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. 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 (mg/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
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):
Distance from facility to nearest shoreline (km) _____
Valley width (km) _____
Step 2: Determine the Applicability
of the Screening Procedure
Fill in the following data:
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:
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+(1.5´L)
GEP (maximum)=greater of 65 m or H+(1.5´L)
where:
H=height of the building selected in Step 1 measured from ground level elevation at the base of the stack
L=the lesser dimension of the height or projected width of the building selected in Step 1
Record the following data for the 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;
