California Code of Regulations › Title 22 - Social Security › Division 4.5 - Environmental Health Standards for the Management of Hazardous Waste › Chapter 16 - Recyclable Materials (Recyclable Hazardous Wastes) › Appendix IX - Methods Manual for Compliance with the BIF Regulations Burning Hazardous Waste in Boilers and Industrial Furnaces

Current through Register 2024 Notice Reg. No. 28, July 12, 2024
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 Introduction
2.0 Performance Specifications for Continuous Emission
				  Monitoring Systems
2.1 Performance Specifications for Continuous Emission
				  Monitoring of Carbon Monoxide and Oxygen for Incinerators, Boilers, and
				  Industrial Furnaces Burning Hazardous Waste
2.2 Performance Specifications for Continuous Emission
				  Monitoring of Hydrocarbons for Incinerators, Boilers, and Industrial
				  Furnaces
3.0 Sampling and Analytical Methods
4.0 Procedure for Estimating Toxicity Equipment or
				  Chlorinated Dibenzo-P-Dioxin and Dibenzofuran Congeners
5.0 Hazardous Waste Combustion Air Quality Screening
				  Procedure
6.0 Simplified Land Use Classification Procedure for
				  Compliance With Tier I and Tier II Limits
7.0 Statistical Methodology for Bevill Residue
				  Determinations
8.0 Procedures for Determining Default Values for Air
				  Pollution Control System Removal Efficiencies
8.1 APCS RE Default Values for Metals
8.2 APCS RE Default Values for HCl and
				  Cl2
8.3 APCS RE Default Values for Ash
8.4 References
9.0 Procedures for Determining Default Values for
				  Partitioning of Metals, Ash, and Total Chloride/Chlorine
9.1 Partitioning Default Value for Metals
9.2 Special Procedures for Chlorine, HCl, and Cl
9.3 Special Procedures for Ash
9.4 Use of Engineering Judgement to Estimate Partitioning and
				  APCS RE Values
9.5 Restrictions on Use of Test Data
10.0 Alternate Methodology for Implementing Metals
				  Controls
10.1 Applicability
10.2 Introduction
10.3 Basis
10.4 Overview
10.5 Implementation Procedures
10.6 Precompliance Procedures
Appendix A-Statistics
SECTION
				  1.0 INTRODUCTION
This document presents required methods for demonstrating
				  compliance with the State of California, Department of Toxic Substances Control
				  regulations governing boilers and industrial furnaces (BIFs) burning hazardous
				  waste (see Title 22, Chapter 16, article 8). Included in this document
				  are:
1. Performance Specifications for Continuous Emission
				  Monitoring (CEM) of Carbon Monoxide, Oxygen, and Hydrocarbons in Stack
				  Gases.
2. Sampling and Analytical (S&A) Methods for Multiple
				  Metals, Hexavalent Chromium, HCl and Chlorine, Polychlorinated
				  Dibenzo-p-dioxins and Dibenzofurans, and Aldehydes and Ketones.
3. Procedures for Estimating the Toxicity Equivalency of
				  Chlorinated Dibenzo-p-dioxin and Dibenzofuran Congeners.
4. Hazardous Waste Combustion Air Quality Screening
				  Procedures (HWCAQSP).
5. Simplified Land Use Classification Procedure for
				  Compliance with Tier I and Tier II Limits.
6. Statistical Methodology for Bevill Residue
				  Determinations.
7. Procedures for Determining Default Values for Air
				  Pollution Control System Removal Efficiencies.
8. Procedures for Determining Default Values for Partitioning
				  of Metals, Ash, and Total Chloride/Chlorine.
9. Alternate Methodology for Implementing Metals
				  Controls.
Additional methods referenced in article 8 of chapter 16 but
				  not included in this document can be found in 40 CFR parts 60 and 61, and "Test
				  Methods for Evaluating Solid Wastes, Physical/Chemical Methods"
				  (SW-846).
The CEM performance specifications of section
				  2.0, the S&A methods of
				  section 3.0 and the toxicity equivalency
				  procedure for dioxins and furans of section
				  4.0 are required procedures for
				  determining compliance with BIF regulations. The CEM performance specifications
				  and the S&A methods are interim. The finalized CEM performance
				  specifications and methods will be published in SW-846 or 40 CFR parts 60 and
				  61.
SECTION
				  2.0 PERFORMANCE SPECIFICATIONS FOR
				  CONTINUOUS EMISSION MONITORING SYSTEMS
2.1 Performance Specifications for Continuous Emission
				  Monitoring of Carbon Monoxide and Oxygen for Incinerators, Boilers, and
				  Industrial Furnaces Burning Hazardous Waste
2.1.1 Applicability and Principle
2.1.1.1 Applicability. These performance specifications apply
				  to carbon monoxide (CO) and oxygen (O2) continuous
				  emission monitoring systems (CEMSs) installed on incinerators, boilers, and
				  industrial furnaces burning hazardous waste. The specifications include
				  procedures which are intended to be used to evaluate the acceptability of the
				  CEMS at the time of its installation or whenever specified in regulations or
				  permits. The procedures are not designed to evaluate CEMS performance over an
				  extended period of time. The source owner or operator is responsible for the
				  proper calibration, maintenance, and operation of the CEMS at all times.
2.1.1.2 Principle. Installation and measurement location
				  specifications, performance and equipment specifications, test and data
				  reduction procedures, and brief quality assurance guidelines are included in
				  the specifications. Calibration drift, relative accuracy, calibration error,
				  and response time tests are conducted to determine conformance of the CEMS with
				  the specifications.
2.1.2 Definitions
2.1.2.1 Continuous Emission Monitoring System (CEMS). A
				  continuous monitor is one in which the sample to be analyzed passes the
				  measurement section of the analyzer without interruption, and which evaluates
				  the detector response to the sample at least once each 15 seconds and computes
				  and records the results at least every 60 seconds. A CEMS consists of all the
				  equipment used to acquire data and includes the sample extraction and transport
				  hardware, the analyzer(s), and the data recording/processing hardware and
				  software.
2.1.2.2 Monitoring System Types. The specification require
				  CEMSs capable of accepting calibration gases. Alternative system designs may be
				  used if approved by the Director. There are two basic types of monitoring
				  systems: extractive and in-situ.
2.1.2.2.1 Extractive. Systems that use a pump or other
				  mechanical, pneumatic, or hydraulic means to draw a sample of the stack or flue
				  gas and convey it to a remotely located analyzer.
2.1.2.2.2 In-situ. Systems that perform an analysis without
				  removing a sample from the stack. Point in-situ analyzers place the sensing or
				  detecting element directly in the flue gas stream. Cross-stack in-situ
				  analyzers measure the parameter of interest by placing a source beam on one
				  side of the stack and the detector (in single-pass instruments) or a
				  retrore-flector (in double-pass instruments) on the other side, and measuring
				  the parameter of interest (e.g., CO) by the attenuation of the beam by the gas
				  in its path.
2.1.2.3 Instrument Measurement Range. The difference between
				  the minimum and the maximum concentration that can be measured by a specific
				  instrument. The minimum is often stated or assumed to be zero and the range
				  expressed only as the maximum.
2.1.2.4 Span or Span Value. Full scale instrument measurement
				  range.
2.1.2.5 Calibration Drift (CD). The difference in the CEMS
				  output readings from the established reference value after a stated period of
				  operation during which no unscheduled maintenance, repair, or adjustment takes
				  place. A CD test is performed to demonstrate the stability of the CEMS
				  calibration over time.
2.1.2.6 Response Time. The time interval between the start of
				  a step change in the system input (e.g., change of calibration gas) and the
				  time when the data recorder displays 95 percent of the final value.
2.1.2.7 Accuracy. A measure of agreement between a measured
				  value and an accepted or true value, expressed as the percentage difference
				  between the true and measured values relative to the true value. For these
				  performance specifications, accuracy is checked by conducting a calibration
				  error (CE) test and a relative accuracy (RA) test. Certain facilities, such as
				  those using solid waste or batch-fed processes, may observe long periods of
				  almost no CO emissions with brief, high-level CO emission spikes. These
				  facilities, as well as facilities whose CO emissions never exceed 5-10 ppm, may
				  need to be exempted from the RA requirement because the RA test procedure
				  cannot ensure acquisition of meaningful test results under these conditions. An
				  alternative procedure for accuracy determination is described in section
				  2.1.9.
2.1.2.8 Calibration Error (CE). The difference between the
				  concentration indicated by the CEMS and the known concentration of the cylinder
				  gas. A CE test procedure is performed to document the accuracy and linearity of
				  the monitoring equipment over the entire measurement range.
2.1.2.9 Relative Accuracy (RA). A comparison of the CEMS
				  response to a value measured by a performance test method (PTM). The PA test is
				  used to validate the calibration technique and verify the ability of the CEMS
				  to provide representative and accurate measurements.
2.1.2.10 Performance Test Method (PTM). The sampling and
				  analysis procedure used to obtain reference measurements for comparison to CEMS
				  measurements. The applicable test methods are Method 10, 10A, or 10B (for the
				  determination of CO) and Method 3 or 3A (for the determination of
				  O2). These methods are found in 40 CFR part 60 ,
				  appendix A.
2.1.2.11 Performance Specification Test (PST) Period. The
				  period during which CD, CE, response time, and RA tests are conducted.
2.1.2.12 Centroidal Area. A concentric area that is
				  geometrically similar to the stack or duct cross section and is no greater than
				  1 percent of the stack or duct cross-sectional area.
2.1.3 Installation and Measurement Location
				  Specifications
2.1.3.1 CEMS Installation and Measurement Locations. The CEMS
				  shall be installed in a location in which measurements representative of the
				  source's emissions can be obtained. The optimum location of the sample
				  interface for the CEMS is determined by a number of factors, including ease of
				  access for calibration and maintenance, the degree to which sample conditioning
				  will be required, the degree to which it represents total emissions, and the
				  degree to which it represents the combustion situation in the firebox. The
				  location should be as free from in-leakage influences as possible and
				  reasonably free from severe flow disturbances. The sample location should be at
				  least two equivalent duct diameters downstream from the nearest control device,
				  point of pollutant generation, or other point at which a change in the
				  pollutant concentration or emission rate occurs and at least 0.5 diameter
				  upstream from the exhaust or control device. The equivalent duct diameter is
				  calculated as per 40 CFR part 60 , appendix A, method 1, section
				  2.1. If these criteria are not
				  achievable or if the location is otherwise less than optimum, the possibility
				  of stratification should be checked as described in Section
				  2.1.3.3 to determine whether the
				  location would cause failure of the relative accuracy test.
2.1.3.1.1 For extractive or point in-situ CEMSs, the
				  measurement point should be within or centrally located over the centroidal
				  area of the stack or duct cross section.
2.1.3.1.2 For cross-stack CEMSs, the effective measurement
				  path should (1) have at least 70 percent of the path within the inner 50
				  percent of the stack or duct cross-sectional area or (2) be centrally located
				  over any part of the centroidal area.
2.1.3.1.3 Both the CO and O2 monitors
				  should be installed at the same general location. If this is not possible, they
				  may be installed at different locations if the effluent gases at both sample
				  locations are not stratified and there is no in-leakage of air between sampling
				  locations.
2.1.3.2 Performance Test Method (PTM) Measurement Location
				  and Traverse Points.
2.1.3.2.1 Select an accessible PTM measurement point at least
				  two equivalent diameters downstream from the nearest control device, the point
				  of CO generation, or other point at which a change in the CO concentration may
				  occur, and at least a half equivalent diameter upstream from the effluent
				  exhaust or control device. When pollutant concentration changes are due solely
				  to diluent leakage (e.g., air heater leakages) and CO and
				  O2 are simultaneously measured at the same location, one
				  half diameter may be used in place of two equivalent diameters. The CEMS and
				  PTM locations need not be the same.
2.1.3.2.2 Select traverse points that ensure acquisition of
				  representative samples over the stack or duct cross section. At a minimum,
				  establish a measurement line that passes through the centroidal area in the
				  direction of any expected stratification. If this line interferes with the CEMS
				  measurements, displace the line up to 30 cm (or 5 percent of the equivalent
				  diameter of the cross section, whichever is less) from the centroidal area.
				  Locate three traverse points at 17, 50, and 83 percent of the measurement line.
				  If the measurement line is no longer than 2.4 meters and pollutant
				  stratification is not expected, the tester may choose to locate the three
				  traverse points on the line at 0.4, 1.2, and 2.0 meters from the stack or duct
				  wall. This option must not be used at a site located within eight equivalent
				  diameters downstream of a flow disturbance. The tester may select other
				  traverse points, provided that they can be shown to the satisfaction of the
				  Director to provide a representative sample over the stack or duct
				  cross-section. Conduct all necessary PTM tests within 3 cm of the selected
				  traverse points. Sampling must not be performed within 3 cm of the duct or
				  stack inner wall.
2.1.3.3 Stratification Test Procedure. Stratification is
				  defined as a difference in excess of 10 percent between the average
				  concentration in the duct or stack and the concentration at any point more than
				  1.0 meter from the duct or stack wall. To determine whether effluent
				  stratification exists, a dual probe system should be used to determine the
				  average effluent concentration while measurements at each traverse point are
				  being made. One probe, located at the stack or duct centroid, is used as a
				  stationary reference point to indicate the change in effluent concentration
				  over time. The second probe is used for sampling the traverse points specified
				  in method 1, appendix A, 40 CFR part 60 . The monitoring system samples
				  sequentially at the reference and traverse points throughout the testing period
				  for five minutes at each point.
2.1.4 CEMS Performance and Equipment Specifications
Table 2.1-1 summarizes the performance specifications for the
				  CEMSs. Two sets of standards for CO are given; one for low-range and another
				  for high-range measurements. The high-range specifications relate to
				  measurement and quantification of short duration high concentration peaks,
				  while the low-range specifications relate to the overall average operating
				  condition of the burning device. The dual-range specifications can be met by
				  using (1) one analyzer for each range, (2) a dual range unit, or (3) a single
				  measurement range instrument capable of meeting both specifications with a
				  single unit. Adjustments cannot be made to the analyzer between determinations
				  of low- and high-level accuracy within the single measurement range. In the
				  second case, when the concentration exceeds the span of the lower range, the
				  data acquisition system recorder shall switch to the high range
				  automatically.
2.1.4.1 CEMS Span Value. In order to measure high and low
				  concentrations with the same or similar degree of accuracy, the maximum ranges
				  (span values) are specified for low and high range analyzers. The span values
				  are listed in Table 2.1-2. Tier I and Tier II format definitions are
				  established in Title 22, Chapter 16, Article 8.
Table 2.1-1--Performance Specifications of CO and
				  O2 Monitors
Parameter
CO monitors
						  Low range
High
						  range
O2 monitors
Calibration drift 24 hours.
<6
						  ppm1
<90 ppm
<0.5%
						  O2
Calibration error.
<10
						  ppm1
<150 ppm
<0.5%
						  O2
Response time.
<2 min
<2
						  min
<2 min
Relative
						  accuracy2.
(3)
(3)
(incorporated
						  in CO RA calculation)
FOOTNOTE: 
				  1For Tier II, CD and CE are <3% and
				  <5% of twice the permit limit, respectively.
FOOTNOTE: 
				  2Expressed as the sum of the mean
				  absolute value plus the 95% confidence interval of a series of
				  measurements.
FOOTNOTE: 
				  3The greater of 10% of PTM or 10
				  ppm.
Table 2.1-2--CEMS Span Values for CO and
				  O2 Monitors
CO monitors Low range
						  (ppm)
High range
						  (ppm)
O2 monitors
						  (percent)
Tier I rolling average
						  format.
200
3,000
25
Tier II rolling average format.
2 X permit
						  limit.
3,000
25
2.1.4.2 Daily Calibration Gas Values. The owner or operator
				  must choose calibration gas concentrations (or calibration filters for in-situ
				  systems) that include zero and high-level calibration values for the daily
				  calibration checks. For a single measurement range monitor, three CO
				  calibration gas concentrations (or calibration filters for in-situ systems)
				  shall be used, i.e., the zero and high-level concentrations of the low-range CO
				  analyzer and the high-level concentration of the high-range CO analyzer.
2.1.4.2.1 The zero level for the CO or
				  O2 analyzer may be between zero and 20 percent of the
				  span value, e.g., 0-40 ppm for low-range CO analyzer, 0-600 ppm for the
				  high-range CO analyzer, and 0-5 percent for the O2
				  analyzer (for Tier I).
2.1.4.2.2 The high-level concentration for the CO or
				  O2 analyzer shall be between 50 and 90 percent of the
				  span value, i.e., 100-180 ppm for the low-range CO analyzer, 1500-2700 ppm for
				  the high-range CO analyzer, and 12.5-22.5 percent O2 for
				  the O2 analyzer.
2.1.4.3 Data Recorder Scale. The strip chart recorder,
				  computer, or digital recorder must be capable of recording all readings within
				  the CEMS's measurement range and shall have a resolution of 0.5 percent of span
				  value, i.e., 1 ppm CO for low-range CO analyzer, 15 ppm CO for high-range CO
				  analyzer, and 0.1 percent O2 for the
				  O2 analyzer.
2.1.4.4 Response Time. The response time for the CO or
				  O2 monitor shall not exceed 2 minutes to achieve 95
				  percent of the final stable value.
2.1.4.5 Calibration Drift. The CEMS must allow the
				  determination of CD at the zero and high-level values. The CD must be
				  determined separately for CO and O2 monitors in terms of
				  concentration. The CO CEMS calibration response must not drift or deviate from
				  the reference value of the calibration gas (or calibration filters for in-situ
				  systems) by more than 3 percent of the span value after each 24-hour period of
				  the 7-day test, i.e., 6 ppm CO for the low-range analyzer (Tier I) and 90 ppm
				  for the high-range analyzer, at both zero and high levels. The
				  O2 monitor calibration response must not drift or
				  deviate from the reference value by more than 0.5 percent
				  O2 at both zero and high levels.
2.1.4.6 Relative Accuracy. The result of the PA test of the
				  CO CEMS (which incorporates the O2 monitor) must be no
				  greater than 10 percent of the mean value of the PTM results or must be within
				  10 ppm CO of the PTM results, whichever is less restrictive. The ppm CO
				  concentration shall be corrected to 7 percent O2 before
				  calculating the RA.
2.1.4.7 Calibration Error. The mean difference between the
				  CEMS and reference values at all three test points (see Table 2.1-3) must be no
				  greater than 5 percent of span value for CO monitors (i.e., 10 ppm CO for
				  low-range Tier I CO analyzers and 150 ppm CO for high-range CO analyzers) and
				  0.5 percent for O2 analyzers.
2.1.4.8 Measurement and Recording Frequency. The sample to be
				  analyzed shall pass through the measurement section of the analyzer without
				  interruption. The detector shall measure the sample concentration at least once
				  every 15 seconds. An average emission rate shall be computed and recorded at
				  least once every 60 seconds.
2.1.4.9 Hourly Rolling Average Calculation. The CEMS shall
				  calculate every minute an hourly rolling average, which is the arithmetic mean
				  of the 60 most recent 1-minute average values.
2.1.4.10 Retest. If the CEMS produces results within the
				  specified criteria, the test is successful. If the CEMS does not meet one or
				  more of the criteria, the necessary corrections must be made and the
				  performance tests repeated.
2.1.5 Test Periods
2.1.5.1 Pretest Preparation Period. Install the CEMS, prepare
				  the PTM test site according to the specifications in section
				  2.1.3, and prepare the CEMS for
				  operation and calibration according to the manufacturer's written instructions.
				  A pretest conditioning period similar to that of the 7-day CD test is
				  recommended to verify the operational status of the CEMS.
2.1.5.2 Calibration Drift Test Period. While the facility is
				  operating under normal conditions, determine the CD at 24-hour intervals for
				  seven consecutive days according to the procedure given in section
				  2.1.6.1. All CD determinations
				  must be made following a 24-hour period during which no unscheduled
				  maintenance, repair, or adjustment takes place. If the combustion unit is taken
				  out of service during the test period, record the onset and the duration of the
				  downtime and continue the calibration drift test when the unit resumes
				  operation.
2.1.5.3 Relative Accuracy Test Period. Conduct the RA test
				  according to the procedure in section
				  2.1.6.4 while the facility is
				  operating under normal conditions. RA testing for CO and
				  O2 shall be conducted simultaneously so that the results
				  can be calculated for CO corrected to 7 percent O2. The
				  RA test shall be conducted during the CD test period. It is emphasized that
				  during the CD test period, no adjustments or repairs may be made to the CEMS
				  other than routine calibration adjustments performed immediately following the
				  daily CD determination.
2.1.5.4 Calibration Error Test and Response Time Test
				  Periods. Conduct the CE and response time tests during the CD test
				  period.
2.1.6 Performance Specification Test Procedures
2.1.6.1 Calibration Drift Test.
2.1.6.1.1 Sampling Strategy. Conduct the CD test for all
				  monitors at 24-hour intervals for seven consecutive days using calibration
				  gases at the two (or three, if applicable) concentration levels specified in
				  section 2.1.4.2. Introduce the calibration
				  gases into the sampling system as close to the sampling probe outlet as
				  practical. The gas shall pass through all filters, scrubbers, conditioners, and
				  other CEMS components used during normal sampling. If periodic automatic or
				  manual adjustments are made to the CEMS zero and calibration settings, conduct
				  the CD test immediately before these adjustments, or conduct it in such a way
				  that the CD can be determined. Record the CEMS response and subtract this value
				  from the reference (calibration gas) value. To meet the specification, none of
				  the differences shall exceed the limits specified in Table 2.1-1.
2.1.6.1.2 Calculations. Summarize the results on a data
				  sheet. An example is shown in Figure 2.1-1. Calculate the differences between
				  the CEMS responses and the reference values.
2.1.6.2 Response Time. Check the entire CEMS including sample
				  extraction and transport, sample conditioning, gas analyses, and the data
				  recording.
2.1.6.2.1 Introduce zero gas into the system. For extractive
				  systems, introduce the calibration gases at the probe as near to the sample
				  location as possible. For in-situ system, introduce the zero gas at a point
				  such that all components active in the analysis are tested. When the system
				  output has stabilized (no change greater than 1 percent of full scale for 30
				  seconds), switch to monitor stack effluent and wait for a stable value. Record
				  the time (upscale response time) required to reach 95 percent of the final
				  stable value.
2.1.6.2.2 Next, introduce a high-level calibration gas and
				  repeat the above procedure. Repeat the entire procedure three times and
				  determine the mean upscale and downscale response times. The longer of the two
				  means is the system response time.
2.1.6.3 Calibration Error Test Procedure.
2.1.6.3.1 Sampling Strategy. Challenge each monitor (both
				  low- and high-range CO and O2) with zero gas and US EPA
				  Protocol 1 cylinder gases at three measurement points within the ranges
				  specified in Table 2.1-3.
Table 2.1-3--Calibration Error Concentration Ranges for Tier
				  I
GAS Concentration
						  Ranges
Measurement point
CO,
						  ppm Low range1
High
						  range
O2 percent
1
0-40
0-600
0-2
2
60-80
900-1200
8-10
3
140-160
2100-2400
14-16
FOOTNOTE: 
				  1For Tier II, the CE specifications
				  for the low-range CO CEMS are 0-20%, 30-40%, and 70-80% of twice the permit
				  limit.
Click
				  here to view image
2.1.6.3.1.1 If a single measurement range is used, the
				  calibration gases used in the daily CD checks (if they are Protocol 1 cylinder
				  gases and meet the criteria in section
				  2.1.6.3.1) may be used for
				  determining CE.
2.1.6.3.1.2 Operate each monitor in its normal sampling mode
				  as nearly as possible. The calibration gas shall be injected into the sample
				  system as close to the sampling probe outlet as practical and should pass
				  through all CEMS components used during normal sampling. Challenge the CEMS
				  three non-consecutive times at each measurement point and record the responses.
				  The duration of each gas injection should be sufficient to ensure that the CEMS
				  surfaces are conditioned.
2.1.6.3.2 Calculations. Summarize the results on a data
				  sheet. An example data sheet is shown in Figure 2.1-2. Average the differences
				  between the instrument response and the certified cylinder gas value for each
				  gas. Calculate three CE results (five CE results for a single-range CO CEMS)
				  according to Equation 5 (section
				  2.1.7.5). No confidence
				  coefficient is used in CE calculations.
2.1.6.4 Relative Accuracy Test Procedure.
2.1.6.4.1 Sampling Strategy for PTM tests. Conduct the PTM
				  tests in such a way that they will yield measurements representative of the
				  emissions from the source and can be correlated to the CEMS data. Although it
				  is preferable to conduct the CO, diluent, and moisture (if needed)
				  simultaneously, moisture measurements that are taken within a 60-minute period
				  which includes the simultaneous CO and O2 measurements
				  may be used to calculate the dry CO concentration.
NOTE: At times, CEMS RA tests may be conducted during
				  incinerator performance tests. In these cases, PTM results obtained during CEMS
				  RA tests may be used to determine compliance with incinerator emissions limits
				  as long as the source and test conditions are consistent with the applicable
				  regulations.
Click
				  here to view image
2.1.6.4.2 Performance Test Methods.
2.1.6.4.2.1 Unless otherwise specified in the regulations,
				  method 3 or 3A and method 10, 10A, or 10B ( 40 CFR part 60 , appendix A) are
				  the test methods for O2 and CO, respectively. Make a
				  sample traverse of at least 21 minutes, sampling for 7 minutes at each of three
				  traverse points (see section
				  3.2).
2.1.6.4.2.2 When the installed CEMS uses a nondispersive
				  infrared (NDIR) analyzer, method 10 shall use the alternative interference trap
				  specified in section
				  10.1 of the method. An option,
				  which may be approved by the Director in certain cases, would allow the test to
				  be conducted using method 10 without the interference trap. Under this option,
				  a laboratory interference test is performed for the analyzer prior to the field
				  test. The laboratory interference test includes the analysis of
				  SO2, NO, and CO2 calibration
				  gases over the range of expected effluent concentrations. Acceptable
				  performance is indicated if the CO analyzer response to each of the gases is
				  less than 1 percent of the applicable measurement range of the analyzer.
2.1.6.4.3 Number of PTM Tests. Conduct a minimum of nine sets
				  of all necessary PTM tests. If more than nine sets are conducted, a maximum of
				  three sets may be rejected at the tester's discretion. The total number of sets
				  used to determine the RA must be greater than or equal to nine. All data,
				  including the rejected data, must be reported.
2.1.6.4.4 Correlation of PTM and CEMS Data. The time and
				  duration of each PTM test run and the CEMS response time should be considered
				  in correlating the data. Use the CEMS final output (the one used for reporting)
				  to determine an integrated average CO concentration for each PTM test run.
				  Confirm that the pair of results are on a consistent moisture and
				  O2 concentration basis. Each integrated CEMS value
				  should then be compared against the corresponding average PTM value. If the CO
				  concentration measured by the CEMS is normalized to a specified diluent
				  concentration, the PTM results shall be normalized to the same value.
2.1.6.4.5 Calculations. Summarize the results on a data
				  sheet. Calculate the mean of the PTM values and calculate the arithmetic
				  differences between the PTM and the CEMS data sets. The mean of the
				  differences, standard deviation, confidence coefficient, and CEMS RA should be
				  calculated using Equations 1 through 4.
2.1.7 Equations
2.1.7.1 Arithmetic Mean (
d
). Calculate d of
				  the difference of a data set using Equation 1.
Click
				  here to view image
where: n=Number of data points.
Click
				  here to view image
When the mean of the differences of pairs of data is
				  calculated, correct the data for moisture, if applicable.
2.1.7.2 Standard Deviation (Sd).
				  Calculate Sd using Equation 2.
Click
				  here to view image
2.1.7.3 Confidence Coefficient (CC). Calculate the 2.5
				  percent error CC (one-tailed) using Equation 3.
Click
				  here to view image
where:
t0.975=t-value (see Table
				  2.1-4)
Table 2.1-4--t Values
na
t0.975
na
t0.975
na
t0.975
2
12.706
7
2.447
12
2.201
3
4.303
8
2.365
13
2.179
4
3.182
9
2.306
14
2.160
5
2.776
10
2.662
15
2.145
6
2.571
11
2.228
16
2.131
FOOTNOTE: 
				  aThe values in this table are already
				  corrected for n-1 degrees of freedom.
Use n equal to the number of individual values.
2.1.7.4 Relative Accuracy. Calculate the RA of a set of data
				  using Equation 4.
Click
				  here to view image
where:
Click
				  here to view image
CC = Absolute value of the confidence coefficient (Equation
				  3).
P T M
= Average reference value.
Click
				  here to view image
where:
d[BAR] = Mean difference between CEMS response and the known
				  reference concentration.
2.1.8 Reporting
At a minimum, summarize in tabular form the results of the
				  CD, RA, response time, and CE test, as appropriate. Include all data sheets,
				  calculations, CEMS data records, and cylinder gas or reference material
				  certifications.
2.1.9 Alternative Procedure
2.1.9.1 Alternative RA Procedure Rationale. Under some
				  operating conditions, it may not be possible to obtain meaningful results using
				  the RA test procedure. This includes conditions where consistent, very low CO
				  emissions or low CO emissions interrupted periodically by short duration, high
				  level spikes are observed. It may be appropriate in these circumstances to
				  waive the PTM RA test and substitute the following procedure.
2.1.9.2 Alternative RA Procedure. Conduct a complete CEMS
				  status check following the manufacturer's written instructions. The check
				  should include operation of the light source, signal receiver, timing mechanism
				  functions, data acquisition and data reduction functions, data recorders,
				  mechanically operated functions (mirror movements, calibration gas valve
				  operations, etc.), sample filters, sample line heaters, moisture traps, and
				  other related functions of the CEMS, as applicable. All parts of the CEMS must
				  be functioning properly before the RA requirement can be waived. The
				  instruments must also have successfully passed the CE and CD requirements of
				  the performance specifications. Substitution of the alternative procedure
				  requires approval of the Director.
2.1.10 Quality Assurance (QA)
Proper calibration, maintenance, and operation of the CEMS is
				  the responsibility of the owner or operator. The owner or operator must
				  establish a QA program to evaluate and monitor CEMS performance. As a minimum,
				  the QA program must include:
2.1.10.1 A daily calibration check for each monitor. The
				  calibration must be adjusted if the check indicates the instrument's CD exceeds
				  the specification established in section
				  2.1.4.5. The gases shall be
				  injected as close to the probe as possible to provide a check of the entire
				  sampling system. If an alternative calibration procedure is desired (e.g.,
				  direct injections or gas cells), subject to Director's approval, the adequacy
				  of this alternative procedure may be demonstrated during the initial 7-day CD
				  test. Periodic comparisons of the two procedures are suggested.
2.1.10.2 A daily system audit. The audit must include a
				  review of the calibration check data, an inspection of the recording system, an
				  inspection of the control panel warning lights, and an inspection of the sample
				  transport and interface system (e.g., flowmeters, filters), as
				  appropriate.
2.1.10.3 A quarterly calibration error (CE) test. Quarterly
				  RA tests may be substituted for the CE test when approved by the Director on a
				  case-by-case basis.
2.1.10.4 An annual performance specification test.
2.1.11 References
1. Jahnke, James A. and G.J. Aldina, "Handbook: Continuous
				  Air Pollution Source Monitoring Systems," U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
				  Technology Transfer, Cincinnati, Ohio 45268, EPA-625/6-79-005, June
				  1979.
2. "Gaseous Continuous Emissions Monitoring
				  Systems--Performance Specification Guidelines for SO2,
				  NOx, CO2,
				  O2, and TRS." U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
				  OAQPS, ESED, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711, EPA-450/3-82-026,
				  October 1982.
3. "Quality Assurance Handbook for Air Pollution Measurement
				  Systems: Volume I. Principles." U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ORD/EMSL,
				  Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, 27711, EPA-600/9-76-006, December
				  1984.
4. Michie, Raymond, M. Jr., et al., "Performance Test Results
				  and Comparative Data for Designated Reference Methods for Carbon Monoxide,"
				  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ORD/EMSL, Research Triangle Park, North
				  Carolina, 27711, EPA-600/S4-83-013, September 1982.
5. Ferguson, B.B., R.E. Lester, and W.J. Mitchell, "Field
				  Evaluation of Carbon Monoxide and Hydrogen Sulfide Continuous Emission Monitors
				  at an Oil Refinery," U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle
				  Park, North Carolina, 27711, EPA-600/4-82-054, August 1982.
2.2 Performance Specifications for Continuous Emission
				  Monitoring of Hydrocarbons for Incinerators, Boilers, and Industrial Furnaces
				  Burning Hazardous Waste
2.2.1 Applicability and Principle
2.2.1.1 Applicability. These performance specifications apply
				  to hydrocarbon (HC) continuous emission monitoring systems (CEMSs) installed on
				  incinerators, boilers, and industrial furnaces burning hazardous waste. The
				  specifications include procedures which are intended to be used to evaluate the
				  acceptability of the CEMS at the time of its installation or whenever specified
				  in regulations or permits. The procedures are not designed to evaluate CEMS
				  performance over an extended period of time. The source owner or operator is
				  responsible for the proper calibration, maintenance, and operation of the CEMS
				  at all times.
2.2.1.2 Principle. A gas sample is extracted from the source
				  through a heated sample line and heated filter (except as provided by section
				  2.2.10) to a flame ionization
				  detector (FID). Results are reported as volume concentration equivalents of
				  propane. Installation and measurement location specifications, performance and
				  equipment specifications, test and data reduction procedures, and brief quality
				  assurance guidelines are included in the specifications. Calibration drift,
				  calibration error, and response time tests are conducted to determine
				  conformance of the CEMS with the specifications.
2.2.2 Definitions
2.2.2.1 Continuous Emission Monitoring System (CEMS). The
				  total equipment used to acquire data, which includes sample extraction and
				  transport hardware, analyzer, data recording and processing hardware, and
				  software. The system consists of the following major subsystems:
2.2.2.1.1 Sample Interface. That portion of the system that
				  is used for one or more of the following: Sample acquisition, sample
				  transportation, sample conditioning, or protection of the analyzer from the
				  effects of the stack effluent.
2.2.2.1.2 Organic Analyzer. That portion of the system that
				  senses organic concentration and generates an output proportional to the gas
				  concentration.
2.2.2.1.3 Data Recorder. That portion of the system that
				  records a permanent record of the measurement values. The data recorder may
				  include automatic data reduction capabilities.
2.2.2.2 Instrument Measurement Range. The difference between
				  the minimum and the maximum concentration that can be measured by a specific
				  instrument. The minimum is often stated or assumed to be zero and the range
				  expressed only as the maximum.
2.2.2.3 Span or Span Value. Full scale instrument measurement
				  range.
2.2.2.4 Calibration Gas. A known concentration of a gas in an
				  appropriate diluent gas.
2.2.2.5 Calibration Drift (CD). The difference in the CEMS
				  output readings from the established reference value after a stated period of
				  operation during which no unscheduled maintenance, repair, or adjustment takes
				  place. A CD test is performed to demonstrate the stability of the CEMS
				  calibration over time.
2.2.2.6 Response Time. The time interval between the start of
				  a step change in the system input (e.g., change of calibration gas) and the
				  time when the data recorder displays 95 percent of the final value.
2.2.2.7 Accuracy. A measurement of agreement between a
				  measured value and an accepted or true value, expressed as the percentage
				  difference between the true and measured values relative to the true value. For
				  these performance specifications, accuracy is checked by conducting a
				  calibration error (CE) test.
2.2.2.8 Calibration Error (CE). The difference between the
				  concentration indicated by the CEMS and the known concentration of the cylinder
				  gas. A CE test procedure is performed to document the accuracy and linearity of
				  the monitoring equipment over the entire measurement range.
2.2.2.9 Performance Specification Test (PST) Period. The
				  period during which the CD, CE, and response time tests are conducted.
2.2.2.10 Centroidal Area. A concentric area that is
				  geometrically similar to the stack or duct cross section and is no greater than
				  1 percent of the stack or duct cross-sectional area.
2.2.3 Installation and Measurement Location
				  Specifications
2.2.3.1 CEMS Installation and Measurement Locations. The CEMS
				  shall be installed in a location in which measurements representative of the
				  source's emissions can be obtained. The optimum location of the sample
				  interface for the CEMS is determined by a number of factors, including ease of
				  access for calibration and maintenance, the degree to which sample conditioning
				  will be required, the degree to which it represents total emissions, and the
				  degree to which it represents the combustion situation in the firebox. The
				  location should be as free from in-leakage influences as possible and
				  reasonably free from severe flow disturbances. The sample location should be at
				  least two equivalent duct diameters downstream from the nearest control device,
				  point of pollutant generation, or other point at which a change in the
				  pollutant concentration or emission rate occurs and at least 0.5 diameter
				  upstream from the exhaust or control device. The equivalent duct diameter is
				  calculated as per 40 CFR part 60 , appendix A, method 1, section
				  2.1. If these criteria are not
				  achievable or if the location is otherwise less than optimum, the possibility
				  of stratification should be investigated as described in section
				  2.2.3.2. The measurement point
				  shall be within the centroidal area of the stack or duct cross section.
2.2.3.2 Stratification Test Procedure. Stratification is
				  defined as a difference in excess of 10 percent between the average
				  concentration in the duct or stack and the concentration at any point more than
				  1.0 meter from the duct or stack wall. To determine whether effluent
				  stratification exists, a dual probe system should be used to determine the
				  average effluent concentration while measurements at each traverse point are
				  being made. One probe, located at the stack or duct centroid, is used as a
				  stationary reference point to indicate the change in effluent concentration
				  over time. The second probe is used for sampling at the traverse points
				  specified in 40 CFR part 60 appendix A, method 1. The monitoring system samples
				  sequentially at the reference and traverse points throughout the testing period
				  for five minutes at each point.
2.2.4 CEMS Performance and Equipment Specifications
If this method is applied in highly explosive areas, caution
				  and care shall be exercised in choice of equipment and installation.
2.2.4.1 Flame Ionization Detector (FID) Analyzer. A heated
				  FID analyzer capable of meeting or exceeding the requirements of these
				  specifications. Heated systems shall maintain the temperature of the sample gas
				  between 150 °C (300 °F) and 175 °C (350 °F) throughout the
				  system. This requires all system components such as the probe, calibration
				  valve, filter, sample lines, pump, and the FID to be kept heated at all times
				  such that no moisture is condensed out of the system.
NOTE: As specified in the regulations, unheated HC CEMs may
				  be considered an acceptable interim alternative monitoring technique. For
				  additional notes, see section
				  2.2.10. The essential components
				  of the measurement system are described below:
2.2.4.1.1 Sample Probe. Stainless steel, or equivalent, to
				  collect a gas sample from the centroidal area of the stack
				  cross-section.
2.2.4.1.2 Sample Line. Stainless steel or Teflon tubing to
				  transport the sample to the analyzer.
NOTE: Mention of trade names or specific products does not
				  constitute endorsement by the Department.
2.2.4.1.3 Calibration Valve Assembly. A heated three-way
				  valve assembly to direct the zero and calibration gases to the analyzer is
				  recommended. Other methods, such as quick-connect lines, to route calibration
				  gas to the analyzers are applicable.
2.2.4.1.4 Particulate Filter. An in-stack or out-of-stack
				  sintered stainless steel filter is recommended if exhaust gas particulate
				  loading is significant. An out-of-stack filter must be heated.
2.2.4.1.5 Fuel. The fuel specified by the manufacturer (e.g.,
				  40 percent hydrogen/60 percent helium, 40 percent hydrogen/60 percent nitrogen
				  gas mixtures, or pure hydrogen) should be used.
2.2.4.1.6 Zero Gas. High purity air with less than 0.1 parts
				  per million by volume (ppm) HC as methane or carbon equivalent or less than 0.1
				  percent of the span value, whichever is greater.
2.2.4.1.7 Calibration Gases. Appropriate concentrations of
				  propane gas (in air or nitrogen). Preparation of the calibration gases should
				  be done according to the procedures in US EPA Protocol 1. In addition, the
				  manufacturer of the cylinder gas should provide a recommended shelf life for
				  each calibration gas cylinder over which the concentration does not change by
				  more than ± 2 percent from the certified value.
2.2.4.2 CEMS Span Value. 100 ppm propane.
2.2.4.3 Daily Calibration Gas Values. The owner or operator
				  must choose calibration gas concentrations that include zero and high-level
				  calibration values.
2.2.4.3.1 The zero level may be between 0 and 20 ppm (zero
				  and 20 percent of the span value).
2.2.4.3.2 The high-level concentration shall be between 50
				  and 90 ppm (50 and 90 percent of the span value).
2.2.4.4 Data Recorder Scale. The strip chart recorder,
				  computer, or digital recorder must be capable of recording all readings within
				  the CEMS's measurement range and shall have a resolution of 0.5 ppm (0.5
				  percent of span value).
2.2.4.5 Response Time. The response time for the CEMS must
				  not exceed 2 minutes to achieve 95 percent of the final stable value.
2.2.4.6 Calibration Drift. The CEMS must allow the
				  determination of CD at the zero and high-level values. The CEMS calibration
				  response must not differ by more than ± 3 ppm (± 3 percent of the
				  span value) after each 24-hour period of the 7-day test at both zero and high
				  levels.
2.2.4.7 Calibration Error. The mean difference between the
				  CEMS and reference values at all three test points listed below shall be no
				  greater than 5 ppm (± 5 percent of the span value).
2.2.4.7.1 Zero Level. Zero to 20 ppm (0 to 20 percent of span
				  value).
2.2.4.7.2 Mid-Level. 30 to 40 ppm (30 to 40 percent of span
				  value).
2.2.4.7.3 High-Level. 70 to 80 ppm (70 to 80 percent of span
				  value).
2.2.4.8 Measurement and Recording Frequency. The sample to be
				  analyzed shall pass through the measurement section of the analyzer without
				  interruption. The detector shall measure the sample concentration at least once
				  every 15 seconds. An average emission rate shall be computed and recorded at
				  least once every 60 seconds.
2.2.4.9 Hourly Rolling Average Calculation. The CEMS shall
				  calculate every minute an hourly rolling average, which is the arithmetic mean
				  of the 60 most recent 1-minute average values.
2.2.4.10 Retest. If the CEMS produces results within the
				  specified criteria, the test is successful. If the CEMS does not meet one or
				  more of the criteria, necessary corrections must be made and the performance
				  tests repeated.
2.2.5 Performance Specification Test (PST) Periods
2.2.5.1 Pretest Preparation Period. Install the CEMS, prepare
				  the PTM test site according to the specifications in section
				  2.2.3, and prepare the CEMS for
				  operation and calibration according to the manufacturer's written instructions.
				  A pretest conditioning period similar to that of the 7-day CD test is
				  recommended to verify the operational status of the CEMS.
2.2.5.2 Calibration Drift Test Period. While the facility is
				  operating under normal conditions, determine the magnitude of the CD at 24-hour
				  intervals for seven consecutive days according to the procedure given in
				  section 2.2.6.1. All CD determinations
				  must be made following a 24-hour period during which no unscheduled
				  maintenance, repair, or adjustment takes place. If the combustion unit is taken
				  out of service during the test period, record the onset and duration of the
				  downtime and continue the CD test when the unit resumes operation.
2.2.5.3 Calibration Error Test and Response Time Test
				  Periods. Conduct the CE and response time tests during the CD test
				  period.
2.2.6 Performance Specification Test Procedures
2.2.6.1 Calibration Drift Test.
2.2.6.1.1 Sampling Strategy. Conduct the CD test at 24-hour
				  intervals for seven consecutive days using calibration gases at the two daily
				  concentration levels specified in section
				  2.2.4.3. Introduce the two
				  calibration gases into the sampling system as close to the sampling probe
				  outlet as practical. The gas shall pass through all CEM components used during
				  normal sampling. If periodic automatic or manual adjustments are made to the
				  CEMS zero and calibration settings, conduct the CD test immediately before
				  these adjustments, or conduct it in such a way that the CD can be determined.
				  Record the CEMS response and subtract this value from the reference
				  (calibration gas) value. To meet the specification, none of the differences
				  shall exceed 3 ppm.
2.2.6.1.2 Calculations. Summarize the results on a data
				  sheet. An example is shown in Figure 2.2-1. Calculate the differences between
				  the CEMS responses and the reference values.
2.2.6.2 Response Time. The entire system including sample
				  extraction and transport, sample conditioning, gas analyses, and the data
				  recording is checked with this procedure.
2.2.6.2.1 Introduce the calibration gases at the probe as
				  near to the sample location as possible. Introduce the zero gas into the
				  system. When the system output has stabilized (no change greater than 1 percent
				  of full scale for 30 sec), switch to monitor stack effluent and wait for a
				  stable value. Record the time (upscale response time) required to reach 95
				  percent of the final stable value.
2.2.6.2.2 Next, introduce a high-level calibration gas and
				  repeat the above procedure. Repeat the entire procedure three times and
				  determine the mean upscale and downscale response times. The longer of the two
				  means is the system response time.
2.2.6.3 Calibration Error Test Procedure.
2.2.6.3.1 Sampling Strategy. Challenge the CEMS with zero gas
				  and US EPA Protocol 1 cylinder gases at measurement points within the ranges
				  specified in section
				  2.2.4.7.
2.2.6.3.1.1. The daily calibration gases, if Protocol 1, may
				  be used for this test.
2.2.6.3.1.2 Operate the CEMS as nearly as possible in its
				  normal sampling mode. The calibration gas should be injected into the sampling
				  system as close to the sampling probe outlet as practical and shall pass
				  through all filters, scrubbers, conditioners, and other monitor components used
				  during normal sampling. Challenge the CEMS three non-consecutive times at each
				  measurement point and record the responses. The duration of each gas injection
				  should be for a sufficient period of time to ensure that the CEMS surfaces are
				  conditioned.
2.2.6.3.2 Calculations. Summarize the results on a data
				  sheet. An example data sheet is shown in Figure 2.2-2. Average the differences
				  between the instrument response and the certified cylinder gas value for each
				  gas. Calculate three CE results according to Equation 1. No confidence
				  coefficient is used in CE calculations.
2.2.7 Equations
2.2.7.1 Calibration Error. Calculate CE using Equation
				  1.
Click
				  here to view image
where:
d[BAR] = Mean difference between CEMS response and the known
				  reference concentration.
2.2.8 Reporting
At a minimum, summarize in tabular form the results of the
				  CD, response time, and CE test, as appropriate. Include all data sheets,
				  calculations, CEMS data records, and cylinder gas or reference material
				  certifications.
Click
				  here to view image
Click
				  here to view image
2.2.9 Quality Assurance (QA)
Proper calibration, maintenance, and operation of the CEMS is
				  the responsibility of the owner or operator. The owner or operator must
				  establish a QA program to evaluate and monitor CEMS performance. As a minimum,
				  the QA program must include:
2.2.9.1 A daily calibration check for each monitor. The
				  calibration must be adjusted if the check indicates the instrument's CD exceeds
				  3 ppm. The gases shall be injected as close to the probe as possible to provide
				  a check of the entire sampling system. If an alternative calibration procedure
				  is desired (e.g., direct injections or gas cells), subject to Director's
				  approval, the adequacy of this alternative procedure may be demonstrated during
				  the initial 7-day CD test. Periodic comparisons of the two procedures are
				  suggested.
2.2.9.2 A daily system audit. The audit must include a review
				  of the calibration check data, an inspection of the recording system, an
				  inspection of the control panel warning lights, and an inspection of the sample
				  transport and interface system (e.g., flowmeters, filters), as
				  appropriate.
2.2.9.3 A quarterly CE test. Quarterly RA tests may be
				  substituted for the CE test when approved by the Director on a case-by-case
				  basis.
2.2.9.4 An annual performance specification test.
2.2.10 Alternative Measurement Technique
The regulations allow gas conditioning systems to be used in
				  conjunction with unheated HC CEMs during an interim period. This gas
				  conditioning may include cooling to not less than 40 °F and the use of
				  condensate traps to reduce the moisture content of sample gas entering the FID
				  to less than 2 percent. The gas conditioning system, however, must not allow
				  the sample gas to bubble through the condensate as this would remove water
				  soluble organic compounds. All components upstream of the conditioning system
				  should be heated as described in section
				  2.2.4 to minimize operating and
				  maintenance problems.
2.2.11 References
1. Measurement of Volatile Organic Compounds-Guideline
				  Series. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North
				  Carolina, 27711, EPA-450/2-78-041, June 1978.
2. Traceability Protocol for Establishing True Concentrations
				  of Gases Used for Calibration and Audits of Continuous Source Emission Monitors
				  (Protocol No. 1). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ORD/EMSL, Research
				  Triangle Park, North Carolina, 27711, June 1978.
3. Gasoline Vapor Emission Laboratory Evaluation-Part 2. U.S.
				  Environmental Protection Agency, OAQPS, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina,
				  27711, EMB Report No. 76-GAS-6, August 1975.
SECTION
				  3.0 SAMPLING AND ANALYTICAL
				  METHODS
NOTE: The sampling and analytical methods to the BIF manual
				  are published in "Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste, Physical/Chemical
				  Methods," U.S. EPA Publication SW-846, third edition and updates, as
				  incorporated by reference in Section
				  66260.11 of this Division.
SECTION
				  4.0 PROCEDURE FOR ESTIMATING THE
				  TOXICITY EQUIVALENCY OF CHLORINATED DIBENZO-P-DIOXIN AND DIBENZOFURAN
				  CONGENERS
PCDDs and PCDFs must be determined using the method given in
				  section 3.4 of this document. In this
				  method, individual congeners or homologues1 are
				  measured and then summed to yield a total PCDD/PCDF value. No toxicity factors
				  are specified in the method to compute risks from such emissions.
FOOTNOTE: 
				  1The term "congener" refers to any one
				  particular member of the same chemical family; e.g., there are 75 congeners of
				  chlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins. The term "homologue" refers to a group of
				  structurally related chemicals that have the same degree of chlorination. For
				  example, there are eight homologues of CDs, monochlorinated through
				  octachlorinated. Dibenzo-p-dioxins and dibenzofurans that are chlorinated at
				  the 2,3,7 and 8 positions are denoted as "2378" congeners, except when 2, 3, 7,
				  8-TCDD is uniquely referred to: e.g., 1, 2, 3, 7, 8-PeCDF and 2, 3, 4, 7, 8-
				  PeCDF are both referred to as "2378-PeCDFs."
For the purpose of estimating risks posed by emissions from
				  boilers and industrial furnaces, however, specific congeners and homologues
				  must be measured using the specified method and then multiplied by the assigned
				  toxicity equivalence factors (TEFs), using procedures described in "Interim
				  Procedures for Estimating Risks Associated with Exposures to Mixtures of
				  Chlorinated Dibenzo-p-Dioxins and Dibenzofurans (CDDs and CDFs) and 1989
				  Update," EPA/625/3-89/016, March 1989. The resulting 2, 3, 7, 8-TCDD
				  equivalents value is used in the subsequent risk calculations and modeling
				  efforts as discussed in the BIF final rule.
The procedure for calculating the 2, 3, 7, 8-TCDD equivalent
				  is as follows:
1. Using method 23, determine the concentrations of 2, 7,
				  3,8-congeners of various PCDDs and PCDFs in the sample.
2. Multiply the congener concentrations in the sample by the
				  TEF listed in Table 4.0-1 to express the congener concentrations in terms of 2,
				  3, 7, 8-TCDD equivalent. Note that congeners not chlorinated at 2, 3, 7, and 8
				  positions have a zero toxicity factor in this table.
3. Add the products obtained in step 2, to obtain the total
				  2, 3, 7, 8-TCDD equivalent in the sample.
Sampling calculations are provided in US EPA document No.
				  EPA/625/3-89/016, March 1989, which can be obtained from the US EPA, ORD
				  Publications Office, Cincinnati, Ohio (Phone no. 513-569-7562).
Table 4.0-1.--2,3,7,8-TCDD Toxicity Equivalence Factors
				  (TEFs)1
Compound
I - TEFs,
							 89
Mono-, Di-, and TriCDDs
0
2,3,7,8-TCDD
1
Other TCDDs
0
2,3,7,8-PeCDD
0.5
Other PeCDDs
0
2,3,7,8-HxCDD
0.1
Other HxCDDs
0
2,3,7,8-HpCDD
0.01
Other HpCDDs
0
OCDD
0.001
Mono-, Di-, and TriCDFs
0
2,3,7,8-TCDF
0.1
Other TCDFs
0
1,2,3,7,8-PeCDF
0.05
2,3,4,7,8-PeCDF
0.5
Other PeCDFs
0
2378-HxCDFs
0.1
Other HxCDFs
0
2378-HpCDFs
0.01
Other HpCDFs
0
OCDF
0.001
Reference: Adapted from NATO/CCMS, 1988a.
FOOTNOTE: 
				  1Interim Procedures for Estimating
				  Risks Associated with Exposures to Mixtures of Chlorinated Dibenzo-p-Dioxins
				  and Dibenzofurans (CDDs and CDFs) 1989 Update EPA/625/3-89/016, March
				  1989.
SECTION
				  5.0 HAZARDOUS WASTE COMBUSTION AIR
				  QUALITY SCREENING PROCEDURE
The HWCAQSP is a combined calculation/reference table
				  approach for conservatively estimating short-term and annual average facility
				  impacts for stack emissions. The procedure is based on extensive short-term
				  modeling of 11 generic source types and on a set of adjustment factors for
				  estimating annual average concentrations from short-term concentrations.
				  Facility impacts may be determined based on the selected worst-case stack or on
				  multiple stacks, in which the impacts from each stack are estimated separately
				  and then added to produce the total facility impact.
This procedure is most useful for facilities with multiple
				  stacks, large source-to-property boundary distances, and complex terrain
				  between 1 and 5 km from the facility. To ensure a sufficient degree of
				  conservatism, the HWCAQSP may not be used if any of the five screening
				  procedure limitations listed below are true:
* The facility is located in a narrow valley less than 1 km
				  wide;
* The facility has a stack taller than 20 m and is located
				  such that the terrain rises to the stack height within 1 km of the
				  facility;
* The facility has a stack taller than 20 m and is located
				  within 5 km of the shoreline of a large body of water;
* The facility property line is within 200 m of the stack and
				  the physical stack height is less than 10 m; or
* On-site receptors are of concern, and stack height is less
				  than 10 m.
If any of these criteria are met or the Director determines
				  that this procedure is not appropriate, then detailed site-specific modeling or
				  modeling using the "Screening Procedures for Estimating the Air Quality Impact
				  of Stationary Sources," EPA-450/4-88-010, Office of Air Quality Planning and
				  Standards, August 1988, is required. Detailed site-specific dispersion modeling
				  must conform to the US EPA "Guidance on Air Quality Models (Revised)", EPA
				  450/2-78-027R, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Research Triangle
				  Park, North Carolina, July 1986. This document provides guidance on both the
				  proper selection and regulatory application of air quality models.
Introduction
The Hazardous Waste Combustion Air Quality Screening
				  Procedure (HWCAQSP) (also referred to hereafter as "the screening procedure" or
				  "the procedure") provides a quick, easy method for estimating maximum (hourly)
				  and annual average ambient air impacts associated with the combustion of
				  hazardous waste. The methodology is conservative in nature and estimates
				  dispersion coefficients1 based on facility-specific
				  information.
FOOTNOTE: 
				  1The term dispersion coefficient
				  refers to the change in ambient air concentration
				  (µg/m3) resulting from a source with an
				  emission rate of 1 g/sec.
The screening procedure can be used to determine emissions
				  limits at sites where the nearest meteorological (STAR) station is not
				  representative of the meteorology at the site. If the screen shows that
				  emissions from the site are adequately protective, then the need to collect
				  site-specific meteorologic data can be eliminated.
The screening procedure is generally most helpful for
				  facilities meeting one or more of the following conditions:
* Multiple stacks with substantially different release
				  specifications (e.g., stack heights differ by >50 percent, exit temperatures
				  differ by >50 °K, or the exit flow rates differ by more than a factor of
				  2),
* Terrain located between 1 km and 5 km from the site
				  increases in elevation by more than the physical height of the shortest stack
				  (i.e., the facility is located in complex terrain), or
* Significant distance between the facility's stacks and the
				  site boundary [guidance on determining whether a distance is "significant" is
				  provided in Step 6(B) of the procedure].
Step 1 through 9 of the screening procedure present a
				  simplified method for determining emissions based on the use of the "worst-
				  case" stack. If the simplified method shows that desired feed rates result in
				  emissions that exceed allowable limits for one or more pollutants, a refined
				  analysis to examine the emissions from each stack can be conducted. This
				  multiple-stack method is presented in Step 10.
The steps involved in screening methodology are as
				  follows:
Step 1. Define Source Characteristics
Step 2. Determine the Applicability of the Screening
				  Procedure
Step 3. Select the Worst-Case Stack
Step 4. Verify Good Engineering Practice (GEP)
				  Criteria
Step 5. Determine the Effective Stack Height and
				  Terrain-Adjusted Effective Stack Height
Step 6. Classify the Site as Urban or Rural
Step 7. Determine Maximum Dispersion Coefficients
Step 8. Estimate Maximum Ambient Air Concentrations
Step 9. Determine Compliance With Regulatory Limits
Step 10. Multiple Stack Method
Step 1. Define Source Characteristics
Provide the following source
				  data:2
FOOTNOTE: 
				  2Worksheet space is provided for three
				  stacks. If the facility has additional stacks, copy the form and revise stack
				  identification numbers for 4, 5, etc.
Stack
							 Data:
Stack No.
							 1
Stack No.
							 2
Stack No.
							 3
Physical stack height
						  (m)
___
___
___
Exhaust temperature
						  (°K)
___
___
___
Flow rate
						  (m3/sec)
___
___
___
Nearby Building Dimensions
Consider all buildings within five building heights or five
				  maximum projected widths of the stack(s). For the building with the greatest
				  height, fill in the spaces below.
Building Height (m)
Maximum projected building width (m)
Nearby Terrain Data
Determine maximum terrain rise for the following three
				  distance ranges from the facility (not required if the highest stack is less
				  than 10 m in height):
___________________________
(m)
___________________________
(m)
___________________________
(m)
0-0.5 km
0-2.5 km
0-5 km
Distance from facility to nearest shoreline (km)
Valley width (km)
Step 2. Determine the Applicability of the Screening
				  Procedure
Fill in the following data:
Is the Facility in a valley < kmin
						  width?
Yes___
No___
Is the terrain rise within 1 km of the facility
						  greater than the physical stack height? (Only applies to stacks <20 meters
						  in height)
___
___
Is the distance to the nearest shoreline < 5 km?
						  (Only applies to facilities with stacks < 20 meters in
						  height)
___
___
For the building listed in Step 1, is the closest
						  property boundary < 5 times the building height or < 5 times the maximum
						  projected building width? (Only applies to facilities with a stack height <
						  2.5 times the building height)
___
___
If the answer is "no" to all the preceding questions, then
				  the HWCAQSP is acceptable. If the answer to any question is "yes", the
				  procedure is not acceptable.
Step 3: Select the Worst-Case Stack
If the facility has several stacks, a worst-case stack must
				  be chosen to conservatively represent release conditions at the facility.
				  Follow the steps below to identify the worst-case stack.
Apply the following equation to each stack:
K = HVT
where:
K = an arbitrary parameter accounting for the relative
				  influence of the stack height and plume rise.
H = Physical stack height (m)
V = Flow rate (m3/sec)
T = Exhaust temperature (°K)
Complete the following table to compute the "K" value for
				  each stack:
Stack
							 No.
Stack height
							 (m)
X
Flow rate
							 (m3/sec)
X
Exit temp
							 (°K)
=
K
1
X
X
=
2
X
X
=
3
X
X
=
Select the stack with the lowest "K" value. This is the
				  worst-case stack that will be used for Steps 4 through 9.
Worst-Case Stack is identified as Stack No. ___
Step 4. Verify Good Engineering Practice (GEP)
				  Criteria
Confirm that the selected worst-case stack meets Good
				  Engineering Practice (GEP) criteria. The stack height to be used in the
				  subsequent steps of this procedure must not be greater than the maximum GEP.
				  Maximum and minimum GEP stack heights are defined as follows:
CEP (minimum) = H + (1.5 X L)
GEP (maximum) = greater of 65 m or H + (1.5 X L)
where:
H = height of the building selected in Step 1 measured from
				  ground level elevation at the base of the stack
L = the lesser dimension of the height or projected width of
				  the building selected in Step 1
Record the following data for the worse-case stack:
Stack height (m) =
H(m) =
L(m) =
Then compute the following:
GEP (minimum) (m) =
GEP (maximum) (m) =
* If the physical height of the worst-case stack exceeds the
				  maximum GEP, then use the maximum GEP stack height for the subsequent steps of
				  this analysis;
* If the physical height of the worst-case stack is less than
				  the minimum GEP, then use generic source number 11 as the selected source for
				  further analysis and proceed directly to Step 6;
* If the physical height of the worst-case stack is between
				  the minimum and maximum GEP, then use the actual physical stack height for the
				  subsequent steps of this analysis.
Step 5. Determine the Effective Stack Height and
				  Terrain-Adjusted Effective Stack Height (TAESH)
The effective stack height is an important factor in
				  dispersion modeling. The effective stack height is the physical height of the
				  stack plus plume rise. As specified in Step 4, the stack height used to
				  estimate the effective stack height must not exceed GEP requirements. Plume
				  rise is a function of the stack exit gas temperature and flow rate.
In this analysis, the effective stack height is used to
				  select the generic source that represents the dispersion characteristics of the
				  facility. For facilities located in flat terrain and for all facilities with
				  worst-case stacks less than or equal to 10 meters in height, generic source
				  numbers are selected strictly on the basis of effective stack height. In all
				  other cases, the effective stack height is further adjusted to take into
				  account the terrain rise near the facility. This "terrain-adjusted effective
				  stack height" (TAESH) is then used to select the generic source number that
				  represents the dispersion characteristics of the facility. Follow the steps
				  below to identify the effective stack height, the TAESH (where applicable), and
				  the corresponding generic source number.
(A) Go to Table 5.0-1 and find the plume rise value
				  corresponding to the stack temperature and exit flow rate for the worst-case
				  stack determined in Step 3.
Plume rise = __________ (m)
(B) Add the plume rise to the GEP stack height of the
				  worst-case stack determined in Steps 3 and 4.
GEP stack height (m)
+
Plume rise
						  (m)
=
Effective stack height (m)
___________________________
+
___________________________
=
___________________________
(C) Go the first column of Table 5.0-2 and identify the range
				  of effective stack heights that includes the effective stack height estimated
				  in Step 5(B). Record the generic source number that corresponds to this
				  range.
Generic source number =
(D) If the source is located in flat
				  terrain3, or if the generic source number identified
				  in Step 5(C) above is 1 or 11 (regardless of terrain classification), use the
				  generic source number determined in Step 5(C) and proceed directly to Step 6.
				  Otherwise, continue to Step 5(E).
FOOTNOTE: 
				  3The terrain is considered flat and
				  terrain adjustment factors are not used if the maximum terrain rise within 5 km
				  of the facility (see Step 1) is less than 10 percent of the physical stack
				  height of the worst-case stack.
(E) For those situations where the conditions in Step 5(D) do
				  not apply, the effective stack height must be adjusted for terrain. The TAESH
				  for each distance range is computed by subtracting the terrain rise within the
				  distance range from the effective stack
				  height4.
FOOTNOTE: 
				  4Refer to Step 1 for terrain
				  adjustment data. Note that the distance from the source to the outer radii of
				  each range is used. For example, for the range >0.5-2.5 km, the maximum
				  terrain rise in the range 0.0-2.5 km is used.
Table 5.0-1.--Estimated Plume Rise (in Meters) Based on
				  Stack Exit Flow Rate and Gas Temperature Exhaust Temperature
				  (°K)
Flow rate
							 (m3/s)
<325
325-349
350-399
400-449
450-499
500-599
600-699
700-799
800-999
1000-1499
>1499
<0.5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.5-0.9
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
1
1.0-1.9
0
0
0
0
1
1
2
3
3
3
4
2.0-2.9
0
0
1
3
4
4
6
6
7
8
9
3.0-3.9
0
1
2
5
6
7
9
10
11
12
13
4.0-4.9
1
2
4
6
8
10
12
13
14
15
17
5.0-7.4
2
3
5
8
10
12
14
16
17
19
21
7.5-9.9
3
5
8
12
15
17
20
22
22
23
24
10.0-12.4
4
6
10
15
19
21
23
24
25
26
27
12.5-14.9
4
7
12
18
22
23
25
26
27
28
29
15.0-19.9
5
8
13
20
23
24
26
27
28
29
31
20.0-24.9
6
10
17
23
25
27
29
30
31
32
34
25.0-29.9
7
12
20
25
27
29
31
32
33
35
36
30.0-34.9
8
14
22
26
29
31
33
35
36
37
39
35.0-39.9
9
16
23
28
30
32
35
36
37
39
41
40.0-49.9
10
17
24
29
32
34
36
38
39
41
42
50.0-59.9
12
21
26
31
34
36
39
41
42
44
46
60.0-69.9
14
22
27
33
36
39
42
43
45
47
49
70.0-79.9
16
23
29
35
38
41
44
46
47
49
51
80.0-89.9
17
25
30
36
40
42
46
48
49
51
54
90.0-99.9
19
26
31
38
42
44
48
50
51
53
56
100.0-119.9
21
26
32
39
43
46
49
52
53
55
58
120.0-139.9
22
28
35
42
46
49
52
55
56
59
61
140.0-159.9
23
30
36
44
48
51
55
58
59
62
65
160.0-179.9
25
31
38
46
50
54
58
60
62
65
67
180.0-199.9
26
32
40
48
52
56
60
63
65
67
70
>199.9
26
33
41
49
54
58
62
65
67
69
73
Table 5.0-2--Selection of Generic Source
				  Number
Effective stack height
							 (m)
Generic source
							 No.
<10.0
1
10.0-14.9
2
15.0-19.9
3
20.0-24.9
4
25.0-30.9
5
31.0-41.9
6
42.0-52.9
7
53.0-64.9
8
65.0-122.9
9
113.0+
10
Downwash
11
Table 5.0-3--Classification of Land Use
				  Types
Type1
Description
Urban or rural
							 designation2
I1
Heavy Industrial
Urban
I2
Light/Moderate Industrial
Urban
Cl
Commercial
Urban
R1
Common Residential (Normal
						  Easements)
Rural
R2
Compact Residential (Single
						  Family)
Urban
R3
Compact Residential
						  (Multi-Family)
Rural
R4
Estate Residential (Multi-Acre
						  Plots)
Rural
A1
Metropolitan Natural
Rural
A2
Agricultural
Rural
A3
Undeveloped
						  (Grasses/Weeds)
Rural
A4
Undeveloped (Heavily
						  Wooded)
Rural
A5
Water Surfaces
Rural
FOOTNOTE: 
				  1US EPA, Guideline on Air Quality
				  Models (Revised), EPA-450/2-78-027R, Office of Air Quality Planning and
				  Standards, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, July, 1986.
FOOTNOTE: 
				  2Auer, August H. Jr., "Correlation of
				  Land Use and Cover with Meteorological Anomalies," Journal of Applied
				  Meteorology, pp. 636-643, 1978.
Distance range
							 (km)
Effective stack- height (m)
							 [see step 5(B)]
-
Maximum terrainrise (m) (see
							 step 1)
=
TAESH (m)
0.0-05
___________________________
-
___________________________
=
___________________________
>0.5-2.5
___________________________
-
___________________________
=
___________________________
>2.5-5.0
___________________________
-
___________________________
=
___________________________
If the terrain rise for any of the distance ranges is greater
				  than the effective stack height, set the TAESH equal to zero and use generic
				  source number 1 for that distance range.
Record the generic source numbers from Table 5.0-2 based on
				  each of the TAESH values.
Distance range
						  (km)
Generic source No. (after terrain
						  adjustment)
0.0 - 0.5
___________________________
___________________________
>0.5 - 2.5
___________________________
___________________________
>2.5 - 5.0
___________________________
___________________________
Step 6. Classify the Site as Urban or Rural
(A) Classify the land use near the facility as either urban
				  or rural by determining the percentage of urban land use types (as defined in
				  Table 3; for further guidance see the footnoted references) that fall within 3
				  km of the facility5.
FOOTNOTE: 
				  5The delineation of urban and rural
				  areas, can be difficult for the residential-type areas listed in Table 5.0-3.
				  The degree of resolution in Table 5.0-3 for residential areas often cannot be
				  identified without conducting site area inspections. This process can require
				  extensive analysis, which, for many applications, can be greatly streamlined
				  without sacrificing confidence in selecting the appropriate urban or rural
				  classification. The fundamental simplifying assumption is based on the premise
				  that many applications will have clear-cut urban/rural designations, i.e., most
				  will be in rural settings that can be definitively characterized through a
				  review of aerial photographs, zoning maps, or U.S. Geological Survey
				  topographical maps.
Method Used to Estimate Percent Urban Land
						  Use:
Visual
Planimeter
______
________
Estimated
Urban
Rural
Percentages
______
________
If the urban land use percentage is less than or equal to 30
				  percent based on a visual estimate, or 50 percent based on a planimeter, the
				  local land use is considered rural. Otherwise, the local land use is considered
				  urban.
Classification (check
Urban
Rural
applicable space.)
______
________
(B) Based on the TAESH and the urban/rural classification of
				  surrounding land use, use the following table to determine the threshold
				  distance between any stack and the nearest facility boundary.
Distance
							 (m)
Terrain adjusted
							 effective stack height range (m)
Urban
Rural
1-9.9
200
200
10-14.9
200
250
15-19.9
200
250
20-24.9
200
350
25-30.9
200
450
31-41.9
200
550
42-52.9
250
800
53-64.9
300
1000
65-112.9
400
1200
113+
700
2500
Record the following information:
Threshold distance from the table (m):
Minimum distance from any stack to property boundary
				  (m):
If the minimum distance between any stack and the nearest
				  facility boundary is greater than the threshold distance, the surrounding
				  buffer distance is considered significant and the facility is likely to benefit
				  from use of the HWCAQSP relative to the Tier I and II limits (see discussion of
				  benefits from using HWCAQSP in Introduction section).
Step 7. Determine Maximum Dispersion Coefficients
(A) Determine maximum average hourly dispersion coefficients.
				  Based on the results of Step 6(A), select either Table 5.0-4 (urban) or Table
				  5.0-5 (rural) to determine the maximum average hourly dispersion
				  coefficient6. For flat terrain [defined in Step
				  5(D)] and for all sites with generic source numbers 1 or 11, use Step 7(A)(1).
				  For rolling or complex terrain (excluding generic sources numbers 1 and 11),
				  use Step 7(A)(2).
FOOTNOTE: 
				  6For the distance range 6 to 20
				  kilometers, generic source number 1 is used to conservatively represent the
				  maximum dispersion coefficient.
(1) Search down the appropriate generic source number column
				  [based on Step 5(C)], beginning at the minimum fenceline distance listed in
				  Step 6(B)7. Record the maximum average hourly
				  dispersion coefficient encountered.
FOOTNOTE: 
				  7Exclude all distances that are closer
				  to the facility than the property boundary. For example, if the actual distance
				  to the nearest property boundary is 265 meters, begin at the 300 meter distance
				  in Tables 5.0-4 and 5.0-5.
Maximum Average Hourly Dispersion
Coefficient =
				  (µ/m3/g/sec)
(2) For each of the three distance-based generic source
				  numbers listed in Step 5(E), search down the appropriate generic source number
				  columns, beginning at the minimum fenceline distance listed in Step 6(B). Note
				  that different columns may be used for each of the three distance ranges if
				  there is a need for terrain adjustment. Record the maximum dispersion
				  coefficient for each generic source number.
Distance range
							 (km)
Generic source No. (from
							 Step 5(E)]
Maximum dispersion
							 coefficient
							 (µg/m3/m/sec)
0.0-0.5
_______________
_______________
>0.5-2.5
_______________
_______________
>2.5-5.0
_______________
_______________
>5.0-20.0
_______________
_______________
Table 5.0-4--ISCST Predicted Maximum Concentrations
				  (µg/m3)a for
				  Hazardous Waste Combustors Using Urban Conditions
Distance
							 (KM)
Generic Source #1 (
							 <10M)
Generic Source #2 (
							 <10M)
Generic Source #3 (
							 <15M)
Generic Source #4 (
							 <20M)
Generic Source #5 (
							 <25M)
Generic Source #6 (
							 <31M)
Generic Source #7 (
							 <42M)
Generic Source #8 (
							 <53M)
Generic Source #9 (
							 <65M)
Generic Source #10 (
							 <113M)
Generic Source #11
							 (Down-wash)
0.20
680.1
517.5
368.7
268.7
168.5
129.8
63.4
30.1
18.4
1.6
662.3
0.25
521.9
418.2
303.6
232.6
163.0
124.2
67.6
38.5
19.8
3.2
500.0
0.30
407.7
351.7
256.2
199.0
147.0
118.3
63.5
41.5
25.0
4.2
389.3
0.35
326.2
304.2
221.6
172.7
130.2
107.9
60.0
40.5
27.3
5.4
311.9
0.40
268.5
268.5
195.6
152.5
115.7
97.1
59.6
37.8
27.4
5.8
268.5
0.45
240.8
240.7
175.4
136.7
103.9
87.6
56.6
37.2
26.3
5.8
240.8
0.50
218.5
218.5
159.2
124.1
94.4
79.7
52.9
36.7
24.7
5.8
218.5
0.55
200.3
200.3
145.9
113.8
86.5
73.1
49.2
35.4
24.5
6.6
200.3
0.60
185.1
185.1
134.9
105.1
80.0
67.6
45.8
33.8
24.3
7.1
185.1
0.65
172.2
172.2
125.5
97.8
74.4
62.9
42.7
32.0
23.7
7.4
172.2
0.70
161.2
161.2
117.4
91.6
69.6
58.9
40.1
30.2
22.9
7.5
161.2
0.75
151.6
151.6
110.5
86.1
65.5
55.4
37.7
28.6
22.0
7.5
151.6
0.80
143.2
143.2
104.4
81.4
61.9
52.3
35.6
27.1
21.1
7.4
143.2
0.85
135.8
135.8
99.0
77.2
58.7
49.6
33.8
25.7
20.2
7.2
135.8
0.90
129.2
129.2
94.2
73.4
55.8
47.2
32.1
24.5
19.3
7.0
129.2
0.95
123.3
123.3
89.9
70.1
53.3
45.0
30.7
23.4
18.5
6.8
123.3
1.00
118.0
118.0
86.0
67.0
51.0
43.1
29.4
22.4
17.7
6.5
118.0
1.10
108.8
108.0
79.3
61.8
47.0
39.7
27.1
20.6
16.4
6.5
108.8
1.20
101.1
101.1
73.7
57.4
43.7
36.9
25.2
19.2
15.2
6.4
101.1
1.30
94.6
94.6
68.9
53.7
40.9
34.5
23.5
18.0
14.2
6.3
94.6
1.40
89.0
89.0
64.8
50.6
38.5
32.5
22.1
16.9
13.4
6.1
89.0
1.50
84.1
84.1
61.3
47.8
36.3
30.7
20.9
16.0
12.7
5.9
84.1
1.60
79.8
79.8
58.2
45.4
34.5
29.2
19.9
15.2
12.0
5.6
79.8
1.70
76.0
76.0
55.4
43.2
32.9
27.8
18.9
14.4
11.4
5.4
76.0
1.80
72.7
72.7
53.0
41.3
31.4
26.5
18.1
13.8
10.9
5.2
72.7
1.90
69.6
69.6
50.7
39.6
30.1
25.4
17.3
13.2
10.5
5.0
69.6
2.00
66.9
66.9
48.8
38.0
28.9
24.4
16.7
12.7
10.1
4.8
66.9
2.25
61.1
61.1
44.5
34.7
26.4
22.3
15.2
11.6
9.2
4.4
61.1
2.50
56.4
56.4
41.1
32.1
24.4
20.6
14.0
10.7
8.5
4.1
56.4
2.75
52.6
52.6
38.3
29.9
22.7
19.2
10.0
10.0
7.9
3.8
52.6
3.00
49.3
49.3
35.9
28.0
21.3
18.0
9.4
9.4
7.4
3.6
49.3
4.00
40.2
40.2
29.3
22.8
17.4
14.7
7.6
7.6
6.1
2.9
40.2
5.00
34.5
34.5
25.2
19.6
14.9
12.6
6.6
6.6
5.2
2.5
34.5
6.00
30.7
30.7
30.7
30.7
30.7
30.7
30.7
30.7
30.7
30.7
30.7
7.00
27.8
27.8
27.8
37.8
27.8
27.8
27.8
27.8
27.8
27.8
27.8
8.00
25.5
25.5
25.5
25.5
25.5
25.5
25.5
25.5
25.5
25.5
25.5
9.00
23.8
23.8
23.8
23.8
23.8
23.8
23.8
23.8
23.8
23.8
23.8
10.00
22.3
22.3
22.3
22.3
22.3
22.3
22.3
22.3
22.3
22.3
22.3
15.00
17.6
17.6
17.6
17.6
17.6
17.6
17.6
17.6
17.6
17.6
17.6
20.00
15.0
15.0
15.0
15.0
15.0
15.0
15.0
15.0
15.0
15.01
15.0
FOOTNOTE: 
				  3Based on a 1 Gram/Second Emission
				  Rate
Table 5.0-5.--ISCST Predicted Maximum Concentrations
				  ([MICRO]g/m3)a for
				  Hazardous Waste Combustors Using Rural Conditions
Distance
							 (KM)
Generic Source #1 (
							 <10M)
Generic Source #2 (
							 <10M)
Generic Source #3 (
							 <15M)
Generic Source #4 (
							 <20M)
Generic Source #5 (
							 <25M)
Generic Source #6 (
							 <31M)
Generic Source #7 (
							 <42M)
Generic Source #8 (
							 <53M)
Generic Source #9 (
							 <65M)
Generic Source #10 (
							 <113M)
Generic Source #11
							 (Down-wash)
0.20
1771.1
670.3
308.6
176.8
102.8
76.5
28.0
10.1
3.5
0.0
1350.8
0.25
1310.6
678.4
316.9
183.6
104.6
71.8
38.0
17.6
7.9
0.2
1227.3
0.30
1022.3
629.2
303.4
199.1
100.4
75.0
39.7
24.0
12.6
0.8
1119.3
0.35
798.4
569.6
282.3
200.7
117.0
71.1
36.3
25.9
16.8
1.9
1023.8
0.40
656.9
516.5
278.7
194.4
125.2
82.7
25.3
24.6
18.1
3.1
938.9
0.45
621.5
471.1
277.6
184.3
127.5
89.7
35.6
21.7
17.6
4.3
851.8
0.50
633.5
432.4
272.0
172.7
125.7
92.9
34.4
21.6
15.9
5.5
787.8
0.55
630.1
399.2
263.8
168.0
121.6
93.3
38.6
22.1
13.6
6.5
730.6
0.60
616.6
370.4
254.0
169.1
116.2
91.8
42.6
21.7
14.3
6.7
676.4
0.65
596.7
345.4
243.6
168.1
110.3
89.2
45.3
20.9
14.7
6.4
633.4
0.70
573.2
323.4
232.9
165.6
104.5
85.8
47.0
23.3
14.6
5.9
592.0
0.75
546.9
304.0
222.3
162.0
98.8
82.2
47.7
25.5
14.3
5.5
554.6
0.80
520.9
286.8
212.1
157.7
98.8
78.5
47.8
27.1
13.8
5.1
522.1
0.85
495.7
271.5
202.4
153.0
99.0
74.9
47.4
28.3
15.0
4.7
491.8
0.90
471.5
257.8
193.3
148.1
98.6
71.4
46.6
29.1
16.3
4.5
464.2
0.95
448.5
245.4
184.7
143.1
97.6
72.3
45.6
29.6
17.3
4.2
438.9
1.00
426.8
234.2
176.8
138.1
96.3
72.6
44.4
29.8
18.2
4.0
415.8
1.10
387.5
214.7
162.5
128.2
91.9
71.1
41.8
29.5
19.3
3.9
375.0
1.20
353.5
198.4
150.3
119.3
87.4
69.1
39.1
28.6
19.8
4.1
340.3
1.30
323.0
189.6
139.9
111.5
82.9
66.7
36.6
27.5
19.8
4.2
310.4
1.40
296.6
182.2
130.8
104.5
78.7
64.2
34.3
26.2
19.5
4.2
284.6
1.50
273.3
174.6
122.9
98.3
74.7
61.6
32.3
24.9
19.0
4.2
262.0
1.60
252.7
167.0
115.9
92.8
71.0
59.1
31.8
23.6
18.4
4.2
242.2
1.70
234.5
159.6
109.7
87.9
67.6
56.7
31.6
22.5
17.7
4.3
224.7
1.80
218.3
152.4
104.1
83.5
64.4
54.3
31.3
21.4
17.0
4.5
211.9
1.90
203.7
145.6
99.1
79.5
61.5
52.1
30.9
20.4
16.3
4.8
198.4
2.00
190.7
139.1
94.6
75.9
58.8
50.0
30.4
19.5
15.7
5.1
186.3
2.25
164.4
124.5
85.1
68.3
53.0
45.4
28.9
18.1
14.2
5.4
160.8
2.50
143.7
112.1
77.3
62.1
48.2
41.4
27.2
17.9
12.9
5.5
140.7
2.75
127.0
101.5
70.9
56.9
38.1
38.1
25.6
17.5
11.8
5.4
124.5
3.00
113.4
92.4
65.6
52.6
35.2
35.2
24.0
17.0
11.2
5.2
112.5
4.00
78.8
67.3
50.6
40.6
27.2
27.2
29.0
14.3
10.4
4.3
78.3
5.00
59.1
54.6
41.4
33.2
22.2
22.2
15.6
12.0
9.3
3.5
58.8
6.00
56.7
46.7
46.7
46.7
46.7
46.7
46.7
46.7
46.7
46.7
46.7
7.00
40.4
40.4
40.4
40.4
40.4
40.4
40.4
40.4
40.4
40.4
40.4
8.00
35.8
35.8
35.8
35.8
35.8
35.8
35.8
35.8
35.8
35.8
35.8
9.00
32.2
32.2
32.2
32.2
32.2
32.2
32.2
32.2
32.2
32.2
32.2
10.00
9.4
29.4
29.4
29.4
29.4
29.4
29.4
29.4
29.4
29.4
29.4
15.00
20.5
20.5
20.5
20.5
20.5
20.5
20.5
20.5
20.5
20.5
20.5
20.00
15.9
15.9
15.9
15.9
15.9
15.9
15.9
15.9
15.9
15.9
15.9
FOOTNOTE: 
				  aBased on a 1 Gram/Second Emission
				  Rate
(B) Determine annual/hourly ratio for rural analysis. The
				  maximum average annual dispersion coefficient is approximated by multiplying
				  the maximum hourly dispersion coefficient (identified in Step 7(A) by the
				  appropriate ratio selection from Table 5.0-6. The generic source number(s)
				  [from Steps 5(C) or 5(E)], urban/rural designation (from Step 6), and the
				  terrain type are used to select the appropriate scaling factor. Use the
				  noncomplex terrain designation for all sources located in flat terrain, for all
				  sources where the physical stack height of the worst-case stack is less than or
				  equal to 10 m, for all sources where the worst-case stack is less than the
				  minimum GEP, and for those sources where all of the TAESH values in Step 5(E)
				  are greater than zero. Use the complex terrain designation in all other
				  situations.
(C) Determine maximum average annual dispersion coefficient.
				  The maximum average annual dispersion coefficient is determined by multiplying
				  the maximum hourly dispersion coefficient (Step 7(A)) by its corresponding
				  annual/hourly ratio (Step 7(B)).
Terrain
Distance from stack
							 (m)
Generic source
							 No.
Maximum hourly
							 dispersion coefficient
							 (µg/m3/g/sec)
Annual hourly
							 ratio
Maximum annual
							 dispersion coefficient
							 (µg/m3/g/sec)
1
Flat
0-20.0
0-0.5
>0.5-2.5
Rolling or
>2.5-5.0
Complex
>5.0-20.0
FOOTNOTE: 
				  1Maximum hourly dispersion coefficient
				  times annual/hourly ratio.
Step 8: Estimate Maximum Ambient Air Concentrations--see
				  procedures prescribed in article 8 of chapter 16.
Step 9: Determine Compliance with Regulatory Limits--see
				  procedures prescribed in article 8 of chapter 16.
Step 10: Multiple Stack Method (Optional)
This option is a special case procedure that may be helpful
				  when (1) the facility exceeded the regulatory limits for one or more
				  pollutants, as detailed in Step 9, and (2) the facility has multiple stacks
				  with substantially different emission rates and effective release heights. Only
				  those pollutants that fail the Step 9 screening limits need to be addressed in
				  this exercise.
This procedure assesses the environmental impacts from each
				  stack and then sums the results to estimate total impacts. This option is
				  conceptually the same as the basic approach (Steps 1 through 9) and does not
				  involve complex calculations. However, it is more time-consuming and is
				  recommended only if the basic approach fails to meet the risk criteria.
The procedure is outlined below.
(A) Compute effective stack heights for each
				  stack.8
FOOTNOTE: 
				  8Follow the procedure outlined in Step
				  4 of the basic screening procedure to determine the GEP for each stack. If a
				  stack's physical height exceeds the maximum GEP, use the maximum GEP values. If
				  a stack's physical height is less than the minimum GEP, use generic source
				  number 11 in the subsequent steps of this analysis. Follow the procedure in
				  Steps 5(A) and 5(B) to determine the effective height of each stack.
Stack
						  No.
GEP stack height
						  (m)
Flow rate
						  (m3/sec)
Exit
						  temp (°K)
Plume rise
						  (m)
Effective stack height
						  (m)
1
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
2
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
3
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
Add an additional page if more than three stacks are
						  involved. Circle the maximum and minimum effective stack heights.
(B) Determine if this multiple-stack screening procedure will
				  likely produce less conservative results than the procedure in Steps 1
				  through
9. To do this, compute the ratio of maximum-to-minimum
				  effective stack height:
(
Maximum Effective Stack
				  Height
)/(
Minimum Effective Stack Height
) =
				  __________
If the above ratio is greater than 1.25, proceed with the
				  remaining steps. Otherwise, this option is less likely to significantly reduce
				  the degree of conservatism in the screening method.
(C) Determine if terrain adjustment is needed and select
				  generic source numbers. Select the shortest stack height and maximum terrain
				  rise out to 5 km from Step 1 and determine if the facility is in flat
				  terrain.
Shortest stack height (m) =
Maximum terrain rise in meters out to 5 km =
(
Terrain Rise (m)
)/(
Shortest Stack
				  Height (m)
) X 100 = __________ %
If the value above is greater than 10 percent, the terrain is
				  considered nonflat; proceed to Step 10(D). If the ratio is less than or equal
				  to 10 percent, the terrain is considered flat. Identify the generic source
				  numbers based on effective stack heights computed in Step 10(A). Refer to Table
				  5.0-2 provided earlier to identify generic source numbers. Record the generic
				  source numbers identified and proceed to Step 10(F).
Stack No.
1
2
3
Generic Source Number
(D) Compute the TAESH and select generic source numbers (four
				  sources located in nonflat terrain).
1. Compute the TAESH for all remaining stacks using the
				  following equation:
HE - TR = TAESH
where:
HE = effective stack height (m)
TR = maximum terrain rise for each distance range (m)
TAESH = terrain-adjusted effective stack height (m)
Use the Table Below To Calculate the TAESH for Each
				  Stack9
.
Stack
							 No.
Distance Range
						  (km)
0-0.5
>0.5-2.5
>2.5-5.0
HE
-
TR
=
TAESH
HE
-
TR
=
TAESH
HE
-
TR
=
TAESH
1
___________________________
-
___________________________
=
___________________________
___________________________
-
___________________________
=
___________________________
___________________________
-
___________________________
=
___________________________
2
___________________________
-
___________________________
=
___________________________
___________________________
-
___________________________
=
___________________________
___________________________
-
___________________________
=
___________________________
3
___________________________
-
___________________________
=
___________________________
___________________________
-
___________________________
=
___________________________
___________________________
-
___________________________
=
___________________________
FOOTNOTE: 
				  9Refer to Step 1 for terrain
				  adjustment data. Note that the distance from the source to the outer radii of
				  each range is used. For example, for the range >0.5-2.5 km, the maximum
				  terrain rise in the range 0.0-2.5 km is used.
For those stacks where the terrain rise within a distance
				  range is greater than the effective stack height (i.e., HE-TR is less than
				  zero), the TAESH for that distance range is set equal to zero, and generic
				  source number 1 should be used for that distance range for all subsequent
				  distance ranges. Additionally, for all stacks with a physical stack height of
				  less than or equal to 10 meters, use generic source number 1 for all distance
				  ranges10. For the remaining stacks, proceed to Step
				  10(D)(2).
FOOTNOTE: 
				  10This applies to all stacks less than
				  or equal to 10 meters regardless of the terrain classification.
2. For the remaining stacks, refer to Table 5.0-2 and, for
				  each distance range, identify the generic source number that includes the
				  TAESH. Use the values obtained from Steps 10(D)(1) and 10(D)(2) to complete the
				  following summary worksheet;
Generic Source Number After Terrain Adjusted (if
				  Necessary)
Stack
							 No.
0-0.5
							 km
>0.5-2.5
							 km
>2.5-5.0
							 km
1
						  __________
__________
__________
__________
2
						  __________
__________
__________
__________
3
						  __________
__________
__________
__________
(E) Identify maximum average hourly dispersion coefficients.
				  Based on the land use classification of the site (e.g., urban or rural), use
				  either Table 5.0-4 or Table 5.0-5 to determine the appropriate dispersion
				  coefficient for each distance range for each stack. Begin at the minimum
				  fenceline distance indicated in Step 7(B) and record on Worksheet 5.0-1 the
				  dispersion coefficient for each stack/distance range. For stacks located in
				  facilities in flat terrain, the generic source numbers were computed in Step
				  10(C). For stacks located in facilities in rolling and complex terrain, the
				  generic source numbers were computed in Step 10(D). For flat terrain
				  applications and for stacks with a physical height of less than or equal to 10
				  meters, only one generic source number is used per stack for all distance
				  ranges. For other situations up to three generic source numbers may be needed
				  per stack (i.e., a unique generic source number per distance range). In Tables
				  5.0-4 and 5.0- 5, the dispersion coefficients for distances of 6 km to 20 km
				  are the same for all generic source numbers in order to conservatively
				  represent terrain beyond 5 km (past the limits of the terrain analysis).
Worksheet 5.0-1 Dispersion Coeffificent by Downwind
				  Distance1
Distance
Stack
							 1
Stack
							 2
Stack
							 3
0.20
0.25
0.30
0.35
0.40
0.45
0.50
0.55
0.60
0.65
0.70
0.75
0.80
0.85
0.90
0.95
1.00
1.10
1.20
1.30
1.40
1.50
1.60
1.70
1.80
1.90
2.00
2.25
2.50
2.75
3.00
4.00
5.00
6.00
7.00
8.00
9.00
10.00
15.00
20.00
1NOTE: This procedure places all
				  stacks at the same point, but allows for consideration of different effective
				  stack heights. The distance to the closest boundary (extracted from Step 1)
				  should be the closest distance to any stack.
(F) Estimate maximum hourly ambient air concentrations. In
				  this step, pollutant-specific emission rates are multiplied by appropriate
				  dispersion coefficients to estimate ambient air concentrations. For each stack,
				  emissions are multiplied by the dispersion coefficient selected in Step 10(E)
				  and summed across all stacks to estimate ambient air concentrations at various
				  distances from the facility. From these summed concentrations, the maximum
				  hourly ambient air concentration is selected. First, select the maximum
				  emission rate of the pollutant11. Record these data
				  in the spaces provided below12.
FOOTNOTE: 
				  11Recall that it is recommended that
				  this analysis be performed for only one or two pollutants. The pollutants
				  chosen for this analysis should be those that show the most significant
				  exceedances of the risk threshold.
FOOTNOTE: 
				  12Refer to Step 8 of the basic
				  screening procedure. At this point in the screening procedure, annual emissions
				  are used to represent hourly average emission rates. These values will be
				  adjusted by the annual/hourly ratio to estimate annual average
				  concentrations.
Maximum Annual Emission Rates (G/Sec)
Pollutant
Stack
							 1
Stack
							 2
Stack 3
__________
__________
__________
__________
__________
__________
__________
__________
Complete a separate copy of Worksheet 5.0-2 for each
				  pollutant and select the highest hourly concentration from the summation column
				  at the far right of the worksheet. Record the maximum hourly air concentration
				  for each pollutant analyzed (add additional lines if needed):
Pollutant
Maximum hourly air
							 concentration
__________________
___________________________________
__________________
___________________________________
__________________
___________________________________
Click
				  here to view image
(G) Determine the complex/noncomplex designation for each
				  stack. For each stack, subtract the maximum terrain rise within 5 km of the
				  site from the physical stack height and designate the stack as either complex
				  or noncomplex. If the stack height minus the maximum terrain rise (within 5 km)
				  is greater than zero or if the stack is less than 10 meters in physical height,
				  then assign the stack a noncomplex designation. If the stack height minus the
				  maximum terrain rise (within 5 km) is less than or equal to zero, then assign
				  the stack a complex designation.
Perform the following computation for each stack and record
				  the information in the spaces provided. Check in the spaces provided whether
				  the stack designation is complex or noncomplex.
Stack
							 No.
Stack height
							 (m)
Maximum terrain rise
							 (m)
Complex
Noncomplex
___________________________1
___________________________
-
___________________________
=
						  (m)
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________2
___________________________
-
___________________________
=
						  (m)
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________3
___________________________
-
___________________________
=
						  (m)
___________________________
___________________________
(H) Identify annual/hourly ratios. Extract the annual/hourly
				  ratios for each stack by referring to Table 5.0-6. Generic source numbers (from
				  Steps 10(C) or 10(D), urban/rural designation (from Step 6)), and complex or
				  noncomplex terrain designations (from Step 10(G)) are used to select the
				  appropriate scaling factor needed to convert hourly maximum concentrations to
				  estimates of annual average concentrations.
Complete the following
				  table13.
FOOTNOTE: 
				  13If any stack (excluding generic
				  stack number 1 and 11) in Step 10(D) shows a negative terrain adjusted stack
				  height, use the complex terrain annual/hourly ratios.
Stack
							 No.
Generic source No. steps 10 (C
							 or D) Distance ranges (km)
Annual hourly ratio (from
							 table 5.0-6) Distance ranges (km)
0-0.5
>0.5-2.4
>2.5-5.0
0-0.5
>0.5-2.5
>2.5-5.0
1__________
__________
__________
__________
__________
__________
__________
2__________
__________
__________
__________
__________
__________
__________
3__________
__________
__________
__________
__________
__________
__________
(I) Select the highest annual/hourly ratio among all of the
				  stacks14, and then estimate the maximum annual
				  average ambient air concentrations for each pollutant by completing the
				  following table, where:
FOOTNOTE: 
				  14As an option, the user can identify
				  the stack with the highest ratio for each distance range (rather than the
				  absolute highest). In this case, extra sheets would be needed to show estimated
				  annual average concentrations from each stack by multiplying emission rate
				  times maximum hourly dispersion coefficient times maximum annual/hourly ratio
				  for applicable distance range. Then sum across all stacks for each downwind
				  distance.
C = Maximum total hourly ambient air concentration
				  (µg/m3) for pollutant "N" from Step
				  10(F).
Ca = Maximum annual average air
				  concentration for pollutant "N"
				  (µg/m3),
R = Annual/hourly ratio.
Table 5.0-6.--95th Percentile of Annual/Hourly Ratios
Noncomplex
						  Terrain
Complex
						  Terrain
Source
Urban
Rural
Source
Urban
Rural
1
0.019
0.014
1
0.020
0.053
2
0.033
0.019
2
0.020
0.053
3
0.031
0.018
3
0.030
0.057
4
0.029
0.017
4
0.051
0.047
5
0.028
0.017
5
0.067
0.039
6
0.028
0.017
6
0.059
0.034
7
0.031
0.015
7
0.036
0.031
8
0.030
0.013
8
0.026
0.024
9
0.029
0.011
9
0.026
0.024
10
0.029
0.008
10
0.017
0.013
11
0.018
0.015
11
0.020
0.053
Pollutant
C(µg/m3)
X
R
=
Ca
						  (µg/m3)
___________________________
___________________________
X
___________________________
=
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
X
___________________________
=
___________________________
(J) Use the maximum annual average concentrations from Step
				  10(I) to determine compliance with regulatory requirements.
SECTION
				  6.0 -SIMPLIFIED LAND USE
				  CLASSIFICATION PROCEDURE FOR COMPLIANCE WITH TIER I AND AND TIER II
				  LIMITS
6.1 Introduction
This section provides a simplified procedure to classify
				  areas in the vicinity of boilers and industrial furnace sites as urban or rural
				  in order to set risk-based emission limits under article 8 of chapter 16.
				  Urban/rural classification is needed because dispersion rates differ between
				  urban and rural areas and thus, the risk per unit emission rate differs
				  accordingly. The combination of greater surface roughness (more
				  buildings/structures to generate turbulent mixing) and the greater amount of
				  heat released from the surface in an urban area (generates buoyancy-induced
				  mixing) produces greater rates of dispersion. The emission limit tables in the
				  regulation, therefore, distinguish between urban and rural areas.
US EPA guidance (EPA 1986)1
				  provides two alternative procedures to determine whether the character of an
				  area is predominantly urban or rural. One procedure is based on land use typing
				  and the other is based on population density. Both procedures require
				  consideration of characteristics within a 3-km radius from a source, in this
				  case the facility stack(s). The land use typing method is preferred because it
				  more directly relates to the surface characteristics that affect dispersion
				  rates. The remainder of this discussion is, therefore, focused on the land use
				  method.
While the land use method is more direct, it can also be
				  labor-intensive to apply. For this discussion, the land use method has been
				  simplified so that it is consistent with US EPA guidance (EPA 1986; Auer 1978),
				  while streamlining the process for the majority of applications so that a
				  clear-cut decision can be made without the need for detailed analysis. Table
				  6.0-1 summarizes the simplified approach for classifying areas as urban or
				  rural. As shown, the applicant always has the option of applying standard (i.e,
				  more detailed) analyses to more accurately distinguish between urban and rural
				  areas. However, the procedure presented here allows for simplified
				  determinations, where appropriate, to expedite the permitting process.
Table 6.0-1.--Classification of Land Use Types
Type
1
Description
Urban or rural
							 designation
2
I1
Heavy industrial
Urban.
I2
Light/Moderate
						  Industrial
Urban.
C1
Commercial
Urban.
R1
Common Residential (Normal
						  Easements)
Rural.
R2
Compact Residential (Single
						  Family)
Urban.
R3
Compact Residential
						  (Multi-Family)
Urban.
R4
Estate Residential (Multi-Acre
						  Plots)
Rural.
A1
Metropolitan Natural
Rural.
A2
Agricultural
Rural.
A3
Undeveloped
						  (Grasses/Weeds)
Rural.
A4
Undeveloped (Heavily
						  Wooded)
Rural.
A5
Water Surfaces
Rural.
FOOTNOTE: 
				  1US EPA, Guideline on Air Quality
				  Models (Revised), EPA-450/2-78-027R, Office of Air Quality Planning and
				  Standards, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, July, 1986.
FOOTNOTE: 2Auer, August H. Jr., "Correlation of Land Use and
				  Cover with Meteorological Anomalies," Journal of Applied Meteorology, pp.
				  636-643, 1978.
6.2 Simplified Land Use Process
The land use approach considers four primary land use types:
				  industrial (I), commercial (C), residential (R), and agricultural (A). Within
				  These primary classes, subclasses are identified, as shown in table 6.0-1. The
				  goal is to estimate the percentage of the area within a 3-km radius that is
				  urban type and the percentage that is rural type. Industrial and commercial
				  areas are classified as urban; agricultural areas are classified as
				  rural.
The delineation of urban and rural areas, however, can be
				  more difficult for the residential type areas shown in table 6.0-1. The degree
				  of resolution shown in table 6.0-1 for residential areas often cannot be
				  identified without conducting site area inspections and/or referring to zoning
				  maps. This process can require extensive analysis, which, for many
				  applications, can be greatly streamlined without sacrificing confidence in
				  selecting the appropriate urban or rural classification.
The fundamental simplifying assumption is based on the
				  premise that many applications will have clear-cut urban/rural designations,
				  i.e., most will be in rural settings that can be definitively characterized
				  through a brief review of topographical maps. The color coding on USGS
				  topographical maps provides the most effective means of simplifying the typing
				  scheme. The suggested typing designations for the color codes found on
				  topographic maps are as follows:
Green Wooded areas (rural).
White White areas generally will be treated as rural. This
				  code applies to areas that are unwooded and do not have densely packed
				  structures which would require the pink code (house omission tint). Parks,
				  industrial areas, and unforested rural land will appear as white on the
				  topographical maps. Of these categories, only the industrial areas could
				  potentially be classified as urban based on EPA 1986 or Auer 1978. Industrial
				  areas can be easily identified in most cases by the characteristics shown in
				  Figure 6.0-1. For this simplified procedure, white areas that have an
				  industrial classification will be treated as urban areas.
Click here
				  to view image
SECTION
				  7.0 STATISTICAL METHODOLOGY FOR
				  BEVILL RESIDUE DETERMINATIONS
This section describes the statistical comparison of
				  waste-derived residue to normal residue for use in determining eligibility for
				  the Bevill exemption under section
				  662666.112.
7.1 Comparison of Waste-derived Residue with Normal
				  Residue
To be eligible for the Bevill exclusion from the definition
				  of hazardous waste under section
				  66266.112(b)(1),
				  waste-derived residue must not contain Appendix VIII, Chapter 11, constituents
				  that could reasonably be attributable to the hazardous waste (toxic
				  constituents) at concentrations significantly higher than in residue generated
				  without burning or processing hazardous waste (normal residue). Concentrations
				  of toxic constituents in normal residue are determined based on analysis of a
				  minimum of 10 samples representing a minimum of 10 days of operation. The
				  statistically- derived concentrations in normal residue are determined as the
				  upper tolerance limit (95% confidence with a 95% proportion of the sample
				  distribution) of the normal residue concentrations. The upper tolerance limit
				  is to be determined as described in Section
				  7.2 below. If changes in raw
				  materials or fuels could lower the statistically-derived concentrations of
				  toxic constituents of concern, the statistically-derived baseline must be
				  re-established for any such mode of operation with the new raw material or
				  fuel.
Concentrations of toxic constituents in waste-derived residue
				  are determined based on the analysis of one or more samples collected over a
				  compositing period of not more than 24 hours. Multiple samples of the
				  waste-derived residue may be analyzed or subsamples may be composited for
				  analysis, provided that the sampling period does not exceed 24 hours. If more
				  than one sample is analyzed to characterize the waste-derived residue generated
				  over a 24-hour period, the arithmetic mean of the concentrations must be used
				  as the waste-derived concentration for each constituent.
The concentration of a toxic constituent in the waste-derived
				  residue is not considered to be significantly higher than in the normal residue
				  (i.e., the residue passes the Bevill test for that constituent) if the
				  concentration in the waste-derived residue does not exceed the
				  statistically-derived concentration.
7.2 Calculation of the Upper Tolerance Limit
The 95% confidence with 95% proportion of the sample
				  distribution (upper tolerance limit) is calculated for a set of values assuming
				  that the values are normally distributed. The upper tolerance limit is a
				  one-sided calculation and is an appropriate statistical test for cases in which
				  a single value (the waste-derived residue concentration) is compared to the
				  distribution of range of values (the minimum of 10 measurements of normal
				  residue concentrations). The upper tolerance limit value is determined as
				  follows:
UTL = X + (K)(S)
where
X = mean of the normal residue concentration, X =
				  Xi/n,
K = coefficient for sample size n, 95% confidence and 95%
				  proportion,
S = standard deviation of the normal residue
				  concentrations,
S =
				  Î£(
Xi-X
)2/(n-1))0.5,
				  and
n = sample size.
The values of K at the 95% confidence and 95% proportion, and
				  sample size n are given in Table 7.0-1.
For example, a normal residue test results in 10 samples with
				  the following analytical results for toxic constituent A:
Sample
							 No.
Concentration of
							 compound A (ppm)
1
10
2
10
3
15
4
10
5
7
6
12
7
10
8
16
9
15
10
10
The mean and standard deviation of these measurements,
				  calculated using equations above, are 11.5 and 2.9 respectively. Assuming that
				  the values are normally distributed, the upper tolerance limit (UTL) is given
				  by:
UTL = 11.5 + (2.911)(2.9) = 19.9 ppm
Table 7.0-1,.--K Values for 95% Confidence and 95%
				  Proportion
Sample size
							 (n)
K
10
2.911
11
2.815
12
2.736
13
2.670
14
2.614
15
2.566
16
2.523
17
2.486
18
2.458
19
2.423
20
2.396
21
2.371
22
2.350
23
2.329
24
2.303
25
2.292
Thus, if the concentration of constituent A in the
				  waste-derived residue is below 19.9 ppm, then the waste-derived residue is
				  eligible for the Bevill exclusion for constituent A.
7.3 Normal Distribution Assumption
As noted in section
				  7.2 above, this statistical
				  approach (use of the upper tolerance limit) for calculation of the
				  concentration in normal residue is based on the assumption that the
				  concentration data are distributed normally. The Department is aware that
				  concentration data of this type may not be distributed normally, particularly
				  when concentrations are near the detection limits. There are a number of
				  procedures that can be used to test the distribution of a data set. For
				  example, the Shapiro-Wilk test, examination of a histogram or plot of the data
				  on normal probability paper, and examination of the coefficient of skewness are
				  methods that may be applicable, depending on the nature of the data (Reference
				  1 and 2).
If the concentration data are not adequately represented by a
				  normal distribution, the data may be transformed to attain a near normal
				  distribution. The Department has found that concentration data, especially when
				  near detection levels, often exhibit a lognormal distribution. The assumption
				  of a lognormal distribution has been used in various programs at US EPA, such
				  as in the Office of Solid Waste Land Disposal Restrictions program for
				  determination of BDAT treatment standards. The transformed data may be tested
				  for normality using the procedures identified above. If the transformed data
				  are better represented by a normal distribution than the untransformed data,
				  the transformed data should be used in determining the upper tolerance limit
				  using the procedures in section
				  7.2 above.
In all cases where the applicant for the Bevill exemption
				  wishes to use other than an assumption of normally distributed data, or
				  believes that use of an alternate statistical approach is appropriate to the
				  specific data set, the applicant must provide supporting rationale and
				  demonstrate to the Director or permitting authority that the data treatment is
				  based upon sound statistical practice.
7.4 Nondetect Values
The US EPA is developing guidance regarding the treatment of
				  nondetect values (data where the concentration of the constituent being
				  measured is below the lowest concentration for which the analytical method is
				  valid) in carrying out the statistical determinations described above. Until
				  the guidance information is available, facilities may present their own
				  approach to the handling of nondetect data points, but must provide supporting
				  rationale in the operating record for consideration by the Director or
				  permitting authority.
7.5 References
1. Shapiro, S.S. and Wilk, M.B. (1965), "An Analysis of
				  Variance Test for Normality (complete samples)," Biometrika, 591-611.
2. Bhattacharyya, G.K. and R.A. Johnson (1977), Statistical
				  Concepts and Methods, John Wiley and Sons, New York.
SECTION
				  8.0 PROCEDURES FOR DETERMINING
				  DEFAULT VALUES FOR AIR POLLUTION CONTROL SYSTEM REMOVAL EFFICIENCIES
During interim status, owners or operators of boilers and
				  industrial furnaces burning hazardous waste must submit documentation to
				  Department that certifies that emissions of HCl, Cl2,
				  metals, and particulate matter (PM) are not likely to exceed allowable emission
				  rates. See certification of precompliance under section
				  66266.103(b).103(b).
				  This documentation also establishes interim status feed rate and operating
				  limits for the facility. For the initial certification, estimates of emissions
				  and system removal efficiencies (SREs) can be made to establish the operating
				  limits. Subsequently, owners or operators must use emissions testing to
				  demonstrate that emissions do not exceed allowable levels, and to establish
				  operating limits. See section
				  66266.103(c).
				  However, initial estimates of emissions for certification of precompliance can
				  be based on estimated or established SREs.
The SRE combines the effect of partitioning of the chlorine,
				  metals, or PM and the air pollution control system removal efficiency (APCS RE)
				  for these pollutants. The SRE is defined as:
SRE = (species input-species emitted) / species input
The SRE can be calculated from the partitioning factor (PF)
				  and APCS RE by the following formula:
SRE = 1-[(PF/100) X (1-APCS RE/100)]
where:
PF = percentage of the pollutant partitioned to the
				  combustion gas
Estimates of the PF and/or the APCS RE can be based on either
				  US EPA's default values or engineering judgement. US EPA's 'default values for
				  the APCS RE for metals, HCl, Cl2, and PM are described
				  in this section. US EPA's default values for partitioning of these pollutants
				  are described in section
				  9.0.
Guidelines for the use of engineering judgement to estimate
				  APCS REs or PFs are described in section
				  9.4.
8.1 APCS RE Default Values for Metals
US EPA's default assumptions for APCS RE for metals are shown
				  in Table 8.1-1. The default values in the table are conservative estimates of
				  the removal efficiencies for metals in BIFs, depending on the volatility of the
				  metal and the type of APCS.
The volatility of a metal depends on the temperature, the
				  thermal input, the chlorine content of the waste, and the identity and
				  concentration of the metal. Metals that do not vaporize at combustion zone
				  temperatures are classified as "nonvolatile". Such metals typically enter the
				  APCS in the form of large particles that are removed relatively easily. Metals
				  that vaporize in the combustion zone and condense before entering the APCS are
				  classified as "volatile". Such metals typically enter the APCS in the form of
				  very fine, submicron particles that are rather inefficiently removed in many
				  APCSs. Metals that vaporize in the combustion zone and do not condense before
				  entering the APCS are classified as "very volatile". Such metals enter the APCS
				  in the form of a vapor that is very inefficiently removed in many APCSs.
Typically, BIFs have combustion zone temperatures high enough
				  to vaporize any hazardous metal at concentrations sufficient to exceed
				  risk-based emission limits. For this reason, the default assumption is that
				  there are no nonvolatile metals. Tables 8.1-2 and 8.1-3 are used to determine
				  whether metals are classified as "volatile" or "very volatile" depending on the
				  temperature entering the APCS, the thermal input, and whether the waste is
				  chlorinated or nonchlorinated.
Table 8.1-1.--Air Pollution Control Systems (APCS) and Their
				  Conservatively Estimated Efficiencies for Controlling Toxic Metals (%)
Metal
							 Volatility
APCS
Nonvolatile
Volatile
Very
							 Volatile
WS
40
30
20
VS-20
80
75
20
VS-60
87
75
40
ESP-1
90
75
0
ESP-2
92
80
0
ESP-4
95
80
0
WESP
90
85
40
FF
90
80
0
SD/FF
97
90
0
DS/FF
95
90
0
WS
90
87
75
WS = Wet Scrubber including: Sieve Tray Tower, Packed Tower,
				  Bubble Cap Tower
VS-20 = Venturi Scrubber, ca. 20-30 in W.G. [DELTA]p
VS.60 = Venturi Scrubber, ca. > 60 in W.G. [DELTA]p
ESP-1 = Electrostatic Precipitator; 1 stage
ESP-2 = Electrostatic Precipitator; 2 stage
ESP-4 = Electrostatic Precipitator; 4 stage
IWS = Ionizing Wet Scrubber
DS - Dry Scrubber
FF = Fabric Filter (Baghouse)
SD = Spray Dryer (Wet/Dry Scrubber)
WESP = Wet Electrostatic Precipitator
Table 8.1-2.--Temperature (F) Entering APCS Above Which
				  Metals are Classified as Very Volatile in Combustion of Nonchlorinated
				  Wastes
Metal
Thermal Input
							 (MMBtu/hr)1
Name
Symbol
1
10
100
1000
10000
Arsenic
As
320
280
240
200
160
Cadmium
Cd
1040
940
860
780
720
Chromium
Cr
2000
1760
1580
1420
1380
Beryllium
Be
1680
1440
1240
1080
980
Antimony
Sb
680
600
540
480
420
Barium
Ba
2240
1820
1540
1360
1240
Lead
Pb
1280
1180
1080
1000
920
Mercury
Hg
340
300
260
220
180
Silver
Ag
1820
1640
1480
1340
1220
Thallium
Tl
900
800
700
620
540
FOOTNOTE: 
				  1Interpolation of thermal input is not
				  allowed. If a BIF fires between two ranges, the APCS temperature under the
				  higher thermal input must be used.
Example: For a BIF firing 10-100 MMBtu/hr, Mercury is
				  considered very volatile at APCS temperatures above 260 F and volatile at APCS
				  temperatures of 260 F and below.
Table 8.1-3.--Temperature (F) Entering APCS Above Which
				  Metals are Classified as Very Volatile in Combustion of Chlorinated
				  Wastes
Metal
Thermal Input
							 (MMBtu/hr)1
Name
Symbol
1
10
100
1000
10000
Arsenic
As
320
280
240
200
160
Cadmium
Cd
1040
940
860
780
720
Chromium
Cr
>140
>140
>140
>140
>140
Beryllium
Be
1680
1440
1240
1080
980
Antimony
Sb
680
600
540
480
420
Barium
Ba
2060
1840
1680
1540
1420
Lead
Pb
>140
>140
>140
>140
>140
Mercury
Hg
340
300
260
220
180
Silver
Ag
1080
940
840
740
660
Thallium
Tl
900
800
700
620
540
FOOTNOTE: 
				  1Interpolation of thermal input is not
				  allowed. If a BIF fires between two ranges, the APCS temperature under the
				  higher thermal input must be used.
EXAMPLE: For a BIF firing 10-100 MMBtu/hr, Mercury is
				  considered very volatile at APCS temperatures above 260 F and volatile at APCS
				  temperatures of 260 F and below.
A waste is considered chlorinated if chlorine is present in
				  concentrations greater than 0.1 percent by weight. In the US EPA guidance
				  document "Guidance for Metals and Hydrogen Chloride Controls for Hazardous
				  Waste Incinerators, Volume IV of the Hazardous Waste Incineration Guidance
				  Series,"(1) one percent is used for the chlorinated/nonchlorinated cutoff.
				  However, best engineering judgement, based on examination of pilot-scale data
				  reported by Carroll et al. (2) on the effects of waste chlorine content on
				  metals emissions, suggests that the 1 percent cutoff may not be sufficiently
				  conservative.
Tables 8.1-2 and 8.1-3 were compiled based on equilibrium
				  calculations. Metals are classified as very volatile at all temperatures above
				  the temperature at which the vapor pressure of the metal is greater than 10
				  percent of the vapor pressure that results in emissions exceeding the most
				  conservative risk-based emission limits.
8.2 APCS RE Default Values for HCl and
				  Cl2.
Default assumptions for APCS RE for HCl in BIFs are shown in
				  Table 8.2-1. This table is identical to the column for other BIFs except that
				  cement kilns have a minimum HCl removal efficiency of 83 percent. Because of
				  the alkaline nature of the raw materials in cement kilns, most of the chlorine
				  is converted to chloride salts. Thus, the minimum APCS RE for HCl for cement
				  kilns is independent of the APCS train.
Removal efficiency of Cl2 for most
				  types of APCS is generally minimal. Therefore, the default assumption for APCS
				  RE for Cl2 for all APCSs is 0 percent. This is
				  applicable to all BIFs, including cement kilns.
8.3 APCS RE Default Values for Ash
Default assumptions for APCS RE for PM are also shown in
				  Table 8.1- 4. These figures are conservative estimates of PM removal
				  efficiencies for different types of APCSs. They are identical to the figures in
				  the Nonvolatile APCS RE column for hazardous metals presented in Table 8.1-1
				  because the same collection mechanisms and collection efficiencies that apply
				  to nonvolatile metals also apply to PM.
Table 8.2-1--Pollution Control Systems (APCS) and Their
				  Conservatively Estimated Efficiencies for Removing Hydrogen Chloride (HCL) and
				  Particulate Matter (PM) (%)
HCl
APCD
Cement
							 kilns
Other
							 BIFs
PM
WS
97
97
40
VS-20
97
97
80
VS-60
98
98
87
ESP-1
83
0
90
ESP-2
83
0
92
ESP-4
83
0
95
WESP
83
70
90
FF
83
0
90
SD/FF
98
98
97
DS/FF
98
98
95
WS/IWS
99
99
95
IWS
99
99
90
WS = Wet Scrubber including: Sieve Tray Tower, Packed Tower,
				  Bubble Cap Tower
PS = Proprietary Wet Scrubber Design (A number of proprietary
				  wet scrubbers have come on the market in recent years that are highly efficient
				  on both particulates and corrosive gases. Two such units are offered by Calvert
				  Environmental Equipment Co. and by Hydro-Sonic Systems, Inc.).
VS-20 = Venturi Scrubber, ca. 20-30 in W.G. [DELTA]p
VS-60 = Venturi Scrubber, ca. > 60 in W.G. [DELTA]p
ESP-1 = Electrostatic Precipitator; 1 stage
ESP-2 = Electrostatic Precipitator; 2 stage
ESP-4 = Electrostatic Precipitator; 4 stage
IWS = Ionizing Wet Scrubber
DS - Dry Scrubber
FF = Fabric Filter (Baghouse)
SD = Spray Dryer (Wet/Dry Scrubber)
8.4 References
1. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. "Guidance on Metals
				  and Hydrogen Chloride Controls for Hazardous Waste Incinerators," Office of
				  Solid Waste, Washington, D.C., August 1989.
2. Carroll, G.J., R.C. Thurnau, R.E. Maurnighan, L.R.
				  Waterland, J.W. Lee, and D.J. Fournier. The Partitioning of Metals in Rotary
				  Kiln Incineration. Proceedings of the Third International Conference on New
				  Frontiers for Hazardous Waste Management. NTIS Document No. EPA/600/9-89/072,
				  p. 555 (1989).
SECTION
				  9.0 --PROCEDURES FOR DETERMINING
				  DEFAULT VALUES FOR PARTITIONING OF METALS, ASH, AND TOTAL
				  CHLORIDE/CHLORINE
Pollutant partitioning factor estimates can come from two
				  sources: default assumptions or engineering judgement. The default assumptions
				  are discussed below for metals, HCl, Cl2, and PM. The
				  default assumptions are used to conservatively predict the partitioning factor
				  for several types of BIFs. Engineering judgement-based partitioning factor
				  estimates are discussed in section
				  9.4.
9.1 Partitioning Default Value for Metals
To be conservative, owners/operators may assume that 100
				  percent of each metal in each feed stream is partitioned to the combustion gas.
				  Owners/operators may use this default value or a supportable, site-specific
				  value developed following the general guidelines provided in section
				  9.4.
9.2 Special Procedures for Chlorine, HCl, and
				  Cl2
The Department has established the special procedures
				  presented below for chlorine because the emission limits are based on the
				  pollutants HCl and Cl2 formed from chlorine fed to the
				  combustor. Therefore, the owner/operator must estimate the controlled emission
				  rate of both HCl and Cl2 and show that they do not
				  exceed allowable levels.
1. The default partitioning value for the fraction of
				  chlorine in the total feed streams that is partitioned to combustion gas is 100
				  percent. Owners/operators may use this default value or a supportable,
				  site-specific value developed following the general guidelines provided in
				  section 9.4.
2. To determine the partitioning of chlorine in the
				  combustion gas to HCl versus Cl2, either use the default
				  values below or use supportable site-specific values developed following the
				  general guidelines provided in section
				  9.4.
* For BIFs excluding halogen acid furnaces (HAFs), with a
				  total feed stream chlorine/hydrogen ration < 0.95, the default partitioning
				  factor is 20 percent Cl2, 80 percent HCl.
* For HAFs and for BIFs with a total feed stream
				  chlorine/hydrogen ratio > 0.95, the default partitioning factor is 100
				  percent Cl2.
3. To determine the uncontrolled (i.e., prior to acid gas
				  APCS) emission rate of HCl and Cl2, multiply the feed
				  rate of chlorine times the partitioning factor for each pollutant. Then, for
				  HCl, convert the chlorine emission rate to HCl by multiplying it by the ratio
				  of the molecular weight of HCl to the molecular weight of Cl (i.e., 36.5/35.5).
				  No conversion is needed for Cl2.
9.3 Special Procedures for Ash
This section: (1) Explains why ash feed rate limits are not
				  applicable to cement and light-weight aggregate kilns; (2) presents the default
				  partitioning values for ash; and (3) explains how to convert the 0.08 gr/dscf,
				  corrected to 7% O2, PM emission limit to a PM emission
				  rate.
Waiver for Cement and Light-Weight Aggregate Kilns. For
				  cement kilns and light-weight aggregate kilns, raw material feed streams
				  contain the vast majority of the ash input, and a significant amount of the ash
				  in the feed stream is entrained into the kiln exhaust gas. For these devices,
				  the ash content of the hazardous waste stream is expected to have a negligible
				  effect on total ash emissions. For this reason, there is no ash feed rate
				  compliance limit for cement kilns or light-weight aggregate kilns. Nonetheless,
				  cement kilns and light-weight aggregate kilns are required to initially certify
				  that PM emissions are not likely to exceed the PM limit, and subsequently,
				  certify through compliance testing that the PM limit is not exceeded.
Default Partitioning Value for Ash. The default assumption
				  for partitioning of ash depends on the feed stream firing system. There are two
				  methods by which materials may be fired into BIFs: Suspension-firing and
				  bed-firing.
The suspension category includes atomized and lanced pumpable
				  liquids and suspension-fired pulverized solids. The default partitioning
				  assumption for materials fired by these systems is that 100 percent of the ash
				  partitions to the combustion gas.
The bed-fired category consists principally of stoker boilers
				  and raw materials (and in some cases containerized hazardous waste) fed into
				  cement and light-weight aggregate kilns. The default partitioning assumption
				  for materials fired on a bed is that 5 percent of the ash partitions to the
				  combustion gas.
Converting the PM Concentration-Based Standard to a PM Mass
				  Emission Rate. The emission limit for BIFs is 0.08 gr/dscf, corrected to 7%
				  O2, unless a more stringent standard applies [e.g., a
				  New Source Performance Standard (NSPS) or a State standard implemented under
				  the State Implementation Plan (SIP)]. To convert the 0.08 gr/dscf standard to a
				  PM mass emission rate:
1. Determine the flue gas O2
				  concentration (percent by volume, dry) and flue gas flow rate (dry standard
				  cubic feet per minute); and
2. Calculate the allowable PM mass emission rate by
				  multiplying the concentration-based PM emission standard times the flue gas
				  flow rate times a dilution correction factor equal to
				  [(21-O2 concentration from step 1)/(21-7)].
9.4 Use of Engineering Judgement To Estimate Partitioning and
				  APCS RE Values
Engineering judgement may be used in place of US EPA's
				  conservative default assumptions to estimate partitioning and APCS RE values
				  provided that the engineering judgement is defensible and properly documented.
				  To properly document engineering judgement, the owner/operator must keep a
				  written record of all assumptions and calculations necessary to justify the
				  APCS RE used. The owner/operator must provide this record to the Director upon
				  request and must be prepared to defend the assumptions and calculations
				  used.
If the engineering judgement is based on emissions testing,
				  the testing will often document the emission rate of a pollutant relative to
				  the feed rate of that pollutant rather than the partitioning factor or APCS
				  RE.
Examples of situations where the use of engineering judgement
				  may be supportable to estimate a partitioning factor, APCS RE, or SRE
				  include:
* Using emissions testing data from the facility to support
				  an SRE, even though the testing may not meet full QA/QC procedures (e.g.,
				  triplicate test runs). The closer the test results conform with full QA/QC
				  procedures and the closer the operating conditions during the test conform with
				  the established operating conditions for the facility, the more supportable the
				  engineering judgement will be.
* Applying emissions testing data documenting an SRE for one
				  metal, including nonhazardous surrogate metals to another less volatile
				  metal.
* Applying emissions testing data documenting an SRE from one
				  facility to a similar facility.
* Using APCS vendor guarantees of removal efficiency.
9.5 Restrictions on Use of Test Data
The measurement of an SRE or an APCS RE may be limited by the
				  detection limits of the measurement technique. If the emission of a pollutant
				  is undetectable, then the calculation of SRE or APCS RE should be based on the
				  lower limit of detectability. An SRE or APCS RE of 100 percent is not
				  acceptable.
Further, mass balance data of facility inputs, emissions, and
				  products/residues may not be used to support a partitioning factor, given the
				  inherent uncertainties of such procedures. Partitioning factors other than the
				  default values may be supported based on engineering judgement, considering,
				  for example, process chemistry. Emissions test data may be used to support an
				  engineering judgement-based SRE, which includes both partitioning and APCS
				  RE.
9.5 References
1. Barton, R.G., W.D. Clark, and W.R. Seeker. (1990) "Fate of
				  Metals in Waste Combustion Systems". Combustion Science and Technology. 74,
				  1-6, p. 327.
SECTION
				  10.0 ALTERNATIVE METHODOLOGY FOR
				  IMPLEMENTING METALS CONTROLS
10.1 Applicability
This method for controlling metals emissions applies to
				  cement kilns and other industrial furnaces operating under interim status that
				  recycle emission control residue back into the furnace.
10.2 Introduction
Under this method, cement kilns and other industrial furnaces
				  that recycle emission control residue back into the furnace must comply with a
				  kiln dust concentration limit (i.e., a collected particulate matter (PM) limit)
				  for each metal, as well as limits on the maximum feedrates of each of the
				  metals in: (1) pumpable hazardous waste; and (2) all hazardous waste.
The following subsections describe how this method for
				  controlling metals emissions is to be implemented:
* Subsection
				  10.3 discusses the basis of the
				  method and the assumptions upon which it is founded;
* Subsection
				  10.4 provides an overview of the
				  implementation of the method;
* Subsection
				  10.5 is a step-by-step procedure
				  for implementation of the method;
* Subsection
				  10.6 describes the compliance
				  procedures for this method; and
* Appendix A describes the statistical calculations and tests
				  to be used in the method.
10.3 Basis
The viability of this method depends on three fundamental
				  assumptions:
(1) Variations in the ratio of the metal concentration in the
				  emitted particulate to the metal concentration in the collected kiln dust
				  (referred to as the enrichment factor or EF) for any given metal at any given
				  facility will fall within a normal distribution that can be experimentally
				  determined.
(2) The metal concentrations in the collected kiln dust can
				  be accurately and representatively measured (using procedures specified in
				  "Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste, Physical/Chemical Methods" (SW-846),
				  incorporated by reference in section
				  66260.11 of chapter 11.
(3) The facility will remain in compliance with the
				  applicable particulate matter (PM) emission standard.
Given these assumptions, metal emissions can be related to
				  the measured concentrations in the collected kiln dust by the following
				  equation:
Click
				  here to view image
Where:
ME is the metal emitted; PME is the particulate matter
				  emitted; DMC is the metal concentration in the collected kiln dust; and EF is
				  the enrichment factor, which is the ratio of the metal concentration in the
				  emitted particulate matter to the metal concentration in the collected kiln
				  dust.
This equation can be rearranged to calculate a maximum
				  allowable dust metal concentration limit (DMCL) by assuming worst-case
				  conditions that: metal emissions are at the Tier III (or Tier II) limit (see
				  section 66266.106), and that particulate
				  emissions are at the particulate matter limit (PML):
Click
				  here to view image
The enrichment factor used in the above equation must be
				  determined experimentally from a minimum of 10 tests in which metal
				  concentrations are measured in kiln dust and stack samples taken
				  simultaneously. This approach provides a range of enrichment factors that can
				  be inserted into a statistical distribution (t- distribution) to determine
				  EF95% and EF99%.
				  EF95% is the value at which there is a 95% confidence
				  level that the enrichment factor is below this value at any given time.
				  Similarly, EF99% is the value at which there is a 99%
				  confidence level that the enrichment factor is below this value at any given
				  time. EF95% is used to calculate the "violation" dust
				  metal concentration limit (DMCLv):
Click
				  here to view image
If the kiln dust metal concentration is just above this
				  "violation" limit, and the PM emissions are at the PM emissions limit, there is
				  a 5% chance that the metal emissions are above the Tier III limit. In such a
				  case, the facility would be in violation of the metals standard.
To provide a margin of safety, a second, more conservative
				  kiln dust metal concentration limit is also used. This "conservative" dust
				  metal concentration limit (DMCLc) is calculated using a
				  "safe" enrichment factor (SEF). If EF99% is greater than
				  two times the value of EF95%, the "safe" enrichment
				  factor can be calculated using Equation 4a:
SEF > 2 EF95% (4a) QO2
If EF99% is not greater than two times
				  the value of EF95%, the "safe" enrichment factor can be
				  calculated using Equation 4b:
SEF > EF99% (4b)
In cases where the enrichment factor cannot be determined
				  because the kiln dust metal concentration is nondetectable, the "safe"
				  enrichment factor is as follows:
SEF = 100 (4c)
For all cases, the "conservative" dust metal concentration
				  limit is calculated using the following equation:
Click
				  here to view image
If the kiln dust metal concentration at a facility is just
				  above the "conservative" limit based on that "safe" enrichment factor provided
				  in Equation 4a, and the PM emissions are at the PM emissions limit, there is a
				  5% chance that the metal emissions are above one-half the Tier III limit. If
				  the kiln dust metal concentration at the facility is just above the
				  "conservative" limit based on the "safe" enrichment factor provided in Equation
				  4b, and the PM emissions are at the PM emissions limit, there is a 1% chance
				  that the metal emissions are above the Tier III limit. In either case, the
				  facility would be unacceptably close to a violation. If this situation occurs
				  more than 5% of the time, the facility would be required to rerun the series of
				  10 tests to determine the enrichment factor. To avoid this expense, the
				  facility would be advised to reduce its metals feedrates or to take other
				  appropriate measures to maintain its kiln dust metal concentrations in
				  compliance with the "conservative" dust metal concentration limits.
In cases where the enrichment factor cannot be determined
				  because the kiln dust metal concentration is nondetectable, and thus no
				  EF95% exists, the "violation" dust metal concentration
				  limit is set at ten times the "conservative" limit:
DMCLv = 10 X
				  DMCLc (6)
10.4 Overview
The flowchart for implementing the method is shown in Figure
				  10.4-1. The general procedure is as follows:
* Follow the certification of precompliance procedures
				  described in subsection
				  10.6 (to comply with section
				  66266.103(b)).
* For each metal of concern, perform a series of tests to
				  establish the relationship (enrichment factor) between the concentration of
				  emitted metal and the metal concentration in the collected kiln dust.
* Use the demonstrated enrichment factor, in combination with
				  the Tier III (or Tier II) metal emission limit and the most stringent
				  applicable particulate emission limit, to calculate the "violation" and
				  "conservative" dust metal concentration limits. Include this information with
				  the certification of compliance under section
				  66266.103(c).
Click here
				  to view image
* Perform daily and/or weekly monitoring of the cement kiln
				  dust metal concentration to ensure (with appropriate QA/QC) that the metal
				  concentration does not exceed either limit.
- If the cement kiln dust metal concentration exceeds the
				  "conservative" limit more than 5% of the time (i.e., more than three failures
				  in last 60 tests), the series of tests to determine the enrichment factor must
				  be repeated.
- If the cement kiln dust metal concentration exceeds the
				  "violation" limit, a violation has occurred.
* Perform quarterly tests to verify that the enrichment
				  factor has not increased significantly. If the enrichment factor has increased,
				  the series of tests to determine the enrichment factor must be repeated.
10.5 Implementation Procedures
A step-by-step description for implementing the method is
				  provided below:
(1) Prepare initial limits and test plans.
* Determine the Tier III metal emission limit. The Tier II
				  metal emission limit may also be used (see section
				  66266.106).
* Determine the applicable PM emission standard. This
				  standard is the most stringent particulate emission standard that applies to
				  the facility.
A facility may elect to restrict itself to an even more
				  stringent self-imposed PM emission standard, particularly if the facility finds
				  that it is easier to control particulate emissions than to reduce the kiln dust
				  concentration of a certain metal (i.e., lead).
* Determine which metals need to be monitored (i.e., all
				  hazardous metals for which Tier III emission limits are lower than PM emission
				  limits-assuming PM is pure metal).
* Follow the compliance procedures described in Subsection
				  10.6.
* Follow the guidelines described in SW-846 for preparing
				  test plans and waste analysis plans for the following tests:
- Compliance tests to determine limits on metal feedrates in
				  pumpable hazardous wastes and in all hazardous wastes (as well as to determine
				  other compliance parameters);
- Initial tests to determine enrichment factors;
- Quarterly tests to verify enrichment factors;
- Analysis of hazardous waste feedstreams; and
- Daily and/or weekly monitoring of kiln dust for continuing
				  compliance.
(2) Conduct tests to determine the enrichment factor.
* These tests must be conducted within a 14-day period. No
				  more than two tests may be conducted in any single day. If the tests are not
				  completed within a 14-day period, they must be repeated.
* Simultaneous stack samples and kiln dust samples must be
				  taken.
- Stack sampling must be conducted with the multiple metals
				  train according to procedures provided in section
				  10.3 of this Methods
				  Manual.
- Kiln dust sampling must be conducted as follows:
- Follow the sampling and analytical procedures described in
				  SW-846 and the waste analysis plan as they pertain to the condition and
				  accessibility of the dust.
- Samples should be representative of the last ESP or Fabric
				  Filter in the APCS series.
* The feedrates of hazardous metals in all pumpable hazardous
				  waste streams and in all waste streams must be monitored during these tests. It
				  is recommended (but not required) that the feedrates of hazardous metals in all
				  feedstreams also be monitored.
* At least ten single (noncomposited) runs are required
				  during the tests.
- The facility must follow a normal schedule of kiln dust
				  recharging for all of the tests.
- Three of the first five tests must be compliance tests in
				  conformance with section
				  66266.103(c);
				  i.e., they must be used to determine maximum allowable feedrates of metals in
				  pumpable hazardous wastes, and in all hazardous wastes, as well as to determine
				  other compliance limits (see section
				  66266.103(c)(1)).
- The remainder of the tests need not be conducted under full
				  compliance test conditions; however, the facility must operate at its
				  compliance test production rate, and it must burn hazardous waste during these
				  tests such that the feedrate of each metal for pumpable and total hazardous
				  wastes is at least 25% of the feedrate during compliance testing. If these
				  criteria, and those discussed below, are not met for any parameter during a
				  test, then either the test is not valid for determining enrichment factors
				  under this method, or the compliance limits for that parameter must be
				  established based on these test conditions rather than on the compliance test
				  conditions.
* Verify that compliance emission limits are not
				  exceeded.
- Metal emissions must not exceed Tier III (or Tier II)
				  limits.
- PM emissions must not exceed the most stringent of
				  applicable PM standards (or an optional self-imposed particulate
				  standard).
* The facility must generate normal, marketable product using
				  normal raw materials and fuels under normal operating conditions (for
				  parameters other than those specified under this method) when these tests are
				  conducted.
* Chromium must be treated as a special case:
- The enrichment factor for total chromium is calculated in
				  the same way as the enrichment factor for other metals (i.e., the enrichment
				  factor is the ratio of the concentration of total chromium in the emitted
				  particulate matter to the concentration of total chromium in the collected kiln
				  dust).
- The enrichment factor for hexavalent chromium (if measured)
				  is defined as the ratio of the concentration of hexavalent chromium in the
				  emitted particulate matter to the concentration of total chromium in the
				  collected kiln dust.
(3) Use the enrichment factors measured in Step 2 to
				  determine EF95%, EF99%, and
				  SEF.
* Calculate EF95% and
				  EF99% according to the t-distribution as described in
				  Appendix A
* Calculate SEF by
- Equation 4a if EF95% is determinable
				  and if EF99% is greater than two times
				  EF95%.
- Equation 4b if EF95% is determinable
				  and if EF99% is not greater than two times
				  EF95%.
- Equation 4c if EF95% is not
				  determinable.
The facility may choose to set an even more conservative SEF
				  to give itself a larger margin of safety between the point where corrective
				  action is necessary and the point where a violation occurs.
(4) Prepare certification of compliance.
* Calculate the "conservative" dust metal concentration limit
				  (DMCLc) using Equation 5.
- Chromium is treated as a special case. The "conservative"
				  kiln dust chromium concentration limit is set for total chromium, not for
				  hexavalent chromium. The limit for total chromium must be calculated using the
				  Tier III (or Tier II) metal limit for hexavalent chromium.
- If the stack samples described in Step 2 were analyzed for
				  hexavalent chromium, the SEF based on the hexavalent chromium enrichment
				  factors (as defined in Step 2) must be used in this calculation.
- If the stack samples were not analyzed for hexavalent
				  chromium, then the SEF based on the total chromium enrichment factor must be
				  used in this calculation.
* Calculate the "violation" dust metal concentration limit
				  (DMCLv) using Equation 3 if EF95%
				  is determinable, or using Equation 6 if EF95% is not
				  determinable.
- Chromium is treated as a special case. The "violation" kiln
				  dust chromium concentration limit is set for total chromium, not for hexavalent
				  chromium. The limit for total chromium must be calculated using the Tier III
				  (or Tier II) metal limit for hexavalent chromium.
- If the stack samples taken in Step 2 were analyzed for
				  hexavalent chromium, the EF95% based on the hexavalent
				  chromium enrichment factor (as defined in Step 2) should be used in this
				  calculation.
- If the stack samples were not analyzed for hexavalent
				  chromium, the EF95% based on the total chromium
				  enrichment factor must be used in this calculation.
* Submit certification of compliance.
* Steps 2-4 must be repeated for recertification, which is
				  required once every 3 years (see section
				  66266.103(d)).
(5) Monitor metal concentrations in kiln dust for continuing
				  compliance, and maintain compliance with all compliance limits for the duration
				  of interim status.
* Metals to be monitored during compliance testing are
				  classified as either "critical" or "noncritical" metals.
- All metals must initially be classified as "critical"
				  metals and be monitored on a daily basis.
- A "critical" metal may be reclassified as a "noncritical"
				  metal if its concentration in the kiln dust remains below 10% of its
				  "conservative" kiln dust metal concentration limit for 30 consecutive daily
				  samples. "Noncritical" metals must be monitored on a weekly basis.
- A "noncritical" metal must be reclassified as a "critical"
				  metal if its concentration in the kiln dust is above 10% of its "conservative"
				  kiln dust metal concentration limit for any single daily or weekly
				  sample.
* Noncompliance with the sampling and analysis schedule
				  prescribed by this method is a violation of the metals controls under section
				  66266.103.
* Follow the sampling, compositing, and analytical procedures
				  described in this method and in SW-846 as they pertain to the condition and
				  accessibility of the kiln dust.
* Follow the same procedures and sample at the same locations
				  as were used for kiln dust samples collected to determine the enrichment
				  factors (as discussed in Step 2).
* Samples must be collected at least once every 8 hours, and
				  a daily composite must be prepared according to SW-846 procedures.
- At least one composite sample is required. This sample is
				  referred to as the "required" sample.
- For QA/QC purposes, a facility may elect to collect two or
				  more additional samples. These samples are referred to as the "spare" samples.
				  These additional samples must be collected over the same time period and
				  according to the same procedures as those used for the "required"
				  sample.
- Samples for "critical" metals must be daily
				  composites.
- Samples for "noncritical" metals must be weekly composites.
				  These samples can be composites of the original 8-hour samples, or they can be
				  composites of daily composite samples.
* Analyze the "required" sample to determine the
				  concentration of each metal.
- This analysis must be completed within 48 hours of the
				  close of the sampling period. Failure to meet this schedule is a violation of
				  the metals standards of section
				  66266.103.
* If the "conservative" kiln dust metal concentration limit
				  is exceeded for any metal, refer to Step 8.
* If the "conservative" kiln dust metal concentration limit
				  is not exceeded, continue with the daily or weekly monitoring (Step 5) for the
				  duration of interim status.
* Conduct quarterly enrichment factor verification tests, as
				  described in Step 6.
(6) Conduct quarterly enrichment factor verification
				  tests.
* After certification of compliance with the metals
				  standards, a facility must conduct quarterly enrichment factor verification
				  tests every three months for the duration of interim status. The first
				  quarterly test must be completed within three months of certification (or
				  recertification). Each subsequent quarterly test must be completed within three
				  months of the preceding quarterly test. Failure to meet this schedule is a
				  violation.
* Simultaneous stack samples and kiln dust samples must be
				  collected.
* Follow the same procedures and sample at the same locations
				  as were used for kiln dust samples and stack samples collected to determine the
				  enrichment factors (as discussed in Step 2).
* At least three single (noncomposite) runs are required.
				  These tests need not be conducted under the operating conditions of the initial
				  compliance test; however, the facility must operate under the following
				  conditions:
- It must operate at compliance test production rate.
- It must burn hazardous waste during the test, and for the
				  2-day period immediately preceding the test, such that the feedrate of each
				  metal for pumpable and total hazardous wastes consist of at least 25% of the
				  operating limits established during the compliance test.
- It must remain in compliance with all compliance parameters
				  (see section
				  66266.103(c)(1).
- It must follow a normal schedule of kiln dust
				  recharging.
- It must generate normal marketable product from normal raw
				  materials during the tests.
(7) Conduct a statistical test to determine if the enrichment
				  factors measured in the quarterly verification tests have increased
				  significantly from the enrichment factors determined in the tests conducted in
				  Step 2. The enrichment factors have increased significantly if all three of the
				  following criteria are met:
* By applying the t-test described in appendix A, it is
				  determined that the enrichment factors measured in the quarterly tests are not
				  taken from the same population as the enrichment factors measured in the Step 2
				  tests;
* The EF95% calculated for the
				  combined data sets (i.e., the quarterly test data and the original Step 2 test
				  data) according to the t-distribution (described in appendix A) is more than
				  10% higher than the EF95% based on the enrichment
				  factors previously measured in Step 2; and
* The highest measured kiln dust metal concentration recorded
				  in the previous quarter is more than 10% of the "violation" kiln dust
				  concentration limit that would be calculated from the combined
				  EF95%.
If the enrichment factors have increased significantly, the
				  tests to determine the enrichment factors must be repeated (refer to Step 11).
				  If the enrichment factors have not increased significantly, continue to use the
				  kiln dust metal concentration limits based on the enrichment factors previously
				  measured in Step 2, and continue with the daily and/or weekly monitoring
				  described in Step 5.
(8) If the "conservative" kiln dust metal concentration limit
				  was exceeded for any metal in any single analysis of the "required" kiln dust
				  sample, the "spare" samples corresponding to the same period may be analyzed to
				  determine if the exceedance was due to a sampling or analysis error.
* If no "spare" samples were taken, refer to Step 9.
* If the average of all the samples for a given day (or week,
				  as applicable) (including the "required" sample and the "spare" samples) does
				  not exceed the "conservative" kiln dust metal concentration limit, no
				  corrective measures are necessary; continue with the daily and/or weekly
				  monitoring as described in Step 5.
* If the average of all samples for a given day (or week, as
				  applicable) exceeds the "conservative" kiln dust metal concentration limit, but
				  the average of the "spare" samples is below the "conservative" kiln dust metal
				  concentration limit, apply the Q-test, described in appendix A, to determine
				  whether the "required" sample concentration can be judged as an outlier.
- If the "required" sample concentration is judged an
				  outlier, no corrective measures are necessary; continue with the daily and/or
				  weekly monitoring described in Step 5.
- If the "required" sample concentration is not judged an
				  outlier, refer to Step 9.
(9) Determine if the "violation" kiln dust metal
				  concentration has been exceeded based on either the average of all the samples
				  collected during the 24-hour period in question, or if discarding an outlier
				  can be statistically justified by the Q-test described in appendix A, on the
				  average of the remaining samples.
* If the "violation" kiln dust metal concentration limit has
				  been exceeded, a violation of the metals controls under section
				  66266.103(c) has
				  occurred. Notify the Director that a violation has occurred. Hazardous waste
				  may be burned for testing purposes for up to 720 operating hours to support a
				  revised certification of compliance. Note that the Director may grant an
				  extension of the hours of hazardous waste burning under section
				  66266.103(c)(7)
				  if additional burning time is needed to support a revised certification for
				  reasons beyond the control of the owner or operator. Until a revised
				  certification of compliance is submitted to the Director, the feedrate of the
				  metals in violation in total and pumpable hazardous waste feeds is limited to
				  50% of the previous compliance test limits.
* If the "violation" kiln dust metal concentration has not
				  been exceeded:
- If the exceedance occurred in a daily composite sample,
				  refer to Step 10.
- If the exceedance occurred in a weekly composite sample,
				  refer to Step 11.
(10) Determine if the "conservative" kiln dust metal
				  concentration limit has been exceeded more than three times in the last 60
				  days.
* If not, log this exceedance and continue with the daily
				  and/or weekly monitoring (Step 5).
* If so, the tests to determine the enrichment factors must
				  be repeated (refer to Step 11).
* This determination is made separately for each metal; For
				  example,
- Three exceedances for each of the ten hazardous metals are
				  allowed within any 60-day period.
- Four exceedances of any single metal in any 60-day period
				  is not allowed.
* This determination should be made daily, beginning on the
				  first day of daily monitoring. For example, if four exceedances of any single
				  metal occur in the first four days of daily monitoring, do not wait until the
				  end of the 60-day period; refer immediately to Step 11.
(11) The tests to determine the enrichment factor must be
				  repeated if: (1) More than three exceedances of the "conservative" kiln dust
				  metal concentration limit occur within any 60 consecutive daily samples; (2) an
				  excursion of the "conservative" kiln dust metal concentration limit occurs in
				  any weekly sample; or (3) a quarterly test indicates that the enrichment
				  factors have increased significantly.
* The facility must notify the Director if these tests must
				  be repeated.
* The facility has up to 720 hazardous-waste burning hours to
				  redetermine the enrichment factors for the metal or metals in question and to
				  recertify (beginning with a return to Step 2). During this period, the facility
				  must reduce the feed rate of the metal in violation by 50%. If the facility has
				  not completed the recertification process within this period, it must stop
				  burning or obtain an extension. Hazardous waste burning may resume only when
				  the recertification process (ending with Step 4) has been completed.
* Meanwhile, the facility must continue with daily kiln dust
				  metals monitoring (Step 5) and must remain in compliance with the "violation"
				  kiln dust metal concentration limits (Step 9).
10.6 Precompliance Procedures
Cement kilns and other industrial furnaces that recycle
				  emission control residue back into the furnace must comply with the same
				  certification schedules and procedures (with the few exceptions described
				  below) that apply to other boilers and industrial furnaces. These schedules and
				  procedures, as set forth in section
				  66266.103, require no later than
				  the effective date of the rule, each facility submit a certification which
				  establishes precompliance limits for a number of compliance parameters (see
				  section 66266.103(b)(3)),
				  and that each facility immediately begin to operate under these limits.
These precompliance limits must ensure that interim status
				  emissions limits for hazardous metals, particulate matter, HCl, and
				  Cl2 are not likely to be exceeded. Determination of the
				  values of precompliance limits must be made based on either (1) conservative
				  default assumptions in this Methods Manual, or (2) engineering
				  judgement.
The flowchart for implementing the precompliance procedures
				  is shown in Figure 10.6-1. The step-by-step precompliance implementation
				  procedure is described below. The precompliance implementation procedures and
				  numbering scheme are similar to those used for the compliance procedures
				  described in Subsection
				  10.5.
(1) Prepare initial limits and test plans.
* Determine the Tier III metal emission limit. The Tier II
				  metal emission limit may also be used (see section
				  66266.106).
* Determine the applicable PM emission standard. This
				  standard is the most stringent particulate emission standard that applies to
				  the facility. A facility may elect to restrict itself to an even more stringent
				  self-imposed PM emission standard, particularly if the facility finds that it
				  is easier to control particulate emissions than to reduce the kiln dust
				  concentration of a certain metal (i.e., lead).
* Determine which metals need to be monitored (i.e., all
				  hazardous metals for which Tier III emission limits are lower than PM emission
				  limits, assuming PM is pure metal).
* Follow the procedures described in SW-846 for preparing
				  waste analysis plans for the following tasks:
- Analysis of hazardous waste feedstreams.
- Daily and/or weekly monitoring of kiln dust concentrations
				  for continuing compliance.
(2) Determine the "safe" enrichment factor for precompliance.
				  In this context, the "safe" enrichment factor is a conservatively high estimate
				  of the enrichment factor (the ratio of the emitted metal concentration to the
				  metal concentration in the collected kiln dust). The "safe" enrichment factor
				  must be calculated from either conservative default values, or engineering
				  judgement.
Click here
				  to view image
* Conservative default values for the "safe" enrichment
				  factor are as follows:
- SEF = 10 for all hazardous metals except mercury. SEF = 10
				  for antimony, arsenic, barium, beryllium, cadmium, chromium, lead, silver, and
				  thallium.
- SEF = 100 for mercury.
* Engineering judgement may be used in place of conservative
				  default assumptions provided that the engineering judgement is defensible and
				  properly documented. The facility must keep a written record of all assumptions
				  and calculations necessary to justify the SEF. The facility must provide this
				  record to Department upon request and must be prepared to defend these
				  assumptions and calculations.
Examples of situations where the use of engineering judgement
				  is appropriate include:
- Use of data from precompliance tests;
- Use of data from previous compliance tests; and
- Use of data from similar facilities.
(3) This step does not apply to precompliance
				  procedures.
(4) Prepare certification of precompliance.
* Calculate the "conservative" dust metal concentration limit
				  (DMCLc) using Equation 5.
* Submit certification of precompliance. This certification
				  must include precompliance limits for all compliance parameters that apply to
				  other boilers and industrial furnaces (i.e., those that do not recycle emission
				  control residue back into the furnace) as listed in section
				  66266.103(b)(3),
				  except that it is not necessary to set precompliance limits on maximum feedrate
				  of each hazardous metal in all combined feedstreams.
* Furnaces that recycle collected PM back into the furnace
				  (and that elect to comply with this method (see section
				  66266.103(c)(3)(ii))
				  are subject to a special precompliance parameter, however. They must establish
				  precompliance limits on the maximum concentration of each hazardous metal in
				  collected kiln dust. (which must be set according to the procedures described
				  above).
(5) Monitor metal concentration in kiln dust for continuing
				  compliance, and maintain compliance with all precompliance limits until
				  certification of compliance has been submitted.
* Metals to be monitored during precompliance testing are
				  classified as either "critical" or "noncritical" metals.
- All metals must initially be classified as "critical"
				  metals and be monitored on a daily basis.
- A "critical" metal may be reclassified as a "noncritical"
				  metal if its concentration in the kiln dust remains below 10% of its
				  "conservative" kiln dust metal concentration limit for 30 consecutive daily
				  samples. "Noncritical" metals must be monitored on a weekly basis, at a
				  minimum.
- A "noncritical" metal must be reclassified as a "critical"
				  metal if its concentration in the kiln dust is above 10% of its "conservative"
				  kiln dust metal concentration limit for any single daily or weekly
				  sample.
* It is a violation if the facility fails to analyze the kiln
				  dust for any "critical" metal on any single day or for any "noncritical" metal
				  during any single week, when hazardous waste is burned.
* Follow the sampling, compositing, and analytical procedures
				  described in this method and in SW-846 as they pertain to the condition and
				  accessibility of the kiln dust.
* Samples must be collected at least once very 8 hours, and a
				  daily composite prepared according to SW-846 procedures.
- At least one composite sample is required. This sample is
				  referred to as the "required" sample.
- For QA/QC purposes, a facility may elect to collect two or
				  more additional samples. These samples are referred to as the "spare" samples.
				  These additional samples must be collected over the same time period and
				  according to the same procedures as those used for the "required"
				  sample.
- Samples for "critical" metals must be daily
				  composites.
- Samples for "noncritical" metals must be weekly composites,
				  at a minimum. These samples can be composites of the original 8-hour samples,
				  or they can be composites of daily composite samples.
* Analyze the "required" sample to determine the
				  concentration of each metal.
- This analysis must be completed within 48 hours of the
				  close of the sampling period. Failure to meet this schedule is a
				  violation.
* If the "conservative" kiln dust metal concentration limit
				  is exceeded for any metal, refer to Step 8.
* If the "conservative" kiln dust metal concentration limit
				  is not exceeded, continue with the daily and/or weekly monitoring (Step 5) for
				  the duration of interim status.
(6) This step does not apply to precompliance
				  procedures.
(7) This step does not apply to precompliance
				  procedures.
(8) If the "conservative" kiln dust metal concentration limit
				  was exceeded for any metal in any single analysis of the "required" kiln dust
				  sample, the "spare" samples corresponding to the same period may be analyzed to
				  determine if the exceedance is due to a sampling or analysis error.
* If no "spare" samples were taken, refer to Step 9.
* If the average of all the samples for a given day (or week,
				  as applicable) (including the "required" sample and the "spare" samples) does
				  not exceed the "conservative" kiln dust metal concentration limit, no
				  corrective measures are necessary; continue with the daily and/or weekly
				  monitoring as described in Step 5.
* If the average of all the samples for a given day (or week,
				  as applicable) exceeds the "conservative" kiln dust metal concentration limit.
				  but the average of the "spare" samples is below the "conservative" kiln dust
				  metal concentration limit, apply the Q-test, described in appendix A, to
				  determine whether the "required" sample concentration can be judged as an
				  outlier.
- If the "required" sample concentration is judged an
				  outlier, no corrective measures are necessary; continue with the daily and/or
				  weekly monitoring described in Step 5.
- If the "required" sample concentration is not judged an
				  outlier, refer to Step 10.
(9) This step does not apply to precompliance
				  procedures.
(10) Determine if the "conservative" kiln dust metal
				  concentration limit has been exceeded more than three times in the last 60
				  days.
* If not, log this exceedance and continue with the daily
				  and/or weekly monitoring (Step 5).
* If so, the tests to determine the enrichment factors must
				  be repeated (refer to Step 11).
* This determination is made separately for each metal; for
				  example
- Three exceedances for each of the ten hazardous metals are
				  allowed within any 60-day period.
- Four exceedances of any single metal is any 60-day period
				  is not allowed.
* This determination should not be made daily, beginning on
				  the first day of daily monitoring. For example, if four exceedances of any
				  single metal occur in the first four days of daily monitoring, do not wait
				  until the end of the 60-day period; refer immediately to Step 11.
(11) A revised certification of compliance must be submitted
				  to the Director (or certification of compliance must be submitted) if: (1) More
				  than three exceedances of the "conservative" kiln dust metal concentration
				  limit occur within any 60 consecutive daily samples; or (2) an exceedance of
				  the "conservative" kiln dust metal concentration limit occurs in any weekly
				  sample.
* The facility must notify the Director if a revised
				  certification of precompliance must be submitted.
* The facility has up to 720 waste-burning hours to submit a
				  certification of compliance or a revised certification of precompliance. During
				  this period, the feed rate of the metal in violation must be reduced by 50%. In
				  the case of a revised certification of precompliance, engineering judgement
				  must be used to ensure that the "conservative" kiln dust metal concentration
				  will not be exceeded. Examples of how this goal might be accomplished
				  include:
- Changing equipment or operating procedures to reduce the
				  kiln dust metal concentration;
- Changing equipment or operating procedures, or using more
				  detailed engineering judgement, to decrease the estimated SEF and thus increase
				  the "conservative" kiln dust metal concentration limit;
- Increasing the "conservative" kiln dust metal concentration
				  limit by imposing a stricter PM emissions standard; or
- Increasing the "conservative" kiln dust metal concentration
				  limit by performing a more detailed risk assessment to increase the metal
				  emission limits.
* Meanwhile, the facility must continue with daily kiln dust
				  metals monitoring (Step 5).
Appendix A to Appendix IX. --Statistics
A.1 Determination of Enrichment Factor
After at least 10 initial emissions tests are performed, an
				  enrichment factor for each metal must be determined. At the 95% confidence
				  level, the enrichment factor, EF95%s, is based on the
				  test results and is statistically determined so there is only a 5% chance that
				  the enrichment factor at any given time will be larger than
				  EF95%. Similarly, at the 99% confidence level, the
				  enrichment factor, EF99%, is statistically determined so
				  there is only a 1% chance that the enrichment factor at any given time will be
				  larger than EF99%.
For a large number of samples (n > 30),
				  EF95% is based on a normal distribution, and is equal
				  to:
Click here
				  to view image
For a 95% confidence level, zc is
				  equal to 1.645.
For a small number of samples (n < 30),
				  EF95% is based on the t - distribution and is equal
				  to:
EF95% = EF + tc
				  S (4)
where the standard deviation, S, is defined as:
Click here
				  to view image
tc is a function of the number of
				  samples and the confidence level that is desired. It increases in value as the
				  sample size decreases and the confidence level increases. The 95% confidence
				  level is used in this method to calculate the "violation" kiln dust metal
				  concentration limit; and the 99% confidence level is sometimes used to
				  calculate the "conservative" kiln dust metal concentration limit. Values of
				  tc are shown in table A-1 for various degrees of freedom
				  (degrees of freedom = sample size-1) at the 95% and 99% confidence levels. As
				  the sample size approaches infinity, the normal distribution is
				  approached.
A.2 Comparison of Enrichment Factor Groups
To determine if the enrichment factors measured in the
				  quarterly tests are significantly different from the enrichment factors
				  determined in the initial Step 2 tests, the t-test is used. In this test, the
				  value tmeas:
Click here
				  to view image
Table A-1.--T-Distribution
n-1 or n1 +
						  n2-2
t95
t99
1
6.31
31.82
2
2.92
6.96
3
2.35
4.54
4
2.13
3.75
5
2.02
3.36
6
1.94
3.14
7
1.90
3.00
8
1.86
2.90
9
1.83
2.82
10
1.81
2.76
11
1.80
12
1.78
2.68
13
1.77
2.65
14
1.76
2.62
15
1.75
2.60
16
1.75
2.58
17
1.74
2.57
18
1.73
2.55
19
1.73
2.54
20
1.72
2.53
25
1.71
2.48
30
1.70
2.46
40
1.68
2.42
60
1.67
2.39
120
1.66
2.36
∞
1.645
2.33
Click here
				  to view image
is compared to tcrit at the desired
				  confidence level. The 95% confidence level is used in this method. Values of
				  tcrit are shown in table A-1 for various degrees of
				  freedom (degrees of freedom n1 +
				  n2 - 2) at the 95% and 99% confidence levels. If
				  tmeas is greater then tcrit, it
				  can be concluded with 95% confidence that the two groups are not from the same
				  population.
A.3 Rejection of Data
If the concentration of any hazardous metal in the "required"
				  kiln dust sample exceeds the kiln dust metal concentration limit, the "spare"
				  samples are analyzed. If the average of the combined "required" and "spare"
				  values is still above the limit, a statistical test is used to decide if the
				  upper value can be rejected.
The "Q-test" is used to determine if a data point can be
				  rejected. The difference between the questionable result and its neighbor is
				  divided by the spread of the entire data set. The resulting ratio,
				  Qmeas, is then compared with rejection values that are
				  critical for a particular degree of confidence, where
				  Qmeas is:
Qmeas
						  =
DMChighest
-
DMCnext highest
(8)
DMChighest
-
DMClowest
The 90% confidence level for data rejection is used in this
				  method. Table A-2 provides the values of Qcrit at the
				  90% confidence level. If Qmeas is larger than
				  Qcrit, the data point can be discarded. Only one data
				  point from a sample group can be rejected using this method.
Table A-2.--Critical Values for Use in the Q-Test
n
Qcrit
3
0.94
4
0.76
5
0.64
6
0.56
7
0.51
8
0.47
9
0.44
10
0.41
1. New
				  appendix filed 7-1-96; operative 7-31-96 (Register 96, No. 27).
2.
				  Change without regulatory effect amending appendix IX filed 6-12-97 pursuant to
				  section 100, title 1, California Code of
				  Regulations (Register 97, No. 24).
3. Repealer and new section
				  3.0 and repealer of sections
				  3.1-3.6.9.4 filed 10-13-98;
				  operative 11-12-98 (Register 98, No. 42).
4. Change without
				  regulatory effect amending appendix filed 7-1-2004 pursuant to section
				  100, title 1, California Code of
				  Regulations (Register 2004, No. 27).
5. Change without regulatory
				  effect amending appendix filed 1-13-2005 pursuant to section
				  100, title 1, California Code of
				  Regulations (Register 2005, No. 2).
Note: Authority cited: Sections
					 25150,
					 25159,
					 25159.5,
					 25245,
					 58004
					 and
					 58012,
					 Health and Safety Code. Reference: Sections
					 25159
					 and
					 25159.5,
					 Health and Safety Code; and 40 CFR part 266 , Appendix
					 IX.