[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 112 (Friday, June 11, 2010)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 33392-33420]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-10955]
[[Page 33391]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Part II
Environmental Protection Agency
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
40 CFR Parts 72 and 75
Amendments to the Protocol Gas Verification Program and Minimum
Competency Requirements for Air Emission Testing; Proposed Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 112 / Friday, June 11, 2010 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 33392]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Parts 72 and 75
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0837; FRL-9148-1]
RIN 2060-AQ06
Amendments to the Protocol Gas Verification Program and Minimum
Competency Requirements for Air Emission Testing
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed Rule; Reconsideration.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Recent EPA gas audit results indicate that some gas cylinders
used to calibrate continuous emission monitoring systems on stationary
sources do not meet EPA's performance specification. Reviews of stack
test reports in recent years indicate that some stack testers do not
properly follow EPA test methods or do not correctly calculate test
method results. Therefore, EPA is proposing to amend its Protocol Gas
Verification Program (PGVP) and the minimum competency requirements for
air emission testing (formerly air emission testing body requirements)
to improve the accuracy of emissions data. EPA is also proposing to
amend other sections of the Acid Rain Program continuous emission
monitoring system regulations by adding and clarifying certain
recordkeeping and reporting requirements, removing the provisions
pertaining to mercury monitoring and reporting, removing certain
requirements associated with a class-approved alternative monitoring
system, disallowing the use of a particular quality assurance option in
EPA Reference Method 7E, adding an incorporation by reference that was
inadvertently left out of the January 24, 2008 final rule, and
clarifying the language and applicability of certain provisions.
DATES: Comments must be received on or before July 12, 2010. Under the
Paperwork Reduction Act, comments on the information collection
provisions are best assured of having full effect if the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) receives a copy of your comments on or
before July 12, 2010.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
OAR-2009-0837 (which includes Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0132, and
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0800), by one of the following methods:
http://www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line
instructions for submitting comments.
Mail: Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Mailcode: 2822T, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460.
Hand Delivery: Air and Radiation Docket, EPA West
Building, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460.
Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of
operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of
boxed information.
Instructions. Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2009-0837. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at
http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you
consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through www.regulations.gov
or e-mail. The www.regulations.gov Web site is an ``anonymous access''
system, which means EPA will not know your identity or contact
information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you
submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name
and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any
disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to
technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA
may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid
the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of
any defects or viruses. For additional information about EPA's public
docket visit the EPA Docket Center homepage at http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm.
Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the
www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy.
Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically
in www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Air and Radiation Docket,
EPA West Building, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington,
DC 20460. The 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 Public Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number
for the Air and Radiation Docket is (202) 566-1742.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John Schakenbach, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Clean Air Markets Division, MC 6204J, Ariel Rios
Building, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460, telephone
(202) 343-9158, e-mail at [email protected]. Electronic copies
of this document can be accessed through the EPA Web site at: http://epa.gov/airmarkets.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Regulated Entities. Entities regulated by this action primarily are
fossil fuel-fired boilers, turbines, and combined cycle units that
serve generators that produce electricity for sale or cogenerate
electricity for sale and steam. Regulated categories and entities
include:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Category NAICS code Examples of potentially regulated industries
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industry.............................. 221112 and others....... Electric service providers.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather to provide
a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be regulated by this
action. This table lists the types of entities which EPA is now aware
could potentially be regulated by this action. Other types of entities
not listed in this table could also be regulated. To determine whether
your facility, company, business, organization, etc., is regulated by
this action, you should carefully examine the applicability provisions
in Sec. Sec. 72.6, 72.7, and 72.8 of title 40 of the Code of Federal
Regulations. If you have questions regarding the applicability of this
action to a particular entity, consult the person listed in the
preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.
Considerations in Preparing Comments for EPA.
A. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this information to EPA through
www.regulations.gov or e-mail. Clearly
[[Page 33393]]
mark the part or all of the information that you claim to be CBI. For
CBI information in a disk or CD ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the
outside of the disk or CD ROM as CBI and then identify electronically
within the disk or CD ROM the specific information that is claimed as
CBI. In addition to one complete version of the comment that includes
information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain
the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the
public docket. Information so marked will not be disclosed except in
accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.
B. Tips for Preparing Your Comments. When submitting comments,
remember to:
Identify the rulemaking by docket number and other
identifying information (subject heading, Federal Register date and
page number).
Follow directions--EPA may ask you to respond to specific
questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR) part or section number.
Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives
and substitute language for your requested changes.
Describe any assumptions and provide any technical
information and/or data that you used.
If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how
you arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be
reproduced.
Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns, and
suggest alternatives.
Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the
use of profanity or personal threats.
Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period
deadline identified.
Outline. The following outline is provided to aid in locating
information in this preamble.
I. Detailed Discussion of Proposed Rule Revisions
A. Amendments to the Protocol Gas Verification Program
B. Amendments to the Minimum Competency Requirements for Air
Emission Testing
C. Other Amendments
II. 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 and Safety Risks
H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
I. National Technology Transfer Advancement Act
J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income
Populations
I. Detailed Discussion of Proposed Rule Revisions
On January 24, 2008, revisions to 40 CFR part 75, the Acid Rain
Program continuous emission monitoring regulations, were published in
the Federal Register (see 73 FR 4340 January 24, 2008). These
amendments included provisions requiring that EPA Protocol gases used
for Part 75 purposes be obtained from specialty gas producers that
participate in a PGVP. The final rule further provided that only PGVP
participants were allowed to market calibration gas as ``EPA Protocol
gas''. The January 24, 2008 rulemaking also included a provision
requiring minimum competency requirements for air emission testing
bodies (AETBs). The PGVP and AETB provisions became effective on
January 1, 2009.
The Administrator received a Petition for Review, and a Petition
for Reconsideration, claiming that EPA had not properly promulgated the
PGVP. The Agency also received a Petition for Review challenging the
AETB requirements. Subsequently, EPA published a final rule in the
Federal Register staying the AETB requirements (73 FR 65554, November
4, 2008). EPA also posted a notice on an Agency Web site stating that
the PGVP is not in effect, and a revised PGVP would not be effective
until EPA goes through notice and comment rulemaking on any revised
procedure. EPA is today announcing its reconsideration of certain
aspects of the January 24, 2008 final rule and is proposing to amend
the PGVP and AETB requirements. If these revisions become final, the
amended rule will replace the existing AETB requirements, effectively
removing the stay.
EPA is also proposing to amend other sections of Part 75 by adding
several data elements associated with EPA's Emissions Collection and
Monitoring Plan System (ECMPS) software, clarifying the requirements
for including cover letters with monitoring plan submittals,
certification applications, and recertification applications, removing
the provisions pertaining to mercury monitoring and reporting, removing
certain requirements associated with a class-approved alternative
monitoring system, disallowing the use of a particular quality
assurance option in EPA Reference Method 7E, adding an incorporation by
reference that was inadvertently left out of the January 24, 2008 final
rule, and clarifying the language and applicability of certain
provisions.
A. Amendments to the Protocol Gas Verification Program
The purpose of the proposed EPA Protocol Gas Verification Program
(PGVP) is to ensure the accuracy of EPA Protocol gases. EPA proposes to
require that the owner or operator of a Part 75 affected source ensure
that all calibration gases used to quality assure the operation of
instrumentation meet the definition of calibration gas contained in
Sec. 72.2, and the relevant provision in Section 5.1 of Appendix A of
Part 75. In turn, Sec. 72.2 defines calibration gas to include, among
other things, EPA Protocol gas. EPA Protocol gas is a calibration gas
mixture prepared and analyzed according to Section 2 of the ``EPA
Traceability Protocol for Assay and Certification of Gaseous
Calibration Standards,'' or such revised procedure as approved by the
Administrator. All of the other calibration gases defined in Sec. 72.2
are analyzed by the National Institute of Standards and Technology
(NIST) or are produced following a more rigorous procedure and are
presumed more accurate (and costly) than EPA Protocol gases. Therefore,
only EPA Protocol gases are included in the PGVP described in today's
proposed rule. The proposed rule would revise Sec. 75.21 to require a
Part 75 affected source that uses EPA Protocol gas to obtain it from an
EPA Protocol gas production site which is on the EPA list of sites
participating in the PGVP at the time the owner or operator procures
the gases.
EPA is proposing that any EPA Protocol gas production site that
chooses to participate in the PGVP must notify the Administrator of its
intent to participate. EPA would then issue a unique vendor
identification number (ID) to the EPA Protocol gas production site
(e.g., a company's four participating EPA Protocol gas production sites
might be issued vendor IDs: 75.1, 75.2, 75.3 and 75.4). Affected units
would report the vendor ID as a required data element in each
electronic quarterly report, thus confirming that the affected unit's
calibration gases are being supplied by a participating EPA Protocol
gas production site.
Proposed Sec. 75.21(g) would require an EPA Protocol gas
production site to notify EPA of its participation in the
[[Page 33394]]
PGVP by following the instructions on the Forms page of the Clean Air
Markets Division (CAMD) Web site (notification will likely be through
an official EPA e-mail box). Initial participation in the program would
commence on the date of notification and would extend from that date
through the remainder of the calendar year. An EPA Protocol gas
production site that elects to continue participating in the PGVP in
the next calendar year would be required to notify the Administrator of
its intent to continue in the program by December 31 of the current
year. The names of EPA Protocol gas production sites participating in
the PGVP would be made publicly available by posting on official EPA
Web sites. EPA believes that annual posting will be frequent enough to
allow EPA Protocol gas users to verify that their calibration gases are
being provided by PGVP participants.
The contents of the initial notification and subsequent re-
notification(s) would be as follows:
(i) The specialty gas company name which owns or operates the EPA
Protocol gas production site;
(ii) The name and address of that participating EPA Protocol gas
production site owned or operated by the specialty gas company; and
(iii) The name, e-mail address, and telephone number of a contact
person for that participating EPA Protocol gas production site.
If any of the above information changes during the year, updates
may be sent to EPA, and Agency Web sites will be amended accordingly.
Under the PGVP as proposed, the Agency may annually audit up to
four EPA Protocol gas cylinders from each participating EPA Protocol
gas production site. The same number and type of cylinders (i.e.,
cylinders with the same certified components, approximately the same
certified component concentration, and same number of certified
components) would be obtained from each participating EPA Protocol gas
production site that produces such cylinders to allow for better
intercompany comparisons.
Each year, EPA intends to audit all participating EPA Protocol gas
production sites that produce the type of gas being audited, and to
obtain EPA Protocol gas cylinders that are as representative of the
normal production process as possible, given the limited sample size.
To achieve this goal, the Agency intends to obtain cylinders in such a
way that an EPA Protocol gas production site is not aware that its
cylinders are being audited. In the past, the Agency has hired a
company that uses EPA Protocol gas cylinders as part of its normal
business to purchase cylinders. It is possible that EPA would hire a
different company each year for this purpose. The Agency specifically
requests comment on how it can better ensure that cylinders are
obtained from each production site without raising suspicion that the
cylinders are being audited. One possibility is to place cylinder
orders from locations that are geographically close to a production
site. However, there is no guarantee that EPA can always find a
purchaser in such a location.
After obtaining all of the EPA Protocol gas cylinders to be
audited, EPA would notify each participating EPA Protocol gas
production site that its EPA Protocol gas cylinders are being audited
and would identify the purchaser as an EPA representative or contractor
participating in the audit process. EPA proposes that each
participating EPA Protocol gas production site would then either cancel
that purchaser's invoice or credit the purchaser's account for the
purchase of those EPA Protocol gas cylinders, and provide funding to
the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) for analysis
of those EPA Protocol gas cylinders, for their portion of an electronic
NIST audit report on all audited cylinders for the current audit, for
demurrage, and for return shipment of their cylinders. The rule as
proposed would require that at the EPA Protocol gas production site's
own cost, audit results be submitted electronically by NIST to EPA upon
completion of NIST's analyses of all audit cylinders. A copy of NIST's
analysis of EPA Protocol gas cylinders from an EPA Protocol gas
production site could also be provided to that site, if that provision
is part of the production site's agreement with NIST.
Section 75.21(g) of the proposed rule provides minimum criteria for
auditing cylinders and reporting the results to EPA at cost to the
production site. As proposed each participating EPA Protocol gas
production site would reach formal agreement with and pay NIST to
analyze its EPA Protocol gas cylinders within two weeks of NIST's
receipt of the batch containing those cylinders (or as soon as possible
thereafter) using procedures at least as rigorous as the ``EPA
Traceability Protocol for Assay and Certification of Gaseous
Calibration Standards'' (Traceability Protocol), September 1997 (EPA-
600/R-97/121) or equivalent written cylinder analysis protocol that has
been approved by EPA. The two week deadline assumes that EPA Protocol
gas cylinders would be sent to NIST in manageable batches, which EPA
intends to do.
Each cylinder's concentration would be determined and the results
compared to the cylinder's certification documentation and tag value
and for conformity to Section 5.1 of Appendix A. After NIST analysis, a
participant would then have to assure that each cylinder has a NIST
analyzed concentration with an uncertainty of plus or minus 1.0 percent
(inclusive) or better, unless otherwise approved by EPA. The Agency
notes that especially with very low concentration cylinders, it may not
be possible to meet the 1.0 percent uncertainty and reserves the right
to make appropriate adjustments. Further, the proposed rule would
require that the certification documentation must be verified in the
audit report as meeting the requirements of the Traceability Protocol
or such revised procedure as approved by the Administrator.
All of the information described in Sec. Sec. 75.21(g)(9)(ii)-(v)
would be provided in an audit report submitted electronically by NIST
to EPA at the end of the current (annual) audit. The Agency would post
on EPA Web sites the results of the NIST analysis in the same format as
Figure 3 (or the Note below Figure 3, as applicable) or a revised
format approved by EPA.
EPA believes that owners or operators of Part 75 affected units
will use the results of the NIST analysis to better inform their EPA
Protocol gas purchase decisions. We specifically request comment on
whether the format and information contained in proposed Figure 3 and
the Note below Figure 3 are useful for this purpose.
In proposed Sec. 75.21(g)(4), EPA would reserve the right to
remove an EPA Protocol gas production site from the list of PGVP
participants for any of the following reasons:
(1) If the production site fails to provide all of the information
required by Sec. 75.21(g)(1), specifically, items (i) through (iii),
listed above;
(2) If, after being notified that its EPA Protocol gas cylinders
are being audited by EPA, the EPA Protocol gas production site fails to
cancel its invoice or to credit the purchaser's account for the
cylinders; or
(3) Any participating EPA Protocol gas production site whose
cylinders were sent to NIST by EPA for analysis but are not in the
electronic audit report submitted by NIST to EPA.
EPA would relist an EPA Protocol gas production site as follows:
(1) An EPA Protocol gas production site may be relisted
immediately, after its failure is remedied, if the only failure is not
providing all of the information required by Sec. 75.21(g)(1);
[[Page 33395]]
(2) If EPA fails to receive from the participating EPA Protocol gas
production site a written invoice cancellation or a hardcopy credit
receipt for the cylinders within two weeks of notifying the production
site that its cylinders are being audited by EPA, the cylinders would
be returned to the production site and that production site would not
be eligible for relisting until December 31 of the current year and
until it submits to EPA the information required by Sec. 75.21(g)(1),
in accordance with the procedures in Sec. Sec. 75.21(g)(2) and
75.21(g)(3); and
(3) Any participating EPA Protocol gas production site whose
cylinders were sent to NIST by EPA for analysis, but are not in the
electronic audit report submitted by NIST to EPA, would not be eligible
for relisting until December 31 of the next year and until it submits
to EPA the information required by Sec. 75.21(g)(1), in accordance
with the procedures in Sec. Sec. 75.21(g)(2) and 75.21(g)(3). The
eligible relisting date of December 31 of the next year is later than
the eligible relisting date in (2), above, because EPA will not know
whether a particular EPA Protocol gas production site is missing from
the NIST audit report until the last half of the calendar year. Thus, a
production site would potentially be removed from the list of
participants for only a few months if the eligible relisting date were
December 31 of the current year, which may not be sufficient to prevent
gaming of the program.
EPA believes that removing EPA Protocol gas production sites from
the participants list for cause will provide sufficient incentive for
good faith participation. However, EPA specifically requests comment on
whether there are better mechanisms to ensure good faith participation
once a company elects to participate in the PGVP.
EPA notes that some EPA Protocol gas production sites produce EPA
Protocol gas cylinders claiming NIST traceability for both NO and
NOX concentrations in the same cylinder. If, as provided in
the proposed rule, such cylinders were analyzed by NIST for the PGVP,
they would have to be analyzed and the results reported for both the NO
and NOX components, where total NOX is determined
by NO plus NO2. The Agency believes that this requirement
would better assure NIST traceability, regardless of whether NO or
NOX is used when performing QA/QC tests.
The Agency believes that there are approximately 14 specialty gas
companies in the U.S. Some companies have multiple production sites,
resulting in approximately 30 potential EPA Protocol gas production
sites. If all production sites were to participate in the PGVP and EPA
were to audit 4 cylinders from each production site, NIST would have to
analyze 120 cylinders each year. If it takes NIST two weeks to analyze
20 cylinders, and if EPA shipped a batch of 20 cylinders every two
weeks, it would take NIST 3 months to analyze all 120 cylinders (six
batches). NIST would need additional time to produce an analysis report
and submit it electronically to EPA. NIST has indicated that it can
analyze 120 cylinders and submit an analysis report to EPA within six
months.
However, if cylinder analyses and report submittal ever take longer
than one year to complete, an annual PGVP would not be possible. To
address this and other possibilities, the Agency specifically requests
comments on the following options.
Option 1: EPA could interpret that an ``EPA Protocol gas production
site that is on the EPA list of sites participating in the PGVP at the
time the owner or operator procures such gases'' has the literal
meaning that an EPA Protocol gas production site simply has to be on
the EPA list to be able to provide EPA Protocol gases to owners or
operators of Part 75 affected units. Therefore, if EPA does not procure
gases for audit in a given year (and consequently NIST does not analyze
the gases), an EPA Protocol gas production site could still market its
EPA Protocol gases to Part 75 sources. Option 1 would also allow NIST
to take longer than 12 months to analyze and report on all audit
cylinders. However, a downside would be that audit results would be
posted at less than an annual frequency, and Part 75 sources would not
be able to determine the best performing EPA Protocol gas production
sites as frequently.
Option 2: EPA could reduce the number of cylinders audited per
production site in a year so that NIST could analyze and report on all
audit cylinders, and EPA could post results on an annual basis. While
each production site would still be represented in the audit, a
downside to Option 2 would be that fewer cylinders per production site
would be audited.
Option 3: Instead of procuring cylinders from all production sites,
EPA could select fewer production sites from each specialty gas
company. A downside would be that not all production sites would be
audited, even though each specialty gas company would still be
represented in the audit sample.
Option 4: EPA could use any of the above three options or some
combination in a given year. The Agency prefers this option because of
the increased flexibility it provides. This flexibility might be
required to address certain situations, e.g., an expansion in the
number of EPA Protocol gas production sites, unforeseen delays in
cylinder analyses or logistics, and possible Federal budget
constraints.
EPA proposes that if an EPA Protocol gas production site is removed
from the list of PGVP participants after EPA Protocol gas cylinders
have been purchased from that site, the owner or operator would be
allowed to use the cylinders for Part 75 applications until the earlier
of the cylinder's expiration date or until the cylinder gas pressure
reaches 150 psig.\1\ Further, if on the effective date of Sec.
75.21(g), a Part 75 affected source, or an emissions testing group or
testing company has in its possession EPA Protocol gases from an EPA
Protocol gas production site that is not participating in the PGVP, use
of those cylinder gases would also be permitted for Part 75
applications until the earlier of the cylinder's expiration date or
until the cylinder gas pressure reaches 150 psig. EPA believes that
these proposed rule provisions help clarify the liability of Part 75
affected sources in such cases.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Section 2.1.6.4 of the ``EPA Traceability Protocol for Assay
and Certification of Gaseous Calibration Standards,'' establishes a
minimum compressed gas cylinder pressure of 150 pounds per square
inch gravimetric, below which the cylinder gas concentration cannot
be assured.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
After analysis, each EPA Protocol gas cylinder would be returned to
the EPA Protocol gas production site that provided it. The EPA Protocol
gas cylinders being returned to the production site would be almost
full and have an accompanying NIST analyzed concentration with an
uncertainty of plus or minus 1.0 percent (inclusive) or better, which
more than meets the Part 75 EPA Protocol gas plus or minus 2.0 percent
of cylinder tag value requirement.
In order to help contain the cost of NIST's cylinder analyses, NIST
has agreed to implement the following cost containment measures:
(1) The concentrations of the gaseous components of interest in
each batch of cylinders will be within predefined concentration ranges.
This will allow NIST to setup instrumentation and form calibration
curves more efficiently.
(2) The arrival of each batch of cylinders will be coordinated with
the work schedules of key NIST personnel. This will allow NIST to more
efficiently manage its resources.
(3) NIST has modeled the cross interactions of the analytical
species on
[[Page 33396]]
its instrumentation. Future work can make use of that modeling, so that
NIST needs only to confirm that the correction factors are still good
before using them.
(4) Since NIST's uncertainty \2\ requirements for intermediate gas
standards are quite stringent (i.e., less than 0.5% uncertainty, and 1%
expanded), NIST can use intermediate standards for all of this work.
This keeps the cost down, because expensive primary standards do not
have to be used. In addition, NIST has invested in tri-mix working
standards that will allow them to validate their methods much more
quickly.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Like any measurement, cylinder gas concentration is subject
to uncertainty due to instrument measurement accuracy and
repeatability, operator error, measurement methodology, accuracy of
reference standards used, and other sources of error.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(5) For the future, NIST is considering using a Fourier Transform
Infrared Spectroscopy (FTIR) method, which might further reduce costs
by consolidating all of the analytical work in a single automated
instrument.
NIST has agreed to analyze audit cylinders to 0.5% uncertainty (1%
expanded uncertainty). The reason for this uncertainty goal is to allow
reasonable certainty when judging an audited cylinder with a 2.0%
uncertainty requirement under Part 75. No reasonable cost savings will
be achieved by increasing the uncertainty to 1% (2% expanded).
According to NIST, high concentration cylinders will always cost
less to analyze. The lowest concentration cylinders will cost NIST
approximately 25% more to analyze.
Based on 2009 cost data from NIST and recent cylinder shipping
costs, EPA estimates that the average cost for NIST to analyze one EPA
Protocol gas cylinder, produce a report and return ship a cylinder is
approximately $1,800. This cost assumes implementation of cost
containment measures 1 through 3 described above. The
cost may decrease further as a result of implementing measures
4 and 5.
EPA proposes to add the following simple recordkeeping and
reporting requirements under Sec. Sec. 75.59 and 75.64 to enable the
Agency to verify that Part 75 affected sources are using EPA Protocol
gases from EPA Protocol gas production sites that are participating in
the PGVP, and to inform the gas cylinder selection for the PGVP audits:
(i) Gas level code;
(ii) A code for the type of EPA Protocol gas used for each gas
monitor that uses EPA Protocol gas for daily calibrations;
(iii) A code for type of EPA Protocol gas used for each gas monitor
that uses EPA Protocol gas for quarterly linearity checks;
(iv) Start and end date and hour for EPA Protocol gas type code for
gases used on CEMS;
(v) A code for type of EPA Protocol gas used with EPA Reference
Methods 3A and/or 6C and/or 7E, when those methods are used to perform
relative accuracy test audits (RATAs) for certification,
recertification, routine quality assurance, or diagnostic testing of
Part 75 monitoring systems; and
(vi) The PGVP vendor ID issued by EPA.
EPA specifically requests comments on the following proposed codes
for the type of EPA Protocol gas used. These codes would not be
specified in the rule, but rather in the electronic reporting
instructions:
SO2 = EPA Protocol gas standard consisting of a single
certified component, SO2, and a balance gas.
NOX = EPA Protocol gas standard consisting of a single
certified component, NOX, and a balance gas.
NO = EPA Protocol gas standard consisting of a single certified
component, NO, and a balance gas.
CO2 = EPA Protocol gas standard consisting of a single
certified component, CO2, and a balance gas.
O2 = EPA Protocol gas standard consisting of a single
certified component, O2, and a balance gas.
SC = EPA Protocol gas bi-blend standard consisting of two certified
components, SO2 and CO2, and a balance gas.
SN = EPA Protocol gas bi-blend standard consisting of two certified
components, SO2 and NO and a balance gas.
SN1 = EPA Protocol gas bi-blend standard consisting of two
certified components, SO2 and NOX and a balance
gas.
NC = EPA Protocol gas bi-blend standard consisting of two certified
components, NO and CO2, and a balance gas.
N1C = EPA Protocol gas bi-blend standard consisting of two
certified components, NOX and CO2, and a balance
gas.
NCO = EPA Protocol gas bi-blend standard consisting of two certified
components, NO and CO, and a balance gas.
N1CO = EPA Protocol gas bi-blend standard consisting of two
certified components, NOX and CO, and a balance gas.
OC = EPA Protocol gas bi-blend standard consisting of two certified
components, O2 and CO2, and a balance gas.
OCO = EPA Protocol gas bi-blend standard consisting of two certified
components, O2 and CO, and a balance gas.
SO = EPA Protocol gas bi-blend standard consisting of two certified
components, SO2 and O2, and a balance gas.
SCO = EPA Protocol gas bi-blend standard consisting of two certified
components, SO2 and CO, and a balance gas.
SN2 = EPA Protocol gas tri-blend standard consisting of
three certified components, SO2, NO, and NOX and
a balance gas.
N2C = EPA Protocol gas tri-blend standard consisting of
three certified components, NO, NOX, and CO2, and
a balance gas.
N2CO = EPA Protocol gas tri-blend standard consisting of
three certified components, NO, NOX, and CO, and a balance
gas.
SNC = EPA Protocol gas tri-blend standard consisting of three certified
components, SO2, NO, and CO2, and a balance gas.
SN1C = EPA Protocol gas tri-blend standard consisting of
three certified components, SO2, NOX, and
CO2, and a balance gas.
NCC = EPA Protocol gas tri-blend standard consisting of three certified
components, NO, CO2, and CO, and a balance gas.
N1CC = EPA Protocol gas tri-blend standard consisting of
three certified components, NOX, CO2, and CO, and
a balance gas.
NSC = EPA Protocol gas tri-blend standard consisting of three certified
components, SO2, NO, and CO, and a balance gas.
N1SC = EPA Protocol gas tri-blend standard consisting of
three certified components, SO2, NOX, and CO, and
a balance gas.
OCC = EPA Protocol gas tri-blend standard consisting of three certified
components, O2, CO2, and CO, and a balance gas.
OSC = EPA Protocol gas tri-blend standard consisting of three certified
components, O2, SO2, and CO, and a balance gas.
SN2C = EPA Protocol gas quad-blend standard consisting of
four certified components, SO2, NO, NOX, and
CO2, and a balance gas.
N2CC = EPA Protocol gas quad-blend standard consisting of
four certified components, NO, NOX, CO2, and CO,
and a balance gas.
N2SC = EPA Protocol gas quad-blend standard consisting of
four certified components, SO2, NO, NOX, and CO,
and a balance gas.
[[Page 33397]]
EPA proposes to allow participation in the PGVP on and after the
effective date of the rule. The proposed rule would require PGVP-
related recordkeeping requirements to start six months after the
effective date of this rule. On and after January 1, 2011, the new
PGVP-related data elements in Sec. 75.64 (described in items (i)
through (vi) listed above) would be submitted prior to or concurrent
with the submittal of the relevant quarterly electronic data report.
However, if the final rule is delayed, EPA reserves the right to amend
the reporting deadline. The Agency believes that this will provide both
EPA and the regulated community adequate time to reprogram
recordkeeping/reporting software.
The Agency is also proposing to amend Section 6.5.10 of Appendix A
to Part 75 to require that the EPA Protocol gases used when performing
Methods 3A, 6C, and/or 7E must be from EPA Protocol gas production
sites participating in the PGVP. The Agency anticipates that this will
help improve the data quality when these test methods are used at Part
75 affected sources.
B. Amendments to the Minimum Competency Requirements for Air Emission
Testing
EPA proposes to add minimum competency requirements for air
emission testing under Sec. 75.21(f). This proposed section describes
where the minimum competency requirements apply and where they do not.
EPA proposes to add simple recordkeeping requirements under Sec.
75.59 and reporting requirements under Sec. Sec. 75.63 and 75.64 to
enable the Agency to verify that Qualified Individuals and Air Emission
Testing Bodies (AETBs) meet the requirements of this rule should we
take final action. On and after January 1, 2011, the new AETB-related
data elements in Sec. 75.64 would be submitted prior to or concurrent
with the submittal of the relevant quarterly electronic data report
required under Sec. 75.64. However, if the final rule is delayed, EPA
reserves the right to amend the reporting deadline. The Agency believes
that this will provide both EPA and the regulated community adequate
time to reprogram recordkeeping/reporting software.
Proposed revisions to Sections 6.1.2(a), (b), and (c) of Appendix A
to Part 75 would provide that all relative accuracy test audits (RATAs)
of Part 75 CEMS and stack tests conducted under Sec. 75.19 and
Appendix E to Part 75 are to be conducted by an AETB that has provided
to the owner or operator a certification that as of the time of testing
the AETB is operating in conformance with ASTM D7036-04. That
certification is a certificate of accreditation or interim
accreditation for the relevant test method issued by a recognized
national accreditation body or a letter of certification for the
relevant test methods signed by a member of the senior management staff
of the AETB. The owner or operator would also record and report: (a)
The name, telephone number and e-mail address of the Air Emission
Testing Body; (b) the name of the on-site Qualified Individual; (c) For
the reference method(s) that were performed, the date that the on-site
Qualified Individual took and passed the relevant qualification
exam(s), required by ASTM D 7036-04; and (d) the name and e-mail
address of the qualification exam provider (see Section 6.1.2(b)). All
of this information would have to be recorded and kept on site for at
least 3 years and would be reported to EPA, except for the certificate
of accreditation or interim accreditation and the letter of
certification. The certificate of accreditation or interim
accreditation and the letter of certification would not be reported to
EPA but would be retained on-site for at least 3 years.
The AETB must reasonably have all of this information available to
be in compliance with ASTM D 7036-04, Sec. Sec. 5.4.11 and 8.3.7.
Section 5.4.11 states that the AETB shall ``be able to provide
documentation or otherwise demonstrate, on request from the persons or
organizations evaluating its competence, that it complies with * * *
this practice.'' Section 8.3.7 states that ``The qualification
credentials of each qualified individual shall be available for
inspection at the test site.'' Qualification credentials are defined in
the ASTM standard as ``evidence that the qualified individual meets the
requirements of 8.3.2 * * * .'' Section 8.3.2 includes criteria on
experience, qualification exams, and a statement saying that all test
projects conducted under the QI's supervision ``will conform to the
AETB's quality manual and to this practice in all respects.''
EPA is proposing to remove the reference to sorbent trap testing
from Section 6.1.2(a) of Appendix A, in view of the vacatur of the
Clean Air Mercury Regulation (CAMR) by the D.C. Court of Appeals.
Proposed Section 6.1.2(d) of Appendix A recommends that the owner or
operator of a Part 75 affected source request the following information
from an AETB:
(1) The AETB's quality manual;
(2) The results of any external or internal audits performed by the
AETB in the prior 12 months;
(3) A written description of any corrective actions being
implemented by the AETB in the prior 12 months; and
(4) Any AETB training records in the prior 12 months. This proposed
provision is merely a recommendation, will not affect data validation,
and does not require the owner or operator to review, retain or report
copies of such records. The provision is simply for the protection of
the owner or operator. The Agency believes this will provide the owner
or operator more assurance that the AETB is complying with all the
requirements of ASTM D 7036-04. The Agency anticipates that testers
would have this information with them in their vehicles when visiting a
site in view of the requirements of the ASTM standard.
If an AETB fails to provide information provided in Section
6.1.2(d) when requested by an owner or operator, the proposed rule
provides that EPA can demand that an AETB provide evidence to the
Administrator that the AETB has provided the information to the owner
or operator. If the AETB fails to provide such evidence, which EPA
anticipates would be clearly identified in the demand, EPA would have
several courses of action. First, as described below, under Section
6.1.2(g), the EPA could list the offending AETB on its Web sites.
Secondly, as more fully explained below, since EPA's authority to make
the demand is premised on Clean Air Act Section 114 (42 U.S.C.
7414)(CAA), a non-compliant AETB could be subject to enforcement action
by EPA under CAA Section 113. The CAA provides for several levels of
enforcement that include administrative, civil, and criminal penalties.
The CAA allows for injunctive relief to compel compliance and civil and
administrative penalties of up to $32,500 per day. EPA believes that
the availability of these enforcement tools, coupled with the owner or
operator's express right to require the enumerated information from the
AETB, are significant deterrents and will result in better quality
testing.
Proposed Section 6.1.2(e) of Appendix A states that testing must be
conducted or overseen on site by at least one Qualified Individual
(QI), who is qualified in the methods employed in the test project. It
is expected that when a QI is overseeing a test, that the QI would be
actively observing the test for its duration. It is also expected that
if a QI is conducting a test, that a QI would actively conduct the test
for its duration. However, allowance would be made for normal
activities of a QI who is overseeing or conducting a test, e.g.,
bathroom breaks, food breaks, etc., and emergencies that may arise
during a test.
[[Page 33398]]
Proposed Section 6.1.2(e) also provides that if during the test
period, it is discovered that a Qualified Individual is not present on
site either conducting or overseeing the methods employed for the test
project, that test must be invalidated and repeated with a Qualified
Individual present. This provision is intended to encourage the owner
or operator and those observing the test to make it standard operating
practice to verify that a QI is present while the testing is still in
progress, thereby preventing potentially large amounts of data from
being invalidated (e.g., if six months after the completion of a RATA,
EPA were to discover that a QI was not on site during the test period).
The Agency notes that an owner or operator could act as an AETB for its
own source or for other sources, provided that the requirements of
Section 6.1.2 are met.
Of course, having a QI on site either conducting or overseeing the
methods employed in the test project does not guarantee proper
performance of the test. Third party (e.g., state agency) oversight is
recommended to help ensure that testing is properly conducted. (The
Agency notes that even though third party oversight is highly
recommended, it is not required in today's proposed rule.)
Proposed Section 6.1.2(f) of Appendix A, states that (in the
absence of other information such as evidence of collusion during
testing), test data that otherwise meet the requirements of Part 75
will be considered valid, provided that the AETB provides to the owner
or operator a certificate of accreditation (or interim accreditation)
or letter of certification described in Sections 6.1.2(b)(1) and (2),
and the Qualified Individual requirements in Section 6.1.2(e) are met.
The Agency notes that ASTM D7036-04 requires that the QI re-take
and pass a qualification exam at least once every five years (see Sec.
8.3.3 of the ASTM standard). Therefore, EPA, State and local air
agencies will be checking that QI exam certificates are current. The
Agency recommends, but is not requiring, that owners or operators of
Part 75 affected sources also check that the exam certificates are
current.
EPA believes that requiring submittal of the name and e-mail
address of the qualification exam provider is important for two
reasons: (1) It will be a valuable deterrent to an AETB providing false
qualification exam dates or certifications because the Agency may from
time to time check with the exam provider; and (2) it allows the Agency
to more easily verify the QI's credentials.
EPA understands that it may be unfair to hold an owner or operator
of an affected source responsible for certain actions (or inactions)
related to an external AETB's compliance with ASTM D7036-04. Therefore,
proposed Section 6.1.2(f) also provides that ``The certification
described in paragraph (b) of this section, and compliance with
paragraph (e), shall be sufficient proof of validity of test data that
otherwise meet the requirements of this part.'' Proposed paragraph (g)
provides that ``[i]f the Administrator finds that an AETB has not
provided accurate or complete information required by this section to
an affected source or requested by an affected source under this
section, the Administrator may post the name of the offending AETB on
Agency Web sites, and provide the AETB a description of the failures to
be remedied.'' EPA believes that this would be a deterrent to non-
compliance with ASTM D7036-04. The Agency requests comments on whether
posting an offending AETB's name on Agency Web sites is an appropriate
response in these situations.
Further, EPA would have the express authority under proposed
Section 6.1.2(h) to require an AETB to provide certain information
relating to evaluation of the effectiveness of these provisions and the
accuracy of information provided thereunder. If the Administrator
learns that an AETB has not provided accurate or complete information
or has not provided information to an owner or operator upon request as
recommended in this rule, EPA has the authority under CAA Section 114
to itself require the AETB to provide evidence to the Agency that the
AETB has in fact provided such information. EPA's authority under Sec.
114 is broad, and extends to any person ``who the Administrator
believes may have information necessary for the purposes'' of carrying
out the CAA, even if that person is not otherwise subject to the CAA.
The broad requirement to provide ``such information as the
Administrator may reasonably require'', can be one-time or on a
continuous basis.
By specifically authorizing EPA to collect information from persons
subject to any requirement of the CAA, as well as any person whom the
Administrator believes may have necessary information, Congress clearly
intended that EPA could gather information from persons not otherwise
subject to CAA requirements. In an effort to resolve problems which
affected sources have had with air emissions testing bodies, EPA is
proposing these amendments to Parts 72 and 75, and information to be
available to owners or operators from AETBs is an integral part of that
regulatory structure. Therefore, a clear statement of EPA's authority
to obtain information relevant to that which an owner or operator might
solicit from an AETB is merited.
Further, if following demand, an AETB fails to provide evidence to
the Agency that (1) it has provided accurate or complete information or
(2) it has in fact made information available to the owner or operator
upon request, an AETB could be subject to enforcement action by EPA
under CAA Section 113. As structured, the proposed rule provides that
upon learning of an AETB's deviation from the rule, EPA would provide
notice to the offender and provide a reasonable period for the AETB to
correct the deviation. If an AETB does not comply, EPA has the
authority to bring an enforcement action. EPA's enforcement authority
includes injunctive relief to compel compliance and civil and
administrative penalties of up to $32,500 per day. Deviations from the
rule that could ultimately be considered violations include, but are
not limited to, failure to provide such information as a certification
of accreditation or interim accreditation, or a letter of certification
and the date on which the on-site QI took and passed the qualification
exam for the relevant test method, assuring that the QI meets the
periodic timing requirement of examinations to retain his QI status.
Additionally, as discussed above, EPA also would have the authority to
publish the name of the offending AETB on its Web sites.
EPA is also attempting to clarify internal and external audit
provisions in ASTM D 7036-04, self certification, and accreditation by
a recognized, national accreditation body provisions in this preamble.
EPA also specifically requests comment on whether AETBs should be
required to be accredited.
If the AETB chooses to be accredited by a recognized, national
accreditation body (neither the January 24, 2008 final rule nor today's
proposed rule requires such accreditation), compliance with ASTM D7036-
04 is determined by that accreditation body. If an AETB fails to meet
the requirements of ASTM D7036-04, the accreditation body may revoke
the AETB's accreditation.
However a revoked or denied accreditation might not affect
compliance with the Part 75 AETB requirements. Section 4 of the ASTM
practice states that the ``quality manual and its implementation
(including test protocols, reports, and personnel testing)'' will
provide the ``sole basis'' for determining conformance of the AETB with
the practice. Under Section 7.4 of
[[Page 33399]]
the practice, AETBs are required to conduct annual internal audits to
identify any deficiencies and determine and document the effectiveness
of corrective action. Under Sections 18 and 19 of the practice, the
AETB also must have policies and procedures, and designate appropriate
authorities, for implementing corrective action when nonconforming work
or departures from its quality system are identified. For purposes of
the Part 75 rule, an AETB that is conducting internal (or external)
audits and implementing its policies and procedures for corrective
action is operating in conformance with the ASTM practice, despite any
deficiencies in the AETB certification or certificate of accreditation
or interim accreditation required under Section 6.1.2(b) of Appendix A
that might be discovered by the AETB or by a third party during an
audit.
EPA intends to post a list of activities on Agency Web site(s) to
assist sources in complying with ASTM D7036-04. Additionally, EPA plans
to similarly post questions and answers (Qs&As) related to the air
emission testing minimum competency requirements. Such Qs&As will be
developed and made available as implementation of the air emission
testing minimum competency requirements progresses.
Regarding the AETB-related recordkeeping requirements, EPA believes
that a commencement date of six months after the effective date of a
final rule would allow sufficient time for stack testers and stack
testing companies to become fully compliant with the AETB provisions.
Affected sources and air emission testing bodies have known that EPA
would impose AETB requirements since August 22, 2006, when the first
AETB-related rule was proposed (see 71 FR 49300, August 22, 2006). On
and after January 1, 2011, the new AETB-related data elements in Sec.
75.64 would be submitted to EPA prior to or concurrent with the
submittal of the relevant quarterly electronic data report. However, if
the final rule is delayed, EPA reserves the right to amend the
reporting deadline. The Agency believes that this will provide both EPA
and the regulated community adequate time to reprogram recordkeeping/
reporting software.
C. Other Amendments
1. Compliance Dates
EPA is proposing to amend paragraphs (b)(2) and (c)(2) of Sec.
75.4 to remove the 90 unit operating days provision pertaining to the
monitoring system certification deadline for new Acid Rain Program
(ARP) units and newly-affected units that lose their ARP-exempt status
under 40 CFR 72.6. A new ARP unit would have 180 calendar days after
the date the unit commences commercial operation to complete
certification tests of all monitoring systems, and would, according to
Sec. 72.9(c)(3)(iv), be required to commence holding SO2
allowances when the 180 day window expires. A newly-affected ARP unit
would also have 180 days to complete monitor certification testing and
begin holding allowances, except that in this case, the reference point
would be the date on which the unit becomes subject to the ARP, rather
than the date on which the unit commenced commercial operation. Since
Sec. 75.61(a)(2) requires the owner or operator to notify EPA of the
date on which a new unit commences commercial operation or the date on
which a previously ARP-exempt unit loses its exempt status, the Agency
believes the proposed amendments to Sec. Sec. 75.4(b) and (c) will
clarify and simplify the determination of when new and newly-affected
ARP units must complete certification testing and commence holding
SO2 allowances.
EPA is also proposing to amend Sec. 75.4(e), chiefly to clarify
the applicability of this section. Section 75.4(e) applies to the
construction of a new stack or the installation of add-on
SO2 or NOX emission controls (or both) at an
existing Acid Rain Program (ARP) unit after the compliance date
specified in Sec. 75.4(a). For these events, the owner or operator is
given 90 unit operating days or 180 calendar days (whichever occurs
first) after gases first exit to the atmosphere through the new stack,
flue, or emission control device to complete all necessary monitoring
system certification testing.
Under 40 CFR 72.2, a ``new'' ARP unit is defined as one that
commences commercial operation on or after November 15, 1990. Since
Sec. 75.4(e) applies only to ``existing'' units, it only covers Phase
I and Phase II ARP units that commenced commercial operation prior to
November 15, 1990.
Therefore, to ensure that the owner or operator of a new ARP unit
that commences commercial operation after November 15, 1990 is given
the same 90 operating day/180 calendar day flexible window of time to
perform the necessary monitoring system testing when a new stack is
constructed or add-on SO2 or NOX emission
controls are installed, EPA proposes to amend Sec. 75.4(e), as
follows:
First, the reference to the compliance date in Sec.
75.4(a), which applies only to existing units, would be expanded to
include the compliance date in Sec. 75.4(b), which applies to new
units.
Second, the reference to ``certification testing'' of the
monitoring systems would be expanded to include the terms
``recertification'' and ``diagnostic testing,'' because new stack
construction and/or addition of emission controls does not necessarily
require a full battery of certification tests to be performed.
Third, the exact starting time of the 90 operating day/180
calendar day window would be clarified. For construction of a new
stack, no change is proposed--the clock will start when gases first
exit to the atmosphere through the new stack. However, for
SO2 or NOX control device addition, the clock
would start when reagent is first injected into the gas stream. In
cases where there is both new stack construction and control device
addition, the start of the clock would be governed by the new stack
construction.
Finally, the allowable data reporting options during the
flexible 90 operating day/180 calendar day window of time would be
clarified.
2. Incorporation by Reference
The Agency is proposing to amend Sec. 75.6 by including reference
to Section 3, Small Volume Provers, First Edition, of the American
Petroleum Institute (API) Manual of Petroleum Measurement Standards,
Chapter 4--Proving Systems. Section 3 was inadvertently left out of the
January 24, 2008 final rule.
3. Miscellaneous Recordkeeping Requirements
EPA is proposing to amend certain recordkeeping and reporting
provisions in Sec. Sec. 75.53(g)(1)(i)(A), (g)(1)(i)(C), (g)(1)(i)(E),
(g)(1)(i)(F), (g)(1)(v)(F), (g)(1)(v)(G), (g)(1)(vi)(J), (h)(2)(i), and
(h)(5), Sec. Sec. 75.58(d)(4)(iii)(A)-(H), Sec. Sec.
75.59(a)(1)(iii), (a)(5)(ii)(L), (a)(5)(iii)(H), (a)(12)(iv)(G),
(d)(3)(xii) and (xiii), Sec. 75.62(d), and Sec. 75.63(d) by adding
various data elements that were inadvertently left out of the August
22, 2006 proposed rule and the January 24, 2008 final rule. These data
elements have already been included in the data acquisition and
handling systems of Part 75 affected units, and are needed to make
EPA's new reporting software data requirements consistent with the
regulatory requirements. Because there was zero tolerance for reporting
errors during the transition to the EPA's re-engineered reporting
software system (ECMPS), the Agency is confident that all Part 75
affected sources have already met the reporting deadlines for these
data elements.
[[Page 33400]]
4. Reference Methods
In Sec. 75.22(a)(5)(iv), the Agency is proposing to disallow
multiple Method 7E runs to be performed before conducting the post-run
bias or system calibration error check. EPA is concerned that if the
use of this option, which is described in Section 8.5 of Method 7E,
were allowed, less accurate gas concentration measurements are likely
to result; and correction of the run-level data for calibration bias
would become unnecessarily complex and prone to error.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ EPA instrumental Method 7E was developed and validated with
a requirement to conduct a system bias or calibration error check
before and after each run to ensure that each reference method run
is accurate. Method 7E also includes a procedure to correct for
drift if the drift is less than the allowable specification. This
mathematical correction assumes (not always correctly) that the
drift over the duration of the testing run is uniform and therefore
adjusts the run measurement to the average system bias calibration
response. In a recent revision to Section 8.5 of Method 7E, an
option was added to allow testers to forgo the run-by-run quality
assurance (QA) and instead only test the calibration of the
reference method measurement equipment at the beginning and end of a
series of runs. This change lengthens the interval between QA checks
and thus increases the likelihood that the uniform drift assumption
is not true. Furthermore, even if the uniform drift assumption were
true, the resulting correction would be appropriate for the middle
runs but not for the early or later runs of a test.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. Alternative Monitoring Systems
EPA is proposing to remove the requirement for an owner or operator
to demonstrate that emissions for a class-approved alternative
monitoring system (AMS) are de minimis from Sec. 75.47(b). EPA
believes that the de minimis emissions concept is not appropriate for
Subpart E petitions because in order to be approved, an AMS must be
shown to be equivalent to a continuous emission monitoring system
(CEMS). In the Acid Rain Program and in other Part 75 emissions trading
programs, the de minimis emissions concept has been used only to
justify allowing the use of less rigorous monitoring methods for low-
emitting units (such as the Appendix E methodology for gas-fired and
oil-fired peaking units and the low mass emissions (LME) methodology in
Sec. 75.19) rather than for justifying the use of CEMS or AMS shown to
be equivalent to CEMS. There are also potential problems defining de
minimis emissions for a class of units, and tracking the available
increment. The Agency notes that today's proposed revision to Sec.
75.47(b) does not imply that it will be easier to get a class-approved
AMS petition granted under Subpart E.
The Agency is also proposing to remove the self-imposed requirement
for EPA to publish a Federal Register notice for a 30-day public
comment period prior to granting a class-approved AMS in Sec.
75.47(c). This Federal Register notice is unnecessary in view of EPA's
authority under Subpart E to approve alternative monitoring systems,
and the rigorous requirements in Sec. Sec. 75.40 through 75.48 that an
AMS must meet in order to be certified.
6. Cover Letters
EPA is proposing to amend Sec. Sec. 75.62 and 75.63, regarding the
need for cover letter text to accompany official monitoring plan
submittals, certification applications, and recertification
applications. Sections 72.21 and 72.22 of the Acid Rain Program core
rules require each official Program submittal to come from the
Designated Representative (DR) or the Alternate Designated
Representative (ADR), and to include a certification statement
attesting that the information in the submittal is, to the best of his
or her knowledge, true and accurate.
In past years, EPA had required a hard copy form (i.e., EPA form
7610-14) to be included with all initial monitoring plan submittals,
and with all certification and recertification applications. Form 7610-
14 included a certification statement and a signature block for the DR
or ADR. However, the form eventually became outdated, and in the
January 24, 2008 rulemaking, EPA removed the requirement to include it
in future monitoring plan, certification application, and
recertification application submittals. Although discontinuing the use
of Form 7610-14 was appropriate, it resulted in a loss of the official
status of these submittals.
Today's proposed rule would add a new paragraph, (d), to both Sec.
75.62 and Sec. 75.63. Section 75.62(d) would require the DR or ADR to
enclose a hard copy cover letter with each hard copy monitoring plan
submittal. The cover letter would be submitted to the EPA Regional
Office and to the State or local air agency. Consistent with Sec.
72.21(b), the cover letter would include the DR's (or ADR's) signature
and a certification statement. Section 75.63(d) would similarly require
a hard copy cover letter and a signed certification statement from the
DR or ADR to accompany the hard copy portion of each certification or
recertification application.
In contrast, for electronic monitoring plan submittals and the
electronic portions of certification and recertification applications,
there is no need for cover letter text. For these official Program
submittals, the requirements of Sec. Sec. 72.21 and 72.22 are met by
means of the DR's (or ADR's) electronic signature and electronic
certification statements. However, the DR or ADR may wish to provide
important explanatory text and comments along with an official
electronic submittal. In view of this, EPA proposes to include in
Sec. Sec. 75.62(d) and 75.63(d) provisions allowing such text and
comments to accompany both electronic monitoring plan submittals and
the electronic portions of certification and recertification
applications, provided that the information is communicated in an
electronic format compatible with the rest of the data required under
Sec. Sec. 75.62 and 75.63. This is consistent with Sec. 75.64(g),
which allows the DR or ADR to provide EPA with similar textual
information in electronic format, so long as it is compatible with the
rest of the data in the quarterly emissions reports.
7. Recordkeeping and Reporting Formats
EPA proposes to amend Part 75, Appendix A, Section 4 to update
recordkeeping and reporting formats.
8. Calibration Gas Tag Values
EPA proposes to amend Part 75, Appendix A, Sections 5.1.4(b) and
5.1.5 to clarify the meaning of the plus or minus 2.0 percent
performance specification for EPA Protocol gases and research gas
mixtures.
Section 5.1.4(b) currently requires calculation of a 95 percent
confidence interval which may provide justification for a specialty gas
company to claim that it is permissible for an EPA Protocol gas
cylinder tag value to be more than 2.0 percent different than the
actual cylinder gas concentration. The Agency generally does not assign
an uncertainty to a performance specification, e.g., cylinder
concentration must be within 2.0% of cylinder tag value, because
performance specifications are used to determine compliance.
Proposed Section 5.1.4(b) would state that ``EPA Protocol gas
concentrations must be certified by a specialty gas company to have an
analytical uncertainty to be not more than plus or minus 2.0 percent
(inclusive).''
Section 5.1.5 currently states that research gas mixtures (RGM)
must be vendor certified to be within 2.0 percent of the cylinder tag
value. This statement may be confusing because the National Institute
of Standards and Technology (rather than a specialty gas vendor)
actually certifies an RGM concentration.
Proposed Section 5.1.5 would state: ``Concentrations of research
gas
[[Page 33401]]
mixtures, as defined in Sec. 72.2 of this chapter, must be certified
by the National Institute of Standards and Technology to be within plus
or minus 2.0 percent (inclusive) of the concentration specified on the
cylinder label (i.e., the tag value) in order to be used as calibration
gas under this part.''
The Agency requests comments on these proposed changes to Sections
5.1.4(b) and 5.1.5, particularly regarding the appropriateness of the
2.0 percent specification for very low gas concentrations. Would an
alternative specification (e.g., in terms of absolute difference) be
more appropriate for very low concentration gases?
9. Removal of Mercury Monitoring Provisions
EPA is proposing to remove the mercury (Hg) monitoring,
recordkeeping, and reporting provisions from Parts 72 and 75. These
provisions were originally published in May 2005, in support of the
Clean Air Mercury Rule (CAMR) (see 70 FR 28606, May 18, 2005), and were
subsequently amended on September 7, 2007 and January 24, 2008 (see 72
FR 51494, September 7, 2007 and 73 FR 4312, January 24, 2008).
CAMR provided a blueprint for a national Hg emissions reduction
program, using a ``cap and trade'' approach. However, the rule was
challenged, and on February 8, 2008, the District of Columbia Court of
Appeals in New Jersey v. EPA, 517 F.3d 574 (D.C. Cir. 2008) vacated the
rule. The sole purpose of the Part 75 Hg monitoring provisions was to
facilitate the implementation of CAMR. EPA appealed the Court's ruling
on CAMR, but the petition for a rehearing was denied.
In view of vacatur of CAMR, today's proposed amendments would not
only remove the more visible Hg monitoring sections of the rule, such
as Subpart I (Hg mass emissions monitoring options), Sec. 75.15
(operation of sorbent trap monitoring systems), Sec. Sec. 75.38 and
75.39 (Hg missing data provisions), Sec. Sec. 75.57(i) and (j) (Hg
recordkeeping provisions), Section 9 of Appendix F (Hg mass emissions
calculations), and Appendix K (QA procedures for sorbent trap systems),
but would also remove a myriad of less obvious references to Hg
monitoring scattered throughout the rule text, Tables, and Figures.
The rule texts affected by the proposed amendments are as follows:
Sec. 72.2, Sec. 75.2(d), Sec. 75.4(d), Sec. 75.6, Sec. 75.10(d),
Sec. Sec. 75.20(a) through (d), Sec. 75.21(a), Sec. Sec. 75.22(a)
and (b), Sec. 75.24(d), Sec. Sec. 75.31(a) and (b), Sec. 75.32(a),
Table 1 in Sec. 75.33, Sec. Sec. 75.34(a) and (d), Sec. 75.38, Sec.
75.39, Sec. 75.53(g), Sec. Sec. 75.57(i) and (j), Table 4a in Sec.
75.57, Sec. 75.58(b), Sec. Sec. 75.59(a), (c) and (e), Sec.
75.60(b), Sec. Sec. 75.61(a) and (b), Sec. Sec. 75.80 through 75.84,
Appendix A, Sections 1.1, 2.1.7, 2.1.7.1 through 2.1.7.4, 2.2.3,
3.1(c), 3.2(3), 3.3.8, 3.4.3, 4 introductory text, 5.1.9, 6.2
introductory text, (g) and (h), 6.3.1 introductory text, 6.4
introductory text, 6.5 introductory text, (c), (e), and (g), 6.5.1,
6.5.6(c), 6.5.10, 7.3 introductory text, 7.6 introductory text, 7.6.1,
7.6.5(b) and (f), Appendix B, Sections 1.1.4, 1.5, 1.5.1 through 1.5.6,
2.1.4(a), 2.2.1, 2.3.1.1(a), 2.3.1.3(a), 2.3.2(d) and (i), 2.3.4, 2.6,
Figures 1 and 2, Appendix F, section 9, and Appendix K.
10. Miscellaneous Corrections and Additions
EPA also proposes to make several minor corrections and additions
to Part 75, most of which are in the rule sections cited immediately
above. Many of the proposed revisions are simply grammatical in nature,
for added clarity. The more substantive proposed revisions are as
follows. First, in Sec. Sec. 75.21 and 75.22 and Section 6.5.10 of
Appendix A, corrections would be made to the citations of the
Appendices to Part 60 in which the EPA reference methods are found.
Second, Equation A-7 in Appendix A would be corrected. Third,
references to SO2-diluent monitoring systems, which are no
longer used for Part 75 reporting, would be removed from Sec. 75.59,
Section 2.3.1.1(a) of Appendix B, and from Figure 2 of Appendix B.
Fourth, the reference to moisture sensors, which are not required to
perform daily calibration error tests, would be removed from Section
2.1.4(a) of Appendix B. Fifth, a reference to the NOX
emission tests of low mass emissions units, which had been
inadvertently omitted, would be added to Sec. 75.22. Sixth, in Table
4a in Sec. 75.57, the reference to the maximum potential flow rate
(MPF) would be removed from the description of Method of Determination
Code (MODC) ``23''. Code 23 pertains to data reporting for an
unmonitored bypass stack. Section 75.16(c)(3) states that during bypass
hours, the standard missing data procedures are to be used for stack
gas flow rate, rather than reporting the MPF. Finally, a new MODC,
``53'', would be added to Table 4a. This code would be used for certain
alternative emissions data approved by petition. MODC ``53'' differs
from existing code ``54'', in that the hours in which code ``53'' is
reported would be considered ``available'' hours that do not affect the
percent monitor data availability (PMA). An example of a case where
code ``53'' might be used is a situation where a developing problem
with a monitor (e.g., a dilution probe leak) is undetectable by means
of daily or quarterly QA tests, but it is later discovered, at the time
of the annual RATA. Ordinarily, this could result in an extended period
of missing data substitution, including the use of maximum potential
values, and a sharp reduction in the PMA. However, if the probe leak
could be reasonably quantified, EPA would consider a petition under
Sec. 75.66 to make an upward adjustment to the data recorded by the
monitor during the leak period and to report the adjusted data using
MODC ``53'' instead of applying the standard Part 75 missing data
routines.
II. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review
This action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under the
terms of Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735 (Oct. 4, 1993)) and is
therefore not subject to review under the Executive Order.
B. Paperwork Reduction Act
The information collection requirements in this proposed rule have
been submitted for approval to the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. The
Information Collection Request (ICR) document prepared by EPA has been
assigned EPA ICR number 2203.03. The currently approved Information
Collection Request (ICR) document prepared by EPA reflects the January
24, 2008 rule (EPA ICR Number 2203.02; OMB No.: 2060-0626). (OMB
control numbers for EPA regulations are listed in 40 CFR part 9.) The
information requirements covered by EPA ICR Number 2203.03 reflect the
revisions to the requirements in 40 CFR parts 72, and 75 that are being
proposed in this action.
Basic information on the identity of EPA Protocol gas production
sites and on the type of cylinders used by Part 75 affected sources
will be collected by the Agency. These data will allow the Agency to
verify that a Part 75 affected source is using EPA Protocol gases from
EPA Protocol gas production sites that are participating in the
Protocol Gas Verification Program (PGVP), and to inform the gas
cylinder selection for the PGVP audits. This same type of information
will be collected when EPA Protocol gases are used to perform certain
EPA test methods. The Agency anticipates that this will help improve
[[Page 33402]]
the quality of results when these test methods are used.
EPA has added simple recordkeeping and reporting requirements to
enable the Agency to verify that Qualified Individuals and Air Emission
Testing Bodies meet the requirements of this rule. EPA maintains that
the main costs for air emission testing bodies to comply with the
minimum competency requirements in ASTM D7036-04 are associated with
taking qualified individual (QI) competency exams, and the development
and revision of quality assurance manuals. The costs will be passed
through to the customers (Part 75 affected sources, primarily large
electric utility and industrial companies), and the Agency notes that
these costs will be offset by the savings generated by fewer failed or
incorrectly performed relative accuracy test audits (RATAs), and fewer
repeat tests required.
EPA is also requiring certain recordkeeping and reporting
provisions for various data elements that were inadvertently left out
of the August 22, 2006 proposed rule and the January 24, 2008 final
rule. These data elements have already been incorporated in the data
acquisition and handling systems of Part 75 affected units, and are
required to make EPA's new reporting software data requirements
consistent with the regulatory requirements.
All of the above data collections are mandatory under 40 CFR part
75. None of the data are considered confidential business information
under 40 CFR part 2, subpart B.
This proposed rule does not significantly change the existing
requirements in 40 CFR Parts 72, and 75 and thus does not significantly
change the existing information collection burden. The total annual
respondent burden is estimated to be 2,254 hours, with total annual
labor and O&M costs estimated to be $1,081,989. This estimate includes
the burden associated with the increase in fees from AETBs and PGVP
vendors resulting from their compliance with the new requirements in
the rule as well as the small labor burden for sources to review the
new requirements and comply with the modified recordkeeping and
reporting requirements (See Exhibits 1 and 2). Burden is defined at 5
CFR 1320.3(b). The respondent burden for this collection of information
is estimated to be a small fraction of both the 124,976 labor hours,
and the $8,581,420 total cost that were calculated for the existing
supporting statement (ICR 2203.02) for revisions to 40 CFR Parts 72 &
75.
Most of these costs are expected to be borne by the private sector
and will be passed through to the customers (Part 75 affected sources,
primarily large electric utility and industrial companies, or the rate
payers). The Agency notes that much of the overall cost will be offset
by the savings generated by fewer failed or incorrectly performed daily
calibration error tests, quarterly linearity checks, and relative
accuracy test audits (RATAs), and fewer repeat tests required.
Exhibits 1 and 2 summarize the respondent burden and cost estimates
performed for the ICR (2203.03) supporting statement for revisions to
40 CFR Parts 72 & 75. EPA estimates that: (a) 1,249 ARP sources and 253
additional CAIR sources will need to review the revised requirements
and comply with the modified reporting requirements; and (b) 3,736 ARP
sources and 777 additional CAIR sources will need to perform quality
assurance testing and maintenance tasks. Low mass emissions units will
not have to modify their DAHS, and sources with only new units already
have their initial startup burdens and costs accounted for in the
underlying program ICRs. Exhibit 1 shows the total burden and total
cost based on this respondent universe.
Exhibit 1--Increased Respondent Burden/Cost (Labor Only) Estimates Related to Revisions of 40 CFR Parts 72 & 75
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of
Information collection activity Mean hourly Hours per respondents Respondent Total labor
rate activity/ year (facilities) hours/year cost/year
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ARP Respondents One Time Rule 80.71 1 1,249 1,249 100,807
Review.........................
ARP Respondents Compliance with 80.71 0.5 1,249 624.5 50,444
Modified Reporting Requirements
CAIR Respondents One Time Rule 80.71 1 253 253 20,420
Review.........................
CAIR Respondents Compliance with 80.71 0.5 253 126.5 10,210
Modified Reporting Requirements
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total....................... .............. .............. 1,502 2,254 181,881
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Exhibit 2--Increased Respondent Burden/Cost (QA and Maintenance) Estimates Related to Revisions of 40 CFR Parts
72 & 75
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Previously Increased Number of Increased
Information collection activity established cont./O&M cost respondents total cost/
cont./O&M cost per respondent (units) year
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ARP Perform QA Testing and Maintenance
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Model A (CEMS).................................. $31,949 $319 1,046 $333,674
Model C (App D--NOX CEM)........................ 17,818 178 2,107 375,046
Model D (App D and E)........................... 1,843 19 438 8,322
Model E (LME)................................... 1,991 20 145 2,900
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CAIR Perform QA Testing and Maintenance
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Non ARP Sources in PM/O3 and PM Only
States
--Solid Fuel: SO2, NOX, and Flow CEMS 31,200 312 102 31,824
(units)....................................
--Gas-Oil: NOX CEMS and App D (units)....... 17,400 174 493 85,782
--Gas-Oil Peaking Units: App D, App E, or 1,800 18 150 2,700
LME methods (units)........................
[[Page 33403]]
Non ARP Sources in O3 Only States
--Solid Fuel: SO2, NOX, and Flow CEMS 20,800 208 4 832
(units)....................................
--Gas-Oil: NOX CEMS and App D (units)....... 17,400 174 28 4,872
--Gas-Oil Peaking Units: App D, App E, or 1,800 18 0 0
LME methods (units)........................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PGVP Increased Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
($2 per cylinder at an assumed average of 6 .............. 12 4,513 54,156
cylinders per year)............................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total....................................... .............. .............. .............. 900,108
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a
currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's
regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR Part 9.
To comment on the Agency's need for this information, the accuracy
of the provided burden estimates, and any suggested methods for
minimizing respondent burden, EPA has established a public docket for
this rule, which includes this ICR, under Docket ID number EPA-HQ-OAR-
2009-0837. Submit any comments related to the ICR to EPA and OMB. See
ADDRESSES section at the beginning of this notice for where to submit
comments to EPA. Send comments to OMB at the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street,
NW., Washington, DC 20503, Attention: Desk Office for EPA. Since OMB is
required to make a decision concerning the ICR between 30 and 60 days
after June 11, 2010, a comment to OMB is best assured of having its
full effect if OMB receives it by July 12, 2010. The final rule will
respond to any OMB or public comments on the information collection
requirements contained in this proposal.
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency
to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of 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 proposed rule on
small entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A small business as
defined by the Small Business Administration's (SBA) 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; or (3) a small organization that is any
not-for-profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated and
is not dominant in its field.
EPA conducted a screening analysis of today's rule on small
entities in the following manner. The SBA defines small utilities as
any entity and associated affiliates whose total electric output for
the preceding fiscal year did not exceed 4 million megawatt hours. The
SBA 4 million megawatt hour threshold was applied to the Energy
Information Administration (EIA) Annual Form EIA-923, ``Power Plant
Operations Report'' 2008 net generation megawatt hour data and results
in an estimated 1169 facilities. This data is then paired with facility
owner and associated affiliates data (owners with net generation over 4
million were disregarded) resulting in a total of 620 small entities
with a 2008 average net generation of 650,169 megawatt hours.
Multiplying net generation by the 2009 EIA average retail price of
electricity (9.72 cents per kilowatt hour), the average revenue stream
per small entity was determined to be $63,196,427 dollars. In contrast
the average respondent costs burden for this rule was determined to be
$720.37 per year, which is considerably less than one percent of the
estimated average revenue stream per entity. All of the 620 small
entities except for one had respondent costs that were less than one
percent of the estimated revenue stream.
After considering the economic impacts of today's proposed rule on
small entities, I certify that this action will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. All but one
of the 620 small electric utilities directly affected by this proposed
rule are expected to experience costs that are well under one percent
of their estimated revenues.
The proposed rule revisions represent minor changes to existing
monitoring requirements under Part 75. There will be some small level
of annual costs to participate in a gas audit program, taking a
qualified stack test individual competency exam and developing or
revising a quality assurance manual, and a slight up-front cost to
reprogram existing electronic data reporting software used under Part
75. The Agency notes that these costs will be offset by the savings
generated by fewer failed or incorrectly performed daily calibration
error tests, quarterly linearity checks, and relative accuracy test
audits (RATAs), and fewer repeat tests required.
We continue to be interested in the potential impacts of the
proposed rule on small entities and welcome comments on issues related
to such impacts.
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
This 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 one year.
The total annual respondent burden is estimated to be 2,254 hours, with
total annual labor and O&M costs estimated to be $1,081,989. This
estimate includes the burden associated with the increase in fees from
AETBs and PGVP vendors resulting from their compliance with the new
requirements in the rule as well as the small labor burden for sources
to review the new requirements and comply with the modified
recordkeeping and reporting requirements (See Exhibits 1 and 2). The
respondent burden for this collection of
[[Page 33404]]
information is estimated to be a small fraction of both the 124,976
labor hours, and the $8,581,420 total cost that were calculated for the
existing supporting statement (ICR 2203.03) for revisions to 40 CFR
Parts 72 & 75. The costs incurred by AETBs and PGVP vendors will be
passed through to their customers (Part 75 affected sources, primarily
large electric utility and industrial companies, or the rate payers).
The Agency notes that much of the costs will be offset by the savings
generated by fewer failed or incorrectly performed daily calibration
error tests, quarterly linearity checks, and relative accuracy test
audits (RATAs), and fewer repeat tests required. Thus, this rule is not
subject to the requirements of sections 202 or 205 of UMRA.
This rule is also not subject to the requirements of section 203 of
UMRA because it contains no regulatory requirements that might
significantly or uniquely affect small governments. This proposed rule
would generally affect large electric utility or industrial companies.
E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
This action 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. This proposed rule primarily amends
the Protocol Gas Verification Program, and the minimum competency
requirements for air emission testing (first promulgated on January 24,
2008 (See 73 FR 4340, 4364, and 4365)) by having specialty gas company
funds go to the National Institute of Standards and Technology, who has
statutory authority to receive such funds, to fund gas cylinder
analyses, by changing the rule language to rely on certain
documentation provided at the time of stack testing as sufficient proof
of validity of test data that otherwise meets the requirements of Part
75, by adding simple recordkeeping/reporting requirements, and by
extending relevant compliance deadlines. Thus, Executive Order 13132
does not apply to this action.
In the spirit of Executive Order 13132, and consistent with EPA
policy to promote communications between EPA and State and local
governments, EPA specifically solicits comment on this proposed action
from State and local officials.
F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments
This action does not have tribal implications, as specified in
Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This proposed
rule primarily amends the Protocol Gas Verification Program, and the
minimum competency requirements for air emission testing (first
promulgated on January 24, 2008 (See 73 FR 4340, 4364, and 4365)) by
having specialty gas company funds go to the National Institute of
Standards and Technology, who has statutory authority to receive such
funds, to fund gas cylinder analyses, by changing the rule language to
rely on certain documentation provided at the time of stack testing as
sufficient proof of validity of test data that otherwise meets the
requirements of Part 75, by adding simple recordkeeping/reporting
requirements, and by extending relevant compliance deadlines. Thus,
Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action. EPA specifically
solicits additional comment on this proposed action from tribal
officials.
G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks
EPA interprets EO 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) as applying
only to those regulatory actions that concern health or safety risks,
such that the analysis required under section 5-501 of the EO has the
potential to influence the regulation. This action is not subject to EO
13045 because it does not establish an environmental standard intended
to mitigate health or safety risks.
H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution, or Use
This rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211, entitled
``Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355 (May 22, 2001)), because it
is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.
I. National Technology Transfer Advancement Act
Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (``NTTAA''), Public Law 104-113, 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note)
directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in its regulatory
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, and business practices) that are developed or adopted by
voluntary consensus standards bodies. NTTAA directs EPA to provide
Congress, through OMB, explanations when the Agency decides not to use
available and applicable voluntary consensus standards.
This rulemaking involves technical standards. Therefore, the Agency
conducted a search to identify potentially applicable voluntary
consensus standards. The Agency found an applicable voluntary consensus
standard, ASTM D 7036-04, Standard Practice for Competence of Air
Emission Testing Bodies, for use with the air emission testing body
provisions of the proposed rule. However, EPA could not identify any
applicable voluntary consensus standard for the Protocol Gas
Verification Program. Therefore, for the PGVP, EPA has decided to use
``EPA Traceability Protocol for Assay and Certification of Gaseous
Calibration Standards,'' September 1997, EPA-600/R-97/121 or such
revised procedure as approved by the Administrator.
EPA welcomes comments on this aspect of the proposed rulemaking
and, specifically, invites the public to identify potentially-
applicable voluntary consensus standards and to explain why such
standards should be used in this proposed regulation.
J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations
Executive Order (EO) 12898 (59 FR 7629 (Feb. 16, 1994)) establishes
Federal executive policy on environmental justice. Its main provision
directs Federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and
permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their mission
by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high
and adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs,
policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income
populations in the United States.
EPA has determined that this proposed rule will not have
disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental
effects on minority or low-income populations because it does not
affect the level of protection provided to human health or the
environment. This proposed rule primarily amends the Protocol Gas
Verification Program, and the minimum competency requirements for air
emission testing (first promulgated on January 24, 2008 (See 73 FR
4340, 4364, and 4365)) by having specialty gas company funds go to the
National
[[Page 33405]]
Institute of Standards and Technology, who has statutory authority to
receive such funds, to fund gas cylinder analyses, by changing the rule
language to rely on certain documentation provided at the time of stack
testing as sufficient proof of validity of test data that otherwise
meets the requirements of Part 75, by adding simple recordkeeping/
reporting requirements, and by extending relevant compliance deadlines.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Parts 72 and 75
Environmental protection, Acid rain, Administrative practice and
procedure, Air pollution control, Electric utilities, Carbon dioxide,
Continuous emission monitoring, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen
oxides, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides,
Reference test methods.
Dated: April 29, 2010.
Lisa P. Jackson,
Administrator.
40 CFR parts 72 and 75 are proposed to be amended as follows:
PART 72--PERMITS REGULATION
1. The authority citation for part 72 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7601 and 7651, et seq.
2. Section 72.2 is amended by:
a. Revising definitions of ``Air Emission Testing Body (AETB)'',
``EPA Protocol Gas'', ``EPA Protocol Gas Verification Program'', and
``Qualified Individual'';
b. Revising the introductory text of the definition of ``Continuous
emission monitoring system or CEMS'';
c. Removing paragraph (7) of the definition of ``Continuous
emission monitoring system or CEMS''
d. Removing the definitions of ``NIST traceable elemental Hg
standards'', ``NIST traceable source of oxidized Hg'', ``Sorbent trap
monitoring system'', and ``Specialty Gas Producer''; and
e. Adding in alphabetical order definitions for ``EPA Protocol Gas
Production Site'', and ``Specialty Gas Company'', to read as follows:
Sec. 72.2 Definitions.
* * * * *
Air Emission Testing Body (AETB) means a company or other entity
that provides to the owner or operator the certification required by
section 6.1.2(b) of appendix A to part 75 of this chapter.
* * * * *
Continuous emission monitoring system or CEMS means the equipment
required by part 75 of this chapter used to sample, analyze, measure,
and provide, by means of readings recorded at least once every 15
minutes (using an automated data acquisition and handling system
(DAHS)), a permanent record of SO2, NOX, or
CO2 emissions or stack gas volumetric flow rate. The
following are the principal types of continuous emission monitoring
systems required under part 75 of this chapter. Sections 75.10 through
75.18, and Sec. 75.71(a) of this chapter indicate which type(s) of
CEMS is required for specific applications:
* * * * *
EPA Protocol Gas means a calibration gas mixture prepared and
analyzed according to section 2 of the ``EPA Traceability Protocol for
Assay and Certification of Gaseous Calibration Standards,'' September
1997, EPA-600/R-97/121 or such revised procedure as approved by the
Administrator.
EPA Protocol Gas Production Site means a site that produces or
blends calibration gas mixtures prepared and analyzed according to
section 2 of the ``EPA Traceability Protocol for Assay and
Certification of Gaseous Calibration Standards,'' September 1997, EPA-
600/R-97/121 or such revised procedure as approved by the
Administrator.
EPA Protocol Gas Verification Program or PGVP means a calibration
gas audit program described in Sec. 75.21(g) of this chapter and
implemented by EPA in cooperation with the National Institute of
Standards and Technology (NIST).
* * * * *
Qualified Individual (QI) means an individual who is identified by
an AETB as meeting the requirements described in ASTM D7036-04
``Standard Practice for Competence of Air Emission Testing Bodies''
(incorporated by reference under Sec. 75.6 of this part), as of the
date of testing.
* * * * *
Specialty Gas Company means an organization that wholly or
partially owns or operates one or more EPA Protocol gas production
sites.
* * * * *
PART 75--CONTINUOUS EMISSION MONITORING
3. The authority citation for part 75 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7601, 7651k, and 7651k note.
Sec. 75.2 [Amended]
4. Section 75.2 is amended by removing paragraph (d).
5. Section 75.4 is amended by:
a. Revising paragraphs (b)(2) and (c)(2);
b. Revising paragraph (d) introductory text; and
c. Revising paragraphs (d)(1) and (e), to read as follows:
Sec. 75.4 Compliance dates.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(2) 180 calendar days after the date the unit commences commercial
operation, notice of which date shall be provided under subpart G of
this part.
(c) * * *
(2) 180 calendar days after the date on which the unit becomes
subject to the requirements of the Acid Rain Program, notice of which
date shall be provided under subpart G of this part.
(d) This paragraph (d) applies to affected units under the Acid
Rain Program and to units subject to a State or Federal pollutant mass
emissions reduction program that adopts the emission monitoring and
reporting provisions of this part. In accordance with Sec. 75.20, for
an affected unit which, on the applicable compliance date, is either in
long-term cold storage (as defined in Sec. 72.2 of this chapter) or is
shut down as the result of a planned outage or a forced outage, thereby
preventing the required continuous monitoring system certification
tests from being completed by the compliance date, the owner or
operator shall provide notice of such unit storage or outage in
accordance with Sec. 75.61(a)(3) or Sec. 75.61(a)(7), as applicable.
For the planned and unplanned unit outages described in this paragraph
(d), the owner or operator shall ensure that all of the continuous
monitoring systems for SO2, NOX, CO2,
opacity, and volumetric flow rate required under this part (or under
the applicable State or Federal mass emissions reduction program) are
installed and that all required certification tests are completed no
later than 90 unit operating days or 180 calendar days (whichever
occurs first) after the date that the unit recommences commercial
operation, notice of which date shall be provided under Sec.
75.61(a)(3) or Sec. 75.61(a)(7), as applicable. The owner or operator
shall determine and report SO2 concentration, NOX
emission rate, CO2 concentration, and flow rate data (as
applicable) for all unit operating hours after the applicable
compliance date until all of the required certification tests are
successfully completed, using either:
(1) The maximum potential concentration of SO2 (as
defined in section 2.1.1.1 of appendix A to this part), the maximum
potential NOX emission rate, as defined in Sec. 72.2 of
this chapter, the maximum potential
[[Page 33406]]
flow rate, as defined in section 2.1.4.1 of appendix A to this part, or
the maximum potential CO2 concentration, as defined in
section 2.1.3.1 of appendix A to this part; or
* * * * *
(e) In accordance with Sec. 75.20, if the owner or operator of an
affected unit completes construction of a new stack or flue, flue gas
desulfurization system, or add-on NOX emission controls
after the applicable deadline in paragraph (a) or (b) of this section:
(1) The owner or operator shall ensure that all required
certification and/or recertification and/or diagnostic tests of the
monitoring systems required under this part (i.e., the SO2,
NOX, CO2, opacity, and volumetric flow rate
monitoring systems, as applicable) are completed not later than 90 unit
operating days or 180 calendar days (whichever occurs first) after:
(i) The date that emissions first exit to the atmosphere through
the new stack or flue, notice of which date shall be provided under
subpart G of this part; or
(ii) The date that reagent is first injected into the flue gas
desulfurization system or add-on NOX emission controls,
notice of which date shall be provided under subpart G of this part.
(2) If the project involves both new stack or flue construction and
installation of add-on emission controls, the 90 unit operating days
and 180 calendar days shall be reckoned from the date that emissions
first exit to the atmosphere through the new stack or flue.
(3) The owner or operator shall determine and report SO2
concentration, NOX emission rate, CO2
concentration, and volumetric flow rate data for all unit operating
hours after emissions first pass through the new stack or flue, or
reagent is injected into the flue gas desulfurization system or add-on
NOX emission controls (as applicable) until all required
certification and/or recertification and/or diagnostic tests are
successfully completed, using either:
(i) The applicable missing data substitution procedures under
Sec. Sec. 75.31 through 75.37; or
(ii) The conditional data validation provisions of Sec.
75.20(b)(3); or
(iii) Reference methods under Sec. 75.22(b); or
(iv) Another procedure approved by the Administrator pursuant to a
petition under Sec. 75.66.
* * * * *
6. Section 75.6 is amended by:
a. Removing and reserving paragraphs (a)(38), (a)(43), and (a)(44);
and
b. Revising paragraphs (a)(48) and (f)(3) to read as follows:
Sec. 75.6 Incorporation by reference.
* * * * *
(a) * * *
(38) [Reserved]
* * * * *
(43) [Reserved]
(44) [Reserved]
* * * * *
(48) ASTM D7036-04, Standard Practice for Competence of Air
Emission Testing Bodies, for Sec. 72.2, Sec. 75.59(a)(9)(xi)(iii),
(a)(15)(iii), (b)(6)(iii), (d)(4)(iii), and appendix A, Sec. 6.1.2 of
this part.
* * * * *
(f) * * *
(3) American Petroleum Institute (API) Manual of Petroleum
Measurement Standards, Chapter 4--Proving Systems, Section 2--Pipe
Provers (Provers Accumulating at Least 10,000 Pulses), Second Edition,
March 2001, Section 3--Small Volume Provers, First Edition, and Section
5--Master-Meter Provers, Second Edition, May 2000, for appendix D to
this part.
* * * * *
7. Section 75.10 is amended by:
a. Revising the second sentence of paragraph (d)(1); and
b. Revising the first sentence of paragraph (d)(3), to read as
follows:
Sec. 75.10 General operating requirements.
* * * * *
(d) * * *
(1) * * * The owner or operator shall reduce all SO2
concentrations, volumetric flow, SO2 mass emissions,
CO2 concentration, O2 concentration,
CO2 mass emissions (if applicable), NOX
concentration, and NOX emission rate data collected by the
monitors to hourly averages. * * *
* * * * *
(3) Failure of an SO2, CO2, or O2
emissions concentration monitor, NOX concentration monitor,
flow monitor, moisture monitor, or NOX-diluent continuous
emission monitoring system to acquire the minimum number of data points
for calculation of an hourly average in paragraph (d)(1) of this
section shall result in the failure to obtain a valid hour of data and
the loss of such component data for the entire hour. * * *
* * * * *
Sec. 75.15 [Removed and reserved]
8. Section 75.15 is removed and reserved as follows:
9. Section 75.20 is amended by:
a. Revising paragraph (a)(5)(i);
b. Revising the first sentence of paragraph (b) introductory text;
c. Revising paragraph (c)(1) introductory text;
d. Revising paragraphs (c)(1)(ii) and (c)(1)(iii);
e. Removing paragraph (c)(1)(vi);
f. Removing and reserving paragraph (c)(9); and
g. Removing paragraph (d)(2)(ix), to read as follows:
Sec. 75.20 Initial certification and recertification procedures.
(a) * * *
(5) * * *
(i) Until such time, date, and hour as the continuous emission
monitoring system can be adjusted, repaired, or replaced and
certification tests successfully completed (or, if the conditional data
validation procedures in paragraphs (b)(3)(ii) through (b)(3)(ix) of
this section are used, until a probationary calibration error test is
passed following corrective actions in accordance with paragraph
(b)(3)(ii) of this section), the owner or operator shall substitute the
following values, as applicable, for each hour of unit operation during
the period of invalid data specified in paragraph (a)(4)(iii) of this
section or in Sec. 75.21: The maximum potential concentration of
SO2, as defined in section 2.1.1.1 of appendix A to this
part, to report SO2 concentration; the maximum potential
NOX emission rate, as defined in Sec. 72.2 of this chapter,
to report NOX emissions in lb/mmBtu; the maximum potential
concentration of NOX, as defined in section 2.1.2.1 of
appendix A to this part, to report NOX emissions in ppm
(when a NOX concentration monitoring system is used to
determine NOX mass emissions, as defined under Sec.
75.71(a)(2)); the maximum potential flow rate, as defined in section
2.1.4.1 of appendix A to this part, to report volumetric flow; the
maximum potential concentration of CO2, as defined in
section 2.1.3.1 of appendix A to this part, to report CO2
concentration data; and either the minimum potential moisture
percentage, as defined in section 2.1.5 of appendix A to this part or,
if Equation 19-3, 19-4 or 19-8 in Method 19 in appendix A to part 60 of
this chapter is used to determine NOX emission rate, the
maximum potential moisture percentage, as defined in section 2.1.6 of
appendix A to this part; and
* * * * *
(b) Recertification approval process. Whenever the owner or
operator makes a replacement, modification, or change in a certified
continuous emission monitoring system or continuous opacity monitoring
system that may significantly affect the ability of the system to
accurately measure or record the SO2 or CO2
concentration, stack gas volumetric flow rate, NOX emission
rate,
[[Page 33407]]
NOX concentration, percent moisture, or opacity, or to meet
the requirements of Sec. 75.21 or appendix B to this part, the owner
or operator shall recertify the continuous emission monitoring system
or continuous opacity monitoring system, according to the procedures in
this paragraph. * * *
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(1) For each SO2 pollutant concentration monitor, each
NOX concentration monitoring system used to determine
NOX mass emissions, as defined under Sec. 75.71(a)(2), and
each NOX-diluent continuous emission monitoring system:
* * * * *
(ii) A linearity check, where, for the NOX-diluent
continuous emission monitoring system, the test is performed separately
on the NOX pollutant concentration monitor and the diluent
gas monitor;
(iii) A relative accuracy test audit. For the NOX-
diluent continuous emission monitoring system, the RATA shall be done
on a system basis, in units of lb/mmBtu. For the NOX
concentration monitoring system, the RATA shall be done on a ppm basis;
* * * * *
(9) [Reserved]
* * * * *
10. Section 75.21 is amended by:
a. Revising paragraph (a)(3); and
b. Adding paragraphs (f) and (g), to read as follows:
Sec. 75.21 Quality assurance and quality control requirements.
(a) * * *
(3) The owner or operator shall perform quality assurance upon a
reference method backup monitoring system according to the requirements
of Method 2, 6C, 7E, or 3A in Appendices A-1, A-2 and A-4 to part 60 of
this chapter (supplemented, as necessary, by guidance from the
Administrator), instead of the procedures specified in appendix B to
this part.
* * * * *
(f) Requirements for Air Emission Testing. On and after [DATE THAT
IS SIX MONTHS FROM THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL RULE], relative accuracy
testing under Sec. 75.74(c)(2)(ii), section 6.5 of appendix A to this
part, and section 2.3.1 of appendix B to this part, and stack testing
under Sec. 75.19 and section 2.1 of appendix E to this part shall be
performed by an ``Air Emission Testing Body'', as defined in Sec. 72.2
of this chapter. Conformance to the requirements of ASTM D7036-04,
referred to in section 6.1.2 of appendix A to this part, section 1.1.4
of appendix B to this part, and section 2.1 of appendix E to this part
shall apply only to these tests. Tests and activities under this part
that do not have to be performed by an AETB as defined in Sec. 72.2
include daily CEMS operation, daily calibration error checks, daily
flow interference checks, quarterly linearity checks, routine
maintenance of CEMS, voluntary emissions testing, or emissions testing
required under other regulations.
(g) Requirements for EPA Protocol Gas Verification Program. Any EPA
Protocol gas production site that chooses to participate in the EPA
Protocol Gas Verification Program (PGVP) must notify the Administrator
of its intent to participate. An EPA Protocol gas production site's
initial participation shall commence immediately upon such notification
and shall extend through the end of the calendar year in which
notification is provided. EPA will issue a vendor ID to each
participating EPA Protocol gas production site. In each year of the
PGVP, EPA may audit up to four EPA Protocol gas cylinders from each
participating EPA Protocol gas production site.
(1) A production site participating in the PGVP shall provide the
following information in its initial and ongoing notifications to EPA:
(i) The specialty gas company name which owns or operates the
production site;
(ii) The name and address of that participating EPA Protocol gas
production site, owned or operated by the specialty gas company; and
(iii) The name, e-mail address, and telephone number of a contact
person for that participating EPA Protocol gas production site.
(2) An EPA Protocol gas production site that elects to continue
participating in the PGVP in the next calendar year must notify the
Administrator of its intent to continue in the program by December 31
of the current year by submitting to EPA the information described in
paragraph (g)(1) of this section.
(3) EPA Protocol gas production sites shall provide the initial and
on-going notifications described in paragraph (g)(1) of this section by
following the instructions on the Forms page of the CAMD Web site
(http://www.epa.gov/airmarkets/business/forms.html). A list of the
names of EPA Protocol gas production sites participating in the PGVP
will be made publicly available by posting on EPA Web sites.
(4) EPA may remove an EPA Protocol gas production site from the
list of PGVP participants for any of the following reasons:
(i) If the EPA Protocol gas production site fails to provide all of
the information required by paragraph (g)(1) of this section;
(ii) If, after being notified that its EPA Protocol gas cylinders
are being audited by EPA, the EPA Protocol gas production site fails to
cancel its invoice or to credit the purchaser's account for the
cylinders; or
(iii) If, after the EPA Protocol gas production site is notified
that its EPA Protocol gas cylinders are being audited, EPA does not
receive an electronic audit report required by paragraph (g)(9)(iv) of
this section for the EPA Protocol gas production site's cylinders.
(5) EPA may relist an EPA Protocol gas production site as follows:
(i) An EPA Protocol gas production site may be relisted immediately
after its failure is remedied if the only reason for removal from the
list of PGVP participants is failure to provide all of the information
required by paragraph (g)(1) of this section;
(ii) If EPA does not receive written proof of a credit receipt or
of cancellation of the invoice for the cylinders from the EPA Protocol
gas production site within two weeks of notifying the EPA Protocol gas
production site that its cylinders are being audited by EPA, the
cylinders shall be returned to the EPA Protocol gas production site and
that EPA Protocol gas production site shall not be eligible for
relisting until December 31 of the current year and until it submits to
EPA the information required by paragraph (g)(1) of this section, in
accordance with the procedures in paragraphs (g)(2) and (g)(3) of this
section; and
(iii) Any EPA Protocol gas production site which is notified by EPA
that its cylinders are being audited and for whom EPA does not receive
an electronic audit report required by paragraph (g)(9)(iv) of this
section, shall not be eligible for relisting until December 31 of the
next year and until it submits to EPA the information required by
paragraph (g)(1) of this section, in accordance with the procedures in
paragraphs (g)(2) and (g)(3) of this section.
(6) For each affected unit under this part that uses EPA Protocol
gases, the owner or operator must obtain such gases from either an EPA
Protocol gas production site that is on the EPA list of sites
participating in the PGVP at the time the owner or operator procures
such gases or from a reseller that sells to the owner or operator
unaltered EPA Protocol gases produced by an EPA Protocol gas production
site that is on the EPA list of participating sites. In the
[[Page 33408]]
event that an EPA Protocol gas production site is removed from the list
of PGVP participants after such gases are procured, but before the
gases have been consumed, the gas cylinders may continue to be used for
the purposes of this part until the earlier of the cylinder's
expiration date or the date on which the cylinder gas pressure reaches
150 psig.
(7) EPA Protocol gas cylinders purchased prior to [EFFECTIVE DATE
OF FINAL RULE] from a production site that is not participating in the
PGVP may be used for the purposes of this part until the earlier of the
cylinder's expiration date or the date on which the cylinder gas
pressure reaches 150 psig.
(8) If EPA notifies a participating EPA Protocol gas production
site that its EPA Protocol gas cylinders are being audited and
identifies the purchaser as an EPA representative or contractor
participating in the audit process, the production site shall then
either cancel that purchaser's invoice or credit that purchaser's
account for the purchase of those EPA Protocol gas cylinders, and
provide sufficient funding to NIST for analysis of those EPA Protocol
gas cylinders by NIST, and for the production site's pro-rata share of
a NIST electronic audit report on all cylinders in the current audit,
as specified in paragraphs (g)(9)(i) through (g)(9)(v) of this section,
for demurrage, and for return shipment of its cylinders.
(9) If EPA notifies a participating EPA Protocol gas production
site that its EPA Protocol gas cylinders are being audited, then:
(i) Each participating EPA Protocol gas production site must reach
formal agreement with NIST to analyze its EPA Protocol gas cylinders
provided for audit as soon after NIST receives the batch containing
those cylinders as possible, preferably within two weeks, using
analytical procedures consistent with metrology institute practices and
at least as rigorous as the ``EPA Traceability Protocol for Assay and
Certification of Gaseous Calibration Standards'' (Traceability
Protocol), September 1997 (EPA-600/R-97/121) or equivalent written
cylinder analysis protocol that has been approved by EPA.
(ii) Each cylinder's concentration must be determined by NIST and
the results compared to each cylinder's certification documentation and
tag value to establish conformance with section 5.1 of appendix A to
this part. After NIST analysis, each cylinder must be provided with a
NIST analyzed concentration with an uncertainty of plus or minus 1.0
percent (inclusive) or better, unless otherwise approved by EPA.
(iii) The certification documentation accompanying each cylinder
must be verified in the audit report as meeting the requirements of the
Traceability Protocol or a revised procedure approved by the
Administrator.
(iv) Each participating EPA Protocol gas production site shall have
NIST provide all of the information required by paragraphs (g)(9)(ii)
through (g)(9)(v) of this section in an audit report. The audit report
shall be submitted electronically by NIST to EPA upon completion of the
current audit. The audit report shall contain complete documentation of
the NIST procedures used to analyze the cylinders, including the
analytical reference standards, analytical method, analytical method
uncertainty, analytical instrumentation, and instrument calibration
procedures. The audit report shall include a table with the information
and in the format specified by Figure 3 (or the Note below Figure 3, as
applicable) of appendix B to this part or such revised format as
approved by the Administrator. The Agency will post the results of the
NIST analyses in the same format on EPA Web sites.
(v) For EPA Protocol gas production sites that produce EPA Protocol
gas cylinders claiming NIST traceability for both NO and NOX
concentrations in the same cylinder, if analyzed by NIST for the PGVP,
such cylinders must be analyzed by NIST for both the NO and
NOX components (where total NOX is determined by
NO plus NO2) and the results of the analyses shall be
included in the audit report.
(10) After analysis by NIST, each EPA Protocol gas cylinder shall
be returned to the EPA Protocol gas production site that provided it.
(11) The data validation procedures under Sec. Sec. 2.1.4, 2.2.3,
and 2.3.2 of appendix B to this part apply.
11. Section 75.22 is amended by:
a. Revising paragraph (a) introductory text;
b. Revising paragraph (a)(5)(iv);
c. Adding paragraph (a)(5)(v)
d. Removing paragraph (a)(7);
e. Revising paragraph (b) introductory text; and
f. Removing paragraphs (b)(5) through (b)(8), to read as follows:
Sec. 75.22 Reference test methods.
(a) The owner or operator shall use the following methods, which
are found in appendices A-1 through A-4 to part 60 of this chapter, to
conduct the following tests: Monitoring system tests for certification
or recertification of continuous emission monitoring Systems;
NOX emission tests of low mass emission units under Sec.
75.19(c)(1)(iv); NOX emission tests of excepted monitoring
systems under appendix E to this part; and required quality assurance
and quality control tests:
* * * * *
(5) * * *
(iv) Section 8.6 of the method allowing for the use of ``Dynamic
Spiking'' as an alternative to the interference and system bias checks
of the method. Dynamic spiking may be conducted (optionally) as an
additional quality assurance check; and
(v) That portion of Section 8.5 of the method allowing multiple
sampling runs to be conducted before performing the post-run system
bias check or system calibration error check.
* * * * *
(b) The owner or operator may use any of the following methods,
which are found in appendices A-1 through A-4 to part 60 of this
chapter, as a reference method backup monitoring system to provide
quality-assured monitor data:
* * * * *
12. Section 75.24 is amended by revising paragraph (d) to read as
follows:
Sec. 75.24 Out-of-control periods and adjustment for system bias.
* * * * *
(d) When the bias test indicates that an SO2 monitor, a
flow monitor, a NOX-diluent continuous emission monitoring
system, or a NOX concentration monitoring system used to
determine NOX mass emissions, as defined in Sec.
75.71(a)(2), is biased low (i.e., the arithmetic mean of the
differences between the reference method value and the monitor or
monitoring system measurements in a relative accuracy test audit exceed
the bias statistic in section 7 of appendix A to this part), the owner
or operator shall adjust the monitor or continuous emission monitoring
system to eliminate the cause of bias such that it passes the bias test
or calculate and use the bias adjustment factor as specified in section
2.3.4 of appendix B to this part.
* * * * *
13. Section 75.31 is amended by revising paragraphs (a) and (b) to
read as follows:
Sec. 75.31 Initial missing data procedures.
(a) During the first 720 quality-assured monitor operating hours
following initial certification of the required SO2,
CO2, O2, or moisture monitoring system(s) at a
particular unit or stack location (i.e., the date and time
[[Page 33409]]
at which quality assured data begins to be recorded by CEMS(s)
installed at that location), and during the first 2,160 quality assured
monitor operating hours following initial certification of the required
NOX-diluent, NOX concentration, or flow
monitoring system(s) at the unit or stack location, the owner or
operator shall provide substitute data required under this subpart
according to the procedures in paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section.
The owner or operator of a unit shall use these procedures for no
longer than three years (26,280 clock hours) following initial
certification.
(b) SO2, CO2, or O2 concentration data, and moisture data. For each
hour of missing SO2 or CO2 emissions
concentration data (including CO2 data converted from
O2 data using the procedures in appendix F of this part), or
missing O2 or CO2 diluent concentration data used
to calculate heat input, or missing moisture data, the owner or
operator shall calculate the substitute data as follows:
(1) Whenever prior quality-assured data exist, the owner or
operator shall substitute, by means of the data acquisition and
handling system, for each hour of missing data, the average of the
hourly SO2, CO2, or O2 concentrations
or moisture percentages recorded by a certified monitor for the unit
operating hour immediately before and the unit operating hour
immediately after the missing data period.
(2) Whenever no prior quality assured SO2,
CO2, or O2 concentration data or moisture data
exist, the owner or operator shall substitute, as applicable, for each
hour of missing data, the maximum potential SO2
concentration or the maximum potential CO2 concentration or
the minimum potential O2 concentration or (unless Equation
19-3, 19-4 or 19-8 in Method 19 in appendix A-7 to part 60 of this
chapter is used to determine NOX emission rate) the minimum
potential moisture percentage, as specified, respectively, in sections
2.1.1.1, 2.1.3.1, 2.1.3.2 and 2.1.5 of appendix A to this part. If
Equation 19-3, 19-4 or 19-8 in Method 19 in appendix A-7 to part 60 of
this chapter is used to determine NOX emission rate,
substitute the maximum potential moisture percentage, as specified in
section 2.1.6 of appendix A to this part.
* * * * *
14. Section 75.32 is amended by revising the first sentence of
paragraph (a) introductory text, to read as follows:
Sec. 75.32 Determination of monitor data availability for standard
missing data procedures.
(a) Following initial certification of the required SO2,
CO2, O2, or moisture monitoring system(s) at a
particular unit or stack location (i.e., the date and time at which
quality assured data begins to be recorded by CEMS(s) at that
location), the owner or operator shall begin calculating the percent
monitor data availability as described in paragraph (a)(1) of this
section, and shall, upon completion of the first 720 quality-assured
monitor operating hours, record, by means of the automated data
acquisition and handling system, the percent monitor data availability
for each monitored parameter. * * *
* * * * *
15. Section 75.33 is amended by:
a. Revising the section heading; and
b. Revising Table 1 and the footnotes below Table 1, to read as
follows:
Sec. 75.33 Standard missing data procedures for SO2,
NOX, and flow rate.
* * * * *
Table 1--Missing Data Procedure for SO2 CEMS, CO2 CEMS, Moisture CEMS, and Diluent (CO2 or O2) Monitors for Heat
Input Determination
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Trigger conditions Calculation routines
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Monitor data availability Duration (N) of CEMS
(percent) outage (hours) \2\ Method Lookback period
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
95 or more........................ N <= 24.............. Average.................. HB/HA.
N > 24............... For SO2, CO2, and H2O**, HB/HA.
the greater of:
Average.................. HB/HA.
90th percentile.......... 720 hours*.
For O2 and H2O\x\, the HB/HA.
lesser of:
10th percentile.......... 720 hours*.
90 or more, but below 95.......... N <= 8............... Average.................. HB/HA.
N > 8................ For SO2, CO2, and H2O**, HB/HA.
the greater of:
Average.................. HB/HA.
95th percentile.......... 720 hours*.
For O2 and H2O\x\, the
lesser of:
Average.................. HB/HA.
5th Percentile........... 720 hours*.
80 or more, but below 90.......... N > 0................ For SO2, CO2, and H2O**, 720 hours*.
Maximum value\1\.
For O2 and H2O\x\: 720 hours*.
Minimum value\1\.
Below 80.......................... N > 0................ Maximum potential None
concentration\3\ or %
(for SO2, CO2, and
H2O**) or
Minimum potential
concentration or % (for
O2 and H2O\x\).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HB/HA = hour before and hour after the CEMS outage.
* Quality-assured, monitor operating hours, during unit operation. May be either fuel-specific or non-fuel-
specific. For units that report data only for the ozone season, include only quality assured monitor operating
hours within the ozone season in the lookback period. Use data from no earlier than 3 years prior to the
missing data period.
\1\ Where a unit with add-on SO2 emission controls can demonstrate that the controls are operating properly
during the missing data period, as provided in Sec. 75.34, the unit may use the maximum controlled
concentration from the previous 720 quality-assured monitor operating hours.
\2\ During unit operating hours.
\3\ Where a unit with add-on SO2 emission controls can demonstrate that the controls are operating properly
during the missing data period, the unit may report the greater of: (a) The maximum expected SO2 concentration
or (b) 1.25 times the maximum controlled value from the previous 720 quality-assured monitor operating hours
(see Sec. 75.34).
\x\ Use this algorithm for moisture except when Equation 19-3, 19-4 or 19-8 in Method 19 in appendix A-7 to part
60 of this chapter is used for NOX emission rate.
[[Page 33410]]
** Use this algorithm for moisture only when Equation 19-3, 19-4 or 19-8 in Method 19 in appendix A-7 to part 60
of this chapter is used for NOX emission rate.
* * * * *
16. Section 75.34 is amended by:
a. Revising paragraph (a)(2)(ii); and
b. Revising the first sentence of paragraph (d), to read as
follows:
Sec. 75.34 Units with add-on emission controls.
(a) * * *
(2) * * *
(ii) For the purposes of the missing data lookback periods
described under Sec. Sec. 75.33 (c)(1), (c)(2), (c)(3) and (c)(5) of
this section, the substitute data values shall be taken from the
appropriate database, depending on the date(s) and hour(s) of the
missing data period. That is, if the missing data period occurs inside
the ozone season, the ozone season data shall be used to provide
substitute data. If the missing data period occurs outside the ozone
season, data from outside the ozone season shall be used to provide
substitute data.
* * * * *
(d) In order to implement the options in paragraphs (a)(1), (a)(3)
and (a)(5) of this section; and Sec. Sec. 75.31(c)(3) and 75.72(c)(3),
the owner or operator shall keep records of information as described in
Sec. 75.58(b)(3) to verify the proper operation of all add-on
SO2 or NOX emission controls, during all periods
of SO2 or NOX emission missing data. * * *
Sec. Sec. 75.38-75.39 [Removed and Reserved]
17. Sections 75.38 and 75.39 are removed and reserved.
18. Section 75.47 is amended by:
a. Revising paragraph (b)(2); and
b. Removing paragraphs (b)(3) and (c), to read as follows:
Sec. 75.47 Criteria for a class of affected units.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(2) A description of the class of affected units, including data
describing all of the affected units that will comprise the class.
19. Section 75.53 is amended by:
a. Revising paragraphs (g)(1)(i)(A), (g)(1)(i)(C), (g)(1)(i)(E),
(g)(1)(i)(F), (g)(1)(iii) introductory text, (g)(1)(v)(F),
(g)(1)(v)(G), (g)(1)(vi)(H), and (g)(1)(vi)(I);
b. Adding paragraph (g)(1)(vi)(J); and
c. Revising paragraphs (h)(2)(i) and (h)(5), to read as follows:
Sec. 75.53 Monitoring plan.
* * * * *
(g) * * *
(1) * * *
(i) * * *
(A) A representation of the exhaust configuration for the units in
the monitoring plan. On and after [EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL RULE],
provide the activation date and deactivation date (if applicable) of
the configuration. Provide the ID number of each unit and assign a
unique ID number to each common stack, common pipe multiple stack and/
or multiple pipe associated with the unit(s) represented in the
monitoring plan. For common and multiple stacks and/or pipes, provide
the activation date and deactivation date (if applicable) of each stack
and/or pipe;
* * * * *
(C) The stack exit height (ft) above ground level and ground level
elevation above sea level, and the inside cross-sectional area (ft\2\)
at the flue exit and at the flow monitoring location (for units with
flow monitors, only). Also use appropriate codes to indicate the
material(s) of construction and the shape(s) of the stack or duct
cross-section(s) at the flue exit and (if applicable) at the flow
monitor location. On and after [EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL RULE], provide
the activation date and deactivation date (if applicable) for the
information in this paragraph (g)(1)(i)(C);
* * * * *
(E) The type(s) of emission controls that are used to reduce
SO2, NOX, and particulate emissions from each
unit. Also provide the installation date, optimization date, and
retirement date (if applicable) of the emission controls, and indicate
whether the controls are an original installation;
(F) Maximum hourly heat input capacity of each unit. On and after
[EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL RULE], provide the activation date and
deactivation date (if applicable) for this parameter; and
* * * * *
(iii) For each required continuous emission monitoring system, each
fuel flowmeter system, and each continuous opacity monitoring system,
identify and describe the major monitoring components in the monitoring
system (e.g., gas analyzer, flow monitor, opacity monitor, moisture
sensor, fuel flowmeter, DAHS software, etc.). Other important
components in the system (e.g., sample probe, PLC, data logger, etc.)
may also be represented in the monitoring plan, if necessary. Provide
the following specific information about each component and monitoring
system:
* * * * *
(v) * * *
(F) Effective date/hour, and (if applicable) inactivation date/hour
of each span value. On and after [EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL RULE],
provide the activation date and deactivation date (if applicable) for
the measurement scale and dual span information in paragraphs
(g)(1)(v)(A), (g)(1)(v)(G), and (g)(1)(v)(H) of this section;
(G) An indication of whether dual spans are required. If two span
values are required, then, on and after [EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL RULE],
indicate whether an autoranging analyzer is used to represent the two
measurement scales; and
* * * * *
(vi) * * *
(H) Date and hour that the value is no longer effective (if
applicable);
(I) For units using the excepted methodology under Sec. 75.19, the
applicable SO2 emission factor; and
(J) On and after [EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL RULE], group
identification code.
* * * * *
(h) * * *
(2) * * *
(i) Electronic. Unit operating and capacity factor information
demonstrating that the unit qualifies as a peaking unit, as defined in
Sec. 72.2 of this chapter for the current calendar year or ozone
season, including: Capacity factor data for three calendar years (or
ozone seasons) as specified in the definition of peaking unit in Sec.
72.2 of this chapter; the method of qualification used; and an
indication of whether the data are actual or projected data. On and
after [EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL RULE], provide the activation date and
deactivation date (if applicable) for the peaking unit qualification
information in this paragraph (h)(2)(i).
* * * * *
(5) For qualification as a gas-fired unit, as defined in Sec. 72.2
of this part, the designated representative shall include in the
monitoring plan, in electronic format, the following: Current calendar
year, fuel usage data for three calendar years (or ozone seasons) as
specified in the definition of gas-fired in Sec. 72.2 of this chapter,
the method of qualification used, and an indication of whether the data
are actual or projected data. On and
[[Page 33411]]
after [EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL RULE], provide the activation date and
deactivation date (if applicable) for the gas-fired unit qualification
information in this paragraph (h)(5).
* * * * *
20. Section 75.57 is amended by:
a. Revising paragraph (a)(5);
b. Revising paragraph (a)(6);
c. Adding paragraph (a)(7);
d. Revising Table 4a; and
e. Removing paragraphs (i) and (j), to read as follows:
Sec. 75.57 General recordkeeping provisions.
* * * * *
(a) * * *
(5) The current monitoring plan as specified in Sec. 75.53,
beginning with the initial submission required by Sec. 75.62;
(6) The quality control plan as described in section 1 of appendix
B to this part, beginning with the date of provisional certification;
and
(7) The information required by sections 6.1.2(b) and (c) of
appendix A to this part.
* * * * *
Table 4a--Codes for Method of Emissions and Flow Determination
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hourly emissions/flow measurement or estimation
Code method
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.................... Certified primary emission/flow monitoring
system.
2.................... Certified backup emission/flow monitoring system.
3.................... Approved alternative monitoring system.
4.................... Reference method:
SO2: Method 6C.
Flow: Method 2 or its allowable alternatives
under appendix A to part 60 of this chapter.
NOX: Method 7E.
CO2 or O2: Method 3A.
5.................... For units with add[dash]on SO2 and/or NOX
emission controls: SO2 concentration or NOX
emission rate estimate from Agency preapproved
parametric monitoring method.
6.................... Average of the hourly SO2 concentrations, CO2
concentrations, O2 concentrations, NOX
concentrations, flow rates, moisture percentages
or NOX emission rates for the hour before and
the hour following a missing data period.
7.................... Initial missing data procedures used. Either: (a)
the average of the hourly SO2 concentration, CO2
concentration, O2 concentration, or moisture
percentage for the hour before and the hour
following a missing data period; or (b) the
arithmetic average of all NOX concentration, NOX
emission rate, or flow rate values at the
corresponding load range (or a higher load
range), or at the corresponding operational bin
(non-load-based units, only); or (c) the
arithmetic average of all previous NOX
concentration, NOX emission rate, or flow rate
values (non-load-based units, only).
8.................... 90th percentile hourly SO2 concentration, CO2
concentration, NOX concentration, flow rate,
moisture percentage, or NOX emission rate or
10th percentile hourly O2 concentration or
moisture percentage in the applicable lookback
period (moisture missing data algorithm depends
on which equations are used for emissions and
heat input).
9.................... 95th percentile hourly SO2 concentration, CO2
concentration, NOX concentration, flow rate,
moisture percentage, or NOX emission rate or 5th
percentile hourly O2 concentration or moisture
percentage in the applicable lookback period
(moisture missing data algorithm depends on
which equations are used for emissions and heat
input).
10................... Maximum hourly SO2 concentration, CO2
concentration, NOX concentration, flow rate,
moisture percentage, or NOX emission rate or
minimum hourly O2 concentration or moisture
percentage in the applicable lookback period
(moisture missing data algorithm depends on
which equations are used for emissions and heat
input).
11................... Average of hourly flow rates, NOX concentrations
or NOX emission rates in corresponding load
range, for the applicable lookback period. For
non-load-based units, report either the average
flow rate, NOX concentration or NOX emission
rate in the applicable lookback period, or the
average flow rate or NOX value at the
corresponding operational bin (if operational
bins are used).
12................... Maximum potential concentration of SO2, maximum
potential concentration of CO2, maximum
potential concentration of NOX maximum potential
flow rate, maximum potential NOX emission rate,
maximum potential moisture percentage, minimum
potential O2 concentration or minimum potential
moisture percentage, as determined using Sec.
72.2 of this chapter and section 2.1 of appendix
A to this part (moisture missing data algorithm
depends on which equations are used for
emissions and heat input).
13................... Maximum expected concentration of SO2, maximum
expected concentration of NOX, or maximum
controlled NOX emission rate. (See Sec.
75.34(a)(5)).
14................... Diluent cap value (if the cap is replacing a CO2
measurement, use 5.0 percent for boilers and 1.0
percent for turbines; if it is replacing an O2
measurement, use 14.0 percent for boilers and
19.0 percent for turbines).
15................... 1.25 times the maximum hourly controlled SO2
concentration, Hg concentration, NOX
concentration at the corresponding load or
operational bin, or NOX emission rate at the
corresponding load or operational bin, in the
applicable lookback period (See Sec.
75.34(a)(5)).
16................... SO2 concentration value of 2.0 ppm during hours
when only ``very low sulfur fuel'', as defined
in Sec. 72.2 of this chapter, is combusted.
17................... Like-kind replacement non-redundant backup
analyzer.
19................... 200 percent of the MPC; default high range value.
20................... 200 percent of the full-scale range setting (full-
scale exceedance of high range).
21................... Negative hourly CO2 concentration, SO2
concentration, NOX concentration, percent
moisture, or NOX emission rate replaced with
zero.
22................... Hourly average SO2 or NOX concentration, measured
by a certified monitor at the control device
inlet (units with add-on emission controls
only).
23................... Maximum potential SO2 concentration, NOX
concentration, CO2 concentration, or NOX
emission rate, or minimum potential O2
concentration or moisture percentage, for an
hour in which flue gases are discharged through
an unmonitored bypass stack.
24................... Maximum expected NOX concentration, or maximum
controlled NOX emission rate for an hour in
which flue gases are discharged downstream of
the NOX emission controls through an unmonitored
bypass stack, and the add-on NOX emission
controls are confirmed to be operating properly.
25................... Maximum potential NOX emission rate (MER). (Use
only when a NOX concentration full-scale
exceedance occurs and the diluent monitor is
unavailable.)
26................... 1.0 mmBtu/hr substituted for Heat Input Rate for
an operating hour in which the calculated Heat
Input Rate is zero or negative.
40................... Fuel specific default value (or prorated default
value) used for the hour.
53................... Other quality-assured data approved through
petition. These are treated as available hours
for percent monitor availability calculations
and are included in missing data lookback.
[[Page 33412]]
54................... Other quality assured methodologies approved
through petition. These hours are included in
missing data lookback and are treated as
unavailable hours for percent monitor
availability calculations.
55................... Other substitute data approved through petition.
These hours are not included in missing data
lookback and are treated as unavailable hours
for percent monitor availability calculations.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
21. Section 75.58 is amended by:
a. Revising paragraphs (b)(3) and (d)(4)(ii); and
b. Adding paragraph (d)(4)(iii), to read as follows:
Sec. 75.58 General recordkeeping provisions for specific situations.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(3) Except as otherwise provided in Sec. 75.34(d), for units with
add-on SO2 or NOX emission controls following the
provisions of Sec. Sec. 75.34(a)(1), (a)(2), (a)(3) or (a)(5), the
owner or operator shall record:
(i) Parametric data which demonstrate, for each hour of missing
SO2 or NOX emission data, the proper operation of
the add-on emission controls, as described in the quality assurance/
quality control program for the unit. The parametric data shall be
maintained on site and shall be submitted, upon request, to the
Administrator, EPA Regional office, State, or local agency;
(ii) A flag indicating, for each hour of missing SO2 or
NOX emission data, either that the add-on emission controls
are operating properly, as evidenced by all parameters being within the
ranges specified in the quality assurance/quality control program, or
that the add-on emission controls are not operating properly.
* * * * *
(d) * * *
(4) * * *
(ii) For boilers, hourly average boiler O2 reading
(percent, rounded to the nearest tenth) (flag if value exceeds by more
than 2 percentage points the O2 level recorded at the same
heat input during the previous NOX emission rate test); and
(iii) On and after [EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL RULE], operating
condition codes for the following:
(A) Unit operated on emergency fuel;
(B) Correlation curve for the fuel mixture has expired;
(C) Operating parameter is outside of normal limits;
(D) Uncontrolled hour;
(E) Operation above highest tested heat input rate point on the
curve;
(F) Operating parameter data missing or invalid;
(G) Designated operational and control equipment parameters within
normal limits; and
(H) Operation below lowest tested heat input rate point on the
curve.
* * * * *
22. Section 75.59 is amended by:
a. Revising paragraph (a)(1) introductory text;
b. Revising paragraph (a)(1)(iii);
c. Revising paragraphs (a)(3) introductory text, (a)(5)
introductory text, and (a)(5)(ii) introductory text;
d. Revising paragraph (a)(5)(ii)(L);
e. Revising paragraphs (a)(5)(iii)(F) and (G);
f. Adding paragraph (a)(5)(iii)(H);
g. Revising paragraph (a)(6) introductory text;
h. Removing and reserving paragraph (a)(7)(vii);
i. Removing the title of reserved paragraph (a)(7)(viii);
j. Removing paragraph (a)(7)(x);
k. Revising paragraph (a)(9) introductory text;
l. Revising paragraph (a)(9)(vi);
m. Adding paragraphs (a)(9)(x) and (xi);
n. Revising paragraphs (a)(12)(iv)(E) and (F);
o. Adding paragraph (a)(12)(iv)(G);
p. Removing and reserving paragraph (a)(14);
q. Adding paragraph (a)(15);
r. Adding paragraph (b)(6);
s. Revising paragraph (c) introductory text;
t. Revising paragraphs (d)(3)(x) and (xi);
u. Adding paragraphs (d)(3)(xii) and (xiii);
v. Adding paragraph (d)(4);
w. Removing paragraph (e); and
x. Redesignating paragraph (f) as paragraph (e), to read as
follows:
Sec. 75.59 Certification, quality assurance, and quality control
record provisions.
* * * * *
(a) * * *
(1) For each SO2 or NOX pollutant
concentration monitor, flow monitor, CO2 emissions
concentration monitor (including O2 monitors used to
determine CO2 emissions), or diluent gas monitor (including
wet- and dry-basis O2 monitors used to determine percent
moisture), the owner or operator shall record the following for all
daily and 7-day calibration error tests, and all off-line calibration
demonstrations, including any follow-up tests after corrective action:
* * * * *
(iii) On and after [EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL RULE], date, hour, and
minute;
* * * * *
(3) For each SO2 or NOX pollutant
concentration monitor, CO2 emissions concentration monitor
(including O2 monitors used to determine CO2
emissions), or diluent gas monitor (including wet- and dry-basis
O2 monitors used to determine percent moisture), the owner
or operator shall record the following for the initial and all
subsequent linearity check(s), including any follow-up tests after
corrective action.
* * * * *
(5) For each SO2 pollutant concentration monitor, flow
monitor, each CO2 emissions concentration monitor (including
any O2 concentration monitor used to determine
CO2 mass emissions or heat input), each NOX-
diluent continuous emission monitoring system, each NOX
concentration monitoring system, each diluent gas (O2 or
CO2) monitor used to determine heat input, each moisture
monitoring system, and each approved alternative monitoring system, the
owner or operator shall record the following information for the
initial and all subsequent relative accuracy test audits:
* * * * *
(ii) Individual test run data from the relative accuracy test audit
for the SO2 concentration monitor, flow monitor,
CO2 emissions concentration monitor, NOX-diluent
continuous emission monitoring system, diluent gas (O2 or
CO2) monitor used to determine heat input, NOX
concentration monitoring system, moisture monitoring system, or
approved alternative monitoring system, including:
* * * * *
(L) Average gross unit load, expressed as a total gross unit load,
rounded to the nearest MWe, or as steam load, rounded to the nearest
thousand lb/hr; on and after [EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL
[[Page 33413]]
RULE], for units that do not produce electrical or thermal output,
record, instead, the average stack gas velocity at the operating level
being tested; and
* * * * *
(iii) * * *
(F) Bias test results as specified in section 7.6.4 of appendix A
to this part;
(G) Bias adjustment factor from Equation A-12 in appendix A to this
part for any monitoring system that failed the bias test (except as
otherwise provided in section 7.6.5 of appendix A to this part) and
1.000 for any monitoring system that passed the bias test; and
(H) On and after [EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL RULE], RATA frequency
code.
* * * * *
(6) For each SO2, NOX, or CO2
pollutant concentration monitor, each component of a NOX-
diluent continuous emission monitoring system, and each CO2
or O2 monitor used to determine heat input, the owner or
operator shall record the following information for the cycle time
test:
* * * * *
(7) * * *
(vii) [Reserved]
(viii) [Reserved]
* * * * *
(9) When hardcopy relative accuracy test reports, certification
reports, recertification reports, or semiannual or annual reports for
gas or flow rate CEMS are required or requested under Sec. 75.60(b)(6)
or Sec. 75.63, the reports shall include, at a minimum, the following
elements (as applicable to the type(s) of test(s) performed):
* * * * *
(vi) Laboratory calibrations of the source sampling equipment.
* * * * *
(x) For testing involving use of EPA Protocol gases, the owner or
operator shall record in electronic and hardcopy format the following
information, as applicable:
(A) On and after [DATE THAT IS SIX MONTHS FROM THE EFFECTIVE DATE
OF FINAL RULE], for each gas monitor, for both low and high measurement
ranges, record the following information for the mid-level or high-
level EPA Protocol gas (as applicable) that is used for daily
calibration error tests, and the low-, mid-, and high-level gases used
for quarterly linearity checks. For O2, if purified air is
used as the high-level gas for daily calibrations or linearity checks,
record the following information for the low- and mid-level EPA
Protocol gas used for linearity checks, instead:
(1) Gas level code;
(2) A code for the type of EPA Protocol gas used;
(3) Start date and hour for EPA Protocol gas type code;
(4) End date and hour (if applicable) for EPA Protocol gas type
code;
(5) The PGVP vendor ID issued by EPA for the EPA Protocol gas
production site that supplied the gas cylinder.
(6) Start date and hour for PGVP vendor ID; and
(7) End date and hour (if applicable) for PGVP vendor ID.
(B) On and after [DATE THAT IS SIX MONTHS FROM THE EFFECTIVE DATE
OF FINAL RULE], for each usage of Reference Method 3A in appendix A-2
to part 60 of this chapter, or Method 6C or 7E in appendix A-4 to part
60 of this chapter performed using EPA Protocol gas for the
certification, recertification, routine quality assurance or diagnostic
testing (reportable diagnostics, only) of a Part 75 monitoring system,
record the information required by paragraphs (a)(9)(x)(A)(1), (2), and
(5) of this section.
(xi) On and after [DATE THAT IS SIX MONTHS FROM THE EFFECTIVE DATE
OF FINAL RULE], for all RATAs performed pursuant to Sec.
75.74(c)(2)(ii), section 6.5 of appendix A to this part and section
2.3.1 of appendix B to this part, and for all NOX emission
testing performed pursuant to section 2.1 of appendix E to this part,
or Sec. 75.19(c)(1)(iv), the owner or operator shall record the
following information as provided by the AETB:
(A) The name, telephone number and e-mail address of the Air
Emission Testing Body;
(B) The name of the on-site Qualified Individual, as defined in
Sec. 72.2 of this chapter;
(C) For the reference method(s) that were performed, the date that
the on-site Qualified Individual took and passed the relevant
qualification exam(s) required by ASTM D 7036-04; and
(D) The name and e-mail address of the qualification exam provider.
* * * * *
(12) * * *
(iv) * * *
(E) Type of extension;
(F) Quarter and year; and
(G) On and after [EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL RULE], fuel code for
Ozone Season Only reporters under Sec. 75.74(c).
* * * * *
(14) [Reserved]
(15) On and after [DATE THAT IS SIX MONTHS FROM THE EFFECTIVE DATE
OF FINAL RULE], for all RATAs performed pursuant to Sec.
75.74(c)(2)(ii), section 6.5 of appendix A to this part or section
2.3.1 of appendix B to this part, the owner or operator shall record in
electronic format the following information as provided by the AETB:
(i) The name, telephone number and e-mail address of the Air
Emission Testing Body;
(ii) The name of the on-site Qualified Individual, as defined in
Sec. 72.2 of this chapter;
(iii) For the reference method(s) that were performed, the date
that the on-site Qualified Individual took and passed the relevant
qualification exam(s) required by ASTM D 7036-04; and
(iv) The name and e-mail address of the qualification exam
provider.
(b) * * *
(6) On and after [DATE THAT IS SIX MONTHS FROM THE EFFECTIVE DATE
OF FINAL RULE], for all stack testing performed pursuant to section 2.1
of appendix E to this part, the owner or operator shall record in
electronic format the following information as provided by the AETB:
(i) The name, telephone number and e-mail address of the Air
Emission Testing Body;
(ii) The name of the on-site Qualified Individual, as defined in
Sec. 72.2 of this chapter;
(iii) For the reference method(s) that were performed, the date
that the on-site Qualified Individual took and passed the relevant
qualification exam(s) required by ASTM D 7036-04; and
(iv) The name and e-mail address of the qualification exam
provider.
(c) Except as otherwise provided in Sec. 75.58(b)(3)(i), for units
with add-on SO2 or NOX emission controls
following the provisions of Sec. 75.34(a)(1) or (a)(2), the owner or
operator shall keep the following records on-site in the quality
assurance/quality control plan required by section 1 of appendix B to
this part:
* * * * *
(d) * * *
(3) * * *
(x) Documentation supporting the qualification of all units in the
group for reduced testing, in accordance with the criteria established
in Sec. 75.19(c)(1)(iv)(B)(1);
(xi) Purpose of group tests;
(xii) On and after [EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL RULE], the number of
tests for group; and
(xiii) On and after [EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL RULE], the number of
units in group.
(4) On and after [DATE THAT IS SIX MONTHS FROM THE EFFECTIVE DATE
OF FINAL RULE], for all NOX emission testing performed
pursuant to
[[Page 33414]]
Sec. 75.19(c)(1)(iv), the owner or operator shall record in electronic
format the following information as provided by the AETB:
(i) The name, telephone number and e-mail address of the Air
Emission Testing Body;
(ii) The name of the on-site Qualified Individual, as defined in
Sec. 72.2 of this chapter;
(iii) For the reference method(s) that were performed, the date
that the on-site Qualified Individual took and passed the relevant
qualification exam(s) required by ASTM D 7036-04; and
(iv) The name and e-mail address of the qualification exam
provider.
Sec. 75.60 [Amended]
23. Section 75.60 is amended by removing paragraph (b)(8).
24. Section 75.61 is amended by:
a. Revising paragraph (a)(1) introductory text;
b. Revising the first sentence of paragraph (a)(5) introductory
text; and
c. Revising paragraph (a)(8), to read as follows:
Sec. 75.61 Notifications.
(a) * * *
(1) Initial certification and recertification test notifications.
The owner or operator or designated representative for an affected unit
shall submit written notification of initial certification tests and
revised test dates as specified in Sec. 75.20 for continuous emission
monitoring systems, for alternative monitoring systems under subpart E
of this part, or for excepted monitoring systems under appendix E to
this part, except as provided in paragraphs (a)(1)(iii), (a)(1)(iv) and
(a)(4) of this section. The owner or operator shall also provide
written notification of testing performed under Sec.
75.19(c)(1)(iv)(A) to establish fuel-and-unit-specific NOX
emission rates for low mass emissions units. Such notifications are not
required, however, for initial certifications and recertifications of
excepted monitoring systems under appendix D to this part.
* * * * *
(5) Periodic relative accuracy test audits, appendix E retests, and
low mass emissions unit retests. The owner or operator or designated
representative of an affected unit shall submit written notice of the
date of periodic relative accuracy testing performed under section
2.3.1 of appendix B to this part, of periodic retesting performed under
section 2.2 of appendix E to this part, and of periodic retesting of
low mass emissions units performed under Sec. 75.19(c)(1)(iv)(D), no
later than 21 days prior to the first scheduled day of testing. * * *
* * * * *
(8) Certification deadline date for new or newly affected units.
The designated representative of a new or newly affected unit shall
provide notification of the date on which the relevant deadline for
initial certification is reached, either as provided in Sec. 75.4(b)
or Sec. 75.4(c), or as specified in a State or Federal SO2
or NOX mass emission reduction program that incorporates by
reference, or otherwise adopts, the monitoring, recordkeeping, and
reporting requirements of subpart F, G, or H of this part. The
notification shall be submitted no later than 7 calendar days after the
applicable certification deadline is reached.
* * * * *
25. Section 75.62 is amended by adding paragraph (d) to read as
follows:
Sec. 75.62 Monitoring plan submittals.
* * * * *
(d) On and after [EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL RULE], consistent with
Sec. 72.21 of this chapter, a hardcopy cover letter signed by the
Designated Representative (DR) or the Alternate Designated
Representative (ADR) shall accompany each hardcopy monitoring plan
submittal. The cover letter shall include the certification statement
described in Sec. 72.21(b) of this chapter, and shall be submitted to
the applicable EPA Regional Office and to the appropriate State or
local air pollution control agency. For electronic monitoring plan
submittals to the Administrator, a cover letter is not required.
However, at his or her discretion, the DR or ADR may include important
explanatory text or comments with an electronic monitoring plan
submittal, so long as the information is provided in an electronic
format that is compatible with the other data required to be reported
under this section.
26. Section 75.63 is amended by adding paragraph (d) to read as
follows:
Sec. 75.63 Initial certification or recertification application.
* * * * *
(d) Consistent with Sec. 72.21 of this chapter, a hardcopy cover
letter signed by the Designated Representative (DR) or the Alternate
Designated Representative (ADR) shall accompany the hardcopy portion of
each certification or recertification application. The cover letter
shall include the certification statement described in Sec. 72.21(b)
of this chapter, and shall be submitted to the applicable EPA Regional
Office and to the appropriate State or local air pollution control
agency. For the electronic portion of a certification or
recertification application submitted to the Administrator, a cover
letter is not required. However, at his or her discretion, the DR or
ADR may include important explanatory text or comments with the
electronic portion of a certification or recertification application,
so long as the information is provided in an electronic format
compatible with the other data required to be reported under this
section.
27. Section 75.64 is amended by:
a. Revising paragraph (a)(5);
b. Revising paragraph (a)(7)(xi);
c. Revising paragraph (a)(7)(xii)(D);
d. Adding paragraph (a)(7)(xiii); and
e. Redesignating paragraph (a)(127) as paragraph (a)(12), to read
as follows:
Sec. 75.64 Quarterly reports.
(a) * * *
(5) Except for the daily calibration error test data, daily
interference check, and off-line calibration demonstration information
required in Sec. 75.59(a)(1) and (2), which must always be submitted
with the quarterly report, the certification, quality assurance, and
quality control information required in Sec. 75.59 shall either be
submitted prior to or concurrent with the submittal of the relevant
quarterly electronic data report. On and after January 1, 2011, the
information required in Sec. 75.59(a)(9)(x), (a)(15), (b)(6), and
(d)(4) shall either be submitted prior to or concurrent with the
submittal of the relevant quarterly electronic data report.
* * * * *
(7) * * *
(xi) Data and results of RATAs that are aborted or invalidated due
to problems with the reference method or operational problems with the
unit and data and results of linearity checks that are aborted or
invalidated due to problems unrelated to monitor performance;
(xii) * * *
(D) The data under Sec. 75.59(a)(7)(ix)(A) through (F) shall be
reported for all flow RATAs at rectangular stacks or ducts in which
Method 2 in appendices A-1 and A-2 to part 60 of this chapter is used
and a wall effects adjustment factor is applied; and
(xiii) The certification required by section 6.1.2(b) of appendix A
to this part and recorded under Sec. 75.57(a)(7).
* * * * *
Subpart I [Removed]
28. Subpart I, consisting of Sec. Sec. 75.80 through 75.84 is
removed.
29. Appendix A to Part 75 is amended by:
[[Page 33415]]
a. Revising section 1.1;
b. Removing sections 2.1.7, 2.1.7.1 through 2.1.7.4, and 2.2.3;
c. Removing paragraph (c) of section 3.1 and paragraph (3) of
section 3.2;
d. Removing sections 3.3.8 and 3.4.3;
e. Revising the introductory text of section 4;
f. Revising paragraph (6) of section 4;
g. Revising paragraph (b) of Section 5.1.4;
h. Removing paragraph (c) of Section 5.1.4;
i. In section 5.1.4 by redesignating paragraph (d) as paragraph (c)
and by revising newly designated paragraph (c);
j. Revising the first sentence in Section 5.1.5;
k. Removing section 5.1.9;
l. Revising section 6.1.2;
m. Revising the first sentence of section 6.2 introductory text;
n. Removing paragraphs (g) and (h) of section 6.2;
o. Revising the introductory text of section 6.3.1;
p. Revising the introductory text of sections 6.4 and 6.5;
q. Revising paragraphs (c), (e), and (g) of section 6.5;
r. Revising section 6.5.1;
s. Removing paragraph (c) of section 6.5.6;
t. Revising paragraphs (a) and (b) of section 6.5.7;
u. Revising section 6.5.10;
v. Revising the introductory text of section 7.3;
w. Revising section 7.3.1;
x. Revising the introductory text of section 7.6;
y. Revising section 7.6.1; and
z. Revising paragraphs (b) and (f) of section 7.6.5, to read as
follows:
Appendix A to Part 75--Specifications and Procedures
1. Installation and Measurement Location
1.1 Gas Monitors
(a) Following the procedures in section 8.1.1 of Performance
Specification 2 in appendix B to part 60 of this chapter, install
the pollutant concentration monitor or monitoring system at a
location where the pollutant concentration and emission rate
measurements are directly representative of the total emissions from
the affected unit. Select a representative measurement point or path
for the monitor probe(s) (or for the path from the transmitter to
the receiver) such that the SO2, CO2,
O2, or NOX concentration monitoring system or
NOX-diluent CEMS (NOX pollutant concentration
monitor and diluent gas monitor) will pass the relative accuracy
test (see section 6 of this appendix).
(b) It is recommended that monitor measurements be made at
locations where the exhaust gas temperature is above the dew-point
temperature. If the cause of failure to meet the relative accuracy
tests is determined to be the measurement location, relocate the
monitor probe(s).
* * * * *
4. Data Acquisition and Handling Systems
(a) Automated data acquisition and handling systems shall read
and record the entire range of pollutant concentrations and
volumetric flow from zero through full-scale and provide a
continuous, permanent record of all measurements and required
information in an electronic format. These systems also shall have
the capability of interpreting and converting the individual output
signals from an SO2 pollutant concentration monitor, a
flow monitor, a CO2 monitor, an O2 monitor, a
NOX pollutant concentration monitor, a NOX-
diluent CEMS, and a moisture monitoring system to produce a
continuous readout of pollutant emission rates or pollutant mass
emissions (as applicable) in the appropriate units (e.g., lb/hr, lb/
mmBtu, tons/hr).
(b) Data acquisition and handling systems shall also compute and
record: Monitor calibration error; any bias adjustments to
SO2, NOX, flow rate, or NOX
emission rate data; and all missing data procedure statistics
specified in subpart D of this part.
(c) For an excepted monitoring system under appendix D or E of
this part, data acquisition and handling systems shall:
* * * * *
(6) Provide a continuous, permanent record of all measurements
and required information in an electronic format.
* * * * *
5.1 Reference Gases
* * * * *
5.1.4 EPA Protocol Gases
* * * * *
(b) EPA Protocol gas concentrations must be certified by a
specialty gas company to have an analytical uncertainty to be not
more than plus or minus 2.0 percent (inclusive).
(c) A copy of EPA-600/R-97/121 is available from the National
Technical Information Service, 5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield,
VA, 703-605-6585 or http://www.ntis.gov, and from http://www.epa.gov/ttn/emc/news.html.
5.1.5 Research Gas Mixtures
Concentrations of research gas mixtures, as defined in Sec.
72.2 of this chapter, must be certified by the National Institute of
Standards and Technology to be within plus or minus 2.0 percent
(inclusive) of the concentration specified on the cylinder label
(i.e., the tag value) in order to be used as calibration gas under
this part.* * *
* * * * *
6.1 General Requirements
* * * * *
6.1.2 Requirements for Air Emission Testing
(a) On and after [DATE THAT IS SIX MONTHS FROM THE EFFECTIVE
DATE OF FINAL RULE], all relative accuracy test audits (RATAs) of
CEMS under this part, and stack testing in Sec. 75.19 and Appendix
E to this part shall be conducted by an Air Emission Testing Body
(AETB) which has provided to the owner or operator of an affected
unit the documentation required in paragraph (b) of this section,
demonstrating its conformance to ASTM D7036-04 (incorporated by
reference under Sec. 75.6 of this part).
(b) The owner or operator shall obtain from the AETB a
certification that as of the time of testing the AETB is operating
in conformance with ASTM D7036-04. This certification shall be
provided in the form of either:
(1) A certificate of accreditation or interim accreditation for
the relevant test methods issued by a recognized, national
accreditation body; or
(2) A letter of certification for the relevant test methods
signed by a member of the senior management staff of the AETB.
(c) The owner or operator shall obtain from the AETB the
information required under paragraphs Sec. 75.59(a)(15), (b)(6),
and (d)(4), as applicable.
(d) While under no obligation to request the following
information from an AETB, to review the information provided by the
AETB in response to such a request, or to take any other action
related to the response, it is recommended that the owner or
operator request that the AETB produce the following:
(1) The AETB's quality manual;
(2) The results of any external or internal audits performed by
the AETB during the prior 12 months;
(3) A written description of any corrective actions being
implemented by the AETB during the prior 12 months; and
(4) Any AETB training records for the prior 12 months.
(e) All relative accuracy testing and stack testing in Sec.
75.19 and Appendix E to this part shall be conducted or overseen on
site by at least one Qualified Individual, as defined in Sec. 72.2
of this chapter with respect to the methods employed in the test
project. When a QI oversees a test, the QI shall actively observe
the test for its duration. If a QI conducts a test, the QI shall
actively conduct the test for its duration. However, allowance is
made for normal activities of a QI who is overseeing or conducting a
test, e.g., bathroom breaks, food breaks, and emergencies that may
arise during a test. If the source owner or operator, or a state,
local, or EPA observer, discovers during the test period, that the
QI did not conduct or oversee the entire test (as qualified by this
paragraph (d)), only those portions of the test that were conducted
or overseen by the QI as described above may be used under this
part.
(f) The certification described in paragraph (b) of this
section, and compliance with paragraph (e) of this section, shall be
sufficient proof of validity of test data that otherwise meet the
requirements of this part.
(g) If the Administrator finds that the information submitted to
an affected source by an AETB under this section or the information
requested by an affected source under this section is either
incomplete or inaccurate, the Administrator may post the name of the
offending AETB on Agency Web sites, and provide the AETB a
description of the failures to be remedied. The AETB name will be
removed from the EPA Web sites once the failures are remedied.
[[Page 33416]]
(h) If the Administrator finds that the information submitted to
an affected source by an AETB under this section or the information
requested by an affected source under this section is either
incomplete or inaccurate, the AETB shall, on demand of the
Administrator, provide to the Administrator evidence within a
reasonable time of the demand that any missing information has been
provided to the affected source and/or that any inaccurate
information has been corrected.
6.2 Linearity Check (General Procedures)
Check the linearity of each SO2, NOX,
CO2, and O2 monitor while the unit, or group
of units for a common stack, is combusting fuel at conditions of
typical stack temperature and pressure; it is not necessary for the
unit to be generating electricity during this test. * * *
* * * * *
6.3 * * *
6.3.1 Gas Monitor 7-Day Calibration Error Test
The following monitors and ranges are exempted from the 7-day
calibration error test requirements of this part: the
SO2, NOX, CO2 and O2
monitors installed on peaking units (as defined in Sec. 72.2 of
this chapter); and any SO2 or NOX measurement
range with a span value of 50 ppm or less. In all other cases,
measure the calibration error of each SO2 monitor, each
NOX monitor, and each CO2 or O2
monitor while the unit is combusting fuel (but not necessarily
generating electricity) once each day for 7 consecutive operating
days according to the following procedures. (In the event that unit
outages occur after the commencement of the test, the 7 consecutive
unit operating days need not be 7 consecutive calendar days). Units
using dual span monitors must perform the calibration error test on
both high- and low-scales of the pollutant concentration monitor.
The calibration error test procedures in this section and in section
6.3.2 of this appendix shall also be used to perform the daily
assessments and additional calibration error tests required under
sections 2.1.1 and 2.1.3 of appendix B to this part. Do not make
manual or automatic adjustments to the monitor settings until after
taking measurements at both zero and high concentration levels for
that day during the 7-day test. If automatic adjustments are made
following both injections, conduct the calibration error test such
that the magnitude of the adjustments can be determined and
recorded. Record and report test results for each day using the
unadjusted concentration measured in the calibration error test
prior to making any manual or automatic adjustments (i.e., resetting
the calibration). The calibration error tests should be
approximately 24 hours apart, (unless the 7-day test is performed
over nonconsecutive days). Perform calibration error tests at both
the zero-level concentration and high-level concentration, as
specified in section 5.2 of this appendix. Alternatively, a mid-
level concentration gas (50.0 to 60.0 percent of the span value) may
be used in lieu of the high-level gas, provided that the mid-level
gas is more representative of the actual stack gas concentrations.
In addition, repeat the procedure for SO2 and
NOX pollutant concentration monitors using the low-scale
for units equipped with emission controls or other units with dual
span monitors. Use only calibration gas, as specified in section 5.1
of this appendix. Introduce the calibration gas at the gas injection
port, as specified in section 2.2.1 of this appendix. Operate each
monitor in its normal sampling mode. For extractive and dilution
type monitors, pass the calibration gas through all filters,
scrubbers, conditioners, and other monitor components used during
normal sampling and through as much of the sampling probe as is
practical. For in-situ type monitors, perform calibration, checking
all active electronic and optical components, including the
transmitter, receiver, and analyzer. Challenge the pollutant
concentration monitors and CO2 or O2 monitors
once with each calibration gas. Record the monitor response from the
data acquisition and handling system. Using Equation A-5 of this
appendix, determine the calibration error at each concentration once
each day (at approximately 24-hour intervals) for 7 consecutive days
according to the procedures given in this section. The results of a
7-day calibration error test are acceptable for monitor or
monitoring system certification, recertification or diagnostic
testing if none of these daily calibration error test results exceed
the applicable performance specifications in section 3.1 of this
appendix. The status of emission data from a gas monitor prior to
and during a 7-day calibration error test period shall be determined
as follows:
* * * * *
6.4 Cycle Time Test
Perform cycle time tests for each pollutant concentration
monitor and continuous emission monitoring system while the unit is
operating, according to the following procedures. Use a zero-level
and a high-level calibration gas (as defined in section 5.2 of this
appendix) alternately. To determine the downscale cycle time,
measure the concentration of the flue gas emissions until the
response stabilizes. Record the stable emissions value. Inject a
zero-level concentration calibration gas into the probe tip (or
injection port leading to the calibration cell, for in situ systems
with no probe). Record the time of the zero gas injection, using the
data acquisition and handling system (DAHS). Next, allow the monitor
to measure the concentration of the zero gas until the response
stabilizes. Record the stable ending calibration gas reading.
Determine the downscale cycle time as the time it takes for 95.0
percent of the step change to be achieved between the stable stack
emissions value and the stable ending zero gas reading. Then repeat
the procedure, starting with stable stack emissions and injecting
the high-level gas, to determine the upscale cycle time, which is
the time it takes for 95.0 percent of the step change to be achieved
between the stable stack emissions value and the stable ending high-
level gas reading. Use the following criteria to assess when a
stable reading of stack emissions or calibration gas concentration
has been attained. A stable value is equivalent to a reading with a
change of less than 2.0 percent of the span value for 2 minutes, or
a reading with a change of less than 6.0 percent from the measured
average concentration over 6 minutes. Alternatively, the reading is
considered stable if it changes by no more than 0.5 ppm or 0.2%
CO2 or O2 (as applicable) for two minutes.
(Owners or operators of systems which do not record data in 1-minute
or 3-minute intervals may petition the Administrator under Sec.
75.66 for alternative stabilization criteria). For monitors or
monitoring systems that perform a series of operations (such as
purge, sample, and analyze), time the injections of the calibration
gases so they will produce the longest possible cycle time. Refer to
Figures 6a and 6b in this appendix for example calculations of
upscale and downscale cycle times. Report the slower of the two
cycle times (upscale or downscale) as the cycle time for the
analyzer. Prior to January 1, 2009 for the NOX-diluent
continuous emission monitoring system test, either record and report
the longer cycle time of the two component analyzers as the system
cycle time or record the cycle time for each component analyzer
separately (as applicable). On and after January 1, 2009, record the
cycle time for each component analyzer separately. For time-shared
systems, perform the cycle time tests at each probe locations that
will be polled within the same 15-minute period during monitoring
system operations. To determine the cycle time for time-shared
systems, at each monitoring location, report the sum of the cycle
time observed at that monitoring location plus the sum of the time
required for all purge cycles (as determined by the continuous
emission monitoring system manufacturer) at each of the probe
locations of the time-shared systems. For monitors with dual ranges,
report the test results for each range separately. Cycle time test
results are acceptable for monitor or monitoring system
certification, recertification or diagnostic testing if none of the
cycle times exceed 15 minutes. The status of emissions data from a
monitor prior to and during a cycle time test period shall be
determined as follows:
* * * * *
6.5 Relative Accuracy and Bias Tests (General Procedures)
Perform the required relative accuracy test audits (RATAs) as
follows for each CO2 emissions concentration monitor
(including O2 monitors used to determine CO2
emissions concentration), each SO2 pollutant
concentration monitor, each NOX concentration monitoring
system used to determine NOX mass emissions, each flow
monitor, each NOX-diluent CEMS, each O2 or
CO2 diluent monitor used to calculate heat input, and
each moisture monitoring system. For NOX concentration
monitoring systems used to determine NOX mass emissions,
as defined in Sec. 75.71(a)(2), use the same general RATA
procedures as for SO2 pollutant concentration monitors;
however, use the reference methods for NOX concentration
specified in section 6.5.10 of this appendix:
* * * * *
[[Page 33417]]
(c) For monitoring systems with dual ranges, perform the
relative accuracy test on the range normally used for measuring
emissions. For units with add-on SO2 or NOX
controls that operate continuously rather than seasonally, or for
units that need a dual range to record high concentration ``spikes''
during startup conditions, the low range is considered normal.
However, for some dual span units (e.g., for units that use fuel
switching or for which the emission controls are operated
seasonally), provided that both monitor ranges are connected to a
common probe and sample interface, either of the two measurement
ranges may be considered normal; in such cases, perform the RATA on
the range that is in use at the time of the scheduled test. If the
low and high measurement ranges are connected to separate sample
probes and interfaces, RATA testing on both ranges is required.
* * * * *
(e) Complete each single-load relative accuracy test audit
within a period of 168 consecutive unit operating hours, as defined
in Sec. 72.2 of this chapter (or, for CEMS installed on common
stacks or bypass stacks, 168 consecutive stack operating hours, as
defined in Sec. 72.2 of this chapter). For 2-level and 3-level flow
monitor RATAs, complete all of the RATAs at all levels, to the
extent practicable, within a period of 168 consecutive unit (or
stack) operating hours; however, if this is not possible, up to 720
consecutive unit (or stack) operating hours may be taken to complete
a multiple-load flow RATA.
* * * * *
(g) For each SO2 or CO2 emissions
concentration monitor, each flow monitor, each CO2 or
O2 diluent monitor used to determine heat input, each
NOX concentration monitoring system used to determine
NOX mass emissions, as defined in Sec. 75.71(a)(2), each
moisture monitoring system, and each NOX-diluent CEMS,
calculate the relative accuracy, in accordance with section 7.3 or
7.4 of this appendix, as applicable. In addition (except for
CO2, O2, or moisture monitors), test for bias
and determine the appropriate bias adjustment factor, in accordance
with sections 7.6.4 and 7.6.5 of this appendix, using the data from
the relative accuracy test audits.
6.5.1 Gas Monitoring System RATAs (Special Considerations)
(a) Perform the required relative accuracy test audits for each
SO2 or CO2 emissions concentration monitor,
each CO2 or O2 diluent monitor used to
determine heat input, each NOX-diluent CEMS, and each
NOX concentration monitoring system used to determine
NOX mass emissions, as defined in Sec. 75.71(a)(2), at
the normal load level or normal operating level for the unit (or
combined units, if common stack), as defined in section 6.5.2.1 of
this appendix. If two load levels or operating levels have been
designated as normal, the RATAs may be done at either load (or
operating) level.
(b) For the initial certification of a gas monitoring system and
for recertifications in which, in addition to a RATA, one or more
other tests are required (i.e., a linearity test, cycle time test,
or 7-day calibration error test), EPA recommends that the RATA not
be commenced until the other required tests of the CEMS have been
passed.
* * * * *
6.5.7 Sampling Strategy
(a) Conduct the reference method tests so they will yield
results representative of the pollutant concentration, emission
rate, moisture, temperature, and flue gas flow rate from the unit
and can be correlated with the pollutant concentration monitor,
CO2 or O2 monitor, flow monitor, and
SO2 or NOX CEMS measurements. The minimum
acceptable time for a gas monitoring system RATA run or for a
moisture monitoring system RATA run is 21 minutes. For each run of a
gas monitoring system RATA, all necessary pollutant concentration
measurements, diluent concentration measurements, and moisture
measurements (if applicable) must, to the extent practicable, be
made within a 60-minute period. For NOX-diluent
monitoring system RATAs, the pollutant and diluent concentration
measurements must be made simultaneously. For flow monitor RATAs,
the minimum time per run shall be 5 minutes. Flow rate reference
method measurements may be made either sequentially from port-to-
port or simultaneously at two or more sample ports. The velocity
measurement probe may be moved from traverse point to traverse point
either manually or automatically. If, during a flow RATA,
significant pulsations in the reference method readings are
observed, be sure to allow enough measurement time at each traverse
point to obtain an accurate average reading when a manual readout
method is used (e.g., a ``sight-weighted'' average from a
manometer). Also, allow sufficient measurement time to ensure that
stable temperature readings are obtained at each traverse point,
particularly at the first measurement point at each sample port,
when a probe is moved sequentially from port-to-port. A minimum of
one set of auxiliary measurements for stack gas molecular weight
determination (i.e., diluent gas data and moisture data) is required
for every clock hour of a flow RATA or for every three test runs
(whichever is less restrictive). Alternatively, moisture
measurements for molecular weight determination may be performed
before and after a series of flow RATA runs at a particular load
level (low, mid, or high), provided that the time interval between
the two moisture measurements does not exceed three hours. If this
option is selected, the results of the two moisture determinations
shall be averaged arithmetically and applied to all RATA runs in the
series. Successive flow RATA runs may be performed without waiting
in between runs. If an O2 diluent monitor is used as a
CO2 continuous emission monitoring system, perform a
CO2 system RATA (i.e., measure CO2, rather
than O2, with the reference method). For moisture
monitoring systems, an appropriate coefficient, ``K'' factor or
other suitable mathematical algorithm may be developed prior to the
RATA, to adjust the monitoring system readings with respect to the
reference method. If such a coefficient, K-factor or algorithm is
developed, it shall be applied to the CEMS readings during the RATA
and (if the RATA is passed), to the subsequent CEMS data, by means
of the automated data acquisition and handling system. The owner or
operator shall keep records of the current coefficient, K factor or
algorithm, as specified in Sec. 75.59(a)(5)(vii). Whenever the
coefficient, K factor or algorithm is changed, a RATA of the
moisture monitoring system is required.
(b) To properly correlate individual SO2 or
NOX CEMS data (in lb/mmBtu) and volumetric flow rate data
with the reference method data, annotate the beginning and end of
each reference method test run (including the exact time of day) on
the individual chart recorder(s) or other permanent recording
device(s).
* * * * *
6.5.10 Reference Methods
The following methods are from appendix A to part 60 of this
chapter, and are the reference methods for performing relative
accuracy test audits under this part: Method 1 or 1A in appendix A-1
to part 60 of this chapter for siting; Method 2 in appendix A-1 to
part 60 of this chapter or its allowable alternatives in appendices
A-1 and A-2 to part 60 of this chapter (except for Methods 2B and 2E
in appendix A-1 to part 60 of this chapter) for stack gas velocity
and volumetric flow rate; Methods 3, 3A or 3B in appendix A-2 to
part 60 of this chapter for O2 and CO2; Method
4 in appendix A-3 to part 60 of this chapter for moisture; Methods
6, 6A or 6C in appendix A-4 to part 60 of this chapter for
SO2; and Methods 7, 7A, 7C, 7D or 7E in appendix A-4 to
part 60 of this chapter for NOX, excluding the exceptions
to Method 7E identified in Sec. 75.22(a)(5). When using Method 7E
for measuring NOX concentration, total NOX,
including both NO and NO2, must be measured. When using
EPA Protocol gas with Methods 3A, 6C, and 7E, the gas must be from
an EPA Protocol gas production site that is participating in the EPA
Protocol Gas Verification Program described in Sec. 75.21(g).
However, EPA Protocol gas cylinders purchased prior to [EFFECTIVE
DATE OF FINAL RULE] from a production site that is not participating
in the PGVP may be used for the purposes of this part until the
earlier of the cylinder's expiration date or the date on which the
cylinder gas pressure reaches 150 psig. In the event that an EPA
Protocol gas production site is removed from the list of PGVP
participants after such gases are procured, but before the gases
have been consumed, the gas cylinders may continue to be used for
the purposes of this part until the earlier of the cylinder's
expiration date or the date on which the cylinder gas pressure
reaches 150 psig.
* * * * *
7.3 Relative Accuracy for SO2 and CO2 Emissions Concentration
Monitors, O2 Monitors, NOX Concentration Monitoring Systems, and
Flow Monitors
Analyze the relative accuracy test audit data from the reference
method tests for SO2 and CO2 emissions
concentration monitors, CO2 or O2 monitors
used for heat input rate determination, NOX concentration
monitoring systems used to determine NOX
[[Page 33418]]
mass emissions under subpart H of this part, and flow monitors using
the following procedures. Summarize the results on a data sheet. An
example is shown in Figure 2. Calculate the mean of the monitor or
monitoring system measurement values. Calculate the mean of the
reference method values. Using data from the automated data
acquisition and handling system, calculate the arithmetic
differences between the reference method and monitor measurement
data sets. Then calculate the arithmetic mean of the difference, the
standard deviation, the confidence coefficient, and the monitor or
monitoring system relative accuracy using the following procedures
and equations.
7.3.1 Arithmetic Mean
Calculate the arithmetic mean of the differences of a data set
as follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP11JN10.000
Where:
davg = Arithmetic mean of the differences
n = Number of data points (test runs)
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP11JN10.001
di = The difference between a reference method value and
the corresponding continuous emission monitoring system value
(RMi - CEMi), for a given data point
* * * * *
7.6 Bias Test and Adjustment Factor
Test the following relative accuracy test audit data sets for
bias: SO2 pollutant concentration monitors; flow
monitors; NOX concentration monitoring systems used to
determine NOX mass emissions, as defined in 75.71(a)(2);
and NOX-diluent CEMS using the procedures outlined in
sections 7.6.1 through 7.6.5 of this appendix. For multiple-load
flow RATAs, perform a bias test at each load level designated as
normal under section 6.5.2.1 of this appendix.
7.6.1 Arithmetic Mean
Calculate the arithmetic mean of the differences of the data set
using Equation A-7 of this appendix. To calculate bias for an
SO2 or NOX pollutant concentration monitor,
``di'' is, for each paired data point, the difference
between the SO2 or NOX concentration value (in
ppm) obtained from the reference method and the monitor. To
calculate bias for a flow monitor, ``di'' is, for each
paired data point, the difference between the flow rate values (in
scfh) obtained from the reference method and the monitor. To
calculate bias for a NOX-diluent continuous emission
monitoring system, ``di'' is, for each paired data point,
the difference between the NOX emission rate values (in
lb/mmBtu) obtained from the reference method and the monitoring
system.
* * * * *
7.6.5 * * *
(b) For single-load RATAs of SO2 pollutant
concentration monitors, NOX concentration monitoring
systems, and NOX-diluent monitoring systems, and for the
single-load flow RATAs required or allowed under section 6.5.2 of
this appendix and sections 2.3.1.3(b) and 2.3.1.3(c) of appendix B
to this part, the appropriate BAF is determined directly from the
RATA results at normal load, using Equation A-12. Notwithstanding,
when a NOX concentration CEMS or an SO2 CEMS
or a NOX-diluent CEMS installed on a low-emitting
affected unit (i.e., average SO2 or NOX
concentration during the RATA <= 250 ppm or average NOX
emission rate <= 0.200 lb/mmBtu) meets the normal 10.0 percent
relative accuracy specification (as calculated using Equation A-10)
or the alternate relative accuracy specification in section 3.3 of
this appendix for low-emitters, but fails the bias test, the BAF may
either be determined using Equation A-12, or a default BAF of 1.111
may be used.
* * * * *
(f) Use the bias-adjusted values in computing substitution
values in the missing data procedure, as specified in subpart D of
this part, and in reporting the concentration of SO2, the
flow rate, the average NOX emission rate, the unit heat
input, and the calculated mass emissions of SO2 and
CO2 during the quarter and calendar year, as specified in
subpart G of this part. In addition, when using a NOX
concentration monitoring system and a flow monitor to calculate
NOX mass emissions under subpart H of this part, use
bias-adjusted values for NOX concentration and flow rate
in the mass emission calculations and use bias-adjusted
NOX concentrations to compute the appropriate
substitution values for NOX concentration in the missing
data routines under subpart D of this part.
* * * * *
30. Appendix B to Part 75 is amended by:
a. Revising section 1.1.4;
b. Removing sections 1.5 and 1.5.1 through 1.5.6;
c. Revising paragraph (a) of section 2.1.4;
d. Adding paragraph (c) to section 2.1.4;
e. Revising section 2.2.1;
f. Adding paragraph (i) to section 2.2.3;
g. Revising paragraph (a) of section 2.3.1.1, paragraph (a) of
section 2.3.1.3, and paragraphs (d) and (i) of section 2.3.2;
h. Adding paragraph (k) to section 2.3.2;
i. Revising section 2.3.4;
j. Removing section 2.6;
k. Revising Figures 1 and 2; and
e. Adding Figure 3, to read as follows:
Appendix B to Part 75--Quality Assurance and Quality Control Procedures
1. Quality Assurance/Quality Control Program
* * * * *
1.1.4 The provisions in section 6.1.2 of appendix A to this part
shall apply to the annual RATAs described in Sec. 75.74(c)(2)(ii)
and to the semiannual and annual RATAs described in section 2.3 of
this appendix.
* * * * *
2. Frequency of Testing
* * * * *
2.1.4 Data Validation
(a) An out-of-control period occurs when the calibration error
of an SO2 or NOX pollutant concentration
monitor exceeds 5.0 percent of the span value, when the calibration
error of a CO2 or O2 monitor (including
O2 monitors used to measure CO2 emissions or
percent moisture) exceeds 1.0 percent O2 or
CO2, or when the calibration error of a flow monitor
exceeds 6.0 percent of the span value, which is twice the applicable
specification of appendix A to this part. Notwithstanding, a
differential pressure-type flow monitor for which the calibration
error exceeds 6.0 percent of the span value shall not be considered
out-of-control if [bond]R- A[bond], the absolute value of the
difference between the monitor response and the reference value in
Equation A-6 of appendix A to this part, is < 0.02 inches of water.
In addition, an SO2 or NOX monitor for which
the calibration error exceeds 5.0 percent of the span value shall
not be considered out-of-control if [bond]R- A[bond] in Equation A-6
does not exceed 5.0 ppm (for span values <= 50 ppm), or if [bond]R-
A[bond] does not exceed 10.0 ppm (for span values > 50 ppm, but <=
200 ppm). The out-of-control period begins upon failure of the
calibration error test and ends upon completion of a successful
calibration error test. Note, that if a failed calibration,
corrective action, and successful calibration error test occur
within the same hour, emission data for that hour recorded by the
monitor after the successful calibration error test may be used for
reporting purposes, provided that two or more valid readings are
obtained as required by Sec. 75.10. A NOX-diluent CEMS
is considered out-of-control if the calibration error of either
component monitor exceeds twice the applicable performance
specification in appendix A to this part. Emission data shall not be
reported from an out-of-control monitor.
* * * * *
(c) The results of any certification, recertification,
diagnostic, or quality assurance test required under this part may
not be used to validate the emissions data required under this part,
if the test is performed using EPA Protocol gas from a production
site that is not participating in the PGVP, except as provided in
Sec. 75.21(g)(6) and (7) or if the cylinder(s) are analyzed by an
independent laboratory and shown to meet the requirements of section
5.1.4(b) of appendix A to this part.
* * * * *
2.2.1 Linearity Check
Unless a particular monitor (or monitoring range) is exempted
under this paragraph or under section 6.2 of appendix A to this
part, perform a linearity check, in accordance with the procedures
in section 6.2 of appendix A to this part, for each primary and
redundant backup SO2, and NOx pollutant concentration
monitor and each primary and
[[Page 33419]]
redundant backup CO2 or O2 monitor (including
O2 monitors used to measure CO2 emissions or
to continuously monitor moisture) at least once during each QA
operating quarter, as defined in Sec. 72.2 of this chapter. For
units using both a low and high span value, a linearity check is
required only on the range(s) used to record and report emission
data during the QA operating quarter. Conduct the linearity checks
no less than 30 days apart, to the extent practicable. The data
validation procedures in section 2.2.3(e) of this appendix shall be
followed.
* * * * *
2.2.3 Data Validation
* * * * *
(i) The results of any certification, recertification,
diagnostic, or quality assurance test required under this part may
not be used to validate the emissions data required under this part,
if the test is performed using EPA Protocol gas from a production
site that is not participating in the PGVP, except as provided in
Sec. 75.21(g)(6) and (7) or if the cylinder(s) are analyzed by an
independent laboratory and shown to meet the requirements of section
5.1.4(b) of appendix A to this part.
* * * * *
2.3.1.1 Standard RATA Frequencies
(a) Except as otherwise specified in Sec. 75.21(a)(6) or (a)(7)
or in section 2.3.1.2 of this appendix, perform relative accuracy
test audits semiannually, i.e., once every two successive QA
operating quarters (as defined in Sec. 72.2 of this chapter) for
each primary and redundant backup SO2 pollutant
concentration monitor, flow monitor, CO2 emissions
concentration monitor (including O2 monitors used to
determine CO2 emissions), CO2 or O2
diluent monitor used to determine heat input, moisture monitoring
system, NOX concentration monitoring system, or
NOX-diluent CEMS. A calendar quarter that does not
qualify as a QA operating quarter shall be excluded in determining
the deadline for the next RATA. No more than eight successive
calendar quarters shall elapse after the quarter in which a RATA was
last performed without a subsequent RATA having been conducted. If a
RATA has not been completed by the end of the eighth calendar
quarter since the quarter of the last RATA, then the RATA must be
completed within a 720 unit (or stack) operating hour grace period
(as provided in section 2.3.3 of this appendix) following the end of
the eighth successive elapsed calendar quarter, or data from the
CEMS will become invalid.
* * * * *
2.3.1.3 RATA Load (or Operating) Levels and Additional RATA
Requirements
(a) For SO2 pollutant concentration monitors,
CO2 emissions concentration monitors (including
O2 monitors used to determine CO2 emissions),
CO2 or O2 diluent monitors used to determine
heat input, NOX concentration monitoring systems, and
NOX-diluent monitoring systems, the required semiannual
or annual RATA tests shall be done at the load level (or operating
level) designated as normal under section 6.5.2.1(d) of appendix A
to this part. If two load levels (or operating levels) are
designated as normal, the required RATA(s) may be done at either
load level (or operating level).
* * * * *
2.3.2 Data Validation
* * * * *
(d) For single-load (or single-level) RATAs, if a daily
calibration error test is failed during a RATA test period, prior to
completing the test, the RATA must be repeated. Data from the
monitor are invalidated prospectively from the hour of the failed
calibration error test until the hour of completion of a subsequent
successful calibration error test. The subsequent RATA shall not be
commenced until the monitor has successfully passed a calibration
error test in accordance with section 2.1.3 of this appendix. For
multiple-load (or multiple-level) flow RATAs, each load level (or
operating level) is treated as a separate RATA (i.e., when a
calibration error test is failed prior to completing the RATA at a
particular load level (or operating level), only the RATA at that
load level (or operating level) must be repeated; the results of any
previously-passed RATA(s) at the other load level(s) (or operating
level(s)) are unaffected, unless the monitor's polynomial
coefficients or K-factor(s) must be changed to correct the problem
that caused the calibration failure, in which case a subsequent 3-
load (or 3-level) RATA is required), except as otherwise provided in
section 2.3.1.3 (c)(5) of this appendix.
* * * * *
(i) Each time that a hands-off RATA of an SO2
pollutant concentration monitor, a NOX-diluent monitoring
system, a NOX concentration monitoring system, or a flow
monitor is passed, perform a bias test in accordance with section
7.6.4 of appendix A to this part. Apply the appropriate bias
adjustment factor to the reported SO2, NOX, or
flow rate data, in accordance with section 7.6.5 of appendix A to
this part.
* * * * *
(k) The results of any certification, recertification,
diagnostic, or quality assurance test required under this part may
not be used to validate the emissions data required under this part,
if the test is performed using EPA Protocol gas from a production
site that is not participating in the PGVP, except as provided in
Sec. 75.21(g)(6) and (7) or if the cylinder(s) are analyzed by an
independent laboratory and shown to meet the requirements of section
5.1.4(b) of appendix A to this part.
* * * * *
2.3.4 Bias Adjustment Factor
Except as otherwise specified in section 7.6.5 of appendix A to
this part, if an SO2 pollutant concentration monitor, a
flow monitor, a NOX-diluent CEMS, or a NOX
concentration monitoring system used to calculate NOX
mass emissions fails the bias test specified in section 7.6 of
appendix A to this part, use the bias adjustment factor given in
Equations A-11 and A-12 of appendix A to this part or the allowable
alternative BAF specified in section 7.6.5(b) of appendix A of this
part, to adjust the monitored data.
* * * * *
Figure 1 to Appendix B of Part 75--Quality Assurance Test Requirements
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Basic QA test frequency requirements
--------------------------------------------------
Test Semiannual or
Daily * Quarterly * annual
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Calibration Error Test (2 pt.)............................... X ............... ...............
Interference Check (flow).................................... X ............... ...............
Flow-to-Load Ratio........................................... ............... X ...............
Leak Check (DP flow monitors)................................ ............... X ...............
Linearity Check* (3 pt.)..................................... ............... X ...............
RATA (SO2, NOX, CO2, O2, H2O)\1\............................. ............... ............... X
RATA (flow) 1, 2............................................. ............... ............... X
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* ``Daily'' means operating days, only. ``Quarterly'' means once every QA operating quarter. ``Semiannual''
means once every two QA operating quarters. ``Annual'' means once every four QA operating quarters.
\1\ Conduct RATA annually (i.e., once every four QA operating quarters) rather than semiannually, if monitor
meets accuracy requirements to qualify for less frequent testing.
[[Page 33420]]
\2\ For flow monitors installed on peaking units, bypass stacks, or units that qualify for single-level RATA
testing under section 6.5.2(e) of this part, conduct all RATAs at a single, normal load (or operating level).
For other flow monitors, conduct annual RATAs at two load levels (or operating levels). Alternating single-
load and 2-load (or single-level and 2-level) RATAs may be done if a monitor is on a semiannual frequency. A
single-load (or single-level) RATA may be done in lieu of a 2-load (or 2-level) RATA if, since the last annual
flow RATA, the unit has operated at one load level (or operating level) for >= 85.0 percent of the time. A 3-
level RATA is required at least once every five years (20 calendar quarters) and whenever a flow monitor is re-
characterized, except for flow monitors exempted from 3-level RATA testing under section 6.5.2(b) or 6.5.2(e)
of appendix A to this part.
Figure 2 to Appendix B of Part 75--Relative Accuracy Test Frequency Incentive System
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
RATA Semiannual \W\ Annual \W\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SO2 or NOX\Y\..................... 7.5% < RA <= 10.0% or RA <= 7.5% or 12.0 ppm \X\.
15.0 ppm \X\.
NOX-diluent....................... 7.5% < RA <= 10.0% or RA <= 7.5% or 0. 015 lb/mmBtu \X\.
0.020 lb/
mmBtu \X\.
Flow.............................. 7.5% < RA <= 10.0% or RA <= 7.5% or 1.5 fps \X\.
2.0 fps \X\.
CO2 or O2......................... 7.5% < RA <= 10.0% or RA <= 7.5% or 0.7% CO2/O2 \X\.
1.0% CO2/O2
\X\.
Moisture.......................... 7.5% < RA <= 10.0% or RA <= 7.5% or 1.0% H2O \X\.
1.5% H2O \X\.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\W\ The deadline for the next RATA is the end of the second (if semiannual) or fourth (if annual) successive QA
operating quarter following the quarter in which the CEMS was last tested. Exclude calendar quarters with
fewer than 168 unit operating hours (or, for common stacks and bypass stacks, exclude quarters with fewer than
168 stack operating hours) in determining the RATA deadline. For SO2 monitors, QA operating quarters in which
only very low sulfur fuel as defined in Sec. 72.2 of this chapter, is combusted may also be excluded.
However, the exclusion of calendar quarters is limited as follows: the deadline for the next RATA shall be no
more than 8 calendar quarters after the quarter in which a RATA was last performed. A 720 operating hour grace
period is available if the RATA cannot be completed by the deadline.
\X\ The difference between monitor and reference method mean values applies to moisture monitors, CO2, and O2
monitors, low emitters of SO2, NOX, and low flow, only.
\Y\ A NOX concentration monitoring system used to determine NOX mass emissions under Sec. 75.71.
Figure 3 to Appendix B of Part 75--Single Component Plus Balance Gas Cylinders EPA Protocol Gas Verification Program Results EPA Cylinder Gas Assays Performed by NIST
[NIST to Insert: Month, Year]
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gas Component, e.g., SO2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA protocol gas Audit Results Supplied
Specialty gas production site Vendor ID Stamped Tag value ---------------------------------------------------------------- Vendor Vendor ref complete
company name name cylinder ID (e.g., ppm Re-analyzed analytical std used documentation
SO2) Orig tag value Orig tag value (pass/ Re-analysis method (e.g., (e.g., NTRM) (yes/no)
(pass/fail) (% diff) fail) (% diff) FTIR)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
................. ............. ............. ............. ................ ........... ................ ............. ................ ............. ................
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
................. ............. ............. ............. ................ ........... ................ .............
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
................. ............. ............. ............. ................ ........... ................ .............
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
................. ............. ............. ............. ................ ........... ................ .............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
................. ............. ............. ............. ................ ........... ................ ............. ................ .............
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
................. ............. ............. ............. ................ ........... ................ .............
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
................. ............. ............. ............. ................ ........... ................ .............
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
................. ............. ............. ............. ................ ........... ................ .............
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A gaseous component is said to fail only if all available analytical techniques used in the audit indicate greater than a 2.0% difference from the cylinder tag value. Any accuracy assessment
is an instantaneous snapshot of the process being measured. These results should not be regarded as a final statement on the accuracy of EPA Protocol gases. They can be used as an indicator
of the current status of the accuracy of EPA Protocol gases as a whole. However, individual results should not be taken as definitive indicators of the analytical capabilities of individual
producers. EPA presents this information without assigning a rating to the gas vendors, for example, who is the best, who is approved, or is not approved.
% diff = 100 x (Tag Value - NIST Value)/NIST Value
Note: For cylinders with more than one component plus balance gas, change the title appropriately, e.g., ``FIGURE 3 TO APPENDIX B OF PART 75--BI-BLEND PLUS BALANCE GAS CYLINDERS * * * '' and
add appropriate columns to Figure 3 for the additional components following the same format used in the columns for SO2 above.
31. In Appendix E to Part 75, Section 2.1 is amended by revising
the last sentence to read as follows:
Appendix E to Part 75--Optional NOX Emissions Estimation
Protocol for Gas-Fired Peaking Units and Oil-Fired Peaking Units
* * * * *
2.1 Initial Performance Testing
* * * The requirements in section 6.1.2 of appendix A to this
part shall apply to any stack testing performed to obtain
O2 and NOX concentration measurements under
this appendix, either for units using the excepted methodology in
this appendix or for units using the low mass emissions excepted
methodology in Sec. 75.19.
* * * * *
Appendix F to Part 75 [Amended]
32. Appendix F to Part 75 is amended by removing and reserving
section 9.
Appendix K to Part 75 [Removed]
33. Appendix K to Part 75 is removed.
[FR Doc. 2010-10955 Filed 6-10-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P