J. J. Keller® Compliance Network Logo
Start Experiencing Compliance Network for Free!
Update to Professional Trial!

Be Part of the Ultimate Safety & Compliance Community

Trending news, knowledge-building content, and more – all personalized to you!

Already have an account?
FREE TRIAL UPGRADE!
Thank you for investing in EnvironmentalHazmat related content. Click 'UPGRADE' to continue.
CANCEL
YOU'RE ALL SET!
Enjoy your limited-time access to the Compliance Network!
A confirmation welcome email has been sent to your email address from ComplianceNetwork@t.jjkellercompliancenetwork.com. Please check your spam/junk folder if you can't find it in your inbox.
YOU'RE ALL SET!
Thank you for your interest in EnvironmentalHazmat related content.
WHOOPS!
You've reached your limit of free access, if you'd like more info, please contact us at 800-327-6868.

EPA, Army Corps of Engineers return to pre-2015 interpretation of WOTUS

2021-10-15T05:00:00Z

On August 30, 2021, a court order from the U.S. District Court of Arizona vacated and remanded the Navigable Waters Protection Rule in the case of Pascua Yaqui Tribe v. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. As a result, EPA and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers have stopped implementation of the rule and returned to an earlier interpretation of “waters of the United States” (WOTUS).

The court ruling further emphasizes and prioritizes the agencies’ previously announced plans to rework the definition of WOTUS and replace the Navigable Waters Protection Rule with the goal of “crafting a durable definition of “waters of the United States” that is informed by diverse perspectives and based on an inclusive foundation.” The agencies’ intention to revise the definition is in response to a review directed by Executive Order 13990, Protecting Public Health and the Environment and Restoring Science to Tackle the Climate Crisis.

The regulatory definition of WOTUS has had a somewhat rocky history, and EPA notes that crafting a durable definition of the term is necessary for ensuring clean and safe water nationwide.

For the time being, the agencies will return to using the pre-2015 regulatory definition of WOTUS at 40 CFR 230.3(s), which defines “waters of the United States” as:

  1. All waters which are currently used, or were used in the past, or may be susceptible to use in interstate or foreign commerce, including all waters which are subject to the ebb and flow of the tide;
  2. All interstate waters including interstate wetlands;
  3. All other waters such as intrastate lakes, rivers, streams (including intermittent streams), mudflats, sandflats, wetlands, sloughs, prairie potholes, wet meadows, playa lakes, or natural ponds, the use, degradation or destruction of which could affect interstate or foreign commerce including any such waters:
    1. Which are or could be used by interstate or foreign travelers for recreational or other purposes; or
    2. From which fish or shellfish are or could be taken and sold in interstate or foreign commerce; or
    3. Which are used or could be used for industrial purposes by industries in interstate commerce;
  4. All impoundments of waters otherwise defined as waters of the United States under this definition;
  5. Tributaries of waters identified in paragraphs (s)(1) through (4) of this section;
  6. The territorial sea;
  7. Wetlands adjacent to waters (other than waters that are themselves wetlands) identified in paragraphs (s)(1) through (6) of this section; waste treatment systems, including treatment ponds or lagoons designed to meet the requirements of CWA (other than cooling ponds as defined in 40 CFR 423.11(m) which also meet the criteria of this definition) are not waters of the United States.

Waters of the United States do not include prior converted cropland. Notwithstanding the determination of an area’s status as prior converted cropland by any other federal agency, for the purposes of the Clean Water Act, the final authority regarding Clean Water Act jurisdiction remains with EPA.

Key to remember: The definition of WOTUS continues to be reshaped, and currently EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers are using the pre-2015 interpretation.

Specialized Industries

Go beyond the regulations! Visit the Institute for in-depth guidance on a wide range of compliance subjects in safety and health, transportation, environment, and human resources.

J. J. Keller® COMPLIANCE NETWORK is a premier online safety and compliance community, offering members exclusive access to timely regulatory content in workplace safety (OSHA), transportation (DOT), environment (EPA), and human resources (DOL).

Interact With Our Compliance Experts

Puzzled by a regulatory question or issue? Let our renowned experts provide the answers and get your business on track to full compliance!

Upcoming Events

Reference the Compliance Network Safety Calendar to keep track of upcoming safety and compliance events. Browse by industry or search by keyword to see relevant dates and observances, including national safety months, compliance deadlines, and more.

SAFETY & COMPLIANCE NEWS

Keep up to date on the latest developments affecting OSHA, DOT, EPA, and DOL regulatory compliance.

RegSense®Regulatory Reference

Explore a comprehensive database of word-for-word regulations and best practices on a wide range of topics.

THE J. J. KELLER INSTITUTE

The J. J. Keller INSTITUTE is your destination for in-depth content on hundreds of topics. Browse by subject to gain foundational knowledge and confirm best practices on the topics that matter to you. You'll find articles, videos, and interactive exercises that help you become an expert and apply key concepts in practical scenarios. There are almost 130 subjects covering 100s of topics.

Add Premium Hazmat & Environmental Resources

Unlock premium content offering expert insight into hazmat and environmental regulations with a COMPLIANCE NETWORK EDGE membership.

INTERACT WITH A COMPLIANCE EXPERT

In search of an answer? Try our FAQ Library or engage with an Expert for help!

Upcoming Events

Reference the Compliance Network Safety Calendar to keep track of upcoming safety and compliance events. Browse by industry or search by keyword to see relevant dates and observances, including national safety months, compliance deadlines, and more.

Most Recent Highlights In Environmental

GHG report checklist: 5 C’s for the GHGRP
2024-03-22T05:00:00Z

GHG report checklist: 5 C’s for the GHGRP

Each year, spring ushers in the season for green — budding trees, blooming plants, and the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program (GHGRP). Okay, so the last item isn’t typically associated with thoughts of springtime. However, the March 31 deadline for the annual GHGRP report always springs up.

The GHGRP requires covered facilities, suppliers, and sites to submit an annual report of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions data and other relevant information from the previous calendar year to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

Although the reporting years change, the best practices for submitting accurate and timely reports don’t. Use the following checklist to help you comply with the GHG annual report requirements.

1. Confirm that you’re required to report.

The GHGRP generally applies to:

  • Certain facilities that directly emit 25,000 or more metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (or CO2e) per year through combustion or processing on-site;
  • Certain suppliers of fossil fuels, industrial GHGs, and GHG-containing products that result in GHG emissions when combusted, released, or oxidized; and
  • Facilities that inject carbon dioxide (CO2) underground.

See 40 CFR 98.2 for the complete eligibility requirements that facilities, suppliers, and CO2 injectors must meet to be subject to the GHG annual reporting requirements.

2. Classify all relevant source categories.

The GHGRP groups reporters by specific industry types known as source categories. Each facility must report GHG emissions for all source categories that apply.

The subparts under Part 98 list the requirements for each source category, such as:

  • Reporting thresholds,
  • The GHGs to report,
  • Calculation methods,
  • Monitoring requirements, and
  • Data reporting requirements.

For example, Part 98 Subpart Q lists the reporting requirements for the Iron and Steel Production category, while Part 98 Subpart MM lists the requirements for the Suppliers of Petroleum Products category.

Tables A-3, A-4, and A-5 under Part 98 Subpart A list the source categories and any specific reporting thresholds.

3. Calculate emissions with approved methodologies.

Reporters must use specific methodologies established in the regulations to determine GHG emissions from each source category. The subparts under Part 98 contain the approved calculation methodologies for each source category and generally include several options.

If you meet the method’s requirements, you can change emission calculation methods from year to year and within the same year.

4. Choose the designated representative.

A designated representative is the individual responsible for submitting the GHG reports on behalf of the owners and operators of the facility or supplier. The regulations at 98.4 allow (but don’t require) the designated representative to appoint an alternate designated representative and one or more agents who can act on their behalf.

EPA will not accept annual GHG emissions reports from a facility or supplier without a Certificate of Representation for a designated representative. This certificate must be submitted at least 60 days before the initial annual GHG emissions report deadline.

5. Create and prepare the reporting account ahead of time.

The GHG annual report is submitted electronically through EPA’s electronic Greenhouse Gas Reporting Tool (e-GGRT). To submit the annual report, you must first register as an e-GGRT user and create an account. If you already have an active EPA Central Data Exchange (CDX) account, log into e-GGRT with your existing CDX username and password. If you don’t have a CDX account or cannot log in with those credentials, create a new user account on e-GGRT.

All e-GGRT users must have the Electronic Signature Agreement (ESA) on file with EPA. You can electronically sign the agreement or submit a signed hard copy. Once EPA approves the agreement, the agency will send you an account activation notice, and you can begin registering a facility and the designated representative.

The designated representative must register as an e-GGRT user and, once EPA approves the representative’s ESA, accept the appointment as the designated representative and electronically sign the Certificate of Representation. The certificate allows the representative to certify, sign, and submit the annual GHG report to EPA. Resubmission of the certificate is required only when there are updates to the facility profile or information about the designated representative changes (including replacing the existing representative).

Key to remember: Annual reports for the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program are due by March 31 and require reporters to include emissions data from all applicable source categories.

2024-03-20T05:00:00Z

EPA Proposed Rule: Revisions to Standards for the Open Burning/Open Detonation of Waste Explosives

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA or the Agency) proposes to revise regulations that allow for the open burning and detonation (OB/OD) of waste explosives. This allowance or “variance” to the prohibition on the open burning of hazardous waste was established at a time when there were no alternatives for the safe treatment of waste explosives. However, recent findings from the National Academy of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM) and the EPA have identified safe alternatives which are potentially applicable to treat some energetic/explosive waste streams. Because there may be safe alternatives available and in use today that capture and treat emissions prior to release, regulations would be revised to describe specified procedures for the existing requirements to evaluate and implement alternative treatment technologies. These proposed revisions would reduce OB/OD of waste explosives and increase control of air emissions through improved implementation of existing requirements that facilities must evaluate and use safe and available alternative technologies in lieu of OB/OD.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before May 20, 2024, published in the Federal Register March 20, 2024, page 19952.

View proposed rule.

Manufacturing (31/Food/Textiles)Manufacturing (33/Durable)General ServicesWarehousingWaste ManagementRetailProfessional ServicesEntertainmentHealthcareHospitalityTransportationRepair ServicesWholesale DistributionPersonal ServicesManufacturing (32/Non-Durable)MiningPostal/Courier ServicesPublic AdministrationReal EstateEducationUtilitiesAgricultureConstructionWaste WaterConditionally ExemptFiresWaste TreatmentResource Conservation and RecoveryNational Response SystemDouble Walled TanksMunitionsPost-ClosureOne PlanChemical ReleasesP CodesOverfillsCorrosivityICPsToxicityExtinguisherSpill KitsNational Contingency PlanFinancial AssuranceLQGsNPDESNCPSection 103 ReportingCESQGsSection 304 ReportingLarge Quantity GeneratorsChemical SpillsGround WaterInterim StatusRQsHazWasteNon-Acute WasteListed WasteGarbageContinuous ReleasesRecyclingEpisodic GenerationBiennial ReportingAccumulationERINational Response CenterException ReportingChemical AccidentsReceiving FacilitiesFinancial CoverageCharacteristic WasteRCRATSDFsEmergency ReleasesHazardous Waste GeneratorsSmall Quantity GeneratorsWaste DisposalIgnitabilityDischargesClean WaterReportable QuantitiesSpill ReportingEPCRAIndustrial FurnacesWaste BurnersU CodesReactivitySumpsLiabilityBlasting AgentsVSQGsStorm WaterForm 8700-12Ground-WaterVery Small Quantity GeneratorsTreatment Storage and DisposalMunicipal Solid WasteEPA ID NumbersPortable Fire ExtinguishersWaste BurningEmergency Response InformationTrashCERCLAPOTWsIntegrated Contingency PlansSQGsElectronic ManifestsLandfillingWaste StorageEmergency EquipmentCWAWaste CodesAcute Wastee-ManifestsBoilersContainment SystemsRunoffLeakagesEmergency CoordinatorsPublicly Owned Treatment WorksSMS Trial EnterpriseSMS AdvancedSMS PremiumSMS TrialSMS Essentialr40CFR270r40CFR264r40CFR260r40CFR271r40CFR124r40CFR26540 CFR 27040 CFR 26440 CFR 26040 CFR 27140 CFR 12440 CFR 26540 CFR 270 EPA administered permit programs: the hazardous waste permit program40 CFR 264 Standards for owners and operators of hazardous waste treatment, storage, and disposal facilities40 CFR 260 Hazardous waste management system: general40 CFR 271 Requirements for authorization of state hazardous waste programs40 CFR 124 Procedures for decisionmaking40 CFR 265 Interim status standards for owners and operators of hazardous waste treatment, storage, and disposal facilities
2024-03-11T05:00:00Z

EPA Final Rule: Amendments to EPA Risk Management Program

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is amending its Risk Management Program (RMP) regulations as a result of Agency review. The revisions include several changes and amplifications to the accident prevention program requirements, enhancements to the emergency preparedness requirements, improvements to the public availability of chemical hazard information, and several other changes to certain regulatory definitions or points of clarification. As major and other serious and concerning RMP accidents continue to occur, the record shows and EPA believes that this final rule will help further protect human health and the environment from chemical hazards through advancement of process safety based on lessons learned. These amendments seek to improve chemical process safety; assist in planning, preparedness, and response to Risk Management Program-reportable accidents; and improve public awareness of chemical hazards at regulated sources. While many of the provisions of this final rule reinforce each other, it is EPA's intent that each one is merited on its own, and thus severable.

DATES: This final rule is effective on May 10, 2024, published in the Federal Register March 11, 2024, page 17622.

View final rule.

§68.3 Definitions.
Definitions for “Active measures,” “Inherently safer technology or design,” “Natural hazard,” “Passive measures,” “Practicability,” and “Procedural measures”AddedView text
Definition of “Retail facility”RevisedView text
Definitions for “Root cause” and “Third-party auditAddedView text
§68.10 Applicability.
(a) introductory textRevisedView text
(g) through (k) as paragraphs (j) through (n)RedesignatedView text
Newly redesignated (j) through (l)RevisedView text
§68.48 Safety information.
(b)RevisedView text
§68.50 Hazard review.
(a)(3) and (4) RevisedView text
(a)(5) and (6)AddedView text
§68.52 Operating procedures.
(b)(9)AddedView text
§68.58 Compliance audits.
(a)RevisedView text
(f) through (h)AddedView text
§68.59 Third-party audits.
Entire sectionAddedView text
§68.60 Incident investigation.
(h)AddedView text
§68.62 Employee participation.
Entire sectionAddedView text
§68.65 Process safety information.
(a) RevisedView text
(d)(2)RevisedView text
§68.67 Process hazard analysis.
(c)(3), (5), (6), and (7)RevisedView text
(c)(8) through (10)AddedView text
(h)AddedView text
§68.69 Operating procedures.
(a)(4)RevisedView text
§68.79 Compliance audits.
(a)RevisedView text
(f) - (h)AddedView text
§68.80 Third-party audits.
Entire sectionAddedView text
§68.81 Incident investigation.
(h)AddedView text
§68.83 Employee participation.
Entire sectionRevisedView text
§68.85 Hot work permit.
(b)RevisedView text
(c)AddedView text
§68.90 Applicability.
(b)(3) - (5)RevisedView text
(b)(6)AddedView text
§68.95 Emergency response program.
(a)(1)(i)RevisedView text
(c)RevisedView text
§68.96 Emergency response exercises.
(b)(1)(i) and (b)(3)RevisedView text
§68.160 Registration.
(b)(1) through (19)RevisedView text
(b)(22)AddedView text
§68.170 Prevention program/Program 2.
(e)(5) and (6)RevisedView text
(e)(7)AddedView text
(i)RevisedView text
§68.175 Prevention program/Program 3.
(e)(5) and (6)RevisedView text
(e)(7) through (9)AddedView text
(k)RevisedView text
§68.210 Availability of information to the public.
(d) through (h)RevisedView text

New Text

§68.3 Definitions.

* * * * *

Retail facility means a stationary source at which more than one-half of the annual income (in the previous calendar or fiscal year) is obtained from direct sales to end users or at which more than one-half of the fuel sold, by volume, is sold through a cylinder exchange program.

* * * * *

§68.10 Applicability.

(a) Except as provided in paragraphs (b) through (i) of this section, an owner or operator of a stationary source that has more than a threshold quantity of a regulated substance in a process, as determined under §68.115, shall comply with the requirements of this part no later than the latest of the following dates:

* * * * *

(j) A covered process is eligible for Program 1 requirements as provided in §68.12(b) if it meets all of the following requirements:

(1) For the five years prior to the submission of an RMP, the process has not had an accidental release of a regulated substance where exposure to the substance, its reaction products, overpressure generated by an explosion involving the substance, or radiant heat generated by a fire involving the substance led to any of the following offsite:

(i) Death;

(ii) Injury; or

(iii) Response or restoration activities for an exposure of an environmental receptor;

(2) The distance to a toxic or flammable endpoint for a worst-case release assessment conducted under subpart B and §68.25 is less than the distance to any public receptor, as defined in §68.3; and

(3) Emergency response procedures have been coordinated between the stationary source and local emergency planning and response organizations.

(k) A covered process is subject to Program 2 requirements if it does not meet the eligibility requirements of either paragraph (g) or paragraph (i) of this section.

(l) A covered process is subject to Program 3 if the process does not meet the requirements of paragraph (g) of this section, and if either of the following conditions is met:

(1) The process is in NAICS code 32211, 32411, 32511, 325181, 325188, 325192, 325199, 325211, 325311, or 32532; or

(2) The process is subject to the OSHA process safety management standard, 29 CFR 1910.119.

* * * * *

§68.48 Safety information.

* * * * *

(b) The owner or operator shall ensure and document that the process is designed in compliance with recognized and generally accepted good engineering practices.

* * * * *

§68.50 Hazard review.

(a) * * *

(3) The safeguards used or needed to control the hazards or prevent equipment malfunction or human error including standby or emergency power systems; the owner or operator shall ensure monitoring equipment associated with prevention and detection of accidental releases from covered processes has standby or backup power to provide continuous operation;

(4) Any steps used or needed to detect or monitor releases;

* * * * *

§68.52 Operating procedures.

* * * * *

(b) * * * *

(7) Consequences of deviations and steps required to correct or avoid deviations;

(8) Equipment inspections; and

* * * * *

§68.58 Compliance audits.

(a) The owner or operator shall certify that they have evaluated compliance with the provisions of this subpart, at least every three years to verify that the procedures and practices developed under this subpart are adequate and are being followed. When required as set forth in paragraph (f) of this section, the compliance audit shall be a third-party audit.

* * * * *

§68.65 Process safety information.

(a) The owner or operator shall complete a compilation of written process safety information before conducting any process hazard analysis required by this part and shall keep process safety information up to date. The compilation of written process safety information is to enable the owner or operator and the employees involved in operating the process to identify and understand the hazards posed by those processes involving regulated substances. This process safety information shall include information pertaining to the hazards of the regulated substances used or produced by the process, information pertaining to the technology of the process, and information pertaining to the equipment in the process.

* * * * *

(d) * * *

(2) The owner or operator shall ensure and document that the process is designed and maintained in compliance with recognized and generally accepted good engineering practices.

* * * * *

§68.67 Process hazard analysis.

* * * * *

(c) * * *

(3) Engineering and administrative controls applicable to the hazards and their interrelationships such as appropriate application of detection methodologies to provide early warning of releases and standby or emergency power systems. (Acceptable detection methods might include process monitoring and control instrumentation with alarms, and detection hardware such as hydrocarbon sensors.) The owner or operator shall ensure monitoring equipment associated with prevention and detection of accidental releases from covered processes has standby or backup power to provide continuous operation;

* * * * *

(5) Stationary source siting, including the placement of processes, equipment, and buildings within the facility, and hazards posed by proximate stationary sources, and accidental release consequences posed by proximity to the public and public receptors;

(6) Human factors;

(7) A qualitative evaluation of a range of the possible safety and health effects of failure of controls;

* * * * *

§68.69 Operating procedures.

(a) * * *

(4) Safety systems and their functions, including documentation when monitoring equipment associated with prevention and detection of accidental releases from covered processes is removed due to safety concerns from imminent natural hazards.

* * * * *

§68.79 Compliance audits.

(a) The owner or operator shall certify that they have evaluated compliance with the provisions of this subpart, at least every three years to verify that the procedures and practices developed under this subpart are adequate and are being followed. When required as set forth in paragraph (f) of this section, the compliance audit shall be a third-party audit.

* * * * *

§68.83 Employee participation.

(a) The owner or operator shall develop a written plan of action regarding the implementation of the employee participation requirements required by this section.

(1) An annual written or electronic notice shall be distributed to employees and their representatives indicating that the plan is readily available to view and how to access the information.

(2) Training shall be provided as often as necessary to ensure employees and their representatives, and management involved in the process, are informed of the details of the plan.

(b) The owner or operator shall consult with employees and their representatives on the conduct and development of process hazards analyses and on the development of the other elements of process safety management in this part.

(c) The owner or operator shall consult with employees knowledgeable in the process and their representatives on addressing, correcting, resolving, documenting, and implementing recommendations and findings of process hazard analyses under §68.67(e), compliance audits under §68.79(d), and incident investigations under §68.81(e).

(d) The owner or operator shall provide the following authorities to employees knowledgeable in the process and their representatives:

(1) Recommend to the operator in charge of a unit that an operation or process be partially or completely shut down, in accordance with procedures established in §68.69(a), based on the potential for a catastrophic release; and

(2) Allow a qualified operator in charge of a unit to partially or completely shut down an operation or process, in accordance with procedures established in §68.69(a), based on the potential for a catastrophic release.

(e)(1) The owner or operator shall develop and implement a process to allow employees and their representatives to report to either or both the owner or operator and EPA unaddressed hazards that could lead to a catastrophic release, accidents covered by §68.42(a) but not reported under §68.195(a), and any other noncompliance with this part.

(2) The employee and their representatives may choose to report either anonymously or with attribution.

(3) When a report is made to the owner or operator, a record of the report shall be maintained for three years.

(f) The owner or operator shall provide to employees and their representatives access to process hazard analyses and to all other information required to be developed under this part.

§68.85 Hot work permit.

* * * * *

(b) The permit shall document that the fire prevention and protection requirements in 29 CFR 1910.252(a) have been implemented prior to beginning the hot work operations; it shall indicate the date(s) authorized for hot work; and identify the object on which hot work is to be performed.

* * * * *

§68.90 Applicability.

* * * * *

(b) * * *

(3) Appropriate mechanisms are in place to notify emergency responders when there is a need for a response, including providing timely data and information detailing the current understanding and best estimates of the nature of the accidental release. The owner or operator may satisfy the requirement in this paragraph (b)(3) through notification mechanisms designed to meet other Federal, State, or local notification requirements, provided the notification meets the requirements of this paragraph (b)(3), as appropriate;

(4) The owner or operator performs the annual emergency response coordination activities required under §68.93;

(5) The owner or operator performs the annual notification exercises required under §68.96(a); and

* * * * *

§68.95 Emergency response program.

(a) * * *

(1) * * *

(i) Procedures for informing the public and the appropriate Federal, State, and local emergency response agencies about accidental releases, including partnering with these response agencies to ensure that a community notification system is in place to warn the public within the area potentially threatened by the accidental release. Documentation of the partnership shall be maintained in accordance with §68.93(c);

* * * * *

(c) The emergency response plan developed under paragraph (a)(1) of this section shall include providing timely data and information detailing the current understanding and best estimates of the nature of the release when an accidental release occurs and be coordinated with the community emergency response plan developed under 42 U.S.C. 11003. The owner or operator may satisfy the requirement of this paragraph (c) through notification mechanisms designed to meet other Federal, State, or local notification requirements, provided the notification meets the requirements of this paragraph (c), as appropriate. Upon request of the LEPC or emergency response officials, the owner or operator shall promptly provide to the local emergency response officials information necessary for developing and implementing the community emergency response plan.

§68.96 Emergency response exercises.

* * * * *

(b) * * *

(1) * * *

(i) Frequency. As part of coordination with local emergency response officials required by §68.93, the owner or operator shall consult with these officials to establish an appropriate frequency for field exercises, and shall conduct a field exercise before March 15, 2027, and at a minimum at least once every ten years thereafter, unless the appropriate local emergency response agencies agree in writing that such frequency is impractical. If local emergency response agencies so agree, the owner or operator shall consult with local emergency response officials to establish an alternate appropriate frequency for field exercises.

* * * * *

(3) Documentation. The owner or operator shall prepare an evaluation report within 90 days of each field and tabletop exercise. The report shall include a description of the exercise scenario, names and organizations of each participant, an evaluation of the exercise results including lessons learned, recommendations for improvement or revisions to the emergency response exercise program and emergency response program, and a schedule to promptly address and resolve recommendations.

* * * * *

§68.160 Registration.

* * * * *

(b) * * *

(1) Stationary source name, street, city, county, state, zip code, latitude and longitude, method for obtaining latitude and longitude, and description of location that latitude and longitude represent.

(2) The stationary source Dun and Bradstreet number.

(3) Name and Dun and Bradstreet number of the corporate parent company.

(4) The name, telephone number, and mailing address of the owner or operator.

(5) The name and title of the person or position with overall responsibility for RMP elements and implementation, and (optional) the e-mail address for that person or position.

(6) The name, title, telephone number, 24-hour telephone number, and, as of June 21, 2004, the e-mail address (if an e-mail address exists) of the emergency contact.

(7) For each covered process, the name and CAS number of each regulated substance held above the threshold quantity in the process, the maximum quantity of each regulated substance or mixture in the process (in pounds) to two significant digits, the five-or six-digit NAICS code that most closely corresponds to the process, and the Program level of the process.

(8) The stationary source EPA identifier.

(9) The number of full-time employees at the stationary source;

(10) Whether the stationary source is subject to 29 CFR 1910.119.

(11) Whether the stationary source is subject to 40 CFR part 355.

(12) If the stationary source has a CAA Title V operating permit, the permit number.

(13) The date of the last safety inspection of the stationary source by a Federal, state, or local government agency and the identity of the inspecting entity.

(14) As of June 21, 2004, the name, the mailing address, and the telephone number of the contractor who prepared the RMP (if any).

(15) Source or Parent Company E-Mail Address (Optional).

(16) Source Homepage address (Optional).

(17) Phone number at the source for public inquiries (Optional).

(18) Local Emergency Planning Committee (Optional).

(19) OSHA Voluntary Protection Program status (Optional).

* * * * *

§68.170 Prevention program/Program 2.

* * * * *

(e) * * *

(5) Monitoring and detection systems in use;

(6) Changes since the last hazard review; and

* * * * *

(i) The date of the most recent compliance audit; the expected date of completion of any changes resulting from the compliance audit and identification of whether the most recent compliance audit was a third-party audit, pursuant to §§68.58 and 68.59; and findings declined from third-party compliance audits and justifications.

* * * * *

§68.175 Prevention program/Program 3.

* * * * *

(e) * * *

(5) Monitoring and detection systems in use;

(6) Changes since the last PHA;

* * * * *

(k) The date of the most recent compliance audit; the expected date of completion of any changes resulting from the compliance audit and identification of whether the most recent compliance audit was a third-party audit, pursuant to §§68.79 and 68.80; and findings declined from third-party compliance audits and justifications.

* * * * *

2024-03-08T06:00:00Z

EPA Final Rule: Oil and Natural Gas Emissions Reduction Actions

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is finalizing multiple actions to reduce air pollution emissions from the Crude Oil and Natural Gas source category. First, the EPA is finalizing revisions to the new source performance standards (NSPS) regulating greenhouse gases (GHGs) and volatile organic compounds (VOCs) emissions for the Crude Oil and Natural Gas source category pursuant to the Clean Air Act (CAA). Second, the EPA is finalizing emission guidelines (EG) under the CAA for states to follow in developing, submitting, and implementing state plans to establish performance standards to limit GHG emissions from existing sources (designated facilities) in the Crude Oil and Natural Gas source category. Third, the EPA is finalizing several related actions stemming from the joint resolution of Congress, adopted on June 30, 2021, under the Congressional Review Act (CRA), disapproving the EPA’s final rule titled, ‘‘Oil and Natural Gas Sector: Emission Standards for New, Reconstructed, and Modified Sources Review,’’ September 14, 2020 (‘‘2020 Policy Rule’’). Fourth, the EPA is finalizing a protocol under the general provisions for optical gas imaging (OGI).

DATES: This final rule is effective on May 7, 2024, published in the Federal Register March 8, 2024, page 16820.

View final rule.

2024-03-07T06:00:00Z

EPA Final Rule: Additions to the National Priorities List

The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 ("CERCLA" or "the Act"), as amended, requires that the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan ("NCP") include a list of national priorities among the known releases or threatened releases of hazardous substances, pollutants or contaminants throughout the United States. The National Priorities List ("NPL") constitutes this list. The NPL is intended primarily to guide the Environmental Protection Agency ("the EPA" or "the agency") in determining which sites warrant further investigation. These further investigations will allow the EPA to assess the nature and extent of public health and environmental risks associated with the site and to determine what CERCLA-financed remedial action(s), if any, may be appropriate. This rule adds five sites to the General Superfund section of the NPL.

DATES: The rule is effective on April 8, 2024, published in the Federal Register March 7, 2024, page 16463.

Appendix B to Part 300—National Priorities List
Entires for "AZ, Lukachukai Mountains Mining District", "IA, Lot 46 Valley Gardens TCE", "IL, Acme Steel Coke Plant", "LA, Exide Baton Rouge", and "PA, Former Exide Technologies Laureldale"AddedView text
See More

Most Recent Highlights In Transportation

2024-03-06T06:00:00Z

EPA Final Rule: Revisions to Air Quality Standards for Particulate Matter

Based on the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's) reconsideration of the air quality criteria and the national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) for particulate matter (PM), the EPA is revising the primary annual PM 2.5 standard by lowering the level from 12.0 µg/m 3 to 9.0 µg/m 3 . The Agency is retaining the current primary 24-hour PM 2.5 standard and the primary 24-hour PM 10 standard. The Agency also is not changing the secondary 24-hour PM 2.5 standard, secondary annual PM 2.5 standard, and secondary 24-hour PM 10 standard at this time. The EPA is also finalizing revisions to other key aspects related to the PM NAAQS, including revisions to the Air Quality Index (AQI) and monitoring requirements for the PM NAAQS.

DATES: This final rule is effective May 6, 2024, published in the Federal Register March 6, 2024, page 16202.

View final rule.

§50.20 National primary ambient air quality standards for PM2.5.
Entire sectionAddedView text
Appendix K to Part 50 - Interpretation of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Particulate Matter
Section 1.0 paragraph (b)RevisedView text
Section 2.3 paragraph (d)AddedView text
Section 3.0 paragraphs (a) and (b)AddedView text
Appendix L to Part 50 - Reference Method for the Determination of Fine Particulate Matter as PM2.5 in the Atmosphere
Section 7.3.4RevisedView text
Section 7.3.4.5AddedView text
Appendix N to Part 50 - Interpretation of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards for PM2.5
Section 1.0 paragraph (a)RevisedView text
Section 3.0 paragraph (d)(3)AddedView text
Section 4.1 paragraph (a)RevisedView text
Section 4.2 paragraph (a)RevisedView text
§53.4 Applications for reference or equivalent method determinations.
(a), (d)RevisedView text
(b)(7)AddedView text
§53.8 Designation of reference and equivalent methods.
(a)RevisedView text
§53.14 Modification of a reference or equivalent method.
(c)(4)-(6)RevisedView text
Table A–1 to Subpart A of Part 53—Summary of Applicable Requirements for Reference and Equivalent Methods for Air Monitoring of Criteria Pollutants
Entire tableRevisedView text
Table B-1 to Subpart B of Part 53- Performance Limit Specifications for Automated Methods
Footnote 4RevisedView text
Table B-3 to Subpart B of Part 53 - Interferent Test Concentration,1 Parts per Million
Entire tableRevisedView text
Appendix A to Subpart B of Part 53 - Optional Forms for Reporting Test Results
Figures B-3 and B-5RevisedView text
§53.35 Test procedure for Class II and Class III methods for PM2.5 and PM10−2.5.
(b)(1)(ii)(D)RevisedView text
Table C-4 to Subpart C of Part 53—Test Specifications for PM10, PM2.5, and PM10–2.5 Candidate Equivalent Methods
Entire tableRevisedView text
§53.43 Test procedures.
Formulas in (a)(2)(xvi) and (c)(2)(iv)RevisedView text
§53.51 Demonstration of compliance with design specifications and manufacturing and test requirements.
(d)(2)RevisedView text
§53.61 Test conditions.
(g)RevisedView text
§58.1 Definitions.
Definition for ”Approved regional method (ARM)”RemovedView text
Definition for ”Traceable”RemovedView text
§58.10 Annual monitoring network plan and periodic network assessment.
(a)(1), (b)(10), (b)(13), (d)RevisedView text
(b)(14)AddedView text
§58.11 Network technical requirements.
(a)(2), (e)RevisedView text
§58.12 Operating schedules.
(d)(1)RevisedView text
§58.15 Annual air monitoring data certification.
Entire sectionRevisedView text
§58.20 Special purpose monitors (SPM).
(b)-(e)RevisedView text
Appendix A to Part 58 - Quality Assurance Requirements for Monitors used in Evaluations of National Ambient Air Quality Standards
Entire appendixRevisedView text
Appendix B to Part 58 - Quality Assurance Requirements for Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) Air Monitoring
Entire appendixView text
Appendix C to Part 58—Ambient Air Quality Monitoring Methodology
Section 2RevisedView text
Appendix D to Part 58—Network Design Criteria for Ambient Air Quality Monitoring
Sections 1, 1.1(b), introductory text before table in 4.7.1(a), 4.7.1(b)(3), 4.7.2RevisedView text
Appendix E to Part 58—Probe and Monitoring Path Siting Criteria for Ambient Air Quality Monitoring
Entire appendixRevisedView text
Appendix G to Part 58—Uniform Air Quality Index (AQI) and Daily Reporting
Entire appendixRevisedView text

New Text

Appendix K to Part 50 - Interpretation of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Particulate Matter

* * * *

(b) The terms used in this appendix are defined as follows:

Average refers to the arithmetic mean of the estimated number of exceedances per year, as per section 3.1 of this appendix.

Collocated monitors refer to two or more air measurement instruments for the same parameter (e.g., PM 10 mass) operated at the same site location, and whose placement is consistent with part 53 of this chapter. For purposes of considering a combined site record in this appendix, when two or more monitors are operated at the same site, one monitor is designated as the “primary” monitor with any additional monitors designated as “collocated.” It is implicit in these appendix procedures that the primary monitor and collocated monitor(s) are all reference or equivalent methods; however, it is not a requirement that the primary and collocated monitors utilize the same specific sampling and analysis method.

Combined site data record is the data set used for performing computations in this appendix and represents data for the primary monitors augmented with data from collocated monitors according to the procedure specified in section 3.0(a) of this appendix.

Daily value for PM10 refers to the 24-hour average concentration of PM 10 calculated or measured from midnight to midnight (local time).

Exceedance means a daily value that is above the level of the 24-hour standard after rounding to the nearest 10 µg/m 3i.e., values ending in 5 or greater are to be rounded up).

Expected annual value is the number approached when the annual values from an increasing number of years are averaged, in the absence of long-term trends in emissions or meteorological conditions.

Primary monitors are suitable monitors designated by a State or local agency in their annual network plan as the default data source for creating a combined site data record. If there is only one suitable monitor at a particular site location, then it is presumed to be a primary monitor.

Year refers to a calendar year.

Appendix L to Part 50 - Reference Method for the Determination of Fine Particulate Matter as PM2.5 in the Atmosphere

* * * *

7.3.4 Particle size separator. The sampler shall be configured with one of the three alternative particle size separators described in this section. One separator is an impactor-type separator (WINS impactor) described in sections 7.3.4.1, 7.3.4.2, and 7.3.4.3 of this appendix. One alternative separator is a cyclone-type separator (VSCC TM) described in section 7.3.4.4 of this appendix. The other alternative separator is also a cyclone-type separator (TE–PM 2.5 C) described in section 7.3.4.5 of this appendix.

Appendix N to Part 50 - Interpretation of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards for PM2.5

1.0 General

(a) This appendix explains the data handling conventions and computations necessary for determining when the national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) for PM 2.5 are met, specifically the primary and secondary annual and 24-hour PM 2.5 NAAQS specified in §§50.7, 50.13, 50.18, and 50.20. PM 2.5 is defined, in general terms, as particles with an aerodynamic diameter less than or equal to a nominal 2.5 micrometers. PM 2.5 mass concentrations are measured in the ambient air by a Federal Reference Method (FRM) based on appendix L to this part, as applicable, and designated in accordance with part 53 of this chapter or by a Federal Equivalent Method (FEM) designated in accordance with part 53 of this chapter. Only those FRM and FEM measurements that are derived in accordance with part 58 of this chapter (i.e., that are deemed “suitable”) shall be used in comparisons with the PM 2.5 NAAQS. The data handling and computation procedures to be used to construct annual and 24-hour NAAQS metrics from reported PM 2.5 mass concentrations, and the associated instructions for comparing these calculated metrics to the levels of the PM 2.5 NAAQS, are specified in sections 2.0, 3.0, and 4.0 of this appendix.

* * * *

4.1 Annual PM2 . 5 NAAQS

(a) Levels of the primary and secondary annual PM 2.5 NAAQS are specified in §§50.7, 50.13, 50.18, and 50.20 as applicable.

* * * * *

4.2 Twenty-Four-Hour PM2 . 5 NAAQS

(a) Levels of the primary and secondary 24-hour PM 2.5 NAAQS are specified in §§50.7, 50.13, 50.18, and 50.20 as applicable.

§53.4 Applications for reference or equivalent method determinations.

(a) Applications for FRM or FEM determinations and modification requests of existing designated instruments shall be submitted to: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Director, Center for Environmental Measurement and Modeling, Reference and Equivalent Methods Designation Program (MD–D205–03), 109 T.W. Alexander Drive, P.O. Box 12055, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711 (commercial delivery address: 4930 Old Page Road, Durham, North Carolina 27703).

* * * *

(d) For candidate reference or equivalent methods or for designated instruments that are the subject of a modification request, the applicant, if requested by EPA, shall provide to EPA a representative sampler or analyzer for test purposes. The sampler or analyzer shall be shipped free on board (FOB) destination to Director, Center for Environmental Measurements and Modeling, Reference and Equivalent Methods Designation Program (MD D205–03), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 4930 Old Page Road, Durham, North Carolina 27703, scheduled to arrive concurrently with or within 30 days of the arrival of the other application materials. This sampler or analyzer may be subjected to various tests that EPA determines to be necessary or appropriate under §53.5(f), and such tests may include special tests not described in this part. If the instrument submitted under this paragraph (d) malfunctions, becomes inoperative, or fails to perform as represented in the application before the necessary EPA testing is completed, the applicant shall be afforded the opportunity to repair or replace the device at no cost to the EPA. Upon completion of EPA testing, the sampler or analyzer submitted under this paragraph (d) shall be repacked by EPA for return shipment to the applicant, using the same packing materials used for shipping the instrument to EPA unless alternative packing is provided by the applicant. Arrangements for, and the cost of, return shipment shall be the responsibility of the applicant. The EPA does not warrant or assume any liability for the condition of the sampler or analyzer upon return to the applicant.

§53.8 Designation of reference and equivalent methods.

(a) A candidate method determined by the Administrator to satisfy the applicable requirements of this part shall be designated as an FRM or FEM (as applicable) by and upon publication of the designation in the Federal Register . Applicants shall not publicly announce, market, or sell the candidate sampler and analyzer as an approved FRM or FEM (as applicable) until the designation is published in the Federal Register .

§53.14 Modification of a reference or equivalent method.

* * * *

(c)(4) Send notice to the applicant that additional information must be submitted before a determination can be made and specify the additional information that is needed (in such cases, the 90-day period shall commence upon receipt of the additional information).

(c)(5) Send notice to the applicant that additional tests are necessary and specify which tests are necessary and how they shall be interpreted (in such cases, the 90-day period shall commence upon receipt of the additional test data).

(c)(6) Send notice to the applicant that additional tests will be conducted by the Administrator and specify the reasons for and the nature of the additional tests (in such cases, the 90-day period shall commence 1 calendar day after the additional tests are completed).

Table A–1 to Subpart A of Part 53—Summary of Applicable Requirements for Reference and Equivalent Methods for Air Monitoring of Criteria Pollutants

Table A–1 to Subpart A of Part 53—Summary of Applicable Requirements for Reference and Equivalent Methods for Air Monitoring of Criteria Pollutants
1 Some requirements may apply, based on the nature of each particular candidate method, as determined by the Administrator.
2 Alternative Class III requirements may be substituted.
PollutantReference or equivalentManual or automatedApplicable appendix of part 50 of this chapterApplicable subparts of this part
ABCDEF
SO 2ReferenceManualA–2
AutomatedA–1
EquivalentManualA–1
AutomatedA–1
COReferenceAutomatedC
EquivalentManualC
AutomatedC
O 3ReferenceAutomatedD
EquivalentManualD
AutomatedD
NO 2ReferenceAutomatedF
EquivalentManualF
AutomatedF
PbReferenceManualG
EquivalentManualG
AutomatedG
PM 10 -PbReferenceManualQ
EquivalentManualQ
AutomatedQ
PM 10ReferenceManualJ
EquivalentManualJ
AutomatedJ
PM 2.5ReferenceManualL
Equivalent Class IManualL
Equivalent Class IIManualL 12
Equivalent Class IIIAutomatedL 11
PM 10–2.5ReferenceManualL, 2 O
Equivalent Class IManualL, 2 O
Equivalent Class IIManualL, 2 O21,2
Equivalent Class IIIAutomated1 L, O1

Table B-1 to Subpart B of Part 53- Performance Limit Specifications for Automated Methods

* * * *

4 For nitric oxide interference for the SO 2 ultraviolet fluorescence (UVF) method, interference equivalent is ±0.003 ppm for the lower range.

Table B-3 to Subpart B of Part 53 - Interferent Test Concentration,1 Parts per Million

Table B–3 to Subpart B of Part 53—Interferent Test Concentration[Parts per million]
PollutantAnalyzer type 2Hydro-chloric acidAmmoniaHydrogen sulfideSulfur dioxideNitrogen dioxideNitric oxideCarbon dioxideEthyleneOzoneM-xyleneWater vaporCarbon monoxideMethaneEthaneNaphthalene
1 Concentrations of interferent listed must be prepared and controlled to ±10 percent of the stated value.
2 Analyzer types not listed will be considered by the Administrator as special cases.
3 Do not mix interferent with the pollutant.
4 Concentration of pollutant used for test. These pollutant concentrations must be prepared to ±10 percent of the stated value.
5 If candidate method utilizes an elevated-temperature scrubber for removal of aromatic hydrocarbons, perform this interference test.
6 If naphthalene test concentration cannot be accurately quantified, remove the scrubber, use a test concentration that causes a full-scale response, reattach the scrubber, and evaluate response for interference.
SO 2Ultraviolet fluorescence5 0.14 0.140.50.50.50.220,0006 0.05
SO 2Flame photometric0.014 0.147503 20,00050
SO 2Gas chromatography0.14 0.147503 20,00050
SO 2Spectrophotometric-wet chemical (pararosanaline)0.20.10.14 0.140.57500.5
SO 2Electrochemical0.20.10.14 0.140.50.50.20.53 20,000
SO 2Conductivity0.20.14 0.140.5750
SO 2Spectrophotometric-gas phase, including DOAS4 0.140.50.50.50.2
O 3Ethylene Chemiluminescence3 0.17504 0.083 20,000
O 3NO-chemiluminescence3 0.10.57504 0.083 20,000
O 3Electrochemical3 0.10.50.54 0.083 20,000
O 3Spectrophotometric-wet chemical (potassium iodide)3 0.10.50.53 0.54 0.08
O 3Spectrophotometric-gas phase, including ultraviolet absorption and DOAS0.50.53 0.54 0.080.0220,000
CONon-dispersive Infrared75020,0004 10
COGas chromatography with flame ionization detector20,0004 100.5
COElectrochemical0.50.220,0004 10
COCatalytic combustion-thermal detection0.17500.220,0004 105.00.5
COIR fluorescence75020,0004 100.5
COMercury replacement-UV photometric0.24 100.5
NO 2Chemiluminescent3 0.10.54 0.10.520,000
NO 2Spectrophotometric-wet chemical (azo-dye reaction)0.54 0.10.57500.5
NO 2Electrochemical0.23 0.10.54 0.10.57500.520,00050
NO 2Spectrophotometric-gas phase3 0.10.54 0.10.50.520,00050

Appendix A to Subpart B of Part 53 - Optional Forms for Reporting Test Results

* * * * *

Figure B–3 to Appendix A to Subpart B of Part 53—Form for Test Data and Calculations for Lower Detectable Limit (LDL) and Interference Equivalent (IE) (see §53.23(c) and (d))

LDL Interference Test Data

Applicant _________________

Analyzer _________________

Date _________________

Pollutant _________________



* * * * *

Figure B–5 to Appendix A to Subpart B of Part 53—Form for Calculating Zero Drift, Span Drift and Precision (see §53.23(e))

Calculation of Zero Drift, Span Drift, and Precision

Applicant _________________

Analyzer _________________

Date _________________

Pollutant _________________



§53.35 Test procedure for Class II and Class III methods for PM2.5 and PM10−2.5.

* * * *

(b)(1)(ii)(D) Site D shall be in a large city east of the Mississippi River, having characteristically high humidity levels.

Table C-4 to Subpart C of Part 53—Test Specifications for PM10, PM2.5, and PM10–2.5 Candidate Equivalent Methodss

Table C–4 to Subpart C of Part 53—Test Specifications for PM 10 , PM 2.5 , and PM 10–2.5 Candidate Equivalent Methods
SpecificationPM 10PM 2.5PM 10–2.5
Class IClass IIClass IIIClass IIClass III
1 Some missing daily measurement values may be permitted; see test procedure.
2 Calculated as the root mean square over all measurement sets.
Acceptable concentration range (R j), µg/m 35–3003–2003–2003–2003–2003–200.
Minimum number of test sites212424.
Minimum number of candidate method samplers or analyzers per site333 13 13 13. 1
Number of reference method samplers per site333 13 13 13. 1
Minimum number of acceptable sample sets per site for PM 10 methods:
R j < 20 µg/m 33
R j > 20 µg/m 33
Total10
Minimum number of acceptable sample sets per site for PM 2.5 and PM 10–2.5 candidate equivalent methods:
R j < 15 µg/m 3 for 24-hr or R j < 8 µg/m 3 for 48-hr samples.33333.
Rj > 15 µg/m 3 for 24-hr or R j > 8 µg/m 3 for 48-hr samples33333.
Each season1023232323.
Total, each site102323 (46 for two-season sites)2323 (46 for two-season sites).
Precision of replicate reference method measurements, P Rj or RP Rj , respectively; RP for Class II or III PM 2.5 or PM 10–2.5 , maximum5 μg/m 3 or 7%.2 μg/m 3 or 5%.10% 210% 210% 210%. 2
Precision of PM 2.5 or PM 10–2.5 candidate method, CP, each site10% 215% 215% 215%. 2
Slope of regression relationship1 ±0.101 ±0.051 ±0.101 ±0.101 ±0.101 ±0.12.
Intercept of regression relationship, µg/m 30 ±50 ±1Between: 13.55—(15.05 × slope), but not less than—1.5; and 16.56—(15.05 × slope), but not more than +1.5Between: 15.05—(17.32 × slope), but not less than—2.0; and 15.05—(13.20 × slope), but not more than +2.0Between: 62.05—(70.5 × slope), but not less than—3.5; and 78.95—(70.5 × slope), but not more than +3.5Between: 70.50—(82.93 × slope), but not less than—7.0; and 70.50—(61.16 × slope), but not more than +7.0.
Correlation of reference method and candidate method measurements≥ 0.97≥ 0.97≥ 0.93—for CCV ≤ 0.4; ≥ 0.85 + 0.2 × CCV—for 0.4 ≤ CCV ≤ 0.5; ≥ 0.95—for CCV ≥ 0.5

§53.43 Test procedures.

(a)(2)(xvi)



(c)(2)(iv) * * *



if C j is below 80 µg/m 3 , or



if C j is above 80 µg/m 3 .

§53.51 Demonstration of compliance with design specifications and manufacturing and test requirements.

* * * *

(d)(2) VSCC and TE–PM2.5C separators. For samplers and monitors utilizing the BGI VSCC or Tisch TE–PM 2.5 C particle size separators specified in sections 7.3.4.4 and 7.3.4.5 of appendix L to part 50 of this chapter, respectively, the respective manufacturers shall identify the critical dimensions and manufacturing tolerances for the separator, devise appropriate test procedures to verify that the critical dimensions and tolerances are maintained during the manufacturing process, and carry out those procedures on each separator manufactured to verify conformance of the manufactured products. The manufacturer shall also maintain records of these tests and their test results and submit evidence that this procedure is incorporated into the manufacturing procedure, that the test is or will be routinely implemented, and that an appropriate procedure is in place for the disposition of units that fail this tolerance tests.

§53.61 Test conditions.

(g) Vibrating Orifice Aerosol Generator (VOAG) and Flow-Focusing Monodisperse Aerosol Generator (FMAG) conventions. This section prescribes conventions regarding the use of the vibrating orifice aerosol generator (VOAG) and the flow-focusing monodisperse aerosol generator (FMAG) for the size-selective performance tests outlined in §§53.62, 53.63, 53.64, and 53.65.

(1) Particle aerodynamic diameter. The VOAG and FMAG produce near-monodisperse droplets through the controlled breakup of a liquid jet. When the liquid solution consists of a non-volatile solute dissolved in a volatile solvent, the droplets dry to form particles of near-monodisperse size.

(i) The physical diameter of a generated spherical particle can be calculated from the operational parameters of the VOAG and FMAG as:

Equation 1



where:

Dp = particle physical diameter, µm;

Q = liquid volumetric flow rate, µm 3/sec;

Cvol = volume concentration (particle volume produced per drop volume), dimensionless; and

f = frequency of applied vibrational signal, 1/sec.

(ii) A given particle's aerodynamic behavior is a function of its physical particle size, particle shape, and density. Aerodynamic diameter is defined as the diameter of a unit density (ρo = 1g/cm 3) sphere having the same settling velocity as the particle under consideration. For converting a spherical particle of known density to aerodynamic diameter, the governing relationship is:

Equation 2



where:

Dae = particle aerodynamic diameter, µm;

ρp = particle density, g/cm 3;

ρo = aerodynamic particle density = 1 g/cm 3;

CDp = Cunningham's slip correction factor for physical particle diameter, dimensionless; and

CDae = Cunningham's slip correction factor for aerodynamic particle diameter, dimensionless.

(iii) At room temperature and standard pressure, the Cunningham's slip correction factor is solely a function of particle diameter:

Equation 3



or

Equation 4



(iv) Since the slip correction factor is itself a function of particle diameter, the aerodynamic diameter in equation 2 of paragraph (g)(1)(ii) of this section cannot be solved directly but must be determined by iteration.

(2) Solid particle generation. (i) Solid particle tests performed in this subpart shall be conducted using particles composed of ammonium fluorescein. For use in the VOAG or FMAG, liquid solutions of known volumetric concentration can be prepared by diluting fluorescein powder (C 2 OH 12 O 5 , FW = 332.31, CAS 2321–07–5) with aqueous ammonia. Guidelines for preparation of fluorescein solutions of the desired volume concentration (C vol) are presented in Vanderpool and Rubow (1988) (Reference 2 in appendix A to this subpart). For purposes of converting particle physical diameter to aerodynamic diameter, an ammonium fluorescein particle density of 1.35 g/cm 3 shall be used.

(ii) Mass deposits of ammonium fluorescein shall be extracted and analyzed using solutions of 0.01 N ammonium hydroxide.

(iii) Calculation of the physical diameter of the particles produced by the VOAG and FMAG requires knowledge of the liquid solution's volume concentration (C vol). Because uranine is essentially insoluble in oleic acid, the total particle volume is the sum of the oleic acid volume and the uranine volume. The volume concentration of the liquid solution shall be calculated as:



Where:

V u = uranine volume, ml;

V oleic = oleic acid volume, ml;

V sol = total solution volume, ml;

M u = uranine mass, g;

P u = uranine density, g/cm 3 ;

M oleic = oleic acid mass, g; and

P oleic = oleic acid density, g/cm 3 .

(3) Liquid particle generation. (i) Tests prescribed in §53.63 for inlet aspiration require the use of liquid particle tests composed of oleic acid tagged with uranine to enable subsequent fluorometric quantitation of collected aerosol mass deposits. Oleic acid (C18H34O2, FW = 282.47, CAS 112-80-1) has a density of 0.8935 g/cm 3. Because the viscosity of oleic acid is relatively high, significant errors can occur when dispensing oleic acid using volumetric pipettes. For this reason, it is recommended that oleic acid solutions be prepared by quantifying dispensed oleic acid gravimetrically. The volume of oleic acid dispensed can then be calculated simply by dividing the dispensed mass by the oleic acid density.

(ii) Oleic acid solutions tagged with uranine shall be prepared as follows. A known mass of oleic acid shall first be diluted using absolute ethanol. The desired mass of the uranine tag should then be diluted in a separate container using absolute ethanol. Uranine (C20H10O5Na2, FW = 376.3, CAS 518-47-8) is the disodium salt of fluorescein and has a density of 1.53 g/cm 3. In preparing uranine tagged oleic acid particles, the uranine content shall not exceed 20 percent on a mass basis. Once both oleic acid and uranine solutions are properly prepared, they can then be combined and diluted to final volume using absolute ethanol.

(iii) Calculation of the physical diameter of the particles produced by the VOAG requires knowledge of the liquid solution's volume concentration (Cvol). Because uranine is essentially insoluble in oleic acid, the total particle volume is the sum of the oleic acid volume and the uranine volume. The volume concentration of the liquid solution shall be calculated as:

Equation 5



where:

Vu = uranine volume, ml;

Voleic = oleic acid volume, ml;

Vsol = total solution volume, ml;

Mu = uranine mass, g;

ρu = uranine density, g/cm 3;

Moleic = oleic acid mass, g; and

ρoleic = oleic acid density, g/cm. 3

(iv) For purposes of converting the particles' physical diameter to aerodynamic diameter, the density of the generated particles shall be calculated as:

Equation 6



(v) Mass deposits of oleic acid shall be extracted and analyzed using solutions of 0.01 N sodium hydroxide.

§58.1 Definitions.

* * * *

Traceable means a measurement result from a local standard whereby the result can be related to the International System of Units (SI) through a documented unbroken chain of calibrations, each contributing to the measurement uncertainty. Traceable measurement results must be compared and certified, either directly or via not more than one intermediate standard, to a National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST)-certified reference standard. Examples include but are not limited to NIST Standard Reference Material (SRM), NIST-traceable Reference Material (NTRM), or a NIST-certified Research Gas Mixture (RGM). Traceability to the SI through other National Metrology Institutes (NMIs) in addition to NIST is allowed if a Declaration of Equivalence (DoE) exists between NIST and that NMI.

§58.10 Annual monitoring network plan and periodic network assessment.

* * * *

(a)(1) Beginning July 1, 2007, the State, or where applicable local, agency shall submit to the Regional Administrator an annual monitoring network plan which shall provide for the documentation of the establishment and maintenance of an air quality surveillance system that consists of a network of SLAMS monitoring stations that can include FRM and FEM monitors that are part of SLAMS, NCore, CSN, PAMS, and SPM stations. The plan shall include a statement of whether the operation of each monitor meets the requirements of appendices A, B, C, D, and E to this part, where applicable. The Regional Administrator may require additional information in support of this statement. The annual monitoring network plan must be made available for public inspection and comment for at least 30 days prior to submission to the EPA and the submitted plan shall include and address, as appropriate, any received comments.

* * * * *

(b)(10) Any monitors for which a waiver has been requested or granted by the EPA Regional Administrator as allowed for under appendix D or appendix E to this part. For those monitors where a waiver has been approved, the annual monitoring network plan shall include the date the waiver was approved.

* * * * *

(b)(13) The identification of any PM 2.5 FEMs used in the monitoring agency's network where the data are not of sufficient quality such that data are not to be compared to the national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS). For required SLAMS where the agency identifies that the PM 2.5 Class III FEM does not produce data of sufficient quality for comparison to the NAAQS, the monitoring agency must ensure that an operating FRM or filter-based FEM meeting the sample frequency requirements described in §58.12 or other Class III PM 2.5 FEM with data of sufficient quality is operating and reporting data to meet the network design criteria described in appendix D to this part.

* * * * *

(d) The State, or where applicable local, agency shall perform and submit to the EPA Regional Administrator an assessment of the air quality surveillance system every 5 years to determine, at a minimum, if the network meets the monitoring objectives defined in appendix D to this part, whether new sites are needed, whether existing sites are no longer needed and can be terminated, and whether new technologies are appropriate for incorporation into the ambient air monitoring network. The network assessment must consider the ability of existing and proposed sites to support air quality characterization for areas with relatively high populations of susceptible individuals (e.g., children with asthma) and other at-risk populations, and, for any sites that are being proposed for discontinuance, the effect on data users other than the agency itself, such as nearby States and Tribes or health effects studies. The State, or where applicable local, agency must submit a copy of this 5-year assessment, along with a revised annual network plan, to the Regional Administrator. The assessments are due every 5 years beginning July 1, 2010.

§58.11 Network technical requirements.

* * * *

(a)(2) Beginning January 1, 2009, State and local governments shall follow the quality assurance criteria contained in appendix A to this part that apply to SPM sites when operating any SPM site which uses an FRM or an FEM and meets the requirements of appendix E to this part, unless the Regional Administrator approves an alternative to the requirements of appendix A with respect to such SPM sites because meeting those requirements would be physically and/or financially impractical due to physical conditions at the monitoring site and the requirements are not essential to achieving the intended data objectives of the SPM site. Alternatives to the requirements of appendix A may be approved for an SPM site as part of the approval of the annual monitoring plan, or separately.

* * * *

(e) State and local governments must assess data from Class III PM 2.5 FEM monitors operated within their network using the performance criteria described in table C–4 to subpart C of part 53 of this chapter, for cases where the data are identified as not of sufficient comparability to a collocated FRM, and the monitoring agency requests that the FEM data should not be used in comparison to the NAAQS. These assessments are required in the monitoring agency's annual monitoring network plan described in §58.10(b) for cases where the FEM is identified as not of sufficient comparability to a collocated FRM. For these collocated PM 2.5 monitors, the performance criteria apply with the following additional provisions:

(1) The acceptable concentration range (Rj), µg/m 3 may include values down to 0 µg/m 3 .

(2) The minimum number of test sites shall be at least one; however, the number of test sites will generally include all locations within an agency's network with collocated FRMs and FEMs.

(3) The minimum number of methods shall include at least one FRM and at least one FEM.

(4) Since multiple FRMs and FEMs may not be present at each site, the precision statistic requirement does not apply, even if precision data are available.

(5) All seasons must be covered with no more than 36 consecutive months of data in total aggregated together.

(6) The key statistical metric to include in an assessment is the bias (both additive and multiplicative) of the PM 2.5 continuous FEM(s) compared to a collocated FRM(s). Correlation is required to be reported in the assessment, but failure to meet the correlation criteria, by itself, is not cause to exclude data from a continuous FEM monitor.

§58.12 Operating schedules.

* * * *

(1)(i) Manual PM 2.5 samplers at required SLAMS stations without a collocated continuously operating PM 2.5 monitor must operate on at least a 1-in-3 day schedule unless a waiver for an alternative schedule has been approved per paragraph (d)(1)(ii) of this section.

(ii) For SLAMS PM 2.5 sites with both manual and continuous PM 2.5 monitors operating, the monitoring agency may request approval for a reduction to 1-in-6 day PM 2.5 sampling or for seasonal sampling from the EPA Regional Administrator. Other requests for a reduction to 1-in-6 day PM 2.5 sampling or for seasonal sampling may be approved on a case-by-case basis. The EPA Regional Administrator may grant sampling frequency reductions after consideration of factors (including but not limited to the historical PM 2.5 data quality assessments, the location of current PM 2.5 design value sites, and their regulatory data needs) if the Regional Administrator determines that the reduction in sampling frequency will not compromise data needed for implementation of the NAAQS. Required SLAMS stations whose measurements determine the design value for their area and that are within plus or minus 10 percent of the annual NAAQS, and all required sites where one or more 24-hour values have exceeded the 24-hour NAAQS each year for a consecutive period of at least 3 years are required to maintain at least a 1-in-3 day sampling frequency until the design value no longer meets the criteria in this paragraph (d)(1)(ii) for 3 consecutive years. A continuously operating FEM PM 2.5 monitor satisfies the requirement in this paragraph (d)(1)(ii) unless it is identified in the monitoring agency's annual monitoring network plan as not appropriate for comparison to the NAAQS and the EPA Regional Administrator has approved that the data from that monitor may be excluded from comparison to the NAAQS.

(iii) Required SLAMS stations whose measurements determine the 24-hour design value for their area and whose data are within plus or minus 5 percent of the level of the 24-hour PM 2.5 NAAQS must have an FRM or FEM operate on a daily schedule if that area's design value for the annual NAAQS is less than the level of the annual PM 2.5 standard. A continuously operating FEM or PM 2.5 monitor satisfies the requirement in this paragraph (d)(1)(iii) unless it is identified in the monitoring agency's annual monitoring network plan as not appropriate for comparison to the NAAQS and the EPA Regional Administrator has approved that the data from that monitor may be excluded from comparison to the NAAQS. The daily schedule must be maintained until the referenced design values no longer meets the criteria in this paragraph (d)(1)(iii) for 3 consecutive years.

(iv) Changes in sampling frequency attributable to changes in design values shall be implemented no later than January 1 of the calendar year following the certification of such data as described in §58.15.

§58.15 Annual air monitoring data certification.

(a) The State, or where appropriate local, agency shall submit to the EPA Regional Administrator an annual air monitoring data certification letter to certify data collected by FRM and FEM monitors at SLAMS and SPM sites that meet criteria in appendix A to this part from January 1 to December 31 of the previous year. The head official in each monitoring agency, or his or her designee, shall certify that the previous year of ambient concentration and quality assurance data are completely submitted to AQS and that the ambient concentration data are accurate to the best of her or his knowledge, taking into consideration the quality assurance findings. The annual data certification letter is due by May 1 of each year.

(b) Along with each certification letter, the State shall submit to the Regional Administrator an annual summary report of all the ambient air quality data collected by FRM and FEM monitors at SLAMS and SPM sites. The annual report(s) shall be submitted for data collected from January 1 to December 31 of the previous year. The annual summary serves as the record of the specific data that is the object of the certification letter.

(c) Along with each certification letter, the State shall submit to the Regional Administrator a summary of the precision and accuracy data for all ambient air quality data collected by FRM and FEM monitors at SLAMS and SPM sites. The summary of precision and accuracy shall be submitted for data collected from January 1 to December 31 of the previous year.

§58.20 Special purpose monitors (SPM).

* * * *

(b) Any SPM data collected by an air monitoring agency using a Federal reference method (FRM) or Federal equivalent method (FEM) must meet the requirements of §§58.11 and 58.12 and appendix A to this part or an approved alternative to appendix A. Compliance with appendix E to this part is optional but encouraged except when the monitoring agency's data objectives are inconsistent with the requirements in appendix E. Data collected at an SPM using a FRM or FEM meeting the requirements of appendix A must be submitted to AQS according to the requirements of §58.16. Data collected by other SPMs may be submitted. The monitoring agency must also submit to AQS an indication of whether each SPM reporting data to AQS monitor meets the requirements of appendices A and E.

(c) All data from an SPM using an FRM or FEM which has operated for more than 24 months are eligible for comparison to the relevant NAAQS, subject to the conditions of §§58.11(e) and 58.30, unless the air monitoring agency demonstrates that the data came from a particular period during which the requirements of appendix A, appendix C, or appendix E to this part were not met, subject to review and EPA Regional Office approval as part of the annual monitoring network plan described in §58.10.

(d) If an SPM using an FRM or FEM is discontinued within 24 months of start-up, the Administrator will not base a NAAQS violation determination for the PM 2.5 or ozone NAAQS solely on data from the SPM.

(e) If an SPM using an FRM or FEM is discontinued within 24 months of start-up, the Administrator will not designate an area as nonattainment for the CO, SO 2 , NO 2 , or 24-hour PM 10 NAAQS solely on the basis of data from the SPM. Such data are eligible for use in determinations of whether a nonattainment area has attained one of these NAAQS.

Appendix A to Part 58 - Quality Assurance Requirements for Monitors used in Evaluations of National Ambient Air Quality Standards

1. General Information

2. Quality System Requirements

3. Measurement Quality Check Requirements

4. Calculations for Data Quality Assessments

5. Reporting Requirements

6. References

1. General Information

1.1 Applicability. (a) This appendix specifies the minimum quality system requirements applicable to SLAMS and other monitor types whose data are intended to be used to determine compliance with the NAAQS (e.g., SPMs, tribal, CASTNET, NCore, industrial, etc.), unless the EPA Regional Administrator has reviewed and approved the monitor for exclusion from NAAQS use and these quality assurance requirements.

(b) Primary quality assurance organizations are encouraged to develop and maintain quality systems more extensive than the required minimums. Additional guidance for the requirements reflected in this appendix can be found in the “Quality Assurance Handbook for Air Pollution Measurement Systems,” Volume II (see reference 10 of this appendix) and at a national level in references 1, 2, and 3 of this appendix.

1.2 Primary Quality Assurance Organization (PQAO). A PQAO is defined as a monitoring organization or a group of monitoring organizations or other organization that is responsible for a set of stations that monitors the same pollutant and for which data quality assessments will be pooled. Each criteria pollutant sampler/monitor must be associated with only one PQAO. In some cases, data quality is assessed at the PQAO level.

1.2.1 Each PQAO shall be defined such that measurement uncertainty among all stations in the organization can be expected to be reasonably homogeneous as a result of common factors. Common factors that should be considered in defining PQAOs include:

(a) Operation by a common team of field operators according to a common set of procedures;

(b) Use of a common quality assurance project plan (QAPP) or standard operating procedures;

(c) Common calibration facilities and standards;

(d) Oversight by a common quality assurance organization; and

(e) Support by a common management organization (i.e., state agency) or laboratory.

Since data quality assessments are made and data certified at the PQAO level, the monitoring organization identified as the PQAO will be responsible for the oversight of the quality of data of all monitoring organizations within the PQAO.

1.2.2 Monitoring organizations having difficulty describing its PQAO or in assigning specific monitors to primary quality assurance organizations should consult with the appropriate EPA Regional Office. Any consolidation of monitoring organizations to PQAOs shall be subject to final approval by the appropriate EPA Regional Office.

1.2.3 Each PQAO is required to implement a quality system that provides sufficient information to assess the quality of the monitoring data. The quality system must, at a minimum, include the specific requirements described in this appendix. Failure to conduct or pass a required check or procedure, or a series of required checks or procedures, does not by itself invalidate data for regulatory decision making. Rather, PQAOs and the EPA shall use the checks and procedures required in this appendix in combination with other data quality information, reports, and similar documentation that demonstrate overall compliance with Part 58. Accordingly, the EPA and PQAOs shall use a “weight of evidence” approach when determining the suitability of data for regulatory decisions. The EPA reserves the authority to use or not use monitoring data submitted by a monitoring organization when making regulatory decisions based on the EPA's assessment of the quality of the data. Consensus built validation templates or validation criteria already approved in QAPPs should be used as the basis for the weight of evidence approach.

1.3 Definitions.

(a) Measurement Uncertainty. A term used to describe deviations from a true concentration or estimate that are related to the measurement process and not to spatial or temporal population attributes of the air being measured.

(b) Precision. A measurement of mutual agreement among individual measurements of the same property usually under prescribed similar conditions, expressed generally in terms of the standard deviation.

(c) Bias. The systematic or persistent distortion of a measurement process which causes errors in one direction.

(d) Accuracy. The degree of agreement between an observed value and an accepted reference value. Accuracy includes a combination of random error (imprecision) and systematic error (bias) components which are due to sampling and analytical operations.

(e) Completeness. A measure of the amount of valid data obtained from a measurement system compared to the amount that was expected to be obtained under correct, normal conditions.

(f) Detection Limit. The lowest concentration or amount of target analyte that can be determined to be different from zero by a single measurement at a stated level of probability.

1.4 Measurement Quality Checks. The measurement quality checks described in section 3 of this appendix shall be reported to AQS and are included in the data required for certification.

1.5 Assessments and Reports. Periodic assessments and documentation of data quality are required to be reported to the EPA. To provide national uniformity in this assessment and reporting of data quality for all networks, specific assessment and reporting procedures are prescribed in detail in sections 3, 4, and 5 of this appendix. On the other hand, the selection and extent of the quality assurance and quality control activities used by a monitoring organization depend on a number of local factors such as field and laboratory conditions, the objectives for monitoring, the level of data quality needed, the expertise of assigned personnel, the cost of control procedures, pollutant concentration levels, etc. Therefore, quality system requirements in section 2 of this appendix are specified in general terms to allow each monitoring organization to develop a quality system that is most efficient and effective for its own circumstances while achieving the data quality objectives described in this appendix.

2. Quality System Requirements

A quality system (reference 1 of this appendix) is the means by which an organization manages the quality of the monitoring information it produces in a systematic, organized manner. It provides a framework for planning, implementing, assessing and reporting work performed by an organization and for carrying out required quality assurance and quality control activities.

2.1 Quality Management Plans and Quality Assurance Project Plans. All PQAOs must develop a quality system that is described and approved in quality management plans (QMP) and QAPPs to ensure that the monitoring results:

(a) Meet a well-defined need, use, or purpose (reference 5 of this appendix);

(b) Provide data of adequate quality for the intended monitoring objectives;

(c) Satisfy stakeholder expectations;

(d) Comply with applicable standards specifications;

(e) Comply with statutory (and other legal) requirements; and

(f) Reflect consideration of cost and economics.

2.1.1 The QMP describes the quality system in terms of the organizational structure, functional responsibilities of management and staff, lines of authority, and required interfaces for those planning, implementing, assessing and reporting activities involving environmental data operations (EDO). The QMP must be suitably documented in accordance with EPA requirements (reference 2 of this appendix), and approved by the appropriate Regional Administrator, or his or her representative. The quality system described in the QMP will be reviewed during the systems audits described in section 2.5 of this appendix. Organizations that implement long-term monitoring programs with EPA funds should have a separate QMP document. Smaller organizations, organizations that do infrequent work with the EPA or have monitoring programs of limited size or scope may combine the QMP with the QAPP if approved by, and subject to any conditions of the EPA. Additional guidance on this process can be found in reference 10 of this appendix. Approval of the recipient's QMP by the appropriate Regional Administrator or his or her representative may allow delegation of authority to the PQAOs independent quality assurance function to review and approve environmental data collection activities adequately described and covered under the scope of the QMP and documented in appropriate planning documents (QAPP). Where a PQAO or monitoring organization has been delegated authority to review and approve their QAPP, an electronic copy must be submitted to the EPA region at the time it is submitted to the PQAO/monitoring organization's QAPP approving authority. The QAPP will be reviewed by the EPA during systems audits or circumstances related to data quality. The QMP submission and approval dates for PQAOs/monitoring organizations must be reported to AQS either by the monitoring organization or the EPA Region.

2.1.2 The QAPP is a formal document describing, in sufficient detail, the quality system that must be implemented to ensure that the results of work performed will satisfy the stated objectives. PQAOs must develop QAPPs that describe how the organization intends to control measurement uncertainty to an appropriate level in order to achieve the data quality objectives for the EDO. The quality assurance policy of the EPA requires every EDO to have a written and approved QAPP prior to the start of the EDO. It is the responsibility of the PQAO/monitoring organization to adhere to this policy. The QAPP must be suitably documented in accordance with EPA requirements (reference 3 of this appendix) and include standard operating procedures for all EDOs either within the document or by appropriate reference. The QAPP must identify each PQAO operating monitors under the QAPP as well as generally identify the sites and monitors to which it is applicable either within the document or by appropriate reference. The QAPP submission and approval dates must be reported to AQS either by the monitoring organization or the EPA Region.

2.1.3 The PQAO/monitoring organization's quality system must have adequate resources both in personnel and funding to plan, implement, assess and report on the achievement of the requirements of this appendix and it's approved QAPP.

2.2 Independence of Quality Assurance. The PQAO must provide for a quality assurance management function, that aspect of the overall management system of the organization that determines and implements the quality policy defined in a PQAO's QMP. Quality management includes strategic planning, allocation of resources and other systematic planning activities (e.g., planning, implementation, assessing and reporting) pertaining to the quality system. The quality assurance management function must have sufficient technical expertise and management authority to conduct independent oversight and assure the implementation of the organization's quality system relative to the ambient air quality monitoring program and should be organizationally independent of environmental data generation activities.

2.3. Data Quality Performance Requirements.

2.3.1 Data Quality Objectives. The DQOs, or the results of other systematic planning processes, are statements that define the appropriate type of data to collect and specify the tolerable levels of potential decision errors that will be used as a basis for establishing the quality and quantity of data needed to support the monitoring objectives (reference 5 of this appendix). The DQOs will be developed by the EPA to support the primary regulatory objectives for each criteria pollutant. As they are developed, they will be added to the regulation. The quality of the conclusions derived from data interpretation can be affected by population uncertainty (spatial or temporal uncertainty) and measurement uncertainty (uncertainty associated with collecting, analyzing, reducing and reporting concentration data). This appendix focuses on assessing and controlling measurement uncertainty.

2.3.1.1 Measurement Uncertainty for Automated and Manual PM2.5Methods. The goal for acceptable measurement uncertainty is defined for precision as an upper 90 percent confidence limit for the coefficient of variation (CV) of 10 percent and ±10 percent for total bias.

2.3.1.2 Measurement Uncertainty for Automated O3Methods. The goal for acceptable measurement uncertainty is defined for precision as an upper 90 percent confidence limit for the CV of 7 percent and for bias as an upper 95 percent confidence limit for the absolute bias of 7 percent.

2.3.1.3 Measurement Uncertainty for Pb Methods. The goal for acceptable measurement uncertainty is defined for precision as an upper 90 percent confidence limit for the CV of 20 percent and for bias as an upper 95 percent confidence limit for the absolute bias of 15 percent.

2.3.1.4 Measurement Uncertainty for NO2. The goal for acceptable measurement uncertainty is defined for precision as an upper 90 percent confidence limit for the CV of 15 percent and for bias as an upper 95 percent confidence limit for the absolute bias of 15 percent.

2.3.1.5 Measurement Uncertainty for SO2. The goal for acceptable measurement uncertainty for precision is defined as an upper 90 percent confidence limit for the CV of 10 percent and for bias as an upper 95 percent confidence limit for the absolute bias of 10 percent.

2.4 National Performance Evaluation Programs. The PQAO shall provide for the implementation of a program of independent and adequate audits of all monitors providing data for NAAQS compliance purposes including the provision of adequate resources for such audit programs. A monitoring plan (or QAPP) which provides for PQAO participation in the EPA's National Performance Audit Program (NPAP), the PM2.5 Performance Evaluation Program (PM2.5-PEP) program and the Pb Performance Evaluation Program (Pb-PEP) and indicates the consent of the PQAO for the EPA to apply an appropriate portion of the grant funds, which the EPA would otherwise award to the PQAO for these QA activities, will be deemed by the EPA to meet this requirement. For clarification and to participate, PQAOs should contact either the appropriate EPA regional quality assurance (QA) coordinator at the appropriate EPA Regional Office location, or the NPAP coordinator at the EPA Air Quality Assessment Division, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, in Research Triangle Park, North Carolina. The PQAOs that plan to implement these programs (self-implement) rather than use the federal programs must meet the adequacy requirements found in the appropriate sections that follow, as well as meet the definition of independent assessment that follows.

2.4.1 Independent assessment. An assessment performed by a qualified individual, group, or organization that is not part of the organization directly performing and accountable for the work being assessed. This auditing organization must not be involved with the generation of the ambient air monitoring data. An organization can conduct the performance evaluation (PE) if it can meet this definition and has a management structure that, at a minimum, will allow for the separation of its routine sampling personnel from its auditing personnel by two levels of management. In addition, the sample analysis of audit filters must be performed by a laboratory facility and laboratory equipment separate from the facilities used for routine sample analysis. Field and laboratory personnel will be required to meet PE field and laboratory training and certification requirements to establish comparability to federally implemented programs.

2.5 Technical Systems Audit Program. Technical systems audits of each PQAO shall be conducted at least every 3 years by the appropriate EPA Regional Office and reported to the AQS. If a PQAO is made up of more than one monitoring organization, all monitoring organizations in the PQAO should be audited within 6 years (two TSA cycles of the PQAO). As an example, if a state has five local monitoring organizations that are consolidated under one PQAO, all five local monitoring organizations should receive a technical systems audit within a 6-year period. Systems audit programs are described in reference 10 of this appendix.

2.6 Gaseous and Flow Rate Audit Standards.

2.6.1 Gaseous pollutant concentration standards (permeation devices or cylinders of compressed gas) used to obtain test concentrations for CO, SO 2 , NO, and NO 2 must be EPA Protocol Gases certified in accordance with one of the procedures given in Reference 4 of this appendix.

2.6.1.1 The concentrations of EPA Protocol Gas standards used for ambient air monitoring must be certified with a 95-percent confidence interval to have an analytical uncertainty of no more than ±2.0 percent (inclusive) of the certified concentration (tag value) of the gas mixture. The uncertainty must be calculated in accordance with the statistical procedures defined in Reference 4 of this appendix.

2.6.1.2 Specialty gas producers advertising certification with the procedures provided in Reference 4 of this appendix and distributing gases as “EPA Protocol Gas” for ambient air monitoring purposes must adhere to the regulatory requirements specified in 40 CFR 75.21(g) or not use “EPA” in any form of advertising. Monitoring organizations must provide information to the EPA on the specialty gas producers they use on an annual basis. PQAOs, when requested by the EPA, must participate in the EPA Ambient Air Protocol Gas Verification Program at least once every 5 years by sending a new unused standard to a designated verification laboratory.

2.6.2 Test concentrations for O3 must be obtained in accordance with the ultraviolet photometric calibration procedure specified in appendix D to Part 50 of this chapter and by means of a certified NIST-traceable O3 transfer standard. Consult references 7 and 8 of this appendix for guidance on transfer standards for O3.

2.6.3 Flow rate measurements must be made by a flow measuring instrument that is NIST-traceable to an authoritative volume or other applicable standard. Guidance for certifying some types of flowmeters is provided in reference 10 of this appendix.

2.7 Primary Requirements and Guidance. Requirements and guidance documents for developing the quality system are contained in references 1 through 11 of this appendix, which also contain many suggested procedures, checks, and control specifications. Reference 10 describes specific guidance for the development of a quality system for data collected for comparison to the NAAQS. Many specific quality control checks and specifications for methods are included in the respective reference methods described in Part 50 of this chapter or in the respective equivalent method descriptions available from the EPA (reference 6 of this appendix). Similarly, quality control procedures related to specifically designated reference and equivalent method monitors are contained in the respective operation or instruction manuals associated with those monitors.

3. Measurement Quality Check Requirements

This section provides the requirements for PQAOs to perform the measurement quality checks that can be used to assess data quality. Data from these checks are required to be submitted to the AQS within the same time frame as routinely-collected ambient concentration data as described in 40 CFR 58.16. Table A-1 of this appendix provides a summary of the types and frequency of the measurement quality checks that will be described in this section.

3.1. Gaseous Monitors of SO2, NO2, O3, and CO.

3.1.1 One-Point Quality Control (QC) Check for SO2, NO2, O3, and CO. (a) A one-point QC check must be performed at least once every 2 weeks on each automated monitor used to measure SO2, NO2, O3 and CO. With the advent of automated calibration systems, more frequent checking is strongly encouraged. See Reference 10 of this appendix for guidance on the review procedure. The QC check is made by challenging the monitor with a QC check gas of known concentration (effective concentration for open path monitors) between the prescribed range of 0.005 and 0.08 parts per million (ppm) for SO2, NO2, and O3, and between the prescribed range of 0.5 and 5 ppm for CO monitors. The QC check gas concentration selected within the prescribed range should be related to the monitoring objectives for the monitor. If monitoring at an NCore site or for trace level monitoring, the QC check concentration should be selected to represent the mean or median concentrations at the site. If the mean or median concentrations at trace gas sites are below the MDL of the instrument the agency can select the lowest concentration in the prescribed range that can be practically achieved. If the mean or median concentrations at trace gas sites are above the prescribed range the agency can select the highest concentration in the prescribed range. An additional QC check point is encouraged for those organizations that may have occasional high values or would like to confirm the monitors' linearity at the higher end of the operational range or around NAAQS concentrations. If monitoring for NAAQS decisions, the QC concentration can be selected at a higher concentration within the prescribed range but should also consider precision points around mean or median monitor concentrations.

(b) Point analyzers must operate in their normal sampling mode during the QC check and the test atmosphere must pass through all filters, scrubbers, conditioners and other components used during normal ambient sampling and as much of the ambient air inlet system as is practicable. The QC check must be conducted before any calibration or adjustment to the monitor.

(c) Open path monitors are tested by inserting a test cell containing a QC check gas concentration into the optical measurement beam of the instrument. If possible, the normally used transmitter, receiver, and as appropriate, reflecting devices should be used during the test, and the normal monitoring configuration of the instrument should be altered as little as possible to accommodate the test cell for the test. However, if permitted by the associated operation or instruction manual, an alternate local light source or an alternate optical path that does not include the normal atmospheric monitoring path may be used. The actual concentration of the QC check gas in the test cell must be selected to produce an effective concentration in the range specified earlier in this section. Generally, the QC test concentration measurement will be the sum of the atmospheric pollutant concentration and the QC test concentration. As such, the result must be corrected to remove the atmospheric concentration contribution. The corrected concentration is obtained by subtracting the average of the atmospheric concentrations measured by the open path instrument under test immediately before and immediately after the QC test from the QC check gas concentration measurement. If the difference between these before and after measurements is greater than 20 percent of the effective concentration of the test gas, discard the test result and repeat the test. If possible, open path monitors should be tested during periods when the atmospheric pollutant concentrations are relatively low and steady.

(d) Report the audit concentration of the QC gas and the corresponding measured concentration indicated by the monitor to AQS. The percent differences between these concentrations are used to assess the precision and bias of the monitoring data as described in sections 4.1.2 (precision) and 4.1.3 (bias) of this appendix.

3.1.2 Annual performance evaluation for SO2, NO2, O3, or CO. A performance evaluation must be conducted on each primary monitor once a year. This can be accomplished by evaluating 25 percent of the primary monitors each quarter. The evaluation should be conducted by a trained experienced technician other than the routine site operator.

3.1.2.1 The evaluation is made by challenging the monitor with audit gas standards of known concentration from at least three audit levels. One point must be within two to three times the method detection limit of the instruments within the PQAOs network, the second point will be less than or equal to the 99th percentile of the data at the site or the network of sites in the PQAO or the next highest audit concentration level. The third point can be around the primary NAAQS or the highest 3-year concentration at the site or the network of sites in the PQAO. An additional 4th level is encouraged for those agencies that would like to confirm the monitors' linearity at the higher end of the operational range. In rare circumstances, there may be sites measuring concentrations above audit level 10. Notify the appropriate EPA region and the AQS program in order to make accommodations for auditing at levels above level 10.

Audit levelConcentration Range, ppm
O3SO2NO2CO
10.004-0.00590.0003-0.00290.0003-0.00290.020-0.059
20.006-0.0190.0030-0.00490.0030-0.00490.060-0.199
30.020-0.0390.0050-0.00790.0050-0.00790.200-0.899
40.040-0.0690.0080-0.01990.0080-0.01990.900-2.999
50.070-0.0890.0200-0.04990.0200-0.04993.000-7.999
60.090-0.1190.0500-0.09990.0500-0.09998.000-15.999
70.120-0.1390.1000-0.14990.1000-0.299916.000-30.999
80.140-0.1690.1500-0.25990.3000-0.499931.000-39.999
90.170-0.1890.2600-0.79990.5000-0.799940.000-49.999
100.190-0.2590.8000-1.0000.8000-1.00050.000-60.000

3.1.2.2 The standards from which audit gas test concentrations are obtained must meet the specifications of section 2.6.1 of this appendix. The gas standards and equipment used for the performance evaluation must not be the same as the standards and equipment used for one-point QC, calibrations, span evaluations or NPAP.

3.1.2.3 For point analyzers, the evaluation shall be carried out by allowing the monitor to analyze the audit gas test atmosphere in its normal sampling mode such that the test atmosphere passes through all filters, scrubbers, conditioners, and other sample inlet components used during normal ambient sampling and as much of the ambient air inlet system as is practicable.

3.1.2.4 Open-path monitors are evaluated by inserting a test cell containing the various audit gas concentrations into the optical measurement beam of the instrument. If possible, the normally used transmitter, receiver, and, as appropriate, reflecting devices should be used during the evaluation, and the normal monitoring configuration of the instrument should be modified as little as possible to accommodate the test cell for the evaluation. However, if permitted by the associated operation or instruction manual, an alternate local light source or an alternate optical path that does not include the normal atmospheric monitoring path may be used. The actual concentrations of the audit gas in the test cell must be selected to produce effective concentrations in the evaluation level ranges specified in this section of this appendix. Generally, each evaluation concentration measurement result will be the sum of the atmospheric pollutant concentration and the evaluation test concentration. As such, the result must be corrected to remove the atmospheric concentration contribution. The corrected concentration is obtained by subtracting the average of the atmospheric concentrations measured by the open path instrument under test immediately before and immediately after the evaluation test (or preferably before and after each evaluation concentration level) from the evaluation concentration measurement. If the difference between the before and after measurements is greater than 20 percent of the effective concentration of the test gas standard, discard the test result for that concentration level and repeat the test for that level. If possible, open path monitors should be evaluated during periods when the atmospheric pollutant concentrations are relatively low and steady. Also, if the open-path instrument is not installed in a permanent manner, the monitoring path length must be reverified to be within ±3 percent to validate the evaluation since the monitoring path length is critical to the determination of the effective concentration.

3.1.2.5 Report both the evaluation concentrations (effective concentrations for open-path monitors) of the audit gases and the corresponding measured concentration (corrected concentrations, if applicable, for open path monitors) indicated or produced by the monitor being tested to AQS. The percent differences between these concentrations are used to assess the quality of the monitoring data as described in section 4.1.1 of this appendix.

3.1.3 National Performance Audit Program (NPAP).

The NPAP is a performance evaluation which is a type of audit where quantitative data are collected independently in order to evaluate the proficiency of an analyst, monitoring instrument or laboratory. Due to the implementation approach used in the program, NPAP provides a national independent assessment of performance while maintaining a consistent level of data quality. Details of the program can be found in reference 11 of this appendix. The program requirements include:

3.1.3.1 Performing audits of the primary monitors at 20 percent of monitoring sites per year, and 100 percent of the sites every 6 years. High-priority sites may be audited more frequently. Since not all gaseous criteria pollutants are monitored at every site within a PQAO, it is not required that 20 percent of the primary monitors for each pollutant receive an NPAP audit each year only that 20 percent of the PQAOs monitoring sites receive an NPAP audit. It is expected that over the 6-year period all primary monitors for all gaseous pollutants will receive an NPAP audit.

3.1.3.2 Developing a delivery system that will allow for the audit concentration gasses to be introduced to the probe inlet where logistically feasible.

3.1.3.3 Using audit gases that are verified against the NIST standard reference methods or special review procedures and validated per the certification periods specified in Reference 4 of this appendix (EPA Traceability Protocol for Assay and Certification of Gaseous Calibration Standards) for CO, SO 2 , and NO 2 and using O 3 analyzers that are verified quarterly against a standard reference photometer.

3.1.3.4 As described in section 2.4 of this appendix, the PQAO may elect, on an annual basis, to utilize the federally implemented NPAP program. If the PQAO plans to self-implement NPAP, the EPA will establish training and other technical requirements for PQAOs to establish comparability to federally implemented programs. In addition to meeting the requirements in sections 3.1.3.1 through 3.1.3.3 of this appendix, the PQAO must:

(a) Utilize an audit system equivalent to the federally implemented NPAP audit system and is separate from equipment used in annual performance evaluations.

(b) Perform a whole system check by having the NPAP system tested against an independent and qualified EPA lab, or equivalent.

(c) Evaluate the system with the EPA NPAP program through collocated auditing at an acceptable number of sites each year (at least one for an agency network of five or less sites; at least two for a network with more than five sites).

(d) Incorporate the NPAP in the PQAO's quality assurance project plan.

(e) Be subject to review by independent, EPA-trained personnel.

(f) Participate in initial and update training/certification sessions.

3.1.3.5 OAQPS, in consultation with the relevant EPA Regional Office, may approve the PQAO's plan to self-implement NPAP if the OAQPS determines that the PQAO's self-implementation plan is equivalent to the federal programs and adequate to meet the objectives of national consistency and data quality.

3.2 PM2.5.

3.2.1 Flow Rate Verification for PM2.5. A one-point flow rate verification check must be performed at least once every month (each verification minimally separated by 14 days) on each monitor used to measure PM2.5. The verification is made by checking the operational flow rate of the monitor. If the verification is made in conjunction with a flow rate adjustment, it must be made prior to such flow rate adjustment. For the standard procedure, use a flow rate transfer standard certified in accordance with section 2.6 of this appendix to check the monitor's normal flow rate. Care should be used in selecting and using the flow rate measurement device such that it does not alter the normal operating flow rate of the monitor. Report the flow rate of the transfer standard and the corresponding flow rate measured by the monitor to AQS. The percent differences between the audit and measured flow rates are used to assess the bias of the monitoring data as described in section 4.2.2 of this appendix (using flow rates in lieu of concentrations).

3.2.2 Semi-Annual Flow Rate Audit for PM2.5. Audit the flow rate of the particulate monitor twice a year. The two audits should ideally be spaced between 5 and 7 months apart. The EPA strongly encourages more frequent auditing. The audit should (preferably) be conducted by a trained experienced technician other than the routine site operator. The audit is made by measuring the monitor's normal operating flow rate(s) using a flow rate transfer standard certified in accordance with section 2.6 of this appendix. The flow rate standard used for auditing must not be the same flow rate standard used for verifications or to calibrate the monitor. However, both the calibration standard and the audit standard may be referenced to the same primary flow rate or volume standard. Care must be taken in auditing the flow rate to be certain that the flow measurement device does not alter the normal operating flow rate of the monitor. Report the audit flow rate of the transfer standard and the corresponding flow rate measured by the monitor to AQS. The percent differences between these flow rates are used to evaluate monitor performance.

3.2.3 Collocated Quality Control Sampling Procedures for PM2.5. For each pair of collocated monitors, designate one sampler as the primary monitor whose concentrations will be used to report air quality for the site, and designate the other as the quality control monitor. There can be only one primary monitor at a monitoring site for a given time period.

3.2.3.1 For each distinct monitoring method designation (FRM or FEM) that a PQAO is using for a primary monitor, the PQAO must have 15 percent of the primary monitors of each method designation collocated (values of 0.5 and greater round up); and have at least one collocated quality control monitor (if the total number of monitors is less than three). The first collocated monitor must be a designated FRM monitor.

3.2.3.2 In addition, monitors selected for collocation must also meet the following requirements:

(a) A primary monitor designated as an EPA FRM shall be collocated with a quality control monitor having the same EPA FRM method designation.

(b) For each primary monitor designated as an EPA FEM used by the PQAO, 50 percent of the monitors designated for collocation, or the first if only one collocation is necessary, shall be collocated with a FRM quality control monitor and 50 percent of the monitors shall be collocated with a monitor having the same method designation as the FEM primary monitor. If an odd number of collocated monitors is required, the additional monitor shall be a FRM quality control monitor. An example of the distribution of collocated monitors for each unique FEM is provided below. Table A-2 of this appendix demonstrates the collocation procedure with a PQAO having one type of primary FRM and multiple primary FEMs.

#Primary FEMS of a unique method
designation
#Collocated#Collocated with an FRM#Collocated with same method
designation
1-9110
10-16211
17-23321
24-29422
30-36532
37-43633

3.2.3.3 Since the collocation requirements are used to assess precision of the primary monitors and there can only be one primary monitor at a monitoring site, a site can only count for the collocation of the method designation of the primary monitor at that site.

3.2.3.4 The collocated monitors should be deployed according to the following protocol:

(a) Fifty percent of the collocated quality control monitors should be deployed at sites with annual average or daily concentrations estimated to be within plus or minus 20 percent of either the annual or 24-hour NAAQS and the remainder at the PQAOs discretion;

(b) If an organization has no sites with annual average or daily concentrations within ±20 percent of the annual NAAQS or 24-hour NAAQS, 50 percent of the collocated quality control monitors should be deployed at those sites with the annual mean concentrations or 24-hour concentrations among the highest for all sites in the network and the remainder at the PQAOs discretion.

(c) The two collocated monitors must be within 4 meters (inlet to inlet) of each other and at least 2 meters apart for flow rates greater than 200 liters/min or at least 1 meter apart for samplers having flow rates less than 200 liters/min to preclude airflow interference. A waiver allowing up to 10 meters horizontal distance and up to 3 meters vertical distance (inlet to inlet) between a primary and collocated sampler may be approved by the Regional Administrator for sites at a neighborhood or larger scale of representation during the annual network plan approval process. Sampling and analytical methodologies must be the consistently implemented for both primary and collocated quality control samplers and for all other samplers in the network.

(d) Sample the collocated quality control monitor on a 1-in-12 day schedule. Report the measurements from both primary and collocated quality control monitors at each collocated sampling site to AQS. The calculations for evaluating precision between the two collocated monitors are described in section 4.2.1 of this appendix.

3.2.4 PM2.5 Performance Evaluation Program (PEP) Procedures. The PEP is an independent assessment used to estimate total measurement system bias. These evaluations will be performed under the national performance evaluation program (NPEP) as described in section 2.4 of this appendix or a comparable program. A prescribed number of Performance evaluation sampling events will be performed annually within each PQAO. For PQAOs with less than or equal to five monitoring sites, five valid performance evaluation audits must be collected and reported each year. For PQAOs with greater than five monitoring sites, eight valid performance evaluation audits must be collected and reported each year. A valid performance evaluation audit means that both the primary monitor and PEP audit concentrations are valid and equal to or greater than 2 µg/m3. Siting of the PEP monitor must be consistent with section 3.2.3.4(c) of this appendix. However, any horizontal distance greater than 4 meters and any vertical distance greater than one meter must be reported to the EPA regional PEP coordinator. Additionally for every monitor designated as a primary monitor, a primary quality assurance organization must:

3.2.4.1 Have each method designation evaluated each year; and,

3.2.4.2 Have all FRM, FEM or ARM samplers subject to a PEP audit at least once every 6 years, which equates to approximately 15 percent of the monitoring sites audited each year.

3.2.4.3. Additional information concerning the PEP is contained in reference 10 of this appendix. The calculations for evaluating bias between the primary monitor and the performance evaluation monitor for PM2.5 are described in section 4.2.5 of this appendix.

3.3PM10.

3.3.1 Flow Rate Verification for PM10Low Volume Samplers (less than 200 liter/minute). A one-point flow rate verification check must be performed at least once every month (each verification minimally separated by 14 days) on each monitor used to measure PM10. The verification is made by checking the operational flow rate of the monitor. If the verification is made in conjunction with a flow rate adjustment, it must be made prior to such flow rate adjustment. For the standard procedure, use a flow rate transfer standard certified in accordance with section 2.6 of this appendix to check the monitor's normal flow rate. Care should be taken in selecting and using the flow rate measurement device such that it does not alter the normal operating flow rate of the monitor. The percent differences between the audit and measured flow rates are reported to AQS and used to assess the bias of the monitoring data as described in section 4.2.2 of this appendix (using flow rates in lieu of concentrations).

3.3.2 Flow Rate Verification for PM10High Volume Samplers (greater than 200 liters/minute). For PM10 high volume samplers, the verification frequency is one verification every 90 days (quarter) with 4 in a year. Other than verification frequency, follow the same technical procedure as described in section 3.3.1 of this appendix.

3.3.3 Semi-Annual Flow Rate Audit for PM10. Audit the flow rate of the particulate monitor twice a year. The two audits should ideally be spaced between 5 and 7 months apart. The EPA strongly encourages more frequent auditing. The audit should (preferably) be conducted by a trained experienced technician other than the routine site operator. The audit is made by measuring the monitor's normal operating flow rate using a flow rate transfer standard certified in accordance with section 2.6 of this appendix. The flow rate standard used for auditing must not be the same flow rate standard used for verifications or to calibrate the monitor. However, both the calibration standard and the audit standard may be referenced to the same primary flow rate or volume standard. Care must be taken in auditing the flow rate to be certain that the flow measurement device does not alter the normal operating flow rate of the monitor. Report the audit flow rate of the transfer standard and the corresponding flow rate measured by the monitor to AQS. The percent differences between these flow rates are used to evaluate monitor performance.

3.3.4 Collocated Quality Control Sampling Procedures for Manual PM10. Collocated sampling for PM10 is only required for manual samplers. For each pair of collocated monitors, designate one sampler as the primary monitor whose concentrations will be used to report air quality for the site and designate the other as the quality control monitor.

3.3.4.1 For manual PM10 samplers, a PQAO must:

(a) Have 15 percent of the primary monitors collocated (values of 0.5 and greater round up); and

(b) Have at least one collocated quality control monitor (if the total number of monitors is less than three).

3.3.4.2 The collocated quality control monitors should be deployed according to the following protocol:

(a) Fifty percent of the collocated quality control monitors should be deployed at sites with daily concentrations estimated to be within plus or minus 20 percent of the applicable NAAQS and the remainder at the PQAOs discretion;

(b) If an organization has no sites with daily concentrations within plus or minus 20 percent of the NAAQS, 50 percent of the collocated quality control monitors should be deployed at those sites with the daily mean concentrations among the highest for all sites in the network and the remainder at the PQAOs discretion.

(c) The two collocated monitors must be within 4 meters (inlet to inlet) of each other and at least 2 meters apart for flow rates greater than 200 liters/min or at least 1 meter apart for samplers having flow rates less than 200 liters/min to preclude airflow interference. A waiver allowing up to 10 meters horizontal distance and up to 3 meters vertical distance (inlet to inlet) between a primary and collocated sampler may be approved by the Regional Administrator for sites at a neighborhood or larger scale of representation. This waiver may be approved during the annual network plan approval process. Sampling and analytical methodologies must be the consistently implemented for both collocated samplers and for all other samplers in the network.

(d) Sample the collocated quality control monitor on a 1-in-12 day schedule. Report the measurements from both primary and collocated quality control monitors at each collocated sampling site to AQS. The calculations for evaluating precision between the two collocated monitors are described in section 4.2.1 of this appendix.

(e) In determining the number of collocated quality control sites required for PM10, monitoring networks for lead (Pb-PM10) should be treated independently from networks for particulate matter (PM), even though the separate networks may share one or more common samplers. However, a single quality control monitor that meets the collocation requirements for Pb-PM10 and PM10 may serve as a collocated quality control monitor for both networks. Extreme care must be taken when using the filter from a quality control monitor for both PM10 and Pb analysis. A PM10 filter weighing should occur prior to any Pb analysis.

3.4 Pb.

3.4.1 Flow Rate Verification for Pb-PM10Low Volume Samplers (less than 200 liter/minute). A one-point flow rate verification check must be performed at least once every month (each verification minimally separated by 14 days) on each monitor used to measure Pb. The verification is made by checking the operational flow rate of the monitor. If the verification is made in conjunction with a flow rate adjustment, it must be made prior to such flow rate adjustment. For the standard procedure, use a flow rate transfer standard certified in accordance with section 2.6 of this appendix to check the monitor's normal flow rate. Care should be taken in selecting and using the flow rate measurement device such that it does not alter the normal operating flow rate of the monitor. The percent differences between the audit and measured flow rates are reported to AQS and used to assess the bias of the monitoring data as described in section 4.2.2 of this appendix (using flow rates in lieu of concentrations).

3.4.2 Flow Rate Verification for Pb High Volume Samplers (greater than 200 liters/minute). For high volume samplers, the verification frequency is one verification every 90 days (quarter) with four in a year. Other than verification frequency, follow the same technical procedure as described in section 3.4.1 of this appendix.

3.4.3 Semi-Annual Flow Rate Audit for Pb. Audit the flow rate of the particulate monitor twice a year. The two audits should ideally be spaced between 5 and 7 months apart. The EPA strongly encourages more frequent auditing. The audit should (preferably) be conducted by a trained experienced technician other than the routine site operator. The audit is made by measuring the monitor's normal operating flow rate using a flow rate transfer standard certified in accordance with section 2.6 of this appendix. The flow rate standard used for auditing must not be the same flow rate standard used for verifications or to calibrate the monitor. However, both the calibration standard and the audit standard may be referenced to the same primary flow rate or volume standard. Care must be taken in auditing the flow rate to be certain that the flow measurement device does not alter the normal operating flow rate of the monitor. Report the audit flow rate of the transfer standard and the corresponding flow rate measured by the monitor to AQS. The percent differences between these flow rates are used to evaluate monitor performance.

3.4.4 Collocated Quality Control Sampling for TSP Pb for monitoring sites other than non-source oriented NCore. For each pair of collocated monitors for manual TSP Pb samplers, designate one sampler as the primary monitor whose concentrations will be used to report air quality for the site, and designate the other as the quality control monitor.

3.4.4.1 A PQAO must:

(a) Have 15 percent of the primary monitors (not counting non-source oriented NCore sites in PQAO) collocated. Values of 0.5 and greater round up; and

(b) Have at least one collocated quality control monitor (if the total number of monitors is less than three).

3.4.4.2 The collocated quality control monitors should be deployed according to the following protocol:

(a) The first collocated Pb site selected must be the site measuring the highest Pb concentrations in the network. If the site is impractical, alternative sites, approved by the EPA Regional Administrator, may be selected. If additional collocated sites are necessary, collocated sites may be chosen that reflect average ambient air Pb concentrations in the network.

(b) The two collocated monitors must be within 4 meters (inlet to inlet) of each other and at least 2 meters apart for flow rates greater than 200 liters/min or at least 1 meter apart for samplers having flow rates less than 200 liters/min to preclude airflow interference.

(c) Sample the collocated quality control monitor on a 1-in-12 day schedule. Report the measurements from both primary and collocated quality control monitors at each collocated sampling site to AQS. The calculations for evaluating precision between the two collocated monitors are described in section 4.2.1 of this appendix.

3.4.5 Collocated Quality Control Sampling for Pb-PM10 at monitoring sites other than non-source oriented NCore. If a PQAO is monitoring for Pb-PM10 at sites other than at a non-source oriented NCore site then the PQAO must:

3.4.5.1 Have 15 percent of the primary monitors (not counting non-source oriented NCore sites in PQAO) collocated. Values of 0.5 and greater round up; and

3.4.5.2 Have at least one collocated quality control monitor (if the total number of monitors is less than three).

3.4.5.3 The collocated monitors should be deployed according to the following protocol:

(a) Fifty percent of the collocated quality control monitors should be deployed at sites with the highest 3-month average concentrations and the remainder at the PQAOs discretion.

(b) The two collocated monitors must be within 4 meters (inlet to inlet) of each other and at least 2 meters apart for flow rates greater than 200 liters/min or at least 1 meter apart for samplers having flow rates less than 200 liters/min to preclude airflow interference. A waiver allowing up to 10 meters horizontal distance and up to 3 meters vertical distance (inlet to inlet) between a primary and collocated sampler may be approved by the Regional Administrator for sites at a neighborhood or larger scale of representation. This waiver may be approved during the annual network plan approval process. Sampling and analytical methodologies must be the consistently implemented for both collocated samplers and for all other samplers in the network.

(c) Sample the collocated quality control monitor on a 1-in-12 day schedule. Report the measurements from both primary and collocated quality control monitors at each collocated sampling site to AQS. The calculations for evaluating precision between the two collocated monitors are described in section 4.2.1 of this appendix.

(d) In determining the number of collocated quality control sites required for Pb-PM10, monitoring networks for PM10 should be treated independently from networks for Pb-PM10, even though the separate networks may share one or more common samplers. However, a single quality control monitor that meets the collocation requirements for Pb-PM10 and PM10 may serve as a collocated quality control monitor for both networks. Extreme care must be taken when using a using the filter from a quality control monitor for both PM10 and Pb analysis. A PM10 filter weighing should occur prior to any Pb analysis.

3.4.6 Pb Analysis Audits. Each calendar quarter, audit the Pb reference or equivalent method analytical procedure using filters containing a known quantity of Pb. These audit filters are prepared by depositing a Pb standard on unexposed filters and allowing them to dry thoroughly. The audit samples must be prepared using batches of reagents different from those used to calibrate the Pb analytical equipment being audited. Prepare audit samples in the following concentration ranges:

RangeEquivalent ambient Pb
concentration, µg/m 3
130-100% of Pb NAAQS.
2200-300% of Pb NAAQS.

(a) Extract the audit samples using the same extraction procedure used for exposed filters.

(b) Analyze three audit samples in each of the two ranges each quarter samples are analyzed. The audit sample analyses shall be distributed as much as possible over the entire calendar quarter.

(c) Report the audit concentrations (in µg Pb/filter or strip) and the corresponding measured concentrations (in µg Pb/filter or strip) to AQS using AQS unit code 077. The percent differences between the concentrations are used to calculate analytical accuracy as described in section 4.2.6 of this appendix.

3.4.7 Pb PEP Procedures for monitoring sites other than non-source oriented NCore. The PEP is an independent assessment used to estimate total measurement system bias. These evaluations will be performed under the NPEP described in section 2.4 of this appendix or a comparable program. Each year, one performance evaluation audit must be performed at one Pb site in each primary quality assurance organization that has less than or equal to five sites and two audits at PQAOs with greater than five sites. Non-source oriented NCore sites are not counted. Siting of the PEP monitor must be consistent with section 3.4.5.3(b). However, any horizontal distance greater than 4 meters and any vertical distance greater than 1 meter must be reported to the EPA regional PEP coordinator. In addition, each year, four collocated samples from PQAOs with less than or equal to five sites and six collocated samples at PQAOs with greater than five sites must be sent to an independent laboratory, the same laboratory as the performance evaluation audit, for analysis. The calculations for evaluating bias between the primary monitor and the performance evaluation monitor for Pb are described in section 4.2.4 of this appendix.

4. Calculations for Data Quality Assessments

(a) Calculations of measurement uncertainty are carried out by the EPA according to the following procedures. The PQAOs must report the data to AQS for all measurement quality checks as specified in this appendix even though they may elect to perform some or all of the calculations in this section on their own.

(b) The EPA will provide annual assessments of data quality aggregated by site and PQAO for SO2, NO2, O3 and CO and by PQAO for PM10, PM2.5, and Pb.

(c) At low concentrations, agreement between the measurements of collocated quality control samplers, expressed as relative percent difference or percent difference, may be relatively poor. For this reason, collocated measurement pairs are selected for use in the precision and bias calculations only when both measurements are equal to or above the following limits:

(1) Pb: 0.002 µg/m 3 (Methods approved after 3/04/2010, with exception of manual equivalent method EQLA-0813-803).

(2) Pb: 0.02 µg/m 3 (Methods approved before 3/04/2010, and manual equivalent method EQLA-0813-803).

(3) PM10 (Hi-Vol): 15 µg/m 3.

(4) PM10 (Lo-Vol): 3 µg/m 3.

(5) PM2.5: 3 µg/m 3.

4.1 Statistics for the Assessment of QC Checks for SO2, NO2, O3 and CO.

4.1.1 Percent Difference. Many of the measurement quality checks start with a comparison of an audit concentration or value (flow rate) to the concentration/value measured by the monitor and use percent difference as the comparison statistic as described in equation 1 of this section. For each single point check, calculate the percent difference, di, as follows:



where meas is the concentration indicated by the PQAO's instrument and audit is the audit concentration of the standard used in the QC check being measured.

4.1.2 Precision Estimate. The precision estimate is used to assess the one-point QC checks for SO2, NO2, O3, or CO described in section 3.1.1 of this appendix. The precision estimator is the coefficient of variation upper bound and is calculated using equation 2 of this section:



where n is the number of single point checks being aggregated; X 20.1,n-1 is the 10th percentile of a chi-squared distribution with n-1 degrees of freedom.

4.1.3 Bias Estimate. The bias estimate is calculated using the one-point QC checks for SO2, NO2, O3, or CO described in section 3.1.1 of this appendix. The bias estimator is an upper bound on the mean absolute value of the percent differences as described in equation 3 of this section:



where n is the number of single point checks being aggregated; t0.95,n-1 is the 95th quantile of a t-distribution with n-1 degrees of freedom; the quantity AB is the mean of the absolute values of the di ′ s and is calculated using equation 4 of this section:



and the quantity AS is the standard deviation of the absolute value of the di ′ s and is calculated using equation 5 of this section:



4.1.3.1 Assigning a sign (positive/negative) to the bias estimate. Since the bias statistic as calculated in equation 3 of this appendix uses absolute values, it does not have a tendency (negative or positive bias) associated with it. A sign will be designated by rank ordering the percent differences of the QC check samples from a given site for a particular assessment interval.

4.1.3.2 Calculate the 25th and 75th percentiles of the percent differences for each site. The absolute bias upper bound should be flagged as positive if both percentiles are positive and negative if both percentiles are negative. The absolute bias upper bound would not be flagged if the 25th and 75th percentiles are of different signs.

4.2 Statistics for the Assessment of PM10, PM2.5, and Pb.

4.2.1 Collocated Quality Control Sampler Precision Estimate for PM10, PM2.5, and Pb . Precision is estimated via duplicate measurements from collocated samplers. It is recommended that the precision be aggregated at the PQAO level quarterly, annually, and at the 3-year level. The data pair would only be considered valid if both concentrations are greater than or equal to the minimum values specified in section 4(c) of this appendix. For each collocated data pair, calculate ti, using equation 6 to this appendix:



Where Xi is the concentration from the primary sampler and Yi is the concentration value from the audit sampler. The coefficient of variation upper bound is calculated using equation 7 to this appendix:



Where k is the number of valid data pairs being aggregated, and X 20.1,k-1 is the 10th percentile of a chi-squared distribution with k-1 degrees of freedom. The factor of 2 in the denominator adjusts for the fact that each ti is calculated from two values with error.

4.2.2 One-Point Flow Rate Verification Bias Estimate forPM10,PM2.5and Pb. For each one-point flow rate verification, calculate the percent difference in volume using equation 1 of this appendix where meas is the value indicated by the sampler's volume measurement and audit is the actual volume indicated by the auditing flow meter. The absolute volume bias upper bound is then calculated using equation 3, where n is the number of flow rate audits being aggregated; t0.95,n-1 is the 95th quantile of a t-distribution with n-1 degrees of freedom, the quantity AB is the mean of the absolute values of the di′s and is calculated using equation 4 of this appendix, and the quantity AS in equation 3 of this appendix is the standard deviation of the absolute values if the di′s and is calculated using equation 5 of this appendix.

4.2.3 Semi-Annual Flow Rate Audit Bias Estimate forPM10,PM2.5and Pb. Use the same procedure described in section 4.2.2 for the evaluation of flow rate audits.

4.2.4 Performance Evaluation Programs Bias Estimate for Pb. The Pb bias estimate is calculated using the paired routine and the PEP monitor as described in section 3.4.7. Use the same procedures as described in section 4.1.3 of this appendix.

4.2.5 Performance Evaluation Programs Bias Estimate for PM2.5 . The bias estimate is calculated using the PEP audits described in section 3.2.4. of this appendix. The bias estimator is based on, s i , the absolute difference in concentrations divided by the square root of the PEP concentration.



4.2.6 PbAnalysis Audit Bias Estimate. The bias estimate is calculated using the analysis audit data described in section 3.4.6. Use the same bias estimate procedure as described in section 4.1.3 of this appendix.

5. Reporting Requirements

5.1 Reporting Requirements. For each pollutant, prepare a list of all monitoring sites and their AQS site identification codes in each PQAO and submit the list to the appropriate EPA Regional Office, with a copy to AQS. Whenever there is a change in this list of monitoring sites in a PQAO, report this change to the EPA Regional Office and to AQS.

5.1.1 Quarterly Reports. For each quarter, each PQAO shall report to AQS directly (or via the appropriate EPA Regional Office for organizations not direct users of AQS) the results of all valid measurement quality checks it has carried out during the quarter. The quarterly reports must be submitted consistent with the data reporting requirements specified for air quality data as set forth in 40 CFR 58.16. The EPA strongly encourages early submission of the quality assurance data in order to assist the PQAOs ability to control and evaluate the quality of the ambient air data.

5.1.2 Annual Reports.

5.1.2.1 When the PQAO has certified relevant data for the calendar year, the EPA will calculate and report the measurement uncertainty for the entire calendar year.

6. References

(1) American National Standard Institute—Quality Management Systems For Environmental Information And Technology Programs—Requirements With Guidance For Use. ASQ/ANSI E4–2014. February 2014. Available from ANSI Webstore https://webstore.ansi.org/.

(2) EPA Requirements for Quality Management Plans. EPA QA/R-2. EPA/240/B-01/002. March 2001, Reissue May 2006. Office of Environmental Information, Washington DC 20460. http://www.epa.gov/quality/agency-wide-quality-system-documents.

(3) EPA Requirements for Quality Assurance Project Plans for Environmental Data Operations. EPA QA/R-5. EPA/240/B-01/003. March 2001, Reissue May 2006. Office of Environmental Information, Washington DC 20460. http://www.epa.gov/quality/agency-wide-quality-system-documents.

(4) EPA Traceability Protocol for Assay and Certification of Gaseous Calibration Standards. EPA–600/R–12/531. May, 2012. Available from U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, National Risk Management Research Laboratory, Research Triangle Park NC 27711. https://www.epa.gov/nscep.

(5) Guidance for the Data Quality Objectives Process. EPA QA/G-4. EPA/240/B-06/001. February, 2006. Office of Environmental Information, Washington DC 20460. http://www.epa.gov/quality/agency-wide-quality-system-documents.

(6) List of Designated Reference and Equivalent Methods. Available from U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Center for Environmental Measurements and Modeling, Air Methods and Characterization Division, MD–D205–03, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711. https://www.epa.gov/amtic/air-monitoring-methods-criteria-pollutants.

(7) Transfer Standards for the Calibration of Ambient Air Monitoring Analyzers for Ozone. EPA–454/B–13–004 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711, October, 2013. https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2020-09/documents/ozonetransferstandardguidance.pdf.

(8) Paur, R.J. and F.F. McElroy. Technical Assistance Document for the Calibration of Ambient Ozone Monitors. EPA-600/4-79-057. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711, September, 1979. http://www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic/cpreldoc.html.

(9) Quality Assurance Handbook for Air Pollution Measurement Systems, Volume 1—A Field Guide to Environmental Quality Assurance. EPA–600/R–94/038a. April 1994. Available from U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, ORD Publications Office, Center for Environmental Research Information (CERI), 26 W. Martin Luther King Drive, Cincinnati, OH 45268. https://www.epa.gov/amtic/ambient-air-monitoring-quality-assurance#documents.

(10) Quality Assurance Handbook for Air Pollution Measurement Systems, Volume II: Ambient Air Quality Monitoring Program Quality System Development. EPA–454/B–13–003. https://www.epa.gov/amtic/ambient-air-monitoring-quality-assurance#documents.

(11) National Performance Evaluation Program Standard Operating Procedures. https://www.epa.gov/amtic/ambient-air-monitoring-quality-assurance#npep.

Table A–1 to Section 6 of Appendix A—Minimum Data Assessment Requirements for NAAQS Related Criteria Pollutant Monitors
MethodAssessment methodCoverageMinimum frequencyParameters reportedAQS assessment type
1 Effective concentration for open path analyzers.
2 Corrected concentration, if applicable for open path analyzers.
3 Both primary and collocated sampler values are reported as raw data.
4 PM 2.5 is the only particulate criteria pollutant requiring collocation of continuous and manual primary monitors.
5 EPA's recommended maximum number of days that should exist between checks to ensure that the checks are routinely conducted over time and to limit data impacts resulting from a failed check.
Gaseous Methods (CO, NO 2 , SO 2 , O 3):
One-Point QC for SO 2 , NO 2 , O 3 , COResponse check at concentration 0.005–0.08 ppm SO 2 , NO 2 , O 3 , and 0.5 and 5 ppm COEach analyzerOnce per 2 weeks 5Audit concentration 1 and measured concentration. 2One-Point QC.
Annual performance evaluation for SO 2 , NO 2 , O 3 , COSee section 3.1.2 of this appendixEach analyzerOnce per yearAudit concentration 1 and measured concentration 2 for each levelAnnual PE.
NPAP for SO 2 , NO 2 , O 3 , COIndependent Audit20% of sites each yearOnce per yearAudit concentration 1 and measured concentration 2 for each levelNPAP.
Particulate Methods:
Continuous 4 method—collocated quality control sampling PM 2.5Collocated samplers15%1-in-12 daysPrimary sampler concentration and duplicate sampler concentration. 3No Transaction reported as raw data.
Manual method—collocated quality control sampling PM 10 , PM 2.5 , Pb-TSP, Pb-PM 10Collocated samplers15%1-in-12 daysPrimary sampler concentration and duplicate sampler concentration. 3No Transaction reported as raw data.
Flow rate verification PM 10 (low Vol) PM 2.5 , Pb-PM 10Check of sampler flow rateEach samplerOnce every month 5Audit flow rate and measured flow rate indicated by the samplerFlow Rate Verification.
Flow rate verification PM 10 (High-Vol), Pb-TSPCheck of sampler flow rateEach samplerOnce every quarter 5Audit flow rate and measured flow rate indicated by the samplerFlow Rate Verification.
Semi-annual flow rate audit PM 10 , TSP, PM 10 –2.5, PM 2.5 , Pb-TSP, Pb-PM 10Check of sampler flow rate using independent standardEach samplerOnce every 6 months 5Audit flow rate and measured flow rate indicated by the samplerSemi Annual Flow Rate Audit.
Pb analysis audits Pb-TSP, Pb-PM 10Check of analytical system with Pb audit strips/filtersAnalyticalOnce each quarter 5Measured value and audit value (ug Pb/filter) using AQS unit code 077Pb Analysis Audits.
Performance Evaluation Program PM 2.5Collocated samplers(1) 5 valid audits for primary QA orgs, with ≤5 sites (2) 8 valid audits for primary QA orgs, with >5 sites (3) All samplers in 6 yearsDistributed over all 4 quarters 5Primary sampler concentration and performance evaluation sampler concentrationPEP.
Performance Evaluation Program Pb-TSP, Pb-PM 10Collocated samplers(1) 1 valid audit and 4 collocated samples for primary QA orgs, with ≤5 sites (2) 2 valid audits and 6 collocated samples for primary QA orgs with >5 sitesDistributed over all 4 quarters 5Primary sampler concentration and performance evaluation sampler concentration. Primary sampler concentration and duplicate sampler concentrationPEP.

Table A-2 of Appendix A to Part 58 - Summary of PM2.5 Number and Type of Collocation (15% Collocation Requirement) Required Using an Example of a PQAO That Has 54 Primary Monitors (54 sites) With One Federal Reference Method Type and Three Types of Approved Federal Equivalent Methods
Primary sampler method designationTotal No. of monitorsTotal No. of collocatedNo. of
collocated
with FRM
No. of
collocated
with same
method
designation
as primary
FRM20333
FEM (A)20321
FEM (B)2110
FEM (C)12211

Appendix B to Part 58 - Quality Assurance Requirements for Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) Air Monitoring

1. General Information

2. Quality System Requirements

3. Measurement Quality Check Requirements

4. Calculations for Data Quality Assessments

5. Reporting Requirements

6. References

1. General Information

1.1 Applicability.

(a) This appendix specifies the minimum quality assurance requirements for the control and assessment of the quality of the ambient air monitoring data submitted to a PSD reviewing authority or the EPA by an organization operating an air monitoring station, or network of stations, operated in order to comply with Part 51 New Source Review - Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD). Such organizations are encouraged to develop and maintain quality assurance programs more extensive than the required minimum. Additional guidance for the requirements reflected in this appendix can be found in the “Quality Assurance Handbook for Air Pollution Measurement Systems,” Volume II (Ambient Air) and “Quality Assurance Handbook for Air Pollution Measurement Systems,” Volume IV (Meteorological Measurements) and at a national level in references 1, 2, and 3 of this appendix.

(b) It is not assumed that data generated for PSD under this appendix will be used in making NAAQS decisions. However, if all the requirements in this appendix are followed (including the NPEP programs) and reported to AQS, with review and concurrence from the EPA region, data may be used for NAAQS decisions. With the exception of the NPEP programs (NPAP, PM2.5 PEP, Pb-PEP), for which implementation is at the discretion of the PSD reviewing authority, all other quality assurance and quality control requirements found in the appendix must be met.

1.2 PSD Primary Quality Assurance Organization (PQAO). A PSD PQAO is defined as a monitoring organization or a coordinated aggregation of such organizations that is responsible for a set of stations within one PSD reviewing authority that monitors the same pollutant and for which data quality assessments will be pooled. Each criteria pollutant sampler/monitor must be associated with only one PSD PQAO.

1.2.1 Each PSD PQAO shall be defined such that measurement uncertainty among all stations in the organization can be expected to be reasonably homogeneous, as a result of common factors. A PSD PQAO must be associated with only one PSD reviewing authority. Common factors that should be considered in defining PSD PQAOs include:

(a) Operation by a common team of field operators according to a common set of procedures;

(b) Use of a common QAPP and/or standard operating procedures;

(c) Common calibration facilities and standards;

(d) Oversight by a common quality assurance organization; and

(e) Support by a common management organization or laboratory.

1.2.2 PSD monitoring organizations having difficulty describing its PQAO or in assigning specific monitors to a PSD PQAO should consult with the PSD reviewing authority. Any consolidation of PSD PQAOs shall be subject to final approval by the PSD reviewing authority.

1.2.3 Each PSD PQAO is required to implement a quality system that provides sufficient information to assess the quality of the monitoring data. The quality system must, at a minimum, include the specific requirements described in this appendix. Failure to conduct or pass a required check or procedure, or a series of required checks or procedures, does not by itself invalidate data for regulatory decision making. Rather, PSD PQAOs and the PSD reviewing authority shall use the checks and procedures required in this appendix in combination with other data quality information, reports, and similar documentation that demonstrate overall compliance with parts 51, 52 and 58 of this chapter. Accordingly, the PSD reviewing authority shall use a “weight of evidence” approach when determining the suitability of data for regulatory decisions. The PSD reviewing authority reserves the authority to use or not use monitoring data submitted by a PSD monitoring organization when making regulatory decisions based on the PSD reviewing authority's assessment of the quality of the data. Generally, consensus built validation templates or validation criteria already approved in quality assurance project plans (QAPPs) should be used as the basis for the weight of evidence approach.

1.3 Definitions.

(a) Measurement Uncertainty. A term used to describe deviations from a true concentration or estimate that are related to the measurement process and not to spatial or temporal population attributes of the air being measured.

(b) Precision. A measurement of mutual agreement among individual measurements of the same property usually under prescribed similar conditions, expressed generally in terms of the standard deviation.

(c) Bias. The systematic or persistent distortion of a measurement process which causes errors in one direction.

(d) Accuracy. The degree of agreement between an observed value and an accepted reference value. Accuracy includes a combination of random error (imprecision) and systematic error (bias) components which are due to sampling and analytical operations.

(e) Completeness. A measure of the amount of valid data obtained from a measurement system compared to the amount that was expected to be obtained under correct, normal conditions.

(f) Detectability. The low critical range value of a characteristic that a method specific procedure can reliably discern.

1.4 Measurement Quality Check Reporting. The measurement quality checks described in section 3 of this appendix, are required to be submitted to the PSD reviewing authority within the same time frame as routinely-collected ambient concentration data as described in 40 CFR 58.16. The PSD reviewing authority may as well require that the measurement quality check data be reported to AQS.

1.5 Assessments and Reports. Periodic assessments and documentation of data quality are required to be reported to the PSD reviewing authority. To provide national uniformity in this assessment and reporting of data quality for all networks, specific assessment and reporting procedures are prescribed in detail in sections 3, 4, and 5 of this appendix.

2. Quality System Requirements

A quality system (reference 1 of this appendix) is the means by which an organization manages the quality of the monitoring information it produces in a systematic, organized manner. It provides a framework for planning, implementing, assessing and reporting work performed by an organization and for carrying out required quality assurance and quality control activities.

2.1 Quality Assurance Project Plans. All PSD PQAOs must develop a quality system that is described and approved in quality assurance project plans (QAPP) to ensure that the monitoring results:

(a) Meet a well-defined need, use, or purpose (reference 5 of this appendix);

(b) Provide data of adequate quality for the intended monitoring objectives;

(c) Satisfy stakeholder expectations;

(d) Comply with applicable standards specifications;

(e) Comply with statutory (and other legal) requirements; and

(f) Assure quality assurance and quality control adequacy and independence.

2.1.1 The QAPP is a formal document that describes these activities in sufficient detail and is supported by standard operating procedures. The QAPP must describe how the organization intends to control measurement uncertainty to an appropriate level in order to achieve the objectives for which the data are collected. The QAPP must be documented in accordance with EPA requirements (reference 3 of this appendix).

2.1.2 The PSD PQAO's quality system must have adequate resources both in personnel and funding to plan, implement, assess and report on the achievement of the requirements of this appendix and it's approved QAPP.

2.1.3 Incorporation of quality management plan (QMP) elements into the QAPP. The QMP describes the quality system in terms of the organizational structure, functional responsibilities of management and staff, lines of authority, and required interfaces for those planning, implementing, assessing and reporting activities involving environmental data operations (EDO). The PSD PQAOs may combine pertinent elements of the QMP into the QAPP rather than requiring the submission of both QMP and QAPP documents separately, with prior approval of the PSD reviewing authority. Additional guidance on QMPs can be found in reference 2 of this appendix.

2.2 Independence of Quality Assurance Management. The PSD PQAO must provide for a quality assurance management function for its PSD data collection operation, that aspect of the overall management system of the organization that determines and implements the quality policy defined in a PSD PQAO's QAPP. Quality management includes strategic planning, allocation of resources and other systematic planning activities (e.g., planning, implementation, assessing and reporting) pertaining to the quality system. The quality assurance management function must have sufficient technical expertise and management authority to conduct independent oversight and assure the implementation of the organization's quality system relative to the ambient air quality monitoring program and should be organizationally independent of environmental data generation activities.

2.3 Data Quality Performance Requirements.

2.3.1 Data Quality Objectives (DQOs). The DQOs, or the results of other systematic planning processes, are statements that define the appropriate type of data to collect and specify the tolerable levels of potential decision errors that will be used as a basis for establishing the quality and quantity of data needed to support air monitoring objectives (reference 5 of the appendix). The DQOs have been developed by the EPA to support attainment decisions for comparison to national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS). The PSD reviewing authority and the PSD monitoring organization will be jointly responsible for determining whether adherence to the EPA developed NAAQS DQOs specified in appendix A of this part are appropriate or if DQOs from a project-specific systematic planning process are necessary.

2.3.1.1 Measurement Uncertainty for Automated and Manual PM2.5Methods. The goal for acceptable measurement uncertainty for precision is defined as an upper 90 percent confidence limit for the coefficient of variation (CV) of 10 percent and plus or minus 10 percent for total bias.

2.3.1.2 Measurement Uncertainty for Automated Ozone Methods. The goal for acceptable measurement uncertainty is defined for precision as an upper 90 percent confidence limit for the CV of 7 percent and for bias as an upper 95 percent confidence limit for the absolute bias of 7 percent.

2.3.1.3 Measurement Uncertainty for Pb Methods. The goal for acceptable measurement uncertainty is defined for precision as an upper 90 percent confidence limit for the CV of 20 percent and for bias as an upper 95 percent confidence limit for the absolute bias of 15 percent.

2.3.1.4 Measurement Uncertainty for NO2. The goal for acceptable measurement uncertainty is defined for precision as an upper 90 percent confidence limit for the CV of 15 percent and for bias as an upper 95 percent confidence limit for the absolute bias of 15 percent.

2.3.1.5 Measurement Uncertainty for SO2. The goal for acceptable measurement uncertainty for precision is defined as an upper 90 percent confidence limit for the CV of 10 percent and for bias as an upper 95 percent confidence limit for the absolute bias of 10 percent.

2.4 National Performance Evaluation Program. Organizations operating PSD monitoring networks are required to implement the EPA's national performance evaluation program (NPEP) if the data will be used for NAAQS decisions and at the discretion of the PSD reviewing authority if PSD data are not used for NAAQS decisions. The NPEP includes the National Performance Audit Program (NPAP), the PM2.5 Performance Evaluation Program (PM2.5-PEP) and the Pb Performance Evaluation Program (Pb-PEP). The PSD QAPP shall provide for the implementation of NPEP including the provision of adequate resources for such NPEP if the data will be used for NAAQS decisions or if required by the PSD reviewing authority. Contact the PSD reviewing authority to determine the best procedure for implementing the audits which may include an audit by the PSD reviewing authority, a contractor certified for the activity, or through self-implementation which is described in sections below. A determination of which entity will be performing this audit program should be made as early as possible and during the QAPP development process. The PSD PQAOs, including contractors that plan to implement these programs on behalf of PSD PQAOs, that plan to implement these programs (self-implement) rather than use the federal programs, must meet the adequacy requirements found in the appropriate sections that follow, as well as meet the definition of independent assessment that follows.

2.4.1 Independent Assessment. An assessment performed by a qualified individual, group, or organization that is not part of the organization directly performing and accountable for the work being assessed. This auditing organization must not be involved with the generation of the routinely-collected ambient air monitoring data. An organization can conduct the performance evaluation (PE) if it can meet this definition and has a management structure that, at a minimum, will allow for the separation of its routine sampling personnel from its auditing personnel by two levels of management. In addition, the sample analysis of audit filters must be performed by a laboratory facility and laboratory equipment separate from the facilities used for routine sample analysis. Field and laboratory personnel will be required to meet the performance evaluation field and laboratory training and certification requirements. The PSD PQAO will be required to participate in the centralized field and laboratory standards certification and comparison processes to establish comparability to federally implemented programs.

2.5 Technical Systems Audit Program. The PSD reviewing authority or the EPA may conduct system audits of the ambient air monitoring programs or organizations operating PSD networks. The PSD monitoring organizations shall consult with the PSD reviewing authority to verify the schedule of any such technical systems audit. Systems audit programs are described in reference 10 of this appendix.

2.6 Gaseous and Flow Rate Audit Standards.

2.6.1 Gaseous pollutant concentration standards (permeation devices or cylinders of compressed gas) used to obtain test concentrations for CO, SO 2 , NO, and NO 2 must be EPA Protocol Gases certified in accordance with one of the procedures given in Reference 4 of this appendix.

2.6.1.1 The concentrations of EPA Protocol Gas standards used for ambient air monitoring must be certified with a 95-percent confidence interval to have an analytical uncertainty of no more than ±2.0 percent (inclusive) of the certified concentration (tag value) of the gas mixture. The uncertainty must be calculated in accordance with the statistical procedures defined in Reference 4 of this appendix.

2.6.1.2 Specialty gas producers advertising certification with the procedures provided in Reference 4 of this appendix and distributing gases as “EPA Protocol Gas” for ambient air monitoring purposes must adhere to the regulatory requirements specified in 40 CFR 75.21(g) or not use “EPA” in any form of advertising. The PSD PQAOs must provide information to the PSD reviewing authority on the specialty gas producers they use (or will use) for the duration of the PSD monitoring project. This information can be provided in the QAPP or monitoring plan but must be updated if there is a change in the specialty gas producers used.

2.6.2 Test concentrations for ozone (O3) must be obtained in accordance with the ultraviolet photometric calibration procedure specified in appendix D to Part 50, and by means of a certified NIST-traceable O3 transfer standard. Consult references 7 and 8 of this appendix for guidance on transfer standards for O3.

2.6.3 Flow rate measurements must be made by a flow measuring instrument that is NIST-traceable to an authoritative volume or other applicable standard. Guidance for certifying some types of flow-meters is provided in reference 10 of this appendix.

2.7 Primary Requirements and Guidance. Requirements and guidance documents for developing the quality system are contained in references 1 through 11 of this appendix, which also contain many suggested procedures, checks, and control specifications. Reference 10 describes specific guidance for the development of a quality system for data collected for comparison to the NAAQS. Many specific quality control checks and specifications for methods are included in the respective reference methods described in Part 50 or in the respective equivalent method descriptions available from the EPA (reference 6 of this appendix). Similarly, quality control procedures related to specifically designated reference and equivalent method monitors are contained in the respective operation or instruction manuals associated with those monitors. For PSD monitoring, the use of reference and equivalent method monitors are required.

3. Measurement Quality Check Requirements

This section provides the requirements for PSD PQAOs to perform the measurement quality checks that can be used to assess data quality. Data from these checks are required to be submitted to the PSD reviewing authority within the same time frame as routinely-collected ambient concentration data as described in 40 CFR 58.16. Table B-1 of this appendix provides a summary of the types and frequency of the measurement quality checks that are described in this section. Reporting these results to AQS may be required by the PSD reviewing authority.

3.1 Gaseous monitors of SO2, NO2, O3, and CO.

3.1.1 One-Point Quality Control (QC) Check for SO2,NO2, O3, andCO. (a) A one-point QC check must be performed at least once every 2 weeks on each automated monitor used to measure SO2, NO2, O3 and CO. With the advent of automated calibration systems, more frequent checking is strongly encouraged and may be required by the PSD reviewing authority. See Reference 10 of this appendix for guidance on the review procedure. The QC check is made by challenging the monitor with a QC check gas of known concentration (effective concentration for open path monitors) between the prescribed range of 0.005 and 0.08 parts per million (ppm) for SO2, NO2, and O3, and between the prescribed range of 0.5 and 5 ppm for CO monitors. The QC check gas concentration selected within the prescribed range should be related to monitoring objectives for the monitor. If monitoring for trace level monitoring, the QC check concentration should be selected to represent the mean or median concentrations at the site. If the mean or median concentrations at trace gas sites are below the MDL of the instrument the agency can select the lowest concentration in the prescribed range that can be practically achieved. If the mean or median concentrations at trace gas sites are above the prescribed range the agency can select the highest concentration in the prescribed range. The PSD monitoring organization will consult with the PSD reviewing authority on the most appropriate one-point QC concentration based on the objectives of the monitoring activity. An additional QC check point is encouraged for those organizations that may have occasional high values or would like to confirm the monitors' linearity at the higher end of the operational range or around NAAQS concentrations. If monitoring for NAAQS decisions the QC concentration can be selected at a higher concentration within the prescribed range but should also consider precision points around mean or median concentrations.

(b) Point analyzers must operate in their normal sampling mode during the QC check and the test atmosphere must pass through all filters, scrubbers, conditioners and other components used during normal ambient sampling and as much of the ambient air inlet system as is practicable. The QC check must be conducted before any calibration or adjustment to the monitor.

(c) Open-path monitors are tested by inserting a test cell containing a QC check gas concentration into the optical measurement beam of the instrument. If possible, the normally used transmitter, receiver, and as appropriate, reflecting devices should be used during the test and the normal monitoring configuration of the instrument should be altered as little as possible to accommodate the test cell for the test. However, if permitted by the associated operation or instruction manual, an alternate local light source or an alternate optical path that does not include the normal atmospheric monitoring path may be used. The actual concentration of the QC check gas in the test cell must be selected to produce an effective concentration in the range specified earlier in this section. Generally, the QC test concentration measurement will be the sum of the atmospheric pollutant concentration and the QC test concentration. As such, the result must be corrected to remove the atmospheric concentration contribution. The corrected concentration is obtained by subtracting the average of the atmospheric concentrations measured by the open path instrument under test immediately before and immediately after the QC test from the QC check gas concentration measurement. If the difference between these before and after measurements is greater than 20 percent of the effective concentration of the test gas, discard the test result and repeat the test. If possible, open path monitors should be tested during periods when the atmospheric pollutant concentrations are relatively low and steady.

(d) Report the audit concentration of the QC gas and the corresponding measured concentration indicated by the monitor. The percent differences between these concentrations are used to assess the precision and bias of the monitoring data as described in sections 4.1.2 (precision) and 4.1.3 (bias) of this appendix.

3.1.2 Quarterly performance evaluation for SO2,NO2, O3, or CO. Evaluate each primary monitor each monitoring quarter (or 90 day frequency) during which monitors are operated or a least once (if operated for less than one quarter). The quarterly performance evaluation (quarterly PE) must be performed by a qualified individual, group, or organization that is not part of the organization directly performing and accountable for the work being assessed. The person or entity performing the quarterly PE must not be involved with the generation of the routinely-collected ambient air monitoring data. A PSD monitoring organization can conduct the quarterly PE itself if it can meet this definition and has a management structure that, at a minimum, will allow for the separation of its routine sampling personnel from its auditing personnel by two levels of management. The quarterly PE also requires a set of equipment and standards independent from those used for routine calibrations or zero, span or precision checks.

3.1.2.1 The evaluation is made by challenging the monitor with audit gas standards of known concentration from at least three audit levels. One point must be within two to three times the method detection limit of the instruments within the PQAOs network, the second point will be less than or equal to the 99th percentile of the data at the site or the network of sites in the PQAO or the next highest audit concentration level. The third point can be around the primary NAAQS or the highest 3-year concentration at the site or the network of sites in the PQAO. An additional 4th level is encouraged for those PSD organizations that would like to confirm the monitor's linearity at the higher end of the operational range. In rare circumstances, there may be sites measuring concentrations above audit level 10. These sites should be identified to the PSD reviewing authority.

Audit levelConcentration range, ppm
O3SO2NO2CO
10.004-0.00590.0003-0.00290.0003-0.00290.020-0.059
20.006-0.0190.0030-0.00490.0030-0.00490.060-0.199
30.020-0.0390.0050-0.00790.0050-0.00790.200-0.899
40.040-0.0690.0080-0.01990.0080-0.01990.900-2.999
50.070-0.0890.0200-0.04990.0200-0.04993.000-7.999
60.090-0.1190.0500-0.09990.0500-0.09998.000-15.999
70.120-0.1390.1000-0.14990.1000-0.299916.000-30.999
80.140-0.1690.1500-0.25990.3000-0.499931.000-39.999
90.170-0.1890.2600-0.79990.5000-0.799940.000-49.999
100.190-0.2590.8000-1.0000.8000-1.00050.000-60.000

3.1.2.2 [Reserved]

3.1.2.3 The standards from which audit gas test concentrations are obtained must meet the specifications of section 2.6.1 of this appendix.

3.1.2.4 For point analyzers, the evaluation shall be carried out by allowing the monitor to analyze the audit gas test atmosphere in its normal sampling mode such that the test atmosphere passes through all filters, scrubbers, conditioners, and other sample inlet components used during normal ambient sampling and as much of the ambient air inlet system as is practicable.

3.1.2.5 Open-path monitors are evaluated by inserting a test cell containing the various audit gas concentrations into the optical measurement beam of the instrument. If possible, the normally used transmitter, receiver, and, as appropriate, reflecting devices should be used during the evaluation, and the normal monitoring configuration of the instrument should be modified as little as possible to accommodate the test cell for the evaluation. However, if permitted by the associated operation or instruction manual, an alternate local light source or an alternate optical path that does not include the normal atmospheric monitoring path may be used. The actual concentrations of the audit gas in the test cell must be selected to produce effective concentrations in the evaluation level ranges specified in this section of this appendix. Generally, each evaluation concentration measurement result will be the sum of the atmospheric pollutant concentration and the evaluation test concentration. As such, the result must be corrected to remove the atmospheric concentration contribution. The corrected concentration is obtained by subtracting the average of the atmospheric concentrations measured by the open-path instrument under test immediately before and immediately after the evaluation test (or preferably before and after each evaluation concentration level) from the evaluation concentration measurement. If the difference between the before and after measurements is greater than 20 percent of the effective concentration of the test gas standard, discard the test result for that concentration level and repeat the test for that level. If possible, open-path monitors should be evaluated during periods when the atmospheric pollutant concentrations are relatively low and steady. Also, if the open-path instrument is not installed in a permanent manner, the monitoring path length must be reverified to be within ±3 percent to validate the evaluation, since the monitoring path length is critical to the determination of the effective concentration.

3.1.2.6 Report both the evaluation concentrations (effective concentrations for open-path monitors) of the audit gases and the corresponding measured concentration (corrected concentrations, if applicable, for open-path monitors) indicated or produced by the monitor being tested. The percent differences between these concentrations are used to assess the quality of the monitoring data as described in section 4.1.1 of this appendix.

3.1.3 National Performance Audit Program (NPAP). As stated in sections 1.1 and 2.4, PSD monitoring networks may be subject to the NPEP, which includes the NPAP. The NPAP is a performance evaluation which is a type of audit where quantitative data are collected independently in order to evaluate the proficiency of an analyst, monitoring instrument and laboratory. Due to the implementation approach used in this program, NPAP provides for a national independent assessment of performance with a consistent level of data quality. The NPAP should not be confused with the quarterly PE program described in section 3.1.2. The PSD organizations shall consult with the PSD reviewing authority or the EPA regarding whether the implementation of NPAP is required and the implementation options available. Details of the EPA NPAP can be found in reference 11 of this appendix. The program requirements include:

3.1.3.1 Performing audits on 100 percent of monitors and sites each year including monitors and sites that may be operated for less than 1 year. The PSD reviewing authority has the authority to require more frequent audits at sites they consider to be high priority.

3.1.3.2 Developing a delivery system that will allow for the audit concentration gasses to be introduced at the probe inlet where logistically feasible.

3.1.3.3 Using audit gases that are verified against the NIST standard reference methods or special review procedures and validated per the certification periods specified in Reference 4 of this appendix (EPA Traceability Protocol for Assay and Certification of Gaseous Calibration Standards) for CO, SO 2 , and NO 2 and using O 3 analyzers that are verified quarterly against a standard reference photometer.

3.1.3.4 The PSD PQAO may elect to self-implement NPAP. In these cases, the PSD reviewing authority will work with those PSD PQAOs to establish training and other technical requirements to establish comparability to federally implemented programs. In addition to meeting the requirements in sections 3.1.1.3 through 3.1.3.3, the PSD PQAO must:

(a) Ensure that the PSD audit system is equivalent to the EPA NPAP audit system and is an entirely separate set of equipment and standards from the equipment used for quarterly performance evaluations. If this system does not generate and analyze the audit concentrations, as the EPA NPAP system does, its equivalence to the EPA NPAP system must be proven to be as accurate under a full range of appropriate and varying conditions as described in section 3.1.3.6.

(b) Perform a whole system check by having the PSD audit system tested at an independent and qualified EPA lab, or equivalent.

(c) Evaluate the system with the EPA NPAP program through collocated auditing at an acceptable number of sites each year (at least one for a PSD network of five or less sites; at least two for a network with more than five sites).

(d) Incorporate the NPAP into the PSD PQAO's QAPP.

(e) Be subject to review by independent, EPA-trained personnel.

(f) Participate in initial and update training/certification sessions.

3.2 PM2.5.

3.2.1 Flow Rate Verification for PM2.5. A one-point flow rate verification check must be performed at least once every month (each verification minimally separated by 14 days) on each monitor used to measure PM2.5. The verification is made by checking the operational flow rate of the monitor. If the verification is made in conjunction with a flow rate adjustment, it must be made prior to such flow rate adjustment. For the standard procedure, use a flow rate transfer standard certified in accordance with section 2.6 of this appendix to check the monitor's normal flow rate. Care should be used in selecting and using the flow rate measurement device such that it does not alter the normal operating flow rate of the monitor. Flow rate verification results are to be reported to the PSD reviewing authority quarterly as described in section 5.1. Reporting these results to AQS is encouraged. The percent differences between the audit and measured flow rates are used to assess the bias of the monitoring data as described in section 4.2.2 of this appendix (using flow rates in lieu of concentrations).

3.2.2 Semi-Annual Flow Rate Audit for PM2.5. Every 6 months, audit the flow rate of the PM2.5 particulate monitors. For short-term monitoring operations (those less than 1 year), the flow rate audits must occur at start up, at the midpoint, and near the completion of the monitoring project. The audit must be conducted by a trained technician other than the routine site operator. The audit is made by measuring the monitor's normal operating flow rate using a flow rate transfer standard certified in accordance with section 2.6 of this appendix. The flow rate standard used for auditing must not be the same flow rate standard used for verifications or to calibrate the monitor. However, both the calibration standard and the audit standard may be referenced to the same primary flow rate or volume standard. Care must be taken in auditing the flow rate to be certain that the flow measurement device does not alter the normal operating flow rate of the monitor. Report the audit flow rate of the transfer standard and the corresponding flow rate measured by the monitor. The percent differences between these flow rates are used to evaluate monitor performance.

3.2.3 Collocated Sampling Procedures for PM2.5. A PSD PQAO must have at least one collocated monitor for each PSD monitoring network.

3.2.3.1 For each pair of collocated monitors, designate one sampler as the primary monitor whose concentrations will be used to report air quality for the site, and designate the other as the QC monitor. There can be only one primary monitor at a monitoring site for a given time period.

(a) If the primary monitor is a FRM, then the quality control monitor must be a FRM of the same method designation.

(b) If the primary monitor is a FEM, then the quality control monitor must be a FRM unless the PSD PQAO submits a waiver for this requirement, provides a specific reason why a FRM cannot be implemented, and the waiver is approved by the PSD reviewing authority. If the waiver is approved, then the quality control monitor must be the same method designation as the primary FEM monitor.

3.2.3.2 In addition, the collocated monitors should be deployed according to the following protocol:

(a) The collocated quality control monitor(s) should be deployed at sites with the highest predicted daily PM2.5 concentrations in the network. If the highest PM2.5 concentration site is impractical for collocation purposes, alternative sites approved by the PSD reviewing authority may be selected. If additional collocated sites are necessary, the PSD PQAO and the PSD reviewing authority should determine the appropriate location(s) based on data needs.

(b) The two collocated monitors must be within 4 meters of each other and at least 2 meters apart for flow rates greater than 200 liters/min or at least 1 meter apart for samplers having flow rates less than 200 liters/min to preclude airflow interference. A waiver allowing up to 10 meters horizontal distance and up to 3 meters vertical distance (inlet to inlet) between a primary and collocated quality control monitor may be approved by the PSD reviewing authority for sites at a neighborhood or larger scale of representation. This waiver may be approved during the QAPP review and approval process. Sampling and analytical methodologies must be the consistently implemented for both collocated samplers and for all other samplers in the network.

(c) Sample the collocated quality control monitor on a 6-day schedule for sites not requiring daily monitoring and on a 3-day schedule for any site requiring daily monitoring. Report the measurements from both primary and collocated quality control monitors at each collocated sampling site. The calculations for evaluating precision between the two collocated monitors are described in section 4.2.1 of this appendix.

3.2.4 PM2.5 Performance Evaluation Program (PEP) Procedures. The PEP is an independent assessment used to estimate total measurement system bias. These evaluations will be performed under the NPEP as described in section 2.4 of this appendix or a comparable program. Performance evaluations will be performed annually within each PQAO. For PQAOs with less than or equal to five monitoring sites, five valid performance evaluation audits must be collected and reported each year. For PQAOs with greater than five monitoring sites, eight valid performance evaluation audits must be collected and reported each year. A valid performance evaluation audit means that both the primary monitor and PEP audit concentrations are valid and equal to or greater than 2 µg/m3. Siting of the PEP monitor must be consistent with section 3.2.3.4(c) of this appendix. However, any horizontal distance greater than 4 meters and any vertical distance greater than one meter must be reported to the EPA regional PEP coordinator. Additionally for every monitor designated as a primary monitor, a primary quality assurance organization must:

3.2.4.1 Have each method designation evaluated each year; and,

3.2.4.2 Have all FRM and FEM samplers subject to a PEP audit at least once every 6 years, which equates to approximately 15 percent of the monitoring sites audited each year.

3.2.4.3 Additional information concerning the PEP is contained in Reference 10 of this appendix. The calculations for evaluating bias between the primary monitor and the performance evaluation monitor for PM 2.5 are described in section 4.2.5 of this appendix.

3.3 PM10.

3.3.1 Flow Rate Verification for PM10. A one-point flow rate verification check must be performed at least once every month (each verification minimally separated by 14 days) on each monitor used to measure PM10. The verification is made by checking the operational flow rate of the monitor. If the verification is made in conjunction with a flow rate adjustment, it must be made prior to such flow rate adjustment. For the standard procedure, use a flow rate transfer standard certified in accordance with section 2.6 of this appendix to check the monitor's normal flow rate. Care should be taken in selecting and using the flow rate measurement device such that it does not alter the normal operating flow rate of the monitor. The percent differences between the audit and measured flow rates are used to assess the bias of the monitoring data as described in section 4.2.2 of this appendix (using flow rates in lieu of concentrations).

3.3.2 Semi-Annual Flow Rate Audit for PM10. Every 6 months, audit the flow rate of the PM10 particulate monitors. For short-term monitoring operations (those less than 1 year), the flow rate audits must occur at start up, at the midpoint, and near the completion of the monitoring project. Where possible, the EPA strongly encourages more frequent auditing. The audit must be conducted by a trained technician other than the routine site operator. The audit is made by measuring the monitor's normal operating flow rate using a flow rate transfer standard certified in accordance with section 2.6 of this appendix. The flow rate standard used for auditing must not be the same flow rate standard used for verifications or to calibrate the monitor. However, both the calibration standard and the audit standard may be referenced to the same primary flow rate or volume standard. Care must be taken in auditing the flow rate to be certain that the flow measurement device does not alter the normal operating flow rate of the monitor. Report the audit flow rate of the transfer standard and the corresponding flow rate measured by the monitor. The percent differences between these flow rates are used to evaluate monitor performance

3.3.3 Collocated Sampling Procedures for Manual PM10. A PSD PQAO must have at least one collocated monitor for each PSD monitoring network.

3.3.3.1 For each pair of collocated monitors, designate one sampler as the primary monitor whose concentrations will be used to report air quality for the site, and designate the other as the quality control monitor.

3.3.3.2 In addition, the collocated monitors should be deployed according to the following protocol:

(a) The collocated quality control monitor(s) should be deployed at sites with the highest predicted daily PM10 concentrations in the network. If the highest PM10 concentration site is impractical for collocation purposes, alternative sites approved by the PSD reviewing authority may be selected.

(b) The two collocated monitors must be within 4 meters of each other and at least 2 meters apart for flow rates greater than 200 liters/min or at least 1 meter apart for samplers having flow rates less than 200 liters/min to preclude airflow interference. A waiver allowing up to 10 meters horizontal distance and up to 3 meters vertical distance (inlet to inlet) between a primary and collocated sampler may be approved by the PSD reviewing authority for sites at a neighborhood or larger scale of representation. This waiver may be approved during the QAPP review and approval process. Sampling and analytical methodologies must be the consistently implemented for both collocated samplers and for all other samplers in the network.

(c) Sample the collocated quality control monitor on a 6-day schedule or 3-day schedule for any site requiring daily monitoring. Report the measurements from both primary and collocated quality control monitors at each collocated sampling site. The calculations for evaluating precision between the two collocated monitors are described in section 4.2.1 of this appendix.

(d) In determining the number of collocated sites required for PM10, PSD monitoring networks for Pb-PM10 should be treated independently from networks for particulate matter (PM), even though the separate networks may share one or more common samplers. However, a single quality control monitor that meets the collocation requirements for Pb-PM10 and PM10 may serve as a collocated quality control monitor for both networks. Extreme care must be taken if using the filter from a quality control monitor for both PM10 and Pb analysis. PM10 filter weighing should occur prior to any Pb analysis.

3.4 Pb.

3.4.1 Flow Rate Verification for Pb. A one-point flow rate verification check must be performed at least once every month (each verification minimally separated by 14 days) on each monitor used to measure Pb. The verification is made by checking the operational flow rate of the monitor. If the verification is made in conjunction with a flow rate adjustment, it must be made prior to such flow rate adjustment. Use a flow rate transfer standard certified in accordance with section 2.6 of this appendix to check the monitor's normal flow rate. Care should be taken in selecting and using the flow rate measurement device such that it does not alter the normal operating flow rate of the monitor. The percent differences between the audit and measured flow rates are used to assess the bias of the monitoring data as described in section 4.2.2 of this appendix (using flow rates in lieu of concentrations).

3.4.2 Semi-Annual Flow Rate Audit for Pb. Every 6 months, audit the flow rate of the Pb particulate monitors. For short-term monitoring operations (those less than 1 year), the flow rate audits must occur at start up, at the midpoint, and near the completion of the monitoring project. Where possible, the EPA strongly encourages more frequent auditing. The audit must be conducted by a trained technician other than the routine site operator. The audit is made by measuring the monitor's normal operating flow rate using a flow rate transfer standard certified in accordance with section 2.6 of this appendix. The flow rate standard used for auditing must not be the same flow rate standard used to in verifications or to calibrate the monitor. However, both the calibration standard and the audit standard may be referenced to the same primary flow rate or volume standard. Great care must be taken in auditing the flow rate to be certain that the flow measurement device does not alter the normal operating flow rate of the monitor. Report the audit flow rate of the transfer standard and the corresponding flow rate measured by the monitor. The percent differences between these flow rates are used to evaluate monitor performance.

3.4.3 Collocated Sampling for Pb. A PSD PQAO must have at least one collocated monitor for each PSD monitoring network.

3.4.3.1 For each pair of collocated monitors, designate one sampler as the primary monitor whose concentrations will be used to report air quality for the site, and designate the other as the quality control monitor.

3.4.3.2 In addition, the collocated monitors should be deployed according to the following protocol:

(a) The collocated quality control monitor(s) should be deployed at sites with the highest predicted daily Pb concentrations in the network. If the highest Pb concentration site is impractical for collocation purposes, alternative sites approved by the PSD reviewing authority may be selected.

(b) The two collocated monitors must be within 4 meters of each other and at least 2 meters apart for flow rates greater than 200 liters/min or at least 1 meter apart for samplers having flow rates less than 200 liters/min to preclude airflow interference. A waiver allowing up to 10 meters horizontal distance and up to 3 meters vertical distance (inlet to inlet) between a primary and collocated sampler may be approved by the PSD reviewing authority for sites at a neighborhood or larger scale of representation. This waiver may be approved during the QAPP review and approval process. Sampling and analytical methodologies must be the consistently implemented for both collocated samplers and all other samplers in the network.

(c) Sample the collocated quality control monitor on a 6-day schedule if daily monitoring is not required or 3-day schedule for any site requiring daily monitoring. Report the measurements from both primary and collocated quality control monitors at each collocated sampling site. The calculations for evaluating precision between the two collocated monitors are described in section 4.2.1 of this appendix.

(d) In determining the number of collocated sites required for Pb-PM10, PSD monitoring networks for PM10 should be treated independently from networks for Pb-PM10, even though the separate networks may share one or more common samplers. However, a single quality control monitor that meets the collocation requirements for Pb-PM10 and PM10 may serve as a collocated quality control monitor for both networks. Extreme care must be taken if using a using the filter from a quality control monitor for both PM10 and Pb analysis. The PM10 filter weighing should occur prior to any Pb analysis.

3.4.4 Pb Analysis Audits. Each calendar quarter, audit the Pb reference or equivalent method analytical procedure using filters containing a known quantity of Pb. These audit filters are prepared by depositing a Pb standard on unexposed filters and allowing them to dry thoroughly. The audit samples must be prepared using batches of reagents different from those used to calibrate the Pb analytical equipment being audited. Prepare audit samples in the following concentration ranges:

RangeEquivalent ambient
Pb concentration, µg/m 3
130-100% of Pb NAAQS.
2200-300% of Pb NAAQS.

(a) Audit samples must be extracted using the same extraction procedure used for exposed filters.

(b) Analyze three audit samples in each of the two ranges each quarter samples are analyzed. The audit sample analyses shall be distributed as much as possible over the entire calendar quarter.

(c) Report the audit concentrations (in µg Pb/filter or strip) and the corresponding measured concentrations (in µg Pb/filter or strip) using AQS unit code 077 (if reporting to AQS). The percent differences between the concentrations are used to calculate analytical accuracy as described in section 4.2.5 of this appendix.

3.4.5 Pb Performance Evaluation Program (PEP) Procedures. As stated in sections 1.1 and 2.4, PSD monitoring networks may be subject to the NPEP, which includes the Pb PEP. The PSD monitoring organizations shall consult with the PSD reviewing authority or the EPA regarding whether the implementation of Pb-PEP is required and the implementation options available for the Pb-PEP. The PEP is an independent assessment used to estimate total measurement system bias. Each year, one PE audit must be performed at one Pb site in each PSD PQAO network that has less than or equal to five sites and two audits for PSD PQAO networks with greater than five sites. In addition, each year, four collocated samples from PSD PQAO networks with less than or equal to five sites and six collocated samples from PSD PQAO networks with greater than five sites must be sent to an independent laboratory for analysis. The calculations for evaluating bias between the primary monitor and the PE monitor for Pb are described in section 4.2.4 of this appendix.

4. Calculations for Data Quality Assessments

(a) Calculations of measurement uncertainty are carried out by PSD PQAO according to the following procedures. The PSD PQAOs should report the data for all appropriate measurement quality checks as specified in this appendix even though they may elect to perform some or all of the calculations in this section on their own.

(b) At low concentrations, agreement between the measurements of collocated samplers, expressed as relative percent difference or percent difference, may be relatively poor. For this reason, collocated measurement pairs will be selected for use in the precision and bias calculations only when both measurements are equal to or above the following limits:

(1) Pb: 0.002 µg/m 3 (Methods approved after 3/04/2010, with exception of manual equivalent method EQLA-0813-803).

(2) Pb: 0.02 µg/m 3 (Methods approved before 3/04/2010, and manual equivalent method EQLA-0813-803).

(3) PM10 (Hi-Vol): 15 µg/m 3.

(4) PM10 (Lo-Vol): 3 µg/m 3.

(5) PM2.5: 3 µg/m 3.

(c) The PM2.5 3 µg/m 3 limit for the PM2.5−PEP may be superseded by mutual agreement between the PSD PQAO and the PSD reviewing authority as specified in section 3.2.4 of the appendix and detailed in the approved QAPP.

4.1 Statistics for the Assessment of QC Checks for SO2, NO2, O3and CO.

4.1.1 Percent Difference. Many of the measurement quality checks start with a comparison of an audit concentration or value (flow-rate) to the concentration/value measured by the monitor and use percent difference as the comparison statistic as described in equation 1 of this section. For each single point check, calculate the percent difference, di, as follows:



where meas is the concentration indicated by the PQAO's instrument and audit is the audit concentration of the standard used in the QC check being measured.

4.1.2 Precision Estimate. The precision estimate is used to assess the one-point QC checks for SO2, NO2, O3, or CO described in section 3.1.1 of this appendix. The precision estimator is the coefficient of variation upper bound and is calculated using equation 2 of this section:



where n is the number of single point checks being aggregated; X 20.1,n-1 is the 10th percentile of a chi-squared distribution with n-1 degrees of freedom.

4.1.3 Bias Estimate. The bias estimate is calculated using the one-point QC checks for SO2, NO2, O3, or CO described in section 3.1.1 of this appendix. The bias estimator is an upper bound on the mean absolute value of the percent differences as described in equation 3 of this section:



where n is the number of single point checks being aggregated; t0.95,n-1 is the 95th quantile of a t-distribution with n-1 degrees of freedom; the quantity AB is the mean of the absolute values of the di′s and is calculated using equation 4 of this section:



and the quantity AS is the standard deviation of the absolute value of the di′s and is calculated using equation 5 of this section:



4.1.3.1 Assigning a sign (positive/negative) to the bias estimate. Since the bias statistic as calculated in equation 3 of this appendix uses absolute values, it does not have a tendency (negative or positive bias) associated with it. A sign will be designated by rank ordering the percent differences of the QC check samples from a given site for a particular assessment interval.

4.1.3.2 Calculate the 25th and 75th percentiles of the percent differences for each site. The absolute bias upper bound should be flagged as positive if both percentiles are positive and negative if both percentiles are negative. The absolute bias upper bound would not be flagged if the 25th and 75th percentiles are of different signs.

4.2 Statistics for the Assessment of PM10,PM2.5, and Pb.

4.2.1 Collocated Quality Control Sampler Precision Estimate for PM10, PM2.5, and Pb . Precision is estimated via duplicate measurements from collocated samplers. It is recommended that the precision be aggregated at the PQAO level quarterly, annually, and at the 3-year level. The data pair would only be considered valid if both concentrations are greater than or equal to the minimum values specified in section 4(c) of this appendix. For each collocated data pair, calculate ti, using equation 6 to this appendix:



Where Xi is the concentration from the primary sampler and Yi is the concentration value from the audit sampler. The coefficient of variation upper bound is calculated using equation 7 to this appendix:



Where k is the number of valid data pairs being aggregated, and X 20.1,k-1 is the 10th percentile of a chi-squared distribution with k-1 degrees of freedom. The factor of 2 in the denominator adjusts for the fact that each ti is calculated from two values with error.

4.2.2 One-Point Flow Rate Verification Bias Estimate for PM10, PM2.5and Pb. For each one-point flow rate verification, calculate the percent difference in volume using equation 1 of this appendix where meas is the value indicated by the sampler's volume measurement and audit is the actual volume indicated by the auditing flow meter. The absolute volume bias upper bound is then calculated using equation 3, where n is the number of flow rate audits being aggregated; t0.95,n-1 is the 95th quantile of a t-distribution with n-1 degrees of freedom, the quantity AB is the mean of the absolute values of the di′s and is calculated using equation 4 of this appendix, and the quantity AS in equation 3 of this appendix is the standard deviation of the absolute values if the di′s and is calculated using equation 5 of this appendix.

4.2.3 Semi-Annual Flow Rate Audit Bias Estimate for PM10, PM2.5and Pb. Use the same procedure described in section 4.2.2 for the evaluation of flow rate audits.

4.2.4 Performance Evaluation Programs Bias Estimate for Pb. The Pb bias estimate is calculated using the paired routine and the PEP monitor as described in section 3.4.5. Use the same procedures as described in section 4.1.3 of this appendix.

4.2.5 Performance Evaluation Programs Bias Estimate for PM2.5 . The bias estimate is calculated using the PEP audits described in section 3.2.4. of this appendix. The bias estimator is based on, s i , the absolute difference in concentrations divided by the square root of the PEP concentration.



4.2.6 Pb Analysis Audit Bias Estimate. The bias estimate is calculated using the analysis audit data described in section 3.4.4. Use the same bias estimate procedure as described in section 4.1.3 of this appendix.

5. Reporting Requirements

5.1. Quarterly Reports. For each quarter, each PSD PQAO shall report to the PSD reviewing authority (and AQS if required by the PSD reviewing authority) the results of all valid measurement quality checks it has carried out during the quarter. The quarterly reports must be submitted consistent with the data reporting requirements specified for air quality data as set forth in 40 CFR 58.16 and pertain to PSD monitoring.

6. References

(1) American National Standard Institute—Quality Management Systems For Environmental Information And Technology Programs—Requirements With Guidance For Use. ASQ/ANSI E4–2014. February 2014. Available from ANSI Webstore https://webstore.ansi.org/.

(2) EPA Requirements for Quality Management Plans. EPA QA/R-2. EPA/240/B-01/002. March 2001, Reissue May 2006. Office of Environmental Information, Washington, DC 20460. http://www.epa.gov/quality/agency-wide-quality-system-documents.

(3) EPA Requirements for Quality Assurance Project Plans for Environmental Data Operations. EPA QA/R-5. EPA/240/B-01/003. March 2001, Reissue May 2006. Office of Environmental Information, Washington, DC 20460. http://www.epa.gov/quality/agency-wide-quality-system-documents.

(4) EPA Traceability Protocol for Assay and Certification of Gaseous Calibration Standards. EPA–600/R–12/531. May, 2012. Available from U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, National Risk Management Research Laboratory, Research Triangle Park NC 27711. https://www.epa.gov/nscep.

(5) Guidance for the Data Quality Objectives Process. EPA QA/G-4. EPA/240/B-06/001. February, 2006. Office of Environmental Information, Washington, DC 20460. http://www.epa.gov/quality/agency-wide-quality-system-documents.

(6) List of Designated Reference and Equivalent Methods. Available from U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Center for Environmental Measurements and Modeling, Air Methods and Characterization Division, MD–D205–03, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711. https://www.epa.gov/amtic/air-monitoring-methods-criteria-pollutants.

(7) Transfer Standards for the Calibration of Ambient Air Monitoring Analyzers for Ozone. EPA–454/B–13–004 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711, October, 2013. https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2020-09/documents/ozonetransferstandardguidance.pdf.

(8) Paur, R.J. and F.F. McElroy. Technical Assistance Document for the Calibration of Ambient Ozone Monitors. EPA-600/4-79-057. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711, September, 1979. http://www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic/cpreldoc.html.

(9) Quality Assurance Handbook for Air Pollution Measurement Systems, Volume 1—A Field Guide to Environmental Quality Assurance. EPA–600/R–94/038a. April 1994. Available from U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, ORD Publications Office, Center for Environmental Research Information (CERI), 26 W. Martin Luther King Drive, Cincinnati, OH 45268. https://www.epa.gov/amtic/ambient-air-monitoring-quality-assurance#documents.

(10) Quality Assurance Handbook for Air Pollution Measurement Systems, Volume II: Ambient Air Quality Monitoring Program Quality System Development. EPA–454/B–13–003. https://www.epa.gov/amtic/ambient-air-monitoring-quality-assurance#documents.

(11) National Performance Evaluation Program Standard Operating Procedures. https://www.epa.gov/amtic/ambient-air-monitoring-quality-assurance#npep.

Table B–1 to Section 6 of Appendix B- Minimum Data Assessment Requirements for NAAQS Related Criteria Pollutant PSD Monitors
MethodAssessment methodCoverageMinimum frequencyParameters reportedAQS Assessment type
1 Effective concentration for open path analyzers.
2 Corrected concentration, if applicable for open path analyzers.
3 NPAP, PM 2.5 , PEP, and Pb-PEP must be implemented if data is used for NAAQS decisions otherwise implementation is at PSD reviewing authority discretion.
4 Both primary and collocated sampler values are reported as raw data
5 A maximum number of days should be between these checks to ensure the checks are routinely conducted over time and to limit data impacts resulting from a failed check.
Gaseous Methods (CO, NO 2 , SO 2 , O 3):
One-Point QC for SO 2 , NO 2 , O 3 , COResponse check at concentration 0.005–0.08 ppm SO 2 , NO 2 , O 3 , & 0.5 and 5 ppm COEach analyzerOnce per 2 weeks 5Audit concentration 1 and measured concentration 2One-Point QC.
Quarterly performance evaluation for SO 2 , NO 2 , O 3 , COSee section 3.1.2 of this appendixEach analyzerOnce per quarter 5Audit concentration 1 and measured concentration 2 for each levelAnnual PE.
NPAP for SO 2 , NO 2 , O 3 , CO 3Independent AuditEach primary monitorOnce per yearAudit concentration 1 and measured concentration 2 for each levelNPAP.
Particulate Methods:
Collocated sampling PM 10 , PM 2.5 , PbCollocated samplers1 per PSD Network per pollutantEvery 6 days or every 3 days if daily monitoring requiredPrimary sampler concentration and duplicate sampler concentration 4No Transaction reported as raw data.
Flow rate verification PM 10 , PM 2.5 , PbCheck of sampler flow rateEach samplerOnce every month 5Audit flow rate and measured flow rate indicated by the samplerFlow Rate Verification.
Semi-annual flow rate audit PM 10 , PM 2.5 , PbCheck of sampler flow rate using independent standardEach samplerOnce every 6 months or beginning, middle and end of monitoring 5Audit flow rate and measured flow rate indicated by the samplerSemi Annual Flow Rate Audit.
Pb analysis audits Pb-TSP, Pb-PM 10Check of analytical system with Pb audit strips/filtersAnalyticalEach quarter 5Measured value and audit value (ug Pb/filter) using AQS unit code 077 for parameters: 14129—Pb (TSP) LC FRM/FEM 85129—Pb (TSP) LC Non-FRM/FEM.Pb Analysis Audits.
Performance Evaluation Program PM 2.53Collocated samplers(1) 5 valid audits for PQAOs with <= 5 sites. (2) 8 valid audits for PQAOs with > 5 sites. (3) All samplers in 6 yearsOver all 4 quarters 5Primary sampler concentration and performance evaluation sampler concentrationPEP.
Performance Evaluation Program Pb 3Collocated samplers(1) 1 valid audit and 4 collocated samples for PQAOs, with <=5 sites. (2) 2 valid audits and 6 collocated samples for PQAOs with >5 sites.Over all 4 quarters 5Primary sampler concentration and performance evaluation sampler concentration. Primary sampler concentration and duplicate sampler concentrationPEP.

Appendix C to Part 58—Ambient Air Quality Monitoring Methodology

* * * *

2.0 SLAMS Ambient Air Monitoring Network

2.1 Except as otherwise provided in this appendix, a criteria pollutant monitoring method used for making NAAQS decisions at a SLAMS site must be a reference or equivalent method as defined in §50.1 of this chapter.

2.1.1 Any NO2 FRM or FEM used for making primary NAAQS decisions must be capable of providing hourly averaged concentration data.

2.2 PM 10 , PM 2.5 , or PM 10–2.5 continuous FEMs with existing valid designations may be calibrated using network data from collocated FRM and continuous FEM data under the following provisions:

2.2.1 Data to demonstrate a calibration may include valid data from State, local, or Tribal air agencies or data collected by instrument manufacturers in accordance with 40 CFR 53.35 or other data approved by the Administrator.

2.2.2 A request to update a designated methods calibration may be initiated by the instrument manufacturer of record or the EPA Administrator. State, local, Tribal, and multijusistincional organizations of these entities may work with an instrument manufacture to update a designated method calibration.

2.2.3 Requests for approval of an updated PM 10 , PM 2.5 , or PM 10–2.5 continuous FEM calibration must meet the general submittal requirements of section 2.7 of this appendix.

2.2.4 Data included in the request should represent a subset of representative locations where the method is operational. For cases with a small number of collocated FRMs and continuous FEMs sites, an updated candidate calibration may be limited to the sites where both methods are in use.

2.2.5 Data included in a candidate method updated calibration may include a subset of sites where there is a large grouping of sites in one part of the country such that the updated calibration would be representative of the country as a whole.

2.2.6 Improvements should be national in scope and ideally implemented through a firmware change.

2.2.7 The goal of a change to a methods calibration is to increase the number of sites meeting measurements quality objectives of the method as identified in section 2.3.1.1 of appendix A to this part.

2.2.8 For meeting measurement quality objectives (MQOs), the primary objective is to meet the bias goal as this statistic will likely have the most influence on improving the resultant data collected.

2.2.9 Precision data are to be included, but so long as precision data are at least as good as existing network data or meet the MQO referenced in section 2.2.8 of this appendix, no further work is necessary with precision.

2.2.10 Data available to use may include routine primary and collocated data.

2.2.11 Audit data may be useful to confirm the performance of a candidate updated calibration but should not be used as the basis of the calibration to keep the independence of the audit data.

2.2.12 Data utilized as the basis of the updated calibration may be obtained by accessing EPA's AQS database or future analogous EPA database.

2.2.13 Years of data to use in a candidate method calibration should include two recent years where we are past the certification period for the previous year's data, which is May 1 of each year.

2.2.14 Data from additional years is to be used to test an updated calibration such that the calibration is independent of the test years of interest. Data from these additional years need to minimally demonstrate that a larger number of sites are expected to meet bias MQO especially at sites near the level of the NAAQS for the PM indicator of interest.

2.2.15 Outliers may be excluded using routine outlier tests.

2.2.16 The range of data used in a calibration may include all data available or alternatively use data in the range from the lowest measured data available up to 125% of the 24-hour NAAQS for the PM indicator of interest.

2.2.17 Other improvements to a PM continuous method may be included as part of a recommended update so long as appropriate testing is conducted with input from EPA's Office of Research and Development (ORD) Reference and Equivalent (R&E) Methods Designation program.

2.2.18 EPA encourages early communication by instrument manufacturers considering an update to a PM method. Instrument companies should initiate such dialogue by contacting EPA's ORD R&E Methods Designation program. The contact information for this can be found at 40 CFR 53.4.

2.2.19 Manufacturers interested in improving instrument's performance through an updated factory calibration must submit a written modification request to EPA with supporting rationale. Because the testing requirements and acceptance criteria of any field and/or lab tests can depend upon the nature and extent of the intended modification, applicants should contact EPA's R&E Methods Designation program for guidance prior to development of the modification request.

2.3 Any manual method or analyzer purchased prior to cancellation of its reference or equivalent method designation under §53.11 or §53.16 of this chapter may be used at a SLAMS site following cancellation for a reasonable period of time to be determined by the Administrator.

2.4 [Reserved]

2.4.1 [Reserved]

2.4.2 The monitoring agency wishing to use an ARM must develop and implement appropriate quality assurance procedures for the method. Additionally, the following procedures are required for the method:

2.4.2.1 The ARM must be consistently operated throughout the network. Exceptions to a consistent operation must be approved according to section 2.8 of this appendix;

2.4.2.2 The ARM must be operated on an hourly sampling frequency capable of providing data suitable for aggregation into daily 24-hour average measurements;

2.4.2.3 The ARM must use an inlet and separation device, as needed, that are already approved in either the reference method identified in appendix L to part 50 of this chapter or under part 53 of this chapter as approved for use on a PM 2.5 reference or equivalent method. The only exceptions to this requirement are those methods that by their inherent measurement principle may not need an inlet or separation device that segregates the aerosol; and

2.4.2.4 The ARM must be capable of providing for flow audits, unless by its inherent measurement principle, measured flow is not required. These flow audits are to be performed on the frequency identified in appendix A to this part.

2.4.2.5 If data transformations are used, they must be described in the monitoring agencies Quality Assurance Project plan (or addendum to QAPP). The QAPP shall describe how often (e.g., quarterly, yearly) and under what provisions the data transformation will be updated. For example, not meeting the data quality objectives for a site over a season or year may be cause for recalculating a data transformation, but by itself would not be cause for invalidating the data. Data transformations must be applied prospectively, i.e., in real-time or near real-time, to the data output from the PM 2.5 continuous method. See reference 7 of this appendix.

2.4.3 The monitoring agency wishing to use the method must develop and implement appropriate procedures for assessing and reporting the precision and accuracy of the method comparable to the procedures set forth in appendix A of this part for designated reference and equivalent methods.

2.4.4 Assessments of data quality shall follow the same frequencies and calculations as required under section 3 of appendix A to this part with the following exceptions:

2.4.4.1 Collocation of ARM with FRM/FEM samplers must be maintained at a minimum of 30 percent of the required SLAMS sites with a minimum of 1 per network;

2.4.4.2 All collocated FRM/FEM samplers must maintain a sample frequency of at least 1 in 6 sample days;

2.4.4.3 Collocated FRM/FEM samplers shall be located at the design value site, with the required FRM/FEM samplers deployed among the largest MSA/CSA in the network, until all required FRM/FEM are deployed; and

2.4.4.4 Data from collocated FRM/FEM are to be substituted for any calendar quarter that an ARM method has incomplete data.

2.4.4.5 Collocation with an ARM under this part for purposes of determining the coefficient of variation of the method shall be conducted at a minimum of 7.5 percent of the sites with a minimum of 1 per network. This is consistent with the requirements in appendix A to this part for one-half of the required collocation of FRM/FEM (15 percent) to be collocated with the same method.

2.4.4.6 Assessments of bias with an independent audit of the total measurement system shall be conducted with the same frequency as an FEM as identified in appendix A to this part.

2.4.5 Request for approval of a candidate ARM, that is not already approved in another agency's network under this section, must meet the general submittal requirements of section 2.7 of this appendix. Requests for approval under this section when an ARM is already approved in another agency's network are to be submitted to the EPA Regional Administrator. Requests for approval under section 2.4 of this appendix must include the following requirements:

2.4.5.1 A clear and unique description of the site(s) at which the candidate ARM will be used and tested, and a description of the nature or character of the site and the particulate matter that is expected to occur there.

2.4.5.2 A detailed description of the method and the nature of the sampler or analyzer upon which it is based.

2.4.5.3 A brief statement of the reason or rationale for requesting the approval.

2.4.5.4 A detailed description of the quality assurance procedures that have been developed and that will be implemented for the method.

2.4.5.5 A detailed description of the procedures for assessing the precision and accuracy of the method that will be implemented for reporting to AQS.

2.4.5.6 Test results from the comparability tests as required in section 2.4.1 through 2.4.1.4 of this appendix.

2.4.5.7 Such further supplemental information as may be necessary or helpful to support the required statements and test results.

2.4.6 Within 120 days after receiving a request for approval of the use of an ARM at a particular site or network of sites under section 2.4 of this appendix, the Administrator will approve or disapprove the method by letter to the person or agency requesting such approval. When appropriate for methods that are already approved in another SLAMS network, the EPA Regional Administrator has approval/disapproval authority. In either instance, additional information may be requested to assist with the decision.

2.5 [Reserved]

2.6 Use of Methods With Higher, Nonconforming Ranges in Certain Geographical Areas.

2.6.1 [Reserved]

2.6.2 An analyzer may be used (indefinitely) on a range which extends to concentrations higher than two times the upper limit specified in table B-1 of part 53 of this chapter if:

2.6.2.1 The analyzer has more than one selectable range and has been designated as a reference or equivalent method on at least one of its ranges, or has been approved for use under section 2.5 (which applies to analyzers purchased before February 18, 1975);

2.6.2.2 The pollutant intended to be measured with the analyzer is likely to occur in concentrations more than two times the upper range limit specified in table B-1 of part 53 of this chapter in the geographical area in which use of the analyzer is proposed; and

2.6.2.3 The Administrator determines that the resolution of the range or ranges for which approval is sought is adequate for its intended use. For purposes of this section (2.6), “resolution” means the ability of the analyzer to detect small changes in concentration.

2.6.3 Requests for approval under section 2.6.2 of this appendix must meet the submittal requirements of section 2.7. Except as provided in section 2.7.3 of this appendix, each request must contain the information specified in section 2.7.2 in addition to the following:

2.6.3.1 The range or ranges proposed to be used;

2.6.3.2 Test data, records, calculations, and test results as specified in section 2.7.2.2 of this appendix for each range proposed to be used;

2.6.3.3 An identification and description of the geographical area in which use of the analyzer is proposed;

2.6.3.4 Data or other information demonstrating that the pollutant intended to be measured with the analyzer is likely to occur in concentrations more than two times the upper range limit specified in table B-1 of part 53 of this chapter in the geographical area in which use of the analyzer is proposed; and

2.6.3.5 Test data or other information demonstrating the resolution of each proposed range that is broader than that permitted by section 2.5 of this appendix.

2.6.4 Any person who has obtained approval of a request under this section (2.6.2) shall assure that the analyzer for which approval was obtained is used only in the geographical area identified in the request and only while operated in the range or ranges specified in the request.

2.7 Requests for Approval; Withdrawal of Approval.

2.7.1 Requests for approval under sections 2.2, 2.4, 2.6.2, or 2.8 of this appendix must be submitted to: Director, Center for Environmental Measurement and Modeling, Reference and Equivalent Methods Designation Program (MD–D205–03), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, P.O. Box 12055, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711.

2.7.2 Except as provided in section 2.7.3 of this appendix, each request must contain:

2.7.2.1 A statement identifying the analyzer (e.g., by serial number) and the method of which the analyzer is representative (e.g., by manufacturer and model number); and

2.7.2.2 Test data, records, calculations, and test results for the analyzer (or the method of which the analyzer is representative) as specified in subpart B, subpart C, or both (as applicable) of part 53 of this chapter.

2.7.3 A request may concern more than one analyzer or geographical area and may incorporate by reference any data or other information known to EPA from one or more of the following:

2.7.3.1 An application for a reference or equivalent method determination submitted to EPA for the method of which the analyzer is representative, or testing conducted by the applicant or by EPA in connection with such an application;

2.7.3.2 Testing of the method of which the analyzer is representative at the initiative of the Administrator under §53.7 of this chapter; or

2.7.3.3 A previous or concurrent request for approval submitted to EPA under this section (2.7).

2.7.4 To the extent that such incorporation by reference provides data or information required by this section (2.7) or by sections 2.4, 2.5, or 2.6 of this appendix, independent data or duplicative information need not be submitted.

2.7.5 After receiving a request under this section (2.7), the Administrator may request such additional testing or information or conduct such tests as may be necessary in his judgment for a decision on the request.

2.7.6 If the Administrator determines, on the basis of any available information, that any of the determinations or statements on which approval of a request under this section was based are invalid or no longer valid, or that the requirements of section 2.4, 2.5, or 2.6, as applicable, have not been met, he/she may withdraw the approval after affording the person who obtained the approval an opportunity to submit information and arguments opposing such action.

2.8 Modifications of Methods by Users.

2.8.1 Except as otherwise provided in this section, no reference method, equivalent method, or ARM may be used in a SLAMS network if it has been modified in a manner that could significantly alter the performance characteristics of the method without prior approval by the Administrator. For purposes of this section, “alternative method” means an analyzer, the use of which has been approved under section 2.4, 2.5, or 2.6 of this appendix or some combination thereof.

2.8.2 Requests for approval under this section (2.8) must meet the submittal requirements of sections 2.7.1 and 2.7.2.1 of this appendix.

2.8.3 Each request submitted under this section (2.8) must include:

2.8.3.1 A description, in such detail as may be appropriate, of the desired modification;

2.8.3.2 A brief statement of the purpose(s) of the modification, including any reasons for considering it necessary or advantageous;

2.8.3.3 A brief statement of belief concerning the extent to which the modification will or may affect the performance characteristics of the method; and

2.8.3.4 Such further information as may be necessary to explain and support the statements required by sections 2.8.3.2 and 2.8.3.3.

2.8.4 The Administrator will approve or disapprove the modification by letter to the person or agency requesting such approval within 75 days after receiving a request for approval under this section and any further information that the applicant may be asked to provide.

2.8.5 A temporary modification that could alter the performance characteristics of a reference, equivalent, or ARM may be made without prior approval under this section if the method is not functioning or is malfunctioning, provided that parts necessary for repair in accordance with the applicable operation manual cannot be obtained within 45 days. Unless such temporary modification is later approved under section 2.8.4 of this appendix, the temporarily modified method shall be repaired in accordance with the applicable operation manual as quickly as practicable but in no event later than 4 months after the temporary modification was made, unless an extension of time is granted by the Administrator. Unless and until the temporary modification is approved, air quality data obtained with the method as temporarily modified must be clearly identified as such when submitted in accordance with §58.16 and must be accompanied by a report containing the information specified in section 2.8.3 of this appendix. A request that the Administrator approve a temporary modification may be submitted in accordance with sections 2.8.1 through 2.8.4 of this appendix. In such cases the request will be considered as if a request for prior approval had been made.

2.9 Use of IMPROVE Samplers at a SLAMS Site. “IMPROVE” samplers may be used in SLAMS for monitoring of regional background and regional transport concentrations of fine particulate matter. The IMPROVE samplers were developed for use in the Interagency Monitoring of Protected Visual Environments (IMPROVE) network to characterize all of the major components and many trace constituents of the particulate matter that impair visibility in Federal Class I Areas. Descriptions of the IMPROVE samplers and the data they collect are available in references 4, 5, and 6 of this appendix.

2.10 Use of Pb-PM10at SLAMS Sites.

2.10.1 The EPA Regional Administrator may approve the use of a Pb-PM 10 FRM or Pb-PM 10 FEM sampler in lieu of a Pb-TSP sampler as part of the network plan required under part 58.10(a)(4) in the following cases.

2.10.1.1 Pb-PM 10 samplers can be approved for use at the non-source-oriented sites required under paragraph 4.5(b) of Appendix D to part 58 if there is no existing monitoring data indicating that the maximum arithmetic 3-month mean Pb concentration (either Pb-TSP or Pb-PM 10) at the site was equal to or greater than 0.10 micrograms per cubic meter during the previous 3 years.

2.10.1.2 Pb-PM 10 samplers can be approved for use at source-oriented sites required under paragraph 4.5(a) if the monitoring agency can demonstrate (through modeling or historic monitoring data from the last 3 years) that Pb concentrations (either Pb-TSP or Pb-PM 10) will not equal or exceed 0.10 micrograms per cubic meter on an arithmetic 3-month mean and the source is expected to emit a substantial majority of its Pb in the fraction of PM with an aerodynamic diameter of less than or equal to 10 micrometers.

2.10.2 The approval of a Pb-PM 10 sampler in lieu of a Pb-TSP sampler as allowed for in paragraph 2.10.1 above will be revoked if measured Pb-PM 10 concentrations equal or exceed 0.10 micrograms per cubic meter on an arithmetic 3-month mean. Monitoring agencies will have up to 6 months from the end of the 3-month period in which the arithmetic 3-month Pb-PM 10 mean concentration equaled or exceeded 0.10 micrograms per cubic meter to install and begin operation of a Pb-TSP sampler at the site.

Appendix D to Part 58—Network Design Criteria for Ambient Air Quality Monitoring

1. Monitoring Objectives and Spatial Scales

The purpose of this appendix is to describe monitoring objectives and general criteria to be applied in establishing the required SLAMS ambient air quality monitoring stations and for choosing general locations for additional monitoring sites. This appendix also describes specific requirements for the number and location of FRM and FEM sites for specific pollutants, NCore multipollutant sites, PM 10 mass sites, PM 2.5 mass sites, chemically-speciated PM 2.5 sites, and O 3 precursor measurements sites (PAMS). These criteria will be used by EPA in evaluating the adequacy of the air pollutant monitoring networks.

1.1 (b) Support compliance with ambient air quality standards and emissions strategy development. Data from FRM and FEM monitors for NAAQS pollutants will be used for comparing an area's air pollution levels against the NAAQS. Data from monitors of various types can be used in the development of attainment and maintenance plans. SLAMS, and especially NCore station data, will be used to evaluate the regional air quality models used in developing emission strategies, and to track trends in air pollution abatement control measures' impact on improving air quality. In monitoring locations near major air pollution sources, source-oriented monitoring data can provide insight into how well industrial sources are controlling their pollutant emissions.

* * * * *

4.7.1 (a) State and where applicable, local, agencies must operate the minimum number of required PM 2.5 SLAMS sites listed in table D–5 to this appendix. The NCore sites are expected to complement the PM 2.5 data collection that takes place at non-NCore SLAMS sites, and both types of sites can be used to meet the minimum PM 2.5 network requirements. For many State and local networks, the total number of PM 2.5 sites needed to support the basic monitoring objectives of providing air pollution data to the general public in a timely manner, support compliance with ambient air quality standards and emission strategy development, and support for air pollution research studies will include more sites than the minimum numbers required in table D–5 to this appendix. Deviations from these PM 2.5 monitoring requirements must be approved by the EPA Regional Administrator.

* * * * *

(b)(3) For areas with additional required SLAMS, a monitoring station is to be sited in an at-risk community with poor air quality, particularly where there are anticipated effects from sources in the area (e.g., a major industrial area, point source(s), port, rail yard, airport, or other transportation facility or corridor).

* * * * *

4.7.2 Requirement for Continuous PM 2.5 Monitoring. The State, or where appropriate, local agencies must operate continuous PM 2.5 analyzers equal to at least one-half (round up) the minimum required sites listed in table D–5 to this appendix. At least one required continuous analyzer in each MSA must be collocated with one of the required FRM/FEM monitors, unless at least one of the required FRM/FEM monitors is itself a continuous FEM monitor in which case no collocation requirement applies. State and local air monitoring agencies must use methodologies and quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC) procedures approved by the EPA Regional Administrator for these required continuous analyzers.

Appendix E to Part 58—Probe and Monitoring Path Siting Criteria for Ambient Air Quality Monitoring

1. Introduction

2. Monitors and Samplers with Probe Inlets

3. Open Path Analyzers

4. Waiver Provisions

5. References

1. Introduction

1.1 Applicability

(a) This appendix contains specific location criteria applicable to ambient air quality monitoring probes, inlets, and optical paths of SLAMS, NCore, PAMS, and other monitor types whose data are intended to be used to determine compliance with the NAAQS. These specific location criteria are relevant after the general location has been selected based on the monitoring objectives and spatial scale of representation discussed in appendix D to this part. Monitor probe material and sample residence time requirements are also included in this appendix. Adherence to these siting criteria is necessary to ensure the uniform collection of compatible and comparable air quality data.

(b) The probe and monitoring path siting criteria discussed in this appendix must be followed to the maximum extent possible. It is recognized that there may be situations where some deviation from the siting criteria may be necessary. In any such case, the reasons must be thoroughly documented in a written request for a waiver that describes whether the resulting monitoring data will be representative of the monitoring area and how and why the proposed or existing siting must deviate from the criteria. This documentation should help to avoid later questions about the validity of the resulting monitoring data. Conditions under which the EPA would consider an application for waiver from these siting criteria are discussed in section 4 of this appendix.

(c) The pollutant-specific probe and monitoring path siting criteria generally apply to all spatial scales except where noted otherwise. Specific siting criteria that are phrased with “shall” or “must” are defined as requirements and exceptions must be granted through the waiver provisions. However, siting criteria that are phrased with “should” are defined as goals to meet for consistency but are not requirements.

2. Monitors and Samplers with Probe Inlets

2.1 Horizontal and Vertical Placement

(a) For O 3 and SO 2 monitoring, and for neighborhood or larger spatial scale Pb, PM 10 , PM 10–2.5 , PM 2.5 , NO 2 , and CO sites, the probe must be located greater than or equal to 2.0 meters and less than or equal to 15 meters above ground level.

(b) Middle scale CO and NO 2 monitors must have sampler inlets greater than or equal to 2.0 meters and less than or equal to 15 meters above ground level.

(c) Middle scale PM 10–2.5 sites are required to have sampler inlets greater than or equal to 2.0 meters and less than or equal to 7.0 meters above ground level.

(d) Microscale Pb, PM 10 , PM 10–2.5 , and PM 2.5 sites are required to have sampler inlets greater than or equal to 2.0 meters and less than or equal to 7.0 meters above ground level.

(e) Microscale near-road NO 2 monitoring sites are required to have sampler inlets greater than or equal to 2.0 meters and less than or equal to 7.0 meters above ground level.

(f) The probe inlets for microscale carbon monoxide monitors that are being used to measure concentrations near roadways must be greater than or equal to 2.0 meters and less than or equal to 7.0 meters above ground level. Those probe inlets for microscale carbon monoxide monitors measuring concentrations near roadways in downtown areas or urban street canyons must be greater than or equal to 2.5 meters and less than or equal to 3.5 meters above ground level. The probe must be at least 1.0 meter vertically or horizontally away from any supporting structure, walls, parapets, penthouses, etc ., and away from dusty or dirty areas. If the probe is located near the side of a building or wall, then it should be located on the windward side of the building relative to the prevailing wind direction during the season of highest concentration potential for the pollutant being measured.

2.2 Spacing From Minor Sources

(a) It is important to understand the monitoring objective for a particular site in order to interpret this requirement. Local minor sources of a primary pollutant, such as SO 2 , lead, or particles, can cause high concentrations of that particular pollutant at a monitoring site. If the objective for that monitoring site is to investigate these local primary pollutant emissions, then the site will likely be properly located nearby. This type of monitoring site would, in all likelihood, be a microscale-type of monitoring site. If a monitoring site is to be used to determine air quality over a much larger area, such as a neighborhood or city, a monitoring agency should avoid placing a monitor probe inlet near local, minor sources, because a plume from a local minor source should not be allowed to inappropriately impact the air quality data collected at a site. Particulate matter sites should not be located in an unpaved area unless there is vegetative ground cover year-round, so that the impact of windblown dusts will be kept to a minimum.

(b) Similarly, local sources of nitric oxide (NO) and ozone-reactive hydrocarbons can have a scavenging effect causing unrepresentatively low concentrations of O 3 in the vicinity of probes for O 3 . To minimize these potential interferences from nearby minor sources, the probe inlet should be placed at a distance from furnace or incineration flues or other minor sources of SO 2 or NO. The separation distance should take into account the heights of the flues, type of waste or fuel burned, and the sulfur content of the fuel.

2.3 Spacing From Obstructions

(a) Obstacles may scavenge SO 2 , O 3 , or NO 2 , and can act to restrict airflow for any pollutant. To avoid this interference, the probe inlet must have unrestricted airflow pursuant to paragraph (b) of this section and should be located at a distance from obstacles. The horizontal distance from the obstacle to the probe inlet must be at least twice the height that the obstacle protrudes above the probe inlet. An obstacle that does not meet the minimum distance requirement is considered an obstruction that restricts airflow to the probe inlet. The EPA does not generally consider objects or obstacles such as flag poles or site towers used for NOy convertors and meteorological sensors, etc. to be deemed obstructions.

(b) A probe inlet located near or along a vertical wall is undesirable because air moving along the wall may be subject to removal mechanisms. A probe inlet must have unrestricted airflow with no obstructions (as defined in paragraph (a) of this section) in a continuous arc of at least 270 degrees. An unobstructed continuous arc of 180 degrees is allowable when the applicable network design criteria specified in appendix D of this part require monitoring in street canyons and the probe is located on the side of a building. This arc must include the predominant wind direction for the season of greatest pollutant concentration potential. For particle sampling, there must be a minimum of 2.0 meters of horizontal separation from walls, parapets, and structures for rooftop site placement.

(c) A sampling station with a probe inlet located closer to an obstacle than required by the criteria in this section should be classified as middle scale or microscale, rather than neighborhood or urban scale, since the measurements from such a station would more closely represent these smaller scales.

(d) For near-road monitoring stations, the monitor probe shall have an unobstructed air flow, where no obstacles exist at or above the height of the monitor probe, between the monitor probe and the outside nearest edge of the traffic lanes of the target road segment.

2.4 Spacing From Trees

(a) Trees can provide surfaces for SO 2 , O 3 , or NO 2 adsorption or reactions and surfaces for particle deposition. Trees can also act as obstructions in locations where the trees are between the air pollutant sources or source areas and the monitoring site and where the trees are of a sufficient height and leaf canopy density to interfere with the normal airflow around the probe inlet. To reduce this possible interference/obstruction, the probe inlet should be 20 meters or more from the drip line of trees and must be at least 10 meters from the drip line of trees. If a tree or group of trees is an obstacle, the probe inlet must meet the distance requirements of section 2.3 of this appendix.

(b) The scavenging effect of trees is greater for O 3 than for other criteria pollutants. Monitoring agencies must take steps to consider the impact of trees on ozone monitoring sites and take steps to avoid this problem.

(c) Beginning January 1, 2024, microscale sites of any air pollutant shall have no trees or shrubs located at or above the line-of-sight fetch between the probe and the source under investigation, e.g., a roadway or a stationary source.

2.5 Spacing From Roadways

Table E–1 to Section 2.5 of Appendix E—Minimum Separation Distance Between Roadways and Probes for Monitoring Neighborhood and Urban Scale Ozone (O 3) and Oxides of Nitrogen (NO, NO 2 , NO X , NO y)
Roadway average daily traffic, vehicles per dayMinimum distance 1 3 (meters)Minimum distance 1 2 3 (meters)
1 Distance from the edge of the nearest traffic lane. The distance for intermediate traffic counts should be interpolated from the table values based on the actual traffic count./TNOTE>
2 Applicable for ozone monitors whose placement was not approved as of December 18, 2006.
3 All distances listed are expressed as having 2 significant figures. When rounding is performed to assess compliance with these siting requirements, the distance measurements will be rounded such as to retain at least two significant figures.
≤1,0001010
10,0001020
15,0002030
20,0003040
40,0005060
70,000100100
≥110,000250250

2.5.1 Spacing for Ozone Probes

In siting an O 3 monitor, it is important to minimize destructive interferences from sources of NO, since NO readily reacts with O 3 . Table E–1 of this appendix provides the required minimum separation distances between a roadway and a probe inlet for various ranges of daily roadway traffic. A sampling site with a monitor probe located closer to a roadway than allowed by the Table E–1 requirements should be classified as middle scale or microscale, rather than neighborhood or urban scale, since the measurements from such a site would more closely represent these smaller scales.

2.5.2 Spacing for Carbon Monoxide Probes

(a) Near-road microscale CO monitoring sites, including those located in downtown areas, urban street canyons, and other near-road locations such as those adjacent to highly trafficked roads, are intended to provide a measurement of the influence of the immediate source on the pollution exposure on the adjacent area.

(b) Microscale CO monitor probe inlets in downtown areas or urban street canyon locations shall be located a minimum distance of 2.0 meters and a maximum distance of 10 meters from the edge of the nearest traffic lane.

(c) Microscale CO monitor probe inlets in downtown areas or urban street canyon locations shall be located at least 10 meters from an intersection, preferably at a midblock location. Midblock locations are preferable to intersection locations because intersections represent a much smaller portion of downtown space than do the streets between them. Pedestrian exposure is probably also greater in street canyon/corridors than at intersections.

(d) Neighborhood scale CO monitor probe inlets in downtown areas or urban street canyon locations shall be located according to the requirements in Table E–2 of this appendix.

Table E–2 to Section 2.5.2 of Appendix E—Minimum Separation Distance Between Roadways and Probes for Monitoring Neighborhood Scale Carbon Monoxide
Roadway average daily traffic, vehicles per dayMinimum distance (meters)
Distance from the edge of the nearest traffic lane. The distance for intermediate traffic counts should be interpolated from the table values based on the actual traffic count.
All distances listed are expressed as having 2 significant figures. When rounding is performed to assess compliance with these siting requirements, the distance measurements will be rounded such as to retain at least two significant figures.
≤10,00010
15,00025
20,00045
30,00080
40,000115
50,000135
≥60,000150

2.5.3 Spacing for Particulate Matter (PM , PM , PM , Pb) Inlets

(a) Since emissions associated with the operation of motor vehicles contribute to urban area particulate matter ambient levels, spacing from roadway criteria are necessary for ensuring national consistency in PM sampler siting.

(b) The intent is to locate localized hot-spot sites in areas of highest concentrations, whether it be caused by mobile or multiple stationary sources. If the area is primarily affected by mobile sources and the maximum concentration area(s) is judged to be a traffic corridor or street canyon location, then the monitors should be located near roadways with the highest traffic volume and at separation distances most likely to produce the highest concentrations. For microscale traffic corridor sites, the location must be greater than or equal 5.0 meters and less than or equal to 15 meters from the major roadway. For the microscale street canyon site, the location must be greater than or equal 2.0 meters and less than or equal to 10 meters from the roadway. For the middle scale site, a range of acceptable distances from the roadway is shown in Figure E–1 of this appendix. This figure also includes separation distances between a roadway and neighborhood or larger scale sites by default. Any PM probe inlet at a site, 2.0 to 15 meters high, and further back than the middle scale requirements will generally be neighborhood, urban or regional scale. For example, according to Figure E–1 of this appendix, if a PM sampler is primarily influenced by roadway emissions and that sampler is set back 10 meters from a 30,000 ADT (average daily traffic) road, the site should be classified as microscale, if the sampler's inlet height is between 2.0 and 7.0 meters. If the sampler's inlet height is between 7.0 and 15 meters, the site should be classified as middle scale. If the sampler is 20 meters from the same road, it will be classified as middle scale; if 40 meters, neighborhood scale; and if 110 meters, an urban scale.



2.5.4 Spacing for Nitrogen Dioxide (NO) Probes

(a) In siting near-road NO 2 monitors as required in section 4.3.2 of appendix D of this part, the monitor probe shall be as near as practicable to the outside nearest edge of the traffic lanes of the target road segment but shall not be located at a distance greater than 50 meters, in the horizontal, from the outside nearest edge of the traffic lanes of the target road segment. Where possible, the near-road NO 2 monitor probe should be within 20 meters of the target road segment.

(b) In siting NO 2 monitors for neighborhood and larger scale monitoring, it is important to minimize near-road influences. Table E–1 of this appendix provides the required minimum separation distances between a roadway and a probe inlet for various ranges of daily roadway traffic. A site with a monitor probe located closer to a roadway than allowed by the Table E–1 requirements should be classified as microscale or middle scale rather than neighborhood or urban scale.

2.6 Probe Material and Pollutant Sampler Residence Time

(a) For the reactive gases (SO 2 , NO 2 , and O 3), approved probe materials must be used for monitors. Studies 25 34 have been conducted to determine the suitability of materials such as polypropylene, polyethylene, polyvinyl chloride, Tygon®, aluminum, brass, stainless steel, copper, borosilicate glass, polyvinylidene fluoride (PVDF), polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE), perfluoroalkoxy (PFA), and fluorinated ethylene propylene (FEP) for use as intake sampling lines. Of the above materials, only borosilicate glass, PVDF, PTFE, PFA, and FEP have been found to be acceptable for use as intake sampling lines for all the reactive gaseous pollutants. Furthermore, the EPA 25 has specified borosilicate glass, FEP Teflon®, or their equivalents as the only acceptable probe materials for delivering test atmospheres in the determination of reference or equivalent methods. Therefore, borosilicate glass, PVDF, PTFE, PFA, FEP, or their equivalents must be the only material in the sampling train (from probe inlet to the back of the monitor) that can be in contact with the ambient air sample for reactive gas monitors. Nafion TM , which is composed primarily of PTFE, can be considered equivalent to PTFE; it has been shown in tests to exhibit virtually no loss of ozone at 20-second residence times. 35

(b) For volatile organic compound (VOC) monitoring at PAMS, FEP Teflon® is unacceptable as the probe material because of VOC adsorption and desorption reactions on the FEP Teflon®. Borosilicate glass, stainless steel, or their equivalents are the acceptable probe materials for VOC and carbonyl sampling. Care must be taken to ensure that the sample residence time is kept to 20 seconds or less.

(c) No matter how nonreactive the sampling probe material is initially, after a period of use, reactive particulate matter is deposited on the probe walls. Therefore, the time it takes the gas to transfer from the probe inlet to the sampling device is critical. Ozone in the presence of nitrogen oxide (NO) will show significant losses, even in the most inert probe material, when the residence time exceeds 20 seconds. 26 Other studies 27 28 indicate that a 10-second or less residence time is easily achievable. Therefore, sampling probes for all reactive gas monitors for SO 2 , NO 2 , and O 3 must have a sample residence time less than 20 seconds.

2.7 Summary

Table E–3 of this appendix presents a summary of the general requirements for probe siting criteria with respect to distances and heights. Table E–3 requires different elevation distances above the ground for the various pollutants. The discussion in this appendix for each of the pollutants describes reasons for elevating the monitor or probe inlet. The differences in the specified range of heights are based on the vertical concentration gradients. For source oriented and near-road monitors, the gradients in the vertical direction are very large for the microscale, so a small range of heights are used. The upper limit of 15 meters is specified for the consistency between pollutants and to allow the use of a single manifold for monitoring more than one pollutant.

Table E–3 to Section 2.7 of Appendix E—Summary of Probe Siting Criteria
PollutantScale 9Height from ground to probe 8 (meters)Horizontal or vertical distance from supporting structures 18 to probe inlet (meters)Distance from drip line of trees to probe 8 (meters)Distance from roadways to probe 8 (meters)
N/A—Not applicable.
1 When a probe is located on a rooftop, this separation distance is in reference to walls, parapets, or penthouses located on the roof.
2 Should be greater than 20 meters from the dripline of tree(s) and must be 10 meters from the dripline.
3 Distance from sampler or probe inlet to obstacle, such as a building, must be at least twice the height the obstacle protrudes above the sampler or probe inlet. Sites not meeting this criterion may be classified as microscale or middle scale (see paragraphs 2.3(a) and 2.3(c)).
4 Must have unrestricted airflow in a continuous arc of at least 270 degrees around the probe or sampler; 180 degrees if the probe is on the side of a building or a wall for street canyon monitoring.
5 The probe or sampler should be away from minor sources, such as furnace or incineration flues. The separation distance is dependent on the height of the minor source emission point(s), the type of fuel or waste burned, and the quality of the fuel (sulfur, ash, or lead content). This criterion is designed to avoid undue influences from minor sources.
6 For microscale CO monitoring sites, the probe must be ≥10 meters from a street intersection and preferably at a midblock location.
7 Collocated monitor inlets must be within 4.0 meters of each other and at least 2.0 meters apart for flow rates greater than 200 liters/min or at least 1.0 meter apart for samplers having flow rates less than 200 liters/min to preclude airflow interference, unless a waiver has been granted by the Regional Administrator pursuant to paragraph 3.3.4.2(c) of appendix A of part 58. For PM 2.5 , collocated monitor inlet heights should be within 1.0 meter of each other vertically.
8 All distances listed are expressed as having 2 significant figures. When rounding is performed to assess compliance with these siting requirements, the distance measurements will be rounded such as to retain at least two significant figures.
9 See section 1.2 of appendix D for definitions of monitoring scales.
SO 22 3 4 5Middle, Neighborhood, Urban, and Regional2.0–15≥1.0≥10N/A.
COMicro [downtown or street canyon sites]2.5–3.52.0–10 for downtown areas or street canyon microscale.
Micro [Near-Road sites]2.0–7.0≥1.0≥10≤50 for near-road microscale.
Middle and Neighborhood2.0–15See Table E–2 of this appendix for middle and neighborhood scales.
O 3Middle, Neighborhood, Urban, and Regional2.0–15≥1.0≥10See Table E–1.
Micro2.0–7.0≤50 for near-road micro-scale.
NO 2Middle, Neighborhood, Urban, and Regional2.0–15≥1.0≥10See Table E–1.
PAMS Ozone precursorsNeighborhood and Urban2.0–15≥1.0≥10See Table E–1.
PM, PbMicro2.0–7.0
Middle, Neighborhood, Urban and Regional2.0–15≥2.0 (horizontal distance only)≥10See Figure E–1.

3. Open Path Analyzers

3.1 Horizontal and Vertical Placement

(a) For all O 3 and SO 2 monitoring sites and for neighborhood or larger spatial scale NO 2 , and CO sites, at least 80 percent of the monitoring path must be located greater than or equal 2.0 meters and less than or equal to 15 meters above ground level.

(b) Middle scale CO and NO 2 sites must have monitoring paths greater than or equal 2.0 meters and less than or equal to 15 meters above ground level.

(c) Microscale near-road monitoring sites are required to have monitoring paths greater than or equal 2.0 meters and less than or equal to 7.0 meters above ground level.

(d) For microscale carbon monoxide monitors that are being used to measure concentrations near roadways, the monitoring path must be greater than or equal 2.0 meters and less than or equal to 7.0 meters above ground level. If the microscale carbon monoxide monitors measuring concentrations near roadways are in downtown areas or urban street canyons, the monitoring path must be greater than or equal 2.5 meters and less than or equal to 3.5 meters above ground level and at least 90 percent of the monitoring path must be at least 1.0 meter vertically or horizontally away from any supporting structure, walls, parapets, penthouses, etc., and away from dusty or dirty areas. If a significant portion of the monitoring path is located near the side of a building or wall, then it should be located on the windward side of the building relative to the prevailing wind direction during the season of highest concentration potential for the pollutant being measured.

3.2 Spacing From Minor Sources

(a) It is important to understand the monitoring objective for a particular site in order to interpret this requirement. Local minor sources of a primary pollutant, such as SO 2 can cause high concentrations of that particular pollutant at a monitoring site. If the objective for that monitoring site is to investigate these local primary pollutant emissions, then the site will likely be properly located nearby. This type of monitoring site would, in all likelihood, be a microscale type of monitoring site. If a monitoring site is to be used to determine air quality over a much larger area, such as a neighborhood or city, a monitoring agency should avoid placing a monitoring path near local, minor sources, because a plume from a local minor source should not be allowed to inappropriately impact the air quality data collected at a site.

(b) Similarly, local sources of nitric oxide (NO) and ozone-reactive hydrocarbons can have a scavenging effect causing unrepresentatively low concentrations of O 3 in the vicinity of monitoring paths for O 3 . To minimize these potential interferences from nearby minor sources, at least 90 percent of the monitoring path should be at a distance from furnace or incineration flues or other minor sources of SO 2 or NO. The separation distance should take into account the heights of the flues, type of waste or fuel burned, and the sulfur content of the fuel.

3.3 Spacing From Obstructions

(a) Obstacles may scavenge SO 2 , O 3 , or NO 2 , and can act to restrict airflow for any pollutant. To avoid this interference, at least 90 percent of the monitoring path must have unrestricted airflow and should be located at a distance from obstacles. The horizontal distance from the obstacle to the monitoring path must be at least twice the height that the obstacle protrudes above the monitoring path. An obstacle that does not meet the minimum distance requirement is considered an obstruction that restricts airflow to the monitoring path. The EPA does not generally consider objects or obstacles such as flag poles or site towers used for NOy convertors and meteorological sensors, etc. to be deemed obstructions.

(b) A monitoring path located near or along a vertical wall is undesirable because air moving along the wall may be subject to removal mechanisms. At least 90 percent of the monitoring path for open path analyzers must have unrestricted airflow with no obstructions (as defined in paragraph (a) of this section) in a continuous arc of at least 270 degrees. An unobstructed continuous arc of 180 degrees is allowable when the applicable network design criteria specified in appendix D of this part require monitoring in street canyons and the monitoring path is located on the side of a building. This arc must include the predominant wind direction for the season of greatest pollutant concentration potential.

(c) Special consideration must be given to the use of open path analyzers given their inherent potential sensitivity to certain types of interferences and optical obstructions. A monitoring path must be clear of all trees, brush, buildings, plumes, dust, or other optical obstructions, including potential obstructions that may move due to wind, human activity, growth of vegetation, etc. Temporary optical obstructions, such as rain, particles, fog, or snow, should be considered when siting an open path analyzer. Any of these temporary obstructions that are of sufficient density to obscure the light beam will negatively affect the ability of the open path analyzer to continuously measure pollutant concentrations. Transient, but significant obscuration of especially longer measurement paths, could occur as a result of certain meteorological conditions (e.g., heavy fog, rain, snow) and/or aerosol levels that are of a sufficient density to prevent the open path analyzer's light transmission. If certain compensating measures are not otherwise implemented at the onset of monitoring (e.g., shorter path lengths, higher light source intensity), data recovery during periods of greatest primary pollutant potential could be compromised. For instance, if heavy fog or high particulate levels are coincident with periods of projected NAAQS-threatening pollutant potential, the representativeness of the resulting data record in reflecting maximum pollution concentrations may be substantially impaired despite the fact that the site may otherwise exhibit an acceptable, even exceedingly high, overall valid data capture rate.

(d) A sampling station with a monitoring path located closer to an obstacle than required by the criteria in this section should be classified as middle scale or microscale, rather than neighborhood or urban scale, since the measurements from such a station would more closely represent these smaller scales.

(e) For near-road monitoring stations, the monitoring path shall have an unobstructed air flow, where no obstacles exist at or above the height of the monitoring path, between the monitoring path and the outside nearest edge of the traffic lanes of the target road segment.

3.4 Spacing From Trees

(a) Trees can provide surfaces for SO 2 , O 3 , or NO 2 adsorption or reactions. Trees can also act as obstructions in locations where the trees are located between the air pollutant sources or source areas and the monitoring site, and where the trees are of a sufficient height and leaf canopy density to interfere with the normal airflow around the monitoring path. To reduce this possible interference/obstruction, at least 90 percent of the monitoring path should be 20 meters or more from the drip line of trees and must be at least 10 meters from the drip line of trees. If a tree or group of trees could be considered an obstacle, the monitoring path must meet the distance requirements of section 3.3 of this appendix.

(b) The scavenging effect of trees is greater for O 3 than for other criteria pollutants. Monitoring agencies must take steps to consider the impact of trees on ozone monitoring sites and take steps to avoid this problem.

(c) Beginning January 1, 2024, microscale sites of any air pollutant shall have no trees or shrubs located at or above the line-of-sight fetch between the monitoring path and the source under investigation, e.g., a roadway or a stationary source.

3.5 Spacing from Roadways

Table E–4 of Section 3.5 of Appendix E—Minimum Separation Distance Between Roadways and Monitoring Paths for Monitoring Neighborhood and Urban Scale Ozone (O) and Oxides of Nitrogen (NO, NO , NO , NO)
Roadway average daily traffic, vehicles per dayMinimum distance 1 3 (meters)Minimum distance 1 2 3 (meters)
1 Distance from the edge of the nearest traffic lane. The distance for intermediate traffic counts should be interpolated from the table values based on the actual traffic count.
2 Applicable for ozone open path monitors whose placement was not approved as of December 18, 2006.
3 All distances listed are expressed as having 2 significant figures. When rounding is performed to assess compliance with these siting requirements, the distance measurements will be rounded such as to retain at least two significant figures.
≤1,0001010
10,0001020
15,0002030
20,0003040
40,0005060
70,000100100
≥110,000250250

3.5.1 Spacing for Ozone Monitoring Paths

In siting an O 3 open path analyzer, it is important to minimize destructive interferences form sources of NO, since NO readily reacts with O 3 . Table E–4 of this appendix provides the required minimum separation distances between a roadway and at least 90 percent of a monitoring path for various ranges of daily roadway traffic. A monitoring site with a monitoring path located closer to a roadway than allowed by the Table E–4 requirements should be classified as microscale or middle scale, rather than neighborhood or urban scale, since the measurements from such a site would more closely represent these smaller scales. The monitoring path(s) must not cross over a roadway with an average daily traffic count of 10,000 vehicles per day or more. For locations where a monitoring path crosses a roadway with fewer than 10,000 vehicles per day, monitoring agencies must consider the entire segment of the monitoring path in the area of potential atmospheric interference from automobile emissions. Therefore, this calculation must include the length of the monitoring path over the roadway plus any segments of the monitoring path that lie in the area between the roadway and minimum separation distance, as determined from Table E–4 of this appendix. The sum of these distances must not be greater than 10 percent of the total monitoring path length.

3.5.2 Spacing for Carbon Monoxide Monitoring Paths

(a) Near-road microscale CO monitoring sites, including those located in downtown areas, urban street canyons, and other near-road locations such as those adjacent to highly trafficked roads, are intended to provide a measurement of the influence of the immediate source on the pollution exposure on the adjacent area.

(b) Microscale CO monitoring paths in downtown areas or urban street canyon locations shall be located a minimum distance of 2.0 meters and a maximum distance of 10 meters from the edge of the nearest traffic lane.

(c) Microscale CO monitoring paths in downtown areas or urban street canyon locations shall be located at least 10 meters from an intersection, preferably at a midblock location. Midblock locations are preferable to intersection locations because intersections represent a much smaller portion of downtown space than do the streets between them. Pedestrian exposure is probably also greater in street canyon/corridors than at intersections.

(d) Neighborhood scale CO monitoring paths in downtown areas or urban street canyon locations shall be located according to the requirements in Table E–5 of this appendix.

Table E–5 Section 3.5.2 of Appendix E—Minimum Separation Distance Between Roadways and Monitoring Paths for Monitoring Neighborhood Scale Carbon Monoxide
Roadway average daily traffic, vehicles per dayMinimum distance 1 2 (meters)
1 Distance from the edge of the nearest traffic lane. The distance for intermediate traffic counts should be interpolated from the table values based on the actual traffic count.
2 All distances listed are expressed as having 2 significant figures. When rounding is performed to assess compliance with these siting requirements, the distance measurements will be rounded such as to retain at least two significant figures.
≤10,00010
15,00025
20,00045
30,00080
40,000115
50,000135
≥60,000150

3.5.3 Spacing for Nitrogen Dioxide (NO 2) Monitoring Paths

(a) In siting near-road NO 2 monitors as required in section 4.3.2 of appendix D of this part, the monitoring path shall be as near as practicable to the outside nearest edge of the traffic lanes of the target road segment but shall not be located at a distance greater than 50 meters, in the horizontal, from the outside nearest edge of the traffic lanes of the target road segment.

(b) In siting NO 2 open path monitors for neighborhood and larger scale monitoring, it is important to minimize near-road influences. Table E–5 of this appendix provides the required minimum separation distances between a roadway and at least 90 percent of a monitoring path for various ranges of daily roadway traffic. A site with a monitoring path located closer to a roadway than allowed by the Table E–4 requirements should be classified as microscale or middle scale rather than neighborhood or urban scale. The monitoring path(s) must not cross over a roadway with an average daily traffic count of 10,000 vehicles per day or more. For locations where a monitoring path crosses a roadway with fewer than 10,000 vehicles per day, monitoring agencies must consider the entire segment of the monitoring path in the area of potential atmospheric interference form automobile emissions. Therefore, this calculation must include the length of the monitoring path over the roadway plus any segments of the monitoring path that lie in the area between the roadway and minimum separation distance, as determined from Table E–5 of this appendix. The sum of these distances must not be greater than 10 percent of the total monitoring path length.

3.6 Cumulative Interferences on a Monitoring Path

The cumulative length or portion of a monitoring path that is affected by minor sources, trees, or roadways must not exceed 10 percent of the total monitoring path length.

3.7 Maximum Monitoring Path Length

The monitoring path length must not exceed 1.0 kilometer for open path analyzers in neighborhood, urban, or regional scale. For middle scale monitoring sites, the monitoring path length must not exceed 300 meters. In areas subject to frequent periods of dust, fog, rain, or snow, consideration should be given to a shortened monitoring path length to minimize loss of monitoring data due to these temporary optical obstructions. For certain ambient air monitoring scenarios using open path analyzers, shorter path lengths may be needed in order to ensure that the monitoring site meets the objectives and spatial scales defined in appendix D to this part. The Regional Administrator may require shorter path lengths, as needed on an individual basis, to ensure that the SLAMS sites meet the appendix D requirements. Likewise, the Administrator may specify the maximum path length used at NCore monitoring sites.

3.8 Summary

Table E–6 of this appendix presents a summary of the general requirements for monitoring path siting criteria with respect to distances and heights. Table E–6 requires different elevation distances above the ground for the various pollutants. The discussion in this appendix for each of the pollutants describes reasons for elevating the monitoring path. The differences in the specified range of heights are based on the vertical concentration gradients. For source oriented and near-road monitors, the gradients in the vertical direction are very large for the microscale, so a small range of heights are used. The upper limit of 15 meters is specified for the consistency between pollutants and to allow the use of a monitoring path for monitoring more than one pollutant.

Table E–6 Section 3.8 of Appendix E—Summary of Monitoring Path Siting Criteria
PollutantMaximum monitoring path lengthHeight from ground to 80% of monitoring path (meters)Horizontal or vertical distance from supporting structures to 90% of monitoring path (meters)Distance from trees to 90% of monitoring path (meters)Distance from roadways to monitoring path (meters)
N/A—Not applicable.
1 Monitoring path for open path analyzers is applicable only to middle or neighborhood scale CO monitoring, middle, neighborhood, urban, and regional scale NO 2 monitoring, and all applicable scales for monitoring SO 2 , O 3 , and O 3 precursors.
2 When the monitoring path is located on a rooftop, this separation distance is in reference to walls, parapets, or penthouses located on roof.
3 At least 90 percent of the monitoring path should be greater than 20 meters from the dripline of tree(s) and must be 10-meters from the dripline.
4 Distance from 90 percent of monitoring path to obstacle, such as a building, must be at least twice the height the obstacle protrudes above the monitoring path. Sites not meeting this criterion may be classified as microscale or middle scale (see text).
5 Must have unrestricted airflow 270 degrees around at least 90 percent of the monitoring path; 180 degrees if the monitoring path is adjacent to the side of a building or a wall for street canyon monitoring.
6 The monitoring path should be away from minor sources, such as furnace or incineration flues. The separation distance is dependent on the height of the minor source's emission point (such as a flue), the type of fuel or waste burned, and the quality of the fuel (sulfur, ash, or lead content). This criterion is designed to avoid undue influences from minor sources.
7 For microscale CO monitoring sites, the monitoring path must be ≥10. meters from a street intersection and preferably at a midblock location.
8 All distances listed are expressed as having 2 significant figures. When rounding is performed to assess compliance with these siting requirements, the distance measurements will be rounded such as to retain at least two significant figures.
9 See section 1.2 of appendix D for definitions of monitoring scales.
10 See section 3.7 of this appendix.
SO 2 3456<= 300 m for Middle <= 1.0 km for Neighborhood, Urban, and Regional2.0–15≥1.0≥10N/A.
CO457<= 300 m for Micro [downtown or street canyon sites]2.5–3.5≥1.0≥102.0–10 for downtown areas or street canyon microscale.
<= 300 m for Micro [Near-Road sites]2.0–7.0≤50 for near-road microscale.
<= 300 m for Middle2.0–15See Table E–5 of this appendix for middle and neighborhood scales.
<= 1.0 km for Neighborhood
O 3345<= 300 m for Middle
<= 1.0 km for Neighborhood, Urban, and Regional2.0–15≥1.0≥10See Table E–4.
NO 2345Between 50 m–300 m for Micro (Near-Road)2.0–7.0≤50 for near-road micro-scale.
<= 300 m for Middle≥1.0≥10
<= 1.0 km for Neighborhood, Urban, and Regional2.0–15See Table E–4.
PAMS Ozone precursors 345<= 1.0 km for Neighborhood and Urban2.0–15≥1.0≥10See Table E–4.

4. Waiver Provisions

Most sampling probes or monitors can be located so that they meet the requirements of this appendix. New sites, with rare exceptions, can be located within the limits of this appendix. However, some existing sites may not meet these requirements and may still produce useful data for some purposes. The EPA will consider a written request from the State, or where applicable local, agency to waive one or more siting criteria for some monitoring sites providing that the State or their designee can adequately demonstrate the need (purpose) for monitoring or establishing a monitoring site at that location.

4.1 For a proposed new site, a waiver may be granted only if both the following criteria are met:

4.1.1 The proposed new site can be demonstrated to be as representative of the monitoring area as it would be if the siting criteria were being met.

4.1.2 The monitor or probe cannot reasonably be located so as to meet the siting criteria because of physical constraints (e.g., inability to locate the required type of site the necessary distance from roadways or obstructions).

4.2 For an existing site, a waiver may be granted if either the criterion in section 4.1.1 or the criterion in 4.1.2 of this appendix is met.

4.3 Cost benefits, historical trends, and other factors may be used to add support to the criteria in sections 4.1.1 and 4.1.2 of this appendix; however, by themselves, they will not be acceptable reasons for the EPA to grant a waiver. Written requests for waivers must be submitted to the Regional Administrator. Granted waivers must be renewed minimally every 5 years and ideally as part of the network assessment as defined in §58.10(d). The approval date of the waiver must be documented in the annual monitoring network plan to support the requirements of §58.10(a)(1) and 58.10(b)(10).

5. References

1. Bryan, R.J., R.J. Gordon, and H. Menck. Comparison of High Volume Air Filter Samples at Varying Distances from Los Angeles Freeway. University of Southern California, School of Medicine, Los Angeles, CA. (Presented at 66th Annual Meeting of Air Pollution Control Association. Chicago, IL. June 24–28, 1973. APCA 73–158.)

2. Teer, E.H. Atmospheric Lead Concentration Above an Urban Street. Master of Science Thesis, Washington University, St. Louis, MO. January 1971.

3. Bradway, R.M., F.A. Record, and W.E. Belanger. Monitoring and Modeling of Resuspended Roadway Dust Near Urban Arterials. GCA Technology Division, Bedford, MA. (Presented at 1978 Annual Meeting of Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC. January 1978.)

4. Pace, T.G., W.P. Freas, and E.M. Afify. Quantification of Relationship Between Monitor Height and Measured Particulate Levels in Seven U.S. Urban Areas. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC. (Presented at 70th Annual Meeting of Air Pollution Control Association, Toronto, Canada. June 20–24, 1977. APCA 77–13.4.)

5. Harrison, P.R. Considerations for Siting Air Quality Monitors in Urban Areas. City of Chicago, Department of Environmental Control, Chicago, IL. (Presented at 66th Annual Meeting of Air Pollution Control Association, Chicago, IL. June 24–28, 1973. APCA 73–161.)

6. Study of Suspended Particulate Measurements at Varying Heights Above Ground. Texas State Department of Health, Air Control Section, Austin, TX. 1970. p.7.

7. Rodes, C.E. and G.F. Evans. Summary of LACS Integrated Pollutant Data. In: Los Angeles Catalyst Study Symposium. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC. EPA Publication No. EPA–600/4–77–034. June 1977.

8. Lynn, D.A. et al. National Assessment of the Urban Particulate Problem: Volume 1, National Assessment. GCA Technology Division, Bedford, MA. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC. EPA Publication No. EPA–450/3–75–024. June 1976.

9. Pace, T.G. Impact of Vehicle-Related Particulates on TSP Concentrations and Rationale for Siting Hi-Vols in the Vicinity of Roadways. OAQPS, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC. April 1978.

10. Ludwig, F.L., J.H. Kealoha, and E. Shelar. Selecting Sites for Monitoring Total Suspended Particulates. Stanford Research Institute, Menlo Park, CA. Prepared for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC. EPA Publication No. EPA–450/3–77–018. June 1977, revised December 1977.

11. Ball, R.J. and G.E. Anderson. Optimum Site Exposure Criteria for SO 2 Monitoring. The Center for the Environment and Man, Inc., Hartford, CT. Prepared for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC. EPA Publication No. EPA–450/3–77–013. April 1977.

12. Ludwig, F.L. and J.H.S. Kealoha. Selecting Sites for Carbon Monoxide Monitoring. Stanford Research Institute, Menlo Park, CA. Prepared for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC. EPA Publication No. EPA–450/3–75–077. September 1975.

13. Ludwig, F.L. and E. Shelar. Site Selection for the Monitoring of Photochemical Air Pollutants. Stanford Research Institute, Menlo Park, CA. Prepared for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC. EPA Publication No. EPA–450/3–78–013. April 1978.

14. Lead Analysis for Kansas City and Cincinnati, PEDCo Environmental, Inc., Cincinnati, OH. Prepared for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC. EPA Contract No. 66–02–2515, June 1977.

15. Barltrap, D. and C.D. Strelow. Westway Nursery Testing Project. Report to the Greater London Council. August 1976.

16. Daines, R. H., H. Moto, and D. M. Chilko. Atmospheric Lead: Its Relationship to Traffic Volume and Proximity to Highways. Environ. Sci. and Technol., 4:318, 1970.

17. Johnson, D. E., et al. Epidemiologic Study of the Effects of Automobile Traffic on Blood Lead Levels, Southwest Research Institute, Houston, TX. Prepared for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC. EPA–600/1–78–055, August 1978.

18. Air Quality Criteria for Lead. Office of Research and Development, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC EPA–600/8–83–028 aF–dF, 1986, and supplements EPA–600/8–89/049F, August 1990. (NTIS document numbers PB87–142378 and PB91–138420.)

19. Lyman, D. R. The Atmospheric Diffusion of Carbon Monoxide and Lead from an Expressway, Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, OH. 1972.

20. Wechter, S.G. Preparation of Stable Pollutant Gas Standards Using Treated Aluminum Cylinders. ASTM STP. 598:40–54, 1976.

21. Wohlers, H.C., H. Newstein and D. Daunis. Carbon Monoxide and Sulfur Dioxide Adsorption On and Description From Glass, Plastic and Metal Tubings. J. Air Poll. Con. Assoc. 17:753, 1976.

22. Elfers, L.A. Field Operating Guide for Automated Air Monitoring Equipment. U.S. NTIS. p. 202, 249, 1971.

23. Hughes, E.E. Development of Standard Reference Material for Air Quality Measurement. ISA Transactions, 14:281–291, 1975.

24. Altshuller, A.D. and A.G. Wartburg. The Interaction of Ozone with Plastic and Metallic Materials in a Dynamic Flow System. Intern. Jour. Air and Water Poll., 4:70–78, 1961.

25. Code of Federal Regulations. 40 CFR 53.22, July 1976.

26. Butcher, S.S. and R.E. Ruff. Effect of Inlet Residence Time on Analysis of Atmospheric Nitrogen Oxides and Ozone, Anal. Chem., 43:1890, 1971.

27. Slowik, A.A. and E.B. Sansone. Diffusion Losses of Sulfur Dioxide in Sampling Manifolds. J. Air. Poll. Con. Assoc., 24:245, 1974.

28. Yamada, V.M. and R.J. Charlson. Proper Sizing of the Sampling Inlet Line for a Continuous Air Monitoring Station. Environ. Sci. and Technol., 3:483, 1969.

29. Koch, R.C. and H.E. Rector. Optimum Network Design and Site Exposure Criteria for Particulate Matter, GEOMET Technologies, Inc., Rockville, MD. Prepared for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC. EPA Contract No. 68–02–3584. EPA 450/4–87–009. May 1987.

30. Burton, R.M. and J.C. Suggs. Philadelphia Roadway Study. Environmental Monitoring Systems Laboratory, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, N.C. EPA–600/4–84–070 September 1984.

31. Technical Assistance Document for Sampling and Analysis of Ozone Precursors. Atmospheric Research and Exposure Assessment Laboratory, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711. EPA 600/8–91–215. October 1991.

32. Quality Assurance Handbook for Air Pollution Measurement Systems: Volume IV. Meteorological Measurements. Atmospheric Research and Exposure Assessment Laboratory, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711. EPA 600/4–90–0003. August 1989.

33. On-Site Meteorological Program Guidance for Regulatory Modeling Applications. Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711. EPA 450/4–87–013. June 1987F.

34. Johnson, C., A. Whitehill, R. Long, and R. Vanderpool. Investigation of Gaseous Criteria Pollutant Transport Efficiency as a Function of Tubing Material. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711. EPA/600/R–22/212. August 2022.

35. Hannah Halliday, Cortina Johnson, Tad Kleindienst, Russell Long, Robert Vanderpool, and Andrew Whitehill. Recommendations for Nationwide Approval of Nafion TM Dryers Upstream of UV-Absorption Ozone Analyzers. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711. EPA/600/R–20/390. November 2020.

Appendix G to Part 58—Uniform Air Quality Index (AQI) and Daily Reporting

1. General Information

2. Reporting Requirements

3. Data Handling

1. General Information

1.1 AQI Overview. The AQI is a tool that simplifies reporting air quality to the public in a nationally uniform and easy to understand manner. The AQI converts concentrations of pollutants, for which the EPA has established a national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS), into a uniform scale from 0–500. These pollutants are ozone (O 3), particulate matter (PM 2.5 , PM 10), carbon monoxide (CO), sulfur dioxide (SO 2), and nitrogen dioxide (NO 2). The scale of the index is divided into general categories that are associated with health messages.

2. Reporting Requirements

2.1 Applicability. The AQI must be reported daily for a metropolitan statistical area (MSA) with a population over 350,000. When it is useful and possible, it is recommended, but not required for an area to report a sub-daily AQI as well.

2.2 Contents of AQI Report.

2.2.1 Content of AQI Report Requirements. An AQI report must contain the following:

a. The reporting area(s) (the MSA or subdivision of the MSA).

b. The reporting period (the day for which the AQI is reported).

c. The main pollutant (the pollutant with the highest index value).

d. The AQI (the highest index value).

e. The category descriptor and index value associated with the AQI and, if choosing to report in a color format, the associated color. Use only the following descriptors and colors for the six AQI categories:

Table 1 to Section 2 of Appendix G—AQI Categories
For this AQIUse this descriptorAnd this color 1
1 Specific color definitions can be found in the most recent reporting guidance (Technical Assistance Document for the Reporting of Daily Air Quality), which can be found at https://www.airnow.gov/publications/air-quality-index/technical-assistance-document-for-reporting-the-daily-aqi/.
0 to 50“Good”Green.
51 to 100“Moderate”Yellow.
101 to 150“Unhealthy for Sensitive Groups”Orange.
151 to 200“Unhealthy”Red.
201 to 300“Very Unhealthy”Purple.
301 and above“Hazardous”Maroon 1 .

f. The pollutant specific sensitive groups for any reported index value greater than 100. The sensitive groups for each pollutant are identified as part of the periodic review of the air quality criteria and the NAAQS. For convenience, the EPA lists the relevant groups for each pollutant in the most recent reporting guidance (Technical Assistance Document for the Reporting of Daily Air Quality), which can be found at https://www.airnow.gov/publications/air-quality-index/technical-assistance-document-for-reporting-the-daily-aqi/.

2.2.2 Contents of AQI Report When Applicable. When appropriate, the AQI report may also contain the following, but such information is not required:

a. Appropriate health and cautionary statements.

b. The name and index value for other pollutants, particularly those with an index value greater than 100.

c. The index values for sub-areas of your MSA.

d. Causes for unusually high AQI values.

e. Pollutant concentrations.

f. Generally, the AQI report applies to an area's MSA only. However, if a significant air quality problem exists (AQI greater than 100) in areas significantly impacted by the MSA but not in it (for example, O 3 concentrations are often highest downwind and outside an urban area), the report should identify these areas and report the AQI for these areas as well.

2.3. Communication, Timing, and Frequency of AQI Report. The daily AQI must be reported 7 days per week and made available via website or other means of public access. The daily AQI report represents the air quality for the previous day. Exceptions to this requirement are in section 2.4 of this appendix.

a. Reporting the AQI sub-daily is recommended, but not required, to provide more timely air quality information to the public for making health-protective decisions.

b. Submitting hourly data in real-time to the EPA's AirNow (or future analogous) system is recommended, but not required, and assists the EPA in providing timely air quality information to the public for making health-protective decisions.

c. Submitting hourly data for appropriate monitors (referenced in section 3.2 of this appendix) satisfies the daily AQI reporting requirement because the AirNow system makes daily and sub-daily AQI reports widely available through its website and other communication tools.

d. Forecasting the daily AQI provides timely air quality information to the public and is recommended but not required. Sub-daily forecasts are also recommended, especially when air quality is expected to vary substantially throughout the day, like during wildfires. Long-term (multi-day) forecasts can also be made available when useful.

2.4. Exceptions to Reporting Requirements.

a. If the index value for a particular pollutant remains below 50 for a season or year, then it may be excluded from the calculation of the AQI in section 3 of this appendix.

b. If all index values remain below 50 for a year, then the AQI may be reported at the discretion of the reporting agency. In subsequent years, if pollutant levels rise to where the AQI would be above 50, then the AQI must be reported as required in section 2 of this appendix.

c. As previously mentioned in section 2.3 of this appendix, submitting hourly data in real-time from appropriate monitors (referenced in section 3.2 of this appendix) to the EPA's AirNow (or future analogous) system satisfies the daily AQI reporting requirement.

3. Data Handling.

3.1 Relationship of AQI and pollutant concentrations. For each pollutant, the AQI transforms ambient concentrations to a scale from 0 to 500. As appropriate, the AQI is associated with the NAAQS for each pollutant. In most cases, the index value of 100 is associated with the numerical level of the short-term standard (i.e., averaging time of 24-hours or less) for each pollutant. The index value of 50 is associated with the numerical level of the annual standard for a pollutant, if there is one, at one-half the level of the short-term standard for the pollutant or at the level at which it is appropriate to begin to provide guidance on cautionary language. Higher categories of the index are based on the potential for increasingly serious health effects to occur following exposure and increasing proportions of the population that are likely to be affected. The reported AQI corresponds to the pollutant with the highest calculated AQI. For the purposes of reporting the AQI, the sub-indexes for PM 10 and PM 2.5 are to be considered separately. The pollutant responsible for the highest index value (the reported AQI) is called the “main” pollutant for that day.

3.2 Monitors Used for AQI Reporting. Concentration data from State/Local Air Monitoring Station (SLAMS) or parts of the SLAMS required by 40 CFR 58.10 must be used for each pollutant except PM. For PM, calculate and report the AQI on days for which air quality data has been measured (e.g., from continuous PM 2.5 monitors required in appendix D to this part). PM measurements may be used from monitors that are not reference or equivalent methods (for example, continuous PM 10 or PM 2.5 monitors). Detailed guidance for relating non-approved measurements to approved methods by statistical linear regression is referenced here:

Reference for relating non-approved PM measurements to approved methods (Eberly, S., T. Fitz-Simons, T. Hanley, L. Weinstock., T. Tamanini, G. Denniston, B. Lambeth, E. Michel, S. Bortnick. Data Quality Objectives (DQOs) For Relating Federal Reference Method (FRM) and Continuous PM 2.5 Measurements to Report an Air Quality Index (AQI). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC. EPA–454/B–02–002, November 2002).

3.3 AQI Forecast. The AQI can be forecasted at least 24-hours in advance using the most accurate and reasonable procedures considering meteorology, topography, availability of data, and forecasting expertise. The guidance document, “Guidelines for Developing an Air Quality (Ozone and PM 2.5) Forecasting Program,” can be found at https://www.airnow.gov/publications/weathercasters/guidelines-developing-air-quality-forecasting-program/.

3.4 Calculation and Equations.

a. The AQI is the highest value calculated for each pollutant as follows:

i. Identify the highest concentration among all of the monitors within each reporting area and truncate as follows:

(A) Ozone—truncate to 3 decimal places

PM 2.5 —truncate to 1 decimal place

PM 10 —truncate to integer

CO—truncate to 1 decimal place

SO 2 —truncate to integer

NO 2 —truncate to integer

(B) [Reserved]

ii. Using table 2 to this appendix, find the two breakpoints that contain the concentration.

iii. Using equation 1 to this appendix, calculate the index.

iv. Round the index to the nearest integer.

Table 2 to Section 3.4 of Appendix G—Breakpoints for the AQI
These breakpointsEqual these AQI's
O 3 (ppm) 8-hourO 3 (ppm) 1-hour 1PM 2.5 (µg/m 3) 24-hourPM 10 (µg/m 3) 24-hourCO (ppm) 8-hourSO 2 (ppb) 1-hourNO 2 (ppb) 1-hourAQICategory
1 Areas are generally required to report the AQI based on 8-hour ozone values. However, there are a small number of areas where an AQI based on 1-hour ozone values would be more precautionary. In these cases, in addition to calculating the 8-hour ozone index value, the 1-hour ozone index value may be calculated, and the maximum of the two values reported.
2 8-hour O 3 concentrations do not define higher AQI values (>301). AQI values > 301 are calculated with 1-hour O 3 concentrations.
3 1-hr SO 2 concentrations do not define higher AQI values (≥200). AQI values of 200 or greater are calculated with 24-hour SO 2 concentration.
4 AQI values between breakpoints are calculated using equation 1 to this appendix. For AQI values in the hazardous category, AQI values greater than 500 should be calculated using equation 1 and the concentration specified for the AQI value of 500. The AQI value of 500 are as follows: O 3 1-hour—0.604 ppm; PM 2.5 24-hour—325.4 µg/m 3 ; PM 10 24-hour—604 µg/m 3 ; CO ppm—50.4 ppm; SO 2 1-hour—1004 ppb; and NO 2 1-hour—2049 ppb.
0.000–0.0540.0–9.00–540.0–4.40–350–530–50Good.
0.055–0.0709.1–35.455–1544.5–9.436–7554–10051–100Moderate.
0.071–0.0850.125–0.16435.5–55.4155–2549.5–12.476–185101–360101–150Unhealthy for Sensitive Groups.
0.086–0.1050.165–0.20455.5–125.4255–35412.5–15.43 186–304361–649151–200Unhealthy.
0.106–0.2000.205–0.404125.5—225.4355–42415.5–30.43 305–604650–1249201–300Very Unhealthy.
0.201−(2)0.405+225.5+425+30.5+3 605+1250+301+4 Hazardous.

b. If the concentration is equal to a breakpoint, then the index is equal to the corresponding index value in table 2 to this appendix. However, equation 1 to this appendix can still be used. The results will be equal. If the concentration is between two breakpoints, then calculate the index of that pollutant with equation 1. It should also be noted that in some areas, the AQI based on 1-hour O 3 will be more precautionary than using 8-hour values (see footnote 1 to table 2). In these cases, the 1-hour values as well as 8-hour values may be used to calculate index values and then use the maximum index value as the AQI for O 3.



Where:

I p = the index value for pollutant p .

C p = the truncated concentration of pollutant p .

BP Hi = the breakpoint that is greater than or equal to C p .

BP Lo = the breakpoint that is less than or equal to C p .

I Hi = the AQI value corresponding to BP Hi .

I lo = the AQI value corresponding to BP Lo .

c. If the concentration is larger than the highest breakpoint in table 2 to this appendix then the last two breakpoints in table 2 may be used when equation 1 to this appendix is applied.

Example:

d. Using table 2 and equation 1 to this appendix, calculate the index value for each of the pollutants measured and select the one that produces the highest index value for the AQI. For example, if a PM 10 value of 210 µg/m 3 is observed, a 1-hour O 3 value of 0.156 ppm, and an 8-hour O 3 value of 0.130 ppm, then do this:

i. Find the breakpoints for PM 10 at 210 µg/m 3 as 155 µg/m 3 and 254 µg/m 3 , corresponding to index values 101 and 150;

ii. Find the breakpoints for 1-hour O 3 at 0.156 ppm as 0.125 ppm and 0.164 ppm, corresponding to index values 101 and 150;

iii. Find the breakpoints for 8-hour O 3 at 0.130 ppm as 0.116 ppm and 0.374 ppm, corresponding to index values 201 and 300;

iv. Apply equation 21 to this appendix for 210 µg/m 3 , PM 10 :



v. Apply equation 3 to this appendix for 0.156 ppm, 1-hour O 3 :



vi. Apply equation 4 to this appendix for 0.130 ppm, 8-hour O 3 :



vii. Find the maximum, 206. This is the AQI. A minimal AQI report could read: “Today, the AQI for my city is 206, which is Very Unhealthy, due to ozone.” It would then reference the associated sensitive groups.

2024-03-06T06:00:00Z

EPA Final Rule: National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Taconite Iron Ore Processing

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is finalizing amendments to the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) for Taconite Iron Ore Processing. Specifically, the EPA is finalizing maximum achievable control technology (MACT) standards for mercury (Hg) and establishing revised emission standards for hydrogen chloride (HCl) and hydrogen fluoride (HF). This final action ensures that emissions of all hazardous air pollutants (HAP) emitted from the Taconite Iron Ore Processing source category are regulated.

DATES: This final rule is effective March 6, 2024, published in the Federal Register March 6, 2024, page 16408.

View final rule.

§63.14 Incorporation by reference
(i)(104)RevisedView text
§63.9583 When do I have to comply with this subpart?
Entire sectionRevisedView text
§63.9590 What emission limitations and operating limits must I meet?
Entire sectionRevisedView text
§63.9600 What are my operation and maintenance requirements?
(b) introductory textRevisedView text
§63.9610 What are my general requirements for complying with this subpart?
(a) introductory textRevisedView text
(d)AddedView text
§63.9620 On which units and by what date must I conduct performance tests or other initial compliance demonstrations?
(b)(2), (f)(2)RevisedView text
(k), (l)AddedView text
§63.9621 What test methods and other procedures must I use to demonstrate initial compliance with the emission limits?
Section headingRevisedView text
(a), (c) introductory textRevisedView text
(d), (e)AddedView text
§63.9622 What test methods and other procedures must I use to establish and demonstrate initial compliance with the operating limits?
Entire sectionRevisedView text
§63.9623 How do I demonstrate initial compliance with the emission limitations that apply to me?
Entire sectionRevisedView text
§63.9630 When must I conduct subsequent performance tests?
(b), (e)(2)RevisedView text
§63.9631 What are my monitoring requirements?
(d)-(f)RevisedView text
(g)-(k)AddedView text
§63.9632 What are the installation, operation, and maintenance requirements for my monitoring equipment?
(f) introductory text, (f)(2)RevisedView text
(g)-(i)AddedView text
§63.9634 How do I demonstrate continuous compliance with the emission limitations that apply to me?
(a), (e)(4), (f)(4), (g)-(j)RevisedView text
(k)-(n)AddedView text
§63.9636 How do I demonstrate continuous compliance with the operation and maintenance requirements that apply to me?
(a) introductory textRevisedView text
§63.9637 What other requirements must I meet to demonstrate continuous compliance?
(a)RevisedView text
§63.9640 What notifications must I submit and when?
(f)-(g)AddedView text
§63.9641 What reports must I submit and when?
(b)(6), (b)(8), (c), (e), (f)(3)RevisedView text
(i)RevisedView text
§63.9642 What records must I keep?
(b) introductory textRevisedView text
(b)(5), (d), (e), (f)AddedView text
§63.9650 What parts of the General Provisions apply to me?
Entire sectionRevisedView text
§63.9652 What definitions apply to this subpart?
Definitions for “Activated carbon injection (ACI) system”, “Dry sorbent injection (DSI) system”, and “Electrostatic precipitator (ESP)”AddedView text
Table 1 to Subpart RRRRR of Part 63 -– Particulate Matter Emission Limits
Table heading, introductory paragraphRevisedView text
Table 2 to Subpart RRRRR of Part 63 – Mercury Emission Limits for Indurating Furnaces
Entire tableRedesignated as Table 4, new Table 2 addedView text
Table 3 to Subpart RRRRR of Part 63 – Hydrogen Chloride and Hydrogen Fluoride Emission Limits for Indurating Furnaces
Entire tableAddedView text
Table 4 to Subpart RRRRR of Part 63 - Applicability of General Provisions to Subpart RRRRR of Part 63
Entire tableRevisedView text

Previous Text

§63.14 Incorporation by reference

* * * *

(i)(104) ASTM D6784-16, Standard Test Method for Elemental, Oxidized, Particle-Bound and Total Mercury in Flue Gas Generated from Coal-Fired Stationary Sources (Ontario Hydro Method), Approved March 1, 2016; IBR approved for table 5 to subpart UUUUU; appendix A to subpart UUUUU.

§63.9583 When do I have to comply with this subpart?

(a) If you have an existing affected source, you must comply with each emission limitation, work practice standard, and operation and maintenance requirement in this subpart that applies to you no later than October 30, 2006.

(b) If you have a new affected source and its initial startup date is on or before October 30, 2003, you must comply with each emission limitation, work practice standard, and operation and maintenance requirement in this subpart that applies to you by October 30, 2003.

(c) If you have a new affected source and its initial startup date is after October 30, 2003, you must comply with each emission limitation, work practice standard, and operation and maintenance requirement in this subpart that applies to you upon initial startup.

(d) If your taconite iron ore processing plant is an area source that becomes a major source of HAP, the compliance dates in paragraphs (d)(1) and (2) of this section apply to you.

(1) Any portion of the taconite iron ore processing plant that is a new affected source or a new reconstructed source must be in compliance with this subpart upon startup.

(2) All other parts of the taconite iron ore processing plant must be in compliance with this subpart no later than 3 years after the plant becomes a major source.

(e) You must meet the notification and schedule requirements in §63.9640. Several of these notifications must be submitted before the compliance date for your affected source.

§63.9590 What emission limitations and operating limits must I meet?

(a) You must meet each emission limit in Table 1 to this subpart that applies to you.

(b) You must meet each operating limit for control devices in paragraphs (b)(1) through (5) of this section that applies to you.

(1) Except as provided in paragraph (b)(2) of this section, for each wet scrubber applied to meet any particulate matter emission limit in Table 1 to this subpart, you must maintain the daily average pressure drop and daily average scrubber water flow rate at or above the minimum levels established during the initial performance test.

(2) On or before January 28, 2022, for affected sources that commenced construction or reconstruction on or before September 25, 2019, for each dynamic wet scrubber applied to meet any particulate matter emission limit in Table 1 to this subpart, you must maintain the daily average scrubber water flow rate and either the daily average fan amperage (a surrogate for fan speed as revolutions per minute) or the daily average pressure drop at or above the minimum levels established during the initial performance test. After January 28, 2022, for affected sources that commenced construction or reconstruction on or before September 25, 2019, and after July 28, 2020, or upon start-up, which ever date is later, for affected sources that commenced construction or reconstruction after September 25, 2019, for each dynamic wet scrubber applied to meet any particulate matter emission limit in Table 1 to this subpart, you must maintain the daily average scrubber water flow rate and the daily average fan amperage (a surrogate for fan speed as revolutions per minute) at or above the minimum levels established during the initial performance test.

(3) For each dry electrostatic precipitator applied to meet any particulate matter emission limit in Table 1 to this subpart, you must meet the operating limits in paragraph (b)(3)(i) or (ii) of this section.

(i) Maintain the 6-minute average opacity of emissions exiting the control device stack at or below the level established during the initial performance test.

(ii) Maintain the daily average secondary voltage and daily average secondary current for each field at or above the minimum levels established during the initial performance test.

(4) For each wet electrostatic precipitator applied to meet any particulate matter emission limit in Table 1 to this subpart, you must meet the operating limits in paragraphs (b)(4)(i) through (iii) of this section.

(i) Maintain the daily average secondary voltage for each field at or above the minimum levels established during the initial performance test.

(ii) Maintain the daily average stack outlet temperature at or below the maximum levels established during the initial performance test.

(iii) Maintain the daily average water flow rate at or above the minimum levels established during the initial performance test.

(5) If you use any air pollution control device other than a baghouse, wet scrubber, dynamic scrubber, dry electrostatic precipitator, or wet electrostatic precipitator, you must submit a site-specific monitoring plan in accordance with §63.9631(f).

(c) You may petition the Administrator for approval of alternatives to the monitoring requirements in paragraphs (b)(1) through (4) of this section as allowed under §63.8(f) and as defined in §63.90.

§63.9600 What are my operation and maintenance requirements?

* * * *

(b) You must prepare, and at all times operate according to, a written operation and maintenance plan for each control device applied to meet any particulate matter emission limit in Table 1 to this subpart and to meet the requirement of each indurating furnace subject to good combustion practices (GCP). Each site-specific operation and maintenance plan must be submitted to the Administrator on or before the compliance date that is specified in §63.9583 for your affected source. The plan you submit must explain why the chosen practices (i.e., quantified objectives) are effective in performing corrective actions or GCP in minimizing the formation of formaldehyde (and other products of incomplete combustion). The Administrator will review the adequacy of the site-specific practices and objectives you will follow and the records you will keep to demonstrate compliance with your Plan. If the Administrator determines that any portion of your operation and maintenance plan is not adequate, we can reject those portions of the plan, and request that you provide additional information addressing the relevant issues. In the interim of this process, you will continue to follow your current site-specific practices and objectives, as submitted, until your revisions are accepted as adequate by the Administrator. You must maintain a current copy of the operation and maintenance plan onsite, and it must be available for inspection upon request. You must keep the plan for the life of the affected source or until the affected source is no longer subject to the requirements of this subpart. Each operation and maintenance plan must address the elements in paragraphs (b)(1) through (4) of this section.

§63.9610 What are my general requirements for complying with this subpart?

(a) On or before January 25, 2021, for affected sources that commenced construction or reconstruction on or before September 25, 2019, you must be in compliance with the requirements in paragraphs (a)(1) through (6) of this section at all times, except during periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction. After January 25, 2021, for affected sources that commenced construction or reconstruction on or before September 25, 2019, and after July 28, 2020, for affected sources that commenced construction or reconstruction after September 25, 2019, you must be in compliance with the emission limitations, standards, and operation and maintenance requirements in this subpart at all times.

§63.9620 On which units and by what date must I conduct performance tests or other initial compliance demonstrations?

* * * *

(b)(2) Initial performance tests must be completed no later than 180 calendar days after the compliance date specified in §63.9583. Performance tests conducted between October 30, 2003 and no later than 180 days after the corresponding compliance date can be used for initial compliance demonstration, provided the tests meet the initial performance testing requirements of this subpart. For indurating furnaces with multiple stacks, the performance tests for all stacks must be completed within a reasonable period of time, such that the indurating furnace operating characteristics remain representative for the duration of the stack tests.

* * * *

(f)(2) All emission units within a group must also have the same type of air pollution control device (e.g., wet scrubbers, dynamic wet scrubbers, rotoclones, multiclones, wet and dry electrostatic precipitators, and baghouses). You cannot group emission units with different air pollution control device types together for the purposes of this section.

§63.9621 What test methods and other procedures must I use to demonstrate initial compliance with the emission limits for particulate matter?

(a) On or before January 25, 2021, for affected sources that commenced construction or reconstruction on or before September 25, 2019, you must conduct each performance test that applies to your affected source according to the requirements in §63.7(e)(1) and paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section. After January 25, 2021, for affected sources that commenced construction or reconstruction on or before September 25, 2019, and after July 28, 2020, or upon start-up, which ever date is later, for affected sources that commenced construction or reconstruction after September 25, 2019, you must conduct each performance test that applies to your affected source under normal operating conditions of the affected source. The owner or operator may not conduct performance tests during periods of malfunction. The owner or operator must record the process information that is necessary to document operating conditions during the test and include in such record an explanation to support that such conditions represent normal operation. Upon request, the owner or operator shall make available to the Administrator such records as may be necessary to determine the conditions of performance tests. You must also conduct each performance test that applies to your affected source according to the requirements in paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section.

* * * *

(c) For each ore dryer affected source and each indurating furnace affected source, you must determine compliance with the applicable emission limit for particulate matter in Table 1 to this subpart by following the test methods and procedures in paragraphs (c)(1) through (3) of this section.

§63.9622 What test methods and other procedures must I use to establish and demonstrate initial compliance with the operating limits?

(a) For wet scrubbers subject to performance testing in §63.9620 and operating limits for pressure drop and scrubber water flow rate in §63.9590(b)(1), you must establish site-specific operating limits according to the procedures in paragraphs (a)(1) through (3) of this section.

(1) Using the CPMS required in §63.9631(b), measure and record the pressure drop and scrubber water flow rate every 15 minutes during each run of the particulate matter performance test.

(2) Calculate and record the average pressure drop and scrubber water flow rate for each individual test run. Your operating limits are established as the lowest average pressure drop and the lowest average scrubber water flow rate corresponding to any of the three test runs.

(3) If a rod-deck venturi scrubber is applied to an indurating furnace to meet any particulate matter emission limit in Table 1 to this subpart, you may establish a lower average pressure drop operating limit by using historical average pressure drop data from a certified performance test completed on or after December 18, 2002 instead of using the average pressure drop value determined during the initial performance test, as specified in paragraph (a)(2) of this section. If historical average pressure drop data are used to establish an operating limit (i.e., using data from a certified performance test conducted prior to the promulgation date of the final rule), then the average particulate matter concentration corresponding to the historical performance test must be at or below the applicable indurating furnace emission limit, as listed in Table 1 to this subpart.

(b) On or before January 28, 2022, for affected sources that commenced construction or reconstruction on or before September 25, 2019, for dynamic wet scrubbers subject to performance testing in §63.9620 and operating limits for scrubber water flow rate and either fan amperage or pressure drop in §63.9590(b)(2), you must establish site-specific operating limits according to the procedures in paragraphs (b)(1) and (2) of this section. After January 28, 2022, for affected sources that commenced construction or reconstruction on or before September 25, 2019, and after July 28, 2020, or upon start-up, which ever date is later, for affected sources that commenced construction or reconstruction after September 25, 2019, for dynamic wet scrubbers subject to performance testing in §63.9620 and operating limits for scrubber water flow rate and fan amperage in §63.9590(b)(2), you must establish site-specific operating limits according to the procedures in paragraphs (b)(1) and (2) of this section.

(1) On or before January 28, 2022, for affected sources that commenced construction or reconstruction on or before September 25, 2019, using the CPMS required in §63.9631(b), measure and record the scrubber water flow rate and either the fan amperage or pressure drop every 15 minutes during each run of the particulate matter performance test. After January 28, 2022, for affected sources that commenced construction or reconstruction on or before September 25, 2019, and after July 28, 2020, or upon start-up, which ever date is later, for affected sources that commenced construction or reconstruction after September 25, 2019, using the CPMS required in §63.9631(b), measure and record the scrubber water flow rate and the fan amperage every 15 minutes during each run of the particulate matter performance test.

(2) On or before January 28, 2022, for affected sources that commenced construction or reconstruction on or before September 25, 2019, calculate and record the average scrubber water flow rate and either the average fan amperage or the average pressure drop for each individual test run. Your operating limits are established as the lowest average scrubber water flow rate and either the lowest average fan amperage or pressure drop value corresponding to any of the three test runs. After January 28, 2022, for affected sources that commenced construction or reconstruction on or before September 25, 2019, and after July 28, 2020, or upon start-up, which ever date is later, for affected sources that commenced construction or reconstruction after September 25, 2019, calculate and record the average scrubber water flow rate and the average fan amperage for each individual test run. Your operating limits are established as the lowest average scrubber water flow rate and the lowest average fan amperage value corresponding to any of the three test runs.

(c) For a dry electrostatic precipitator subject to performance testing in §63.9620 and operating limits in §63.9590(b)(3), you must establish a site-specific operating limit according to the procedures in paragraphs (c)(1) or (2) of this section.

(1) If the operating limit for your dry electrostatic precipitator is a 6-minute average opacity of emissions value, then you must follow the requirements in paragraphs (c)(1)(i) through (iii) of this section.

(i) Using the continuous opacity monitoring system (COMS) required in §63.9631(d)(1), measure and record the opacity of emissions from each control device stack during the particulate matter performance test.

(ii) Compute and record the 6-minute opacity averages from 24 or more data points equally spaced over each 6-minute period (e.g., at 15-second intervals) during the test runs.

(iii) Using the opacity measurements from a performance test that meets the emission limit, determine the opacity value corresponding to the 99 percent upper confidence level of a normal distribution of the 6-minute opacity averages.

(2) If the operating limit for your dry electrostatic precipitator is the daily average secondary voltage and daily average secondary current for each field, then you must follow the requirements in paragraphs (c)(2)(i) and (ii) of this section.

(i) Using the CPMS required in §63.9631(d)(2), measure and record the secondary voltage and secondary current for each dry electrostatic precipitator field every 15 minutes during each run of the particulate matter performance test.

(ii) Calculate and record the average secondary voltage and secondary current for each dry electrostatic precipitator field for each individual test run. Your operating limits are established as the lowest average secondary voltage and secondary current value for each dry electrostatic precipitator field corresponding to any of the three test runs.

(d) For a wet electrostatic precipitator subject to performance testing in §63.9620 and operating limit in §63.9590(b)(4), you must establish a site-specific operating limit according to the procedures in paragraphs (d)(1) and (2) of this section.

(1) Using the CPMS required in §63.9631(e), measure and record the parametric values in paragraphs (d)(1)(i) through (iii) of this section for each wet electrostatic precipitator field every 15 minutes during each run of the particulate matter performance test.

(i) Secondary voltage;

(ii) Water flow rate; and

(iii) Stack outlet temperature.

(2) For each individual test run, calculate and record the average value for each operating parameter in paragraphs (d)(1)(i) through (iii) of this section for each wet electrostatic precipitator field. Your operating limits are established as the lowest average value for each operating parameter of secondary voltage and water flow rate corresponding to any of the three test runs, and the highest average value for each stack outlet temperature corresponding to any of the three test runs.

(e) If you use an air pollution control device other than a wet scrubber, dynamic wet scrubber, dry electrostatic precipitator, wet electrostatic precipitator, or baghouse, and it is subject to performance testing in §63.9620, you must submit a site-specific monitoring plan in accordance with §63.9631(f). The site-specific monitoring plan must include the site-specific procedures for demonstrating initial and continuous compliance with the corresponding operating limits.

(f) You may change the operating limits for any air pollution control device as long as you meet the requirements in paragraphs (f)(1) through (3) of this section.

(1) Submit a written notification to the Administrator of your request to conduct a new performance test to revise the operating limit.

(2) Conduct a performance test to demonstrate compliance with the applicable emission limitation in Table 1 to this subpart.

(3) Establish revised operating limits according to the applicable procedures in paragraphs (a) through (e) of this section.

§63.9623 How do I demonstrate initial compliance with the emission limitations that apply to me?

(a) For each affected source subject to an emission limit in Table 1 to this subpart, you must demonstrate initial compliance by meeting the emission limit requirements in paragraphs (a)(1) through (4) of this section.

(1) For ore crushing and handling, the flow-weighted mean concentration of particulate matter, determined according to the procedures in §§63.9620(a) and 63.9621(b), must not exceed the emission limits in Table 1 to this subpart.

(2) For indurating furnaces, the flow-weighted mean concentration of particulate matter, determined according to the procedures in §§63.9620(b) and 63.9621(c), must not exceed the emission limits in Table 1 to this subpart.

(3) For finished pellet handling, the flow-weighted mean concentration of particulate matter, determined according to the procedures in §§63.9620(c) and 63.9621(b), must not exceed the emission limits in Table 1 to this subpart.

(4) For ore dryers, the flow-weighted mean concentration of particulate matter, determined according to the procedures in §§63.9620(d) and 63.9621(c), must not exceed the emission limits in Table 1 to this subpart.

(b) For each affected source subject to an emission limit in Table 1 to this subpart, you must demonstrate initial compliance by meeting the operating limit requirements in paragraphs (b)(1) through (5) of this section.

(1) For each wet scrubber subject to performance testing in §63.9620 and operating limits for pressure drop and scrubber water flow rate in §63.9590(b)(1), you have established appropriate site-specific operating limits and have a record of the pressure drop and scrubber water flow rate measured during the performance test in accordance with §63.9622(a).

On or before January 28, 2022, for affected sources that commenced construction or reconstruction on or before September 25, 2019, for each dynamic wet scrubber subject to performance testing in §63.9620 and operating limits for scrubber water flow rate and either fan amperage or pressure drop in §63.9590(b)(2), you have established appropriate site-specific operating limits and have a record of the scrubber water flow rate and either the fan amperage or pressure drop value, measured during the performance test in accordance with §63.9622(b). After January 28, 2022, for affected sources that commenced construction or reconstruction on or before September 25, 2019, and after July 28, 2020, or upon start-up, which ever date is later, for affected sources that commenced construction or reconstruction after September 25, 2019, for each dynamic wet scrubber subject to performance testing in §63.9620 and operating limits for scrubber water flow rate and fan amperage in §63.9590(b)(2), you have established appropriate site-specific operating limits and have a record of the scrubber water flow rate and the fan amperage value, measured during the performance test in accordance with §63.9622(b).

(3) For each dry electrostatic precipitator subject to performance testing in §63.9620 and one of the operating limits in §63.9590(b)(3), you must meet the requirements in paragraph (b)(3)(i) or (ii) of this section.

(i) If you are subject to the operating limit for opacity in §63.9590(b)(3)(i), you have established appropriate site-specific operating limits and have a record of the opacity measured during the performance test in accordance with §63.9622(c)(1).

(ii) If you are subject to the operating limit for secondary voltage and secondary current in §63.9590(b)(3)(ii), you have established appropriate site-specific operating limits and have a record of the secondary voltage and secondary current measured during the performance test in accordance with §63.9622(c)(2).

(4) For each wet electrostatic precipitator subject to performance testing in §63.9620 and operating limits for secondary voltage, water flow rate, and stack outlet temperature in §63.9590(b)(4), you have established appropriate site-specific operating limits and have a record of the secondary voltage, water flow rate, and stack outlet temperature measured during the performance test in accordance with §63.9622(d).

(5) For other air pollution control devices subject to performance testing in §63.9620 and operating limits in accordance with §63.9590(b)(5), you have submitted a site-specific monitoring plan in accordance with §63.9631(f) and have a record of the site-specific operating limits as measured during the performance test in accordance with §63.9622(e).

(c) For each emission limitation and operating limit that applies to you, you must submit a notification of compliance status according to §63.9640(e).

§63.9630 When must I conduct subsequent performance tests?

* * * *

(b) You must conduct subsequent performance tests on all stacks associated with indurating furnaces to demonstrate continued compliance with the indurating furnace emission limits in Table 1 to this subpart according to the schedule developed by your permitting authority and shown in your title V permit, but no less frequent than twice per 5-year permit term. If a title V permit has not been issued, you must submit a testing plan and schedule, containing the information specified in paragraph (e) of this section, to the permitting authority for approval. For indurating furnaces with multiple stacks, the performance tests for all stacks associated with that indurating furnace must be conducted within a reasonable period of time, such that the indurating furnace operating characteristics remain representative for the duration of the stack tests.

* * * *

(e)(2) A schedule indicating when you will conduct subsequent performance tests for particulate matter for each of the emission units.

§63.9631 What are my monitoring requirements?

* * * *

(d) For each dry electrostatic precipitator subject to the operating limits in §63.9590(b)(3), you must follow the monitoring requirements in paragraph (d)(1) or (2) of this section.

(1) If the operating limit you choose to monitor is the 6-minute average opacity of emissions in accordance with §63.9590(b)(3)(i), you must install, operate, and maintain a COMS according to the requirements in §63.9632(f) and monitor the 6-minute average opacity of emissions exiting each control device stack according to the requirements in §63.9633.

(2) If the operating limit you choose to monitor is average secondary voltage and average secondary current for each dry electrostatic precipitator field in accordance with §63.9590(b)(3)(ii), you must install, operate, and maintain a CPMS according to the requirements in §63.9632(b) through (e) and monitor the daily average secondary voltage and daily average secondary current according to the requirements in §63.9633.

(e) For each wet electrostatic precipitator subject to the operating limits in §63.9590(b)(4), you must install, operate, and maintain a CPMS according to the requirements in §63.9632(b) through (e) and monitor the daily average secondary voltage, daily average stack outlet temperature, and daily average water flow rate according to the requirements in §63.9633.

(f) If you use any air pollution control device other than a baghouse, wet scrubber, dry electrostatic precipitator, or wet electrostatic precipitator, you must submit a site-specific monitoring plan that includes the information in paragraphs (f)(1) through (4) of this section. The monitoring plan is subject to approval by the Administrator. You must maintain a current copy of the monitoring plan onsite, and it must be available for inspection upon request. You must keep the plan for the life of the affected source or until the affected source is no longer subject to the requirements of this subpart.

(1) A description of the device.

(2) Test results collected in accordance with §63.9621 verifying the performance of the device for reducing emissions of particulate matter to the atmosphere to the levels required by this subpart.

(3) A copy of the operation and maintenance plan required in §63.9600(b).

(4) Appropriate operating parameters that will be monitored to maintain continuous compliance with the applicable emission limitation(s).

§63.9632 What are the installation, operation, and maintenance requirements for my monitoring equipment?

* * * *

(f) For each dry electrostatic precipitator subject to the opacity operating limit in §63.9590(b)(3)(i), you must install, operate, and maintain each COMS according to the requirements in paragraphs (f)(1) through (4) of this section.

* * * *

(f)(2) On or before January 25, 2021, for affected sources that commenced construction or reconstruction on or before September 25, 2019, you must develop and implement a quality control program for operating and maintaining each continuous opacity monitoring system (COMS) according to §63.8. At a minimum, the quality control program must include a daily calibration drift assessment, quarterly performance audit, and annual zero alignment of each COMS. After January 25, 2021, for affected sources that commenced construction or reconstruction on or before September 25, 2019, and after July 28, 2020, or upon start-up, which ever date is later, for affected sources that commenced construction or reconstruction after September 25, 2019, you must develop and implement a quality control program for operating and maintaining each COMS according to §63.8(a) and (b), (c)(1)(ii), (c)(2) through (8), (d)(1) and (2), and (e) through (g) and Procedure 3 in appendix F to 40 CFR part 60. At a minimum, the quality control program must include a daily calibration drift assessment, quarterly performance audit, and annual zero alignment of each COMS.

§63.9634 How do I demonstrate continuous compliance with the emission limitations that apply to me?

* * * *

(a) For each affected source subject to an emission limit in Table 1 to this subpart, you must demonstrate continuous compliance by meeting the requirements in paragraphs (b) through (f) of this section.

* * * *

(e)(4) If the daily average pressure drop or daily average scrubber water flow rate is below the operating limits established for a corresponding emission unit or group of similar emission units, you must then follow the corrective action procedures in paragraph (j) of this section.

* * * *

(f)(4) On or before January 28, 2022, for affected sources that commenced construction or reconstruction on or before September 25, 2019, if the daily average scrubber water flow rate, daily average fan amperage, or daily average pressure drop is below the operating limits established for a corresponding emission unit or group of similar emission units, you must then follow the corrective action procedures in paragraph (j) of this section. After January 28, 2022, for affected sources that commenced construction or reconstruction on or before September 25, 2019, and after July 28, 2020, or upon start-up, which ever date is later, for affected sources that commenced construction or reconstruction after September 25, 2019, if the daily average scrubber water flow rate or daily average fan amperage, is below the operating limits established for a corresponding emission unit or group of similar emission units, you must then follow the corrective action procedures in paragraph (j) of this section.

* * * *

(g) For each dry electrostatic precipitator subject to operating limits in §63.9590(b)(3), you must demonstrate continuous compliance by completing the requirements of paragraph (g)(1) or (2) of this section.

(1) If the operating limit for your dry electrostatic precipitator is a 6-minute average opacity of emissions value, then you must follow the requirements in paragraphs (g)(1)(i) through (iii) of this section.

(i) Maintaining the 6-minute average opacity of emissions at or below the maximum level established during the initial or subsequent performance test.

(ii) Operating and maintaining each COMS and reducing the COMS data according to §63.9632(f).

(iii) If the 6-minute average opacity of emissions is above the operating limits established for a corresponding emission unit, you must then follow the corrective action procedures in paragraph (j) of this section.

(2) If the operating limit for your dry electrostatic precipitator is the daily average secondary voltage and daily average secondary current for each field, then you must follow the requirements in paragraphs (g)(2)(i) through (iv) of this section.

(i) Maintaining the daily average secondary voltage or daily average secondary current for each field at or above the minimum levels established during the initial or subsequent performance test.

(ii) Operating and maintaining each dry electrostatic precipitator CPMS according to §63.9632(b) and recording all information needed to document conformance with these requirements.

(iii) Collecting and reducing monitoring data for secondary voltage or secondary current for each field according to §63.9632(c) and recording all information needed to document conformance with these requirements.

(iv) If the daily average secondary voltage or daily average secondary current for each field is below the operating limits established for a corresponding emission unit, you must then follow the corrective action procedures in paragraph (j) of this section.

(h) For each wet electrostatic precipitator subject to the operating limits for secondary voltage, stack outlet temperature, and water flow rate in §63.9590(b)(4), you must demonstrate continuous compliance by completing the requirements of paragraphs (h)(1) through (4) of this section.

(1) Maintaining the daily average secondary voltage and daily average scrubber water flow rate for each field at or above the minimum levels established during the initial or subsequent performance test. Maintaining the daily average stack outlet temperature at or below the maximum levels established during the initial or subsequent performance test.

(2) Operating and maintaining each wet electrostatic precipitator CPMS according to §63.9632(b) and recording all information needed to document conformance with these requirements.

(3) Collecting and reducing monitoring data for secondary voltage, stack outlet temperature, and water flow rate according to §63.9632(c) and recording all information needed to document conformance with these requirements.

(4) If the daily average secondary voltage, stack outlet temperature, or water flow rate does not meet the operating limits established for a corresponding emission unit, you must then follow the corrective action procedures in paragraph (j) of this section.

(i) If you use an air pollution control device other than a wet scrubber, dynamic wet scrubber, dry electrostatic precipitator, wet electrostatic precipitator, or baghouse, you must submit a site-specific monitoring plan in accordance with §63.9631(f). The site-specific monitoring plan must include the site-specific procedures for demonstrating initial and continuous compliance with the corresponding operating limits.

(j) If the daily average operating parameter value for an emission unit or group of similar emission units does not meet the corresponding established operating limit, you must then follow the procedures in paragraphs (j)(1) through (4) of this section.

(1) You must initiate and complete initial corrective action within 10 calendar days and demonstrate that the initial corrective action was successful. During any period of corrective action, you must continue to monitor, and record all required operating parameters for equipment that remains in operation. After the initial corrective action, if the daily average operating parameter value for the emission unit or group of similar emission units meets the operating limit established for the corresponding unit or group, then the corrective action was successful and the emission unit or group of similar emission units is in compliance with the established operating limits.

(2) If the initial corrective action required in paragraph (j)(1) of this section was not successful, then you must complete additional corrective action within 10 calendar days and demonstrate that the subsequent corrective action was successful. During any period of corrective action, you must continue to monitor, and record all required operating parameters for equipment that remains in operation. If the daily average operating parameter value for the emission unit or group of similar emission units meets the operating limit established for the corresponding unit or group, then the corrective action was successful, and the emission unit or group of similar emission units is in compliance with the established operating limits.

(3) If the second attempt at corrective action required in paragraph (j)(2) of this section was not successful, then you must repeat the procedures of paragraph (j)(2) of this section until the corrective action is successful. If the third attempt at corrective action is unsuccessful, you must conduct another performance test in accordance with the procedures in §63.9622(f) and report to the Administrator as a deviation the third unsuccessful attempt at corrective action.

(4) After the third unsuccessful attempt at corrective action, you must submit to the Administrator the written report required in paragraph (j)(3) of this section within 5 calendar days after the third unsuccessful attempt at corrective action. This report must notify the Administrator that a deviation has occurred and document the types of corrective measures taken to address the problem that resulted in the deviation of established operating parameters and the resulting operating limits.

§63.9636 How do I demonstrate continuous compliance with the operation and maintenance requirements that apply to me?

(a) For each control device subject to an operating limit in §63.9590(b), you must demonstrate continuous compliance with the operation and maintenance requirements in §63.9600(b) by completing the requirements of paragraphs (a)(1) through (4) of this section.

§63.9637 What other requirements must I meet to demonstrate continuous compliance?

(a) Deviations. You must report each instance in which you did not meet each emission limitation in Table 1 to this subpart that applies to you. You also must report each instance in which you did not meet the work practice standards in §63.9591 and each instance in which you did not meet each operation and maintenance requirement in §63.9600 that applies to you. These instances are deviations from the emission limitations, work practice standards, and operation and maintenance requirements in this subpart. These deviations must be reported in accordance with the requirements in §63.9641.

§63.9641 What reports must I submit and when?

* * * *

(b)(6) If there were no periods during which a continuous monitoring system (including a CPMS or COMS) was out-of-control as specified in §63.8(c)(7), then provide a statement that there were no periods during which a continuous monitoring system was out-of-control during the reporting period.

* * * *

(8) On or before January 25, 2021, for affected sources that commenced construction or reconstruction on or before September 25, 2019, for each deviation from an emission limitation occurring at an affected source where you are using a continuous monitoring system (including a CPMS or COMS) to comply with the emission limitation in this subpart, you must include the information in paragraphs (b)(1) through (4) of this section and the information in paragraphs (b)(8)(i) through (xi) of this section. This includes periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction. After January 25, 2021, for affected sources that commenced construction or reconstruction on or before September 25, 2019, and after July 28, 2020, or upon start-up, which ever date is later, for affected sources that commenced construction or reconstruction after September 25, 2019, for each deviation from an emission limitation occurring at an affected source where you are using a continuous monitoring system (including a CPMS or COMS) to comply with the emission limitation in this subpart, you must include the information in paragraphs (b)(1) through (4) of this section and the information in paragraphs (b)(8)(i) through (xi) of this section.

(i) The date and time that each malfunction started and stopped.

(ii) The start date, start time, and duration in hours (or minutes for COMS) that each continuous monitoring system was inoperative, except for zero (low-level) and high-level checks.

(iii) The start date, start time, and duration in hours (or minutes for COMS) that each continuous monitoring system was out-of-control, including the information in §63.8(c)(8).

(iv) On or before January 25, 2021, for affected sources that commenced construction or reconstruction on or before September 25, 2019, for each affected source or equipment, the date and time that each deviation started and stopped, the cause of the deviation, and whether each deviation occurred during a period of startup, shutdown, or malfunction or during another period. After January 25, 2021, for affected sources that commenced construction or reconstruction on or before September 25, 2019, and after July 28, 2020, or upon start-up, which ever date is later, for affected sources that commenced construction or reconstruction after September 25, 2019, for each affected source or equipment, the date and time that each deviation started and stopped, the cause of the deviation, and whether each deviation occurred during a period of malfunction or during another period.

(v) The total duration in hours (or minutes for COMS) of all deviations for each Continuous Monitoring System (CMS) during the reporting period, the total operating time in hours of the affected source during the reporting period, and the total duration as a percent of the total source operating time during that reporting period.

(vi) On or before January 25, 2021, for affected sources that commenced construction or reconstruction on or before September 25, 2019, a breakdown of the total duration of the deviations during the reporting period including those that are due to startup, shutdown, control equipment problems, process problems, other known causes, and other unknown causes. After January 25, 2021, for affected sources that commenced construction or reconstruction on or before September 25, 2019, and after July 28, 2020, or upon start-up, which ever date is later, for affected sources that commenced construction or reconstruction after September 25, 2019, a breakdown of the total duration in hours (or minutes for COMS) of the deviations during the reporting period including those that are due to control equipment problems, process problems, other known causes, and other unknown causes.

(vii) The total duration in hours (or minutes for COMS) of continuous monitoring system downtime for each continuous monitoring system during the reporting period, the total operating time in hours of the affected source during the reporting period, and the total duration of continuous monitoring system downtime as a percent of the total source operating time during the reporting period.

(viii) A brief description of the process units.

(ix) The monitoring equipment manufacturer and model number and the pollutant or parameter monitored.

(x) The date of the latest continuous monitoring system certification or audit.

(xi) A description of any changes in continuous monitoring systems, processes, or controls since the last reporting period.

* * * *

(c) Submitting compliance reports electronically. Beginning on January 25, 2021, submit all subsequent compliance reports to the EPA via CEDRI, which can be accessed through the EPA's Central Data Exchange (CDX) (https://cdx.epa.gov/). The EPA will make all the information submitted through CEDRI available to the public without further notice to you. Do not use CEDRI to submit information you claim as confidential business information (CBI). Anything submitted using CEDRI cannot later be claimed to be CBI. You must use the appropriate electronic report template on the CEDRI website (https://www.epa.gov/electronic-reporting-air-emissions/compliance-and-emissions-data-reporting-interface-cedri) for this subpart. The report must be submitted by the deadline specified in this subpart, regardless of the method in which the report is submitted. Although we do not expect persons to assert a claim of CBI, if persons wish to assert a CBI claim, submit a complete report, including information claimed to be CBI, to the EPA. The report must be generated using the appropriate form on the CEDRI website. Submit the file on a compact disc, flash drive, or other commonly used electronic storage medium and clearly mark the medium as CBI. Mail the electronic medium to U.S. EPA/OAQPS/SPPD/CORE CBI Office, Attention: Taconite Iron Ore Processing Sector Lead, MD C404-02, 4930 Old Page Rd., Durham, NC 27703. The same file with the CBI omitted must be submitted to the EPA via the EPA's CDX as described earlier in this paragraph (c). All CBI claims must be asserted at the time of submission. Furthermore, under CAA section 114(c) emissions data in not entitled to confidential treatment, and EPA is required to make emissions data available to the public. Thus, emissions data will not be protected as CBI and will be made publicly available. On or before January 25, 2021, for affected sources that commenced construction or reconstruction on or before September 25, 2019, if you had a startup, shutdown, or malfunction during the reporting period that is not consistent with your startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan you must submit an immediate startup, shutdown and malfunction report according to the requirements in §63.10(d)(5)(ii). After January 25, 2021, for affected sources that commenced construction or reconstruction on or before September 25, 2019, and after July 28, 2020, or upon start-up, which ever date is later, for affected sources that commenced construction or reconstruction after September 25, 2019, an immediate startup, shutdown, and malfunction report is not required.

* * * *

(e) Immediate corrective action report. If you had three unsuccessful attempts of applying corrective action as described in §63.9634(j) on an emission unit or group of emission units, then you must submit an immediate corrective action report. Within 5 calendar days after the third unsuccessful attempt at corrective action, you must submit to the Administrator a written report in accordance with §63.9634(j)(3) and (4). This report must notify the Administrator that a deviation has occurred and document the types of corrective measures taken to address the problem that resulted in the deviation of established operating parameters and the resulting operating limits.

* * * *

(f)(3) Confidential business information (CBI). The EPA will make all the information submitted through CEDRI available to the public without further notice to you. Do not use CEDRI to submit information you claim as CBI. Anything submitted using CEDRI cannot later be claimed to be CBI. Although we do not expect persons to assert a claim of CBI, if persons wish to assert a CBI claim, submit a complete file, including information claimed to be CBI, to the EPA. The file must be generated through the use of the EPA's ERT or an alternate electronic file consistent with the XML schema listed on the EPA's ERT website. Submit the file on a compact disc, flash drive, or other commonly used electronic storage medium and clearly mark the medium as CBI. Mail the electronic medium to U.S. EPA/OAQPS/CORE CBI Office, Attention: Group Leader, Measurement Policy Group, MD C404-02, 4930 Old Page Rd., Durham, NC 27703. The same file with the CBI omitted must be submitted to the EPA via the EPA's CDX as described in paragraphs (f)(1) and (2) of this section. All CBI claims must be asserted at the time of submission. Furthermore, under CAA section 114(c) emissions data in not entitled to confidential treatment, and EPA is required to make emissions data available to the public. Thus, emissions data will not be protected as CBI and will be made publicly available.

§63.9642 What records must I keep?

* * * *

(b) For each COMS, you must keep the records specified in paragraphs (b)(1) through (4) of this section.

§63.9650 What parts of the General Provisions apply to me?

Table 2 to this subpart shows which parts of the General Provisions in §§63.1 through 63.16 apply to you.

Table 1 to Subpart RRRRR of Part 63 -– Particulate Matter Emission Limits

As required in §63.9590(a), you must comply with each applicable emission limit in the following table:

Table 4 to Subpart RRRRR of Part 63 - Applicability of General Provisions to Subpart RRRRR of Part 63

Table 4 to Subpart RRRRR of Part 63—Applicability of General Provisions to Subpart RRRRR of Part 63
CitationSubjectApplies to subpart RRRRRExplanation
§63.1(a)(1)-(4)ApplicabilityYes
§63.1(a)(5)[Reserved]No
§63.1(a)(6)ApplicabilityYes
§63.1(a)(7)-(9)[Reserved]No
§63.1(a)(10)-(12)ApplicabilityYes
§63.1(b)(1)Initial Applicability DeterminationYes
§63.1(b)(2)[Reserved]No
§63.1(b)(3)Initial Applicability DeterminationYes
§63.1(c)(1)-(2)Applicability After Standard Established, Permit RequirementsYes
§63.1(c)(3)-(4)[Reserved]No
§63.1(c)(5)Area Source Becomes MajorYes
§63.1(c)(6)ReclassificationYes
§63.1(d)[Reserved]No
§63.1(e)Equivalency of Permit LimitsYes
§63.2DefinitionsYes
§63.3(a)-(c)Units and AbbreviationsYes
§63.4(a)(1)-(2)Prohibited ActivitiesYes
§63.4(a)(3)-(5)[Reserved]No
§63.4(b)-(c)Circumvention, FragmentationYes
§63.5(a)(1)-(2)Construction/Reconstruction, ApplicabilityYes
§63.5(b)(1)Construction/Reconstruction, ApplicabilityYes
§63.5(b)(2)[Reserved]No
§63.5(b)(3)-(4)Construction/Reconstruction, ApplicabilityYes
§63.5(b)(5)[Reserved]No
§63.5(b)(6)ApplicabilityYes
§63.5(c)[Reserved]No
§63.5(d)(1)-(4)Application for Approval of Construction or ReconstructionYes
§63.5(e)Approval of Construction or ReconstructionYes
§63.5(f)Approval Based on State ReviewYes
§63.6(a)Compliance with Standards and Maintenance RequirementsYes
§63.6(b)(1)-(5)Compliance Dates for New/Reconstructed SourcesYes
§63.6(b)(6)[Reserved]No
§63.6(b)(7)Compliance Dates for New/Reconstructed SourcesYes
§63.6(c)(1)-(2)Compliance Dates for Existing SourcesYes
§63.6(c)(3)-(4)[Reserved]No
§63.6(c)(5)Compliance Dates for Existing SourcesYes
§63.6(d)[Reserved]No
§63.6(e)(1)(i)Operation and Maintenance Requirements—General Duty to Minimize EmissionsYes, on or before the compliance date specified in §63.9600(a). No, after the compliance date specified in §63.9600(a)See §63.9600(a) for general duty requirement.
§63.6(e)(1)(ii)Operation and Maintenance Requirements—Requirement to Correct Malfunction as Soon as PossibleNo
§63.6(e)(1)(iii)Operation and Maintenance Requirements—EnforceabilityYes
§63.6(e)(2)[Reserved]No
§63.6(e)(3)Startup, Shutdown, Malfunction (SSM) PlanYes, on or before the compliance date specified in §63.9610(c). No, after the compliance date specified in §63.9610(c)
§63.6(f)(1)SSM ExemptionNoSee §63.9600(a).
§63.6(f)(2)-(3)Methods for Determining ComplianceYes
§63.6(g)(1)-(3)Alternative Nonopacity StandardYes
§63.6(h), except (h)(1)Compliance with Opacity and Visible Emission (VE) StandardsNoOpacity limits in subpart RRRRR are established as part of performance testing in order to set operating limits for ESPs.
§63.6(h)(1)Compliance except during SSMNoSee §63.9600(a).
§63.6(i)(1)-(14)Extension of ComplianceYes
§63.6(i)(15)[Reserved]No
§63.6(i)(16)Extension of ComplianceYes
§63.6(j)Presidential Compliance ExemptionYes
§63.7(a)(1)-(2)Applicability and Performance Test DatesNoSubpart RRRRR specifies performance test applicability and dates.
§63.7(a)(3)-(4)Performance Testing RequirementsYes
§63.7(b)NotificationYes
§63.7(c)Quality Assurance/Test PlanYes
§63.7(d)Testing FacilitiesYes
§63.7(e)(1)Conduct of Performance TestsNoSee §63.9621.
§63.7(e)(2)-(4)Conduct of Performance TestsYes
§63.7(f)Alternative Test MethodYes
§63.7(g)Data AnalysisYesExcept this subpart specifies how and when the performance test results are reported.
§63.7(h)Waiver of TestsYes
§63.8(a)(1)-(2)Monitoring RequirementsYes
§63.8(a)(3)[Reserved]No
§63.8(a)(4)Additional Monitoring Requirements for Control Devices in §63.11NoSubpart RRRRR does not require flares.
§63.8(b)(1)-(3)Conduct of MonitoringYes
§63.8(c)(1)(i)Operation and Maintenance of CMSYes, on or before the compliance date specified in §63.9632(b)(4). No, after the compliance date specified in §63.9632(b)(4)See §63.9632 for operation and maintenance requirements for monitoring. See §63.9600(a) for general duty requirement.
§63.8(c)(1)(ii)Spare parts for CMS EquipmentYes
§63.8(c)(1)(iii)SSM Plan for CMSYes, on or before the compliance date specified in §63.9632(b)(4). No, after the compliance date specified in §63.9632(b)(4)
§63.8(c)(2)-(3)CMS Operation/MaintenanceYes
§63.8(c)(4)Frequency of Operation for CMSNoSubpart RRRRR specifies requirements for operation of CMS.
§63.8(c)(5)-(8)CMS RequirementsYesCMS requirements in §63.8(c)(5) and (6) apply only to COMS for dry electrostatic precipitators.
§63.8(d)(1)-(2)Monitoring Quality ControlYes
§63.8(d)(3)Monitoring Quality ControlNoSee §63.9632(b)(5).
§63.8(e)Performance Evaluation of CMSYes
§63.8(f)(1)-(5)Alternative Monitoring MethodYes
§63.8(f)(6)Relative Accuracy Test Alternative (RATA)NoSubpart RRRRR does not require continuous emission monitoring systems.
§63.8(g)(1)-(4)Data ReductionYes
§63.8(g)(5)Data That Cannot Be UsedNoSubpart RRRRR specifies data reduction requirements.
§63.9Notification RequirementsYesAdditional notifications for CMS in §63.9(g) apply to COMS for dry electrostatic precipitators.
§63.9(k)Electronic reporting proceduresYesOnly as specified in §63.9(j).
§63.10(a)Recordkeeping and Reporting, Applicability and General InformationYes
§63.10(b)(1)General Recordkeeping RequirementsYes
§63.10(b)(2)(i)Records of SSMNoSee §63.9642 for recordkeeping when there is a deviation from a standard.
§63.10(b)(2)(ii)Recordkeeping of Failures to Meet StandardNoSee §63.9642 for recordkeeping of (1) date, time and duration; (2) listing of affected source or equipment, and an estimate of the quantity of each regulated pollutant emitted over the standard; and (3) actions to minimize emissions and correct the failure.
§63.10(b)(2)(iii)Maintenance RecordsYes
§63.10(b)(2)(iv)Actions Taken to Minimize Emissions During SSMNo
§63.10(b)(2)(v)Actions Taken to Minimize Emissions During SSMNo
§63.10(b)(2)(vi)Recordkeeping for CMS MalfunctionsYes
§63.10(b)(2)(vii)-(xii)Recordkeeping for CMSYes
§63.10(b)(2)(xiii)Records for Relative Accuracy TestNoSubpart RRRRR does not require continuous emission monitoring systems.
§63.10(b)(2)(xiv)Records for NotificationYes
§63.10(b)(3)Applicability DeterminationsYes
§63.10(c)(1)-(6)Additional Recordkeeping Requirements for Sources with CMSYes
§63.10(c)(7)-(8)Records of Excess Emissions and Parameter Monitoring Exceedances for CMSNoSubpart RRRRR specifies recordkeeping requirements.
§63.10(c)(9)[Reserved]No
§63.10(c)(10)-(14)CMS RecordkeepingYes
§63.10(c)(15)Use of SSM PlanNo
§63.10(d)(1)-(2)General Reporting RequirementsYesExcept this subpart specifies how and when the performance test results are reported.
§63.10(d)(3)Reporting opacity or VE observationsNoSubpart RRRRR does not have opacity and VE standards that require the use of EPA Method 9 of appendix A-4 to 40 CFR part 60 or EPA Method 22 of appendix A-7 to 40 CFR part 60.
§63.10(d)(5)SSM ReportsYes, on or before the compliance date specified in §63.9641(b)(4). No, after the compliance date specified in §63.9641(b)(4)See §63.9641 for malfunction reporting requirements.
§63.10(e)Additional Reporting RequirementsYes, except a breakdown of the total duration of excess emissions due to startup/shutdown in 63.10(e)(3)(vi)(I) is not required and when the summary report is submitted through CEDRI, the report is not required to be titled “Summary Report-Gaseous and Opacity Excess Emission and Continuous Monitoring System Performance.”The electronic reporting template combines the information from the summary report and excess emission report with the Subpart RRRRR compliance report.
§63.10(f)Waiver of Recordkeeping or Reporting RequirementsYes
§63.11Control Device and Work Practice RequirementsNoSubpart RRRRR does not require flares.
§63.12(a)-(c)State Authority and DelegationsYes
§63.13(a)-(c)State/Regional AddressesYes
§63.14(a)-(t)Incorporations by ReferenceYes
§63.15(a)-(b)Availability of Information and ConfidentialityYes
§63.16Performance Track ProvisionsYes
EPA reinforces the Risk Management Program to bolster protections against chemical accidents
2024-03-01T06:00:00Z

EPA reinforces the Risk Management Program to bolster protections against chemical accidents

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has finalized amendments to the Risk Management Program (RMP). The agency’s amendments apply to the Safer Communities by Chemical Accident Prevention Rule, initially proposed in August 2022, which implements the most protective safety provisions for chemical facilities in history.

To better protect at-risk communities from chemical accidents, the final rule seeks to:

  • Improve chemical process safety;
  • Assist in planning for, preparing for, and responding to accidents; and
  • Increase public awareness of chemical hazards at regulated sources.

The RMP rule, codified at 40 CFR Part 68, applies to all owners and operators of a facility (or stationary source) that manufactures, uses, stores, or otherwise handles more than a threshold quantity of a toxic or flammable substance (listed at 68.130) in a process. Part 68 requires regulated facilities to develop and implement a Risk Management Plan for all covered processes.

Covered facilities must submit the Risk Management Plan to EPA and revise and resubmit the Risk Management Plan to the agency every five years.

Who does the final rule impact?

The agency’s final rule applies to all sources regulated by the RMP rule at 40 CFR Part 68, which total more than 11,700 facilities. It also has more rigorous requirements for a subgroup of more accident-prone facilities that pose the greatest risk to communities.

What are the changes to the rule?

EPA’s final amendments to the rule:

  • Require facilities to perform a safer technologies and alternatives analysis, and for certain facilities in industry sectors with high accident rates, implement reliable safeguard measures;
  • Expand employee participation, training, and opportunities for decision-making in accident prevention;
  • Require third-party compliance audits and root cause analysis incident investigations for facilities that have had a prior accident;
  • Ensure chemical release information is shared timely with local responders and a community notification system is in place to warn of an impending release;
  • Emphasize the requirement to evaluate risks of natural hazards and climate change, including any associated losses of power; and
  • Increase transparency by providing access to RMP facility information for nearby communities.

EPA will publish the rule alongside a tool that will give the public access to information for RMPs in nearby communities. The final rule takes effect 60 days after it’s published in the Federal Register.

Key to remember: EPA finalized amendments to the Risk Management Program to improve safety at facilities that use and distribute hazardous chemicals.

2024-02-29T06:00:00Z

EPA Final Rule: Request From States for Removal of Gasoline Volatility Waiver

Pursuant to provisions specified by the Clean Air Act (CAA), the Governors of Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, Ohio, South Dakota, and Wisconsin submitted petitions requesting that EPA remove the 1-pound per square inch (psi) Reid vapor pressure (RVP) waiver for summer gasoline-ethanol blended fuels containing 10 percent ethanol (E10). EPA is acting on those petitions by removing the 1-psi waiver in those States effective April 28, 2025. This action also finalizes regulatory amendments to implement the removal of the 1-psi waiver for E10 in those States, as well as a regulatory process by which a State may request to reinstate the 1-psi waiver. Finally, consistent with a decision issued by the United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit on July 2, 2021, this action removes regulations that extended the 1-psi waiver to gasoline-ethanol blends between 10 and 15 percent ethanol (E15).

DATES: This rule is effective on April 29, 2024, published in the Federal Register February 29, 2024, page 14760.

§1090.215 Gasoline RVP standards.
(b)(2) and (b)(3)RevisedView text
§1090.297 Procedures for reinstating the 1.0 psi RVP allowance for E10.
Entire sectionAddedView text
§1090.1010 Designation requirements for gasoline and regulated blendstocks.
(a)(2)(iii) as (a)(2)(iv)RedesignatedView text
New (a)(2)(iii)AddedView text
§1090.1110 PTD requirements for gasoline, gasoline additives, and gasoline regulated blendstocks.
(b)(2)(i)(C) as (b)(2)(i)(D) RedesignatedView text
New (b)(2)(i)(C)AddedView text
§1090.1720 Affirmative defense provisions.
(e) introductory text and (e)(2)RevisedView text

New Text

§1090.215 Gasoline RVP standards.

* * * * *

(b) * * *

(2) To qualify for the special regulatory treatment specified in paragraph (b)(1) of this section, gasoline must meet the applicable RVP per-gallon standard in paragraph (a)(1) or (2) of this section prior to the addition of ethanol and must contain ethanol at a concentration of at least 9 volume percent and no more than 10 volume percent.

(3)(i) RFG and SIP-controlled gasoline that does not allow for the ethanol 1.0 psi waiver does not qualify for the special regulatory treatment specified in paragraph (b)(1) of this section.

(ii) Gasoline subject to the 9.0 psi maximum RVP per-gallon standard in paragraph (a)(1) of this section in the following areas is excluded from the special regulatory treatment specified in paragraph (b)(1) of this section:

Table 2 to Paragraph (b)(3)(ii)—Areas Excluded From the Ethanol 1.0 Waiver
StateCountiesEffective date
IllinoisAllApril 28, 2025.
IowaAllApril 28, 2025.
MinnesotaAllApril 28, 2025.
MissouriAllApril 28, 2025.
NebraskaAllApril 28, 2025.
OhioAllApril 28, 2025.
South DakotaAllApril 28, 2025.
WisconsinAllApril 28, 2025.

* * * * *

§1090.1720 Affirmative defense provisions.

* * * * *

(e) In addition to the defenses provided in paragraphs (a) through (d) of this section, in any case in which an oxygenate blender, distributor, reseller, carrier, retailer, or WPC would be in violation under §1090.1715 as a result of gasoline that contains between 9 and 1 percent ethanol (by volume) but exceeds the applicable standard by more than 1.0 psi, the oxygenate blender, distributor, reseller, carrier, retailer, or WPC will not be deemed in violation if such person can demonstrate, by showing receipt of a certification from the facility from which the gasoline was received or other evidence acceptable to EPA, all the following:

* * * * *

(2) The ethanol portion of the blend does not exceed 10 percent (by volume).

* * * * *

EPA’s 2024-27 national enforcement targets: 6 initiatives in the bull’s-eye
2024-02-28T06:00:00Z

EPA’s 2024-27 national enforcement targets: 6 initiatives in the bull’s-eye

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) develops regulations to implement the environmental laws established by the U.S. Congress, and the agency also enforces them. The standards work to eliminate or control significant risks, so noncompliance with the regulations can have devastating effects on communities and endanger the health of people and the environment.

Formal enforcement remains the key tool EPA uses to address and deter serious noncompliance. However, the agency’s resources aren’t unlimited. So, through National Enforcement and Compliance Initiatives (NECIs), EPA focuses its enforcement resources on the most serious violations that typically require additional resources and a coordinated effort among the agency and its state partners.

After achieving some of the highest enforcement levels in years during fiscal year (FY) 2023 (i.e., October 1, 2022, to September 30, 2023), EPA’s new cycle of initiatives is underway. Let’s look at each compliance initiative.

EPA’s enforcement targets

For FYs 2024 to 2027, EPA selected six NECIs that address environmental problems related to air, water, and toxics.

1. Mitigate climate change.

The initiative addresses three contributors to climate change, including:

  • Methane emissions from oil and gas facilities,
  • Methane emissions from landfills, and
  • Hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs).

Widespread noncompliance in the above areas is well-documented, which means thousands of tons of pollutants may have been emitted beyond lawful limits. The agency will focus on enforcing long-standing air emissions requirements, like New Source Performance Standards, and any relevant regulations developed. Additionally, EPA will ensure the phasedown of harmful HFCs remains on the schedule required by the American Innovation and Manufacturing Act.

2. Address per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) exposure.

PFAS are toxic and persistent chemicals. The agency’s key goals in addressing exposure to the chemicals are to:

  • Achieve site characterization of PFAS contamination,
  • Control ongoing PFAS releases that pose a threat to the health of humans and the environment,
  • Ensure compliance with permits and other agreements regarding PFAS contamination, and
  • Address endangerment issues that arise.

EPA will take additional enforcement actions where appropriate beginning in FY 2025.

3. Protect communities from coal ash contamination.

Coal ash has many contaminants, like mercury and arsenic, that pose serious health effects. The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act regulates facilities that generate coal ash, but EPA has found widespread noncompliance among the facilities. To address this issue, the agency will:

  • Conduct investigations at regulated facilities;
  • Take enforcement actions at facilities in violation; and
  • Protect and clean up contaminated groundwater, surface water, and drinking water resources.

4. Reduce air toxics in overburdened communities.

Carried over from the previous initiative cycle and modified, this initiative originally centered on violations of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards for ozone, specifically emissions of volatile organic compounds and hazardous air pollutants (HAPs) that contribute to ozone.

The new initiative prioritizes reducing emissions of air toxics in communities with higher levels or multiple sources of toxic air emissions (referred to as overburdened communities) from HAPs.

5. Increase drinking water standards compliance.

EPA continued this initiative from the preceding NECIs, which was designed to ensure that Community Water Systems (CWSs) complied with the Safe Drinking Water Act. While compliance improved among the regulated systems (about 50,000 total), CWSs continue to violate drinking water standards.

The agency will:

  • Increase its field presence,
  • Use strategic enforcement to reduce noncompliance, and
  • Provide more compliance assistance.

6. Reduce chemical accident risk.

The final initiative was also carried over since EPA found that many facilities regulated under the Clean Air Act’s Risk Management Program weren’t sufficiently managing the posed risks or ensuring the facilities were safe.

The initiative focuses on conducting inspections for noncompliance with risk management requirements, specifically for anhydrous ammonia and hydrogen fluoride, both of which are extremely hazardous substances that pose high risk to communities. The agency will address violations and hold facilities criminally responsible.

How does this impact your facility?

If any of the NECIs involve regulations covering your facility, expect stronger enforcement actions, such as more frequent inspections and investigations, especially if the facility is in an overburdened community.

Remember that EPA enforces all environmental standards, not just the prioritized compliance initiatives. Maintaining compliance with all regulations helps your business:

  • Protect the health of communities and the environment where your facilities operate;
  • Avoid potential legal costs, monetary penalties, and costly, time-consuming corrective actions; and
  • Prevent damage to your company’s reputation.

Key to remember: EPA’s 2024 to 2027 National Enforcement and Compliance Initiatives target compliance with certain regulations related to air, water, and toxics.

See More

Most Recent Highlights In Safety & Health

2024-02-21T06:00:00Z

Final Rule: Fees for the Administration of the Toxic Substances Control Act

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is finalizing amendments to the 2018 final rule that established fees for the administration of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). Specifically, EPA is finalizing changes to the fee amounts and EPA's total costs for administering TSCA; exemptions for entities subject to the EPA-initiated risk evaluation fees; exemptions for test rule fee activities; modifications to the self-identification and reporting requirements of EPA-initiated risk evaluation and test rule fees; modifications to EPA's proposed methodology for the production-volume-based fee allocation for EPA-initiated risk evaluation fees in any scenario in which a consortium is not formed; expanded fee requirements to companies required to submit information for test orders; modifications to the fee payment obligations of processors subject to test orders and enforceable consent agreements (ECA); and extended timeframes for certain fee payments and notices.

DATES: This rule is effective on April 22, 2024, published in the Federal Register February 21, 2024, page 12961.

View final rule.

§700.43 Definitions applicable to this subpart.
Definitions of “Production volume” and “Small quantities solely for research and development.”AddedView text
§700.45 Fee payments
(a)(2), (3)RevisedView text
(b)(5), (7)RevisedView text
(b)(10)AddedView text
(c)-(d)RevisedView text
(f)(2)(i)RevisedView text
(f)(3)(i)RevisedView text
(f)(4)-(5)RevisedView text
(f)(6)AddedView text
(g)(3)(i)RevisedView text
(g)(3)(iv)RevisedView text
(g)(5), (6)RevisedView text

New Text

§700.45 Fee payments

(a)* * *

(2) Manufacturers and processors of chemical substances and mixtures required to submit information for these chemical substances and mixtures under a TSCA section 4(a) test order or enforceable consent agreement, or manufacturers of chemical substances and mixtures required to submit information for these chemical substance and mixtures under a TSCA section 4(a) test rule, shall remit for each such test rule, order, or enforceable consent agreement the applicable fee identified in paragraph (c) of this section in accordance with the procedures in paragraphs (f) and (g) of this section. Manufacturers of a chemical substance subject to a test rule under TSCA section 4(a) are exempted from fee payment requirements in this section, if they meet one or more of the exemptions under this paragraphs (a)(2)(i) through (v) of this section on or after the certification cutoff date identified in paragraph (b)(6) of this section and do not conduct manufacturing outside of those exemptions after the certification cutoff dates or if they meet the exemptions under paragraph (a)(2)(vi) of this section for the five-year period preceding publication of the preliminary list and do not conduct manufacturing outside of that exemption during the five-year period preceding publication of the preliminary list; and the exemptions are only available if the manufacturer will meet one or more of the exemptions in this paragraph (a)(2)(i) through (vi) in the successive five years; and will not conduct manufacturing outside of the exemptions in paragraphs (a)(2)(i) through (v) of this section in the successive five years or will meet the exemption in paragraph (a)(2)(vi) of this section in the successive five years:

(i) Import articles containing that chemical substance;

(ii) Produce that chemical substance as a byproduct that is not later used for commercial purposes or distributed for commercial use;

(iii) Manufacture that chemical substance as an impurity as defined in 40 CFR 704.3;

(iv) Manufacture that chemical substance as a non-isolated intermediate as defined in 40 CFR 704.3;

(v) Manufacture small quantities of that chemical substance solely for research and development, as defined in 40 CFR 700.43; or

(vi) Manufacture that chemical substance in quantities below a 1,100 lbs annual production volume as described in §700.43, unless all manufacturers of that chemical substance manufacture that chemical in quantities below a 1,100 lbs annual production volume as defined in §700.43, in which case this exemption is not applicable.

(3) Manufacturers of a chemical substance that is subject to a risk evaluation under section 6(b) of the Act, shall remit for each such chemical risk evaluation the applicable fee identified in paragraph (c) of this section in accordance with the procedures in paragraphs (f) and (g) of this section. Manufacturers of a chemical substance subject to risk evaluation under section 6(b) of the Act are exempted from fee payment requirements in this section, if they meet one or more of the exemptions under paragraphs (a)(3)(i) through (v) of this section on or after the certification cutoff date identified in paragraph (b)(6)(i) of this section and do not conduct manufacturing outside of those exemptions after the certification cutoff dates or if they meet the exemptions under paragraph (a)(3)(vi) of this section for the five-year period preceding publication of the preliminary list and do not conduct manufacturing outside of that exemption during the five-year period preceding publication of the preliminary list; and the exemptions are only available if the manufacturer will meet one or more of the exemptions in paragraphs (a)(3)(i) through (vi) of this section in the successive five years and will not conduct manufacturing outside of the exemptions in paragraphs (a)(3)(i) through (v) of this section in the successive five years or will meet the exemption in paragraph (a)(3)(vi) of this section in the successive five years:

(i) Import articles containing that chemical substance;

(ii) Produce that chemical substance as a byproduct that is not later used for commercial purposes or distributed for commercial use;

(iii) Manufacture that chemical substance as an impurity as defined in 40 CFR 704.3;

(iv) Manufacture that chemical substance as a non-isolated intermediate as defined in 40 CFR 704.3;

(v) Manufacture small quantities of that chemical substance solely for research and development, as defined in §700.43; or

(vi) manufacture that chemical substance in quantities below a 2,500 lbs annual production volume as described in §700.43, unless all manufacturers of that chemical substance manufacture that chemical in quantities below a 2,500 lbs annual production volume as defined in §700.43, in which case this exemption is not applicable.

* * * * *

(b) * * *

(5) Self-identification. All manufacturers other than those listed in paragraphs (a)(2)(i) through (iii) and (a)(3)(i) through (iii) of this section who have manufactured (including imported) the chemical substance in the previous five years must submit notice to EPA, irrespective of whether they are included in the preliminary list specified in paragraph (b)(3) of this section. The notice must be submitted electronically via EPA's Central Data Exchange (CDX), the Agency's electronic reporting portal, using the Chemical Information Submission System (CISS) reporting tool, and must contain the following information:

(i) Contact information. The name and address of the submitting company, the name and address of the authorized official for the submitting company, and the name and telephone number of a person who will serve as technical contact for the submitting company and who will be able to answer questions about the information submitted by the company to EPA.

(ii) Certification of cessation. If a manufacturer has manufactured in the five-year period preceding publication of the preliminary list but has ceased manufacture prior to the certification cutoff dates identified in paragraph (b)(6) of this section and will not manufacture the substance again in the successive five years, the manufacturer may submit a certification statement attesting to these facts. If EPA receives such a certification statement from a manufacturer, the manufacturer will not be included in the final list of manufacturers described in paragraph (b)(7) of this section and will not be obligated to pay the fee under this section.

(iii) Certification of no manufacture. If a manufacturer is identified on the preliminary list but has not manufactured the chemical in the five-year period preceding publication of the preliminary list, the manufacturer may submit a certification statement attesting to these facts. If EPA receives such a certification statement from a manufacturer, the manufacturer will not be included in the final list of manufacturers described in paragraph (b)(7) of this section and will not be obligated to pay the fee under this section.

(iv) Certification of meeting exemption. If a manufacturer is identified on the preliminary list and exclusively meets one or more of the exemptions as described in paragraph (a)(2) or (a)(3) of this section, the manufacturer must submit a certification statement attesting to these facts in order to not be included in the final list of manufacturers described in paragraph (b)(7) of this section. If a manufacturer is not on a preliminary list and exclusively meets one or more of the exemptions as described in paragraph (a)(2) or (a)(3) of this section, the manufacturer may submit a certification statement attesting to these facts. If EPA receives such a certification statement from a manufacturer, the manufacturer will not be included in the final list of manufacturers described in paragraph (b)(7) of this section and will not be obligated to pay the fee under this section, unless all manufacturers of that chemical substance meet the exemption as described in (a)(2)(vi) or (a)(3)(vi) of this section.

(v) Production volume. If a manufacturer has not submitted certification of cessation, as described in paragraph (b)(5)(ii) of this section, or certification of no manufacture, as described in paragraph (b)(5)(iii) of this section, for purposes of identifying manufacturers subject to fees for TSCA section 6 EPA-initiated risk evaluations and does not meet one or more of the exemptions in paragraph (a)(3)(i) through (v) of this section, the manufacturer must submit their production volume as defined in 40 CFR 700.43 for the applicable substance for the three calendar years prior to publication of the preliminary list. Only production volume reported to EPA prior to the final list being published will be used in determining fees described in §700.45(f).

* * * * *

(7) Publication of final list. EPA expects to publish a final list of manufacturers to identify the specific manufacturers subject to the applicable fee. This list will indicate if additional manufacturers self-identified pursuant to paragraph (b)(5) of this section, if other manufacturers were identified through credible public comment, and if manufacturers submitted certification of cessation, no manufacture, or meeting exemption pursuant to paragraph (b)(5)(ii), (iii), or (iv) of this section. The final list will be published no later than concurrently with the final scope document for risk evaluations initiated by EPA under TSCA section 6, and with the final test rule for test rules under TSCA section 4. EPA may modify the list after the publication of the final list.

* * * * *

* * * * *

(c) Fees for the 2024, 2025, and 2026 fiscal years. Persons shall remit fee payments to EPA as follows:

(1) Small business concerns. Small business concerns shall remit fees as follows:

(i) Premanufacture notice and consolidated premanufacture notice. Persons shall remit a fee totaling $6,480 for each premanufacture notice (PMN) or consolidated PMN submitted in accordance with part 720 of this chapter.

(ii) Significant new use notice. Persons shall remit a fee totaling $6,480 for each significant new use notice (SNUN) submitted in accordance with part 721 of this chapter.

(iii) Exemption application. Persons shall remit a fee totaling $2,180 for each of the following exemption requests submitted under TSCA section 5:

(A) Low releases and low exposures exemption or LoREX request submitted to EPA pursuant to section 5(a)(1) of the Act in accordance with §723.50(a)(1)(ii) of this chapter.

(B) Low volume exemption or LVE request submitted to EPA pursuant to section 5(a)(1) of the Act in accordance with §723.50(a)(1)(i) of this chapter.

(C) Test marketing exemption or TME application submitted to EPA pursuant to section 5 of the Act in accordance with §§725.300 through 725.355 of this chapter.

(D) TSCA experimental release application or TERA application submitted to EPA pursuant to section 5 of the Act for research and development activities involving microorganisms in accordance with §§725.200 through 725.260 of this chapter.

(E) Tier II exemption application submitted to EPA pursuant to section 5 of the Act in accordance with §§725.428 through 725.455 of this chapter.

(iv) Instant photographic film article exemption notice. Persons shall remit a fee totaling $2,180 for each instant photographic film article exemption notice submitted in accordance with §723.175 of this chapter.

(v) Microbial commercial activity notice and consolidated microbial commercial activity notice. Persons shall remit a fee totaling $6,480 for each microbial commercial activity notice (MCAN) or consolidated MCAN submitted in accordance with §§725.25 through 725.36 of this chapter.

(vi) Persons shall remit a total of twenty percent of the applicable fee under paragraph (c)(2)(vi), (vii) or (viii) of this section for a test rule, test order, or enforceable consent agreement.

(vii) Persons shall remit a total fee of twenty percent of the applicable fee under paragraphs (c)(2)(ix) of this section for an EPA-initiated risk evaluation.

(viii) Persons shall remit the total fee under paragraph (c)(2)(x) or (xi) of this section, as applicable, for a manufacturer-requested risk evaluation.

(2) Others. Persons other than small business concerns shall remit fees as follows:

(i) PMN and consolidated PMN. Persons shall remit a fee totaling $37,000 for each PMN or consolidated PMN submitted in accordance with part 720 of this chapter.

(ii) SNUN. Persons shall remit a fee totaling $37,000 for each significant new use notice submitted in accordance with part 721 of this chapter.

(iii) Exemption applications. Persons shall remit a fee totaling $10,870 for each of the following exemption requests, and modifications to previous exemption requests, submitted under section 5 of the Act:

(A) Low releases and low exposures exemption or LoREX request submitted to EPA pursuant to section 5(a)(1) of the Act in accordance with §723.50(a)(1)(ii) of this chapter.

(B) Low volume exemption or LVE request submitted to EPA pursuant to section 5(a)(1) of the Act in accordance with §723.50(a)(1)(i) of this chapter.

(C) Test marketing exemption or TME application submitted to EPA pursuant to section 5 of the Act in accordance with §§725.300 through 725.355 of this chapter, unless the submitting company has graduated from EPA's Sustainable Futures program, in which case this exemption fee is waived.

(D) TSCA experimental release application or TERA application submitted to EPA pursuant to section 5 of the Act for research and development activities involving microorganisms in accordance with §§725.200 through 725.260 of this chapter.

(E) Tier II exemption application submitted to EPA pursuant to section 5 of the Act in accordance with §§725.428 through 725.455 of this chapter.

(iv) Instant photographic film article exemption notice. Persons shall remit a fee totaling $10,870 for each exemption notice submitted in accordance with §723.175 of this chapter.

(v) MCAN and consolidated MCAN. Persons shall remit a fee totaling $37,000 for each MCAN or consolidated MCAN submitted in accordance with §§725.25 through 725.36 of this chapter.

(vi) Test rule. Persons shall remit a fee totaling $50,000 for each test rule.

(vii) Test order. Persons shall remit a fee totaling $25,000 for each test order.

(viii) Enforceable consent agreement. Persons shall remit a fee totaling $50,000 for each enforceable consent agreement.

(ix) EPA-initiated chemical risk evaluation. Persons shall remit a fee totaling $4,287,000.

(x) Manufacturer-requested risk evaluation of a Work Plan Chemical. Persons shall remit an initial fee of $1,414,924, a second payment of $1,414,924, and final payment to total 50% of the actual costs of this activity, in accordance with the procedures in paragraph (g) of this section. The final payment amount will be determined by EPA, and invoice issued to the requesting manufacturer.

(xi) Manufacturer-requested risk evaluation of a non-work plan chemical. Persons shall remit an initial fee of $2,829,847, a second payment of $2,829,847, and final payment to total 100% of the actual costs of the activity, in accordance with the procedures in paragraph (g) of this section. The final payment amount will be determined by EPA, and invoice issued to the requesting manufacturer.

(d) Fees for 2026 fiscal year and beyond. (1) Fees for the 2026 and later fiscal years will be adjusted on a three-year cycle by multiplying the fees in paragraph (c) of this section by the current PPI index value with a base year of 2024 using the following formula:

FA = F × I

Where:

FA = the inflation-adjusted future year fee amount.

F = the fee specified in paragraph (c) of this section.

I = Producer Price Index for Chemicals and Allied Products inflation value with 2024 as a base year.

(2) Updated fee amounts for PMNs, SNUNs, MCANs, exemption notices, exemption applications, and manufacturer-requested risk evaluation requests apply to submissions received by the Agency on or after October 1 of every three-year fee adjustment cycle beginning in fiscal year 2024 (October 1, 2023). Updated fee amounts also apply to test rules, test orders, enforceable consent agreements and EPA-initiated risk evaluations that are “noticed” on or after October 1 of every three-year fee adjustment cycle, beginning in fiscal year 2026.

(3) The Agency will initiate public consultation through notice-and-comment rulemaking prior to making fee adjustments beyond inflation. If it is determined that no additional adjustment is necessary beyond for inflation, EPA will provide public notice of the inflation-adjusted fee amounts through posting to the Agency's web page by the beginning of each three-year fee adjustment cycle (October 1, 2026, October 1, 2029, etc.). If the Agency determines that adjustments beyond inflation are necessary, EPA will provide public notice of that determination and the process to be followed to make those adjustments.

* * * * *

(f) * * *

(2) * * *

(i) The consortium must identify a principal sponsor and provide notification to EPA that a consortium has formed. The notification must be accomplished within 90 days of the publication date of a test rule under section 4 of the Act, or within 90 days of the effective date of a test order under section 4 of the Act, or within 90 days of the signing of an enforceable consent agreement under section 4 of the Act. EPA may permit additional entities to join an existing consortium after the expiration of the notification period if the principal sponsor provides updated notification.

* * * * *

(3) * * *

(i) Notification must be provided to EPA that a consortium has formed. The notification must be accomplished within 90 days of the publication of the final scope of a chemical risk evaluation under section 6(b)(4)(D) of the Act or within 90 days of EPA providing notification to a manufacturer that a manufacturer-requested risk evaluation has been granted. EPA may permit additional entities to join an existing consortium after the expiration of the notification period if the principal sponsor provides updated notification.

* * * * *

(4) If multiple persons are subject to fees triggered by section 4 or 6(b) of the Act and no consortium is formed, EPA will determine the portion of the total applicable fee to be remitted by each person subject to the requirement.

(i) Each person's share of the applicable fees triggered by section 4 of the Act specified in paragraph (c) of this section shall be in proportion to the total number of manufacturers and/or processors of the chemical substance, with lower fees for small businesses:



Where:

P s = the portion of the fee under paragraph (c) of this section that is owed by a person who qualifies as a small business concern under §700.43 of this chapter.

P o = the portion of the fee owed by a person other than a small business concern.

F = the total fee required under paragraph (c) of this section.

M t = the total number of persons subject to the fee requirement.

M s = the number of persons subject to the fee requirement who qualify as a small business concern.

(ii) Each person's share of the applicable fees triggered by section 6(b) of the Act specified in paragraph (c) of this section shall be in proportion to the total number of manufacturers and their reported production volume as described in §700.45(b)(v) of the chemical substance, with lower fees for small businesses:



(iii) Remaining manufacturers ( i.e., those that do not qualify as a small business concern) are then ranked in ascending order (from lowest to highest) based on reported production volume as described in §700.45(b)(v). Each remaining manufacturer is assigned a number with 1 for lowest production volume, 2 for second lowest production volume, etc.

Table 1 to Paragraph(f)(4)(iii)—Example of Placing Manufacturers That Do Not Qualify as a Small Business Concern in Ascending Order
Manufacturer(s)Assigned No. (N)
Manufacturer with lowest production volume1
Manufacturer with 2nd lowest production volume2
Manufacturer with 3rd lowest production volume3
. . . etc.



Where:

P s = the portion of the fee under paragraph (c) of this section that is owed by a person who qualifies as a small business concern under §700.43 of this chapter.

P ≥20th = the portion of the fee owed by a person other than a small business concern in the top 20th percentile.

P <20th = the portion of the fee owed by a person other than a small business concern not in the top 20th percentile.

F = the total fee required under paragraph (c) of this section.

M t = the total number of persons subject to the fee requirement.

M s = the number of persons subject to the fee requirement who qualify as a small business concern.

N 20th = The assigned number as illustrated in Table 1 to the manufacturer(s) with a production volume as described in §1.45(b)(v) at which the manufacturers with production volume greater than or equal to are in the top 20th percentile.

M ≥20th = the total number of persons with production volume as described in 700.45(b)(v) greater than or equal to the manufacturer(s) with a production volume as N 20th .

M <20th = the total number of persons with production volume as described in 700.45(b)(v) less than the manufacturer(s) with a production volume as N 20th .

F o = the total fee required under paragraph (c) of this section by all person(s) other than a small business concern.

(iv) In the event there are three or less manufacturers identified for a chemical substance, EPA will distribute the fee evenly among those three or less fee payers, regardless of production volume.

(v) In the event the number assigned to the top 20th percentile is not an integer, EPA will round to the nearest integer to determine the manufacturer(s) with the reported production volume as described in §700.45(b)(v) greater than or equal to the top 20th percentile.

(vi) In the event multiple manufacturers report the same production volume as described in §700.45(b)(v) and are greater than or equal to the top 20th percentile, EPA will include all manufacturers with that same production volume in the fee calculation for the top 20th percentile group.

(5) If multiple persons are subject to fees triggered by section 4 of the Act and some inform EPA of their intent to form a consortium while others choose not to associate with the consortium, EPA will take the following steps to allocate fee amounts:

(i) Count the total number of manufacturers, including the number of manufacturers within any consortia; divide the total fee amount by the total number of manufacturers; and allocate equally on a per capita basis to generate a base fee;

(ii) Provide all small businesses who are either not associated with a consortium, or associated with an all- small business consortium, with an 80% discount from the base fee referenced previously;

(iii) Calculate the total remaining fee and total number of remaining manufacturers by subtracting out the discounted fees and the number of small businesses identified;

(iv) Reallocate the remaining fee across those remaining individuals and groups in equal amounts, counting each manufacturer in a consortium as one person; and

(v) Inform consortia and individuals of their requisite fee amount. Small businesses in a successfully-formed consortium, other than a consortium of all small businesses, will not be afforded the 80% discount by EPA, but consortia managers are strongly encouraged to provide a discount for small business concerns.

* * * * *

(g) * * *

(3) * * *

(i) Test orders and test rules. The applicable fee specified in paragraph (c) of this section shall be paid in full not later than 180 days after the effective date of a test rule or test order under section 4 of the Act.

* * * * *

(iv) Risk evaluations. (A) For EPA-initiated risk evaluations, the applicable fee specified in paragraph (c) of this section shall be paid in two installments, with the first payment of 50% due 180 days after publishing the final scope of a risk evaluation and the second payment for the remainder of the fee due 545 days after publishing the final scope of a risk evaluation under section 6(b)(4)(D) of the Act.

(B) For manufacturer-requested risk evaluations under section 6(b)(4)(C)(ii) of the Act, the applicable fees specified in paragraph (c) of this section shall be paid as follows:

( 1 ) The applicable fee specified in paragraph (c) of this section shall be paid in three installments. The first payment shall be due no later than 180 days after EPA provides the submitting manufacture(s) notice that it has granted the request.

( 2 ) The second payment shall be due no later than 545 days after EPA provides the submitting manufacturer(s) notice that it has granted the request.

( 3 ) The final payment shall be due no later than 30 days after EPA publishes the final risk evaluation.

* * * * *

(5) Small business certification. (i) Each person who remits the fee identified in paragraph (c)(1) of this section for a PMN, consolidated PMN, or SNUN shall insert a check mark for the statement, “The company named in part 1, section A is a small business concern under 40 CFR 700.43 and has remitted a fee of $6,480 in accordance with 40 CFR 700.45(c).” under “CERTIFICATION” on page 2 of the Premanufacture Notice for New Chemical Substances (EPA Form 7710–25).

(ii) Each person who remits the fee identified in paragraph (c)(1) of this section for a LVE, LoREX, TERA, TME, or Tier II exemption request under TSCA section 5 shall insert a check mark for the statement, “The company named in part 1, section A is a small business concern under 40 CFR 700.43 and has remitted a fee of $2,180 in accordance with 40 CFR 700.45(c).” in the exemption application.

(iii) Each person who remits the fee identified in paragraph (c)(1) of this section for an exemption notice under §723.175 of this chapter shall include the words, “The company or companies identified in this notice is/are a small business concern under 40 CFR 700.43 and has/have remitted a fee of $2,180 in accordance with 40 CFR 700.45(c).” in the certification required in §723.175(i)(1)(x) of this chapter.

(iv) Each person who remits the fee identified in paragraph (c)(1) of this section for a MCAN or consolidated MCAN for a microorganism shall insert a check mark for the statement, “The company named in part 1, section A is a small business concern under 40 CFR 700.43 and has remitted a fee of $6,480 in accordance with 40 CFR 700.45(c).” in the certification required in §725.25(b) of this chapter.

(6) Payment certification statement. (i) Each person who remits a fee identified in paragraph (c)(2) of this section for a PMN, consolidated PMN, or SNUN shall insert a check mark for the statement, “The company named in part 1, section A has remitted the fee of $37,000 specified in 40 CFR 700.45(c).” under “CERTIFICATION” on page 2 of the Premanufacture Notice for New Chemical Substances (EPA Form 7710–25).

(ii) Each person who remits a fee identified in paragraph (c)(2) of this section for a LVE, LoREX, TERA, TME, or Tier II exemption request under TSCA section 5 shall insert a check mark for the statement, “The company named in part 1, section A has remitted the fee of $10,870 specified in 40 CFR 700.45(c).” in the exemption application.

(iii) Each person who remits the fee identified in paragraph (c)(2) of this section for an exemption notice under §723.175 of this chapter shall include the words, “The company or companies identified in this notice has/have remitted a fee of $10,870 in accordance with 40 CFR 700.45(c).” in the certification required in §723.175(i)(1)(x) of this chapter.

(iv) Each person who remits the fee identified in paragraph (c)(2) of this section for a MCAN for a microorganism shall insert a check mark for the statement, “The company named in part 1, section A has remitted the fee of $37,000 in accordance with 40 CFR 700.45(c).” in the certification required in §725.25(b) of this chapter.

2024-02-16T06:00:00Z

EPA Final Rule: Requirements for Polymer Exemption Reports and Accompanying Claims; Extension of Deadline for 2024

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is amending the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) regulations for polymers manufactured under the terms of the polymer exemption by extending the submission deadline for reporting. The regulations require that manufacturers (includes importers) of polymers manufactured under the terms of the exemption submit a report of manufacture or import by January 31 of the year subsequent to initial manufacture. On June 7, 2023, EPA amended the exemption reporting requirement to require that the exemption report and accompanying confidentiality claims be submitted electronically. Because EPA experienced technical difficulties with the launch of the new electronic reporting tool, EPA is extending the reporting period for 2024 from January 31 to March 31 to allow manufacturers additional time to submit their reports and accompanying claims to EPA using the electronic reporting tool.

DATES: This final rule is effective on February 16, 2024, published in the Federal Register February 16, 2024, page 12248.

View final rule.

§723.250 Polymers.
(f) introductory textRevisedView text

Previous Text

§723.250 Polymers.

* * * * *

(f) Exemption report for polymers manufactured under the terms of this section. For substances exempt under paragraphs (e)(1) through (3) of this section a report of manufacture or import must be submitted by January 31 of the year subsequent to initial manufacture. The report and accompanying claims must be submitted via CDX (https://cdx.epa.gov/), using the TSCA Section 5 Notices and Supports—ePMN application. See §720.40(a)(2)(ii) of this subchapter for information on how to access e-PMN software. The notice must include:

* * * * *

2024-02-16T06:00:00Z

EPA Final Rule: Deletion From the National Priorities List

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announces the deletion of one site and partially deletion of two sites from the Superfund National Priorities List (NPL). The NPL, created under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) of 1980, as amended, is an appendix of the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP). The EPA and the States, through their designated State agencies, have determined that all appropriate response actions under CERCLA have been completed. However, this deletion does not preclude future actions under Superfund.

DATES: The document is effective February 16, 2024, published in the Federal Register February 16, 2024, page 12246.

Appendix B to Part 300—National Priorities List
Table 1 entry for “NJ”, “Universal Oil Products (Chemical Division”, “East Rutherford”RevisedView text
Table 2 entry for “ME”, “Portsmouth Naval Shipyard”, “Kittery”RemovedView text

Previous Text

Appendix B to Part 300—National Priorities List

Table 1—General Superfund Section
StateSite nameCity/countyNotes (a)
* * * ** * * ** * * ** * * *
NJUniversal Oil Products (Chemical Division)East Rutherford
* * * ** * * ** * * ** * * *
*P = Sites with partial deletion(s).
2024-02-14T06:00:00Z

EPA Final Rule: New Source Performance Standards Review for Steel Plants

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is taking interim final action on corrections and clarifications to the new source performance standards (NSPS) for electric arc furnaces and argon-oxygen decarburization vessels in the steel industry. The corrections and clarifications are being made to address unintended and inadvertent errors in the recently finalized standards.

DATES: This interim final rule is effective on February 14, 2024, published in the Federal Register February 14, 2024, page 11198.

View final rule.

§60.273 Emission monitoring.
(c) and (d)(2) Revised View text
§60.274 Monitoring of operations.
(b)(1), (b)(3), and (c)Revised View text
(i)(9)Revised View text
§60.276 Recordkeeping and reporting requirements.
(a)Revised View text
§60.273a Emission monitoring.
(c) and (d)(2) Revised View text
§60.274a Monitoring of operations.
(b)(1), (b)(3), and (c)Revised View text
(h)(9)Revised View text
§60.276a Recordkeeping and reporting requirements.
(c)Revised View text
§60.271b Definitions.
definition “Shop opacity”Revised View text
§60.272b Standard for particulate matter.
(a)(3)Revised View text
§60.273b Emission monitoring.
(c), (d)(2), (d)(3), and (e) introductory textRevised View text
§60.274b Monitoring of operations.
(b) and (c) Revised View text
(h)(9)Revised View text
§60.276b Recordkeeping and reporting requirements.
(c)Revised View text

Previous Text

§60.273 Emission monitoring.

* * * *

(c) A continuous monitoring system for the measurement of the opacity of emissions discharged into the atmosphere from the control device(s) is not required on any modular, multi-stack, negative-pressure or positive- pressure fabric filter or on any single-stack fabric filter if observations of the opacity of the visible emissions from the control device are performed by a certified visible emission observer and the owner installs and operates a bag leak detection system according to paragraph (e) of this section whenever the control device is being used to remove particulate matter from the EAF. Visible emission observations shall be conducted at least once per day of the control device for at least three 6-minute periods when the furnace is operating in the melting and refining period. All visible emissions observations shall be conducted in accordance with EPA Method 9 of appendix A to this part, or, as an alternative, according to ASTM D7520–16 (incorporated by reference, see §60.17), with the caveats described under Shop opacity in §60.271. If visible emissions occur from more than one point, the opacity shall be recorded for any points where visible emissions are observed. Where it is possible to determine that a number of visible emission points relate to only one incident of the visible emission, only one set of three 6-minute observations will be required. In that case, the EPA Method 9 observations must be made for the point of highest opacity that directly relates to the cause (or location) of visible emissions observed during a single incident. Records shall be maintained of any 6-minute average that is in excess of the emission limit specified in §60.272(a)(2).

(d) * * *

(2) No less than once per week, commencing from the tap of one EAF heat cycle to the tap of the following heat cycle. A melt shop with more than one EAF shall conduct these readings while both EAFs are in operation. Both EAFs are not required to be on the same schedule for tapping.

* * * *

§60.274 Monitoring of operations.

* * * *

(b) * * *

(1) Monitor and record on a continuous basis the rolling 15-minute average furnace static pressure (if a DEC system is in use, and a furnace static pressure gauge is installed according to paragraph (f) of this section) and either:

(i) Install, calibrate, and maintain a monitoring device that continuously records the capture system fan motor amperes and damper position(s);

(ii) Install, calibrate, and maintain a monitoring device that continuously records on a rolling 15-minute average basis either the volumetric flow rate through each separately ducted hood; or

(iii) Install, calibrate, and maintain a monitoring device that continuously records the volumetric flow rate at the control device inlet and continuously record damper position(s).

* * * *

(3) Parameters monitored pursuant to this paragraph, excluding damper position, shall be recorded on a rolling averaging period not to exceed 15 minutes.

(c) When the owner or operator of an affected facility is required to demonstrate compliance with the standards under §60.272(a)(3) and at any other time that the Administrator may require (under section 114 of the CAA, as amended), the owner or operator shall determine during periods in which a hood is operated for the purpose of capturing emissions from the affected facility subject to paragraph (b) of this section, either:

(1) Monitor and record the fan motor amperes at each damper position, and damper position consistent with paragraph (i)(5) of this section;

(2) install, calibrate, and maintain a monitoring device that continuously records the volumetric flow rate through each separately ducted hood; or

(3) install, calibrate, and maintain a monitoring device that continuously records the volumetric flow rate at the control device inlet and monitor and record the damper position consistent with paragraph (i)(5) of this section.

(4) Parameters monitored pursuant to this paragraph, excluding damper position, shall be recorded on a rolling averaging period not to exceed 15 minutes.

(5) The owner or operator may petition the Administrator or delegated authority for reestablishment of these parameters whenever the owner or operator can demonstrate to the Administrator's or delegated authority's satisfaction that the EAF operating conditions upon which the parameters were previously established are no longer applicable. The values of the parameters as determined during the most recent demonstration of compliance shall be the appropriate operational range or control set point throughout each applicable period. Operation at values beyond the accepted operational range or control set point may be subject to the requirements of §60.276(a).

* * * *

(i) * * *

(9) Parameters monitored pursuant to paragraphs (i)(6)–(8) of this section shall be recorded on a rolling averaging period not to exceed 15 minutes.

* * * *

§60.276 Recordkeeping and reporting requirements.

(a) Continuous operation at a furnace static pressure that exceeds the operational range or control setting under §60.274(g), for owners and operators that elect to install a furnace static pressure monitoring device under §60.274(f) or operation at flow rates lower than those established under §60.274(c) may be considered by the Administrator or delegated authority to be unacceptable operation and maintenance of the affected facility. Operation at such values shall be reported to the Administrator or delegated authority semiannually.

* * * *

§60.273a Emission monitoring.

* * * *

(c) A continuous monitoring system for the measurement of the opacity of emissions discharged into the atmosphere from the control device(s) is not required on any modular, multi-stack, negative-pressure or positive-pressure fabric filter or on any single-stack fabric filter if observations of the opacity of the visible emissions from the control device are performed by a certified visible emission observer and the owner installs and operates a bag leak detection system according to paragraph (e) of this section whenever the control device is being used to remove particulate matter from the EAF or AOD. Visible emission observations shall be conducted at least once per day of the control device for at least three 6-minute periods when the furnace is operating in the melting and refining period. All visible emissions observations shall be conducted in accordance with EPA Method 9, or, as an alternative, according to ASTM D7520–16 (incorporated by reference, see §60.17), with the caveats described under Shop opacity in §60.271. If visible emissions occur from more than one point, the opacity shall be recorded for any points where visible emissions are observed. Where it is possible to determine that a number of visible emission points relate to only one incident of the visible emission, only one set of three 6-minute observations will be required. In that case, the EPA Method 9 observations must be made for the point of highest opacity that directly relates to the cause (or location) of visible emissions observed during a single incident. Records shall be maintained of any 6-minute average that is in excess of the emission limit specified in §60.272a(a)(2).

* * * *

(d)* * *

(2) No less than once per week, commencing from the tap of one EAF heat cycle to the tap of the following heat cycle. A melt shop with more than one EAF shall conduct these readings while both EAFs are in operation. Both EAFs are not required to be on the same schedule for tapping.

* * * *

§60.274a Monitoring of operations.

* * * *

(b) * * *

(1) Monitor and record on a continuous basis the rolling 15-minute average furnace static pressure (if a DEC system is in use, and a furnace static pressure gauge is installed according to paragraph (f) of this section) and either:

(i) Install, calibrate, and maintain a monitoring device that continuously records the capture system fan motor amperes and damper position(s);

(ii) Install, calibrate, and maintain a monitoring device that continuously records on a rolling 15-minute average basis either the volumetric flow rate through each separately ducted hood; or

(iii) Install, calibrate, and maintain a monitoring device that continuously records the volumetric flow rate at the control device inlet continuously record damper positions(s).

* * * *

(3) Parameters monitored pursuant to this paragraph, excluding damper position, shall be recorded on a rolling averaging period not to exceed 15 minutes.

(c) When the owner or operator of an affected facility is required to demonstrate compliance with the standards under §60.272a(a)(3) and at any other time that the Administrator may require (under section 114 of the CAA, as amended), the owner or operator shall determine during periods in which a hood is operated for the purpose of capturing emissions from the affected facility subject to paragraph (b) of this section, all damper positions and either the:

(1) Monitor and record the fan motor amperes at each damper position, and damper position consistent with paragraph (h)(5) of this section;

(2) Install, calibrate, and maintain a monitoring device that continuously records the volumetric flow rate through each separately ducted hood; or

(3) Install, calibrate, and maintain a monitoring device that continuously records the volumetric flow rate at the control device inlet and monitor and record the damper position consistent with paragraph (h)(5) of this section.

(4) Parameters monitored pursuant to this paragraph, excluding damper position, shall be recorded on a rolling averaging period not to exceed 15 minutes.

(5) The owner or operator may petition the Administrator or delegated authority for reestablishment of these parameters whenever the owner or operator can demonstrate to the Administrator's or delegated authority's satisfaction that the affected facility operating conditions upon which the parameters were previously established are no longer applicable. The values of the parameters as determined during the most recent demonstration of compliance shall be the appropriate operational range or control set point throughout each applicable period. Operation at values beyond the accepted operational range or control set point may be subject to the requirements of §60.276a(c).

* * * *

(h) * * *

(9) Parameters monitored pursuant to paragraphs (h)(6) through (8) of this section shall be recorded on a rolling averaging period not to exceed 15 minutes.

§60.276a Recordkeeping and reporting requirements.

* * * *

(c) Continuous operation at a furnace static pressure that exceeds the operational range or control setting under §60.274a(g), for owners and operators that elect to install a furnace static pressure monitoring device under §60.274a(f) or operation at flow rates lower than those established under §60.274a(c) may be considered by the Administrator or delegated authority to be unacceptable operation and maintenance of the affected facility. Operation at such values shall be reported to the Administrator or delegated authority semiannually.

* * * *

§60.271b Definitions.

* * * *

Shop opacity means the arithmetic average of 24 observations of the opacity of any EAF or AOD emissions emanating from, and not within, the shop, during melting and refining, and during tapping, taken in accordance with EPA Method 9 of appendix A of this part, and during charging, according to the procedures in section 2.5 of Method 9 in appendix A to part 60 of this chapter, with the modification to determine the 3-minute block average opacity from the average of 12 consecutive observations recorded at 15-second intervals. For the daily opacity observation during melting and refining, during charging, and during tapping, facilities may measure opacity by EPA Method 22 of appendix A of this part, modified to require the recording of the aggregate duration of visible emissions at 15 second intervals. Alternatively, ASTM D7520–16 (incorporated by reference, see §60.17), may be used with the following five conditions:

(1) During the digital camera opacity technique (DCOT) certification procedure outlined in Section 9.2 of ASTM D7520–16 (incorporated by reference, see §60.17), the owner or operator or the DCOT vendor must present the plumes in front of various backgrounds of color and contrast representing conditions anticipated during field use such as blue sky, trees, and mixed backgrounds (clouds and/or a sparse tree stand);

(2) The owner or operator must also have standard operating procedures in place including daily or other frequency quality checks to ensure the equipment is within manufacturing specifications as outlined in Section 8.1 of ASTM D7520–16 (incorporated by reference, see §60.17);

(3) The owner or operator must follow the recordkeeping procedures outlined in §60.7(f) for the DCOT certification, compliance report, data sheets, and all raw unaltered JPEGs used for opacity and certification determination;

(4) The owner or operator or the DCOT vendor must have a minimum of four independent technology users apply the software to determine the visible opacity of the 300 certification plumes. For each set of 25 plumes, the user may not exceed 15 percent opacity of anyone reading and the average error must not exceed 7.5 percent opacity;

(5) Use of this approved alternative does not provide or imply a certification or validation of any vendor's hardware or software. The onus to maintain and verify the certification and/or training of the DCOT camera, software, and operator in accordance with ASTM D7520–16 (incorporated by reference, see §60.17) and these requirements is on the facility, DCOT operator, and DCOT vendor.

* * * *

§60.272b Standard for particulate matter.

(a) * * *

(3) Exit from a shop and, due solely to the operations of any affected EAF(s) or AOD vessel(s) during melting and refining exhibit greater than 0 percent opacity, and during charging exhibit greater than 6 percent opacity, as measured in accordance with EPA Method 9 of appendix A of this part, and during charging, exhibit greater than 6 percent opacity, as measured according to the procedures in section 2.5 of Method 9 in appendix A to part 60 of this chapter, with the modification of this section of Method 9 to determine the 3-minute block average opacity from the average of 12 consecutive observations recorded at 15-second intervals; or, as an alternative, according to ASTM D7520–16 (incorporated by reference, see §60.17), with the caveats described under Shop opacity in §60.271 or, for the daily opacity observations, exhibit 0 seconds of visible emissions as measured by EPA Method 22 of appendix A of this part, modified to require the recording of the aggregate duration of visible emissions at 15 second intervals. Shop opacity shall be recorded for any point(s) during melting and refining, during charging, and during tapping where visible emissions are observed. Where it is possible to determine that a number of visible emission sites relate to only one incident of visible emissions during melting and refining, during charging, or during tapping, only one observation of shop opacity or visible emissions will be required during melting and refining, during charging, or during tapping. In this case, the shop opacity or visible emissions observations must be made for the point of highest emissions during melting and refining, during charging, or during tapping that directly relates to the cause (or location) of visible emissions observed during a single incident.

* * * *

§60.273b Emission monitoring.

* * * *

(c) A continuous monitoring system for the measurement of the opacity of emissions discharged into the atmosphere from the control device(s) is not required on any modular, multi-stack, negative-pressure or positive-pressure fabric filter or on any single-stack fabric filter if observations of the opacity of the visible emissions from the control device are performed by a certified visible emission observer and the owner installs and operates a bag leak detection system according to paragraph (e) of this section whenever the control device is being used to remove particulate matter from the EAF or AOD. Visible emission observations shall be conducted at least once per day on the control device for at least three 6-minute periods when the furnace is operating in the melting and refining period. All visible emissions observations shall be conducted in accordance with EPA Method 9, or, as an alternative, according to ASTM D7520–16 (incorporated by reference, see §60.17), with the caveats described under Shop opacity in §60.271. If visible emissions occur from more than one point, the opacity shall be recorded for any points where visible emissions are observed. Where it is possible to determine that a number of visible emission points relate to only one incident of the visible emission, only one set of three 6-minute observations will be required. In that case, the EPA Method 9 observations must be made for the point of highest opacity that directly relates to the cause (or location) of visible emissions observed during a single incident. Records shall be maintained of any 6-minute average that is in excess of the emission limit specified in §60.272b(a)(2).

(d)* * *

(2) No less than once per week, commencing from the tap of one EAF heat cycle to the tap of the following heat cycle. A melt shop with more than one EAF shall conduct these readings while both EAFs are in operation. Both EAFs are not required to be on the same schedule for tapping.

(3) Shop opacity shall be determined as the arithmetic average of 24 consecutive 15-second opacity observations of emissions from the shop taken in accordance with EPA Method 9 during melting and refining and during tapping; and during charging determined according to the procedures in section 2.5 of Method 9 in appendix A to part 60 of this chapter, with the modification to determine the 3-minute block average opacity from the average of 12 consecutive observations recorded at 15-second intervals; or, as an alternative, according to ASTM D7520–16 (incorporated by reference, see §60.17), with the caveats described under Shop opacity in §60.271, or as the total duration of visible emissions measured according to EPA Method 22 over a six minute period, modified to require the recording of the aggregate duration of visible emissions at 15 second intervals. Shop opacity shall be recorded for any point(s) where visible emissions are observed. Where it is possible to determine that a number of visible emission points relate to only one incident of visible emissions, only one observation of shop opacity will be required. In this case, the shop opacity observations must be made for the point of highest opacity that directly relates to the cause (or location) of visible emissions observed during a single incident. Shop opacity shall be determined daily during melting and refining, during charging, and during tapping.

(e) A bag leak detection system must be installed on all fabric filters and operated on all single-stack fabric filters whenever the control device is being used to remove particulate matter from the EAF or AOD vessel if the owner or operator elects not to install and operate a continuous opacity monitoring system as provided for under paragraph (c) of this section. In addition, the owner or operator shall meet the visible emissions observation requirements in paragraph (c) of this section. The bag leak detection system must meet the specifications and requirements of paragraphs (e)(1) through (8) of this section.

§60.274b Monitoring of operations.

* * * *

(b) Except as provided under paragraph (e) of this section, the owner or operator subject to the provisions of this subpart shall conduct the following monitoring of the capture system to demonstrate continuous compliance:

(1) If a DEC system is in use, according to paragraph (f) of this section, monitor and record on a continuous basis the furnace static pressure and any one of (2) through (4) in this paragraph:

(2) Monitor and record the fan motor amperes at each damper position, and damper position consistent with paragraph (h)(5) of this section;

(3) Install, calibrate, and maintain a monitoring device that continuously records the volumetric air flow rate or static pressure at each separately ducted hood; or

(4) Install, calibrate, and maintain a monitoring device that continuously records the volumetric flow rate at the control device inlet and monitor and record the damper position consistent with paragraph (h)(5) of this section.

(5) The static pressure monitoring device(s) shall be installed in an EAF or DEC duct prior to combining with other ducts and prior to the introduction of ambient air, at a location that has no flow disturbance due to the junctions.

(6) The volumetric flow monitoring device(s) may be installed in any appropriate location in the capture system such that reproducible flow rate monitoring will result. The flow rate monitoring device(s) shall have an accuracy of ±10 percent over its normal operating range and shall be calibrated according to the manufacturer's instructions. The Administrator may require the owner or operator to demonstrate the accuracy of the monitoring device(s) relative to EPA Methods 1 and 2 of appendix A of this part.

(7) Parameters monitored pursuant to this paragraph, excluding damper position, shall be recorded on a rolling averaging period not to exceed 15 minutes.

(c) When the owner or operator of an affected facility is required to demonstrate compliance with the standards under §60.272b(a)(3) and at any other time that the Administrator may require (under section 114 of the CAA, as amended), the owner or operator shall determine during all periods in which a hood is operated for the purpose of capturing emissions from the affected facility subject to paragraph (b) of this section, either:

(1) Monitor and record the fan motor amperes at each damper position, and damper position consistent with paragraph (h)(5) of this section;

(2) install, calibrate, and maintain a monitoring device that continuously records the volumetric flow rate through each separately ducted hood; or

(3) install, calibrate, and maintain a monitoring device that continuously records the volumetric flow rate at the control device inlet and monitor and record the damper position consistent with paragraph (h)(5) of this section.

(4) Parameters monitored pursuant to this paragraph, excluding damper position, shall be recorded on a rolling averaging period not to exceed 15 minutes.

(5) The owner or operator may petition the Administrator or delegated authority for reestablishment of these parameters whenever the owner or operator can demonstrate to the Administrator's or delegated authority's satisfaction that the affected facility operating conditions upon which the parameters were previously established are no longer applicable. The values of the parameters as determined during the most recent demonstration of compliance shall be the appropriate operational range or control set point throughout each applicable period. Operation at values beyond the accepted operational range or control set point may be subject to the requirements of §60.276b(c).

* * * *

(h) * * *

(9) Parameters monitored pursuant to paragraphs (h)(6)–(8) of this section shall be recorded on a rolling averaging period not to exceed 15 minutes.

§60.276b Recordkeeping and reporting requirements.

* * * *

(c) Operation at a furnace static pressure that exceeds the operational range or control setting under §60.274b(g), for owners and operators that elect to install a furnace static pressure monitoring device under 60.274b(f) or operation ranges or control settings outside of those established under §60.274b(c) may be considered by the Administrator or delegated authority to be unacceptable operation and maintenance of the affected facility. Operation at such values shall be reported to the Administrator or delegated authority semiannually.

* * * *

Clearing the air: EPA's latest move to combat fine particulate matter
2024-02-14T06:00:00Z

Clearing the air: EPA's latest move to combat fine particulate matter

On February 7, 2024, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) made a significant move to improve air quality by finalizing a rule that lowers the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for fine particulate matter (PM2.5). This marks the first time in a decade that such a change has been implemented. The new rule reduces the primary annual PM2.5 standard from 12.0 micrograms per cubic meter to 9.0 micrograms per cubic meter.

It's important to note that this adjustment focuses on the primary annual PM2.5 standard. Other air quality standards for PM remain unchanged, including the primary 24-hour PM2.5 standard, the primary 24-hour coarse PM (PM10) standard, and the secondary PM2.5 and PM10 standards. This development underscores EPA's commitment to safeguarding public health and the environment.

Key changes

The final rule:

  • Lowers the primary annual PM2.5 standard. This stricter standard reflects the latest scientific evidence and is expected to prevent thousands of premature deaths and improve public health across the country.
  • Makes targeted improvements. EPA is also taking steps to address air quality disparities by focusing on monitoring and pollution-reduction efforts in communities disproportionately affected by PM2.5.
  • Enhances communication. The agency is revising the Air Quality Index to better communicate the health risks associated with different PM2.5 levels.

EPA establishes standards for six harmful pollutants (called criteria pollutants), including carbon monoxide, lead, PM, ozone, nitrogen dioxide, and sulfur dioxide. These standards are based solely on protecting public health and welfare without considering the cost of making changes.

PM2.5, also known as "soot," comes from various sources, such as vehicles, industrial facilities, construction sites, and fires. It’s associated with serious health issues like heart attacks, respiratory illnesses, and premature death. EPA estimates the new standard will prevent around 4,500 premature deaths and 290,000 lost workdays annually by 2032. Additionally, it’s expected to generate approximately $46 billion in net health benefits each year.

Regulatory process

The Clean Air Act requires that EPA review the NAAQS every five years to ensure their adequacy. The process is a multistage, robust review of the current science that requires significant expert input. If a standard is tightened, there’s a cascading effect on air quality policies and programs across the country. States and local regions must ensure that the sources of pollution in their area decrease their emissions so that the region can meet the new, more stringent national standard.

The effective date of the strengthened PM2.5 standard isn’t immediate. The rule becomes officially effective 60 days after it’s published in the Federal Register. This is expected to happen sometime in April 2024.

Implementation is a multiphase process driven by requirements in the Clean Air Act. In the first phase, EPA makes initial designations of whether areas meet the revised standards. States then develop and submit State Implementation Plans (or SIPs) outlining how to achieve the new standards. This phase, which must be done within three years, involves identifying emission sources, setting regulations, and implementing control measures.

Potential impacts

An industrial source with high emissions must apply for a permit to build a facility or expand operations in a way that increases air pollution. Here’s how your facility may be affected:

  • If your facility has a final permit in hand before the effective date of the new standard, no new permitting requirements will apply.
  • If your facility has a permit in process when the new standard takes effect, you must conduct an air quality analysis that considers the revised standard.
  • If you have plans to build a new facility or expand an existing one, you need to work with the permitting agency to estimate how much particle pollution will be emitted and choose the best available air pollution control technology to meet the new standard.

Key to remember: EPA finalized a rule to tighten the NAAQS for fine particulate matter, lowering the primary annual standard from 12.0 to 9.0 micrograms per cubic meter.

See More

Most Recent Highlights In Human Resources

Cash-strapped EPA hikes TSCA fees for chemical activities
2024-02-13T06:00:00Z

Cash-strapped EPA hikes TSCA fees for chemical activities

Inside EPA, the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) program may have, for years, looked much like a scene from an episode of “I Love Lucy,” where Lucy and Ethel take jobs at a chocolate factory. Instead of wrapping chocolates that whizzed by on a production line, however, EPA scientists faced an avalanche of new chemical submissions. A final rule, though, set to appear in the Federal Register may give these scientists some relief.

Funding problem

Prior to 2016, the agency had been reviewing just 20 percent of all new chemicals in 90 days before they entered commerce. The remaining 80 percent sailed through the new chemical submittal process without as much scrutiny and were stamped approved in 90 days.

Then, in 2016, a new law stepped things up. It mandated the review of 100 percent of new chemical submissions in the 90-day time frame. Despite the increase in duties, the agency suffered insufficient funding and staffing for the TSCA program. That meant many chemicals were stuck in review and could not go to market. Even those chemicals needed for modern technologies like semiconductors, batteries, and biotech faced the same bottleneck. Stakeholders on all sides were frustrated.

In a Congressional hearing on January 24 this year, EPA Assistant Administrator Michal Freedhoff, Ph.D., concluded: “The truth is we’re not able to achieve all that TSCA was expected to. The problem’s clear. TSCA’s underfunded … We don’t need to change the law. We need funding to implement the law we have.”

New final rule

Now, though, EPA posted a pre-publication version of a final rule to increase TSCA fees, as authorized under the law. The rule updates how EPA will recover authorized costs and ensure that collected fees provide the agency with 25 percent of authorized costs. It takes effect 60 days after the rule is published in the Federal Register.

Fee triggers

The rule would require payment of fees for eight categories of activities or events under TSCA sections 4, 5, and 6:

  • Test rules under TSCA section 4;
  • Enforceable consent agreements under TSCA section 4;
  • Test orders under TSCA section 4;
  • Pre-manufacture notices (PMNs), significant new use notices (SNUNs), and microbial commercial activity notices (MCANs) under TSCA section 5;
  • New chemical exemption applications (for low volumes, test marketing, TSCA environmental releases, etc.) under TSCA section 5;
  • EPA-initiated risk evaluations under TSCA section 6;
  • Manufacturer-requested risk evaluations for chemicals on the TSCA work plan; and
  • Manufacturer-requested risk evaluations for chemicals not on the TSCA work plan.

Who pays?

Most fee responsibilities under the rule are assigned to chemical manufacturers (including importers). In certain cases, fees may also apply to chemical processors. An example would be when a processor submits a SNUN under TSCA section 5 or is identified in a TSCA section 4 test order.

Entities that meet the definition of a “small business concern,” as defined, can receive a discount of approximately 80 percent.

Where multiple entities are subject to a fee, the final rule allows those entities to pay individually or through a consortium of payers. EPA will divide the total fee amongst responsible individual and joint payers per a formula and process described in the rule.

Fees may change in the future

During fiscal years 2024-2026, EPA says it will work to track actual TSCA implementation costs and use that data to adjust future fees, if appropriate. As required by law, EPA will evaluate and re-adjust the fees, if necessary, every three years. Note that the TSCA program is also funded, in part, by the Congressional budget.

More information

For TSCA funding and fees information, visit our TSCA Fees discussion and EPA’s “Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) Administration Fees” webpage.

Also check out the archived webcast, “Oversight of Toxic Substances Control Act Amendments Implementation,” a hearing held by the Senate Committee on Environment & Public Works on January 24. That hearing covered “all things TSCA related,” including the ever-controversial topic of worker protections.

In fact, when asked by one Senator why the TSCA Program is suffering “mission creep” into the OSHA arena, Freedhoff explained, “TSCA says that we have to consider the risks to ‘potentially exposed and susceptible subpopulations,’ and that term is explicitly defined to include workers.” She added that OSHA standards don’t protect everyone. By that she meant they don’t cover self-employed workers nor public workers that are not subject to a state OSHA plan. TSCA, then, can fill that gap.

The Senator replied that given the funding issues, “staying in the lane would probably be helpful.”

Key to remember

EPA posted a pre-publication version of a final rule to increase TSCA fees. It takes effect 60 days after publication in the Federal Register.

EHS Monthly Round Up - January 2024

EHS Monthly Round Up - January 2024

In this monthly video, we'll review the most impactful environmental, health, and safety news.

Hi everyone! Welcome to the monthly news roundup video, where we’ll go over the most impactful environmental, health, and safety news. Please view the content links in the transcript for more information about the topics I’ll be covering today. Let’s get started!

Effective January 15, OSHA penalties increased 3.2 percent for inflation. Most penalties increased to $16,131. Willful and serious violations, however, increased to $161,323.

Construction workers aged 45 and older suffer more severe injuries and higher associated costs than other age groups. Most injuries are due to slips, trips, and falls.

Washington State updated its process safety management rules to better protect workers in petroleum refineries from the hazards of volatile chemicals. The rules take effect December 27, 2024.

Bloodborne pathogens topped the list of OSHA violations for the healthcare industry in 2023. Hazard Communication was the second most cited standard, followed by respiratory protection.

OSHA Region 2 launched a regional emphasis program that targets tree trimming, tree removal, and land clearing operations. Region 2 includes New York, New Jersey, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands.

EPA continues to strengthen its regulation of per- and polyfluoroalkyl — or PFAS — substances. A new rule prevents facilities from using any of the 300+ inactive PFAS before EPA conducts a risk determination and, if necessary, regulates the activity.

Thanks for tuning in to the monthly news roundup. We’ll see you next month!

EPA strengthens fine particulate matter air quality standards
2024-02-08T06:00:00Z

EPA strengthens fine particulate matter air quality standards

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) finalized its reconsideration of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Particulate Matter (NAAQS PM), strengthening the annual primary emissions limit of fine particulate matter (PM2.5), also known as soot.

What changed?

Under the Clean Air Act, EPA sets primary and secondary NAAQS. Primary standards focus on protecting human health, while secondary standards concentrate on protecting public welfare (e.g., preventing environmental damage).

In the finalized NAAQS, EPA strengthened the primary annual PM2.5 standard from 12 micrograms per cubic meter to 9 micrograms per cubic meter. The agency also:

  • Revised the Air Quality Index to improve public communications about health risks from PM2.5 exposures, and
  • Added a monitoring factor to better protect air quality in communities overburdened by air pollution.

What didn’t change?

The agency maintained:

  • The secondary annual PM2.5 standards,
  • The primary and secondary 24-hour PM2.5 standards, and
  • The primary and secondary coarse particulate matter (or PM10) standards.

Does this affect my facility?

Upon the effective date of the final rule, all applicants for permits to construct a new major source or make a major modification to an existing stationary source must conduct an air quality analysis that considers the revised PM2.5 NAAQS. Facilities with a Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) permit in progress must show the new or modified source won’t violate or cause a violation of the new annual primary PM2.5 NAAQS.

When EPA establishes a new NAAQS or revises an existing one, it begins a years-long process to implement the new standards in states:

  • EPA designates areas as either meeting (attainment) or not meeting (nonattainment) the new standards.
  • State and local air agencies develop and submit to EPA infrastructure State Implementation Plans (SIPs) to confirm air quality management programs are in place.
  • Once EPA designates areas, state and local air agencies with nonattainment areas develop and submit to the agency SIPs with the strategies and emissions control measures planned to meet the NAAQS.
  • EPA then reviews the SIPs. It either approves all or parts of a SIP or disapproves the plan. Any control measures EPA approves are immediately enforceable in federal court.

Now is the time to proactively consider ways your facility can further limit PM2.5 emissions. Your organization will be better prepared to comply with any future PM emissions control regulations.

Key to remember: EPA strengthened the annual primary standards for fine particulate matter, also known as soot.

2024-02-08T06:00:00Z

EPA Proposed Rule: Listing of Specific PFAS as Hazardous Constituents

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA or the Agency) is proposing to amend its regulation under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) by adding nine specific per-and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), their salts, and their structural isomers, to its list of hazardous constituents. These nine PFAS are perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA), perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (PFOS), perfluorobutanesulfonic acid (PFBS), hexafluoropropylene oxide-dimer acid (HFPO–DA or GenX), perfluorononanoic acid (PFNA), perfluorohexanesulfonic acid (PFHxS), perfluorodecanoic acid (PFDA), perfluorohexanoic acid (PFHxA), and perfluorobutanoic acid (PFBA). EPA's criteria for listing substances as hazardous constituents under RCRA require that they have been shown in scientific studies to have toxic, carcinogenic, mutagenic, or teratogenic effects on humans or other life forms. EPA reviewed and evaluated key toxicity and epidemiological studies and assessments for the nine PFAS to determine whether the available data for these PFAS meet the Agency's criteria for listing substances as hazardous constituents under RCRA. Based on EPA's evaluation, the above nine PFAS, their salts, and their structural isomers meet the criteria for being listed as RCRA hazardous constituents. As a result of this proposed rule, if finalized, when corrective action requirements are imposed at a facility, these PFAS would be among the hazardous constituents expressly identified for consideration in RCRA facility assessments and, where necessary, further investigation and cleanup through the RCRA corrective action process at RCRA treatment, storage, and disposal facilities.

DATES: This proposed rule is published in the Federal Register February 8, 2024, page 8606.

View proposed rule.

2024-02-08T06:00:00Z

EPA Proposed Rule: Revision to Hazardous Waste Definition

This proposed rule would amend the definition of hazardous waste applicable to corrective action to address releases from solid waste management units at RCRA-permitted treatment, storage, and disposal facilities and make related conforming amendments, thereby providing clear regulatory authority to fully implement the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) statutory requirement that permitted facilities conduct corrective action to address releases not only of substances listed or identified as hazardous waste in the regulations but of any substance that meets the statutory definition of hazardous waste. The proposed rule would also provide notice of EPA's interpretation that the statutory definition of hazardous waste applies to corrective action for releases from solid waste management units at permitted and interim status facilities.

DATES: This proposed rule is published in the Federal Register February 8, 2024, page 8598.

View proposed rule.

See More
New Network Poll
No active poll
Please come back soon!
See More
See More
See More
See More
Saved to my EVENT CALENDAR!
View your saved links by clicking the arrow next to your profile picture located in the header. Then, click “My Activity” to view the Event Calendar on your Activity page.