[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 249 (Tuesday, December 30, 1997)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 67788-67818]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-33740]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 60 and 63

[FRL-5941-4]


Total Mercury and Particulate Continuous Emissions Monitoring 
Systems; Measurement of Low Level Particulate Emissions; Implementation 
at Hazardous Waste Combustors; Proposed Rule--Notice of Data 
Availability and Request for Comments

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of data availability and request for comments.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This announcement is a notice of data availability and 
invitation for comment on the following reports pertaining to total 
mercury and particulate continuous emissions monitoring systems: DRAFT: 
Total Mercury CEMS Demonstration, Summary Table, dated December 1997; 
and DRAFT: Particulate Matter CEMS Demonstration, Volume I (with 
appendices), dated December 1997. EPA proposed requiring these monitors 
for hazardous waste combustors in the hazardous waste combustor 
proposed rule published on April 19, 1996. In addition, this document 
discusses topics for implementing particulate matter continuous 
emissions monitoring systems at hazardous waste combustors.
    Readers should note that only comments about new information 
discussed in this document will be considered. Issues related to the 
April 19, 1996, proposed rule and subsequent documents that are not 
directly affected by the documents or data referenced in this Notice of 
Data Availability are not open for further comment.

DATES: Written comments on these documents and this document must be 
submitted by January 29, 1998.

ADDRESSES: Commenters must send an original and two copies of their 
comments referencing Docket Number F-97-CS6A-FFFFF to: RCRA Docket 
Information Center, Office of Solid Waste (5305G), U.S. Environmental 
Protection Agency Headquarters (EPA, HQ), 401 M Street, SW, Washington, 
D.C. 20460. Comments may also be submitted electronically through the 
Internet to: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#542637263579303b373f31201431243539353d387a3124357a333b22"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="057766776428616a666e60714560756468646c692b6075642b626a73">[email protected]</span></a>. Comments in electronic format 
should also be identified by the docket number F-97-CS6A-FFFFF. All 
electronic comments must be submitted as an ASCII file avoiding the use 
of special characters and any form of encryption. Commenters should not 
submit electronically any confidential business information (CBI). An 
original and two copies of the CBI must be submitted under separate 
cover to: RCRA CBI Document Control Officer, OSW (5305W), 401 M Street, 
SW, Washington D.C. 20460.
    For other information regarding submitting comments electronically, 
viewing the comments received, and supporting information, please refer 
to the proposed rule (61 FR 17358 (April 19, 1996)). The RCRA 
Information Center is located at Crystal Gateway One, 1235 Jefferson 
Davis Highway, First Floor, Arlington, Virginia and is open for public 
inspection and copying of supporting information for RCRA rules from 
9:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. Monday through Friday, except for Federal 
holidays. The public must make an appointment to view docket materials 
by calling (703) 603-9230. The public may copy a maximum of 100 pages 
from any regulatory document at no cost. Additional copies cost $0.15 
per page.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For general information, call the RCRA 
Hotline at 1-800-424-9346 or TDD 1-800-553-7672 (hearing impaired) 
including directions on how to access some of the documents and data 
referred to in this notice electronically. Callers within the 
Washington Metropolitan Area must dial 703-412-9810 or TDD 703-412-3323 
(hearing impaired). The RCRA Hotline is open Monday-Friday, 9:00 a.m. 
to 6:00 p.m., Eastern Time.
    The documents referred to in this notice are available over the 
Internet. The documents can be accessed by typing the following 
universal resource locator (URL):
    http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/hazwaste/combust/cems
    This URL provides a home page through which all electronically 
available documents can be downloaded. The Technology Transfer Network 
(TTN) also provides a link to this page. CEMS information is available 
on TTN at the following URL:
    http://ttnwww.rtpnc.epa.gov/html/emtic/cem.htm
    The home page contains links to the files that are available 
electronically. The files are in an executable, compressed format to 
facilitate

[[Page 67789]]

downloading. Once extracted, each compressed file may result in more 
than one decompressed file. The reports are in Adobe 
Acrobat<SUP><greek-l></SUP>, PDF format. The reader should note that 
figures, diagrams, and appendices may not be available electronically 
or may only be available in other formats.
    For other information regarding the information contained in 
Sections I, II, IV, and V of this notice, contact Mr. Scott Postma, 
(5302W), Office of Solid Waste, 401 M Street, SW, Washington, D.C. 
20460, phone (703) 308-6120, E-MAIL: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#43332c30372e226d30202c3737032633222e222a2f6d2633226d242c35"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="fc8c938f88919dd28f9f938888bc998c9d919d9590d2998c9dd29b938a">[email protected]</span></a>. For 
information regarding Section III of this notice, contact Mr. H. Scott 
Rauenzahn (5302W), Office of Solid Waste, 401 M Street, SW, Washington, 
D.C. 20460, phone (703) 308-8477, e-mail: 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#0a786b7f6f64706b6264247969657e7e4a6f7a6b676b6366246f7a6b246d657c"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="40322135252e3a21282e6e33232f3434002530212d21292c6e2530216e272f36">[email protected]</span></a>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On April 19, 1996, EPA proposed revised 
standards (herein referred to as ``the proposed rule'') for hazardous 
waste combustors (HWCs, i.e., incinerators and cement and lightweight 
aggregate kilns that burn hazardous waste). See 61 FR 17358. Comments 
received from the public in response to the proposed rule are found in 
RCRA docket F-96-RCSP-FFFFF.
    A previous notice of data availability (NODA), published on March 
21, 1997, gave the public the opportunity to review the Agency's 
approach to demonstrating CEMS for HWCs. This previous NODA is herein 
referred to as ``the first CEMS NODA'' or ``CEMS NODA 1.'' See 62 FR 
13776. Comments received from the public in response to the first CEMS 
NODA are found in RCRA docket F-97-CS3A-FFFFF.
    Readers should note that a separate docket was established for this 
document. See the Addresses section above for more information.

Table of Contents

I.  Introduction and Background
II.  The Hg CEMS Demonstration Tests
III.  The PM CEMS Demonstration Tests
    A.  PM performance Specification (PS) 11 Levels
    1.  Revised Specification Levels for the Correlation 
Coefficient, Confidence Interval, and Tolerance Interval
    2.  Data Availability
    3.  Data Quality Objectives: New Procedures to Appendix F of 40 
CFR Part 60
    B.  Manual Method Accuracy
    1.  Modification of the Filter Recovery Process
    2.  Improved Sample Collection
    3.  Elimination of Contamination
    4.  Improved Sample Analysis
    5.  Comparison of M5 and M5i Method Precision
    6.  Paired Data
    C.  Transferability of These Demonstration Test Results to Other 
HWC Sources
IV.  PM CEMS: Implementation and Compliance
    A.  PM CEMS Compliance Schedule
    B.  PM CEMS Operating Parameter Limit
    1.  Introduction
    2.  Data Excluded from Calculating the PM CEMS Operating 
Parameter Limit
    3.  Determining the Normality of the Data
    4.  Averaging Periods for the PM CEMS Operating Parameter Limit
    5.  Options for Calculating the PM CEMS Operating Parameter 
Limit
    a.  Using rank statistics to calculate the PM CEMS-based 
operating parameter limit at one, fixed averaging period
    b.  The traditional standard setting approach
    6.  Consideration of a Variance Procedure to Project a Higher PM 
CEMS Operating Parameter Limit
    a.  HAPs for which PM control is necessary to ensure compliance
    b.  Projecting a higher PM CEMS operating parameter limit 
considering the ratio of the standard to the measured level of a HAP
    c.  Ensuring that the higher projected PM CEMS operating 
parameter limit does not exceed the MACT PM standard
    d.  Establishing revised operating parameter limits for the PM 
control device corresponding to the higher projected PM CEMS 
operating parameter limit
    e.  Implementing the variance
    7.  EPA's PM CEMS Testing to Identify a CEMS-Based Emission 
Level Achievable by MACT-Controlled Sources
    C.  RCA Test Frequency
    D.  Extrapolating PM CEMS Calibration Data
    1.  Extrapolating Light-Scattering PM CEMS Calibration Data
    2.  Extrapolation of Beta-gage Calibration Data
    E.  Need to Calibrate to Twice the Emission Standard
    F.  Allowing PM CEMS to be Used In-lieu of Method 5 Tests
    G.  Waivers from the PM CEMS Requirements
    1.  Waiver of PM and Hg CEMS Requirements for Small On-Site 
Incinerators
    2.  PM CEMS Waiver for Sources with Short Life-Spans
    3.  Other Sources
V. Other Issues Concerning CEMS and Test Methods for HWCs
    A.  Performance Specifications for Optional CEMS
    B.  Stack Sampling Test Methods

PART 60--STANDARDS OF PERFORMANCE FOR NEW STATIONARY SOURCES

I. Introduction and Background

    In the proposed rule, EPA proposed that continuous emissions 
monitoring systems (CEMS) be used for compliance with the HWC total 
mercury (Hg) and particulate matter (PM) standards. See 61 FR at 17426 
and 17435. To require CEMS for compliance the Agency, among other 
things, must determine that the CEMS are commercially available and 
have been demonstrated to meet certain performance specifications. To 
make these determinations, the Agency tested various Hg and PM CEMS 
being marketed in the U.S. and Europe. The first CEMS NODA described 
the approach EPA is using to demonstrate the feasibility of PM and Hg 
CEMS and requested comment on certain technical issues arising from 
this program. This testing is now complete. Today the Agency is 
providing notice of an opportunity to comment on the following 
documents resulting from these CEMS demonstration test program: DRAFT: 
Total Mercury CEMS Demonstration, Summary Table, dated December 1997; 
and DRAFT: Particulate Matter CEMS Demonstration, Volume I (with 
appendices), dated December 1997.
    The remainder of this notice describes important information 
bearing upon how the reports' results relate to EPA's approach to 
demonstrating Hg and PM CEMS and how PM CEMS could be used for 
compliance. Many of these issues were raised by commenters in response 
to CEMS NODA 1 and the proposed rule. The reader is referred to the 
referenced documents for specific information regarding the Hg and PM 
CEMS demonstration test program and the comments cited here.

II. The Hg CEMS Demonstration Tests

    EPA seeks comment on the document DRAFT: Total Mercury CEMS 
Demonstration, Summary Table, dated December 1997, provided in the 
above referenced docket for this NODA. This table summarizes results 
from the Hg CEMS demonstration tests EPA conducted.
    In summary, the Agency found certain aspects of the testing program 
revealed substantial problems regarding the measurement of the Hg CEMS 
accuracy and precision. EPA found it difficult to dynamically spike 
known amounts of mercury (in the elemental and ionic form) and obtain 
manual method and Hg CEMS measurements that agree at the test source. 
As a result, the Agency now believes it has not sufficiently 
demonstrated the viability of Hg CEMS as a compliance tool at all 
hazardous waste combustors and should not require their use. 
Nonetheless, EPA still believes Hg CEMS can and will work at some 
sources but does not have sufficient confidence that all HWC conditions 
are conducive to proper operation of the Hg CEMS tested. Facilities 
should have the choice of using Hg CEMS if desired so long as the

[[Page 67790]]

permitting agency approves on a site-specific basis the Hg CEMS and its 
site-specific performance specifications. See a related issue in 
section V.A. of this NODA regarding the implementation of optional 
CEMS.

III. The PM CEMS Demonstration Tests

    This section describes the report DRAFT: Particulate Matter CEMS 
Demonstration, Volume I (with appendices), dated December 1997, 
contained in the docket identified in the Addresses section, above. EPA 
issued previous notices asking vendors to participate in this program 
(see 61 FR 7232, February 27, 1996) and to allow the public to comment 
on the Agency's approach to demonstrating these monitors (see 62 FR 
13775, March 21, 1997). Since this could represent the first time EPA 
requires PM CEMS for compliance at stationary sources, the technical 
discussion contained in this section is expected to have general 
applicability beyond sources that burn hazardous waste. In particular, 
EPA invites comment from all parties concerning the following documents 
attached to this notice: Method 5I for the determination of low level 
particulate emissions; Performance Specification 11 for PM CEMS; and 
Quality Assurance Requirements for PM CEMS.

A. PM Performance Specification (PS) 11 Levels

    In CEMS NODA 1, the Agency stated it intended to loosen the 
proposed PM CEMS Performance Specification (PS) 11 to reflect what was 
achievable by the monitors during this demonstration test. The test was 
designed to be a reasonable worst case investigation of what 
performance (relative to the proposed PS11) the monitors could achieve. 
Many comments received in response to CEMS NODA 1 stated that the 
proposed performance specifications were not sufficiently stringent and 
opposed loosening the specification levels.
    Concurrent with the Agency's invitation in CEMS NODA 1 to comment 
on our approach to demonstrate PM CEMS, EPA determined that much of the 
variability in the calibration curves resulted from inaccuracies in 
performing the manual method, Method 5 (M5). Since the fundamental 
approach in PS11 involves correlating manual method results to PM CEMS 
outputs, the PS11 statistical results reflected this variability in the 
manual method. Consequently, EPA undertook a systematic effort to 
identify and remove this error from the manual method measurement 
process. Manual method improvements were developed and observed, and 
performance specification results for the PM CEMS improved as a result. 
(See a related discussion in section III.B, below, regarding these 
improvements to the manual method.)
1. Revised Specification Levels for the Correlation Coefficient, 
Confidence Interval, and Tolerance Interval
    As a result of comments on CEMS NODA 1, EPA decided to accept a 
slightly modified version of the more stringent International Standards 
Organization (ISO) specification 10155 for PM CEMS. Four of the five PM 
CEMS tested during the PM CEMS demonstration tests were able to meet 
all three performance specifications (i.e., those for the correlation 
coefficient (r), confidence interval (CI), and Tolerance Interval (TI)) 
at all three of the emissions levels discussed in the May 2, 1997, NODA 
as alternatives to the proposed emissions standards (69 mg/dscm for 
cement kilns, 50 mg/dscm for light-weight aggregate kilns, and 34 mg/
dscm for hazardous waste incinerators.) See 62 FR 24212 for a 
discussion of those alternative emissions standards. One technology, an 
extractive light-scattering technology, did not meet all the 
performance specification levels at all of the alternative 
standards.<SUP>1</SUP> Since EPA must show that at least one 
commercially available PM CEMS can meet the proposed performance 
specification, the fact that 4 of the 5 monitors were able to meet 
these performance levels under reasonable worst-case test conditions 
adequately shows that the modified specification levels are achievable. 
The revised performance specification levels are presented in Table 1, 
below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ This technology did meet 10 of the 14 specification 
comparisons.

         Table 1: Revised Performance Specifications for PM CEMS        
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                 Confidence   Tolerance 
            Correlation coefficient               interval     interval 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
0.90                                            <plus-minus             
                                                       >10%  <plus-minus
                                                                    >25%
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As previously stated, these performance levels are nearly identical 
to the ISO specification for PM CEMS. The only major difference between 
these and the ISO specification levels is the correlation coefficient, 
which is 0.95 in ISO 10155 and 0.90 in the modified PS11. This is 
acceptable since the correlation coefficient does not directly relate 
to measurement error while the confidence and tolerance intervals 
do.<SUP>2</SUP> The revised PS11 also requires that a minimum of 15 
runs be used for the calibration while the ISO specification requires 
only 9 runs. The ISO specification is also vague regarding the PM 
concentration ranges required for a calibration. The revised PS11 
stipulates three ranges: 0 to 30, 30 to 60, and 60 to 100% of the 
facility's range of PM emissions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ The correlation coefficient is defined as the ratio 
S<INF>xy</INF> divided by the square root of the quantity 
S<INF>xx</INF> times S<INF>yy</INF>. S<INF>xy</INF> is a measurement 
of error as x relates to y, while S<INF>xx</INF> and S<INF>yy</INF> 
are a reflection of the range of the data set. As a result, the 
correlation coefficient is not as useful a tool to evaluate 
measurement error as the correlation and tolerance intervals. This 
is particularly true as the correlation coefficient approaches 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Data Availability
    EPA had proposed that PM CEMS be used at all times that hazardous 
waste is in the unit. See 61 FR at 17441. Commenters to the proposed 
rule did not view this favorably. They said this proposal is equivalent 
to a 100% data availability requirement for PM CEMS. Commenters stated 
that this requirement is not achievable since all mechanical devices 
fail at some point, often without warning. They said a data 
availability requirement in the 85, 90, or 95% range would be more 
acceptable. Commenters suggested that when the PM CEMS were not 
available, the PM-related operating parameter limits EPA proposed 
should be used in place of the PM CEMS.
    EPA largely agrees with this comment. The PM CEMS demonstration 
tests show that a 100% data availability requirement is not achievable 
for all PM CEMS in all instances. The Agency also agrees that when PM 
CEMS are not operating, it is reasonable to provide for some back-up 
compliance system in lieu of requiring sources to either stop burning 
hazardous waste or have a back-up PM CEMS available. The PM APCD 
operating parameters proposed in the event there is no PM CEMS 
requirement are a good starting point for identifying such a back-up 
system. See the discussion later in this section for more information 
on this issue.
    Based on these demonstration tests and the comments received, EPA 
concludes that a 95% data availability requirement is achievable for 
most PM CEMS. Therefore, EPA intends that PM CEMS be used 95% of the 
time for compliance. However, there are useful technologies that cannot 
meet this 95% data availability requirement. This data availability 
requirement should be relaxed in certain instances. For instance, beta-
gages did not meet the 95% data availability requirement during the PM 
CEMS tests. EPA believes beta-gages, with their relatively superior

[[Page 67791]]

performance and ability to measure PM emissions at truly wet stacks 
(i.e., those with entrained water droplets in the stack gas), will be 
useful at some sources for compliance. Therefore, EPA will consider an 
85% data availability requirement for beta-gage technology PM 
CEMS.<SUP>3</SUP> The Agency anticipates other case-by-case 
determinations will be made in the future as more is learned about the 
performance, benefits, and data availability limitations of other PM 
CEMS technologies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ One of the beta gage PM CEMS experienced a 74% data 
availability during the PM CEMS demonstration test program. Much of 
the additional downtime was because no U.S.-based technicians were 
fully trained to service this instrument during this program and 
parts and personnel had to be brought to the U.S. Once EPA requires 
a new technology, such as PM CEMS, the market for that new 
technology is expected to mature in the US similar to how one exists 
overseas. As a result, data availability will be better than what 
was experienced here.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, EPA believes that increasing the amount of PM data 
available will enable sources to improve their understanding and better 
define the relationship between operating parameters and emission 
levels. EPA is aware of two relevant examples which are described here. 
The first one is an ongoing cooperative effort with industry, 
regulatory agencies, and the local public. This effort is focused on a 
venturi scrubber-controlled lime kiln at a pulp and paper plant where 
testing is being conducted to evaluate the feasibility of a predictive 
emission monitoring system (PEMS). Following preliminary measurements 
and an experimentally designed test matrix, 595 Method 5 runs were 
performed over a wide variety of process and scrubber operating 
conditions, and PM emission levels. A correlation coefficient above 0.9 
was obtained in correlating PM emission levels with 54 operating 
parameters. In comparison, use of PM CEMS represents a powerful tool 
for accumulating much data at a cost that is far less than performing 
hundreds of Method 5 runs. As a result, PM CEMS allow for a cost-
effective way to implement a PM PEMS model than making hundreds of 
Method 5 measurements.
    The second example directly relates to the first. The Electric 
Power Research Institute (EPRI) has already produced a means to 
characterize and correlate PM emissions with operating conditions at 
coal-fired utility boilers. PM emissions from utility boilers are 
similar to HWCs in that their emissions are affected by a complexity of 
variations from a number of fuel and feed characteristics, combustor 
operations, and electrostatic precipitator (ESP) operations. As in the 
lime kiln case mentioned above, use of PM CEMS represents a more 
powerful tool for accumulating and correlating vast amounts of PM 
emission data with PM-related operating parameters at a cost that is 
far less than performing a large number of Method 5 runs.
    These two examples, therefore, lead EPA to believe that a PM CEMS 
requirement will allow HWC facilities to better define what PM APCD 
operating parameter limits correspond to a given PM emissions 
concentration. As a result, the Agency encourages HWC facilities to use 
PM CEMS data to better define what operating parameters correspond to 
compliance with a facility's PM CEMS limit. The site-specific limit is 
discussed further in section IV.B. of this notice.
3. Data Quality Objectives: New Procedure 2 to Appendix F of 40 CFR 
Part 60
    EPA intends to expand the ISO specification to include certain data 
quality objectives. For example, PM CEMS routinely and automatically 
check and correct their raw outputs to compensate for phenomena such as 
``fogging'' of the optics and drift of the measurement signal. A large 
and sudden auto correction is indicative of the need to perform 
maintenance on the PM CEMS. To address this concern, EPA intends to 
include certain data quality objectives such as: The (PM CEMS internal) 
calibration drift not exceed 8% during any drift check; the (PM CEMS 
internal) calibration drift not exceed more than 4% per day for five 
consecutive days; and the automated (PM CEMS internal) calibration 
drift adjustment not exceed 2% for five consecutive days.
    These data quality criteria would appear in a new Procedure 2 of 
Appendix F to 40 CFR part 60. Just as Procedure 1 of Appendix F deals 
with data quality objectives for gaseous CEMS for other CAA rules (CEMS 
such as NO<INF>X</INF> and SO<INF>X</INF>), Procedure 2 would address 
data quality objectives for PM CEMS. Procedure 2 would also include the 
following data quality objectives: treatment of ``flagged data;'' PM 
CEMS automatic zero and calibration span requirements; conduct of the 
Absolute Calibration Audit and the quality of the standards used for 
these audits; sample volume audit requirements for extractive systems; 
relative calibration audit (RCA) requirements; the treatment of audit 
failures; how manual method paired data outliers (see the CEMS NODA 1, 
62 FR at 13780) are handled; definition of ``out-of-control'' 
situations; and how facilities are to respond to these ``out-of-
control'' situations. See Procedure 2 (which appears at the end of this 
notice) and the draft final PM CEMS Demonstration Test Report for more 
information regarding these requirements and Procedure 2.

B. Manual Method Accuracy

    One outgrowth of these PM CEMS demonstration tests is that EPA has 
made significant improvements in making Method 5 particulate 
measurements. As previously mentioned, the calibration process for PM 
CEMS involves correlating PM CEMS outputs to manual method results. 
High variability in the manual method results will negatively affect 
the PS11 calibration statistics. Therefore, one important way to 
improve PS11 statistics is to improve the way manual method 
measurements are made. These improvements involve the use of a new 
Method 5I (M5i) for low level PM emissions. M5i consists of the 
following improvements: improved sample collection; elimination of 
possible contamination; and improved sample analysis. Each will be 
discussed in the following paragraphs. M5i will be instrumental in 
correlating PM CEMS outputs to manual method results. EPA also expects 
this new method will be preferred in all cases where low level (i.e., 
below 45 mg/dscm [<SUP> cents</SUP>0.02 gr/dscf]) measurements are 
required. In practice, this means that M5i is expected to become the 
standard method for most HWCs and many other MACT sources. EPA expects 
many of the improvements in M5i can and will be implemented whenever 
Method 5 (collectively, including Method 5, 5A, ..., 5H) is used to 
make particulate measurements.
    M5i is almost identical to the traditional M5. Differences are 
discussed below. We also present a comparison of the precision of M5i 
(which fully implements these improvements) and the traditional M5 
(which largely does not use these improvements) and discuss the need 
for and handling of paired M5 data.
1. Modification of the Filter Recovery Process
    One way M5i differs from the traditional M5 is through the use of a 
light-weight and integrated filter and filter assembly that can be 
tared and weighed together. This improves M5 by eliminating the filter 
recovery step. The filter recovery step can be a significant source of 
measurement error at some sources. In some cases as the filter dries, 
the filter adheres itself to the filter assembly. Recovery of the 
filter then involves scraping the filter off the filter assembly 
leaving some of the filter (and sample) on the filter assembly or 
otherwise losing it to the environment. In other cases, the filter 
recovery

[[Page 67792]]

process can lead to the loss of sample to the environment as light-
weight particles are lost to the air during handling. It can also lead 
to contamination of the sample in cases where fugitive dust from the 
environment lands on the filter during the recovery step. Simplifying 
the recovery step through the use of a light-weight, integrated filter 
and assembly addresses these concerns and thereby improves the 
reliability of making PM measurements.
    One consequence of this improvement, though, is that the filter 
used M5i is smaller than that used in the traditional M5 (47 mm 
compared to approximately 90 to 100 mm in the traditional M5). This 
smaller filter can plug at higher emissions levels. For this reason, 
this aspect of M5i may not be implementable at sources with emissions 
above 45 mg/dscm (that is, total train catches exceeding 50 mg).
2. Improved Sample Collection
    Another important improvement to M5 is to the sample collection 
process itself. These improvements include: ensuring that the nozzle is 
90 deg. to the direction of flow at each traverse location; and using 
Pesticide Grade (i.e., low residue) acetone for probe rinse. Each is 
discussed in the following paragraphs. These improvements to the sample 
collection process may also be implemented over time into other 
versions of Method 5.
    Test crews routinely check the ``level'' of the probe only once 
during sampling--prior to or at the beginning of the sampling process 
itself. As the traverse progresses, the probe can become ``unlevel,'' 
i.e., it is no longer at a right (90 deg.) angle to the direction flow 
in the stack gas. As the angle of the probe departs from 90 deg., 
inconsistent amounts of sample are collected and thereby causes error 
in M5 measurements. This can be corrected by applying a level to the 
sample probe and checking the level continuously throughout the 
traverse. Ensuring that the probe angle is constant and level 
throughout the traverse eliminates this potential source of measurement 
error.
    Finally, residue contained in the acetone used for the probe rinse 
is another source of sampling error. Acetone is used for the probe 
rinse since it is a solvent that evaporates readily at room 
temperatures and thereby allows rapid weighing of the specimen 
following sampling. The standard M5 procedures require that acetone 
residue blank levels be determined and that reagent-grade acetone in 
glass bottles with no more than 0.001% residue be used for probe 
rinses. Acetone comes in many grades, including reagent grade, 
depending on how the purchaser intends to use the acetone. Some grades 
of acetone contain higher levels of residue. This residue remains after 
the acetone evaporates and contaminates the probe rinse, making the 
``catch'' during the probe rinse greater than what it really is. 
Acetone blanks above 0.001% are not allowed by M5, so the acetone 
itself must have a concentration of residue no more than this 
requirement for the blanks. M5 also requires that the acetone be stored 
in glass containers because acetone from metal containers generally 
have a high residue blank level. Test crews routinely use reagent-grade 
acetone purchased in small, glass containers since large quantity 
purchases create a fire safety and storage issue. Though ordered with 
the intent of meeting specifications, acetone suppliers often store 
bulk, reagent grade acetone in metal containers and transfer this 
acetone to glass containers only to ship the small quantities sold. 
This means that the residue concentrations found in reagent grade 
acetone are often higher than what is allowed by M5. The unallowable 
amount of residue from high blank levels would have a negative effect 
on the accuracy and precision of M5 results. This can be avoided by 
requiring low-residue, Pesticide grade acetone.
3. Elimination of Contamination
    In a general sense, eliminating contamination in the filter 
handling processes will eliminate potential sources of error. 
Contamination can be avoided by: using a portable desiccator for use in 
transporting and holding the filters to and on the stack; using glass 
plugs on the filter assemblies to keep them ``pure'' prior to and after 
sampling; covering the desiccant with a 0.1 micron screen to eliminate 
potential external contamination of filter housing during transport; 
and handling the filter assemblies with powder free latex gloves. As 
previously discussed, contamination in the M5 process will make 
measured PM levels appear to be higher than what they truly are. Each 
of these steps to eliminate contamination of the sample will ensure 
that fugitive particulate from the environment does not contaminate, 
thereby inadvertently causing a positive bias to the measured PM 
levels.
4. Improved Sample Analysis
    Finally, improved sample analysis will help eliminate error in the 
Method 5 measurement process. Specific steps to improve M5 sample 
analysis include: Elimination of all sources of static charge (such as 
those on the operator, beakers, liners, and balance); use of light 
weight Teflon beaker liners for gravimetric analysis of the probe 
rinse; maintaining the laboratory area at a humidity level of 30% or 
less; and putting a covered desiccant container in the balance weighing 
chamber. Each is discussed in the following paragraphs.
    High, varying levels of static charge typically produce variations 
in repeated weighing of susceptible materials such as glass filter 
holder assemblies and Teflon beakers (probe rinse catches). The need 
for maintaining a relatively dry atmosphere in the analytical room 
further exaggerates the negative effect of static charge on the 
weighing process. To control and minimize the consequences of static 
charge, EPA found it was necessary to preclude any and all aspects of 
static electricity. This entailed using: (1) A static-free mat on the 
floor area under the desiccator and balance; (2) a small charge-
neutralizer in the desiccator; (3) another small charge-neutralizer in 
the weighing chamber of the balance; and (4) a static dissipator 
aerosol spray to prevent static buildup on the Teflon beakers. EPA 
found it was not possible to consistently reproduce the same weight 
results (that is, within 0.5 mg) until all four measures were done.
    The particulate, filter assembly, and filter are often hydrophilic 
in nature, i.e., they tend to adsorb water from the air. The amount of 
water these materials adsorb depends on the amount of water in the air. 
The moisture content of air is often quantified in terms of the 
relative atmospheric humidity, or what percentage the actual water 
concentration of the air is relative to the saturation concentration. 
The higher the relative humidity of the air, the more water is 
adsorbed. The converse is also true. As a result, if the relative 
humidity in the analysis room is high, the amount of water adsorbed 
onto the particulate, filter, and assembly becomes variable and it 
becomes increasingly difficult to obtain a stable measurement. Ensuring 
that the relative humidity in the analysis room remains at a constant, 
low level will ensure that the amount of water adsorbed by these 
materials remains relatively small and constant. EPA found that 
maintaining the relative humidity of the room to below 30% will control 
this source of error.<SUP>4</SUP>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ As humidity levels decrease, static charge tends to 
increase. The elimination of static charge, previously discussed, 
will aid at eliminating this problem.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To further control and minimize the adverse affects of humidity on 
reproducing results in the weighing

[[Page 67793]]

process, a small covered desiccant container was placed in the 
balance's weighing chamber. This ensures that the humidity level in the 
weighing chamber is consistent with the humidity level in the 
desiccator. The desiccant in the weighing chamber dries fugitive air 
entering the chamber from the room, preventing the adsorption of room 
air humidity on the materials being weighed.
5. Comparison of M5 and M5i Method Precision
    M5i has been validated against Method 5.<SUP>5</SUP> It is also 
important to quantify the improvements to M5 just discussed. This can 
be done by comparing the precision of both methods at each of the three 
proposed PM standards: 34, 50, and 69 mg/dscm for hazardous waste 
burning incinerators, LWAKs, and cement kilns, respectively. Precision 
at the standards is important since measurements at the standard deal 
with compliance determinations at facilities. The best estimate of the 
standard deviation is presented to represent this precision.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Only the filter, extraction, and weighing steps were tested.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For M5i, the results presented are the best estimate of the 
standard deviation at each of the three proposed emissions standards. 
These results are calculated directly from the data obtained during the 
PM CEMS demonstration tests. The relative standard deviation (e.g., the 
best estimate of the standard deviation at an emissions concentration, 
divided by that emissions concentration) for M5i is in all cases less 
than 5%.
    Historical data from Method 5 was derived from PM concentrations 
ranging from 80 to 255 mg/dscm. This data indicates that the relative 
standard deviation for M5 is constant at 10%. Therefore, if one were to 
multiple the emissions standard by 10%, one can derive the best 
estimate of the standard deviation at the three proposed emissions 
standards.
    Table 2, below, illustrates this comparison and shows that M5i is 
an improvement to M5.

    Table 2: Comparison of Method 5 and Method 5i Standard Deviations   
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  Best estimate of the  
                                                standard deviation  (mg/
Proposed PM emissions standard (mg/dscm) at 7%            dscm)         
                    oxygen                     -------------------------
                                                  Method 5    Method 5i 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
34                                                      3.4         1.67
50                                                      5.0         2.24
69                                                      6.9         2.85
------------------------------------------------------------------------

6. Paired Data
    Throughout most of the PM CEMS demonstration tests, EPA used two 
simultaneous Method 5i sampling trains. These two simultaneous trains 
are called ``paired trains'' and the paired train data are called 
``paired data.'' The average of the paired data from the two trains was 
considered the method result. If the ``paired data'' differed by more 
than 30% from the method result, EPA eliminated the method result from 
the calculation of the calibration.
    EPA's experience is that, despite the efforts just discussed to 
control method variability, intangibles which are unknown or 
unquantifiable can cause variability in M5 (and M5i) measurements. 
Since it is important that highly accurate M5 measurements be obtained 
for calibrating PM CEMS, these intangibles must be identified in some 
way and data affected by these intangibles must be eliminated from the 
PM CEMS calibration. The fact that two simultaneously run M5 (or M5i) 
measurements do not agree is ample evidence that something in the 
sample collection and analysis process was not consistent.
    Comments received during the comment period for CEMS NODA 1 stated 
that this process would not be allowed if a facility were doing a 
calibration for compliance. To address this concern, EPA has 
incorporated this outlier procedure in the new Procedure 2 and M5i. 
Having this procedure in the regulations will allow facilities to 
exclude this type of erroneous data from their PM CEMS calibrations. 
Please note that this procedure applies only if paired data are 
obtained. Single measurements obtained at different times are not 
paired data. Single runs cannot be eliminated by comparing these 
results to other single measurements.
    EPA strongly encourages facilities to use paired data during their 
calibrations. Beyond the ability to eliminate paired data outliers from 
the PM CEMS calibration, using the average of two runs as the method 
result has a moderating affect on the calibration statistics EPA 
calculated and used to base the PS11 revised in today's notice. This 
moderating effect improves the PS11 criteria relative to what they 
would be if paired data were not used. Some facilities may find it 
difficult to obtain a suitable calibration using only single M5 
measurements. However, while we encourage using paired data, we are not 
requiring paired data for PM CEMS calibrations. This choice can be left 
to the facilities to determine what makes the most economic and 
technical sense at their site.

C. Transferability of These Demonstration Test Results to Other HWC 
Sources

    EPA believes this demonstration test program adequately shows that 
PM CEMS will meet PS11 at most hazardous waste incinerators, cement 
kilns, and light-weight aggregate kilns. These tests were conducted at 
a reasonable worst-case facility for performance relative to the 
proposed performance specifications<SUP>6</SUP>. Therefore, a PM CEMS 
should pass the performance measures described in the revised draft 
PS11 at most HWC sources. The paragraphs below discuss specific aspects 
of PM CEMS and their applicability to each HWC source category.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ For more on EPA's rationale that this is a reasonable worst-
case test, see CEMS NODA 1 and the PM CEMS Demonstration Test report 
sited here.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For cement kilns, in-situ light scattering PM CEMS are 
operationally very similar to continuous opacity monitors (COMs), a 
technology employed at these sources for many years. Light-scattering 
PM CEMS differ from COMs only in the way they obtain and interpret the 
light from the source. As shown in the LaFarge tests,<SUP>7</SUP> 
though, an informed decision is required to determine what type of in-
situ light-scattering PM CEMS is best suited for these sources. One PM 
CEMS used at LaFarge was built with a heated air purge system to blow 
cement kiln dust away from and out of the optics of the monitor while 
the other was not. The monitor with the heated air purge performed very 
well over the course of the tests, though improvements to the Method 5 
measurements and a routine cleaning of the optics could have improved 
performance. The PM CEMS without the heated air purge suffered 
operational difficulty. In addition, PM from cement kilns is mostly 
process dust (i.e., raw material). As such, its physical properties are 
not significantly affected by changes in waste or fuel feeds. 
Accordingly, in-situ light-scattering PM CEMS will pass performance 
specifications at cement kilns if an informed decision is made to

[[Page 67794]]

purchase a monitor that is designed to address the dusty environment at 
these facilities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See section 2.6.7 of the PM CEMS Demonstration Test Report.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA believes that LWAKs are very similar to cement kilns relative 
to the applicability of PM CEMS, and therefore the conclusions drawn in 
the preceding paragraph also apply to LWAKs.
    For incinerators, there are certain unique situations which must be 
discussed: incinerators with truly wet stacks; incinerators with waste 
heat boilers; and mobile incinerators.
    As was the case with cement kilns, HWC incinerators with truly wet 
stacks (i.e., those with entrained water droplets in the stack gas) 
need to make an informed choice regarding what PM CEMS technology they 
elect to use. In-situ light-scattering PM CEMS are likely to have 
operational difficulty since the water droplets entrained in the stack 
gas will be mistaken for particulate. This is a readily accepted source 
of error and means that in-situ light-scattering PM CEMS are not a 
practical choice for these sources. Beta-gage and certain other light-
scattering PM CEMS, however, are designed with extractive reheat 
systems which heat up the extracted gas to above the water condensation 
temperature. Incinerator groups are currently working to test these 
types of systems to gain first-hand experience and data regarding the 
use of PM CEMS at facilities with truly wet stacks. EPA encourages 
these tests since they will result in valuable data which can be 
communicated to personnel at incinerators with truly wet stacks to 
assist their PM CEMS purchasing decisions.
    Incinerators equipped with waste heat boilers (WHBs) downstream of 
the combustion chamber(s) also require special consideration. Like 
boilers, these incinerators blow soot periodically to clean the boiler 
tubes. PM emissions will increase and the physical properties 
(pertinent to PS11) of the PM may change during periods of soot 
blowing. To help address the impact of soot-blowing, sources would be 
required to include soot-blowing episodes during a minimum of three 
calibration runs. This will ensure that calibration captures the higher 
emissions that can occur during soot-blowing, thus minimizing the need 
to extrapolate the calibration curve beyond measured values. In 
addition, including soot-blowing during calibration runs will enable 
the source to determine whether any change in the physical properties 
of the PM during soot-blowing has adversely affected the calibration 
(i.e., as evidenced by an inability to meet PS 11 when the soot-blowing 
runs are included).
    EPA requests comment on this approach to address the special 
problems that soot-blowing may cause. In particular, EPA seeks the 
following information:
--How many incinerators are currently equipped with WHBs? Are sources 
likely to remove WHBs to facilitate compliance with the MACT standards 
(e.g., D/F)?
--The normal frequency and duration of soot-blowing. Under what 
conditions does the frequency and duration of soot-blowing change? How 
often does this change(s) occur?
--How do PM emissions for runs that include episodes of soot blowing 
compare to runs without soot blowing?
--How does the effect of the APCS, waste and fuel types, and other 
relevant factors impact changes to the PM concentrations and physical 
properties when one compares PM during soot-blowing and PM at other 
times.
    The reader should note that EPA intends to promulgate MACT 
standards for hazardous waste boilers as part of Phase II of the HWC 
rulemaking. EPA intends to address the applicability of PM CEMS to 
boilers then. If because of unforeseen reasons EPA provides a PM CEMS 
waiver for incinerators with WHBs, EPA would readdress the 
applicability of PM CEMS to hazardous waste incinerators with waste 
heat boilers in Phase II.
    Finally, another class of hazardous waste incinerators are used at 
Superfund sites during the clean-up process. These mobile incinerators 
have small, limited waste processing capacity and are often trucked to 
the site as needed. EPA is concerned that the variability of the feed 
to mobile incinerators is beyond what was experienced at the DuPont 
facility. As such, a unique calibration might be required for every 
clean-up site, which is unnecessarily burdensome. Given the PM CEMS 
implementation schedule discussed in section IV.A., below, implementing 
PM CEMS at these incinerators may not be feasible, and EPA is 
considering whether to waive the PM CEMS requirement for Superfund 
mobile incinerators.
    If the PM CEMS requirement is waived for certain facilities, the 
other, traditional operating parameters discussed in this NODA would be 
used instead to document compliance.

IV. PM CEMS: Implementation and Compliance <SUP>8</SUP>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ The reader should note that HWCs are currently regulated 
under RCRA. Sources with a different regulatory history are likely 
to have a different compliance regime than the one described here. 
One should not assume that the compliance and implementation scheme 
described here will necessarily be applied to sources with a 
different regulatory history.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

A. PM CEMS Compliance Schedule

    Many comments received in response to the proposed rule stated that 
facility personnel are not familiar with the operation and maintenance 
characteristics of PM CEMS, or how to control their operating 
conditions to ensure compliance using PM CEMS. For this and reasons 
explained in section IV.B., EPA plans to allow a 12-month phase-in 
period before PM CEMS would be used as a compliance parameter. This 
section describes this compliance schedule.
    Prior to the date PM CEMS would be used for compliance (i.e., 
during the 12-month phase-in period), limits on key PM-related and 
other key operating parameters (e.g., metals feedrate) would be used to 
ensure compliance with the MACT standards for PM, SVM, and LVM. This 
one year phase-in period has four key milestones: The Compliance Date; 
the performance Test Date; the Certification of Compliance (CoC) date; 
and the Certification of PM CEMS performance date. By the Compliance 
Date,<SUP>9</SUP> facilities would determine, using engineering 
judgment, the operating parameter limits necessary to ensure compliance 
with the standards. These initial operating parameter limits would be 
specified in a Precertification of Compliance (Pre-CoC) that would be 
submitted to the permitting authority by the Compliance Date. By the 
Test Date, which is nominally no later than six months after the 
Compliance Date, facilities would have to conduct a performance test to 
document compliance with the MACT emissions standards and identify 
operating parameter limits based on levels achieved during the test. 
Results of the performance tests and these revised operating parameter 
limits would be submitted to the permitting authority in a 
Certification of Compliance (CoC) nominally no more than nine months 
after the Compliance Date. The operating parameter limits in the CoC 
would be used as surrogate compliance measures to ensure that the 
efficiency of

[[Page 67795]]

the PM control device was maintained at performance test levels until 
the one-year anniversary date of the Compliance Date. Beginning at that 
time, facilities would start using the PM CEMS and cease using the 
operating parameters as their primary operating parameter for PM 
control.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ The Clean Air Act states that the Compliance Date can be no 
more than three years after the effective date of the rule (i.e., 
date of publication in the Federal Register), unless a source 
obtains an (up to) one-year time extension of the Compliance Date.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    During this phase-in year, there are important PM CEMS-related 
activities being performed. For instance, the PM CEMS, like all other 
equipment necessary for compliance with the MACT standards, must be 
installed by the Compliance Date. Like all other tests for the rule, 
the PM CEMS calibrations and initial certifications (see section 8.3 of 
PS11 and section 4 of Procedure 2) must also be performed by the Test 
Date.
    As discussed in the PM CEMS Demonstration Test Report, the 
mathematical characteristics of a light-scattering PM CEMS calibration 
curve can be difficult to determine. For this reason, a second 
calibration would be required within 9 months of the Compliance Date if 
a light-scattering PM CEMS is used. After this second calibration is 
performed the source would compare the two calibrations separately to 
determine which mathematical model best represents the data. This 
information (i.e., the analysis of which mathematical model is best 
suited for the calibration at this source and the calibration comprised 
of all valid calibration data obtained) would be included in a 
Certification of PM CEMS Performance (CoP) submitted within 12 months 
after the Compliance Date. (A CoP for beta-gage CEMS would also be 
submitted at this time, but would certify performance based on a single 
calibration.)
    This CoP would also include (for all types of CEMS) the analysis of 
CEMS data to identify an achievable CEMS-based PM operating parameter 
limit. See section IV.B., below, for more information regarding the PM 
CEMS operating parameter limit. On the one-year anniversary of the 
Compliance Date, facilities would also cease using the PM control 
device operating parameter limits (such as pressure drop across a 
fabric filter or total power input to an ESP) and start using the PM 
CEMS operating parameter limit as their primary compliance parameter 
for the PM control device.
    A source using a light-scattering PM CEMS would be required to 
perform a third calibration of the PM CEMS within 12 months of the 
Compliance Date. The third calibration would verify that the 
mathematical model selected by comparing the first two calibrations is 
correct. If not, to the approach must be modified based on the new 
data. If the model needed to be revised, the source would be required 
to recalculate the PM CEMS operating parameter limit considering the 12 
months of data following the Compliance Date. If the model did not need 
to be revised, the source could elect to recalculate the PM CEMS 
operating parameter limit considering the full 12 months of CEMS 
recordings. (We request comment on whether all sources required to 
perform a third calibration should be required to recalculate the PM 
CEMS operating limit even if the calibration curve model did not need 
to be revised.) The results of the third calibration,<SUP>10</SUP> 
reassessment of the calibration model, and recalculation of the PM CEMS 
operating parameter limit would be submitted in a second CoP. This 
second CoP would be provided to the permitting authority within 15 
months of the Compliance Date. Note that this second CoP would not be 
required if a source uses a beta-gage type PM CEMS that needs only one 
calibration. A source using a PM CEMS that requires only one 
calibration (i.e., a beta-gage) would have the option, however, of 
submitting a second CoP if it wants to update the PM CEMS operating 
parameter limit based on a full year of data.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ This would involve the verification that the mathematical 
model used for the calibration is correct, a recalculation of the 
``master'' calibration comprised of all three calibration curves, 
and a revised site-specific PM CEMS operating parameter limit (this 
time, using the first 12 months of data).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Table 3 summarizes how PM CEMS would be implemented for compliance. 
Following this implementation schedule, facilities would be required to 
document compliance with the MACT PM standard during periodic 
performance testing. As discussed in section IV.F. below, a source 
would have the option of using the PM CEMS or the manual method for 
this determination. In addition, sources would be required to 
recalculate their PM CEMS operating parameter limit based on the 
previous year of CEMS data recorded when the source operated within the 
operating parameter limits established during the new performance test. 
This recalculation of the PM CEMS operating parameter limit is 
necessary since the new performance test is likely to result in 
numerically different PM-related APCD operating parameters than 
resulted from the previous test.<SUP>11</SUP> Facilities would submit 
the revised operating parameter limits, including the revised PM CEMS 
operating parameter limit, in a CoC describing the results of the new 
performance test.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ If the PM concentration and operating parameter limits 
resulting from the subsequent performance test are more stringent 
than those from the previous test, the facility would have the 
option of not recalculating their PM CEMS operating parameter limit 
and continue to operate under the older, more stringent limit.

[[Page 67796]]



                                      Table 3: PM CEMS Compliance Schedule                                      
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                By this date                              These PM CEMS activities would be performed           
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Compliance date.............................  PM CEMS installed                                                 
                                              Precertification of Compliance (Pre-CoC) submitted that           
                                               establishes PM APCD (and other) operating parameter limits to    
                                               ensure compliance with the SVM and LVM (and possibly D/F)        
                                               standards based on engineering judgment.                         
CD + 6 months (the ``Test Date'')...........  PM CEMS calibration tests performed during MACT performance test. 
                                              Method 5i used to demonstrate compliance with the manual method-  
                                               based PM standard.                                               
CD + 9 months...............................  Certification of Compliance (CoC) submitted that establishes PM   
                                               APCD (and other) operating parameter limits to ensure compliance 
                                               with the SVM and LVM (and possibly D/F) standards based on what  
                                               levels were determined to correspond to compliance with the      
                                               standard during the Performance Test. (These limits supersede    
                                               those identified in the Pre-CoC.)                                
                                              A second calibration of light-scattering PM CEMS is performed.    
CD + 12 months..............................  Source identifies calibration curve, calculates the PM CEMS       
                                               operating parameter limit (through 9 months), recommends         
                                               alternative PM control device operating parameters and their     
                                               numerical limits, and submits a Certification of PM CEMS         
                                               Performance (CoP).                                               
                                              Source ceases using PM control device operating parameters as the 
                                               primary mode of compliance for PM and starts using the PM CEMS.  
                                               The operating parameters defined in the CoC are used for         
                                               compliance only when the PM CEMS is unavailable.                 
                                              Source reports initial calibration (composite of all calibrations 
                                               through 9 months), PM CEMS-based limit, and revised operating    
                                               parameter limits (for use during CEMS malfunctions) to permitting
                                               authority.                                                       
                                              A third calibration of light-scattering PM CEMS is performed.     
CD + 15 months..............................  Sources using light-scattering PM CEMS revise the calibration     
                                               curve if necessary based on the third calibration, recalculate   
                                               the PM CEMS operating parameter limit (through 12-months), update
                                               the PM control device operating parameter limits for use during  
                                               CEMS malfunctions, and submit a second CoP documenting this      
                                               information.                                                     
                                              The source starts using the revised operating parameters reported 
                                               in the CoP during periods when the PM CEMS is unavailable unless 
                                               those alternatives have been disapproved by the permitting       
                                               authority.                                                       
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. PM CEMS Operating Parameter Limit

    EPA proposed using site-specific limits on key operating parameters 
of the PM control device (e.g., pressure drop across a fabric filter) 
to ensure that the device maintained its collection efficiency at 
performance test levels. These limits, in combination with other 
operating parameter limits (e.g., metals feedrate controls) would 
ensure compliance with the semivolatile metal (SVM) and low volatile 
metal (LVM) MACT standards. See 61 FR 17376 and 17430 (April 19, 1996). 
These operating parameter limits on the PM control device would also 
ensure compliance with the MACT PM standard <SUP>12</SUP>, and possibly 
the MACT dioxin and furan (D/F) and mercury (Hg) standards if the 
source uses activated carbon injection to control these HAPs. 
<SUP>13</SUP> The availability of PM CEMS allows the Agency to improve 
upon this approach through the use of PM CEMS as the sole PM control 
device operating parameter <SUP>14</SUP>. PM CEMS are a more sensitive 
and accurate operating parameter than the conventional PM-related 
operating parameters now used.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ The Agency has proposed a MACT PM standard as a surrogate 
to control emissions of non-enumerated metals HAPs (i.e., metal HAPs 
other than those for which specific standards have been proposed--
Hg, SVM, and LVM). Those non-enumerated HAPs are Sb, Co, Mn, Ni, and 
Se.
    \13\ The Agency proposed that the site-specific PM limit be a 
compliance parameter for the D/F standard irrespective of whether 
activated carbon injection was used as a control device. This 
requirement was grounded upon EPA's initial view that a significant 
amount of D/F (and other heavy organic compounds) are adsorbed onto 
particulate. As a result, PM needed to be controlled to ensure 
continuous compliance with the D/F standard. The Agency is now 
considering comments that significant D/F may not be adsorbed onto 
PM. Cement and lightweight kiln PM, in particular, is generally 
process dust (i.e., processed raw material). This process dust has 
little affinity for adsorbing D/F. However, EPA's ultimate decision 
on whether to limit PM on a site-specific basic does not depend on 
whether there is a need to control PM at all HWCs for D/F control. A 
site-specific PM limit is still needed to ensure compliance with the 
SVM and LVM standards at all HWCs. Sources that use activated carbon 
injection, howver, would be expected to have a significant amount of 
D/F on the PM.
    \14\ Note that the MACT standard for PM would continue to be a 
manual methods-based standard. See subsection IV.F., below, for 
options facilities could have to use PM CEMS for direct compliance 
with this PM standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This section describes how PM CEMS would be implemented as an 
operating parameter for the SVM, LVM, PM, and possibly D/F and Hg 
standards. The reader should note that the proposed MACT standard for 
PM is and will continue to be a manual methods-based standard. The 
reader is referred to section IV.F., below, for options a facility 
could choose to use PM CEMS as a direct indicator of compliance with 
the MACT PM standard.
1. Introduction
    The PM CEMS operating parameter limit would be determined using the 
PM CEMS data obtained during normal operations from the Compliance Date 
to the time when the calculation of the operating parameter limit is 
performed. Although the PM CEMS would be used as an operating parameter 
limit here, an approach to establishing this limit could be very 
similar to how EPA establishes national standards from CEMS data. The 
municipal waste combustor rule published on February 11, 1991, has an 
example of how this is done <SUP>15</SUP>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\The methods used for establishing CEMS standards in the 
February 1991 MWC rule are described in Appendices A and B of EPA 
document number EPA-450/3-91-004, dated December 1990. This document 
can also be found in the Air Docket, located in the Mall area of EPA 
Headquarters, 401 M Street, SW, Washington, DC 20460. It is part of 
docket number A-89-08-V-B-3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA notes that even though the PM CEMS operating parameter limit 
and the manual methods-based PM standard are both in units of 
particulate concentration, it is likely that the PM CEMS operating 
parameter limits will have a different numerical value than the manual 
methods-based MACT PM standards. This is because the MACT PM standards 
would be based on manual methods testing with no fixed averaging 
period. PM CEMS operating parameter limits would have both a fixed 
averaging period and a calculated

[[Page 67797]]

numerical limit. As discussed in section 4, below, the numerical value 
of a limit or standard is a function of the averaging period. Since it 
is likely that the PM MACT standard and the PM CEMS operating parameter 
would have different averaging periods, one would expect the numerical 
value of the PM CEMS operating parameter limit that indicates 
compliance with the MACT standards would differ from the numerical 
value of the MACT PM standard.
2. Data Excluded From Calculating the PM CEMS Operating Parameter Limit
    Before calculating the PM CEMS operating parameter limit, the PM 
CEMS data set must be screened to remove PM CEMS data recorded when the 
PM CEMS was not available or the source was out of compliance with the 
operating parameter limits established during the CoC.
    First, the facility must remove from the data set all PM CEMS data 
accumulated while the PM CEMS was not available or not performing 
acceptably as defined by the regulations. Examples of the data not 
included in the calculation of the PM CEMS operating parameter limit 
include data obtained when the PM CEMS was ``out-of-control'' as 
defined in Procedure 2 and PS11, periods when the PM CEMS was not 
analyzing stack gas (as would happen during calibrations, maintenance, 
etc.), and periods when the facility was not in operation.
    Next, the facility would further screen the data to exclude times 
when the facility was not operated in accordance with the operating 
parameter limits resulting from the performance test and reported in 
the CoC <SUP>16</SUP>. Note that the CoC operating parameter limits 
would supersede the Pre-CoC operating parameter limits for this 
screening purpose. Although the Pre-CoC operating parameter limits may 
be less stringent than the CoC limits and were valid limits prior to 
submitting the CoC, the CoC limits are based on performance testing and 
as such show what operating parameter levels reflect compliance with 
the standards. The facility must also remove any data collected during 
periods of PM APCS upset irrespective of whether the operating 
parameter limits were exceeded. <SUP>17</SUP>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ For simplicity, EPA proposes to exclude data from all 
periods in which the facility operated outside of the operating 
envelope defined in the CoC irrespective of whether the parameter in 
question affects PM control. Defining what operating parameters are 
or are not related to PM control would force another layer of 
complexity in this step.
    \17\ Episodes of high PM emissions caused by periodic, routine 
maintenance cycles (e.g., ESP rapping; soot-blowing for waste heat 
boiler equipped incinerators, etc.) would not be considered upset 
conditions. We request information on how to objectively distinguish 
between high PM emissions attributable to PM control device upset 
conditions versus normal emissions variability.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. Determining the Normality of the Data
    To calculate the PM CEMS operating parameter limit, the CEMS 
recordings <SUP>18</SUP> must be averaged over an appropriate averaging 
period. (See the discussion in the following section.) Accordingly, 
sources would be required to identify the mathematical model that best 
fits the screened CEMS data for purposes of averaging the data. For 
example, a log-or exponential fit may better represent a ``normal'' fit 
relative to an arithmetic model. To identify which mathematical model 
represents the best fit, facilities would calculate the Shapiro-Wilk 
Normality test statistic (W) at the 95% confidence level using the data 
obtained from the PM CEMS <SUP>19</SUP>. The mathematical model with a 
Shapiro-Wilk test statistic closest to one (1) would be the model used 
for averaging at the facility. This mathematical model would be used 
for all PM CEMS emissions averaging at the facility.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ The light-scattering CEMS provide instantaneous data, 
recorded every minute as one-minute block averages. Beta-gage CEMS 
have sampling periods longer than 1 minute.
    \19\ Note that batch CEMS, such as beta-gages, may have sampling 
periods longer than 1 minute. In this case, the test statistic would 
be performed using the batch results.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

4. Averaging Periods for the PM CEMS Operating Parameter Limit
    Fundamental to any emissions control parameter is the way averaging 
affects an emissions standard or limit. At a fixed numerical value, a 
standard or limit is more stringent as the averaging period decreases 
and less stringent as the averaging period increases because of 
emissions variability. In the proposed rule, EPA said that an 
appropriate averaging period for PM CEMS would be the length of time it 
takes to make three Method 5 runs. The Agency still believes this is an 
appropriate point of departure for the averaging period for the PM CEMS 
operating parameter limit.
    We proposed a 2 hour averaging period for PM CEMS, reasoning that 
it would take 40 minutes to accumulate enough PM sample to meet Method 
5 requirements for sample ``catch.'' See 61 FR at 17379. Commenters 
argued, however, that although it takes 40 minutes to accumulate enough 
sample, test crews routinely sample for one hour. In addition, comments 
received in response to CEMS NODA 1 said the sampling time for a Method 
5 run can vary from 1 to 8 hours. Basing the averaging period for the 
PM CEMS operating parameter limit on the length of time it takes to 
perform three Method 5 runs would result in an averaging period in the 
range of 3 to 24 hours <SUP>20</SUP>. This is still being evaluated.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ Three to 24 hours is within the range of CEMS averaging 
periods EPA typically promulgates. From a broader perspective, 
averaging periods vary from regulation to regulation depending on 
the analysis of issues pertaining to the technical, policy, and 
regulatory history of each particular situation. Therefore, other 
source categories may or may not have the same averaging period as 
the one established for PM CEMS at HWC, depending on the outcome of 
this analysis of issues.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

5. Options for Calculating the PM CEMS Operating Parameter Limit
    As discussed above, the stringency of the standard is a function of 
two variables--its numerical limit and the averaging period. Equally 
stringent standards would have a higher numerical limit at shorter 
averaging period and a lower numerical limit at a longer averaging 
period. Thus, to calculate the PM CEMS operating parameter limit, one 
of these two variables must be held constant--either the numerical 
limit or the averaging period. This section discusses two options for 
calculating an achievable PM CEMS operating parameter limit by defining 
the averaging period. EPA investigated ways to define the numerical 
limit and allow facilities to calculate the averaging period associated 
with that numerical limit, but found these alternatives often resulted 
in trial-and-error type calculations and might result in all facilities 
having different limits and averaging periods. We believe these 
alternatives are too labor intensive and confusing--both for facilities 
and the enforcement authority--and rejected this approach. Based on 
comments and further analysis, the Agency will prescribe one 
methodology in the final rule.
    a. Using Rank Statistics to Calculate the PM CEMS-based Operating 
Parameter Limit at One, Fixed Averaging Period. Under this approach, 
the Agency would establish an averaging period common to all sources 
and each source would calculate its PM CEMS operating parameter limit 
using rank statistics. (As discussed above, EPA is considering 
selecting an averaging period from within the range of three to 24 
hours.) The averaging period would be the same for all facilities but 
the numerical value of the PM CEMS operating parameter limit would 
differ from facility-to-facility based on the historical data obtained 
at each facility.

[[Page 67798]]

    Using the rank statistics option to calculate the limit would 
involve the following steps. First, the facility would take the 
screened PM CEMS data (i.e., after non-compliance data has been 
removed) and calculate rolling averages sequentially from the 
Compliance Date <SUP>21</SUP> using the best-fit mathematical model and 
the averaging period EPA promulgates. The facility would then take the 
resulting rolling averages and sort them in order from lowest to 
highest. The facility's PM CEMS operating parameter limit would be the 
95th percentile highest PM CEMS rolling average, by rank, experienced 
during the period the PM CEMS data was accumulated. The 95th percentile 
is proposed here because it is the percentile level EPA historically 
uses for these types of calculations. EPA could promulgate some other 
percentile level, the 90th or 99th for example, if another percentile 
level is achievable and better represents good PM control.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ For simplicity, we believe it is best for facilities to 
ignore periods when the CEMS recorded data which was screened out 
and calculate the rolling averages as if the remaining data occurred 
sequentially. EPA specifically requests comment on this approach.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This rank statistics option is easier to implement, relative to the 
other options. It also would result in a PM CEMS operating parameter 
limit that is in the range of actual emissions experienced by the 
facility (i.e., as opposed to statistically projected emissions) and 
demonstrated by the facility to be achievable over time. Since the 
limit for all sources would be based on an averaging period that would 
be fixed in the rulemaking, the limit would be easier to enforce as 
well.
    b. The Traditional Standard Setting Approach. Another approach the 
Agency is considering to determine the PM CEMS operating parameter 
limit is to use the way EPA has established CEMS-based standards in the 
past. This approach involves calculating the average and standard 
deviation of the data set and projecting an emissions level associated 
with the data. As discussed in the MWC rule, EPA calculated 
``continuous compliance levels'' for each source using the equation, 
below.
where: y=x+K*5

    y = the continuous compliance level;
    ``x-bar'' = the sample average
    k = a constant associated with the averaging period and one 
exceedance per year; and
    s = the sample standard deviation.

    This option has some benefits and weaknesses. As discussed, it 
reflects a procedure EPA has previously used to establish CEMS-based 
standards. It would also result in every facility having the same 
averaging period and thus making it easier to track and enforce. 
However, more complicated statistics are involved. EPA also compares 
emissions from more than one facility when it uses this approach to set 
standards and would be unable to oversee the application of this 
approach on a site-specific basis. As a result, this approach may be 
unworkable as a way to establish a PM CEMS operating parameter limit.
6. Consideration of a Variance Procedure to Project a Higher PM CEMS 
Operating Parameter Limit
    As discussed previously in today's notice, the PM CEMS operating 
parameter limit would be based on CEMS recordings during the nine 
months after the Compliance Date during those periods of time that the 
source was operating within the operating parameter limits established 
during the performance test (i.e., the operating parameter limits 
established in the Certification of Compliance (CoC)). Comments 
received in response to the proposed rule questioned the need to 
establish PM-related operating parameters based on the performance test 
if: (1) PM emissions measured using manual methods during the 
performance test were well below the PM MACT standard; and (2) 
emissions of HAPs (i.e., SVM, LVM, and possibly Hg, and D/F) for which 
PM would be used as an operating parameter limit were well below their 
MACT standards. Commenters were concerned that, although their sources 
may readily achieve the MACT PM standard, it may be difficult 
<SUP>22</SUP> or expensive to ensure that performance test PM levels 
are representative of the full range of levels achieved during 
operations. The same situation could occur with the PM CEMS operating 
parameter limit just discussed. Infrequent exceedances of the PM CEMS 
operating parameter limit might or might not be an indication that the 
SVM, LVM, Hg, D/F, or PM MACT emission standards have been exceeded. 
Accordingly, commenters recommended that the rule allow sources to 
project higher PM-related operating parameters based on how much 
performance test emissions for these HAPs were below their MACT 
standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ For example, some PM control devices are so over-designed 
that it is difficult to force them to operate at elevated PM levels 
for the duration of a performance test.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA agrees in theory that establishing the PM CEMS operating 
parameter limit considering performance test operations (i.e., 
historical CEMS data when the source operated within the CoC operating 
parameter limits) could result in an overly conservative operating 
parameter for PM control at sources with low PM and low HAPs that 
require PM control to ensure compliance. To address the concerns 
expressed in the comments received on the proposed rule, the Agency is 
considering a variance procedure to establish an higher projected PM 
CEMS operating parameter limit.
    The variance procedure would allow facilities with very low 
concentrations of PM and HAPs requiring PM control for compliance to 
increase their PM CEMS operating parameter limit (derived from 
operations within the CoC operating parameter limits). The factor used 
to increase the PM CEMS operating parameter limit could be defined as 
the ratio of the MACT standards for which PM control is required to 
assure compliance, to the performance test levels of those HAPs. To 
ensure that the source is still be in compliance with the MACT PM 
standard, the same ratio would be calculated for the PM standard to the 
unadjusted PM CEMS operating parameter limit. This approach is based on 
the principle that, at a facility which has experienced no changes in 
facility operations, the ratio of emissions of HAPs which require PM 
control to ensure compliance to the PM concentration in the stack is 
either constant or decreases as PM increases. In addition, revised 
(i.e., less stringent) traditional operating parameter limits for the 
PM control devices corresponding to the higher projected PM CEMS 
operating parameter limit could be established based on historical 
operating data at levels near the higher projected PM CEMS operating 
parameter limit.
    For illustration, an example follows. Assume that a hazardous waste 
incinerator has low metals in the feed and uses a HEPA filter for PM 
control. Further assume that: This incinerator's measured metals 
emissions during the performance test were 10 <greek-m>g/dscm and 7 
<greek-m>g/dscm for SVM and LVM, respectively; that the PM 
concentration measured during the performance test was 5 <greek-m>g/
dscm; for simplicity that PM control is not required to assure 
compliance with the D/F and Hg standards; the unadjusted PM CEMS 
operating parameter limit is 15 mg/dscm; and from the HWC NODA 
published on May 2, 1997, that the promulgated standards are 100 
<greek-m>g/dscm, 55 <greek-m>g/dscm, and 34 mg/dscm for SVM, LVM, and 
PM, respectively. The ratio of the standard to the measured levels are 
10 and 7.8 for SVM and LVM. For PM,

[[Page 67799]]

the ratio is 6.8. The unadjusted PM CEMS operating parameter limit 
would be increased by a factor of 6.8 since the ratio calculated for PM 
has the lowest numerical value.
    a. HAPs for which PM control is necessary to ensure compliance. PM 
would be used as an operating parameter limit for semivolatile metals 
(SVM), low volatility metals (LVM), and if activated carbon is used, 
dioxin and furan (D/F) and mercury (Hg). See 61 FR 17422 and 17430 
(April 19, 1996). Although the Agency is reconsidering whether PM is an 
appropriate operating parameter to ensure compliance with the D/F 
standard in some cases,<SUP>23</SUP> PM would be an appropriate 
operating parameter if activated carbon injection were used to control 
D/F or mercury. This is because D/F and mercury adsorb onto the 
activated carbon, and as PM emissions increase, emissions of activated 
carbon with adsorbed D/F and mercury increase.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ The Agency is considering comments that significant D/F may 
not be adsorbed on emitted PM in all cases. Cement and lightweight 
kiln PM, in particular, is generally process dust (i.e., raw 
material) that has little affinity for absorbing D/F.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    b. Projecting a higher PM CEMS operating parameter limit 
considering the ratio of the standard to the measured level of a HAP. 
The variance would be based on the principle that, as PM emissions 
increase, the ratio of emissions of each HAP for which PM is an 
operating parameter limit (i.e., SVM, LVM, and possibly D/F and Hg) to 
PM emissions either is constant or decreases. Thus, the PM CEMS 
operating parameter limit derived from operations within the CoC 
operating parameter limits could be increased without exceeding the 
MACT standards for those HAPs by a factor considering the ratio of the 
standard for each of those HAPs to the performance test level of each 
HAP.
    LVM are generally not volatilized in the combustion chamber and 
thus are evenly distributed over all sizes of particulates. Thus, as PM 
emissions increase, the ratio of LVM emissions to PM emissions will be 
constant.
    SVM are generally volatilized during combustion and condense 
preferentially on small particulates prior to (or in) the PM control 
device. Thus for many PM control devices, as PM emissions increase, the 
ratio of larger particulates to smaller particulates increases, and the 
ratio of SVM emissions to total particulate emissions decreases (i.e., 
because the larger particulates have a lower concentration of SVM). For 
emission control trains where PM particle size may remain constant with 
an increase in PM emissions, the ratio of SVM emissions to PM emissions 
would remain constant.
    D/F and Hg are adsorbed onto the surface of carbonaceous 
particulates (e.g., activated carbon). Smaller particulates have a 
larger surface area per mass of particulate than larger particulates, 
and thus D/F and Hg concentrations would be higher for smaller 
particulates. Thus, similar to SVM, as PM emissions increase and the 
ratio of larger particulates to smaller particulates increases, the 
ratio of D/F and Hg emissions to total particulate emissions should 
decrease (i.e., because the larger particulates have a lower 
concentration of D/F and Hg).
    The PM CEMS operating parameter limit derived from performance test 
operations (i.e., calculated from historical CEMS data when the source 
operated within the regulations) could be increased without exceeding 
(theoretically) the MACT standards for SVM, LVM, and possibly D/F and 
Hg by the ratio of the standard for each of those HAPs to the 
performance test level of each HAP. It would be reasonably 
conservative, however, to project the higher PM operating parameter 
limit by the ratio of some fraction of the standard for those HAPs to 
the performance test level of each HAP. This fraction of the standard 
would need to allow for adequate flexibility for sources with low PM 
and HAPs for which PM control is required while ensuring that the 
standards are being met continuously. A specific percentage of the 
standard within the range of reasonable values--50% to 100%-- could be 
selected and would be appropriate given the uncertainty of projecting a 
PM operating limit that is a primary compliance measure for several 
MACT emissions standards. EPA believes choosing 75% of the standard as 
the basis for calculating the ratio is a reasonable balance of these 
issues. The percentage that would be appropriate is a point of interest 
for the Agency.
    Given that the PM CEMS operating parameter limit is a compliance 
measure for SVM, LVM, and possibly D/F and Hg the allowable higher 
projected PM CEMS operating parameter limit would be the lowest of the 
values projected for each of these standards. For example, if the 
projected PM CEMS operating parameter limit based on the ratio of 75% 
of the SVM standard to the SVM performance test level was lower than 
the PM CEMS operating parameter limit projections for LVM (and possibly 
D/F and Hg), then the SVM-projected PM CEMS operating parameter limit 
would be used to ensure that the SVM standard was not exceeded at the 
higher projected PM operating parameter limit.
    The Agency is concerned, however, about increasing the PM CEMS 
operating parameter limit itself by the ratios discussed above. This is 
because the limit would be established at the upper end of the range of 
actual CEMS readings, or perhaps at levels that statistically exceed 
what would be expected. See above discussion of options for calculating 
the PM CEMS operating parameter limit. It may be more appropriate to 
project the higher limit using the following options.
    Under option 1, the ratio determined above would be applied to the 
average PM emissions over time determined by the PM CEMS instead of 
applying the ratio directly to the unadjusted PM CEMS limit itself. The 
product of the ratio and the average PM emissions would then be 
subtracted from the average emissions to determine the correction to 
the PM CEMS operating parameter limit. This correction would then be 
added to the PM CEMS operating parameter limit to determine the revised 
PM CEMS operating parameter limit. Using the example described above 
and assuming average PM CEMS emissions are 2 mg/dscm, the lowest ratio 
(6.8 for PM) would be multiplied by the average PM emissions (2x6.8 = 
13.6) and the average emissions would be subtracted from this product 
(13.6-2). This difference (11.6) would be added to the PM CEMS 
operating parameter limit to obtain the revised PM CEMS operating 
parameter limit.
    Under option 2, the PM CEMS recordings during the performance test 
would be analyzed to calculate a PM CEMS operating parameter limit and 
that limit would be increased by the factor defined by the ratio 
discussed above (e.g., 6.8 in the first example). This approach would 
ensure that infrequent high PM episodes that occurred over months of 
CEMS operations would not be driving a PM CEMS limit that was then 
projected further upward using the factors discussed above (unless 
those high PM episodes actually occurred during the performance test). 
Given the truncated emissions database (i.e., the performance test) for 
calculating the higher projected limit under this option, however, the 
limit may in fact be lower than the limit normally calculated from the 
full CEMS emissions database (i.e., without attempted to project a 
higher limit). In this case, the limit which is numerically higher 
would be used.
    The Agency requests information on which approach would be more 
appropriate for projecting a higher PM CEMS operating parameter limit.
    c. Ensuring that the higher projected PM CEMS operating parameter 
limit

[[Page 67800]]

does not exceed the MACT PM standard. The PM CEMS operating parameter 
limit would also be used to ensure compliance with the MACT PM 
standard. We reiterate that the PM CEMS operating parameter limit is 
not a measure of the emissions standard--the emissions standard is 
defined in the rule as being measured by using manual methods--it is 
instead an operating parameter limit used to ensure compliance with the 
applicable standards. As discussed in section 1, above, it is likely 
that due to several factors the PM CEMS operating parameter would have 
a different numerical value that the MACT PM standard.
    One reason for different numerical values is the use of different 
techniques (i.e., one is manual methods based while the other is CEMS-
based) to determine a PM emissions value. The use of a manual method 
test to determine a value is only a limited-time (e.g., 3 to 24 hours 
every five years) measure of emissions, whereas a CEMS is a continuous 
measure of emissions (e.g., <difference>1 minute readings all the 
time). Although the manual method will likely be a measure of ``high-
end'' PM emissions during performance testing, it may not account for 
all potential variability during normal operations. The use of a CEMS 
to monitor PM emissions is a way to continuously measure the 
variability of (both low and high) PM emissions, inherent in any 
engineered system.
    Additionally, different values may be a result of the different 
averaging periods stated for manual methods-based PM standard and the 
PM CEMS operating parameter limit. See section 4, above, for a 
discussion of the interrelationship between a numerical value of a 
limit or standard and the averaging period. Having a PM CEMS operating 
parameter limit with a different, possibly higher, numerical limit is 
permissible and does not negate the value of the PM CEMS operating 
parameter, provided there is reasonable correlation between the 
operating parameter and the MACT PM standard. This section explains how 
EPA would ensure that the numerically larger, revised PM CEMS operating 
parameter limit would not violate the national PM standard.
    Ensuring that the higher projected PM CEMS operating parameter 
limit does not exceed the MACT PM standard is complicated by the fact 
that the PM operating parameter limit would be CEMS-based while the 
MACT PM standard would be manual method-based. Nonetheless, compliance 
with the MACT PM standard can be ensured by limiting the increase in 
the PM CEMS operating parameter limit (i.e., the projected PM CEMS 
operating parameter limit divided by the limit prior to projection) to 
the ratio of the MACT PM standard to the performance test PM level on a 
manual method basis. Given that projections rather than measured values 
would be used to ensure compliance with a standard, it may be prudent 
to limit the increase in the projected PM CEMS operating parameter 
limit to the ratio of 75% of the MACT PM standard to the performance 
test PM level. A conservative factor of 75% is within the range of 
reasonable values the Agency could have selected--50% to 100%. 
Regarding the specific percentage EPA chooses, the reader is referred 
to the previous discussion regarding the percentage EPA chooses for the 
HAP standards that require PM control to ensure compliance.
    Using the example from above and making the same assumptions, the 
ratios would be calculated using 75 <greek-m>/dscm, 41<greek-m>/dscm, 
and 26 mg/dscm in the numerator for SVM, LVM, and PM. These values are 
75% of the standards for incinerators EPA discussed in the May 2, 1997, 
HWC NODA. The resulting rations would be 7.5, 5.9, and 5.1. Since the 
ratio calculated for PM is the lowest, ratio used to determine the 
revised PM CEMS operating parameter limit would be 5.1.
    d. Establishing Revised Operating Parameter Limits for the PM 
Control Device Corresponding to the Higher Projected PM CEMS Operating 
Parameter Limit. Ideally, PM control device operating parameter limits 
(e.g, pressure drop across a fabric filter) should be established to 
ensure compliance with the higher projected PM CEMS operating parameter 
limit for compliance purposes while the CEMS is malfunctioning. Absent 
these revised (i.e., less stringent) operating parameter limits, the 
source would be required to: (1) Comply with the more stringent 
operating parameter limits established during the performance test that 
correspond to the original PM CEMS operating parameter limit; or (2) 
ensure that a back-up CEMS is always available.
    The Agency is considering an approach to establish revised 
operating parameter limits for the PM control device corresponding to 
operations at the higher projected PM CEMS operating parameter limit. 
Under this approach, the source would analyze the historical operating 
parameter values during those periods of time that PM emissions were 
close to the higher projected PM CEMS operating parameter limit. Issues 
that must be addressed, include: (1) What range of PM CEMS operating 
parameter limit values should be considered to develop the database for 
PM control device operating parameter values; and (2) how should the 
database be analyzed to identify appropriate limits.
    It may be appropriate to establish the revised PM control device 
operating parameter limits based on the 90th percentile of values that 
occur when PM levels are within 75% of the higher projected PM CEMS 
operating parameter limit. This would help ensure that a significant 
data set was available for evaluation and that the limits were not 
based on the most lenient values recorded. This is important because 
the higher projected PM CEMS operating parameter limit is likely to be 
well beyond the calibration curve. <SUP>24</SUP>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ A source would be allowed to operate infrequently at levels 
approaching a higher, projected PM CEMS operating parameter limit 
that is beyond the calibration curve. If, however, a source operates 
for prolonged periods at levels above the calibration curve, it must 
perform Method 5 tests at those higher concentrations and include 
those higher PM levels in the POM CEMS calibration. See discussion 
on extrapolating PM CEMS calibration data elsewhere in today's 
notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based on further analysis, the Agency may consider other approaches 
to define an appropriate data set of PM control device operating limits 
and identify appropriate limits (e.g., considering a different 
percentage of the historical data and/or basing the limit on a 
different percentile of data). Alternatively, the Agency may conclude 
that these approaches to revise the performance test-based operating 
parameter limits would be too complicated or difficult for regulatory 
officials to oversee, or that it would be difficult to confirm 
compliance with the standards. In this event, sources would be required 
to continue to comply with the PM control device operating parameter 
limits established during the performance test when the CEMS 
malfunctions even though the PM CEMS operating parameter limit has been 
projected upward under procedures discussed above.
    e. Implementing the Variance. Sources requesting the variance to 
project a higher PM CEMS operating parameter limit would include the 
request with the Certification of PM CEMS Performance (CoP) that would 
be submitted within 12 months after the Compliance Date. The variance 
request must include documentation of the analyses described above to 
identify the higher projected PM CEMS operating parameter limit and the 
revised, PM control device operating parameters associated with the 
higher projected PM

[[Page 67801]]

operating parameter limit. Sources would be allowed to comply with the 
higher projected PM CEMS operating parameter limit immediately upon 
submitting the CoP. Regulatory officials would have three months to 
review the variance request, however, and to notify the source of 
intent to disapprove the higher projected PM CEMS operating parameter 
limit (or the associated revised PM control device operating parameter 
limits for use during CEMS malfunctions). In such cases, the regulatory 
officials would provide the basis of their initial decision and provide 
the source with an opportunity to present, within 30 calendar days, 
additional information before final action on the variance.
7. EPA's PM CEMS Testing Program to Identify a CEMS-Based Emission 
Level Achievable by MACT-Controlled Sources
    The Agency is undertaking an additional PM CEMS testing program to 
identify CEMS-based emission levels that are achievable by hazardous 
waste combustors (i.e., hazardous waste burning incinerators, cement 
kilns, and lightweight aggregate kilns) using MACT control. The testing 
is scheduled to begin in December 1997 and results should be analyzed 
by December 1998. The Agency is working with representatives of the 
regulated community to identify one source in each of the three source 
categories that is using MACT control and that would be likely to 
define the most achievable level (i.e., considering average PM 
emissions and emissions variability) for MACT-controlled sources.
    Although these test results will not be used as part of the final 
rule, the data will be valuable to permitting authorities and the 
regulated community as a PM CEMS emission benchmark that is achievable 
using MACT controls. Permitting authorities could use the data to 
identify sources that appear to have established an anomalously high 
CEMS-based PM operating parameter limit, and as a framework within 
which to review Certifications of Performance in a cost-effective 
manner. Likewise, sources wanting to ensure that their facility is 
operating in a manner representative of MACT control could use this 
information to see if their CEMS-based PM operating parameter limits 
are below the levels that MACT sources show are achievable using MACT 
control.

C. RCA Test Frequency

    In the proposed rule, EPA said that facilities would be required to 
perform relative calibration audits (RCAs) on their PM CEMS every 18 
months. This testing interval would be relaxed to 30 months for small 
on-site incinerators. These time intervals coincided with the proposed 
Performance Test intervals. If these tests can be performed at the same 
time as the performance tests, cost savings can be realized by the 
facility relative to what the costs would be if the tests were not 
conducted at the same time. As a result of the analysis of comments on 
the performance test frequency, the Agency is considering requiring all 
facilities to conduct comprehensive performance tests every five (5) 
years. Therefore, we prefer that RCA tests be performed every five 
years.
    One of the goals of the PM CEMS Demonstration Test program was to 
quantitatively define what RCA frequency is appropriate for PM CEMS. 
Unfortunately, variability in the manual method masks any error that 
can be identified as being caused by drift in the PM CEMS over time. 
Therefore, we are unable to use the PM CEMS data from the demonstration 
tests to extrapolate to an appropriate re-test frequency \25\.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ In fact as method accuracy improved, the PM CEMS 
calibration statistics got better over time. Extrapolating this data 
would lead to erroneous conclusion that no retesting is ever needed, 
since the PM CEMS calibration keeps getting better.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Lacking these long-term data, it is important to look at what is 
done in other countries to qualitatively determine this RCA test 
frequency. The United Kingdom (UK) requires that retesting be conducted 
at least every year, and in Germany testing is required every 3 to 5 
years. The RCA test frequency could therefore reasonably be between one 
and five years. The UK, though, heavily relies on manual methods 
testing--so much so that they believe using gas bottles is cost 
prohibitive for gaseous (e.g., NO<INF>x</INF> and SO<INF>x</INF>) CEMS 
testing and rely on manual methods testing instead. EPA is inclined to 
believe that the German's longer retest frequency is more consistent 
with our regulatory framework.

D. Extrapolating PM CEMS Calibration Data

    One-minute or batch PM CEMS readings during the course of 
operations are likely to occasionally exceed the highest M5i 
calibration point during the course of PM CEMS use. This is because the 
manual method results used to derive the calibration are (nominally) 
one hour block averages of emissions over the sampling period while the 
PM CEMS readings are averages of emissions on the order of minutes. See 
section 4, above, regarding the interrelationship the numerical limits 
of a standard or limit and its associated averaging period. In 
addition, emissions variability within the sampling period of M5 is not 
likely to represent the full range of emissions variability over all 
periods of PM CEMS operation. Therefore, a system is needed to allow 
the extrapolation of data beyond the calibration curve.
    The revised calibration and implementation scheme described in 
today's notice (i.e., multiple calibrations (for light-scattering PM 
CEMS) over the full range of emissions at the facility) will result in 
a calibration from which some reasonable and limited extrapolation is 
reasonable. Therefore, the Agency proposes to allow the calibration 
curve to be used for measurements up to 25% more than the maximum M5 
\26\ measurement observed during the calibration. (This will be 
referred to as the ``125% point.'') Beyond this point (125% of the 
highest M5 measurement) EPA is concerned that extrapolating the 
calibration data might lead to false compliance determinations. 
Therefore, some environmentally conservative approach must be employed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ In this context, M5 is meant to refer to all the methods 
(Method 5, Method 5A, . . ., Method 5I) used to calibrate PM CEMS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Note that the ability to extrapolate beyond the calibration curve 
in no way would mitigate the facility's requirement to calibrate over 
its full range of PM emissions. If a facility experiences continuous 
periods of PM emissions beyond the calibration curve, it would be 
obligated to perform tests to capture these data into the calibration 
curve. For example, a facility may determine that it occasionally has 
several continuous hours of PM CEMS readings which are greater than the 
125% point. Several continuous hours are enough time to conduct a M5 
test, so the facility would be obligated to conduct M5 tests at this 
emissions level and include these data in the calibration curve used at 
the facility. EPA requests comment on how long a period of sustained 
operations at emissions levels greater than the 125% point would be 
necessary to require these additional calibration data points.
1. Extrapolating Light-Scattering PM CEMS Calibration Data
    If it is necessary to extrapolate beyond the 125% point, an 
environmentally conservative approach would consist of determining the 
slope of the calibration curve at the 125% point and have the 
calibration continue with a slope equal to or greater than the slope of 
the curve at the 125% point. For example if the

[[Page 67802]]

curve is a log-normal relation, the slope of the curve at the 125% 
point would be positive, but less than the slope of a straight line 
that would also describe the correlation between method results and PM 
CEMS outputs. Therefore, if a log-normal relationship best describes 
the calibration curve, facilities should extrapolate beyond the 125% 
point using a straight line beyond the 125% point. The slope of the 
straight line would be the slope of the log-normal curve, taken from 
the points on the calibration curve associated with the lowest M5 
measurement and the 125% point.
    If the calibration curve is best described by a straight line 
arithmetic fit, then extrapolating beyond this 125% point would depend 
on the slope of any quadratic fit of the data. If the quadratic curve 
slopes negative at higher values of PM CEMS outputs, then the straight 
line defined by the calibration would be used to extrapolate beyond the 
125% point. If the quadratic fit slopes positive at higher values of PM 
CEMS outputs, then the quadratic fit would be used beyond the 125% 
point.
    Finally, if the calibration curve is a quadratic fit, then the 
quadratic fit can be used to extrapolate all data \27\.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ Note: If the slope of the quadratic fit is ever less than 
zero for values of PM CEMS output above what was measured by the 
manual method (that is, it ever has a negative slope), this 
indicates that the correlation between M5 measurements and PM CEMS 
output is not represented by a quadratic fit and that another 
mathematical model should be used.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Extrapolation of Beta-gage Calibration Data
    For Beta-gage PM CEMS, extrapolating beyond the 125% point would 
involve continuing the straight line defined by its linear calibration 
equation. Beta-gage PM CEMS apparently are not sensitive to particle 
changes in the physical characteristics of particulate, as the light-
scattering PM CEMS are. Therefore, a straight-line fit best represents 
the calibration for beta-gage PM CEMS at all times.

E. Need to Calibrate to Twice the Emissions Standard

    One issue raised by commenters during the comment period for the 
proposed rule was EPA's proposal that facilities calibrate the PM CEMS 
to twice the emissions limit. Commenters raised concerns that 
facilities might not be able to emit PM at a concentration equal to 
twice the standard. They also said this aspect of the proposal in 
essence asks facilities to violate the emission standard and could lead 
to an enforcement action against the facility. Commenters also had 
concerns that facility personnel may not be sufficiently familiar with 
the various process and APCD factors to acceptably calibrate the PM 
CEMS over the full range of operations experienced at the facility. 
Each of these points are discussed in the following paragraphs.
    EPA agrees that it would be difficult for many facilities to emit 
PM at any prescribed level. Many facilities have redundancies in their 
PM APCDs to such an extent that emitting to the emissions limit may be 
problematic. However to have accurate PM CEMS measurements, facilities 
need to calibrate the PM CEMS over the full range of emissions 
experienced at the facility. As a result, it would be necessary to 
require facilities to calibrate the PM CEMS over the full range of 
operations, including PM emissions. This would eliminate the 
prescriptive nature of how high the calibration needs to be while still 
addressing the issue that the site-specific calibration of PM CEMS 
covers the broad range of PM emissions experienced at the facility.
    EPA does not agree, however, that this approach could cause 
facilities to violate the manual method MACT PM standard. The PM 
standard would be defined as the average of three manual method 
measurements. Any single run above the standard would not be a 
violation by itself. Average emissions over the calibration would be 
below the standard for a source equipped with MACT controls. Therefore, 
we expect that sources would be able to calibrate PM CEMS at levels 
higher than the PM emissions standard and still remain in compliance 
with the standard. If this is not practical, however, EPA may consider 
a waiver of the manual method PM standard during periods of calibrating 
(and performing RCA tests of) the PM CEMS. The need to obtain and audit 
an accurate calibration at and above the PM standard may override any 
concerns about high short-term PM emissions. EPA would want to limit 
the frequency and duration of calibration runs that exceed the 
standard, however. We request comment regarding how such limits could 
be implemented. One way this could occur is to require that sources 
request in the performance test plan approval to exceed the standard 
during calibration. Approval to exceed the standard would only be 
required if the average of all PM CEMS calibration runs is greater than 
the PM standard.
    The revised draft PS 11 states that different PM levels should be 
obtained by varying process conditions or, alternatively, by adjusting 
the APC system. It is relatively silent in presenting a well-defined 
protocol with guidelines on how EPA expects calibration tests to be 
performed. This is because individual sources should know best how to 
vary their PM emissions. For instance, inserting a throttle plate in 
lieu of one (or several) bags in a baghouse and varying the opening of 
the throttle plate(s) is likely an effective way to vary PM 
concentration for the calibration at a facility equipped with a 
baghouse. Varying power to an ESP and simulating various failure modes 
(such as lowering the temperature in the ESP to cause condensation on 
the plates) is likely vary PM sufficiently for the calibration at 
sources equipped with an ESP.
    The experience gained during the PM CEMS Demonstration tests 
suggests that one can obtain a suitable range of emissions by varying 
process conditions that affect inlet PM loading to the last in a series 
of PM APCDs and adjusting the performance of that last APCD. Exactly 
how this is accomplished at a given facility will vary and depend on 
the waste fed to the unit, how the facility is designed and operated, 
and in what order the APCDs are configured. Therefore, the language in 
the revised PS11 is adequate. More prescriptive language may not work 
in most cases.
    Finally, EPA, will be working with industry representatives to 
develop approaches to better describe how calibration tests should be 
performed at individual HWC facilities. EPA expects to provide this 
information in a technical implementation guide.

F. Allowing PM CEMS to be Used In-lieu of Method 5 Tests

    Although the PM CEMS would be required only as an operating 
parameter, EPA intends to allow facilities to voluntarily elect to use 
the PM CEMS for compliance with manual methods-based PM standards. 
Using the PM CEMS for compliance is expected to provide a cost savings 
to the facility since the facility would not have to conduct periodic 
Method 5 tests to document compliance with PM standards. Instead a 
facility could elect to use the PM CEMS measurements during these 
periodic tests. This would be acceptable if the facility uses the block 
average of the PM CEMS readings during the M29 tests for the SVM and 
LVM standards as the particulate ``method result.''

G. Waivers from the PM CEMS Requirements

    In the proposed rule, EPA requested comment on waiving the PM and 
Hg CEMS requirement for small, on-site incinerators. See 61 FR at 
17439. Upon

[[Page 67803]]

further consideration, EPA has identified other classes of incinerators 
where a PM CEMS requirement may be impractical. If the PM CEMS 
requirement is waived for a given source, the facility would have to 
comply with operating parameter limits to assure compliance for PM. Of 
course, a facility could always elect to use a PM CEMS for compliance 
even if a waiver procedure is promulgated for that facility.
1. Waiver of PM and Hg CEMS Requirements for Small On-site Incinerators
    EPA is considering whether to waive the PM and Hg CEMS requirements 
for small, on-site incinerators (SOSI). See the proposed rule, 61 FR at 
17439. If a waiver is promulgated, a SOSI would be required to use 
existing operating parameters in lieu of a PM CEMS to document 
compliance with the PM, SVM, and LVM standards.
2. PM CEMS Waiver for Sources With Short Life-Spans
    Given the PM CEMS compliance schedule discussed in section IV.A, 
above, facilities with short, fixed life-spans raise several issues. 
For instance, certain government-run incinerators are constructed for 
the purposes of destroying waste that is too hazardous to transport 
off-site. These incinerators often have short life spans (ranging from 
months to a few years) and are constructed to fulfill the requirements 
of a consent decree, memorandum of understanding (MOU), or other 
legally binding enforcement agreement. For example the Department of 
Defense (DoD), acting under a MOU with EPA, may construct an 
incinerator to destroy nerve-gas agents that are too hazardous to 
transport. When this activity is complete, the MOU would obligate DoD 
to dismantle and destroy the incinerator.
    It does not seem practical to mandate that these facilities use PM 
CEMS if they will be in service for less than, or slightly longer than, 
the implementation schedule just discussed. Therefore, EPA is 
considering a waiver of the PM CEMS requirement for HWCs operating 
under a legally binding agreement that ensures the source will stop 
burning hazardous waste within three years of the Compliance Date.
    EPA could likewise grant a waiver from the PM CEMS requirement for 
facilities with short life-spans that lack the legally binding 
agreement discussed above. However, EPA is concerned that without a 
legally binding agreement to cease operations, the Agency lacks 
certainty that operations will cease by a prescribed date. For this 
reason, EPA would consider a waiver for other facilities that plan to 
cease operations within the first year of compliance with the HWC 
regulations, that is, prior to the need to use PM CEMS as the operating 
parameter for PM control. Facilities that operate after the first year 
would need to have PM CEMS installed, calibrated, meet data 
availability requirements, determine the PM CEMS operating parameter 
limit, and use the PM CEMS as the primary operating parameter for PM 
control.
3. Other Sources
    As discussed in section III.C. of this NODA, EPA may be unable to 
determine whether the results of the PM CEMS demonstration test can be 
transferred to two classes of incinerators: Those with waste heat 
boilers and mobile incinerators. See section III.C. for more 
information.

V. Other Issues Concerning CEMS and Test Methods for HWCs

A. Performance Specifications for Optional CEMS

    In the proposed rule, EPA proposed other performance specifications 
for multi-metals, hydrochloric acid (HCl), and chlorine gas 
(Cl<INF>2</INF>) CEMS. These performance specifications were proposed 
as PS10, 13, and 14, respectively. Based on what EPA has learned during 
the course of demonstrating PM and Hg CEMS, EPA expects not to 
promulgate the draft performance specifications (PS) for these CEMS at 
the time of the HWC final rule. As discussed in section II of today's 
notice, EPA does not plan to promulgate a PS for total mercury (Hg) 
CEMS either. The Agency has not tested MM and Cl<INF>2</INF> CEMS to 
determine what performance is achievable by the CEMS. Hg CEMS have not 
been demonstrated as a compliance tool for universal application to all 
HWCs. EPA has tested HCl CEMS in preparation for the medical waste 
incinerator rulemaking but did not require the use of HCl CEMS in that 
rulemaking (see discussion starting at 62 FR 48360, September 15, 1997) 
and does not believe requiring HCl CEMS for the HWC rulemaking is 
appropriate either (see 61 FR at 17433).
    Instead, EPA will consider enabling sources to demonstrate these 
CEMS on a site-specific basis and to develop performance levels for the 
CEMS as part of the demonstration. The Agency's only concern is that 
the CEMS be proven to be a better and more reliable indicator of 
compliance for the HAP or standard than the requirements specified in 
the regulations. This approach is now being used to demonstrate a 
multi-metals CEMS at the Von Roll incinerator in East Liverpool, Ohio.
    EPA intends to accumulate the CEMS demonstration results and 
experience and will share that information with permitting authorities 
and sources wishing to document compliance with CEMS. Since the HCl 
CEMS have been demonstrated by EPA, we believe the HCl CEMS performance 
specification could more easily be used as a point of departure for 
implementing HCl CEMS at a given facility.

B. Stack Sampling Test Methods

    Another question is whether EPA should simplify the task of 
determining the appropriate manual method tests to be used for 
compliance. Currently, stack sampling and analysis methods for HWCs are 
(with a few exceptions) located in RCRA's SW-846 for compliance with 
the BIF and incinerator rules, and in 40 CFR part 60, Appendix A for 
compliance with the NSPS and other air rules. Facilities could be 
required to perform two identical tests, one for compliance with MACT 
or RCRA and one for compliance with other air rules, using identical 
test methods simply because one method is an ``SW-846'' method and the 
other an ``air method.''
    Stack test methods HWCs use for compliance should be found in one 
place to facilitate compliance. EPA intends to reference 40 CFR part 
60, Appendix A, when it requires a specific stack-sampling test method. 
A few SW-846 methods do not have equivalents in 40 CFR part 60, 
Appendix A, namely the VOST and semi-VOST methods. In these few cases, 
EPA would continue to refer to these SW-846 methods as well.
    This discussion only affects stack sampling methods and has no 
affect on feedstream sampling and analysis.

    Dated: December 19, 1997.
Matt Hale,
Acting Director, Office of Solid Waste.

Appendix I--Method 5i

Method 5I--Determination of Low Level Particulate Matter Emissions From 
Stationary Sources

1.  Applicability and Principal

    1.1  Applicability. This method applies to the determination of 
low level particulate matter (PM) emissions from stationary sources 
and facilities performing calibrations or calibration audits of 
particulate matter continuous emission monitors as specified in the 
regulations. The method is effective for total train catches of 50 
mg or less. The minimum detection limit for this method can be 
determined by repeatedly collecting and analyzing blank samples. A 
blank sample is a sample of blank air collected and analyzed

[[Page 67804]]

in the normal manner. The limit of detection can be calculated by 
collecting and analyzing seven blank samples and then calculating an 
estimate of the sample standard deviation of these blanks. The limit 
of detection would be three times the estimated sample standard 
deviation.
    1.2  Principal. The PM is withdrawn isokinetically from the 
source and collected on a 47 mm glass fiber filter maintained at a 
temperature of 120 deg. <plus-minus>14 deg.C (248 deg. 
<plus-minus>25 deg.F). The PM mass, which includes any material that 
condenses at or above the filtration temperature, is determined 
gravimetrically after the removal of uncombined water.

2. Apparatus

    2.1  Sampling Train. The sampling train configuration is the 
same as shown in Method 5, Figure 5-1. The sampling train consists 
of the following components: Pitot Tube, Probe liner Differential 
Pressure Gauge, Filter Heating System, Condenser, Metering System, 
Barometer, and Gas Density Determination Equipment. Same as Method 
5, Sections 2.1.2 to 2.1.4, 2.1.6 and 2.1.7 to 2.1.10, respectively.
    2.1.1  Probe Nozzle. Same as Method 5, Sections 2.1.1 with the 
exception that it is constructed of Borosilicate or quartz glass 
tubing with sharp, tapered leading edge.
    2.1.2  Filter Holder. The filter holder for this sampling train 
is constructed of Borosilicate or quartz glass front cover designed 
to hold a 47 mm glass fiber filter, with a stainless steel filter 
support, a silicone rubber or Viton O-ring and Teflon tape seal. The 
holder design will provide a positive seal against leakage from the 
outside or around the filter. The filter holder assembly fits into a 
stainless steel filter holder and attaches immediately at the outlet 
of the probe (or cyclone, if used). The tare weight of the filter, 
Borosilicate or quartz glass, stainless steel filter support, 
silicone rubber or Viton O-ring and Teflon tape seal will not exceed 
31 grams. The filter holder is designed to use a 47 mm glass fiber 
filter meeting the criteria in section 3.1.1 of Method 5. Figure 5I-
1 presents a schematic of the filter holder system. These units are 
commercially available.
    2.1.3  Glass Plugs and Clamps. Once the filter holder has been 
assembled, desiccated and tared it is critical that the filter be 
isolated from any external sources of contamination. This can be 
accomplished by covering the leak-free ground glass or O-ring socket 
on the front half glass filter cover with a Borosilicate or quartz 
ground glass plug. The plug shall be secured in place with the 
appropriate sized laboratory impinger clamp or any system that can 
ensure a leak-free fitting. It is beneficial to place the glass plug 
on the inlet socket as soon as the unit is assembled, however do not 
tare the assembly with the plug in place, as this will increase the 
tare weight introducing additional error into the final weighings.
    2.2  Sample Recovery. Is the same as Method 5 for: Glass Sample 
Storage Containers, Graduated Cylinder and/or Balance, Plastic 
Storage Containers, Funnel and Rubber Policeman (Method 5 sections 
2.2.3, 2.2.5--2.2.8, respectively) with the following exceptions:
    2.2.1  Probe-Liner and Probe-Nozzle Brushes. Teflon<SUP></SUP> 
and nylon bristle brushes with stainless steel wire handles, should 
be used to clean the probe. The probe brush shall have extensions 
(at least as long as the probe) of Nylon, Teflon<SUP></SUP>, or 
similarly inert material. The brushes shall be properly sized and 
shaped to brush out the probe liner and nozzle.
    2.2.2  Wash Bottles--Two. Teflon<SUP></SUP> wash bottles are 
recommended however, polyethylene wash bottles may be used at the 
option of the tester. It is recommended that acetone not be stored 
in polyethylene bottles for longer than a month.
    2.2.3  Sample Holder: A portable carrying case with clean 
compartments of sufficient size to accommodate each filter assembly. 
The filters shall be able to lay flat with the stainless steel 
filter support placed down in the compartment. This system should 
have an air tight seal to prevent contamination to the filters 
during transport to and from the field. It is recommended that 
desiccant be used in this case. The desiccant, if used, is housed in 
a container that is capped with a 0.1 micron screen to ensure that 
no dust particles can contaminate the outside of the filter housings 
during transport.
    2.3  Analysis. The same as Method 5 for sections 2.3.2-2.3.7 
with the following exception:
    2.3.1  Teflon<SUP></SUP> Liner: Teflon liners are used for the 
analysis of the probe and nozzle particulate catch. The liners are 
washed with soap (Alconox or similar low residue laboratory soap) 
and water. Each liner is then rinsed with DI Water followed by an 
acetone (low residue) rinse. The static charge on the liners is 
removed using an anti-static rinse and then the liners are oven 
dried and desiccated.

3. Reagents

    3.1  Sampling. The reagents used in sampling are the same as 
Method 5 for: Silica Gel, Water, Crushed Ice, Sample Recovery 
Reagents, and Desiccant (sections 3.1.2-3.1.5, 3.2-3.3.2) with the 
following exceptions:
    3.1.1  Filters. 47 mm Glass fiber filters, without organic 
binder, exhibiting at least 99.95 percent efficiency (<0.05 percent 
penetration) on 0.3-micron dioctyl phthalate smoke particles. The 
filter efficiency test shall be conducted in accordance with ASTM 
Standard Method D2986-71 (Reapproved 1978) (incorporated by 
reference--see Sec. 60.17). Test data from the supplier's quality 
control program are sufficient for this purpose. In sources 
containing SO<INF>2</INF> or SO<INF>3</INF>, the filter material 
must be of a type that is unreactive to SO<INF>2</INF> or 
SO<INF>3</INF>. Citation 10 in the Bibliography for Method 5, may be 
used to select the appropriate filter.
    3.1.2  Stopcock Grease. Stopcock grease cannot be used with this 
sampling train. It is recommended that the sampling train be 
configured with glass joints, using o-ring seals or screw-on 
connectors with Teflon<SUP></SUP> sleeves, or similar.
    3.1.3  Acetone. Pesticide grade or equivalent low residue type 
Acetone is used for the recovery of particulate matter from the 
probe and nozzle.
    3.1.4  Latex Gloves. Disposable, powder free, latex surgical 
gloves are used for all handling of the filter housings at all 
times.

4. Procedure

    4.1  Sampling. The complexity of this method is such that, in 
order to obtain reliable results, testers should be trained and 
experienced with the test procedures. The sampling procedures are 
the same as Method 5 for: Preliminary Determinations, Leak-Check 
Procedures, Particulate Train Operation (sections 4.1.2, 4.1.4, 
4.1.5 respectively ) with the following exceptions:
    4.1.1  Pretest Preparation. Is the same as Method 5, section 
4.1.1 with the following exception: Label filter supports prior to 
loading filters into the holder assembly. This can be accomplished 
with a diamond scribe. As an alternative, label the shipping 
container compartments (glass or plastic) and keep the filter holder 
assemblies in these compartments at all times except during sampling 
and weighing. Using the powder free latex surgical gloves (surgical 
gloves must be used at all times when handling the filter holder 
assemblies). Place the Viton<SUP></SUP> O-ring on the back of the 
filter housing in the O-ring grove. Place a 47mm glass fiber filter 
on the O-ring with the face down. Place a stainless steel filter 
holder against the back of the filter. Carefully wrap \1/4\ inch 
wide Teflon<SUP></SUP> tape one time around the outside of the 
filter holder overlapping the stainless steel filter support by 
approximately \1/8\ inch. Gently brush the Teflon<SUP></SUP> tape 
down on the back of the stainless steel filter support. Desiccate 
the filter holder assemblies at 20<plus-minus>5.6 deg. C 
(68<plus-minus>10 deg. F) and ambient pressure for at least 24 hours 
and weigh at intervals of at least 6 hours to a constant weight, 
i.e., 0.5 mg change from previous weighing; record results to the 
nearest 0.1 mg. During each weighing the filter holder assemblies 
must not be exposed to the laboratory atmosphere for a period 
greater than 2 minutes and a relative humidity above 30 percent. 
Alternatively (unless otherwise specified by the Administrator), the 
filters holder assemblies may be oven dried at 105 deg. C (220 deg. 
F) for 2 to 3 hours, desiccated for 2 hours, and weighed.
    4.1.2  Same as Method 5, section 4.1.2.
    4.1.3  Preparation of Collection Train. Is the same as Method 5, 
section 4.1.3 with the following exception: During preparation and 
assembly of the sampling train, keep all openings where 
contamination can occur covered until just prior to assembly or 
until sampling is about to begin. Using clean disposable powder free 
latex surgical gloves, place a labeled (identified) and weighed 
filter holder assembly in the stainless holder for the assembly. 
Then place this whole unit in the Method 5 hot box and attach it to 
the probe using clean standard connectors. Do not use any stopcock 
grease.
    4.2  Sample Recovery. Proper cleanup procedure begins as soon as 
the probe is removed from the stack at the end of the sampling 
period. Allow the probe to cool. When the probe can be safely 
handled, wipe off all external particulate matter near the tip of 
the probe nozzle and place a cap over it to prevent losing or 
gaining particulate matter. Do not cap off the probe tip tightly 
while the sampling train is cooling down as this would create a 
vacuum in the filter holder, thus drawing water from the impingers 
into the filter holder. Before

[[Page 67805]]

moving the sample train to the cleanup site, remove the probe from 
the sample train and cap the open outlet of the probe. Be careful 
not to lose any condensate that might be present. Cap the filter 
inlet using a standard ground glass plug and secure the cap with an 
impinger clamp. Remove the umbilical cord from the last impinger and 
cap the impinger. If a flexible line is used between the first 
impinger or condenser and the filter holder, disconnect the line at 
the filter holder and let any condensed water or liquid drain into 
the impingers or condenser. Transfer the probe and filter-impinger 
assembly to the cleanup area. This area should be clean and 
protected from the wind so that the chances of contaminating or 
losing the sample will be minimized. Save a portion of the acetone 
used for cleanup of the probe and nozzle as a blank. Take 200 ml of 
this acetone directly from the wash bottle being used and place it 
in a glass sample container labeled ``acetone blank.'' Inspect the 
train prior to and during disassembly and note any abnormal 
conditions. Treat the samples as follows:
    Container No. 1. Carefully remove the filter holder assembly 
from the Method 5 hot box and place it in the transport case. Use a 
pair of clean disposable powder free latex surgical gloves to handle 
the filter holder assembly. If the transport case is being used to 
identify and track the filter holder assemblies the entire transport 
container will need to be of sufficient size and shape to fit in the 
desiccator at the laboratory. It is important to ensure that the 
assemblies have cooled sufficiently to prevent the surgical gloves 
from melting on the filter holder assembly.
    Container No. 2. Same as Method 5 Container No. 2 with the 
exception that it is recommended that only glass sample containers 
be used for collection of the sample from the probe and nozzle to 
minimize the potential for background contamination.
    Container No. 3. Same as Method 5 Container No. 3.
    4.3  Analysis. Same as Method 5 section 4.3 with the following 
exceptions:
    Container No. 1. Same as Method 5 Section 4.3 Container No. 1 
with the following exception: Use disposable powder free latex 
surgical gloves to remove each of the filter holder assemblies from 
the desiccator or transport container.
    Container No. 2. Same as Method 5 Section 4.3 Container No. 2 
with the following exception: It is recommended that the contents of 
Container 2 be transferred to a 250 ml beaker with a Teflon\ liner 
or similar container that has a minimal tare weight prior to 
bringing to dryness.
    Container No. 3. Same as Method 5 Section 4.3 Container No. 3
    4.4  Quality Control Procedures. The Quality Control Procedures 
used in sampling are the same as Method 5 for: Meter Orifice Check 
and Calibrated Critical Orifice (sections 4.4.1--4.4.2).

5. Calibration.

    The Calibration Procedures used are the same as Method 5: Probe 
Nozzle, Pitot Tube, Metering System, Probe Heater Calibration, 
Temperature Gauges, Leak Check of Metering System Shown in Method 5 
Figure 5-1, Barometer (sections 5.1--5.7).

6. Calculations

    The Calculations used are the same as Method 5 for: 
Nomenclature, Average Dry Gas Meter Temperature and Average Orifice 
Pressure Drop, Dry Gas Volume, Volume of Water Vapor, Acetone Blank 
Concentration, Total Particulate Weight, Particulate Concentration, 
Conversion Factors, Isokinetic Variation, Acceptable Results, Stack 
Gas Velocity and Volumetric Flow Rate (sections 6.1--6.13).

7. Alternative Procedures

    The Alternative Procedures used are the same as Method 5 for: 
Dry Gas Meter as a Calibration Standard, Critical Orifices As 
Calibration Standards, (sections 7.1--7.2).

8. Bibliography

    The Bibliography used is the same as Method 5.

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P

[[Page 67806]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP30DE97.028



BILLING CODE 6560-50-C

[[Page 67807]]

Appendix II--Performance Specification 11

PERFORMANCE SPECIFICATION 11--Specifications and test procedures for 
particulate matter continuous emission monitoring systems in stationary 
sources.

211.0 Scope and Application

    1.1  Analyte. Particulate matter as defined and determined by 
the Reference Method--Method 5 or Method 5I.
    1.2  Applicability.
    1.2.1  This specification is for evaluating the acceptability of 
particulate matter (PM) continuous emission monitoring systems 
(CEMS) at the time of or soon after installation and whenever 
specified in the regulations. The CEMS may include, for certain 
stationary sources, (a) a diluent monitor (i.e., O<INF>2</INF>, CO, 
or other CEMS specified in the applicable regulation), which must 
meet its own performance specifications found in this appendix, (b) 
auxiliary monitoring equipment to allow measurement, determination, 
or input of the gas temperature, pressure, moisture content, and/or 
dry volume of stack effluent sampled, and (c) an automatic sampling 
system.
    This performance specification requires site specific 
calibration of the PM CEMS response against manual gravimetric 
Reference Method measurements. Procedures for extrapolating results 
beyond the range of particulate mass loadings used to develop the 
calibration are found in the applicable regulations. A new 
calibration may be required if conditions at the facility change and 
result in conditions which are unrepresentative of the previous 
calibration (i.e., changes in emission control system, concentration 
of PM emitted, or feed inputs to the device). Since the validity of 
the calibration may be affected by changes in the physical 
properties of the particulate (such as density, index of refraction, 
and size distribution), the limitations of the CEMS used should be 
evaluated with respect to these possible changes on a site specific 
basis.
    1.2.2  This specification is not designed to evaluate the 
installed CEMS performance over an extended period of time nor does 
it identify specific calibration techniques and auxiliary procedures 
to assess CEMS performance. The source owner or operator, however, 
is responsible to properly calibrate, maintain, and operate the 
CEMS. The Administrator may require, under Section 114 of the Act, 
the operator to conduct CEMS performance evaluations at other times 
besides the initial test to evaluate the CEMS performance. See 
Appendix F to Part 60--Procedure 2, Quality Assurance Requirements 
For Particulate Matter Continuous Emission Monitoring Systems Used 
For Compliance Determination.

2.0  Summary of Performance Specification.

    Procedures for establishing the CEMS calibration are outlined in 
this performance specification. CEMS installation and measurement 
location specifications, equipment specifications, performance 
specifications, and data reduction procedures are also included. 
Conformance of the CEMS with the Performance Specifications is 
determined.

3.0 Definitions

    3.1  Batch Sampling means the technique of sampling the stack 
effluent continuously and concentrating the pollutant in some 
capture medium. The capture medium is moved periodically for 
analysis after sufficient time has elapsed to concentrate the 
pollutant to levels detectable by the analyzer. Continuous sampling 
is ensured by sampling (either on a different part of the capture 
medium or a different capture medium) while analysis is being 
performed on a previous sample.
    3.2  Calibration Drift (CD) means the difference in the CEMS 
output readings from the established reference value after a stated 
period of operation during which no unscheduled maintenance, repair, 
or manual adjustment took place.
    3.3  Calibration means the site-specific correlation between the 
CEMS output and the PM mass concentration measured by the Reference 
Method.
    3.4  Calibration Standard means a reference material that 
produces a known and unchanging response when presented to the 
pollutant analyzer portion of the CEMS, and used to calibrate the 
drift or response of the analyzer.
    3.5  Centroidal Area means a concentric area that is 
geometrically similar to the stack or duct cross section and is no 
greater than 1 percent of the stack or duct cross sectional area.
    3.6  Confidence Interval means the interval defined by equations 
13 and 23 of this performance specification with upper and lower 
limits within which the CEMS response calibration relation lies with 
a given level of confidence.
    3.7  Continuous Emission Monitoring System (CEMS) means the 
total equipment required for the determination of particulate matter 
mass concentration in units of the emission standard. The sample 
interface, pollutant analyzer, diluent analyzer, other auxiliary 
data monitor(s) and data recorder are the major subsystems of the 
CEMS.
    3.8  Correlation coefficient means that portion of the 
statistical evaluation that measures how well the CEMS and Reference 
Method calibration relation data fit the regression line as defined 
by equation 16 of this performance specification.
    3.9  Data Recorder means that portion of the CEMS that provides 
a permanent record of the analyzer output and the final PM 
concentration result in units of the emission standard. The data 
recorder may provide automatic data reduction and CEMS control 
capabilities.
    3.10  Diluent Analyzer and Other Auxiliary Data Monitor(s) (if 
applicable) means that portion of the CEMS that sense or otherwise 
provide the diluent gas (such as O<INF>2</INF> or CO, as specified 
by the applicable regulations), temperature, pressure, and/or 
moisture content, and generates an output proportional to the 
diluent gas concentration or data property.
    3.11  Linear Calibration means a CEMS response which is linear 
relative to the measured PM concentration produced by the Reference 
Method.
    3.12  Path CEMS means a CEMS that measures particulate matter 
mass concentrations along a path across the stack or duct cross 
section which is representative of results of the cross-sectional PM 
concentrations produced by the Reference Method.
    3.13  Point CEMS means a CEMS that measures particulate matter 
mass concentrations either at a single point, or over a small fixed 
volume or path, which is representative of the cross-sectional PM 
concentrations produced by the Reference Method.
    3.14  Pollutant Analyzer means that portion of the CEMS that 
senses the particulate matter concentration and generates a 
proportional output.
    3.15  Quadratic Calibration Relation means a CEMS response which 
has a second order equation to define its relationship to the 
measured PM concentration produced by the Reference Method.
    3.16  Reference Method. The Reference Method for particulate 
measurements is those methods collectively known as Method 5, found 
in Appendix A of 40 CFR Part 60. Unless other variants are specified 
in the regulations, Method 5 shall be used for total train catches 
exceeding 50 mg (i.e., emissions concentrations of more than 45 mg/
dscm). Method 5I shall be used for total train catches of less than 
or equal to 50 mg (i.e., emissions concentrations of 45 mg/dscm or 
less). If variants other than Method 5I are used, care should be 
taken to follow the general procedures described in Method 5I to aid 
in the elimination of measurement error. Other Reference Methods may 
be applicable, such as Method 1, 3, or 4. Methods other than Method 
5 are referred to in this specification individually by name.
    3.17 Representative Results means the results consistent with 
the acceptance criteria found in section 13.2 of this specification.
    3.18 Response Time means the time interval between the start of 
a step change in the system input and the time when the pollutant 
analyzer output reaches 95 percent of the final value.
    3.19 Sample Interface means that portion of the CEMS used for 
one or more of the following: sample acquisition, sample delivery, 
sample conditioning, or protection of the monitor from the effects 
of the stack effluent.
    3.20 Span Value means the upper limit of the CEMS measurement 
range. The span value shall be documented by the CEMS manufacturer 
with laboratory data.
    3.21 Tolerance Interval means the interval with upper and lower 
limits within which are contained a specified percentage of the 
population with a given level of confidence as defined by equation 
14 of this performance specification.
    3.22 Zero Drift (ZD) means the difference in the CEMS output 
readings for zero input after a stated period of operation during 
which no unscheduled maintenance, repair, or adjustment took place.

4.0 Interferences

    In the Reference Method a representative sample of particulate 
is collected on a filter maintained at a temperature in the range

[[Page 67808]]

specified by the method, and includes any material that deposits in 
sample delivery and condenses at or above this filtration 
temperature after removal of any combined water. Consequently, 
condensible water droplets or condensible acid gas aerosols (i.e., 
those with condensation temperatures above those specified by the 
method) at the measurement location can be interferences for PM CEMS 
if the necessary precautions are not systematically met. 
Interferences may develop for CEMS installed downstream of a wet air 
pollution control system or any other conditions that produce flue 
gases which are normally or occasionally saturated with water or 
acid gases prior to release to the atmosphere. For such conditions, 
the CEMS must extract and heat a representative sample of the flue 
gas for measurement to simulate results produced by the Reference 
Method. Independent of the CEMS measurement technology and 
extractive technique, a configuration simulating the Reference 
Method is required to assure that: (1) there is no formation or 
deposition of particulate in sample delivery from the stack or duct; 
and (2) the pollutant analyzer portion of the CEMS measures only 
native particulate. Performance of a CEMS design configured to 
eliminate interferences with condensible water and/or acid gases 
must be documented by the CEMS manufacturer (see Section 6.1.3 of 
this performance specification for specific equipment heating 
requirements). In-situ CEMS measurement technologies that are not 
free of interferences from any condensible constituent in the flue 
gas are prohibited in stack or duct flue gas conditions which are 
normally or occasionally saturated with water or acid gases.

5.0 Safety

    The procedures required under this performance specification may 
involve hazardous materials, operations, site conditions, and 
equipment. This performance specification does not purport to 
address all of the safety problems associated with these procedures. 
It is the responsibility of the user to establish appropriate safety 
and health practices and determine the applicable regulatory 
limitations prior to performing these procedures. The CEMS users' 
manual and materials recommended by the Reference Method should be 
consulted for specific precautions to be taken.

6.0 Equipment and Supplies

    6.1  CEMS Equipment Specifications
    6.1.1  Data Recorder Scale. The CEMS data recorder output range 
must include zero and a high level value. The high level value is 
chosen by the source owner or operator and is defined as follows:
    6.1.1.1 For a CEMS installed to measure emissions as required 
with an applicable regulation, the high level value between 1.5 
times the emission standard and the span value specified in the 
applicable regulation is adequate.
    6.1.1.2 Alternative high-level values may be used, provided the 
source can measure emissions throughout the full range of emissions 
concentrations experienced by the facility.
    6.1.1.3 The data recorder output must be established so that the 
high level value would read between 90 and 100 percent of the data 
recorder full scale. (This scale requirement may only be applicable 
to analog data recorders.) The zero and high level calibration gas, 
filter, or other appropriate media values should be used to 
establish the data recorder scale.
    6.1.1.4 The high level value must be equal to the span value. If 
a lower high level value is used, the CEMS must have the capability 
of providing multiple outputs with different high level values (one 
of which is equal to the span value) or be capable of automatically 
changing the high level value as required (up to the span value) 
such that the measured value does not exceed 95 percent of the high 
level value.
    6.1.1.5 Span. The span of the instrument shall be sufficient to 
determine the highest concentration of pollutant at the facility. 
The span value shall be documented by the CEMS manufacturer with 
laboratory data.
    6.1.2 The CEMS design should also allow daily determination and 
recording of calibration drift at the zero and high-level values. If 
this is not possible or practical, the design must allow these 
determinations and recordings to be conducted at a low-level (zero 
to 20 percent of the high-level value) and at a value between 50 and 
100 percent of the high-level value. In special cases, the 
Administrator may approve a single-point calibration drift 
determination.
    6.1.3 Specification for Saturated Flue Gas. For a CEMS installed 
downstream of a wet air pollution control system such that the flue 
gases are normally or occasionally saturated with water, then the 
CEMS must have equipment to extract and heat a representative sample 
of the flue gas for measurement so that the pollutant analyzer 
portion of the CEMS measures only dry particulate. Heating shall be 
sufficient to raise the temperature of the extracted flue gas to 
above the water condensation temperature and shall be maintained at 
all times and at all points in the sample line from where the flue 
gas is extracted to and including the pollutant analyzer. 
Performance of a CEMS design configured in this manner must be 
documented by the CEMS manufacturer.
    6.2 Sampling and Response Time. The CEMS shall sample the stack 
effluent continuously or intermittently for batch sampling CEMS. 
Averaging time, the number of measurements in an average, the 
minimum sampling time, and the averaging procedure for reporting and 
determining compliance shall conform with those specified in the 
applicable emission regulation.
    6.2.1 Response Time. The response time of the CEMS should not 
exceed 2 minutes to achieve 95 percent of the final stable value 
(except for Batch CEMS: see 6.2.2). The response time shall be 
documented and provided by the CEMS manufacturer. Any changes in the 
response time following installation shall be documented and 
maintained by the facility.
    6.2.2  Response Time for Batch CEMS. The response time 
requirement of Section 6.2.1 does not apply to batch CEMS. Instead 
it is required that the response time, which is the equivalent to 
the cycle time, be no longer than one tenth of the averaging period 
for the applicable standard or no longer than fifteen minutes, 
whichever is greater. In addition, the delay between the end of the 
sampling time and reporting of the sample analysis shall be no 
greater than three minutes. Any changes in the response time 
following installation shall be documented and maintained by the 
owner or operator.
    6.2.3 Sampling Time for Batch CEMS. Sampling is required to be 
continuous except during brief pauses when the collected pollutant 
on the capture media is being moved for analysis and the next 
capture medium starts sampling. In addition, the sampling time 
should be no less than thirty-five percent of the averaging period 
for the applicable standard or no less than thirty-five percent of 
the response time.
    6.3 Other equipment and supplies, as needed by the applicable 
Reference Method(s) (see Section 8.4.2 of this Performance 
Specification) or as specified by the CEMS manufacturer, may be 
required.

7.0 Reagents and Standards

    7.1 Reference Gases, Optical filters, or other technology-
appropriate reference media. As specified by the CEMS manufacturer 
for internal calibration (i.e., to adjust drift or response) of the 
CEMS. These need not be certified but shall be documented by the 
manufacturer to give results consistent with this performance 
specification.
    7.2 Reagents and Standards. May be required as needed by the 
applicable Reference Method(s) (see Section 8.4.2) of this 
performance specification).

8.0 Performance Specification Test Procedure

    8.1 Installation and Measurement Location Specifications.
    8.1.1 CEMS Installation. Install the CEMS at an accessible 
location downstream of all pollution control equipment where the 
particulate matter mass concentrations measurements are 
representative or can be corrected to be representative of the total 
emissions as determined by the Reference Method from the affected 
facility or at the measurement location cross section. It is 
important to select a representative measurement point(s) or path(s) 
for monitoring in location(s) that the CEMS will pass the 
calibration test (see Section 8.4). If the cause of failure to meet 
the calibration relation test is determined to be the measurement 
location and a satisfactory correction technique cannot be 
established, the Administrator may require the CEMS to be relocated. 
Suggested measurement locations and points or paths that are most 
likely to provide data that will meet the calibration requirements 
are listed below.
    8.1.2 Measurement Location. It is suggested that the measurement 
location be: (1) at least eight equivalent diameters downstream from 
the nearest flow disturbance, such as a control device, point of 
pollutant generation, bend, expansion, contraction in the stack/
duct, point of discharge, or other point at which a change of 
pollutant concentration or gas streamlines may occur; and (2) at 
least two equivalent

[[Page 67809]]

diameter upstream from the effluent exhaust or a flow disturbance.
    8.1.2.1 Point CEMS. It is suggested that the measurement point 
be: (1) no less than 30% of the stack or duct diameter from the 
stack or duct wall; or (2) within or centrally located over the 
centroidal area of the stack or duct cross section.
    8.1.2.2 Path CEMS. It is suggested that the effective 
measurement path be : (1) totally within the inner area bounded by a 
line 30 percent of the stack/duct diameter from the stack or duct 
wall; (2) have at least 70 percent of the path within the inner 50 
percent of the stack or duct cross sectional area; or (3) be 
centrally located over any part of the centroidal area.
    8.1.3 Reference Method Measurement Location and Traverse Points.
    8.1.3.1 Select, as appropriate: (1) an accessible Reference 
Method measurement point at least eight equivalent diameters 
downstream from the nearest flow disturbance, such as a control 
device, point of pollutant generation, bend, expansion, contraction 
in the stack or duct discharge point, or other point at which a 
change of pollutant concentration or gas flow direction may occur; 
and (2) at least two equivalent diameters upstream from the flow 
disturbance, such as the effluent exhaust. When pollutant 
concentration changes are due solely to diluent leakage (e.g., air 
heater leakages) and pollutants and diluents are simultaneously 
measured at the same location, a half diameter may be used in lieu 
of two equivalent diameters. The CEMS and Reference Method locations 
need not be the same so long as the Reference Method is placed at a 
location specified by the method and the CEMS output is 
representative of pollutant emissions determined by the Reference 
Method.
    8.1.3.2  Select traverse points that assure acquisition of 
representative samples over the stack or duct cross section. 
Selection of traverse points to determine the representativeness of 
the measurement location should be made according to 40 CFR part 60, 
Appendix A, Method 1, Section 2.2 and 2.3.
    8.2  Pretest Preparation. Install the CEMS, prepare the 
Reference Method test site according to the specifications in 
Section 8.1, and prepare the CEMS for operation according to the 
manufacturer's written instructions.
    8.3  Calibration Drift Test Procedure.
    8.3.1  CD test Period. While the affected facility is operating 
more than 50 percent of normal load, or as specified in an 
applicable Subpart, determine the magnitude of the CD once each day 
(at 24-hour intervals) for 7 consecutive days according to the 
procedure given in Sections 8.3.2 and 8.3.3.
    8.3.2  The purpose of the CD measurement is to verify the 
ability of the CEMS to conform to the established CEMS calibration 
used for determining the emission concentration or emission rate. 
Therefore, if periodic automatic or manual adjustments are made to 
the CEMS zero and calibration settings, conduct the CD test 
immediately before these adjustments, or conduct it in such a way 
that the CD can be determined.
    8.3.3  Conduct the CD test at the two points specified in 
Section 6.1.2. Introduce to the CEMS the reference gases, optical 
filters, or other suitable calibration reference media (these need 
not be certified). Record the CEMS response and subtract this value 
from the reference value.
    8.4  Calibration Test Procedure
    8.4.1  Calibration Test Period. Conduct the calibration test 
according to the procedure given in Sections 8.4.2 through 8.4.7 
while the affected facility is operating at more than 50 percent of 
normal load or as specified in an applicable Subpart. The 
calibration test may be conducted during the CD test period.
    8.4.2  Reference Methods. Unless otherwise specified in an 
applicable Subpart of the regulations, Method 3B, 4, and 5I, or 
other approved alternatives, are the Reference Methods for diluent 
(O<INF>2</INF>), moisture, and PM, respectively. Method 5 should be 
used instead of Method 5I if PM emissions exceed 45 mg/dscm (0.02 
gr/dscf).
    8.4.3  Sampling Strategy for Reference Method tests. Conduct the 
Reference Method tests in such a way that they will yield results 
representative of the emissions from the source and can be 
correlated to the CEMS data. Conduct the diluent (if applicable), 
moisture, (if needed), and PM measurements simultaneously. In order 
to correlate the CEMS and Reference Method data properly, make sure 
the time from the CEMS data recorder and the time instrument used 
for the Reference Method agree and note the beginning and end of 
each Reference Method test period of each run (including the exact 
time of day) on the CEMS chart recordings or other permanent record 
of output. Make two sample traverses for a total of at least 60 
minutes, sampling for an equal time at each traverse point (see 
Section 8.1.3.2 for discussion of traverse points). The use of 
paired Method 5I (or Method 5 as appropriate) trains (that is, 
simultaneously traversing across two 90 deg.-opposed axes) is 
recommended to improve and assure data quality.

    Note: At times, CEMS calibration tests may be conducted during 
new source performance standards, performance tests or other 
compliance tests subject to the Clean Air Act or other statutes, 
such as the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act. In these cases, 
Reference Method results obtained during CEMS calibration test may 
be used to determine compliance as long as the source and test 
conditions are consistent with the applicable regulations.

    8.4.4  Number of Runs in a Calibration Relation Test. Conduct a 
minimum of 15 runs each consisting of simultaneous CEMS and 
Reference Method measurements sets.

    Note: More than 15 sets of CEMS and Reference Method measurement 
sets may be performed. If this option is chosen, certain test 
results may be rejected so long as the total number of test results 
used to determine the calibration relation is greater than or equal 
to 15. However, all data must be reported, including the rejected 
data. The basis for rejecting data must be explicitly stated in: (1) 
The Reference Method, this Performance Specification, or Procedure 
2; or (2) the site's QA plan approved by the Administrator.

    8.4.5  Structure of Tests. CEMS calibration tests shall be 
carried out by making simultaneous CEMS and Reference Method 
measurement sets at three (or more) different levels of PM mass 
concentrations over the full range of operations experienced by the 
facility, including emissions. Three (or more) sets of measurements 
shall be obtained at each level. The different levels of PM mass 
concentration should be obtained by varying process or PM control 
device conditions as much as the process allows. If it is not 
possible or practical to obtain PM measurement at the standard, it 
is recommended that at least six measurement sets be performed at 
the maximum PM emission level achievable to produce the most 
accurate and representative results. This will help obtain the 
smallest confidence and tolerance intervals at the maximum emission 
level. Irrespective of the extent of the range, the three PM 
concentration levels developed in the calibration tests must be 
distributed over the complete operating range experienced by the 
facility, and at least three of the minimum 15 measured data points 
must lie within each of the following levels:
    <bullet> Level 1: 0 to 30% of the maximum PM concentration;
    <bullet> Level 2: 30 to 60% of the maximum PM concentration; and
    <bullet> Level 3: 60 to 100% of the maximum PM concentration.
    8.4.6  Correlation of Reference Method and CEMS Data. If 
necessary, adjust the CEMS outputs and Reference Method test data to 
the same time. Determine the integrated (arithmetic average) CEMS 
output over each Reference Method test period. Consider system 
response time, if important, and confirm that the pair of results 
are on a consistent moisture, temperature, and diluent concentration 
basis. Adjust the Reference Method results to ensure they are on the 
same basis as the CEMS measurements. Depending on the particular 
CEMS measurement conditions, the CEMS and Method 5I (or Method 5 
where applicable) correlations are based on either:
    (a) Actual in-stack conditions and actual PM concentrations for 
in-situ CEMS in mg/acm (i.e., account for the in-stack temperature, 
pressure, and moisture),
    (b) Actual CEMS measurement conditions for extractive CEMS in 
mg/acm (i.e., account for the elevated temperature of the extracted 
flue gas if heated), or
    (c) Dry standard conditions and corresponding PM concentrations 
in mg/dscm (i.e., do not correct the Reference Method results if the 
CEMS outputs are on the same temperature and moisture basis as the 
Reference Method). Calculate the appropriate PM concentrations as 
specified by CEMS manufacturer using the applicable equations in 
Section 12.0.
    8.4.7  Calculate the correlation coefficient, confidence 
interval, and tolerance interval for the complete set of CEMS/RM 
data according to the procedures in Section 12.0.
    8.5  Number of Calibration Tests
    Because of the need to develop a calibration curve 
representative of the facility/APC system, the following strategy 
will ensure that the calibration curve facilities develop adequately 
corresponds to measured PM concentrations:
    Perform the initial calibration test and develop a correlation 
within the time period

[[Page 67810]]

specified in the applicable regulation. For CEMS with measurement 
technologies insensitive to changes in PM properties (e.g., Beta-
gage), this would be the only calibration test required.
    For CEMS with measurement technologies sensitive to PM property 
changes (e.g., Light-scattering), perform a second calibration 
within the time period specified in the applicable regulation. 
Compare the results of the two calibrations to determine what type 
of mathematical model (e.g., arithmetic, log-normal, or quadratic) 
best correlates with measured PM concentrations. The calibration for 
the facility is a composite of both sets of calibration data. 
Perform a third calibration test within the time period specified in 
the applicable regulation. Compare the third calibration to the 
first two. If this calibration relation confirms the findings of the 
original two calibrations, then this is the last calibration test to 
be performed. The final calibration relation for the facility is a 
composite of all three sets of calibration data. If the third 
calibration shows some fit other than the one originally determined 
best correlates CEMS response to PM emission concentrations, then a 
fourth calibration test must be performed within the time period 
specified in the applicable regulation. This process of performing 
additional calibration test continues until the facility can 
determine what fit best correlates CEMS output to PM concentrations. 
The final calibration is a composite of all calibration data 
obtained.
    8.6  Reporting. At a minimum, (check with the appropriate 
regional office, State, or Local agency for additional requirements, 
if any), summarize in tabular form the results of the CD tests and 
the calibration tests, as appropriate. Include all data sheets, 
calculations, charts (records of CEMS responses), process data 
records including PM control equipment operating parameters, and 
manufacturer's reference calibration media certifications necessary 
to confirm that the performance of the CEMS met the performance 
specifications.

9.0  Quality Control. [Reserved]

10.0  Calibration and Standardization. [Reserved]

11.0  Analytical Procedure.

    Sample collection and analysis are concurrent for this 
Performance Specification (see Section 8.0). Refer to the Reference 
Method for specific analytical procedures.

12.0  Calculations and Data Analysis.

    Summarize the results on a data sheet similar to that shown in 
Table III (in Section 18.0).
    12.1  Calibration and Zero Drift
    12.1.1  Calibration Drift. Calculate the CD according to:
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP30DE97.029
    
where:

    CD=the calibration drift of the CEMS in percent
    R<INF>CEM</INF>=the CEMS response; and
    R<INF>V</INF>=the reference value of the high level calibration 
standard.

    12.1.2  Calculate the ZD according to:
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP30DE97.030
    
where:

    ZD=the zero drift of the CEMS in percent.

    12.2  Calibration Evaluation
    12.2.1  Treatment of Reference Method Data. All data from the 
Reference Method and CEMS must be on the same basis. Correct the 
Reference Method data for moisture, temperature, and pressure to the 
same units as the CEMS using the equations below. Depending on the 
particular CEMS measurement conditions, the CEMS and Reference 
Method correlation is based on either:
    (a) Actual in-stack conditions and actual PM concentrations for 
in-situ monitors expressed in mg/acm (i.e., to account for the in-
stack temperature and moisture),
    (b) Elevated CEMS temperature conditions and corresponding PM 
concentrations in mg/acm at the analyzer (i.e., to account for the 
increased temperature, relative to in-stack levels, in extracted 
sample gas temperature), or
    (c) Dry standard conditions and corresponding PM concentrations 
in mg/dscm (i.e., to account for the moisture condensed in drying 
the extracted sample before measuring gas volume, analogous to the 
Reference Method).
    Calculate the respective PM concentrations using the equations, 
below.
    Refer to the Results produced from the CFR Method 5, Section 
6.9, Equation 5-6; Particulate Concentration Calculation in dry 
standard units.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP30DE97.031

where:

    C<INF>s</INF>=Concentration in mg/dscm
    m<INF>n</INF>=Total amount of particulate matter collected, mg.
    V<INF>m(std)</INF>=Volume of gas sample as measured by dry gas 
meter, corrected to standard condition, dscm.
    12.2.2  Conversion of Reference Method Particulate 
Concentrations to Other Units
where:

    C=Concentration at actual stack conditions (mg/Acm),
    C<INF>s</INF>=Concentration at mg/dscm,
    C<INF>s</INF>@7%=Concentration at mg/dscm at 7% O<INF>2</INF>,
    t<INF>s</INF>=Average stack gas temperature  deg.F,
    P=Absolute stack pressure (in Hg),
    B<INF>ws</INF>=Water Vapor in the gas stream, proportion by 
volume, and
    O<INF>2</INF>=Stack Gas Oxygen Content.
    (a) From dry standard concentration conditions to actual in 
stack conditions (as applicable).
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP30DE97.032

    (b) From dry standard concentration conditions to dry standard 
concentration at 7 %O<INF>2</INF>.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP30DE97.033

    (c) From actual stack conditions to dry standard concentration.
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP30DE97.034
    

[[Page 67811]]


    12.2.3  Linear Calibration. A linear calibration (i.e., linear 
correlation) shall be calculated from the calibration data by 
performing a linear least squares regression. The CEMS data appear 
on the x axis, and the Reference Method data appear on the y axis. 
Whether this fit is used depends on the outcome of the calculations 
described in section 12.2.5 of this performance specification.
    12.2.3.1  Linear Regression. The linear regression, which gives 
the predicted mass emission,y, based on the CEMS response x, is 
given by the equation:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP30DE97.035

where:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP30DE97.036

and
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP30DE97.037

    The mean values of the x and y data sets are given by
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP30DE97.038
    
where x<INF>i</INF> and y<INF>i</INF> are the absolute values of the 
individual measurements and n is the number of data points. The 
values S<INF>xx</INF>, S<INF>yy</INF>, and S<INF>xy</INF> are given 
by
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP30DE97.039

from which the scatter of y values about the regression line 
(calibration) s<INF>L</INF> can be determined:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP30DE97.040

    12.2.3.2  Confidence Interval. The two-sided confidence 
interval, y<INF>c</INF>,, for the predicted concentration y at point 
x is given by the equation:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP30DE97.041

    12.2.3.3  Tolerance Interval. The two-sided tolerance interval 
y<INF>t</INF> for the regression line is given by the equation:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP30DE97.042

at the point x with k<INF>T</INF>=u<INF>n</INF>' and f=n-2, where

[[Page 67812]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP30DE97.043


    The tolerance factor u<INF>n</INF><SUP>bullet</SUP> for 75% of 
the population is given in Table I as a function of n'. The factor 
v<INF>f</INF> as a function of f is also given in Table I as well as 
the t-factor at the 95% confidence level.
    12.2.3.4  Correlation Coefficient. The correlation coefficient r 
may be calculated from
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP30DE97.044

    12.2.4  Quadratic Calibration Relation. In some cases, a 
quadratic regression will provide a better fit to the calibration 
data than a linear regression. The CEMS data appear on the x axis, 
and the Reference Method data appear on the y axis. A test to 
determine whether the quadratic regression gives a better fit to the 
data than a linear regression must be performed. The relation with 
the best fit must be used.
    12.2.4.1  Quadratic Regression. A least-squares quadratic 
regression gives the best fit coefficients b<INF>0</INF>, 
b<INF>1</INF>, and b<INF>2</INF> for the calibration relation:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP30DE97.045

    The coefficients b<INF>0</INF>, b<INF>1</INF>, and b<INF>2</INF> 
are determined from the solution to the matrix equation Ab=B

where:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP30DE97.046

    The solutions to b<INF>0</INF>, b<INF>1</INF>, and b<INF>2</INF> 
are:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP30DE97.047

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP30DE97.048

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP30DE97.049

where:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP30DE97.050

    12.2.4.2  Confidence Interval. For any positive value of x, the 
confidence interval is given by:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP30DE97.051

where:

    f = n-3,

t<INF>f</INF> is given in Table I,
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP30DE97.052

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP30DE97.053


[[Page 67813]]


    The C coefficients are given below:
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP30DE97.054
    
where
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP30DE97.055

    12.2.4.3  Tolerance Interval. For any positive value of x, the 
tolerance interval is given by:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP30DE97.056

where:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP30DE97.057

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP30DE97.058

    The v<INF>f</INF> and u<INF>n</INF>' factors can also be found 
in Table I.
    12.2.5  Test to Determine Best Regression Fit. The test to 
determine if the fit using a quadratic regression is better than the 
fit using a linear regression is based on the values of s calculated 
in the two formulations. If s<INF>L</INF> denotes the value of s 
from the linear regression and s<INF>Q</INF> the value of s from the 
quadratic regression, then the quadratic regression gives a better 
fit at the 95% confidence level if the following relationship is 
fulfilled:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP30DE97.059

with f = n-3 and the value of F<INF>f</INF> at the 95% confidence 
level as a function of f taken from Table II below.

    12.2.6  Alternative Mathematical Approaches to the Calibration. 
Other non-linear relations may provide a better fit to the 
calibration data than linear or quadratic relations because of the 
monitor's response to some measurable property indicative of the PM 
concentration. These approaches may serve as alternative approaches 
for defining the mathematical relation between the CEMS response and 
the Reference Method. The basis for developing such alternative 
approaches must be explicitly included in the calibration relation 
test report with supporting data demonstrating a better fit than 
linear and quadratic relations and is subject to approval by the 
Administrator.

13.0  Method Performance

    13.1  Calibration Drift Performance Specification. The CEMS 
internal calibration must not drift or deviate from the value of the 
reference light, optical filter, Beta attenuation signal, or other 
technology-suitable calibration reference media by more than 2 
percent of the span value. If the CEMS includes diluent and/or 
auxiliary monitors (for temperature, pressure, and/or moisture) that 
are employed as a necessary part of this performance specification, 
the CD must then be determined separately for each in terms of its 
respective output (see the appropriate Performance Specification for 
the diluent CEMS specification). None of the CDS may exceed the 
specification.
    13.2  Calibration Relation Performance Specifications. The CEMS 
calibration relation must meet each of the following minimum 
specifications for all three criteria.
    Criterion A. The correlation coefficient shall be greater than 
or equal to 0.90.
    Criterion B. The confidence interval (95%) at the emission limit 
shall be within 10% of the emission limit value specified in the 
regulations.
    Criterion C. The tolerance interval at the emission limit shall 
have 95% confidence that 75% of all possible values are within 25% 
of the emission limit value specified in the regulations.
    13.3  PM Compliance Monitoring. The CEMS measurements shall be 
reported to the Agency in the units of the standard expressed in the 
regulations (i.e., mg/dscm,

14.0  Pollution Prevention. [Reserved]

15.0  Waste Management. [Reserved]

16.0  Alternative Procedures. [Reserved]

17.0  References

    1. 40 CFR part 60, Appendix B, ``Performance Specification 2--
Specifications and Test Procedures for S0<INF>2</INF> and 
NO<INF>x</INF>, Continuous Emission Monitoring Systems in Stationary 
Sources.''
    2. 40 CFR part 60, Appendix B, ``Performance Specification I--
Specification and Test Procedures for Opacity Continuous Emission 
Monitoring Systems in Stationary Sources.
    3. 40 CFR part 60, Appendix A, ``Method 1--Sample and Velocity 
Traverses for Stationary Sources.''
    4. 40 CFR part 266, Appendix IX, Section 2, ``Performance 
Specifications for Continuous Emission Monitoring Systems.''
    5. ISO 10155, ``Stationary Source Emissions--Automated 
Monitoring of Mass Concentrations of Particles: Performance 
Characteristics, Test Procedures, and Specifications,'' dated 1995, 
American National Standards Institute, New York City.
    6. G. Box, W. Hunter, J. Hunter, Statistics for Experimenters 
(Wiley, New York, 1978).
    7. M. Spiegel, Mathematical Handbook of Formulas and Tables 
(McGraw-Hill, New York, 1968).

18.0  Reference Tables, Example Calculations, Diagrams, Flowcharts, 
and Validation Data.

    18.1  Reference Tables

 Table I: Factors for Calculation of Confidence and Tolerance Intervals 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  f                     t<INF>n-2     v<INF>n-2      n'    u<INF>n'(75)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
7...................................    2.365   1.7972        7    1.233

[[Page 67814]]

                                                                        
8...................................    2.306   1.7110        8    1.223
9...................................    2.262   1.6452        9    1.214
10..................................    2.228   1.5931       10    1.208
11..................................    2.201   1.5506       11    1.203
12..................................    2.179   1.5153       12    1.199
13..................................    2.160   1.4854       13    1.195
14..................................    2.145   1.4597       14    1.192
15..................................    2.131   1.4373       15    1.189
16..................................    2.120   1.4176       16    1.187
17..................................    2.110   1.4001       17    1.185
18..................................    2.101   1.3845       18    1.183
19..................................    2.093   1.3704       19    1.181
20..................................    2.086   1.3576       20    1.179
21..................................    2.080   1.3460       21    1.178
22..................................    2.074   1.3353       22    1.177
23..................................    2.069   1.3255       23    1.175
24..................................    2.064   1.3165       24    1.174
25..................................    2.060   1.3081       25    1.173
30..................................    2.042   1.2737       30    1.170
35..................................    2.030   1.2482       35    1.167
40..................................    2.021   1.2284       40    1.165
45..................................    2.014   1.2125       45    1.163
50..................................    2.009   1.1993       50    1.162
------------------------------------------------------------------------


                        Table II: Values for F<INF>f.                        
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                   f                         F<INF>f         f          F<INF>f   
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1......................................      161.4         16       4.49
2......................................      18.51         17       4.45
3......................................      10.13         18       4.41
4......................................       7.71         19       4.38
5......................................       6.61         20       4.35
6......................................       5.99         22       4.30
7......................................       5.59         24       4.26
8......................................       5.32         26       4.23
9......................................       5.12         28       4.20
10.....................................       4.96         30       4.17
11.....................................       4.84         40       4.08
12.....................................       4.75         50       4.03
13.....................................       4.67         60       4.00
14.....................................       4.60         80       3.96
15.....................................       4.54        100       3.94
------------------------------------------------------------------------


                                                                           Table III: Field Test Data for Calibration                                                                           
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                           CEMS PM response     M 5 Conc.  (mg/                                                                                                 
        Run No.  (mg/Acm)                  Date           (arbitrary units)          dscm)           ave Ts  ( deg.F)           Bws             Abs P  (in Hg)             O<INF>2           M5 Conc 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1................................  ....................  ...................  ...................  ...................  ...................  ...................  ...................  .........
2................................  ....................  ...................  ...................  ...................  ...................  ...................  ...................  .........
3................................  ....................  ...................  ...................  ...................  ...................  ...................  ...................  .........
4................................  ....................  ...................  ...................  ...................  ...................  ...................  ...................  .........
5................................  ....................  ...................  ...................  ...................  ...................  ...................  ...................  .........
6................................  ....................  ...................  ...................  ...................  ...................  ...................  ...................  .........
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    18.2  Example Calculations
    18.2.1  Method 5 concentrations conversions
    Example (a): CEMS measurement conditions were made at actual 
stack conditions, requiring that the Method 5 concentration must be 
converted from dry standard to actual stack conditions.

where:

    C= Concentration at actual stack conditions (mg/Acm): is unknown
    C<INF>s</INF>= 38.66 mg/dscm
    t<INF>s</INF>= 291.7 deg.F
    P = 30.13 in Hg
    O<INF>2</INF>=Assumed to be 11.63% O<INF>2</INF>
    B<INF>ws</INF>= .226

[[Page 67815]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP30DE97.060


    C = 21.17 mg/Acm
    Example (b) CEMS measurement conditions were made at the dry 
standard condition. Convert the concentration to units of the 
emission regulation (dry standard conditions at 7% O<INF>2</INF>).

where:

    C <INF><a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection" class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="c6b586f1">[email protected]</a></INF>%= Concentration at standard conditions @ 7% 
O<INF>2</INF>; is unknown
    O<INF>2</INF>=Assumed to be 11.63% O<INF>2</INF>
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP30DE97.061
    
    C <INF>s @7</INF>%=57.97 mg/dscm @ 7% O<INF>2</INF>
    Example (c): The emission regulation (dry standard conditions at 
7% O<INF>2</INF>) must be converted to actual stack conditions.
    Using the Proposed Emission Limit: 50 mg/dscm @ 7% O<INF>2</INF>

where:

    C <INF>s @7</INF>%= 50 mg/dscm @ 7% O<INF>2</INF>
    t<INF>s</INF> = 291.4 deg.F, average temperature during initial 
calibration
    B<INF>ws</INF> = .201, average moisture during initial 
calibration
    P = 30.08, average absolute stack pressure during initial 
calibration
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP30DE97.062

    O<INF>2</INF>=Assumed to be 11.63% O<INF>2</INF>
    C <INF>@7</INF>%= 28.22 mg/Acm 7% O<INF>2</INF>
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP30DE97.063
    
    C=18.82 mg/Acm
    Example (d) The following table is the data set of a 
representative monitor and its initial calibration. These CEMS 
measurement conditions are at actual stack conditions. X is the CEMS 
arbitrary unit measurements and Y is the corresponding Method 5 
concentration at actual stack conditions.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                           Run                               x       y  
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.......................................................   18.48   10.93
2.......................................................   21.85   11.19
3.......................................................   27.10   13.80
4.......................................................   31.54   16.70
5.......................................................   32.33   16.61
6.......................................................    8.35    2.64
7.......................................................   15.83    6.65
8.......................................................   11.95    6.01
9.......................................................    8.43    3.02
10......................................................    9.59    4.15
11......................................................   13.81    7.31
12......................................................   21.48   11.93
13......................................................   27.64   11.27
14......................................................    7.08    3.11
15......................................................    6.15    2.21
16......................................................    8.92    5.50
17......................................................    8.77    3.59
18......................................................   17.10    6.96
19......................................................   13.58    5.33
20......................................................   14.14    6.70
21......................................................   15.28    6.59
22......................................................   13.92    7.00
23......................................................   14.00    6.52
24......................................................   15.09    4.76
25......................................................   17.43    9.78
26......................................................   21.63   10.22
27......................................................   18.56   10.83
28......................................................   48.53   18.81
29......................................................   82.25   29.01
30......................................................   83.04   28.88
31......................................................   21.20    8.98
32......................................................   60.00   22.38
33......................................................   32.08   15.94
34......................................................   43.05   20.19
35......................................................   30.51   13.77
36......................................................   12.45    3.84
------------------------------------------------------------------------

where:

    Sxx = 12338.81
    Syy = 1690.99
    Sxy = 4410.24
    x__ave = 23.699
    y__ave = 10.365
    S<INF>L</INF> = 1.836
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP30DE97.064
    
    From equations 7,8, and 9, the line regression is

Correlation coefficient

    From equation 16, the correlation coefficient is 0.966

Confidence interval

    Using the Proposed Emission Limit: 50 mg/dscm @ 7% O<INF>2</INF> 
converted to actual conditions in example (c) C=18.82 mg/Acm. 
Calculate CEMS response (x) using line regression calculated above.

where:

    t<INF>f</INF> = 2.032
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP30DE97.065
    

[[Page 67816]]


    =18.82 mg/Acm<plus-minus>1.0
    Tolerance interval

where:

    n' = 13
    v<INF>f</INF> = 1.253
    k<INF>T</INF> = 1.498
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP30DE97.066
    
    18.3  Diagrams [Reserved]
    Y<INF>T</INF>=18.82 mg/Acm<plus-minus>2.75
    18.4  Flowcharts [Reserved]
    18.5  Validation Data [Reserved]

Appendix III--Procedure 2

Procedure 2. Quality Assurance Requirements for Particulate Matter 
Continuous Emission Monitoring Systems Used for Compliance 
Determination

1.  Applicability and Principal

    1.1  Applicability. Procedure 2 is used to evaluate the 
effectiveness of quality control (QC) and quality assurance (QA) 
procedures and the quality of data produced by any particulate 
matter (PM) continuous emission monitoring system (CEMS) that is 
used for determining compliance with the emission standards on a 
continuous basis as specified in the applicable regulation. The CEMS 
may include diluent (e.g., O<INF>2</INF>) monitors and other 
auxiliary monitoring equipment for measurement, determination, or 
input of the gas temperature, pressure, moisture content, or sample 
volume .
    This procedure specifies the minimum QA requirements necessary 
for the control and assessment of the quality of CEMS data submitted 
to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Source owners and 
operators responsible for one or more CEMS's used for compliance 
monitoring must meet these minimum requirements and are encouraged 
to develop and implement a more extensive QA program or to continue 
such programs where they already exist.
    Data collected as a result of QA and QC measures required in 
this procedure are to be submitted to the Agency. These data are to 
be used by both the Agency and the CEMS operator in assessing the 
effectiveness of the CEMS QC and QA procedures in the maintenance of 
acceptable CEMS operation and valid emission data.
    Appendix F, Procedure 2 applicability and the CEMS accuracy 
assessments are determined by individual regulations.
    1.2  Principal. The QA procedure consist of two distinct and 
equally important functions. One function is the assessment of the 
quality of the CEMS data by estimating accuracy. The other function 
is the control and improvement of the quality of the CEMS data by 
implementing QC policies and corrective actions. These two functions 
form a control loop: When the assessment function indicates that the 
data quality is inadequate, the control effort must be increased 
until the data quality is acceptable. In order to provide uniformity 
in the assessment and reporting of data quality, this procedure 
explicitly specifies the assessment methods for response drift and 
accuracy. The methods are based on procedures included in the 
applicable performance specifications (PS's) in general, and are 
specifically applicable to PS 11, in appendix B of 40 CFR part 60. 
Procedure 2 also requires CEMS measurements of samples concurrent 
with reference method (RM) measurements.
    Because the control and corrective action function encompasses a 
variety of policies, specifications, standards, and corrective 
measures, this procedure treats QC requirements in general terms to 
allow each source owner or operator to develop a QC system that is 
most effective and efficient for the circumstances.

2.  Definitions

    2.1  Continuous Emissions Monitoring System means the total 
equipment required for the determination of a particulate matter 
mass concentration in units of the emission standard. The sample 
interface, pollutant analyzer, diluent analyzer, other auxiliary 
data monitor(s) and data recorder are the major subsystems of the 
CEMS.
    2.2  Calibration Drift (CD) means the difference in the CEMS 
output readings from the established reference value after a stated 
period of operation during which no unscheduled maintenance, repair, 
or adjustment took place.
    2.3  Calibration relation means the relationship between a CEMS 
response and measured PM concentrations by the reference method 
which is defined by a mathematical equation.
    2.4  Calibration Standard means a reference material that 
produces a known and unchanging response when presented to the 
pollutant analyzer portion of the CEMS, and used to calibrate the 
drift or response of the analyzer.
    2.5  Flagged data means data marked by the CEMS indicating that 
the response value is suspect or invalid.
    2.6  Span Value means the upper limit of the CEMS measurement 
range. The span value shall be documented by the CEMS manufacturer 
with laboratory data.
    2.7  Zero Drift (ZD) means the difference in the CEMS output 
readings for zero input after a stated period of operation during 
which no unscheduled maintenance, repair, or adjustment took place.

3.  QC Requirements

    Each source owner or operator must develop and implement a QC 
program. As a minimum, each QC program must include written 
procedures which should describe in detail, complete, step-by-step 
procedures and operations for each of the following activities:
    1. Internal-Calibration of CEMS relative to assessing CD.
    2. CD determination and adjustment of CEMS.
    3. Preventative maintenance of CEMS (including spare parts 
inventory and sampling probe integrity).
    4. Data recording, calculations, and reporting.
    5. Accuracy audit procedures including sampling and analysis 
methods, sampling strategy, and structuring test conditions over the 
prescribed range of PM concentrations.
    6. Program of corrective action for malfunctioning CEMS, 
including flagged data periods.
    As described in Section 5.2, whenever excessive inaccuracies 
occur, the source owner or operator must revise the current written 
procedures or modify or replace the CEMS to correct the deficiency 
causing the excessive inaccuracies.
    These written procedures must be kept on record and available 
for inspection by the enforcement agency.

4.  CD Assessment

    4.1  CD Requirement. As described in 40 CFR 60.13(d), source 
owners and operators of CEMS must check, record, and quantify the CD 
at two concentration values at least daily (approximately 24 hours) 
in accordance with the method prescribed by the manufacturer. The 
CEMS calibration must, as minimum, be adjusted whenever the daily 
zero drift or the daily span value exceeds two times the limits of 
PS 11 in appendix B of this regulation.
    4.2  Recording Requirement for Automatic CD Adjusting Monitors. 
Monitors that automatically adjust the instrument responses to the 
corrected calibration values (e.g., microprocessor control) must be 
programmed to record the unadjusted concentration measured in the CD 
prior to resetting the calibration, if performed, or record the 
amount of adjustment.
    4.3  Criteria for Excessive CD. If either the zero drift or the 
daily span value exceeds twice the PS 11 drift specification for 
five, consecutive, daily periods, the CEMS is out-of-control. If 
either the zero drift or the daily span value exceeds four times the 
PS 11 drift specification during any CD check, the CEMS is out-of-
control. If the CEMS is out-of-control, take necessary corrective 
action. Following corrective action, repeat the CD checks.
    4.3.1  Out-Of-Control Period Definition. The beginning of the 
out-of-control period is the time corresponding to the completion of 
the fifth, consecutive, daily CD check with a CD in excess of two 
times the allowable limit, or the time corresponding to the 
completion of the daily CD check that results in a CD in excess of 
four times the allowable limit. The end of the out-of-control period 
is the time corresponding to the completion of the CD check 
following corrective action that results in the CD's at both the 
zero or the daily span value points being within the corresponding 
allowable CD limit (i.e., either two times or four times the 
allowable limit in appendix B).
    4.3.2  CEMS Data Status During Out-Of-Control Period. During the 
period the CEMS is out-of-control, the CEMS data may not be used in 
calculating emission compliance nor be counted towards meeting 
minimum data availability as required and described in the 
applicable subpart [e.g., 60.47a(f)].
    4.4  Data Recording and Reporting. As required in 60.7(d) of 
this regulation (40 CFR part 60), all measurements from the CEMS 
must be retained on file by the source owner for at least 2 years. 
However emission data obtained on each successive day while the CEMS 
is out-of-control may not be included as part of the minimum daily 
requirement of the applicable subpart [e.g., 60.47a(f)] nor be used 
in the calculation of reported emissions for that period.

[[Page 67817]]

5.  Data Accuracy Assessment

    5.1  Auditing Requirements. Each CEMS must be audited at least 
once each calender quarter. Successive quarterly audits shall occur 
no closer than 2 months. The audits shall be conducted as follows:
    5.1.1  Response Calibration Audit (RCA). The RCA must be 
conducted at the frequency specified in the applicable regulation. 
Conduct the RCA test according to the sampling strategy described in 
Section 8.4.3 and according to the structure of test described in 
Section 8.4.5, both of which are in PS 11 in appendix B, except that 
the minimum of runs required shall be 12 in the RCA instead of 15 as 
specified in PS 11. If it is not possible/practical to obtain three 
measured data points in all three PM concentration ranges as 
specified in Section 8.4.5 of PS 11, a minimum of three measured 
data points in any of the two ranges specified in Section 8.4.5 is 
acceptable, as long as at least all 12 data points lie within the 
range of the calibration relation test.
    5.1.2  Absolute Calibration Audit (ACA). If applicable, an ACA 
shall be conducted each quarter except in the quarters when a RCA is 
conducted.
    To conduct an ACA: (1) Challenge the CEMS with an audit standard 
or an equivalent audit reference to reproduce the monitor's 
measurement at three points within the following ranges:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                Audit point                          Audit range        
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.........................................  0 to 20% of span value.     
2.........................................  40 to 60% of span value and.
3.........................................  80 to 100% of span value.   
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Challenge the CEMS three times at each audit point, and use the 
average of the three responses in determining accuracy.
    Use a separate audit standard or an equivalent audit reference 
for audit points 1, 2, and 3.
    The monitor should be challenged at each audit point for a 
sufficient period of time to assure that the CEMS response has 
stabilized.
    (2) Operate each monitor in the mode, manner and range specified 
by the manufacturer.
    (3) Use only audit standards or equivalent audit references 
specified and provided by the manufacturer. Store, maintain, and use 
audit standards or equivalent audit references as specified by the 
manufacturer. When National Institute of Standards and Testing 
(NIST)-traceable audit standards become available for PM CEMS, their 
use will be required.
    The difference between the actual known value of the audit 
standard or equivalent audit reference specified by the manufacturer 
and the response of the monitor is used to assess the accuracy of 
the CEMS.
    5.1.3  Relative Accuracy Audit (RAA) [Reserved].
    5.1.4  Sample Volume Audit (SVA). For applicable units with a 
sampling system, an audit of the equipment to determine sample 
volume (e.g., equipment measuring sampling flowrate for a known 
time) must be performed once a year. The SVA procedure specified by 
the manufacturer will be followed to assure that sample volume is 
accurately measured across the normal range of sample volumes made 
over the past year.
    5.1.5  Other Alternative Audits. Other alternative audit 
procedures may be used as approved by the Administrator for the 
quarters when ACAs are to be conducted.
    5.2  Excessive Audit Inaccuracy. If the audit results using the 
RCA, ACA, RAA, or SVA, do not meet the criteria in Section 5.2.3, 
the CEMS is out-of-control. If the CEMS is out-of-control, take 
necessary corrective action to eliminate the problem. Following 
corrective action, the source owner or operator must audit the CEMS 
with a calibration relation test, ACA, RAA, or SVA to determine if 
the CEMS is operating within the specifications. A calibration 
relation test must always be used following an out-of-control period 
resulting from a RCA. If audit results show the CEMS to be out-of-
control, the CEMS operator shall report both the audit showing the 
CEMS to be out-of-control and the results of the audit following 
corrective action showing the CEMS to be operating within 
specifications.
    5.2.1  Out-Of-Control Period Definitions. The beginning of the 
out-of-control period is the time corresponding to the completion of 
an unsuccessful RCA, ACA, RAA, or SVA. The end of the out-of-control 
period is the time corresponding to the completion of the subsequent 
successful calibration test or audit.
    5.2.2  CEMS Data Status During Out-Of-Control Period. During the 
period the monitor is out-of-control, the CEMS data may not be used 
in calculating emission compliance nor be counted towards meeting 
minimum data availability as required and described in the 
applicable subpart.
    5.2.3  Criteria for Excessive Audit Inaccuracy. Unless specified 
otherwise in the applicable subpart, the criteria for excessive 
inaccuracy are:
    (1) For the RCA, at least 75% of a minimum number of 12 sets of 
CEMS/reference method measurements from the test must fall within a 
specified area on a graph developed by the calibration relation 
regression line over the calibration range and the tolerance 
interval set at +/-25% of the emission limit. The specified area on 
a graph is (a) bounded by two lines parallel with the calibration 
regression line, and offset at a distance +/-25% of the numerical 
emission limit from the calibration regression line on the y-axis, 
and (b) traversing across the calibration range bounded by the 
lowest and the highest CEMS reading of the calibration test on the 
x-axis.
    (2) For the ACA, +/-15 percent of the average audit value or 
7.5% of the applicable standard, whichever is greater.
    (3) For the SVA, +/-5 percent of the average sample volume audit 
value .
    5.3   Criteria For Acceptable QC Procedure. Repeated excessive 
inaccuracies (i.e., out-of-control conditions resulting from the 
quarterly audits) indicates the QC procedures are inadequate or that 
the CEMS is incapable of providing quality data. Therefore, whenever 
excessive inaccuracies occur for two consecutive quarters, the 
source owner or operator must revise the QC procedures (see Section 
3) or modify or replace the CEMS.

6. Calculations for CEMS Data Accuracy and Acceptability 
Determination

    6.1  RCA Calculations and Determination of Acceptability.
    6.1.1  RCA Calculations. Follow the equations described in 
Section 12 of appendix B, PS 11 to calculate results from the RCA 
tests. The reference method results from the RCA must be calculated 
in units consistent with the CEMS measurement approach in use (e.g., 
mg/m<SUP>3</SUP> or mg/dscm).
    6.1.2  Acceptability Determination of RCA Data. Plot each of the 
CEMS/reference method data from the RCA test on a figure based on 
the calibration relation regression line to determine if the 
appropriate criterion in Section 5.2.3 (1) is met.
    6.2  ACA Accuracy Calculation. Use Equations 1 and 2 to 
calculate results from the ACA tests.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP30DE97.067

where:

    A = Accuracy of the CEMS, percent.
    R<INF>CEM</INF> = Average CEMS response during audit.
    R<INF>V</INF> = Reference value of the audit calibration 
standard or the equivalent audit.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP30DE97.068

where:

    A = Accuracy of the CEMS, percent.
    R<INF>CEM</INF> = Average CEMS response.
    R<INF>V</INF> = Reference value of the audit calibration 
standard or the equivalent audit.
    R<INF>EM</INF> = the emission limit value.
    6.3  SVA Accuracy Calculation. The appropriate SVA calculations 
will be provided by the CEMS manufacturer.
    6.4  Treatment of Flagged Data. All flagged CEMS data are 
considered invalid; as such, these data may not be used in 
determining compliance nor be counted towards meeting minimum data 
availability as required and described in the applicable subpart.
    6.5  Alternative Calibration Relation Approaches. Certain PM 
CEMS have technologies established on principles measuring PM 
concentration directly, whereas other technologies measure PM 
properties indirectly indicative of PM concentration. It has been 
shown empirically that a linear relationship can exist between these 
properties and PM concentration over a narrow range of 
concentrations, provided all variables remain essentially constant. 
However, if all variables affecting this relationship do not remain 
constant, then a linear relationship will probably not occur. Such 
is the case expected for facilities with PM emissions over a wide 
range of PM concentrations with certain process and air pollution 
control configurations. Other non-linear relations may provide a 
better fit to the calibration data than linear relations because the 
monitor's response is based on some measurable, and changing, 
property of the PM concentrations. These non-linear

[[Page 67818]]

approaches may serve as improved approaches for defining the 
mathematical relation between the CEMS response and reference method 
measured PM concentrations. The basis and advantage for developing 
and implementing such alternative approaches for determining 
compliance must be explicitly included in the calibration relation 
test report with supporting data demonstrating a better fit than a 
linear relation. Use of these alternative approaches is subject to 
approval by the Administrator.
    6.6  Example Accuracy Calculation. Example calculations and 
illustration for the RCA are available in Citation 1. Example 
calculations for the ACA are available in Citation 3 of Appendix F--
Procedure 1 and will be available in Citation 2.

7.  Reporting Requirements

    At the reporting interval specified in the applicable 
regulation, report for each CEMS the accuracy results from Section 6 
and the CD assessment results from Section 4. Report the drift and 
accuracy information as a Data Assessment Report (DAR), and include 
one copy of this DAR for each quarterly audit with the report of 
emissions required under the applicable subparts of this part.
    As a minimum, the DAR must contain the following information:
    1. Source owner or operator name and address
    2. Identification and location of monitors in the CEMS.
    3. Manufacturer and model number of each monitor in the CEMS.
    4. Assessment of CEMS data accuracy/acceptability and date of 
assessment as determined by a RCA, ACA, RAA, or SVA described in 
Section 5 including the acceptability determination for the RCA, the 
A for the ACA or RAA or SVA, the RM results, the calibration audit 
standards or equivalent audit references, the CEMS responses, and 
the calculation results as defined in Section 6. If the accuracy 
audit results show the CEMS to be out-of-control, the CEMS operator 
shall report both the audit results showing the CEMS to be out-of-
control and the results of the audit following corrective action 
showing the CEMS to be operating within specifications.
    5. Summary of all corrective actions taken when CEMS was 
determined out-of-control, as described in Sections 4 and 5.
    An example of a DAR format will be shown later in Figure 1.

8.  Bibliography

    To Be Determined

Figure 1--Example Format For Data Assessment Report: To Be Determined

[FR Doc. 97-33740 Filed 12-29-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/d07b1474/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>