### Table of Contents Commenter Page Utility Air Regulatory Group 1 Air Liquide 2 4 Scott
- Marrin, Inc. 26 Airgas 27 Linde Electronics and Specialty Gases 28 Jack Herbert 29 Source Evaluation Society 3 1 United Sciences Testing, Inc. 3 3 Liberty Ele ctric Power, LLC 36 Praxair Distribution, Inc. 3 7 Stork Testing & Metallurgical Consulting, Inc. 4 1 Specialty Gases of America, Inc. 4 5 Florida Municipal Power Agency 4 6 Lakeland Electric 4 7 GE Energy 4 7 Summa Consultants, Inc. 4 9 Weston Solutions, Inc. 5 4 Council of Industrial Boiler Owners 5 7 Institute of Clean Air Companies 5 9 Source Testing and Consulting Services, Inc. 61 Scott Evans (on behalf of STAC) 6 6 Air Quality Services 6 81
Response to Comments o n PGVP/AETB Proposed Rule

Docket EP A - HQ - OAR- 2009 - 0837 The Utility Air Regulatory Group Comments ( Doc um ent ID EP A - HQ - OAR- 2009 - 0837 - 0043 ) 1) Comment : “ When EPA last proposed to revise Part 75 in 2006, the primary purpose was revision of the recordkeeping and reporting requirements to sup port the agency ’s move to the new Emissions Collection and Monitoring Plan System (ECMPS) for reporting emissions. Because that move also was part of a broader effort to reengineer the way the agency collects information from sources and shares that inform ation with the public, UARG’s comments also addressed some concerns regarding that process. Although UARG generally supported the reengineering effort, UARG expressed concern regarding the increasing complexity of the reporting program, the cost of impleme nting EPA’s proposed new requirements, and the potential for the public and other regulatory bodies to misunderstand the often overl y conservative Part 75 data that EPA planned to make publicly available. See Comments of the Utility Air Regulatory

Group on EPA’s August 22, 2006 Proposed Revisions to 40 C.F.R. Parts 72 and 75, EPA

- HQ
- OAR
- 2005
- 0132
- 0079 (Oct. 23, 2006). With respect to data dissemination, UARG asked EPA to ensure that Part 75 data provided to the public under its new sy stem were appropriatel y explained, including identification of potential overestimation due to use of missing data substitution procedures and other conservative assumptions. “Since moving to ECMPS, EPA has redesigned its website to provide access to sources’ emissions data in a variety of formats. See http://camddataandmaps.epa.gov/gdm/. However, as far as UARG can tell, none of those formats provide any information to alert the user of the data to the potential for significant overestimation of the published data relative to true emissions. As a result, UARG reiterates its concerns and asks the Agency to take appropriate steps to ensure that the data are appropriately explained.” Response : The Agency

has no evidence that ECMPS has added complexity to the reporting of Part 75 data nor has the commenter provided concrete examples in its comments supporting such conclusion

. Instead, the feedback EPA has received indicates that ECMPS has simplified the reporting for most sources

. D ata substitution has the potential to create ove restimation of emissions , h owever, this overestimation tends to be relativel y small for most sources. The Agency estimates that over all Part 75 units, s ubstitute data is less than 1.2 percent of data for any parameter (see Document ID# EPA
- HQ
- OAR
- 2009
- 0 837
- 0061 in the docket) . However, the Agency will work to better explain the Part 75 data that are posted on its web site. 2) Comment : “ EPA also continues to vastly underestimate the costs of its reporting program. In the In formation Collection Reques t (ICR) prepared to support the 2006 proposal, EPA estimated only modest costs for implementation of ECMPS. For example, EPA estimated that the annualized cost of revising a source’s data acquisition and handling s ys tem (DAHS) to comply with ECMPS was $570 , and that each source would spend only 48 hours reviewing instructions and 56 hours upgrading and debugging its DAHS. EPA

- HQ
- 2005
- 0132
- 0054 at 12. EPA estimated no additional cost to the Agency as a result of the revision. Id. at 7.2

“ EPA’s 2006 estimates turned out to be quite wrong. Although the actual time and money spent implementing ECMPS varied by source, experiences documented at EPA stakeholder meetings in 2007

- 2009 and through EPA’s contractor

- run technical support services at PQA tell a very diff erent story

than EPA’s I CRs. None of these actual costs have ever been reflected in an ICR for the Part 75 program. 1 Unfortunatel y, these oversights are continued in the Agency’s ICR for its current proposal, which again suggest only modest costs based lar gel y on the assertion that most of the costs already have been incurred or accounted for in prior I CRs. UARG’s specific comments on the proposed ICR are set out in the appropriate sections below. However, UARG also generall y asks the Agency to rethink its approach to estimating costs under this program and consider the actual time spent by sources and EPA’s contractor in recent ye ars when estimating current burdens. ”

“ 1 Perhaps most surprising is the fact that none of EPA’s I CRs appears to include any of the costs associated with work performed on ECMPS by EPA’s contractor, including development and quarterly revision of the Client Tool software, development and revision of reporting instructions and QA Specifications, and operation of the full time technic al support hotline. ” Response : EPA has revised the final ICR supporting statement to address the issues identified by UARG
. 3) Comment : “The PGVP also would require Part 75 sources to use onl y calibration gases produced b y participating sites when pe rforming Part 75 calibration error tests, linearity tests, and when using reference Methods 3A, 6C, and 7E to perform Part 75 relative accuracy test audit (RATAs).” “EPA also proposes to add new sections to Appendix B to state that Part 75 tests performed using Protocol gas from a vendor that is not participating in the PGVP cannot be used to validate data under Part 75.” Response : If a Part 75 source use s EPA Protocol gas as its calibration gas , it must obtain that gas from an EPA Protocol gas productio n site that is participating in the PGVP
. However, o ther calibration gases from participating and non

- participating sites are available for use under Part 75 (see Part 75, Appendix A, section 5). These gases are: standard reference materials, primary ref erence materials, NIST traceable reference materials, research gas mixtures, and gas manufacturer ’ s intermediate standards. 4) Comment : “ As proposed, these provisions include elements that are very important to UARG. First, § 75.21(g) would make clear th at sources can continue to use previously purchased cylinder gas bottles after the effective date of the rule, or after removal of a production site from the PGVP list, until the bottle either expires or the cylinder gas pressure reaches 150 psig. This pro vision is necessary

to ensure that Part 75 sources have adequate gas supplies during the initial implementation of the PGVP, and thereafter. For the same reasons, UARG requests that the PGVP program not take effect until at least 30 day s after publication to allow production sites time to provide notification to EPA, and that EPA provide Part 75 sources notice of an y production site “delistings,” so that gas purchases can continue without interruption. Second, Figure 3 to Appendix B makes clear that failure of a cylinder to meet the 2.0 percent criterion does mean that an individual producer is not meeting that criterion with its other cylinders. This3

statement is important to UARG to ensure that PGVP audit findings do not affect a gas compan y’s certificatio n of other Protocol gases purchased b y Part 75 sources. ” Response : The PGVP portion of the final rule requiring sources subject to Part 75 that use EPA Protocol gas having to procure such gas from PGVP participating production sites will take effect 6 0 d ay s after publication in the Federal Register. However, the PGVP recordkeeping and reporting will take effect 180 day s after publication. 5) Comment : “ With respect to cost, EPA states in the I CR onl y that those “PGVP vendors that were contacted estimate d an increased cost of two dollars or less per cylinder.” EPA

- HQ
- OAR
2009
- 0837
- 0013 at 13. While that increase in cost does not sound unreasonable, EPA has not provided sufficient information in its discussion for UARG to evaluate whether that estimate is realistic.EPA does not say how many

vendors were contacted or on what information those vendors based their estimates. EPA should revise its I CR to include a more detailed anal ys is including the projected cost of the NI ST audit process. UARG is concerned n ot only with the unlimited potential for gas companies to pass program costs on to Part 75 customers, but also with the possibility

that program costs might cause some companies or sites to decline participation. Competition among gas vendors is critical to ensuring good availability and reasonable costs. EPA should address those potential issues prior to finalizing the program. ” Response : EPA has revised the final ICR supporting statement to include additional supporting information , including adding i n 600 hours of contractor time to account for ECMPS software changes, adding costs for DAHS upgrades for facilities without an existing service contract that would affect approximately 2 0 percent of CEMS sources, and addi ng text to describ e the cost break downs for both the AETB and the PGVP provisions. EPA has not received any comments from specialty gas companies stating that they would not participate due to PGVP costs. S ee EPA’s response to Airgas’s #1 Comment. 6) Comment : EPA should explain why su ch detailed reporting of start and end dates and hours corresponding to use of a particular t ype of Protocol gas is required and why the reporting of Protocol gas t ype codes is important. EPA should allow an “other blends” gas type category
. EPA should b e clear that it is still allowing the use of a blend of gases as both zero gas and span gas. “UARG generally

believes that tracking of information on individual gas cylinders is not necessary and EPA has provided no justification for it.” Response : Some PGVP related information was originall y planned to be reported in the monitoring plan. However, because the reporting of this information will now be in the quarterl y electronic emissions report or reported prior to that report , start and end dates and t imes are no longer required and have been removed from the final rule

. The final rule will only require ECMPS reporting of a gas level code (low, mid or high

- level concentration), a code for the t ype of EPA Protocol gas used, the PGVP vendor ID , cylinder expiration date , and cylinder number

. The reporting of low, mid or high

- level concentration is already required by § 75.59(a)(3). The reporting of Protocol gas ty pe code is important for informing future PGVP audits. The reporting of the PGVP vendor ID is essential to allow EPA to determine that each EPA Protocol gas cylinder used by

a Part 75 source is from a participating EPA Protocol gas production site.4

Two commenters preferred that the PGVP be more rigorous. Therefore, EPA has added electronic rec ordkeeping and reporting of cylinder expiration dates and cylinder numbers for all cylinders used for any

certification, recertification, diagnostic, or quality assurance test required under Part 75. The Agency believes that this will strengthen the PGVP by reducing or eliminating the use of expired cylinders, and b y i mproving the tracking of cylinder information. Section 75.59(a)(7)(iv)(X) and 75.59(a)(9)(v) already require these two items to be recorded in limited situations or in hardcop y onl y, and sec tion 75.60(b)(6) already requires these two items to be reported in a hardcopy report to the State, local agency or EPA Regional Office upon request. The Protocol gas ty pe codes have been revised to include an Other EPA
- Approved EPA Protocol Gas Blend category
. However, sources will need to receive EPA approval to use it. EPA has found that if an “ Other” category is allowed, sources will sometimes simply use that category instead of selecting the correct one. EPA will add new code s to ECMPS as needed ; the ECMPS sy stem allows these ty pes of additions to be made quickl y and easily

. EPA will make clear in the electronic reporting instructions that the list is not exclusive, and that other ty pes of EPA Protocol gases could be made to meet customer needs

. Appendix A, § 6.3.1 of the final rule clarif ies that a Protocol gas blend may be used as both a zero gas and span gas where appropriate. 7) Comment : The costs of including these Protocol gas t ype codes, including the costs of revising and debugging repo rting software must be included in the ICR. Response : The cost of recording and reporting Protocol gas type codes is included in the ICR. Section 6 of the I CR states: “In addition, the estimates in this I CR reflect a small burden to Part 75 sources for a one - time rule review and an incremental increase in the annual burden associated with minor modifications to the recordkeeping and reporting requirements (i.e., for tracking AETB and PGVP

- related information and data). EPA has amended the ICR supporting statement to include the cost of revising and debugging reporting software

. 8) Comment : The need for the proposed AETB requirements is questionable. The ASTM D 7036
- 04 (the ASTM standard) provisions are subjective, arbitrary or unclear and are not desi gned to have each item enforced as a federal regulatory requirement. There is no evidence that compliance with the ASTM standard will prevent mistakes. A more appropriate approach is to encourage voluntary

compliance. Response : EPA addressed many of th ese concerns in the response to comments for the 2006 proposed rule ( see Document ID # EPA
- HQ
- OAR
- 2005
- 0132
- 0110 in D ocket EPA
- HQ
- OAR
2005
- 0132 )

. These concerns were also discussed in the preamble of the January 24, 2008 final rule (see 73 FR 4325, January 24, 2008), in an EPA Inspector General report, and in several correspondences from State air agencies ( see Doc ument ID #s EPA
- HQ
- OAR
- 2009
- 0837
- 0015,

- 0016,
- 0062, and

- 0063, and Document ID# EPA

- HQ
- OAR
- 2005
- 0132
- 0035 in the dockets). The following resp onds to the need for the proposed AETB requirements , the concern that the provisions in the ASTM standard are subjective, arbitrary or unclear, and the concern that there is no evidence that compliance with the ASTM standard will prevent mistakes

. S mall and large stack testing companies, sources subject to Part 75 , and S tate and EPA regulators in the ASTM D 7036
- 04 work group believe that implementation of the ASTM5

Practice will result in improved data quality

. EPA believe s the evidence is strong that unqualified, under

- trained and inexperienced testers are routinely deployed on testing projects. EPA and State air agencies have had experiences with tests that have been invalidated or called into question due to poor performance b y testing contractors (see Doc ument ID #s referenced in the previous paragraph ). EPA believes that meeting the requirements of ASTM D7036 and having a Qualified Individual on site do not guarantee proper performance of any individual test, but feel s strongl y that these will incre ase the likelihood of proper test execution and high quality data generation. EPA also believes that third part y (e.g., S tate agency) oversight helps ensure that testing is properl y conducted and strongl y encourages such oversight to continue

. Regarding the concern that there is no evidence that compliance with the ASTM standard will prevent mistakes, EPA notes that there is also no evidence that compliance with the ASTM standard won’t prevent mistakes. Voluntary

compliance with any

minimum competency standard has not worked for the past 30 years, which is how long EPA and other organizations have tried to develop an acceptable standard for stack testers. There are many reasons wh y voluntary compliance has not worked, including disagreement among stack test companies on a minimum competency standard, and the practice of sources often hiring the lowest bidder. The lack of voluntary compliance with a minimum competency standard is also why

various States, including Louisiana, have developed their own sta ck testing regulatory standards. A driving force for the development of the ASTM standard was to prevent the patchwork of standards that was beginning to occur throughout the U.S. If each State were to develop its own standard for stack testing, testing costs would increase as stack testers performing work in multiple States would have to pay

for, qualify

in and abide by

differing requirements in multiple jurisdictions. EPA notes that the L ouisiana DEQ has agreed to cancel its stack testing accreditation program (see Document ID # EPA
- HQ
- OAR
- 2009
- 0837
- 0072 in the docket) and in its place substitute accreditation to ASTM D 7036

- 04. L ouisiana DEQ also agrees to recognize third part y accreditors such as the Stack Testing Accreditation Council. 9) Comment : “ EPA proposes to revise the definitions of “Air Emission Testing Body” (AETB) and “Qualified Individual” (QI). Proposed § 72.2. An AETB would be an entity that provides a certification under Appendix A, § 6.1.2(b) and a QI would be an individual identified by an AETB as meeting the requirement of the ASTM practice for QIs. These revisions are important to address UARG’s concerns because they make clear that the status of an AETB or QI for purposes of Part 75 depends on the AETB’s (or an external accreditati on body ’s) determination of compliance at the time of testing, and not on some future determination by the AETB or a third party . This allows Part 75 source owners/operators to rel y on an AETB’s certification to ensure their sources compliance with the rul e, and allow source owners/operators to determine at the time of testing whether their tests (and subsequent emissions data) are valid. A definition of AETB or QI that is conditioned on the AETB’s or QI’s actual compliance would unreasonabl y hold Part 75 s ource owners/operators accountable for the AETB or QI’s compliance. ”6

Response : The Agency generall y agrees. However, if during a test, an observer determines that no QI was overseeing or supervising the test , then the test is invalid and must be repeat ed with a QIthat compli es with ASTM D 7036

- 04 and Part 75

. 10) Comment : “ EPA proposes to add a new § 75.21(f) identifying by section which tests must be conducted b y an AETB, and stating to which tests the requirement to conform to the ASTM practice ap pl y. These statements are important not only to establish which tests must be conducted b y an AETB, but also to make clear that in certifying its conformance to the ASTM practice under Appendix A, § 6.1.2(b) an AETB need onl y consider whether it complies w ith the ASTM practice when performing RATA and Appendix E and LME test, and not when it performs other sorts of tests. ” Response : The Agency

agrees. 11) Comment : Commenter is c oncern ed that a statement in the preamble allows for the invalidation of lar ge amounts of data if, e.g., six months after the completion of a RATA EPA were to discover that a QI was not on site during the test period. Resp o nse : EPA agrees that section 6.1.2(e) requires discovery during the test period that a QI was not on site o verseeing and supervising test projects in order for data to be called into question. EPA has removed the misleading statement in the preamble

. 12) Comment : EPA solicits comment on whether the rule should require that AETBs be accredited b y an external organization (something neither the rule nor ASTM D7036

- 04 requires). UARG does not believe that a requirement for external certification can be supported. First, there c urrently

is only one national accreditation organization providing accreditation of any sort
-- STAC, and that organization in unlikely to be able to handle the volume of AETBs seeking to perform testing under Part 75. However, even if STAC could meet demand, no regulation should b e designed around the services of a single private organiz ation. Second, accreditation is expensive and likel y would only become more so without significant competition among p roviders. Unless EPA could demonstrate a clear substantive advantage to external accreditation, those costs cannot be justified. At this p oint, EPA has no evidence to suggest that accreditation is an y better at assuring compliance with the ASTM practice than self

- certification. Finally , requiring accreditation would have the effect of making accreditation organizations the sole arbiters of c ompliance with the ASTM practice. Currentl y, an AETB that loses accreditation as a result of a dispute over interpretation of the ASTM practice can enforce its own interpretation through self certification. Given the subjective nature of many of the ASTM practice r equirements and the industry ’s limited experience in implementing it, such independence is essential to UARG’s support for the current proposal. Response : EPA agrees that it is premature to require accreditation to ASTM D 7036

- 04. 13) Comment : UARG notes that EPA’s proposal would incorporate b y reference and require compliance with a specific version of ASTM D7036

- 04. Because EPA has not solicited comment on the use of any other version of the practice, EPA could not require compliance with any other version (or revision) without conducting a new rulemaking. For example, EPA could7

not impose on AETBs a future version of the practice that requires accreditation without issuing a new proposal. Response : EPA agrees. 14) Comment : The AETB rec ordkeeping and reporting deadlines in sections 75.59 and 75.64, respectivel y, are confusing. “ Although the use of both an effective date and a deadline is confusing, as UARG understand the proposal even if the final rule were published less than 6 months before deadline in § 75.64(a)(5), sources would still have 6 months from the effective date of the final rule before the AETB provisions would become effective. However, any AETB information that is required to be recorded on or after both the effective date of the AETB provision and the deadline in 75.64(a)(5) would have to be reported prior to or concurrent with the relevant electronic quarterl y report. UARG requests that EPA confirm that understanding. ” Response : Any

AETB information required to be rec orded by the rule would have to be reported prior to or concurrent with the relevant electronic quarterl y report. The Agency received requests to extend the AETB compliance deadline from three commenters. No commenter thought that EPA was providing too much time. Even though EPA believes that the Source Evaluation Society

and their contractors who implement the Qualified Individual tests have adequate capacity

to handle a large increase in tests (see Document ID# EPA

- HQ
- OAR
- 2009
- 0837
- 0054 in the docket), the Agency agrees that a 365 day s from publication of the final rule in the Federal Register compliance deadline for the AETB related provisions is more reasonable for several reasons. Onl y approximately 30 percent of the roughl y 400 stack testing compan ies have at least one qualified individual. Even these companies may not yet be fully

compliant with ASTM D 7036
- 04. The large amount of near term stack testing necessary to respond to the Agency ’s requests for information collection under Section 114 of the Clean Air Act to assess the emissions of HAPs from electric generating units and other industrial sources (see Document ID # EPA
- HQ
- OAR
- 2009
- 0837
- 0060 in the docket) provides even less time for companies to come into compliance with the AETB provisions . Therefore, to better ensure that every stack test company

has a reasonable chance to compl y with ASTM D 7036

- 04, EPA has extended the deadline in section 75.21(f) and the recordkeeping deadlines in section 75.59 for AETB

- related data elements to 365 cal endar day s from publication of the final rule in the Federal Register . The commencement date in section 6.1.2(a) of Appendix A to Part 75 has also been extend ed to 365 calendar day s from publication of the final rule in the Federal Register . The AETB rep orting deadline in section 75.64(a)(5) has been similarly revised. 15) Comment : “ Section 75.22 establishes requirements for and limitations on the use of r eference methods under Part 75. EPA proposes to revise § 75.22(a)(5) to add a new subsection ( v) d isallowing an option provided under Method 7E to conduct multiple sampling runs before performing post

- run checks. EPA’s rationale for the restriction is concern that drift correction of individual runs based on the results of checks performed after multip le runs will not be accurate if the drift is not uniform over the entire test. 75 Fed. Reg. at 33,400. UARG does not disagree that, at some point, drift corrections may become less accurate following multiple runs, but not enough to require a post

- run chec k after every run. A requirement to perform a post run bias or sy stem calibration error check after every three runs would be sufficient to ensure accurate drift corrections without needlessly adding to the length of the test. EPA should limit the number o f8

runs allowed before performing a post

- run check to three, rather than prohibiting multiple runs altogether. ” Response : Several commenters have questioned EPA’s proposal not to allow the use of provisions recentl y added to EPA Method 7E when conducting the reference methods for Part 75 purposes. The provision of the method in question allows multiple test runs to be quality assured for bias and drift as a group rather than individually. This change made in the method allows the user to conduct bias an d drift checks onl y at the beginning and end of a series of test runs, rather than conducting these checks before and after each individual run. The rationale for this is that if the tester can pass the quality assurance at the beginning and end of the se ries of runs, then the intermediate runs must be valid, and the quality of the reference method data has not been compromised by

taking this shortcut. However this assumption is not necessarily true. Two commenters favor allowing 63 minutes of continu ous sampling time between bias and drift checks. According to the commenters, sampling for 63 consecutive minutes at a time is desirable because 63 minutes corresponds to the time needed to perform three 21

- minute runs of a CEMS relative accuracy test aud it (RATA) and also is long enough to obtain a complete compliance test (i.e., stack test) run. Compliance tests often consist of three one

- hour runs, and many sources have both RATA requirements and compliance test requirements. The commenters favor eli minating the bias and drift checks after each RATA run because it reduces the amount of time required to perform the testing. Generally speaking, it is good practice to perform emission testing in the most efficient manner possible without sacrificing data quality . However, EPA believes that the added assurance of data quality

provided by

performing bias and drift checks after each 21

- minute RATA run far outweighs the small amount of time that could be saved b y skipping the intermediate QA checks. Further, there is no reason why three 21

- minute RATA runs cannot be averaged together to make one 63

- minute compliance test run. For t ypical compliance test applications of the method where the user is only concerned with showing compliance with an emis sions limit, the accuracy of the individual test runs is not as essential as it is for Part 75 applications. The Agency does not object to the change made to Method 7E when the method is used for compliance test applications. Since the average of all te st runs is used to assess compliance, the run

- by

- run percent inaccuracies due to changing bias and drift over the course of the testing will tend to cancel, resulting in acceptable overall average that is only

slightl y different from the average value that would have been obtained had the more stringent run

- by

- run quality assurance procedures been followed. Thus, for compliance testing purposes, the commenters are correct in asserting that little is gained from performing the quality assurance testing bef

ore and after each run, so long as the overall specifications for bias and drift are met at the beginning and end of each test series. However, under Part 75 the reference method measurements are generall y used for a very different purpose and the inaccur acy that can be introduced by not following the run

- by

- run quality assurance is unacceptable. For Part 75, the reference methods are primarily used to directly assess the accuracy

of a continuous emissions monitoring sy stem on a run
- by

- run basis. The purpose of the relative accuracy test audits (RATA) is to conduct at least nine quality

-9

assured independent reference measurements and compare those measurements to nine simultaneous measurements made by a continuous emissions monitoring system in its normal mode of operation. Since each run directly compares CEMS measurements to reference method measurements, an y drift in the reference monitor during the course of the run must be assessed and accounted for. Method 7E provides a means of adjusting the reference method measurements for moderate drift (less than 3.0% of the span gas value over the course of a run). This correction is intended to tie the resulting reference value more closel y to the EPA Protocol calibration gas standards which are traceable to the National Institute of Standards and Technology

(NI ST). The correction assumes that over the duration of the test run, the profile of any drift observed is linear. The longer the interval between bias/drift checks, the less likely it is that this lin ear approximation will hold true. Because the RATA is intended to compare nine independent, quality - assured reference measurements to nine simultaneous measurements from a CEMS, EPA finds that performing a bias and drift evaluation before and after a seri es of runs increases the uncertainty in the individual run measurements and has the potential to introduce error that would otherwise be eliminated b y performing the bias and drift evaluation before and after each run. EPA believes that mass

- based regulat ory programs, such as the trading programs supported by

Part 75 monitoring, need the added assurance of data quality provided by

run - by

run bias and drift evaluations. The run

- by

- run quality assurance is consistent with Method 7E as it was originall y written, and avoids the risk of adding bias and uncertainty to the CEMS data through the RATA process. To demonstrate the errors that can result from quality

- assuring a series of Method 7E runs instead of performing run

- by

- run QA, consider the following examp les: Assume that the reference method uses a 30.0 ppm span gas. Assume that the direct anal yz er calibration is perfect and that the s ys tem bias for the zero level gas is alway s perfect (i.e., 0.0). By

doing this we can focus on the effects of various upscale drift profiles. Note that any drift in the zero response would also factor into the proper correction of reference values and would result in further measurement uncertainties if ignored. Table 1, below, illustrates four possible drift profiles over a series of test runs. The first case is an ideal, constant rate drift profile where the drift is linear over the entire test. The second is a curved profile where the monitor drifts in one direction (upward) but does so slowly at first then more ra

pidly near the end of the test. The third presents a variable drift profile where one of the runs would be invalidated for failing the post

- run s ys tem bias check. The fourth is also a case of variable drift where the bias is alway s within acceptable lim its, but the drift during one of the runs would be unacceptable. Such drift can be caused when a test trailer becomes suddenl y impacted by the sun and rapidly heats up before the mobile air conditioning can compensate. Each of these profiles represents p ossible changes in s ys tem response during the course of a test, which would be detected and properl y addressed if run

- by

- run s ys tem bias and drift checks were performed. For each of the four drift profiles, the upscale sy stem bias and s ys tem drift check results for each test run are presented in Tables 2 and 3. Table 2 shows that for Case 3, run #7 should be invalidated, based on excessive bias (5.3%) that developed during the test. Note, however, that this bias is not seen in the subsequent test runs , because the monitor drifted back to a point10

within the bias specification. Table 3 shows that for Case 4, run #5 exhibited excessive drift (3.3%) and thus should be considered an invalid run.

Table 1: Example Reference Method System Drift Profiles

Case 1: Linear Profile Case 2:

Delayed Curved Profile Case 3:

Variable Drift Profile with Failed Bias Run Case 4:

Variable Drift Profile with Failed Drift Run Pre 1 Start of Testing 30 30 30 30 Pre 2 30.1 30 29.8 29.8 Pre 3 30.2 30.1 3 0 29.6 Pre 4 30.3 30.1 30.4 29.5 Pre 5 30.4 30.2 30.5 29.2 Pre 6 30.5 30.3 30.7 30.2 Pre 7 30.6 30.4 31.2 31.1 Pre 8 30.7 30.5 31.6 31 Pre 9 30.8 30.7 31.2 31 Post 9 End of Testing 30.9 30.9 30.9 30.9

Table 2: System Bias Results (5.0% limit)
C ase 1: Linear Profile Case 2:

Delayed Curved Profile Case 3:

Variable Drift Profile with Failed Bias Run Case 4:

Variable Drift Profile with Failed Drift Run Pre 1 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Pre 2 0.3% 0.0%
- 0.7%
- 0.7% Pre 3 0.7% 0.3% 0.0%
- 1.3 % Pre 4 1.0% 0.3% 1.3%
- 1.7% Pre 5 1.3% 0.7% 1.7%
- 2.7% Pre 6 1.7% 1.0% 2.3% 0.7% Pre 7 2.0% 1.3% 4.0% 3.7% Pre 8 2.3% 1.7% 5.3% 3.3% Pre 9 2.7% 2.3% 4.0% 3.3% Post 9 3.0% 3.0% 3.0% 3.0%11
Table 3: Drift Evaluation (3.0% limit)
Case 1: Linear Profile Case 2:

Delayed Curved Profile Case 3:

Variable Drift Profile with Failed Bias Run Case 4:

Variable Drift Profile with Failed Drift Run Run 1 0.3% 0.0%
- 0.7%
- 0.7% Run 2 0.3% 0.3% 0.7%
- 0.7% Run 3 0.3% 0.0% 1.3%
- 0.3% Run 4 0.3% 0.3% 0 .3%
- 1.0% Run 5 0.3% 0.3% 0.7% 3.3% Run 6 0.3% 0.3% 1.7% 3.0% Run 7 0.3% 0.3% 1.3%
- 0.3% Run 8 0.3% 0.7%
- 1.3% 0.0% Run 9 0.3% 0.7%
- 1.0%
- 0.3% BF/A Method 3.0% 3.0% 3.0% 3.0% Note that for all four Cases, the pre

- test and post

- test response s give identical results and show no excessive bias or drift. Therefore, based solely on the results of these checks, all of the test runs in the series would be declared valid

--- all four Cases would look exactly the same to a tester who onl y conducted th e pre - test and post

- test sy stem bias and drift tests. However, the actual drift profiles and the results of the run

- by

- run QA checks clearl y indicate that checking bias and drift only

before and after a series of test runs can mask significant bias and drift problems, and could lead to an erroneous conclusion about the validity of the individual test runs. For each of the four drift profiles, Tables 4 through Table 7, below, compare the reference method measurements, corrected run

- by

- run for bias and drif t, against the same measurements corrected using onl y the pre

- and post

- test sy stem bias test results. For the first Case with uniform linear drift, Table 4 shows that for both QA methods, the overall average of the nine reference method runs is the sam e, and no apparent benefit is gained by performing run

by run QA checks. However, it is also evident that the run

- by

- run corrected values start off being 1.3% higher than the pre

- and post

- test corrected values and end up being 1.3% lower. Thus, even for the ideal case of uniform linear drift, the two QA methods can give significantly different values for the individual reference method (RM) runs. In Part 75 applications, the exact RM values are important, because for each RATA run, the arithmetic diffe rence between the CEMS reading and the RM value enters into the relative accuracy calculations. Table 4: Comparison of Drift Corrected Reference Measurements

for Case 1 Linear Drift Profile12

Reference Method Me asurement Corrected

based on pre test an d post test system bias checks Corrected

based on run – by - run system bias checks Run by run %

difference
Run 1 25 24.6 25.0
- 1.3% Run 2 24 23.6 23.9
- 1.0% Run 3 26 25.6 25.8
- 0.7% Run 4 22 21.7 21.7
- 0.3% Run 5 24 23.6 23.6 0.0% Run 6 22 21.7 21. 6 0.3% Run 7 26 25.6 25.4 0.7% Run 8 28 27.6 27.3 1.0% Run 9 27 26.6 26.3 1.3% Average 24.9 24.5 24.5 0.0% Tables 5 through 7 compare the two QA methods for the more realistic Cases 2 through 4, in which the drift profile is non

- uniform and variable. Tables 5 through 7 show, once again, that when the two QA methods are applied, even though the percentage difference between the average reference method values may be small, the drift

- corrected RM values for the individual runs can be significant ly

different. This is especially clear in Tables 6 and 7. And, as previousl y seen in Tables 2 and 3, there are actuall y two runs that would have been disqualified for excessive bias or drift based on the results of the run

- by

- run QA checks. Both of thes e runs would have been declared valid if only the pre

- and post

- test sy stem bias and drift checks were performed. Table 5 : Comparison of Drift Corrected Reference Measurements for Case 2 Curved Profile

Reference Method Me asurement Corrected based on pre test and post test system bias checks Corrected

based on run by - run system bias checks Run by run %

difference
Run 1 25 24.6 25.0
- 1.5% Run 2 24 23.6 24.0
- 1.3% Run 3 26 25.6 25.9
- 1.1% Run 4 22 21.7 21.9
- 1.0% Run 5 24 23.6 23.8
- 0.7% Run 6 22 21.7 21.7
- 0.3% Run 7 26 25.6 25.6 0.0% Run 8 28 27.6 27.5 0.5% Run 9 27 26.6 26.3 1.1%13

Average 24.9 24.5 24.6
- 0.4%

Table 6 : Comparison of Drift Corrected Reference Measurements for Case 3 Variable Drift Profile with Failed Bias Run

Reference Method Me asurement Corrected based on pre test and post test system bias checks Corrected

based on run by - run system bias checks Run by run %

difference
Run 1 25 24.6 25.1
- 1.8% Run 2 24 23.6 24.1
- 1.8% Run 3 26 25.6 25.8
- 0.8% Run 4 22 21.7 21.7 0.0% Run 5 24 23.6 23.5 0.5% Run 6 22 21.7 21.3 1.6% Run 7 26 25.6 24.8 3.1% Run 8 28 27.6 26.8 3.1% Run 9 27 26.6 26.1 2.0% Average 24.9 24.5 24.4 0.7%

Table 7 : Comparison of Drift Corrected Reference Measurements for Case 4 Variable Drift Profile with Failed Drift Run

Reference Method Me asurement Corrected

based on pre test and post test system bias checks Corrected

based on run by - run system bias checks Run by run %

difference
Run 1 25 24.6 25.1
- 1.8% Run 2 24 2 3.6 24.2
- 2.5% Run 3 26 25.6 26.4
- 3.0% Run 4 22 21.7 22.5
- 3.6% Run 5 24 23.6 24.2
- 2.5% Run 6 22 21.7 21.5 0.7% Run 7 26 25.6 25.1 2.0% Run 8 28 27.6 27.1 1.8% Run 9 27 26.6 26.2 1.6% Average 24.9 24.5 24.7
- 0.8%14

While these four example s are h ypothetical, they nevertheless represent real possibilities that could exist during the course of testing. There are so man y factors that can affect drift profiles, that the only

safe way to ensure proper correction or invalidation of the RM data is to do the run

- by

- run quality assurance, which, incidentally , was part of the original Method 7E. EPA does not collect the actual reference method test data for Method 7E electronicall y in a manner that can be further analyzed. Therefore, we cannot p ropoerl y assess how reducing the number of required bias and drift checks will impact data quality. We have no way of knowing how man y t est runs that should be invalidated would be assumed to be valid if we were to allow bias and drift checks to be done o nl y before and after a series of runs. However, we do know that we can avoid that issue entirel y b y requiring the qualit y assurance checks to be performed before and after each run for Part 75 applications. In summary , EPA maintains that in view of the way that Method 7E data are used in the Part 75 programs, run
- by

- run s ys tem bias and drift checks are necessary to eliminate measurement error that would otherwise be introduced b y not quality

- assuring each run individually . This QA approach also applies to Method 6C (the instrumental reference method for SO 2 ) and to Method 3A (the instrumental method for O 2 and CO 2 ), when those methods are used for Part 75 applications. 16) Comment : “ EPA proposes to remove provisions of the rule that were adopted in the Clean Air Mercury

Rule (CAMR) and vacated by the D.C. Circuit in New Jersey v. EPA, 517 F.3d 574 (D.C. Cir. 2008), to re

- promulgate other provisions that were revised in CAMR and then vacated, and to remove or revise other related provisions that refere nce mercury and sorbent trap monitoring sy stems. UARG supports these revisions. Because EPA’s preamble identifies no other changes in these provisions than removal of the references to mercury and mercury monitoring sy stems, UARG assumes that no other rev isions to the republished provisions were intended and asks that EPA confirm that in the final rule. If EPA has proposed other changes, EPA should issue a supplemental proposal identifying and justifying the proposed change.

“ In addition, UARG has identi fied two provisions not included in EPA’s proposal that also should be republished because the portions referencing mercury monitoring were vacated in CAMR. Section 75.53(e)(1)(iv) refers to reporting of information on Hg monitors and sorbent trap monitori ng s ys tems, and § 75.53(e)(1)(x) refers to information on each stack using an Hg component monitor. Although the Hg portions of these provisions are no longer in effect, to be consistent with the other proposed revisions and to avoid confusion, EPA should revise and repromulgate these provisions without the references to Hg, sorbent trap monitoring s ys tem, and Hg. EPA also should ensure that these requirements have been removed from the reporting format, schema, and instructions. ” Response : The proposed r ule revisions that would remove all references to mercury (Hg) monitoring from Part 75 have been finalized without modification. However, the commenter has correctly identified two references to Hg monitoring in §75.53(e) which EPA apparentl y overlooked. The Agency has also identified a third reference in §75.53(e) and another reference in §75.57 that were inadvertently overlooked. Section 75.53(e)(1)(i)(E) refers to Hg emission controls, and Method of Determination Code (MODC) “15” in Table 4a in §75.57 refers to “Hg15

concentration”. The final rule removes all four of these references to Hg monitoring from Part 75. All references to Hg monitoring and reporting have also been removed from the “ECMPS Reporting Instructions” (see the June 17, 2009 version and September 16, 2009 addendum, which are posted on the Clean Air Markets Division web site at the following address: http://www.epa.gov/airmarkets/business/ecmps/reporting

- instructions.html . However, certain schema elements had already been incorporated by the time of the court vacatur of CAMR, (e.g., <CalibrationStandardData> record intended to collect whether elemental or oxidized mercury standards were used for daily calibration). EPA continues to affirm that it is unnecessary to remove such records from the reporting format (or schema) since there are no requirements to use these fields or an y of the mercury specific codes. As such these records are in essenc e vestigial, l yi ng behind the scenes unnoticeable b y anyone who isn’t a DAHS programmer able to understand the format code and view these few, unused fields. Removing such would unnecessarily

result in added reprogramming cost to both the tax payer and in dustry

. Note that minor changes have been made to a few of the rule sections in which the Hg monitoring provisions were found. These changes were described under “Miscellaneous Corrections and Additions” in the preamble to the proposed rule, and have b een finalized without modification. 17) Comment : “ Section 75.4(b) addresses the deadline for completion of monitoring sy stem certification tests for new and newl y affected units. EPA proposes to revise §§ 75.4(b)(2) and (c)(2) to remove the alternative 9 0 unit operating day time frame for completing tests, and to allow all units up to 180 calendar day s. 75 Fed. Reg. at 33,399. EPA states the purpose of the change is to clarify

and simplify

the deadline determination.

“ Although UARG does not object to this specific revision, which allows units more time to complete testing, EPA’s rationale for the change is unclear. Calculation of operating day s is neither difficult nor unclear for Part 75 sources. Part 75 defines unit operating day as a day during which a unit combusts any fuel and Part 75 requires sources to record each unit’s operating time on an hourly basis. 40 C.F.R. §§ 72.2 and 75.57(b)(2). As a result, to the extent EPA is suggesting that operating day s are not sufficiently clear to be used as a m easure of time under an y other provision of Part 75, UARG disagrees. In short, UARG supports this revision because it provides more time, but does not necessarily agree with EPA’s stated reasons. ” Response : The proposed revisions to §§75.4(b)(2) and 75.4 (c)(2) have been finalized without modification. However, for the record, EPA wishes to clarify its reasons for making these rule changes. The Agency agrees with the commenter that calculation of the number of unit operating day s is n either difficult n or unclear in the regulation. F or new Acid Rain Program (ARP) units under §75.4(b)(2), the difficulty lies in determining whe n a unit’s 90 th operating day occurs in relation to the date on which the unit commenced commercial operation (CCO) (i.e., whether the 90 th operating day is prior to, coincident with, or after the 180 th calendar day following CCO). For newly

- affected Acid Rain units under §75.4(c)(2), it is also difficult to establish whe n the unit ’s 90th operating day occurs in relation to the date on which the unit first operates after becoming subject to the ARP.16

In accordance with 40 CFR 72.9(c)(3)(iv), a new or newl y affected Acid Rain unit is required to hold allowances equal to its SO2 emissions as of the deadline for monitor certification . Historically, for new units that date has been either the 90 th operating day after CCO (if operating day

90 occurs before calendar day 180) or the 180 th calendar day after CCO (if calendar day

180 occurs before the 90 th operating day). Newly affected units under §75.4(c)(2) that have lost their Acid Rain

- exempt status are required to hold allowances either 90 operating day s after the date on which the unit “first operates after becoming subject to the requirements of the Acid Rain Program” or 180 calend ar day s after that date (whichever occurs first). The emissions reporting provisions of §75.64(a) further complicate the process of determining the exact date on which SO2 allowance holding must begin. Section 75.64(a) requires new or newly

- affected un its to begin reporting emissions data on the earlier of: (1) the date on which monitor certification is completed; or (2) the expiration of the monitor certification deadline. Most units complete certification well before the deadline and begin electroni c data reporting at that point. However, the first electronic report submitted to EPA does not contain an y unit operating data prior to the date on which monitor certification was completed. This often makes it impossible to determine from the report whe ther 90 unit operating day s elapsed between the CCO date (or, if applicable, the date on which the unit first operated after becoming ARP

- affected) and the date on which certification testing was completed. Without that information, the date on which SO2 allowances are first required to be held cannot be established with certainty. This places an unnecessary administrative burden on EPA and regulated source because EPA must require the sources to submit information identifying the 90 th operating day

. To simplify

things, EPA has changed the window of time allotted for new and newly

affected Acid Rain units to complete monitoring sy stem certification from a 90 operating day /180 calendar day

window to 180 calendar day s from a known date, i.e., from the CC O date (for new units) or from the date on which the unit first becomes subject to the Acid Rain Program (for newl y - affected units). Section 75.61(a)(2) already requires the Designated Representative (DR) to provide notification to EPA of the date on whi ch a new Acid Rain unit commences commercial operation. For a newly

- affected Acid Rain unit, §75.61(a)(2) already requires the DR to provide notification of the date on which the unit becomes subject to the ARP. 18) Comment : “ Section 75.4(e) addresses the deadline for completion of monitoring sy stem certification tests for units that have added a new stack or control device. EPA proposes to revise § 75.4(e) to remove the reference to “existing unit” and make the provision applicable to “certification and/or recertification and/or diagnostic tests” at all “affected units” that complete construction of a new stack or flue, flue gas desulfurization sy stem (FGD) or add

- on NOx emission control 1

. EPA also proposes to add language stating that if the project involves both a new stack and a new control device, the deadline for completion of testing must be determined from the date that emissions exit the new stack. 75 Fed. Reg. at 33,399.

1 “ Although EPA has not solicited comment on the types of emission controls listed under this provision, UARG suggests that EPA consider broadening the provision to include any type of emission control that might be [sic] require recertification or diagnostic testing or [sic] the monitoring systems on an affected unit. ”17

“ UARG supports EPA’s proposed expansion of the provision to include all affected units and all testing that may

be triggered as a result of construction of a new stack or control device. This revision is consistent with the original intent of the provision, which was to address deadlines for units that must relocate, replace, or retest monitoring s ys tems as a result of the addition of new controls, regardless of when the unit commenced construction. UARG does not believe the provision was ever intended to draw a distinction between “existing” units as that term is defined under § 72.2 and other units with previously certified monitoring s ys tems. The addition of recertification and diagnostic tests also is consistent with its EPA’s intent and past implementation of the provision through guidance.

“ However, UARG objects to EPA’s proposal to hold units that are constructing both a new stack and a control device to a single testing deadline based on use of the new stack. Although most sources likely would try

to time operation of a new control device to coincide with any testing dea dline created under § 75.4(e) as a result of use of a new stack, there is no valid policy

reason for limiting an owner/operator to a single deadline or set of tests to validate the monitoring s ys tem. If both a new stack and new control device are construct ed, but there is a delay between operation of the new stack and operation of the control device, the unit should be allowed to certify

the sy stem initially

following operation of the new stack and then later recertify (or perform appropriate diagnostic tes ting) based on a new deadline after emissions pass through the control device. In that case, the subsequent operation, not installation, of the control device would trigger a separate, second testing deadline.

“ If the owner/operator completes recertificat ion on the monitoring s ys tems on a new stack prior to operating the new control device, data from those monitoring s ys tem are valid unless or until the new control device is operated. If operation of that new control device also triggers testing of one or more monitoring s ys tems, missing data procedures under § 75.4(e) should be used for that sy stem (or those sy stems) until the second recertification or diagnostic testing is completed with the control device operating. There is no policy basis to require an owner/operator to miss a testing deadline, and trigger use of missing data procedures, simply because a control device has not operated within a certain period of time after operation of a new stack. If EPA has a valid policy reason for limiting the numbe r of recertifications or diagnostic testing events under this provision, or for appl yi ng missing data substitution procedures in that circumstance, EPA should issue a new proposal that articulates those reasons. ” Response : EPA agrees in part with the co mmenter. As noted above, §75.4(e)(2), on its face, applies only

to existing units (which are generally units commencing commercial operation before November 1, 1990 and serving a generator with a nameplate capacity greater than 25 MWe) and thus was not intended to cover new units. However, EPA agrees that it is appropriate to expand §75.4(e)(2) to provide a similar approach for monitoring compliance deadlines and missing data substitution for new stack construction and add

- on SO 2 or NO x control installati on at both existing and new units and to cover recertification and diagnostic tests, in addition to the certification tests covered by the existing provision. In addition, EPA agrees that in cases where a project involves both new stack construction and i nstallation of add

- on SO 2 or NO x controls, the initial routing of flue gas through the new stack and the initial operation of an add

- on control device (i.e., when reagent is first injected) should, if necessary , be treated as two separate events, each of which is allotted a flexible 90 operating day /180 calendar day

window to complete all18

required certification and/or recertification and/or diagnostic testing of the monitoring sy stems installed on the new stack. Two separate compliance windows may be needed in cases where there is a long interval of time between the starting dates of the two events. Therefore, a new paragraph, (e)(3), has been added t o §75.4(e) to allow for completion of CEMS certification and/or recertification and/or diagnostic testing re quirements for both new stack construction and new add

- on SO 2 or NO x control s either: (a) within the window of time provided for new stack construction; or (b) within the separate window of time applicable to such event provided under §75.4 (e)(1). EPA also revised §75.4(e ) to address the reporting of CEMS data, in cases where onl y one compliance window is used, and where both windows are used. Section 75.4(e)(2) , as revised, addresses how to report emissions or flow rate data after emissions first pass through the new stack or flue, or reagent is first injected into the flue gas desulfurization sy stem or add

- on NO x emission controls, until all required certification and/or recertification and/or diagnostic tests are successfull y completed. For example, i f section 2 of Appendix A to Part 75 requires two spans and ranges for the monitor that measures the pollutant being removed by the add

- on SO 2 or NO x controls, certification of the high measurement scale is sufficient to initiate reporting of quality

- ass ured data from that monitor. All data recorded on the certified high scale, including data that would ordinarily be required to be recorded on the low scale, may be reported as quality

- assured for up to 60 unit or stack operating day s after the first inje ction of reagent into the control device. Then, all required tests of the low measurement scale must be completed within the 90 operating day /180 calendar day

compliance window of time associated with the first injection of re agent into the control device

. EPA believes that it is appropriate to allow temporary reporting of data on a certified high measurement scale in the case of installing and operating new add

- on SO 2 or NO x controls, primarily because it often takes several day s or weeks to stabilize a new add

- on emissions control device so that the desired percentage reduction in the SO 2 or NO x emission levels is consistently

achieved. During this period of time (known as the “shakedown” period), a significant percentage of the data from the SO 2 or NO x monitor (as applicable) is likely to be too high to be read on the low scale. Further, even data that can be recorded on the low scale during the shakedown period cannot be reported as quality

- assured, because a RATA must be performed on the low scale in order to certify it, and this test cannot be done until the control device has been stabilized. The Agency believes that accepting low readings recorded on a certified high scale for a short period of time will not adversel y impact the overall accuracy o f the emissions data. Other certified CEMS that have only one (high) measurement scale record data on the lower part of the scale during short

- term events such as startup and shutdown, and these data are accepted as quality

- assured. Revised §75.4(e)(2)( ii) allows conditional data validation procedures in §75.20(b)(3) to be used for the entire 90 operating day /180 calendar day

window associated with new stack construction or addition of a new emissions control device, rather than limiting the amount of ti me available to complete the required testing to the shorter timelines in §75.20(b)(3)(iv) . This is appropriate for new stack construction because the monitoring s ys tems on the new stack are brand new s ys tems that must undergo certification testing. The provisions of §75.20(b)(3) and sections 6.3.1(a), 6.3.2(a), 6.6.4(a), and 6.5(f) of Appendix A to Part 75 clearly allow conditional19

data validation to be used for the entire window of time specified in §75.4, for the initial certification of monitoring s y stems. For the installation and operation of add

- on emissions controls, it is also appropriate to allow the use of conditional data validation for the entire 90 operating day

/180 calendar day

window, because instability during the shakedown period prevent s the required RATAs associated with the control device addition from being done during that time period, and the shakedown period often extends beyond the shorter conditional data validation timelines provided in §75.20(b)(3)(iv). A new paragraph, (e)(4) , has also been added to §75.4(e) to address special requirements that apply , in addition to the requirements in paragraph (e)(2), to a project involving both a new stack and a new add

- on SO 2 or NO x control device

. For such a project, the emissions data re corded b y each CEMS on the new stack , starting on the date and hour on which emissions first exit to the atmosphere through the new stack and ending on the hour before the date and hour on which reagent is first injected into the control device , may be rep orted as quality

assured (as provided in paragraph (e)(2)(ii) and (iv)) onl y if (1) a RATA of the CEMS (as described in paragraph (e)(4)(i)(A) or (ii)(A), depending on the CEMS involved) is successfully completed either prior to the first injection of rea gent into the control device or in a period after the first injection when the control device is not operating ; and (2) the rest of the required certification tests are successfull y completed within the 90 operating day/180 calendar day compliance window that begins with the initial routing of flue gas through the new stack. For example, if the certification testing is done this way and conditional data validation is used in accordance with paragraph (e)(2)(ii) , the CEMS data may be reported as quality

- ass ured, starting at the hour of the probationary

calibration error test, provided that all of the major tests are passed in sequence, with no failures. The RATA must be performed prior to the initial injection of reagent into the control device , or in a period after the first injection when the control device is not operating, because the characteristics of the stack gas matrix (e.g., gas concentrations, temperature, moisture content, and concentration and flow profiles) when the control device is brought on

- line will differ significantl y from the stack characteristics of the uncontrolled unit. Therefore, to validate CEMS data in the uncontrolled time period between the first use of the new stack and the initial injection of reagent, a RATA that represents the actual stack conditions during that time interval must be performed and passed. The other, required c ertification tests , i.e., 7

- day calibration error tests, cycle time tests, and linearity check s, are not affected by the characteristics of the stack g as matrix, and can be performed at an y time during the allotted window of time, whether or not reagent is being injected

. Of course, under §75.4(e) (2), to the extent additional testing requirements are triggered by the installation of the new add

- on SO 2 or NO x control s in a project involving both a new stack and such new control s , these tests must be successfully completed during the 90 unit operating day /180 calendar day

window that begins with the initial injection of reagent. N ote that EPA intends to revise Questions 15.4, 15.6, and 15.7 in the “Part 75 Emissions Monitoring Policy Manual” to be consistent with today ’s revisions to §75.4(e). Even though EPA did not solicit comment on it, the commenter suggested that EPA should consider broadening the provision to include any t ype of emission control that might require recertification or diagnostic testing o f the monitoring sy stems on an affected unit . At this time, the Agency

has no plans to make this amendment to §75.4(e), but will consider it if and20

when pollutants other than SO 2 and NO x that are likely to require installation of add

- on emission controls become subject to Part 75 monitoring and reporting requirements. 19 Comment : “ EPA proposes to add a number of new recordkeeping and reporting re quirements for monitoring plans and quarterl y reports. 75 Fed. Reg. at 33,399. Man y of these new provisions require the identification of activation and deactivation dates for certain data or events. As justification for these new requirements, EPA cites the need to make the rules consistent with EPA’s ECMPS reporting format, which already includes these data elements. Moreover, because EPA began requiring sources to report this information under ECMPS starting January 1, 2009 with “zero tolerance for repor ting errors,” despite the lack of any requirement in the rule to report the information, EPA proposes to make the requirements effective almost immediately upon finalization of the rule. Id

. Finally , because sources previously incorporated these data eleme nts into their reporting software at EPA’s insistence, EPA asserts that the burden of making these required changes is small and therefore need not be included in the current ICR. EPA

- HQ
OAR
- 2009
- 0837
- 0013 at 6. “EPA misconstrues the nature of its obligat ion to support new recordkeeping and reporting requirements, provide reasonable implementation periods, and estimate the costs of compliance. Although UARG agrees that EPA’s reporting format must be consistent with the reporting requirements in Part 75, the fact that a requirement to report information is already in EPA’s reporting format (unlawfully) is not a sufficient reason for adding a new requirement to the rule. To revise the rule to require reporting of the information, EPA must explain why the in formation is important to its implementation of the program . Although EPA may have genuine need for the information, that need is not identified in the proposal. Similarly , EPA cannot deprive sources of a reasonable implementation period or avoid including the requested information in its I CR simply because the Agency

previously

unlawfully

required sources to report it. EPA must explain why it wants this information, estimate how must it will cost (or has cost) to collect and report the information in EPA’s reporting format, and provide sources a reasonable period of time after publication of the final rule to collect the required information and make an y necessary

software adjustments.” Response : T hroughout the process of development, EPA published many v ersions of the reporting formats and detailed instructions and took extensive comment on these working documents. The Agency is confident that all sources subject to Part 75 have already incorporated these data elements into their DAHS and met the corresp onding reporting deadlines. However, in the unlikely event that a source subject to Part 75 has not reported these data elements to EPA, it may submit a petition under 75.66 requesting additional time to comply

. The cost of recording and reporting these data elements was included in the I CR for the January 24, 2008 final rule (73 FR 4337). The following paragraphs explain why the data elements in §§ 75.53(g)(1)(i)(A), (g)(1)(i)(C), (g)(1)(i)(F), ( g)(1)(v)(F), (g)(1)(v)(G), (g)(1)(vi)(J), (h)(2)(i), and (h)(5), §§ 75.58(d)(4)(iii)(A)

– (H), §§ 75.59(a)(1)(iii), ( a)(5)(ii)(L), (a)(5)(iii)(H), (a)(12)(iv)(G), (d)(3)(xii) and (xiii) are important for program implementation.21

The final rule includes activation and deactivation d ates for various records for the monitoring plan data elements that were inadvertently left out of the August 22, 2006 proposed rule and the January

24, 2008 final rule . The original EDR format was designed with the incorrect notion that certain information collected in the monitoring p lan would not change or would only

be updated at quarterl y intervals. We now know that these assumptions are incorrect and that it is not only

important to collect the data elements listed in Subpart F, but also to know when the data were applicable. The expansion in the usage of date fields to track the change in reported data is necessary for data management and has proven to lower the reporting burden b y reducing confusion and simplifying the manner in which changes to monitoring plan information may b e reported. In 75.53(g)(1)(i)(A), the Agency needs the activation and deactivation dates for the exhaust configuration for the units in the monitoring plan because it affects the certification or recertification deadline for the relevant monitoring s ys te ms. In 75.53(g)(1)(i)(C), the Agency needs the activation and deactivation dates for the following items: stack exit height (ft) above ground level and ground level elevation above sea level, and the inside cross

- sectional area (ft2 ) at the flue exit and at the flow monitoring location (for units with flow monitors, only) , and appropriate codes to indicate the material(s) of construction and the shape(s) of the stack or duct cross

- section(s) at the flue exit and (if applicable) at the flow monitor locatio n because EPA needs to know when changes are made to these parameters for program evaluation (modeling), ECMPS QA checks on mass emission calculations, and proper application of default wall effect correction factors ( Method 2H and CTM
- 041 ) , respectively

. In 75.53(g)(1)(i)(F), the Agency needs the activation and deactivation dates for the maximum hourly

heat input capacit y of each unit to determine when new appendix E heat input vs NOx correlation, and maximum potential velocity value s should commence. In 75.53(g)(1)(v)(F), the Agency needs the activation and deactivation dates for measurement scale and dual span information to determine when certain QA checks should commence and the appropriateness of span, range and calibration gas values

. In 75.53(h) (2)(i) and 75.53(h)(5) , the Agency needs the activation and deactivation date for peaking unit and gas

- fired unit, respectivel y, for qualification information because it can affect the monitoring and QA requirements. In 75.53(g)(1)(v)(G), the Agency needs to know if an autoranging anal yz er is being used because it affects the typ e of ECMPS QA checks. In 75.58(d)(4)(iii)(A)

- (H) , the Agency needs the operating codes for the following to accommodate and determine the proper use of all missing data scenarios outlined in appendix E , section 2.5 : unit operated on emergency fuel ; c orrelation curve for the fuel mixture has expired; o perating parameter is outside of normal limits; uncontrolled hour; o peration above highest tested heat i nput rate point on the curve; o perating parameter data missing or invalid; d esignated22

o perational and control equipment parameters within normal limits; and o peration below lowest tested heat input rate point on the curve. In 75.59 ( a)( 1 )(iii) , EPA needs the minute recorded in additi on to the date and hour for the following : all dail y and 7

- day calibration error tests, and all off

- line calibration demonstrations, including an y follow

- up tests after corrective action

. An affected unit may attempt more than one daily calibration in a g iven hour. ECMPS requires reporting of the date, hour, and minute of each calibration injection, but Subpart F currently includes reporting of only the date and hour. Without data on the minute of each calibration injection, it impossible to establish wh ich attempt in a given hour was first, second, or otherwise and so it is difficult for EPA software to validate data for specific hours. Therefore, DAHS vendors suggested and industry generall y supported adding the minute of the hour to the reported date and time for each calibration sequence. In 75.59(a)(5)(ii)(L), EPA needs units that do not produce electrical or thermal output to record the average stack gas velocity at the operating level being tested to determine the range of operation and whether the unit is at the proper operating level for a relative accuracy test audit (RATA). ( For a non
- load unit, Appendix A §6.5.2.1(a)(2) provides for use of average velocity in lieu of electrical or thermal load for determining the range of operation and the a ppropriate operating levels for performing RATAs. ) In 75.59(a)(5)(iii)(H), EPA needs the RATA frequency code to help determine whether the affected unit is performing RATAs at the required frequency and to determine the appropriate operating levels for fl ow RATAs. In 75.59(a)( 12 )(i v ) (G) , EPA needs the fuel code for Ozone Season Onl y reporters for a fuel flowmeter accuracy

test extension for two reasons

. An affected unit can obtain a fuel

specific extension of the fuel flow meter accuracy test deadline f

or a fuel flow meter used for less than 168 hours during a calendar quarter for which no emission report is submitted. A fuel code is necessary for units that have the ability to combust multiple fuels so that the extension is provided for the c orrect fue l flow meter s ys tem , and to ensure that the appropriate appendix D substitute data procedure is applied

. In 75.53(g)(1)(vi)(J), the Agency needs to know the group identification code because it is used to cross reference the fuel

- and

- unit

- specific default NO x emission rate used by a specific unit that is part of an identical group. In 75.59(d)(3)(xii) and 75.59(d)(3)(xiii) , EPA needs the number of tests and the number of units, respectively , in the group of identical low mass emitting units to ensure that the requirements of §75.19(c)(1)(iv)(B) and Table LM

- 4 are met
. 20 ) Comment : “ EPA proposes to add new §§ 75.62(d) and 75.63(d) to require submission of a hard cop y cover letter and certification statement with each hard copy monitoring plan and certif ication or recertification application, and to allow inclusion of explanatory text or comments in the electronic portion of a monitoring plan and certification or recertification application. 75 Fed. Reg. at 33,400. UARG does not object to the cover letter requirement for hard cop y reports and supports the explicit authorization for explanatory information or comments to support the certification statements embedded in EPA’s ECMPS reporting software. Although UARG does not believe EPA has the authority to p rohibit sources from23

including such text, the rules would be improved by making the option explicit in the rules. Since quarterl y reports also are required to contain compliance certifications, UARG requests that EPA revise § 75.64(g) to explicitly state that explanatory

text or comments to support the certification may be included in a quarterl y report as well. ” Response : EPA agrees with the commenter that Part 75 would be improved by explicitly allowing explanatory

information and/or comments to be adde d to the quarterly electronic data reports, in support of the certification statements embedded in the ECMPS software. Therefore, the text of §75.64(g) has been revised accordingl y. The reference to cover letters accompan yi ng the electronic quarterly

rep orts is outdated and has been removed. However, cover letters are still allowed for hardcopy monitoring plan and certification or recertification submittals in §75.62 and §75.63, respectively

. 2 1 ) Comment : “ Section 4 of Appendix A addresses requirements for sources’ DAHS. EPA proposes to revise this provision to remove references to technology ( e.g., ASCII flat files, electronic transfer via modem, and IBM

- compatible personal computer diskettes) that are not used under EPA’s ECMPS program and to require instead that the DAHS record information “in an electronic format.” UARG supports these revisions, which are consistent with comments UARG made on the 2006 proposed rule. EPA

- HQ
- OAR
- 2005
- 0132
- 0079. UARG also supports EPA’s proposal to remove references to mercury monitoring sy stems from this section.” Response : The Agency

agrees with the comment. 22) Comment : EPA should include: (1) the cost for staff time to develop and implement the quality manual required by

the ASTM practice, including document co ntrol procedures, hiring of additional personnel, performance of annual audits, and documentation of corrective action, (2) application fees and the cost of preparing applications for accreditation and/or QI qualification, (3) the cost of QI exams, includi ng tuition for preparatory courses, exam fees, and travel expenses, (4) an y new costs associated with preparation of test plans and reports to comply with the specific criteria in the practice, and (5) cost of required records storage and backup. Response : The Agency

believes that AETBs should already be operating in a manner consistent with ASTM D 7036

- 04. However, EPA revised the I CR to include additional supporting detail for the estimated burden associated with increased annual quality

- assurance and maintenance for each unit. Based on information provided b y stack testing firms, a conservative one percent increase was applied to the previousl y established annual O&M costs per unit at each respondent facility . This is based on the average stack testi ng industry costs of preparing a QA/QC manual ($6,000), obtaining QSTI certification ($1,200), and annual operating costs of maintaining the quality control s ys tem ($5,000

– $50,000 depending on size). The increased stack testing overhead costs translate into an increased performance test cost of $68 to $549 per RATA test depending on the size of the compan y. The increase cost per test drops even further if applied to all ty pes of tests performed by t ypical stack testing companies. The costs will be pass ed through to the customers, which are generall y sources subject to Part 75, including large electric utility and industrial companies. See Document ID#s EPA
- HQ
- OAR
- 2009
- 0837
- 0051,
- 0055,
- 0059, and

- 0071 for additional cost details.24

Air Liquide Comments (D oc um ent ID EP A - HQ - OAR- 0837 - 004 8 ) 1) Comment : “ IS O 17025 should be adopted in place of the PGVP. ” Response : The Agency

has decided to finalize a refined PGVP in § 75.21(g) instead of requiring compliance with ISO 17025. EPA has no objection to spe cialty gas companies certifying or accrediting to I SO 17025 “General Requirements for the Competence of Testing and Calibration Laboratories”, but encourages companies to participate in the PGVP. Certifying or accrediting to ISO 17025 can be beneficial. However, the purpose of the ISO standard is different than the purpose of the PGVP. The purpose of IS O 17025 is to better assure that a laboratory has proper quality

assurance and quality control (QA/QC) practices in place. The idea is that if proper QA/ QC practices are in place, better products will result. However, this may not alway s be the case. As a matter of fact, one manufacturer (Scott Specialty Gases, now a part of Air Liquide) pointed out that I SO 17025 certification is not only

extremely

expe nsive, but it does not guarantee that a better protocol product will be manufactured. For example, one gas manufacturer which held certification to the ISO standard registered at least 1 failure in a blind audit (see Document ID # EPA
- HQ
- OAR
2009
- 0837
- 006 9 and

- 0070 in the docket). The only audits that I SO 17025 requires are internal audits of procedures, not products. The I SO standard states that these internal audits are to be conducted “periodically”, with no time frame specified. The results of thes e audits are to be provided to clients of the laboratory , but it is not clear that the results would be publicly available. Thus potential future clients may not be aware of how the laboratory was performing. The Agency believes that the PGVP audit result s should be publicly available to allow potential EPA Protocol gas customers to make a more informed purchasing decision. The accuracy

of EPA Protocol gases is important because these gases are used to help ensure that the national emission reduction goals of the Clean Air Act are met. The Agency ’s goal is to implement a cylinder audit program to better ensure the quality of these gases. EPA believes the best way

to do that is to implement a PGVP and have a blind sample of cylinders anal yz ed b y an indep endent, nationally recognized laboratory , e.g., the National Institute of Standards and Technology. A blind sample is necessary to ensure that the cylinders anal yz ed are more representative of routine production at each production site rather than represe ntative of the best possible performance that would likely occur if the production site knew that its cylinder was being audited. Small and large specialty gas companies commented that requiring conformance to ISO 17025 would be significantly more expens ive than complying with the PGVP (see Document ID # s EPA
- HQ
- OAR
- 2009
- 0837
- 0057,
- 0065,
- 0066,
- 0067,
- 0068,
- 0069,
- 0070, and

- 0073 in the docket). One large specialty gas company

stated that the PGVP would be more cost effective and would provide an actu al representation of the quality of EPA Protocol gas cylinders. 2) Comment : “ The PGVP imposes unjustified regulatory costs on protocol gas production. ”25

Response : The commenter does not provide an y s upporting data. EPA believes the costs are reasonable and justified. See previous response. Eleven commenters, including one representing seven specialty

gas companies representing the vast majority of EPA Protocol gases in the U.S. , supported the PGVP, and three commenters opposed it

. A 2003 EPA audit (s ee Document ID #s EPA
- HQ
- OAR
- 2009
- 0837
- 0011,
- 0074,
- 0075, and

- 0076 in the docket) of EPA Protocol gases found an unacceptabl y high failure rate (11% of all components anal yz ed , with 57% of the production sites failing at least one gaseous component) with respect to the + 2% standard in 40 CFR Part 75. A 2009 EPA Inspector General audit (see Document ID # EPA
- HQ
- OAR
- 2009
- 0837
- 0064 in the docket) also found an 11% failure rate over all components analyzed, with 39% of the production sites failing at least one gaseous component. The IG recommended that EPA implement an ongoing PGVP. A 2010 audit of EPA Protocol gases found a 1 0 % failure rate over all components analyzed , with 4 0 % of the production sites failing at least one gaseous component. The Agency b elieves that these results indicate a need for improvement. 3) Comment : “ Placement of cylinder orders through business entities can help ensure a blind audit. ” Response : To obtain cylinders to be audited, EPA agrees with the commenter that perhaps the best way to ensure a blind sample is by hiring companies that normally use EPA Protocol gases. The Agency also agrees that obtaining a blind sample of cylinders is better assured if the cylinders are not purchased directl y b y EPA headquarters or an EPA co ntractor that normall y does not use EPA Protocol gases. 4) Comment : “ EPA should retain discretion to adjust the numbers of sites or cylinders or timing of testing. ” “Should EPA adopt Option 1 in the final rule, the rule should make clear that a facility would remain on the qualified producer list if it is registered and has met all other requirements for that year, regardless of whether cylinders have been audited from that facility or not.” Response : EPA agrees with the commenter that Option 4 is the preferred option and provides the Agency

maximum flexibility

in implementing the PGVP. As suggested, the Agency has revised the final rule to clarify that a facility would remain on the qualified producer list if it is registered and has met all other req uirements for that year, regardless of whether cylinders have been audited from that facility

. 5) Comment : “ Gas producer proof of cancellation of order should be permitted to be made electronically

and within 4 to 6 weeks rather than 2 weeks. ” Response : The Agency

agrees with the commenter

. However, EPA had allowed only two weeks to receive an invoice cancellation from the production site for two reasons: (1) to minimize the time required to complete the PGVP annual audit because EPA would not ship cyl inders to NIST prior to receiving an invoice cancellation or credit receipt ; and (2) to minimize any demurrage charges from a production site that had submitted the required information to participate, but then changed its mind after EPA had procured its c yl inders for audit. Because of the time commonly

required to issue or cancel invoices, EPA has allow ed up to 45 calendar day s to receive an invoice cancellation or credit receipt (electronic or hardcop y) in the final rule

.26

However , to address the scenari o identified in (2) above, §75.21(g)(5)(ii) of the final rule specif ies that in such a situation the cylinders shall be returned to the production site free of an y demurrage. 6) Comment : “ The list of proposed codes should include an option for “other”. ” Response : The Protocol gas t ype codes have been revised to include an Other EPA

- Approved EPA Protocol Gas Blend category . However, sources will need to receive EPA approval to use it. EPA has found that if an “Other” category is allowed, sources wil l sometimes simply use that category instead of selecting the correct one. EPA will add new codes to ECMPS as needed; the ECMPS sy stem allows these ty pes of additions to be made quickl y and easily. EPA will make clear in the electronic reporting instru ctions that the list is not exclusive , and that other ty pes of EPA Protocol gases could be made to meet customer needs

. 7) Comment : The proposed anal yt ic uncertaint y text (in 5.1.4(b) and 5.1.5) should be adopted. Response : Three commenters favored ret aining the section 5.1.4(b) wording currentl y in Part 75, and only one commenter was against it. Although, the Agency was concerned about potential enforcement issues due to the inherent uncertainty related to a 95
- percent confidence interval, it is not aware of an y actual issues related to that uncertainty. Calculation of a 95

- percent confidence interval is required by section 2.2.2 of the “EPA Traceabilit y Protocol for Assay and Certification of Gaseous Calibration Standards”. Therefore, EPA has retain ed a 95
- percent confidence interval in section 5.1.4(b) of Appendix A of the final rule. For consistency , the 95

- percent confidence interval requirement has also be en included in the research gas mixtures provision in section 5.1.5. 8) Comment : “ EPA sho uld adopt a 2% uncertainty for the NIST analy sis of the cylinders. ” Response : The Agency

disagrees. An expanded uncertaint y (coverage factor k = 2) of 1.0% (NI ST calculated combined standard uncertaint y of 0.5%) in the NIST analy sis was assumed when the PGVP costs were estimated in the proposed rule. A 2010 EPA audit of EPA Protocol gases required a 0.5% uncertaint y in the NIST analy sis for gas concentrations commonly used b y Part 75 sources. If EPA were to allow the uncertainty of the NI ST anal ys is to be up to + 2 .0 % , the audit results would need to allow for approximately a 4 .0 % difference between the NIST result and the vendor result before a cylinder could be said to fail. A + 2.0% uncertainty for the NI ST audit results defeats the purpose of the PGV P. The Part 75 accuracy standard for EPA Protocol gases is + 2 .0 % (see Part 75, Appendix A, section 5.1.4(b)) . To verify that a gas meets this standard, ideally

NI ST would need to have a 0 .0 % uncertainty . The further away the NIST audit results are from a 0 .0 % uncertainty , the less certain this standard is achiev ed. Section 75.21(g)(9)(ii) in the final rule allows EPA to approve a greater NI ST anal ytical uncertaint y if required , e.g., for certain low concentration gases

. . EPA has added two new definition s in section 72.2 to help clarify

the terms “expanded uncertainty” and “coverage factor”. Scott - Marrin, Inc. Comments (Doc ument ID EP A - HQ - OAR- 2009 - 0837 - 00 33 )27

1) Comment : The proposed PGVP program is redundant and, therefore, unnecessary. The Region 7 E PA office in St. L ouis, Missouri has recently implemented a competing PGVP program. Why

are there two closely

competing PGVP programs within EPA? In addition, the proposed PGVP program is exorbitantly expensive because it uses the analy tical services of NI ST. These costs are to be borne by the gas manufacturer and will, therefore, put an undue financial burden on smaller EPA Protocol gas producers. Response : The ambient PGVP program is administered b y Mike Papp ( OAQPS, EPA ), with lab work performed b y EPA Region s 2 and 7. This program serves the ambient monitoring community

by checking the accuracy

of ambient

- level EPA Protocol gases. The PGVP proposed on June 11, 2010 (see 75 FR 33392
- 33420, June 11, 2010) is an audit program for Part 75 source - level EPA Protocol gases and serves the source monitoring community

. See EPA’s response to Airgas’s #1 comment regarding cost. Airgas Comments (Doc ument ID EP A - HQ - OAR- 2009 - 0837 - 00 28, 0030, and 0031 ) 1) Comment : “The proposed Protocol Gas Verification Program is important to maintain the integrit y of EPA protocol gas quality. Historically we have seen that when there is no audit program the accuracy

of the EPA protocol gases tends to drift industry wide. Such a program would ensure that vendors are being he ld to a higher standard of accuracy as subscribed to in the “EPA Traceability

Protocol for Assay

and Certification of Gaseous Calibration Standards. “The public information from the audit of EPA protocol gases in the PGVP would allow all users of EPA pro tocol gases more knowledge about different EPA protocol gas manufacturing locations. Without this program there could be further accuracy issues which would affect the quality of data for part 75 facilities reporting emissions.” “For gas manufacturers, it would be most helpful if EPA were able to get a price per cylinder for anal ys is by

NI ST that would remain the same for a minimum of two years. The reason for the price is it will allow us to budget for what the maximum cost per manufacturing facility w ill be.” “As a major Gas manufacturer we have never had any issue getting an y EPA protocol gas to within +

- 2% from the tag value. We and others in our industry have produced thousands of EPA protocol gases for EPA turbines with NOx routinely down to 2.5 ppm and CO down to 3ppm. “I and other gas manufacturers of EPA protocol gases believe that EPA should keep the +
- 2% requirement no matter what the pollutant or the ppm range of the gas.” Response : The Agency

agrees with the commenter that the PGVP progr am is important to maintain the accuracy

of EPA Protocol gases and to help inform gas users of the performance of each EPA Protocol gas production site. EPA Pr otocol gas production sites may make whatever arrangements are agreeable between them and NI ST r egarding costs

.28

EPA performed an audit of EPA Protocol gases in 2010 and the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NI ST) analyzed the cylinders EPA collected in the audit. NI ST provided an initial estimate of $2,000 per cylinder to analyze tri

- blend gas mixtures in the 2010 audit. The following costs for the PGVP are based on assumptions similar to those made for the 2010 audit. These assumptions are: (a) that only NO, SO 2 and CO 2 will be anal yz ed; (b) that only these compounds are within the gas mixture along with balance gas nitrogen (additional compounds within the gas mixture, even if they are not anal yz ed, complicate the anal ys is of the primary components); and (c) that the concentrations will all fall within a relatively narrow band that can be defined in the low, mid and high ranges. EPA notes that these assumptions may not hold from year - to
- year, but believes that the following cost estimates are generall y conservative. The 2010 audit consumed 715 hours of time to analyze and report on 57 cylinders. NI ST believes they

have designed a better sampling s ys tem and can reduce that time to 550 hours for the same 57 cylinders. This amount of resources equals $1,500 per cylinder anal ys is and report production, and is NIST’s estimate for those activities for a similar PGVP audit in 2011. Assuming the above assumptions hold, NI ST has agreed to commit to this cost estimate for three ye ars, until 2013 (see Document ID# EPA
- HQ
- OAR
- 2009
- 0837
- 0058 in the docket). The following costs are based on EP A’s 2010 Protocol gas audit. If NI ST analyzes 4 cylinders from each production site, the total annual cost due to the PGVP would be approximately

$7,200 per production site ( for details on the per cylinder cost, see Document ID# EPA
- HQ
- OAR
- 2009
- 0837
- 0007 in the docket). This cost includes cylinder anal ys is and report production by

NI ST ($1,667/cylinder), average one

- way shipping costs back to the production site ($91/cylinder), and average rental ($7/cylinder/month). The $1,667/cylinder cost estimate cov ers some deviations, e.g., there may be carbon monoxide in the gas mixtures, from the assumptions made for the 2010 audit, and is therefore higher than the $1,500/cylinder NIST commitment. The total cost of NI ST anal ys is, report production, six months cyl inder rental, and shipping back to the production site is approximately $1,800 per cylinder (see Document ID# EPA
- HQ
- OAR
- 2009
- 0837
- 0007 in the docket). EPA estimates that the average increased cost due to the PGVP will be approximately $2 per cylinder (se e Table 3 in the I CR for the final rule, see Docket EPA
- HQ
- OAR
- 2009
- 0837 ). This estimate was derived from correspondence with both large and small specialty gas companies, which based their estimates on the number of cylinders they sold per year and the a bove cost estimates. For a small company that sells fewer cylinders per year, the cost per cylinder will be higher than for a larger company . However, even for a small company , the increased $2.00 per cylinder cost due to the PGVP is insignificant in comparison to the wide range of cost for the same ty pe of EPA Protocol gas cylinder (EPA found the 2010 cost of the same tri

- blend EPA Protocol cylinder ranged from approximately $225

- $665 in the U.S. (see Document ID# EPA
- HQ
- OAR
- 2009
- 0837
- 0009 in the docke t)). To maintain these costs, scheduling of the PGVP audit activity during the year must be strictly followed b y all the companies involved in the audit. Economy of batching similar gas cylinders and receipt of all similar cylinders within a specific tim e frame will enable NI ST to control costs. Those cylinders with the appropriate funding documents that arrive within that time frame will be part of the audit. Those that do not will be excluded. That is the only way NI ST will be able to control costs. The costs are further minimized by the 4 cylinder limit per29

production site, and the cost containment measures implemented by NI ST and described in the preamble to the proposed rule. EPA only received one comment supporting an alternative specification f or very low concentration gases, and only one comment specifically stating that an alternative specification is not necessary . Given the comments received, the Agency is uncertain whether an alternative specification for very

low concentration gases is ne cessary . EPA did not receive any supporting data from the commenter that supported such a specification. Therefore, EPA will retain the same + 2% standard for low concentration gases in the final rule. Linde Electronics and Specialty Gases Comments (Doc um ent ID EPA - HQ - OAR- 2009 - 0837 - 00 47 ) 1) Comment : Enthusiastically supports the proposed Protocol Gas Verification Program; and strongl y urges the Agency to look at ways to make the program more rigorous. Linde believes that if the cylinders for audit are procured by local companies, there would be less chance of compromising the blindness, e.g., if gases are manufactured in Whitby , Ontario, Canada, then gases should be procured by a company

based locally

in the Toronto area. The commenter suggests that E PA allow 30

- 45 day s for a PGVP participant to issue either a credit or invoice cancellation. Linde prefers Option 4 in the proposed rule preamble. Option 1 allows for the anal ys is to take longer than anticipated

– perhaps EPA should investigate other ana ly sis options to ensure timely completion. Option 2 reduces the number of cylinders per site

. While the proposed four cylinders do not constitute a representative sample, two cylinders would be even less so. Option 3 eliminates some sites from producers with multiple sites. As was shown in the Inspector General’s report, it is possible, indeed likely , that a manufacturer with multiple sites will have some that “pass” and some that “fail”. EPA requested comments on the coding of Protocol gases. There w ere no codes for carbon monoxide, CO, as a stand alone in a balance gas. Linde suggests that code “C” be used for CO and C2 be used for CO2. Regarding calibration gas tag values, “In the world of specialty gas manufacturers this uncertaint y has been info rmally codified as being expressed at the 95% confidence interval. This confidence interval is recognized b y the EPA in the “Green Book”, EPA

- 600/R

- 97/121, Appendices A, B, and C, where the methodology for determining the tag value and the uncertaint y ass ociated with the tag value are described.” “We believe that the current status is scientifically

defensible and as such should remain.” Response : EPA generally agrees with the L inde comments and has ma d e appropriate changes in the final rule , including allowing 45 calendar day s to receive an invoice cancellation or credit receipt (electronic or hardcopy) in the final rule

.30

EPA must use “ CO2 ” as the code for CO2 because it is used thoughout EPA’s database to describe that parameter and EPA wants to maint ain consistent code conventions in the ECMPS reporting software

. T he data structure in ECMPS cannot accommodate a single

- blend carbon monoxide gas . Under Part 75, carbon monoxide (CO) is not regulated and is not required to be recorded or reported. Ther efore, a code for that single blend CO gas cylinder will not be included in the reporting instructions

. EPA has also slightly

revised the last sentence in §75.21(g)(9)(iv) to allow more flexibility in how EPA reports PGVP audit results on its web sites. The Agency believes that the PGVP can be made more rigorous by allowing greater flexibility in the formatting of audit results, instead of holding to the same format as in the NI ST audit report

. This may allow p otential EPA Protocol gas customers to more easily find and purchase from the EPA Protocol gas production sites that performed best in the audit. EPA has added the following text in section 75.21(g)(9)(iv) to allow more expeditious posting of audit results: “ To be considered in the final posted aud it report, EPA must receive comments and an y c yl inder re

- anal ys es from EPA Protocol gas production sites within 60 day s of the EPA Protocol gas production site’s receipt of the draft redacted audit report sent b y EPA. ” EPA has added electronic recordkeep ing and reporting of cylinder expiration dates and cylinder numbers for all cylinders used for any certification, recertification, diagnostic, or quality assurance test required under Part 75. The Agency believes that this will strengthen the PGVP by redu cing or eliminating the use of expired cylinders, and by improving the tracking of cylinder information. Section 75.59(a)(7)(iv)(X) and 75.59(a)(9)(v) already require these two items to be recorded in limited situations or in hardcopy onl y, and section 75 .60(b)(6) already requires these two items to be reported in a hardcopy report to the State, local agency or EPA Regional Office upon request. For EPA’s response regarding a 95

- percent confidence interval, please see EPA’s response to Air Liquide’s #7 Co mment. Jack Herbert Comments (Doc um ent ID EP A - HQ - OAR- 2009 - 0837 - 00 34 ) 1) Comment : “This contains comments from Jack Herbert and Mark Bailey with agreement b y Rai Peterson. It has not been submitted for Oregon DEQ approval. Please remove Appendix A, Sect ion 6.1.2(f). 1) This section has no legal consequence and no benefit. Certification of testers and of a Qualified Individual on or leading the test team will not change evaluations and use of tests and test reports: with or without it, regulators should evaluate tests and test reports, and, if they find the work and records valid, accept the “validity of test data that otherwise meet the requirements of this part”. This rule accomplishes requiring certified people to do the test. Once such people have performed the test, it has no more legal effect. 2) This section will give the false impression to those who do not know that Part 75 requires correct test performance that review is superseded by tester accreditation and QI participation, that their testi ng must be accepted as valid.31

a) It is unfair and a disservice to all to give this impression to facilities and testers. It will lead to substandard testing, which may get approved an yway and costs everyone involved extra effort, time, and expense. b) Many

regulatory

agencies will have this impression and will not reject invalid testing performed b y accredited testers with QIs on their teams because they will believe that this section say s they

have to accept the test results. Do not give this false impre ssion. It will lead to worse testing and more acceptance of invalid testing. 3) Accreditation does not mean a test is valid. Some regulatory agencies will believe this section means this. This section then leads to lack of review and of enforcement of valid testing; the incentive for testers will be to get accreditation, then cut corners. We all know unplanned things happen while source testing that may require method modification. However, source testers seem to forget or not realize they are actuall y modifying the test method.” Response : EPA understands that it may be unfair to hold an owner or operator of a source responsible for certain actions (or inactions) related to an external AETB’s compliance with ASTM D7036
- 04 and attempted to address thi s in section 6.1.2(f) of the proposed rule b y limiting the responsibility of the owner or operator of a Part 75 source. As the commenter states, several sections of Part 75 require affected units to meet certification and ongoing QA/QC requirements: § 75.4(f) requires sources using Appendix E to meet those requirements. Section 75.4(j) requires successful completion of certification tests or use of maximum potential concentration, maximum potential flow, maximum potential NOx emission rate, or use appropriate reference methods or another procedure approved b y the Administrator. Section 75.5(b) states that no affected unit shall be operated without complying with the requirements of §§ 75.2

– 75.75 and Appendices A

- G to Part 75. Section 75.10(b) requires that sources meet the performance specifications in Appendix A to Part 75. (The Appendix A relative accuracy performance specifications are also required for the ongoing relative accuracy

tests in Appendix B to Part 75.) EPA believes that the language in Appendix A, section 6.1.2(f) is clear that all Part 75 testing requirements must be met. However, the Agency understands the concern of the commenter, and has amended 6.1.2(f) in the final rule to read as follows: “ Except as provided in paragraph (e), no RATA performed pursuant to §75.74(c)(2)(ii), section 6.5 of appendix A to this part or section 2.3.1 of appendix B to this part , and no stack test under § 75.19 or Appendix E to this part (or portion of such a RATA or stack test) conducted b y an AETB ( as defined in § 72.2) shall be invalidated under this part as a result of the failure of the AETB to conform to ASTM D 7036
- 04. Validation of such tests is determined based on the other part 75 testing requirements. EPA recommends that proper observation of tests and review of test results continue , regardless of whether an AETB fully conforms to ASTM D7036

- 04
. ” Source Evaluation Society Comments (Doc um ent ID EPA - HQ - OAR- 2009 - 0837 - 00 27 ) 1) Comment : “ The Source Evaluation Society was organized in 1974 an d now includes over 1,000 individual members actively involved in the field of emission measurement including air32

emissions test professionals, anal yt ical laboratory professionals, regulatory agency employees, source owner and operator staff members, and e quipment and supplies vendors. The mission of the Source Evaluation Society (SES) is to advance the applied sciences relating to source evaluation with respect to air pollution and air pollution control by : (1) Promoting the development of concepts and t echniques relating to the field; (2) Encouraging related professional development and knowledge; and (3) Striving to ensure the highest professional standards by its members. ”

“ The Source Evaluation Society consisting of 1100 plus members of the stack t esting community

whole heartedly

endorses the new Protocol Gas Verification Program listed in the Federal Register on June 11, 2010. The program will be an independent quality check of the EPA protocol gases which are a vital part of testing for calibrati on and verification. The PGVP program will be a good guide for companies that are required to use EPA protocol gases to check vendors and their quality . The program will put the costs back on the EPA protocol gas vendors, which is appropriate as EPA does not have sufficient funding to provide for an independent compan y. The published purpose of the proposed EPA Protocol Gas Verification Program (PGVP) is to ensure the accuracy of EPA Protocol gases. SES agrees that a Protocol Gas Verification Program wo uld be beneficial in providing more accurate results for stack test data and SES encourages such a program from EPA. ”

“ Man y of our members have commented that discrepancies in Protocol Gas analyses have been noted. Improving the consistency between supp liers and within the products of the same suppliers will serve to minimize these discrepancies, resulting in more accurate determination of emissions while saving time and expenses expended when trying to resolve the source of discrepancies.

“ Including the requirement to have both the gases used by the source for calibrating Continuous Emissions Monitoring Sy stems (CEMS) as well as those used by the Air Emission Test Body (AETB) conducting accuracy audits of these systems be prepared by PGVP participating providers will further serve to minimize these discrepancies. We further suggest to EPA that this requirement become part of the Reference Methods (e.g. 3A, 6C, 7E, etc.) used b y AETBs when performing any emission test for regulatory purposes. ” Response : EPA agrees with the commenter. However, the Agency cannot amend 40 CFR Part 60 EPA reference methods in this rulemaking because those changes were not part of the proposed rule and were not subject to public comment. Amending the relevant EPA referenc e methods to require use of EPA Protocol gases produced b y PGVP participants may be considered in future rulemakings. 2) Comment : “ The proposed amendments state that affected units would report the vendor ID as a required data element in each electroni c quarterly report, thus confirming that the affected unit’s calibration gases are being supplied b y a participating EPA Protocol gas production site. We suggest that provisions should be made for the inclusion of multiple vendor IDs for different gases a s this case is likely to occur in practice. ” Response : EPA agrees, and the final rule and ECMPS reporting software allow this.33

3) Comment : “ We support that the names of EPA Protocol gas production sites participating in the PGVP being made publicly ava ilable. This is proposed to be accomplished by posting on official EPA Web sites. We feel that although EPA believes that annual posting will be frequent enough to allow EPA Protocol gas users to verify that their calibration gases are being provided by PGVP participants, other means of official verification or more frequent updates may be in order, especiall y during the initial period of implementation, to accommodate the dynamics of a developing program and to be consistent with the commencement of part icipation beginning with notification to EPA that can occur at an y time in a year. ” Response : EPA agrees, and will post the names of PGVP participants quickly after receiving the required information. 4) Comment : “ SES supports the inclusion of the requ irement for Air Emissions Test Bodies (AETBs ) to meet the provisions of ASTM D7036 in the proposed changes . SES and many of its’ members have been active in developing and promoting the development of programs designed to improve the quality

of air emissi ons data. These include the creation and operation of our Qualified Source Test Individual (QSTI) and Qualified Source Test Observer (QSTO) programs, cooperation with the Stack Test Accreditation Council (STAC), and involvement with The NELAC Institute through the Stationary Source Audit Program (SSAP) Committee. Many of our members participated as members in the development of ASTM D7036, Standard Practice for the Competence of Air Emissions Test Bodies and we feel that it encompasses elements that all p rofessional testing organizations should include in their operations, without adding unnecessary

burden.

“ We agree with EPA that meeting the requirements of ASTM D7036 and having a Qualified Individual on site does not guarantee proper performance of any individual test, but feel strongl y that these things will increase the likelihood of proper test execution and high quality data generation. SES also agrees that third party (e.g., state agency) oversight helps ensure that testing is properly conducted. ” Response : The Agency

agrees. United Sciences Testing, Inc. Comments ( Doc ument ID EP A - HQ - OAR- 2009 - 0837 - 00 29 ) 1) Comment : “ United Sciences Testing, Inc. (USTI) appreciates the opportunity to comment on the EPA proposed rule entitled, “Amendments to the Protocol Gas Verification Program and Minimum Competency

Requirements for Air Emission Testing,” published in the Federal Register on June 11, 2010. USTIconducts air emissions testing for its parent company , American Electric Power (AEP), as well as third party large industrial and electric utility clients. The majority

of USTI’s air emissions testing projects consist of compliance testing for owners or operators of Part 75 affected units subject to EPA’s proposed rulemaking. Thus, USTIwill be directly a ffected b y EPA’s proposed rulemaking.

“ USTI generall y supports this proposed rulemaking, and we also support the EPA’s goal to improve the accuracy

of both air emissions compliance data and the Protocol gases used by34

Part 75 affected sources and air emiss ions testing companies. We do have questions about specific provisions and we also have comments on several of the questions EPA raises in the detailed discussion section of the proposed rule revisions. USTIoffers the following specific comments to the proposed rulemaking and we also endorse those comments being provided by the Utility

Air Regulatory

Group (UARG).

“ Proposed Recordkeeping and reporting requirements under §§75.59, 75.63 and 75.64: Under the above

- referenced sections, EPA is proposing that AETB’s performing RATA testing for Part 75 regulated facilities provide certain information to the owner or operator of the affected unit so the owner can record in electronic format the following information: (i) The name, telephone number, and email a ddress of the Air Emissions Testing Body ; (ii) The name of the on

- site Qualified Individual, as defined in § 72.2 of this chapter; (iii) (Emphasis added) For the reference method(s) that were performed, the date that the on

site Qualified individual to ok and passed the relevant qualification exam(s) required by ASTM D7036

- 04; and (iv) The name and e

- mail address of the qualification exam provider.

“ While USTIdoes not object to providing such information to our testing clients, we note that more than one qualified individual’s name may need to be provided to accuratel y reflect how the test was performed. In addition, multiple dates may need to be listed to reflect when the Qualified Individuals overseeing a compliance test passed their relevant quali fication examinations. Example 1: USTI has several clients that ask for around

- the

- clock flow RATA testing. When this occurs, USTI provides two test crews that work 12

- hour shifts. Thus, two separate Qualified Individuals (QI’s) may

be over

- seeing portion s of the same flow RATA test. Our understanding is that both would need to be identified so evidence that a QI was on

- site for the entire test can be documented. Both individuals may also have passed their respective qualifyingexams on different dates. Si milar field situations where more than one QI and more than one examination date may need to be entered for a single compliance test can occur when unit issues cause one or more loads of a flow RATA test to be completed several days or a week or so after the start of the compliance test. Example 2: USTI may

have a single QI that conducts both a flow RATA and a gas RATA for a specific test location during the same week; however, the date that the QI passed the qualification examination for the test methods covering the flow RATA test may be different than the date in which the QI passed the examination for the test meth ods covering the gas RATA test.

“ Given these real life examples above, the EPA reporting format that is established for this data submittal must be robust enough to allow for multiple QI’s and/or multiple qualification dates to be entered for each compliance test.
“ One approach the EPA may want to take is to have third part y exam issuers assign unique ID numbers to each QI once they pass an applicable exam. The QI can then use a numeric35

code to identify

both the date that the individual passed the applicable examination; or alternativel y, the expiration date five

- ye ars into the future. The numeric code can also include the category of test methods covered b y the exam similar to how the Source Evaluation Society categorizes exam s into four general categories. ” Response : EPA will allow multiple QI s and multiple exam dates to be entered into ECMPS. 2) Comment : “ On page 33398, under section B, “Amendments to the Minimum Competency Requirements for Air Emission Testing,” the EPA asks for comments on whether AETB’s that fail to “provide accurate or complete information” should be subject to have their names posted on an EPA web site along with a d escription of the failures to be remedied.

“ USTI agrees with the EPA that this would be a deterrent for non

- compliance with ASTM D7036
- 04; however, we ask that the EPA specificall y clarify that the determination of accuracy and completeness of informatio n be solely based on the provisions of ASTM D7036

- 04. The other benefit of the EPA web posting is that it would allow owners and operators of Part 75 affected sources to make more informed decisions when contracting air emi ssions testing work with AETBs. ” Response : S ee EPA’s response to Scott Evans’ #3 Comment. 3) Comment : “ On page 33398, under section B, “Amendments to the Minimum Competency Requirements for Air Emission Testing,” the EPA asks for comments on whether AETB’s should be required to be acc redited by a national accreditation body . USTI is NOT in favor of a mandatory

third

- party

national accreditation program. We believe that most air emissions testing bodies do not currentl y have such qualifications and that it would be unlikely that the hun dreds of air emissions testing companies that offer Part 75 compliance testing could secure accreditation within a six month window, particularly if many of them are not yet prepared to meet the full requirements of ASTM D7036

- 04. We believe that this acti on is too inflexible and will likely

result in numerous qualified AETB’s being placed at a competitive disadvantage simply because they

are unable to find an independent accrediting body to conduct a timel y audit prior to January

1, 2011. There are likel y to be a few hundred AETB’s seeking certification and USTIdoes not believe that it is possible to have all of these organizations undergo accreditation between now and the proposed effective date of this rule. The need to have a national accreditation program is both impractical and unnecessary . The EPA should allow both choices: (1) third

- part y accreditation (or interim accreditation), and (2) self

- certification via a letter of certification signed b y a member of the senior management team of the AETB. Whi le there may be man y others, we cite the following seven reasons:

“ 1) time constraints are impractical to expect all AETBs to be able to secure national accreditation in six months, particularl y since our “laboratory” is in the field, 2) the AETB that s elf

- certifies via a letter from senior management will be subject to enforcement action for fraudulent activities, 3) the owner or operator of a Part 75 affected source has an obligation to conduct some basic due diligence to verify

that the AETB hired to conduct air emissions testing meets the basic requirements of the ASTM 7036

- 04 program,36

4) the EPA has outlined their enforcement authority under CAA Section 113, to compel AETB’s to provide proof of compliance with ASTM D7036

- 04, 5) AETB’s are required to conduct audits at least annually to meet ASTM D7036
- 04 requirements, 6) the new EPA reporting requirements outlined under Sections 75.63 and 75.64 will allow the agency

to easily verify that a legitimate QI with up

- to
- date credentials either conducted or oversaw the applicable compliance tests, and 7) the AETB’s will be expected to have proof of compliance with ASTM D7036

- 04 readil y available in the field for inspection and review b y the third

- part y (state and/or EPA) inspectors that routinel y visit a ffected sources during compliance testing in the field.

“ Collectively , we submit these reasons clearly demonstrate that an additional level of regulation mandating accreditation by a nationall y recognized accreditation body is not needed, but should rema in only

as an option available to the AETB. ” Response : EPA agrees that it is premature to require accreditation to ASTM D 7036

- 04. 4) Comment : “ On page 33401 of the federal register notice under the section entitled, “8. Calibration Gas Tag Values”, th e EPA asks for comments on the appropriateness of the 2.0 percent specification for very low gas concentrations. Specificall y, the EPA asks if an, “alternative specification (e.g. in terms of absolute difference) be more appropriate for very low concentrat ion gases?”

“ USTI recommends that the EPA establish a reasonable alternative specification in terms of absolute difference for very low concentration gases. With the implementation of CAIR, and the NO x SIP rules as well as pending regulations likely to f urther require scrubber and SCR/SNCR installations, more Part 75 sources and AETB’s conducting RATAs on those sources will need lower concentrations Protocol Gases for SO 2 and NO x . Meeting a 2.0 percent absolute specification for very

low gas concentration s will likely be challenging and if the majority of Protocol gas suppliers fail to meet this due to statistical challenge rather than a real quality issue, end users of the protocol gas will not be provided with meaningful audit information when making pro tocol gas procurement decisions. Response : EPA only

received one comment supporting an alternative specification for very low concentration gases, and only one comment specifically stating that an alternative specification is not necessary
. Given the c omments received, the Agency is uncertain whether an alternative specification for very

low concentration gases is necessary . EPA did not receive any supporting data from the commenter that support ed such a specification

. Therefore, EPA has retain ed the same + 2% standard for low concentration gases in the final rule. Liberty Electric Power LLC Comments (Doc ument ID EP A - HQ - OAR- 2009 - 0837 - 00 2 6 ) 1) Comment : “ The requirement for all generators to revise their reporting software to add traceable serial numb ers for the protocol gas used in testing adds burden without adding value. This burden will be greater on small independent power producers, who do not have the econom y of scale to spread the c ost across multiple facilities.37

“ Compliance could be certified by the designated official at the time of data submission, with certificates of calibration kept by the entity

for the currently

required duration. Certificates for protocol gas would be subject to audit, as with other records which are required but not s ubmitted. For example, Part 75 requires diagnostic testing after certain monitor repairs, but the records of post

- repair calibrations or provisional linearity tests are not submitted. ” Response : EPA has added electronic recordkeeping and reporting of c yl inder expiration dates and cylinder numbers for all cylinders used for any certification, recertification, diagnostic, or quality assurance test required under Part 75. The Agency believes that this will strengthen the PGVP by reducing or eliminating th e use of expired cylinders, and b y improving the tracking of cylinder information. Section 75.59(a)(7)(iv)(X) and 75.59(a)(9)(v) already require these two items to be recorded in limited situations or in hardcopy onl y, and section 75.60(b)(6) already requ ires these two items to be reported in a hardcopy report to the State, local agency or EPA Regional Office upon request. EPA has performed many EPA Protocol gas audits over the years and has found unacceptabl y high failure rates ( see EPA’s response to Ai r L iquide’s #2 C omment) related to the Part 75 + 2% uncertaint y requirement for EPA Protocol gases. As you know, these gases are used to ensure that emission standards and Clean Air Act emission reduction goals are met nationwide and it is important that the gases are accurate. Because the procedures and s ys tems allowing for these data to be reported are already i n place and the additional reporting requirements are few, the additional reporting costs are relativel y small (see Table 2 in the ICR for the fi nal rule, in Docket EPA
- HQ
- OAR
- 2009
- 0837 )

. Praxair Distribution Inc. Comments (Doc ument ID EPA - HQ - OAR- 2009 - 0837 - 00 32 ) 1) Comment : We agree with the overall process of the Protocol Gas Verification Program, but good faith participation is dependant on h ow the concern in the next paragraph is addressed to ensure that proper purchasing of the verification cylinders from the gas manufacture r s is performed.

“ EPA is requesting comment on how they can ensure the cylinders obtained from a given productions si te by

a third party

will not alert the site that their cylinder is being audited. We are suggesting the Agency

hire current customers of each of the protocol gas manufactures to procure the US EPA Protocol Gas cylinders from participating sites situated i n similar geographical regions of the United States, Mexico, or Canada. As third party companies will require credit checks, D & B numbers and contract reviews of the product(s) they will be purchasing, this will alert most if not all of the gas manufactures listed in the PGVP program of the PGVP audit. Using current customer of each of the Gas manufactures wil l be very seamless to the PGVP.” Response : EPA agrees with Praxair, and notes that how the Agency intends to obtain cylinders for audit may

not h ave been clear in the preamble of the proposed rule. The Agency intends to use nearb y existing customers to the extent practical, and intends to alway s use companies that frequentl y purchase EPA Protocol gases.38

2) Comment : “ EPA is requesting comment on 4 options to ensure an ample number of samples are anal yz ed b y NI ST. (Page 33395)

a. Option 1 allows all facilities on EPA’s list of participating sites and that provide EPA Protocol gases to Part 75 sources to be considered EPA Protocol gas production site s. In the case where EPA chooses not to perform an audit the production site on EPA’s list may s t ill market their products as EPA Protocol gases. b. Option 2 allows EPA to reduce the number of cylinders audited per production site, so NI ST could anal yze and r eport on all audited cylinders. c. Option 3 allows EPA to select fewer production sites from specialty gas producers to audit. d. Option 4 is EPA’s preferred option, allowing EPA to use any combination in a given ye ar.

“ We feel all options are viable but stron gl y disagree with Option 1 based on past experiences of the former verification program. Currently the PGVP process is looking at a minimum of 120 samples per ye ar if Option 1 is the primary method administered to obtain representative population of sampl es from each protocol gas manufacture. A combination of Options 2, 3 and 4 are more realistic for obtaining samples but unfavorable from a statistical point of view for the protocol gas manufactures. If two samples are accepted from each protocol gas manufacture, the probability

of obtaining a true representative sample of the protocol gas manufactures process is decreased b y the number of samples removed from the total population. This is a give and take, knowing option 1 will not work for the volume of product but agree with option 2, 3 and 4 as a combined process.” Response : Two commenters supported Option 4 and two commenters supported Option 4 but without Option 1. While the Agency understands the shortcomings of Option 1, EPA believes that this o ption is necessary to preserve the abilit y of EPA Protocol gas producers to sell gases in possible (but unlikely) situations where cylinder procurement, shipping, or analy ses take longer than expected to complete. EPA will retain the maximum flexibility o f Option 4 when implementing the final rule. 3) Comment : “ EPA specifically requests comments on the following proposed codes for the ty pe of EPA Protocol gas used. These codes would not be specified in the rule, but rather in the electronic reporting structure. (Page 33396) The codes presented are logical as listed. Except: We do not agree with the multiple combination codes like SN1 and SN2 because the requested mixture could potentially include Sulfur Dioxide and Oxides of Nitrogen in the same cylin der, which could be manufactured as Nitrogen Dioxide. The combination of Nitrogen Dioxide and Sulfur Dioxide mixtures cannot be manufactured because the Nitrogen Dioxide and Sulfur Dioxide will react with each other causing stability issues with the mixture. Our question, does the SN1 mixture mean Sulfur Dioxide, Nitric Oxide with the Oxides of Nitrogen reported?39

Response : Based on an August 2, 2010 telephone call from EPA to a specialty gas company (see Document ID# EPA
- HQ
- OAR
- 2009
- 0837
- 0056 in the do cket), the Agency believes that an SO 2 and NO 2 combination may be possible. However, if an SO 2 and NO 2 combination cannot be properl y manufactured, it probably will not be, and any such cylinders that are improperly manufactured will likely

fail if audite d in the PGVP. To clarify the meaning of the “SN1” code that was in the proposed rule preamble, the ECMPS PGVP reporting instructions at http://www.epa.gov/airmarkets/business/ ecmps/docs/pgvp_aetb.pdf now include cylinder gas ty pe codes: “SN” for SO 2 and NO, “SN2” for SO 2 and NO 2 , and “SNX” for SO 2 , NO, and NO 2 instead of “SN1”.

. 4) C omment : “ We are also suggesting the electronic reporting codes include a designation for Carbon Monoxide (CO). We do manufacture EPA Protocol gas standards consisting of a single certified component of Carbon Monoxide and a balance gas, (CO = C). ” Response : Because of the data structure in EPA’s ECMPS reporting software, single

- blend carbon monoxide cannot be accommodated. Under Part 75, carbon monoxide is not regulated and is not required to be recorded or reported. Therefore, a code for that gas will not be included in the reporting instructions. 5) Comment : “ Calibration Tag Values: E PA proposes to amend Part 75, Appendix A, Section 5.1.4 (b) and 5.1.5 to clarify the meaning of plus or minus 2.0 percent performance specification for EPA protocol gases and research mixtures. Section 5.1.4(b) currentl y requires calculation of a 95 perce nt confidence interval which may provide justification for a specialty gas company

to claim that it is permissible for an EPA Protocol gas cylinder tag value to be more than 2.0 percent different than the actual cylinder gas concentration. The Agency gener all y does not assign an uncertainty

to a performance specification, e.g., cylinder concentration must be within 2.0% of cylinder tag value, because performance specifications are used to determine compliance.

“ Proposed Section 5.1.4(b) would state that `` EPA Protocol gas concentrations must be certified b y a specialt y gas compan y to have an analytical uncertainty to be not more than plus or minus 2.0 percent (inclusive).'' The Agency requests comments on these proposed changes to Sections 5.1.4(b) and 5.1 .5, particularl y regarding the appropriateness of the 2.0 percent specification for very

low gas concentrations. Would an alternative specification (e.g., in terms of absolute difference) be more appropriate for very low concentration gases?

“ We agree, thi s requires work and resolution but the EPA_600_R1997_121 Protocol requires us to include uncertainty of the reference gas, the variance of the anal yt ical readings, the calibration curve uncertainty and G2 method uncertainty (if the G2 process is used). In some extremes, this calculates to more than 2%. The higher uncertainty occurs when there is a G2 anal ys is and at the extremes of any Hydrogen Sulfide anal ys is. We propose that Part 75 be changed to agree with the EPA_600_R1997_121 Protocol because the current process as outlined is scientifically

defensible, staticall y s ound and as such should remain.” Response : S ee EPA’s response to Air L iquide’s #7 Comment.40

6) Comment : “ EPA is also requesting comment on Figure 3 to Appendix B of Part 75

- Single Compo nent Plus Balance Gas Cylinders EPA Protocol Gas Verification Program Results EPA Cylinder Gas Assay s Performed by NIST. Page (75FR 33420)

“ Based on the description of the verbiage given below Figure 3, we are proposing the pass/fail basis of the PGVP b e viewed on if the original tag error band overlaps with the audit anal ys is error band. For example, if the original tag had an error band of 2%, and the audit anal ys is had an error band of 1%, then more than a 3% difference would fail the PGVP. I f the e rror band concept is not used, the assumption is there is no propagation of the two errors and the NI ST audit anal ys is is error free (has an uncertainty of zero). The uncertainty of the PGVP begins at the NIST metrological institute level where even their internal standards have uncertainties associated with the tag value. The protocol gas manufactures uncertainty and the NI ST uncertainties must be propagated in order to achieve a combined error band, which we cannot assume one or the other anal yt ical proc ess is error free. ” Response : EPA has amend ed the statement at the bottom of Figure 3 in part to read: “ A gaseous component is said to fail when the absolute value of the difference between the audit and vendor concentration values is greater than 2.2% . The 2.2% value is determined by using the “paired t test” at 95% confidence, with an uncertainty of plus or minus 2.0% (fixed by Part 75, Appendix A, section 5.1.4(b)) and plus or minus 1.0% (maximum acceptable) for the gas vendor and audit, respectivel y. If the plus or minus 1.0% audit expanded uncertainty value changes, the 2.2% value may

change. ” 7) Comment : “ If EPA fails to receive from the participating EPA Protocol gas production site a written invoice cancellation or a hardcop y credit receipt for the cylinders within two weeks of notifying the production site that its cylinders are being audited by EPA, the cylinders would be returned to the production site and that production site would not be eligible for re

- listing until December 31 of the c urrent year and until it submits to EPA the information required by Sec. 75.21(g)(1), in accordance with the procedures in Sec. Sec. 75.21(g)(2) and 75.21(g)(3); (Page 33395)41

“ We are not in agreement with the above statement as a means of being eliminated from the PGVP because every

governmental agency

or public and private organization will require roughl y 30

– 45 days to generate a credit invoice or to “no bill” a product invoice. Two weeks is insufficient time for an y organization, which handles hun dreds of transactions and multiple accounts to respond to this request. We are also suggesting, if the above is not accepted, the EPA include the cost of purchasing process of the cylinders to be included in the bill that is presented to the protocol gas manufactures, instead of us issuing a credit to them. So, if the audit anal ys is costs $1,800 per cylinder, and we charged $200 for the PGVP cylinder, the EPA would bill us $2,000.

“ We at Praxair Distribution Inc., would like to thank the EPA and NIST for their continued efforts to make the PGVP a success. ” Response : The Agency generall y agrees with Praxair

. However, EPA had allowed only two weeks to receive an invoice cancellation from the production site for two reasons: (1) to minimize the time requi red to complete the PGVP annual audit because EPA would not ship cylinders to NIST prior to receiving an invoice cancellation or credit receipt; and (2) to minimize any demurrage charges from a production site that had submitted the required information to participate, but then changed its mind after EPA had procured its cylinders for audit. Because of the time commonly

required to issue or cancel invoices, EPA has allow ed up to 45 calendar day s to receive an invoice cancellation or credit receipt (electro nic or hardcopy) in the final rule

. However, the Agency

has clarified §75.21(g)(5) and §75.21(g)( 8 ) of the final rule that the production site shall not charge demurrage. The final rule is clear that EPA will not be billing a specialty gas company

or an EPA Protocol gas production site. An EPA Protocol gas production site is responsible for arranging and paying for : analy sis of their cylinders by NI ST, their share of a draft and final audit report on all cylinders in the audit , the full cost of a draft r edacted audit report on just that production site’s cylinders, return shipment of their cylinders, and not charging for demurrage. Stork Testing & Metallurgical Consulting, Inc. Comments ( Doc um ent ID EPA - HQ - OAR2009 - 0837 - 00 35 ) 1) Comment : We are not in favor of requiring AETBs to be accredited to ASTM D 7036

- 04. Response : The proposed rule does not require accreditation. The proposed rule allows the option for an AETB to provid e a letter of certification for the relevant test methods signed by a membe r of the senior management staff of the AETB. 2) Comment : “We do NOT favor certifying individuals (Qualified Individuals or QI) but rather ensuring the testing company that they represent has a QA/QC program in place that ensures accurate data. ” Respons e : EPA received only two comments not in favor of certifying individuals, and many comments in support of the AETB provisions, including the Source Evaluation Society that includes over 1,000 individual members activel y i nvolved in the field of emission m easurement including air emissions test professionals, analy tical laboratory

professionals, regulatory agency42

employees, source owner and operator staff members, and equipment and supplies vendors. Because i ndividuals, not companies , actually do the testi ng , the Agency believes that certifying qualified individuals and requiring the m to be at the test site overseeing and supervising tests are important for the prope r conduct of EPA test methods. 3) Comment : “ We feel that the test program developed for QI s is excessive. The methods are grouped, and may

not represent the t ype of work an individual or firm will conduct. For example, if a compan y el ects not to perform 3

- D probe work in Method 2F, there is no way to exclude these questions from the current Q I test which puts this individual at a disadvantage if there are questions on the exam concerning a method the firm will not conduct. ” Response : The QI exams provided by the Source Evaluation Society (SES) are created with the knowledge and wisdom of many experienced stack testers. Periodicall y, these exams are modified using feedback from people who have taken the exams. The interdependency

of emissions testing methods is inherent in any emissions testing program. EPA and the SES membership , which i ncludes large and small stack test companies, believe that an individual who can pass a multiple method group exam is one who understands emissions testing principles broadl y enough to lead a test team and can be expected to address the my riad of complicat ing issues that arise during a source test. It is EPA’s understanding that the SES membership can and ha s evaluated and adjusted the qualifications approach from time to time. Stork may determine that working through SES is a viable route for addressi ng particular issues. The Agency support s the QI qualification exam program in its current form , recognizing that there are opportunities for improvement

. 4) Comment : “ The requirement for a QI to be on site for every test is excessive. ” Response : EPA believes that every test is important, especiall y in a cap and trade program where emissions are traded as a commodity. EPA believes that having a qualified individual overseeing and supervising a test provides more assurance that the test will be properl y performed. 5) Comment : “ The requirement for a re

- exam every 5 years is excessive, experience should be allowed in lieu of all exams. ” Response : The ASTM D 7036

- 04 workgroup consisting, in part, of individuals from large and small stack test companies , thought otherwise. This workgroup thought that experience and passing a qualification exam every five years were important to the stack testing and regulated community

. EPA agrees with this view, and believe s the evidence is strong that unqualified, un der

- trained and inexperienced testers are routinely deployed on testing projects. EPA addressed man y of these concerns in the response to comments for the 2006 proposed rule ( see Document ID # EPA
- HQ
- OAR
- 2005
- 0132
- 0110 in Docket EPA

- HQ
- OAR
- 2005
- 0132). Th ese concerns were also discussed in the preamble of the January 24, 2008 final rule (see 73 FR 4325, January 24, 2008), in an EPA Inspector General report, and in several correspondences from State air agencies ( see Doc ument ID #s EPA
- HQ
- OAR
- 2009
- 0837
- 001 5,
- 0016,
- 0062, and

-43

0063, and Document ID# EPA

- HQ
- OAR
- 2005
- 0132
- 0035 in the dockets). The Agency believes that requiring a re

- exam every five years is a good balance between keeping current with changing test methods and not being too burdensome. 6) Co mment : “The agencies are all afforded the opportunity to witness an y compliance testing. The use of “accredited” AETBs may provide agencies with a false sense of security. We feel strongl y that agencies need to and should witness testing and that this w ill provide the oversight required. ” Response : The Agency

has revised section 6.1.2(f) in part to address this issue. EPA agrees that agency oversight is very

important and that the AETB provisions are no substitute for that oversight and do not guarant ee that test methods will be properl y performed. However, the Agency believes that an AETB meeting the requirements of ASTM D 7036

- 04 will be more likely to properly

perform test methods. 7) Comment : “ Stork performs man y test programs, on not only Part 75 regulated sources but also Part 60, Part 63 and numerous state regulated emission points. Part 75 sources should not have a special criteria for AETBs. ” Response : Unlike Part 60, 63 and state regulated emission points, Part 75 is the monitoring porti on of several cap and trade programs, including the Acid Rain Program, Clean Air Interstate Rule, NOx Budget Program, and the recentl y proposed Transport Rule. A ccurate monitoring of mass emissions is critically important for maintain ing confidence in the allowance trading market, and for ensuring that the nationwide emission reduction goals of the Clean Air Act are met. 8) Comment : “If this requirement is implemented, the 6 month time line is not sufficient, especiall y when the nature of our business is field oriented.” Response : S ee EPA’s response to UARG’s #14 Comment. 9) Comment : “There are existing programs already in place to accredit testing companies and laboratories. Adding another program would be redundant.” Response : The commenter may b e referring to the Texas or L ouisiana programs. A driving force for the development of the ASTM standard was to prevent the patchwork of standards that was starting to occur throughout the U.S. If each State were to develop its own standard for stack tes ting, the cost of testing in multiple jurisdictions for stack testing companies w ould increase significantl y . These increased costs would likely be passed on to sources subject to Part 75. .EPA notes that the Louisiana DEQ has agreed to cancel its stack t esting accreditation program ( see Document ID # EPA
- HQ
- OAR
- 2009
- 0837
- 0072 in the docket) and in its place, substitute accreditation to ASTM D 7036

- 04 , and agrees to recognize third party accreditors such as the Stack Testing Accreditation Council. 10) Comm ent : “Stork maintains current state required accreditation in Texas (Texas Commission on Environmental Quality

– laboratory methods onl y) and Louisiana (Louisiana44

Department of Environmental Quality

– covers both field and laboratory), which should be all owed to satisfy

the AETB requirement in this rule as an alternative to the referenced ASTM

D7036
- 04.” Response : See previous response. 11) Comment : “ Stack testing companies that have a QA/QC program that meets the standards of ISO 17025 and NELAC Chapt er 5 should also be approved as an alternative to the ASTM standard.” Response : EPA disagrees. While much of the ASTM standard was based in part on IS O 17025, there are important differences to specificall y address the needs of stack testing companies. IS O 17025 is designed specifically for laboratories, not companies that perform stack testing. 12) Comment : “Allow “grandfathered” companies and / or individuals.” Response : Grandfathering companies and /or individuals would create an uneven playing f ield, and defeat the purpose of the Part 75 AETB provisions which is to require all AETBs to meet ASTM D 7036
- 04
. 13) Comment : “Allow the use of other technical, professional licensing (such as Professional Engineering licenses which requires extensive e xperience and continuing education plus ethics training). ” Response : Unfortunatel y, allowing these alternatives does not guarantee that relevant EPA test method knowledge and experience will prevail among AETBs and individuals that exercis e these alternatives

. 14) Comment : “ Internally developed programs in lieu of the outside administered exams. Self administered programs by ethically operated companies will provide the necessary QA/QC required for this rule. ” Response : Only

one other comment w as rec eived on this subject. Internally administered exams are allowed only

if an external exam for that test method is not available. The current format of external exams covers a group of related test methods. If a QI desires to be certified for a particular test method and that test method is part of an external exam for a group of methods , that QImust take that external exam. An individual that has been qualified with an internal exam must re
- qualify

with an external exam within three years of the availa bility of an external exam or when a re

- test is required, whichever is sooner. The ASTM D 7036

- 04 workgroup (in part, made up of small and large stack test companies) confirm ed that, in general, external exams are a better indication of qualification than an internal exam. The Agency agrees with this view because an externall y administered exam may be more impartial, provide exam questions that have been better vetted, and may be less subject to abuse than an internall y developed and administered exam

. S pecialty Gases of America, Inc. Comments (Doc ument ID EP A - HQ - OAR- 2009 - 0837 - 00 36 )45

1) Comment : “ Specialty

Gases of America, Inc. (SGA) has concerns with the additional costs to small business due to the proposed Protocol Gas Verification Program (PGVP). T he new costs associated with the PGVP will include pay ment to NI ST, shipping costs to the company that the EPA has hired, shipping costs to NI ST, loss of cylinder rent for six months or more, and administrative costs. SGA estimates that this will result i n a cost of $2500

- $3000 per audited cylinder. The value of the protocol gas that is returned with NIST analy sis will depend on remaining volume of gas and market demand. The cost associated with the protocol gas could be lessened if the gas is able to be used as a NI ST traceable reference material or a gas manufacturer intermediate standard. Section C. Regulatory

Flexibility

Act on page 33403 of the proposed rule gives detail on assessing the impacts on small entities. There is no information showing th e assessment of impact on small Specialty Gas Companies who will be required to participate in the PGVP. ” Response : The commenter has not provided an y data to support the assertion of $2,500

- $3,000 per audited cylinder due to the PGVP

. P age 8 of the “In formation Collection Request for the Revisions to 40 CFR Parts 72 & 75 Supporting Statement” ( see Docket # EPA
- HQ
- OAR
- 2009
- 0837 ) states that the costs associated with the PGVP will be passed through to the customers which are generall y sources subject to P art 75, including large electric utility and industrial companies. Also, see EPA’s response to UARG’s #5 Comment. It may be possible for a specialt y gas compan y’ s agreement with NIST to include a provision that the anal ys is performed b y NI ST on that compan y’s c yl inders will be sufficient to re - label the cylinders as , e.g., a GMIS. 2) Comment : “ On page 33395, EPA asks for comments concerning possible situations where anal ys es take longer than one year to complete. Option 1 could result in a specialty gas compan y, who is removed after December 31, being unable to be relisted for a length of time that is more than intended to prevent gaming of the program. Option 3 would benefit large specialty gas companies and would assume that all production sites for a specialty

gas company

would have equivalent capabilities. ” Response : EPA agrees that if the audit report takes longer than one ye ar to complete , e.g., under Option 1, so that EPA receives it in the first half of a calendar ye ar and a production sit e w as not in the audit report, that production site might not be re

- listed for up to two years . This period of time before relisting is longer than was intended

. In addition, EPA understands that it would be unfair to not re

- list a production site due to circumstances beyond the production site’s control

. Therefore, the Agency has revised section 75.21(g)(5) in the final rule to address these concerns

. While the Agency

understands the shortcomings of Option 3 , EPA believes that this o ption and Options 1 and 2 are necessary to preserve the ability

of producers to sell EPA Protocol gases and for EPA to implement the PGVP in a variet y of possible situations. These three options are incorporated in Option 4. Two commenters supported Option 4 and two46

comme nters supported Option 4 but without Option 1. For the above reasons, EPA will retain the maximum flexibility

of Option 4 when implementing the final rule. Florida Municipal Power Agency Comments ( Doc um ent ID EP A - HQ - OAR- 2009 - 0837 - 00 37 & 0039 ) 1) Comment : “ We are not in favor of EPA's proposal to disallow the use of the provision in Section 8.5 of Method 7E, which allows multiple test runs to be conducted prior to the bias checks, for RATA's conducted under 40 CFR 75, for the following reasons: 1. Thi s provision already necessitates that all test runs conducted since the previous bias check be invalidated if the subsequent bias check reveals drift in excess of the required specification. Invalidation of multiple test runs would extend the duration of the test period, leading to additional expense and potential operational difficulties (i.e., billing of additional hours by the test contractor, overtime for plant employees responsible for monitoring the testing, continuing to run the unit at the specified operating level rather releasing the unit back to load control, and in some cases continuing to run the unit solely for the purpose of conducting the required test). Therefore, we believe the potential for invalidation of multiple test runs is enough of a deterrent to discourage the use of equipment and/or testing firms that would have difficulty meeting the applicable specifications. 2. The ability

to use this provision is of great value to facilities that are required to conduct both RATA and complian ce tests. The provision facilitates conducting RATA and compliance tests simultaneously

by allowing 63 minutes of sampling prior to conducting bias checks. This fulfills the requirement to conduct a 1

- hour compliance test run, while also allowing the col lection of enough data for three 21

- minute RATA runs. The ability to combine RATA and compliance testing in this manner reduces the overall amount of time required for testing and is of value to industry for the same reasons as those listed in item 1 abov e. 3. EPA also mentions in the proposal that using this provision unnecessarily complicates the bias and drift correction calculations, however, once these calculations are programmed into a spreadsheet, they

are easy to appl y. It is the responsibility of industry and the contracted testing firms to ensure that this is done correctl y and of agency reviewers to confirm. The possibility of having a test report rejected (and subsequently having to redo the test) is enough of a deterrent to ensure that sources will check these calculations for accuracy prior to commencing any test. EPA has not provided any substantial evidence for its reasoning that less accurate results will occur other than the statement that “less accurate gas concentration measurements are likel y to result” (75 FR 33400) (emphasis added). EPA should provide field evidence which shows that less accurate results have occurred as a result of this less time consuming procedure before it proceeds with an y rulemaking on this issue.” Respons e : S ee EPA’s response to UARG ’s #15 comment
. Lakeland Electric Comments (Doc ument ID EP A - HQ - OAR- 2009 - 0837 - 00 40 )47

1) Comment : I dentical comments as Florida Municipal Power Agency

. Response : S ee EPA’s response to UARG ’s #15 comment
. GE Energy Comments (Doc um ent ID EP A - HQ - OAR- 2009 - 0837 - 00 38 ) 1) Comment : “ FR page 33396 Detailed Discussion. EPA specificall y requests comments on the following proposed codes for the t ype of EPA Protocol gas used. These codes would not be specified in the rule, but rather in the electronic reporting instructions. ” “ A common quad blend consisting of SO2, NOx, CO, and CO2 is conspicuously absent from the list. It should be added to list with the code as follows: N1SCC = EPA Protocol gas quad

- blend standard consisting of four certified components, NOX, SO2, CO2, and CO, and a balance gas. ” Response : Because NOx can be certified as NO, NO 2 or NO and NO 2 , EPA has add ed three code s to the list: SNCC representing SO 2 , NO, CO and CO 2 and a balance gas, SN2CC representing SO 2 , N O 2 , CO and CO 2 and a balance gas, and SNXCC representing SO 2 , NO, NO 2 , CO and CO 2 and a balance gas. 2) Comment : “ Part 75 Appendix A § 6.1.2(d) While under no obligation to request the following information from an AETB, to review the information provide d by the AETB in response to such a request, or to take an y other action related to the response, it is recommended that the owner or operator request that the AETB produce the following:

(1) The AETB’s qualit y manual; (2) The results of an y external or internal audits performed by the AETB during the prior 12 months; (3) A written description of any corrective actions being implemented by the AETB during the prior 12 months; and (4) An y AETB training records for the prior 12 months. As an I SO 9001 accredited organization, GEII has extensive records of internal and external audit findings and training records. The regulation as worded does not indicate the timeliness of the records being requested, only “during the prior 12 months”. It would be preferable to defi ne the timing of the requirement and when the request should be made by the owner/operator. It is not reasonable to assume “that the testers will have this information with them in their vehicles when visiting a site”. The packet of the enumerated inform ation would constitute a rather large quantity of documents, and keeping an up

- to
- date packet in each vehicle would be nearl y impossible. We recommend that the owner /operator request this information prior to mobilization of the test crew to the site, an d that the 12 months of information be updated up to and including, at most, the previous calendar quarter. ” Response : S ee EPA’s response to Scott Evan’s #2 Comment. 3) Comment : “ Part 75 Appendix A § 6.1.2(d)(2). The results of an y external or inte rnal audits performed b y the AETB during the prior 12 months; External audits are performed b y someone other than the AE TB. This requirement should be r ewritten, for example: “The results of an y48

internal audits performed by the AETB and any

external audi ts of the AETB during the prior 12 months.” Response : The Agency

agrees and has re vised this provision. 4) Comment : “ Part 75 Appendix A § 6.1.2(d)(4). Any AETB training records for the prior 12 months. ” “ This statement is very vague. In the detailed discussion, the USEPA states; “The agency anticipates that testers would have this information [training information] with them in their vehicles when visiting a site in view of the requirements of the ASTM method”. This implies that only

the QI trainin g information is required to be available to the owner/operator. However, the USEPA needs to specify the training in the wording of the regulation so that it is clear what is intended. ” Response : The Agency

believes that ASTM D 7036

- 04, sections 5.4.11 , 8.3.7 , and 8.4 require the AETB to have training and other information available on request, and would therefore suggest that the AETB keep this information up to date in the vehicle. However, EPA has clarif ied in section 6.1.2(d)(4) of the final rule th at the training records for all on site technical personnel, including the QI, should be available for the 12 month period through the previous calendar quarter. 5) Comment : “ Part 75 Appendix A § 6.1.2(e). When QI oversees a test, the QI shall actively observe the test for its duration. If a QI conducts a test, the QI shall actively conduct the test for its duration. However, allowance is made for normal activities of a QI who is overseeing or conducting a test, e.g., bathroom breaks, food breaks, and emergencies that may arise during a test. ” “ According to ASTM D 7036

- 04: ”The AETB shall provide qualified individuals to oversee and supervise test projects. The AETB must provide at least one qualified individual on

site at all times during a test proj ect who is qualified in the methods employed for that test project.” “ It is our opinion that adding further requirements to “activel y observe the test for its duration” or “activel y conduct the test for its duration” exceeds the intent of ASTM D7036

- 04. A test program may

consist of multiple locations and multiple test trains, and the phrases “activel y oversee” or “activel y conduct” may place undue and unwarranted burden on the qualified individual’s activities, and lead to confusion and variation from site to site and agency to agency as to interpretation of the requirements of the regulation. “ Response : The Agency partially agrees and has revised section 6.1.2(e) to remove the requirement of having a QI activel y conduct a test. EPA has also remove d the word “activel y”, but retain ed the requirement to oversee and supervise a test . The Agency believes that this better reflects the intent of ASTM D 7036

- 04, and would allow a QI to m ove more freel y about a test site ensuring that the various facets of the t est are being properl y conducted. 6) Comment : “ Part 75 Appendix A § 6.1.2(g). If the Administrator finds that the information submitted to an af

fected source b y an AETB under this section or the information requested b y an affected source under this sect ion is either incomplete or inaccurate, the Administrator may post the name of the offending AETB on Agency W eb sites, and provide the AETB a description of the failures to be remedied. The AETB name will be removed from the EP A Web sites once the failures are remedied.49

AND Part 75 Appendix A § 6.1.2(h) If the Administrator finds that the information submitted to an af fected source b y AETB under this section or the information requested b y an affected source under this section is either incomplete or ina ccurate, the AETB shall, on demand of the Administrator, provide to the Administrator evidence within a reasonable time of the demand that any m issing information has been provided to the af

fected source and/or that any inaccurate information has been corr ected. ” “ Although the purpose of these two paragraphs is understood, we feel they could be combined into a single paragraph, and that the both paragraphs should provide an opportunity for the AETB to provide or correct an y information prior to the imposit ion of any penalties, and the “reasonable time” frame should be defined. W e propose the following wording: ”

“ If the Administrator finds that the information submitted to an af fected source b y an AETB under this section or the information requested by an af fected source under this section is either incomplete or inaccurate, the AETB shall, on demand of the Administrator, provide to the Administrator evidence, within 45 day s of the demand, that an y missing information has been provided to the af fected sourc e and/or that an y inaccurate information has been corrected. If the AETB fails to respond in the time indicated, the Administrator may post the name of the of fending AETB on Agency W eb sites. The AETB name will be removed from the EP A Web sites once the fa ilures are remedied. ” Response : S ee EPA’s response to Scott Evans’ #3 Comment. Summa Consultants, Inc. Comments (Doc ument ID EPA - HQ - OAR- 2009 - 0837 - 00 41 ) 1) Comment : “ Protocol Gas Verification Program (PGVP) . While the proposed rule makes it clear that cylinders provided by a PGVP provider will be valid through the earliest of the stated expiration date or final cylinder pressure of 150 psi if a PGVP participant leaves the program, it is not clear how long cylinders in use will be allowed to be used once the program is implemented. Summa recommends that all cylinders ordered before the effective date of the final rule be allowed for Part 75 purposes through their stated expiration date or a final pressure of 150 psi. Summa anticipates that this is EPA’s i ntention. Clear, definitive wording on this subject will prevent the waste

– both economic and environmental

– of potentially thousands of cylinders that may

be in use or may

have valid service lives as of the effective date of the final rule. ” Response : The Agency agrees, and has revise d section 75.21(g)(7) and the fourth and fifth sentence s in section 6.5.10 in appendix A to read: “ An EPA Protocol gas cylinder certified by or ordered from any

non - participating EPA Protocol gas production site no later than [I NSERT DATE 60 DAYS FROM PUBLICATION] may be used for the purposes of this part until the earlier of the cylinder’s expiration date or the date on which the cylinder gas pressure reaches 150 psig. In the event that an EPA Protocol gas production sit e is removed from the list of PGVP participants on the same date as or after the date on which a particular cylinder has50

been certified or ordered, that gas cylinder may continue to be used for the purposes of this part until the earlier of the cylinder’s expiration date or the date on which the cylinder gas pressure reaches 150 psig. However, in no case shall the cylinder be recertified by a non - participating EPA Protocol gas production site to extend its useful life and be used b y a source subject to thi s part. ” The Agency

chose to use “certified” instead of “manufactured” because a cylinder could be manufactured and certified for, e.g., two ye ars, and then re

- certified for up to another two ye ars if it was not consumed. EPA did not want cylinders to be re - certified by an EPA Protocol gas production site that was not participating in the PGVP and continue to be used for potentially four years or more after the PGVP takes effect. 2) Comment : “ Competency Requirements for Air Emission Testing Bodies (AETB ) . Summa understands the cited concerns for qualifying emission testing companies to perform Part 75 test programs; however, Summa remains unclear about the basis for these concerns. ” Response : The bases of EPA’s concerns regarding AETBs were discussed i n the preamble of the January 24, 2008 final rule (see 73 FR 4325, January 24, 2008), in an EPA Inspector General report, and in several correspondences from State air agenc ies ( see Doc ument ID #s EPA
- HQ
OAR
- 2009
- 0837
- 0015,
- 0016,
- 0062, and

- 0063, and Do cument ID# EPA
- HQ
- OAR
- 2005
- 0132
- 0035 in the docket s ). Also see EPA’s response to Source Testing and Consulting Service’s #4 Comment. 3) Comment : “ A source testing firm may choose to limit the scope of ASTM D 7036 conformance to certain test programs. Th is means that a source testing organization (i.e., and AETB) may

perform only

Part 75 test programs or determine that onl y Part 75 test programs are included within the scope of ASTM D 7036 conformance. Without declaring a scope, all work that the AETB per forms must conform to the standard which means qualification and examination of personnel, test plans, and test reports for every test method and test program that the AETB performs. If an AETB fails to declare a scope of ASTM D 7036 applicability , this me ans that an AETB that fails to perform an y work in full conformance to ASTM D 7036 jeopardizes even that work that may have been performed in accordance with the standard. The preamble indicates that an AETB is to be evaluated against its quality manual wh en assessing AETB conformance to the standard. Summa recommends that final rule clarify the implication of scope declaration when evaluating an AET B’s conformance to ASTM D 7036.” Response : Section 4.1, Note 3 in ASTM D 7036

- 04 states: “There is no requi rement to define a scope of testing. It is a requirement of this practice that prior to performing a test method for the first time, the AETB has in place resources, training, and QA/QC consistent with this practice to insure data of acceptable quality ar e produced.” However, i t is EPA’s intent in this rulemaking that the ASTM D 7036

- 04 scope of testing be limited to Part 75 relative accuracy test audits, and Part 75 stack tests related to Appendix E and low mass emitters performed on sources subject to Part 75
. EPA understands the concern of Summa Consultants, Inc. and has revise d section 6.1.2(a) of a

ppendix A to part 75 to allow an AETB to limit its conformance to ASTM D 7036
- 04 to units subject to P art 75 and to the test methods required b y P art 75
. Section 6.1.2(b) has been similarl y revised. Unless a stack test company accredits to ASTM D 7036

- 04 through,51

e.g., the Stack Testing Accreditation Council, the stack test compan y does not have to meet ASTM D 7036
- 04 for non

- Part 75 testing. The Agency notes that for companies that choose to accredit to the ASTM standard, it may be possible to limit the scope of accreditation to Part 75 testing. In an y case, the proposed rule does not require accreditation. A letter of certification signed b y senior management will suffice. The Agency

also wishes to clarify

that if an AETB fails to compl y with ASTM D 7036

- 04 when performing tests at Unit A, but later complies with ASTM D 7036

- 04 when testing at Unit B, the earlier noncompliance at Unit A does not affec t the validity of the Unit B testing. 4) Comment : “ Summa understands that currentl y, there is only one provider of external exams, the Source Evaluation Society (SES). SES offers exams in method groups. These groupings may include methods that an AETB d oes not perform. It makes no sense for an individual to sit for exam that covers material for which the candidate is not qualified to perform or intends to perform. This means that the AETB that performs a limited scope of testing may legitimatel y argue th at a qualified external exam provider is not available and may choose to offer internal exams. Given that AETB management is ultimately responsible for both implementation of the standard and competence of personnel (Section 8.1 of the standard), AETB mana gement may conclude that acceptable external examinations are not available and based on the AETB’s scope of conformance to the standard, determine that internal examinations are more appropriate tools for ensuring the competence of individuals that it ass igns to oversee test programs (i.e., “qualified individuals”). The current language in the preamble to the proposed rule favors an external exam provider. Summa suggests that EPA recognize the validity of internal examination providers when suggesting that sources obtain informati on about examination providers.” Response : The QI exams provided by the Source Evaluation Society (SES) are created with the knowledge and wisdom of many experienced stack testers. Periodicall y, these exams are modified using fe edback from people who have taken the exams. The interdependency

of emissions testing methods is inherent in any emissions testing program. EPA and the SES membership , which includes large and small stack test companies, believe that an individual who can pass a multiple method group exam is one who understands emissions testing principles broadl y enough to lead a test team and can be expected to address the my riad of complicating issues that arise during a source test. It is EPA’s understanding that the SES membership can and ha s evaluated and adjusted the qualifications approach from time to time. S umma may determine that working through SES is a viable route for addressing particular issues. The Agency support s the QIqualification exam program in its current form , recognizing that there are opportunities for improvement

. Only two other comment s w ere received on the subject of external vs internal exams. Internall y administered exams are allowed onl y if an external exam for that test method is not available. The current format of external exams covers a group of related test methods. If a QI desires to be certified for a particular test method and that test method is part of an external exam for a group of methods, that QI must take that exter nal exam. An individual that has been qualified with an internal exam must re

- qualify with an external exam within three ye ars of the52

availability

of an external exam or when a re

- test is required, whichever is sooner. The ASTM D 7036
- 04 workgroup (in part, made up of small and large stack test companies) confirmed that, in general, external exams are a better indication of qualification than an internal exam. The Agency agrees with this view because an externally administered exam may

be more impartial, provide exam questions that have been better vetted, and may be less subject to abuse than an internally developed and administered exam. 5) Comment : “ The proposed rule lists information that a source may request from an AETB to demonstrate that it conf

orms to ASTM D 7036. Generall y, this list includes training and examination records, the quality manual and corrective actions. There are important problems regarding the submittal and use of this information.

“ A quality

manual can be as simple as a reci tation of the standard or a more sophisticated document which describes how the AETB will actually implement what the standard requires. In the latter case, the quality manual may

contain substantial confidential business information. Summa suggests that the underlying goals of the quality manual request could be fulfilled by asking the AETB to provide the quality manual cover page, the quality manual table of contents, and the Stack Testing Accreditation Council (STAC) checklist which shows where each elem ent of ASTM D 7036 is addressed in the quality manual. If EPA cannot support this simplified approach to documenting the evidence of an AETB’s quality manual, EPA must afford AETBs the opportunity

to declare quality

manual content as confidential business information to protect it from disclosure. ” Response : The Agency agrees and has revise d section 6.1.2(d)(1) of appendix A to part 75 to read: “ The AETB’s quality manual. For the purpose of application of 40 CFR Part 2, Subpart B, AETB’s concerned about the potential for public access to confidential business information (CBI) may

identify an y i nformation subject to such a claim in the cop y provided ” 6) Comment : “ Corrective action reporting will vary with each AETB. Accordingl y, evaluating an AETB bas ed on reported corrective actions is far from objective. Instead, sources should request that the AETB provide performance data as set forth in Section 7.4.4. of ASTM D 7036

- 04. Certainly , corrective actions are a subset of performance data. Allowing the s ource to request performance data allows the source to request information that can objectively guide the selection of an AETB for a Part 75 project. Limiting the requested information to corrective actions may

mean that an AETB that is more dedicated to the process of continual improvement is slighted in the selection process because it is more thorough in its documentation of improvement needs as evidenced b y corrective actions. ” Response : EPA agrees with the commenter and has revise d section 6.1.2(d)(3 ) of appendix A to part 75 to read: “ Performance data (as defined in section 3.1.9 of ASTM D 7036

- 04 (incorporated b y reference, see § 75.6) ) collected by the AETB, including corrective actions implemented, during the 12 month period through the previous calendar quarter ”. 7) Comment : “ Training and experience requirements are clearl y specified in ASTM D 7036 and can be documented and objectively evaluated. As described in item “b” above, examination53

procedures need to reflect the scope of accreditation a nd management decisions because these procedures may

vary to reflect the needs of the AETB. ” Response : EPA agrees that the training provisions in ASTM D 7036

- 04 are clear. The Agency believes that ASTM D 7036

- 04, sections 5.4.11, 8.3.7, and 8.4 require the AETB to have training and other information available on request, and would therefore suggest that the AETB keep this information up to date in the vehicle. However, EPA has clarif ied in section 6.1.2(d)(4) of the final rule that the training records for all on site technical personnel, including an y QI s , should be available for the 12 month period through the previous calendar quarter

. The examination and scope issues have been addressed in the responses to Summa Consultant’s Comments #3 and #4

. 8) Comment : “ The proposed rule specificall y references ASTM D 7036

- 04. The final rule needs to allow an AETB to conform to a more current version of the standard if one should be developed. ” Response : Inorder to incorporate by reference a more current version of ASTM D 7036

- 04 , EPA w ould need to do a rulemaking. 9) Comment : “ The proposed rule allows EPA to fine AETBs that fail to produce proper credentials up to $32,500/day . Certainly , AETBs that misrepresent their qualifications should bear the conse quences of their actions and a fine is an appropriate course of action. On the other hand, sources still have the responsibility to properly

qualify vendors. Accordingl y, proposed fines for AETBs should in no way relieve a source of its compliance duties, or associated fines for failing to comply , if it has not acted diligently to properl y qualify an AETB for the work. Otherwise, the public will bear the full burden of a source’s decision to contract emission testing to a low

- cost, and perhaps unqualified, provider.” Response : EPA generally agrees. However, it is unreasonable to expect that a Part 75 source should be expected to ensure that an AETB outside of the source’s management structure is complying with the hundreds of requirements associated with ASTM D 7036
- 04 each time it wants to hire an AETB to do a relative accuracy test audit. T he wording of section 6.1.2(f) of appendix A to part 75 essentially limits the liability

of a Part 75 source in such situations. Of course, sources are still respons ible for ensuring that required Part 75 QA/QC tests are properl y conducted and passed

. Also, see EPA’s response to Jack Herbert’s Comment #1. 10) Comment : “ The proposed rule allows AETBs to self

- declare conformance to ASTM D 7036 or undergo a third

- part y assessment that would support interim or final accreditation. The preamble seeks comments on this approach. Until there is complete clarity and transparency in the accreditation process, AETBs must have the option of self

- declaring conformance. Although there may be AETBs that attempt to self declare conformance to the standard without putting any of the required s ys tems in place or AETBs that obtain STAC interim or final accreditation and never take a look at the quality manual again, AETBs that can prod uce the information set forth in the proposed rule (and are subject to the proposed fines) are not likel y to fall into either of those categories. The documentation that an AETB must furnish under the proposed rule is adequate to demonstrate conformance to ASTM D 7036. If the final rule includes similar54

documentation requirements, AETBs should be able self

- declare conformance to ASTM D 7036.” Response : EPA agrees that it is premature to require accreditation to ASTM D 7036

- 04. Weston Solutions, Inc. Comm ents ( Doc um ent ID EPA - HQ - OAR- 2009 - 0837 - 00 42 ) 1) Comment : “ Protocol Gas Verification Program (PGVP) . While the proposed rule makes it clear that cylinders provided by a PGVP provider will be valid through the earliest of the stated expiration date or fin al cylinder pressure of 150 psi if a PGVP participant leaves the program, it is not clear how long cylinders in use will be allowed to be used once the program is implemented. WESTON recommends that all cylinders in service, manufactured, or ordered befor e the effective date of the final rule be allowed for Part 75 purposes through their stated expiration date or a final pressure of 150 psi. WESTON anticipates that this is EPA’s intention. Clear, definitive wording on this subject will prevent the waste

– both economic and environmental

– of potentially thousands of cylinders that may be in use or may

have valid service lives as of the effective date of the final rule. ” Response : The Agency generall y agrees, and has revise d section 75.21(g)(7) and the f ourth and fifth sentence s in section 6.5.10 in appendix A to read: “ An EPA Protocol gas cylinder certified by

or ordered from an y non - participating EPA Protocol gas production site no later than [INSERT DATE 60 DAYS FROM PUBLICATION] may be used for the purposes of this part until the earlier of the cylinder’s expiration date or the date on which the cylinder gas pressure reaches 150 psig. In the event that an EPA Protocol gas production site is removed from the list of PGVP participants on the same date as or after the date on which a particular cylinder has been certified or ordered, that gas cylinder may continue to be used for the purposes of this part until the earlier of the cylinder’s expiration date or the date on which the cylinder gas pressure r eaches 150 psig. However, in no case shall the cylinder be recertified by a non participating EPA Protocol gas production site to extend its useful life and be used b y a source subject to this part. ” The Agency

chose to use “certified” instead of “manufa ctured” because a cylinder could be manufactured and certified for, e.g., two ye ars, and then re

- certified for up to another two ye ars if it was not consumed. EPA did not want cylinders to be re

- certified by an EPA Protocol gas production site that was no t participating in the PGVP and continue to be used for potentially four years or more after the PGVP takes effect. 2) Comment : “ C ompetency Requirements for Air Emission Testing Bodies (AETB). WESTON maintains a rigorous quality management sy stem and ha s participated in the L ouisiana Environmental Laboratory Accreditation Program (LELAP) since inception. Importantly , LELAP covers both the sampling and anal yt ical aspects of emission testing, including the test methods and procedures for Part 75 test programs. We have previousl y explained our concerns about maintaining an additional quality management sy stem and prefer that EPA allow AETBs to adopt and conform to any established qualit y management s ys tem that covers the scope of the AETBs work. In the ab sence of such an approach, WESTON offers the following comments: ”55

R esponse : A driving force for the development of the ASTM standard was to prevent the patchwork of standards that was beginning to occur throughout the U.S. If each State were to develop its own standard for stack testing, testing costs would increase as stack testers performing work in multiple States would have to pay for, qualify

in and abide by

differing requirements in multiple jurisdictions. EPA notes that the L ouisiana DEQ has agre ed to cancel its stack testing accreditation program (see Document ID# EPA
- HQ
- OAR
- 2009
- 0837
- 0072 in the docket) and in its place substitute accreditation to ASTM D 7036

- 04. Louisiana DEQ also agrees to recognize third party accreditors such as the Stack Testing Accreditation Council. #3 Comment: “ A source testing firm may choose to limit the scope of ASTM D7036 conformance to certain test programs. This means that a source testing organization (i.e., and AETB) may

perform only

Part 75 test programs or d etermine that onl y Part 75 test programs are included within the scope of ASTM D7036 conformance. Without declaring a scope, all work that the AETB performs must conform to the standard which means qualification and examination of personnel, test plans, and test reports for every test method and test program that the AETB performs. If an AETB fails to declare a scope of ASTM D 7036 applicability , this means that an AETB that fails to perform an y work in full conformance to ASTM D 7036 jeopardizes even that work that may have been performed in accordance with the standard. The preamble indicates that an AETB is to be evaluated against its quality manual when assessing AETB conformance to the standard. WESTON recommends that final rule clarify the implicat ion of scope declaration when evaluating an AETB’s conformance to ASTM D 7036. ” Response : S ee EPA’s response to Summa Consultants #3 Comment. 4) Comment : “ WESTON understands that currently , there is onl y one provider of external exams, the Source Evalu ation Society (SES). SES offers exams in method groups. These groupings may

include methods that an AETB does not perform. It makes no sense for an individual to sit for exam that covers material for which the candidate is not qualified to perform or intends to perform. This means that the AETB that performs a limited scope of testing may legitimatel y argue that a qualified external exam provider is not available and may choose to offer internal exams. Furthermore, we have had several emplo ye es sit for and pass the exam. Our experience with the exam indicates that the exam does not cover the topics that would actuall y enable an individual to properl y and safely perform the tests. Given that AETB management is ultimately responsible for both implement ation of the standard and competence of personnel (Section 8.1 of the standard), AETB management may conclude that acceptable external examinations are not available and based on the AETB’s scope of conformance to the standard, determine that internal exam inations are more appropriate tools for ensuring the competence of individuals that it assigns to oversee test programs (i.e., “qualified individuals”). The current language in the preamble to the proposed rule favors an external exam provider. WESTON su ggests that EPA recognize the validity of internal examination providers when suggesting that sources obtain information about examination providers. ”56

Response : S ee EPA’s response to Summa Consultants #4 Comment. 5) Comment : “ The proposed rule lists inf ormation that a source may request from an AETB to demonstrate that it conforms to ASTM D7036. Generall y, this list includes training and examination records, the quality manual and corrective actions. There are important problems regarding the submittal and use of this information. A quality manual can be as simple as a recitation of the standard or a more sophisticated document which describes how the AETB will actually implement what the standard requires. In the latter case, the quality manual may

co ntain substantial confidential business information. WESTON suggests that the underl yi ng goals of the quality manual request could be fulfilled by asking the AETB to provide the quality manual cover page, the quality manual table of contents, and the Stac k Testing Accreditation Council (STAC) checklist which shows where each element of ASTM D7036 is addressed in the quality manual. I f EPA cannot support this simplified approach to documenting the evidence of an AETB’s quality manual, EPA must afford AETBs the opportunity

to declare quality

manual content as confidential business information to protect it from disclosure. ” Response : The Agency agrees with the commenter and has revise d section 6.1.2(d)(1) of appendix A to part 75 to read: “ The AETB’s qual ity manual. For the purpose of application of 40 CFR Part 2, Subpart B, AETB’s concerned about the potential for public access to confidential business information (CBI) may identify an y information subject to such a claim in the cop y provided ” 6) Comment : “ Corrective action reporting will vary with each AETB. Accordingl y, evaluating an AETB based on reported corrective actions is far from objective. Instead, sources should request that the AETB provide performance data as set forth in Section 7.4.4. o f ASTM D7036

- 04. Certainly , corrective actions are a subset of performance data. Allowing the source to request performance data allows the source to request information that can objectively guide the selection of an AETB for a Part 75 project. Limiting the requested information to corrective actions may

mean that an AETB that is more dedicated to the process of continual improvement is slighted in the selection process because it is more thorough in its documentation of improvement needs as evidenced b y corrective actions. ” Response : EPA agrees with the commenter and has revise d section 6.1.2(d)(3) of appendix A to part 75 to read: “ Performance data (as defined in section 3.1.9 of ASTM D 7036

- 04 (incorporated b y reference, see § 75.6) ) collected by the AETB, including corrective actions implemented, during the 12 month period through the previous calendar quarter ”. 7) Comment : “ Training and experience requirements are clearl y specified in ASTM D7036 and can be documented and objectively evaluated. As described in item b above, examination procedures need to reflect the scope of accreditation and management decisions because these procedures may

vary to reflect the needs of the AETB. ”57

Response : EPA agrees that the training provisions in ASTM D 7036

- 0 4 are clear. However, one commenter suggested that EPA better specify which training records should be available on request. T he Agency

believes that ASTM D 7036

- 04, sections 5.4.11, 8.3.7, and 8.4 require the AETB to have training and other information available on request, and would therefore suggest that the AETB keep this information up to date in the vehicle. However, EPA has clarif ied in section 6.1.2(d)(4) of the final rule that the training records for all on site technical personnel, including any QI s , should be available for the 12 month period through the previous calendar quarter. The scope and examination issues have been addressed in the responses to Weston Solutions’ Comments #3 and #4, respectivel y . 8) Comment : “ The proposed rule specif icall y references ASTM D7036

- 04. The final rule needs to allow an AETB to conform to a more current version of the standard if one should be developed. ” Response : Inorder to incorporate by reference a more current version of ASTM D 7036

- 04, EPA would n eed to do a rulemaking. 9) Comment : “T he proposed rule allows AETBs to self

- declare conformance to ASTM D7036 or undergo a third

- part y assessment that would support interim or final accreditation. The preamble seeks comments on this approach. Until there is complete clarity and transparency in the accreditation process, AETBs must have the option of self

- declaring conformance. Although there may be AETBs that attempt to self declare conformance to the standard without putting any of the required s ys tems in place or AETBs that obtain STAC interim or final accreditation and never take a look at the quality manual again, AETBs that can produce the information set forth in the proposed rule (and are subject to the proposed fines) are not likel y to fall into e ither of those categories. The documentation that an AETB must furnish under the proposed rule is adequate to demonstrate conformance to ASTM D7036. If the final rule includes similar documentation requirements, AETBs should be able self

- declare conformance to ASTM D7036. ” Response : EPA agrees that it is premature to require accreditation to ASTM D 7036

- 04
. Council of Industrial Boiler Owners Comments (Document ID EP A - HQ - OAR- 2009 - 0837 - 0044 ) 1) Comment : “ CI BO is a broad

- based association of industrial boiler owners, architect

engineers, related equipment manufacturers, and university affiliates with members representing 20 major industrial sectors. CIBO members have facilities in every region of the country

and a representative distribution of almost every t ype of boiler and fuel combination currentl y in operation. CIBO was formed in 1978 to promote the exchange of information within the industry and between industry

and government relating to energy and environmental equipment, technology , operations, policies, law and regulations affecting industrial boilers. Since its formation, CIBO has been active in the development of technically sound, reasonable, cost

-58

effective energy

and environmental regulations for industrial boilers. CIBO supports regulatory programs that provide industry with enough flexibility

to modernize

– effectively and without penalty

– the nation's aging energy infrastructure, as modernization is the key to cost
- effective environmental protection. CI BO believes that the National Insti tute of Standards and Technology (NIST) is an appropriate partner agency for the auditing and verification of cylinder gas producers. In the p reamble (74 Fed. Reg. 33395), EPA discusses a transitional period for the owner on the use of cylinders from suppl iers that choose not to participate in EPA’s PGVP or sites removed from the PGVP p articipants. CIBO believes that this transition period is appropriate and appreciates EPA’s clarification regarding continued use of these cylinders. CIBO requests that EPA a dd a code to the list of codes to designate gas blends that will not be contained in the rule; NSCC = EPA Protocol gas quad

- blend standard consisting of four certified components, NOx, CO2, SO2 and CO, and a balance gas. ” Response : Because NOx can be ce rtified as NO, NO 2 or NO and NO 2 , EPA has added three code s to the list: SNCC representing SO 2 , NO, CO and CO 2 and a balance gas, SN2CC representing SO 2 , NO 2 , CO and CO 2 and a balance gas, and SNXCC representing SO 2 , NO, NO 2 , CO and CO 2 and a balance gas. 2) Comment : “ With respect to the minimum competency requirements for air emissions testing (AETB), CIBO appreciates EPA’s position that personnel conducting emissions testing demonstrate a minimum competency , or work under the supervision of personnel who have demonstrated a minimum competency . While CIBO recognizes that these provisions have been a possibility

since the 2006 rulemaking (71 Fed. Reg. 49300), we are concerned with the proposed i mplementation of January 1, 2011, and request that EPA work c losel y with stakeholders to ensure a smooth transition not only for the sources affected by the provisions, but also for the emissions testing firms that will seek to have personnel take examinations to become Qualified Individuals (QI) such that their fir ms can be designated as AETBs for purposes of this rule.

“ Certain small affected sources may need time to identify

AETBs in their area that fulfill EPA’s requirements, and if those firms are not qualified vendors, to proceed through the internal bidding and contracting processes (safety verification, insurance, contracting, etc) with vendors that do meet the AETB requirements. Therefore, EPA should make the compliance deadline January 2012 for AETBS intending to perform Part 75 RATA testing.

“ In an y event , EPA should clarify the “effective date,” which determines the “date that is six months from the effective date of final rule,” and should clarify what obligations are required by January 1, 2011. Statements in the proposal concerning compliance deadlines are contradictory

. ” Response : S ee EPA’s response to UARG’s #14 Comment. 3) Comment : CIBO supports the ability of owner/operators to have personnel demonstrate QI/AETB, as many companies have employees with knowledge and experience in stack testing and Relative Accuracy Test Audits (RATA testing). However, EPA should, in a supplemental59

proposal, provide clarification of how the ASTM provisions would apply to owners who select this method of compliance. For example, how would an owner who contracts with firms manage the QA/QC program? Response : The provisions in ASTM D 7036

- 04 apply equally whether the AETB is an internal group or an external company . If a parent company with an internal AETB contracts the services of that AETB to perform stack testing at other firms, the ASTM D 7036

- 04 QA/QC provisions are applied no differentl y. The parent compan y would need to set

- up the proper AETB management substructure, following the ASTM provisions, within the company ’s management sy stem. Although EPA is not e ndorsing nor here opining on such s ys tems, examples include the Emissions Testing group (an AETB) within GE International, Inc., (the parent company) and Dominion Generation, both of which have interim accreditation to ASTM D 7036

- 04 through the Stack Test ing Accreditation Council. Institute of Clean Air Companies Comments (Document ID EP A - HQ - OAR- 2009 - 0837 - 0045 ) 1) Comment : “While our member companies would prefer a more rigorous audit program we fully appreciate the Agency ’s regulatory and budgetary

con straints implementing the PGVP.” Response : The Agency

has tried to balance the need to better ensure accurate calibration gases with the costs of providing that as surance. Regarding way s to make the program more rigorous, see EPA’s response to L inde’s # 1 Comment. 2) Comment : re: Procurement of US Protocol Gas Cylinders “The Institute would recommend the Agency

allow 30

- 45 day s for the invoice nullification or credit to occur as two weeks is insufficient time for large organizations handling hundreds o f transactions and multiple account managers to respond.” Response : EPA has revised the final rule to allow 45 calendar day s to receive an invoice cancellation or credit receipt (electronic or hardcopy). 3) Comment : “While we understand not all propose d options will collect a statistically valid number of cylinders, IC AC would suggest options 2 and 3 afford the Agency the required flexibility to address certain situations such as the expansion in the number of production sites, delays in cylinder anal ys is and potential budgetary constraints.

“ O ption 2, while reducing the number of cylinders analyzed from a production site still ensures all cylinders selected are anal yz ed b y N IS T on an annual basis. Option 3 will afford an EPA Protocol production site that manufactures only a select t ype of EPA Protocols to participate in the program without penalty if that particular site is not chosen to be audited in a given ye ar.60

“ I CAC member organizations prefer an annual analy sis and reporting for all audited cylinders. Option 1 fails to ensure Part 75 sources receive timely information on participating EPA Protocol production site.” Response : While the Agency understands the shortcomings of Option 1, 2 and 3, EPA believes that these options are necessary to preserve the ability

of producers to sell EPA Protocol gases in possible (but unlikely) situations where cylinder procurement, shipping, or analy ses take longer than expected to complete, and for EPA to implement the PGVP under a variety of possible condit ions. These three options are incorporated in Option 4. Two commenters supported Option 4 and two commenters supported Option 4 but without Option 1. For the reasons previously

stated, EPA will retain the maximum flexibility of Option 4 when implementin g the final rule. Consistent with the preamble discussion in the proposed rule (see 75 FR 33395, June 11, 2010) , the Agency

has also revised section 75.21(g)( 1 0 ) to allow a participating EPA Protocol gas production site to continue to sell EPA Protocol ga s cylinders in the event that none of its cylinders are audited. 4) Comment : “I CAC would suggest the electronic reporting instructions include the code for carbon monoxide (CO) equal to EPA Protocol gas standard consisting of a single certified component CO and a balance gas, (CO = C). Currently the proposed rule identifies carbon dioxide as (CO 2 ). We submit the code should be reported as C2.” Response : EPA must use “ CO2 ” as the code for CO2 because it is used thoughout EPA’s database to describe that parameter and EPA wants to maintain consistent code conventions in the ECMPS reporting software

. The data structure in ECMPS cannot accommodate a single

blend carbon monoxide gas. Under Part 75, carbon monoxide is not regulated and is not required to be recorded or reported. Therefore, a code for that single blend gas cylinder will not be included in the reporting instructions. 5) Comment : re: Calibration Gas Tag Value: “In order to “tighten” the confidence interval would require the enlargement of the uncertainty, as an example, instead of +/

- 2% at the 95% confidence interval one might have +/

- 3% at the 99% confidence interval. We believe that the current status is scientifically defensible and as such should remain.” Response : S ee EPA’s response to Air L iquide’s #7 Comment. 6) Comment : “I CAC appreciates the Agency ’s efforts to work with NIST to implement certain cost containment measures for cylinder anal ys is. ICAC would suggest the cost for NIST cylinder anal ys is should be locked in for a min imum of two years so that the EPA Protocol gas supplier community

can budget for the anal ys is as part of their participation in the PGVP.” R esponse : S ee EPA’s response to Airgas’s #1 Comment. Source Testing and Consulting Services, Inc. Comments ( Docume nt I D EPA - HQ - OAR2009 - 0837 - 0046 )61

1) Comment : “ I do not believe that either of these programs is actuall y necessary and are contrary to the spirit of the Paperwork Reduction Act. I feel that both add unn ecessary layers of bureaucracy .” Response : The Age ncy

disagrees. The commenter doesn’t provide any specific information in support of this position which makes it difficult to respond. The ASTM D 7036

- 04 workgroup consisting, in part, of individuals from large and small stack test companies, thought that experience and passing a qualification exam every five years were important to the stack testing and regulated community and the every five ye ars exam frequency was a good balance between keeping current with test method changes and being too burdensome

. EPA agrees with this view, and believe s the evidence is strong that unqualified, under

- trained and inexperienced testers are routinel y deployed on testing projects. EPA and State air agencies have had experiences with tests that have been invalidated or called into question due to poor performance by testing contractors (see EPA Inspector General Report of EPA’s Oversight of State Stack Testing Programs, and several correspondences from State air agencies , Doc ument ID #s EPA
HQ
- OAR
- 2009
- 0837
- 0015,
- 0016 , - 0062, and

- 0063, and Document ID# EPA

- HQ
- OAR
- 2005
- 0132
- 0035 in the dockets)

. Eleven commenters, including one representing seven specialty gas companies representing the vast majority of EPA Protocol gases in the U.S. , support the PGVP , and three comme nters oppose it

. A 2003 EPA audit of EPA Protocol gases found an unacceptabl y high failure rate (11% of all components analyzed , with 57% of the production sites failing at least one gaseous component) with respect to the + 2% standard in 40 CFR Part 75. A 2009 EPA Inspector General audit (see Document ID# EPA
- HQ
- OAR
- 2009
- 0837
- 0064 in the docket) also found an 11% failure rate over all components analy zed, with 39% of the production sites failing at least one gaseous component. The IG recommended that EP A implement an ongoing PGVP. A 2010 audit of EPA Protocol gases found a 1 0 % failure rate over all components anal yz ed , with 4 0 % of the production sites failing at least one gaseous component. 2) Comment : “ As a stack tester with 26 years experience, a te sting company primary owner having worked at 3 different firms and also worked under contract to EPA (EMB, OAQPS and OSW), Ihave encountered some “bad gases” from time to time, from just about every supplier yo u can think of. It is one of the biggest aggr avations you can imagine when you are in the field and don’t know it. It can be hard to figure out, even. That said, it is rare

– extremely rare. The degree of incidence may

vary some with manufacturer, but I have seen this happen in nearly all I have used (and I have used a lot) but not much with any of them. In a way , Iencourage this part of the rule, but it will not stop the occasional bad gas. Wh y? Because this is not a sy stemic problem, it is an intermittent one, and statistically very small. The vast majority

(all) of the manufacturers that I have used produce consistent and quality gases on average. If I experience problems with one, I stop using them or ask them to take corrective action. That is the way the market works.” Response : The accuracy

o f EPA Protocol gases is important because these gases are used to help ensure that the national emission reduction goals of the Clean Air Act are met. Every recent62

audit of EPA Protocol gases ha s found cylinders that fail the Part 75 required + 2 .0 % perfor mance specification ( see previous response, and Document ID # s EPA
- HQ
- OAR
- 2009
- 0837
- 0011 , - 0064 in the docket , and the 2010 gas audit report)

. These failures were found using a small sample size of cylinders from each specialty gas compan y in the U.S. T here is no reason to think these samples weren’t random. Therefore, it is likely that for the companies that had failed audited cylinders, other cylinders from those companies w ould fail. 3) Comment : “ Some of the problems experienced in the field have t o do with: 1) Two gases from the same batch of the same constituent with different concentrations get the labels swapped. 2) A gas that is used for an upscale on one component and a zero on another (not certified at the zero point) is contaminated with a trace level of the gas it was used to zero (I’m not sure you thought about that, but it happens periodically , particularly with CO zeroed on an oxygen containing gas

– recognizing CO does not come under Part 72 or 75). 3) A moderatel y high reported non

- certified NO 2 value in an NO (NO X ) calibration gas. The issue is that you probabl y will not catch man y of these anomalies in your audit and if you get the odd bad one then you might unfairl y think that is what they all are like from that vendor. They all do i t at times in one form or another. Most of the gas manufacturers are large enough that it shouldn’t affect prices too much, but Ithink it is unwise to say it will save costs by

avoiding retests. Idon’t see that. A decent stack tester will review his gase s versus the facilities if there is an issue. A few facilities require the tester to use the site gases when doing a test, which makes some sense. ” Response : EPA understands that cylinders may get contaminated in the field. The PGVP program cannot addr ess those potential problems since the cylinders audited in the PGVP come unopened directly

from an EPA Protocol gas production site. However, if a source follows proper cylinder regulator procedures available from specialty gas companies, instances of su ch contamination would be reduced. Section 75.21(g)(9)(v) of the proposed rule addresses the issue involving moderatel y high, non

- certified NO 2 value in a NO x calibration gas claiming NIST traceability

for both NO and NO x by requiring such cylinders obtai ned for audit to be analyzed by NI ST for both NO and NO x components. 4) Comment : “ The AETB requirements, however, are m y main concern. My compan y and I are most affected b y that, as are other small stack testing firms. Are there reall y a lot of stack tes ts that are required to be redone, as the rule seems to suggest? Idon’t think so. In fact, I have done hundreds and hundreds, likely over 1000 and there are onl y two instances I can think of that me or my staff had to re

- conduct a test, only one of them r egulatory

and for a fairly

trivial reason and that was over 15 years ago. Is that common? I know a lot of people in the industry and I don’t believe this could be the case, or don’t hear about it and it is clearly exaggerated in the rule, if even frequent. ” Response : S mall and large stack testing companies, sources subject to Part 75 , and S tate and EPA regulators o n the ASTM D 7036
- 04 work group believe that implementation of the ASTM Practice will result in improved data quality

. EPA also believe s the e vidence is strong that unqualified, under

- trained and inexperienced testers are routinely deployed on testing projects. EPA and State air agencies have had experiences with tests that have been invalidated or called into question due to poor performance b y testing contractors (see EPA Inspector General Report of EPA’s Oversight of State Stack Testing Programs, and several correspondences from State air63

agencies, Doc ument ID #s EPA
- HQ
- OAR
- 2009
- 0837
- 0015,
- 0016,
- 0062, and

- 0063, and Document ID# EPA
- HQ
- OAR
- 2005
- 0132
- 0035 in the dockets)

. The Agency believes that meeting the requirements of ASTM D7036 and having a Qualified Individual on site does not guarantee proper performance of any individual test, but feels strongl y that these things will increase th e likelihood of proper test execution and high quality data generation. EPA also agrees that third party (e.g., State agency) oversight helps ensure that testing is properly conducted. 5) Comment : “ Regardless, being a stack tester is a difficult life an d the ones that stay with it (few will) are worth a lot, particularl y the good ones

– not just to industry but to EPA. Many very good ones tend to break off into smaller companies to pursue the American Dream of being in business for yourself or part of on e. Many good small stack testing companies exist and range in size from as few as 3 to as man y as 12 to 15. Our compan y has onl y 12 employees and 3 of them are administrative. I know well and work with another company (an SES hall of fame person) who onl y has 3 people, only two being technical. There are many other examples throughout the US. Contrast that with Clean Air Engineering, TRC, Metco, URS, Arcadis, or MacTech.

“ These larger companies (some may even qualify

as a small business under SBA, but the scale difference is dramatic) clearl y have an economic advantage over smaller companies in developing their AETB documents and procedures as well as getting the QSTI for its employees, or at least certain ones. This is a hardship on truly small businesses, some at least of which do the best work for you folks. ” Response : For the cost analy sis performed for the proposed rule , a small entity is defined as: (1) A small business as defined by the SBA ' s regulations at 13 CFR 121.201 ; (2) a small governmental jurisdiction that is a government of a city , count y, town, school district or special district with a population of less than 50,000; or (3) a small organization that is any not
- for

- profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field. T he primary purpose of the regulatory flexibility

anal ysis is to identify

and address regulatory alternatives " which minimize any significant economic impact of the rule on small entities

. " 5 U.S.C. 603 and 604 . Thus, an agency may certify that a rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities if the small entities can pass through costs to their customers or rate payers, if the rule generall y does not regulate small entiti es, or the rule relieves regulatory

burden or otherwise generally has a positive economic effect on all of the small entities subject to the rule. The marginal increase in burden that is estimated in the information collection request for the proposed ru le will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Nearl y all sources subject to Part 75 are large electric generating facilities that will face an incremental increase in cost associated with very small increases in the testing fees charged by AETBs and PGVP vendors. For AETBs, the main costs to comply with the ASTM D7036

- 04 standard are associated with taking a qualified stack test individual competency exam, and developing or revising a quality assurance manual. PGVP vendors will be required to have a small number of their cylinders anal yz ed each ye ar, and provide annual notification to EPA with64

basic information on their facility and other information relevant to the PGVP. The costs will be passed through to the customers , which are generally sources subject to Part 75, including large electric utility

and industrial companies

. Small and large companies were involved in the ASTM D 7036

- 04 technical work group, and each had equal say

in the final standard. A r eview of the Source Evaluation Society web site indicates a number of small stack test companies with Qualified Source Testing Individuals, including Air

- Tech Environmental, LLC, and a QSTI from the commenter’s compan y, Source Testing and Consulting Servic es, Inc. 6) Comment : “ The economic anal ys is you have used is highl y flawed, and was clearl y not done by someone familiar with the industry , at least not from the business side of it. This will not drive prices down, and whatever increase in price there i s cannot necessarily be passed on to the customer. In addition, smaller firms suffer from this more, even though they may be the better choice in man y cases. The market should decide. High quality work rises to the top and gets repeat customers. Test failures due to the tester are not something a client wants and won’t tolerate much, if at all.” Response : The Agency

has include d more supporting detail in the final rule I CR cost anal ys is. The economic anal ys is performed for the information collection requ est required by the Paperwork Reduction Act took into account the major costs associated with the proposed rule, including the AETB provisions. The major costs associated with the AETB provisions are taking an exam meet ing the requirements of ASTM D 7036

- 04 (QSTI exam), and developing or revising a quality

assurance manual. The QSTI exam cost was obtained from the Source Evaluation Society , and the cost to develop or revise a quality assurance manual came from small and large stack testing compan ies

. 7) Comment : “ The EPA in this particular rule also assumes in its economic anal ys is that the majority of tests done are for Part 75. That is patently false, at least for many

if not most companies. Onl y a fraction of our current business is Part 75 work, but it is a fraction we do not want to lose. ” Response : The economic anal ys is only included Part 75 tests because the proposed rule onl y applies to Part 75 sources. Unless a stack test company accredits to ASTM D 7036

- 04 through, e.g., the Stack Testing Acc reditation Council, the stack test company does not have to meet ASTM D 7036
- 04 for non

- Part 75 testing. The Agency notes that for companies that choose to accredit to the ASTM standard, it may be possible to limit the scope of accreditation to Part 75 te sting. In an y case, the proposed rule does not require accreditation ; a letter of certification signed b y senior management will suffice. 8) Comment : “ Oversight is the regulatory community ’s responsibility , which you are trying to put on the testing communities and industries backs. There are 250 QSTI’s (Qualified Stack Testing Individuals) in the country currentl y (really man y more qualified than that, just so many that took some of the exams) and only four (4) QSTO’s (Qualified Stack Testing Observers) located in only

two states (Michigan and Missouri). There are clearl y no people in EPA who have a QSTO, or not according to the Source Evaluation Society . If you are going to proceed65

with this, shouldn’t the QSTIhave authorit y over the non

- QSTO observer or reviewer or shouldn’t every

writer of regulations and observer be QSTO certified? That costs money though, better that the burden lies on the little guy?” Response : The Agency

agrees that meeting the requirements of ASTM D7036

- 04 and having a Qualifi ed Individual on site does not guarantee proper performance of any individual test, but feels strongl y that these will increase the likelihood of proper test execution and high quality data generation. EPA also agrees that third party (e.g., state agency) oversight helps ensure that testing is properl y conducted. EPA encourages anyone observing tests to become a QSTO. 9) Comment : “ Inaddition, the rule puts potential fines, even criminal penalties on companies that are measurers of the pollution, not th e producers of it. That is clearl y NOT in the spirit of the Clean Air Act. The fines as listed, even a small unintentional violation could drive a small firm out of business in as little as one or two day s at the whim of an Administrator. Citation below:

“ First, as described below, under Section 6.1.2(g), the EPA could list the offending AETB on its Web sites. Secondly , as more fully explained below, since EPA’s authority to make the demand is premised on Clean Air Act Section 114 (42 U.S.C. 7414)(CAA), a non - compliant AETB could be subject to enforcement action by EPA under CAA Section 113. The CAA provides for several levels of enforcement that include administrative, civil, and criminal penalties. The CAA allows for injunctive relief to compel complianc e and civil and administrative penalties of up to $32,500 per day . EPA believes that the availability of these enforcement tools, coupled with the owner or operator’s express right to require the enumerated information from the AETB, are significant deterr ents and will result in better quality testing.”

“ As a contributor to the well being of the environment for over 25 ye ars, to EPA, industry and to the health of ordinary

Americans, I take serious offense to the tone and ridiculousness of this portion as w ell as other inferences to the poor quality of test data. This is simply untrue and an inopportune burden for the testing community to bear. Did you even consider what the insurance requirement adders might be? Idi dn’t think so.” Response : The Agency

o nly pursues these CAA fines after careful consideration. These fines have always been available to the Agency , and can be and have been applied to pollutant emitting sources or others violating the Clean Air Act . The purpose of expressly stating these fi nes in the proposed rule is to better ensure full compliance with ASTM D 7036

- 04. 10) Comment : “ Finally , if the EPA intends to go through with the rule as is, they absolutely must allow a 1 year period from the time of finalization for the AETB’s to get their appropriate documents and certifications in order. Otherwise, it is clearl y discriminatory toward favored EPA contractors and larger companies. ” Response : S ee EPA’s response to UARG’s #14 Comment. Scott Evans (on behalf of STAC) Comments ( Document ID EP A - HQ - OAR- 2009 - 0837 - 00 50 )66

1) Comment : “ On behalf of the Stack Testing Accreditation Council (STAC), Iwould like to thank you for allowing us the opportunity to comment on the proposed rule. STAC is an third party accrediting body

composed of repres entatives from the various stakeholder groups involved with stack testing. This include representatives from Air Emission Testing Bodies (AETBs), regulatory

authorities, and user's of stack testing services. STAC performs third party accreditations of AETB s to verify their conformance with ASTM D7036

- 04.

“ In general, STAC is in agreement with the approach EPA has taken with this proposed rule. In particular, we support the requirements that:

“ 1. AETBs conform to the ASTM D7036

- 04 standard. 2. Qualified In dividuals (as defined in the ASTM standard) be on site during testing 3. Owners and operators keep records documenting AETB and QI conformance with the requirements of the ASTM standard 4. The commencement date be six months following the effective date of the final rule ” Response : The Agency generall y agrees with the comment. However, please see EPA’s response to UARG ’ s #1 4 Comment regarding the commencement date. 2) Comment : “ We feel that the recommendation in Appendix A, Section 6.1.2(d), to have the owner or operator collect certain documents such as the quality manual, etc. from the AETB be modified as follows:

“ While under no obligation to request the following information from an AETB, to review the information provided b y the AETB in response to such a request, or to take any other action related to the response, it is recommended that the owner or operator request that AETBs complying with paragraph (b)(2) of this section produce the following:

“ (1) The AETB's quality

manual (2).... If an A ETB has obtained a third part y certificate of accreditation, the owner or operator is assured that these documents exist and have been reviewed for conformance with the ASTM standard. The owner or operator will have a cop y of this certificate in accordance with paragraph (b). However, for those AETBs submitting a letter of certification, there is no such assurance and thus the requirement to produce them is necessary to provide that additional assurance for this class of AETBs. ” Response : EPA agrees that an AETB that provides a certificate of accreditation or interim accreditation by

a recognized national accreditation body is more likel y to be in full conformance with ASTM D 7036

- 04. However, the Agency also believes that ASTM D 7036

- 04, sections 5.4.11, 8.3.7, and 8.4 require the AETB to have training and other information available on request, and would therefore suggest that the AETB keep this information up to date in the vehicle regardless of whether the AETB is accredited

. In response to this comme nter and to other commenters who had requested that information be available for the 12 month period through the previous calendar quarter, that confidential business information not be required, that67

performance data also be included, and that training re cords be clarified, th e Agency has revised section 6.1.2(d) in the final rule to read:

“ While under no obligation to request the following information from an AETB, to review the information provided b y the AETB in response to such a request, or to take any other action related to the response, the owner or operator may find it useful to request that AETBs complying with paragraph (b)(2) of this section provide a copy of the following: (1) The AETB’s quality

manual. For the purpose of application of 40 CF R Part 2, Subpart B, AETB’s concerned about the potential for public access to confidential business information (CBI) may

identify any information subject to such a claim in the copy provided; (2) The results of an y internal audits performed by the AETB and an y external audits of the AETB during the 12 month period through the previous calendar quarter; (3) Performance data (as defined in section 3.1.9 of ASTM D 7036

- 04 (incorporated b y reference, see § 75.6) ) collected by the AETB, including corrective ac tions implemented, during the 12 month period through the previous calendar quarter ; and (4) T raining records for all on site technical personnel, including any Qualified Individuals, for the 12 month period through the previous calendar quarter

. ” 3) Comm ent : “ We agree that posting the names of offending AETBs on the EPA website would provide a deterrent for non

- conformance with ASTM D7036

- 04 and generally agree with this approach. However, we feel that paragraph 6.1.2(g) be amended to ensure that an AETB is notified and has the opportunity to correct an y deficiencies before the name is posted on the website. Also, are concerned about the responsiveness of EPA in updating this list once the AETB has provided EPA with the required information. Therefore, we would like to see a requirement added that EPA respond to an AETB's submittal within 30 day s as to whether the submittal is sufficient to remedy the problem. If so, the name of the AETB would be removed from the list. I f EPA fails to respond within 30 day s, the submittal is assumed to be sufficient to remedy the problem and the name is removed from the list. ” Response : EPA generally agrees . Another commenter had requested that the determination of accuracy and completeness in section 6.1.2(g) be solely based on the provisions of ASTM D 7036
- 04 . However, EPA believes that the determination of accuracy and completeness should be based on ASTM D7036

- 04 and part 75 taken together because part 75 limits the application of ASTM D 7036
- 04. The Agency has the refore revised section 6.1.2(g) to read: “ An owner or operator who has requested information from an AETB under paragraph (d) of this part who believes that the information provided by the AETB was either incomplete or inaccurate may request the Administr ator’s assistance in remedyi ng the alleged deficiencies. Upon such a request, if the Administrator concurs that the information submitted to a source subject to part 75 by an AETB under this section is either incomplete or inaccurate, the Administrator wi ll provide the AETB a description of the deficiencies to be remedied. The Administrator’s determination of completeness and accuracy of information will be solely based on the provisions of ASTM D7036
- 04 (incorporated by reference, see § 75.6) and this part. The Administrator may post the name of the offending AETB on Agency web sites (including the CAMD web site http://www.epa.gov/airmarkets/emissions/aetb.html) if within 30 day s of the Administrator having provided the AETB a description of the deficien cies to be remedied, the AETB does not satisfactoril y respond to the source and notify the Administrator of the response by submitting68

the notification to aetb@epa.gov. The AETB need not submit the information it provides to the owner or operator to the A dministrator, unless specificall y requested b y the Administrator. If after the AETB’s name is posted, the Administrator, in consultation with the source, determines that the AETB’s response is sufficient, the AETB’s name will be removed from the EPA web s ites. ” 4) Comment : “ STAC believes that eventuall y, EPA should require third party accreditation for all AETBs. However, we recognize that the accreditation program in the United States is just getting underway

and that the requirement for all AETBs to be accredited may be premature. However, we would like to see paragraph 6.1.2(b)(2) amended to include a "sunset clause" for self

- certified AETBs. We believe that five years after the effective date of the final rule, AETBs should not have the option to self

- certify and must have a certificate of accreditation from a third party accreditation body . We believe this five year period provides more than ample time for the maturation of AETB accreditation programs in this country

. ” Response : STAC did not provid e an y evidence to suggest that accreditation is any better at assuring compliance with ASTM D 7036

- 04 than self

- certification. Over time, if evidence develops that self

- certification is no longer appropriate, then at that time the Agency could consider proposing revisions of the rule to require accreditation. Air Quality Services Comments (Document ID EPA - HQ - OAR- 2009 - 0837 - 00 49 ) 1) Comment : “ AQS is a small business that provides air pollution monitoring, testing, and consulting services to a variet y of s ources that are affected by the Part 75 CEMS program. We provide Relative Accuracy Testing to these facilities. We are vitall y interested in all aspects of compliance monitoring and testing, and offer the following comments/questions: Protocol Gas Verific ation Program (PGVP). The transition to the new program need to be clarified : how long can a cylinder that is in use before the effective date (of the new rule) continue to be used after the effective date? ” Response : S ee EPA’s response to Weston Solut ion’s #1 Comment. 2) Comment : “ Minimum Competency Requirements for Air Emission Testing Bodies. AQS understands and fundamentally agrees with the establishment of minimum competency r equirements. In order to provide the most flexibility to AETBs, and po tentially reduce costs to sources, the AETB should have the ability to determine which test methods to select for "certification", and utilize an examination relevant to those test methods. Internal examinations should be afforded the same consideration as external examinations. ” Response : S ee EPA’s response to Summa Consultants #4 Comment. 3) Comment : “ Inproposed §6.1 .2(d) of Part 75 Appendix A, EPA recommends that owners/operators r equest the AETB to produce the Quality Manual, audit results for the previous 12 months, any

corrective actions in the previous 12 months, and relevant training records . The development and implementation of a suitable Quality Manual (QM) is quite costly , and testing69

companies should not be expected to release such intell ectual propert y. AQS recommends that EPA revise this recommendation so that the QM table of contents would be sufficient. ” Response : S ee EPA’s response to S umma Consultant’s # 5 Comment. 4) Comment : “ AQS recommends that EPA clarify what is related to th e "effective date" (which would then define the "date that is six months from the effective date of final rule"), and what is related to January

l, 2011

. Some statements seem contradictory

. ” Response : The effective date of th e final rule will be 30 day s from the date it is published in the Federal Register

. EPA has extended the deadline in section 75.21(f), and the recordkeeping deadline s in section 75.59 for AETB

- related data elements to the DATE THAT I S 365 DAYS FROM PUBLICAT ION OF THE FINAL RULE IN T HE FEDERAL REGISTER
. The commencement date in s ection 6.1.2(a) of Appendix A to Part 75 has also been extended to the DATE THAT IS 365 DAYS FROM PUBLICAT ION OF THE FI NAL RULE INTHE FEDERAL REGISTER
. The deadline in s ection 75.64(a)(5) for submittal of the information required in §§75.59(a)(15), (b)(6), and (d)(4) has been similarly revised

. A lso , see EPA’s response to UARG’s #14 Comment explaining why the Agency extended the AETB

- related deadlines. As required in § 75.21(g)(6), o n and after the date th at is 6 0 day s from publication of the final rule in the Federal Register , sources subject to Part 75 that use EPA Protocol gas will need to purchase such gas from PGVP participants (or from a reseller that sells unaltered gas from a PGVP participant)

. How ever, § 75.21(g)(7) allows existing EPA Protocol gas cylinders to be used up. As required in § 75.59(a)(9)(x) and § 75.64(a)(5) , PGVP recordkeeping and reporting for sources subject to part 75 commence 180 calendar day s from publication of the final rule in the Federal Register

.