[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 7 (Monday, January 12, 2004)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 1786-1821]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-5]
[[Page 1785]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Part II
Environmental Protection Agency
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
40 CFR Part 60
Amendments to Standards of Performance for New Stationary Sources;
Monitoring Requirements; Final Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 69 , No. 7 / Monday, January 12, 2004 / Rules
and Regulations
[[Page 1786]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 60
[OAR-2003-0009, FRL-7604-9]
Amendments to Standards of Performance for New Stationary
Sources; Monitoring Requirements
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This action promulgates Performance Specification 11 (PS-11):
Specifications and Test Procedures for Particulate Matter Continuous
Emission Monitoring Systems at Stationary Sources, and Procedure 2:
Quality Assurance (QA) Requirements for Particulate Matter Continuous
Emission Monitoring Systems at Stationary Sources. The PS-11 and QA
Procedure 2 will apply to sources that are required under an applicable
regulation to use particulate matter continuous emission monitoring
systems (PM CEMS) to monitor PM continuously. The PS-11 and Procedure 2
will help to ensure that PM CEMS are installed and operated properly
and produce good quality monitoring data on an ongoing basis.
EFFECTIVE DATE: January 12, 2004.
ADDRESSES: Docket Nos. OAR-2003-0009 and A-2001-10 contain supporting
information used in developing the final rule. The docket is located at
the Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center in the EPA Docket
Center, (EPA/DC), EPA West, Room B102, 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW.,
Washington, DC 20460, telephone (202) 566-1744.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Daniel G. Bivins, Emission
Measurement Center (D205-02), Emissions, Monitoring, and Analysis
Division, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle
Park, North Carolina 27711, telephone number (919) 541-5244, electronic
mail address [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Regulated Entities. The final rule applies to any facility that is
required to install and operate a PM CEMS under any provision of title
40 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). If you have any questions
regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity,
consult the person listed in the preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT section.
Docket. The EPA has established an official public docket for this
action including both Docket ID No. OAR-2003-0009 and Docket ID No. A-
2001-10. The official public docket consists of the documents
specifically referenced in this action, any public comments received,
and other information related to this action. All items may not be
listed under both docket numbers, so interested parties should inspect
both docket numbers to ensure that they have received all materials
relevant to the final rule. Although a part of the official public
docket, the public docket does not include Confidential Business
Information or other information whose disclosure is restricted by
statute. The official public docket is available for public viewing at
the EPA Docket Center (Air Docket), EPA West, Room B-102, 1301
Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC. The EPA Docket Center Public
Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through
Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Reading
Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the Air Docket is
(202) 566-1742.
Electronic Access. Electronic versions of the documents filed under
Docket No. OAR-2003-0009 are available through EPA's electronic public
docket and comment system, EPA Dockets. You may use EPA Dockets at
http://www.epa.gov/edocket/ to submit or view public comments, access
the index of the contents of the official public docket, and access
those documents in the public docket that are available electronically.
Once in the system, select ``search'' and key in the appropriate docket
identification number.
The EPA's policy is that copyrighted material will not be placed in
EPA's electronic public docket but will be available only in printed,
paper form in the official public docket. Although not all docket
materials may be available electronically, you may still access any of
the publicly available docket materials through the docket facility
identified in this document.
Worldwide Web (WWW). In addition to being available in the docket,
an electronic copy of today's document also will be available on the
WWW. Following the Administrator's signature, a copy of this action
will be posted at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg on EPA's Technology
Transfer Network (TTN) policy and guidance page for newly proposed or
promulgated rules. The TTN provides information and technology exchange
in various areas of air pollution control. If more information
regarding the TTN is needed, call the TTN HELP line at (919) 541-5384.
Judicial Review. Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act
(CAA), judicial review of the final rule is available only by filing a
petition for review in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia Circuit by March 12, 2004. Under section 307(d)(7)(B) of the
CAA, only an objection to the final rule that was raised with
reasonable specificity during the period for public comment can be
raised during judicial review. Moreover, under section 307(b)(2) of the
CAA, the requirements established by the final rule may not be
challenged separately in any civil or criminal proceedings brought by
EPA to enforce these requirements.
Outline. The information presented in this preamble is organized as
follows:
I. Introduction
II. Summary of Major Changes Since Proposal
A. Changes to PS-11
B. Changes to Quality Assurance (QA) Procedure 2
III. Summary of Responses to Major Comments
A. General
B. Performance and Applicability of PM CEMS
C. Instrument Selection
D. Isokinetic Sampling
E. Condensible PM
F. Instrument Location
G. Shakedown and Correlation Test Planning Period (CTPP)
H. Correlation Testing
I. Response Range
J. Reference Method Testing
K. Statistical Methods
L. Statistical Criteria
M. Routine Performance Checks
N. Auditing Requirements
O. Extrapolation of Correlation
P. Requirements for Other Types of Monitors
IV. Summary of Impacts
A. What are the impacts of PS-11 and QA Procedure 2?
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review
B. Paperwork Reduction Act
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination with
Indian Tribal Governments
G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children from
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks
H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations that
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
J. Congressional Review Act
I. Introduction
The PS-11, Specifications and Test Procedures for Particulate
Matter Continuous Emission Monitoring Systems at Stationary Sources,
and
[[Page 1787]]
Procedure 2, Quality Assurance Requirements for Particulate Matter
Continuous Emission Monitoring Systems at Stationary Sources, were
first published in the Federal Register on April 19, 1996 (61 FR 17358)
as part of the proposed Hazardous Waste Combustion MACT standard. The
PS-11 and Procedure 2 were published again on December 30, 1997 (62 FR
67788) for public comment on revisions made to these procedures. Since
then, we have continued to learn about the capabilities and performance
of PM CEMS through performing and witnessing field evaluations and
through discussions with our European counterparts.
Additional experience with the procedures of PS-11 and Procedure 2
led us to propose these further revisions, which were published on
December 12, 2001 (66 FR 64176). Today's final rule builds upon that
proposal and reflects the changes we have made to PS-11 and Procedure 2
in response to the additional comments we received on the December 2001
proposal.
II. Summary of Major Changes Since Proposal
A. Changes to PS-11
1. Instrument Selection
Several changes were made to the requirements of PS-11 regarding
the selection of instruments. Sections 4.2 and 6.1(1) of the proposed
PS-11 required owners and operators of affected sources using
extractive PM CEMS to heat the extracted samples of the exhaust gas to
the same temperature specified by the reference method. In the final
PS-11, we are changing this requirement to a recommendation. In Section
4.3, we also changed from a requirement to a recommendation that owners
and operators use a measurement technology that is free from
interferences. In that same section, we deleted the phrase regarding
duct flue gas conditions.
We are no longer requiring in Section 6.1(3) that extractive PM
CEMS used on sources with varying volumetric flow rates maintain
isokinetic sampling. We still recommend isokinetic sampling in such
installations. Furthermore, we changed Section 6.1(3) to allow owners
and operators of extractive PM CEMS in applications with varying flow
rates to use data from similar facilities to demonstrate that
isokinetic sampling is unnecessary. In the proposed PS-11, data from
similar facilities could not be used; only site-specific data could be
used for such demonstrations.
Several changes were made to Section 8.1 of PS-11 regarding
instrument selection. In the proposed PS-11, Section 8.1 stated that
owners or operators must select a PM CEMS that is most appropriate for
the source, considering the source operating conditions. We have
revised the rule to state that owners or operators should select an
appropriate PM CEMS for the source. This change also is reflected in
Sections 2.4(1) and 6.0 of the final rule. We changed from a
requirement to a recommendation in Section 8.1(1)(ii) that extractive
PM CEMS sample at the reference method filter temperature. We also
changed from a requirement to a recommendation in Section 8.1(5) that
owners or operators consult with instrument vendors to obtain basic
recommendations on instrument capabilities and installation.
2. Instrument Location
With respect to stratification, Section 2.4(2) of the proposed PS-
11 recommended performing a PM profile test if PM stratification was
likely to be a problem. In addition, owners or operators would have
been required to relocate the PM CEMS or eliminate stratification if
the stratification varies by more than 10 percent. In the final PS-11,
we have eliminated the reference to profile testing and the requirement
for either relocating the CEMS or resolving the stratification issue.
We also have deleted the requirement from Section 8.2(2) that owners or
operators relocate the CEMS if failure to meet the correlation criteria
is due to a location problem that cannot be corrected.
3. Pretest Preparations
In Section 8.4 of the proposed PS-11, owners and operators of PM
CEMS would have been required to conduct a shakedown period and a
correlation test planning period (CTPP) prior to correlation testing.
Although we continue to recommend that you conduct shakedowns and
CTPPs, the final PS-11 does not require them. Instead of a formal
shakedown period, the final rule recommends that owners and operators
familiarize themselves with the operation of the CEMS prior to
correlation testing. The elimination of shakedown periods also is
reflected in Section 2.4(5) of the final rule, and the requirement
regarding interruption of shakedown periods, specified in Section
8.4(1)(ii) of the proposed rule, has been deleted.
Section 8.4(1)(i) of the proposed PS-11 required owners or
operators to conduct daily drift checks during the shakedown period. In
the final rule, daily drift checks are recommended rather than required
during the pretest preparation period when owners and operators
familiarize themselves with the operation of the CEMS.
With the elimination of CTPPs as a required pretest activity, we
have deleted certain requirements that applied specifically to the
CTPP. For example, we deleted the requirement to produce permanent
records of 15-minute average PM CEMS responses that would have been
required in Section 8.4(2) of the proposed PS-11, as well as the
requirements in Sections 8.4(2)(ii) and (iii) of the proposed rule that
data recorders record PM CEMS responses during the full range of
routine process operating conditions and that owners or operators
establish the relationship between operating conditions and PM CEMS
response. We also have deleted the requirement in Section 8.4(3) of the
proposed PS-11 that owners or operators set the response range of the
PM CEMS so that the highest observed response is within 50 to 60
percent of the maximum output. Instead, the final PS-11 requires owners
and operators to set the response range to whatever range is
appropriate to ensure that the instrument will record the full range of
responses likely during the correlation test. We also have revised
Section 2.2(2) of the final rule to reflect this change.
The proposed PS-11 required owners or operators to perform a 7-day
drift check at the end of the CTPP. Although we have eliminated the
requirement for CTPPs, the final PS-11 still requires owners or
operators to successfully complete a 7-day drift test prior to
correlation testing. We have also revised Section 8.5(1), which
explains the purpose of the 7-day drift test.
4. Correlation Testing
Sections 2.2(2), 2.4(7), and 6.3 of the proposed PS-11 required
correlation testing over the range of emissions established during the
CTPP. Because PS-11 no longer requires CTPPs, we revised these sections
to require correlation testing over the full range of normal process
and control device operating conditions. We also deleted the
requirement in Section 8.6 to conduct correlation testing while the
source is operating as it did during the CTPP.
Sections 2.4(7) and 8.6(1)(i) of the proposed PS-11 would have
required paired sampling trains during all correlation tests. Although
we highly recommend paired sampling trains, PS-11 no longer requires
correlation tests to be performed using paired trains. We also have
deleted from Sections 2.4(7) and 8.6(1)(ii) the requirement that data
pairs meet certain criteria for precision and bias, because those
criteria would
[[Page 1788]]
apply specifically to paired data, and we are no longer requiring
paired trains. We plan to address data precision and bias in guidance
materials at a later date.
Sections 8.2(4) and 8.4(4) of the proposed PS-11 suggested using a
bypass as a means of increasing PM emissions during correlation
testing. In the final PS-11, we have eliminated any reference to
bypassing control devices for this purpose. However, we have included
PM spiking as an option for increasing PM emissions during correlation
tests. We also have revised Section 8.6(5) to clarify how owners or
operators should obtain zero point data during correlation tests.
Finally, we have changed the requirements in Section 8.6(3)
regarding the selection of test runs for developing the correlation. In
the proposed PS-11, owners or operators could reject the results of
test runs only if the basis for rejecting the data was specified in the
reference method, PS-11, QA Procedure 2, or in the facility's QA plan.
In the final PS-11, up to five test runs can be rejected without an
explanation for the rejection, provided that the results of at least 15
valid test runs are used to develop the correlation. If more than five
test runs are rejected, the basis for rejecting those additional runs
(i.e., those in addition to the first five rejected runs) must be
reported.
5. Extrapolation of Correlation
Section 8.8(1) of the proposed PS-11 addressed the limits for
extrapolating the correlation equation before additional correlation
testing would be required. The maximum allowable extrapolation under
the proposed rule would have been 125 percent of the highest PM CEMS
response used to develop the correlation curve. If that 125 percent
limit was exceeded for three consecutive hours, three additional
correlation tests runs would have been required. We have changed the
time period that triggers this additional correlation testing. In the
final PS-11, additional correlation testing is required only after the
125 percent value has been exceeded for 24 consecutive hours, or a
period of cumulative hours that exceeds 5 percent of the total valid
operating hours for the previous 30 days, whichever occurs first. In
addition, we have clarified in Section 8.8(1) of the final PS-11 that
additional testing is required only when the 125 percent limit is
exceeded while the source and control device are operating under normal
conditions. In any case, Section 8.8(3) of the final PS-11 requires
owners and operators to report the reason why the 125 extrapolation
limit was exceeded.
We have revised PS-11 to include a special provision for low
emitting-sources that emit no more than 50 percent of the emission
limit. For such cases, Section 8.8(4) of the final PS-11 allows
extrapolation up to the response value that corresponds to 50 percent
of the emission limit or 125 percent of the highest PM CEMS response
used to develop the correlation curve, whichever is greater. Finally,
in the event additional correlation testing is required, we have
revised Section 8.8(2)(i) of the final PS-11 to extend the deadline for
completing the testing and developing a new correlation equation from
30 to 60 days.
6. Statistical Methods and Criteria
In Section 12.3 of the final PS-11, we have clarified that, if
paired testing is performed, paired reference method data should not be
averaged, but should be treated individually in developing the
correlation. In such cases, at least 15 sets of reference method and PM
CEMS response data are still required, although for each PM CEMS
response there will be two reference method data points, one for each
of the two paired sampling trains.
We also have reorganized and made several other changes to Section
12.3. In the proposed PS-11, three types of correlation models were
addressed: linear, polynomial, and logarithmic. The final rule
specifies procedures for evaluating five types of correlation models;
in addition to the linear, polynomial, and logarithmic models, we have
added procedures for evaluating exponential and power correlation
models. We also have made changes regarding the calculations needed for
evaluating correlation equations. In the proposed PS-11, equations were
presented for calculating confidence and tolerance intervals. For
example, Equation 11-11 of the proposed rule defined the confidence
interval in terms of the quantity [ycirc] +/- CI, where [ycirc] is the
predicted PM concentration, and CI is the confidence interval half
range. However, the confidence interval performance criterion was
presented in terms of the confidence interval half range as a
percentage of the emission limit and not in terms of the confidence
interval itself. Consequently, we have eliminated the requirement to
calculate confidence intervals. For the same reason, we eliminated the
requirement to calculate tolerance intervals. In the final rule, owners
or operators of affected PM CEMS must calculate the confidence interval
half range and tolerance interval half range, but are not required to
calculate the confidence and tolerance intervals.
We also have changed the PM CEMS response values at which the
confidence and tolerance interval half ranges are calculated. In the
proposed PS-11, owners or operators would have been required to
calculate the confidence and tolerance interval half ranges at the
median PM CEMS response (x) values. The preamble to the proposed rule
mistakenly indicated that the confidence and tolerance interval half
ranges are smallest at the median x value. However, that statement is
correct only for exponential and power correlations. In the final PS-
11, the x value for calculating confidence and tolerance interval half
ranges depends on the type of correlation. For linear correlations, the
confidence and tolerance interval half ranges must be calculated at the
mean x value. The confidence and tolerance interval half ranges for
polynomial correlations must be calculated at the x value that
corresponds to the minimum value of the variable delta ([Delta]), which
is defined by Equation 11-25 of the final PS-11. For logarithmic
correlations, the confidence and tolerance interval percentages must be
calculated at the mean of the log-transformed x values. For exponential
and power correlations, the confidence and tolerance interval
percentages must be calculated at the median x and log-transformed x
values, respectively. These x values represent the points at which the
confidence and tolerance intervals are smallest or narrowest. We also
have reflected these changes in Section 2.3 of the final PS-11, which
specifies general correlation data handling requirements, and in
Section 13.2, which specifies the performance criteria for confidence
and tolerance intervals. In addition, we have added a new section 12.4
to the final PS-11 to specify procedures for selecting the best
correlation model.
We deleted the example correlation calculations presented in
Section 18.0 of the proposed PS-11. We will provide example
calculations for all five correlation models in the next revision to
Current Knowledge of Particulate Matter (PM) Continuous Emission
Monitoring, EPA-454/R-00-039 (PM CEMS Knowledge Document), which will
be revised periodically to incorporate additional guidance, example
calculations, and other information that will help in understanding and
complying with PS-11 and QA Procedure 2.
Finally, we have included in Section 13.2 a provision for low-
emitting sources to meet a lower correlation coefficient. In the final
rule, a low-emitting source must meet a minimum correlation coefficient
of 0.75 rather
[[Page 1789]]
than the 0.85 value required for sources that are not low-emitting.
7. Other Changes
Section 2.4(4) of the proposed PS-11 addressed recordkeeping
requirements for PM CEMS maintenance and performance data. We have
deleted this section in the final PS-11 because recordkeeping
requirements are already addressed, in detail, in the general
provisions to parts 60, 61, and 63, and in most, if not all, applicable
rules.
B. Changes to Quality Assurance (QA) Procedure 2
1. Precision and Bias
Sections 10.1(3) and (4) of the proposed QA Procedure 2 specified
precision and bias requirements for paired reference method sampling
trains. Because the final PS-11 does not require paired sampling
trains, we have removed the precision and bias criteria from QA
Procedure 2. For the same reason, we also have deleted Section 12.0(5),
which addressed relative standard deviation, the parameter for
assessing paired data precision.
2. Quality Control (QC) Program
Section 9 of QA Procedure 2 addresses QC measures. We have added
Section 9.0(8) to the final rule to require owners and operators to
include in their QC programs written procedures for checking extractive
duct systems for material accumulation when extractive PM CEMS are
used.
3. System Checks and Audits
We made several changes to Section 10.3 of QA Procedure 2 regarding
periodic audits. To ensure consistency in the organization of the
section, we renumbered some of the paragraphs. We changed the required
frequency of relative response audits (RRAs) from once every four
quarters to the frequency specified in the applicable rule. In
addition, we clarified that an RRA can be substituted for an absolute
accuracy audit (ACA) during any quarter. Likewise, we clarified that a
response correlation audit (RCA) can be substituted for an ACA or an
RRA to satisfy the required auditing frequency. In Section 10.3(2)(iii)
of the final QA Procedure 2, we deleted the requirement that owners and
operators obtain audit samples from instrument manufacturers or
vendors.
We made two changes to the acceptance criteria for RCAs. In Section
10.3(5)(ii) of the proposed QA Procedure 2, we required all 12 of the
PM CEMS responses to fall within the range of PM CEMS responses used to
develop the initial correlation. In the final QA Procedure 2, we
relaxed this requirement somewhat. We still require all 12 PM CEMS
responses to be no greater than the highest response used to develop
the correlation curve. However, in Section 10.4(5) of the final rule,
we allow three of the PM CEMS responses to fall below the range of
responses used to develop the initial correlation curve. We made a
similar change to the acceptance criterion for RRAs. In Section 10.4(6)
of the final rule, the three PM CEMS responses for the RRA must be no
greater than the highest PM CEMS response used to develop the initial
correlation, but one of the three points may fall below that range of
responses used to develop the initial correlation.
Finally, we changed Equation 2-4 of Section 12.0(4), which is used
to determine sample volume audit accuracy. In the proposed QA Procedure
2, we changed the denominator of Equation 2-4 from the sample gas
volume measured by the independent calibrated reference device to the
full scale value.
III. Summary of Responses to Major Comments
A. General
Comment: One commenter stated that EPA's fundamental approach for
PM CEMS is too complex and costly. The commenter noted that the
requirements for PM CEMS place too much emphasis on reporting emissions
in units directly comparable to the emission standard. According to the
commenter, this approach results in a ``research-and-development
effort.'' He noted that EPA's objective should be to establish a
process whereby the owner or operator develops an understanding of how
PM CEMS operate and the relationship among instrument response, process
and control device operating parameters, and emissions. At that point,
the owner/operator can use that information to reduce PM emissions. As
proposed, PS-11 and QA Procedure 2 require such an understanding (by
means of the shakedown and correlation test planning period) as a
precursor to establishing a stringent statistical correlation between
PM CEMS response and emissions. The commenter believes that the
approach should be to use PM CEMS as a relative indicator of emissions
rather than to attempt to achieve a precise correlation between PM
emissions and PM CEMS response over the entire range of source
operations.
Response: The purpose of PM CEMS is to quantify PM emissions as
accurately and precisely as possible to ensure compliance with the
applicable PM emission limits. To meet this objective, we must
incorporate into PS-11 and QA Procedure 2 procedures for ensuring that
PM CEMS are installed, operated, and maintained properly. Although this
necessitates complexity, we have taken steps to minimize the complexity
of PS-11. In the final PS-11, we have simplified or eliminated several
of the requirements specified in the proposed rule regarding instrument
selection and location, correlation test preparation, and correlation
test procedures. We also have reorganized and simplified the
statistical procedures for developing the correlation equation, as well
as incorporating additional flexibility into the types of correlation
models that can be developed. We have published guidance on the
selection and use of PM CEMS in the PM CEMS Knowledge Document, which
may be revised periodically to incorporate additional guidance, example
calculations, and other information that will help in understanding and
complying with PS-11 and QA Procedure 2.
With respect to cost, we believe that the cost of installing and
operating a PM CEMS is relative to the application, and some
applications will be more costly than others. However, we account for
the costs of any required monitoring systems, such as PM CEMS, when we
evaluate the compliance costs for a specific rulemaking that requires
those monitoring systems.
Finally, we would like to point out that PS-11 and QA Procedure 2
do not specify the compliance scenario. Although this rulemaking is
intended to apply to the monitoring of PM emission limits for
compliance purposes, we recognize the advantages of using PM CEMS as an
indicator of compliance for sources subject to 40 CFR 64 (Compliance
Assurance Monitoring Rule) and other applications. Neither PS-11 nor QA
Procedure 2 prohibit the use of PM CEMS as indicators of control device
operation or emission levels. Furthermore, an owner or operator would
not necessarily have to comply with PS-11 or QA Procedure 2 in a case
where a PM CEMS is used as an indicator of control device performance
or emissions.
Comment: One commenter stated that the requirements of PS-11 and QA
Procedure 2 focus primarily on establishing enforcement opportunities
by holding owners and operators responsible for factors that are beyond
their control. To support this contention, the commenter referenced
Section 8.1 of PS-11, which requires owners/operators to select a PM
CEMS
[[Page 1790]]
``* * * that is most appropriate for your source.'' The commenter
believes that, for a specific source, the most appropriate instrument
may not be known until after one or more instruments have been selected
and placed into operation. The commenter also cited Section 2.3 of PS-
11, which addresses situations in which multiple correlations may be
required. The commenter noted that, in both of these examples, the
enforcement action would not depend on whether the control device is
operating properly or emissions are exceeded. Instead, the enforcement
action focuses on the type of instrument selected and the variability
of emissions (which would require multiple correlations).
Response: We agree that some enforcement actions associated with
PS-11 may not necessarily depend on control device operation or
emission levels. However, in this respect, PS-11 is similar to other
performance specifications, such as PS-1, which specify the
requirements that monitoring systems must meet. Individually, some of
those requirements may not be directly related to the operation of a
control device or emission levels, but, as a whole, the requirements
help to ensure the proper operation of the monitoring system and the
quality of the data generated by the monitoring system.
With respect to the requirement of the proposed Section 8.1 of PS-
11 cited by the commenter, we have revised that section to state that
owners and operators ``* * * should select a PM CEMS that is
appropriate. * * * '' We believe this revised language allows for more
flexibility in instrument selection. Although there may still be some
trial and error involved in selecting an instrument, there are several
PM CEMS technologies available, and some instruments clearly are more
appropriate than others for certain applications.
The requirement of Section 2.3 of the proposed rule regarding
multiple correlations is meant to address sources with different
operating modes that result from variations in operating parameters
such as process load, charge rates, or feed materials. In such cases,
there may be significant differences in PM emissions characteristics
for the different source operating modes to the extent that a single
correlation cannot satisfy all of the criteria specified in PS-11. We
also would like to point out that PS-11 allows for, but does not
require, multiple correlations. In the event that multiple correlations
are needed, Section 2.3 simply requires that sufficient data be
collected. By allowing multiple correlations under such a scenario, PS-
11 provides the owner or operator flexibility in complying with the
rule. Therefore, we disagree with the comment that Section 2.3 simply
focuses on establishing enforcement opportunities.
Comment: One commenter observed that several requirements in PS-11
and QA Procedure 2 require adherence to manufacturer's recommendations.
He stated that those recommendations may conflict with regulatory
requirements or good engineering practice. He believes that following
manufacturer's recommendations cannot be a requirement unless EPA
reviews and approves those recommendations. He noted that, regardless
of how well EPA may understand the procedures currently recommended by
existing manufacturers, new manufacturers can enter the market at any
time, and they are not subject to regulation by EPA.
Response: We agree with the commenter and have eliminated those
specific requirements that owners and operators follow the
recommendations of the instrument manufacturer or vendor. We believe
that it is prudent to consider those recommendations, but owners or
operators of affected sources must determine what is most appropriate
for their specific installation.
B. Performance and Applicability of PM CEMS
Comment: Four commenters commented that EPA has not demonstrated
that PM CEMS can meet PS-11 and QA Procedure 2 on a consistent basis.
They noted that sources, such as cement kilns, with low to moderate
condensible PM will have particular difficulty complying with the rule.
In addition, they commented that the basis for EPA's conclusion on the
suitability of PM CEMS is largely from demonstrations and tests
performed on hazardous waste combustors, which are characterized by wet
control systems and exhaust temperatures below the temperature range
within which most condensible matter nucleates. Consequently, those
tests are not representative of cement kilns or other sources for which
condensible PM is a significant concern. They also noted that
condensible PM emissions for the cement industry are dependent on raw
materials and are highly variable, making it less likely that
correlation relationships will remain stable for cement kilns. The
commenters suggested that EPA continue specifying opacity monitors as
the technology for demonstrating compliance with PM emission limits.
Response: Based on the results of the field studies, PS-11 and QA
Procedure 2 have been modified to account for performance issues
discovered during the field studies. For example, regarding the issue
of condensible PM, the proposed rule eliminated the requirement for
correlation testing using only EPA Method 5I. Instead, PS-11 now
specifies that the correlation test be conducted using the same
reference method required by the applicable rule, thereby minimizing
the effects condensible PM could have on PM concentrations when one
method is used to demonstrate compliance and a different method is use
to develop the PM CEMS correlation. To further address concerns with
characterizing exhaust streams that contain condensible PM, we also
have included in PS-11 the recommendation that the PM CEMS be
maintained at the reference method filter temperature. We made this
recommendation because PM CEMS that measure samples at conditions that
are different than the sampling conditions specified in the reference
method may not correlate well with reference method data. Maintaining
the measurement conditions of the PM CEMS at the reference method
filter temperature eliminates one of the factors that can adversely
impact the correlation between PM CEMS responses and reference method
measurements.
Although we did rely on field demonstrations on hazardous waste
combustors to develop the requirements of PS-11, we believe that the PM
CEMS field demonstrations completed to date encompass a range of
operating conditions and emission characteristics that extend beyond
those typical of the hazardous waste combustion industry. We also have
provided guidance on the selection and applicability of PM CEMS. We do
not rule out the possibility that PM CEMS may not be appropriate for
certain source operating conditions or emission characteristics.
However, the purpose of PS-11 and QA Procedure 2 is not to define the
applicability of PM CEMS, but to establish basic requirements that will
help to ensure that PM CEMS produce high-quality data on a consistent
basis. The applicability of PM CEMS to specific sources and source
categories must be established under the applicable rule, and it may be
necessary to incorporate industry-specific criteria in rules that
require the use of PM CEMS for compliance monitoring.
Regarding the use of opacity monitors for demonstrating compliance
with PM emission limits, we believe that opacity monitors are reliable
indicators of
[[Page 1791]]
compliance with opacity limits and we will continue to require
continuous opacity monitoring systems for certain rules that establish
opacity limits. However, for rules that establish PM emission limits,
we believe that PM CEMS are the appropriate technology for compliance
monitoring.
Comment: One commenter remarked that using PM CEMS has not been
demonstrated to be a technically sound compliance method and suggested
additional field testing be performed before PM CEMS are required in a
rulemaking. Another commenter stated that PM CEMS should not be used as
a compliance tool until there is a better understanding of their
operation and limitations. A third commenter stated that EPA's
evaluations do not support EPA's conclusions regarding the reliability
of PM CEMS. The commenter noted that the performance of PM CEMS is
mixed, at best, and instrument operation and calibration is a difficult
and time-consuming task. The same commenter stated that PM CEMS are not
appropriate compliance monitors because, unlike other CEMS, PM CEMS do
not provide a direct measurement of the target pollutant (i.e., PM).
The commenter also remarked that the fact that PM CEMS require a
shakedown period is further indication that PM CEMS are not acceptable
for compliance demonstrations. The commenter noted that shakedowns and
CTPPs are not required for other types of CEMS, such as continuous
nitrogen oxide (NOX) and sulfur dioxide (SO2)
monitors.
Response: We acknowledge that problems have been encountered in our
field studies of PM CEMS. However, we have used the results of those
field studies to modify PS-11 and QA Procedure 2 to account for the
performance issues observed during the studies. For example, we have
made changes that apply to sources characterized by condensible PM and
incorporated procedures for developing other types of correlation
models not previously addressed in PS-11. We agree with the comment
that developing the correlation can be complex and time-consuming. With
regard to the acceptability of PM CEMS for compliance determinations,
the purpose of PS-11 is not to specify how compliance with an
applicable emission limit is to be determined; the purpose of PS-11 is
to specify procedures for obtaining the best correlation for using a PM
CEMS to characterize PM emissions, and to ensure that PM CEMS are
installed and operated properly. The applicability of PM CEMS for
determining compliance with an emission limit, as well as the
procedures for determining compliance using PM CEMS, must be specified
by the applicable rule.
We disagree with the commenter that the proposed requirements for a
shakedown and CTPP are an indication that PM CEMS are unreliable or
inappropriate as a compliance monitor. We proposed requiring a
shakedown and CTTP because PM CEMS are a relatively new technology for
many industries, and many operators are unfamiliar with their
operation. In such cases, a shakedown and CTPP allows time for the
operator and other personnel to become familiar with the operation of
the instrument and to facilitate the correlation test. Although we
still recommend that facilities conduct a shakedown and/or CTPP, we
have eliminated these periods as requirements in PS-11.
Comment: Two commenters stated that PM CEMS technology is not ready
for use by hazardous waste combustors to demonstrate compliance with PM
emission standards. One of the commenters stated that PM CEMS installed
on hazardous waste combustors will result in additional automatic waste
feed cutoffs that are unrelated to the stability of the combustion
process. The other commenter pointed out the difficulties with the PM
CEMS that were tested at the EPA-sponsored field study in Battleboro,
North Carolina; he believes that PM CEMS used to monitor emissions from
commercial incinerators would have even more difficulty because of the
greater variability in feedstocks when compared to the coal-fired
boiler that was tested at Battleboro.
Response: We disagree with the commenters that PM CEMS technology
are unsuitable for use as compliance monitors for the hazardous waste
combustor industry. The DuPont Field Study demonstrated the effective
use of several PM CEMS instruments on a hazardous waste combustor. A
more recent study at the Department of Energy facility in Oak Ridge,
Tennessee, provides another successful demonstration of a PM CEMS on a
hazardous waste incinerator.
We acknowledge that there were some difficulties with the PM CEMS
that were tested during the Battleboro Field Study. However, those
difficulties were primarily the result of the sampling location rather
than variations in emission characteristics or the reliability of the
PM CEMS instruments tested.
Comment: One commenter commented that PM CEMS should not be
required for facilities with low PM levels. He noted that the objective
of protecting human health and the environment can be better achieved
by controlling key operating parameters; installing and maintaining a
PM CEMS on a well-designed and well-operated incinerator would be
costly and difficult without actually reducing emissions. The commenter
suggested allowing facilities to test at worst-case conditions and not
requiring PM CEMS if the source operates consistently at some fraction
of the emission standard (e.g., 40 percent).
Response: The purpose of PS-11 and QA Procedure 2 is not to define
the applicability of PM CEMS, but to establish basic requirements that
will help to ensure that PM CEMS produce high-quality data on a
consistent basis. The applicability of PM CEMS to specific sources and
source categories must be established under the applicable rule.
Therefore, we do not believe it is appropriate to specify in PS-11 the
types of sources to which PS-11 should apply. However, we agree with
the commenter that some provisions should be included in PS-11 for low-
emitting sources because less accuracy and precision are needed in such
applications. To this end, we have incorporated into the final rule a
provision for allowing a greater extrapolation of the correlation curve
and a lower correlation coefficient for sources that emit no more than
50 percent of the emission limit.
Comment: One commenter concluded that PM CEMS are not suitable for
determining compliance, but instead should be used as an indicator of
compliance. To support this conclusion, he pointed to the results of
Battleboro Field Study. He noted that, after having met the criteria
for the initial correlation, all three instruments that were tested
failed to meet the RCA criteria specified in QA Procedure 2. When a
second RCA was performed, all three instruments again failed to meet
the QA Procedure 2 criteria. The commenter also stated that the
Battleboro results demonstrated that different PM CEMS calibrated at
the same time using the same reference method gave different results.
The responses for the two light-scattering instruments tracked each
other well and gave similar results. However, when the results for the
beta gauge instrument were compared to the light-scattering instrument
results, more scatter was seen, indicating differences in how the two
types of instruments respond to varying particle size and/or sampling
location. One instrument could show a source to be in compliance, while
another PM CEMS sampling the same exhaust stream could show the same
[[Page 1792]]
source to be out of compliance. Consequently, the commenter suggested
that PM CEMS be used as an indicator of compliance rather than as a
compliance monitor. He believes that correlation tests should not be
required when a source operates below 40 percent of the emission limit
and below the emission limit minus 10 mg/dscm. Instead, correlation
tests should be optional, provided emission levels remain below these
two levels (i.e., no more than 40 percent of the emission limit and at
least 10 mg/dscm below the emission limit). If testing is performed,
three runs should be adequate. Furthermore, a straight linear
relationship should be used to estimate emissions. The relationship
would be defined by the line from zero to the average of the three test
runs. Additional correlation test runs should be required only if
sustained emission levels exceed the level of the emission limit minus
10 mg/dscm. If additional tests are performed, three runs should be
adequate.
Response: We believe that the problems encountered in the
Battleboro Field Study regarding the failure of the instruments to meet
the RCA criteria were due to the sampling location and the resulting
stratification of the exhaust stream. Other field studies have
demonstrated that PM CEMS can meet the RCA criteria when the sampling
location is not a problem. We believe that the differences in the
responses of the light-scattering and beta gauge instruments can be
expected, given that light-scattering and beta gauge instruments
operate on different physical principles. For a specific application,
the correlation equation developed for each instrument takes into
account these differences.
Regarding the use of PM CEMS data as indicators, PS-11 and QA
Procedure 2 do not prohibit the use of PM CEMS as indicators of control
device performance or emission levels to satisfy the requirements of
part 64. In such applications, the owner or operator of an affected
source can propose the approach for selecting the appropriate indicator
range that would trigger corrective action and reporting.
Finally, although we do not agree with the commenter's specific
suggestions regarding low-emitting sources, we have incorporated into
the final rule provisions for low-emitting sources. Specifically, the
final PS-11 allows for a lower correlation coefficient criterion and a
larger allowable extrapolation range for PM CEMS responses for sources
that emit relatively low levels of PM.
C. Instrument Selection
Comment: Four commenters stated that Sections 4.2 and 6.1(1) of PS-
11 require that PM CEMS installed downstream of a wet air pollution
control device be equipped with heated sample extraction lines.
However, the commenters noted that EPA has not demonstrated that
instruments so equipped can meet the requirements of PS-11 and QA
Procedure 2.
Response: Although we continue to believe that heated sample
extraction lines are recommended in such installations, we have decided
to eliminate this requirement from PS-11. We have no reason to believe
that heated sample lines would prevent PM CEMS from meeting the
requirements of PS-11 and QA Procedure 2. However, we also recognize
that owners and operators are ultimately responsible for compliance and
should have flexibility in determining an appropriate instrument and
configuration for their specific application.
Comment: One commenter pointed out that Section 8.1(1) requires
selection of a PM CEMS that is appropriate for the PM characteristics
and flue gas conditions at the source, but does not specify how owners
or operators of the source are to determine which monitor is acceptable
for their site-specific conditions. The commenter indicated that there
are no EPA-approved tests for determining if PM characteristics are
variable. The commenter also knew of no PM CEMS vendors who would
acknowledge that their instrument was appropriate for variable PM
characteristics or who would guarantee the performance of their
instrument in applications with variable PM characteristics. In
reference to this same requirement, four other commenters stated EPA
has not demonstrated that there are appropriate PM CEMS for sources
with routine variations in particle size distribution. As a result,
industry must conduct instrument-oriented research to find the
appropriate monitor. One commenter also remarked that there might not
be an instrument available that ``responds appropriately'' to the flue
gas conditions for a specific source.
Response: In response to this concern, we have decided to change
the wording of this section of PS-11 from a requirement to a
recommendation that owners and operators select a PM CEMS that is
appropriate for the source and emission characteristics. As mentioned
previously, guidance on instrument selection can be found in the PM
CEMS Knowledge Document. We believe that document can be a valuable
tool in selecting an appropriate PM CEMS technology for a specific type
of source. As we become aware of additional information that will help
in selecting the appropriate PM CEMS technology, we plan to update the
guidance accordingly.
D. Isokinetic Sampling
Comment: Four commenters stated that, by requiring extractive
instruments to sample isokinetically, PS-11 would preclude the use of
several instruments that sample superisokinetically. Designing an
instrument to sample superisokinetically enables the instrument to
handle larger changes in flow rate without having to adjust
continuously to maintain isokinetic sampling. The commenters pointed
out that the error due to superisokinetic sampling is accounted for
during instrument calibration. One of the commenters explained that,
when a sample is extracted subisokinetically, the sampling system
collects additional large particles, resulting in a response that is
biased high. However, when sampling is superisokinetic, the response is
biased low because a portion of the larger particles bypass the probe.
When sampling at 150 percent isokinetic, as do the instruments
manufactured by the commenter's company, the error that results from a
10 percent change in volumetric flow rate amounts to 4 percent.
Furthermore, if the particle size distribution in the gas stream is
relatively constant, the correlation equation accounts for this error.
Another commenter pointed out that the error due to superisokinetic
sampling is smaller for gas streams that have smaller sized particles,
as is characteristic of most current emission control technologies. The
commenter also noted that field studies on hazardous waste combustors
have demonstrated that extractive PM CEMS that sample isokinetically
continuously try to compensate for flow rate fluctuations and have
trouble reaching steady state. Finally, six commenters supported the
requirement for isokinetic sampling specified in PS-11. One of the
commenters pointed out that the effect of nonisokinetic sampling was
evident at a field study conducted by the Electric Power Research
Institute; after the sampling system was adjusted to sample
isokinetically, the performance of the instrument changed
significantly. He noted that the argument for allowing nonisokinetic
sampling is based on the assumption that particle size and size
distribution remain constant, but he believes that the particle size
distribution does not remain constant,
[[Page 1793]]
regardless of the air pollution control device used.
Response: We agree with the commenters that, provided that PM size
is relatively small and particle size distribution does not change
significantly, the correlation would account for any significant errors
that might result from sampling above isokinetic conditions. However,
we continue to believe that isokinetic sampling is necessary when those
particle size conditions are not met. Consequently, we have decided to
modify the requirements for isokinetic sampling. In the proposed PS-11,
Section 6.1(3) allowed a waiver of the requirement for isokinetic
sampling if the owner or operator provided site-specific data that show
that isokinetic sampling is unnecessary. We have revised this provision
to allow the use of data from other similar installations to
demonstrate that isokinetic sampling is not warranted. In the event
that data from a similar installation are not available, the owner or
operator would have to provide site-specific data that demonstrate why
it would not be necessary to sample isokinetically. We plan to address
this issue more comprehensively in the PM CEMS Knowledge Document.
Comment: Two commenters agreed with the provision in Section 6.1(3)
of PS-11 that waives the isokinetic sampling requirement for extractive
PM CEMS if the owner or operator provides site-specific data that show
that isokinetic sampling is not necessary. However, four commenters
commented that this provision in PS-11 was too vague. Two commenters
suggested that isokinetic sampling should not be a requirement if the
resulting error is less than a specified amount (e.g., less than 10 or
20 percent). Another commenter stated that PS-11 should allow for an
owner or operator to conduct a particle size distribution test, and, if
the data indicate that the particle sizes are within certain limits,
isokinetic sampling should not be required. Another commenter stated
that isokinetic sampling should not be required for instruments with
proven sampling systems. One commenter indicated that subisokinetic
sampling should be allowed without having to demonstrate that there is
no significant bias in the response. Four commenters suggested that the
provision for allowing site-specific approval of nonisokinetic
extractive instruments be revised to allow consideration for particle
size distribution. If the owner or operator could demonstrate that 90
percent of the PM mass is less than 10 micrometers in aerodynamic
diameter, nonisokinetic sampling would be allowed.
Response: As stated in our previous response to the issue of
isokinetic sampling, we have modified PS-11 to allow owners or
operators to use data from a similar installation to demonstrate that
isokinetic sampling is unnecessary. We appreciate the commenters'
suggestions for how this demonstration of acceptability can be
accomplished (e.g., by showing the resulting error is less than some
specified amount, or by using particle size distribution data).
However, we want to avoid being overly prescriptive in what owners and
operators can do to satisfy this requirement. Therefore, we have
decided against providing specifics on this demonstration of
acceptability for instruments that do not sample isokinetically.
However, we plan to provide additional information on this issue in the
PM CEMS Knowledge Document.
E. Condensible PM
Comment: One commenter supported the requirement, specified in
Section 8.1(i) of PS-11, that extractive PM CEMS must sample at the
reference method temperature. The commenter stated that sampling at the
reference method temperature eliminates the possibility of creating or
destroying PM and eliminates the introduction of bias into the
correlation procedure and PM CEMS measurements. However, six commenters
stated that this requirement will preclude the use of all extractive
light-scattering instruments. They pointed out that these instruments
typically sample at 160[deg]C (320[deg]F) to ensure that acid compounds
are in the gaseous phase. When the sampling temperature is 120[deg]C
(248[deg]F), as required by EPA Method 5, sulfuric acid can be present
as a mist. According to the reference method, this mist is collected on
the reference method sample filter, which is dried prior to weighing.
Light-scattering instruments detect this acid mist as PM, resulting in
a response that is biased high when compared to the reference method.
One of the commenters suggested allowing the owner, operator, or
equipment supplier to set the sampling temperature. Another commenter
stated that the correlation will account for interferences, such as
those due to the presence of condensible PM or entrained water. Another
commenter suggested that, instead of mandating that the sampling
temperature be the same as the reference method temperature, PS-11
should note the temperature difference as a potential source of error
that must be addressed if there is too much scatter in the PM CEMS
response data.
Response: After reviewing the comments we received on condensible
PM, we have decided to eliminate the requirement that extractive PM
CEMS sample at the reference method filter temperature. Sampling at
temperatures other than the reference method filter temperature is
acceptable provided that all of the correlation criteria are satisfied.
We continue to recommend sampling at the reference method filter
temperature because sampling at other temperatures may affect the
ability to develop a correlation that satisfies all of the criteria
specified in PS-11.
F. Instrument Location
Comment: Several commenters submitted comments on Sections 2.4(2)
and 8.2 of PS-11, which concern PM CEMS installation location. One
commenter expressed support for these requirements. The commenter
specifically supported the requirement for a PM profile test to
evaluate PM stratification and suggested that the profile test be
incorporated into the shakedown period. However, he indicated that the
profile should not include the first and last traverse points, which
are closest to the duct walls, because other factors influence the flow
rate at those locations, and the probe for the PM CEMS will likely be
located near the center of the duct. Another commenter found the
requirements of Section 2.4(2) to be too prescriptive. The commenter
suggested that we remove from PS-11 the requirements for selecting the
location of the instrument based on a stratification test. The
commenter believes that instrument location should be addressed in
guidance and not in the rule itself. Two commenters pointed out that PM
stratification and PM profile tests are not defined in PS-11, and they
were unaware of any standard tests for stratification. One of the
commenters also stated that EPA Method 5 may not have the accuracy to
meet the 10 percent stratification limit. The same commenter cited an
example of a PM CEMS installation that achieved a successful
correlation without satisfying the stratification requirement; the
situation could occur where a source would be forced to relocate the PM
CEMS because it failed the stratification test, even though the data
indicated acceptable correlation. Another commenter stated that the 10
percent stratification limit is too stringent; the commenter suggested
increasing the limit to 20 percent. One commenter questioned how EPA
could enforce requirements to relocate a PM CEMS
[[Page 1794]]
based on an optional test performed according to unspecified
procedures. Four commenters commented that elimination of
stratification may not be feasible for some sources.
Response: Based on our observations made during the Battleboro and
Wisconsin Electric Power Company Pleasant Prairie Field Studies, we
have concluded that stratification can have a significant adverse
effect on the correlation of a PM CEMS. We also agree that additional
clarification is needed regarding the issue of stratification and that
the proper place for that information is in guidance. Consequently, we
have decided to eliminate the requirement in Section 2.4(2) of PS-11
that the PM CEMS be relocated or the stratification condition
eliminated, if stratification varies by more than 10 percent. We plan
to address this issue more comprehensively in the PM CEMS Knowledge
Document, including a definition of stratification, procedures for
evaluating stratification (e.g., profile testing), and steps that can
be taken when stratification is likely to be a problem.
G. Shakedown and Correlation Test Planning Period (CTPP)
Comment: One commenter voiced support for preliminary testing,
which is recommended in Section 8.4(4) of PS-11, and suggested that
such testing remain a recommendation and not a requirement. Another
commenter agreed that preliminary reference method testing should be a
recommendation, but pointed out that the specific language in PS-11 is
too vague. Three commenters suggested that preliminary testing be
incorporated into guidance and not be a requirement of PS-11. Although
PS-11 does not require preliminary reference method testing, one
commenter believes that Section II (A)(16) of the preamble to the
December 2001 proposal implies that preliminary testing is required.
Response: In the proposed PS-11, preliminary testing is a
recommendation and not a requirement. We continue to believe that
preliminary testing is advisable as a means of ensuring that the
objectives of correlation testing are achieved. We agree that
additional guidance on preliminary testing would be useful, and we plan
to incorporate such guidance in later revisions of the PM CEMS
Knowledge Document.
Comment: Sections 8.2(4) and 8.4(4) of PS-11 suggested the use of
bypasses as a means of achieving higher PM emissions during the CTPP;
however, four commenters noted that the use of a bypass is prohibited
in some jurisdictions.
Response: We agree with the commenters that the use of a bypass may
not be appropriate or allowed for certain installations. Therefore, we
have revised Sections 8.2(4) and 8.4(4) to eliminate the suggestion
that sources bypass air pollution control devices as a means of
achieving higher emission levels during correlation testing. It was not
our intent to require or suggest any actions that would be in violation
of existing emission standards and other applicable requirements.
Comment: One commenter agreed with the concept of a shakedown
period but stated that it should not be a requirement of PS-11 because,
as owners and operators gain experience with PM CEMS, shakedown periods
will no longer be necessary.
Response: We agree that operating PM CEMS for a shakedown period
should be a recommendation and not a requirement, and we have revised
PS-11 accordingly. We believe that shakedown periods are advisable and
continue to recommend them, particularly for facilities with little or
no experience in operating and maintaining PM CEMS. Owners and
operators can benefit greatly by using a shakedown period, but
experienced users may not feel the need to do so. In such cases, we
believe a shakedown period may not be necessary.
Comment: Three commenters stated that the CTPP should be a
recommendation rather than a requirement. One of the commenters
believes that CTPPs will no longer be necessary once owners and
operators gain experience with PM CEMS. Another commenter supported the
requirement for the CTPP and agrees that the time frame for the CTPP
should not be specified. The commenter noted that each installation is
different and requires an initial period of instrument operating time
to characterize potential emissions. The CTPP allows the operator time
to become familiar with instrument operation.
Response: As is the case for the shakedown period, we urge owners
and operators of PM CEMS to implement a CTPP to help ensure that the
correlation tests are performed in a manner that allows development of
a correlation over the full range of source operating conditions.
However, we also recognize that those with experience with PM CEMS and
familiar with their operation under various source operating conditions
may not need to implement a CTPP. For this reason, we have decided to
delete from PS-11 the requirement for a CTPP. We continue to believe
that owners and operators will benefit from a CTPP and recommend that
all owners and operators of PM CEMS give serious consideration to
conducting a CTPP before correlation testing.
Comment: Eight commenters objected to the requirement in Section
8.4(2) of PS-11 that PM CEMS data recorded during the CTPP be kept as a
permanent record. Some of these commenters pointed out that keeping the
data as a permanent record is unnecessary because the data cannot be
used for compliance purposes. One of the commenters indicated that this
requirement is contrary to EPA's initiatives on reduced paperwork and
burden. Another of the commenters believes that PS-11 should only
require keeping the PM CEMS response range recorded during the CTPP as
a permanent record. Six of the commenters believe that PS-11 should
explicitly state that CTPP data cannot be used for compliance purposes.
As proposed, they believe the recordkeeping requirements specified in
PS-11 for the CTPP make owners and operators vulnerable to enforcement
action. Three of the commenters questioned the need to record the CTPP
data in 15-minute averages. One commenter stated that this requirement
could create circumstances in which it would be difficult to recreate
the same conditions at a later date if the data only were in 15-minute
averages. The commenter also noted that problems could arise for
extractive instruments with different cycle times. In the case of a
beta gauge instrument with a 15-minute cycle time, a 15-minute
``average'' would consist of a single measurement. He suggested that
facilities be allowed to keep the data in the form that best suits
their needs. One commenter supported the requirement for 15-minute data
averages during the CTPP. The commenter believes that calculating 15-
minute averages of PM CEMS data is no more difficult than determining
15-minute averages for gas or flow monitors. These monitoring systems
can average the data over whatever period is required.
Response: Because PS-11 no longer requires a CTPP, requirements
concerning CTPP data recordkeeping also have been deleted from PS-11.
As a result, we believe that the comments concerning the requirements
for making a permanent record of CTPP data and recording data as 15-
minute averages are no longer relevant. This change does not
necessarily preclude the use of CTPP data for compliance purposes if a
facility decides to conduct a CTPP. We do not expect this issue to be a
problem
[[Page 1795]]
because CTPP data would be generated prior to the initial compliance
determination and before the quality of the data has been determined.
However, the purpose of PS-11 is to specify performance criteria and
not to define what is and what is not credible evidence. Therefore, we
disagree that PS-11 should state that CTPP data cannot be used for
compliance purposes.
Comment: One commenter suggested that PS-11 allow PM spiking as a
means of increasing the response during the CTPP. He noted that spiking
can provide a controlled increase to instrument response without
disrupting the process. Spiking also allows owners and operators to
correlate PM CEMS at concentrations that approximate the emission
limit. He pointed out that the methods suggested in Section 8.6(4)(i)
of PS-11 for increasing PM emissions led to difficulties during EPA-
sponsored demonstration tests, and there are no such problems when PM
spiking is used.
Response: We concur with the commenter that PM spiking can be an
acceptable option for increasing PM concentrations. Although we are no
longer requiring a CTPP, owners or operators of PM CEMS will still have
the option of conducting a CTPP. For such cases, we have indicated in
Section 8.6(4) of PS-11 that PM spiking can be used to simulate
increased PM concentrations during the CTPP. In addition, we have
revised PS-11 to indicate that PM spiking is an acceptable manner for
varying PM concentrations during correlation testing.
H. Correlation Testing
Comment: Five commenters expressed support for the increased
flexibility in the proposed three levels of PM emissions during the
correlation test specified in Section 8.6(4)(iii) and (5) of PS-11.
However, four of the commenters believe this section of the proposed
PS-11 implies that there is greater control over PM emissions than
there actually is for some sources. Two commenters pointed out that,
with light-scattering instruments, the response can change with changes
in the waste feed, making it difficult to reproduce the same response
during correlation testing. The commenters suggested rewording Section
8.6(5) of PS-11 to allow performing correlation testing at whatever
range of PM concentrations the PM CEMS recorded during the CTPP.
Response: Because we are no longer requiring a CTPP, this comment
is largely moot. However, we have revised Section 8.6(5) of PS-11 to
state that, in the event that the three distinct levels of PM
concentrations cannot be achieved, owners or operators of affected PM
CEMS must perform correlation testing over the maximum range of PM
concentrations that is practical for that specific installation. We
believe that this change addresses the commenters' concerns on this
issue.
Comment: One commenter suggested that PS-11 allow for PM spiking as
a means of increasing the response during the correlation testing. He
noted that spiking can provide a controlled increase to instrument
response without disrupting the process.
Response: We concur with the commenter that PM spiking can be an
acceptable option for increasing PM concentrations during the
correlation test, and we have revised Section 8.6(4)(i) of PS-11 to
reflect that change.
I. Response Range
Comment: Five commenters objected to the requirement of Section
8.4(3) of PS-11, which requires owners and operators to set the
instrument response range ``* * * such that its output is within 50 to
60 percent of its maximum output (e.g., 12 to 13.6 mA on a 4 to 20 mA
output) when your source is operating at the conditions that were
previously observed to produce the highest PM CEMS output.'' The
commenters pointed out that the resolution capabilities of current
technology make this requirement unnecessary. In addition, allowing the
instrument to operate below this 50 to 60 percent range at some
installations allows more room for spikes and provides better
measurement of low PM concentrations. The commenters believe that
setting the response range at 50 to 60 percent of its maximum output
should be a recommendation rather than a requirement in PS-11. One of
the commenters pointed out that there are no such requirements for
other types of CEMS. Another of the commenters suggested using
preliminary testing and extrapolation to set the maximum instrument
response at 1.1 to 1.2 times the emission limit to ensure that the
emission limit lies within the response range of the instrument.
Response: After considering the comments on this issue, we have
decided to eliminate the requirement to set the response range at a
specified percentage of the maximum PM CEMS output. Instead, PS-11 now
requires that owners or operators set the response range at whatever
level is necessary to ensure that the instrument measures the full
range of responses that correspond to the range of source operating
conditions that owners or operators will implement during correlation
testing.
J. Reference Method Testing
Comment: Ten commenters supported the change to allow facilities to
use test methods other than EPA Method 5I for the correlation test.
However, four commenters believe that sources subject to 40 CFR 63,
subparts LLL and EEE, should be able to use EPA Method 17 for
correlation testing instead of EPA Method 5, as required by subparts
LLL and EEE. The commenters pointed out that EPA Method 5, which is the
reference method specified in subparts LLL and EEE, creates a
disincentive for light-scattering instruments because of the problems
associated with measuring condensible PM. The same commenters also
stated that using EPA Method 17 reduces QA problems associated with
onsite sample analysis. One commenter suggested that EPA Method 5I be
recommended for low emission levels.
Response: We maintain that it is essential that correlation testing
be performed using the same reference method that is required by the
applicable regulation, as specified in Section 8.6(1) of PS-11, to help
ensure that the correlation is based on emission concentration
measurements that are consistent with the emission standard units and
sampling method. However, we have eliminated the requirement that
extractive PM CEMS sample at the reference method filter temperature.
In doing so, we believe we have addressed the concern raised by the
commenters about using EPA Method 5. Section 12.4(4) of the final PS-11
also allows owners or operators of affected PM CEMS to petition us for
alternative regression models or other solutions in the event that
correlation test results cannot be modeled to satisfy the performance
criteria for correlation coefficient, tolerance interval half range, or
confidence interval half range specified in Section 13.2 of PS-11.
We agree with the commenter that Method 5I may be a more
appropriate test method for sources with low emission levels. Although
PS-11 does not require the use of Method 5I, the method is available to
any owner or operator that chooses to use it.
Comment: Ten commenters agreed with the requirement for paired
reference method trains. However, two of the commenters believe that
other techniques to improve correlation testing also should be allowed,
subject to approval by the Administrator. One of the commenters
suggested that PS-11 allow an approach similar to that used in Europe
for light-scattering
[[Page 1796]]
instruments, whereby reference method test runs are shorter in duration
with higher flow rates. The commenter explained that this approach
generates more data points in a shorter time frame, resulting in less
scatter and improved correlations.
Response: We believe that it is essential that correlation testing
be performed using the same reference method that is required by the
applicable regulation, as specified in Section 8.6(1) of PS-11, to help
ensure that the correlation is based on emission concentration
measurements that are consistent with the emission standard units and
sampling method. However, in the event that an acceptable correlation
cannot be achieved using the reference method specified in the
applicable regulation, Section 12.4(4) of PS-11 allows owners or
operators of affected PM CEMS to petition us to allow alternative
regression models or other solutions. We also recognize that paired
reference method sampling trains may not be necessary for obtaining
representative PM data for certain sources. Consequently, we have
revised PS-11 to indicate that paired sampling trains are highly
recommended, but not required.
We disagree with the implication that collecting more data points
necessarily results in less scatter in the data and improved
correlations. If the data are not collected in a manner that is
consistent with the reference method measurements, the additional data
may result in a correlation that is less representative of actual
emissions. Therefore, we do not concur with the suggestion to allow
correlation tests to be conducted with shorter test runs at higher flow
rates.
Comment: One commenter stated that the criteria for rejecting data
based on the calculation of the RSD may be too restrictive. Another
commenter expressed concern that applying the RSD criteria to paired
data might result in valid data being rejected. If the source of error
cannot be identified, either the data should be retained or the
analysis should be performed both with and without the suspect data. He
pointed out that, in the event that valid data are rejected, the
correlation equation cannot properly characterize emissions. He also
requested an explanation for the basis for the RSD criteria so that the
criteria could be applied to test data for other pollutants.
Response: We agree that data should not be rejected solely on the
basis of a statistical criterion. The sources of error should be
investigated in all cases. Outlying or extreme data points may be the
result of transcription errors, data-coding errors, measurement system
problems, and so forth. In the absence of such errors, outlying data
may simply be an indication that the variability in the data is larger
than expected, and we recommend keeping the data. Based on these and
other comments on the proposed rule, we have decided to revise the
requirements of PS-11 with respect to reference method precision. In
the final PS-11, owners and operators would still be required to
complete a minimum of 15 valid test runs, but can discard the results
of up to five test runs. It is not necessary to provide an explanation
for why the five discarded runs are rejected. We continue to believe
that the RSD, as defined in the proposed rule, should be considered
when deciding which test runs are to be included in the final data set.
If the RSD for any data pair is excessive, we recommend that the data
be investigated to determine the reason for the lack of precision. We
are no longer requiring that the data be screened based on the RSD.
However, we plan to provide additional information on calculating the
RSD in guidance.
Comment: Four commenters stated that paired data should be used as
two discrete data points and not averaged into a single value per test
run.
Response: We agree that, when determining the regression relation,
the individual data points should be used rather than the average of
the data pairs, and we have revised Section 12.3 of PS-11 to state that
paired data, when collected, should not be averaged. Although one
obtains the same regression coefficients (e.g., slope and intercept)
using either approach, a few results are different: (1) The degrees of
freedom will increase when using all of the data points as discrete
values; (2) the standard error of the slope and of the intercept will
be different, which in turn will affect the width of the confidence
intervals for the predicted mean PM concentration (y value) for a given
response (x value); and (3) the square of the correlation coefficient
(r\2\ value), a measure of how well the line fits the data, will
change. Combined, these results could have an effect on the statistical
significance of the regression relation in either direction. Using the
average of the data points will reduce the scatter of the data,
potentially increasing the r\2\ value, but will decrease the degrees of
freedom and therefore increase the standard error of the intercept and
slope estimates. On the other hand, using all the data points could
yield more precise estimates of the slope and intercept at the cost of
a smaller r\2\ value.
Comment: Five commenters supported the criteria to determine
whether the reference method data are biased. Another commenter
believes that the slope criteria for identifying biased data may be too
restrictive. The same commenter suggests using other statistical
parameters, such as the t-test for evaluating the bias.
Response: As is the case for paired data precision, we have decided
that reference method data bias can be addressed more appropriately in
guidance due to the complexity of the procedures for evaluating data
bias and the need for multiple examples. Consequently, we have
eliminated from Sections 8.6(1) and 7 of PS-11 and from Sections 2.1(3)
and 10.1 of QA Procedure 2 the requirement for checking data for bias.
With respect to the comment about using other statistical
parameters to check for bias, we have concluded that a more appropriate
statistic for determining bias is the 95 percent confidence interval
for the slope. The confidence interval is a more widely accepted
statistic for comparing the slopes of two regression lines. We plan to
provide in the next revision to the PM CEMS Knowledge Document example
calculations for checking the reference method data slope for bias.
Comment: One commenter pointed out that the criteria for
determining data bias consider only the slope of the correlation line.
However, both the slope and the intercept must be considered when
determining if the data are biased.
Response: We agree with the commenter that the intercept must also
be considered in the determination of data bias. The slope, or
correlation coefficient, if different from 1, may exhibit a systematic
difference between the two paired sampling trains. However, a
statistically significant intercept (i.e., different from 0) would
indicate an offset, or bias, that will not affect the slope. Although
we have eliminated the requirements for checking reference method data
for bias, we plan to include in guidance materials a procedure for
checking the intercept for bias, using the 95 percent confidence
interval for the intercept of the line. If the interval contains zero,
it can be said with 95 percent confidence that the intercept is not
statistically different from zero. An intercept significantly different
from 0 would be an indication of a systematic offset between the two
paired sampling trains, in addition to the systematic difference as
defined by the slope of the regression line. We intend to provide
example calculations for checking the reference
[[Page 1797]]
method data slope for bias in the next revision to the PM CEMS
Knowledge Document.
K. Statistical Methods
Comment: One commenter stated that the term confidence interval
applies to the bounds within which one would predict the correlation
line to fall. For this reason, the entire line should be considered and
not simply the value of the confidence interval at a single point, as
specified in Equations 11-10 and 11-33 of PS-11. The commenter believes
the multiplier +/- (2F2, n-2, 0.05) should be used instead
of the multiplier +/- t0.05 in the confidence interval
equations. For 15 pairs of data, using the +/-
(2F2, n-2, 0.05) multiplier results in a difference of 29
percent at the 0.05 significance level. The commenter further noted
that it is unclear whether PM CEMS would satisfy the acceptability
criteria of PS-11 when the correct equation is used.
Response: We agree that the definition of confidence interval in
Section 3.4 of the PS-11 is inconsistent with Equations 11-10 and 11-33
of the proposed PS-11. These equations represent confidence intervals
for the predicted true mean concentration (y value) for any given PM
CEMS response (x value). The commenter is discussing simultaneous
confidence curves for the whole regression over its entire range. In
this case, the commenter would be correct to replace the t-statistic
with the F-statistic. Requiring the entire line to fall within these
confidence bands would be a more stringent requirement than what is
required by Equations 11-10 and 11-33 for a given value of x. In the
final PS-11, we have replaced the definition of confidence interval
with that of confidence interval half range, which is the parameter on
which the correlation performance criterion is based. We believe the
new definition is consistent with the equations presented in the final
PS-11 for calculating this parameters. We also believe the definition
clarifies the issue raised by the commenter.
Comment: One commenter commented that the statistical methodology
specified in PS-11 should also address residuals. He pointed out that,
for the example data sets presented in Section 18 of PS-11, the pattern
of data violates the fundamental assumption of homogeneity of the
linear model. This violation becomes apparent when considering the
residuals. He also noted that there is no such violation for the log-
log correlation model. Therefore, the example problem should have
concluded that the log-log correlation model is better than the linear
model.
Response: We agree that residuals, which are the difference between
the observed and predicted concentrations (y values), should be plotted
in all regression analyses. However, we believe that residuals are best
addressed in guidance materials rather than in PS-11. Therefore, we
have decided against incorporating in the final PS-11 requirements for
examining residuals. However, we intend to provide example problems and
additional information on how to examine residuals in the PM CEMS
Knowledge Document when it is next revised.
Comment: One commenter opposes the elimination of the provision
that allowed for alternative ``nonlinear'' correlation equations. In
view of the wide range of waste types processed by hazardous waste
combustors and the variations in how PM CEMS respond to varying
particle characteristics, it is important to allow alternative
calibration equations that are nonlinear. In such cases, the owner or
operator could provide the additional correlation test data to support
such a nonlinear correlation equation.
Response: Section 12.4(4) of the final PS-11 allows for owners or
operators of affected PM CEMS to petition us for alternative regression
models or other solutions in the event that correlation test results
cannot be modeled to satisfy the performance criteria for correlation
coefficient, tolerance interval half range, or confidence interval half
range specified in Section 13.2 of PS-11. We also have addressed
additional correlation models (i.e., exponential and power
correlations) in the final rule. We believe these provisions satisfy
the commenter's concern by allowing for the consideration of nonlinear
models that may be more appropriate for a specific installation.
Comment: One commenter suggested that PS-11 should require linear
regressions only and eliminate the criterion for a minimum correlation
coefficient. He noted that sources with a narrow range of emissions
will have particular difficulty in satisfying the correlation criteria.
In such cases, the correlation could become invalid if the response
range extrapolation limit (i.e., 125 percent of the highest response)
is exceeded, even though the source could still be in compliance with
the emission limit. The commenter suggested an alternative approach of
allowing a single point correlation with the correlation line passing
through zero, or a least-squares regression line if a range of data is
available. The slope of the line could be adjusted to account for
variability or uncertainty in the test method or source operation.
Response: We disagree with the commenter that linear regressions
are universally adequate. A straight-line regression does not always
provide the best fit to the data, and we disagree that, in cases where
the data exhibit a polynomial relationship, an acceptable correlation
can be achieved by adjusting the slope of the regression line. In such
cases, a second-order polynomial or a log transformation must be
investigated. If the fit from such models is only marginally better
than a linear model, then the linear model would be adequate, provided
the residuals do not exhibit patterns.
L. Statistical Criteria
Comment: Five commenters disagreed with specifying limits on the
correlation coefficient, confidence interval, and tolerance interval.
The commenters generally preferred the approach used in Europe, which
is to determine an allowable variability or uncertainty that is then
added to the emission limit. Sources are in compliance if their PM CEMS
indicates that emissions are within the sum of the emission limit plus
the allowable variability. The commenters noted that, as proposed, PS-
11 and QA Procedure 2 will be a disincentive for using PM CEMS because
of the complexity of the statistical procedures required.
Response: We agree with the commenter that PM CEMS compliance
limits must account for the variability and uncertainty in the data,
and we believe that the requirements for the correlation coefficient,
confidence interval half range, and tolerance interval half range
specified in the final PS-11 account for the variability and
uncertainty in the data. The primary difference between the approach
described by the commenters and the approach established in PS-11 is
that the commenters' approach assumes that the uncertainty in PM CEMS
response is one-sided, that PM CEMS invariably overestimate actual PM
concentrations. Within the level of uncertainty, a high PM CEMS
response that would otherwise indicate an exceedance of the emission
limit is considered acceptable, once this uncertainty is subtracted
from the instrument response. In our approach, we assume that there is
uncertainty in both directions; PM CEMS responses can overestimate or
underestimate actual PM concentrations. Just as a high PM CEMS response
can be an overestimate of PM concentrations, our approach also accounts
for situations in which the PM CEMS response indicates emissions are
below the limit when an exceedance actually has occurred. Consequently,
we
[[Page 1798]]
believe our approach is more appropriate for compliance monitoring. On
the other hand, the requirements in PS-11 do not disallow the approach
described by the commenters, provided that the applicable rule allows
for such an approach.
Comment: Nine commenters commented specifically on the reduction of
the correlation coefficient from 0.90 to 0.85. Many of these commenters
believe that relaxing the correlation coefficient criterion allows PM
CEMS to be less accurate and is an admission that PM CEMS are
inappropriate for compliance. One of the commenters stated that the
correlation coefficient of 0.85 is evidence that the response of PM
CEMS is highly variable and unreliable. Five of the commenters stated
that the revised correlation criteria increase imprecision. One of the
commenters concluded that the revised criteria ensure that defective
technology will not be rejected by PS-11. The same commenter also
believes that the tolerance interval criterion allows for too much
uncertainty. Several of these commenters suggested that PS-11 should
require PM CEMS to meet the International Standards Organization (ISO)
correlation coefficient limit of 0.95. Two of the commenters stated
that reducing the correlation coefficient forces a facility to operate
even further below the emission limit to account for the increased
uncertainty in the instrument. One commenter pointed out that the
proposed rulemaking does not address the uncertainty inherent in
requiring a lower correlation coefficient. One other commenter
requested decreasing the correlation coefficient to 0.7, as is the
practice in Germany.
Response: We agree with the commenters that the reduction in the
required minimum correlation coefficient value allows for more
variability in the data, and that was our intent in changing this
requirement. However, we do not agree that this change in the
correlation coefficient criterion is an indication that PM CEMS are
unreliable. We also point out that variability in correlation data can
be accounted for in the applicable rule. If appropriate for specific
types of sources, a higher minimum correlation coefficient can be
specified.
M. Routine Performance Checks
Comment: Three commenters oppose specifying routine checks in PS-11
and QA Procedure 2. They believe that the facility should decide how
best to maintain its instruments. One of the commenters suggested that
QA procedure 2 should require facilities to prepare a site-specific
inspection and maintenance program that would address all of the
components of their PM-CEMS. Although another commenter did not object
to the routine checks specified in QA Procedure 2, he suggested that
owners and operators be given the option of deciding which checks are
appropriate for their installation. The same commenter objected to any
requirements for daily checks. He noted that weekly or monthly checks
may be adequate for certain components of the system. He believes the
frequency of these checks should also be left up to the facility to
determine. One commenter noted that photometric instruments generally
require less frequent checks than do beta gauge instruments.
Response: Although we recognize the importance of allowing
flexibility in how facilities maintain their PM CEMS, we believe that
it is necessary to check instrument operation on a daily basis to
ensure that data quality is maintained. We also would like to point out
that daily checks are required for other types of CEMS under QA
Procedure 1. Owners and operators who believe that daily checks are not
necessary have the option of applying for alternative monitoring under
Sec. 63.8(f) of the General Provisions to part 63.
Comment: Four commenters stated that Sections 4.2(1) and (2) of PS-
11 imply that there should be routine checks for particle formation in
extractive duct systems and for material accumulation in extractive
duct systems. However, the procedures for performing these checks are
unclear.
Response: We agree with the commenters that procedures for checking
extractive duct systems are not addressed in PS-11 or QA Procedure 2.
Consequently, we have revised Section 9.0 of QA Procedure 2, which
addresses the requirements of quality control (QC) programs for PM
CEMS. We have added paragraph 9.0(8) to require owners and operators of
affected sources to include in their QC programs written procedures for
checking extractive duct systems for material accumulation. Rather than
specify in PS-11 or QA Procedure 2 the required procedures for checking
extractive ducts, we believe that the owners and operators should
determine the most appropriate methods for accomplishing this.
Comment: One commenter stated that several PM CEMS on the market
eliminate the need for daily zero and upscale drift checks, and QA
Procedure 2 should make some allowance for such instruments. If the
facility can show that the instruments remain stable over long periods
of time, daily drift checks should not be required. He pointed out that
FTIR instruments used for compliance are not required to perform
automatic zero and upscale drift checks. Another commenter also stated
that daily drift checks are not needed for certain types of
instruments. He suggested allowing facilities to establish the
appropriate frequency for drift checks during the shakedown period. The
same commenter also submitted data from a demonstration project to
support his argument.
Response: We believe that it is necessary to check instrument
operation on a daily basis to ensure that data quality is maintained.
Requiring daily checks also is consistent with QA Procedure 1. Owners
and operators who believe that daily checks are not necessary have the
option of applying for alternative monitoring under Sec. 63.8(f) of
the General Provisions to part 63.
Comment: One commenter suggested that the daily sample volume drift
check required in Section 10.2(5) for extractive PM CEMS be expressed
as either of the following:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR12JA04.000
or
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR12JA04.001
where
SVD = sample volume drift.
He noted that the purpose of drift checks is to measure stability
rather than accuracy. Therefore, the calculation method must depend on
a value that does not change with time, rather than depending on the
expected value. He stated that the output from a flow monitor used in
an extractive instrument can deviate from the expected value over time.
If different reference values are used, it is more appropriate to use
the monitor's full scale or span value in the denominator of the
equation.
Response: We agree with the commenter that using the suggested
expression will provide more consistency in the calculation of sample
volume drift. Therefore, we have revised Equation 2-4 of the proposed
QA Procedure 2 accordingly. The revised equation is as follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR12JA04.002
where
VR = the expected response;
VM = the actual response; and
FS = the full scale value.
[[Page 1799]]
N. Auditing Requirements
Comment: Three commenters commented that the requirement in Section
10.3 of QA Procedure 2 for relative response audits is unnecessary.
They believe that, if source operating conditions do not change, the
correlation should not change. Two other commenters suggested that
relative response audits be required only if the source is operating
near the emission limit. Four commenters commented that there is
insufficient information for determining the necessary frequency of
relative response audits.
Response: In the proposed QA Procedure 2, relative response audits
were required every four calendar quarters. We continue to believe that
these audits should be performed at least annually as a means of
ensuring that correlations remain valid. Based on our field studies, we
have concluded that changes in emission characteristics, which may not
be apparent to the operator, may result in correlations that are no
longer reliable. Relative response audits are a simple means of
checking the validity of the correlation. However, we also believe that
it is more appropriate to specify the frequency of relative response
audits in the applicable rule than in QA Procedure 2. Therefore, we
have revised Section 10.3 of QA Procedure 2 to indicate that relative
response audits must be conducted at the frequency specified in the
applicable rule. The section also has been revised to indicate a
recommended frequency of at least once per year.
Comment: Four commenters supported the acceptance criterion
specified in Section 10.4(6) of QA Procedure 2 that at least two of
three data points must fall within the tolerance interval. However,
they pointed out that QA Procedure 2 does not specify the allowable
time for completing a successful relative response audit in the event
of a failed relative response audit.
Response: The commenters are correct in that QA Procedure 2 does
not specify a time frame for completing a relative response audit
successfully following a failed audit. However, following a failed
relative response audit, PM CEMS are considered to be out of control.
Until a successful relative response audit is completed, the data
recorded by the PM CEMS are not considered valid and cannot be counted
toward data availability. Consequently, the data availability
requirements specified in the applicable rule help to ensure that
successful relative response audits are completed in a timely manner.
Comment: Six commenters supported the increased flexibility in the
audit point ranges for absolute correlation audits, as specified in
Section 10.3(2) of QA Procedure 2. However, one of the commenters
believes that absolute correlation audits should be required only if
the source is operating near the emission limit (within 10 percent of
the emission limit for more than 70 percent of the operating data).
Four of the commenters concluded that there are insufficient data to
determine the necessary frequency for absolute correlation audits.
Response: We believe that it is necessary to characterize
instrument drift periodically, and quarterly absolute correlation
audits provide the mechanism for accomplishing this objective.
Requiring quarterly absolute correlation audits is analogous to the
requirement of quarterly gas audits for other types of CEMS.
Consequently, we have decided against changing the requirement for
quarterly absolute correlation audits.
Comment: Six commenters supported the requirement for sample volume
audits. However, four of the commenters had reservations about some of
the specifics of the sample volume audit requirements. They believe
sample volume audits need only be performed annually, rather than
quarterly as specified in Section 10.3 of QA Procedure 2. The same four
commenters believe that the 5 percent limitation specified in Section
10.4(4) of QA Procedure 2 is too stringent. They pointed out that the
accuracy of EPA Methods 2, 3, and 4 are not within this 5 percent
limit. Finally, they stated that PM CEMS should not be considered out
of control if the instrument reads higher than actual sample flow rates
because, in such cases, the instrument would indicate that emissions
were higher than they actually were.
Response: Accurate sample volume measurements are critical for
extractive PM CEMS; otherwise, emission concentrations cannot be
properly characterized. Therefore, we believe it is appropriate to
require sample volume audits every quarter. Regarding the acceptance
criterion, the data we obtained during our field studies demonstrate
that extractive instruments can meet the 5 percent limit. In the
absence of data that indicate otherwise, we believe the 5 percent
acceptance criterion is appropriate.
Comment: Six commenters expressed support for the increased
flexibility in the requirements for response correlation audits, as
specified in Section 10.4(5) of QA Procedure 2. Two of the commenters
believe that the procedure should be revised to require that all 12
data points fall below the maximum of the PM CEMS output range
established during the correlation test, rather than within that output
range. Four of the commenters stated that requiring all 12 data points
to fall within the output range established during correlation testing
is unnecessarily stringent; they suggested that QA Procedure 2 allow
for one of the data points to fall below the output range for the
correlation test.
Response: We agree with the commenters that PM CEMS responses that
fall below the range of the responses used to develop the correlation
curve are less critical than responses that fall above the correlation
curve response range. However, we believe that the majority of PM CEMS
responses should occur within the range of PM CEMS responses that were
used to develop the correlation curve. Consequently, we have revised
Section 10.4(5) of QA Procedure 2 to require that all 12 data points
fall below the maximum PM CEMS response used to develop the correlation
curve, and 9 of the 12 points fall within the range of PM CEMS
responses used to develop the correlation curve. This change provides
additional flexibility for sources with relatively low PM emissions
concentrations.
Comment: Four commenters stated that response correlation audits
should be required no more frequently than once every 5 years unless
the source fails the relative response audit.
Response: We believe that the required frequency of response
correlation audits should depend on source operation and emission
characteristics. Consequently, we continue to believe that it is
appropriate for the frequency of response correlation audits to be
specified in the applicable regulation or operating permit, rather than
in QA Procedure 2. Although it may be appropriate for some sources to
perform response correlation audits once every 5 years, as the
commenters suggested, more frequent audits may be appropriate for other
sources. Therefore, we have decided against revising QA Procedure 2 to
specify a required frequency for response correlation audits, as
suggested by the commenters.
O. Extrapolation of Correlation
Comment: Nine commenters oppose the limits on PM CEMS extrapolation
to 3 consecutive hours in excess of 125 percent of the highest response
used to develop the correlation curve before additional correlation
testing is required, as specified in Section 8.8(1) of the proposed PS-
11. Four of the
[[Page 1800]]
commenters suggested that additional flexibility be allowed for sources
that operate well below the emission limit. Although one of the
commenters stated that he generally agreed with this requirement, he
had reservations about some of the specific requirements. One commenter
suggested that the basis for requiring additional correlation testing
should be the proximity of emissions to the emission limit rather than
the exceedance of the correlation test response range. He suggested
that additional testing be required only for situations in which the
source persistently operates close to the emission limit when it had
previously operated well below the emission limit. Four commenters
found the provisions regarding exceedances of 125 percent of the
correlation range to be too vague and suggested revising the section to
not require additional testing in cases where the three hourly averages
exceeding 125 percent of the highest PM CEMS response occur only
infrequently.
Response: We agree with the commenters that the 125 percent limit
on extrapolation of the correlation equation should not apply to
sources that operate well below the emission limit. We have revised
Section 8.8(1) of PS-11 to allow sources that operate below 50 percent
of the emission limit to extrapolate up to 50 percent of the emission
limit or 125 percent of the highest PM CEMS response used in developing
the correlation, whichever results in a higher PM concentration.
Comment: Regarding the requirement in Section 8.8(1) of PS-11 for
additional correlation testing, two commenters indicated that, even if
the facility begins corrective action immediately, it may take more
than 3 hours to correct the problem. Four commenters stated that, when
a 3-hour exceedance occurs, it is typically due to an unusual event
that is difficult to reproduce. The same four commenters believe that
three consecutive hourly averages do not constitute a pattern and that
it could be difficult to re-create a high PM event for additional
correlation testing. Two of the commenters suggested allowing the
facility to make the determination as to whether such an event was
routine or unusual.
Response: We agree with the commenters that PS-11 should allow more
time before additional correlation testing is required following a PM
CEMS response in excess of 125 percent of the highest response used to
develop the correlation curve. We have revised Section 8.8(1) of PS-11
to increase the time period that triggers additional correlation
testing from 3 consecutive hours to 24 consecutive hours or 5 percent
of the valid operating hours for the previous 30-day period, whichever
occurs first. We believe that 24 hours is a reasonable length of time
for source operators to be alerted of the event, determine the cause,
identify the corrective action needed, and complete the corrective
action. We included the 5 percent criterion to address recurring
problems or events that individually may not last 24 consecutive hours,
but nonetheless represent a change in operation or emissions
characteristics that must be accounted for by the PM CEMS correlation.
We have also included in Section 8.8(4) of the final rule a
requirement that the owner or operator of an affected PM CEMS report
the reason for the higher PM responses. In that report, that owner or
operator must specify if the higher responses resulted from normal
operation or from an atypical event. We believe this provision
addresses the comment about the facility making the determination of
whether or not the higher PM CEMS responses were due to normal
operation.
Comment: Five commenters commented that 30 days is inadequate for
setting up and conducting a test following an exceedance that is more
than 125 percent of the response range for the correlation test. Two of
the commenters believe that PS-11 should allow up to 60 days to conduct
additional correlation tests, and one of the commenters believes up to
120 days should be allowed for testing in such cases.
Response: We agree with the commenters that 30 days is inadequate
for scheduling and conducting additional correlation tests and
developing a revised correlation. We recognize that scheduling an
emission test and bringing the testing contractor on site can take
several weeks; the test itself may last several days for setup,
testing, and breakdown; analyzing samples, compiling the data, and
performing emissions calculations typically take several days; and
developing the revised correlation also may require several days.
Consequently, we have revised QA Procedure 2 to allow 60 days to
complete these activities. We believe that 60 days is a reasonable
length of time for completing all of the activities needed to develop a
revised correlation curve.
P. Requirements for Other Types of Monitors
Comment: One commenter commented that PS-11 requires additional
monitoring systems to satisfy the requirement that emissions are
recorded in the same units as the emission standard, but does not
address performance requirements for those supplemental monitoring
systems. He noted that the emission limit in 40 CFR part 63, subpart
LLL, is specified in units of pounds per ton of clinker. To report PM
emissions in these units requires converting PM emission concentrations
and clinker production rates to units of mass per unit time, and, to do
so requires monitoring exhaust gas flow rates and production mass flow
rates. However, there currently are no performance specifications or QA
procedures for either type of monitoring system. The commenter also
stated that measurement error and uncertainty in these supplemental
monitoring systems will influence the error and uncertainty in the
emission data that are reported.
Response: We recognize the need for performance specifications and
QA procedures that address continuous parameter monitoring systems
(CPMS). We are currently developing these specifications and procedures
and expect to propose them in the near future. The performance
specifications and QA procedures for CPMS would apply to all sources
subject to a part 63 rule that requires continuous parameter
monitoring.
IV. Summary of Impacts
A. What Are the Impacts of PS-11 and QA Procedure 2?
The PS-11 and QA Procedure 2 will apply only to PM CEMS that are
required under an applicable rule. Rules, such as PS-11 and QA
Procedure 2 that establish performance specifications and QA
requirements, impose no costs independent from the emission standards
that require their use, and such costs are fully reflected in the
regulatory impact assessments for those emission standards. Likewise,
the other impacts associated with the monitoring requirements specified
in PS-11 and QA Procedure 2 are already addressed under the applicable
emission standards as they are proposed and promulgated. Consequently,
we have concluded that no separate estimate of the impacts is warranted
for this rulemaking.
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review
Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), EPA
must determine whether the regulatory action is ``significant'' and,
therefore, subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) and the requirements of the Executive Order. The Executive
[[Page 1801]]
Order defines ``significant regulatory action'' as one that is likely
to result in a rule that may:
(1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or
adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the
economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public
health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or
communities;
(2) Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an
action taken or planned by another agency;
(3) Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants,
user fees, or loan programs, or the rights and obligation of recipients
thereof; or
(4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal
mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in
the Executive Order.
Pursuant to the terms of Executive Order 12866, it has been
determined that this rule is not a ``significant regulatory action''
because none of the listed criteria applies to this action.
Consequently, this action was not submitted to OMB for review under
Executive Order 12866.
B. Paperwork Reduction Act
This final rule does not contain any information collection
requirements subject to the Office of Management and Budget review
under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. The
recording, recordkeeping, and information collection requirements
associated with PS-11 and QA Procedure 2 have already been accounted
for under the applicable regulations that require the use of PM CEMS.
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
The RFA generally requires an agency to prepare a regulatory
flexibility analysis for any rule subject to notice and comment
rulemaking requirements under the Administrative Procedure Act, or any
other statute, unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have
a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities. Small entities include small businesses, small organizations,
and small governmental jurisdictions.
For purposes of assessing the impacts of today's rule on small
entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A small business as defined
by the Small Business Administrations' regulations at 13 CFR 121.201;
(2) a small governmental jurisdiction that is a government of a city,
county, town, school district or special district with a population of
less than 50,000; and (3) a small organization that is any not-for-
profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is not
dominant in its field.
After considering the economic impacts of today's final rule on
small entities, I certify that this action will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This final
rule will establish performance specifications and QA requirements and
will not impose any costs. Likewise, the other impacts associated with
the monitoring requirements specified in PS-11 and QA Procedure 2 are
already addressed under the applicable emission standards as they are
proposed and promulgated. Consequently, we have concluded that no
separate estimate of the impacts is warranted for this rulemaking.
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public
Law No. 104-4, establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess
the effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal
governments and the private sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, EPA
generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost-benefit
analysis, for proposed and final rules with ``Federal mandates'' that
may result in expenditures by State, local, and tribal governments, in
the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more in any
1 year. Before promulgating an EPA rule for which a written statement
is needed, section 205 of the UMRA generally requires EPA to identify
and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives and adopt
the least costly, most cost-effective, or least burdensome alternative
that achieves the objectives of the rule. The provisions of section 205
do not apply when they are inconsistent with applicable law. Moreover,
section 205 allows EPA to adopt an alternative other than the least
costly, most cost-effective, or least burdensome alternative if the
Administrator publishes with the final rule an explanation why that
alternative was not adopted. Before EPA establishes any regulatory
requirements that may significantly or uniquely affect small
governments, including tribal governments, it must have developed under
section 203 of the UMRA a small government agency plan. The plan must
provide for notifying potentially affected small governments, enabling
officials of affected small governments to have meaningful and timely
input in the development of EPA's regulatory proposals with significant
Federal intergovernmental mandates, and informing, educating, and
advising small governments on compliance with the regulatory
requirements.
The EPA has determined that today's final rule does not contain a
Federal mandate that may result in expenditures of $100 million or more
for State, local, and tribal governments in the aggregate, or the
private sector in any 1 year. Rules establishing performance
specifications and quality assurance requirements impose no costs
independent from national emission standards which require their use,
and such costs are fully reflected in the regulatory impact assessment
for those emission standards. We have also determined that this final
rule does not significantly or uniquely impact small governments.
Therefore, the requirements of the Unfunded Mandates Act do not apply
to this action.
E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
Executive Order 13132, entitled ``Federalism'' (64 FR 43255, August
10, 1999), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure
``meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the
development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.''
``Policies that have federalism implications'' is defined in the
Executive Order to include regulations that have ``substantial direct
effects on the States, on the relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various levels of government.''
The final rule does not have federalism implications. It will not
have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship
between the national government and the States, or on the distribution
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government,
as specified in Executive Order 13132. The requirements of PS-11 and QA
Procedure 2 are addressed under the applicable emission standards that
require the use of PM CEMS. Thus, the requirements of section 6 of the
Executive Order do not apply to this final rule.
F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments
Executive Order 13175, entitled ``Consultation and Coordination
with Indian Tribal Governments'' (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000),
requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful
and timely input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory
policies that have tribal implications.'' The final rule does not
[[Page 1802]]
have tribal implications. It will not have substantial direct effects
on tribal governments, on the relationship between the Federal
government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities between the Federal government and Indian tribes, as
specified in Executive Order 13175. The requirements of PS-11 and QA
Procedure 2 are addressed under the applicable emission standards that
require the use of PM CEMS. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply
to the final rule.
G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks
Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) applies to any
rule that: (1) Is determined to be ``economically significant'' as
defined under Executive Order 12866, and (2) concerns an environmental
health or safety risk that EPA has reason to believe may have a
disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action meets
both criteria, EPA must evaluate the environmental health or safety
effects of the planned rule on children, and explain why the planned
rule is preferable to other potentially effective and reasonably
feasible alternatives that EPA considered.
The EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying only to those
regulatory actions that are based on health or safety risks, such that
the analysis required under section 5-501 of the Executive Order has
the potential to influence the regulation. Today's final rule is not
subject to Executive Order 13045 because this rule does not establish
an environmental standard intended to mitigate health or safety risks.
Furthermore, the final rule has been determined not to be
``economically significant'' as defined under Executive Order 12866.
H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
Today's final rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR
28355, May 22, 2001) because it is not a significant regulatory action
under Executive Order 12866.
I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act (NTTAA) of 1995 (Public Law No. 104-113; 15 U.S.C. 272 note)
directs the EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in their
regulatory and procurement activities unless to do so would be
inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary
consensus standards are technical standards (e.g., materials
specifications, test methods, sampling procedures, business practices)
developed or adopted by one or more voluntary consensus standards
bodies. The NTTAA directs EPA to provide Congress, through annual
reports to the OMB, with explanations when an agency does not use
available and applicable voluntary consensus standards.
During this rulemaking, we searched for voluntary consensus
standards that might be applicable. An International Organization for
Standardization (ISO) standard, number 10155, Stationary source
emissions--Automated monitoring of mass concentrations of particles--
Performance characteristics, test methods and specifications, was
applicable. The use of the ISO 10155 was found to be inadequate to
fulfill the performance specification needs for our compliance
monitoring. The use of ISO 10155 would be impractical because:
(1) The number of test runs for a correlation test, 9, was
insufficient for a comprehensive statistical evaluation of the PM CEMS
correlation.
(2) The PM concentration ranges required for a correlation test
were too vague.
(3) The measurement location for the PM CEMS and RM were vague.
(4) The correlation coefficient limit of greater than 0.95 was too
stringent for most of the PM CEMS correlations we evaluated.
Also, ISO 10155 lacks quality assurance and quality control
procedures.
J. Congressional Review Act
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. The EPA will submit a report containing the rule and
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until March 12, 2004. This action is not a ``major rule''
as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 60
Environmental protection, Air Pollution Control, Continuous
emission monitoring; Performance specification; Particulate matter.
Dated: December 23, 2003.
Michael O. Leavitt,
Administrator.
0
For the reasons stated in the preamble, title 40, chapter I, part 60 of
the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:
0
1. The authority citation for part 60 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401, et seq.
0
2. Appendix B of Part 60 is amended by adding Performance Specification
11 to read as follows:
Appendix B of Part 60--Performance Specifications
* * * * *
PERFORMANCE SPECIFICATION 11--Specifications and Test Procedures for
Particulate Matter Continuous Emission Monitoring Systems at Stationary
Sources
1.0 What Are the Purpose and Applicability of Performance Specification
11?
The purpose of Performance Specification 11 (PS-11) is to establish
the initial installation and performance procedures that are required
for evaluating the acceptability of a particulate matter (PM)
continuous emission monitoring system (CEMS); it is not to evaluate the
ongoing performance of your PM CEMS over an extended period of time,
nor to identify specific calibration techniques and auxiliary
procedures to assess CEMS performance. You will find procedures for
evaluating the ongoing performance of a PM CEMS in Procedure 2 of
Appendix F--Quality Assurance Requirements for Particulate Matter
Continuous Emission Monitoring Systems Used at Stationary Sources.
1.1 Under what conditions does PS-11 apply to my PM CEMS? The PS-11
applies to your PM CEMS if you are required by any provision of Title
40 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) to install and operate PM
CEMS.
1.2 When must I comply with PS-11? You must comply with PS-11 when
directed by the applicable rule that requires you to install and
operate a PM CEMS.
1.3 What other monitoring must I perform? To report your PM
emissions in units of the emission standard, you may need to monitor
additional parameters to correct the PM concentration reported by your
PM
[[Page 1803]]
CEMS. Your CEMS may include the components listed in paragraphs (1)
through (3) of this section:
(1) A diluent monitor (i.e., O2, CO2, or
other CEMS specified in the applicable regulation), which must meet its
own performance specifications (also found in this appendix),
(2) Auxiliary monitoring equipment to allow measurement,
determination, or input of the flue gas temperature, pressure, moisture
content, and/or dry volume of stack effluent sampled, and
(3) An automatic sampling system. The performance of your PM CEMS
and the establishment of its correlation to manual reference method
measurements must be determined in units of mass concentration as
measured by your PM CEMS (e.g., milligrams per actual cubic meter (mg/
acm) or milligrams per dry standard cubic meter (mg/dscm)).
2.0 What Are the Basic Requirements of PS-11?
The PS-11 requires you to perform initial installation and
calibration procedures that confirm the acceptability of your CEMS when
it is installed and placed into operation. You must develop a site-
specific correlation of your PM CEMS response against manual
gravimetric reference method measurements (including those made using
EPA Methods 5, 5I, or 17).
2.1 What types of PM CEMS technologies are covered? Several
different types of PM CEMS technologies (e.g., light scattering, Beta
attenuation, etc.) can be designed with in-situ or extractive sample
gas handling systems. Each PM CEMS technology and sample gas handling
technology has certain site-specific advantages. You should select and
install a PM CEMS that is appropriate for the flue gas conditions at
your source.
2.2 How is PS-11 different from other performance specifications?
The PS-11 is based on a technique of correlating PM CEMS responses
relative to emission concentrations determined by the reference method.
This technique is called ``the correlation.'' This differs from CEMS
used to measure gaseous pollutants that have available calibration
gases of known concentration. Because the type and characteristics of
PM vary from source to source, a single PM correlation, applicable to
all sources, is not possible.
2.3 How are the correlation data handled? You must carefully review
your manual reference method data and your PM CEMS responses to include
only valid, high-quality data. For the correlation, you must convert
the manual reference method data to measurement conditions (e.g., wet
or dry basis) that are consistent with your PM CEMS. Then, you must
correlate the manual method and PM CEMS data in terms of the output as
received from the monitor (e.g., milliamps). At the appropriate PM CEMS
response specified in section 13.2 of this performance specification,
you must calculate the confidence interval half range and tolerance
interval half range as a percentage of the applicable PM concentration
emission limit and compare the confidence interval and tolerance
interval percentages with the performance criteria. Also, you must
calculate the correlation coefficient and compare the correlation
coefficient with the applicable performance criterion specified in
section 13.2 of this performance specification.
Situations may arise where you will need two or more correlations.
If you need multiple correlations, you must collect sufficient data for
each correlation, and each correlation must satisfy the performance
criteria specified in section 13.2 of this performance specification.
2.4 How do I design my PM CEMS correlation program? When planning
your PM CEMS correlation effort, you must address each of the items in
paragraphs (1) through (7) of this section to enhance the probability
of success. You will find each of these elements further described in
this performance specification or in the applicable reference method
procedure.
(1) What type of PM CEMS should I select? You should select a PM
CEMS that is appropriate for your source with technical consideration
for potential factors such as interferences, site-specific
configurations, installation location, flue gas conditions, PM
concentration range, and other PM characteristics. You can find
guidance on which technology is best suited for specific situations in
our report ``Current Knowledge of Particulate Matter (PM) Continuous
Emission Monitoring'' (PM CEMS Knowledge Document, see section 16.5).
(2) Where should I install my PM CEMS? Your PM CEMS must be
installed in a location that is most representative of PM emissions, as
determined by the reference method, such that the correlation between
PM CEMS response and emissions determined by the reference method will
meet these performance specifications. Care must be taken in selecting
a location and measurement point to minimize problems due to flow
disturbances, cyclonic flow, and varying PM stratification.
(3) How should I record my CEMS data? You need to ensure that your
PM CEMS and data logger are set up to collect and record all normal
emission levels and excursions. You must ensure that your data logger
and PM CEMS have been properly programmed to accept and transfer status
signals of valid monitor operation (e.g., flags for internal
calibration, suspect data, or maintenance periods).
(4) What CEMS data should I review? You must review drift data
daily to document proper operation. You must also ensure that any audit
material is appropriate for the typical operating range of your PM
CEMS.
(5) How long should I operate my PM CEMS before conducting the
initial correlation test? You should allow sufficient time for your PM
CEMS to operate for you to become familiar with your PM CEMS.
(i) You should observe PM CEMS response over time during normal and
varying process conditions. This will ensure that your PM CEMS has been
properly set up to operate at a range that is compatible with the
concentrations and characteristics of PM emissions for your source. You
should use this information to establish the range of operating
conditions necessary to determine the correlations of PM CEMS data to
manual reference method measurements over a wide operating range.
(ii) You must determine the types of process changes that will
influence, on a definable and repeatable basis, flue gas PM
concentrations and the resulting PM CEMS responses. You may find this
period useful to make adjustments to your planned approach for
operating your PM CEMS at your source. For instance, you may change the
measurement range or batch sampling period to something other than
those you initially planned to use.
(6) How do I conduct the initial correlation test? When conducting
the initial correlation test of your PM CEMS response to PM emissions
determined by the reference method, you must pay close attention to
accuracy and details. Your PM CEMS must be operating properly. You must
perform the manual reference method testing accurately, with attention
to eliminating site-specific systemic errors. You must coordinate the
timing of the manual reference method testing with the sampling cycle
of your PM CEMS. You must complete a minimum of 15 manual reference
method tests. You must perform the manual reference method testing over
the full range of PM CEMS responses that correspond to normal operating
conditions for your source and control device and will result in the
[[Page 1804]]
widest range of emission concentrations.
(7) How should I perform the manual reference method testing? You
must perform the manual reference method testing in accordance with
specific rule requirements, coordinated closely with PM CEMS and
process operations. It is highly recommended that you use paired trains
for the manual reference method testing. You must perform the manual
reference method testing over a suitable PM concentration range that
corresponds to the full range of normal process and control device
operating conditions. Because the manual reference method testing for
this correlation test is not for compliance reporting purposes, you may
conduct the reference method test runs for less than the typical
minimum test run duration of 1 hour.
(8) What do I do with the manual reference method data and PM CEMS
data? You must complete each of the activities in paragraphs (8)(i)
through (v) of this section.
(i) Screen the manual reference method data for validity (e.g.,
isokinetics, leak checks), quality assurance, and quality control
(e.g., outlier identification).
(ii) Screen your PM CEMS data for validity (e.g., daily drift check
requirements) and quality assurance (e.g., flagged data).
(iii) Convert the manual reference method test data into
measurement units (e.g., mg/acm) consistent with the measurement
conditions of your PM CEMS.
(iv) Calculate the correlation equation(s) as specified in section
12.3.
(v) Calculate the correlation coefficient, confidence interval half
range, and tolerance interval half range for the complete set of PM
CEMS and reference method correlation data for comparison with the
correlation performance criteria specified in section 13.2.
2.5 What other procedures must I perform? Before conducting the
initial correlation test, you must successfully complete a 7-day drift
test (See section 8.5).
3.0 What Special Definitions Apply to PS-11?
3.1 ``Appropriate Measurement Range of your PM CEMS'' means a
measurement range that is capable of recording readings over the
complete range of your source's PM emission concentrations during
routine operations. The appropriate range is determined during the
pretest preparations as specified in section 8.4.
3.2 ``Appropriate Data Range for PM CEMS Correlation'' means the
data range that reflects the full range of your source's PM emission
concentrations recorded by your PM CEMS during the correlation test
planning period or other normal operations as defined in the applicable
regulations.
3.3 ``Batch Sampling'' means that gas is sampled on an intermittent
basis and concentrated on a collection medium before intermittent
analysis and follow-up reporting. Beta gauge PM CEMS are an example of
batch sampling devices.
3.4 ``Confidence Interval Half Range (CI)'' means the statistical
term for one-half of the width of the 95 percent confidence interval
around the predicated mean PM concentration (y value) calculated at the
PM CEMS response value (x value) where the confidence interval is
narrowest. Procedures for calculating CI are specified in section
12.3(1)(ii) for linear correlations and in section 12.3(2)(ii) for
polynomial correlations. The CI as a percent of the emission limit
value (CI%) is calculated at the appropriate PM CEMS response value
specified in Section 13.2(2).
3.5 ``Continuous Emission Monitoring System (CEMS)'' means all of
the equipment required for determination of PM mass concentration in
units of the emission standard. The sample interface, pollutant
monitor, diluent monitor, other auxiliary data monitor(s), and data
recorder are the major subsystems of your CEMS.
3.6 ``Correlation'' means the primary mathematical relationship for
correlating the output from your PM CEMS to a PM concentration, as
determined by the PM reference method. The correlation is expressed in
the measurement units that are consistent with the measurement
conditions (e.g., mg/dscm, mg/acm) of your PM CEMS.
3.7 ``Correlation Coefficient (r)'' means a quantitative measure of
the association between your PM CEMS outputs and the reference method
measurements. Equations for calculating the r value are provided in
section 12.3(1)(iv) for linear correlations and in section 12.3(2)(iv)
for polynomial correlations.
3.8 ``Cycle Time'' means the time required to complete one
sampling, measurement, and reporting cycle. For a batch sampling PM
CEMS, the cycle time would start when sample gas is first extracted
from the stack/duct and end when the measurement of that batch sample
is complete and a new result for that batch sample is produced on the
data recorder.
3.9 ``Data Recorder'' means the portion of your CEMS that provides
a permanent record of the monitor output in terms of response and
status (flags). The data recorder may also provide automatic data
reduction and CEMS control capabilities (see section 6.6).
3.10 ``Diluent Monitor and Other Auxiliary Data Monitor(s) (if
applicable)'' means the portion of your CEMS that provides the diluent
gas concentration (such as O2 or CO2, as
specified by the applicable regulations), temperature, pressure, and/or
moisture content, and generates an output proportional to the diluent
gas concentration or gas property.
3.11 ``Drift Check'' means a check of the difference between your
PM CEMS output readings and the established reference value of a
reference standard or procedure after a stated period of operation
during which no unscheduled maintenance, repair, or adjustment took
place. The procedures used to determine drift are specific to the
operating principles of your specific PM CEMS. A drift check includes
both a zero drift check and an upscale drift check.
3.12 ``Exponential Correlation'' means an exponential equation used
to define the relationship between your PM CEMS output and the
reference method PM concentration, as indicated by Equation 11-37.
3.13 ``Flagged Data'' means data marked by your CEMS indicating
that the response value(s) from one or more CEMS subsystems is suspect
or invalid or that your PM CEMS is not in source-measurement operating
mode.
3.14 ``Linear Correlation'' means a first-order mathematical
relationship between your PM CEMS output and the reference method PM
concentration that is linear in form, as indicated by Equation 11-3.
3.15 ``Logarithmic Correlation'' means a first-order mathematical
relationship between the natural logarithm of your PM CEMS output and
the reference method PM concentration that is linear in form, as
indicated by Equation 11-34.
3.16 ``Low-Emitting Source'' means a source that operated at no
more than 50 percent of the emission limit during the most recent
performance test, and, based on the PM CEMS correlation, the daily
average emissions for the source, measured in the units of the
applicable emission limit, have not exceeded 50 percent of the emission
limit for any day since the most recent performance test.
3.17 ``Paired Trains'' means two reference method trains that are
used to conduct simultaneous measurements of PM concentrations.
Guidance on the use
[[Page 1805]]
of paired sampling trains can be found in the PM CEMS Knowledge
Document (see section 16.5).
3.18 ``Polynomial Correlation'' means a second-order equation used
to define the relationship between your PM CEMS output and reference
method PM concentration, as indicated by Equation 11-16.
3.19 ``Power Correlation'' means an equation used to define a power
function relationship between your PM CEMS output and the reference
method concentration, as indicated by Equation 11-42.
3.20 ``Reference Method'' means the method defined in the
applicable regulations, but commonly refers to those methods
collectively known as EPA Methods 5, 5I, and 17 (for particulate
matter), found in Appendix A of 40 CFR 60. Only the front half and dry
filter catch portions of the reference method can be correlated to your
PM CEMS output.
3.21 ``Reference Standard'' means a reference material or procedure
that produces a known and unchanging response when presented to the
pollutant monitor portion of your CEMS. You must use these standards to
evaluate the overall operation of your PM CEMS, but not to develop a PM
CEMS correlation.
3.22 ``Response Time'' means the time interval between the start of
a step change in the system input and the time when the pollutant
monitor output reaches 95 percent of the final value (see sections 6.5
and 13.3 for procedures and acceptance criteria).
3.23 ``Sample Interface'' means the portion of your CEMS used for
one or more of the following: sample acquisition, sample delivery,
sample conditioning, or protection of the monitor from the effects of
the stack effluent.
3.24 ``Sample Volume Check'' means a check of the difference
between your PM CEMS sample volume reading and the sample volume
reference value.
3.25 ``Tolerance Interval half range (TI)'' means one-half of the
width of the tolerance interval with upper and lower limits, within
which a specified percentage of the future data population is contained
with a given level of confidence, as defined by the respective
tolerance interval half range equations in section 12.3(1)(iii) for
linear correlations and in section 12.3(2)(iii) for polynomial
correlations. The TI as a percent of the emission limit value (TI%) is
calculated at the appropriate PM CEMS response value specified in
Section 13.2(3).
3.26 ``Upscale Check Value'' means the expected response to a
reference standard or procedure used to check the upscale response of
your PM CEMS.
3.27 ``Upscale Drift (UD) Check'' means a check of the difference
between your PM CEMS output reading and the upscale check value.
3.28 ``Zero Check Value'' means the expected response to a
reference standard or procedure used to check the response of your PM
CEMS to particulate-free or low-particulate concentration conditions.
3.29 ``Zero Drift (ZD) Check'' means a check of the difference
between your PM CEMS output reading and the zero check value.
3.30 ``Zero Point Correlation Value'' means a value added to PM
CEMS correlation data to represent low or near zero PM concentration
data (see section 8.6 for rationale and procedures).
4.0 Are There Any Potential Interferences for My PM CEMS?
Yes, condensible water droplets or condensible acid gas aerosols
(i.e., those with condensation temperatures above those specified by
the reference method) at the measurement location can be interferences
for your PM CEMS if the necessary precautions are not met.
4.1 Where are interferences likely to occur? Interferences may
develop if your CEMS is installed downstream of a wet air pollution
control system or any other conditions that produce flue gases, which,
at your PM CEMS measurement point, normally or occasionally contain
entrained water droplets or condensible salts before release to the
atmosphere.
4.2 How do I deal with interferences? We recommend that you use a
PM CEMS that extracts and heats representative samples of the flue gas
for measurement to simulate results produced by the reference method
for conditions such as those described in section 4.1. Independent of
your PM CEMS measurement technology and extractive technique, you
should have a configuration simulating the reference method to ensure
that:
(1) No formation of new PM or deposition of PM occurs in sample
delivery from the stack or duct; and
(2) No condensate accumulates in the sample flow measurement
apparatus.
4.3 What PM CEMS measurement technologies should I use? You should
use a PM CEMS measurement technology that is free of interferences from
any condensible constituent in the flue gas.
5.0 What Do I Need To Know To Ensure the Safety of Persons Using PS-11?
People using the procedures required under PS-11 may be exposed to
hazardous materials, operations, site conditions, and equipment. This
performance specification does not purport to address all of the safety
issues associated with its use. It is your responsibility to establish
appropriate safety and health practices and determine the applicable
regulatory limitations before performing these procedures. You must
consult your CEMS user's manual and other reference materials
recommended by the reference method for specific precautions to be
taken.
6.0 What Equipment and Supplies Do I Need?
Different types of PM CEMS use different operating principles. You
should select an appropriate PM CEMS based on your site-specific
configurations, flue gas conditions, and PM characteristics.
(1) Your PM CEMS must sample the stack effluent continuously or,
for batch sampling PM CEMS, intermittently.
(2) You must ensure that the averaging time, the number of
measurements in an average, the minimum data availability, and the
averaging procedure for your CEMS conform with those specified in the
applicable emission regulation.
(3) Your PM CEMS must include, as a minimum, the equipment
described in sections 6.1 through 6.7.
6.1 What equipment is needed for my PM CEMS's sample interface?
Your PM CEMS's sample interface must be capable of delivering a
representative sample of the flue gas to your PM CEMS. This subsystem
may be required to heat the sample gas to avoid PM deposition or
moisture condensation, provide dilution air, perform other gas
conditioning to prepare the sample for analysis, or measure the sample
volume or flow rate.
(1) If your PM CEMS is installed downstream of a wet air pollution
control system such that the flue gases normally or occasionally
contain entrained water droplets, we recommend that you select a
sampling system that includes equipment to extract and heat a
representative sample of the flue gas for measurement so that the
pollutant monitor portion of your CEMS measures only dry PM. Heating
should be sufficient to raise the temperature of the extracted flue gas
above the water condensation temperature and should be maintained at
all times and at all points in the sample line from where the flue gas
is extracted, including the pollutant monitor and any sample flow
measurement devices.
[[Page 1806]]
(2) You must consider the measured conditions of the sample gas
stream to ensure that manual reference method test data are converted
to units of PM concentration that are appropriate for the correlation
calculations. Additionally, you must identify what, if any, additional
auxiliary data from other monitoring and handling systems are necessary
to convert your PM CEMS response into the units of the PM standard.
(3) If your PM CEMS is an extractive type and your source's flue
gas volumetric flow rate varies by more than 10 percent from nominal,
your PM CEMS should maintain an isokinetic sampling rate (within 10
percent of true isokinetic). If your extractive-type PM CEMS does not
maintain an isokinetic sampling rate, you must use actual site-specific
data or data from a similar installation to prove to us, the State,
and/or local enforcement agency that isokinetic sampling is not
necessary.
6.2 What type of equipment is needed for my PM CEMS? Your PM CEMS
must be capable of providing an electronic output that can be
correlated to the PM concentration.
(1) Your PM CEMS must be able to perform zero and upscale drift
checks. You may perform these checks manually, but performing these
checks automatically is preferred.
(2) We recommend that you select a PM CEMS that is capable of
performing automatic diagnostic checks and sending instrument status
signals (flags) to the data recorder.
(3) If your PM CEMS is an extractive type that measures the sample
volume and uses the measured sample volume as part of calculating the
output value, your PM CEMS must be able to perform a check of the
sample volume to verify the accuracy of the sample volume measuring
equipment. The sample volume check must be conducted daily and at the
normal sampling rate of your PM CEMS.
6.3 What is the appropriate measurement range for my PM CEMS?
Initially, your PM CEMS must be set up to measure over the expected
range of your source's PM emission concentrations during routine
operations. You may change the measurement range to a more appropriate
range prior to correlation testing.
6.4 What if my PM CEMS does automatic range switching? Your PM CEMS
may be equipped to perform automatic range switching so that it is
operating in a range most sensitive to the detected concentrations. If
your PM CEMS does automatic range switching, you must configure the
data recorder to handle the recording of data values in multiple ranges
during range-switching intervals.
6.5 What averaging time and sample intervals should be used? Your
CEMS must sample the stack effluent such that the averaging time, the
number of measurements in an average, the minimum sampling time, and
the averaging procedure for reporting and determining compliance
conform with those specified in the applicable regulation. Your PM CEMS
must be designed to meet the specified response time and cycle time
established in this performance specification (see section 13.3).
6.6 What type of equipment is needed for my data recorder? Your
CEMS data recorder must be able to accept and record electronic signals
from all the monitors associated with your PM CEMS.
(1) Your data recorder must record the signals from your PM CEMS
that can be correlated to PM mass concentrations. If your PM CEMS uses
multiple ranges, your data recorder must identify what range the
measurement was made in and provide range-adjusted results.
(2) Your data recorder must accept and record monitor status
signals (flagged data).
(3) Your data recorder must accept signals from auxiliary data
monitors, as appropriate.
6.7 What other equipment and supplies might I need? You may need
other supporting equipment as defined by the applicable reference
method(s) (see section 7) or as specified by your CEMS manufacturer.
7.0 What Reagents and Standards Do I Need?
You will need reference standards or procedures to perform the zero
drift check, the upscale drift check, and the sample volume check.
7.1 What is the reference standard value for the zero drift check?
You must use a zero check value that is no greater than 20 percent of
the PM CEMS's response range. You must obtain documentation on the zero
check value from your PM CEMS manufacturer.
7.2 What is the reference standard value for the upscale drift
check? You must use an upscale check value that produces a response
between 50 and 100 percent of the PM CEMS's response range. For a PM
CEMS that produces output over a range of 4 mA to 20 mA, the upscale
check value must produce a response in the range of 12 mA to 20 mA. You
must obtain documentation on the upscale check value from your PM CEMS
manufacturer.
7.3 What is the reference standard value for the sample volume
check? You must use a reference standard value or procedure that
produces a sample volume value equivalent to the normal sampling rate.
You must obtain documentation on the sample volume value from your PM
CEMS manufacturer.
8.0 What Performance Specification Test Procedure Do I Follow?
You must complete each of the activities in sections 8.1 through
8.8 for your performance specification test.
8.1 How should I select and set up my equipment? You should select
a PM CEMS that is appropriate for your source, giving consideration to
potential factors such as flue gas conditions, interferences, site-
specific configuration, installation location, PM concentration range,
and other PM characteristics. Your PM CEMS must meet the equipment
specifications in sections 6.1 and 6.2.
(1) You should select a PM CEMS that is appropriate for the flue
gas conditions at your source. If your source's flue gas contains
entrained water droplets, we recommend that your PM CEMS include a
sample delivery and conditioning system that is capable of extracting
and heating a representative sample.
(i) Your PM CEMS must maintain the sample at a temperature
sufficient to prevent moisture condensation in the sample line before
analysis of PM.
(ii) If condensible PM is an issue, we recommend that you operate
your PM CEMS to maintain the sample gas temperature at the same
temperature as the reference method filter.
(iii) Your PM CEMS must avoid condensation in the sample flow rate
measurement lines.
(2) Some PM CEMS do not have a wide measurement range capability.
Therefore, you must select a PM CEMS that is capable of measuring the
full range of PM concentrations expected from your source from normal
levels through the emission limit concentration.
(3) Some PM CEMS are sensitive to particle size changes, water
droplets in the gas stream, particle charge, stack gas velocity
changes, or other factors. Therefore, you should select a PM CEMS
appropriate for the emission characteristics of your source.
(4) We recommend that you consult your PM CEMS vendor to obtain
basic recommendations on the instrument capabilities and setup
configuration. You are ultimately responsible for setup and operation
of your PM CEMS.
8.2 Where do I install my PM CEMS? You must install your PM CEMS
[[Page 1807]]
at an accessible location downstream of all pollution control
equipment. You must perform your PM CEMS concentration measurements
from a location considered representative or be able to provide data
that can be corrected to be representative of the total PM emissions as
determined by the manual reference method.
(1) You must select a measurement location that minimizes problems
due to flow disturbances, cyclonic flow, and varying PM stratification
(refer to Method 1 for guidance).
(2) If you plan to achieve higher emissions for correlation test
purposes by adjusting the performance of the air pollution control
device (per section 8.6(4)(i)), you must locate your PM CEMS and
reference method sampling points well downstream of the control device
(e.g., downstream of the induced draft fan), in order to minimize PM
stratification that may be created in these cases.
8.3 How do I select the reference method measurement location and
traverse points? You must follow EPA Method 1 for identifying manual
reference method traverse points. Ideally, you should perform your
manual reference method measurements at locations that satisfy the
measurement site selection criteria specified in EPA Method 1 of at
least eight duct diameters downstream and at least two duct diameters
upstream of any flow disturbance. Where necessary, you may conduct
testing at a location that is two diameters downstream and 0.5
diameters upstream of flow disturbances. If your location does not meet
the minimum downstream and upstream requirements, you must obtain
approval from us to test at your location.
8.4 What are my pretest preparation steps? You must install your
CEMS and prepare the reference method test site according to the
specifications in sections 8.2 and 8.3.
(1) After completing the initial field installation, we recommend
that you operate your PM CEMS according to the manufacturer's
instructions to familiarize yourself with its operation before you
begin correlation testing.
(i) During this initial period of operation, we recommend that you
conduct daily checks (zero and upscale drift and sample volume, as
appropriate), and, when any check exceeds the daily specification (see
section 13.1), make adjustments and perform any necessary maintenance
to ensure reliable operation.
(2) When you are confident that your PM CEMS is operating properly,
we recommend that you operate your CEMS over a correlation test
planning period of sufficient duration to identify the full range of
operating conditions and PM emissions to be used in your PM CEMS
correlation test.
(i) During the correlation test planning period, you should operate
the process and air pollution control equipment over the normal range
of operating conditions, except when you attempt to produce higher
emissions.
(ii) Your data recorder should record PM CEMS response during the
full range of routine process operating conditions.
(iii) You should try to establish the relationships between
operating conditions and PM CEMS response, especially those conditions
that produce the highest PM CEMS response over 15-minute averaging
periods, and the lowest PM CEMS response as well. The objective is to
be able to reproduce the conditions for purposes of the actual
correlation testing discussed in section 8.6.
(3) You must set the response range of your PM CEMS such that the
instrument measures the full range of responses that correspond to the
range of source operating conditions that you will implement during
correlation testing.
(4) We recommend that you perform preliminary reference method
testing after the correlation test planning period. During this
preliminary testing, you should measure the PM emission concentration
corresponding to the highest PM CEMS response observed during the full
range of normal operation, when perturbing the control equipment, or as
the result of PM spiking.
(5) Before performing correlation testing, you must perform a 7-day
zero and upscale drift test (see section 8.5).
(6) You must not change the response range of the monitor once the
response range has been set and the drift test successfully completed.
8.5 How do I perform the 7-day drift test? You must check the zero
(or low-level value between 0 and 20 percent of the response range of
the instrument) and upscale (between 50 and 100 percent of the
instrument's response range) drift. You must perform this check at
least once daily over 7 consecutive days. Your PM CEMS must quantify
and record the zero and upscale measurements and the time of the
measurements. If you make automatic or manual adjustments to your PM
CEMS zero and upscale settings, you must conduct the drift test
immediately before these adjustments, or conduct it in such a way that
you can determine the amount of drift. You will find the calculation
procedures for drift in section 12.1 and the acceptance criteria for
allowable drift in section 13.1.
(1) What is the purpose of 7-day drift tests? The purpose of the 7-
day drift test is to demonstrate that your system is capable of
operating in a stable manner and maintaining its calibration for at
least a 7-day period.
(2) How do I conduct the 7-day drift test? To conduct the 7-day
drift test, you must determine the magnitude of the drift once each
day, at 24-hour intervals, for 7 consecutive days while your source is
operating normally.
(i) You must conduct the 7-day drift test at the two points
specified in section 8.5. You may perform the 7-day drift tests
automatically or manually by introducing to your PM CEMS suitable
reference standards (these need not be certified) or by using other
appropriate procedures.
(ii) You must record your PM CEMS zero and upscale response and
evaluate them against the zero check value and upscale check value.
(3) When must I conduct the 7-day drift test? You must complete a
valid 7-day drift test before attempting the correlation test.
8.6 How do I conduct my PM CEMS correlation test? You must conduct
the correlation test according to the procedure given in paragraphs (1)
through (5) of this section. If you need multiple correlations, you
must conduct sufficient testing and collect at least 15 pairs of
reference method and PM CEMS data for calculating each separate
correlation.
(1) You must use the reference method for PM (usually EPA Methods
5, 5I, or 17) that is prescribed by the applicable regulations. You may
need to perform other reference methods or performance specifications
(e.g., Method 3 for oxygen, Method 4 for moisture, etc.) depending on
the units in which your PM CEMS reports PM concentration.
(i) We recommend that you use paired reference method trains when
collecting manual PM data to identify and screen the reference method
data for imprecision and bias. Procedures for checking reference method
data for bias and precision can be found in the PM CEMS Knowledge
Document (see section 16.5).
(ii) You may use test runs that are shorter than 60 minutes in
duration (e.g., 20 or 30 minutes). You may perform your PM CEMS
correlation tests during new source performance standards performance
tests or other compliance tests subject to the Clean Air Act or other
statutes, such as the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act. In these
cases, your reference
[[Page 1808]]
method results obtained during the PM CEMS correlation test may be used
to determine compliance so long as your source and the test conditions
and procedures (e.g., reference method sample run durations) are
consistent with the applicable regulations and the reference method.
(iii) You must convert the reference method results to units
consistent with the conditions of your PM CEMS measurements. For
example, if your PM CEMS measures and reports PM emissions in the units
of mass per actual volume of stack gas, you must convert your reference
method results to those units (e.g., mg/acm). If your PM CEMS extracts
and heats the sample gas to eliminate water droplets, then measures and
reports PM emissions under those actual conditions, you must convert
your reference method results to those same conditions (e.g., mg/acm at
160[deg]C).
(2) During each test run, you must coordinate process operations,
reference method sampling, and PM CEMS operations. For example, you
must ensure that the process is operating at the targeted conditions,
both reference method trains are sampling simultaneously (if paired
sampling trains are being used), and your PM CEMS and data logger are
operating properly.
(i) You must coordinate the start and stop times of each run
between the reference method sampling and PM CEMS operation. For a
batch sampling PM CEMS, you must start the reference method at the same
time as your PM CEMS sampling.
(ii) You must note the times for port changes (and other periods
when the reference method sampling may be suspended) on the data sheets
so that you can adjust your PM CEMS data accordingly, if necessary.
(iii) You must properly align the time periods for your PM CEMS and
your reference method measurements to account for your PM CEMS response
time.
(3) You must conduct a minimum of 15 valid runs each consisting of
simultaneous PM CEMS and reference method measurement sets.
(i) You may conduct more than 15 sets of CEMS and reference method
measurements. If you choose this option, you may reject certain test
results so long as the total number of valid test results you use to
determine the correlation is greater than or equal to 15.
(ii) You must report all data, including the rejected data.
(iii) You may reject the results of up to five test runs without
explanation.
(iv) If you reject the results of more than five test runs, the
basis for rejecting the results of the additional test runs must be
explicitly stated in the reference method, this performance
specification, Procedure 2 of appendix F, or your quality assurance
plan.
(4) Simultaneous PM CEMS and reference method measurements must be
performed in a manner to ensure that the range of data that will be
used to establish the correlation for your PM CEMS is maximized. You
must first attempt to maximize your correlation range by following the
procedures described in paragraphs (4)(i) through (iv) of this section.
If you cannot obtain the three levels as described in paragraphs (i)
through (iv), then you must use the procedure described in section
8.6(5).
(i) You must attempt to obtain the three different levels of PM
mass concentration by varying process operating conditions, varying PM
control device conditions, or by means of PM spiking.
(ii) The three PM concentration levels you use in the correlation
tests must be distributed over the complete operating range experienced
by your source.
(iii) At least 20 percent of the minimum 15 measured data points
you use should be contained in each of the following levels:
[sbull] Level 1: From no PM (zero concentration) emissions to 50
percent of the maximum PM concentration;
[sbull] Level 2: 25 to 75 percent of the maximum PM concentration;
and
[sbull] Level 3: 50 to 100 percent of the maximum PM concentration.
(iv) Although the above levels overlap, you may only apply
individual run data to one level.
(5) If you cannot obtain three distinct levels of PM concentration
as described, you must perform correlation testing over the maximum
range of PM concentrations that is practical for your PM CEMS. To
ensure that the range of data used to establish the correlation for
your PM CEMS is maximized, you must follow one or more of the steps in
paragraphs (5)(i) through (iv) of this section.
(i) Zero point data for in-situ instruments should be obtained, to
the extent possible, by removing the instrument from the stack and
monitoring ambient air on a test bench.
(ii) Zero point data for extractive instruments should be obtained
by removing the extractive probe from the stack and drawing in clean
ambient air.
(iii) Zero point data also can be obtained by performing manual
reference method measurements when the flue gas is free of PM emissions
or contains very low PM concentrations (e.g., when your process is not
operating, but the fans are operating or your source is combusting only
natural gas).
(iv) If none of the steps in paragraphs (5)(i) through (iii) of
this section are possible, you must estimate the monitor response when
no PM is in the flue gas (e.g., 4 mA = 0 mg/acm).
8.7 What do I do with the initial correlation test data for my PM
CEMS? You must calculate and report the results of the correlation
testing, including the correlation coefficient, confidence interval,
and tolerance interval for the PM CEMS response and reference method
correlation data that are use to establish the correlation, as
specified in section 12. You must include all data sheets,
calculations, charts (records of PM CEMS responses), process data
records including PM control equipment operating parameters, and
reference media certifications necessary to confirm that your PM CEMS
met the requirements of this performance specification. In addition,
you must:
(1) Determine the integrated (arithmetic average) PM CEMS output
over each reference method test period;
(2) Adjust your PM CEMS outputs and reference method test data to
the same clock time (considering response time of your PM CEMS);
(3) Confirm that the reference method results are consistent with
your PM CEMS response in terms of, where applicable, moisture,
temperature, pressure, and diluent concentrations; and
(4) Determine whether any of the reference method test results do
not meet the test method criteria.
8.8 What is the limitation on the range of my PM CEMS correlation?
Although the data you collect during the correlation testing should be
representative of the full range of normal operating conditions at your
source, you must conduct additional correlation testing if either of
the conditions specified in paragraphs (1) and (2) of this section
occurs.
(1) If your source is a low-emitting source, as defined in section
3.16 of this specification, you must conduct additional correlation
testing if either of the events specified in paragraphs (1)(i) or (ii)
of this section occurs while your source is operating under normal
conditions.
(i) Your source generates 24 consecutive hourly average PM CEMS
responses that are greater than 125 percent of the highest PM CEMS
response (e.g., mA reading) used for the correlation curve or are
greater than the
[[Page 1809]]
PM CEMS response that corresponds to 50 percent of the emission limit,
whichever is greater, or
(ii) The cumulative hourly average PM CEMS responses generated by
your source are greater than 125 percent of the highest PM CEMS
response used for the correlation curve or are greater than the PM CEMS
response that corresponds to 50 percent of the emission limit,
whichever is greater, for more than 5 percent of your PM CEMS operating
hours for the previous 30-day period.
(2) If your source is not a low-emitting source, as defined in
section 3.16 of this specification, you must conduct additional
correlation testing if either of the events specified in paragraph (i)
or (ii) of this section occurs while your source is operating under
normal conditions.
(i) Your source generates 24 consecutive hourly average PM CEMS
responses that are greater than 125 percent of the highest PM CEMS
response (e.g., mA reading) used for the correlation curve, or
(ii) The cumulative hourly average PM CEMS responses generated by
your source are greater than 125 percent of the highest PM CEMS
response used for the correlation curve for more than 5 percent of your
PM CEMS operating hours for the previous 30-day period.
(3) If additional correlation testing is required, you must conduct
at least three additional test runs under the conditions that caused
the higher PM CEMS response.
(i) You must complete the additional testing and use the resulting
new data along with the previous data to calculate a revised
correlation equation within 60 days after the occurrence of the event
that requires additional testing, as specified in paragraphs 8.8(1) and
(2).
(4) If your source generates consecutive PM CEMS hourly responses
that are greater than 125 percent of the highest PM CEMS response used
to develop the correlation curve for 24 hours or for a cumulative
period that amounts to more than 5 percent of the PM CEMS operating
hours for the previous 30-day period, you must report the reason for
the higher PM CEMS responses.
9.0 What Quality Control Measures Are Required?
Quality control measures for PM CEMS are specified in 40 CFR 60,
Appendix F, Procedure 2.
10.0 What Calibration and Standardization Procedures Must I Perform?
[Reserved]
11.0 What Analytical Procedures Apply to This Procedure?
Specific analytical procedures are outlined in the applicable
reference method(s).
12.0 What Calculations and Data Analyses Are Needed?
You must determine the primary relationship for correlating the
output from your PM CEMS to a PM concentration, typically in units of
mg/acm or mg/dscm of flue gas, using the calculations and data analysis
process in sections 12.2 and 12.3. You develop the correlation by
performing an appropriate regression analysis between your PM CEMS
response and your reference method data.
12.1 How do I calculate upscale drift and zero drift? You must
determine the difference in your PM CEMS output readings from the
established reference values (zero and upscale check values) after a
stated period of operation during which you performed no unscheduled
maintenance, repair, or adjustment.
(1) Calculate the upscale drift (UD) using Equation 11-1:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR12JA04.003
Where:
UD = The upscale (high-level) drift of your PM CEMS in percent,
RCEM = The measured PM CEMS response to the upscale
reference standard, and
RU = The preestablished numerical value of the upscale
reference standard.
(2) Calculate the zero drift (ZD) using Equation 11-2:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR12JA04.004
Where:
ZD = The zero (low-level) drift of your PM CEMS in percent,
RCEM = The measured PM CEMS response to the zero reference
standard,
RL = The preestablished numerical value of the zero
reference standard, and
RU = The preestablished numerical value of the upscale
reference standard.
(3) Summarize the results on a data sheet similar to that shown in
Table 2 (see section 17).
12.2 How do I perform the regression analysis? You must couple each
reference method PM concentration measurement, y, in the appropriate
units, with an average PM CEMS response, x, over corresponding time
periods. You must complete your PM CEMS correlation calculations using
data deemed acceptable by quality control procedures identified in 40
CFR 60, Appendix F, Procedure 2.
(1) You must evaluate all flagged or suspect data produced during
measurement periods and determine whether they should be excluded from
your PM CEMS's average.
(2) You must assure that the reference method and PM CEMS results
are on a consistent moisture, temperature, and diluent basis. You must
convert the reference method PM concentration measurements (dry
standard conditions) to the units of your PM CEMS measurement
conditions. The conditions of your PM CEMS measurement are monitor-
specific. You must obtain from your PM CEMS vendor or instrument
manufacturer the conditions and units of measurement for your PM CEMS.
(i) If your sample gas contains entrained water droplets and your
PM CEMS is an extractive system that measures at actual conditions
(i.e., wet basis), you must use the measured moisture content
determined from the impinger analysis when converting your reference
method PM data to PM CEMS conditions; do not use the moisture content
calculated from a psychrometric chart based on saturated conditions.
12.3 How do I determine my PM CEMS correlation? To predict PM
concentrations from PM CEMS responses, you must use the calculation
method of least squares presented in paragraphs (1) through (5) of this
section. When performing the calculations, each reference method PM
concentration measurement must be treated as a discrete data point; if
using paired sampling trains, do not average reference method data
pairs for any test run.
This performance specification describes procedures for evaluating
five types of correlation models: linear, polynomial, logarithmic,
exponential, and power. Procedures for selecting the most appropriate
correlation model are presented in section 12.4 of this specification.
(1) How do I evaluate a linear correlation for my correlation test
data? To evaluate a linear correlation, follow the procedures described
in paragraphs (1)(i) through (iv) of this section.
(i) Calculate the linear correlation equation, which gives the
predicted PM concentration ([ycirc]) as a function of the
[[Page 1810]]
PM CEMS response (x), as indicated by Equation 11-3:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR12JA04.005
Where:
[ycirc] = the predicted PM concentration,
b0 = the intercept for the correlation curve, as calculated
using Equation 11-4,
b1 = the slope of the correlation curve, as calculated using
Equation 11-6, and
x = the PM CEMS response value.
Calculate the y intercept (b0) of the correlation curve
using Equation 11-4:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR12JA04.006
Where:
x = the mean value of the PM CEMS response data, as calculated using
Equation 11-5, and
y = the mean value of the PM concentration data, as calculated using
Equation 11-5:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR12JA04.007
Where:
xi = the PM CEMS response value for run i,
yi = the PM concentration value for run i, and
n = the number of data points.
Calculate the slope (b1) of the correlation curve using
Equation 11-6:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR12JA04.008
Where:
Sxx, Sxy = as calculated using Equation 11-7:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR12JA04.009
(ii) Calculate the half range of the 95 percent confidence interval
(CI) for the predicted PM concentration (y) at the mean value of x,
using Equation 11-8:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR12JA04.010
Where:
CI = the half range for the 95 percent confidence interval for the mean
x value,
tdf,1-a/2 = the value for the t statistic provided in Table
1 for df = n-2, and
SL = the scatter or deviation of [ycirc] values about the
correlation curve, which is determined using Equation 11-9:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR12JA04.011
Calculate the confidence interval half range at the mean x value as
a percentage of the emission limit (CI%) using Equation 11-10:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR12JA04.012
Where:
CI = the confidence interval half range at the mean x value, and
EL = PM emission limit, as described in section 13.2.
(iii) Calculate the half range of the tolerance interval at the
mean x value (TI) using Equation 11-11:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR12JA04.013
Where:
TI = the tolerance interval half range at the mean x value,
kt = as calculated using Equation 11-12, and
SL = as calculated using Equation 11-9:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR12JA04.014
Where:
n[min] = the number of test runs (n),
un[min] = the tolerance factor for 75 percent provided in
Table 1, and
vdf = the value from Table 1 for df = n-2.
Calculate the tolerance interval half range at the mean x value as
a percentage of the emission limit (TI%) using Equation 11-13:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR12JA04.015
Where:
TI = the tolerance interval half range at the mean value of x, and
EL = PM emission limit, as described in section 13.2.
(iv) Calculate the linear correlation coefficient (r) using
Equation 11-14:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR12JA04.016
Where:
SL = as calculated using Equation 11-9, and
Sy = as calculated using Equation 11-15:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR12JA04.017
(2) How do I evaluate a polynomial correlation for my correlation
test data? To evaluate a polynomial correlation, follow the procedures
described in paragraphs (2)(i) through (iv) of this section.
(i) Calculate the polynomial correlation equation, which is
indicated by Equation 11-16, using Equations 11-17 through 11-22:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR12JA04.018
Where:
[ycirc] = the PM CEMS concentration predicted by the polynomial
correlation equation, and
b0, b1, b2 = the coefficients
determined from the solution to the matrix equation Ab=B where:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR12JA04.019
[[Page 1811]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR12JA04.020
Where:
xi = the PM CEMS response for run i,
yi = the reference method PM concentration for run i, and
n = the number of test runs.
Calculate the polynomial correlation curve coefficients
(b0, b1, and b2) using Equations 11-19
to 11-21, respectively:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR12JA04.021
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR12JA04.022
Where:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR12JA04.023
(ii) Calculate the confidence interval half range (CI) by first
calculating the C coefficients (C0 to C5) using
Equations 11-23 and 11-24:
Where:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR12JA04.024
Where:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR12JA04.025
Calculate [Delta] using Equation 11-25 for each x value:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR12JA04.026
Determine the x value that corresponds to the minimum value of
[Delta] ([Delta]min). Determine the scatter or deviation of
[ycirc] values about the polynomial correlation curve (SP)
using Equation 11-26:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR12JA04.027
Calculate the half range of the 95 percent confidence interval (CI)
at the x value that corresponds to [Delta]min using Equation
11-27:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR12JA04.028
Where:
df = n -3, and
tdf = as listed in Table 1 (see section 17).
Calculate the confidence interval half range at the x value for
[Delta]min as a percentage of the emission limit (CI%) using
Equation 11-28:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR12JA04.029
Where:
CI = the confidence interval half range at the x value that corresponds
to [Delta]min, and
EL = PM emission limit, as described in section 13.2.
(iii) Calculate the tolerance interval half range (TI) at the x
value for [Delta]min, as indicated in Equation 11-29 for the
polynomial correlation, using Equations 11-30 and 11-31:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR12JA04.030
Where:
[[Page 1812]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR12JA04.031
un' = the value indicated in Table 1, and
vdf = the value indicated in Table 1 for df = n-3.
If the calculated value for n is less than 2, then n = 2.
Calculate the tolerance interval half range at the x value for
[Delta]min as a percentage of the emission limit (TI%) using
Equation 11-32:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR12JA04.032
Where:
TI = the tolerance interval half range at the x value that corresponds
to [Delta]min, and
EL = PM emission limit, as described in section 13.2.
(iv) Calculate the polynomial correlation coefficient (r) using
Equation 11-33:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR12JA04.033
Where:
SP = as calculated using Equation 11-26, and
Sy = as calculated using Equation 11-15.
(3) How do I evaluate a logarithmic correlation for my correlation
test data? To evaluate a logarithmic correlation, which has the form
indicated by Equation 11-34, follow the procedures described in
paragraphs (3)(i) through (iii) of this section.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR12JA04.034
(i) Perform a logarithmic transformation of each PM CEMS response
value (x values) using Equation 11-35:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR12JA04.035
Where:
xi' = is the transformed value of xi, and
Ln(xi) = the natural logarithm of the PM CEMS response for
run i.
(ii) Using the values for xi' in place of the values for
xi, perform the same procedures used to develop the linear
correlation equation described in paragraph (1)(i) of this section. The
resulting equation has the form indicated by Equation 11-36:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR12JA04.036
Where:
x' = the natural logarithm of the PM CEMS response, and the variables
[ycirc], b0, and b1 are as defined in paragraph
(1)(i) of this section.
(iii) Using the values for xi' in place of the values
for xi, calculate the confidence interval half range at the
mean x' value as a percentage of the emission limit (CI%), the
tolerance interval half range at the mean x' value as a percentage of
the emission limit (TI%), and the correlation coefficient (r) using the
procedures described in paragraphs (1)(ii) through (iv) of this
section.
(4) How do I evaluate an exponential correlation for my correlation
test data? To evaluate an exponential correlation, which has the form
indicated by Equation 11-37, follow the procedures described in
paragraphs (4)(i) through (v) of this section:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR12JA04.037
(i) Perform a logarithmic transformation of each PM concentration
measurement (y values) using Equation 11-38:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR12JA04.038
Where:
yi' = is the transformed value of yi, and
Ln(yi) = the natural logarithm of the PM concentration
measurement for run i.
(ii) Using the values for yi in place of the values for
yi' perform the same procedures used to develop the linear
correlation equation described in paragraph (1)(i) of this section. The
resulting equation will have the form indicated by Equation 11-39.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR12JA04.039
Where:
[ycirc]i' = the natural logarithm of the predicted PM
concentration values, and the variables b0, b1,
and x are as defined in paragraph (1)(i) of this section.
(iii) Using the values for yi' in place of the values
for yi, calculate the confidence interval half range (CI),
as described in paragraph (1)(ii) of this section. However, for the
exponential correlation, you must calculate the value for CI at the
median x value, instead of the mean x value for linear correlations.
Calculate the confidence interval half range at the median x value as a
percentage of the emission limit (CI%) using Equation 11-40:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR12JA04.040
Where:
CI = the confidence interval half range at the median x value, and
Ln(EL) = the natural logarithm of the PM emission limit, as described
in section 13.2.
(iv) Using the values for yi' in place of the values for
yi, calculate the tolerance interval half range (TI), as
described in paragraph (1)(iii) of this section. For the exponential
correlation, the value for TI also must be calculated at the median x
value. Calculate the tolerance interval half range at the median x
value as a percentage of the emission limit (TI%) using Equation 11-41:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR12JA04.041
Where:
TI = the tolerance interval half range at the median x value, and
Ln(EL) = the natural logarithm of the PM emission limit, as described
in section 13.2.
(v) Using the values for yi' in place of the values for
yi, calculate the correlation coefficient (r) using the
procedure described in paragraph (1)(iv) of this section.
(5) How do I evaluate a power correlation for my correlation test
data? To evaluate a power correlation, which has the form indicated by
Equation 11-42, follow the procedures described in paragraphs (5)(i)
through (v) of this section.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR12JA04.042
(i) Perform logarithmic transformations of each PM CEMS response (x
values) and each PM concentration measurement (y values) using
Equations 11-35 and 11-38, respectively.
(ii) Using the values for xi' in place of the values for
xi, and the values for yi' in place of the values
for yi, perform the same procedures used to develop the
linear correlation equation described in paragraph (1)(i) of this
section. The resulting equation will have the form indicated by
Equation 11-43:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR12JA04.043
Where:
[ycirc]' = the natural logarithm of the predicted PM concentration
values, and
x' = the natural logarithm of the PM CEMS response values, and the
variables b0 and b1 are as defined in paragraph
(1)(i) of this section.
(iii) Using the values for yi' in place of the values
for yi, calculate the confidence interval half range (CI),
as
[[Page 1813]]
described in paragraph (1)(ii) of this section. You must calculate the
value for CI at the median x' value, instead of the mean x value for
linear correlations. Calculate the confidence interval half range at
the median x' value as a percentage of the emission limit (CI%) using
Equation 11-40.
(iv) Using the values foryi, in place of the values for
yi, calculate the tolerance interval half range (TI), as
described in paragraph (1)(iii) of this section. The value for TI also
must be calculated at the median x' value. Calculate the tolerance
interval half range at the median x' value as a percentage of the
emission limit (CI%) using Equation 11-41.
(v) Using the values for yi' in place of the values for
yi, calculate the correlation coefficient (r) using the
procedure described in paragraph (1)(iv) of this section.
12.4 Which correlation model should I use? Follow the procedures
described in paragraphs (1) through (4) of this section to determine
which correlation model you should use.
(1) For each correlation model that you develop using the
procedures described in section 12.3 of this specification, compare the
confidence interval half range percentage, tolerance interval half
range percentage, and correlation coefficient to the performance
criteria specified in section 13.2 of this specification. You can use
the linear, logarithmic, exponential, or power correlation model if the
model satisfies all of the performance criteria specified in section
13.2 of this specification. However, to use the polynomial model you
first must check that the polynomial correlation curve satisfies the
criteria for minimum and maximum values specified in paragraph (3) of
this section.
(2) If you develop more than one correlation curve that satisfy the
performance criteria specified in section 13.2 of this specification,
you should use the correlation curve with the greatest correlation
coefficient. If the polynomial model has the greatest correlation
coefficient, you first must check that the polynomial correlation curve
satisfies the criteria for minimum and maximum values specified in
paragraph (3) of this section.
(3) You can use the polynomial model that you develop using the
procedures described in section 12.3(2) if the model satisfies the
performance criteria specified in section 13.2 of this specification,
and the minimum or maximum value of the polynomial correlation curve
does not occur within the expanded data range. The minimum or maximum
value of the polynomial correlation curve is the point where the slope
of the curve equals zero. To determine if the minimum or maximum value
occurs within the expanded data range, follow the procedure described
in paragraphs (3)(i) through (iv) of this section.
(i) Determine if your polynomial correlation curve has a minimum or
maximum point by comparing the polynomial coefficient b2 to
zero. If b2 is less than zero, the curve has a maximum
value. If b2 is greater than zero, the curve has a minimum
value. (Note: If b2 equals zero, the correlation curve is
linear.)
(ii) Calculate the minimum value using Equation 11-44.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR12JA04.044
(iii) If your polynomial correlation curve has a minimum point, you
must compare the minimum value to the minimum PM CEMS response used to
develop the correlation curve. If the correlation curve minimum value
is less than or equal to the minimum PM CEMS response value, you can
use the polynomial correlation curve, provided the correlation curve
also satisfies all of the performance criteria specified in section
13.2 of this specification. If the correlation curve minimum value is
greater than the minimum PM CEMS response value, you cannot use the
polynomial correlation curve to predict PM concentrations.
(iv) If your polynomial correlation curve has a maximum, the
maximum value must be greater than the allowable extrapolation limit.
If your source is not a low-emitting source, as defined in section 3.16
of this specification, the allowable extrapolation limit is 125 percent
of the highest PM CEMS response used to develop the correlation curve.
If your source is a low-emitting source, the allowable extrapolation
limit is 125 percent of the highest PM CEMS response used to develop
the correlation curve or the PM CEMS response that corresponds to 50
percent of the emission limit, whichever is greater. If the polynomial
correlation curve maximum value is greater than the extrapolation
limit, and the correlation curve satisfies all of the performance
criteria specified in section 13.2 of this specification, you can use
the polynomial correlation curve to predict PM concentrations. If the
correlation curve maximum value is less than the extrapolation limit,
you cannot use the polynomial correlation curve to predict PM
concentrations.
(4) You may petition the Administrator for alternative solutions or
sampling recommendations if the correlation models described in section
12.3 of this specification do not satisfy the performance criteria
specified in section 13.2 of this specification.
13.0 What Are the Performance Criteria for My PM CEMS?
You must evaluate your PM CEMS based on the 7-day drift check, the
accuracy of the correlation, and the sampling periods and cycle/
response time.
13.1 What is the 7-day drift check performance specification? Your
daily PM CEMS internal drift checks must demonstrate that the average
daily drift of your PM CEMS does not deviate from the value of the
reference light, optical filter, Beta attenuation signal, or other
technology-suitable reference standard by more than 2 percent of the
upscale value. If your CEMS includes diluent and/or auxiliary monitors
(for temperature, pressure, and/or moisture) that are employed as a
necessary part of this performance specification, you must determine
the calibration drift separately for each ancillary monitor in terms of
its respective output (see the appropriate performance specification
for the diluent CEMS specification). None of the calibration drifts may
exceed their individual specification.
13.2 What performance criteria must my PM CEMS correlation satisfy?
Your PM CEMS correlation must meet each of the minimum specifications
in paragraphs (1), (2), and (3) of this section. Before confidence and
tolerance interval half range percentage calculations are made, you
must convert the emission limit to the appropriate units of your PM
CEMS measurement conditions using the average of emissions gas property
values (e.g., diluent concentration, temperature, pressure, and
moisture) measured during the correlation test.
[[Page 1814]]
(1) The correlation coefficient must satisfy the criterion
specified in paragraph (1)(i) or (ii), whichever applies.
(i) If your source is not a low-emitting source, as defined in
section 3.16 of this specification, the correlation coefficient (r)
must be greater than or equal to 0.85.
(ii) If your source is a low-emitting source, as defined in section
3.16 of this specification, the correlation coefficient (r) must be
greater than or equal to 0.75.
(2) The confidence interval half range must satisfy the applicable
criterion specified in paragraph (2)(i), (ii), or (iii) of this
section, based on the type of correlation model.
(i) For linear or logarithmic correlations, the 95 percent
confidence interval half range at the mean PM CEMS response value from
the correlation test must be within 10 percent of the PM emission limit
value specified in theapplicable regulation, as calculated using
Equation 11-10.
(ii) For polynomial correlations, the 95 percent confidence
interval half range at the PM CEMS response value from the correlation
test that corresponds to the minimum value for [Delta] must be within
10 percent of the PM emission limit value specified in the applicable
regulation, as calculated using Equation 11-28.
(iii) For exponential or power correlations, the 95 percent
confidence interval half range at the median PM CEMS response value
from the correlation test must be within 10 percent of the natural
logarithm of the PM emission limit value specified in the applicable
regulation, as calculated using Equation 11-40.
(3) The tolerance interval half range must satisfy the applicable
criterion specified in paragraph (3)(i), (ii), or (iii) of this
section, based on the type of correlation model.
(i) For linear or logarithmic correlations, the tolerance interval
half range at the mean PM CEMS response value from the correlation test
must have 95 percent confidence that 75 percent of all possible values
are within 25 percent of the PM emission limit value specified in the
applicable regulation, as calculated using Equation 11-13.
(ii) For polynomial correlations, the tolerance interval half range
at the PM CEMS response value from the correlation test that
corresponds to the minimum value for [Delta] must have 95 percent
confidence that 75 percent of all possible values are within 25 percent
of the PM emission limit value specified in the applicable regulation,
as calculated using Equation 11-32.
(iii) For exponential or power correlations, the tolerance interval
half range at the median PM CEMS response value from the correlation
test must have 95 percent confidence that 75 percent of all possible
values are within 25 percent of the natural logarithm of the PM
emission limit value specified in the applicable regulation, as
calculated using Equation 11-41.
13.3 What are the sampling periods and cycle/response time? You
must document and maintain the response time and any changes in the
response time following installation.
(1) If you have a batch sampling PM CEMS, you must evaluate the
limits presented in paragraphs (1)(i) and (ii) of this section.
(i) The response time of your PM CEMS, which is equivalent to the
cycle time, must be no longer than 15 minutes. In addition, the delay
between the end of the sampling time and reporting of the sample
analysis must be no greater than 3 minutes. You must document any
changes in the response time following installation.
(ii) The sampling time of your PM CEMS must be no less than 30
percent of the cycle time. If you have a batch sampling PM CEMS,
sampling must be continuous except during pauses when the collected
pollutant on the capture media is being analyzed and the next capture
medium starts collecting a new sample.
13.4 What PM compliance monitoring must I do? You must report your
CEMS measurements in the units of the standard expressed in the
regulations (e.g., mg/dscm @ 7 percent oxygen, pounds per million Btu
(lb/mmBtu), etc.). You may need to install auxiliary data monitoring
equipment to convert the units reported by your PM CEMS into units of
the PM emission standard.
14.0 Pollution Prevention [Reserved]
15.0 Waste Management [Reserved]
16.0 Which References Are Relevant to This Performance Specification?
16.1 Technical Guidance Document: Compliance Assurance Monitoring.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Air Quality Planning and
Standards Emission Measurement Center. August 1998.
16.2 40 CFR 60, Appendix B, ``Performance Specification 2--
Specifications and Test Procedures for SO2, and
NOX, Continuous Emission Monitoring Systems in Stationary
Sources.''
16.3 40 CFR 60, Appendix B, ``Performance Specification 1--
Specification and Test Procedures for Opacity Continuous Emission
Monitoring Systems in Stationary Sources.''
16.4 40 CFR 60, Appendix A, ``Method 1--Sample and Velocity
Traverses for Stationary Sources.''
16.5 ``Current Knowledge of Particulate Matter (PM) Continuous
Emission Monitoring.'' EPA-454/R-00-039. U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC. September 2000.
16.6 40 CFR 266, Appendix IX, Section 2, ``Performance
Specifications for Continuous Emission Monitoring Systems.''
16.7 ISO 10155, ``Stationary Source Emissions--Automated Monitoring
of Mass Concentrations of Particles: Performance Characteristics, Test
Procedures, and Specifications.'' American National Standards
Institute, New York City. 1995.
17.0 What Reference Tables and Validation Data Are Relevant to PS-11?
Use the information in Table 1 for determining the confidence and
tolerance interval half ranges. Use Table 2 to record your 7-day drift
test data.
Table 1.--Factors for Calculation of Confidence and Tolerance Interval Half Ranges
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
df or n' tdf vdf un' (75)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2............................................................... 4.303 4.415 1.433
3............................................................... 3.182 2.920 1.340
4............................................................... 2.776 2.372 1.295
5............................................................... 2.571 2.089 1.266
6............................................................... 2.447 1.915 1.247
7............................................................... 2.365 1.797 1.233
8............................................................... 2.306 1.711 1.223
9............................................................... 2.262 1.645 1.214
10.............................................................. 2.228 1.593 1.208
[[Page 1815]]
11.............................................................. 2.201 1.551 1.203
12.............................................................. 2.179 1.515 1.199
13.............................................................. 2.160 1.485 1.195
14.............................................................. 2.145 1.460 1.192
15.............................................................. 2.131 1.437 1.189
16.............................................................. 2.120 1.418 1.187
17.............................................................. 2.110 1.400 1.185
18.............................................................. 2.101 1.385 1.183
19.............................................................. 2.093 1.370 1.181
20.............................................................. 2.086 1.358 1.179
21.............................................................. 2.080 1.346 1.178
22.............................................................. 2.074 1.335 1.177
23.............................................................. 2.069 1.326 1.175
24.............................................................. 2.064 1.317 1.174
25.............................................................. 2.060 1.308 1.173
26.............................................................. 2.056 1.301 1.172
27.............................................................. 2.052 1.294 1.172
28.............................................................. 2.048 1.287 1.171
29.............................................................. 2.045 1.281 1.171
30.............................................................. 2.042 1.274 1.170
31.............................................................. 2.040 1.269 1.169
32.............................................................. 2.037 1.264 1.169
33.............................................................. 2.035 1.258 1.168
34.............................................................. 2.032 1.253 1.168
35.............................................................. 2.030 1.248 1.167
36.............................................................. 2.028 1.244 1.167
37.............................................................. 2.026 1.240 1.166
38.............................................................. 2.025 1.236 1.166
39.............................................................. 2.023 1.232 1.165
40.............................................................. 2.021 1.228 1.165
41.............................................................. 2.020 1.225 1.165
42.............................................................. 2.018 1.222 1.164
43.............................................................. 2.017 1.219 1.164
44.............................................................. 2.015 1.216 1.163
45.............................................................. 2.014 1.213 1.163
46.............................................................. 2.013 1.210 1.163
47.............................................................. 2.012 1.207 1.163
48.............................................................. 2.011 1.205 1.162
49.............................................................. 2.010 1.202 1.162
50.............................................................. 2.009 1.199 1.162
51.............................................................. 2.008 1.197 1.162
52.............................................................. 2.007 1.194 1.162
53.............................................................. 2.006 1.191 1.161
54.............................................................. 2.005 1.189 1.161
55.............................................................. 2.005 1.186 1.161
56.............................................................. 2.004 1.183 1.161
57.............................................................. 2.003 1.181 1.161
58.............................................................. 2.002 1.178 1.160
59.............................................................. 2.001 1.176 1.160
60.............................................................. 2.000 1.173 1.160
61.............................................................. 2.000 1.170 1.160
62.............................................................. 1.999 1.168 1.160
63.............................................................. 1.999 1.165 1.159
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 2.--7-Day Drift Test Data
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PM CEMS
Zero drift day Date and time Zero check response Difference Zero drift ((RCEMS-
value (RL) (RCEMS) (RCEMS-RL) RL) /RU) x 100
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 1816]]
6
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
7
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PM CEMS Upscale drift
Upscale drift day Date and time Upscale check response Difference ((RCEMS-RU)/RU) x
value (RU) (RCEMS) (RCEMS-RU) 100%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
6
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
7
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0
3. Appendix F, part 60 is amended by adding Procedure 2 to read as
follows:
Appendix F--Quality Assurance Procedures
* * * * *
PROCEDURE 2--Quality Assurance Requirements for Particulate Matter
Continuous Emission Monitoring Systems at Stationary Sources
1.0 What Are the Purpose and Applicability of Procedure 2?
The purpose of Procedure 2 is to establish the minimum requirements
for evaluating the effectiveness of quality control (QC) and quality
assurance (QA) procedures and the quality of data produced by your
particulate matter (PM) continuous emission monitoring system (CEMS).
Procedure 2 applies to PM CEMS used for continuously determining
compliance with emission standards or operating permit limits as
specified in an applicable regulation or permit. Other QC procedures
may apply to diluent (e.g., O2) monitors and other auxiliary
monitoring equipment included with your CEMS to facilitate PM
measurement or determination of PM concentration in units specified in
an applicable regulation.
1.1 What measurement parameter does Procedure 2 address? Procedure
2 covers the instrumental measurement of PM as defined by your source's
applicable reference method (no Chemical Abstract Service number
assigned).
1.2 For what types of devices must I comply with Procedure 2? You
must comply with Procedure 2 for the total equipment that:
(1) We require you to install and operate on a continuous basis
under the applicable regulation, and
(2) You use to monitor the PM mass concentration associated with
the operation of a process or emission control device.
1.3 What are the data quality objectives (DQOs) of Procedure 2? The
overall DQO of Procedure 2 is the generation of valid, representative
data that can be transferred into useful information for determining PM
CEMS concentrations averaged over a prescribed interval. Procedure 2 is
also closely associated with Performance Specification 11 (PS-11).
(1) Procedure 2 specifies the minimum requirements for controlling
and assessing the quality of PM CEMS data submitted to us or the
delegated permitting authority.
(2) You must meet these minimum requirements if you are responsible
for one or more PM CEMS used for compliance monitoring. We encourage
you to develop and implement a more extensive QA program or to continue
such programs where they already exist.
1.4 What is the intent of the QA/QC procedures specified in
Procedure 2? Procedure 2 is intended to establish the minimum QA/QC
requirements for PM CEMS and is presented in general terms to allow you
to develop a program that is most effective for your circumstances. You
may adopt QA/QC procedures that go beyond these minimum requirements to
ensure compliance with applicable regulations.
1.5 When must I comply with Procedure 2? You must comply with the
basic requirements of Procedure 2 immediately following successful
completion of the initial correlation test of PS-11.
2.0 What Are the Basic Requirements of Procedure 2?
Procedure 2 requires you to perform periodic evaluations of PM CEMS
performance and to develop and implement QA/QC programs to ensure that
PM CEMS data quality is maintained.
2.1 What are the basic functions of Procedure 2?
(1) Assessment of the quality of your PM CEMS data by estimating
measurement accuracy;
(2) Control and improvement of the quality of your PM CEMS data by
implementing QC requirements and corrective actions until the data
quality is acceptable; and
(3) Specification of requirements for daily instrument zero and
upscale drift checks and daily sample volume checks, as well as routine
response correlation audits, absolute correlation audits, sample volume
audits, and relative response audits.
3.0 What Special Definitions Apply to Procedure 2?
The definitions in Procedure 2 include those provided in PS-11 of
Appendix B, with the following additions:
3.1 ``Absolute Correlation Audit (ACA)'' means an evaluation of
your PM CEMS response to a series of reference
[[Page 1817]]
standards covering the full measurement range of the instrument (e.g.,
4 mA to 20 mA).
3.2 ``Correlation Range'' means the range of PM CEMS responses used
in the complete set of correlation test data.
3.3 ``PM CEMS Correlation'' means the site-specific relationship
(i.e., a regression equation) between the output from your PM CEMS
(e.g., mA) and the particulate concentration, as determined by the
reference method. The PM CEMS correlation is expressed in the same
units as the PM concentration measured by your PM CEMS (e.g., mg/acm).
You must derive this relation from PM CEMS response data and manual
reference method data that were gathered simultaneously. These data
must be representative of the full range of source and control device
operating conditions that you expect to occur. You must develop the
correlation by performing the steps presented in sections 12.2 and 12.3
of PS-11.
3.4 ``Reference Method Sampling Location'' means the location in
your source's exhaust duct from which you collect manual reference
method data for developing your PM CEMS correlation and for performing
relative response audits (RRAs) and response correlation audits (RCAs).
3.5 ``Response Correlation Audit (RCA)'' means the series of tests
specified in section 10.3(8) of this procedure that you conduct to
ensure the continued validity of your PM CEMS correlation.
3.6 ``Relative Response Audit (RRA)'' means the brief series of
tests specified in section 10.3(6) of this procedure that you conduct
between consecutive RCAs to ensure the continued validity of your PM
CEMS correlation.
3.7 ``Sample Volume Audit (SVA)'' means an evaluation of your PM
CEMS measurement of sample volume if your PM CEMS determines PM
concentration based on a measure of PM mass in an extracted sample
volume and an independent determination of sample volume.
4.0 Interferences. [Reserved]
5.0 What Do I Need To Know To Ensure the Safety of Persons Using
Procedure 2?
People using Procedure 2 may be exposed to hazardous materials,
operations, and equipment. Procedure 2 does not purport to address all
of the safety issues associated with its use. It is your responsibility
to establish appropriate safety and health practices and determine the
applicable regulatory limitations before performing this procedure. You
must consult your CEMS user's manual for specific precautions to be
taken with regard to your PM CEMS procedures.
6.0 What Equipment and Supplies Do I Need?
[Reserved]
7.0 What Reagents and Standards Do I Need?
You will need reference standards or procedures to perform the zero
drift check, the upscale drift check, and the sample volume check.
7.1 What is the reference standard value for the zero drift check?
You must use a zero check value that is no greater than 20 percent of
the PM CEMS's response range. You must obtain documentation on the zero
check value from your PM CEMS manufacturer.
7.2 What is the reference standard value for the upscale drift
check? You must use an upscale check value that produces a response
between 50 and 100 percent of the PM CEMS's response range. For a PM
CEMS that produces output over a range of 4 mA to 20 mA, the upscale
check value must produce a response in the range of 12 mA to 20 mA. You
must obtain documentation on the upscale check value from your PM CEMS
manufacturer.
7.3 What is the reference standard value for the sample volume
check? You must use a reference standard value or procedure that
produces a sample volume value equivalent to the normal sampling rate.
You must obtain documentation on the sample volume value from your PM
CEMS manufacturer.
8.0 What Sample Collection, Preservation, Storage, and Transport Are
Relevant to This Procedure?
[Reserved]
9.0 What Quality Control Measures Are Required by This Procedure for My
PM CEMS?
You must develop and implement a QC program for your PM CEMS. Your
QC program must, at a minimum, include written procedures that
describe, in detail, complete step-by-step procedures and operations
for the activities in paragraphs (1) through (8) of this section.
(1) Procedures for performing drift checks, including both zero
drift and upscale drift and the sample volume check (see sections
10.2(1), (2), and (5)).
(2) Methods for adjustment of PM CEMS based on the results of drift
checks, sample volume checks (if applicable), and the periodic audits
specified in this procedure.
(3) Preventative maintenance of PM CEMS (including spare parts
inventory and sampling probe integrity).
(4) Data recording, calculations, and reporting.
(5) RCA and RRA procedures, including sampling and analysis
methods, sampling strategy, and structuring test conditions over the
prescribed range of PM concentrations.
(6) Procedures for performing ACAs and SVAs and methods for
adjusting your PM CEMS response based on ACA and SVA results.
(7) Program of corrective action for malfunctioning PM CEMS,
including flagged data periods.
(8) For extractive PM CEMS, procedures for checking extractive
system ducts for material accumulation.
9.1 What QA/QC documentation must I have? You are required to keep
the written QA/QC procedures on record and available for inspection by
us, the State, and/or local enforcement agency for the life of your
CEMS or until you are no longer subject to the requirements of this
procedure.
9.2 How do I know if I have acceptable QC procedures for my PM
CEMS? Your QC procedures are inadequate or your PM CEMS is incapable of
providing quality data if you fail two consecutive QC audits (i.e.,
out-of-control conditions resulting from the annual audits, quarterly
audits, or daily checks). Therefore, if you fail the same two
consecutive audits, you must revise your QC procedures or modify or
replace your PM CEMS to correct the deficiencies causing the excessive
inaccuracies (see section 10.4 for limits for excessive audit
inaccuracy).
10.0 What Calibration/Correlation and Standardization Procedures Must I
Perform for My PM CEMS?
You must generate a site-specific correlation for each of your PM
CEMS installation(s) relating response from your PM CEMS to results
from simultaneous PM reference method testing. The PS-11 defines
procedures for developing the correlation and defines a series of
statistical parameters for assessing acceptability of the correlation.
However, a critical component of your PM CEMS correlation process is
ensuring the accuracy and precision of reference method data. The
activities listed in sections 10.1 through 10.10 assure the quality of
the correlation.
10.1 When should I use paired trains for reference method testing?
Although not required, we recommend that you should use paired-train
reference method testing to generate data used to develop your PM CEMS
correlation and
[[Page 1818]]
for RCA testing. Guidance on the use of paired sampling trains can be
found in the PM CEMS Knowledge Document (see section 16.5).
10.2 What routine system checks must I perform on my PM CEMS? You
must perform routine checks to ensure proper operation of system
electronics and optics, light and radiation sources and detectors, and
electric or electro-mechanical systems. Necessary components of the
routine system checks will depend on design details of your PM CEMS. As
a minimum, you must verify the system operating parameters listed in
paragraphs (1) through (5) of this section on a daily basis. Some PM
CEMS may perform one or more of these functions automatically or as an
integral portion of unit operations; for other PM CEMS, you must
initiate or perform one or more of these functions manually.
(1) You must check the zero drift to ensure stability of your PM
CEMS response to the zero check value. You must determine system output
on the most sensitive measurement range when the PM CEMS is challenged
with a zero reference standard or procedure. You must, at a minimum,
adjust your PM CEMS whenever the daily zero drift exceeds 4 percent.
(2) You must check the upscale drift to ensure stability of your PM
CEMS response to the upscale check value. You must determine system
output when the PM CEMS is challenged with a reference standard or
procedure corresponding to the upscale check value. You must, at a
minimum, adjust your PM CEMS whenever the daily upscale drift check
exceeds 4 percent.
(3) For light-scattering and extinction-type PM CEMS, you must
check the system optics to ensure that system response has not been
altered by the condition of optical components, such as fogging of lens
and performance of light monitoring devices.
(4) You must record data from your automatic drift-adjusting PM
CEMS before any adjustment is made. If your PM CEMS automatically
adjusts its response to the corrected calibration values (e.g.,
microprocessor control), you must program your PM CEMS to record the
unadjusted concentration measured in the drift check before resetting
the calibration. Alternately, you may program your PM CEMS to record
the amount of adjustment.
(5) For extractive PM CEMS that measure the sample volume and use
the measured sample volume as part of calculating the output value, you
must check the sample volume on a daily basis to verify the accuracy of
the sample volume measuring equipment. This sample volume check must be
done at the normal sampling rate of your PM CEMS. You must adjust your
PM CEMS sample volume measurement whenever the daily sample volume
check error exceeds 10 percent.
10.3 What are the auditing requirements for my PM CEMS? You must
subject your PM CEMS to an ACA and an SVA, as applicable, at least once
each calender quarter. Successive quarterly audits must occur no closer
than 2 months apart. You must conduct an RCA and an RRA at the
frequencies specified in the applicable regulation or facility
operating permit. An RRA or RCA conducted during any calendar quarter
can take the place of the ACA required for that calendar quarter. An
RCA conducted during the period in which an RRA is required can take
the place of the RRA for that period.
(1) When must I perform an ACA? You must perform an ACA each
quarter unless you conduct an RRA or RCA during that same quarter.
(2) How do I perform an ACA? You perform an ACA according to the
procedure specified in paragraphs (2)(i) through (v) of this section.
(i) You must challenge your PM CEMS with an audit standard or an
equivalent audit reference to reproduce the PM CEMS's measurement at
three points within the following ranges:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Audit point Audit range
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1................................. 0 to 20 percent of measurement range
2................................. 40 to 60 percent of measurement
range
3................................. 70 to 100 percent of measurement
range
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(ii) You must then challenge your PM CEMS three times at each audit
point and use the average of the three responses in determining
accuracy at each audit point. Use a separate audit standard for audit
points 1, 2, and 3. Challenge the PM CEMS at each audit point for a
sufficient period of time to ensure that your PM CEMS response has
stabilized.
(iii) Operate your PM CEMS in the mode, manner, and range specified
by the manufacturer.
(iv) Store, maintain, and use audit standards as recommended by the
manufacturer.
(v) Use the difference between the actual known value of the audit
standard and the response of your PM CEMS to assess the accuracy of
your PM CEMS.
(3) When must I perform an SVA? You must perform an audit of the
measured sample volume (e.g., the sampling flow rate for a known time)
once per quarter for applicable PM CEMS with an extractive sampling
system. Also, you must perform and pass an SVA prior to initiation of
any of the reference method data collection runs for an RCA or RRA.
(4) How do I perform an SVA? You perform an SVA according to the
procedure specified in paragraphs (4)(i) through (iii) of this section.
(i) You perform an SVA by independently measuring the volume of
sample gas extracted from the stack or duct over each batch cycle or
time period with a calibrated device. You may make this measurement
either at the inlet or outlet of your PM CEMS, so long as it measures
the sample gas volume without including any dilution or recycle air.
Compare the measured volume with the volume reported by your PM CEMS
for the same cycle or time period to calculate sample volume accuracy.
(ii) You must make measurements during three sampling cycles for
batch extractive monitors (e.g., Beta-gauge) or during three periods of
at least 20 minutes for continuous extractive PM CEMS.
(iii) You may need to condense, collect, and measure moisture from
the sample gas prior to the calibrated measurement device (e.g., dry
gas meter) and correct the results for moisture content. In any case,
the volumes measured by the calibrated device and your PM CEMS must be
on a consistent temperature, pressure, and moisture basis.
(5) How often must I perform an RRA? You must perform an RRA at the
frequency specified in the applicable regulation or facility operating
permit. You may conduct an RCA instead of an RRA during the period when
the RRA is required.
(6) How do I perform an RRA? You must perform the RRA according to
the procedure specified in paragraphs (6)(i) and (ii) of this section.
(i) You perform an RRA by collecting three simultaneous reference
method
[[Page 1819]]
PM concentration measurements and PM CEMS measurements at the as-found
source operating conditions and PM concentration.
(ii) We recommend that you use paired trains for reference method
sampling. Guidance on the use of paired sampling trains can be found in
the PM CEMS Knowledge Document (see section 16.5 of PS-11).
(7) How often must I perform an RCA? You must perform an RCA at the
frequency specified in the applicable regulation or facility operating
permit.
(8) How do I perform an RCA? You must perform the RCA according to
the procedures for the PM CEMS correlation test described in PS-11,
section 8.6, except that the minimum number of runs required is 12 in
the RCA instead of 15 as specified in PS-11.
(9) What other alternative audits can I use? You can use other
alternative audit procedures as approved by us, the State, or local
agency for the quarters when you would conduct ACAs.
10.4 What are my limits for excessive audit inaccuracy? Unless
specified otherwise in the applicable subpart, the criteria for
excessive audit inaccuracy are listed in paragraphs (1) through (6) of
this section.
(1) What are the criteria for excessive zero or upscale drift? Your
PM CEMS is out of control if the zero drift check or upscale drift
check either exceeds 4 percent for five consecutive daily periods or
exceeds 8 percent for any one day.
(2) What are the criteria for excessive sample volume measurement
error? Your PM CEMS is out of control if sample volume check error
exceeds 10 percent for five consecutive daily periods or exceeds 20
percent for any one day.
(3) What are the criteria for excessive ACA error? Your PM CEMS is
out of control if the results of any ACA exceed +/- 10 percent of the
average audit value or 7.5 percent of the applicable standard,
whichever is greater.
(4) What is the criterion for excessive SVA error? Your PM CEMS is
out of control if results exceed +/- 5 percent of the average sample
volume audit value.
(5) What are the criteria for passing an RCA? To pass an RCA, you
must meet the criteria specified in paragraphs (5)(i) through (iii) of
this section. If your PM CEMS fails to meet these RCA criteria, it is
out of control.
(i) For all 12 data points, the PM CEMS response value can be no
greater than the greatest PM CEMS response value used to develop your
correlation curve.
(ii) For 9 of the 12 data points, the PM CEMS response value must
lie within the PM CEMS output range used to develop your correlation
curve.
(iii) At least 75 percent of a minimum number of 12 sets of PM CEMS
and reference method measurements must fall within a specified area on
a graph of the correlation regression line. The specified area on the
graph of the correlation regression line is defined by two lines
parallel to the correlation regression line, offset at a distance of +/
- 25 percent of the numerical emission limit value from the correlation
regression line.
(6) What are the criteria to pass an RRA? To pass an RRA, you must
meet the criteria specified in paragraphs (6)(i) and (ii) of this
section. If your PM CEMS fails to meet these RRA criteria, it is out of
control.
(i) For all three data points, the PM CEMS response value can be no
greater than the greatest PM CEMS response value used to develop your
correlation curve.
(ii) For two of the three data points, the PM CEMS response value
must lie within the PM CEMS output range used to develop your
correlation curve.
(iii) At least two of the three sets of PM CEMS and reference
method measurements must fall within the same specified area on a graph
of the correlation regression line as required for the RCA and
described in paragraph (5)(iii) of this section.
10.5 What do I do if my PM CEMS is out of control? If your PM CEMS
is out of control, you must take the actions listed in paragraphs (1)
and (2) of this section.
(1) You must take necessary corrective action to eliminate the
problem and perform tests, as appropriate, to ensure that the
corrective action was successful.
(i) Following corrective action, you must repeat the previously
failed audit to confirm that your PM CEMS is operating within the
specifications.
(ii) If your PM CEMS failed an RRA, you must take corrective action
until your PM CEMS passes the RRA criteria. If the RRA criteria cannot
be achieved, you must perform an RCA.
(iii) If your PM CEMS failed an RCA, you must follow procedures
specified in section 10.6 of this procedure.
(2) You must report both the audit showing your PM CEMS to be out
of control and the results of the audit following corrective action
showing your PM CEMS to be operating within specifications.
10.6 What do I do if my PM CEMS fails an RCA? After an RCA failure,
you must take all applicable actions listed in paragraphs (1) through
(3) of this section.
(1) Combine RCA data with data from the active PM CEMS correlation
and perform the mathematical evaluations defined in PS-11 for
development of a PM CEMS correlation, including examination of
alternate correlation models (i.e., linear, polynomial, logarithmic,
exponential, and power). If the expanded data base and revised
correlation meet PS-11 statistical criteria, use the revised
correlation.
(2) If the criteria specified in paragraph (1) of this section are
not achieved, you must develop a new PM CEMS correlation based on
revised data. The revised data set must consist of the test results
from only the RCA. The new data must meet all requirements of PS-11 to
develop a revised PM CEMS correlation, except that the minimum number
of sets of PM CEMS and reference method measurements is 12 instead of
the minimum of 15 sets required by PS-11. Your PM CEMS is considered to
be back in controlled status when the revised correlation meets all of
the performance criteria specified in section 13.2 of PS-11.
(3) If the actions in paragraphs (1) and (2) of this section do not
result in an acceptable correlation, you must evaluate the cause(s) and
comply with the actions listed in paragraphs (3)(i) through (iv) of
this section within 90 days after the completion of the failed RCA.
(i) Completely inspect your PM CEMS for mechanical or operational
problems. If you find a mechanical or operational problem, repair your
PM CEMS and repeat the RCA.
(ii) You may need to relocate your PM CEMS to a more appropriate
measurement location. If you relocate your PM CEMS, you must perform a
new correlation test according to the procedures specified in PS-11.
(iii) The characteristics of the PM or gas in your source's flue
gas stream may have changed such that your PM CEMS measurement
technology is no longer appropriate. If this is the case, you must
install a PM CEMS with measurement technology that is appropriate for
your source's flue gas characteristics. You must perform a new
correlation test according to the procedures specified in PS-11.
(iv) If the corrective actions in paragraphs (3)(i) through (iii)
of this section were not successful, you must petition us, the State,
or local agency for approval of alternative criteria or an alternative
for continuous PM monitoring.
10.7 When does the out-of-control period begin and end? The out-of-
control period begins immediately after the last test run or check of
an
[[Page 1820]]
unsuccessful RCA, RRA, ACA, SVA, drift check, or sample volume check.
The out-of-control period ends immediately after the last test run or
check of the subsequent successful audit or drift check.
10.8 Can I use the data recorded by my PM CEMS during out-of-
control periods? During any period when your PM CEMS is out of control,
you may not use your PM CEMS data to calculate emission compliance or
to meet minimum data availability requirements described in the
applicable regulation.
10.9 What are the QA/QC reporting requirements for my PM CEMS? You
must report the accuracy results for your PM CEMS, specified in section
10.4 of this procedure, at the interval specified in the applicable
regulation. Report the drift and accuracy information as a Data
Assessment Report (DAR), and include one copy of this DAR for each
quarterly audit with the report of emissions required under the
applicable regulation. An example DAR is provided in Procedure 1,
Appendix F of this part.
10.10 What minimum information must I include in my DAR? As a
minimum, you must include the information listed in paragraphs (1)
through (5) of this section in the DAR:
(1) Your name and address.
(2) Identification and location of monitors in your CEMS.
(3) Manufacturer and model number of each monitor in your CEMS.
(4) Assessment of PM CEMS data accuracy/acceptability, and date of
assessment, as determined by an RCA, RRA, ACA, or SVA described in
section 10, including the acceptability determination for the RCA or
RRA, the accuracy for the ACA or SVA, the reference method results, the
audit standards, your PM CEMS responses, and the calculation results as
defined in section 12. If the accuracy audit results show your PM CEMS
to be out of control, you must report both the audit results showing
your PM CEMS to be out of control and the results of the audit
following corrective action showing your PM CEMS to be operating within
specifications.
(5) Summary of all corrective actions you took when you determined
your PM CEMS to be out of control, as described in section 10.5, or
after failing on RCA, as described in section 10.6.
10.7 Where and how long must I retain the QA data that this
procedure requires me to record for my PM CEMS? You must keep the
records required by this procedure for your PM CEMS onsite and
available for inspection by us, the State, and/or local enforcement
agency for a period of 5 years.
11.0 What Analytical Procedures Apply to This Procedure?
Sample collection and analysis are concurrent for this procedure.
You must refer to the appropriate reference method for the specific
analytical procedures.
12.0 What Calculations and Data Analysis Must I Perform for my PM CEMS?
(1) How do I determine RCA and RRA acceptability? You must plot
each of your PM CEMS and reference method data sets from an RCA or RRA
on a graph based on your PM CEMS correlation line to determine if the
criteria in paragraphs 10.4(5) or (6), respectively, are met.
(2) How do I calculate ACA accuracy? You must use Equation 2-1 to
calculate ACA accuracy for each of the three audit points:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR12JA04.045
Where:
ACA Accuracy = The ACA accuracy at each audit point, in percent,
RCEM = Your PM CEMS response to the reference standard, and
RV = The reference standard value.
(3) How do I calculate daily upscale and zero drift? You must
calculate the upscale drift using to Equation 2-2 and the zero drift
according to Equation 2-3:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR12JA04.046
Where:
UD = The upscale drift of your PM CEMS, in percent,
RCEM = Your PM CEMS response to the upscale check value, and
RU = The upscale check value.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR12JA04.047
Where:
ZD = The zero (low-level) drift of your PM CEMS, in percent,
RCEM = Your PM CEMS response of the zero check value,
RL = The zero check value, and
RU = The upscale check value.
(4) How do I calculate SVA accuracy? You must use Equation 2-4 to
calculate the accuracy, in percent, for each of the three SVA tests or
the daily sample volume check:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR12JA04.048
[[Page 1821]]
Where:
VM = Sample gas volume determined/reported by your PM CEMS
(e.g., dscm),
VR = Sample gas volume measured by the independent
calibrated reference device (e.g., dscm) for the SVA or the reference
value for the daily sample volume check, and
FS = Full-scale value.
Note: Before calculating SVA accuracy, you must correct the
sample gas volumes measured by your PM CEMS and the independent
calibrated reference device to the same basis of temperature,
pressure, and moisture content. You must document all data and
calculations.
13.0 Method Performance. [Reserved]
14.0 Pollution Prevention. [Reserved]
15.0 Waste Management. [Reserved]
16.0 Which References are Relevant to This Method? [Reserved]
17.0 What Tables, Diagrams, Flowcharts, and Validation Data Are
Relevant to This Method? [Reserved]
[FR Doc. 04-5 Filed 1-9-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P