## APPENDIX A

TECHNICAL

## GUIDANCE

## DOCUMENTS

### South Coast Air QualityManagement District Applied Science and Technology SourceTesting and Engineering TECHNICAL GUIDANCEDOCUMENT R-002

Rules: 201 1 -Protocol for Monitoring, Reporting, and Recordkeeping for Oxides of Sulfur (SOJ Emissions, AppendixA, Chapter2. 2012-Protocol for Monitoring, Reporting, and Recordkeeping for Oxides of Nitrogen (NOJ Emissions, Appendix A, Chapter 2. Date: August 26, 1997 Subject: QualityAssuranceRequirements for CEMS Modification References: 40 CFRPart 60 40 CFR Part 75

1. Introduction The monitoring provisions ofRECLAIM require facility operators to develop, submit, and adopt a continuous emission monitoring system (CEMS) quality assurance plan (QAP) approved by the AQMD. The QAP must contain quality assurance and quality control (QAIQC) procedures that will be implemented by the facility to ensure that the CEMS generates accurate and precise emissions data on a continuing basis. Quality assurance is accomplished by conducting CEMS related tests on a periodic basis that determine the ability of the CEMS to perform within a known degree of accuracy and precision, and quality control is accomplished through proper operation and requirements ofthese activities. The RECLAIM CEMS post-certification subcommittee developed this document to provide guidance to facility permit holders on QAP related issues when CEMS components are replaced andlor modified. Each activity was considered separately and the corresponding assessment demonstration was selected based upon the nature of the subject component; i.e. type, function, relation to overall system function, etc. Basic principles of operation, manufacturers recommendations, and actual instrument and CEMS experience were all considered. These procedures and requirements are based on the fact that maintenance is a necessary element of quality control, that the replacement of parts is an essential aspect of both preventative and corrective maintenance, and that the replacement of different components requires different demonstrations ofthe adequacyand integrityofthe CEMS.Quality Assurance Requirements for CEMS Modification August 26,1997
2. Objective The implementation ofthe procedures in this document will maintain consistency in emissions data quality and reduce implementation costs. The prevailing technical impact of the adoption of this proposal will streamline the quality assuranceprocess by introducing clarity and consistency both for the AQMD and the facility permit holders. Also, these QA requirements will result in lower RECLAIM implementation costs for both the AQMD and the facilities because of a reduced need for case-by-case interpretation. 3. Applicability and Procedures The procedures are presented in the form of a flow chart and two matrices. The types of CEMS component replacements and modifications are divided into two categories: "like" and "unlike" replacements. Matrix 1 is for "like" replacements and Matrix 2 is for "unlike" replacements. To determine the appropriate matrix for any particular application, please refer to the flow chart that precedes the matrices in this document. If there are any items that are not covered by this document, please contact the CEMS engineer who is handling the application. This document is effective as of July 23, 1997.

APPROVED

(original signed) Melvin D. Zeldin Director Applied Science and TechnologyDivision

attachments: Date

### i Quality Assurance Requirements 

### for CEMS Modifica 

### ion 

## 1 August

### 26,1997 General Questions Will the CEMS modification Change: System Specific Questions Will the CEMS modification affect: 

# I Sample Acquisition and Conditioning
1) Technology? 2) Equipment Manufacturer or Model? 3) Material or Design? 4)Location of Equipment?

All general questio~ls answered "no" Any gen1:ral question answerer. I" Samplerepresentablity? 

## + Samplecomposition? System response time?

Data Acquisition and Handling System



## +

Figure 1 Data quality? Calculation results?

Refer to Matrix 1 Like Replacements Flow Monitoring System (fuel or stack)



# -

no A Refer to Matrix 2 Unlike Replacements 

# -

I 

# I Yes Analyzers Measurement selectivity? Measurement sensitivity? Measurement precision? Measurement accuracy? 

# + Measurement response time? Sample representablity? System response time? Measurement sensitivity? Measurement precision? Measurement accuracy?
-All Repla RECLAII QUALITY ASSESSR,

QualilyControl U Matrix 1:Like ReplacementsOnly ements are forlike in all aspects; ieOEM, model, temperature settings

I Capillaryreplace~nenl [ CONTINUOUS EMISSION MONITORING SYSTEM ENTTESTSFOLLOWING QUALITY CONTROLACTWITIES(~)

J Response Time Linearity

Test"' Analytical RATA'" StackFlow Rate RATA'" Sample System Biad6' Interference'" NO, Converter Efficiency"'Matrix 1:LikeReplacements Only ments are for like in all aspects; ie OEM, model, temperature settings CONTINUOUSEMISSION MONITORING SYSTEM NTTESTSFOLLOWING QUALITY CONTROL ACTIVITIES")

serial (2)CEMS calibration: Acalibratio~~ perfinned in normal operating modeto confirmpiope- (3)Linearitytest consists of conductingacylinder gas audil (CGA) asdescribed in 40CFR (4) Applicablelosystems where ammoniaispresent. (5) Can use anyNIST traceable gas (6)May notbe applicable to dilution probe systems; consult SCAQMD (7)As definedin 40 CFR 60, AppendixF (8)If analyzerisused forEPA 'F'-factor calculation of stack flow rate (as described in EPA (9)Refer to applicable sections of facililyapproved QAP or consult SCAQMD for additior operation and establish new calibration correction factors or valid data generation. 60, Appendix F, 40 CFR 75, or asdefined in an SCAQMD approved QAPforthe facility.

Method 19) al specific guidance

### 2: UnLikeReplacements Only are ofdifferentmanufacturer, model or specification CONTINUOUSEMISSION MONITORING SYSTEM NT TESTS FOLLOWING QUALITY CONTROLACTIVITIES(')

:ific model and/or of forwhich ipecifik detailssuch asmaterialsofionstruction or desiguare includedrequire:, (2) CEMS Calib~ation: A calib~ation pelfonned in nonnal operatingmode to confirm proper (3)Linearity test consistsofco~~ducting acylinder gas audit (CGA)asdescribedin 40 CFR (4)Applicable to systemswhere ammonia is present. (5)Can use anyNIST traceable gas (6)May not be applicableto dilution probe systems; consult SCAQMD

. (7)As defined in 40 CFR 60, Appendix F (8) Stratificatiolitestmust be done (9) Ifanalyzeris used for EPA 'F'-factor calculationofstack flow rate (as describedin EPA serial fonnal notificatio~~ to the ~istrictglld will result in aresponsefrom tlie District. ' operationill~d establishnew calibrationcorrection factorsor valid data generation. 50, Appendix F. 40 CFR 75,or asdefined in an SCAQMD approvedQAP forthe facility.

Method 19)

### South CoastAir Quality Management District Applied Scienceand Technology Source Testingand Engineering TECHNICAL GUIDANCEDOCUMENT 

### R-003

Rules: 201 1-Protocol for Monitoring, Reporting, and Recordkeeping for Oxides of Sulfur (SOJ Emissions, AppendixA, Chapter2. 2012-ProtocolforMonitoring,Reporting, and Recordkeeping for OxidesofNitrogen (NOJ Emissions, AppendixA, Chapter2. Date: August 26, 1997 Subject: CEMS TestingRequirements Resulting from Analyzer SpanRangeModification References: 40 CFR Part 60 40 CFRPart 75

1. Introduction This technical guidance document clarifies the rule language in Rules 2011 and 2012, Appendix A, Chapter 2, Subdivision B, Paragraphs 17 (Rule 201 1) and 16 (Rule 2012) for recertification of RECLAIM CEMS analyzers that have undergone a range modification. The rule states: "The District will reevaluate the monitoring systems at any affected piece of equipment where changes to the basic process equipment or air pollution control occur, to determine the proper full span range ofthe monitors. Any monitoring system requiring change to its full span range in orderto meetthe criteriain Chapter 2, Subdivision B, Paragraph 8 shall be recertiiied according to all the specifications in Chapter 2, Subdivision B, Paragraphs 10, 11, and 12, as applicable, inc1udin;the relative accuracy tests, the calibration drifttests, and

- - the calibration errortests." 2. Applicability The CEMS recertification only applies if the analyzer range(s) has been modified to measure emissions resulting fiom modified basic equipment or air pollution control equipment. If the analyzer range is modified solely forthe purpose of increasing the data gathering capability of the CEMS, without any changes to the basic equipment or the air pollution control equipment, arecertification test is not necessary. This appliestoboth pollutant and diluent gas analyzers. 3. Testing Procedure If analyzer range(s) are modified solely for the purpose of increasing the data gathering capability of the CEMS, without any changes to the basic equipment or the air pollutionCEMS Testing Requirements Resulting from AnalyzerSpan Range Modification August 26,1997

control equipment, a three point linearity test of the analyzer, as required by 40 

### CFR Part 75, Appendix A is adequate. The three point linearity test must be conducted at low-level concentration (20-30% of analyzer span range), mid-level concentration (50-60% of analyzer spanrange), and high-level concentration (80-100% ofanalyzer span range).

APPROVED

(original signed) Melvin D. Zeldin Director Applied Science and Technology Division Date

### South CoastAir QualityManagementDistrict Applied Science and Technology Source Testing and Engineering TECHNICAL GUIDANCEDOCUMENT 

### R-004

Rules: 2011-Protocol for Monitoring, Reporting, and Recordkeeping for Oxides of Sulfur (SO,) Emissions, AppendixA, Chapter2. 2012-Protocol for Monitoring, Reporting,and Recordkeepingfor Oxides ofNitrogen (NO3Emissions, AppendixA, Chapter2. 

### Date: October 2, 1997 

### Subject: RelativeAccuracy Test Audit Outliers 

### References: 40 CFRPart 60 40 CFR Part 75 USEPA, Quality Assurance HandbookforAir Pollution Measurement Systems

1. 

### Introduction The AQMD has historically not allowed testers to discard any data obtained during CEMS relative accuracy test audit (RATA), unlessthe tester couldjustify with documentation that the data should be discarded due to either sampling error or process related effects. In the event that this justification could not be provided, the tester was required to use all of the test data. The AQMD is aware of the fact that 40 CFR Part 60 Appendix 

### B allows testers to arbitrarily discard a maximum of three tests, but believes that arbitrary discarding of data is not technically sound, and could lead to misleading assessments ofthe accuracy of data collected under a CbMS program. 2. 

### Objective The AQMD does realize that outliers can occur during testing which the tester may not have discovered and documented at the time of testing, and 

### an objective test can be used to determine outliers. The procedure in this technical guidance document is recommended ifthe tester chooses to discard any RATA test data after the minimum number of tests (nine) have been performed.Relative Accuracy Test Audit Outliers October 2,1997

3. Procedure One ofthe following procedures must be used to discard outliers asapplicable:

a. One Outlier: The Dixon Ratio test, as described in Appendix 

### F of the EPA's Quality Assurance Handbook for Air Pollution Measurement Systems (Vol. 1, USEPA Document EPA-6- 19-76-005, March 1976), shall be used as the test for a suspected single outlier in the data, using r,, orr,, criterion as appropriate for the number of data sets obtained during the CEMS testing. A normal distribution shall be assumed so that the test may only be done on the actual data and not log-transformed data. A significance level of 5% shall be used which corresponds to a 95% confidence test and is consistent with the other confidence intervals used for CEMS. If the Dixon Ratio test flags either the highest or lowest value as a potential outlier, the identified data may be discarded without further substantiation. b. Two Outliers: If two outliers are suspected the tester shall apply the Grubbs test for simultaneously testing those suspected values. The above criteria of normal distribution of data, 5% significance level, and discarding without further substantiation shall apply.

APPROVED

(original simed) Melvin D. Zeldin Date Director Applied Science and Technology Division

attachment:

## KREELON MJSA~! 

## TsCRNTCAZI cm GUIDELINE DOCUMENT

TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE MONOGRAPH EVALUATION PROCEDURE FOR MULTI-HOLE SAMPLE PROBES 

### By King 

### K. Yu and Peter R. Westlin
INTRODUCTION 

### The installation requirements of the revised Continuous Monitoring Perfomance Specification 2l 

### allow the use of a multi-hole stack gas sampling probe. The provisions for this probe include that the sample flow rate through each hole is within 2 

### 10 percent of the average through all the holes at the design flow rate for the probe. This paper describes a method for determining whether this provision is met. TEST METHOD 

### 1.Apparatus 1.1 Sample Probe. Probe with sample holes located according to the criteria in revised Performance Specification 2. 1.2 Reference Method 5 

### Meter Box. Meter box equipped with properly sized pump, calibrated2 dry-gas meter, water manometer, and meter temperature gauges. Partial-f low Dry-Gas Meter. Dry-gas meter calibrated2 in the range of flowrates through a single hole of the multihole probe. This dry-gasmeter should have a back pressure of less than 0.2 in H20 at these flowrates

## . 1.4 Tubings and Connectors. Diameters of all tubings and connectors between the sample probe and the total flow dry-gas meter must be larger than the inside diameter of the probe, and all tubings and flttlnssbetweenplflow 

### hcl2s must have diameters larger than that of the holes. All tubings should be as short as practical. 1.5 

### Stopwatch. 2. 

### Procedure. This procedure should be completed under laboratory conditions where ambient temperatures and moisture conditions are well controlled. 2.1 Connect the probe and the measurement equipment as shown in Figure 1. Connect the partial flow dry-gasmeter to any hole of the probe making certain that the connection is leak-tight and does not block any part of the sample hole. Leave the other sample holes open and clear. 2.2 

### Record the initial volume readings on both dry-gas meters, the ambient temperature, barometric pressure, and the total flow drygas meter temperature.
Prepared by Peter R. mlin, EMC EMTIC UU-UTF 

### mrnen~ center, VAQPS 

### March 14, 1995

## EC 

# - UOCT PAGE 2 

# - 2.3 

### Start the pump and the stopwatch simultaneously and set the total probe flow rate to equal the design flow rate of the sample probe. (A trial run before the test is helpful in setting this rate). 2.4 

### Record the manometer reading and continue sampling at a 

### constant flow rate until a sample volume equivalent to approximately 1.0 

### ft3 

### x number of sample holes is measured by the total flow dry-gas meter. At the'end of the run, stop the pump and the stopwatch; record the final volume readings of both dry-gas meters and the final temperature (s)of the total flow dry-gas meter. 2-5 

### Repeat steps 2.1 

### through 2.4 

### for the other sample holes maintaining the same manometer pressure as for the first run. 3. 

### Calculations
3.1 

### Determine the total flow rate, Qi, and each partial flow rate, qi, from the test data for each hole, as follows: Where : 

### v 

### - Volume recorded on the total flow gas meter, corrected by the meter calibration factor, scf. Pb - 

### Barometric

Tm 

### - Temperatur e of the total flowgas meter, OR. 

### 0i 

### - - 

### Elapsed sampling time, min. Vi - 

### - Volume recorded on partial flow-gas meter, corrected by the meter calibration factor, scf. Ta - 

### - Room temperature, OR. 17.65= 

### Standard temperature and pressure correction factor, viz. 528"

### R " 

### 29.92in.

### Hg 

### Calculate the mean total flow rate,Q 

## , and the mean of the partial flow rate, q :



### Prepared by Peter H. 

### Wezin, EMC Is~C GD-031 

### -- &LLL~DSL~~~ PkdsumLL ' er 

## , uWS 

### 5

### EMTXTGU 

# - 031 

### EM- DOLURENT PAGE 3 

# --
Where : 

### n - 

### Number of sampling holes. 3 -2 

### Determine the percent deviation, 

### A from the mean total flow rate:


### AQ greater than 10 

### percent is found 

### , indicating the total flow rate 

### is too low for the probe design or the sample holes are too large, repeat the test with a redesigned probe or a 

### revlsed tlow rate.
3 -3 

### Determine the percent deviation, Aqi, from the mean partial flow rate for each hole:

Prepared by Peter K. Westlin, hMC C GU

# - 031 

# - L L~TT~~L, mQFs5

### All Aqi must be within 

### + 10 percent for an ac-ceptable probe design at

- 

### the design 

### 41-4

### 100 flow rate. Aql=-=-x 4 SUMMARY 

### AND DISCUSSION OF TEST RESULTS 

### Method validation tests were performed in the laboratory using three different multi-hole probes. All three probes had similar internal diameters of 0.375 inches and each nad three sample equal-sized sample holes: 0.078 in. for probe 1, 

### 0.125 in. for probe 2, and 0.203 in. for probe 3. 

### The results of the test are summarized in Table 1. These test results demonstrate the importance of properly setting the total flow rate for the probe. For example, at similar flow rates of about 48 scfh, probe 1 

### (I.D. = 

### 0.078 in.) showed that the sum of partial flow rates totaled within 10 percent of the measured total flow rate while nrohe 7 fT-T7- - n 13c; 

### . sbc.,4 31 

### between these two figures. This indicates that the slight pressure drop associated with the partial flow dry-gas meter greatly affected the partial flow rates of probe 2, 

### because of the larger sample holes, and was a limiting factor in the partial flow measurements. The result is a false indication of the operation of the probe. The second criterion set by the method is that the partial flow rates all be within 10 percent of the average partial flow rate. These results indicate that this criterion can be met if the total flow rate is sufficient to cause a probe pressure of about -10 in. water. Of course, the pressure drop at each sample hole includes the pressure drop associated with the dry-gas meter and the tubing connectors during the measurements. This makes it of prime importance that the dry-gas meter be of high quality e. 

### , low pressure drop), and the tubing and connectors be of larae diameter and as 

### short as practical. ( 

## ,..- One limitation in the use of multi-hole probes brought out by these results and by the work of others3 is that very small sample holes are Prepared by Peter K. 

### Westlln, EMC 

### UMM 

### - ~m+s.~-hHe~~en~r@3@ra

### required to maintain adequate pressure drop to assure approximately equal flow. The results of this study indicate a hole diameter of 0.125 in. is about the upper limit for a 1.0 cfm probe. This restriction limits the applicability of multihole probes to stack gases with low particulate concentrations to avoid probe plugging problems.

TABLE 1, 

### SUMMARY OF RESULTS OF 

### THE FLOW-RATE EVALUATIONS OF MULTI-POINT SAMPLING PROBES 

### Hole Probe Average Average Percent Percent Deviation Diameter Pressure Total Partial Deviation Per Hole (in. ) 

### (in. H,O) Flow-rate Flow-rate From (SCFH) (SCFH) Total A% A% 

### Aqc (%) 

### (%I (%) 

### (AQ,

REFERENCES 

### 1. Performance Specification 2 - 

### Specifications and Test Procedures for SO, and NO, Continuous Monitoring Systems in Stationary Sources, Environmental Protection Agency, Emission Measurement Branch revision, May 1979. 2. Westlin, P. R. and R. T. Shigehara, Procedure for Calibrating and Using Dry Gas Volume Meters as Calibration Standards, Source Evaluation Society Newsletter, Vol. 3, No. 1, February 1978. 3.Technical Manual for Process Stream Volumetric Flow Measurement and Gas Sample Extraction Methodology, prepared for EPA, IERL, PMB, by TRW

*- 

### Systems Group, Contract No. 68-02-1412, November 1975.

Prepared by Peter H. 

### Westlin, !3MC ISMTIC GD-031 

### -- ~~-ILL Zrnicr, GAQPS C 4, LYYb