-------
MKTIIOII 1 • DtThRMivATinN or MOIHTURK (?ONTKNT
IN HTACK (JAHMI
t. I'rlurliitt antt AriitllfttliUllg
I.I I'rlniviplc \ (/tin nmiplc is oitrautwl at ft WHISMWU
ruin from I Im .VHIP-I'; moisture is removed from Iho sum-
pi" stream nti'l 'IH"i mined c.illic.r voluinntrlcully or
Kianm.-lrlc.ally.
1.1' Ap|,ljr.ut>ilitY. This method iti apl>licuhle for
di-ti-M Mining 11 ii- moisture, content of Khu:k Kas.
Two iiroccilnniH uiii Kivf.n. The hr::l. in u reforene,o
mrlhiiil. fur ru-i-iirule ili^iiMiilniilliiiiM ut inoisluro Ronl«uil
(Nilch n>; urn MI-I-«|I*<| lo riilrnlnln HiiiLs.-;!'}!! tluln). Tlio
> uti :i|i|)iii\iiiiuii-
otctly wil.lt u fKilliil.nnl i-inissioii iiiriisiiii-iin'ill run; wlh-ii
it. is, ciilriilnlKiii or |M>n:<>nl isnkiiKHic, tHi]hil:\nt emission
Milo, c.lc., for (In; run shall l>o htusnil U[H>II l.ho results of
I hi! Mifi;riuii;o. tii^lliod or its iMiuivulrnl.; Ihixsuuitculallons
shall not Im liasi:nii (.tip ii'sults ol ilm unproximnllnn
iiif.lluitl, unless (lit: approxiiiiul.ioii rnf.lhou nt shown, to
Mm sal isfurl ion of I In: Ailiniiiistralor, 0.8. Bnvironmon-
lal I'rniiK'.lion Atitutfy, lo lie rapalilt) of yi<:l(lint( rnsnlLs
within I piinmii Hit) ol llm rt:f<*rnn<:i! nrlhod.
NIITE.—Tlics ri'fi-rRiiiT. method mny yield tineslionahlo
n-MilLs when nppliixl to .saturated givs streams or lo
stn-anis that i-onUiin wntor droplet*. Thcreltore, when
tlii'sn roudilions exist or arc siisn«'tcd, a second dislpr-
ininullon of Ilin inoislitri: content shall ho made simul-
taneously with the refermire inothod, as follows: Assume
that tin- Kas Nirrain Is saltinilud. Attafh a tomperatiiro
srii-or It-npahlf of innasiirinu to ="•!" (; (2° K)| to tho
nsfiTfiici) inrtlioil prohc. Mt:asiire the stuck gait tcmpcia-
lure at oath Inivisrs" |K)int (aco Section 2.2.1) duriiiK the
roffrenco method Iruvorsc: calciilato tho avoraco stack
Kas ti-niixMnunc. Next, dclrrinino the moisture percent-
anc. niUmr by: (I) using a psychroinctrie chart and
niukini; ap|jri'|iriate cnrructinn.s if stack pressure is
dill'crctit from that of the chart, or (2) uslun saturation
viiixjr pressure lahl<\s. In caww where the paychrometrlo
chart or the saturation vapor pressure tables are not
appUrablc (baiwd on evaiuatlon of the praoen). alternate
methods, siibjii-i to Iho approval of the Administrator.
shall I— —-•
2. Rffrrmce Mtthod
The proeedure dcst-riU-d in Method 5 for determining
moisture i-ontant Is a.-e..r,t,ttble as a mfeniuHi method
J .APJ*rat'«- A selininatjr of tho «ampllng train
iiwd In this raferpiioo method is shown in Flfftu^ 4-1
All eomp.m«i.ts shall lw maintained and calibrated
weordhiR tii tho procedure, outlin.^d in Method ft.
2.1.1 Prob«. The probo f.i ainstrut-.teil of stainhw
vtnM or Rla-w tultlnvr, siilllrionlly honf-l to prrveni
wulor oondniiMallon. nud Is nI Inserted into the "ml
of the nrobo) or lnmt»«l mil-slivk (O.K.. a.1 described In
Moihod .')), U> rmnovn purli<;iiliile nmtti-r.
Whnn stuck conditions permit, otlmr nietuls or plfttUc
til Id up may t>eiised for lltr probe. siit>Jo<:ltrovitl
of the Adntlnistrnlor.
2.1.2 ('ondmiser. The condenser consisl.i of four
hnpbiRors «x)niiectod In snnr-H v.'it.h ground i-.ltuw, leak-
fron nttlng.s or any similarly l«-:iK froti noiM-onlamLimlliu;
liLlinca. The lirsl. Ihinl, ancl dmil.l» itnpiiii-.cni nhnll b"
of the (JrvonlntrK-Stnilli design, modiUed by replacing
tin* lip with u 1.3 eriiijnii'ti'.r fj£ ine.li) U> i:laH8 Itibn
extentling lo nlxml 1.3 c.m (Vt in.) from UP- hot.tout of
th« (liwk. Thesocoiul impiIIRIT shall brof the. Orcc-nburn-
Hniitti draii^n with the standard lip. Modifications (o.t;.,
usiriE flexible uonneeiions hctwnut tho impiiiRcrs, usiiiR
materials other Ihun •il;is?f or usins llexible viu-uum linns
to connect the liltor holdur to Iho condenser) may bo
usod, subject lo the approval of Iho Administrator.
The first two i in pincers slmll contain known volumes
of water, the third shall be empty, and the fourth shall
contain a known wp.iRhi of 6- to Hi-mesh in'licalinp type
silica pel, or equivalent desiccaht. If the silica pel has
been previously used, dry at 175U (J (VHP F) for 2 hours.
New silica gel may be used as received. A ibormomo.lRr,
caf>able of mervsurinK temperature to within 1° C (2° K),
Blmll be placed at Ihe outlet of the fourth implngcr, for
rnonitorlnc purposes.
Alternatively, any system may bo used. (subject to
the approval of the Administrator) that cools tho sample
p'os stream and allows ne.asuremont of both tho water
that has been condensed and the mnistnrc leaving tho
Condenser, each lo within 1 ml or I K. Acceptable means
ure to measure Iho condensed water, either (rravi-
melrioaUy or volumetrically, and to measure the mois-
ture leaving the condenser by: (1) monitoring the
temperature and pressure at the eilt of tho condenser
*nd using Dal ton'a law of partial pressures, or (2) peaslng
the samplo gas stream through a tared silica gel (or
equivalent destceant) trap, with rill gases kept below
2(r C (fifi° F), and detorminfnc the weight gain.
If means other than silleaRel are used to determine the
amount of m "is turn leaving the condenser, it is ree.om-
mend<-d Mint silica r<*1 (or etmlvulenl) si ill be used be-
IWIHMI the ciuirleiiser system and pump, to pre.venl
iiintsluro cnndch:iiiiioii in (bo putup and niedirint;
diwlres tmd lo iivnUI the need to nmku et'iTiH-iloiis for
niotsline In the nieterei] volume
2.l.:t ('..')lln« Hv''t<-m An Jen bulb container nnd
crushed Ico (ur («|iilvalent) are. used to uld In eoudeirUn^
inolsliire.
2.M Meli-rlng Myste.m. This sysU-m Includes n v:i"--
iiiiin ^unc.e., le.uk-fre*1 pump, thermometer:! capable of
nieasurliiK U'liip'-raturn to within :t" C (ft.4" K), dry K:W
me.icr <-upah!e of nicti^iirliig volume, lo within 'J percent.
and related rnpilpnie.nl HS shown in Kl^iirn 4-1. Otli< i
metc-rin^ syst/sms, cupublo of ni'ilntiiinimf a connl-aiti
suinptinH rule and dfU-rininiin1; sample KUS volume, may
be used, subject to the approval m tho Adminislrat >i.
2.1.r> Haronic.ter. M'Tcury, aneroid, or oilier uaruin-
filer capable of meiismiiiK atninsplu-rir pressure to wilhin
2.6 nun HK (0.1 In. 11^) may IK* used. In nmny c,n.s4>.«, tho
barometric reading may be obtained from a nearby
national weather sorvieo station, in which case the sta-
tion value (which is tho absolute barometric pn^ssnn-)
Shall bo requested and an adjustment fur elevation
differences betwppn the weallier station and the sam-
pling p')int shall be applied nt a rate >>f minus 2.5 mm H^
(0.1 In. llg) per 30 m (100 ft) elevation increase or viuo
vprsa for elevaiion decrease.
2.1.6 Graduated Cylinder and/or Dalance. Those
Items are used to measure condensed water and m?ii>lure.
caught in tho silica gel to within 1 ml or 0.5 g. Graduated
cylinders shall have subdivisions no greater than 2 ml.
Most laboratory balances arc capable of weighing to tho
nearest OJS g or less. These balances ore suitable for
use here.
2.2 Procedure. Tho following procedure Is written for
a eoiidcnpor system (such as the impiugcr system de-
scribed In Section 2.1.21 Incorpora'ing volumetric analy-
sis to measure the condensed moisture, and silica gel and
gravimetric analysis to measure'the moisture leaving thn
condenser.
FILTER
(EITHER IN STACK
OR OUT OF STACK)
STACK
WALL
CONDENSER-ICE BATH SYSTEM INCLUDING
SILICA GEL TUBE —7
AIR-TIGHT
PUMP
Figure 4-1. Moisture sampling train-reference method.
111-66
-------
olh"rwi*"*'pt*<-inYf1 l.y lh«» Administrator.
••( i-ii'ht l.ravfrjw |K>mls shall >>r> n:.«-d (nr
r'fiilarsl-irlf . LHVIIIU diameters less Limn (Mil in (2-1 in.).
n iiii'iiiiiuin nl nine poiol.s shall be iis-'il fix rectangular
•I'll-:;- h.iviiti; equivalent dlameliTS le,ss Hum (Mil in
IVM in.). iiM-l :i mi..inium of twelve Lraviis | MM lit:; slmll
I..- US.--I in all otln-i »-:LS*-S. The Inivi-rst: points shall Im
l.wal.'-l uicMi'luiK I" MHhod I. The, use of fewer |Miinl,l
is sni'Jeel I.* lli«-. approval of the Administrator. He.lerl a
suHaMe pii.lie uinl probe length such thai all IniviTSn
points e;tn In- sampled. Consider HamptInn from opposite
:;tili-s uf Lin* stack 'four total sampling \vn U'O Tor liirun
slacks, lo permit use of shorter proho IriiuLhs. Mark thn
proln- willi lirut n-siaUint tnp<: or liy SI.IM.-. ullii-r im-llnMl
In 'l.'iiutr I In: |'ii.|>.-r ilislhuiT. into Lhr sliu-k or 'lili L Inr
fiich .%iinp!in^ point. I'liirf known volumes of water in
thn liisl iwn inipiiiKor.s. Wfif.h nn.l n-cnnl UIR wrijiljt of
Llir silim KI-| li» tin- nr:in-sl o.A jt. and tnitisfrr lln' silicu
^•\ In Ihr. fuiutii impinKvr; :illi>rniil.ivi-ly, Lhr silii'OKcl
inity lirsl, IT l.i.iiisf.-rT'i'l l<> Ihn iinpinu'«-r, uiul Lhr. wi-JKlil
of Ihnsilira K''> pl'in inipi'i^rr n>rorilnl.
2.2.'2 KHccL 11 L'ltnl sampling HUM- snrh (.hat n mini-
mum total vats volume nl (Mil) sum CJI s«l) will ho i,-«l-
l.-ctod, at a ruLi1 no unml'T than O.OV1 ttiV")i'> «'-"•'' c lo ho ilrhTiniiuHl. tlm rnnlstnrc ili't^nnlnnlion si ml I
1m simultaneous willi, und fur the y
thn AdniinisLialor. l-'or enrh run, rwoid. tho dnl.n m-
ipiired on the tixutnple data sheet shown in Kufure 4 2.
He siiri- to record the. dry p;iks mnUv reading at tfip l>cglli-
ning and end of each santpling lime Increment and when-
*w sampttiiK Li halted. Takn othw approprlaln readluio
at wu'.h sample point, at least once during nach time
Irirremonl
'J.'.i..r) Tfi lipt:in sntnpliitR, position the prnhv lip nl. tltc
I:i .1 tiuvi-rse iMtinl. Imniodiatftly start the pump mid
fi'dnst the Mow lo ihit decdred rate. Trnve.r.'v* tlu* fin^s
.vrljfui, sJitnpliiiR ill rairh travttrsn p^tinl for fin etpinl
length of limn. Add more lee and, if neee,ssnry. salt u>
main Lain a tr-nijMirature of less limn 2U° C OiH° i1') ut thn
silica pnl outlet.
2,2.A A flJir eollocling the samplft, disconncH't l.he prnhn
from Die lilUir holder (or horn th(> first impin^nrjuiid .-on-
duct a leak chock (mandatory) as described in Section
2.2.3. Uncord the leak rate. If HIP leakage raterxeoed.s the
allowable rale, the tester shall eithc
suits or shall correct the sample vnln
of Method ft. No.xt, measure the vo!u
condensed lo Lite nearwil ml. Untcrn
weight of the silica unl (or silica KI-I i>l
m-anvst O.S R. Utx-ord this Informatior
reject the test ro-
10 as in .Section *i,3
10 of the rnoHurn
no thn intTea.se in
s impincor) lo tho
(sen example dala
islnrr iM-ice.nt.afjo,
«;l. KiRiirc-l :i)nndrale,ulaU; the ii
a-; d.'.Hi-rihml In 2.3 hclow.
'A.'A CalciilalioiiH. (>arry oul the following oalt-ulations,
retaining at Iwwt onn eitra dwimal ftgnro bpyoud that of
tin) aetjulred dala. Hound ail figure*} after final calr-.ulu-
lion.
PLANT
rOCATION_
OPERATOR.
DATE
RUN NO
AMBIENT TEMPERATUR&.
BAROMETRIC PRESSURE.
PROBE LENGTH n(ft)
SCHEMATIC OF STACK CROSS SECTION
TRAVERSE POINT
• UMBER
.
TOTAL
SAMHING
TIME
(9).«n.
•
.
AVERAGE
STACK
TEMPERATURE
•tPH
. .
PRESSURE
DIFFERENTIAL
ACROSS
ORIFICE METER
UN).
nnlnj HjO
METER
READING
GAS SAMPLE
VOLUME
«J(hJ)
»
AV.
«J(ftJ)
GAS SAMPLE TEMPERATURE
AT DRV GAS METER
INLET
rr-ij.occo
A«9.
A^..
OUTLET
(Tw0ut).°CPF)
A*
TEMPERATURE
OF GAS
LEAVING
CONDENSER OR
LAST IMPINGER.
•C («F)
^
Figure 4-2. Field moisture determination-reference method.
111-67
-------
FINAL
INITIAL
nirrERENCi
WINGER
VOLUME.
ml
. .
M.ICAGEI
•EIGHT.
a
Fiyorc 4 It. Anjlylicnl iljta . iefcicm.e inuthod.
2.3.1 Nomenclature.
J*B.- • rio|Kirtli»n of water xapoi, by volume, in
llmgoa stream.
M » •- Molecular wejiglil of water. 18.0 g/g-mole
(IK.OIb/lb-inole).
7'.. - Absolute pressure (f"f this mctho'l, same
us barometric, pressure) at Ihu dry gas meter,
mm Ilg (In. ll«).
t'.n Slainlurd absolute |>iessiire, 700 mm Ifg
(2!l.!i2in. UK).
/( Ideal gas conslant, Oi»iL':tO (mm UK) (in')/
ill-mole) (°K) for melric units and 21. RO (In.
Ilg) (ft')/(lb-mole) (°H) for English units.
'/'»•= Absolute tomiK-raturc at meter, *K <" U).
T.u -Hlonuard absolute t-niiivrature, ZWI" K
V,W R).
Vm=* Dry gas volume measured by dry gas meter,
dcm (dcf).
AV.'- Incremental dry gas volume measured by
dry gas meter at each traverse point, dcm
(del).
V^tn)- Dry gas volume measured by the dry gas
meter, corrected to .•.l.aiulurd conditions,
dscm (dscf).
Vw,t,u)~ Volume of water va|ior condensed corrected
lo standard conditions, scm (set).
V., ,(, id) = Volume of wator vapor collected in silica
gel corrected to standard conditions, scm
(set).
V> = KinBl volume of condenser water, nil.
Vi— lullial volume, if any, of condenser water,
nil.
(f, = l''inal weight of silica i;el or silica gel plus
implngcr, g.
If, = Initial welghl of silica gel or silica c<-l plua
impinger, g.
V'^Dry gas mi;ler c.ulil^ralion factor.
!'.= Density of water, O.'JUH^ g/m| io.(X)220l
Ib/ml).
2.3.2 Volume, of water vapor condens-d.
(V,
,- V,)
Kquation 4 I
rhore:
Ki=O.OOI3M mi/ml for metric uniUs
=0.04707 fl]/ml for English runts
2.8.8 Volume of wator vapor collected in silica gel.
rhere:
Jfi=0.001336 mVg for metric units
-0.04716 ff/gfor English anils
1.8.4 Sample gas volume.
Equation 42
'/'„
Wll'T' .
Ki|il:il.lun I 3
i':ihf,H "K/niNi UK tor metric unils
17.04 " It/In. Ilg for Kngli.sli units
NOTK.—If tlm |Kist-tost leak rule
lorrccl II
tn Sccllon II :i of Method 5.
-If tlm iKist-tost leak rule (.Section V.'.'.rt ei-
n«d« tlm allowable rate, correct llui v:ilnn of Vm III
K«tiiit), to dry the sitmplc. Ran and to pro-
liwl I he meter ami pump.
s.l.S Valve. Needle valve, lo regulate I he sample gas
flow rule.
3.l.e, or equiva-
lent., to pull tlu> (!ILS Aainple through the Train.
:t.l.7 Voliiinn. inrtor. Dry v.na nmlcr, sllflleienl.ly ac.-
rurate u> moasiirc Iho sample volume within 2%, and
calibrated over the range of (low ratrc and conditions
actually encouiitered during sinnpllng.
3.1.K Kale Meter. Hotameli'.r, to nu-nsurc the How
range from U to 31 pm (0 to 0.11 e.fin).
.1.1.0 Graduated Cylinder. 2.r> ml.
3.1.10 Barometer. Mercury, aneroid, or oilier barom-
eter, as described In Section 2.1.6 alx>v«.
3.1.11 Vacuum Gauge. At Inast 760 mm Ilg (30 in.
Hg) gauge, to be used (or the sampling leak check.
3.2 1'rocedure.
3.2.1 Place eiactly 6 ml distilled wator in each im-
pinger. Assemble tho apparatus without the probe as
shown in Figure 4-4. Leak check the train by placing a
vacuum gauge at the Inlet to the first tmplnger and
drawing a vacuum ot at least 250 mm Ilg (10 In. Hg),
plugging the outlet of the rotameter, and then turning
off the pump. The vacuum shall remain constant tor at
east one minute. Carefully release the vacuum gauge
Ibcforc unplugging the rotameter end.
HEATED PROBE
SILICA GEL TUBE
RATE METER (
VALVE
FILTER
(GLASS WOOL)
ICE BATH
DRY GAS )
JSETER /
MIDGET IMPINGERS
PUMP
Figure 4-4. Moisture-sampling train - approximation method.
111-6$
-------
LOCATION.
TEST
COMMENTS
DATE
OPERATOR
BAROMETRIC PRESSURE
CLOCK TIME
•
GAS VOLUME THROUGH
METER, (Vm),
m3 (ft3)
•
RATE METER SETTING
m3/min. (ft3/min.)
METER TEMPERATURE.
°C (°F)
Figure 4-5. Field moisture determination • approximation method.
of
Hie
.122 Connect thr; probe, Insert it Into the stack, and
sample at a constani rale ..» 2 Ipm (0.071 cfm). Oonlinue.
sampling unlll the dry gas moter registers about SO
lilers (1.1 ft«) or unlil visible liquid droplets arc carried
over (roin the first lm|iinB«r to the second. Kccord
temiwralurc, pressure, and dry gas motor readings as
remiired by Figure. 4-5. .
•12.1 Alter collecting the wimple, combine the con-
l..nWof the two iinpingerK.nid measure Uii: volume to the
ni'iiresl n./i ml. . .
•| 3 Cnlcnlalinns. Tli ...... Iriili'lion method presented is
designed to eslimiile I.I.. moisture in Iho stuck gas;
therefore, other diila, wha-li lire, only necessary ['" nc-
enrule moisture determinations. are nol collected. Iho
following «|ll!itiuns ml ..... i:il'-lv estimate the moisluru
eonlKiil . for tin- |MN|Kisr. ..I di-l-rlinnnr. niklnelh: «»"-
pling nile s«!lliii;'>.
:i:i I NoiMi-ni-UiMire.
JI...-A|iprn»iiii!ilf. |.rn|«,ili"ii, liy vnln
wilier vn|Kir in thn Rus .slnaim leuvi
SIT. ..... 1 impinrrr, (UKS.
/!..=Waler vi.iwr in the Kns stream. pro|x)rli..n liy
volume.
yi/.=Molecnlar weight of water, 18.0 c/K-molo
(IK.O'b/lh-molc I
y.=Ahsolnte pressure (for this method, same as
barometric prwsurc) at the dry gas meter
l'.n= Standard absolute pressure, 760 Dim Jig
R^ Ideal gas conslnnt, 0.06236 (mm Hg) (m1)/
(g-molo) (°K) for metric units and 21.85
(in. Hg) (fl')/lb-roolc) (°K) tor l.nghsb
T.= Absolute temperature at meter, °K (°R)
7'.u=8tandard absolute temporaturo, 2U3 K
(528° K)
V/=Final volume of Impinger contents, ml.
V,-=Initlal volume of Impinger contents, ml.
V«=Dry gas volume measured by dry gas meter,
dcm (dcf).
V.(.n>=Dry gas volume measured by dry gas meter,
corrected to standard conditions, dscm
Vr.(«u>=volume of water vapor condensed, corrected
to standard conditions, scm (scf).
«.=Densityof wal.T, O.U982 g/ml (0.002201 Hi/ml).
3.3.2 Volume of water vai»r coUectiJ.
( V, -•- V.)P.«T.«,,
''-" ~"
K)
where:
Ki=O.I»ISM in'.'ml fnr mntric nulls
=0.(M7U7 fl'/ml for Knglish ii'iils.
3.3.3
volume.
i 4-0
where:
= 17.61 "It/in. II); l'ir Kngli: !i nulls
3.3.4 Approximate mo'iHlure content.
V"»
Hfl~~ I/ f ,r '" ~ "T" "»•"•
Va,e-\-Vmf,,,u
+ (0.025)
: Ciililirulion
4.1
Equation 4-7
. For the ref'-ivnce method, cfllilu-aio. eqiiiiinient as
sjtccificd in the. following se.r.iiom of Method .'»: Heel ion f».3
(meterinc sysle.m); t't'clion 5..'» (leni[)erature pnuge^i;
and Seel ion 5,7 (barometer). The recommended leak
check of the metering system (Section 5.6 of Method 6)
also applies to the reference method. For the approxima-
tion method.^isc the. procedures outlined in Section S.I.I
of Method 6 to calibrate the meiering system, and ihe
procedure of Method 5, Section 5.7 to cniiiirjle the
barometer.
K(|iiiili«ii 4- 5
1. Air Pollution F.njiiuvring Manual (See/mil Kdiiion).
l>anielson, J. A. (ed.). U.S. Knvironniental I'rolectlon
Agency, tXTice of Air yuality rianning and Standards.
Research Triangle I'ark, N.C. Publication No. AF-40.
l'.)73.
2. JJiivurlfin, Tlownrd, ct al. Air follulion SOIHO: Test-
ing Manual. Air 1'ollin ion (Join ml District, Ixis Angeles,
Calif. November, luc;;.
3. Methods for Determination of Velocity, Volume,
Bast and Mist Content of (lasi--. Western Precipitation
Division of Joy Manufacturing Co., Ix» Angeles'. Calif.
Uullctin WP-50. 11163.
111-69
-------
JJLTKOn s— DtTC»i.i).»Tir.v or Srtn « HIUIH i
ElllUIOM FaOtt eJTAllOMtn BuVK. L>
». frifei
1.1 Principle A gas sample U •itn«-ii-d froui th»
sampling point In tbe sues.. Tbe sulfurir s»:id mix
Uacluajag sulfur tnoilde) and tbe sulfur dioxide are
•eparated. Tbi niUar dioxide freriion u measured by
UM bej-lum-tborm utreuon method.
1.3 Appueel'0ji)-. i-hit metbod U applicable lor UK
•sier initiation ol sulltu diniide emissions from stationary
source,-.. The minimum detectsMe limit ol the method
but b»u determined u> bf 3.4 DJilhf run- (rog> ol SOt'm1
(J.12X10-' Ib'li >). Although no upper limit tat been
established. lest* have shewn that concentrations e>
high u 80.000 Dig's' ol 6Ui can be roDeoied e ft c Irmly
io uro midget ImplnKrrs, eaeh containing IS ruilliliieri
of 3 percent h>drogen peroxide . at e rale ol 10 Ipm lor
JO minute;. Boaed on ibeorrtiv-al calculations. Uie upper
concentration limit ID a 20-liter sample is about U.lut
Bc'ru'.
Possible InterlerenU ere free ammonis. water-soluble
cations, and fluoride;. Tbe cationr. and fiuortdvs are
remove j by glaj5 » oo) flli UK option of •abstltutlnf aamplint eqnlp-
Baot described In Method 8 ID place ol Ibe midfet 1m
Mnfer equipment of Method 6. Bowrrer. the Method 8
train moit be modified to Include a baatco filter between
the probe and laoptopanol Iroplnjf r, and tbe operation
ft toe aampUnt train and aamplr analyilj mnn be at
tba flow ratal and Mlulion Tolnmo denned In Method 8.
The Utter also baa tor option of delermlnlnt. 8O>
•InulUncoutly with paniculate matUr and moisture
datcrmlnatloni by (1) replacing the water In a Method 5
Implntfr ijiUrn .with » percent perloUde aolntlon. or
(ft by replactni the Method i water Implnter ntum
with a Method 8 laopropanol-llltcr-paroilde lyitetn. Tbe
aaaJyxlt for 8Oi mint be coniiiunt with the prooedurr
to Method 8.
1.1.1 Probe. Boroellicau (lug. 01 lUlnhat fuel (other
intertill of ooutrucllon may be oaed, iob|ect to the
•pproTal of the Admlniiumtor). approilmately 6-mm
malde djametcr, with a beating lystem to preTent water
MOdeuailon and a fljter (either ln«tack or heated out-
atack) to remove partlcnlavr matter, Including lulturic
add mlit. A plot of glass wool ti a (ttlslaclory filter.
J.1.J Bubbler and unplncen. One mldtet bubbler,
with medlunxoane flaaa Irlt and borotiucau or qoaru
fkB wool packed In top (aee Flfure 6-1) to prevent
anlfurlc add mut carryover, and three JO-ml midget
|]Dpln|en. Tbe bubbler and midget Implngen most be
emuieclrd In eerlee with leck^ree (Ian connector*. BID-
too* mut may be tued. U nereiaary, t« prevent H*kac e.
Al tbe option of tbe tester, a midget tmplnter may be
BMd In {ilace of the mtdiet bubbler.
Other collection abwrben and flow r»Uo may b« u»d,
bat are nbject to tbe approval of the Admlniftrmtor.
Alao, eollertlozi efficiency mtut be thown to be at leaat
M peioent (or eacb test run and mult be documented In
tbe report. It tbe efficiency Is found to be acceptable alur
a acnes of three torts, further documental Ion Is not
required. To conduct tbe efficiency test, an extra »t>
•orbcr must be added and analyted separately. This
extra absorber must not contain more than 1 percent ol
Ike total BOt.
1.1 J Olais Wool. Borostllcat* or quarti.
t.1.4 Btopcock Orease. Acetone-Insoluble, beat-
atoble sUlcone (rease may be used. If necesaary.
1.1.6 Temperature Gauge. Dial UMrmomater, or
•qolvalent, to measure temperature ol gas leaving Un-
•bxer trmlc to within 1* C (J* F.)
" Vl.« Drying Tube. Tube pecked wttb «- to l«-m«»h
todlcettng type ttllca gel, or equivalent, to dry UM gas
•ample and to protect tbe met«r and pump. If tbe sillac
eel has been used previously, dry at 176» C (aSP F) lor
I boun. New silica gel may be used as received. AJUms-
ttvely, other types of desircants (equivalent or better)
•ay be used, subject to approval of the Administrator.
1.1.7 Value. Needle value, to nculale sample gas flow
res*.
S.U Pump. Leak-tree disphragm pump, or equiv-
alent. to poll gas through the train. Install a small tank
between tbe pump and rate meter to eliminate the
pulsation eflect of the diaphragm pump on tbe nrUmeler.
J.1.8 Rate Meter. Rotaroeur, or equivalent, capable
•f measuring flow rate to wlthlo t percent of UM (elected
•ow rate of about 1000 ee/mln.
11.10 Volume M»te>. Dry gai metoi, infflclently
•ecurate to measure the sample volume within 2 percent.
ctllbnud at tbe selected flow rate aod conditions
actually encountered durins. sampllos. and equipped
wile a umperature gauge (dial thermometer, or equiv-
alent) oapablt of measuring temperature to within
rc ti.4*F ).
1.1 II barometer. Mercury, amerold, or other barom-
eter oapablr of measuring atmospheric pressure to within
14 mm H| (0 1 In. B«). In many easrs. the barometric
ratdliif may be obtained (rum a nearby national weather
eerTto« sUUon, ID which our the station value (which
I* thf absolute barometric pressure) shall be requested
and an adjustment for elevation dlfTerenres between
Ut» weather station and sampllns point shall be tppli*d
sjtarauofmlnus2.9mm Hg (0.1 In. Hg) peraOm 000ft)
aiaTaUoo Increase or vice vena for elevation decrease.
1.1.U Vacuum Otuge. At least 760 mm Hg (30 In.
Hg) gaugr, to be used lor leak cback of tbe sampling
train.
1.2 Sample Recovery.
tl.l Wash bottles. Polyethylene or glass, 800 ml,
two.
1.2.2 Storage Bottles. Polyethylene, 100 ml, to store
implnger samples (one per sample).
I.I Analysis.
14.1 Pipettes. Volumetric type, S-ml, »ml (one per
•ample), and 54-ml slses.
IS J Volumetric Flasks. 100-ml slse (one per sample)
and 100-ml slse.
SJ.Ji Burettes. &• and SO-ml sites.
1.1 t Krl^nmeyer Flasks IX znl4lse (cae for each
•ample, blank, and standard!.
1.1.6 Dropping Bottle. 126-mi slse, to add Indicator.
SJ.d Onduated CyUnder. 100-ml site.
U 7 BpectropbotomeUr. To measure abaorbance a.
8tt nanometers
*•*?*!«•
Unless otherwise Indicated, all reagrats must conform
to tbe specifications established by tbe Committee on
Analytics! Reagents of tbe American Chemical Soclet).
Where such specifications are not available, use the best
available grade. ,
(.1 Sampling.
1.1.1 WaterTDtlonlsed, distilled to conform to A8TM
apeclflcation D1193- 7J. Type 2. At tbe option of the
analyst, the KMnC< ten for oildltable organic matter
may be omitted wb-.n high ooncentretlons of organii
matter are not expected to oe present.
1.1.2 Isopropanol, 80 percent. Mil SO ml of Isopropanol
with 20ml of delonlied. distilled water. Check each lot of
Isopropanol for peroiloe Impurities as follows.: sbakr 10
ml of Isopropanol with 10 ml of freshly prepared 10
percent potassium Iodide solution. Prepare a blank by
similarly treating 10ml of distilled water. After 1 minute.
read thf absorhance at tol nanometers on a spectro-
pbotometer. U absorbance exceeds 0.1, reject alcohol tor
oae.
PeroiMn may be removed from Isopropanol by redis-
tilling or by panage through a column of activated
alumina; however, reagent grade laonropano! with
soltably low peroxide levels may be obtained from com-
mercial sources. Rejection of contaminated lots may,
therefore, be a more eftV.lenl procedure
S.I.I Hydrogen Peroxide, • Percent. Dilute SO percent
bydroien peroside 1:9 (v/v) with deionltrd. distilled
water (to ml Is needed per sample). Prepare fresh dally
J.I 4 Potassium Iodide Solution, 10 Percent. Dissolve
10.0 grams Kl In delonised, distilled water and dilute to
100 ml. Prepare when needed.
S.2 Sample Recover)-.
I.J.I Water. Deionlted, distilled, a? In 1.1.1.
S.2.1 Isopropanol. 80 Percent. Mil 80 ml of Isopropanol
with 20 rol of delonlted, distilled water.
S.I Analysis.
Ml Water. Delonlied, distilled, as In I.I.I.
SJ.2 Isopropanol, 100 percent.
11} Thorin Indicator Ho-arsonopnenylato)-2
napbibo]-3.f~duul(onlc acid, dlsodium salt, or equiva-
lent. Dissolve 0.20 g In 100 ml of delonised, distilled
water
SJ4 Barium Perchlorate Solution, 0.0100 K Div
•Olre I.Ug of borlum perchlorate tribydrate |Ba(riO.)i
SBiO| In 200 ml distilled water and dilute to I liter with
•opropanol. Alurnatlvely. I 22 g of |B»Clr2H,0| ma>
be tued Instead of the poicbJonie Sundardiu as In
Section 6.6.
J.35 Bulfuric Acid Standard, 00100 N. Pturhai* or
standardize to »0 00n2 N against 0.0100 N NaOH which
has previously been standardlted anlnst potassium
acid phthalate (primary tundard grade).
4. Pnadun.
4.1 Sampling.
4.1.1 Preparation of collection tr«ln Measure 15 ml of
10 percent uoprope.no! Utto the rnidnet bubbler and 16
ml of J percent hydrogen peroildr Into each of the first
two midget Implngers Leave the Anal midget Implncer
dry Auemble the train as shown In Figure 6-1. Adjust
probe heater to a temperature lufflclent to prevent water
condensation. Plan crushed ice and water around tbe
tmplngen.
4 I 2 Leak-check procedure A leak rhsrk prior to the
sampling run Is optional however, a leak rherk after tb*
sampling run Is mandatory. Thi leak -check procedure is
as follows:
With the probe disconnected, place a vacuum gauge at
tbe Inlet to the bubbler and pull a vacuum of 2tt mm
(10 In ) Hg: plug or nlnch off the outlet of the flow meter.
and then turn off the pump The vacuum shall remain
stable (or at least 30 seconds Carefully release the
vacuum game before releasing tbe flow meler end to
prevent bark flow of the Implnger fluid.
Other leak check procedures may be used, subject to
the approval of the Administrator. U R. Environmental
Protection Aienry. The procedure used In Method J U
not mutable for diaphragm pump*
41.1 Sample collection Record the Initial dry gas
meter reading and barometric pressure To begin sam-
pling. position the tip of the probe at the sampling point,
connect the probe to the bubbler, and rUrt the pi imp
Adjust the sample flow to a constant rate of ap-
proximately I 0 llter'mln as Indicated by tbe rotaroeter
Maintain this constant rate («IO percent) during the
entire sampling run. Take readings (dry gas meter.
temperatures at dry gas meter and at Implnger outlet
and rate meter) at least every 6 minutes Add more Ice
during the run to keep the temperature of the gases
leaving the last Implnger at 20* C (M° F) or less. At the
conclusion of each run, turn ofl the pump, remove probe
from tbe *ts>ck. and record tbe final readings Conduct a
leak check as In Section 4.1.2. (This leak check li manda-
tory ) If a leak Is found, void tbe teat run. Drain the Ice
bath, and purge the remaining part of the train by draw-
Ing clean ambient air through tbe system for IS minutes
at the sampling rate.
Clean ambient air can be provided by passing air
through a charcoal filter or through an extra midget
Implnger with 19 ml of S percent HrOi. Tbe teeter may
opt to simply use ambient air, without purification
4.2 Sample Recovery. Disconnect the Implngers after
purflng. Discard the contents of tbe mldgst bubbler. Pour
tbe contents of the midget Impingen Into a leak-free
polyethylene bottle for shipment Rinse the three midget
Impingen and tbe connecting tubes with delonlxed.
distilled water, and add the washings to the same storage
container. Mark the fluid level. Seal and Identify the
sample container.
4.1 Sample Analysts. Note level of liquid In container,
and confirm whether any sample was lost during ship-
ment; note this on analytical data sheet. If • noticeable
amount of leakage bis occurred, either void tbe sample
or use methods, subject to the approval of tbe Adminis-
trator, to correct the final results.
Transfer the contents of tbe storage container to a
100-ml volumetric flask and dilute to exactly 100 ml
with delonlied. distilled water. Pipette • 20-ml aliquot of
this solution into a 240-ml Erlenmeyer flask, add SO ml
of 100 percent Isopropanol and two to four drops of thortn
Indicator, and titrate to a pink endpoint using 0 0100 N
barium perch Ion. te Repeat and average tbe Utration
volumes Run a blank with each series of samples. Repli-
cate tltratlons must agree within I percent or 0.2 ml,
whichever Is larger.
(NoTk.— Protect tbe 0.0100 N barium
solution from evaporation at sjl tunes.)
parcnlomte
S.I Metering System.
S.I.I Initial Calibration. Before Its Initial use in tbe
field, first leak check the metering system (drying tube.
needle valve, pump, rotametor, ana dry gas meter) as
follows: place a vacuum gauge at tbe inlet to the drying
tube and pull a vacuum of 230 """ (10 In.) Hg: plug oe
anch off the outlet or the flow meter, and then turn ofl
e pump. Tbe vacuum shall remain stable tor at lean
SO seconds. Carefully release the vacuum gauge before
releasing the flow meter end.
Neit, calibrate the metering system (at the sampling
flow rate specified by the method) as follow*: connect
an appropriately sited wet (e*t meter (04., 1 liter par
revolution) to the Inlet of the drying tube. Make three
Independent calibration runs, using at least five revolu-
tions of the dry gas meter per run. Calculate the calibra-
tion factor, Y (wet test meter calibration volume divided
by the dry gas meter volume, both volumes adjusted to
trie same reference temperature and .pressure), tor each
run, and average the results. If any r vUue deviates by
more than 2 percent from the average, the metering
system Is unacceptable for use. Otherwise, use tbe aver-
age •• the calibration factor for subsequent test runs.
S.1.2 Post Te
-------
6.3 TlMnnotMUn. Callbrala tfOaii ntnanMa-
ftea thermomeun.
6.J Rotameter. The rotameter n*ad not b* eallbraUd
bat ibould be cteaned and malotalnad aooordlnt to lb«
manuBKiurti'i Instruction.
1.4 Barometer. Calibrate afttnrt • mercury bwam-
•Ur.
tJ Barium Penhlorat* Solution. Sundardlu UM
barium percblorale lalDUon acalnjl tt ml of lundkrd
•ulfurtc tcld to wbleb 100 m) 0} 100 percent Uopropaool
b«i baan added.
Carry oat calculations, retaining at lean on* eiua
daelma) figure beyond thai of the acquired data. Round
off figures after Anal calculation.
a, I Nomenclature.
Cm -Concentration of fulfill dioxide, dry bads
' corrected to ttandard conditions, mi/dscm
. (Ib/dncf).
JV-Normality of barium parcbJorate tltnnt,
mllllequlvaltnts/ml.
>%..-Barometric pressure at the exit ortftoB of the
dry gas meter, mm H| (In. Hf).
/>«<« Standard absolute pressure. 760 mm Hf
(29.92 In. H|).
7".- Average dry ta> mettr abaolute temperature.
•K CR).
7*>u—Standard absolute temperature, SI* K
(»»• R).
V.-Volume of sample aliquot titrated, ml. *
V.-Dry fk> volume w measured by Ibe dry ne
, dem (dcf).
V.U^J-Dry fis volume n>eaeiirii<1 by the dry fat
malar, eorreelad la ilandard eondltlons.
daon (dsef).
V.i.-Total volume of solotion In which Ibe enllur
dioxide sample Is contained. 100 ml.
V,-Volume of barium perch torn* tltrant used
far the sample, ml (average of repllcau
tllrWtons)
V,.-Volume of barium psrcblonU Utrant used
lor the blank, ml.
V- Dry gas meter calibration factor.
H 03- Equivalent weight of sulfur dloilde.
ftj Dry (ample gai volume, eorrected to standard
oondiuons. ._.._.
S7 v " **'
A'r~r.r
Kquatton e-1
ri-OJUS «K/Bn B( far BMrte onlu.
-IT.M'RAn. 84 lor Entllib unit*.
M Sulfur dioxide oonoratmlon.
'•(•M
Zquadoo *-J
ITi-K.OO ml/meq. far metric unlu
-r.06IX10-« Ib/moq. far Bnfllib unlu.
7
1. Atmospheric Emtalon* from Bolfurlc Add Mtno-
tecturtni Vroontf* U.S. DHEW. pMH. DI»Ulon of Air
Pollution. Public Health Berrloe Publlcmllon No.
W»-AP-11. Clndnnail. Ohio. I8W.
J Corbetl. P. F. The Determination of BOi and BOi
In Pin* Qaaea. Journal of the. Innltnuof Fnel.ti in-
to. 19*1.
I. Matty. R. E. and B. K. Dlehl. Mnanrlnf Flue-Ota
SOi and BO.. Por«r. 101: M-vr. Novembrr IW7.
4. Patton. W. F. and J. A. Brink. Jr. New Equipment
and Twbnlquw for Bampllnf fhemJoal Procew Hun.
I. Air Pollution Control Aitoclatton. 13 162. IM1.
t. Rom.J.J.MalnUnanof.CaUbrallon.andOprrallon
of Itoklnetlc aouree-Bamplinf Equipment. Omot o(
Air Protrranu. Enrlranmental Protection Aiency.
R«a>arcti TrUn«l. Park. N.C. APTD-067B. Marcb 1977.
». Hamll. H. F. and D. B Camann. CollaboratlTe
Study of Method for the DeUrmlnalton of Sulfur Dloilde.
EmlBloru tram Biallonary Bouret* (FoBll-Fuel Fired
Steam Ueneraton). Environmental Protection Agency.
Reaearch Ttlanflc Park, N.C. KPA-4M/4-74-024.
Decuobcr 1971.
7. Annual Book of A8TM Btandarda. Part It; Waur.
Almoapherlc AnalyfU. American Society for
and Materials. Philadelphia. Pa. 1774. pp. 40-tt
S. Knoll. J. E. and M. R. Midfett. The Application of
EPA Method 6 to Hlfh Bulnir Dloiide Concentration!.
Environment*) Protection Ateoey. Retaanh Trianfle
Park. N.C. BPA-400/4-76-OIB. July 1976.
THERMOMETER
PROBE (END PACKED
WITH QUARTZ OR
PYREX WOOL)
SILICA GEL
DRYING TUBE
PUMP
Figure 6-1. SC>2 sampling train.
SURGE TANK
HI-71
-------
MBTBOD 7—DmainvAisoM or Nmoatv. bznn
Kntssnin PMH BTATIOIUIT Soon*
1. frtudpb «iM XpgHesWt
I.I Principle. A grab sample Is collected In an evacu-
ated flaak containing a dilute suUurtc eeld-bydroten
peroxide absorbing solution, and the nitrogen oxides,
axoe.pt nitrous onde. are measured eolorimeterloaUy
using tb* pbenoldlsullonlc add (PD8) procedure.
U Applicability. This method Is applicable to the
saauurement ot nitrogen oildes emitted from stationary
•Borcee. The range of the mttbod has bean determined
to be t to 400 mUflgnuLj NO. (as NOi) per dry standard
eabie meter, without having to dilute the sample.
11 "t^r""! <"» Figure 7-1). Other grab ewnpllnj
liateint or equipment, capable of measuring sample
volume to within ±10 percent and collecting a sufficient
sample volume to allow analytical reproauclblUty to
within ±S percent, will b* eooiidend ccrfpUble «Jt«-
D*tlTd. iub)ect to ipprorml ot the Administrator. U.S.
KnTlroameaUl ProteclloD A^met- The foUowlni
eqnlpmeot U med In •mpUof:
1.1.1 Probe. Boradlleete flaa tublnj. nfflcleotly
beMed to prevent wmler oondeojeUon end equipped
with u In-elack or oot-«Uck filter to remove pvtlcuUte
(» plug of |le* wool 1» mlbttcUHj tor thli
r __ >). Sulnlea fUel or Teftoo ' tubing CUT ilio be
i lor the probe. Bekttnt li not n*eee»rj U ue probe
renuklni dry dortnf the por|in( period.
• Mention of trede namet or (peeUte prodocU doe> not
eoo(Utate endaneateat by the KortronmenUl Pro-
Uettoo Annoy.
LU Collection Plwk. Two-Uur boraillokte. round
bottom Bert, with ihort nerk end 14/40 iundvd uper
Opmlng. prol»rl»d Mlilnsl Itnplcnion or bre»ke?r
1.1.3 Fluk Valvr. T-bort itopoock eonnected to •
M/40 lundvd Uprr lolni
S.1.4 Temprreturt Oui(t. DUl-type tbarmometer. or
olbrr tempmturr fmw. oemblf of meuurlng I* C
(T DlnUrveOtlrom -iloMT C OivoUS'F). .
1.1.i Vecuum Lint Tubing oepebU o( wtibjuadlu
• vecuuni of 7J mni Hi (S In. H() tbtolut* pnvun. with
"T" connection end T-bort noprock.
11.6 Vkcuurc O»u»f TJ-tubf nunotneter, I meter
(K lu.), will) l-mai (O.Mn.) dlvlilona. or other (*uf»
espstilr of meMurlDf preisun to within ±2.!i mm Hi
(0.10 in. Ilg).
11.7 Pump. Cepebt* of •TecruUnj the collection
fluk to » preeeurc equal to or lee than ?> mm HI (I In.
Hi; ebtolutc.
5.1 » Equretr Bulb. One-way.
1.1.9 Volumetric PipeUc. 21 ml.
11.10 Btoprock and Ground Joint Qreaar. A high-
vacuum, bign-umprraturr chlorofluorocvooo frreec It
reqoirrd. Ha)ocarbonZV^B has t*»n found lobeeflrcllvf.
ll.ll Baromrtfr. Mercury, aneroid, or other barom
Mar capable of measuring atmospheric pressure to within
J.I mm Ht (0.1 in. U;). ID many caan. the barometric
reading may be obtained from a nearby national weather
earvirr siauon. In which cate the Helton value (which It
the absolute barometric preasurr) ihall be requested and
an ad]uitmeni loi elevation dlflirrncee between the
weaibfj utation and sampling point ihall be applied at a
rate of minus 2.5 mm H| (0.1 In. H(> net 80 m (100 ft)
elevation tnrreaar. of vice vena for elevation decreaK.
12 Sarnpl* Recovery. Tbe following equipment It
required for aarnple'^ecovery:
SJ.l Graduated Cylinder. 50 ml with 1-ml dlvtilonj.
>^2 Storage Containers. Leak (ne polyetbylene
bottles.
2:2.1 Wash Bottle Polyethylene or glat*
12.4 Olats Burring Rod.
12.* Test Paper lor Indicating pB. To eovar the pB
mote of 7 tn 14.
IJ Analvslb. For the analysts, the tollowlng eqolp-
•ent Is neaded.
is.i Votumetrlr Pipettes. Two 1 ml. two 2 ml, one
I ml, ont 4 ml, two 10 ml, and one 28 ml tor each sample
and standard
\.
JJ.5 Porcelain Evaporating Dishes. 17fr- to 260-ml
oaparllt with Up (or pouring, one lor each sample and
each standard. The Coon No. UOW (shallow-form. 196
ml) ha* been toond to be satisfactory. Alternatively,
polymethyl pentene beakers (Nalg* No. 1203. ISC ml), or
glace bees en (110 ml) may be used. When glass beaken
are used, etching of the beakers may raiw solid matter
to be preanit In the analytical sun. the solids should be
removed by filtration (set Section 4.3).
2.*.* Steam Bath. Low-temperature ovens or thermo-
statically control!*) hot plates kept below 70° C (190° F)
•re acceptable alternatives.
li. 4 Dropping Pipette or Droppet. Three required.
2J.i Polyethylene Policeman. One tor each temple
and each standard
2.8.0 Graduated Cylinder. 100ml with l-tnldivisions.
2.3.7 Volumetric Flasks. M) ml (one for each sample).
100 ml (one for each sample and aarb standard, and one
tor the working standard KNOi solution), and 1000 ml
(onr).
2.1.8 Spectropbotometer. To measure abaorbance at
410 nm.
2.8.0 Graduated Pipette. 10 ml with 0.1-ml divisions.
* 11.10 Trrt Paper tor Indicating pH. To cover the
pH range of 7 to 14.
2.».11 Analytical Batanoc. To measure U within O.I
mg.
WO6E
r
FILTER
GROUND-GLASS SOCKET.
§ NO. 12/6
f&"
110mm
3-WAV STOPCOCK:
T-BORE. i PTREX.
2«mn BORE. 8-rnm OO
FLASK
SQUEEZE BULB
MP VALVE
PUMP
THERMOMETER
GROUND-GLASS CONE.
STANDARD TAPER. GROUND-GLASS
I SLEEVE NO. 24/40 SOCKET. § NO. U*
rVREX
•FOAM ENCASEMENT
BOILING FLASK -
2-LITER. ROUND-BOTTOM. SHORT NECK.
WITH | SLEEVE NO. 24/40
Fiflure 7-1. Sampling train, flask valve, and flask.
111-72
-------
Unless otherwise Indicated. II Is Intended that el)
reagent* oonlorm to tbe specifications established by the
Committee on Analytical Reeeenu ol the Amerto»n
Chemical Society, where turh st>*ciQoalloiu are avail
•ble: otherwise. UK- thr best available grade.
a.! Sampling To prepare the absorbing solution.
awollously tan 2.1 ml concentrated HiSO. to 1 Ulo of
4Monlred. dmllled water. Mil writ end will 8 JnJ of I
awnuiit hydrogen peroxide, (rashly piepared from go
parrent hydrogen peroild- solution The absorbing
•OluUon should be used within I week of lu preparation
Do not expose to extreme heat or dtnrt sunlight.
U Sample Recovery. Two reagents trf required tor
ample recovery:
aJ.I Sodium Hydroxide (IN). Dlasolve 40 g N.OH
to drtoolied. dlnllM water and d)lut» to I liter.
U.2 Water. Delonleed. distilled to oonlorm U) A6TM
gawclfioaUao DlIM-74. Type 1. At tbe opUon of the
analyst, UM DfNO> test far oxldlsabte organic matter
nay be omitted when high concentrations of orf»nlc
matter ire not expected to or present.
1.1 Analysis. For the. analysis. lb* following reagent*
an required:
S.1.1 Fuming Sulfuric Acid. 1» to IB percent by weight
fret Kilter Uiosidr. HANDLE WITH CAUTION.
a.t.2 Phenol. White solid.
l.s.S Bulfunc Acid. Concentrated, 94 percent mini-
mum MM). HANDLE WITH CAUTION?
S.1.4 Potassium Nitrate. Dried at 105 u> 110" C (WO
to 2)0° F) lor * minimum of 2 boun |tut prior to prepare
tton ol standard solution.
i.J.i Standard KNOi Solution. Dissolve exert))
S.I9B It of dried potassium nltnir (KNOi) In delonited.
distill^ viler and dilute to 1 liter with deionited.
distill _, water in • 1,000-ml volumetric flask.
I.S.6 Working Standard KNOi Solution. Dilute 10
ml of v * standard solution to 100 ml with deionited
distilled* water. Ooe mlUiliter of the working standard
solution 1s equivalent to 100 ft nitrogen dloude (NOi)
(.3.7 Water. Deionited, distilled as ID Section 3.2.2
S.a.8 PbeuoldisulfonJc Acid Solution. Dissolve 26 I
Ot pure white phenol In 190 ml concentrated tulfurir
•do on • steam bath Cool, add 76 ml fuming tulfurlc
•dd. and beat at 100° C (212* F) lor 2 noun. Store In
• dark, ftopptrad bottle.
4. Pnatwu
4.1 Sampling.
4.1.1 Pipette 2) ml of absorbing solution Into a sample
flask, retaining a sufficient quantity for UM In preparing
the calibration standards Insert the (task valve (topper
mto tbe flask with the valve In the "purge" position
Assemble tbe sampling train as shown In Figure 7-1
and plan the probe at the sampling point Make sure
that all fittings are tight and leak-free, and that all
•round glass Joints have been properly greased with a
high-vacuum, high-temperature chlorofluorocarbon-
based stopcock (rease. Turn -tbe flask valve and the
pump valve to tbelr "evacuate" positions Evacuate
tbe flask to 7S mm Hg (3 In. Bg) absolute pressure, or
lest Evacuation to a pressure approaching the vapor
pressure of water at tbe existing temperature is desirable
Turn tbe pump valve to Its "vent" position and turn
00 tbe pump Check for leakage by observing tbe ma
nometar lor any pressure fluctuation (Any variation
greater than 10 *•"" Hg (0.4 In Hf) over a period of
1 minute It not arceptable. and tbe Back If not to be
.' Died until the leakage problem U corrected. Prenure
In tbe flask is not to exceed 75 mm Hg (3 In. Hg)absolute
at tbe time aunnling Is commenced.) Record the volume
of tbe flask and valve (V,). tbe fla) Is tbe barometric pressure leas the man
emeirr reeding Transfer the content! of'tbe flask u e
leak (n* polyethylene bottle Rinse the flask twtoe
wltb fr-ml portions of delonlted. distilled water and add
Ibe rinse water to the bolt If Adlust the pB to between
t and 12 by adding sodium hydroxide (1 N). dropwlse
(about ZJ to 15 drops) Check the pB by dipping a
•Urnng rod Into the eolutlon and then touching the rod
to the pH test paper Remove as Utlle material as possible
during this step Mark tbe height of the liquid level so
that thr container can be checked for leakage after
transport Label the container to clearly Identify lu
emienu Baal Ibe container for shipping
4 J Analysis. Note the level of tbe liquid In container
and confirm whether or not any sample was lost during
ahlpmtnt; note this on the analytical data sheet. If a
noticeable amount of leaksf has occurred, cither void
the sample or use methods, subject to tbe approval of
the Administrator, to correct the final results. Immedi-
ately prior to analysis, transfer the contents of the
ahlpping container to a 60-ml volumetric flask, and
ruue the container twice with 6-mJ portions of delonlted,
distilled water. Add tbe rinse water to tbe flask and
dilute to tbe mark wltb deionittd. distilled water; mix
thoroughly. Pipette a 25- ml aliquot into tbe procelaln
evaporating dish. Return any unused portion ol the
sample to the polyethylene storage bottle. Evaporate
the 26-ml aliquot to dryness on a steam bath and allow
to cool. Add 2 ml phenoldisulfonic acid solution to the
dried residue and triturate thoroughly with a poylethyl-
eoe policeman. Make sure the solution contacts all the
residue. Add. 1 ml deioniEed, distilled water and four
drops of concentrated sulluric acid. Heat tbe solution
oo a steam bsth for t minutes with occasional stinlni .
Allow tbe solution to cool, add 20 ml deionised, distilled
water, mix well by stirring, and add concentrated am-
monium hydroxide, dropwise. with constant stirring.
until tbe pH Is 10 (as determined by pH paper). If the
sample contains aolids, these must be removed by
filtration (cenlrifugation Is an acceptable alternative.
•object to toe approval of tbe Administrator) , as fallows
filter through Whatman No. 41 filter paper Into a lOO-ml
volumetric flask: rinse the evsporstine dish with three
6-ml portions of deionlted. distilled vater; filter tbese
tare* nnses. Wa?n the filter with at least three IVml
portions of delonlted. distilled water. Add tbe filter
washings to tbe contents of the volumetric flask and
dilute to tbe mark with deionised, distilled water. U
solids are absent, tbe solution can be transferred directly
to the 100-ml volumetric flask and diluted to tbe mark
with deiomied. distilled water. Mix the contents ol the
flask thoroughly, and measure tbe absorbanee at tht
optimum wavelength used for the standards (Section
62.1), using the blank solution as a tero reference. Dilute
the sample and the blank with equal volumes of deion-
ised. distilled water If the absornance exceeds A«. tbe
aoaorbance of tbe 400 «g N Oi standard (see Section J.2.2) .
I.I Flask Volume. Tbe volume of the collection fUik
Baak valve combination must be known prior In aun-
pilng Assemble tbe Bask and flask valve and fill wn)
water, to tbe stopcock Measure the volume of water to
*10 ml Record this volume on tbe flask.
(.2 Spectropbotometer Calibration.
1.2.1 Optimum Wavelength Determination. For both
fixed and variable wavelength spectrophotometers.
calibrate against standard certified wavelength of 410
nm. every 6 months. Alternatively, for variable wave
length spectrophotometers. scan the spectrum between
400 and 416 nm using a 20n«g NOi standard solution (see
Section 6.2.2). If a peak does not occur, tbe spectropho-
IOmeter Is probably malfunctlonlnn. and should be re-
paired. When a peak Is obtained within the 400 to 416 nm
range, the wavelength at which this peak occurs shall be
the optimum wavelength for the measurement of ab-
sorbanee for both the standards and samples.
e.2.2 Determination of Bpectrophotometer Calibre
Ucm Factor E.. Add 0.0. 1.0. 2.0, 1.0. and 4.0 ml of toe
KNOi working standard solution (I m)-100«f NOi) to
a series of five porcelain evaporating dishes. To each, add
> ml of absorbing aolution. 10 ml deionlted, distilled
water, and sodium hydroxide (IN), dropwtse, until the
pB Is between t and 12 (abour*2S to U drop each).
Bef inninz with the evaporation step, follow the analy-
sis procedure of Section 4.S until tbe solution has been
ttansferred to the 100 ml volumetric flask and diluted to
the mark Measure the absorbance of »«ch solution, at the
optimum wavelength, as determined in Section 6.2.1.
This calibration procedure must be repeated on each day
that samples are analysed Calculate the spectrophotom-
rter calibration (actor as follows:
i.S Vacuum Gauge Calibrate mechanical gauges. II
need, against a mercury manometer such as that sperl-
Bed In 2.1.6.
6.6 Analytical Balance. Calibrate afelnxl standard
weights.
Carry out the calculations, retaining at least one extra
decimal figure beyond that of the acquired data. Round
off figures after final calculations
6.1 Nomenclature.
A -AbKrbanc* of sample
C-Concentrailon ol NO. as NOi. dry basis, cor-
reeled to standard conditions, mg/dscm
Oh/dvO
/•-Dilution (actor (It. nil. 28/10. etc., required
only If sample dilution wa< needed to redurr
the absorbance Into the rang*- of calibration).
Kr—Bperlrbphotometer calibration (actor
wi-Hsss nf NO. as NOi In gas sample. *s
/"/-Final absolute pressure of fltsk. mm Hr (in Bit
Pi- Initial absolute pressure of flask, mm Hg (in
HE)
Pnt -Standard sbaototr pressure, 780 mm Bg (20.92 in
Hi).
Tr-Flnal absolute temperature of flask .*K PR)
Ti-lnltial absolute temperature ol flask. °K <°R)
T.,« - Standard absolute temperature, 293' E ((28* R)
t'..- Sample volume at standard conditions (dry
basb). ml
V/— Volume of flask and valve, ml
V.- Volume of absorbing solution. 26 ml
2-60/25, the aliquot (actor. (II other than a 2S-ml
aliquot we* used for analysis tbe correspond-
Ing IV tor must be substituted!.
6.2 Sample volume, dry be." is. corrected to standard
condition*
Equation 7-1
where:
K. - CaHbraUon factor
Ai-Absorbent* of the lOO-i* NOi standard
A i - A bsorbence of the ZOO-* NO, standard
Xi-Absorbance of the SOO>« NOi standard
X4-Abeorbance of the 400(4 NOi standard
(.1 Barometer. Calibrate against a mercury barom-
eter.
(.4 Temperature Oauge. Calibrate dial thermome^ri
•gainst mercury-4n^laei thermometers.
where:
K,(V,-25 ml) -
Equation 7-2
A'i = 0.3858
CK
mm Hg
for metric units
-^17.64 :—rr- for English units
6.S Total »t NOi per sample.
Equation 7-3
Non.—If other than a2i-ml aliquot Is used for analy-
sli. tbe factor 2 must be replaced by a corresponding
sactor.
6.4 Sample concentration, dry bails, corrected to
standard conditions.
C-K,i
Equation 7-4
K,- IV for metric units
jig/ml
-6.243X 10-« -.— for English units
stg/ml
T. KUiotrtfkw
1. Standard Methods of Chemical Analysis. 6tb ad.
New York. D. Vna Nostrand Co.. Inc. 1M2. Vol. 1,
p. S2»-330.
1. Standard Method of Test for Oxides of Nitrogen In
Osseous Combustion Products (Phenoldisulionic Arid
Procedure). In: 1968 Book of ABTM Standards. Pan K.
Philadelphia. Pa. 1968. ASTM Designation D-160S-60.
p. T1S-728.
I. Jacob, MB. The Chemical Analysis of Air Pollut-
ants. New York. Interscience Publishers, Inc. 1960.
Vol. 10. p. 151-156.
4. Beatty. R. L., L. B. Berger, and B. H. Bchrenk.
Determination of Oxides of Nitrogen by the Pbenoldisul-
lonlc Acid Method. Bureau of Mines. U.6. Dept. of
Interior. R. I. K8T. February 1MJ
6. Hamll, H. P. and D. K. Camann. Collaborative
Study of Method lor tbe Determination of Nitrogen
Oxide Emissions from Stationary Sources (Fossil Fuel-
Fired Steam Generators). Southwest Research Institute
report (or Environmental Protection Agency. Research
Triangle Park, N.C. October 6. 1973.
6. Hamll, H. F. and R. E. Thomas. Collaborative
Study of Method tor the Drtermlnation of Nitrogen
Oxide Emissions (ram Stationary Sources (Nitric Acid
Plants). Southwest Research Institute report for En-
vironmental Protection Agency. Research Triangle
Park, N.C. May t, 1074.
111-73
-------
MITHOO »— D«T«RMIH»TIOII o» Boirvuc AOB Mist
AMD Sui.ru« DIOIIDI Euusiom FaoM SttnoitiaT
Souacu
1. Prlndplt ei
nf A
'?''_*
1.1 Principle. A gas sample Is estrarlMl Isoklnatleally
(rein Ihe slack. The sulfunc acid mist (Including lutlui
trtoiidr) Mid (he .luKur dioiide are. separated, and botb
fractions are measured separately by (be bariuJU-thorio
Utnlion method.
1.2 Applicability. This method ii »ppllc»ble for tbe
determination of sulfurlc acid ntlit (Including sulfur
tftoside. and In the abvnre of other paniculate matter)
and sulfur dloilde emissions from stationery iouree«.
Collaborative lull hive ihown that Ihe minimum
detectable limns of Ihr method «ie 0 OS milligr«m»/cubic
meter (0.03> 10-' pounds/cubic fool) lot sulfur Irtoside
and 1.2 mg,m> (0.74 10-' IMP) for sulfur dioiide. No
opper linuu have- been established. Dated on Ihcontlcd
calculation] fur 20U nuUiliirn of 3 percent hydrogen
p*roiide tolution, the upper concentration limit lor
Mlfur dioiid* in a 1 u m> lU.) 1C) gas sample la about
1J.JOO rrn'm' (77X10-' Ili.-fi'). The upper limit can be
ettrndrd t>y incrrasins Ihe iiunntity 01 prruiide solution
ID the impnuers
Poviblr Intrrtrnng a|ent> of thU method are fluondet,
(r« ammonia, and dimethyl aniline. If any of thcw
Interfenni ageiits arc prrsrnt (this can be determined by
knowledge of the nrocru), altemall*e methods, tubjrrt
to DM approTal of lh« Administrator, an required.
Filterable paniculate matter mar he determined tlnni
with SO i and SOt (subject to the approTal of the Ad-
mlnlttratorl: however, tbe procedure used for paniculate
matter must be comment with the iptclnratloni and
procedures (1*eo In attthod i.
2.1 Pampllnf. A schematic of the sampUnf tralo
liird la Ihli mrlhod Is shown In Flpire H. It Is simitar
to thr .Mrthod S train rtrcpt thai the nlirr position b
dllfirrnl and the filirr hold, r Jwj not have lobe helled.
t'ommnrlal DiMl'li of this train are available. For those
who desire to build their own. howrvr-r, complete eon-
Itrurilon drtalls arr d.vrllM-d In AI'TI)-n*l I'hanid
from the AI'TIUI'^I dutumrnl Hid allowkMc modl-
fkatlons to Kluure 9-1 are disctuard In the following
subvv Uons.
Tin* operallng and maintenance procrdures for the
sampling train are dnscilWd In AI'TI>-Oo78 Since comet
UMitii1 U lni|»urtant In obliuiung valid results, all usen
ahuulil r, jd I ho ArTD-a',78 il» un.. m and adopt tbe
oprratlng tnd nialnirnunce finx-Mutcs outlined In It,
unless oili«rwlM.> si^Tiftrd hLTrin. Funhcr details and
gute metal probe liners.
i 1.3 fitot Tubr. Same as Method 'j. tfecUon 2.1.3.
S.1.4 DI9«f»nUa) Pnstian Oaujr Same a* Methods.
t \J> FlitM Bolder Baroalll«au gUuc. with a itlasr
frit filter support and a glllcone rubber gasket. Other
Basket matnals. e.g., Teflon or Vluin, nay be oa«d sub-
feet to the approval of the Administrator. The holder
dtolgn shall provide a positive atal afalnst leakage from
tbe ouUtde of around tbe filter. The filler holder shall
b» pbxrd between the flm and second Implngers. Note:
Do Dot heat the tllur bolder.
2.1O Implngen— Four, at •howTJ In rifui* R-]. The
Int and third shall be of tbe Ore«nhurg -Smith dmtgn
with standard Up» Tbe second and founh shall be of
tb» Oreenbnrg-Smlth dealgn, mndlAed by replarlng th*
Insert with an approilmatfly 1) mllllmrur (O.i In.) ID
ilaHt tube, having an uneorutrlrud tin located 13 mm
(06 In.) from the bottom of the flaik. Rlmllar coll«eUon
systems, which have been approved by the Adminis-
trator, may b« used.
1.1.7 MeUrtOf Biitam. Same as Method 6. Settlor.
ll.t.
I.1J Barometer. Same at Method 6. Section 2.1.«.
2.1.9 Oas Density Determination Equipment. Bane,
M Methods. Section 2.1.10.
11.10 Temperature Gauge. Thermonwier. or equlva-
2 Sample Ilat»ivti>.
TEMPERATURE SENSOR
> ^
£_ZJ'-a*- ..... . •*•«£—;
PROBE
THERMOMETER
PROBE
.CHECK
/VALVE
REVERSE TYPE
WOT TUBE
VACUUM
LINE
VACUUM
GAUGE
MAIN VALVE
DRY TEST METER
Figure 8-1. Sulfuric acid mist sampling train.
111-74
-------
U.I Wmsb BotOea. Polyethylene er times. MX) ml.
(two).
1.2.3 Graduated Cylinders. HO ml, I Uler. (Vohr
•ctrlr flasks may also be need )
U.l Storage BotUM. Lem*-tre» polyetbylrne boUVsa.
MOO ml slaa (two lor emeb ammpllnf ran).
1.2.4 Trip Balance SOftfiMi capacity, to tnemmra to
•YOJ I fnniaaai) only U • moisture content analysis to
to be done).
2.8 Analysts.
2.1.1 Pipettes. Volumetric 29 ml, 100 ml.
1.1.2 BurretU.oDml.
1.3.3 Erleruneyer Flask. HO ml. (en* tor emeb ample
Mink and standard).
1.1.4 Graduated Cylinder. 100 ml.
1.15 Trip Balmner. WO t capacity. to measure to
aYOJf.
2.1.4 Dropping Bonk. To add Indlomlor aoraUon.
129-mIalsa.
Unless otherwise Indicated. all rea* t nU are to eontorm
to the specifications established by the Commute* on
Analytical Rutrnli of Ibf Amorlmn Chrmltml Society.
• brrr nich iprrlfkalloiu tr» tTtlltble. OlbarwiM, mr
tb* but trtlltble fndc.
1.1 8»mplln».
1.1.1 Fllun Rune u Mf thod 5. Bretlon 3.1 .1 .
l.l.I BlUa Del. Bunt u Method 6. Section 3.1.2.
3.1 > »'»ttr. Drlonlied. dtnllM U> eonlbrm to A8TM
tp*ctfle*tlon DllW-74, Typr 3. At the option of Uu
•nalyn, tbr KMnOi Wat for ozldlubto orttnlc mMtrr
•my be omltud when bit b eoneentntlonj at eifmnlc
•»tU> we not eipeclvd to M pment.
1.1 « boprepemol. 10 Peramt. MU »> ml of bopto-
PIDOI with 100 ml of delonlud, dwtilled w»ter.
MOTI.— Eipf.rt»n«e hucbown thel only A.C.B.fude
•Bpropenol U •tldu-tory. TriU b«»« rtiown tbtt
taoproptaol obUlnod train eommereltl •oarers oee>-
eutoDdly bu peroildt ImpariUe* tb»t will emote m-
iWMOusly hljh folfurlc meld mist measurement. Dm>
U)i followlnf tett lor deUrtlnj prroildu In emcb lot of
hoBronuiol. Bbmkr 10 ml of Ibf liopropmool wltb 10 ml
of tnuhly pnpmrrd I0perr*nt poUnlura lojlde eolotton
fnpmn • btenk by •ImlUrly tnmtlni 10 ml ol dlitllled
wmtai . A IKr I mlnuU, nmd the ehini b«nf» on t tp*clio-
DbotomrUr it IS2 nmaomften. II thr mbfoibmooe eiemo>
0.1. tbr liopropmnol Iball not b* uwd. Peroxides m»y be
tfid from Isopromnol by rKHsUIUnf. or by pmmimft
n of mrtlve
thcoufih m column of
.
veud mlumlni However, re-
,
tenUf rtd< liopromnol with sulubly low pcroilde level*
b remnlly eTelfthlr (ram oonunMrlml SOUTOH; tbemlon,
rtJerUon of eont&mlniUd loU m*y be more efficient
Uimn lollowlnf the prroildr retnoTml procedure.
(.1.0 Bydrocen Peroxide. 1 Percent. DUale 100 ml
•f n percent hydrogen peroilde to I Uter wltb delonlMd,
distilled weutr. Prepmre rremh dally.
1.1 • Cruibed Ice.
S.2 Beroplt Rerovrry.
U.I WeUr.Bmme ma 3.1.8.
t-J.Z Isopropmnol, lOPiraot. Bmmemsl.1.4.
1.8 Aoeljfls.
U.I Wet«r. Btmru S.1.3.
1.1.2 Isopropmnol. 100 Percent.
1.1.9 Thortn Indlcmur. l-(o-*noooprieiiylmso)-l«mpb-
thol-1, «-dlsu1lonlc acid, dlsodlum eeJt. or «rolTmleDt.
DUeoUe 0 »f In 100 ml of delonlted. dntllM weter
1.14 • Btrtuin Perchloraie (0.0100 Norm*)). DtseoUe
I.MlorbkrluiB perehlortu trlhydretr (BelCIO.)rlUiO)
ID 200 ml delonlud dlitllled wem, »j,d dlluu to I UUT
with isopropuiol. 1.23 | of bmrlDm ehlorlrte dlhydrmie
(BeCU JHeO) mey b* uard Instep of the bmnnm per
•tilonte Btmnderdlw wM (oUurlc meld Mln SetUon 8.7
This solution most b* protected mfilost trmponUon et
•U times.
J 3 5 Bulfurte Add Btmndmrd (0.0100 N). Purchmee or
slendtrdlte to ±0.0002 N mfmlnsi 0.0100 N NeOH that
has previously been standardised acmlnat primary
standard rrtasnlnm acid phthalate.
4. Prxrdurt
4.1 ftampUnf.
4.1.1 I'releal Prepanlion. Follow the procedure, out-
lined in Method S. Seriion 4.1.1. niters should be. In-
•peeled, but nerd not be dealceaied, wei|hed, or Identl-
lied. If t he effluent fas ran be corulde rxl dry ,!.«., mois-
ture free the silica |el need not be weighed.
4.1.2 Preliminary l>eierminanons Kollow the pro-
cedure outlined in Method J, Section 4.1.2.
4.1.3 Preparation of Collection Train. Follow the pro-
cedure outlined in Method 5. EWtlon 4.1.3 (eirept lor
the aecond paragraph and other obvtou&ly inapplicable
parts) and use Firure 8-1 instead of Figure VI Replace
the aecond parmttiiph with: Place 100 ml of 80 percent
tmopropsnol in the first Implnfer. 100 ml of 3 percent
bydroctn prroiide In both the second and third Im-
plnfcrs: retain a portion of each remfent lor urns a< a
blank solution. Place about 200 tofaUlcapl In tbslaonb
Implncer.
LOCATION.
OPERATOR.
DATE
RUN NO. _
SAMPLE BOX NO.
METER BOX NO._
METER A Hf
CFACTOR
P1TOT TUBE COEFFICIENT, Cm.
HA TIC PREKURE. •• H| (im, H|).
AMBIENT TEMPERATURE
BAROMETRIC PRESSURE
ASSUMED MOISTURE. %
PROBE LENGTH, m (ft)
SCHEMATIC OF STACK CROSS SECTION
NOZ2LE IDENTIFICATION NO
AVERAGE CALIBRATED NOZZLE DIAMETER. cm(iflj.
PROBE HEATER SETTING
LEAK RATE. mJ/min,(cfm)
PROBE LINER MATERIAL
FILTER MO.
TRAVERSE POINT
NUMBER
TOTAL
SAMPLING
TIME
.
••HID
OfcHjO)
PRESSURE
DIFFERENTIAL
ACROSS
ORIFICE
METER.
•»H20
(hLH^OI
6 AS SAMPLE
VOLUME.
•1 (h'l
GAS SAMPLE TEMPERATURE
AT DRY GAS METER
INLET.
•CI'FJ
Avg
OUTLET.
H(»F)
A»B
Av»
TEMPERATURE
OF GAS
LEAVING
CONDENSER OR
LAST IMPINGER.
•C (»FJ
Flgur* 8-2. Fl«ld d«U.
111-75
-------
Norg —It moisture contest to to be determined by
tmplnger analysis, weigh each o( the Bret three Implngen
(plus ebsorblngiolutlon) to tbe neons* 0.6 | and roord
then weight*. The weight of the illlca gel (or silica («)
plus eonuiner) must also b* determined to lb* nearest
0.1 g and recorded.
4.1.4 Pnteet Leak-Cbeck Procedure. Follow tbe
boek procedun outlined In Method 5. Section 4.1.4.1,
notinc th»i tht probe hector shell be adjusted to UM
minimum temperature required to pnvenl oondensa-
Uoo. and al*o that verbac nich as. ''* • • plugging UM
UiM to tbe Alter bolder ' • V shall be replaced by.
plugging the Inlet to tbe first Impinfer • • V"
Tbe pretest leak-check I* optional.
4.1.4 Train Operation. Follow tbe boric procedure*
euUlmd In Method J. Section 4.1 J. In conjunction with
tbe fallowing special Instruction*. Data shall be raoordrd
eo »sheet similar to tbe ens la injure B-B. Tbe sampling
ret* shall not raceed O.ojo m>/mln (1.0 dm) during tbe
run. Periodically during tho test, oborve tbe caonocttna
Une between the probe end first Implnier tor signs of
condensation. If It does occur. adjust the probe beater
setting upward to tbe minimum Ltmpt»ture required
to prevent condensation. K component change* become
oeevBorr durlnf e run. a leak-check (ball be done Im-
mediate ly before each change, according to the procedure
outlined In Section 4.1.4.2 ol Method 5 (with appropriate
modifications, a* mentioned ID Section 4.1.4 at tbl*
method); record *ll lea* rotes. I' tbe leakage rate(i)
exceed the specified rale, tbe teeter shall either void tbe
ran or shall plan to correct the ample volume a* out-
lined In Section 6.9 of Method S. Immediately alter com-
ponent changes, leak-checks are optional. II these
leak-check* an done, tbe procedure outlined In Section
4.1.4.1 of Method 5 (with appropriate modification*)
•teUbeuwd.
After turning ofl tbe pump and recording tbe final
readings at the conclusion of each run. remove the probe
from the stack. Conduct a post-test (mondotory) leak-
check as In Section 4.1.4.3 of Method S (with appropriate
modification) and record the leak rat*. If the pott-test
la&kane rate exceeds tbe specified acceptable rate, the
tester shall either correct the sample volume, as outlined
In Section 6.3 of Metbod 5. or shall void tht run.
Drain the Ice bath and. with the probe disconnected.
purge the remaining pan ol the train, by drawing clean
ambient air through the system lor 15 minutes at tbe
average flow rate uvd for sampling.
NOTE.—Clean unbienl air can be provided by passing
air through a charcoal filter. At the option of tbe tester,
ambient air (without cleaning) may be used.
4.1.6 Calculation of Percent Isoklnetlc. Follow tbe
procedure outlined in Method i. Section 4.1.0.
4-S Sample Recovery.
4J.1 Container No. I. If a moisture content analysis
if to be dose, weigh tbe tint implnger plus content! to
tbe nearest O.S g and record this weight.
Transfer the contents of tbe first tmplnger to a SJO-ml
graduated cylinder. Rinse the probe, first Implnger all
connecting glassware before the filter, and tbe front bait
of tbe filter bolder with K percent Isopropanol. Add the
rinse solution to the cylinder. Dilute to MO ml with SO
percent Isopropanol. Add the Alter to tbe solution, mil,
and transfer to the storage container. Protect the solution
•gainst evaporation, nark the level of liquid on bet
container and Identity the sample container.
4 J J Container No. I. II a moisture content •Mir*'*
I* to be done, weigh the second and third Imptngen
(plus contents) to tbe Dearest OJ> g and record these
weights. Also, weigh tbe spent silica gel (or silica gel
pluakmplnger) to the neoreetO-Sg.
Transfer tbe solutions trom tbe second and third
Implngen to a 1000-ml graduated cylinder. Ulnae all
connecting glassware (Including back half of filter bolder)
between toe Biter and silica gel Implnger with delooUed,
distilled water, and add tbls rime water to the erUBdar.
Dilute to a volume ol 1000 ml with delooUed, distilled
water. Transfer the solution to a storage container. Mark
tbe level of liquid on tbe container. Seal and Identify tbe
•ample container.
4.8 Analysis.
Note the level of liquid In containers 1 and S, and con-
firm whether or not any sample was loft during ship-
ment; note this on the analytical data sheet. If a notice-
able amount of leakage has occurred, either void tbe
•ample or UK methods, subject to the approval of the
Administrator, to correct tbe final reaulta. •
4J.1 Container No. 1. Shake the container holding
tbe Uopropanol solution and tbe Alter. If tbe filter
breaks up, allow tbe fragments to settle lor a few minute*
before removing a cample. Pipette a 100-ml aliquot of
this solution Into » MO-ml Erlenmeyer Book, add 1 to 4
drops of thortn Indicator, and titrate to a pink endpolnt
using 0.0100 N barium perchlorate. Repeat tbe tltratlon
with a second aliquot of sample and avenge UM Utratton
values, BopUcate UtraUoni moat acre* within I parast
OTOJml. whichever Is greater.
4JJ Container No. 3. Thoroughly mix tbe solution
la the container holding the content* of the second and
third Impingers- Pipette a lO-mJ aliquot of sample Into a
VO-ml Srlenmeyer flask. Add ml of toopropanol. 1 to
4drop* oftberln Indicator, and trtroteto a pink endpolnt
W U ml, whichever Is greater
U-* Blanks. Prepare blanks by adding 1 to 4 drop*
•* tbortn Indicator to 100 ml of go percent lanprepanal-
Titrate tbe blanks In the some manner as the •ample*.
a.) Calibrate oqulpment using tbe procedure* sped-
ted In the fallowing sections of Method 6: Section U
(metering system); Section 6.6 (temperature gauges):
•eaUan J.7 (barometer). Note that the recommended
leak-check of tbe metering system, described In Section
M of Method 5, also applies to this method.
1J Standardise tbe barium perchlorate solution with
IS ml of standard sulfuric acid, to which 100 ml of 100
Bwnaot laoproponoi has been added.
e. Oticvlatem
Note.—Carry out calculations retaining at ktoit OB*
extra decimal figure beyond that of tbe acquired data.
Round of} figure* after final calculation.
(.1 Nomenclature.
^t.-Croat-sectional area of noule.m> (n1).
B.-Water vapor In tbe ga* stream, proportion
by volume.
CBj80i»8uUuric acid (Including BOi) concentration.
1/dJcmnb/dscO.
CSOi-BuUur dioxide concentration, g/dscm (lb/
dec/).
/•Percent of Uoklnettc sampling.
sV-Normality 0f barium perchlorat* tltnnt, g
equl valenti/uter;
/•bar-Barometric pressure at the sampling Me,
mm Bg (In. Bg).
/•.-Absolute Mack gas nresmre, mm Bg On.
Atd-Standard absolute prawn, TtO mm Bg
(SS.KlD.Hi).
T.- Average absolute dry gas meter temperature
<*ee>lgureB-2),'KCR).
r.-Average absolnu stock gas temperature (see
Figure 8-2),' K f R).
Tttd-Standard absolute temperature, Kf K
(628° B)
V.-Volame of sample aliquot titrated, 100 ml
far B»80i ana 10 ml for SOi.
V,,-Total volume of liquid collected In Impingers
and silica gel. ml.
V.-Volume of gas sample as measured by dry
gai meter, acm (del).
V»(ltd) - Volume of ga* sample measured by tbe dry
gu mtter corrected to standard conditions,
dscm (dscf).
(.•Avenge stock ga* velocity, calculated by
Metbod 2. Equation J-*. using daU obtained
from Metbod8, m/sec (ft/sec).
Veoln-Total volume of solution In which tbe
eulfurir acid or mlfur dioxide sample is
contained. IV) ml or 1,000 ml, respectively.
Vc-Volume of barium perchlorate tltnnt n*ed
tor tbe sample, ml.
V«-Volume of barium perchlorate tltnnt mod
far the blank, ml.
r"- Dry gas meter calibration factor.
A/Y-Averue pressure drop across orifice meter,
mm (In.) BrO.
6-Total sampling tlm«, mln.
11.6-Speclflc gravity of mercury.
W-sec/mln.
100-Converslon to percent.
t.2 Average dry gas meW temperature and avenge
•rifle* pressure drop. Set data sheet (Figure (-2).
U Dry Oat Volume. Correct tbe sample volume
measured by tbe dry gas meter to runderd conditions
O0> C and 760 mm Bg or 68° F and ».«In. Bg) by using
Equation 6-1.
eo*ou the motetun content of the stork gas. using Eaua-
Mao »-» of Method t. Tbe "Note" In Section 6.»ofMetbod
I obo applies to this method. Note that If tbe effluent gas
stream can be considered dry, tbe volume of water vapor
SBd moUtare content need not be calculated.
o-J auUurtc odd milt (Including 8O.) concentration.
Equation 8-2
*ti»aoU(M g/mUlleqalvalent tor metric unit*.
-LOBlXIfr-Mb/Bieql ~
e.6 Sulfur dioxide oooo
-1.0BlXIO- described In Section «J of Method A), or shall
Invalidate the ten run.
4U Volume of Water Vapor and Moirtnre Content.
Colculste the volume of water vapor using Equation
*-l of Method t. tbe weight of water collected IB the
taBplpgen and silica gel con be directly converted to
affllllten (the specific gravity of water fa 1 g/ml). Col-
Equfttion 8-5
where:
ft-UU) lor metric unit*.
•O.OMSO for BngUsh unit*.
U Acceptable H
eant, the ntults an i . „
eomparlson to the standards and I If beyond tbe accept-
able range, tbe Administrator may opt to accept the
twnilb. Os* Citation 4 in the Bibliography of Method &
to make Judgments. Otherwise, reject the noutu and
repeat tbe test.
T. BftHetnrt.
1. Atmospheric Emissions from tuUaric Aeld Manu-
fccturtng Pncessee 0.6. DBEW. PBS. DlvWon of
Air PoUotlon PnbUc Bealth Service fnbUcotton No.
wN-AP-U. Cincinnati, Ohio. 1M5.
>. Corbttt. P. F. Tbe Determination of BOi and BOi
to Flue Oases. Journal of tbe Institute of Fuel. i«v237-34J.
1M1.
g. Martin. Robert U. Cotutruction Details of Iioklnetic
Bourse Sampling Equipment. Environmental Protection
Agency- Research Triangle Park, N.C. Air PoUotlon
Control Office Publication No. APTD-OM1. April, 1971.
4. Patton, W. F. and 1. A. Brink, Jr. New Equipment
wad Techniques lor Sampling Chemical Process Oases
Journal of Air Pollution Control Association. l» 163.1M3.
6. Rom, 1-1. Maintenance. Calibration, and Operation
of boMoctlc Souree-Sampung Equipment. Office of
Air Programs, Environmental Protection Agency.
leeearchTMangle Park, N.C. APTD-W6. March, 19TJ.
t. Bamll. B. F. and D. E. Ctmonn. Collaborative
Study of Metbod lor Determination of Sulfur Dioxide
Emission* from stationary Sources (Foamil Fuel-Fired
Steam Generators). Environmental Protection Agency.
Research Triangle Park, N.C. EPA-4JO/4-74-OJ4.
December, 1978.
T. Annual Book of ABTM Standards. Pert II: Water.
Atmpipheric AnalyHs. pp. 40-43. American Society
nr Testing and Mourtals. Philadelphia, Pa. 1974.
111-76
-------
aiXTHOD S VISUAL IU1 UBOIlaTTOlf OF TH*
oraorr ce> XKHSXOMS imoic *T»TIO»A»T
stationary sources discharge visible
•missions Into the atmosphere; these emis-
sions are usually In to* shape of a plum*.
TtO* method involves the determination of
plum* opacity by qualified utnunun. The
method include* procedure* tar the tnlnlng
and certification of observer*, and procedures
to be uMd in the field for determination of
plum* opacity. Hi* appearance of a plum* M
viewed by an ulisai i»r depends upon a num-
ber of variables, com* of which may be con-
trollable and scene of which may not b»
controllable In the field. Variables which can
be eontroUaA to an extent to which they no
longer exert a significant Influence upon
plume appearance Include: Angle of the ob-
•erver with respect to the plume; angle of the
obeeiver with reepect to tn* sun; point of
observation of attached and detached (team
plume: and angle of the obeiner with re-
epect to a plume emitted from a rectangular
•tack with a Urge length to width ratio. The
«~t*ti~< includes epedflc criteria applicable
to thea* variable*.
Other vatlablr which may not be control-
lable In the fle>u are luminescence and color
contract betwet • the plume and the back-
ground against valcb the plume Is viewed.
These variable* exert an influence upon the
appearance of a plume as viewed by an ob-
aerrer. and can affect the ability of the ob-
eerver to accurately assign opacity values
to the observed plume. Studies of the theory
of plume opacity and field studies have dem-
onstrated that a plume is most Ttolble and
present* the greatest apparent opacity when
viewed against a contrasting background. It
follow* from this, and Is confirmed by field
trials, that the opacity of a plume, viewed
under conditions where a contrasting back-
ground Is present can be assigned with the
greatest degree of accuracy. However, the po-
"tentlal for a positive error Is also the greatest
when a plume Is viewed under such contrast-
Ing conditions. Cndcr conditions presenting
a lea* contrasting background, the apparent
opacity of a plume Is less and approaches
cero as the color and luminescence contrast
decrease toward zero. As a result, significant
negative bias and negative errors can be
tnade when a plume Is viewed under less
contrasting conditions. A negative bias de-
creases rather than Increases the possibility
that a plant operator win be cited for a vio-
lation of opacity standards due to observer
error.
Studies have been undertaken to determine
the magnitude of positive errors which can
be made by qualified observer* while read-
Ing plumes under contrasting condition* and
using the procedures set forth In this
method. The results of these studies (field
trials) which Involve a total of 76B sets of
3ft readings each are a* follows:
(I) For black plumes (133 seta at a smoke
generator). 100 percent of the sets were
read with a positive error1 of less than 7.6
percent.opaclty; M percent were read with
a positive error of less than 8 percent opacity.
(3) For white plumes (170 sets at a smoke
generator, 188 sets at a coal-fired power plant.
298 sets at a sulfurle add plant). 99 percent
of the set* were read with a poslUvs error of
less than 7.8 percent opacity; 95 percent were
read with a positive error ofless than 0 per*
cent opacity.
The positive observational error associated
•with an average of twenty-five readings is
therefor* established. The accuracy of- the
metbod must be taken Into account-when
determining possible violations of appli-
cable opacity standards..
> For a as*, positive error =«ev*raf* opacity
determined b? observers' SB obeervattons-
averag* opacity determined .from transmls-
•ometerli 36 iwumdlnga, •
1. Principle and oppHoabCUy.
I.I Principle. The opacity of emissions
trom stationary source* Is determined vis-
ually by a qualified observer. -
1.3 Applicability. This method I* appll-
oabl* for th* determination of the opacity
of emissions from stationary sources pur-
suant to 190.11 (b) and for qualifying ob-
server* for visually determining opacity of
•missions. -
t, Procedures. The observer qualified IB
accordance with paragraph S of this method
•ban us* the following procedures for vis-
ually determining the opacity of emissions:
t.l Position.. The qualified observer shall
stand at a distance sufficient to provide a
clear view of the emissions with the sun
oriented In the 140* sector to his back. Con-
sistent with maintaining the above require-
ment, the observer shall, as much as possible.
make his observation* from a position such
that his line of vision ls approximately
perpendicular to the plume direction, and
when observing opacity of emissions from
rectangular outlets (e.g. roof monitors, open
bagnouses, nonclrcular stacks), approxi-
mately perpendicular to the longer axis of
the outlet. The observer's line of sight should
not include more than one plume at a time
when multiple stacks are Involved, and tn
any case the observer should make his ob-
servations with bis line of sight perpendicu-
lar to the longer axis of such a set of multi-
ple stacks (eg. stub stacks on baghouae*).
23 Field records. The observer shall re-
cord the name of the plant, emission loca-
tion, type facility, observer's .name and
affiliation, and the date on a field data sheet
(Figure 0-1). The time, estimated distance
to the emission location, approximate wind
direction, estimated wind speed, description
of the sky condition (presence and color of
clouds), and plume background are recorded
on a field data sheet at the time opacity read-
Ings are Initiated and completed.
2.3 Observations. Opacity observations
shall be made at the point of greatest opacity
In that portion of the plume where con-
densed watet vapor I* not present. The ob-
server shall not look continuously at the
plume, but Instead shall observe the plume
momentarily a* 18-sseond Intervals.
2.3.1 Attached steam plumes. When con-
densed water vapor la present within the
plume as It emerges from the emission out-
let, opacity observations shall be made be-
yond the point In the plume at which con-
densed water vapor Is no longer visible. The
observer shall record the approximate dis-
tance from the emission outlet to the point
In the.plume at which the observations are
made.
333 Detached steam plume. When water
vapor In the plume condenses and becomes
visible at a distinct distance from the emis-
sion outlet, the opacity of emissions should
be evaluated at the emission outlet prlnr to
the condensation of water vapor and the for-
mation of the steam plume. • •
3.4 Recording observations. Opacity ob-
servations shall be recorded to the nearest 8
percent at IV-second Intervals on an ob-
servational record sheet. (See Figure 0-3 for
an example.) A minimum of 34 observations
shall be recorded. Each momentary observa-
tion recorded shall bo deemed to represent
the avenge opacity of emission* for a 18-
aecond period.
3.8 Data Reduction. Opacity shall be de-
termined as an average of 34 consecutive
observations recorded at IB-eecond intervals.
Divide the observations recorded on the rec-
ord sheet Into sete of 24 consecutive obser-
vations. A set Is composed of any 34 con-
secutive observations. Bets need not be con-
secutive In time and-In no case shall two
sets overlap. For each set of 34 observations,
calculate the average by summing the opacity
of the 24 observation* and dividing this nun
by 24. If an applicable standard specifies an
averaging time requiring more than 24 ob-
servations, calculate the average for all ob-
servations made during the *peelfl*d time
period. Record the average opacity on a record
sheet. (See Figure 0-1 for an example.)
8. Qualification* and tttttna. -
8.1 Certification requirement*. To receive
certification a* a qualified observer, a can-
didate must b* tested and demonstrate the
ability to assign opacity reading* tn B percent
Increments to 38 different black plumes and
M different white plume*, wtth an error
not to sa-eeed IB percent opacity on any one
me fllnc and an average error not to exceed
7.8 percent opacity In each category. Candi-
dates shall be tested according to the pro-
cedures described In paragraph 83. Smoke
generators ueed pursuant to paragraph 8.2
•hall be equipped with a smoke meter which
meets the requirements of paragraph 3.3. '
The certification shall be valid for a period
of 6 month*, at which tune the qualification
procedure must be repeated by any observer
In order to retain certification, _ :
• 8.2 Certification procedure. The certifica-
tion test consists of showing the candidate a
complete run of 80 plumes—36 black plumes
and 38 white plumes—generated by a smoke
generator. Plume* within each aet of 28 black
and 28 white runs shall be presented In ran-
dom order. The candidate assigns an opacity
value to each plume and records his obser-
vation on a suitable form. At the completion
of each run of 60 readings, the score of the
candidate Is determined. If a candidate falls
to qualify, the complete run of 60 reading*
must be repeated In any retest. The smoke
test may be administered as part of a smoke
school or training program, and may be pre-
ceded by training or familiarization runs of
the smoke generator during which candidates
are shown black and white plumes of known
opacity. . •
. sj Bmoke generator specifications. Any
•moke generator used for the purposes of
paragraph 33 shall be equipped with a smoke
meter Installed to measure opacity across
the diameter of the smoke generator stack.
The smoke meter output shall display In-
atack opacity based upon a pattuengtb equal
to the stack exit diameter, on a full 0 to 100
percent chart recorder scale. The smoke
meter optlcaJ design and performance shall
meet the specifications shown In Table 9-1.
The smoke meter shall be calibrated as pre-
scribed In paragraph 83.1 prior to the con-
duet of each smoke reading test. At the
completion of each teat, the eero and span
drift shall be checked and If the drift ex-
ceeds 2J percent opacity, the condition shall
be corrected prior to conducting any subse-
quent teat runs. The smoke meter shall be
demonstrated, at the time of Installation, to
meet the specifications listed In Table 0-1.
This demonstration shall bo repeated fol-
lowing any subsequent repair or replacement
of the photocell or associated electronic cir-
cuitry Including the chart recorder or output
meter, or •very 6 months, whichever occur*
first.
8.8.1 Calibration. Th* amok* meter ls
calibrated after allowing a minimum of 80
minute* warmup by alternately producing
simulated opacity of 0 percent and 100 per-
cent. When stable response at 0 percent or
100 percent Is noted, the smoke meter Is ad-
Justed to produce an output of 0 percent or
100 percent, as appropriate. This calibration
•hall b* repeated until stable 0 percent and
100 percent readings are produced without
adjustment. Simulated 0 percent and 100
percent opacity values may be produced by
alternately switching th* power to the light
source on and off while the smoke generator
is not producing amoke.
111-77
-------
a. Ug&t •owse.. — Incandescent Ump
operated at nominal.
rated voltage.
b. Spectral response Photopto (daylight
of photocell. epeotral response of
o. Angle of view. ___
d. Angle c* projec-
. reference 4.8).
18*" maximum total
angle.
IB* rna»tirmm total
angl*.
•. Calibration error. as% opacity, maxl-
S. Zero and span aa* opacity, to
•drift. minutes.
m jgespoB** Ume..^ *CB seconds.
•4J emoke meter evaluation. The smoke
meter design and performance are to be
evaluated as follows:
8.3.2.1 Light source. Verify from manu-
facturer's data and frotr voltage measure-
ments made at the lamp, a* Installed, that
the lamp to operated withui ±8 percent of
the nominal rated voltage.
8.3.2.2 Spectral response of pbotooell.
Verify from manufacturer's data that the
photocell has a pbotople response; Ije, the
•pectrml sensitivity of the cell shall closely
Approximate the standard spectral-luminos-
ity curve for photoplc vision which Is refer-
enced in (b) of Table 9-1.
3.3.2.3 Angle of view. Check construction
geometry to ensure that the total angl* of
view of the smoke plume, as seen by the
photocell, does not exceed IB*. Tb* total
angle of view may b* oalraiiatert from: »=1
tan-* d/2L, where »=total angle of view:
d=th* nan of the photocell dlsmeter+the
diameter of the Hunting aperture; and
Lsthe distance from tb* photocell to the
limiting aperture. The limiting aperture is
the point In the path between the photocell
and tb* smoke plum* where the angle of
view I* most restricted, to amok* generator
•moke meters thai Is normally «n orifice
plate.
Angl* of projection. Cheek oon-
i geometry to ensure that tb* total
angle of projection of tb* lamp OB tb*
•moke plume doe* not *zo»*d 16*. Tb* total
•agle of projection may be calculated from:
*=3 tan-> d/2L. where Is: total angle of pro-
jection: ds the sum of tb* length of the
lamp filament + tb* diam*t-*ir of ***** iiiyyi^)y»y
apenur*: and Ic the dtttanee from the lamp
to the '"•"•'"g aperture.
8.8.34 Calibration error. Using aeutral-
denclty fiitars of known opacity, eback the
error between the actual response and tb*
theoretical linear rsapons* of tb* smoke
meter. This check Is accomplished by first
calibrating the amok* meter according to
8.8.1 and then Inserting a series of three
neutral-density filter* of nominal opacity of
SO, BO. and 76 percent In tb* amok* meter
pathlengtb. niters oallbarted within ttfl per-
cent shall be used. Oar* should be taken
wben Inserting the Alter* to prevent stray
light from affecting the meter. Uak* a total
of five nonoonsecutlve t*sfllnti for each
filter. The »•».«»
-------
FIGURE 9-1
RECORD OF VISUAL DETERMINATION OF OPACITY
PAGE of
COMPAHY
LOCATIOM
TEST NUMBER.
DATE
TYPE FACILITY^
CONTROL DEVICE.
HOURS OF OBSERVATION.
OBSERVER
OBSERVER CERTIFICATION DATE.
OBSERVER AFFILIATION
POINT OF EMISSIONS
HEIGKT OP DISCHARGE POINT
H
H
H
I
-J
VO
CLOCK TIME
OBSERVER LOCATION
Distance to Discharge
"Direction from Discharge
Height of Observation Point
BACKGROUND DESCRIPTION
HEATHER CONDITIONS
Wind Direction
Wind Speed
•
Ambient Temperature
SKY CONDITIONS (clear.
overcast* X clouds, etc.) .
PLUME DESCRIPTION
Color
Distance Visible
OTIIW IHFORMTIOtl
Initial
Final
SUMMARY OF AVERAGE OPACITY
Set
Number
•' -
Tiny.
Start—End
Opaclti • .
Sum
Average
Readings ranged from to _ I opacity
The source was/was not 1n compliance with
the time evaluation was made.
-------
FIGURE 9-2 OBSERVATION RECORD
PAGE
.OF
COMPANY
LOCATION
TEST NUMBtTT
MTE
OBSERVER
TYPE FAClLITV
POINT OF EMISSTJHT
H
H
H
I
00
o
Mr.
.
Mln.
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1*
12
13
' 4
'5
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
0
Seconds
15
JO
*b
STEAM PLUME
(check If applicable)
Attached"
Detached
COMMENTS
FIGURE 9-2 C
(Cor
COMPANY
LOCATION" "
TEST
DATE
Hr.
NUMBER
Mln.
in
31
32
33
34
35
36
' 3?
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
M
52
S3
54
55
'S6
... ^
68
59
Seconds
IT
lb
30
in
45
(eli
At
3DOC.74
OBSERVATION RECORD
PAGE OF _
OBSERVER
TYPE FACILITY
POINT OF EMISSTCHT
-------
Method 20— IJelerminaliiin nl
Oxides, Sulfur Dioxide, and Oxygen
Emissions from Stationary' Gas Turbines
1. Applicability ani
1.1 Applicability. This method is
Hpplicable for the determination of nitrogen
oxides (NO,), sulfur dioxide (SOj). and
oxygen (O,) emissions from stationary gas
turbines. For the NO, and Oi determinations.
this method includes: (1) measurement
system design criteria. (2] analyzer
performance specifications and performance
test procedures: and (3) procedures for
emission testing.
1.2 Principle. A gas sample is
continuously extracted from the exhaust
stream of a stationary gas turbine; a portion
of the sample stream is conveyed to
instrumental analyzers for determination of
NO, and O, content. During each NO. and
OO, determination, a separate measurement
of SO» emissions is made, using Method 6, or
it equivalent. The O, determination is used to
adjust the NO. and SOt concentrations to a
reference condition.
2. Definitions
2.1 Measurement System. The total
equipment required for the determination of a
gas concentration or a gas emission rate. The
system consists of the following major
subsystems:
2.1.1 Sample Interface. That portion of a
system that is used for one or more of the
following: sample acquisition, sample
transportation, sample conditioning, or
protection of the analyzers from the effects of
the stack effluent.
2.1.2 NO, Analyzer. That portion of the
system that senses NO, and generates an
output proportional to the gas concentration.
2.1.3 O, Analyzer. That portion of the
system that senses O> and generates an
output proportional to the gas concentration.
2.2 Span Value. The upper limit of a gas
concentration measurement range that is
specified for affected sourc« categories in the
applicable part of the regulations.
SIM N
•Vf.ll
I /.I IIMIA f ION
2.3 Calibration Gas. A known
conoMilrjtion of a gas in an appropriate
diluent gas.
2.4 Calibration Krrur. The differenci.1
Iwtwern the gas concentration indicated by
tin measurement system and the known
concentration of the calibration gas.
2.S Zero Drift. The difference In the
measurement system output rending!) before
unit alter n stati.'d period of operation during
which no unscheduled maintenance, repair.
or adjustment took place and the input
concentration at the time of the
mtdsurements was ZIMO.
2.8 Calibration Drift. The difference in llio
measurement system output readings before
end after a slated period of operation during
which no unscheduled maintenance, repair,
or adjustment took place and the input at the
time of the measurements was a high-level
value.
2.7 Residence Time. The elapsed time
from the moment the gas sample enters the
probe tip to the moment the same gas sample
reached the analyzer inlet.
2.0 Response Time. The amount of time
required for the continuous monitoring
system to display on the data output 05
percent of a step change in pollutant
concentration.
2.9 Interference Response. The output
response of the measurement system to a
component in the sample gas, other than the
gas component being measured.
3. Measurement System Performance
Specifications
3.1 NO, to NO Converter. Greater than 90
percent conversion efficiency of NO, to NO.
3.2 Interference Response. I-ess than ± 2
percent of the span value.
3.3 Residence Time. No greater than 30
seconds.
3.4 Response Time. No greater than 3
minutes.
3.5 Zero Drift. Less than ± 2 percent of
the span value.
3.6 Calibration Drift. Less than ± 2
percent of the spun vnlue.
4. Apparatus and Reagents
4.1 Measurement System. Use any
measurement system for NO, and O, that is
expected to meet the specifications in this
method. A schematic of an acceptable
measurement system is shown in Figure 20-1.
Th« exsential components of the
measurement system are described below:
NlllllllilN
OX II ll %
HUM V/l II
t/l-L, ,„«., 1-1 j;;~' L-l ,« I/UM>! 1 L
rrzT L_'~L.n. r
CALIBRATION
GAS
SAMPLE OAS
MANIFOLD
Figure 20-1. Measurement system design tot stalmnaty gas turbines.
EXCESS
SAMPLE TO VENT
4.1.1 Sample Probe. Heated Kluinlcss
Htr-el. or equivalent, opun-endnd. straight tube
of sufficient length to traverse lliu sample
points.
4.1.2 Sample Lino. Heated (>fl.S'C)
Hlulnless steel or Teflon •» bing to transport
the sample gas to the sample conditioners
and analyzers.
4.1.3 Calibration Valvo Aiiscmhly. A
lliree-wiiy valve aHScmhly io direct tin icro
anil calibration gases to the sample
conditioners and to the iin.ilyzns. The
calibration valve assembly r.hall he i:;ipiible
of blocking the sample f,a« flow and of
introducing calibration gases to the
measurement system when in Ihi: calibration
mode.
4.1.4 NO, to NO Conv«rl( r. Tliat portion
of the system that converts the nitrogen
dioxide (NO,) in the sample ijan to nitrogen
oxide (NO). Some analyzers are designed to
measure NO, as NO, on a wet basis and can
be used without an NO, to NO converter or a
moisture removal trap provided the sample
line to the analyzer is heated (>95'C) to the
inlet of the analyzer. In addition, an NO, to
NO converter is not necessai y if the NO,
portion of the exhaust gas ib less than S
percent of the total NO, concentration. As a
guideline, an NO, to NO converter is not
necessary if the gun turbine is operated at 90
percent or more of peak loaH capacity. A
converter is necessary undtv lower load
conditions.
4.1.5 Moisture Removal Trap. A
refrigerator-type condenser designed to
continuously remove condciisiiti; from the
sample gas. The moisture ri mcviil Imp is not
necessary for analyzers Ihul cun men sure
NO. concentrations on a we! basis: for these
analyzers, (a) heal the nample line up to the
inlet of the analyzers, (b) determine the
moisture content using methods subject to tht
approval of the Administrator, mid (c) correct
the NO. and O, concentrations to a dry basis
4.1.6 Particulale Filter. An in-stack or an
out-of-stack glass fiber filter, of the type
specified in EPA Referent''; Method 5:
however, an out-of-Htack liller is
recommended when the stuck cas
temperature exceeds 250 to 300'C.
4.1.7 Sample Pump. A nonreaclive leak-
free sample pump to pull the sample gas
through the system at a flow rate sufficient Ic
minimize transport delay. The pump shall be
made from stainless steel or coated with
Teflon or equivalent.
4.1.8 Sample Gas Mnnifold A sample gas
manifold to divert portions of the tmmple gna
a I run m to tha an*ly/.«m The multifold inny be
connlniclrd of glnHH, THIon. lyjut 315
nlnllilftftn nlfinl. or nnilvulflnt.
4.1.0 <>xyK«!M mid Aimlyzi-r. An uiinlyxnr
to dnlerniine Ilia pprc«;ni O, concentration of
the fmmple gat slrnam.
4.1.10 Nitrogen Oxides Analyznr. An
anulyzer to determine the ppm NO, \
concnntrHtlon In the sample gut stream.'
4.1.11 Data Output. A strip-churl recorder.
analog computer, or digital recorder for i
recording measurement data.
4.2 Sulfur Dioxide Analysis. F.PA
Reference Method 6 apparatus and reagents.
4.3 NO. Caliberation Gases. The
calibration gases for the NO, analyzer may
be NO in N,, NO, in air or N,. or NO and NO.
111-81
-------
in N.-. For NO. measurement analyzers lhat
require oxidation of NO to NO». the
calibration gases must be in the form of NO
in N;. Uut; four calibration gas mixtures us
specified below:
. 4.3.1 High-level Gas. A gas concentration
that is equivalent to 80 to 90 percent of the
span value.
i 4.X2 Mid-level Gas. A gas concentration
truit is equivalent to 45 to 55 percent of the
span value.
4.3.3 Low-level Gas. A gas concentration
that is equivalent to 20 to 30 percent of the
span wilue.
4.3.4 Zero Gas. A gas concentration of
less than (1.25 percent of the span value.
Ambient ;iir may be used for the NO, zero
gas.
4.4 O> Calibration Gases. Use ambient air
:it 20.9 percent as the high-level Ot gas. Use a
gas concentration that is equivalent to 11-14
percent O, for the mid-level gas. Use purified
nitrogen for the zero gas.
4.5 NO>/NO Gns Mixture. For
(li.'tennining the conversion efficiency of the
NO, to NO r. inverter, use a calibration gns
mixture of NO, and NO in N«. The mixture
\v.';i !;t; ;..-umu i:»,ic<;Mlralions of 40 tu htl ppm
NO, ami 510 to ill) ppm NO and certified dy
the gii.-j manufacturer. This certification of gas
r.om.fMilra'ion must include a brief
description nf the procedure followed in
the concentrations.
5. Mfa-nin-ini.'i:! Syateni Porfarmuncc Tost
f'l(>i:i'i!uri'ii
Perform HIM following procedures prior to
meHSun:nit!iil of umitfHions (Section 0) and
only oni.fc lot each text program, i.e., the
serins of nil t.Ml rnriH for n given gun turbintt
Oligine.
5.1 Calibration Gas Checks. There are
two allttrnHtiviif) fur checking the
conci.Titrnrions of the calibration gases, (a)
The firHl U to use calibration gases that are
documented Iruccable to National Bureau of
Standards Reference Materials. Use
Tractiability Protocol for Establishing True
Concentrations of Gases Used fur
Calibrations and Audits nf Continuous
Source Emission Monitors (Protocol Number
1} that is available from the Environmental
Monitoring and Support Laboratory. Quality
Assurance Branch, Mail Drop 77.
Environmental Protection Agency, Research
Triangle Park. North Carolina 27711. Obtain n
certification from the gas manufacturer that
the protocol was followed. These calibration
gases an; not to be analyzed with the
Reference Methods, (b) The second
alternative is to use calibration gases not
prepared according to the protocol. If this
alternative is chosen, within 1 month prior to
the emission test, analyze each of the
calibration gas mixtures in triplicate using
Reference Method 7 or the procedure outlined
in Citation 8.1 for NO, and use Reference
Method 3 for O,. Record the results on a data
sheet (example is shown in Figure 20-2). For
the low-level, mid-level, or high-level gas
mixtures, each of the individual NO,
analytical results must be within 10 percent
(or 10 ppm. whichever is greater) of the
triplicate set average (Oi tost results must be
within 0..1 jn.Tuinl O3): otherwise, discard the
entire si.-t gas of
the calibration gas manufacturer's tag value.
use the tag value: otherwise, conduct at least
three ndditinnal reference method Ic.st
analyses until the results of six individual
NO. runs (Ihe three original plus three
additional) agree within 10 percent (or 10
ppm, whichever is greater) of the average (Ot
test results must be within 0.5 percent O,)
Then use this average for the cylinder value.
S.2 Measurement System Preparation.
Prior to Ihe emission lest, assemble Ihe
measurement system following the
manufacturer's written instructions in
preparing find operating the NO, to NO
converter, Ihe NO, analyzer, the O» analyzer.
and other components.
Date (Must be within 1 month prior to the test period)
Reference method used.
Sample run
1
2
3
Avei.iuK
Maximum % deviation1'
Gas concentration, ppm
Low level3
Mid levelb
High Ieve1c
8 Average must be 20 to 30% of span value.
° Average must be 45 to 55% of span value.
c Average must be 80 to 90% of span value.
d Must be Js ± 10% of applicable average Of 10 ppm,
whichever is greater.
Figure 20-2. Analysis of calibration gases.
111-82
-------
5.3 Calihiation Check. Conduct the
calibration checks for both the NO, and the
O, annhvers as follows:
5.3.1 After the measurement system has
been prepared for use (Section 5.2). introduce
7«ro gasps end the mid-level calibration
gases; get the analyzer output responses to
the appropriate le\-els. Then introduce each
of Ihi? remainder of the calibration gases
described in Sections 4.3 or 4.4. one at 8 time.
to the measurement system. Record the
responses on a form similar to Figure 20-3.
5.3.2 If the linear curve determined from
the zt-ro and mid-level calibration gas
responses dot's not predict the arliul
response of the low-level (nut applicable for
tin? Oj analyzer) and high-level Rases within
±2 percent of the span value, the calibration
shall be considered invalid. Take corrective
measures on the measurement system before
proceeding with the test
5.4 Interference Response. Introduce the
gaseous components listed in Table 2(M into
the measurement system separately, or as gus
mixtures. Determine the total interference
output response of the system to these
components in concentration units; record the
values on a form similar to Figure 2O-4. If the
sum of the interference responses of the test
gases for either the NO. or O, analy/crs is
greater than 2 percent of (he applicable sp;in
value, tnke corrective measure on the
measurement system.
TaMe 20-1.—Interference Test Gas Concentration
CO.. 500-W) ppm.
SO, ?00,-.?0 ppm.
CO, 10 •; 1 percent
O. _ n.S • 1
Turbine type:.
Date:
Identification number.
Test number
Analyzer type:.
Identification number.
Cylinder Initial analyzer Final analyzer Difference:
value, response, responses, initial-final.
ppm or % ppm or % ppm or % ppm or %
Zero gas
Low - level gas
Mid - level gas
High - level gas
Percent drift =
Figure 20-3.
Absolute difference
X 100.
Span value
Zero and calibration data.
Conduct an interference response test of
each analyzer prior to its initial use in tiie
field. Thereafter, recheck the measurement
system if changes are made in the
instrumentation that could alter the
Interference response, e.g., changes in the
type of gas detector.
In lieu of conducting the interference
response test, instrument vendor data, which
demonstrate that for the test gases of Table
20-1 the interference performance
specification is not exceeded, are acceptable.
5.5 Residence and Response Time.
5-5.1 Calculate the residence time of the
sample interface portion of the measurement
system using volume and pump flow rate
information. Alternatively, if the response
time determined as defined in Section 5.5.2 is
less than 30 seconds, the calculations are not
necessary.
5.5.2 To determine response time, first
introduce zero gas into the system at the
111-83
-------
calibration valve until all readings arc; stable;
tl:nn. switch to monitor tin; stack effluent
i.ntil a stable miiding ran be obtained.
Kccord the upscale response lime. Nex.t.
introduce high-level calibration }$as into (hi:
system. Once |he system lias stabilized nt the
hij'.h level concentration, switch to monitor
Itif stuck effluent and wait uctil a stable
value 13 rcuchfcd. Record the duwnscale
response time. Repeat the procedure three
times. A stable value is equivalent to a
change nf less than 1 percent of span value
for 'JO seconds or less than 5 percent of the
measured average concentration for 2
minutes. Record lh« response time diita on a
lorm similar to Figure 20-5, the readings of
Ihr upscale or downscale reponse time, nnd
rejxirt tli» (jreuter lime us the "response time"
for thi: analyzer. Conduct a response time
test prior to the initial field use of the
measurement system, and repeat if changes
ore madi: in the measurement system.
Date of test.
Analyzer type.
Span gas concentration.
Analyzer span setting
Upscale
1.
2
3.
. S/N.
-Ppm
. ppm
.seconds
.seconds
.seconds
Average upscale response.
1
Downscale 2
3
.seconds
.seconds
.seconds
. seconds
Average tlovvnscale response.
.seconds
System response time = slower average time =.
.seconds.
Figure 20-5. Response time
5.0 NO, NO Conversion r.ff-.ciency.
Introduce !<> 'hi- «;y:h:Mi. al llie calibration
valve assembly, the NO=/NO fj.is mixture
(Section 4.5). Kecord Ihr response of the NO,
an::l\ • - rf ' th:' instrument ie-uioiise indicates
l'j:;s l.i.iii "n'i p :'c ei'-t NO- !•.> NM converse.!!!.
make cuiTi'cIinns to the raiNisurement system
arid repeat tho check. Alteni;,!ively. the NO,
to NO converter rhcck described in Title 40
J'.irt CO: Ccr!:f:cc::i:::i anil Trat Pror.ffdurun fur
Hiiavy-Uaty Engines fur J'J7,iJ and Later
Model Years may be used. Other alternate
procedures may be used with approval of the
Administrator.
6. Eminsion. Measurement Test Procedure
6.1 1'reliminaries.
6.1.1 Selection of a Sampl:ng Site. Select a
samplr;;: sire as close os practical Ki i!:e
exhaust of the turbine. Turbine geometry,
stack cuili^uration. internul liciffling. ar.d
point of introduction of dilution air will vary
f'.ir difterent turbine designs. Thus, each of
these factors must be given special
consideration in order to obtain a
representative sample. Whenever possible,
the sampling site shall be located upstream of
the point of introduction of dilution sir into
the duct. Sample purls may be located before
or after the upturn elbow, in order to
accommodate the r.ofifi^unilion of the turning
vune.H nnd liatTles imd to permil a compMn,
unobstructed traverse of the stuck. The
sample ports shall not be located within 5
feet or 2 diameters (whichever is less) of the
gas discharge to atmosphere. For
supplementary-iircd, combined-cycle plants.
the sampling site shall be located between
the gas turbine and the boiler. The diameter
of the sample ports shall be sufficient to
allow entry of the sample probe".
6.1.2 A preliminary O, traverse is made
for the purpose of selecting low O> values.
Conduct this test at the turbine condition that
is the lowest percentage of peak load
operation included in the program. Follow the
procedure below or alternative procedures
subject to the approval of the Administrator
may be used:
6.1.2.1 Minimum Number of Points. Select
a minimum number of points as follows: (1)
eight, for stacks having cross-sectional areas
less than 1.5 m3(l6.1 ft5): (2) one sample point
for each 0.2 m'tZ^ ft1 of areas, for stacks of
1.5 m' to 10.0 m1 (16.1-107.6 ft''1) in cross-
sectional ;tre:i: and (3) one snmple point for
each 0.4 m- (4.4 ft-1) of area, for slacks greater
than 10.0 m J (107.6 ft *) in cross-sectional
area. Note that for circular ducts, the number
of sample points must be a multiple of 4. and
for rectangular ducts, the number of points
must be one of those listed in Table 20-2:
therefore, round oil the number of points
(upward), when appropriate.
6.1.2.2 Cross-sectional Layout and
Location of Traverse Points. After the number
of traverse points for the preliminary O1
sampling has been determined, use Method 1
to located the traverse points.
6.1.2.3 Preliminary O2 Measurement.
While the gas turbine is operating at the
lowest percent of peak load, conduct a
preliminary O1 Measurement as follows:
Position the probe at the first traverse point
and begin sampling. The minimum sampling
time at each point shall be 1 minute plus the
average system response time. Determine the
average steady-state concentration of O1 at
each point and record the data on Figure 20-
6.
6.1.2.4 Selection of Emission Test
Sampling Points. Select the eight sampling
points at which the lowest O1 concentration
were obtained. Use these same points for all
the test runs at the different turbine load
conditions. More than eight points may be
used, if di.-sired.
Table 20-2.—Cross-sectional Layout lor
FlacMngutar Slacks
No. 01 uavetse f.
9
12
15 .._
?0 _
2S.._
30
36
42....
3.3
« • 3
4x4
S>4
b<5
6<5
6x8
7«S
7x7
111-84
-------
Location:
Pljnt
Date.
City, State.
Turbine identrtication:
Manufacturer
Model, serial number.
Sample point
Oxygen concentration, ppm
Figure 20-6. Preliminary oxygen traverse.
C.2 NO, and Oi Measurement. This lest is
to In; conducted at ench of the specified load
conditions. Three test runs at each load
condition constitute a complete test.
6.2.1 At the beginning of each NO. test
run und. as applicable, during the run. record
turbine dxta as indicated in Figure 20-7. Also.
record the location and number of the
traverse points on a diagram.
BILLING CODE 6S60-01-M
6.2.2 Position the probe at the first point
determined in the preceding section and
begin sampling. The minimum sampling time
at each point shall be at least 1 minute plus
the averse system response time. Determine
the averapr; steady-slate concentration of O»
end NO, at each point and record the data on
Figure 2O-8.
111-85
-------
Test operator
t
Turbine identification:
Ty fie
Serial IMo
Location:
Plant
City
TURBINE OPERATION RECORD
Da»e_
Ultimate fuel
Analysis C
H
O
N
Ambient temperature.
Ambient humidity
Test time start
Ash
H2O
Trace Metals
Na
Test time finish
Fuel flow ntoa
Va
K
Water or ste.im
Flow rai«a
ntc'J
Operating load.
Ambient Pressure,
aDescribe measurement method, i.e., continuous flow meter.
Start finish volumes. «tc.
bi.e.. additional t-lemfcnts added for smoke suppression.
instrument type.
Serial No
NOX instrument type.
Serial No
FKjure 20-7. Stationary gas turbine.data.
\
Turbine identification: Test operator name
Manufacturer
Model, serial No
Location:
Plant
City. State
Ambient temperature
Ambient pr«sMiie
Date
Test time start
Test time - finish
Sample
point
Time,
min.
02-
%
NO;.
ppm
aAverage steady-state value from recorder or
instrument readout.
Figure 20-8. Stationary gas turbine sample point record.
BILLING CODE 6iSO-OI-C
HI-86
-------
0.2.3 After sampling the last point.
conclude the test run by recording the final
turbine operating parameters and by
determining the zero and calibration drift, as
follows:
Immediately following the test run at each
lo.id condition, or if adjustments are
necessary for the measurement system during
llir tests, reintroduce the zero and mid-level
c;ilib:..!:ongdses as described in Sections 4.3.
am! 4.4. ore at n time, to tlie measurement
syslirr. at the calibration valve usfcmHy.
(Make no adjustments to the measurement
system until after the drift checks are madej.
Record the analyzers' responses on a form
similar to Figure 20-3. If the drift values
exceed the specified limits, the test run
preceding the check is considered invalid and
will be repeated following conections to the
measurement eyttem. Alternatively, the test
results may be accepted provided the
measurement system is recalibrated and the
calibration data thai result in the highest
corrected emission rale are used.
6.3 SOa Measurement This test is
conducted only at the 100 percent peak load
condition. Determine SOf using Method 6. or
equivalent, during the test. Select a minimum
of six total points from those required for the
NO, measurement*; use two points for each
sample run. The sample time at each point
shall be at least 10minutes. Average the O>
readings taken during the NO, test runs at
sample points corresponding to the SO>
traverse points (see Section 6.2.2) and use
this average O, concentration to correct the
integrated SO, concentration obtained by
Method 0 to IS percent O, (see Equation 20-
1).
If the applicable regulation allows fuel
sampling and analysis for fuel sulfur content
to demonstrate compliance with sulfur
emission unit, emission sampling with
Reference MtJiodeis not required, provided
the fuel sulfur content meets the limits of the
regulation.
7. E:nissiou Calculations
7.1 Correction to 15 Percent Oxygen.
Using Equation 20-1. calculate the NO, and
SOj concentrations (adjusted to 15 percent
O:). The correction to 15 percent Ot is
ser.sitivi: to the accuracy of the O>
nit'.isiiri'nicnl. At the level of mi;ily::cr drift
specified in the method (±2 percent of full
seal'-), the ch.mgi' in the O; conLcntriitinn
correction can exceed 10 percent when ihe O,
content of the exhaust is above 10 percent O,.
Therefore O, analyzer stability and careful
calibration are necessary.
5.!.
-
(fquatIon 20-1)
Where:
C. percent O> (ppin)
Cn,,«,= Pollutant concentration measured.
dry basis !ppm)
5.9=20.9 percent O.-15 percent O,. the
defined Oa correction basis
Percent O,«= Percent O, measured, dry
basis (%)
7.2 Calculate the average adjusted NO,
concentration by summing the point values
and dividing by the number of sample points.
A Citations
8.1 Curtis, F. A Method for Analyzing NO,
Cylinder Gases-Specific Ion Electrode
Procedure, Monograph available from
Emission Measurement Laboratory, ESED.
Research Triangle Park. N.C. 27711. October
197B.
|FR Doc. 79-27M3 Filed 9-7-78; 845 urn)
WLLINO CODE 6560-01-M
111-87
-------
B—PoroKMANcr SPECIFICATIONS
Performance Specification 1—Performance
apecincatloi.s and specification Vest proce-
dures for transmLssometer systems for con-
Unuous meuurfTnent of the opacity of
•tack emissions .
1. Principle and Applicability.
I.I Principle The opacity of paniculate
matter In stack emissions Is measured by a
continuously operating emission measure-
ment system. These systems are based upon
the principle of transmlssometry which is B
direct measurement of the attenuation cf
visible radiation (opacity) by paniculate
matter In a stack effluent. Light having spe-
cie spectral characteristics Is projected from
a lamp across the stack of a pollutant source
to a light sensor. The light is attenuated due
to absorption and scatter by the partlcul&te
matter In the effluent. The percentage of
visible light attenuated is defined as the
opacity of the emission. Transparent stack
emissions that do not attenuate light will
have a transmlttance of 100 or an opacity of
0. Opaque stack emissions that attenuate all
of tbe visible light will have a tranamlttance
of 0 or an opacity of 100 percent. The trane-
ml£someter Is evaluated by use of neutral
density niters vo determine the precisian of
the continuous monitoring system. Tests of
the system are performed to determine aero
drift, calibration drift. sJid response time
characteristics of the system.
1.2 Applicability. This performance spe-
cification Is applicable to the continuous
monitoring systems speclSed In the subparts
tor measuring opacity cf emissions. Specifi-
cations for continuous measurement of vis-
ible emissions are elven In terms of design.
performance, and Installation parameters
These specifications contain vest procedures.
Installation requirements, and data compu-
tation procedures for evaluating the accept-
ability of the continuous monitoring systems
subject to approval by tbe Administrator.
2. Apparatus
2.1 Calibrated Filters. Optical niters with
neutral spectrsJ characteristics and known
optical densities to risible light or screens
known to produce specified optical densities.
Calibrated filters with accuracies certified by
the manufacturer to within i3 percent
opacity shii! be used Filters required are
low, mid, and hlp,h-range filters with nom-
inal optical densities as follows when the
transmlssometer Is tptnned at opacity levels
specified by applicable subparts:
Bptn valuf
(percent opacity)
Calibrated 01!*- optical densities
with equlTnleni opscltr In
ptrrnthesis
Low- Mid- . Hlch-
ranre range ranpf
&0...
W...
TO...
to...
W...
100..
o.
(20)
(20)
(20)
(20)
(20)
.1 (20)
o.i (37) as )
.2 '87) .» (.SO)
.8 «*) !e CM
.7 (SO.
.» (67y,>
.4 (60)
-4 (60)
It is recommended that filter calibrations
be checked with a wrll-colllm&ted photoplc
transmlssometer of known linearity prior to
use. The filters shall be of sufficient clze
to attenuate the entire light beam of the
transmlssometer.
12 Data Recorder. Analog chart recorder
or other suitable device with Input voltage
range compatible with tbe analyzer system
output. The resolution of the recorder's
data output shall be sufficient to allou- com-
pletion of the test procedures -within this
specification.
2.3 Opacity measurement System. An In-
rtack transmlssometer (folded or single
path) with the optical design specifications
designated balow. associated control units
and apparatus to keep optical surfaces clean.
3. Definitions.
3.1 Continuous Monitoring System. The
total equipment required for the determlnfc-
Uon of pollutant opacity In s source effluent
Continuous monitoring systems consist of
major subsystems as follows:
3.1.1 Sampllnc Interlace. The portion of a
continuous monitoring system for opacity
that protects tbe analyzer from the effluent.
3.15 Analyzer That portion ol the con-
tinuous monitoring system which senses the
pollutant and generates a signal output tbav
Is a function of tbe pollutant opacity.
3.13 Data Recorder. That portion o' the
continuous monltorinp system that processes
tbe analyzer output and provides a nmm-
nent record of tne output signal In terms of
pollutant opacity.
3.2 Transmlsscrmeter. The portions of £
continuous monitoring system lor opacity
that Include the sampling interface and the
analyzer.
33 Span. The value of opacity at which
the continuous monitoring system Is set to
produce the maximum data display output.
Tbe span shall be set at an opacity specified
In each applicable subpart.
3.4 Calibration Error. Tbe difference be-
tween tbe opacity reading Indicated by the
continuous monitoring system and the
known values of a veries of tert standards
For this method tbe test standards are a
aeries of calibrated optical filters or screens.
3.5 Zero DrUt. The change In continuous
monitoring system output over a stated pe-
riod of time of normal continuous operation
when tbe pollutant concentration at the
ttme of tbe measurement* Is aero.
S.« Calibration Drift. Tne obange In the
continuous monitoring system output over
a stated period of time of normal continuous
operation when the pollutant concentration
at the time of the measurements Ls the same
known upscale value.
3.7 System Response. The time Interval
from a step change In opacity In the stack
at the Input to the continuous monitoring
system to the time at which 95 percent of
tbe corresponding final value U reached as
displayed on ohe continuous monitoring sys-
tem data recorder.
3.8 Operational Test Period. A minimum
pertod of time over which a continuous
monitoring system Is expected to operate
within certain performance specifications
without unscheduled maintenance, repair.
or adjustment.
3.9 Transmlttance Tbe fraction of Incident
light that l> transmitted through an optical
medium of interest.
8.10 Opacity. The fraction of Incident light
that Is attenuated by an optical medium of
Interest. Opacity (O) and transmlttance (T)
are related as'follows:
. 3.11 Optical Density. A logarithmic meas-
ure of the amount of light that It attenuated
by an optical medium of Interest. Optical
density (D) Is related to the tranamlttance
and opacity as follows:
D=-log10T
D=-log,. (1-0)
8.12 Peak . Optical Response. The wave-
tongth of maximum sensitivity of the Instru-
ment.
8.13 Mean Spectral Response. The wave-
length which bisects the total area under
the curve obtained pursuant to paragraph
t.2.1
8.14 Angle of View. The maximum (total)
angle of radiation detection by the photo-
detector assembly of the analyzer.
8.16 Angle of Projection. The maximum
(total) angle that contains 95 percent of
tbe radiation projected from tbe lamp assem-
bly of the analyser.
111-88
8.16 Pathlength The depth of •fluent In
Ote light beam between the receiver and the
transmitter of tbe single-pass transmlssom-
9t*r, or the depth of effluent between the
transceiver awl reflector of a double-pass
transmlssometer. Two pathlengths are refer-
enced by this specification:
8.18.1 Monitor Pathlength. The depth of
effluent at the Installed location of tbe con-
tinuous monitoring system.
3.165 Emission Outlet Pathlerugth. The
depth of effluent at the location emissions are
released to the atmosphere
4. Installation Specification.
4.1 Location The transmlssometer must
be located acroos a section of duct or stack
that will provide a paniculate matter flow
through the optical volume of the trans-
missometer that Is representative of the par-
tlculate matter flow through the duct or
•tack. It Is recommended that the monitor
pathlength or depth of effluent for the trans-
mlssometer include the entire diameter of
the duct or stack. In Installations using a
shorter pathlength. extra caution must be
used In determining the measurement loca-
tion representative of tbe paniculate matter
flow through tbe duct or stack.
4.1.1 Tbe transmlseometer location shall
be downstream from all paniculate control
equipment.
4.1.2 The transmlsaometer shall be located
OLE far from bends and obstructions as prac-
tical.
4.1.3 A transmlssometer that Is located
In the duct or stock following a bend shall
be Installed In the plane defined by the
bend where possible
4.1.4 The truitmluaometer should be In-
stalled In an accessible location.
4.1.5 When required by tbe Administrator.
tbe owner or operator of a source must
demonstrate that tbe tranamlsaometer tc lo-
cated In a aectlon of duct or stack where
a representative paniculate matter distribu-
tion exists The determination shall be ac-
complished by examining tbe opacity profile
of the effluent at a series of positions across
tbe duct or stack while the plant Is In oper-
ation at maximum or reduced operating rates
or by other tests, acceptable to tbe Adminis-
trator .
42 Slotted Tube. Installations that require
the use of a slotted tube shall use a slotted
tube of sufficient size and blackness so as
not to Interfere with the free flow of effluent
through tbe entire optical volume of the
transmlsaometer or reflect light Into the
transmlscometer photodetector. Light re-
flections may be prevented by using black-
ened baffles within the slotted tube to pre-
vent tbe lamp radiation from Impinging upon
the tube walls, by restricting tbe angle or
projection of the light and the angle of view
of the photodetector assembly to less than
tbe cross-sectional area of tbe slotted tube.
or by other methods. The owner or operator
must show that the manufacturer of the
monitoring system has used appropriate
methods to minimize light reflections for
oystems using slotted tubes.
4.3 Data Recorder Output. The continuous
monitoring system output shall permit ex-
panded display of the span opacity on a
standard 0 to 100 percent scale. Since all
opacity standards are baaed on the opacity
of the effluent exhausted to the atmosphere.
the system output shall be based upon the
emission outlet pathlength and permanently
recorded. For affected facilities whose moni-
tor pathlength Is different from tbe facility's
emission outlet pathlength. a graph shall be
provided with tbe Installation.to show the
relationships between the continuous moni-
toring system recorded opacity based upon
the emission outlet pathlength and tbe opac-
ity of'the effluent at tbe analyzer location
.(monitor pathlength.). Tests for measure-
ment of opacity thai are required by this
performance specification are based upon tbe
-------
monitor pathlengtb. The graph necessary to
convert the data recorder output so the
SBOBltor pathlength -bans snail be MtakUahed
•a follows:
tec (1-0.) «"(U/i.> tat
-------
Values for t.975
n
J
a
4 . .
5
e
7
e
t
-.875
1! 7W'
4.3TO
». is:
2 776
2. 571
5.447
2.S&S
2.SOO
n
10
II
IS
13
U
15
16
«.«7S
z. ye
2.278
5. 201
2. >7«
2. 160
2 141
2.JS1
93 Data Analysis and Reporting.
9.2.1 Bpeetrml Response. Combine the
spectral data obtained In accordance with
paragraph 8.3.1 to develop the effective spec-
tral response curve of the transmlssometer.
Report the wavelength at which the peak
response occurs, the wavelength at which the
mean response occurs, and the maximum
response at any wavelength below 400 nm
aud above 700 nm expressed as a percentage
Date of Test
of the peak response ac required under para-
graph 6.2.
B.2.2 Angle of View. Using the data obtained
In accordance with paragraph 6.3.2. calculate
the response of the receiver as a function of
viewing angle in tbe horizontal and vertical
directions (26 centimeters of arc with a
radius of 3 meters equal 6 degrees). Report
relative angle of view curves as required un-
der paragraph 6.2.
8.2.3 Angle of Projection. Using tbe data
obtained In accordance with paragraph 6.3.3.
calculate the response of the photoelectric
detector as a Junction of projection angle in
tbe horizontal and vertical directions. Report
relative angle of projection curves ac required
under paragraph 6.2.
8.2.4 Calibration Error. Using the data from
paragraph B.I (Figure 1-1). subtract the
known filter opacity value from the va'ue
shown by tbe measurement system for each
of tbe'15 readings. Calculate the mean and
85 percent confidence Interval of tbe five dif-
ferent values at each test filter value accord-
Low
Range i opacity
Span Value X opacity
Hid
Range X opacity
High
Range X opacity
Location of Test
Calibrated Filter
1
Analyzer Reading
X Opacity
Differences
X Opacity
2_
3_
4_
5_
6_
T_
8_
2_
10
n
14
15
Mean difference
Confidence Interval
Calibration error » Mean Difference * C.I.
Low Hid
High
Low. mid or high range
^Calibration filter opacity - analyzer reading
Absolute value
Figure 1-1. Cal'tratlor. Error Test
Ing to equations <-. «vejjurt me sum
of tbe absolute mean difference and the 95
percent confidence Interval for each of tbe
'three test filters.
MM 9t |MI_
**•• rnt*r
JbMl/ttr ifM
•«•«
8.2.6 Zero Drift Using the cero opacity
values measured every 24 hours during the
field test (paragraph 62). calculate the de-
ferences between the zero point after clean-
ing. aligning, and adjustment, and the zero
value 24 hours later Just prior to cleaning.
aligning. and adjustment. Calculate the
mean value of these points B J tbe confi-
dence Interval using equations 1-1 end 1-2
Report tbe sum of the absoluu mean value
and the 95 percent confidence Interval.
9.2.6 Calibration Drift. Using the spa:,
value measured every 24 hours during the
field test, calculate the differences betweer.
the span value after cleaning, aligning, and
adjustment of zero and span, and tbe spcn
value 24 hours later Just after clearJr.g
aligning, and adjustment of zero and before
adjustment of span. Calculate tbe mecn
value of these points and tbe conf.der.ro
Interval using equations 1-1 and 1-2. Report
the sum of the absolute mean value and the
confidence Interval.
8.2.7 Response Time. Using the data from
paragraph 8.1. calculate the time interval
from filter Intertlon to 85 percent of the fir.al
stable value for all upscale and downscale
traverses. Report tbe mean of tbe 10 upscale
and downscale test times.
8.2.8 Operational Ts*t Period. During the
168-hour operational test period, tbe con-
tinuous monitoring system (ball not require
any corrective maintenance, repair, replace-
ment, or adjustment other than that clearer
specified as required In tbe manufacturer's
operation end maintenance manuals as rou-
tine and expected during a one-week period.
If the continuous monitoring system U oper-
ated within the specified performance pa-
rameters and doe; not require corrective
maintenance, repair, replacement, or adjust-
ment other than as specified above during
tbe 168-hour test period, the operational
test period shall have been successfully con-
cluded Failure of the continuous monitor-
ing system to meet these requirements shall
call for a repetition of the 168-hour test
period. Pontons of the testa which were sat-
isfactorily completed need not be repeated.
Failure to meet any performance specifica-
tion (s) shall call for a repetition of the
one-week oneratlonal test period and that
specific portion of .the tests required bv
paragraph 6 related to demonstrating com-
pliance with the failed specification. All
maintenance and adjustments required shall
be recorded. Output readings shall be re-
corded before and after all adjustments.
10.1 "Btoerunental Statistics." Department
of Commerce. National Bureau of Standards
Handbook PI. 1863. pp. 8-31. paragraphs
10.2 "Performance Specifications for Sta-
tionary-Source Monitoring Systems for Oases
and Visible Emissions." Environmental Pro-
tection Agency. Research Triangle Park.
N.C., EFA-650/2-74-018. January 1074.
111-90
-------
Ttro Stttlftj
Son Uttln*
of
CUtc
I«r»
(ttfor«
**4 tdjvtucnt)
Itre Drift
\tltn)
(»ftrr clwln? ind lero ttjulUirnt
hut teforc ipm idjutuvnt)
Ciltbrtllon
Drift
(*S»e difference between the paired
concentration measurement* expressed as a
percentage of tbe mean reference value.
1.4 Calibration Crror. Tbe difference be-
tween the pollutant concentration Indi-
cated by the continuous monitoring system
and the known concentration of the test
fee mixture.
S.6 Zero Drift. The change in the continu-
ous monitoring system output over a stated
period of time of normal continuous opera-
tion when tbe pollutant concentration al
tbe time for tbe measurements Is zero
8.8 Calibration Drift. Tbe change In the
continuous monitoring system output over
a Mated tune period of normal continuous
operations when the pollutant concentra-
tion at the time of the measurements Is the
Mme known upscale value.
87 Response Time. Tbe time Interval
from a step change In pollutant concentra-
tion at the Input to the continuous moni-
toring system to the time at which 95 per-
cent of the corresponding final value Is
reached as displayed on tbe continuous
monitoring system data recorder.
8.8 Operational Period. A minimum period
of tune over which a measurement system
Is expected to operate within certain per-
formance specifications without unsched-
uled maintenance, repair, or adjustment
3.9 Stratification. A condition Identified
toy a difference in excess of 10 percent be-
tween tbe average concentration in the due:
or stack and the concentration at any point
more than 1.0 meter from the duct or stack
wall.
«. Installation Specifications Pollutant
continuous monitoring systems (SO, and
NO.) shall be Installed at a sampling loca-
tion where measurements can be made which
are directly representative (4.1), or which
can be corrected so as to be representative
(4.2) of the total emissions from the affected
facility. Conformance with this requirement
•hall be accomplished as follows:
4.1 Effluent gases may be assumed to be
nonstratlfled If a sampling location eight or
more stack diameters (equivalent diameters)
downstream of any air in-leakage Is se-
lected. This assumption and data correction
procedures under paragraph 4.3.1 may not
be applied to sampling locations upstream
of an air prebeater in a (team generating
facllltv under Subpart D of this part. For
•ampllng locations where affluent gases are
either demonstrated (45) or may be as-
sumed to be nonstratlfled (eight diameters).
a point (extractive systems) or path (In-situ
systems) of average concentration may be
monitored.
4.3 For sampling locations where effluent
fates cannot be assumed to be nonstratl-
fled (leas than eight diameters) or have been
ahown under paragraph 44 to be stratified.
results obtained must be consistently repre-
sentative (e.g. a point of average concentra-
tion may shirt with load changes) or tbe
data generated by sampling at a point (ex-
tractive systems) or across a path (In-situ
systems) must be corrected (4.2.1 and 4.2.2)
ao as to be representative of the total emls-
rtons from the affected facility. Conform-
ance with this requirement may be accom-
plished In either of the following ways:
4.2.1 Installation of a diluent continuous
monitoring system (O. or CO. as applicable)
In accordance with the procedures under
paragraph 4.2 of Performance Specification
S of this appendix. If the pollutant and
diluent monitoring systems are not of the
same type (both extractive or both In-altu)
tbe extractive system must use a multipoint
probe.
4.1.3 Installation • of extractive pollutant
monitoring systems using multipoint sam-
pling probes or In-sltu pollutant monitoring
•Tttems that sample or view emlsalons which
are consistently representative of tbe total
emlsalons for tbe entire cross section. The
Administrator may require date to bs «ub-
111-91
-------
mltted to demonstrate that the emission*
sampled or viewed an consistently repre-
sentative for several typical facility proce**
operating conditions.
4.3 Tbe owner or operator may perform a
traverse to characterize any stratification of
effluent gases that might exist In a stack or
duct. If no stratification La present, sampling
procedures \ rider paragraph 4.1 may be ap-
plied even though the eight diameter criteria
Is not met.
4.4 When single point sampling probes for
extractive systems are Installed within the
stack or duct under paragraphs 4.1 and 4.2.1.
th* sample may not be extracted at any point
less than 1.0 meter from the -stack or duct
vail. Multipoint sampling probes Installed
under paragraph 4.2.2 may be located at any
polnta necessary to obtain consistently rep-
resentative samples.
5. Continuous Monitoring System Perform-
ance Speclncatlons.
The continuous monitoring system shall
meet the performance specifications In Table
3-1 to be considered acceptable under "this
method.
TABLE 2-1.—Performance tpeciflcationa
ParaaulfT
Specification
\. Accuracy' <20 pet of tht mean value ol the reference method leal
dais.
?. Calibration error' £ Spctoftacb (50 pet, 90 pet) calibration gas minor*
value.
1. Zero drift (2 b) i Spctofipan
4. Zero drift (24 h) i Do.
5. Calibration drill (2h)' Do.
e. Cali oration drift (24 h)' 2.S pet. of span
7. Response time IS mln maiimum.
8. Operational period 168 h minimum.
1 Eipnesad u «*"" of absolute mean value plus U pet confidence Interval of a series of lesu.
6. Performance Specification Test Proce-
dures. Tbe following test procedures shall be
used to determine conformance with the
requirements of paragraph 5. For NO, an-
requlrements of paragraph S. For NOi an-
alyzers tbst oxidize nitric oxide (NO) to
nitrogen dioxide (NO,), the response time
test under paragraph 6 J of this method shall
be performed using nitric oxide (NO) span
gas. Other tests for NO. continuous monitor-
Ing systems under paragraphs 6.1 and 6.2 and
all.tests for sulfur dioxide systems shall be
performed using the pollutant span gas spe-
cified by each subpart.
6.1 Calibration Error Test Procedure. Set
up and calibrate the complete continuous
monitoring system according to the manu-
facturer's writen Instructions. This may be
accomplished either In the laboratory or In
the field.
6.1.1 Calibration Oas Analyses. Triplicate
analyses of the gas mixtures shall be per-
formed within two weeks prior to use using
Reference Methods 6 for SO. and 7 for NOa.
Analyze each calibration gas mixture (50%.
S0<"o) and record the results on the example
sheet shown In Figure 2-1. Each sample test
result must be within 20 percent of the aver-
aged result or the tests shall be repeated.
This step may be omitted for non-extractive
monitors where dynamic calibration gas mix-
tures are not used (6.1.2).
6.1.2 Calibration Error Test Procedure.
Make a total of IS nonconsecutlve measure-
ments by alternately using zero gas and each
:iliberatlon gas mixture concentration (e.g..
3<-r. 50%. 0%. 90%. 50%, 80%, 50%, 0%.
•tc.). For nonextractlve continuous monitor-.
Ing systems, this test procedure may be per-
formed by using two or more calibration gas
cells whose concentrations are certified by
the manufacturer to be functionally equiva-
lent to these gas concentrations. Convert the
continuous monitoring system output read-
Ings to ppm and record the results on the
example sheet shown In Figure 2-2.
62 Field Test for Accuracy (Relative).
Zero Drift, and Calibration Drift. Install and
operate the continuous monitoring system In
accordance with the manufacturer's written
Instructions and drawings as follows:
0.2.1 Conditioning Period. Offset the zero
setting at least 10 percent of the span so
that negative zero drift can be quantified.
Operate the system Tor an Initial 108-hour
conditioning period In normal operating
6.2.3 Operational Tost Period. Operate the
continuous monitoring system for an addi-
tional 168-hour period retaining the zero
offset. The system shall monitor the source
effluent at all tunes except when being
zeroed, calibrated, or backpurged.
6.2.2.1 Field Test for Accuracy (Relative).
For continuous monitoring systems employ-
Ing extractive sampling, the probe tip for the
continuous monitoring system and tbe probe
tip for the Reference Method sampling train
should be placed at adjacent locations in the
duct. For NO, continuous monitoring sys-
tems, make 27 NOX concentration measure-
ments, divided Into nine sets, using the ap-
plicable reference method. No more than one
set of tests, consisting of three Individual
measurements, shall be performed In any
one hour. All Individual measurements of
each set shall be performed concurrently,
or within a three-minute interval and the
results averaged. For SO, continuous moni-
toring systems, make nine SO. concentration
measurements using the applicable reference
method. No more than one measurement
shall be performed In any one hour. Record
the reference method test data and the con-
tinuous monitoring system concentrations
on tbe example data sheet shown In Figure
3-3.
6.2.22 Field Test for Zero Drift and Cali-
bration Drift. For extractive systems, deter-
mine the values given by zero and span gas
pollutant concentrations at two-hour Inter-
vals until 15 sets of data are obtained. For
nonextractlve measurement systenu, tbe zero
value may be determined by mechanically
producing a zero condition that provides a
system check of the analyzer Internal mirrors
and all electronic circuitry including tbe
radiation source and detector assembly or
by inserting three or more calibration gas
cells and computing the zero point from tbe
upscale measurements. If this latter tech-
nique Is used, a graph(s) must be retained
by tbe owner or operator for each measure-
ment system that shows the relationship be-
tween tbe upscale measurements and tbe
zero point. Tbe span of the system shall be
checked by using a calibration gas cell cer-
tified by the manufacturer to be function-
ally equivalent to 50 percent of span concen-
tration. Record the zero and span measure-
ments (or the computed zero drift) on the
example data sheet shown In Figure 3-4.
Tbe two-hour periods over which measure-
ments are conducted need not be consecutive
but may not overlap. All measurements re-
quired under this paragraph may be eon-
ducted concurrent with testa under para-
graph e.a.a.1.
6.3.3.3 Adjustment*. Zero and calibration
corrections and adjustment* are allowed only
at 34-hour intervals or at such shorter In-
tervals as the manufacturer's writ!en in-
struction* specify. Automatic corrections
made by tbe measurement system without
operator Intervention or Initiation are allow-
able at any time. During tbe entire 168-houi i
operational test period, record on the ex-
ample sheet shown tn Figure 2-6 the values
given by zero and span gaa pollutant con-
centrations before and after adjustment at
24-hour intervals.
63 Field Test for Response Time.
6.3.1 Scope of Test. Dae tbe entire continu-
ous monitoring system as Installed, including
sample transport lines if used. Flow rates.
line diameters, pumping rates, pressures (do
not allow tbe pressurized calibration gas to
change tbe normal operating pressure In Uie
sample line), etc., shall be at the nominal
values for normal operation as specified In
tbe manufacturer's written instructions. I/
tbe analyzer Is used to sample more than one
pollutant source (stack), repeat this test for
each sampling point.
6.35 Response Time Test Procedure. In-
troduce zero gas Into the continuous moni-
toring system sampling Interface or as close
to tbe sampling Interface as possible. When
the system output reading has stabilized.
switch quickly to a known concentration of
pollutant gas. Record the time from concen-
tration switching to 95 percent of final stable
response. For non-extractive monitors, the
highest available calibration gas concentra-
tion shall be switched into and out of tbe
sample path and response times recorded.
Perform this test sequence three (3) times.
• Record the results of each test on the
example sheet shown In Figure 2-0.
7- Calculations. Date Analysis and Rcrort-
Ing. •
7.1 Procedure for determination of mean
values and confidence Intervals.
7.1.1 The mean value of a date set Is
calculated according to equation 2-1.
n 1-1 Equation ?.-•}
where:
x, = absolute value of the measurements.
: = sum of the Individual values,
x*=mean value, and
n = number of date points.
7.1.2 The 85 percent confidence Interval
(two-sided) is calculated according to equa-
tion 2-2:
Equation 2-2
where:
£x, » sum of all data points,
t.»?j=t| — or/2, and
C.I.»j=9.V percent confidence interval
estimate of tbe average mean
value.
Values for '.975
n
,....
4
?-
!„...
TO**"
12
ID
14....
14
M-...
«.»7»
„ 12.708
4. (03
1182
i Z.T78
2.471
, Z447
...-. 2.3W
Z382
2,128
2.JB1
2. MB
2,160
2.146
2. ill
Tbe value* In this table are already cor-
rected for n-1 degree* of freedom. Use n
111-92
-------
equal to the number of samples a* cut*
points.
13 Date Analysis and Exporting.
7.2.1 Accuracy (Relative). For etch of the
oine reference method test polnU. determine
the avenge pollutant concentration reported
by the contlnuoui monitoring system. These
average concentration* ahail be determined
from the continuous monitoring system data
recorded under 123 by Integrating or aver-
aging the pollutant concentrations over each
at the time Intervals concurrent with each
reference method testing period. Before pro-
ceeding to the next step, determine the basts
(wet or dry) of the continuous monitoring
system data and reference method test data
concentrations. 11 the bases ire not con-
sistent, apply * moisture correction to either
reference method concentrations or the con-
tinuous monitoring system concentrations
as appropriate. Determine the correction
factor by moisture test* concurrent with the
reference method testing period*. Report the
moisture test method and the correction pro-
cedure employed. For each of the nine test
runs determine the difference for each test
run by subtracting the respective reference
method tost concentration* (use average of
each set of three znr .urements for NO.)
from the continuous monitoring system inte-
grated or averaged c. >eentraUons. Using
these data, compute the mean difference and
the 95 percent confidence Interval of the dif-
ferences (equations 9-1 and 9-2). Accuracy
Is reported aj the sum of the absolute value
of the mean difference and the 95 percent
confidence Interval of the differences ex-
pressed as a percentage of the mean refer-
ence method value. Use the exuaple sheet
shown in Figure 3-3.
7.2.2 Calibration Error. Using the data
from paragraph 6.1. subtract the measured
pollutant concentration determined under
psTfcprnph 6.1.1 (Figure 3-1) from the value
shown by the continuous monitoring system
for each of the five readings at each con-
centration measured under 6.1.3 (Figure 3-2).
Calculate the mean of these difference values
and the OS percent confidence Intervals ac-
cording to equations 3-1 aod 3-3. Eeport the
calibration error (the cum of the absolute
value of the mean difference and the 95 per-
cent confidence Interval) as a percentage of
each respective calibration gas concentra-
tion. Use examplt sheet shown In Figure 3-2.
7.3.3 Zero Drift (3-hour). Using the sere
concentration values measured each two
hours during the field test, calculate the dif-
ferences between consecutive two-hour read-
ings expressed In ppm. Calculate the mean
difference aod the confidence Interval using
equations 8-1 and 3-3. Report the uro drift
as the sum of the absolute mean value and
the confidence Interval as a percentage of
span. Use example sheet shown In Figure
3-4.
7.3.4 Zero Drill (24-hour). Using the zero
concentration values measured every 24
hours during the field test, calculate the dif-
ferences between the cero point alter zero
adjustment and the aero value 34 hours later
Just prior to eero adjustment. -Calculate the
mean value of these points and the confi-
dence Interval using equations 3-1 and 3-3.
Report the Eero drift (the sum of the abso-
lute mean and confidence Interval) as a per-
centage of span. Use example sheet shown in
Figure 3-6.
7.25 Calibration Drift (2-hour). Using
the calibration values obtained at two-hour
Intervale during the field test, calculate the
differences between consecutive two-hour
readings expressed as ppm. These values
should be corrected for the corresponding
tero drift during that two-hour period. Cal-
culate the mean and confidence Interval of
these corrected difference values using equa-
tions 2-1 and 3-2. Do not use the differences
between non-oonaecutlve readings. Report
the calibration drift as the sum of the abso-
lute mean and confidence Interval as a per-
centage of span. Use the example sheet shown
10 Figure 3-4.
7.2.6 C-llbratlon Drift (34-hour). .Using
the calibration values measured every 24
hours durlne the field test, calculate the dif-
ferences between the calibration concentra-
tion reading after zero and calibration ad-
justment, and the calibration concentration
reading 24 hours later after tero adjustment
but before calibration adjustment. Calculate
the mean value of these differences and the
confidence Interval using equations 2-1 and
2-2. Report the calibration drift (the sum of
the absolute mean aad confidence Interval)
as a percentage of span. Use the example
sheet shown IB Figure 2-5.
7.2.7 Response Time. Using the charts
from paragraph 6.3. calculate toe time inter-
val from concentration switching to 95 per-
cent to the Anal stable value for all upscale
and downicale tests. Report the mean of the
three upscale test tunes and the mean of the
three downscale test times. The two aver-
age times should not differ by more than, 15
percent of the slower time. Report the slower
time as the system response tune. Use the ex-
ample sheet shown In Figure 2-6.
7.3.8 Operational Test Period. During the
108-hour performance and operational test
period, 'the continuous monitoring system
shall not require any corrective maintenance.
repair, replacement, or adjustment other than
that c'early specified as required In the op-
eration toad maintenance manuals as routine
and expected during a one-week period. If
the continuous monitoring system operates
within the specified performance parameters
and does noi require corrective maintenance.
repair, replacement or adjustment other than
as specified above during the 168-hour teet
period, the operational period will be success-
fully concluded. Failure of the continuous
monitoring system to meet tats requirement
shall call for a repetition of the 168-bour test
period. Portions of the test which were satis-
factorily completed need not be repeated
Failure to meet any performance specifica-
tions shall call for a repetition of the one-
week performance test period and that por-
tion of the testing which is related to the
failed specification. All maintenance and ad-
justments required shall be recorded. Out-
put readings shall be recorded before and
after all adjustments.
8. References.
8.1 "Monitoring Instrumentation for the
Measurement of Sulfur Dioxide In Stationary
Source Emissions." Environmental Protection
Agency. Research Triangle Park. N.C.. Feb-
ruary 1973.
82 "Instrumentation for the Determina-
tion of Nitrogen Oxides Content of Station-
ary Source Emissions." Environmental Pro-
tection Agency, Research Triangle Park. N.C..
Volume 1. APTD-0847. October 1671: Vol-
ume 2. AFTD-0943. January 1973.
3.3 "Expertmentil Statistics." Department
of Commerce, Handbook 91. 1963. pp. 3-31.
paragraphs 3-3.1.4.
8.4 "Performance Specifications for Sta-
tionary-Source Monitoring Systems for Cases
and Visible Emissions." Environmental Pro-
tection Agency. Research Triangle Park, N.C.,
EPA-450/3-74-013. January 1974.
Hjp> Ul H*Hm«
tH. «.! .Hit...
r«t»> M. im\rtit *> utiMttw an
111-93
-------
Calibration G«s Mixture OaU {From Figure 2-1)
Mid (505) ppn High (901) ppm
Run t
Calibration Gas
Conccntration.ppm
Measurement Systen
Reading, ppn
Differences, ppm
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
Hid High
Mean difference
Confidence Interval
Calibration error = Calibration r,as Concent raTfbrT
Pear Difference + C.I.
x 100
Calibration gas concentration - measurement system reading
"Absolute value
Figure 2-2. Calibration Error Determination
'tit
Ho.
1
J
J
«
tra
•ffcrtnct NftriM Wnpltt
•&'
i
i
I
~f
tnpft 1
(K")
i
$ ! • i
«• i !
7
f
t
bin
fit
U (
ttor
'Up
'
rtf«r«nci •
Mlut (SO.
AlfIMM* 1
• UM
•o. ; w,
tewft t ! twit J
!
j
j
V tMpll
«Mlyt«r l-MHr
«rrtr<«« (pp.)-
i
1
i
HMn rvftmct MBtlnri
tMt n)M 1«3 )
• ••
(10.) • •
(Hffimct
(PV)
10, «,
NHn of
UK «ltr.r»«tl
tm
•IM» »f tkt «(fltr»BC«l . Hs (o«flwiKt"lllt*r> .
*'" * Nun rtftrtnct Mtkml Mint • — _
Uli «M r»port MtMd KtM U Hltrmtm lnt*gr»IM Illitjl'
• >~1
) • I «».)
ri««n t-). Jkuraqr OtumtMtlw (10, «M Ht)
111-94
-------
KU
Ml TIM
Co. tnli lid
I*r> . Drift
Drift
Grift
irr« ?rift • (H«n Zero >m*
Ctllbrttlon Orlft • [HMn Sp«n Drift'
•Absolute Vtluf.
* CI (ifo)
" « CI (SrS
l [Sptn] i 10
?-4. 2cro
-------
Data of Tast
Span Gas Concentration
Analyzer Span Setting _
Upscale
pps
_tecondi
seconds
seconds
Average upscale response
seconds
seconds
Downjctie
seconds
^seconds
Average downscale response
SyJtcn average response -tine (slower time) • _
Zdevlation from slower
system average response
_seconds
seconds.
average upscale ciinus average downscale
slower tine
x 1001 -
Figure 2-6. Response Time
^ Performance
specifications and specification test proce-
dures (or monitor* ot CO, and O, from sta-
tionary sources.
1. Principle and Appllcablllty.
1.1 Principle. EMuent gases are continu-
ously sampled and are analyzed (or carbon
dioxide or oxygen by a continuous monitor-
Ing system. Tests of the system are performed .
during a minimum operating period to deter-
mine zero drift, calibration drift, and re-
sponse time characteristics.
1.3 Applicability. This performance speci-
fication is applicable to evaluation of con-
tinuous monitoring systems for measurement
ot carbon dioxide or oxygen. These specifica-
tion* contain test procedures, installation re-
quirements, and data computation proce-
dures for evaluating the acceptability of the
continuous monitoring systems eubjoct to
approval by the Administrator. Sampling
may include either extractive or non-extrac-
tive (in-sltu) procedures.
2. Apparatus.
2.1 Continuous Monitoring System for
Carbon Dioxide or Oxygen.
2.3 Calibration Oas Mixtures. Mixture of
known concentrations of carbon dioxide or
oxygen In nitrogen or air. Mldrange and 90
percent of span carbon dioxide or oxygen
concentrations are required. The 90 percent
of span gas mixture Is to be used to eat and
check the analyzer span and is referred to
01 span gas. For oxygen analyzers. If the
span Is higher than 31 percent O,, ambient
air may be used in place of the 90 percent of
span calibration gai mixture. Triplicate
analyses of the gas mixture (except omblant
air) shall bo performed within two weeks
prior to use using Reference Method 3 of
this pan.
2.3 Zero Oas. A gas containing lew than 100
ppm of carbon dioxide or oxygen.
2.4 Data Recorder. Analog chart recorder
or other suitable device with input voltage
range compatible with analyzer system out-
put. The resolution of tho recorder's data
output shall be sufficient to allow completion
of the test procedures within this caeciaca-
tlon.
3. PoflnUrons.
0.1 Continuous Honltorlng Oydtem Tha
total equipment required for the datennlna-
tlon of carbon diaslda or caytjon IB a (jlvon
source effluent. The system consists of three
major subsystems:
3.1.1 Sampling Interface. That portion of
the continuous monitoring system that per-
forms one or more of the following opera-
tions: delineation, acquisition, transporta-
tion, and conditioning of a sample of the
source effluent or protection of the analyzer
from the hostile aspects of the sample or
source environment.
3.1.2 Analyzer. That portion of the con-
tinuous monitoring system which senses the
pollutant gas and generates a signal output
that is a function of the pollutant concen-
tration.
3.1.3 Data Recorder. That portion of the
continuous monitoring system that provides
a permanent record of the output signal in
terms of concentration units.
32 Span. The value of oxygen or carbon di-
oxide concentration at which the continuous
monitoring system Is sat that produces the
maximum data display output. For the pur-
poses of this method, the span shall ba cat
no less than 1.S to 2.S times the normal cor-.
bon dioxide or normal oxygen concentration
In the stack gas of the affected facility.
3.3 Midrange. The value of oxygen or car-
bon dioxide concentration that Is representa-
tive of the normal conditions In the stock
B»s of. the affected facility at typtczJ operat-
ing rates.
3.4 Zero Drift. The change In the contin-
uous monitoring system output over a stated
period of time of normal continuous opera-
tion when the carbon dioxide or oxygen con-
centration at the time for the measurements
is toro.
3.8 Calibration Drift. Tho cbanga In tho
'continuous monitoring system output over a
stated time period of normal continuous op-
eration when the carbon dioxide or oxygon
continuous monitoring system la measuring
the concentration of span gas. . •
3.0 Operational Test Period. A minimum
period of time over which tho continuous
monitoring system la expected to" operate
within certain performance specifications
without unscheduled maintenance, repair, or
adjustment. . • . •
. 0.7 Response time. The ttma Interval from
o ctop change In concentration ot tho Input
to tho continuous monitoring cTotom to tho
.ttrno ot which 05 percent of tho ecrrejpossl-
Ing anal value la displayed ea O»o esattnuoos
Gonltorlna system data rceordor.
4. Installation Qpcctflcotton.
Oxygon or carbon dioxide continuous mon-
itoring systems' shall -to Installed at a loca-
tion where measurements oro directly repre-
oantatlve of tho total effluent from the
affected facility or roprcMntatlvo of the aame
effluent sampled by a SO, or NO. continuous
monitoring system. TnU requirement aball
bo compiled with by usa of applicable re-
quirements in Porformanej Specification 3 of
this appendix ea follows:
4.1 Installation of Oxygon or Carbon Di-
oxide Continuous Monitoring Systems Not
Used to Convert Pollutant Data. A campling
location shall ba selected In accordance with
the procedures under • paragraphs 4J.I or
. 4.2.2. or Performance Specification 3 of this
appendix.
42 Installation of Oxygon or Carbon Di-
oxide Continuous Monitoring Systems Used
to Convert Pollutant Continuous Monitoring
System Data to TJnlta of Applicable Stand-
ards. The diluent continuous monitoring sys-
tem (oxygen or carbon dioxide) oholl be In-
stalled at a sampling location whore measure-
ments that ra« ba made oro representative of
the effluent gases sampled by the pollutant
continuous monitoring system (a). Conform-
once with this requirement may be accom-
plished In any of tho following ways:
4.2.1 The sampling location for tho diluent
system shalfbe near the sampling location for
the pollutant continuous monitoring system
such that the same approximate point (o)
(extractive systems) or path (In-sltu sys-
tems) In the cross osction is campled or
viewed.
42.2 The diluent and pollutant continuous
monitoring systems may ba Installed at dif-
ferent locations If the effluent gases at both
sampling locations ore nonstrauflod as deter-
mined under paragraphs 4.1 or 4.3, Perform-
ance Specification 3 of this appendix and
there is no in-leakoge occurring between the
two sampling locations. It the effluent gases
are stratified at either location, tho proce-
dures under paragraph 422, Performance
Specification 3 of this appendix shall bo used
for installing continuous monitoring systems
at that location.
6. Continuous Monltortnrc STtitem Perform-
ance Specifications.
The continuous monitoring system shall
meet the performance specifications in Table
3-1 to be considered accsptablo under this
method.
e. Performance Specification Test Procs.
10 following tost procedures shall bo used
to determine conformance with the require-
ments of paragraph 4. Due to tho wide varia-
tion existing in analyzer designs and princi-
ples of operation, these- procedures oro not
applicable to all analyzers. Whore this occurs.
alternative procedures, subject to the ap-
proval of the Administrator, may be em-
ployed. Any such alternative procedures must
fulfill the same purposes (verify raponse,
drift, and aecurscy) as the following proce-
dures, and must clearly demonstrate eon-
formance with specifications In Tobla 0-1.
6.1 Calibration Check. Establish a cali-
bration curve for the continuous moni-
toring system using zero, midransc. and
span concentration tjas mixtures. Verify
that the resultant curve of analyzer read-
Ing compared with the calibration BOS
value la consistent with the expected re-
sponse curve as described by the analyzer
manufacturer. If the expected response
curve Is not produced, additional cali-
bration ana meaaurcmenta chall to mode,
or additional otcja undarb&cn to
TTT-Q6
-------
the accuracy of the response curve of the
analyzer.
6.2 Field Test for Zero Drift and Cali-
bration Drift. Install and operate the
continuous monitoring system in accord-
ance with the manufacturer's written In-
structions and drawings as follows:
TABLE 8-1.—Performance tpecificalinm
ftrnuttr
Specification
1. Zerodrill (?M ' <0.4 pel Oior COi.
2. Zero drill (74 h» <0-i pel Oior COi.
i. Calibration drill CM'.. §0.4 pel O: o: COt
4. Calibration rtrtfi 124 b)'. <0-4 pel O; or COj.
.V Operational period 18S b minimum.
0. Response use lOmin.
> Eipmvd at nun of absolute nun value plus W pel
confidence Inwrral o! • eerie* of Usu.
6.2.1 Conditioning Period OCset tbe zero
tettlug at least 10 percent ol (pan to that
negative cero drift may be quantified. Oper-
ate the continuous monitoring system for
an InlUal 168-hour conditioning period In a
normal operational manner.
6.2.2 "Operational Test Period. Operate the
continuous monitoring system for an addi-
tional 168-hour period maintaining tbe eera
onset The system ahull monitor the source
effluent at ail times except when-being
zeroed, calibrated, or backpurged.
6.2.3 Field Test for Zero Drift and Calibra-
tion Drift. Determine the values given by
rero and mldrange gas concentrations at t»-o-
hour inteivals until 19 acts of data are ob-
tained. For non-extractive continuous moni-
toring systems, determine the aero value
given by a mechanically produced cero con-
dition cr by computing the zero value from
upscale measurements using calibrated gas
cells certified by tbe manufacturer. The mid-
range checks shall be performed by using
certified calibration gas cells functionally
equivalent to less than 50 percent o? spun.
Record these readings on tbe example sheet
shown In Figure 3-1. These two-hour periods
need not be consecutive.but may not overlap.
In-sltu CO. or O, analyzers which cannot be
fitted with "a calibration pus cell may be cali-
brated by alternative procedures acceptable
to tbe Administrator. Zero and calibration
correction* and adjustments are allowed
only at 24-hour Intervals or at such shorter
Intervals as tbe manufacturer's written In-
structions specify. Automatic corrections
made by tbe continuous monitoring system
without operator intervention or Initiation
arc allowable at any time. During the en-
tire 168-hour test period, record the values
given by cero and span gas concentrations
before and alter adjustment at 24-hour In-
terval* In tbe example sheet shown In Figure
3-2.
63 Field Tost for Response Time.
6J.I Scope of Test.
This test shall be accomplished using the
continuous monitoring system as Installed.
Including sample transport lines If used.
Flow rates, line diameters, pumping rates,
pressures (do not allow the pressurized cali-
bration gas to change the normal operating
pressure la tbe sample line). etc., shall be
at tbe nominal values.for normal operation
as specified In tbe manufacturer's written
Instructions. If the analyzer Is used to sample
more than one source (stack), this test shall
be repeated for each sampling point.
8.3.2 Response Time Test Procedure.
Introduce zero gas Into tbe continuous
monitoring system sampling Interface or as
elos* to tbe sampling interface as possible.
When the system output reading has stabi-
1. switch quickly to a known concentra-
tion of gas at 90 percent of apan. Record tbe
Urne from concentration switching to 96
percent of final stable response. After the
system response has stabilized at tbe upper
level, switch quickly to a zero gas. Record
the time from concentration switching to 95
percent of final stable response Alterna-
tively, for nonextractlve continuous monitor-
Ing systems, the hlghe-t available calibration
gas concentration shall be switched Into and
out of the eiimple path and responne times
recorded. Perform thlc test sequence three
(3) times. For each test, record the results
on the data sheet shown In Figure 3-3.
7. Calculations, Data Analysis, end Report-
'7.1 Procedure for determination of mean
values and confidence Intervals.
7.1.1 The mean value of a data set Is cal-
culated according to equation 3-1.
i
n '•• Equation 3-1
where:
x, = absolute value of the measurements.
I- :sum of the Individual values.
x = mean value, and "
n ^number of data points.
7.2.1 The 95 percent confidence Interval
(two-elded) is calculated according to equa-
tion 3-2:
nyn — 1
Equation 3-2
where:
2X = sum of all data points,
'.975 = t,-o/2.and
C.I.»=85 percent confidence interval
estimates of the average mean value
Values tor «.975
'.975
.
2 ................................ 12.706
8 ................................ 4.303
* ................................ 3.182
5 ................................ 2.776
6 ................................ 2.671
* - ............................... 2.447
8 ................................ 2.S65
9 ................................ 2.308
'0 ................................ 2.282
11 ................................ 2.228
12 ......... •• ...................... 2.201
13 .................. . ............. 2.179
1* ................................ 2.160
18-- .............................. 2.145
18 ................................ 2.131
Tbe values In this table are already corrected
for n-1 degrees of freedom. Use n equal to
the number of samples as data points.
12 Data Analysis and Reporting.
7.2.1 Zero Drift (2-hour). Using the zero
concentration values measured each two
hours during the field test, calculate the dif-
ferences between tbe consecutive two-hour
readings expressed In ppm. Calculate the
mean difference and tbe confidence Interval
using equations 3-1 and 3-2. Record the sum
of the absolute mean value and tbe confi-
dence Interval on tbe data sheet shown In
Figure 8-1.
122 Zero Drift (24-hour). Using tbe zero
concentration values measured every 94
hours during tbe field test, calculate the dif-
ferences between the zero point after zero
adjustment and tbe zero value 24 hours
later Just prior to zero adjustment. Calculate
the mean value of these points and tbe con-
fidence interval using equations 8-1 and 8-4.
Record the zero drift (the sum of the ab-
solute mean and confidence Interval) on the
data sheet shown In Figure 3-2.
12 J Calibration Drift (2-hour). Using the
calibration values obtained at two-hour In-
tervals during tbe field test, calculate the
differences between consecutive two-hour
readings expressed as ppm. These values
should be corrected for tbe corresponding
zero drift during that two-hour period. Cal-
culate the mean and confidence Interval of
these corrected difference values uslnp equa-
tions 3-1 and 3-2. Do not use the differences
between non-consecutive readings. Record
the sum of the absolute mean and confi-
dence interval upon the data sheet shon-n
In Flrure 3-1.
7.2.4 Calibration Drift (24-hour). Using the
calibration values measured every 24 hours
during the field test, calculate the dlfer-
ences between the calibration concentration
reading after zero and calibration actjutt-
men't end the calibration concentration read-
ing 24 hours later after zero adjustment but
before calibration adjustment. Calculate the
mean value of these differences and tbe con-
fidence Interval using equations 3-1 and 3-2.
Record the sum of the absolute mean and
confidence interval on the data sheet Ehov.-n
In Flg\rre 3-2.
7.2.5 Operational Test Period. During ihe
168-hour performance and operational test
period, the continuous monitoring systrm
shall not receive any corrective maintenance.
repair, replacement, or adjustment other
than that clearly specified as required In the
manufacturer's written operation and main-
tenance manuals r»s rojtlne and expected
during a one-week period. If tbe continuous
monitoring system operates within the speci-
fied performance parameters and does net re-
quire corrective maintenance, repair, replace-
ment or adjustment other than as speciStd
above during the 168-hour test period, the
operational period win be successfully con-
cluded. Failure of the continuous monitoring
system to meet this requirement shall call
for a repetition of the IPS hour test period.
Portions of tbe test which were satisfactorily
completed need not be repeated. Failure to
meet any performance specifications shall
call for a repetition of the one-week perform-
ance test period and that portion of tbe test-
Ing which Is related to tbe failed specifica-
tion. All maintenance and adjustments re-
quired shall be recorded. Output readings
shall be resorded before and after all ad-
justments.
7.2.6 Response Time. Using tbe data devel-
oped under paragraph 6.3, calculate the time
Interval from concentration switching to 95
percent to tbe final stable value for all up-
scale and downscale tests. Report the mean of
tbe three upscale test times and tbe mean o:
tbe three downscale test times. Tbe two av-
erage times should not differ by more than
15 percent of the slower time. Report the
slower time as the system response time. Re-
cord the results on Figure 8-8.
8. References.
S.I "Performance Specifications for Sta-
tionary Source'Monitoring Systems for Oases
and Visible Emissions." Environmental Pro-
tection Agency. Research Triangle Park, N.C.,
EPA-650/2-74-013. January 1974.
62 "Experimental Statistics," Department
of Commerce. National Bureau of Standards
Handbook 91, 1983. pp. 3-31, paragraphs
8-3.1.4.
(Bees. Ill and 114 of tbe Clean Air Act. as
amended by sec. 4(a) of Pub. L. 91-804. 84
Btat. 1878 (43 U.8.C. 1867C-0. by sec. 16(c) (2)
of Pub. L. 91-004. 8fi Btat. 1718 (42 U.S.C.
l«57g)).
111-97
-------
teU
*t
M.
Ttat
DlU
Itn
Z*ro
Drift
Sptu
Drift
Dr Drif
Ctllbritlon Drift • [H«»n Spin Dri
•Abtolutt Vilu».
« Cl \ MB
Flgurt >•!. bra and bllintleo Drift (1 Hour).
Date
and Zero
Mine Reading
Zero Span Calibration
Drift Reading Drift
(iZero) (After zero adjustment) (iSpan)
Zero Drift • [Mean Zero Drift*
* C.I. (Zero)
Calibration Drift • [Mean Span Drift*
* C.I. (Span)
k Absolute value
Figure 3-2. Zero and Calibration Drift (24-hour)
111-98
-------
Cau of Test
Span Gas Concentration
Analyzer Span Setting
1.
Upscale 2.
3.
Average
1.
Domscjle 2.
3.
Average
pom
ppm .
. seconds
seconds
seconds
upscale response seconds
seconds
seconds
seconds
downscale response seconds
System averege response time (slower tiire) » seconds
,, ,.,
system average resp
onse slower tune
a
Figure 3-3. Response
(B«e. 114 of th» Qe^n Air Act u
(OU.SC. »tS7c-«).).
111-99
-------
AM© GI©U!LATtS>NS
Tttto 4Q—Protection of Emdronmant
CHAPTER I—ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION AGENCY'
8UBCHAPTER C—AIR PfWOHAfcSa
PART SO—STANDARDS O? PERFORM-
ANCE FOR NEW STATIONARY SOURCES
Additions cm! Mloo2)loncjwta Amendmonto
It is evident from comments received
that an Inadequate explanation was given
for applying both an enforceable opacity
standard and an enforceable concentra-
tion standard to the same source and that
the relationship between the concentra-
tion standard and the opacity standard
was not clearly presented. Because all
but one of the regulations Include these
dual standards, this subject is dealt with
here from the general viewpoint. Specific
changes made to the regulations pro-
posed for a specific source are described
in the discussions of each source.
A discussion of the major points raised
by the comments on the opacity standard
follows:
1. Several commentators felt that
opacity limits should be only guidelines
for determining when to conduct the
stack tests needed to determine compli-
ance with concentration/mass standards.
Several other commentators expressed
the opinion that the opacity standard
was more stringent than the concentra-
tion/mass standard.
As promulgated below, the opacity
standards are regulatory requirements.
just like the concentration/mass stand-
ards. It is not necessary to show that the
concentration/mass standard is being
violated in order to support enforcement
of the opacity standard. Where opacity
tuid concentration/mass standards are
applicable to the same source, the opacity
standard to not more restrictive thaa the
concentration/mass standard. The con-
centration/mass standard is established
at a level which will result In the design.
Installation, and operation of the best
adequately demonstrated system of emis-
sion reduction (taking costs into ac-
count) for each source. The opacity
standard is established at a level which
will require proper operation and mainte-
nance of such control systems on a day-
to-day basis, but not require the design
and installation of a control system more
efficient or expensive than that required
by the concentration/mass standard.
Opacity standards are a necessary sup-
plement to concentration/mass stand-
ards. Opacity standards help ensure that
sources and emission control systems
continue to be properly maintained and
operated so as to comply with concen-
tration/mass standards. Participate test-
Ing by EPA method 5 and most other
techniques requires an expenditure of
$3.000 to $10,000 per test including about
300 man-hours of technical and semi-
technical personnel. Furthermore, sched-
uling and preparation are required such
that It is seldom possible to conduct a
test with less than 9 weeks notice. There-
fore, method 5 particular teste can be
conducted only on an infrequent basis.
If there were no standards other them
concentration/mass standards, it would
be possible to inadequately operate or
maintain pollution control equipment at
all Umee except during periods of per-
formance testing. It takes 2 weeks or
longer to schedule & typical stack test.
If only small repairs were required, e.g.,
pump or fan repair or replacement of
fabric niter bags, such remedial action
could be delayed until shortly before the
test la conducted. For some types of
equipment such as scrubbers, the energy
input could be reduced (the pressure drop
through the system) when stack tests
weren't being conducted, which would
result in the release of significantly more
paniculate matter than normal. There-
fore, EPA has required that operators
properly maintain air pollution control
equipment at all times (40 CFK> 60.11
(d)) and meet opacity standards- at all
times except during periods of startup,
shutdown, and malfunction (40 CPR
dO.ll(c)), and during other periods of
exemption aa specified In Individual
regulations.
Opacity of emissions is Indicative of
whether control equipment is properly
maintained and operated. However, it is
established as an Independent enforce-
able standard, rather than an Indicator
of maintenance and operating conditions
because information concerning the lat-
ter is peculiarly within the control of
the plant operator. Furthermore, the
time and expense required to prove that
proper procedures nave not been fol-
lowed are so great that the provisions of
40 CFR 60.Hid) by themselves (without
opacity standards) would not provide on
economically sensible means of ensuring
on a day-to-day basis that emissions of
pollutants are within allowable limits.
Opacity standards require nothing more
than B trained observer and can be per-
formed with no prior notice. NarmaQy,
it is not even necessary for the observer
to be admitted to the plant to determine
properly the opacity of stack emissions.
Where observed opacities are within al-
lowable limits, It is not normally neces-
sary for enforcement personnel to enter
the plant or contact plant personnel.
However, in some cases, Including times
when opacity standards may not be
violated, a full investigation of operating
and maintenance conditions will be de-
sirable. Accordingly, EPA has require-
ments for -both opacity limits and proper
operating and maintenance procedures.
2. Some commentators suggested that
the regulatory opacity limits should be
lowered to be consistent with the opacity
observed at existing plants; others felt
that the opacity limits were too strin-
gent. The regTjlatbry opacity limits are
sufficiently close to observed opacity to
ensure proper operation and mainte-
nance of control systems on a continuing
basis but still allow some room for minor
variations from the conditions existing
at the time opacity readings were made.
3. There are specified periods during
which opacity standards do not apply.
Commentators questioned the rationale
for these time exemptions, as proposed.
some pointing out that the exemptions
were not justified and some that they
were inadequate. Time exemptions fur-
ther reflect the stated purpose of opacity
otandnrda by providing relief from such
standards during periods -sfren accept-
able systems of emission reduction are
judged to be Incapable of meeting pre-
scribed opacity limits. Opacity standards
do not apply to emissions during periods
of startup, shutdown, and malfunction
(see FEDERAL Rgcisren of October 15.
1973, 38 FR 28564). nor do opacity stand-
ards apply during periods judged neces-
sary to permit the observed excess emis-
sions caused by soot-blowing and un-
stable process conditions. Some confu-
sion resulted from the fact that the
startup-shutdown-malfunction regula-
tions were proposed separately (see FED-
ERAL REGISTER of May 2, 1073, 38 FR
10820) from the regultions for this'sroup
of new sources. Although this was point-
ed out hi the preamble (see FEDERAL REG-
ISTER of June 11, 1973. 38 FR 15406) to
this group of new source performance
standards, it appears to have escaped the
notice of several commentators.
4. Other comments, along with • re-
study of sources and additional opacity
observations, have led to definition of
specific time exemptions, where needed.
to account for excess emissions resulting
from soot-blowing and process varia-
tions. These specific actions replace the
generalized approach to time exemp-
tions, 2 minutes per hour, contained in
all but one of the proposed opacity
standards. The intent of the 2.minutes
was to prevent the opacity standards
from being unfairly stringent and re-
flected an arbitrary selection of a time
exemption to (serve this purpose. Com-
ments noted that observed opacity and
operating conditions did not support this
approach. Some pointed out that these
exemptions were not warranted: others.
that they were inadequate. The cyclical
basic oxygen steel-making process, for
example, does not operate in hourly
cycles and the Inappropri&teness of 2
minutes per hour in this case would ap-
ply to other cyclical processes which ex-
ist both In sources now subject to stand-
ards of performance and sources for
which standards will be developed in the
future. The time exemptions now pro-
vide for circumstances specific to the
sources and. coupled with the startup-
shutdown-malfunction provisions and
the hlgher-than-observed opacity limits,
provide much better assurance that the
opacity standards are not unfairly
stringent.
Dated: February 22. X97«.
RUSSELL E. Turo.
Administrator.
FTOSBAl W6ISYS9, VOL J», WO. 47-
MA«CH «. 1974
III-100
-------
tUlES AND •EMULATIONS
THta 40—Protection of the Environment
CHAPTER I—ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION AGENCY
SUBCHAFTER C—AIR MOONMIS
IFRL 991-0)
PART 60—STANDARDS OF PERFORM-
ANCE FOR NEW STATIONARY SOURCES
Opacity Provision*
On June 29. 1973. the United States
Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia In "Portland Cement Associa-
tion T. Ruckelshaus." 486 F. 2d 375 (1973)
remanded to EPA the standard of per-
formance for Portland cement plants (40
CFR 60.60 et seq.) promulgated by EPA
under section 111 of the Clean Air Act.
In the remand, the Court directed EPA to
reconsider among other things the use
of the opacity standards. EPA has pre-
pared a response to the remand. Copies
of this response are available from the
Emission Standards and Engineering
Division, Environmental Protection
Agency, Research Triangle Park, N.C.
27711. Attn: Mr. Don R. Goodwin. In de-
veloping the response, EPA collected and
evaluated a substantial amount of In-
formation which Is summarized and ref-
erenced In the response. Copies of this
Information are available for Inspection
during normal office hours at EPA's Office
Of Public Affairs. 401 M Street SW.,
Washington. D.C. EPA determined that
the Portland cement plant standards
generally did not require revision but did
not find that certain revisions are ap-
propriate to the opacity provisions of
the standards. The provisions promul-
gated herein Include a revision to { 60.11,
Compliance with Standards and Mainte-
nance Requirements, a revision to the
opacity standard for Portland cement
plants, and revisions to Reference Meth-
od 9. The bases for the revisions are dis-
cussed In detail in the Agency's response
to the remand. They are summarized
below.
The revisions to I 60.11 Include the
modification of paragraph (b) and the
addition of paragraph
-------
reading opacity In this manner and will
propose this revision to Method 9 as soon
as this analysis is completed. The Agency
•elicits comments and recommendations
on the need for this additional revision to
Method 9 and would welcome any sug-
gestions particularly from air pollution
control agencies on how we might make
Method 9 more responsive to the needs of
these agencies.
These actions are effective on Novem-
ber 12,1974. The Agency finds good cause
exists for not publishing these actions
as a notice of proposed rulemaklng and
for making them effective Immediately
upon publication for the following
reasons:
(1) Only minor amendments are be-
ing made to the opacity standards which
were remanded.
(2) The T7JB. Court of Appeals for
the District of Columbia Instructed EPA
to complete the remand proceeding with
respect to the Portland cement plant
standards by November S, 1974.
(3) Because opacity standards are the
subject of other litigation, it is necessary
to reach a final determination with re-
spect to the basic issues involving opacity
at this time In order to properly respond
to this issue with respect to such other
litigation.
These regulations are Issued under the
authority of sections 111 and 114 of the
Clean Air Act. as amended (42 UJS.C.
1857C-4 and 9).
Dated: November 1.1974.
JOHN QtTARLES,
Acting Administrator.
HDftAl MWSTH. VOL -»*, NO. tl*-
-niUOAY. «OVEMM* It,
IULES AND 1EGULATKM4S
Title 40 Protection of Environment
CHAPTER I—ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION AGENCY
[FRL 392-7)
PART 6O—STANDARDS OF PERFORM-
ANCE FOR NEW STATIONARY SOURCES
Five Categories of Sources In the
Phosphate Fertilizer Industry
OPACTTT STANDARDS
Many commentators challenged the
proposed opacity standards on the
grounds that EPA had shown no correla-
tion between fluoride emissions and
plume opacity, and that no data were
presented which showed that a violation
of the proposed opacity standard would
indicate simultaneous violation of the
proposed fluoride standard. For the
opacity standard to be used as an en-
forcement tool to indicate possible vio-
lation of the fluoride standard, such a
correlation must be established. The
Agency has reevaluated the opacity test
data and determined that the correlation
is insufficient to support a standard.
Therefore, standards for visible emissions
for diammonium phosphate plants, triple
superphosphate plants, and granular
triple superphosphate storage facilities
have been deleted. This action, however.
is not meant to set a precedent re-
garding promulgation of visible emission
standards. The situation which necessi-
tates this decision relates only to fluoride
emissions. In the future, the Agency will
continue to set opacity standards for
affected facilities where such standards
are desirable and warranted based on
test data.
In place of the opacity standard, a pro-
vision has been added which requires an
owner or operator to monitor the total
pressure drop across an affected facility's
scrubbing system. This requirement will
provide an affected facility's scrubbing
system. This requirement will provide for
a record of the operating conditions of
the control system, and will serve as an
effective method for monitoring compli-
ance with the fluoride standards.
MOMITOUMO RMtnanmcrs
Several comments' were received with
regard to the sections requiring a flow
measuring device which has an accuracy
of ± 6 percent over its operating range.
The commentators felt that this accu-
racy could not be met and that the
capital and operating costs outweighed
anticipated utility. First of all, "weigh-
belts" are common devices in the phos-
phate fertilizer industry as raw material
feeds are routinely measured. EPA
felt there would be no economic Impact
resulting from this requirement because
plants would have normally Installed
weighing devices anyway. Second, con-
tacts with the Industry led EPA to be-
lieve that the ± 6 percent accuracy re-
quirement would be easily met, and a
search of pertinent literature showed
that weighing devices with i 1 percent
accuracy are commercially available.
Effective date. In accordance with sec-
tion 111 of the Act, these regulations pre-
scribing standards of performance for
the selected stationary sources are effec-
tive on August 4. 1975, and apply to
sources at which construction or modifi-
cation commenced after October 22.1974.
RUSSELL E. Tunr,
Administrator.
JOT.Y 25. 1975.
ftDOAl UOISTIt, VOL 40, NO. 1M-
-WEDNESDAY, AUOUn 6. 1t7S
III-102
-------
PART 60—STANDARDS OF PERFORM-
ANCE FOR NEW STATIONARY SOURCES
Emotion Monitoring Requirement* and
Revisions to fltrfortMi ~
Methods
•nee Testing
On September 11. 1974 (39 FR 32852).
the Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) proposed revisions to 40 CFR Part
60. Standards of Performance for New
Stationary Sources, to establish specific
requirements pertaining to continuous
emission monitoring system performance
specifications, operating procedures, data
These requirements would apply to new
and modified facilities covered under
Part 60. but would not apply to existing
facilities.
Simultaneously (39 FR 32871). the
Agency proposed revisions to 40 CFR
Part 51. Requirements for the Prepara-
tion. Adoption, and Submlttal of Imple-
mentation Plans, which would require
States to revise their State Implementa-
tion Plans (SIP's) to include legal en-
forceable procedures requiring certain
specified stationary sources to monitor
emissions on a continuous basis. These
requirements would apply to existing fa-
cilities, which are not covered under Part
60.
Interested parties participated in the
rulemaking by sending comments to EPA
A total of 105 comment letters were re-
ceived on the proposed revisions to Part
60 from monitoring equipment manufac-
turers, data processing equipment manu-
facturers, industrial users of monitoring
equipment, air pollution control agencies
Including State, local, and EPA regional
offices, other Federal agencies, and con-
sultants. Copies of the comment letters
received and a summary of the issues and
EPA's responses are available for Inspec-
tion and copying at the U.S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency, Public Infor-
mation Reference Unit, Room 2922 (EPA
Library). 401 M Street. S.W., Washing-
ton. D.C. In addition, copies of the issue
summary and EPA responses may be ob-
tained upon written request from the
EPA Public Information Center (PM-
2l5i, 401 M Street, 8.W.. Washington.
D.C. 20460 (specify Public Comment
Summary: Emission Monitoring Require-
ments). The comments have been care-
fully considered, additional Information
has been collected and assessed, and
where determined by Ihe Administrator
to be appropriate, changes have been
made to the proposed regulations. These
changes are Incorporated In the regula-
tions promulgated herein.
BACKGROUND
At the time the regulations were pro-
posed (September 11, 1974). EPA had
promulgated 12 standards of perform-
ance for new stationary sources under
section.Ill of the Clean Air Act, as
amended, four of which required the af-
fected facilities to install and operate
systems which continuously monitor the
levels of pollutant emissions, where the
technical feasibility exists using cur-
rently available continuous monitoring
technology, and where the cost of the
RULES AND REGULATIONS
systems Is reasonable. When the four
standards that require monitoring sys-
tems were promulgated. EPA had limited
knowledge about the operation of such
systems because only a few systems had
been installed: thus, the requirements
were specified in general terms. EPA
Initiated a program to develop perform-
ance specifications and obtain informa-
tion on the operation of continuous
monitoring systems. The program was
designed to assess the systems' accuracy.
reliability, costs, and problems related
to installation, operation, maintenance.
and data handling. The proposed regu-
lations (39 FR 32852) were based on the
results of this program.
The purpose of regulations promul-
gated herein is to establish minimum
performance specifications for cdntinu-
ous monitoring systems, minimum data
reduction requirements, operating pro-
cedures, and reporting requirements for
those affected facilities required to In-
stall continuous monitoring systems.
The specifications and procedures are
designed to assure that the data obtained
from continuous monitoring systems will
be accurate and reliable and provide the
necessary Information for determining
whether an owner or operator is follow-
ing proper operation and maintenance
procedures.
SIGNIFICANT COMMENTS AND CHANCES
MADE To PROPOSED REGULATIONS
Many of the comment letters received
by EPA contained multiple comments.
The most significant comments and the
differences between the proposed and
final regulations are discussed below.
(1) Subpart A—General Provisions.
The greatest number of comments re-
ceived pertained to the methodology and
expense of obtaining and reporting con-
tinuous monitoring system emission
data. Both air pollution control agencies
and affected users of monitoring equip-
ment presented the view that the pro-
posed regulations requiring that all
emission data be reported were exces-
sive, and that reports of only excess
emissions and retention of all the data for
two years on the affected facility's
premises Is sufficient. Twenty-five com-
mentators suggested that the effective-
ness of the operation and maintenance of
an affected facility and its air pollution
control system could be determined by
reporting only excess emissions. Fifteen
others recommended deleting the report-
Ing requirements entirely.
EPA' has reviewed these comments and
has contacted vendors of monitoring and
data acquisition equipment for addi-
tional information to more fully assess
the Impact of the proposed reporting
requirements. Consideration was also
given to the resources that would be re-
quired of EPA to enforce the proposed
requirement, the costs that would be
Incurred by an affected source, and the
effectiveness of the proposed require-
ment In comparison with a requirement
to report only excess emissions. EPA
concluded that reporting only excess
emissions would assure proper operation
and maintenance of the air pollution
control equipment and would result In
lower costs to the source and allow more
effective use of EPA resources by elimi-
nating the need for handling and stor-
ing large amounts of data Therefore.
the regulation promulgated herein re-
quires owners or operators to report only
excess emissions and to maintain a
permanent record of all emission data
for a period of two years.
In addition, the proposed specification
of minimum data reduction procedures
has been changed. Rather than requiring
Integrated averages as proposed, the reg-
ulations promulgated herein also spec-
ify a method by which a minimum num-
ber of data points may be used to com-
pute average emission rates. For exam-
ple, average opacity emissions over a six-
mlnute period may be calculated from a
minimum of 24 data points equally
spaced over each six-minute period. Any
number of equally spaced data points in
excess of 24 or continuously integrated
data may also be used to compute six-
minute averages. This specification of
minimum computation requirements
combined with the requirement to report
only excess emissions provides source
owners and operators with maximum
flexibility to select from a wide choice of
optional data reduction procedures.
Sources which monitor only opacity and
which Infrequently experience excess
emissions may choose to utilize. strip
chart recorders, with or without contin-
uous six-minute Integrators; whereas
sources monitoring two or more pollut-
ants plus other parameters necessary to
convert to units of the emission stand-
ard may choose to utilize existing com-
puters or electronic data processes In-
corporated with the monitoring system.
All data must be retained for two years,
but only excess emissions need be re-
duced to units of the standard. However.
in order to report excess emissions, ade-
quate procedures must be utilized to In-
sure that excess emissions are identified.
Here again, certain sources with minimal
excess emissions can determine excess
emissions by review of strip charts, while
'sources with varying emission and ex-
cess air rates will most likely need to
reduce all data to units of the standard to
Identify any excess emissions. The regu-
lations promulgated herein allow the use
of extractive, gaseous monitoring systems
on a time sharing basis by Installing sam-
pling probes at several locations, provided
the minimum number of data points
(four per hour) are obtained.
Several commentators stated that the
averaging periods for reduction of moni-
toring data, especially opacity, were too
short and would result in an excessive
amount of data that must be reduced and
recorded. EPA evaluated these comments
and concluded that to be useful to source
owners and operators as well as enforce-
ment agencies, the averaging time for the
continuous monitoring data should be
reasonably consistent with the averag-
ing time for the reference methods used
during performance tests. The data re-
duction requirements for opacity have
been substantially reduced because the
averaging period was changed from one
III-103
-------
RULES AND REGULATIONS
minute, which was proposed, to six min-
utes to be consistent with revisions made
to Method 9 (39 FR 39872).
Numerous comments were received on
proposed ( 60.13 which resulted In several
changes. The proposed section has been
reorganized and revised In several re-
spects to accommodate the comments
and provide ch-.ity. to more specifically
delineate the equipment subject to Per-
formance Specifications in Appendix B.
and to more specifically define require-
ments for equipment purchased prior to
September 11, 1974. The provisions In
I 60.13 are not intended to prevent the
use of any equipment that can be demon-
strated to be reliable and accurate;
therefore, the performance of monitor-
Ing systems i£ specified in general terms
with minimal references to specific equip-
ment types. The provisions in § 60.13(1)
are included to allow owners or operators
and equipment vendors to apply to the
Administrator for approval to use alter-
native equipment or procedures when
equipment capable of producing accurate
results may not. be commercially avail-
able (e.g. condensed water vapor Inter-
feres with measurement of opacity),
when unusual circumstances may justify
less costly procedures, or when the owner
or operator or equipment vendor may
•Imply prefer to use other equipment or
procedures that are consistent with his
current practices.
Several paragraphs In i 60.13 have
been changed on the basis of the com-
ments received. In response to comments
that the monitor operating frequency re-
quirements did not consider periods when
the monitor Is inoperative or undergo-
ing maintenance, calibration, and adjust-
ment, the operating frequency require-
ments have been changed. Also the fre-
quency of cycling requirement for opacity
monitors has been changed to be con-
sistent with the response time require-
ment In Performance Specification 1,
which reflects the capability of commer-
cially available equipment.
A second area that received comment
concerns maintenance performed upon
continuous monitoring systems. Six
commentators noted that the proposed
regulation requiring extensive retestlng
of continuous monitoring systems for all
minor failures would discourage proper
maintenance of the systems. Two other
commentators noted the difficulty of de-
termining a general list of critical com-
ponents, the replacement of which would
automatically require a retest of the sys-
tem. Nevertheless, it is EPA's opinion
that some control must be exercised to
Insure that a suitable monitoring system
is not rendered unsuitable by substantial
alteration or a lack of needed mainte-
nance. Accordingly, the regulations pro-
mulgated herein require that owners or
operators submit with the quarterly re-
port information on any repairs or modi-
fications made to the system during the
reporting period. Based upon this Infor-
mation, the Administrator may review
the status of the monitoring system with
the owner or operator and, if determined
to be necessary, require retesting of the
continuous monitoring system (•).
Several commentators noted that the
proposed reporting requirements are un-
necessary for affected facilities not re-
quired to Install continuous monitoring
^ystems. Consequently, the regulations
promulgated herein do not contain the
requirements.
Numerous comments were received
which indicated that some monitoring
systems may not be compatible with the
proposed test procedures and require-
ments. The comments were evaluated
and, where appropriate, the proposed
test procedures and requirements were
changed. The procedures and require-
ments promulgated herein are applicable
to the majority of acceptable systems:
however, EPA recognizes that there may
be some acceptable systems available
now or in the future which could not
meet the requirements. Because of this,
the regulations promulgated herein In-
clude a provision which allows the Ad-
ministrator to approve alternative testing
procedures. Eleven commentators noted
that adjustment of the monitoring in-
struments may not be necessary as a re-
sult of dally zero and span checks. Ac-
cordingly, the regulations promulgated
herein require adjustments only when
applicable 24-hour drift limits are ex-
ceeded. Pour commentators stated that
it Is not necessary to introduce calibra-
tion gases near the probe tips. EPA has
demonstrated in fleld evaluations that
this requirement is necessary in order to
assure accurate results; therefore, the
requirement has been retained. The re-
quirement enables detection of any dilu-
tion or absorption of pollutant gas by the
plumbing and conditioning systems prior
to the pollutant gas entering the gas
analyzer.
Provisions have been added to these
regulations to require that the gas mix-
tures used for the daily calibration check
of extractive continuous monitoring sys-
tems be traceable to National Bureau of
Standards (NBS) reference gases. Cali-
bration gases used to conduct system
evaluations under Appendix B must
either be analyzed prior to use or shown
to be traceable to NBS materials. This
traceablllty requirement will assure the
accuracy of the calibration gas mixtures
and the comparability of data from sys-
tems at all locations. These traceability
requirements will not be applied when-
ever the NBS materials are not available.
A list of available NBS Standard Refer-
ence Materials may be obtained from the
Office of Standard Reference Materials,
Room B311. Chemistry Building, Na-
tional Bureau of Standards, Washington,
D.C. 20234.
Recertincatlon of the continued ac-
curacy of the calibration gas mixtures Is
also necessary and should be performed
at Intervals recommended by the cali-
bration gas mixture manufacturer. The
.NBS materials and calibration gas mix-
tures traceable to these materials should
not be used after expiration of their
stated shelf-life. Manufacturers of cali-
bration gas mixtures generally use NBS
materials for traceability purposes,
therefore, these amendments to the reg-
ulations will not Impose additional re-
quirements upon most manufacturers.
(2) Subpart - D—Fossil-Fuel Fired
Steam Generators. Eighteen commenta-
tors had questions or remarks concern-
Ing the proposed revisions dealing with
fuel analysis. The evaluation of these
comments and discussions with coal sup-
pliers and electric utility companies led
the Agency to conclude that the pro-
posed -provisions for fuel analysis are not
adequate or consistent with the current
fuel situation. An attempt was made to
revise the proposed provisions; however,
it became apparent that an in-depth
study would be necessary before mean-
ingful provisions could be developed. The
Agency has decided to promulgate all of
the regulations except those dealing with
fuel analysis. The fuel analysis provi-
sions of Subpart D have been reserved
in the regulations promulgated herein.
The Agency has initiated a study to ob-
tain the necessary Information on the
variability of sulfur content in fuels, and
the capability of fossil fuel fired steam
generators to use fuel analysis and
blending to prevent excess sulfur dioxide
emissions. The results of this study will
be used to determine whether fuel anal-
ysis should be allowed as a means of
measuring excess emissions, and if al-
lowed, what procedure should be re-
quired. It should be pointed out that
this action does not afiect facilities which
use flue gas desulfurizatlon as a means
of complying with the sulfur dioxide
standard; these facilities are still re-
quired to Install continuous emission
monitoring systems for sulfur dioxide.
Facilities which use low sulfur fuel as a
means of complying with the sulfur di-
oxide standard may use a continuous
sulfur dioxide monitor or fuel analysis.
For facilities that elect to use fuel anal-
ysis procedures, fuels are not required
to be sampled or analyzed for prepara-
tion of reports of excess emissions until
the Agency finalizes the procedures and
requirements.
Three commentators recommended
that carbon dioxide continuous monitor-
ing systems be allowed as an alternative
for oxygen monitoring for measurement
of the amount of diluents in flue gases
from steam generators. The Agency
agrees with this recommendation and has
Included a provision which allows the use
of carbon dioxide monitors. This -pro-
vision allows the use of pollutant moni-
tors that produce data on a wet basis
without requiring additional equipment
or procedures for correction of data to a
dry basis. Where CO, or O, data are not
collected on a consistent basis (wet or
dry) with the pollutant data, or where
oxygen is measured on a wet basis, al-
ternative procedures to provide correc-
tions for stack moisture and excess air
must be approved by the Administrator,
Similarly, use of a carbon dioxide con-
tinuous monitoring system downstream
of a flue gas desulf urization system is not
permitted without the Administrator's
prior approval due to the potential for
absorption of CO, within the control
device. It should be noted that when any
fuel is fired directly in the stack gases
III-104
-------
«ULES AND IEOULATIONS
for reheating, the T and F, factors
promulgated herein must be prorated
based upon the total heat Input of the
fuels fired within the facility regardless
of the locations of fuel firing. Therefore.
any facility using a flue gas desulfuriza-
Uon system may be limited to dry basis
monitoring Instrumentation due to the
restrictions on use of a CO diluent moni-
tor unless water vapor Is also measured
subject to the Administrator's approval.
Two commentators requested that an
additional factor (F •) be developed for
use with oxygen continuous monitoring
systems that measure flue gas diluents on
a wet basis. A factor of this type was
evaluated by EPA. but is not being pro-
mulgated with the regulations herein.
The error in the accuracy of the factor
may exceed ±5 percent without addi-
tional measurements to correct for va-
riations in flue gas moisture content due
to fluctuations In ambient humidity or
fuel moisture content. However. EPA will
approve installation of wet basis oxygen
systems on a case-by-case basis If the
owner or operator will proposed use of
additional measurements and procedures
to control the accuracy of the P.. factor
within acceptable limits. Applications for
approval of such systems should include
the frequency and type of additional
measurements proposed and the resulting
accuracy of the F« factor under the ex-
tremes of operating conditions
anticipated.
•r One commentator stated that the pro-
posed requirements for recording heat
input are superfluous because this infor-
mation Is not needed to convert monitor-
Ing data to units of the applicable stand-
ard. EPA has reevaluated this require-
ment and has determined that the con-
version of excess emissions into units of
the standards will be based upon the
P factors and that measurement of the
rates of fuel firing will not be needed ex-
cept when combinations of fuels are fired.
Accordingly, the regulations promulgated
herein require such measurements only
when multiple fuels are fired.
Thirteen commentators questioned the
rationale for the proposed Increased op-
erating temperature of the Method 5
sampling train for fossil-fuel-fired steam
generator particulate testing and the
basis for raising rather than lowering
the temperature. A brief discussion of the
rationale behind this revision was pro-
vided In the preamble to the proposed
regulations, and a more detailed discus-
sion is provided here. Several factors are
of primary importance In developing the
data base for a standard of performance
and in specifying the reference method
for use in conducting a performance test.
Including:
a. The method used for data gathering
to establish a standard must be the
aame as. or must have a known relation-
ship to. the method subsequently estab-
lished as the reference method.
b. The method should measure pollut-
ant emissions indicative of the perform-
ance of the best systems of emission re-
duction. A method meeting this criterion
will not necessarily measure emissions
as they would exist after dilution and
cooling to ambient temperature and pres-
sure, as would occur upon release to the
atmosphere. As such, an emission factor
obtained through use of such a method
would, for example, not necessarily be of
. use in an ambient dispersion model. This
seeming inconsistency results from the
fact that standards of performance are
intended to result In Installation of sys-
tems of emission reduction which are
consistent with best demonstrated tech-
nology, considering cost. The Adminis-
trator, in establishing such standards, is
required to Identify best demonstrated
technology and to develop standards
which reflect such technology. In order
for these standards to be meaningful.
and for the required control technology
to be predictable, the compliance meth-
'ods must measure emissions which are
indicative of the performance of such
systems.
c. The method should include sufficient
detail as needed to produce consistent
and reliable test results.
EPA relies primarily upon Method 5
for gathering a consistent data base for
particulate matter standards. Method 5
meets the above criteria by providing de-
tailed sampling methodology and in-
cludes an out-of-stack filter to facilitate
temperature control. The latter is needed
to define particulate matter on a com-
mon basis since it is a function of tem-
perature and is not an absolute quantity.
'If temperature is not controlled, and/or
if the effect of temperature upon particu-
late formation is unknown, the effect on
an emission control limitation for partic-
ulate matter may be variable and un-
predictable.
Although selection of temperature can
be varied from industry to industry, EPA
specifies a nominal sampling tempera-
ture of 120" C for most source categories
subject to standards of performance.
Reasons for selection of 120° C Include
the following:
a. Filter temperature must be held
above 100° C at sources where moist gas
streams are present. Below 100° C, con-
densation can occur with resultant plug-
ging of filters and possible gas/liquid re-
actions. A temperature of 120" C allows
for expected temperature variation
within the train, without dropping below
100° C.
b. Matter existing in particulate form
at 120° C is indicative'of the perform-
ance of the best particulate emission re-
duction systems for most industrial proc-
esses. These Include systems of emission
reduction that may involve-not only the
final control device, but also the process
and stack gas conditioning systems.
c. Adherence to one established tem-
perature (even though some variation
may be needed for some source categor-
ies) allows comparison of emissions from
source category to source category. This
limited standardization used in the de-
velopment of standards of performance
is a benefit to equipment vendors and to
source owners by providing a consistent
basis for comparing test results and pre-
dicting control system performance. In
comparison, In-stack filtration takes
place at stack temperature, which usually
Is not constant from one source to the
next. Since the temperature varies, in-
stack filtration does not necessarily pro-
vide a consistent definition of particulate
matter and does not allow for compari-
son of various systems of control. On
these bases. Method 5 with a sampling
'filter temperature controlled at approxi-
mately 120* C was promulgated as the
applicable test method for new fossil-fuel
fired steam generators.
Subsequent to the promulgation of the
standards of performance for steam
generators, data became available indi-
cating that certain combustion products
which do not exist as particulate matter
at the elevated temperatures existing in
steam generator stacks may be collected
by Method 5 at lower temperatures (be-
low 160° C). Such material, existing In
gaseous form at stack temperature,
would not be controllable by emission re-
duction systems involving electrostatic
preclpltators (ESP). Consequently,
measurement of such condensible matter
would not be indicative of the control
system performance. Studies conducted
in the past two years have confirmed that
such condensation can occur. At sources
where fuels containing 0.3 to 0.85 percent
sulfur were burned, the incremental in-
crease in particulate matter concentra-
tion resulting from sampling at 120' C
as compared to about 150° C was found
to be variable, ranging from 0.001 to
0.008 gr/scf. The variability Is not neces-
sarily predictable, since total sulfur oxide
concentration, boiler design and opera-
tion, and fuel additives each appear to
have a potential effect. Based upon these
data, it Is concluded that the potential
increase In particulate concentration at
sources meeting the standard of per-
formance for sulfur oxides is not a seri-
ous problem in comparison with the par-
ticulate standard which is approximately
0.07 gr/scf. Nevertheless, to insure that
an unusual case will not occur where a
high concentration of condensible mat-
ter, not controllable with an ESP. would
prevent attainment of the particulate
standard, the sampling temperature al-
lowed at fossil-fuel fired steam boilers is
being raised to 160° C. Since this tem-
perature is attainable at new steam gen-
erator stacks, sampling at temperatures
above 160° C would not yield results nec-
essarily representative of the capabilities
of the best systems of emission reduction.
. In evaluating particulate sampling
techniques and the effect of sampling
temperature, particular attention has
also been given to the possibility that
SO, may react In the front half of the
Method 5 train to form particulate mat-
ter.- Based upon a series of comprehen-
sive tests involving both source and con-
trolled environments, EPA has developed
data that show such reactions do not oc-
cur to a significant degree.
Several control agencies commented on
the increase in sampling temperature
and suggested that the need Is for sam-
pling at lower, not higher, temperatures.
This is a relevant comment and is one
which must be considered in terms of the
basis upon which standards are estab-
lished.
III-105
-------
For existing boilers which are not sub-
ject to this standard, the existence of
higher stack temperatures and/or the
use of higher sulfur fuels may result in
significant condensation and resultant
high indicated participate concentra-
tions when sampling is conducted at
120° C. At one r.oal fired steam generator
burning coal containing approximately
three percent sulfur, EPA measurements
at 120° C showed an Increase of 0.05 gr/
dscf over an average of seven runs com-
pared to samples collected at approxi-
mately 150° C. It is believed that this In-
crease resulted, in large part. If not
totally, from SO] condensation which
would occur also when the stack emis-
sions are released into the atmosphere.
Therefore, where standards are based
upon emission reduction to achieve am-
bient air quality standards rather than
on control technology (as is the case
with the standards promulgated herein),
a lower sampling temperature may be
appropriate.
Seven commentators questioned the
need for traversing for oxygen at 12
points within a duct during performance
tests. This requirement, which is being
revised to apply only when partlculate
sampling is performed (no more than 12
points are required) is Included to in-
sure that potential stratification result-
Ing from air in-leakage will not ad-
versely affect the accuracy of the
paniculate test.
Eight commentators stated that the
requirement for continuous monitoring
of nitrogen oxides should be deleted be-
cause only two air quality control re-
gions have ambient levels of nitrogen
dioxide that exceed the national ambient
air quality standard for nitrogen dioxide.
Standards of performance Issued under-
section 111 of the Act are designed to re-
quire affected facilities to design and in-
stall the best systems of emission reduc-
tion (taking into account the cost of such
reduction). Continuous emission mon-
itoring systems are required to insure
that the emission control systems are
operated and maintained properly. Be-
cause of this, the Agency does not 'feel
that it is appropriate to delete the con-
tinuous emission monitoring system re-
quirements for nitrogen oxides; however.
In evaluating these comments the Agency
found that some situations may exist
where the nitrogen oxides monitor is not
necessary to insure proper operation
and maintenance. The quantity of nitro-
gen oxides emitted from certain types Of
furnaces Is considerably below the nitro-
gen oxides emission limitation. The low
emission level is achieved through the
design of the furnace and does not re-
quire specific operating procedures or
maintenance on a continuous basis to
keep the nitrogen oxides emissions below
the applicable standard. Therefore, In
this situation, a continuous emission
monitoring system for nitrogen oxides is
unnecessary. The regulations promul-
gated herein do not require continuous
emission monitoring systems for nitrogen
oxides on facilities whose emissions are
30 percent or more below the applicable
standard.
AULES AND KEGULATIONS
Three commentators requested that
owners or operators of steam generators
be permitted to use NO, continuous mon-
itoring systems capable of measuring
only nitric oxide (NO) since the amount
of nitrogen dioxide (NO:) in the flue
gases is comparatively small. The reg-
ulations proposed and those promulgated
herein allow use of such systems or any .
system meeting all of the requirements
of Performance Specification 2 of Ap-
pendix B. A system that measures only
nitric oxide (NO) may meet these specifi-
cations including the relative accuracy
requirement (relative to the reference
method tests which measure NO + NO,)
without modification. However, in the
Interests of maximizing the accuracy of
the system and creating conditions favor-
able to acceptance of such systems (the
cost of systems measuring only NO is
less). the owner or operator may deter-
mine the proportion of NO: relative to
NO in the flue gases and use a factor to
adjust the continuous monitoring system
emission data (e.g. 1.03 x NO = NO,)
provided that the factor is applied not
only to the performance evaluation data,
but also applied consistently to all data
generated by the continuous monitoring
system thereafter. This procedure Is lim-
ited to facilities that have less than 10
percent NO, (greater than 90 percent
NO) in order to not seriously Impair the
accuracy of the system due to NOi to NO
proportion fluctuations.
Section 60.45(g) (1) has been reserved
for the future specification of the excess
emissions for opacity that must be re-
ported. On November 12, 1974 (39 FR
39872). the Administrator promulgated
revisions to Subpart A, General Provi-
sions, pertaining to the opacity provi-
sions and to Reference Method 9. Visual
Determination of the Opacity of Emis-
sions from Stationary Sources. On
April 22,1975 (40 PR 17778), the Agency
issued a notice soliciting comments on
the opacity provisions and Reference
Method 9. The Agency Intends to eval-
uate the comments received and make
any appropriate revision to the opacity
provisions and Reference Method 9. In
addition, the Agency is evaluating the
opacity standards for fossil-fuel fired
steam generators under -i 60.42(a) (2) to
determine if changes are needed because
of the new Reference Method 9. The pro-
visions on excess emissions for opacity
will be issued after the Agency completes
Its evaluation of the opacity standard.
(3) Subpart O—Nitric Acid Plants.
Two commentators questioned the long-
term validity of the proposed conversion'
procedures for reducing data to units of
the standard. They suggested that the
conversion could be accomplished by
monitoring the flue gas volumetric rate.
EPA reevaluated the proposed procedures
and found that monitoring the flue gas
vplume would be the most direct method
and would also be an accurate method of
converting monitoring data, but would
require the Installation of an additional
continuous monitoring system. Although
this option is available and would be ac-
ceptable subject to the Administrator's
approval, EPA does not believe that the
additional expense this method (moni-
toring volumetric rate) would entail is
warranted. Since nitric acid plants, for
economic and technical reasons, typi-
cally operate within a fairly narrow
range of conversion efficiencies (90-96
percent) and tail gas diluents (2-5 per-
cent oxygen), the flue gas volumetric
rates are reasonably proportional to the
acid production rate. The error that
would be Introduced into the data from
the maximum variation of these param-
eters is approximately 15 percent and
would usually be much less. It is expected
that the tail gas oxygen concentration
(an indication of the degree of tail gas
dilution) will be rigidly controlled at fa-
cilities using catalytic converter control
equipment. Accordingly, the proposed
procedures for data conversion have been
retained due to the small benefit that
would result from requiring additional
monitoring equipment. Other procedures
may be approved by the Administrator
under 160.13(1).
(4) Subpart H—Sulfurlc Acid Plants.
Two commentators stated that the pro-
posed procedure for conversion of moni-
toring data to units of the standard
would result in large data reduction
errors. EPA has evaluated more closely
the operations of sulf uric acid plants and
agrees that the proposed procedure is in-
adequate. The proposed conversion pro-
cedure assumes that the operating con-
ditions of the affected facility will re-
main approximately the same as during
the continuous monitoring system eval-
uation tests. For sulfuric acid plants this
assumption is invalid. A sulfuric acid
plant is typically designed to operate at
a constant volumetric throughput
(scfm). Acid production rates are altered
by by-passing portions of the process air
around the furnace or combustor to vary
the concentration of the gas entering
the converter. This procedure produces
widely varying amounts of tail gas dilu-
tion relative to the production rate. Ac-
cordingly, EPA has developed new con-
version procedures whereby the appro-
priate conversion factor is computed
from en analysis of the SO: concentra-
tion entering the converter. Air injection
plants must make additional corrections
for the diluent air added. Measurement
of the inlet 8O: is a normal quality con-
trol procedure used by most sulfuric acid
plants and does not represent an addi-
tional cost burden. The Reich test or
other suitable procedures may be used.
(5) Subpart J—Petroleum Refineries.
One commentator stated that the re-
quirements for Installation of continuous
monitoring systems for oxygen and fire-
box temperature are unnecessary and
that installation of a flame detection de-
vice would be superior for process con-
trol purposes. Also, EPA has obtained
data which show no identifiable rela-
tionship between furnace temperature,
percent oxygen in the flue gas, and car-
bon monoxide emissions when the facil-
ity is operated'in compliance with the
applicable standard. Since firebox tem-»
perature and oxygen measurements may
not be preferred by source owners and
operators for process control, and no
III-106
-------
tULES AND REGULATIONS
known method Is available for transla-
tion of these measurements into quanti-
tative reports of excess carbon monoxide
emissions, this requirement appears to
be of little use to the affected facilities
or to EPA. Accordingly, requirements for
Installation of continuous monitoring
systems for measurements of firebox
temperature and oxygen are deleted from
the regulations.
Since EPA has not yet developed per-
formance specifications for carbon mon-
oxide or hydrogen sulflde continuous
monitoring systems, the type of equip-
ment that may be Installed by an owner
or operator in compliance with EPA re-
quirements Is undefined. Without con-
ducting performance evaluations of such
equipment, little reliance can be placed
upon the value of any data such systems
would generate. Therefore, the sections
of the regulation requiring these systems
are being reserved until EPA proposes
performance specifications applicable to
HrS and CO monitoring systems. The
provisions of 5 60.l05(a) (3) do not apply
to an owner or operator electing to moni-
tor H;S. In that case, an H;S monitor
should not be installed until specific HrS
monitoring requirements are promul-
gated. At the time specifications are pro-
posed, all owners or operators who have
not entered into binding contractual ob-
ligations to purchase continuous moni-
toring equipment by [date of publication!
will be required to Install a carbon
monoxide continuous monitoring system
and a hydrogen sulflde continuous moni-
toring system (unless a sulfur dioxide
continuous monitoring system has been
Installed) as applicable.
Section 60.105(a)(2). which specifies
the excess emissions for capacity that
must be reported, has been reserved for
the same reasons discussed under fossil
fuel-fired steam generators.
(6) Appendix B—Performance Speci-
fications. A large number of comments
were received in reference to specific
technical and editorial changes needed
in the specifications. Each of these com-
ments has been reviewed and several
changes in format and procedures have
been made. These include adding align-
ment procedures for opacity monitors
and more specific instructions for select-
ing a location for installing the monitor-
Ing equipment. Span requirements have
been specified so that commercially pro-
duced equipment may be standardized
where possible. The format of the speci-
fications was simplified by redefining the
requirements in terms of percent opacity.
or oxygen, or carbon dioxide, or percent
of span. The proposed requirements were
in terms of percent of the emission
standard which is less convenient or too
vague since reference to the emission
standards would have represented a
range of pollutant concentrations de-
pending upon the amount of diluents (i.e.
excess air and water vapor) that are
present in the effluent. In order to cali-
brate gaseous monitors In terms of a
'specific concentration, the requirements
were revised to delete reference to the
emission standards.
Four commentators noted that the ref-
•erence methods used to evaluate con-
tinuous monitoring system performance
may be less accurate than the systems
themselves. Five other commentators
questioned the need for 27 nitrogen ox-
ides reference method tests. The ac-
curacy specification for gaseous monitor-
ing systems was specified at 20 percent, a
value in excess of the actual accuracy
of monitoring systems that provides tol-
erance for reference method Inaccuracy.
Commercially available monitoring
equipment has been evaluated using these
procedures and the combined errors (i.e.
relative accuracy) in the reference meth-
ods and the monitoring systems have
been shown not to exceed 20 percent after
the data are averaged by the specified
procedures.
Twenty commentators noted that the
cost, estimates contained in the proposal
did not fully reflect installation costs.
data reduction and recording costs, and
the costs of evaluating the continuous
monitoring systems. As a result, EPA
reevaluated the cost analysis. For opac-
ity monitoring alone. Investment costs
including data reduction equipment and
performance tests are approximately
$20.000. and annual operating costs are
approximately $8.500. The same location
on the stack used for conducting per-
formance tests with Reference Method 5
(participate) may be used by Installing
a separate set of ports for the monitoring
system so that no additional expense for
access is required. For power plants that
are required to install opacity, nitrogen
oxides, sulfur dioxide, and diluent (Or
or CO,) monitoring systems, the Invest-
ment cost is approximately $55,000, and
the operating cost is approximately $30,-
000. These are significant costs but are
not unreasonable in comparison to the
approximately seven million dollar In-
vestment cost for the smallest steam
-generation facility affected by these regu-
lations.
Effective date. These regulations are
promulgated under the authority of sec-
tions 111. 114 and 301 (a) of the Clean
Air Act as amended [42 U.S.C. 1857c-fl",
1857c-9, and 1857g(a) ] and become ef-
fective October 6. 1975.
Dated: September 23,1975.
JOHN OVARIES.
Acting Administrator.
FEDHAl KOtSTR. VOL 40. NO. 1*4-
-MONDAY, OCTOMI «, <*7S
III-107
-------
RULES AND REGULATIONS
Title 40—Protection of Environment
CHAPTER I—ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION AGENCY
SUBCHAPTER C—AIR PROGRAMS
|FRL 423-6)
JART 51—REQUIREMENTS FOR THE
PREPARATION. ADOPTION AND SUB
MITTAL OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS
Cmission Monitoring of Stationary Sources
On September 11, 1974. the Environ-
mental Protection Agency (EPA) pro-
posed revisions to 40 CFR Part 51. Re-
quirements for the Preparation. Adop-
tion, and Subinittal of Implementation
Plans. EPA proposed to expand 5 51.19 to
require Stales to revise their State Im-
plementation Plans (SIP's) to include
legally enforceable procedures requiring
certain specified categories of existing
Stationary sources to monitor emissions
on a continuous basis. Revised SIP's sub-
mitted by States in response to the pro-
posed revisions to 40 CFR 51.19 would
• have (1) required owners or operators
of specified categories of stationary
sources to install emission monitoring
equipment within one year of plan ap-
proval. (2) specified the categories of
sources subject to the requirements. <3)
identified for* each category of sources
the pollutant(s) which must be moni-
tored. (4) set forth performance specifi-
cations for contfnuous emission monitor-
ing instruments. (5> required that such
instruments meet performance specifi-
cations through on-site testing by the
owner or operator, and (6) required that
data derived from such monitoring be
summarized and made available to the
State on a quarterly basis.
As a minimum. EPA proposed that
States must adopt and implement legally
enforceable procedures to require moni-
toring of emissions for existing sources
in the following source categories (but
only for sources required to limit emis-
sions to comply with an adopted regula-
tion of the State Implementation Plan):
(a) Coal-fired steam Generators of
more than 250 million BTU per hour heat
input (opacity, sulfur dioxide, oxides of
nitrogen and oxygen);
(b) Oil-fired steam generators of more
than 250 million BTU per hour heat In-
put (sulfur dioxide, oxides of nitrogen
and oxygen). An opacity monitor was re-
quired only if an emission control device
is needed to meet partlculate emission
regulations, or if violations of visible
emission regulations are noted;
(c) Nitric acid plants (oxides of
nitrogen);
(d) Sulfuric acid plants (sulfur di-
oxide) ; and
(e) Petroleum refineries' fluid catalytic
cracking unit catalyst regenerators
(opacity).
Simultaneously, the Agency proposed
similar continuous emission monitoring
requirements for new sources for each of
the previously identified source categor-
ies, subject to the provisions of federal
New Source Performance Standards set
forth in 40 CFR Part 60. Since many of
the technical aspects of the two proposals
were similar, if not the same, the pro-
po^ed regulation* for Part 51 (|.c.._those
relating to SIP's and existing sources i
included by .reloronrc many specific tech-
nical details set lorth In 40 CFR Part 60.
(39 FR 32852).
At the time of the proposal of the con-
tinuous emission monitoring regulations
in the FEDERAL REGISTER, the Agency In-
vited comments on the proposed rule-
making action. Many interested parties
submitted comments. Of the 76 comments
received. 35 were from electric utility
companies. 26 were from oil refineries or
other industrial companies. 12 were from
governmental agencies, and 3 were from
manufacturers and/or suppliers of emis-
sion monitors. No comments were re-
ceived from environmental groups. Fur-
ther, prior to the proposal of the regula-
tions in the FEDERAL REGISTER, the Agency
sought comments from various State and
local air pollution control agencies and
instrument manufacturers. Copies of
each of these comments are available
for public inspection at the EPA Freedom
of Information Center, 401 M Street,
S.W., Washington. D.C. 20460. These
comments have been considered, addi-
tional information collected and assessed,
and where determined by the Adminis-
trator to be appropriate, revisions and
amendments have been made in for-
mulating these regulations promulgated
herein.
General Discussion of Comments. In
general, the comments received by the
Agency tended to raise various objections
with specific portions of the regulations.
Some misinterpreted the proposed reg-
ulations, not realizing that emission
monitoring under the proposal was not
required unless a source was required to
comply with an adopted emission limita-
tion or sulfur in fuel limitation that was
part of an approved or promulgated State
Implementation Plan. Many questioned
the Agency's authority and the need to
require sources to use continuous emis-
sion monitors. Others stated that the
proposed regulations were inflationary.
and by themselves could not reduce emis-
sions to the atmosphere nor could they
improve air quality. A relatively common
comment was that the benefits to be de-
rived from the proposed emission moni-
toring program were not commensurate
with the costs associated with the pur-
chase, installation, and operation of such
monitors. Many'stated that the proposed
regulations were not cost-effectively ap-
plied and they objected to all sources
within an identified source category be-
ing required to monitor emissions, with-
out regard for other considerations. For
instance, some suggested that it was un-
necessary to monitor emissions from
steam generating plants that may soon
be retired from operation, or steam gen-
erating boilers that are infrequently used
(such as for peaking and cycling opera-
tions) or for those sources located in
areas of the nation which presently have
ambient concentrations better than na-
tional ambient air quality standards. This
latter comment was especially prevalent
in relation to the need for continuous
emission monitors designed to measure
emissions of oxides of nitrogen. Further,
commentors generally suggested that
state and local control agencies, rather
than EPA should be responsible for
determining which sources should moni-
tor emissions. In this regard, the com-
mcntors suggested that a determination
of the sources which should install con-
tinuous monitors should be made on a
case-by-case basjs. Almost all objected to
the data reporting requirements stating
that the proposed requirement of sub-
mission of all collected data was excessive
ami burdensome. Comments from state
and local air pollution control agencies in
general were similar to those from the
utility and industrial groups, but in addi-
tion, some indicated that the manpower
needed to implement the programs re-
quired by the proposed regulations was
not available.
Rationale for Emission Monitoring
Regulation. Presently, the Agency's reg-
ulations setting forth the requirements
for approvable SIP's require States to
have legal authority to require owners
or operators of stationary sources to in-
stall, maintain, and use emission moni-
toring devices and to make periodic
reports of emission data to the State
(40 CFR 5l.ll(a)(6». This requirement
was designed to partially implement the
requirements of Sections 110(a) (2) (F)
Mi) and (HI) of the Clean Air Act. which
state that implementation plans must
provide "requirements for installation
of equipment by owners or operators of
stationary sources to monitor emissions
from such sources", and "for periodic
reports on the nature and amounts of
such emissions". However, the original
Implementation plan requirements did
not require SIP's to contain legally en-
forceable procedures mandating contin-
uous emission monitoring and recording.
At the time the original requirements
were published, the Agency had accumu-
lated little data on the availability and
reliability of continuous monitoring de-
vices. The Agency believed that the
state-of-the-art was such that it was
not prudent to require existing sources
to install such devices.
Since that time, much work has been
done by the Agency and others to field
test and compare various continuous
emission monitors. As a result of this
work, the Agency now believes that for
certain sources, performance specifica-
tions for accuracy, reliability and dura-
bility can be established for continuous
emission monitors of oxygen, carbon
dioxide, sulfur dioxide, and oxides of
nitrogen and for the continuous meas-
urement of opacity. Accordingly, it is
the Administrator's judgment that Sec-
tions 110(a)(2)(F) (ID and (ill) should
now be more fully implemented.
The Administrator believes that a
sound program of continuous emission
monitoring and reporting wUl play an
Important role in the effort to attain
and maintain national standards. At the
present time, control agencies rely upon
infrequent manual source tests and
periodic field Inspections to provide
much of the enforcement information
necessary to ascertain compliance of
sources with adopted regulations. Man-
ual source tests are generally performed
on a relatively infrequent basis, such as
FtDHAt UOISTII. VOL. 40. NO. 1»4—MONDAY, OCTOKI 4, WS
III-108
-------
RULES AND REGULATIONS
once per year, and In some case*, affected
sources probably have never been tested.
Manual stark tests are generally per-
formed under optimum operating con-
ditions, and as such, do not reflect the
lull-time emission conditions from a
source. Emissions continually vary with
fuel firing rates, process material feed
rates and various other operating condi-
tions. Since manual stack tests are only
conducted for a relatively short period
of time (e.g.. one to three hours*, they
cannot be representative of all operating
conditions. Further, frequent manual
stack tests (such as conducted on a
quarterly or more frequent basis' are
costly and may be more expensive than
continuous monitors that provide much
more information. State Agency en-
forcement by field Inspection is also
sporadic, with only occasional Inspection
of certain sources, mainly for visible
emission enforcement.
Continuous emission monitoring and
recording systems, on the other hand,
can provide a continuous record of emis-
sions under all operating conditions. The
continuous emission monitor Is a good
indicator of whether a source Is using
good operating and maintenance prac-
tices to minimize emissions to the at-
mosphere and can also provide a valu-
able record to Indicate the performance
of a source in complying with applicable
emission control regulations. Addition-
ally, under certain instances, the data
from continuous monitors may be suf-
ficient evidence to issue a notice of vio-
lation. The continuous emission record
can also be utilized to signal a plant
upset or equipment malfunction so that
the plant operator can take corrective
action to reduce emissions. Use of emis-
sion monitors can therefore provide val-
uable Information to-mtnimize emissions
to the atmosphere and to assure that
full-time control efforts, such as good
maintenance and operating conditions,
are being utilized by source operators.
The,Agency believes that It is necessary
to establish national minimum require-
ments for emission monitors for specified
sources rather than allow States to de-
termine on a case-by-case basis the spe-
cific sources which need to continuously
monitor emissions. The categories speci-
fied in the regulations represent very sig-
nificant sources of emissions to the at-
mosphere. States in developing SIP's
have generally adopted control regula-
tions to minimize emissions from these
sources. Where such regulations exist, the
Agency believes that continuous emission
monitors are necessary to provide Infor-
mation that may be used to provide an
indication of source compliance. Further.
It Is believed that if the selection of
•ources on a case-by-case basis were left
to the States, that some States would
probably not undertake an adequate
emission monitoring program. Some
State Agencies who commented on the
proposed regulations questioned the
•tete-of-the-art of emission monitoring
ww stated their opinion that the pro-
P«««d requirement* were premature
TlwrtloTft. K u the Administrator's
(bat. In order to assure an
adequate nationwide emission monl-
torini: procnirn. minimum emission mon-
itoring requirements must be established.
Thr source categories affected by the
regulations were selected because they
are significant sources of emissions and
because the Agency's work at the time of
the proposal of these regulations In the
field of continuous omission monitoring
evaluation focused almost exclusively on
these source categories. The Agency Is
continuing to develop data on monitoring
devices for additional source categories.
It is EPA's Intent to expand the minimum
continuous emission monitoring require-
ment', from time to time when the eco-
nomic and technological feasibility of
continuous monitoring equipment is
demonstrated and where such monitor-
ing is deemed appropriate for other sig-
nificant source categories.
Discussion o/ Major Comments. Many
eommentors discussed the various cost
aspects of the proposed regulations, spe-
cifically stating that the costs of con-
tinuous monitors were excessive and In-
flationary. A total of 47 commentors ex-
pressed concern for the cost and/or cost
effectiveness of continuous monitors.
Further, the Agency's cost estimates for
purchasing and installing monitoring
systems and the costs for data reduction
and reporting were questioned. In many
cases, sources provided cost estimates for
installation and operation of continuous
monitors considerably in excess of the
cost estimates provided by the Agency.
In response to these comments, a fur-
ther review was undertaken by the Agen-
cy to assess the cost impact of the regu-
lations. Three conclusions resulted from
this review. First. It was determined that
the cost ranges of the various emission
monitoring systems provided by the
Agency are generally accurate for new
sources. Discussions with equipment
manufacturers and suppliers confirmed
this cost information. Approximate in-
vestment costs, which include the cost
of the emission monitor. Installation cost
at a new facility, recorder, performance
testing, data reporting systems and asso-
ciated engineering costs are as follows:
for opacity. $20.000; for sulfur dioxide
and oxygen or oxides of nitrogen and
oxygen, $30.000: and for a source that
monitors opacity, oxides of nitrogen, sul-
fur dioxide and oxygen. $55.000 Annual
operating costs, which include data re-
duction and report preparation, system
operation, maintenance, utilities, taxes,
insurance and annualized capital costs
at 10? :or 8 years arc: $8.500: $16.000:
and $30.000 respectively for the cases
described above.(l)
Secondly, the cost review Indicated
that the cost of Installation of emission
monitors for existing sources could be
considerably higher than for new sources
because of the difficulties in providing
access to a sampling location that ran
provide a representative sample of emis-
sions. The cost estimates provided by the
Agency In the proposal were specifically
developed for new sources whose in-
stallation costs are relatively stable since
provisions for monitoring equipment can
be incorporated at the time of plant de-
sign. This feature is not available for ex-
isting sources, hence higher costs gei
rrally result. Actual costs of Installalir
at existing sources may vary from 01
to five times the cost of normal installs
tion at new sources, and in some casi
even higher costs can result. For exam
pic. discussions with instrument suppli
ers indicate that a typical cost of instal
latlon of an opacity monitor on an exist
Ing source may be two to three times tlv
purchase price of the monitor. Difficul
tics also exist for Installation of gaseou
monitors nt existing sources.
It should be noted that these instal In
tion costs Include material costs for seal
folding, ladders, sampling ports an'
other items necessary to provide acces
to a lo:atlon where source emissions cai
be measured. It is the Agency's oplnio:
that such costs cannot be solely attrib
uted to these continuous emission moni
toring regulations. Access to samplini
locations Is generally necessary to dc
termlne compliance with applicable stat>
or local emission limitations by routln<
manual stack testing methods. There-
fore, costs of providing access to a rep-
resentative sampling location are more
directly attributed to the cost of com-
pliance with, adopted emission limita-
tions, than with these continuous emis-
sion monitoring regulations.
Lastly, the review of cost Information
Indicated that a numb;r of commentors
misinterpreted the extent of the pro-
posed regulations, thereby providing cost
estimates for continuous monitors which
were not required. Specifically, all com-
mentors did not recognize that the pro-
posed regulations required emission mon-
itoring for a source only If an applicable
State or local emission limitation of an
approved SIP affected such a source. For
example, if the approved SIP did not
contain an adopted control regulation to
limit oxides of nitrogen from steam-
generating, fossil fuel-fired boilers of n
capacity In excess of 250 million BTU per
hour heat Input, then such source need
not monitor oxides of nitrogen emis-
sions. Further, some utility industry com-
mentorn included the costs of continuous
emission monitors for sulfur dioxide. The
proposed regulations, however, generally
allowed the use of fuel analysis by speci-
fied ASTM procedures as an alternative
which, in most cases. Is less expensive
than continuous monitoring. Finally, the
proposed regulations required the con-
tinuous monitoring of oxygen in the
exhaust gas only if the source must
otherwise continuously monitor oxides of
nitrogen or sulfur dioxide. Oxygen In-
formation is used solely to provide a cor-
rection for excess air when converting
the measurements of gaseous pollutants
concentrations in the exhaust gas stream
to units of an applicable emission limi-
tation. Some commentors did not recog-
nize this point 'which WAS not specifical-
ly stated in the proposed regulations)
and provided cost estimates for oxygen
monitors when thev were not required by
the proposed regulations.
While not all commentors' cost esti-
mates were correct, for various reasons
noted above. It is clear that the costs
associated with implementing these
emission monitoring regulations are sig-
HDfl^l If Omit, VOL 40, NO. 1*4—MONDAY. OCTOIII *, WS
III-109
-------
RULES AND REGULATIONS
nlflcant The Administrator, however.
believes that the benefits to be derived
from emission monitoring, are such that
the costs are not unreasonable. The Ad-
ministrator does, however, agree with
many commentors that the proposed reg-
ulations, in somf cases, were not applied
cost-effectively and. as such, the regula-
tions promulgated herein have been
modified to provide exemptions to cer-
tain sources from these minimum re-
quirements.
One comment from another Federal
Agency concerned the time period that
emissions are to be averaged when re-
porting excess emissions Specifically, the
commentor assumed that the emission
control regulations that have been
adopted by State and local agencies were
generally designed to attain annual am-
bient air quality standards. As such, the
commentor pointed out that short-term
emission levels in excess of the adopted
emission standard should be acceptable
for reasonable periods of time.
The Administrator does not agree with
this rationale for the following reasons.
First, it is not universally true that an-
nual Ambient standards were the design
basis of emission control regulations. In
many cases, reductions to attain short-
term standards require more control
than do annual standards. Even if the
regulations were based upon annual
standards, allowing excess emissions of
the adopted emission control regulation
on a short-term basis could cause non-
compliance with annual standards. More
importantly, however, a policy of legally
allowing excesses of adopted control reg-
ulations would in effect make the current
emission limitation unenforceable. If the
suggestion were implemented, a question
would arise as to what Is the maximum
emission level that would not be consid-
ered an excess to the adopted regulation.
The purpose of the adopted emission lim-
itation was to establish the acceptable
emission level. Allowing emissions in ex-
cess of that adopted level would cause
confusion, ambiguity, and in many cases
could result in an unenforceable situa-
tion. 'Hence the Administrator does not
concur with the commentor's suggestion.
Modifications to the Proposed Regu-
lations. The modification to the regu-
lations which has the most significant
impact involves the monitoring require-
ments for oxides of nitrogen at fossil
fuel-fired steam generating boilers and
at nitric acid plants. Many commentors
correctly noted that the Agency in the
past (June 8, 1973. 38 FR 15174) had in-
dicated that the need for many emis-
sion control regulations for oxides of
nitrogen were based upon erroneous
data. Such a statement was made after
• detailed laboratory analysis of the ref-
erence ambient measurement method
for nitrogen dioxide revealed the method
to give false measurements. The
sampling technique generally indicated
concentrations of nitrogen dioxide
higher than actually existed in the
atmosphere. Since many control agen-
cies prior to that announcement had
adopted emission regulations that were
determined to be needed based upon
these erroneous data, and since new data.
collected by other measurement tech-
niques, indicated that in most areas of
the nation such control regulations were
not necessary to satisfy the requirements
of the SIP. the Agency suggested that
States consider the withdrawal of
adopted control regulations for the con-
trol of oxides of nitrogen from their SIP's
(May 8. 1974. 39 FR 16344). In many
States, control agencies have not taken
action to remove these regulations from
the SIP. Hence, the commentors pointed
out that the proposed regulations to re-
quire continuous emission monitors on
sources affected by such regulations is
generally unnecessary.
Because of the unique situation in-
volving oxides of nitrogen control regu-
lations, the Administrator has deter-
mined that the proposed regulations to
continuously monitor oxides of nitrogen
emissions may place an undue burden on
source operators, at least from a stand-
point of EPA specifying minimum moni-
toring requirements. The continuous
emission monitoring requirements for
such sources therefore have been modi-
fied. The final regulations require the
continuous emission monitoring of
oxides of nitrogen only for those sources
in Air Quality Control Regions < AQCR's)
where the Administrator has specifically
determined that a control strategy for
nitrogen dioxide is necessary. At the
present time such control strategies are
required only for the Metropolitan Los
Anceles Intrastatc and the Metropoli-
tan Chicago Interstate AQCR's.
It should be noted that a recent com-
pilation of valid nitrogen dioxide air
quality data suggests that approximately
14 of the other 245 AQCR's in the nation
may need to develop a control strategy
for nitrogen dioxide. These AQCR's are
presently being evaluated by the Agency.
If any additional AQCR's are identified
as needing a control strategy for nitro-
gen dioxide at that time, or any time
subsequent to this promulgation, then
States in which those AQCR's are lo-
cated must also revise their SIP's to
require continuous emission monitoring
for oxides of nitrogen for specified
sources. Further, it should be noted that
the regulations promulgated today are
minimum requirements, so that States.
if they believe the control of oxides of
nitrogen from sources is necessary may,
as they deem appropriate, expand the
continuous emission monitoring require-
ments to apply to additional sources not
affected by these minimum requirements.
Other modifications to the proposed
regulation resulted from various com-
ments. A number of commentors noted
that the proposed regulations included
some sources whose emission impact on
air quality was relatively minor. Specifi-
cally, they noted that fossil fuel-fired
steam generating units that were used
solely for peaking and cycling purposes
should be exempt from the proposed reg-
ulations. Similarly, some suggested that
smaller sized units, particularly steam -
generating unite less than 2.500 million
BTU per hour heat input, should also
be exempted. Others pointed out that
units soon to be retired from operation
should not be required to install con-
tinuous monitoring devices and that
sources located In areas of the nation
that already have air quality better than
the national standards should be relieved
of the required monitoring and reporting
requirements. The Agency has considered
these comments and has made the fol-
lowing Judgments.
In relation to fossil fuel-fired steam
generating units, the Agency has deter-
mined that such units that have an an-
nual boiler capacity factor of 30% or less
as currently defined by the Federal Power
Commission shall be exempt from the
minimum requirements for monitoring
and reporting. Industrial boilers used at
less than 307r of their annual capacity,
upon demonstration to the State, may
also be granted an exemption from these
monitoring requirements. The rationale
for this exemption is based upon the fact
that all generating units do not produce
power at their full capacity at all times.
There are three major classifications of
power plants based on the degree to
which their rated capacity is utilized on
an annual basis. Baseload units are de-
signed to run at near full capacity almost
continuously. Peaking unite are operated
to supply electricity during periods of
maximum system demand. Unite which
are operated for intermediate service
between the extremes of baseload and
peaking are termed cycling unite.
Generally accepted definitions term
units generating 60 percent or more of
their annual capacity as baseload. those
generating less than 20 percent as peak-
ing and those between 20 and 60 percent
as cycling. In general, peaking unite are
older, smaller, of lower efficiency, and
more costly to operate than base load or
cycling unite. Cycling unite are also gen-
erally older, smaller and less efficient
than base load unite. Since the expected
life of peaking unite is relatively short
and total emissions from such unite are
small, the benefits gained by installing
monitoring instruments are small in'
comparison to the cost of such equip-
ment. For cycling units, the question of
cost-effectiveness is more difficult to as-
certain. The unite at the upper end of
the capacity factor range Hence, the
final regulations do not affect any boiler
that has an annual boiler capacity factor
of less than 30%. Monitoring require-
ments will thus be more cost effectively
applied to the newer, larger, and more
efficient units that burn a relatively
larner portion of the total fuel supply.
Some commentors noted that the age
of the facility should be considered in
relation to whether a source need com-
HDIIAl IEOISTEI, VOt. 40, NO. It4—MONDAY, OCTOBER 6, WS
III-110
-------
RULES AND REGULATIONS
ply with the proposed regulations. For
fossil fuel-fired steflm generating units.
the exemption relating to the annual
boiler capacity fnctor previously dis-
cussed should generally provide relief for
older units. It is appropriate, however.
that the age of the facility be consid-
ered for other categories of sources af-
fected by the proposed regulations. As
such, the final regulations allow thnt any
source that Is scheduled to be retired
within five years of the Inclusion of mon-
itoring requirements for the source in
Appendix P need not comply with the
minimum emission monitoring require-
ments promulgated herein. In the Ad-
ministrator's Judgment, the selection of
five years as the allowable period for
this exemption provides reasonable re-
lief for those units that will shortly be
retired. However. It maintains full re-
quirements on many older units with a.
number of years of service remaining.
In general, older units operate less effi-
ciently and are less well controlled than
newer units so that emission monitoring
Is generally useful. The exemption pro-
vided in the final regulations effectively
allows such retirees slightly more than a
two-year period of relief, since the sched-
ule of implementation of the regulations
would generally require the installation
of emission monitors by early 1978.
States must submit, for EPA approval.
the procedures they will implement to
use this provision. States are advised
that such exemptions should only be pro-
vided where a bona fide intent to rease
operations has been clearly established.
In cases where such sources postpone
retirement. States shall have established
procedures to require such sources to
monitor and report emissions. In this re-
gard, it should be noted that Section
113 f2) of the Act provides that any
person who falsifies or misrepresents a
record, report or other document filed or
required under the Act shall, upon con-
viction, be subject to fine or imprison-
ment, or both.
A further modification to the proposed
regulations affects the minimum size of
the units within each of the source cate-
gories to which emission monitoring and
reporting shall be required. As suggested
by many commentors. the Agency has in-
vestigated the cost effectiveness of re-
quiring all units within the identified
source categories to install emission mon-
itors. Each pollutant for each source
category identified in the proposed reg-
ulations was evaluated. For fossil fuel-
fired steam generating units, the pro-
posal required compliance for all boilers
with 250 million BTU per hour heat In-
put, or greater. For opacity, the proposed
regulationsvr.equlred emission monitoring
for all coal-fired units, while only those
oil-fired units that had been observed as
violators of visible emission regulations
or must use an emission control device to
meet particular matter regulations were
required to install such devices. Gas-
fired units were exempted by the pro-
posed regulations.
After Investigating the particulate
emission potential of these sources. It has
been determined that no modification In
the size limitation for boilers In relation
to opacity is warranted. The rationale
for this Judgment is that the smallcr-
sizod units affected by the proposed reg-
ulation tend to be less efficiently oper-
ated or controlled for particulate matter
than are the larger-sized units. In fact.
smaller units generally tend to emit more
particulate emissions on an equivalent
fuel basis than lamer-sized units. '2>
Because of the potential of opacity regu-
lation violations, no modifications have
been made to the regulations as to the
size of steam generating boilers that
must measure opacity.
Emissions of oxides of nitrogen from
boilers are a function of the temperature
in the combustion chamber and the cool-
Ing of the combustion products. Emis-
sions vary considerably with the si7.e and
the type of unit. In general, the larner
units produce more oxides of nitroRcn
emissions. The Agency therefore finds
that the minimum size of a unit affected
by the final regulatioas can be Increased
from 250 to 1.000 million BTU per hour
heat input, without significantly reduc-
ing the total emissions of oxides of nitro-
gen that would be affected by monitoring
and reporting requirements. Such a mod-
ification would, have the effect of exempt-
ing approximately 567r of the boilers
over 250 million BTU per hour heat input
capacity, on a national basis, while main-
taining emission monitoring and report-
ing requirements for approximately 78r.r
of the potential oxides of nitroccn emis-
sions from such sources.'2 > Further. In
the 2 AQCR's where the Administrator
has specifically called for a control
strategy for nitrogen dioxide, the boilers
affected by the regulation constitute 50T
of the steam generators greater than 250
million BTU per hour heat Input, yet
they emit 80 <5 of the nitrogen oxides
from such steam generators in these
2 AQCR's.(2)
Also, certain types of boilers or burn-
ers, due to their design characteristics.
may on a regular basis attain emission
levels of oxides of nitrogen well below
the emission limitations of the applica-
ble plan. The regulations have been re-
vised to allow exemption from the
requirements for installing emission
monitoring and recording equipment for
oxides of nitrogen when a facility is
shown during performance tests to op-
erate with oxides of nitrogen emission
levels 30% or more below the emission
limitation of the applicable plan. It
should be noted that this provision ap-
plies solely to oxides of nitrogen emis-
sions rather than other pollutant emis-
sions, since oxides of nitrogen emissions
are more directly related to boiler de-
sign characteristics than are other
pollutants.
Similar evaluations were made for
nitric acid plants, sulfuric acid plants
and catalytic cracking unit catalyst re-
generators at petroleum refineries. For
each of these Industries it was found that
modifications to the proposed regulations
could be made to increase the minimum
size of the units affected by the proposed
regulations without significantly de-
creasing the total emissions of various
pollutants that would be affected by
these monltorinc and rcportinq require-
ments. Specifically, for nitric arid plants
It was found that by modifying the pro-
posed regulations to affect only those
plants that have a total daily production
capacity of 300 tons or more of nitric acid
(rather than affecting all facilities as
proposed) that approximately 797* of
the nitric acid production on a national
basis would be affected by the provisions
of these monitoring and reporting re-
quirements. On the other hand, such a
modification reduces the number of
monitors required for compliance with
these regulations by approximately 467.-.
(2) At the present time, only nitric acid
plants in AQCR's where the Administra-
tor has specifically called for a control
strategy for nitrogen dioxide will be can-
didates for continuous emission monitor-
ing requirements for the reasons men-
tioned previously. In the 2 AQCR's where
such a control strategy has been called
for. there is only one known nitric acid
plant and that is reported to be less than
300 tons per day production capacity—
hence no nitric acid plants at the present
time will be affected by these monitoring
requirements.
Similarly, evaluations of sulfuric acid
plants and catalytic cracking catalyst re-
generators at petroleum refineries re-
sulted in the conclusion that minimum
size limitations of 300 tons per day pro-
duction rate at sulfuric acid plants, and
20.000 barrels per day of fresh feed to
any catalytic cracking unit at petroleum
refineries could be reasonably estab-
lished. Such modifications exempt ap-
proximately 377' and 39% respectively
of such plants on a national basis from
these emission monitoring and reporting
rcauirements. while allowing about 9%
of the sulfur dioxide emissions from sul-
furic acid plants and 12% of the par-
ticulate matter emissions from catalytic
cracking units to be emitted to the at-
mosphere without being measured and
reported. '2) The Agency believe that
such modifications provide a reasonable
balance between the costs associated
with emission monitoring and reporting.
and the need to obtain such information.
A number of commentors suggested
that sources be exempt from the pro-
posed emission monitoring regulations if
such sources are located within areas of
the nation that are already attaining .
national standards. The Administrator
does not believe that such an approach
would be consistent with Section 110 of
the Clean Air Act. which requires con-
tinued maintenance of ambient stand-
ards after attainment. In many areas.
the standards are being attained only
through effective Implementation of
emission limitations. Under the Clean Air
Act. continued compliance with emis-
sion limitations in these areas is Just as
important as compliance In areas which
have not attained the standards.
Another major comment concerned
the proposed data reporting require-
ments. Thirty-four (34) commentors ex-
pressed concern at the amount of data
which the proposed regulations required
to be recorded, summarized, and submit-
FIOIIAl U6ISTII, VOL. 40. NO. 194—MONDAY. OCTOIfl 6. 1t75
Ill-Ill
-------
RULES AND REGULATIONS
ted to the State. It was generally indi-
cated by the commentors that the datn
reportinp requirements were excessive.
Commentors questioned the purpose of
reporting all measured data while some
State agencies indicated they hnve lim-
ited resources t"1 handle such informa-
tion. EPA believes that, in some cases.
the commentors misconstrued the data
reporting reouirements for existing
sources. In light of each of these com-
ments, the final regulations, with respect
to the data reporting requirements for
gaseous pollutants and opacity, have
been modified
For gaseous emissions, the proposed
regulations required the reporting of all
one-hour averages obtained by the emis-
sion monitor. Because of the comments
on this provision, the Agency has reex-
atnined the proposed data reporting re-
quirements. As a result, the Agency has
determined that only information con-
cerning emissions in excess of emission
limitations of the applicable plan is nec-
essary to satisfy the intent of these reg-
ulations. Therefore, the data reporting
requirements for gaseous pollutants
have been modified. The final regulations
require that States adopt procedures that
would require sources to report to the
State on emission levels in excess of the
applicable emission limitations 'i.e., ex-
cess emissions) for the time period spec-
ified in the regulation with which com-
pliance is determined. In other words, if
an applicable emission limitation re-
quired no more than 1.0 pounds per .hour
SO., to be emitted for any two-hour aver-
aging period, the data to be reported by
the source should identify the emission
level (i.e.. emissions stated in pounds per
hour) averaged over a two-hour time
period, for periods only when this emis-
sion level was in excess of the 1.0 pounds
per hour emission limitation. Further.
sources shall be required to maintain a
record of all continuous monitoring ob-
servations for gaseous pollutants 'and
opacity measurements) for a period of
two years and to make such data avail-
able to the State upon request. The final
regulations have also been amended to
add a provision to require sources to re-
port to the State on the apparent reason
for oil noted violations of applicable reg-
ulations.
The proposed data reporting require-
ments for opacity have also been modi-
fied. Upon reconsideration of the extent
of the data needed to satisfy the intent
of these regulations. It is the Adminis-
trator's judgment that for opacity States
must obtain excess emission measure-
ments during each hour of operation.
However, before determining excess
emissions, the number of minutes gen-
erally exempted by State opacity regu-
lations should be considered. For ex-
ample, where a regulation allows two
minutes of opacity measurements in
excess of the standard, the State
need only require the source to re-
. port all opacity measurements in excess
of the standard during any one hour.
minus the two-minute exemption. The
excess measurements shall be reported
In actual per cent opacity averaged for
one clock minute or such other time pe-
riod deemed appropriate by the State.
Averages may be calculated cither by
arithmetically avcraping a minimum of
4 equally spaced data points per minute
or by integration of the monitor output.
Some commentors raised questions
concerning the provisions in the proposed
regulations which allow the use of fuel
analysis for computing emissions of sul-
fur dioxide in lieu of Installing a con-
tinuous monitoring device for this pol-
lutant. Of primary concern with the fuel
analysis approach among the com-
mentors was the frequency of the analy-
sis to determine the sulfur content of the
fuel. However, upon inspection of the
comments by the Agency, a more sig-
nificant issue has been uncovered. The
issue involves the determination of what
constitutes excess emissions when a fuel
analysis is used as the method to measure
source emissions. For example, the sulfur
content varies significantly within a load
of coal, i.e., while the average sulfur
content of a total load of coal may be
within acceptable limits in relation to a
control regulation which restricts the
sulfur content of coal, it is probable that
portions of the coal may have a sulfur
content above the allowable level. Simi-
larly, when fuel oils of different specific
gravities are stored within a common
tank, such fuel oils tend to stratify and
may not be a homogeneous mixture.
Thus, at times, fuel oil in excess of allow-
able limits may be combusted. The ques-
tion which arises is whether the combus-
tion of this higher sulfur coal or oil is a
violation of an applicable sulfur content
regulation. Initial investigations of this
issue have indicated a relative lack of
specificity on the subject.
The Agency is confronted with this
problem not only in relation to specifying
procedures for the emission reporting re-
quirements for existing sources but also
in relation to enforcement considerations
for new sources affected by New Source
Performance Standards. At this time, a
more thorough investigation of the situ-
ation in necessary prior to promulgation
of procedures dealing with fuel analysis
for both oil and coal. At the conclusion
of this investigation, the Agency will set
forth its findings and provide guidance
to State and local control agencies on
this issue. In the meantime, the portion
of the proposed regulations dealing with
fuel analysis is being withheld from pro-
mulgation at this time. As such, States
shall not be required to adopt provisions
dealing with emission monitoring or re-
porting of sulfur dioxide emissions from
those sources where the States may
choose to allow the option of fuel anal-
ysis as an alternative to sulfur dioxide
monitoring. However, since the fuel
analysis alternative may not be utilized
by a source that has installed sulfur di-
oxide control equipment (scrubbers).
States shall set forth legally enforceable
procedures which require emission moni-
tors on such sources, where these emis-
sion monitoring regulations otherwise
require their installation.
Other Modifications to Proposed Reg-
ulations. In addition to reducing the
number of monitors required under the
proposed regulations, a number of modi-
fications to various procedures in the
proposed regulations have been con-
sidered and are included in the final
regulations. One modification which has
been made is the deletion of the require-
ment to install continuous monitors at
"the most representative" location. The
final regulations require the placement
of an'emission monitor at "a representa-
tive" location in the exhaust gas system.
In many cases "the most representative"
location may be difficult to locate and
may be inaccessible without new plat-
forms, ladders, etc.. being iastalled. Fur-
ther, other representative locations can
provide adequate information on pollut-
ant emissions if minimum criteria for
selection of monitoring locations are ob-
served. Guidance in determining a repre-
sentative sampling' location is contained
within the Performance Specification
for each pollutant monitor in the emis-
sion monitoring regulations for New
Source Performance Standards (Appen-
dix B, Part 60 of this Chapter). While
these criteria are designed for new
sources, they are also useful in deter-
mining representative locations for ex-
isting sources.
A further modification to the proposed
regulation is the deletion of the require-
ment for new performance tests when
continuous emission monitoring equip-
ment is modified or repaired. As pro-
posed, the regulation would have re-
quired a new performance test whenever
any part of the continuous emission
monitoring system was replaced. This
requirement was originally incorporated
in the regulations to assure the use of
a well-calibrated, finely tuned monitor.
Commentors pointed out that the re-
quirement of conducting new perform-
ance tests whenever any part of an in-
strument is changed or replaced is costly
and in many cases not required. Upon
evaluation of this comment, the Admin-
istrator concurs that performance tests
are not required after each repair or re-
placement to the system. Appropriate
changes have been made to the regula-
tions to delete the requirements for new
performance tests. However, the final
regulations require the reporting of the
various repairs made to the emission
monitoring system durine each quarter
to the State. Further, the State must
have procedures to require sources to re-
port to the State on a quarterly basis in-
formation on the amount of time and the
reason why the continuous monitor was
not in operation. Also the State must
have legally enforceable procedures to
reouire a source to conduct a new per-
formance test whenever, on the basis of
available information, the -State deems
such test is necessary.
The time period proposed for the In-
stillation of the reauired monltorine
system, i.e.. one vpar after plan apnroval.
wns thought, hv 21 commentors to be too
hrjpf. orlmarilv because of lack of avail-
able instruments, the lack of trained ner-
snnnrl and the time available for Instal-
lation of the required monitors. Eauip-
ment suoolicrs were contacted by the
Agency and thev confirmed the avail-
ability of emission monitors. However.
FIDMAl MCISTEI. VOL. 40, NO. 1»4—MONDAY, OCTOUI », 197S
III-112
-------
RULES AND REGULATIONS
the Administrator has determined that
the time necessary for purchase. Inslal-
lation and performance tr.Miiu: of .such
monitors may require morr than one
year for rcrtnin installations, especially
where gaseous monitors nre required. In
order to provide sources with n in pic time.
the Agency has modified the final reputa-
tions to allow States to adopt, procedures
that will provide sources 18 months after
the approval or promulgation of the re-
vised SIP to satisfy the installation and
performance testing procedures required
by these continuous monitoring regula-
tions. A provision is also included to al-
low, on a case-by-cnse bnsis. additional
extensions for sources where good faith
efforts have been undertaken to purchase
and install equipment, but where such
Installation cannot be accomplished
within the time period prescribed by
the regulations.
A number of State and local agencies
also commented on the lack of time pro-
vided sources to Install the monitors re-
quired by the proposed regulations.
These agencies also indicated that they
must Acquire sufficient skilled manpower
to Implement the regulations, such as
personnel to provide guidance to sources.
to monitor performance tests and to
analyze the emission data that are to be
submitted by the sources. Further, some
State agencies Indicated that more than
six months was needed to develop the
necessary plan revisions. Most State
agencies who commented stated that one
year should be provided to allow States
to revise their SIP's. The Administrator
Is aware of the various priorities which
confront State and local agencies at this
time 'e.g.. compliance schedules, enforce-
ment actions, litigation proceedings, re-
evaluation of adequacy of SIP's to attain
and maintain national standards, etc.)
and. as such, believes that a six-month
postponement in the submittnl of plan
revisions to require emission monitoring
and reporting is Justified and prudent.
Hence. States must submit plan revisions
to satisfy the requirements of this sec-
tion within one year of promulgation of
these regulations in the FEDERAL REGIS-
TER. However. States are advised that
such plan revisions may be submitted
any time prior to the final date, and are
encouraged to do so where possible.
The proposed regulations provided the
States with the option of allowing sources
to continue to use emission monitoring
equipment that does not meet perform-
ance specifications set forth In the regu-
lations for up to five years from the date
of approval of the State regulations or
EPA promulgation. Some commenters
asked that this provision be extended
Indefinitely. In some cases they indicated
they had recently purchased and had
already installed monitoring systems
which were only marginally away from
meeting the applicable performance spec-
ifications. The Agency believes, how-
ever, that such a modification to the pro-
posed regulations should not be allowed.
It is believed that such a provision would
result in Inadequate monitoring systems
being maintained after their useful life
has ended. Though some monitoring sys-
tems will'probably last longer than five
years, it is believed Unit this lime period
will provide aclcciuntr time to amortize
the cosl of such equipment. In cases
where existing emission monitors are
known not to provide reasonable esti-
mates of emissions. States should con-
sider more stringent procedures to pro-
vide a more speedy retirement of such
emission monitoring systems.
Some commentors raised the question
of whether existing oxygen monitors
which are installed in most fossil fuel-
fired steam generating boilers to monitor
excess oxygen for the purposes of com-
bustion control could be used to satisfy
the requirement for monitoring oxygen
under the proposal. Upon investigation.
it has been determined that. In some
cases, such oxygen monitors may be used
provided that they are located so that
there is no influx of dilution air between
the oxygen monitor and the continuous
pollutant monitor. In some cases, it may
be possible to install the continuous
monitoring device at the same location
as the existing oxygen monitor. Care
should be taken, however, to assure that
a representative sample is obtained. Be-
cause of the various possibilities that
may arise concerning the usefulness of
existing oxygen monitors, the State
should determine, after a case-by-case
review, the acceptability of existing oxy-
gen monitors.
Another technical issue which was
raised suggested that continuous emis-
sion monitors which provide direct
measurements of pollutants in units com-
parable to the emission limitations and
other devices not specifically identified
in the proposed regulations are avail-
able for purchase and installation. The
Agency is aware that various monitor-
ing systems exist but has not as yet de-
termined specific performance specifica-
tions for these monitoring systems that
are directly applicable to the source
categories covered by these regulations.
However, it is not EPA's intent to deny
the use of any equipment that can be
demonstrated to be reliable and accurate.
If monitors can be demonstrated to pro-
vide the same relative degree of accuracy
and durability as provided by the per-
formance specifications in Appendix B
of Part 60. they shall generally be ac-
ceptable to satisfy the requirements of
these regulations under Section 3.9 of
Appendix P. Further, where alternative
procedures (e.g.. alternate procedures
for conversion of data to units of appli-
cable regulations) can be shown by the
State to be equivalent to the procedures
set forth in Appendix P of these regula-
tions, then such alternate procedures
may be submitted by the State for ap-
proval by EPA. Section 3.9 of Appendix P
identifies certain examples where alter-
native emission monitoring systems or
alternative procedures will generally be
considered by the Agency for approval.
It should be noted that some sources
may be unable to comply with the regu-
lations because of technical difficulties,
(e.g.. the presence of condensed water
vapor in the flue gas), physical limita-
tions of accessibility at the plant facility.
or. In other cases, because of extreme
economic, hardship. Stales should use
their judgment In Implementing these
reciulicmcnts in such cases. Section 6 of
Appendix P of this Part provides various
examples where the Installation of con-
tinuous emission monitors would not be
feasible or reasonable. In such cases
alternate emission monitoring (and re-
porting' by more routine methods, such
ns manual stack testing, must be re-
quired. States in preparing their revised
SIP must set forth and describe the cri-
teria they will use to identify such un-
usual cases, and must further describe
the alternative procedures they will Im-
plement to otherwise satisfy the intent of
these regulations. Stales are advised that
this provision .is intended for unusual
cases, and. as such, should not be widely
applied.
It was pointed out by some com-
mentors that carbon dioxide monitors
could probably be used in lieu of oxygen
monitors to provide information to con-
vert emission data to the units of the
applicable State regulation. Detailed
discussion of the technical merits and
limitations, of this approach is discussed
in the Preamble to the Part 60 Regula-
tions. As pointed out in that Preamble.
such monitors may be used in certain '
situations. Modifications have therefore
been made to the Part 51 regulations to
allow the use of such monitors which in-
clude references to technical specifica-
tions contained in Part 60 for carbon di-
oxide monitors. Also, the cycling time for
oxygen monitors has been changed from
one hour to 15 minutes to correspond to
the specification in Part 60. The differ-
ence between cycling times in the two
proposals was an oversight. The cycling
time for carbon dioxide monitors will
also be 15 minutes as in Part 60.
A number of other miscellaneous tech-
nical comments were also received. Com-
mentors indicated that the proposed ex-
emption for opacity monitoring require-
ments that may be granted to oil-fired
and gas-fired steam generators should
also apply to units burning a combina-
tion of these fuels. The Administrator
concurs with this suggestion and an ex-
emption for such sources burning oil and
gas has ben provided in the final regu-
lations subject to the same restrictions
as are imposed on oil-fired steam
generators.
As previously indicated, the regula-
tions for emission monitoring for exist-
ing sources refer in many cases to the
specific performance specifications set
forth in the emission monitoring regula-
tions for new sources n fleeted by Part 60.
Many of the comments received on the
proposed regulations in effect pointed to
issues affecting both proposals. In many
cases, more specific technical issues are
discussed in the Preamble to the Part 60
Regulations and as such the reader is
referred to that Preamble. Specifically,
the Part 60 Preamble addresses the fol-
lowing topics: data handling and report-
Inn techniques: requirements for report-
ing repairs and replacement parts used;
location of monitoring Instruments:
changes to span requirements, operating
HOIIAl MOUTH, VOL 40. NO. 1*4—MONDAY, OCTOBEI *, 1975
III-113
-------
RULES AND REGULATIONS
frequency requirements, sulfuric ncld and
nitric acid plant conversion factors:
and. for opacity monitoring equipment.
chances in the cycling time and in allcn-
mcnt procedures. The reader is cau-
tioned, however, that specific reference
to regulations In the Part 60 Preamble
IK strictly to federal ..ew Source Perform-
ance Regulations rather than SUile and
local control agency regulations which
affect existing sources and which are part
of an applicable plan.
In addition to the many technical
comments received, a number of legal
issues were raised. Several commentors
questioned EPA's statutory authority .to
promulcate these regulations and pointed
out other alleged legal defects in the pro-
posal. The Administrator has considered
these comments, and has found them un-
persuasive.
One commentor argued that new 40
CFR 51.19(e) will require "revisions" to
existing state plans: that'"revisions" may
be called for under Section 110(a) (2(H>
of the Clean Air Act only where EPA has
found that there are "improved or more
expeditious methods" for achieving am-
bient standards or that a state plan is
"substantially inadequate" to achieve the
standards: that the new regulation is
based upon neither of these findings, and
that therefore there is no statutory au-
thority for the regulation. This argu-
ment fails to take cognizance of Section
110 (ii) of the Act. which man-
dates that all state implementation plans
contain self-monitoring requirements.
The fact that EPA originally accepted
plans without these requirements be-
cause of substantial uncertainty as to the
reliability of self-monitoring equipment
does not negate the mandate of the
statute.
In essence, new 5 51.19(e) does not call
for "revisions" as contemplated by the
Act. but for supplements to the original
plans to make them complete. At any
rate, it is the Administrator's Judgment
that the new self-monitoring require-
ments will result in a "more expeditious"
achievement of the ambient standards.
Since these requirements are valuable
enforcement tools and indicators of mal-
functions, they should lead to a net de-
crease in emissions.
Other commentors argued that even if
EPA has statutory authority to require
self-monitoring, it has no authority to
impose specific minimum requirements
for state plans, to require "continuous"
monitoring, or to require monitoring of
oxygen, which is not a pollutant. These
comments fail to consider that a basic
precept of administrative law is that an
agency may fill in the broad directives of
legislation with precise regulatory re-
quirements. More specifically, the Ad-
ministrator has authority under Section
301 fa) of the Clean Air Act to promul-
gate "such regulations as are necessary
to carry out his functions under the Act".
Courts have long upheld the authority of
agencies to promulgate more specific re-
quirements than are set forth in en-
abling legislation, so long as the require-
ments are reasonably related to the pur-
poses of the legislation. Since the Act
requires self-monitoring without further
guidance. EPA surely has the authority
to set specific rrtiuirements in order to
carry out its function of assuring that the
Act is properly implemented.
In EPA's Judcnicnt, the requirements
set forth in ? 51.19'e) are necessary to
assure that each state's self-monitoring
program Is sufficient to comply with the
Act's mandate. The fact that oxypon and
carbon dioxide are not air pollutants
controlled under the Act is legally ir-
relevant, since in EPA's judgment, they
must be monitored in order to convert
measured emission data to units of emis-
sion standards.
Other commentors have argued that
the self-monitoring requirements violate
the protection against self-incrimination
provided in the Fifth Amendment to the
U.S. Constitution, and that the informa-
tion obtained from the monitoring is so
unreliable as to be Invalid evidence for
use in court.
There are two reasons why the self-
incrimination argument is invalid. First,
the self-incrimination privilege does not
apply to corporations, and it is probable
that a great majority of the sources cov-
ered by these requirements will be owned
by corporations. Secondly, courts have
continually recognized an exception to
the privilege for "records required by
law", such as the self-monitoring and
reporting procedures which are required
by the Clean Air Act. As to the validity
of evidence issue, in EPA's opinion, the
required performance specifications will
assure that self-monitoring equipment
will be sufficiently reliable to withstand
attacks in court.
Finally, some comments reflected a
misunderstanding of EPA's suggestion
that states explore with counsel ways to
draft their regulations so as to automati-
cally incorporate by reference future
additions to Appendix P and avoid the
time-consuming plan revision process.
(EPA pointed out that public participa-
tion would still be assured, since EPA's
proposed revisions to Appendix P would
always be subject to public comment on
a nation-wide basis.)
EPA's purpose was merely to suggest
an approach that a state may wish to
follow i! the approach would be legal
under that state's law. EPA offers no
opinion as to whether any state law
would allow this. Such a determination
is up to the individual states.
Summary of Revisions and Clori/ica-
tions to the Proposed Regulations.
Briefly, the revisions and clarifications to
the proposed regulations Include:
(1) A clarification to indicate that con-
tinuous emission monitors are not re-
quired for sources unless such sources
arc subject to an applicable emission
limitation of an approved SIP.
(2) A revision to require emission
monitors for oxides of nitrogen in only
those AQCR's where the Administrator
has specifically called for a control
strategy for nitrogen dioxide.
(3) A revision to include a general pro-
vision to exempt any source that clearly
demonstrates that It will cease operation
within five years of the inclusion of moni-
torinc requirements for the source in
Appendix P.
<4> Revisions to exempt smaller-sized
sources t»nd infrequently used sources
within the specified source cateRories
<5> A revision to the data reporting
requirements to-requlre the submillal by
tlir source of the State, emission data in
excess of the applicable emission limita-
tion for both opacity and gaspous pol-
lutants, rather than all measured data, as
proposed A provision has been added to
require information on the cause of all
noted violations of applicable regulations.
(6' A clarification to indicate that the
continuous monitoring of oxygen is not
required unless the continuous monitor-
ing of sulfur dioxide and/or nitrogen
oxides emissions is required by the appli-
cable SIP.
(1) A revision to allow the placement
of continuous emission monitors at "a
representative location" on the exhaust
gas system rather than at "the most
representative location" as required by
the proposed regulations.
'8i A revision to delete the require-
ments of new performance tests each
time the continuous monitorlne equip-
ment is repaired or modified. However, a
new provision is included to require that
a report of all repairs and maintenance
performed during the quarter shall be re-
ported by the source to the State.
(9> A modification to provide sources
18 months rather than one year after
approval or promulgation of the revised
SIP to comply with the continuous moni-
toring regulations adopted by the States.
(10) A modification to provide States
one year, rather than the six months
after the promulgation of these regula-
tions in the FEDERAL REGISTER to submit
plan revisions to satisfy the requirements
promulgated herein.
Requirements of States. States shall be
required to revise their SIP's by Octo-
ber 6.1976 to include legally enforceable
procedures to require emission monitor-
ing, recording and reporting, as a mini-
mum for those sources specified in the
regulations promulgated herein. While
minimum requirements have been estab-
lished. States may. as they deem appro-
priate, expand these requirements.
The regulations promulgated herein
have been revised In light of the various
comments to generally provide a more
limited introduction into this new meth-
odology. Cooperation among affected
parties, i.e.. State and local control agen-
cies, sources, instrument manufacturers
and suppliers, and this Agency is neces-
sary to move successfully forward in
these areas of emission monitoring and
reporting prescribed in the Clean Air
Act. Assistance can be obtained from the
EPA Regional Offices in relation to the
technical and procedural aspects of these
regulations.
Copies of documents referenced in this
Preamble are available for public inspec-
tion at the EPA Freedom of Information
Center. 401 M Street. S.W., Washington.
D.C. 20460. The Agency has not pre-
pared an environmental impact state-
ment for these regulations since they
PSBSIAl OieiiTSB, VOl. «0, WO 194—MONDAY, OCTOBER 6, 1*75
III-114
-------
RULES AND REGULATIONS
were proposed (September II. 1974 > prior
to the effective date for rcquirinc volun-
tary environmental Impact statements
on EPA's regulatory actions (see 39 FR
16186. May 7. 1974 >.
The regulations set forth below are
promulgntcd under the authority of sec-
tions 110 and 301
of the Clean Air Act. as amended 142
U.S.C. 1857c-5iai(2KF>iii»-(IU>. 1857g
1 and are effective November 5. 1975.
Dated: September 23.1975.
JOHN QUARLES.
Acting Administrator.
Rcrntr.NCcs
1. Jenkins. R E . Strategies and Air Stand-
ards Division. OAQPS. .EPA. Memo to R L.
AJax. Emlsxlon Standards and Engineering
Division. OAQPS. EPA. Emission Monitoring
Costs. February 37. 1975
2. Young, D. E.. Control Programs Develop-
ment Division. OAQPS. EPA. Memo to E. J.
Llllls. Control Programs Development Di-
vision. OAQPS. EPA. Emission Source Data
for In-Slack Monitoring Regulations. June 4.
1975
1. Section 51.1 Is amended by adding
paragraphs (z). (aa). (bb>. (cc>. (dd).
and (ee) as follows:
§51.1 Definition*.
• • • • •
(z) "Emission standard" means a reg-
ulation (or portion thereof) setting forth
an allowable rate of emissions, level of
opacity, or prescribing equipment or fuel
specifications that result in control of
air pollution emissions.
"Capacity factor" means the
ratio of the average load on a machine or
equipment for the period of Ume consid-
ered to the capacity rating of the ma-
chine or equipment.
(bb) "Excess emissions" means emis-
sions of an air pollutant in excess of an
emission standard.
(cc) "Nitric acid plant" means any fa-
cility producing nitric acid 30 to 70 per-
cent In strength by either the pressure or
atmospheric pressure process.
(dd) "Sulfuric acid plant" means any
facility producing sulfuric acid by the
contact process by burning elemental sul-
fur, alkylation acid, hydrogen sulflde. or
acid sludge, but does not include facili-
ties where conversion to sulfuric acid is
utilized primarily as a means of prevent-
ing emissions to the atmosphere of sul-
fur dioxide or other sulfur compounds.
(ee) "Fossil fuel-fired steam gener-
ator" means a furnace or boiler used in
the process of burning fossil fuel for the
primary purpose of producing steam by
heat transfer.
2. Section 51.19 is amended by adding
paragraph (e) as follows:
| 51.19 Source surveillance.
(e) Legally enforceable procedures to
require stationary sources subject to
emission standards as part of an appli-
cable plan to Install, calibrate, maintain.
and operate equipment for continuously
Monitoring and recording emissions: and
IP provide other Information as specified
to Appendix P of this part.
(1) Such procedures shall identify the
types of sources, by source category and
capacity, that must Install such Instru-
ments, and shall Identify for each source
category the pollutants which must be
monitored.
*2> Such procedures shall, as a mini-
mum, require the types of sources set
forth in Appendix P of this part (as such
appendix may be amended from time to
time) to meet the applicable require-
ments set forth therein.
(3) Such procedures shall contain pro-
visions which require the owner or op-
erator of each source subject to continu-
ous emission monitoring and recording
requirements to maintain a flic of all
pertinent Information. Such information
shall include emission measurements,
continuous monitoring system perform-
ance testing measurements, performance
evaluations, calibration checks, and ad-
justments and maintenance performed
on such monitoring systems and other re-
ports and records required by Appendix
P of this Part for at least two years fol-
lowing the date of such measurements or
maintenance.
<4> Such procedures shall require the
source owner or operator to submit in-
formation relating to emissions and
operation of the emission monitors to the
State to the extent described in Appendix
P as frequently or more frequently as
described therein.
<5> Such procedures shall provide that
sources subject to the requirements of
t 5l.l9(e) (2) of this section shall have
installed all necessary equipment and
shall have begun monitoring and record-
ing within 18 months of d) the approval
of a State plan requiring monitoring for
that source or <2i promulgation by the
Agency of monitoring requirements for
that source. However, sources that have
made good faith efforts to purchase. In-
stall, and begin the monitoring and re-
cording of emission data but who have
been unable to complete such Installa-
tion within the time period provided may
be given reasonable extensions of time as
deemed appropriate by the State.
< 61 States shall submit revisions to the
applicable plan which implement the
provisions of this section by October 6,
1976.
3. In Part 51. Appendix P is added as
follows:
APPENDIX P—MINIMUM EMISSION MONITORING
REOtnttCMCNTS
1.0 Purpone. This Appendix P sets forth
the minimum requirements for continuous
emission monitoring and recording that each
State Implementation Plan must Include In
order to be .-.pproved under the provisions of
40 CFR Sl.lO(e). These requirements Include
the source categories to be affected: emission
monitoring, recording, and reporting re-
quirements !or these sources: performance
specification* for accuracy, reliability, and
durability of acceptable monitoring systems:
and techniques to convert emission datn to
units of the applicable State emission stand-
ard Such data must be reported to the State
as an Indication of whether proper mainte-
nance and operating procedures arc beftig
utilized by nourco operators to maintain
emission levels at or below emission stand*
ards Such data may be used directly or In-
directly for rompltnnre determination or any
other purpose deemed appropriate by the
State TlimiRh the monitoring requirement*
are specified In detail. States are given some
flexibility to resolvn difficulties that may
arise during the Implementation of these
regulations
11 XppHcabJIItj/
The State plan (.hall require the owner or
operator of an emli>slon source In a category
listed In this Appendix to: (I) Install, cali-
brate, operate, and maintain all monitoring
equipment necessary for continuously moni-
toring the pollutants specified In this Ap-
pendix for the applicable source category:
and (2) complete the Installation and per-
formance tests of such equipment and begin
monitoring and recording within 18 months
of plan approval or promulgation. The source
categories and the respective monitoring re-
quirements are listed below.
1.1.1 Fossil fuel-Tired steam generators, as
specified In paragraph 2.1 of this appendix.
shall be monitored for opacity, nitrogen
oxides emissions, sulfur dioxide emissions,
and oxygen or carbon dioxide.
1.1.2 Fluid bed catalytic cracking unit
catalyst regenerators, as specified In para-
graph 2.4 of this appendix, shall be moni-
tored for opacity.
1.1.3 Sulfuric acid plants, as specified In
paragraph 2.3 of this appendix, shall be
monitored for sulfur dioxide emissions'.
1.1.4 Nitric acid plants, as specified In
paragraph 2.2 of this appendix, shall be
monitored for nitrogen oxides emissions.
1.2 Exemptions.
The States may Include provisions within
their regulations to grant exemptions from
the monitoring requirements of paragraph
1.1 of this appendix for any source which Is:
1.2.1 subject to a new source performance
standard promulgated In 40 CFR Part 60
pursuant to Section 111 of the Clean Air
Act: or
1.2.2 not subject to an applicable emission
standard of an approved plan; or
1.2.3 scheduled for retirement within 5
years after Inclusion of monitoring require-
ments for the source In Appendix P, provided
that adequate evidence and guarantees are
provided that clearly show that the source
will cease operations prior to such date.
1.3 Extensions
States may allow reasonable extensions of
the time provided for Installation of monitors
for facilities unable to meet the prescribed
tlmeframe (I.e.. 18 months from plan ap-
proval or promulgation) provided the owner
or operator of such facility demonstrates that
good faith efforts have been made to obtain
and Install such devices within such pre-
scribed tlmeframe.
1.4 Monitoring System Mai/unction.
The Stale plan may provide a temporary
exemption from th* monitoring and report-
Ing requirements of this appendix during any
period of monitoring system malfunction.
provided that the source owner or operator
shows, to the satisfaction of the State, that
the malfunction was unavoidable and Is
being repaired as expedltlously as practicable.
2.0 .Minimum Monitoring Requirement
States must, as a minimum, require the
sources listed in paragraph 1.1 of this appen-
dix to meet the following basic requirements.
2.1 Fossil furl-flred tteam generators.
Each fnmll fuel-fired steam generator, ex-
cept as provided In the following subpara-
graphs. with an annual average capacity fac-
tor of greater than 30 percent, as reported in
the Federal Power Commission for calendar
year lf>74. or as otherwise demonstrated to
the State by the owner or operator, shall con-
form with the following monitoring require-
ments when such facility Is subject to an
emission standard of an applicable plan for
the pollutant in question.
HDflAl MOUTH. VOL. 40. NO. 194—MONDAY. OCTOMI «. t*7S
III-115
-------
RULES AND REGULATIONS
211 A continuous monitoring system for
the measurement of opacity which meete tho
performance specifications of paragraph
3.1.1 of thin appendix shall be Installed, cali-
brated, maintained, and operated In accord-
ance with the procedure* of thin appendix b)
the owner or operator of any sucli steam
generator of greater t:.an 250 million BTU
per hour heat Input except where:
a.1.1.1 gaseous fuel In the only fuel burned.
or
3.1.1.2 oil or a mixture of gas and oil are
the only fuels burned and the source Is able
to comply with the applicable partlculale
matter and opacity regulations without -utili-
zation of participate matter collection
equipment, and where the source has never
been found, through any administrative or
Judicial proceedings, to be In violation of any
visible emission standard of the applicable
plan.
2.1.2 A continuous monitoring system for
the measurement of sulfur dioxide which
meets the performance specifications of para-
graph 3.1.3 of this appendix shall be Installed.
calibrated, maintained, and operated on any
fossil fuel-fired steam generator of greater
than 250 million BTU per hour heat Input
which has Installed sulfur dioxide pollutant
control equipment.
2.1.3. A continuous monitoring system for
the measurement of nitrogen oxides which
meets the performance specification of para-
graph 3.1.2 of this appendix shall be installed.
calibrated, maintained, and operated on fos-
sil fuel-fired steam generators of greater
than 1000 million BTU per hour heat Input
when such facility Is located In an Air Qual-
ity Control Region where the Administrator
has specifically determined that a control
strategy for nitrogen dioxide Is necessary to
attain the national standards, unless the
source owner or operator demonstrates dur-
ing source compliance tests as required by
the State that such a source emits nitrogen
oxides at levels 30 percent or more below the
emission standard within the applicable
plan.
2.1.4 A continuous monitoring system for
the measurement of the percent oxygen or
carbon dioxide which meets the perform-
ance specifications of paragraphs 3.1.4 or
3.1.5 of this appendix shall be Installed, cali-
brated, operated, and maintained on fossil
fuel-fired itteam generators where measure-
ments of oxygen or carbon dioxide In the flue
gas are required to convert either sulfur di-
oxide or nitrogen oxides continuous emis-
sion monitoring data, or both, to units of
the emission standard within the applica-
ble plan.
2.2 Nitric arid plants.
Each nitric acid plant of greater than 300
tons per day production capacity, the pro-
duction capacity being expressed as 100 per-
cent acid, located In an Air Quality Control
Region where the Administrator has specif-
ically determined that a control strategy for
nitrogen dioxide Is necessary to attain the
national standard shall Install, calibrate.
maintain, and operate a continuous moni-
toring system for the measurement of nitro-
gen oxides which meets the performance
specifications of paragraph 3.12 for each
nitric acid producing facility within such
plant.
9.3 Sulfuric arid plants.
Each Sulfurlc acid plant of greater than
300 tons per day production capacity, the
production being expressed as 100 percent
•eld. shall Install, calibrate, maintain and
operate a continuous monitoring system for
the measurement of sulfur dioxide which
meet* the performance specifications of 3.1.3
for each sulfurlc acid producing facility
within such plant.
2.4 Fluid bed catalytic cracking «n<( cata-
lyst regenerators at petroleum refineries
Each catalyst regenerator for fluid bed
catalytic cracking units of greater than 20.-
OOO barrels per day fresh feed capacity shall
lnM.all. calibrate, maintain, and operate a
continuous monitoring system for the meas-
urement of opacity which meets the per-
formance specifications of 3.1.1.
30 Minimum specifications.
All Stale plans shall require owners or op-
erators of monitoring equipment Installed
to comply with this Appendix, except as pro-
vided In paragraph 3.2. to demonstrate com-
pliance with the following performance spec-
ifications.
3.1 Performance specifications.
The performance specifications set forth
In Appendix B of Part 60 arc Incorporated
herein by reference, and shall be used by
States to determine acceptability of monitor-
ing equipment Installed pursuant to this
Appendix except that (1) where reference Is
made to the "Administrator" In Appendix B.
Part 60. the term "State" should be Inserted
for the purpose of this Appendix (e.g.. In
Performance Specification 1, 1.2. " . . moni-
toring systems subject to approval by the
Xdmim.ttrafor," should be Interpreted as.
". . . monitoring systems subject to approval
by the State"}, and (2) where reference Is
made to the "Reference Method" In Appendix
B. Part 60, the State may allow the use of
either the State approved reference method
or the Federally approved reference method
as published In Part 60 of this Chapter. The
Performance Specifications to be used with
each type of monitoring system are listed
below.
3 1.1 Continuous monitoring systems for
measuring opacity shall comply with Per-
formance Specification 1.
3.1.2 Continuous monitoring systems for
measuring nitrogen oxides shall comply with
Performance Specification 2.
3.1.3 Continuous monitoring systems for
measuring sulfur dioxide shall comply with
Performance Specification 2.
3.1.4 Continuous monitoring systems for
measuring oxygen shall comply with Per-
formance Specification 3.
3.1.5 Continuous monitoring systems for
measuring carbon dioxide shall comply with
Performance Specification 3.
3.2 Exemptions
Any source which has purchased an emis-
sion monitoring system(s) prior to Septem-
ber 11. 1974, may be exempt from meeting
such test procedures prescribed In Appendix
B of Part 60 for a period not to exceed five
years from plan approval or promulgation.
3.3 Calibration Gases.
For nitrogen oxides monitoring systems In-
stalled on fossil fuel-fired steam generators
the pollutant gas used to prepare calibration
gas mixtures (Section 2.1, Performance Spec-
ification 2. Appendix B. Part 60) shall be
nitric oxide (NO). For nitrogen oxides mon-
itoring systems. Installed on nitric acid plants
the pollutant gas used to prepare calibration
gas mixtures (Section 2.1, Performance Spec-
ification 2, Appendix B. Part 60 of this Chap-
ter) shall be nitrogen dioxide (NO.). These
gases shall also be used for dally checks under
paragraph 3.7 of this appendix as applicable.
For sulfur dioxide monitoring systems In-
stalled on fossil fuel-fired steam generators
or stilfurlc acid plants the pollutant gas used
to prepare calibration gas mixtures (Section
2.1. Performance Specification 2. Appendix B.
Part 60 of this Chapter) shall be sullur di-
oxide (SO,). Span and zero gases should be
traceable to National Bureau of Standards
reference gases whenever these reference
gases are available. Every six months from
date of manufacture, span and zero gases
shall be reanalyzed by conducting triplicate
analyses using the reference methods In Ap-
pendix A. Part 60 of this chapter as follows:
for sulfur dioxide, use Reference Method 6:
for nitrogen oxides, use Reference Method 7:
and for carbon dioxide or oxygen, use Ref-
erence Method 3 The gases may Lf analyzed
at less frequent Intervals If longer shelf lives
are guaranteed by the manufacturer.
3.4 Cycling times.
Cycling times Include the total time a
monitoring system requires to sample.
analyze and record an emission measurement.
3.4.1 Continuous monitoring systems for
measuring opacity shall complete a mini-
mum of one cycle of operation (sampling.
analyzing, and data recording) for each suc-
cessive ID-second period.
3.4 2 Continuous monitoring systems for
measuring oxides of nitrogen, carbon diox-
ide, oxygen, or nulfur dioxide shall complete
a minimum of one cycle of operation (sam-
pling, analyzing, and data recording) for
each successive 15-mlnute period.
3.5 Monitor location.
State plans shall require all continuous
monitoring systems or monitoring devices to
be Installed such that representative meas-
urements of emissions or process parameters
(I.e.. oxygen, or carbon dioxide) from the af-
fected facility are obtained. Additional guid-
ance for location of continuous monitoring
systems to obtain representative samples are
contained In the applicable Performance
Specifications of Appendix B of Part 60 of
this Chapter.
3.6 Combined effluents.
When the effluents from two or more af-
fected facilities of similar design and operat-
ing characteristics are combined before being
released to the atmosphere, the State plan
may allow monitoring systems to be Installed
on the combined effluent. When the affected
facilities are' not of similar design and operat-
ing characteristics, or when the effluent from
one affected facility Is released to the atmos-
phere through more than one point, the State
should establish alternate procedures to Im-
plement the Intent of these requirements.
3.7 Zero ana drift.
State plans shall require owners or opera-
tors of all continuous monitoring systems
Installed In accordance with the require-
ments of this Appendix to record the zero and
spnn drift In accordance with the method
prescribed by the manufacturer of such In-
struments: to subject the Instruments to the
manufacturer's recommended zero and span
check at least once dally unless the manu-
facturer has recommended adjustment* at
shorter Intervals. In which ease such recom-
mendations shall be followed: to adjust the
zero and span whenever the 24-hour zero
drift or 24-hour calibration drift limits of
the applicable performance specification!; In
Appendix B of Part 60 are exceeded: and to
adjust continuous monitoring systems refer-
enced by paragraph 32 of this Appendix
whenever the 24-hour zero drift or 24-hour
calibration drift exceed 10 percent of the
emission standard.
3.8 Spnn.
Instrument span should be approximately
200 ner cent of the expected Instrument data
display output corresponding to the emission
standard for the source.
3.9 Alternative procedures and require-
ments
In cases where States wish to utlllte differ-
ent, but equivalent, procedures and require-
ments for continuous monitoring systems.
the State plan must provide a description of
such nltrmative proceduers for approval by
the Administrator. Some examples of-Situa-
tions that may require alternatives follow:
3.9.1 Alternative monitoring requirements
to accommodate continuous monitoring sys-
tems thnt require corrections for stack mois-
ture conditions (e.g.. an Instrument measur-
ing steam generator SO., emissions on a wet
basis could be used with"an Instrument mea-
suring oxygen concentration on a dry basis
If acceptable methods of measuring stack
moisture conditions are used to allow ac-
IIOISTH. VOL. 40. NO. 1*4—MONDAY, OCTOttR «, WS
III-116
-------
•ULES AND IEGULATIONS
curate adjustment of the measured SO. con-
centration to dry basis )
39.2 Alternative locations for Installing
continuous monitoring systems or monltor-
Jng devices when the owner or oper«tor cm
demonstrate that Insinuation at alternative
locations will enable occurale and represent-
ative measurements
3.9.3 .Alternative procedures for perform-
ing calibration check* (e.g . «ome Instruments
may demonstrate superior drift characteris-
tics that require checking at less frequent
Intervals).
3.9.4 Alternative monitoring requirement*
when the effluent from one affected facility or
the combined effluent from two or more
Identical affected facilities Is released to the
atmosphere through more than one -point
te g an extractive, gaseous monitoring sys-
tem used at several points may be approved
If the procedures recommended are suitable
for generating accurate emission averages).
395 Alternative continuous monitoring
systems that do not meet the spectral re-
sponse requirements In Performance Speci-
fication 1. Appendix B of Part 60. but ade-
quately demonstrate a definite and consistent
relationship between their measurements
and the opacity measurement* of a system
complying with the requirements In Per-
formance Specification 1 The State may re-
quire that such demonstration be performed
for each affected facility.
4.0 Minimum data Tf.quiremrnts
The following paragraphs set forth the
minimum data reporting requirements neces-
sary to comply with »5l.l9
-------
LIST OF SUMMARY TABLES
OF MONITORING INFORMATION
Table No. Subject Page
1 NSPS Source Categories Required
to Monitor Continuously III-119
2 Operational Monitoring Requirements . III-123
3 Emission Limitations III-126
4 Proposal and Promulgation Dates for
NSPS Source Categories III-133
5 NSPS Continuous Monitoring Require-
ments III-135
6 Quarterly Reporting Requirements . . . III-136
7 Definitions of Excess Emissions . . . III-137
8 Spanning and Zeroing III-139
9 Span Specifications .... III-140
10 Notifications Requirements III-142
11 Subpart Da Emission Limitations . . . III-143
12 Performance Specifications ...... Ill-ISO
13 When To Run Monitor Performance
Test III-151
14 Requirements for SIP Revisions .... III-152
15 Existing Sources Required to
Continuously Monitor Emissions . . . III-153
III-118
-------
Subpart
D
Da
G
H
J
0 Table 01
SOURCE CATEGORIES WHICH ARE
REQUIRED TO MONITOR CONTINUOUSLY
Source Category
STEAM GENI-RATORS
Solid Fossil Fuel
Liquid Fossil Fuel
Gaseous Fossil Fuel
ELECTRIC UTILITY STEAM
GENERATING UNITS
Solid Fossil Fuel
Liquid Fossil Fuel
Gaseous Fossil Fuel
NITRIC ACID PLANTS
SULFURIC ACID PLANTS
PETROLEUM REFINERIES
FCCU
Combustion of Fuel
Gases
Pollutant
Opacity
S02
NOx
Opacity
S02
NOx
NOx
Process
02 or C02
02 or C02
02 or CO?
*" £*
Opacity 02 or COo
S02 (at inlet
and outlet of
control device)
NOX
Opacity i
SO? (at inlet
ana outlet of
control device)
NOX
or CO-
NOX
NOX
S02
Opacity
CO
S02 or
H2S
02 or C02
III.-119
-------
Table #1, continued
Subpart
(cont'd)
N
Source Category
Pollutant
Process
P
Q
R
TUVWX
AA
PETROLEUM REFINERIES (cont'd)
Sulfur Recovery
Plant
IRON AND STEEL PLANTS
S02a
TRSb
H2SD,
PRIMARY COPPER SMELTERS Opacity
S02
PRIMARY ZINC SMELTERS Opacity
S02
PRIMARY LEAD SMELTERS Opacity
S02
PHOSPHATE FERTILIZER
PLANTS
COAL PREPARATION PLANTS
FERROALLOY PRODUCTION Opacity
FACILITIES
STEEL PLANTS: Opacity
ELECTRIC ARC FURNACES
Pressure loss
through venturi
scrubber
water supply
pressure
Total pressure
drop across pro-
cess scrubbing
systems
Exit gas temp.
pressure loss
through venturi
water supply
pressure to con-
trol equipment
Flowrate through
hood
Furnace power
input
Volumetric flow
rate through each
separately ducted
hood. Pressure in
the free space in-
side the electric
are furnace.
a For oxidation control systems
b For reduction control systems not followed by
incineration
III-120
-------
Table #1, continued
Subpart
BB
Source Category
KRAFT PULP MILLS
Recovery Furnace
Lime kiln, digester
system, brown
stock washer sys-
tem, multiple ef-
fect evaporator
system, black
liquor oxidation
system, or con-
densatc stripper
system
Point of incinera-
tion of effluent
gases, brown stock
washer system,
multiple effect
evaporator system,
black liquor oxi-
dation system, or
condensate strip-
per system
Lime kiln or smelt
dissolving tank
using a scrubber
HH
LIME MANUFACTURING
PLANTS
Rotary Lime Kilns
Pollutant
Opacity
TRS (dry basis)
TRS (dry basis)
Process
(dry basis)
(dry basis)
Temperature
Opacity3
Pressure loss
of the gas
stream through
the control
equipment
Scrubbing liquid
supply pressure
Pressure loss
of steam through
the scrubber
Scrubbing liquid
supply pressure
a Does not apply when there is a wet
scrubbing emission control device.
III-121
-------
Table fl1, continued
Subpart Source Category Pollutant Process
HH LIME MANUFACTURING
PLANTS (cont'd)
Lime Hydrator Scrubbing li-
quid flow rate
Measurement of
the electric
current (am-
peres) used by
the scrubber
III-122
-------
Table # 2
OPERATIONAL MONITORING REQUIREMENTS (NSPS)
(Non-continuous)
Subpart
Requirement
E.
F.
G.
H.
Incinerators
Portland Cement
Plants
Nitric Acid Plants
Sulfuric Acid Plants
Petroleum Refineries
K.
Storage Vessels for
Petroleum Liquids
III-123
Daily charging rates and hours
of operation.
Daily production rates and kiln
feed rates.
Daily production rate and hours
of operation.
The conversion factor shall be
determined, as a minimum, three
times daily by measuring the
concentration of sulfur dioxide
entering the converter.
Record daily the average coke ,
burn-off rate and hours of
operation for any fluid catalyt
cracking unit catalyst regenerate •
subject to the particulate or
carbon monoxide standard.
Maintain a file of each type of
petroleum liquid stored and the
dates of storage. Show when
storage vessel is empty.
Determine and record the average •
monthly storage temperature and
true vapor pressure of the pe-
troleum liquid stored if : I
(1) the petroleum liquid, as *
stored, has a vapor pressure j,
greater than 26 mm Hg but less thr^
78 mm and is stored in a storage •;
vessel other than one equipped ['
with a floating roof, a vapor -,•
recovery system or their equiva- I
lents; or ?
(2) the petroleum liquid has a trt!
vapor pressure, as stored, greater'
than 470 mm Hg and is stored in a
storage vessel other than one
equipped with a vapor recovery
system or its equivalent.
-------
Subpart
Requirement
0. Sewage Treatment
Plants
T.
U.
V.
w.
X.
Primary Copper
Smelter
Primary Aluminum
Reduction Plants
Phosphate Fertilizer
Industry: Wet-Process
Phosphoric Acid Plants
Phosphate Fertilizer
Industry: Superphosphoric
Acid Plants
Phosphate Fertilizer
Industry: Diammonium
Phosphate Plants
Phosphate Fertilizer
Industry: Triple
Superphosphate Plants
Phosphate Fertilizer
Industry
III-124
Install, calibrate, maintain,
and operate a flow measuring
device" which can be used to
determine either the mass or
volume of sludge charged to the
incinerator.
Keep a monthly record of the
total smelter charge and the
weight percent (dry basis) of
arsenic, antimony, lead, and
zinc contained in this charge.
Determine daily, the weight of
aluminum and anode produced.
Maintain a record of daily
production rates of aluminum
and anodes, raw material feed
rates, and cell or potline
voltages.
Determine the mass flow of
phosphorus-bearing feed
material to the process.
Maintain a daily record of
equivalent P?^c feed.
Determine the mass flow of
phosphorus-bearing feed material
to the process.
Record daily the equivalent
P205 feed.
Determine the mass flow of
phosphorus-bearing feed material
to the process.
Maintain a daily record of
equivalent P2°5 feed.
Determine the mass flow of
phosphorus-bearing feed material
to the process.
Maintain a daily record of
equivalent P2°c feed.
Maintain an accurate account
of triple superphosphate in
storage.
Maintain a daily record of
total equivalent
stored.
-------
Subpart
Requirement
Z. Ferroalloy Production
Facilities
AA. Steel Plants:
Electric Arc Furnaces
III-125
Maintain daily records of (1)
the product; (2) description
of constituents of furnace
charge, including the quantity,
by weight; (3) the time and
duration of each tapping period
arid the identification of
material tapped^(slag or product);
(4) all furnace power input
data; and (5) all flow rate data
or all fan motor power consump-
tion and pressure drop data.
Maintain daily records of (1)
the time and duration of each
charge; (2) the time and
duration of each tap; (3)
all flow rate data, and (4)
all pressure data.
-------
Table #3
EMISSION LIMITATIONS (NSPS)
SUBPART
POLLUTANT
EMISSION LL-VELS
D Fossil Fuel-Fired
Steam Generators
Liquid fossil
fuel
Solid fossil
fuel
Gaseous fossil
fuel
Mixture of
fossil fuel
Particulate
Opacity
S()
*x =
y =
z =
percentage of total
percentage of total
percentage of total
Particulate
Opacity
SO 2
N0x
Particulate
Opacity
N0y
A
Particulate
Opacity
S02
N0x
heat input from
heat input from
heat input from
43 ng/joulefi
(0.10 lb/10°BTU)
20%, 40% 2 min/hr
340 ng/joulc
(0.80 lb/10°]
.b/10 BTU)
130 ng/joule
(0.30 lb/10°BTU)
43 ng/joule,
(0.10 lb/10 BTU)
20%, 40%
min/hr
520 ng/joule
(1.2 lb/10 BTU)
300 ng/joule
(0,70 lb/10°BTU)
43 ng/jouler
(0.10 lb/10° BTU)
20%, 40% 2 min/hr
86 ng/joule,.
(0.20 lb/10° BTU)
43 ng/joule,-
(0.10 lb/10°BTU)
20%, 40% 2 min/hr
y(540) + z(520) *
y + z
x(86) + y(130) » z(300)
gaseous fossil fuel
liquid fossil fuel
sol id fossi 1 fuel
III-126
-------
Tal>le '/ 3 , continued
SIJB!>A_RT
li Incinerators
F Portland Cement
Plants
Kiln
Clinker cooler
Other emission
points
G Nitric Acid Plants
II Sulfuric Acid
Plants
I Asphalt Concrete
. Plants
J Petroleum
Refineries
fluid catalytic
cracking unit
POLLUTANT
Particulate
Particulate
Opacity
Particulate
Opacity
Opacity
Opacity
SO
H2SO. mist
Particulate
Opacity
Particulate
Opacity
CO
EMISSION LEVELS
0.18 g/dscm
(0.08 gr/dscf)
(corrected to 12% C07)
0.15 kg/metric ton
(0.30 Ib/ton)
0.05 kg/metric ton
of feed
(0.10 Ib/ton)
20%
10%
1.5 kg/metric tons
of acid produced
(3.0 Ib/ton of acid
produced)
10%
2 kg/metric tons
of acid produced
(4.0 Ib/ton of
acid produced)
0.075 kg/metric tons
of acid produced
(0.15 Ib/ton)
90 mg/dscm
(0.04 gr/dscf)
20%
1.0 kg/1000 of
coke burn-off
30%
0.050%
III-127
-------
Table #3, continued
SUBPART
Glaus sulfur
recovery plant
POLLUTANT
S02
Trs
EMISSION LEVELS
0.025%
0.030%
0.0010%
K Storage Vessels
for Petroleum
Liquids
Hydrocarbons
L Secondary Lead
Smelters
Reverberatory
and blast
furnaces
Pot furnaces
M Secondary Brass
and Bronze Plants
Reverberatory
furnaces
Blast and elec-
tric furnaces
N Iron and Steel Plants
(BOPF)
0 Sewage Treatment
Plants
P Primary Copper
Smelters
Particulate
Opacity
Opacity
Particulate
Opacity
Opacity
Particulate
Opacity
Particulate
Opacity
Dryer
Particulate
III-128
If vapor pressure is
78-570 mm llg the stor-
age vessel shall be
equipped with a float-
ing roof or a vapor
recovery system or thin
equivalents. If vapor
pressure is greater than
570 mm Hg, the storage
vessel shall be equipped
with a vapor recovery
system
50 mg/dscm
(0.022 gr/dscf)
20?,
105
50 mg/dscm
(0.022 gr/dscf)
20%
101
50 mg/dscm
10%
>10% but <20% may occur
once per steel production
cycle
0.65 g/ku dry sludge
input (1.30 lb/ton)
20%
50 mg/dscm
(0.022 gr/dscf)
-------
Table 9 3, continui-d
SUBPART
POLLUTANT
Opacity
Roaster, smelting SO
furnace, copper
converter
Opacity
Q Primary Zinc Smelters
Sintering machine Particulate
Roaster
Opacity
SO 2
Opacity
R Primary Lead Smelters
Blast or rever- Particulate
beratory furnace,
sintering ma-
chine discharge
end
Sintering ma-
chine, electric
smelting furnace,
converter
S Primary Aluminum
Reduction Plants
Soderberg
plants
Prebake
plants
Anode bake
plants
Opacity
SO,
Opacity
Total
fluorides
Opacity
Total
fluorides
Opacity
Total
f1 anrides
Opacity
EMISSION LEVHLS
0.0651
201
50 mg/dscm
(0.022 gr/dscf)
20S
0.065%
20°;
50 mg/dscm
(0.022 gr/dscf)
20";
0.065%
201
1 kg/metric ton of
Al produced
(2 Ib/ton)
IQl
0.95 kg/metric ton
of Al produced
(1.9 Ib/ton)
10%
0.05 kg/metric ton
of Al produced
201;
III-129
-------
Table If 7>, continued
SUBPART
POLLUTANT
EMISSION LF.VHLS
f Phosphate Ferti-
lizer Industry:
Wet Process
Phosphoric Acid
Plants
U Phosphate Ferti-
lizer Industry:
Super-phosphoric
Acid Plants
V Phosphate Ferti-
lizer Industry:
Diammonium Phos-
phate
W Phosphate Ferti-
lizer Industry:
Triple Super-
Phosphate
X Phosphate Ferti-
lizer Industry:
Granular Triple
Superphosphate
Y Coal Preparation
Plants
Thermal dryer
Pneumatic
coal cleaving
equipment
Processing and
conveying equip-
ment, storage
systems, trans-
fer and loading
systems
Total
f]uorides
Total
fluorides
Total
fluorides
Total
fluorides
Total
fluorides
Particulate
Opacity
Particulate
Opacity
Opacity
10 g/metric ton of
P70r feed
CO.020 Ib/ton)
5 g/metric ton of
P70r feed
(6.020 Ib/ton)
50 g/metric ton of
P70,- feed
(6.060 Ib/ton)
100 g/metric ton of
equivalent P70r feed
(0.20 Ib/ton) 3
0.25 g/hr/metric ton
of equivalent P?0
stored . * °
(5.0 x 10"4 Ib/hr/ton)
0.070 g/dscm
(0.031 gr/dscf)
20%
0.040 g/dscm
(0.031 gr/dscf)
lot
20%
III-130
-------
Table
continued
SUBPART
POLLUTANT
EMISSION LEVELS
Z Ferroalloy Produc
tion Facilities
Electric sub-
merged arc
furnaces
Dus.-t handling
equipment
AA Steel Plants
lilectric arc
furnaces
Control device
Shop roof
Dust handling
equipment
Particulate
Opacity
CO
Opacity
Particulate
Opacity
Opacity
Opacity
BB Kraft Pulp Mills
Recovery Furnace Particulate
Opacity
Straight recovery
furnace TRS
0.45 kg/MW-hr
(0.99 Ib/MW-hr)
(high silicon
alloys)
.0.23 kg/MW-hr
(0.51 Ib/MW-hr)
(chrome and man
gariese alloys)
15%
2:0%
10%
12 mg/dscm
(0.0052 gr/dscf)
3%
0, except:
20% - charging
40% - tapping
10%
Cross recovery
furnace
TRS
0.10 g/dscm
35%
5 ppm
25 ppm
III-131
-------
Table #3, continued
SUBPART
Smelt dissolving
tank
Lime kiln
gaseous fuel
liquid fuel
POLLUTANT
Paniculate
TRS
TRS
Particulate
Particulate
Digester system,
brown stock washer
system, multiple-
effect evaporation
system, black li-
quor oxidation
system or conden-
sate stripper TRS
HH Lime Manufacturing
Plants
Rotary Lime kiln Particulate
Lime Hydrator
Opacity
Particulate
EMISSION LEVELS
O.lg/kg black liquor
(dry out)
0.0084g/kg black liquor
(dry out)
8 ppm
O.lSg/dscm
0.30g/dscm
5 ppm
0.15 kg/megagram of
limestone feed
0.075 kg/megagram
of lime feed
III-132
-------
Table #4
PROPOSAL AND PROMULGATION DATES FOR NSPS SOURCE CATEGORIES
Subpart
D
Da
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
N
0
P
Q
R
S
TUVWX
Y
LJ
AA
BB
Source Promulgation
Date
Fossil Fuel Fired Steam Generators
Electric Utility Steam Generators
Incinerators
Portland Cement Plants
Nitric Acid Plants
Sulfuric Acid Plants
Asphalt Concrete Plants
Petroleum Refineries
Storage Vessels for Petroleum
Liquids
Secondary Lead Smelters
Brass and Bronze Production Plants
Iron and Steel Plants
Sewage Treatment Plants
Primary Copper .Smelter
Primary Zinc Smelter
Primary Lead Smelter
Primary Aluminum Reduction Plants
Phosphate Fertilizer Industry
Coal Preparation Plants
Ferroalloy Production Plants
Steel Plants: Electric Arc Furnaces
Kraft Pulp Mills
12/23/71
6/11/79
12/23/71
12/23/71
12/23/71
12/23/71
3/08/74
3/08/74
3/08/74
3/08/74
3/08/74
3/08/74
3/08/74
1/15/76
1/15/76
1/15/76
1/26/76
8/06/75
1/15/76
5/04/76
9/23/75
2/23/78
Proposed
Date
8/17/71
9/18/78
8/17/71
8/17/71
8/17/71
8/17/71
6/11/73
6/11/73
6/11/73
6/11/73
6/11/73
6/11/73
6/11/73
10/16/74
10/16/74
10/16/74
10/23/74
10/22/74
10/24/74
10/21/74
10/21/74
9/24/76
III-133
-------
Table #4, continued
Subpart
Source
Promulgation
Date
Proposed
Date
DD
HH
Grain Elevators
Lime Manufacturing
8/03/78
3/07/78
l/03/77a,
8/03/78
3/03/77
III-134
a Suspended on 6/24/77
-------
Table #5
CONTINUOUS MONITORING REQUIREMENTS
I. Installed and operational prior to conducting performance tests
II. Conduct monitoring system performance evaluations during per-
formance tests or 30 days thereafter
III. Check zero and span drift at least .dfiily (see Table #8)
IV. Time for cycle of operations (sampling, analyzing, and data
recording)
A. Opacity - 10 seconds
B. Gas Monitors - 15 minutes
V. Installed to provide representative sampling
VI. Reduction of data
A. Opacity - 6-minute average
B. Gaseous Pollutants - hourly average
VII. Source must notify agency, more than 30 days prior, of date
upon which demonstration of continuous monitoring system
performance is to commence.
Performance tests shall be conducted within 60 days after
achieving the maximum production rate at which the affected
facility will be operated, but not later than 180 days after
initial startup of such facility.
III-135
-------
Table #6
QUARTERLY REPORTING REQUIREMENTS1 (NSPS)
I. Excess Emissions
A. Description of Excess Emission
1. Magnitude
2. Conversion factors used
3. Date and time of commencement and completion
B. Explanation of Excess Emission
1. Occurranccs during startups, shutdowns, and malfunctions
2. Nature and cause of malfunction
3. Corrective and preventative action taken
C. To be Submitted in Units Same as Standard
I.I. Continuous Monitoring Systems
A. Date and Time when System was Inoperative (except for
zero and span checks)
B. Nature of System Repairs or Adjustments
III. Lack of Occurrances During A Quarter
A. Absence of Excess Emissions during Quarter
B. Absence of Adjustments, Repairs, or Inoperativeness of
Continuous Monitoring System
"Each owner or operator required to install a continuous monitoring
system shall submit a written report ... for every calendar quarter"
"All quarterly reports shall be postmarked by the 30th day following
the end of each calendar quarter..."
III-136
-------
Table • • 7
DEFINITION OP EXCESS EMISSIONS (NSPS)
SURPART
1)
POLLUTANT
opacity
SO,,
NO.
NO,
II
SO.
EXCESS EMISSION
any six-minute period during which the aver-
age opacity of emissions exceeds 20"i opacity,
except that one six-minute average per hour
of up to 27?6 opacity need not be reported,
any three-hour period during which the average
emissions of S02 (arithmetic average of three
contiguous one-hour periods) exceed the
standard
any three-hour period during which the average
emissions of NOX (arithmetic average of three
contiguous one-hour periods) exceed the
standard
any three-hour period during which the average
nitrogen oxides emissions (arithmetic average
of three contiguous one-hour periods) exceed
the standard
all three hour periods (or the arithmetic
average of three consecutive one hour periods)
during which the integrated average sulfur
dioxide emissions exceed the applicable
standards
Opacity
CO
S02
S02
All one-hour periods which contain two or
more six-minute periods during which the
average opacity exceeds 30 percent.
All hourly periods during which the average
CO concentration exceeds the standard.
Any three hour period during which the
average concentration of S02 emissions
from any fuel gas combustion device exceeds
the standard.
Any twelve-hour period during which the
average concentration of S02 emissions from
any Glaus sulfur recovery plant exceed the
standard.
III-137
-------
Table #7, continued
SUBPART
P
R
AA
POLLUTANT
Opacity
S02
Opacity
SO
Opacity
SO,
Opacity
Opacity
BB
Recovery
furnace TRS
... Opacity
Lime kiln TRS
Digester
system, brown
stock washer
system, multiple-
effect evaporator
system, black
liquor oxidation
system, or
condensate
stripper.
TRS
HH
Opacity
EXCESS EMISSION
any six-minute period during which the average
opacity exceeds the standard
any six-hour period during which the average
emissions of S02 (arithmetic mean of six con-
tiguous one-hour periods) exceed the standard
any six minute period during which the average
opacity exceeds the standard
any two hour period during which the average
emissions of S02 (arithmetic mean of two
contiguous one-flour periods) exceed the
standard
any six minute period during which the
average opacity exceeds the standard
any two hour period during which the
average emissions of SO, (arithmetic mean
of two contiguous one hour periods) exceed
the standard
all six minute periods in which the average
opacity is 15 percent or greater
all six minute periods during which the
average opactiy is 3 percent or greater
Any twelve hour period during which the TRS
emissions exceed the standard.
Any six minute period during which the average
opacity exceeds the standard.
Any twelve hour period during which the TRS
emissions exceed the standard.
Any twelve hour period during which the TRS
emissions exceed the standard.
All six minute periods during which the
average opacity is greater than the standard
III-138
-------
Table "8
SPANNING AND ZEROING
I. Hxplanation of Zero and Span ('hecks
A. Extractive ^as monitors
1. Span gas composition
a. S02 - sulfur dioxide/nitrogen or air-gas mixture
b. NO - nitric oxide/oxygen-free nitrogen mixture
c. . NC>2 - nitrogen dioxide/air mixture
2. Zero gases
a. Ambient air
or b. A gas certified by the manufacturer to contain less
than 1 ppm of the pollutant gas
3. Analysis of span and zero gases
a. Span and zero gases certified by their manufacturer
to be traceable to National Bureau of Standards
reference gases shall be used whenever these gases
are available
b. Span and zero gases should be reanalyzed every
. six months after date of manufacture with Reference
Method 6 for SC>2 and 7 for NOX
c. Span and zero gases shall be analyzed two weeks
prior to performance specification tests
B. Non-extractive gas monitors
1. Span check - certified gas cell or test cell
2. Zero check - mechanically produced or calculated
from upscale measurements
C. Transmissometers
1. Span check is a neutral density filter that is
certified within * 3 percent opacity
. 2. Zero check is a simulated zero
D. Span values are specified in each subpart
1. Span check is 90% of span.
II. Adjustment of Span and Zero
A. Adjust the zero and span whenever the zero or calibration
drift exceeds the limits of applicable performance
specification in Appendix B.
1. For opacity, clean optical surfaces before adjusting
zero or span drift
2. For opacity systems using automatic zero adjustments,
the optical surfaces shall be cleaned when the cumu-
lative automatic zero compensation exceeds four percent
opacity
III. How to Span and Zero
A. Extractive gas monitors
1. Introduce the zero and span gas into the monitoring
system as near the probe as practical
B. Non-extractive gas monitors
1. Use a certified gas cell or test cell to check span
2. The zero check is performed by computing the zero value
from upscale measurements or by mechanically producing
a zero
C. Transmissometers
1. Span check with a neutral density filter
2. Zero check by simulating a zero opacity
III-139
-------
Table # 9
SPAN SPECIFICATIONS
SUBPART
D Fossil Fuel Fired
Steam Generators
liquid fossil fuel
solid fossil fuel
gaseous fuel
mixtures of fossil fuels
G Nitric Acid Plants
H Sulfuric Acid Plants
J Petroleum Refineries
Catalytic Cracker
Glaus Recovery Plant
Fuel Gas Combustion
POLLUTANT
opacity
S02
NOX
opacity
S02
N0x
NOX
opacity
S0£
NOX
NO 2
SO,
Opacity
CO
SOz
H2S
TRS
S02
H2S
SPAN
80, 90, or 100% opacity
1000 ppm
500 ppm
80, 90, or 100% opacity
1SOO ppm
1000
500 ppm
80,90, or 100% opacity
lOOOy + 1500z 1
500 (x+y) + lOOOz
500 ppm
1000 ppm
60,70, or 80% Opacity
1000 ppm
500 ppm
20 ppm
600 ppm
100 ppm
300 ppm
P Primary Copper Smelters
Q Primary Zinc Smelters
R Primary Lead Smelters
Z Ferroalloy Production
Facilities
AA Steel Plants
Opacity
S02
Opacity
Opacity
S02
Opacity
Opacity
80 to 100% opacity
0.20% by volume
80 to 100% opacity
0.20% by volume
80 to 100% opacity
0.20% by volume
not specified
not specified
III-140
-------
BB Kraft Pulp Mills
Recovery Furnace
Opacity
Lime kiln, recovery furnace
digester system, brown 02
Stock washer system,
multiple effect TRS
evaporator system,
black liquor oxidation
system, or condensate
stripper system
HH Lime Manufacturing Plant Opacity
70% opacity
20%
30 ppm
(except that for
any cross recovery
furnace the span shall
be 500 ppm)
40% Opacity
x= fraction of total heat input from gas
y= fraction of total heat input from liquid fossil fuel
z= fraction of total heat input from solid fossil fuel
Span value shall be rounded off to the nearest 500 ppm
III-141
-------
Table #10
NOTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS
Requirements
I. Date of Commencement of Construction
II. Anticipated Date of Initial Startup
III. Actual Date of Initial Startup
IV. Any physical or operational change
to a facility which may increase
the emission rate of any air
pollutant to which a standard
applies
A. The precise nature of the change
B. Present and proposed emission
control systems
C. Productive capacity before and
after the change
D. Expected completion date of
change
V. Date upon which demonstration of
continuous monitoring system
performance commences
Time Deadline
Less than 30 days after
such date
Less than 60 or more than
30 days prior to date
Within 15 days after date
Postmarked 60 days or
as soon as practical
before the change is
commenced
more than 30 days prior
'Any owner or operator subject to the provisions of this part shall
furnish the Administrator written notification..."
III-142
-------
Fuel
Coal
Liquid Fossil Fuel
Gas
Table #11
SUBPART DA EMISSION LIMITATIONS
AND REQUIRED PERCENT REDUCTIONS
Pollutant
S02
NOx
Particulate
Matter
Particulate
Matter
SO-,
Particulate
Matter
Emission Limitation
520ng/,T(1.201b/106Btu)
210ng/J(0.501b/106Btu)
13ng/J(0.031b/!06Btu)
340ng/J(0.801b/106Btu)
130ng/J(0.301b/!06Btu)
13ng/J(().031b/106Btu)
340ng/J(0.801b/10&Btu)
Coal-derived gase-
ous fuel
86ng/J(0.201b/106Btu)
13ng/J(0.031b/!06Btu)
210ng/J(0.501b/106Btu)
Required
Percent Reduction
90%
(70% if emissions are
less than 260ng/J)
651*
99%*.
90%
(if emissions are be-
low 86ng/J, there is
no reduction require-
ment)
30%*
70%*
90%
(if emissions are be-
low 86ng/J, there is
no reduction require-
ment)
25%*
25%*
* Compliance with the emission limitation constitutes compliance with the percent
reduction requirements.
III-143
-------
Table #11, continued
Fuel
Lignite mined in N.
Dakota, S. Dakota,
or Montana and is
combusted in a slag
type furnace
Pollutant
Required
Emission Limitation Percent Reduction
340ng/J(0.8 lb/106Btu)
65%*
Other Lignite
Subbituminous Coal
Bituminous Coal
Anthracite Coal
NQx
NQx
NOX
260ng/J(0.6 lb/106Btu)
210ng/J(0.5 lb/106Btu)
260ng/J(0.6 lb/106Btu)
260ng/J(0.6 lb/106Btu)
65%*
65%*
65%*
65%*
* Compliance with the emission limitation constitutes compliance with the percent
reduction requirements.
III-144
-------
Table K 12
PERFORMANCE SPECIFICATIONS
TRANSMISSOMIiTHRS
Calibration error
Zero drift (24h)
Calibration drift (24h)
Response time
Operational test period
<_ 3 pet opacity
<_ 2 pet opacity
_f_ 2 pet opacity
10 s maximum
168 hours
NO and S09
Accuracy
Calibration error
Zero drift (2h)
Zero drift (24h)
Calibration drift (2h)
Calibration drift (24h)
Response time
Operational period
£20 pet of the mean, value
of the reference method test data
<5 pet of (50 pet, 90 pet)
calibration gas-mixture value.
2 pet of sp;m
2 pet of span
2 pet of span
2.5 pet of span
15 min maximum
168 h minimum
07 and CO-,
Z. i^
Zero drift (2h)
Zero drift (24h)
Calibration drift (2h)
Calibration drift (24h)
Operational period
Response time
<_0.4 pet 02 or C02
£0.5 pet 02 or C0?
<0.4 pet 09 or CO.,
— ^ L
_<0.5 pet 02 or C02
168 II minimum
10 min
III-145
-------
TABU: »13
WHEN TO RUN THE MONITOR PERFORMANCE TEST
INITIAL
FACILITY
START-UP
180
DAYS
MAX
MAX
PRODUCTION
FATE
REACHED
PERFORMANCE
TEST & SUBMIT
REPORT FOR
COMPLIANCE
60
DAYS
MONITOR
PERFORMANCE
TEST
f
30
DAYS
60
DAYS
MONITOR PERFOR-
MANCE TEST
REPORT
HI-146
-------
Table 014
REQUIREMENTS FOR SIP REVISIONS
I. Submit SIP Revisions by October 6, 1976
Us Contain monitoring requirements for the following
sources (as a minimum)
A. Fossil Fuel-Fired Steam Generators
B. Sulfuric Acid Plants
C. Nitric Acid Plants
1). Petroleum Refineries
(see Table # 15)
III. Require that sources evaluate the performance
of their monitoring system
IV. Require the sources to maintain a file of all
pertinent continuous monitoring data
A. Emission measurements
B. Monitoring system evaluation data
C. Adjustments and maintenance performed on the
monitoring system
V. Require the source to submit periodic (such period
not to exceed 3 months) reports containing the
following information.
A. Number and magnitude of excess emissions
B. Nature and cause of excess emissions
C. Statement concerning absence of excess
emissions and/or monitor inoperativeness
VI. Require that monitoring begin within 18 months of
EPA approval of the SIP revision (or within 18
months of EPA promulgation)
III-147
-------
TABLE #15
EXISTING SOURCES REQUIRED TO CONTINUOUSLY MONITOR EMISSIONS
Source
Fossil Fuel-Fired
Steam Generators
Pollutant
SO,
NO,
Opacity
Nitric Acid Plants
NO.
Sulfuric Acid Plants
Petroleum Refineries
SO.
Opacity
Comments
1. >250 x 10° Btu/hr
2. Source that has
control equipment
for S02 .
1. >1000 x 106 Btu/hr
2. Located in a designated
non-attainment area
for N02.
3. Exempt if source is
30% or more below the
emission standard
1. >250 x 106 Btu/hr
2. Exempt if-burning gas
3. Exempt if burning oil,
or a mixture of oil
and gas are the
only fuels used and
the source is able
to comply with the
applicable particu-
late matter and
opacity standards with-
out installation of
control equipment
1. >300 ton/day
2. Located in a designated
non-attainment area
for NO-7.
(^
1. >300 tons/day
1. >20,000 barrels/day
III-148
-------
VENDOR LIST
Acurex Autodata
485 Clyde Avenue
Mountain View, CA 94042
(415) 964-3200
Andersen Samplers, Inc.
4215-C Wendell Drive, SW
Atlanta, Georgia 30336
Astro Ecology/Astro Resource
801 Link Road
League City, Texas 77058
(713) 332-2484
Babcock & Wilcox, Co.
Bailey Meter Co.
29801 Euclid Avenue
Wickliffe, Ohio 44092
Bachrach Instrument Co.
2300 Leghorn Street
Mountain View, CA 94043
(415) 967-7221
Baseline Industries, Inc,
Box 649
Lyons, CO 80540
(303) 823-6661
Beckman Inst. PID
2500 Harbor Boulevard
Fullerton, CA 92634
(714) 871-4848
Bendix Corp. EPID Div.
Box 831
Lewisburg, W. V. 24901
(304) 647-4358
Berkeley Controls
2700 Dupont Drive
Irvine, CA 92715
(714) 833-3300
IV-1
-------
Bio Marine Industries, Inc
45 Great Valley Center
Malvern, PA 19355
(215) 647-7200
C E A Instruments, Inc
15 Charles Street
Westwood, N. J. 07675
(201)664-2300
Calibrated Instruments, Inc,
731 Saw Mill River Road
Ardsley, New York 10502
(914) 693-9232
Cleveland Controls, Inc
5755 Granger Road
Suite 850
Cleveland, Ohio 44109
Climet Instruments Div. WEHR
1320 West Colton Avenue
Box 151
Redlands, California 92373
(714) 793-2788
Columbia Scientific Inds.
Box 9908
Austin, Texas 78766
(800) 531-5003
Contraves-Goerz Corp.
610 Epsilon Drive
Pittsburgh, PA 15238
Datatest, Inc.
1117 Cedar Avenue
Croydon, PA 19020
(215) 785-5247
Delta F Corporation
One Walnut Hill Park
Woburn, MA 01801
IV-2
-------
E. I. Du Pont de Nemours & Co
1007 Market Street
Wilmington, Delaware 19898
Dynasciences Env. Prods. Div
Township Line Road
Blue Bell, PA 19422
(215) 643-0250
Dynatron, Inc.
Box 745
Wallingford, CT 06492
(203) 265-7121
Electronics Corp. of America
1 Memorial Drive
Cambridge, Massachusetts 02142
Energetics Science, Inc.
85 Executive Boulevard
Elmsford, New York 10523
(914) 592-3010
Environmental Data Corporation
608 Fig Avenue
Monrovia, California 91016
(213) 359-9176
Esterline Angus Div. Esterline
Box 24000
Indianapolis, Indiana 46224
(317) 244-7611
Foxboro/ICT, Inc.
414 Pendleton Way
Oakland, CA 94621
(408) 998-8720.
General Monitors, Inc.
3019 Enterprise Street
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
(714) 540-4895
H N U Systems, Inc.
30 Ossipee Road
Newton Upper Falls, MA 02164
(617) 964-6690
IV-3
-------
Horiba Instruments, Inc.
1021 Duryea Avenue
Irvine, California 92714
(714) 540-7874
Houston Atlas, Inc.
9441 Baythorne Street
Houston, Texas 77041
(713) 462-6116
ITT Barton
Box 1882
City of Industry, CA 91744
(213) 961-2547
Infrared Industries, Inc.
Box 989
Santa Barbara, California 93102
(805) 684-4181
InterScan Corporation
9614 Cozycroft Avenue
Chatsworth, California 91311
(213) 882-2331
Jacoby Tarbox Corporation
808 Nepperhan Avenue
Yonkers, New York 10703
(914) 965-8400
K V B Equipment Corporation
17332 Irvine Boulevard
Tustin, California 92680
(714) 832-9020
Lear Seigler, Incorporated
74 Inverness Drive East
Englewood, Colorado 80110
(303) 770-3300
Leeds & Northrup
Sumneytown Pike
North Wales, Pennsylvania 19454
(215) 643-2000 -
IV-4
-------
Meloy Labs, incorporated
6715 Electronic Drive
Springfield, Virginia 22151
(703) 354-2600
Meteorology Research, Incorporated
Box 637
Altadena, California 91001
(213) 791-1901
Milton Roy Company Hays Republic
4333 South Ohio Street
Michigan City, Indiana 46360
(219) 879-4441
Mine Safety Appliances Company
600 Penn Center Boulevard
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15235
(412) 273-5000
Monitor Labs, Incorporated
10180 Scripps Ranch Boulevard
San Diego, California 92131
(714) 578-5060
Napp, Incorporated
8825 North Lamar
Austin, Texas 78753
Particle Measuring Systems, Incorporated
1855 South 57th Court
Boulder, Colorado 80301
(303) 443-7100
Photomation, Incorporated
270 Polaris Avenue
Mount View, California 94043
Research Appliance Company
Moosehead Lodge Road
P.O. Box 265
Cambridge, Maryland 21613
(301) 228-9505
IV-5
-------
Sierra Misco, Inc.
1825 East Shore Highway
Berkeley, California 94710
(415) 843-1282
Source Gas Analyzers, Inc.
7251 Garden Grove Boulevard
Garden Grove, California 92641
Systems Science & Software
Box 1620
La Jolla, California 92038
(714) 453-0060
Taylor Instrument Div. Sybron
95 Ames Street
Rochester, New York 14601
(716) 235-5000
Teledyne Analytical Insts.
Box 70
San Gabriel, California 91776
(213) 576-1633
Thermco Instrument Corporation
Box 309
La Porte, Indiana 46350
(219) 362-6258
Thermo Electron Corp. Env. Insts,
108 South Street
Hopkinton, Massachusetts 01748
(617) 435-5321
Thermox Instruments, inc.
6592 Hamilton Avenue
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15206
(412) 361-7107
Theta Sensors
17635 A Rowland Street
City of Industry, California 91748
(213) 965-1539
IV-6
-------
Tracer, Inc.
6500 Tracor Lane
Austin, Texas 78721
(512) 926-2800
Wallace Fisher Instrument Company
Box 51 Ocean Grove Station
Swansea, Massachusetts 02777
(617) 673-4744
Western Precipitation Division
Joy Manufacturing Company
P. 0. Box 2744 Terminal Annex
Los Angeles, California 90051
Western Research and Development, Ltd
1313 44th Avenue, NE
Calgary, Alta.,
Canada T2E 6L5
Xonics, Inc.
6862 Hayvenhurst Ave.
Van Nuys, California 91406
(213) 787-7380
IV-7
-------
BIBLIOGRAPHY
1. Avetta, Edward D. In-Stack Transmissometer Evaluation and
Application _to Particulate Opacity Measurement. EPA
Contract No. 68-02-0660. Owens, Illinois. NTIS PB
242402. January 1975.
2. Baladi, Emile. Manual Source Testing and Continuous
Monitoring Calibrations at the Lawrence Energy Center of
Kansas Power and Light Company. Midwest Research
Institute. EPA Contract No. 68-02-0228. EPA Report No.
73-SPP-3. May 7, 1976.
3. Beeson, H. G. Continuous Monitoring Excess Emission
Reports; Evaluation and Summary. Entropy Environ-
mentalists, Inc. EPA Contract No. 68-01-4148, Task 59.
June 1979.
4. Beeson, H. G. Evaluation of Continuous Monitoring Excess
Emission Reports and Validation of_ Report Data. Entropy
Environmentalists, Inc. EPA Contract No. 68-01-4148,
Task 45. March 1979.
5. Blosser, R. 0., A. G. Kutyna, R. A. Schmall, M. E.
Franklin, and K. Jain. "The Status of Source Emission
Monitoring and Measurements," presented at the Technical
Association of the Pulp and Paper Industry, Annual
Meeting in Miami Beach, Florida. January 1974.
6. Bonam, W. L. and W. F. Fuller. "Certification Experience
with Extractive Emission Monitoring Systems," in
Calibration ^n Air Monitoring, ASTM Special Tech.
Publication 598, Proceedings of Symposium, August 1975.
7. Brooks, E. F. Guidelines for Stationary Source Continuous
Gas Monitoring Systems. TRN Systems Group. EPA Contract
No. 68-02-1412. November 1975.
8. Brooks, E. F., C. A. Flegal, L. N. Harnett, M. A. Kolpin,
D. J. Luciani, and R. L. Williams. Continuous
Measurement of Gas Composition from Stationary Sources.
TRW Systems Group. EPA Contract No. 68-02-0636.
EPA-600/2-75-012.
9. Chapman, Robert L. "Instrumentation for Stack Monitoring,"
Pollution Engineering, September 1972.
V-l
-------
10. Cheney, J. L. and J. B. Homolya. "The Development of a
Sulfur Dioxide Continuous Monitor Incorporating a
Peizo-Electric Sorption Detector," The Science of the
Total Environment, Vol. 5, p. 69-77, 1976.
11. Cheremisinof f, P. N. and R. A. Young. "New Developments in
Air Quality Instrumentation," Pollution Engineering,
vol. 7, no. 2, p. 24, 1975.
12. Connor, William D. "A Comparison Between In-Stack and Plume
Opacity Measurements at Oil-Fired Power Plants,"
presented at the Fourth National Conference on Energy
and the Environment in Cincinnati, Ohio. October 4-7,
1976.
13. Connor, William D. Measurement of the Opacity and Mass
Concentration of. Particulate Emissions by Transmis-
sometry. Chemistry and Physics Laboratory. EPA-650/
2-74-128. November 1974.
14. Cross, F. L. , Jr. and H. F. Scheff. "Continuous Source
Monitoring," Chemical Engineering (Deskbook Issue),
p. 125-27, June 1973.
15. Curtis, Foston. "A Method for Analyzing NOx Cylinder Gases,
Specific Ion Electrode Procedure," Source Evaluation
Society Newsletter, February 1979. (Study done for
Emission Measurement Branch, US EPA, October 1978.)
16. Decker, C. E. , R. W. Murdoch, and F. K. Arey. Final Report
on Analysis of Commercial Cylinder Gases of Nitric Oxide
and Sulfur Dioxide _at Source Concentrations. EPA
Contract No. 68-02-2725. February 1979.
17. Driscoll, Becker, McCoy, Young, and Ehrenfeld. Evaluation
o_f Monitor Methods and Instrumentation for Hydrocarbons
and Carbon Monoxide in Stationary Source Emissions.
Walden Research Corporation. EPA Contract No.
68-02-0320. EPA-R2-72-106. November 1972.
18. Elliot, T. C. "Monitoring Boiler Stack Gases," Power,
p. 92-94, April 1975.
19. "Environmental Yearbook and Product Reference Guide,"
Pollution Engineering, vol. 9, no. 1, January 1977.
20. Fennelly, Paul F. Development of an Implementation Plan for
a Continuous Monitoring Program. GCA Corporation. March
1977.
V-2
-------
21. Green, M. W. , R. L. Chapman, S. C. Creason, R. N. Harvey,
G. A. Heyman, and W. R. Pearson. Evaluation of
Monitoring Systems for Power Plant and Sulfur Recovery
Plant Emissions. Beckman Instruments, Inc. EPA Contract
No. 68-02-1743. EPA 600/2-76-171. June 1976.
22. Homolya, J. B. "Continuous Monitoring Systems for Gaseous
Emissions," EPRI Workshop Proceedings, Special Report
#41, p. 17, October 1975.
23. Homolya, J. B. "Coupling Continuous Gas Monitors to
Emissions Sources," Chem Tech, p. 426-33, July 1974.
24. Homolya, J. B. "Current Technology for Continuous
Monitoring of Gaseous Emissions," Journal of. the Air
Pollution Control Association, vol. 24, no. 8, p. 809-
814, August 1975.
25. James, R. E. and C. D. Wolback. "Quality Assurance of
Stationary Source Emission Monitoring Data," Inst. of
Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Inc., Vol. 36,
1976.
26. Jaye, Frederic C. Monitoring Intrumentation for the
Measurement oj Sulfur Dioxide in Stationary Source
Emissions. TRW Systems Group. EPA Project 17205, NTIS
PB 220202.
27. Karels, Gale G., Gary R. Kendall, Thomas E. Perardi, and A.
Levaggi. Use of Real-Time Continuous Monitors in Source
Testing. Presented at APCA Annual Meeting, June 15-20,
1975. Paper 75-19.5. NTIS PB 230934/AS GPO.
28» Lillis, E. J. and J. J. Schueneman. "Continuous Emission
Monitoring: Objectives and Requirements," Journal of the
Air Pollution Control Association, vol. 25, no. 8,
August 1975.
29. Lord, Harry C. , III. "In-Stack Monitoring of Gaseous Pol-
lutants," Engineering Science and Technology, vol. 12,
no. 3, p. 264-69, March 1978.
30. McRanie, Richard D. , John M. Craig, and George 0. Layman.
Evaluation of_ Sample Conditioners and Continuous Stack
Monitors for Measurement of S02, NOx, and Opacity in
Flue Gas. Southern Services, Inc. February 1975.
31. McNulty, K. J.f J. F. McCoy, J. H. Becker, J. R. Ehrenfeld,
and R. L. Goldsmith. Investigation of_ Extractive
Sampling Interface Parameters. Walden ResearchDivision
of Abcor, Inc. EPA Contract No. 68-02-0742. EPA -
650/2-74-089. October 1974.
V-3
-------
32. Nader, John S. "Current Technology for Continuous
Monitoring of Particulate Emissions," Journal of the Air
Pollution Control Association, vol. 25, no. 8, p. 814-
821, August 1975.
33. Nader, John S. , Frederic Jaye, and William Connor.
Performance Specifications for Stationary Source
Monitoring Systems for Gases and Visible Emissions.
NERC Chemistry and Physics Laboratory. NTIS PB 209190.
January 1974.
34. Osborne, Michael C. and M. Rodney Midgett. "Survey of
Continuous Gas Monitors to Emissions Sources," Chem
Tech, p. 426-33, July 1974.
35. Osborne, Michael C. and M. Rodney Midgett. Survey of
Transmissometers Used in Conducting Visible Emissions
Training Courses. EPA - 600/4-78-023. May 1978.
36. Peeler, James W. Continuous Opacity and Particulate
Emissions Monitoring in the Federal Republic of Germany;
Selected Papers From Current Literature. Entropy
Environmentalists, Inc. EPA Contract No. 68-01-4148,
Tasks 42 and 57. February 1979.
37. "Pollution Control Issue," Environmental Science and Tech-
nology, vol. 10, no. 11, October 1976.
38. "Product Guide," Journal ojt the Air Pollution Control
Association, vol. 27, no.3, March 1977.
39. Quick, Durle L. Field Evaluation of. S02 Monitoring Systems
Applied _to H2S04 Plant Emissions; Volumes 1^ and II.
Scott Environmental Technology. EPA Contract No.
68-02-1292. EPA 650/2-75-053a (Vol. I) and EPA
650/2-75-053b (Vol. II). July 1975.
40. Reisman, E. , W. D. Gerber, and N. D. Potter. In-Stack
Transmissometer Measurement ^f Particulate Opacity and
Mass Concentration. Philco-Ford Corporation. EPA
Contract No. 68-02-1229. NTIS PB 239864/AS. November
1974.
41. Repp, Mark. Evaluation jof Continuous Monitors for CO J_n
Stationary Sources. EPA 600/2-77-063. March 1977.
42. Scott Environmental Technology, Inc. Continuous Monitoring
of ^ Copper Smelter Acid Plant. Phelps Dodge Ajo.
Arizona Report No. 73-CUS-2.
V-4
-------
43. Scott Environmental Technology, Inc. Summary of Continuous
Monitoring Opacity Data, Refinery FCC COBoiler/
Phi Hips Petroleum. Avon, California. EPA Contract No.
68-02-1400. Report No. 74-CAT-2. March 1976.
44. Scott Research Laboratories. Continuous Monitoring of ^
Copper Smelter Double Contact Process Acid Plant. EPA
Contract No. 68-02-0233. Report No. 73-CUS-2. May 1974.
45. Shigehara, R. T. "Sampling Location for Gaseous Pollutant
Monitoring in Coal-Fired Power Plants," Source
Evaluation Society Newsleter, July 1978.
46. Sholtes, R. S. and J. R. Dallar. Continuous Measurement of
Sulfur Dioxide Emissions. Mississippi Chemical
Corporation; Pascagoula, Mississippi. EPA Report No.
73-SFA-3B.
47. Snyder, Arthur D. , Edward C. Eimutis, Michael G. Konicek,
Leo P. Parts, and Paul L. Sherman. Instrumentation for
the Determination ojE Nitrogen Oxides Content of
Stationary Source Emissions; Volumes 1^ and II. NTIS PB
204-877 (Vol. I) and NTIS PB 209-190 (Vol. II). January
1972.
48. Stanley, Jon and Peter R. Westlin. "An Alternative Method
for Stack Gas Moisture Determination," Source Evaluation
Society Newsletter, November 1978.
49. Tomaides, M. Instrumentation for Monitoring the Opacity of
ParticulatiEmissionsContaining Condensed Water. EPA
600/2-77-124. August 1974.
50. United States Environmental Protection Agency. Continuous
Air Pollution Source Monitoring Systems. EPA
625/6-79-005. June 1979.
51. United States Environmental Protection Agency. "Standards
of Performance for New Stationary Sources," Federal
Register 40:46250-70. October 6, 1975.
52. Westlin, Peter R. and John W. Brown. "Methods for
Collecting and Analyzing Gas Cylinder Samples," Source
Evaluation Society Newsletter, September 1978.
53. Roy Weston, Inc. Final Report Alan Wood Steel Company,
Conshohocken Pennsylvania. EPA Contract No. 68-02-0240.
Report No. 73-BOF-l. December 1975.
V-5
-------
54. Woffinden and Ensor. Optical Method for Measuring the Mass
Concentration gf Particulate Emissions. Meterology
Research, Inc. EPA Contract No. 68-02-1749. EPA
600/2-76-062. March 1976.
55. Wolf, Philip C. "Continuous Stack Gas Monitoring - Part
One: Analyzers," Pollution Engineering, p. 32-35, June
1975.
56. Wolf, Philip C. "Continuous Stack Gas Monitoring - Part
Two: Gas Handling Components and Accessories," Pollution
Engineering, p. 26-29, July 1975.
57. Wolf, Philip C. "Continuous Stack Gas Monitoring - Part
Three: Systems Design," Pollution Engineering, p. 36-
37, August 1975.
58. Zegel, W. C. and T. Lachajczyk. "The Value of Continuous
Monitoring to the User," Journal of the Air Pollution
Control Association, vol. 25, no. 8, p. 821-23, August
1975.
V-6
-------
Availability of EPA Publications
Copies of United States EPA publications are available
free of charge, as long as supplies last, from the EPA Library
in Research Triangle Park, North Carolina. When supplies are
exhausted, one may purchase publications from the United States
Government Printing Office or the National Technical Informa-
tion Service.
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Library (MD-35)
Research Triangle Park, N. C. 27711
commercial phone 919-541-2777
PTS phone 629-2779
National Technical Information Service
U. S. Department of Commerce
5285 Port Royal Road
Springfield, Virginia 22151
703-321-8543
Superintendent of Documents
Government Printing Office
Washington, D. C. 20402
V-7
-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
I Hi l\*:\ I Nt\
340/1-79-010
.1. Tl i Li A\'L> SUIU 11 LI.
Regulations and Resource 1:ile of Continuou
Monitoring Information
William J. Pate
'.I. Pt RKOHMINU ORGANIZATION NAME AN U ADDRESS
Entropy Environmentalists, Inc.
P. 0. Box 12291
Research Triangle Park, N. C. 27709
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDHtSS
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Enforcement
Office of General Enforcement
Washington. D. C. 20460 .
I. HI Cll'li NT'S ACCESSION-NO.
!). MLI'OFU PA I I
October, 1979
G. I'bRHORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
8. PERI-'ORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO.
10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.
68-01-4148
13. TYPE OP REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
Interim
14.
cote
15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
16. ABSTRACT
The Environmental Protection Agency has promulgated revisions to
40 CFR Part 60, New Source Performance Standards, and 40 CFR
Part 61, National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants
that require specified categories of stationary sources to
continuously monitor emissions. The EPA has also required States
to revise their SIP's to include continuous emission monitoring
regulations.
This report is a compilation of the following continuous emission
monitoring information: EPA organizations and personnel involved
with continuous emission monitoring; continuous emission monitoring
regulations; vendors of continuous monitoring equipment; and a
bibliography of continuous monitoring literature.
17.
KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
DESCRIPTORS
Continuous Emission Monitoring
Regulations
New Source Performance Standard
I).IDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS
Continuous Emission
Monitoring
c. COSATl Hi'ld/Ciruup
13B
140
;••:. u: :THIUU i M IN si AH MI N i
Release Unlimited
r.i. sfccuniTY CLA:,S iriiix /<<•/><>;•/,/
.... iJ.!l£JL''is..s_i..f L_cd
20. SECURITY CLASS "{Tltis iiagc)
Unclassi f i ed
21. NO. 1)1 I'AC.LS
22. PRiCI:
EPA Form 2220-1 (9-73)
-------