Wisconsin Administrative Code
Department of Natural Resources
NR 400-499 - Environmental Protection - Air Pollution Control
Chapter NR 460 - Emission Standards For Hazardous Air Pollutants For Source Categories-General Provisions
Section NR 460.07 - Monitoring requirements

1. Unless otherwise specified in a relevant standard, this section applies to the owner or operator of an affected source required to do monitoring under that standard.

2. Relevant standards established under 40 CFR part 63 or chs. NR 460 to 469 will specify monitoring systems, methods or procedures, monitoring frequency and other pertinent requirements for sources regulated by those standards. This section specifies general monitoring requirements such as those governing the conduct of monitoring and requests to use alternative monitoring methods. In addition, this section specifies detailed requirements that apply to affected sources required to use CMS under a relevant standard.

1. Specifies or approves the use of minor changes in methodology for the specified monitoring requirements and procedures.

2. Approves the use of an intermediate or major change or alternative to any monitoring requirements or procedures.

1. When the emissions from 2 or more affected sources, are combined before being released to the atmosphere, the owner or operator may install an applicable continuous monitoring system for each emission stream or for the combined emissions streams, provided the monitoring is sufficient to demonstrate compliance with the relevant standard.

2. If the relevant standard is a mass emission standard and the emissions from one affected source are released to the atmosphere through more than one point, the owner or operator shall install an applicable continuous monitoring system at each emission point unless the installation of fewer systems is any of the following:

1. The owner or operator of an affected source shall maintain and operate each CMS as specified in s. NR 460.05(4) (a).

2. The owner or operator shall keep the necessary parts for routine repairs of the affected CMS equipment readily available.

3. The owner or operator of an affected source shall develop a written startup, shutdown and malfunction plan for CMS as specified in s. NR 460.05(4) (c).

1. All CMS shall be installed such that representative measurements of emissions or process parameters from the affected source are obtained. In addition, CEMS shall be located according to procedures contained in the applicable performance specifications.

2. Unless the individual standard states otherwise, the owner or operator shall ensure the read out, which is the portion of the CMS that provides a visual display or record, or other indication of operation, from any CMS required for compliance with the emission standard is readily accessible on site for operational control or inspection by the operator of the equipment.

1. All COMS shall complete a minimum of one cycle of sampling and analyzing for each successive 10-second period and one cycle of data recording for each successive 6-minute period.

2. All CEMS for measuring emissions other than opacity shall complete a minimum of one cycle of operation, which includes sampling, analyzing and data recording, for each successive 15-minute period.

1. A CMS is out of control if any of the following occurs:

2. When the CMS is out of control, the owner or operator of the affected source shall take the necessary corrective action and shall repeat all necessary tests which indicate that the system is out of control. The owner or operator shall take corrective action and conduct retesting until the performance requirements are below the applicable limits. The beginning of the out-of-control period is the hour the owner or operator conducts a performance check, such as calibration drift, that indicates an exceedance of the performance requirements established under 40 CFR part 63. The end of the out-of-control period is the hour following the completion of corrective action and successful demonstration that the system is within the allowable limits. During the period the CMS is out of control, recorded data may not be used in data averages and calculations or to meet any data availability requirement established under 40 CFR part 63 and in chs. NR 460 to 469.

1. Initial and any subsequent calibration of the CMS.

2. Determination and adjustment of the calibration drift of the CMS.

3. Preventive maintenance of the CMS, including spare parts inventory.

4. Data recording, calculations, and reporting.

5. Accuracy audit procedures, including sampling and analysis methods.

6. Program of corrective action for a malfunctioning CMS.

1. Before conducting a required CMS performance evaluation, the owner or operator of an affected source shall develop and submit a site-specific performance evaluation test plan to the department 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 quality assurance program. Data quality objectives are the pre-evaluation expectations of precision, accuracy, and completeness of data.

2. The internal quality assurance program shall include, at a minimum, the activities planned by routine operators and analysts to provide an assessment of CMS performance. The external quality assurance program shall include, at a minimum, systems audits that include the opportunity for on-site evaluation by the department of instrument calibration, data validation, sample logging and documentation of quality control data and field maintenance activities.

3. The owner or operator of an affected source shall submit the site-specific performance evaluation test plan to the department at least 30 days before the performance test or performance evaluation is scheduled to begin, or on a mutually agreed upon date, and review and approval of the performance evaluation test plan by the department shall occur with the review and approval of the site-specific test plan under s. NR 460.06(2).

4. The department may request additional relevant information after the submittal of a site-specific performance evaluation test plan.

5. In the event that the department fails to approve or disapprove the site-specific performance evaluation test plan within the time period specified under s. NR 460.06(2), the following conditions shall apply:

6. Neither the submission of a site-specific performance evaluation test plan for approval, nor the department's approval or disapproval of a plan, nor the department's failure to approve or disapprove a plan in a timely manner shall cause any of the following:

1. The owner or operator shall furnish the department a copy of a written report of the results of the performance evaluation simultaneously with the results of the performance test required under s. NR 460.06, or within 60 days of completion of the performance evaluation if no test is required, unless otherwise specified in a relevant standard. The department may request that the owner or operator submit the raw data from a performance evaluation in the report of the performance evaluation results.

2. The owner or operator of an affected source using a COMS to determine opacity compliance during any performance test required under s. NR 460.06 shall furnish the department 2 or, upon request, 3 copies of a written report of the results of the COMS performance evaluation under this subsection. The copies shall be provided at least 15 calendar days before the performance test required under s. NR 460.06 is conducted.

1. Alternative monitoring requirements when installation of a CMS specified by a relevant standard would not provide accurate measurements due to liquid water or other interferences caused by substances within the effluent gases.

2. Alternative monitoring requirements when the affected source is infrequently operated.

3. Alternative monitoring requirements to accommodate CEMS that require additional measurements to correct for stack moisture conditions.

4. Alternative locations for installing CMS when the owner or operator can demonstrate that installation at alternate locations will enable accurate and representative measurements.

5. Alternate methods for converting pollutant concentration measurements to units of the relevant standard.

6. Alternate procedures for performing daily checks of zero (low-level) and high-level drift that do not involve use of high-level gases or test cells.

7. Alternatives to the american society for testing and materials test methods or sampling procedures specified by any relevant standard.

8. Alternative CMS that do not meet the design or performance requirements in 40 CFR part 63 or chs. NR 460 to 469, but adequately demonstrate a definite and consistent relationship between their measurements and the measurements of opacity by a system complying with the requirements as specified in the relevant standard. The department may require that the demonstration be performed for each affected source.

9. Alternative monitoring requirements when the effluent from a single affected source or the combined effluent from 2 or more affected sources is released to the atmosphere through more than one point.

1. An owner or operator who wishes to use an alternative monitoring procedure shall submit an application to the department as described in subd. 2. The application may be submitted at any time provided that the monitoring procedure is not the performance test method used to demonstrate compliance with a relevant standard or other requirement. If the alternative monitoring procedure will serve as the performance test method that is to be used to demonstrate compliance with a relevant standard, the application shall be submitted at least 60 days before the performance evaluation is scheduled to begin and shall meet the requirements for an alternative test method under s. NR 460.06(5).

2. The application shall contain a description of the proposed alternative monitoring system which addresses the 4 elements contained in the definition of monitoring in s. NR 460.02(24w) and a performance evaluation test plan, if required, as specified in sub. (5) (c). In addition, the application shall include information justifying the owner or operator's request for an alternative monitoring procedure, such as the technical or economic infeasibility, or the impracticality, of the affected source using the required method.

3. The owner or operator may submit the information required in this subsection well in advance of the submittal dates specified in subd. 1. to ensure a timely review by the department in order to meet the compliance demonstration date specified in this section or the relevant standard.

4. Application for minor changes to monitoring procedures, as specified in sub. (2) (a), may be made in the site-specific performance evaluation plan.

1. The department shall notify the owner or operator of approval or intention to deny approval of the request to use an alternative monitoring procedure within 30 calendar days after receipt of the original request and within 30 calendar days after receipt of any supplementary information that is submitted. If a request for a minor change is made in conjunction with the site-specific performance evaluation plan, approval of the plan shall constitute approval of the minor change. Before disapproving any request to use an alternative monitoring method, the department shall notify the applicant of the department's intention to disapprove the request together with all of the following:

2. The department may establish general procedures and criteria in a relevant standard to accomplish the requirements of subd. 1.

3. If the department approves the use of an alternative monitoring method for an affected source under subd. 1., the owner or operator of the source shall continue to use the alternative monitoring method until he or she receives approval from the department to use another monitoring method as allowed under this subsection.

1. An alternative to the test method for determining relative accuracy is available for affected sources with emission rates demonstrated to be less than 50% of the relevant standard. The owner or operator of an affected source may petition the department under subd. 2. to substitute the relative accuracy test in section 7 of Performance Specification 2 in Appendix B of 40 CFR part 60, incorporated by reference in s. NR 484.04(21), with the procedures in section 10 if the results of a performance test conducted according to the requirements in s. NR 460.06, or other tests performed following the criteria in s. NR 460.06, demonstrate that the emission rate of the pollutant of interest in the units of the relevant standard is less than 50% of the relevant standard. For affected sources subject to emission limitations expressed as control efficiency levels, the owner or operator may petition the department to substitute the relative accuracy test with the procedures in section 10 of Performance Specification 2 if the control device exhaust emission rate is less than 50% of the level needed to meet the control efficiency requirement. The alternative procedures do not apply if the CEMS is used continuously to determine compliance with the relevant standard.

2. The petition to use an alternative to the relative accuracy test shall include a detailed description of the procedures to be applied, the location and the procedure for conducting the alternative, the concentration or response levels of the alternative relative accuracy materials, and the other equipment checks included in the alternative procedures. The department shall review the petition for completeness and applicability. The department's determination to approve an alternative shall depend on the intended use of the CEMS data and may require specifications more stringent than in Performance Specification 2.

3. The department shall review the permission to use an alternative to the CEMS relative accuracy test and may rescind the permission if the CEMS data from a successful completion of the alternative relative accuracy procedure indicate that the affected source's emissions are approaching the level of the relevant standard. The criterion for reviewing the permission is that the collection of CEMS data shows that emissions have exceeded 70% of the relevant standard for any averaging period, as specified in the relevant standard. For affected sources subject to emission limitations expressed as control efficiency levels, the criterion for reviewing the permission is that the collection of CEMS data shows that exhaust emissions have exceeded 70% of the level needed to meet the control efficiency requirement for any averaging period, as specified in the relevant standard. The owner or operator of the affected source shall maintain records and determine the level of emissions relative to the criterion for permission to use an alternative for relative accuracy testing. If this criterion is exceeded, the owner or operator shall notify the department within 10 days of the occurrence and include a description of the nature and cause of the increased emissions. The department shall review the notification and may rescind permission to use an alternative and require the owner or operator to conduct a relative accuracy test of the CEMS as specified in section 7 of Performance Specification 2 in Appendix B of 40 CFR part 60, incorporated by reference in s. NR 484.04(21).