Guidance on Establishing Monitoring to Comply with CAM and Other Title V Requirements

1. Guidance on Establishing Monitoring to Comply with CAM and Other Title V Requirements A Summary of Technical and Policy Materials Barrett Parker, EPA, OAQPS

2. Presentation Overview • Describe EPA technical guidance documents format and content • Discuss procedures for designing monitoring and establishing indicator ranges • Discuss monitoring design evaluation factors

3. Guidance Documents - Purpose and Scope • Provide general and detailed guidance on the implementation of the Compliance Assurance Monitoring Rule and Other Monitoring Requirements • Describe regulatory requirements and implementation procedures • For industry users and permit reviewers (applicability, requirements, tools, examples) • "Living" documents (will continue to add examples, other information)

4. General Structure and Format • Explanatory chapters • Rule Overview - requirements, procedures • Monitoring elements • Description of monitoring approaches • Technical reference of monitoring tools • Bibliography • Appendices • Example monitoring plans (based on actual case studies)

5. Step-by-step Process Description • Selecting a monitoring approach (guidance includes a work sheet) • Review current procedures • Compare with CAM or PM requirements • Identify potential indicators (control device parameters) • Select reasonable approach • Develop permit application submittal

6. Design Evaluation Factors Monitoring frequency (rule may define continuous monitoring)- general monitoring frequency concerns: • Sufficient to allow calculation over appropriate averaging periods • CAM rule minimum requirements: • Data collection at least 4/hour for large units • Data collection 1/day for other units

7. Design Evaluation Factors Averaging periods: • Sufficient to detect control device or other potential compliance problems • Not so short as to flag minor perturbations as excursions

8. Design Evaluation Factors Level of confidence issues: • Subjective - provides reasonable assurance of proper operation and compliance • Examples of confidence levels for different parameters for range of control measures provided in guidance • Permit application must include justification for selections

9. Design Evaluation Factors Equipment needs - factors to consider • Location and installation logistics • Maintenance and training needs • Cost factors – inherent in source owner’s planning and design

10. Design Evaluation Factors Selecting and justifying indicator ranges - define a basis: • Parameter data collected during testing • Historical data • Design or engineering data • From similar operations

11. Design Evaluation Factors Selecting and justifying indicator ranges: • Type of data (e.g., instrumental or manual) • Frequency • Quantity of data for analysis • Data variability

12. Design Evaluation Factors Selecting and justifying indicator ranges (continued) - performance criteria: • Data measured during compliance test must fall within range • Range must be indicative of good operations and compliance performance • Range must be sensitive to control device changes • Range should account for normal operational variability

13. Design Evaluation Factors Indicator range formats: • Mean value + set value (e.g., + 50 F) • Mean value + percent of mean • Max/min value(s) observed • Max/min + set value • Max/min values + percent of mean • Combination of more than one of above (e.g., if "x" and "y", then excursion)

14. Estimating pre-control emissions Annual emissions = restrictions X emissions rate Post-control Emissions Pre-controlled Emissions Control Device PSEU

15. Determining Emissions Rates • Emissions testing • EPA test methods • Control device inlet and outlet • Mass balance measurements • e.g., VOC from solvents • Chemical reactions • Emissions factors X activities data • Other?

16. Mass balance example: coal-fired boilers • Coal-fired boiler • 9% ash • 12,000 Btu/lb • Calculate precontrol emissions: 0.09 lb ash/lb coal = 7.5 lb/mmBtu 0.012mmBtu/lb coal • Pulv. Coal: 90%suspended ash 6.8 lb/mmBtu • Stoker: 20% suspended ash 1.5 lb/mmBtu

17. Mass balance example: wood working facility Eo Ei source source dust collector Eo = 8 T/Y (measured via source test) Control Eff = 90% Ei = 8 {1/(1 - 90/100)} = 80 T/Y

18. Uncertainty • Emissions testing data • Accurate but short term • Do not represent process upsets • Emissions factors (e.g., AP-42) • Variable from SCC to SCC • Can easily be factor of 2 • Emissions control efficiencies • Higher efficiencies (e.g., >90%) can lead to huge errors in calculating precontrol emissions

19. Part 64 applicability examples

20. Questions? Lunch?