42508 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 173 / Friday, September 8, 2017 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE 1—FORMAT FOR SUBMITTING COMMENTS

Name of regulation 

Type of product or FDA Center regulating the product. 

Citation to Code of Federal Regulations and statutory citation (as applicable). 

Approved information collection and OMB Control Number (as applicable). 

Brief description of concern ...................................................................... (For example, what innovation makes the regulation outdated? Why?) 

Available data on cost or economic impact ............................................. (Quantified costs and/or cost savings. Qualitative description, if needed.) 

Proposed solution ..................................................................................... (Include your solution. For example, how would you modify the regulation? Provide specific text if you are recommending a modification.) 

III. References 

The following references are on 

display in the Dockets Management 

Staff office (see ADDRESSES) and are 

available for viewing by interested 

persons between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., 

Monday through Friday; they are also 

available electronically at https://

www.regulations.gov. FDA has verified 

the Web site addresses, as of the date 

this document publishes in the Federal 

Register, but Web sites are subject to 

change over time. 

1. Executive Order 13771 (January 30, 2017); 

available at https://

www.federalregister.gov/documents/ 

2017/02/03/2017-02451/reducingregulation-and-controlling-regulatorycosts. 

2. Executive Order 13777 (February 24, 

2017); available at https://

www.federalregister.gov/documents/ 

2017/03/01/2017-04107/enforcing-theregulatory-reform-agenda. 

Dated: August 30, 2017. 

Anna K. Abram, 

Deputy Commissioner for Policy, Planning, 

Legislation, and Analysis. 

[FR Doc. 2017–19047 Filed 9–7–17; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4164–01–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 51 

[EPA–HQ–OAR–2016–0456; FRL–9966–75– 

OAR] 

RIN 2060–AS91 

Method 202—Dry Impinger Method for 

Determining Condensable Particulate 

Emissions From Stationary Sources 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: In this action, the 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 

proposes editorial and technical 

revisions to the EPA’s Method 202—Dry 

Impinger Method for Determining 

Condensable Particulate Emissions from 

Stationary Sources to improve the 

consistency in results achieved across 

the testing community. 

DATES:

Comments. Comments must be 

received on or before November 7, 2017. 

Public Hearing. If a public hearing is 

requested by September 18, 2017, then 

we will hold a public hearing on 

October 10, 2017 at the location 

described in the ADDRESSES section. The 

last day to pre-register in advance to 

speak at the public hearing will be 

October 6, 2017. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–HQ– 

OAR–2016–0456, to the Federal 

eRulemaking Portal at http://

www.regulations.gov. Follow the online 

instructions for submitting comments. 

Once submitted, comments cannot be 

edited or withdrawn. The EPA may 

publish any comment received to its 

public docket. Do not submit 

electronically any information you 

consider to be Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Multimedia submissions (audio, video, 

etc.) must be accompanied by a written 

comment. The written comment is 

considered the official comment and 

should include discussion of all points 

you wish to make. The EPA will 

generally not consider comments or 

comment contents located outside of the 

primary submission (i.e., on the Web, 

Cloud, or other file sharing system). For 

additional submission methods, the full 

EPA public comment policy, 

information about CBI or multimedia 

submissions, and general guidance on 

making effective comments, please visit 

http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/ 

commenting-epa-dockets. 

Public Hearing. If a public hearing is 

requested, it will be held at EPA 

Headquarters, William Jefferson Clinton 

East Building, 1201 Constitution 

Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20004. If 

a public hearing is requested, then we 

will provide details about the public 

hearing on our Web site at: https://

www.epa.gov/emc/emc-proposed-testmethods. The EPA does not intend to 

publish another document in the 

Federal Register announcing any 

updates on the request for a public 

hearing. Please contact Mr. Ned 

Shappley at (919) 541–7903 or by email 

at shappley.ned@epa.gov to request a 

public hearing, to register to speak at the 

public hearing, or to inquire as to 

whether a public hearing will be held. 

Docket: All documents in the docket 

are listed in the http://

www.regulations.gov index. Although 

listed in the index, some information is 

not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other 

information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Certain other 

material, such as copyrighted material, 

will be publicly available only in hard 

copy. Publicly available docket 

materials are available either 

electronically in http://

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 

the EPA Docket Center, EPA/DC, EPA 

WJC West Building, Room 3334, 1301 

Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, 

DC. This Docket Facility is open from 

8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through 

Friday, excluding legal holidays. The 

telephone number for the Public 

Reading Room is (202) 566–1744, and 

the telephone number for the Air Docket 

is (202) 566–1742. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. 

Ned Shappley, Office of Air Quality 

Planning and Standards, Air Quality 

Assessment Division, Measurement 

Technology Group (E143–02), 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Research Triangle Park, NC 27711; 

telephone number: (919) 541–5225; fax 

number: (919) 541–0516; email address: 

shappley.ned@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

following topics are discussed in this 

preamble. 

I. General Information 

A. Does this action apply to me? 

B. What should I consider as I prepare my 

comments? 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 173 / Friday, September 8, 2017 / Proposed Rules 42509 

C. Where can I get a copy of this document 

and other related information? 

II. Background 

III. Summary of Proposed Revisions 

A. Blank Correction 

B. Procedures for the Field Train Proof 

Blank 

C. Configuration of the Vertical Condenser 

D. Use of Graduated Cylinders 

E. Limitations of Method 202 

F. Required Use of Method 202 

G. Sample Container Material 

H. Weighing Containers 

I. Laboratory Analytical Balance 

Requirements 

J. Field Balance Requirements 

K. pH Measurement 

L. Glassware Cleaning Procedures 

M. Reagent Blanks 

N. Nitrogen Purge Requirements 

O. Data Record Requirements 

P. Method Detection Limits 

Q. Alternative Blank Procedure and 

Correction Value 

IV. Request for Comments 

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory 

Planning and Review and Executive 

Order 13563: Improving Regulation and 

Regulatory Review 

B. Executive Order 13771: Reducing 

Regulations and Controlling Regulatory 

Costs 

C. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) 

D. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) 

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

(UMRA) 

F. Executive Order 13132: Federalism 

G. Executive Order 13175: Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments 

H. Executive Order 13045: Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks 

I. Executive Order 13211: Actions That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

J. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act (NTTAA) 

K. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions 

To Address Environmental Justice in 

Minority Populations and Low-Income 

Populations 

I. General Information 

A. Does this action apply to me? 

This action applies to you if you 

operate a stationary source that is 

subject to applicable requirements to 

control or measure condensable 

particulate matter (CPM) emissions 

where EPA Method 202 is incorporated 

as a component of the applicable test 

method. In addition, this action applies 

to you if federal, state, tribal, or local 

agencies take certain additional 

independent actions. For example, this 

action applies to sources through 

actions by state and local agencies that 

implement CPM control measures to 

attain the National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards (NAAQS) for particles less 

than 2.5 micrometers in diameter 

(PM2.5) and specify the use of EPA 

Method 202 to demonstrate compliance 

with the control measures. State, tribal, 

and local agencies that specify the use 

of EPA Method 202 would have to 

implement the following requirements: 

(1) Adopt this method in rules or 

permits (either by incorporation by 

reference or by duplicating the method 

in its entirety) and (2) promulgate an 

emissions limit requiring the use of EPA 

Method 202 (or a method that 

incorporates EPA Method 202). This 

action also applies to stationary sources 

that are required to meet applicable 

CPM requirements established through 

federal, state, or tribal rules or 

permitting programs such as New 

Source Performance Standards and New 

Source Review (NSR), which specify the 

use of EPA Method 202 to demonstrate 

compliance with the control measures. 

The source categories and entities 

potentially affected include, but are not 

limited to, the following: 

Category NAICSa Examples of regulated entities 

Industry ............................................................................ 332410 Fossil fuel steam generators. 

332410 Industrial, commercial, institutional steam generating units. 

332410 Electricity generating units. 

324110 Petroleum refineries. 

562213 Municipal waste combustors. 

322110 Pulp and paper mills. 

325188 Sulfuric acid plants. 

327310 Portland cement plants. 

327410 Lime manufacturing plants. 

211111 

212111 

212112 

212113 

Coal preparation plants. 

331312 

331314 

Primary and secondary aluminum plants. 

331111 

331513 

Iron and steel plants. 

321219 

321211 

321212 

Plywood and reconstituted products plants. 

a North American Industrial Classification System. 

If you have any questions regarding 

the applicability of the proposed 

changes to Method 202, contact the 

person listed in the preceding FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. 

B. What should I consider as I prepare 

my comments? 

1. Submitting CBI 

Clearly mark the part or all of the 

information that you claim to be CBI. 

For CBI information in a disk or CD– 

ROM that you mail to the EPA, mark the 

outside of the disk or CD–ROM as CBI 

and then identify electronically within 

the disk or CD–ROM the specific 

information that is claimed as CBI. In 

addition to one complete version of the 

comment that includes information 

claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment 

that does not contain the information 

claimed as CBI must be submitted for 

inclusion in the public docket. 

Information marked as CBI will not be 

disclosed except in accordance with 

procedures set forth in 40 Code of 

Federal Regulations (CFR) part 2. 

Do not submit information that you 

consider to be CBI or otherwise 

protected through http://

www.regulations.gov or email. Send or 

deliver information identified as CBI to 

only the following address: OAQPS 

Document Control Officer (Room C404– 

02), U.S. EPA, Research Triangle Park, 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
42510 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 173 / Friday, September 8, 2017 / Proposed Rules 

NC 27711, Attention Docket ID No. 

EPA–HQ–OAR–2016–0456. 

If you have any questions about CBI 

or the procedures for claiming CBI, 

please consult the person identified in 

the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT

section. 

2. Docket 

The docket number for the Method 

202 revisions is Docket ID No. EPA– 

HQ–OAR–2016–0456. 

C. Where can I get a copy of this 

document and other related 

information? 

World Wide Web (WWW). In addition 

to being available in the docket, an 

electronic copy of the proposed method 

revisions is available on the Air 

Emission Measurement Center (EMC) 

Web site at https://www.epa.gov/emc/ 

emc-proposed-test-methods. 

II. Background 

Section 110 of the Clean Air Act, as 

amended (42 U.S.C. 7410), requires state 

and local air pollution control agencies 

to develop, and submit for EPA 

approval, State Implementation Plans 

(SIPs) that provide for the attainment, 

maintenance, and enforcement of the 

NAAQS in each air quality control 

region (or portion thereof) within each 

state. The emissions inventory and 

analyses used in the state’s attainment 

demonstrations must consider PM2.5 and 

particles less than 10 micrometers in 

diameter (PM10) emissions from 

stationary sources that are significant 

contributors of primary PM10 and PM2.5

emissions. Primary or direct PM 

emissions are the solid particles or 

liquid droplets emitted directly from an 

air emissions source or activity and the 

gaseous emissions or liquid droplets 

from an air emissions source or activity 

that condense to form PM or liquid 

droplets at ambient temperatures. 

Subpart A of 40 CFR part 51 

(Requirements for Preparation, 

Adoption, and Submittal of 

Implementation Plans) defines primary 

PM2.5 and PM10 as including both the 

filterable and condensable fractions of 

PM. Filterable PM consists of those 

particles that are directly emitted by a 

source as a solid or liquid at the stack 

(or similar release conditions) and 

captured on the filter of a stack test 

sampling train. Condensable PM is the 

material that is in vapor phase at stack 

conditions but condenses and/or reacts 

upon cooling and dilution in the 

ambient air to form solid or liquid PM 

immediately after discharge from the 

stack. In response to the need to 

quantify primary PM10 and PM2.5

emissions from stationary sources, the 

EPA previously developed and 

promulgated Method 202 

(Determination of Condensable 

Particulate Emissions from Stationary 

Sources) in 40 CFR part 51, appendix M 

(Recommended Test Methods for State 

Implementation Plans). 

Specifically, on December 17, 1991 

(56 FR 65433), the EPA first 

promulgated Method 202 to provide a 

test method for measuring CPM from 

stationary sources. Method 202, as 

promulgated in 1991, used water-filled 

impingers to cool, condense, and collect 

materials that are vaporous at stack 

conditions and become solid or liquid 

PM at ambient air temperatures. Method 

202, as promulgated in 1991, contains 

several optional procedures that were 

intended to accommodate the various 

test methods in use by state and local 

regulatory entities at the time Method 

202 was being developed. 

When conducted consistently and 

carefully, this version of the method 

provided improved precision for most 

emission sources, and has been 

successfully implemented in regulatory 

programs where the emission limits and 

compliance demonstrations are 

established based on a consistent 

application of Method 202 and its 

associated options. However, when the 

same emission source is tested using 

different combinations of the optional 

procedures within the method, there 

were variations in the measured CPM 

emissions. Additionally, during 

validation of the method, we 

determined that sulfur dioxide (SO2) gas 

(a typical component of emissions from 

several types of stationary sources) can 

be absorbed partially in the impinger 

solutions and can react chemically to 

form sulfuric acid. This sulfuric acid 

‘‘artifact’’ is not related to the primary 

emission of CPM from the source, but 

may be counted erroneously as CPM 

when using Method 202. The EPA 

conducted additional studies to further 

examine the mechanism and the effects 

of sulfuric acid formation. The results of 

our 1989 laboratory study and field 

evaluation commissioned to evaluate 

the impinger approach can be found in 

‘‘Laboratory and Field Evaluation of the 

EPA Method 5 Impinger Catch for 

Measuring Condensible Matter from 

Stationary Sources.’’ The report of that 

work is available in the docket as EPA– 

HQ–OAR–2016–0456–0001. Essentially, 

the 1989 study verified the need for a 

nitrogen purge when SO2 is present in 

stack gas and also provided guidance for 

analyzing the collected samples. In 

2005, an EPA contractor conducted a 

second study, ‘‘Laboratory Evaluation of 

Method 202 to Determine Fate of SO2 in 

Impinger Water,’’ that replicated some 

of the earlier EPA work and addressed 

some additional issues. The report of 

that work is available in the docket as 

EPA–HQ–OAR–2016–0456–0002. In 

2009, an EPA contractor conducted a 

third study, ‘‘Evaluation and 

Improvement of Condensable 

Particulate Matter Measurement,’’ that 

presents the results of a laboratory 

evaluation of a dry impinger 

modification to Method 202. The report 

of that work is available in the docket 

as EPA–HQ–OAR–2016–0456–0003. 

In 2010, the EPA promulgated 

amendments to Method 202 (75 FR 

80118) to improve the measurement of 

fine PM emissions. The final 

amendments revised the sample 

collection and recovery procedures of 

the method to: (1) Reduce the potential 

for CPM formation due to oxidation of 

dissolved SO2 when using Method 202 

(as promulgated in 1991) and (2) 

promote consistent application of the 

method by eliminating most of the 

hardware and analytical options in the 

existing method. The most significant 

procedural changes were the addition of 

a condenser prior to the first impinger, 

the removal of water from the two 

impingers between the condenser and 

the CPM filter, and the addition of the 

requirement for a post-test nitrogen 

purge. These revisions increased the 

precision of Method 202 and reduced 

potential positive and negative biases by 

removal of the myriad of options and 

elimination of water in the two 

impingers, which significantly 

improved the consistency in the 

measurements obtained between source 

tests performed under different 

regulatory authorities. 

On April 8, 2014, the EPA issued 

interim guidance on the treatment of 

CPM results in the Prevention of 

Significant Deterioration (PSD) and 

Nonattainment NSR Permitting 

Programs. The purpose of this guidance 

was to address concerns that CPM test 

results obtained with the method could 

include a positive bias that results in the 

overestimation of emissions due to the 

potential for blank contamination 

associated with the implementation of 

Method 202. In this interim guidance, 

we recommend to air agencies and 

permit applicants that it is appropriate 

on an interim basis to allow major 

source permit applicants to depart from 

one aspect of Method 202, specifically 

the current upper limit of 2.0 milligrams 

(mg) for the field train recovery blank. 

Consistent with this guidance, during 

the prescribed interim period, air 

agencies may allow permit applicants to 

use field train proof blanks, in lieu of 

the field train recovery blanks, and 

blank values as high as 5.1 mg can then 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 173 / Friday, September 8, 2017 / Proposed Rules 42511 

be used in the calculation of CPM 

emissions. As part of this guidance, the 

EPA announced plans to issue guidance 

on best practices for Method 202 

implementation and to revise Method 

202 as necessary. In addition, this 

guidance stated that the interim 

guidance period will end on the 

effective date of any revision that the 

EPA may make for Method 202 

regarding the use of blanks in the field 

train on individual test results. We 

intend that the interim guidance will no 

longer apply as of the effective date of 

the final rule resulting from this 

proposal. A copy of the interim 

guidance is available in the docket 

(EPA–HQ–OAR–2016–0456–003) and 

on the EMC Web site at https://

www3.epa.gov/ttn/emc/methods/ 

psdnsrinterimcmpmemo4814.pdf. 

On March 10, 2016, the EPA released 

the EPA Method 202 Best Practices 

Handbook. This handbook provides 

quality control procedures for 

evaluating the cause of blank 

contamination and practices to reduce 

contamination, so that testers may 

achieve the expected results when using 

Method 202. A copy of this handbook is 

available in the docket as EPA–HQ– 

OAR–2016–0456–004 and on the EMC 

Web site at https://www3.epa.gov/ttn/ 

emc/methods/m202-best-practiceshandbook.pdf. 

III. Summary of Proposed Revisions 

In this action, we are proposing 

technical revisions and editorial 

changes to clarify and update the 

requirements and procedures specified 

in Method 202. Proposed editorial 

changes include correcting inconsistent 

terminology, improving readability, and 

simplifying text to aid in consistent 

implementation of the method. 

Proposed technical revisions are 

discussed below. 

A. Blank Correction 

In this action, we propose to replace 

the field train recovery blank 

requirement used to determine the 

blank correction (up to 2.0 mg) with a 

field train proof blank requirement. In 

the current version of Method 202, the 

result of the field train recovery blank 

is used as the basis for the blank 

correction (up to 2.0 mg). Specifically, 

we propose to revise section 8.5.4.10 

(and renumber as section 8.5.5.8) to 

require conducting a field train proof 

blank to demonstrate the cleanliness of 

the sampling train. We propose to revise 

sections 9.9, 12.1, and 12.2.2, and 

Figures 4, 5, and 6 to replace the field 

train recovery blank with the field train 

proof blank. We also propose to remove 

the field train recovery blank 

requirement and the associated text in 

section 9.10 from the method. 

The EPA received technical 

information and recommendations from 

the National Council on Air and Stream 

Improvement (NCASI) supporting the 

use of a field train proof blank to 

evaluate method blank correction. The 

EPA believes the updated field train 

proof blank is a better indicator of the 

total systematic blank error for Method 

202 sample runs. Under the proposed 

amendments, a clean and prepared 

sampling train is transported and fully 

assembled at the sampling location, leak 

checked, left in place without collecting 

a sample, purged with nitrogen, and 

recovered in the same manner as a 

sample collection train. All components 

of the Method 202 sampling train must 

be included in the field train proof 

blank to properly quantify the blank 

value. The field train proof blank 

represents the systematic bias associated 

with all of the uncertainty from the 

reagents, sampling media, glassware 

preparation, recovery and analysis 

procedures, environmental 

contamination, leak checks, and test 

crew sample handling. 

B. Procedures for the Field Train Proof 

Blank 

In the current version of Method 202, 

the setup and recovery procedures for 

the field train proof blank are 

incomplete. We are proposing the 

following revisions for the field train 

proof blank setup and recovery 

procedures specified in sections 8.5.5.8, 

8.5.5.8.1, 8.5.5.8.2, and 9.9: 

• Adding a full sampling train setup 

including the front half of the train for 

collecting filterable PM, probe extension 

and/or transfer line, condenser, 

impingers, and filter used to collect the 

CPM. 

• Requiring that the entire filterable 

PM and CPM sampling train is 

transported to and assembled at the 

sampling location. 

• Adding pre- and post-test leak 

checks. 

• Exposing the assembled field train 

proof blank sampling train to the 

sampling environment for the same 

duration as the test runs to be 

conducted. 

• Performing a post-test nitrogen 

purge of the field train proof blank. 

• Requiring recovery of the sampling 

train components identical to how field 

samples are recovered. 

In this action, we are also proposing 

to add section 8.5.5.8.3 to include 

procedures for handling the CPM filter 

from the field train proof blank. We 

believe that the proposed revisions will 

generate blank samples that duplicate 

sources of possible contamination 

experienced by the field samples. 

C. Configuration of the Vertical 

Condenser 

Currently, Method 202 does not 

specify the orientation of the moisture 

condenser located before the first 

impinger of the sampling train. 

Although the sampling trains depicted 

in Figures 1 through 3 show the 

placement of the condenser, the incline 

of the condenser in the figures is not 

specified. 

When the condenser is installed 

horizontally or at an angle, condensed 

moisture may pool in the condenser 

coils, increasing the potential for SO2 to 

dissolve into that water and slowly 

oxidize to form CPM that is not related 

to the primary emission of CPM from 

the source. We believe that requiring the 

condenser to be installed vertically will 

minimize pooling of condensed 

moisture in the condenser coils, thereby 

reducing the potential for this bias and 

promoting consistency in CPM 

measurement. 

In this action, we propose revisions to 

sections 2.1.2, 6.1.2, and 8.4.1 to require 

that the moisture condenser be installed 

in a vertical orientation. We propose to 

revise Figures 1 through 3 to depict the 

condenser in the vertical position 

consistent with the changes to the 

method text. We also propose to revise 

section 6.1.4 (and renumber as section 

6.1.3) to allow other equipment options 

to purge the water in the dropout 

impinger. 

D. Use of Graduated Cylinders 

Currently, Method 202 allows the use 

of a graduated cylinder to measure the 

volume of moisture collected in the 

impingers and the silica gel trap for the 

purpose of calculating the moisture 

content of the effluent gas. We believe 

that using a graduated cylinder to 

measure the accumulated water is not 

sensitive enough to measure the 

moisture and potentially adds an 

unnecessary additional source for 

potential loss of condensable particulate 

residual mass in samples measured by 

Method 202. Therefore, we propose to 

revise section 8.5.3.4 (and renumber as 

section 8.5.3) to remove the option to 

use graduated cylinders and to require 

use of a balance to determine the mass 

of each impinger for the purpose of 

measuring the moisture collected during 

sampling. Instructions to weigh each 

impinger before testing, which is a 

necessary step for determining the 

amount of moisture collected when 

using a balance, are proposed for 

relocation to section 8.4.5. We also 

propose to make accompanying 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
42512 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 173 / Friday, September 8, 2017 / Proposed Rules 

revisions in sections 8.5.1.1, 8.5.1.2, and 

11.1(b) to clarify the procedures for 

weighing the impingers and captured 

moisture. Sections related to 

transferring the moisture-trap impinger 

and silica gel impinger contents in 

sample containers for measurement 

using graduated cylinders are proposed 

to be removed. 

E. Limitations of Method 202 

High moisture in the sampled gas 

stream can result in the accumulation of 

SO2 in the collected moisture resulting 

in a positive bias for CPM 

measurements. As the moisture 

accumulates in the sample impingers, 

the method performs similarly to the 

original version of Method 202 where 

SO2 in the effluent could react in the 

condensed moisture and form sulfuric 

acid that may be counted erroneously as 

CPM. In addition, longer sampling times 

coupled with high moisture can (in the 

water-contained impingers) allow more 

SO2 conversion to CPM since the 

conversion of SO2 to CPM has a 

relatively slow reaction rate. 

Section 8.5.1.1 of Method 202 

recommends removing moisture from 

the sampling train during the test run 

when the amount of moisture collected 

is greater than half the capacity of the 

water dropout impinger or the moisture 

level of the back-up impinger is above 

the impinger tip. 

Longer sampling run times also delay 

the start of the post-test nitrogen purge. 

The post-test nitrogen purge is designed 

to remove dissolved gasses from the 

accumulated moisture and thus reduce 

the potential chemical reactions. In this 

action, we propose to amend Method 

202 by adding a recommendation in 

section 1.5 to limit the sampling time to 

2 hours for Method 202 testing when 

excessive moisture collection is 

expected. We also propose revisions to 

section 8.5.1.1 to specify that if 

accumulated water exceeds half of the 

capacity of the water dropout impinger, 

or if water accumulates in the back-up 

impinger sufficient to cover the 

impinger tip, the impinger(s) must be 

removed and replaced with new preweighed impingers and all resulting 

impingers must be weighed, purged and 

recovered following the procedures of 

the method. 

The current version of Method 202 

also prohibits the use of certain 

filterable particulate test methods in 

conjunction with Method 202. In this 

action, we propose revisions to section 

1.4 to state only the acceptable filterable 

particulate test methods and to include 

a note that you must maintain the gas 

filtration temperature as specified in the 

filterable PM test method unless 

otherwise specified by an applicable 

subpart. 

F. Required Use of Method 202 

Condensable PM is formed from 

gaseous materials that condense and/or 

react upon cooling and dilution in the 

ambient air. Method 202 requires the 

use of a particulate sampling method 

(e.g., Method 5, 17, or 201A) to 

separately collect the filterable PM from 

CPM. 

Filterable PM methods that collect 

particulate out-of-stack have specified 

filter temperature requirements and 

require the addition of a Method 202 

sampling train to collect CPM. Filterable 

PM methods that employ in-stack filters 

collect particulate material at the source 

gas temperature. 

If the temperature of the filterable PM 

sampling equipment, including the 

filter, meets Method 202 temperature 

requirements (i.e., ≤30 °C (85 °F)), both 

filterable and CPM are collected 

together on the filter and CPM is not 

quantified independently but rather as 

total particulate, total PM10, or total 

PM2.5 depending on the filterable 

collection method. 

In this action, we propose to revise 

section 1.2 to clearly state that, if the 

sample gas filtration temperature never 

exceeds 30 °C (85 °F), then Method 202 

is not required to measure total primary 

PM because the CPM would be collected 

with the filterable PM. 

G. Sample Container Material 

Currently, section 6.2.1(d) of Method 

202 specifies the use of amber glass 

sample bottles for sample recovery. In 

this action, we propose to revise section 

6.2.1(d) to allow the use of sample 

containers made from other non-reactive 

materials (e.g., high density 

polyethylene (HDPE), 

polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE)) as an 

alternative to amber glass bottles for 

inorganic (aqueous) samples. We also 

propose to revise sections 6.2.1(d), 

8.5.5.3, 8.5.5.5, and 8.5.5.7 to require 

cleaning of all sample containers 

according to the procedures in section 

8.4 prior to use. 

Although we are proposing to revise 

the method to allow use of polymer or 

glass sample containers for inorganic 

samples, we continue to require glass 

containers for organic samples. The 

proposed revisions would provide 

testers with an alternative for storing 

inorganic samples to avoid this 

potential source of contamination. 

H. Weighing Containers 

Currently, section 6.2.2(b) of Method 

202 specifies that glass evaporation 

vials, fluoropolymer beaker liners, or 

aluminum weighing tins can be used for 

final sample evaporation and weighing. 

In this action, we propose to include a 

list of acceptable weighing containers 

that includes fluoropolymer beaker 

liners and other vessels that have low 

mass and are unreactive to the sample 

and the atmosphere. Laboratories have 

reported that aluminum weighing tins 

may oxidize in contact with some 

sample matrices. The heavier weight of 

some glass beakers or containers may 

cause difficulty with measurement of 

trace amounts of residual mass. We 

propose to revise sections 6.2.2(b), 

11.2.2.3, 11.2.3, 11.2.4, 11.2.5, and 

11.2.6 to remove the connotation of 

sampling ‘‘tin’’ as an implicit approval 

of aluminum tins. 

I. Laboratory Analytical Balance 

Requirements 

We propose additional quality control 

requirements for analytical balance use. 

Currently, section 9.6 of Method 202 

requires calibration of the analytical 

balance on each day that samples are 

weighed, and section 10.3 of the Method 

202 Best Practices Handbook provides 

additional steps that stack testers can 

use to improve consistency in analytical 

balance measurements. In this action, 

we propose to amend section 9.6 to 

specify the correct mass standard to use 

for the Analytical Calibration Check, 

specifications for the temperature and 

humidity control in weighing areas and 

requirements for balance calibration 

checks that approximately match the 

sample measurements to include the 

following requirements: 

• The laboratory analytical balance 

must be maintained at a constant 

temperature of 20 °C ± 3 °C (68 °F ± 

5 °F). 

• The relative humidity at the 

location of the laboratory analytical 

balance must be maintained at 35 to 50 

percent, with the exception that if the 

relative humidity is lower than 35 

percent, the relative humidity must be 

maintained within ±10 percent during 

sample weighing. 

• The results of the calibration check 

of the laboratory analytical balance must 

be within 0.05 percent of the applicable 

certified weight. 

• The laboratory analytical balance 

must be checked each day it is used for 

gravimetric measurements by weighing 

at least one ASTM E617–13 Class 2 

tolerance (or better) calibration weight 

that corresponds to 50 to 150 percent of 

the weight of one filter or between 1 

gram (g) and 5 g. If the scale cannot 

reproduce the value of the calibration 

weight to within 0.5 mg of the certified 

mass, perform corrective measures and 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 173 / Friday, September 8, 2017 / Proposed Rules 42513 

conduct the multipoint calibration 

before use. 

J. Field Balance Requirements 

In this action, we propose to correct 

section 9.4 to specify the mass standard 

with which to conduct the field balance 

calibration check. We believe that this 

additional requirement is necessary to 

increase consistency of Method 202 

moisture sample measurements. We 

propose the requirement that the field 

balance calibration check be performed 

daily with an ASTM E617–13 Class 6 (or 

better) weight. 

K. pH Measurement 

In sections 6.2.2(h) and 11.2.2.2 of the 

current method, pH measurement by pH 

meter or colorimetric pH indicator is 

allowable for the titration procedure. 

While the use of a colorimetric (e.g., 

Phenolphthalein) indicator is an 

acceptable technique for accurately 

determining the end-point of an acidbase titration, we are concerned that 

determining the pH using colorimetric 

pH indicators may introduce additional 

error in the measurement of CPM due to 

over-titration. 

In this action, we propose to amend 

sections 6.2.2(h) and 11.2.2.2 to remove 

the option of using a colorimetric pH 

indicator and require the use of a pH 

meter whose calibration has been 

checked immediately prior to the 

titration step. We also propose to correct 

the CPM Sample Processing Flow Chart 

for sample analysis (Figure 8). We 

believe these revisions will increase the 

consistency and comparability of 

Method 202 results between source 

tests. 

L. Glassware Cleaning Procedures 

To obtain reliable CPM data using 

Method 202 for PSD and NSR permits, 

residual mass from sampling and 

analysis equipment must be minimized. 

In this action, we propose the 

following amendments to clarify 

equipment and glassware cleaning in 

section 8.4 of Method 202, including: 

• Adding a specification that all 

glassware used in the implementation of 

Method 202, including the impinger 

train and sample containers, should be 

cleaned sufficiently to meet the blank 

correction maximum limit of 2.0 mg in 

section 9.9. 

• Removing the statement referencing 

cleaning silicone grease so that it is not 

mistakenly viewed as acceptable to use 

such grease in Method 202 sampling 

trains. 

• Removing the requirement that 

glassware must be baked after cleaning 

(although the EPA is proposing to 

remove the baking requirement, we 

highly recommended baking of 

glassware as discussed in the EPA 

Method 202 Best Practices Handbook). 

• Removing the option to use the 

field train proof blank as an alternative 

to baking since the field train proof 

blank is being proposed as a 

requirement of Method 202. 

• Adding a recommended procedure 

for cleaning the probe liners by heating 

for a period of at least 3 hours at the 

maximum practical temperature. 

These proposed revisions make the 

glassware cleaning procedures 

performance-based, clarify the 

requirements, and provide testers with 

an additional method for ensuring 

cleanliness of the probe liners. 

M. Reagent Blanks 

Currently, Method 202 specifies a 

volume of 150 milliliters (mL) for 

performing reagent blank analyses and 

specifies that field reagent blanks are 

optional. In this action, we propose to 

revise section 9.7 to specify a minimum 

volume of 200 mL for these field reagent 

blank volumes and to revise section 9.8 

to require analysis of field reagent 

blanks in the performance of Method 

202. We also propose to make 

accompanying revisions to sections 

8.5.5.5, 8.5.5.6, 8.5.5.7, 11.2.4, 11.2.5, 

and 11.2.6. 

The original solvent blank volume 

was intended to represent amounts 

typically used during sample recovery. 

A larger reagent blank volume is 

necessary to quantify residual mass 

using the analytical balance specified in 

Method 202 with a sensitivity of 0.0001 

g (0.1 mg). These proposed revisions are 

based on recommendations received 

from state agencies. This change to the 

method quality control quantifies any 

addition to the sample mass from gross 

contamination originating from the use 

of reagents in the field. 

N. Nitrogen Purge Requirements 

Method 202, as promulgated in 2010, 

includes two approaches for performing 

the post-test nitrogen purge: (1) A 

negative pressure purge using the pump 

and meter box from the sampling train 

or (2) a positive pressure purge using 

the gas cylinder pressure to propel the 

nitrogen gas through the CPM collection 

components. 

The intent of the multiple purge 

options was to allow the testing 

contractors to either purge the sampling 

train on or near the sampling location or 

to transport the train components to a 

controlled environment less susceptible 

to sources of contamination. We now 

believe that a post-test nitrogen purge of 

the sampling train using the meter box 

and a vacuum pump adds steps that 

could potentially contaminate samples 

and outweigh the advantages of train 

purges done immediately following the 

sampling. In this action, we propose to 

revise section 8.5.4 to eliminate the 

option for performing the post-test 

nitrogen purge using the meter box and 

vacuum pump. We also propose to make 

accompanying revisions in sections 

8.5.4.1, 8.5.4.2, 8.5.4.4 and 8.5.4.5. 

O. Data Record Requirements 

In this action, we propose the 

following amendments to Method 202 

sections to record and report test 

information that were either absent or 

undefined in the current promulgated 

method: 

• Record the pre- and post-test 

weights of the impingers, as well as the 

color of the indicating silica gel, at the 

completion of sampling (sections 8.4.5 

and 8.5.3). 

• Record the results of the pre- and 

post-test leak checks of the sampling 

train (sections 8.4.6 and 8.5.2). 

• Record the time (hh:mm), nitrogen 

flowrate, CPM filter temperature, and 

moisture trap temperature (if applicable) 

during the post-test nitrogen purge 

(section 8.5.4.4). 

• Record the results of the field and 

laboratory analytical balance calibration 

checks (sections 9.4 and 9.6.4). 

• Record the temperature and relative 

humidity conditions of the laboratory 

analytical balance (section 9.6.3). 

P. Method Detection Limits 

In this action, we propose to revise 

section 13.0 regarding method 

performance. We updated method 

detection limit values based on a formal 

study submitted to the EPA by NCASI 

that evaluated the zero bias of Method 

202 when Method 202 Best Practices 

were implemented. A copy of this study 

titled, ‘‘Method 202 Zero Bias Study 

When Incorporating Draft Best Practices 

Developed by the US EPA,’’ (NCASI 

2017) is available in the docket (EPA– 

HQ–OAR–2016–0456–005). 

Q. Alternative Blank Procedure and 

Correction Value 

While the EPA believes that field train 

proof blank results of 2.0 mg or less are 

achievable, we recognize there may be 

certain instances when the environment 

surrounding the sampling location may 

significantly contribute to the 

systematic bias of the method results as 

measured by the field train proof blank. 

This proposed alternative procedure 

would account for the uncontrollable 

environmental bias associated with 

measurements collected in problematic 

sampling locations. 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
42514 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 173 / Friday, September 8, 2017 / Proposed Rules 

In this action, we are proposing to 

amend section 16.1 of Method 202 to 

allow the combined results from 

multiple field train proof blanks to be 

used as the basis for blank correction up 

to 3.9 mg when approved by the 

regulatory authority. The 3.9 mg value 

is based on the Upper Prediction Limit 

(UPL) of the NCASI field study used to 

update the method detection limit 

(NCASI 2017). In this procedure, we 

have included conditions and criteria 

that a facility must satisfy in order to 

demonstrate need for the alternative 

procedure. 

IV. Request for Comments 

The EPA is requesting public 

comments on all of the proposed 

editorial and technical amendments to 

Method 202. For the convenience of the 

reader, we include in this notice the 

entire text of Method 202, including 

proposed revisions, but the scope of this 

rulemaking is limited to the proposed 

revisions and does not include any 

unchanged provisions. 

V. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Additional information about these 

statutes and Executive Orders can be 

found at http://www2.epa.gov/lawsregulations/laws-and-executive-orders. 

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory 

Planning and Review and Executive 

Order 13563: Improving Regulation and 

Regulatory Review 

This action is not a significant 

regulatory action and was, therefore, not 

submitted to the Office of Management 

and Budget (OMB) for review. 

B. Executive Order 13771: Reducing 

Regulations and Controlling Regulatory 

Costs 

This action is not expected to be an 

Executive Order 13771 regulatory action 

because this action is not significant 

under Executive Order 12866. 

C. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) 

This action does not impose an 

information collection burden under the 

PRA. The revisions being proposed in 

this action do not add information 

collection requirements, but make 

corrections and updates to existing 

testing methodology. 

D. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) 

I certify that this action will not have 

a significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the RFA. This action will not 

impose any requirements on small 

entities. The proposed revisions to 

Method 202 neither impose any 

requirements on regulated entities 

beyond those specified in the current 

regulations, nor do they change any 

emission standard. 

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

(UMRA) 

This action does not contain any 

unfunded mandate of $100 million or 

more as described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 

1531–1538, and does not significantly or 

uniquely affect small governments. The 

action imposes no enforceable duty on 

any state, local or tribal governments or 

the private sector. 

F. Executive Order 13132: Federalism 

This action does not have federalism 

implications. It will not have substantial 

direct effects on the states, on the 

relationship between the national 

government and the states, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government. 

G. Executive Order 13175: Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments 

This action does not have tribal 

implications, as specified in Executive 

Order 13175. This action proposes 

corrections and updates to the existing 

procedures specified in Method 202. 

Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not 

apply to this action. 

H. Executive Order 13045: Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks 

The EPA interprets Executive Order 

13045 as applying only to those 

regulatory actions that concern 

environmental health or safety risks that 

the EPA has reason to believe may 

disproportionately affect children, per 

the definition of ‘‘covered regulatory 

action’’ in section 2–202 of the 

Executive Order. This action is not 

subject to Executive Order 13045 

because it does not concern an 

environmental health risk or safety risk. 

I. Executive Order 13211: Actions That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

This action is not subject to Executive 

Order 13211, because it is not a 

significant regulatory action under 

Executive Order 12866. 

J. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act (NTTAA) 

This rulemaking does not involve 

technical standards. 

K. Executive Order 12898: Federal 

Actions To Address Environmental 

Justice in Minority Populations and 

Low-Income Populations 

The EPA believes that this action is 

not subject to Executive Order 12898 (59 

FR 7629, February 16, 1994) because it 

does not establish an environmental 

health or safety standard. This action 

makes corrections and updates to 

existing testing methodology and does 

not have any impact on human health 

or the environment. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 51 

Administrative practice and 

procedure, Air pollution control, EPA 

Method 202, Incorporation by reference, 

Particulate matter, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur 

dioxide. 

Dated: August 23, 2017. 

E. Scott Pruitt, 

Administrator. 

For the reasons stated in the 

preamble, the Environmental Protection 

Agency proposes to amend title 40, 

chapter I of the Code of Federal 

Regulations as follows: 

PART 51—REQUIREMENTS FOR 

PREPARATION, ADOPTION, AND 

SUBMITTAL OF IMPLEMENTATION 

PLANS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 51 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401, et seq. 

Subpart BB—Data Requirements for 

Characterizing Air Quality for the 

Primary SO2 NAAQS 

■ 2. In appendix M to part 51— 

Recommended Test Methods for State 

Implementation Plans, revise Method 

202 to read as follows: 

Method 202—Dry Impinger Method for 

Determining Condensable Particulate 

Emissions From Stationary Sources 

1.0 Scope and Applicability 

1.1 Scope. The U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency (U.S. EPA or ‘‘we’’) 

developed this method to describe the 

procedures that the stack tester (‘‘you’’) 

must follow to measure condensable 

particulate matter (CPM) emissions from 

stationary sources. This method 

includes procedures for measuring both 

organic and inorganic CPM. 

1.2 Applicability. This method 

addresses the equipment, preparation, 

and analysis necessary to measure only 

CPM. You can use this method only for 

stationary source emission 

measurements. You can use this method 

to measure CPM from stationary source 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 173 / Friday, September 8, 2017 / Proposed Rules 42515 

emissions after filterable particulate 

matter (PM) has been removed. 

Condensable PM is measured in the 

emissions after removal from the stack 

and after passing through a filter. 

(a) If you are required to measure total 

primary (direct) PM2.5 and/or PM10, then 

you must combine the procedures in 

this method with the procedures in 

Method 201A of appendix M to this 

part. If you are required to measure both 

the filterable and condensable 

components of total primary (direct) PM 

emissions to the atmosphere, then you 

may use Method 5 of appendix A–3 to 

part 60, or Method 17 of appendix 

A–6 to part 60. 

Note: If Method 17 of appendix A–6 to part 

60 is attempted in conjunction with Method 

202 to measure total primary PM, and the 

constant weight requirements for the 

filterable fractions cannot be met, it may be 

necessary to conduct additional test runs 

using an applicable filterable PM method that 

requires a heated filter temperature. 

(b) If the gas filtration temperature of 

the filterable PM method used does not 

exceed 30 °C (85 °F), then use of this 

method is not necessary to measure 

primary PM, as the CPM is collected as 

filterable PM. 

Note: For those methods that require instack filtration (i.e., Method 17 and 201A), 

the measured stack temperature is considered 

the filtration temperature. 

1.3 Responsibility. You are 

responsible for obtaining the equipment 

and supplies you will need to use for 

this method. You should also develop 

your own procedures for following this 

method and any additional procedures 

to ensure accurate sampling and 

analytical measurements. 

1.4 Additional Methods. To obtain 

reliable results, you should have a 

thorough knowledge of the following 

test methods that are found in 

appendices A–1 through A–3 and A–6 

to part 60, and in appendix M to this 

part: 

(a) Method 1—Sample and velocity 

traverses for stationary sources. 

(b) Method 2—Determination of stack 

gas velocity and volumetric flow rate 

(Type S pitot tube). 

(c) Method 3—Gas analysis for the 

determination of dry molecular weight. 

(d) Method 4—Determination of 

moisture content in stack gases. 

(e) Method 5—Determination of 

particulate matter emissions from 

stationary sources. 

(f) Method 17—Determination of 

particulate matter emissions from 

stationary sources (in-stack filtration 

method). 

(g) Method 201A—Determination of 

PM10 and PM2.5 emissions from 

stationary sources (constant sampling 

rate procedure). 

(h) In addition to Method 5, it is also 

acceptable to use Method 5A, 5D or 5I 

to collect filterable PM from stationary 

sources. 

Note: You must maintain the gas filtration 

temperature of the filterable PM method as 

specified in the method, unless otherwise 

specified by an applicable subpart. 

1.5 Limitations. You can use this 

method to measure emissions in stacks 

that have entrained droplets only when 

this method is combined with a 

filterable PM test method that operates 

at high enough temperatures to cause 

water droplets sampled through the 

probe to become vaporous. 

Note: The EPA recommends that under 

these conditions or any other conditions, 

when moisture collection is expected to be in 

excess of 2 percent, the testing periods be 

limited to no greater than 2 hours. 

1.6 Conditions. You must maintain 

isokinetic sampling conditions to meet 

the requirements of the filterable PM 

test method used in conjunction with 

this method. You must sample at the 

required number of sampling points 

specified in the filterable PM test 

method used in conjunction with this 

method. Also, if you are using this 

method as an alternative to a required 

performance test method, you must 

receive approval from the regulatory 

authority that established the 

requirement to use this test method 

prior to conducting the test. 

2.0 Summary of Method 

2.1 Summary. The CPM is collected 

in dry impingers after filterable PM has 

been collected on a filter maintained as 

specified in either Method 5 of 

appendix A–3 to part 60, Method 17 of 

appendix A–6 to part 60, or Method 

201A of appendix M to this part. The 

organic and aqueous sample fractions 

from the impingers and an out-of-stack 

CPM filter are then taken to dryness and 

weighed. The total mass collected from 

the impinger fractions and the CPM 

filter represents the CPM. Compared to 

the version of Method 202 that was 

promulgated on December 17, 1991, this 

method eliminates the use of water as 

the collection media in impingers and 

includes the addition of a condenser 

followed by a water dropout impinger 

after the final in-stack or heated filter. 

This method also includes the addition 

of one modified Greenburg-Smith 

impinger (backup impinger) and a CPM 

filter following the water dropout 

impinger. Figure 1 of section 18 

presents the schematic of the sampling 

train configured with these changes. 

2.1.1 Condensable PM. Condensable 

PM is collected in the water dropout 

impinger, the modified GreenburgSmith impinger, and the CPM filter of 

the sampling train as described in this 

method. The impinger contents are 

purged with nitrogen as soon as possible 

after the post-test leak check to remove 

dissolved sulfur dioxide (SO2) gases 

from the impingers. The impinger 

solutions are collected and the 

glassware is rinsed with water, acetone, 

and hexane. The CPM filter is extracted 

with water and hexane; the extracted 

liquid is then combined with the hexane 

and water fractions from the impingers. 

The aqueous impinger solution is then 

extracted with hexane. The organic and 

aqueous fractions are evaporated to 

dryness and the residues are weighed. 

The total of the aqueous and organic 

fractions represents the CPM. 

2.1.2 Dry Impinger and Additional 

Filter. The potential artifacts from SO2

are reduced using a vertical condenser 

and water dropout impinger to separate 

CPM from reactive gases. No water is 

added to the water dropout and backup 

impingers prior to the start of sampling. 

To improve the collection efficiency of 

CPM, an additional filter (the ‘‘CPM 

filter’’) is placed between the second 

and third impingers. 

3.0 Definitions 

3.1 Condensable PM (CPM) means 

material that is vapor phase at stack 

conditions, but condenses and/or reacts 

upon cooling and dilution in the 

ambient air to form solid or liquid PM 

immediately after discharge from the 

stack. Note that all condensable PM is 

assumed to be in the PM2.5 size fraction. 

3.2 Constant weight means a 

difference of no more than 0.5 mg or 1 

percent of total weight less tare weight, 

whichever is greater, between two 

consecutive weighings, with no less 

than 6 hours of desiccation time 

between weighings. 

3.3 Field Train Proof Blank. A field 

train proof blank for each source 

category tested is recovered on-site from 

a clean, fully-assembled sampling train. 

3.4 Filterable PM means particles 

that are emitted directly by a source as 

a solid or liquid at stack or release 

conditions and captured on the filter of 

a stack test train. 

3.5 Primary PM (also known as 

direct PM) means particles that enter the 

atmosphere as a direct emission from a 

stack or an open source. Primary PM 

comprises two components: Filterable 

PM and condensable PM. These two PM 

components have no upper particle size 

limit. 

3.6 Primary PM2.5 (also known as 

direct PM2.5, total PM2.5, PM2.5, or 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
42516 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 173 / Friday, September 8, 2017 / Proposed Rules 

combined filterable PM2.5 and 

condensable PM) means PM with an 

aerodynamic diameter less than or equal 

to 2.5 micrometers. These solid particles 

are emitted directly from an air 

emissions source or activity, or are the 

gaseous emissions or liquid droplets 

from an air emissions source or activity 

that condense to form PM at ambient 

temperatures. Direct PM2.5 emissions 

include elemental carbon, directly 

emitted organic carbon, directly emitted 

sulfate, directly emitted nitrate, and 

other inorganic particles (including but 

not limited to crustal material, metals 

and sea salt). 

3.7 Primary PM10 (also known as 

direct PM10, total PM10, PM10, or the 

combination of filterable PM10 and 

condensable PM) means PM with an 

aerodynamic diameter equal to or less 

than 10 micrometers. 

3.8 ASTM E617–13. ASTM E617–13 

‘‘Standard Specification for Laboratory 

Weights and Precisions Mass 

Standards,’’ approved May 1, 2013, was 

developed and adopted by the American 

Society for Testing and Materials 

(ASTM). The standards cover weights 

and mass standards used in laboratories 

for specific classes. The ASTM E617–13 

standard has been approved for 

incorporation by reference by the 

Director of the Office of the Federal 

Register in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 

552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. The standard 

may be obtained from http://

www.astm.org or from the ASTM at 100 

Barr Harbor Drive, P.O. Box C700, West 

Conshohocken, PA 19428–2959. All 

approved material is available for 

inspection at the EPA Docket Office, 

EPA WJC West Building, Room 3334, 

1301 Constitution Avenue NW., 

Washington, DC 20460, telephone 

number (202) 566–1744. It is also 

available for inspection at the National 

Archives and Records Administration 

(NARA). For information on the 

availability of this material at NARA, 

call 202–741–6030 or go to http://

www.archives.gov/federal_register/ 

code_of_federal_regulattions/ibr_

locations.html. 

4.0 Interferences 

[Reserved] 

5.0 Safety 

Disclaimer. Because the performance 

of this method may require the use of 

hazardous materials, operations, and 

equipment, you should develop a health 

and safety plan to ensure the safety of 

your employees who are on site 

conducting the particulate emission test. 

Your plan should conform with all 

applicable Occupational Safety and 

Health Administration, Mine Safety and 

Health Administration, and Department 

of Transportation regulatory 

requirements. Because of the unique 

situations at some facilities and because 

some facilities may have more stringent 

requirements than is required by state or 

federal laws, you may have to develop 

procedures to conform to the plant 

health and safety requirements. 

6.0 Equipment and Supplies 

The equipment used in the filterable 

particulate portion of the sampling train 

is described in Methods 5 and 17 of 

appendix A–1 through A–3 and A–6 to 

part 60 and Method 201A of appendix 

M to this part. The equipment used in 

the CPM portion of the train is 

described in this section. 

6.1 Condensable Particulate 

Sampling Train Components. The 

sampling train for this method is used 

in addition to filterable particulate 

collection using Method 5 of appendix 

A–3 to part 60, Method 17 of appendix 

A–6 to part 60, or Method 201A of 

appendix M to this part. This method 

includes the following exceptions or 

additions: 

6.1.1 Probe Extension and Liner. The 

probe extension between the filterable 

particulate filter and the condenser 

must be glass- or fluoropolymer-lined. 

Follow the specifications for the probe 

liner specified in section 6.1.1.2 of 

Method 5 of appendix A–3 to part 60. 

6.1.2 Condenser and Impingers. You 

must add the following components to 

the filterable particulate sampling train: 

A vertical condenser, followed by a 

water dropout impinger or flask, 

followed by a modified GreenburgSmith impinger (backup impinger) with 

an open tube tip as described in section 

6.1.1.8 of Method 5 of appendix A–3 to 

part 60. 

6.1.3 Dropout Impinger Insert for 

Nitrogen Purge. You must use a leak-free 

ground glass fitting with a long glass or 

PTFE stem (e.g., modified GreenburgSmith impinger insert or purge stem, 

etc.) for the water dropout impinger to 

perform the nitrogen purge of the 

sampling train. The glass stem must be 

designed so that the tip of the stem is 

1⁄2′′ from the bottom of the impinger. 

6.1.4 CPM Filter Holder. The 

modified Greenburg-Smith impinger is 

followed by a filter holder that is either 

glass, stainless steel (316 or equivalent), 

or fluoropolymer-coated stainless steel. 

Commercial size filter holders are 

available depending on project 

requirements. Use a commercial filter 

holder capable of supporting 47 mm or 

greater diameter filter. Commercial size 

filter holders contain a fluoropolymer 

O-ring, stainless steel, ceramic or 

fluoropolymer filter support and a final 

fluoropolymer O-ring. At the exit of the 

CPM filter, install a fluoropolymercoated or stainless steel encased 

thermocouple that is in direct contact 

with the gas stream. 

6.2 Sample Recovery Equipment 

6.2.1 Condensable PM Recovery. Use 

the following equipment to 

quantitatively determine the amount of 

CPM recovered from the sampling train. 

(a) Nitrogen purge line. You must use 

inert tubing and fittings capable of 

delivering at least 14 liters/min of 

nitrogen gas to the impinger train from 

a standard gas cylinder (see Figures 2 

and 3 of section 18). You may use 

standard 0.6 centimeters (1⁄4 inch) 

tubing and compression fittings in 

conjunction with an adjustable pressure 

regulator and needle valve. 

(b) Rotameter. You must use a 

rotameter capable of measuring gas flow 

up to 20 liters/min. The rotameter must 

be accurate to five percent of full scale. 

(c) Nitrogen gas purging system. 

Compressed ultra-pure nitrogen, 

regulator, and filter must be capable of 

providing at least 14 liters/min purge 

gas for one hour through the sampling 

train. 

(d) Sample bottles (500 ml). You must 

use amber glass bottles or other nonreactive bottles (e.g., High Density 

Linear Polyethylene (HDLPE), or PTFE) 

pre-cleaned sample bottles for inorganic 

samples. Amber glass bottles are 

required for organic samples and must 

be prepared according to section 8.4 of 

this method. 

6.2.2 Analysis Equipment. The 

following equipment is necessary for 

CPM sample analysis: 

(a) Separatory Funnel. Glass, 1 liter. 

(b) Weighing Containers. 

Fluoropolymer beaker liners or other 

low-mass vessels which are unreactive 

to the sample or atmosphere. 

Note: The use of an anti-static device(s) 

during gravimetric analysis to prevent static 

from interfering with the analysis is 

recommended when using Fluoropolymer or 

similar beaker liners. 

(c) Glass Beakers. 300 to 500 ml. 

(d) Drying Equipment. A desiccator 

containing anhydrous calcium sulfate 

that is maintained below 10 percent 

relative humidity, and a hot plate or 

oven equipped with temperature 

control. 

(e) Glass Pipets. 5 ml. 

(f) Burette. Glass, 0 to 100 ml in 0.1 

ml graduations. 

(g) Analytical Balance. Analytical 

balance capable of weighing at least 

0.0001 g (0.1 mg). 

(h) pH Meter. The pH meter must be 

capable of determining the acidity of 

liquid within 0.1 pH units. 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 173 / Friday, September 8, 2017 / Proposed Rules 42517 

(i) Sonication Device. The device 

must have a minimum sonication 

frequency of 20 kHz and be 

approximately four to six inches deep to 

accommodate the sample extractor tube. 

(j) Leak-Proof Sample Containers. 

Containers used for sample and blank 

recovery must not contribute more than 

0.05 mg of residual mass to the CPM 

measurements. 

(k) Wash bottles. Any container 

material is acceptable, but wash bottles 

used for sample and blank recovery 

must not contribute more than 0.1 mg of 

residual mass to the CPM 

measurements. 

7.0 Reagents and Standards 

7.1 Sample Collection. To collect a 

sample, you will need a CPM filter, 

crushed ice, and silica gel. You must 

also have water and nitrogen gas to 

purge the sampling train. You will find 

additional information on each of these 

items in the following summaries. 

7.1.1 CPM Filter. You must use a 

nonreactive, non-disintegrating polymer 

filter that does not have an organic 

binder and does not contribute more 

than 0.5 mg of residual mass to the CPM 

measurements. The CPM filter must also 

have an efficiency of at least 99.95 

percent (less than 0.05 percent 

penetration) on 0.3 micrometer dioctyl 

phthalate particles. You may use test 

data from the supplier’s quality control 

program to document the CPM filter 

efficiency. 

7.1.2 Silica Gel. Use an indicatingtype silica gel of 6 to 16 mesh. You must 

obtain approval of the Administrator for 

other types of desiccants (equivalent or 

better) before you use them. Allow the 

silica gel to dry for 2 hours at 175 °C 

(350 °F) if it is being reused. You do not 

have to dry new silica gel if the 

indicator shows the silica gel is active 

for moisture collection. 

7.1.3 Water. Use deionized, ultrafiltered water that contains 1.0 parts per 

million by weight (ppmw) (1 mg/L) 

residual mass or less to recover and 

extract samples. 

7.1.4 Crushed Ice. Obtain from the 

best readily available source. 

7.1.5 Nitrogen Gas. Use Ultra-High 

Purity compressed nitrogen or 

equivalent to purge the sampling train. 

The compressed nitrogen you use to 

purge the sampling train must contain 

no more than 1 parts per million by 

volume (ppmv) oxygen, 1 ppmv total 

hydrocarbons as carbon, and 2 ppmv 

moisture. The compressed nitrogen 

must not contribute more than 0.1 mg of 

residual mass per purge. 

7.2 Sample Recovery and Analytical 

Reagents. You will need acetone, 

hexane, anhydrous calcium sulfate, 

ammonia hydroxide, and deionized 

water for the sample recovery and 

analysis. Unless otherwise indicated, all 

reagents must conform to the 

specifications established by the 

Committee on Analytical Reagents of 

the American Chemical Society. If such 

specifications are not available, then use 

the best available grade. Additional 

information on each of these items is in 

the following paragraphs: 

7.2.1 Acetone. Use acetone that is 

stored in a glass bottle. Do not use 

acetone from a metal container because 

it normally produces a high residual 

mass in the laboratory and field reagent 

blanks. You must use acetone that has 

a blank value less than 1.0 ppmw (0.1 

mg/100 g) residue. 

7.2.2 Hexane, American Chemical 

Society Grade or Equivalent. You must 

use hexane that has a blank residual 

mass value less than 1.0 ppmw (0.1 mg/ 

100 g) residue. 

7.2.3 Water. Use deionized, ultrafiltered water that contains 1.0 ppmw 

(1.0 mg/L) residual mass or less to 

recover material caught in the impinger. 

7.2.4 Condensable Particulate 

Sample Desiccant. Use indicating-type 

anhydrous calcium sulfate to desiccate 

water and organic extract residue 

samples prior to weighing. 

7.2.5 Ammonium Hydroxide. Use 

National Institute of Standards and 

Technology (NIST)-traceable or 

equivalent (0.1 N) ammonium 

hydroxide (NH4OH). 

7.2.6 Standard Buffer Solutions. Use 

one buffer solution with a neutral pH 

and a second buffer solution with an 

acid pH of no less than 4. 

8.0 Sample Collection, Preservation, 

Storage, and Transport 

8.1 Qualifications. This is a complex 

test method. To obtain reliable results, 

you should be trained and experienced 

with in-stack filtration systems (such as, 

cyclones, impactors, and thimbles) and 

impinger and moisture train systems. 

8.2 Preparations. Clean all glassware 

used to collect and analyze samples 

prior to field tests as described in 

Section 8.4 prior to use. Cleaned 

glassware must be used at the start of 

each new source category tested at a 

single facility. You must analyze 

laboratory reagent blanks (water, 

acetone, and hexane) before field tests to 

verify low blank concentrations for the 

reagent lot(s) used. Follow the pretest 

preparation instructions in Section 8.1 

of Method 5. 

8.3 Site Setup. You must follow the 

procedures required in Methods 5, 17, 

or 201A, whichever is applicable to 

your test requirements including: 

(a) Determining the sampling site 

location and traverse points. 

(b) Calculating probe/cyclone 

blockage (as appropriate). 

(c) Verifying the absence of cyclonic 

flow. 

(d) Completing a preliminary velocity 

profile, and selecting a nozzle(s) and 

sampling rate. 

8.3.1 Sampling Site Location. 

Follow the standard procedures in 

Method 1 of appendix A–1 to part 60 to 

select the appropriate sampling site. 

Choose a location that maximizes the 

distance from upstream and 

downstream flow disturbances. 

8.3.2 Traverse Points. Use the 

required number of traverse points at 

any location, as found in in the method 

used to collect the filterable particulate. 

You must prevent the disturbance and 

capture of any solids accumulated on 

the inner wall surfaces by maintaining 

a 1 inch distance from the stack wall 

(0.5 inch for sampling locations less 

than 24 inches in diameter). 

8.4 Sampling Train Preparation. A 

schematic of the sampling train used in 

this method is shown in Figure 1 of 

section 18. All glassware that is used to 

collect and analyze samples should be 

cleaned sufficiently to meet the 

maximum field train proof blank 

contribution to be subtracted from the 

test results in section 9.9 (0.002g or 2.0 

mg). Cleaning glassware prior to the test 

with soap and water, then rinsing with 

tap water, followed by deionized water, 

acetone, and finally, hexane is 

recommended. After cleaning, you 

should bake glassware at 300 °C for 6 

hours prior to beginning tests at each 

source category sampled at a facility. 

Prior to each sampling run, the train 

glassware used to collect condensable 

PM must be rinsed thoroughly with 

acetone, hexane, and then deionized, 

ultra-filtered water that contains 1 

ppmw (1 mg/L) residual mass or less. 

Note: Due the length of most probes, it is 

not practical to heat them in an oven. After 

cleaning the probe liners, it is recommended 

to heat the probe to the maximum 

temperature practical for the probe sheath for 

a period of at least 3 hours. Then rinse 

thoroughly with acetone, hexane, and 

deionized, ultra-filtered water. 

8.4.1 Condenser and Water Dropout 

Impinger. Add a vertical condenser and 

a water dropout impinger without 

bubbler tube after the final probe 

extension that connects the in-stack or 

out-of-stack hot filter assembly with the 

CPM sampling train. This vertical 

condenser must be constructed in a 

manner that prevents the pooling of the 

condensate liquid within the condenser 

and be capable of cooling the stack gas 

to less than or equal to 30 °C (85 °F). 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
42518 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 173 / Friday, September 8, 2017 / Proposed Rules 

At the start of the tests, the condenser 

and water dropout impingers must be 

clean, without any water or reagent 

added. 

8.4.2 Backup Impinger. The water 

dropout impinger is followed by a 

modified Greenburg-Smith impinger 

(backup impinger) with no taper (see 

Figure 1 of section 18). Place the water 

dropout and backup impingers in an 

insulated box with water at less than or 

equal to 30 °C (less than or equal to 85 

°F). At the start of the tests, the backup 

impinger must be free of any residual 

solvents from the recovery or glassware 

preparation. 

8.4.3 CPM Filter. Place a filter holder 

with a filter meeting the requirements in 

section 7.1.1 after the backup impinger. 

The connection between the CPM filter 

and the moisture trap impinger must 

include a thermocouple fitting that 

provides a leak-free seal between the 

thermocouple and the stack gas. 

8.4.4 Moisture Traps. You must use 

a modified Greenburg-Smith impinger 

containing 100 ml of water, or the 

alternative described in Method 5 of 

appendix A–3 to part 60, followed by an 

impinger containing 200 to 300 g of 

indicating-type silica gel to collect 

moisture that passes through the CPM 

filter. You must maintain the gas 

temperature below 20 °C (68 °F) at the 

exit of the moisture traps. 

8.4.5 Weighing of Impingers 

(Pretest). Weigh each impinger to 0.1 g, 

including the silica gel impinger prior to 

train assembly using the field balance. 

Record the weights of each impinger on 

the CPM Impinger Data Sheet (Figure 4). 

8.4.6 Leak-Check (Pretest). Use the 

procedures outlined in Method 5 of 

appendix A–3 to part 60, Method 17 of 

appendix A–6 to part 60, or Method 

201A of appendix M to this part as 

appropriate to leak check the entire 

sampling system. Specifically, perform 

the following procedures: 

8.4.6.1 Sampling train. You must 

pretest the entire sampling train for 

leaks. The pretest leak-check must have 

a leak rate of not more than 0.02 actual 

cubic feet per minute or 4 percent of the 

average sample flow during the test run, 

whichever is less. Additionally, you 

must conduct the leak-check at a 

vacuum equal to or greater than the 

vacuum anticipated during the test run. 

Record the leak-check results on the 

field test data sheet (see Figure 5). (Note: 

Conduct leak-checks during port 

changes only as allowed by the filterable 

particulate method used with this 

method.) 

8.4.6.2 Pitot tube assembly. After 

you leak-check the sample train, 

perform a leak-check of the pitot tube 

assembly. Follow the procedures 

outlined in section 8.4.1 of Method 5. 

8.5 Sampling Train Operation. 

Operate the sampling train as described 

in the filterable particulate sampling 

method (i.e., Method 5 of appendix A– 

3 to part 60, Method 17 of appendix A– 

6 to part 60, or Method 201A of 

appendix M to this part) with the 

following additions or exceptions: 

8.5.1 Impinger and CPM Filter 

Assembly 

8.5.1.1 During sampling, monitor the 

moisture condensation in the water 

dropout impinger and backup impinger. 

If the accumulated water from moisture 

condensation overwhelms (i.e., the 

water level is more than approximately 

one-half the capacity of the water 

dropout impinger) the water dropout 

impinger, or if water accumulates in the 

backup impinger sufficient to cover the 

impinger insert tip, then you must 

interrupt the sampling run, leak check 

the Method 202 portion of the sampling 

train, replace the water dropout and/or 

backup impingers with new preweighed impinger(s), reassemble, leak 

check the sampling train, and then 

resume the sampling run. Weigh the 

impingers removed from the sampling 

train and purge the water collected as 

soon as practical following the 

procedures in section 8.5.3. 

8.5.1.2 You must include the weight 

of the moisture in your moisture 

calculation and you must combine the 

recovered water with the appropriate 

sample fraction for subsequent CPM 

analysis. 

8.5.1.3 Use the field data sheet to 

record the CPM filter temperature 

readings at the beginning of each sample 

time increment and when sampling is 

halted. Maintain the CPM filter greater 

than 20 °C (greater than 65 °F) but less 

than or equal to 30 °C (less than or equal 

to 85 °F) during sample collection. 

8.5.2 Leak-Check (Post-Test). 

Conduct the leak rate check according to 

the filterable particulate sampling 

method used during sampling. Conduct 

the leak-check at a vacuum equal to or 

greater than the maximum vacuum 

achieved during the test run. Record the 

leak-check results on the field test data 

sheet. If the leak rate of the sampling 

train exceeds 0.02 actual cubic feet per 

minute or 4 percent of the average 

sampling rate during the test run 

(whichever is less), then the run is 

invalid and you must repeat it. 

8.5.3 Weighing of Impingers (Posttest). You must weigh each impinger to 

0.1 g after the completion of the testing 

and prior to the post-test nitrogen purge 

and record these weights on the CPM 

Impinger data sheet. Alternatively, you 

may choose to weigh each impinger 

after completion of the post-test 

nitrogen purge. If this option is chosen, 

you must do the following in addition 

to the procedures of section 8.5.4. Purge 

the sampling train from the water 

dropout impinger to the exhaust of the 

moisture traps (see Figure 2). You must 

maintain the temperature of the 

moisture traps following the CPM filter 

to prevent removal of moisture during 

the purge. If necessary, add more ice 

during the purge to maintain the gas 

temperature measured at the exit of the 

silica gel impinger below 20 °C (68 °F). 

Note: You should also note the color of the 

indicating silica gel to determine whether it 

has been completely spent, and record its 

condition on the CPM Impinger Data Sheet. 

8.5.4 Post-Test Nitrogen Purge. As 

soon as possible after the post-test leakcheck, conduct the nitrogen purge. If no 

water was collected before the CPM 

filter, then you may skip the remaining 

purge steps and proceed with sample 

recovery (see section 8.5.5). If any water 

was collected before the CPM filter, you 

must purge the CPM sampling train. 

8.5.4.1 You may purge the entire 

CPM sample collection train from the 

water dropout impinger through the 

CPM filter holder outlet or you may 

quantitatively transfer the water 

collected in the water dropout impinger 

to the backup impinger and purge only 

the backup impinger and the CPM filter 

and holder (see Figure 3). 

8.5.4.2 If you choose to conduct a 

purge of the entire CPM sampling train, 

you must place the dropout impinger 

insert into the water dropout impinger, 

and the impinger tip must extend at 

least 1 centimeter below the water level 

of the impinger catch. 

8.5.4.3 If the tip of the impinger 

insert does not extend below the water 

level (including the water transferred 

from the water dropout impinger if this 

option was chosen), you must add a 

measured amount of degassed, 

deionized ultra-filtered water that 

contains 1 ppmw (1 mg/L) residual mass 

or less until the impinger tip is at least 

1 centimeter below the surface of the 

water. You must record the amount of 

water added to the water dropout 

impinger (Vp) (see Figure 4 of section 

18) to correct the moisture content of 

the effluent gas. (Note: Prior to use, 

water must be degassed using a nitrogen 

purge bubbled through the water for at 

least 15 minutes to remove dissolved 

oxygen.) 

8.5.4.4 To perform the nitrogen 

purge, you must start with no flow of 

gas running through the clean purge line 

and fittings. Connect the purge nitrogen 

in-line filter outlet to the input of the 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 173 / Friday, September 8, 2017 / Proposed Rules 42519 

impinger train to be purged. Increase the 

nitrogen flow gradually to avoid overpressurizing the impinger array. You 

must purge the CPM train at a minimum 

of 14 liters per minute. Record the time 

(hh:mm), nitrogen flowrate, and the 

temperature(s) of the CPM filter and 

moisture trap (if applicable) at the start 

of the nitrogen purge on the CPM 

Impinger Data Sheet. 

8.5.4.5 During the purge procedure, 

maintain the gas temperature measured 

at the exit of the CPM filter greater than 

20 °C (65 °F), but less than or equal to 

30 °C (85 °F). Continue the purge under 

these conditions for at least 1 hour, 

recording the CPM temperature and 

nitrogen rotameter value every 10 

minutes. At the conclusion of the purge, 

turn off the nitrogen delivery system. 

Record the time (hh:mm) of the purge 

and the temperature of the CPM filter at 

the start of the nitrogen purge on the 

CPM Impinger Data Sheet. 

8.5.5 Sample Recovery 

8.5.5.1 Filterable PM samples. 

Recovery of the filterable PM samples 

involves the quantitative transfer of PM 

according to the filterable particulate 

sampling method used (i.e., Method 5 of 

appendix A–3 to part 60, Method 17 of 

appendix A–6 to part 60, or Method 

201A of appendix M to this part). 

8.5.5.2 CPM Container #1, Aqueous 

liquid impinger contents. Quantitatively 

transfer liquid from the dropout and the 

backup impingers prior to the CPM filter 

into a clean, leak-proof container 

labeled with test identification and 

‘‘CPM Container #1, Aqueous Liquid 

Impinger Contents.’’ Rinse all sampling 

train components including the back 

half of the filterable PM filter holder, the 

probe extension (if applicable), 

condenser, each impinger and the 

connecting glassware, and the front half 

of the CPM filter housing twice with 

water. Recover the rinse water, and add 

it to CPM Container #1. Mark the liquid 

level on the container. 

8.5.5.3 CPM Container #2, Organic 

rinses. Follow the water rinses of the 

back half of the filterable PM filter 

holder, probe extension (if applicable), 

condenser, each impinger, and all of the 

connecting glassware and front half of 

the CPM filter with an acetone rinse. 

Recover the acetone rinse into a clean, 

leak-proof amber glass container labeled 

with test identification and ‘‘CPM 

Container #2, Organic Rinses.’’ Then 

repeat the entire rinse procedure with 

two rinses of hexane, and save the 

hexane rinses in the same container as 

the acetone rinse (CPM Container #2). 

Mark the liquid level on the container. 

8.5.5.4 CPM Container #3, CPM 

filter sample. Use tweezers and/or clean 

disposable surgical gloves to remove the 

filter from the CPM filter holder. Place 

the filter in the Petri dish labeled with 

test identification and ‘‘CPM Container 

#3, Filter Sample.’’ 

8.5.5.5 CPM Container #4, Acetone 

field reagent blank. Take a minimum of 

200 ml of the acetone directly from the 

wash bottle you used for sample 

recovery and place it in a clean, leakproof amber glass container labeled with 

test identification and ‘‘CPM Container 

#4, Acetone Field Reagent Blank’’ (see 

section 11.2.6 for analysis). Mark the 

liquid level on the container. Collect 

one acetone field reagent blank from 

each lot of acetone used for the test. 

8.5.5.6 CPM Container #5, Water 

field reagent blank. Take a minimum of 

200 ml of the water directly from the 

wash bottle you used for sample 

recovery and place it in a clean, leakproof container labeled with test 

identification and ‘‘CPM Container #5, 

Water Field Reagent Blank’’ (see section 

11.2.7 for analysis). Mark the liquid 

level on the container. Collect one water 

field reagent blank from each lot of 

water used for the test. 

8.5.5.7 CPM Container #6, Hexane 

field reagent blank. Take a minimum of 

200 ml of the hexane directly from the 

wash bottle you used for sample 

recovery and place it in a clean, leakproof amber glass container labeled with 

test identification and ‘‘CPM Container 

#6, Hexane Field Reagent Blank’’ (see 

section 11.2.8 for analysis). Mark the 

liquid level on the container. Collect 

one hexane field reagent blank from 

each lot of hexane used for the test. 

8.5.5.8 Field train proof blank. To 

demonstrate the cleanliness of sampling 

train glassware, you must prepare a full 

sampling train to serve as a field train 

proof blank just as it would be prepared 

for sampling, including the filterable 

PM method front half, probe extension 

(if applicable), condenser, impingers, 

CPM filter, and transfer line. Transport 

and assemble the field train proof blank 

sample train to the sampling location 

and perform a pre-test leak check as if 

it were an actual sample train. Hold this 

train at the sampling location for the 

same amount of time as a test run unless 

otherwise specified by the 

Administrator, and perform a post-test 

leak check on this train at the end of the 

actual test sampling time. After the posttest leak check, you must conduct a 

nitrogen purge of the field train proof 

blank sample as specified in section 

8.5.4. For the nitrogen purge, you must 

add 100 ml of deionized ultra-filtered 

water and replicate the nitrogen purge 

procedures that you will use for the test 

runs. After conducting the nitrogen 

purge, recover the field train proof blank 

as described in sections 8.5.5.8.1 

through 8.5.5.8.3. 

8.5.5.8.1 CPM Container #7, Field 

train proof blank, inorganic rinses. 

Rinse the probe extension, condenser, 

each impinger and the connecting 

glassware, and the front half of the CPM 

filter housing twice with water. Recover 

the rinse water and place it in a clean, 

leak-proof container labeled with test 

identification and ‘‘CPM Container #7, 

Field Train Proof Blank, Inorganic 

Rinses.’’ Mark the liquid level on the 

container. 

8.5.5.8.2 CPM Container #8, Field 

train proof blank, organic rinses. Follow 

the water rinse of the probe extension, 

condenser, each impinger and the 

connecting glassware, and the front half 

of the CPM filter housing with an 

acetone rinse. Recover the acetone rinse 

into a clean, leak-proof container 

labeled with test identification and 

‘‘CPM Container #8, Field Train Proof 

Blank, Organic Rinses.’’ Then repeat the 

entire rinse procedure with two rinses 

of hexane and recover the hexane rinses 

into the same container as the acetone 

rinse (CPM Container #10). Mark the 

liquid level on the container. 

8.5.5.8.3 CPM Container #9, Field 

train proof blank, filter sample. Use 

tweezers and/or clean disposable 

surgical gloves to remove the filter from 

the CPM filter holder. Place the filter in 

the Petri dish labeled with test 

identification and ‘‘CPM Container #9, 

Field Train Proof Blank, Filter Sample.’’ 

8.5.6 Sample Transport procedures. 

Containers must remain in an upright 

position at all times during shipping. 

You do not have to ship the containers 

under dry or blue ice. However, samples 

should be maintained at or below 30 °C 

(85 °F) during shipping. 

9.0 Quality Control 

9.1 Daily Quality Checks. You must 

perform daily quality checks of field log 

notebooks and data entries and 

calculations using data quality 

indicators from this method and your 

site-specific test plan. You must review 

and evaluate recorded and transferred 

raw data, calculations, and 

documentation of testing procedures. 

You must initial or sign log notebook 

pages and data entry forms that were 

reviewed. 

9.2 Calculation Verification. Verify 

the calculations by independent, 

manual checks. You must flag any 

suspect data and identify the nature of 

the problem and potential effect on data 

quality. After you complete the test, 

prepare a data summary and compile all 

the calculations and raw data sheets. 

9.3 Conditions. You must document 

data and information on the process 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
42520 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 173 / Friday, September 8, 2017 / Proposed Rules 

unit tested, the particulate control 

system used to control emissions, any 

non-particulate control system that may 

affect particulate emissions, the 

sampling train conditions, and weather 

conditions. Discontinue the test if the 

operating conditions may cause nonrepresentative particulate emissions. 

9.4 Field Balance Calibration 

Check. Record the results of the 

calibration check procedures on field 

balances each day that they are used as 

required in section 10.3. 

9.5 Glassware. Use class A 

volumetric glassware for titrations, or 

calibrate your equipment against NISTtraceable glassware. 

9.6 Laboratory Analytical Balance 

9.6.1 Maintain the location of the 

analytical balance (i.e., weighing room) 

at 20 °C ± 3 °C (68 °F ± 5 °F). 

9.6.2 Maintain the location the 

analytical balance (i.e., weighing room) 

at 35 to 50 percent relative humidity. 

Alternatively, it is acceptable for the 

percent relative humidity to be less than 

35 percent. In either case, you should 

maintain the relative humidity within 

±10 percent relative humidity for 

sampling weighings. 

9.6.3 Record and report the 

temperature and relative humidity of 

the analytical balance location for each 

measurement performed. 

9.6.4 Calibration Check. Record the 

calibration check of your laboratory 

analytical balance at least once each day 

that you weigh CPM samples. Audit the 

balance using at least one ASTM E617– 

13 Class 2 tolerance (or better) 

calibration weight, within 1 g to 5 g of 

the weight of the sample plus container 

you will be weighing. 

9.7 Laboratory Reagent Blanks. You 

should analyze blanks of water, acetone, 

and hexane used for field recovery and 

sample analysis. Analyze and report at 

least one sample (500 ml minimum) of 

each lot of reagents that you plan to use 

for sample recovery and analysis. These 

blanks are not required by the test 

method, but analyzing reagent blanks 

before field use is recommended to 

verify low reagent blank concentrations. 

9.8 Field Reagent Blanks. You must 

analyze and report the results of each lot 

of reagent used for the field test. 

9.9 Field Train Proof Blank. You 

must recover a minimum of one field 

train proof blank for each new source 

category at a single facility using 

glassware prepped according to section 

8.4. You must assemble the sampling 

train as it will be used for testing, 

including the filterable PM method front 

half, CPM filter, and transfer line. You 

must prepare and recover the field train 

proof blank as described in section 

8.5.5.8. From each field sample weight, 

you will subtract the condensable 

particulate mass you determine with 

this field train proof blank or 0.002 g 

(2.0 mg), whichever is less, unless 

otherwise specified by the regulatory 

authority. 

10.0 Calibration and Standardization 

Maintain a field log notebook of all 

condensable particulate sampling and 

analysis calibrations. Include copies of 

the relevant portions of the calibration 

and field logs in the final test report. 

10.1 Thermocouple Calibration. 

You must calibrate the thermocouples 

using the procedures described in 

section 10.3.1 of Method 2 of appendix 

A–1 to part 60 or Alternative Method 2, 

Thermocouple Calibration (ALT–011) 

(https://www.epa.gov/emc). Calibrate 

each temperature sensor at a minimum 

of three points over the anticipated 

range of use against a NIST-traceable 

thermometer. Alternatively, a reference 

thermocouple and potentiometer 

calibrated against NIST standards can be 

used. 

10.2 Ammonium Hydroxide. The 

0.1 N NH4OH used for titrations in this 

method is made as follows: Add 7 ml of 

concentrated (14.8 M) NH4OH to 1 liter 

of water. Standardize against certified 

standard of 0.1 N H2SO4, and calculate 

the exact normality using a procedure 

parallel to that described in section 10.5 

of Method 6 of appendix A–4 to 40 CFR 

part 60. Alternatively, purchase 0.1 N 

NH4OH that has been standardized 

against a NIST reference material. 

Record the normality on the CPM Work 

Table (see Figure 6 of section 18). 

10.3 Field Balance Calibration 

Check. Check the calibration of the 

balance used to weigh impingers with a 

weight that is at least 500 g or within 

50 g of a loaded impinger. The weight 

must be ASTM E617–13 ‘‘Standard 

Specification for Laboratory Weights 

and Precision Mass Standards’’ Class 6 

(or better). Daily, before use, the field 

balance must measure the weight within 

± 0.5 g of the certified mass and record 

the results. If the balance calibration 

check fails, perform corrective measures 

and repeat the check before using 

balance. 

10.4 Analytical Balance 

Calibration. Perform a multipoint 

calibration (at least five points spanning 

the operational range) of the analytical 

balance before the first use, and 

semiannually thereafter. The calibration 

of the analytical balance must be 

conducted using ASTM E617–13 

‘‘Standard Specification for Laboratory 

Weights and Precision Mass Standards’’ 

Class 2 (or better) tolerance weights. 

Audit the balance each day it is used for 

gravimetric measurements by weighing 

at least one ASTM E617–13 Class 2 

tolerance (or better) calibration weight 

that corresponds to 50 to 150 percent of 

the weight of one filter or between 1 g 

and 5 g and record the results. If the 

scale cannot reproduce the value of the 

calibration weight to within 0.5 mg of 

the certified mass, perform corrective 

measures and conduct the multipoint 

calibration before use. 

11.0 Analytical Procedures 

11.1 Analytical Data Sheets 

(a) Record the filterable particulate 

field data on the appropriate (i.e., 

Method 5, 17, or 201A) analytical data 

sheets. Record the condensable 

particulate data on the CPM Work Table 

(see Figure 7 of section 18). 

(b) Visually inspect the liquid level 

mark on each sample container and 

record on the CPM Work Table whether 

leakage occurred during transport. If a 

noticeable amount of leakage has 

occurred, either void the sample or use 

methods, subject to the approval of the 

Administrator, to correct the final 

results. 

11.2 Condensable PM Analysis. See 

the flow chart in Figure 8 of section 18 

for the steps to process and combine 

fractions from the CPM train. 

11.2.1 Container #3, CPM Filter 

Sample. Extract the CPM filter as 

described in this section. 

11.2.1.1 Extract the water soluble 

(aqueous or inorganic) CPM from the 

CPM filter by placing it into a clean 

extraction container or flask. Add 

sufficient deionized, ultra-filtered water 

to cover the filter (e.g., 10 ml of water). 

Place the extractor container into a 

sonication bath and extract the watersoluble material for a minimum of 2 

minutes. Combine the aqueous extract 

with the contents of Container #1. 

Repeat this extraction step twice for a 

total of three extractions. 

11.2.1.2 Extract the organic soluble 

CPM from the CPM filter by adding 

sufficient hexane to cover the filter (e.g., 

10 ml of hexane). Place the extractor 

tube into a sonication bath and extract 

the organic soluble material for a 

minimum of two minutes. Combine the 

organic extract with the contents of 

Container #2. Repeat this extraction step 

twice for a total of three extractions. 

11.2.2 CPM Container #1, Aqueous 

Liquid Impinger Contents. Analyze the 

water-soluble CPM in Container #1 as 

described in this section. Place the 

contents of Container #1 into a 

separatory funnel. Add approximately 

30 ml of hexane to the funnel, mix well, 

and pour off the upper organic phase. 

Repeat this procedure twice with 30 ml 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 173 / Friday, September 8, 2017 / Proposed Rules 42521 

of hexane each time combining the 

organic phase from each extraction. 

Each time, leave a small amount of the 

organic/hexane phase in the separatory 

funnel, ensuring that no water is 

collected in the organic phase. This 

extraction should yield about 90 ml of 

organic extract. Combine the organic 

extract from Container #1 with the 

organic train rinse in Container #2. 

11.2.2.1 Determine the inorganic 

fraction weight. Transfer the aqueous 

fraction from the extraction to a clean 

500 ml or smaller beaker. Evaporate to 

no less than 10 ml liquid on a hot plate 

or in the oven at 105 °C and allow to 

dry at room temperature (not to exceed 

30 °C (85 °F)). Following evaporation, 

desiccate the residue for 24 hours in a 

desiccator containing anhydrous 

calcium sulfate. Weigh at intervals of at 

least 6 hours to a constant weight. (See 

section 3.0 for a definition of constant 

weight.) Report results to the nearest 0.1 

mg on the CPM Work Table (see Figure 

6 of section 18) and proceed directly to 

section 11.2.3. If the residue cannot be 

weighed to constant weight, re-dissolve 

the residue in 100 ml of deionized 

distilled ultra-filtered water that 

contains 1 ppmw (1 mg/L) residual mass 

or less and continue to section 11.2.2.2. 

11.2.2.2 You must ensure that water 

and volatile acids have completely 

evaporated before neutralizing 

nonvolatile acids in the sample. Only 

after failure to reach constant weight 

and rehydration, per section 11.2.2.1, 

use titration to neutralize acid in the 

sample and remove water of hydration. 

Calibrate the pH meter with the neutral 

and acid buffer solutions immediately 

prior to the titration of the samples. 

Then titrate the sample with 0.1 N 

NH4OH to a pH of 7.0, as indicated by 

the pH meter. Record the volume of 

titrant used on the CPM Work Table (see 

Figure 6 of section 18). 

11.2.2.3 Using a hot plate or an oven 

at 105 °C, evaporate the aqueous phase 

to approximately 10 ml. Quantitatively 

transfer the beaker contents to a clean, 

50 ml pre-tared weighing container and 

evaporate to dryness at room 

temperature (not to exceed 30 °C (85 °F)) 

and pressure in a laboratory hood. 

Following evaporation, desiccate the 

residue for 24 hours in a desiccator 

containing anhydrous calcium sulfate. 

Weigh at intervals of at least 6 hours to 

a constant weight. (See section 3.0 for a 

definition of constant weight.) Report 

results to the nearest 0.1 mg on the CPM 

Work Table (see Figure 6 of section 18). 

11.2.2.4 Calculate the correction 

factor to subtract the NH4

+ retained in 

the sample using Equation 1 in section 

12. 

11.2.3 CPM Container #2, Organic 

Fraction Weight Determination. Analyze 

the organic soluble CPM in Container #2 

as described in this section. Place the 

organic phase in a clean glass beaker. 

Evaporate the organic extract at room 

temperature (not to exceed 30 °C (85 °F)) 

and pressure in a laboratory hood to not 

less than 10 ml. Quantitatively transfer 

the beaker contents to a clean 50 ml pretared weighing container and evaporate 

to dryness at room temperature (not to 

exceed 30 °C (85 °F)) and pressure in a 

laboratory hood. Following evaporation, 

desiccate the organic fraction for 24 

hours in a desiccator containing 

anhydrous calcium sulfate. Weigh at 

intervals of at least 6 hours to a constant 

weight (i.e., less than or equal to 0.5 mg 

change from previous weighing), and 

report results to the nearest 0.1 mg on 

the CPM Work Table (see Figure 6 of 

section 18). 

11.2.4 Container #4, Acetone Field 

Reagent Blank. Use 200 ml of acetone 

from the blank container used for this 

analysis. Transfer 200 ml of the acetone 

field reagent blank to a clean 250 ml 

beaker. Evaporate the acetone at room 

temperature (not to exceed 30 °C (85 °F)) 

and pressure in a laboratory hood to 

approximately 10 ml. Quantitatively 

transfer the beaker contents to a clean 

pre-tared weighing container, and 

evaporate to dryness at room 

temperature (not to exceed 30 °C (85 °F)) 

and pressure in a laboratory hood. 

Following evaporation, desiccate the 

residue for 24 hours in a desiccator 

containing anhydrous calcium sulfate. 

Weigh at intervals of at least 6 hours to 

a constant weight (i.e., less than or equal 

to 0.5 mg change from previous 

weighing), and report results to the 

nearest 0.1 mg on Figure 5 of section 19. 

11.2.5 Container #5, Water Field 

Reagent Blank. Use 200 ml of the water 

from the blank container for this 

analysis. Transfer the water to a clean 

250 ml beaker, and evaporate to 

approximately 10 ml liquid in the oven 

at 105 °C. Quantitatively transfer the 

beaker contents to a clean 50 ml pretared weighing container and evaporate 

to dryness at room temperature (not to 

exceed 30 °C (85 °F)) and pressure in a 

laboratory hood. Following evaporation, 

desiccate the residue for 24 hours in a 

desiccator containing anhydrous 

calcium sulfate. Weigh at intervals of at 

least 6 hours to a constant weight (i.e., 

less than or equal to 0.5 mg change from 

previous weighing) and report results to 

the nearest 0.1 mg on Figure 5 of section 

18. 

11.2.6 Container #6, Hexane Field 

Reagent Blank. Use 200 ml of hexane 

from the blank container for this 

analysis. Transfer 150 ml of the hexane 

to a clean 250 ml beaker. Evaporate the 

hexane at room temperature (not to 

exceed 30 °C (85 °F)) and pressure in a 

laboratory hood to approximately 10 ml. 

Quantitatively transfer the beaker 

contents to a clean 50 ml pre-tared 

weighing container and evaporate to 

dryness at room temperature (not to 

exceed 30 °C (85 °F)) and pressure in a 

laboratory hood. Following evaporation, 

desiccate the residue for 24 hours in a 

desiccator containing anhydrous 

calcium sulfate. Weigh at intervals of at 

least 6 hours to a constant weight (i.e., 

less than or equal to 0.5 mg change from 

previous weighing), and report results to 

the nearest 0.1 mg on Figure 5 of section 

18. 

12.0 Calculations and Data Analysis 

12.1 Nomenclature. Report results in 

International System of Units (SI units) 

unless the regulatory authority for 

testing specifies English units. The 

following nomenclature is used. 

DH@ = Pressure drop across orifice at flow 

rate of 0.75 SCFM at standard 

conditions, inches of water column (Note 

Specific to each orifice and meter box). 

17.03 = mg/milliequivalents for ammonium 

ion. 

ACFM = Actual cubic feet per minute. 

Ccpm = Concentration of the condensable PM 

in the stack gas, dry basis, corrected to 

standard conditions, milligrams/dry 

standard cubic foot. 

mc = Mass of the NH4

+ added to sample to 

form ammonium sulfate, mg. 

mcpm = Mass of the total condensable PM, mg. 

mfb = Mass of total CPM in field train proof 

blank, mg. 

mg = Milligrams. 

mg/dscf = Milligrams per dry standard cubic 

foot. 

mg/L = Milligrams per liter. 

mi = Mass of inorganic CPM, mg. 

mib = Mass of inorganic CPM in field train 

proof blank, mg. 

mo = Mass of organic CPM, mg. 

mob = Mass of organic CPM in field train 

blank, mg. 

mr = Mass of dried sample from inorganic 

fraction, mg. 

N = Normality of ammonium hydroxide 

titrant. 

ppmv = Parts per million by volume. 

ppmw = Parts per million by weight. 

Vm(std) = Volume of gas sample measured by 

the dry gas meter, corrected to standard 

conditions, dry standard cubic meter 

(dscm) or dry standard cubic foot (dscf) 

as defined in Equation 5–1 of Method 5. 

Vt = Volume of NH4OH titrant, ml. 

Vp = Volume of water added during train 

purge. 

12.2 Calculations. Use the following 

equations to complete the calculations 

required in this test method. Enter the 

appropriate results from these 

calculations on the CPM Work Table 

(see Figure 7 of section 18). 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
42522 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 173 / Friday, September 8, 2017 / Proposed Rules 

12.2.1 Mass of ammonia correction. 

Correction for ammonia added during 

titration of 100 ml aqueous CPM 

sample. This calculation assumes no 

waters of hydration. 

12.2.2 Mass of the Field Train Proof 

Blank (mg). Per section 9.9, the mass of 

the field train proof blank, mfb, shall not 

exceed 2.0 mg. 

12.2.3 Mass of Inorganic CPM (mg). 

12.2.4 Total Mass of CPM (mg). 

12.2.5 Concentration of CPM (mg/ 

dscf). 

12.3 Emissions Test Report. You 

must prepare a test report following the 

guidance in EPA Guideline Document 

043. 

13.0 Method Performance 

A field evaluation (NCASI 2017) of 

Method 202 incorporating Best Practices 

showed that the detection limit was 1.6 

for total CPM; consisting of 

approximately 1.0 mg for organic CPM 

and approximately 0.6 mg for inorganic 

CPM. This field evaluation also 

demonstrated that the expected blank 

value of the field train proof blank was 

less than 1.8 mg. 

14.0 Pollution Prevention 

[Reserved] 

15.0 Waste Management 

Solvent and water are evaporated in a 

laboratory hood during analysis. No 

liquid waste is generated in the 

performance of this method. Organic 

solvents used to clean sampling 

equipment should be managed as 

Resource Conservation and Recovery 

Act organic waste. 

16.0 Alternative Procedures 

16.1 Alternative Field Train Proof 

Blank Procedure. The following 

procedure may be utilized with 

approval by the regulatory authority at 

stationary sources with environments 

with significant ambient PM 

concentrations that could positively bias 

the results of the Method 202 samples 

collected. This procedure would permit 

you to subtract up to 0.0039 g (3.9 mg) 

from the measured condensable 

particulate mass. 

16.1.1 The facility must request this 

alternative prior to the test program, and 

the request must be approved by the 

regulatory authority prior to the testing. 

The request may include the following 

elements: 

(1) Documented adherence to the Best 

Practices for Method 202 by the tester. 

This documentation may include: 

(a) Tester’s Method 202 standard 

operating procedure (SOP); 

(b) Residual mass of the laboratory 

reagent blanks (Reagent ID, 

Manufacturer, Lot Number); 

(c) Tester-specific Method Detection 

Limit; 

(d) Training records. 

(2) Justification by the facility that the 

environment around the sampling 

location is likely to bias the CPM 

results. This justification may include: 

(a) Schematic of the facility 

identifying locations that may 

contribute to environmental bias; 

(b) Ambient PM concentration (mg/ 

m3); 

(c) Previous test results (i.e., field 

train proof blank results). 

16.1.2 Upon the regularity authority 

approval, you will recover a minimum 

of two field train proof blanks for each 

source category tested at the subject 

facility using glassware prepped 

according to section 8.4 of this method. 

You must perform the field train proof 

blank evaluations as described in 

section 9.9 of this method. 

16.1.3 From each field sample 

weight, you will subtract the average 

condensable particulate mass you 

determine with all of the duplicate field 

train proof blank trains or 0.0039 g (3.9 

mg), whichever is less unless the 

difference between highest and lowest 

values of the field train proof blanks is 

>1.0 mg. If the agreement is >1.0 mg, 

then you must subtract the lowest 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALSEP08SE17.000</GPH> EP08SE17.001</GPH> EP08SE17.002</GPH> EP08SE17.003</GPH> EP08SE17.004</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 173 / Friday, September 8, 2017 / Proposed Rules 42523 

condensable particulate mass values 

you determine with the field train proof 

blank trains or 0.002 g (2.0 mg), 

whichever is less, unless otherwise 

specified by the regulatory authority. 

16.2 Alternative Method 2. 

Thermocouple Calibration (ALT–011) 

for the thermocouple calibration can be 

found at http://www3.epa.gov/ttn/emc/ 

approalt/alt-011.pdf. 

17.0 References 

(1) Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, 

Department of Environmental Resources. 

1960. Chapter 139, Sampling and Testing 

(Title 25, Rules and Regulations, part I, 

Department of Environmental Resources, 

Subpart C, Protection of Natural 

Resources, Article III, Air Resources). 

January 8, 1960. 

(2) DeWees, W.D. and K.C. Steinsberger. 

1989. ‘‘Method Development and 

Evaluation of Draft Protocol for 

Measurement of Condensable Particulate 

Emissions.’’ Draft Report. November 17, 

1989. 

(3) DeWees, W.D., K.C. Steinsberger, G.M. 

Plummer, L.T. Lay, G.D. McAlister, and 

R.T. Shigehara. 1989. ‘‘Laboratory and 

Field Evaluation of EPA Method 5 

Impinger Catch for Measuring 

Condensable Matter from Stationary 

Sources.’’ Paper presented at the 1989 

EPA/AWMA International Symposium 

on Measurement of Toxic and Related 

Air Pollutants. Raleigh, North Carolina. 

May 1–5, 1989. 

(4) Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI). 

2008. ‘‘Laboratory Comparison of 

Methods to Sample and Analyze 

Condensable PM.’’ EPRI Agreement EP– 

P24373/C11811 Condensable Particulate 

Methods: EPRI Collaboration with EPA, 

October 2008. 

(5) Nothstein, Greg. Masters Thesis. 

University of Washington. Department of 

Environmental Health. Seattle, 

Washington. 

(6) Richards, J., T. Holder, and D. Goshaw. 

2005. ‘‘Optimized Method 202 Sampling 

Train to Minimize the Biases Associated 

with Method 202 Measurement of 

Condensable PM Emissions.’’ Paper 

presented at Air & Waste Management 

Association Hazardous Waste 

Combustion Specialty Conference. St. 

Louis, Missouri. November 2–3, 2005. 

(7) Texas Air Control Board, Laboratory 

Division. 1976. ‘‘Determination of 

Particulate in Stack Gases Containing 

Sulfuric Acid and/or Sulfur Dioxide.’’ 

Laboratory Methods for Determination of 

Air Pollutants. Modified December 3, 

1976. 

(8) Puget Sound Air Pollution Control 

Agency, Engineering Division. 1983. 

‘‘Particulate Source Test Procedures 

Adopted by Puget Sound Air Pollution 

Control Agency Board of Directors.’’ 

Seattle, Washington. August 11, 1983. 

(9) U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

Federal Reference Methods 1 through 5 

and Method 17, 40 CFR 60, appendix A– 

1 through A–3 and A–6. 

(10) U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 

2008. ‘‘Evaluation and Improvement of 

Condensable PM Measurement,’’ EPA 

Contract No. EP–D–07–097, Work 

Assignment 2–03, October 2008. 

(11) U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 

2005. ‘‘Laboratory Evaluation of Method 

202 to Determine Fate of SO2 in Impinger 

Water,’’ EPA Contract No. 68–D–02–061, 

Work Assignment 3–14, September 30, 

2005. 

(12) U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 

2010. ‘‘Field Valuation of an Improved 

Method for Sampling and Analysis of 

Filterable and Condensable Particulate 

Matter.’’ Office of Air Quality Planning 

and Standards, Sector Policy and 

Program Division Monitoring Policy 

Group. Research Triangle Park, NC 

27711. 

(13) Wisconsin Department of Natural 

Resources. 1988. Air Management 

Operations Handbook, Revision 3. 

January 11, 1988. 

(14) U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 

2016. ‘‘EPA Method 202 Best Practices 

Handbook.’’ Office of Air Quality 

Planning and Standards, Air Quality 

Assessment Division, Measurements 

Technology Group. Research Triangle 

Park, NC 27711. 

(15) National Council for Air and Stream 

Improvement. Research Brief submitted 

to the US EPA. May 25, 2017. ‘‘Method 

202 Zero Bias Study When Incorporating 

Draft Best Practices Developed by the US 

EPA.’’ NCASI Southern Research Center. 

Newberry, Florida 32669. 

18.0 Tables, Diagrams, Flowcharts, 

and Validation Data 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
42524 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 173 / Friday, September 8, 2017 / Proposed Rules 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALSEP08SE17.005</GPH> EP08SE17.006</GPH>

Figure 1. Schematic of Condensable Particulate Sampling Train 

Set nitrogen flow rate 

to 14 lpm or M@ 

• 

Figure 2. Nitrogen Purge (Entire CPM Train) 
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 173 / Friday, September 8, 2017 / Proposed Rules 42525 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALSEP08SE17.007</GPH>

Filter 

Set nitrogen flow rate 

141pm 

I 

Set nitrogen flow rate 

to 14 lpm or llH@ 

CPM Filter 

Collected 

Collected 

Figure 3. Nitrogen Purge (Alternative Configurations) 
42526 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 173 / Friday, September 8, 2017 / Proposed Rules 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALSEP08SE17.008</GPH>

CPM Impinger Field Data Page 

Plant 

Date 

Source ID 

Run Number 

Mass of Liquid Collected 

CPM Impingers Moisture Trap 

Dropout Back-up 

Impinger Impinger Impinger 

Final- g 

Initial- g 

V P - Water added to purge train - ml 1 ----

Mass of water collected2 

Total mass of water collected 

Condition of Silica Gel 

Post-Test Purge 

Nitrogen CPM Filter 

Time Flowrate- Temp. 

(HH:MM) lpm CF) 

Start 

End 

1 Convert volume of water to mass by multiplying volume by density of water (lg/ml) 2 Final Mass - (Initial mass - water added for purge) 3 If applicable 

Figure 4. CPM Impinger Data Sheet 

Silica Gel 

----

Moisture 

Trap Temp.3 

CF) 

EP08SE17.009</GPH>sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS

Plant Ambient Pres. - "Hg 

ocation !Barometric Pres - "Hg 

Operator Static Press. - "H20 

Date Assumed%M Run Number !Probe Length 

Sample Box Lea

MeterBoxiD IY -Meter Box Cal. Sample Train Vacuum

Pitot Tube ID Cp - Pitot Cal. "Hg 

Nozzle ID ion Nozzle Diameter- in Sample Train Rate - cfm 

IPitot Tube 

Exit to 

AP Moistur

Traverse DGM Velocity Llli Probe Filter CPMFilter Trap 

Point Gas Meter Head Meter Meter Temperatur Temperatur Temperatur Tempera

Number Time Reading Pressure Pressure Vacuum e e e e 

(min) (cf) ("H20) ("H20) ("Hg) CF) CF) CF) CF) 

Figure 5. Field Data Sheet 
42528 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 173 / Friday, September 8, 2017 / Proposed Rules 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALSEP08SE17.010</GPH>

Field Train Proof Blank Condensable Particulate Calculations 

Plant 

Date 

Blank No. 

Field Reagent Blank Mass 

Water (Section 11.2.7) mg 

Acetone (Section 11.2.6) mg 

Hexane (Section 11.2.8) mg 

Field Train Proof Blank Mass 

Mass of Organic CPM (mob)(Section 11.2.3) mg 

Mass oflnorganic CPM (mib)(Equation 3) mg 

Mass of the Field Train Proof Blank (not to exceed 2.0 mg) (Equation 2) mg 

Figure 6. Field Train Proof Blank Condensable Particulate Calculations 
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 173 / Friday, September 8, 2017 / Proposed Rules 42529 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALSEP08SE17.011</GPH>

Calculations for Recovery of Condensable PM (CPM) 

Plant --------------------------------------------------

Date ---------------------------------------------------

RunNo. -------------------------------------------------

Sample Preparation- CPM Containers No.1 and 2 (Section 11.1) 

Was significant volume of water lost during transport? 

YesorNo 

IfY es, measure the volume received. 

Estimate the volume lost during transport. 

Was significant volume of organic rinse lost during 

transport? Yes or No 

IfY es, measure the volume received. 

Estimate the volume lost during transport. 

For Titration 

Normality ofNHpH (N) 

(Section 10.2) 

Volume oftitrant (V) t 

(Section 11.2.2.2) 

Mass ofNH4 added (m) 

(Equation 1) 

For CPM Blank Weights 

Inorganic Field Train ProofBlank Mass(mib) (Section 9.9) 

Organic Field Train Proof Blank Mass (mob) (Section 9.9) 

Mass of Field Train Proof Blank (Mfb) (max. 2 mg) 

(Equation 2) 

For CPM Train Weights 

Mass of Organic CPM (m ) (Section 11.2.3) 0 

Mass oflnorganic CPM (m) (Equation 3) 1 

Total CPM Mass (m ) (Equation 4) cpm 

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

Figure 7. CPM Work Table 

ml 

ml 

N 

ml 

mg 

mg 

mg 

mg 

mg 

mg 

mg 
42530 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 173 / Friday, September 8, 2017 / Proposed Rules 

[FR Doc. 2017–18425 Filed 9–7–17; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–C 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALSEP08SE17.012</GPH>

Collect SailiJ?le 

Using Filterable and 

Condensable Methods 

~ 

Measure Sample Volumes 

8.5.3 

1 

Extract CPM 

Filter 

11.2.1 

+ ~ Combine Filter Extract Combine Filter Extract w/ 

w/Container #1 - Impinger Container #2 Organic Train 

Aqueous SailiJ?le Rinse 

11.2 .1.1 11.2 .1.2 

~ ! 

Extract 

Combine Organic Evaporate Desiccate and Extract w/ 

Combined Aqueous Organic Train Organic Weigh Organic CPM 

Inorganic f-+ Rinse - f--.+ Fraction (Room I_., to Constant Weight 

Fraction Container #2 Temperature and ReEort Results 

11.2 .2 11.2. 3 11.2. 3 11.2. 3 

~ 

Two Step Desiccate and Evaporation to Weigh Aqueous Dryness _., 

(Heated and Inorganic 

Room Temp.) Fraction 

11.2 .2 .1 11.2 .2 .1 

T 

Constant Weight 

Requirement Met? 

..---- ----.. 

NO 

Yes 

Reconstitute 

sample to 100 ml ReEort Results 

11.2 .2 .1 11.2 .2 .1 

~ 

Two Step Desiccate and Titrate Evaporation to Correct Mass for 

Sample with f---+ Dryness -+ Weigh Aqueous ____,.. ~ added and 

0.1 N ~OH (Heated and Inorganic ReEort Results 

11.2 .2 .2 Room Temp. Fraction 

11.2.2.3 11.2.2.4 

11.2 .2. 3 

Figure 8. CPM Sample Processing Flow Chart