[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 59 (Monday, March 28, 2011)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 17288-17325]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-6216]
[[Page 17287]]
Vol. 76
Monday,
No. 59
March 28, 2011
Part III
Environmental Protection Agency
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
40 CFR Parts 72 and 75
Protocol Gas Verification Program and Minimum Competency Requirements
for Air Emission Testing; Final Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 76 , No. 59 / Monday, March 28, 2011 / Rules
and Regulations
[[Page 17288]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Parts 72 and 75
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0837; FRL-9280-9]
RIN 2060-AQ06
Protocol Gas Verification Program and Minimum Competency
Requirements for Air Emission Testing
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule; Reconsideration.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: EPA is finalizing rule revisions that modify existing
requirements for sources affected by the federally administered
emission trading programs including the NOX Budget Trading
Program, the Acid Rain Program, and the Clean Air Interstate Rule.
EPA is amending 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 amending 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 two incorporation
by references that were inadvertently left out of the January 24, 2008
final rule, adding two new definitions, revising certain compliance
dates, and clarifying the language and applicability of certain
provisions.
DATES: This final rule is effective on April 27, 2011. The
incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in the rule
is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of April 27,
2011.
ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a docket for this action under
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). All
documents in the docket are listed in the http://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
http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Air and Radiation
Docket, EPA/DC, EPA West Building, EPA Headquarters Library, Room 3334,
1301 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC. 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:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Examples of potentially regulated
Category NAICS code 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.
World Wide Web (WWW). In addition to being available in the docket,
an electronic copy of the final rule is also available on the WWW
through the Technology Transfer Network Web site (TTN Web). Following
signature, a copy of the rule will be posted on the TTN's policy and
guidance page for newly proposed or promulgated rules at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg. The TTN provides information and technology
exchange in various areas of air pollution control.
Judicial Review. Under CAA section 307(b), judicial review of this
final action is available only by filing a petition for review in the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit on or before
May 27, 2011. Under CAA section 307(d)(7)(B), only those objections to
the final rule that were raised with specificity during the period for
public comment may be raised during judicial review. Moreover, under
CAA section 307(b)(2), the requirements established by today's final
rule may not be challenged separately in any civil or criminal
proceedings brought by EPA to enforce these requirements. Section
307(d)(7)(B) also provides a mechanism for the EPA to convene a
proceeding for reconsideration if the petitioner demonstrates that it
was impracticable to raise an objection during the public comment
period or if the grounds for such objection arose after the comment
period (but within the time for judicial review) and if the objection
is of central relevance to the rule. Any person seeking to make such a
demonstration to EPA should submit a Petition for Reconsideration,
clearly labeled as such, to the Office of the Administrator, U.S. EPA,
Room 3000, Ariel Rios Building, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., Washington, DC
20460, with a copy to the Associate General Counsel for the Air and
Radiation Law Office, Office of General Counsel, Mail Code 2344A, U.S.
EPA, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460.
Outline. The following outline is provided to aid in locating
information in this preamble.
I. Detailed Discussion of Rule Revisions and Responses to Major
Comments
A. Amendments to the Protocol Gas Verification Program (PGVP)
1. Need for the PGVP
2. Cost
3. Effective Dates
[[Page 17289]]
4. Recordkeeping/Reporting
5. ISO 17025
6. Credit/Invoice Cancellation
7. Gas Type Codes
8. Use of 95% Confidence Interval in Tag Values
9. Uncertainty of Results
10. Implementation Options
11. Use of Existing Cylinders
12. If NIST Withdraws From Participation
B. Amendments to the Minimum Competency Requirements for Air
Emission Testing
1. Need for the Minimum Competency Requirements
2. Cost
3. Effective Dates
4. Accreditation
5. Scope of Testing
6. Affect on Validity of Test Data
7. Exams
8. Posting Non-Compliant Air Emission Testing Body (AETB) Names
C. Other Amendments
1. Compliance Dates for Units Adding New Stack or Control Device
2. Reference Method 7E
3. Removal of Mercury Provisions
4. Miscellaneous 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
K. Congressional Review Act
L. Petitions for Judicial Review
I. Detailed Discussion of Rule Revisions and Responses to Major
Comments
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). To better
ensure the accuracy of EPA Protocol gases used for Part 75 purposes,
these amendments required that these gases be obtained from specialty
gas producers that participate in a Protocol Gas Verification Program
(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 the PGVP
provisions of the January 24, 2008 final rule and is finalizing
amendments to both the PGVP and AETB requirements. Today's final rule
replaces the existing AETB requirements, effectively removing the stay.
EPA is also finalizing amendments to 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 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, 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
two incorporation by references that were inadvertently left out of the
January 24, 2008 final rule and updating others, adding two new
definitions, updating recordkeeping/reporting formats, and clarifying
the language and applicability of certain provisions.
Today's preamble provides responses to the major comments received
on the proposed rule and discusses any resulting rule changes. The
response to comments document (see Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0837)
provides Agency responses to all of the relevant comments received on
the proposed rule.
A. Amendments to the Protocol Gas Verification Program
EPA encourages any EPA Protocol gas production site that is
interested in participating in the PGVP to notify EPA as soon as
possible after this final rule is published in the Federal Register by
submitting the contact information described in 75.21(g)(1) by
following the instructions on the CAMD Web site: http://www.epa.gov/airmarkets/emissions/pgvp.html.
1. Need for the PGVP
Background
EPA proposed to add Sec. 75.21(g) to establish a refined EPA
Protocol gas verification program to better ensure the accuracy of EPA
Protocol gases.
Every recent audit of EPA Protocol gases has found cylinders that
fail the part 75 required 2% performance specification. A
2003 EPA audit (see Document IDs EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0837-0011, -
0074, -0075, and -0076 in the docket) of EPA Protocol gases found an
unacceptably high failure rate (11% of all components analyzed, with
57% of the production sites failing at least one gaseous component)
with respect to the 2% standard in Part 75. A 2009 EPA
Inspector General (IG) audit (see Document ID EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-
0837-0064 in the docket) also found an 11% failure rate over all
components analyzed, with 39% of the production sites failing at least
one gaseous component. The IG recommended that EPA implement an ongoing
PGVP. A 2010 audit of EPA Protocol gases found a 10% failure rate over
all components analyzed, with 40% of the production sites failing at
least one gaseous component.
These failures were found using a small blind sample of cylinders
from each specialty gas company in the U.S. There is no reason to think
these samples were not random. Therefore, it is likely that for the
companies that had failed audited cylinders, other cylinders from those
companies would fail.
Summary of Comments and Responses
Comment: Eleven commenters, including one representing seven
specialty gas companies that provide the vast majority of EPA Protocol
gases in the U.S., supported the PGVP, and three commenters opposed it.
The accuracy of EPA Protocol gases is important because these gases are
used to help ensure that the national emission reduction goals of the
Clean Air Act are met.
Response: Many of the proposed rule provisions of Sec. 75.21(g)
have been finalized as proposed. Significant
[[Page 17290]]
changes to the PGVP provisions in Sec. 75.21(g) are discussed below.
2. Cost
Background
EPA proposed several rule changes that added a small number of
PGVP-related recordkeeping and reporting requirements. An information
collection request (ICR) supporting statement was developed, as
required by the Paperwork Reduction Act.
EPA Protocol gas production sites selling EPA Protocol gases to
part 75 affected sources will be required to have a small number of
their cylinders analyzed each year, and provide annual notification to
EPA with basic information on their facility and other information
relevant to the PGVP. EPA anticipates that these costs will be passed
through to the customers, which are generally sources subject to part
75, including large electric utility and industrial companies.
Summary of Comments and Responses
Comment: Several commenters suggested that the ICR for the proposed
rule did not include sufficient detail and omitted certain costs
associated with part 75 recordkeeping and reporting requirements.
Another commenter stated that the proposed PGVP program was
``exorbitantly expensive because it uses the analytical services of
NIST.''
Response: No rule changes were required to address the commenter's
concerns. However, the Agency has revised the ICR for the final rule to
include additional details and costs associated with part 75
recordkeeping and reporting requirements. For a more detailed
discussion of this issue, refer to the ICR for the final rule.
EPA performed an audit of EPA Protocol gases in 2010 and the
National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) analyzed the
cylinders EPA collected in the audit. NIST provided an initial estimate
of $2,000 per cylinder to analyze tri-blend gas mixtures in the 2010
audit. The following costs for the PGVP are based on assumptions
similar to those made for the 2010 audit. These assumptions are: (a)
That only NO, SO2 and CO2 will be analyzed; (b)
that only these compounds are within the gas mixture along with balance
gas nitrogen (additional compounds within the gas mixture, even if they
are not analyzed, complicate the analysis of the primary components);
and (c) that the concentrations will all fall within a relatively
narrow band that can be defined in the low, mid and high ranges. EPA
notes that these assumptions may not hold from year-to-year, but
believes that the following cost estimates are generally conservative.
The 2010 audit consumed 715 hours of time to analyze and report on 57
cylinders. NIST believes they have designed a better sampling system
and can reduce that time to 550 hours for the same 57 cylinders. This
amount of resources equals $1,500 per cylinder analysis and report
production, and is NIST's estimate for those activities for a similar
PGVP audit in 2011. Assuming the above assumptions hold, NIST has
agreed to commit to this cost estimate for three years, until 2013 (see
Document ID EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0837-0058 in the docket).
The following costs are based on EPA's 2010 Protocol gas audit. If
NIST analyzes 4 cylinders from each production site, the total annual
cost due to the PGVP would be approximately $7,200 per production site
(see Document ID EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0837-0007 in the docket).
This cost includes cylinder analysis and report production by NIST
($1,667/cylinder), average one-way shipping costs back to the
production site ($91/cylinder), and average rental cost ($7/cylinder/
month). The $1,667/cylinder cost estimate covers some deviations, e.g.,
there may be carbon monoxide in the gas mixtures, from the assumptions
made for the 2010 audit, and is therefore higher than the $1,500/
cylinder NIST commitment. The total cost of NIST analysis, report
production, six months cylinder rental, and shipping back to the
production site is approximately $1,800 per cylinder (see Document
ID EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0837-0007 in the docket).
EPA estimates that the average increased cost due to the PGVP will
be approximately $2 per cylinder (see Table 3 in the ICR for the final
rule, in Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0837). This estimate was derived from
correspondence with both large and small specialty gas companies, which
based their estimates on the number of cylinders they sold per year and
the above cost estimates. For a small company that sells fewer
cylinders per year, the cost per cylinder will be higher than for a
larger company. However, even for a small company, the increased $2.00
per cylinder cost due to the PGVP is insignificant in comparison to the
wide range of cost for the same type of EPA Protocol gas cylinder (EPA
found the 2010 cost of the same tri-blend EPA Protocol cylinder ranged
from approximately $225-$665 in the U.S. (see Document ID EPA-
HQ-OAR-2009-0837-0009 in the docket)).
To maintain these costs, scheduling of the PGVP audit activity
during the year must be strictly followed by all the companies involved
in the audit. Economy of batching similar gas cylinders and receipt of
all similar cylinders within a specific time frame will enable NIST to
control costs. Those cylinders with the appropriate funding documents
that arrive within that time frame will be part of the audit. Those
that do not will be excluded. That is the only way NIST will be able to
control costs.
The costs are minimized by the 4 cylinder limit per production
site, and the cost containment measures implemented by NIST and
described in the preamble to the proposed rule.
3. Effective Dates
Background
EPA proposed to add Sec. 75.59(a)(9)(x)(A) to require that PGVP
recordkeeping start on and after the date that is six months from the
effective date of the final rule. The PGVP reporting would start prior
to or concurrent with the submittal of the relevant quarterly
electronic data report on and after January 1, 2011.
Summary of Comments, Responses and Rule Changes
Comment: Several commenters requested clarification of the
effective dates for the PGVP provisions. One commenter requested that
the Agency provide enough time for production sites to submit the
information required to participate in the PGVP and for EPA to notify
Part 75 sources of the participating production sites.
Response: EPA agrees that the wording in the proposed rule should
be clearer. The effective date of the final rule will be 30 days from
the date it is published in the Federal Register.
To provide more time for production sites to submit necessary
information to participate in the PGVP and for the Agency to inform
Part 75 sources of the PGVP participants, EPA has amended Sec.
75.21(g)(6) to take effect 60 days from publication of the final rule
in the Federal Register. On and after that date, sources subject to
Part 75 that use EPA Protocol gas will need to purchase such gas from
PGVP participants (or from a reseller that sells unaltered gas from a
PGVP participant). However, Sec. 75.21(g)(7) allows EPA Protocol gas
cylinders certified by or ordered from any production site prior to 60
days from publication of the final rule in the Federal Register to be
used up.
Section 75.59(a)(9)(x)(A) and Sec. 75.64(a)(5) of the final rule
require
[[Page 17291]]
PGVP recordkeeping and reporting for sources subject to part 75 to
commence 180 calendar days from the date of publication of the final
rule in the Federal Register.
4. Recordkeeping/Reporting
Background
EPA proposed to add Sec. 75.59(a)(9)(x)(A) and to revise Sec.
75.64(a)(5) to require Part 75 affected sources using EPA Protocol gas
to record and report, respectively: (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. EPA also proposed to revise Sec.
75.59(a)(9)(x)(B) and Sec. 75.64(a)(5) to require the recording and
reporting, respectively, of the information in (1), (2) and (5) above
for each usage of Reference Method 3A or Method 6C or 7E performed
using EPA Protocol gas for the certification, recertification, routine
quality assurance or diagnostic testing (reportable diagnostics only)
of a Part 75 monitoring system.
Summary of Comments, Responses and Rule Changes
Comment: One commenter requested that EPA explain why such detailed
reporting of start and end dates and hours corresponding to use of a
particular type of Protocol gas is required and why the reporting of
Protocol gas type codes is important. The commenter generally believes
that tracking of information on individual gas cylinders is not
necessary and EPA has provided no justification for it. The commenter
is also concerned that the level of specificity may result in
implementation issues or errors that complicate reporting. For example,
EPA proposes to require sources to record not only the start and end
date, but also the hour corresponding to use of a particular type of
protocol gas and a particular PGVP vendor. In the past, recorded start
and end dates and hours have been problematic because of differences
between the way sources interpret the rule and the way EPA's software
has been programmed.
Response: It was originally envisioned that the PGVP related
information would be reported in the monitoring plan. However, Sec.
75.64(a)(5) of the final rule requires reporting of this information in
the quarterly electronic reports. Therefore, start and end dates and
times are not needed. Further, the reporting of low, mid or high-level
gas concentrations is already required by Sec. 75.59(a)(3). In view of
these considerations, the only additional ECMPS reporting required by
the final rule consists of: (a) A code for the type of EPA Protocol gas
used; (b) the PGVP vendor ID; (c) the cylinder expiration date; and (d)
the cylinder number. The reporting of Protocol gas type code is
important for informing future PGVP audits. The reporting of the PGVP
vendor ID is essential to allow EPA to determine that each EPA Protocol
gas cylinder used by a Part 75 source is from a participating EPA
Protocol gas production site. See the response to the next comment for
the reasons why we are requiring cylinder expiration dates and cylinder
numbers to be reported.
Comment: Two commenters desired the PGVP program to be more
rigorous.
Response: With respect to recordkeeping and reporting, EPA has
added electronic recordkeeping and reporting of cylinder expiration
dates and cylinder numbers for all cylinders used for any
certification, recertification, diagnostic, or quality assurance test
required under Part 75. The Agency believes that this will strengthen
the PGVP by reducing or eliminating the use of expired cylinders, and
by improving the tracking of cylinder information. It also will assist
inspectors in their preparation for field audits of the CEMS. Sections
75.59(a)(7)(iv)(X) and 75.59(a)(9)(v) already require these two items
to be recorded in limited situations or in hardcopy only, and section
75.60(b)(6) already requires these two items to be provided to the
State, local agency or EPA Regional Office in hardcopy RATA and
emission test reports, when such reports are requested.
5. ISO 17025
Background
The Agency proposed to add Sec. 75.21(g) to establish a refined
PGVP rather than relying on ISO 17025.
Summary of Comments, Responses and Rule Changes
Comment: One commenter suggested that EPA rely on ISO 17025 instead
of establishing a refined PGVP.
Response: The Agency disagrees with the commenter and has decided
to finalize a refined PGVP in Sec. 75.21(g) instead of requiring
compliance with ISO 17025.
EPA has no objection to specialty gas companies certifying or
accrediting to ISO 17025 ``General Requirements for the Competence of
Testing and Calibration Laboratories'', but encourages companies to
participate in the PGVP. Certifying or accrediting to ISO 17025 can be
beneficial. However, the purpose of the ISO standard is different from
the purpose of the PGVP. The purpose of ISO 17025 is to better assure
that a laboratory has proper quality assurance and quality control (QA/
QC) practices in place. The idea is that if proper QA/QC practices are
in place, better products will result. However, this may not always be
the case. As a matter of fact, one manufacturer (Scott Specialty Gases,
now a part of Air Liquide) pointed out that ISO 17025 certification is
not only extremely expensive, but it does not guarantee that a better
protocol product will be manufactured. For example, one gas
manufacturer which held certification to the ISO standard registered at
least 1 failure in a blind audit (see Document IDs EPA-HQ-OAR-
2009-0837-0069 and -0070--in the docket).
The only audits that ISO 17025 requires are internal audits of
procedures, not products. The ISO standard states that these internal
audits are to be conducted ``periodically'', with no time frame
specified. The results of these audits are to be provided to clients of
the laboratory, but it is not clear that the results would be publicly
available. Thus potential future clients may not be aware of how the
laboratory was performing. The Agency believes that the PGVP audit
results should be publicly available to allow potential EPA Protocol
gas customers to make a more informed purchasing decision.
The accuracy of EPA Protocol gases is important because these gases
are used to help ensure that the national emission reduction goals of
the Clean Air Act are met. The Agency's goal is to implement a cylinder
audit program to better ensure the quality of these gases. EPA believes
the best way to do that is to implement a PGVP and have a blind sample
of cylinders analyzed by an independent, nationally recognized
laboratory such as the National Institute of Standards and Technology.
A blind sample is necessary to ensure that the cylinders analyzed are
more representative of routine production at each production site
rather than representative of the best possible performance that would
likely occur if the production site knew that its cylinder was being
audited.
Small and large specialty gas companies commented that requiring
conformance to ISO 17025 would be significantly more expensive than
[[Page 17292]]
complying with the PGVP (see Document IDs EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-
0837-0057, -0065, -0066, -0067, -0068, -0069, -0070, and -0073 in the
docket). One large specialty gas company stated that the PGVP would be
more cost effective and would provide an actual representation of the
quality of EPA Protocol gas cylinders.
6. Credit/Invoice Cancellation
Background
We proposed to add Sec. 75.21(g)(5)(ii) to require that EPA
receive written proof of a credit receipt or of cancellation of the
invoice for the cylinders being audited 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.
Summary of Comments, Responses and Rule Changes
Comment: Several commenters requested that EPA allow 30-45 days for
submittal of the invoice nullification or credit receipt, claiming that
two weeks is insufficient time for large organizations handling
hundreds of transactions and multiple accounts. One commenter suggested
that if EPA does not allow 30-45 days it should include the cost of
purchasing the cylinders in the bill that is presented to the Protocol
gas manufacturers instead of a credit being issued to them. Another
commenter added that because a producer's participation in the PGVP is
contingent on meeting this requirement in a timely manner, the time
period should not be so short as to jeopardize a producer's status as
an EPA protocol gas producer. In addition, the commenter opined that
the rule should expressly permit the electronic transmission of proof
of cancellation of the invoice or crediting the purchaser's account.
Response: EPA agrees that two weeks for submitting a credit receipt
or a cancellation of the invoice is insufficient time, and that
electronic as well as written credit receipt or cancellation of the
invoice is acceptable. Section 75.21(g)(5)(ii) of the final rule allows
up to 45 calendar days for production sites to provide EPA with
electronic or written credit receipt or invoice cancellation.
7. Gas Type Codes
Background
EPA proposed to include EPA Protocol gas type codes in the ECMPS
electronic reporting instructions to inform cylinder selection for the
annual PGVP audits.
Summary of Comments, Responses and Rule Changes
Comment: Several commenters suggested that EPA use the code ``C''
for a single-blend CO, ``C2'' for a single-blend CO2, and
``NSCC'' for an EPA Protocol gas quad-blend standard consisting of four
certified components, NOX, SO2, CO2,
and CO, and a balance gas.
Response: Under Part 75, carbon monoxide is not required to be
recorded or reported. Therefore, a code for that single blend gas
cylinder will not be included in the reporting instructions. EPA must
use ``CO2'' as the code for CO2 because it is used thoughout
EPA's database to describe that parameter and EPA wants to maintain
consistent code conventions in the ECMPS reporting software. Because
NOX can be certified as NO, NO2 or NO and
NO2, EPA has added three codes to the list to represent the
quad blend NOX, CO2, SO2 and CO and a
balance gas: SNCC representing SO2, NO, CO and
CO2 and a balance gas, SN2CC representing SO2,
NO2, CO and CO2 and a balance gas, and SNXCC
representing SO2, NO, NO2, CO and CO2
and a balance gas.
Comment: Several commenters suggested that EPA should make clear in
the electronic reporting instructions that the list of Protocol gas
codes is not exclusive, meaning that these are not the only
formulations of EPA Protocols, and that other types of EPA Protocols
could be made to meet customer needs.
Response: EPA agrees and will provide this clarification in the
ECMPS electronic reporting instructions.
Comment: Several commenters requested that EPA provide an option
for ``other,'' which would indicate a formulation other than those
identified on the list.
Response: The Protocol gas type codes have been revised to include
an ``Other EPA-Approved EPA Protocol Gas Blend'' category. However,
sources will need to receive EPA approval to use it. EPA has found that
if an ``Other'' category is allowed, sources will sometimes simply use
that category instead of selecting the correct one. EPA will add new
codes to ECMPS as needed. The ECMPS system allows these types of
additions to be made quickly and easily.
Comment: One commenter questioned the need for EPA Protocol gas
type codes.
Response: The reporting of Protocol gas type code is important for
informing the cylinder selection for the annual PGVP audits.
Comment: One commenter requested that EPA clarify that it is still
allowing the use of a blend of gases as both zero gas and span gas.
Response: Section 6.3.1 of Appendix A to Part 75 has been revised
to clarify that a Protocol gas blend may be used as both a zero gas and
span gas where appropriate.
Comment: One commenter objected to certain multiple combination
codes for Protocol gas mixtures, especially code SN1, which represents
a bi-blend of SO2 and NOX because this gas
mixture could potentially include sulfur dioxide and nitrogen dioxide
in the same cylinder. According to the commenter, the combination of
nitrogen dioxide and sulfur dioxide mixtures cannot be manufactured
because the nitrogen dioxide and sulfur dioxide will react with each
other causing stability issues with the mixture. The commenter
questioned whether the SN1 mixture means sulfur dioxide, and nitric
oxide with the oxides of nitrogen reported.
Response: Based on an August 2, 2010 telephone call from EPA to a
specialty gas company, the Agency believes that an SO2 and
NO2 combination may be possible. However, if an
SO2 and NO2 combination cannot be properly
manufactured, it probably will not be, and any such cylinders that are
improperly manufactured will likely fail if audited in the PGVP. To
clarify the meaning of the ``SN1'' code that was in the proposed rule
preamble, the ECMPS PGVP reporting instructions at http://www.epa.gov/airmarkets/business/ecmps/docs/pgvp_aetb.pdf now include cylinder gas
type codes: ``SN'' for SO2 and NO, ``SN2'' for
SO2 and NO2, and ``SNX'' for SO2, NO,
and NO2 instead of ``SN1''.
8. Use of 95% Confidence Interval in Tag Values
Background
EPA proposed to revise section 5.1.4 (EPA Protocol Gases) of
Appendix A to Part 75 to remove the reference to the 95-percent
confidence interval, and to revise sections 5.1.4 and 5.1.5 (Research
Gas Mixtures) to remove the reference to calculating uncertainty using
the statistical procedures (or equivalent statistical techniques) that
are listed in Section 2.1.8 of the ``EPA Traceability Protocol for
Assay and Certification of Gaseous Calibration Standards'' (EPA
Traceability Protocol), September 1997, as amended August 25, 1999,
EPA-600/R-97/121.
Summary of Comments, Responses and Rule Changes
Comment: Several commenters suggested that the current provisions
regarding uncertainty in sections 5.1.4 and 5.1.5 of Appendix A to part
75 are scientifically defensible and should remain. To tighten the
confidence
[[Page 17293]]
interval would require the enlargement of the uncertainty which the
entire gas industry (including NIST and specialty gas manufacturers)
have long encountered. For example, instead of +/-2% at the 95%
confidence interval it might change to +/-3% at the 99% confidence
interval.
Response: The Agency is persuaded by these comments and has decided
to retain the references in sections 5.1.4 and 5.1.5 to a 95%
confidence interval and calculation of uncertainty using the
statistical procedures (or equivalent statistical techniques) that are
listed in Section 2.1.8 of the EPA Traceability Protocol.
9. Uncertainty of Results
Background
The Agency proposed to add Sec. 75.21(g)(9)(ii) to require that
the concentration of each audited cylinder be analyzed by NIST with an
uncertainty of plus or minus 1.0 percent (inclusive) or better, unless
otherwise approved by EPA. EPA also proposed to add a Figure 3 in
Appendix B to part 75 with explanatory text at the bottom of the figure
stating that ``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.''
Summary of Comments, Responses and Rule Changes
Comment: One commenter suggested that EPA revise the text at the
bottom of Figure 3 of Appendix B of Part 75 so that any overlap between
the original tag error band and the audit analysis error band be
considered when determining the pass/fail basis of a cylinder. For
example, if the original tag had an error band of 2%, and the audit
analysis had an error band of 1%, then more than a 3% difference would
fail the PGVP. If the error band concept is not used, the assumption is
there is no propagation of the two errors and the NIST audit analysis
is error free (has an uncertainty of zero). The uncertainty of the PGVP
begins at the NIST metrological institute level where even their
internal standards have uncertainties associated with the tag value.
The Protocol gas manufacturer's uncertainties and the NIST
uncertainties must be propagated in order to achieve a combined error
band. We cannot assume one or the other analytical process is error
free.
Response: EPA has amended the statement at the bottom of Figure 3
in part to read: A gaseous component is said to fail when the absolute
value of the difference between the audit and vendor concentration
values is greater than 2.2%. The 2.2% value is determined by using the
``paired t test'' at 95% confidence, with an uncertainty of plus or
minus 2.0% (fixed by Part 75, Appendix A, section 5.1.4(b)) and plus or
minus 1.0% (expanded uncertainty with coverage factor k=2) for the gas
vendor and audit, respectively. If the plus or minus 1.0% audit
expanded uncertainty value changes, the 2.2% value may change.
Comment: ``EPA should adopt a 2% uncertainty for the NIST analysis
of the cylinders.''
Response: The Agency disagrees. An expanded uncertainty (coverage
factor k=2) of plus or minus 1.0 percent (calculated combined standard
uncertainty of plus or minus 0.5%), inclusive, or better in the NIST
analysis was assumed when the PGVP costs were estimated in the proposed
rule. A 2010 EPA audit of EPA Protocol gases required a 0.5%
uncertainty in the NIST analysis for gas concentrations commonly used
by Part 75 sources. If EPA were to allow the uncertainty of the NIST
analysis to be up to 2.0%, the audit results would need to
allow for approximately a 4.0% difference between the NIST result and
the vendor result before a cylinder could be said to fail. A 2.0% uncertainty for the NIST audit results defeats the purpose
of the PGVP. The Part 75 accuracy standard for EPA Protocol gases is
2.0% (see Part 75, Appendix A, section 5.1.4(b)). To verify
that a gas meets this standard, ideally NIST would need to have a 0.0%
uncertainty. The further away the NIST audit results are from a 0.0%
uncertainty, the less certain it is that this standard is achieved.
Section 75.21(g)(9)(ii) in the final rule allows EPA to approve a
greater NIST analytical uncertainty if required, e.g., for certain low
concentration gases. EPA has added two new definitions in section 72.2
to help clarify the terms ``expanded uncertainty'' and ``coverage
factor'' (see http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Uncertainty/coverage.html).
10. Implementation Options
Background
EPA proposed four implementation options for the PGVP in the
preamble to the June 11, 2010 proposed rule regarding the number of
production sites and cylinders that are audited each year and the
length of time allotted to NIST to analyze the cylinders and to report
the results.
Summary of Comments, Responses and Rule Changes
Comment: One commenter stated that Option 1 could result in a
specialty gas company, which is removed after December 31, being unable
to be relisted for a length of time that is more than intended.
Response: EPA agrees that if the NIST audit report takes longer
than one year to complete so that EPA receives the audit report in the
first half of a calendar year and a production site was not in the
audit report, that production site might not be re-listed for up to two
years. In this situation, section 75.21(g)(5)(iii) of the proposed rule
did not allow re-listing until December 31 of the next year. This
period of time before relisting is longer than was intended. In
addition, EPA understands that it would be unfair not to re-list a
production site due to circumstances beyond the production site's
control. Therefore, the Agency has revised sections 75.21(g)(5)(ii) and
(iii) to address these concerns. For the two relevant situations in
sections 75.21(g)(5)(ii) and (iii), a production site is eligible for
relisting 180 calendar days after the date of notice of its delisting,
provided that the information required by Sec. 75.21(g)(1) is
submitted to EPA.
Comment: One commenter opposed Option 2 because it reduced the
number of cylinders per site selected for verification. This commenter
also stated that while the proposed four cylinders do not constitute a
representative sample, two cylinders would be even less so. Two
commenters opposed Option 3 stating that it would benefit large
specialty gas companies and would assume that all production sites for
a specialty gas company would have equivalent capabilities. This
commenter also stated as was shown in the IG's report it is possible,
indeed, likely, that a manufacturer with multiple sites will have some
production sites that pass and some that fail.
Response: While the Agency understands the shortcomings of Option
1, 2 and 3, EPA believes that these options are necessary to preserve
the ability of producers to sell EPA Protocol gases in possible (but
unlikely) situations where cylinder procurement, shipping, or analyses
take longer than expected to complete, and for EPA to implement the
PGVP under a variety of possible conditions. However, note that all
three of these options are incorporated in Option 4. Two commenters
supported Option 4 and two commenters supported Option 4 but without
Option 1. For the reasons previously stated, EPA will retain the
[[Page 17294]]
maximum flexibility of Option 4 when implementing the final rule.
Consistent with the preamble discussion in the proposed rule (see 75 FR
33395, June 11, 2010), the Agency has also revised section 75.21(g)(10)
to allow a participating EPA Protocol gas production site to continue
to sell EPA Protocol gas cylinders in the event that none of its
cylinders are audited.
Comment: Two commenters preferred that the PGVP be more rigorous.
Response: With respect to implementation options, EPA has added the
following text in section 75.21(g)(9)(iv) to expedite the posting of
audit results: ``To be considered in the final posted audit report, EPA
must receive comments, and any cylinder re-analyses from participating
EPA Protocol gas production sites within 45 days of the participating
EPA Protocol gas production site's receipt of the draft redacted audit
report sent by EPA.''
11. Use of Existing Cylinders
Background
The Agency proposed to add Sec. 75.21(g)(6) and to revise section
6.5.10 in Appendix A to Part 75 to allow for the situation when an EPA
Protocol gas production site is removed from the list of PGVP
participants after their gases are procured, but before the gases have
been consumed. In that event, 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. EPA also proposed to add Section 75.21(g)(7) and to revise
section 6.5.10 in Appendix A to Part 75 to allow EPA Protocol gas
cylinders purchased prior to the effective date of the final rule from
a production site that is not participating in the PGVP 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.
Summary of Comments, Responses and Rule Changes
Comment: Several commenters supported these provisions, but
requested that the Agency clarify that all cylinders ordered before the
effective date of the final rule be allowed for part 75 purposes
through their stated expiration date or a final pressure of 150 psi.
Clear, definitive wording on this subject will prevent the waste--both
economic and environmental--of potentially thousands of cylinders that
may be in use or may have valid service lives as of the effective date
of the final rule.
Response: EPA agrees and has revised Sec. 75.21(g)(7) and section
6.5.10 in Appendix A to part 75 to state that an EPA Protocol gas
cylinder certified by or ordered from any production site no later than
60 days after the date of publication of the final rule in the Federal
Register 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. The Agency chose to use ``certified by''
instead of ``manufactured by'' because a cylinder could be manufactured
and certified for, e.g., two years, and then re-certified for up to
another two years if it was not consumed. EPA does not want cylinders
to be re-certified by an EPA Protocol gas production site that was not
participating in the PGVP and continue to be used for potentially four
years or more after the PGVP takes effect.
Section 75.21(g)(7) and section 6.5.10 in Appendix A to part 75
have also been slightly revised to allow that in the event that an EPA
Protocol gas production site is removed from the list of PGVP
participants on the same date as or after the date on which a
particular cylinder has been certified or ordered, that gas cylinder
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.
As an example, a gas cylinder can be certified for two years and
then be re-certified for another two years, if it has not been consumed
and its pressure is still above 500 psig. EPA does not want cylinders
obtained from production sites that are not participating in the PGVP
to potentially be used for four years (or more) after the PGVP takes
effect. To prevent this from occurring, statements have been added to
Sec. 75.21(g)(7) and section 6.5.10 of Appendix A, prohibiting a
production site that is not participating in the PGVP from recertifying
such cylinders to extend their useful life and providing those
cylinders to a source subject to part 75.
12. If NIST Withdraws From Participation
Request for Comment
In the unlikely event that the National Institute of Standards and
Technology (NIST) withdraws from participation in the PGVP, EPA
requests comments on how an analytical lab should be selected to
analyze cylinders collected under the PGVP. Comments should be sent to
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0837. The Agency suggests that such an
analytical lab should meet the following minimum criteria:
(A) Have no conflict of interest with any participating EPA
Protocol gas production site;
(B) Be capable of analyzing EPA Protocol gas cylinders with an
expanded uncertainty (coverage factor k=2) of plus or minus 1.0 percent
(calculated combined standard uncertainty of plus or minus 0.5%) or
better;
(C) Use NIST-certified analytical reference standards of
appropriate mixtures;
(D) Have no analytical interferences or correct for them;
(E) Identify equipment and calibration procedures that will be used
to conduct the testing;
(F) Provide credentials of key personnel conducting the testing and
analysis;
(G) Provide assurances that the analytical lab will adhere to cost-
containment provisions in any contract it signs, and a description of
the cost containment provisions it would agree to; and
(H) Provide a date on which the analytical lab will be available to
begin PGVP cylinder analyses.
EPA is interested in determining: (a) Whether the above acceptance
criteria are sufficient; (b) how many labs could meet the above
criteria or other suggested criteria; (c) how compliance with the
acceptance criteria can be verified; and (d) contact information for
the labs that could meet appropriate criteria.
Would use of multiple labs be appropriate under the PGVP? Please
consider that use of multiple labs would mean: (a) Different analysts,
reference material, equipment, and analytical techniques would be used
by the different labs; (b) possible logistical problems with EPA
contractors mistakenly shipping cylinders to the wrong lab, causing
delays and possibly lost cylinders; (c) possible problem with
intercomparison of results because there would not be a common
reference standard, analyst, equipment, or analytical technique; and
(d) possible increase in the chance of collusion between a lab and a
production site that pays the lab.
B. Amendments to the Minimum Competency Requirements for Air Emission
Testing
1. Need for the AETB Requirements
Background
EPA proposed to add Sec. 75.21(f) and to revise section 6.1.2 of
Appendix A to part 75 to replace the existing air emission testing body
(AETB) requirements.
[[Page 17295]]
Summary of Comments, Responses and Rule Changes
Comment: Several commenters supported the AETB minimum competency
requirements. However, several commenters questioned the need for these
requirements. These commenters suggested that the ASTM D 7036-04
provisions are subjective, arbitrary or unclear and are not designed
such that each provision could be a federally enforceable regulatory
requirement; and that there is no evidence that compliance with the
ASTM standard will prevent mistakes. These commenters suggested a more
appropriate approach is to encourage voluntary compliance.
Response: Small and large stack testing companies, sources subject
to part 75, and State and EPA regulators in the ASTM D 7036-04 work
group believe that implementation of the ASTM Practice will result in
improved data quality. EPA believes the evidence is strong that
unqualified, under-trained and inexperienced testers are routinely
deployed on testing projects. EPA has had experiences with tests that
have been invalidated or called into question due to poor performance
by testing contractors (see Document IDs EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0837-
0015, -0016, -0062, and -0063, and Document ID EPA-HQ-OAR-
2005-0132-0035 in the dockets). For example, an EPA Office of Inspector
General Audit Report ``Report of EPA's Oversight of State Stack Testing
Programs'', Report Number 2000-P-00019, September 11, 2000, states that
the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP) made
significant corrections to 57 percent of stack tests, that 86 percent
of the test protocols were deficient, 28 percent of the test programs
had to be repeated for at least one parameter, and 26 percent of the
test reports required significant correction, clarification, or were
rejected by the NJDEP. The NJDEP states they have seen errors in
approximately 50 percent of recent stack tests.
While EPA believes that meeting the requirements of ASTM D7036 and
having a Qualified Individual on site during testing does not guarantee
proper performance of any individual test, these actions will likely
result in proper test execution and high quality data generation. EPA
also believes that third party (e.g., State agency) oversight helps
ensure that testing is properly conducted and strongly encourages such
oversight to continue. Although there might be no evidence that
compliance with the ASTM standard will prevent mistakes, there is also
no evidence that compliance with the ASTM standard will not prevent
mistakes.
Voluntary compliance with any minimum competency standard has not
worked for the past 30 years, which is how long EPA and other
organizations have tried to develop an acceptable standard for stack
testers. There are many reasons why voluntary compliance has not
worked, including disagreement among stack test companies on a minimum
competency standard, and the sources' often used practice of hiring the
lowest bidder. The lack of voluntary compliance with a minimum
competency standard is also why various States, including Louisiana,
have developed their own stack testing regulatory standards. A driving
force for the development of the ASTM standard was to prevent the
patchwork of standards that was beginning to occur throughout the U.S.
If each State were to develop its own standard for stack testing,
testing costs would increase as stack testers performing work in
multiple States would have to qualify in and abide by differing
requirements in multiple jurisdictions. EPA notes that the Louisiana
DEQ has agreed to cancel its stack testing accreditation program (see
Document ID EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0837-0072 in the docket) and in
its place substitute accreditation to ASTM D 7036-04. Louisiana DEQ
also agrees to recognize third party accreditors such as the Stack
Testing Accreditation Council.
Many of the proposed rule provisions of Sec. 75.21(f) and section
6.1.2 have been finalized as proposed. Significant changes to these
sections are discussed below.
2. Cost
Background
EPA proposed to add Sec. 75.21(f) and to revise section 6.1.2 of
Appendix A to part 75 to require AETBs that perform certain part 75 QA
tests to provide a certification that they conform with ASTM D 7036-04.
EPA also revised Sec. 75.59 and Sec. 75.64 to include a small number
of AETB-related recordkeeping and reporting requirements. For these
requirements, an information collection request (ICR) supporting
statement was developed, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act.
Summary of Comments, Responses and Rule Changes
Comments: Several commenters suggested that AETB costs were
underestimated. One commenter stated that EPA's economic analysis is
highly flawed and was clearly prepared by someone unfamiliar with the
business side of the industry, but this commenter did not provide any
supporting data. This commenter further stated that the proposed AETB
requirements will not drive prices down, and whatever increase in price
there is cannot necessarily be passed on to the customer. In addition,
smaller testing firms suffer more from this increased cost, even though
they may be the better choice in many cases. The same commenter noted
that EPA ``assumes in its economic analysis that the majority of tests
done are for part 75. That is patently false, at least for many if not
most companies.''
Response: The economic analysis only included Part 75 tests because
the proposed rule only applies to Part 75 sources. Unless a stack test
company accredits to ASTM D 7036-04 through, e.g., the Stack Testing
Accreditation Council, the stack test company does not have to meet
ASTM D 7036-04 for non-part 75 testing. The Agency notes that if a
company chooses to accredit to the ASTM standard, it may be possible to
limit the scope of accreditation to Part 75 testing. In any case, the
proposed rule does not require accreditation. A letter of certification
signed by senior management of the AETB will suffice.
Comment: One commenter suggested that EPA include: (1) The cost for
staff time to develop and implement the quality manual required by the
ASTM practice, including document control procedures, hiring of
additional personnel, performance of annual audits, and documentation
of corrective action, (2) application fees and the cost of preparing
applications for accreditation and/or QI qualification, (3) the cost of
QI exams, including tuition for preparatory courses, exam fees, and
travel expenses, (4) any new costs associated with preparation of test
plans and reports to comply with the specific criteria in the practice,
and (5) cost of required records storage and backup.
Response: The Agency believes that AETBs should already be
operating in a manner consistent with ASTM D 7036-04. However, EPA
revised the ICR to include additional supporting detail for the
estimated burden associated with increased annual quality-assurance and
maintenance costs that would be passed on to a unit subject to Part 75.
Based on information provided by stack testing firms, a conservative
one percent increase was applied to the previously established annual
O&M costs per unit at each respondent facility. This is based on the
average stack testing industry costs of preparing a QA/QC manual
($6,000), obtaining QSTI
[[Page 17296]]
certification ($1,200), and annual operating costs of maintaining the
quality control system ($5,000-$50,000 depending on size). The
increased stack testing overhead costs translate into an increased
performance test cost of $68 to $549 per RATA test depending on the
size of the company. The increased cost per test drops even further if
applied to all types of tests performed by typical stack testing
companies. EPA assumes that the costs will be passed through to the
customers, which are generally sources subject to part 75, including
large electric utility and industrial companies.
3. Effective Dates
Background
EPA proposed to add Sec. 75.59(a)(9)(xi), Sec. 75.59(a)(15),
Sec. 75.59(b)(6), and Sec. 75.59(d)(4) to require that AETB-related
recordkeeping start on and after the date that is six months from the
effective date of the final rule. The Agency proposed to revise Section
75.64(a)(5) to require the AETB-related reporting to start prior to or
concurrent with the submittal of the relevant quarterly electronic data
report on and after January 1, 2011.
Summary of Comments, Responses and Rule Changes
Comment: The Agency received requests to extend the AETB compliance
deadline from three commenters. One of those commenters suggested that
EPA extend the AETB compliance deadline to January 2012. None of the
commenters thought that EPA was providing too much time. Several
commenters requested that EPA clarify the effective dates of the AETB-
related provisions.
Response: EPA agrees that the wording in the proposed rule could be
clearer. The effective date of the final rule is 30 days from the date
it is published in the Federal Register. The Agency agrees that a
compliance deadline for the AETB-related provisions of 365 days from
publication of the final rule in the Federal Register is more
reasonable for several reasons. There are approximately 400 stack test
companies in the U.S. Only about 30 percent of them have at least one
qualified individual. But even these companies may not yet be fully
compliant with ASTM D 7036-04. Further, the large amount of near term
stack testing that must be performed to respond to the Agency's
requests for information collection under Section 114 of the Clean Air
Act to assess the emissions of hazardous air pollutants from electric
generating units provides even less time for companies to come into
compliance with the AETB provisions. Therefore, to better ensure that
every stack test company has a reasonable time to comply with ASTM D
7036-04, EPA has extended both the compliance date in Sec. 75.21(f)
and the commencement date in section 6.1.2(a) of Appendix A to 365 days
after the date of publication of the final rule in the Federal
Register. Section 75.64(a)(5) has also been revised to require the
information in Sec. Sec. 75.59(a)(15), (b)(6), and (d)(4) to be
provided commencing 365 days after the publication date of the final
rule in the Federal Register.
4. Accreditation
Background
EPA proposed to revise section 6.1.2(b) in Appendix A to part 75 to
require a part 75 source owner or operator to obtain from an AETB a
certification that as of the time of testing the AETB is operating in
conformance with ASTM D 7036-04. This certification must be provided in
the form of either (1) a certificate of 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. EPA also requested
comment on whether the Agency should require accreditation.
Summary of Comments, Responses and Rule Changes
Comment: Several commenters opposed requiring accreditation. One
commenter requested that EPA eventually require third party
accreditation for all AETBs. The commenter recognizes, however, that
the U.S. accreditation program is just beginning and that the
requirement for all AETBs to be accredited may be premature, and
suggested the following approach: Section 6.1.2(b)(2) should be amended
to include a ``sunset clause'' for self-certified AETBs. Specifically,
five years after the effective date of the final rule AETBs should not
have the option to self-certify and must have a certificate of
accreditation from a third party accreditation body. This five year
period provides more than ample time for the maturation of U.S. AETB
accreditation programs.
Response: The commenter did not provide any evidence to suggest
that accreditation is any better at assuring compliance with ASTM D
7036-04 than self-certification. Over time, if evidence is found that
self-certification is no longer appropriate, then at that time the
Agency could consider proposing revisions of the rule to require
accreditation.
5. Scope of Testing
Background
EPA proposed to add Sec. 75.21(f) and to revise section 6.1.2(b)
in Appendix A to Part 75, among other things, to limit the scope of
testing required to be performed by AETBs, as defined in Sec. 72.2 of
this chapter. Section 75.21(f) and section 6.1.2(b) would require AETBs
that perform relative accuracy testing under 75.74(c)(2)(ii), section
6.5 of Appendix A to Part 75, and section 2.3.1 of Appendix B to Part
75, and stack testing under Sec. 75.19 and section 2.1 of Appendix E
to Part 75 to provide a certification that they conform with ASTM D
7036-04. Conformance to the requirements of ASTM D 7036-04 would apply
only to these tests performed on Part 75 affected sources.
Summary of Comments, Responses and Rule Changes
Comment: One commenter suggested that if an AETB fails to declare a
limit on the applicability of ASTM D 7036-04 and fails to perform any
work in full conformance to ASTM D 7036-04, this would jeopardize even
that work that may have been performed in accordance with the standard.
The preamble to the proposed rule indicates that an AETB would be
evaluated against its quality manual when assessing AETB conformance to
the standard. The commenter recommends that the final rule clarify the
limits of applicability of ASTM D 7036-04 when evaluating an AETB's
conformance to ASTM D 7036-04.
Response: Section 4.1, Note 3 in ASTM D 7036-04 states: ``There is
no requirement to define a scope of testing. It is a requirement of
this practice that prior to performing a test method for the first
time, the AETB has in place resources, training, and QA/QC consistent
with this practice to insure data of acceptable quality are produced.''
It is EPA's intent in this rulemaking that the ASTM D 7036-04 scope of
testing be limited to Part 75 relative accuracy test audits, and Part
75 stack tests related to Appendix E and low mass emitters. However,
EPA understands the concern of the commenter and has revised section
6.1.2(a) of Appendix A to part 75 to allow an AETB to limit its
conformance to ASTM D 7036-04 to units subject to this part and to the
test methods required by this part. Section 6.1.2(b) has been similarly
revised. Unless a stack test company accredits to ASTM D
[[Page 17297]]
7036-04 through, e.g., the Stack Testing Accreditation Council, the
stack test company does not have to meet ASTM D 7036-04 for non-part 75
testing. The Agency notes that even if a company chooses to accredit to
the ASTM standard, it may be possible to limit the scope of
accreditation to Part 75 testing. In any case, the proposed rule does
not require accreditation. A letter of certification signed by senior
management of the AETB will suffice.
6. Effect on Validity of Test Data
Background
EPA proposed to add section 6.1.2(f) in Appendix A to Part 75,
which states that meeting two conditions (1) providing to the owner or
operator of a part 75 source with a certificate of accreditation or
letter of certification that an AETB is operating in conformance with
ASTM D 7036-04; and (2) having at least one Qualified Individual on
site conducting or overseeing the applicable tests would be sufficient
proof of validity of test data that otherwise meet the requirements of
part 75.
Summary of Comments, Responses and Rule Changes
Comment: One commenter strongly supported section 6.1.2(f), but
explained that the provision should not be understood to validate data
that do not otherwise meet the requirements of part 75. Another
commenter strongly objected to inclusion of the provision in the rule
and requested that EPA remove section 6.1.2(f). This commenter provided
the following rationale:
``(1) This section has no legal consequence and no benefit.
Certification of testers and of a Qualified Individual on or leading
the test team will not change evaluations and use of tests and test
reports: with or without it, regulators should evaluate tests and
test reports, and, if they find the work and records valid, accept
the `validity of test data that otherwise meet the requirements of
this part'. This rule accomplishes requiring certified people to do
the test. Once such people have performed the test, it has no more
legal effect.
``(2) This section will give the false impression to those who
do not know that Part 75 requires correct test performance that
review is superseded by tester accreditation and QI participation,
that their testing must be accepted as valid.
``(a) It is unfair and a disservice to all to give this
impression to facilities and testers. It will lead to substandard
testing, which may get approved anyway and costs everyone involved
extra effort, time, and expense.
``(b) Many regulatory agencies will have this impression and
will not reject invalid testing performed by accredited testers with
QIs on their teams because they will believe that this section says
they have to accept the test results. Do not give this false
impression. It will lead to worse testing and more acceptance of
invalid testing.
``(3) Accreditation does not mean a test is valid. Some
regulatory agencies will believe this section means this. This
section then leads to lack of review and of enforcement of valid
testing; the incentive for testers will be to get accreditation,
then cut corners. We all know unplanned things happen while source
testing that may require method modification. However, source
testers seem to forget or not realize they are actually modifying
the test method.''
Response: EPA understands that it may be unfair to hold an owner or
operator of a source subject to Part 75 responsible for certain actions
(or inactions) related to an external AETB's compliance with ASTM
D7036-04 and attempted to address this in section 6.1.2(f) of the
proposed rule by limiting the responsibility of the owner or operator
of a part 75 source.
As the commenter states, several sections of Part 75 require units
subject to part 75 to meet certification and ongoing QA/QC
requirements: Sec. 75.4(f) requires sources using Appendix E to meet
those requirements. Section 75.4(j) requires successful completion of
certification tests or use of maximum potential concentration, maximum
potential flow, maximum potential NOX emission rate, or use
appropriate reference methods or another procedure approved by the
Administrator. Section 75.5(b) states that no affected unit shall be
operated without complying with the requirements of Sec. Sec. 75.2-
75.75 and Appendices A-G to part 75. Section 75.10(b) requires that
sources meet the performance specifications in Appendix A to part 75.
(The Appendix A relative accuracy performance specifications are also
required for the ongoing relative accuracy tests in Appendix B to part
75.)
EPA believes that the language in Appendix A, section 6.1.2(f) is
clear that all part 75 testing requirements must be met. However, the
Agency understands the concern of the commenter, and has amended
6.1.2(f) in the final rule to read as follows: ``Except as provided in
paragraph (e), no RATA 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, and no stack test under Sec. 75.19 or Appendix E to this
part (or portion of such a RATA or stack test) conducted by an AETB (as
defined in Sec. 72.2) shall be invalidated under this part as a result
of the failure of the AETB to conform to ASTM D 7036-04. Validation of
such tests is determined based on the other part 75 testing
requirements. EPA recommends that proper observation of tests and
review of test results continue, regardless of whether an AETB fully
conforms to ASTM D7036-04.''
The Agency also wishes to clarify that an AETB's failure to conform
to ASTM D 7036-04 with respect to testing at a particular unit does not
affect its ability to certify conformance prior to conducting testing
at another unit as long as it is following the procedures in ASTM D
7036-04 for addressing nonconformance.
7. Exams
Background
EPA proposed to add section 6.1.2(e) in Appendix A to Part 75 to
require having at least one Qualified Individual (QI) on site
conducting or overseeing applicable tests. A QI must pass appropriate
exam(s), described in ASTM D 7036-04, covering the test methods the QI
will perform.
Summary of Comments and Responses
No rule changes were required.
Comment: Several commenters requested that the QI exams be better
targeted to the test methods the QI will actually perform, and not
include additional test methods. A representative comment stated that
the test program developed for QIs is excessive. The methods are
grouped, and may not represent the type of work an individual or firm
will conduct. For example, if a company elects not to perform 3-D probe
work in Method 2F, there is no way to exclude these questions from the
current QI test which puts this individual at a disadvantage if there
are questions on the exam concerning a method the firm will not
conduct.
Response: The QI exams provided by the Source Evaluation Society
(SES) are created with the knowledge and wisdom of many experienced
stack testers. Periodically, these exams are modified using feedback
from people who have taken the exams.
The interdependency of emissions testing methods is inherent in any
emissions testing program. EPA and the SES membership, which includes
large and small stack test companies, believe that an individual who
can pass a multiple method group exam is one who understands emissions
testing principles broadly enough to lead a test team and can be
expected to address the myriad of complicating issues that arise during
a source test.
It is EPA's understanding that the SES membership can and has
evaluated and adjusted the qualifications approach from time to time.
Commenters are welcome to work with SES to address concerns they may
have. While
[[Page 17298]]
recognizing that there might be opportunities for improvement, the
Agency supports the QI qualification exam program in its current form.
Comment: Several commenters stated that it makes no sense for an
individual to sit for an exam that covers material for which the
candidate is not qualified to perform or intends to perform. This means
that an AETB that performs a limited scope of testing may legitimately
argue that a qualified external exam provider is not available and may
choose to offer internal exams. The current language in the preamble to
the proposed rule favors an external exam provider. EPA should
recognize the validity of internal examination providers when
suggesting that sources obtain information about examination providers.
Response: Three comments were received on the subject of external
as opposed to internal exams. Internally administered exams are allowed
only if an external exam for that test method is not available. The
current format of external exams covers a group of related test
methods. If a QI desires to be certified for a particular test method
and that test method is part of an external exam for a group of
methods, that QI must take that external exam. An individual that has
been qualified with an internal exam must re-qualify with an external
exam within three years of the availability of an external exam or when
a re-test is required, whichever is sooner. The ASTM D 7036-04
workgroup (in part, made up of small and large stack test companies)
confirmed that, in general, an external exam is a better indication of
qualification than an internal exam. The Agency agrees with this view
because an externally administered exam may be more impartial, provide
exam questions that have been better vetted, and may be less subject to
abuse than an internally developed and administered exam.
8. Posting Non-Compliant AETB Names
Background
In section 6.1.2(g) of Appendix A to Part 75, EPA proposed that 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 could 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 would be removed from the EPA Web sites once
the failures were remedied.
Summary of Comments, Responses and Rule Changes
Comment: Several commenters agreed with the concept of posting the
name of an offending AETB on Agency Web sites. One commenter agreed
that posting the names of offending AETBs on the EPA Web site would
provide a deterrent for non-conformance with ASTM D7036-04 and
generally agrees with this approach. However, the commenter asserted
that paragraph 6.1.2(g) should be amended to ensure that an AETB is
notified and has the opportunity to correct any deficiencies before the
name is posted on the Web site. The commenter was also concerned about
the responsiveness of EPA in updating this list once the AETB has
provided EPA with the required information. Therefore, the commenter
suggested that a requirement should be added for EPA to respond to an
AETB's submittal within 30 days, indicating whether the submittal is
sufficient to remedy the problem. If so, the name of the AETB would be
removed from the list. If EPA failed to respond within 30 days, the
submittal would be assumed to be sufficient to remedy the problem and
the name is removed from the list. Another commenter requested that the
determination of accuracy and completeness in section 6.1.2(g) be
solely based on the provisions of ASTM D 7036-04.
Response: EPA believes that the determination of accuracy and
completeness should be based on ASTM D7036-04 and Part 75 taken
together because Part 75 limits the application of ASTM D 7036-04 to
only certain tests performed on part 75 sources. The Agency agrees that
an AETB should have the opportunity to correct any deficiencies before
its name is posted on the Web site and has therefore revised section
6.1.2(g) accordingly. If an owner or operator has requested information
from an AETB and believes that the information provided by the AETB is
either incomplete or inaccurate, the owner or operator may request the
Administrator's assistance in remedying the alleged deficiencies. Upon
such request, if the Administrator concurs that the information
submitted to the source is either incomplete or inaccurate, the
Administrator will provide the AETB a description of the deficiencies
to be remedied. The Administrator's determination of completeness and
accuracy of the information will be solely based on the provisions of
ASTM D 7036-04 and this part. The Administrator may post the name of
the offending AETB on Agency Web sites if, within 30 days of having
provided the AETB a description of the deficiencies to be remedied, the
AETB does not satisfactorily respond to the source and notify the
Administrator of the response via electronic mail. The AETB need not
submit the information it provides to the owner or operator to the
Administrator, unless specifically requested by the Administrator. If
after the AETB's name is posted, the Administrator determines that the
AETB's response is sufficient, the AETB's name will be removed from the
EPA Web sites.
If, upon request by the Administrator, the AETB or the owner or
operator provides to the Administrator any information identified as
confidential business information (CBI), the Administrator will treat
the information according to the provisions of 40 CFR part 2, subpart
B. Note that the modifications to section 6.1.2(g) make section
6.1.2(h) redundant and it has been removed.
C. Other Amendments
1. Compliance Dates for Units Adding New Stack or Control Device
Background
Section 75.4(e)(2) only applies to existing Acid Rain Program units
that are building a new stack, or adding control equipment. EPA
proposed to extend the provision to include both existing and new
units. For a project involving both a new stack or flue and
installation of add-on emission controls, EPA proposed to revise Sec.
75.4(e)(2) to require that the compliance window for required CEMS
certification and/or recertification and/or diagnostic tests start on
the date that emissions first exit to the atmosphere through the new
stack or flue. The end of the compliance window would be the 90th
operating day or the 180th calendar day (whichever occurs first) after
the start date.
Summary of Comments, Responses and Rule Changes
Comment: One commenter stated that the proposed revisions to Sec.
75.4(e) are consistent with the original intent of the provision, which
was to address compliance deadlines for units that must relocate,
replace, or retest monitoring systems as a result of the addition of
new controls, regardless of when the unit commenced construction. This
commenter further stated that the provision was never intended to draw
a distinction between ``existing'' units as that term is defined under
Sec. 72.2 and other units with previously certified monitoring
systems. The commenter suggested that the addition of
[[Page 17299]]
recertification and diagnostic tests also is consistent with EPA's
intent and past implementation of the provision through guidance.
However, the commenter objected to EPA's proposal to hold units that
are constructing both a new stack and a control device to a single
testing deadline based on use of the new stack. The commenter concluded
that although most sources likely would try to meet the testing
deadline under Sec. 75.4(e) associated with the use of the new stack
by timing the initial operation of the control device to coincide as
closely as possible with the time that gases first exit to the
atmosphere through the new stack, there is no valid reason for limiting
an owner or operator to a single deadline or set of tests to validate
data from the monitoring systems.
Response: EPA agrees in part with the commenter. As noted above,
Sec. 75.4(e)(2), on its face, applies only to existing units (which
are generally units commencing commercial operation before November 1,
1990 and serving a generator with a nameplate capacity greater than 25
MWe) and thus was not intended to cover new units. However, EPA agrees
that it is appropriate to expand Sec. 75.4(e)(2) to provide a similar
approach for monitoring compliance deadlines and missing data
substitution for new stack construction and add-on SO2 or
NOX control installation at both existing and new units and
to cover recertification and diagnostic tests, in addition to the
certification tests covered by the existing provision. In addition, EPA
agrees that in cases where a project involves both new stack
construction and installation of add-on SO2 or
NOX controls, the initial routing of flue gas through the
new stack and the initial operation of an add-on control device (i.e.,
when reagent is first injected) should, if necessary, be treated as two
separate events, each of which is allotted a flexible 90 operating day/
180 calendar day window to complete all required certification and/or
recertification and/or diagnostic testing of the monitoring systems
installed on the new stack. Two separate compliance windows may be
needed in cases where there is a long interval of time between the
starting dates of the two events. Therefore, a new paragraph, (e)(3),
has been added to Sec. 75.4(e) to allow for completion of CEMS
certification and/or recertification and/or diagnostic testing
requirements for both new stack construction and new add-on
SO2 or NOX controls either: (a) Within the window
of time provided for new stack construction; or (b) within the separate
window of time applicable to such event provided under Sec. 75.4
(e)(1).
EPA also revised Sec. 75.4(e) to address the reporting of CEMS
data, in cases where only one compliance window is used, and where both
windows are used. Section 75.4(e)(2), as revised, addresses how to
report emissions or flow rate data after emissions first pass through
the new stack or flue, or reagent is first injected into the flue gas
desulfurization system or add-on NOX emission controls,
until all required certification and/or recertification and/or
diagnostic tests are successfully completed. For example, if section 2
of Appendix A to Part 75 requires two spans and ranges for the monitor
that measures the pollutant being removed by the add-on SO2
or NOX controls, certification of the high measurement scale
is sufficient to initiate reporting of quality-assured data from that
monitor. All data recorded on the certified high scale, including data
that would ordinarily be required to be recorded on the low scale, may
be reported as quality-assured for up to 60 unit or stack operating
days after the first injection of reagent into the control device.
Then, all required tests of the low measurement scale must be completed
within the 90 operating day/180 calendar day compliance window of time
associated with the first injection of reagent into the control device.
EPA believes that it is appropriate to allow temporary reporting of
data on a certified high measurement scale in the case of installing
and operating new add-on SO2 or NOX controls,
primarily because it often takes several days or weeks to stabilize a
new add-on emissions control device so that the desired percentage
reduction in the SO2 or NOX emission levels is
consistently achieved. During this period of time (known as the
``shakedown'' period), a significant percentage of the data from the
SO2 or NOX monitor (as applicable) is likely to
be too high to be read on the low scale. Further, even data that can be
recorded on the low scale during the shakedown period cannot be
reported as quality-assured, because a RATA must be performed on the
low scale in order to certify it, and this test cannot be done until
the control device has been stabilized. The Agency believes that
accepting low readings recorded on a certified high scale for a short
period of time will not adversely impact the overall accuracy of the
emissions data. Other certified CEMS that have only one (high)
measurement scale record data on the lower part of the scale during
short-term events such as startup and shutdown, and these data are
accepted as quality-assured.
Revised Sec. 75.4(e)(2)(ii) allows conditional data validation
procedures in Sec. 75.20(b)(3) to be used for the entire 90 operating
day/180 calendar day window associated with new stack construction or
addition of a new emissions control device, rather than limiting the
amount of time available to complete the required testing to the
shorter timelines in Sec. 75.20(b)(3)(iv). This is appropriate for new
stack construction because the monitoring systems on the new stack are
brand new systems that must undergo certification testing. The
provisions of Sec. 75.20(b)(3) and sections 6.3.1(a), 6.3.2(a),
6.6.4(a), and 6.5(f) of Appendix A to Part 75 clearly allow conditional
data validation to be used for the entire window of time specified in
Sec. 75.4, for the initial certification of monitoring systems. For
the installation and operation of add-on emissions controls, it is also
appropriate to allow the use of conditional data validation for the
entire 90 operating day/180 calendar day window, because instability
during the shakedown period prevents the required RATAs associated with
the control device addition from being done during that time period,
and the shakedown period often extends beyond the shorter conditional
data validation timelines provided in Sec. 75.20(b)(3)(iv).
A new paragraph, (e)(4), has also been added to Sec. 75.4(e) to
address special requirements that apply, in addition to the
requirements in paragraph (e)(2), to a project involving both a new
stack and a new add-on SO2 or NOX control device.
For such a project, the emissions data recorded by each CEMS on the new
stack, starting on the date and hour on which emissions first exit to
the atmosphere through the new stack and ending on the hour before the
date and hour on which reagent is first injected into the control
device, may be reported as quality assured (as provided in paragraph
(e)(2)(ii) and (iv)) only if (1) a RATA of the CEMS (as described in
paragraph (e)(4)(i)(A) or (ii)(A), depending on the CEMS involved) is
successfully completed either prior to the first injection of reagent
into the control device or in a period after the first injection when
the control device is not operating; and (2) the rest of the required
certification tests are successfully completed within the 90 operating
day/180 calendar day compliance window that begins with the initial
routing of flue gas through the new stack. For example, if the
certification testing is done this way and conditional data validation
is used in accordance with paragraph (e)(2)(ii), the CEMS data may be
reported as quality-
[[Page 17300]]
assured, starting at the hour of the probationary calibration error
test, provided that all of the major tests are passed in sequence, with
no failures. The RATA must be performed prior to the initial injection
of reagent into the control device, or in a period after the first
injection when the control device is not operating, because the
characteristics of the stack gas matrix (e.g., gas concentrations,
temperature, moisture content, and concentration and flow profiles)
when the control device is brought on-line will differ significantly
from the stack characteristics of the uncontrolled unit. Therefore, to
validate CEMS data in the uncontrolled time period between the first
use of the new stack and the initial injection of reagent, a RATA that
represents the actual stack conditions during that time interval must
be performed and passed. The other, required certification tests, i.e.,
7-day calibration error tests, cycle time tests, and linearity checks,
are not affected by the characteristics of the stack gas matrix, and
can be performed at any time during the allotted window of time,
whether or not reagent is being injected.
Of course, under Sec. 75.4(e)(2), to the extent additional testing
requirements are triggered by the installation of the new add-on
SO2 or NOX controls in a project involving both a
new stack and such new controls, these tests must be successfully
completed during the 90 unit operating day/180 calendar day window that
begins with the initial injection of reagent. Note that EPA intends to
revise Questions 15.4, 15.6, and 15.7 in the ``Part 75 Emissions
Monitoring Policy Manual'' to be consistent with today's revisions to
Sec. 75.4(e).
2. Reference Method 7E
Background
EPA proposed to add Sec. 75.22(a)(5)(v) to disallow multiple
sampling runs to be conducted before performing the post-run system
bias check or system calibration error check described in section 8.5
of EPA Reference Method 7E (40 CFR part 60, Appendix A-4), when this
method is used to perform testing on part 75 affected sources.
Summary of Comments and Responses
Comment: One commenter thought that although drift corrections at
some point may become less accurate following multiple runs, it is not
significant enough to require a post-run check after every run. A
requirement to perform a post run bias or system calibration error
check after every three runs would be sufficient to ensure accurate
drift corrections without needlessly adding to the length of the test.
EPA should limit the number of runs allowed before performing a post-
run check to three, rather than prohibiting multiple runs altogether.
Two other commenters stated that Method 7E already requires all
test runs conducted since the previous bias check to be invalidated if
the subsequent bias check reveals drift in excess of the required
specification. These commenters further stated that invalidation of
multiple test runs would extend the duration of the test period,
leading to additional expense and potential operational difficulties
(i.e., billing of additional hours by the test contractor, overtime for
plant employees responsible for monitoring the testing, continuing to
run the unit at the specified operating level rather than releasing the
unit back to load control, and in some cases continuing to run the unit
solely for the purpose of conducting the required test). According to
the commenters, the potential for invalidation of multiple test runs is
enough of a deterrent to discourage the use of equipment and/or testing
firms that would have difficulty meeting the applicable bias and drift
specifications. These two commenters also thought that the ability to
validate multiple runs with one pair of bias and drift checks is of
great value to facilities that are required to conduct both RATA and
compliance tests. The ability through this provision to combine RATA
and compliance testing reduces the overall amount of time required for
testing and is of value to the industry as it prevents additional
expense and potential operational difficulties. The commenters thought
that the existing provision does not complicate the bias and drift
correction calculations. Once these calculations are programmed into a
spreadsheet, they are easy to apply. The commenters stated that EPA has
not provided any substantive evidence for its reasoning that less
accurate results will occur other than the statement that ``less
accurate gas concentration measurements are likely to result'' (75 FR
33400). Finally, the commenters asserted that EPA should provide field
evidence which shows that less accurate results have occurred as a
result of this less time-consuming procedure before it proceeds with
any rulemaking on this issue.
Response: No rule changes were required. The Agency understands
that under an existing provision of Method 7E, multiple test runs may
be quality assured for bias and drift as a group, rather than
individually. This provision allows the user to conduct bias and drift
checks only at the beginning and end of a series of test runs, rather
than conducting these checks before and after each individual run. The
rationale is that if the tester can pass the quality assurance at the
beginning and end of the series of runs, then the intermediate runs
must be valid, and the quality of the reference method data has not
been compromised. However this assumption is not necessarily true;
therefore, multiple runs should not be allowed between bias and drift
checks, as further explained in the response to the next comment,
immediately below.
Comment: Two commenters favor allowing 63 minutes of continuous
sampling time between bias and drift checks. According to the
commenters, sampling for 63 consecutive minutes at a time is desirable
because 63 minutes corresponds to the time needed to perform three 21-
minute runs of a CEMS relative accuracy test audit (RATA) and also is
long enough to obtain a complete compliance test (i.e., stack test)
run. Compliance tests often consist of three one-hour runs, and many
sources have both RATA requirements and compliance test requirements.
The commenters favor eliminating the bias and drift checks after each
RATA run because it reduces the amount of time required to perform the
testing.
Response: No rule changes were required. Generally speaking, it is
good practice to perform emission testing in the most efficient manner
possible without sacrificing data quality. However, EPA believes that
the added assurance of data quality provided by performing bias and
drift checks after each 21-minute RATA run far outweighs the small
amount of time that could be saved by skipping the intermediate QA
checks. Further, there is no reason why three 21-minute RATA runs
cannot be averaged together to make one 63-minute compliance test run.
For typical compliance test applications of the method where the
user is only concerned with showing compliance with an emissions limit,
the accuracy of the individual test runs is not as essential as it is
for Part 75 applications. The Agency does not object to the change made
to Method 7E when the method is used for compliance test applications.
Since the average of all test runs is used to assess compliance, the
run-by-run percent inaccuracies due to changing bias and drift over the
course of the testing will tend to cancel, resulting in acceptable
overall average that is only slightly different from the average value
that would have been obtained had the more stringent run-by-run quality
assurance procedures been followed. Thus, for
[[Page 17301]]
compliance testing purposes, the commenters are correct in asserting
that little is gained from performing the quality assurance testing
before and after each run, so long as the overall specifications for
bias and drift are met at the beginning and end of each test series.
However, under Part 75 the reference method measurements are
generally used for a very different purpose and the inaccuracy that can
be introduced by not following the run-by-run quality assurance is
unacceptable. For Part 75, the reference methods are primarily used to
directly assess the accuracy of a continuous emissions monitoring
system on a run-by-run basis. The purpose of the relative accuracy test
audits (RATA) is to conduct at least nine quality-assured independent
reference measurements and compare those measurements to nine
simultaneous measurements made by a continuous emissions monitoring
system in its normal mode of operation. Since each run directly
compares CEMS measurements to reference method measurements, any drift
in the reference monitor during the course of the run must be assessed
and accounted for. Method 7E provides a means of adjusting the
reference method measurements for moderate drift (less than 3.0% of the
span gas value over the course of a run). This correction is intended
to tie the resulting reference value more closely to the EPA Protocol
calibration gas standards which are traceable to the National Institute
of Standards and Technology (NIST). The correction assumes that over
the duration of the test run, the profile of any drift observed is
linear. The longer the interval between bias/drift checks, the less
likely it is that this linear approximation will hold true. Because the
RATA is intended to compare nine independent, quality-assured reference
measurements to nine simultaneous measurements from a CEMS, EPA finds
that performing a bias and drift evaluation before and after a series
of runs increases the uncertainty in the individual run measurements
and has the potential to introduce error that would otherwise be
eliminated by performing the bias and drift evaluation before and after
each run. EPA believes that mass-based regulatory programs, such as the
trading programs supported by Part 75 monitoring, need the added
assurance of data quality provided by run-by-run bias and drift
evaluations. The run-by-run quality assurance is consistent with Method
7E as it was originally written, and avoids the risk of adding bias and
uncertainty to the CEMS data through the RATA process.
EPA does not collect the actual reference method test data for
Method 7E electronically in a manner that can be further analyzed.
Therefore, we cannot properly assess how reducing the number of
required bias and drift checks will impact data quality. We have no way
of knowing how many test runs that should be invalidated would be
assumed to be valid if we were to allow bias and drift checks to be
done only before and after a series of runs. However, we do know that
we can avoid that issue entirely by requiring the quality assurance
checks to be performed before and after each run for part 75
applications.
In summary, EPA maintains that in view of the way that Method 7E
data are used in the part 75 programs, run-by-run system bias and drift
checks are necessary to eliminate measurement error that would
otherwise be introduced by not quality-assuring each run individually.
This QA approach also applies to Method 6C (the instrumental reference
method for SO2) and to Method 3A (the instrumental method
for O2 and CO2), when those methods are used for
part 75 applications. For a more detailed discussion of this issue,
refer to the Response to Comments document.
3. Removal of Mercury Provisions
Background
As a result of the Clean Air Mercury Rule (CAMR) having been
vacated by the DC Circuit in New Jersey v. EPA, 517 F.3d 574 (D.C. Cir.
2008), EPA proposed to remove provisions of part 75 that were adopted
in support of CAMR. To achieve this, sections dealing exclusively with
mercury monitoring (CEMS and sorbent trap systems) would be removed,
and other sections that applied both to mercury monitoring systems and
other types of CEMS would be revised and re-promulgated, minus the
references to mercury.
Summary of Comments, Responses and Rule Changes
Comment: One commenter found two provisions not included in EPA's
proposal that should be re-promulgated because the portions referencing
mercury (Hg) monitoring were vacated in CAMR. The provisions in
question are found at Sec. 75.53(e)(1)(iv), which refers to reporting
of information on Hg monitors and sorbent trap monitoring systems, and
Sec. 75.53(e)(1)(x), which refers to information on each stack using
an Hg component monitor. Although the Hg portions of these provisions
are no longer in effect, to be consistent with the other proposed
revisions and to avoid confusion, the commenter stated that EPA should
revise and re-promulgate these provisions again without the references
to Hg. The commenter also requested that EPA ensure that these
requirements are removed from the electronic data reporting format,
schema, and instructions.
Response: The proposed rule revisions that would remove all
references to mercury (Hg) monitoring from Part 75 have been finalized
without modification. However, the commenter has correctly identified
two references to Hg monitoring in Sec. 75.53(e) which EPA apparently
overlooked. In addition, the Agency has identified a third reference in
Sec. 75.53(e) and one other reference in Sec. 75.57 that were
inadvertently overlooked. Section 75.53(e)(1)(i)(E) refers to Hg
emission controls, and Method of Determination Code (MODC) ``15'' in
Table 4a in Sec. 75.57 refers to ``Hg concentration''. The final rule
removes all four of these references to Hg monitoring from part 75. All
references to Hg monitoring and reporting have also been removed from
the ``ECMPS Reporting Instructions'' (see the June 17, 2009 version and
September 16, 2009 addendum, which are posted on the Clean Air Markets
Division Web site at the following address: http://www.epa.gov/airmarkets/business/ecmps/reporting-instructions.html. However, certain
schema elements had already been incorporated by the time of the court
vacatur of CAMR, (e.g., the record, which
indicates whether elemental or oxidized mercury standards are used for
daily calibration). EPA continues to affirm that it is unnecessary to
remove such records from the reporting format (or schema) since there
are no requirements to use these fields or any of the mercury specific
codes. As such these records are essentially vestigial and need not be
revised.
Finally, note that minor changes have been made to a few of the
rule sections in which the Hg monitoring provisions were found. These
changes were described under ``Miscellaneous Corrections and
Additions'' in the preamble to the proposed rule, and have been
finalized without modification.
4. Miscellaneous Amendments
EPA proposed to revise the Incorporation by Reference section
75.6(f)(3) to add Section 3--Small Volume Provers, First Edition, but
inadvertently omitted the publication date, and failed to revise
section 2.1.5.1
[[Page 17302]]
of appendix D to part 75 to include Section 3 in the American Petroleum
Institute (API) Manual of Petroleum Measurement Standards citation. The
final rule includes the Section 3 publication dates of July 1988,
reaffirmed Oct 1993, and includes Section 3 in the API citation in
section 2.1.5.1 of appendix D to part 75.
EPA has added definitions in section 72.2 for ``Coverage Factor k''
and ``Expanded Uncertainty''. These definitions are consistent with the
language used by the National Institute of Standards and Technology.
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 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 requirements are not enforceable until OMB
approves them. The Information Collection Request (ICR) document
prepared by EPA has been assigned EPA ICR number 2203.04. 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
2203.04 reflect the revisions to the requirements in 40 CFR Parts 72,
and 75 that are being finalized in this action.
Basic information on the identity of EPA Protocol gas production
sites and on the type of cylinders used by sources subject to part 75
will be collected by the Agency. These data will allow the Agency to
verify that a source subject to part 75 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
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 (sources subject to part 75, primarily large
electric utility and industrial companies), and the Agency notes that
these costs will be partially 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 units subject to part 75, 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.
EPA received several comments that the costs were underestimated in
the ICR and that more supporting detail was needed. The Agency has
revised the ICR for the final rule to include (a) 600 hours of
contractor time in Agency costs to account for ECMPS software changes,
(b) additional one time DAHS upgrade respondent costs of $378,500, and
(c) additional supporting detail.
The final 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 $1,460,489. 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 and
75.
Most of these costs are expected to be borne by the private sector
and will be passed through to the customers (sources subject to part
75, primarily large electric utility and industrial companies, or the
rate payers). The Agency notes that some 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 (2203.04) supporting statement for revisions to
40 CFR parts 72 and 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 and
75
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hours per Number of
Information collection activity Mean hourly rate activity/ respondents Respondent Total labor
year (facilities) hours/year cost/year
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ARP Respondents One Time Rule $80.71/Hr.......... 1 1,249 1,249 $100,807
Review.
[[Page 17303]]
ARP Respondents Compliance with $80.71/Hr.......... 0.5 1,249 624.5 50,444
Modified Reporting Requirements.
CAIR Respondents One Time Rule $80.71/Hr.......... 1 253 253 20,420
Review.
CAIR Respondents Compliance with $80.71/Hr.......... 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 and 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
One Time DAHS Upgrade\1\........................ .............. 500 631 315,500
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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)........................
One Time DAHS Upgrade \1\....................... .............. 500 119 59,500
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
One Time DAHS Upgrade \1\....................... .............. 500 7 3,500
--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................................... .............. .............. .............. 1,278,608
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ To calculate the number of units required to perform a DAHS upgrade, it was assumed that 80% of applicable
CEMS units would be covered by an existing service contract and not subject to the annualized $1500 fee.
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.
When this ICR is approved by OMB, the Agency will publish a
technical amendment to 40 CFR part 9 in the Federal Register to display
the OMB control number for the approved information collection
requirements contained in this final rule.
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 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
[[Page 17304]]
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 $972.36 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 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 final
rule are expected to experience costs that are well under one percent
of their estimated revenues.
The 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 partially 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.
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 $1,460,489. 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 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 and 75. The costs
incurred by AETBs and PGVP vendors will be passed through to their
customers (sources subject to Part 75, 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 rule would
generally affect large electric utility or industrial companies.
E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
This final rule does not have federalism implications. It will not
have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship
between the national government and the States, or on the distribution
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government,
as specified in Executive Order 13132. This final 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 final rule.
F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments
This final rule does not have tribal implications, as specified in
Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This final 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 final rule.
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 final rule 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
[[Page 17305]]
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 final 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, as amended August
25, 1999, EPA-600/R-97/121 or such revised procedure as approved by the
Administrator.
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 final 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 final 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.
K. Congressional Review Act
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the Agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other
required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2). This rule will be effective on April 27, 2011.
L. Petitions for Judicial Review
Under Clean Air Act section 307(b)(1), petitions for judicial
review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of
Appeals for the appropriate circuit by May 27, 2011. Filing a petition
for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not
affect the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial review,
nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review
may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such a rule
or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to
enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2) of the Administrative
Procedures Act.)
List of Subjects
40 CFR Part 72
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, Incorporation by reference.
40 CFR Part 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, Incorporation by reference.
Dated: March 10, 2011.
Lisa P. Jackson,
Administrator.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, parts 72 and 75 of
chapter I of title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations are amended as
follows:
PART 72--PERMITS REGULATION
0
1. The authority citation for part 72 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7601 and 7651, et seq.
0
2. Section 72.2 is amended by:
0
a. Revising the definitions of ``Air Emission Testing Body (AETB)'',
``EPA Protocol Gas'', ``EPA Protocol Gas Verification Program'', and
``Qualified individual'';
0
b. Revising the introductory text of the definition of ``Continuous
emission monitoring system or CEMS'';
0
c. Removing paragraph (7) of the definition of ``Continuous emission
monitoring system or CEMS'';
0
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
0
e. Adding in alphabetical order definitions for ``Coverage Factor k'',
``EPA Protocol Gas Production Site'', ``Expanded uncertainty'', 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:
* * * * *
Coverage Factor k means, in general, a value chosen on the basis of
the desired level of confidence to be associated with the interval
defined by U = kuc. Typically, k is in the range 2 to 3.
When the normal distribution applies and uc is a reliable
estimate of the standard deviation of y, U = 2 uc (i.e., k =
2) defines an interval having a level of confidence of approximately
95%, and U = 3 uc (i.e., k = 3) defines
[[Page 17306]]
an interval having a level of confidence greater than 99%.
* * * * *
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, as amended August 25, 1999, EPA-600/R-97/121 (incorporated by
reference, see Sec. 72.13) 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, as
amended August 25, 1999, EPA-600/R-97/121 (incorporated by reference,
see Sec. 72.13) 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).
* * * * *
Expanded uncertainty means a measure of uncertainty that defines an
interval about the measurement result y within which the value of the
measurand Y can be confidently asserted to lie. Although the combined
standard uncertainty uc is used to express the uncertainty
of many measurement results, for some commercial, industrial, and
regulatory applications (e.g., when health and safety are concerned),
what is often required is an expanded uncertainty, suggested symbol U,
and is obtained by multiplying uc(y) by a coverage factor,
suggested symbol k. Thus U = kuc(y) and it is confidently
believed that Y is greater than or equal to y - U, and is less than or
equal to y + U, which is commonly written as Y = y U.
* * * * *
Qualified individual (QI) means an individual who is identified by
an AETB as meeting the requirements described in ASTM D 7036-04
``Standard Practice for Competence of Air Emission Testing Bodies''
(incorporated by reference, see Sec. 72.13), 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.
* * * * *
0
3. Section 72.13 is amended by:
0
a. Revising paragraph (a) introductory text;
0
b. Adding paragraph (a)(5); and
0
c. Adding paragraph (b), to read as follows:
Sec. 72.13 Incorporation by reference.
* * * * *
(a) The following materials are available for purchase from the
following address: American Society for Testing and Material (ASTM)
International, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, P.O. Box C700, West Conshohocken,
Pennsylvania 19428-2959, phone: 610-832-9585, http://www.astm.org/DIGITAL_LIBRARY/index.shtml.
* * * * *
(5) ASTM D 7036-04, Standard Practice for Competence of Air
Emission Testing Bodies, for Sec. 72.2.
(b) A copy of the following material is available from http://www.epa.gov/ttn/emc/news.html (see postings for Sections 1, 2, 3, 4,
Appendices, Spreadsheets, and the ``Read before downloading Section 2''
revision posted August 27, 1999): EPA-600/R-97/121, EPA Traceability
Protocol for Assay and Certification of Gaseous Calibration Standards,
September 1997, as amended August 25, 1999, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, for Sec. 72.2.
PART 75--CONTINUOUS EMISSION MONITORING
0
4. 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]
0
5. Section 75.2 is amended by removing paragraph (d).
0
6. Section 75.4 is amended by:
0
a. Revising paragraphs (b)(2) and (c)(2);
0
b. Revising paragraph (d) introductory text; and
0
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 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, or a flue
gas desulfurization system or add-on NOX emission controls,
after the applicable deadline in paragraph (a), (b), or (c) of this
section:
(1) Except as otherwise provided in paragraph (e)(3) of this
section, 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,
[[Page 17307]]
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) For the event of construction of a new stack or flue, 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) For the event of installation of a flue gas desulfurization
system or add-on NOX emission controls, the date that
reagent is first injected into the flue gas desulfurization system or
the add-on NOX emission controls, as applicable, notice of
which date shall be provided under subpart G of this part.
(2) The owner or operator shall determine and report SO2
concentration, NOX emission rate, CO2
concentration, and volumetric flow rate data for all unit or stack
operating hours after emissions first pass through the new stack or
flue, or reagent is first 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:
(i) The applicable missing data substitution procedures under
Sec. Sec. 75.31 through 75.37;
(ii) The conditional data validation procedures of Sec.
75.20(b)(3), except that conditional data validation may, if necessary,
be used for the entire window of time provided under paragraph (e)(1)
of this section in lieu of the periods specified in Sec.
75.20(b)(3)(iv);
(iii) Reference methods under Sec. 75.22(b);
(iv) Quality-assured data recorded on the high measurement scale of
the monitor that measures the pollutant being removed by the add-on
emission controls (i.e., SO2 or NOX, as
applicable), if, pursuant to section 2 of appendix A to this part, two
spans and ranges are required for that monitor and if the high
measurement scale of the monitor has been certified according to Sec.
75.20(c), section 6 of appendix A to this part, and, if applicable,
paragraph (e)(4)(i) of this section. Data recorded on the certified
high scale, including data that ordinarily would be required to be
recorded on the low scale, pursuant to section 2.1.1.4(g) or 2.1.2.4(f)
of appendix A to this part, may be reported as quality-assured for a
period not to exceed 60 unit or stack operating days after the date and
hour that reagent is first injected into the control device. In order
for the high and low scale readings from the monitor to be reported as
quality-assured for more than 60 unit or stack operating days after the
date and hour that reagent is first injected into the control device,
all required tests of the low measurement scale must be performed and
passed within the window of time provided under paragraph (e)(1)(ii) of
this section; or
(v) Another procedure approved by the Administrator pursuant to a
petition under Sec. 75.66.
(3) If a particular project involves both the event of new stack or
flue construction and the event of installation of a flue gas
desulfurization system or add-on NOX emission controls, the
owner or operator shall either:
(i) Complete all of the monitoring system certification and/or
recertification and/or diagnostic testing requirements of both events
within the window of time provided under paragraph (e)(1)(i) of this
section; or
(ii) Complete all of the monitoring system certification and/or
recertification and/or diagnostic testing requirements of each event
within the separate window of time applicable to such event provided
under paragraph (e)(1) of this section.
(4) For the project described in paragraph (e)(3) of this section,
the emissions data from each CEMS installed on the new stack recorded
in the interval of time starting on the date and hour on which
emissions first exit to the atmosphere through the new stack and ending
on the hour before the date and hour on which reagent is first injected
into the control device may be reported as quality assured:
(i) For the CEMS that includes the monitor that measures the
pollutant being removed by the add-on emission controls (i.e.,
SO2 or NOX, as applicable):
(A) Only if the relative accuracy test audit (RATA) of the high
measurement scale of the monitor is successfully completed either prior
to the date and hour of the first injection of reagent into the
emission control device, or after that date and hour during a period
when the control device is not operating, but still within the window
of time provided under paragraph (e)(1)(i) of this section, and the
rest of the certification tests required under Sec. 75.20(c) and
section 6 of appendix A to this part for the high measurement scale of
the monitor are successfully completed within the window of time
provided under paragraph (e)(1)(i) of this section;
(B) Beginning with:
(1) The first unit or stack operating hour after successful
completion of all of the certification tests in accordance with
paragraph (e)(4)(i)(A) of this section; or
(2) The hour of the probationary calibration error test (see Sec.
75.20(b)(3)(ii)), if conditional data validation is used and all of the
certification tests are successfully completed in accordance with
paragraph (e)(4)(i)(A) of this section, with no test failures. If any
required test is failed or aborted or is otherwise not in accordance
with paragraph (e)(4)(i)(A) of this section, data validation shall be
done according to Sec. 75.20(b)(3)(vii).
(ii) For a CEMS other than one addressed in paragraph (e)(4)(i) of
this section:
(A) Only if the relative accuracy test audit (RATA) of the CEMS is
successfully completed either prior to the date and hour of the first
injection of reagent into the emission control device, or after that
date and hour during a period when the control device is not operating,
but still within the window of time provided under paragraph (e)(1)(i)
of this section, and the rest of the certification tests required under
Sec. 75.20(c) and section 6 of appendix A to this part for the CEMS
are successfully completed within the window of time provided under
paragraph (e)(1)(i) of this section;
(B) Beginning with:
(1) The first unit or stack operating hour after successful
completion of all of the certification tests in accordance with
paragraph (e)(4)(ii)(A) of this section; or
(2) The hour of the probationary calibration error test (see Sec.
75.20(b)(3)(ii)), if conditional data validation is used and all of the
certification tests are successfully completed in accordance with
paragraph (e)(4)(ii)(A) of this section, with no test failures. If any
required test is failed or aborted or is otherwise not in accordance
with paragraph (e)(4)(ii)(A) of this section, data validation shall be
done according to Sec. 75.20(b)(3)(vii).
* * * * *
0
7. Section 75.6 is amended by:
0
a. Revising paragraph (a) introductory text;
0
b. Removing and reserving paragraphs (a)(38), (a)(43), and (a)(44);
0
c. Revising paragraphs (a)(48) and (f)(3); and
0
d. Adding paragraph (g), to read as follows:
Sec. 75.6 Incorporation by reference.
* * * * *
(a) The following materials are available for purchase from the
following address: American Society for Testing and Material (ASTM)
[[Page 17308]]
International, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, P.O. Box C700, West Conshohocken,
Pennsylvania, 19428-2959, phone: 610-832-9585, http://www.astm.org/DIGITAL_LIBRARY/index.shtml.
* * * * *
(38) [Reserved]
* * * * *
(43) [Reserved]
(44) [Reserved]
* * * * *
(48) ASTM D7036-04, Standard Practice for Competence of Air
Emission Testing Bodies, for Sec. 75.21, Sec. 75.59, and appendix A
to 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, July 1988,
Reaffirmed Oct 1993, and Section 5--Master-Meter Provers, Second
Edition, May 2000, for appendix D to this part.
* * * * *
(g) A copy of the following material is available from http://www.epa.gov/ttn/emc/news.html (see postings for Sections 1, 2, 3, 4,
Appendices, Spreadsheets, and the ``Read before downloading Section 2''
revision posted August 27, 1999): EPA-600/R-97/121, EPA Traceability
Protocol for Assay and Certification of Gaseous Calibration Standards,
September 1997, as amended August 25, 1999, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, for Sec. 75.21, and appendix A to this part.
0
8. Section 75.10 is amended by:
0
a. Revising the second sentence of paragraph (d)(1); and
0
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]
0
9. Section 75.15 is removed and reserved.
0
10. Section 75.20 is amended by:
0
a. Revising paragraph (a)(5)(i);
0
b. Revising the first sentence of paragraph (b) introductory text;
0
c. Revising paragraph (c)(1) introductory text;
0
d. Revising paragraphs (c)(1)(ii) and (c)(1)(iii);
0
e. Removing paragraph (c)(1)(vi);
0
f. Removing and reserving paragraph (c)(9); and
0
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, 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]
* * * * *
0
11. Section 75.21 is amended by:
0
a. Revising paragraph (a)(3); and
0
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),
[[Page 17309]]
instead of the procedures specified in appendix B to this part.
* * * * *
(f) Requirements for Air Emission Testing. On and after March 27,
2012, 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 (incorporated by reference, see Sec. 75.6), referred
to in section 6.1.2 of appendix A to this part, shall apply only to
these tests. Section 1.1.4 of appendix B to this part, and section 2.1
of appendix E to this part require compliance with section 6.1.2 of
appendix A to this part. Tests and activities under this part not
required to be performed by an AETB as defined in Sec. 72.2 of this
chapter 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
participation shall commence immediately upon notification to EPA 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
in an electronic format prescribed by the Administrator (see the CAMD
Web site http://www.epa.gov/airmarkets/emissions/pgvp.html):
(i) The specialty gas company name which owns or operates the
participating production site;
(ii) The name, e-mail address, and telephone number of a contact
person for that specialty gas company;
(iii) The name and address of that participating EPA Protocol gas
production site, owned or operated by the specialty gas company; and
(iv) 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) A list of the names, contact information, and vendor IDs of EPA
Protocol gas production sites participating in the PGVP will be made
publicly available by posting on EPA Web sites (see the CAMD Web site
http://www.epa.gov/airmarkets/emissions/pgvp.html).
(4) EPA may remove an EPA Protocol gas production site from the
list of PGVP participants and give notice to the production site 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 in
accordance with paragraph (g)(2) 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 within 45 calendar days of such notification; or
(iii) If, after being notified that its EPA Protocol gas cylinders
are being audited by EPA, the EPA Protocol gas production site cannot
provide to EPA upon demand proof of payment to the National Institute
of Standards and Technology (NIST) and a valid contract with NIST;
(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 hardcopy or electronic proof of a
credit receipt or of cancellation of the invoice for the cylinders from
the EPA Protocol gas production site within 45 calendar days 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 free of any demurrage, and that EPA
Protocol gas production site shall not be eligible for relisting for
180 calendar days from the date of notice that it was removed from the
list and until it submits to EPA the information required by paragraph
(g)(1) of this section;
(iii) For any EPA Protocol gas production site which is notified by
EPA that its cylinders are being audited and cannot provide to EPA upon
demand proof of payment to NIST and a valid contract with NIST, the
cylinders may either be kept by NIST or returned to the EPA Protocol
gas production site free of any demurrage and at no cost to NIST, and
that EPA Protocol gas production site shall not be eligible for
relisting for 180 calendar days from the date of notice that it was
removed from the list and until it submits to EPA the information
required by paragraph (g)(1) of this section.
(6) On and after May 27, 2011 for each unit subject to 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 on the date 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 was on the EPA list of participating sites on
the date the reseller procured such gases.
(7) An EPA Protocol gas cylinder certified by or ordered from any
non-participating EPA Protocol gas production site no later than May
27, 2011 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 on the
same date as or after the date on which a particular cylinder has been
certified or ordered, that gas cylinder 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.
However, in no case shall a cylinder described in this paragraph (g)(7)
be recertified by a non-participating EPA Protocol gas production site
to extend its useful life and be used by a source subject to this part.
(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:
(i) Either cancel that purchaser's invoice or credit that
purchaser's account for the purchase of those EPA Protocol gas
cylinders;
[[Page 17310]]
(ii) Not charge for demurrage for those EPA Protocol gas cylinders;
(iii) Arrange for and pay for the return shipment of its cylinders
from NIST; and
(iv) Provide sufficient funding to NIST for:
(A) The analysis of those EPA Protocol gas cylinders by NIST;
(B) The production site's pro rata share of draft and final NIST
electronic audit reports as specified in paragraphs (g)(9)(ii) through
(g)(9)(v) of this section on all cylinders in the current audit; and
(C) The full cost of a draft redacted electronic audit report
containing just that production site's results and the information as
specified in paragraphs (g)(9)(ii) through (g)(9)(v) of this section;
(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 have
NIST 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 of NIST's receipt, 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, as amended August 25, 1999, EPA-600/R-97/
121, (incorporated by reference, see Sec. 75.6) 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 expanded uncertainty, as defined in
Sec. 72.2, (coverage factor, as defined in Sec. 72.2, k=2) of plus or
minus 1.0 percent (calculated combined standard uncertainty of plus or
minus 0.5%), 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
``EPA Traceability Protocol for Assay and Certification of Gaseous
Calibration Standards,'' September 1997, as amended August 25, 1999,
EPA-600/R-97/121 (incorporated by reference, see Sec. 75.6) 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 draft and final electronic audit
reports on all cylinders in the current audit, and in a draft redacted
electronic audit report containing just that production site's
information. The draft audit report on all cylinders in the current
audit and each draft redacted version of the audit report shall be
submitted electronically by NIST to [email protected], unless otherwise
provided by the Administrator, within four weeks of completion of all
cylinder analyses or as soon as possible thereafter. The draft and
final audit report on all cylinders in the current audit shall only be
sent to EPA. EPA will send the applicable draft redacted audit report
to each participating production site for comment. To be considered in
the final posted audit report, EPA must receive comments, and any
cylinder re-analyses from participating EPA Protocol gas production
sites within 60 days of the participating EPA Protocol gas production
site's receipt of the draft redacted audit report. All comments from
production sites, including any cylinder re-analyses, on the draft
redacted versions of the audit report shall be submitted electronically
to [email protected], unless otherwise provided by the Administrator. The
final audit report on all cylinders in the current audit shall be
submitted electronically by NIST to [email protected], unless otherwise
provided by the Administrator, within 90 days of the participating EPA
Protocol gas production site's receipt of the draft redacted audit
report sent by EPA or as soon as possible thereafter. EPA will post the
final results of the NIST analyses on EPA Web sites (see the CAMD Web
site http://www.epa.gov/airmarkets/emissions/pgvp.html). Each audit
report shall include:
(A) 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; and
(B) 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.
(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) An EPA Protocol gas production site shall continue to be on
the EPA list of sites participating in the PGVP and may continue to
sell EPA Protocol gases to sources subject to part 75 if it is not
notified by EPA that its cylinders are being audited under the PGVP if
it provides the information described in paragraph (g)(1) of this
section in accordance with paragraph (g)(2) of this section.
(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.
0
12. Section 75.22 is amended by:
0
a. Revising paragraph (a) introductory text;
0
b. Revising paragraph (a)(5)(iv);
0
c. Adding paragraph (a)(5)(v)
0
d. Removing paragraph (a)(7);
0
e. Revising paragraph (b) introductory text; and
0
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:
* * * * *
[[Page 17311]]
0
13. 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.
* * * * *
0
14. 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 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.
* * * * *
0
15. 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.* * *
* * * * *
0
16. Section 75.33 is amended by:
0
a. Revising the section heading; and
0
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**, 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
**, 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
**,
Maximum value\1\....... 720 hours.*
For O2 and H2O\X\:
[[Page 17312]]
Minimum value\1\....... 720 hours.*
Below 80........................ N > 0 Maximum potential
concentration\3\ or %
(for SO2, CO2, and
H2O**) or
Minimum potential None.
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.
** 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.
* * * * *
0
17. Section 75.34 is amended by:
0
a. Revising paragraph (a)(2)(ii); and
0
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]
0
18. Sections 75.38 and 75.39 are removed and reserved.
0
19. Section 75.47 is amended by:
0
a. Revising paragraph (b)(2); and
0
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.
0
20. Section 75.53 is amended by:
0
a. Revising paragraphs (e)(1)(i)(E), (e)(1)(iv) introductory text,
(e)(1)(x), (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);
0
b. Adding paragraph (g)(1)(vi)(J); and
0
c. Revising paragraphs (h)(2)(i) and (h)(5), to read as follows:
Sec. 75.53 Monitoring plan.
* * * * *
(e) * * *
(1) * * *
(i) * * *
(E) Type(s) of emission controls for SO2,
NOX, and particulates installed or to be installed,
including specifications of whether such controls are pre-combustion,
post-combustion, or integral to the combustion process; control
equipment code, installation date, and optimization date; control
equipment retirement date (if applicable); primary/secondary controls
indicator; and an indicator for whether the controls are an original
installation;
* * * * *
(iv) Identification and description of each monitoring system
component (including each monitor and its identifiable components, such
as analyzer and/or probe) in the CEMS (e.g., SO2 pollutant
concentration monitor, flow monitor, moisture monitor; NOX
pollutant concentration monitor, and diluent gas monitor), the
continuous opacity monitoring system, or the excepted monitoring system
(e.g., fuel flowmeter, data acquisition and handling system),
including:
* * * * *
(x) For each parameter monitored: Scale, maximum potential
concentration (and method of calculation), maximum expected
concentration (if applicable) (and method of calculation), maximum
potential flow rate (and method of calculation), maximum potential
NOX emission rate, span value, full-scale range, daily
calibration units of measure, span effective date/hour, span
inactivation date/hour, indication of whether dual spans are required,
default high range value, flow rate span, and flow rate span value and
full scale value (in scfh) for each unit or stack using SO2,
NOX, CO2, O2, or flow component
monitors.
* * * * *
(g) * * *
(1) * * *
(i) * * *
(A) A representation of the exhaust configuration for the units in
the monitoring plan. On and after April 27, 2011, 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)
[[Page 17313]]
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 April 27, 2011, 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
April 27, 2011, 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 April 27, 2011, 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 April 27, 2011, 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 April 27, 2011, 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 April 27, 2011, 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 after April 27, 2011, provide the
activation date and deactivation date (if applicable) for the gas-fired
unit qualification information in this paragraph (h)(5).
* * * * *
0
21. Section 75.57 is amended by:
0
a. Revising paragraph (a)(5);
0
b. Revising paragraph (a)(6);
0
c. Adding paragraph (a)(7);
0
d. Revising Table 4a; and
0
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
Code estimation 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).
[[Page 17314]]
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, 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.
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.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
0
22. Section 75.58 is amended by:
0
a. Revising paragraphs (b)(3) and (d)(4)(ii); and
0
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 April 27, 2011, operating condition codes for
the following:
(A) Unit operated on emergency fuel;
[[Page 17315]]
(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.
* * * * *
0
23. Section 75.59 is amended by:
0
a. Revising paragraph (a)(1) introductory text;
0
b. Revising paragraph (a)(1)(iii);
0
c. Revising paragraphs (a)(3) introductory text, (a)(5) introductory
text, and (a)(5)(ii) introductory text;
0
d. Revising paragraph (a)(5)(ii)(L);
0
e. Revising paragraphs (a)(5)(iii)(F) and (G);
0
f. Adding paragraph (a)(5)(iii)(H);
0
g. Revising paragraph (a)(6) introductory text;
0
h. Removing and reserving paragraph (a)(7)(vii);
0
i. Removing the heading of reserved paragraph (a)(7)(viii);
0
j. Removing paragraph (a)(7)(x);
0
k. Revising paragraph (a)(9) introductory text;
0
l. Revising paragraph (a)(9)(vi);
0
m. Adding paragraphs (a)(9)(x) and (xi);
0
n. Revising paragraphs (a)(12)(iv)(E) and (F);
0
o. Adding paragraph (a)(12)(iv)(G);
0
p. Removing and reserving paragraph (a)(14);
0
q. Adding paragraph (a)(15);
0
r. Adding paragraph (b)(6);
0
s. Revising paragraph (c) introductory text;
0
t. Revising paragraphs (d)(3)(x) and (xi);
0
u. Adding paragraphs (d)(3)(xii) and (xiii);
0
v. Adding paragraph (d)(4);
0
w. Removing paragraph (e); and
0
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 April 27, 2011, 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 April 27, 2011, 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 April 27, 2011, 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 September 26, 2011, 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) The PGVP vendor ID issued by EPA for the EPA Protocol gas
production site that supplied the EPA Protocol gas cylinder;
(4) The expiration date for the EPA Protocol gas cylinder; and
(5) The cylinder number.
(B) On and after September 26, 2011, 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
[[Page 17316]]
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) through (5) of
this section.
(xi) On and after March 27, 2012, 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 each on-site Qualified Individual, as defined in
Sec. 72.2 of this chapter;
(C) For the reference method(s) that were performed, the date(s)
that each on-site Qualified Individual took and passed the relevant
qualification exam(s) required by ASTM D7036-04 (incorporated by
reference, see Sec. 75.6); and
(D) The name and e-mail address of each qualification exam
provider.
* * * * *
(12) * * *
(iv) * * *
(E) Type of extension;
(F) Quarter and year; and
(G) On and after April 27, 2011, fuel code for Ozone Season Only
reporters under Sec. 75.74(c).
* * * * *
(14) [Reserved]
(15) On and after March 27, 2012, 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 each on-site Qualified Individual, as defined in
Sec. 72.2 of this chapter;
(iii) For the reference method(s) that were performed, the date(s)
that each on-site Qualified Individual took and passed the relevant
qualification exam(s) required by ASTM D7036-04 (incorporated by
reference, see Sec. 75.6); and
(iv) The name and e-mail address of each qualification exam
provider.
(b) * * *
(6) On and after March 27, 2012, 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 each on-site Qualified Individual, as defined in
Sec. 72.2 of this chapter;
(iii) For the reference method(s) that were performed, the date(s)
that each on-site Qualified Individual took and passed the relevant
qualification exam(s) required by ASTM D7036-04 (incorporated by
reference, see Sec. 75.6); and
(iv) The name and e-mail address of each 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 April 27, 2011, the number of tests for group;
and
(xiii) On and after April 27, 2011, the number of units in group.
(4) On and after March 27, 2012, for all NOX emission
testing performed pursuant to 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 each on-site Qualified Individual, as defined in
Sec. 72.2 of this chapter;
(iii) For the reference method(s) that were performed, the date(s)
that each on-site Qualified Individual took and passed the relevant
qualification exam(s) required by ASTM D7036-04 (incorporated by
reference, see Sec. 75.6); and
(iv) The name and e-mail address of each qualification exam
provider.
Sec. 75.60 [Amended]
0
24. Section 75.60 is amended by removing paragraph (b)(8).
0
25. Section 75.61 is amended by:
0
a. Revising paragraph (a)(1) introductory text;
0
b. Revising the first sentence of paragraph (a)(5) introductory text;
and
0
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.
* * * * *
0
26. Section 75.62 is amended by adding paragraph (d) to read as
follows:
[[Page 17317]]
Sec. 75.62 Monitoring plan submittals.
* * * * *
(d) On and after April 27, 2011, consistent with Sec. 72.21 of
this chapter, a hardcopy cover letter signed by the Designated
Representative (DR) 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 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.
0
27. 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) 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 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.
0
28. Section 75.64 is amended by:
0
a. Revising paragraph (a)(5);
0
b. Revising paragraph (a)(7)(xi);
0
c. Revising paragraph (a)(7)(xii)(D);
0
d. Adding paragraph (a)(7)(xiii);
0
e. Redesignating paragraph (a)(127) as paragraph (a)(12); and
0
f. Revising paragraph (g), to read as follows:
Sec. 75.64 Quarterly reports.
(a) * * *
(5) The daily calibration error test and daily interference check
information required in Sec. 75.59(a)(1) and (a)(2) must always be
included in the electronic quarterly emissions report. All other
certification, quality assurance, and quality control information in
Sec. 75.59 that is not excluded from electronic reporting under
paragraph (a)(2) or (a)(7) of this section shall be submitted
separately, either prior to or concurrent with the submittal of the
relevant electronic quarterly emissions report. However, reporting of
the information in Sec. 75.59(a)(9)(x) is not required until September
26, 2011, and reporting of the information in Sec. 75.59(a)(15),
(b)(6), and (d)(4) is not required until March 27, 2012.
* * * * *
(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).
* * * * *
(g) At his or her discretion, the DR may include important
explanatory text or comments with an electronic quarterly report
submittal, so long as the information is provided in a format that is
compatible with the other data required to be reported under this
section.
Subpart I--[Removed]
0
29. Subpart I, consisting of Sec. Sec. 75.80 through 75.84, is
removed.
0
30. Appendix A to part 75 is amended by:
0
a. Revising section 1.1;
0
b. Removing sections 2.1.7, 2.1.7.1 through 2.1.7.4, and 2.2.3;
0
c. Removing paragraph (c) of section 3.1 and paragraph (3) of section
3.2;
0
d. Removing sections 3.3.8 and 3.4.3;
0
e. Removing the introductory text of section 4 and adding paragraphs
(a), (b), and (c) in its place;
0
f. Revising paragraph (6) of section 4;
0
g. Revising paragraphs (a) and (b) of Section 5.1.4;
0
h. Removing paragraphs (c) and (d) of Section 5.1.4;
0
i. Revising the first sentence in Section 5.1.5;
0
j. Removing section 5.1.9;
0
k. Revising section 6.1.2;
0
l. Revising the first sentence of section 6.2 introductory text;
0
m. Removing paragraphs (g) and (h) of section 6.2;
0
n. Revising the introductory text of section 6.3.1;
0
o. Revising the introductory text of sections 6.4 and 6.5;
0
p. Revising paragraphs (c), (e), and (g) of section 6.5;
0
q. Revising section 6.5.1;
0
r. Removing paragraph (c) of section 6.5.6;
0
s. Revising paragraphs (a) and (b) of section 6.5.7;
0
t. Revising section 6.5.10;
0
u. Revising the heading and introductory text of section 7.3;
0
v. Revising section 7.3.1;
0
w. Revising the introductory text of section 7.6;
0
x. Revising section 7.6.1; and
0
y. 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
[[Page 17318]]
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
(a) An 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,'' September 1997, as amended on August 25, 1999, EPA-600/
R-97/121 (incorporated by reference, see Sec. 75.6) or such revised
procedure as approved by the Administrator.
(b) EPA Protocol gas concentrations must be certified by an EPA
Protocol gas production site to have an analytical uncertainty (95-
percent confidence interval) to be not more than plus or minus 2.0
percent (inclusive) of the certified concentration (tag value) of
the gas mixture. The uncertainty must be calculated using the
statistical procedures (or equivalent statistical techniques) that
are listed in Section 2.1.8 of the ``EPA Traceability Protocol for
Assay and Certification of Gaseous Calibration Standards,''
September 1997, as amended on August 25, 1999, EPA-600/R-97/121
(incorporated by reference, see Sec. 75.6).
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 have an analytical uncertainty (95-
percent confidence interval) calculated using the statistical
procedures (or equivalent statistical techniques) that are listed in
Section 2.1.8 of the ``EPA Traceability Protocol for Assay and
Certification of Gaseous Calibration Standards,'' September 1997, as
amended on August 25, 1999, EPA-600/R-97/121 (incorporated by
reference, see Sec. 75.6) to be not more than 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 March 27, 2012, all relative accuracy test
audits (RATAs) of CEMS under this part, and stack testing under
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 a unit subject to this part the documentation required
in paragraph (b) of this section, demonstrating its conformance to
ASTM D7036-04 (incorporated by reference, see Sec. 75.6).
(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 (incorporated by reference, see
Sec. 75.6). The AETB's certification may be limited in scope to the
tests identified under paragraph (a). The AETB's certification need
not extend to other work it may perform. 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 Sec. 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, the owner or operator may find it useful to
request that AETBs complying with paragraph (b)(2) of this section
provide a copy of the following:
(1) The AETB's quality manual. For the purpose of application of
40 CFR part 2, subpart B, AETB's concerned about the potential for
public access to confidential business information (CBI) may
identify any information subject to such a claim in the copy
provided;
(2) The results of any internal audits performed by the AETB and
any external audits of the AETB during the 12 month period through
the previous calendar quarter;
(3) Performance data (as defined in ASTM D7036-04 (incorporated
by reference, see Sec. 75.6)) collected by the AETB, including
corrective actions implemented, during the 12 month period through
the previous calendar quarter; and
(4) Training records for all on-site technical personnel,
including any Qualified Individuals, for the 12 month period through
the previous calendar quarter.
(e) All relative accuracy testing 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, and stack testing under Sec.
75.19 and Appendix E to this part shall be overseen and supervised
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. If the source owner or operator, or a State, local, or
EPA observer, discovers while the test team is still on site, that
at least one QI did not oversee and supervise the entire test (as
qualified by this paragraph (e)), only those portions of the test
that were overseen and supervised by at least one QI as described
above may be used under this part. However, allowance is made for
normal activities of a QI who is overseeing and supervising a test,
e.g., bathroom breaks, meal breaks, and emergencies that may arise
during a test.
(f) Except as provided in paragraph (e), no RATA 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, and no stack test
under Sec. 75.19 or Appendix E to this part (or portion of such a
RATA or stack test) conducted by an AETB (as defined in Sec. 72.2)
shall be invalidated under this part as a result of the failure of
the AETB to conform to ASTM D7036-04 (incorporated by reference, see
Sec. 75.6). Validation of such tests is determined based on the
other part 75 testing requirements. EPA recommends that proper
observation of tests and review of test results continue, regardless
of whether an AETB fully conforms to ASTM D7036-04.
(g) An owner or operator who has requested information from an
AETB under paragraph (d) of this part who believes that the
information provided by the AETB was either incomplete or inaccurate
may request the Administrator's assistance in remedying the alleged
deficiencies. Upon such a request, if the Administrator concurs that
the information submitted to a source subject to part 75 by an AETB
under this section is either incomplete or inaccurate, the
Administrator will provide the AETB a description of the
deficiencies to be remedied. The Administrator's determination of
completeness and accuracy of information will be solely based on the
provisions of ASTM D7036-04 (incorporated by reference, see Sec.
75.6) and this part. The Administrator may post the name of the
offending AETB on Agency Web sites (including the CAMD Web site
http://www.epa.gov/airmarkets/emissions/aetb.html) if within 30 days
of the Administrator having provided the AETB a description of the
deficiencies to be remedied, the AETB does not satisfactorily
respond to the source and notify the Administrator of the response
by submitting the notification to [email protected], unless otherwise
provided by the Administrator. The AETB need not submit the
information it provides to the owner or operator to the
Administrator, unless specifically requested by the Administrator.
If after the AETB's name is posted, the Administrator, in
consultation with the source, determines that the AETB's response is
sufficient, the AETB's name will be removed from the EPA Web sites.
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);
[[Page 17319]]
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. A
calibration gas blend may be used as both a zero-level gas and an
upscale (mid- or high-level) gas, where appropriate. 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:
* * * * *
(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
[[Page 17320]]
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 allowed in section 6.5.10
of this appendix 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 allowed in section 6.5.10 of
this appendix 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 applicable reference method allowed in
section 6.5.10 of this appendix). 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 applicable
reference method allowed in section 6.5.10 of this appendix. 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 applicable 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, pursuant to Sec. 75.21(g)(6). An
EPA Protocol gas cylinder certified by or ordered from a non-
participating production site no later than May 27, 2011 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; however, in no case shall the cylinder be
recertified by a non-participating EPA Protocol gas production site
to extend its useful life and be used by a source subject to this
part. In the event that an EPA Protocol gas production site is
removed from the list of PGVP participants on the same date as or
after the date on which a particular cylinder is certified or
ordered, that gas cylinder 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;
however, in no case shall the cylinder be recertified by a non-
participating EPA Protocol gas production site to extend its useful
life and be used by a source subject to this part.
* * * * *
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 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.
[[Page 17321]]
7.3.1 Arithmetic Mean
Calculate the arithmetic mean of the differences of a data set
as follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR28MR11.000
* * * * *
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.
* * * * *
0
31. Appendix B to part 75 is amended by:
0
a. Revising section 1.1.4;
0
b. Removing sections 1.5 and 1.5.1 through 1.5.6;
0
c. Revising paragraph (a) of section 2.1.4;
0
d. Adding paragraph (c) to section 2.1.4;
0
e. Revising section 2.2.1;
0
f. Adding paragraph (i) to section 2.2.3;
0
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;
0
h. Adding paragraph (k) to section 2.3.2;
0
i. Revising section 2.3.4;
0
j. Removing section 2.6;
0
k. Revising Figures 1 and 2; and
0
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
* * * * *
[[Page 17322]]
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 [verbar]R-A[verbar], 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 [verbar]R-A[verbar] in Equation
A-6 does not exceed 5.0 ppm (for span values <= 50 ppm), or if
[verbar]R-A[verbar]; 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)(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 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 that was not from an
EPA Protocol gas production site participating in the PGVP on the
date the gas was procured either by the tester or by a reseller that
sold to the tester the unaltered EPA Protocol gas, except as
provided in Sec. 75.21(g)(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)(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.
* * * * *
[[Page 17323]]
Figure 1 to Appendix B of Part 75--Quality Assurance Test Requirements
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Basic QA test frequency requirements
-----------------------------------------
Test Semiannual
Daily * Quarterly * or 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 (SO[ihel2], NOX, ............ ............ X
CO[ihel2], O[ihel2],
H[ihel2]O)\1\................
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.
\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% RA <= 7.5% or minus> 12.0 ppm\X\.
15.0 ppm\X\.
NOX-diluent................. 7.5% < RA <= 10.0% RA <= 7.5% or minus> 0. 015 lb/
0.020 lb/mmBtu\X\. mmBtu\X\.
Flow........................ 7.5% < RA <= 10.0% RA <= 7.5% or 2.0 minus> 1.5 fps\X\.
fps\X\.
CO2 or O2................... 7.5% < RA <= 10.0% RA <= 7.5% or minus> 0.7% CO2/
1.0% CO2/O2\X\. O2\X\.
Moisture.................... 7.5% < RA <= 10.0% RA <= 7.5% or minus> 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.
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
[[Page 17324]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR28MR11.001
BILLING CODE 6560-50-C
0
32. Appendix D to part 75 is amended by revising Section 2.1.5.1 to
read as follows:
Appendix D to Part 75--Optional SO2 Emissions Data Protocol for Gas-
Fired and Oil-Fired Peaking Units
* * * * *
2.1.5.1 Use the procedures in the following standards to verify
flowmeter accuracy or design, as appropriate to the type of
flowmeter: ASME MFC-3M-2004, Measurement of Fluid Flow in Pipes
Using Orifice, Nozzle, and Venturi; ASME MFC-4M-1986 (Reaffirmed
1997), Measurement of Gas Flow by Turbine Meters; American Gas
Association Report No. 3, Orifice Metering of Natural Gas and Other
Related Hydrocarbon Fluids Part 1: General Equations and Uncertainty
Guidelines (October 1990 Edition), Part 2: Specification and
Installation Requirements (February 1991 Edition), and Part 3:
Natural Gas Applications (August 1992 edition) (excluding the
modified flow-calculation method in part 3); Section 8, Calibration
from American Gas Association Transmission Measurement Committee
Report No. 7: Measurement of Gas by Turbine Meters (Second Revision,
April 1996); ASME-MFC-5M-1985 (Reaffirmed 1994), Measurement of
Liquid Flow in Closed Conduits Using Transit-Time Ultrasonic
Flowmeters; ASME MFC-6M-1998, Measurement of Fluid Flow in Pipes
Using Vortex Flowmeters; ASME
[[Page 17325]]
MFC-7M-1987 (Reaffirmed 1992), Measurement of Gas Flow by Means of
Critical Flow Venturi Nozzles; ISO 8316: 1987(E) Measurement of
Liquid Flow in Closed Conduits--Method by Collection of the Liquid
in a Volumetric Tank; 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, July 1988, Reaffirmed October 1993, and Section 5--Master-
Meter Provers, Second Edition, May 2000; American Petroleum
Institute (API) Manual of Petroleum Measurement Standards, Chapter
22--Testing Protocol, Section 2--Differential Pressure Flow
Measurement Devices, First Edition, August 2005; or ASME MFC-9M-1988
(Reaffirmed 2001), Measurement of Liquid Flow in Closed Conduits by
Weighing Method, for all other flowmeter types (all incorporated by
reference under Sec. 75.6 of this part). The Administrator may also
approve other procedures that use equipment traceable to National
Institute of Standards and Technology standards. Document such
procedures, the equipment used, and the accuracy of the procedures
in the monitoring plan for the unit, and submit a petition signed by
the designated representative under Sec. 75.66(c). If the flowmeter
accuracy exceeds 2.0 percent of the upper range value, the flowmeter
does not qualify for use under this part.
* * * * *
0
33. 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.
* * * * *
0
34. Appendix F to Part 75 is amended by removing and reserving section
9 to read as follows:
Appendix F to Part 75--Conversion Procedures
* * * * *
9. [Reserved]
* * * * *
0
35. Appendix K to part 75 is removed.
[FR Doc. 2011-6216 Filed 3-25-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P