APPENDIX A 

TECHNICAL GUIDANCE DOCUMENTS 
South Coast Air Quality Management District 

Applied Science and Technology 

Source Testing and Engineering 

TECHNICAL GUIDANCE DOCUMENT 

R-002 

Rules: 20 1 1 -Protocol for Monitoring, Reporting, and Recordkeeping for Oxides of Sulfur 

(SOJ Emissions, Appendix A, Chapter 2. 

2012-Protocol for Monitoring, Reporting, and Recordkeeping for Oxides of Nitrogen 

(NOJ Emissions, Appendix A, Chapter 2. 

Date: August 26, 1997 

Subject: Quality Assurance Requirements for CEMS Modification 

References: 40 CFR Part 60 

40 CFR Part 75 

1. Introduction 

The monitoring provisions of RECLAIM require facility operators to develop, submit, and adopt a 

continuous emission monitoring system (CEMS) quality assurance plan (QAP) approved by the 

AQMD. The QAP must contain quality assurance and quality control (QAIQC) procedures that 

will be implemented by the facility to ensure that the CEMS generates accurate and precise 

emissions data on a continuing basis. Quality assurance is accomplished by conducting CEMS 

related tests on a periodic basis that determine the ability of the CEMS to perform within a known 

degree of accuracy and precision, and quality control is accomplished through proper operation and 

requirements of these activities. 

The RECLAIM CEMS post-certification subcommittee developed this document to provide 

guidance to facility permit holders on QAP related issues when CEMS components are replaced 

andlor modified. Each activity was considered separately and the corresponding assessment 

demonstration was selected based upon the nature of the subject component; i.e. type, function, 

relation to overall system function, etc. Basic principles of operation, manufacturers 

recommendations, and actual instrument and CEMS experience were all considered. These 

procedures and requirements are based on the fact that maintenance is a necessary element of 

quality control, that the replacement of parts is an essential aspect of both preventative and 

corrective maintenance, and that the replacement of different components requires different 

demonstrations of the adequacy and integrity of the CEMS. 
Quality Assurance Requirements for CEMS Modification August 26,1997 

2. Objective 

The implementation of the procedures in this document will maintain consistency in emissions data 

quality and reduce implementation costs. The prevailing technical impact of the adoption of this 

proposal will streamline the quality assurance process by introducing clarity and consistency both 

for the AQMD and the facility permit holders. Also, these QA requirements will result in lower 

RECLAIM implementation costs for both the AQMD and the facilities because of a reduced need 

for case-by-case interpretation. 

3. Applicability and Procedures 

The procedures are presented in the form of a flow chart and two matrices. The types of CEMS 

component replacements and modifications are divided into two categories: "like" and "unlike" 

replacements. Matrix 1 is for "like" replacements and Matrix 2 is for "unlike" replacements. To 

determine the appropriate matrix for any particular application, please refer to the flow chart that 

precedes the matrices in this document. If there are any items that are not covered by this 

document, please contact the CEMS engineer who is handling the application. This document is 

effective as of July 23, 1997. 

APPROVED 

(original signed) 

Melvin D. Zeldin 

Director 

Applied Science and Technology Division 

attachments: 

Date 
i 

Quality Assurance Requirements for CEMS Modifica ion 

1 

August 26,1997 

General Questions 

Will the CEMS modification Change: 

System Specific Questions 

Will the CEMS modification affect: 

I Sample Acquisition and Conditioning 

1) Technology? 

2) Equipment Manufacturer or Model? 

3) Material or Design? 

4) Location of Equipment? 

All general 

questio~ls 

answered 

"no" 

Any gen1:ral 

question 

answerer. 

I" 

Sample representablity? 

+ Sample composition? 

System response time? 

Data Acquisition and Handling System 

+ 

Figure 1 

Data quality? 

Calculation results? 

Refer to Matrix 1 

Like Replacements 

Flow Monitoring System (fuel or stack) 

- 

no 

A Refer to Matrix 2 - Unlike Replacements 

I I Yes 

Analyzers 

Measurement selectivity? 

Measurement sensitivity? 

Measurement precision? 

Measurement accuracy? 

+ Measurement response time? 

Sample representablity? 

System response time? 

Measurement sensitivity? 

Measurement precision? 

Measurement accuracy? 

- 

All Repla 

RECLAII 

QUALITY ASSESSR, 

Qualily Control U 

Matrix 1: Like Replacements Only 

ements are for like in all aspects; ie OEM, model, temperature settings 

I 

Capillary replace~nenl 

[ CONTINUOUS EMISSION MONITORING SYSTEM 

ENT TESTS FOLLOWING QUALITY CONTROL ACTWITIES(~) 

J 

Linearity Response Time 

Test"' 

Analytical 

RATA'" 

Stack Flow Rate 

RATA'" 

Sample 

System 

Biad6' 

Interference'" NO, Converter 

Efficiency"' 
Matrix 1 : Like Replacements Only 

ments are for like in all aspects; ie OEM, model, temperature settings 

CONTINUOUS EMISSION MONITORING SYSTEM 

NT TESTS FOLLOWING QUALITY CONTROL ACTIVITIES") 

serial 

(2) CEMS calibration: A calibratio~~ perfinned in normal operating mode to confirm piope- 

(3) Linearity test consists of conducting a cylinder gas audil (CGA) as described in 40 CFR 

(4) Applicable lo systems where ammonia is present. 

(5) Can use any NIST traceable gas 

(6) May not be applicable to dilution probe systems; consult SCAQMD 

(7) As defined in 40 CFR 60, Appendix F 

(8) If analyzer is used for EPA 'F'-factor calculation of stack flow rate (as described in EPA 

(9) Refer to applicable sections of facilily approved QAP or consult SCAQMD for additior 

operation and establish new calibration correction factors or valid data generation. 

60, Appendix F, 40 CFR 75, or as defined in an SCAQMD approved QAP for the facility. 

Method 19) 

al specific guidance 

2: UnLike Replacements Only 

are of different manufacturer, model or specification 

CONTINUOUS EMISSION MONITORING SYSTEM 

NT TESTS FOLLOWING QUALITY CONTROL ACTIVITIES(') 

:ific model and/or 

of for which ipecifik details such as materials ofionstruction or desigu are included require:, 

(2) CEMS Calib~ation: A calib~ation pelfonned in nonnal operating mode to confirm proper 

(3) Linearity test consists of co~~ducting a cylinder gas audit (CGA) as described in 40 CFR 

(4) Applicable to systems where ammonia is present. 

(5) Can use any NIST traceable gas 

(6) May not be applicable to dilution probe systems; consult SCAQMD . 

(7) As defined in 40 CFR 60, Appendix F 

(8) Stratificatioli test must be done 

(9) If analyzer is used for EPA 'F'-factor calculation of stack flow rate (as described in EPA 

serial 

fonnal notificatio~~ to the ~istrictglld will result in a response from tlie District. ' 

operation ill~d establish new calibration correction factors or valid data generation. 

50, Appendix F. 40 CFR 75, or as defined in an SCAQMD approved QAP for the facility. 

Method 19) 
South Coast Air Quality Management District 

Applied Science and Technology 

Source Testing and Engineering 

TECHNICAL GUIDANCE DOCUMENT 

R-003 

Rules: 201 1-Protocol for Monitoring, Reporting, and Recordkeeping for Oxides of Sulfur 

(SOJ Emissions, Appendix A, Chapter 2. 

20 12-Protocol for Monitoring, Reporting, and Recordkeeping for Oxides of Nitrogen 

(NOJ Emissions, Appendix A, Chapter 2. 

Date: August 26, 1997 

Subject: CEMS Testing Requirements Resulting from Analyzer Span Range Modification 

References: 40 CFR Part 60 

40 CFR Part 75 

1. Introduction 

This technical guidance document clarifies the rule language in Rules 201 1 and 2012, 

Appendix A, Chapter 2, Subdivision B, Paragraphs 17 (Rule 201 1) and 16 (Rule 2012) for 

recertification of RECLAIM CEMS analyzers that have undergone a range modification. The 

rule states: "The District will reevaluate the monitoring systems at any affected piece of 

equipment where changes to the basic process equipment or air pollution control occur, to 

determine the proper full span range of the monitors. Any monitoring system requiring change 

to its full span range in order to meet the criteria in Chapter 2, Subdivision B, Paragraph 8 shall 

be recertiiied according to all the specifications in Chapter 2, Subdivision B, Paragraphs 10, 

11, and 12, as applicable, inc1udin;the relative accuracy tests, the calibration drifttests, and - - 

the calibration error tests." 

2. Applicability 

The CEMS recertification only applies if the analyzer range(s) has been modified to measure 

emissions resulting fiom modified basic equipment or air pollution control equipment. If the 

analyzer range is modified solely for the purpose of increasing the data gathering capability of 

the CEMS, without any changes to the basic equipment or the air pollution control equipment, 

a recertification test is not necessary. This applies to both pollutant and diluent gas analyzers. 

3. Testing Procedure 

If analyzer range(s) are modified solely for the purpose of increasing the data gathering 

capability of the CEMS, without any changes to the basic equipment or the air pollution 
CEMS Testing Requirements Resulting from 

Analyzer Span Range Modification 

August 26,1997 

control equipment, a three point linearity test of the analyzer, as required by 40 CFR Part 75, 

Appendix A is adequate. The three point linearity test must be conducted at low-level 

concentration (20-30% of analyzer span range), mid-level concentration (50-60% of analyzer 

span range), and high-level concentration (80-100% of analyzer span range). 

APPROVED 

(original signed) 

Melvin D. Zeldin 

Director 

Applied Science and Technology Division 

Date 
South Coast Air Quality Management District 

Applied Science and Technology 

Source Testing and Engineering 

TECHNICAL GUIDANCE DOCUMENT 

R-004 

Rules: 201 1-Protocol for Monitoring, Reporting, and Recordkeeping for Oxides of Sulfur 

(SO,) Emissions, Appendix A, Chapter 2. 

2012-Protocol for Monitoring, Reporting, and Recordkeeping for Oxides of Nitrogen 

(NO3 Emissions, Appendix A, Chapter 2. 

Date: October 2, 1997 

Subject: Relative Accuracy Test Audit Outliers 

References: 40 CFR Part 60 

40 CFR Part 75 

USEPA, Quality Assurance Handbook for Air Pollution Measurement Systems 

1. Introduction 

The AQMD has historically not allowed testers to discard any data obtained during CEMS 

relative accuracy test audit (RATA), unless the tester could justify with documentation that the 

data should be discarded due to either sampling error or process related effects. In the event 

that this justification could not be provided, the tester was required to use all of the test data. 

The AQMD is aware of the fact that 40 CFR Part 60 Appendix B allows testers to arbitrarily 

discard a maximum of three tests, but believes that arbitrary discarding of data is not 

technically sound, and could lead to misleading assessments of the accuracy of data collected 

under a CbMS program. 

2. Objective 

The AQMD does realize that outliers can occur during testing which the tester may not have 

discovered and documented at the time of testing, and an objective test can be used to 

determine outliers. The procedure in this technical guidance document is recommended if the 

tester chooses to discard any RATA test data after the minimum number of tests (nine) have 

been performed. 
Relative Accuracy Test Audit Outliers October 2,1997 

3. Procedure 

One of the following procedures must be used to discard outliers as applicable: 

a. One Outlier: 

The Dixon Ratio test, as described in Appendix F of the EPA's Quality Assurance 

Handbook for Air Pollution Measurement Systems (Vol. 1, USEPA Document EPA-6- 

19-76-005, March 1976), shall be used as the test for a suspected single outlier in the 

data, using r,, or r,, criterion as appropriate for the number of data sets obtained during 

the CEMS testing. A normal distribution shall be assumed so that the test may only be 

done on the actual data and not log-transformed data. A significance level of 5% shall 

be used which corresponds to a 95% confidence test and is consistent with the other 

confidence intervals used for CEMS. If the Dixon Ratio test flags either the highest or 

lowest value as a potential outlier, the identified data may be discarded without further 

substantiation. 

b. Two Outliers: 

If two outliers are suspected the tester shall apply the Grubbs test for simultaneously 

testing those suspected values. The above criteria of normal distribution of data, 5% 

significance level, and discarding without further substantiation shall apply. 

APPROVED 

(original simed) 

Melvin D. Zeldin Date 

Director 

Applied Science and Technology Division 

attachment: 
KREELON MJSA~! TsCRNTCAZI cm 

GUIDELINE DOCUMENT 

TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE MONOGRAPH 

EVALUATION PROCEDURE FOR MULTI-HOLE SAMPLE PROBES 

By King K. Yu and Peter R. Westlin 

INTRODUCTION 

The installation requirements of the revised Continuous Monitoring 

Perfomance Specification 2l allow the use of a multi-hole stack gas 

sampling probe. The provisions for this probe include that the sample 

flow rate through each hole is within 2 10 percent of the average through 

all the holes at the design flow rate for the probe. This paper 

describes a method for determining whether this provision is met. 

TEST METHOD 

1. Apparatus 

1.1 Sample Probe. Probe with sample holes located according to the 

criteria in revised Performance Specification 2. 

1.2 Reference Method 5 Meter Box. Meter box equipped with properly 

sized pump, calibrated2 dry-gas meter, water manometer, and meter 

temperature gauges. 

Partial-f low Dry-Gas Meter. Dry-gas meter calibrated2 in the 

range of flowrates through a single hole of the multihole probe. 

This dry-gas meter should have a back pressure of less than 0.2 in 

H20 at these f lowrates . 

1.4 Tubings and Connectors. Diameters of all tubings and connectors 

between the sample probe and the total flow dry-gas meter must be 

larger than the inside diameter of the probe, and all tubings and 

flttlnssbetweenplflow hcl2s 

must have diameters larger than that of the holes. All tubings 

should be as short as practical. 

1.5 Stopwatch. 

2. Procedure. This procedure should be completed under laboratory 

conditions where ambient temperatures and moisture conditions are 

well controlled. 

2.1 Connect the probe and the measurement equipment as shown in Figure 

1. Connect the partial flow dry-gas meter to any hole of the probe 

making certain that the connection is leak-tight and does not 

block any part of the sample hole. Leave the other sample holes 

open and clear. 

2.2 Record the initial volume readings on both dry-gas meters, the 

ambient temperature, barometric pressure, and the total flow drygas meter temperature. 

Prepared by Peter R. mlin, EMC EMTIC UU-UTF 

mrnen~ center, VAQPS March 14, 1995 
EC - UOCT PAGE 2 

- 

2.3 Start the pump and the stopwatch simultaneously and set the total 

probe flow rate to equal the design flow rate of the sample probe. 

(A trial run before the test is helpful in setting this rate). 

2.4 Record the manometer reading and continue sampling at a constant 

flow rate until a sample volume equivalent to approximately 1.0 

ft3 x number of sample holes is measured by the total flow dry-gas 

meter. At the'end of the run, stop the pump and the stopwatch; 

record the final volume readings of both dry-gas meters and the 

final temperature (s) of the total flow dry-gas meter. 

2 -5 Repeat steps 2.1 through 2.4 for the other sample holes 

maintaining the same manometer pressure as for the first run. 

3. Calculations 

3.1 Determine the total flow rate, Qi, and each partial flow rate, qi, 

from the test data for each hole, as follows: 

Where : 

v - 

Volume 

recorded on 

the total 

flow gas 

meter, 

corrected by 

the meter 

calibration 

factor, scf. 

Pb - 

Barometric 

Tm - 

Temperatur 

e of the 

total flowgas meter, OR. 

0i - - Elapsed sampling time, min. 

V i - - Volume recorded on partial flow-gas meter, corrected by the 

meter calibration factor, scf. 

Ta - - Room temperature, OR. 

17.65= Standard temperature and pressure correction factor, viz. 

528" R 

" 

29.92 in. Hg 

Calculate the mean total flow rate,Q , and the mean of the 

partial flow rate, q : 

Prepared by Peter H. Wezin, EMC Is~C GD-031 -- &LLL~DSL~~~ Pkdsum LL ' er , uWS 5 
EMTXTGU - 031 EM- DOLURENT PAGE 3 

-- 

Where : 

n - 

Number of 

sampling 

holes. 

3 -2 

Determine 

the percent 

deviation, 

A from the 

mean total 

flow rate: 

AQ greater than 10 

percent is 

found , indicating 

the total 

flow rate is 

too low for 

the probe 

design or the 

sample holes 

are too 

large, repeat 

the test with 

a redesigned 

probe or a 

revlsed tlow 

rate. 

3 -3 Determine the percent deviation, Aqi, from the mean partial flow 

rate for each hole: 

Prepared by Peter K. Westlin, hMC C GU - 031 - L L~TT~~L, mQFs5 
All Aqi must be within + 10 percent for an ac-ceptable probe 

design at 

- the design 

41-4 100 

flow rate. 

Aql=-=-x 

4 SUMMARY AND 

DISCUSSION OF 

TEST RESULTS 

Met hod 

validation 

tests were 

performed in 

the 

laboratory 

using three 

different 

multi-hole 

probes. All 

three probes 

had similar 

internal 

diameters of 

0.375 inches and each nad three sample equal-sized sample holes: 0.078 

in. for probe 1, 0.125 in. for probe 2, and 0.203 in. for probe 3. The 

results of the test are summarized in Table 1. 

These test results demonstrate the importance of properly setting the 

total flow rate for the probe. For example, at similar flow rates of 

about 48 scfh, probe 1 (I.D. = 0.078 in.) showed that the sum of partial 

flow rates totaled within 10 percent of the measured total flow rate 

while nrohe 7 fT-T7- - n 13c; . sbc.,4 31 

between these two figures. This indicates that the slight pressure drop 

associated with the partial flow dry-gas meter greatly affected the 

partial flow rates of probe 2, because of the larger sample holes, and 

was a limiting factor in the partial flow measurements. The result is a 

false indication of the operation of the probe. 

The second criterion set by the method is that the partial flow rates all 

be within 10 percent of the average partial flow rate. These results 

indicate that this criterion can be met if the total flow rate is 

sufficient to cause a probe pressure of about -10 in. water. Of course, 

the pressure drop at each sample hole includes the pressure drop 

associated with the dry-gas meter and the tubing connectors during the 

measurements. This makes it of prime importance that the dry-gas meter 

be of high quality e. , low pressure drop), and the tubing and 

connectors be of larae diameter and as short as practical. 

( ,..- One limitation in the use of multi-hole probes brought out by these 

results and by the work of others3 is that very small sample holes are 

Prepared by Peter K. Westlln, EMC UM

- 

~m+s.~-hHe~~en~r@3@ra 
required to maintain adequate pressure drop to assure approximately equal 

flow. The results of this study indicate a hole diameter of 0.125 in. is 

about the upper limit for a 1.0 cfm probe. This restriction limits the 

applicability of multihole probes to stack gases with low particulate 

concentrations to avoid probe plugging problems. 

TABLE 1, SUMMARY OF RESULTS OF THE FLOW-RATE EVALUATIONS 

OF MULTI-POINT SAMPLING PROBES 

Hole Probe Average Average Percent Percent Deviation 

Diameter Pressure Total Partial Deviation Per Hole 

(in. ) (in. H,O) Flow-rate Flow-rate From 

(SCFH) (SCFH) Total A% A% Aqc 

(%) (%I (%) 

(AQ, 

REFERENCES 

1. Performance Specification 2 - Specifications and Test Procedures for 

SO, and NO, Continuous Monitoring Systems in Stationary Sources, 

Environmental Protection Agency, Emission Measurement Branch 

revision, May 1979. 

2. Westlin, P. R. and R. T. Shigehara, Procedure for Calibrating and Using 

Dry Gas Volume Meters as Calibration Standards, Source Evaluation 

Society Newsletter, Vol. 3, No. 1, February 1978. 

3. Technical Manual for Process Stream Volumetric Flow Measurement and Gas 

Sample Extraction Methodology, prepared for EPA, IERL, PMB, by TRW 

*- 

Systems Group, Contract No. 68-02-1412, November 1975. 

Prepared by Peter H. Westlin, !3MC ISMTIC GD-031 -- ~~-ILL Zrnicr, GAQPS C 4, LYYb