining quantitative measurement data on four measures of
CEM performance checked in a relative accuracy test audit (RATA) of a CEM as described in 40
CFR 60 Appendix F. These measures are:
•	Relative accuracy (RA): the absolute mean difference between the concentrations determined by
the CEM and the value determined by the reference method (RM), plus the 2.5 percent error
confidence coefficient of a series of tests, divided by the mean of the RM tests
•	Calibration drift (CD): the difference in the CEM output reading from the established reference
value after a stated period of operation during which no unscheduled maintenance, repair, or
adjustment took place; the reference value is established by a calibration standard which has a
concentration of nominally 80 percent or greater of the CEM's full scale (span) reading
capability
•	Zero drift (ZD): the CD where the reference value is 0
Response time: the time interval between the start of a step change in the concentration of the
monitored gas stream and the time when the CEM output reaches 95 percent of the final value
Measuring a CEM's RA requires comparing the monitored analyte concentration reported by the
CEM to the concentration determined by the RM for the analyte. In this program, the RM for trace
metal (including mercury) monitors was draft Method 29, the EPA multiple metals method
documented in the boiler and industrial furnace (BIF) rules.1 The RM for volatile organic
compounds (VOCs) was Method 0030 with analysis using thermal desorption, purge and trap by
Method 5040, and quantitation by Method 8015A.2 The RM for semivolatile organic compounds
(SVOCs) was Method 0010 with analysis by Method 8270B.2
Test Facility
As noted above the test program was conducted in the RKS at the IRF. Figure 1 is a process
schematic of the RKS as configured for these tests. The RKS consists of a primary combustion
chamber, a transition section, and a fired afterburner chamber. After exiting the afterburner
extension, flue gas flows through a quench section that is followed by a primary air pollution control
system (APCS). The initial element of the primary APCS for these tests was the venturi scrubber/
packed-column scrubber combination shown in Figure 1. This scrubber system removes from the
flue gas most of the coarse particles and any acid gas, such as HC1. Following the scrubber system,
the flue gas is reheated to about 120°C (250°F) by a 100-kW electric duct heater, then passed
through a fabric filter (baghouse). The baghouse removes most of the remaining flue gas particles.
Downstream of the baghouse, a backup, secondary APCS, comprised of an activated-carbon adsorber
and a high-efficiency particulate air (HEPA) filter is in place.
3

-------
96-WA77.01
For this test program, an afterburner exit flue gas partial quench system was installed in the
afterburner extension so that the afterburner exit flue gas temperature could be decreased to the 360°
to 427°C (680° to 800°F) range prior to completely quenching to saturation. The partial quench
capability was needed for flue gas spiking of the VOC and SVOC analytes to be monitored as
discussed below. This partial quench system consisted of a water spray nozzle inserted into one of
the first ports in the afterburner extension. The system was designed to ensure complete evaporation
of the water spray occurred prior to entering the full quench device.
All CEMs tested in this test program sampled flue gas at the scrubber exit location. The length of
scrubber exit ductwork accessible for testing had four sets of ports, each set comprised of four
individual ports at 90° increments in the duct circular cross section.
Testing Procedures
The test program consisted of four series of tests; each series tested one set of CEMs, generally
monitoring the same analyte set. Up to three CEMs were tested at the same time during each of the
four test series. Thus, each CEM had access to one of the four sets of ports at the sampling location.
The fourth set of ports was dedicated to the RM sampling performed by the IRF staff.
The major portion of the test program consisted of performing three sequential RM measurements,
while the tested CEMs were in operation, at each of three flue gas concentrations of monitored
analytes. Thus, each test series was designed to supply nine sets of parallel RM and CEM reading
data, three at each of three analyte concentrations. These nine sets of parallel RM and CEM data
supported the calculation of each CEM's RA. Thus, up to three RAs were calculated for each CEM,
one at each of the three flue gas concentrations tested. Other test efforts discussed below supported
the measurements of CD, ZD, and response time. To ensure that the sets of RM/CEM concentration
data were indeed parallel and comparable, the developers were notified of the start and stop times of
each RM procedure so that they could report an average analyte concentration that corresponded
directly to the RM measurement period.
Performing one RM measurement of the flue gas constituent concentrations can require a 2- to 2.5-
hour flue gas sampling period. With contingency for sampling train filter changes and other
sampling procedure delay events, a 3-hour time period was normally allotted to completing one RM
test. Thus, the three sequential RM tests were targeted for completion over a 9-hour period of
continuous, steady RKS operation at a nominally constant scrubber exit flue gas monitored analyte
concentration. This nominally 9-hour period was termed 1 test day. Testing at three different
scrubber exit flue gas concentrations, thus, required 3 test days comprising each test series.
At the beginning of each test day, the RKS was brought to steady operation at the desired
incineration conditions firing natural gas. After the RKS combustion gas CEMs were calibrated and
all RM sampling preparations completed, test waste feed was initiated and steady RKS operation
reestablished. During this time, each CEM developer was given the opportunity to calibrate his
instrument. This calibration included zero and span checks. The day's test, the three sequential RM
sampling efforts, began after all CEMs had completed zero and span checks. The first of the three
sequential RM sampling efforts began after the CEMs being tested had been calibrated, provided that
at least 1 hour of waste feeding had elapsed. At the end of the test day (after completion of the third
4

-------
96-WA77.01
RM sampling period), up to two successive step changes (increases and decreases) in flue gas analyte
concentrations were induced. Measurements of CEM responses to these step changes gave data on
instrument response time.
After these step change/response observation exercises, test waste feed was stopped and each
developer was given the opportunity to check the calibration of his instrument. These post-test
checks yielded the measures of CD and ZD. The RKS continued to operate, firing natural gas, until
the kiln was visually clear of bottom ash, or for 2 hours, whichever time was longer. After this time
period, the RKS was set to an unattended operating condition firing natural gas in preparation for the
next test day.
The four test series were completed over the 8-week period beginning July 24, 1995, and ending
September 15. Table 2 summarizes the participants and test dates for each test. Of the 11
instruments selected for testing, 10 were able to obtain some data. The Euramark mercury monitor
was damaged in transport to the IRF and repair efforts by the developer were unsuccessful. The
Marine Shale Processors (MSP) VOC monitored malfunctioned during the initial test in Series 1 and
could not be brought into reliable operation. MSP was given the opportunity to return and
participate in Series 4, the last test series completed, which they did.
Test Waste Feed
The incinerator feed material was a synthetic hazardous waste comprised of an attapulgate clay solid
sorbent combined with a mixture of 14 trace metals and VOCs. The mixture of VOCs added to the
sorbent base contained 76 percent toluene by weight, with 12 percent each of chlorobenzene and
tetrachloroethene. This mixture was combined with the clay sorbent in the ratio of 1.0 kg of organic
constituent mixture to 2.4 kg of clay. The resulting organic compound/clay mixture, thus, contained
nominally 22.4 percent of toluene and 3.5 percent each of chlorobenzene and tetrachloroethene. Its
chlorine content was nominally 4.1 percent and its heating value nominally 10.7 MJ/kg
(4,590 Btu/lb). The mixture was a free-flowing solid with no free-standing liquid. Thus, for all tests
the mixture was continuously fed to the RKS via a screw feeder system.
For all tests, the target clay/organic mixture feedrate was 68 kg/hr (150 lb/hr). The target kiln exit
gas temperature was 870°C (1,600°F), and the target afterburner exit gas temperature was 1,065°C
(1,950°F). Combustion system temperatures were maintained by controlling the auxiliary fuel
(natural gas) firing rates to the system combustion chambers. The kiln rotation rate was set to give a
kiln solids residence time of about 1 hour.
For all tests, the RKS scrubber system was operated at its design operating conditions, with the
exception of the venturi scrubber pressure drop. For these tests the adjustable-throat venturi was
opened to its widest setting so that the venturi pressure drop was at a minimum, with the
corresponding particulate collection efficiency also at a minimum. The desire was to produce
scrubber exit flue gas metal-containing particulate concentrations in the 100 mg/dscm range.
5

-------
96-WA77.01
Multi-Metal and Mercury CEM Tests
The trace metals of interest to this test program are those being considered for regulation by OSW
and other EPA Program Offices. These are listed in Table 3, Table 3 also notes the program target
scrubber exit flue gas concentrations of each metal for the tests of multi-metals CEMs. For the
mercury CEMs tests in Test Series 3, the low concentration targets were at half the levels noted in
the low-concentration column in Table 3. The intermediate concentration targets were at those noted
in the low-concentration column in Table 3, and the high-concentration targets were those noted in
the intermediate-concentrations column in Table 3. This change was incorporated at the request of
the mercury CEM developers.
Trace metals were added to the RK.S, to result in scrubber exit flue gas levels, via two routes. Both
routes used an aqueous spike solution of the metals. The composition of the most concentrated spike
solution used is given in Table 4. The most concentrated solution was added for the multi-metal
CEM test days at the high target flue gas metals concentration. This solution was diluted 10-fold and
40-fold for the multi-metal CEM test days at the intermediate and low target concentrations. The
concentrated solution was diluted 10-fold, 40-fold, and 80-fold for the mercury monitor tests at the
high, intermediate and low target concentrations. The entire complement of metals was retained in
the aqueous spike solution for the mercury CEM tests so that any potential interferences with CEM
readings due to the presence of the other metals could be assessed.
The two routes of metals addition were incorporated into the clay/organic mixture and atomized into
the kiln main burner flame. The solid waste feed route was effected by metering the aqueous spike
solution into the clay/organic liquid mixture at the screw feeder just prior to feed introduction into
the kiln. A gear pump was used to inject the spike solution at a flowrate of 2 L/hr. The burner
flame atomization route was effected by spraying the aqueous spike solution through the liquid feed
nozzle of the kiln dual fuel main burner at a rate of 6 L/hr.
The solution of the VOCs and SVOCs used to establish the target flue gas VOC and SVOC
concentrations for the organic CEM test was also injected into the partially quenched afterburner
extension flue gas at the intermediate injection concentration for the multi-metal and mercury CEM
tests, again to assess any potential interferences.
VOC and SVOC CEM Tests
The list of VOCs present in the scrubber exit flue gas for all tests is given in Table 5. This list
contains many of the VOC species currently being considered for regulation. The target flue gas
concentrations of the compounds were in the 1 to 2, 10 to 20, and 160 to 240 jig/dcsm ranges (low,
intermediate, and high concentrations) for all VOCs except carbon tetrachloride and chloroform. For
these two VOCs, the target flue gas concentrations were doubled to 2 to 4, 20 to 40, and 320 to
480 |ig/dscm. Naphthalene, phenanthrene, and pyrene were the SVOCs introduced into the flue gas
for all tests. The target flue gas concentrations for these were 1 to 2, 10 to 20, and 160 to
240 fig/dscm.
The VOCs and SVOCs were introduced into the flue gas by metering a solution of the spiking
compounds in methanol through a length of fine bore stainless steel tubing into the afterburner
extension at its centerline. As noted above, the afterburner exit flue gas was partially quenched to a
6

-------
96-WA77.01
temperature of between 360° to 427°C (680° and 800°F) by a water spray introduced into the first
port (nearest the afterburner proper) of the afterburner extension. The VOC/SVOC solution was
introduced through a port midway along the length of the afterburner extension. This arrangement
afforded time for the flue gas to cool prior to VOC/SVOC solution injection as well as time for the
VOC/SVOC solution to evaporate and fully mix in the flue gas prior to entering the water quench
section of the RKS.
The concentrated organic spiking solution prepared consisted of 0.4 g/L of carbon tetrachloride and
chloroform, 0.2 g/L of each of the other 8 constituents listed in Table 5, and 0.2 g/L of the three
SVOCs in methanol. The concentrated solution was used for the high target flue gas VOC and
SVOC CEM tests. The solution was metered into the partially quenched afterburner extension flue
gas at a feedrate in the 800 to 1,200 mL/hr range. The concentrated organic solution was diluted
with methanol 10-fold and 100-fold for the intermediate and low target flue gas concentration tests,
respectively, and fed at the same 800 to 1,200 mL/hr feedrate. Trace metals were also fed into the
kiln in the same manner used for the multi-metals and mercury CEM tests. The multi-metal CEM
test intermediate feed solution concentrations were used.
TEST RESULTS
VOC CEM Tests
Tables 6 through 8 present the results of the three sequential RM measurements, along with the Oak
Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) and EcoLogic CEM results, for each of the three VOC
concentrations tested in Test Series 1. The EcoLogic CEM data for the first day of testing at the low
VOC concentration were not reported in EcoLogic's test report due to operator error which resulted
in CEM readings that were inflated and incorrect. MSP was an original participant in Test Series 1.
However, during this series, they were unable to bring their instrument into operation. Because
access space was available for another CEM in Test Series 4, MSP was afforded the opportunity to
return and participate in this series.
RAs were calculated using the RM and CEM data in Tables 6 through 8. These are summarized in
Table 9. For the cases noted above where the ORNL CEM measured concentrations were less than
the reporting limit, no RA calculation was performed when two or more of the three CEM
concentrations on a test day were less than the reporting limit. In cases for which only one of the
three CEM concentrations for the day was less than reporting limit, the RA was calculated by using
the reporting limit as the CEM concentration. The data in Table 9 show that the calculated RAs for
the ORNL CEM ranged from 123 to 305 percent at the low test concentration, with an average of
196 percent over the seven compounds reported. ORNL CEM RAs were improved at the
intermediate test concentration, at 113 to 278 percent, with an average of 154 percent over the nine
compounds reported. Further improvement is seen at the high test concentration, with an RA range
of 84 to 144 percent, and an average of 105 percent over all 10 compounds reported. In fact, the RA
for all VOCs reported uniformly improved as the test concentration increased.
Because EcoLogic did not report CEM concentrations for the low concentration test day, no RA
calculation was possible. For the intermediate test concentration, the RAs of the EcoLogic CEM
ranged from 65 to 7,320 percent, with an average of 2,520 percent. Much improved performance
7

-------
96-WA77.01
was seen at the high test concentration, for which the RA ranged from 27 to 283 percent and
averaged 121 percent. As seen for the ORNL CEM, the RAs for nine of the 10 VOCs reported were
improved at the high test concentration compared to the intermediate concentration.
Tables 10 through 12 present the results of the three sequential RM measurements, along with the
EPA/APPCD and MSP CEM results, for each of the three VOC concentrations tested in Test
Series 4. The tables indicate that, out of the nine sampling periods, MSP obtained data for only two.
The MSP CEM failed during the first test day. The failure was caused by moisture condensation in
the instrument's sampling system which, in turn, caused pressure fluctuations at the MS inlet. These
pressure fluctuations persisted throughout the rest of the test series. The MSP team was unable to
effect system repairs in the time to participate in any subsequent testing.
RAs corresponding to the RM/CEM concentration data given in Table 10 through 12 are summarized
in Table 13. Because the MSP system only operated on the first test day at the low VOC
concentration, only this one set of RAs is noted in the table. However, even this RA calculation is
not strictly appropriate because it is based on only two pairs of RM and CEM measurements. All
EPA CEM performance specifications require a minimum of three pairs of RM and CEM
measurements for an RA calculation.
The data in Table 13 show that the RAs for the EPA CEM ranged from 71 to 3,190 percent, and
averaged 638 percent, for the low test concentrations. The relatively high average RA was driven by
the two very high RAs for 1,2-dichloroethane and 1,1-dichloroethane, however. The median RA for
the low concentration test at a much improved 113 to 137 percent, removes the dominant influence
of the two compounds for which the CEM did poorly. Two values are noted for the median in Table
13 because 10 compounds are reported; thus, the median represents the fifth and sixth lowest RAs
noted. The RAs for the EPA CEM were improved at the intermediate test concentration, ranging
from 29 to 1,130 percent and averaging 213 percent. Poor performance in quantitating 1,2-
dichloroethane and 1,1-dichloroethane again accounts largely for the high average RA. Again, the
median RA at 83 to 98 percent better reflects the mean performance of the CEM by removing the
dominant influence of the RAs for the two VOCs poorly quantitated. Further improved performance
of the EPA CEM was seen at the high test concentration, with an RA range from 34 to 133 percent
and an average RA of 73 percent. In fact, at the high test concentration, the RAs for two compounds
poorly quantitated at the low and intermediate test concentrations are more in line with those
calculated for the other eight compounds. For this reason, the median RA at 53 to 70 percent is
comparable to the average RA.
The calculated RAs based on the two available CEM/RM measurement pairs for the MSP CEM were
quite large, ranging from 315 to 412,000 percent and averaging 54,600 percent. Even the median
RAs for the MSP CEM, at 2,840 to 6,480 percent, are quite high.
SVOC CEM Tests
The SVOC CEM tests were performed during Test Series 4 of the test program, simultaneously with
the second set of VOC CEM tests. Table 14 presents the results of the three sequential RM
measurements performed each test day, and compares these to the EcoChem CEM results for the test
days at the low and intermediate SVOC concentrations. Due to problems in the flue gas conditioning
(moisture removal) system, the EcoChem CEM could not be brought into operation on the last da> ot
testing at the high SVOC concentration. Because EcoChem was the only SVOC CEM participating
8

-------
96-WA77.01
in the test program, SVOC RM measurements were stopped after the first RM on this test day
because there would be no CEM reading for comparison. The single RM measurement is given, for
completeness, in Table 14. In addition, no CEM data were obtained during the first RM period on
the intermediate concentration test day because the EcoChem CEM was not in operation, again due to
problems with the flue gas moisture removal system.
Table 14 also notes the RA of the EcoChem PAH CEM for the two test days the CEM was in
operation. As was done for the MSP VOC CEM discussed above, an RA was calculated for the
intermediate concentration test day using only the two pairs of RM and CEM data, despite the
universal performance specification (PS) requirement that at least three pairs of data be used in a true
RA determination.
Table 14 indicates that the RAs for the EcoChem CEM were 527 and 99 percent. As was seen in the
VOC CEM tests, the RA at the higher test flue gas concentration was improved in comparison to the
lower test concentration.
Multi-Metal CEM Tests
Tables 15 through 17 summarize the results of the three sequential RM measurements performed
each test day and compares these to the Sandia National Laboratories (SNL) and Metorex CEM
measurements. As indicated in the tables, the Metorex instrument did not measure beryllium or
mercury. The SNL CEM did not detect any of the test trace metals on the low concentration test
day, only arsenic, barium, and lead were reported on the intermediate concentration test day, and
only antimony, arsenic, barium, and lead for one or more RM periods were reported on the high
concentration test day.
The RAs corresponding to the measurement pair data in Tables 15 through 17 are summarized in
Table 18. Neither beryllium or mercury is included in the tables because neither CEM tested
measured these two metals. In addition, results for silver are not included in the table. Spike
recovery from QA samples was poor, so silver concentrations as measured by the RM are highly
suspect.
The data in Table 18 show that the RAs for the SNL CEM ranged from 64 to 1,560 percent for the
three metals reported on the intermediate concentration test day, and from 65 to 188 percent for the
two metals reported on the high concentration test day. RAs for the Metorex CEM ranged from 88
to 236 percent, with an average of 129 percent and a median of 116 percent for the low
concentration test. Corresponding RAs for the intermediate-concentration test were 72 to
467 percent, with an average of 168 percent and a median of 135 percent, and, for the high-
concentration test, 93 to 177 percent, with an average of 129 percent and a median of 121 percent.
The RAs for the Metorex CEM were comparable for each test concentration. No marked
improvement as flue gas concentration increased, as observed for the VOC CEMs, is seen in the
Metorex CEM data.
Mercury CEM Tests
Table 19 summarizes the results of three sequential RM measurements performed each mercury CEM
test day and compares these to the corresponding three mercury CEM measurements. Calculated
RAs for each CEM are also given in the table for the three test days, each representing a different
flue gas mercury concentration.
9

-------
96-WA77.01
The table indicates several periods during which the Perkin Elmer and the Senova CEMs were not in
operation. In the Senova case, a critical part of the Senova CEM was broken when packing the CEM
for shipment to the IRF. The time required to locate and secure a replacement part caused a delay in
the Senova team's arrival at the IRF such that the first test day, at the intermediate flue gas mercury
concentration, was missed. The Senova CEM was in operation on the second test day, at the high
flue gas mercury concentration. However, a malfunction that caused unstable sample gas flow to the
analyzer prevented Senova from obtaining valid data on the third and last day of testing at the low
flue gas mercury concentration. Thus, the Senova team was able to obtain only one day of test
results.
The Perkin Elmer team was unable to obtain reliable results during the second RM period on the first
test day (intermediate concentration) because of a buildup of a white powder which clogged the
probe sintered metal filter. On the second day of testing (high concentration) the Perkin Elmer CEM
developed a defect at the sample drain pump and a broken probe fitting, so no data were obtained for
the first two RM periods on this test day. As a result, no RA could be calculated for the Perkin
Elmer CEM for the high concentration test, and the RA in Table 19 for the intermediate
concentration test is based on only two pairs of RM/CEM measurements.
The data in Table 19 show that the EcoChem CEM had an RA of about 60 percent for both the low
and the high concentration tests. The RA at the intermediate concentration was increased, at
92 percent. The RA of the Perkin Elmer CEM was 602 percent at the low mercury concentration
and 1,150 percent (based on two measurement pairs) at the intermediate mercury concentration. The
RA of the Senova CEM was 186 percent at the one test concentration having data.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The tests program described in this paper was funded by the United States Environmental Protection
Agency under Contract No. 68-C4-0044 to Acurex Environmental Corporation. It has been subjected
to Agency review, and approved for publication. Mention of trade names or commercial products
does not constitute endorsement for use.
REFERENCES
1.	40 CFR Part 266, Appendix IX.
2.	"Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste: Physical/Chemical Methods," EPA SW-846, Third
Edition, Revision 2, September 1994.
10

-------
96-WA77.01
Table 1. Participants in the CEM test programs.
Monitored
analyte
Developer
Approach
SVOCs
EcoChem
Photoionization of aerosol-bound polycyclic
aromatic hydrocarbons
VOCs
EcoLogic
Continuous chemical ionization mass
spectrometry

Marine Shale Processors (MSP)
Continuous online mass spectrometry

Oak Ridge National Laboratory
(ORNL)
Direct sampling ion trap mass spectrometry

EPA, Air Pollution Prevention
and Control Division (APPCD)
On line gas chromatography with dual flame
ionization, electron capture detection
Multi-metals
Sandia National Laboratory
(SNL)
Laser induced plasma spectroscopy

Metorex
Extractive beta gauge particulate monitor with
x-ray fluorescence metals analysis
Mercury
Perkin-Elmer
Gold trap amalgamation collection, cold vapor
atomic absorption spectroscopy analysis

Euramark
Cold vapor atomic absorption spectroscopy

Senova
Noble metal film solid state chemical
microsensor

EcoChem
Cold vapor atomic absorption spectroscopy
11

-------
96-WA77.01
Table 2. CEM test summary.
Test completion dates
Test
series
CEM tested
Monitored
analyte
Low analyte
concentration
Intermediate
analyte
concentration
High analyte
concentration
1
EcoLogic
Marine Shale Processors3
Oak Ridge National
Laboratory
VOC
voc
VOC
7/31/95
8/2/95
8/4/95
2
Sandia National
Laboratory
Metorex
Euramarkb
Multi-metals
Multi-metals
Hg
8/14/95
8/16/95
8/18/95
3
Perkin-Elmer
Senova
EcoChem
Hg
Hg
Hg
9/1/95
8/28/95
8/30/95
4
EcoChem
EPA/APPCD
Marine Shale Processors
SVOC
VOC
VOC
9/11/95
9/13/95
9/15/95
"Marine Shale Processors was unable to bring their system into operation. They returned during the last test series.
bEuramark was unable to bring their system into operation.
12

-------
96-WA77.01
Table 3. Test trace metals and target flue gas concentrations.
Metal
Target flue gas concentration, /ig/dscm
Low
Intermediate
High
Antimony
10
40
400
Arsenic
5
20
200
Barium
50
200
2,000
Beryllium
0.5
2
20
Cadmium
5
20
200
Chromium
20
80
560
Cobalt
10
40
400
Lead
50
200
2,000
Manganese
5
20
200
Mercury
20
80
800
Nickel
10
40
400
Selenium
50
200
2,000
Silver
5
20
200
Thallium
5
20
200
Table 4. Concentrated aqueous spike solution composition.
Metal concentration,

Compound concentration,
Metals
g/L
Compound
g^L
Antimony
0.32
C4H4K07Sb
0.85
Arsenic
0.18
As203
0.24
Barium
6.3
Ba(N03)2
12.0
Beryllium
0.06
10,000 ppm Be standard
NAa
Cadmium
0.075
Cd(N03)2 • 4 H20
0.21
Chromium
1.5
Cr(N03)3 • 9 H20
11.2
Cobalt
1.6
Co(N03)2 • 6 H20
7.78
Lead
1.40
Pb(N03)2
2.24
Manganese
0.52
Mn(N03)2 • 6 H20
2.72
Mercury
0.26
Hg(N03)2 • H20
0.44
Nickel
1.90
Ni(NO-), * 6 H20
9.41
Selenium
0.70
Se02
0.98
Silver
0.11
AgN03
0.17
Thallium
0.075
Ti(N03)3 • 3 H20
0.16
aNA = Not applicable.
13

-------
96-WA77.01
Table 5. VOC spiked into flue gas.
Benzene
Carbon tetrachloride
Chlorobenzene
Chloroform
1,2-Dichloroethane
1.1-Dichloroethene
T etrachloroethene
Toluene
1,1,1 -T richloroethane
Trichloroethene
Table 6. Measured flue gas concentrations for the test of the ORNL and EcoLogic CEMs at the low
VOC concentration.
	Concentration, /ig/dscm	
1st daily RM	2nd daily RM	3rd daily RM
ORN	ORN	ORN
Compound RM L EcoLogic RM L EcoLogic RM L EcoLogic
Benzene
32.4
1.3
NO"
41.9
1.6
NO
59.6
1.6
NO
Carbon tetrachloride
31.2
<0.4
NO
34.2
<0.4
NO
38.0
0.92
NO
Chlorobenzene
55.6
0.76
NO
49.2
1.2
NO
86.7
5.6
NO
Chloroform
40.8
0.56
NO
47.3
0.4
NO
41.6
3.6
NO
1,2-Dichloroethane
2.4
2.5
NO
3.3
1.5
NO
2.6
6.8
NO
1,1-Dichloroethene
86.4
3.2
NO
35.6
<0.4
NO
16.9
11.0
NO
Tetrachloroethene
89.9
1.7
NO
73.9
1.3
NO
126
4.3
NO
Toluene
352
9.2
NO
316
9.2
NO
462
16
NO
1,1,1 -Trichloroethane
2.5
<0.4
NO
4.6
<0.4
NO
6.4
<0.4
NO
Trichloroethene
6.9
<0.4
NO
5.9
<0.4
NO
3.9
<0.4
NO
"NO = CEM not operational.
14

-------
96-WA77.01
Table 7. Measured flue gas concentrations for the test of the ORNL and EcoLogic CEMs at the
intermediate VOC concentration.
Concentration, ^g/dscm
1st daily RM	2nd daily RM	3rd daily RM
ORN	ORN	ORN
Compound RM L EcoLogic RM L EcoLogic RM L EcoLogic
Benzene
32.7
12.0
97
28.7
<2.3
820
36.4
5.5
870
Carbon tetrachloride
46.9
10.1
7.9
41.7
3.8
24
58.5
6.4
16
Chlorobenzene
59.8
25.8
81
46,3
7.2
81
74.3
27.6
98
Chloroform
57.1
23.9
140
56.7
9.6
230
66,3
18.4
170
1,2-DichIoroethane
17.4
43.3
210
12.3
16.6
340
15.3
29.5
290
1,1-Dichloroethene
24.0
55.3
320
20.5
26.7
430
14.3
40.5
370
Tetrachloroethene
81.4
11.1
120
64.1
2.5
770
101
7.4
710
Toluene
342
147
210
218
71.8
120
413
103
250
1,1,1 -T richloroethane
13.8
<2.3
800
13.3
<2.3
910
12.9
<2.3
840
Trichloroethene
19.4
4.6
420
18.6
0.9
770
20.4
1.8
510
Table 8. Measured flue gas concentrations for the test of the ORNL and EcoLogic CEMs at the high
VOC concentration.
Concentration, pg/dscm


1st daily RM
2nd daily RM
3rd daily RM


ORN


ORN


ORN

Compound
RM
L
EcoLogic
RM
L
EcoLogic
RM
L
EcoLogic
Benzene
102
36.8
140
89.1
50.7
160
91.3
28.6
190
Carbon tetrachloride
423
101
380
409
119
350
446
76.4
360
Chlorobenzene
337
138
250
299
170
270
269
97.6
280
Chloroform
417
101
330
411
168
350
413
91.2
390
1,2-Dichloroethane
184
88.4
450
174
114
500
183
6.3
540
1,1-Dichloroethene
116
38.7
350
140
44.2
440
162
35.9
480
T etrachloroethene
429
62.6
690
374
61.7
740
324
37.8
690
Toluene
1,760
847
1,300
1,393
921
120
1,024
460
760
1,1,1 -Trichloroethane
175
24.9
170
164
37.8
190
182
20.3
210
Trichloroethene
189
15.7
340
176
19.3
300
185
14.7
360
15

-------
96-WA77.01
Table 9. Relative accuracies of the ORNL and EcoLogic CEMs.
RA, %
ORNL
EcoLogic
Test concentration
Test concentration
Compound
Low
Intermediate
High
Low
Intermediate
High
Benzene
173
119
98
NC
5,020
154
Carbon tetrachloride
NC4
129
100
NC
135
27
Chlorobenzene
164
93
84
NC
74
52
Chloroform
123
105
97
NC
396
33
1,2-Dichloroethane
305
278
144
NC
2,890
239
1,1-Dichloroethene
299
277
115
NC
2,520
283
Tetrachloroethene
162
142
113
NC
1,640
128
Toluene
145
131
88
NC
65
143
1,1,1 -Trichioroethane
NC
NC
110
NC
7,320
36
Trichloroethene
NC
113
103
NC
5,140
116
Average1*
196
154
105
NC
2,520
121
Median6
164
129
100, 103
NC
1,640, 2,520
116, 128
"NC = Not calculated.
bAverage and median excludes NC entries.
Table 10, Measured flue gas concentrations for the test of the EPA/APPCD and MSP CEMs at the
low VOC concentration.
Concentration, pg/dscm
1st daily RM	2nd daily RM	3rd daily RM
EPA/	EPA/	EPA/
Compound
RM
APPCD
MSP
RM
APPCD
MSP
RM
APPCD
MSP
Benzene
8.2
21.31
795
5.9
29.93
707
8.4
22.21
NO*
Carbon tetrachloride
13.9
9.68
118
11.9
5.99
126
13.3
4.99
NO
Chlorobenzene
21.6
18.56
143
20.8
29.16
60.2
16.0
18.8
NO
Chloroform
15.8
16.95
3,439
18.4
14.89
1,515
15.8
9.25
NO
1,2-Dichloroethane
1.8
43.21
73.7
1.5
39.18
78.5
1.6
30.33
NO
1,1-Dichloroethene
2.0
76.34
322
6.3
90.23
271
5.1
84.49
NO
T etrachloroethene
32.7
15.65
124
26.9
31.7
107
20.6
8.56
NO
Toluene
160.9
131.92
1,308
149.4
221.38
814
97.1
57.85
NO
1,1,1-Trichioroethane
2.1
2.21
3.6
1.9
2.22
4.1
1.8
3.53
NO
Trichloroethene
2.6
2.18
3,022
2.9
2,71
1,602
3.0
1.74
NO
"NO = Not operational.
16

-------
96-WA77.01
Table 11. Measured flue gas concentrations for the test of the EPA/APPCD and MSP CEMs at the
intermediate VOC concentration.
Concentration, /ig/dscm
1st daily RM	2nd daily RM	3rd daily RM
EPA/	EPA/	EPA/
Compound
RM
APPCD
MSP
RM
APPCD
MSP
RM
APPCD
MSP
Benzene
33.9
35.8
NO"
32.9
42.41
NO
33.6
50.34
NO
Carbon tetrachloride
53.5
31.45
NO
57.8
37.58
NO
64.1
40.55
NO
Chlorobenzene
29.5
24.86
NO
64.6
54.15
NO
75.0
40.73
NO
Chloroform
43.2
26.33
NO
62.1
31.61
NO
63.5
43.31
NO
1,2-Dichloroethane
20.7
27.97
NO
18.1
34.9
NO
16.6
55.71
NO
1,1-Dichloroethene
14.2
47.14
NO
11.3
54.48
NO
9.9
101.19
NO
T etrach loroethene
39.3
22.87
NO
92.7
58.32
NO
96.8
30.3
NO
Toluene
143
90.22
NO
498.5
306.1
NO
551.8
163.48
NO
1,1,1 -Trichloroethane
17.3
13.68
NO
16.2
14.33
NO
17.4
14.54
NO
Trichloroethene
22.9
16.04
NO
20.6
16.63
NO
19.1
15.74
NO
°NO = Not operational.
Table 12. Measured flue gas concentrations for the test of the EPA/APPCD and MSP CEMs at the
high VOC concentration.
Concentration, /tg/dscm
1st daily RM	2nd daily RM	3rd daily RM
EPA/	EPA/	EPA/
Compound
RM
APPCD
MSP
RM
APPCD
MSP
RM
APPCD
MSP
Benzene
102.6
96.33
NO*
129.5
98.73
NO
117.7
88.66
NO
Carbon tetrachloride
222.5
209.55
NO
266.2
205.53
NO
283.7
135.72
NO
Chlorobenzene
104.8
119.78
NO
146.5
113.78
NO
127.2
126.99
NO
Chloroform
229.4
190.9
NO
243.8
199.06
NO
241.1
178.42
NO
1,2-Dichloroethane
93.7
95.44
NO
121.2
107.96
NO
114.9
90.81
NO
1,1-Dichloroethene
65.9
113.67
NO
65.5
124.81
NO
71.9
144.06
NO
Tetrachloroethene
112.8
150.65
NO
162.6
161.66
NO
132.2
131.62
NO
Toluene
176.6
191.23
NO
445.4
213.8
NO
261.5
217.23
NO
1,1,1 -T richloroethane
97.8
92.89
NO
106.8
87.31
NO
103.5
57.93
NO
Trichloroethene
98.2
98.46
NO
114.3
91.81
NO
113.1
70.04
NO
"NO = Not operational.
17

-------
96-WA77.01
Table 13. Relative accuracies of the EPA/APCCD and MSP CEMs.
RA, %
Compound

EPA/APPCD

MSD

Test concentration

Test concentration
Low
Intermediate
High
Low
Benzene
429
83
48
18,300
Carbon tetrachloride
86
45
95
1,340
Chlorobenzene
87
98
53
2,840
Chloroform
76
71
34
86,000
1,2-Dichloroethane
3,190
334
40
6,480
1,1-Dichloroethene
2,040
1,130
133
15,500
Tetrachloroethene
137
134
50
526
Toluene
113
158
138
2,560
1,1,1 -T richloroethane
150
29
73
315
Trichloroethene
71
45
70
412,000
Average
638
213
73
54,600
Median
113, 137
83, 98
53, 70
2,840, 6,480
18

-------
96-WA77.01
Table 14. Measured flue gas concentrations for the tests of the EcoChem PAH CEM.
Concentration, /xg/dscm

1st daily RM
2nd daily RM
3rd daily RM
RA, %
Low Concentration Test




Naphthalene
1.7
1.8
1.7

Phenanthrene
1.3
1.2
1.3

Pyrene
1.0
0.8
0.9

Total PAH
4.0
3.8
3.9

EcoChem CEM
6.9
14.8
15.5
527
Intermediate Concentration Test




Naphthalene
17.5
10.9
15.8

Phenanthrene
15.7
10.1
15.3

Pyrene
9.1
19.6
9.7

Total PAH
42.3
40.6
40.8

EcoChem CEM
NO*
33.2
39.0
99
High Concentration Test




Naphthalene
97.0
NPb
NP

Phenanthrene
91.4
NP
NP

Pyrene
68.2
NP
NP

Total PAH
256.6
NP
NP

EcoChem CEM
NO
NO
NO
NCC
aNO = Not operational.
hNP = Not performed.
CNC = Not calculated.
19

-------
96-WA77.01
Table 15. Measured flue gas metals concentrations for the test of the SNL and Metorex CEMs at
the low metals concentrations.
Concentration, /tg/dscm


1st daily RM
2nd daily RM
3rd daily RM
Compound
RM
SNL
Metorex
RM
SNL
Metorex
RM
SNL
Metorex
Antimony (Sb)
4.5
NDa
ND
5.1
ND
ND
4.5
ND
5.13
Arsenic (As)
4.4
ND
3.65
3.8
ND
0.83
3.6
ND
1.19
Barium (Ba)
11.7
ND
ND
15.8
ND
ND
18.6
ND
6.23
Beryllium (Be)
0.1
ND
NMb
0.1
ND
NM
0.1
ND
NM
Cadmium (Cd)
9.7
ND
2.63
12.1
ND
ND
13.2
ND
10.02
Chromium (Cr)
22.3
ND
2.49
23.5
ND
0.56
28.0
ND
22.29
Cobalt (Co)
7.8
ND
12.11
7.1
ND
ND
7.1
ND
14.68
Lead (Pb)
101
ND
11.51
85.6
ND
9.06
110
ND
12.36
Manganese (Mn)
21.8
ND
5.89
29.2
ND
ND
31.6
ND
19.43
Mercury (Hg)
14.9
ND
NM
17.2
ND
NM
11.2
ND
NM
Nickel (Ni)
39.6
ND
27.52
29.1
ND
6.15
42.4
ND
21.87
Selenium (Se)
11.4
ND
1.51
12.3
ND
1.47
12.3
ND
3.62
Silver (Ag)c
2.9
ND
0.98
4.8
ND
0.91
4.5
ND
0.99
Thallium (Tl)
1.1
ND
ND
1.5
ND
ND
1.7
ND
ND
"ND = Not detected.
bNM = Not measured.
CRM data for silver not reliable due to low spike recoveries.
20

-------
96-WA77.01
Table 16. Measured flue gas concentrations for the test of the SNL and Metorex CEMs at the
intermediate metals concentrations.
Concentration, pg/dscm
Reference Method 1	Reference Method 2	Reference Method 3
Compound	RM SNL Metorex RM SNL Metorex RM SNL Metorex
Antimony (Sb)
11.0
ND"
39.73
11.6
ND
22.00
9.5
ND
8.49
Arsenic (As)
11.1
63
11.92
10.8
42
0.74
8.7
115
6.61
Barium (Ba)
78.0
251
44.37
80.0
199
11.87
49.2
463
9.92
Beryllium (Be)
0.6
ND
NMb
0.6
ND
NM
0.4
ND
NM
Cadmium (Cd)
14.0
ND
7.22
15.0
ND
26.93
14.2
ND
10.09
Chromium (Cr)
54.7
ND
56.48
59.5
ND
72.51
50.3
ND
25.68
Cobalt (Co)
32.3
ND
14.72
33.9
ND
20.79
27.4
ND
9.79
Lead (Pb)
141
144
107.07
141
93
51.80
136
106
40.86
Manganese (Mn)
24.2
ND
61.4
24.6
ND
55.58
18.2
ND
31.25
Mercury (Hg)
54.3
ND
NM
83.7
ND
NM
75.3
ND
NM
Nickel (Ni)
59.9
ND
26.48
61.2
ND
21.26
52.6
ND
15.76
Selenium (Se)
43.2
ND
29.34
54.5
ND
21.27
53.2
ND
18.12
Silver (Ag)c
5.0
ND
20.90
7.9
ND
12.77
6.9
ND
6.05
Thallium (Tl)
11.1
ND
12.96
11.2
ND
4.49
12.4
ND
2.72
"ND = Not detected.
bNM = Not measured.
CRM data for silver not reliable due to low spike recoveries.
21

-------
96-WA77.01
Table 17. Measured flue gas metals concentrations for the test of the SNL and Metorex OEMs at
the high metals concentrations.
Concentration, pg/dsem
Compound
Reference Method 1
Reference Method 2
Reference Method 3
RM
SNL
Metorex
RM
SNL
Metorex
RM
SNL
Metorex
Antimony (Sb)
114
233
27.32
75.7
186
18.35
43.5
131
6.59
Arsenic (As)
82.2
75
21.82
64.8
86
13.28
54.8
65
4.68
Barium (Ba)
331
650
207.37
484.3
ND
111.07
285
ND
27.29
Beryllium (Be)
12.1
ND"
NMb
6.8
ND
NM
4.0
ND
NM
Cadmium (Cd)
88.0
ND
33.58
60.9
ND
31.73
88.7
ND
22.18
Chromium (Cr)
425
ND
129.33
299
ND
91.85
241
ND
34.70
Cobalt (Co)
357
ND
100.16
229
ND
67.47
248
ND
37.62
Lead (Pb)
1,650
ND
297.20
1,082
ND
282.71
2,176
54
167.04
Manganese (Mn)
179
ND
52.89
89.9
ND
35.25
95.6
ND
16.56
Mercury (Hg)
625
ND
NM
451
ND
NM
581
ND
NM
Nickel (Ni)
550
ND
160.10
347
ND
111.42
429
ND
67.89
Selenium (Se)
421
ND
102.52
399
ND
96.70
383
ND
39.92
Silver (Ag)c
5.0
ND
33.60
8.1
ND
25.60
7.1
ND
14.88
Thallium (Tl)
114
ND
32.29
94.3
ND
28.10
113
ND
16.84
*ND = Not detected.
^NM = Not measured.
CRM data for silver not reliable due to low spike recoveries.
22

-------
96-WA77.01
Table 18. Relative accuracies of the SNL and Metorex CEMs.
	RA, %	
SNL	Metorex
Test concentration	Test concentration
Compound
Low
Intermediate
High
Low
Intermediate
High
Antimony
NC*
NC
188
NC
467
158
Arsenic
NC
1,560
65
125
174
101
Barium
NC
905
NC
NC
135
153
Cadmium
NC
NC
NC
89
177
123
Chromium
NC
NC
NC
158
94
113
Cobalt
NC
NC
NC
236
72
118
Lead
NC
64
NC
115
112
177
Manganese
NC
NC
NC
116
261
146
Nickel
NC
NC
NC
88
77
121
Selenium
NC
NC
NC
104
113
93
Thallium
NC
NC
NC
NC
171
111
Averageb
—
843
127
129
168
129
Medianb
—
905
65, 188
116
135
121
aNC = Not calculated.
bAverage and median excludes RAs not calculated (NC).
Table 19. Measured flue gas concentrations and RAs for the mercury CEM tests.
Mercury concentration (/*g/dscm)
Test
RM
EcoChem CEM
Perkin-Elmer CEM
Senova CEM
Low Mercury Concentration
RM 1
RM 2
RM 3
RA, %
Intermediate Mercury Concentration
RM 1
RM 2
RM 3
RA, %
High Mercury Concentration
RM 1
RM 2
RM 3
RA, %
21
16
13
56
34
40
119
94
86
22
20
19
60
83
43
56
92
137
81
62
61
78
42
11
602
61
NO
125
1,150
NO
NO
405
NC
NO'
NO
NO
NCb
NO
NO
NO
NC
232
116
165
186
aNO = Not operational.
''NC = Not calculated.
23

-------
QUENCH
SECONDARY
BURNER
NATURAL
GAS,
LIQUID
FEED
TRANSFER
DUCT
AFTERBURNER
AFTERBURNER • VEWTOW
EXTENSION i SCRUBBER
SOLIDS
FEEDER
ROTARY
KILN
HJ MAIN i
^ BURNER
AIR
NATURAL
GAS,	|
LIQUID FEED

£] ID FAN
PACKED
COLUMN
SCRUBBER
SCRUBBER
LIQUOR
RECIRCULATION






FLUE GAS


REHEATER
I
r®-fl
CARBON BED HEPA
ADSORBER FILTER
BAGHOUSE

ASH HOPPER
ROTARY KILN
INCINERATOR
PRIMARY AIR POLLUTION
CONTROL SYSTEM
> REDUNDANT AIR
j POLLUTION CONTROL
SYSTEM
Figure 1. Schematic of the IRF rotary kiln incineration system.

-------