[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 197 (Thursday, October 9, 2008)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 59956-60005]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-22674]
[[Page 59955]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Part III
Environmental Protection Agency
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
40 CFR Parts 60, 61, and 63
Standards of Performance for New Stationary Sources; National Emission
Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants; and National Emission Standards
for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Source Categories; Proposed Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 197 / Thursday, October 9, 2008 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 59956]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Parts 60, 61, and 63
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0640; FRL-8721-4]
RIN 2060-AJ86
Performance Specification and Quality Assurance Requirements for
Continuous Parameter Monitoring Systems and Amendments to Standards of
Performance for New Stationary Sources; National Emission Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutants; and National Emission Standards for Hazardous
Air Pollutants for Source Categories
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This action proposes Performance Specification 17,
``Specifications and Test Procedures for Continuous Parameter
Monitoring Systems at Stationary Sources'' and Procedure 4, ``Quality
Assurance Requirements for Continuous Parameter Monitoring Systems at
Stationary Sources.'' The proposed performance specification and
quality assurance requirements establish procedures and other
requirements to ensure that the systems are properly selected,
installed, and placed into operation. This action also proposes minor
amendments to Procedure 1 of the ``Quality Assurance Requirements for
Gas Continuous Emission Monitoring Systems Used for Compliance
Determinations'' to address continuous emissions monitoring systems
that are used for monitoring multiple pollutants. Minor changes to the
General Provisions for the Standards of Performance for New Stationary
Sources, the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants,
and the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for
Source Categories are also proposed to ensure consistency between the
proposed Performance Specification 17, Procedure 4, and the General
Provisions and to clarify that Performance Specification 17 and
Procedure 4 apply instead of requirements that pertain specifically to
continuous parameter monitoring systems. Finally, this action proposes
amendments to the current national emission standards for closed vent
systems, control devices and recovery systems to ensure consistency
with Performance Specification 17 and Procedure 4. These actions are
needed to establish consistent requirements for ensuring and assessing
the quality of data measured by continuous parameter monitoring systems
and to provide quality assurance procedures for continuous emission
monitoring systems used to monitor multiple pollutants.
DATES: Comments must be received on or before December 8, 2008. Under
the Paperwork Reduction Act, comments on the information collection
provisions must be received by the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) on or before November 10, 2008.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
OAR-2006-0640, by one of the following methods:
http://www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line
instructions for submitting comments.
E-mail: [email protected].
Fax: (202) 566-9744.
Mail: Performance Specification 17 and Procedure 4 for
Continuous Parameter Monitoring Systems Docket, Docket No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2006-0640, Environmental Protection Agency, EPA Docket Center,
Mailcode: 6102T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460.
Please include a total of two copies. In addition, please mail a copy
of your comments on the information collection provisions to the Office
of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget
(OMB), Attn: Desk Officer for EPA, 725 17th St., NW., Washington, DC
20503.
Hand Delivery: EPA Docket Center, Public Reading Room, EPA
West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460.
Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of
operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of
boxed information.
Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2006-0640. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at
http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you
consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through http://www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The http://www.regulations.gov Web site
is an ``anonymous access'' system, which means EPA will not know your
identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of
your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without
going through http://www.regulations.gov your e-mail address will be
automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is
placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you
submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name
and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any
disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to
technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA
may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid
the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of
any defects or viruses.
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 Air Docket,
EPA/DC, EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington,
DC. The Public Reading Room 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. Barrett Parker, Sector Policies
and Programs Division, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
(D243-05), Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park,
North Carolina 27711, telephone number: (919) 541-5635; e-mail address:
[email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Outline. The information presented in this preamble is organized as
follows:
I. General Information
A. Does this action apply to you?
B. What should you consider as you prepare your comments to EPA?
C. Where can you get a copy of this document and other related
information?
D. Will there be a public hearing?
II. Background
A. What is the regulatory history of the proposed PS-17 and
Procedure 4?
B. What is the regulatory history of the proposed amendments to
Procedure 1?
C. What is the regulatory history of the proposed amendments to
the General Provisions to parts 60, 61, and 63?
D. What is the regulatory history of the proposed amendments to
40 CFR part 63, subpart SS?
[[Page 59957]]
III. Summary of Proposed Performance Specification 17
A. What is the purpose of PS-17?
B. Who must comply with PS-17?
C. When must owners or operators of affected CPMS comply with
PS-17?
D. What are the basic requirements of PS-17?
E. What initial performance criteria must be demonstrated to
comply with PS-17?
F. What are the reporting and recordkeeping requirements for PS-
17?
IV. Summary of Proposed Procedure 4
A. What is the purpose of Procedure 4?
B. Who must comply with Procedure 4?
C. When must owners or operators of affected CPMS comply with
Procedure 4?
D. What are the basic requirements of Procedure 4?
E. How often must accuracy audits and other QA/QC procedures be
performed?
F. What are the reporting and recordkeeping requirements for
Procedure 4?
V. Summary of Proposed Amendments to Procedure 1
A. What is the purpose of the amendments?
B. To whom do the amendments apply?
C. How do the amendments address CEMS that are subject to PS-9?
D. How do the amendments address CEMS that are subject to PS-15?
VI. Summary of Proposed Amendments to the General Provisions to
Parts 60, 61, and 63
A. What is the purpose of the amendments to the General
Provisions to parts 60, 61, and 63?
B. What specific changes are we proposing to the General
Provisions to parts 60, 61, and 63?
VII. Summary of the Proposed Amendments to 40 CFR Part 63, Subpart
SS
A. What is the purpose of the amendments to subpart SS?
B. What specific changes are we proposing to subpart SS?
VIII. Rationale for Selecting the Proposed Requirements of
Performance Specification 17
A. What information did we use to develop PS-17?
B. How did we select the applicability criteria for PS-17?
C. How did we select the parameters that are addressed by PS-17?
D. Why did we include requirements for flow CPMS in PS-17 if PS-
6 already specifies requirements for flow sensors?
E. How did we select the equipment requirements?
F. How did we select the installation and location requirements?
G. How did we select the initial QA measures?
H. How did we select the methods for performing the initial
validation check?
I. How did we select the performance criteria for the initial
validation check?
J. How did we select the recordkeeping requirements?
IX. Rationale for Selecting the Proposed Requirements of Procedure 4
A. What information did we use to develop Procedure 4?
B. Why did we decide to apply Procedure 4 to all CPMS that are
subject to PS-17?
C. How did we select the accuracy audit procedures?
D. How did we select the accuracy audit frequencies?
E. How did we select the performance criteria for accuracy
audits?
F. How did we select the recordkeeping requirements?
X. Rationale for Selecting the Proposed Amendments to Procedure 1
A. How did we select the amendments to Procedure 1 that apply to
PS-9?
B. How did we select the amendments to Procedure 1 that apply to
PS-15?
XI. Rationale for Selecting the Proposed Amendments to the General
Provisions to Parts 60, 61, and 63
A. How did we select the amendments to the General Provisions to
parts 60, 61, and 63?
XII. Rationale for Selecting the Proposed Amendments to 40 CFR Part
63, Subpart SS
A. How did we select the amendments to subpart SS?
XIII. Summary of Environmental, Energy, and Economic Impacts
A. What are the impacts of PS-17 and Procedure 4?
B. What are the impacts of the amendments to Procedure 1?
C. What are the impacts of the amendments to the General
Provisions to parts 60, 61, and 63?
D. What are the impacts of the amendments to subpart SS?
XIV. Solicitation of Comments and Public Participation
XV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review
B. Paperwork Reduction Act
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With
Indian Tribal Governments
G. Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children From
Environmental Health Risks & Safety Risks
H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
I. National Technology Transfer Advancement Act
J. 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 you?
The proposed Performance Specification 17 (PS-17) and Procedure 4
would apply to any facility that is required to install a new
continuous parameter monitoring system (CPMS), relocate an existing
CPMS, or replace an existing CPMS under any applicable subpart of 40
CFR parts 60, 61, or 63, with certain exceptions. Moreover, the
proposed PS-17 and Procedure 4 would become effective upon permit
renewal (or within 5 years for area sources that are exempt from title
V permitting) for any affected facility subject to an applicable
subpart of 40 CFR parts 60, 61, or 63, with certain exceptions. Table 1
of this preamble lists the applicable rules by subpart and the
corresponding source categories to which the proposed PS-17 and
Procedure 4 would apply.
Table 1--Source Categories That Would Be Subject to PS-17 and Procedure 4
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subpart(s) Source category
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
40 CFR part 63
����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������
O................................... Commercial Ethylene Oxide Sterilization/Fumigation Facilities.
R................................... Gasoline Distribution Facilities (Bulk Gasoline Terminals and Pipeline
Breakout Stations).
S................................... Pulp and Paper--Process Operations.
X................................... Secondary Lead Smelters.
EE.................................. Magnetic Tape Manufacturing Operations.
GG.................................. Aerospace Manufacturing and Rework.
HH.................................. Oil and Natural Gas Production Facilities.
JJ.................................. Wood Furniture Manufacturing Operations.
KK.................................. Printing and Publishing.
MM.................................. Combustion Sources at Kraft, Soda & Sulfite Pulp & Paper Mills.
[[Page 59958]]
YY.................................. Spandex.
YY.................................. Cyanide Chemical Manufacture.
YY.................................. Carbon Black Production.
CCC................................. Steel Pickling--HCl Process Facilities and Hydrochloric Acid Regeneration
Plants.
EEE................................. Hazardous Waste Combustors.
GGG................................. Pharmaceuticals Production.
HHH................................. Natural Gas Transmission and Storage Facilities.
MMM................................. Pesticide Active Ingredient Production.
NNN................................. Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing.
RRR................................. Secondary Aluminum Production.
UUU................................. Petroleum Refineries: Catalytic Cracking Units, Catalytic Reforming Units,
and Sulfur Recovery Units.
DDDD................................ Plywood & Composite Wood Products.
EEEE................................ Organic Liquids Distribution (non-gasoline).
FFFF................................ Miscellaneous Organic Chemical Manufacturing.
HHHH................................ Wet-Formed Fiberglass Mat Production.
IIII................................ Surface Coating of Automobiles and Light Duty Trucks.
JJJJ................................ Paper & Other Web (surface coating).
KKKK................................ Surface Coating of Metal Cans.
PPPP................................ Surface Coating of Plastic Parts & Products.
QQQQ................................ Surface Coating of Wood Building Products.
RRRR................................ Surface Coating of Metal Furniture.
SSSS................................ Surface Coating of Metal Coil.
UUUU................................ Cellulose Products Manufacturing.
VVVV................................ Boat Manufacturing.
WWWW................................ Reinforced Plastics Composites Production.
XXXX................................ Rubber Tire Manufacturing.
YYYY................................ Stationary Combustion Turbines.
ZZZZ................................ Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engines.
CCCCC............................... Coke Ovens: Pushing, Quenching, & Battery Stacks.
DDDDD............................... Industrial/Commercial/Institutional Boilers and Process Heaters.
EEEEE............................... Iron and Steel Foundries.
FFFFF............................... Integrated Iron and Steel Manufacturing Facilities.
GGGGG............................... Site Remediation.
HHHHH............................... Miscellaneous Coating Manufacturing.
MMMMM............................... Flexible Polyurethane Foam Fabrication Operations.
NNNNN............................... Hydrochloric Acid Production.
PPPPP............................... Engine Test Cells/Stands.
QQQQQ............................... Friction Materials.
RRRRR............................... Taconite Iron Ore Processing.
TTTTT............................... Primary Magnesium Refining.
ZZZZZ............................... Iron and Steel Foundries Area Sources.
LLLLLL.............................. Acrylic and Modacrylic Fibers Production Area Sources.
OOOOOO.............................. Flexible Polyurethane Foam Production and Fabrication Area Sources.
PPPPPP.............................. Lead Acid Battery Manufacturing Area Sources.
SSSSSS.............................. Glass Manufacturing Area Sources.
�������������������������������������
40 CFR part 60
����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������
Ea.................................. Municipal Waste Combustors after December 20, 1989 and on or before
September 20, 1994.
Ec.................................. Hospital, Medical, and Infectious Waste Incinerators.
J................................... Petroleum Refineries.
O................................... Sewage Treatment Plants.
T, U, V, W, X....................... Phosphate Fertilizer Industry.
Y................................... Coal Preparation Plants (>200 tons per day).
Z................................... Ferroalloy Production Facilities.
AA.................................. Steel Plants: EAF's and Oxygen Decarburization Vessels after October 21,
1974 and on or before August 17, 1983.
BB.................................. Kraft Pulp Mills.
HH.................................. Lime Manufacturing Plants.
LL.................................. Metallic Mineral Processing Plants.
NN.................................. Phosphate rock plants (with prod. capacity >4 ton/hr).
PP.................................. Ammonium Sulfate Manufacture.
RR.................................. Pressure Sensitive Tape and Label Surface Coating Operations.
FFF................................. Flexible Vinyl and Urethane Coating and Printing.
LLL................................. Onshore Natural Gas Processing: SO2 Emissions.
[[Page 59959]]
UUU................................. Calciners and Dryers in Mineral Industries.
VVV................................. Polymeric Coating of Supporting Substrates Facilities.
AAAA................................ Small Municipal Waste Combustion Units Constructed after August 30, 1999.
�������������������������������������
40 CFR part 61
����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������
K................................... Radionuclide Emissions from Elemental Phosphorus Plants.
L................................... Benzene from Coke By-Product Recovery Plants.
BB.................................. Benzene Emissions from Benzene Transfer Operations.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The requirements of the proposed PS-17 and Procedure 4 may also
apply to stationary sources located in a State, District, Reservation,
or Territory that adopts PS-17 or Procedure 4 in its implementation
plan. The exceptions to the applicability criteria for PS-17 and
Procedure 4 are those source categories that are subject to part 63
rules that specify that Sec. 63.8(a)(2) of the General Provisions for
the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP)
for Source Categories in 40 CFR part 63, subpart A does not apply to
the source category. Section 63.8(a)(2) specifies that rules
promulgated under part 63 are subject to the monitoring provisions of
Sec. 63.8 upon promulgation of performance specifications (i.e., the
proposed PS-17). Consequently, rules which specify that Sec.
63.8(a)(2) does not apply, are not subject to PS-17 or Procedure 4.
Table 2 of this preamble lists the part 63 rules that require CPMS but
would not be subject to PS-17 or Procedure 4 for this reason.
Table 2--Part 63 Rules Not Subject to PS-17 or Procedure 4
[Sec. 63.8(a)(2) does not apply]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subpart(s) Source category
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
F, G, H, I..................................... Hazardous Organic NESHAP.
U.............................................. Polymers and Resins (Group I).
AA............................................. Phosphoric Acid Plants.
BB............................................. Phosphate Fertilizer Production.
CC............................................. Petroleum Refineries.
DD............................................. Offsite Waste and Recovery Operations.
DDD............................................ Mineral Wool.
III............................................ Flexible Polyurethane Foam Production.
JJJ............................................ Polymers and Resins (Group IV).
LLL............................................ Portland Cement Manufacturing.
OOO............................................ Amino/Phenolic Resins Production.
PPP............................................ Polyether Polyols Production.
AAAA........................................... Municipal Solid Waste Landfills.
TTTT........................................... Leather Tanning and Finishing Operations.
IIIII.......................................... Mercury Cell Chlor-Alkali Plants.
LLLLL.......................................... Asphalt Roofing and Processing.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The standard industrial classification (SIC) codes and North
American Industry Classification System (NAICS) codes that correspond
to potentially regulated entities are listed in Tables 3 and 4 of this
preamble, respectively. To determine the specific types of industry
referenced by the SIC or NAICS codes, go to http://www.osha.gov/pls/imis/sic_manual.html or http://www.osha.gov/oshstats/naics-manual.html, respectively.
[[Page 59960]]
Table 3--SIC Codes for Potentially Regulated Entities
------------------------------------------------------------------------
SIC code
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
12, 42, 44, 47, 109, 279, 281, 282, 283, 284, 285, 286, 287, 289, 386,
1011, 1021, 1031, 1041, 1044, 1051, 1061, 1099, 1311, 1321, 1411, 1422,
1423, 1429, 1442, 1445, 1446, 1454, 1455, 1459, 1474, 1475, 1479, 1492,
1496, 1499, 2034, 2035, 2046, 2099, 2211, 2241, 2295, 2296, 2392, 2394,
2396, 2399, 2421, 2426, 2429, 2431, 2435, 2436, 2439, 2441, 2448, 2449,
2451, 2452, 2491, 2493, 2499, 2514, 2522, 2531, 2542, 2599, 2611, 2621,
2631, 2652, 2653, 2655, 2656, 2657, 2671, 2672, 2673, 2674, 2675, 2676,
2677, 2678, 2679, 2711, 2721, 2741, 2754, 2759, 2761, 2771, 2812, 2813,
2816, 2819, 2821, 2822, 2823, 2824, 2832, 2833, 2834, 2835, 2836, 2841,
2842, 2843, 2844, 2851, 2861, 2865, 2869, 2873, 2874, 2875, 2879, 2891,
2892, 2893, 2895, 2899, 2911, 2951, 2952, 2992, 2999, 3011, 3021, 3052,
3053, 3061, 3069, 3074, 3079, 3081, 3082, 3083, 3084, 3085, 3086, 3087,
3088, 3089, 3111, 3131, 3142, 3143, 3144, 3149, 3161, 3171, 3172, 3199,
3211, 3221, 3229, 3274, 3281, 3291, 3292, 3295, 3296, 3299, 3312, 3313,
3315, 3316, 3317, 3321, 3322, 3324, 3325, 3329, 3331, 3334, 3339, 3341,
3351, 3353, 3354, 3355, 3356, 3357, 3363, 3364, 3365, 3366, 3369, 3398,
3399, 3411, 3412, 3421, 3423, 3425, 3429, 3431, 3432, 3441, 3442, 3443,
3444, 3446, 3448, 3449, 3451, 3452, 3462, 3463, 3465, 3466, 3469, 3471,
3479, 3482, 3483, 3484, 3489, 3491, 3492, 3493, 3494, 3495, 3497, 3499,
3511, 3519, 3523, 3524, 3531, 3537, 3543, 3545, 3559, 3562, 3566, 3568,
3569, 3579, 3585, 3592, 3599, 3621, 3634, 3639, 3644, 3645, 3646, 3647,
3663, 3677, 3691, 3693, 3694, 3695, 3711, 3713, 3714, 3715, 3716, 3720,
3721, 3724, 3726, 3728, 3731, 3732, 3743, 3751, 3760, 3761, 3764, 3765,
3769, 3792, 3795, 3799, 3821, 3829, 3841, 3842, 3843, 3851, 3861, 3911,
3914, 3915, 3931, 3942, 3944, 3949, 3951, 3952, 3953, 3955, 3961, 3965,
3991, 3993, 3995, 3996, 3999, 4225, 4226, 4512, 4581, 4612, 4911, 4922,
4923, 4924, 4925, 4931, 4932, 4939, 4941, 4952, 4953, 4961, 4971, 5086,
5122, 5149, 5169, 5171, 5172, 5541, 5995, 7218, 7231, 7241, 7391, 7397,
7399, 7534, 7538, 7539, 7641, 7699, 7911, 7999, 8062, 8063, 8069, 8071,
8072, 8091, 8211, 8221, 8222, 8231, 8243, 8244, 8249, 8299, 8411, 8711,
8731, 8734, 8741, 8748, 8922, 9511, 9661, 9711
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 4--NAICS Codes for Potentially Regulated Entities
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NAICS code
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
211, 221, 316, 321, 322, 324, 325, 326, 331, 332, 336, 339, 611, 622,
2123, 2211, 3231, 3241, 3251, 3252, 3253, 3254, 3255, 3256, 3259, 3271,
3273, 3274, 3279, 3327, 3328, 3329, 3332, 3335, 3339, 3341, 3342, 3343,
3344, 3361, 3362, 3363, 4227, 5622, 5629, 21221, 22121, 22132, 31332,
32211, 32222, 32411, 32613, 32614, 32615, 32791, 33422, 33634, 33992,
33995, 42269, 42271, 45431, 48611, 48621, 49311, 49319, 51113, 51114,
51223, 54171, 56220, 56221, 56292, 81142, 92411, 92711, 92811, 111998,
112519, 112910, 112990, 211111, 211112, 212111, 212112, 212113, 212210,
212221, 212222, 212231, 212234, 212299, 212319, 212322, 212324, 212325,
212393, 212399, 213113, 221112, 221320, 238910, 311211, 311212, 311221,
311225, 311340, 311421, 311423, 311823, 311830, 311911, 311920, 311941,
311942, 311991, 311999, 313210, 313320, 314911, 314992, 315299, 315999,
321211, 321212, 321213, 321214, 321219, 321911, 321918, 321999, 322110,
322121, 322122, 322130, 322211, 322212, 322213, 322215, 322221, 322222,
322223, 322224, 322225, 322226, 322231, 322291, 322299, 323111, 323112,
323116, 323119, 324121, 324199, 325131, 325181, 325182, 325188, 325192,
325199, 325211, 325221, 325222, 325311, 325312, 325320, 325411, 325412,
325991, 326111, 326113, 326121, 326122, 326150, 326191, 326192, 326199,
326211, 326212, 326299, 327211, 327212, 327213, 327410, 327991, 327992,
327993, 327999, 331111, 331112, 331210, 331221, 331222, 331312, 331315,
331316, 331319, 331419, 331492, 331511, 331512, 331513, 331521, 331524,
332115, 332116, 332212, 332431, 332612, 332618, 332812, 332912, 332951,
332999, 333111, 333112, 333120, 333313, 333319, 333611, 333612, 333613,
333618, 334613, 335121, 335122, 335312, 335911, 336111, 336112, 336120,
336211, 336213, 336214, 336312, 336350, 336399, 336411, 336412, 336413,
336414, 336415, 336419, 336612, 336992, 336999, 337124, 337127, 337214,
337215, 339111, 339112, 339114, 339911, 339912, 339914, 339999, 424690,
424720, 425110, 425120, 481111, 483111, 483112, 483113, 483114, 483211,
483212, 484110, 484121, 484122, 484210, 484220, 484230, 487210, 488111,
488119, 488190, 488310, 488320, 488330, 488390, 488490, 492110, 492210,
493110, 493120, 493130, 493190, 511199, 531130, 532411, 541380, 541710,
541990, 561720, 562111, 562112, 562119, 562213, 562219, 611310, 611692,
622110, 622310, 713930, 811111, 811118, 811310, 811411, 811420, 924110,
928110
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The proposed amendments to Procedure 1 (40 CFR part 60, appendix F)
would apply to any facility that operates a continuous emission
monitoring system (CEMS) that is subject to PS-9 or PS-15 (40 CFR part
60, appendix B) and also must comply with 40 CFR part 60, appendix F.
The proposed amendments to the General Provisions to 40 CFR parts 60,
61, and 63 would apply to the same facilities that the proposed PS-17
and Procedure 4 would apply. The proposed amendments to 40 CFR part 63,
subpart SS, would apply to producers and coproducers of hydrogen
cyanide; sodium cyanide; carbon black by thermal-oxidative
decomposition in a closed system, thermal decomposition in a cyclic
process, or thermal decomposition in a continuous process; ethylene
from refined petroleum or liquid hydrocarbons; and spandex by reaction
spinning.
To determine whether your facility would be regulated by this
action, you should examine the applicability criteria in section 1.2 of
proposed PS-17 and the applicability criteria in the part 60, 61, or 63
standard to which your facility is subject. If you have any questions
regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity,
consult either the air permit authority for the entity or your EPA
regional representative as listed in Sec. 63.13 of the General
Provisions to part 63 (40 CFR part 63, subpart A).
B. What should you consider as you prepare your comments for EPA?
Do not submit information containing CBI to EPA through http://www.regulations.gov or e-mail. Send or deliver information identified
as CBI only to the following address: Roberto Morales, OAQPS Document
Control Officer (C404-02), U.S. EPA, Office of Air Quality Planning and
Standards, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711, Attention
Docket ID EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0640. 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 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 so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with
procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.
[[Page 59961]]
C. Where can you get a copy of this document and other related
information?
In addition to being available in the docket, an electronic copy of
these proposed actions will also be available on the Worldwide Web
(WWW) through the Technology Transfer Network (TTN). A copy of this
proposed action will be posted on the TTN's policy and guidance page
for newly proposed or promulgated rules at the following address:
http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg/. The TTN provides information and
technology exchange in various areas of air pollution control.
D. Will there be a public hearing?
The EPA will hold a public hearing on this proposed rule only if
requested by November 10, 2008. The request for a public hearing should
be made in writing and addressed to Mr. Barrett Parker, Sector Policies
and Programs Division, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
(D243-05), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle
Park, North Carolina 27711. The hearing, if requested, will be held on
a date and at a place published in a separate Federal Register notice.
II. Background
A. What is the regulatory history of the proposed PS-17 and Procedure
4?
Monitoring of emissions, control device operating parameters, and
process operations has been a requirement of many of the emission
standards that we have promulgated under the authority of the Clean Air
Act (CAA). Recognizing the need for good quality data, we initially
developed performance specifications for CEMS. These performance
specifications stipulate CEMS equipment design, location, and
installation requirements and focus on the initial performance of CEMS.
To address the ongoing performance of CEMS, we developed quality
assurance (QA) procedures.
The basis for performance specifications for CPMS was initially
established by the General Provisions for Standards of Performance for
New Stationary Sources in 40 CFR part 60, subpart A. Section 60.13(a),
which addresses monitoring requirements, states that ``* * * all
continuous monitoring systems required under applicable subparts shall
be subject to the provisions of this section upon promulgation of
performance specifications for continuous monitoring systems under
appendix B to this part * * *'' As defined in Sec. 60.2, these
``continuous monitoring systems'' include those systems that are used
to measure and record process parameters. Section 60.13 specifies basic
requirements for the installation, validation, and operation of
continuous monitoring systems, including CPMS. General recordkeeping
requirements for CPMS required under part 60 are specified in Sec.
60.7(f).
Section 61.14 of the NESHAP General Provisions in 40 CFR part 61,
subpart A also addresses CPMS, although in less detail than does Sec.
60.13. Included in the requirements for CPMS under part 61 are
provisions for the general operation and maintenance of continuous
monitoring systems, monitoring system performance evaluations, and
recordkeeping.
With the enactment of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 (1990
Amendments), we have placed increased emphasis on the collection and
use of monitoring data as a means of ensuring continuous compliance
with emission standards. In response to the mandates of the 1990
Amendments, we incorporated into the General Provisions to part 63,
basic requirements for all continuous monitoring systems (CMS). Section
63.2 broadly defines CMS to include CPMS, as well as CEMS and other
forms of monitoring that are used to demonstrate compliance with
applicable regulations. In Sec. 63.8(a)(2), the General Provisions
specify that, ``* * * 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.'' As is the case for part
60, the General Provisions to part 63 establish the need for
performance specifications for CPMS.
Rules promulgated under parts 60, 61, and 63 generally require
owners or operators of affected sources to use CPMS to monitor the
performance of emission control devices associated with those sources.
Although many of these standards specify general design, installation,
and calibration requirements for CPMS, these rules do not include
specific performance requirements for CPMS. In addition, neither the
General Provisions nor the subparts to parts 60, 61, and 63 fully
specify procedures and criteria for ensuring that CPMS provide good
quality data initially and on an ongoing basis. By proposing a new
performance specification and QA procedure specifically for CPMS, we
would be establishing standards for the design, installation,
operation, and maintenance of CPMS that will help to ensure the
generation of good quality data on a consistent basis.
The proposed requirements for CPMS also reflect EPA's commitment to
improving the quality of data collected and disseminated by the Agency.
Although we have always recognized its importance, there has been
increased emphasis on ensuring data quality in response to section 515
of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act for Fiscal
Year 2001 (Pub. L. 106-554), which directs the OMB to issue guidelines
that ``provide policy and procedural guidance to Federal agencies for
ensuring and maximizing the quality, objectivity, utility, and
integrity of information * * * disseminated by Federal agencies.'' On
September 28, 2001, OMB issued final Guidelines for Ensuring and
Maximizing the Quality, Objectivity, Utility, and Integrity of
Information Disseminated by Federal Agencies (66 FR 49718). These
guidelines require Federal agencies to adopt ``* * * a basic standard
of quality (including objectivity, utility, and integrity) as a
performance goal and should take appropriate steps to incorporate
information quality criteria into agency dissemination practices.'' The
guidelines also require agencies to ``* * * develop a process for
reviewing the quality (including objectivity, utility, and integrity)
of information before it is disseminated * * *'' and that the process
must ``* * * enable the agency to substantiate the quality of the
information it has disseminated through documentation or other means
appropriate to the information.''
In response to the OMB guidelines, we developed ``Guidelines for
Ensuring and Maximizing the Quality, Objectivity, Utility, and
Integrity of Information Disseminated by the Environmental Protection
Agency'' (EPA/260R-02-008, October 2002). As noted in these guidelines,
we are committed to ensuring the quality control of information
collected through regulatory requirements, such as this proposed rule,
by specifying analytical procedures for data collection and sample
analysis that will produce good quality data. We believe the procedures
specified in the proposed PS-17 and Procedure 4 will help to ensure the
quality of data measured and recorded by affected CPMS, which may
subsequently be collected and disseminated by EPA.
This proposed rule also represents an important part of our efforts
to implement the recommendations developed by the Air Quality
Management Work Group in response to the National Research Council
(NRC) report on Air Quality Management in the United States.
Specifically, the
[[Page 59962]]
recommendations developed by the Work Group call for improving
emissions factors and other emissions estimation methods and reducing
the uncertainty in emissions inventories and air quality modeling
applications. When emissions factors and other methods are used to
estimate emissions from controlled sources, the assumption is that the
control device is operating properly. The improved monitoring of air
pollution control device parameters that would be achieved by the
proposed PS-17 and Procedure 4 would help to ensure that affected
control devices are operated properly, and, when problems arise,
corrective action is taken in a timely manner. Furthermore, the
improved monitoring will help to reduce the uncertainty and improve the
reliability of emission estimates that typically are based on the
assumptions that emission controls are being operated properly and are
performing as designed.
B. What is the regulatory history of the proposed amendments to
Procedure 1?
Quality Assurance Procedure 1 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix F,
specifies QA procedures for CEMS. At the time that Procedure 1 was
promulgated, affected CEMS were designed to monitor a single gaseous
pollutant. Since that time, emission standards have been promulgated
under parts 60, 61, and 63 that require the installation and operation
of CEMS that monitor multiple pollutants. Although most of the
provisions of Procedure 1 can be applied directly to multiple pollutant
CEMS, there are differences in how multiple pollutant CEMS operate and
how their performance should be assessed. We are proposing amendments
to Procedure 1 to address those differences.
C. What is the regulatory history of the proposed amendments to the
General Provisions to parts 60, 61, and 63?
The only purpose of these proposed amendments to the General
Provisions to parts 60 and 61 is to ensure consistency between those
provisions, the applicable subparts to parts 60 and 61 that require the
use of CPMS, and the requirements of the proposed PS-17 and Procedure
4. As this is the initial proposal of PS-17 and Procedure 4, there is
no regulatory history to these proposed amendments to the General
Provisions to parts 60 and 61.
We proposed amendments to the monitoring requirements of the
General Provisions to part 63 on March 23, 2001 (66 FR 16318) and
promulgated those amendments on April 5, 2002 (67 FR 16582). At the
time we proposed those amendments, we had not yet developed PS-17 or
Procedure 4. As a result, the amendments to the General Provisions,
which were incorporated into Sec. 63.8, are not consistent with the
requirements of PS-17 and Procedure 4 that we are now proposing. With
this proposal of PS-17 and Procedure 4, we decided that additional
amendments to the General Provisions to part 63 were needed to ensure
consistency between subpart A of part 63, PS-17, Procedure 4, and the
applicable subparts to part 63 that require CPMS.
D. What is the regulatory history of the proposed amendments to 40 CFR
part 63, subpart SS?
On June 29, 1999, we promulgated the consolidated rulemaking
proposal for the ``generic MACT standards'' program (64 FR 34866). The
generic MACT program established an alternative methodology for making
maximum achievable control technology (MACT) determinations for
appropriate small categories by referring to previous MACT standards
that have been promulgated for similar sources in other categories.
Initially, the generic MACT standards applied to four source
categories: Acetal Resins Production, Acrylic and Modacrylic Fibers
Production, Hydrogen Fluoride Production, and Polycarbonate Production.
We included in the consolidated rulemaking package general control
requirements for certain types of hazardous air pollutant (HAP)
emissions from storage vessels containing organic materials, process
vents emitting organic vapors, and leaks from equipment components. We
also established a separate subpart SS, which specifies requirements
for closed vent systems, control devices, recovery devices and routing
emissions to fuel gas systems or a process. We included in Sec. 63.996
of subpart SS general monitoring requirements for control and recovery
devices. On December 6, 2000, we proposed revisions to the monitoring
requirements of subpart SS (65 FR 76444). Those proposed revisions
specified in greater detail the requirements for CPMS that are used to
monitor temperature, pressure, or pH. At the time these revisions to
subpart SS were proposed, we were in the early stages of developing PS-
17 and Procedure 4 and had not yet refined many of the requirements for
CPMS that we are proposing today. However, with this proposal of PS-17
and Procedure 4, we concluded that it would be appropriate to propose
further amendments to subpart SS to ensure consistency with PS-17 and
Procedure 4.
III. Summary of Proposed Performance Specification 17
A. What is the purpose of PS-17?
The purpose of PS-17 is to establish the initial installation and
performance procedures that are required for evaluating the
acceptability of a CPMS that is used to monitor specific process or
control device parameters. The specific parameters that would be
addressed by the proposed PS-17 are temperature, pressure, liquid flow
rate, gas flow rate, mass flow rate, pH, and conductivity. Mass flow
rate includes the mass flow of liquids as well as solids, such as the
flow of powders or dry solid material into a processing unit. As
proposed, the requirements for the selection, installation, and
validation of CPMS specified in PS-17 would apply instead of the
corresponding requirements in an applicable subpart to parts 60, 61, or
63 that requires the use of CPMS for monitoring temperature, pressure,
flow rate, pH, or conductivity.
B. Who must comply with PS-17?
The proposed PS-17 would apply to CPMS that are used to monitor
temperature, pressure, liquid flow rate, gas flow rate, mass flow rate,
pH, or conductivity as indicators of good control device performance or
emission source operation. If adopted as a final rule, owners and
operators of emission sources that would be required to install and
operate any such CPMS under any subpart of parts 60, 61, or 63 (listed
in Table 1 of this preamble) would be required to comply with PS-17,
with the exception of facilities that are subject to the part 63 rules
that are listed in Table 2 of this preamble. In addition to new CPMS
that are installed after the proposed effective date of PS-17, existing
CPMS that are required under parts 60, 61, or 63 also would be required
to comply with PS-17.
C. When must owners or operators of affected CPMS comply with PS-17?
Owners and operators of affected existing CPMS that were installed
prior to the effective date of this rule and are located at facilities
that are required to obtain a title V operating permit would be
required to comply with PS-17 when they renew their title V permit, or
when they replace any key components of an affected CPMS. The key
components of a CPMS are the sensors, data recorders, and any other
parts of the CPMS that affect overall system accuracy, measurement
range, or measurement resolution. Owners and operators of affected
existing CPMS that were installed prior to the effective date of this
rulemaking and are located at area
[[Page 59963]]
source facilities that are exempt from obtaining a title V operating
permit would be required to comply with PS-17 within 5 years of the
effective date of this rule, or when they replace any key components of
an affected CPMS. Owners and operators of new affected CPMS would have
to comply with the proposed PS-17 when they install and place into
operation the affected CPMS.
D. What are the basic requirements of PS-17?
The proposed PS-17 would require owners and operators of affected
CPMS to: (1) Select a CPMS that satisfies basic equipment design
criteria; (2) install their CPMS according to standard procedures; (3)
validate their CPMS prior to placing it into operation; and (4) record
and maintain information on their CPMS and its operation. The technical
rationales for proposed criteria, specifications, and other related
requirements of PS-17 are described in section VIII of this document.
1. Equipment Selection
Two types of equipment would be needed for complying with PS-17:
(1) the components that comprise the CPMS, and (2) the equipment that
is used to validate the CPMS. For CPMS components, PS-17 would require
the selection of equipment that can satisfy basic criteria for
measurement range, resolution, and overall system accuracy.
For CPMS components, PS-17 does not specify sensor design criteria,
allowing affected owners and operators to select any equipment,
provided the CPMS meets the accuracy requirements for the initial
validation. However, PS-17 would identify voluntary consensus standards
that can be used as guidelines for selecting specific types of sensors.
For a temperature CPMS, PS-17 would require a sensor that is
consistent with one of the following standards: (1) ASTM E235-06,
``Specification for Thermocouples, Sheathed, Type K, for Nuclear or
Other High-Reliability Applications''; (2) ASTM E585/E585M-04,
``Specification for Compacted Mineral-Insulated, Metal-Sheathed Base
Metal Thermocouple Cables''; (3) ASTM E608/E608M-06, ``Specification
for Mineral-Insulated, Metal-Sheathed Base Metal Thermocouples''; (4)
ASTM E696-07, ``Specification for Tungsten-Rhenium Alloy Thermocouple
Wire''; (5) ASTM E1129/E1129M-98 (2002), ``Standard Specification for
Thermocouple Connectors''; (6) ASTM E 1159-98 (2003), ``Specification
for Thermocouple Materials, Platinum-Rhodium Alloys, and Platinum'';
(7) ISA-MC96.1-1982, ``Temperature Measurement Thermocouples''; or (8)
ASTM E 1137/E 1137M-04, ``Standard Specification for Industrial
Platinum Resistance Thermometers'' (incorporated by reference-see Sec.
60.17)
For a pressure CPMS that uses a pressure gauge as the sensor, PS-17
would require a gauge that conforms to the design requirements of ASME
B40.100-2005, ``Pressure Gauges and Gauge Attachments'' (incorporated
by reference-see Sec. 60.17).
2. Range
With respect to measurement range, this proposed rule would require
that temperature, pressure, flow rate, and conductivity CPMS be capable
of measuring the appropriate parameter over a range that extends at
least 20 percent beyond the normal expected operating range of values
for that parameter. For example, if the pressure drop measurement
across a scrubber typically ranges from 5.0 to 7.5 kilopascals (kPa)
(20 to 30 inches of water column (in. wc)), the range of the data
recorder for a CPMS that monitors that pressure drop would have to
extend from at least 4.0 to 9.0 kPa (16 to 36 in. wc). For pH CPMS, the
proposed PS-17 would require that the CPMS data recorder range covers
the entire pH scale from 0 to 14.
3. Resolution
The data recording system associated with affected CPMS would
require a resolution that is equal to or better than one-half of the
required system accuracy. For example, if a temperature CPMS is
required to have an accuracy of 1 [deg]C, the required resolution for
the CPMS would be 0.5 [deg]C, or better.
4. Accuracy
The accuracy criteria for CPMS, which are a function of the
parameter that is measured by the CPMS, are described in detail in
section II.E of this document.
For devices or instruments that are used to validate or check the
initial accuracy of a temperature, pressure, or flow CPMS, PS-17
generally would require an accuracy hierarchy of three. In other words,
the ratio of the required accuracy of the CPMS to the accuracy of the
calibrated validation device would have to be at least three. For
example, if the required accuracy of a temperature CPMS is 1.0 percent, to satisfy the accuracy hierarchy of three
criterion, the calibrated validation device would need an accuracy of
0.33 percent or better (1.0 / 0.33 = 3). A CPMS with an
accuracy of 0.25 percent would satisfy the accuracy hierarchy
criterion, but a CPMS with an accuracy of 0.5 percent would not satisfy
the accuracy hierarchy criterion in this example. The accuracy of the
equipment used to validate the CPMS also would have to be traceable to
National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) standards. We
have incorporated into the proposed PS-17 two exceptions to the
accuracy requirements for instruments that are used to validate CPMS.
First, a mercury-in-glass or water-in-glass U-tube manometer could be
used instead of a calibrated pressure measurement device with NIST-
traceable accuracy when validating a pressure CPMS or a flow CPMS that
uses a differential pressure flow meter. Secondly, for instruments and
reagents that are used to validate a pH CPMS, the performance
specification would require NIST-traceable accuracy of 0.02 pH units or
better, rather than an accuracy hierarchy of three.
5. Installation
The PS-17 would require each CPMS sensor to be located so as to
provide representative measurements of the appropriate parameter. The
proposed PS-17 also lists voluntary consensus standards that could
serve as guidelines for installing specific types of sensors. Voluntary
consensus standards are technical standards that are developed or
adopted by one or more voluntary consensus standards bodies, such as
the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) or the American
Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME).
If required to install a flow CPMS and the sensor of the flow CPMS
is a differential pressure device, turbine flow meter, rotameter,
vortex formation flow meter or Coriolis mass flow meter, PS-17 would
allow one of the following standards to be used as guidance: (1) ASME
MFC-3M-2004, ``Measurement of Fluid Flow in Pipes Using Orifice,
Nozzle, and Venturi''; (2) ANSI/ASME MFC-7M-1987 (R2001), ``Measurement
of Gas Flow by Means of Critical Flow Venturi Nozzles''; (3) ANSI/ISA
RP 31.1-1977, ``Recommended Practice: Specification, Installation, and
Calibration of Turbine Flowmeters''; (4) ANSI/ASME MFC 4M-1986 (R2003),
``Measurement of Gas Flow by Turbine Meters'' (if used for gas flow
measurement); (5) ISA RP 16.5-1961, ``Installation, Operation, and
Maintenance Instructions for Glass Tube Variable Area Meters
(Rotameters)''; (6) ISO 10790:1999(E), ``Measurement of Fluid Flow in
Closed Conduits-Guidance to the Selection, Installation and Use of
Coriolis Meters (Mass Flow, Density and Volume Flow Measurements); or
(7) ANSI/ASME MFC-6M-1998 (R2005) ``Measurement
[[Page 59964]]
of Fluid Flow in Pipes Using Vortex Flow Meters'' (incorporated by
reference--see Sec. 60.17).
There are also several voluntary consensus standards that can be
used as alternative methods for checking the accuracy of specific types
of CPMS sensors. Prior to validating the performance of a CPMS, owners
and operators would be required to install work platforms, test ports,
taps, valves, or any other equipment needed to perform the initial
validation check.
6. CPMS Validation
Under this proposed rule, we would require owners and operators of
affected CPMS to demonstrate that affected CPMS meet a minimum overall
system accuracy. Several methods are specified for checking CPMS
accuracy, and owners and operators of affected CPMS could choose among
the methods specified for each type of CPMS. These validation methods
generally would involve either: (1) Comparing measurements made by the
affected CPMS to measurements made by a calibrated measurement device,
or (2) simulating the signal generated by the CPMS sensor using a
calibrated simulation device. Table 5 of this preamble lists the CPMS
validation methods specified in the proposed PS-17 and their
applicability. As part of specific validation methods, the proposed PS-
17 specifies several voluntary consensus standards as alternative
methods for checking sensor accuracy.
Table 5--CPMS Initial Validation Methods
------------------------------------------------------------------------
You can validate If the sensor of
If your CPMS measures . . . your CPMS by . . . your CPMS is . . .
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Temperature.............. a. Comparison to a Thermocouple, RTD,
calibrated or any other type
temperature of temperature
measurement device. sensor.
b. Temperature Thermocouple, RTD,
simulation. or any other type
of sensor that
generates an
electronic signal
that can be related
to temperature
magnitude.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Pressure................. a. Comparison to a Pressure transducer,
calibrated pressure pressure gauge, or
measurement device. any other type of
pressure sensor.
b. Pressure Pressure transducer,
simulation pressure gauge, or
procedure using a any other type of
calibrated pressure pressure sensor.
source.
c. Pressure Pressure transducer,
simulation using a pressure gauge, or
pressure source and any other type of
a calibrated pressure sensor.
pressure
measurement device.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Liquid flow rate......... a. Volumetric method Any type of liquid
flow meter.
b. Gravimetric Any type of liquid
method. flow meter.
c. Differential Orifice plate, flow
pressure nozzle, or other
measurement method. type of
differential
pressure liquid
flow meter.
d. Pressure source Orifice plate, flow
flow simulation nozzle, or other
method. type of
differential
pressure liquid
flow meter.
e. Electronic signal Turbine flow meter,
simulation method. vortex shedding
flow meter, or any
other type of
liquid flow meter
that generates an
electronic signal
that can be related
to flow rate
magnitude.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. Gas flow rate............ a. Differential Orifice plate, flow
pressure nozzle, or any
measurement method. other type of
differential
pressure gas flow
meter other than a
differential
pressure tube.
b. Pressure source Orifice plate, flow
flow simulation nozzle, or any
method. other type of
differential
pressure gas flow
meter other than a
differential
pressure tube.
c. Electronic signal Any type of gas flow
simulation method. meter that
generates an
electronic signal
that can be related
to flow rate
magnitude.
d. Relative accuracy Any type of gas flow
test. meter.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. Liquid mass flow rate.... Gravimetric method.. Any type of liquid
flow meter.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. Solid mass flow rate..... a. Gravimetric Any type of solid
method. mass flow meter.
b. Material weight Belt conveyor with
comparison method. weigh scale,
equipped with a
totalizer.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. pH....................... a. Comparison to Any type of pH
calibrated pH meter. meter.
b. Single point Any type of pH
calibration. meter.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. Conductivity............. a. Comparison to Any type of
calibrated conductivity meter.
conductivity meter.
b. Single point Any type of
calibration. conductivity meter.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. Temperature CPMS Validation
Under this proposed rule, the performance of a temperature CPMS
could be validated by comparing measured values to a calibrated
temperature measurement device or by simulating a typical operating
temperature using a calibrated temperature simulation device. When the
calibrated temperature measurement device method is used, the sensor of
the calibrated device would have to be located adjacent to the CPMS
sensor and must be subjected to the same
[[Page 59965]]
environmental conditions as the CPMS sensor. In addition, the
measurements made using the CPMS and calibrated temperature measurement
device would have to be concurrent. The method is based on ASTM E 220-
07e1, ``Standard Test Methods for Calibration of Thermocouples by
Comparison Techniques'' (incorporated by reference--see Sec. 60.17).
An alternative method for thermocouples is ASTM E 452-02 (2007),
``Standard Test Method for Calibration of Refractory Metal
Thermocouples Using an Optical Pyrometer'' and an alternative method
for resistance temperature detectors is ASTM E 644-06, ``Standard Test
Methods for Testing Industrial Resistance Thermometers'' (incorporated
by reference--see Sec. 60.17).
8. Pressure CPMS Validation
To validate the performance of a pressure CPMS, owners and
operators could choose from one of three methods: (1) Comparison to a
calibrated pressure measurement device, (2) pressure simulation using a
calibrated pressure source, or (3) pressure simulation using a pressure
source and calibrated pressure measurement device. Prior to performing
the initial validation check of a pressure CPMS, PS-17 would require a
leak test on all connections between the process line that is
monitored, the CPMS, and the calibrated device that is used as the
basis for comparison. If the calibrated pressure measurement device
comparison were used, the measurements by the CPMS and calibrated
device would have to be concurrent.
As an alternative to the initial validation check, PS-17 would
allow the user to check the accuracy of the pressure sensor associated
with the pressure CPMS using one of the following methods: (1) ASME
B40.100-2005, ``Pressure Gauges and Gauge Attachments'' or (2) ASTM E
251-92 (2003), ``Standard Test Methods for Performance Characteristics
of Metallic Bonded Resistance Strain Gages'' (incorporated by
reference--see Sec. 60.17). Users would also be required to check the
accuracy of the overall CPMS.
9. Flow CPMS Validation
Under the proposed PS-17, the performance of a flow CPMS could be
validated using one of seven methods. However, none of the methods
could be applied universally to all types of flow CPMS; there would be
limitations on the use of each specific method. The volumetric method,
which could be used to validate any liquid flow rate measurement
device, would entail collecting a volume of liquid for a timed period,
then calculating the flow rate based on the volume collected and the
length of the time period over which the liquid was collected. The
gravimetric method is similar to the volumetric method except that the
material collected would be weighed. The gravimetric method could be
used to validate any liquid flow CPMS, liquid mass flow CPMS, and solid
mass flow CPMS. Liquid mass flow rates and solid mass flow rates would
be calculated based on the weight of the liquid or solid and the length
of the time period over which the liquid or solid was collected. Liquid
flow rate would be calculated based on the weight and density of the
liquid and the length of the time period over which the liquid was
collected.
The volumetric and gravimetric methods are based on voluntary
consensus standards and could be used to validate liquid flow CPMS.
Both methods are described in the following standards: (1) ISA RP 16.6-
1961, ``Methods and Equipment for Calibration of Variable Area Meters
(Rotameters)''; (2) ISA RP 31.1-1977, ``Specification, Installation,
and Calibration of Turbine Flow Meters''; and (3) ISO 8316:1987,
``Measurement of Liquid Flow in Closed Conduits-Method by Collection of
Liquid in a Volumetric Tank'' (incorporated by reference-see Sec.
60.17). The gravimetric method also is described in the following
standards: (1) ANSI/ASME MFC-9M-1988, ``Measurement of Liquid Flow in
Closed Conduits by Weighing Method''; and (2) ASHRAE 41.8-1989,
``Standard Methods of Measurement of Flow of Liquids in Pipes Using
Orifice Flow Meters'' (incorporated by reference-see Sec. 60.17). The
gravimetric method also could be used to validate liquid mass flow or
solid mass flow CPMS.
The differential pressure measurement method and the pressure
source flow simulation method could be used to validate any flow CPMS
that uses a differential pressure measurement flow device, such as an
orifice plate, flow nozzle, or venturi tube. Both methods would entail
measuring the differential pressure across a flow constriction, then
calculating the corresponding flow rate based on the measured
differential pressure using the manufacturer's literature or the
procedures specified in ASME MFC-3M-2004, ``Measurement of Fluid Flow
in Pipes Using Orifice, Nozzle, and Venturi'' (incorporated by
reference--see Sec. 60.17), the characteristics of the liquid, and the
dimensions and design of the flow constriction. For CPMS that use an
orifice flow meter, the flow rate can be calculated using procedures
specified in ASHRAE 41.8-1989, ``Standard Methods of Measurement of
Flow of Liquids in Pipes Using Orifice Flowmeters'' (incorporated by
reference--see Sec. 60.17).
In addition, prior to the validation check, both methods would
require a leak test on all connections associated with the process
line, CPMS, and pressure connections. Neither the differential pressure
measurement method nor the pressure source flow simulation method could
be used to validate a gas flow CPMS that uses one or more differential
pressure tubes as the flow sensor. A differential pressure tube is
defined as a device, such as a pitot tube, that consists of one or more
pairs of tubes that are oriented to measure the velocity pressure and
static pressure at one of more fixed points within a duct for the
purpose of determining gas velocity.
The electronic signal simulation method could be used to validate
any flow CPMS that operates with a sensor that generates an electronic
signal, provided the electronic signal can be simulated and is related
to the magnitude of the flow rate. Examples of this type of flow sensor
are turbine meters and vortex shedding flow meters. The electronic
signal simulation method would entail simulating an electronic signal
using a calibrated signal simulator, then calculating the flow rate
that corresponds to the value of the simulated signal.
Owners or operators of flow CPMS that are used for monitoring gas
flow rate could validate their CPMS by performing a relative accuracy
(RA) test using Reference Methods 2, 2A, 2B, 2C, 2D, or 2F (40 CFR part
60, appendix A-1), or 2G (40 CFR part 60, appendix A-2). The RA test is
the only method specified in the proposed PS-17 for validating a gas
flow CPMS that incorporates a differential pressure tube.
Finally, the material weight comparison method could be used to
validate a solid mass flow CPMS that uses a combination belt conveyor
and weigh scale equipped with a totalizer. The method is based on the
Belt-Conveyor Scale Systems Method, which is described in NIST Handbook
44--2002 Edition, ``Specifications, Tolerances, And Other Technical
Requirements for Weighing and Measuring Devices'' (incorporated by
reference--see Sec. 60.17) as adopted by the 86th National Conference
on Weights and Measures in 2001.
[[Page 59966]]
10. pH CPMS Validation
To validate the performance of a pH CPMS, two methods are specified
in the proposed PS-17. In the first method, the pH measured by the CPMS
would be compared to the pH measured by a calibrated pH meter. In the
second method, the single point calibration method, the value measured
by the CPMS would be compared to the pH measurement of a certified
buffer solution. If the CPMS did not satisfy the accuracy requirement,
a two-point calibration method, based on ASTM D 1293-99 (2005),
``Standard Test Methods for pH of Water'' (incorporated by reference--
see Sec. 60.17), would be suggested.
11. Conductivity CPMS Validation
The proposed PS-17 would specify two methods for validating
conductivity CPMS. The two methods parallel the methods for validating
pH CPMS: comparison to a calibrated conductivity meter and the single
point calibration method using a standard conductivity solution.
If the conductivity CPMS did not satisfy the accuracy requirement,
calibration based on the procedures specified in the manufacturer's
owner's manual would be suggested. If the manufacturer's owner's manual
does not specify a calibration procedure, calibration should be
performed based on one of the following standards: (1) ASTM D 1125-95
(2005), ``Standard Test Methods for Electrical Conductivity and
Resistivity of Water''; or (2) ASTM D 5391-99 (2005), ``Standard Test
Method for Electrical conductivity and Resistivity of a Flowing High
Purity Water Sample'' (incorporated by reference--see Sec. 60.17).
12. Alternative Methods of CPMS Validation
Owners and operators of affected CPMS could have the option of
using alternative methods for validating their CPMS, provided the
alternative method has been approved by us or by a delegated authority.
In all cases, owners and operators of affected CPMS would be required
to take corrective action if the initial validation check indicates
that the CPMS does not satisfy the accuracy requirement. Alternative
monitoring methods are addressed under the General Provisions to parts
60, 61, and 63 in Sec. Sec. 60.13(i), 61.14(g), and 63.8(f),
respectively. Alternative monitoring methods also are addressed in the
applicable subparts for each rule.
E. What initial performance criteria must be demonstrated to comply
with PS-17?
Owners or operators of affected CPMS would be required to
demonstrate that their CPMS meet a minimum system accuracy. Table 6 of
this preamble summarizes the required accuracies. These minimum
accuracies would pertain to the overall CPMS and not simply the sensor.
Table 6--Accuracy Criteria for Initial Validation Check
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The accuracy criteria for the initial
If the CPMS measures . . . validation check are . . .
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Temperature (in a non- System accuracy of 1.0
cryogenic environment). percent of the temperature or 2.8 [deg]C
(5 [deg]F), whichever is greater.
2. Temperature (in a System accuracy of 2.5
cryogenic environment). percent of the temperature or 2.8 [deg]C
(5 [deg]F), whichever is greater.
3. Pressure.................. System accuracy of 5 percent
or 0.12 kPa (0.5 in. wc), whichever is
greater.
4. Liquid flow rate.......... System accuracy of 5 percent
or 1.9 L/min (0.5 gal/min), whichever is
greater.
5. Gas flow rate............. a. Relative accuracy of 20
percent, if the relative accuracy test
is used to demonstrate compliance, OR.
b. System accuracy of 10
percent, if the CPMS measures steam flow
rate, OR.
c. System accuracy of 5
percent or 280 L/min (10 ft\3\/min),
whichever is greater, for all other
gases and validation test methods.
6. Mass flow rate............ System accuracy of 5 percent.
7. pH........................ System accuracy of 0.2 pH units.
8. Conductivity.............. System accuracy percentage of 5 percent.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
In most cases, the required accuracies are expressed both as
accuracy percentages and as accuracy values; for a specific parameter
value, the accuracy criterion that results in the greater value would
apply (i.e., the less stringent criterion would apply). For example,
for liquid flow rate, the accuracy percentage would be 5
percent, and the accuracy value would be 1.9 liters per minute (L/min)
(0.5 gallons per minute (gal/min)). If the actual flow rate were 30 L/
min (7.9 gal/min), the accuracy percentage criterion would result in a
value of 1.5 L/min (0.4 gal/min). Therefore, the accuracy value
criterion of 1.9 L/min (0.5 gal/min) would apply because 1.9 L/min is
greater than 1.5 L/min.
For temperature CPMS, the proposed PS-17 would make a distinction
between cryogenic and non-cryogenic environments; cryogenic
environments are those characterized by a temperature less than 0
[deg]C (32 [deg]F), and non-cryogenic environments are those with a
temperature of at least 0 [deg]C (32 [deg]F). The minimum accuracy for
a temperature CPMS used in a non-cryogenic application would be the
greater of 1.0 percent of the temperature measured on the
Celsius scale ([deg]C) and 2.8 [deg]C (5 [deg]F). For
example, for a temperature CPMS that is used to monitor a thermal
oxidizer operating at 760 [deg]C (1400 [deg]F), the 1 percent accuracy
criterion would require the CPMS to be accurate to within 7.6 [deg]C (14 [deg]F). Because 7.6 [deg]C (14 [deg]F) is greater than 2.8 [deg]C (5 [deg]F), the 1 percent
accuracy criterion would apply. The minimum accuracy of a temperature
CPMS used in a cryogenic application would be 2.8 [deg]C (5
[deg]F) or 2.5 percent of the temperature measured on the
Celsius scale, whichever is greater. For a temperature CPMS that is
used to monitor a condenser operating with an outlet temperature of -12
[deg]C (10 [deg]F), the temperature value criterion would apply; the
CPMS would have to be accurate to 2.8 [deg]C (5
[deg]F) because 2.8 [deg]C (5 [deg]F) is greater than 2.5 percent of -
12 [deg]C (10 [deg]F), which is 0.3 [deg]C (0.5
[deg]F). These criteria translate to the accuracies listed in Table 7
of this preamble.
[[Page 59967]]
Table 7--Summary of Temperature CPMS Accuracy Requirements
------------------------------------------------------------------------
For temperatures that are . . The required temperature CPMS accuracy
. is . . .
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Greater than 280 [deg]C 1 percent of temperature.
(540 [deg]F).
2. Between -112 and 280 [deg]C 2.8 [deg]C (5 [deg]F).
(-170 and 540 [deg]F).
3. Less than -112 [deg]C (-170 2.5 percent of temperature.
[deg]F).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The proposed PS-17 would require pressure CPMS to be accurate to
within 5 percent or 0.12 kPa (0.5 in. wc), whichever is
greater. For example, a CPMS that is used to monitor a venturi scrubber
with a pressure drop of 7.5 kPa (30 in. wc) would have to be accurate
to 0.37 kPa (1.5 in. wc) or better, based on the 5 percent
criterion because 0.37 kPa (1.5 in. wc) is greater than 0.12 kPa (0.5
in. wc). On the other hand, the required accuracy for a CPMS that
monitored a pressure drop of 1.0 kPa (4 in. wc) across a fabric filter
would be 0.12 kPa (0.5 in. wc), or better, because the 5
percent criterion would result in an accuracy of 0.05 kPa (0.2 in. wc).
The required accuracy for flow CPMS would depend on the material
that is being monitored. For liquid flow rate CPMS, the minimum
accuracy would be 1.9 L/min (0.5 gal/min) or 5 percent,
whichever is greater. For example, to monitor a scrubber liquid flow
rate of 300 L/min (80 gal/min), the required CPMS accuracy would be 15
L/min (4 gal/min) or better. For gas flow rate CPMS, PS-17 would
require a minimum accuracy of 280 L/min (10 cubic feet per minute
(ft\3\/min)) or 5 percent, whichever is greater. Therefore,
a fuel flow meter on a natural gas-fired 8 MMBtu/hr incinerator with a
gas flow rate of 3,700 L/min (130 ft\3\/min) would have to be accurate
to 280 L/min (10 ft\3\/min) or better. An exception to these accuracy
requirements for flow meters would apply if an RA test is used to
validate a gas flow CPMS. In such cases, the required RA would be 20
percent of the mean value of the reference method test data, or better.
An exception to the gas flow CPMS accuracy requirements would also
apply for steam flow rate CPMS. The proposed PS-17 stipulates the
minimum accuracy for a CPMS that is used for monitoring steam flow rate
would have to be 10 percent or better. The minimum accuracy
specified in the proposed PS-17 for mass flow CPMS would be 5 percent. We would require pH CPMS to be accurate to within
0.2 pH units. Finally, conductivity CPMS would have to be
accurate to 5 percent.
F. What are the reporting and recordkeeping requirements for PS-17?
The proposed PS-17 does not specify reporting requirements but
would require owners and operators of affected CPMS to record and
maintain information that identifies the CPMS, including the location
of the CPMS, identification number assigned by the owner or operator,
the manufacturer's name and model number, and the typical operating
range for each parameter that is monitored. In addition, owners and
operators of affected CPMS would be required to document performance
demonstrations.
IV. Summary of Proposed Procedure 4
A. What is the purpose of Procedure 4?
The proposed Procedure 4 would have two primary purposes. First,
the procedure would be used for evaluating the quality of data produced
by CPMS on an ongoing basis. Second, the procedure would help evaluate
the effectiveness of the QA and quality control (QC) programs that
owners and operators develop for CPMS. As proposed, Procedure 4 would
apply instead of the requirements for evaluating the operation and
quality of the data produced by CPMS specified in an applicable subpart
to parts 60, 61, or 63 that requires the use of CPMS for monitoring
temperature, pressure, flow rate, pH, or conductivity.
B. Who must comply with Procedure 4?
This procedure would apply to any CPMS that is subject to PS-17.
That is, any owner or operator who would be required under an
applicable subpart to parts 60, 61, or 63 to install and operate a CPMS
that is used to monitor temperature, pressure, flow rate, pH, or
conductivity would be subject to both PS-17 and Procedure 4.
C. When must owners or operators of affected CPMS comply with Procedure
4?
Owners and operators of affected CPMS would have to comply with
Procedure 4 when they install and place into operation a CPMS that is
subject to PS-17 or when an existing CPMS becomes subject to PS-17.
D. What are the basic requirements of Procedure 4?
The proposed Procedure 4 would require owners or operators to
perform periodic accuracy audits, perform visual inspections and other
operational checks, and develop and implement a QA/QC program for each
affected CPMS. The technical rationales for specific proposed
requirements of Procedure 4 are described in section IX of this
document.
1. Accuracy Audits
The requirements for periodic accuracy audits would consist of
equipment requirements and procedural requirements. As is the case for
equipment used to perform initial validations under the proposed PS-17,
the specific equipment required to perform an accuracy audit would
depend on the type of CPMS and the method selected for evaluating the
accuracy of the CPMS. However, all such equipment would have to be
calibrated and would have to meet the same two general requirements for
accuracy: (1) An accuracy hierarchy of at least three, and (2) an
accuracy that is NIST-traceable.
We have incorporated into the proposed Procedure 4 three exceptions
to the accuracy requirements for instruments that are used to audit the
accuracy of CPMS: (1) When performing an accuracy audit using a
redundant sensor, the redundant sensor would have to have an accuracy
equal to or better than the accuracy of your primary sensor; (2) a
mercury-in-glass or water-in-glass U-tube manometer could be used
instead of a calibrated pressure measurement device with NIST-traceable
accuracy when auditing the accuracy of a pressure CPMS or a flow CPMS
that uses a differential pressure flow meter; and (3) when performing
an accuracy audit of a flow CPMS using the volumetric or gravimetric
methods, the container that is used to collect the liquid or solid
material would not be required to have NIST-traceable accuracy.
The procedural requirements for performing accuracy audits of a
CPMS would depend on the type of CPMS. Owners or operators of affected
CPMS generally could choose among several methods for performing CPMS
accuracy audits. Many of these methods are identical to the methods for
performing the initial validation check of CPMS, as specified in the
proposed PS-17 and
[[Page 59968]]
described in section III.D of this document. However, one significant
difference between the initial validation methods specified in the
proposed PS-17 and the accuracy audit methods specified in the proposed
Procedure 4 is that the accuracy audit methods would require you to
check the accuracy of each primary sensor, either separately or as part
of the overall system accuracy audit. For PS-17, we assumed that newly
installed sensors are calibrated, and a separate check of sensor
accuracy would be unnecessary. However, for assessing ongoing QA,
affected owners and operators would be required to perform accuracy
audits on CPMS that have been in service, and the audit procedure would
have to verify that the entire system, including the sensor, meets the
accuracy criteria. Table 8 of this document lists the CPMS accuracy
audit methods specified in the proposed Procedure 4 and the associated
applicability.
Table 8--Accuracy Audit Methods
------------------------------------------------------------------------
You can perform the
If your CPMS measures . . . accuracy audit of If the sensor of
your CPMS by . . . your CPMS is . . .
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Temperature.............. a. Comparison to Any type of
redundant temperature sensor.
temperature CPMS.
b. Comparison to Thermocouple, RTD,
calibrated or any other type
temperature of temperature
measurement device. sensor.
c. Separate sensor Thermocouple or RTD.
check and system
check by
temperature
simulation.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Pressure................. a. Comparison to Any type of pressure
redundant pressure sensor.
sensor..
b. Comparison to Pressure transducer,
calibrated pressure pressure gauge, or
measurement device. any other type of
pressure sensor.
c. Separate sensor Pressure gauge or
check and system metallic-bonded
check by pressure resistance strain
simulation using a gauge.
calibrated pressure
source.
d. Separate sensor Pressure gauge or
check and system metallic-bonded
check by pressure resistance strain
simulation using a gauge.
pressure source and
a calibrated
pressure
measurement device.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Liquid flow rate......... a. Comparison to Any type of liquid
redundant flow flow meter.
sensor.
b. Volumetric method Any type of liquid
flow meter.
c. Gravimetric Any type of liquid
method. flow meter.
d. Separate sensor Orifice plate, flow
check and system nozzle, or other
check by type of
differential differential
pressure pressure liquid
measurement method. flow meter.
e. Separate sensor Orifice plate, flow
check and system nozzle, or other
check by pressure type of
source flow differential
simulation method. pressure liquid
flow meter.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. Gas flow rate............ a. Comparison to Any type of gas flow
redundant flow meter.
sensor.
b. Separate sensor Orifice plate, flow
check and system nozzle, or any
check by other type of
differential differential
pressure pressure gas flow
measurement method. meter other than a
differential
pressure tube.
c. Separate sensor Orifice plate, flow
check and system nozzle, or any
check by pressure other type of
source flow differential
simulation method. pressure gas flow
meter.
d. Relative accuracy Any type of gas flow
test. meter.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. Liquid mass flow rate.... a. Comparison to Any type of liquid
redundant flow mass flow meter.
sensor.
b. Gravimetric Any type of liquid
method. mass flow meter.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. Solid mass flow rate..... a. Comparison to Any type of liquid
redundant flow mass flow meter.
sensor.
b. Gravimetric Any type of solid
method. mass flow meter.
c. Material weight Combination belt
comparison method. conveyor, weigh
scale, and
totalizer.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. pH....................... a. Comparison to Any type of pH
redundant pH meter. meter.
b. Comparison to Any type of pH
calibrated pH meter. meter.
c. Single point Any type of pH
calibration. meter.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. Conductivity............. a. Comparison to Any type of
redundant conductivity meter.
conductivity meter.
b. Comparison to Any type of
calibrated conductivity meter.
conductivity meter.
c. Single point Any type of
calibration. conductivity meter.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Temperature CPMS Accuracy Audit Methods
To perform an accuracy audit of a temperature CPMS, owners and
operators of affected CPMS could choose from three methods. The first
method would apply to CPMS with redundant temperature sensors and would
entail comparing the temperature measured by the primary sensor of your
CPMS to that of the redundant temperature sensor. The second method
would consist of comparing the temperature measured by the CPMS to
[[Page 59969]]
a separate calibrated temperature measurement device. The third method
would require checking the temperature sensor independent of the other
components of the CPMS. The temperature sensor could be checked using
methods specified in any of the following voluntary consensus
standards: (1) ASTM E 220-07e1, ``Standard Test Methods for Calibration
of Thermocouples by Comparison Techniques'' (for thermocouples); (2)
ASTM E 452-02 (2007), ``Standard Test Method for Calibration of
Refractory Metal Thermocouples Using an Optical Pyrometer'' (for
thermocouples); or (3) ASTM E 644-06, ``Standard Test Methods for
Testing Industrial Resistance Thermometers'' (for resistance
temperature detectors) (incorporated by reference--see Sec. 60.17).
The other components of the CPMS could be checked by simulating a
temperature, then comparing the temperature recorded by the CPMS to the
simulated temperature. Because the voluntary consensus standards
specified in the proposed Procedure 4 would apply only to thermocouples
and resistance temperature detectors (RTDs), this accuracy audit method
would apply only to CPMS that use those types of temperature sensors.
3. Pressure CPMS Accuracy Audit Methods
For an accuracy audit of a pressure CPMS, the proposed Procedure 4
would specify four methods. The first method would apply to CPMS with
redundant pressure sensors and would entail comparing the pressure
measured by the primary pressure sensor of your CPMS to the pressure
measured by the redundant pressure sensor. The second method would
consist of comparing the pressure measured by your CPMS to the pressure
measured by a separate calibrated pressure measurement device. The
other two methods would involve checking the accuracies of the pressure
sensor independent of the other components of the CPMS. For checking
sensor accuracy, the proposed Procedure 4 would reference voluntary
consensus standards. Because we were able to identify voluntary
consensus standards only for pressure gauges (ASME B40.100-2005,
``Pressure Gauges and Gauge Attachments'') and metallic-bonded
resistance strain gauges (ASTM E 251-92 (2003), ``Standard Test Methods
for Performance Characteristics of Metallic Bonded Resistance Strain
Gages'') (incorporated by reference--see Sec. 60.17), these other two
pressure CPMS accuracy audit methods would apply only to CPMS that use
pressure gauge or metallic-bonded resistance strain gauge sensors.
After checking sensor accuracy, the accuracy of the other
components of the CPMS could be checked by either: (1) Pressure
simulation using a calibrated pressure source, or (2) pressure
simulation using a pressure source and a calibrated pressure
measurement device. In either method, a simulated pressure would be
compared to a calibrated pressure to determine accuracy.
4. Liquid Flow CPMS Accuracy Audit Methods
To perform an accuracy audit of a liquid flow CPMS, five methods
are specified in the proposed Procedure 4. As is the case with other
types of CPMS, owners and operators of affected CPMS could choose among
the methods specified. The first method would apply to CPMS with
redundant flow sensors and would entail comparing the flow rate
measured by the primary flow sensor of your CPMS to the flow rate
measured by the redundant flow sensor. The next two methods--the
volumetric and gravimetric methods--are the same methods as specified
for the initial CPMS validation in the proposed PS-17 and described in
section III.D of this document. The volumetric and gravimetric methods
are based on voluntary consensus standards and could be used to
validate liquid flow CPMS. Both methods are described in the following
standards: (1) ISA RP 16.6-1961, ``Methods and Equipment for
Calibration of Variable Area Meters (Rotameters)''; (2) ISA RP 31.1-
1977, ``Specification, Installation, and Calibration of Turbine Flow
Meters''; (3) ISO 10790:1999, ``Measurement of Fluid Flow in Closed
Conduits--Guidance to the Selection, Installation and Use of Coriolis
Meters (Mass Flow, Density and Volume Flow Measurements)''; and (4) ISO
8316:1987, ``Measurement of Liquid Flow in Closed Conduits--Method by
Collection of Liquid in a Volumetric Tank'' (incorporated by
reference--see Sec. 60.17). The gravimetric method also is described
in the following standards: (1) ANSI/ASME MFC-9M-1988, ``Measurement of
Liquid Flow in Closed Conduits by Weighing Method''; and (2) ASHRAE
41.8-1989, ``Standard Methods of Measurement of Flow of Liquids in
Pipes Using Orifice Flowmeters'' (incorporated by reference--see Sec.
60.17). The gravimetric method also could be used to validate liquid
mass flow or solid mass flow CPMS.
For liquid flow CPMS that use a differential pressure meter, such
as an orifice plate, venturi tube, or flow nozzle, two accuracy audit
methods are specified in the proposed Procedure 4. Both of these
methods would require a separate visual inspection of the flow
constriction and a check of the accuracy of the other components of the
system. The accuracy of the other components would have to be checked
by pressure simulation, using either a calibrated differential pressure
source or a differential pressure source in combination with a
calibrated differential pressure measurement device. The required
pressure drop that corresponds to the normal operating flow rate
expected for the flow CPMS can be calculated using ASME MFC-3M-2004,
``Measurement of Fluid Flow in Pipes Using Orifice, Nozzle, and
Venturi'' (incorporated by reference, see Sec. 60.17). For CPMS that
use an orifice flow meter, the pressure drop can be calculated using
ASHRAE 41.8-1989, ``Standard Methods of Measurement of Flow of Liquids
in Pipes Using Orifice Flowmeters'' (incorporated by reference--see
Sec. 60.17).
5. Gas Flow CPMS Accuracy Audit Methods
The proposed Procedure 4 specifies four methods for checking the
accuracy of a gas flow CPMS. One method would entail comparison to a
redundant flow sensor and could be used with any gas flow CPMS. Two
methods would apply only to gas flow CPMS that incorporate differential
pressure meters. These are the same two methods that would apply to
differential pressure liquid flow meter systems described in the
previous paragraph. The final method specified in the proposed
Procedure 4 for checking the accuracy of a gas flow CPMS is the RA test
using Reference Methods 2, 2A, 2B, 2C, 2D, or 2F (40 CFR part 60,
appendix A-1), or 2G (40 CFR part 60, appendix A-2). This is the only
method specified in Procedure 4 that could be used to check the
accuracy of gas flow CPMS that use differential flow tubes.
6. Mass Flow CPMS Accuracy Audit Methods
The accuracy of CPMS that measure either liquid mass flow or solid
mass flow could be checked using the redundant sensor method and the
gravimetric method, both of which are described in the previous section
for liquid flow CPMS. The same two methods could be used for checking
the accuracy of solid mass flow CPMS. The accuracy of solid mass flow
CPMS also could be evaluated using the material weight comparison
method, which is based on the Belt-Conveyor Scale Systems Method,
described in NIST
[[Page 59970]]
Handbook 44--2002 Edition, ``Specifications, Tolerances, and Other
Technical Requirements for Weighing and Measuring Devices''
(incorporated by reference--see Sec. 60.17), as adopted by the 86th
National Conference on Weights and Measures in 2001.
7. pH CPMS Accuracy Audit Methods
To check the accuracy of pH CPMS, owners and operators of affected
CPMS could choose between three methods: (1) Comparison to a redundant
pH sensor, (2) comparison to a calibrated pH meter calibrated according
to ASTM D1293-99 (2005), ``Standard Test Methods for pH of Water''
(incorporated by reference--see Sec. 60.17), and (3) single point
calibration. The redundant sensor method would require you to compare
the pH measured by the primary pH sensor of your pH CPMS to that of a
redundant pH sensor. The other two methods are the same as specified in
the proposed PS-17 for the initial validation check.
8. Conductivity CPMS Accuracy Audit Methods
The proposed Procedure 4 specifies three methods for checking the
accuracy of a conductivity CPMS. These methods (comparison to redundant
conductivity sensor, comparison to calibrated conductivity meter, and
single point calibration) are based on the same principles as the
methods specified for pH CPMS accuracy audits in this proposed rule.
Calibration of the conductivity CPMS should be performed according
to the manufacturer's owner's manual. If not specified, calibration
must be performed based on one of the following standards: (1) ASTM D
1125-95 (2005), ``Standard Test Methods for Electrical Conductivity and
Resistivity of Water''; or (2) ASTM D 5391-99 (2005), ``Standard Test
Method for Electrical Conductivity and Resistivity of a Flowing High
Purity Water Sample'' (incorporated by reference--see Sec. 60.17).
9. Other Operational Checks
In addition to accuracy audits, owners or operators of affected
CPMS that do not use redundant sensors would be required to perform
visual inspections and other checks of the operation of each affected
CPMS. These checks would include such activities as inspecting the
physical appearance of the CPMS for damage or wear and checking the
electrical components for corrosion.
10. QA/QC Program
The Procedure 4 would require CPMS owners or operators to develop
QA/QC programs for each affected CPMS. The QA/QC programs would have to
address procedures for accuracy audits, system calibration, preventive
maintenance, recordkeeping, and corrective action.
E. How often must accuracy audits and other QA/QC procedures be
performed?
Table 9 of this document summarizes the required frequencies for
accuracy audits and other QA/QC procedures that would be required under
the proposed Procedure 4.
Table 9--Frequency of Accuracy Audits and Other QC Procedures
------------------------------------------------------------------------
You must perform . .
If your CPMS measures . . . . At least . . .
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Temperature............. a. Accuracy audits. i. Quarterly; AND
ii. Following any
period of more than
24 hours throughout
which the
temperature
exceeded the
maximum rated
temperature of the
sensor, or the data
recorder was off
scale.
b. Visual Quarterly, unless
inspections and the CPMS has a
checks of CPMS redundant
operation. temperature sensor.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Pressure................ a. Accuracy audits. i. Quarterly; AND
ii. Following any
period of more than
24 hours throughout
which the pressure
exceeded the
maximum rated
pressure of the
sensor, or the data
recorder was off
scale.
b. Checks of all Monthly.
mechanical
connections for
leakage.
c. Visual Quarterly, unless
inspections and the CPMS has a
checks of CPMS redundant pressure
operation. sensor.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Flow rate (liquid, gas, a. Accuracy audits. i. Quarterly; AND
mass). ii. Following any
period of more than
24 hours throughout
which the flow rate
exceeded the
maximum rated flow
rate of the sensor,
or the data
recorder was off
scale.
b. Checks of all Monthly.
mechanical
connections for
leakage.
c. Visual Quarterly, unless
inspections and the CPMS has a
checks of CPMS redundant flow
operation. sensor.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. pH...................... a. Accuracy audits. Weekly.
b. Visual Monthly, unless the
inspections and CPMS has a
checks of CPMS redundant pH
operation. sensor.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. Conductivity............ a. Accuracy audits. Quarterly.
b. Visual Quarterly, unless
inspections and the CPMS has a
checks of CPMS redundant
operation. conductivity
sensor.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 59971]]
For affected CPMS that are used to monitor temperature, pressure,
or flow rate, owners and operators would be required to perform
accuracy audits on a quarterly basis. For pH CPMS, accuracy audits
would have to be performed weekly, and, for conductivity CPMS, monthly
accuracy audits would be required. In addition, for temperature,
pressure, and flow CPMS, an accuracy audit would be required following
any periods of 24 hours or more, throughout which either: (1) The
measured value exceeded the operating limit for the sensor, based on
the manufacturer's recommendations, or (2) the parameter value remained
off the scale of the CPMS data recorder. As an example of the first
condition, consider a Type J thermocouple with a rated operating
temperature limit of 760 [deg]C (1400 [deg]F). If a temperature CPMS
that uses a Type J thermocouple records a temperature in excess of 760
[deg]C (1400 [deg]F) for more than 24 hours, an accuracy audit of the
CPMS would have to be performed within 48 hours.
Visual inspections and other operational checks of temperature,
pressure, and flow CPMS would be required quarterly, unless the CPMS is
equipped with a redundant sensor. In addition, mechanical connections
associated with pressure or flow CPMS would have to be checked monthly
for leakage. For pH and conductivity CPMS that are not equipped with
redundant sensors, owners or operators of affected units would have to
visually inspect and perform operational checks of the affected CPMS on
a monthly basis.
F. What are the reporting and recordkeeping requirements for Procedure
4?
The proposed Procedure 4 does not specify reporting requirements
but would require owners and operators of affected CPMS to maintain
records of all accuracy audits and corrective actions taken to return
the CPMS to normal operation. These records would have to be maintained
for a period of at least 5 years. For the first 2 years, the records
would have to be kept onsite.
V. Summary of Proposed Amendments to Procedure 1
A. What is the purpose of the amendments?
The purpose of the amendments to Procedure 1 of 40 CFR part 60,
appendix F is to revise the procedure to address CEMS that must comply
with PS-9 or PS-15 (40 CFR part 60, appendix B). Procedure 1 was
developed for CEMS that are used to monitor a single pollutant or
diluent. As a result, there may be some questions on how to apply
Procedure 1 to CEMS subject to PS-9 or PS-15 that measure more than one
pollutant. In addition, both PS-9 and PS-15 partially specify ongoing
QA procedures. By amending the QA procedure, we are clarifying what
owners or operators of CEMS subject to PS-9 or PS-15 must do to comply
with Procedure 1 to ensure the quality of the data produced by these
CEMS. The technical rationale for proposed changes to Procedure 1 is
discussed further in section X of this document.
B. To whom do the amendments apply?
The amendments to Procedure 1 (40 CFR part 60, appendix F) would
apply to owners or operators of CEMS that are subject to PS-9 or PS-15
(40 CFR part 60, appendix B) and are used to demonstrate compliance on
a continuous basis. Several subparts to parts 60, 61, and 63 require
that owners and operators of affected sources demonstrate that those
sources are in continuous compliance with the applicable emission
standard. Any such standard that requires the use of gas
chromatographic CEMS subject to PS-9 or extractive Fourier Transfer
Infrared (FTIR) CEMS subject to PS-15 would also require compliance
with Procedure 1, and these proposed amendments to Procedure 1 would
apply specifically to such sources.
C. How do the amendments address CEMS that are subject to PS-9?
These proposed amendments would address CEMS that are subject to
PS-9 (40 CFR part 60, appendix B) by clarifying that the procedure can
be used for multiple-pollutant CEMS and by modifying the requirements
for daily calibration drift (CD) and data accuracy assessments so that
the procedure can be applied specifically to CEMS that are subject to
PS-9. The proposed amendments to section 4.1.1 of Procedure 1 specify
that the daily CD can be performed using any of the target pollutants
that are monitored by the CEMS. For example, if a CEMS is subject to
PS-9 and is used to monitor benzene and toluene, the CD check could be
performed using either benzene or toluene.
The PS-9 requires neither relative accuracy test audits (RATA's)
nor relative accuracy assessments (RAA's). Instead, PS-9 requires
cylinder gas audits (CGA's) every calendar quarter. To address data
accuracy assessments for CEMS subject to PS-9, the amendments would add
section 5.1.5 to Procedure 1. The new section would specify that the
requirements for RATA's and RAA's do not apply to CEMS subject to PS-9.
Instead, quarterly CGA's of each target pollutant would be required.
The amendments further would specify that the quarterly CGA's are to be
performed according to the procedure described in PS-9, except that the
CGA's would have to be performed at two points rather than the single
point requirement of PS-9. Finally, the amendments would clarify that
the CGA's performed under the revised Procedure 1 satisfy the quarterly
performance audit requirement of PS-9.
D. How do the amendments address CEMS that are subject to PS-15?
These proposed amendments would address extractive FTIR CEMS that
are subject to PS-15 (40 CFR part 60, appendix B) by modifying the
requirements for checking daily CD, data recording, and data accuracy
assessments so that the procedure could be applied specifically to CEMS
that are subject to PS-15. The amendments also would clarify what
constitutes excessive CD for CEMS subject to PS-15 and the criteria for
determining when the CEMS is ``out of control.'' These modifications
would be addressed in the amendments by adding sections 4.1.2, 4.3.3,
4.4.1, and 5.1.6 to Procedure 1. Proposed section 4.1.2 of Procedure 1
would specify that the daily CD requirement must be satisfied by
performing a daily Calibration Transfer Standards (CTS) Check, Analyte
Spike Check, and Background Deviation Check. For the specific
procedures to be followed, the amendments would reference the
appropriate sections of PS-15, which describe how to perform these
system assessments.
Proposed section 4.3.3 of Procedure 1 would specify the criteria
for determining when a CEMS subject to PS-15 is out of control. The
CEMS would be out of control under either of two conditions. The first
condition would occur when the CTS Check, Analyte Spike Check, or
Background Deviation Check exceeds twice the drift specification of
5 percent for five consecutive daily periods. The second
condition would occur when the CTS Check, Analyte Spike Check, or
Background Deviation Check exceeds four times the drift specification
of 5 percent during any daily check.
Proposed section 4.4.1 of Procedure 1 would specify data storage
criteria for CEMS subject to PS-15. In addition to the recordkeeping
requirements specified in section 4.4 of Procedure 1, the proposed
amended procedure would require owners or operators of affected CEMS to
satisfy the data storage requirements of section 6.3 of PS-15. That is,
the data storage system would
[[Page 59972]]
have to have capacity sufficient to store all data collected over the
course of one week. The data would have to be stored on either a write-
protected medium or to a password-protected remote storage location.
Proposed section 5.1.6 of Procedure 1 would specify the criteria
for data accuracy assessments of CEMS subject to PS-15. Instead of
requiring data accuracy assessments by RATA's, CGA's, or RAA's, as
required for other types of CEMS, the amended Procedure 1 would require
quarterly data accuracy assessments according to the three audit
procedures specified in section 9 of PS-15. The Audit Sample Check,
which is specified in section 9.1 of PS-15, would be required at least
once every four calendar quarters. The Audit Spectra Check, which is
specified in section 9.2 of PS-15, could be used to satisfy the data
accuracy assessment requirement no more than once every four calendar
quarters. The Submit Audit for Independent Analysis, which is specified
in section 9.3 of PS-15, could be used to satisfy the data accuracy
assessment in no more than three of every four consecutive calendar
quarters. Proposed section 5.1.6(3) of Procedure 1 also would stipulate
that the data accuracy audits performed under the QA procedure satisfy
the PS-15 requirement for quarterly or semiannual QA/QC checks on the
operation of the CEMS.
VI. Summary of Proposed Amendments to the General Provisions to Parts
60, 61, and 63
A. What is the purpose of the amendments to the General Provisions to
parts 60, 61, and 63?
The purpose of the proposed amendments to the General Provisions to
parts 60, 61, and 63 is to ensure that the monitoring requirements
specified in the General Provisions that apply to CPMS are consistent
with the requirements in the proposed PS-17 and Procedure 4 and the
requirements specified in the applicable subparts that require the use
of the CPMS that are affected by this proposed rule.
B. What specific changes are we proposing to the General Provisions to
parts 60, 61, and 63?
These proposed amendments to the General Provisions to part 60
would redesignate Sec. 60.13(a) as Sec. 60.13(a)(1) and would add
Sec. 60.13(a)(2). The new paragraph would state that performance
specifications and QA procedures for CPMS, promulgated under part 60,
appendices B and F, respectively, apply instead of requirements for
CPMS specified in applicable subparts to part 60.
These proposed amendments to the General Provisions to part 61
would redesignate Sec. 61.14(a) as Sec. 61.14(a)(1) and would add
Sec. 61.14(a)(2). The new paragraph would state that performance
specifications and QA procedures for CPMS, promulgated under part 60,
appendices B and F, respectively, apply instead of requirements for
CPMS specified in applicable subparts to part 61.
These proposed amendments to the General Provisions to part 63
would make several changes to Sec. 63.8(c). Section 63.8(a)(2) would
be revised to include new paragraph Sec. 63.8(a)(2)(ii). The new
paragraph would state that performance specifications and QA procedures
for CPMS, promulgated under part 60, appendices B and F, respectively,
apply instead of the requirements for CPMS specified in applicable
subparts to part 63.
Under these proposed amendments, the installation requirements of
Sec. 63.8(c)(2) would apply to all CMS, including CPMS.
Section 63.8(c)(4) addresses continuous operation and cycle time
for CEMS and COMS. These proposed amendments would expand the
requirement of Sec. 63.8(c)(4) to require that all CPMS also must be
in continuous operation. These proposed amendments also would add
paragraph Sec. 63.8(c)(4)(iii) to require that all CPMS complete one
cycle of operation within the time period specified in the applicable
rule.
Section 63.8(c)(6) addresses daily drift checks. In this proposal,
we would delete the last three sentences of paragraph (c)(6) that apply
specifically to CPMS because the proposed PS-17 and Procedure 4 would
specify the applicable criteria.
Section 63.8(c)(7) defines when a CMS is out of control. The
proposed amendments would clarify in Sec. 63.8(c)(7)(i)(A) that the
term ``out of control'', when defined in terms of excessive calibration
drift, applies to CEMS and COMS and not to CPMS. We also would revise
Sec. 63.8(c)(7)(i)(B), which relates out of control to failed
performance test audits, relative accuracy audits, relative accuracy
test audits, and linearity test audits. In these proposed amendments,
Sec. 63.8(c)(7)(i)(A) and (B) would apply only to CEMS and COMS. These
proposed amendments would add Sec. 63.8(c)(7)(i)(D) to clarify that a
CPMS is out of control when the system fails an accuracy audit.
Quality control programs for CMS are addressed in Sec. 63.8(d). We
are proposing to revise Sec. 63.8(d)(2)(ii) to clarify that written
protocols for calibration drift determinations and adjustments would
not necessarily apply to CPMS.
Finally, we are proposing changes to Sec. 63.8(e), which address
CMS performance evaluations. We are proposing to amend Sec. 63.8(e)(2)
and (3)(i) to clarify that prior written notice of performance
evaluations and performance evaluation test plans are required for CEMS
or COMS only. In addition, we are proposing to revise Sec. 63.8(e)(4)
to clarify that CPMS performance evaluations must be performed in
accordance with the applicable QA procedure (i.e., Procedure 4).
VII. Summary of the Proposed Amendments to 40 CFR Part 63, Subpart SS.
A. What is the purpose of the amendments to subpart SS?
We are proposing to amend subpart SS to ensure that the monitoring
requirements for CPMS specified in subpart SS are consistent with the
proposed PS-17 and Procedure 4.
B. What specific changes are we proposing to subpart SS?
We are proposing several changes to the general monitoring
requirements for control and recovery devices specified in Sec.
63.996. The purpose of these changes is to clarify CPMS monitoring
requirements and ensure that the requirements of subpart SS are
consistent with the proposed PS-17 and Procedure 4.
Under Sec. 63.996(c)(7), we are proposing to require that you
satisfy the requirements of applicable performance specifications and
QA procedures established under 40 CFR part 60. In addition, the
amended subpart SS would require a CPMS cycle time of no longer than 15
minutes and at least four equally-spaced measurements for each valid
hour of data for all CPMS. Any device that is used to perform an
initial validation or an accuracy audit of a CPMS would have to have
NIST-traceable accuracy and an accuracy hierarchy of at least three.
Section 63.996(c)(8), (9), and (10) of the amended subpart SS would
specify requirements for temperature, pressure, and pH CPMS,
respectively. Specific requirements would include the same minimum
accuracies and data recording system resolution specified in the
proposed PS-17 for the same type of CPMS. The proposed amendments to
subpart SS would require owners or operators of affected CPMS to
perform initial calibrations and initial validations of each CPMS. The
initial
[[Page 59973]]
validation of a temperature or pressure CPMS could be performed by
comparison to a calibrated measurement device or by any other method
specified in applicable performance specifications for CPMS established
under 40 CFR part 60, appendix B. The initial validation of a pH CPMS
could be performed using a single point calibration or by any other
method specified in applicable performance specifications for CPMS
established under 40 CFR part 60, appendix B.
The proposed amendments to subpart SS also would require accuracy
audits at the same frequencies that would be required by proposed
Procedure 4: quarterly for temperature and pressure CPMS, and weekly
for pH CPMS. Accuracy audits also would be required for temperature and
pressure CPMS following any period of 24 hours throughout which the
measured value (temperature or pressure) exceeded the manufacturer's
recommended maximum operating value. Owners or operators of affected
temperature or pressure CPMS could perform accuracy audits by the
redundant sensor method, by comparison to a calibrated measurement
device, or by any other accuracy audit method specified in applicable
QA procedures established under 40 CFR part 60, appendix F. For pH
CPMS, owners or operators could perform accuracy audits by the
redundant sensor method, single point calibration method, or by any
other accuracy audit method specified in applicable QA procedures
established under 40 CFR part 60, appendix F. In addition, quarterly
visual inspections would be required for any temperature or pressure
CPMS not equipped with a redundant sensor; for pH CPMS not equipped
with a redundant sensor, monthly visual inspections would be required.
VIII. Rationale for Selecting the Proposed Requirements of Performance
Specification 17
A. What information did we use to develop PS-17?
To develop proposed PS-17, we considered the requirements of
emission standards promulgated under 40 CFR parts 60, 61, and 63; State
agency requirements for CPMS; manufacturer and vendor recommendations;
and current operational and design practices in industry. To the extent
possible, we also considered voluntary consensus standards for CPMS
specifications and requirements, and this proposed rule lists several
voluntary consensus standards that can be used as alternative methods
for checking instrument sensor accuracies. Our review of voluntary
consensus standards that apply to parameter monitoring devices is
summarized in section XV.I of this document.
To obtain information on current practices and recommendations
regarding CPMS design, installation and operation, we developed three
separate surveys (hereafter referred to as the CPMS surveys). We sent
one survey to nine State agencies, one survey to nine CPMS
manufacturers and vendors, and the third survey to nine companies with
facilities that currently are subject to emission standards. Although
the responses to the CPMS survey were far from complete, the surveys
did provide useful information on equipment accuracies, operation and
maintenance procedures, and calibration frequencies. To the extent
possible, we used the information presented in the CPMS survey
responses in the selection of the requirements for PS-17.
B. How did we select the applicability criteria for PS-17?
To select the applicability criteria for PS-17, we considered the
current parameter monitoring requirements that are now in effect under
40 CFR parts 60, 61, and 63. The General Provisions to parts 60 and 63
clearly establish the need for performance specifications for CPMS.
Although the monitoring provisions of the part 61 General Provisions
are not as detailed as the General Provisions requirements of parts 60
and 63, we believe that the need for performance specifications for
part 61 is also warranted. The need for CPMS performance specifications
is most evident for part 63 in that standards promulgated under part 63
establish enforceable operating limits for parameter monitoring
systems. As stated in Sec. 63.6(e)(iii), operation and maintenance
requirements, which include parameter monitor operating limits, ``* * *
are enforceable independent of emissions limitations or other
requirements in relevant standards.'' As a result, there is a need for
additional QA and QC for part 63 rules to ensure that the equipment
used to comply with those operating limits is properly designed,
installed, operated, and maintained.
We recognize that parameter monitoring data for sources subject to
part 60 and 61 rules are not in themselves the basis for compliance
determinations with the applicable rules, as is the case for sources
subject to part 63 rules. Despite that, we believe that there still is
a strong need for performance specifications to help ensure the quality
of those monitoring system data. In addition, many of the sources
regulated under parts 60 and 61 are also regulated under part 63. For
these reasons, and to achieve consistency among the requirements for
all of our emission standards, we have decided to require PS-17 to
apply uniformly to all sources for which CPMS are required under parts
60, 61, or 63. It should be noted that the proposed requirements for
CPMS would not be retroactive, but would apply only to the operation,
use, and maintenance of CPMS following promulgation of the final PS-17
and Procedure 4 for CPMS.
C. How did we select the parameters that are addressed by PS-17?
The parameters that currently are addressed by proposed PS-17
(temperature, pressure, flow rate, pH, and conductivity) were selected
primarily for two reasons: (1) These parameters are generally accepted
as reliable indicators of the performance of many types of emission
control devices, and (2) most part 60, 61, and 63 emission standards
require continuous monitoring of one or more of these parameters.
Temperature often is monitored as an indicator of the performance of
incineration devices, such as thermal oxidizers, catalytic oxidizers,
boilers, and process heaters used for the control of organic emissions.
In addition, several part 60, 61, and 63 standards require the
monitoring of condenser outlet temperature or carbon adsorber bed
regeneration temperature. Monitoring of the temperature of scrubber
liquid also is required by some part 60, 61, and 63 standards. Several
existing standards require monitoring of pressure drop across control
devices, such as wet scrubbers, mist eliminators, and baghouses.
Several rules also require CPMS for monitoring scrubber liquid supply
pressure. A number of part 60, 61, and 63 standards require monitoring
of gas or liquid flow rates. Gas flow rate generally is an indicator of
residence time in control devices. The gas and liquid flow rates
through a wet scrubber are used to determine the liquid-to-gas ratio,
and several promulgated rules require wet scrubber liquid flow rate
monitoring. Many standards require mass flow CPMS for monitoring
process feed or production rates. In addition, some existing standards
require monitoring of carbon adsorber regeneration steam flow rate.
Scrubber liquid pH is an important indicator of the performance of acid
gas control. Finally, monitoring wet scrubber liquid conductivity
provides a good indication of the solids content of the scrubber liquid
and the need for blowdown. We recognize that other parameters also are
[[Page 59974]]
used to indicate control device performance or to monitor process
operations, but we believed it less critical to address those other
parameters at this time. However, we intend to address additional
parameters in PS-17 as the need arises and resources permit.
D. Why did we include requirements for flow CPMS in PS-17 if PS-6
already specifies requirements for flow sensors?
The requirements of PS-6 (40 CFR part 60, appendix B) apply
specifically to continuous emission rate monitoring systems (CERMS),
which generally include one or more sensors to measure exhaust gas flow
rate in addition to the sensor for measuring the concentration of the
target pollutant. The proposed PS-17 would have much broader
application, such as natural gas flow, steam flow through a carbon bed
adsorber, and exhaust gas flow through an emission control device. The
proposed PS-17 also would apply to liquid flow and mass flow rate
monitoring. In addition to applicability, there are other significant
differences in the requirements for flow rate sensors under PS-6 and
flow CPMS under the proposed PS-17. The PS-6 specifies CD and RA test
requirements for the flow sensor component of CERMS and generally
references PS-2 for other requirements. Specifying CD requirements for
CERMS in PS-6 is appropriate because PS-6 is meant to apply to
monitoring systems that are used for calculating emission rates for
determining compliance with emission limits or caps. The proposed PS-17
would have no provisions for checking CD because it is intended
primarily for monitoring indicators of control device performance and
process parameters rather than emission rates. Consequently, we believe
that less rigorous performance assessments are appropriate for CPMS
that would be subject to PS-17. Finally, unlike PS-6, PS-17 was
developed specifically for CPMS. As a result, we were able to
incorporate into the proposed PS-17 more specific design, installation,
and evaluation criteria than are provided in PS-6.
E. How did we select the equipment requirements?
In selecting the equipment requirements for PS-17, our intent was
to specify criteria that would allow flexibility in the equipment that
owners and operators of affected CPMS choose, without compromising the
quality of data produced by that equipment. The proposed PS-17 would
specify two types of equipment: (1) The components that comprise a
CPMS, and (2) the equipment needed to validate that CPMS.
1. CPMS Equipment Requirements
For CPMS components, we selected equipment criteria for overall
system accuracy and compatibility. The equipment requirements also
would address the measurement range and resolution of the data
recording system. The criterion for accuracy would simply be that the
equipment must have a demonstrable capability of satisfying the
accuracy requirement for the initial validation. We considered, but
decided against, specifying sensor design criteria. By not specifying
design criteria, we incorporated a considerable amount of flexibility
into proposed PS-17 by allowing affected owners and operators to select
any equipment, provided they can demonstrate that the CPMS meets the
accuracy requirements for the initial validation. However, we do
identify voluntary consensus standards that can be used as guidelines
for selecting specific types of sensors.
The proposed PS-17 would require a resolution of one-half the
accuracy requirement or better to ensure that the accuracy of the CPMS
can be calculated to at least the minimum number of significant figures
for the data accuracy assessment to be meaningful. For example, if the
data recorder of a pressure CPMS had a resolution of 0.24 kPa (1.0 in.
wc), it would not be possible to determine that the CPMS is satisfying
the required accuracy of 0.12 kPa (0.5 in. wc). Selecting a resolution
of one-half the required accuracy ensures that measurements made during
validation checks can be readily compared to the accuracy requirement.
Furthermore, based on our review of equipment vendor catalogues, most
CPMS on the market easily satisfy this minimum resolution. The
requirements for measurement range were selected to ensure that the
CPMS can detect and record measurements beyond the normal operating
range. We believe that requiring a range of at least 20
percent beyond the normal operating range is reasonable and the minimum
measurement range needed to encompass most excursions. Owners and
operators may want to select equipment with even wider ranges if it is
likely that measurements beyond 20 percent of the normal
operating range will occur. We made an exception to the measurement
range requirement for pH CPMS by requiring the range of pH CPMS data
recorders to cover the entire pH scale of 0 to 14 pH units. Our review
of vendor literature indicates that, with few exceptions, pH CPMS are
designed to record over the entire pH scale.
Finally, the proposed PS-17 would require the electronic components
of any CPMS to be internally compatible. We believe that internal
compatibility is essential for ensuring the accuracy and durability of
a CPMS.
2. CPMS Validation Equipment Requirements
Two types of equipment would be needed to perform the initial
validation check of a CPMS: (1) A device that is used to directly check
the accuracy of the CPMS, and (2) work platforms, test ports, fittings,
valves, and other equipment that are needed to conduct the initial
validation. For the devices used to check CPMS accuracy, we would
require NIST-traceable accuracy and an accuracy hierarchy of at least
three. We would require that the accuracy of the device be NIST-
traceable as a way of ensuring the accuracy of the test device. We
incorporated into PS-17 two exceptions to the NIST-traceability
requirement. First, a mercury-in-glass or water-in-glass U-tube
manometer could be used instead of a calibrated pressure measurement
device with NIST-traceable accuracy when validating a pressure CPMS or
a flow CPMS that uses a differential pressure flow meter. The reason
for making this exception is that the accuracy of such manometers can
be confirmed onsite by a simple measurement of the manometer scale. We
also included an exception to the NIST-traceable accuracy and accuracy
hierarchy for containers used to validate flow CPMS by either the
volumetric or gravimetric methods. In such cases, the volume of the
container could be determined onsite with sufficient accuracy to
provide a reliable assessment of flow CPMS accuracy.
In selecting the accuracy hierarchy for validation devices, we
reviewed the requirements for existing standards and manufacturers'
recommendations. Several voluntary consensus standards, such as ISA-
S37.3-1982 (R1995) and ISA-S37.6-1982 (R1995), which apply to pressure
transducers, require that the testing or calibration device have an
accuracy at least five times that of the device that is to be tested
(i.e., an accuracy hierarchy of five). Other standards developed by the
American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) and Military
Specifications (MIL-SPEC) require an accuracy of four times that of the
equipment being tested, which establishes an accuracy hierarchy of
four. At least one equipment owner's manual specifies that testing
devices have an accuracy of at least three times that of the
[[Page 59975]]
equipment being tested. We believe that requiring an accuracy hierarchy
of three is adequate for the purposes of PS-17. Furthermore, a review
of manufacturers' literature indicates that calibration devices with
accuracies that would satisfy the accuracy hierarchy of the proposed
PS-17 are readily available at reasonable cost.
We decided to require owners and operators of affected CPMS to
install work platforms, test ports, and other equipment needed for the
initial validation check to ensure that the validation check and
ongoing accuracy audits can be conducted properly. It is not necessary
that a permanent work platform be installed.
F. How did we select the installation and location requirements?
In the proposed PS-17, we would require owners and operators of
affected CPMS to locate CPMS sensors where they will provide
measurements representative of the parameter that is being monitored.
The objective of this requirement is to help ensure that affected CPMS
produce quality data. The location and installation requirements
specified in the proposed PS-17 are generally consistent with the
requirements of rules promulgated under parts 60, 61, and 63.
G. How did we select the initial QA measures?
The initial QA measures specified in the proposed PS-17 include an
electronic calibration and an initial validation check. The initial
calibration generally is included as part of the manufacturer's
recommended procedures for the installation and startup of CPMS; we
would require these initial calibrations as a means of further ensuring
that the CPMS is placed into operation correctly. We consider the
initial validation necessary for demonstrating that the CPMS is
providing quality data from the outset.
H. How did we select the methods for performing the initial validation
check?
In selecting the methods for validating CPMS, we considered
existing voluntary consensus standards, State agency requirements,
manufacturers' and vendors' recommendations, and practices used by
industry. We tried to identify all methods that would provide a
reliable measure of CPMS accuracy to allow owners and operators of
affected CPMS as much flexibility as possible in choosing how to comply
with PS-17. In general, the validation methods specified in the
proposed PS-17 involve comparison of measurements made by the subject
CPMS to measurements made using a calibrated device that measures or
simulates the same parameter that is measured by the subject CPMS. A
primary objective in selecting these methods is to identify procedures
that assess the overall accuracy of the CPMS while assuring the quality
of data that are used to assess compliance. The initial validation
methods that rely on simulating sensor output actually measure how well
the rest of the system responds to a simulated sensor signal and do not
check the accuracy of the sensor itself. However, we believe that these
methods are reliable because the sensors used in new CPMS are factory-
calibrated and, therefore, should be accurate.
Two general consensus standards were located, but they were
rejected for use with the proposed PS-17 because they are general
references for safe practices while working with electronics. The two
standards are: (1) ANSI/ISA S82.02.01-1999, ``Electric and Electronic
Test, Measuring, Controlling, and Related Equipment: General
Requirements''; and (2) ANSI/ISA S82.03-1988, ``Safety Standard for
Electrical and Electronic Test, Measuring, Controlling, and Related
Equipment (Electrical and Electronic Process Measurement and Control
Equipment).''
1. Temperature CPMS Validation Methods
For validating temperature CPMS, the proposed PS-17 would specify
two methods: (1) Comparison to a calibrated temperature measurement
device, and (2) temperature simulation using a calibrated simulation
device. The first method is based on ASTM E 220-07e1, ``Standard Test
Methods for Calibration of Thermocouples by Comparison Techniques''
(incorporated by reference--see Sec. 60.17). Although the ASTM E220-
07e1 was developed for thermocouples, it should be applicable to other
types of temperature measurement devices. Handheld and otherwise
portable temperature measurement devices with NIST-traceable accuracy
are available from many equipment manufacturers and suppliers.
The second validation method for temperature CPMS would involve the
use of calibrated temperature simulators. Although this simulation
method is not based on an existing standard method, calibrated
simulators with NIST-traceable accuracy are readily available and often
are used to check the accuracy of thermocouples and RTD's. Therefore,
we believe this method is appropriate for the initial validation of
thermocouple-based or RTD-based temperature CPMS, as well as for any
other type of CPMS for which the sensor response can be simulated.
Two other consensus standards relating to temperature measurement
were located, but they were both rejected for use with the proposed PS-
17. The first standard, ASTM E839-05, ``Standard Test Methods for
Sheathed Thermocouples and Sheathed Thermocouple Material'' specifies
tests that pertain to material quality and instrument assembly rather
than direct indicators of instrument performance; many of the tests
specified are either destructive or impractical to perform at the
installation site. The second standard, ASTM E1350-07, ``Standard Guide
for Testing Sheathed Thermocouples, Thermocouple assemblies, and
Connecting Wires Prior to, and After Installation or Service''
specifies tests to determine if specific components of thermocouple
assembly were damaged during storage, shipment, or installation, but
the tests specified do not provide a measure of accuracy.
2. Pressure CPMS Validation Methods
For validating pressure CPMS, the proposed PS-17 would specify
three methods for performing the initial validation check. The first
method would involve comparison to a calibrated pressure measurement
device. This method is based on the same principle as is the
temperature CPMS comparison method. Handheld and portable pressure
measurement devices with NIST-traceable accuracy are available from
many equipment suppliers. Therefore, we believe this method is
appropriate for validating pressure CPMS. The other two pressure CPMS
validation methods in the proposed PS-17 are similar to the simulation
method for validating temperature CPMS and are based on the same
principle. The difference between the temperature simulation method and
the two pressure simulation methods is that the latter generate
pressures instead of electronic signals. One pressure simulation method
uses a calibrated pressure source with NIST-traceable accuracy. These
devices can simulate a range of pressures to high degrees of accuracy.
The other pressure simulation method allows the use of any pressure
source. The pressure applied by the pressure source is measured
concurrently by the subject CPMS and a separate calibrated pressure
measurement device. We believe these methods also can provide reliable
assessments of pressure CPMS accuracy.
Two other voluntary consensus standards relating to pressure
[[Page 59976]]
measurement were located, but they were both rejected for use with the
proposed PS-17. Both standards (ISA-S37.6-1982 (R1995),
``Specifications and Tests for Potentiometric Pressure Transducers''
and ISA-S37.3-1982 (R1995), ``Specifications and Tests for Strain Gage
Pressure Transducers'') provide general calibration procedures, but
neither specifies criteria for evaluating performance.
3. Flow CPMS Validation Methods
For validating flow CPMS, the proposed PS-17 would specify seven
methods. The volumetric and gravimetric methods are based on voluntary
consensus standards and could be used to validate liquid flow CPMS.
Both methods are described in ISA RP 16.6-1961, ``Methods and Equipment
for Calibration of Variable Area Meters (Rotameters),'' and ISA RP
31.1-1977, ``Specification, Installation, and Calibration of Turbine
Flow Meters'' (incorporated by reference--see Sec. 60.17). The
gravimetric method also is described in ANSI/ASME MFC-9M-1988,
``Measurement of Liquid Flow in Closed Conduits by Weighing Method,''
and ASHRAE 41.8-1989, ``Standard Methods of Measurement of Flow of
Liquids in Pipes Using Orifice Flow Meters'' (incorporated by
reference--see Sec. 60.17). These methods are relatively simple to
perform provided that the process flow that is monitored can be
diverted easily to a suitable container for measurement. The
gravimetric method also could be used to validate liquid mass flow or
solid mass flow CPMS.
The differential pressure measurement and pressure flow source
simulation methods for validating liquid or gas flow CPMS would apply
to flow CPMS that use differential pressure meters. These methods would
require accurate pressure measurements and are based on the same
principles as are the methods used for validating pressure CPMS. The
primary difference between the pressure CPMS methods and these flow
CPMS methods is that the flow CPMS would require the calculation of
flow rates based on the pressure differentials measured. The flow
calculation methods are described in ASME MFC-3M-2004, ``Measurement of
Fluid Flow in Pipes Using Orifice, Nozzle, and Venturi'' (incorporated
by reference--see Sec. 60.17). The calibrated pressure measurement
devices and calibrated pressure sources with NIST-traceable accuracy
needed for these validation methods are readily available. Therefore,
we believe these methods are appropriate for validating flow CPMS
accuracy.
The electronic simulation method is identical to the simulation
methods described in this section for temperature and pressure CPMS.
This method would apply only to flow CPMS that use flow sensors that
generate electronic signals, which can be simulated. Examples of flow
CPMS that can be validated using this method are CPMS that use turbine
meters or vortex shedding flow meters.
To validate flow CPMS that measure gas flow, PS-17 also would
specify the RA test using Reference Method 2, 2A, 2B, 2C, 2D, or 2F (40
CFR part 60, appendix A-1), or 2G (40 CFR part 60, appendix A-2), as
appropriate. The RA test for flow CPMS is similar to the RA test
procedures specified in other performance specifications. We selected
this method because it may be the method of choice for facilities that
perform their own emissions testing, have the emissions test equipment,
and are familiar with the procedures of the reference methods for
determining stack gas velocity and volumetric flow rate.
Finally, the proposed PS-17 would specify the material weight
comparison method for validating solid mass flow CPMS. This method
would apply only to CPMS that incorporate a belt conveyor, weigh scale,
and totalizer. The method is based on the Belt-Conveyor Scale Systems
Method, which is described in NIST Handbook 44--2002 Edition:
Specifications, Tolerances, And Other Technical Requirements for
Weighing and Measuring Devices (incorporated by reference--see Sec.
60.17), as adopted by the 86th National Conference on Weights and
Measures 2001. We selected this method because it is relatively simple
and is the only method we could identify that applies specifically to
belt conveyors systems, which are often used to monitor process raw
material feed rates and/or production rates.
Five other voluntary consensus standards relating to flow
measurement were located, but they were rejected for use with the
proposed PS-17. The first standard, ASTM D 3195-90 (2004), ``Standard
Practice for Rotameter Calibration,'' specifies calibration procedures
for rotameters used to determine air sample volumes, but applies only
to air at ambient temperature and pressure. The second standard, ANSI/
ASME MFC-8M-2001, ``Fluid Flow in Closed Conduits--Connections for
Pressure Signal Transmissions between Primary and Secondary Devices,''
only applies to installations where very high accuracy is required. The
third standard, ASTM D 3464-96 (2007), ``Standard Test Method for
Average Velocity in a Duct Using a Thermal Anemometer,'' refers to
another ASTM standard for calibration procedures. The fourth standard,
ASTM D5540-94a (2003), ``Standard Practice for Flow Control and
Temperature Control for On-Line Water Sampling and Analysis,'' details
the sampling of the stream, but provides no information on the
calibration of the flow. The fifth standard, ``Process Monitors in the
Portland Cement Industry'' (published by the EPA) notes that nuclear
weigh belts have 0.5 percent operational accuracy, while gravimetric
and impaction plate weigh belts have 1 percent accuracy; these
accuracies may not hold true for all industries or applications.
4. pH CPMS Validation Methods
For validating pH CPMS, the proposed PS-17 would specify two
methods. The first method would entail comparison to a calibrated pH
meter and is similar to the comparison methods specified for
temperature and pressure CPMS. The second method would be a single
point calibration method using a standard buffer solution. We selected
these methods because they are relatively simple and are in common use
by many facilities to calibrate pH meters.
5. Conductivity CPMS Validation Methods
The proposed PS-17 would specify two methods for validation
conductivity CPMS: Comparison to a calibrated conductivity meter and
single point calibration. These methods are essentially the same as
those used for validating pH CPMS, the only differences being the types
of calibrated instrument and standard solutions used. We selected these
methods because both are reliable, yet relatively simple to perform.
Four other voluntary consensus standards relating to conductivity
measurement were located, but they were rejected for use with the
proposed PS-17. The first and second standards, ASTM E1511-93 (2005),
``Standard Practice for Testing Conductivity Detectors Used in Liquid
and Ion Chromatography,'' and ASTM D3370-95a (2003)e1, ``Standard
Practices for Sampling Water from Closed Conduits,'' detail the mixing
of conductivity standards, so they are good calibration methods, but
far more time-consuming than using readily available pre-mixed
conductivity standards as specified in PS-17. The third standard, ASTM
D6504-07, ``Standard Practice for On-Line Determination of Cation
Conductivity in High Purity Water,'' references other standards for
[[Page 59977]]
calibration procedures. The fourth standard, ASTM D3864-06, ``Standard
Guide for Continual On-Line Monitoring Systems for Water Analysis,''
contains statistical methods that are more rigorous than needed.
I. How did we select the performance criteria for the initial
validation check?
In selecting the performance criteria for the initial validation
checks of CPMS, we considered the accuracies required by existing rules
and the capabilities of off-the-shelf equipment available from the
manufacturers and vendors of CPMS components. Based on our review of
CPMS manufacturer and vendor literature, equipment that satisfies the
accuracy requirements specified in this proposed rule is readily
available.
Existing rules that require the use of CPMS specify a range of
instrument or system accuracies. For some of the affected source
categories, the proposed PS-17 would specify a higher minimum accuracy
than is specified in the applicable subpart. However, this proposed
rule would not increase the stringency of the underlying emission
standards in such cases. Instead, the proposed PS-17 would improve the
accuracy and reliability of, and reduce the uncertainty in, data used
to demonstrate compliance with those emission standards.
1. Temperature CPMS Accuracy
Several rules promulgated under parts 60, 61, and 63 specify an
accuracy requirement for temperature CPMS. Most of these rules specify
temperature accuracy in units of temperature ([deg]C) and as a
percentage of the measured temperature. For example, 40 CFR part 60,
subpart EE, requires thermal incinerator temperature CPMS to have an
accuracy of 2.5 [deg]C or 0.75 percent. Although there is a wide range
of accuracies specified in these rules, the accuracy required for
temperature CPMS associated with high temperature applications, such as
thermal oxidizers or boilers, generally range from 0.75 to 1.0 percent
or from 0.5 [deg]C to 2.5 [deg]C (0.9 [deg]F to 4.5 [deg]F). For lower
temperature applications, such as wet scrubbers, the specified percent
accuracies often are not as stringent; that is, accuracies are
specified as a higher percentage of the measured temperature. This
distinction between low and high temperature applications is consistent
with ANSI specifications for thermocouples. The minimum standard
accuracies for ANSI Type J and K thermocouples in non-cryogenic
applications are [deg]0.75 percent or 2.2 [deg]C (4 [deg]F), whichever is greater; for cryogenic applications, the
minimum standard accuracies are 2.0 percent or 2.2 [deg]C (4 [deg]F), whichever is greater. The
reason for specifying a higher percentage accuracy for lower
temperature ranges is to offset the fact that the accuracy percentage
applies to a lower value. In selecting the temperature accuracy
requirements for the proposed PS-17, we decided to incorporate a
similar distinction between higher temperatures (non-cryogenic
applications) and lower temperatures (cryogenic applications). Our
selection of temperature accuracies of 2.8 [deg]C (5 [deg]F) or [deg]1
percent for non-cryogenic applications, and 2.8 [deg]C (5 [deg]F) or
2.5 percent for cryogenic applications is consistent with
the required accuracies for most standards, and we believe that the
accuracies specified in proposed PS-17 are adequate for ensuring good
quality data. In addition, our review of vendor literature indicates
that temperature CPMS that satisfy these accuracy requirements are
readily available at reasonable costs.
2. Pressure CPMS Accuracy
Among the part 60, 61, and 63 rules that require pressure
monitoring and also specify a minimum accuracy, the accuracy specified
generally is either 0.25 to 0.5 kPa (1 to 2 in. wc) or 5 percent for
pressure drop, and 5 to 15 percent for liquid supply pressure. These
accuracies are easily achievable because most pressure transducers are
accurate to 0.25 to 1.0 percent, and all but the lowest grade (Grade D)
of ANSI-rated pressure gauges have accuracies better than 5 percent.
For the proposed PS-17, we selected an accuracy requirement of 0.12 kPa
(0.5 in. wc) or 5 percent, whichever is greater. The 0.12
kPa criterion would apply only in low pressure applications. Some
existing rules require pressure CPMS to have accuracies of 0.24 kPa
(1.0 in. wc) or better. However, those accuracies generally do not
apply to pressure CPMS in low pressure applications, where the 0.12 kPa
accuracy would apply. We believe this level of accuracy specified for
pressure CPMS is appropriate, considering that some control devices
operate with pressure drops of less than 1.2 kPa (5 in. wc). For
applications with pressures in excess of 2.5 kPa (10 in. wc), the 5
percent accuracy criterion would apply. This criterion is consistent
with most rules that specify pressure device accuracies, and CPMS that
are capable of achieving this accuracy are readily available.
3. Flow CPMS Accuracy
Rules promulgated under parts 60, 61, and 63 that require flow rate
monitoring all specify flow rate accuracy in terms of percent. For
liquid flow rate measurement, these rules generally require accuracies
of 5 percent, and rules that require steam flow rate
monitoring generally require an accuracy of 10 percent or
better. We believe that these accuracies are reasonable, and we have
incorporated them into the proposed PS-17. According to our review of
vendor literature, flow CPMS that can achieve these accuracies are
readily available.
Unlike rules that address temperature and pressure monitoring, most
existing rules that require continuous flow rate monitoring do not
specify flow rate monitoring device accuracies in units of flow rate.
However, there is an advantage to specifying accuracy in units of
measurement as well as a percent; in low flow rate applications, an
accuracy criterion based solely on percent can result in an
unreasonably stringent accuracy requirement. For that reason, we have
incorporated into the proposed PS-17 accuracy criteria as a percent of
flow rate and in units of flow rate. The exceptions are the accuracy
criteria for liquid mass flow rate and solid mass flow rate, both of
which would be specified only as a percentage (i.e., 5
percent). We concluded that it would not be reasonable to specify
accuracy criteria for mass flow in units of mass flow because of the
wide range of flow rates that could be monitored (e.g., carbon
injection rate vs. rotary kiln raw material feed rate). We based the 5
percent accuracy criterion primarily on vendor literature.
Recognizing the differences in the relative magnitudes and the
commonly used units of flow rate measurement for liquids and gases, we
have specified in the proposed PS-17 separate accuracy criteria for
liquid and gas flow rates. For liquid flow rate CPMS, which typically
are associated with wet scrubber operation, the minimum accuracy would
be 1.9 L/min (0.5 gal/min) or 5 percent, whichever is
greater. For gas flow rate CPMS, which often are used to monitor stack
gas flow rate or natural gas fuel flow rate, PS-17 would require a
minimum accuracy of 280 L/min (10 ft\3\/min) or 5 percent,
whichever is greater.
The proposed PS-17 also would specify a relative accuracy criterion
for owners or operators who choose to validate a gas flow rate CPMS
using the RA test, which is specified in section 8.6(6) of PS-17. In
such cases, owners or operators would have to demonstrate that the
affected CPMS achieves a relative accuracy of 20 percent or better. The
relative accuracy criterion of 20 percent was selected because that
value
[[Page 59978]]
is consistent with the relative accuracy required by most performance
specifications promulgated under 40 CFR part 60.
4. pH CPMS Accuracy
Although several subparts of 40 CFR parts 60, 61, and 63 require pH
monitoring, the only rule to specify an accuracy requirement for pH
CPMS is 40 CFR part 61, subpart E; the accuracy required by that rule
for pH measurement devices is 10 percent. Our review of
manufacturer and vendor literature indicates that pH CPMS generally
have accuracies of 0.01 to 0.15 pH units. Based
largely on the vendor literature, we decided to require pH CPMS to have
accuracies of 0.2 pH units or better. An accuracy of 0.2 pH
units should allow most facilities that currently monitor pH to
continue using their pH CPMS, provided the CPMS satisfies the other
equipment criteria specified in PS-17.
5. Conductivity CPMS Accuracy
Because none of the part 60, 61, or 63 rules specify accuracy
requirements for conductivity CPMS, we reviewed manufacturer and vendor
literature, which indicates that conductivity CPMS generally have
accuracies of 1 to 2 percent. Conductivity
measurements range from 0.1 to 200,000 micromhos per centimeter
([mu]mhos/cm) (0.1 to 200,000 microsiemens per centimeter ([mu]S/cm))
at 25 [deg]C (77 [deg]F). To account for this large range and the
accuracies that can be met by most available instruments, we decided to
require conductivity CPMS to have accuracies of 5 percent.
An accuracy requirement of 5 percent should allow most
facilities that currently monitor conductivity to continue using their
conductivity CPMS, provided their CPMS satisfies the other equipment
criteria specified in PS-17.
J. How did we select the recordkeeping requirements?
The proposed PS-17 would require owners or operators of affected
CPMS to maintain records that identify their CPMS and document
performance evaluations, and to retain those records for a period of at
least 5 years. These requirements are consistent with the recordkeeping
requirements specified in Sec. 63.10 of the General Provisions to part
63.
IX. Rationale for Selecting the Proposed Requirements of Procedure 4
A. What information did we use to develop Procedure 4?
The information used to develop Procedure 4 is essentially the same
information used to develop PS-17 and includes information from
existing standards, manufacturer and vendor recommendations, and
current practices in industry. Section VIII.A of this document provides
additional details on how this information was obtained.
B. Why did we decide to apply Procedure 4 to all CPMS that are subject
to PS-17?
Rules promulgated under part 63 establish enforceable operating
limits for parameter monitoring systems. As is the case for CEMS that
are used to demonstrate continuous compliance and are subject to
Procedure 1 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix F, there is a need for ongoing
QA requirements to ensure that the data generated by CPMS are reliable
and accurate. Although the data generated by CPMS that are required
under parts 60 and 61 are not used directly to demonstrate compliance,
we believe there still is a need to ensure the quality of those data is
maintained. For that reason, we believe it is warranted to require that
all part 60, 61, and 63 sources that are required to install and
operate CPMS be subject to PS-17 and Procedure 4.
C. How did we select the accuracy audit procedures?
With the exception of audit procedures for CPMS with redundant
sensors, the accuracy audit procedures specified in the proposed
Procedure 4 would essentially be the same procedures that could be used
to perform the initial validation checks that would be required by PS-
17. For CPMS with redundant sensors, we selected the accuracy audit
procedure of comparing the values of the parameter measured by the two
sensors because that method currently is used by many industrial
facilities to ensure the accuracy of their parameter monitoring
systems. The most significant distinction between the audit procedures
specified in the proposed Procedure 4 and the initial validation
procedures specified in the proposed PS-17 is that the accuracy audit
procedures address sensor accuracy, whereas some of the initial
validation procedures do not address sensor accuracy. When CPMS are
first installed, we assume sensors to have been manufactured and
factory-calibrated under stringent QC requirements. Consequently, the
proposed PS-17 does not require the initial validation check procedures
to include sensor accuracy assessments. However, after a CPMS has been
placed into operation, and the sensor is subjected to process
environments, loss of calibration can occur quickly. Recognizing that
possibility, we have incorporated a check of sensor accuracy into the
accuracy audit procedures of the proposed Procedure 4. Some audit
procedures assess the accuracy of the overall CPMS, including the
sensor. For those procedures, a separate accuracy assessment of the
sensor would not be necessary. For those audit procedures that do not
assess the accuracy of the entire CPMS, we have incorporated into the
proposed Procedure 4 a separate accuracy check of the CPMS sensor.
These sensor accuracy assessments are based on voluntary consensus
standards.
D. How did we select the accuracy audit frequencies?
To determine the appropriate audit frequencies, we reviewed the
requirements of existing rules, the procedures practiced by industry,
and vendor recommendations. Most of the rules promulgated under 40 CFR
parts 60, 61, and 63 do not specify calibration or audit frequencies.
Those rules that do specify accuracy audit frequencies usually require
annual calibrations; a few rules require semi-annual or quarterly
calibrations of CPMS. The information provided by industry in its
responses to the CPMS survey indicated that the typical calibration
frequency for most CPMS is once per year. Two facilities perform
calibrations on thermocouples semiannually. One of those facilities
also checks pressure meter calibration semiannually. Another facility
reported that it checks and calibrates its pH CPMS on a weekly basis.
With the exception of pH CPMS, Procedure 4 would require quarterly
accuracy audits. This frequency is comparable to the audit frequencies
required for CEMS specified in many part 60, 61, and 63 standards, and
we believe that quarterly accuracy assessments are warranted for CPMS
to ensure that monitoring data are accurate. The available information
indicates that pH sensors require more frequent calibration than do
other types of sensors, and weekly calibration of pH CPMS is common.
Therefore, we believe that weekly accuracy audits are warranted for pH
CPMS.
E. How did we select the performance criteria for accuracy audits?
The performance criteria for the accuracy audits specified in
Procedure 4 are identical to those specified for the initial validation
check required by PS-17. The rationale for the validation check
accuracy requirements is described in section VIII.H of this document.
[[Page 59979]]
F. How did we select the recordkeeping requirements?
The proposed Procedure 4 would require owners or operators of
affected CPMS to maintain records of all accuracy audits and corrective
actions taken to return the CPMS to normal operation and to retain
those records for a period of at least 5 years. These requirements are
consistent with the recordkeeping requirements specified in Sec. 63.10
of the General Provisions to part 63.
X. Rationale for Selecting the Proposed Amendments to Procedure 1
A. How did we select the amendments to Procedure 1 that apply to PS-9?
Before drafting the proposed amendments to Procedure 1 (40 CFR part
60, appendix F), we reviewed the procedure and PS-9 (40 CFR part 60,
appendix B) to identify those sections of Procedure 1 that did not
address, or were inconsistent with, the specific requirements of PS-9.
We identified three such sections of Procedure 1: section 1,
Applicability and Principle; section 4, CD Assessment; and section 5,
Data Accuracy Assessment. The applicability section of Procedure 1
applies to CEMS that are used for monitoring a single pollutant or
diluent. The section does not address CEMS that can be used for
monitoring more than one pollutant, such as those that are subject to
PS-9. Therefore, it is necessary to amend section 1 to clarify that
Procedure 1 would apply to single and multiple pollutant CEMS.
Section 4.1 of Procedure 1 requires owners or operators of affected
CEMS to check the daily CD at two concentration values. In the case of
a single pollutant CEMS, there is no ambiguity in this requirement.
However, for multiple pollutant CEMS, Procedure 1 is unclear as to
which pollutant can or must be used for the daily CD check. We are
proposing to amend Procedure 1 to allow owners and operators of
affected CEMS to perform the CD check using any of the target
pollutants specified in the applicable subpart.
Section 5 of Procedure 1, which addresses data accuracy audits, is
inconsistent with the requirements of PS-9. Procedure 1 requires RATA's
at least once every four calendar quarters; the accuracy audit
requirement for the other three calendar quarters can be satisfied by
performing either RATA's, CGA's, or RAA's. However, PS-9 requires
quarterly CGA's and does not address RATA's or RAA's. To resolve this
inconsistency in Procedure 1, these proposed amendments would add
section 5.1.5, which would clarify that owners and operators of CEMS
subject to PS-9 are not required to perform RATA's; the accuracy audit
requirement would have to be satisfied by performing quarterly CGA's.
The CGA's would have to be conducted at two points for each target
pollutant specified in the applicable subpart. Finally, the proposed
new section would clarify that these quarterly CGA's satisfy the
quarterly CGA requirement of PS-9.
B. How did we select the amendments to Procedure 1 that apply to PS-15?
After reviewing Procedure 1, we identified three sections that
either were inconsistent with the requirements of PS-15 (40 CFR part
60, appendix B) or did not address the unique characteristics of CEMS
that are subject to PS-15. The sections identified were section 1,
Applicability and Principle; section 4, CD Assessment; and section 5,
Data Accuracy Assessment. As explained in the section X.A of this
document, these proposed amendments to section 1 of Procedure 1 would
clarify that the procedure also applies to CEMS that are used for
monitoring more than one pollutant or diluent. To address the CD
assessment of CEMS subject to PS-15, we are proposing to add three
paragraphs to section 4 of Procedure 1. Unlike other types of CEMS,
extractive FTIR CEMS are not generally checked for CD. Instead, PS-15
specifies other procedures for checking these instruments on a daily
basis. In these proposed amendments we are adding section 4.1.2 to
Procedure 1 to specify the proper procedures for checking FTIR CEMS
performance that are comparable to the CD checks of other types of
CEMS. These daily assessments serve the same purpose as do the daily CD
check requirements for other types of CEMS. We also recognize that the
term ``excessive CD,'' as defined in section 4.3 of Procedure 1, needs
to be clarified for CEMS subject to PS-15. To address this need, we are
proposed to add section 4.3.3 to Procedure 1. Section 4.3.3 would
clarify how excessive CD is defined for CEMS subject to PS-15 and also
would specify when such CEMS are out of control.
Section 4.4 of Procedure 1 addresses CEMS data reporting and
recordkeeping. Because of the unique data storage requirements for PS-
15, we believe adding another paragraph to section 4.4 of Procedure 1
is warranted. The new paragraph in section 4.4 essentially would
reference the data storage requirements specified in PS-15.
The Procedure 1 specifies three methods for assessing data
accuracy: RATA's, CGA's, and RAA's. On the other hand, PS-15 specifies
a different set of accuracy audit procedures: audit sample checks,
audit spectra checks, and an independent accuracy assessment performed
by us. Consequently, there is an obvious need to amend Procedure 1 if
we were to extend the applicability of Procedure 1 to include CEMS
subject to PS-15. To resolve this inconsistency, we would add section
5.1.6 to Procedure 1. We modeled section 5.1.6 after the accuracy audit
requirements that were already incorporated in Procedure 1. The most
rigorous of the accuracy assessment methods specified in PS-15 is the
audit sample check. In this respect, the audit sample check is
analogous to the RATA. For consistency with the requirements for other
types of CEMS, we would require audit sample checks for CEMS subject to
PS-15 to be performed at least once every four calendar quarters, as is
the case for RATA's for other types of CEMS. For the other three
calendar quarters, we would allow owners and operators of CEMS subject
to PS-15 to perform any of the three audit procedures specified in PS-
15 (audit sample check, audit spectra check, and submitting spectra for
independent analysis), with one exception. The audit spectra check
assesses the accuracy of the analytical measurement but not the
sampling system measurement. Therefore, we would allow owners and
operators of CEMS subject to PS-15 to use the audit spectra check only
once every four quarters to satisfy the accuracy audit requirement of
Procedure 1. Finally, proposed section 5.1.6 of Procedure 1 would
clarify that the quarterly accuracy assessments required by Procedure 1
satisfy the quarterly or semiannual QA/QC checks required by PS-15.
XI. Rationale for Selecting the Proposed Amendments to the General
Provisions to Parts 60, 61, and 63
A. How did we select the amendments to the General Provisions to parts
60, 61, and 63?
The proposed PS-17 and Procedure 4 would specify CPMS accuracies,
audit frequencies, and other requirements that differ from some of the
requirements for CPMS specified in applicable subparts to parts 60, 61,
and 63. Eliminating the resulting discrepancies would require either
amending each of the applicable subparts or amending the General
Provisions to those parts. We concluded that amending the General
Provisions would be the preferred approach for avoiding such conflicts
or discrepancies.
After reviewing the General Provisions to parts 60 and 61 that
apply
[[Page 59980]]
specifically to monitoring (i.e., Sec. Sec. 60.13 and 61.14), we
decided to amend only the applicability sections of those parts. By
stating that, upon promulgation, performance specifications and QA
procedures for CPMS (i.e., the proposed PS-17 and Procedure 4) apply to
CPMS instead of requirements in the applicable subparts to parts 60 and
61, we believe we can eliminate any discrepancies between the
applicable subparts and the proposed PS-17 and Procedure 4. We
concluded that this proposed rule would not conflict with the
monitoring requirements specified in subsequent sections of the General
Provisions to parts 60 and 61, and further amendments to those General
Provisions were unnecessary.
With respect to the General Provisions to part 63, we identified
several inconsistencies between the requirements specified in Sec.
63.8 and the requirements in the proposed PS-17 and Procedure 4. In
this action, we are proposing several changes to Sec. 63.8 to
eliminate those inconsistencies.
We believe that the installation requirement of Sec. 63.8(c)(2)
should apply to all CMS, and not simply CEMS; we are proposing to amend
Sec. 63.8(c)(2) accordingly. We believe that the requirement for
continuous operation specified in Sec. 63.8(c)(4) should apply to all
CMS, and not just CEMS and COMS as now specified in the General
Provisions.
Section 63.8(c)(4) addresses cycle time for CEMS and COMS, but not
for CPMS. We believe it is necessary to address CPMS cycle time also.
Consequently, we are proposing to add Sec. 63.8(c)(4)(iii) for that
purpose.
The last three sentences of Sec. 63.8(c)(6) address calibration
and daily checks of CPMS. We are proposing to delete these provisions
because the proposed PS-17 and Procedure 4 would address CPMS operation
and maintenance more thoroughly.
Section 63.8(c)(7) of the General Provisions defines CMS that are
out of control in terms of excessive calibration drift checks and
periodic audits that apply to CEMS and COMS, but not to CPMS.
Consequently, we are proposing to amend Sec. 63.8(c)(7) to clarify
that, for CPMS, out of control is defined in terms of failed accuracy
audits only. The proposed amendments would clarify in Sec.
63.8(c)(7)(i)(A) that out of control, when defined in terms of
excessive calibration drift, applies to CEMS and COMS and not CPMS. We
also would revise Sec. 63.8(c)(7)(i)(B), which relates out of control
to failed performance test audits, relative accuracy audits, relative
accuracy test audits, and linearity test audits that apply to CEMS and
COMS, but not to CPMS. We propose adding Sec. 63.8(c)(7)(i)(D) to
clarify that a CPMS is out of control when it fails an accuracy audit.
Quality control programs for CMS are addressed in Sec. 63.8(d). We
are proposing to revise Sec. 63.8(d)(2)(ii) to clarify that the
requirement for written protocols for calibration drift determinations
and adjustments would apply only to applicable CMS; that is, the
requirement would apply to CEMS and COMS, but not to CPMS because
calibration drift is not relevant to many CPMS.
Finally, we are proposing changes to Sec. 63.8(e), which address
CMS performance evaluations. We are proposing to amend Sec. 63.8(e)(2)
and (3)(i) to clarify that prior written notice of performance
evaluations and performance evaluation test plans are required for CEMS
or COMS only. Under the proposed PS-17 and Procedure 4, CPMS initial
validations and/or accuracy audits would be required at least quarterly
using procedures that are much simpler than those required for CEMS or
COMS performance tests. Consequently, we believe that requiring written
notifications and test plans is unnecessary for CPMS performance
evaluations. We also are proposing to revise Sec. 63.8(e)(4), which
addresses conducting CMS performance evaluations during any required
performance test. Currently, Sec. 63.8(e)(4) states that CMS
performance evaluations must be conducted in accordance to the
applicable performance specification. We are proposing to clarify
paragraph (e)(4) to state that such evaluations of CMS performance
should be conducted in accordance with the applicable performance
specification or QA procedure because procedures for performing CPMS
accuracy audits would be specified in the proposed Procedure 4.
XII. Rationale for Selecting the Proposed Amendments to 40 CFR Part 63,
Subpart SS
Our proposed amendments to subpart SS (65 FR 76444, December 6,
2000) included revisions to the general monitoring requirements
specified in Sec. 63.996. At that time, we had not completed our
development of performance specifications and QA procedures for CPMS,
which we are now proposing as PS-17 and Procedure 4, respectively.
After reviewing the public comments on the December 6, 2000 proposal
and comparing the requirements of PS-17 and Procedure 4 to the proposed
changes to Sec. 63.996, we decided that further revisions to Sec.
63.996 are warranted to ensure consistency between the monitoring
requirements of subpart SS, PS-17, and Procedure 4. We identified the
requirements of the proposed PS-17 and Procedure 4 that were most
relevant to the generic MACT source categories and incorporated those
requirements into the amendments that we are proposing for subpart SS.
We believe that these proposed amendments would ensure consistency with
PS-17, Procedure 4, and subpart SS.
XIII. Summary of Environmental, Energy, and Economic Impacts
A. What are the impacts of PS-17 and Procedure 4?
The proposed PS-17 and Procedure 4 would apply only to CPMS that
are required under an applicable subpart to 40 CFR parts 60, 61, or 63;
that is, this proposed rulemaking would not require the installation or
operation of CPMS, other than those already required by rule. The cost
and economic impact analyses that are completed as part of the
rulemaking process for any part 60, 61, or 63 rule account for the
costs associated with any required CPMS that would be subject to PS-17
and Procedure 4. Those costs, which are not attributable to this
proposed rulemaking, include the capital costs for equipment,
installation costs, the costs for operating and maintaining the CPMS,
and the costs for maintaining records and reporting CPMS data. However,
in some cases, the proposed PS-17 and Procedure 4 would require more
accurate sensors and more frequent accuracy audits and inspections than
would be required otherwise for some source categories. Therefore, the
incremental costs associated with replacing those sensors and
conducting additional audits and inspections can be attributed to the
proposed PS-17 and Procedure 4. Because the applicability of the
proposed PS-17 and Procedure 4 will be phased in over a 5-year period,
we estimated the costs for each of those initial 5 years. Based on
those estimates, the nationwide additional annualized costs to
implement the proposed PS-17 and Procedure 4 amount to $17.7 million
for the first year, $26.4 million for the second, $35.0 million for the
third year, $43.7 million for the fourth year, and $52.3 million for
the fifth year of this proposed rule. The average annualized cost per
source is estimated to be $320, $470, $610, $740, and $870 for the
first through fifth years, respectively. These costs are based on the
assumption that affected facilities would not choose to use redundant
[[Page 59981]]
sensors. If facilities elected to use redundant sensors, the estimated
compliance costs for the proposed PS-17 and Procedure 4 would be
reduced.
The proposed PS-17 and Procedure 4 would improve the quality of the
data measured and recorded by CPMS and thereby would also reduce the
uncertainty in those data. However, this proposed rulemaking would not
require the installation or operation of additional CPMS. Therefore,
with respect to other potential impacts associated with this proposed
rulemaking, we have concluded that PS-17 and Procedure 4, as proposed,
would have no energy or environmental impacts beyond those that have
already been attributed by to the various part 60, 61, and 63 rules
that require the use of CPMS.
B. What are the impacts of the amendments to Procedure 1?
The proposed amendments to Procedure 1 clarify how owners and
operators of CEMS subject to PS-9 or PS-15 must satisfy the
requirements already established by Procedure 1. Therefore, we have
determined that there are no additional impacts that should be
attributed to these proposed amendments to Procedure 1.
C. What are the impacts of the amendments to the General Provisions to
parts 60, 61, and 63?
The proposed amendments to 40 CFR 60.13 and 40 CFR 61.14 would
eliminate any discrepancies between the requirements for CPMS specified
in an applicable subpart to parts 60 or 61 and requirements for CPMS
specified in the proposed PS-17 and Procedure 4. The amendments to 40
CFR 63.8 that we are proposing clarify how the monitoring requirements
of the General Provisions to part 63 apply to CPMS. These proposed
amendments do not add any additional requirements to what is already
required by the General Provisions to parts 60, 61, and 63.
Consequently, we have concluded that the proposed amendments do not
have any significant environmental, energy, or economic impacts on the
affected source categories.
D. What are the impacts of the amendments to subpart SS?
The proposed amendments to 40 CFR part 63, subpart SS clarify the
monitoring requirements for CPMS that are required under subpart SS and
the General Provisions to part 63. Furthermore, these proposed
amendments provide consistency between those monitoring requirements
and the proposed requirements of PS-17 and Procedure 4. For these
reasons, we have concluded that there are no significant environmental,
energy, or economic impacts associated with the proposed amendments.
XIV. Solicitation of Comments and Public Participation
We want to have full public participation in arriving at our final
decisions, and we encourage comment on all aspects of this proposal
from all interested parties. Interested parties should submit
supporting data and detailed analyses with their comments so we can
make maximum use of them. Information on where and when to submit
comments is listed in ``Comments'' under the DATES and ADDRESSES
sections.
XV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review
This action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under the
terms of Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and is
therefore not subject to review under the Executive Order.
B. Paperwork Reduction Act
The information collection requirements in this proposed rule have
been submitted for approval to the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. The
Information Collection Request (ICR) document prepared by EPA has been
assigned EPA ICR number 2269.01.
The information collection requirements for the proposed PS-17 and
Procedure 4 are based on the requirements in the General Provisions to
parts 60, 61, and 63, which are mandatory for all operators subject to
NSPS or NESHAP. These recordkeeping and reporting requirements are
specifically authorized by section 114 of the CAA (42 U.S.C. 7414). All
information submitted to EPA pursuant to the recordkeeping and
reporting requirements for which a claim of confidentiality is made is
safeguarded according to EPA's policies set forth in 40 CFR 2, subpart
B.
This proposed rule would not require any notifications or reports
beyond those required by the General Provisions to parts 60, 61, and
63. The recordkeeping requirements require only the specific
information needed to determine compliance.
The annual monitoring, reporting, and recordkeeping burden for this
collection of information (averaged over the first 3 years after the
effective date of the rule) is estimated to be 318,662 labor hours per
year at a total annual cost of $23.3 million. This burden estimate
includes time for the maintenance and evaluation of monitoring system
operation. Total capital costs associated with the monitoring
requirements over the 3-year period of the ICR are estimated at $18.2
million. Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b).
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a
currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's
regulations are listed in 40 CFR part 9.
To comment on the Agency's need for this information, the accuracy
of the provided burden estimates, and any suggested methods for
minimizing respondent burden, EPA has established a public docket for
this rule, which includes this ICR, under Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2006-0640. Submit any comments related to the ICR to EPA and OMB. See
ADDRESSES section at the beginning of this notice for where to submit
comments to EPA. Send comments to OMB at the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street,
NW., Washington, DC 20503, Attention: Desk Office for EPA. Since OMB is
required to make a decision concerning the ICR between 30 and 60 days
after October 9, 2008, a comment to OMB is best assured of having its
full effect if OMB receives it by November 10, 2008. The final rule
will respond to any OMB or public comments on the information
collection requirements contained in this proposal.
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency
to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to
notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative
Procedure Act or any other statute unless the agency certifies that the
rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities. Small entities include small businesses,
small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions.
For purposes of assessing the impacts of this proposed rule on
small entities, small entity is defined as: (1) a small business as
defined by the Small Business Administration's (SBA) regulations at 13
CFR 121.201; (2) a small governmental jurisdiction that is a government
of a city, county, town, school district or special district with a
population of less than 50,000; and (3)
[[Page 59982]]
a small organization that is any not-for-profit enterprise which is
independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field.
After considering the economic impacts of this proposed rule on
small entities, I certify that this action will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Because of
the number of different source categories involved and the small cost
per facility, a case study approach was used to assess the likelihood
of significant impact on small entities. A subset of source categories
that most likely would be the most impacted was chosen by two criteria.
The first criterion was whether or not the underlying regulation was
expected to have adverse small business impacts at the time of
promulgation. The second criterion was the relative magnitude of the
estimated costs for complying with the CPMS Rule on a per-plant basis.
In none of the case studies were costs likely to approach 1 percent of
sales because the average per facility costs were always less than 3
percent of the compliance costs of underlying regulation.
We continue to be interested in the potential impacts of this
proposed rule on small entities and welcome comments on issues related
to such impacts.
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Pub.
L. 104-4, establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the
effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal
governments and the private sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, we
generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost-benefit
analysis, for proposed and final rules with ``Federal mandates'' that
may result in expenditures to State, local, and tribal governments, in
the aggregate, or to the private sector, of $100 million or more in any
one year. Before promulgating an EPA rule for which a written statement
is needed, section 205 of the UMRA generally requires us to identify
and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives and adopt
the least costly, most cost-effective or least burdensome alternative
that achieves the objectives of the rule. The provisions of section 205
do not apply when they are inconsistent with applicable law. Moreover,
section 205 allows us to adopt an alternative other than the least
costly, most cost-effective or least burdensome alternative if the
Administrator publishes with the final rule an explanation why that
alternative was not adopted. Before we establish any regulatory
requirements that may significantly or uniquely affect small
governments, including tribal governments, it must have developed under
section 203 of the UMRA a small government agency plan. The plan must
provide for notifying potentially affected small governments, enabling
officials of affected small governments to have meaningful and timely
input in the development of our regulatory proposals with significant
Federal intergovernmental mandates, and informing, educating, and
advising small governments on compliance with the regulatory
requirements.
EPA has determined that this proposed rule does not contain a
Federal mandate that may result in expenditures of $100 million or more
for State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or the
private sector in any one year. The nationwide additional annualized
costs to implement the proposed rule are estimated to be $52.3 million
in the fifth year of this proposed rule. Thus, this proposed rule is
not subject to the requirements of sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA.
EPA has determined that this proposed rule contains no regulatory
requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect small
governments. The requirements of PS-17 and Procedure 4 have already
been addressed under the General Provisions to parts 60, 61, and 63,
and in the applicable subparts that require the installation and
operation of CPMS. Furthermore, the amendments to Procedure 1 merely
clarify the applicability and requirements of the procedure. Finally,
these proposed amendments to the monitoring requirements in the General
Provisions to parts 60, 61, and 63, as well as to subpart SS are made
to ensure consistency with PS-17 and Procedure 4.
E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
Executive Order 13132, entitled ``Federalism'' (64 FR 43255, August
10, 1999), requires us to develop an accountable process to ensure
``meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the
development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.''
``Policies that have federalism implications'' is defined in the
Executive Order to include regulations that 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.''
This proposed rule 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,
as specified in Executive Order 13132. The requirements of PS-17 and
Procedure 4 have already been addressed under the General Provisions to
parts 60, 61, and 63, and in the applicable subparts that require the
installation and operation of CPMS. Furthermore, these proposed
amendments to Procedure 1 merely clarify the applicability and
requirements of the procedure. Finally, these proposed amendments to
the monitoring requirements specified in the General Provisions to
parts 60, 61, and 63, as well as to subpart SS are made to ensure
consistency with PS-17 and Procedure 4. Thus, Executive Order 13132
does not apply to this rule.
In the spirit of Executive Order 13132, and consistent with our
policy to promote communications between us and State and local
governments, we specifically solicit comment on this proposed rule from
State and local officials.
F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments
Executive Order 13175, entitled ``Consultation and Coordination
with Indian Tribal Governments'' (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000),
requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful
and timely input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory
policies that have tribal implications.'' This proposed rule does not
have tribal implications, as specified in Executive Order 13175. The
requirements of PS-17 and Procedure 4 have already been addressed under
the General Provisions to parts 60, 61, and 63, and in the applicable
subparts that require the installation and operation of CPMS.
Furthermore, these proposed amendments to Procedure 1 merely clarify
the applicability and requirements of the procedure. Finally, these
proposed amendments to the monitoring requirements specified in the
General Provisions to parts 60, 61, and 63, as well as to subpart SS
are made to ensure consistency with PS-17 and Procedure 4. Thus,
Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this proposed rule. EPA
specifically solicits additional comment on this proposed rule from
tribal officials.
G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks
Executive Order 13045, ``Protection of Children from Environmental
Health
[[Page 59983]]
Risks and Safety Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) applies to any
rule that: (1) Is determined to be ``economically significant'' as
defined under Executive Order 12866, and (2) concerns an environmental
health or safety risk that EPA has reason to believe may have a
disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action meets
both criteria, the Agency must evaluate the environmental health or
safety effects of the planned rule on children, and explain why the
planned regulation is preferable to other potentially effective and
reasonably feasible alternatives considered by the Agency.
EPA interprets EO 13045 as applying only to those regulatory
actions that concern health or safety risks, such that the analysis
required under section 5-501 of the Order has the potential to
influence the regulation. This proposed rule is not subject to
Executive Order 13045 because it does not establish an environmental
standard intended to mitigate health or safety risks.
H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution, or Use
This proposed rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211,
``Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355 (May 22, 2001)) because it
is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.
I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (``NTTAA''), Pub. L. No. 104-113, 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272
note) directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in its
regulatory activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with
applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards
are technical standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods,
sampling procedures, and business practices) that are developed or
adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies. NTTAA directs EPA to
provide Congress, through OMB, explanations when the Agency decides not
to use available and applicable voluntary consensus standards (VCS).
This proposed rulemaking involves technical standards. EPA proposes
to use the following VCS: American Society for Testing and Materials
(ASTM) E220-07e1, ASTM D1293-99 (2005), ASTM D1125-95 (2005), ASTM
D5391-99 (2005), ASTM E251-92 (2003), ASTM E452-02 (2007), ASTM E585/E
585M-04, ASTM E644-06, ASTM E235-06, ASTM E608/E 608M-06, ASTM E696-07,
ASTM E1129/E1129M-98 (2002), ASTM E1137/E1137M-04, and ASTM E1159-98
(2003); International Organization for Standardization (ISO) MC96.1-
1982 and ISO 10790:1999; American Society of Mechanical Engineers
(ASME) B40.100-2005 and ASME MFC-3M-2004; American Society of Heating,
Refrigerating, and Air-Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE) 41.8-1989;
American National Standards Institute (ANSI)/ASME MFC-4M-1986 (R2003),
ANSI/ASME MFC-6M-1998 (R2005), ANSI/ASME MFC-7M-1987 (R2001), ANSI/ASME
MFC-9M-1988; ANSI/Instrumentation, Systems, and Automation Society
(ISA) RP 31.1-1977, ISA RP 16.6-1961, ISA RP 16.5-1961, and ISA
8316:1987; and National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST)
Handbook 44--2002 Edition (incorporated by reference--see 40 CFR
60.17). The Agency conducted a search to identify potentially
applicable voluntary consensus standards. While the Agency identified
15 VCS as being potentially applicable to PS-17 and Procedure 4, we do
not propose to use these standards in this proposed rulemaking. The use
of these VCS would be impractical for the purposes of this proposed
rule. See the docket for this proposed rule for the reasons for these
determinations for the standards.
EPA welcomes comments on this aspect of this proposed rulemaking
and, specifically, invites the public to identify potentially-
applicable voluntary consensus standards and to explain why such
standards should be used in this regulation.
J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions to Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994) establishes
Federal executive policy on environmental justice. Its main provision
directs Federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and
permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their mission
by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high
and adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs,
policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income
populations in the United States.
EPA has determined that this proposed rule will not have
disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental
effects on minority or low-income populations because it increases the
level of environmental protection for all affected populations without
having any disproportionately high and adverse human health or
environmental effects on any population, including any minority or low-
income population. The proposed rule will help to ensure that emission
control devices are operated properly and maintained as needed, thereby
helping to ensure compliance with emission standards, which benefit all
affected populations.
List of Subjects
40 CFR Part 60
Environmental protection, Administrative Practice and Procedure,
Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.
40 CFR Part 61
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Hazardous
substances, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
40 CFR Part 63
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Hazardous
substances, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Dated: September 22, 2008.
Stephen L. Johnson,
Administrator.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, title 40, chapter I of the
Code of the Federal Regulations is proposed to be amended as follows:
PART 60--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 60 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401, et seq.
Subpart A--[Amended]
2. Section 60.13 is amended by redesignating paragraph (a) as
paragraph (a)(1) and adding paragraph (a)(2) to read as follows:
Sec. 60.13 Monitoring requirements.
(a)(1) * * *
(2) Performance specifications for continuous parameter monitoring
systems (CPMS) promulgated under 40 CFR part 60, appendix B and quality
assurance procedures for CPMS promulgated under 40 CFR part 60,
appendix F apply instead of the requirements for CPMS specified in an
applicable subpart upon promulgation of the performance specifications
and quality assurance procedures for CPMS.
* * * * *
3. Section 60.17 is amended by:
a. Adding paragraphs (a)(93) through (a)(106);
[[Page 59984]]
b. Adding paragraphs (h)(5) through (h)(10); and
c. Adding paragraphs (o), (p) and (q) to read as follows:
Sec. 60.17 Incorporations by reference.
* * * * *
(a) * * *
(93) ASTM E220-07e1, ``Standard Test Methods for Calibration of
Thermocouples by Comparison Techniques,'' IBR approved for Table 6 to
Performance Standard 17 of appendix B to this part and Table 2 to
Procedure 4 of appendix F to this part.
(94) ASTM E452-02 (2007), ``Standard Test Method for Calibration of
Refractory Metal Thermocouples Using an Optical Pyrometer,'' IBR
approved for Table 6 to Performance Standard 17 of appendix B to this
part and Table 2 to Procedure 4 to appendix F of this part.
(95) ASTM E585/E 585M-04, ``Specification for Compacted Mineral-
Insulated, Metal-Sheathed, Base Metal Thermocouple Cables,'' IBR
approved for Table 2 to Performance Standard 17 of appendix B to this
part.
(96) ASTM E644-06, ``Standard Test Methods for Testing Industrial
Resistance Thermometers,'' IBR approved for Table 6 to Performance
Standard 17 of appendix B to this part and Table 2 to Procedure 4 of
appendix F to this part.
(97) ASTM E235-06, ``Specification for Thermocouples, Sheathed,
Type K, for Nuclear or for Other High-Reliability Applications,'' IBR
approved for Table 2 to Performance Standard 17 of appendix B to this
part.
(98) ASTM E608/E 608M-06, ``Specification for Mineral-Insulated,
Metal-Sheathed Base Metal Thermocouples,'' IBR approved for Table 2 to
Performance Standard 17 of appendix B to this part.
(99) ASTM E696-07, ``Specification for Tungsten-Rhenium Alloy
Thermocouple Wire,'' IBR approved for Table 2 to Performance Standard
17 of appendix B to this part.
(100) ASTM E1129/E 1129M-98 (2002), ``Standard Specification for
Thermocouple Connectors,'' IBR approved for Table 2 to Performance
Standard 17 of appendix B to this part.
(101) ASTM E1137/E 1137M-04, ``Standard Specification for
Industrial Platinum Resistance Thermometers,'' IBR approved for Table 2
to Performance Standard 17 of appendix B to this part.
(102) ASTM E1159-98 (2003), ``Specification for Thermocouple
Materials, Platinum-Rhodium Alloys, and Platinum,'' IBR approved for
Table 2 to Performance Standard 17 of appendix B to this part.
(103) ASTM E251-92 (2003), ``Standard Test Methods for Performance
Characteristics of Metallic Bonded Resistance Strain Gages,'' IBR
approved for Table 7 to Performance Standard 17 of appendix B to this
part and Table 3 to Procedure 4 of appendix F to this part.
(104) ASTM D1293-99 (2005), ``Standard Test Methods for pH of
Water,'' IBR approved for section 8.7 of Performance Standard 17 of
appendix B to this part and section 8.4 of Procedure 4 of appendix F to
this part.
(105) ASTM D1125-95 (2005), ``Standard Test Methods for Electrical
Conductivity and Resistivity of Water,'' IBR approved for section 8.8
of Performance Standard 17 of appendix B to this part and section 8.5
of Procedure 4 of appendix F to this part.
(106) ASTM D5391-99 (2005), ``Standard Test Method for Electrical
Conductivity and Resistivity of a Flowing High Purity Water Sample,''
IBR approved for section 8.8 of Performance Standard 17 of appendix B
to this part and section 8.5 of Procedure 4 of appendix F to this part.
* * * * *
(h) * * *
(5) ASME B 40.100-2005, ``Pressure Gauges and Gauge Attachments,''
IBR approved for section 6.3 and Table 7 to Performance Standard 17 of
appendix B to this part and Table 3 to Procedure 4 of appendix F to
this part.
(6) ASME MFC-3M-2004, ``Measurement of Fluid Flow in Pipes Using
Orifice, Nozzle, and Venturi,'' IBR approved for Table 3 to Performance
Standard 17 of appendix B to this part and section 8.3 of Procedure 4
to appendix F of this part.
(7) ANSI/ASME MFC-4M-1986 (R2003), ``Measurement of Gas Flow by
Turbine Meters,'' IBR approved for Table 3 to Performance Standard 17
of appendix B to this part.
(8) ANSI/ASME MFC-6M-1998 (R2005), ``Measurement of Fluid Flow in
Pipes Using Vortex Flow Meters,'' IBR approved for Table 3 to
Performance Standard 17 of appendix B to this part.
(9) ANSI/ASME MFC-7M-1987 (R2001), ``Measurement of Gas Flow by
Means of Critical Flow Venturi Nozzles,'' IBR approved for Table 3 to
Performance Standard 17 of appendix B to this part.
(10) ANSI/ASME MFC-9M-1988, ``Measurement of Liquid Flow in Closed
Conduits by Weighing Method,'' IBR approved for Table 5 to Performance
Standard 17 of appendix B to this part and Table 5 to Procedure 4 of
appendix F to this part.
* * * * *
(o) The following material is available for purchase from the
American National Standards Institute (ANSI), 25 West 43rd Street, 4th
Floor, New York, NY, 10036.
(1) ISA-MC96.1-1982, ``Temperature Measurement Thermocouples,'' IBR
approved for Table 2 to Performance Standard 17 of appendix B to this
part and Table 5 to Procedure 4 of appendix F to this part.
(2) ASHRAE 41.8-1989, ``Standard Methods of Measurement of Flow of
Liquids in Pipes Using Orifice Flowmeters,'' IBR approved for Table 5
to Performance Standard 17 of appendix B to this part and Table 5 to
Procedure 4 of appendix F to this part.
(3) ANSI/ISA RP 31.1-1977, ``Recommended Practice: Specification,
Installation, and Calibration of Turbine Flow Meters,'' IBR approved
for Table 3 to Performance Standard 17 of appendix B to this part and
Table 5 to Procedure 4 of appendix F to this part.
(p) The following material is available for purchase from the
Instrumentation, Systems, and Automation Society (ISA), 67 Alexander
Drive, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709.
(1) ISA RP 16.6-1961, ``Methods and Equipment for Calibration of
Variable Area Meters (Rotameters),'' IBR approved for Tables 4 and 5 to
Performance Standard 17 of appendix B to this part and Tables 4 and 5
to Procedure 4 of appendix F to this part.
(2) ISA RP 16.5-1961, ``Installation, Operation, and Maintenance
Instructions for Glass Tube Variable Area Meters (Rotameters),'' IBR
approved for Table 3 to Performance Standard 17 of appendix B to this
part.
(q) The following material is available for purchase from the
International Organization for Standardization (ISO), 1, ch. de la
Voie-Creuse, CH-1211 Geneva 20, Switzerland.
(1) ISO 8316:1987, ``Measurement of Liquid Flow in Closed
Conduits--Method by Collection of Liquid in a Volumetric Tank,'' IBR
approved for Table 4 to Performance Standard 17 of appendix B to this
part and Table 4 to Procedure 4 of appendix F to this part.
(2) ISO 10790:1999, ``Measurement of Fluid Flow in Closed
Conduits--Guidance to the Selection, Installation, and Use of Coriolis
Meters (Mass Flow, Density and Volume Flow Measurements),'' IBR
approved for Table 3 to Performance Standard 17 of appendix B to this
part and Table 4 to Procedure 4 of appendix F to this part.
[[Page 59985]]
4. Appendix B to part 60 is amended by adding Performance
Specification 17 in numerical order to read as follows:
Appendix B to Part 60--Performance Specifications
* * * * *
Performance Specification 17--Specifications and Test Procedures
for Continuous Parameter Monitoring Systems at Stationary Sources
1.0 What is the purpose of Performance Specification 17?
The purpose of Performance Specification 17 (PS-17) is to
establish the initial installation and performance procedures that
are required for evaluating the acceptability of a continuous
parameter monitoring system (CPMS). This performance specification
applies instead of the requirements for applicable CPMS specified in
any applicable subpart to 40 CFR part 60, 61, or 63, unless
otherwise specified in the applicable subpart. This performance
specification does not establish procedures or criteria for
evaluating the ongoing performance of an installed CPMS over an
extended period of time. Procedures for evaluating the ongoing
performance of a CPMS are described in Procedure 4 of appendix F to
40 CFR part 40, Quality Assurance Procedures.
1.1 Under what circumstances does PS-17 apply to my CPMS? This
performance specification applies to your CPMS if your CPMS meets
the conditions specified in section 1.2 of this specification and
you meet either conditions (1) or (2) of this section:
(1) You are required by any applicable subpart of 40 CFR parts
60 or 61 to install and operate the CPMS, or
(2) You are required by any applicable subpart of 40 CFR part 63
to install and operate the CPMS, and Sec. 63.8(a)(2) of the General
Provisions applies to the applicable subpart.
1.2 To what types of devices does PS-17 apply? This performance
specification applies if your total equipment meets the conditions
of (1) and (2) of this section:
(1) You are required by an applicable subpart to install and
operate the total equipment on a continuous basis, and
(2) You, as owner or operator, use the total equipment to
monitor the parameters (currently temperature, pressure, liquid flow
rate, gas flow rate, mass flow rate, pH, and conductivity)
associated with the operation of an emission control device or
process unit.
1.3 When must I comply with PS-17? You must comply with PS-17
when any of conditions (1) through (5) of this section occur:
(1) At the time you install and place into operation a CPMS that
is required by the applicable subpart after 90 days following the
date of publication of the final rule in the Federal Register, or
(2) At the time you replace or relocate the sensor of an
affected CPMS after 90 days following the date of publication of the
final rule in the Federal Register, or
(3) At the time you replace the electronic signal modifier or
conditioner, transmitter, external power supply, data acquisition
system, data recording system, or any other mechanical or electrical
component of your CPMS that affects the accuracy, range, or
resolution of your CPMS after 90 days following the date of
publication of the final rule in the Federal Register, or
(4) For CPMS located at facilities that are required to obtain a
title V permit, at the time of your title V permit renewal.
(i) Prior to submitting your title V permit renewal, you must
comply with the basic requirements of this performance
specification.
(5) For CPMS located at area source facilities that are exempt
from obtaining a title V permit, 5 years after the date of
publication of the final rule in the Federal Register.
2.0 What are the basic requirements of PS-17?
This performance specification requires you, as an owner or
operator of an applicable CPMS, to perform and record initial
installation and calibration procedures to confirm the acceptability
of the CPMS when it is installed and placed into operation.
2.1 How does PS-17 address the installation and equipment
requirements for my CPMS? This specification stipulates basic
installation, location, and equipment requirements for CPMS and
identifies applicable voluntary consensus standards that provide
additional guidance on the selection and installation of specific
types of sensors associated with CPMS. This specification also
identifies the types of equipment needed to check the accuracy of
your CPMS. General equipment requirements are identified in section
6 of this specification. Location and installation requirements are
addressed in sections 8.1 and 8.2 of this specification.
2.2 What types of procedures must I perform to demonstrate
compliance with PS-17? This specification requires you, as owner or
operator of a CPMS, to demonstrate that your CPMS satisfies minimum
requirements for accuracy. For each of the monitoring parameters
addressed (currently temperature, pressure, liquid flow rate, gas
flow rate, mass flow rate, pH, and conductivity), this specification
offers you the choice of two or more methods that you can use to
demonstrate that your CPMS meets the specified accuracy
requirements. For accuracy demonstrations that involve measurement
of gas or liquid pressures, this specification also requires you to
perform a leak test on any pressure connections. Accuracy
demonstration methods are described in sections 8.4 through 8.8 of
this specification; section 8.9 addresses alternative procedures for
demonstrating compliance with this specification; and leak test
procedures are described in section 8.10 of this specification.
2.3 What does PS-17 require me to do if my CPMS does not meet
the specified accuracy requirements? If your CPMS does not meet the
accuracy requirements, section 8 of this specification requires you
to take corrective action until you can demonstrate that your CPMS
meets the accuracy requirement.
2.4 What types of recordkeeping and reporting activities does
PS-17 require? This specification does not have any reporting
requirements but does require you to record and maintain data that
identify your CPMS and show the results of any performance
demonstrations of your CPMS. Recordkeeping requirements are
described in section 14 of this specification.
3.0 What special definitions apply to PS-17?
3.1 Accuracy. A measure of the closeness of a measurement to the
true or actual value.
3.2 Accuracy hierarchy. The ratio of the accuracy of a
measurement instrument to the accuracy of a calibrated instrument or
standard that is used to measure the accuracy of the measurement
instrument. For example, if the accuracy of a calibrated temperature
measurement device is 0.2 percent, and the accuracy of a
thermocouple is 1.0 percent, the accuracy hierarchy is 5.0 (1.0 /
0.2 = 5.0).
3.3 Conductivity CPMS. The total equipment that is used to
measure and record the conductivity of a liquid on a continuous
basis.
3.4 Continuous Parameter Monitoring System (CPMS). The total
equipment that is used to measure and record a parameter (currently
temperature, pressure, liquid flow rate, gas flow rate, mass flow
rate, pH, and conductivity) on a continuous basis in one or more
locations.
3.5 Cryogenic Application. An application of a temperature CPMS
in which the sensor is subjected to a temperature of zero degrees
Celsius (32 degrees Fahrenheit) or less.
3.6 Differential pressure tube. A device, such as a pitot tube,
that consists of one or more pairs of tubes that are oriented to
measure the velocity pressure and static pressure at one or more
fixed points within a duct for the purpose of determining gas
velocity.
3.7 Electronic Components. The electronic signal modifier or
conditioner, transmitter, and power supply associated with a CPMS.
3.8 Flow CPMS. The total equipment that is used to measure and
record liquid flow rate, gas flow rate, or mass flow rate on a
continuous basis.
3.9 Integrator. The equipment that is used to calculate the
material feed rate using two inputs: weight of the load on the
material transfer system (e.g. belt conveyor) and the speed of the
system.
3.10 Mass flow rate. The measurement of solid, liquid, or gas
flow in units of mass per time, such as kilograms per minute or tons
per hour.
3.11 Mechanical Component. Any component of a CPMS that consists
of or includes moving parts or that is used to apply or transfer
force to another component or part of the CPMS.
3.12 pH CPMS. The total equipment that is used to measure and
record the pH of a liquid on a continuous basis.
3.13 Pressure CPMS. The total equipment that is used to measure
and record the pressure of a liquid or gas at any location, or the
differential pressure of a liquid or gas between any two locations,
on a continuous basis.
3.14 Resolution. The smallest detectable or legible increment of
measurement.
[[Page 59986]]
3.15 Sensor. The component or set of components of a CPMS that
reacts to changes in the magnitude of the parameter that is measured
by the CPMS (currently temperature, pressure, liquid flow rate, gas
flow rate, mass flow rate, pH, or conductivity) and generates an
output signal. Table 1 identifies the sensor components of some
commonly used CPMS.
3.16 Solid mass flow rate. The measurement of the rate at which
a solid material is processed or transferred (in units of mass per
time). Examples of solid mass flow rate are the rate at which ore is
fed to a material dryer or the rate at which powdered lime is
injected into an exhaust duct.
3.17 Temperature CPMS. The total equipment that is used to
measure and record the temperature of a liquid or gas at any
location, or the differential temperature of a liquid or gas between
any two locations, on a continuous basis.
3.18 Total Equipment. The sensor, mechanical components,
electronic components, data acquisition system, data recording
system, electrical wiring, and other components of a CPMS.
4.0 Interferences [Reserved]
5.0 What do I need to know to ensure the safety of persons who perform
the procedures specified in PS-17?
The procedures required under this specification may involve
hazardous materials, operations, site conditions, and equipment.
This performance specification does not purport to address all of
the safety issues associated with these procedures. It is the
responsibility of the user to establish appropriate safety and
health practices and determine the applicable regulatory limitations
prior to performing these procedures.
6.0 What equipment and supplies do I need?
The types of equipment that you need to comply with this
specification depend upon the parameter that is measured by your
CPMS and upon site-specific conditions. You must select the
appropriate equipment based on manufacturer's recommendations, your
site-specific conditions, the parameter that your CPMS measures, and
the method that you choose for demonstrating compliance with this
specification. For most CPMS, you will need the two types of
equipment described in paragraphs (1) and (2) of this section.
(1) The total equipment that is used to monitor and record the
appropriate parameter, as defined in section 3.17 of this
specification, and
(2) The equipment needed to perform the initial validation check
of your CPMS, as specified in sections 8.4 through 8.8 of this
specification.
6.1 What design criteria must my CPMS satisfy? You must select a
CPMS that meets the design specifications in paragraphs (1) through
(5) of this section.
(1) Your CPMS must satisfy the accuracy requirements of Table 8
of this specification.
(2) Your CPMS must be capable of measuring the appropriate
parameter (currently temperature, pressure, liquid flow rate, gas
flow rate, mass flow rate, pH, or conductivity) over a range that
extends from a value that is at least 20 percent less than the
lowest value that you expect your CPMS to measure, to a value that
is at least 20 percent greater than the highest value that you
expect your CPMS to measure.
(3) The signal conditioner, wiring, power supply, and data
acquisition and recording system of your CPMS must be compatible
with the output signal of the sensors used in your CPMS.
(4) The data acquisition and recording system of your CPMS must
be able to record values over the entire range specified in
paragraph (2) of this section.
(5) The data recording system associated with your CPMS must
have a resolution of one-half of the required overall accuracy of
your CPMS, as specified in Table 8 of this specification, or better.
6.2 Are there any exceptions to the range requirements specified
in section 6.1 of PS-17? A pH CPMS must be capable of measuring pH
over the entire range of pH values from 0 to 14.
6.3 What additional guidelines should I use for selecting the
sensor of my CPMS? Additional guidelines for selecting temperature
and pressure sensors are listed in paragraphs (1) and (2) of this
section.
(1) For a temperature CPMS, you should select a sensor that is
consistent with the standards listed in Table 2 of this
specification.
(2) If your pressure CPMS uses a pressure gauge as the sensor,
you should select a gauge that conforms to the design requirements
of ASME B40.100-2005, ``Pressure Gauges and Gauge Attachments''
(incorporated by reference--see Sec. 60.17).
6.4 What types of equipment do I need for checking the accuracy
of my CPMS? The specific types of equipment that you need for
checking the accuracy of your CPMS depend on the type of CPMS and
the method that you choose for conducting the initial validation
check of your CPMS, as specified in sections 8.4 through 8.8 of this
specification. In most cases, you will need the equipment specified
in paragraphs (1) and (2) of this section.
(1) A separate device that either measures the same parameter as
your CPMS, or that simulates the same electronic signal or response
that your CPMS generates, and
(2) Any work platform, test ports, pressure taps, valves,
fittings, or other equipment required to perform the specific
procedures of the validation check method that you choose, as
specified in sections 8.4 through 8.8 of this specification.
6.5 What are the accuracy requirements for the equipment that I
use for checking the accuracy of my CPMS? Any measurement instrument
or device that is used to conduct the initial validation check of
your CPMS must have an accuracy that is traceable to National
Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) standards and must have
an accuracy hierarchy of at least three. To determine if a
measurement instrument or device satisfies this accuracy hierarchy
requirement, follow the procedure described in section 12.1 of this
specification.
6.6 Are there any exceptions to the accuracy requirement of
section 6.5 of PS-17? There are two exceptions to the NIST-traceable
accuracy requirement specified in section 6.5 of this specification,
as described in paragraphs (1) and (2) of this section.
(1) As an alternative for a calibrated pressure measurement
device with NIST-traceable accuracy specified in paragraphs (1) and
(3) of section 8.5 and in paragraph (3) of section 8.6 of this
specification, you can use a mercury-in-glass or water-in-glass U-
tube manometer to validate your pressure CPMS.
(2) When validating a flow rate CPMS using the methods specified
in paragraphs (1), (2), or (7) of section 8.6 of this specification,
the container used to collect or weigh the liquid or solid is not
required to have NIST-traceable accuracy.
7.0 What reagents or standards do I need to comply with PS-17?
The specific reagents and standards needed to demonstrate
compliance with this specification depend upon the parameter that
your CPMS measures and the method that you choose to check the
accuracy of your CPMS. Section 8.3 of this specification identifies
the specific reagents and standards needed for each initial
validation check of CPMS accuracy.
8.0 What performance demonstrations must I conduct?
You must satisfy the installation requirements, perform an
initial calibration, and perform an initial validation check of your
CPMS using the procedures specified in sections 8.1 through 8.8 of
this specification.
8.1 How must I install my CPMS? The installation of your CPMS
must satisfy the requirements specified in paragraphs (1) and (2) of
this section.
(1) You must install each sensor of your CPMS in a location that
provides representative measurement of the applicable parameter over
all operating conditions, taking into account the manufacturer's
guidelines and any location specified in the applicable requirement.
(2) You must also install any work platforms, test ports,
pressure taps, valves, fittings, or other equipment needed to
perform the initial validation check, as specified in sections 8.4
through 8.8 of this specification.
8.2 What additional guidelines can I use for installing my CPMS?
If you are required to install a flow CPMS and the sensor of your
flow CPMS is a differential pressure device, turbine flow meter,
rotameter, vortex formation flow meter or Coriolis mass flow meter,
you can use the standards listed in Table 3 of this specification as
guidelines for installation.
8.3 What initial quality assurance measures are required by PS-
17 for my CPMS? You must perform an initial calibration of your CPMS
based on the procedures specified in the manufacturer's owner's
manual. You also must perform an initial validation check of the
operation of your CPMS using the methods described in sections 8.4
through 8.8 of this specification.
8.4 How do I perform the initial validation check of my
temperature CPMS? To perform the initial validation check of a
temperature CPMS, you can choose one of
[[Page 59987]]
the methods described in paragraphs (1) and (2) of this section.
(1) Comparison to Calibrated Temperature Measurement Device.
Place the sensor of a calibrated temperature measurement device
adjacent to the sensor of your temperature CPMS so that the sensor
of the calibrated test device is subjected to the same environment
as the sensor of your temperature CPMS. The calibrated temperature
measurement device must satisfy the accuracy requirements specified
in section 6.5 of this specification. The calibrated temperature
measurement device must also have a range equal to or greater than
the range of your temperature CPMS. Allow sufficient time for the
response of the calibrated temperature measurement device to reach
equilibrium. With the process or control device that is monitored by
your CPMS operating under normal conditions, concurrently record the
temperatures measured by your temperature CPMS and the calibrated
temperature measurement device. Using the temperature measured by
the calibrated measurement device as the value for Vc,
follow the procedure specified in section 12.2 to determine if your
CPMS satisfies the accuracy requirement of Table 8 of this
specification. If you determine that your CPMS satisfies the
accuracy requirement of Table 8, the validation check is complete.
If your CPMS does not satisfy the accuracy requirement of Table 8 of
this specification, check all system components and take any
corrective action that is necessary to achieve the required minimum
accuracy. Repeat this validation check procedure until the accuracy
requirement of Table 8 of this specification is satisfied. If you
are required to measure and record temperatures at multiple
locations, repeat this procedure for each location.
(2) Temperature Simulation Procedure. Disconnect the sensor from
your temperature CPMS and connect to your CPMS a calibrated
simulation device that is designed to simulate the same type of
response as the sensor of your CPMS. The calibrated simulation
device must satisfy the accuracy requirements specified in section
6.5 of this specification. Simulate a typical temperature that is
measured by your temperature CPMS under normal operating conditions.
Allow sufficient time for the response of the calibrated simulation
device to reach equilibrium. Record the temperature that is
indicated by your temperature CPMS. Using the temperature simulated
by the calibrated simulation device as the value for Vc,
follow the procedure specified in section 12.2 of this specification
to determine if your CPMS satisfies the accuracy requirement of
Table 8 of this specification. If you determine that your CPMS
satisfies the accuracy requirement of Table 8, the validation check
is complete. If the calculated accuracy does not meet the accuracy
requirement of Table 8 of this specification, check all system
components and take any corrective action that is necessary to
achieve the required minimum accuracy. Repeat this validation check
procedure until the accuracy requirement of Table 8 of this
specification is satisfied. If you are required to measure and
record temperatures at multiple locations, repeat this procedure for
each location.
8.5 How do I perform an initial validation check of my pressure
CPMS? To perform the initial validation check of your pressure CPMS,
you can choose one of the methods described in paragraphs (1)
through (3) of this section.
(1) Comparison to Calibrated Pressure Measurement Device.
Connect a mercury-in-glass U-tube manometer, a water-in-glass U-tube
manometer, or calibrated pressure measurement device to operate in
parallel with your pressure CPMS so that the manometer or sensor of
the calibrated pressure measurement device is subjected to the same
pressure as the sensor of your pressure CPMS. If a calibrated
pressure measurement device is used, the device must satisfy the
accuracy requirements of section 6.5 of this specification. The
calibrated pressure measurement device also must have a range equal
to or greater than the range of your pressure CPMS. Perform a leak
test on all manometer or calibrated pressure measurement device
connections using the procedure specified in section 8.10 of this
specification. Allow sufficient time for the response of the
manometer or calibrated pressure measurement device to reach
equilibrium. With the process or control device that is monitored by
your pressure CPMS operating under normal conditions, concurrently
record the pressures that are measured by your pressure CPMS and by
the calibrated pressure measurement device. Using the pressure
measured by the calibrated pressure measurement device as the value
for Vc, follow the procedure specified in section 12.2 of
this specification to determine if your CPMS satisfies the accuracy
requirement of Table 8 of this specification. If you determine that
your CPMS satisfies the accuracy requirement of Table 8 of this
specification, the validation check is complete. If your CPMS does
not meet the accuracy requirement of Table 8 of this specification,
check all system components and take any corrective action that is
necessary to achieve the required minimum accuracy. Repeat this
validation check procedure until the accuracy requirement of Table 8
of this specification is satisfied. If you are required to measure
and record pressure at multiple locations, repeat this procedure for
each location.
(2) Pressure Simulation Procedure Using a Calibrated Pressure
Source. Disconnect or close off the process line or lines to your
pressure CPMS. Connect an adjustable calibrated pressure source to
your CPMS so that the pressure source applies a pressure to the
sensor of your pressure CPMS. The calibrated pressure source must
satisfy the accuracy requirements of section 6.5 of this
specification. The calibrated pressure source also must be
adjustable, either continuously or incrementally over the pressure
range of your pressure CPMS. Perform a leak test on all calibrated
pressure source connections using the procedure specified in section
8.10 of this specification. Using the calibrated pressure source,
apply a pressure that is within 10 percent of the normal
operating pressure of your pressure CPMS. Allow sufficient time for
the response of the calibrated pressure source to reach equilibrium.
Record the pressure applied by the calibrated pressure source and
the pressure measured by your pressure CPMS. Using the pressure
applied by the calibrated pressure source as the value for
Vc, follow the procedure specified in section 12.2 of
this specification to determine if your CPMS satisfies the accuracy
requirement of Table 8 of this specification. If you determine that
your CPMS satisfies the accuracy requirement of Table 8 of this
specification, the validation check is complete. If your CPMS does
not meet the accuracy requirement of Table 8 of this specification,
check all system components and take any corrective action that is
necessary to achieve the required minimum accuracy. Repeat this
validation check procedure until the accuracy requirement of Table 8
of this specification is satisfied. If you are required to measure
and record pressure at multiple locations, repeat this procedure for
each location.
(3) Pressure Simulation Procedure Using a Pressure Source and
Calibrated Pressure Measurement Device. Disconnect or close off the
process line or lines to your pressure CPMS. Attach a mercury-in-
glass U-tube manometer, a water-in-glass U-tube manometer, or a
calibrated pressure measurement device (the reference pressure
measurement device) in parallel to your pressure CPMS. If a
calibrated pressure measurement device is used, the device must
satisfy the accuracy requirements of section 6.5 of this
specification. Connect a pressure source to your pressure CPMS and
the parallel reference pressure measurement device. Perform a leak
test on all pressure source and parallel reference pressure
measurement device connections using the procedure specified in
section 8.10 of this specification. Apply pressure to your CPMS and
the parallel reference pressure measurement device. Allow sufficient
time for the response of your CPMS and the parallel reference
pressure measurement device to reach equilibrium. Record the
pressure measured by your pressure CPMS and the reference pressure
measurement device. Using the pressure measured by the parallel
reference pressure measurement device as the value for
Vc, follow the procedure specified in section 12.2 of
this specification to determine if your CPMS satisfies the accuracy
requirement of Table 8 of this specification. If you determine that
your CPMS satisfies the accuracy requirement of Table 8 of this
specification, the validation check is complete. If your CPMS does
not meet the accuracy requirement of Table 8 of this specification,
check all system components and take any corrective action that is
necessary to achieve the required minimum accuracy. Repeat this
validation check procedure until the accuracy requirement of Table 8
of this specification is satisfied. If you are required to measure
and record pressure at multiple locations, repeat this procedure for
each location.
8.6 How do I perform an initial validation check of my flow
CPMS? To perform the initial validation check of your flow CPMS, you
can choose any one of the methods described in paragraphs (1)
through (7) of this section that is applicable to the type of
[[Page 59988]]
material measured by your flow CPMS and the type of sensor used in
your flow CPMS.
(1) Volumetric Method. This method applies to any CPMS that is
designed to measure liquid flow rate. With the process or control
device that is monitored by your flow CPMS operating under normal
conditions, record the flow rate measured by your flow CPMS for the
subject process line. At the same time, collect the liquid that is
flowing through the same process line for a measured length of time
using the Volumetric Method specified in one of the standards listed
in Table 4 of this specification. Using the flow rate measured by
the Volumetric Method as the value for Vc, follow the
procedure specified in section 12.2 of this specification to
determine if your CPMS satisfies the accuracy requirement of Table 8
of this specification. If you determine that your CPMS satisfies the
accuracy requirement of Table 8 of this specification, the
validation check is complete. If your CPMS does not satisfy the
accuracy requirement of Table 8 of this specification, check all
system components and take any corrective action that is necessary
to achieve the required minimum accuracy. Repeat this validation
check until the accuracy requirement of Table 8 of this
specification is satisfied. If you are required to measure and
record flow rate at multiple locations, repeat this procedure for
each location.
(2) Gravimetric Method. This method applies to any CPMS that is
designed to measure liquid flow rate, liquid mass flow rate, or
solid mass flow rate. With the process or control device that is
monitored by your flow CPMS operating under normal conditions,
record the flow rate measured by your flow CPMS for the subject
process line. At the same time, collect the material (liquid or
solid) that is flowing or being transferred through the same process
line for a measured length of time using the Weighing, Weigh Tank,
or Gravimetric Methods specified in the standards listed in Table 5.
Using the flow rate measured by the Weighing, Weigh Tank, or
Gravimetric Methods as the value for Vc, follow the
procedure specified in section 12.2 of this specification to
determine if your CPMS satisfies the accuracy requirement of Table 8
of this specification. If you determine that your CPMS satisfies the
accuracy requirement of Table 8 of this specification, the
validation check is complete. If your CPMS does not satisfy the
accuracy requirement of Table 8 of this specification, check all
system components and take any corrective action that is necessary
to achieve the required minimum accuracy. Repeat this validation
check until the accuracy requirement of Table 8 of this
specification is satisfied. If you are required to measure and
record flow rate at multiple locations, repeat this procedure for
each location.
(3) Differential Pressure Measurement Method. This method
applies only to flow CPMS that use a differential pressure
measurement flow device, such as an orifice plate, flow nozzle, or
venturi tube. This method may not be used to validate a flow CPMS
that measures gas flow by means of one or more differential pressure
tubes. With the process or control device that is monitored by your
CPMS operating under normal conditions, record the flow rate
measured by your flow CPMS. Under the same operating conditions,
disconnect the pressure taps from your flow CPMS and connect the
pressure taps to a mercury-in-glass U-tube manometer, a water-in-
glass U-tube manometer, or calibrated differential pressure
measurement device. If a calibrated pressure measurement device is
used, the device must satisfy the accuracy requirements of section
6.5 of this specification. Perform a leak test on all manometer or
calibrated differential pressure measurement device connections
using the procedure specified in section 8.10 of this specification.
Allow sufficient time for the response of the calibrated
differential pressure measurement device to reach equilibrium.
Within 30 minutes of measuring and recording the flow rate using
your CPMS, record the pressure drop measured by the calibrated
differential pressure measurement device. Using the manufacturer's
literature or the procedures specified in ASME MFC-3M-2004
(incorporated by reference--see Sec. 60.17), calculate the flow
rate that corresponds to the differential pressure measured by the
calibrated differential pressure measurement device. For CPMS that
use an orifice flow meter, the procedures specified in ASHRAE 41.8-
1989 (incorporated by reference--see Sec. 60.17) also can be used
to calculate the flow rate. Using the calculated flow rate as the
value for Vc, follow the procedure specified in section
12.2 of this specification to determine if your CPMS satisfies the
accuracy requirement of Table 8 of this specification. If you
determine that your CPMS satisfies the accuracy requirement of Table
8 of this specification, the validation check is complete. If your
CPMS does not satisfy the accuracy requirement of Table 8 of this
specification, check all system components and take any corrective
action that is necessary to achieve the required minimum accuracy.
Repeat this procedure until the accuracy requirement of Table 8 of
this specification is satisfied. If you are required to measure and
record flow rate at multiple locations, repeat this procedure for
each location.
(4) Pressure Source Flow Simulation Method. This method applies
only to flow CPMS that use a differential pressure measurement flow
device, such as an orifice plate, flow nozzle, or venturi tube. This
method may not be used to validate a flow CPMS that measures gas
flow by means of one or more differential pressure tubes. Disconnect
your flow CPMS from the pressure taps. Connect separate pressure
sources to the upstream and downstream sides of your pressure CPMS,
where the pressure taps are normally connected. The pressure sources
must satisfy the accuracy requirements of section 6.5 of this
specification. The pressure sources also must be adjustable, either
continuously or incrementally over the pressure range that
corresponds to the range of your flow CPMS. Perform a leak test on
all connections between the calibrated pressure sources and your
flow CPMS using the procedure specified in section 8.10 of this
specification. Using the manufacturer's literature or the procedures
specified in ASME MFC-3M-2004 (incorporated by reference--see Sec.
60.17), calculate the required pressure drop that corresponds to the
normal operating flow rate expected for your flow CPMS. For CPMS
that use an orifice flow meter, the procedures specified in ASHRAE
41.8-1989 (incorporated by reference--see Sec. 60.17) also can be
used to calculate the pressure drop. Use the calibrated pressure
sources to apply the calculated pressure drop to your flow CPMS.
Allow sufficient time for the responses of the calibrated pressure
sources to reach equilibrium. Record the flow rate measured by your
flow CPMS. Using the flow rate measured by your CPMS when the
calculated pressure drop was applied as the value for Vc,
follow the procedure specified in section 12.2 of this specification
to determine if your CPMS satisfies the accuracy requirement of
Table 8 of this specification. If you determine that your CPMS
satisfies the accuracy requirement of Table 8 of this specification,
the validation check is complete. If your CPMS does not satisfy the
accuracy requirement of Table 8 of this specification, check all
system components and take any corrective action that is necessary
to achieve the required minimum accuracy. Repeat this procedure
until the accuracy requirement of Table 8 of this specification is
satisfied. If you are required to measure and record flow rate at
multiple locations, repeat this procedure for each location.
(5) Electronic Signal Simulation Method. This method applies to
any flow CPMS that uses a flow sensor that generates an electronic
signal. Disconnect the sensor from your flow CPMS and connect to
your CPMS a calibrated simulation device that is designed to
simulate the same type of electrical response as the sensor of your
CPMS. The calibrated simulation device must satisfy the accuracy
requirements of section 6.5 of this specification. Perform a leak
test on all connections between the calibrated simulation device and
your flow CPMS using the procedure specified in section 8.10 of this
specification. Simulate a typical flow rate that is monitored by
your flow CPMS under normal operating conditions. Allow sufficient
time for the response of the calibrated simulation device to reach
equilibrium. Record the flow rate measured by your flow CPMS. Using
the flow rate simulated by the calibrated simulation device as the
value for Vc, follow the procedure specified in section
12.2 of this specification to determine if your CPMS satisfies the
accuracy requirement of Table 8 of this specification. If you
determine that your CPMS satisfies the accuracy requirement of Table
8 of this specification, the validation check is complete. If the
calculated accuracy does not meet the accuracy requirement of Table
8 of this specification, check all system components and take any
corrective action that is necessary to achieve the required minimum
accuracy. Repeat this validation check until the accuracy
requirement of Table 8 of this specification is satisfied. If you
are required to measure and record flow rate at multiple locations,
repeat this procedure for each location.
[[Page 59989]]
(6) Relative Accuracy (RA) Test. This method applies to any flow
CPMS that measures gas flow rate. If your flow CPMS uses a
differential flow tube as the flow sensor, you must use this method
to validate your flow CPMS. The reference methods (RM's) applicable
to this test are Methods 2, 2A, 2B, 2C, 2D, 2F of 40 CFR part 60,
appendix A-1 and Method 2G of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-2. Conduct
three sets of RM tests. Mark the beginning and end of each RM test
period on the flow CPMS chart recordings or other permanent record
of output. Determine the integrated flow rate for each RM test
period. Perform the same calculations specified by section 7.5 in
PS-2 of this appendix. If the RA is no greater than 20 percent of
the mean value of the RM test data, the RA test is complete. If the
RA is greater than 20 percent of the mean value of the RM test data,
check all system components and take any corrective action that is
necessary to achieve the required RA. Repeat this RA test until the
RA requirement of this section is satisfied. If you are required to
measure and record flow rate at multiple locations, repeat this
procedure for each location.
(7) Material Weight Comparison Method. This method applies to
any solid mass flow CPMS that uses a combination of a belt conveyor
and scale and is equipped with a totalizer. To conduct this test,
pass a quantity of pre-weighed material over the belt conveyor in a
manner consistent with actual loading conditions. To weigh the test
quantity of material that is to be used during the initial
validation, you must use a scale that satisfies the accuracy
requirements of section 6.5 of this specification. The test quantity
must be sufficient to challenge the conveyor belt-scale system for
at least three revolutions of the belt. Record the length of the
test. Calculate the mass flow rate using the measured weight and the
recorded time. Using this mass flow rate as the value for
Vc, follow the procedure specified in section 12.2 of
this specification to determine if your CPMS satisfies the accuracy
requirement of Table 8 of this specification. If you determine that
your CPMS satisfies the accuracy requirement of Table 8 of this
specification, the validation check is complete. If your CPMS does
not satisfy the accuracy requirement of Table 8 of this
specification, check all system components and take any corrective
action that is necessary to achieve the required minimum accuracy.
Repeat this validation check until the accuracy requirement of Table
8 of this specification is satisfied. If you are required to measure
and record flow rate at multiple locations, repeat this procedure
for each location. In addition, you must perform an initial
validation check on the integrator used by your material feed CPMS
according to the manufacturer's specifications.
8.7 How do I perform an initial validation check of my pH CPMS?
You must perform an initial validation check of your pH CPMS using
either of the methods described in paragraphs (1) and (2) of this
section.
(1) Comparison to Calibrated pH Measurement Device. Place a
calibrated pH measurement device adjacent to your pH CPMS so that
the calibrated test device is subjected to the same environment as
your pH CPMS. The calibrated pH measurement device must satisfy the
accuracy requirements specified in section 6.5 of this
specification. Allow sufficient time for the response of the
calibrated pH measurement device to reach equilibrium. With the
process or control device that is monitored by your CPMS operating
under normal conditions, concurrently record the pH measured by your
pH CPMS and the calibrated pH measurement device. If concurrent
readings are not possible, extract a sufficiently large sample from
the process stream and perform measurements using a portion of the
sample for each meter. Using the pH measured by the calibrated pH
measurement device as the value for Vc, follow the
procedure specified in section 12.2 of this specification to
determine if your CPMS satisfies the accuracy requirement of Table 8
of this specification. If you determine that your CPMS satisfies the
accuracy requirement of Table 8 of this specification, the
validation check is complete. If your CPMS does not satisfy the
accuracy requirement of Table 8 of this specification, check all
system components and take any corrective action that is necessary
to achieve the required minimum accuracy. Repeat this validation
check procedure until the accuracy requirement of Table 8 of this
specification is satisfied. If you are required to measure and
record pH at multiple locations, repeat this procedure for each
location.
(2) Single Point Calibration. This method requires the use of a
certified buffer solution. All buffer solutions used must be
certified by NIST and accurate to 0.02 pH units at 25
[deg]C (77 [deg]F). Set the temperature on your pH meter to the
temperature of the buffer solution, typically room temperature or 25
[deg]C (77 [deg]F). If your pH meter is equipped with automatic
temperature compensation, activate this feature before calibrating.
Set your pH meter to measurement mode. Place the clean electrodes
into the container of fresh buffer solution. If the expected pH of
the process fluid lies in the acidic range (less than 7 pH), use a
buffer solution with a pH value of 4.00. If the expected pH of the
process fluid lies in the basic range (greater than 7 pH), use a
buffer solution with a pH value of 10.00. Allow sufficient time for
the response of your pH CPMS to reach equilibrium. Record the pH
measured by your CPMS. Using the buffer solution pH as the value for
Vc, follow the procedure specified in section 12.2 of
this specification to determine if your CPMS satisfies the accuracy
requirement of Table 8 of this specification. If you determine that
your CPMS satisfies the accuracy requirement of Table 8 of this
specification, the validation check is complete. If your CPMS does
not satisfy the accuracy requirement of Table 8 of this procedure,
calibrate your pH CPMS using the procedures specified in the
manufacturer's owner's manual. If the manufacturer's owner's manual
does not specify a two-point calibration procedure, you must perform
a two-point calibration procedure based on ASTM D1293-99 (2005)
(incorporated by reference--see Sec. 60.17). If you are required to
measure and record pH at multiple locations, repeat this procedure
for each location.
8.8 How do I perform an initial validation check of my
conductivity CPMS? You must perform an initial validation check of
your conductivity CPMS using either of the methods described in
paragraphs (1) and (2) of this section.
(1) Comparison to Calibrated Conductivity Measurement Device.
Place a calibrated conductivity measurement device adjacent to your
conductivity CPMS so that the calibrated measurement device is
subjected to the same environment as your conductivity CPMS. The
calibrated conductivity measurement device must satisfy the accuracy
requirements specified in section 6.5 of this specification. Allow
sufficient time for the response of the calibrated conductivity
measurement device to reach equilibrium. With the process or control
device that is monitored by your CPMS operating under normal
conditions, concurrently record the conductivity measured by your
conductivity CPMS and the calibrated conductivity measurement
device. If concurrent readings are not possible, extract a
sufficiently large sample from the process stream and perform
measurements using a portion of the sample for each meter. Using the
conductivity measured by the calibrated conductivity measurement
device as the value for Vc, follow the procedure
specified in section 12.2 of this specification to determine if your
CPMS satisfies the accuracy requirement of Table 8 of this
specification. If you determine that your CPMS satisfies the
accuracy requirement of Table 8 of this specification, the
validation check is complete. If your CPMS does not satisfy the
accuracy requirement of Table 8 of this specification, check all
system components and take any corrective action that is necessary
to achieve the required minimum accuracy. Repeat this validation
check procedure until the accuracy requirement of Table 8 of this
specification is satisfied. If you are required to measure and
record conductivity at multiple locations, repeat this procedure for
each location.
(2) Single Point Calibration. This method requires the use of a
certified conductivity standard solution. All solutions used must be
certified by NIST and accurate to 2 percent micromhos
per centimeter ([mu]mhos/cm) (2 percent microsiemens per
centimeter ([mu]S/cm)) at 25 [deg]C (77 [deg]F). Choose a
conductivity standard solution that is close to the measuring range
for best results. Since conductivity is dependent on temperature,
the conductivity tester should have an integral temperature sensor
that adjusts the reading to a standard temperature, usually 25
[deg]C (77 [deg]F). If the conductivity meter allows for manual
temperature compensation, set this value to 25 [deg]C (77 [deg]F).
Place the clean electrodes into the container of fresh conductivity
standard solution. Allow sufficient time for the response of your
CPMS to reach equilibrium. Record the conductivity measured by your
CPMS. Using the conductivity standard solution as the value for
Vc, follow the procedure specified in section 12.2 of
this specification to determine if your CPMS satisfies the accuracy
requirement of Table 8 of this specification. If you determine that
your CPMS satisfies the
[[Page 59990]]
accuracy requirement of Table 8, the validation check is complete.
If your CPMS does not satisfy the accuracy requirement of Table 8 of
this procedure, calibrate your conductivity CPMS using the
procedures specified in the manufacturer's owner's manual. If the
manufacturer's owner's manual does not specify a calibration
procedure, you must perform a calibration procedure based on ASTM D
1125-95 (2005) or ASTM D 5391-99 (2005) (incorporated by reference--
see Sec. 60.17). If you are required to measure and record
conductivity at multiple locations, repeat this procedure for each
location.
8.9 Are there any acceptable alternative procedures for
installing and verifying my CPMS? You may use alternative procedures
for installing and verifying the operation of your CPMS if the
alternative procedures are approved by the Administrator. In
addition, for temperature and pressure CPMS, you can use the methods
specified in paragraphs (1) and (2) of this section, respectively,
to satisfy the initial validation check.
(1) Alternative Temperature CPMS Validation Check. As an
alternative to the procedures for the temperature CPMS initial
validation check in this specification, you may use the methods
listed in Table 6 of this specification to determine the accuracy of
thermocouples or resistance temperature detectors. However, you also
must check the accuracy of the overall CPMS system using the methods
specified in section 8.4 of this specification or an alternative
method that has been approved by the Administrator.
(2) Alternative Pressure CPMS Validation Check. As an
alternative to the procedure for the pressure CPMS initial
validation check in this specification, you may use the methods
listed in Table 7 of this specification to check the accuracy of the
pressure sensor associated with your pressure CPMS. However, you
also must check the accuracy of the overall CPMS using the methods
in section 8.5 of this specification or an alternative method that
has been approved by the Administrator.
8.10 How do I perform a leak test on pressure connections, as
required by this specification? You can satisfy the leak test
requirements of sections 8.5 and 8.6 of this specification by
following the procedures described in paragraphs (1) through (3) of
this section.
(1) For each pressure connection, apply a pressure that is equal
to the highest pressure the connection is likely to be subjected to
or 0.24 kilopascals (1.0 inch of water column), whichever is
greater.
(2) Close off the connection between the applied pressure source
and the connection that is being leak-tested.
(3) If the applied pressure remains stable for at least 15
seconds, the connection is considered to be leak tight. If the
applied pressure does not remain stable for at least 15 seconds,
take any corrective action necessary to make the connection leak
tight and repeat this leak test procedure.
9.0 What ongoing quality control measures are required?
Ongoing quality control procedures for CPMS are specified in
Procedure 4 of appendix F of this part.
10.0 Calibration and Standardization [Reserved]
11.0 Analytical Procedure [Reserved]
12.0 What calculations are needed?
The calculations needed to comply with this performance
specification are described in sections 12.1 and 12.2 of this
specification.
12.1 How do I determine if a calibrated measurement device
satisfies the accuracy hierarchy specified in section 6.5 of this
specification. To determine if a calibrated measurement device
satisfies the accuracy hierarchy requirement, follow the procedure
described in paragraphs (1) and (2) of this section.
(1) Calculate the accuracy hierarchy (Ah) using
Equation 17-1.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP09OC08.010
Where:
Ah = Accuracy hierarchy, dimensionless.
Ar = Required accuracy (Ap or Av)
specified in Table 8 of this specification, percent or units of
parameter value (e.g., degrees Celsius, kilopascals, liters per
minute).
Ac= Accuracy of calibrated measurement device, same units
as Ar.
(2) If the accuracy hierarchy (Ah) is equal to or
greater than 3.0, the calibrated measurement device satisfies the
accuracy hierarchy of Section 6.5 of this specification.
12.2 How do I determine if my CPMS satisfies the accuracy
requirement of PS-17? To determine if your CPMS satisfies the
accuracy requirement of PS-17, follow the procedure described in
paragraphs (1) through (4) of this section.
(1) If your CPMS measures temperature, pressure, or flow rate,
calculate the accuracy percent value (Apv) using Equation
17-2. If your CPMS measures pH, proceed to paragraph (2) of this
section.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP09OC08.011
Where:
Apv = Accuracy percent value, units of parameter measured
(e.g., degrees Celsius, kilopascals, liters per minute).
Vc = Parameter value measured by the calibrated
measurement device or measured by your CPMS when a calibrated signal
simulator is applied to your CPMS during the initial validation
check, units of parameter measured (e.g., degrees Celsius,
kilopascals, liters per minute).
Ap = Accuracy percentage specified in Table 8 of this
specification that corresponds to your CPMS, percent.
(2) If your CPMS measures temperature, pressure, or flow rate
other than mass flow rate or steam flow rate, compare the accuracy
percent value (Apv) to the accuracy value (Av)
in Table 8 of this specification and select the greater of the two
values. Use this greater value as the allowable deviation
(da) in paragraph (4) of this section. If your CPMS
measures pH, use the accuracy value (Av) specified in
Table 8 of this specification as the allowable deviation
(da). If your CPMS measures steam flow rate, mass flow
rate, or conductivity, use the accuracy percent value
(Apv) calculated using Equation 17-2 as the allowable
deviation (da).
(3) Using Equation 17-3, calculate the measured deviation
(dm), which is the absolute value of the difference
between the parameter value measured by the calibrated device
(Vc) and the value measured by your CPMS (Vm).
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP09OC08.012
Where:
dm = Measured deviation, units of the parameter measured
(e.g., degrees Celsius, kilopascals, liters per minute).
Vc = Parameter value measured by the calibrated
measurement device or measured by your CPMS when a calibrated signal
simulator is applied to your CPMS during the initial validation
check, units of parameter measured (e.g., degrees Celsius,
kilopascals, liters per minute).
Vm = Parameter value measured by your CPMS during the
initial validation check, units of parameter measured (e.g., degrees
Celsius, kilopascals, liters per minute).
(4) Compare the measured deviation (dm) to the
allowable deviation (da). If the measured deviation is
less than or equal to the allowable deviation, your CPMS satisfies
the accuracy requirement of this specification.
13.0 What initial performance criteria must I demonstrate for my CPMS
to comply with PS-17?
You must demonstrate that your CPMS meets the accuracy
requirements specified in Table 8 of this specification.
14.0 What are the recordkeeping requirements for PS-17?
You must satisfy the recordkeeping requirements specified in
Sections 14.1 and 14.2 of this specification.
14.1 What data does PS-17 require me to record for my CPMS? For
each affected CPMS that you operate, you must record the information
listed in paragraphs (1) through (6) of this section.
(1) Identification and location of the CPMS;
(2) Manufacturer's name and model number of the CPMS;
(3) Range of parameter values you expect your CPMS to measure
and record;
(4) Date of the initial calibration and system validation check;
(5) Results of the initial calibration and system validation
check; and
(6) Name of the person(s) who performed the initial calibration
and system validation check.
14.2 For how long must I maintain the data that PS-17 requires
me to record for my CPMS? You are required to keep the records
required by this specification for your CPMS for a period of 5
years. At a minimum, you must maintain the most recent 2 years of
data onsite and available for inspection by the enforcement agency.
[[Page 59991]]
15.0 Pollution Prevention [Reserved]
16.0 Waste Management [Reserved]
17.0 Which references are relevant to PS-17?
1. Technical Guidance Document: Compliance Assurance Monitoring.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Air Quality Planning
and Standards Emission Measurement Center. August 1998. (http://www.epa.gov/ttn/emc/cam.html).
2. NEMA Standard Publication 250. ``Enclosures for Electrical
Equipment (1000 Volts Maximum)''. National Electrical Manufacturers
Association. 1997.
3. ASTM E-220-86 (1996): Standard Test Methods for Calibration
of Thermocouples by Comparison Techniques. American Society for
Testing and Materials. May 1986.
4. MC96-1-1982: Temperature Measurement Thermocouples. American
National Standards Institute. August 1982.
5. The pH and Conductivity Handbook. Omega Engineering, Inc.
1995.
6. ASTM E-452-89: ``Standard Test Method for Calibration of
Refractory Metal Thermocouples Using an Optical Pyrometer''.
American Society of Testing and Materials. April 1989.
7. ASTM E 644-06: ``Standard Test Methods for Testing Industrial
Resistance Thermometers''. American Society of Testing and
Materials. 2006.
8. ASME B 40.100-2005: ``Pressure Gauges and Gauge
Attachments''. American Society of Mechanical Engineers. 2005.
9. ASTM E 251-92 (2003): ``Standard Test Methods for Performance
Characteristics of Metallic Bonded Resistance Strain Gages''.
American Society for Testing and Materials. 2003.
10. ASHRAE 41.8-1989: ``Standard Methods of Measurement of Flow
of Liquids in Pipes Using Orifice Flow Meters''. American Society of
Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers, Inc. 1989.
11. ISA RP 16.6-1961: ``Methods and Equipment for Calibration of
Variable Area Meters (Rotameters)''. Instrumentation, Systems, and
Automation Society. 1961.
12. ANSI/ISA-RP31.1-1977: ``Specification, Installation, and
Calibration of Turbine Flow Meters''. Instrumentation, Systems, and
Automation Society. 1977.
13. ASTM E 1-95: ``Standard Specifications for ASTM
Thermometers''. American Society for Testing and Materials. 1995.
14. ANSI/ASHRAE 41.1-1986: ``Standard Method for Temperature
Measurement'' American Society of Heating, Refrigerating, and Air-
Conditioning Engineers, Inc. February 1987.
15. ANSI/ASHRAE 41.3-1989: ``Standard Method for Pressure
Measurement''. American Society of Heating, Refrigerating, and Air-
Conditioning Engineers, Inc. 1989.
16. ISA RP 16.5-1961: ``Installation, Operation, and Maintenance
Instructions for Glass Tube Variable Area Meters (Rotameters)''.
Instrumentation, Systems, and Automation Society. 1961.
17. ASME MFC-3M-2004: ``Measurement of Fluid Flow in Pipes Using
Orifice, Nozzle, and Venturi''. American Society of Mechanical
Engineers. 1989.
18. ASTM E-1137-97: ``Standard Specification for Industrial
Platinum Resistance Thermometers''. American Society for Testing and
Materials. 1997.
19. The Temperature Handbook. Omega Engineering, Inc. 2000.
20. The Pressure, Strain and Force Handbook. Omega Engineering,
Inc. 1999.
21. The Flow and Level Handbook. Omega Engineering, Inc. 2000.
22. ASTM D-5464-93 (1997): ``Standard Test Methods for pH
Measurement of Water of Low Conductivity''. American Society for
Testing and Materials. 1993.
23. ASTM D-1293-99: ``Standard Test Methods for pH of Water''.
American Society for Testing and Materials. 1999.
24. ANSI/ASME MFC-4M-1986 (R2003): ``Measurement of Gas Flow by
Turbine Meters''. American Society of Mechanical Engineers. 2003.
25. ASME/ANSI MFC-6M-1987: ``Measurement of Fluid Flow in Pipes
Using Vortex Flow Meters''. American Society of Mechanical
Engineers. 1987.
26. ASME/ANSI MFC-7M-1987: ``Measurement of Gas Flow by Means of
Critical Flow Venturi Nozzles''. American Society of Mechanical
Engineers. 1987.
27. ASME/ANSI MFC-9M-1988: ``Measurement of Liquid Flow in
Closed Conduits by Weighing Method''. American Society of Mechanical
Engineers. 1989.
28. ASME/ANSI MFC-10M-1994: ``Measurement of Liquid Flow in
Closed Conduits by Volumetric Method''. American Society of
Mechanical Engineers. 1994.
29. ISO 8316:1987: ``Measurement of Liquid Flow in Closed
Conduits-Method by Collection of Liquid in a Volumetric Tank''.
International Organization for Standardization. 1987.
30. NIST Handbook 44--2002 Edition: ``Specifications,
Tolerances, And Other Technical Requirements for Weighing and
Measuring Devices, as adopted by the 86th National Conference on
Weights and Measures 2001'', Section 2.21: ``Belt-Conveyor Scale
Systems''.
31. ISO 10790:1999: ``Measurement of Fluid Flow in Closed
Conduits-Guidance to the Selection, Installation, and Use of
Coriolis Meters (Mass Flow, Density and Volume Flow Measurements''.
International Organization for Standardization. 1999.
32. ASTM D 1125-95 (2005): ``Standard Test Methods for
Electrical Conductivity and Resistivity of Water''. American Society
for Testing and Materials. 2005.
33. ASTM D 5391-99 (2005): ``Standard Test Method for Electrical
Conductivity and Resistivity of a Flowing High Purity Water
Sample''. American Society for Testing and Materials. 2005.
18.0 What tables are relevant to PS-17?
Table 1--Sensor Components of Commonly Used CPMS
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The sensor component
For a CPMS that measures . . Using a . . . consists of the . .
. .
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Temperature.............. a. Thermocouple..... Thermocouple.
b. Resistance RTD.
temperature
detector (RTD).
c. Optical pyrometer Optical assembly and
detector.
d. Thermistor....... Thermistor.
e. Temperature Integrated circuit
transducer. sensor?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Pressure................. a. Pressure gauge... Gauge assembly,
including bourdon
element, bellows
element, or
diaphragm.
b. Pressure Strain gauge
transducer. assembly,
capacitance
assembly, linear
variable
differential
transformer, force
balance assembly,
potentiometer,
variable reluctance
assembly,
piezoelectric
assembly, or
piezoresistive
assembly.
c. Manometer........ U-tube or
differential
manometer.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Flow rate................ a. Differential Flow constricting
pressure device. element (nozzle,
Venturi, or orifice
plate) and
differential
pressure sensor.
b. Differential Pitot tube, or other
pressure tube. array of tubes that
measure velocity
pressure and static
pressure, and
differential
pressure sensor.
c. Magnetic flow Magnetic coil
meter. assembly.
[[Page 59992]]
d. Positive Piston, blade, vane,
displacement flow propeller, disk, or
meter. gear assembly.
e. Turbine flow Rotor or turbine
meter. assembly.
f. Vortex formation Vortex generating
flow meter. and sensing
elements.
g. Fluidic Feedback passage,
oscillating flow side wall, control
meter. port, and thermal
sensor.
h. Ultrasonic flow Sonic transducers,
meter. receivers, timer,
and temperature
sensor.
i. Thermal flow Thermal element and
meter. temperature
sensors.
j. Coriolis mass U-tube and magnetic
flow meter. sensing elements.
k. Rotameter........ Float assembly.
l. Solids flow meter Sensing plate.
m. Belt conveyor.... Scale.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. pH....................... pH meter............ Electrode.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. Conductivity............. Conductivity meter.. Electrode.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 2--Design Standards for Temperature Sensors
------------------------------------------------------------------------
You can use the following design
If the sensor is a . . . standards as guidance in selecting a
sensor for your CPMS . . .
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Thermocouple.............. a. ASTM E235-88 (1996), ``Specification
for Thermocouples, Sheathed, Type K, for
Nuclear or Other High-Reliability
Applications.''
b. ASTM E585/E 585M-04, ``Specification
for Compacted Mineral-Insulated, Metal-
Sheathed, Base Metal Thermocouple
Cables.''
c. ASTM E608/E 608M-06, ``Specification
for Mineral-Insulated, Metal-Sheathed
Base Metal Thermocouples.''
d. ASTM E696-07, ``Specification for
Tungsten-Rhenium Alloy Thermocouple
Wire.''
e. ASTM E1129/E 1129M-98 (2002),
``Standard Specification for
Thermocouple Connectors.''
f. ASTM E1159-98 (2003), ``Specification
for Thermocouple Materials, Platinum-
Rhodium Alloys, and Platinum.''
g. ISA-MC96.1-1982, ``Temperature
Measurement Ther mo couples.''
2. Resistance temperature ASTM E1137/E1137M-04, ``Standard
detector. Specification for Industrial Platinum
Resistance Thermometers.''
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 3--Standards for the Installation of Flow Sensors
------------------------------------------------------------------------
If the sensor of your flow CPMS is You should install the flow sensor
a . . . according to . . .
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Differential pressure device... ASME MFC-3M-2004, ``Measurement of
Fluid Flow in Pipes Using Orifice,
Nozzle, and Venturi''.
2. Critical flow venturi flow ASME/ANSI MFC-7M-1987 (R2001),
meter used to measure gas flow ``Measurement of Gas Flow by Means
rate. of Critical Flow Venturi Nozzles''.
3. Turbine flow meter............. ANSI/ISA RP 31.1-1977, ``Recommended
Practice: Specification,
Installation, and Calibration of
Turbine Flowmeters'', or, if used
for gas flow measurement, ANSI/ASME
MFC-4M-1986 (R2003), ``Measurement
of Gas Flow by Turbine Meters''.
4. Rotameter...................... ISA RP 16.5-1961, ``Installation,
Operation, and Maintenance
Instructions for Glass Tube
Variable Area Meters
(Rotameters)''.
5. Coriolis mass flow meter....... ISO 10790:1999, ``Measurement of
fluid flow in closed conduits--
Guidance to the selection,
installation and use of Coriolis
meters (mass flow, density and
volume flow measurements).
6. Vortex formation flow meter.... ASME/ANSI MFC-6M-1998 (R2005),
``Measurement of Fluid Flow in
Pipes Using Vortex Flow Meters''.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 4--Volumetric Methods for Initial Validation Check of Flow Meters
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Designation Title
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. ISA RP 16.6-1961............... ``Methods and Equipment for
Calibration of Variable Area Meters
(Rotameters)''.
2. ANSI/ISA RP 31.1-1977.......... ``Specification, Installation, and
Calibration of Turbine Flow
Meters''.
3. ISO 8316:1987.................. ``Measurement of Liquid Flow in
Closed Conduits--Method by
Collection of Liquid in a
Volumetric Tank''.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 5--Weighing Methods for Initial Validation Check of Flow Meters
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Designation Title
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. ASHRAE 41.8-1989............... ``Standard Methods of Measurement of
Flow of Liquids in Pipes Using
Orifice Flow Meters''.
2. ISA RP 16.6-1961............... ``Methods and Equipment for
Calibration of Variable Area Meters
(Rotameters)''.
3. ANSI/ISA RP 31.1-1977.......... ``Specification, Installation, and
Calibration of Turbine Flow
Meters''.
[[Page 59993]]
4. ANSI/ASME MFC-9M-1988.......... ``Measurement of Liquid Flow in
Closed Conduits by Weighing
Method''.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 6--Alternate Methods for Initial Validation Check of Temperature
Sensors
------------------------------------------------------------------------
You can perform
the initial
If the temperature sensor in And is used in . . validation check
your CPMS is a . . . . of the sensor
using . . .
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Thermocouple................. Any application... ASTM E220-07e1.
2. Thermocouple................. A reducing ASTM E452-02
environment. (2007).
3. Resistance temperature Any application... ASTM E644-06.
detector.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 7--Alternate Methods for Initial Validation Check of Pressure
Sensors
------------------------------------------------------------------------
If the pressure sensor in You can perform the initial validation
your CPMS is a . . . check of the sensor using . . .
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Pressure gauge............ ASME B40.100-2005.
2. Metallic bonded resistance ASTM E251-92 (2003).
strain gauge.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 8--CPMS Accuracy Requirements
------------------------------------------------------------------------
You must demonstrate that your CPMS
If your CPMS measures . . . operates within . . .
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Temperature, in a non-cryogenic An accuracy percentage (Ap) of 1.0 percent of the
temperature measured in degrees
Celsius or within an accuracy value
(Av) of 2.8 degrees Celsius (5
degrees Fahrenheit), whichever is
greater.
2. Temperature, in a cryogenic An accuracy percentage (Ap) of 2.5 percent of the
temperature measured in degrees
Celsius or within an accuracy value
(Av) of 2.8 degrees Celsius (5
degrees Fahrenheit), whichever is
greater.
3. Pressure....................... An accuracy percentage (Ap) of 5 percent or an accuracy
value (Av) of 0.12 kilopascals (0.5
inches of water column), whichever
is greater.
4. Liquid flow rate............... An accuracy percentage (Ap) of 5 percent or an accuracy
value (Av) of 1.9 liters per minute
(0.5 gallons per minute), whichever
is greater.
5. Gas flow rate.................. a. A relative accuracy of 20 percent, if you
demonstrate compliance using the
relative accuracy test, or
b. An accuracy percentage (Ap) of
10 percent, if your
CPMS measures steam flow rate, or
c. An accuracy percentage (Ap) of
5 percent or an
accuracy value (Av) of 280 liters
per minute (10 cubic feet per
minute), whichever is greater, for
all other gases and accuracy audit
methods.
6. Mass flow rate................. An accuracy percentage (Ap) of 5 percent.
7. pH............................. An accuracy value (Av) of 0.2 pH units.
8. Conductivity................... An accuracy percentage (Ap) of 5 percent.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. Appendix F to part 60 is amended as follows:
a. In Procedure 1, by:
i. Revising the second (last) sentence in the first paragraph of
section 1.1; and
ii. Adding sections 4.1.1, 4.1.2, 4.3.3, 4.4.1, 5.5.5, and 5.1.7.
b. Adding Procedure 4 in numerical order to read as follows:
Appendix F to Part 60--Quality Assurance Procedures
Procedure 1. Quality Assurance Requirements for Gas Continuous
Emission Monitoring Systems Used for Compliance Determination
1. Applicability and Principle
1.1 * * * The CEMS may include systems that monitor one
pollutant (e.g., SO2 or NOX), a combination of
pollutants (e.g., benzene and hexane), or diluents (e.g.,
O2 or CO2).
* * * * *
4. CD Assessment
* * * * *
4.1.1 Multiple Organic Pollutant CEMS. Source owners and
operators of gas chromatographic CEMS that are subject to PS 9 and
are used to monitor multiple organic pollutants must perform the
daily CD requirement specified in section 4.1 of this procedure
using any one of the target pollutants specified in the applicable
regulation.
4.1.2 CEMS Subject to PS 15. To satisfy the daily CD requirement
of this procedure, source owners and operators of extractive Fourier
Transfer Infrared (FTIR) CEMS that are subject to PS 15 must perform
at least once daily the calibration transfer standards check,
analyte spike check, and background deviation check specified in PS-
15 (40 CFR part 60, appendix B), sections 10.1, 10.4, and 10.6,
respectively. The analyte spike check can be performed using any of
the target analytes.
* * * * *
4.3.3 Out-of-Control Definition for CEMS Subject to PS 15. If
the calibration transfer standards check, analyte spike check, or
background deviation check exceeds twice the accuracy criterion of
5 percent for five, consecutive daily periods, the CEMS
is out of control. If the calibration transfer standards check,
analyte spike check, or background deviation check exceeds four
times the accuracy criterion of 5 percent during any
daily calibration check, the CEMS is out of control. If the CEMS is
out of control, take necessary corrective action. Following
corrective action, repeat the calibration checks specified in this
section.
* * * * *
4.4.1 Data Storage Requirements for CEMS Subject to PS 15. In
addition to the requirements of section 4.4 of this procedure,
source owners and operators of CEMS subject to PS-15 (40 CFR part
60, appendix B) must satisfy the data storage requirements of
section 6.3 of PS-15.
* * * * *
5. Data Accuracy Assessment
* * * * *
5.1.5 Audits for CEMS Subject to PS 9. For CEMS that are subject
to PS 9, the requirements of section 5.1 of this procedure apply,
with the following exceptions:
[[Page 59994]]
(1) The RATA specified in sections 5.1.1 and 5.1.4 of this
procedure does not apply.
(2) The CGA must be conducted every calendar quarter.
(3) The CGA must be conducted according to the procedures
specified in section 5.3 of PS-9 (40 CFR part 60, appendix B),
except that the audit must be performed at two points as specified
in section 5.1.2 of this procedure.
(4) The CGA must be conducted for each target pollutant
specified in the applicable regulation.
(5) The RAA specified in section 5.1.3 of this procedure does
not apply.
(6) Audits conducted under this procedure fulfill the
requirement of section 5.3 of PS-9 (40 CFR part 60, appendix B) for
quarterly performance audits.
5.1.6 Audits for CEMS Subject to PS-15. For CEMS that are
subject to PS-15 (40 CFR part 60, appendix B), the requirements of
section 5.1 of this procedure apply, with the following exceptions:
(1) The RATA specified in sections 5.1.1 and 5.1.4, the CGA
specified in section 5.1.2, and the RAA specified in section 5.1.3
of this procedure do not apply.
(2) To satisfy the quarterly accuracy audit requirement of this
procedure, one of the accuracy checks specified in PS-15 (40 CFR
part 60, appendix B), sections 9.1 (Audit Sample), 9.2 (Audit
Spectra), and 9.3 (Submit Spectra for Independent Analysis) must be
performed at least once each calendar quarter, consistent with the
following additional criteria:
(i) The audit sample check, specified in section 9.1 of PS-15
(40 CFR part 60, appendix B), must be conducted at least once every
four calendar quarters.
(ii) The audit spectra check, specified in section 9.2 of PS-15
(40 CFR part 60, appendix B), can be used to satisfy the quarterly
accuracy audit requirement only once every four calendar quarters.
(3) Audits conducted under this procedure fulfill the
requirement of section 9 of PS-15 (40 CFR part 60, appendix B) for
quarterly or semiannual QA/QC checks on the operation of extractive
FTIR CEMS.
* * * * *
Procedure 4. Quality Assurance Requirements for Continuous
Parameter Monitoring Systems at Stationary Sources
1.0 What is the purpose of this procedure?
The purpose of this procedure is to establish the minimum
requirements for evaluating on an ongoing basis the quality of data
produced by your continuous parameter monitoring system (CPMS), and
the effectiveness of quality assurance (QA) and quality control (QC)
procedures that you have developed for your CPMS. This procedure
applies instead of the QA and QC requirements for applicable CPMS
specified in any applicable subpart to parts 60, 61, or 63, unless
otherwise specified in the applicable subpart. This procedure
presents requirements in general terms to allow you to develop a QC
program that is most effective for your circumstances. This
procedure does not restrict your current QA/QC procedures to ensure
compliance with applicable regulations. Instead, you are encouraged
to develop and implement a more extensive QA/QC program or to
continue such programs where they already exist.
1.1 To what types of devices does Procedure 4 apply? This
procedure applies to any CPMS that is subject to Performance
Specification 17 (PS-17).
1.2 When must I comply with Procedure 4? You must comply with
this procedure when conditions (1) or (2) of this section occur.
(1) At the time you install and place into operation a CPMS that
is subject to PS-17.
(2) At the time any of your existing CPMS become subject to PS-
17.
1.3 How does Procedure 4 affect me if I am also subject to QA
procedures under another applicable subpart? This procedure does not
apply if any more stringent QA requirements apply to you under an
applicable requirement. You are required to comply with the more
stringent of the applicable QA requirements.
2.0 What are the basic requirements of Procedure 4?
This procedure requires all owners and operators of a CPMS to
perform periodic QA evaluations of CPMS performance and to develop
and implement QC programs to ensure that CPMS data quality is
maintained.
2.1 What types of procedures are required for me to demonstrate
compliance? This procedure requires you to meet the requirements of
paragraphs (1) and (2) of this section.
(1) Perform periodic accuracy audits of your CPMS; and
(2) Take corrective action when your CPMS fails to meet the
accuracy requirements of this procedure.
2.2 What types of recordkeeping and reporting activities are
required by Procedure 4? This procedure does not have any reporting
requirements but does require you to record and maintain data that
identify your CPMS and show the results of any performance
demonstrations of your CPMS. Recordkeeping requirements are
specified in section 14 of this procedure.
3.0 What special definitions apply to Procedure 4?
3.1 Accuracy. A measure of the closeness of a measurement to the
true or actual value.
3.2 Accuracy hierarchy. The ratio of the accuracy of a
measurement instrument to the accuracy of a calibrated instrument or
standard that is used to measure the accuracy of the measurement
instrument. For example, if the accuracy of a calibrated temperature
measurement device is 0.2 percent, and the accuracy of a
thermocouple is 1.0 percent, the accuracy hierarchy is 5.0 (1.0 /
0.2 = 5.0).
3.3 Calibration drift. The difference between a reference value
and the output value of a CPMS after a period of operation during
which no unscheduled maintenance, repair, or adjustment took place.
3.4 Conductivity CPMS. The total equipment that is used to
measure and record liquid conductivity on a continuous basis.
3.5 Continuous parameter monitoring system (CPMS). The total
equipment that is used to measure and record parameters, such as
temperature, pressure, liquid flow rate, gas flow rate, mass flow
rate, pH or conductivity, in one or more locations on a continuous
basis.
3.6 Differential pressure tube. A device, such as a pitot tube,
that consists of one or more pairs of tubes that are oriented to
measure the velocity pressure and static pressure at one of more
fixed points within a duct for the purpose of determining gas
velocity.
3.7 Electronic components. The electronic signal modifier or
conditioner, transmitter, and power supply associated with a CPMS.
3.8 Flow CPMS. The total equipment that is used to measure
liquid flow rate, gas flow rate, or mass flow rate on a continuous
basis.
3.9 Mass flow rate. The measurement of solid, liquid, or gas
flow in units of mass per time, such as kilograms per minute or tons
per hour.
3.10 Mechanical component. Any component of a CPMS that consists
of or includes moving parts or that is used to apply or transfer
force to another component or part of a CPMS.
3.11 pH CPMS. The total equipment that is used to measure and
record liquid pH on a continuous basis.
3.12 Pressure CPMS. The total equipment that is used to measure
and record the pressure of a liquid or gas at any location or the
differential pressure of a gas or liquid at any two locations on a
continuous basis.
3.13 Resolution. The smallest detectable or legible increment of
measurement.
3.14 Sensor. The component of a CPMS that senses the parameter
being measured (currently temperature, pressure, liquid flow rate,
gas flow rate, mass flow rate, pH, or conductivity) and generates an
output signal. Table 1 identifies the sensor components of some
commonly used CPMS.
3.15 Solid mass flow rate. The measurement in units of mass per
time of the rate at which a solid material is processed or
transferred. Examples of solid mass flow rate are the rate at which
ore is fed to a material dryer or the rate at which powdered lime is
injected into an exhaust duct.
3.16 Temperature CPMS. The total equipment that is used to
measure and record the temperature of a liquid or gas at any
location or the differential temperature of a gas or liquid at any
two locations on a continuous basis.
3.17 Total equipment. The sensor, mechanical components,
electronic components, data recording, electrical wiring, and other
components of a CPMS.
4.0 Interferences [Reserved]
5.0 What do I need to know to ensure the safety of persons who perform
the accuracy audits specified in Procedure 4?
The accuracy audits required under Procedure 4 may involve
hazardous materials, operations, site conditions, and equipment.
This QA procedure does not purport to address all of the safety
issues associated with these audits. It is the responsibility of the
user to establish appropriate safety and health practices and
determine the applicable regulatory limitations prior to performing
these audits.
[[Page 59995]]
6.0 What are the equipment requirements for Procedure 4?
6.1 What types of equipment do I need for performing the
accuracy audit of my CPMS? The specific types of equipment that you
need for your CPMS accuracy audit depend on the type of CPMS, site-
specific conditions, and the method that you choose for conducting
the accuracy audit, as specified in sections 8.1 through 8.5 of this
procedure. In most cases, you will need the equipment described in
paragraphs (1) and (2) of this section.
(1) A separate device that either measures the same parameter
that your CPMS measures, or that simulates the same electronic
signal or response that your CPMS generates, and
(2) Any test ports, pressure taps, valves, fittings, or other
equipment required to perform the specific procedures of the
accuracy audit method that you choose, as specified in section 8.1
of this procedure.
6.2 What are the accuracy requirements for the equipment that I
use to audit the accuracy of my CPMS? Unless you meet one of the
exceptions listed in section 6.3 of this procedure, any measurement
instrument or device that you use to conduct an accuracy audit of
your CPMS must have an accuracy that is traceable to National
Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) standards and must have
an accuracy hierarchy of at least three. To determine if a
measurement instrument or device satisfies this accuracy hierarchy
requirement, follow the procedure described in section 12.1 of this
procedure.
6.3 Are there any exceptions to the accuracy requirement of
section 6.2 of this procedure? There are three exceptions to the
NIST-traceable accuracy requirement specified in section 6.2, as
described in paragraphs (1) through (3) of this section.
(1) If you perform an accuracy audit of your CPMS by comparison
to a redundant CPMS, you need not meet the NIST-traceability
requirement of section 6.2; however, the redundant CPMS must have an
accuracy equal to or better than the corresponding minimum required
accuracy specified in Table 6 of this procedure for that specific
type of CPMS.
(2) As an alternative for the calibrated pressure measurement
device with NIST-traceable accuracy that is required in paragraphs
(2) and (4) of section 8.2 and in paragraph (4) of section 8.3 of
this specification, you can use a mercury-in-glass or water-in-glass
U-tube manometer to check the accuracy of your pressure CPMS.
(3) When validating a flow rate CPMS using the methods specified
in paragraphs (2), (3), or (7) of section 8.3 of this specification,
the container used to collect or weigh the liquid or solid is not
required to have NIST-traceable accuracy.
7.0 What reagents or standards do I need to comply with Procedure 4?
The specific reagents and standards needed to demonstrate
compliance with this procedure depend upon the parameter that your
CPMS measures and the method that you choose to check the accuracy
of your CPMS. Sections 8.1 through 8.5 of this procedure identify
the specific reagents and standards that you will need to conduct
accuracy audits of your CPMS.
8.0 What quality assurance and quality control measures are required by
Procedure 4 for my CPMS?
You must perform accuracy audits, meet the accuracy requirements
of this procedure, and perform any additional checks of the CPMS as
specified in sections 8.1 through 8.9 of this procedure.
8.1 How do I perform an accuracy audit for my temperature CPMS?
To perform the accuracy audit, you can choose one of the methods
described in paragraphs (1) through (3) of this section.
(1) Comparison to Redundant Temperature Sensor. This method
requires your CPMS to have a primary temperature sensor and a
redundant temperature sensor. The redundant temperature sensor must
be installed adjacent to the primary temperature sensor and must be
subject to the same environment as the primary temperature sensor.
To perform the accuracy audit, record three pairs of concurrent
temperature measurements within a 24-hour period. Each pair of
concurrent measurements must consist of a temperature measurement by
each of the two temperature sensors. The minimum time interval
between any two such pairs of consecutive temperature measurements
is one hour. You must take these readings during periods when the
process or control device that is being monitored by the CPMS is
operating normally. Calculate the mean of the three values for each
temperature sensor. The mean values must agree within the minimum
required accuracy specified in Table 6 of this procedure. If your
CPMS satisfies the accuracy requirement of Table 6, the accuracy
audit is complete. If your CPMS does not satisfy the accuracy
requirement of Table 6 of this procedure, check all system
components and take any corrective action that is necessary to
achieve the required minimum accuracy. Repeat this accuracy audit
procedure until the accuracy requirement of Table 6 of this
procedure is satisfied. If you replace any electrical or mechanical
components of your temperature CPMS, you must perform the procedures
outlined in PS-17. If you are required to measure and record
temperatures at multiple locations, repeat this procedure for each
location.
(2) Comparison to Calibrated Temperature Measurement Device.
Place the sensor of a calibrated temperature measurement device
adjacent to the sensor of your temperature CPMS in a location that
is subject to the same environment as the sensor of your temperature
CPMS. The calibrated temperature measurement device must satisfy the
accuracy requirements specified in section 6.2 of this procedure.
Allow sufficient time for the response of the calibrated temperature
measurement device to reach equilibrium. With the process or control
device that is monitored by your CPMS operating under normal
conditions, record concurrently the temperatures measured by your
temperature CPMS and the calibrated temperature measurement device.
Using the temperature measured by the calibrated measurement device
as the value for Vc, follow the procedure specified in
section 12.2 of this procedure to determine if your CPMS satisfies
the accuracy requirement of Table 6 of this procedure. If you
determine that your CPMS satisfies the accuracy requirement of Table
6 of this procedure, the accuracy audit is complete. If your CPMS
does not satisfy the accuracy requirement of Table 6 of this
procedure, check all system components and take any corrective
action that is necessary to achieve the required minimum accuracy.
Repeat this procedure until the accuracy requirement of Table 6 of
this procedure is satisfied. If you replace any electrical or
mechanical components of the primary CPMS, you must perform the
procedures outlined in PS-17 (40 CFR part 60, appendix B). If you
are required to measure and record temperatures at multiple
locations, repeat this procedure for each location.
(3) Separate Sensor Check and System Check by Temperature
Simulation. This method applies to temperature CPMS that use either
a thermocouple or a resistance temperature detector as the
temperature sensor. First, perform the temperature sensor check
using the appropriate ASTM standard listed in Table 2 of this
procedure. To perform the system check, record the temperature using
your temperature CPMS with the process or control device that is
monitored by your temperature CPMS operating under normal
conditions. Under the same operating conditions, disconnect the
sensor from the CPMS system and connect a calibrated simulation
device that is designed to simulate the same type of response as the
CPMS sensor. The simulation device must satisfy the accuracy
requirements specified in section 6.2 of this procedure. Within 15
minutes of measuring and recording the temperature using your
temperature CPMS, simulate the same temperature recorded for the
temperature CPMS. Allow sufficient time for the response of the
simulation device to reach equilibrium. Using the temperature
simulated by the calibrated simulation device as the value for
Vc, follow the procedure specified in section 12.2 of
this procedure to determine if your CPMS satisfies the accuracy
requirement of Table 6 of this procedure. If you determine that your
CPMS satisfies the accuracy requirement of Table 6 of this
procedure, the accuracy audit is complete. If the calculated
accuracy does not meet the accuracy requirement of Table 6 of this
procedure, check all system components and take any corrective
action that is necessary to achieve the required minimum accuracy.
Repeat this procedure until the accuracy requirement of Table 6 of
this procedure is satisfied. If you replace any electrical or
mechanical components of your temperature CPMS, you must perform the
procedures outlined in PS-17. If you are required to measure and
record temperatures at multiple locations, repeat this procedure for
each location.
8.2 How do I perform an accuracy audit for my pressure CPMS? To
perform the accuracy audit, you can choose one of the methods
described in paragraphs (1) through (4) of this section.
(1) Comparison to redundant pressure sensor. This method
requires your CPMS to
[[Page 59996]]
have a primary pressure sensor and a redundant pressure sensor. The
redundant pressure sensor must be installed adjacent to the primary
pressure sensor and must be subject to the same environment as the
primary pressure sensor. To perform the accuracy audit, record three
pairs of concurrent pressure measurements within a 24-hour period.
Each pair of concurrent measurements must consist of a pressure
measurement by each of the two pressure sensors. The minimum time
interval between any two such pairs of consecutive pressure
measurements is one hour. You must take these readings during
periods when the process or control device that is being monitored
by the CPMS is operating normally. Calculate the mean of the three
values for each pressure sensor. The mean values must agree within
the minimum required accuracy specified in Table 6 of this
procedure. If your CPMS satisfies the accuracy requirement of Table
6 of this procedure, the accuracy audit is complete. If your CPMS
does not satisfy the accuracy requirement of Table 6 of this
procedure, check all system components and take any corrective
action that is necessary to achieve the required minimum accuracy.
Repeat this accuracy audit procedure until the accuracy requirement
of Table 6 of this procedure is satisfied. If you replace any
electrical or mechanical components of your pressure CPMS, you must
perform the procedures outlined in PS-17 (40 CFR part 60, appendix
B). If you are required to measure and record pressure at multiple
locations, repeat this procedure for each location.
(2) Comparison to Calibrated Pressure Measurement Device. With
the process or control device that is monitored by your pressure
CPMS operating under normal conditions, record the pressure at each
location that is monitored by your pressure CPMS. For each pressure
monitoring location, connect the process lines from the process or
emission control device that is monitored by your pressure CPMS to a
mercury-in-glass U-tube manometer, a water-in-glass U-tube
manometer, or calibrated pressure measurement device. If a
calibrated pressure measurement device is used, the device must
satisfy the accuracy requirements of section 6.2 of this procedure.
The calibrated pressure measurement device must also have a range
equal to or greater than the range of your pressure CPMS. Perform a
leak test on all manometer or calibrated pressure measurement device
connections using the method specified in section 8.9 of this
procedure. Allow sufficient time for the response of the calibrated
pressure measurement device to reach equilibrium. Within 30 minutes
of measuring and recording the corresponding pressure using your
CPMS, record the pressure measured by the calibrated pressure
measurement device at each location. Using the pressure measured by
the calibrated pressure measurement device as the value for
Vc, follow the procedure specified in section 12.2 of
this procedure to determine if your CPMS satisfies the accuracy
requirement of Table 6 of this procedure. If you determine that your
CPMS satisfies the accuracy requirement of Table 6 of this
procedure, the accuracy audit is complete. If the calculated
accuracy does not meet the accuracy requirement of Table 6 of this
procedure, check all system components and take any corrective
action that is necessary to achieve the accuracy requirements.
Repeat this procedure until the accuracy requirement of Table 6 of
this procedure is satisfied. If you replace any electrical or
mechanical components of your pressure CPMS, you must perform the
procedures outlined in PS-17 (40 CFR part 60, appendix B). If you
are required to measure and record pressures at multiple locations,
repeat this procedure for each location.
(3) Separate Sensor Check and System Check by Pressure
Simulation Using a Calibrated Pressure Source. Perform the pressure
sensor check using the appropriate ASTM standard listed in Table 3
of this procedure. These sensor check methods apply only to pressure
CPMS that use either a pressure gauge or a metallic-bonded
resistance strain gauge as the pressure sensor. To perform the
system check, begin by disconnecting or closing off the process line
or lines to your pressure CPMS. For each location that is monitored
by your pressure CPMS, connect a pressure source to your CPMS. The
pressure source must be calibrated and must satisfy the accuracy
requirements of section 6.2 of this procedure. The pressure source
also must be adjustable, either continuously or incrementally over
the pressure range of your pressure CPMS. Perform a leak test on the
calibrated pressure source using the method specified in section 8.9
of this procedure. Using the calibrated pressure source, apply to
each location that is monitored by your CPMS a pressure that is
within 10 percent of the normal operating pressure of
your pressure CPMS. Allow sufficient time for the response of the
calibrated pressure source to reach equilibrium. Using the pressure
applied by the calibrated pressure source as the value for
Vc, follow the procedure specified in section 12.2 of
this procedure to determine if your CPMS satisfies the accuracy
requirement of Table 6 of this procedure. If you determine that your
CPMS satisfies the accuracy requirement of Table 6 of this
procedure, the accuracy audit is complete. If your CPMS does not
meet the accuracy requirement of Table 6 of this procedure, check
all system components and take any other corrective action that is
necessary to achieve the required minimum accuracy. Repeat this
procedure until the accuracy requirement of Table 6 of this
procedure is satisfied. If you replace any electrical or mechanical
components of your pressure CPMS, you must perform the procedures
outlined in PS-17 (40 CFR part 60, appendix B). If you are required
to measure and record pressure at multiple locations, repeat this
procedure for each location.
(4) Separate Sensor and System Check by Pressure Simulation
Procedure Using a Pressure Source and a Calibrated Pressure
Measurement Device. Perform the pressure sensor check using the
appropriate ASTM standard listed in Table 3 of this procedure. These
sensor check methods apply only to pressure CPMS that use either a
pressure gauge or a metallic-bonded resistance strain gauge as the
pressure sensor. To perform the system check, begin by disconnecting
or closing off the process line or lines to your pressure CPMS.
Attach a mercury-in-glass U-tube manometer, a water-in-glass U-tube
manometer, or a calibrated pressure measurement device (the
reference pressure measurement device) in parallel to your pressure
CPMS. If a calibrated pressure measurement device is used, the
device must satisfy the accuracy requirements of section 6.2 of this
procedure. Connect a pressure source to your pressure CPMS and the
parallel reference pressure measurement device. Perform a leak test
on all connections for the pressure source and calibrated pressure
measurement device using the method as specified in section 8.9 of
this procedure. Apply pressure to your CPMS and the parallel
reference pressure measurement device. Allow sufficient time for the
responses of your CPMS and the parallel reference pressure
measurement device to reach equilibrium. Record the pressure
measured by your pressure CPMS and the reference pressure
measurement device. Using the pressure measured by the parallel
reference pressure measurement device as the value for
Vc, follow the procedure specified in section 12.2 of
this procedure to determine if your CPMS satisfies the accuracy
requirement of Table 6 of this procedure. If you determine that your
CPMS satisfies the accuracy requirement of Table 6 of this
procedure, the accuracy audit is complete. If your CPMS does not
meet the accuracy requirement of Table 6 of this procedure, check
all system components and take any corrective action that is
necessary to achieve the required minimum accuracy. Repeat this
accuracy audit until the accuracy requirement of Table 6 of this
procedure is satisfied. If you replace any electrical or mechanical
components of your pressure CPMS, you must perform the procedures
outlined in PS-17 (40 CFR part 60, appendix B). If you are required
to measure and record pressure at multiple locations, repeat this
procedure for each location.
8.3 How do I perform an accuracy audit for my flow CPMS? To
perform the accuracy audit on your flow CPMS, you can choose one of
the methods described in paragraphs (1) through (7) of this section
that is applicable to the type of material measured by your flow
CPMS and the type of sensor used in your flow CPMS.
(1) Comparison to redundant flow sensor. This method requires
your CPMS to have a primary flow sensor and a redundant flow sensor.
The redundant flow sensor must be installed adjacent to the primary
flow sensor and must be subject to the same environment as the
primary flow sensor. If using two Coriolis mass flow meters, care
should be taken to avoid cross-talk, which is interference between
the two meters due to mechanical coupling. Consult the manufacturer
for specifics. To perform the accuracy audit, record three pairs of
concurrent flow measurements within a 24-hour period. Each pair of
concurrent measurements must consist of a flow measurement by each
of the two flow sensors. The minimum time interval between any two
such pairs of consecutive flow
[[Page 59997]]
measurements is one hour. You must take these readings during
periods when the process or control device that is being monitored
by the CPMS is operating normally. Calculate the mean of the three
values for each flow sensor. The mean values must agree within the
minimum required accuracy specified in Table 6 of this procedure. If
your CPMS satisfies the accuracy requirement of Table 6 of this
procedure, the accuracy audit is complete. If your CPMS does not
satisfy the accuracy requirement of Table 6 of this procedure, check
all system components and take any corrective action that is
necessary to achieve the required minimum accuracy. Repeat this
accuracy audit procedure until the accuracy requirement of Table 6
of this procedure is satisfied. If you replace any electrical or
mechanical components of your flow CPMS, you must perform the
procedures outlined in PS-17 (40 CFR part 60, appendix B). If you
are required to measure and record flow at multiple locations,
repeat this procedure for each location.
(2) Volumetric Method. This method applies to any CPMS that is
designed to measure liquid flow rate. With the process or control
device that is monitored by your flow CPMS operating under normal
conditions, record the flow rate measured by your flow CPMS for the
subject process line. Collect concurrently the liquid that is
flowing through the same process line for a measured length of time
using the Volumetric Method specified in one of the standards listed
in Table 4 of this procedure. Using the flow rate measured by the
Volumetric Method as the value for Vc, follow the
procedure specified in section 12.2 of this procedure to determine
if your CPMS satisfies the accuracy requirement of Table 6 of this
procedure. If you determine that your CPMS satisfies the accuracy
requirement of Table 6 of this procedure, the accuracy audit is
complete. If your CPMS does not satisfy the accuracy requirement of
Table 6 of this procedure, check all system components and take any
corrective action that is necessary to achieve the required minimum
accuracy. Repeat this procedure until the accuracy requirement of
Table 6 of this procedure is satisfied. If you replace any
electrical or mechanical components of your flow CPMS, you must
perform the procedures outlined in PS-17 (40 CFR part 60, appendix
B). If you are required to measure and record flows at multiple
locations, repeat this procedure for each location.
(3) Gravimetric Method. This method applies to any CPMS that is
designed to measure liquid flow rate, liquid mass flow rate, or
solid mass flow rate. With the process or control device that is
monitored by your flow CPMS operating under normal conditions,
record the flow rate measured by your flow CPMS for the subject
process line. At the same time, collect the material (liquid or
solid) that is flowing or being transferred through the same process
line for a measured length of time using the Weighing, Weigh Tank,
or Gravimetric Methods specified in the standards listed in Table 5
of this procedure. Using the flow rate measured by the Weighing,
Weigh Tank, or Gravimetric Methods as the value for Vc,
follow the procedure specified in section 12.2 of this procedure to
determine if your CPMS satisfies the accuracy requirement of Table 6
of this procedure. If you determine that your CPMS satisfies the
accuracy requirement of Table 6 of this procedure, the accuracy
audit is complete. If your CPMS does not satisfy the accuracy
requirement of Table 6 of this procedure, check all system
components and take any corrective action that is necessary to
achieve the required minimum accuracy. Repeat this procedure until
the accuracy requirement of Table 6 of this procedure is satisfied.
If you replace any electrical or mechanical components of your flow
CPMS, you must perform the procedures outlined in PS-17 (40 CFR part
60, appendix B). If you are required to measure and record flows at
multiple locations, repeat this procedure for each location.
(4) Separate Sensor Check and System Check by Differential
Pressure Measurement Method. This method applies only to flow CPMS
that use a differential pressure measurement flow device, such as an
orifice plate, flow nozzle, or venturi tube. This method may not be
used to validate a flow CPMS that measures gas flow by means of one
or more differential pressure tubes. To perform the sensor check,
remove the flow constricting device and perform a visual inspection
for wear or other deformities based on manufacturer's
recommendations. Take any corrective action that is necessary to
ensure its proper operation. To perform the system check, record the
flow rate measured by your flow CPMS while the process or control
device that is monitored by your CPMS operating under normal
conditions. Under the same operating conditions, disconnect the
pressure taps from your flow CPMS and connect the pressure taps to a
mercury-in-glass U-tube manometer, a water-in-glass U-tube
manometer, or calibrated differential pressure measurement device.
If a calibrated pressure measurement device is used, the device must
satisfy the accuracy requirements of section 6.2 of this procedure.
Perform a leak test on all manometer or calibrated differential
pressure measurement device connections using the method specified
in section 8.9 of this procedure. Allow sufficient time for the
response of the calibrated differential pressure measurement device
to reach equilibrium. Within 30 minutes of measuring and recording
the flow rate using your CPMS, record the pressure drop measured by
the calibrated differential pressure measurement device. Using the
manufacturer's literature or the procedures specified in ASME MFC-
3M-2004 (incorporated by reference--see Sec. 60.17), calculate the
flow rate that corresponds to the differential pressure measured by
the calibrated differential pressure measurement device. For CPMS
that use an orifice flow meter, the procedures specified in ASHRAE
41.8-1989 (incorporated by reference--see Sec. 60.17) also can be
used to calculate the flow rate. Using the calculated flow rate as
the value for Vc, follow the procedure specified in
section 12.2 of this procedure to determine if your CPMS satisfies
the accuracy requirement of Table 6 of this procedure. If you
determine that your CPMS satisfies the accuracy requirement of Table
6 of this procedure, the accuracy audit is complete. If your CPMS
does not satisfy the accuracy requirement of Table 6 of this
procedure, check all system components and take any corrective
action that is necessary to achieve the required minimum accuracy.
Repeat this procedure until the accuracy requirement of Table 6 of
this procedure is satisfied. If you replace any electrical or
mechanical components of your flow CPMS, you must perform the
procedures outlined in PS-17 (40 CFR part 60, appendix B). If you
are required to measure and record flows at multiple locations,
repeat this procedure for each location.
(5) Separate Sensor Check and System Check by Pressure Source
Flow Simulation Method. This method applies only to flow CPMS that
use a differential pressure measurement flow device, such as an
orifice plate, flow nozzle, or venturi tube. This method may not be
used to validate a flow CPMS that measures gas flow by means of one
or more differential pressure tubes. To perform the sensor check,
remove the flow constricting device and perform a visual inspection
for wear or other deformities based on manufacturer's
recommendations. Take any corrective action that is necessary to
ensure its proper operation. To perform the system check, connect
separate pressure sources to the upstream and downstream sides of
your pressure CPMS, where the pressure taps are normally connected.
The pressure sources must be calibrated and must satisfy the
accuracy requirements of section 6.2 of this procedure. The pressure
sources also must be adjustable, either continuously or
incrementally over the pressure range that corresponds to the range
of your flow CPMS. Perform a leak test on all connections between
the calibrated pressure sources and your flow CPMS using the method
specified in section 8.9 of this procedure. Using the manufacturer's
literature or the procedures specified in ASME MFC-3M-2004
(incorporated by reference-see Sec. 60.17), calculate the required
pressure drop that corresponds to the normal operating flow rate
expected for your flow CPMS. For CPMS that use an orifice flow
meter, the procedures specified in ASHRAE 41.8-1989 (incorporated by
reference-see Sec. 60.17) also can be used to calculate the
pressure drop. Use the calibrated pressure sources to apply the
calculated pressure drop to your flow CPMS. Allow sufficient time
for the responses of the calibrated pressure sources to reach
equilibrium. Record the flow rate measured by your flow CPMS. Using
the flow rate measured by your CPMS when the calculated pressure
drop was applied as the value for Vc, follow the procedure specified
in section 12.2 of this procedure to determine if your CPMS
satisfies the accuracy requirement of Table 6 of this procedure. If
you determine that your CPMS satisfies the accuracy requirement of
Table 6 of this procedure, the accuracy audit is complete. If your
CPMS does not satisfy the accuracy requirement of Table 6 of this
procedure, check all system components and take any corrective
action that is necessary to achieve the required minimum accuracy.
Repeat this accuracy audit until the accuracy
[[Page 59998]]
requirement of Table 6 of this procedure is satisfied. If you
replace any electrical or mechanical components of your flow CPMS,
you must perform the procedures outlined in PS-17 (40 CFR part 60,
appendix B). If you are required to measure and record flows at
multiple locations, repeat this procedure for each location.
(6) Relative Accuracy (RA) Test. This method applies to any flow
CPMS that measures gas flow rate. If your flow CPMS uses a
differential pressure tube as the flow sensor and does not include
redundant sensors, you must use this method to validate your flow
CPMS. The reference methods (RM's) applicable to this test are
Methods 2, 2A, 2B, 2C, 2D, and 2F in 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-1,
and Method 2G in 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-2. Conduct three sets of
RM tests. Mark the beginning and end of each RM test period on the
flow CPMS chart recordings or other permanent record of output.
Determine the integrated flow rate for each RM test period. Perform
the same calculations specified by PS-2 (40 CFR part 60, appendix
B), section 7.5. If the RA is no greater than 20 percent of the mean
value of the RM test data, the RA test is complete. If the RA is
greater than 20 percent of the mean value of the RM test data, check
all system components and take any corrective action that is
necessary to achieve the required RA. Repeat this RA test until the
RA requirement of this section is satisfied.
(7) Material Weight Comparison Method. This method applies to
any solid mass flow CPMS that uses a combination of a belt conveyor
and scale and includes a totalizer. To conduct this test, pass a
quantity of pre-weighed material over the belt conveyor in a manner
consistent with actual loading conditions. To weigh the test
quantity of material that is to be used during the accuracy audit,
you must use a scale that satisfies the accuracy requirements of
section 6.2 of this procedure. The test quantity must be sufficient
to challenge the conveyor belt-scale system for at least three
revolutions of the belt. Record the length of the test. Calculate
the mass flow rate using the measured weight and the recorded time.
Using this mass flow rate as the value for Vc, follow the procedure
specified in section 12.2 of this procedure to determine if your
CPMS satisfies the accuracy requirement of Table 6 of this
procedure. If your CPMS satisfies the accuracy requirement of Table
6 of this procedure, the accuracy audit is complete. If your CPMS
does not satisfy the accuracy requirement of Table 6 of this
procedure, check all system components and take any corrective
action that is necessary to achieve the required minimum accuracy.
Repeat this accuracy audit procedure until the accuracy requirement
of Table 6 of this procedure is satisfied. If you replace any
electrical or mechanical components of your flow CPMS, you must
perform the procedures outlined in PS-17 (40 CFR part 60, appendix
B). If you are required to measure and record flow at multiple
locations, repeat this procedure for each location.
8.4 How do I perform an accuracy audit for my pH CPMS? To
perform the accuracy audit, you can choose one of the methods
described in paragraphs (1) through (3) of this section.
(1) Comparison to redundant pH sensor. This method requires your
CPMS to have a primary pH sensor and a redundant pH sensor. The
redundant pH sensor must be installed adjacent to the primary pH
sensor and must be subject to the same environment as the primary pH
sensor. To perform the accuracy audit, concurrently record the pH
measured by the two pH sensors. You must take these readings during
periods when the process or control device that is being monitored
by the CPMS is operating normally. The two pH values must agree
within the minimum required accuracy specified in Table 6 of this
procedure. If your CPMS satisfies the accuracy requirement of Table
6 of this procedure, the accuracy audit is complete. If your CPMS
does not satisfy the accuracy requirement of Table 6 of this
procedure, check all system components and take any corrective
action that is necessary to achieve the required minimum accuracy.
Repeat this accuracy audit procedure until the accuracy requirement
of Table 6 of this procedure is satisfied. If you replace any
electrical or mechanical components of your pH CPMS, you must
perform the procedures outlined in PS-17 (40 CFR part 60, appendix
B). If you are required to measure and record pH at multiple
locations, repeat this procedure for each location.
(2) Comparison to Calibrated pH Meter. Place a calibrated pH
measurement device adjacent to your pH CPMS so that the calibrated
test device is subjected to the same environment as your pH CPMS.
The calibrated pH measurement device must satisfy the accuracy
requirements specified in section 6.2 of this procedure. Allow
sufficient time for the response of the calibrated pH measurement
device to reach equilibrium. With the process or control device that
is monitored by your CPMS operating under normal conditions, record
concurrently the pH measured by your pH CPMS and the calibrated pH
measurement device. If concurrent pH readings are not possible,
extract a sufficiently large sample from the process stream and
perform measurements using a portion of the sample for each meter.
Using the pH measured by the calibrated pH measurement device as the
value for Vc, follow the procedure specified in section 12.2 of this
procedure to determine if your CPMS satisfies the accuracy
requirement of Table 6 of this procedure. If you determine that your
CPMS satisfies the accuracy requirement of Table 6, the accuracy
audit is complete. If your CPMS does not satisfy the accuracy
requirement of Table 6 of this procedure, check all system
components and take any corrective action that is necessary to
achieve the required minimum accuracy. Repeat this procedure until
the accuracy requirement of Table 6 of this procedure is satisfied.
If you replace any electrical or mechanical components of the
primary CPMS, you must perform the procedures outlined in PS-17 (40
CFR part 60, appendix B). If you are required to measure and record
pH at multiple locations, repeat this procedure for each location.
(3) Single Point Calibration. This method requires the use of a
certified buffer solution. All buffer solutions used must be
certified by NIST and accurate to 0.02 pH units at 25
[deg]C (77 [deg]F). Set the temperature on your pH meter to the
temperature of the buffer solution, typically room temperature or 25
[deg]C (77 [deg]F). If your pH meter is equipped with automatic
temperature compensation, activate this feature before calibrating.
Set your pH meter to measurement mode. Place the clean electrodes
into the container of fresh buffer solution. If the expected pH of
the process fluid lies in the acidic range (less than 7 pH), use a
buffer solution with a pH value of 4.00. If the expected pH of the
process fluid lies in the basic range (greater than 7 pH), use a
buffer solution with a pH value of 10.00. Allow sufficient time for
the response of your CPMS to reach equilibrium. Record the pH
measured by your CPMS. Using the buffer solution pH as the value for
Vc, follow the procedure specified in section 12.2 of
this procedure to determine if your CPMS satisfies the accuracy
requirement of Table 6 of this procedure. If you determine that your
CPMS satisfies the accuracy requirement of Table 6 of this
procedure, the accuracy audit is complete. If your CPMS does not
satisfy the accuracy requirement of Table 6 of this procedure,
calibrate your pH CPMS using the procedures specified in the
manufacturer's owner's manual. If the manufacturer's owner's manual
does not specify a two-point calibration procedure, you must perform
a two-point calibration procedure based on ASTM D 1293-99 (2005)
(incorporated by reference--see Sec. 60.17). If you replace any
electrical or mechanical components of your pH CPMS, you must
perform the procedures outlined in PS-17 (40 CFR part 60, appendix
B). If you are required to measure and record pH at multiple
locations, repeat this procedure for each location. If you are
required to measure and record pH at multiple locations, repeat this
procedure for each location.
8.5 How do I perform an accuracy audit for my conductivity CPMS?
To perform the accuracy audit, you can choose one of the methods
described in paragraphs (1) through (3) of this section.
(1) Comparison to Redundant Conductivity Sensor. This method
requires your CPMS to have a primary conductivity sensor and a
redundant conductivity sensor. The redundant conductivity sensor
must be installed adjacent to the primary conductivity sensor and
must be subject to the same environment as the primary conductivity
sensor. To perform the accuracy audit, concurrently record the
conductivity measured by the two conductivity sensors. You must take
these readings during periods when the process or control device
that is being monitored by the CPMS is operating normally. The two
conductivity values must agree within the minimum required accuracy
specified in Table 6 of this procedure. If your CPMS satisfies the
accuracy requirement of Table 6 of this procedure, the accuracy
audit is complete. If your CPMS does not satisfy the accuracy
requirement of Table 6 of this procedure, check all system
components and take any corrective action that is necessary to
achieve the required minimum accuracy. Repeat this accuracy audit
procedure until the accuracy requirement of Table 6 of this
[[Page 59999]]
procedure is satisfied. If you replace any electrical or mechanical
components of your conductivity CPMS, you must perform the
procedures outlined in PS-17 (40 CFR part 60, appendix B). If you
are required to measure and record conductivity at multiple
locations, repeat this procedure for each location.
(2) Comparison to Calibrated Conductivity Meter. Place a
calibrated conductivity measurement device adjacent to your
conductivity CPMS so that the calibrated test device is subjected to
the same environment as your conductivity CPMS. The calibrated
conductivity measurement device must satisfy the accuracy
requirements specified in section 6.2 of this procedure. Allow
sufficient time for the response of the calibrated conductivity
measurement device to reach equilibrium. With the process or control
device that is monitored by your CPMS operating under normal
conditions, record concurrently the conductivity measured by your
conductivity CPMS and the calibrated conductivity measurement
device. If concurrent conductivity readings are not possible,
extract a sufficiently large sample from the process stream and
perform measurements using a portion of the sample for each meter.
Using the conductivity measured by the calibrated conductivity
measurement device as the value for Vc, follow the
procedure specified in section 12.2 of this procedure to determine
if your CPMS satisfies the accuracy requirement of Table 6 of this
procedure. If you determine that your CPMS satisfies the accuracy
requirement of Table 6 of this procedure, the accuracy audit is
complete. If your CPMS does not satisfy the accuracy requirement of
Table 6 of this procedure, check all system components and take any
corrective action that is necessary to achieve the required minimum
accuracy. Repeat this procedure until the accuracy requirement of
Table 6 of this procedure is satisfied. If you replace any
electrical or mechanical components of the primary CPMS, you must
perform the procedures outlined in PS-17 (40 CFR part 60, appendix
B). If you are required to measure and record conductivity at
multiple locations, repeat this procedure for each location.
(3) Single Point Calibration. This method requires the use of a
certified conductivity standard solution. All conductivity standard
solutions used must be certified by NIST and accurate within 2 percent micromhos per centimeter ([mu]mhos/cm) (2 percent microsiemens per centimeter [mu]S/cm)) at 25 [deg]C
(77 [deg]F). Choose a conductivity standard solution that is close
to the measuring range for best results. Since conductivity is
dependent on temperature, the conductivity tester should have an
integral temperature sensor that adjusts the reading to a standard
temperature, usually 25 [deg]C (77 [deg]F). If the conductivity
meter allows for manual temperature compensation, set this value to
25 [deg]C (77 [deg]F). Place the clean electrodes into the container
of fresh conductivity standard solution. Allow sufficient time for
the response of your CPMS to reach equilibrium. Record the
conductivity measured by your CPMS. Using the conductivity standard
solution as the value for VC, follow the procedure
specified in section 12.2 of this procedure to determine if your
CPMS satisfies the accuracy requirement of Table 6 of this
procedure. If you determine that your CPMS satisfies the accuracy
requirement of Table 6 of this procedure, the accuracy audit is
complete. If your CPMS does not satisfy the accuracy requirement of
Table 6 of this procedure, calibrate your conductivity CPMS using
the procedures specified in the manufacturer's owner's manual. If
the manufacturer's owner's manual does not specify a calibration
procedure, you must perform a calibration procedure based on ASTM D
1125-95 (2005) or ASTM D 5391-99 (2005) (incorporated by reference--
see Sec. 60.17). If you replace any electrical or mechanical
components of your conductivity CPMS, you must perform the
procedures outlined in PS-17 (40 CFR part 60, appendix B). If you
are required to measure and record conductivity at multiple
locations, repeat this procedure for each location.
8.6 Are there any acceptable alternative procedures for
evaluating my CPMS? You may use alternative procedures for
evaluating the operation of your CPMS if the alternative procedures
are approved by the Administrator.
8.7 How often must I perform an accuracy audit of my CPMS?
Depending on the parameter measured (temperature, pressure, flow,
pH, or conductivity), you must perform the accuracy audits according
to the frequencies specified in paragraphs (1) and (2) of this
section.
(1) Temperature, Pressure, Flow, and Conductivity. If your CPMS
measures temperature, pressure, flow rate, or conductivity, you must
perform an accuracy audit of your CPMS at least quarterly using the
procedures specified in sections 8.1 through 8.3 and 8.5,
respectively, of this procedure. You also must perform within 48
hours an accuracy audit of your CPMS following any periods of at
least 24 hours in duration throughout which:
(i) The value of the measured parameter exceeded the maximum
rated operating limit of the sensor, as specified in the
manufacturer's owner's manual, or
(ii) The value of the measured parameter remained off the scale
of the CPMS data recording system.
(2) pH. If your CPMS measures pH, you must perform an accuracy
audit of your pH CPMS at least weekly using the procedures specified
in section 8.4 of this procedure.
8.8 What other checks must I do on my CPMS? According to the
parameter being measured (temperature, pressure, flow, pH, or
conductivity), you must perform the additional checks specified in
paragraphs (1) through (4) of this section.
(1) Temperature. If your temperature CPMS is not equipped with a
redundant temperature sensor, at least quarterly, perform a visual
inspection of all components of your temperature CPMS for physical
and operational integrity and all electrical connections for
oxidation and galvanic corrosion. You must take necessary corrective
action to replace or repair any damaged components as soon as
possible.
(2) Pressure. At least monthly, check all mechanical connections
for leakage. If your pressure CPMS is not equipped with a redundant
pressure sensor, at least quarterly, perform a visual inspection of
all components of the pressure CPMS for physical and operational
integrity and all electrical connections for oxidation and galvanic
corrosion. You must take necessary corrective action to replace or
repair any damaged components as soon as possible.
(3) Flow Rate. At least monthly, check all mechanical
connections for leakage. If your flow CPMS is not equipped with a
redundant flow sensor, at least quarterly, perform a visual
inspection of all components of the flow CPMS for physical and
operational integrity and all electrical connections for oxidation
and galvanic corrosion. You must take necessary corrective action to
replace or repair any damaged components as soon as possible.
(4) pH. If your pH CPMS is not equipped with a redundant sensor,
at least monthly, perform a visual inspection of all components of
the pH CPMS for physical and operational integrity and all
electrical connections for oxidation and galvanic corrosion. You
must take necessary corrective action to replace or repair any
damaged components as soon as possible.
(5) Conductivity. If your conductivity CPMS is not equipped with
a redundant sensor, at least quarterly, perform a visual inspection
of all components of the conductivity CPMS for physical and
operational integrity and all electrical connections for oxidation
and galvanic corrosion. You must take necessary corrective action to
replace or repair any damaged components as soon as possible.
8.9 How do I perform a leak test on pressure connections, as
required by this procedure? You can satisfy the leak test
requirements of sections 8.2 and 8.3 of this procedure by following
the procedures specified in paragraphs (1) through (3) of this
section.
(1) For each pressure connection, apply a pressure that is equal
to the highest pressure the connection is likely to be subjected to
or 0.24 kilopascals (1.0 inch of water column), whichever is
greater.
(2) Close off the connection between the applied pressure source
and the connection that is being leak-tested.
(3) If the applied pressure remains stable for at least 15
seconds, the connection is considered to be leak tight. If the
applied pressure does not remain stable for at least 15 seconds,
take any corrective action necessary to make the connection leak
tight and repeat this leak test procedure.
9.0 What quality control measures are required by this procedure for my
CPMS?
You must develop and implement a QA/QC program for your CPMS
according to section 9.1 of this procedure. You must also maintain
written QA/QC procedures for your CPMS.
9.1 What elements must be covered by my QA/QC program? Your QA/
QC program must address, at a minimum, the elements listed in
paragraphs (1) through (5) of this section.
(1) Accuracy audit procedures for the CPMS sensor;
[[Page 60000]]
(2) Calibration procedures, including procedures for assessing
and adjusting the calibration drift (CD) of the CPMS;
(3) Preventive maintenance of the CPMS (including a spare parts
inventory);
(4) Data recording, calculations, and reporting; and
(5) Corrective action for a malfunctioning CPMS.
9.1 How long must I maintain written QA/QC procedures for my
CPMS? You are required to keep written QA/QC procedures on record
and available for inspection by the enforcement agency for the life
of your CPMS or until you are no longer subject to the requirements
of this procedure.
10.0 Calibration and Standardization [Reserved]
11.0 Analytical Procedure [Reserved]
12.0 What calculations are needed?
The calculations needed to comply with this procedure are
described in sections 12.1 and 12.2 of this procedure.
12.1 How do I determine if a calibrated measurement device
satisfies the accuracy hierarchy specified in section 6.2 of this
procedure? To determine if a calibrated measurement device satisfies
the accuracy hierarchy requirement, follow the procedure described
in paragraphs (1) and (2) of this section.
(1) Calculate the accuracy hierarchy (Ah) using
Equation 4-1.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP09OC08.013
Where:
Ah = Accuracy hierarchy, dimensionless.
Ar = Required accuracy (Ap or Av)
specified in Table 6 of this procedure, percent or units of
parameter value (e.g., degrees Celsius, kilopascals, liters per
minute, pH units).
Ac = Accuracy of calibrated measurement device, same
units as Ar.
(2) If the accuracy hierarchy (Ah) is equal to or
greater than 3.0, the calibrated measurement device satisfies the
accuracy hierarchy of section 6.2 of this procedure.
12.2 How do I determine if my CPMS satisfies the accuracy
requirement of Procedure 4? To determine if your CPMS satisfies the
accuracy requirement of this procedure, follow the procedure
described in paragraphs (1) through (4) of this section.
(1) If your CPMS measures temperature, pressure, or flow rate,
calculate the accuracy percent value (Apv) using Equation
4-2. If your CPMS measures pH, proceed to paragraph (2) of this
section.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP09OC08.014
Where:
Apv = Accuracy percent value, units of parameter measured
(e.g., degrees Celsius, kilopascals, liters per minute).
Vc = Parameter value measured by the calibrated
measurement device or measured by your CPMS when a calibrated signal
simulator is applied to your CPMS during the initial validation
check, units of parameter measured (e.g., degrees Celsius,
kilopascals, liters per minute).
Ap = Accuracy percentage specified in Table 6 that
corresponds to your CPMS, percent.
(2) If your CPMS measures temperature, pressure, conductivity,
or flow rate other than mass flow rate or steam flow rate, compare
the accuracy percent value (Apv) to the accuracy value
(Av) specified in Table 6 of this procedure and select
the greater of the two values. Use this greater value as the
allowable deviation (da) in paragraph (4) of this
section.
(3) If your CPMS measures pH, use the accuracy value
(Av) specified in Table 6 of this procedure as the
allowable deviation (da).
(4) If your CPMS measures steam flow rate, mass flow rate, or
conductivity, use the accuracy percent value (Apv)
calculated using Equation 2 as the allowable deviation
(da).
(5) Using Equation 4-3, calculate the measured deviation
(dm), which is the absolute value of the difference
between the parameter value measured by the calibrated device
(Vc) and the value measured by your CPMS (Vm).
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP09OC08.015
Where:
dm = Measured deviation, units of the parameter measured
(e.g., degrees Celsius, kilopascals, liters per minute).
Vc = Parameter value measured by the calibrated
measurement device or measured by your CPMS when a calibrated signal
simulator is applied to your CPMS during the initial validation
check, units of parameter measured (e.g., degrees Celsius,
kilopascals, liters per minute).
Vm = Parameter value measured by your CPMS during the
initial validation check, units of parameter measured (e.g., degrees
Celsius, kilopascals, liters per minute).
(6) Compare the measured deviation (dm) to the
allowable deviation (da). If the measured deviation is
less than or equal to the allowable deviation, your CPMS satisfies
the accuracy requirement of this procedure.
13.0 What performance criteria must I demonstrate for my CPMS to comply
with this quality assurance procedure?
You must demonstrate that your CPMS meets the applicable
accuracy requirements specified in Table 6 of this procedure.
14.0 What are the recordkeeping requirements for Procedure 4?
You must satisfy the recordkeeping requirements specified in
sections 14.1 and 14.2 of this procedure.
14.1 What data does this procedure require me to record for my
CPMS? You must record the results of all CPMS accuracy audits and a
summary of all corrective actions taken to return your CPMS to
normal operation.
14.2 For how long must I maintain the QA data that this
procedure requires me to record for my CPMS? You are required to
keep the records required by this procedure for your CPMS for a
period of 5 years. At a minimum, you must maintain the most recent 2
years of data onsite and available for inspection by the enforcement
agency.
15.0 Pollution Prevention [Reserved]
16.0 Waste Management [Reserved]
17.0 Which references are relevant to Procedure 4?
1. Technical Guidance Document: Compliance Assurance Monitoring.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning
and Standards, Emission Measurement Center. August 1998. (http://www.epa.gov/ttn/emc/cam.html).
2. NEMA Standard Publication 250. ``Enclosures for Electrical
Equipment, 1000 Volts Maximum''.
3. ASTM E-220-07e1: ``Standard Test Methods for Calibration of
Thermocouples by Comparison Techniques''. American Society for
Testing and Materials. 2007.
4. ISA-MC96-1-1982: ``Temperature Measurement Thermocouples''.
American National Standards Institute. August 1982.
5. The pH and Conductivity Handbook. Omega Engineering, Inc.
1995.
6. ASTM E-452-02 (2007): ``Standard Test Method for Calibration
of Refractory Metal Thermocouples Using an Optical Pyrometer''.
American Society for Testing and Materials. 2002.
7. ASTM E 644-06: ``Standard Test Methods for Testing Industrial
Resistance Thermometers''. American Society for Testing and
Materials. 2006.
8. ASME B 40.100-2005: ``Pressure Gauges and Gauge
Attachments''. American Society of Mechanical Engineers. February
2005.
9. ASTM E 251-92 (2003): ``Standard Test Methods for Performance
Characteristics of Metallic Bonded Resistance Strain Gages''.
American Society for Testing and Materials. 2003.
10. ANSI/ASME MFC-3M-2004: ``Measurement of Fluid Flow in Pipes
Using Orifice, Nozzle, and Venturi''. American Society of Mechanical
Engineers. 1989 (Reaffirmed 1995).
11. ANSI/ASME MFC-9M-1988: ``Measurement of Liquid Flow in
Closed Conduits by Weighing Method''. American Society of Mechanical
Engineers. 1989.
12. ASHRAE 41.8-1989: ``Standard Methods of Measurement of Flow
of Liquids in Pipes Using Orifice Flow Meters''. American Society of
Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers, Inc. 1989.
13. ISA RP 16.6-1961: ``Methods and Equipment for Calibration of
Variable Area Meters (Rotameters)''. Instrumentation, Systems, and
Automation Society. 1961.
14. ANSI/ISA-RP31.1-1977: ``Specification, Installation, and
Calibration of Turbine Flow Meters''. Instrumentation, Systems, and
Automation Society. 1977.
15. ISO 8316:1987: ``Measurement of Liquid Flow in Closed
Conduits--Method by Collection of Liquid in a Volumetric Tank''.
International Organization for Standardization. 1987.
16. NIST Handbook 44--2002 Edition: ``Specifications,
Tolerances, And Other
[[Page 60001]]
Technical Requirements for Weighing and Measuring Devices, as
adopted by the 86th National Conference on Weights and Measures
2001'', Section 2.21: ``Belt-Conveyor Scale Systems''.
17. ISO 10790:1999: ``Measurement of Fluid Flow in Closed
Conduits--Guidance to the Selection, Installation, and Use of
Coriolis Meters (Mass Flow, Density and Volume Flow Measurements''.
International Organization for Standardization. 1999.
18. ASTM D 1125-95 (2005): ``Standard Test Methods for
Electrical Conductivity and Resistivity of Water''. American Society
for Testing and Materials. 2005.
19. ASTM D 5391-99 (2005): ``Standard Test Method for Electrical
Conductivity and Resistivity of a Flowing High Purity Water
Sample''. American Society for Testing and Materials. 2005.
18.0 What tables are relevant to Procedure 4?
Table 1--Sensor Components of Commonly Used CPMS
------------------------------------------------------------------------
For a CPMS that measures . . . The sensor component
Using a . . . consists of the . . .
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Temperature................ a. Thermocouple.. Thermocouple.
b. Resistance (RTD).
temperature
detector.
c. Optical Optical assembly and
pyrometer. detector.
d. Thermistor.... Thermistor.
e. Temperature Integrated circuit
transducer. sensor?
2. Pressure................... a. Pressure gauge Gauge assembly,
including bourdon
element, bellows
element, or
diaphragm.
b. Pressure Strain gauge
transducer. assembly,
capacitance
assembly, linear
variable
differential
transformer, force
balance assembly,
potentiometer,
variable reluctance
assembly,
piezoelectric
assembly, or
piezoresistive
assembly.
c. Manometer..... U-tube or
differential
manometer.
3. Flow rate.................. a. Differential Flow constricting
pressure device. element (nozzle,
Venturi, or orifice
plate) and
differential
pressure sensor.
b. Differential Pitot tube, or other
pressure tube. array of tubes that
measure velocity
pressure and static
pressure, and
differential
pressure sensor.
c. Magnetic flow Magnetic coil
meter. assembly.
d. Positive Piston, blade, vane,
displacement propeller, disk, or
flow meter. gear assembly.
e. Turbine flow Rotor or turbine
meter. assembly.
f. Vortex Vortex generating and
formation flow sensing elements.
meter.
g. Fluidic Feedback passage,
oscillating flow side wall, control
meter. port, and thermal
sensor.
h. Ultrasonic Sonic transducers,
flow meter. receivers, timer,
and temperature
sensor.
i. Thermal flow Thermal element and
meter. temperature sensors.
j. Coriolis mass U-tube and magnetic
flow meter. sensing elements.
k. Rotameter..... Float assembly.
l. Solids flow Sensing plate.
meter.
m. Belt conveyor. Scale.
4. pH......................... pH meter......... Electrode.
5. Conductivity............... Conductivity Electrode.
meter.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 2--Methods for Temperature Sensor Check
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If the temperature sensor in your You can perform the accuracy audit of the sensor
CPMS is a . . . And is used in . . . using . . .
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Thermocouple...................... Any application........ ASTM E220-07e1.
2. Thermocouple...................... A reducing environment. ASTM E452-02 (2007).
3. Resistance temperature detector... Any application........ ASTM E644-06.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 3--Methods for Pressure Sensor Check
------------------------------------------------------------------------
If the pressure sensor in your CPMS is You can perform the accuracy
a . . . audit of the sensor using . . .
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Pressure gauge...................... ASME B40.100-2005.
2. Metallic bonded resistance strain ASTM E251-92 (2003).
gauge.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 4--Volumetric Methods for Flow Meter Accuracy Audits
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Designation Title
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. ISA RP 16.6-1961............... Methods and Equipment for
Calibration of Variable Area Meters
(Rotameters).
2. ANSI/ISA RP 31.1-1977.......... Specification, Installation, and
Calibration of Turbine Flow Meters.
3. ISO 10790:1999................. Measurement of Fluid Flow in Closed
Conduits-Guidance to the Selection,
Installation and Use of Coriolis
Meters (Mass Flow, Density and
Volume Flow Measurements).
4. ISO 8316:1987.................. Measurement of Liquid Flow in Closed
Conduits-Method by Collection of
Liquid in a Volumetric Tank.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 5--Weighing Methods for Flow Meter Accuracy Audits
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Designation Title
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. ASHRAE 41.8-1989............... Standard Methods of Measurement of
Flow of Liquids in Pipes Using
Orifice Flow Meters.
[[Page 60002]]
2. ISA RP 16.6-1961............... Methods and Equipment for
Calibration of Variable Area Meters
(Rotameters).
3. ANSI/ISA RP 31.1-1977.......... Specification, Installation, and
Calibration of Turbine Flow Meters.
4. NIST Handbook 44-2002 Edition, Specifications, Tolerances, And
Section 2.21. Other Technical Requirements for
Weighing and Measuring Devices, as
adopted by the 86th National
Conference on Weights and Measures
2001: Belt-Conveyor Scale Systems.
5. ANSI/ASME MFC-9M-1988.......... Measurement of Liquid Flow in Closed
Conduits by Weighing Method.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 6--CPMS Accuracy Requirements
------------------------------------------------------------------------
You must demonstrate that your CPMS
If your CPMS measures . . . operates within . . .
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Temperature, in a non-cryogenic An accuracy percentage (Ap) of 1.0 percent of the
temperature measured in degrees
Celsius or within an accuracy value
(Av) of 2.8 degrees Celsius (5
degrees Fahrenheit), whichever is
greater.
2. Temperature, in a cryogenic An accuracy percentage (Ap) of 2.5 percent of the
temperature measured in degrees
Celsius or within an accuracy value
(Av) of 2.8 degrees Celsius (5
degrees Fahrenheit), whichever is
greater.
3. Pressure....................... An accuracy percentage (Ap) of 5 percent or an accuracy
value (Av) of 0.12 kilopascals (0.5
inches of water column), whichever
is greater.
4. Liquid flow rate............... An accuracy percentage (Ap) of 5 percent or an accuracy
value (Av) of 1.9 liters per minute
(0.5 gallons per minute), whichever
is greater.
5. Gas flow rate.................. a. A relative accuracy of 20 percent, if you
demonstrate compliance using the
relative accuracy test, or
b. An accuracy percentage (Ap) of
10 percent, if your
CPMS measures steam flow rate, or
c. An accuracy percentage (Ap) of
5 percent or an
accuracy value (Av) of 280 liters
per minute (10 cubic feet per
minute), whichever is greater, for
all other gases and accuracy audit
methods.
6. Mass flow rate................. An accuracy percentage (Ap) of 5 percent.
7. pH............................. An accuracy value (Av) of 0.2 pH units.
8. Conductivity................... An accuracy percentage (Ap) of 5 percent.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PART 61--[AMENDED]
6. The authority citation for part 61 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401, et seq.
Subpart A--[Amended]
7. Section 61.14 is amended by redesignating paragraph (a) as
paragraph (a)(1) and adding paragraph (a)(2) to read as follows:
Sec. 61.14 Monitoring requirements.
(a)(1) * * *
(2) Performance specifications for continuous parameter
monitoring systems (CPMS) promulgated under 40 CFR part 60, appendix
B and quality assurance procedures for CPMS promulgated under 40 CFR
part 60, appendix F apply instead of the requirements for CPMS
specified in an applicable subpart upon promulgation of the
performance specifications and quality assurance procedures for
CPMS.
* * * * *
PART 63--[AMENDED]
8. The authority citation for part 63 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401, et seq.
Subpart A--[Amended]
9. Section 63.8 is amended by:
a. Revising paragraph (a)(2);
b. Revising paragraph (c)(2)(i);
c. Revising paragraph (c)(4) introductory text and adding
paragraph (c)(4)(iii);
d. Revising paragraphs (c)(6) and (c)(7)(i);
e. Revising paragraph (d)(2)(ii); and
f. Revising paragraphs (e)(2), (e)(3)(i), and (e)(4).
The revisions and additions read as follows:
Sec. 63.8 Monitoring requirements.
(a) * * *
(2)(i) 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 and quality assurance
procedures for CMS as specified in the relevant standard or otherwise
by the Administrator.
(ii) Performance specifications for CPMS promulgated under 40 CFR
part 60, appendix B and quality assurance procedures for CPMS
promulgated under 40 CFR part 60, appendix F apply instead of the
requirements for CPMS specified in the relevant standard upon
promulgation of the performance specifications and quality assurance
procedures for CPMS.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(2)(i) All CMS must be installed such that representative
measurements of emissions or process parameters from the affected
source are obtained. In addition, CMS shall be located according to
procedures contained in the applicable performance specification(s).
* * * * *
(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, CEMS, and
CPMS, shall be in continuous operation and shall meet minimum frequency
of operation requirements as follows:
* * * * *
(iii) All CPMS shall complete a minimum of one cycle of operation
(sampling, analyzing, and data recording) for each successive time
period specified in the relevant standard.
* * * * *
(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) shall 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 (e)(3)(ii) of
this section. The zero (low-level) and high-level calibration drifts
shall 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 must
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
[[Page 60003]]
COMS, all optical and instrumental surfaces exposed to the effluent
gases shall be cleaned prior to performing the zero (low-level) and
high-level drift adjustments; the optical surfaces and instrumental
surfaces shall be cleaned when the cumulative automatic zero
compensation, if applicable, exceeds 4 percent opacity.
* * * * *
(7)(i) A CMS is out of control if--
(A) The COMS or CEMS 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 COMS or CEMS 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; or
(D) The CPMS fails an accuracy audit.
* * * * *
(d) * * *
(2) * * *
(ii) Determination and adjustment of the calibration drift of the
CMS, where applicable;
* * * * *
(e) * * *
(2) Notification of performance evaluation. The owner or operator
shall notify the Administrator in writing of the date of the
performance evaluation of a COMS or CEMS simultaneously with the
notification of the performance test date required under Sec. 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.
(3)(i) Submission of site-specific performance evaluation test
plan. Before conducting a required COMS or CEMS 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.
* * * * *
(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 Sec. 63.7 in accordance with the applicable performance
specification or QA procedure 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
Sec. 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 Sec. 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 Sec. 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 Sec. 63.7(a), or as otherwise
specified in the relevant standard.
* * * * *
Subpart SS--[Amended]
10. Section 63.996 is amended by adding paragraphs (c)(7) through
(c)(10) to read as follows:
Sec. 63.996 General monitoring requirements for control and recovery
devices.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(7) For each CPMS, the owner or operator must meet the requirements
in paragraphs (c)(7)(i) through (vi) of this section.
(i) Satisfy all requirements of applicable performance
specifications for CPMS established under 40 CFR part 60, appendix B.
(ii) Satisfy all requirements of quality assurance (QA) procedures
for CPMS established under 40 CFR part 60, appendix F.
(iii) The CPMS must complete a minimum of one cycle of operation
for each successive 15-minute period.
(iv) To calculate a valid hourly average, there must be at least
four equally spaced values for that hour, excluding data collected
during the periods described in paragraph (c)(5) of this section.
(v) Calculate a daily average using all of the valid hourly
averages for each day.
(vi) Except for redundant sensors, any device that is used to
conduct an initial validation or accuracy audit of a CPMS must meet the
accuracy requirements specified in paragraphs (c)(7)(vi)(A) and (B) of
this section.
(A) The device must have an accuracy that is traceable to National
Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) standards.
(B) The device must be at least three times as accurate as the
required accuracy for the CPMS.
(8) For each temperature CPMS, the owner or operator must meet the
requirements in paragraphs (c)(8)(i) through (ix) of this section.
(i) Install each sensor of the temperature CPMS in a location that
provides representative temperature measurements over all operating
conditions, taking into account the manufacturer's guidelines.
(ii) For a noncryogenic temperature range, use a temperature CPMS
with a minimum tolerance of 2.8 deg. C or 1.0 percent of the
temperature value, whichever is larger.
(iii) For a cryogenic temperature range, use a temperature CPMS
with a minimum tolerance of 2.8 deg. C or 2.5 percent of the
temperature value, whichever is larger.
(iv) The data recording system associated with the CPMS must have a
resolution of one-half of the applicable required overall accuracy of
the CPMS, as specified in paragraph (c)(8)(ii) or (iii) of this
section, or better.
(v) Perform an initial calibration of the CPMS according to the
procedures in the manufacturer's owner's manual.
(vi) Perform an initial validation of the CPMS according to the
requirements in paragraph (c)(8)(vi)(A) or (B) of this section.
(A) Place the sensor of a calibrated temperature measurement device
adjacent to the sensor of the temperature CPMS in a location that is
subject to the same environment as the sensor of the temperature CPMS.
The calibrated temperature measurement device must satisfy the accuracy
requirements of (c)(7)(vi) of this section. Allow sufficient time for
the response of the calibrated temperature measurement device to reach
equilibrium. With the process and control device that is monitored by
the CPMS operating normally, record concurrently and compare the
temperatures measured by the temperature CPMS and the calibrated
temperature measurement device. Using the calibrated temperature
measurement device as the reference, the temperature measured by the
temperature CPMS must be within the accuracy specified in paragraph
(c)(8)(ii) or (iii) of this section, whichever applies.
(B) Perform any of the initial validation methods for temperature
CPMS specified in applicable performance specifications established
under 40 CFR part 60, appendix B.
[[Page 60004]]
(vii) Perform an accuracy audit of the temperature CPMS at least
quarterly, according to the requirements in paragraph (c)(8)(vii)(A),
(B), or (C) of this section.
(A) If the temperature CPMS includes a redundant temperature
sensor, record three pairs of concurrent temperature measurements
within a 24-hour period. Each pair of concurrent measurements must
consist of a temperature measurement by each of the two temperature
sensors. The minimum time interval between any two such pairs of
consecutive temperature measurements is one hour. The readings must be
taken during periods when the process and control device that is
monitored by the CPMS is operating normally. Calculate the mean of the
three values for each temperature sensor. The mean values must agree
within the required overall accuracy of the CPMS, as specified in
paragraph (c)(8)(ii) or (iii) of this section, whichever applies.
(B) If the temperature CPMS does not include a redundant
temperature sensor, place the sensor of a calibrated temperature
measurement device adjacent to the sensor of the temperature CPMS in a
location that is subject to the same environment as the sensor of the
temperature CPMS. The calibrated temperature measurement device must
satisfy the accuracy requirements of paragraph (c)(7)(vi) of this
section. Allow sufficient time for the response of the calibrated
temperature measurement device to reach equilibrium. With the process
and control device that is monitored by the CPMS operating normally,
record concurrently and compare the temperatures measured by the
temperature CPMS and the calibrated temperature measurement device.
Using the calibrated temperature measurement device as the reference,
the temperature measured by the temperature CPMS must be within the
accuracy specified in paragraph (c)(8)(ii) or (iii) of this section,
whichever applies.
(C) Perform any of the accuracy audit methods for temperature CPMS
specified in applicable QA procedures established under 40 CFR part 60,
appendix F.
(viii) Conduct an accuracy audit following any 24-hour period
throughout which the temperature measured by the CPMS exceeds the
manufacturer's specified maximum operating temperature range, or
install a new temperature sensor.
(ix) If the CPMS is not equipped with a redundant temperature
sensor, at least quarterly, perform a visual inspection of all
components for integrity, oxidation, and galvanic corrosion.
(9) For each pressure CPMS, the owner or operator must meet the
requirements in paragraph (c)(9)(i) through (ix) of this section.
(i) Install each sensor of the pressure CPMS in a location that
provides representative pressure measurements over all operating
conditions, taking into account the manufacturer's guidelines.
(ii) Use a pressure CPMS with a minimum tolerance of 5
percent or 0.12 kilopascals (0.5 inches of water column), whichever is
greater.
(iii) The data recording system associated with the pressure CPMS
must have a resolution of one-half of the required overall accuracy of
the CPMS, as specified in paragraph (c)(9)(ii) of this section.
(iv) Perform an initial calibration of the CPMS according to the
procedures in the manufacturer's owner's manual.
(v) Perform an initial validation of the CPMS according to the
requirements in paragraph (c)(9)(v)(A) or (B) of this section.
(A) Place the sensor of a calibrated pressure measurement device
adjacent to the sensor of the pressure CPMS in a location that is
subject to the same environment as the sensor of the pressure CPMS. The
calibrated pressure measurement device must satisfy the accuracy
requirements of paragraph (c)(7)(vi) of this section. Allow sufficient
time for the response of the calibrated pressure measurement device to
reach equilibrium. With the process and control device that is
monitored by the CPMS operating normally, record concurrently and
compare the pressure measured by the pressure CPMS and the calibrated
pressure measurement device. Using the calibrated pressure measurement
device as the reference, the pressure measured by the pressure CPMS
must be within the accuracy specified in paragraph (c)(9)(ii) of this
section.
(B) Perform any of the initial validation methods for pressure CPMS
specified in applicable performance specifications established under 40
CFR part 60, appendix B.
(vi) Perform an accuracy audit of the pressure CPMS at least
quarterly, according to the requirements in paragraph (c)(9)(vi)(A),
(B), or (C) of this section.
(A) If the pressure CPMS includes a redundant pressure sensor,
record three pairs of concurrent pressure measurements within a 24-hour
period. Each pair of concurrent measurements must consist of a pressure
measurement by each of the two pressure sensors. The minimum time
interval between any two such pairs of consecutive pressure
measurements is 1 hour. The readings must be taken during periods when
the process and control device that is monitored by the CPMS is
operating normally. Calculate the mean of the three pressure
measurement values for each pressure sensor. The mean values must agree
within the required overall accuracy of the CPMS, as specified in
paragraph (c)(9)(ii) of this section.
(B) If the pressure CPMS does not include a redundant pressure
sensor, place the sensor of a calibrated pressure measurement device
adjacent to the sensor of the pressure CPMS in a location that is
subject to the same environment as the sensor of the pressure CPMS. The
calibrated pressure measurement device must satisfy the accuracy
requirements of paragraph (c)(7)(vi) of this section. Allow sufficient
time for the response of the calibrated pressure measurement device to
reach equilibrium. With the process and control device that is
monitored by the CPMS operating normally, record concurrently and
compare the pressure measured by the pressure CPMS and the calibrated
pressure measurement device. Using the calibrated pressure measurement
device as the reference, the pressure measured by the pressure CPMS
must be within the accuracy specified in paragraph (c)(9)(ii) of this
section.
(C) Perform any of the accuracy audit methods for pressure CPMS
specified in applicable QA procedures established under 40 CFR part 60,
appendix F.
(vii) Conduct an accuracy audit following any 24-hour period
throughout which the pressure measured by the CPMS exceeds the
manufacturer's specified maximum operating pressure range, or install a
new pressure sensor.
(viii) At least monthly, check all mechanical connections for
leakage.
(ix) If the CPMS is not equipped with a redundant pressure sensor,
at least quarterly, perform a visual inspection of all components for
integrity, oxidation, and galvanic corrosion.
(10) For each pH CPMS, the owner or operator must meet the
requirements in paragraph (c)(10)(i) through (vii) of this section.
(i) Install the pH sensor in a location that provides
representative measurement of pH over all operating conditions, taking
into account the manufacturer's guidelines.
(ii) Use a pH CPMS with a minimum tolerance of 0.2 pH units.
(iii) The data recording system associated with the CPMS must have
a resolution of 0.1 pH units or better and
[[Page 60005]]
must be capable of measuring pH over the entire range of pH values from
0 to 14.
(iv) Perform an initial calibration of the CPMS according to the
procedures in the manufacturer's owner's manual.
(v) Perform an initial validation of the CPMS according to the
requirements in paragraph (c)(10)(v)(A) or (B) of this section.
(A) Perform a single point calibration using an NIST-certified
buffer solution that is accurate to within 0.02 pH units at
25 [deg]C (77 [deg]F). If the expected pH of the fluid that is
monitored lies in the acidic range (less than 7 pH), use a buffer
solution with a pH value of 4.00. If the expected pH of the fluid that
is monitored lies in the basic range (greater than 7 pH), use a buffer
solution with a pH value of 10.00. Place the electrode of the pH CPMS
in the container of buffer solution. Record the pH measured by the
CPMS. Using the certified buffer solution as the reference, the pH
measured by the pH CPMS must be within the accuracy specified in
paragraph (c)(10)(ii) of this section.
(B) Perform any of the initial validation methods for pH CPMS
specified in applicable performance specifications established under 40
CFR part 60, appendix B.
(vi) Perform an accuracy audit of the pH CPMS at least weekly,
according to the requirements in paragraph (c)(10)(vi)(A), (B), or (C)
of this section.
(A) If the pH CPMS includes a redundant pH sensor, record the pH
measured by each of the two pH sensors. The readings must be taken
during periods when the process and control device that is monitored by
the CPMS are operating normally. The two pH values must agree within
the required overall accuracy of the CPMS, as specified in paragraph
(c)(10)(ii) of this section.
(B) If the pH CPMS does not include a redundant pH sensor, perform
a single point calibration using an NIST-certified buffer solution that
is accurate to within 0.02 pH units at 25 [deg]C (77
[deg]F). If the expected pH of the fluid that is monitored lies in the
acidic range (less than 7 pH), use a buffer solution with a pH value of
4.00. If the expected pH of the fluid that is monitored lies in the
basic range (greater than 7 pH), use a buffer solution with a pH value
of 10.00. Place the electrode of the pH CPMS in the container of buffer
solution. Record the pH measured by the CPMS. Using the certified
buffer solution as the reference, the pH measured by the pH CPMS must
be within the accuracy specified in paragraph (c)(10)(ii) of this
section.
(C) Perform any of the accuracy audit methods for pH CPMS specified
in applicable QA procedures established under 40 CFR part 60, appendix
F.
(vii) If the CPMS is not equipped with a redundant pH sensor, at
least monthly, perform a visual inspection of all components for
integrity, oxidation, and galvanic corrosion.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. E8-22674 Filed 10-8-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P