Loading (50 kb)...'
(continued)
Burning.
Control of
Particulate
Emissions.
Section 3.1.................. Visible Emissions 6/08/1972 3/02/1976, 41 FR 8956
(3.1.1-3.1.2).
Section 3.2.................. Fugitive Dust (3.2.1- 6/08/1972 3/02/1976, 41 FR 8956
3.2.3).
Section 3.3.................. Incineration (3.3.1- 6/08/1972 3/02/1976, 41 FR 8956
3.3.4).
Section 3.4.................. Fuel Burning 6/08/1972 3/02/1976, 41 FR 8956
Equipment (3.4.1-
3.4.2).
Section 3.5.................. Process 6/08/1972 3/02/1976, 41 FR 8956
Industries_General
(3.5.1, 3.5.3-3.5.5).
Table 1...................... Particulate Emission 6/08/1972 3/02/1976, 41 FR 8956
Allowable Based on
Process Weight.
Section 3.6.................. Sampling Methods 6/08/1972 3/02/1976, 41 FR 8956
(3.6.1).
Control of Sulfur
Compound Emissions.
Section 4.1.................. Fuel Combustion 6/08/1972 3/02/1976, 41 FR 8956
(4.1.1).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(d) EPA approved State source specific requirements.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Effective
Name of source Permit No. date EPA approval date Explanation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
None
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(e) [Reserved]
[70 FR 53566, Sept. 9, 2005]
§ 52.2821 Classification of regions.
top
The American Samoa plan was evaluated on the basis of the following classifications:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pollutant
----------------------------------------------------------
Air quality control region Photochemical
Particulate Sulfur Nitrogen Carbon oxidants
matter oxides dioxide monoxide (hydrocarbons)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
American Samoa....................................... III III III III III
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[37 FR 10906, May 31, 1972]
§ 52.2822 Approval status.
top
With the exceptions set forth in this subpart, the Administrator approves American Samoa's plan for the attainment and maintenance of the national standards.
[39 FR 8617, Mar. 6, 1974]
§ 52.2823 Original identification of plan.
top
(a) This section identified the original “Implementation Plan for Compliance With the Ambient Air Quality Standards for the Territory of American Samoa” and all revisions submitted by the Territory of American Samoa that were federally approved prior to June 1, 2005.
(b) The plan was officially submitted on January 27, 1972.
(1) Previously approved on May 31, 1972 and now deleted without replacement Chapter 35.01, Section 35.0113 of the Environmental Quality Act.
(c) The plan revisions listed below were submitted on the dates specified.
(1) Revised legal authority submitted on March 9, 1972, by the Environmental Quality Commission.
(2) Letter indicating formal adoption of the implementation plan submitted on March 23, 1972, by the Environmental Quality Commission.
(3) Letter regarding comments on the plan and indicating intent to submit a revised plan submitted on April 28, 1972, by the Environmental Quality Commission.
(4) Formally adopted rules and regulations for the entire Territory submitted on June 8, 1972, by the Environmental Quality Commission.
(5) The following amendments to the plan were submitted on November 22, 1982, by the Governor.
(i) Negative declaration indicating no Lead sources in American Samoa.
[37 FR 10906, May 31, 1972, as amended at 41 FR 8969, Mar. 2, 1976; 50 FR 32698, Aug. 14, 1985; 62 FR 34648, June 27, 1997. Redesignated and amended at 70 FR 53566, Sept. 9, 2005]
§ 52.2824 Review of new sources and modifications.
top
(a) The requirements of subpart I of this chapter are not met since the Territory of American Samoa failed to submit a plan for review of new or modified indirect sources.
(b) Regulation for review of new or modified indirect sources: The provisions of §52.22(b) are hereby incorporated by reference and made a part of the applicable implementation plan for the Territory of American Samoa.
[39 FR 8617, Mar. 6, 1974, as amended at 51 FR 40677, Nov. 7, 1986]
§§ 52.2825-52.2826 [Reserved]
top
§ 52.2827 Significant deterioration of air quality.
top
(a) The requirements of sections 160 through 165 of the Clean Air Act are not met, since the plan does not include approvable procedures for preventing the significant deterioration of air quality.
(b) Regulations for preventing significant deterioration of air quality. The provisions of §52.21 except paragraph (a)(1) are hereby incorporated and made a part of the applicable State plan for American Samoa.
[43 FR 26410, June 19, 1978, as amended at 45 FR 52741, Aug. 7, 1980; 68 FR 11325, Mar. 10, 2003; 68 FR 74491, Dec. 24, 2003]
Subpart EEE—Approval and Promulgation of Plans
top
§ 52.2850 Approval and promulgation of implementation plans.
top
State plans consisting of control strategies, rules, and regulations, and, in certain instances, compliance schedules, which the Administrator has determined meet the requirements of section 16 of the “Clean Air Amendments of 1970” have been approved as follows:
Delaware
An implementation plan for the State's portion of the Philadelphia Interstate Air Quality Control Region was received by the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare on June 30, 1970. Supplemental information was received October 20, 1970. The Administrator has determined that the State's control strategy for sulfur oxides, as set forth in this implementation plan, is adequate for attainment of the national primary ambient air quality standards for sulfur oxides. Therefore, the Administrator has approved such control strategy, together with specified rules and regulations and the compliance schedule pertaining thereto.
New Jersey
An implementation plan for the State's portion of the Philadelphia Interstate Air Quality Control Region was received by the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare on May 26, 1970. Supplemental information was submitted September 23, 1970. TheAdministrator has determined that the State's control strategy for sulfur oxides, as set forth in this implementation plan, is adequate for attainment of the national primary ambient air quality standards for sulfur oxides. Therefore, the Administrator has approved such control strategy, together with specified rules and regulations and the compliance schedule pertaining thereto.
Pennsylvania
An implementation plan for the State's portion of the Philadelphia Interstate Air Quality Control Region was received by the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare on May 4, 1970. Supplemental information was received August 4, 1970. The Administrator has determined that the State's control strategy for sulfur oxides, as set forth in this implementation plan, is adequate for attainment of the national primary ambient air quality standards for sulfur oxides. Therefore, the Administrator has approved such control strategy, together with specified rules and regulations pertaining thereto.
Kansas
An implementation plan for the State's portion of the Kansas City Interstate Air Quality Control Region was received by the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare on November 19, 1970. The Administrator has determined that the State's control strategy for particulate matter, as set forth in this implementation plan, is adequate for attainment of the national primary and secondary ambient air quality standards for particulate matter. Therefore, the Administrator has approved such control strategy, together with specified rules and regulations and the compliance schedule pertaining thereto.
Virginia
An implementation plan for the State's portion of the National Capital Interstate Air Quality Control Region was received by the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare on April 29, 1970. Supplemental information was received August 10 and 14, 1970. The Administrator has determined that the State's control strategy for sulfur oxides and particulate matter, as set forth in this implementation plan, is adequate for attainment of the National primary and secondary ambient air quality standards for sulfur oxides and particulate matter. Therefore, the Administrator has approved such control strategy, together with specified rules and regulations and the compliance schedules pertaining thereto.
Maryland
An implementation plan for the State's portion of the National Capital Interstate Air Quality Control Region was received by the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare on May 28, 1970. Supplemental information was submitted August 7 and 21, 1970. The Administrator has determined that the State's control strategy for sulfur oxides and particulate matter, as set forth in this implementation plan, is adequate for attainment of the national primary and secondary ambient air quality standards for sulfur oxides and particulate matter. Therefore, the Administrator has approved such control strategy, together with specified rules and regulations, as well as the compliance schedule pertaining to the sulfur oxides standards.
Maryland
An implementation plan for the Baltimore Intrastate Air Quality Control Region was submitted to the Environmental Protection Agency on December 23, 1970. The Administrator as determined that the State's control strategy for sulfur oxides, as set forth in this implementation plan, is adequate for attainment of the national primary ambient air quality standards for sulfur oxides. The Administrator has also determined that the State's control strategy for particulate matter, as set forth in this implementation plan, is adequate for attainment of the national primary and secondary ambient air quality standards for particulate matter. Therefore, the Administrator has approved such control strategies, together with specified rules and regulations, as well as the compliance schedule pertaining to the sulfur oxides standards.
Colorado
An implementation plan for the Denver Intrastate Air Quality Control Region was received by the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare on May 12, 1970, and was amended by letter dated November 10, 1970. The Administrator has determined that the State's control strategy for particulate matter, as set forth in this implementation plan, is adequate for attainment of the national primary ambient air quality standards for particulate matter. The Administrator has also determined that the State's control strategy for sulfur oxides, as set forth in this implementation plan, is adequate for maintaining the national secondary ambient air quality standards for sulfur oxides. Therefore, the Administrator has approved such control strategies, together with specified rules and regulations and the compliance schedules pertaining thereto.
Missouri
An implementation plan for the State's portion of the Kansas City Intrastate Air Quality Control Region was received by the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare on October 14, 1970. The Administrator has determined that the State's control strategy for particulate matter, as set forth in this implementation plan, is adequate for attainment of the national primary and secondary ambient air quality standards for particulate matter. Therefore, the Administrator has approved such control strategy, together with specified rules and regulations and the compliance schedules pertaining thereto.
District of Columbia
An implementation plan for the District's portion of the National Capital Interstate Air Quality Control Region was received by the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare on May 6, 1970. Supplemental information was received August 24, 1970. The Administrator has determined that the District's control strategy for sulfur oxides and particulate matter, as set forth in this implementation plan, is adequate for attainment of the national primary and secondary ambient air quality standards for sulfur oxides and particulate matter. Therefore, the Administrator has approved such control strategy, together with specified rules and regulations pertaining thereto.
Massachusetts
An implementation plan for the Boston Intrastate Air Quality Control Region was received by the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare on September 16, 1970. The Administrator has determined that the State's control strategy for sulfur oxides,as set forth in this implementation plan, is adequate for attainment of the national primary ambient air quality standards for sulfur oxides. Therefore, the Administrator has approved such control strategy, together with specified rules and regulations and the compliance schedules pertaining thereto.
[37 FR 2581, Feb. 2, 1972. Redesignated at 37 FR 10846, May 31, 1972]
Subpart FFF—Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands
top
§ 52.2900 Negative declaration.
top
(a) Air Pollution Implementation Plan for the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands.
(1) Letter of December 15, 1982, from the Governor to EPA, which is a negative declaration indicating no major lead sources and continued attainment and maintenance of the National Standards for lead.
[51 FR 40799, Nov. 10, 1986]
§ 52.2920 Identification of plan.
top
(a) Purpose and scope. This section sets forth the applicable State implementation plan for the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands under section 110 of the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. 7401–7671q and 40 CFR part 51 to meet national ambient air quality standards.
(b) Incorporation by reference.
(1) Material listed in paragraphs (c) and (d) of this section with an EPA approval date prior to June 1, 2005, was approved for incorporation by reference by the Director of the Federal Register in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. Material is incorporated as it exists on the date of the approval, and notice of any change in the material will be published in the Federal Register. Entries in paragraphs (c) and (d) of this section with EPA approval dates after June 1, 2005, will be incorporated by reference in the next update to the SIP compilation.
(2) EPA Region IX certifies that the rules/regulations provided by EPA in the SIP compilation at the addresses in paragraph (b)(3) of this section are an exact duplicate of the officially promulgated State rules/regulations which have been approved as part of the State implementation plan as of June 1, 2005.
(3) Copies of the materials incorporated by reference may be inspected at the Region IX EPA Office at 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105; the Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW., Room B108, Washington, DC; or the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call (202) 741–6030, or go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal_regulations/ibr_locations.html.
(c) EPA approved regulations.
Table 52.2920_EPA Approved Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands Regulations
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Effective
State citation Title/subject date EPA approval date Explanation
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Air Pollution Control Regulations:
Part I......................... Authority................. 01/19/1987 11/13/1987, 52 FR 43574 ....................................
Part II........................ Purpose and Policy........ 01/19/1987 11/13/1987, 52 FR 43574
Part III....................... Policy.................... 01/19/1987 11/13/1987, 52 FR 43574 ....................................
Part IV........................ Definitions (a_www)....... 01/19/1987 11/13/1987, 52 FR 43574 ....................................
Part V......................... Permitting of New Sources 01/19/1987 11/13/1987, 52 FR 43574 ....................................
And Modifications (A_M).
Part VI........................ Registration of Existing 01/19/1987 11/13/1987, 52 FR 43574 ....................................
Sources (A_D).
Part VII....................... Sampling, Testing and 01/19/1987 11/13/1987, 52 FR 43574
Reporting Methods (A_D).
Part VIII...................... Prohibition of Air 01/19/1987 11/13/1987, 52 FR 43574 ....................................
Pollution.
Paragraph A................ Control of Open Burning
Paragraph B................ Control of Visible
Emissions
Paragraph C................ Control of Emissions from
Motor Vehicles
Paragraph D................ Control of Fugitive Dust
and Other Particulate
Matter
Paragraph E................ Control of Incineration
Paragraph F................ Control of Process
Industries
Table VIII-1............... Process Weight Rate
Paragraph G................ Control of Sulfur Oxides
From Fuel Combustion
Paragraph H................ Variances to Prohibition
of Air Pollution
Part IX........................ Fees (A_B)................ 01/19/1987 11/13/1987, 52 FR 43574 ....................................
Part X......................... Public Participation (A-E) 01/19/1987 11/13/1987, 52 FR 43574 ....................................
Part XI........................ Enforcement (A_E)......... 01/19/1987 11/13/1987, 52 FR 43574 ....................................
Part XII....................... Severability.............. 01/19/1987 11/13/1987, 52 FR 43574 ....................................
Part XIII...................... Effective Date............ 01/19/1987 11/13/1987, 52 FR 43574 ....................................
Part XIV....................... Certification............. 01/19/1987 11/13/1987, 52 FR 43574 ....................................
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(d) EPA approved State source specific requirements.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Effective
Name of source Permit number date EPA approval date Explanation
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
None............................... .......................... ........... .................................... ....................................
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(e) [Reserved]
[70 FR 44480, Aug. 3, 2005]
§ 52.2921 Original identification of plan.
top
(a) This section identified the original “Implementation Plan for Compliance With the Ambient Air Quality Standards for the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands' and all revisions submitted by the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands that were federally approved prior to June 1, 2005.
(b) [Reserved]
(c) The plan revisions described below were officially submitted on the dates specified.
(1) On February 19, 1987 the Governor's representative submitted regulations adopted as signed on December 15, 1986 and published in the Commonwealth Register, Volume 9, Number 1, pages 4862–94, on January 19, 1987, as follows:
(i) Incorporation by reference. (A) “CNMI AIR POLLUTION CONTROL REGULATIONS” pertaining to the preconstruction review of new and modified major sources of lead, as follows.
Part I—Authority
Part II—Purpose and Policy
Part III—Policy
Part IV—Definitions
Part V—Permitting of New Sources and Modifications
Part VI—Registration of Existing Sources
Part VII—Sampling, Testing and Reporting Methods
Part IX—Fees
Part X—Public Participation
Part XI—Enforcement
Part XII—Severability
Part XIII—Effective Date
Part XIV—Certification
[52 FR 43574, Nov. 13, 1987. Redesignated and amended at 70 FR 44480, Aug. 3, 2005]
Appendixes A–C to Part 52 [Reserved]
top
Appendix D to Part 52—Determination of Sulfur Dioxide Emissions from Stationary Sources by Continuous Monitors
top
1. Definitions.
1.1 Concentration Measurement System. The total equipment required for the continuous determination of SO2 gas concentration in a given source effluent.
1.2 Span. The value of sulfur dioxide concentration at which the measurement system is set to produce the maximum data display output. For the purposes of this method, the span shall be set at the expected maximum sulfur dioxide concentration except as specified under section 5.2, Field Test for Accuracy.
1.3 Accuracy (Relative). The degree of correctness with which the measurement system yields the value of gas concentration of a sample relative to the value given by a defined reference method. This accuracy is expressed in terms of error which is the difference between the paired concentration measurements expressed as a percentage of the mean reference value.
1.4 Calibration Error. The difference between the pollutant concentration indicated by the measurement system and the known concentration of the test gas mixture.
1.5 Zero Drift. The change in measurement system output over a stated period of time of normal continuous operation when the pollutant concentration at the time for the measurement is zero.
1.6 Calibration Drift. The change in measurement system output over a stated period of time of normal continuous operation when the pollutant concentration at the time of the measurement is the same known upscale value.
1.7 Response Time. The time interval from a step change in pollutant concentration at the input to the measurement system to the time at which 95 percent of the corresponding final value is reached as displayed on the measurement system data presentation device.
1.8 Operational Period. A minimum period of time over which a measurement system is expected to operate within certain performance specifications without unscheduled maintenance, repair or adjustment.
1.9 Reference Method. The reference method for determination of SO2 emissions shall be Method 8 as delineated in Part 60 of this chapter. The analytical and computational portions of Method 8 as they relate to determination of sulfuric acid mist and sulfur trioxide, as well as isokinetic sampling, may be omitted from the overall test procedure.
2. Principle and Applicability.
2.1 Principle. Gases are continuously sampled in the stack emissions and analyzed for sulfur dioxide by a continuously operating emission measurement system. Performance specifications for the continuous measurement systems are given. Test procedures are given to determine the capability of the measurement systems to conform to the performance specifications. Sampling may include either the extractive or nonextractive (in-situ) approach.
2.2 Applicability. The performance specifications are given for continuous sulfur dioxide measurement systems applied to nonferrous smelters.
3. Apparatus.
3.1 Calibration Gas Mixture. Mixture of a known concentrations of sulfur dioxide in oxygen-free nitrogen. Nominal volumetric concentrations of 50 percent and 90 percent of span are recommended. The mixture of 90 percent of span is to be used to set and to check the span and is referred to as the span gas. The gas mixtures shall be analyzed by the Reference Method at least two weeks prior to use or demonstrated to be accurate and stable by an alternate method subject to approval of the Administrator.
3.2 Zero Gas. A gas containing less than 1 ppm sulfur dioxide.
3.3 Equipment for measurement of sulfur dioxide concentration using the Reference Method.
3.4 Chart Record. Analog chart recorder, input voltage range compatible with analyzer system output.
3.5 Continuous measurement system for sulfur dioxide.
4. Measurement System Performance Specifications.
The following performance specifications shall be met in order that a measurement system shall be considered acceptable under this method.
Table I_Performance Specifications
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Parameter \a\ Specification
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Accuracy \a\................... [le]20 percent of reference mean
value.
2. Calibration Error \a\.......... [le]5 percent of each (50%, and 30%)
calibration gas mixture.
3. Zero Drift (2-hours) \a\....... [le]2 percent of emission standard.
4. Zero Drift (24-hours) \a\...... [le]4 percent of emission standard.
5. Calibration Drift (2-hours) \a\ [le]2 percent of emission standard.
6. Calibration Drift (24-hours) [le]5 percent of emission standard.
\a\.
7. Response Time.................. [le]5 minutes maximum.
8. Operational Period............. [le]168 hours minimum.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Expressed as sum of absolute mean value plus 95 percent confidence
interval of a series of tests.
5. Performance Specification Test Procedures.
The following test procedures shall be used to determine compliance with the requirements of paragraph 4:
5.1 Calibration test.
5.1.1 Analyze each calibration gas mixture (50 percent, 90 percent) for sulfur dioxide by the Reference method and record the results on the example sheet shown in Figure D–1. This step may be omitted for nonextractive monitors where dynamic calibration gas mixtures are not used (see section 5.1.2).
5.1.2 Set up and calibrate the complete measurement system according to the manufacturer's written instructions. This may be accomplished either in the laboratory or in the field. Make a series of five nonconsecutive readings with span gas mixtures alternately at each concentration (example, 50 percent, 90 percent, 50 percent, 90 percent, 50 percent). For nonextractive measurement systems, this test may be performed using procedures specified by the manufacturer and two or more calibration gases whose concentrations are certified by the manufacturer and differ by a factor of two or more. Convert the measurement system output readings to ppm and record the results on the example sheet shown in Figure D–2.
5.2 Field Test for Accuracy (Relative), Zero Drift and Calibration Drift. Install and operate the measurement system in accordance with the manufacturer's written instructions and drawings as follows:
5.2.1 Conditioning Period. Offset the zero setting at least 10 percent of span so that negative zero drift may be quantified. Operate the system for an initial 168-hour conditioning period. During this period the system should measure the SO2 content of the effluent in a normal operational manner.
5.2.2 Operational Test Period. Operate the system for an additional 168-hour period. The system shall be monitoring the source effluent at all times when not being zeroed, calibrated or backpurged.
5.2.2.1 Field Test for Accuracy (Relative). The analyzer output for the following test shall be maintained between 20 percent and 90 percent of span. It is recommended that a calibrated gas mixture be used to verify the span setting utilized. During this 168-hour test period, make a minimum of nine (9) SO2 concentration measurements using the Reference Method with a sampling period of one hour. If a measurement system operates across the stack or a portion of it, the Reference Method test shall make a four-point traverse over the measurement system operating path. Isokinetic sampling and analysis for SO3 and H2 SO4 mist are not required. For measurement systems employing extractive sampling, place the measurement system and the Reference Method probe tips adjacent to each other in the duct. One test will consist of two simultaneous samples with not less than two analyses on each sample. Record the test data and measurement system concentrations on the example sheet shown in Figure D–3.
5.2.2.2 Field Test for Zero Drift and Calibration Drift. Determine the values given by zero and span gas SO2 concentrations at 2-hour intervals until 15 sets of data are obtained. Alternatively, for nonextractive measurement systems, determine the values given by an electrically or mechanically produced zero condition, and by inserting a certified calibration gas concentration equivalent to not less than 20 percent of span, into the measurement system. Record these readings on the example sheet shown in Figure D–4. These 2-hour periods need not be consecutive but may not overlap. If the analyzer span is set at the expected maximum concentration for the tests performed under section 5.2.2, then the zero and span determinations to be made under this paragraph may be made concurrent with the tests under section 5.2.2.1. Zero and calibration corrections and adjustments are allowed only at 24-hour intervals (except as required under section 5.2.2) or at such shorter intervals as the manufacturer's written instructions specify. Automatic corrections made by the measurement system without operator intervention or initiation are allowable at any time. During the entire 168-hour test period, record the values given by zero and span gas SO2 concentrations before and after adjustment at 24-hour intervals in the example sheet shown in Figure D–5.
5.3 Field Test for Response Time.
5.3.1 This test shall be accomplished using the entire measurement system as installed including sample transport lines if used. Flow rates, line diameters, pumping rates, pressures (do not allow the pressurized calibration gas to change the normal operating pressure in the sample line), etc., shall be at the nominal values for normal operation as specified in the manufacturer's written instructions. In the case of cyclic analyzers, the response time test shall include one cycle.
5.3.2 Introduce a zero concentration of SO2 into the measurement system sampling interface or as close to the sampling interface as possible. When the system output reading has stabilized, switch quickly to a known concentration of SO2 at 70 to 90 percent of span. Record the time from concentration switching to final stable response. After the system response has stabilized at the upper level, switch quickly to a zero concentration of SO2. Record the time from concentration switching to final stable response. Alternatively, for nonextractive monitors, a calibration gas concentration equivalent to 20 percent of span or more may be switched into and out of the sample path and response times recorded. Perform this test sequence three (3) times. For each test record the results on the example sheet shown in Figure D–6.
6. Calculations, Data Analysis and Reporting.
6.1 Procedure for determination of mean values and confidence intervals.
6.1.1 The mean value of a data set is calculated according to equation D–1.
Where:
xi=individual values.
S=sum of the individual values.
x=mean value.
n=number of data points.
6.1.2 The 95 percent confidence interval (two-sided) is calculated according to equation D–2.
Where:
Sxi=sum of all data points.
t.975 = t1–a/2, and
C.I.95=95 percent confidence interval estimated of the average mean value.
Typical Values for t1-a/2
------------------------------------------------------------------------
n t.975 n t.975 n t.975
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2 12.706 7 2.447 12 2.201
3 4.303 8 2.365 13 2.179
4 3.182 9 2.306 14 2.160
5 2.776 10 2.262 15 2.145
6 2.571 11 2.228 16 2.131
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The values in this table are already corrected for n–1 degrees of freedom. Use n equal to the number of samples as data points.
6.2 Data Analysis and Reporting.
6.2.1 Accuracy (Relative). For each of the nine reference method testing periods, determine the average sulfur dioxide concentration reported by the continuous measurement system. These average concentrations shall be determined from the measurement system data recorded under section 5.2.2.1 by integrating the pollutant concentrations over each of the time intervals concurrent with each reference method test, then dividing by the cumulative time of each applicable reference method testing period. Before proceeding to the next step, determine the basis (wet or dry) of the measurement system data and reference method test data concentrations.
If the bases are not consistent, apply a moisture correction to either the referenced method concentrations or the measurement system concentrations, as appropriate. Determine the correction factor by moisture tests concurrent with the reference method testing periods. Report the moisture test method and the correction procedure employed. For each of the nine test runs, subtract the Reference Method test concentrations from the continuous monitoring system average concentrations. Using these data, compute the mean difference and the 95 percent confidence interval using equations D–1 and D–2. Accuracy is reported as the sum of the absolute value of the mean difference and the 95 percent confidence interval expressed as a percentage of the mean reference method value. Use the example sheet shown in Figure D–3.
6.2.2 Calibration Error. Using the data from section 5.1 of this appendix, subtract the measured SO2 value determined under section 5.1.1 (Figure D–1) from the value shown by the measurement system for each of the 5 readings at each concentration measured under section 5.1.2 (Figure D–2). Calculate the mean of these difference values and the 95 percent confidence intervals according to equations D–1 and D–2. The calibration error is reported as the sum of absolute value of the mean difference and the 95 percent confidence interval as a percentage of each respective calibration gas concentration. Use example sheet shown in Figure D–2.
6.2.3 Zero Drift (2-hour). Using the zero concentration values measured each two hours during the field test, calculate the differences between consecutive two-hour readings expressed in ppm. Calculate the mean difference and the confidence interval using Equations D–1 and D–2. Report the zero drift as the sum of the absolute mean value and the confidence interval as a percentage of the emission standard. Use example sheet shown in Figure D–4.
6.2.4 Zero Drift (24-hour). Using the zero concentration values measured every 24 hours during the field test, calculate the differences between the zero point after zero adjustment and the zero value 24 hours later just prior to zero adjustment. Calculate the mean value of these points and the confidence interval using Equations D–1 and D–2. Report the zero drift as the sum of the absolute mean and confidence interval as a percentage of the emission standard. Use example sheet shown in Figure D–5.
6.2.5 Calibration Drift (2-hour). Using the calibration values obtained at two-hour intervals during the field test, calculate the differences between consecutive two-hour readings expressed as ppm. These values should be corrected for the corresponding zero drift during that two-hour period. Calculate the mean and confidence interval of these corrected difference values using Equations D–1 and D–2. Do not use the differences between non-consecutive readings. Report the calibration drift as the sum of the absolute mean and confidence interval as a percentage of the emission standard. Use the example sheet shown in Figure D–4.
6.2.6 Calibration Drift (24-hour). Using the calibration values measured every 24 hours during the field test, calculate the differences between the calibration concentration reading after zero and calibration adjustment and the calibration concentration reading 24 hours later after zero adjustment but before calibration adjustment. Calculate the mean value of these differences and the confidence interval using equations D–1 and D–2. Report the sum of the absolute mean and confidence interval as a percentage of the emission standard. Use the example sheet shown in Figure D–5.
6.2.7 Response Time. Using the charts from section 5.3 of this Appendix, calculate the time interval from concentration switching to 95 percent to the final stable value for all upscale and downscale tests. Report the mean of the three upscale test times and the mean of the three downscale test times. For nonextractive instruments using a calibration gas cell to determine response time, the observed times shall be extrapolated to 90 percent of full scale response time. For example, if the observed time for a 20 percent of span gas cell is one minute, this would be equivalent to a 4 1/2-minute response time when extrapolated to 90 percent of span. The two average times should not differ by more than 15 percent of the slower time. Report the slower time as the system response time. Use the example sheet shown in Figure D–6.
6.2.8 Operational Period. During the 168-hour performance and operational test period, the measurement system shall not require any corrective maintenance, repair, replacement, or adjustment other than that clearly specified as required in the operation and maintenance manuals as routine and expected during a one-week period. If the measurement system operates within the specified performance parameters and does not require corrective maintenance, repair, replacement or adjustment other than specified above, during the 168-hour test period, the operational period will be successfully concluded. Failure of the measurement to meet this requirement shall call for a repetition of the 168-hour test period. Portions of the test which were satisfactorily completed need not be repeated. Failure to meet any performance specifications shall call for a repetition of the one-week performance test period and that portion of the testing which is related to the failed specification. All maintenance and adjustments required shall be recorded. Output readings shall be recorded before and after all adjustments.
6.2.9 Performance Specifications Testing Frequency. In the event that significant repair work is performed in the system, the company shall demonstrate to the Administrator that the system still meets the performance specifications listed in Table I of this appendix. The Administrator may require a performance test at any time he determines that such test is necessary to verify the performance of the measurement system.
7. References.
7.1 Monitoring Instrumentation for the Measurement of Sulfur Dioxide in Stationary Source Emissions, Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, N.C., February 1973.
7.2 Instrumentation for the Determination of Nitrogen Oxides Content of Stationary Source Emissions, Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, N.C., APTD 0847, Vol. I, October 1971; APTD 0942, Vol. II, January 1972.
7.3 Experimental Statistics, Department of Commerce, Handbook 91, 1963, p. 3–31, paragraphs 3–3.1.4.
7.4 Performance Specifications for Stationary-Source Monitoring Systems for Gases, and Visible Emissions, Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, N.C., EPA–650/2–74–013, January 1974.
Figure D-1_Analysis of Calibration Gas Mixtures
Date _____ Reference Method Used _____
Mid Range Calibration Gas Mixture
Sample 1 ppm
Sample 2 ppm
Sample 3 ppm
Average ppm
High Range (span) Calibration Gas Mixture
Sample 1 ppm
Sample 2 ppm
Sample 3 ppm
Average ppm
Figure D-2_Calibration Error Determination
Calibration gas mixture data (from fig. D-1): Mid (50 percent) average
__ p/m, high (90 percent) average __ p/m
[See footnotes at end of table]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Calibration gas Measurement system Differences, p/m
Run No. concentration \1\ reading, p/m \2\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2
------------------------------------------------------------------------
3
------------------------------------------------------------------------
4
------------------------------------------------------------------------
5
------------------------------------------------------------------------
6
------------------------------------------------------------------------
7
------------------------------------------------------------------------
8
------------------------------------------------------------------------
9
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1
------------------------------------------------------------------------
11
------------------------------------------------------------------------
12
------------------------------------------------------------------------
13
------------------------------------------------------------------------
14
------------------------------------------------------------------------
15
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Percent of full scale
reading
-----------------------
50% mid 90% high
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mean difference................................. .......... ..........
Confidence interval............................. ±.. ±..
.......... ..........
.. ..
Calibration error=Mean difference \3\ + C.I. / %......... %.........
Average calibration gas concentration x 100.... ..... .....
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Mid or high.
\2\ Calibration gas concentration_measurement system reading.
\3\ Absolute value.
Figure D-3_Accuracy
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Analyzer 1-hour average
Date and time Test No. Reference method samples \1\ (p/m) Difference \2\ (p/m)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
6
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
7
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
8
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
9
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mean difference= _____p/m.
95 percent confidence
interval=+ _____p/m.
Mean Reference method
value= _____p/m.
Accuracy=Mean
difference (absolute
value)+95 percent
confidence interval/
Mean reference method
valuex100___percent
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Explain method used to determine average.
\2\ Difference=the 1-h average minus the reference method average.
Figure D-4_Zero and Calibration Drift (2 h)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Time Calibration
-------------------- Zero drift
Date set Zero drift Span (? (?
Date No. reading (? reading span) span-
Begin End zero) ?
zero)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
........ ........ 1
........ ........ 2
........ ........ 3
........ ........ 4
........ ........ 5
........ ........ 6
........ ........ 7
........ ........ 8
........ ........ 9
........ ........ 10
........ ........ 11
........ ........ 12
........ ........ 13
........ ........ 14
........ ........ 15
Zero drift=[mean zero drift \1\___ + CI (zero) ___ ÷emission standard]x100= ___.
Calibration drift=[mean span
drift \1\ ___ CI + CI (span)
___ ÷emission
standard]x100= ___.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Absolute value.
Figure D-5_Zero and Calibration Drift (24 hr)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Zero drift (? Span reading (after Calibration drift (continued)