[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 56 (Wednesday, March 25, 2009)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 12970-13012]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-6178]
[[Page 12969]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Part III
Environmental Protection Agency
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
40 CFR Part 51
Methods for Measurement of Filterable PM10 and
PM2.5 and Measurement of Condensable Particulate Matter
Emissions from Stationary Sources; Proposed Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 56 / Wednesday, March 25, 2009 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 12970]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 51
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0348; FRL-8784-5]
RIN 2060-AO58
Methods for Measurement of Filterable PM10 and
PM2.5 and Measurement of Condensable Particulate Matter
Emissions From Stationary Sources
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This action proposes amendments to Methods 201A and 202. The
proposed amendments to Method 201A would add a particle-sizing device
to allow for sampling of particulate matter (PM) with mean aerodynamic
diameters less than or equal to 2.5 micrometers ([mu]m)
(PM2.5 or fine PM). The proposed amendments to Method 202
would revise the sample collection and recovery procedures of the
method to reduce the formation of reaction artifacts that could lead to
inaccurate measurements of condensable particulate matter (CPM).
Additionally, the proposed amendments to Method 202 would eliminate
most of the hardware and analytical options in the existing method,
thereby increasing the precision of the method and improving the
consistency in the measurements obtained between source tests performed
under different regulatory authorities. Finally, in this notice we are
soliciting comments on whether to end the transition period for CPM in
the New Source Review (NSR) program on a date earlier than the current
end date of January 1, 2011. The proposed amendments would improve the
measurement of fine particulates and would help State and local
agencies in implementing CPM control measures to attain the
PM2.5 National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) which
were established to protect public health and welfare.
DATES: Comments. Comments must be received on or before May 26, 2009.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-
OAR-2008-0348, by one of the following methods:
http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line
instructions for submitting comments.
E-mail: Send your comments via electronic mail to [email protected].
Fax: (202) 566-9744.
Mail: Methods for Measurement of Filterable
PM10 and PM2.5 and Measurement of Condensable
Particulate Matter Emissions from Stationary Sources, Environmental
Protection Agency, Mailcode 2822T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW.,
Washington, DC 20460. Please include a total of two copies.
Hand Delivery: EPA Docket Center EPA Headquarter Library,
Room 3334, EPA West Building, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington,
DC, 20460. Such deliveries are accepted only 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-
2008-0348. 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.regulation.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. For additional information about EPA's public
docket, visit the EPA Docket Center homepage at http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm.
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 Methods for
Measurement of Filterable PM10 and PM2.5 and
Measurement of Condensable Particulate Matter Emissions from Stationary
Sources Docket, EPA/DC, EPA West Building, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution
Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The Public Reading Room/Docket Center 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 Center is
(202) 566-1742.
Public Hearing: If anyone contacts EPA requesting to speak at a
public hearing concerning our proposal to revise the PM test methods by
April 14, 2009, we will hold a public hearing on or about April 24,
2009. Persons interested in presenting oral testimony should contact
Ms. Kristal Mozingo, Measurement Policy Group (D243-05), Sector
Policies and Programs Division, EPA, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711,
telephone number: (919) 541-9767, e-mail address:
[email protected]. Persons interested in attending the public
hearing should also call Ms. Mozingo to verify the time, date, and
location of the hearing. A public hearing will provide interested
parties the opportunity to present data, views, or arguments concerning
the proposed test method revisions.
If a public hearing is held, it will be held at 10 a.m. at the
Conference Facilities at EPA's Main Campus, Research Triangle Park, NC,
or an alternate site nearby.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For general information, contact Ms.
Candace Sorrell, U.S. EPA, Office of Air Quality Planning and
Standards, Air Quality Assessment Division, Measurement Technology
Group (E143-02), Research Triangle Park, NC 27711; telephone number:
(919) 541-1064; fax number; (919) 541-0516; e-mail address:
[email protected]. For technical questions, contact Mr. Ron
Myers, U.S. EPA, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Sector
Policies and Programs Division, Measurement Policy Group (D243-05),
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711; telephone number: (919) 541-5407; fax
number: (919) 541-1039; e-mail address: [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
[[Page 12971]]
I. General Information
A. Does This Action Apply to Me?
This action would apply to you if you operate a stationary source
that is subject to applicable requirements for total PM or total
PM10 where EPA Method 202 is incorporated as a component of
the applicable compliance method.
In addition, this action would apply to you if Federal, State, or
local agencies take certain additional independent actions. For
example, this action would apply to sources through actions by State
and local agencies which implement CPM control measures to attain the
PM2.5 NAAQS and specify the use of this test method to
demonstrate compliance with the control measure. Actions that State and
local agencies would have to implement include: (1) Adopting this
method in rules or permits (either by incorporation by reference or by
duplicating the method in its entirety), and (2) promulgating an
emissions limit requiring the use of this method (or an incorporated
method based upon this method). This action would also apply to
stationary sources that are required to meet new applicable CPM
requirements established through Federal or State permits or rules,
such as New Source Performance Standards and New Source Review, which
specify the use of this test method to demonstrate compliance with the
control measure.
The source categories and entities potentially affected include,
but are not limited to, the following:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Examples of
Category SIC \1\ NAICS \2\ potentially
code code regulated entities
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industry........................ 3569 332410 Fossil fuel steam
generators.
3569 332410 Industrial,
commercial,
institutional
steam generating
units.
3569 332410 Electricity
generating units.
2911 324110 Petroleum
refineries.
4953 562213 Municipal waste
combustors.
2621 322110 Pulp and paper
mills.
2819 325188 Sulfuric acid
plants.
3241 327310 Portland Cement
Plants.
3274 327410 Lime Manufacturing
Plants.
1222 211111 Coal Preparation
Plants.
1231 212111
212112
212113
3334 331312 Primary and
Secondary
Aluminum Plants.
3341 331314
3312 331111 Iron and Steel
Plants.
3325 331513
2493 321219 Plywood and
Reconstituted
Products Plants.
2435 321211
2436 321212
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Standard Industrial Classification.
\2\ North American Industrial Classification System.
B. What Should I Consider as I Prepare My 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, NC 27711, Attention Docket ID No.
EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0348. Clearly mark the part or all of the information
that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information on 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.
C. Where Can I Obtain a Copy of This Action and Other Related
Information?
In addition to being available in the docket, an electronic copy of
today's proposed amendments is also available on the Worldwide Web
(http://www.epa.gov/ttn/) through the Technology Transfer Network
(TTN). Following the Administrator's signature, a copy of the proposed
amendment will be posted on the TTN's policy and guidance page for
newly proposed or promulgated rules at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg.
The TTN provides information and technology exchange in various areas
of air pollution control.
D. How Is This Document Organized?
The information in this preamble is organized as follows:
I. General Information
A. Does This Action Apply to Me?
B. What Should I Consider as I Prepare My Comments for EPA?
C. Where Can I Obtain a Copy of This Action and Other Related
Information?
D. How Is This Document Organized?
II. Background
A. Why Is EPA Issuing This Proposed Rule?
B. Particulate Matter National Ambient Air Quality Standards
C. Measuring PM Emissions
1. Method 201A
2. Method 202
III. This Action
A. What Are the Proposed Amendments to Method 201A?
B. What Are the Proposed Amendments to Method 202?
C. How Will the Proposed Amendments to Methods 201A and 202
Affect Existing Emission Inventories, Emission Standards, and Permit
Programs?
D. Request for Comments
1. Items Associated With Both Test Methods
2. Items Associated With Method 201A
2. Items Associated With Method 202
IV. 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
[[Page 12972]]
F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With
Indian Tribal Governments
G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From
Environmental Health and Safety Risks
H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income
Populations
II. Background
A. Why Is EPA Issuing This Proposed Rule?
On April 25, 2007 (70 FR 20586), we promulgated the Clean Air Fine
Particle Implementation Rule regarding the Clean Air Act (CAA)
requirements for State and Tribal plans to implement the 1997 PM2.5
NAAQS. These rules require that each State having a PM2.5 nonattainment
area must submit, by April 5, 2008, an attainment demonstration and
adopt regulations to ensure the area will attain the standards as
expeditiously as practicable, but even those areas for which the
Administrator determines an extension from the 2010 attainment date is
appropriate may not receive an extension later than a 2015 attainment
date. The emissions inventories and analyses used in the attainment
demonstrations must consider filterable and condensable fractions of
PM2.5 emissions from stationary sources that are significant
contributors of direct PM2.5 emissions. Direct PM2.5 emissions means
the solid particles or liquid droplets emitted directly from an air
emissions source or activity, or the gaseous emissions or liquid
droplets from an air emissions source or activity that condense to form
PM or liquid droplets at ambient temperatures.
The preamble to the April 25, 2007, rule acknowledged that there
remain questions whether the available test methods provide the most
accurate representation of primary PM emissions even though some States
have established emissions limits for CPM. As a result, the final rule
established a transitional period for developing emissions limits and
regulations for condensable PM2.5. During this transitional period, EPA
has committed to devote resources to assessing and improving the
available test methods for CPM.
In response to this commitment and to address the need for improved
measurement of fine PM, EPA is proposing amendments to the following
test methods in 40 CFR Part 51, Appendix M (Recommended Test Methods
for State Implementation Plans (SIPs)):
Method 201A--Determination of PM10 Emissions (Constant
Sampling Rate Procedure), and
Method 202--Determination of Condensable Particulate
Emissions from Stationary Sources.
These amendments to Method 201A add a particle-sizing device to
allow for sampling of PM2.5, PM10, or both PM10 and PM2.5. With regard
to Method 202, we are aware that the method and the various hardware
and analytic options described therein are sometimes applied
inappropriately, which can lead to inaccurate and imprecise CPM
measurements. We are also aware that Method 202 can produce inaccurate
CPM measurements when sampling certain types of emissions sources, due
to formation of reaction artifacts. The amendments to Method 202 revise
the sample collection and recovery procedures of the method to provide
for more accurate and precise measurement of CPM.
B. Particulate Matter National Ambient Air Quality Standards
Section 108 and 109 of the CAA govern the establishment and
revision of the NAAQS. Section 108 (42 U.S.C. 7408) directs the
Administrator to identify and list ``air pollutants'' that ``in his
judgment, may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health and
welfare'' and whose ``presence * * * in the ambient air results from
numerous or diverse mobile or stationary sources'' and to issue air
quality criteria for those that are listed. Air quality criteria are
intended to ``accurately reflect the latest scientific knowledge useful
in indicating the kind and extent of identifiable effects on public
health or welfare which may be expected from the presence of [a]
pollutant in ambient air* * *.'' Section 109 (42 U.S.C. 7409) directs
the Administrator to propose and promulgate primary and secondary NAAQS
for pollutants listed under section 108 to protect public health and
welfare, respectively. Section 109 also requires review of the NAAQS at
5-year intervals and that an independent scientific review committee
``shall complete a review of the criteria * * * and the national
primary and secondary ambient air quality standards * * * and shall
recommend to the Administrator any new * * * standards and revisions of
existing criteria and standards as may be appropriate * * *.'' Since
the early 1980s, this independent review function has been performed by
the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee (CASAC).
Initially EPA established the NAAQS for PM on April 30, 1971 (36 FR
8186) based on the original criteria document (Department of Health,
Education, and Welfare, 1969). The reference method specified for
determining attainment of the original standards was the high-volume
sampler, which collects PM up to a nominal size of 25 to 45 [mu]m
(referred to as total suspended particulates or TSP). On October 2,
1979 (44 FR 56730), EPA announced the first periodic review of the air
quality criteria and NAAQS for PM, and significant revisions to the
original standards were promulgated on July 1, 1987 (52 FR 24634). In
that decision, EPA changed the indicator for particles from TSP to
PM10. When that rule was challenged, the court upheld revised standards
in all respects. Natural Resources Defense Council v. Administrator,
902 F. 2d 962 (D.C. Cir. 1990, cert. denied, 498 U.S. 1082 (1991)).
In April 1994, EPA announced its plans for the second periodic
review of the air quality criteria and NAAQS for PM, and the Agency
promulgated significant revisions to the NAAQS on July 18, 1997 (62 FR
38652). In that decision, EPA revised the PM NAAQS in several respects.
While EPA determined that the PM NAAQS should continue to focus on
particles less than or equal to 10 [mu]m in diameter (PM10), EPA also
determined that the fine and coarse fractions of PM10 should be
considered separately. The EPA added new standards, using PM2.5 as the
indicator for fine particles (with PM2.5 referring to particles with a
nominal mean aerodynamic diameter less than or equal to 2.5 [mu]m), and
using PM10 as the indicator for purposes of regulating the coarse
fraction of PM10.
Following promulgation of the 1997 PM NAAQS, petitions for review
were filed by a large number of parties, addressing a broad range of
issues. In May 1999, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the District of Columbia Circuit issued an initial decision that
upheld EPA's decision to establish fine particle standards. American
Trucking Associations v. EPA, 175 F.3d 1027, 1055 (D.C. Cir. 1999),
reversed in part on other grounds in Whitman v. American Trucking
Associations, 531 U.S. 457 (2001). The Panel also found ``ample
support'' for EPA's decision to regulate coarse particle pollution but
vacated the 1997 PM10 standards, concluding that EPA had not provided a
reasonable explanation justifying use of PM10 as an indicator for
coarse particles. Id. at 1054-55. Pursuant to the court's
[[Page 12973]]
decision, EPA removed the vacated 1997 PM10 standards but retained the
pre-existing 1987 PM10 standards (65 FR 80776, December 22, 2000).
On October 23, 1997, EPA published its plans for the third periodic
review of the air quality criteria and NAAQS for PM (62 FR 55201),
including the 1997 PM2.5 standards and the 1987 PM10 standards. On
October 17, 2006, EPA issued its final decisions to revise the primary
and secondary NAAQS for PM to provide increased protection of public
health and welfare, respectively (71 FR 61144). With regard to the
primary and secondary standards for fine particles, EPA revised the
level of the 24-hour PM2.5 standard to 35 [mu]g per cubic meter ([mu]g/
m\3\), retained the level of the annual PM2.5 annual standard at 15
[mu]g/m\3\, and revised the form of the annual PM2.5 standard by
narrowing the constraints on the optional use of spatial averaging.
With regard to the primary and secondary standards for PM10, EPA
retained the 24-hour PM10 standard (150 [mu]g/m\3\) and revoked the
annual standard because available evidence generally did not suggest a
link between long-term exposure to current ambient levels of coarse
particles and health or welfare effects.
C. Measuring PM Emissions
Section 110 of the CAA, as amended (42 U.S.C. 7410), requires that
State and local air pollution control agencies develop and submit plans
for EPA approval that provide for the attainment, maintenance, and
enforcement of the NAAQS in each air quality control region (or portion
thereof) within such State. These plans are known as SIPs. 40 CFR part
51 (Requirements for Preparation, Adoption, and Submittal of
Implementation Plans) specifies the requirements for SIPs. Appendix A
to subpart A of 40 CFR part 51, defines primary PM10 and PM2.5 as
including both the filterable and condensable fractions of PM.
Filterable PM consists of those particles that are directly emitted by
a source as a solid or liquid at the stack (or similar release
conditions) and captured on the filter of a stack test train.
Condensable PM is the material that is in vapor phase at stack
conditions but which condenses and/or reacts upon cooling and dilution
in the ambient air to form solid or liquid PM immediately after
discharge from the stack.
Promulgation of the 1987 NAAQS created the need for methods to
quantify PM10 emissions from stationary sources. In response, EPA
developed and promulgated the following test methods:
Method 201A--Determination of PM10 Emissions (Constant
Sampling Rate Procedure), and
Method 202--Determination of Condensable Particulate
Emissions from Stationary Sources.
1. Method 201A
On April 17, 1990 (56 FR 65433), EPA promulgated Method 201A in
Appendix M of 40 CFR Part 51 to provide a test method for measuring
filterable PM10 emissions from stationary sources. In EPA Method 201A,
a gas sample is extracted at a constant flow rate through an in-stack
sizing device which directs particles with aerodynamic diameters less
than or equal to 10 [mu]m to a filter. The particulate mass collected
on the filter is determined gravimetrically after removal of uncombined
water. With the exception of the PM10-sizing device, the current Method
201A sampling train is the same as the sampling train used for EPA
Method 17 of Appendix A-3 to 40 CFR Part 60.
Method 201A cannot be used to measure emissions from stacks that
have entrained moisture droplets (e.g., from a wet scrubber stack)
since these stacks may have water droplets that are larger than the cut
size of the PM10-sizing device. The presence of moisture would prevent
an accurate measurement of total PM10 since any PM10 dissolved in
larger water droplets would not be collected by the sizing device and
would consequently be excluded in determining the total PM10 mass. To
measure PM10 in stacks where water droplets are known to exist, EPA's
Technical Information Document (TID) 09 (Methods 201 and 201A in
Presence of Water Droplets), recommends use of Method 5 of Appendix A-3
to 40 CFR Part 60 (or a comparable method) and consideration of the
total particulate catch as PM10 emissions.
Method 201A is also not applicable for stacks with small diameters
(i.e., 18 inches or less). The presence of the in-stack nozzle/cyclones
and filter assembly in a small duct will cause significant cross-
sectional area interference and blockage leading to incorrect flow
calculation and particle size separation. Additionally, the type of
metal used to construct the Method 201A cyclone may limit the
applicability of the method when sampling at high stack temperatures
(e.g., stainless steel cyclones are reported to gall and seize at
temperatures greater than 260 [deg]C).
2. Method 202
On December 17, 1991 (56 FR 65433), EPA promulgated Method 202 in
Appendix M of 40 CFR Part 51 to provide a test method for measuring CPM
from stationary sources. Method 202 uses water-filled impingers to
cool, condense, and collect materials that are vaporous at stack
conditions and become solid or liquid PM at ambient air temperatures.
Method 202, as promulgated, contains several optional procedures that
were intended to accommodate the various test methods used by State and
local regulatory entities at the time Method 202 was being developed.
When conducted consistently and carefully, Method 202 provides
acceptable precision for most emission sources, and the method has been
used successfully in regulatory programs where the emission limits and
compliance demonstrations are established based on a consistent
application of Method 202 and its associated options. However, when the
same emission source is tested using different combinations of the
optional procedures, there may appear to be large variations in the
measured CPM emissions. Additionally, during validation of the
promulgated method, we determined that sulfur dioxide (SO2) gas (a
typical component of emissions from several types of stationary
sources) can be absorbed partially in the impinger solutions and can
react chemically to form sulfuric acid. This sulfuric acid ``artifact''
is not related to the primary emission of CPM from the source but may
be counted erroneously as CPM when using Method 202. As we have
maintained consistently, the artifact formation can be reduced by at
least 90 percent if a one-hour nitrogen purge of the impinger water is
used to remove SO2 before it can form sulfuric acid (this is
our preferred application of the Method 202 optional procedures).
Inappropriate use (or omission) of the preferred or optional procedures
in Method 202 can increase the potential for artifact formation.
Considering the potential for variations in measured CPM emissions,
we believe that further verification and refinement of Method 202 is
appropriate to minimize the potential for artifact formation. We have
performed several studies to assess artifact formation when using
Method 202. The results of our 1998 laboratory study and field
evaluation commissioned to evaluate the impinger approach can be found
in ``Laboratory and Field Evaluation of the EPA Method 5 Impinger Catch
for Measuring Condensible Matter from Stationary Sources'' at the
following Internet address: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/emc/methods/m202doc1.pdf. Essentially, the 1998 study verified the need for a
nitrogen purge when SO2 is
[[Page 12974]]
present in stack gas and also provided guidance for analyzing the
collected samples. In 2005, an EPA contractor conducted a second study
(``Laboratory Evaluation of Method 202 to Determine Fate of
SO2 in Impinger Water'') that replicated some of the earlier
EPA work and addressed some additional issues. The report of that work
is available at the following Internet address: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/emc/methods/m202doc2.pdf. This report also verified the need for a
nitrogen purge and identified the primary factors that affect artifact
formation.
Also in 2005, a private testing contractor presented a possible
minor modification to Method 202 at the Air and Waste Management
Association (AWMA) specialty conference. The proposed modification,
described in their presentation titled ``Optimized Method 202 Sampling
Train to Minimize the Biases Associated with Method 202 Measurement of
Condensable Particulate Matter Emissions,'' involved the elimination of
water from the first impingers. The presentation (which is available at
the following Internet address: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/emc/methods/m202doc3.pdf) concluded that modification of the promulgated method to
use dry impingers resulted in a significant additional reduction in the
sulfate artifact.
In 2006, we began to conduct laboratory studies, in collaboration
with several stakeholders, to characterize the artifact formation and
other uncertainties associated with conducting Method 202 and to
identify procedures that would minimize uncertainties when using Method
202. Since August 2006, we have held two workshops in Research Triangle
Park, North Carolina. These meetings were held to present and seek
comments on our plan for evaluating potential modifications to Method
202 that would reduce artifact formation. Also, these meetings were
held to discuss our progress in characterizing the performance of the
modified method, issues that require additional investigation, the
results of our laboratory studies, and our commitments to extend the
investigation through stakeholders external to EPA. We held another
meeting with experienced stack testers and vendors of emissions
monitoring equipment to discuss hardware issues associated with
modifications of the sampling equipment and the glassware for the
proposed CPM test method. Summaries of the method evaluations, as well
as meeting minutes from our workshops, can be found at the following
Internet address: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/emc/methods/method202.html.
The laboratory studies that were performed fulfill a commitment in
the preamble to the Clean Air Fine Particle Implementation Rule (72 FR
20586, April 25, 2007) to examine the relationship between several
critical CPM sampling and analysis parameters and, to the extent
necessary, propose revisions to incorporate improvements in the method.
While these improvements in the stationary source test method for CPM
will provide for more accurate and precise measurement of all PM, the
addition of PM2.5 as an indicator of health and welfare
effects by the 1997 NAAQS revisions generates the need to quantify
PM2.5 emissions from stationary sources. To respond to this
need, we are proposing revisions to incorporate this capability into
the test method for filterable PM10.
III. This Action
This action proposes to provide the capability of measuring
PM2.5 using Method 201A and to provide for more accurate
measurement of the filterable and condensable components of fine PM
(particles with mean aerodynamic diameters less than or equal to 2.5 m)
and coarse PM (particles with mean aerodynamic diameters less than or
equal to 10 m) when using Method 202. Method 201A proposed amendments
would add a particle-sizing cyclone to the sampling train. Method 202
proposed amendments would reduce the formation of sulfuric acid
artifact by at least an additional 90 percent (compared to our
recommended procedures for the existing Method 202), provide for
greater consistency between testing contractors in method application,
improve the precision of the method, and provide for more accurate
quantification of direct (i.e., primary) PM emissions to the ambient
air (the method will not measure secondarily-formed PM). The proposed
amendments would also affect the measurement of total PM,
PM10, and PM2.5. Additionally, we are proposing
to revise the format of Methods 201A and 202 to be consistent with the
format developed by EPA's Environmental Monitoring Management Council
(EMMC). A guidance document describing the EMMC format can be found at
the following Internet address: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/emc/guidlnd/gd-045.pdf.
A. What Are the Proposed Amendments to Method 201A?
On July 18, 1997 (62 FR 38652), we revised the NAAQS for PM to add
new standards for fine particles, using PM2.5 as the
indicator. This action will modify the current Method 201A sampling
train configuration to allow for measurement of filterable
PM10, filterable PM2.5, or both filterable
PM10 and filterable PM2.5 from stationary
sources. These amendments combine the existing method with the
PM2.5 cyclone to create a sampling train that includes a
total of two cyclones (one cyclone to size particles with aerodynamic
diameters greater than 10 m and one cyclone to size particles with
aerodynamic diameters greater than 2.5 m) and a final filter to collect
particles with aerodynamic diameters less than or equal to 2.5 m. The
PM2.5 cyclone would be inserted between the PM10
cyclone and the filter of the Method 201A sampling train.
We are not proposing any amendments to address the use of this
method when the stack gas has entrained moisture or when the method is
used for stack gases with high temperatures. In July 1979, we published
a research document (EPA-600/7-79-166) to report the preliminary
development of a method for measuring and characterizing the particles
in the vent stream from a wet scrubber used to control sulfur oxide
emissions. The method was based on the use of a heated, electrified
wire placed in the vent stream. When a water droplet impacted the wire,
the electric current flowing through the wire was attenuated in
proportion to the size of the water droplet. We decided it was not
appropriate to promulgate the preliminary method and, at this time, we
are not aware of any commercially-available equipment that can
determine the aerodynamic size of PM contained in, or dissolved in,
liquid water droplets as they would exist in the ambient air following
release and evaporation in the ambient air. While we are aware of
several optical aerosol droplet spectrometers for measuring the size
distribution of liquid droplets in exhaust gases, we are not aware of
any commercial instruments that can measure size distributions of
particles emitted from stationary sources. We also lack knowledge on
the relative effects of solids concentration in the liquid droplets and
the possible presence of dry particles in addition to the liquid
droplets. Consequently, we recommend the use of EPA Method 5 (40 CFR
Part 60, Appendix A-3--Determination of Particulate Matter Emissions
from Stationary Sources) when measuring PM in stacks with saturated
water vapors containing entrained water droplets. With this application
of EPA Method 5,
[[Page 12975]]
all of the collected material would be considered PM2.5.
B. What Are the Proposed Amendments to Method 202?
This action proposes amendments incorporating modifications that
would reduce the formation of artifacts at both low and high
concentrations of SO2 in the sample gas stream. The
modifications were developed based on the method evaluations discussed
in Section II.C.2 of this preamble.
Method 202, as promulgated in 1991, is a set of sampling procedures
for collecting PM in water-filled impingers and a set of sample
recovery procedures that are performed on the water following its
collection. The water-filled impingers are nearly identical to the four
chilled impingers used in standard stationary source sampling trains
for PM (e.g., Method 5 and Method 17 of Appendix A-3 and A-6, 40 CFR
Part 60). In principle, CPM is collected in the impinger portion of a
Method 17-type sampling train. Our preferred operation of the
promulgated method requires that the impinger contents be purged with
nitrogen after the test run to remove dissolved SO2 gas from
the impinger contents. The impinger solution is then extracted with
methylene chloride to separate the organic CPM from the inorganic CPM.
The organic and aqueous fractions are then dried and the residues
weighed. The sum of both fractions represents the total CPM.
These proposed amendments to Method 202 sampling train and sample
recovery procedures would achieve at least an additional 90 percent
reduction in sulfuric acid artifact formation compared to the current
Method 202 using the nitrogen purge option, provide testing contractors
with a more standardized application of the method, improve the
precision of the method, and quantify more accurately direct PM
emission to the ambient air.
The proposed changes to the sampling train of this method include:
Installing a condenser between the filter in the front-
half of the sample train and the first impinger to cool the sample
gases to ambient temperature (less than 30 [deg]C);
Installing a recirculation pump in the ambient water bath
to supply cooling water to the condenser;
Changing the first two impingers from wet to dry, and
placing these two dry impingers in a water bath at ambient temperature
(less than 30 [deg]C) (the first dry impinger will use a short-stem
insert, and the second dry impinger will use a long-stem insert);
Requiring the use of an out-of-stack, low-temperature
filter (i.e., the CPM filter), as described in EPA Method 8, between
the second and third impingers (a Teflon filter is used in place of the
fiberglass filter described in EPA Method 8); and
Requiring that the temperature of the sample gas drawn
through the CPM filter be maintained at ambient temperature (less than
30 [deg]C).
It should be noted that under Method 202, the use of a CPM filter is an
optional procedure that is used typically if the collection efficiency
of the impinger is suspected to be low. These proposed amendments would
make the use of a CPM filter a required procedure.
The proposed changes to Method 202 include:
Extracting the CPM filter with water and organic solvent;
Evaporating the liquid collected in the impingers in an
oven or on a hot plate down to a minimum volume of 10 milliliters,
instead of all the way to dryness;
Evaporating the remaining liquid to dryness at ambient
temperature prior to neutralization with ammonium hydroxide;
Titrating the reconstituted residue with 0.1 normal
ammonium hydroxide and a pH meter;
Evaporating the neutralized liquid to a minimum volume of
10 milliliters in an oven or hot plate;
Evaporating the final volume to dryness at ambient
temperature; and
Weighing the CPM sample residue to constant weight after
allowing a minimum of 24 hours for equilibration in a desiccator.
Note that the requirements to evaporate liquids at ambient temperature
and to titrate the reconstituted liquid exist already as options under
this method. These optional steps are typically performed to retain CPM
that might be lost at higher evaporation temperatures. Under these
proposed amendments, these options would be required procedures.
C. How Will the Proposed Amendments to Methods 201A and 202 Affect
Existing Emission Inventories, Emission Standards, and Permit Programs?
We anticipate that, over time, the changes in the test methods
proposed in this action will result in, among other positive outcomes,
more accurate emissions inventories of direct PM emissions and
emissions standards that are more indicative of the actual impact of
the source on the ambient air quality.
Accurate emission inventories are critical for regulatory agencies
to develop the control strategies and demonstrations necessary to
attain air quality standards. If implemented, the proposed test method
revisions would have the potential to improve our understanding of PM
emissions due to the increased availability of more accurate emission
tests and, eventually, through the incorporation of less biased test
data into existing emissions factors. For CPM, the use of the proposed
method would likely reveal a reduced level of CPM emissions from a
source compared to the emissions that would have been measured using
Method 202, as typically performed. However, there may be some cases
where the proposed test method would reveal an increased level of CPM
emissions from a source, depending on the relative emissions of
filterable and CPM emissions from the source. For example, the existing
Method 202 allows complete evaporation of the water containing
inorganic PM at 105 [deg]C (221 [deg]F), where the proposed revision
requires the last 10 ml of the water to be evaporated at room
temperature (not to exceed 30 [deg]C (85 [deg]F)) thereby retaining the
CPM that would evaporate at the increased temperature.
Prior to our adoption of the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS, several
State and local air pollution control agencies had developed emission
inventories that included CPM. Additionally, some agencies established
enforceable CPM emissions limits or otherwise required that PM
emissions testing include measurement of CPM. While this approach was
viable in cases where the same test method was used to develop the CPM
regulatory limits and to demonstrate facility compliance, there are
substantial inconsistencies within and between States regarding the
completeness and accuracy of CPM emission inventories and the test
methods used to measure CPM emissions and to demonstrate facility
compliance.
These amendments would serve to mitigate the potential difficulties
that can arise when we and other regulatory entities attempt to use the
test data from State and local agencies whose CPM test methods are
inconsistent to develop emission factors, determine program
applicability, or to establish emissions limits for CPM emission
sources within a particular jurisdiction. For example, problems can
arise when the test method used to develop a CPM emission limit is not
the same as the test method specified in the rule for demonstrating
compliance because the different test methods may quantify different
components of PM (e.g., filterable versus condensable). Also, when
emissions from State inventories are modeled to assess compliance with
[[Page 12976]]
the NAAQS, the determination of direct PM emissions may be biased high
or low, depending on the test methods used to estimate PM emissions,
and the atmospheric conversion of SO2 to sulfates (or
SO3) may be inaccurate or double-counted. Additionally, some
State and local regulatory authorities have assumed that EPA Method 5
of Appendix A-3 to 40 CFR Part 60 (Determination of Particulate Matter
Emissions from Stationary Sources) provides a reasonable estimate of
PM10 emissions. This assumption is incorrect because Method
5 does not provide particle sizing of the filterable component and does
not quantify particulate caught in the impinger portion of the sampling
train. Similar assumptions for measurements of PM2.5 will
result in greater inaccuracies.
With regard to State permitting programs, we recognize that, in
some cases, existing Best Available Control Technology (BACT), Lowest
Achievable Emission Rate (LAER), or Reasonably Available Control
Technology (RACT) limits have been based on an identified control
technology, and that the data used to determine the performance of that
technology and establish the limits may have focused on filterable PM
and thus did not completely characterize PM emissions to the ambient
air. While the source test methods used by State programs that
developed the applicable permit limit may not have fully characterized
the PM emissions, we have no information that would indicate that the
test methods are inappropriate indicators of the control technologies'
performance for the portion of PM emissions that was addressed by the
applicable requirement. As promulgated in the Clean Air Fine Particle
Implementation Rule, after January 1, 2011, States are required to
consider inclusion of CPM emissions in new or revised emissions limits
which they establish. We will defer to the individual State's judgment
as to whether, and at what time, it is appropriate to revise existing
facility emission limits or operating permits to incorporate
information from the revised CPM test method when it is promulgated.
With regard to operating permits, the Title V permit program does
not generally impose new substantive air quality control requirements.
In general, once emissions limits are established as CAA requirements
under the SIP or a SIP-approved pre-construction review permit, they
are included in the Title V permits. Obviously, Title V permits may
have to be updated to reflect any revision of existing emission limits
or new emission limits created in the context of the underlying
applicable requirements. Also, if a permit contains the previously
promulgated test methods, it is not a given that the permit would
always have to be revised should these test methods changes be
finalized (e.g., where test methods are incorporated into existing
permits through incorporation by reference, no permit terms or
conditions would necessarily have to change to reflect changes to those
test methods). In any event, the need for action in the permitting
context due to these proposed changes to the test methods would be
controlled by several factors, such as the exact wording of the
existing operating permit, the requirements of the EPA-approved SIP,
and any changes that may be made to pre-construction review permits
with respect to a particular source test method that did not include
CPM or on a set of procedures in Method 202 which underestimated
emissions.
In recognition of these issues, the Clean Air Fine Particle
Implementation Rule contains provisions establishing a transition
period for developing emission limits for condensable direct
PM2.5 that are needed to demonstrate attainment of the
PM2.5 NAAQS. As discussed in the April 25, 2007, Clean Air
Fine Particle Implementation Rule (72 FR 20586) and in the May 16,
2008, promulgation of the New Source Review Program Implementation for
fine particulate matter (73 FR 28321), the transition period, which
ends January 1, 2011, allows time to resolve and adopt appropriate
testing procedures for CPM emissions and to collect total primary
(filterable and condensable) PM2.5 emissions data that are
more representative of the emissions of each source in their areas. In
the PM2.5 NSR Implementation Rule, we stated that as part of
this test methods rulemaking, we would ``take comment on an earlier
closing date for the transition period in the NSR program if we are on
track to meet our expectation to complete the test method rule much
earlier than January 1, 2011.'' See 73 FR at 28344. Accordingly, we are
hereby soliciting comments on ending the NSR transition period for CPM
on a date 60 to 90 days after the promulgation date of this test
methods rulemaking.
During the transition period, we are available to provide technical
support to States, as requested, in establishing emissions testing
requirements. We will also solicit the involvement of interested
stakeholders to collect new direct filterable and CPM emissions data
using methodologies that provide more representative data of a source's
direct PM2.5 emissions. These data will be used by us,
States, and others to improve emissions factors and to help establish
or revise source emissions limits in implementation plans. The
transition period will also provide time for additional method
evaluations. During the transition period, we expect that some States
will continue to develop more complete inventories of direct
PM2.5 emissions, particularly for CPM. As needed to
demonstrate attainment of the PM NAAQS, we also expect States to
address the control of direct PM2.5 emissions, including
CPM, with any new actions taken after January 1, 2011 and to address
CPM emissions in any direct PM2.5 regulations or limits
developed under any new PM NAAQS.
As with other methods, any new procedures approved by us will
produce data that will be incorporated into the tools (e.g., emission
factors, emission inventories, air quality modeling) used to assess the
attainment of air quality standards. However, we do not believe that it
is necessary to update continually the assessment tools or revise
previous air quality analyses until evidence is presented that a mid-
course corrective action is needed to achieve the air quality standards
(a mid-course review is required by April 2011 for each area with an
approved attainment date in 2014 or 2015). At that time, updated
inventories and air quality models may be needed to identify and
characterize the emission sources that are impeding adequate progress
towards attaining the air quality standards. Additionally, the new test
data could be used to improve the applicability and performance
evaluations of various control technologies.
D. Request for Comments
We encourage stakeholders to continue to participate in the process
to refine Methods 201A and 202. We are requesting public comments on
all aspects of the proposed test methods. EPA has already engaged
several stakeholder groups as described in Section II.C of this
preamble. Stakeholders and other members of the public who have not yet
participated are encouraged to submit comments. EPA is soliciting as
many constructive comments as possible in order to make the most
appropriate changes to the methods.
We are specifically interested in recommended alternatives to
replace what we have proposed. When submitting comments on alternative
approaches, please submit supporting information to substantiate the
improvements that are achieved with your recommendation. For
[[Page 12977]]
recommended changes to the procedures, include supporting technical
data and any associated cost information. For example, if you are
proposing an alternative procedure, include data or information that
would demonstrate how the alternative procedure would equal or improve
the bias and precision of the proposed methods. In addition, provide
data or cost information that would show the cost implications to
testing companies and analytical laboratories of implementing the
alternative procedure. Although our request for comments is not limited
to these items, the following are examples of items for which we are
specifically requesting comment.
1. Items Associated With Both Test Methods
The proposed test methods are based upon EPA's assessment of
comments made on the Clean Air Fine Particle Implementation Rule (April
25, 2007, 70 FR 20586). Commenters expressed that there is an
overarching need for test methods that are unbiased with respect to
primary particulate matter emissions to the atmosphere and that the
test methods must provide a high degree of consistency (precision) in
these measurements. As a result, we reduced the numerous options and
alternative procedures in the existing methods to a single set of
prescriptive procedures that already existed within the methods. In
addition, we made a few minor changes to reduce further the bias caused
by sulfate artifacts. We are requesting comments on the specific set of
procedures we have proposed and any replacement procedures that would
be less demanding but that would achieve or improve bias and precision.
We are also requesting comments on our decision to eliminate options or
alternatives within the existing methods that may not achieve
comparable results. If we were to consider alternative procedures that
may not achieve comparable results, then what level of difference would
be acceptable?
2. Items Associated With Method 201A
Regarding this proposed method, stakeholders have commented on the
sample duration that would be required to collect a weighable mass. EPA
is requesting comments on alternative methodologies or hardware that
would reduce the sample duration in order to reach a reasonable
detection limit or to demonstrate that emissions are below the
regulatory limit. Commenters should provide information or data,
including cost information, which supports their recommendation.
Stakeholders have expressed concern about the configuration and
size of the proposed sampling train. Specifically, commenters have
expressed concern that the size and length of the combined
PM10 cyclone and the PM2.5 cyclone and filter
require larger port opening(s) and a very large stack cross section to
minimize blockage. In addition, stakeholders have stated that it is
difficult to maintain stack temperature in the sampling train.
Therefore, EPA requests comments on alternatives to the proposed
procedures or hardware. EPA requests comments on alternative procedures
or configurations that would reduce the blockage. EPA also requests
comments on alternative configurations that would allow testers to
maintain stack temperature in the sampling train, thus reducing or
eliminating condensation in the primary or filterable particulate
portions of the method. Recommendations to revise the sampling train
size or configuration should include an assessment of the impacts of
the recommended revisions on the sample size, required sample duration,
and ability to collect a representative sample. Commenters should
provide information or data, including cost information that supports
their recommendation.
3. Items Associated With Method 202
Stakeholders originally expressed concern about the formation of
artifacts in Method 202 when sulfur dioxide was present in the stack
gas. Based on laboratory experiments, the proposed revision to Method
202 eliminates at least an additional 90 percent of the artifact over
the best practices procedures of the existing Method 202. In addition,
the laboratory experiments show that the proposed revision to Method
202 reduces artifact at or below the detection limits of the method.
EPA requests comments on any further concerns with the formation of
artifacts in the proposed method.
Stakeholders have expressed concern about glassware cleaning.
Specifically, stakeholders have questioned the requirement to bake
glassware at 300 [deg]C for 6 hours prior to use in order to reduce the
background level of CPM. Stakeholders have stated that many stack
testing firms and some analytical laboratories may not have ovens that
can achieve this temperature. EPA requests information on the
performance of a lower temperature oven in effectively reducing the
blank level of CPM.
Another stakeholder concern is whether glassware needs to be
completely cleaned between sampling runs. The proposed method requires
clean glassware at the start of each new source category test. EPA
requests comments on alternatives that would minimize the cost of
glassware preparation and reduce bias due to carryover from tests at
the same source category and between source categories. Commenters
should submit data or information to demonstrate that their alternative
procedure would reduce or minimize the carryover or blank and would
minimize the cost to prepare glassware.
Stakeholders expressed concern about the need for Method 202
following filtration at less than 30 [deg]C (85 [deg]F). EPA requests
comments on how to clarify when Method 202 is or is not required.
Stakeholders have expressed concern about the appropriate type of
CPM filter required by the proposed method. EPA requests comments on
the construction material and porosity of the filter. Commenters should
address the capture efficiency required by the method (i.e., the filter
must have an efficiency of at least 99.95 percent (<0.05 percent
penetration) on 0.3 micron particles). Commenters should include how
their alternative would minimize the blank contribution from the
filters.
Commenters have expressed concern about the additional analytical
steps required to process the CPM filter. The proposed method requires
extraction and combination of the filter extract with the appropriate
impinger samples to accurately collect and measure sulfuric acid and
other condensable material. Commenters should address alternative
procedures for CPM filter analysis that would generate precise and
unbiased analysis of CPM collected on the CPM filter.
Stakeholders have expressed concern about maintaining the stack gas
flow through the Teflon[supreg] membrane filter. Stakeholders have
commented on their need to use a supplementary support filter to
maintain flow through the sample filter. EPA requests comments
regarding the use of a support filter that would help maintain stack
gas flow while minimizing or eliminating the support filter's
contribution to the sample mass. EPA requests comments on the use of
this alternative and its potential impact on bias and precision, as
well as its potential impact on cost.
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review
Under Executive Order (EO) 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993),
this proposed action is a ``significant regulatory action'' since it
raises novel
[[Page 12978]]
legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's
priorities, or the principles set forth in this Executive Order.
Accordingly, EPA submitted this proposed action to the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) for review under Executive Order 12866 and
any changes made in response to OMB recommendations have been
documented in the docket for this action.
B. Paperwork Reduction Act
This proposed action does not impose an information collection
burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C.
3501 et seq. Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b). The proposed
amendments do not contain any reporting or recordkeeping requirements.
The proposed amendments revise two existing source test methods to
allow one method to perform additional particle sizing at 2.5
micrometers and to improve the precision and accuracy of the other test
method.
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 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) 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. We do not
anticipate that the proposed changes to Methods 201A and 202 will
result in a significant economic impact on small entities. Most of the
emission sources that will be required by State regulatory agencies
(and Federal regulators after 2011) to conduct tests using the revised
methods are those that have PM emissions of 100 tons per year or more.
EPA expects that few, if any, of these emission sources will be small
entities.
Although this proposed rule will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities, EPA nonetheless has
tried to reduce the impact of this rule on small entities. In this
preamble, we explained that this rule does not require any entities to
use these proposed test methods. Such a requirement would be mandated
by a separate independent regulatory action. We indicated that upon
promulgation of this rule, some entities may be required to use these
test methods as a result of existing permits or regulations. Since the
cost to use the proposed test methods is comparable to the cost of the
methods they replace, little or no significant economic impact to small
entities will accompany the increased precision and accuracy of the
revised test methods which are proposed. We also indicated that after
January 1, 2011, when the transition period established in the Clean
Air Fine Particle Implementation Rule expires, States are required to
consider inclusion of pollutants measured by these test methods in new
or revised regulations. The economic impacts caused by any new or
revised State regulations for fine PM would be associated with those
State rules and not with this proposal to modify the existing test
methods. Consequently, we believe that this rule imposes little if any
adverse economic impact to small entities. However, we continue to be
interested in the potential impacts of the proposed rule on small
entities and welcome comments on issues related to such impacts.
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
This 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 incremental costs associated with conducting the revised test
methods (expected to be less than $1,000 per test) do not impose a
significant burden on sources. Thus, this rule is not subject to the
requirements of sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA.
This rule is also not subject to the requirements of section 203 of
UMRA because it contains no regulatory requirements that might
significantly or uniquely affect small governments. The low incremental
cost associated with the revised test methods mitigates any significant
or unique effects on small governments.
E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
Executive Order 13132, entitled ``Federalism'' (64 FR 43255, August
10, 1999), requires EPA 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. In cases where a source of
PM2.5 emissions is owned by a State or local government,
those governments may incur a minimal compliance costs associated with
conducting tests to quantify PM2.5 emissions using the
revised methods when they are promulgated. However, such tests would be
conducted at the discretion of the State or local government and the
compliance costs are not expected to impose a significant burden on
those governments. Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not apply to this
rule.
In the spirit of Executive Order 13132, and consistent with EPA
policy to promote communications between EPA and State and local
governments, EPA specifically solicits comment on this proposed rule
from State and local officials.
F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments
This action does not have tribal implications, as specified in
Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). In cases where a
source of PM2.5 emissions is owned by a tribal government,
those governments may incur minimal compliance costs associated with
conducting tests to quantify PM2.5 emissions using the
revised methods when they are promulgated. However, such tests would be
conducted at the discretion of the tribal government and the compliance
costs are not expected to impose a significant burden on those
governments. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action.
[[Page 12979]]
EPA specifically solicits additional comment on this proposed rule
from tribal officials.
G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental
Health and Safety Risks
EPA interprets EO 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) as applying
only to those regulatory actions that concern health or safety risks,
such that the analysis required under section 5-501 of the EO has the
potential to influence the regulation. This action is not subject to EO
13045 because it does not establish an environmental standard intended
to mitigate health or safety risks.
H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
This action is not a ``significant energy action'' as defined in
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355 (May 22, 2001)), because it is not
likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply,
distribution, or use of energy. This rule revises existing EPA test
methods and does not affect energy supply, distribution, or use.
I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (``NTTAA''), Public Law 104-113 (15 U.S.C. 272 note)
directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS) 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.
The rulemaking involves technical standards. Therefore, the Agency
conducted a search to identify potentially applicable voluntary
consensus standards. However, we identified no such standards, and none
were brought to our attention in comments. Therefore, EPA has decided
to amend portions of existing EPA test methods. While no comprehensive
source test methods were identified, EPA identified two VCS which were
applicable for use within the amended test methods. The first VCS cited
in this proposal is American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM)
Method D2986-95a (1999), ``Standard Method for Evaluation of Air, Assay
Media by the Monodisperse DOP (Dioctyl Phthalate) Smoke Test,'' for its
procedures to conduct filter efficiency tests. The second VCS cited in
this proposed rule is ASTM D1193-06, ``Standard Specification for
Reagent Water,'' for the proper selection of distilled ultra-filtered
water. These VCS are available from the American Society for Testing
and Materials, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, Post Office Box C700, West
Conshohocken, PA 19428-2959.
EPA welcomes comments on this aspect of the proposed rulemaking
and, specifically, invites the public to identify potentially
applicable VCS 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 (EO) 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 does not
affect the level of protection provided to human health or the
environment. The proposed amendments revise existing test methods to
improve the accuracies of the measurements which are expected to
improve environmental quality and reduce health risks for areas that
may be designated as nonattainment.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 51
Administrative practice and procedure, Air pollution control,
Carbon monoxide, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental
relations, Lead, Nitrogen oxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting
and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur compounds, Volatile organic
compounds.
Dated: March 16, 2009.
Lisa P. Jackson,
Administrator.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, title 40, chapter I of the
Code of Federal Regulations is proposed to be amended as follows:
PART 51--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 51 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 23 U.S.C. 101; 42 U.S.C 7401-7671q.
2. Amend Appendix M by revising Methods 201A and 202 to read as
follows:
Appendix M to Part 51--Recommended Test Methods for State
Implementation Plans
* * * * *
METHOD 201A--DETERMINATION OF PM10 AND PM2.5 EMISSIONS FROM STATIONARY
SOURCES (Constant Sampling Rate Procedure)
1.0 Scope and Applicability
1.1 Scope. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA or
``we'') developed this method to describe the procedures that the
stack tester (``you'') must follow to measure particulate matter
emissions equal to or less than a nominal aerodynamic diameter of 10
micrometer (PM10) and 2.5 micrometer (PM2.5).
If the gas filtration temperature exceeds 30 [deg]C (85 [deg]F),
this method includes procedures to measure only filterable
particulate matter (material that does not pass through a filter or
a cyclone/filter combination). If the gas filtration temperature
exceeds 30 [deg]C (85 [deg]F), and you must measure total primary
(direct) particulate matter emissions to the atmosphere, both the
filterable and condensable (material that condenses after passing
through a filter) components, then you must combine the procedures
in this method with the procedures in Method 202 for measuring
condensable particulate matter. However, if the gas filtration
temperature never exceeds 30 [deg]C (85 [deg]F), then use of Method
202 is not required to measure total primary particulate matter.
1.2 Applicability. You can use this method to measure filterable
particulate matter from stationary sources only. Filterable
particulate matter is collected in-stack with this method (i.e., the
method measures materials that are solid or liquid at stack
conditions).
1.3 Responsibility. You are responsible for obtaining the
equipment and supplies you will need to use this method. You must
also develop your own procedures for following this method and any
additional procedures to ensure accurate sampling and analytical
measurements.
1.4 Results. To obtain results, you must have a thorough
knowledge of the following test methods that are found in Appendices
A-1 through A-3 of 40 CFR Part 60.
(a) Method 1--Sample and Velocity Traverses for Stationary
Sources.
[[Page 12980]]
(b) Method 2--Determination of Stack Gas Velocity and Volumetric
Flow Rate (Type S Pitot Tube).
(c) Method 3--Gas Analysis for the Determination of Dry
Molecular Weight.
(d) Method 4--Determination of Moisture Content in Stack Gases.
(e) Method 5--Determination of Particulate Matter Emissions from
Stationary Sources.
1.5 Additional Methods. We do not anticipate that you will need
additional test methods to measure ambient contributions of
particulate matter to source emissions because ambient contributions
are insignificant for most of the sources that are expected to be
measured using this test method. However, when an adjustment for the
ambient air particulate matter is needed, use the ambient air
reference methods to quantify the ambient air contribution. If the
source gas filtration temperature never exceeds 30 [deg]C (85
[deg]F) and condensable particulate is not measured by Method 202,
then the correction for ambient particulate matter must be adjusted
for condensable material that vaporizes at the process temperature.
1.6 Limitations. You cannot use this method to measure emissions
following a wet scrubber because this method is not applicable for
in-stack gases containing water droplets. To measure PM10
and PM2.5 in emissions where water droplets are known to
exist, we recommend that you use Method 5. This method may not be
suitable for sources with stack gas temperatures exceeding 260
[deg]C (500 [deg]F). You may need to take extraordinary measures--
including the use of specialty metals (e.g., Inconel) to achieve
reliable particulate mass since the threads of the cyclones may gall
or seize, thus preventing the recovery of the collected particulate
matter and rendering the cyclone unusable for subsequent use.
1.7 Conditions. You can use this method to obtain both particle
sizing and total filterable particulate if the isokinetics are
within 90-110 percent, the number of sampling points is the same as
Method 5 or 17, and the in-stack filter temperature is within the
acceptable range. The acceptable range for the in-stack filter
temperature is generally defined as the typical range of temperature
for emission gases. The acceptable range varies depending on the
source and control technology. To satisfy Method 5 criteria, you may
need to remove the in-stack filter and use an out-of-stack filter
and recover the PM in the probe between the PM2.5
particle sizer and the filter. In addition, to satisfy Method 5 and
Method 17 criteria, you may need to sample from more than 12
traverse points. Be aware that this method determines in-stack
PM10 and PM2.5 filterable emissions by
sampling from a recommended maximum of 12 sample points, at a
constant flow rate through the train (the constant flow is necessary
to maintain the size cuts of the cyclones), and with a filter that
is at the stack temperature. In contrast, Method 5 or Method 17
trains are operated isokinetically with varying flow rates through
the train. Method 5 and Method 17 require sampling from as many as
24 sample points. Method 5 uses an out-of-stack filter that is
maintained at a constant temperature of 120 [deg]C (248 [deg]F).
Further, to use this method in place of Method 5 or Method 17, you
must extend the sampling time so that you collect the minimum mass
necessary for weighing on each portion of this sampling train. Also,
if you are using this method as an alternative to a required
performance test, then you must receive approval from the
appropriate authorities prior to conducting the test.
2.0 Summary of Method
2.1 Summary. To measure PM10 and PM2.5,
extract a sample of gas at a predetermined constant flow rate
through an in-stack sizing device. The sizing device separates
particles with nominal aerodynamic diameters of 10 microns and 2.5
microns. To minimize variations in the isokinetic sampling
conditions, you must establish well-defined limits. Once a sample is
obtained, remove uncombined water from the particulate, then use
gravimetric analysis to determine the particulate mass for each size
fraction. Changes in the original Method 201A of Appendix M to 40
CFR part 51, supplement the filterable particulate procedures with
the PM2.5 cyclone from a conventional five-stage cascade
cyclone train. The addition of a PM2.5 cyclone between
the PM10 cyclone and the stack temperature filter in the
sampling train supplements the measurement of PM10 with
the measurement of fine particulate matter. Without the addition of
the PM2.5 cyclone, the filterable particulate portion of
the sampling train may be used to measure total and PM10
emissions. Likewise, with the exclusion of the PM10
cyclone, the filterable particulate portion of the sampling train
may be used to measure total and PM2.5 emissions. Figure
1 of Section 17 presents the schematic of the sampling train
configured with these changes.
3.0 Definitions
[Reserved]
4.0 Interferences
You cannot use this method to measure emissions following a wet
scrubber because this method is not applicable for in-stack gases
containing water droplets. Stacks with entrained moisture droplets
may have water droplets larger than the cut sizes for the cyclones.
These water droplets normally contain particles and dissolved solids
that become PM10 and PM2.5 following
evaporation of the water.
5.0 Safety
Disclaimer: You may have to use hazardous materials, operations,
and equipment while using this method. We do not provide information
on appropriate safety and health practices. You are responsible for
determining the applicability of regulatory limitations and
establishing appropriate safety and health practices. Handle
materials and equipment properly.
6.0 Equipment and Supplies
Figure 2 of Section 17 shows details of the combined cyclone
heads used in this method. The sampling train is the same as Method
17 of Appendix A-6 to Part 60 with the exception of the
PM10 and PM2.5 sizing devices. The following
sections describe the sampling train's primary design features in
detail.
6.1 Filterable Particulate Sampling Train Components.
6.1.1 Nozzle. You must use stainless steel (316 or equivalent)
or Teflon[supreg]-coated stainless steel nozzles with a sharp
tapered leading edge. We recommend one of the 12 nozzles listed in
Figure 3 of Section 17 because they meet design specifications when
PM10 cyclones are used as part of the sampling train. We
also recommend that you have a large number of nozzles in small
diameter increments available to increase the likelihood of using a
single nozzle for the entire traverse. We recommend one of the
nozzles listed in Figure 4A or 4B of Section 17 because they meet
design specifications when PM2.5 cyclones are used
without PM10 cyclones as part of the sampling train.
6.1.2 PM10 and PM2.5 Sizing Device. Use a
stainless steel (316 or equivalent) PM10 and
PM2.5 sizing devices. The sizing devices must be cyclones
that meet the design specifications shown in Figures 3, 4, 5, and 6
of Section 17. Use a caliper to verify the dimensions of the
PM10 and PM2.5 sizing devices to within 0.02 cm of the design specifications. Example suppliers of
PM10 and PM2.5 sizing devices include the
following:
(a) Environmental Supply Company, Inc., 2142 Geer Street, Durham,
North Carolina 27704, (919) 956-9688 (phone), (919) 682-0333 (fax).
(b) Apex Instruments, P.O. Box 727, 125 Quantum Street, Holly
Springs, North Carolina 27540, (919) 557-7300 (phone), (919) 557-
7110 (fax).
(c) Andersen Instruments Inc., 500 Technology Court, Smyrna, Georgia
30082, (770) 319-9999 (phone), (770) 319-0336 (fax).
You may use alternative particle sizing devices if they meet the
requirements in Development and Laboratory Evaluation of a Five-
Stage Cyclone System, EPA-600/7-78-008 (incorporated by reference)
and are approved by the Administrator. The Director of the Federal
Register approves this incorporation by reference in accordance with
5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. You may obtain a copy from
National Technical Information Service, http://www.ntis.gov or (800)
553-6847. You may inspect a copy at the Office of Federal Register,
800 North Capitol Street, NW., Suite 700, Washington, DC.
6.1.3 Filter Holder. Use a filter holder that is either
stainless steel (316 or equivalent) or Teflon[supreg]-coated
stainless steel. A heated glass filter holder may be substituted for
the steel filter holder when filtration is performed out-of-stack.
Commercial size filter holders are available depending upon project
requirements, including commercial filter holders to support 25-,
47-, and 63-mm diameter filters. Commercial size filter holders
contain a Teflon[supreg] O-ring, a stainless steel screen that
supports the filter, and a final Teflon[supreg] O-ring. Screw the
assembly together and attach to the outlet of cyclone IV.
6.1.4 Pitot Tube. You must use a pitot tube made of heat
resistant tubing. Attach the pitot tube to the probe with stainless
steel
[[Page 12981]]
fittings. Follow the specifications for the pitot tube and its
orientation to the inlet nozzle given in Section 6.1.1.3 of Method
5.
6.1.5 Probe Liner. The probe extension must be glass-lined or
Teflon[supreg]. Follow the specifications in Section 6.1.1.2 of
Method 5.
6.1.6 Differential Pressure Gauge, Condensers, Metering Systems,
Barometer, and Gas Density Determination Equipment. Follow the
requirements in Sections 6.1.1.4 through 6.1.3 of Method 5, as
applicable.
6.2 Sample Recovery Equipment.
6.2.1 Filterable Particulate Recovery. Use the following
equipment to quantitatively determine the amount of filterable
particulate matter recovered from the sampling train. Follow the
requirements specified in Sections 6.2.1 through 6.2.8 of Method 5,
respectively.
(a) Filter holder brushes
(b) Wash bottles
(c) Glass sample storage containers
(d) Petri dishes
(e) Graduated cylinders and balance
(f) Plastic storage containers
(g) Funnel
(h) Rubber policeman
7.0 Reagents, Standards, and Sampling Media
7.1 Sample Collection. To collect a sample, you will need a
filter and silica gel. You must also have water and crushed ice.
Additional information on these items is in the following
paragraphs.
7.1.1 Filter. Use a glass fiber, quartz, or Teflon[supreg]
filter that does not a have an organic binder. The filter must also
have an efficiency of at least 99.95 percent (<0.05 percent
penetration) on 0.3 micron dioctyl phthalate smoke particles.
Conduct the filter efficiency test in accordance with ASTM Method
D2986-95a--Standard Method for Evaluation of Air, Assay Media by the
Monodisperse DOP (Dioctyl Phthalate) Smoke Test (incorporated by
reference). The Director of the Federal Register approves this
incorporation by reference in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1
CFR part 51. You may obtain a copy from American Society for Testing
and Materials (ASTM), 100 Barr Harbor Drive, Post Office Box C700,
West Conshohocken, PA 19428-2959. You may inspect a copy at the
Office of Federal Register, 800 North Capitol Street, NW., Suite
700, Washington, DC. Alternatively, you may use test data from the
supplier's quality control program. If the source you are sampling
has sulfur dioxide (SO2) or sulfite (SO3)
emissions, you must use a filter that will not react with
SO2 or SO3. Depending on your application and
project data quality objectives (DQOs), filters are commercially
available in 25-, 47-, 83-, and 110-mm sizes.
7.1.2 Silica Gel. Use an indicating-type silica gel of 6 to 16
mesh. We must approve other types of desiccants (equivalent or
better) before you use them. Allow the silica gel to dry for 2 hours
at 175 [deg]C (350 [deg]F) if it is being reused. You do not have to
dry new silica gel.
7.1.3 Crushed ice. Obtain from the best readily available
source.
7.2 Sample Recovery and Analysis Reagents. You will need acetone
and anhydrous sodium sulfate for the sample analysis. Unless
otherwise indicated, all reagents must conform to the specifications
established by the Committee on Analytical Reagents of the American
Chemical Society. If such specifications are not available, then use
the best available grade. Additional information on each of these
items is in the following paragraphs.
7.2.1 Acetone. Use acetone that is stored in a glass bottle. Do
not use acetone from a metal container because it normally produces
a high residue blank. You must use acetone with blank values <1 ppm,
by weight residue. Analyze acetone blanks prior to field use to
confirm low blank values. In no case shall a blank value of greater
than 1E-06 of the weight of acetone used in sample recovery be
subtracted from the sample weight (i.e., the maximum blank
correction is 0.079 mg per 100 mL of acetone used to recover
samples).
7.2.2 Particulate Sample Desiccant. Use indicating-type
anhydrous sodium sulfate to desiccate samples prior to weighing.
8.0 Sample collection, Preservation, Storage, and Transport
8.1 Qualifications. This is a complex test method. To obtain
reliable results, you must be trained and experienced with in-stack
filtration systems (such as cyclones, impactors, and thimbles) and
their operations.
8.2 Preparations. Follow the pretest preparation instructions in
Section 8.1 of Method 5.
8.3 Site Setup. You must complete the following to properly set
up for this test:
(a) Determine the sampling site location and traverse points.
(b) Calculate probe/cyclone blockage.
(c) Verify the absence of cyclonic flow.
(d) Complete a preliminary velocity profile, and select a
nozzle.
8.3.1 Sampling Site Location and Traverse Point Determination.
Follow the standard procedures in Method 1 to select the appropriate
sampling site. Then do all of the following:
(a) Sampling site. Choose a location that maximizes the distance
from upstream and downstream flow disturbances.
(b) Traverse points. The recommended maximum number of total
traverse points at any location is 12 as shown in Figure 7 of
Section 17. Prevent the disturbance and capture of any solids
accumulated on the inner wall surfaces by maintaining a 1-inch
distance from the stack wall (\1/2\ inch for sampling locations less
than 24 inches in diameter).
(c) Round or rectangular duct or stack. If a duct or stack is
round with two ports located 90 degrees apart, use six sampling
points on each diameter. Use a 3 x 4 sampling point layout for
rectangular ducts or stacks. Consult with the Administrator to
receive approval for other layouts before you use them.
(d) Sampling ports. To accommodate the in-stack cyclones for
this method, you may need larger diameter sampling ports than those
used by Method 5 or Method 17 for total filterable particulate
sampling. When you must use nozzles smaller than 0.16 inch in
diameter, the sampling port diameter must be 6 inches. Do not use
the conventional 4-inch diameter port because the combined dimension
of the PM10 cyclone and the nozzle extending from the
cyclone exceeds the internal diameter of the port.
[Note: If the port nipple is short, you may be able to ``hook''
the sampling head through a smaller port into the duct or stack.]
8.3.2 Probe/Cyclone Blockage Calculations. Follow the procedures
in the next two sections, as appropriate.
8.3.2.1 Ducts with diameters greater than 24 inches.
Minimize the blockage effects of the combination of the in-stack
nozzle/cyclones and filter assembly for ducts with diameters greater
than 24 inches by keeping the cross-sectional area of the assembly
at 3 percent or less of the cross-sectional area of the duct.
8.3.2.2 Ducts with diameters between 18 and 24 inches. Ducts
with diameters between 18 and 24 inches have blockage effects
ranging from 3 to 6 percent, as illustrated in Figure 8 of Section
17. Therefore, when you conduct tests on these small ducts, you must
adjust the observed velocity pressures for the estimated blockage
factor whenever the combined sampling apparatus blocks more than 3
percent of the stack or duct (see Sections 8.7.2.2 and 8.7.2.3 on
the probe blockage factor and the final adjusted velocity pressure,
respectively).
8.3.3 Cyclonic Flow. Do not use the combined cyclone sampling
head at sampling locations subject to cyclonic flow. Also, you must
follow procedures in Method 1 to determine the presence or absence
of cyclonic flow and then perform the following calculations.
(a) As per Section 11.4 of Method 1, find and record the angle
that has a null velocity pressure for each traverse point using a S-
type pitot tube.
(b) Average the absolute values of the angles that have a null
velocity pressure. Do not use the sampling location if the average
absolute value exceeds 20[deg].
[Note: You can minimize the effects of cyclonic flow conditions
by moving the sampling location, placing gas flow straighteners
upstream of the sampling location or applying a modified sampling
approach as described in EPA Guideline Document 008. You may need to
obtain an alternate method approval prior to using a modified
sampling approach.]
8.3.4 Preliminary Velocity Profile. Conduct a preliminary
velocity traverse by following Method 2 velocity traverse
procedures. The purpose of the preliminary velocity profile is to
determine all of the following:
(a) The gas sampling rate for the combined probe/cyclone
sampling head in order to meet the required particle size cut.
(b) The appropriate nozzle to maintain the required gas sampling
rate for the velocity pressure range and isokinetic range. If the
isokinetic range cannot be met (e.g., batch processes, extreme
process flow or temperature variation), void the sample or use
methods subject to the approval of the Administrator to correct the
data.
(c) The necessary sampling duration to obtain sufficient
particulate catch weights.
8.3.4.1 Preliminary traverse. You must use an S-type pitot tube
with a conventional
[[Page 12982]]
thermocouple to conduct the traverse. Conduct the preliminary
traverse as close as possible to the anticipated testing time on
sources that are subject to hour-by-hour gas flow rate variations of
approximately 20 percent and/or gas temperature
variations of approximately 10 [deg]C (50
[deg]F).
[Note: You should be aware that these variations can cause
errors in the cyclone cut diameters and the isokinetic sampling
velocities.]
8.3.4.2 Velocity pressure range. Insert the S-type pitot tube at
each traverse point, and record the range of velocity pressures
measured on data form in Method 2. You will use this later to select
the appropriate nozzle.
8.3.4.3 Initial gas stream viscosity and molecular weight.
Determine the average gas temperature, average gas oxygen content,
average carbon dioxide content, and estimated moisture content. You
will use this information to calculate the initial gas stream
viscosity (Equation 3) and molecular weight (Equations 1 and 2).
[Note: You must follow the instructions outlined in Method 4 to
estimate the moisture content. You may use a wet bulb-dry bulb
measurement or hand-held hygrometer measurement to estimate the
moisture content of sources with gas temperatures less than 71
[deg]C (160 [deg]F).]
8.3.4.4 Particulate matter concentration in the gas stream.
Determine the particulate matter concentration for the
PM2.5 and the PM2.5 to PM10
components of the gas stream through qualitative measurements or
estimates. Having an idea of the particulate concentration in the
gas stream is not essential but will help you determine the
appropriate sampling time to acquire sufficient particulate matter
weight for better accuracy at the source emission level. The
collectable particulate matter weight requirements depend primarily
on the types of filter media and weighing capabilities that are
available and needed to characterize the emissions. Estimate the
collectable particulate matter concentrations in the >10 micrometer,
<=10 and >2.5 micrometers, and <=2.5 micrometer size ranges. Typical
particulate matter concentrations are listed in Table 1 of Section
17. Additionally, relevant sections of AP-42 may contain particle
size distributions for processes characterized in those sections and
Appendix B2 of AP-42 contains generalized particle size
distributions for nine industrial process categories (e.g.,
stationary internal combustion engines firing gasoline or diesel
fuel, calcining of aggregate or unprocessed ores). The generalized
particle size distributions can be used if source-specific particle
size distributions are unavailable. Appendix B2 also contains
typical collection efficiencies of various particulate control
devices and example calculations showing how to estimate
uncontrolled total particulate emissions, uncontrolled size-specific
emissions, and controlled size-specific particulate emissions.
8.4 Pre-test Calculations. You must perform pre-test
calculations to help select the appropriate gas sampling rate
through cyclone I (PM10) and cyclone IV
(PM2.5). Choosing the appropriate sampling rate will
allow you to maintain the appropriate particle cut diameters based
upon preliminary gas stream measurements, as specified in Table 2 of
Section 17.
8.4.1 Gas Sampling Rate. The gas sampling rate is defined by the
performance curves for both cyclones, as illustrated in Figure 9 of
Section 17. You must use the calculations in Section 8.5 to achieve
the appropriate cut size specification for each cyclone. The optimum
gas sampling rate is the overlap zone defined as the range below the
cyclone IV 2.25 micrometer curve down to the cyclone I 11.0
micrometer curve (area between the two dark, solid lines in Figure 9
of Section 17).
8.4.2 Choosing the Appropriate Sampling Rate. You must select a
gas sampling rate in the middle of the overlap zone (discussed in
Section 8.4.1), as illustrated in Figure 9 of Section 17 to maximize
the acceptable tolerance for slight variations in flow
characteristics at the sampling location. The overlap zone is also a
weak function of the gas composition.
[Note: The acceptable range is limited, especially for gas
streams with temperatures less than approximately 100 [deg]F. At
lower temperatures, it may be necessary to perform the
PM10 and PM2.5 separately in order to meet the
necessary particle size criteria shown in Table 2 of Section 17.0.]
8.5 Test Calculations. You must perform all of the calculations
in Table 3 of Section 17 and the calculations described in Sections
8.5.1 through 8.5.5.
8.5.1 The Assumed Reynolds Number. Verify the assumed Reynolds
number (Nre) by substituting the sampling rate
(Qs) calculated in Equation 7 into Equation 8. Then use
Table 5 of Section 17 to determine if the Nre used in
Equation 5 was correct.
8.5.2 Final Sampling Rate. Recalculate the final sampling rate
(Qs) if the assumed Reynolds number used in your initial
calculation is not correct. Use Equation 7 to recalculate the
optimum sampling rate (Qs).
8.5.3 Meter Box [Delta]H. Use Equation 9 to calculate the meter
box [Delta]H after you calculate the optimum sampling rate and
confirm the Reynolds number.
[Note: The stack gas temperature may vary during the test, which
could affect the sampling rate. If the stack gas temperature varies,
you must make slight adjustments in the meter box [Delta]H to
maintain the correct constant cut diameters. Therefore, use Equation
9 to recalculate the [Delta]H values for 50[deg]F above and below
the stack temperature measured during the preliminary traverse (see
Section 8.3.4.1), and document this information in Table 4 of
Section 17.]
8.5.4 Choosing a Sampling Nozzle. Select one or more nozzle
sizes to provide for near isokinetic sampling rate (that is, 80
percent to 120 percent). This will also minimize an isokinetic
sampling error for the particles at each point. First calculate the
mean stack gas velocity, vs, using Equation 11. See
Section 8.7.2 for information on correcting for blockage and use of
different pitot tube coefficients. Then use Equation 12 to calculate
the diameter of a nozzle that provides for isokinetic sampling at
the mean stack gas velocity at flow Qs. From the
available nozzles just smaller and just larger of this diameter, D,
select the most promising nozzle. Perform the following steps for
the selected nozzle.
8.5.4.1 Minimum/maximum nozzle/stack velocity ratio. Use
Equation 14 to calculate the minimum nozzle/stack velocity ratio,
Rmin. Use Equation 15 to calculate the maximum nozzle/
stack velocity ratio, Rmax.
8.5.4.2 Minimum gas velocity. Use Equation 16 to calculate the
minimum gas velocity (vmin) if Rmin is an
imaginary number (negative value under the square root function) or
if Rmin is less than 0.5. Use Equation 17 to calculate
vmin if Rmin is greater than or equal to 0.5.
8.5.4.3 Maximum stack velocity. Use Equation 18 to calculate the
maximum stack velocity (vmax) if Rmax is less
than 1.5. Use Equation 19 to calculate the stack velocity if
Rmax is greater than or equal to 1.5.
8.5.4.4 Conversion of gas velocities to velocity pressure. Use
Equation 20 to convert vmin to minimum velocity pressure,
[Delta]pmin. Use Equation 21 to convert vmax
to maximum velocity pressure, [Delta]pmax.
8.5.4.5 Compare minimum and maximum velocity pressures with the
observed velocity pressures at all traverse points during the
preliminary test (see Section 8.3.4.2).
8.5.5 Optimum sampling nozzle. The nozzle you selected is
appropriate if all the observed velocity pressures during the
preliminary test fall within the range of the [Delta]pmin
and [Delta]pmax. Make sure the following requirements are
met. Then follow the procedures in Sections 8.5.5.1 and 8.5.5.2.
(a) Choose an optimum nozzle that provides for isokinetic
sampling conditions as close to 100 percent as possible. This is
prudent because even if there are slight variations in the gas flow
rate, gas temperature, or gas composition during the actual test,
you have the maximum assurance of satisfying the isokinetic
criteria. Generally, one of the two candidate nozzles selected will
be closer to optimum (see Section 8.5.4).
(b) When testing is for PM2.5 only, you may have only
two traverse points out of 12 that are outside the range of the
[Delta]pmin and [Delta]pmax (i.e., 16 percent
failure rate rounded to the nearest whole number). If the coarse
fraction for PM10 determination is included, only one
traverse point out of 12 can fall outside the minimum-maximum
velocity pressure range (i.e., 8 percent failure rate rounded to the
nearest whole number).
8.5.5.1 Precheck. Visually check the selected nozzle for dents
before use.
8.5.5.2 Attach the pre-selected nozzle. Screw the pre-selected
nozzle onto the main body of cyclone I using Teflon[supreg] tape.
Use a union and cascade adaptor to connect the cyclone IV inlet to
the outlet of cyclone I (see Figure 2 of Section 17).
8.6 Sampling Train Preparation. A schematic of the sampling
train used in this method is shown in Figure 1 of Section 17. First,
assemble the train and complete the leak check on the combined
cyclone sampling head and pitot tube. Use the following procedures
to prepare the sampling train.
[Note: Do not contaminate the sampling train during preparation
and assembly. Keep all openings where contamination can occur
[[Page 12983]]
covered until just prior to assembly or until sampling is about to
begin.]
8.6.1 Sampling Head and Pitot Tube. Assemble the combined
cyclone train. The O-rings used in the train have a temperature
limit of approximately 205 [deg]C (400 [deg]F). Use cyclones with
stainless steel sealing rings when stack temperatures exceed 205
[deg]C (400 [deg]F). This method may not be suitable for sources
with stack gas temperatures exceeding 260 [deg]C (500 [deg]F). You
may need to take extraordinary measures including the use of
specialty metals (e.g., Inconel) to achieve reliable particulate
mass since the threads of the cyclones may gall or seize, thus
preventing the recovery of the collected particulate matter and
rendering the cyclone unusable for subsequent use. You must also
keep the nozzle covered to protect it from nicks and scratches.
8.6.2 Filterable Particulate Filter Holder and Pitot Tube.
Attach the pre-selected filter holder to the end of the combined
cyclone sampling head (see Figure 2 of Section 17). Attach the S-
type pitot tube to the combined cyclones after the sampling head is
fully attached to the end of the probe.
[Note: The pitot tube tip must be mounted: slightly beyond the
combined head cyclone sampling assembly; and at least one inch off
the gas flow path into the cyclone nozzle. This is similar to the
pitot tube placement in Method 17.]
Weld the sensing lines to the outside of the probe to ensure
proper alignment of the pitot tube. Provide unions on the sensing
lines so that you can connect and disconnect the S-type pitot tube
tips from the combined cyclone sampling head before and after each
run.
[Note: Calibrate the pitot tube on the sampling head because the
cyclone body is a potential source flow disturbance.]
8.6.3 Filter. You must number and tare the filters before use.
To tare the filters, desiccate each filter at 20 5.6
[deg]C (68 10 [deg]F) and ambient pressure for at least
24 hours and weigh at intervals of at least 6 hours to a constant
weight, i.e., <0.5 mg change from previous weighing; record results
to the nearest 0.1 mg. During each weighing, the filter must not be
exposed to the laboratory atmosphere for longer than 2 minutes and a
relative humidity above 50 percent. Alternatively, the filters may
be oven-dried at 104 [deg]C (220 [deg]F) for 2 to 3 hours,
desiccated for 2 hours, and weighed. Use tweezers or clean
disposable surgical gloves to place a labeled (identified) and pre-
weighed filter in both filterable and condensable particulate filter
holders. You must center the filter and properly place the gasket so
that the sample gas stream will not circumvent the filter. Check the
filter for tears after the assembly is completed. Then screw the
filter housing together to prevent the seal from leaking.
8.6.7 Moisture Trap. If you are measuring only filterable
particulate (or you are sure that the filtration temperature will be
maintained below 30 [deg]C (85 [deg]F)), then an empty modified
Greenburg Smith impinger followed by an impinger containing silica
gel is required. Alternatives described in Method 5 may also be used
to collect moisture that passes through the ambient filter. If you
are measuring condensable particulate matter in combination with
this method, then follow the procedures in Method 202 for moisture
collection.
8.6.8 Leak Check. Use the procedures outlined in Section 8.4 of
Method 5 to leak check the entire sampling system. Specifically
perform the following procedures:
8.6.8.1 Sampling train. You must pretest the entire sampling
train for leaks. The pretest leak check must have a leak rate of not
more than 0.02 ACFM or 4 percent of the average sample flow during
the test run, whichever is less. Additionally, you must conduct the
leak check at a vacuum equal to or greater than the vacuum
anticipated during the test run. Enter the leak check results on the
field test data sheet (see Section 11.1) for the specific test.
[Note: Do not conduct a leak check during port changes.]
8.6.8.2 Pitot tube assembly. After you leak check the sample
train, perform a leak check of the pitot tube assembly. Follow the
procedures outlined in Section 8.4.1 of Method 5.
8.6.9 Sampling Head. You must preheat the combined sampling head
to the stack temperature of the gas stream at the test location
(10 [deg]C, 50 [deg]F). This will heat the
sampling head and prevent moisture from condensing from the sample
gas stream. Record the site barometric pressure and stack pressure
on the field test data sheet.
8.6.9.1 Unsaturated stacks. You must complete a passive warmup
(of 30-40 min) within the stack before the run begins to avoid
internal condensation.
[Note: Unsaturated stacks do not have entrained droplets and
operate at temperatures above the local dew point of the stack gas.]
8.6.9.2 Shortened warm-up of unsaturated stacks. You can shorten
the warmup time by thermostated heating outside the stack (such as
by a heat gun). Then place the heated sampling head inside the stack
and allow the temperature to equilibrate.
8.7 Sampling Train Operation. Operate the sampling train the
same as described in Section 4.1.5 of Method 5, except use the
procedures in this section for isokinetic sampling and flow rate
adjustment. Maintain the flow rate calculated in Section 8.4.1
throughout the run, provided the stack temperature is within 28
[deg]C (50 [deg]F) of the temperature used to calculate [Delta]H. If
stack temperatures vary by more than 28 [deg]C (50 [deg]F), use the
appropriate [Delta]H value calculated in Section 8.5.3. Determine
the minimum number of traverse points as in Figure 7 of Section 17.
Determine the minimum total projected sampling time (tr),
based on achieving the data quality objectives or emission limit of
the affected facility. We recommend you round the number of minutes
sampled at each point to the nearest 15 seconds. Perform the
following procedures:
8.7.1 Sample Point Dwell Time. You must calculate the dwell time
(that is, sampling time) for each sampling point to ensure that the
overall run provides a velocity-weighted average that is
representative of the entire gas stream. Vary the dwell time, or
sampling time, at each traverse point proportionately with the point
velocity.
8.7.1.1 Dwell time at first sampling point. Calculate the dwell
time for the first point, t1, using Equation 22. You must
use the data from the preliminary traverse. Here, Ntp
equals the total number of traverse points.
8.7.1.2 Dwell time at remaining sampling points. Calculate the
dwell time at each of the remaining traverse points, tn,
using Equation 23. This time you must use the actual test run data.
[Note: Round the dwell times to the nearest 15 seconds.] Each
traverse point must have a dwell time of at least 2 minutes.
8.7.2 Adjusted Velocity Pressure. When selecting your sampling
points using your preliminary velocity traverse data, your
preliminary velocity pressures must be adjusted to take into account
the increase in velocity due to blockage. Also, you must adjust your
preliminary velocity data for differences in pitot tube
coefficients. Use the following instructions to adjust the
preliminary velocity pressure.
8.7.2.1 Different pitot tube coefficient. You must use Equation
24 to correct the recorded preliminary velocity pressures if the
pitot tube mounted on the combined cyclone sampling head has a
different pitot tube coefficient than the pitot tube used during the
preliminary velocity traverse (see Section 8.3.4).
8.7.2.2 Probe blockage factor. You must use Equation 25 to
calculate an average probe blockage correction factor
(bf) if the diameter of your stack or duct is between 18
and 24 inches. A probe blockage factor is calculated because of the
flow blockage caused by the relatively large cross-sectional area of
the combined cyclone sampling head, as discussed in Section 8.3.2.2
and illustrated in Figure 8 of Section 17.
[Note: The sampling head (including the PM10 cyclone,
PM2.5 cyclone, pitot and filter holder) has a projected
area of approximately 20.5 square inches when oriented into the gas
stream. As the probe is moved from the most outer to the most inner
point, the amount of blockage that actually occurs ranges from
approximately 4 square inches to the full 20.5 inches. The average
cross-sectional area blocked is 12 square inches.]
8.7.2.3 Final adjusted velocity pressure. Calculate the final
adjusted velocity pressure ([Delta]ps2) using Equation
26.
[Note: Figure 8 of Section 17 illustrates that the blockage
effect of the large combined cyclone sampling head increases rapidly
below diameters of 18 inches. Therefore, you must follow the
procedures outlined in Method 1A to conduct tests in small stacks (<
inches diameter). You must conduct the velocity traverse downstream
of the sampling location or immediately before the test run.]
8.7.3 Sample Collection. Collect samples the same as described
in Section 4.1.5 of Method 5, except use the procedures in this
section for isokinetic sampling and flow rate adjustment. Maintain
the flow rate calculated in Section 8.5 throughout the run, provided
the stack temperature is within 28 [deg]C (50 [deg]F)
[[Page 12984]]
of the temperature used to calculate [Delta]H. If stack temperatures
vary by more than 28 [deg]C (50 [deg]F), use the appropriate
[Delta]H value calculated in Section 8.5.3. Calculate the dwell time
at each traverse point as in Equations 22 and 23. In addition to
these procedures, you must also use running starts and stops if the
static pressure at the sampling location is more negative than 5 in.
water column. This prevents back pressure from rupturing the sample
filter. If you use a running start, adjust the flow rate to the
calculated value after you perform the leak check (see Section 8.4).
8.7.3.1 Level and zero manometers. Periodically check the level
and zero point of the manometers during the traverse. Vibrations and
temperature changes may cause them to drift.
8.7.3.2 Portholes. Clean the portholes prior to the test run.
This will minimize the chance of collecting deposited material in
the nozzle.
8.7.3.3 Sampling procedures. Verify that the combined cyclone
sampling head temperature is at stack temperature ( 10
[deg]C, 50 [deg]F).
[Note: For many stacks, portions of the cyclones and filter will
be external to the stack during part of the sampling traverse.
Therefore, you must heat or insulate portions of the cyclones and
filter that are not within the stack in order to maintain the
sampling head temperature at the stack temperature. Maintaining the
temperature will insure proper particle sizing and prevent
condensation on the walls of the cyclones.]
Remove the protective cover from the nozzle. To begin sampling,
immediately start the pump and adjust the flow to calculated
isokinetic conditions. Position the probe at the first sampling
point with the nozzle pointing directly into the gas stream. Ensure
the probe/pitot tube assembly is leveled.
[Note: When the probe is in position, block off the openings
around the probe and porthole to prevent unrepresentative dilution
of the gas stream.]
(a) Traverse the stack cross-section, as required by Method 1
with the exception that you are only required to perform a 12-point
traverse. Do not bump the cyclone nozzle into the stack walls when
sampling near the walls or when removing or inserting the probe
through the portholes. This will minimize the chance of extracting
deposited materials.
(b) Record the data required on the field test data sheet for
each run. Record the initial dry gas meter reading. Then take dry
gas meter readings at the following times: the beginning and end of
each sample time increment; when changes in flow rates are made; and
when sampling is halted. Compare the velocity pressure measurements
(Equations 20 and 21) with the velocity pressure measured during the
preliminary traverse. Keep the meter box [Delta]H at the value
calculated in Section 8.5.3 for the stack temperature that is
observed during the test. Record all the point-by-point data and
other source test parameters on the field test data sheet. Do not
leak check the sampling system during port changes.
(c) Maintain the flow through the sampling system at the last
sampling point. Remove the sampling train from the stack while it is
still operating (running stop). Then stop the pump, and record the
final dry gas meter reading and other test parameters on the field
test data sheet.
8.7.4 Process Data. You must document data and information on
the process unit tested, the particulate control system used to
control emissions, any non-particulate control system that may
affect particulate emissions, the sampling train conditions, and
weather conditions. Discontinue the test if the operating conditions
may cause non-representative particulate emissions.
8.7.4.1 Particulate control system data. Use the process and
control system data to determine if representative operating
conditions were maintained throughout the testing period.
8.7.4.2 Sampling train data. Use the sampling train data to
confirm that the measured particulate emissions are accurate and
complete.
8.7.5 Sample Recovery. First remove the sample head (combined
cyclone/filter assembly) from the stack. After the sample head is
removed, perform a post-test leak check of the probe and sample
train. Then recover the components from the cyclone/filter. Refer to
the following sections for more detailed information.
8.7.5.1 Remove sampling head. At the conclusion of the test,
document final test conditions and remove the pitot tube and
combined cyclone sampling head from the source. Make sure that you
do not scrape the pitot tube or the combined cyclone sampling head
against the port or stack walls.
[Note: After you stop the gas flow, make sure you keep the
combined cyclone head level to avoid tipping dust from the cyclone
cups into the filter and/or down-comer lines.]
After cooling and when the probe can be safely handled, wipe off
all external surfaces near the cyclone nozzle, and cap the inlet to
cyclone I. Remove the combined cyclone/filter sampling head from the
probe. Cap the outlet of the filter housing to prevent particulate
matter from entering the assembly.
8.7.5.2 Leak check probe/sample train assembly (post-test). Leak
check the remainder of the probe and sample train assembly
(including meter box) after removing the combined cyclone head/
filter. You must conduct the leak rate at a vacuum equal to or
greater than the maximum vacuum achieved during the test run. Enter
the results of the leak check onto the field test data sheet. If the
leak rate of the sampling train (without the combined cyclone
sampling head) exceeds 0.02 ACFM or 4 percent of the average
sampling rate during the test run (whichever is less), the run is
invalid, and you must repeat it.
8.7.5.3 Weigh or measure the volume of the liquid collected in
the water collection impingers and silica trap. Measure the liquid
in the first impingers to within 1 ml using a clean graduated
cylinder or by weighing it to within 0.5 g using a balance. Record
the volume of the liquid or weight of the liquid present to be used
to calculate the moisture content of the effluent gas.
8.7.5.4 If a balance is available in the field, weigh the silica
impinger to within 0.5 g. Note the color of the indicating silica
gel in the last impinger to determine whether it has been completely
spent, and make a notation of its condition. If you are measuring
condensable particulate matter in combination with this method, then
leave the silica in the impinger for recovery after the post-test
nitrogen purge is complete.
8.7.5.5 Recovery of particulate matter. Recovery involves the
quantitative transfer of particles in the following size range: > 10
micrometers; <= 10 micrometers but > 2.5 micrometers; and <= 2.5
micrometers. You must use a Nylon or Teflon brush and an acetone
rinse to recover particles from the combined cyclone/filter sampling
head. Use the following procedures for each container.
(a) Container #1, <= PM2.5 micrometer filterable
particulate--Use tweezers and/or clean disposable surgical gloves to
remove the filter from the filter holder. Place the filter in the
petri dish that you identified as Container 1. Using a dry
Nylon bristle brush and/or a sharp-edged blade, carefully transfer
any particulate matter and/or filter fibers that adhere to the
filter holder gasket or filter support screen to the petri dish.
Seal the container. This container holds particles <= 2.5
micrometers that are caught on the in-stack filter.
(b) Container #2, PM10 micrometer
filterable particulate--Quantitatively recover the particulate
matter from the cyclone I cup and acetone rinses (and brush
cleaning) of the cyclone cup, internal surface of the nozzle, and
cyclone I internal surfaces, including the outside surface of the
downcomer line. Seal the container and mark the liquid level on the
outside of the container. You must keep any dust found on the
outside of cyclone I and cyclone nozzle external surfaces out of the
sample. This container holds particulate matter > 10 micrometers.
(c) Container #3, Filterable particulate <= 10 micrometer and
2.5 micrometers--Place the solids from cyclone cup IV
and the acetone (and brush cleaning) rinses of the cyclone I
turnaround cup (above inner downcomer line), inside of the downcomer
line, and interior surfaces of cyclone IV into Container 3.
Seal the container and mark the liquid level on the outside. This
container holds particulate matter <= 10 micrometers but > 2.5
micrometers.
(d) Container #4, <= PM2.5 micrometers acetone rinses
of the exit tube of cyclone IV and front half of the filter holder--
Retrieve the acetone rinses (and brush cleaning) of the exit tube of
cyclone IV and the front half of the filter holder in container
4. Seal the container and mark the liquid level on the
outside of the container. This container holds particulate matter
that is <= 2.5 micrometers.
(e) Container #5, Cold impinger water--If the water from the
cold impinger used for moisture collection has been weighed in the
field, it can be discarded. Otherwise quantitatively transfer liquid
from the cold impinger that follows the ambient filter into a clean
sample bottle (glass or plastic). Mark the liquid level on the
bottle. This container holds the remainder of the liquid water from
the emission gases.
(f) Container #6, Silica Gel Absorbent--Transfer the silica gel
to its original container
[[Page 12985]]
and seal. A funnel may make it easier to pour the silica gel without
spilling. A rubber policeman may be used as an aid in removing the
silica gel from the impinger. It is not necessary to remove the
small amount of silica gel dust particles that may adhere to the
impinger wall and are difficult to remove. Since the gain in weight
is to be used for moisture calculations, do not use any water or
other liquids to transfer the silica gel. If the silica gel has been
weighed in the field to measure water content, it can be discarded.
Otherwise the contents of Container 6 are weighed during
sample analysis.
(g) Container #7, Acetone Rinse Blank--Take 100 ml of the
acetone directly from the wash bottle you used, and place it in
Container 7 labeled Acetone Rinse Blank.
8.7.6 Transport Procedures. Containers must remain in an upright
position at all times during shipping. You do not have to ship the
containers under dry or blue ice.
9.0 Quality Control
9.1 Daily Quality Checks. You must perform daily quality checks
using data quality indicators that require review of recording and
transfer of raw data, calculations, and documentation of testing
procedures.
9.2 Calculation Verification. Verify the calculations by
independent, manual checks. You must flag any suspect data and
identify the nature of the problem and potential effect on data
quality. After you complete the test, prepare a data summary, and
compile all the calculations and raw data sheets.
9.3 Conditions. You must document data and information on the
process unit tested, the particulate control system used to control
emissions, any non-particulate control system that may affect
particulate emissions, the sampling train conditions, and weather
conditions. Discontinue the test if the operating conditions may
cause non-representative particulate emissions.
9.4 Health and Safety Plan. Develop a health and safety plan to
ensure the safety of your employees who are on site conducting the
particulate emission test. Your plan must conform to all applicable
OSHA, MSHA, and DOT regulatory requirements. The procedures must
also conform to the plant health and safety requirements.
9.5 Calibration Checks. Perform calibration check procedures on
analytical balances each time they are used.
9.6 Glassware. Use class A volumetric glassware for titrations,
or calibrate your equipment against NIST traceable glassware.
10.0 Calibration and Standardization
[Note: Maintain a laboratory log of all calibrations.]
10.1 Gas Flow Velocities. Measure the gas flow velocities at the
sampling locations using Method 2. You must use an S-type pitot tube
that meets the required EPA specifications (EPA Publication 600/4-
77-0217b) during these velocity measurements. You must also complete
the following:
(a) Visually inspect the S-type pitot tube before sampling.
(b) Leak check both legs of the pitot tube before and after
sampling.
(c) Maintain proper orientation of the S-type pitot tube while
making measurements.
10.1.1 S-type pitot tube orientation. The S-type pitot tube is
oriented properly when the yaw and the pitch axis are 90 degrees to
the air flow.
10.1.2 Average velocity pressure record. Instead of recording
either high or low values, record the average velocity pressure at
each point during flow measurements.
10.1.3 Pitot tube coefficient. Determine the pitot tube
coefficient based on physical measurement techniques described in
Method 2.
[Note: You must calibrate the pitot tube on the sampling head
because of potential interferences from the cyclone body. Refer to
Section 8.7.2 for additional information.]
10.2 Thermocouple Calibration. Calibrate the thermocouples using
the procedures described in Section 10.1.4.1.2 of Method 2 to
calibrate the thermocouples. Calibrate each temperature sensor at a
minimum of three points over the anticipated range of use against an
NIST-traceable mercury-in-glass thermometer.
10.3 Nozzles. You may use stainless steel (316 or equivalent) or
Teflon[supreg]-coated nozzles for isokinetic sampling. Make sure
that all nozzles are thoroughly cleaned, visually inspected, and
calibrated according to the procedure outlined in Section 10.1 of
Method 5.
10.4 Dry Gas Meter Calibration. Calibrate your dry gas meter
following the calibration procedures in Section 16.1 of Method 5.
Also, make sure you fully calibrate the dry gas meter to determine
the volume correction factor prior to field use. Post-test
calibration checks must be performed as soon as possible after the
equipment has been returned to the shop. Your pretest and post-test
calibrations must agree within 5 percent.
11.0 Analytical Procedures
11.1 Analytical Data Sheet. Record all data on the analytical
data sheet. Obtain the data sheet from Figure 5-6 of Method 5.
Alternatively, data may be recorded electronically using software
applications such as the Electronic Reporting Tool (ERT) located at
the following internet address: (http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ert/ert_tool.html).
11.2 Dry Weight of Particulate Matter. Determine the dry weight
of particulate following procedures outlined in this section.
11.2.1 Container 1, <= PM 2.5 micrometer
filterable particulate. Transfer the filter and any loose
particulate from the sample container to a tared glass weighing
dish. Desiccate for 24 hours in a desiccator containing anhydrous
calcium sulfate or indicating silica gel. Weigh to a constant
weight, and report the results to the nearest 0.1 mg. For the
purposes of this section, the term ``constant weight'' means a
difference of no more than 0.5 mg or 1 percent of total weight less
tare weight, whichever is greater, between two consecutive
weighings, with no less than 6 hours of desiccation time between
weighings.
11.2.2 Container 2, > PM 10 micrometer
filterable particulate acetone rinse. Separately treat this
container like Container 1.
11.2.3 Container 3, Filterable particulate <= 10
micrometer and >= 2.5 micrometers acetone rinse. Separately treat
this container like Container 1.
11.2.4 Container 4, <= PM 2.5 micrometers
acetone rinse of the exit tube of cyclone IV and front half of the
filter holder. Note the level of liquid in the container, and
confirm on the analysis sheet whether leakage occurred during
transport. If a noticeable amount of leakage has occurred, either
void the sample or use methods, subject to the approval of the
Administrator, to correct the final results. Quantitatively transfer
the contents to a tared 250 ml beaker, and evaporate to dryness at
ambient temperature and pressure. Desiccate for 24 hours, and weigh
to a constant weight. Report the results to the nearest 0.1 g.
11.2.5 Container 5, Cold impinger water. If the amount
of water has not been determined in the field, note the level of
liquid in the container, and confirm on the analysis sheet whether
leakage occurred during transport. If a noticeable amount of leakage
has occurred, either void the sample or use methods, subject to the
approval of the Administrator, to correct the final results. Measure
the liquid in this container either volumetrically to 1
ml or gravimetrically to 0.5 g.
11.2.6 Container 6, Silica gel absorbent. Weigh the
spent silica gel (or silica gel plus impinger) to the nearest 0.5 g
using a balance. This step may be conducted in the field.
11.2.7 Container 7, Acetone rinse blank. Use 100 ml of
acetone from the blank container for this analysis. If insufficient
liquid is available or if the acetone has been lost due to container
breakage, either void the sample or use methods, subject to the
approval of the Administrator, to correct the final results.
Transfer 100 ml of the acetone to a clean 250 ml beaker. Evaporate
the acetone at room temperature and pressure in a laboratory hood to
approximately 10 ml. Quantitatively transfer the beaker contents to
a 50 ml preweighed tin, and evaporate to dryness at room temperature
and pressure in a laboratory hood. Following evaporation, desiccate
the residue for 24 hours in a desiccator containing anhydrous
calcium sulfate. Weigh and report the results to the nearest 0.1 mg.
12.0 Calculations and Data Analysis
12.1 Nomenclature. Report results in International System of
Units (SI units) unless the regulatory authority for compliance
testing specifies English units. The following nomenclature is used.
A = Area of stack or duct at sampling location, square inches.
An = Area of nozzle, square feet.
bf = Average blockage factor calculated in Equation 25,
dimensionless.
Bws = Moisture content of gas stream, fraction e.g., 10%
H2O is Bws = 0.10).
C = Cunningham correction factor for particle diameter,
Dp, and calculated using the actual stack gas
temperature, dimensionless.
%CO2 = Carbon Dioxide content of gas stream, % by volume.
Ca = Acetone blank concentration, mg/mg.
CfPM10 = Conc. of filterable PM10 particulate
matter, gr/DSCF.
[[Page 12986]]
CfPM2.5 = Conc. of filterable PM2.5
particulate matter, gr/DSCF.
Cp = Pitot coefficient for the combined cyclone pitot,
dimensionless.
Cp' = Coefficient for the pitot used in the preliminary
traverse, dimensionless.
Cr = Re-estimated Cunningham correction factor for
particle diameter equivalent to the actual cut size diameter and
calculated using the actual stack gas temperature, dimensionless.
Ctf = Conc. of total filterable particulate matter, gr/
DSCF.
C1 = -150.3162 (micropoise)
C2 = 18.0614 (micropoise/K \0.5\) = 13.4622 (micropoise/R
\0.5\)
C3 = 1.19183 x 10 \6\ (micropoise/K \2\) = 3.86153 x 10
\6\ (micropoise/R \2\)
C4 = 0.591123 (micropoise)
C5 = 91.9723 (micropoise)
C6 = 4.91705 x 10 -5 (micropoise/K \2\) =
1.51761 x 10 -5 (micropoise/R \2\)
D= Inner diameter of sampling nozzle mounted on Cyclone I, in.
Dp = Physical particle size, micrometers.
D50 = Particle cut diameter, micrometers.
D50-1= Re-calculated particle cut diameters based on re-
estimated Cr, micrometers.
D50LL = Cut diameter for cyclone I corresponding to the
2.25 micrometer cut diameter for cyclone IV, micrometers.
D50N = D50 value for cyclone IV calculated
during the Nth iterative step, micrometers.
D50 (N+1) = D50 value for cyclone IV
calculated during the N+1 iterative step, micrometers.
D50T = Cyclone I cut diameter corresponding to the middle
of the overlap zone shown in Figure 9 of Section 17, micrometers.
I = Percent isokinetic sampling, dimensionless.
in. = Inches
Kp = 85.49, [(ft/sec)/(pounds/mole -[deg]R)].
ma = Mass of residue of acetone after evaporation, mg.
Md = Molecular weight of dry gas, pounds/pound mole.
Mw = Molecular weight of wet gas, pounds/pound mole.
M1 = Milligrams of particulate matter collected on the
filter, <= 2.5 micrometers.
M2 = Milligrams of particulate matter recovered from
Container 2 (acetone blank corrected), >10 micrometers.
M3 = Milligrams of particulate matter recovered from
Container 3 (acetone blank corrected), <=10 and >2.5
micrometers.
M4 = Milligrams of particulate matter recovered from
Container 4 (acetone blank corrected), <=2.5 micrometers.
Ntp = Number of iterative steps or total traverse points.
Nre = Reynolds number, dimensionless.
%O2,wet = Oxygen content of gas stream, % by volume of
wet gas.
[Note: The oxygen percentage used in Equation 3 is on a wet gas
basis. That means that since oxygen is typically measured on a dry
gas basis, the measured %O2 must be multiplied by the
quantity (1-Bws) to convert to the actual volume
fraction. Therefore, %O2,wet = (1-Bws) *
%O2, dry]
Pbar = Barometric pressure, in. Hg.
Ps = Absolute stack gas pressure, in. Hg.
Qs = Sampling rate for cyclone I to achieve specified
D50, ACFM.
QsST = Dry gas sampling rate through the sampling
assembly, DSCFM.
QI = Sampling rate for cyclone I to achieve specified
D50, ACFM.
QIV = Sampling rate for cyclone IV to achieve specified
D50, ACFM.
Rmax = Nozzle/stack velocity ratio parameter,
dimensionless.
Rmin = Nozzle/stack velocity ratio parameter,
dimensionless.
Tm = Meter box and orifice gas temperature, [deg]R.
tn = Sampling time at point n, min.
tr = Total projected run time, min.
Ts = Absolute stack gas temperature, [deg]R.
t1 = Sampling time at point 1, min.
vmax = Maximum gas velocity calculated from Equations 18
or 19, ft/sec.
vmin = Minimum gas velocity calculated from Equations 16
or 17, ft/sec.
vn = Sample gas velocity in the nozzle, ft/sec.
vs = Velocity of stack gas, ft/sec.
Va = Volume of acetone blank, ml.
Vaw = Volume of acetone used in blank wash, ml.
Vc = Quantity of water captured in impingers and silica
gel, ml.
Vm = Dry gas meter volume sampled, ACF.
Vms = Dry gas meter volume sampled, corrected to standard
conditions, DSCF.
Vws = Volume of water vapor, SCF.
Vb = Volume of aliquot taken for IC analysis, ml.
Vic = Volume of impinger contents sample, ml.
Wa = Weight of residue in acetone blank wash, mg.
Z = Ratio between estimated cyclone IV D50 values,
dimensionless.
[Delta]H = Meter box orifice pressure drop, in. W.C.
[Delta]H@ = Pressure drop across orifice at flow rate of
0.75 SCFM at standard conditions, in. W.C.
[Note: specific to each orifice and meter box.]
[([Delta]p)\0.5\]avg = Average of square roots of the
velocity pressures measured during the preliminary traverse, in.
W.C.
[Delta]pm = Observed velocity pressure using S-type pitot
tube in preliminary traverse, in. W.C.
[Delta]pmax = Maximum velocity pressure, in. W.C.
[Delta]pmin = Minimum velocity pressure, in. W.C.
[Delta]pn = Velocity pressure measured at point n during
the test run, in. W.C.
[Delta]ps = Velocity pressure calculated in Equation 24,
in. W.C.
[Delta]ps1 = Velocity pressure adjusted for combined
cyclone pitot tube, in. W.C.
[Delta]ps2 = Velocity pressure corrected for blockage,
in. W.C.
[Delta]p1 = Velocity pressure measured at point 1, in.
W.C.
[gamma] = Dry gas meter gamma value, dimensionless.
[mu] = Gas viscosity, micropoise.
[thetas] = Total run time, minutes.
[rho]a = Density of acetone, mg/ml (see label on bottle).
12.0 = Constant calculated as 60 percent of 20.5 square inch cross-
sectional area of combined cyclone head, square inches.
12.2 Calculations. Perform all of the calculations found in
Table 6 of Section 17. Table 6 of Section 17 also provides
instructions and references for the calculations.
12.3 Analyses. Analyze D50 of cyclone IV and the
concentrations of the particulate matter in the various size ranges.
12.3.1 D50 of cyclone IV. To determine the actual
D50 for cyclone IV, recalculate the Cunningham correction
factor and the Reynolds number for the best estimate of cyclone IV
D50. The following sections describe additional
information on how to recalculate the Cunningham correction factor
and determine which Reynolds number to use.
12.3.1.1 Cunningham correction factor. Recalculate the initial
estimate of the Cunningham correction factor using the actual test
data. Insert the actual test run data and D50 of 2.5
micrometers into Equation 4. This will give you a new Cunningham
correction factor that is based on actual data.
12.3.1.2 Initial D50 for cyclone IV. Determine the
initial estimate for cyclone IV D50 using the test
condition Reynolds number calculated with Equation 8 as indicated in
Table 3 of Section 17. Refer to the following instructions.
(a) If the Reynolds number is less than 3,162, calculate the
D50 for cyclone IV with Equation 33, using actual test
data.
(b) If the Reynolds number is equal to or greater than 3,162,
calculate the D50 for cyclone IV with Equation 34, using
actual test data.
(c) Insert the ``new'' D50 value calculated by either
Equation 33 or 34 into Equation 35 to re-establish the Cunningham
Correction Factor (Cr).
[Note: Use the test condition calculated Reynolds number to
determine the most appropriate equation (Equation 33 or 34).]
12.3.1.3 Re-establish cyclone IV D50. Use the re-established
Cunningham correction factor (calculated in the previous step) and
the calculated Reynolds number to determine D50-1.
(a) Use Equation 36 to calculate the re-established cyclone IV
D50-1 if the Reynolds number is less than 3,162.
(b) Use Equation 37 to calculate the re-established cyclone IV
D50-1 if the Reynolds number is equal to or greater than
3,162.
12.3.1.4 Establishing ``Z'' values. The ``Z'' value is the
result of an analysis that you must perform to determine if the
Cunningham correction factor is acceptable. Compare the calculated
cyclone IV D50 (either Equation 33 or 34) to the re-
established cyclone IV D50-1 (either Equation 36 or 37)
values based upon the test condition calculated Reynolds number
(Equation 38). Follow these procedures.
(a) Use Equation 38 to calculate the ``Z''. If the ``Z'' value
is between 0.99 and 1.01, the D50-1 value is the best
estimate of the cyclone IV D50 cut diameter for your test
run.
(b) If the ``Z'' value is greater than 1.01 or less than 0.99,
re-establish a Cunningham correction factor based on the
D50-1 value determined in either Equations 36 or 37,
depending upon the test condition Reynolds number.
(c) Use the second revised Cunningham correction to re-calculate
the cyclone IV D50.
(d) Repeat this iterative process as many times as necessary
using the prescribed
[[Page 12987]]
equations until you achieve the criteria documented in Equation 39.
12.3.2 Particulate concentration. Use the particulate catch
weights in the combined cyclone sampling train to calculate the
concentration of particulate matter in the various size ranges. You
must correct the concentrations for the acetone blank.
12.3.2.1 Acetone blank concentration. Use Equation 41 to
calculate the acetone blank concentration (Ca).
12.3.2.2 Acetone blank weight. Use Equation 42 to calculate the
acetone blank weight (Wa).
[Note: Correct each of the particulate matter weights per size
fraction by subtracting the acetone blank weight (that is,
M2,3,4-Wa)].
12.3.2.3 Particulate weight catch per size fraction. Subtract
the weight of the acetone blank from the particulate weight catch in
each size fraction.
[Note: Do not subtract a blank value of greater than 0.001
percent of the weight of the acetone used from the sample weight.
Use the following procedures.]
(a) Use Equation 43 to calculate the particulate matter
recovered from Containers 1, 2, 3, and
4. This is the total collectable particulate matter
(Ctf).
(b) Use Equation 44 to determine the quantitative recovery of
PM10 particulate matter (CfPM10) from
Containers 1, 3, and 4.
(c) Use Equation 45 to determine the quantitative recovery of
PM2.5 particulate (CfPM2.5)
recovered from Containers 1 and 4.
12.4 Reporting. You must include the following list of
conventional elements in the emissions test report.
(a) Emission test description including any deviations from this
protocol.
(b) Summary data tables on a run-by-run basis.
(c) Flowchart of the process or processes tested.
(d) Sketch of the sampling location.
(e) Preliminary traverse data sheets including cyclonic flow
checks.
(f) Raw field data sheets.
(g) Laboratory analytical sheets and case narratives.
(h) Sample calculations.
(i) Pretest and post-test calibration data.
(j) Chain of custody forms.
(k) Documentation of process and air pollution control system
data.
12.5 Equations. Use the following equations to complete the
calculations required in this test method.
Molecular Weight of Dry Gas. Calculate the molecular weight of
the dry gas using Equation 1.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP25MR09.000
Molecular Weight of Wet Gas. Calculate the molecular weight of
the stack gas on a wet basis using Equation 2.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP25MR09.001
Gas Viscosity. Calculate the gas viscosity using Equation 3.
This equation uses constants for gas temperatures in [deg]R.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP25MR09.002
Cunningham Correction Factor. The Cunningham correction factor
is calculated for a 2.25 micrometer diameter particle.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP25MR09.003
Lower Limit Cut Diameter for Cyclone I for Nre < 3,162. The
Cunningham correction factor is for a 2.25 micrometer diameter
particle.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP25MR09.004
Cut Diameter for Cyclone I for the Middle of the Overlap Zone.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP25MR09.005
Sampling Rate.
[[Page 12988]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP25MR09.006
Reynolds Number.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP25MR09.007
Meter Box Orifice Pressure Drop.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP25MR09.008
Lower Limit Cut Diameter for Cyclone I for Nre >= 3,162. The
Cunningham correction factor is for a 2.25 micrometer diameter
particle.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP25MR09.009
Velocity of Stack Gas. Correct the mean preliminary velocity
pressure for Cp and blockage using Equations 23, 24, and
25.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP25MR09.010
Calculated Nozzle Diameter for Acceptable Sampling Rate.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP25MR09.011
Velocity of Gas in Nozzle.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP25MR09.012
Minimum Nozzle/Stack Velocity Ratio Parameter.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP25MR09.013
Maximum Nozzle/Stack Velocity Ratio Parameter.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP25MR09.014
Minimum Gas Velocity for Rmin <= 0.5.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP25MR09.015
Minimum Gas Velocity for Rmin >= 0.5.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP25MR09.016
Maximum Gas Velocity for Rmax < 1.5.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP25MR09.017
Maximum Gas Velocity for Rmax = 1.5.
[[Page 12989]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP25MR09.018
Minimum Velocity Pressure.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP25MR09.019
Maximum Velocity Pressure.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP25MR09.020
Sampling Time at Point 1. Ntp is the total number of
traverse points. You must use the preliminary velocity traverse
data.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP25MR09.021
Sampling Time at Point n. You must use the actual test run data
at each point, n, and test run point 1.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP25MR09.022
Adjusted Velocity Pressure.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP25MR09.023
Average Probe Blockage Factor.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP25MR09.024
Velocity Pressure.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP25MR09.025
Dry Gas Volume Sampled at Standard Conditions.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP25MR09.026
Sample Flow Rate at Standard Conditions.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP25MR09.027
Volume of Water Vapor.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP25MR09.028
Moisture Content of Gas Stream.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP25MR09.029
Sampling Rate.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP25MR09.030
[[Page 12990]]
[Note: The viscosity and Reynolds Number must be recalculated
using the actual stack temperature, moisture, and oxygen content.
Actual Particle Cut Diameter for Cyclone I. This is based on
actual temperatures and pressures measured during the test run.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP25MR09.031
Particle Cut Diameter for Nre < 3,162 for Cyclone IV.
C must be recalculated using the actual test run data and a
D50 (Dp) of 2.5.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP25MR09.032
Particle Cut Diameter for Nre = 3,162 for
Cyclone IV. C must be recalculated using the actual test run data
and a D50 (Dp) of 2.5.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP25MR09.033
Re-estimated Cunningham Correction Factor. You must use the
actual test run Reynolds Number (Nre) value and select
the appropriate D50 from Equation 32 or 33 (or Equation
36 or 37 if reiterating).
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP25MR09.034
Re-calculated Particle Cut Diameter for Nre < 3,162.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP25MR09.035
Re-calculated Particle Cut Diameter for N = 3,162.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP25MR09.036
Ratio (Z) Between D50 and D50-1 Values.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP25MR09.037
Acceptance Criteria for Z Values. The number of iterative steps
is represented by N.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP25MR09.038
[[Page 12991]]
Percent Isokinetic Sampling.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP25MR09.039
Acetone Blank Concentration.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP25MR09.040
Acetone Blank Weight.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP25MR09.041
Concentration of Total Filterable Particulate Matter.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP25MR09.042
Concentration of Filterable PM10 Particulate Matter.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP25MR09.043
Concentration of Filterable PM2.5 Particulate Matter.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP25MR09.044
13.0 Method Performance
(a) Field evaluation of PM10 and total particulate
matter showed that the precision of constant sampling rate method
was the same magnitude as Method 17 (approximately 5 percent).
Precision in PM10 and PM10 fraction between
multiple trains showed standard deviations of 2 to 4 percent and
total mass compared to 4.7 percent observed for Method 17 in
simultaneous test runs at a Portland cement clinker cooler exhaust.
The accuracy of the constant sampling rate PM10 method
for total mass, referenced to Method 17, was -2 4.4
percent. A small bias was found between Method 201A and Method 17
total particulate matter (10%) (Farthing, 1988).
(b) Laboratory evaluation and guidance for PM10
cyclones were designed to limit error due to spatial variations to
10 percent. The maximum allowable error due to anisokinetic sampling
was limited to 20 percent for 10 [mu]m particles in
laboratory tests (Farthing, 1988b).
14.0 Pollution Prevention
[Reserved]
15.0 Waste Management
[Reserved]
16.0 References
We used the following references to develop this test method:
1. Dawes, S.S., and W.E. Farthing. ``Application Guide for
Measurement of PM2.5 at Stationary Sources,'' U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Atmospheric Research and Exposure
Assessment Laboratory, Research Triangle Park, NC 27511, EPA-600/3-
90/057 (NTIS No.: PB 90-247198), November 1990.
2. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Federal Reference
Methods 1 through 5 and Method 17, 40 CFR 60, Appendix A.
3. Richards, J.R. ``Test protocol: PCA PM10/
PM2.5 Emission Factor Chemical Characterization
Testing,'' PCA R&D Serial No. 2081, Portland Cement Association,
1996.
4. Farthing and Co-workers, 1988a ``PM10 Source
Measurement Methodology: Field Studies,'' EPA 600/3-88/055, NTIS
PB89-194287/AS, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research
Triangle Park, NC 27711.
5. Farthing and Dawes, 1988b ``Application Guide for Source
PM10 Measurement with Constant Sampling Rate,'' EPA/600/
3-88-057, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle
Park, NC 27711.
17.0 Tables, Diagrams, Flowcharts, and Validation Data
You must use the following tables, diagrams, flowcharts, and
data to complete this test method successfully.
Table 1--Typical Particulate Matter Concentrations
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Particle size range Concentration and % by weight
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total collectable particulate.......... 0.015 gr/DSCF.
<= 10 and > 2.5 micrometers............ 40% of total collectable
particulate matter.
<= 2.5 micrometers..................... 20% of total collectable
particulate matter.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 12992]]
Table 2--Required Cyclone Cut Diameters (D50)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Min. cut Max. cut
Cyclone diameter diameter
(Micrometer) (Micrometer)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PM10 Cyclone (Cyclone I from five stage 9 11
cyclone)...............................
PM2.5 Cyclone (Cyclone IV from five 2.25 2.75
stage cyclone).........................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 3--Pretest Calculations
------------------------------------------------------------------------
To calculate . .
If you are using . . . . Then use . . .
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Preliminary data.............. dry gas molecular Equation 1.
weight, Md.
Dry gas molecular weight (Md) wet gas molecular Equation 2 \a\.
and preliminary moisture weight, MW.
content of the gas stream.
Stack gas temperature, and gas viscosity, Equation 3.
oxygen and moisture content [mu].
of the gas stream.
Gas viscosity, [mu]........... Cunningham Equation 4.
correction
factor \b\, C.
Reynolds Number \c\ (Nre)..... preliminary lower Equation 5.
Nre < 3,162................... limit cut
diameter for
cyclone I, D50LL.
D50LL from Equation 5......... cut diameter for Equation 6.
cyclone I for
middle of the
overlap zone,
D50T.
D50T from Equation 6.......... final sampling Equation 7.
rate for cyclone
I, QI(Qs).
QI(Qs) from Equation 7........ (verify) the Equation 8.
assumed Reynolds
number.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Use Method 4 to determine the moisture content of the stack gas. Use
a wet bulb-dry bulb measurement device or hand-held hygrometer to
estimate moisture content of sources with gas temperature less than
160 [deg]F.
\b\ For the lower cut diameter of cyclone IV, 2.25 micrometer.
\c\ Verify the assumed Reynolds number using the procedure in Section
8.5.1, before proceeding to Equation 9.
Table 4--[Delta]H Values Based on Preliminary Traverse Data
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ts +
Stack temperature ([deg]R) Ts-50[deg] Ts 50[deg]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[Delta]H, (in. W.C.)............. - - -
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 5--Verification of the Assumed Reynolds Number
------------------------------------------------------------------------
If the Nre is . . . Then . . . And . . .
------------------------------------------------------------------------
< 3,162......................... Calculate [Delta]H
for the meter box.
>= 3,162........................ Recalculate D50LL Substitute the
using Equation 10. ``new'' D50LL
into Equation 6
to recalculate
D50T.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 6--Calculations for Recovery of PM10 and PM2.5
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Calculations Instructions and references
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average dry gas meter temperature...... See field test data sheet.
Average orifice pressure drop.......... See field test data sheet.
Dry gas volume (Vms)................... Use Equation 27 to correct the
sample volume measured by the
dry gas meter to standard
conditions (20 [deg]C,760 mm
Hg or 68 [deg]F, 29.92 in.
Hg).
Dry gas sampling rate (QsST)........... Must be calculated using
Equation 28.
Volume of water condensed (Vws)........ Use Equation 29 to determine
the water condensed in the
impingers and silica gel
combination. Determine the
total moisture catch by
measuring the change in volume
or weight in the impingers and
weighing the silica gel.
Moisture content of gas stream (Bws)... Calculate this with Equation
30.
Sampling rate (Qs)..................... Calculate this with Equation
31.
Test condition Reynolds number\a\...... Use Equation 8 to calculate the
actual Reynolds number during
test conditions.
Actual D50 of Cyclone I................ Calculate this with Equation
32. This calculation is based
on the average temperatures
and pressures measured during
the test run.
Stack gas velocity (vs)................ Calculate this with Equation
11.
Percent isokinetic rate (%I)........... Calculate this with Equation
40.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Calculate the Reynolds number at the cyclone IV inlet during the
test based on: (1) The sampling rate for the combined cyclone head,
(2) the actual gas viscosity for the test, and (3) the dry and wet gas
stream molecular weights.
[[Page 12993]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP25MR09.050
[[Page 12994]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP25MR09.051
[[Page 12995]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP25MR09.052
[[Page 12996]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP25MR09.053
[[Page 12997]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP25MR09.054
[[Page 12998]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP25MR09.055
[[Page 12999]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP25MR09.056
[[Page 13000]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP25MR09.057
[[Page 13001]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP25MR09.058
[[Page 13002]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP25MR09.059
BILLING CODE 6560-50-C
[[Page 13003]]
METHOD 202--DRY IMPINGER METHOD FOR DETERMINING CONDENSABLE PARTICULATE
EMISSIONS FROM STATIONARY SOURCES
1.0 Scope and Applicability
1.1 Scope. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA or
``we'') developed this method to describe the procedures that the
stack tester (``you'') must follow to measure condensable
particulate matter (CPM) emissions from stationary sources. This
method includes procedures for measuring both organic and inorganic
CPM.
1.2 Applicability. You can use this method to measure CPM from
stationary source emissions after filterable particulate matter has
been removed. CPM is measured in the emissions after removal from
the stack and after passing through a filter. You can use Method 17
to collect condensable and filterable particulate material from
sources operating at stack temperatures and/or samples collected
below 30 [deg]C (85 [deg]F) if the filter is treated as described in
Sections 8.5.4.4 and 11.2.1 of this method. You may use this method
only for stationary source emission measurements.
1.3 Responsibility. You are responsible for obtaining the
equipment and supplies you will need to use this method. You must
also develop your own procedures for following this method and any
additional procedures to ensure accurate sampling and analytical
measurements.
1.4 Results. To obtain reliable results, you must have a
thorough knowledge of the following test methods that are found in
Appendices A-1 through A-3 and A-6 to Part 60, and in Appendix M to
Part 51:
(a) Method 1--Sample and Velocity Traverses for Stationary
Sources.
(b) Method 2--Determination of Stack Gas Velocity and Volumetric
Flow Rate (Type S Pitot Tube).
(c) Method 3--Gas Analysis for the Determination of Dry
Molecular Weight.
(d) Method 4--Determination of Moisture Content in Stack Gases.
(e) Method 5--Determination of Particulate Matter Emissions from
Stationary Sources.
(f) Method 17--Determination of Particulate Matter Emissions
from Stationary Sources (in-stack filtration method).
(g) Method 201A--Determination of PM10 and
PM2.5 Emissions from Stationary Sources (Constant
Sampling Rate Procedure)
1.5 Additional Methods. You will need additional test methods to
measure filterable particulate matter. You may use this method to
collect CPM in conjunction with Method 5 or 17 of Appendices A-1
through A-3 and A-6 to Part 60 or, Method 201A of Appendix M to Part
51. The sample train operation and front end recovery and analysis
are conducted according to the filterable particulate method you
choose. This method addresses the equipment, preparation, and
analysis necessary to measure only CPM.
1.6 Limitations. You can use this method to measure emissions
following a wet scrubber only when this method is combined with a
filterable particulate method that operates at high enough
temperatures to cause water droplets sampled through the probe to
become gaseous.
1.7 Conditions. You must maintain isokinetic sampling conditions
to meet the requirements of the filterable particulate method used
in conjunction with this method. You must sample at the required
number of sampling points specified in Method 5, 17, or 201A. Also,
if you are using this method as an alternative to a required
performance test method, you must receive approval from the
appropriate authorities prior to conducting the test.
2.0 Summary of Method
2.1 Summary. The CPM is collected in dry impingers after
filterable particulate material has been collected on filters
maintained above 30 [deg]C (85 [deg]F) using Method 5, 17, or 201A.
The organic and aqueous fractions of the impingers and an out-of-
stack CPM filter are then taken to dryness and weighed. The total of
all fractions represents the CPM. Compared to the December 17, 1991
promulgated Method 202, this method removes water from the impingers
and includes the addition of a condenser followed by a water dropout
impinger immediately after the final in-stack or heated filter. This
method also includes the addition of one modified Greenburg Smith
impinger and a CPM filter following the water dropout impinger.
Figure 1 of Section 18 presents the schematic of the sampling train
configured with these changes.
2.1.1 Condensable Particulate Matter. CPM is collected in the
water dropout impinger, the modified Greenburg Smith impinger, and
the CPM filter of the sampling train as described in this method.
The impinger contents are purged with nitrogen (N2)
immediately after sample collection to remove dissolved sulfur
dioxide (SO2) gases from the impinger. The CPM filter is
extracted with water and methylene chloride. The impinger solution
is then extracted with methylene chloride (MeCl2). The
organic and aqueous fractions are dried and the residues are
weighed. The total of the aqueous and organic fractions represents
the CPM.
2.1.2 Dry Impinger and Additional Filter. The potential
artifacts from SO2 are reduced using a condenser and
dropout impinger to separate CPM from reactive gases. No water is
added to the impingers prior to the start of sampling. To improve
the collection efficiency of CPM, an additional filter (the CPM
filter) is placed between the second and third impingers.
3.0 Definitions
3.1 Primary PM. Primary PM (also known as direct PM) means
particles that enter the atmosphere as a direct emission from a
stack or an open source. Primary PM comprises two components:
filterable PM and condensable PM. These two PM components have no
upper particle size limit.
3.2 Filterable PM. Filterable PM means particles that are
emitted directly by a source as a solid or liquid at stack or
release conditions and captured on the filter of a stack test train.
3.3 Primary PM10. Primary PM10 (also known
as direct PM10, total PM10, PM10 or
filterable PM10, and condensable PM, individually) means
particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter equal to or less
than 10 micrometers.
3.4 Primary PM2.5. Primary PM2.5 (also
known as direct PM2.5, total PM2.5,
PM2.5, or filterable PM2.5, and condensable
PM, individually) means solid particles emitted directly from an air
emissions source or activity, or gaseous emissions or liquid
droplets from an air emissions source or activity that condense to
form particulate matter at ambient temperatures. Direct
PM2.5 emissions include elemental carbon, directly
emitted organic carbon, directly emitted sulfate, directly emitted
nitrate, and other inorganic particles (including but not limited to
crustal material, metals, and sea salt).
3.5 Condensable PM (CPM). Condensable PM means material that is
vapor phase at stack conditions, but which condenses and/or reacts
upon cooling and dilution in the ambient air to form solid or liquid
PM immediately after discharge from the stack. Note that all
condensable PM is assumed to be in the PM2.5 size
fraction (Reference: Part 51, Subpart Z (51.1000)).
4.0 Interferences [Reserved]
5.0 Safety
Disclaimer: You may have to use hazardous materials, operations,
and equipment while performing this method. We do not provide
information on appropriate safety and health practices. You are
responsible for determining the applicability of regulatory
limitations and establishing appropriate safety and health
practices. Handle materials and equipment properly.
6.0 Equipment and Supplies
The equipment used in the filterable particulate portion of the
sampling train is described in Methods 5 and 17 of Appendix A-1
through A-3 and A-6 to Part 60 and Method 201A in Appendix M to Part
51. The equipment used in the CPM portion of the train is described
in this section.
6.1 Condensable Particulate Sampling Train Components. The
sampling train for this method is consistent with the sampling train
for collecting filterable particulate using Method 5, 17, or 201A
with the following exceptions or additions:
6.1.1 Condenser and Impingers. You must add the following
components to the filterable particulate sampling train: A Method 23
type condenser as described in Section 2.1.2 of Method 23 of
Appendix A-8 to Part 60, followed by a dropout impinger or flask,
followed by a modified Greenburg-Smith impinger with an open tube
tip as described in Section 6.1.1.8 of Method 5.
6.1.2 CPM Filter Holder. The modified Greenburg-Smith impinger
is followed by a filter holder that is either glass, stainless steel
(316 or equivalent), or Teflon[supreg]-coated stainless steel.
Commercial size filter holders are available depending on project
requirements. Use a commercial filter holder capable of supporting
47 mm or greater diameter filters. Commercial size filter holders
contain a Teflon[supreg] O-ring, stainless steel, ceramic or
Teflon[supreg] filter support and a final Teflon[supreg] O-ring. At
the exit of the CPM filter, install a Teflon[supreg]-coated or
stainless steel encased thermocouple that is in contact with the gas
stream.
6.1.3 Long Stem Impinger Insert. You will need a long stem
modified Greenburg Smith
[[Page 13004]]
impinger insert for the dropout impinger to perform the nitrogen
purge of the sampling train.
6.2 Sample Recovery Equipment.
6.2.1 Condensable Particulate Matter Recovery.
6.2.1.1 Nitrogen Purge Line. You must use inert tubing and
fittings capable of delivering at least 20 liters/min of nitrogen
gas to the impinger train from a standard gas cylinder (see Figure 2
of Section 18). You may use standard 0.6 cm (1/4-in.) tubing and
compression fittings in conjunction with an adjustable pressure
regulator and needle valve.
6.2.1.2 Rotameter. You must use a rotameter capable of measuring
gas flow up to 20 L/min. The rotameter must be accurate to 5 percent
of full scale.
6.2.1.3 Ultra-high Purity (UHP) Nitrogen Gas. Compressed ultra-
pure nitrogen, regulator, and filter must be capable of providing at
least 20 L/min purge gas for 1 hour through the sampling train.
6.3 Analysis. The following equipment is necessary for CPM
sample recovery and analysis:
6.3.1 Separatory Funnel. Glass, 1 liter.
6.3.2 Weighing Tins. 50 mL.
6.3.3 Glass Beakers. 300 to 500 mL.
6.3.4 Drying Equipment. Hot plate or oven with temperature
control.
6.3.5 Pipets. 5 mL.
6.3.6 Burette. Glass, 0 to 100 mL in 0.1 mL graduations.
6.3.7 Analytical Balance. Analytical balance capable of weighing
0.0001 g (0.1 milligram). For extremely low emission sources, a
balance capable of weighing 0.00001 g (0.01 milligram) may be
required.
6.3.8 pH Meter. A meter capable of determining the acidity of
liquid within 0.1 pH units.
7.0 Reagents and Standards
7.1 Sample Collection. To collect a sample, you will need a
Teflon[supreg] filter, crushed ice, and silica gel. You must also
have water and nitrogen gas to purge the sampling train. You will
find additional information on each of these items in the following
summaries.
7.1.1 Filter. You must use a Teflon[reg] membrane filter that
does not have an organic binder. The filter must also have an
efficiency of at least 99.95 percent (<0.05 percent penetration) on
0.3 micron particles. You may use test data from the supplier's
quality control program to document filter efficiency. If the source
you are sampling has SO2 or sulfur trioxide
(SO3) emissions, then you must use a filter that will not
react with SO2 or SO3. Depending on your
application and project data quality objectives (DQOs), filters are
commercially available in 47 mm and larger sizes.
7.1.2 Silica Gel. Use an indicating-type silica gel of 6 to 16
mesh. We must approve other types of desiccants (equivalent or
better) before you use them. Allow the silica gel to dry for 2 hours
at 175 [deg]C (350 [deg]F) if it is being reused. You do not have to
dry new silica gel.
7.1.3 Water. Use deionized distilled ultra-filtered water (to
conform to ASTM D1193-06, Type 1 water or equivalent) (incorporated
by reference) to recover material caught in the impinger, if
required. The Director of the Federal Register approves this
incorporation by reference in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1
CFR part 51. You may obtain a copy from American Society for Testing
and Materials (ASTM), 100 Barr Harbor Drive, Post Office Box C700,
West Conshohocken, PA 19428-2959. You may inspect a copy at the
Office of Federal Register, 800 North Capitol Street, NW., Suite
700, Washington, DC.
7.1.4 Crushed Ice. Obtain from the best readily available
source.
7.1.5 Nitrogen Gas. Use Ultra-High Purity (UHP) compressed
nitrogen or equivalent to purge the sampling train. The compressed
nitrogen you use to purge the sampling train must contain no more
than 1 ppm oxygen, 1 ppm total hydrocarbons as carbon, and 2 ppm
moisture.
7.2 Sample Recovery and Analytical Reagents. You will need
acetone, MeCl2, anhydrous sodium sulfate, ammonia
hydroxide (NH4OH), and deionized water for the sample
recovery and analysis. Unless otherwise indicated, all reagents must
conform to the specifications established by the Committee on
Analytical Reagents of the American Chemical Society. If such
specifications are not available, then use the best available grade.
Find additional information on each of these items in the following
paragraphs:
7.2.1 Acetone. Use acetone that is stored in a glass bottle. Do
not use acetone from a metal container because it normally produces
a high residue blank. You must use acetone with blank values <1 ppm,
by weight, residue.
7.2.2 Methylene Chloride, American Chemical Society (ACS) grade.
You must use methylene chloride with a blank value <1.5 ppm, by
weight, residue.
7.2.3 Water. Use deionized distilled ultra-filtered water (to
conform to ASTM D1193-06, Type 1 or equivalent) (incorporated by
reference) to recover material caught in the impinger.
7.2.4 Condensable Particulate Sample Desiccant. Use indicating-
type anhydrous sodium sulfate to desiccate water and organic extract
residue samples.
7.2.5 Ammonium Hydroxide. Use NIST traceable or equivalent (0.1
N) NH4OH.
7.2.6 Standard Buffer Solutions. Use one buffer with a neutral
pH and a second buffer solution with an acid pH.
8.0 Sample Collection, Preservation, Storage, and Transport
8.1 Qualifications. This is a complex test method. To obtain
reliable results, you must be trained and experienced with in-stack
filtration systems (such as, cyclones, impactors, and thimbles) and
impinger and moisture train systems.
8.2 Preparations. You must clean glassware prior to field tests
as described in Section 8.4, including baking glassware at 300
[deg]C for 6 hours prior to use. Cleaned, baked glassware is used at
the start of each new source category tested. Analyze reagent blanks
(water, acetone, and methylene chloride) before field tests to
verify low blank concentrations. Follow the pretest preparation
instructions in Section 8.1 of Method 5.
8.3 Site Setup. You must follow the procedures required by
filterable particulate sampling method setup run in conjunction with
this method including:
(a) Determining the sampling site location and traverse points.
(b) Calculating probe/cyclone blockage.
(c) Verifying the absence of cyclonic flow.
(d) Completing a preliminary velocity profile, and selecting a
nozzle(s).
8.3.1 Sampling Site Location and Traverse Point. Determination.
Follow the standard procedures in Method 1 of Appendix A-1 to Part
60 to select the appropriate sampling site. Then you must do all of
the following:
8.3.1.1 Sampling site. Choose a location that maximizes the
distance from upstream and downstream flow disturbances.
8.3.1.2 Traverse points. Use the recommended maximum number of
traverse points at any location, as found in Methods 5, 17, or 201A,
whichever is applicable to your test requirements. You must prevent
the disturbance and capture of any solids accumulated on the inner
wall surfaces by maintaining a 1-inch distance from the stack wall
(\1/2\ inch for sampling locations less than 24 inches in diameter).
8.4 Sampling Train Preparation. A schematic of the sampling
train used in this method is shown in Figure 1 of Section 18. All
sampling train glassware must be cleaned prior to the test with soap
and water, and rinsed using tap water, deionized water, acetone, and
finally, MeCl2. It is important to completely remove all
silicone grease from areas that will be exposed to the
MeCl2 rinse during sample recovery. After cleaning, you
must bake glassware at 300 [deg]C for 6 hours prior to each source
type sampled. Prior to each sampling run, the train glassware used
to collect condensable particulate matter must be rinsed thoroughly
with deionized, distilled ultra-filtered water that conforms to ASTM
D1193-06, Type 1 or equivalent (incorporated by reference).
8.4.1 Condenser and Dropout Impinger. Add a Method 23 type
condenser and a condensate dropout impinger without bubbler tube
after the final in-stack or out-of-stack hot filter assembly. The
Method 23 type stack gas condenser is described in Section 2.1.2 of
Method 23. It must be capable of cooling the stack gas to less than
30 [deg]C (85 [deg]F).
8.4.2 Backup Impinger. The dropout impinger is followed by a
modified Greenburg Smith impinger with no taper (see Figure 1 of
Section 18). Place the dropout and other impingers in an insulated
box with water at <= 30 [deg]C (<= 85 [deg]F). At the start of the
tests, the water dropout and backup impinger must be clean, without
any water or reagent added.
8.4.3 CPM Filter. Place a filter holder with a filter meeting
the requirements in Section 6.1.2 following the modified Greenburg-
Smith impinger. The connection between the CPM filter and the
moisture trap impinger includes a thermocouple fitting that provides
a leak-free seal between the thermocouple and the stack gas.
[Note: A thermocouple well is not sufficient for this purpose
because the
[[Page 13005]]
Teflon[reg] or steel encased thermocouple must be in contact with
the sample gas).]
8.4.4 Moisture Traps. You must use a modified Greenburg-Smith
impinger containing 100 mL of water or the alternative described in
Method 5 followed by an impinger containing silica gel to collect
moisture that passes through the CPM filter. You must maintain the
gas temperature below 20[deg]C (68 [deg]F) at the exit of the
moisture traps.
8.4.5 Silica Gel Trap. Place 200 to 300 g of silica gel in each
of several air-tight containers. Weigh each container, including
silica gel, to the nearest 0.5 g, and record this weight on the
filterable particulate data sheet. As an alternative, the silica gel
need not be preweighed, but may be weighed directly in its impinger
or sampling holder just prior to train assembly.
8.4.6 Leak-Check (Pretest). Use the procedures outlined in
Method 5, 17, or 201A as appropriate to leak check the entire
sampling system. Specifically, perform the following procedures:
8.4.6.1 Sampling Train. You must pretest the entire sampling
train for leaks. The pretest leak-check must have a leak rate of not
more than 0.02 actual cubic feet per minute (ACFM) or 4 percent of
the average sample flow during the test run, whichever is less.
Additionally, you must conduct the leak-check at a vacuum equal to
or greater than the vacuum anticipated during the test run. Enter
the leak-check results on the field test data sheet for the
filterable particulate method.
(Note: Conduct leak-checks during port changes only as allowed
by the filterable particulate method used with this method).
8.4.6.2 Pitot Tube Assembly. After you leak-check the sample
train, perform a leak-check of the pitot tube assembly. Follow the
procedures outlined in Section 8.4.1 of Method 5.
8.5 Sampling Train Operation. Operate the sampling train as
described in the filterable particulate sampling method (i.e.,
Method 5, 17, or 201A) with the following additions or exceptions:
8.5.1 CPM Filter Assembly. On the field data sheet for the
filterable particulate method, record the CPM filter temperature
readings at the beginning of each sample time increment and when
sampling is halted. Maintain the CPM filter <=30 [deg]C (<=85
[deg]F) during sample collection.
8.5.2 Leak-Check Probe/Sample Train Assembly (Post-Test).
Conduct the leak rate check according to the filterable particulate
sampling method used during sampling. If required, conduct the leak-
check at a vacuum equal to or greater than the maximum vacuum
achieved during the test run. If the leak rate of the sampling train
exceeds 0.02 ACFM or 4 percent of the average sampling rate during
the test run (whichever is less), then the run is invalid and you
must repeat it.
8.5.3 Post-Test Nitrogen Purge. As soon as possible after the
post-test leak-check, detach the probe, any cyclones, and in-stack
or hot filters from the condenser and impinger train. Leave the ice
in the second impinger box to prevent removal of moisture during the
purge. If necessary, add more ice during the purge to maintain the
gas temperature measured at the exit of the silica gel impinger
below 20 [deg]C (68 [deg]F).
8.5.3.1 If no water was collected before the CPM filter, then
you may skip the remaining purge steps and proceed with sample
recovery (see Section 8.5.4).
8.5.3.2 Replace the short stem impinger insert with a modified
Greenberg Smith impinger insert. The impinger tip length must extend
below the water level in the impinger catch. If insufficient water
was collected, you must add a measured amount of degassed deionized,
distilled ultra-filtered ASTM D1193-06, Type 1 or equivalent)
(incorporated by reference) water until the impinger tip is at least
1 cm below the surface of the water. You must record the amount of
water added to the dropout impinger (see Figure 4 of Section 18) to
correct the moisture content of the effluent gas.
(Note: Prior to use, water must be degassed using a nitrogen
purge bubbled through the water for at least 15 minutes to remove
dissolved oxygen).
8.5.3.3 With no flow of gas through the clean purge line and
fittings, attach the line to a purged inline filter. Connect the
filter outlet to the input of the impinger train (see Figure 2 of
Section 18). To avoid over- or under-pressurizing the impinger
array, slowly commence the nitrogen gas flow through the line while
simultaneously opening the meter box pump valve(s). Adjust the pump
bypass and nitrogen delivery rates to obtain the following
conditions: (1) 20 liters/min or [Delta]H@, and (2) a positive
overflow rate through the rotameter of less than 2 liters/min.
Condition (2) guarantees that the nitrogen delivery system is
operating at greater than ambient pressure and prevents the
possibility of passing ambient air (rather than nitrogen) through
the impingers. During the purge, continue operation of the condenser
recirculation pump, and heat or cool the water surrounding the first
two impingers to maintain the gas temperature measured at the exit
of the CPM filter below 30 [deg]C (85 [deg]F). Continue the purge
under these conditions for 1 hour, checking the rotameter and
[Delta]H value(s) periodically. After 1 hour, simultaneously turn
off the delivery and pumping systems.
8.5.3.4 Weigh the liquid, or measure the volume of the liquid
collected in the dropout, impingers, and silica trap. Measure the
liquid in the first impinger to within 1 mL using a clean graduated
cylinder or by weighing it to within 0.5 g using a balance. Record
the volume or weight of liquid present to be used to calculate the
moisture content of the effluent gas in the field log notebook.
8.5.3.5 If a balance is available in the field, weigh the silica
impinger to within 0.5 g. Note the color of the indicating silica
gel in the last impinger to determine whether it has been completely
spent, and make a notation of its condition in the field log book.
8.5.4 Sample Recovery.
8.5.4.1 Recovery of Filterable Particulate Matter. Recovery of
filterable particulate matter involves the quantitative transfer of
particles according to the filterable particulate sampling method
(i.e., Method 5, 17 or 201A).
8.5.4.2 CPM Container 1, Aqueous Liquid Impinger
Contents. Quantitatively transfer liquid from the dropout and the
impinger prior to the CPM filter into a clean sample bottle (glass
or plastic). Rinse the probe extension, condenser, each impinger and
the connecting glassware, and the front half of the CPM filter
housing twice with water. Recover the rinse water, and add it to the
same sample bottle. Mark the liquid level on the bottle. CPM
Container 1 holds the water soluble CPM captured in the
impingers.
8.5.4.3 CPM Container 2, Organic Rinses. Follow the
water rinses of the probe extension, condenser, each impinger and
all of the connecting glassware and front half of the CPM filter
with an acetone rinse. Then repeat the entire procedure with two
rinses of MeCl2, and save both solvents in a separate
glass container identified as CPM Container 2. Mark the
liquid level on the jar.
8.5.4.4 CPM Container 3, CPM filter Sample. Use
tweezers and/or clean disposable surgical gloves to remove the
filter from the CPM filter holder. Place the filter in the petri
dish identified as CPM Container 3.
8.5.4.5 CPM Container 4, Cold Impinger Water. You must
weigh or measure the volume of the contents of CPM Container
4 either in the field or during sample analysis (see
Section 11.2.3). If the water from the cold impinger has been
weighed in the field, it can be discarded. Otherwise, quantitatively
transfer liquid from the cold impinger that follows the CPM filter
into a clean sample bottle (glass or plastic). Mark the liquid level
on the bottle. This container holds the remainder of the liquid
water from the emission gases.
8.5.4.6 CPM Container 5, Silica Gel Absorbent. You must
weigh the contents of CPM Container 5 in the field or
during sample analysis (see Section 11.2.4). If the silica gel has
been weighed in the field to measure water content, then it can be
discarded. Otherwise, transfer the silica gel to its original
container and seal. A funnel may make it easier to pour the silica
gel without spilling. A rubber policeman may be used as an aid in
removing the silica gel from the impinger. It is not necessary to
remove the small amount of silica gel dust particles that may adhere
to the impinger wall and are difficult to remove. Since the gain in
weight is to be used for moisture calculations, do not use any water
or other liquids to transfer the silica gel.
8.5.4.7 CPM Container 6, Acetone Rinse Blank. Take 150
mL of the acetone directly from the wash bottle you used, and place
it in CPM Container 6, labeled Acetone Rinse Blank (see
Section 11.2.5 for analysis). Mark the liquid level on the bottle.
8.5.4.8 CPM Container 7, Water Rinse Blank. Take 150 mL
of the water directly from the wash bottle you used, and place it in
CPM Container 7, labeled Water Rinse Blank (see Section
11.2.6 for analysis). Mark the liquid level on the bottle.
8.5.4.9 CPM Container 8, Methylene Chloride Rinse
Blank. Take 150 mL of the MeCl2 directly from the wash
bottle you used, and place it in CPM Container 8, labeled
Methylene Chloride Rinse Blank (see
[[Page 13006]]
Section 11.2.7 for analysis). Mark the liquid level on the bottle.
8.5.5 Transport procedures. Containers must remain in an upright
position at all times during shipping. You do not have to ship the
containers under dry or blue ice. However, samples must be
maintained at or below 30 [deg]C (85 [deg]F) during shipping.
9.0 Quality Control
9.1 Daily Quality Checks. You must perform daily quality checks
of field log books and data entries and calculations using data
quality indicators from this method and your site-specific test
plan. You must review and evaluate recorded and transferred raw
data, calculations, and documentation of testing procedures. You
must initial or sign log book pages and data entry forms that were
reviewed.
9.2 Calculation Verification. Verify the calculations by
independent, manual checks. You must flag any suspect data and
identify the nature of the problem and potential effect on data
quality. After you complete the test, prepare a data summary and
compile all the calculations and raw data sheets.
9.3 Conditions. You must document data and information on the
process unit tested, the particulate control system used to control
emissions, any non-particulate control system that may affect
particulate emissions, the sampling train conditions, and weather
conditions. Discontinue the test if the operating conditions may
cause non-representative particulate emissions.
9.4 Health and Safety Plan. Develop a health and safety plan to
ensure the safety of your employees who are on-site conducting the
particulate emission test. Your plan must conform with all
applicable Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA),
Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA), and Department of
Transportation (DOT) regulatory requirements. The procedures must
also conform to the plant health and safety requirements.
9.5 Calibration Checks. Perform calibration check procedures on
analytical balances each time they are used.
9.6 Glassware. Use class A volumetric glassware for titrations,
or calibrate your equipment against National Institute of Standards
and Technology (NIST) traceable glassware.
9.7 Analytical Balance. Check the calibration of your analytical
balance each day you weigh CPM samples. You must use NIST Class S
weights at a mass approximately equal to the weight of the sample
plus container you will weigh.
9.8 Reagent Blanks. You must run blanks of water, acetone, and
methylene chloride used for field recovery and sample analysis.
Analyze at least one sample (100 mL minimum) of each reagent that
you plan to use for sample recovery and analysis before you begin
testing. Running blanks before field use will verify low blank
concentrations, thereby reducing the potential for a high field
blank on test samples.
9.9 Field Reagent Blanks. You must run at least one field blank
of water, acetone, and methylene chloride you use for field
recovery. Running independent reagent field blanks will verify that
low blank concentrations were maintained during field solvent use
and demonstrate that reagents have not been contaminated during
field tests.
9.10 Field Train Blank. You must recover a minimum of one field
train blank for each set of compliance tests at the facility. You
must assemble the sampling train as it will be used for testing.
Prior to the purge, you must add 100 mL of water to the first
impinger and record this data on Figure 3. You must purge the
assembled train as described in Sections 8.5.3.2. and 8.5.3.3. You
must recover field train blank samples as described in Section
8.5.4. From the field sample weight, you will subtract the
condensable particulate mass you determine with this blank train or
0.002 g (2.0 mg), whichever is less.
9.11 Audit Procedure. Concurrent with compliance sample
analysis, and if available, analyze audit material to evaluate the
technique of the analyst and the standards preparation. Use the same
staff, analytical reagents, and analytical system for both
compliance samples and the EPA audit sample. If this condition is
met, auditing of subsequent compliance analyses for the same
enforcement agency within 30 days is not required. An audit sample
set may not be used to validate different sets of compliance samples
under the jurisdiction of different enforcement agencies, unless
prior arrangements are made with both enforcement agencies.
9.12 Audit Samples. As of the publication date of this test
method, audit materials are not available. If audit materials become
available, audit samples will be supplied only to enforcement
agencies for compliance tests. Audit samples can be requested by a
State agency. Audit materials are requested online by authorized
regulatory authorities at the following internet address: http://www.sscap.net/. Authorization can be obtained by contacting an EPA
Emission Measurement Center QA Team Member listed on the EPA TTN Web
site at the following internet address: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/emc/email.html#qaqc. The request for the audit sample must be made at
least 30 days prior to the scheduled compliance sample analysis.
9.13 Audit Results. Calculate the audit sample concentration
according to the calculation procedure described in the audit
instructions included with the audit sample. Fill in the audit
sample concentration and the analyst's name on the audit response
form included with the audit instructions. Send one copy to the EPA
Regional Office or the appropriate enforcement agency.
10.0 Calibration and Standardization
Maintain a log of all condensable particulate sampling and
analysis calibrations. Include copies of the relevant portions of
the calibration and field logs in the final test report.
10.1 Thermocouple Calibration. You must calibrate the
thermocouples using the procedures described in Section 10.1.4.1.2
of Method 2 of Appendix A-1 to Part 60. Calibrate each temperature
sensor at a minimum of three points over the anticipated range of
use against an NIST-traceable mercury-in-glass thermometer.
10.2 Ammonium Hydroxide. The 0.1 N NH4OH used for
titrations in this method is made as follows: Add 7 mL of
concentrated (14.8 M) NH4OH to l liter of water.
Standardize against standardized 0.1 N H2SO4,
and calculate the exact normality using a procedure parallel to that
described in Section 5.5 of Method 6 of Appendix A-4 to 40 CFR part
60. Alternatively, purchase 0.1 N NH4OH that has been
standardized against a NIST reference material. Record the normality
on the Condensable Particulate Matter Work Table (see Figure 5 of
Section 18).
11.0 Analytical Procedures
11.1 Analytical Data Sheets. (a) Record the filterable
particulate field data on the appropriate (i.e., Method 5, 17, or
201A) analytical data sheets. Alternatively, data may be recorded
electronically using software applications such as the Electronic
Reporting Tool (ERT), available at the following internet address:
http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ert/ert_tool.html. Record the
condensable particulate data on the Condensable Particulate Matter
Work Table (see Figure 5 of Section 18).
(b) Measure the liquid in all containers either volumetrically
to 1 mL or gravimetrically to 0.5 g.
Confirm on the filterable particulate analytical data sheet whether
leakage occurred during transport. If a noticeable amount of leakage
has occurred, either void the sample or use methods, subject to the
approval of the Administrator, to correct the final results.
11.2 Condensable Particulate Matter Analysis. See the flow chart
in Figure 6 of Section 18 for the steps to process and combine
fractions from the CPM train.
11.2.1 Container 3, CPM Filter Sample. Extract the
filter recovered from the low temperature portion of the train, and
combine the extracts with the organic and inorganic fractions
resulting from the aqueous impinger sample recovery. If the sample
was collected by Method 17 because the stack temperature was below
30 [deg]C (85 [deg]F), process the filter extracts as described in
this section without combination with any other portion from the
train.
11.2.1.1 Extract the water soluble (aqueous or inorganic) CPM
from the CPM filter as described in this section. Fold the CPM
filter in quarters, and place it into a 50 mL extraction tube. Add
sufficient deionized ultra-filtered water to cover the filter (e.g.,
10 mL of water). Place the extractor tube into a sonication bath and
extract the water soluble material for a minimum of 2 minutes.
Combine the aqueous extract with the contents of Container
1. Repeat this extraction step twice for a total of three
extractions.
11.2.1.2 Extract the organic soluble CPM from the CPM filter as
described in this section. Add sufficient methylene chloride to
cover the filter (e.g., 10 mL of water). Place the extractor tube
into a sonication bath and extract the organic soluble material for
a minimum of 2 minutes. Combine the organic extract with the
contents of Container 2. Repeat this extraction step twice
for a total of three extractions.
[[Page 13007]]
11.2.2 CPM Container 1, Aqueous Liquid Impinger
Contents. Analyze the water soluble CPM in Container 1 as described
in this section. Place the contents of Container 1 into a
separatory funnel. Add approximately 30 mL of MeCl2 to
the funnel, mix well, and drain off the lower organic phase. Repeat
this procedure twice with 30 mL of MeCl2 each time
combining the organic phase from each extraction. Each time, leave a
small amount of the organic/MeCl2 phase in the separatory
funnel, ensuring that no water is collected in the organic phase.
This extraction should yield about 90 mL of organic extract.
11.2.2.1 CPM Container 2. Combine the organic extract
from Container 1 with the organic train rinse in Container
2.
11.2.2.2 Organic Fraction Weight Determination. Place the
organic phase in a clean glass beaker. Evaporate the organic extract
at room temperature (not to exceed 30 [deg]C (85 [deg]F)) and
pressure in a laboratory hood to not less than 10 mL. Quantitatively
transfer the beaker contents to a 50-mL preweighed tin, and
evaporate to dryness at room temperature (not to exceed 30 [deg]C
(85 [deg]F)) and pressure in a laboratory hood. Following
evaporation, desiccate the organic fraction for 24 hours in a
desiccator containing anhydrous calcium sulfate. Weigh at intervals
of at least 6 hours to a constant weight (i.e., <= 0.5 mg change
from previous weighing), and report results to the nearest 0.1 mg on
the Condensable Particulate Matter Work Table (see Figure 5 of
Section 18).
11.2.2.3 Inorganic Fraction Weight Determination. Transfer the
aqueous fraction from the extraction to a clean 500-mL or smaller
beaker. Evaporate to no less than 10 mL liquid on a hot plate or in
the oven at 105 [deg]C, and allow to dry at room temperature (not to
exceed 30 [deg]C (85 [deg]F). You must ensure that water and
volatile acids have completely evaporated before neutralizing
nonvolatile acids in the sample. Redissolve the residue in 100 mL of
deionized distilled ultra-filtered water (ASTM D1193-06, Type 1
water or equivalent) (incorporated by reference).
11.2.2.4 Use titration to neutralize acid in the sample and
remove water of hydration. Calibrate the pH meter with the neutral
and acid buffer solutions; then titrate the sample with 0.1N
NH4OH to a pH of 7.0, as indicated by the pH meter.
Record the volume of titrant used on the Condensable Particulate
Matter Work Table (see Figure 5 of Section 18).
11.2.2.5 Using a hot plate or an oven at 105 [deg]C, evaporate
the aqueous phase to approximately 10 mL. Quantitatively transfer
the beaker contents to a 50-mL preweighed tin, and evaporate to
dryness at room temperature (not to exceed 30 [deg]C (85 [deg]F))
and pressure in a laboratory hood. Following evaporation, desiccate
the residue for 24 hours in a desiccator containing anhydrous
calcium sulfate. Weigh at intervals of at least 6 hours to a
constant weight (i.e., <= 0.5 mg change from previous weighing), and
report results to the nearest 0.1 mg on the Condensable Particulate
Matter Work Table (see Figure 5 of Section 18).
11.2.2.6 Calculate the correction factor to subtract the
NH4+ retained in the sample using Equation 1 in Section
12.
11.2.3 CPM Container 4, Cold Impinger Water. If the
amount of water has not been determined in the field, note the level
of liquid in the container, and confirm on the filterable
particulate analytical data sheet whether leakage occurred during
transport. If a noticeable amount of leakage has occurred, either
void the sample or use methods, subject to the approval of the
Administrator, to correct the final results. Measure the liquid in
Container 4 either volumetrically to 1 mL or
gravimetrically to 0.5 g, and record the volume or
weight on the filterable particulate analytical data sheet of the
filterable particulate matter test method.
11.2.4 CPM Container 5, Silica Gel Absorbent. Weigh the
spent silica gel (or silica gel plus impinger) to the nearest 0.5 g
using a balance. This step may be conducted in the field. Record the
weight on the filterable particulate analytical data sheet of the
filterable particulate matter test method.
11.2.5 Container 6, Acetone Field Rinse Blank. Use 100
mL of acetone from the blank container for this analysis. If
insufficient liquid is available or if the acetone has been lost due
to container breakage, either void the sample, or use methods,
subject to the approval of the Administrator, to correct the final
results. Transfer 100 mL of the acetone to a clean 250-mL beaker.
Evaporate the acetone at room temperature (not to exceed 30 [deg]C
(85 [deg]F)) and pressure in a laboratory hood to approximately 10
mL. Quantitatively transfer the beaker contents to a 50-mL
preweighed tin, and evaporate to dryness at room temperature (not to
exceed 30 [deg]C (85 [deg]F)) and pressure in a laboratory hood.
Following evaporation, desiccate the residue for 24 hours in a
desiccator containing anhydrous calcium sulfate. Weigh at intervals
of at least 6 hours to a constant weight (i.e., <= 0.5 mg change
from previous weighing), and report results to the nearest 0.1 mg on
Figure 3.
11.2.6 Water Rinse Field Blank, Container 7. Use 100 mL
of the water from the blank container for this analysis. If
insufficient liquid is available, or if the water has been lost due
to container breakage, either void the sample, or use methods,
subject to the approval of the Administrator, to correct the final
results. Transfer the water to a clean 250-mL beaker, and evaporate
to approximately 10 mL liquid in the oven at 105 [deg]C.
Quantitatively transfer the beaker contents to a clean preweighed
50-mL tin, and evaporate to dryness at room temperature (not to
exceed 30 [deg]C (85 [deg]F)) and pressure in a laboratory hood.
Following evaporation, desiccate the residue for 24 hours in a
desiccator containing anhydrous calcium sulfate. Weigh at intervals
of at least 6 hours to a constant weight (i.e., <= 0.5 mg change
from previous weighing) and report results to the nearest 0.1 mg on
Figure 3.
11.2.7 Methylene Chloride Field Reagent Blank, Container
8. Use 100 mL of MeCl2 from the blank container
for this analysis. Transfer 100 mL of the MeCl2 to a
clean 250-mL beaker. Evaporate the methylene chloride at room
temperature (not to exceed 30 [deg]C (85 [deg]F)) and pressure in a
laboratory hood to approximately 10 mL. Quantitatively transfer the
beaker contents to a 50-mL preweighed tin, and evaporate to dryness
at room temperature (not to exceed 30 [deg]C (85 [deg]F)) and
pressure in a laboratory hood. Following evaporation, desiccate the
residue for 24 hours in a desiccator containing anhydrous calcium
sulfate. Weigh at intervals of at least 6 hours to a constant weight
(i.e., <= 0.5 mg change from previous weighing), and report results
to the nearest 0.1 mg on Figure 3.
12.0 Calculations and Data Analysis
12.1 Nomenclature. Report results in International System of
Units (SI units) unless the regulatory authority for compliance
testing specifies English units. The following nomenclature is used.
[Delta]H@ = Pressure drop across orifice at flow rate of
0.75 SCFM at standard conditions, in. W.C.
[Note: specific to each orifice and meter box.]
17.03 = mg/milliequivalents for ammonium ion.
ACFM = Actual cubic feet per minute.
Ccpm = Concentration of the condensable particulate
matter in the stack gas, dry basis, corrected to standard
conditions, milligrams/dry standard cubic foot.
mc = Mass of the NH4+ added to
sample to form ammonium sulfate, mg.
mcpm = Mass of the total condensable particulate matter,
mg.
mfb = Mass of field train total CPM blank, mg
mi = Mass of inorganic CPM matter, mg.
mib = Mass of field train inorganic CPM blank, mg.
mo = Mass of organic CPM, mg.
mob = Mass of organic field train blank, mg.
mr = Mass of dried sample from inorganic fraction, mg.
N = Normality of ammonium hydroxide titrant.
Vm(std) = Volume of gas sample measured by the dry gas
meter, corrected to standard conditions, dry standard cubic meter
(dscm) or dry standard cubic foot (dscf) as defined in Equation 5-1
of Method 5.
Vt = Volume of NH4OH titrant, mL.
Vp = Volume of water added during train purge.
12.2 Calculations. Use the following equations to complete the
calculations required in this test method. Enter the appropriate
results from these calculations on the Condensable Particulate
Matter Work Table (see Figure 5 of Section 18).
12.2.1 Mass of ammonia correction. Correction for ammonia added
during titration of 100 mL aqueous CPM sample. This calculation
assumes no waters of hydration.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP25MR09.045
12.2.2 Mass of the Field Blank (mg). Per Section 9.9, the mass
of the field blank, mfb, shall not exceed 2.0 mg.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP25MR09.046
12.2.3 Mass of Inorganic CPM (mg).
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP25MR09.047
12.2.4 Total Mass of CPM (mg).
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP25MR09.048
12.2.5 Concentration of CPM (mg/dscf).
[[Page 13008]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP25MR09.049
12.3 Emissions Test Report. Include the following list of
conventional elements in the emissions test report.
(a) Emission test description including any deviations from this
protocol.
(b) Summary data tables on a run-by-run basis that include the
condensable particulate mass.
(c) Flowchart of the process or processes tested.
(d) Sketch of the sampling location.
(e) Preliminary traverse data sheets including cyclonic flow
checks.
(f) Raw field data sheets and copies of field log pages.
(g) Laboratory analytical sheets and case narratives.
(h) Pretest and post test reagent blank results.
(i) Sample calculations.
(j) Pretest and post-test calibration data.
(k) Chain of custody forms.
(l) Documentation of process and air pollution control system
data.
13.0 Method Performance [Reserved]
14.0 Pollution Prevention [Reserved]
15.0 Waste Management
Solvent and water are evaporated in a laboratory hood during
analysis. No liquid waste is generated in the performance of this
method. Organic solvents used to clean sampling equipment should be
managed as RCRA organic waste.
16.0 Alternative Procedures [Reserved]
17.0 References
1. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Federal Reference
Methods 1 through 5 and Method 17, 40 CFR 60, Appendix A-1 through
A-3 and A-6.
2. Richards, J., T. Holder, and D. Goshaw. ``Optimized Method
202 Sampling Train to Minimize the Biases Associated with Method 202
Measurement of Condensable Particulate Matter Emissions.'' Paper
presented at Air & Waste Management Association Hazardous Waste
Combustion Specialty Conference. St. Louis, Missouri. November 2-3,
2005.
3. DeWees, W.D., S.C. Steinsberger, G.M. Plummer, L.T. Lay, G.D.
McAlister, and R.T. Shigehara. ``Laboratory and Field Evaluation of
the EPA Method 5 Impinger Catch for Measuring Condensable Matter
from Stationary Sources.'' Paper presented at the 1989 EPA/AWMA
International Symposium on Measurement of Toxic and Related Air
Pollutants. Raleigh, North Carolina. May 1-5, 1989.
4. DeWees, W.D. and K.C. Steinsberger. ``Method Development and
Evaluation of Draft Protocol for Measurement of Condensable
Particulate Emissions.'' Draft Report. November 17, 1989.
5. Texas Air Control Board, Laboratory Division. ``Determination
of Particulate in Stack Gases Containing Sulfuric Acid and/or Sulfur
Dioxide.'' Laboratory Methods for Determination of Air Pollutants.
Modified December 3, 1976.
6. Nothstein, Greg. Masters Thesis. University of Washington.
Department of Environmental Health. Seattle, Washington.
7. ``Particulate Source Test Procedures Adopted by Puget Sound
Air Pollution Control Agency Board of Directors.'' Puget Sound Air
Pollution Control Agency, Engineering Division. Seattle, Washington.
August 11, 1983.
8. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Department of Environmental
Resources. Chapter 139, Sampling and Testing (Title 25, Rules and
Regulations, Part I, Department of Environmental Resources, Subpart
C, Protection of Natural Resources, Article III, Air Resources).
January 8, 1960.
9. Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. Air Management
Operations Handbook, Revision 3. January 11, 1988.
10. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, ``Laboratory
Evaluation of Method 202 to Determine Fate of SO2 in Impinger
Water,'' EPA Contract No. 68-D-02-061, Work Assignment 3-14,
September 30, 2005.
11. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, ``Evaluation and
Improvement of Condensable Particulate Matter Measurement,'' EPA
Contract No. EP-D-07-097, Work Assignment 2-03, October 2008.
12. Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI), ``Laboratory
Comparison of Methods to Sample and Analyze Condensable Particulate
Matter,'' EPRI Agreement EP-P24373/C11811 Condensable Particulate
Methods: EPRI Collaboration with EPA, October 2008.
[[Page 13009]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP25MR09.060
[[Page 13010]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP25MR09.061
[[Page 13011]]
Figure 3--Field Train Blank Condensable Particulate Calculations
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Field Train Blank Condensable Particulate Calculations
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Plant
Date
Blank No.
CPM Filter No.
Water volume added to purge train (Vp) ml
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Field Reagent Blank Mass
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Water (Section 11.2.6)....................... mg
Acetone (Section 11.2.5)..................... mg
Methylene Chloride (Section 11.2.7).......... mg
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Field Train Reagent Blank Mass
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mass of Organic CPM (mob)(Section 11.2.2.2).. mg
Mass of Inorganic CPM (mib)(Equation 3)...... mg
Mass of the Field Train Blank (not to exceed mg
2.0 mg) (Equation 2).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Figure 4--Other Field Train Sample Condensable Particulate Data
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Other Field Train Sample Condensable Particulate Data
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Plant
Date
Run No.
CPM Filter No.
Water volume added to purge train [max 50 mL] ml
(Vp).
Date
Run No.
CPM Filter No.
Water volume added to purge train [max 50 ml
mL] (Vp).
Date
Run No.
CPM Filter No.
Water volume added to purge train [max 50 mL] ml
(Vp)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Figure 5--Condensable Particulate Matter Work Table
Calculations for Recovery of Condensable Particulate Matter (CPM)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Plant...................................................................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date....................................................................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Run No..............................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sample Preparation--CPM Containers
No. 1 and 2 (Section 11.1)
Was significant volume of water ________ ............
lost during transport? Yes or
No.
If Yes, measure the volume ________ ............
received.
Estimate the volume lost during ________ mL
transport.
Was significant volume of ________ ............
organic rinse lost during
transport? Yes or No.
If Yes, measure the volume ________ mL
received. Estimate the volume
lost during transport.
For Titration
Normality of NH4OH (N) (Section ________ N
10.2).
Volume of titrant (Vt) (Section ________ mL
11.2.2.4).
Mass of NH4 added (mc) (Equation ________ mg
1).
For CPM Blank Weights
Inorganic Train Field Blank ________ mg
Mass(mib) (Section 9.9).
Organic Train Field Blank Mass ________ mg
(mob) (Section 9.9).
Mass of Train Field Blank (Mfb) ________ mg
(max. 2 mg) (Equation 2).
For CPM Train Weights
Mass of Organic CPM (mo) ________ mg
(Section 11.2.2.2).
Mass of Inorganic CPM (mi) ________ mg
(Equation 3).
Total CPM Mass (mcpm) (Equation ________ mg
4).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 13012]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP25MR09.062
[FR Doc. E9-6178 Filed 3-24-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-C