Wisconsin Administrative Code › Department of Natural Resources › NR 600-699 - Environmental Protection - Hazardous Waste Management › Chapter NR 666 - Standards For Managing Specific Hazardous Wastes And Specific Types Of Hazardous Waste Management Facilities › Appendix IX - METHODS MANUAL FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE BIF RULES

Current through June 24, 2024
Burning hazardous waste in boilers and industrial
				  furnaces
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 Cl 2
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 regulations for boilers and industrial furnaces (BIFs)
				  burning hazardous waste in subch. H. Included in this document are:
1. Performance Specifications for Continuous Emission
				  Monitoring (CEM) of Carbon Monoxide, Oxygen, and Hydrocarbons in Stack
				  Gases.
2. Procedures for Estimating the Toxicity Equivalency of
				  Chlorinated Dibenzo-p-dioxin and Dibenzofuran Congeners.
3. Hazardous Waste Combustion Air Quality Screening
				  Procedures (HWCAQSP).
4. Simplified Land Use Classification Procedure for
				  Compliance with Tier I and Tier II Limits.
5. Statistical Methodology for Bevill Residue
				  Determinations.
6. Procedures for Determining Default Values for Air
				  Pollution Control System Removal Efficiencies.
7. Procedures for Determining Default Values for Partitioning
				  of Metals, Ash, and Total Chloride/Chlorine.
8. Alternate Methodology for Implementing Metals
				  Controls.
a. Sampling and analytical methods for multiple metals,
				  hexavalent chromium, HCl and chlorine, polychlorinated dibenzo-pdioxins and
				  dibenzofurans, and aldehydes and ketones can be found in Test Methods for
				  Evaluating Solid Wastes, Physical/Chemical Methods (EPA Publication SW 846).
				  Additional methods referenced in subch. H 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, incorporated by reference in s.
				  NR
				  660.11.
b. The CEM performance specifications of section 2.0, the
				  relevant sampling Methods 0011, 0023A, 0050, 0051, 0060, and 0061 of SW846,
				  incorporated by reference in s.
				  NR
				  660.11, and the toxicity equivalency procedure for
				  dioxins and furans of section 4.0 are required procedures for determining
				  compliance with BIF regulations. For the determination of chloride from HCl/Cl2
				  emission sampling train, use appropriate methods. For the determination of
				  carbonyl compounds by high-performance liquid chromatography, use appropriate
				  methods. 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 6l.
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
				  licenses. 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 specifications require
				  CEMSs capable of accepting calibration gases. Alternative system designs may be
				  used if approved by the department. There are 2 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
				  retroreflector (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 maximum concentration that can be measured by a specific
				  instrument. The minimum is often stated or assumed to be 0 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% 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 0 2). These
				  methods are found in 40 CFR part 60, Appendix A, incorporated by reference in
				  s.
				  NR
				  660.11.
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
				  one 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 2 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 section 2.1 of 40 CFR part 60, Appendix A, method 1,
				  incorporated by reference in s.
				  NR
				  660.11. 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% of the path within the inner 50% 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
				  2 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 1/2 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, 1/2
				  diameter may be used in place of 2 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% of the equivalent diameter
				  of the cross section, whichever is less) from the centroidal area. Locate 3
				  traverse points at 17, 50, and 83% 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 3 traverse points on the line at 0.4, 1.2,
				  and 2.0 meters from the stack or duct wall. This option may not be used at a
				  site located within 8 equivalent diameters downstream of a flow disturbance.
				  The tester may select other traverse points, if they can be shown to the
				  satisfaction of the department 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 may 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% 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, incorporated by reference in s.
				  NR
				  660.11. The monitoring system samples sequentially at
				  the reference and traverse points throughout the testing period for 5 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 subch. H.
Table 2.1-1
Performance Specifications of CO and
				  O2 Monitors
Parameter
CO monitors
O2 monitors
Low range
High range
Calibration drift 24 hours.
<6 ppm1
<90 ppm
<0.5% 02
Calibration error.
<10 ppm1
<150 ppm
<0.5% 02
Response time.
<2 min
<2min
<2 min
Relative
								accuracy2.
(3)
(3)
(incorporated in CO RA calculation)
1For Tier II, CD and CE are 3% and
				  5% of twice the license limit, respectively.
2Expressed as the sum of the mean
				  absolute value plus the 95% confidence interval of a series of
				  measurements.
3The greater of 10% of PTM or 10
				  ppm.
Table 2.1-1
Performance Specifications of CO and
				  O2 Monitors
CO monitors
O2 monitors (percent)
Low range (ppm)
High range (ppm)
Tier I rolling average format.
200
3,000
25
Tier II rolling average format.
2 x license limit.
3,000
25
2.1.4.2 Daily Calibration Gas Values. The owner or operator
				  shall 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, 3 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 0 and 20% 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% 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% 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% O2 for the
				  O2 analyzer.
2.1.4.3 Data Recorder Scale. The strip chart recorder,
				  computer, or digital recorder shall be capable of recording all readings within
				  the CEMS's measurement range and shall have a resolution of 0.5% of span value,
				  i.e., one ppm CO for low-range CO analyzer, 15 ppm CO for high-range CO
				  analyzer, and 0.1% O2 for the O2
				  analyzer.
2.1.4.4 Response Time. The response time for the CO or
				  O2 monitor may not exceed 2 minutes to achieve 95% of
				  the final stable value.
2.1.4.5 Calibration Drift. The CEMS shall allow the
				  determination of CD at the zero and high-level values. The CD shall be
				  determined separately for CO and O2 monitors in terms of
				  concentration. The CO CEMS calibration response may not drift or deviate from
				  the reference value of the calibration gas (or calibration filters for in-situ
				  systems) by more than 3% 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 may not drift or deviate
				  from the reference value by more than 0.5% 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) shall be no
				  greater than 10% of the mean value of the PTM results or shall be within 10 ppm
				  CO of the PTM results, whichever is less restrictive. The ppm CO concentration
				  shall be corrected to 7% O2 before calculating the
				  RA.
2.1.4.7 Calibration Error. The mean difference between the
				  CEMS and reference values at all 3 test points (see Table 2.1-3) shall be no
				  greater than 5% 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% 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 one-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 shall 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 7
				  consecutive days according to the procedure given in section 2.1.6.1. All CD
				  determinations shall 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 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% 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 7 consecutive days using calibration gases at
				  the 2 (or 3, 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 one 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% 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 3 times and determine
				  the mean upscale and downscale response times. The longer of the 2 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 EPA
				  Protocol 1, incorporated by reference in s.
				  NR
				  660.11, cylinder gases at 3 measurement points within
				  the ranges specified in Table 2.1-3.
Table 2.1-3
Calibration Error Concentration Ranges for Tier
				  I
Measurement point
GAS Concentration Ranges
O2, percent
CO, ppm
Low range1
High range
1
0-40
0-600
0-2
2
60-80
900-1200
8-10
3
140-160
2100-2400
14-16
1For Tier II, the CE
				  specifications for the low-range CO CEMS are 0-20%, 30-40%, and 70-80% of twice
				  the license limit.
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 3
				  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 3 CE results (5 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.
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,
				  incorporated by reference in s.
				  NR
				  660.11 ) 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 3 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 department 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 SO, NO, and CO
				  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 one percent of the applicable measurement range of the
				  analyzer.
2.1.6.4.3 Number of PTM Tests. Conduct a minimum of 9 sets of
				  all necessary PTM tests. If more than 9 sets are conducted, a maximum of 3 sets
				  may be rejected at the tester's discretion. The total number of sets used to
				  determine the RA shall be greater than or equal to 9. All data, including the
				  rejected data, shall 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 one through 4.
2.1.7
Equations
2.1.7.1 Arithmetic Mean (d [BAR]). Calculate - d [BAR] of the
				  difference of a data set using Equation one.
View
				  Image
( iEq. one)
where:
n = Number of data points.
View
				  Image
= Algebraic sum of the individual differences
				  di.
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 S d using Equation 2.
View
				  Image
(Eq. 2)
2.1.7.3 Confidence Coefficient (CC). Calculate the 2.5% error
				  CC (one-tailed) using Equation 3.
View
				  Image
(Eq. 3)
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
a The 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.
View
				  Image
(Eq. 4)
where:
View
				  Image
= Absolute value of the mean of the differences (Equation one
				  ).
View
				  Image
= Absolute value of the confidence coefficient (Equation
				  3).
View
				  Image
= Average reference value.
2.1.7.5 Calibration Error. Calculate CE using Equation
				  5.
View
				  Image
(Eq. 5)
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 shall
				  be functioning properly before the RA requirement can be waived. The
				  instruments shall also have successfully passed the CE and CD requirements of
				  the performance specifications. Substitution of the alternative procedure
				  requires approval of the department.
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 shall
				  establish a QA program to evaluate and monitor CEMS performance. As a minimum,
				  the QA program shall include:
2.1.10.1 A daily calibration check for each monitor. The
				  calibration shall 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 department approval, the adequacy
				  of this alternative procedure may be demonstrated during the initial 7-day CD
				  test. Periodic comparisons of the 2 procedures are suggested.
2.1.10.2 A daily system audit. The audit shall 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 department 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 SO, NO x, CO, O, 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 licenses. 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 maximum concentration that can be measured by a specific
				  instrument. The minimum is often stated or assumed to be 0 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% 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 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
				  one 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 2 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,
				  incorporated by reference in s.
				  NR
				  660.11. 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% 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, incorporated by reference in s.
				  NR
				  660.11. The monitoring system samples sequentially at
				  the reference and traverse points throughout the testing period for 5 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 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 3-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 shall be heated.
2.2.4.1.5 Fuel. The fuel specified by the manufacturer (e.g.,
				  40% hydrogen/60% helium, 40% hydrogen/60% 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% 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 EPA Protocol 1, incorporated by
				  reference in s.
				  NR
				  660.11. 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% 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
				  shall 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 (0 and
				  20% of the span value).
2.2.4.3.2 The high-level concentration shall be between 50
				  and 90 ppm (50 and 90% of the span value).
2.2.4.4 Data Recorder Scale. The strip chart recorder,
				  computer, or digital recorder shall be capable of recording all readings within
				  the CEMS's measurement range and shall have a resolution of 0.5 ppm (0.5% of
				  span value).
2.2.4.5 Response Time. The response time for the CEMS may not
				  exceed 2 minutes to achieve 95% of the final stable value.
2.2.4.6 Calibration Drift. The CEMS shall allow the
				  determination of CD at the zero and high-level values. The CEMS calibration
				  response may not differ by more than ±3 ppm (±3% 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 3 test points listed below shall be no greater
				  than 5 ppm (±5% of the span value).
2.2.4.7.1 Zero Level. Zero to 20 ppm (0 to 20% of span
				  value).
2.2.4.7.2 Mid-Level. 30 to 40 ppm (30 to 40% of span
				  value).
2.2.4.7.3 High-Level. 70 to 80 ppm (70 to 80% 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 one-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 shall 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 7 consecutive days according to the procedure given in section
				  2.2.6.1. All CD determinations shall 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 7 consecutive days using calibration gases at the 2 daily
				  concentration levels specified in section 2.2.4.3. Introduce the 2 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% 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 3 times and determine
				  the mean upscale and downscale response times. The longer of the 2 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 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 EPA Protocol 1,
				  incorporated by reference in s.
				  NR
				  660.11, may be used for this test.
View
				  Image
View
				  Image
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 shall
				  establish a QA program to evaluate and monitor CEMS performance. As a minimum,
				  the QA program shall include:
2.2.9.1 A daily calibration check for each monitor. The
				  calibration shall 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
				  department approval, the adequacy of this alternative procedure may be
				  demonstrated during the initial 7-day CD test. Periodic comparisons of the 2
				  procedures are suggested.
2.2.9.2 A daily system audit. The audit shall 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 department 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%. The gas conditioning system, however, may 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", EPA SW-846, as incorporated by reference in s.
				  NR
				  660.11.
SECTION 4.0 PROCEDURE FOR ESTIMATING THE TOXICITY EQUIVALENCE
				  OF CHLORINATED DIBENZO-P-DIOXIN AND DIBENZOFURAN CONGENERS
PCDDs and PCDFs shall be determined using whichever is the
				  most recent version between SW-846 Method 0023A (incorporated by reference in
				  s.
				  NR
				  660.11 ) as identified, or QAQPS Method 23 in appendix
				  A of 40 CFR part 60. 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.
Note:
1 The 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
				  shall 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, incorporated by reference in s.
				  NR
				  660.11. 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.
Sample calculations are provided in EPA document No.
				  EPA/625/3-89/016, March 1989, incorporated by reference in s.
				  NR
				  660.11.
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
2378-HxCDDs.........................
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.
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,
				  incorporated by reference in s.
				  NR
				  660.11.
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 one and 5 km from the facility. To ensure a sufficient degree of
				  conservatism, the HWCAQSP may not be used if any of the 5 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 department 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, incorporated by reference in s.
				  NR
				  660.11, is required. Detailed site-specific dispersion
				  modeling shall conform to the "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, incorporated by reference in s.
				  NR
				  660.11. 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 coefficients2 based on facility-specific
				  information.
Note:
2 The term dispersion coefficient
				  refers to the change in ambient air concentration (m g/m 
				  3) 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 meteorological 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%, 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].
Steps 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:3
Stack Data:
Stack No. 1
Stack No. 2
Stack No. 3
Physical stack height (m)......
Exhaust temperature (°K) .......
Flow rate
								(m3/sec)
Note:
3 Worksheet space is provided for
				  three stacks. If the facility has additional stacks, copy the form and revise
				  stack identification numbers for 4, 5, etc.
Nearby Building Dimensions
Consider all buildings within 5 building heights or 5 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 3 distance
				  ranges from the facility (not required if the highest stack is less than 10 m
				  in height):
View
				  Image
Distance from facility to nearest shoreline (km) _____
Valley width (km) _____
Step 2: Determine the Applicability of the Screening
				  Procedure
Fill in the following data:
Yes
No
Is the facility in a valley < km in
								width?.
Is the terrain rise within 1 km of the facility
								greater than the physical stack height of the tallest stack? (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 shall
				  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 (m 
				  3/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 may not be greater than the maximum GEP.
				  Maximum and minimum GEP stack heights are defined as follows:
CEP (minimum)=H+(1.5XL)
GEP (maximum)=greater of 65 m or H+(1.5XL)
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 worst-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 the
				  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 may 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 to 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 terrain 
				  4, 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).
Note:
4 The 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 % 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 shall 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 height. 
				  5
Note:
5 Refer 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 (ºK)
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
1EPA, 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, incorporated by
				  reference in s.
				  NR
				  660.11.
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 terrain-rise (m) (see step 1)
=
TAESH(m)
0.0-0.5 ..........
-
=
<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 0 and use generic
				  source number one 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 facility.6
Method Used to Estimate
Visual
Planimeter
Percent Urban Land Use:
--
--
Estimated Percentages.
Urban
Rural
If the urban land use percentage is less than or equal to 30%
				  based on a visual estimate, or 50% based on a planimeter, the local land use is
				  considered rural. Otherwise, the local land use is considered urban.
Classification.
Urban
Rural
(check applicable space).
--
--
Note:
6 The 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.
(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.
Terrain adjusted effective stack height range
								(m)
Distance (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 coefficient. 7
				  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).
Note:
7 For 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). 8 Record the maximum average hourly dispersion coefficient
				  encountered.
Maximum Average Hourly Dispersion Coefficient = _____ (m g/m
				  3/g/sec)
Note:
8 Exclude 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.
(2) For each of the 3 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 3 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
				  (µ/M3)a FOR
				  HAZARDOUS WASTE COMBUSTORS USING URBAN CONDITIONS
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
303.7
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
a Based on a one Gram/Second
				  Emission Rate
TABLE 5.0.5.-ISCST PREDICTED MAXIMUM CONCENTRATIONS
				  (µ/M3)a FOR
				  HAZARDOUS WASTE COMBUSTORS USING URBAN CONDITIONS
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
1002.3
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
a Based on a one 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 0. 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............
<0.5-2.5
Rolling or complex . .
<0.5-2.5
1 Maximum hourly dispersion
				  coefficient times annual/hourly ratio.
Step 8: Estimate Maximum Ambient Air
				  Concentrations
See procedures prescribed in this subchapter.
Step 9: Determine Compliance with Regulatory
				  Limits
See procedures prescribed in this subchapter.
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. 9
Note:
9 Follow 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.
1
GEP stack height (m)
Flow rate
								(m3/sec)
Exit temp (?K)
Plume rise (m)
Effective stack height (m)
2
3
(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:
View
				  Image
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
				  =_____
View
				  Image
If the value above is greater than 10%, the terrain is
				  considered nonflat; proceed to Step 10(D). If the ratio is less than or equal
				  to 10%, 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).
Generic Source Numbers |
Stack No.
1
2
3
-
-
-
(D) Compute the TAESH and select generic source numbers (4
				  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
				  STACK
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 .......
-
-
-
=
-
-
-
-
=
-
-
-
-
=
-
For those stacks where the terrain rise within a distance
				  range is greater than the effective stack height (i.e., HETR is less than 0),
				  the TAESH for that distance range is set equal to 0, and generic source number
				  one 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 one for all distance
				  ranges. 
				  10
Note:
10 This 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
								Needed)
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 3 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).
View
				  Image
View
				  Image
(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 pollutant. 
				  11 Record these data in the spaces
				  provided below. 
				  12
Note:
11 Recall that it is recommended that
				  this analysis be performed for only one or 2 pollutants. The pollutants chosen
				  for this analysis should be those that show the most significant exceedances of
				  the risk threshold.
Note:
12 Refer 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
___________
___________
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 0 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 0, 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 table: 
				  13
Stack No.
Generic source No. steps 10 (C or D) Distance
								ranges (km)
Annual/hourly ratio (from table 5.0-6) Distance
								ranges (km)
1
0-0.5
>0.5-2.5
>2.5-5.0
0-0.5
>0.5-2.5
>2.5-5.0
2
3
13 If 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.
(I) Select the highest annual/hourly ratio among all of the
				  stacks,
14 and then estimate the maximum
				  annual average ambient air concentrations for each pollutant by completing the
				  following table, where:
Note:
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 (m g/m 
				  3) for pollutant "N" from Step
				  10(F),
C a = Maximum annual average air
				  concentration for pollutant "N" (m g/m 
				  3),
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
Ca
								(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 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 this subchapter. 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.
EPA guidance (EPA 1986) 
				  1, incorporated by reference in s.
				  NR
				  660.11, provides 2 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 EPA guidance (EPA 1986 1; Auer 1978
				  2), incorporated by reference in s.
				  NR
				  660.11, 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
Type1
Description
Urban or rural
								designation2
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.
1 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, incorporated by reference in s.
				  NR
				  660.11.
2 Auer, 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
				  topographical 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 (see
				  footnotes 1 and 2 in Table 6.0-1), incorporated by reference in s.
				  NR
				  660.11. 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.
View
				  Image
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 s.
				  NR
				  666.112.
7.1 Comparison of Waste-Derived Residue to Normal
				  Residue
To be eligible for the Bevill exclusion from the definition
				  of hazardous waste under s.
				  NR
				  666.112(2)(a), waste-derived residue
				  may not contain ch. NR 661 Appendix VIII, 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 shall 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, if 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 shall 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 a 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 concentrations, X =
				  X i /n,
K = coefficient for sample size n, 95% confidence and 95%
				  proportion,
S = standard deviation of the normal residue
				  concentrations,
S = (Ó(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 constituent 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 the standard deviation of these measurements,
				  calculated using the above equations, 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
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
				  always 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 (References 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 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 owner or operator 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
				  owner or operator shall provide supporting rationale in the operating record
				  that demonstrates that the data treatment is based upon sound statistical
				  practice.
7.4 Nondetect Values
The department 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 determination described above. Until the
				  guidance information is available, facilities may present their own approach to
				  the handling of nondetect data points, but shall provide supporting rationale
				  in the operating record for consideration by the department.
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
7.5 References
1. Shapiro, S.S. and Wilk, M.B. (1965), "An Analysis of
				  Variance Test for Normality (complete samples)," Biometrika, 52,591-611.
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 license, owners or operators of boilers and
				  industrial furnaces burning hazardous waste shall submit documentation to the
				  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 s.
				  NR
				  666.103(2). This documentation also
				  establishes interim license 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 shall use emissions testing to demonstrate
				  that emissions do not exceed allowable levels, and to establish operating
				  limits (see s.
				  NR
				  666.103(3) ). 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 chorine,
				  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
				  EPA's default values or engineering judgement. EPA's `default values for the
				  APCS RE for metals, HCl, Cl2, and PM are described in
				  this section. 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
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 (%)
APCS
Non - volatile
Metal
Volatility
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
IWS .......
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. Ä p
VS-60 = Venturi Scrubber, ca. >60 in W.G. Ä 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
1 Interpolation of thermal input
				  is not allowed. If a BIF fires between 2 ranges, the APCS temperature under the
				  higher thermal input shall 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
1 Interpolation of thermal input
				  is not allowed. If a BIF fires between two ranges, the APCS temperature under
				  the higher thermal input shall 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% by weight. In the 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 one 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% of
				  the vapor pressure that results in emissions exceeding the most conservative
				  risk-based emissions 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%. 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%. 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.- AIR POLLUTION CONTROL SYSTEMS (APCS) AND THEIR
				  CONSERVATIVELY ESTIMATED EFFICIENCIES FOR REMOVING HYDROGEN CHLORIDE (HCl) AND
				  PARTICULATE MATTER (PM) (%)
apcd
Cement kilns
HCI 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. Ä p
VS-60 = Venturi Scrubber, ca. >60 in W.G. Ä 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, DC, 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 2
				  sources: default assumptions or engineering judgement. The department's default
				  assumptions are discussed below for metals, HCl2, Cl,
				  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, the department is assuming that 100% 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 shall 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%. 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 ratio =0.95, the default partitioning
				  factor is 20% Cl2, 80% HCl.
* For HAFs and for BIFs with a total feed stream
				  chlorine/hydrogen ratio >0.95, the default partitioning factor is 100%
				  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 2
				  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% 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% 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 [for
				  example, 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 (% 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 the
				  department's conservative default assumptions to estimate partitioning and APCS
				  RE values if the engineering judgement is defensible and properly documented.
				  To properly document engineering judgement, the owner/operator shall keep a
				  written record of all assumptions and calculations necessary to justify the
				  APCS RE used. The owner/operator shall provide this record to the department
				  upon request and shall 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% 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 license 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 shall 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 3 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.
(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:
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 s.
				  NR
				  666.106 ), and that particulate emissions are at the
				  particulate matter limit (PML):
View
				  Image
The enrichment factor used in the above equation shall 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):
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)Q02
If EF 99% 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:
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 EF 95%
				  exists, the "violation" dust metal concentration limit is set at 10 times the
				  "conservative" limit:
DMCLv=10XDMCLc
				  (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 s.
				  NR
				  666.103(2) ).
* 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 s.
				  NR
				  666.103(3).
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 3 failures in
				  last 60 tests), the series of tests to determine the enrichment factor shall 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 shall 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 s.
				  NR
				  666.106 ).
* 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
				  limitsassuming PM is pure metal).
* Follow the compliance procedures described in Subsection
				  10.6.
* Follow appropriate guidelines 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 shall be conducted within a 14-day period. No
				  more than 2 tests may be conducted in any single day. If the tests are not
				  completed within a 14-day period, they shall be repeated.
* Simultaneous stack samples and kiln dust samples shall be
				  taken.
- Stack sampling shall be conducted with the multiple metals
				  train according to procedures provided in section 10.3 of this Methods
				  Manual.
- Kiln dust sampling shall be conducted as follows:
- Follow appropriate sampling and analytical procedures such
				  as those described in 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 hazardous waste streams shall 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 10 single (noncomposited) runs are required during
				  the tests.
- The facility shall follow a normal schedule of kiln dust
				  recharging for all of the tests.
- Three of the first 5 tests shall be compliance tests in
				  conformance with s.
				  NR
				  666.103(3); i.e., they shall 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 s.
				  NR
				  666.103(3)(a) ).
- The remainder of the tests need not be conducted under full
				  compliance test conditions; however, the facility shall operate at its
				  compliance test production rate, and it shall 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 shall be
				  established based on these test conditions rather than on the compliance test
				  conditions.
* Verify that compliance emission limits are not
				  exceeded.
- Metal emissions may not exceed Tier III (or Tier II)
				  limits.
- PM emissions may not exceed the most stringent of
				  applicable PM standards (or an optional self-imposed particulate
				  standard).
* The facility shall 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 shall 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%, EF 99%, 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 2 times
				  EF95%,
- Equation 4b if EF95% is determinable
				  and if EF99% is not greater than 2 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 shall 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) shall 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 shall 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 shall 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 shall be used in this calculation.
* Submit certification of compliance.
* Steps 2-4 shall be repeated for recertification, which is
				  required once every 3 years (see s.
				  NR
				  666.103(4) ).
(5) Monitor metal concentrations in kiln dust for continuing
				  compliance, and maintain compliance with all compliance limits for the duration
				  of interim license.
* Metals to be monitored during compliance testing are
				  classified as either "critical" or "noncritical" metals.
- All metals shall 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 shall be monitored on a weekly basis.
- A "noncritical" metal shall 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 s.
				  NR
				  666.103.
* Follow the sampling, compositing, and analytical procedures
				  described in this method and in other appropriate methods, 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 shall be collected at least once every 8 hours, and
				  a daily composite shall be prepared according to appropriate 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 2 or
				  more additional samples. These samples are referred to as the "spare" samples.
				  These additional samples shall be collected over the same time period and
				  according to the same procedures as those used for the "required"
				  sample.
- Samples for "critical" metals shall be daily
				  composites.
- Samples for "noncritical" metals shall 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 shall 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 s.
				  NR
				  666.103.
* 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 license.
* 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 shall conduct quarterly enrichment factor verification
				  tests every 3 months for the duration of interim license. The first quarterly
				  test shall be completed within 3 months of certification (or recertification).
				  Each subsequent quarterly test shall be completed within 3 months of the
				  preceding quarterly test. Failure to meet this schedule is a violation.
* Simultaneous stack samples and kiln dust samples shall 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 3 single (noncomposited) runs are required. These
				  tests need not be conducted under the operating conditions of the initial
				  compliance test; however, the facility shall operate under the following
				  conditions:
- It shall operate at compliance test production rate.
- It shall 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 shall remain in compliance with all compliance
				  parameters (see s.
				  NR
				  666.103(3)(a) ).
- It shall follow a normal schedule of kiln dust
				  recharging.
- It shall 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 3 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 shall 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 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 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 s.
				  NR
				  666.103(3) has occurred. Notify the
				  department 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 department may grant an extension of
				  the hours of hazardous waste burning under s.
				  NR
				  666.103(3)(g) 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 department, 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 3 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 shall
				  be repeated (refer to Step 11).
* This determination is made separately for each metal. For
				  example,
- Three exceedances for each of the 10 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 4 exceedances of any single
				  metal occur in the first 4 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 shall be
				  repeated if: (1) More than 3 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 shall notify the department if these tests
				  shall 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
				  shall reduce the feed rate of the metal in violation by 50%. If the facility
				  has not completed the recertification process within this period, it shall 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 shall continue with daily kiln dust
				  metals monitoring (Step 5) and shall 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 shall 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 s.
				  NR
				  666.103, 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 s.
				  NR
				  666.103(2)(c) ), and that each
				  facility immediately begin to operate under these limits.
These precompliance limits shall ensure that interim license
				  emissions limits for hazardous metals, particulate matter, HCl, and
				  Cl2  are not likely to be exceeded. Determination of the
				  values of the precompliance limits shall be made based on either (1)
				  conservative default assumptions provided 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 s.
				  NR
				  666.106 ).
* 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 appropriate procedures 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
				  shall be calculated from either conservative default values, or engineering
				  judgement.
View
				  Image
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 if the engineering judgement is defensible and properly
				  documented. The facility shall keep a written record of all assumptions and
				  calculations necessary to justify the SEF. The facility shall provide this
				  record to the department upon request and shall 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
				  shall 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 s.
				  NR
				  666.103(2)(c), 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 s.
				  NR
				  666.103(3)(c)2. ) are subject to a
				  special precompliance parameter, however. They shall establish precompliance
				  limits on the maximum concentration of each hazardous metal in collected kiln
				  dust (which shall 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 shall 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 shall be monitored on a weekly basis, at a
				  minimum.
- A "noncritical" metal shall 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 other appropriate methods, as they pertain to
				  the condition and accessibility of the kiln dust.
* Samples shall be collected at least once every 8 hours, and
				  a daily composite prepared according to appropriate 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 2 or
				  more additional samples. These samples are referred to as the "spare" samples.
				  These additional samples shall be collected over the same time period and
				  according to the same procedures as those used for the "required"
				  sample.
- Samples for "critical" metals shall be daily
				  composites.
- Samples for "noncritical" metals shall 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 shall 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 license.
(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 3 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 shall
				  be repeated (refer to Step 11).
* This determination is made separately for each metal; for
				  example:
- Three exceedances for each of the 10 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 4 exceedances of any single
				  metal occur in the first 4 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 precompliance shall be
				  submitted to the department (or certification of compliance shall be submitted)
				  if: (1) More than 3 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 shall notify the department if a revised
				  certification of precompliance shall 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 shall be reduced by 50%.
				  In the case of a revised certification of precompliance, engineering judgement
				  shall 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 shall 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 shall 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:
EF95% = EF + zc
									Ó (1)
where:
View
				  Image
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:
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:
View
				  Image
n-1 or n1 +
								n2-2
t.95
t.99
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
2.72
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
[INFINITY]
1.645
2.33
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
				  2 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:
View
				  Image
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