Performance Specification and Quality Assurance Requirements for Continuous Parameter Monitoring Systems and Amendments to Standards of Performance for New Stationary Sources; National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants; and National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Source Categories, 59956-60005 [E8-22674]
Download as PDF
59956
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 197 / Thursday, October 9, 2008 / Proposed Rules
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Parts 60, 61, and 63
[EPA–HQ–OAR–2006–0640; FRL–8721–4]
Performance Specification and Quality
Assurance Requirements for
Continuous Parameter Monitoring
Systems and Amendments to
Standards of Performance for New
Stationary Sources; National Emission
Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants; and National Emission
Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants
for Source Categories
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS3
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: This action proposes
Performance Specification 17,
‘‘Specifications and Test Procedures for
Continuous Parameter Monitoring
Systems at Stationary Sources’’ and
Procedure 4, ‘‘Quality Assurance
Requirements for Continuous Parameter
Monitoring Systems at Stationary
Sources.’’ The proposed performance
specification and quality assurance
requirements establish procedures and
other requirements to ensure that the
systems are properly selected, installed,
and placed into operation. This action
also proposes minor amendments to
Procedure 1 of the ‘‘Quality Assurance
Requirements for Gas Continuous
Emission Monitoring Systems Used for
Compliance Determinations’’ to address
continuous emissions monitoring
systems that are used for monitoring
multiple pollutants. Minor changes to
the General Provisions for the Standards
of Performance for New Stationary
Sources, the National Emission
Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants,
and the National Emission Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutants for Source
Categories are also proposed to ensure
consistency between the proposed
Performance Specification 17,
Procedure 4, and the General Provisions
and to clarify that Performance
Specification 17 and Procedure 4 apply
instead of requirements that pertain
specifically to continuous parameter
monitoring systems. Finally, this action
proposes amendments to the current
national emission standards for closed
vent systems, control devices and
recovery systems to ensure consistency
with Performance Specification 17 and
Procedure 4. These actions are needed
to establish consistent requirements for
ensuring and assessing the quality of
data measured by continuous parameter
20:38 Oct 08, 2008
Comments must be received on
or before December 8, 2008. Under the
Paperwork Reduction Act, comments on
the information collection provisions
must be received by the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) on or
before November 10, 2008.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,
identified by Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–
OAR–2006–0640, by one of the
following methods:
• https://www.regulations.gov: Follow
the on-line instructions for submitting
comments.
• E-mail: a-and-r-Docket@epa.gov.
• Fax: (202) 566–9744.
• Mail: Performance Specification 17
and Procedure 4 for Continuous
Parameter Monitoring Systems Docket,
Docket No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2006–0640,
Environmental Protection Agency, EPA
Docket Center, Mailcode: 6102T, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington,
DC 20460. Please include a total of two
copies. In addition, please mail a copy
of your comments on the information
collection provisions to the Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs,
Office of Management and Budget
(OMB), Attn: Desk Officer for EPA, 725
17th St., NW., Washington, DC 20503.
• Hand Delivery: EPA Docket Center,
Public Reading Room, EPA West, Room
3334, 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW.,
Washington, DC 20460. Such deliveries
are only accepted during the Docket’s
normal hours of operation, and special
arrangements should be made for
deliveries of boxed information.
Instructions: Direct your comments to
Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2006–
0640. EPA’s policy is that all comments
received will be included in the public
docket without change and may be
made available online at https://
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 https://
www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The
https://www.regulations.gov Web site is
an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system, which
means EPA will not know your identity
or contact information unless you
provide it in the body of your comment.
If you send an e-mail comment directly
to EPA without going through https://
www.regulations.gov your e-mail
DATES:
RIN 2060–AJ86
VerDate Aug<31>2005
monitoring systems and to provide
quality assurance procedures for
continuous emission monitoring
systems used to monitor multiple
pollutants.
Jkt 217001
PO 00000
Frm 00002
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
address will be automatically captured
and included as part of the comment
that is placed in the public docket and
made available on the Internet. If you
submit an electronic comment, EPA
recommends that you include your
name and other contact information in
the body of your comment and with any
disk or CD–ROM you submit. If EPA
cannot read your comment due to
technical difficulties and cannot contact
you for clarification, EPA may not be
able to consider your comment.
Electronic files should avoid the use of
special characters, any form of
encryption, and be free of any defects or
viruses.
Docket: All documents in the docket
are listed in the https://
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 https://
www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at
the EPA Air Docket, EPA/DC, EPA West,
Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave.,
NW., Washington, DC. The Public
Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to
4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday,
excluding legal holidays. The telephone
number for the Public Reading Room is
(202) 566–1744, and the telephone
number for the Air Docket is (202) 566–
1742.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr.
Barrett Parker, Sector Policies and
Programs Division, Office of Air Quality
Planning and Standards (D243–05),
Environmental Protection Agency,
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina
27711, telephone number: (919) 541–
5635; e-mail address:
parker.barrett@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Outline. The information presented in
this preamble is organized as follows:
I. General Information
A. Does this action apply to you?
B. What should you consider as you
prepare your comments to EPA?
C. Where can you get a copy of this
document and other related information?
D. Will there be a public hearing?
II. Background
A. What is the regulatory history of the
proposed PS–17 and Procedure 4?
B. What is the regulatory history of the
proposed amendments to Procedure 1?
C. What is the regulatory history of the
proposed amendments to the General
Provisions to parts 60, 61, and 63?
D. What is the regulatory history of the
proposed amendments to 40 CFR part 63,
subpart SS?
E:\FR\FM\09OCP3.SGM
09OCP3
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 197 / Thursday, October 9, 2008 / Proposed Rules
III. Summary of Proposed Performance
Specification 17
A. What is the purpose of PS–17?
B. Who must comply with PS–17?
C. When must owners or operators of
affected CPMS comply with PS–17?
D. What are the basic requirements of PS–
17?
E. What initial performance criteria must
be demonstrated to comply with PS–17?
F. What are the reporting and
recordkeeping requirements for PS–17?
IV. Summary of Proposed Procedure 4
A. What is the purpose of Procedure 4?
B. Who must comply with Procedure 4?
C. When must owners or operators of
affected CPMS comply with Procedure
4?
D. What are the basic requirements of
Procedure 4?
E. How often must accuracy audits and
other QA/QC procedures be performed?
F. What are the reporting and
recordkeeping requirements for
Procedure 4?
V. Summary of Proposed Amendments to
Procedure 1
A. What is the purpose of the
amendments?
B. To whom do the amendments apply?
C. How do the amendments address CEMS
that are subject to PS–9?
D. How do the amendments address CEMS
that are subject to PS–15?
VI. Summary of Proposed Amendments to
the General Provisions to Parts 60, 61,
and 63
A. What is the purpose of the amendments
to the General Provisions to parts 60, 61,
and 63?
B. What specific changes are we proposing
to the General Provisions to parts 60, 61,
and 63?
VII. Summary of the Proposed Amendments
to 40 CFR Part 63, Subpart SS
A. What is the purpose of the amendments
to subpart SS?
B. What specific changes are we proposing
to subpart SS?
VIII. Rationale for Selecting the Proposed
Requirements of Performance
Specification 17
A. What information did we use to develop
PS–17?
B. How did we select the applicability
criteria for PS–17?
C. How did we select the parameters that
are addressed by PS–17?
D. Why did we include requirements for
flow CPMS in PS–17 if PS–6 already
specifies requirements for flow sensors?
E. How did we select the equipment
requirements?
F. How did we select the installation and
location requirements?
G. How did we select the initial QA
measures?
H. How did we select the methods for
performing the initial validation check?
I. How did we select the performance
criteria for the initial validation check?
J. How did we select the recordkeeping
requirements?
IX. Rationale for Selecting the Proposed
Requirements of Procedure 4
A. What information did we use to develop
Procedure 4?
B. Why did we decide to apply Procedure
4 to all CPMS that are subject to PS–17?
C. How did we select the accuracy audit
procedures?
D. How did we select the accuracy audit
frequencies?
E. How did we select the performance
criteria for accuracy audits?
F. How did we select the recordkeeping
requirements?
X. Rationale for Selecting the Proposed
Amendments to Procedure 1
A. How did we select the amendments to
Procedure 1 that apply to PS–9?
B. How did we select the amendments to
Procedure 1 that apply to PS–15?
XI. Rationale for Selecting the Proposed
Amendments to the General Provisions
to Parts 60, 61, and 63
A. How did we select the amendments to
the General Provisions to parts 60, 61,
and 63?
XII. Rationale for Selecting the Proposed
Amendments to 40 CFR Part 63, Subpart
SS
A. How did we select the amendments to
subpart SS?
XIII. Summary of Environmental, Energy, and
Economic Impacts
A. What are the impacts of PS–17 and
Procedure 4?
B. What are the impacts of the amendments
to Procedure 1?
59957
C. What are the impacts of the amendments
to the General Provisions to parts 60, 61,
and 63?
D. What are the impacts of the
amendments to subpart SS?
XIV. Solicitation of Comments and Public
Participation
XV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory
Planning and Review
B. Paperwork Reduction Act
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation
and Coordination With Indian Tribal
Governments
G. Executive Order 13045, Protection of
Children From Environmental Health
Risks & Safety Risks
H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use
I. National Technology Transfer
Advancement Act
J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions
To Address Environmental Justice in
Minority Populations and Low-Income
Populations
I. General Information
A. Does this action apply to you?
The proposed Performance
Specification 17 (PS–17) and Procedure
4 would apply to any facility that is
required to install a new continuous
parameter monitoring system (CPMS),
relocate an existing CPMS, or replace an
existing CPMS under any applicable
subpart of 40 CFR parts 60, 61, or 63,
with certain exceptions. Moreover, the
proposed PS–17 and Procedure 4 would
become effective upon permit renewal
(or within 5 years for area sources that
are exempt from title V permitting) for
any affected facility subject to an
applicable subpart of 40 CFR parts 60,
61, or 63, with certain exceptions. Table
1 of this preamble lists the applicable
rules by subpart and the corresponding
source categories to which the proposed
PS–17 and Procedure 4 would apply.
TABLE 1—SOURCE CATEGORIES THAT WOULD BE SUBJECT TO PS–17 AND PROCEDURE 4
Subpart(s)
Source category
40 CFR part 63
O ........................................................................................................................................
pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS3
R ........................................................................................................................................
S .........................................................................................................................................
X .........................................................................................................................................
EE ......................................................................................................................................
GG .....................................................................................................................................
HH ......................................................................................................................................
JJ .......................................................................................................................................
KK ......................................................................................................................................
MM .....................................................................................................................................
VerDate Aug<31>2005
20:38 Oct 08, 2008
Jkt 217001
PO 00000
Frm 00003
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
Commercial Ethylene Oxide Sterilization/Fumigation Facilities.
Gasoline Distribution Facilities (Bulk Gasoline Terminals and Pipeline Breakout Stations).
Pulp and Paper—Process Operations.
Secondary Lead Smelters.
Magnetic Tape Manufacturing Operations.
Aerospace Manufacturing and Rework.
Oil and Natural Gas Production Facilities.
Wood Furniture Manufacturing Operations.
Printing and Publishing.
Combustion Sources at Kraft, Soda & Sulfite Pulp &
Paper Mills.
E:\FR\FM\09OCP3.SGM
09OCP3
59958
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 197 / Thursday, October 9, 2008 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 1—SOURCE CATEGORIES THAT WOULD BE SUBJECT TO PS–17 AND PROCEDURE 4—Continued
Subpart(s)
Source category
YY ......................................................................................................................................
YY ......................................................................................................................................
YY ......................................................................................................................................
CCC ...................................................................................................................................
Spandex.
Cyanide Chemical Manufacture.
Carbon Black Production.
Steel Pickling—HCl Process Facilities and Hydrochloric
Acid Regeneration Plants.
Hazardous Waste Combustors.
Pharmaceuticals Production.
Natural Gas Transmission and Storage Facilities.
Pesticide Active Ingredient Production.
Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing.
Secondary Aluminum Production.
Petroleum Refineries: Catalytic Cracking Units, Catalytic Reforming Units, and Sulfur Recovery Units.
Plywood & Composite Wood Products.
Organic Liquids Distribution (non-gasoline).
Miscellaneous Organic Chemical Manufacturing.
Wet-Formed Fiberglass Mat Production.
Surface Coating of Automobiles and Light Duty Trucks.
Paper & Other Web (surface coating).
Surface Coating of Metal Cans.
Surface Coating of Plastic Parts & Products.
Surface Coating of Wood Building Products.
Surface Coating of Metal Furniture.
Surface Coating of Metal Coil.
Cellulose Products Manufacturing.
Boat Manufacturing.
Reinforced Plastics Composites Production.
Rubber Tire Manufacturing.
Stationary Combustion Turbines.
Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engines.
Coke Ovens: Pushing, Quenching, & Battery Stacks.
Industrial/Commercial/Institutional Boilers and Process
Heaters.
Iron and Steel Foundries.
Integrated Iron and Steel Manufacturing Facilities.
Site Remediation.
Miscellaneous Coating Manufacturing.
Flexible Polyurethane Foam Fabrication Operations.
Hydrochloric Acid Production.
Engine Test Cells/Stands.
Friction Materials.
Taconite Iron Ore Processing.
Primary Magnesium Refining.
Iron and Steel Foundries Area Sources.
Acrylic and Modacrylic Fibers Production Area Sources.
Flexible Polyurethane Foam Production and Fabrication
Area Sources.
Lead Acid Battery Manufacturing Area Sources.
Glass Manufacturing Area Sources.
EEE ....................................................................................................................................
GGG ...................................................................................................................................
HHH ...................................................................................................................................
MMM ..................................................................................................................................
NNN ...................................................................................................................................
RRR ...................................................................................................................................
UUU ...................................................................................................................................
DDDD .................................................................................................................................
EEEE .................................................................................................................................
FFFF ..................................................................................................................................
HHHH .................................................................................................................................
IIII .......................................................................................................................................
JJJJ ....................................................................................................................................
KKKK .................................................................................................................................
PPPP .................................................................................................................................
QQQQ ................................................................................................................................
RRRR .................................................................................................................................
SSSS .................................................................................................................................
UUUU .................................................................................................................................
VVVV .................................................................................................................................
WWWW .............................................................................................................................
XXXX .................................................................................................................................
YYYY .................................................................................................................................
ZZZZ ..................................................................................................................................
CCCCC ..............................................................................................................................
DDDDD ..............................................................................................................................
EEEEE ...............................................................................................................................
FFFFF ................................................................................................................................
GGGGG .............................................................................................................................
HHHHH ..............................................................................................................................
MMMMM ............................................................................................................................
NNNNN ..............................................................................................................................
PPPPP ...............................................................................................................................
QQQQQ .............................................................................................................................
RRRRR ..............................................................................................................................
TTTTT ................................................................................................................................
ZZZZZ ................................................................................................................................
LLLLLL ...............................................................................................................................
OOOOOO ..........................................................................................................................
PPPPPP .............................................................................................................................
SSSSSS .............................................................................................................................
40 CFR part 60
Ea .......................................................................................................................................
pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS3
Ec .......................................................................................................................................
J .........................................................................................................................................
O ........................................................................................................................................
T, U, V, W, X .....................................................................................................................
Y .........................................................................................................................................
Z .........................................................................................................................................
AA ......................................................................................................................................
BB ......................................................................................................................................
HH ......................................................................................................................................
LL .......................................................................................................................................
NN ......................................................................................................................................
PP ......................................................................................................................................
RR ......................................................................................................................................
FFF ....................................................................................................................................
LLL .....................................................................................................................................
VerDate Aug<31>2005
20:38 Oct 08, 2008
Jkt 217001
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
Municipal Waste Combustors after December 20, 1989
and on or before September 20, 1994.
Hospital, Medical, and Infectious Waste Incinerators.
Petroleum Refineries.
Sewage Treatment Plants.
Phosphate Fertilizer Industry.
Coal Preparation Plants (>200 tons per day).
Ferroalloy Production Facilities.
Steel Plants: EAF’s and Oxygen Decarburization Vessels after October 21, 1974 and on or before August
17, 1983.
Kraft Pulp Mills.
Lime Manufacturing Plants.
Metallic Mineral Processing Plants.
Phosphate rock plants (with prod. capacity >4 ton/hr).
Ammonium Sulfate Manufacture.
Pressure Sensitive Tape and Label Surface Coating
Operations.
Flexible Vinyl and Urethane Coating and Printing.
Onshore Natural Gas Processing: SO2 Emissions.
E:\FR\FM\09OCP3.SGM
09OCP3
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 197 / Thursday, October 9, 2008 / Proposed Rules
59959
TABLE 1—SOURCE CATEGORIES THAT WOULD BE SUBJECT TO PS–17 AND PROCEDURE 4—Continued
Subpart(s)
Source category
UUU ...................................................................................................................................
VVV ....................................................................................................................................
AAAA .................................................................................................................................
Calciners and Dryers in Mineral Industries.
Polymeric Coating of Supporting Substrates Facilities.
Small Municipal Waste Combustion Units Constructed
after August 30, 1999.
40 CFR part 61
K .........................................................................................................................................
L .........................................................................................................................................
BB ......................................................................................................................................
The requirements of the proposed PS–
17 and Procedure 4 may also apply to
stationary sources located in a State,
District, Reservation, or Territory that
adopts PS–17 or Procedure 4 in its
implementation plan. The exceptions to
the applicability criteria for PS–17 and
Procedure 4 are those source categories
that are subject to part 63 rules that
Radionuclide Emissions from Elemental Phosphorus
Plants.
Benzene from Coke By-Product Recovery Plants.
Benzene Emissions from Benzene Transfer Operations.
specify that § 63.8(a)(2) of the General
Provisions for the National Emission
Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants
(NESHAP) for Source Categories in 40
CFR part 63, subpart A does not apply
to the source category. Section 63.8(a)(2)
specifies that rules promulgated under
part 63 are subject to the monitoring
provisions of § 63.8 upon promulgation
of performance specifications (i.e., the
proposed PS–17). Consequently, rules
which specify that § 63.8(a)(2) does not
apply, are not subject to PS–17 or
Procedure 4. Table 2 of this preamble
lists the part 63 rules that require CPMS
but would not be subject to PS–17 or
Procedure 4 for this reason.
TABLE 2—PART 63 RULES NOT SUBJECT TO PS–17 OR PROCEDURE 4
[§ 63.8(a)(2) does not apply]
Subpart(s)
Source category
F, G, H, I .........................................................................................................................................................
U ......................................................................................................................................................................
AA ...................................................................................................................................................................
BB ...................................................................................................................................................................
CC ...................................................................................................................................................................
DD ...................................................................................................................................................................
Hazardous Organic NESHAP.
Polymers and Resins (Group I).
Phosphoric Acid Plants.
Phosphate Fertilizer Production.
Petroleum Refineries.
Offsite Waste and Recovery Operations.
Mineral Wool.
Flexible Polyurethane Foam Production.
Polymers and Resins (Group IV).
Portland Cement Manufacturing.
Amino/Phenolic Resins Production.
Polyether Polyols Production.
Municipal Solid Waste Landfills.
Leather Tanning and Finishing Operations.
Mercury Cell Chlor-Alkali Plants.
Asphalt Roofing and Processing.
DDD ................................................................................................................................................................
III .....................................................................................................................................................................
JJJ ...................................................................................................................................................................
LLL ..................................................................................................................................................................
OOO ................................................................................................................................................................
PPP .................................................................................................................................................................
AAAA ...............................................................................................................................................................
TTTT ...............................................................................................................................................................
IIIII ...................................................................................................................................................................
LLLLL ..............................................................................................................................................................
pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS3
The standard industrial classification
(SIC) codes and North American
Industry Classification System (NAICS)
codes that correspond to potentially
VerDate Aug<31>2005
20:38 Oct 08, 2008
Jkt 217001
regulated entities are listed in Tables 3
and 4 of this preamble, respectively. To
determine the specific types of industry
referenced by the SIC or NAICS codes,
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
go to https://www.osha.gov/pls/imis/
sic_manual.html or https://
www.osha.gov/oshstats/naicsmanual.html, respectively.
E:\FR\FM\09OCP3.SGM
09OCP3
59960
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 197 / Thursday, October 9, 2008 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 3—SIC CODES FOR POTENTIALLY REGULATED ENTITIES
SIC code
12, 42, 44, 47, 109, 279, 281, 282, 283, 284, 285, 286, 287, 289, 386, 1011, 1021, 1031, 1041,
1422, 1423, 1429, 1442, 1445, 1446, 1454, 1455, 1459, 1474, 1475, 1479, 1492, 1496, 1499,
2296, 2392, 2394, 2396, 2399, 2421, 2426, 2429, 2431, 2435, 2436, 2439, 2441, 2448, 2449,
2531, 2542, 2599, 2611, 2621, 2631, 2652, 2653, 2655, 2656, 2657, 2671, 2672, 2673, 2674,
2741, 2754, 2759, 2761, 2771, 2812, 2813, 2816, 2819, 2821, 2822, 2823, 2824, 2832, 2833,
2851, 2861, 2865, 2869, 2873, 2874, 2875, 2879, 2891, 2892, 2893, 2895, 2899, 2911, 2951,
3061, 3069, 3074, 3079, 3081, 3082, 3083, 3084, 3085, 3086, 3087, 3088, 3089, 3111, 3131,
3199, 3211, 3221, 3229, 3274, 3281, 3291, 3292, 3295, 3296, 3299, 3312, 3313, 3315, 3316,
3334, 3339, 3341, 3351, 3353, 3354, 3355, 3356, 3357, 3363, 3364, 3365, 3366, 3369, 3398,
3431, 3432, 3441, 3442, 3443, 3444, 3446, 3448, 3449, 3451, 3452, 3462, 3463, 3465, 3466,
3491, 3492, 3493, 3494, 3495, 3497, 3499, 3511, 3519, 3523, 3524, 3531, 3537, 3543, 3545,
3592, 3599, 3621, 3634, 3639, 3644, 3645, 3646, 3647, 3663, 3677, 3691, 3693, 3694, 3695,
3724, 3726, 3728, 3731, 3732, 3743, 3751, 3760, 3761, 3764, 3765, 3769, 3792, 3795, 3799,
3911, 3914, 3915, 3931, 3942, 3944, 3949, 3951, 3952, 3953, 3955, 3961, 3965, 3991, 3993,
4612, 4911, 4922, 4923, 4924, 4925, 4931, 4932, 4939, 4941, 4952, 4953, 4961, 4971, 5086,
7218, 7231, 7241, 7391, 7397, 7399, 7534, 7538, 7539, 7641, 7699, 7911, 7999, 8062, 8063,
8231, 8243, 8244, 8249, 8299, 8411, 8711, 8731, 8734, 8741, 8748, 8922, 9511, 9661, 9711
1044,
2034,
2451,
2675,
2834,
2952,
3142,
3317,
3399,
3469,
3559,
3711,
3821,
3995,
5122,
8069,
1051,
2035,
2452,
2676,
2835,
2992,
3143,
3321,
3411,
3471,
3562,
3713,
3829,
3996,
5149,
8071,
1061,
2046,
2491,
2677,
2836,
2999,
3144,
3322,
3412,
3479,
3566,
3714,
3841,
3999,
5169,
8072,
1099,
2099,
2493,
2678,
2841,
3011,
3149,
3324,
3421,
3482,
3568,
3715,
3842,
4225,
5171,
8091,
1311,
2211,
2499,
2679,
2842,
3021,
3161,
3325,
3423,
3483,
3569,
3716,
3843,
4226,
5172,
8211,
1321,
2241,
2514,
2711,
2843,
3052,
3171,
3329,
3425,
3484,
3579,
3720,
3851,
4512,
5541,
8221,
1411,
2295,
2522,
2721,
2844,
3053,
3172,
3331,
3429,
3489,
3585,
3721,
3861,
4581,
5995,
8222,
TABLE 4—NAICS CODES FOR POTENTIALLY REGULATED ENTITIES
NAICS code
pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS3
211, 221, 316, 321, 322, 324, 325, 326, 331, 332, 336, 339, 611, 622, 2123, 2211, 3231, 3241, 3251, 3252, 3253, 3254, 3255, 3256, 3259,
3271, 3273, 3274, 3279, 3327, 3328, 3329, 3332, 3335, 3339, 3341, 3342, 3343, 3344, 3361, 3362, 3363, 4227, 5622, 5629, 21221, 22121,
22132, 31332, 32211, 32222, 32411, 32613, 32614, 32615, 32791, 33422, 33634, 33992, 33995, 42269, 42271, 45431, 48611, 48621,
49311, 49319, 51113, 51114, 51223, 54171, 56220, 56221, 56292, 81142, 92411, 92711, 92811, 111998, 112519, 112910, 112990, 211111,
211112, 212111, 212112, 212113, 212210, 212221, 212222, 212231, 212234, 212299, 212319, 212322, 212324, 212325, 212393, 212399,
213113, 221112, 221320, 238910, 311211, 311212, 311221, 311225, 311340, 311421, 311423, 311823, 311830, 311911, 311920, 311941,
311942, 311991, 311999, 313210, 313320, 314911, 314992, 315299, 315999, 321211, 321212, 321213, 321214, 321219, 321911, 321918,
321999, 322110, 322121, 322122, 322130, 322211, 322212, 322213, 322215, 322221, 322222, 322223, 322224, 322225, 322226, 322231,
322291, 322299, 323111, 323112, 323116, 323119, 324121, 324199, 325131, 325181, 325182, 325188, 325192, 325199, 325211, 325221,
325222, 325311, 325312, 325320, 325411, 325412, 325991, 326111, 326113, 326121, 326122, 326150, 326191, 326192, 326199, 326211,
326212, 326299, 327211, 327212, 327213, 327410, 327991, 327992, 327993, 327999, 331111, 331112, 331210, 331221, 331222, 331312,
331315, 331316, 331319, 331419, 331492, 331511, 331512, 331513, 331521, 331524, 332115, 332116, 332212, 332431, 332612, 332618,
332812, 332912, 332951, 332999, 333111, 333112, 333120, 333313, 333319, 333611, 333612, 333613, 333618, 334613, 335121, 335122,
335312, 335911, 336111, 336112, 336120, 336211, 336213, 336214, 336312, 336350, 336399, 336411, 336412, 336413, 336414, 336415,
336419, 336612, 336992, 336999, 337124, 337127, 337214, 337215, 339111, 339112, 339114, 339911, 339912, 339914, 339999, 424690,
424720, 425110, 425120, 481111, 483111, 483112, 483113, 483114, 483211, 483212, 484110, 484121, 484122, 484210, 484220, 484230,
487210, 488111, 488119, 488190, 488310, 488320, 488330, 488390, 488490, 492110, 492210, 493110, 493120, 493130, 493190, 511199,
531130, 532411, 541380, 541710, 541990, 561720, 562111, 562112, 562119, 562213, 562219, 611310, 611692, 622110, 622310, 713930,
811111, 811118, 811310, 811411, 811420, 924110, 928110
The proposed amendments to
Procedure 1 (40 CFR part 60, appendix
F) would apply to any facility that
operates a continuous emission
monitoring system (CEMS) that is
subject to PS–9 or PS–15 (40 CFR part
60, appendix B) and also must comply
with 40 CFR part 60, appendix F. The
proposed amendments to the General
Provisions to 40 CFR parts 60, 61, and
63 would apply to the same facilities
that the proposed PS–17 and Procedure
4 would apply. The proposed
amendments to 40 CFR part 63, subpart
SS, would apply to producers and
coproducers of hydrogen cyanide;
sodium cyanide; carbon black by
thermal-oxidative decomposition in a
closed system, thermal decomposition
in a cyclic process, or thermal
decomposition in a continuous process;
ethylene from refined petroleum or
liquid hydrocarbons; and spandex by
reaction spinning.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
20:38 Oct 08, 2008
Jkt 217001
To determine whether your facility
would be regulated by this action, you
should examine the applicability
criteria in section 1.2 of proposed PS–
17 and the applicability criteria in the
part 60, 61, or 63 standard to which
your facility is subject. If you have any
questions regarding the applicability of
this action to a particular entity, consult
either the air permit authority for the
entity or your EPA regional
representative as listed in § 63.13 of the
General Provisions to part 63 (40 CFR
part 63, subpart A).
B. What should you consider as you
prepare your comments for EPA?
Do not submit information containing
CBI to EPA through https://
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
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
Air Quality Planning and Standards,
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina
27711, Attention Docket ID EPA–HQ–
OAR–2006–0640. Clearly mark the part
or all of the information that you claim
to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk
or CD–ROM that you mail to EPA, mark
the outside of the disk or CD–ROM as
CBI and then identify electronically
within the disk or CD–ROM the specific
information that is claimed as CBI. In
addition to one complete version of the
comment that includes information
claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment
that does not contain the information
claimed as CBI must be submitted for
inclusion in the public docket.
Information so marked will not be
disclosed except in accordance with
procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.
E:\FR\FM\09OCP3.SGM
09OCP3
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 197 / Thursday, October 9, 2008 / Proposed Rules
C. Where can you get a copy of this
document and other related
information?
In addition to being available in the
docket, an electronic copy of these
proposed actions will also be available
on the Worldwide Web (WWW) through
the Technology Transfer Network
(TTN). A copy of this proposed action
will be posted on the TTN’s policy and
guidance page for newly proposed or
promulgated rules at the following
address: https://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg/.
The TTN provides information and
technology exchange in various areas of
air pollution control.
D. Will there be a public hearing?
The EPA will hold a public hearing
on this proposed rule only if requested
by November 10, 2008. The request for
a public hearing should be made in
writing and addressed to Mr. Barrett
Parker, Sector Policies and Programs
Division, Office of Air Quality Planning
and Standards (D243–05), U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency,
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina
27711. The hearing, if requested, will be
held on a date and at a place published
in a separate Federal Register notice.
pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS3
II. Background
A. What is the regulatory history of the
proposed PS–17 and Procedure 4?
Monitoring of emissions, control
device operating parameters, and
process operations has been a
requirement of many of the emission
standards that we have promulgated
under the authority of the Clean Air Act
(CAA). Recognizing the need for good
quality data, we initially developed
performance specifications for CEMS.
These performance specifications
stipulate CEMS equipment design,
location, and installation requirements
and focus on the initial performance of
CEMS. To address the ongoing
performance of CEMS, we developed
quality assurance (QA) procedures.
The basis for performance
specifications for CPMS was initially
established by the General Provisions
for Standards of Performance for New
Stationary Sources in 40 CFR part 60,
subpart A. Section 60.13(a), which
addresses monitoring requirements,
states that ‘‘* * * all continuous
monitoring systems required under
applicable subparts shall be subject to
the provisions of this section upon
promulgation of performance
specifications for continuous
monitoring systems under appendix B
to this part * * *’’ As defined in § 60.2,
these ‘‘continuous monitoring systems’’
include those systems that are used to
VerDate Aug<31>2005
20:38 Oct 08, 2008
Jkt 217001
measure and record process parameters.
Section 60.13 specifies basic
requirements for the installation,
validation, and operation of continuous
monitoring systems, including CPMS.
General recordkeeping requirements for
CPMS required under part 60 are
specified in § 60.7(f).
Section 61.14 of the NESHAP General
Provisions in 40 CFR part 61, subpart A
also addresses CPMS, although in less
detail than does § 60.13. Included in the
requirements for CPMS under part 61
are provisions for the general operation
and maintenance of continuous
monitoring systems, monitoring system
performance evaluations, and
recordkeeping.
With the enactment of the Clean Air
Act Amendments of 1990 (1990
Amendments), we have placed
increased emphasis on the collection
and use of monitoring data as a means
of ensuring continuous compliance with
emission standards. In response to the
mandates of the 1990 Amendments, we
incorporated into the General Provisions
to part 63, basic requirements for all
continuous monitoring systems (CMS).
Section 63.2 broadly defines CMS to
include CPMS, as well as CEMS and
other forms of monitoring that are used
to demonstrate compliance with
applicable regulations. In § 63.8(a)(2),
the General Provisions specify that,
‘‘* * * all CMS required under relevant
standards shall be subject to the
provisions of this section upon
promulgation of performance
specifications for CMS as specified in
the relevant standard or otherwise by
the Administrator.’’ As is the case for
part 60, the General Provisions to part
63 establish the need for performance
specifications for CPMS.
Rules promulgated under parts 60, 61,
and 63 generally require owners or
operators of affected sources to use
CPMS to monitor the performance of
emission control devices associated
with those sources. Although many of
these standards specify general design,
installation, and calibration
requirements for CPMS, these rules do
not include specific performance
requirements for CPMS. In addition,
neither the General Provisions nor the
subparts to parts 60, 61, and 63 fully
specify procedures and criteria for
ensuring that CPMS provide good
quality data initially and on an ongoing
basis. By proposing a new performance
specification and QA procedure
specifically for CPMS, we would be
establishing standards for the design,
installation, operation, and maintenance
of CPMS that will help to ensure the
generation of good quality data on a
consistent basis.
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
59961
The proposed requirements for CPMS
also reflect EPA’s commitment to
improving the quality of data collected
and disseminated by the Agency.
Although we have always recognized its
importance, there has been increased
emphasis on ensuring data quality in
response to section 515 of the Treasury
and General Government
Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2001
(Pub. L. 106–554), which directs the
OMB to issue guidelines that ‘‘provide
policy and procedural guidance to
Federal agencies for ensuring and
maximizing the quality, objectivity,
utility, and integrity of information
* * * disseminated by Federal
agencies.’’ On September 28, 2001, OMB
issued final Guidelines for Ensuring and
Maximizing the Quality, Objectivity,
Utility, and Integrity of Information
Disseminated by Federal Agencies (66
FR 49718). These guidelines require
Federal agencies to adopt ‘‘* * * a basic
standard of quality (including
objectivity, utility, and integrity) as a
performance goal and should take
appropriate steps to incorporate
information quality criteria into agency
dissemination practices.’’ The
guidelines also require agencies to
‘‘* * * develop a process for reviewing
the quality (including objectivity,
utility, and integrity) of information
before it is disseminated * * *’’ and
that the process must ‘‘* * * enable the
agency to substantiate the quality of the
information it has disseminated through
documentation or other means
appropriate to the information.’’
In response to the OMB guidelines,
we developed ‘‘Guidelines for Ensuring
and Maximizing the Quality,
Objectivity, Utility, and Integrity of
Information Disseminated by the
Environmental Protection Agency’’
(EPA/260R–02–008, October 2002). As
noted in these guidelines, we are
committed to ensuring the quality
control of information collected through
regulatory requirements, such as this
proposed rule, by specifying analytical
procedures for data collection and
sample analysis that will produce good
quality data. We believe the procedures
specified in the proposed PS–17 and
Procedure 4 will help to ensure the
quality of data measured and recorded
by affected CPMS, which may
subsequently be collected and
disseminated by EPA.
This proposed rule also represents an
important part of our efforts to
implement the recommendations
developed by the Air Quality
Management Work Group in response to
the National Research Council (NRC)
report on Air Quality Management in
the United States. Specifically, the
E:\FR\FM\09OCP3.SGM
09OCP3
59962
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 197 / Thursday, October 9, 2008 / Proposed Rules
recommendations developed by the
Work Group call for improving
emissions factors and other emissions
estimation methods and reducing the
uncertainty in emissions inventories
and air quality modeling applications.
When emissions factors and other
methods are used to estimate emissions
from controlled sources, the assumption
is that the control device is operating
properly. The improved monitoring of
air pollution control device parameters
that would be achieved by the proposed
PS–17 and Procedure 4 would help to
ensure that affected control devices are
operated properly, and, when problems
arise, corrective action is taken in a
timely manner. Furthermore, the
improved monitoring will help to
reduce the uncertainty and improve the
reliability of emission estimates that
typically are based on the assumptions
that emission controls are being
operated properly and are performing as
designed.
pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS3
B. What is the regulatory history of the
proposed amendments to Procedure 1?
Quality Assurance Procedure 1 of 40
CFR part 60, appendix F, specifies QA
procedures for CEMS. At the time that
Procedure 1 was promulgated, affected
CEMS were designed to monitor a single
gaseous pollutant. Since that time,
emission standards have been
promulgated under parts 60, 61, and 63
that require the installation and
operation of CEMS that monitor
multiple pollutants. Although most of
the provisions of Procedure 1 can be
applied directly to multiple pollutant
CEMS, there are differences in how
multiple pollutant CEMS operate and
how their performance should be
assessed. We are proposing amendments
to Procedure 1 to address those
differences.
C. What is the regulatory history of the
proposed amendments to the General
Provisions to parts 60, 61, and 63?
The only purpose of these proposed
amendments to the General Provisions
to parts 60 and 61 is to ensure
consistency between those provisions,
the applicable subparts to parts 60 and
61 that require the use of CPMS, and the
requirements of the proposed PS–17 and
Procedure 4. As this is the initial
proposal of PS–17 and Procedure 4,
there is no regulatory history to these
proposed amendments to the General
Provisions to parts 60 and 61.
We proposed amendments to the
monitoring requirements of the General
Provisions to part 63 on March 23, 2001
(66 FR 16318) and promulgated those
amendments on April 5, 2002 (67 FR
16582). At the time we proposed those
VerDate Aug<31>2005
20:38 Oct 08, 2008
Jkt 217001
amendments, we had not yet developed
PS–17 or Procedure 4. As a result, the
amendments to the General Provisions,
which were incorporated into § 63.8, are
not consistent with the requirements of
PS–17 and Procedure 4 that we are now
proposing. With this proposal of PS–17
and Procedure 4, we decided that
additional amendments to the General
Provisions to part 63 were needed to
ensure consistency between subpart A
of part 63, PS–17, Procedure 4, and the
applicable subparts to part 63 that
require CPMS.
D. What is the regulatory history of the
proposed amendments to 40 CFR part
63, subpart SS?
On June 29, 1999, we promulgated the
consolidated rulemaking proposal for
the ‘‘generic MACT standards’’ program
(64 FR 34866). The generic MACT
program established an alternative
methodology for making maximum
achievable control technology (MACT)
determinations for appropriate small
categories by referring to previous
MACT standards that have been
promulgated for similar sources in other
categories. Initially, the generic MACT
standards applied to four source
categories: Acetal Resins Production,
Acrylic and Modacrylic Fibers
Production, Hydrogen Fluoride
Production, and Polycarbonate
Production. We included in the
consolidated rulemaking package
general control requirements for certain
types of hazardous air pollutant (HAP)
emissions from storage vessels
containing organic materials, process
vents emitting organic vapors, and leaks
from equipment components. We also
established a separate subpart SS, which
specifies requirements for closed vent
systems, control devices, recovery
devices and routing emissions to fuel
gas systems or a process. We included
in § 63.996 of subpart SS general
monitoring requirements for control and
recovery devices. On December 6, 2000,
we proposed revisions to the monitoring
requirements of subpart SS (65 FR
76444). Those proposed revisions
specified in greater detail the
requirements for CPMS that are used to
monitor temperature, pressure, or pH.
At the time these revisions to subpart SS
were proposed, we were in the early
stages of developing PS–17 and
Procedure 4 and had not yet refined
many of the requirements for CPMS that
we are proposing today. However, with
this proposal of PS–17 and Procedure 4,
we concluded that it would be
appropriate to propose further
amendments to subpart SS to ensure
consistency with PS–17 and Procedure
4.
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
III. Summary of Proposed Performance
Specification 17
A. What is the purpose of PS–17?
The purpose of PS–17 is to establish
the initial installation and performance
procedures that are required for
evaluating the acceptability of a CPMS
that is used to monitor specific process
or control device parameters. The
specific parameters that would be
addressed by the proposed PS–17 are
temperature, pressure, liquid flow rate,
gas flow rate, mass flow rate, pH, and
conductivity. Mass flow rate includes
the mass flow of liquids as well as
solids, such as the flow of powders or
dry solid material into a processing unit.
As proposed, the requirements for the
selection, installation, and validation of
CPMS specified in PS–17 would apply
instead of the corresponding
requirements in an applicable subpart to
parts 60, 61, or 63 that requires the use
of CPMS for monitoring temperature,
pressure, flow rate, pH, or conductivity.
B. Who must comply with PS–17?
The proposed PS–17 would apply to
CPMS that are used to monitor
temperature, pressure, liquid flow rate,
gas flow rate, mass flow rate, pH, or
conductivity as indicators of good
control device performance or emission
source operation. If adopted as a final
rule, owners and operators of emission
sources that would be required to install
and operate any such CPMS under any
subpart of parts 60, 61, or 63 (listed in
Table 1 of this preamble) would be
required to comply with PS–17, with
the exception of facilities that are
subject to the part 63 rules that are
listed in Table 2 of this preamble. In
addition to new CPMS that are installed
after the proposed effective date of PS–
17, existing CPMS that are required
under parts 60, 61, or 63 also would be
required to comply with PS–17.
C. When must owners or operators of
affected CPMS comply with PS–17?
Owners and operators of affected
existing CPMS that were installed prior
to the effective date of this rule and are
located at facilities that are required to
obtain a title V operating permit would
be required to comply with PS–17 when
they renew their title V permit, or when
they replace any key components of an
affected CPMS. The key components of
a CPMS are the sensors, data recorders,
and any other parts of the CPMS that
affect overall system accuracy,
measurement range, or measurement
resolution. Owners and operators of
affected existing CPMS that were
installed prior to the effective date of
this rulemaking and are located at area
E:\FR\FM\09OCP3.SGM
09OCP3
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 197 / Thursday, October 9, 2008 / Proposed Rules
source facilities that are exempt from
obtaining a title V operating permit
would be required to comply with PS–
17 within 5 years of the effective date
of this rule, or when they replace any
key components of an affected CPMS.
Owners and operators of new affected
CPMS would have to comply with the
proposed PS–17 when they install and
place into operation the affected CPMS.
pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS3
D. What are the basic requirements of
PS–17?
The proposed PS–17 would require
owners and operators of affected CPMS
to: (1) Select a CPMS that satisfies basic
equipment design criteria; (2) install
their CPMS according to standard
procedures; (3) validate their CPMS
prior to placing it into operation; and (4)
record and maintain information on
their CPMS and its operation. The
technical rationales for proposed
criteria, specifications, and other related
requirements of PS–17 are described in
section VIII of this document.
1. Equipment Selection
Two types of equipment would be
needed for complying with PS–17: (1)
the components that comprise the
CPMS, and (2) the equipment that is
used to validate the CPMS. For CPMS
components, PS–17 would require the
selection of equipment that can satisfy
basic criteria for measurement range,
resolution, and overall system accuracy.
For CPMS components, PS–17 does
not specify sensor design criteria,
allowing affected owners and operators
to select any equipment, provided the
CPMS meets the accuracy requirements
for the initial validation. However, PS–
17 would identify voluntary consensus
standards that can be used as guidelines
for selecting specific types of sensors.
For a temperature CPMS, PS–17
would require a sensor that is consistent
with one of the following standards: (1)
ASTM E235–06, ‘‘Specification for
Thermocouples, Sheathed, Type K, for
Nuclear or Other High-Reliability
Applications’’; (2) ASTM E585/E585M–
04, ‘‘Specification for Compacted
Mineral-Insulated, Metal-Sheathed Base
Metal Thermocouple Cables’’; (3) ASTM
E608/E608M–06, ‘‘Specification for
Mineral-Insulated, Metal-Sheathed Base
Metal Thermocouples’’; (4) ASTM
E696–07, ‘‘Specification for TungstenRhenium Alloy Thermocouple Wire’’;
(5) ASTM E1129/E1129M–98 (2002),
‘‘Standard Specification for
Thermocouple Connectors’’; (6) ASTM E
1159–98 (2003), ‘‘Specification for
Thermocouple Materials, PlatinumRhodium Alloys, and Platinum’’; (7)
ISA–MC96.1–1982, ‘‘Temperature
Measurement Thermocouples’’; or (8)
VerDate Aug<31>2005
20:38 Oct 08, 2008
Jkt 217001
ASTM E 1137/E 1137M–04, ‘‘Standard
Specification for Industrial Platinum
Resistance Thermometers’’
(incorporated by reference-see § 60.17)
For a pressure CPMS that uses a
pressure gauge as the sensor, PS–17
would require a gauge that conforms to
the design requirements of ASME
B40.100–2005, ‘‘Pressure Gauges and
Gauge Attachments’’ (incorporated by
reference-see § 60.17).
2. Range
With respect to measurement range,
this proposed rule would require that
temperature, pressure, flow rate, and
conductivity CPMS be capable of
measuring the appropriate parameter
over a range that extends at least 20
percent beyond the normal expected
operating range of values for that
parameter. For example, if the pressure
drop measurement across a scrubber
typically ranges from 5.0 to 7.5
kilopascals (kPa) (20 to 30 inches of
water column (in. wc)), the range of the
data recorder for a CPMS that monitors
that pressure drop would have to extend
from at least 4.0 to 9.0 kPa (16 to 36 in.
wc). For pH CPMS, the proposed PS–17
would require that the CPMS data
recorder range covers the entire pH
scale from 0 to 14.
3. Resolution
The data recording system associated
with affected CPMS would require a
resolution that is equal to or better than
one-half of the required system
accuracy. For example, if a temperature
CPMS is required to have an accuracy
of 1 °C, the required resolution for the
CPMS would be 0.5 °C, or better.
4. Accuracy
The accuracy criteria for CPMS,
which are a function of the parameter
that is measured by the CPMS, are
described in detail in section II.E of this
document.
For devices or instruments that are
used to validate or check the initial
accuracy of a temperature, pressure, or
flow CPMS, PS–17 generally would
require an accuracy hierarchy of three.
In other words, the ratio of the required
accuracy of the CPMS to the accuracy of
the calibrated validation device would
have to be at least three. For example,
if the required accuracy of a temperature
CPMS is ±1.0 percent, to satisfy the
accuracy hierarchy of three criterion,
the calibrated validation device would
need an accuracy of ±0.33 percent or
better (1.0 ÷ 0.33 = 3). A CPMS with an
accuracy of 0.25 percent would satisfy
the accuracy hierarchy criterion, but a
CPMS with an accuracy of 0.5 percent
would not satisfy the accuracy hierarchy
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
59963
criterion in this example. The accuracy
of the equipment used to validate the
CPMS also would have to be traceable
to National Institute of Standards and
Technology (NIST) standards. We have
incorporated into the proposed PS–17
two exceptions to the accuracy
requirements for instruments that are
used to validate CPMS. First, a mercuryin-glass or water-in-glass U-tube
manometer could be used instead of a
calibrated pressure measurement device
with NIST-traceable accuracy when
validating a pressure CPMS or a flow
CPMS that uses a differential pressure
flow meter. Secondly, for instruments
and reagents that are used to validate a
pH CPMS, the performance
specification would require NISTtraceable accuracy of 0.02 pH units or
better, rather than an accuracy hierarchy
of three.
5. Installation
The PS–17 would require each CPMS
sensor to be located so as to provide
representative measurements of the
appropriate parameter. The proposed
PS–17 also lists voluntary consensus
standards that could serve as guidelines
for installing specific types of sensors.
Voluntary consensus standards are
technical standards that are developed
or adopted by one or more voluntary
consensus standards bodies, such as the
American Society for Testing and
Materials (ASTM) or the American
Society of Mechanical Engineers
(ASME).
If required to install a flow CPMS and
the sensor of the flow CPMS is a
differential pressure device, turbine
flow meter, rotameter, vortex formation
flow meter or Coriolis mass flow meter,
PS–17 would allow one of the following
standards to be used as guidance: (1)
ASME MFC–3M–2004, ‘‘Measurement
of Fluid Flow in Pipes Using Orifice,
Nozzle, and Venturi’’; (2) ANSI/ASME
MFC–7M–1987 (R2001), ‘‘Measurement
of Gas Flow by Means of Critical Flow
Venturi Nozzles’’; (3) ANSI/ISA RP
31.1–1977, ‘‘Recommended Practice:
Specification, Installation, and
Calibration of Turbine Flowmeters’’; (4)
ANSI/ASME MFC 4M–1986 (R2003),
‘‘Measurement of Gas Flow by Turbine
Meters’’ (if used for gas flow
measurement); (5) ISA RP 16.5–1961,
‘‘Installation, Operation, and
Maintenance Instructions for Glass Tube
Variable Area Meters (Rotameters)’’; (6)
ISO 10790:1999(E), ‘‘Measurement of
Fluid Flow in Closed ConduitsGuidance to the Selection, Installation
and Use of Coriolis Meters (Mass Flow,
Density and Volume Flow
Measurements); or (7) ANSI/ASME
MFC–6M–1998 (R2005) ‘‘Measurement
E:\FR\FM\09OCP3.SGM
09OCP3
59964
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 197 / Thursday, October 9, 2008 / Proposed Rules
of Fluid Flow in Pipes Using Vortex
Flow Meters’’ (incorporated by
reference—see § 60.17).
There are also several voluntary
consensus standards that can be used as
alternative methods for checking the
accuracy of specific types of CPMS
sensors. Prior to validating the
performance of a CPMS, owners and
operators would be required to install
work platforms, test ports, taps, valves,
or any other equipment needed to
perform the initial validation check.
6. CPMS Validation
Under this proposed rule, we would
require owners and operators of affected
CPMS to demonstrate that affected
CPMS meet a minimum overall system
accuracy. Several methods are specified
for checking CPMS accuracy, and
owners and operators of affected CPMS
could choose among the methods
specified for each type of CPMS. These
validation methods generally would
involve either: (1) Comparing
measurements made by the affected
CPMS to measurements made by a
calibrated measurement device, or (2)
simulating the signal generated by the
CPMS sensor using a calibrated
simulation device. Table 5 of this
preamble lists the CPMS validation
methods specified in the proposed PS–
17 and their applicability. As part of
specific validation methods, the
proposed PS–17 specifies several
voluntary consensus standards as
alternative methods for checking sensor
accuracy.
TABLE 5—CPMS INITIAL VALIDATION METHODS
If your CPMS measures . . .
You can validate your CPMS by . . .
If the sensor of your CPMS is . . .
1. Temperature ...................................................
a. Comparison to a calibrated temperature
measurement device.
b. Temperature simulation ...............................
Thermocouple, RTD, or any other type of
temperature sensor.
Thermocouple, RTD, or any other type of sensor that generates an electronic signal that
can be related to temperature magnitude.
2. Pressure .........................................................
a. Comparison to a calibrated pressure measurement device.
b. Pressure simulation procedure using a calibrated pressure source.
c. Pressure simulation using a pressure
source and a calibrated pressure measurement device.
Pressure transducer, pressure gauge, or any
other type of pressure sensor.
Pressure transducer, pressure gauge, or any
other type of pressure sensor.
Pressure transducer, pressure gauge, or any
other type of pressure sensor.
3. Liquid flow rate ...............................................
a. Volumetric method .......................................
b. Gravimetric method .....................................
c. Differential pressure measurement method
Any type of liquid flow meter.
Any type of liquid flow meter.
Orifice plate, flow nozzle, or other type of differential pressure liquid flow meter.
Orifice plate, flow nozzle, or other type of differential pressure liquid flow meter.
Turbine flow meter, vortex shedding flow
meter, or any other type of liquid flow meter
that generates an electronic signal that can
be related to flow rate magnitude.
d. Pressure source flow simulation method ....
e. Electronic signal simulation method ............
4. Gas flow rate ..................................................
a. Differential pressure measurement method
d. Relative accuracy test .................................
Orifice plate, flow nozzle, or any other type of
differential pressure gas flow meter other
than a differential pressure tube.
Orifice plate, flow nozzle, or any other type of
differential pressure gas flow meter other
than a differential pressure tube.
Any type of gas flow meter that generates an
electronic signal that can be related to flow
rate magnitude.
Any type of gas flow meter.
5. Liquid mass flow rate .....................................
Gravimetric method ..........................................
Any type of liquid flow meter.
6. Solid mass flow rate .......................................
a. Gravimetric method .....................................
b. Material weight comparison method ............
Any type of solid mass flow meter.
Belt conveyor with weigh scale, equipped with
a totalizer.
7. pH ...................................................................
a. Comparison to calibrated pH meter ............
b. Single point calibration ................................
Any type of pH meter.
Any type of pH meter.
8. Conductivity ....................................................
a.
Any type of conductivity meter.
b. Pressure source flow simulation method ....
pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS3
c. Electronic signal simulation method ............
7. Temperature CPMS Validation
Under this proposed rule, the
performance of a temperature CPMS
could be validated by comparing
VerDate Aug<31>2005
20:38 Oct 08, 2008
Jkt 217001
Comparison to calibrated conductivity
meter.
b. Single point calibration ................................
measured values to a calibrated
temperature measurement device or by
simulating a typical operating
temperature using a calibrated
temperature simulation device. When
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
Any type of conductivity meter.
the calibrated temperature measurement
device method is used, the sensor of the
calibrated device would have to be
located adjacent to the CPMS sensor and
must be subjected to the same
E:\FR\FM\09OCP3.SGM
09OCP3
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 197 / Thursday, October 9, 2008 / Proposed Rules
environmental conditions as the CPMS
sensor. In addition, the measurements
made using the CPMS and calibrated
temperature measurement device would
have to be concurrent. The method is
based on ASTM E 220–07e1, ‘‘Standard
Test Methods for Calibration of
Thermocouples by Comparison
Techniques’’ (incorporated by
reference—see § 60.17).
An alternative method for
thermocouples is ASTM E 452–02
(2007), ‘‘Standard Test Method for
Calibration of Refractory Metal
Thermocouples Using an Optical
Pyrometer’’ and an alternative method
for resistance temperature detectors is
ASTM E 644–06, ‘‘Standard Test
Methods for Testing Industrial
Resistance Thermometers’’
(incorporated by reference—see § 60.17).
pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS3
8. Pressure CPMS Validation
To validate the performance of a
pressure CPMS, owners and operators
could choose from one of three
methods: (1) Comparison to a calibrated
pressure measurement device, (2)
pressure simulation using a calibrated
pressure source, or (3) pressure
simulation using a pressure source and
calibrated pressure measurement
device. Prior to performing the initial
validation check of a pressure CPMS,
PS–17 would require a leak test on all
connections between the process line
that is monitored, the CPMS, and the
calibrated device that is used as the
basis for comparison. If the calibrated
pressure measurement device
comparison were used, the
measurements by the CPMS and
calibrated device would have to be
concurrent.
As an alternative to the initial
validation check, PS–17 would allow
the user to check the accuracy of the
pressure sensor associated with the
pressure CPMS using one of the
following methods: (1) ASME B40.100–
2005, ‘‘Pressure Gauges and Gauge
Attachments’’ or (2) ASTM E 251–92
(2003), ‘‘Standard Test Methods for
Performance Characteristics of Metallic
Bonded Resistance Strain Gages’’
(incorporated by reference—see § 60.17).
Users would also be required to check
the accuracy of the overall CPMS.
9. Flow CPMS Validation
Under the proposed PS–17, the
performance of a flow CPMS could be
validated using one of seven methods.
However, none of the methods could be
applied universally to all types of flow
CPMS; there would be limitations on
the use of each specific method. The
volumetric method, which could be
used to validate any liquid flow rate
VerDate Aug<31>2005
20:38 Oct 08, 2008
Jkt 217001
measurement device, would entail
collecting a volume of liquid for a timed
period, then calculating the flow rate
based on the volume collected and the
length of the time period over which the
liquid was collected. The gravimetric
method is similar to the volumetric
method except that the material
collected would be weighed. The
gravimetric method could be used to
validate any liquid flow CPMS, liquid
mass flow CPMS, and solid mass flow
CPMS. Liquid mass flow rates and solid
mass flow rates would be calculated
based on the weight of the liquid or
solid and the length of the time period
over which the liquid or solid was
collected. Liquid flow rate would be
calculated based on the weight and
density of the liquid and the length of
the time period over which the liquid
was collected.
The volumetric and gravimetric
methods are based on voluntary
consensus standards and could be used
to validate liquid flow CPMS. Both
methods are described in the following
standards: (1) ISA RP 16.6–1961,
‘‘Methods and Equipment for
Calibration of Variable Area Meters
(Rotameters)’’; (2) ISA RP 31.1–1977,
‘‘Specification, Installation, and
Calibration of Turbine Flow Meters’’;
and (3) ISO 8316:1987, ‘‘Measurement
of Liquid Flow in Closed ConduitsMethod by Collection of Liquid in a
Volumetric Tank’’ (incorporated by
reference-see § 60.17). The gravimetric
method also is described in the
following standards: (1) ANSI/ASME
MFC–9M–1988, ‘‘Measurement of
Liquid Flow in Closed Conduits by
Weighing Method’’; and (2) ASHRAE
41.8–1989, ‘‘Standard Methods of
Measurement of Flow of Liquids in
Pipes Using Orifice Flow Meters’’
(incorporated by reference-see § 60.17).
The gravimetric method also could be
used to validate liquid mass flow or
solid mass flow CPMS.
The differential pressure
measurement method and the pressure
source flow simulation method could be
used to validate any flow CPMS that
uses a differential pressure
measurement flow device, such as an
orifice plate, flow nozzle, or venturi
tube. Both methods would entail
measuring the differential pressure
across a flow constriction, then
calculating the corresponding flow rate
based on the measured differential
pressure using the manufacturer’s
literature or the procedures specified in
ASME MFC–3M–2004, ‘‘Measurement
of Fluid Flow in Pipes Using Orifice,
Nozzle, and Venturi’’ (incorporated by
reference—see § 60.17), the
characteristics of the liquid, and the
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
59965
dimensions and design of the flow
constriction. For CPMS that use an
orifice flow meter, the flow rate can be
calculated using procedures specified in
ASHRAE 41.8–1989, ‘‘Standard
Methods of Measurement of Flow of
Liquids in Pipes Using Orifice
Flowmeters’’ (incorporated by
reference—see § 60.17).
In addition, prior to the validation
check, both methods would require a
leak test on all connections associated
with the process line, CPMS, and
pressure connections. Neither the
differential pressure measurement
method nor the pressure source flow
simulation method could be used to
validate a gas flow CPMS that uses one
or more differential pressure tubes as
the flow sensor. A differential pressure
tube is defined as a device, such as a
pitot tube, that consists of one or more
pairs of tubes that are oriented to
measure the velocity pressure and static
pressure at one of more fixed points
within a duct for the purpose of
determining gas velocity.
The electronic signal simulation
method could be used to validate any
flow CPMS that operates with a sensor
that generates an electronic signal,
provided the electronic signal can be
simulated and is related to the
magnitude of the flow rate. Examples of
this type of flow sensor are turbine
meters and vortex shedding flow meters.
The electronic signal simulation method
would entail simulating an electronic
signal using a calibrated signal
simulator, then calculating the flow rate
that corresponds to the value of the
simulated signal.
Owners or operators of flow CPMS
that are used for monitoring gas flow
rate could validate their CPMS by
performing a relative accuracy (RA) test
using Reference Methods 2, 2A, 2B, 2C,
2D, or 2F (40 CFR part 60, appendix A–
1), or 2G (40 CFR part 60, appendix A–
2). The RA test is the only method
specified in the proposed PS–17 for
validating a gas flow CPMS that
incorporates a differential pressure tube.
Finally, the material weight
comparison method could be used to
validate a solid mass flow CPMS that
uses a combination belt conveyor and
weigh scale equipped with a totalizer.
The method is based on the BeltConveyor Scale Systems Method, which
is described in NIST Handbook 44—
2002 Edition, ‘‘Specifications,
Tolerances, And Other Technical
Requirements for Weighing and
Measuring Devices’’ (incorporated by
reference—see § 60.17) as adopted by
the 86th National Conference on
Weights and Measures in 2001.
E:\FR\FM\09OCP3.SGM
09OCP3
59966
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 197 / Thursday, October 9, 2008 / Proposed Rules
10. pH CPMS Validation
To validate the performance of a pH
CPMS, two methods are specified in the
proposed PS–17. In the first method, the
pH measured by the CPMS would be
compared to the pH measured by a
calibrated pH meter. In the second
method, the single point calibration
method, the value measured by the
CPMS would be compared to the pH
measurement of a certified buffer
solution. If the CPMS did not satisfy the
accuracy requirement, a two-point
calibration method, based on ASTM D
1293–99 (2005), ‘‘Standard Test
Methods for pH of Water’’ (incorporated
by reference—see § 60.17), would be
suggested.
11. Conductivity CPMS Validation
The proposed PS–17 would specify
two methods for validating conductivity
CPMS. The two methods parallel the
methods for validating pH CPMS:
comparison to a calibrated conductivity
meter and the single point calibration
method using a standard conductivity
solution.
If the conductivity CPMS did not
satisfy the accuracy requirement,
calibration based on the procedures
specified in the manufacturer’s owner’s
manual would be suggested. If the
manufacturer’s owner’s manual does not
specify a calibration procedure,
calibration should be performed based
on one of the following standards: (1)
ASTM D 1125–95 (2005), ‘‘Standard
Test Methods for Electrical Conductivity
and Resistivity of Water’’; or (2) ASTM
D 5391–99 (2005), ‘‘Standard Test
Method for Electrical conductivity and
Resistivity of a Flowing High Purity
Water Sample’’ (incorporated by
reference—see § 60.17).
12. Alternative Methods of CPMS
Validation
Owners and operators of affected
CPMS could have the option of using
alternative methods for validating their
CPMS, provided the alternative method
has been approved by us or by a
delegated authority. In all cases, owners
and operators of affected CPMS would
be required to take corrective action if
the initial validation check indicates
that the CPMS does not satisfy the
accuracy requirement. Alternative
monitoring methods are addressed
under the General Provisions to parts
60, 61, and 63 in §§ 60.13(i), 61.14(g),
and 63.8(f), respectively. Alternative
monitoring methods also are addressed
in the applicable subparts for each rule.
E. What initial performance criteria
must be demonstrated to comply with
PS–17?
Owners or operators of affected CPMS
would be required to demonstrate that
their CPMS meet a minimum system
accuracy. Table 6 of this preamble
summarizes the required accuracies.
These minimum accuracies would
pertain to the overall CPMS and not
simply the sensor.
TABLE 6—ACCURACY CRITERIA FOR INITIAL VALIDATION CHECK
If the CPMS measures . . .
The accuracy criteria for the initial validation check are . . .
1. Temperature (in a non-cryogenic environment).
2. Temperature (in a cryogenic environment) ....
3. Pressure .........................................................
4. Liquid flow rate ...............................................
5. Gas flow rate ..................................................
System accuracy of ±1.0 percent of the temperature or 2.8 °C (5 °F), whichever is greater.
pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS3
6. Mass flow rate ................................................
7. pH ...................................................................
8. Conductivity ....................................................
In most cases, the required accuracies
are expressed both as accuracy
percentages and as accuracy values; for
a specific parameter value, the accuracy
criterion that results in the greater value
would apply (i.e., the less stringent
criterion would apply). For example, for
liquid flow rate, the accuracy percentage
would be ±5 percent, and the accuracy
value would be 1.9 liters per minute (L/
min) (0.5 gallons per minute (gal/min)).
If the actual flow rate were 30 L/min
(7.9 gal/min), the accuracy percentage
criterion would result in a value of 1.5
L/min (0.4 gal/min). Therefore, the
accuracy value criterion of 1.9 L/min
(0.5 gal/min) would apply because 1.9
L/min is greater than 1.5 L/min.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
20:38 Oct 08, 2008
Jkt 217001
System accuracy of ±2.5 percent of the temperature or 2.8 °C (5 °F), whichever is greater.
System accuracy of ±5 percent or 0.12 kPa (0.5 in. wc), whichever is greater.
System accuracy of ±5 percent or 1.9 L/min (0.5 gal/min), whichever is greater.
a. Relative accuracy of ±20 percent, if the relative accuracy test is used to demonstrate compliance, OR.
b. System accuracy of ±10 percent, if the CPMS measures steam flow rate, OR.
c. System accuracy of ±5 percent or 280 L/min (10 ft3/min), whichever is greater, for all other
gases and validation test methods.
System accuracy of ±5 percent.
System accuracy of 0.2 pH units.
System accuracy percentage of ±5 percent.
For temperature CPMS, the proposed
PS–17 would make a distinction
between cryogenic and non-cryogenic
environments; cryogenic environments
are those characterized by a temperature
less than 0 °C (32 °F), and non-cryogenic
environments are those with a
temperature of at least 0 °C (32 °F). The
minimum accuracy for a temperature
CPMS used in a non-cryogenic
application would be the greater of ±1.0
percent of the temperature measured on
the Celsius scale (°C) and ±2.8 °C (5 °F).
For example, for a temperature CPMS
that is used to monitor a thermal
oxidizer operating at 760 °C (1400 °F),
the 1 percent accuracy criterion would
require the CPMS to be accurate to
within ±7.6 °C (±14 °F). Because 7.6 °C
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
(±14 °F) is greater than 2.8 °C (5 °F), the
1 percent accuracy criterion would
apply. The minimum accuracy of a
temperature CPMS used in a cryogenic
application would be ±2.8 °C (5 °F) or
±2.5 percent of the temperature
measured on the Celsius scale,
whichever is greater. For a temperature
CPMS that is used to monitor a
condenser operating with an outlet
temperature of ¥12 °C (10 °F), the
temperature value criterion would
apply; the CPMS would have to be
accurate to ±2.8 °C (±5 °F) because 2.8
°C (5 °F) is greater than 2.5 percent of
¥12 °C (10 °F), which is ±0.3 °C (±0.5
°F). These criteria translate to the
accuracies listed in Table 7 of this
preamble.
E:\FR\FM\09OCP3.SGM
09OCP3
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 197 / Thursday, October 9, 2008 / Proposed Rules
59967
TABLE 7—SUMMARY OF TEMPERATURE CPMS ACCURACY REQUIREMENTS
The required temperature
CPMS accuracy is . . .
1. Greater than 280 °C (540 °F) ..............................................................................................................................
2. Between ¥112 and 280 °C (¥170 and 540 °F) .................................................................................................
3. Less than ¥112 °C (¥170 °F) ............................................................................................................................
pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS3
For temperatures that are . . .
±1 percent of temperature.
±2.8 °C (5 °F).
±2.5 percent of temperature.
The proposed PS–17 would require
pressure CPMS to be accurate to within
±5 percent or 0.12 kPa (0.5 in. wc),
whichever is greater. For example, a
CPMS that is used to monitor a venturi
scrubber with a pressure drop of 7.5 kPa
(30 in. wc) would have to be accurate
to 0.37 kPa (1.5 in. wc) or better, based
on the ±5 percent criterion because 0.37
kPa (1.5 in. wc) is greater than 0.12 kPa
(0.5 in. wc). On the other hand, the
required accuracy for a CPMS that
monitored a pressure drop of 1.0 kPa (4
in. wc) across a fabric filter would be
0.12 kPa (0.5 in. wc), or better, because
the ±5 percent criterion would result in
an accuracy of 0.05 kPa (0.2 in. wc).
The required accuracy for flow CPMS
would depend on the material that is
being monitored. For liquid flow rate
CPMS, the minimum accuracy would be
1.9 L/min (0.5 gal/min) or ±5 percent,
whichever is greater. For example, to
monitor a scrubber liquid flow rate of
300 L/min (80 gal/min), the required
CPMS accuracy would be 15 L/min (4
gal/min) or better. For gas flow rate
CPMS, PS–17 would require a minimum
accuracy of 280 L/min (10 cubic feet per
minute (ft3/min)) or ±5 percent,
whichever is greater. Therefore, a fuel
flow meter on a natural gas-fired 8
MMBtu/hr incinerator with a gas flow
rate of 3,700 L/min (130 ft3/min) would
have to be accurate to 280 L/min (10 ft3/
min) or better. An exception to these
accuracy requirements for flow meters
would apply if an RA test is used to
validate a gas flow CPMS. In such cases,
the required RA would be 20 percent of
the mean value of the reference method
test data, or better. An exception to the
gas flow CPMS accuracy requirements
would also apply for steam flow rate
CPMS. The proposed PS–17 stipulates
the minimum accuracy for a CPMS that
is used for monitoring steam flow rate
would have to be ±10 percent or better.
The minimum accuracy specified in the
proposed PS–17 for mass flow CPMS
would be ±5 percent. We would require
pH CPMS to be accurate to within ±0.2
pH units. Finally, conductivity CPMS
would have to be accurate to ±5 percent.
F. What are the reporting and
recordkeeping requirements for PS–17?
The proposed PS–17 does not specify
reporting requirements but would
VerDate Aug<31>2005
20:38 Oct 08, 2008
Jkt 217001
require owners and operators of affected
CPMS to record and maintain
information that identifies the CPMS,
including the location of the CPMS,
identification number assigned by the
owner or operator, the manufacturer’s
name and model number, and the
typical operating range for each
parameter that is monitored. In
addition, owners and operators of
affected CPMS would be required to
document performance demonstrations.
IV. Summary of Proposed Procedure 4
A. What is the purpose of Procedure 4?
The proposed Procedure 4 would
have two primary purposes. First, the
procedure would be used for evaluating
the quality of data produced by CPMS
on an ongoing basis. Second, the
procedure would help evaluate the
effectiveness of the QA and quality
control (QC) programs that owners and
operators develop for CPMS. As
proposed, Procedure 4 would apply
instead of the requirements for
evaluating the operation and quality of
the data produced by CPMS specified in
an applicable subpart to parts 60, 61, or
63 that requires the use of CPMS for
monitoring temperature, pressure, flow
rate, pH, or conductivity.
B. Who must comply with Procedure 4?
This procedure would apply to any
CPMS that is subject to PS–17. That is,
any owner or operator who would be
required under an applicable subpart to
parts 60, 61, or 63 to install and operate
a CPMS that is used to monitor
temperature, pressure, flow rate, pH, or
conductivity would be subject to both
PS–17 and Procedure 4.
C. When must owners or operators of
affected CPMS comply with Procedure
4?
Owners and operators of affected
CPMS would have to comply with
Procedure 4 when they install and place
into operation a CPMS that is subject to
PS–17 or when an existing CPMS
becomes subject to PS–17.
D. What are the basic requirements of
Procedure 4?
The proposed Procedure 4 would
require owners or operators to perform
periodic accuracy audits, perform visual
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
inspections and other operational
checks, and develop and implement a
QA/QC program for each affected
CPMS. The technical rationales for
specific proposed requirements of
Procedure 4 are described in section IX
of this document.
1. Accuracy Audits
The requirements for periodic
accuracy audits would consist of
equipment requirements and procedural
requirements. As is the case for
equipment used to perform initial
validations under the proposed PS–17,
the specific equipment required to
perform an accuracy audit would
depend on the type of CPMS and the
method selected for evaluating the
accuracy of the CPMS. However, all
such equipment would have to be
calibrated and would have to meet the
same two general requirements for
accuracy: (1) An accuracy hierarchy of
at least three, and (2) an accuracy that
is NIST-traceable.
We have incorporated into the
proposed Procedure 4 three exceptions
to the accuracy requirements for
instruments that are used to audit the
accuracy of CPMS: (1) When performing
an accuracy audit using a redundant
sensor, the redundant sensor would
have to have an accuracy equal to or
better than the accuracy of your primary
sensor; (2) a mercury-in-glass or waterin-glass U-tube manometer could be
used instead of a calibrated pressure
measurement device with NISTtraceable accuracy when auditing the
accuracy of a pressure CPMS or a flow
CPMS that uses a differential pressure
flow meter; and (3) when performing an
accuracy audit of a flow CPMS using the
volumetric or gravimetric methods, the
container that is used to collect the
liquid or solid material would not be
required to have NIST-traceable
accuracy.
The procedural requirements for
performing accuracy audits of a CPMS
would depend on the type of CPMS.
Owners or operators of affected CPMS
generally could choose among several
methods for performing CPMS accuracy
audits. Many of these methods are
identical to the methods for performing
the initial validation check of CPMS, as
specified in the proposed PS–17 and
E:\FR\FM\09OCP3.SGM
09OCP3
59968
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 197 / Thursday, October 9, 2008 / Proposed Rules
described in section III.D of this
document. However, one significant
difference between the initial validation
methods specified in the proposed PS–
17 and the accuracy audit methods
specified in the proposed Procedure 4 is
that the accuracy audit methods would
require you to check the accuracy of
each primary sensor, either separately or
as part of the overall system accuracy
audit. For PS–17, we assumed that
newly installed sensors are calibrated,
and a separate check of sensor accuracy
would be unnecessary. However, for
assessing ongoing QA, affected owners
and operators would be required to
perform accuracy audits on CPMS that
have been in service, and the audit
procedure would have to verify that the
entire system, including the sensor,
meets the accuracy criteria. Table 8 of
this document lists the CPMS accuracy
audit methods specified in the proposed
Procedure 4 and the associated
applicability.
TABLE 8—ACCURACY AUDIT METHODS
If your CPMS measures . . .
You can perform the accuracy audit of your
CPMS by . . .
If the sensor of your CPMS is . . .
1. Temperature ...................................................
a. Comparison to redundant temperature
CPMS.
b. Comparison to calibrated temperature
measurement device.
c. Separate sensor check and system check
by temperature simulation.
Any type of temperature sensor.
2. Pressure .........................................................
Thermocouple, RTD, or any other type of
temperature sensor.
Thermocouple or RTD.
a. Comparison to redundant pressure sensor.
b. Comparison to calibrated pressure measurement device.
c. Separate sensor check and system check
by pressure simulation using a calibrated
pressure source.
d. Separate sensor check and system check
by pressure simulation using a pressure
source and a calibrated pressure measurement device.
Any type of pressure sensor.
Pressure transducer, pressure gauge, or any
other type of pressure sensor.
Pressure gauge or metallic-bonded resistance
strain gauge.
a. Comparison to redundant flow sensor ........
b. Volumetric method .......................................
c. Gravimetric method ......................................
d. Separate sensor check and system check
by differential pressure measurement method.
e. Separate sensor check and system check
by pressure source flow simulation method.
Any type of liquid flow meter.
Any type of liquid flow meter.
Any type of liquid flow meter.
Orifice plate, flow nozzle, or other type of differential pressure liquid flow meter.
4. Gas flow rate ..................................................
a. Comparison to redundant flow sensor ........
b. Separate sensor check and system check
by differential pressure measurement method.
c. Separate sensor check and system check
by pressure source flow simulation method.
d. Relative accuracy test .................................
Any type of gas flow meter.
Orifice plate, flow nozzle, or any other type of
differential pressure gas flow meter other
than a differential pressure tube.
Orifice plate, flow nozzle, or any other type of
differential pressure gas flow meter.
Any type of gas flow meter.
5. Liquid mass flow rate .....................................
a. Comparison to redundant flow sensor ........
b. Gravimetric method .....................................
Any type of liquid mass flow meter.
Any type of liquid mass flow meter.
6. Solid mass flow rate .......................................
a. Comparison to redundant flow sensor ........
b. Gravimetric method .....................................
c. Material weight comparison method ............
Any type of liquid mass flow meter.
Any type of solid mass flow meter.
Combination belt conveyor, weigh scale, and
totalizer.
7. pH ...................................................................
a. Comparison to redundant pH meter ............
b. Comparison to calibrated pH meter ............
c. Single point calibration .................................
Any type of pH meter.
Any type of pH meter.
Any type of pH meter.
8. Conductivity ....................................................
a.
Any type of conductivity meter.
pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS3
3. Liquid flow rate ...............................................
2. Temperature CPMS Accuracy Audit
Methods
To perform an accuracy audit of a
temperature CPMS, owners and
VerDate Aug<31>2005
20:38 Oct 08, 2008
Jkt 217001
Comparison to redundant conductivity
meter.
b. Comparison to calibrated conductivity
meter.
c. Single point calibration .................................
operators of affected CPMS could
choose from three methods. The first
method would apply to CPMS with
redundant temperature sensors and
would entail comparing the temperature
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
Pressure gauge or metallic-bonded resistance
strain gauge.
Orifice plate, flow nozzle, or other type of differential pressure liquid flow meter.
Any type of conductivity meter.
Any type of conductivity meter.
measured by the primary sensor of your
CPMS to that of the redundant
temperature sensor. The second method
would consist of comparing the
temperature measured by the CPMS to
E:\FR\FM\09OCP3.SGM
09OCP3
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 197 / Thursday, October 9, 2008 / Proposed Rules
a separate calibrated temperature
measurement device. The third method
would require checking the temperature
sensor independent of the other
components of the CPMS. The
temperature sensor could be checked
using methods specified in any of the
following voluntary consensus
standards: (1) ASTM E 220–07e1,
‘‘Standard Test Methods for Calibration
of Thermocouples by Comparison
Techniques’’ (for thermocouples); (2)
ASTM E 452–02 (2007), ‘‘Standard Test
Method for Calibration of Refractory
Metal Thermocouples Using an Optical
Pyrometer’’ (for thermocouples); or (3)
ASTM E 644–06, ‘‘Standard Test
Methods for Testing Industrial
Resistance Thermometers’’ (for
resistance temperature detectors)
(incorporated by reference—see § 60.17).
The other components of the CPMS
could be checked by simulating a
temperature, then comparing the
temperature recorded by the CPMS to
the simulated temperature. Because the
voluntary consensus standards specified
in the proposed Procedure 4 would
apply only to thermocouples and
resistance temperature detectors (RTDs),
this accuracy audit method would apply
only to CPMS that use those types of
temperature sensors.
pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS3
3. Pressure CPMS Accuracy Audit
Methods
For an accuracy audit of a pressure
CPMS, the proposed Procedure 4 would
specify four methods. The first method
would apply to CPMS with redundant
pressure sensors and would entail
comparing the pressure measured by the
primary pressure sensor of your CPMS
to the pressure measured by the
redundant pressure sensor. The second
method would consist of comparing the
pressure measured by your CPMS to the
pressure measured by a separate
calibrated pressure measurement
device. The other two methods would
involve checking the accuracies of the
pressure sensor independent of the
other components of the CPMS. For
checking sensor accuracy, the proposed
Procedure 4 would reference voluntary
consensus standards. Because we were
able to identify voluntary consensus
standards only for pressure gauges
(ASME B40.100–2005, ‘‘Pressure Gauges
and Gauge Attachments’’) and metallicbonded resistance strain gauges (ASTM
E 251–92 (2003), ‘‘Standard Test
Methods for Performance Characteristics
of Metallic Bonded Resistance Strain
Gages’’) (incorporated by reference—see
§ 60.17), these other two pressure CPMS
accuracy audit methods would apply
only to CPMS that use pressure gauge or
VerDate Aug<31>2005
20:38 Oct 08, 2008
Jkt 217001
metallic-bonded resistance strain gauge
sensors.
After checking sensor accuracy, the
accuracy of the other components of the
CPMS could be checked by either: (1)
Pressure simulation using a calibrated
pressure source, or (2) pressure
simulation using a pressure source and
a calibrated pressure measurement
device. In either method, a simulated
pressure would be compared to a
calibrated pressure to determine
accuracy.
4. Liquid Flow CPMS Accuracy Audit
Methods
To perform an accuracy audit of a
liquid flow CPMS, five methods are
specified in the proposed Procedure 4.
As is the case with other types of CPMS,
owners and operators of affected CPMS
could choose among the methods
specified. The first method would apply
to CPMS with redundant flow sensors
and would entail comparing the flow
rate measured by the primary flow
sensor of your CPMS to the flow rate
measured by the redundant flow sensor.
The next two methods—the volumetric
and gravimetric methods—are the same
methods as specified for the initial
CPMS validation in the proposed PS–17
and described in section III.D of this
document. The volumetric and
gravimetric methods are based on
voluntary consensus standards and
could be used to validate liquid flow
CPMS. Both methods are described in
the following standards: (1) ISA RP
16.6–1961, ‘‘Methods and Equipment
for Calibration of Variable Area Meters
(Rotameters)’’; (2) ISA RP 31.1–1977,
‘‘Specification, Installation, and
Calibration of Turbine Flow Meters’’; (3)
ISO 10790:1999, ‘‘Measurement of Fluid
Flow in Closed Conduits—Guidance to
the Selection, Installation and Use of
Coriolis Meters (Mass Flow, Density and
Volume Flow Measurements)’’; and (4)
ISO 8316:1987, ‘‘Measurement of Liquid
Flow in Closed Conduits—Method by
Collection of Liquid in a Volumetric
Tank’’ (incorporated by reference—see
§ 60.17). The gravimetric method also is
described in the following standards: (1)
ANSI/ASME MFC–9M–1988,
‘‘Measurement of Liquid Flow in Closed
Conduits by Weighing Method’’; and (2)
ASHRAE 41.8–1989, ‘‘Standard
Methods of Measurement of Flow of
Liquids in Pipes Using Orifice
Flowmeters’’ (incorporated by
reference—see § 60.17). The gravimetric
method also could be used to validate
liquid mass flow or solid mass flow
CPMS.
For liquid flow CPMS that use a
differential pressure meter, such as an
orifice plate, venturi tube, or flow
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
59969
nozzle, two accuracy audit methods are
specified in the proposed Procedure 4.
Both of these methods would require a
separate visual inspection of the flow
constriction and a check of the accuracy
of the other components of the system.
The accuracy of the other components
would have to be checked by pressure
simulation, using either a calibrated
differential pressure source or a
differential pressure source in
combination with a calibrated
differential pressure measurement
device. The required pressure drop that
corresponds to the normal operating
flow rate expected for the flow CPMS
can be calculated using ASME MFC–
3M–2004, ‘‘Measurement of Fluid Flow
in Pipes Using Orifice, Nozzle, and
Venturi’’ (incorporated by reference, see
§ 60.17). For CPMS that use an orifice
flow meter, the pressure drop can be
calculated using ASHRAE 41.8–1989,
‘‘Standard Methods of Measurement of
Flow of Liquids in Pipes Using Orifice
Flowmeters’’ (incorporated by
reference—see § 60.17).
5. Gas Flow CPMS Accuracy Audit
Methods
The proposed Procedure 4 specifies
four methods for checking the accuracy
of a gas flow CPMS. One method would
entail comparison to a redundant flow
sensor and could be used with any gas
flow CPMS. Two methods would apply
only to gas flow CPMS that incorporate
differential pressure meters. These are
the same two methods that would apply
to differential pressure liquid flow
meter systems described in the previous
paragraph. The final method specified
in the proposed Procedure 4 for
checking the accuracy of a gas flow
CPMS is the RA test using Reference
Methods 2, 2A, 2B, 2C, 2D, or 2F (40
CFR part 60, appendix A–1), or 2G (40
CFR part 60, appendix A–2). This is the
only method specified in Procedure 4
that could be used to check the accuracy
of gas flow CPMS that use differential
flow tubes.
6. Mass Flow CPMS Accuracy Audit
Methods
The accuracy of CPMS that measure
either liquid mass flow or solid mass
flow could be checked using the
redundant sensor method and the
gravimetric method, both of which are
described in the previous section for
liquid flow CPMS. The same two
methods could be used for checking the
accuracy of solid mass flow CPMS. The
accuracy of solid mass flow CPMS also
could be evaluated using the material
weight comparison method, which is
based on the Belt-Conveyor Scale
Systems Method, described in NIST
E:\FR\FM\09OCP3.SGM
09OCP3
59970
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 197 / Thursday, October 9, 2008 / Proposed Rules
Handbook 44—2002 Edition,
‘‘Specifications, Tolerances, and Other
Technical Requirements for Weighing
and Measuring Devices’’ (incorporated
by reference—see § 60.17), as adopted
by the 86th National Conference on
Weights and Measures in 2001.
7. pH CPMS Accuracy Audit Methods
To check the accuracy of pH CPMS,
owners and operators of affected CPMS
could choose between three methods:
(1) Comparison to a redundant pH
sensor, (2) comparison to a calibrated
pH meter calibrated according to ASTM
D1293–99 (2005), ‘‘Standard Test
Methods for pH of Water’’ (incorporated
by reference—see § 60.17), and (3) single
point calibration. The redundant sensor
method would require you to compare
the pH measured by the primary pH
sensor of your pH CPMS to that of a
redundant pH sensor. The other two
methods are the same as specified in the
proposed PS–17 for the initial
validation check.
8. Conductivity CPMS Accuracy Audit
Methods
The proposed Procedure 4 specifies
three methods for checking the accuracy
of a conductivity CPMS. These methods
(comparison to redundant conductivity
sensor, comparison to calibrated
conductivity meter, and single point
calibration) are based on the same
principles as the methods specified for
pH CPMS accuracy audits in this
proposed rule.
Calibration of the conductivity CPMS
should be performed according to the
manufacturer’s owner’s manual. If not
specified, calibration must be performed
based on one of the following standards:
(1) ASTM D 1125–95 (2005), ‘‘Standard
Test Methods for Electrical Conductivity
and Resistivity of Water’’; or (2) ASTM
D 5391–99 (2005), ‘‘Standard Test
Method for Electrical Conductivity and
Resistivity of a Flowing High Purity
Water Sample’’ (incorporated by
reference—see § 60.17).
9. Other Operational Checks
In addition to accuracy audits, owners
or operators of affected CPMS that do
not use redundant sensors would be
required to perform visual inspections
and other checks of the operation of
each affected CPMS. These checks
would include such activities as
inspecting the physical appearance of
the CPMS for damage or wear and
checking the electrical components for
corrosion.
10. QA/QC Program
The Procedure 4 would require CPMS
owners or operators to develop QA/QC
programs for each affected CPMS. The
QA/QC programs would have to address
procedures for accuracy audits, system
calibration, preventive maintenance,
recordkeeping, and corrective action.
E. How often must accuracy audits and
other QA/QC procedures be performed?
Table 9 of this document summarizes
the required frequencies for accuracy
audits and other QA/QC procedures that
would be required under the proposed
Procedure 4.
TABLE 9—FREQUENCY OF ACCURACY AUDITS AND OTHER QC PROCEDURES
If your CPMS measures . . .
You must perform . . .
At least . . .
1. Temperature ...................................................
a. Accuracy audits ...........................................
i. Quarterly; AND
ii. Following any period of more than 24 hours
throughout which the temperature exceeded
the maximum rated temperature of the sensor, or the data recorder was off scale.
Quarterly, unless the CPMS has a redundant
temperature sensor.
b. Visual inspections and checks of CPMS
operation.
2. Pressure .........................................................
a. Accuracy audits ...........................................
b. Checks of all mechanical connections for
leakage.
c. Visual inspections and checks of CPMS operation.
3. Flow rate (liquid, gas, mass) ..........................
a. Accuracy audits ...........................................
b. Checks of all mechanical connections for
leakage.
c. Visual inspections and checks of CPMS operation.
i. Quarterly; AND
ii. Following any period of more than 24 hours
throughout which the pressure exceeded
the maximum rated pressure of the sensor,
or the data recorder was off scale.
Monthly.
Quarterly, unless the CPMS has a redundant
pressure sensor.
i. Quarterly; AND
ii. Following any period of more than 24 hours
throughout which the flow rate exceeded
the maximum rated flow rate of the sensor,
or the data recorder was off scale.
Monthly.
Quarterly, unless the CPMS has a redundant
flow sensor.
pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS3
4. pH ...................................................................
a. Accuracy audits ...........................................
b. Visual inspections and checks of CPMS
operation.
Weekly.
Monthly, unless the CPMS has a redundant
pH sensor.
5. Conductivity ....................................................
a. Accuracy audits ...........................................
b. Visual inspections and checks of CPMS
operation.
Quarterly.
Quarterly, unless the CPMS has a redundant
conductivity sensor.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
20:38 Oct 08, 2008
Jkt 217001
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\09OCP3.SGM
09OCP3
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 197 / Thursday, October 9, 2008 / Proposed Rules
For affected CPMS that are used to
monitor temperature, pressure, or flow
rate, owners and operators would be
required to perform accuracy audits on
a quarterly basis. For pH CPMS,
accuracy audits would have to be
performed weekly, and, for conductivity
CPMS, monthly accuracy audits would
be required. In addition, for
temperature, pressure, and flow CPMS,
an accuracy audit would be required
following any periods of 24 hours or
more, throughout which either: (1) The
measured value exceeded the operating
limit for the sensor, based on the
manufacturer’s recommendations, or (2)
the parameter value remained off the
scale of the CPMS data recorder. As an
example of the first condition, consider
a Type J thermocouple with a rated
operating temperature limit of 760 °C
(1400 °F). If a temperature CPMS that
uses a Type J thermocouple records a
temperature in excess of 760 °C (1400 °F)
for more than 24 hours, an accuracy
audit of the CPMS would have to be
performed within 48 hours.
Visual inspections and other
operational checks of temperature,
pressure, and flow CPMS would be
required quarterly, unless the CPMS is
equipped with a redundant sensor. In
addition, mechanical connections
associated with pressure or flow CPMS
would have to be checked monthly for
leakage. For pH and conductivity CPMS
that are not equipped with redundant
sensors, owners or operators of affected
units would have to visually inspect
and perform operational checks of the
affected CPMS on a monthly basis.
F. What are the reporting and
recordkeeping requirements for
Procedure 4?
The proposed Procedure 4 does not
specify reporting requirements but
would require owners and operators of
affected CPMS to maintain records of all
accuracy audits and corrective actions
taken to return the CPMS to normal
operation. These records would have to
be maintained for a period of at least 5
years. For the first 2 years, the records
would have to be kept onsite.
V. Summary of Proposed Amendments
to Procedure 1
pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS3
A. What is the purpose of the
amendments?
The purpose of the amendments to
Procedure 1 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix
F is to revise the procedure to address
CEMS that must comply with PS–9 or
PS–15 (40 CFR part 60, appendix B).
Procedure 1 was developed for CEMS
that are used to monitor a single
pollutant or diluent. As a result, there
VerDate Aug<31>2005
20:38 Oct 08, 2008
Jkt 217001
may be some questions on how to apply
Procedure 1 to CEMS subject to PS–9 or
PS–15 that measure more than one
pollutant. In addition, both PS–9 and
PS–15 partially specify ongoing QA
procedures. By amending the QA
procedure, we are clarifying what
owners or operators of CEMS subject to
PS–9 or PS–15 must do to comply with
Procedure 1 to ensure the quality of the
data produced by these CEMS. The
technical rationale for proposed changes
to Procedure 1 is discussed further in
section X of this document.
B. To whom do the amendments apply?
The amendments to Procedure 1 (40
CFR part 60, appendix F) would apply
to owners or operators of CEMS that are
subject to PS–9 or PS–15 (40 CFR part
60, appendix B) and are used to
demonstrate compliance on a
continuous basis. Several subparts to
parts 60, 61, and 63 require that owners
and operators of affected sources
demonstrate that those sources are in
continuous compliance with the
applicable emission standard. Any such
standard that requires the use of gas
chromatographic CEMS subject to PS–9
or extractive Fourier Transfer Infrared
(FTIR) CEMS subject to PS–15 would
also require compliance with Procedure
1, and these proposed amendments to
Procedure 1 would apply specifically to
such sources.
C. How do the amendments address
CEMS that are subject to PS–9?
These proposed amendments would
address CEMS that are subject to PS–9
(40 CFR part 60, appendix B) by
clarifying that the procedure can be
used for multiple-pollutant CEMS and
by modifying the requirements for daily
calibration drift (CD) and data accuracy
assessments so that the procedure can
be applied specifically to CEMS that are
subject to PS–9. The proposed
amendments to section 4.1.1 of
Procedure 1 specify that the daily CD
can be performed using any of the target
pollutants that are monitored by the
CEMS. For example, if a CEMS is
subject to PS–9 and is used to monitor
benzene and toluene, the CD check
could be performed using either
benzene or toluene.
The PS–9 requires neither relative
accuracy test audits (RATA’s) nor
relative accuracy assessments (RAA’s).
Instead, PS–9 requires cylinder gas
audits (CGA’s) every calendar quarter.
To address data accuracy assessments
for CEMS subject to PS–9, the
amendments would add section 5.1.5 to
Procedure 1. The new section would
specify that the requirements for
RATA’s and RAA’s do not apply to
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
59971
CEMS subject to PS–9. Instead,
quarterly CGA’s of each target pollutant
would be required. The amendments
further would specify that the quarterly
CGA’s are to be performed according to
the procedure described in PS–9, except
that the CGA’s would have to be
performed at two points rather than the
single point requirement of PS–9.
Finally, the amendments would clarify
that the CGA’s performed under the
revised Procedure 1 satisfy the quarterly
performance audit requirement of PS–9.
D. How do the amendments address
CEMS that are subject to PS–15?
These proposed amendments would
address extractive FTIR CEMS that are
subject to PS–15 (40 CFR part 60,
appendix B) by modifying the
requirements for checking daily CD,
data recording, and data accuracy
assessments so that the procedure could
be applied specifically to CEMS that are
subject to PS–15. The amendments also
would clarify what constitutes excessive
CD for CEMS subject to PS–15 and the
criteria for determining when the CEMS
is ‘‘out of control.’’ These modifications
would be addressed in the amendments
by adding sections 4.1.2, 4.3.3, 4.4.1,
and 5.1.6 to Procedure 1. Proposed
section 4.1.2 of Procedure 1 would
specify that the daily CD requirement
must be satisfied by performing a daily
Calibration Transfer Standards (CTS)
Check, Analyte Spike Check, and
Background Deviation Check. For the
specific procedures to be followed, the
amendments would reference the
appropriate sections of PS–15, which
describe how to perform these system
assessments.
Proposed section 4.3.3 of Procedure 1
would specify the criteria for
determining when a CEMS subject to
PS–15 is out of control. The CEMS
would be out of control under either of
two conditions. The first condition
would occur when the CTS Check,
Analyte Spike Check, or Background
Deviation Check exceeds twice the drift
specification of ±5 percent for five
consecutive daily periods. The second
condition would occur when the CTS
Check, Analyte Spike Check, or
Background Deviation Check exceeds
four times the drift specification of ±5
percent during any daily check.
Proposed section 4.4.1 of Procedure 1
would specify data storage criteria for
CEMS subject to PS–15. In addition to
the recordkeeping requirements
specified in section 4.4 of Procedure 1,
the proposed amended procedure would
require owners or operators of affected
CEMS to satisfy the data storage
requirements of section 6.3 of PS–15.
That is, the data storage system would
E:\FR\FM\09OCP3.SGM
09OCP3
59972
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 197 / Thursday, October 9, 2008 / Proposed Rules
have to have capacity sufficient to store
all data collected over the course of one
week. The data would have to be stored
on either a write-protected medium or
to a password-protected remote storage
location.
Proposed section 5.1.6 of Procedure 1
would specify the criteria for data
accuracy assessments of CEMS subject
to PS–15. Instead of requiring data
accuracy assessments by RATA’s,
CGA’s, or RAA’s, as required for other
types of CEMS, the amended Procedure
1 would require quarterly data accuracy
assessments according to the three audit
procedures specified in section 9 of PS–
15. The Audit Sample Check, which is
specified in section 9.1 of PS–15, would
be required at least once every four
calendar quarters. The Audit Spectra
Check, which is specified in section 9.2
of PS–15, could be used to satisfy the
data accuracy assessment requirement
no more than once every four calendar
quarters. The Submit Audit for
Independent Analysis, which is
specified in section 9.3 of PS–15, could
be used to satisfy the data accuracy
assessment in no more than three of
every four consecutive calendar
quarters. Proposed section 5.1.6(3) of
Procedure 1 also would stipulate that
the data accuracy audits performed
under the QA procedure satisfy the PS–
15 requirement for quarterly or
semiannual QA/QC checks on the
operation of the CEMS.
VI. Summary of Proposed Amendments
to the General Provisions to Parts 60,
61, and 63
A. What is the purpose of the
amendments to the General Provisions
to parts 60, 61, and 63?
The purpose of the proposed
amendments to the General Provisions
to parts 60, 61, and 63 is to ensure that
the monitoring requirements specified
in the General Provisions that apply to
CPMS are consistent with the
requirements in the proposed PS–17
and Procedure 4 and the requirements
specified in the applicable subparts that
require the use of the CPMS that are
affected by this proposed rule.
pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS3
B. What specific changes are we
proposing to the General Provisions to
parts 60, 61, and 63?
These proposed amendments to the
General Provisions to part 60 would
redesignate § 60.13(a) as § 60.13(a)(1)
and would add § 60.13(a)(2). The new
paragraph would state that performance
specifications and QA procedures for
CPMS, promulgated under part 60,
appendices B and F, respectively, apply
instead of requirements for CPMS
VerDate Aug<31>2005
20:38 Oct 08, 2008
Jkt 217001
specified in applicable subparts to part
60.
These proposed amendments to the
General Provisions to part 61 would
redesignate § 61.14(a) as § 61.14(a)(1)
and would add § 61.14(a)(2). The new
paragraph would state that performance
specifications and QA procedures for
CPMS, promulgated under part 60,
appendices B and F, respectively, apply
instead of requirements for CPMS
specified in applicable subparts to part
61.
These proposed amendments to the
General Provisions to part 63 would
make several changes to § 63.8(c).
Section 63.8(a)(2) would be revised to
include new paragraph § 63.8(a)(2)(ii).
The new paragraph would state that
performance specifications and QA
procedures for CPMS, promulgated
under part 60, appendices B and F,
respectively, apply instead of the
requirements for CPMS specified in
applicable subparts to part 63.
Under these proposed amendments,
the installation requirements of
§ 63.8(c)(2) would apply to all CMS,
including CPMS.
Section 63.8(c)(4) addresses
continuous operation and cycle time for
CEMS and COMS. These proposed
amendments would expand the
requirement of § 63.8(c)(4) to require
that all CPMS also must be in
continuous operation. These proposed
amendments also would add paragraph
§ 63.8(c)(4)(iii) to require that all CPMS
complete one cycle of operation within
the time period specified in the
applicable rule.
Section 63.8(c)(6) addresses daily drift
checks. In this proposal, we would
delete the last three sentences of
paragraph (c)(6) that apply specifically
to CPMS because the proposed PS–17
and Procedure 4 would specify the
applicable criteria.
Section 63.8(c)(7) defines when a
CMS is out of control. The proposed
amendments would clarify in
§ 63.8(c)(7)(i)(A) that the term ‘‘out of
control’’, when defined in terms of
excessive calibration drift, applies to
CEMS and COMS and not to CPMS. We
also would revise § 63.8(c)(7)(i)(B),
which relates out of control to failed
performance test audits, relative
accuracy audits, relative accuracy test
audits, and linearity test audits. In these
proposed amendments, § 63.8(c)(7)(i)(A)
and (B) would apply only to CEMS and
COMS. These proposed amendments
would add § 63.8(c)(7)(i)(D) to clarify
that a CPMS is out of control when the
system fails an accuracy audit.
Quality control programs for CMS are
addressed in § 63.8(d). We are proposing
to revise § 63.8(d)(2)(ii) to clarify that
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
written protocols for calibration drift
determinations and adjustments would
not necessarily apply to CPMS.
Finally, we are proposing changes to
§ 63.8(e), which address CMS
performance evaluations. We are
proposing to amend § 63.8(e)(2) and
(3)(i) to clarify that prior written notice
of performance evaluations and
performance evaluation test plans are
required for CEMS or COMS only. In
addition, we are proposing to revise
§ 63.8(e)(4) to clarify that CPMS
performance evaluations must be
performed in accordance with the
applicable QA procedure (i.e.,
Procedure 4).
VII. Summary of the Proposed
Amendments to 40 CFR Part 63,
Subpart SS.
A. What is the purpose of the
amendments to subpart SS?
We are proposing to amend subpart
SS to ensure that the monitoring
requirements for CPMS specified in
subpart SS are consistent with the
proposed PS–17 and Procedure 4.
B. What specific changes are we
proposing to subpart SS?
We are proposing several changes to
the general monitoring requirements for
control and recovery devices specified
in § 63.996. The purpose of these
changes is to clarify CPMS monitoring
requirements and ensure that the
requirements of subpart SS are
consistent with the proposed PS–17 and
Procedure 4.
Under § 63.996(c)(7), we are
proposing to require that you satisfy the
requirements of applicable performance
specifications and QA procedures
established under 40 CFR part 60. In
addition, the amended subpart SS
would require a CPMS cycle time of no
longer than 15 minutes and at least four
equally-spaced measurements for each
valid hour of data for all CPMS. Any
device that is used to perform an initial
validation or an accuracy audit of a
CPMS would have to have NISTtraceable accuracy and an accuracy
hierarchy of at least three.
Section 63.996(c)(8), (9), and (10) of
the amended subpart SS would specify
requirements for temperature, pressure,
and pH CPMS, respectively. Specific
requirements would include the same
minimum accuracies and data recording
system resolution specified in the
proposed PS–17 for the same type of
CPMS. The proposed amendments to
subpart SS would require owners or
operators of affected CPMS to perform
initial calibrations and initial
validations of each CPMS. The initial
E:\FR\FM\09OCP3.SGM
09OCP3
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 197 / Thursday, October 9, 2008 / Proposed Rules
validation of a temperature or pressure
CPMS could be performed by
comparison to a calibrated measurement
device or by any other method specified
in applicable performance specifications
for CPMS established under 40 CFR part
60, appendix B. The initial validation of
a pH CPMS could be performed using a
single point calibration or by any other
method specified in applicable
performance specifications for CPMS
established under 40 CFR part 60,
appendix B.
The proposed amendments to subpart
SS also would require accuracy audits at
the same frequencies that would be
required by proposed Procedure 4:
quarterly for temperature and pressure
CPMS, and weekly for pH CPMS.
Accuracy audits also would be required
for temperature and pressure CPMS
following any period of 24 hours
throughout which the measured value
(temperature or pressure) exceeded the
manufacturer’s recommended maximum
operating value. Owners or operators of
affected temperature or pressure CPMS
could perform accuracy audits by the
redundant sensor method, by
comparison to a calibrated measurement
device, or by any other accuracy audit
method specified in applicable QA
procedures established under 40 CFR
part 60, appendix F. For pH CPMS,
owners or operators could perform
accuracy audits by the redundant sensor
method, single point calibration
method, or by any other accuracy audit
method specified in applicable QA
procedures established under 40 CFR
part 60, appendix F. In addition,
quarterly visual inspections would be
required for any temperature or pressure
CPMS not equipped with a redundant
sensor; for pH CPMS not equipped with
a redundant sensor, monthly visual
inspections would be required.
pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS3
VIII. Rationale for Selecting the
Proposed Requirements of Performance
Specification 17
A. What information did we use to
develop PS–17?
To develop proposed PS–17, we
considered the requirements of emission
standards promulgated under 40 CFR
parts 60, 61, and 63; State agency
requirements for CPMS; manufacturer
and vendor recommendations; and
current operational and design practices
in industry. To the extent possible, we
also considered voluntary consensus
standards for CPMS specifications and
requirements, and this proposed rule
lists several voluntary consensus
standards that can be used as alternative
methods for checking instrument sensor
accuracies. Our review of voluntary
VerDate Aug<31>2005
20:38 Oct 08, 2008
Jkt 217001
consensus standards that apply to
parameter monitoring devices is
summarized in section XV.I of this
document.
To obtain information on current
practices and recommendations
regarding CPMS design, installation and
operation, we developed three separate
surveys (hereafter referred to as the
CPMS surveys). We sent one survey to
nine State agencies, one survey to nine
CPMS manufacturers and vendors, and
the third survey to nine companies with
facilities that currently are subject to
emission standards. Although the
responses to the CPMS survey were far
from complete, the surveys did provide
useful information on equipment
accuracies, operation and maintenance
procedures, and calibration frequencies.
To the extent possible, we used the
information presented in the CPMS
survey responses in the selection of the
requirements for PS–17.
B. How did we select the applicability
criteria for PS–17?
To select the applicability criteria for
PS–17, we considered the current
parameter monitoring requirements that
are now in effect under 40 CFR parts 60,
61, and 63. The General Provisions to
parts 60 and 63 clearly establish the
need for performance specifications for
CPMS. Although the monitoring
provisions of the part 61 General
Provisions are not as detailed as the
General Provisions requirements of
parts 60 and 63, we believe that the
need for performance specifications for
part 61 is also warranted. The need for
CPMS performance specifications is
most evident for part 63 in that
standards promulgated under part 63
establish enforceable operating limits
for parameter monitoring systems. As
stated in § 63.6(e)(iii), operation and
maintenance requirements, which
include parameter monitor operating
limits, ‘‘* * * are enforceable
independent of emissions limitations or
other requirements in relevant
standards.’’ As a result, there is a need
for additional QA and QC for part 63
rules to ensure that the equipment used
to comply with those operating limits is
properly designed, installed, operated,
and maintained.
We recognize that parameter
monitoring data for sources subject to
part 60 and 61 rules are not in
themselves the basis for compliance
determinations with the applicable
rules, as is the case for sources subject
to part 63 rules. Despite that, we believe
that there still is a strong need for
performance specifications to help
ensure the quality of those monitoring
system data. In addition, many of the
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
59973
sources regulated under parts 60 and 61
are also regulated under part 63. For
these reasons, and to achieve
consistency among the requirements for
all of our emission standards, we have
decided to require PS–17 to apply
uniformly to all sources for which
CPMS are required under parts 60, 61,
or 63. It should be noted that the
proposed requirements for CPMS would
not be retroactive, but would apply only
to the operation, use, and maintenance
of CPMS following promulgation of the
final PS–17 and Procedure 4 for CPMS.
C. How did we select the parameters
that are addressed by PS–17?
The parameters that currently are
addressed by proposed PS–17
(temperature, pressure, flow rate, pH,
and conductivity) were selected
primarily for two reasons: (1) These
parameters are generally accepted as
reliable indicators of the performance of
many types of emission control devices,
and (2) most part 60, 61, and 63
emission standards require continuous
monitoring of one or more of these
parameters. Temperature often is
monitored as an indicator of the
performance of incineration devices,
such as thermal oxidizers, catalytic
oxidizers, boilers, and process heaters
used for the control of organic
emissions. In addition, several part 60,
61, and 63 standards require the
monitoring of condenser outlet
temperature or carbon adsorber bed
regeneration temperature. Monitoring of
the temperature of scrubber liquid also
is required by some part 60, 61, and 63
standards. Several existing standards
require monitoring of pressure drop
across control devices, such as wet
scrubbers, mist eliminators, and
baghouses. Several rules also require
CPMS for monitoring scrubber liquid
supply pressure. A number of part 60,
61, and 63 standards require monitoring
of gas or liquid flow rates. Gas flow rate
generally is an indicator of residence
time in control devices. The gas and
liquid flow rates through a wet scrubber
are used to determine the liquid-to-gas
ratio, and several promulgated rules
require wet scrubber liquid flow rate
monitoring. Many standards require
mass flow CPMS for monitoring process
feed or production rates. In addition,
some existing standards require
monitoring of carbon adsorber
regeneration steam flow rate. Scrubber
liquid pH is an important indicator of
the performance of acid gas control.
Finally, monitoring wet scrubber liquid
conductivity provides a good indication
of the solids content of the scrubber
liquid and the need for blowdown. We
recognize that other parameters also are
E:\FR\FM\09OCP3.SGM
09OCP3
59974
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 197 / Thursday, October 9, 2008 / Proposed Rules
used to indicate control device
performance or to monitor process
operations, but we believed it less
critical to address those other
parameters at this time. However, we
intend to address additional parameters
in PS–17 as the need arises and
resources permit.
pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS3
D. Why did we include requirements for
flow CPMS in PS–17 if PS–6 already
specifies requirements for flow sensors?
The requirements of PS–6 (40 CFR
part 60, appendix B) apply specifically
to continuous emission rate monitoring
systems (CERMS), which generally
include one or more sensors to measure
exhaust gas flow rate in addition to the
sensor for measuring the concentration
of the target pollutant. The proposed
PS–17 would have much broader
application, such as natural gas flow,
steam flow through a carbon bed
adsorber, and exhaust gas flow through
an emission control device. The
proposed PS–17 also would apply to
liquid flow and mass flow rate
monitoring. In addition to applicability,
there are other significant differences in
the requirements for flow rate sensors
under PS–6 and flow CPMS under the
proposed PS–17. The PS–6 specifies CD
and RA test requirements for the flow
sensor component of CERMS and
generally references PS–2 for other
requirements. Specifying CD
requirements for CERMS in PS–6 is
appropriate because PS–6 is meant to
apply to monitoring systems that are
used for calculating emission rates for
determining compliance with emission
limits or caps. The proposed PS–17
would have no provisions for checking
CD because it is intended primarily for
monitoring indicators of control device
performance and process parameters
rather than emission rates.
Consequently, we believe that less
rigorous performance assessments are
appropriate for CPMS that would be
subject to PS–17. Finally, unlike PS–6,
PS–17 was developed specifically for
CPMS. As a result, we were able to
incorporate into the proposed PS–17
more specific design, installation, and
evaluation criteria than are provided in
PS–6.
E. How did we select the equipment
requirements?
In selecting the equipment
requirements for PS–17, our intent was
to specify criteria that would allow
flexibility in the equipment that owners
and operators of affected CPMS choose,
without compromising the quality of
data produced by that equipment. The
proposed PS–17 would specify two
types of equipment: (1) The components
VerDate Aug<31>2005
20:38 Oct 08, 2008
Jkt 217001
that comprise a CPMS, and (2) the
equipment needed to validate that
CPMS.
1. CPMS Equipment Requirements
For CPMS components, we selected
equipment criteria for overall system
accuracy and compatibility. The
equipment requirements also would
address the measurement range and
resolution of the data recording system.
The criterion for accuracy would simply
be that the equipment must have a
demonstrable capability of satisfying the
accuracy requirement for the initial
validation. We considered, but decided
against, specifying sensor design
criteria. By not specifying design
criteria, we incorporated a considerable
amount of flexibility into proposed PS–
17 by allowing affected owners and
operators to select any equipment,
provided they can demonstrate that the
CPMS meets the accuracy requirements
for the initial validation. However, we
do identify voluntary consensus
standards that can be used as guidelines
for selecting specific types of sensors.
The proposed PS–17 would require a
resolution of one-half the accuracy
requirement or better to ensure that the
accuracy of the CPMS can be calculated
to at least the minimum number of
significant figures for the data accuracy
assessment to be meaningful. For
example, if the data recorder of a
pressure CPMS had a resolution of 0.24
kPa (1.0 in. wc), it would not be
possible to determine that the CPMS is
satisfying the required accuracy of 0.12
kPa (0.5 in. wc). Selecting a resolution
of one-half the required accuracy
ensures that measurements made during
validation checks can be readily
compared to the accuracy requirement.
Furthermore, based on our review of
equipment vendor catalogues, most
CPMS on the market easily satisfy this
minimum resolution. The requirements
for measurement range were selected to
ensure that the CPMS can detect and
record measurements beyond the
normal operating range. We believe that
requiring a range of at least ±20 percent
beyond the normal operating range is
reasonable and the minimum
measurement range needed to
encompass most excursions. Owners
and operators may want to select
equipment with even wider ranges if it
is likely that measurements beyond ±20
percent of the normal operating range
will occur. We made an exception to the
measurement range requirement for pH
CPMS by requiring the range of pH
CPMS data recorders to cover the entire
pH scale of 0 to 14 pH units. Our review
of vendor literature indicates that, with
PO 00000
Frm 00020
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
few exceptions, pH CPMS are designed
to record over the entire pH scale.
Finally, the proposed PS–17 would
require the electronic components of
any CPMS to be internally compatible.
We believe that internal compatibility is
essential for ensuring the accuracy and
durability of a CPMS.
2. CPMS Validation Equipment
Requirements
Two types of equipment would be
needed to perform the initial validation
check of a CPMS: (1) A device that is
used to directly check the accuracy of
the CPMS, and (2) work platforms, test
ports, fittings, valves, and other
equipment that are needed to conduct
the initial validation. For the devices
used to check CPMS accuracy, we
would require NIST-traceable accuracy
and an accuracy hierarchy of at least
three. We would require that the
accuracy of the device be NIST-traceable
as a way of ensuring the accuracy of the
test device. We incorporated into PS–17
two exceptions to the NIST-traceability
requirement. First, a mercury-in-glass or
water-in-glass U-tube manometer could
be used instead of a calibrated pressure
measurement device with NISTtraceable accuracy when validating a
pressure CPMS or a flow CPMS that
uses a differential pressure flow meter.
The reason for making this exception is
that the accuracy of such manometers
can be confirmed onsite by a simple
measurement of the manometer scale.
We also included an exception to the
NIST-traceable accuracy and accuracy
hierarchy for containers used to validate
flow CPMS by either the volumetric or
gravimetric methods. In such cases, the
volume of the container could be
determined onsite with sufficient
accuracy to provide a reliable
assessment of flow CPMS accuracy.
In selecting the accuracy hierarchy for
validation devices, we reviewed the
requirements for existing standards and
manufacturers’ recommendations.
Several voluntary consensus standards,
such as ISA–S37.3–1982 (R1995) and
ISA–S37.6–1982 (R1995), which apply
to pressure transducers, require that the
testing or calibration device have an
accuracy at least five times that of the
device that is to be tested (i.e., an
accuracy hierarchy of five). Other
standards developed by the American
Society of Mechanical Engineers
(ASME) and Military Specifications
(MIL–SPEC) require an accuracy of four
times that of the equipment being
tested, which establishes an accuracy
hierarchy of four. At least one
equipment owner’s manual specifies
that testing devices have an accuracy of
at least three times that of the
E:\FR\FM\09OCP3.SGM
09OCP3
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 197 / Thursday, October 9, 2008 / Proposed Rules
equipment being tested. We believe that
requiring an accuracy hierarchy of three
is adequate for the purposes of PS–17.
Furthermore, a review of manufacturers’
literature indicates that calibration
devices with accuracies that would
satisfy the accuracy hierarchy of the
proposed PS–17 are readily available at
reasonable cost.
We decided to require owners and
operators of affected CPMS to install
work platforms, test ports, and other
equipment needed for the initial
validation check to ensure that the
validation check and ongoing accuracy
audits can be conducted properly. It is
not necessary that a permanent work
platform be installed.
F. How did we select the installation
and location requirements?
In the proposed PS–17, we would
require owners and operators of affected
CPMS to locate CPMS sensors where
they will provide measurements
representative of the parameter that is
being monitored. The objective of this
requirement is to help ensure that
affected CPMS produce quality data.
The location and installation
requirements specified in the proposed
PS–17 are generally consistent with the
requirements of rules promulgated
under parts 60, 61, and 63.
pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS3
G. How did we select the initial QA
measures?
The initial QA measures specified in
the proposed PS–17 include an
electronic calibration and an initial
validation check. The initial calibration
generally is included as part of the
manufacturer’s recommended
procedures for the installation and
startup of CPMS; we would require
these initial calibrations as a means of
further ensuring that the CPMS is
placed into operation correctly. We
consider the initial validation necessary
for demonstrating that the CPMS is
providing quality data from the outset.
H. How did we select the methods for
performing the initial validation check?
In selecting the methods for validating
CPMS, we considered existing voluntary
consensus standards, State agency
requirements, manufacturers’ and
vendors’ recommendations, and
practices used by industry. We tried to
identify all methods that would provide
a reliable measure of CPMS accuracy to
allow owners and operators of affected
CPMS as much flexibility as possible in
choosing how to comply with PS–17. In
general, the validation methods
specified in the proposed PS–17 involve
comparison of measurements made by
the subject CPMS to measurements
VerDate Aug<31>2005
20:38 Oct 08, 2008
Jkt 217001
made using a calibrated device that
measures or simulates the same
parameter that is measured by the
subject CPMS. A primary objective in
selecting these methods is to identify
procedures that assess the overall
accuracy of the CPMS while assuring
the quality of data that are used to
assess compliance. The initial
validation methods that rely on
simulating sensor output actually
measure how well the rest of the system
responds to a simulated sensor signal
and do not check the accuracy of the
sensor itself. However, we believe that
these methods are reliable because the
sensors used in new CPMS are factorycalibrated and, therefore, should be
accurate.
Two general consensus standards
were located, but they were rejected for
use with the proposed PS–17 because
they are general references for safe
practices while working with
electronics. The two standards are: (1)
ANSI/ISA S82.02.01–1999, ‘‘Electric
and Electronic Test, Measuring,
Controlling, and Related Equipment:
General Requirements’’; and (2) ANSI/
ISA S82.03–1988, ‘‘Safety Standard for
Electrical and Electronic Test,
Measuring, Controlling, and Related
Equipment (Electrical and Electronic
Process Measurement and Control
Equipment).’’
1. Temperature CPMS Validation
Methods
For validating temperature CPMS, the
proposed PS–17 would specify two
methods: (1) Comparison to a calibrated
temperature measurement device, and
(2) temperature simulation using a
calibrated simulation device. The first
method is based on ASTM E 220–07e1,
‘‘Standard Test Methods for Calibration
of Thermocouples by Comparison
Techniques’’ (incorporated by
reference—see § 60.17). Although the
ASTM E220–07e1 was developed for
thermocouples, it should be applicable
to other types of temperature
measurement devices. Handheld and
otherwise portable temperature
measurement devices with NISTtraceable accuracy are available from
many equipment manufacturers and
suppliers.
The second validation method for
temperature CPMS would involve the
use of calibrated temperature
simulators. Although this simulation
method is not based on an existing
standard method, calibrated simulators
with NIST-traceable accuracy are
readily available and often are used to
check the accuracy of thermocouples
and RTD’s. Therefore, we believe this
method is appropriate for the initial
PO 00000
Frm 00021
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
59975
validation of thermocouple-based or
RTD-based temperature CPMS, as well
as for any other type of CPMS for which
the sensor response can be simulated.
Two other consensus standards
relating to temperature measurement
were located, but they were both
rejected for use with the proposed PS–
17. The first standard, ASTM E839–05,
‘‘Standard Test Methods for Sheathed
Thermocouples and Sheathed
Thermocouple Material’’ specifies tests
that pertain to material quality and
instrument assembly rather than direct
indicators of instrument performance;
many of the tests specified are either
destructive or impractical to perform at
the installation site. The second
standard, ASTM E1350–07, ‘‘Standard
Guide for Testing Sheathed
Thermocouples, Thermocouple
assemblies, and Connecting Wires Prior
to, and After Installation or Service’’
specifies tests to determine if specific
components of thermocouple assembly
were damaged during storage, shipment,
or installation, but the tests specified do
not provide a measure of accuracy.
2. Pressure CPMS Validation Methods
For validating pressure CPMS, the
proposed PS–17 would specify three
methods for performing the initial
validation check. The first method
would involve comparison to a
calibrated pressure measurement
device. This method is based on the
same principle as is the temperature
CPMS comparison method. Handheld
and portable pressure measurement
devices with NIST-traceable accuracy
are available from many equipment
suppliers. Therefore, we believe this
method is appropriate for validating
pressure CPMS. The other two pressure
CPMS validation methods in the
proposed PS–17 are similar to the
simulation method for validating
temperature CPMS and are based on the
same principle. The difference between
the temperature simulation method and
the two pressure simulation methods is
that the latter generate pressures instead
of electronic signals. One pressure
simulation method uses a calibrated
pressure source with NIST-traceable
accuracy. These devices can simulate a
range of pressures to high degrees of
accuracy. The other pressure simulation
method allows the use of any pressure
source. The pressure applied by the
pressure source is measured
concurrently by the subject CPMS and
a separate calibrated pressure
measurement device. We believe these
methods also can provide reliable
assessments of pressure CPMS accuracy.
Two other voluntary consensus
standards relating to pressure
E:\FR\FM\09OCP3.SGM
09OCP3
59976
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 197 / Thursday, October 9, 2008 / Proposed Rules
pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS3
measurement were located, but they
were both rejected for use with the
proposed PS–17. Both standards (ISA–
S37.6–1982 (R1995), ‘‘Specifications
and Tests for Potentiometric Pressure
Transducers’’ and ISA–S37.3–1982
(R1995), ‘‘Specifications and Tests for
Strain Gage Pressure Transducers’’)
provide general calibration procedures,
but neither specifies criteria for
evaluating performance.
3. Flow CPMS Validation Methods
For validating flow CPMS, the
proposed PS–17 would specify seven
methods. The volumetric and
gravimetric methods are based on
voluntary consensus standards and
could be used to validate liquid flow
CPMS. Both methods are described in
ISA RP 16.6–1961, ‘‘Methods and
Equipment for Calibration of Variable
Area Meters (Rotameters),’’ and ISA RP
31.1–1977, ‘‘Specification, Installation,
and Calibration of Turbine Flow
Meters’’ (incorporated by reference—see
§ 60.17). The gravimetric method also is
described in ANSI/ASME MFC–9M–
1988, ‘‘Measurement of Liquid Flow in
Closed Conduits by Weighing Method,’’
and ASHRAE 41.8–1989, ‘‘Standard
Methods of Measurement of Flow of
Liquids in Pipes Using Orifice Flow
Meters’’ (incorporated by reference—see
§ 60.17). These methods are relatively
simple to perform provided that the
process flow that is monitored can be
diverted easily to a suitable container
for measurement. The gravimetric
method also could be used to validate
liquid mass flow or solid mass flow
CPMS.
The differential pressure
measurement and pressure flow source
simulation methods for validating liquid
or gas flow CPMS would apply to flow
CPMS that use differential pressure
meters. These methods would require
accurate pressure measurements and are
based on the same principles as are the
methods used for validating pressure
CPMS. The primary difference between
the pressure CPMS methods and these
flow CPMS methods is that the flow
CPMS would require the calculation of
flow rates based on the pressure
differentials measured. The flow
calculation methods are described in
ASME MFC–3M–2004, ‘‘Measurement
of Fluid Flow in Pipes Using Orifice,
Nozzle, and Venturi’’ (incorporated by
reference—see § 60.17). The calibrated
pressure measurement devices and
calibrated pressure sources with NISTtraceable accuracy needed for these
validation methods are readily
available. Therefore, we believe these
methods are appropriate for validating
flow CPMS accuracy.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
20:38 Oct 08, 2008
Jkt 217001
The electronic simulation method is
identical to the simulation methods
described in this section for temperature
and pressure CPMS. This method would
apply only to flow CPMS that use flow
sensors that generate electronic signals,
which can be simulated. Examples of
flow CPMS that can be validated using
this method are CPMS that use turbine
meters or vortex shedding flow meters.
To validate flow CPMS that measure
gas flow, PS–17 also would specify the
RA test using Reference Method 2, 2A,
2B, 2C, 2D, or 2F (40 CFR part 60,
appendix A–1), or 2G (40 CFR part 60,
appendix A–2), as appropriate. The RA
test for flow CPMS is similar to the RA
test procedures specified in other
performance specifications. We selected
this method because it may be the
method of choice for facilities that
perform their own emissions testing,
have the emissions test equipment, and
are familiar with the procedures of the
reference methods for determining stack
gas velocity and volumetric flow rate.
Finally, the proposed PS–17 would
specify the material weight comparison
method for validating solid mass flow
CPMS. This method would apply only
to CPMS that incorporate a belt
conveyor, weigh scale, and totalizer.
The method is based on the BeltConveyor Scale Systems Method, which
is described in NIST Handbook 44—
2002 Edition: Specifications,
Tolerances, And Other Technical
Requirements for Weighing and
Measuring Devices (incorporated by
reference—see § 60.17), as adopted by
the 86th National Conference on
Weights and Measures 2001. We
selected this method because it is
relatively simple and is the only method
we could identify that applies
specifically to belt conveyors systems,
which are often used to monitor process
raw material feed rates and/or
production rates.
Five other voluntary consensus
standards relating to flow measurement
were located, but they were rejected for
use with the proposed PS–17. The first
standard, ASTM D 3195–90 (2004),
‘‘Standard Practice for Rotameter
Calibration,’’ specifies calibration
procedures for rotameters used to
determine air sample volumes, but
applies only to air at ambient
temperature and pressure. The second
standard, ANSI/ASME MFC–8M–2001,
‘‘Fluid Flow in Closed Conduits—
Connections for Pressure Signal
Transmissions between Primary and
Secondary Devices,’’ only applies to
installations where very high accuracy
is required. The third standard, ASTM
D 3464–96 (2007), ‘‘Standard Test
Method for Average Velocity in a Duct
PO 00000
Frm 00022
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
Using a Thermal Anemometer,’’ refers to
another ASTM standard for calibration
procedures. The fourth standard, ASTM
D5540–94a (2003), ‘‘Standard Practice
for Flow Control and Temperature
Control for On-Line Water Sampling
and Analysis,’’ details the sampling of
the stream, but provides no information
on the calibration of the flow. The fifth
standard, ‘‘Process Monitors in the
Portland Cement Industry’’ (published
by the EPA) notes that nuclear weigh
belts have 0.5 percent operational
accuracy, while gravimetric and
impaction plate weigh belts have 1
percent accuracy; these accuracies may
not hold true for all industries or
applications.
4. pH CPMS Validation Methods
For validating pH CPMS, the
proposed PS–17 would specify two
methods. The first method would entail
comparison to a calibrated pH meter
and is similar to the comparison
methods specified for temperature and
pressure CPMS. The second method
would be a single point calibration
method using a standard buffer solution.
We selected these methods because they
are relatively simple and are in common
use by many facilities to calibrate pH
meters.
5. Conductivity CPMS Validation
Methods
The proposed PS–17 would specify
two methods for validation conductivity
CPMS: Comparison to a calibrated
conductivity meter and single point
calibration. These methods are
essentially the same as those used for
validating pH CPMS, the only
differences being the types of calibrated
instrument and standard solutions used.
We selected these methods because both
are reliable, yet relatively simple to
perform.
Four other voluntary consensus
standards relating to conductivity
measurement were located, but they
were rejected for use with the proposed
PS–17. The first and second standards,
ASTM E1511–93 (2005), ‘‘Standard
Practice for Testing Conductivity
Detectors Used in Liquid and Ion
Chromatography,’’ and ASTM D3370–
95a (2003)e1, ‘‘Standard Practices for
Sampling Water from Closed Conduits,’’
detail the mixing of conductivity
standards, so they are good calibration
methods, but far more time-consuming
than using readily available pre-mixed
conductivity standards as specified in
PS–17. The third standard, ASTM
D6504–07, ‘‘Standard Practice for OnLine Determination of Cation
Conductivity in High Purity Water,’’
references other standards for
E:\FR\FM\09OCP3.SGM
09OCP3
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 197 / Thursday, October 9, 2008 / Proposed Rules
calibration procedures. The fourth
standard, ASTM D3864–06, ‘‘Standard
Guide for Continual On-Line Monitoring
Systems for Water Analysis,’’ contains
statistical methods that are more
rigorous than needed.
pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS3
I. How did we select the performance
criteria for the initial validation check?
In selecting the performance criteria
for the initial validation checks of
CPMS, we considered the accuracies
required by existing rules and the
capabilities of off-the-shelf equipment
available from the manufacturers and
vendors of CPMS components. Based on
our review of CPMS manufacturer and
vendor literature, equipment that
satisfies the accuracy requirements
specified in this proposed rule is readily
available.
Existing rules that require the use of
CPMS specify a range of instrument or
system accuracies. For some of the
affected source categories, the proposed
PS–17 would specify a higher minimum
accuracy than is specified in the
applicable subpart. However, this
proposed rule would not increase the
stringency of the underlying emission
standards in such cases. Instead, the
proposed PS–17 would improve the
accuracy and reliability of, and reduce
the uncertainty in, data used to
demonstrate compliance with those
emission standards.
1. Temperature CPMS Accuracy
Several rules promulgated under parts
60, 61, and 63 specify an accuracy
requirement for temperature CPMS.
Most of these rules specify temperature
accuracy in units of temperature (°C)
and as a percentage of the measured
temperature. For example, 40 CFR part
60, subpart EE, requires thermal
incinerator temperature CPMS to have
an accuracy of 2.5 °C or 0.75 percent.
Although there is a wide range of
accuracies specified in these rules, the
accuracy required for temperature
CPMS associated with high temperature
applications, such as thermal oxidizers
or boilers, generally range from 0.75 to
1.0 percent or from 0.5 °C to 2.5 °C (0.9
°F to 4.5 °F). For lower temperature
applications, such as wet scrubbers, the
specified percent accuracies often are
not as stringent; that is, accuracies are
specified as a higher percentage of the
measured temperature. This distinction
between low and high temperature
applications is consistent with ANSI
specifications for thermocouples. The
minimum standard accuracies for ANSI
Type J and K thermocouples in noncryogenic applications are °0.75 percent
or ±2.2 °C (±4 °F), whichever is greater;
for cryogenic applications, the
VerDate Aug<31>2005
20:38 Oct 08, 2008
Jkt 217001
minimum standard accuracies are ±2.0
percent or ±2.2 °C (±4 °F), whichever is
greater. The reason for specifying a
higher percentage accuracy for lower
temperature ranges is to offset the fact
that the accuracy percentage applies to
a lower value. In selecting the
temperature accuracy requirements for
the proposed PS–17, we decided to
incorporate a similar distinction
between higher temperatures (noncryogenic applications) and lower
temperatures (cryogenic applications).
Our selection of temperature accuracies
of 2.8 °C (5 °F) or °1 percent for noncryogenic applications, and 2.8 °C (5 °F)
or ±2.5 percent for cryogenic
applications is consistent with the
required accuracies for most standards,
and we believe that the accuracies
specified in proposed PS–17 are
adequate for ensuring good quality data.
In addition, our review of vendor
literature indicates that temperature
CPMS that satisfy these accuracy
requirements are readily available at
reasonable costs.
2. Pressure CPMS Accuracy
Among the part 60, 61, and 63 rules
that require pressure monitoring and
also specify a minimum accuracy, the
accuracy specified generally is either
0.25 to 0.5 kPa (1 to 2 in. wc) or 5
percent for pressure drop, and 5 to 15
percent for liquid supply pressure.
These accuracies are easily achievable
because most pressure transducers are
accurate to 0.25 to 1.0 percent, and all
but the lowest grade (Grade D) of ANSIrated pressure gauges have accuracies
better than 5 percent. For the proposed
PS–17, we selected an accuracy
requirement of 0.12 kPa (0.5 in. wc) or
±5 percent, whichever is greater. The
0.12 kPa criterion would apply only in
low pressure applications. Some
existing rules require pressure CPMS to
have accuracies of 0.24 kPa (1.0 in. wc)
or better. However, those accuracies
generally do not apply to pressure
CPMS in low pressure applications,
where the 0.12 kPa accuracy would
apply. We believe this level of accuracy
specified for pressure CPMS is
appropriate, considering that some
control devices operate with pressure
drops of less than 1.2 kPa (5 in. wc). For
applications with pressures in excess of
2.5 kPa (10 in. wc), the 5 percent
accuracy criterion would apply. This
criterion is consistent with most rules
that specify pressure device accuracies,
and CPMS that are capable of achieving
this accuracy are readily available.
3. Flow CPMS Accuracy
Rules promulgated under parts 60, 61,
and 63 that require flow rate monitoring
PO 00000
Frm 00023
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
59977
all specify flow rate accuracy in terms
of percent. For liquid flow rate
measurement, these rules generally
require accuracies of ±5 percent, and
rules that require steam flow rate
monitoring generally require an
accuracy of ±10 percent or better. We
believe that these accuracies are
reasonable, and we have incorporated
them into the proposed PS–17.
According to our review of vendor
literature, flow CPMS that can achieve
these accuracies are readily available.
Unlike rules that address temperature
and pressure monitoring, most existing
rules that require continuous flow rate
monitoring do not specify flow rate
monitoring device accuracies in units of
flow rate. However, there is an
advantage to specifying accuracy in
units of measurement as well as a
percent; in low flow rate applications,
an accuracy criterion based solely on
percent can result in an unreasonably
stringent accuracy requirement. For that
reason, we have incorporated into the
proposed PS–17 accuracy criteria as a
percent of flow rate and in units of flow
rate. The exceptions are the accuracy
criteria for liquid mass flow rate and
solid mass flow rate, both of which
would be specified only as a percentage
(i.e., ±5 percent). We concluded that it
would not be reasonable to specify
accuracy criteria for mass flow in units
of mass flow because of the wide range
of flow rates that could be monitored
(e.g., carbon injection rate vs. rotary kiln
raw material feed rate). We based the 5
percent accuracy criterion primarily on
vendor literature.
Recognizing the differences in the
relative magnitudes and the commonly
used units of flow rate measurement for
liquids and gases, we have specified in
the proposed PS–17 separate accuracy
criteria for liquid and gas flow rates. For
liquid flow rate CPMS, which typically
are associated with wet scrubber
operation, the minimum accuracy
would be 1.9 L/min (0.5 gal/min) or ±5
percent, whichever is greater. For gas
flow rate CPMS, which often are used to
monitor stack gas flow rate or natural
gas fuel flow rate, PS–17 would require
a minimum accuracy of 280 L/min (10
ft3/min) or ±5 percent, whichever is
greater.
The proposed PS–17 also would
specify a relative accuracy criterion for
owners or operators who choose to
validate a gas flow rate CPMS using the
RA test, which is specified in section
8.6(6) of PS–17. In such cases, owners
or operators would have to demonstrate
that the affected CPMS achieves a
relative accuracy of 20 percent or better.
The relative accuracy criterion of 20
percent was selected because that value
E:\FR\FM\09OCP3.SGM
09OCP3
59978
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 197 / Thursday, October 9, 2008 / Proposed Rules
is consistent with the relative accuracy
required by most performance
specifications promulgated under 40
CFR part 60.
4. pH CPMS Accuracy
Although several subparts of 40 CFR
parts 60, 61, and 63 require pH
monitoring, the only rule to specify an
accuracy requirement for pH CPMS is
40 CFR part 61, subpart E; the accuracy
required by that rule for pH
measurement devices is ±10 percent.
Our review of manufacturer and vendor
literature indicates that pH CPMS
generally have accuracies of ±0.01 to
±0.15 pH units. Based largely on the
vendor literature, we decided to require
pH CPMS to have accuracies of 0.2 pH
units or better. An accuracy of ±0.2 pH
units should allow most facilities that
currently monitor pH to continue using
their pH CPMS, provided the CPMS
satisfies the other equipment criteria
specified in PS–17.
5. Conductivity CPMS Accuracy
Because none of the part 60, 61, or 63
rules specify accuracy requirements for
conductivity CPMS, we reviewed
manufacturer and vendor literature,
which indicates that conductivity CPMS
generally have accuracies of ±1 to ±2
percent. Conductivity measurements
range from 0.1 to 200,000 micromhos
per centimeter (µmhos/cm) (0.1 to
200,000 microsiemens per centimeter
(µS/cm)) at 25 °C (77 °F). To account for
this large range and the accuracies that
can be met by most available
instruments, we decided to require
conductivity CPMS to have accuracies
of ±5 percent. An accuracy requirement
of ±5 percent should allow most
facilities that currently monitor
conductivity to continue using their
conductivity CPMS, provided their
CPMS satisfies the other equipment
criteria specified in PS–17.
pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS3
J. How did we select the recordkeeping
requirements?
The proposed PS–17 would require
owners or operators of affected CPMS to
maintain records that identify their
CPMS and document performance
evaluations, and to retain those records
for a period of at least 5 years. These
requirements are consistent with the
recordkeeping requirements specified in
§ 63.10 of the General Provisions to part
63.
IX. Rationale for Selecting the Proposed
Requirements of Procedure 4
A. What information did we use to
develop Procedure 4?
The information used to develop
Procedure 4 is essentially the same
VerDate Aug<31>2005
20:38 Oct 08, 2008
Jkt 217001
information used to develop PS–17 and
includes information from existing
standards, manufacturer and vendor
recommendations, and current practices
in industry. Section VIII.A of this
document provides additional details on
how this information was obtained.
B. Why did we decide to apply
Procedure 4 to all CPMS that are subject
to PS–17?
Rules promulgated under part 63
establish enforceable operating limits
for parameter monitoring systems. As is
the case for CEMS that are used to
demonstrate continuous compliance
and are subject to Procedure 1 of 40 CFR
part 60, appendix F, there is a need for
ongoing QA requirements to ensure that
the data generated by CPMS are reliable
and accurate. Although the data
generated by CPMS that are required
under parts 60 and 61 are not used
directly to demonstrate compliance, we
believe there still is a need to ensure the
quality of those data is maintained. For
that reason, we believe it is warranted
to require that all part 60, 61, and 63
sources that are required to install and
operate CPMS be subject to PS–17 and
Procedure 4.
C. How did we select the accuracy audit
procedures?
With the exception of audit
procedures for CPMS with redundant
sensors, the accuracy audit procedures
specified in the proposed Procedure 4
would essentially be the same
procedures that could be used to
perform the initial validation checks
that would be required by PS–17. For
CPMS with redundant sensors, we
selected the accuracy audit procedure of
comparing the values of the parameter
measured by the two sensors because
that method currently is used by many
industrial facilities to ensure the
accuracy of their parameter monitoring
systems. The most significant
distinction between the audit
procedures specified in the proposed
Procedure 4 and the initial validation
procedures specified in the proposed
PS–17 is that the accuracy audit
procedures address sensor accuracy,
whereas some of the initial validation
procedures do not address sensor
accuracy. When CPMS are first
installed, we assume sensors to have
been manufactured and factorycalibrated under stringent QC
requirements. Consequently, the
proposed PS–17 does not require the
initial validation check procedures to
include sensor accuracy assessments.
However, after a CPMS has been placed
into operation, and the sensor is
subjected to process environments, loss
PO 00000
Frm 00024
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
of calibration can occur quickly.
Recognizing that possibility, we have
incorporated a check of sensor accuracy
into the accuracy audit procedures of
the proposed Procedure 4. Some audit
procedures assess the accuracy of the
overall CPMS, including the sensor. For
those procedures, a separate accuracy
assessment of the sensor would not be
necessary. For those audit procedures
that do not assess the accuracy of the
entire CPMS, we have incorporated into
the proposed Procedure 4 a separate
accuracy check of the CPMS sensor.
These sensor accuracy assessments are
based on voluntary consensus
standards.
D. How did we select the accuracy audit
frequencies?
To determine the appropriate audit
frequencies, we reviewed the
requirements of existing rules, the
procedures practiced by industry, and
vendor recommendations. Most of the
rules promulgated under 40 CFR parts
60, 61, and 63 do not specify calibration
or audit frequencies. Those rules that do
specify accuracy audit frequencies
usually require annual calibrations; a
few rules require semi-annual or
quarterly calibrations of CPMS. The
information provided by industry in its
responses to the CPMS survey indicated
that the typical calibration frequency for
most CPMS is once per year. Two
facilities perform calibrations on
thermocouples semiannually. One of
those facilities also checks pressure
meter calibration semiannually. Another
facility reported that it checks and
calibrates its pH CPMS on a weekly
basis. With the exception of pH CPMS,
Procedure 4 would require quarterly
accuracy audits. This frequency is
comparable to the audit frequencies
required for CEMS specified in many
part 60, 61, and 63 standards, and we
believe that quarterly accuracy
assessments are warranted for CPMS to
ensure that monitoring data are
accurate. The available information
indicates that pH sensors require more
frequent calibration than do other types
of sensors, and weekly calibration of pH
CPMS is common. Therefore, we believe
that weekly accuracy audits are
warranted for pH CPMS.
E. How did we select the performance
criteria for accuracy audits?
The performance criteria for the
accuracy audits specified in Procedure 4
are identical to those specified for the
initial validation check required by PS–
17. The rationale for the validation
check accuracy requirements is
described in section VIII.H of this
document.
E:\FR\FM\09OCP3.SGM
09OCP3
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 197 / Thursday, October 9, 2008 / Proposed Rules
F. How did we select the recordkeeping
requirements?
The proposed Procedure 4 would
require owners or operators of affected
CPMS to maintain records of all
accuracy audits and corrective actions
taken to return the CPMS to normal
operation and to retain those records for
a period of at least 5 years. These
requirements are consistent with the
recordkeeping requirements specified in
§ 63.10 of the General Provisions to part
63.
pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS3
X. Rationale for Selecting the Proposed
Amendments to Procedure 1
A. How did we select the amendments
to Procedure 1 that apply to PS–9?
Before drafting the proposed
amendments to Procedure 1 (40 CFR
part 60, appendix F), we reviewed the
procedure and PS–9 (40 CFR part 60,
appendix B) to identify those sections of
Procedure 1 that did not address, or
were inconsistent with, the specific
requirements of PS–9. We identified
three such sections of Procedure 1:
section 1, Applicability and Principle;
section 4, CD Assessment; and section 5,
Data Accuracy Assessment. The
applicability section of Procedure 1
applies to CEMS that are used for
monitoring a single pollutant or diluent.
The section does not address CEMS that
can be used for monitoring more than
one pollutant, such as those that are
subject to PS–9. Therefore, it is
necessary to amend section 1 to clarify
that Procedure 1 would apply to single
and multiple pollutant CEMS.
Section 4.1 of Procedure 1 requires
owners or operators of affected CEMS to
check the daily CD at two concentration
values. In the case of a single pollutant
CEMS, there is no ambiguity in this
requirement. However, for multiple
pollutant CEMS, Procedure 1 is unclear
as to which pollutant can or must be
used for the daily CD check. We are
proposing to amend Procedure 1 to
allow owners and operators of affected
CEMS to perform the CD check using
any of the target pollutants specified in
the applicable subpart.
Section 5 of Procedure 1, which
addresses data accuracy audits, is
inconsistent with the requirements of
PS–9. Procedure 1 requires RATA’s at
least once every four calendar quarters;
the accuracy audit requirement for the
other three calendar quarters can be
satisfied by performing either RATA’s,
CGA’s, or RAA’s. However, PS–9
requires quarterly CGA’s and does not
address RATA’s or RAA’s. To resolve
this inconsistency in Procedure 1, these
proposed amendments would add
section 5.1.5, which would clarify that
VerDate Aug<31>2005
20:38 Oct 08, 2008
Jkt 217001
owners and operators of CEMS subject
to PS–9 are not required to perform
RATA’s; the accuracy audit requirement
would have to be satisfied by
performing quarterly CGA’s. The CGA’s
would have to be conducted at two
points for each target pollutant specified
in the applicable subpart. Finally, the
proposed new section would clarify that
these quarterly CGA’s satisfy the
quarterly CGA requirement of PS–9.
B. How did we select the amendments
to Procedure 1 that apply to PS–15?
After reviewing Procedure 1, we
identified three sections that either were
inconsistent with the requirements of
PS–15 (40 CFR part 60, appendix B) or
did not address the unique
characteristics of CEMS that are subject
to PS–15. The sections identified were
section 1, Applicability and Principle;
section 4, CD Assessment; and section 5,
Data Accuracy Assessment. As
explained in the section X.A of this
document, these proposed amendments
to section 1 of Procedure 1 would clarify
that the procedure also applies to CEMS
that are used for monitoring more than
one pollutant or diluent. To address the
CD assessment of CEMS subject to PS–
15, we are proposing to add three
paragraphs to section 4 of Procedure 1.
Unlike other types of CEMS, extractive
FTIR CEMS are not generally checked
for CD. Instead, PS–15 specifies other
procedures for checking these
instruments on a daily basis. In these
proposed amendments we are adding
section 4.1.2 to Procedure 1 to specify
the proper procedures for checking FTIR
CEMS performance that are comparable
to the CD checks of other types of
CEMS. These daily assessments serve
the same purpose as do the daily CD
check requirements for other types of
CEMS. We also recognize that the term
‘‘excessive CD,’’ as defined in section
4.3 of Procedure 1, needs to be clarified
for CEMS subject to PS–15. To address
this need, we are proposed to add
section 4.3.3 to Procedure 1. Section
4.3.3 would clarify how excessive CD is
defined for CEMS subject to PS–15 and
also would specify when such CEMS are
out of control.
Section 4.4 of Procedure 1 addresses
CEMS data reporting and recordkeeping.
Because of the unique data storage
requirements for PS–15, we believe
adding another paragraph to section 4.4
of Procedure 1 is warranted. The new
paragraph in section 4.4 essentially
would reference the data storage
requirements specified in PS–15.
The Procedure 1 specifies three
methods for assessing data accuracy:
RATA’s, CGA’s, and RAA’s. On the
other hand, PS–15 specifies a different
PO 00000
Frm 00025
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
59979
set of accuracy audit procedures: audit
sample checks, audit spectra checks,
and an independent accuracy
assessment performed by us.
Consequently, there is an obvious need
to amend Procedure 1 if we were to
extend the applicability of Procedure 1
to include CEMS subject to PS–15. To
resolve this inconsistency, we would
add section 5.1.6 to Procedure 1. We
modeled section 5.1.6 after the accuracy
audit requirements that were already
incorporated in Procedure 1. The most
rigorous of the accuracy assessment
methods specified in PS–15 is the audit
sample check. In this respect, the audit
sample check is analogous to the RATA.
For consistency with the requirements
for other types of CEMS, we would
require audit sample checks for CEMS
subject to PS–15 to be performed at least
once every four calendar quarters, as is
the case for RATA’s for other types of
CEMS. For the other three calendar
quarters, we would allow owners and
operators of CEMS subject to PS–15 to
perform any of the three audit
procedures specified in PS–15 (audit
sample check, audit spectra check, and
submitting spectra for independent
analysis), with one exception. The audit
spectra check assesses the accuracy of
the analytical measurement but not the
sampling system measurement.
Therefore, we would allow owners and
operators of CEMS subject to PS–15 to
use the audit spectra check only once
every four quarters to satisfy the
accuracy audit requirement of
Procedure 1. Finally, proposed section
5.1.6 of Procedure 1 would clarify that
the quarterly accuracy assessments
required by Procedure 1 satisfy the
quarterly or semiannual QA/QC checks
required by PS–15.
XI. Rationale for Selecting the Proposed
Amendments to the General Provisions
to Parts 60, 61, and 63
A. How did we select the amendments
to the General Provisions to parts 60, 61,
and 63?
The proposed PS–17 and Procedure 4
would specify CPMS accuracies, audit
frequencies, and other requirements that
differ from some of the requirements for
CPMS specified in applicable subparts
to parts 60, 61, and 63. Eliminating the
resulting discrepancies would require
either amending each of the applicable
subparts or amending the General
Provisions to those parts. We concluded
that amending the General Provisions
would be the preferred approach for
avoiding such conflicts or
discrepancies.
After reviewing the General
Provisions to parts 60 and 61 that apply
E:\FR\FM\09OCP3.SGM
09OCP3
pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS3
59980
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 197 / Thursday, October 9, 2008 / Proposed Rules
specifically to monitoring (i.e., §§ 60.13
and 61.14), we decided to amend only
the applicability sections of those parts.
By stating that, upon promulgation,
performance specifications and QA
procedures for CPMS (i.e., the proposed
PS–17 and Procedure 4) apply to CPMS
instead of requirements in the
applicable subparts to parts 60 and 61,
we believe we can eliminate any
discrepancies between the applicable
subparts and the proposed PS–17 and
Procedure 4. We concluded that this
proposed rule would not conflict with
the monitoring requirements specified
in subsequent sections of the General
Provisions to parts 60 and 61, and
further amendments to those General
Provisions were unnecessary.
With respect to the General Provisions
to part 63, we identified several
inconsistencies between the
requirements specified in § 63.8 and the
requirements in the proposed PS–17
and Procedure 4. In this action, we are
proposing several changes to § 63.8 to
eliminate those inconsistencies.
We believe that the installation
requirement of § 63.8(c)(2) should apply
to all CMS, and not simply CEMS; we
are proposing to amend § 63.8(c)(2)
accordingly. We believe that the
requirement for continuous operation
specified in § 63.8(c)(4) should apply to
all CMS, and not just CEMS and COMS
as now specified in the General
Provisions.
Section 63.8(c)(4) addresses cycle
time for CEMS and COMS, but not for
CPMS. We believe it is necessary to
address CPMS cycle time also.
Consequently, we are proposing to add
§ 63.8(c)(4)(iii) for that purpose.
The last three sentences of § 63.8(c)(6)
address calibration and daily checks of
CPMS. We are proposing to delete these
provisions because the proposed PS–17
and Procedure 4 would address CPMS
operation and maintenance more
thoroughly.
Section 63.8(c)(7) of the General
Provisions defines CMS that are out of
control in terms of excessive calibration
drift checks and periodic audits that
apply to CEMS and COMS, but not to
CPMS. Consequently, we are proposing
to amend § 63.8(c)(7) to clarify that, for
CPMS, out of control is defined in terms
of failed accuracy audits only. The
proposed amendments would clarify in
§ 63.8(c)(7)(i)(A) that out of control,
when defined in terms of excessive
calibration drift, applies to CEMS and
COMS and not CPMS. We also would
revise § 63.8(c)(7)(i)(B), which relates
out of control to failed performance test
audits, relative accuracy audits, relative
accuracy test audits, and linearity test
audits that apply to CEMS and COMS,
VerDate Aug<31>2005
20:38 Oct 08, 2008
Jkt 217001
but not to CPMS. We propose adding
§ 63.8(c)(7)(i)(D) to clarify that a CPMS
is out of control when it fails an
accuracy audit.
Quality control programs for CMS are
addressed in § 63.8(d). We are proposing
to revise § 63.8(d)(2)(ii) to clarify that
the requirement for written protocols for
calibration drift determinations and
adjustments would apply only to
applicable CMS; that is, the requirement
would apply to CEMS and COMS, but
not to CPMS because calibration drift is
not relevant to many CPMS.
Finally, we are proposing changes to
§ 63.8(e), which address CMS
performance evaluations. We are
proposing to amend § 63.8(e)(2) and
(3)(i) to clarify that prior written notice
of performance evaluations and
performance evaluation test plans are
required for CEMS or COMS only.
Under the proposed PS–17 and
Procedure 4, CPMS initial validations
and/or accuracy audits would be
required at least quarterly using
procedures that are much simpler than
those required for CEMS or COMS
performance tests. Consequently, we
believe that requiring written
notifications and test plans is
unnecessary for CPMS performance
evaluations. We also are proposing to
revise § 63.8(e)(4), which addresses
conducting CMS performance
evaluations during any required
performance test. Currently, § 63.8(e)(4)
states that CMS performance
evaluations must be conducted in
accordance to the applicable
performance specification. We are
proposing to clarify paragraph (e)(4) to
state that such evaluations of CMS
performance should be conducted in
accordance with the applicable
performance specification or QA
procedure because procedures for
performing CPMS accuracy audits
would be specified in the proposed
Procedure 4.
XII. Rationale for Selecting the
Proposed Amendments to 40 CFR Part
63, Subpart SS
Our proposed amendments to subpart
SS (65 FR 76444, December 6, 2000)
included revisions to the general
monitoring requirements specified in
§ 63.996. At that time, we had not
completed our development of
performance specifications and QA
procedures for CPMS, which we are
now proposing as PS–17 and Procedure
4, respectively. After reviewing the
public comments on the December 6,
2000 proposal and comparing the
requirements of PS–17 and Procedure 4
to the proposed changes to § 63.996, we
decided that further revisions to
PO 00000
Frm 00026
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
§ 63.996 are warranted to ensure
consistency between the monitoring
requirements of subpart SS, PS–17, and
Procedure 4. We identified the
requirements of the proposed PS–17 and
Procedure 4 that were most relevant to
the generic MACT source categories and
incorporated those requirements into
the amendments that we are proposing
for subpart SS. We believe that these
proposed amendments would ensure
consistency with PS–17, Procedure 4,
and subpart SS.
XIII. Summary of Environmental,
Energy, and Economic Impacts
A. What are the impacts of PS–17 and
Procedure 4?
The proposed PS–17 and Procedure 4
would apply only to CPMS that are
required under an applicable subpart to
40 CFR parts 60, 61, or 63; that is, this
proposed rulemaking would not require
the installation or operation of CPMS,
other than those already required by
rule. The cost and economic impact
analyses that are completed as part of
the rulemaking process for any part 60,
61, or 63 rule account for the costs
associated with any required CPMS that
would be subject to PS–17 and
Procedure 4. Those costs, which are not
attributable to this proposed
rulemaking, include the capital costs for
equipment, installation costs, the costs
for operating and maintaining the
CPMS, and the costs for maintaining
records and reporting CPMS data.
However, in some cases, the proposed
PS–17 and Procedure 4 would require
more accurate sensors and more
frequent accuracy audits and
inspections than would be required
otherwise for some source categories.
Therefore, the incremental costs
associated with replacing those sensors
and conducting additional audits and
inspections can be attributed to the
proposed PS–17 and Procedure 4.
Because the applicability of the
proposed PS–17 and Procedure 4 will be
phased in over a 5-year period, we
estimated the costs for each of those
initial 5 years. Based on those estimates,
the nationwide additional annualized
costs to implement the proposed PS–17
and Procedure 4 amount to $17.7
million for the first year, $26.4 million
for the second, $35.0 million for the
third year, $43.7 million for the fourth
year, and $52.3 million for the fifth year
of this proposed rule. The average
annualized cost per source is estimated
to be $320, $470, $610, $740, and $870
for the first through fifth years,
respectively. These costs are based on
the assumption that affected facilities
would not choose to use redundant
E:\FR\FM\09OCP3.SGM
09OCP3
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 197 / Thursday, October 9, 2008 / Proposed Rules
sensors. If facilities elected to use
redundant sensors, the estimated
compliance costs for the proposed PS–
17 and Procedure 4 would be reduced.
The proposed PS–17 and Procedure 4
would improve the quality of the data
measured and recorded by CPMS and
thereby would also reduce the
uncertainty in those data. However, this
proposed rulemaking would not require
the installation or operation of
additional CPMS. Therefore, with
respect to other potential impacts
associated with this proposed
rulemaking, we have concluded that
PS–17 and Procedure 4, as proposed,
would have no energy or environmental
impacts beyond those that have already
been attributed by to the various part 60,
61, and 63 rules that require the use of
CPMS.
B. What are the impacts of the
amendments to Procedure 1?
The proposed amendments to
Procedure 1 clarify how owners and
operators of CEMS subject to PS–9 or
PS–15 must satisfy the requirements
already established by Procedure 1.
Therefore, we have determined that
there are no additional impacts that
should be attributed to these proposed
amendments to Procedure 1.
pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS3
C. What are the impacts of the
amendments to the General Provisions
to parts 60, 61, and 63?
The proposed amendments to 40 CFR
60.13 and 40 CFR 61.14 would
eliminate any discrepancies between the
requirements for CPMS specified in an
applicable subpart to parts 60 or 61 and
requirements for CPMS specified in the
proposed PS–17 and Procedure 4. The
amendments to 40 CFR 63.8 that we are
proposing clarify how the monitoring
requirements of the General Provisions
to part 63 apply to CPMS. These
proposed amendments do not add any
additional requirements to what is
already required by the General
Provisions to parts 60, 61, and 63.
Consequently, we have concluded that
the proposed amendments do not have
any significant environmental, energy,
or economic impacts on the affected
source categories.
D. What are the impacts of the
amendments to subpart SS?
The proposed amendments to 40 CFR
part 63, subpart SS clarify the
monitoring requirements for CPMS that
are required under subpart SS and the
General Provisions to part 63.
Furthermore, these proposed
amendments provide consistency
between those monitoring requirements
and the proposed requirements of PS–17
VerDate Aug<31>2005
20:38 Oct 08, 2008
Jkt 217001
and Procedure 4. For these reasons, we
have concluded that there are no
significant environmental, energy, or
economic impacts associated with the
proposed amendments.
XIV. Solicitation of Comments and
Public Participation
We want to have full public
participation in arriving at our final
decisions, and we encourage comment
on all aspects of this proposal from all
interested parties. Interested parties
should submit supporting data and
detailed analyses with their comments
so we can make maximum use of them.
Information on where and when to
submit comments is listed in
‘‘Comments’’ under the DATES and
ADDRESSES sections.
XV. Statutory and Executive Order
Reviews
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory
Planning and Review
This action is not a ‘‘significant
regulatory action’’ under the terms of
Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735,
October 4, 1993) and is therefore not
subject to review under the Executive
Order.
B. Paperwork Reduction Act
The information collection
requirements in this proposed rule have
been submitted for approval to the
Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction
Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. The
Information Collection Request (ICR)
document prepared by EPA has been
assigned EPA ICR number 2269.01.
The information collection
requirements for the proposed PS–17
and Procedure 4 are based on the
requirements in the General Provisions
to parts 60, 61, and 63, which are
mandatory for all operators subject to
NSPS or NESHAP. These recordkeeping
and reporting requirements are
specifically authorized by section 114 of
the CAA (42 U.S.C. 7414). All
information submitted to EPA pursuant
to the recordkeeping and reporting
requirements for which a claim of
confidentiality is made is safeguarded
according to EPA’s policies set forth in
40 CFR 2, subpart B.
This proposed rule would not require
any notifications or reports beyond
those required by the General Provisions
to parts 60, 61, and 63. The
recordkeeping requirements require
only the specific information needed to
determine compliance.
The annual monitoring, reporting, and
recordkeeping burden for this collection
of information (averaged over the first 3
PO 00000
Frm 00027
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
59981
years after the effective date of the rule)
is estimated to be 318,662 labor hours
per year at a total annual cost of $23.3
million. This burden estimate includes
time for the maintenance and evaluation
of monitoring system operation. Total
capital costs associated with the
monitoring requirements over the 3-year
period of the ICR are estimated at $18.2
million. Burden is defined at 5 CFR
1320.3(b).
An agency may not conduct or
sponsor, and a person is not required to
respond to a collection of information
unless it displays a currently valid OMB
control number. The OMB control
numbers for EPA’s regulations are listed
in 40 CFR part 9.
To comment on the Agency’s need for
this information, the accuracy of the
provided burden estimates, and any
suggested methods for minimizing
respondent burden, EPA has established
a public docket for this rule, which
includes this ICR, under Docket ID No.
EPA–HQ–OAR–2006–0640. Submit any
comments related to the ICR to EPA and
OMB. See ADDRESSES section at the
beginning of this notice for where to
submit comments to EPA. Send
comments to OMB at the Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs,
Office of Management and Budget, 725
17th Street, NW., Washington, DC
20503, Attention: Desk Office for EPA.
Since OMB is required to make a
decision concerning the ICR between 30
and 60 days after October 9, 2008, a
comment to OMB is best assured of
having its full effect if OMB receives it
by November 10, 2008. The final rule
will respond to any OMB or public
comments on the information collection
requirements contained in this proposal.
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
generally requires an agency to prepare
a regulatory flexibility analysis of any
rule subject to notice and comment
rulemaking requirements under the
Administrative Procedure Act or any
other statute unless the agency certifies
that the rule will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities. Small entities
include small businesses, small
organizations, and small governmental
jurisdictions.
For purposes of assessing the impacts
of this proposed rule on small entities,
small entity is defined as: (1) a small
business as defined by the Small
Business Administration’s (SBA)
regulations at 13 CFR 121.201; (2) a
small governmental jurisdiction that is a
government of a city, county, town,
school district or special district with a
population of less than 50,000; and (3)
E:\FR\FM\09OCP3.SGM
09OCP3
59982
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 197 / Thursday, October 9, 2008 / Proposed Rules
pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS3
a small organization that is any not-forprofit enterprise which is independently
owned and operated and is not
dominant in its field.
After considering the economic
impacts of this proposed rule on small
entities, I certify that this action will not
have a significant economic impact on
a substantial number of small entities.
Because of the number of different
source categories involved and the small
cost per facility, a case study approach
was used to assess the likelihood of
significant impact on small entities. A
subset of source categories that most
likely would be the most impacted was
chosen by two criteria. The first
criterion was whether or not the
underlying regulation was expected to
have adverse small business impacts at
the time of promulgation. The second
criterion was the relative magnitude of
the estimated costs for complying with
the CPMS Rule on a per-plant basis. In
none of the case studies were costs
likely to approach 1 percent of sales
because the average per facility costs
were always less than 3 percent of the
compliance costs of underlying
regulation.
We continue to be interested in the
potential impacts of this proposed rule
on small entities and welcome
comments on issues related to such
impacts.
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates
Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Pub. L.
104–4, establishes requirements for
Federal agencies to assess the effects of
their regulatory actions on State, local,
and tribal governments and the private
sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA,
we generally must prepare a written
statement, including a cost-benefit
analysis, for proposed and final rules
with ‘‘Federal mandates’’ that may
result in expenditures to State, local,
and tribal governments, in the aggregate,
or to the private sector, of $100 million
or more in any one year. Before
promulgating an EPA rule for which a
written statement is needed, section 205
of the UMRA generally requires us to
identify and consider a reasonable
number of regulatory alternatives and
adopt the least costly, most costeffective or least burdensome alternative
that achieves the objectives of the rule.
The provisions of section 205 do not
apply when they are inconsistent with
applicable law. Moreover, section 205
allows us to adopt an alternative other
than the least costly, most cost-effective
or least burdensome alternative if the
Administrator publishes with the final
rule an explanation why that alternative
was not adopted. Before we establish
VerDate Aug<31>2005
20:38 Oct 08, 2008
Jkt 217001
any regulatory requirements that may
significantly or uniquely affect small
governments, including tribal
governments, it must have developed
under section 203 of the UMRA a small
government agency plan. The plan must
provide for notifying potentially
affected small governments, enabling
officials of affected small governments
to have meaningful and timely input in
the development of our regulatory
proposals with significant Federal
intergovernmental mandates, and
informing, educating, and advising
small governments on compliance with
the regulatory requirements.
EPA has determined that this
proposed rule does not contain a
Federal mandate that may result in
expenditures of $100 million or more
for State, local, and tribal governments,
in the aggregate, or the private sector in
any one year. The nationwide additional
annualized costs to implement the
proposed rule are estimated to be $52.3
million in the fifth year of this proposed
rule. Thus, this proposed rule is not
subject to the requirements of sections
202 and 205 of the UMRA.
EPA has determined that this
proposed rule contains no regulatory
requirements that might significantly or
uniquely affect small governments. The
requirements of PS–17 and Procedure 4
have already been addressed under the
General Provisions to parts 60, 61, and
63, and in the applicable subparts that
require the installation and operation of
CPMS. Furthermore, the amendments to
Procedure 1 merely clarify the
applicability and requirements of the
procedure. Finally, these proposed
amendments to the monitoring
requirements in the General Provisions
to parts 60, 61, and 63, as well as to
subpart SS are made to ensure
consistency with PS–17 and Procedure
4.
E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
Executive Order 13132, entitled
‘‘Federalism’’ (64 FR 43255, August 10,
1999), requires us to develop an
accountable process to ensure
‘‘meaningful and timely input by State
and local officials in the development of
regulatory policies that have federalism
implications.’’ ‘‘Policies that have
federalism implications’’ is defined in
the Executive Order to include
regulations that have ‘‘substantial direct
effects on the States, on the relationship
between the national government and
the States, or on the distribution of
power and responsibilities among the
various levels of government.’’
This proposed rule does not have
federalism implications. It will not have
substantial direct effects on the States,
PO 00000
Frm 00028
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
on the relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various
levels of government, as specified in
Executive Order 13132. The
requirements of PS–17 and Procedure 4
have already been addressed under the
General Provisions to parts 60, 61, and
63, and in the applicable subparts that
require the installation and operation of
CPMS. Furthermore, these proposed
amendments to Procedure 1 merely
clarify the applicability and
requirements of the procedure. Finally,
these proposed amendments to the
monitoring requirements specified in
the General Provisions to parts 60, 61,
and 63, as well as to subpart SS are
made to ensure consistency with PS–17
and Procedure 4. Thus, Executive Order
13132 does not apply to this rule.
In the spirit of Executive Order 13132,
and consistent with our policy to
promote communications between us
and State and local governments, we
specifically solicit comment on this
proposed rule from State and local
officials.
F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation
and Coordination With Indian Tribal
Governments
Executive Order 13175, entitled
‘‘Consultation and Coordination with
Indian Tribal Governments’’ (65 FR
67249, November 9, 2000), requires EPA
to develop an accountable process to
ensure ‘‘meaningful and timely input by
tribal officials in the development of
regulatory policies that have tribal
implications.’’ This proposed rule does
not have tribal implications, as specified
in Executive Order 13175. The
requirements of PS–17 and Procedure 4
have already been addressed under the
General Provisions to parts 60, 61, and
63, and in the applicable subparts that
require the installation and operation of
CPMS. Furthermore, these proposed
amendments to Procedure 1 merely
clarify the applicability and
requirements of the procedure. Finally,
these proposed amendments to the
monitoring requirements specified in
the General Provisions to parts 60, 61,
and 63, as well as to subpart SS are
made to ensure consistency with PS–17
and Procedure 4. Thus, Executive Order
13175 does not apply to this proposed
rule. EPA specifically solicits additional
comment on this proposed rule from
tribal officials.
G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of
Children From Environmental Health
Risks and Safety Risks
Executive Order 13045, ‘‘Protection of
Children from Environmental Health
E:\FR\FM\09OCP3.SGM
09OCP3
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 197 / Thursday, October 9, 2008 / Proposed Rules
Risks and Safety Risks’’ (62 FR 19885,
April 23, 1997) applies to any rule that:
(1) Is determined to be ‘‘economically
significant’’ as defined under Executive
Order 12866, and (2) concerns an
environmental health or safety risk that
EPA has reason to believe may have a
disproportionate effect on children. If
the regulatory action meets both criteria,
the Agency must evaluate the
environmental health or safety effects of
the planned rule on children, and
explain why the planned regulation is
preferable to other potentially effective
and reasonably feasible alternatives
considered by the Agency.
EPA interprets EO 13045 as applying
only to those regulatory actions that
concern health or safety risks, such that
the analysis required under section
5–501 of the Order has the potential to
influence the regulation. This proposed
rule is not subject to Executive Order
13045 because it does not establish an
environmental standard intended to
mitigate health or safety risks.
pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS3
H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use
This proposed rule is not subject to
Executive Order 13211, ‘‘Actions
Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use’’ (66 FR 28355 (May
22, 2001)) because it is not a significant
regulatory action under Executive Order
12866.
I. National Technology Transfer and
Advancement Act
Section 12(d) of the National
Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (‘‘NTTAA’’), Pub. L. No.
104–113, 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note)
directs EPA to use voluntary consensus
standards in its regulatory activities
unless to do so would be inconsistent
with applicable law or otherwise
impractical. Voluntary consensus
standards are technical standards (e.g.,
materials specifications, test methods,
sampling procedures, and business
practices) that are developed or adopted
by voluntary consensus standards
bodies. NTTAA directs EPA to provide
Congress, through OMB, explanations
when the Agency decides not to use
available and applicable voluntary
consensus standards (VCS).
This proposed rulemaking involves
technical standards. EPA proposes to
use the following VCS: American
Society for Testing and Materials
(ASTM) E220–07e1, ASTM D1293–99
(2005), ASTM D1125–95 (2005), ASTM
D5391–99 (2005), ASTM E251–92
(2003), ASTM E452–02 (2007), ASTM
E585/E 585M–04, ASTM E644–06,
VerDate Aug<31>2005
20:38 Oct 08, 2008
Jkt 217001
ASTM E235–06, ASTM E608/E 608M–
06, ASTM E696–07, ASTM E1129/
E1129M–98 (2002), ASTM E1137/
E1137M–04, and ASTM E1159–98
(2003); International Organization for
Standardization (ISO) MC96.1–1982 and
ISO 10790:1999; American Society of
Mechanical Engineers (ASME) B40.100–
2005 and ASME MFC–3M–2004;
American Society of Heating,
Refrigerating, and Air-Conditioning
Engineers (ASHRAE) 41.8–1989;
American National Standards Institute
(ANSI)/ASME MFC–4M–1986 (R2003),
ANSI/ASME MFC–6M–1998 (R2005),
ANSI/ASME MFC–7M–1987 (R2001),
ANSI/ASME MFC–9M–1988; ANSI/
Instrumentation, Systems, and
Automation Society (ISA) RP 31.1–1977,
ISA RP 16.6–1961, ISA RP 16.5–1961,
and ISA 8316:1987; and National
Institute of Standards and Technology
(NIST) Handbook 44—2002 Edition
(incorporated by reference—see 40 CFR
60.17). The Agency conducted a search
to identify potentially applicable
voluntary consensus standards. While
the Agency identified 15 VCS as being
potentially applicable to PS–17 and
Procedure 4, we do not propose to use
these standards in this proposed
rulemaking. The use of these VCS
would be impractical for the purposes of
this proposed rule. See the docket for
this proposed rule for the reasons for
these determinations for the standards.
EPA welcomes comments on this
aspect of this proposed rulemaking and,
specifically, invites the public to
identify potentially-applicable
voluntary consensus standards and to
explain why such standards should be
used in this regulation.
J. Executive Order 12898: Federal
Actions to Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and
Low-Income Populations
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629,
February 16, 1994) establishes Federal
executive policy on environmental
justice. Its main provision directs
Federal agencies, to the greatest extent
practicable and permitted by law, to
make environmental justice part of their
mission by identifying and addressing,
as appropriate, disproportionately high
and adverse human health or
environmental effects of their programs,
policies, and activities on minority
populations and low-income
populations in the United States.
EPA has determined that this
proposed rule will not have
disproportionately high and adverse
human health or environmental effects
on minority or low-income populations
because it increases the level of
environmental protection for all affected
populations without having any
PO 00000
Frm 00029
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
59983
disproportionately high and adverse
human health or environmental effects
on any population, including any
minority or low-income population. The
proposed rule will help to ensure that
emission control devices are operated
properly and maintained as needed,
thereby helping to ensure compliance
with emission standards, which benefit
all affected populations.
List of Subjects
40 CFR Part 60
Environmental protection,
Administrative Practice and Procedure,
Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
40 CFR Part 61
Environmental protection, Air
pollution control, Hazardous
substances, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.
40 CFR Part 63
Environmental protection, Air
pollution control, Hazardous
substances, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.
Dated: September 22, 2008.
Stephen L. Johnson,
Administrator.
For the reasons stated in the
preamble, title 40, chapter I of the Code
of the Federal Regulations is proposed
to be amended as follows:
PART 60—[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 60
continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401, et seq.
Subpart A—[Amended]
2. Section 60.13 is amended by
redesignating paragraph (a) as paragraph
(a)(1) and adding paragraph (a)(2) to
read as follows:
§ 60.13
Monitoring requirements.
(a)(1) * * *
(2) Performance specifications for
continuous parameter monitoring
systems (CPMS) promulgated under 40
CFR part 60, appendix B and quality
assurance procedures for CPMS
promulgated under 40 CFR part 60,
appendix F apply instead of the
requirements for CPMS specified in an
applicable subpart upon promulgation
of the performance specifications and
quality assurance procedures for CPMS.
*
*
*
*
*
3. Section 60.17 is amended by:
a. Adding paragraphs (a)(93) through
(a)(106);
E:\FR\FM\09OCP3.SGM
09OCP3
59984
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 197 / Thursday, October 9, 2008 / Proposed Rules
b. Adding paragraphs (h)(5) through
(h)(10); and
c. Adding paragraphs (o), (p) and (q)
to read as follows:
§ 60.17
Incorporations by reference.
pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS3
*
*
*
*
*
(a) * * *
(93) ASTM E220–07e1, ‘‘Standard
Test Methods for Calibration of
Thermocouples by Comparison
Techniques,’’ IBR approved for Table 6
to Performance Standard 17 of appendix
B to this part and Table 2 to Procedure
4 of appendix F to this part.
(94) ASTM E452–02 (2007),
‘‘Standard Test Method for Calibration
of Refractory Metal Thermocouples
Using an Optical Pyrometer,’’ IBR
approved for Table 6 to Performance
Standard 17 of appendix B to this part
and Table 2 to Procedure 4 to appendix
F of this part.
(95) ASTM E585/E 585M–04,
‘‘Specification for Compacted MineralInsulated, Metal-Sheathed, Base Metal
Thermocouple Cables,’’ IBR approved
for Table 2 to Performance Standard 17
of appendix B to this part.
(96) ASTM E644–06, ‘‘Standard Test
Methods for Testing Industrial
Resistance Thermometers,’’ IBR
approved for Table 6 to Performance
Standard 17 of appendix B to this part
and Table 2 to Procedure 4 of appendix
F to this part.
(97) ASTM E235–06, ‘‘Specification
for Thermocouples, Sheathed, Type K,
for Nuclear or for Other High-Reliability
Applications,’’ IBR approved for Table 2
to Performance Standard 17 of appendix
B to this part.
(98) ASTM E608/E 608M–06,
‘‘Specification for Mineral-Insulated,
Metal-Sheathed Base Metal
Thermocouples,’’ IBR approved for
Table 2 to Performance Standard 17 of
appendix B to this part.
(99) ASTM E696–07, ‘‘Specification
for Tungsten-Rhenium Alloy
Thermocouple Wire,’’ IBR approved for
Table 2 to Performance Standard 17 of
appendix B to this part.
(100) ASTM E1129/E 1129M–98
(2002), ‘‘Standard Specification for
Thermocouple Connectors,’’ IBR
approved for Table 2 to Performance
Standard 17 of appendix B to this part.
(101) ASTM E1137/E 1137M–04,
‘‘Standard Specification for Industrial
Platinum Resistance Thermometers,’’
IBR approved for Table 2 to
Performance Standard 17 of appendix B
to this part.
(102) ASTM E1159–98 (2003),
‘‘Specification for Thermocouple
Materials, Platinum-Rhodium Alloys,
and Platinum,’’ IBR approved for Table
VerDate Aug<31>2005
20:38 Oct 08, 2008
Jkt 217001
2 to Performance Standard 17 of
appendix B to this part.
(103) ASTM E251–92 (2003),
‘‘Standard Test Methods for
Performance Characteristics of Metallic
Bonded Resistance Strain Gages,’’ IBR
approved for Table 7 to Performance
Standard 17 of appendix B to this part
and Table 3 to Procedure 4 of appendix
F to this part.
(104) ASTM D1293–99 (2005),
‘‘Standard Test Methods for pH of
Water,’’ IBR approved for section 8.7 of
Performance Standard 17 of appendix B
to this part and section 8.4 of Procedure
4 of appendix F to this part.
(105) ASTM D1125–95 (2005),
‘‘Standard Test Methods for Electrical
Conductivity and Resistivity of Water,’’
IBR approved for section 8.8 of
Performance Standard 17 of appendix B
to this part and section 8.5 of Procedure
4 of appendix F to this part.
(106) ASTM D5391–99 (2005),
‘‘Standard Test Method for Electrical
Conductivity and Resistivity of a
Flowing High Purity Water Sample,’’
IBR approved for section 8.8 of
Performance Standard 17 of appendix B
to this part and section 8.5 of Procedure
4 of appendix F to this part.
*
*
*
*
*
(h) * * *
(5) ASME B 40.100–2005, ‘‘Pressure
Gauges and Gauge Attachments,’’ IBR
approved for section 6.3 and Table 7 to
Performance Standard 17 of appendix B
to this part and Table 3 to Procedure 4
of appendix F to this part.
(6) ASME MFC–3M–2004,
‘‘Measurement of Fluid Flow in Pipes
Using Orifice, Nozzle, and Venturi,’’ IBR
approved for Table 3 to Performance
Standard 17 of appendix B to this part
and section 8.3 of Procedure 4 to
appendix F of this part.
(7) ANSI/ASME MFC–4M–1986
(R2003), ‘‘Measurement of Gas Flow by
Turbine Meters,’’ IBR approved for
Table 3 to Performance Standard 17 of
appendix B to this part.
(8) ANSI/ASME MFC–6M–1998
(R2005), ‘‘Measurement of Fluid Flow in
Pipes Using Vortex Flow Meters,’’ IBR
approved for Table 3 to Performance
Standard 17 of appendix B to this part.
(9) ANSI/ASME MFC–7M–1987
(R2001), ‘‘Measurement of Gas Flow by
Means of Critical Flow Venturi
Nozzles,’’ IBR approved for Table 3 to
Performance Standard 17 of appendix B
to this part.
(10) ANSI/ASME MFC–9M–1988,
‘‘Measurement of Liquid Flow in Closed
Conduits by Weighing Method,’’ IBR
approved for Table 5 to Performance
Standard 17 of appendix B to this part
PO 00000
Frm 00030
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
and Table 5 to Procedure 4 of appendix
F to this part.
*
*
*
*
*
(o) The following material is available
for purchase from the American
National Standards Institute (ANSI), 25
West 43rd Street, 4th Floor, New York,
NY, 10036.
(1) ISA–MC96.1–1982, ‘‘Temperature
Measurement Thermocouples,’’ IBR
approved for Table 2 to Performance
Standard 17 of appendix B to this part
and Table 5 to Procedure 4 of appendix
F to this part.
(2) ASHRAE 41.8–1989, ‘‘Standard
Methods of Measurement of Flow of
Liquids in Pipes Using Orifice
Flowmeters,’’ IBR approved for Table 5
to Performance Standard 17 of appendix
B to this part and Table 5 to Procedure
4 of appendix F to this part.
(3) ANSI/ISA RP 31.1–1977,
‘‘Recommended Practice: Specification,
Installation, and Calibration of Turbine
Flow Meters,’’ IBR approved for Table 3
to Performance Standard 17 of appendix
B to this part and Table 5 to Procedure
4 of appendix F to this part.
(p) The following material is available
for purchase from the Instrumentation,
Systems, and Automation Society (ISA),
67 Alexander Drive, Research Triangle
Park, NC 27709.
(1) ISA RP 16.6–1961, ‘‘Methods and
Equipment for Calibration of Variable
Area Meters (Rotameters),’’ IBR
approved for Tables 4 and 5 to
Performance Standard 17 of appendix B
to this part and Tables 4 and 5 to
Procedure 4 of appendix F to this part.
(2) ISA RP 16.5–1961, ‘‘Installation,
Operation, and Maintenance
Instructions for Glass Tube Variable
Area Meters (Rotameters),’’ IBR
approved for Table 3 to Performance
Standard 17 of appendix B to this part.
(q) The following material is available
for purchase from the International
Organization for Standardization (ISO),
1, ch. de la Voie-Creuse, CH–1211
Geneva 20, Switzerland.
(1) ISO 8316:1987, ‘‘Measurement of
Liquid Flow in Closed Conduits—
Method by Collection of Liquid in a
Volumetric Tank,’’ IBR approved for
Table 4 to Performance Standard 17 of
appendix B to this part and Table 4 to
Procedure 4 of appendix F to this part.
(2) ISO 10790:1999, ‘‘Measurement of
Fluid Flow in Closed Conduits—
Guidance to the Selection, Installation,
and Use of Coriolis Meters (Mass Flow,
Density and Volume Flow
Measurements),’’ IBR approved for
Table 3 to Performance Standard 17 of
appendix B to this part and Table 4 to
Procedure 4 of appendix F to this part.
E:\FR\FM\09OCP3.SGM
09OCP3
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 197 / Thursday, October 9, 2008 / Proposed Rules
4. Appendix B to part 60 is amended
by adding Performance Specification 17
in numerical order to read as follows:
Appendix B to Part 60—Performance
Specifications
pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS3
*
*
*
*
*
Performance Specification 17—
Specifications and Test Procedures for
Continuous Parameter Monitoring Systems at
Stationary Sources
1.0 What is the purpose of Performance
Specification 17?
The purpose of Performance Specification
17 (PS–17) is to establish the initial
installation and performance procedures that
are required for evaluating the acceptability
of a continuous parameter monitoring system
(CPMS). This performance specification
applies instead of the requirements for
applicable CPMS specified in any applicable
subpart to 40 CFR part 60, 61, or 63, unless
otherwise specified in the applicable subpart.
This performance specification does not
establish procedures or criteria for evaluating
the ongoing performance of an installed
CPMS over an extended period of time.
Procedures for evaluating the ongoing
performance of a CPMS are described in
Procedure 4 of appendix F to 40 CFR part 40,
Quality Assurance Procedures.
1.1 Under what circumstances does PS–
17 apply to my CPMS? This performance
specification applies to your CPMS if your
CPMS meets the conditions specified in
section 1.2 of this specification and you meet
either conditions (1) or (2) of this section:
(1) You are required by any applicable
subpart of 40 CFR parts 60 or 61 to install
and operate the CPMS, or
(2) You are required by any applicable
subpart of 40 CFR part 63 to install and
operate the CPMS, and § 63.8(a)(2) of the
General Provisions applies to the applicable
subpart.
1.2 To what types of devices does PS–17
apply? This performance specification
applies if your total equipment meets the
conditions of (1) and (2) of this section:
(1) You are required by an applicable
subpart to install and operate the total
equipment on a continuous basis, and
(2) You, as owner or operator, use the total
equipment to monitor the parameters
(currently temperature, pressure, liquid flow
rate, gas flow rate, mass flow rate, pH, and
conductivity) associated with the operation
of an emission control device or process unit.
1.3 When must I comply with PS–17?
You must comply with PS–17 when any of
conditions (1) through (5) of this section
occur:
(1) At the time you install and place into
operation a CPMS that is required by the
applicable subpart after 90 days following the
date of publication of the final rule in the
Federal Register, or
(2) At the time you replace or relocate the
sensor of an affected CPMS after 90 days
following the date of publication of the final
rule in the Federal Register, or
(3) At the time you replace the electronic
signal modifier or conditioner, transmitter,
external power supply, data acquisition
VerDate Aug<31>2005
20:38 Oct 08, 2008
Jkt 217001
system, data recording system, or any other
mechanical or electrical component of your
CPMS that affects the accuracy, range, or
resolution of your CPMS after 90 days
following the date of publication of the final
rule in the Federal Register, or
(4) For CPMS located at facilities that are
required to obtain a title V permit, at the time
of your title V permit renewal.
(i) Prior to submitting your title V permit
renewal, you must comply with the basic
requirements of this performance
specification.
(5) For CPMS located at area source
facilities that are exempt from obtaining a
title V permit, 5 years after the date of
publication of the final rule in the Federal
Register.
2.0 What are the basic requirements of PS–
17?
This performance specification requires
you, as an owner or operator of an applicable
CPMS, to perform and record initial
installation and calibration procedures to
confirm the acceptability of the CPMS when
it is installed and placed into operation.
2.1 How does PS–17 address the
installation and equipment requirements for
my CPMS? This specification stipulates basic
installation, location, and equipment
requirements for CPMS and identifies
applicable voluntary consensus standards
that provide additional guidance on the
selection and installation of specific types of
sensors associated with CPMS. This
specification also identifies the types of
equipment needed to check the accuracy of
your CPMS. General equipment requirements
are identified in section 6 of this
specification. Location and installation
requirements are addressed in sections 8.1
and 8.2 of this specification.
2.2 What types of procedures must I
perform to demonstrate compliance with PS–
17? This specification requires you, as owner
or operator of a CPMS, to demonstrate that
your CPMS satisfies minimum requirements
for accuracy. For each of the monitoring
parameters addressed (currently temperature,
pressure, liquid flow rate, gas flow rate, mass
flow rate, pH, and conductivity), this
specification offers you the choice of two or
more methods that you can use to
demonstrate that your CPMS meets the
specified accuracy requirements. For
accuracy demonstrations that involve
measurement of gas or liquid pressures, this
specification also requires you to perform a
leak test on any pressure connections.
Accuracy demonstration methods are
described in sections 8.4 through 8.8 of this
specification; section 8.9 addresses
alternative procedures for demonstrating
compliance with this specification; and leak
test procedures are described in section 8.10
of this specification.
2.3 What does PS–17 require me to do if
my CPMS does not meet the specified
accuracy requirements? If your CPMS does
not meet the accuracy requirements, section
8 of this specification requires you to take
corrective action until you can demonstrate
that your CPMS meets the accuracy
requirement.
2.4 What types of recordkeeping and
reporting activities does PS–17 require? This
PO 00000
Frm 00031
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
59985
specification does not have any reporting
requirements but does require you to record
and maintain data that identify your CPMS
and show the results of any performance
demonstrations of your CPMS.
Recordkeeping requirements are described in
section 14 of this specification.
3.0 What special definitions apply to PS–
17?
3.1 Accuracy. A measure of the closeness
of a measurement to the true or actual value.
3.2 Accuracy hierarchy. The ratio of the
accuracy of a measurement instrument to the
accuracy of a calibrated instrument or
standard that is used to measure the accuracy
of the measurement instrument. For example,
if the accuracy of a calibrated temperature
measurement device is 0.2 percent, and the
accuracy of a thermocouple is 1.0 percent,
the accuracy hierarchy is 5.0 (1.0 ÷ 0.2 = 5.0).
3.3 Conductivity CPMS. The total
equipment that is used to measure and record
the conductivity of a liquid on a continuous
basis.
3.4 Continuous Parameter Monitoring
System (CPMS). The total equipment that is
used to measure and record a parameter
(currently temperature, pressure, liquid flow
rate, gas flow rate, mass flow rate, pH, and
conductivity) on a continuous basis in one or
more locations.
3.5 Cryogenic Application. An
application of a temperature CPMS in which
the sensor is subjected to a temperature of
zero degrees Celsius (32 degrees Fahrenheit)
or less.
3.6 Differential pressure tube. A device,
such as a pitot tube, that consists of one or
more pairs of tubes that are oriented to
measure the velocity pressure and static
pressure at one or more fixed points within
a duct for the purpose of determining gas
velocity.
3.7 Electronic Components. The
electronic signal modifier or conditioner,
transmitter, and power supply associated
with a CPMS.
3.8 Flow CPMS. The total equipment that
is used to measure and record liquid flow
rate, gas flow rate, or mass flow rate on a
continuous basis.
3.9 Integrator. The equipment that is used
to calculate the material feed rate using two
inputs: weight of the load on the material
transfer system (e.g. belt conveyor) and the
speed of the system.
3.10 Mass flow rate. The measurement of
solid, liquid, or gas flow in units of mass per
time, such as kilograms per minute or tons
per hour.
3.11 Mechanical Component. Any
component of a CPMS that consists of or
includes moving parts or that is used to
apply or transfer force to another component
or part of the CPMS.
3.12 pH CPMS. The total equipment that
is used to measure and record the pH of a
liquid on a continuous basis.
3.13 Pressure CPMS. The total equipment
that is used to measure and record the
pressure of a liquid or gas at any location, or
the differential pressure of a liquid or gas
between any two locations, on a continuous
basis.
3.14 Resolution. The smallest detectable
or legible increment of measurement.
E:\FR\FM\09OCP3.SGM
09OCP3
59986
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 197 / Thursday, October 9, 2008 / Proposed Rules
pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS3
3.15 Sensor. The component or set of
components of a CPMS that reacts to changes
in the magnitude of the parameter that is
measured by the CPMS (currently
temperature, pressure, liquid flow rate, gas
flow rate, mass flow rate, pH, or
conductivity) and generates an output signal.
Table 1 identifies the sensor components of
some commonly used CPMS.
3.16 Solid mass flow rate. The
measurement of the rate at which a solid
material is processed or transferred (in units
of mass per time). Examples of solid mass
flow rate are the rate at which ore is fed to
a material dryer or the rate at which
powdered lime is injected into an exhaust
duct.
3.17 Temperature CPMS. The total
equipment that is used to measure and record
the temperature of a liquid or gas at any
location, or the differential temperature of a
liquid or gas between any two locations, on
a continuous basis.
3.18 Total Equipment. The sensor,
mechanical components, electronic
components, data acquisition system, data
recording system, electrical wiring, and other
components of a CPMS.
4.0 Interferences [Reserved]
5.0 What do I need to know to ensure the
safety of persons who perform the procedures
specified in PS–17?
The procedures required under this
specification may involve hazardous
materials, operations, site conditions, and
equipment. This performance specification
does not purport to address all of the safety
issues associated with these procedures. It is
the responsibility of the user to establish
appropriate safety and health practices and
determine the applicable regulatory
limitations prior to performing these
procedures.
6.0 What equipment and supplies do I
need?
The types of equipment that you need to
comply with this specification depend upon
the parameter that is measured by your
CPMS and upon site-specific conditions. You
must select the appropriate equipment based
on manufacturer’s recommendations, your
site-specific conditions, the parameter that
your CPMS measures, and the method that
you choose for demonstrating compliance
with this specification. For most CPMS, you
will need the two types of equipment
described in paragraphs (1) and (2) of this
section.
(1) The total equipment that is used to
monitor and record the appropriate
parameter, as defined in section 3.17 of this
specification, and
(2) The equipment needed to perform the
initial validation check of your CPMS, as
specified in sections 8.4 through 8.8 of this
specification.
6.1 What design criteria must my CPMS
satisfy? You must select a CPMS that meets
the design specifications in paragraphs (1)
through (5) of this section.
(1) Your CPMS must satisfy the accuracy
requirements of Table 8 of this specification.
(2) Your CPMS must be capable of
measuring the appropriate parameter
VerDate Aug<31>2005
20:38 Oct 08, 2008
Jkt 217001
(currently temperature, pressure, liquid flow
rate, gas flow rate, mass flow rate, pH, or
conductivity) over a range that extends from
a value that is at least 20 percent less than
the lowest value that you expect your CPMS
to measure, to a value that is at least 20
percent greater than the highest value that
you expect your CPMS to measure.
(3) The signal conditioner, wiring, power
supply, and data acquisition and recording
system of your CPMS must be compatible
with the output signal of the sensors used in
your CPMS.
(4) The data acquisition and recording
system of your CPMS must be able to record
values over the entire range specified in
paragraph (2) of this section.
(5) The data recording system associated
with your CPMS must have a resolution of
one-half of the required overall accuracy of
your CPMS, as specified in Table 8 of this
specification, or better.
6.2 Are there any exceptions to the range
requirements specified in section 6.1 of PS–
17? A pH CPMS must be capable of
measuring pH over the entire range of pH
values from 0 to 14.
6.3 What additional guidelines should I
use for selecting the sensor of my CPMS?
Additional guidelines for selecting
temperature and pressure sensors are listed
in paragraphs (1) and (2) of this section.
(1) For a temperature CPMS, you should
select a sensor that is consistent with the
standards listed in Table 2 of this
specification.
(2) If your pressure CPMS uses a pressure
gauge as the sensor, you should select a
gauge that conforms to the design
requirements of ASME B40.100–2005,
‘‘Pressure Gauges and Gauge Attachments’’
(incorporated by reference—see § 60.17).
6.4 What types of equipment do I need
for checking the accuracy of my CPMS? The
specific types of equipment that you need for
checking the accuracy of your CPMS depend
on the type of CPMS and the method that you
choose for conducting the initial validation
check of your CPMS, as specified in sections
8.4 through 8.8 of this specification. In most
cases, you will need the equipment specified
in paragraphs (1) and (2) of this section.
(1) A separate device that either measures
the same parameter as your CPMS, or that
simulates the same electronic signal or
response that your CPMS generates, and
(2) Any work platform, test ports, pressure
taps, valves, fittings, or other equipment
required to perform the specific procedures
of the validation check method that you
choose, as specified in sections 8.4 through
8.8 of this specification.
6.5 What are the accuracy requirements
for the equipment that I use for checking the
accuracy of my CPMS? Any measurement
instrument or device that is used to conduct
the initial validation check of your CPMS
must have an accuracy that is traceable to
National Institute of Standards and
Technology (NIST) standards and must have
an accuracy hierarchy of at least three. To
determine if a measurement instrument or
device satisfies this accuracy hierarchy
requirement, follow the procedure described
in section 12.1 of this specification.
6.6 Are there any exceptions to the
accuracy requirement of section 6.5 of
PO 00000
Frm 00032
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
PS–17? There are two exceptions to the
NIST-traceable accuracy requirement
specified in section 6.5 of this specification,
as described in paragraphs (1) and (2) of this
section.
(1) As an alternative for a calibrated
pressure measurement device with NISTtraceable accuracy specified in paragraphs (1)
and (3) of section 8.5 and in paragraph (3) of
section 8.6 of this specification, you can use
a mercury-in-glass or water-in-glass U-tube
manometer to validate your pressure CPMS.
(2) When validating a flow rate CPMS
using the methods specified in paragraphs
(1), (2), or (7) of section 8.6 of this
specification, the container used to collect or
weigh the liquid or solid is not required to
have NIST-traceable accuracy.
7.0 What reagents or standards do I need to
comply with PS–17?
The specific reagents and standards needed
to demonstrate compliance with this
specification depend upon the parameter that
your CPMS measures and the method that
you choose to check the accuracy of your
CPMS. Section 8.3 of this specification
identifies the specific reagents and standards
needed for each initial validation check of
CPMS accuracy.
8.0 What performance demonstrations must
I conduct?
You must satisfy the installation
requirements, perform an initial calibration,
and perform an initial validation check of
your CPMS using the procedures specified in
sections 8.1 through 8.8 of this specification.
8.1 How must I install my CPMS? The
installation of your CPMS must satisfy the
requirements specified in paragraphs (1) and
(2) of this section.
(1) You must install each sensor of your
CPMS in a location that provides
representative measurement of the applicable
parameter over all operating conditions,
taking into account the manufacturer’s
guidelines and any location specified in the
applicable requirement.
(2) You must also install any work
platforms, test ports, pressure taps, valves,
fittings, or other equipment needed to
perform the initial validation check, as
specified in sections 8.4 through 8.8 of this
specification.
8.2 What additional guidelines can I use
for installing my CPMS? If you are required
to install a flow CPMS and the sensor of your
flow CPMS is a differential pressure device,
turbine flow meter, rotameter, vortex
formation flow meter or Coriolis mass flow
meter, you can use the standards listed in
Table 3 of this specification as guidelines for
installation.
8.3 What initial quality assurance
measures are required by PS–17 for my
CPMS? You must perform an initial
calibration of your CPMS based on the
procedures specified in the manufacturer’s
owner’s manual. You also must perform an
initial validation check of the operation of
your CPMS using the methods described in
sections 8.4 through 8.8 of this specification.
8.4 How do I perform the initial
validation check of my temperature CPMS?
To perform the initial validation check of a
temperature CPMS, you can choose one of
E:\FR\FM\09OCP3.SGM
09OCP3
pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 197 / Thursday, October 9, 2008 / Proposed Rules
the methods described in paragraphs (1) and
(2) of this section.
(1) Comparison to Calibrated Temperature
Measurement Device. Place the sensor of a
calibrated temperature measurement device
adjacent to the sensor of your temperature
CPMS so that the sensor of the calibrated test
device is subjected to the same environment
as the sensor of your temperature CPMS. The
calibrated temperature measurement device
must satisfy the accuracy requirements
specified in section 6.5 of this specification.
The calibrated temperature measurement
device must also have a range equal to or
greater than the range of your temperature
CPMS. Allow sufficient time for the response
of the calibrated temperature measurement
device to reach equilibrium. With the process
or control device that is monitored by your
CPMS operating under normal conditions,
concurrently record the temperatures
measured by your temperature CPMS and the
calibrated temperature measurement device.
Using the temperature measured by the
calibrated measurement device as the value
for Vc, follow the procedure specified in
section 12.2 to determine if your CPMS
satisfies the accuracy requirement of Table 8
of this specification. If you determine that
your CPMS satisfies the accuracy
requirement of Table 8, the validation check
is complete. If your CPMS does not satisfy
the accuracy requirement of Table 8 of this
specification, check all system components
and take any corrective action that is
necessary to achieve the required minimum
accuracy. Repeat this validation check
procedure until the accuracy requirement of
Table 8 of this specification is satisfied. If
you are required to measure and record
temperatures at multiple locations, repeat
this procedure for each location.
(2) Temperature Simulation Procedure.
Disconnect the sensor from your temperature
CPMS and connect to your CPMS a calibrated
simulation device that is designed to
simulate the same type of response as the
sensor of your CPMS. The calibrated
simulation device must satisfy the accuracy
requirements specified in section 6.5 of this
specification. Simulate a typical temperature
that is measured by your temperature CPMS
under normal operating conditions. Allow
sufficient time for the response of the
calibrated simulation device to reach
equilibrium. Record the temperature that is
indicated by your temperature CPMS. Using
the temperature simulated by the calibrated
simulation device as the value for Vc, follow
the procedure specified in section 12.2 of this
specification to determine if your CPMS
satisfies the accuracy requirement of Table 8
of this specification. If you determine that
your CPMS satisfies the accuracy
requirement of Table 8, the validation check
is complete. If the calculated accuracy does
not meet the accuracy requirement of Table
8 of this specification, check all system
components and take any corrective action
that is necessary to achieve the required
minimum accuracy. Repeat this validation
check procedure until the accuracy
requirement of Table 8 of this specification
is satisfied. If you are required to measure
and record temperatures at multiple
locations, repeat this procedure for each
location.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
20:38 Oct 08, 2008
Jkt 217001
8.5 How do I perform an initial validation
check of my pressure CPMS? To perform the
initial validation check of your pressure
CPMS, you can choose one of the methods
described in paragraphs (1) through (3) of
this section.
(1) Comparison to Calibrated Pressure
Measurement Device. Connect a mercury-inglass U-tube manometer, a water-in-glass Utube manometer, or calibrated pressure
measurement device to operate in parallel
with your pressure CPMS so that the
manometer or sensor of the calibrated
pressure measurement device is subjected to
the same pressure as the sensor of your
pressure CPMS. If a calibrated pressure
measurement device is used, the device must
satisfy the accuracy requirements of section
6.5 of this specification. The calibrated
pressure measurement device also must have
a range equal to or greater than the range of
your pressure CPMS. Perform a leak test on
all manometer or calibrated pressure
measurement device connections using the
procedure specified in section 8.10 of this
specification. Allow sufficient time for the
response of the manometer or calibrated
pressure measurement device to reach
equilibrium. With the process or control
device that is monitored by your pressure
CPMS operating under normal conditions,
concurrently record the pressures that are
measured by your pressure CPMS and by the
calibrated pressure measurement device.
Using the pressure measured by the
calibrated pressure measurement device as
the value for Vc, follow the procedure
specified in section 12.2 of this specification
to determine if your CPMS satisfies the
accuracy requirement of Table 8 of this
specification. If you determine that your
CPMS satisfies the accuracy requirement of
Table 8 of this specification, the validation
check is complete. If your CPMS does not
meet the accuracy requirement of Table 8 of
this specification, check all system
components and take any corrective action
that is necessary to achieve the required
minimum accuracy. Repeat this validation
check procedure until the accuracy
requirement of Table 8 of this specification
is satisfied. If you are required to measure
and record pressure at multiple locations,
repeat this procedure for each location.
(2) Pressure Simulation Procedure Using a
Calibrated Pressure Source. Disconnect or
close off the process line or lines to your
pressure CPMS. Connect an adjustable
calibrated pressure source to your CPMS so
that the pressure source applies a pressure to
the sensor of your pressure CPMS. The
calibrated pressure source must satisfy the
accuracy requirements of section 6.5 of this
specification. The calibrated pressure source
also must be adjustable, either continuously
or incrementally over the pressure range of
your pressure CPMS. Perform a leak test on
all calibrated pressure source connections
using the procedure specified in section 8.10
of this specification. Using the calibrated
pressure source, apply a pressure that is
within ±10 percent of the normal operating
pressure of your pressure CPMS. Allow
sufficient time for the response of the
calibrated pressure source to reach
equilibrium. Record the pressure applied by
PO 00000
Frm 00033
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
59987
the calibrated pressure source and the
pressure measured by your pressure CPMS.
Using the pressure applied by the calibrated
pressure source as the value for Vc, follow the
procedure specified in section 12.2 of this
specification to determine if your CPMS
satisfies the accuracy requirement of Table 8
of this specification. If you determine that
your CPMS satisfies the accuracy
requirement of Table 8 of this specification,
the validation check is complete. If your
CPMS does not meet the accuracy
requirement of Table 8 of this specification,
check all system components and take any
corrective action that is necessary to achieve
the required minimum accuracy. Repeat this
validation check procedure until the
accuracy requirement of Table 8 of this
specification is satisfied. If you are required
to measure and record pressure at multiple
locations, repeat this procedure for each
location.
(3) Pressure Simulation Procedure Using a
Pressure Source and Calibrated Pressure
Measurement Device. Disconnect or close off
the process line or lines to your pressure
CPMS. Attach a mercury-in-glass U-tube
manometer, a water-in-glass U-tube
manometer, or a calibrated pressure
measurement device (the reference pressure
measurement device) in parallel to your
pressure CPMS. If a calibrated pressure
measurement device is used, the device must
satisfy the accuracy requirements of section
6.5 of this specification. Connect a pressure
source to your pressure CPMS and the
parallel reference pressure measurement
device. Perform a leak test on all pressure
source and parallel reference pressure
measurement device connections using the
procedure specified in section 8.10 of this
specification. Apply pressure to your CPMS
and the parallel reference pressure
measurement device. Allow sufficient time
for the response of your CPMS and the
parallel reference pressure measurement
device to reach equilibrium. Record the
pressure measured by your pressure CPMS
and the reference pressure measurement
device. Using the pressure measured by the
parallel reference pressure measurement
device as the value for Vc, follow the
procedure specified in section 12.2 of this
specification to determine if your CPMS
satisfies the accuracy requirement of Table 8
of this specification. If you determine that
your CPMS satisfies the accuracy
requirement of Table 8 of this specification,
the validation check is complete. If your
CPMS does not meet the accuracy
requirement of Table 8 of this specification,
check all system components and take any
corrective action that is necessary to achieve
the required minimum accuracy. Repeat this
validation check procedure until the
accuracy requirement of Table 8 of this
specification is satisfied. If you are required
to measure and record pressure at multiple
locations, repeat this procedure for each
location.
8.6 How do I perform an initial validation
check of my flow CPMS? To perform the
initial validation check of your flow CPMS,
you can choose any one of the methods
described in paragraphs (1) through (7) of
this section that is applicable to the type of
E:\FR\FM\09OCP3.SGM
09OCP3
pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS3
59988
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 197 / Thursday, October 9, 2008 / Proposed Rules
material measured by your flow CPMS and
the type of sensor used in your flow CPMS.
(1) Volumetric Method. This method
applies to any CPMS that is designed to
measure liquid flow rate. With the process or
control device that is monitored by your flow
CPMS operating under normal conditions,
record the flow rate measured by your flow
CPMS for the subject process line. At the
same time, collect the liquid that is flowing
through the same process line for a measured
length of time using the Volumetric Method
specified in one of the standards listed in
Table 4 of this specification. Using the flow
rate measured by the Volumetric Method as
the value for Vc, follow the procedure
specified in section 12.2 of this specification
to determine if your CPMS satisfies the
accuracy requirement of Table 8 of this
specification. If you determine that your
CPMS satisfies the accuracy requirement of
Table 8 of this specification, the validation
check is complete. If your CPMS does not
satisfy the accuracy requirement of Table 8
of this specification, check all system
components and take any corrective action
that is necessary to achieve the required
minimum accuracy. Repeat this validation
check until the accuracy requirement of
Table 8 of this specification is satisfied. If
you are required to measure and record flow
rate at multiple locations, repeat this
procedure for each location.
(2) Gravimetric Method. This method
applies to any CPMS that is designed to
measure liquid flow rate, liquid mass flow
rate, or solid mass flow rate. With the process
or control device that is monitored by your
flow CPMS operating under normal
conditions, record the flow rate measured by
your flow CPMS for the subject process line.
At the same time, collect the material (liquid
or solid) that is flowing or being transferred
through the same process line for a measured
length of time using the Weighing, Weigh
Tank, or Gravimetric Methods specified in
the standards listed in Table 5. Using the
flow rate measured by the Weighing, Weigh
Tank, or Gravimetric Methods as the value
for Vc, follow the procedure specified in
section 12.2 of this specification to determine
if your CPMS satisfies the accuracy
requirement of Table 8 of this specification.
If you determine that your CPMS satisfies the
accuracy requirement of Table 8 of this
specification, the validation check is
complete. If your CPMS does not satisfy the
accuracy requirement of Table 8 of this
specification, check all system components
and take any corrective action that is
necessary to achieve the required minimum
accuracy. Repeat this validation check until
the accuracy requirement of Table 8 of this
specification is satisfied. If you are required
to measure and record flow rate at multiple
locations, repeat this procedure for each
location.
(3) Differential Pressure Measurement
Method. This method applies only to flow
CPMS that use a differential pressure
measurement flow device, such as an orifice
plate, flow nozzle, or venturi tube. This
method may not be used to validate a flow
CPMS that measures gas flow by means of
one or more differential pressure tubes. With
the process or control device that is
VerDate Aug<31>2005
20:38 Oct 08, 2008
Jkt 217001
monitored by your CPMS operating under
normal conditions, record the flow rate
measured by your flow CPMS. Under the
same operating conditions, disconnect the
pressure taps from your flow CPMS and
connect the pressure taps to a mercury-inglass U-tube manometer, a water-in-glass Utube manometer, or calibrated differential
pressure measurement device. If a calibrated
pressure measurement device is used, the
device must satisfy the accuracy
requirements of section 6.5 of this
specification. Perform a leak test on all
manometer or calibrated differential pressure
measurement device connections using the
procedure specified in section 8.10 of this
specification. Allow sufficient time for the
response of the calibrated differential
pressure measurement device to reach
equilibrium. Within 30 minutes of measuring
and recording the flow rate using your CPMS,
record the pressure drop measured by the
calibrated differential pressure measurement
device. Using the manufacturer’s literature or
the procedures specified in ASME MFC–3M–
2004 (incorporated by reference—see
§ 60.17), calculate the flow rate that
corresponds to the differential pressure
measured by the calibrated differential
pressure measurement device. For CPMS that
use an orifice flow meter, the procedures
specified in ASHRAE 41.8–1989
(incorporated by reference—see § 60.17) also
can be used to calculate the flow rate. Using
the calculated flow rate as the value for Vc,
follow the procedure specified in section
12.2 of this specification to determine if your
CPMS satisfies the accuracy requirement of
Table 8 of this specification. If you determine
that your CPMS satisfies the accuracy
requirement of Table 8 of this specification,
the validation check is complete. If your
CPMS does not satisfy the accuracy
requirement of Table 8 of this specification,
check all system components and take any
corrective action that is necessary to achieve
the required minimum accuracy. Repeat this
procedure until the accuracy requirement of
Table 8 of this specification is satisfied. If
you are required to measure and record flow
rate at multiple locations, repeat this
procedure for each location.
(4) Pressure Source Flow Simulation
Method. This method applies only to flow
CPMS that use a differential pressure
measurement flow device, such as an orifice
plate, flow nozzle, or venturi tube. This
method may not be used to validate a flow
CPMS that measures gas flow by means of
one or more differential pressure tubes.
Disconnect your flow CPMS from the
pressure taps. Connect separate pressure
sources to the upstream and downstream
sides of your pressure CPMS, where the
pressure taps are normally connected. The
pressure sources must satisfy the accuracy
requirements of section 6.5 of this
specification. The pressure sources also must
be adjustable, either continuously or
incrementally over the pressure range that
corresponds to the range of your flow CPMS.
Perform a leak test on all connections
between the calibrated pressure sources and
your flow CPMS using the procedure
specified in section 8.10 of this specification.
Using the manufacturer’s literature or the
PO 00000
Frm 00034
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
procedures specified in ASME MFC–3M–
2004 (incorporated by reference—see
§ 60.17), calculate the required pressure drop
that corresponds to the normal operating
flow rate expected for your flow CPMS. For
CPMS that use an orifice flow meter, the
procedures specified in ASHRAE 41.8–1989
(incorporated by reference—see § 60.17) also
can be used to calculate the pressure drop.
Use the calibrated pressure sources to apply
the calculated pressure drop to your flow
CPMS. Allow sufficient time for the
responses of the calibrated pressure sources
to reach equilibrium. Record the flow rate
measured by your flow CPMS. Using the flow
rate measured by your CPMS when the
calculated pressure drop was applied as the
value for Vc, follow the procedure specified
in section 12.2 of this specification to
determine if your CPMS satisfies the
accuracy requirement of Table 8 of this
specification. If you determine that your
CPMS satisfies the accuracy requirement of
Table 8 of this specification, the validation
check is complete. If your CPMS does not
satisfy the accuracy requirement of Table 8
of this specification, check all system
components and take any corrective action
that is necessary to achieve the required
minimum accuracy. Repeat this procedure
until the accuracy requirement of Table 8 of
this specification is satisfied. If you are
required to measure and record flow rate at
multiple locations, repeat this procedure for
each location.
(5) Electronic Signal Simulation Method.
This method applies to any flow CPMS that
uses a flow sensor that generates an
electronic signal. Disconnect the sensor from
your flow CPMS and connect to your CPMS
a calibrated simulation device that is
designed to simulate the same type of
electrical response as the sensor of your
CPMS. The calibrated simulation device
must satisfy the accuracy requirements of
section 6.5 of this specification. Perform a
leak test on all connections between the
calibrated simulation device and your flow
CPMS using the procedure specified in
section 8.10 of this specification. Simulate a
typical flow rate that is monitored by your
flow CPMS under normal operating
conditions. Allow sufficient time for the
response of the calibrated simulation device
to reach equilibrium. Record the flow rate
measured by your flow CPMS. Using the flow
rate simulated by the calibrated simulation
device as the value for Vc, follow the
procedure specified in section 12.2 of this
specification to determine if your CPMS
satisfies the accuracy requirement of Table 8
of this specification. If you determine that
your CPMS satisfies the accuracy
requirement of Table 8 of this specification,
the validation check is complete. If the
calculated accuracy does not meet the
accuracy requirement of Table 8 of this
specification, check all system components
and take any corrective action that is
necessary to achieve the required minimum
accuracy. Repeat this validation check until
the accuracy requirement of Table 8 of this
specification is satisfied. If you are required
to measure and record flow rate at multiple
locations, repeat this procedure for each
location.
E:\FR\FM\09OCP3.SGM
09OCP3
pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 197 / Thursday, October 9, 2008 / Proposed Rules
(6) Relative Accuracy (RA) Test. This
method applies to any flow CPMS that
measures gas flow rate. If your flow CPMS
uses a differential flow tube as the flow
sensor, you must use this method to validate
your flow CPMS. The reference methods
(RM’s) applicable to this test are Methods 2,
2A, 2B, 2C, 2D, 2F of 40 CFR part 60,
appendix A–1 and Method 2G of 40 CFR part
60, appendix A–2. Conduct three sets of RM
tests. Mark the beginning and end of each RM
test period on the flow CPMS chart
recordings or other permanent record of
output. Determine the integrated flow rate for
each RM test period. Perform the same
calculations specified by section 7.5 in PS–
2 of this appendix. If the RA is no greater
than 20 percent of the mean value of the RM
test data, the RA test is complete. If the RA
is greater than 20 percent of the mean value
of the RM test data, check all system
components and take any corrective action
that is necessary to achieve the required RA.
Repeat this RA test until the RA requirement
of this section is satisfied. If you are required
to measure and record flow rate at multiple
locations, repeat this procedure for each
location.
(7) Material Weight Comparison Method.
This method applies to any solid mass flow
CPMS that uses a combination of a belt
conveyor and scale and is equipped with a
totalizer. To conduct this test, pass a quantity
of pre-weighed material over the belt
conveyor in a manner consistent with actual
loading conditions. To weigh the test
quantity of material that is to be used during
the initial validation, you must use a scale
that satisfies the accuracy requirements of
section 6.5 of this specification. The test
quantity must be sufficient to challenge the
conveyor belt-scale system for at least three
revolutions of the belt. Record the length of
the test. Calculate the mass flow rate using
the measured weight and the recorded time.
Using this mass flow rate as the value for Vc,
follow the procedure specified in section
12.2 of this specification to determine if your
CPMS satisfies the accuracy requirement of
Table 8 of this specification. If you determine
that your CPMS satisfies the accuracy
requirement of Table 8 of this specification,
the validation check is complete. If your
CPMS does not satisfy the accuracy
requirement of Table 8 of this specification,
check all system components and take any
corrective action that is necessary to achieve
the required minimum accuracy. Repeat this
validation check until the accuracy
requirement of Table 8 of this specification
is satisfied. If you are required to measure
and record flow rate at multiple locations,
repeat this procedure for each location. In
addition, you must perform an initial
validation check on the integrator used by
your material feed CPMS according to the
manufacturer’s specifications.
8.7 How do I perform an initial validation
check of my pH CPMS? You must perform an
initial validation check of your pH CPMS
using either of the methods described in
paragraphs (1) and (2) of this section.
(1) Comparison to Calibrated pH
Measurement Device. Place a calibrated pH
measurement device adjacent to your pH
CPMS so that the calibrated test device is
VerDate Aug<31>2005
20:38 Oct 08, 2008
Jkt 217001
subjected to the same environment as your
pH CPMS. The calibrated pH measurement
device must satisfy the accuracy
requirements specified in section 6.5 of this
specification. Allow sufficient time for the
response of the calibrated pH measurement
device to reach equilibrium. With the process
or control device that is monitored by your
CPMS operating under normal conditions,
concurrently record the pH measured by your
pH CPMS and the calibrated pH
measurement device. If concurrent readings
are not possible, extract a sufficiently large
sample from the process stream and perform
measurements using a portion of the sample
for each meter. Using the pH measured by the
calibrated pH measurement device as the
value for Vc, follow the procedure specified
in section 12.2 of this specification to
determine if your CPMS satisfies the
accuracy requirement of Table 8 of this
specification. If you determine that your
CPMS satisfies the accuracy requirement of
Table 8 of this specification, the validation
check is complete. If your CPMS does not
satisfy the accuracy requirement of Table 8
of this specification, check all system
components and take any corrective action
that is necessary to achieve the required
minimum accuracy. Repeat this validation
check procedure until the accuracy
requirement of Table 8 of this specification
is satisfied. If you are required to measure
and record pH at multiple locations, repeat
this procedure for each location.
(2) Single Point Calibration. This method
requires the use of a certified buffer solution.
All buffer solutions used must be certified by
NIST and accurate to ±0.02 pH units at 25 °C
(77 °F). Set the temperature on your pH meter
to the temperature of the buffer solution,
typically room temperature or 25 °C (77 °F).
If your pH meter is equipped with automatic
temperature compensation, activate this
feature before calibrating. Set your pH meter
to measurement mode. Place the clean
electrodes into the container of fresh buffer
solution. If the expected pH of the process
fluid lies in the acidic range (less than 7 pH),
use a buffer solution with a pH value of 4.00.
If the expected pH of the process fluid lies
in the basic range (greater than 7 pH), use a
buffer solution with a pH value of 10.00.
Allow sufficient time for the response of your
pH CPMS to reach equilibrium. Record the
pH measured by your CPMS. Using the buffer
solution pH as the value for Vc, follow the
procedure specified in section 12.2 of this
specification to determine if your CPMS
satisfies the accuracy requirement of Table 8
of this specification. If you determine that
your CPMS satisfies the accuracy
requirement of Table 8 of this specification,
the validation check is complete. If your
CPMS does not satisfy the accuracy
requirement of Table 8 of this procedure,
calibrate your pH CPMS using the procedures
specified in the manufacturer’s owner’s
manual. If the manufacturer’s owner’s
manual does not specify a two-point
calibration procedure, you must perform a
two-point calibration procedure based on
ASTM D1293–99 (2005) (incorporated by
reference—see § 60.17). If you are required to
measure and record pH at multiple locations,
repeat this procedure for each location.
PO 00000
Frm 00035
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
59989
8.8 How do I perform an initial validation
check of my conductivity CPMS? You must
perform an initial validation check of your
conductivity CPMS using either of the
methods described in paragraphs (1) and (2)
of this section.
(1) Comparison to Calibrated Conductivity
Measurement Device. Place a calibrated
conductivity measurement device adjacent to
your conductivity CPMS so that the
calibrated measurement device is subjected
to the same environment as your
conductivity CPMS. The calibrated
conductivity measurement device must
satisfy the accuracy requirements specified in
section 6.5 of this specification. Allow
sufficient time for the response of the
calibrated conductivity measurement device
to reach equilibrium. With the process or
control device that is monitored by your
CPMS operating under normal conditions,
concurrently record the conductivity
measured by your conductivity CPMS and
the calibrated conductivity measurement
device. If concurrent readings are not
possible, extract a sufficiently large sample
from the process stream and perform
measurements using a portion of the sample
for each meter. Using the conductivity
measured by the calibrated conductivity
measurement device as the value for Vc,
follow the procedure specified in section
12.2 of this specification to determine if your
CPMS satisfies the accuracy requirement of
Table 8 of this specification. If you determine
that your CPMS satisfies the accuracy
requirement of Table 8 of this specification,
the validation check is complete. If your
CPMS does not satisfy the accuracy
requirement of Table 8 of this specification,
check all system components and take any
corrective action that is necessary to achieve
the required minimum accuracy. Repeat this
validation check procedure until the
accuracy requirement of Table 8 of this
specification is satisfied. If you are required
to measure and record conductivity at
multiple locations, repeat this procedure for
each location.
(2) Single Point Calibration. This method
requires the use of a certified conductivity
standard solution. All solutions used must be
certified by NIST and accurate to ±2 percent
micromhos per centimeter (µmhos/cm) (±2
percent microsiemens per centimeter (µS/
cm)) at 25 °C (77 °F). Choose a conductivity
standard solution that is close to the
measuring range for best results. Since
conductivity is dependent on temperature,
the conductivity tester should have an
integral temperature sensor that adjusts the
reading to a standard temperature, usually
25 °C (77 °F). If the conductivity meter allows
for manual temperature compensation, set
this value to 25 °C (77 °F). Place the clean
electrodes into the container of fresh
conductivity standard solution. Allow
sufficient time for the response of your CPMS
to reach equilibrium. Record the conductivity
measured by your CPMS. Using the
conductivity standard solution as the value
for Vc, follow the procedure specified in
section 12.2 of this specification to determine
if your CPMS satisfies the accuracy
requirement of Table 8 of this specification.
If you determine that your CPMS satisfies the
E:\FR\FM\09OCP3.SGM
09OCP3
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 197 / Thursday, October 9, 2008 / Proposed Rules
VerDate Aug<31>2005
20:38 Oct 08, 2008
Jkt 217001
11.0 Analytical Procedure [Reserved]
12.0 What calculations are needed?
The calculations needed to comply with
this performance specification are described
in sections 12.1 and 12.2 of this specification.
12.1 How do I determine if a calibrated
measurement device satisfies the accuracy
hierarchy specified in section 6.5 of this
specification. To determine if a calibrated
measurement device satisfies the accuracy
hierarchy requirement, follow the procedure
described in paragraphs (1) and (2) of this
section.
(1) Calculate the accuracy hierarchy (Ah)
using Equation 17–1.
Ah =
Ar
Ac
( Eq. 17-1)
Where:
Ah = Accuracy hierarchy, dimensionless.
Ar = Required accuracy (Ap or Av) specified
in Table 8 of this specification, percent
or units of parameter value (e.g., degrees
Celsius, kilopascals, liters per minute).
Ac= Accuracy of calibrated measurement
device, same units as Ar.
(2) If the accuracy hierarchy (Ah) is equal
to or greater than 3.0, the calibrated
measurement device satisfies the accuracy
hierarchy of Section 6.5 of this specification.
12.2 How do I determine if my CPMS
satisfies the accuracy requirement of PS–17?
To determine if your CPMS satisfies the
accuracy requirement of PS–17, follow the
procedure described in paragraphs (1)
through (4) of this section.
(1) If your CPMS measures temperature,
pressure, or flow rate, calculate the accuracy
percent value (Apv) using Equation 17–2. If
your CPMS measures pH, proceed to
paragraph (2) of this section.
Apv = Vc
Ap
100
( Eq. 17-2 )
Where:
Apv = Accuracy percent value, units of
parameter measured (e.g., degrees
Celsius, kilopascals, liters per minute).
Vc = Parameter value measured by the
calibrated measurement device or
measured by your CPMS when a
calibrated signal simulator is applied to
your CPMS during the initial validation
check, units of parameter measured (e.g.,
degrees Celsius, kilopascals, liters per
minute).
Ap = Accuracy percentage specified in Table
8 of this specification that corresponds to
your CPMS, percent.
(2) If your CPMS measures temperature,
pressure, or flow rate other than mass flow
rate or steam flow rate, compare the accuracy
percent value (Apv) to the accuracy value (Av)
in Table 8 of this specification and select the
greater of the two values. Use this greater
value as the allowable deviation (da) in
paragraph (4) of this section. If your CPMS
measures pH, use the accuracy value (Av)
specified in Table 8 of this specification as
PO 00000
Frm 00036
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
the allowable deviation (da). If your CPMS
measures steam flow rate, mass flow rate, or
conductivity, use the accuracy percent value
(Apv) calculated using Equation 17–2 as the
allowable deviation (da).
(3) Using Equation 17–3, calculate the
measured deviation (dm), which is the
absolute value of the difference between the
parameter value measured by the calibrated
device (Vc) and the value measured by your
CPMS (Vm).
d m = Vc − Vm
( Eq. 17-3)
Where:
dm = Measured deviation, units of the
parameter measured (e.g., degrees
Celsius, kilopascals, liters per minute).
Vc = Parameter value measured by the
calibrated measurement device or
measured by your CPMS when a
calibrated signal simulator is applied to
your CPMS during the initial validation
check, units of parameter measured (e.g.,
degrees Celsius, kilopascals, liters per
minute).
Vm = Parameter value measured by your
CPMS during the initial validation
check, units of parameter measured (e.g.,
degrees Celsius, kilopascals, liters per
minute).
(4) Compare the measured deviation (dm) to
the allowable deviation (da). If the measured
deviation is less than or equal to the
allowable deviation, your CPMS satisfies the
accuracy requirement of this specification.
13.0 What initial performance criteria must
I demonstrate for my CPMS to comply with
PS–17?
You must demonstrate that your CPMS
meets the accuracy requirements specified in
Table 8 of this specification.
14.0 What are the recordkeeping
requirements for PS–17?
You must satisfy the recordkeeping
requirements specified in Sections 14.1 and
14.2 of this specification.
14.1 What data does PS–17 require me to
record for my CPMS? For each affected CPMS
that you operate, you must record the
information listed in paragraphs (1) through
(6) of this section.
(1) Identification and location of the CPMS;
(2) Manufacturer’s name and model
number of the CPMS;
(3) Range of parameter values you expect
your CPMS to measure and record;
(4) Date of the initial calibration and
system validation check;
(5) Results of the initial calibration and
system validation check; and
(6) Name of the person(s) who performed
the initial calibration and system validation
check.
14.2 For how long must I maintain the
data that PS–17 requires me to record for my
CPMS? You are required to keep the records
required by this specification for your CPMS
for a period of 5 years. At a minimum, you
must maintain the most recent 2 years of data
onsite and available for inspection by the
enforcement agency.
E:\FR\FM\09OCP3.SGM
09OCP3
EP09OC08.012
10.0 Calibration and Standardization
[Reserved]
EP09OC08.011
accuracy requirement of Table 8, the
validation check is complete. If your CPMS
does not satisfy the accuracy requirement of
Table 8 of this procedure, calibrate your
conductivity CPMS using the procedures
specified in the manufacturer’s owner’s
manual. If the manufacturer’s owner’s
manual does not specify a calibration
procedure, you must perform a calibration
procedure based on ASTM D 1125–95 (2005)
or ASTM D 5391–99 (2005) (incorporated by
reference—see § 60.17). If you are required to
measure and record conductivity at multiple
locations, repeat this procedure for each
location.
8.9 Are there any acceptable alternative
procedures for installing and verifying my
CPMS? You may use alternative procedures
for installing and verifying the operation of
your CPMS if the alternative procedures are
approved by the Administrator. In addition,
for temperature and pressure CPMS, you can
use the methods specified in paragraphs (1)
and (2) of this section, respectively, to satisfy
the initial validation check.
(1) Alternative Temperature CPMS
Validation Check. As an alternative to the
procedures for the temperature CPMS initial
validation check in this specification, you
may use the methods listed in Table 6 of this
specification to determine the accuracy of
thermocouples or resistance temperature
detectors. However, you also must check the
accuracy of the overall CPMS system using
the methods specified in section 8.4 of this
specification or an alternative method that
has been approved by the Administrator.
(2) Alternative Pressure CPMS Validation
Check. As an alternative to the procedure for
the pressure CPMS initial validation check in
this specification, you may use the methods
listed in Table 7 of this specification to check
the accuracy of the pressure sensor
associated with your pressure CPMS.
However, you also must check the accuracy
of the overall CPMS using the methods in
section 8.5 of this specification or an
alternative method that has been approved by
the Administrator.
8.10 How do I perform a leak test on
pressure connections, as required by this
specification? You can satisfy the leak test
requirements of sections 8.5 and 8.6 of this
specification by following the procedures
described in paragraphs (1) through (3) of
this section.
(1) For each pressure connection, apply a
pressure that is equal to the highest pressure
the connection is likely to be subjected to or
0.24 kilopascals (1.0 inch of water column),
whichever is greater.
(2) Close off the connection between the
applied pressure source and the connection
that is being leak-tested.
(3) If the applied pressure remains stable
for at least 15 seconds, the connection is
considered to be leak tight. If the applied
pressure does not remain stable for at least
15 seconds, take any corrective action
necessary to make the connection leak tight
and repeat this leak test procedure.
9.0 What ongoing quality control measures
are required?
Ongoing quality control procedures for
CPMS are specified in Procedure 4 of
appendix F of this part.
EP09OC08.010
pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS3
59990
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 197 / Thursday, October 9, 2008 / Proposed Rules
15.0 Pollution Prevention [Reserved]
16.0
Waste Management [Reserved]
17.0 Which references are relevant to PS–
17?
1. Technical Guidance Document:
Compliance Assurance Monitoring. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency Office of
Air Quality Planning and Standards Emission
Measurement Center. August 1998. (https://
www.epa.gov/ttn/emc/cam.html).
2. NEMA Standard Publication 250.
‘‘Enclosures for Electrical Equipment (1000
Volts Maximum)’’. National Electrical
Manufacturers Association. 1997.
3. ASTM E–220–86 (1996): Standard Test
Methods for Calibration of Thermocouples by
Comparison Techniques. American Society
for Testing and Materials. May 1986.
4. MC96–1–1982: Temperature
Measurement Thermocouples. American
National Standards Institute. August 1982.
5. The pH and Conductivity Handbook.
Omega Engineering, Inc. 1995.
6. ASTM E–452–89: ‘‘Standard Test
Method for Calibration of Refractory Metal
Thermocouples Using an Optical Pyrometer’’.
American Society of Testing and Materials.
April 1989.
7. ASTM E 644–06: ‘‘Standard Test
Methods for Testing Industrial Resistance
Thermometers’’. American Society of Testing
and Materials. 2006.
8. ASME B 40.100–2005: ‘‘Pressure Gauges
and Gauge Attachments’’. American Society
of Mechanical Engineers. 2005.
9. ASTM E 251–92 (2003): ‘‘Standard Test
Methods for Performance Characteristics of
Metallic Bonded Resistance Strain Gages’’.
American Society for Testing and Materials.
2003.
10. ASHRAE 41.8–1989: ‘‘Standard
Methods of Measurement of Flow of Liquids
in Pipes Using Orifice Flow Meters’’.
American Society of Heating, Refrigerating
and Air-Conditioning Engineers, Inc. 1989.
11. ISA RP 16.6–1961: ‘‘Methods and
Equipment for Calibration of Variable Area
Meters (Rotameters)’’. Instrumentation,
Systems, and Automation Society. 1961.
12. ANSI/ISA–RP31.1–1977:
‘‘Specification, Installation, and Calibration
of Turbine Flow Meters’’. Instrumentation,
Systems, and Automation Society. 1977.
13. ASTM E 1–95: ‘‘Standard
Specifications for ASTM Thermometers’’.
American Society for Testing and Materials.
1995.
14. ANSI/ASHRAE 41.1–1986: ‘‘Standard
Method for Temperature Measurement’’
American Society of Heating, Refrigerating,
and Air-Conditioning Engineers, Inc.
February 1987.
15. ANSI/ASHRAE 41.3–1989: ‘‘Standard
Method for Pressure Measurement’’.
American Society of Heating, Refrigerating,
and Air-Conditioning Engineers, Inc. 1989.
16. ISA RP 16.5–1961: ‘‘Installation,
Operation, and Maintenance Instructions for
Glass Tube Variable Area Meters
(Rotameters)’’. Instrumentation, Systems, and
Automation Society. 1961.
17. ASME MFC–3M–2004: ‘‘Measurement
of Fluid Flow in Pipes Using Orifice, Nozzle,
and Venturi’’. American Society of
Mechanical Engineers. 1989.
18. ASTM E–1137–97: ‘‘Standard
Specification for Industrial Platinum
Resistance Thermometers’’. American
Society for Testing and Materials. 1997.
19. The Temperature Handbook. Omega
Engineering, Inc. 2000.
20. The Pressure, Strain and Force
Handbook. Omega Engineering, Inc. 1999.
21. The Flow and Level Handbook. Omega
Engineering, Inc. 2000.
22. ASTM D–5464–93 (1997): ‘‘Standard
Test Methods for pH Measurement of Water
of Low Conductivity’’. American Society for
Testing and Materials. 1993.
23. ASTM D–1293–99: ‘‘Standard Test
Methods for pH of Water’’. American Society
for Testing and Materials. 1999.
24. ANSI/ASME MFC–4M–1986 (R2003):
‘‘Measurement of Gas Flow by Turbine
59991
Meters’’. American Society of Mechanical
Engineers. 2003.
25. ASME/ANSI MFC–6M–1987:
‘‘Measurement of Fluid Flow in Pipes Using
Vortex Flow Meters’’. American Society of
Mechanical Engineers. 1987.
26. ASME/ANSI MFC–7M–1987:
‘‘Measurement of Gas Flow by Means of
Critical Flow Venturi Nozzles’’. American
Society of Mechanical Engineers. 1987.
27. ASME/ANSI MFC–9M–1988:
‘‘Measurement of Liquid Flow in Closed
Conduits by Weighing Method’’. American
Society of Mechanical Engineers. 1989.
28. ASME/ANSI MFC–10M–1994:
‘‘Measurement of Liquid Flow in Closed
Conduits by Volumetric Method’’. American
Society of Mechanical Engineers. 1994.
29. ISO 8316:1987: ‘‘Measurement of
Liquid Flow in Closed Conduits-Method by
Collection of Liquid in a Volumetric Tank’’.
International Organization for
Standardization. 1987.
30. NIST Handbook 44—2002 Edition:
‘‘Specifications, Tolerances, And Other
Technical Requirements for Weighing and
Measuring Devices, as adopted by the 86th
National Conference on Weights and
Measures 2001’’, Section 2.21: ‘‘BeltConveyor Scale Systems’’.
31. ISO 10790:1999: ‘‘Measurement of
Fluid Flow in Closed Conduits-Guidance to
the Selection, Installation, and Use of
Coriolis Meters (Mass Flow, Density and
Volume Flow Measurements’’. International
Organization for Standardization. 1999.
32. ASTM D 1125–95 (2005): ‘‘Standard
Test Methods for Electrical Conductivity and
Resistivity of Water’’. American Society for
Testing and Materials. 2005.
33. ASTM D 5391–99 (2005): ‘‘Standard
Test Method for Electrical Conductivity and
Resistivity of a Flowing High Purity Water
Sample’’. American Society for Testing and
Materials. 2005.
18.0
What tables are relevant to PS–17?
TABLE 1—SENSOR COMPONENTS OF COMMONLY USED CPMS
For a CPMS that measures . . .
Using a . . .
The sensor component consists of the . . .
1. Temperature ...................................................
a. Thermocouple ..............................................
b. Resistance temperature detector (RTD) .....
c. Optical pyrometer .........................................
d. Thermistor ....................................................
e. Temperature transducer ..............................
Thermocouple.
RTD.
Optical assembly and detector.
Thermistor.
Integrated circuit sensor?
2. Pressure .........................................................
a. Pressure gauge ...........................................
Gauge assembly, including bourdon element,
bellows element, or diaphragm.
Strain gauge assembly, capacitance assembly, linear variable differential transformer,
force balance assembly, potentiometer,
variable reluctance assembly, piezoelectric
assembly, or piezoresistive assembly.
U-tube or differential manometer.
b. Pressure transducer ....................................
pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS3
c. Manometer ...................................................
3. Flow rate ........................................................
a. Differential pressure device .........................
b. Differential pressure tube ............................
c. Magnetic flow meter .....................................
VerDate Aug<31>2005
20:38 Oct 08, 2008
Jkt 217001
PO 00000
Frm 00037
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
Flow constricting element (nozzle, Venturi, or
orifice plate) and differential pressure sensor.
Pitot tube, or other array of tubes that measure velocity pressure and static pressure,
and differential pressure sensor.
Magnetic coil assembly.
E:\FR\FM\09OCP3.SGM
09OCP3
59992
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 197 / Thursday, October 9, 2008 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 1—SENSOR COMPONENTS OF COMMONLY USED CPMS—Continued
For a CPMS that measures . . .
Using a . . .
The sensor component consists of the . . .
d. Positive displacement flow meter ................
i. Thermal flow meter .......................................
j. Coriolis mass flow meter ..............................
k. Rotameter ....................................................
l. Solids flow meter ..........................................
m. Belt conveyor ..............................................
Piston, blade, vane, propeller, disk, or gear
assembly.
Rotor or turbine assembly.
Vortex generating and sensing elements.
Feedback passage, side wall, control port,
and thermal sensor.
Sonic transducers, receivers, timer, and temperature sensor.
Thermal element and temperature sensors.
U-tube and magnetic sensing elements.
Float assembly.
Sensing plate.
Scale.
4. pH ...................................................................
pH meter ..........................................................
Electrode.
5. Conductivity ....................................................
Conductivity meter ...........................................
Electrode.
e. Turbine flow meter .......................................
f. Vortex formation flow meter .........................
g. Fluidic oscillating flow meter ........................
h. Ultrasonic flow meter ...................................
TABLE 2—DESIGN STANDARDS FOR TEMPERATURE SENSORS
If the sensor is a . . .
You can use the following design standards as guidance in selecting a sensor for your CPMS
. . .
1. Thermocouple .................................................
a. ASTM E235–88 (1996), ‘‘Specification for Thermocouples, Sheathed, Type K, for Nuclear or
Other High-Reliability Applications.’’
b. ASTM E585/E 585M–04, ‘‘Specification for Compacted Mineral-Insulated, Metal-Sheathed,
Base Metal Thermocouple Cables.’’
c. ASTM E608/E 608M–06, ‘‘Specification for Mineral-Insulated, Metal-Sheathed Base Metal
Thermocouples.’’
d. ASTM E696–07, ‘‘Specification for Tungsten-Rhenium Alloy Thermocouple Wire.’’
e. ASTM E1129/E 1129M–98 (2002), ‘‘Standard Specification for Thermocouple Connectors.’’
f. ASTM E1159–98 (2003), ‘‘Specification for Thermocouple Materials, Platinum-Rhodium Alloys, and Platinum.’’
g. ISA–MC96.1–1982, ‘‘Temperature Measurement Thermocouples.’’
ASTM E1137/E1137M–04, ‘‘Standard Specification for Industrial Platinum Resistance Thermometers.’’
2. Resistance temperature detector ...................
TABLE 3—STANDARDS FOR THE INSTALLATION OF FLOW SENSORS
If the sensor of your flow CPMS is
a. . .
You should install the flow sensor according to . . .
1. Differential pressure device ........
2. Critical flow venturi flow meter
used to measure gas flow rate.
3. Turbine flow meter ......................
ASME MFC–3M–2004, ‘‘Measurement of Fluid Flow in Pipes Using Orifice, Nozzle, and Venturi’’.
ASME/ANSI MFC–7M–1987 (R2001), ‘‘Measurement of Gas Flow by Means of Critical Flow Venturi Nozzles’’.
ANSI/ISA RP 31.1–1977, ‘‘Recommended Practice: Specification, Installation, and Calibration of Turbine
Flowmeters’’, or, if used for gas flow measurement, ANSI/ASME MFC–4M–1986 (R2003), ‘‘Measurement of Gas Flow by Turbine Meters’’.
ISA RP 16.5–1961, ‘‘Installation, Operation, and Maintenance Instructions for Glass Tube Variable Area
Meters (Rotameters)’’.
ISO 10790:1999, ‘‘Measurement of fluid flow in closed conduits—Guidance to the selection, installation
and use of Coriolis meters (mass flow, density and volume flow measurements).
ASME/ANSI MFC–6M–1998 (R2005), ‘‘Measurement of Fluid Flow in Pipes Using Vortex Flow Meters’’.
4. Rotameter ...................................
5. Coriolis mass flow meter ............
6. Vortex formation flow meter .......
TABLE 4—VOLUMETRIC METHODS FOR INITIAL VALIDATION CHECK OF FLOW METERS
Designation
Title
pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS3
1. ISA RP 16.6–1961 ......................
2. ANSI/ISA RP 31.1–1977 ............
3. ISO 8316:1987 ............................
‘‘Methods and Equipment for Calibration of Variable Area Meters (Rotameters)’’.
‘‘Specification, Installation, and Calibration of Turbine Flow Meters’’.
‘‘Measurement of Liquid Flow in Closed Conduits—Method by Collection of Liquid in a Volumetric Tank’’.
TABLE 5—WEIGHING METHODS FOR INITIAL VALIDATION CHECK OF FLOW METERS
Designation
Title
1. ASHRAE 41.8–1989 ...................
2. ISA RP 16.6–1961 ......................
3. ANSI/ISA RP 31.1–1977 ............
VerDate Aug<31>2005
20:38 Oct 08, 2008
‘‘Standard Methods of Measurement of Flow of Liquids in Pipes Using Orifice Flow Meters’’.
‘‘Methods and Equipment for Calibration of Variable Area Meters (Rotameters)’’.
‘‘Specification, Installation, and Calibration of Turbine Flow Meters’’.
Jkt 217001
PO 00000
Frm 00038
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\09OCP3.SGM
09OCP3
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 197 / Thursday, October 9, 2008 / Proposed Rules
59993
TABLE 5—WEIGHING METHODS FOR INITIAL VALIDATION CHECK OF FLOW METERS—Continued
Designation
Title
4. ANSI/ASME MFC–9M–1988 ......
‘‘Measurement of Liquid Flow in Closed Conduits by Weighing Method’’.
TABLE 6—ALTERNATE METHODS FOR INITIAL VALIDATION CHECK OF TEMPERATURE SENSORS
If the temperature sensor in your CPMS is a
. . .
And is used in . . .
You can perform the initial validation check of
the sensor using . . .
1. Thermocouple ................................................
2. Thermocouple ................................................
3. Resistance temperature detector ..................
Any application .................................................
A reducing environment ...................................
Any application .................................................
ASTM E220–07e1.
ASTM E452–02 (2007).
ASTM E644–06.
TABLE 7—ALTERNATE METHODS FOR INITIAL VALIDATION CHECK OF PRESSURE SENSORS
If the pressure sensor in your CPMS is a . . .
You can perform the initial validation check of the sensor using
. . .
1. Pressure gauge .................................................................................................................................................
2. Metallic bonded resistance strain gauge ...........................................................................................................
ASME B40.100–2005.
ASTM E251–92 (2003).
TABLE 8—CPMS ACCURACY REQUIREMENTS
If your CPMS measures . . .
You must demonstrate that your CPMS operates within . . .
1. Temperature, in a non-cryogenic
application.
2. Temperature, in a cryogenic application.
3. Pressure ......................................
An accuracy percentage (Ap) of ±1.0 percent of the temperature measured in degrees Celsius or within an
accuracy value (Av) of 2.8 degrees Celsius (5 degrees Fahrenheit), whichever is greater.
An accuracy percentage (Ap) of ±2.5 percent of the temperature measured in degrees Celsius or within an
accuracy value (Av) of 2.8 degrees Celsius (5 degrees Fahrenheit), whichever is greater.
An accuracy percentage (Ap) of ±5 percent or an accuracy value (Av) of 0.12 kilopascals (0.5 inches of
water column), whichever is greater.
An accuracy percentage (Ap) of ±5 percent or an accuracy value (Av) of 1.9 liters per minute (0.5 gallons
per minute), whichever is greater.
a. A relative accuracy of ±20 percent, if you demonstrate compliance using the relative accuracy test, or
b. An accuracy percentage (Ap) of ±10 percent, if your CPMS measures steam flow rate, or
c. An accuracy percentage (Ap) of ±5 percent or an accuracy value (Av) of 280 liters per minute (10 cubic
feet per minute), whichever is greater, for all other gases and accuracy audit methods.
An accuracy percentage (Ap) of ±5 percent.
An accuracy value (Av) of ±0.2 pH units.
An accuracy percentage (Ap) of ±5 percent.
4. Liquid flow rate ...........................
5. Gas flow rate ..............................
6. Mass flow rate ............................
7. pH ...............................................
8. Conductivity ................................
5. Appendix F to part 60 is amended
as follows:
a. In Procedure 1, by:
i. Revising the second (last) sentence
in the first paragraph of section 1.1; and
ii. Adding sections 4.1.1, 4.1.2, 4.3.3,
4.4.1, 5.5.5, and 5.1.7.
b. Adding Procedure 4 in numerical
order to read as follows:
pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS3
Appendix F to Part 60—Quality
Assurance Procedures
Procedure 1. Quality Assurance
Requirements for Gas Continuous Emission
Monitoring Systems Used for Compliance
Determination
1. Applicability and Principle
1.1 * * * The CEMS may include
systems that monitor one pollutant (e.g., SO2
or NOX), a combination of pollutants (e.g.,
benzene and hexane), or diluents (e.g., O2 or
CO2).
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
4. CD Assessment
*
*
*
VerDate Aug<31>2005
20:38 Oct 08, 2008
Jkt 217001
4.1.1 Multiple Organic Pollutant CEMS.
Source owners and operators of gas
chromatographic CEMS that are subject to PS
9 and are used to monitor multiple organic
pollutants must perform the daily CD
requirement specified in section 4.1 of this
procedure using any one of the target
pollutants specified in the applicable
regulation.
4.1.2 CEMS Subject to PS 15. To satisfy
the daily CD requirement of this procedure,
source owners and operators of extractive
Fourier Transfer Infrared (FTIR) CEMS that
are subject to PS 15 must perform at least
once daily the calibration transfer standards
check, analyte spike check, and background
deviation check specified in PS–15 (40 CFR
part 60, appendix B), sections 10.1, 10.4, and
10.6, respectively. The analyte spike check
can be performed using any of the target
analytes.
*
*
*
*
*
4.3.3 Out-of-Control Definition for CEMS
Subject to PS 15. If the calibration transfer
standards check, analyte spike check, or
background deviation check exceeds twice
the accuracy criterion of ±5 percent for five,
PO 00000
Frm 00039
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
consecutive daily periods, the CEMS is out
of control. If the calibration transfer
standards check, analyte spike check, or
background deviation check exceeds four
times the accuracy criterion of ±5 percent
during any daily calibration check, the CEMS
is out of control. If the CEMS is out of
control, take necessary corrective action.
Following corrective action, repeat the
calibration checks specified in this section.
*
*
*
*
*
4.4.1 Data Storage Requirements for
CEMS Subject to PS 15. In addition to the
requirements of section 4.4 of this procedure,
source owners and operators of CEMS subject
to PS–15 (40 CFR part 60, appendix B) must
satisfy the data storage requirements of
section 6.3 of PS–15.
*
*
*
*
*
5. Data Accuracy Assessment
*
*
*
*
*
5.1.5 Audits for CEMS Subject to PS 9.
For CEMS that are subject to PS 9, the
requirements of section 5.1 of this procedure
apply, with the following exceptions:
E:\FR\FM\09OCP3.SGM
09OCP3
59994
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 197 / Thursday, October 9, 2008 / Proposed Rules
(1) The RATA specified in sections 5.1.1
and 5.1.4 of this procedure does not apply.
(2) The CGA must be conducted every
calendar quarter.
(3) The CGA must be conducted according
to the procedures specified in section 5.3 of
PS–9 (40 CFR part 60, appendix B), except
that the audit must be performed at two
points as specified in section 5.1.2 of this
procedure.
(4) The CGA must be conducted for each
target pollutant specified in the applicable
regulation.
(5) The RAA specified in section 5.1.3 of
this procedure does not apply.
(6) Audits conducted under this procedure
fulfill the requirement of section 5.3 of PS–
9 (40 CFR part 60, appendix B) for quarterly
performance audits.
5.1.6 Audits for CEMS Subject to PS–15.
For CEMS that are subject to PS–15 (40 CFR
part 60, appendix B), the requirements of
section 5.1 of this procedure apply, with the
following exceptions:
(1) The RATA specified in sections 5.1.1
and 5.1.4, the CGA specified in section 5.1.2,
and the RAA specified in section 5.1.3 of this
procedure do not apply.
(2) To satisfy the quarterly accuracy audit
requirement of this procedure, one of the
accuracy checks specified in PS–15 (40 CFR
part 60, appendix B), sections 9.1 (Audit
Sample), 9.2 (Audit Spectra), and 9.3 (Submit
Spectra for Independent Analysis) must be
performed at least once each calendar
quarter, consistent with the following
additional criteria:
(i) The audit sample check, specified in
section 9.1 of PS–15 (40 CFR part 60,
appendix B), must be conducted at least once
every four calendar quarters.
(ii) The audit spectra check, specified in
section 9.2 of PS–15 (40 CFR part 60,
appendix B), can be used to satisfy the
quarterly accuracy audit requirement only
once every four calendar quarters.
(3) Audits conducted under this procedure
fulfill the requirement of section 9 of PS–15
(40 CFR part 60, appendix B) for quarterly or
semiannual QA/QC checks on the operation
of extractive FTIR CEMS.
pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS3
*
*
*
*
*
Procedure 4. Quality Assurance
Requirements for Continuous Parameter
Monitoring Systems at Stationary Sources
1.0 What is the purpose of this procedure?
The purpose of this procedure is to
establish the minimum requirements for
evaluating on an ongoing basis the quality of
data produced by your continuous parameter
monitoring system (CPMS), and the
effectiveness of quality assurance (QA) and
quality control (QC) procedures that you
have developed for your CPMS. This
procedure applies instead of the QA and QC
requirements for applicable CPMS specified
in any applicable subpart to parts 60, 61, or
63, unless otherwise specified in the
applicable subpart. This procedure presents
requirements in general terms to allow you
to develop a QC program that is most
effective for your circumstances. This
procedure does not restrict your current QA/
QC procedures to ensure compliance with
applicable regulations. Instead, you are
VerDate Aug<31>2005
20:38 Oct 08, 2008
Jkt 217001
encouraged to develop and implement a
more extensive QA/QC program or to
continue such programs where they already
exist.
1.1 To what types of devices does
Procedure 4 apply? This procedure applies to
any CPMS that is subject to Performance
Specification 17 (PS–17).
1.2 When must I comply with Procedure
4? You must comply with this procedure
when conditions (1) or (2) of this section
occur.
(1) At the time you install and place into
operation a CPMS that is subject to PS–17.
(2) At the time any of your existing CPMS
become subject to PS–17.
1.3 How does Procedure 4 affect me if I
am also subject to QA procedures under
another applicable subpart? This procedure
does not apply if any more stringent QA
requirements apply to you under an
applicable requirement. You are required to
comply with the more stringent of the
applicable QA requirements.
2.0 What are the basic requirements of
Procedure 4?
This procedure requires all owners and
operators of a CPMS to perform periodic QA
evaluations of CPMS performance and to
develop and implement QC programs to
ensure that CPMS data quality is maintained.
2.1 What types of procedures are required
for me to demonstrate compliance? This
procedure requires you to meet the
requirements of paragraphs (1) and (2) of this
section.
(1) Perform periodic accuracy audits of
your CPMS; and
(2) Take corrective action when your CPMS
fails to meet the accuracy requirements of
this procedure.
2.2 What types of recordkeeping and
reporting activities are required by Procedure
4? This procedure does not have any
reporting requirements but does require you
to record and maintain data that identify
your CPMS and show the results of any
performance demonstrations of your CPMS.
Recordkeeping requirements are specified in
section 14 of this procedure.
3.0 What special definitions apply to
Procedure 4?
3.1 Accuracy. A measure of the closeness
of a measurement to the true or actual value.
3.2 Accuracy hierarchy. The ratio of the
accuracy of a measurement instrument to the
accuracy of a calibrated instrument or
standard that is used to measure the accuracy
of the measurement instrument. For example,
if the accuracy of a calibrated temperature
measurement device is 0.2 percent, and the
accuracy of a thermocouple is 1.0 percent,
the accuracy hierarchy is 5.0 (1.0 ÷ 0.2 = 5.0).
3.3 Calibration drift. The difference
between a reference value and the output
value of a CPMS after a period of operation
during which no unscheduled maintenance,
repair, or adjustment took place.
3.4 Conductivity CPMS. The total
equipment that is used to measure and record
liquid conductivity on a continuous basis.
3.5 Continuous parameter monitoring
system (CPMS). The total equipment that is
used to measure and record parameters, such
as temperature, pressure, liquid flow rate, gas
PO 00000
Frm 00040
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
flow rate, mass flow rate, pH or conductivity,
in one or more locations on a continuous
basis.
3.6 Differential pressure tube. A device,
such as a pitot tube, that consists of one or
more pairs of tubes that are oriented to
measure the velocity pressure and static
pressure at one of more fixed points within
a duct for the purpose of determining gas
velocity.
3.7 Electronic components. The
electronic signal modifier or conditioner,
transmitter, and power supply associated
with a CPMS.
3.8 Flow CPMS. The total equipment that
is used to measure liquid flow rate, gas flow
rate, or mass flow rate on a continuous basis.
3.9 Mass flow rate. The measurement of
solid, liquid, or gas flow in units of mass per
time, such as kilograms per minute or tons
per hour.
3.10 Mechanical component. Any
component of a CPMS that consists of or
includes moving parts or that is used to
apply or transfer force to another component
or part of a CPMS.
3.11 pH CPMS. The total equipment that
is used to measure and record liquid pH on
a continuous basis.
3.12 Pressure CPMS. The total equipment
that is used to measure and record the
pressure of a liquid or gas at any location or
the differential pressure of a gas or liquid at
any two locations on a continuous basis.
3.13 Resolution. The smallest detectable
or legible increment of measurement.
3.14 Sensor. The component of a CPMS
that senses the parameter being measured
(currently temperature, pressure, liquid flow
rate, gas flow rate, mass flow rate, pH, or
conductivity) and generates an output signal.
Table 1 identifies the sensor components of
some commonly used CPMS.
3.15 Solid mass flow rate. The
measurement in units of mass per time of the
rate at which a solid material is processed or
transferred. Examples of solid mass flow rate
are the rate at which ore is fed to a material
dryer or the rate at which powdered lime is
injected into an exhaust duct.
3.16 Temperature CPMS. The total
equipment that is used to measure and record
the temperature of a liquid or gas at any
location or the differential temperature of a
gas or liquid at any two locations on a
continuous basis.
3.17 Total equipment. The sensor,
mechanical components, electronic
components, data recording, electrical
wiring, and other components of a CPMS.
4.0 Interferences [Reserved]
5.0 What do I need to know to ensure the
safety of persons who perform the accuracy
audits specified in Procedure 4?
The accuracy audits required under
Procedure 4 may involve hazardous
materials, operations, site conditions, and
equipment. This QA procedure does not
purport to address all of the safety issues
associated with these audits. It is the
responsibility of the user to establish
appropriate safety and health practices and
determine the applicable regulatory
limitations prior to performing these audits.
E:\FR\FM\09OCP3.SGM
09OCP3
pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 197 / Thursday, October 9, 2008 / Proposed Rules
6.0 What are the equipment requirements
for Procedure 4?
6.1 What types of equipment do I need
for performing the accuracy audit of my
CPMS? The specific types of equipment that
you need for your CPMS accuracy audit
depend on the type of CPMS, site-specific
conditions, and the method that you choose
for conducting the accuracy audit, as
specified in sections 8.1 through 8.5 of this
procedure. In most cases, you will need the
equipment described in paragraphs (1) and
(2) of this section.
(1) A separate device that either measures
the same parameter that your CPMS
measures, or that simulates the same
electronic signal or response that your CPMS
generates, and
(2) Any test ports, pressure taps, valves,
fittings, or other equipment required to
perform the specific procedures of the
accuracy audit method that you choose, as
specified in section 8.1 of this procedure.
6.2 What are the accuracy requirements
for the equipment that I use to audit the
accuracy of my CPMS? Unless you meet one
of the exceptions listed in section 6.3 of this
procedure, any measurement instrument or
device that you use to conduct an accuracy
audit of your CPMS must have an accuracy
that is traceable to National Institute of
Standards and Technology (NIST) standards
and must have an accuracy hierarchy of at
least three. To determine if a measurement
instrument or device satisfies this accuracy
hierarchy requirement, follow the procedure
described in section 12.1 of this procedure.
6.3 Are there any exceptions to the
accuracy requirement of section 6.2 of this
procedure? There are three exceptions to the
NIST-traceable accuracy requirement
specified in section 6.2, as described in
paragraphs (1) through (3) of this section.
(1) If you perform an accuracy audit of
your CPMS by comparison to a redundant
CPMS, you need not meet the NISTtraceability requirement of section 6.2;
however, the redundant CPMS must have an
accuracy equal to or better than the
corresponding minimum required accuracy
specified in Table 6 of this procedure for that
specific type of CPMS.
(2) As an alternative for the calibrated
pressure measurement device with NISTtraceable accuracy that is required in
paragraphs (2) and (4) of section 8.2 and in
paragraph (4) of section 8.3 of this
specification, you can use a mercury-in-glass
or water-in-glass U-tube manometer to check
the accuracy of your pressure CPMS.
(3) When validating a flow rate CPMS
using the methods specified in paragraphs
(2), (3), or (7) of section 8.3 of this
specification, the container used to collect or
weigh the liquid or solid is not required to
have NIST-traceable accuracy.
7.0 What reagents or standards do I need to
comply with Procedure 4?
The specific reagents and standards needed
to demonstrate compliance with this
procedure depend upon the parameter that
your CPMS measures and the method that
you choose to check the accuracy of your
CPMS. Sections 8.1 through 8.5 of this
procedure identify the specific reagents and
VerDate Aug<31>2005
20:38 Oct 08, 2008
Jkt 217001
standards that you will need to conduct
accuracy audits of your CPMS.
8.0 What quality assurance and quality
control measures are required by Procedure
4 for my CPMS?
You must perform accuracy audits, meet
the accuracy requirements of this procedure,
and perform any additional checks of the
CPMS as specified in sections 8.1 through 8.9
of this procedure.
8.1 How do I perform an accuracy audit
for my temperature CPMS? To perform the
accuracy audit, you can choose one of the
methods described in paragraphs (1) through
(3) of this section.
(1) Comparison to Redundant Temperature
Sensor. This method requires your CPMS to
have a primary temperature sensor and a
redundant temperature sensor. The
redundant temperature sensor must be
installed adjacent to the primary temperature
sensor and must be subject to the same
environment as the primary temperature
sensor. To perform the accuracy audit, record
three pairs of concurrent temperature
measurements within a 24-hour period. Each
pair of concurrent measurements must
consist of a temperature measurement by
each of the two temperature sensors. The
minimum time interval between any two
such pairs of consecutive temperature
measurements is one hour. You must take
these readings during periods when the
process or control device that is being
monitored by the CPMS is operating
normally. Calculate the mean of the three
values for each temperature sensor. The
mean values must agree within the minimum
required accuracy specified in Table 6 of this
procedure. If your CPMS satisfies the
accuracy requirement of Table 6, the
accuracy audit is complete. If your CPMS
does not satisfy the accuracy requirement of
Table 6 of this procedure, check all system
components and take any corrective action
that is necessary to achieve the required
minimum accuracy. Repeat this accuracy
audit procedure until the accuracy
requirement of Table 6 of this procedure is
satisfied. If you replace any electrical or
mechanical components of your temperature
CPMS, you must perform the procedures
outlined in PS–17. If you are required to
measure and record temperatures at multiple
locations, repeat this procedure for each
location.
(2) Comparison to Calibrated Temperature
Measurement Device. Place the sensor of a
calibrated temperature measurement device
adjacent to the sensor of your temperature
CPMS in a location that is subject to the same
environment as the sensor of your
temperature CPMS. The calibrated
temperature measurement device must
satisfy the accuracy requirements specified in
section 6.2 of this procedure. Allow
sufficient time for the response of the
calibrated temperature measurement device
to reach equilibrium. With the process or
control device that is monitored by your
CPMS operating under normal conditions,
record concurrently the temperatures
measured by your temperature CPMS and the
calibrated temperature measurement device.
Using the temperature measured by the
calibrated measurement device as the value
PO 00000
Frm 00041
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
59995
for Vc, follow the procedure specified in
section 12.2 of this procedure to determine
if your CPMS satisfies the accuracy
requirement of Table 6 of this procedure. If
you determine that your CPMS satisfies the
accuracy requirement of Table 6 of this
procedure, the accuracy audit is complete. If
your CPMS does not satisfy the accuracy
requirement of Table 6 of this procedure,
check all system components and take any
corrective action that is necessary to achieve
the required minimum accuracy. Repeat this
procedure until the accuracy requirement of
Table 6 of this procedure is satisfied. If you
replace any electrical or mechanical
components of the primary CPMS, you must
perform the procedures outlined in PS–17
(40 CFR part 60, appendix B). If you are
required to measure and record temperatures
at multiple locations, repeat this procedure
for each location.
(3) Separate Sensor Check and System
Check by Temperature Simulation. This
method applies to temperature CPMS that
use either a thermocouple or a resistance
temperature detector as the temperature
sensor. First, perform the temperature sensor
check using the appropriate ASTM standard
listed in Table 2 of this procedure. To
perform the system check, record the
temperature using your temperature CPMS
with the process or control device that is
monitored by your temperature CPMS
operating under normal conditions. Under
the same operating conditions, disconnect
the sensor from the CPMS system and
connect a calibrated simulation device that is
designed to simulate the same type of
response as the CPMS sensor. The simulation
device must satisfy the accuracy
requirements specified in section 6.2 of this
procedure. Within 15 minutes of measuring
and recording the temperature using your
temperature CPMS, simulate the same
temperature recorded for the temperature
CPMS. Allow sufficient time for the response
of the simulation device to reach
equilibrium. Using the temperature
simulated by the calibrated simulation device
as the value for Vc, follow the procedure
specified in section 12.2 of this procedure to
determine if your CPMS satisfies the
accuracy requirement of Table 6 of this
procedure. If you determine that your CPMS
satisfies the accuracy requirement of Table 6
of this procedure, the accuracy audit is
complete. If the calculated accuracy does not
meet the accuracy requirement of Table 6 of
this procedure, check all system components
and take any corrective action that is
necessary to achieve the required minimum
accuracy. Repeat this procedure until the
accuracy requirement of Table 6 of this
procedure is satisfied. If you replace any
electrical or mechanical components of your
temperature CPMS, you must perform the
procedures outlined in PS–17. If you are
required to measure and record temperatures
at multiple locations, repeat this procedure
for each location.
8.2 How do I perform an accuracy audit
for my pressure CPMS? To perform the
accuracy audit, you can choose one of the
methods described in paragraphs (1) through
(4) of this section.
(1) Comparison to redundant pressure
sensor. This method requires your CPMS to
E:\FR\FM\09OCP3.SGM
09OCP3
pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS3
59996
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 197 / Thursday, October 9, 2008 / Proposed Rules
have a primary pressure sensor and a
redundant pressure sensor. The redundant
pressure sensor must be installed adjacent to
the primary pressure sensor and must be
subject to the same environment as the
primary pressure sensor. To perform the
accuracy audit, record three pairs of
concurrent pressure measurements within a
24-hour period. Each pair of concurrent
measurements must consist of a pressure
measurement by each of the two pressure
sensors. The minimum time interval between
any two such pairs of consecutive pressure
measurements is one hour. You must take
these readings during periods when the
process or control device that is being
monitored by the CPMS is operating
normally. Calculate the mean of the three
values for each pressure sensor. The mean
values must agree within the minimum
required accuracy specified in Table 6 of this
procedure. If your CPMS satisfies the
accuracy requirement of Table 6 of this
procedure, the accuracy audit is complete. If
your CPMS does not satisfy the accuracy
requirement of Table 6 of this procedure,
check all system components and take any
corrective action that is necessary to achieve
the required minimum accuracy. Repeat this
accuracy audit procedure until the accuracy
requirement of Table 6 of this procedure is
satisfied. If you replace any electrical or
mechanical components of your pressure
CPMS, you must perform the procedures
outlined in PS–17 (40 CFR part 60, appendix
B). If you are required to measure and record
pressure at multiple locations, repeat this
procedure for each location.
(2) Comparison to Calibrated Pressure
Measurement Device. With the process or
control device that is monitored by your
pressure CPMS operating under normal
conditions, record the pressure at each
location that is monitored by your pressure
CPMS. For each pressure monitoring
location, connect the process lines from the
process or emission control device that is
monitored by your pressure CPMS to a
mercury-in-glass U-tube manometer, a waterin-glass U-tube manometer, or calibrated
pressure measurement device. If a calibrated
pressure measurement device is used, the
device must satisfy the accuracy
requirements of section 6.2 of this procedure.
The calibrated pressure measurement device
must also have a range equal to or greater
than the range of your pressure CPMS.
Perform a leak test on all manometer or
calibrated pressure measurement device
connections using the method specified in
section 8.9 of this procedure. Allow
sufficient time for the response of the
calibrated pressure measurement device to
reach equilibrium. Within 30 minutes of
measuring and recording the corresponding
pressure using your CPMS, record the
pressure measured by the calibrated pressure
measurement device at each location. Using
the pressure measured by the calibrated
pressure measurement device as the value for
Vc, follow the procedure specified in section
12.2 of this procedure to determine if your
CPMS satisfies the accuracy requirement of
Table 6 of this procedure. If you determine
that your CPMS satisfies the accuracy
requirement of Table 6 of this procedure, the
VerDate Aug<31>2005
20:38 Oct 08, 2008
Jkt 217001
accuracy audit is complete. If the calculated
accuracy does not meet the accuracy
requirement of Table 6 of this procedure,
check all system components and take any
corrective action that is necessary to achieve
the accuracy requirements. Repeat this
procedure until the accuracy requirement of
Table 6 of this procedure is satisfied. If you
replace any electrical or mechanical
components of your pressure CPMS, you
must perform the procedures outlined in PS–
17 (40 CFR part 60, appendix B). If you are
required to measure and record pressures at
multiple locations, repeat this procedure for
each location.
(3) Separate Sensor Check and System
Check by Pressure Simulation Using a
Calibrated Pressure Source. Perform the
pressure sensor check using the appropriate
ASTM standard listed in Table 3 of this
procedure. These sensor check methods
apply only to pressure CPMS that use either
a pressure gauge or a metallic-bonded
resistance strain gauge as the pressure sensor.
To perform the system check, begin by
disconnecting or closing off the process line
or lines to your pressure CPMS. For each
location that is monitored by your pressure
CPMS, connect a pressure source to your
CPMS. The pressure source must be
calibrated and must satisfy the accuracy
requirements of section 6.2 of this procedure.
The pressure source also must be adjustable,
either continuously or incrementally over the
pressure range of your pressure CPMS.
Perform a leak test on the calibrated pressure
source using the method specified in section
8.9 of this procedure. Using the calibrated
pressure source, apply to each location that
is monitored by your CPMS a pressure that
is within ±10 percent of the normal operating
pressure of your pressure CPMS. Allow
sufficient time for the response of the
calibrated pressure source to reach
equilibrium. Using the pressure applied by
the calibrated pressure source as the value for
Vc, follow the procedure specified in section
12.2 of this procedure to determine if your
CPMS satisfies the accuracy requirement of
Table 6 of this procedure. If you determine
that your CPMS satisfies the accuracy
requirement of Table 6 of this procedure, the
accuracy audit is complete. If your CPMS
does not meet the accuracy requirement of
Table 6 of this procedure, check all system
components and take any other corrective
action that is necessary to achieve the
required minimum accuracy. Repeat this
procedure until the accuracy requirement of
Table 6 of this procedure is satisfied. If you
replace any electrical or mechanical
components of your pressure CPMS, you
must perform the procedures outlined in PS–
17 (40 CFR part 60, appendix B). If you are
required to measure and record pressure at
multiple locations, repeat this procedure for
each location.
(4) Separate Sensor and System Check by
Pressure Simulation Procedure Using a
Pressure Source and a Calibrated Pressure
Measurement Device. Perform the pressure
sensor check using the appropriate ASTM
standard listed in Table 3 of this procedure.
These sensor check methods apply only to
pressure CPMS that use either a pressure
gauge or a metallic-bonded resistance strain
PO 00000
Frm 00042
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
gauge as the pressure sensor. To perform the
system check, begin by disconnecting or
closing off the process line or lines to your
pressure CPMS. Attach a mercury-in-glass Utube manometer, a water-in-glass U-tube
manometer, or a calibrated pressure
measurement device (the reference pressure
measurement device) in parallel to your
pressure CPMS. If a calibrated pressure
measurement device is used, the device must
satisfy the accuracy requirements of section
6.2 of this procedure. Connect a pressure
source to your pressure CPMS and the
parallel reference pressure measurement
device. Perform a leak test on all connections
for the pressure source and calibrated
pressure measurement device using the
method as specified in section 8.9 of this
procedure. Apply pressure to your CPMS and
the parallel reference pressure measurement
device. Allow sufficient time for the
responses of your CPMS and the parallel
reference pressure measurement device to
reach equilibrium. Record the pressure
measured by your pressure CPMS and the
reference pressure measurement device.
Using the pressure measured by the parallel
reference pressure measurement device as
the value for Vc, follow the procedure
specified in section 12.2 of this procedure to
determine if your CPMS satisfies the
accuracy requirement of Table 6 of this
procedure. If you determine that your CPMS
satisfies the accuracy requirement of Table 6
of this procedure, the accuracy audit is
complete. If your CPMS does not meet the
accuracy requirement of Table 6 of this
procedure, check all system components and
take any corrective action that is necessary to
achieve the required minimum accuracy.
Repeat this accuracy audit until the accuracy
requirement of Table 6 of this procedure is
satisfied. If you replace any electrical or
mechanical components of your pressure
CPMS, you must perform the procedures
outlined in PS–17 (40 CFR part 60, appendix
B). If you are required to measure and record
pressure at multiple locations, repeat this
procedure for each location.
8.3 How do I perform an accuracy audit
for my flow CPMS? To perform the accuracy
audit on your flow CPMS, you can choose
one of the methods described in paragraphs
(1) through (7) of this section that is
applicable to the type of material measured
by your flow CPMS and the type of sensor
used in your flow CPMS.
(1) Comparison to redundant flow sensor.
This method requires your CPMS to have a
primary flow sensor and a redundant flow
sensor. The redundant flow sensor must be
installed adjacent to the primary flow sensor
and must be subject to the same environment
as the primary flow sensor. If using two
Coriolis mass flow meters, care should be
taken to avoid cross-talk, which is
interference between the two meters due to
mechanical coupling. Consult the
manufacturer for specifics. To perform the
accuracy audit, record three pairs of
concurrent flow measurements within a 24hour period. Each pair of concurrent
measurements must consist of a flow
measurement by each of the two flow
sensors. The minimum time interval between
any two such pairs of consecutive flow
E:\FR\FM\09OCP3.SGM
09OCP3
pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 197 / Thursday, October 9, 2008 / Proposed Rules
measurements is one hour. You must take
these readings during periods when the
process or control device that is being
monitored by the CPMS is operating
normally. Calculate the mean of the three
values for each flow sensor. The mean values
must agree within the minimum required
accuracy specified in Table 6 of this
procedure. If your CPMS satisfies the
accuracy requirement of Table 6 of this
procedure, the accuracy audit is complete. If
your CPMS does not satisfy the accuracy
requirement of Table 6 of this procedure,
check all system components and take any
corrective action that is necessary to achieve
the required minimum accuracy. Repeat this
accuracy audit procedure until the accuracy
requirement of Table 6 of this procedure is
satisfied. If you replace any electrical or
mechanical components of your flow CPMS,
you must perform the procedures outlined in
PS–17 (40 CFR part 60, appendix B). If you
are required to measure and record flow at
multiple locations, repeat this procedure for
each location.
(2) Volumetric Method. This method
applies to any CPMS that is designed to
measure liquid flow rate. With the process or
control device that is monitored by your flow
CPMS operating under normal conditions,
record the flow rate measured by your flow
CPMS for the subject process line. Collect
concurrently the liquid that is flowing
through the same process line for a measured
length of time using the Volumetric Method
specified in one of the standards listed in
Table 4 of this procedure. Using the flow rate
measured by the Volumetric Method as the
value for Vc, follow the procedure specified
in section 12.2 of this procedure to determine
if your CPMS satisfies the accuracy
requirement of Table 6 of this procedure. If
you determine that your CPMS satisfies the
accuracy requirement of Table 6 of this
procedure, the accuracy audit is complete. If
your CPMS does not satisfy the accuracy
requirement of Table 6 of this procedure,
check all system components and take any
corrective action that is necessary to achieve
the required minimum accuracy. Repeat this
procedure until the accuracy requirement of
Table 6 of this procedure is satisfied. If you
replace any electrical or mechanical
components of your flow CPMS, you must
perform the procedures outlined in PS–17
(40 CFR part 60, appendix B). If you are
required to measure and record flows at
multiple locations, repeat this procedure for
each location.
(3) Gravimetric Method. This method
applies to any CPMS that is designed to
measure liquid flow rate, liquid mass flow
rate, or solid mass flow rate. With the process
or control device that is monitored by your
flow CPMS operating under normal
conditions, record the flow rate measured by
your flow CPMS for the subject process line.
At the same time, collect the material (liquid
or solid) that is flowing or being transferred
through the same process line for a measured
length of time using the Weighing, Weigh
Tank, or Gravimetric Methods specified in
the standards listed in Table 5 of this
procedure. Using the flow rate measured by
the Weighing, Weigh Tank, or Gravimetric
Methods as the value for Vc, follow the
VerDate Aug<31>2005
20:38 Oct 08, 2008
Jkt 217001
procedure specified in section 12.2 of this
procedure to determine if your CPMS
satisfies the accuracy requirement of Table 6
of this procedure. If you determine that your
CPMS satisfies the accuracy requirement of
Table 6 of this procedure, the accuracy audit
is complete. If your CPMS does not satisfy
the accuracy requirement of Table 6 of this
procedure, check all system components and
take any corrective action that is necessary to
achieve the required minimum accuracy.
Repeat this procedure until the accuracy
requirement of Table 6 of this procedure is
satisfied. If you replace any electrical or
mechanical components of your flow CPMS,
you must perform the procedures outlined in
PS–17 (40 CFR part 60, appendix B). If you
are required to measure and record flows at
multiple locations, repeat this procedure for
each location.
(4) Separate Sensor Check and System
Check by Differential Pressure Measurement
Method. This method applies only to flow
CPMS that use a differential pressure
measurement flow device, such as an orifice
plate, flow nozzle, or venturi tube. This
method may not be used to validate a flow
CPMS that measures gas flow by means of
one or more differential pressure tubes. To
perform the sensor check, remove the flow
constricting device and perform a visual
inspection for wear or other deformities
based on manufacturer’s recommendations.
Take any corrective action that is necessary
to ensure its proper operation. To perform
the system check, record the flow rate
measured by your flow CPMS while the
process or control device that is monitored
by your CPMS operating under normal
conditions. Under the same operating
conditions, disconnect the pressure taps from
your flow CPMS and connect the pressure
taps to a mercury-in-glass U-tube manometer,
a water-in-glass U-tube manometer, or
calibrated differential pressure measurement
device. If a calibrated pressure measurement
device is used, the device must satisfy the
accuracy requirements of section 6.2 of this
procedure. Perform a leak test on all
manometer or calibrated differential pressure
measurement device connections using the
method specified in section 8.9 of this
procedure. Allow sufficient time for the
response of the calibrated differential
pressure measurement device to reach
equilibrium. Within 30 minutes of measuring
and recording the flow rate using your CPMS,
record the pressure drop measured by the
calibrated differential pressure measurement
device. Using the manufacturer’s literature or
the procedures specified in ASME MFC–3M–
2004 (incorporated by reference—see
§ 60.17), calculate the flow rate that
corresponds to the differential pressure
measured by the calibrated differential
pressure measurement device. For CPMS that
use an orifice flow meter, the procedures
specified in ASHRAE 41.8–1989
(incorporated by reference—see § 60.17) also
can be used to calculate the flow rate. Using
the calculated flow rate as the value for Vc,
follow the procedure specified in section
12.2 of this procedure to determine if your
CPMS satisfies the accuracy requirement of
Table 6 of this procedure. If you determine
that your CPMS satisfies the accuracy
PO 00000
Frm 00043
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
59997
requirement of Table 6 of this procedure, the
accuracy audit is complete. If your CPMS
does not satisfy the accuracy requirement of
Table 6 of this procedure, check all system
components and take any corrective action
that is necessary to achieve the required
minimum accuracy. Repeat this procedure
until the accuracy requirement of Table 6 of
this procedure is satisfied. If you replace any
electrical or mechanical components of your
flow CPMS, you must perform the
procedures outlined in PS–17 (40 CFR part
60, appendix B). If you are required to
measure and record flows at multiple
locations, repeat this procedure for each
location.
(5) Separate Sensor Check and System
Check by Pressure Source Flow Simulation
Method. This method applies only to flow
CPMS that use a differential pressure
measurement flow device, such as an orifice
plate, flow nozzle, or venturi tube. This
method may not be used to validate a flow
CPMS that measures gas flow by means of
one or more differential pressure tubes. To
perform the sensor check, remove the flow
constricting device and perform a visual
inspection for wear or other deformities
based on manufacturer’s recommendations.
Take any corrective action that is necessary
to ensure its proper operation. To perform
the system check, connect separate pressure
sources to the upstream and downstream
sides of your pressure CPMS, where the
pressure taps are normally connected. The
pressure sources must be calibrated and must
satisfy the accuracy requirements of section
6.2 of this procedure. The pressure sources
also must be adjustable, either continuously
or incrementally over the pressure range that
corresponds to the range of your flow CPMS.
Perform a leak test on all connections
between the calibrated pressure sources and
your flow CPMS using the method specified
in section 8.9 of this procedure. Using the
manufacturer’s literature or the procedures
specified in ASME MFC–3M–2004
(incorporated by reference-see § 60.17),
calculate the required pressure drop that
corresponds to the normal operating flow rate
expected for your flow CPMS. For CPMS that
use an orifice flow meter, the procedures
specified in ASHRAE 41.8–1989
(incorporated by reference-see § 60.17) also
can be used to calculate the pressure drop.
Use the calibrated pressure sources to apply
the calculated pressure drop to your flow
CPMS. Allow sufficient time for the
responses of the calibrated pressure sources
to reach equilibrium. Record the flow rate
measured by your flow CPMS. Using the flow
rate measured by your CPMS when the
calculated pressure drop was applied as the
value for Vc, follow the procedure specified
in section 12.2 of this procedure to determine
if your CPMS satisfies the accuracy
requirement of Table 6 of this procedure. If
you determine that your CPMS satisfies the
accuracy requirement of Table 6 of this
procedure, the accuracy audit is complete. If
your CPMS does not satisfy the accuracy
requirement of Table 6 of this procedure,
check all system components and take any
corrective action that is necessary to achieve
the required minimum accuracy. Repeat this
accuracy audit until the accuracy
E:\FR\FM\09OCP3.SGM
09OCP3
pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS3
59998
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 197 / Thursday, October 9, 2008 / Proposed Rules
requirement of Table 6 of this procedure is
satisfied. If you replace any electrical or
mechanical components of your flow CPMS,
you must perform the procedures outlined in
PS–17 (40 CFR part 60, appendix B). If you
are required to measure and record flows at
multiple locations, repeat this procedure for
each location.
(6) Relative Accuracy (RA) Test. This
method applies to any flow CPMS that
measures gas flow rate. If your flow CPMS
uses a differential pressure tube as the flow
sensor and does not include redundant
sensors, you must use this method to validate
your flow CPMS. The reference methods
(RM’s) applicable to this test are Methods 2,
2A, 2B, 2C, 2D, and 2F in 40 CFR part 60,
appendix A–1, and Method 2G in 40 CFR
part 60, appendix A–2. Conduct three sets of
RM tests. Mark the beginning and end of each
RM test period on the flow CPMS chart
recordings or other permanent record of
output. Determine the integrated flow rate for
each RM test period. Perform the same
calculations specified by PS–2 (40 CFR part
60, appendix B), section 7.5. If the RA is no
greater than 20 percent of the mean value of
the RM test data, the RA test is complete. If
the RA is greater than 20 percent of the mean
value of the RM test data, check all system
components and take any corrective action
that is necessary to achieve the required RA.
Repeat this RA test until the RA requirement
of this section is satisfied.
(7) Material Weight Comparison Method.
This method applies to any solid mass flow
CPMS that uses a combination of a belt
conveyor and scale and includes a totalizer.
To conduct this test, pass a quantity of preweighed material over the belt conveyor in a
manner consistent with actual loading
conditions. To weigh the test quantity of
material that is to be used during the
accuracy audit, you must use a scale that
satisfies the accuracy requirements of section
6.2 of this procedure. The test quantity must
be sufficient to challenge the conveyor beltscale system for at least three revolutions of
the belt. Record the length of the test.
Calculate the mass flow rate using the
measured weight and the recorded time.
Using this mass flow rate as the value for Vc,
follow the procedure specified in section
12.2 of this procedure to determine if your
CPMS satisfies the accuracy requirement of
Table 6 of this procedure. If your CPMS
satisfies the accuracy requirement of Table 6
of this procedure, the accuracy audit is
complete. If your CPMS does not satisfy the
accuracy requirement of Table 6 of this
procedure, check all system components and
take any corrective action that is necessary to
achieve the required minimum accuracy.
Repeat this accuracy audit procedure until
the accuracy requirement of Table 6 of this
procedure is satisfied. If you replace any
electrical or mechanical components of your
flow CPMS, you must perform the
procedures outlined in PS–17 (40 CFR part
60, appendix B). If you are required to
measure and record flow at multiple
locations, repeat this procedure for each
location.
8.4 How do I perform an accuracy audit
for my pH CPMS? To perform the accuracy
audit, you can choose one of the methods
VerDate Aug<31>2005
20:38 Oct 08, 2008
Jkt 217001
described in paragraphs (1) through (3) of
this section.
(1) Comparison to redundant pH sensor.
This method requires your CPMS to have a
primary pH sensor and a redundant pH
sensor. The redundant pH sensor must be
installed adjacent to the primary pH sensor
and must be subject to the same environment
as the primary pH sensor. To perform the
accuracy audit, concurrently record the pH
measured by the two pH sensors. You must
take these readings during periods when the
process or control device that is being
monitored by the CPMS is operating
normally. The two pH values must agree
within the minimum required accuracy
specified in Table 6 of this procedure. If your
CPMS satisfies the accuracy requirement of
Table 6 of this procedure, the accuracy audit
is complete. If your CPMS does not satisfy
the accuracy requirement of Table 6 of this
procedure, check all system components and
take any corrective action that is necessary to
achieve the required minimum accuracy.
Repeat this accuracy audit procedure until
the accuracy requirement of Table 6 of this
procedure is satisfied. If you replace any
electrical or mechanical components of your
pH CPMS, you must perform the procedures
outlined in PS–17 (40 CFR part 60, appendix
B). If you are required to measure and record
pH at multiple locations, repeat this
procedure for each location.
(2) Comparison to Calibrated pH Meter.
Place a calibrated pH measurement device
adjacent to your pH CPMS so that the
calibrated test device is subjected to the same
environment as your pH CPMS. The
calibrated pH measurement device must
satisfy the accuracy requirements specified in
section 6.2 of this procedure. Allow
sufficient time for the response of the
calibrated pH measurement device to reach
equilibrium. With the process or control
device that is monitored by your CPMS
operating under normal conditions, record
concurrently the pH measured by your pH
CPMS and the calibrated pH measurement
device. If concurrent pH readings are not
possible, extract a sufficiently large sample
from the process stream and perform
measurements using a portion of the sample
for each meter. Using the pH measured by the
calibrated pH measurement device as the
value for Vc, follow the procedure specified
in section 12.2 of this procedure to determine
if your CPMS satisfies the accuracy
requirement of Table 6 of this procedure. If
you determine that your CPMS satisfies the
accuracy requirement of Table 6, the
accuracy audit is complete. If your CPMS
does not satisfy the accuracy requirement of
Table 6 of this procedure, check all system
components and take any corrective action
that is necessary to achieve the required
minimum accuracy. Repeat this procedure
until the accuracy requirement of Table 6 of
this procedure is satisfied. If you replace any
electrical or mechanical components of the
primary CPMS, you must perform the
procedures outlined in PS–17 (40 CFR part
60, appendix B). If you are required to
measure and record pH at multiple locations,
repeat this procedure for each location.
(3) Single Point Calibration. This method
requires the use of a certified buffer solution.
PO 00000
Frm 00044
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
All buffer solutions used must be certified by
NIST and accurate to ±0.02 pH units at 25 °C
(77 °F). Set the temperature on your pH meter
to the temperature of the buffer solution,
typically room temperature or 25 °C (77 °F).
If your pH meter is equipped with automatic
temperature compensation, activate this
feature before calibrating. Set your pH meter
to measurement mode. Place the clean
electrodes into the container of fresh buffer
solution. If the expected pH of the process
fluid lies in the acidic range (less than 7 pH),
use a buffer solution with a pH value of 4.00.
If the expected pH of the process fluid lies
in the basic range (greater than 7 pH), use a
buffer solution with a pH value of 10.00.
Allow sufficient time for the response of your
CPMS to reach equilibrium. Record the pH
measured by your CPMS. Using the buffer
solution pH as the value for Vc, follow the
procedure specified in section 12.2 of this
procedure to determine if your CPMS
satisfies the accuracy requirement of Table 6
of this procedure. If you determine that your
CPMS satisfies the accuracy requirement of
Table 6 of this procedure, the accuracy audit
is complete. If your CPMS does not satisfy
the accuracy requirement of Table 6 of this
procedure, calibrate your pH CPMS using the
procedures specified in the manufacturer’s
owner’s manual. If the manufacturer’s
owner’s manual does not specify a two-point
calibration procedure, you must perform a
two-point calibration procedure based on
ASTM D 1293–99 (2005) (incorporated by
reference—see § 60.17). If you replace any
electrical or mechanical components of your
pH CPMS, you must perform the procedures
outlined in PS–17 (40 CFR part 60, appendix
B). If you are required to measure and record
pH at multiple locations, repeat this
procedure for each location. If you are
required to measure and record pH at
multiple locations, repeat this procedure for
each location.
8.5 How do I perform an accuracy audit
for my conductivity CPMS? To perform the
accuracy audit, you can choose one of the
methods described in paragraphs (1) through
(3) of this section.
(1) Comparison to Redundant Conductivity
Sensor. This method requires your CPMS to
have a primary conductivity sensor and a
redundant conductivity sensor. The
redundant conductivity sensor must be
installed adjacent to the primary
conductivity sensor and must be subject to
the same environment as the primary
conductivity sensor. To perform the accuracy
audit, concurrently record the conductivity
measured by the two conductivity sensors.
You must take these readings during periods
when the process or control device that is
being monitored by the CPMS is operating
normally. The two conductivity values must
agree within the minimum required accuracy
specified in Table 6 of this procedure. If your
CPMS satisfies the accuracy requirement of
Table 6 of this procedure, the accuracy audit
is complete. If your CPMS does not satisfy
the accuracy requirement of Table 6 of this
procedure, check all system components and
take any corrective action that is necessary to
achieve the required minimum accuracy.
Repeat this accuracy audit procedure until
the accuracy requirement of Table 6 of this
E:\FR\FM\09OCP3.SGM
09OCP3
pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 197 / Thursday, October 9, 2008 / Proposed Rules
procedure is satisfied. If you replace any
electrical or mechanical components of your
conductivity CPMS, you must perform the
procedures outlined in PS–17 (40 CFR part
60, appendix B). If you are required to
measure and record conductivity at multiple
locations, repeat this procedure for each
location.
(2) Comparison to Calibrated Conductivity
Meter. Place a calibrated conductivity
measurement device adjacent to your
conductivity CPMS so that the calibrated test
device is subjected to the same environment
as your conductivity CPMS. The calibrated
conductivity measurement device must
satisfy the accuracy requirements specified in
section 6.2 of this procedure. Allow
sufficient time for the response of the
calibrated conductivity measurement device
to reach equilibrium. With the process or
control device that is monitored by your
CPMS operating under normal conditions,
record concurrently the conductivity
measured by your conductivity CPMS and
the calibrated conductivity measurement
device. If concurrent conductivity readings
are not possible, extract a sufficiently large
sample from the process stream and perform
measurements using a portion of the sample
for each meter. Using the conductivity
measured by the calibrated conductivity
measurement device as the value for Vc,
follow the procedure specified in section
12.2 of this procedure to determine if your
CPMS satisfies the accuracy requirement of
Table 6 of this procedure. If you determine
that your CPMS satisfies the accuracy
requirement of Table 6 of this procedure, the
accuracy audit is complete. If your CPMS
does not satisfy the accuracy requirement of
Table 6 of this procedure, check all system
components and take any corrective action
that is necessary to achieve the required
minimum accuracy. Repeat this procedure
until the accuracy requirement of Table 6 of
this procedure is satisfied. If you replace any
electrical or mechanical components of the
primary CPMS, you must perform the
procedures outlined in PS–17 (40 CFR part
60, appendix B). If you are required to
measure and record conductivity at multiple
locations, repeat this procedure for each
location.
(3) Single Point Calibration. This method
requires the use of a certified conductivity
standard solution. All conductivity standard
solutions used must be certified by NIST and
accurate within ±2 percent micromhos per
centimeter (µmhos/cm) (±2 percent
microsiemens per centimeter µS/cm)) at 25
°C (77 °F). Choose a conductivity standard
solution that is close to the measuring range
for best results. Since conductivity is
dependent on temperature, the conductivity
tester should have an integral temperature
sensor that adjusts the reading to a standard
temperature, usually 25 °C (77 °F). If the
conductivity meter allows for manual
temperature compensation, set this value to
25 °C (77 °F). Place the clean electrodes into
the container of fresh conductivity standard
solution. Allow sufficient time for the
response of your CPMS to reach equilibrium.
Record the conductivity measured by your
CPMS. Using the conductivity standard
solution as the value for VC, follow the
VerDate Aug<31>2005
20:38 Oct 08, 2008
Jkt 217001
procedure specified in section 12.2 of this
procedure to determine if your CPMS
satisfies the accuracy requirement of Table 6
of this procedure. If you determine that your
CPMS satisfies the accuracy requirement of
Table 6 of this procedure, the accuracy audit
is complete. If your CPMS does not satisfy
the accuracy requirement of Table 6 of this
procedure, calibrate your conductivity CPMS
using the procedures specified in the
manufacturer’s owner’s manual. If the
manufacturer’s owner’s manual does not
specify a calibration procedure, you must
perform a calibration procedure based on
ASTM D 1125–95 (2005) or ASTM D 5391–
99 (2005) (incorporated by reference—see
§ 60.17). If you replace any electrical or
mechanical components of your conductivity
CPMS, you must perform the procedures
outlined in PS–17 (40 CFR part 60, appendix
B). If you are required to measure and record
conductivity at multiple locations, repeat this
procedure for each location.
8.6 Are there any acceptable alternative
procedures for evaluating my CPMS? You
may use alternative procedures for evaluating
the operation of your CPMS if the alternative
procedures are approved by the
Administrator.
8.7 How often must I perform an accuracy
audit of my CPMS? Depending on the
parameter measured (temperature, pressure,
flow, pH, or conductivity), you must perform
the accuracy audits according to the
frequencies specified in paragraphs (1) and
(2) of this section.
(1) Temperature, Pressure, Flow, and
Conductivity. If your CPMS measures
temperature, pressure, flow rate, or
conductivity, you must perform an accuracy
audit of your CPMS at least quarterly using
the procedures specified in sections 8.1
through 8.3 and 8.5, respectively, of this
procedure. You also must perform within 48
hours an accuracy audit of your CPMS
following any periods of at least 24 hours in
duration throughout which:
(i) The value of the measured parameter
exceeded the maximum rated operating limit
of the sensor, as specified in the
manufacturer’s owner’s manual, or
(ii) The value of the measured parameter
remained off the scale of the CPMS data
recording system.
(2) pH. If your CPMS measures pH, you
must perform an accuracy audit of your pH
CPMS at least weekly using the procedures
specified in section 8.4 of this procedure.
8.8 What other checks must I do on my
CPMS? According to the parameter being
measured (temperature, pressure, flow, pH,
or conductivity), you must perform the
additional checks specified in paragraphs (1)
through (4) of this section.
(1) Temperature. If your temperature CPMS
is not equipped with a redundant
temperature sensor, at least quarterly,
perform a visual inspection of all
components of your temperature CPMS for
physical and operational integrity and all
electrical connections for oxidation and
galvanic corrosion. You must take necessary
corrective action to replace or repair any
damaged components as soon as possible.
(2) Pressure. At least monthly, check all
mechanical connections for leakage. If your
PO 00000
Frm 00045
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
59999
pressure CPMS is not equipped with a
redundant pressure sensor, at least quarterly,
perform a visual inspection of all
components of the pressure CPMS for
physical and operational integrity and all
electrical connections for oxidation and
galvanic corrosion. You must take necessary
corrective action to replace or repair any
damaged components as soon as possible.
(3) Flow Rate. At least monthly, check all
mechanical connections for leakage. If your
flow CPMS is not equipped with a redundant
flow sensor, at least quarterly, perform a
visual inspection of all components of the
flow CPMS for physical and operational
integrity and all electrical connections for
oxidation and galvanic corrosion. You must
take necessary corrective action to replace or
repair any damaged components as soon as
possible.
(4) pH. If your pH CPMS is not equipped
with a redundant sensor, at least monthly,
perform a visual inspection of all
components of the pH CPMS for physical and
operational integrity and all electrical
connections for oxidation and galvanic
corrosion. You must take necessary
corrective action to replace or repair any
damaged components as soon as possible.
(5) Conductivity. If your conductivity
CPMS is not equipped with a redundant
sensor, at least quarterly, perform a visual
inspection of all components of the
conductivity CPMS for physical and
operational integrity and all electrical
connections for oxidation and galvanic
corrosion. You must take necessary
corrective action to replace or repair any
damaged components as soon as possible.
8.9 How do I perform a leak test on
pressure connections, as required by this
procedure? You can satisfy the leak test
requirements of sections 8.2 and 8.3 of this
procedure by following the procedures
specified in paragraphs (1) through (3) of this
section.
(1) For each pressure connection, apply a
pressure that is equal to the highest pressure
the connection is likely to be subjected to or
0.24 kilopascals (1.0 inch of water column),
whichever is greater.
(2) Close off the connection between the
applied pressure source and the connection
that is being leak-tested.
(3) If the applied pressure remains stable
for at least 15 seconds, the connection is
considered to be leak tight. If the applied
pressure does not remain stable for at least
15 seconds, take any corrective action
necessary to make the connection leak tight
and repeat this leak test procedure.
9.0 What quality control measures are
required by this procedure for my CPMS?
You must develop and implement a QA/
QC program for your CPMS according to
section 9.1 of this procedure. You must also
maintain written QA/QC procedures for your
CPMS.
9.1 What elements must be covered by
my QA/QC program? Your QA/QC program
must address, at a minimum, the elements
listed in paragraphs (1) through (5) of this
section.
(1) Accuracy audit procedures for the
CPMS sensor;
E:\FR\FM\09OCP3.SGM
09OCP3
60000
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 197 / Thursday, October 9, 2008 / Proposed Rules
Ah =
Ar
Ac
( Eq. 4-1)
Where:
Ah = Accuracy hierarchy, dimensionless.
Ar = Required accuracy (Ap or Av) specified
in Table 6 of this procedure, percent or
units of parameter value (e.g., degrees
Celsius, kilopascals, liters per minute,
pH units).
Ac = Accuracy of calibrated measurement
device, same units as Ar.
(2) If the accuracy hierarchy (Ah) is equal
to or greater than 3.0, the calibrated
measurement device satisfies the accuracy
hierarchy of section 6.2 of this procedure.
12.2 How do I determine if my CPMS
satisfies the accuracy requirement of
Procedure 4? To determine if your CPMS
satisfies the accuracy requirement of this
procedure, follow the procedure described in
paragraphs (1) through (4) of this section.
(1) If your CPMS measures temperature,
pressure, or flow rate, calculate the accuracy
percent value (Apv) using Equation 4–2. If
your CPMS measures pH, proceed to
paragraph (2) of this section.
pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS3
Apv = Vc
Ap
100
( Eq. 4-2 )
Where:
Apv = Accuracy percent value, units of
parameter measured (e.g., degrees
Celsius, kilopascals, liters per minute).
Vc = Parameter value measured by the
calibrated measurement device or
measured by your CPMS when a
calibrated signal simulator is applied to
VerDate Aug<31>2005
20:38 Oct 08, 2008
Jkt 217001
d m = Vc − Vm
( Eq. 4-3)
Where:
dm = Measured deviation, units of the
parameter measured (e.g., degrees
Celsius, kilopascals, liters per minute).
Vc = Parameter value measured by the
calibrated measurement device or
measured by your CPMS when a
calibrated signal simulator is applied to
your CPMS during the initial validation
check, units of parameter measured (e.g.,
degrees Celsius, kilopascals, liters per
minute).
Vm = Parameter value measured by your
CPMS during the initial validation
check, units of parameter measured (e.g.,
degrees Celsius, kilopascals, liters per
minute).
(6) Compare the measured deviation (dm) to
the allowable deviation (da). If the measured
deviation is less than or equal to the
allowable deviation, your CPMS satisfies the
accuracy requirement of this procedure.
13.0 What performance criteria must I
demonstrate for my CPMS to comply with
this quality assurance procedure?
You must demonstrate that your CPMS
meets the applicable accuracy requirements
specified in Table 6 of this procedure.
14.0 What are the recordkeeping
requirements for Procedure 4?
You must satisfy the recordkeeping
requirements specified in sections 14.1 and
14.2 of this procedure.
14.1 What data does this procedure
require me to record for my CPMS? You must
record the results of all CPMS accuracy
audits and a summary of all corrective
actions taken to return your CPMS to normal
operation.
14.2 For how long must I maintain the
QA data that this procedure requires me to
PO 00000
Frm 00046
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
16.0
Waste Management [Reserved]
17.0 Which references are relevant to
Procedure 4?
1. Technical Guidance Document:
Compliance Assurance Monitoring. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of
Air Quality Planning and Standards,
Emission Measurement Center. August 1998.
(https://www.epa.gov/ttn/emc/cam.html).
2. NEMA Standard Publication 250.
‘‘Enclosures for Electrical Equipment, 1000
Volts Maximum’’.
3. ASTM E–220–07e1: ‘‘Standard Test
Methods for Calibration of Thermocouples by
Comparison Techniques’’. American Society
for Testing and Materials. 2007.
4. ISA–MC96–1–1982: ‘‘Temperature
Measurement Thermocouples’’. American
National Standards Institute. August 1982.
5. The pH and Conductivity Handbook.
Omega Engineering, Inc. 1995.
6. ASTM E–452–02 (2007): ‘‘Standard Test
Method for Calibration of Refractory Metal
Thermocouples Using an Optical Pyrometer’’.
American Society for Testing and Materials.
2002.
7. ASTM E 644–06: ‘‘Standard Test
Methods for Testing Industrial Resistance
Thermometers’’. American Society for
Testing and Materials. 2006.
8. ASME B 40.100–2005: ‘‘Pressure Gauges
and Gauge Attachments’’. American Society
of Mechanical Engineers. February 2005.
9. ASTM E 251–92 (2003): ‘‘Standard Test
Methods for Performance Characteristics of
Metallic Bonded Resistance Strain Gages’’.
American Society for Testing and Materials.
2003.
10. ANSI/ASME MFC–3M–2004:
‘‘Measurement of Fluid Flow in Pipes Using
Orifice, Nozzle, and Venturi’’. American
Society of Mechanical Engineers. 1989
(Reaffirmed 1995).
11. ANSI/ASME MFC–9M–1988:
‘‘Measurement of Liquid Flow in Closed
Conduits by Weighing Method’’. American
Society of Mechanical Engineers. 1989.
12. ASHRAE 41.8–1989: ‘‘Standard
Methods of Measurement of Flow of Liquids
in Pipes Using Orifice Flow Meters’’.
American Society of Heating, Refrigerating
and Air-Conditioning Engineers, Inc. 1989.
13. ISA RP 16.6–1961: ‘‘Methods and
Equipment for Calibration of Variable Area
Meters (Rotameters)’’. Instrumentation,
Systems, and Automation Society. 1961.
14. ANSI/ISA–RP31.1–1977:
‘‘Specification, Installation, and Calibration
of Turbine Flow Meters’’. Instrumentation,
Systems, and Automation Society. 1977.
15. ISO 8316:1987: ‘‘Measurement of
Liquid Flow in Closed Conduits—Method by
Collection of Liquid in a Volumetric Tank’’.
International Organization for
Standardization. 1987.
16. NIST Handbook 44—2002 Edition:
‘‘Specifications, Tolerances, And Other
E:\FR\FM\09OCP3.SGM
09OCP3
EP09OC08.015
12.0 What calculations are needed?
The calculations needed to comply with
this procedure are described in sections 12.1
and 12.2 of this procedure.
12.1 How do I determine if a calibrated
measurement device satisfies the accuracy
hierarchy specified in section 6.2 of this
procedure? To determine if a calibrated
measurement device satisfies the accuracy
hierarchy requirement, follow the procedure
described in paragraphs (1) and (2) of this
section.
(1) Calculate the accuracy hierarchy (Ah)
using Equation 4–1.
record for my CPMS? You are required to
keep the records required by this procedure
for your CPMS for a period of 5 years. At a
minimum, you must maintain the most
recent 2 years of data onsite and available for
inspection by the enforcement agency.
15.0 Pollution Prevention [Reserved]
EP09OC08.014
11.0 Analytical Procedure [Reserved]
your CPMS during the initial validation
check, units of parameter measured (e.g.,
degrees Celsius, kilopascals, liters per
minute).
Ap = Accuracy percentage specified in Table
6 that corresponds to your CPMS,
percent.
(2) If your CPMS measures temperature,
pressure, conductivity, or flow rate other
than mass flow rate or steam flow rate,
compare the accuracy percent value (Apv) to
the accuracy value (Av) specified in Table 6
of this procedure and select the greater of the
two values. Use this greater value as the
allowable deviation (da) in paragraph (4) of
this section.
(3) If your CPMS measures pH, use the
accuracy value (Av) specified in Table 6 of
this procedure as the allowable deviation
(da).
(4) If your CPMS measures steam flow rate,
mass flow rate, or conductivity, use the
accuracy percent value (Apv) calculated using
Equation 2 as the allowable deviation (da).
(5) Using Equation 4–3, calculate the
measured deviation (dm), which is the
absolute value of the difference between the
parameter value measured by the calibrated
device (Vc) and the value measured by your
CPMS (Vm).
EP09OC08.013
(2) Calibration procedures, including
procedures for assessing and adjusting the
calibration drift (CD) of the CPMS;
(3) Preventive maintenance of the CPMS
(including a spare parts inventory);
(4) Data recording, calculations, and
reporting; and
(5) Corrective action for a malfunctioning
CPMS.
9.1 How long must I maintain written
QA/QC procedures for my CPMS? You are
required to keep written QA/QC procedures
on record and available for inspection by the
enforcement agency for the life of your CPMS
or until you are no longer subject to the
requirements of this procedure.
10.0 Calibration and Standardization
[Reserved]
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 197 / Thursday, October 9, 2008 / Proposed Rules
Technical Requirements for Weighing and
Measuring Devices, as adopted by the 86th
National Conference on Weights and
Measures 2001’’, Section 2.21: ‘‘BeltConveyor Scale Systems’’.
17. ISO 10790:1999: ‘‘Measurement of
Fluid Flow in Closed Conduits—Guidance to
the Selection, Installation, and Use of
Coriolis Meters (Mass Flow, Density and
Volume Flow Measurements’’. International
Organization for Standardization. 1999.
18. ASTM D 1125–95 (2005): ‘‘Standard
Test Methods for Electrical Conductivity and
Resistivity of Water’’. American Society for
Testing and Materials. 2005.
60001
19. ASTM D 5391–99 (2005): ‘‘Standard
Test Method for Electrical Conductivity and
Resistivity of a Flowing High Purity Water
Sample’’. American Society for Testing and
Materials. 2005.
18.0
4?
What tables are relevant to Procedure
TABLE 1—SENSOR COMPONENTS OF COMMONLY USED CPMS
For a CPMS that
measures . . .
Using a . . .
The sensor component consists of the . . .
1. Temperature .......
a. Thermocouple ....................................
b. Resistance temperature detector ......
c. Optical pyrometer ..............................
d. Thermistor .........................................
e. Temperature transducer ....................
a. Pressure gauge .................................
b. Pressure transducer ..........................
Thermocouple.
(RTD).
Optical assembly and detector.
Thermistor.
Integrated circuit sensor?
Gauge assembly, including bourdon element, bellows element, or diaphragm.
Strain gauge assembly, capacitance assembly, linear variable differential transformer, force balance assembly, potentiometer, variable reluctance assembly,
piezoelectric assembly, or piezoresistive assembly.
U-tube or differential manometer.
Flow constricting element (nozzle, Venturi, or orifice plate) and differential pressure sensor.
Pitot tube, or other array of tubes that measure velocity pressure and static
pressure, and differential pressure sensor.
Magnetic coil assembly.
Piston, blade, vane, propeller, disk, or gear assembly.
Rotor or turbine assembly.
Vortex generating and sensing elements.
Feedback passage, side wall, control port, and thermal sensor.
Sonic transducers, receivers, timer, and temperature sensor.
Thermal element and temperature sensors.
U-tube and magnetic sensing elements.
Float assembly.
Sensing plate.
Scale.
Electrode.
Electrode.
2. Pressure .............
3. Flow rate .............
c. Manometer .........................................
a. Differential pressure device ...............
b. Differential pressure tube ..................
4. pH .......................
5. Conductivity ........
c. Magnetic flow meter ..........................
d. Positive displacement flow meter ......
e. Turbine flow meter ............................
f. Vortex formation flow meter ...............
g. Fluidic oscillating flow meter .............
h. Ultrasonic flow meter .........................
i. Thermal flow meter .............................
j. Coriolis mass flow meter ....................
k. Rotameter ..........................................
l. Solids flow meter ................................
m. Belt conveyor ....................................
pH meter ................................................
Conductivity meter .................................
TABLE 2—METHODS FOR TEMPERATURE SENSOR CHECK
If the temperature sensor in your CPMS is a . . .
And is used in . . .
You can perform the accuracy
audit of the sensor using . . .
1. Thermocouple ..........................................................
2. Thermocouple ..........................................................
3. Resistance temperature detector .............................
Any application ............................................................
A reducing environment ..............................................
Any application ............................................................
ASTM E220–07e1.
ASTM E452–02 (2007).
ASTM E644–06.
TABLE 3—METHODS FOR PRESSURE SENSOR CHECK
If the pressure sensor in your CPMS is a . . .
You can perform the accuracy audit of the sensor using . . .
1. Pressure gauge ....................................................................................
2. Metallic bonded resistance strain gauge .............................................
ASME B40.100–2005.
ASTM E251–92 (2003).
TABLE 4—VOLUMETRIC METHODS FOR FLOW METER ACCURACY AUDITS
Title
1. ISA RP 16.6–1961 ......................
2. ANSI/ISA RP 31.1–1977 ............
3. ISO 10790:1999 ..........................
pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS3
Designation
Methods and Equipment for Calibration of Variable Area Meters (Rotameters).
Specification, Installation, and Calibration of Turbine Flow Meters.
Measurement of Fluid Flow in Closed Conduits-Guidance to the Selection, Installation and Use of Coriolis
Meters (Mass Flow, Density and Volume Flow Measurements).
Measurement of Liquid Flow in Closed Conduits-Method by Collection of Liquid in a Volumetric Tank.
4. ISO 8316:1987 ............................
TABLE 5—WEIGHING METHODS FOR FLOW METER ACCURACY AUDITS
Designation
Title
1. ASHRAE 41.8–1989 ...................
VerDate Aug<31>2005
20:38 Oct 08, 2008
Standard Methods of Measurement of Flow of Liquids in Pipes Using Orifice Flow Meters.
Jkt 217001
PO 00000
Frm 00047
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\09OCP3.SGM
09OCP3
60002
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 197 / Thursday, October 9, 2008 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 5—WEIGHING METHODS FOR FLOW METER ACCURACY AUDITS—Continued
Designation
Title
2. ISA RP 16.6–1961 ......................
3. ANSI/ISA RP 31.1–1977 ............
4. NIST Handbook 44–2002 Edition, Section 2.21.
Methods and Equipment for Calibration of Variable Area Meters (Rotameters).
Specification, Installation, and Calibration of Turbine Flow Meters.
Specifications, Tolerances, And Other Technical Requirements for Weighing and Measuring Devices, as
adopted by the 86th National Conference on Weights and Measures 2001: Belt-Conveyor Scale Systems.
Measurement of Liquid Flow in Closed Conduits by Weighing Method.
5. ANSI/ASME MFC–9M–1988 ......
TABLE 6—CPMS ACCURACY REQUIREMENTS
If your CPMS measures . . .
You must demonstrate that your CPMS operates within . . .
1. Temperature, in a non-cryogenic
application.
2. Temperature, in a cryogenic application.
3. Pressure ......................................
An accuracy percentage (Ap) of ±1.0 percent of the temperature measured in degrees Celsius or within an
accuracy value (Av) of 2.8 degrees Celsius (5 degrees Fahrenheit), whichever is greater.
An accuracy percentage (Ap) of ±2.5 percent of the temperature measured in degrees Celsius or within an
accuracy value (Av) of 2.8 degrees Celsius (5 degrees Fahrenheit), whichever is greater.
An accuracy percentage (Ap) of ±5 percent or an accuracy value (Av) of 0.12 kilopascals (0.5 inches of
water column), whichever is greater.
An accuracy percentage (Ap) of ±5 percent or an accuracy value (Av) of 1.9 liters per minute (0.5 gallons
per minute), whichever is greater.
a. A relative accuracy of ±20 percent, if you demonstrate compliance using the relative accuracy test, or
b. An accuracy percentage (Ap) of ±10 percent, if your CPMS measures steam flow rate, or
c. An accuracy percentage (Ap) of ±5 percent or an accuracy value (Av) of 280 liters per minute (10 cubic
feet per minute), whichever is greater, for all other gases and accuracy audit methods.
An accuracy percentage (Ap) of ±5 percent.
An accuracy value (Av) of ±0.2 pH units.
An accuracy percentage (Ap) of ±5 percent.
4. Liquid flow rate ...........................
5. Gas flow rate ..............................
6. Mass flow rate ............................
7. pH ...............................................
8. Conductivity ................................
e. Revising paragraph (d)(2)(ii); and
f. Revising paragraphs (e)(2), (e)(3)(i), and
(e)(4).
The revisions and additions read as
follows:
PART 61—[AMENDED]
6. The authority citation for part 61
continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401, et seq.
§ 63.8
Subpart A—[Amended]
7. Section 61.14 is amended by
redesignating paragraph (a) as paragraph
(a)(1) and adding paragraph (a)(2) to
read as follows:
§ 61.14 Monitoring requirements.
(a)(1) * * *
(2) Performance specifications for
continuous parameter monitoring systems
(CPMS) promulgated under 40 CFR part 60,
appendix B and quality assurance procedures
for CPMS promulgated under 40 CFR part 60,
appendix F apply instead of the requirements
for CPMS specified in an applicable subpart
upon promulgation of the performance
specifications and quality assurance
procedures for CPMS.
*
*
*
*
*
PART 63—[AMENDED]
8. The authority citation for part 63
continues to read as follows:
pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS3
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401, et seq.
Subpart A—[Amended]
9. Section 63.8 is amended by:
a. Revising paragraph (a)(2);
b. Revising paragraph (c)(2)(i);
c. Revising paragraph (c)(4) introductory
text and adding paragraph (c)(4)(iii);
d. Revising paragraphs (c)(6) and (c)(7)(i);
VerDate Aug<31>2005
20:38 Oct 08, 2008
Jkt 217001
Monitoring requirements.
(a) * * *
(2)(i) For the purposes of this part, all
CMS required under relevant standards
shall be subject to the provisions of this
section upon promulgation of
performance specifications and quality
assurance procedures for CMS as
specified in the relevant standard or
otherwise by the Administrator.
(ii) Performance specifications for
CPMS promulgated under 40 CFR part
60, appendix B and quality assurance
procedures for CPMS promulgated
under 40 CFR part 60, appendix F apply
instead of the requirements for CPMS
specified in the relevant standard upon
promulgation of the performance
specifications and quality assurance
procedures for CPMS.
*
*
*
*
*
(c) * * *
(2)(i) All CMS must be installed such
that representative measurements of
emissions or process parameters from
the affected source are obtained. In
addition, CMS shall be located
according to procedures contained in
the applicable performance
specification(s).
*
*
*
*
*
(4) Except for system breakdowns,
out-of-control periods, repairs,
PO 00000
Frm 00048
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
maintenance periods, calibration
checks, and zero (low-level) and highlevel calibration drift adjustments, all
CMS, including COMS, CEMS, and
CPMS, shall be in continuous operation
and shall meet minimum frequency of
operation requirements as follows:
*
*
*
*
*
(iii) All CPMS shall complete a
minimum of one cycle of operation
(sampling, analyzing, and data
recording) for each successive time
period specified in the relevant
standard.
*
*
*
*
*
(6) The owner or operator of a CMS
that is not a CPMS, which is installed
in accordance with the provisions of
this part and the applicable CMS
performance specification(s) shall check
the zero (low-level) and high-level
calibration drifts at least once daily in
accordance with the written procedure
specified in the performance evaluation
plan developed under paragraphs
(e)(3)(i) and (e)(3)(ii) of this section. The
zero (low-level) and high-level
calibration drifts shall be adjusted, at a
minimum, whenever the 24-hour zero
(low-level) drift exceeds two times the
limits of the applicable performance
specification(s) specified in the relevant
standard. The system must allow the
amount of excess zero (low-level) and
high-level drift measured at the 24-hour
interval checks to be recorded and
quantified, whenever specified. For
E:\FR\FM\09OCP3.SGM
09OCP3
pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 197 / Thursday, October 9, 2008 / Proposed Rules
COMS, all optical and instrumental
surfaces exposed to the effluent gases
shall be cleaned prior to performing the
zero (low-level) and high-level drift
adjustments; the optical surfaces and
instrumental surfaces shall be cleaned
when the cumulative automatic zero
compensation, if applicable, exceeds 4
percent opacity.
*
*
*
*
*
(7)(i) A CMS is out of control if—
(A) The COMS or CEMS zero (lowlevel), mid-level (if applicable), or highlevel calibration drift (CD) exceeds two
times the applicable CD specification in
the applicable performance
specification or in the relevant standard;
or
(B) The COMS or CEMS fails a
performance test audit (e.g., cylinder gas
audit), relative accuracy audit, relative
accuracy test audit, or linearity test
audit; or
(C) The COMS CD exceeds two times
the limit in the applicable performance
specification in the relevant standard; or
(D) The CPMS fails an accuracy audit.
*
*
*
*
*
(d) * * *
(2) * * *
(ii) Determination and adjustment of
the calibration drift of the CMS, where
applicable;
*
*
*
*
*
(e) * * *
(2) Notification of performance
evaluation. The owner or operator shall
notify the Administrator in writing of
the date of the performance evaluation
of a COMS or CEMS simultaneously
with the notification of the performance
test date required under § 63.7(b) or at
least 60 days prior to the date the
performance evaluation is scheduled to
begin if no performance test is required.
(3)(i) Submission of site-specific
performance evaluation test plan. Before
conducting a required COMS or CEMS
performance evaluation, the owner or
operator of an affected source shall
develop and submit a site-specific
performance evaluation test plan to the
Administrator for approval upon
request. The performance evaluation
test plan shall include the evaluation
program objectives, an evaluation
program summary, the performance
evaluation schedule, data quality
objectives, and both an internal and
external QA program. Data quality
objectives are the pre-evaluation
expectations of precision, accuracy, and
completeness of data.
*
*
*
*
*
(4) Conduct of performance
evaluation and performance evaluation
dates. The owner or operator of an
affected source shall conduct a
VerDate Aug<31>2005
21:16 Oct 08, 2008
Jkt 217001
performance evaluation of a required
CMS during any performance test
required under § 63.7 in accordance
with the applicable performance
specification or QA procedure as
specified in the relevant standard.
Notwithstanding the requirement in the
previous sentence, if the owner or
operator of an affected source elects to
submit COMS data for compliance with
a relevant opacity emission standard as
provided under § 63.6(h)(7), he/she
shall conduct a performance evaluation
of the COMS as specified in the relevant
standard, before the performance test
required under § 63.7 is conducted in
time to submit the results of the
performance evaluation as specified in
paragraph (e)(5)(ii) of this section. If a
performance test is not required, or the
requirement for a performance test has
been waived under § 63.7(h), the owner
or operator of an affected source shall
conduct the performance evaluation not
later than 180 days after the appropriate
compliance date for the affected source,
as specified in § 63.7(a), or as otherwise
specified in the relevant standard.
*
*
*
*
*
Subpart SS—[Amended]
10. Section 63.996 is amended by
adding paragraphs (c)(7) through (c)(10)
to read as follows:
§ 63.996 General monitoring requirements
for control and recovery devices.
*
*
*
*
*
(c) * * *
(7) For each CPMS, the owner or
operator must meet the requirements in
paragraphs (c)(7)(i) through (vi) of this
section.
(i) Satisfy all requirements of
applicable performance specifications
for CPMS established under 40 CFR part
60, appendix B.
(ii) Satisfy all requirements of quality
assurance (QA) procedures for CPMS
established under 40 CFR part 60,
appendix F.
(iii) The CPMS must complete a
minimum of one cycle of operation for
each successive 15-minute period.
(iv) To calculate a valid hourly
average, there must be at least four
equally spaced values for that hour,
excluding data collected during the
periods described in paragraph (c)(5) of
this section.
(v) Calculate a daily average using all
of the valid hourly averages for each
day.
(vi) Except for redundant sensors, any
device that is used to conduct an initial
validation or accuracy audit of a CPMS
must meet the accuracy requirements
specified in paragraphs (c)(7)(vi)(A) and
(B) of this section.
PO 00000
Frm 00049
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
60003
(A) The device must have an accuracy
that is traceable to National Institute of
Standards and Technology (NIST)
standards.
(B) The device must be at least three
times as accurate as the required
accuracy for the CPMS.
(8) For each temperature CPMS, the
owner or operator must meet the
requirements in paragraphs (c)(8)(i)
through (ix) of this section.
(i) Install each sensor of the
temperature CPMS in a location that
provides representative temperature
measurements over all operating
conditions, taking into account the
manufacturer’s guidelines.
(ii) For a noncryogenic temperature
range, use a temperature CPMS with a
minimum tolerance of 2.8 deg. C or 1.0
percent of the temperature value,
whichever is larger.
(iii) For a cryogenic temperature
range, use a temperature CPMS with a
minimum tolerance of 2.8 deg. C or 2.5
percent of the temperature value,
whichever is larger.
(iv) The data recording system
associated with the CPMS must have a
resolution of one-half of the applicable
required overall accuracy of the CPMS,
as specified in paragraph (c)(8)(ii) or (iii)
of this section, or better.
(v) Perform an initial calibration of
the CPMS according to the procedures
in the manufacturer’s owner’s manual.
(vi) Perform an initial validation of
the CPMS according to the requirements
in paragraph (c)(8)(vi)(A) or (B) of this
section.
(A) Place the sensor of a calibrated
temperature measurement device
adjacent to the sensor of the temperature
CPMS in a location that is subject to the
same environment as the sensor of the
temperature CPMS. The calibrated
temperature measurement device must
satisfy the accuracy requirements of
(c)(7)(vi) of this section. Allow sufficient
time for the response of the calibrated
temperature measurement device to
reach equilibrium. With the process and
control device that is monitored by the
CPMS operating normally, record
concurrently and compare the
temperatures measured by the
temperature CPMS and the calibrated
temperature measurement device. Using
the calibrated temperature measurement
device as the reference, the temperature
measured by the temperature CPMS
must be within the accuracy specified in
paragraph (c)(8)(ii) or (iii) of this
section, whichever applies.
(B) Perform any of the initial
validation methods for temperature
CPMS specified in applicable
performance specifications established
under 40 CFR part 60, appendix B.
E:\FR\FM\09OCP3.SGM
09OCP3
pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS3
60004
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 197 / Thursday, October 9, 2008 / Proposed Rules
(vii) Perform an accuracy audit of the
temperature CPMS at least quarterly,
according to the requirements in
paragraph (c)(8)(vii)(A), (B), or (C) of
this section.
(A) If the temperature CPMS includes
a redundant temperature sensor, record
three pairs of concurrent temperature
measurements within a 24-hour period.
Each pair of concurrent measurements
must consist of a temperature
measurement by each of the two
temperature sensors. The minimum
time interval between any two such
pairs of consecutive temperature
measurements is one hour. The readings
must be taken during periods when the
process and control device that is
monitored by the CPMS is operating
normally. Calculate the mean of the
three values for each temperature
sensor. The mean values must agree
within the required overall accuracy of
the CPMS, as specified in paragraph
(c)(8)(ii) or (iii) of this section,
whichever applies.
(B) If the temperature CPMS does not
include a redundant temperature sensor,
place the sensor of a calibrated
temperature measurement device
adjacent to the sensor of the temperature
CPMS in a location that is subject to the
same environment as the sensor of the
temperature CPMS. The calibrated
temperature measurement device must
satisfy the accuracy requirements of
paragraph (c)(7)(vi) of this section.
Allow sufficient time for the response of
the calibrated temperature measurement
device to reach equilibrium. With the
process and control device that is
monitored by the CPMS operating
normally, record concurrently and
compare the temperatures measured by
the temperature CPMS and the
calibrated temperature measurement
device. Using the calibrated temperature
measurement device as the reference,
the temperature measured by the
temperature CPMS must be within the
accuracy specified in paragraph (c)(8)(ii)
or (iii) of this section, whichever
applies.
(C) Perform any of the accuracy audit
methods for temperature CPMS
specified in applicable QA procedures
established under 40 CFR part 60,
appendix F.
(viii) Conduct an accuracy audit
following any 24-hour period
throughout which the temperature
measured by the CPMS exceeds the
manufacturer’s specified maximum
operating temperature range, or install a
new temperature sensor.
(ix) If the CPMS is not equipped with
a redundant temperature sensor, at least
quarterly, perform a visual inspection of
VerDate Aug<31>2005
20:38 Oct 08, 2008
Jkt 217001
all components for integrity, oxidation,
and galvanic corrosion.
(9) For each pressure CPMS, the
owner or operator must meet the
requirements in paragraph (c)(9)(i)
through (ix) of this section.
(i) Install each sensor of the pressure
CPMS in a location that provides
representative pressure measurements
over all operating conditions, taking
into account the manufacturer’s
guidelines.
(ii) Use a pressure CPMS with a
minimum tolerance of ±5 percent or
0.12 kilopascals (0.5 inches of water
column), whichever is greater.
(iii) The data recording system
associated with the pressure CPMS must
have a resolution of one-half of the
required overall accuracy of the CPMS,
as specified in paragraph (c)(9)(ii) of this
section.
(iv) Perform an initial calibration of
the CPMS according to the procedures
in the manufacturer’s owner’s manual.
(v) Perform an initial validation of the
CPMS according to the requirements in
paragraph (c)(9)(v)(A) or (B) of this
section.
(A) Place the sensor of a calibrated
pressure measurement device adjacent
to the sensor of the pressure CPMS in
a location that is subject to the same
environment as the sensor of the
pressure CPMS. The calibrated pressure
measurement device must satisfy the
accuracy requirements of paragraph
(c)(7)(vi) of this section. Allow sufficient
time for the response of the calibrated
pressure measurement device to reach
equilibrium. With the process and
control device that is monitored by the
CPMS operating normally, record
concurrently and compare the pressure
measured by the pressure CPMS and the
calibrated pressure measurement
device. Using the calibrated pressure
measurement device as the reference,
the pressure measured by the pressure
CPMS must be within the accuracy
specified in paragraph (c)(9)(ii) of this
section.
(B) Perform any of the initial
validation methods for pressure CPMS
specified in applicable performance
specifications established under 40 CFR
part 60, appendix B.
(vi) Perform an accuracy audit of the
pressure CPMS at least quarterly,
according to the requirements in
paragraph (c)(9)(vi)(A), (B), or (C) of this
section.
(A) If the pressure CPMS includes a
redundant pressure sensor, record three
pairs of concurrent pressure
measurements within a 24-hour period.
Each pair of concurrent measurements
must consist of a pressure measurement
by each of the two pressure sensors. The
PO 00000
Frm 00050
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
minimum time interval between any
two such pairs of consecutive pressure
measurements is 1 hour. The readings
must be taken during periods when the
process and control device that is
monitored by the CPMS is operating
normally. Calculate the mean of the
three pressure measurement values for
each pressure sensor. The mean values
must agree within the required overall
accuracy of the CPMS, as specified in
paragraph (c)(9)(ii) of this section.
(B) If the pressure CPMS does not
include a redundant pressure sensor,
place the sensor of a calibrated pressure
measurement device adjacent to the
sensor of the pressure CPMS in a
location that is subject to the same
environment as the sensor of the
pressure CPMS. The calibrated pressure
measurement device must satisfy the
accuracy requirements of paragraph
(c)(7)(vi) of this section. Allow sufficient
time for the response of the calibrated
pressure measurement device to reach
equilibrium. With the process and
control device that is monitored by the
CPMS operating normally, record
concurrently and compare the pressure
measured by the pressure CPMS and the
calibrated pressure measurement
device. Using the calibrated pressure
measurement device as the reference,
the pressure measured by the pressure
CPMS must be within the accuracy
specified in paragraph (c)(9)(ii) of this
section.
(C) Perform any of the accuracy audit
methods for pressure CPMS specified in
applicable QA procedures established
under 40 CFR part 60, appendix F.
(vii) Conduct an accuracy audit
following any 24-hour period
throughout which the pressure
measured by the CPMS exceeds the
manufacturer’s specified maximum
operating pressure range, or install a
new pressure sensor.
(viii) At least monthly, check all
mechanical connections for leakage.
(ix) If the CPMS is not equipped with
a redundant pressure sensor, at least
quarterly, perform a visual inspection of
all components for integrity, oxidation,
and galvanic corrosion.
(10) For each pH CPMS, the owner or
operator must meet the requirements in
paragraph (c)(10)(i) through (vii) of this
section.
(i) Install the pH sensor in a location
that provides representative
measurement of pH over all operating
conditions, taking into account the
manufacturer’s guidelines.
(ii) Use a pH CPMS with a minimum
tolerance of 0.2 pH units.
(iii) The data recording system
associated with the CPMS must have a
resolution of 0.1 pH units or better and
E:\FR\FM\09OCP3.SGM
09OCP3
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 197 / Thursday, October 9, 2008 / Proposed Rules
pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS3
must be capable of measuring pH over
the entire range of pH values from 0 to
14.
(iv) Perform an initial calibration of
the CPMS according to the procedures
in the manufacturer’s owner’s manual.
(v) Perform an initial validation of the
CPMS according to the requirements in
paragraph (c)(10)(v)(A) or (B) of this
section.
(A) Perform a single point calibration
using an NIST-certified buffer solution
that is accurate to within ±0.02 pH units
at 25 °C (77 °F). If the expected pH of
the fluid that is monitored lies in the
acidic range (less than 7 pH), use a
buffer solution with a pH value of 4.00.
If the expected pH of the fluid that is
monitored lies in the basic range
(greater than 7 pH), use a buffer solution
with a pH value of 10.00. Place the
electrode of the pH CPMS in the
container of buffer solution. Record the
pH measured by the CPMS. Using the
certified buffer solution as the reference,
the pH measured by the pH CPMS must
VerDate Aug<31>2005
20:38 Oct 08, 2008
Jkt 217001
be within the accuracy specified in
paragraph (c)(10)(ii) of this section.
(B) Perform any of the initial
validation methods for pH CPMS
specified in applicable performance
specifications established under 40 CFR
part 60, appendix B.
(vi) Perform an accuracy audit of the
pH CPMS at least weekly, according to
the requirements in paragraph
(c)(10)(vi)(A), (B), or (C) of this section.
(A) If the pH CPMS includes a
redundant pH sensor, record the pH
measured by each of the two pH
sensors. The readings must be taken
during periods when the process and
control device that is monitored by the
CPMS are operating normally. The two
pH values must agree within the
required overall accuracy of the CPMS,
as specified in paragraph (c)(10)(ii) of
this section.
(B) If the pH CPMS does not include
a redundant pH sensor, perform a single
point calibration using an NIST-certified
buffer solution that is accurate to within
±0.02 pH units at 25 °C (77 °F). If the
PO 00000
Frm 00051
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
60005
expected pH of the fluid that is
monitored lies in the acidic range (less
than 7 pH), use a buffer solution with
a pH value of 4.00. If the expected pH
of the fluid that is monitored lies in the
basic range (greater than 7 pH), use a
buffer solution with a pH value of 10.00.
Place the electrode of the pH CPMS in
the container of buffer solution. Record
the pH measured by the CPMS. Using
the certified buffer solution as the
reference, the pH measured by the pH
CPMS must be within the accuracy
specified in paragraph (c)(10)(ii) of this
section.
(C) Perform any of the accuracy audit
methods for pH CPMS specified in
applicable QA procedures established
under 40 CFR part 60, appendix F.
(vii) If the CPMS is not equipped with
a redundant pH sensor, at least monthly,
perform a visual inspection of all
components for integrity, oxidation, and
galvanic corrosion.
*
*
*
*
*
[FR Doc. E8–22674 Filed 10–8–08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
E:\FR\FM\09OCP3.SGM
09OCP3
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 197 (Thursday, October 9, 2008)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 59956-60005]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-22674]
[[Page 59955]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Part III
Environmental Protection Agency
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
40 CFR Parts 60, 61, and 63
Standards of Performance for New Stationary Sources; National Emission
Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants; and National Emission Standards
for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Source Categories; Proposed Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 197 / Thursday, October 9, 2008 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 59956]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Parts 60, 61, and 63
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0640; FRL-8721-4]
RIN 2060-AJ86
Performance Specification and Quality Assurance Requirements for
Continuous Parameter Monitoring Systems and Amendments to Standards of
Performance for New Stationary Sources; National Emission Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutants; and National Emission Standards for Hazardous
Air Pollutants for Source Categories
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This action proposes Performance Specification 17,
``Specifications and Test Procedures for Continuous Parameter
Monitoring Systems at Stationary Sources'' and Procedure 4, ``Quality
Assurance Requirements for Continuous Parameter Monitoring Systems at
Stationary Sources.'' The proposed performance specification and
quality assurance requirements establish procedures and other
requirements to ensure that the systems are properly selected,
installed, and placed into operation. This action also proposes minor
amendments to Procedure 1 of the ``Quality Assurance Requirements for
Gas Continuous Emission Monitoring Systems Used for Compliance
Determinations'' to address continuous emissions monitoring systems
that are used for monitoring multiple pollutants. Minor changes to the
General Provisions for the Standards of Performance for New Stationary
Sources, the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants,
and the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for
Source Categories are also proposed to ensure consistency between the
proposed Performance Specification 17, Procedure 4, and the General
Provisions and to clarify that Performance Specification 17 and
Procedure 4 apply instead of requirements that pertain specifically to
continuous parameter monitoring systems. Finally, this action proposes
amendments to the current national emission standards for closed vent
systems, control devices and recovery systems to ensure consistency
with Performance Specification 17 and Procedure 4. These actions are
needed to establish consistent requirements for ensuring and assessing
the quality of data measured by continuous parameter monitoring systems
and to provide quality assurance procedures for continuous emission
monitoring systems used to monitor multiple pollutants.
DATES: Comments must be received on or before December 8, 2008. Under
the Paperwork Reduction Act, comments on the information collection
provisions must be received by the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) on or before November 10, 2008.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
OAR-2006-0640, by one of the following methods:
https://www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line
instructions for submitting comments.
E-mail: a-and-r-Docket@epa.gov.
Fax: (202) 566-9744.
Mail: Performance Specification 17 and Procedure 4 for
Continuous Parameter Monitoring Systems Docket, Docket No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2006-0640, Environmental Protection Agency, EPA Docket Center,
Mailcode: 6102T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460.
Please include a total of two copies. In addition, please mail a copy
of your comments on the information collection provisions to the Office
of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget
(OMB), Attn: Desk Officer for EPA, 725 17th St., NW., Washington, DC
20503.
Hand Delivery: EPA Docket Center, Public Reading Room, EPA
West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460.
Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of
operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of
boxed information.
Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2006-0640. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at
https://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 https://
www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The https://www.regulations.gov Web site
is an ``anonymous access'' system, which means EPA will not know your
identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of
your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without
going through https://www.regulations.gov your e-mail address will be
automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is
placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you
submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name
and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any
disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to
technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA
may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid
the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of
any defects or viruses.
Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the https://
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 https://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the EPA Air Docket,
EPA/DC, EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington,
DC. The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday
through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the
Public Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the
Air Docket is (202) 566-1742.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Barrett Parker, Sector Policies
and Programs Division, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
(D243-05), Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park,
North Carolina 27711, telephone number: (919) 541-5635; e-mail address:
parker.barrett@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Outline. The information presented in this preamble is organized as
follows:
I. General Information
A. Does this action apply to you?
B. What should you consider as you prepare your comments to EPA?
C. Where can you get a copy of this document and other related
information?
D. Will there be a public hearing?
II. Background
A. What is the regulatory history of the proposed PS-17 and
Procedure 4?
B. What is the regulatory history of the proposed amendments to
Procedure 1?
C. What is the regulatory history of the proposed amendments to
the General Provisions to parts 60, 61, and 63?
D. What is the regulatory history of the proposed amendments to
40 CFR part 63, subpart SS?
[[Page 59957]]
III. Summary of Proposed Performance Specification 17
A. What is the purpose of PS-17?
B. Who must comply with PS-17?
C. When must owners or operators of affected CPMS comply with
PS-17?
D. What are the basic requirements of PS-17?
E. What initial performance criteria must be demonstrated to
comply with PS-17?
F. What are the reporting and recordkeeping requirements for PS-
17?
IV. Summary of Proposed Procedure 4
A. What is the purpose of Procedure 4?
B. Who must comply with Procedure 4?
C. When must owners or operators of affected CPMS comply with
Procedure 4?
D. What are the basic requirements of Procedure 4?
E. How often must accuracy audits and other QA/QC procedures be
performed?
F. What are the reporting and recordkeeping requirements for
Procedure 4?
V. Summary of Proposed Amendments to Procedure 1
A. What is the purpose of the amendments?
B. To whom do the amendments apply?
C. How do the amendments address CEMS that are subject to PS-9?
D. How do the amendments address CEMS that are subject to PS-15?
VI. Summary of Proposed Amendments to the General Provisions to
Parts 60, 61, and 63
A. What is the purpose of the amendments to the General
Provisions to parts 60, 61, and 63?
B. What specific changes are we proposing to the General
Provisions to parts 60, 61, and 63?
VII. Summary of the Proposed Amendments to 40 CFR Part 63, Subpart
SS
A. What is the purpose of the amendments to subpart SS?
B. What specific changes are we proposing to subpart SS?
VIII. Rationale for Selecting the Proposed Requirements of
Performance Specification 17
A. What information did we use to develop PS-17?
B. How did we select the applicability criteria for PS-17?
C. How did we select the parameters that are addressed by PS-17?
D. Why did we include requirements for flow CPMS in PS-17 if PS-
6 already specifies requirements for flow sensors?
E. How did we select the equipment requirements?
F. How did we select the installation and location requirements?
G. How did we select the initial QA measures?
H. How did we select the methods for performing the initial
validation check?
I. How did we select the performance criteria for the initial
validation check?
J. How did we select the recordkeeping requirements?
IX. Rationale for Selecting the Proposed Requirements of Procedure 4
A. What information did we use to develop Procedure 4?
B. Why did we decide to apply Procedure 4 to all CPMS that are
subject to PS-17?
C. How did we select the accuracy audit procedures?
D. How did we select the accuracy audit frequencies?
E. How did we select the performance criteria for accuracy
audits?
F. How did we select the recordkeeping requirements?
X. Rationale for Selecting the Proposed Amendments to Procedure 1
A. How did we select the amendments to Procedure 1 that apply to
PS-9?
B. How did we select the amendments to Procedure 1 that apply to
PS-15?
XI. Rationale for Selecting the Proposed Amendments to the General
Provisions to Parts 60, 61, and 63
A. How did we select the amendments to the General Provisions to
parts 60, 61, and 63?
XII. Rationale for Selecting the Proposed Amendments to 40 CFR Part
63, Subpart SS
A. How did we select the amendments to subpart SS?
XIII. Summary of Environmental, Energy, and Economic Impacts
A. What are the impacts of PS-17 and Procedure 4?
B. What are the impacts of the amendments to Procedure 1?
C. What are the impacts of the amendments to the General
Provisions to parts 60, 61, and 63?
D. What are the impacts of the amendments to subpart SS?
XIV. Solicitation of Comments and Public Participation
XV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review
B. Paperwork Reduction Act
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With
Indian Tribal Governments
G. Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children From
Environmental Health Risks & Safety Risks
H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
I. National Technology Transfer Advancement Act
J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income
Populations
I. General Information
A. Does this action apply to you?
The proposed Performance Specification 17 (PS-17) and Procedure 4
would apply to any facility that is required to install a new
continuous parameter monitoring system (CPMS), relocate an existing
CPMS, or replace an existing CPMS under any applicable subpart of 40
CFR parts 60, 61, or 63, with certain exceptions. Moreover, the
proposed PS-17 and Procedure 4 would become effective upon permit
renewal (or within 5 years for area sources that are exempt from title
V permitting) for any affected facility subject to an applicable
subpart of 40 CFR parts 60, 61, or 63, with certain exceptions. Table 1
of this preamble lists the applicable rules by subpart and the
corresponding source categories to which the proposed PS-17 and
Procedure 4 would apply.
Table 1--Source Categories That Would Be Subject to PS-17 and Procedure 4
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subpart(s) Source category
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
40 CFR part 63
����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������
O................................... Commercial Ethylene Oxide Sterilization/Fumigation Facilities.
R................................... Gasoline Distribution Facilities (Bulk Gasoline Terminals and Pipeline
Breakout Stations).
S................................... Pulp and Paper--Process Operations.
X................................... Secondary Lead Smelters.
EE.................................. Magnetic Tape Manufacturing Operations.
GG.................................. Aerospace Manufacturing and Rework.
HH.................................. Oil and Natural Gas Production Facilities.
JJ.................................. Wood Furniture Manufacturing Operations.
KK.................................. Printing and Publishing.
MM.................................. Combustion Sources at Kraft, Soda & Sulfite Pulp & Paper Mills.
[[Page 59958]]
YY.................................. Spandex.
YY.................................. Cyanide Chemical Manufacture.
YY.................................. Carbon Black Production.
CCC................................. Steel Pickling--HCl Process Facilities and Hydrochloric Acid Regeneration
Plants.
EEE................................. Hazardous Waste Combustors.
GGG................................. Pharmaceuticals Production.
HHH................................. Natural Gas Transmission and Storage Facilities.
MMM................................. Pesticide Active Ingredient Production.
NNN................................. Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing.
RRR................................. Secondary Aluminum Production.
UUU................................. Petroleum Refineries: Catalytic Cracking Units, Catalytic Reforming Units,
and Sulfur Recovery Units.
DDDD................................ Plywood & Composite Wood Products.
EEEE................................ Organic Liquids Distribution (non-gasoline).
FFFF................................ Miscellaneous Organic Chemical Manufacturing.
HHHH................................ Wet-Formed Fiberglass Mat Production.
IIII................................ Surface Coating of Automobiles and Light Duty Trucks.
JJJJ................................ Paper & Other Web (surface coating).
KKKK................................ Surface Coating of Metal Cans.
PPPP................................ Surface Coating of Plastic Parts & Products.
QQQQ................................ Surface Coating of Wood Building Products.
RRRR................................ Surface Coating of Metal Furniture.
SSSS................................ Surface Coating of Metal Coil.
UUUU................................ Cellulose Products Manufacturing.
VVVV................................ Boat Manufacturing.
WWWW................................ Reinforced Plastics Composites Production.
XXXX................................ Rubber Tire Manufacturing.
YYYY................................ Stationary Combustion Turbines.
ZZZZ................................ Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engines.
CCCCC............................... Coke Ovens: Pushing, Quenching, & Battery Stacks.
DDDDD............................... Industrial/Commercial/Institutional Boilers and Process Heaters.
EEEEE............................... Iron and Steel Foundries.
FFFFF............................... Integrated Iron and Steel Manufacturing Facilities.
GGGGG............................... Site Remediation.
HHHHH............................... Miscellaneous Coating Manufacturing.
MMMMM............................... Flexible Polyurethane Foam Fabrication Operations.
NNNNN............................... Hydrochloric Acid Production.
PPPPP............................... Engine Test Cells/Stands.
QQQQQ............................... Friction Materials.
RRRRR............................... Taconite Iron Ore Processing.
TTTTT............................... Primary Magnesium Refining.
ZZZZZ............................... Iron and Steel Foundries Area Sources.
LLLLLL.............................. Acrylic and Modacrylic Fibers Production Area Sources.
OOOOOO.............................. Flexible Polyurethane Foam Production and Fabrication Area Sources.
PPPPPP.............................. Lead Acid Battery Manufacturing Area Sources.
SSSSSS.............................. Glass Manufacturing Area Sources.
�������������������������������������
40 CFR part 60
����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������
Ea.................................. Municipal Waste Combustors after December 20, 1989 and on or before
September 20, 1994.
Ec.................................. Hospital, Medical, and Infectious Waste Incinerators.
J................................... Petroleum Refineries.
O................................... Sewage Treatment Plants.
T, U, V, W, X....................... Phosphate Fertilizer Industry.
Y................................... Coal Preparation Plants (>200 tons per day).
Z................................... Ferroalloy Production Facilities.
AA.................................. Steel Plants: EAF's and Oxygen Decarburization Vessels after October 21,
1974 and on or before August 17, 1983.
BB.................................. Kraft Pulp Mills.
HH.................................. Lime Manufacturing Plants.
LL.................................. Metallic Mineral Processing Plants.
NN.................................. Phosphate rock plants (with prod. capacity >4 ton/hr).
PP.................................. Ammonium Sulfate Manufacture.
RR.................................. Pressure Sensitive Tape and Label Surface Coating Operations.
FFF................................. Flexible Vinyl and Urethane Coating and Printing.
LLL................................. Onshore Natural Gas Processing: SO2 Emissions.
[[Page 59959]]
UUU................................. Calciners and Dryers in Mineral Industries.
VVV................................. Polymeric Coating of Supporting Substrates Facilities.
AAAA................................ Small Municipal Waste Combustion Units Constructed after August 30, 1999.
�������������������������������������
40 CFR part 61
����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������
K................................... Radionuclide Emissions from Elemental Phosphorus Plants.
L................................... Benzene from Coke By-Product Recovery Plants.
BB.................................. Benzene Emissions from Benzene Transfer Operations.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The requirements of the proposed PS-17 and Procedure 4 may also
apply to stationary sources located in a State, District, Reservation,
or Territory that adopts PS-17 or Procedure 4 in its implementation
plan. The exceptions to the applicability criteria for PS-17 and
Procedure 4 are those source categories that are subject to part 63
rules that specify that Sec. 63.8(a)(2) of the General Provisions for
the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP)
for Source Categories in 40 CFR part 63, subpart A does not apply to
the source category. Section 63.8(a)(2) specifies that rules
promulgated under part 63 are subject to the monitoring provisions of
Sec. 63.8 upon promulgation of performance specifications (i.e., the
proposed PS-17). Consequently, rules which specify that Sec.
63.8(a)(2) does not apply, are not subject to PS-17 or Procedure 4.
Table 2 of this preamble lists the part 63 rules that require CPMS but
would not be subject to PS-17 or Procedure 4 for this reason.
Table 2--Part 63 Rules Not Subject to PS-17 or Procedure 4
[Sec. 63.8(a)(2) does not apply]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subpart(s) Source category
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
F, G, H, I..................................... Hazardous Organic NESHAP.
U.............................................. Polymers and Resins (Group I).
AA............................................. Phosphoric Acid Plants.
BB............................................. Phosphate Fertilizer Production.
CC............................................. Petroleum Refineries.
DD............................................. Offsite Waste and Recovery Operations.
DDD............................................ Mineral Wool.
III............................................ Flexible Polyurethane Foam Production.
JJJ............................................ Polymers and Resins (Group IV).
LLL............................................ Portland Cement Manufacturing.
OOO............................................ Amino/Phenolic Resins Production.
PPP............................................ Polyether Polyols Production.
AAAA........................................... Municipal Solid Waste Landfills.
TTTT........................................... Leather Tanning and Finishing Operations.
IIIII.......................................... Mercury Cell Chlor-Alkali Plants.
LLLLL.......................................... Asphalt Roofing and Processing.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The standard industrial classification (SIC) codes and North
American Industry Classification System (NAICS) codes that correspond
to potentially regulated entities are listed in Tables 3 and 4 of this
preamble, respectively. To determine the specific types of industry
referenced by the SIC or NAICS codes, go to https://www.osha.gov/pls/
imis/sic_manual.html or https://www.osha.gov/oshstats/naics-
manual.html, respectively.
[[Page 59960]]
Table 3--SIC Codes for Potentially Regulated Entities
------------------------------------------------------------------------
SIC code
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
12, 42, 44, 47, 109, 279, 281, 282, 283, 284, 285, 286, 287, 289, 386,
1011, 1021, 1031, 1041, 1044, 1051, 1061, 1099, 1311, 1321, 1411, 1422,
1423, 1429, 1442, 1445, 1446, 1454, 1455, 1459, 1474, 1475, 1479, 1492,
1496, 1499, 2034, 2035, 2046, 2099, 2211, 2241, 2295, 2296, 2392, 2394,
2396, 2399, 2421, 2426, 2429, 2431, 2435, 2436, 2439, 2441, 2448, 2449,
2451, 2452, 2491, 2493, 2499, 2514, 2522, 2531, 2542, 2599, 2611, 2621,
2631, 2652, 2653, 2655, 2656, 2657, 2671, 2672, 2673, 2674, 2675, 2676,
2677, 2678, 2679, 2711, 2721, 2741, 2754, 2759, 2761, 2771, 2812, 2813,
2816, 2819, 2821, 2822, 2823, 2824, 2832, 2833, 2834, 2835, 2836, 2841,
2842, 2843, 2844, 2851, 2861, 2865, 2869, 2873, 2874, 2875, 2879, 2891,
2892, 2893, 2895, 2899, 2911, 2951, 2952, 2992, 2999, 3011, 3021, 3052,
3053, 3061, 3069, 3074, 3079, 3081, 3082, 3083, 3084, 3085, 3086, 3087,
3088, 3089, 3111, 3131, 3142, 3143, 3144, 3149, 3161, 3171, 3172, 3199,
3211, 3221, 3229, 3274, 3281, 3291, 3292, 3295, 3296, 3299, 3312, 3313,
3315, 3316, 3317, 3321, 3322, 3324, 3325, 3329, 3331, 3334, 3339, 3341,
3351, 3353, 3354, 3355, 3356, 3357, 3363, 3364, 3365, 3366, 3369, 3398,
3399, 3411, 3412, 3421, 3423, 3425, 3429, 3431, 3432, 3441, 3442, 3443,
3444, 3446, 3448, 3449, 3451, 3452, 3462, 3463, 3465, 3466, 3469, 3471,
3479, 3482, 3483, 3484, 3489, 3491, 3492, 3493, 3494, 3495, 3497, 3499,
3511, 3519, 3523, 3524, 3531, 3537, 3543, 3545, 3559, 3562, 3566, 3568,
3569, 3579, 3585, 3592, 3599, 3621, 3634, 3639, 3644, 3645, 3646, 3647,
3663, 3677, 3691, 3693, 3694, 3695, 3711, 3713, 3714, 3715, 3716, 3720,
3721, 3724, 3726, 3728, 3731, 3732, 3743, 3751, 3760, 3761, 3764, 3765,
3769, 3792, 3795, 3799, 3821, 3829, 3841, 3842, 3843, 3851, 3861, 3911,
3914, 3915, 3931, 3942, 3944, 3949, 3951, 3952, 3953, 3955, 3961, 3965,
3991, 3993, 3995, 3996, 3999, 4225, 4226, 4512, 4581, 4612, 4911, 4922,
4923, 4924, 4925, 4931, 4932, 4939, 4941, 4952, 4953, 4961, 4971, 5086,
5122, 5149, 5169, 5171, 5172, 5541, 5995, 7218, 7231, 7241, 7391, 7397,
7399, 7534, 7538, 7539, 7641, 7699, 7911, 7999, 8062, 8063, 8069, 8071,
8072, 8091, 8211, 8221, 8222, 8231, 8243, 8244, 8249, 8299, 8411, 8711,
8731, 8734, 8741, 8748, 8922, 9511, 9661, 9711
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 4--NAICS Codes for Potentially Regulated Entities
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NAICS code
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
211, 221, 316, 321, 322, 324, 325, 326, 331, 332, 336, 339, 611, 622,
2123, 2211, 3231, 3241, 3251, 3252, 3253, 3254, 3255, 3256, 3259, 3271,
3273, 3274, 3279, 3327, 3328, 3329, 3332, 3335, 3339, 3341, 3342, 3343,
3344, 3361, 3362, 3363, 4227, 5622, 5629, 21221, 22121, 22132, 31332,
32211, 32222, 32411, 32613, 32614, 32615, 32791, 33422, 33634, 33992,
33995, 42269, 42271, 45431, 48611, 48621, 49311, 49319, 51113, 51114,
51223, 54171, 56220, 56221, 56292, 81142, 92411, 92711, 92811, 111998,
112519, 112910, 112990, 211111, 211112, 212111, 212112, 212113, 212210,
212221, 212222, 212231, 212234, 212299, 212319, 212322, 212324, 212325,
212393, 212399, 213113, 221112, 221320, 238910, 311211, 311212, 311221,
311225, 311340, 311421, 311423, 311823, 311830, 311911, 311920, 311941,
311942, 311991, 311999, 313210, 313320, 314911, 314992, 315299, 315999,
321211, 321212, 321213, 321214, 321219, 321911, 321918, 321999, 322110,
322121, 322122, 322130, 322211, 322212, 322213, 322215, 322221, 322222,
322223, 322224, 322225, 322226, 322231, 322291, 322299, 323111, 323112,
323116, 323119, 324121, 324199, 325131, 325181, 325182, 325188, 325192,
325199, 325211, 325221, 325222, 325311, 325312, 325320, 325411, 325412,
325991, 326111, 326113, 326121, 326122, 326150, 326191, 326192, 326199,
326211, 326212, 326299, 327211, 327212, 327213, 327410, 327991, 327992,
327993, 327999, 331111, 331112, 331210, 331221, 331222, 331312, 331315,
331316, 331319, 331419, 331492, 331511, 331512, 331513, 331521, 331524,
332115, 332116, 332212, 332431, 332612, 332618, 332812, 332912, 332951,
332999, 333111, 333112, 333120, 333313, 333319, 333611, 333612, 333613,
333618, 334613, 335121, 335122, 335312, 335911, 336111, 336112, 336120,
336211, 336213, 336214, 336312, 336350, 336399, 336411, 336412, 336413,
336414, 336415, 336419, 336612, 336992, 336999, 337124, 337127, 337214,
337215, 339111, 339112, 339114, 339911, 339912, 339914, 339999, 424690,
424720, 425110, 425120, 481111, 483111, 483112, 483113, 483114, 483211,
483212, 484110, 484121, 484122, 484210, 484220, 484230, 487210, 488111,
488119, 488190, 488310, 488320, 488330, 488390, 488490, 492110, 492210,
493110, 493120, 493130, 493190, 511199, 531130, 532411, 541380, 541710,
541990, 561720, 562111, 562112, 562119, 562213, 562219, 611310, 611692,
622110, 622310, 713930, 811111, 811118, 811310, 811411, 811420, 924110,
928110
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The proposed amendments to Procedure 1 (40 CFR part 60, appendix F)
would apply to any facility that operates a continuous emission
monitoring system (CEMS) that is subject to PS-9 or PS-15 (40 CFR part
60, appendix B) and also must comply with 40 CFR part 60, appendix F.
The proposed amendments to the General Provisions to 40 CFR parts 60,
61, and 63 would apply to the same facilities that the proposed PS-17
and Procedure 4 would apply. The proposed amendments to 40 CFR part 63,
subpart SS, would apply to producers and coproducers of hydrogen
cyanide; sodium cyanide; carbon black by thermal-oxidative
decomposition in a closed system, thermal decomposition in a cyclic
process, or thermal decomposition in a continuous process; ethylene
from refined petroleum or liquid hydrocarbons; and spandex by reaction
spinning.
To determine whether your facility would be regulated by this
action, you should examine the applicability criteria in section 1.2 of
proposed PS-17 and the applicability criteria in the part 60, 61, or 63
standard to which your facility is subject. If you have any questions
regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity,
consult either the air permit authority for the entity or your EPA
regional representative as listed in Sec. 63.13 of the General
Provisions to part 63 (40 CFR part 63, subpart A).
B. What should you consider as you prepare your comments for EPA?
Do not submit information containing CBI to EPA through https://
www.regulations.gov or e-mail. Send or deliver information identified
as CBI only to the following address: Roberto Morales, OAQPS Document
Control Officer (C404-02), U.S. EPA, Office of Air Quality Planning and
Standards, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711, Attention
Docket ID EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0640. Clearly mark the part or all of the
information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or
CD-ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD-ROM as
CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD-ROM the
specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one
complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as
CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information
claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket.
Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with
procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.
[[Page 59961]]
C. Where can you get a copy of this document and other related
information?
In addition to being available in the docket, an electronic copy of
these proposed actions will also be available on the Worldwide Web
(WWW) through the Technology Transfer Network (TTN). A copy of this
proposed action will be posted on the TTN's policy and guidance page
for newly proposed or promulgated rules at the following address:
https://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg/. The TTN provides information and
technology exchange in various areas of air pollution control.
D. Will there be a public hearing?
The EPA will hold a public hearing on this proposed rule only if
requested by November 10, 2008. The request for a public hearing should
be made in writing and addressed to Mr. Barrett Parker, Sector Policies
and Programs Division, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
(D243-05), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle
Park, North Carolina 27711. The hearing, if requested, will be held on
a date and at a place published in a separate Federal Register notice.
II. Background
A. What is the regulatory history of the proposed PS-17 and Procedure
4?
Monitoring of emissions, control device operating parameters, and
process operations has been a requirement of many of the emission
standards that we have promulgated under the authority of the Clean Air
Act (CAA). Recognizing the need for good quality data, we initially
developed performance specifications for CEMS. These performance
specifications stipulate CEMS equipment design, location, and
installation requirements and focus on the initial performance of CEMS.
To address the ongoing performance of CEMS, we developed quality
assurance (QA) procedures.
The basis for performance specifications for CPMS was initially
established by the General Provisions for Standards of Performance for
New Stationary Sources in 40 CFR part 60, subpart A. Section 60.13(a),
which addresses monitoring requirements, states that ``* * * all
continuous monitoring systems required under applicable subparts shall
be subject to the provisions of this section upon promulgation of
performance specifications for continuous monitoring systems under
appendix B to this part * * *'' As defined in Sec. 60.2, these
``continuous monitoring systems'' include those systems that are used
to measure and record process parameters. Section 60.13 specifies basic
requirements for the installation, validation, and operation of
continuous monitoring systems, including CPMS. General recordkeeping
requirements for CPMS required under part 60 are specified in Sec.
60.7(f).
Section 61.14 of the NESHAP General Provisions in 40 CFR part 61,
subpart A also addresses CPMS, although in less detail than does Sec.
60.13. Included in the requirements for CPMS under part 61 are
provisions for the general operation and maintenance of continuous
monitoring systems, monitoring system performance evaluations, and
recordkeeping.
With the enactment of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 (1990
Amendments), we have placed increased emphasis on the collection and
use of monitoring data as a means of ensuring continuous compliance
with emission standards. In response to the mandates of the 1990
Amendments, we incorporated into the General Provisions to part 63,
basic requirements for all continuous monitoring systems (CMS). Section
63.2 broadly defines CMS to include CPMS, as well as CEMS and other
forms of monitoring that are used to demonstrate compliance with
applicable regulations. In Sec. 63.8(a)(2), the General Provisions
specify that, ``* * * all CMS required under relevant standards shall
be subject to the provisions of this section upon promulgation of
performance specifications for CMS as specified in the relevant
standard or otherwise by the Administrator.'' As is the case for part
60, the General Provisions to part 63 establish the need for
performance specifications for CPMS.
Rules promulgated under parts 60, 61, and 63 generally require
owners or operators of affected sources to use CPMS to monitor the
performance of emission control devices associated with those sources.
Although many of these standards specify general design, installation,
and calibration requirements for CPMS, these rules do not include
specific performance requirements for CPMS. In addition, neither the
General Provisions nor the subparts to parts 60, 61, and 63 fully
specify procedures and criteria for ensuring that CPMS provide good
quality data initially and on an ongoing basis. By proposing a new
performance specification and QA procedure specifically for CPMS, we
would be establishing standards for the design, installation,
operation, and maintenance of CPMS that will help to ensure the
generation of good quality data on a consistent basis.
The proposed requirements for CPMS also reflect EPA's commitment to
improving the quality of data collected and disseminated by the Agency.
Although we have always recognized its importance, there has been
increased emphasis on ensuring data quality in response to section 515
of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act for Fiscal
Year 2001 (Pub. L. 106-554), which directs the OMB to issue guidelines
that ``provide policy and procedural guidance to Federal agencies for
ensuring and maximizing the quality, objectivity, utility, and
integrity of information * * * disseminated by Federal agencies.'' On
September 28, 2001, OMB issued final Guidelines for Ensuring and
Maximizing the Quality, Objectivity, Utility, and Integrity of
Information Disseminated by Federal Agencies (66 FR 49718). These
guidelines require Federal agencies to adopt ``* * * a basic standard
of quality (including objectivity, utility, and integrity) as a
performance goal and should take appropriate steps to incorporate
information quality criteria into agency dissemination practices.'' The
guidelines also require agencies to ``* * * develop a process for
reviewing the quality (including objectivity, utility, and integrity)
of information before it is disseminated * * *'' and that the process
must ``* * * enable the agency to substantiate the quality of the
information it has disseminated through documentation or other means
appropriate to the information.''
In response to the OMB guidelines, we developed ``Guidelines for
Ensuring and Maximizing the Quality, Objectivity, Utility, and
Integrity of Information Disseminated by the Environmental Protection
Agency'' (EPA/260R-02-008, October 2002). As noted in these guidelines,
we are committed to ensuring the quality control of information
collected through regulatory requirements, such as this proposed rule,
by specifying analytical procedures for data collection and sample
analysis that will produce good quality data. We believe the procedures
specified in the proposed PS-17 and Procedure 4 will help to ensure the
quality of data measured and recorded by affected CPMS, which may
subsequently be collected and disseminated by EPA.
This proposed rule also represents an important part of our efforts
to implement the recommendations developed by the Air Quality
Management Work Group in response to the National Research Council
(NRC) report on Air Quality Management in the United States.
Specifically, the
[[Page 59962]]
recommendations developed by the Work Group call for improving
emissions factors and other emissions estimation methods and reducing
the uncertainty in emissions inventories and air quality modeling
applications. When emissions factors and other methods are used to
estimate emissions from controlled sources, the assumption is that the
control device is operating properly. The improved monitoring of air
pollution control device parameters that would be achieved by the
proposed PS-17 and Procedure 4 would help to ensure that affected
control devices are operated properly, and, when problems arise,
corrective action is taken in a timely manner. Furthermore, the
improved monitoring will help to reduce the uncertainty and improve the
reliability of emission estimates that typically are based on the
assumptions that emission controls are being operated properly and are
performing as designed.
B. What is the regulatory history of the proposed amendments to
Procedure 1?
Quality Assurance Procedure 1 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix F,
specifies QA procedures for CEMS. At the time that Procedure 1 was
promulgated, affected CEMS were designed to monitor a single gaseous
pollutant. Since that time, emission standards have been promulgated
under parts 60, 61, and 63 that require the installation and operation
of CEMS that monitor multiple pollutants. Although most of the
provisions of Procedure 1 can be applied directly to multiple pollutant
CEMS, there are differences in how multiple pollutant CEMS operate and
how their performance should be assessed. We are proposing amendments
to Procedure 1 to address those differences.
C. What is the regulatory history of the proposed amendments to the
General Provisions to parts 60, 61, and 63?
The only purpose of these proposed amendments to the General
Provisions to parts 60 and 61 is to ensure consistency between those
provisions, the applicable subparts to parts 60 and 61 that require the
use of CPMS, and the requirements of the proposed PS-17 and Procedure
4. As this is the initial proposal of PS-17 and Procedure 4, there is
no regulatory history to these proposed amendments to the General
Provisions to parts 60 and 61.
We proposed amendments to the monitoring requirements of the
General Provisions to part 63 on March 23, 2001 (66 FR 16318) and
promulgated those amendments on April 5, 2002 (67 FR 16582). At the
time we proposed those amendments, we had not yet developed PS-17 or
Procedure 4. As a result, the amendments to the General Provisions,
which were incorporated into Sec. 63.8, are not consistent with the
requirements of PS-17 and Procedure 4 that we are now proposing. With
this proposal of PS-17 and Procedure 4, we decided that additional
amendments to the General Provisions to part 63 were needed to ensure
consistency between subpart A of part 63, PS-17, Procedure 4, and the
applicable subparts to part 63 that require CPMS.
D. What is the regulatory history of the proposed amendments to 40 CFR
part 63, subpart SS?
On June 29, 1999, we promulgated the consolidated rulemaking
proposal for the ``generic MACT standards'' program (64 FR 34866). The
generic MACT program established an alternative methodology for making
maximum achievable control technology (MACT) determinations for
appropriate small categories by referring to previous MACT standards
that have been promulgated for similar sources in other categories.
Initially, the generic MACT standards applied to four source
categories: Acetal Resins Production, Acrylic and Modacrylic Fibers
Production, Hydrogen Fluoride Production, and Polycarbonate Production.
We included in the consolidated rulemaking package general control
requirements for certain types of hazardous air pollutant (HAP)
emissions from storage vessels containing organic materials, process
vents emitting organic vapors, and leaks from equipment components. We
also established a separate subpart SS, which specifies requirements
for closed vent systems, control devices, recovery devices and routing
emissions to fuel gas systems or a process. We included in Sec. 63.996
of subpart SS general monitoring requirements for control and recovery
devices. On December 6, 2000, we proposed revisions to the monitoring
requirements of subpart SS (65 FR 76444). Those proposed revisions
specified in greater detail the requirements for CPMS that are used to
monitor temperature, pressure, or pH. At the time these revisions to
subpart SS were proposed, we were in the early stages of developing PS-
17 and Procedure 4 and had not yet refined many of the requirements for
CPMS that we are proposing today. However, with this proposal of PS-17
and Procedure 4, we concluded that it would be appropriate to propose
further amendments to subpart SS to ensure consistency with PS-17 and
Procedure 4.
III. Summary of Proposed Performance Specification 17
A. What is the purpose of PS-17?
The purpose of PS-17 is to establish the initial installation and
performance procedures that are required for evaluating the
acceptability of a CPMS that is used to monitor specific process or
control device parameters. The specific parameters that would be
addressed by the proposed PS-17 are temperature, pressure, liquid flow
rate, gas flow rate, mass flow rate, pH, and conductivity. Mass flow
rate includes the mass flow of liquids as well as solids, such as the
flow of powders or dry solid material into a processing unit. As
proposed, the requirements for the selection, installation, and
validation of CPMS specified in PS-17 would apply instead of the
corresponding requirements in an applicable subpart to parts 60, 61, or
63 that requires the use of CPMS for monitoring temperature, pressure,
flow rate, pH, or conductivity.
B. Who must comply with PS-17?
The proposed PS-17 would apply to CPMS that are used to monitor
temperature, pressure, liquid flow rate, gas flow rate, mass flow rate,
pH, or conductivity as indicators of good control device performance or
emission source operation. If adopted as a final rule, owners and
operators of emission sources that would be required to install and
operate any such CPMS under any subpart of parts 60, 61, or 63 (listed
in Table 1 of this preamble) would be required to comply with PS-17,
with the exception of facilities that are subject to the part 63 rules
that are listed in Table 2 of this preamble. In addition to new CPMS
that are installed after the proposed effective date of PS-17, existing
CPMS that are required under parts 60, 61, or 63 also would be required
to comply with PS-17.
C. When must owners or operators of affected CPMS comply with PS-17?
Owners and operators of affected existing CPMS that were installed
prior to the effective date of this rule and are located at facilities
that are required to obtain a title V operating permit would be
required to comply with PS-17 when they renew their title V permit, or
when they replace any key components of an affected CPMS. The key
components of a CPMS are the sensors, data recorders, and any other
parts of the CPMS that affect overall system accuracy, measurement
range, or measurement resolution. Owners and operators of affected
existing CPMS that were installed prior to the effective date of this
rulemaking and are located at area
[[Page 59963]]
source facilities that are exempt from obtaining a title V operating
permit would be required to comply with PS-17 within 5 years of the
effective date of this rule, or when they replace any key components of
an affected CPMS. Owners and operators of new affected CPMS would have
to comply with the proposed PS-17 when they install and place into
operation the affected CPMS.
D. What are the basic requirements of PS-17?
The proposed PS-17 would require owners and operators of affected
CPMS to: (1) Select a CPMS that satisfies basic equipment design
criteria; (2) install their CPMS according to standard procedures; (3)
validate their CPMS prior to placing it into operation; and (4) record
and maintain information on their CPMS and its operation. The technical
rationales for proposed criteria, specifications, and other related
requirements of PS-17 are described in section VIII of this document.
1. Equipment Selection
Two types of equipment would be needed for complying with PS-17:
(1) the components that comprise the CPMS, and (2) the equipment that
is used to validate the CPMS. For CPMS components, PS-17 would require
the selection of equipment that can satisfy basic criteria for
measurement range, resolution, and overall system accuracy.
For CPMS components, PS-17 does not specify sensor design criteria,
allowing affected owners and operators to select any equipment,
provided the CPMS meets the accuracy requirements for the initial
validation. However, PS-17 would identify voluntary consensus standards
that can be used as guidelines for selecting specific types of sensors.
For a temperature CPMS, PS-17 would require a sensor that is
consistent with one of the following standards: (1) ASTM E235-06,
``Specification for Thermocouples, Sheathed, Type K, for Nuclear or
Other High-Reliability Applications''; (2) ASTM E585/E585M-04,
``Specification for Compacted Mineral-Insulated, Metal-Sheathed Base
Metal Thermocouple Cables''; (3) ASTM E608/E608M-06, ``Specification
for Mineral-Insulated, Metal-Sheathed Base Metal Thermocouples''; (4)
ASTM E696-07, ``Specification for Tungsten-Rhenium Alloy Thermocouple
Wire''; (5) ASTM E1129/E1129M-98 (2002), ``Standard Specification for
Thermocouple Connectors''; (6) ASTM E 1159-98 (2003), ``Specification
for Thermocouple Materials, Platinum-Rhodium Alloys, and Platinum'';
(7) ISA-MC96.1-1982, ``Temperature Measurement Thermocouples''; or (8)
ASTM E 1137/E 1137M-04, ``Standard Specification for Industrial
Platinum Resistance Thermometers'' (incorporated by reference-see Sec.
60.17)
For a pressure CPMS that uses a pressure gauge as the sensor, PS-17
would require a gauge that conforms to the design requirements of ASME
B40.100-2005, ``Pressure Gauges and Gauge Attachments'' (incorporated
by reference-see Sec. 60.17).
2. Range
With respect to measurement range, this proposed rule would require
that temperature, pressure, flow rate, and conductivity CPMS be capable
of measuring the appropriate parameter over a range that extends at
least 20 percent beyond the normal expected operating range of values
for that parameter. For example, if the pressure drop measurement
across a scrubber typically ranges from 5.0 to 7.5 kilopascals (kPa)
(20 to 30 inches of water column (in. wc)), the range of the data
recorder for a CPMS that monitors that pressure drop would have to
extend from at least 4.0 to 9.0 kPa (16 to 36 in. wc). For pH CPMS, the
proposed PS-17 would require that the CPMS data recorder range covers
the entire pH scale from 0 to 14.
3. Resolution
The data recording system associated with affected CPMS would
require a resolution that is equal to or better than one-half of the
required system accuracy. For example, if a temperature CPMS is
required to have an accuracy of 1 [deg]C, the required resolution for
the CPMS would be 0.5 [deg]C, or better.
4. Accuracy
The accuracy criteria for CPMS, which are a function of the
parameter that is measured by the CPMS, are described in detail in
section II.E of this document.
For devices or instruments that are used to validate or check the
initial accuracy of a temperature, pressure, or flow CPMS, PS-17
generally would require an accuracy hierarchy of three. In other words,
the ratio of the required accuracy of the CPMS to the accuracy of the
calibrated validation device would have to be at least three. For
example, if the required accuracy of a temperature CPMS is 1.0 percent, to satisfy the accuracy hierarchy of three
criterion, the calibrated validation device would need an accuracy of
0.33 percent or better (1.0 / 0.33 = 3). A CPMS with an
accuracy of 0.25 percent would satisfy the accuracy hierarchy
criterion, but a CPMS with an accuracy of 0.5 percent would not satisfy
the accuracy hierarchy criterion in this example. The accuracy of the
equipment used to validate the CPMS also would have to be traceable to
National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) standards. We
have incorporated into the proposed PS-17 two exceptions to the
accuracy requirements for instruments that are used to validate CPMS.
First, a mercury-in-glass or water-in-glass U-tube manometer could be
used instead of a calibrated pressure measurement device with NIST-
traceable accuracy when validating a pressure CPMS or a flow CPMS that
uses a differential pressure flow meter. Secondly, for instruments and
reagents that are used to validate a pH CPMS, the performance
specification would require NIST-traceable accuracy of 0.02 pH units or
better, rather than an accuracy hierarchy of three.
5. Installation
The PS-17 would require each CPMS sensor to be located so as to
provide representative measurements of the appropriate parameter. The
proposed PS-17 also lists voluntary consensus standards that could
serve as guidelines for installing specific types of sensors. Voluntary
consensus standards are technical standards that are developed or
adopted by one or more voluntary consensus standards bodies, such as
the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) or the American
Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME).
If required to install a flow CPMS and the sensor of the flow CPMS
is a differential pressure device, turbine flow meter, rotameter,
vortex formation flow meter or Coriolis mass flow meter, PS-17 would
allow one of the following standards to be used as guidance: (1) ASME
MFC-3M-2004, ``Measurement of Fluid Flow in Pipes Using Orifice,
Nozzle, and Venturi''; (2) ANSI/ASME MFC-7M-1987 (R2001), ``Measurement
of Gas Flow by Means of Critical Flow Venturi Nozzles''; (3) ANSI/ISA
RP 31.1-1977, ``Recommended Practice: Specification, Installation, and
Calibration of Turbine Flowmeters''; (4) ANSI/ASME MFC 4M-1986 (R2003),
``Measurement of Gas Flow by Turbine Meters'' (if used for gas flow
measurement); (5) ISA RP 16.5-1961, ``Installation, Operation, and
Maintenance Instructions for Glass Tube Variable Area Meters
(Rotameters)''; (6) ISO 10790:1999(E), ``Measurement of Fluid Flow in
Closed Conduits-Guidance to the Selection, Installation and Use of
Coriolis Meters (Mass Flow, Density and Volume Flow Measurements); or
(7) ANSI/ASME MFC-6M-1998 (R2005) ``Measurement
[[Page 59964]]
of Fluid Flow in Pipes Using Vortex Flow Meters'' (incorporated by
reference--see Sec. 60.17).
There are also several voluntary consensus standards that can be
used as alternative methods for checking the accuracy of specific types
of CPMS sensors. Prior to validating the performance of a CPMS, owners
and operators would be required to install work platforms, test ports,
taps, valves, or any other equipment needed to perform the initial
validation check.
6. CPMS Validation
Under this proposed rule, we would require owners and operators of
affected CPMS to demonstrate that affected CPMS meet a minimum overall
system accuracy. Several methods are specified for checking CPMS
accuracy, and owners and operators of affected CPMS could choose among
the methods specified for each type of CPMS. These validation methods
generally would involve either: (1) Comparing measurements made by the
affected CPMS to measurements made by a calibrated measurement device,
or (2) simulating the signal generated by the CPMS sensor using a
calibrated simulation device. Table 5 of this preamble lists the CPMS
validation methods specified in the proposed PS-17 and their
applicability. As part of specific validation methods, the proposed PS-
17 specifies several voluntary consensus standards as alternative
methods for checking sensor accuracy.
Table 5--CPMS Initial Validation Methods
------------------------------------------------------------------------
You can validate If the sensor of
If your CPMS measures . . . your CPMS by . . . your CPMS is . . .
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Temperature.............. a. Comparison to a Thermocouple, RTD,
calibrated or any other type
temperature of temperature
measurement device. sensor.
b. Temperature Thermocouple, RTD,
simulation. or any other type
of sensor that
generates an
electronic signal
that can be related
to temperature
magnitude.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Pressure................. a. Comparison to a Pressure transducer,
calibrated pressure pressure gauge, or
measurement device. any other type of
pressure sensor.
b. Pressure Pressure transducer,
simulation pressure gauge, or
procedure using a any other type of
calibrated pressure pressure sensor.
source.
c. Pressure Pressure transducer,
simulation using a pressure gauge, or
pressure source and any other type of
a calibrated pressure sensor.
pressure
measurement device.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Liquid flow rate......... a. Volumetric method Any type of liquid
flow meter.
b. Gravimetric Any type of liquid
method. flow meter.
c. Differential Orifice plate, flow
pressure nozzle, or other
measurement method. type of
differential
pressure liquid
flow meter.
d. Pressure source Orifice plate, flow
flow simulation nozzle, or other
method. type of
differential
pressure liquid
flow meter.
e. Electronic signal Turbine flow meter,
simulation method. vortex shedding
flow meter, or any
other type of
liquid flow meter
that generates an
electronic signal
that can be related
to flow rate
magnitude.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. Gas flow rate............ a. Differential Orifice plate, flow
pressure nozzle, or any
measurement method. other type of
differential
pressure gas flow
meter other than a
differential
pressure tube.
b. Pressure source Orifice plate, flow
flow simulation nozzle, or any
method. other type of
differential
pressure gas flow
meter other than a
differential
pressure tube.
c. Electronic signal Any type of gas flow
simulation method. meter that
generates an
electronic signal
that can be related
to flow rate
magnitude.
d. Relative accuracy Any type of gas flow
test. meter.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. Liquid mass flow rate.... Gravimetric method.. Any type of liquid
flow meter.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. Solid mass flow rate..... a. Gravimetric Any type of solid
method. mass flow meter.
b. Material weight Belt conveyor with
comparison method. weigh scale,
equipped with a
totalizer.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. pH....................... a. Comparison to Any type of pH
calibrated pH meter. meter.
b. Single point Any type of pH
calibration. meter.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. Conductivity............. a. Comparison to Any type of
calibrated conductivity meter.
conductivity meter.