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.
You'll also get exclusive access to:
TRY IT FREE TODAY
Already have an account? .

On February 26, 2022, the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) extended the existing emergency declaration created due to COVID through May 31, 2022. This declaration includes an exemption from the limits in 395.3 for drivers transporting specific commodities in direct support of the continuing emergency. To qualify for the exemption, the driver must be transporting:

  • Livestock or livestock feed;
  • Medical supplies and equipment related to the testing, diagnosis, and treatment of COVID-19;
  • Vaccines, constituent products, and medical supplies and equipment including ancillary supplies/kits for the administration of vaccines, related to the prevention of COVID-19;
  • Supplies and equipment necessary for community safety, sanitation, and prevention of community transmission of COVID-19 such as masks, gloves, hand sanitizer, soap, and disinfectants;
  • Food, paper products, and other groceries for emergency restocking of distribution centers or stores;
  • Gasoline, diesel, jet fuel, and ethyl alcohol; or
  • Supplies to assist individuals impacted by the consequences of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Carriers using the exemption created by this emergency declaration must notify FMCSA of the use of the exemption within five days of the end of the month the exemption was used during. The reporting must be done in the carrier’s FMCSA Portal account. To file the report the carrier needs to log into the Portal account and fill out the Emergency Declaration Reporting, which is found in the Available FMCSA Systems section.

Medical cards and drivers licenses

Under a new enforcement policy, FMCSA will not cite a carrier during an audit if it finds a driver had an expired license or medical card for less than 45 days. This applies to drivers whose license expired on or after March 1, 2020, or whose medical card expired on or after December 1, 2021. There were other notices that provided similar extensions issued previously. This policy is in effect until April 15, 2022.

On a related topic, most states are no longer extending the validity of licenses and medical cards that are on file. This means that drivers must renew their licenses before the previous one expires and must provide the state with a new medical card before the previous one expires, or the driver’s license will be downgraded.

Key to remember: As time goes by, the exemptions related to COVID-19 are either disappearing or becoming narrower. It is important to be aware of what the latest exemptions and waivers allow.

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

EHS Monthly Round Up - March 2024

EHS Monthly Round Up - March 2024

In this monthly roundup video, we’ll review the most impactful environmental, safety, and health 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! The Office of Management and Budget completed its review of OSHA’s worker walkaround final rule on March 20. The next step is publication in the Federal Register. The rule expands the criteria for who employees can authorize to act as their representative during an OSHA inspection.

Stand Up 4 Grain Safety Week was held the week of March 25. This annual event brings attention to hazards in the grain handling and storage industry and encourages employers to focus on safe work practices.

Over 100 people die in ladder-related deaths each year, and thousands more suffer disabling injuries. During Ladder Safety Month, which is held each March, the American Ladder Institute promotes ladder safety to decrease the number of injuries and fatalities.

Between 2010 and 2023, 11 miners drowned in incidents involving submerged mobile equipment. In response, the Mine Safety and Health Administration issued a safety alert. It recommends measures miners should take when operating equipment near water.

And finally, turning to environmental news, EPA finalized amendments to its Risk Management Program in an effort to improve safety at facilities that use and distribute hazardous chemicals. The 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 sites.

Thanks for tuning in to the monthly news roundup. We’ll see you next month!

2024-04-08T05:00:00Z

EPA Proposed Rule: Significant New Use Rules

EPA is proposing significant new use rules (SNURs) under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) for chemical substances that were the subject of premanufacture notices (PMNs). The chemical substances received “not likely to present an unreasonable risk” determinations pursuant to TSCA. The SNURs require persons who intend to manufacture (defined by statute to include import) or process any of these chemical substances for an activity that is proposed as a significant new use by this rulemaking to notify EPA at least 90 days before commencing that activity. The required notification initiates EPA's evaluation of the use, under the conditions of use for that chemical substance. In addition, the manufacture or processing for the significant new use may not commence until EPA has conducted a review of the required notification, made an appropriate determination regarding that notification, and taken such actions as required by that determination.

DATES: This proposed rule is published in the Federal Register April 8, 2024, page 24398.

View proposed rule.

Facility Response Plans: Hope for the best, prepare for the worst-case discharges
2024-04-05T05:00:00Z

Facility Response Plans: Hope for the best, prepare for the worst-case discharges

“What’s the worst that could happen?” You’ve likely heard and have even asked this rhetorical question. Under the Clean Water Act (CWA), it’s no longer rhetorical; it’s now a regulatory question that must be answered with formal, written plans by facilities that could discharge dangerous chemicals into nearby waterbodies.

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) finalized a rule (codified at 40 CFR Part 118) that requires certain facilities to develop and submit Facility Response Plans (FRPs) for worst-case discharges or the potential for worst-case discharges of CWA hazardous substances into navigable water.

Use this article to help you determine whether your facility is covered by the CWA hazardous substance FRP requirements.

First, review the terms.

The final rule covers “onshore, non-transportation-related facilities that could reasonably be expected to cause substantial harm to the environment by discharging a CWA hazardous substance into or on the navigable waters, adjoining shorelines, or exclusive economic zone.” As with all other regulations, the definitions of the terms determine what the rules mean and what they require.

  • Adverse weather refers to weather conditions that make it difficult for response equipment and personnel to clean up or respond to discharged CWA hazardous substances.
  • All CWA hazardous substances are listed at 116.4. The CWA hazardous substances with their corresponding reportable quantities are listed at 117.3.
  • The maximum quantity on-site refers to the maximum total aggregate quantity for each CWA hazardous substance present within the facility at any time.
  • Navigable waters are waters of the United States as defined at 120.2.
  • Public receptors include public spaces inhabited, occupied, or used by the public at any time where a worst-case discharge into or on the navigable waters or a conveyance (i.e., means of transport) to navigable waters could injure members of the public.
  • A worst-case discharge is the largest foreseeable discharge in adverse weather conditions, including a discharge resulting from fire or explosion.

Second, look at the applicability criteria.

A facility considered to pose substantial harm must meet three conditions. The CWA hazardous substance FRP requirements apply to facilities that:

  • Have a maximum quantity on-site of any CWA hazardous substance 1,000 times or more than the reportable quantity listed at 117.3;
  • Are within a 0.5-mile radius of navigable waters or a conveyance to navigable waters; and
  • Meet one or more substantial harm criteria, including:
    • The ability to cause injury to fish, wildlife, and sensitive environments;
    • The ability to adversely impact a public water system;
    • The ability to cause injury to public receptors; or
    • The history of a CWA hazardous substance discharge above the reportable quantity that reached navigable water within the last five years.

The final rule requires facilities to model worst-case discharge scenarios that represent each covered CWA hazardous substance. Through these scenarios, facilities determine whether they meet the first three substantial harm criteria above.

Third, check the exceptions and exemptions.

Determine whether your facility qualifies for any exceptions or exemptions to the FRP requirements listed at 118.8.

Exceptions include:

  • Facilities not reasonably expected to pose substantial harm based solely on location (excluding man-made structures designed to prevent a discharge);
  • Equipment, vessels, or transportation-related facilities subject to other federal authorities, such as the Department of Transportation; and
  • Underground storage tanks (USTs) and connected underground piping, equipment, and containment systems subject to UST regulations.

Exemptions apply to:

  • CWA hazardous substances contained in articles (which are excluded from calculations of the maximum quantity on-site); and
  • Certain uses, such as for processing or cooling water.

If your facility meets the applicability criteria and doesn’t qualify for any exceptions or exemptions, it’s subject to the CWA hazardous substance FRP requirements. You must prepare, submit to EPA, and implement an FRP.

Covered facilities must submit FRPs to EPA within three years of May 28, 2024 (the effective date of the rule).

Fourth, keep these tips in mind.

  • When calculating the quantity of CWA hazardous substances at your site, use the table at 117.3 since it contains the reportable quantities. The tables at 116.4 only list the covered substances.
  • Don’t forget to include mixtures! The standards at 118.9 explain how to handle CWA hazardous substances contained in mixtures when calculating your facility’s maximum on-site quantity.
  • EPA regional administrators may require any facility they assess on a case-by-case basis to develop an FRP based on site-specific factors. So, even if your facility determines it doesn’t meet the applicability criteria, an EPA regional administrator may still require your facility to prepare an FRP.

Key to remember: A final rule under the Clean Water Act requires certain facilities to develop, submit to EPA, and implement Facility Response Plans for worst-case discharges of hazardous substances into navigable waters.

2024-04-03T05:00:00Z

EPA Proposed Rule: Lead Wheel Weights; Regulatory Investigation Under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA)

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA or the Agency) is requesting comments and information to assist in the potential development of regulations for the manufacture (including importing), processing (including recycling), and distribution in commerce of lead for wheel-balancing weights (“lead wheel weights”) under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). To inform this consideration, EPA is requesting comment and information from all stakeholders on the use and exposure to lead from the manufacture (including importing), processing (including recycling), distribution in commerce, use, and disposal of lead wheel weights, as well as information on their substitutes, to help determine if there is unreasonable risk to human health and the environment associated with this use. This action is relevant to a petition for a writ of mandamus filed in August 2023, by the Ecology Center, Center for Environmental Health, United Parents Against Lead & Other Environmental Hazards, and Sierra Club in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit requesting the court to direct EPA to conduct a rulemaking regulating lead wheel weights under TSCA.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before May 3, 2024, published in the Federal Register April 3, 2024, page 22972.

View proposed rule.

2024-04-03T05:00:00Z

EPA Final Rule: National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Integrated Iron and Steel Manufacturing Facilities Technology Review

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA or the Agency) is finalizing amendments to the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) for Integrated Iron and Steel Manufacturing Facilities to regulate hazardous air pollutant (HAP) emissions. The amendments include: HAP from unmeasured fugitive and intermittent particulate (UFIP) sources previously not regulated by the NESHAP; previously unregulated HAP for sinter plants:; previously unregulated pollutants for blast furnace (BF) stoves and basic oxygen process furnaces (BOPFs) primary control devices; and previously unregulated pollutants for BF primary control devices. We are also finalizing an update to the technology review for this source category.

DATES: This final rule is effective June 3, 2024, published in the Federal Register April 3, 2024, page 23294 .

View final rule.

§63.14 Incorporations by reference.
(i)(88), (i)(110), (o)RevisedView text
(o)(3)AddedView text
§63.7782 What parts of my plant does this subpart cover?
(c)-(e)RevisedView text
§63.7783 When do I have to comply with this subpart?
(a) introductory textRevisedView text
(g)AddedView text
§63.7791 How do I comply with the requirements for the control of mercury from BOPF Groups?
Section headingRevisedView text
§63.7792 What fenceline monitoring requirements must I meet?
Entire sectionAddedView text
§63.7793 What work practice standards must I meet?
Entire sectionAddedView text
§63.7800 What are my operation and maintenance requirements?
(b) introductory textRevisedView text
(b)(8)-(9)AddedView text
§63.7820 By what date must I conduct performance tests or other initial compliance demonstrations?
(e)RevisedView text
§63.7821 When must I conduct subsequent performance tests?
Entire sectionRevisedView text
§63.7823 What test methods and other procedures must I use to demonstrate initial compliance with the opacity limits?
(a)RevisedView text
(c)(3), (d)(6), (f)-(h)AddedView text
§63.7825 What test methods and other procedures must I use to demonstrate initial compliance with the emission limits for hazardous air pollutants?
Section headingRevisedView text
(a) introductory text; (b)(1)(v), (b)(2), (c)RevisedView text
(g)(-(k)AddedView text
§63.7830 What are my monitoring requirements?
(e)(2)RevisedView text
§63.7833 How do I demonstrate continuous compliance with the emission limitations that apply to me?
(j)AddedView text
§63.7840 What notifications must I submit and when?
(g)(3), (h)(3)RemovedView text
(i)AddedView text
§63.7841 What reports must I submit and when?
(b)(14), (h)AddedView text
(d)RevisedView text
§63.7842 What records must I keep?
(d)RevisedView text
(f), (g)AddedView text
§63.7852 What definitions apply to this subpart?
Definitions for “Iron beaching operation”, Large blast furnace”, “Planned bleeder valve opening”, “Slip”, “Small blast furnace”, “Total hydrocarbons (THC)”, and “Unplanned bleeder valve opening”AddedView text
Table 1 to Subpart FFFFF of Part 63 - Emission, Opacity, and Work Practice Limits
Entire tableRevisedView text
Table 2 to Subpart FFFFF of Part 63 - Initial Compliance With Emission and Opacity Limits
Entire tableRevisedView text
Table 3 to Subpart FFFFF of Part 63 - Continuous Compliance With Emission and Opacity Limits
Entire tableRevisedView text
Table 4 to Subpart FFFFF of Part 63 - Applicability of General Provisions to Subpart FFFFF
Entire tableRevisedView text
Table 5 to Subpart FFFFF of Part 63 - Toxic Equivalency Factors
Entire tableAddedView text
Table 6 to Subpart FFFFF of Part 63 - List of Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons
Entire tableAddedView text

New Text

§63.14 Incorporations by reference.

* * * *

(i)(88) ASTM D6348-12 (Reapproved 2020), Determination of Gaseous Compounds by Extractive Direct Interface Fourier Transform (FTIR) Spectroscopy, including Annexes A1 through A8, Approved December 1; 2020, IBR approved for §§63.365(b); 63.7825(g) and (h) .

* * * * *

(i)(110) ASTM D7520-16, Standard Test Method for Determining the Opacity of a Plume in the Outdoor Ambient Atmosphere, approved April 1, 2016; IBR approved for §§63.1625(b); table 3 to subpart LLLLL; 63.7823(c) through (f), 63.7833(g); 63.11423(c).

* * * * *

(o) U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20460; phone: (202) 272-0167; website: www.epa.gov/aboutepa/forms/contact-epa .

§63.7782 What parts of my plant does this subpart cover?

* * * *

(c) This subpart covers emissions from the sinter plant windbox exhaust, discharge end, and sinter cooler; the blast furnace casthouse; the blast furnace stove; and the BOPF shop including each individual BOPF and shop ancillary operations (hot metal transfer, hot metal desulfurization, slag skimming, and ladle metallurgy). This subpart also covers fugitive and intermittent particulate emissions from blast furnace unplanned bleeder valve openings, blast furnace planned bleeder valve openings, blast furnace and BOPF slag processing, handling, and storage, blast furnace bell leaks, beaching of iron from blast furnaces, blast furnace casthouse fugitives, and BOPF shop fugitives.

(d) A sinter plant, blast furnace, blast furnace stove, or BOPF shop at your integrated iron and steel manufacturing facility is existing if you commenced construction or reconstruction of the affected source before July 13, 2001.

(e) A sinter plant, blast furnace, blast furnace stove, or BOPF shop at your integrated iron and steel manufacturing facility is new if you commence construction or reconstruction of the affected source on or after July 13, 2001. An affected source is reconstructed if it meets the definition of reconstruction in §63.2.

§63.7783 When do I have to comply with this subpart?

(a) If you have an existing affected source, you must comply with each emission limitation, standard, and operation and maintenance requirement in this subpart that applies to you by the dates specified in paragraphs (a)(1) and (2) of this section. This paragraph does not apply to the emission limitations for BOPF group: mercury (Hg); sinter plant windbox: Hg, hydrochloric acid (HCl), carbonyl sulfide (COS); Blast Furnace casthouse: HCl, total hydrocarbon (THC); Blast Furnace stove: HCl and total hydrocarbon (THC); primary emission control system for a BOPF: 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (2,3,7,8-TCDD) toxic equivalent (TEQ), HCl, THC; fugitive and intermittent particulate sources.

* * * *

§63.7791 How do I comply with the requirements for the control of mercury from BOPF Groups?

* * * *

§63.7800 What are my operation and maintenance requirements?

* * * *

(b) You must prepare and operate at all times according to a written operation and maintenance plan for each capture system or control device subject to an operating limit in §63.7790(b). Each plan must address the elements in paragraphs (b)(1) through (9) of this section.

§63.7820 By what date must I conduct performance tests or other initial compliance demonstrations?

* * * *

(e) Notwithstanding the deadlines in this section, existing and new affected sources must comply with the deadlines for making the initial compliance demonstrations for the BOPF Group mercury emission limit set forth in paragraphs (e)(1) through (4) in this section.

§63.7821 When must I conduct subsequent performance tests?

(a) You must conduct subsequent performance tests to demonstrate compliance with all applicable emission and opacity limits in table 1 to this subpart at the frequencies specified in paragraphs (b) through (m) of this section.

(b) For each sinter cooler at an existing sinter plant and each emissions unit equipped with a control device other than a baghouse, you must conduct subsequent particulate matter and opacity performance tests no less frequently than twice (at mid-term and renewal) during each term of your title V operating permit.

(c) For each emissions unit equipped with a baghouse, you must conduct subsequent particulate matter and opacity performance tests no less frequently than once during each term of your title V operating permit.

(d) For sources without a title V operating permit, you must conduct subsequent particulate matter and opacity performance tests every 2.5 years.

(e) For each BOPF Group, if demonstrating compliance with the mercury emission limit in table 1 to this subpart through performance testing under §§63.7825 and 63.7833, you must conduct subsequent performance tests twice per permit cycle ( i.e., mid-term and initial/final) for sources with title V operating permits, and every 2.5 years for sources without a title V operating permit, at the outlet of the control devices for the BOPF Group.

(f) For each sinter plant windbox, you must conduct subsequent mercury, hydrogen chloride, carbonyl sulfide, dioxin/furan, and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon performance tests every 5 years.

(g) For each blast furnace stove and BOPF shop primary emission control device, you must conduct subsequent hydrogen chloride and total hydrocarbon testing every 5 years. For the BOPF shop primary emission control device, you must also conduct subsequent dioxin/furan testing every 5 years.

(h) For each blast furnace casthouse and BOPF shop, you must conduct subsequent opacity tests two times per month during a cast, or during a full heat cycle, as appropriate.

(i) For planned bleeder valve openings on each blast furnace, you must conduct opacity tests according to §63.7823(f) for each planned opening.

(j) For slag processing, handling, and storage operations for each blast furnace or BOPF, you must conduct subsequent opacity tests once per week for a minimum of 18 minutes for each: BF pit filling; BOPF slag pit filling; BF pit digging; BOPF slag pit digging; and one slag handling (either truck loading or dumping slag to slag piles).

(k) For large bells on each blast furnace, you must conduct visible emissions testing on the interbell relief valve according to EPA Method 22 in appendix A-7 to part 60 of this chapter, unless specified in paragraphs (k)(1) through (3) of this section. Testing must be conducted monthly, for 15 minutes.

(1) If visible emissions are detected for a large bell during the monthly visible emissions testing, you must conduct EPA Method 9 (in appendix A-4 to part 60 of this chapter) opacity tests in place of EPA Method 22 testing on that bell once per month, taking 3-minute averages for 15 minutes, until the large bell seal is repaired or replaced.

(2) If the average of 3 instantaneous visible emission readings taken while the interbell relief valve is exhausting exceeds 20 percent, you must initiate corrective action within five business days.

(3) Ten business days after the initial opacity exceedance of 20 percent, you must conduct an EPA Method 9 opacity test, taking 3-minute averages for 15 minutes. If the average of 3 instantaneous visible emissions readings from this test exceeds 20 percent, you must repair or replace that bell seal within 4 months.

(l) For small bells on each blast furnace, you must conduct visible emissions testing according to EPA Method 22 in appendix A-7 to part 60 of this chapter. Testing must be conducted monthly for 15 minutes. If visible emissions are observed, you must compare the period between the visible emissions being present and the most recent bell seal repair or replacement. If this time period or throughput is shorter or lower than the period or throughput stated in the O&M plan required by 63.7800, this new shorter period or lower limit shall be placed in the O&M plan as the work practice limit.

(m) For each blast furnace casthouse, you must conduct subsequent hydrogen chloride and total hydrocarbon testing every 5 years.

§63.7823 What test methods and other procedures must I use to demonstrate initial compliance with the opacity limits?

(a) For each discharge end of a sinter plant, sinter plant cooler, blast furnace casthouse, BOPF shop, and large bell on a blast furnace, you must conduct each performance test that applies to your affected source based on representative performance ( i.e., performance based on normal operating conditions) of the affected source for the period being tested, according to the conditions detailed in paragraphs (b) through (d) of this section. Representative conditions exclude periods of startup and shutdown. You shall not conduct performance tests during periods of malfunction. You 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, you shall make available to the Administrator such records as may be necessary to determine the conditions of performance tests.

* * * *

§63.7825 What test methods and other procedures must I use to demonstrate initial compliance with the emission limits for hazardous air pollutants?

(a) If demonstrating compliance with the emission limits in Table 1 to this subpart through performance testing, you must conduct a performance test to demonstrate initial compliance with the emission limit. If demonstrating compliance with the emission limit through performance testing, you must conduct each performance test that applies to your affected source based on representative performance ( i.e., performance based on normal operating conditions) of the affected source for the period being tested, according to the conditions detailed in paragraphs (b) through (k) of this section. Representative conditions exclude periods of startup and shutdown. You shall not conduct performance tests during periods of malfunction. Initial compliance tests must be conducted by the deadlines in §63.7820(e).

* * * * *

(b) * * *

(1) * * *

(v) EPA Method 29 or 30B in appendix A-8 to part 60 of this chapter to determine the concentration of mercury from the exhaust stream stack of each unit. If performing measurements using EPA Method 29, you must collect a minimum sample volume of 1.7 dscm (60 dscf). Alternative test methods may be considered on a case-by-case basis per §63.7(f).

(2) Three valid test runs are needed to comprise a performance test of each unit in table 1 to this subpart as applicable. If the performance testing results for any of the emission points yields a non-detect value, then the method detection limit (MDL) must be used to calculate the mass emissions (lb) for that emission unit and, in turn, for calculating the sum of the emissions (in units of pounds of mercury per ton of steel scrap or pounds of mercury per ton of product sinter) for all units subject to the emission standard for determining compliance. If the resulting mercury emissions are greater than the MACT emission standard, the owner or operator may use procedures that produce lower MDL results and repeat the mercury performance testing one additional time for any emission point for which the measured result was below the MDL. If this additional testing is performed, the results from that testing must be used to determine compliance ( i.e., there are no additional opportunities allowed to lower the MDL).

* * * * *

(c) Calculate the mass emissions, based on the average of three test run values, for each BOPF Group unit (or combination of units that are ducted to a common stack and are tested when all affected sources are operating pursuant to paragraph (a) of this section) using equation 1 to this paragraph (c) as follows:



Where:

E = Mass emissions of pollutant, pounds (lb);

C s = Concentration of pollutant in stack gas, mg/dscm;

454,000 = Conversion factor (mg/lb);

Q = Volumetric flow rate of stack gas, dscf/min;

35.31 = Conversion factor (dscf/dscm); and

t = Duration of test, minutes.

* * * *

§63.7830 What are my monitoring requirements?

* * * *

(e)(2) Compute and record the 30-day rolling average of the volatile organic compound emissions (lbs/ton of sinter) for each operating day using the procedures in §63.7824(e).

[Change Notice] [New Text]

§63.7841 What reports must I submit and when?

* * * *

(d) CEDRI submission. If you are required to submit reports following the procedure specified in this paragraph, you must submit reports to the EPA via CEDRI, which can be accessed through EPA's CDX ( https://cdx.epa.gov/ ). 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 date report templates become available will be listed on the CEDRI website. The report must be submitted by the deadline specified in this subpart, regardless of the method in which the report is submitted. Do not use CEDRI to submit information you claim as CBI. Although we do not expect persons to assert a claim of CBI, if you wish to assert a CBI claim for some of the information in the report, you must submit a complete file, including information claimed to be CBI, to the EPA following the procedures in paragraphs (d)(1) and (2) of this section. Clearly mark the part or all of the informatioqn that you claim to be CBI. Information not marked as CBI may be authorized for public release without prior notice. Information marked as CBI will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2. All CBI claims must be asserted at the time of submission. Anything submitted using CEDRI cannot later be claimed CBI. Furthermore, under CAA section 114(c), emissions data is not entitled to confidential treatment, and the 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. You must submit the same file submitted to the CBI office with the CBI omitted to the EPA via the EPA's CDX as described earlier in this paragraph.

(1) The preferred method to receive CBI is for it to be transmitted electronically using email attachments, File Transfer Protocol, or other online file sharing services. Electronic submissions must be transmitted directly to the OAQPS CBI Office at the email address oaqpscbi@epa.gov, and as described above, should include clear CBI markings and be flagged to the attention of the Integrated Iron and Steel Sector Lead. If assistance is needed with submitting large electronic files that exceed the file size limit for email attachments, and if you do not have your own file sharing service, please email oaqpscbi@epa.gov to request a file transfer link.

(2) If you cannot transmit the file electronically, you may send CBI information through the postal service to the following address: OAQPS Document Control Officer (C404-02), OAQPS, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711, Attention Integrated Iron and Steel Sector Lead. The mailed CBI material should be double wrapped and clearly marked. Any CBI markings should not show through the outer envelope.

§63.7842 What records must I keep?

* * * *

(d) You must keep the records required in §§63.7823, 63.7833, and 63.7834 to show continuous compliance with each emission limitation and operation and maintenance requirement that applies to you. This includes a record of each large and small bell repair and replacement, a record of the date on which the large bell opacity has exceeded 20 percent, and the most current time period or throughput over which no opacity was observed from the small bell.

[Change Notice] [New Text]

Table 1 to Subpart FFFFF of Part 63 - Emission, Opacity, and Work Practice Limits

As required in §63.7790(a), you must comply with each applicable emission, opacity, and work practice limit in the following table:

Table 1 to Subpart FFFFF of Part 63—Emission, Opacity, and Work Practice Limits
For . . .You must comply with each of the following . . .
1 This limit applies if the cooler is vented to the same control device as the discharge end.
2 This concentration limit (gr/dscf) for a control device does not apply to discharges inside a building or structure housing the discharge end at an existing sinter plant, inside a casthouse at an existing blast furnace, or inside an existing BOPF shop if the control device was installed before August 30, 2005.
3 This limit applies to control devices operated in parallel for a single BOPF during the oxygen blow.
1. Each windbox exhaust stream at an existing sinter planta. You must not cause to be discharged to the atmosphere any gases that contain particulate matter in excess of 0.4 lb/ton of product sinter;
b. You must not cause to be discharged to the atmosphere any gases that contain mercury in excess of 0.000018 lb/ton of product sinter;
c. You must not cause to be discharged to the atmosphere any gases that contain hydrogen chloride in excess of 0.025 lb/ton of product sinter;
d. You must not cause to be discharged to the atmosphere any gases that contain carbonyl sulfide in excess of 0.064 lb/ton of product sinter;
e. You must not cause to be discharged to the atmosphere any gases that contain D/F TEQs in excess of 1.1E-08 lb/ton of product sinter; and
f. You must not cause to be discharged to the atmosphere any gases that contain polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in excess of 0.0018 lb/ton of product sinter.
2. Each windbox exhaust stream at a new sinter planta. You must not cause to be discharged to the atmosphere any gases that contain particulate matter in excess of 0.3 lb/ton of product sinter;
b. You must not cause to be discharged to the atmosphere any gases that contain mercury in excess of 0.000012 lb/ton of product sinter;
c. You must not cause to be discharged to the atmosphere any gases that contain hydrogen chloride in excess of 0.0012 lb/ton of product sinter;
d. You must not cause to be discharged to the atmosphere any gases that contain carbonyl sulfide in excess of 0.030 lb/ton of product sinter;
e. You must not cause to be discharged to the atmosphere any gases that contain D/F TEQs in excess of 1.1E-08 lb/ton of product sinter; and
f. You must not cause to be discharged to the atmosphere any gases that contain polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in excess of 0.0015 lb/ton of product sinter.
3. Each discharge end at an existing sinter planta. You must not cause to be discharged to the atmosphere any gases that exit from one or more control devices that contain, on a flow-weighted basis, particulate matter in excess of 0.02 gr/dscf; 12 and
b. You must not cause to be discharged to the atmosphere any secondary emissions that exit any opening in the building or structure housing the discharge end that exhibit opacity greater than 20 percent (6-minute average).
4. Each discharge end at a new sinter planta. You must not cause to be discharged to the atmosphere any gases that exit from one or more control devices that contain, on a flow weighted basis, particulate matter in excess of 0.01 gr/dscf; and
b. You must not cause to be discharged to the atmosphere any secondary emissions that exit any opening in the building or structure housing the discharge end that exhibit opacity greater than 10 percent (6-minute average).
5. Each sinter cooler at an existing sinter plantYou must not cause to be discharged to the atmosphere any emissions that exhibit opacity greater than 10 percent (6-minute average).
6. Each sinter cooler at a new sinter plantYou must not cause to be discharged to the atmosphere any gases that contain particulate matter in excess of 0.01 gr/dscf.
7. Each casthouse at an existing blast furnacea. You must not cause to be discharged to the atmosphere any gases that exit from a control device that contain particulate matter in excess of 0.01 gr/dscf; 2
b. You must not cause to be discharged to the atmosphere any secondary emissions that exit all openings in the casthouse or structure housing the blast furnace that exhibit opacity greater than 20 percent (6-minute average);
c. You must not cause to be discharged to the atmosphere any gases that exit from a control device that contain hydrogen chloride in excess of 0.0056 lb/ton of iron;
d. You must not cause to be discharged to the atmosphere any gases that exit from a control device that contain total hydrocarbons as propane in excess of 0.48 lb/ton of iron; and
e. You must not cause unplanned bleeder valve openings in excess of 4 events per year for large blast furnaces or 15 events per year for small blast furnaces.
8. Each casthouse at a new blast furnacea. You must not cause to be discharged to the atmosphere any gases that exit from a control device that contain particulate matter in excess of 0.003 gr/dscf; and
b. You must not cause to be discharged to the atmosphere any secondary emissions that exit all openings in the casthouse or structure housing the blast furnace that exhibit opacity greater than 15 percent (6-minute average);
c. You must not cause to be discharged to the atmosphere any gases that exit from a control device that contain hydrogen chloride in excess of 0.00059 lb/ton of iron;
d. You must not cause to be discharged to the atmosphere any gases that exit from a control device that contain total hydrocarbons as propane in excess of 0.035 lb/ton of iron; and
e. You must not cause unplanned bleeder valve openings in excess of zero events per year.
9. Each BOPF at a new or existing shopa. You must not cause to be discharged to the atmosphere any gases that exit from a primary emission control system for a BOPF with a closed hood system at a new or existing BOPF shop that contain, on a flow-weighted basis, particulate matter in excess of 0.03 gr/dscf during the primary oxygen blow; 23
b. You must not cause to be discharged to the atmosphere any gases that exit from a primary emission control system for a BOPF with an open hood system that contain, on a flow-weighted basis, particulate matter in excess of 0.02 gr/dscf during the steel production cycle for an existing BOPF shop 23 or 0.01 gr/dscf during the steel production cycle for a new BOPF shop; 3
c. You must not cause to be discharged to the atmosphere any gases that exit from a control device used solely for the collection of secondary emissions from the BOPF that contain particulate matter in excess of 0.01 gr/dscf for an existing BOPF shop 2 or 0.0052 gr/dscf for a new BOPF shop;
d. You must not cause to be discharged to the atmosphere any gases that exit from a primary emission control system for a BOPF that contain hydrogen chloride in excess of 0.058 lb/ton of steel for existing sources and 2.8E-04 lb/ton steel for new sources;
e. You must not cause to be discharged to the atmosphere any gases that exit from a primary emission control system for a BOPF that contain THC as propane in excess of 0.04 lb/ton of steel for existing sources and 0.0017 lb/ton of steel for new sources; and
f. You must not cause to be discharged to the atmosphere any gases that exit from a primary emission control system for a BOPF that contain D/F TEQs in excess of 9.2E-10 lb/ton of steel.
10. Each hot metal transfer, skimming, and desulfurization operation at a new or existing BOPF shopYou must not cause to be discharged to the atmosphere any gases that exit from a control device that contain particulate matter in excess of 0.01 gr/dscf for an existing BOPF shop 2 or 0.003 gr/dscf for a new BOPF shop.
11. Each ladle metallurgy operation at a new or existing BOPF shopYou must not cause to be discharged to the atmosphere any gases that exit from a control device that contain particulate matter in excess of 0.01 gr/dscf for an existing BOPF shop 2 or 0.004 gr/dscf for a new BOPF shop.
12. Each existing BOPF shopYou must not cause to be discharged to the atmosphere any secondary emissions that exit any opening in the BOPF shop or any other building housing the BOPF or BOPF shop operation that exhibit opacity greater than 20 percent (3-minute average).
13. Each new BOPF shopa. You must not cause to be discharged to the atmosphere any secondary emissions that exit any opening in the BOPF shop or other building housing a bottom-blown BOPF or BOPF shop operations that exhibit opacity (for any set of 6-minute averages) greater than 10 percent, except that one 6-minute period not to exceed 20 percent may occur once per steel production cycle; or
b. You must not cause to be discharged to the atmosphere any secondary emissions that exit any opening in the BOPF shop or other building housing a top-blown BOPF or BOPF shop operations that exhibit opacity (for any set of 3-minute averages) greater than 10 percent, except that one 3-minute period greater than 10 percent but less than 20 percent may occur once per steel production cycle.
14. Each BOPF Group at an existing BOPF shopYou must not cause to be discharged to the atmosphere any gases that exit from the collection of BOPF Group control devices that contain mercury in excess of 0.00026 lb/ton of steel scrap input to the BOPF.
15. Each BOPF Group at a new BOPF shopYou must not cause to be discharged to the atmosphere any gases that exit from the collection of BOPF Group control devices that contain mercury in excess of 0.000081 lb/ton of steel scrap input to the BOPF.
16. Each planned bleeder valve opening at a new or existing blast furnaceYou must not cause to be discharged to the atmosphere any emissions that exhibit opacity greater than 8 percent (6-minute average).
17. Each slag processing, handling and storage operation for a new or existing blast furnace or BOPFYou must not cause to be discharged to the atmosphere any emissions that exhibit opacity greater than 10 percent (6-minute average).
18. Each existing blast furnace stovea. You must not cause to be discharged to the atmosphere any gases that exit from a control device that contain HCl in excess of 0.0012 lb/MMBtu; and
b. You must not cause to be discharged to the atmosphere any gases that exit from a control device that contain THC in excess of 0.12 lb/MMBtu.
19. Each new blast furnace stovea. You must not cause to be discharged to the atmosphere any gases that exit from a control device that contain HCl in excess of 4.2e-4 lb/MMBtu; and
b. You must not cause to be discharged to the atmosphere any gases that exit from a control device that contain THC in excess of 0.0054 lb/MMBtu.

[Change Notice] [New Text]

Table 2 to Subpart FFFFF of Part 63 - Initial Compliance With Emission and Opacity Limits

As required in §63.7826(a)(1), you must demonstrate initial compliance with the emission and opacity limits according to the following table:

Table 2 to Subpart FFFFF of Part 63 - Initial Compliance With Emission and Opacity Limits
For . . .You have demonstrated initial compliance if . . .
1. Each windbox exhaust stream at an existing sinter planta. The process-weighted mass rate of particulate matter from a windbox exhaust stream, measured according to the performance test procedures in §63.7822(c), did not exceed 0.4 lb/ton of product sinter;
b. The process-weighted mass rate of mercury from a windbox exhaust stream, measured according to the performance test procedures in §63.7825, did not exceed 0.000018 lb/ton of product sinter;
c. The process-weighted mass rate of hydrogen chloride from a windbox exhaust stream, measured according to the performance test procedures in §63.7825, did not exceed 0.025 lb/ton of product sinter;
d. The process-weighted mass rate of carbonyl sulfide from a windbox exhaust stream, measured according to the performance test procedures in §63.7825, did not exceed 0.064 lb/ton of product sinter;
e. The process-weighted mass rate of D/F TEQs from a windbox exhaust stream, measured according to the performance test procedures in §63.7825, did not exceed 1.1E-08 lb/ton of product sinter; and
f. The process-weighted mass rate of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons from a windbox exhaust stream, measured according to the performance test procedures in §63.7825, did not exceed 0.0018 lb/ton of product sinter.
2. Each windbox exhaust stream at a new sinter planta. The process-weighted mass rate of particulate matter from a windbox exhaust stream, measured according to the performance test procedures in §63.7822(c), did not exceed 0.3 lb/ton of product sinter;
b. The process-weighted mass rate of mercury from a windbox exhaust stream, measured according to the performance test procedures in §63.7825, did not exceed 0.000012 lb/ton of product sinter;
c. The process-weighted mass rate of hydrogen chloride from a windbox exhaust stream, measured according to the performance test procedures in §63.7825, did not exceed 0.0012 lb/ton of product sinter;
d. The process-weighted mass rate of carbonyl sulfide from a windbox exhaust stream, measured according to the performance test procedures in §63.7825, did not exceed 0.030 lb/ton of product sinter;
e. The process-weighted mass rate of D/F TEQs from a windbox exhaust stream, measured according to the performance test procedures in §63.7825, did not exceed 1.1E-08 lb/ton of product sinter; and
f. The process-weighted mass rate of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons from a windbox exhaust stream, measured according to the performance test procedures in §63.7825, did not exceed 0.0015 lb/ton of product sinter.
3. Each discharge end at an existing sinter planta. The flow-weighted average concentration of particulate matter from one or more control devices applied to emissions from a discharge end, measured according to the performance test procedures in §63.7822(d), did not exceed 0.02 gr/dscf; and
b. The opacity of secondary emissions from each discharge end, determined according to the performance test procedures in §63.7823(c), did not exceed 20 percent (6-minute average).
4. Each discharge end at a new sinter planta. The flow-weighted average concentration of particulate matter from one or more control devices applied to emissions from a discharge end, measured according to the performance test procedures in §63.7822(d), did not exceed 0.01 gr/dscf; and
b. The opacity of secondary emissions from each discharge end, determined according to the performance test procedures in §63.7823(c), did not exceed 10 percent (6-minute average).
5. Each sinter cooler at an existing sinter plantThe opacity of emissions, determined according to the performance test procedures in §63.7823(e), did not exceed 10 percent (6-minute average).
6. Each sinter cooler at a new sinter plantThe average concentration of particulate matter, measured according to the performance test procedures in §63.7822(b), did not exceed 0.01 gr/dscf.
7. Each casthouse at an existing blast furnacea. The average concentration of particulate matter from a control device applied to emissions from a casthouse, measured according to the performance test procedures in §63.7822(e), did not exceed 0.01 gr/dscf;
b. The opacity of secondary emissions from each casthouse, determined according to the performance test procedures in §63.7823(c), did not exceed 20 percent (6-minute average);
c. The process-weighted mass rate of hydrogen chloride from a windbox exhaust stream, measured according to the performance test procedures in §63.7825, did not exceed 0.0056 lb/ton of iron;
d. The process-weighted mass rate of total hydrocarbons from a windbox exhaust stream, measured according to the performance test procedures in §63.7825, did not exceed 0.48 lb/ton of iron; and
e. The number of unplanned bleeder valve openings in one year, as reported according to the specifications in §63.7841(b)(14), did not exceed 4 events for large blast furnaces or 15 events for small blast furnaces.
8. Each casthouse at a new blast furnacea. The average concentration of particulate matter from a control device applied to emissions from a casthouse, measured according to the performance test procedures in §63.7822(e), did not exceed 0.003 gr/dscf; and
b. The opacity of secondary emissions from each casthouse, determined according to the performance test procedures in §63.7823(c), did not exceed 15 percent (6-minute average);
c. The process-weighted mass rate of hydrogen chloride from a windbox exhaust stream, measured according to the performance test procedures in §63.7825, did not exceed 0.00059 lb/ton of iron;
d. The process-weighted mass rate of total hydrocarbons from a windbox exhaust stream, measured according to the performance test procedures in §63.7825, did not exceed 0.035 lb/ton of iron; and
e. The number of unplanned bleeder valve openings in one year, as reported according to the specifications in §63.7841(b)(14), did not exceed zero events.
9. Each BOPF at a new or existing BOPF shopa. The average concentration of particulate matter from a primary emission control system applied to emissions from a BOPF with a closed hood system, measured according to the performance test procedures in §63.7822(f), did not exceed 0.03 gr/dscf for a new or existing BOPF shop;
b. The average concentration of particulate matter from a primary emission control system applied to emissions from a BOPF with an open hood system, measured according to the performance test procedures in §63.7822(g), did not exceed 0.02 gr/dscf for an existing BOPF shop or 0.01 gr/dscf for a new BOPF shop;
c. The average concentration of particulate matter from a control device applied solely to secondary emissions from a BOPF, measured according to the performance test procedures in §63.7822(g), did not exceed 0.01 gr/dscf for an existing BOPF shop or 0.0052 gr/dscf for a new BOPF shop;
d. The process-weighted mass rate of hydrogen chloride from a windbox exhaust stream, measured according to the performance test procedures in §63.7825, did not exceed 0.058 lb/ton of steel for an existing BOPF shop or 0.00028 lb/ton of steel for a new BOPF shop;
e. The process-weighted mass rate of total hydrocarbons from a windbox exhaust stream, measured according to the performance test procedures in §63.7825, did not exceed 0.04 lb/ton of steel for an existing BOPF shop or 0.0017 lb/ton of steel for a new BOPF shop; and
f. The process-weighted mass rate of D/F TEQs from a windbox exhaust stream, measured according to the performance test procedures in §63.7825, did not exceed 9.2e-10 lb/ton of steel.
10. Each hot metal transfer skimming, and desulfurization at a new or existing BOPF shopThe average concentration of particulate matter from a control device applied to emissions from hot metal transfer, skimming, or desulfurization, measured according to the performance test procedures in §63.7822(h), did not exceed 0.01 gr/dscf for an existing BOPF shop or 0.003 gr/dscf for a new BOPF shop.
11. Each ladle metallurgy operation at a new or existing BOPF shopThe average concentration of particulate matter from a control device applied to emissions from a ladle metallurgy operation, measured according to the performance test procedures in §63.7822(h), did not exceed 0.01 gr/dscf for an existing BOPF shop or 0.004 gr/dscf for a new BOPF shop.
12. Each existing BOPF shopThe opacity of secondary emissions from each BOPF shop, determined according to the performance test procedures in §63.7823(d), did not exceed 20 percent (3-minute average).
13. Each new BOPF shopa. The opacity of the highest set of 6-minute averages from each BOPF shop housing a bottom-blown BOPF, determined according to the performance test procedures in §63.7823(d), did not exceed 20 percent and the second highest set of 6-minute averages did not exceed 10 percent; or
b. The opacity of the highest set of 3-minute averages from each BOPF shop housing a top-blown BOPF, determined according to the performance test procedures in §63.7823(d), did not exceed 20 percent and the second highest set of 3-minute averages did not exceed 10 percent.
14. Each BOPF Group at an existing BOPF shopIf demonstrating compliance through performance testing, the average emissions of mercury from the collection of BOPF Group control devices applied to the emissions from the BOPF Group, measured according to the performance test procedures in §63.7825, did not exceed 0.00026 lb/ton steel scrap input to the BOPF.
15. Each BOPF Group at a new BOPF shopIf demonstrating compliance through performance testing, the average emissions of mercury from the collection of BOPF Group control devices applied to the emissions from the BOPF Group, measured according to the performance test procedures in §63.7825, did not exceed 0.000081 lb/ton steel scrap input to the BOPF.
16. Each planned bleeder valve opening at a new or existing blast furnaceThe opacity of emissions, determined according to the performance test procedures in §63.7823(f), did not exceed 8 percent (6-minute average).
17. Each slag processing, handling and storage operation for a new or existing blast furnace or BOPFThe opacity of emissions, determined according to the performance test procedures in §63.7823(g), did not exceed 10 percent (6-minute average).
18. Each existing blast furnace stovea. The process-weighted mass rate of HCl from a windbox exhaust stream, measured according to the performance test procedures in §63.7825, did not exceed 0.0012 lb/MMBtu; and
b. The process-weighted mass rate of THC from a windbox exhaust stream, measured according to the performance test procedures in §63.7825, did not exceed 0.12 lb/MMBtu.
19. Each new blast furnace stovea. The process-weighted mass rate of HCl from a windbox exhaust stream, measured according to the performance test procedures in §63.7825, did not exceed 4.2e-4 lb/MMBtu; and
b. The process-weighted mass rate of THC from a windbox exhaust stream, measured according to the performance test procedures in §63.7825, did not exceed 0.0054 lb/MMBtu.

[Change Notice] [New Text]

Table 3 to Subpart FFFFF of Part 63 - Continuous Compliance With Emission and Opacity Limits

As required in §63.7833(a), you must demonstrate continuous compliance with the emission and opacity limits according to the following table:

Table 3 to Subpart FFFFF of Part 63—Continuous Compliance With Emission and Opacity Limits
For . . .You must demonstrate continuous compliance by . . .
1. Each windbox exhaust stream at an existing sinter planta. Maintaining emissions of particulate matter at or below 0.4 lb/ton of product sinter; b. Conducting subsequent performance tests at the frequencies specified in §63.7821;
c. Maintaining emissions of mercury at or below 0.000018 lb/ton of product sinter;
d. Maintaining emissions of hydrogen chloride at or below 0.025 lb/ton of product sinter;
e. Maintaining emissions of carbonyl sulfide at or below 0.064 lb/ton of product sinter;
f. Maintaining emissions of D/F TEQs at or below 1.1E-08 lb/ton of product sinter; and
g. Maintaining emissions of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons at or below 0.0018 lb/ton of product sinter.
2. Each windbox exhaust stream at a new sinter planta. Maintaining emissions of particulate matter at or below 0.3 lb/ton of product sinter; b. Conducting subsequent performance tests at the frequencies specified in §63.7821;
c. Maintaining emissions of mercury at or below 0.000012 lb/ton of product sinter;
d. Maintaining emissions of hydrogen chloride at or below 0.0012 lb/ton of product sinter;
e. Maintaining emissions of carbonyl sulfide at or below 0.030 lb/ton of product sinter;
f. Maintaining emissions of D/F TEQs at or below 1.1E-08 lb/ton of product sinter; and
g. Maintaining emissions of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons at or below 0.0015 lb/ton of product sinter.
3. Each discharge end at an existing sinter planta. Maintaining emissions of particulate matter from one or more control devices at or below 0.02 gr/dscf; and b. Maintaining the opacity of secondary emissions that exit any opening in the building or structure housing the discharge end at or below 20 percent (6-minute average); and
c. Conducting subsequent performance tests at the frequencies specified in §63.7821.
4. Each discharge end at a new sinter planta. Maintaining emissions of particulate matter from one or more control devices at or below 0.01 gr/dscf; and b. Maintaining the opacity of secondary emissions that exit any opening in the building or structure housing the discharge end at or below 10 percent (6-minute average); and
c. Conducting subsequent performance tests at the frequencies specified in §63.7821.
5. Each sinter cooler at an existing sinter planta. Maintaining the opacity of emissions that exit any sinter cooler at or below 10 percent (6-minute average); and b. Conducting subsequent performance tests at the frequencies specified in §63.7821.
6. Each sinter cooler at a new sinter planta. Maintaining emissions of particulate matter at or below 0.1 gr/dscf; and
b. Conducting subsequent performance tests at the frequencies specified in §63.7821.
7. Each casthouse at an existing blast furnacea. Maintaining emissions of particulate matter from a control device at or below 0.01 gr/dscf; b. Maintaining the opacity of secondary emissions that exit all openings in the casthouse or structure housing the casthouse at or below 20 percent (6-minute average);
c. Conducting subsequent performance tests at the frequencies specified in §63.7821;
d. Maintaining emissions of hydrogen chloride at or below 0.0056 lb/ton of iron;
e. Maintaining emissions of total hydrocarbons at or below 0.48 lb/ton of iron; and
f. Maintaining unplanned bleeder valve openings at or below 4 events per year for large blast furnaces or 15 events per year for small blast furnaces.
8. Each casthouse at a new blast furnacea. Maintaining emissions of particulate matter from a control device at or below 0.003 gr/dscf; b. Maintaining the opacity of secondary emissions that exit all openings in the casthouse or structure housing the casthouse at or below 15 percent (6-minute average);
c. Conducting subsequent performance tests at the frequencies specified in §63.7821;
d. Maintaining emissions of hydrogen chloride at or below 0.00059 lb/ton of iron;
e. Maintaining emissions of total hydrocarbons at or below 0.035 lb/ton of iron; and
f. Maintaining unplanned bleeder valve openings at zero events per year.
9. Each BOPF at a new or existing BOPF shopa. Maintaining emissions of particulate matter from the primary control system for a BOPF with a closed hood system at or below 0.03 gr/dscf;
b. Maintaining emissions of particulate matter from the primary control system for a BOPF with an open hood system at or below 0.02 gr/dscf for an existing BOPF shop or 0.01 gr/dscf for a new BOPF shop;
c. Maintaining emissions of particulate matter from a control device applied solely to secondary emissions from a BOPF at or below 0.01 gr/dscf for an existing BOPF shop or 0.0052 gr/dscf for a new BOPF shop;
d. Conducting subsequent performance tests at the frequencies specified in §63.7821;
e. Maintaining emissions of hydrogen chloride from a primary emission control system for a BOPF at or below 0.058 lb/ton of steel for existing sources and 2.8E-04 lb/ton steel for new sources;
f. Maintaining emissions of THC from a primary emission control system for a BOPF at or below 0.04 lb/ton of steel for existing sources and 0.0017 lb/ton of steel for new sources; and
g. Maintaining emissions of D/F TEQs from a primary emission control system for a BOPF at or below 9.2E-10 lb/ton of steel.
10. Each hot metal transfer, skimming, and desulfurization operation at a new or existing BOPF shopa. Maintaining emissions of particulate matter from a control device at or below 0.01 gr/dscf at an existing BOPF or 0.003 gr/dscf for a new BOPF; and b. Conducting subsequent performance tests at the frequencies specified in §63.7821.
11. Each ladle metallurgy operation at a new or existing BOPF shopa. Maintaining emissions of particulate matter from a control device at or below 0.01 gr/dscf at an existing BOPF shop or 0.004 gr/dscf for a new BOPF shop; and
b. Conducting subsequent performance tests at the frequencies specified in §63.7821.
12. Each existing BOPF shopa. Maintaining the opacity of secondary emissions that exit any opening in the BOPF shop or other building housing the BOPF shop or shop operation at or below 20 percent (3-minute average); and
b. Conducting subsequent performance tests at the frequencies specified in §63.7821.
13. Each new BOPF shopa. Maintaining the opacity (for any set of 6-minute averages) of secondary emissions that exit any opening in the BOPF shop or other building housing a bottom-blown BOPF or shop operation at or below 10 percent, except that one 6-minute period greater than 10 percent but no more than 20 percent may occur once per steel production cycle;
b. Maintaining the opacity (for any set of 3-minute averages) of secondary emissions that exit any opening in the BOPF shop or other building housing a top-blown BOPF or shop operation at or below 10 percent, except that one 3-minute period greater than 10 percent but less than 20 percent may occur once per steel production cycle; and
c. Conducting subsequent performance tests at the frequencies specified in §63.7821.
14. Each BOPF Group at an existing BOPF shopa. Maintaining emissions of mercury from the collection of BOPF Group control devices at or below 0.00026 lb/ton steel scrap input to the BOPF; and
b. If demonstrating compliance through performance testing, conducting subsequent performance tests at the frequencies specified in §63.7821; and
c. If demonstrating compliance through §63.7791(c), (d), or (e), maintaining records pursuant to §63.7842(e).
15. Each BOPF Group at a new BOPF shopa. Maintaining emissions of mercury from the collection of BOPF Group control devices at or below 0.000081 lb/ton steel scrap input to the BOPF; and
b. If demonstrating compliance through performance testing, conducting subsequent performance tests at the frequencies specified in §63.7821; and
c. If demonstrating compliance through §63.7791(c), (d), or (e), maintaining records pursuant to §63.7842(e).
16. Each planned bleeder valve opening at a new or existing blast furnacea. Maintaining the opacity of emissions that exit any bleeder valve as a result of a planned opening at or below 8 percent (6-minute average); and
b. Conducting subsequent performance tests at the frequencies specified in §63.7821.
17. Each slag processing, handling and storage operation for a new or existing blast furnace or BOPFa. Maintaining the opacity of emissions that exit any slag processing, handling, or storage operation at or below 10 percent (6-minute average); and b. Conducting subsequent performance tests at the frequencies specified in §63.7821.
18. Each existing blast furnace stovea. Maintaining emissions of HCl at or below 0.0012 lb/MMBtu;
b. Maintaining emissions of THC at or below 0.12 lb/MMBtu; and
c. Conducting subsequent performance tests at the frequencies specified in §63.7821.
19. Each new blast furnace stovea. Maintaining emissions of HCl at or below 4.2e-4 lb/MMBtu;
b. Maintaining emissions of THC at or below 0.0054 lb/MMBtu; and
c. Conducting subsequent performance tests at the frequencies specified in §63.7821.

[Change Notice] [New Text]

Table 4 to Subpart FFFFF of Part 63 - Applicability of General Provisions to Subpart FFFFF

As required in §63.7850, you must comply with the requirements of the NESHAP General Provisions (subpart A of this part) shown in the following table:

Table 4 to Subpart FFFFF of Part 63—Applicability of General Provisions to Subpart FFFFF
CitationSubjectApplies to subpart FFFFFExplanation
§63.1ApplicabilityYes
§63.2DefinitionsYes
§63.3Units and AbbreviationsYes
§63.4Prohibited ActivitiesYes
§63.5Construction/ReconstructionYes
§63.6(a), (b), (c), (d), (e)(1)(iii), (f)(2)-(3), (g), (h)(2)(ii)-(h)(9)Compliance with Standards and Maintenance RequirementsYes
§63.6(e)(1)(i)General Duty to Minimize EmissionsNo, for new or reconstructed sources which commenced construction or reconstruction after August 16, 2019. For all other affected sources, Yes on or before January 11, 2021, and No thereafterSee §63.7810(d) for general duty requirement.
§63.6(e)(1)(ii)Requirement to Correct Malfunctions ASAPNo, for new or reconstructed sources which commenced construction or reconstruction after August 16, 2019. For all other affected sources, Yes, on or before January 11, 2021, and No thereafter
§63.6(e)(3)SSM Plan RequirementsNo, for new or reconstructed sources which commenced construction or reconstruction after August 16, 2019. For all other affected sources, Yes on or before January 11, 2021, and No thereafterSee §63.7810(c).
§63.6(f)(1)Compliance except during SSMNoSee §63.7810(a).
§63.6(h)(1)Compliance except during SSMNoSee §63.7810(a).
§63.6(h)(2)(i)Determining Compliance with Opacity and VE StandardsNoSubpart FFFFF specifies methods and procedures for determining compliance with opacity emission and operating limits.
§63.6(i)Extension of Compliance with Emission StandardsYes
§63.6(j)Exemption from Compliance with Emission StandardsYes
§63.7(a)(1)-(2)Applicability and Performance Test DatesNoSubpart FFFFF and specifies performance test applicability and dates.
§63.7(a)(3), (b)-(d), (e)(2)-(4), (f)-(h)Performance Testing RequirementsYes
§63.7(e)(1)Performance TestingNo, for new or reconstructed sources which commenced construction or reconstruction after August 16, 2019. For all other affected sources, Yes on or before January 11, 2021, and No thereafterSee §§63.7822(a), 63.7823(a), and 63.7825(a).
§63.8(a)(1)-(3), (b), (c)(1)(ii), (c)(2)-(3), (c)(4)(i)-(ii), (c)(5)-(6), (c)(7)-(8), (d)(1)-(2), (e), (f)(1)-(5), (g)(1)-(4)Monitoring RequirementsYesCMS requirements in §63.8(c)(4)(i)-(ii), (c)(5)-(6), (d)(1)-(2), and (e) apply only to COMS.
§63.8(a)(4)Additional Monitoring Requirements for Control Devices in §63.11NoSubpart FFFFF does not require flares.
§63.8(c)(1)(i)General Duty to Minimize Emissions and CMS OperationNo, for new or reconstructed sources which commenced construction or reconstruction after August 16, 2019. For all other affected sources, Yes on or before January 11, 2021, and No thereafter
§63.8(c)(1)(iii)Requirement to Develop SSM Plan for CMSNo, for new or reconstructed sources which commenced construction or reconstruction after August 16, 2019. For all other affected sources, Yes on or before January 11, 2021, and No thereafter
§63.8(c)(4)Continuous Monitoring System RequirementsNoSubpart FFFFF specifies requirements for operation of CMS.
§63.8(d)(3)Written procedures for CMSNo, for new or reconstructed sources which commenced construction or reconstruction after August 16, 2019. For all other affected sources, Yes on or before January 11, 2021, and No thereafterSee §63.7842(b)(3).
§63.8(f)(6)RATA AlternativeNo
§63.8(g)(5)Data ReductionNoSubpart FFFFF specifies data reduction requirements.
§63.9Notification RequirementsYesAdditional notifications for CMS in §63.9(g) apply only to COMS.
§63.10(a), (b)(1), (b)(2)(x), (b)(2)(xiv), (b)(3), (c)(1)-(6), (c)(9)-(14), (d)(1)-(4), (e)(1)-(2), (e)(4), (f)Recordkeeping and Reporting RequirementsYesAdditional records for CMS in §63.10(c)(1)-(6), (9)-(14), and reports in §63.10(d)(1)-(2) apply only to COMS.
§63.10(b)(2)(i)Recordkeeping of Occurrence and Duration of Startups and ShutdownsNo, for new or reconstructed sources which commenced construction or reconstruction after August 16, 2019. For all other affected sources, Yes on or before January 11, 2021, and No thereafter
§63.10(b)(2)(ii)Recordkeeping of Failures to Meet a StandardNo, for new or reconstructed sources which commenced construction or reconstruction after August 16, 2019. For all other affected sources, Yes on or before January 11, 2021, and No thereafterSee §63.7842(a)(2)-(4) for recordkeeping of (1) date, time, and duration of failure to meet the standard; (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, for new or reconstructed sources which commenced construction or reconstruction after August 16, 2019. For all other affected sources, Yes on or before January 11, 2021, and No thereafterSee §63.7842(a)(4) for records of actions taken to minimize emissions.
§63.10(b)(2)(v)Actions Taken to Minimize Emissions During SSMNo, for new or reconstructed sources which commenced construction or reconstruction after August 16, 2019. For all other affected sources, Yes on or before January 11, 2021, and No thereafterSee §63.7842(a)(4) for records of actions taken to minimize emissions.
§63.10(b)(2)(vi)Recordkeeping for CMS MalfunctionsYes
§63.10(b)(2)(vii)-(ix)Other CMS RequirementsYes
§63.10(b)(2)(xiii)CMS Records for RATA AlternativeNo
§63.10(c)(7)-(8)Records of Excess Emissions and Parameter Monitoring Exceedances for CMSNoSubpart FFFFF specifies record requirements; see §63.7842.
§63.10(c)(15)Use of SSM PlanNo, for new or reconstructed sources which commenced construction or reconstruction after August 16, 2019. For all other affected sources, Yes on or before January 11, 2021, and No thereafter
§63.10(d)(5)(i)Periodic SSM ReportsNo, for new or reconstructed sources which commenced construction or reconstruction after August 16, 2019. For all other affected sources, Yes on or before January 11, 2021, and No thereafterSee §63.7841(b)(4) for malfunction reporting requirements.
§63.10(d)(5)(ii)Immediate SSM ReportsNo, for new or reconstructed sources which commenced construction or reconstruction after August 16, 2019. For all other affected sources, Yes on or before January 11, 2021, and No thereafter
§63.10(e)(3)Excess Emission ReportsNoSubpart FFFFF specifies reporting requirements; see §63.7841.
§63.11Control Device RequirementsNoSubpart FFFFF does not require flares.
§63.12State Authority and DelegationsYes
§63.13-§63.16Addresses, Incorporations by Reference, Availability of Information and Confidentiality, Performance Track ProvisionsYes
See More

Most Recent Highlights In Transportation

From threat to thrive: Why climate risk planning is essential for businesses
2024-04-01T05:00:00Z

From threat to thrive: Why climate risk planning is essential for businesses

Climate change is no longer an impending threat. It is here and it has tangible consequences. As industry professionals, we understand the scientific basis for climate change and its anticipated effects.

However, translating this knowledge into actionable strategies requires robust risk planning. A recent survey conducted by the J. J. Keller Center for Market Insights revealed that only 20 percent of facilities currently engage in risk planning related to climate change.

Related article: 5 easy ways to keep up with environmental regulatory changes

Several factors impact how and why a business plans for environmental risk.

Business continuity: The domino effect of climate disruption

Among facilities currently engaged in risk planning for climate change, 65 percent consider business continuity. Extreme weather events are becoming more frequent and severe due to climate change. Floods, droughts, wildfires, and heat waves can disrupt critical infrastructure, transportation networks, and power grids. This can have a cascading effect, impacting a company's ability to operate and deliver products or services.

Proactive risk planning involves identifying vulnerabilities in your operations — from reliance on suppliers in one area to outdated infrastructure vulnerable to flooding. By conducting vulnerability assessments and developing contingency plans, businesses can ensure a smoother transition during climate disruptions, minimizing downtime and financial losses.

Brand image and reputation: The price of inaction

More than ever before, consumers are holding organizations responsible for their environmental impact. Failure to act on climate change can significantly hurt an organization's brand image and reputation. Ignoring climate risks suggests a lack of foresight and responsibility, potentially leading to boycotts, negative press coverage, and difficulty attracting employees.

Conversely, demonstrating proactive risk planning by implementing sustainable practices and adapting to climate change can enhance a company's brand image. It can translate to increased customer support, greater investor trust, and an edge in the marketplace.

Physical damage to facilities and assets: Counting the cost of climate

Among facilities currently engaging in risk planning for climate change, 59 percent consider physical damage. Climate change is a physical threat to businesses, with increased and often extreme geological and meteorological events posing a risk to facilities and assets. Rising sea levels threaten coastal locations, while extreme weather events can damage infrastructure and equipment.

Risk planning helps identify these exposures and develops strategies to mitigate them, such as elevating critical infrastructure, investing in flood-protection measures, or expanding production facilities across different geographic areas. By proactively addressing physical risks, businesses can minimize the financial burden of repairs and potential reconstruction efforts.

Regulatory risk and noncompliance costs: Staying ahead of the curve

Governments are progressively implementing regulations to address climate change. These regulations may include stricter environmental standards for production processes and mandatory reporting of greenhouse gas emissions. Businesses that fail to adapt their operations to comply with necessary regulations risk hefty fines and legal penalties.

Risk planning involves staying informed about evolving regulations and developing a strategy for compliance. This can help businesses easily adapt and avoid costly fines or even operational shutdowns.

Revenue loss: The bottom line of climate change

Climate change can negatively impact an organization's revenue stream in several ways. For example, droughts and floods can disrupt farming operations and supply chains, leading to shortages and price increases that can discourage customers. Severe weather events can damage attractions and infrastructure, impacting the tourism and hospitality industries. Additionally, regulations intended to address climate change, such as carbon taxing, can impact production costs, potentially leading to price increases and reduced end user demand. Risk planning helps businesses identify these potential losses and create approaches to mitigate them. Examples include investing in climate-smart agriculture, developing drought-resistant crops, or exploring alternative production methods that are less susceptible to climate disruptions.

Key to remember: Climate change is a complex challenge. Risk planning can help businesses protect their operations, reputation, and financial well-being.

2024-03-28T05:00:00Z

EPA Final Rule: Clean Water Act Hazardous Substance Facility Response Plans

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA or Agency) is finalizing facility response plan requirements for worst case discharges of Clean Water Act (CWA) hazardous substances for onshore non-transportation-related facilities that could reasonably be expected to cause substantial harm to the environment by discharging a CWA hazardous substance into or on the navigable waters, adjoining shorelines, or exclusive economic zone.

DATES: This final rule is effective on May 28, 2024, published in the Federal Register, page 21924.

View final rule.

Part 118—Clean Water Act Hazardous Substances Facility Response Plans
Entire partAddedView text
§300.185 Nongovernmental participation.
(a)RevisedView text
§300.211 OPA facility and vessel response plans.
(c)RevisedView text
§300.411 Response to CWA hazardous substance worst case discharges.
Entire sectionAddedView text

New Text

§300.185 Nongovernmental participation.

(a) Industry groups, academic organizations, and others are encouraged to commit resources for response operations. Specific commitments should be listed in the RCP and ACP. Those entities required to develop tank vessel and facility response plans under CWA section 311(j) must be able to respond to a worst case discharge to the maximum extent practicable, and shall commit sufficient resources to implement other aspects of those plans in accordance with the requirements of 30 CFR part 254, 33 CFR parts 150, 154, and 155; 40 CFR parts 112 and 118; and 49 CFR parts 171 and 194.

* * * * *

§300.211 OPA facility and vessel response plans.

* * * * *

(c) For non-transportation-related onshore facilities, these regulations are codified in 40 CFR 112.20 and 40 CFR part 118;

* * * * *

2024-03-28T05:00:00Z

EPA Final Rule: Chrysotile Asbestos; Regulation Under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA)

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA or the Agency) is issuing this final rule under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) to address to the extent necessary the unreasonable risk of injury to health presented by chrysotile asbestos based on the risks posed by certain conditions of use. The injuries to human health include mesothelioma and lung, ovarian, and laryngeal cancers resulting from chronic inhalation exposure to chrysotile asbestos.

DATES: This final rule is effective on May 28, 2024, published in the Federal Register March 28, 2024, page 21970.

View final rule.

Subpart F—Chrysotile Asbestos
Entire subpartAddedView text
2024-03-26T05:00:00Z

EPA Proposed Rule: Request To Submit Unpublished Health and Safety Data Under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA)

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA or the Agency) is proposing to require manufacturers (including importers) of 16 chemical substances to submit copies and lists of certain unpublished health and safety studies to EPA. Health and safety studies sought by this action will help inform EPA's responsibilities pursuant to TSCA, including prioritization, risk evaluation, and risk management.

DATES: This proposed rule is published in the Federal Register March 26, 2024, page 20918.

View proposed rule.

PFAS cleanup: Senators weigh CERCLA ‘liability shield’ for utilities/landfills
2024-03-25T05:00:00Z

PFAS cleanup: Senators weigh CERCLA ‘liability shield’ for utilities/landfills

An EPA final rule to designate two PFAS as hazardous substances under CERCLA is expected this year! However, a recent “standing-room-only” Senate hearing evaluated potential consequences of the rule. Much of the discussion was over liability concerns for “passive receivers” like water utilities and landfills. The upcoming rule may not provide EPA with flexibility to exempt them.

Costs of PFAS

During the March 20 hearing, Senator Tom Carper (D-DE), Chairperson of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, made it a point that PFAS has proved useful. It has even saved many lives as a firefighting foam, he asserted. PFAS is short for per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances.

It’s also a pervasive threat to human health, Carper concluded. A health advocate who testified at the hearing warned the Senators that failing to address PFAS in drinking water will result in thousands of deaths. Cause-of-death examples he said include cancer, cardiovascular disease, and infant low birth weights.

Carper also brought up the millions of dollars to cleanup PFAS. He said it costs only $50 to $1,000 per pound to manufacture PFAS products. Yet, it costs $3M to $18M per pound to remove the compounds from wastewater, the lawmaker remarked. Testimony suggested that legal defense costs and technology investments can also add up to several million dollars for a facility.

Unprecedented direct designation

Everyone at the hearing agreed that EPA has never “directly” listed a substance as a CERCLA substance under 40 CFR 302. CERCLA is the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act.

Looking back, EPA has always defined CERCLA hazardous substances that were first regulated by other laws, like the Clean Water Act (CWA) or the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). In this case, PFAS compounds would be declared CERCLA hazardous substances. However, that would be without regulation under another law. This is called “CERCLA first.”

That means, for example, there are no federal water or waste permits for PFAS (yet) that could provide an exemption (or liability shield) from CERCLA. Moreover, CERCLA is retroactive. So, even if PFAS is covered by later permits, parties may be responsible for PFAS released to water, air, or land before the issuance of a permit.

The Cabinet Secretary for the New Mexico Environment Department testified that he favors listing discarded PFAS as a RCRA hazardous waste first.

Liability concerns for passive receivers

Carper stated that he has heard mounting concerns about the potential unintended impacts of the impending designation rule. Specifically, he mentioned entities that do not use these chemicals. The lawmaker explained that they could be held responsible for downstream PFAS contamination simply because the contamination traveled through their facility.

Senator and Ranking Member Shelley Capito (R-WV) agreed. “If an entity meets the definition of a ‘potentially responsible party,’ that entity is liable for all cleanup costs, regardless of intent or exercise of due care ... These entities are known as ‘passive receivers.” [They] did not manufacture or generate PFAS and were unknowingly, or required by law, to catch or to receive these contaminants.”

A legal expert for the Congressional Research Service revealed that under the upcoming rule, “Entities that have been involved in releases of PFAS could be held liable if the other preconditions to liability are met and no exemptions apply.” Her examples included:

  • Chemical manufacturers or processors,
  • Firefighting training operations that used fluorinated aqueous film-forming foam,
  • Landfills and incinerators,
  • Wastewater treatment facilities, and
  • Sites with land application or disposal of biosolids.

EPA enforcement discretion

Some testified that EPA has promised to focus enforcement efforts on PFAS manufacturers and industries that release significant amounts of PFAS. However, someone clarified that EPA would not be bound by this policy. Plus, states, tribes, and private parties can still bring litigation. A landfill association representative added, “If EPA chooses not to take any action, the passive receiver has no protection from a suit brought by another potentially responsible party.”

Options for Congress

Both Carper and Capito say they’re looking for a bipartisan legislative response to the concerns. Legislative options might include:

  • Barring EPA from designating PFAS as a hazardous substance;
  • Amending CERCLA to narrow the PFAS release types that could give rise to liability;
  • Listing the entity types that are exempt from liability for PFAS response costs;
  • Amending CERCLA so that federal EPA is solely responsible for its implementation; and
  • Listing PFAS as a RCRA hazardous waste first and increasing funding for state RCRA programs.

Congress could also go the other way. It could direct EPA to designate various PFAS as hazardous substances under CERCLA.

Key to remember

A recent Senate hearing on PFAS went over liability and a possible liability shield for passive receivers like water utilities and landfills.

See More

Most Recent Highlights In Safety & Health

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 Human Resources

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 le