Source: https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/40/63.8
Timestamp: 2016-02-11 06:45:13
Document Index: 368931964

Matched Legal Cases: ['art 63', '§ 63', '§ 63', '§ 63', '§ 63', '§ 63', '§ 63', '§ 63', '§ 63', '§ 63', '§ 63', '§ 63', '§ 63', '§ 63', '§ 63', '§ 63', '§ 63', '§ 63', '§ 63', '§ 63', '§ 63', '§ 63', '§ 63', '§ 63', '§ 63', '§ 63', '§ 63', '§ 63', '§ 63', '§ 63', '§ 63', '§ 63', '§ 63', '§ 63', '§ 63', '§ 63', '§ 63', '§ 63', '§ 63', '§ 63', '§ 63', '§ 63', '§ 63', '§ 63', '§ 63', '§ 63', '§ 63', '§ 63', '§ 63', '§ 63', '§ 63', '§ 63', '§ 63', '§ 63', '§ 63', '§ 63', '§ 63']

40 CFR 63.8 - Monitoring requirements. | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute
CFR › Title 40 › Chapter I › Subchapter C › Part 63 › Subpart A › Section 63.8 40 CFR 63.8 - Monitoring requirements.
For the purposes of this part, all CMS required under relevant standards shall be subject to the provisions of this section upon promulgation of performance specifications for CMS as specified in the relevant standard or otherwise by the Administrator.
Additional monitoring requirements for control devices used to comply with provisions in relevant standards of this part are specified in § 63.11.
Conduct of monitoring.
Monitoring shall be conducted as set forth in this section and the relevant standard(s) unless the Administrator—
Specifies or approves the use of minor changes in methodology for the specified monitoring requirements and procedures (see § 63.90(a) for definition); or
Approves the use of an intermediate or major change or alternative to any monitoring requirements or procedures (see § 63.90(a) for definition).
Owners or operators with flares subject to § 63.11(b) are not subject to the requirements of this section unless otherwise specified in the relevant standard.
When the emissions from two or more affected sources are combined before being released to the atmosphere, the owner or operator may install an applicable CMS for each emission stream or for the combined emissions streams, provided the monitoring is sufficient to demonstrate compliance with the relevant standard.
If the relevant standard is a mass emission standard and the emissions from one affected source are released to the atmosphere through more than one point, the owner or operator must install an applicable CMS at each emission point unless the installation of fewer systems is—
Approved by the Administrator; or
Provided for in a relevant standard (e.g., instead of requiring that a CMS be installed at each emission point before the effluents from those points are channeled to a common control device, the standard specifies that only one CMS is required to be installed at the vent of the control device).
When more than one CMS is used to measure the emissions from one affected source (e.g., multiple breechings, multiple outlets), the owner or operator shall report the results as required for each CMS. However, when one CMS is used as a backup to another CMS, the owner or operator shall report the results from the CMS used to meet the monitoring requirements of this part. If both such CMS are used during a particular reporting period to meet the monitoring requirements of this part, then the owner or operator shall report the results from each CMS for the relevant compliance period.
Operation and maintenance of continuous monitoring systems.
The owner or operator of an affected source shall maintain and operate each CMS as specified in this section, or in a relevant standard, and in a manner consistent with good air pollution control practices. (i) The owner or operator of an affected source must maintain and operate each CMS as specified in § 63.6(e)(1).
The owner or operator must keep the necessary parts for routine repairs of the affected CMS equipment readily available.
The owner or operator of an affected source must develop a written startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan for CMS as specified in § 63.6(e)(3).
All CMS must be installed such that representative measures of emissions or process parameters from the affected source are obtained. In addition, CEMS must be located according to procedures contained in the applicable performance specification(s).
Unless the individual subpart states otherwise, the owner or operator must ensure the read out (that portion of the CMS that provides a visual display or record), or other indication of operation, from any CMS required for compliance with the emission standard is readily accessible on site for operational control or inspection by the operator of the equipment.
All CMS shall be installed, operational, and the data verified as specified in the relevant standard either prior to or in conjunction with conducting performance tests under § 63.7. Verification of operational status shall, at a minimum, include completion of the manufacturer's written specifications or recommendations for installation, operation, and calibration of the system.
Except for system breakdowns, out-of-control periods, repairs, maintenance periods, calibration checks, and zero (low-level) and high-level calibration drift adjustments, all CMS, including COMS and CEMS, shall be in continuous operation and shall meet minimum frequency of operation requirements as follows:
All COMS shall complete a minimum of one cycle of sampling and analyzing for each successive 10-second period and one cycle of data recording for each successive 6-minute period.
All CEMS for measuring emissions other than opacity shall complete a minimum of one cycle of operation (sampling, analyzing, and data recording) for each successive 15-minute period.
Unless otherwise approved by the Administrator, minimum procedures for COMS shall include a method for producing a simulated zero opacity condition and an upscale (high-level) opacity condition using a certified neutral density filter or other related technique to produce a known obscuration of the light beam. Such procedures shall provide a system check of all the analyzer's internal optical surfaces and all electronic circuitry, including the lamp and photodetector assembly normally used in the measurement of opacity.
The owner or operator of a CMS that is not a CPMS, which is installed in accordance with the provisions of this part and the applicable CMS performance specification(s), must check the zero (low-level) and high-level calibration drifts at least once daily in accordance with the written procedure specified in the performance evaluation plan developed under paragraphs (e)(3)(i) and (ii) of this section. The zero (low-level) and high-level calibration drifts must be adjusted, at a minimum, whenever the 24-hour zero (low-level) drift exceeds two times the limits of the applicable performance specification(s) specified in the relevant standard. The system shall allow the amount of excess zero (low-level) and high-level drift measured at the 24-hour interval checks to be recorded and quantified whenever specified. For COMS, all optical and instrumental surfaces exposed to the effluent gases must be cleaned prior to performing the zero (low-level) and high-level drift adjustments; the optical surfaces and instrumental surfaces must be cleaned when the cumulative automatic zero compensation, if applicable, exceeds 4 percent opacity. The CPMS must be calibrated prior to use for the purposes of complying with this section. The CPMS must be checked daily for indication that the system is responding. If the CPMS system includes an internal system check, results must be recorded and checked daily for proper operation.
A CMS is out of control if—
The zero (low-level), mid-level (if applicable), or high-level calibration drift (CD) exceeds two times the applicable CD specification in the applicable performance specification or in the relevant standard; or
The CMS fails a performance test audit (e.g., cylinder gas audit), relative accuracy audit, relative accuracy test audit, or linearity test audit; or
The COMS CD exceeds two times the limit in the applicable performance specification in the relevant standard.
When the CMS is out of control, the owner or operator of the affected source shall take the necessary corrective action and shall repeat all necessary tests which indicate that the system is out of control. The owner or operator shall take corrective action and conduct retesting until the performance requirements are below the applicable limits. The beginning of the out-of-control period is the hour the owner or operator conducts a performance check (e.g., calibration drift) that indicates an exceedance of the performance requirements established under this part. The end of the out-of-control period is the hour following the completion of corrective action and successful demonstration that the system is within the allowable limits. During the period the CMS is out of control, recorded data shall not be used in data averages and calculations, or to meet any data availability requirement established under this part.
The owner or operator of a CMS that is out of control as defined in paragraph (c)(7) of this section shall submit all information concerning out-of-control periods, including start and end dates and hours and descriptions of corrective actions taken, in the excess emissions and continuous monitoring system performance report required in § 63.10(e)(3).
The results of the quality control program required in this paragraph will be considered by the Administrator when he/she determines the validity of monitoring data.
The owner or operator of an affected source that is required to use a CMS and is subject to the monitoring requirements of this section and a relevant standard shall develop and implement a CMS quality control program. As part of the quality control program, the owner or operator shall develop and submit to the Administrator for approval upon request a site-specific performance evaluation test plan for the CMS performance evaluation required in paragraph (e)(3)(i) of this section, according to the procedures specified in paragraph (e). In addition, each quality control program shall include, at a minimum, a written protocol that describes procedures for each of the following operations:
Initial and any subsequent calibration of the CMS;
Determination and adjustment of the calibration drift of the CMS;
Preventive maintenance of the CMS, including spare parts inventory;
Data recording, calculations, and reporting;
Accuracy audit procedures, including sampling and analysis methods; and
Program of corrective action for a malfunctioning CMS.
The owner or operator shall keep these written procedures on record for the life of the affected source or until the affected source is no longer subject to the provisions of this part, to be made available for inspection, upon request, by the Administrator. If the performance evaluation plan is revised, the owner or operator shall keep previous (i.e., superseded) versions of the performance evaluation plan on record to be made available for inspection, upon request, by the Administrator, for a period of 5 years after each revision to the plan. Where relevant, e.g., program of corrective action for a malfunctioning CMS, these written procedures may be incorporated as part of the affected source's startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan to avoid duplication of planning and recordkeeping efforts.
Performance evaluation of continuous monitoring systems—
When required by a relevant standard, and at any other time the Administrator may require under section 114 of the Act, the owner or operator of an affected source being monitored shall conduct a performance evaluation of the CMS. Such performance evaluation shall be conducted according to the applicable specifications and procedures described in this section or in the relevant standard.
Notification of performance evaluation.
The owner or operator shall notify the Administrator in writing of the date of the performance evaluation simultaneously with the notification of the performance test date required under § 63.7(b) or at least 60 days prior to the date the performance evaluation is scheduled to begin if no performance test is required.
Submission of site-specific performance evaluation test plan.
Before conducting a required CMS performance evaluation, the owner or operator of an affected source shall develop and submit a site-specific performance evaluation test plan to the Administrator for approval upon request. The performance evaluation test plan shall include the evaluation program objectives, an evaluation program summary, the performance evaluation schedule, data quality objectives, and both an internal and external QA program. Data quality objectives are the pre-evaluation expectations of precision, accuracy, and completeness of data.
The internal QA program shall include, at a minimum, the activities planned by routine operators and analysts to provide an assessment of CMS performance. The external QA program shall include, at a minimum, systems audits that include the opportunity for on-site evaluation by the Administrator of instrument calibration, data validation, sample logging, and documentation of quality control data and field maintenance activities.
The owner or operator of an affected source shall submit the site-specific performance evaluation test plan to the Administrator (if requested) at least 60 days before the performance test or performance evaluation is scheduled to begin, or on a mutually agreed upon date, and review and approval of the performance evaluation test plan by the Administrator will occur with the review and approval of the site-specific test plan (if review of the site-specific test plan is requested).
The Administrator may request additional relevant information after the submittal of a site-specific performance evaluation test plan.
In the event that the Administrator fails to approve or disapprove the site-specific performance evaluation test plan within the time period specified in § 63.7(c)(3), the following conditions shall apply:
If the owner or operator intends to demonstrate compliance using the monitoring method(s) specified in the relevant standard, the owner or operator shall conduct the performance evaluation within the time specified in this subpart using the specified method(s);
If the owner or operator intends to demonstrate compliance by using an alternative to a monitoring method specified in the relevant standard, the owner or operator shall refrain from conducting the performance evaluation until the Administrator approves the use of the alternative method. If the Administrator does not approve the use of the alternative method within 30 days before the performance evaluation is scheduled to begin, the performance evaluation deadlines specified in paragraph (e)(4) of this section may be extended such that the owner or operator shall conduct the performance evaluation within 60 calendar days after the Administrator approves the use of the alternative method. Notwithstanding the requirements in the preceding two sentences, the owner or operator may proceed to conduct the performance evaluation as required in this section (without the Administrator's prior approval of the site-specific performance evaluation test plan) if he/she subsequently chooses to use the specified monitoring method(s) instead of an alternative.
Neither the submission of a site-specific performance evaluation test plan for approval, nor the Administrator's approval or disapproval of a plan, nor the Administrator's failure to approve or disapprove a plan in a timely manner shall—
Conduct of performance evaluation and performance evaluation dates.
The owner or operator of an affected source shall conduct a performance evaluation of a required CMS during any performance test required under § 63.7 in accordance with the applicable performance specification as specified in the relevant standard. Notwithstanding the requirement in the previous sentence, if the owner or operator of an affected source elects to submit COMS data for compliance with a relevant opacity emission standard as provided under § 63.6(h)(7), he/she shall conduct a performance evaluation of the COMS as specified in the relevant standard, before the performance test required under § 63.7 is conducted in time to submit the results of the performance evaluation as specified in paragraph (e)(5)(ii) of this section. If a performance test is not required, or the requirement for a performance test has been waived under § 63.7(h), the owner or operator of an affected source shall conduct the performance evaluation not later than 180 days after the appropriate compliance date for the affected source, as specified in § 63.7(a), or as otherwise specified in the relevant standard.
Reporting performance evaluation results.
The owner or operator shall furnish the Administrator a copy of a written report of the results of the performance evaluation simultaneously with the results of the performance test required under § 63.7 or within 60 days of completion of the performance evaluation if no test is required, unless otherwise specified in a relevant standard. The Administrator may request that the owner or operator submit the raw data from a performance evaluation in the report of the performance evaluation results.
The owner or operator of an affected source using a COMS to determine opacity compliance during any performance test required under § 63.7 and described in § 63.6(d)(6) shall furnish the Administrator two or, upon request, three copies of a written report of the results of the COMS performance evaluation under this paragraph. The copies shall be provided at least 15 calendar days before the performance test required under § 63.7 is conducted.
Use of an alternative monitoring method—
Until permission to use an alternative monitoring procedure (minor, intermediate, or major changes; see definition in § 63.90(a)) has been granted by the Administrator under this paragraph (f)(1), the owner or operator of an affected source remains subject to the requirements of this section and the relevant standard.
After receipt and consideration of written application, the Administrator may approve alternatives to any monitoring methods or procedures of this part including, but not limited to, the following:
Alternative monitoring requirements when installation of a CMS specified by a relevant standard would not provide accurate measurements due to liquid water or other interferences caused by substances within the effluent gases;
Alternative monitoring requirements when the affected source is infrequently operated;
Alternative monitoring requirements to accommodate CEMS that require additional measurements to correct for stack moisture conditions;
Alternative locations for installing CMS when the owner or operator can demonstrate that installation at alternate locations will enable accurate and representative measurements;
Alternate methods for converting pollutant concentration measurements to units of the relevant standard;
Alternate procedures for performing daily checks of zero (low-level) and high-level drift that do not involve use of high-level gases or test cells;
Alternatives to the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) test methods or sampling procedures specified by any relevant standard;
Alternative CMS that do not meet the design or performance requirements in this part, but adequately demonstrate a definite and consistent relationship between their measurements and the measurements of opacity by a system complying with the requirements as specified in the relevant standard. The Administrator may require that such demonstration be performed for each affected source; or
Alternative monitoring requirements when the effluent from a single affected source or the combined effluent from two or more affected sources is released to the atmosphere through more than one point.
If the Administrator finds reasonable grounds to dispute the results obtained by an alternative monitoring method, requirement, or procedure, the Administrator may require the use of a method, requirement, or procedure specified in this section or in the relevant standard. If the results of the specified and alternative method, requirement, or procedure do not agree, the results obtained by the specified method, requirement, or procedure shall prevail.
Request to use alternative monitoring procedure.
An owner or operator who wishes to use an alternative monitoring procedure must submit an application to the Administrator as described in paragraph (f)(4)(ii) of this section. The application may be submitted at any time provided that the monitoring procedure is not the performance test method used to demonstrate compliance with a relevant standard or other requirement. If the alternative monitoring procedure will serve as the performance test method that is to be used to demonstrate compliance with a relevant standard, the application must be submitted at least 60 days before the performance evaluation is scheduled to begin and must meet the requirements for an alternative test method under § 63.7(f).
The application must contain a description of the proposed alternative monitoring system which addresses the four elements contained in the definition of monitoring in § 63.2 and a performance evaluation test plan, if required, as specified in paragraph (e)(3) of this section. In addition, the application must include information justifying the owner or operator's request for an alternative monitoring method, such as the technical or economic infeasibility, or the impracticality, of the affected source using the required method.
The owner or operator may submit the information required in this paragraph well in advance of the submittal dates specified in paragraph (f)(4)(i) above to ensure a timely review by the Administrator in order to meet the compliance demonstration date specified in this section or the relevant standard.
Application for minor changes to monitoring procedures, as specified in paragraph (b)(1) of this section, may be made in the site-specific performance evaluation plan.
Approval of request to use alternative monitoring procedure.
The Administrator will notify the owner or operator of approval or intention to deny approval of the request to use an alternative monitoring method within 30 calendar days after receipt of the original request and within 30 calendar days after receipt of any supplementary information that is submitted. If a request for a minor change is made in conjunction with site-specific performance evaluation plan, then approval of the plan will constitute approval of the minor change. Before disapproving any request to use an alternative monitoring method, the Administrator will notify the applicant of the Administrator's intention to disapprove the request together with—
Notice of opportunity for the owner or operator to present additional information to the Administrator before final action on the request. At the time the Administrator notifies the applicant of his or her intention to disapprove the request, the Administrator will specify how much time the owner or operator will have after being notified of the intended disapproval to submit the additional information.
The Administrator may establish general procedures and criteria in a relevant standard to accomplish the requirements of paragraph (f)(5)(i) of this section.
If the Administrator approves the use of an alternative monitoring method for an affected source under paragraph (f)(5)(i) of this section, the owner or operator of such source shall continue to use the alternative monitoring method until he or she receives approval from the Administrator to use another monitoring method as allowed by § 63.8(f).
Alternative to the relative accuracy test.
An alternative to the relative accuracy test for CEMS specified in a relevant standard may be requested as follows:
Criteria for approval of alternative procedures.
An alternative to the test method for determining relative accuracy is available for affected sources with emission rates demonstrated to be less than 50 percent of the relevant standard. The owner or operator of an affected source may petition the Administrator under paragraph (f)(6)(ii) of this section to substitute the relative accuracy test in section 7 of Performance Specification 2 with the procedures in section 10 if the results of a performance test conducted according to the requirements in § 63.7, or other tests performed following the criteria in § 63.7, demonstrate that the emission rate of the pollutant of interest in the units of the relevant standard is less than 50 percent of the relevant standard. For affected sources subject to emission limitations expressed as control efficiency levels, the owner or operator may petition the Administrator to substitute the relative accuracy test with the procedures in section 10 of Performance Specification 2 if the control device exhaust emission rate is less than 50 percent of the level needed to meet the control efficiency requirement. The alternative procedures do not apply if the CEMS is used continuously to determine compliance with the relevant standard.
Petition to use alternative to relative accuracy test.
The petition to use an alternative to the relative accuracy test shall include a detailed description of the procedures to be applied, the location and the procedure for conducting the alternative, the concentration or response levels of the alternative relative accuracy materials, and the other equipment checks included in the alternative procedure(s). The Administrator will review the petition for completeness and applicability. The Administrator's determination to approve an alternative will depend on the intended use of the CEMS data and may require specifications more stringent than in Performance Specification 2.
Rescission of approval to use alternative to relative accuracy test.
The Administrator will review the permission to use an alternative to the CEMS relative accuracy test and may rescind such permission if the CEMS data from a successful completion of the alternative relative accuracy procedure indicate that the affected source's emissions are approaching the level of the relevant standard. The criterion for reviewing the permission is that the collection of CEMS data shows that emissions have exceeded 70 percent of the relevant standard for any averaging period, as specified in the relevant standard. For affected sources subject to emission limitations expressed as control efficiency levels, the criterion for reviewing the permission is that the collection of CEMS data shows that exhaust emissions have exceeded 70 percent of the level needed to meet the control efficiency requirement for any averaging period, as specified in the relevant standard. The owner or operator of the affected source shall maintain records and determine the level of emissions relative to the criterion for permission to use an alternative for relative accuracy testing. If this criterion is exceeded, the owner or operator shall notify the Administrator within 10 days of such occurrence and include a description of the nature and cause of the increased emissions. The Administrator will review the notification and may rescind permission to use an alternative and require the owner or operator to conduct a relative accuracy test of the CEMS as specified in section 7 of Performance Specification 2.
Reduction of monitoring data.
The owner or operator of each CMS must reduce the monitoring data as specified in paragraphs (g)(1) through (5) of this section.
The owner or operator of each COMS shall reduce all data to 6-minute averages calculated from 36 or more data points equally spaced over each 6-minute period. Data from CEMS for measurement other than opacity, unless otherwise specified in the relevant standard, shall be reduced to 1-hour averages computed from four or more data points equally spaced over each 1-hour period, except during periods when calibration, quality assurance, or maintenance activities pursuant to provisions of this part are being performed. During these periods, a valid hourly average shall consist of at least two data points with each representing a 15-minute period. Alternatively, an arithmetic or integrated 1-hour average of CEMS data may be used. Time periods for averaging are defined in § 63.2.
The data may be recorded in reduced or nonreduced form (e.g., ppm pollutant and percent O2 or ng/J of pollutant).
All emission data shall be converted into units of the relevant standard for reporting purposes using the conversion procedures specified in that standard. After conversion into units of the relevant standard, the data may be rounded to the same number of significant digits as used in that standard to specify the emission limit (e.g., rounded to the nearest 1 percent opacity).
Monitoring data recorded during periods of unavoidable CMS breakdowns, out-of-control periods, repairs, maintenance periods, calibration checks, and zero (low-level) and high-level adjustments must not be included in any data average computed under this part. For the owner or operator complying with the requirements of § 63.10(b)(2)(vii)(A) or (B), data averages must include any data recorded during periods of monitor breakdown or malfunction.
[59 FR 12430, Mar. 16, 1994, as amended at 64 FR 7468, Feb. 12, 1999; 67 FR 16603, Apr. 5, 2002; 71 FR 20455, Apr. 20, 2006]
§ 63.8 Monitoring requirements.
(1) The applicability of this section is set out in § 63.1(a)(4). (2) For the purposes of this part, all CMS required under relevant standards shall be subject to the provisions of this section upon promulgation of performance specifications for CMS as specified in the relevant standard or otherwise by the Administrator.
(4) Additional monitoring requirements for control devices used to comply with provisions in relevant standards of this part are specified in § 63.11.
(1) Monitoring shall be conducted as set forth in this section and the relevant standard(s) unless the Administrator - (i) Specifies or approves the use of minor changes in methodology for the specified monitoring requirements and procedures (see § 63.90(a) for definition); or (ii) Approves the use of an intermediate or major change or alternative to any monitoring requirements or procedures (see § 63.90(a) for definition).
(iii) Owners or operators with flares subject to § 63.11(b) are not subject to the requirements of this section unless otherwise specified in the relevant standard.
(i) When the emissions from two or more affected sources are combined before being released to the atmosphere, the owner or operator may install an applicable CMS for each emission stream or for the combined emissions streams, provided the monitoring is sufficient to demonstrate compliance with the relevant standard. (ii) If the relevant standard is a mass emission standard and the emissions from one affected source are released to the atmosphere through more than one point, the owner or operator must install an applicable CMS at each emission point unless the installation of fewer systems is - (A) Approved by the Administrator; or
(B) Provided for in a relevant standard (e.g., instead of requiring that a CMS be installed at each emission point before the effluents from those points are channeled to a common control device, the standard specifies that only one CMS is required to be installed at the vent of the control device).
(3) When more than one CMS is used to measure the emissions from one affected source (e.g., multiple breechings, multiple outlets), the owner or operator shall report the results as required for each CMS. However, when one CMS is used as a backup to another CMS, the owner or operator shall report the results from the CMS used to meet the monitoring requirements of this part. If both such CMS are used during a particular reporting period to meet the monitoring requirements of this part, then the owner or operator shall report the results from each CMS for the relevant compliance period.
(1) The owner or operator of an affected source shall maintain and operate each CMS as specified in this section, or in a relevant standard, and in a manner consistent with good air pollution control practices. (i) The owner or operator of an affected source must maintain and operate each CMS as specified in § 63.6(e)(1). (ii) The owner or operator must keep the necessary parts for routine repairs of the affected CMS equipment readily available. (iii) The owner or operator of an affected source must develop a written startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan for CMS as specified in § 63.6(e)(3).
(i) All CMS must be installed such that representative measures of emissions or process parameters from the affected source are obtained. In addition, CEMS must be located according to procedures contained in the applicable performance specification(s). (ii) Unless the individual subpart states otherwise, the owner or operator must ensure the read out (that portion of the CMS that provides a visual display or record), or other indication of operation, from any CMS required for compliance with the emission standard is readily accessible on site for operational control or inspection by the operator of the equipment.
(3) All CMS shall be installed, operational, and the data verified as specified in the relevant standard either prior to or in conjunction with conducting performance tests under § 63.7. Verification of operational status shall, at a minimum, include completion of the manufacturer's written specifications or recommendations for installation, operation, and calibration of the system.
(4) Except for system breakdowns, out-of-control periods, repairs, maintenance periods, calibration checks, and zero (low-level) and high-level calibration drift adjustments, all CMS, including COMS and CEMS, shall be in continuous operation and shall meet minimum frequency of operation requirements as follows:
(i) All COMS shall complete a minimum of one cycle of sampling and analyzing for each successive 10-second period and one cycle of data recording for each successive 6-minute period.
(ii) All CEMS for measuring emissions other than opacity shall complete a minimum of one cycle of operation (sampling, analyzing, and data recording) for each successive 15-minute period.
(5) Unless otherwise approved by the Administrator, minimum procedures for COMS shall include a method for producing a simulated zero opacity condition and an upscale (high-level) opacity condition using a certified neutral density filter or other related technique to produce a known obscuration of the light beam. Such procedures shall provide a system check of all the analyzer's internal optical surfaces and all electronic circuitry, including the lamp and photodetector assembly normally used in the measurement of opacity.
(6) The owner or operator of a CMS that is not a CPMS, which is installed in accordance with the provisions of this part and the applicable CMS performance specification(s), must check the zero (low-level) and high-level calibration drifts at least once daily in accordance with the written procedure specified in the performance evaluation plan developed under paragraphs (e)(3)(i) and (ii) of this section. The zero (low-level) and high-level calibration drifts must be adjusted, at a minimum, whenever the 24-hour zero (low-level) drift exceeds two times the limits of the applicable performance specification(s) specified in the relevant standard. The system shall allow the amount of excess zero (low-level) and high-level drift measured at the 24-hour interval checks to be recorded and quantified whenever specified. For COMS, all optical and instrumental surfaces exposed to the effluent gases must be cleaned prior to performing the zero (low-level) and high-level drift adjustments; the optical surfaces and instrumental surfaces must be cleaned when the cumulative automatic zero compensation, if applicable, exceeds 4 percent opacity. The CPMS must be calibrated prior to use for the purposes of complying with this section. The CPMS must be checked daily for indication that the system is responding. If the CPMS system includes an internal system check, results must be recorded and checked daily for proper operation. (7)
(i) A CMS is out of control if - (A) The zero (low-level), mid-level (if applicable), or high-level calibration drift (CD) exceeds two times the applicable CD specification in the applicable performance specification or in the relevant standard; or (B) The CMS fails a performance test audit (e.g., cylinder gas audit), relative accuracy audit, relative accuracy test audit, or linearity test audit; or
(C) The COMS CD exceeds two times the limit in the applicable performance specification in the relevant standard.
(ii) When the CMS is out of control, the owner or operator of the affected source shall take the necessary corrective action and shall repeat all necessary tests which indicate that the system is out of control. The owner or operator shall take corrective action and conduct retesting until the performance requirements are below the applicable limits. The beginning of the out-of-control period is the hour the owner or operator conducts a performance check (e.g., calibration drift) that indicates an exceedance of the performance requirements established under this part. The end of the out-of-control period is the hour following the completion of corrective action and successful demonstration that the system is within the allowable limits. During the period the CMS is out of control, recorded data shall not be used in data averages and calculations, or to meet any data availability requirement established under this part.
(8) The owner or operator of a CMS that is out of control as defined in paragraph (c)(7) of this section shall submit all information concerning out-of-control periods, including start and end dates and hours and descriptions of corrective actions taken, in the excess emissions and continuous monitoring system performance report required in § 63.10(e)(3).
(1) The results of the quality control program required in this paragraph will be considered by the Administrator when he/she determines the validity of monitoring data.
(2) The owner or operator of an affected source that is required to use a CMS and is subject to the monitoring requirements of this section and a relevant standard shall develop and implement a CMS quality control program. As part of the quality control program, the owner or operator shall develop and submit to the Administrator for approval upon request a site-specific performance evaluation test plan for the CMS performance evaluation required in paragraph (e)(3)(i) of this section, according to the procedures specified in paragraph (e). In addition, each quality control program shall include, at a minimum, a written protocol that describes procedures for each of the following operations:
(i) Initial and any subsequent calibration of the CMS;
(ii) Determination and adjustment of the calibration drift of the CMS;
(iii) Preventive maintenance of the CMS, including spare parts inventory;
(iv) Data recording, calculations, and reporting;
(v) Accuracy audit procedures, including sampling and analysis methods; and
(vi) Program of corrective action for a malfunctioning CMS.
(3) The owner or operator shall keep these written procedures on record for the life of the affected source or until the affected source is no longer subject to the provisions of this part, to be made available for inspection, upon request, by the Administrator. If the performance evaluation plan is revised, the owner or operator shall keep previous (i.e., superseded) versions of the performance evaluation plan on record to be made available for inspection, upon request, by the Administrator, for a period of 5 years after each revision to the plan. Where relevant, e.g., program of corrective action for a malfunctioning CMS, these written procedures may be incorporated as part of the affected source's startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan to avoid duplication of planning and recordkeeping efforts.
Performance evaluation of continuous monitoring systems - (1)
General. When required by a relevant standard, and at any other time the Administrator may require under section 114 of the Act, the owner or operator of an affected source being monitored shall conduct a performance evaluation of the CMS. Such performance evaluation shall be conducted according to the applicable specifications and procedures described in this section or in the relevant standard.
Notification of performance evaluation. The owner or operator shall notify the Administrator in writing of the date of the performance evaluation simultaneously with the notification of the performance test date required under § 63.7(b) or at least 60 days prior to the date the performance evaluation is scheduled to begin if no performance test is required.
Submission of site-specific performance evaluation test plan. Before conducting a required CMS performance evaluation, the owner or operator of an affected source shall develop and submit a site-specific performance evaluation test plan to the Administrator for approval upon request. The performance evaluation test plan shall include the evaluation program objectives, an evaluation program summary, the performance evaluation schedule, data quality objectives, and both an internal and external QA program. Data quality objectives are the pre-evaluation expectations of precision, accuracy, and completeness of data.
(ii) The internal QA program shall include, at a minimum, the activities planned by routine operators and analysts to provide an assessment of CMS performance. The external QA program shall include, at a minimum, systems audits that include the opportunity for on-site evaluation by the Administrator of instrument calibration, data validation, sample logging, and documentation of quality control data and field maintenance activities.
(iii) The owner or operator of an affected source shall submit the site-specific performance evaluation test plan to the Administrator (if requested) at least 60 days before the performance test or performance evaluation is scheduled to begin, or on a mutually agreed upon date, and review and approval of the performance evaluation test plan by the Administrator will occur with the review and approval of the site-specific test plan (if review of the site-specific test plan is requested).
(iv) The Administrator may request additional relevant information after the submittal of a site-specific performance evaluation test plan.
(v) In the event that the Administrator fails to approve or disapprove the site-specific performance evaluation test plan within the time period specified in § 63.7(c)(3), the following conditions shall apply:
(A) If the owner or operator intends to demonstrate compliance using the monitoring method(s) specified in the relevant standard, the owner or operator shall conduct the performance evaluation within the time specified in this subpart using the specified method(s);
(B) If the owner or operator intends to demonstrate compliance by using an alternative to a monitoring method specified in the relevant standard, the owner or operator shall refrain from conducting the performance evaluation until the Administrator approves the use of the alternative method. If the Administrator does not approve the use of the alternative method within 30 days before the performance evaluation is scheduled to begin, the performance evaluation deadlines specified in paragraph (e)(4) of this section may be extended such that the owner or operator shall conduct the performance evaluation within 60 calendar days after the Administrator approves the use of the alternative method. Notwithstanding the requirements in the preceding two sentences, the owner or operator may proceed to conduct the performance evaluation as required in this section (without the Administrator's prior approval of the site-specific performance evaluation test plan) if he/she subsequently chooses to use the specified monitoring method(s) instead of an alternative.
(vi) Neither the submission of a site-specific performance evaluation test plan for approval, nor the Administrator's approval or disapproval of a plan, nor the Administrator's failure to approve or disapprove a plan in a timely manner shall - (A) Relieve an owner or operator of legal responsibility for compliance with any applicable provisions of this part or with any other applicable Federal, State, or local requirement; or (B) Prevent the Administrator from implementing or enforcing this part or taking any other action under the Act. (4)
Conduct of performance evaluation and performance evaluation dates. The owner or operator of an affected source shall conduct a performance evaluation of a required CMS during any performance test required under § 63.7 in accordance with the applicable performance specification as specified in the relevant standard. Notwithstanding the requirement in the previous sentence, if the owner or operator of an affected source elects to submit COMS data for compliance with a relevant opacity emission standard as provided under § 63.6(h)(7), he/she shall conduct a performance evaluation of the COMS as specified in the relevant standard, before the performance test required under § 63.7 is conducted in time to submit the results of the performance evaluation as specified in paragraph (e)(5)(ii) of this section. If a performance test is not required, or the requirement for a performance test has been waived under § 63.7(h), the owner or operator of an affected source shall conduct the performance evaluation not later than 180 days after the appropriate compliance date for the affected source, as specified in § 63.7(a), or as otherwise specified in the relevant standard. (5)
(i) The owner or operator shall furnish the Administrator a copy of a written report of the results of the performance evaluation simultaneously with the results of the performance test required under § 63.7 or within 60 days of completion of the performance evaluation if no test is required, unless otherwise specified in a relevant standard. The Administrator may request that the owner or operator submit the raw data from a performance evaluation in the report of the performance evaluation results. (ii) The owner or operator of an affected source using a COMS to determine opacity compliance during any performance test required under § 63.7 and described in § 63.6(d)(6) shall furnish the Administrator two or, upon request, three copies of a written report of the results of the COMS performance evaluation under this paragraph. The copies shall be provided at least 15 calendar days before the performance test required under § 63.7 is conducted.
Use of an alternative monitoring method - (1)
General. Until permission to use an alternative monitoring procedure (minor, intermediate, or major changes; see definition in § 63.90(a)) has been granted by the Administrator under this paragraph (f)(1), the owner or operator of an affected source remains subject to the requirements of this section and the relevant standard.
(2) After receipt and consideration of written application, the Administrator may approve alternatives to any monitoring methods or procedures of this part including, but not limited to, the following: (i) Alternative monitoring requirements when installation of a CMS specified by a relevant standard would not provide accurate measurements due to liquid water or other interferences caused by substances within the effluent gases; (ii) Alternative monitoring requirements when the affected source is infrequently operated; (iii) Alternative monitoring requirements to accommodate CEMS that require additional measurements to correct for stack moisture conditions; (iv) Alternative locations for installing CMS when the owner or operator can demonstrate that installation at alternate locations will enable accurate and representative measurements; (v) Alternate methods for converting pollutant concentration measurements to units of the relevant standard; (vi) Alternate procedures for performing daily checks of zero (low-level) and high-level drift that do not involve use of high-level gases or test cells; (vii) Alternatives to the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) test methods or sampling procedures specified by any relevant standard; (viii) Alternative CMS that do not meet the design or performance requirements in this part, but adequately demonstrate a definite and consistent relationship between their measurements and the measurements of opacity by a system complying with the requirements as specified in the relevant standard. The Administrator may require that such demonstration be performed for each affected source; or (ix) Alternative monitoring requirements when the effluent from a single affected source or the combined effluent from two or more affected sources is released to the atmosphere through more than one point. (3) If the Administrator finds reasonable grounds to dispute the results obtained by an alternative monitoring method, requirement, or procedure, the Administrator may require the use of a method, requirement, or procedure specified in this section or in the relevant standard. If the results of the specified and alternative method, requirement, or procedure do not agree, the results obtained by the specified method, requirement, or procedure shall prevail. (4)
Request to use alternative monitoring procedure. An owner or operator who wishes to use an alternative monitoring procedure must submit an application to the Administrator as described in paragraph (f)(4)(ii) of this section. The application may be submitted at any time provided that the monitoring procedure is not the performance test method used to demonstrate compliance with a relevant standard or other requirement. If the alternative monitoring procedure will serve as the performance test method that is to be used to demonstrate compliance with a relevant standard, the application must be submitted at least 60 days before the performance evaluation is scheduled to begin and must meet the requirements for an alternative test method under § 63.7(f). (ii) The application must contain a description of the proposed alternative monitoring system which addresses the four elements contained in the definition of monitoring in § 63.2 and a performance evaluation test plan, if required, as specified in paragraph (e)(3) of this section. In addition, the application must include information justifying the owner or operator's request for an alternative monitoring method, such as the technical or economic infeasibility, or the impracticality, of the affected source using the required method.
(iii) The owner or operator may submit the information required in this paragraph well in advance of the submittal dates specified in paragraph (f)(4)(i) above to ensure a timely review by the Administrator in order to meet the compliance demonstration date specified in this section or the relevant standard. (iv) Application for minor changes to monitoring procedures, as specified in paragraph (b)(1) of this section, may be made in the site-specific performance evaluation plan. (5)
(i) The Administrator will notify the owner or operator of approval or intention to deny approval of the request to use an alternative monitoring method within 30 calendar days after receipt of the original request and within 30 calendar days after receipt of any supplementary information that is submitted. If a request for a minor change is made in conjunction with site-specific performance evaluation plan, then approval of the plan will constitute approval of the minor change. Before disapproving any request to use an alternative monitoring method, the Administrator will notify the applicant of the Administrator's intention to disapprove the request together with - (A) Notice of the information and findings on which the intended disapproval is based; and (B) Notice of opportunity for the owner or operator to present additional information to the Administrator before final action on the request. At the time the Administrator notifies the applicant of his or her intention to disapprove the request, the Administrator will specify how much time the owner or operator will have after being notified of the intended disapproval to submit the additional information. (ii) The Administrator may establish general procedures and criteria in a relevant standard to accomplish the requirements of paragraph (f)(5)(i) of this section. (iii) If the Administrator approves the use of an alternative monitoring method for an affected source under paragraph (f)(5)(i) of this section, the owner or operator of such source shall continue to use the alternative monitoring method until he or she receives approval from the Administrator to use another monitoring method as allowed by § 63.8(f). (6)
Alternative to the relative accuracy test. An alternative to the relative accuracy test for CEMS specified in a relevant standard may be requested as follows: (i)
Criteria for approval of alternative procedures. An alternative to the test method for determining relative accuracy is available for affected sources with emission rates demonstrated to be less than 50 percent of the relevant standard. The owner or operator of an affected source may petition the Administrator under paragraph (f)(6)(ii) of this section to substitute the relative accuracy test in section 7 of Performance Specification 2 with the procedures in section 10 if the results of a performance test conducted according to the requirements in § 63.7, or other tests performed following the criteria in § 63.7, demonstrate that the emission rate of the pollutant of interest in the units of the relevant standard is less than 50 percent of the relevant standard. For affected sources subject to emission limitations expressed as control efficiency levels, the owner or operator may petition the Administrator to substitute the relative accuracy test with the procedures in section 10 of Performance Specification 2 if the control device exhaust emission rate is less than 50 percent of the level needed to meet the control efficiency requirement. The alternative procedures do not apply if the CEMS is used continuously to determine compliance with the relevant standard. (ii)
Petition to use alternative to relative accuracy test. The petition to use an alternative to the relative accuracy test shall include a detailed description of the procedures to be applied, the location and the procedure for conducting the alternative, the concentration or response levels of the alternative relative accuracy materials, and the other equipment checks included in the alternative procedure(s). The Administrator will review the petition for completeness and applicability. The Administrator's determination to approve an alternative will depend on the intended use of the CEMS data and may require specifications more stringent than in Performance Specification 2. (iii)
Rescission of approval to use alternative to relative accuracy test. The Administrator will review the permission to use an alternative to the CEMS relative accuracy test and may rescind such permission if the CEMS data from a successful completion of the alternative relative accuracy procedure indicate that the affected source's emissions are approaching the level of the relevant standard. The criterion for reviewing the permission is that the collection of CEMS data shows that emissions have exceeded 70 percent of the relevant standard for any averaging period, as specified in the relevant standard. For affected sources subject to emission limitations expressed as control efficiency levels, the criterion for reviewing the permission is that the collection of CEMS data shows that exhaust emissions have exceeded 70 percent of the level needed to meet the control efficiency requirement for any averaging period, as specified in the relevant standard. The owner or operator of the affected source shall maintain records and determine the level of emissions relative to the criterion for permission to use an alternative for relative accuracy testing. If this criterion is exceeded, the owner or operator shall notify the Administrator within 10 days of such occurrence and include a description of the nature and cause of the increased emissions. The Administrator will review the notification and may rescind permission to use an alternative and require the owner or operator to conduct a relative accuracy test of the CEMS as specified in section 7 of Performance Specification 2. The Administrator will review the notification and may rescind permission to use an alternative and require the owner or operator to conduct a relative accuracy test of the CEMS as specified in section 8.4 of Performance Specification 2.
(1) The owner or operator of each CMS must reduce the monitoring data as specified in paragraphs (g)(1) through (5) of this section. (2) The owner or operator of each COMS shall reduce all data to 6-minute averages calculated from 36 or more data points equally spaced over each 6-minute period. Data from CEMS for measurement other than opacity, unless otherwise specified in the relevant standard, shall be reduced to 1-hour averages computed from four or more data points equally spaced over each 1-hour period, except during periods when calibration, quality assurance, or maintenance activities pursuant to provisions of this part are being performed. During these periods, a valid hourly average shall consist of at least two data points with each representing a 15-minute period. Alternatively, an arithmetic or integrated 1-hour average of CEMS data may be used. Time periods for averaging are defined in § 63.2. (3) The data may be recorded in reduced or nonreduced form (e.g., ppm pollutant and percent O2 or ng/J of pollutant). (4) All emission data shall be converted into units of the relevant standard for reporting purposes using the conversion procedures specified in that standard. After conversion into units of the relevant standard, the data may be rounded to the same number of significant digits as used in that standard to specify the emission limit (e.g., rounded to the nearest 1 percent opacity). (5) Monitoring data recorded during periods of unavoidable CMS breakdowns, out-of-control periods, repairs, maintenance periods, calibration checks, and zero (low-level) and high-level adjustments must not be included in any data average computed under this part. For the owner or operator complying with the requirements of § 63.10(b)(2)(vii)(A) or (B), data averages must include any data recorded during periods of monitor breakdown or malfunction.
[59 FR 12430, Mar. 16, 1994, as amended at 64 FR 7468, Feb. 12, 1999; 67 FR 16603, Apr. 5, 2002; 71 FR 20455, Apr. 20, 2006; 79 FR 11277, Feb. 27, 2014]