[vc_row][vc_column][vc_empty_space][breadcrumb-shortcode][\/vc_column][\/vc_row][vc_row content_placement=”top”][vc_column][vc_wp_rss items=”20″ options=”show_summary,show_date” title=”Emission Measurement Messages” el_class=”bg-white p-3 rounded border mb-2″ url=”https:\/\/public.govdelivery.com\/topics\/NJDEP_447\/feed.rss”][vc_column_text css=””]<\/p>\n
[\/vc_column_text][vc_tta_accordion section_title_tag=”h5″ color=”white” c_icon=”chevron” c_position=”right” active_section=”-1″ collapsible_all=”true” css=”.vc_custom_1749035969527{background-color: #ffffff !important;}”][vc_tta_section title=”12\/08\/2025 – Important Note Before Submitting Reports or Protocols Using the FSS” tab_id=”1767195389322-26e865b3-eac8″][vc_column_text css=””]Each TST Activity must have a separate test report.\u00a0 Do not include multiple TST Activities in one test report, even if the tests were done during the same mobilization.\u00a0 Each FSS submission must be related to only one TST Activity.\u00a0 This will allow for proper importation of each document to the appropriate TST Activity.<\/p>\n
When preparing protocols, where it would be reasonable to expect separate TST Activities to be generated, such as non-identical equipment covered by different Subject Items in the Permit, separate protocols should be written, with each protocol sent in a separate FSS submission.\u00a0 This will allow for proper creation of multiple TST Activities.<\/p>\n
A single FSS submission should never be used to send multiple documents covering different facilities.\u00a0 Documents for different facilities must be sent as separate submissions, as detailed above.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n
[\/vc_column_text][\/vc_tta_section][vc_tta_section title=”11\/20\/2025 – Draft Technical Manual 1005 Update Available for Comments” tab_id=”1767194784475-96c09bd6-fe1d”][vc_column_text css=””]The New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (Department) is providing this notification to affected entities regarding the proposed revisions of the existing Technical Manual 1005 (TM 1005), Guidelines for Continuous Emissions Monitoring Systems (CEMS), Continuous Opacity Monitoring Systems (COMS), Periodic Monitoring Procedures (PMPs) and Annual Combustion Adjustments (ACAs). \u00a0The Department is seeking public comments and has published a notice of these changes in the November 17, 2025, New Jersey Register.<\/p>\n
The revised TM 1005 introduces several substantive updates, inclusions, and policy clarifications. \u00a0For details of the proposed changes and information about submitting comments, please refer to:\u00a0https:\/\/deptest.nj.gov\/dae\/em-technical-manuals-and-methods\/<\/a>[\/vc_column_text][\/vc_tta_section][vc_tta_section title=”11\/18\/2025 – Announcing EMS Pilot Program for Electronic Submissions” tab_id=”1767188598303-abf0a01c-d8bc”][vc_column_text css=””]In order for the Emission Measurement Section (EMS) to receive submissions electronically, current language in Permits requires that stack test protocols and stack test reports be submitted on CDs using the Electronic Reporting Tool (ERT), unless another format is approved by EMS.\u00a0 The ERT format requirement has been waived since March 2020 (except where required by Federal regulation and submitted electronically through EPA\u2019s Central Data Exchange).\u00a0 Submissions to EMS since then have been in PDF format and submitted electronically via email.<\/p>\n We will now immediately be piloting a process to accept stack test and CEMS submittals through DEP Online using the Facility Submission Service (FSS).\u00a0 This provides enhanced security and allows for larger files to be transmitted.\u00a0 To access DEP Online and make submissions using the FSS, one must have a myNewJersey account.\u00a0 Instructions for creating an account, accessing and configuring DEP Online, and making submissions using the FSS to EMS can be found here:\u00a0https:\/\/deptest.nj.gov\/dae\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/65\/docs\/facility-fss-instructions.pdf<\/a> <\/i>.<\/p>\n After this soft rollout period, it is our intention to make the use of FSS mandatory for all stack test and CEMS submittals through changes to current Permit language.\u00a0 At that time, the ERT submittal requirement will be officially removed, again except for where required by Federal regulation.\u00a0 We currently plan to allow protocol Notice of Deficiency (NOD) responses to be submitted either through the FSS, or via email as was done previously.<\/p>\n We now encourage all submitters to pilot the use of FSS by making submissions to EMS using the service.\u00a0 This will allow the facilities, testers and EMS to become proficient and more comfortable in using the process.<\/p>\n Please note that EMS is 100% paper-free.\u00a0 All submittals, letters, etc. must be electronic.<\/p>\n Questions should be directed to\u00a0bts@deptest.nj.gov<\/a>.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n [\/vc_column_text][\/vc_tta_section][vc_tta_section title=”04\/24\/2025 – Emission Measurement Section’s GovDelivery Service is Live” tab_id=”emission-measurement-sections-govdelivery-service-is-live”][vc_column_text css=””]The Emission Measurement Section (EMS, formerly BTS) has now migrated (depbts@listserv.state.nj.us<\/a>) capabilities to the GovDelivery platform (NJDEP@public.govdelivery.com<\/a>).<\/p>\n If you were previously subscribed to the BTS (EMS), you will now receive notifications from this address.<\/p>\n Our archived entries can be still found on our website here:<\/p>\n NJDEP EMS – Archived Messages<\/a>.[\/vc_column_text][\/vc_tta_section][vc_tta_section title=”02\/10\/2025 – New EMS Phone Numbers” tab_id=”new-ems-phone-numbers”][vc_column_text css=””]Please be advised that EMS staff have new office phone numbers. The new numbers can be found on our website at the following page: https:\/\/deptest.nj.gov\/dae\/em-contact-information\/<\/a>.<\/p>\n The old numbers will continue to work for a period of time, but you should start using the new numbers now and update your contacts accordingly. The Main Line phone number remains unchanged.[\/vc_column_text][\/vc_tta_section][vc_tta_section title=”01\/23\/2025 – 5-Year Testing Deadline Clarification” tab_id=”5-year-testing-deadline-clarification”][vc_column_text css=””]NEW LANGUAGE BEING ENTERED IN TITLE V AIR PERMITS?<\/p>\n To clarify when Title V Permitted Equipment is required to be stack-tested. The current language in Air Operating Permit General Provisions defines testing every 5 years as follows:<\/p>\n \u201cTesting every 5 years shall be defined as no later than the end of the 60th month after the first required and each subsequent stack test was completed for the new or modified source.\u201d<\/p>\n To ensure consistency in how this will be interpreted, the Division of Air Enforcement (DAE) is clarifying that the initial stack test will establish the \u201cANCHOR POINT\u201d from which all future (5-year) test deadlines are to be determined, the end of the 60th month after this initial test date, and every five years from this date moving forward.<\/p>\n For example, if the initial test is conducted on October 1, 2024, then the first 5-year test is due on October 31, 2029, the second 5-year test is due on October 31, 2034, and so on.<\/p>\n Conducting a subsequent 5-year stack test early or late does not change the 5-year test deadline anchor, nor would additional tests that are conducted pursuant to an Enforcement Action. However, with the approval of the applicable DAE Regional Enforcement Office, an additional test may also be counted as the next 5-year test if the test is conducted within 18 months of the next 5-year test due date, and this additional test satisfies all requirements of the 5-year test.<\/p>\n SIGNIFICANT MODIFICATION AND TESTING DATES?<\/p>\n A test required by a Significant Modification will act as a new initial test and establish a new \u201cANCHOR POINT\u201d following the procedures above if this test is also a comprehensive test that covers all requirements of a 5-year test.<\/p>\n EXISTING TITLE V AIR PERMITS?<\/p>\n Existing Permits without the new language will continue to follow the deadlines in their Permits, and if the Permit is expired, will follow the deadlines in the 2022 Compliance Advisory that can be found here (https:\/\/deptest.nj.gov\/dae\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/65\/2022-01.pdf<\/a> <\/i>). To address the transition from the prior 5-year testing language in Permits (based on the BOP expiration date) to the current language referenced above, the \u201cANCHOR POINT\u201d will be established by the date of the most recent 5-year test conducted prior to the change in testing language.<\/p>\n Any questions, please contact the NJDEP Emission Measurement Section (EMS) at 609-984-3443 or BTS@deptest.nj.gov<\/a>.[\/vc_column_text][\/vc_tta_section][vc_tta_section title=”01\/15\/2025 – Reminder Regarding Field Data Sheets” tab_id=”reminder-regarding-field-data-sheets”][vc_column_text css=””]This is a reminder of the EMS requirements for field data sheets. While simultaneous electronic data recording may supplement\/accompany paper field data sheets, they cannot replace them. The primary record is and will continue to be hand-written paper field data sheets (in ink, no pencil), NO EXCEPTIONS.[\/vc_column_text][\/vc_tta_section][vc_tta_section title=”08\/13\/2024 – EMS Online Submission Service” tab_id=”ems-online-submission-service”][vc_column_text css=””]At the current time, the Emission Measurement Section is unable to accept submission of documents through the DEP Online Submission Service since we are still testing and refining the service and understanding its limits. Please continue to submit documents to the EMS in the same manner as you have in the past. We are hoping to have the service ready for use in the near future.<\/p>\n Thank you for your cooperation and understanding.[\/vc_column_text][\/vc_tta_section][vc_tta_section title=”10\/11\/2023 – THC WCOA Calculation Spreadsheet” tab_id=”thc-wcoa-calculation-spreadsheet”][vc_column_text css=””]Technical Manual 1005 Appendix D has a procedure and equation for establishing the Total Hydrocarbons (THC) Worst-Case Outlet Allowable (WCOA) limit during an oxidizer Destruction and Removal Efficiency (DRE) stack test. In order to ensure accuracy and consistency, EMS has added our spreadsheet to our Website for use in performing this calculation when preparing a stack test report. The spreadsheet can be found under the “Consultant Services” tab on our Website (https:\/\/deptest.nj.gov\/dae\/em-technical-manuals-and-methods\/<\/a>[\/vc_column_text][\/vc_tta_section][vc_tta_section title=”02\/28\/2023 – Method 8 \u2013 Correction for Special Situation Section No. 1″ tab_id=”method-8\u2013correction-for-special-situation-section-no-1″][vc_column_text css=””]It has come to our attention that the Technical Manual 1004 Method Template for Method 8 was published in error regarding the “Special Situations Section” first item, “Alternative Procedures for Method 8 when Ammonia is Present”. The posted “Procedure for analysis of Container #1” is inconsistent with the procedures that EMS developed in conjunction with EPA and which have been shared with facilities for the limited test programs affected. These posted procedures are also clearly incompatible with the Container #2 analysis procedures for this special situation. A separate document titled “Method 8 – Correction for Special Situation Section No. 1″ has been posted beneath the Method 8 Template on our website. Please refer to this document should you encounter this special situation for sulfuric acid testing.[\/vc_column_text][\/vc_tta_section][vc_tta_section title=”11\/16\/2022 – TM1005 Clarification on Unit Operation and CEMS Downtime for Partial Hours” tab_id=”tm1005-clarification-on-unit-operation-and-cems-downtime-for-partial-hours”][vc_column_text css=””]The purpose of this Advisory is to clarify some of the language in Technical Manual 1005 (TM1005) regarding unit operation and CEMS downtime. This is not a change to the existing requirements nor does it supersede any Federal rule or regulation.<\/p>\n TM1005 states that, “CEMS must provide a minimum of seventy-five (75) percent [45 minutes] of the one-minute data averages for each one hour (60 minute) clock period.” (IV.B.4.b)<\/p>\n TM1005 further states that, “For any one hour (60 minute) period where less than forty-five (45) minutes of CEMS\/COMS data is provided for any analyzer, the entire sixty (60) minute period is considered downtime for that analyzer and shall be included in the quarterly EEMPR as downtime.” (IV.B.4.c)<\/p>\n TM1005 additionally states, “Downtime includes those periods where the CEMS or COMS are not providing compliance emission data while the process is in operation. It also includes periods of Quality Assurance (QA) and Preventive Maintenance (PM) procedures and CEMS calibration (if calibration period exceeds 15 minutes in any one hour). All downtime is to be recorded on the quarterly EEMPR form.” (IV.B.4.f).<\/p>\n Questions have arisen for partial operating hours and the accrual of downtime. Per IV.B.4.f, downtime is not accrued when the source is not operating. The 45 minutes of CEMS\/COMS data required per clock hour stated in IV.B.4.c is for 60 minutes of source operation in that hour. The overriding requirement is for 75% of one-minute data for the operating minutes in each hour. Accordingly, for clock hours when the unit operates less than 60 minutes, IV.B.4.c is clarified to mean the CEMS must be collecting valid data for 75% of the operating minutes, where fractional minutes are rounded down to the nearest full minute. Consistent with IV.B.4.c, when this criterion is not met, all operating minutes in the hour will be considered downtime.<\/p>\n Lastly, consistent with our 8\/26\/21 message, a valid compliance hour requires 45 minutes of operation. CEMS\/COMS data must be collected for downtime purposes as detailed above, regardless of whether a clock hour is a valid compliance hour or not.[\/vc_column_text][\/vc_tta_section][vc_tta_section title=”05\/03\/2022 – *Update 2* Use of NO2 Cylinders for NOx Converter Efficiency Checks and SO2 in Air Calibration Gases” tab_id=”update2-use-of-no2-cylinders-for-nox-converter-efficiency-checks-and-so2-in-air-calibration-gases-“][vc_column_text css=””]*Update 2* EPA has modified the document “Concern with Certain Calibration Gas Mixtures Sold as Protocol Gases Not Meeting Long-Term Stability Requirements (pdf) (February 2022)”. This update reflects that cylinders of “oxides of nitrogen” (NO2 in Air) which are listed in Table 2-3 with a footnote of “f” are acceptable for performing NOx converter efficiency checks as specified in Method 7E, Section 8.2.4.1. The use of NO2 in N2 cylinders to conduct NOx converter efficiency checks remains suspended until such time that their long-term stability has been demonstrated to EPA and Table 2-3 has been revised to include them. We apologize for any confusion our prior Listserv may have caused.[\/vc_column_text][\/vc_tta_section][vc_tta_section title=”04\/20\/2022 – Use of NO2 Cylinders for NOx Converter Efficiency Checks and SO2 in Air Calibration Gases” tab_id=”use-of-no2-cylinders-for-nox-converter-efficiency-checks-and-so2-in-air-calibration-gases-2″][vc_column_text css=””]UPDATE: Please be aware that the link in the previous messages does not work. The document can be found at the EPA’s Air Emission Measurement Center (EMC), EMC Updates and General Resources Website: Concern with Certain Calibration Gas Mixtures Sold as Protocol Gases Not Meeting Long-Term Stability Requirements (pdf) (February 2022). Also, to clarify, the use of SO2 in nitrogen is still permitted.[\/vc_column_text][\/vc_tta_section][vc_tta_section title=”04\/20\/2022 – Use of NO2 Cylinders for NOx Converter Efficiency Checks and SO2 in Air Calibration Gases” tab_id=”use-of-no2-cylinders-for-nox-converter-efficiency-checks-and-so2-in-air-calibration-gases”][vc_column_text css=””]Effective immediately, the use of NO2 cylinders to conduct NOx converter efficiency checks as specified in Method 7E, Section 8.2.4.1, is suspended. Gas cylinders of NO2 in either air or nitrogen have not been demonstrated to have long term stability and cannot be certified as an EPA Protocol Gas. (More background information can be found here:\u00a0www.epa.gov\/system\/files\/documents\/2022-04\/protocol-gas-memo_1.pdf<\/a> <\/i>\u00a0NOx converter efficiency checks must be conducted in accordance with Method 7E, Section 16.2 (NOx generator or bag procedure). This applies to NOx converter efficiency checks for stack emissions compliance reference method testing as well as CEMS QA, per Technical Manual 1005.<\/p>\n Similarly, the use of SO2 in air gas cylinders, and blended SO2 and O2 with a balance of nitrogen gas cylinders, as calibration gases for Method 6C and CEMS calibrations is also suspended.[\/vc_column_text][\/vc_tta_section][vc_tta_section title=”11\/15\/2021 – Formaldehyde and Method 320″ tab_id=”formaldehyde-and-method-320″][vc_column_text css=””]One of the methods used for sampling formaldehyde is Method 320, which requires a Quality Assurance (QA) spike pursuant to Section 8.6.2 of the method. When proposed in protocols up until now, EMS has been approving the use of acetaldehyde as a surrogate spiking compound for formaldehyde pursuant to Section 3.29 of that method. However, based upon guidance from EPA, we will no longer approve any surrogate spiking when sampling for formaldehyde by FTIR. The QA spike must be formaldehyde. Protocols that have already been approved with acetaldehyde as a surrogate spiking compound for formaldehyde may continue to do so, though we encourage you to voluntarily switch to using formaldehyde for the QA spike and this message should be considered a blanket approval for this switch in your currently approved protocol[\/vc_column_text][\/vc_tta_section][vc_tta_section title=”09\/29\/2021 – CEMS Date of Certification” tab_id=”cems-date-of-certification”][vc_column_text css=””]In order to ensure consistency regarding the dates of certification when a CEMS is recertified after a replacement or significant repair, EMS is providing guidance and clarification on when CEMS are officially certified and when the data become valid and enforceable.<\/p>\n EMS has and will continue to use the date of the successful Relative Accuracy (RA) portion of a successful Performance Specification Test (PST) as the certification date when recertifying an analyzer using Technical Manual (TM) 1005, Appendix E, Option 1, consistent with TM 1005 V. G. However, per TM 1005, Appendix E, Option 1, the data is considered valid back to the date of the successful Cylinder Gas Audit (CGA). Therefore, there would be no downtime between these two dates (unless downtime was accrued for some other reason). Since the EEMPR does not flag downtime based on the certification date and the Submitter manually enters data into the EEMPR spreadsheet for Hours of Operation, CEMS uptime and CEMS downtime, the Submitter would include the hours between the CGA and PST as uptime (again, unless there is another reason to be listed as downtime).<\/p>\n The Submitter shall include an attachment to the EEMPR explaining the recertification and why this period prior to the official recertification date is not downtime. The attachment shall include: the date the original CEMS was taken out of service, the date the replacement CEMS was installed, the date of the successful CGA and the date of the successful RA during the subsequent PST.[\/vc_column_text][\/vc_tta_section][vc_tta_section title=”08\/26\/2021 – CEMS Multi-hour or Block Average Emission Limits” tab_id=”cems-multi-hour-or-block-average-emission-limits”][vc_column_text css=””]In order to ensure consistency in how CEMS Data Acquisition Systems (DAS) are programmed to deal with breaks in operation for a source with a multi-hour rolling or block average emission limit, EMS wrote a CEMS averaging policy to provide guidance and clarification on how to calculate these averages. This policy has been posted on our website at https:\/\/deptest.nj.gov\/dae\/em-technical-manuals-and-methods\/<\/a> under Technical Manuals.<\/p>\n Note that exceedance reporting is outside the scope of this policy. Please refer to https:\/\/deptest.nj.gov\/dae\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/65\/2021-09.pdf<\/a> <\/i> for further guidance on exceedance reporting and deadlines for updating DAS programming, if necessary.[\/vc_column_text][\/vc_tta_section][vc_tta_section title=”08\/03\/2021 – Continuation of ERT Waiver and E-Mail Submittals” tab_id=”continuation-of-ert-waiver-and-e-mail-submittals”][vc_column_text css=””]After reconsideration, EMS will continue the waiver of using ERT and will continue to request that submissions remain via email rather than hard-copy\/CD until further notice. This rescinds the 7\/20\/21 message and continues the 3\/23\/20 message. If you have any questions, please contact us at BTS@deptest.nj.gov<\/a>.[\/vc_column_text][\/vc_tta_section][vc_tta_section title=”07\/20\/2021 – Sunsetting of our 3-23-20 Covid-19 message” tab_id=”sunsetting-of-our-3-23-20-covid-19-listserv”][vc_column_text css=””]It is anticipated that EMS staff will be returning to the office full-time on September 7, 2021. As such, barring any change to these plans, the waiver of using ERT and the allowance for submissions via email rather than hard-copy\/CD is being rescinded effective on September 7, 2021. Test reports for tests conducted using non-ERT protocols submitted or approved prior to this date do not have to be submitted using ERT. Please note that we are working on a project that will allow for CROMERR-compliant electronic submittals to EMS via the DEP Portal which will eventually replace all\/most hard-copy\/CD submittals. Details will follow in a future message as applicable. If you have any questions, contact us at BTS@deptest.nj.gov<\/a>.[\/vc_column_text][\/vc_tta_section][vc_tta_section title=”08\/19\/2020 – Storm Closings and Scheduled Stack Tests” tab_id=”storm-closings-and-scheduled-stack-tests”][vc_column_text css=””]There are times when actual or predicted stormy weather will close DEP offices and preclude EMS staff from observing scheduled stack tests. In some instances, you may feel that your test can still take place safely despite the weather. The decision on whether a scheduled stack test can commence unobserved is made on a case-by-case basis. When one of these storm closings occurs, if not already contacted by EMS, contact the EMS observer assigned to your test on their State cell phone (https:\/\/deptest.nj.gov\/dae\/em-contact-information\/<\/a>) to determine if your test can proceed, or whether you will need to reschedule. In most of these storm closing instances, it is our expectation that testing will be canceled based on safety concerns and\/or the impact on data quality.[\/vc_column_text][\/vc_tta_section][vc_tta_section title=”08\/18\/2020 – Prohibition of \u201cmicro\u201d S-type Pitot tubes” tab_id=”prohibition-of-micro-s-type-pitot-tubes”][vc_column_text css=””]Recently on a couple of occasions, we have had test consultants use a “micro” S-type Pitot tube in place of a Standard Pitot tube in stacks less than 12 inches in diameter. After consultation with EPA, it has been decided that without an appropriate calibration in a similarly sized wind tunnel to the stack being tested (reviewed and approved by EMS prior to the test date), the use of a “micro” S-type Pitot is prohibited. Testing in stacks less than 12 inches must use a Standard Pitot tube in accordance with EPA Methods 1A and 2C.[\/vc_column_text][\/vc_tta_section][vc_tta_section title=”07\/13\/2020 – Travel Advisory Reminder for Testers” tab_id=”travel-advisory-reminder-for-testers”][vc_column_text css=””]New Jersey has issued a travel advisory under which individuals traveling to or returning to New Jersey from states with increasing rates of COVID-19 are advised to self-quarantine for 14 days. This includes travel by train, bus, car, plane and any other method of transportation. Please note that the list of designated states will be updated weekly. Stack testers who are from, or return from travel to a designated state, must be aware of this travel advisory and act accordingly. For a list of FAQs, see the following link: https:\/\/nj.gov\/health\/cd\/documents\/topics\/NCOV\/Travel_advisoryFAQs_6-25-2020.pdf[\/vc_column_text][\/vc_tta_section][vc_tta_section title=”03\/23\/2020 – EMS COVID-19 Update” tab_id=”ems-covid-19-update”][vc_column_text css=””]Due to the COVID-19 Emergency and to facilitate working remotely, EMS is temporarily suspending the Permit requirements to submit protocols and test reports using the Electronic Reporting Tool (ERT). This is consistent with the Permit language that allows EMS to waive the use of ERT. This does NOT relieve you of any Federal requirement to submit reports to EPA using the ERT where applicable. We will also accept PDF submittals sent to our general EMS mailbox using the link found at the following page: https:\/\/deptest.nj.gov\/dae\/em-contact-information\/<\/a>. Please be sure to clearly identify the Program Interest number, facility name, Permit number (if known) and TST number (if known), and the type of submittal. Also, be sure to include (as should always be the case) contact information for the facility and tester, to include phone numbers and email addresses. We may require a hard-copy at a later date, but one is not required at this time. Should you choose to also submit a hard-copy, be sure to note that an electronic version was already sent to avoid duplication.<\/p>\n Additionally, tests currently scheduled can continue to take place if you are able to perform them. We are asking that you refrain from attempting to schedule new tests to take place prior to May 1, 2020 unless there is a deadline that cannot be extended. Contact the appropriate C&E Regional Office regarding any potential permit deviations.<\/p>\n The contact information for each region is as follows:<\/p>\n AirCE-Central@deptest.nj.gov<\/a> Bureau of Air Compliance &Enforcement – Central (Jurisdiction: Counties of Burlington, Mercer, Middlesex, Monmouth and Ocean)<\/p>\n AirCE-Southern@deptest.nj.gov<\/a> Bureau of Air Compliance &Enforcement – Southern (Jurisdiction: Counties of Atlantic, Camden, Cape May, Cumberland, Gloucester, and Salem)<\/p>\n AirCE-Northern@deptest.nj.gov<\/a> – Bureau of Air Compliance &Enforcement – Northern (Jurisdiction: Counties of Bergen, Essex, Hudson, Hunterdon, Morris, Passaic, Somerset, Sussex, Union and Warren)<\/p>\n Lastly, at the current time, most correspondences from EMS will be electronic only via email, and will be considered our official responses.[\/vc_column_text][\/vc_tta_section][vc_tta_section title=”12\/05\/2019 – ERT Reporting Issue” tab_id=”ert-reporting-issue”][vc_column_text css=””]It has come to our attention that a recent Microsoft update may be causing an issue with the Electronic Reporting Tool (ERT) software that you are currently using. Specifically, the ERT may not be able to populate the summary tables with the final results.<\/p>\n The EPA is aware of the issue and has stated that this is not an issue with ERT, but rather it is a Microsoft issue.<\/p>\n Click here<\/a> for a link<\/a> to the Microsoft Update Center which has potential solutions to fix the issue.<\/p>\n If the above does not work for your system, try the following:<\/p>\n 1. Delete ERT and re-download it. This may require a restart of your computer. This solution from Microsoft did not work for EMS. We had to un-install the entire Office Suite and re-install it.<\/p>\n If none of these solutions work for your system, please contact EMS to make us aware and so that we can determine an alternative submittal procedure for the results.<\/p>\n Thank you.<\/p>\n [\/vc_column_text][\/vc_tta_section][vc_tta_section title=”05\/31\/2019 – Stationary Source Audit Sample Provider Update” tab_id=”stationary-source-audit-sample-provider-update”][vc_column_text css=””]Please read the “NOTICE” below published on EPA’s Air Emission Measurement Center website:<\/p>\n “NOTICE: It has come to our attention that one of the two providers of audit samples has ceased manufacturing samples for the stationary source audit program. The general provisions to 40 CFR Parts 60 and 63 (see \u00a760.8(g)(1) and \u00a763.7(c)(2)(iii)(A)) require that the owner or operator obtain audit samples if the audit samples are “commercially available” and have defined “commercially available” as two or more independent accredited audit sample providers (AASP) to have blind audit samples available for purchase. Since there are no longer two providers, the requirement to obtain these audit samples is no longer in effect until such time as another independent AASP has audit samples available for purchase. When there are two or more AASP with audit samples available for purchase, we will update this webpage with the name or names of the providers and audit sample(s) available for purchase. At that time, this information must be listed on the EMC website for 60 days before audits are required again.” Accordingly, the requirement to obtain Stationary Source Audit Samples (SSAS) for NJ stack tests is currently suspended until such time that SSAS are deemed “commercially available” again by EPA. With that said, audits ARE still available from the remaining SSAS Provider, and we STRONGLY encourage continued voluntary purchases of SSAS from the this Provider for NJ compliance tests, to protect both the facility’s and public’s interests in obtaining quality emissions data. Additionally, any SSAS that have already been purchased, and any that have been ordered prior to May 20, 2019 (the date that the second Provider stopped having SSAS available for sale), MUST still be analyzed as part of the applicable test program for which they were ordered. Should you have any questions, please contact Michael Klein of EMS at 609-984-3443.[\/vc_column_text][\/vc_tta_section][vc_tta_section title=”05\/21\/2019 – CEMS QA Requirements for Non-Operating Quarters” tab_id=”cems-qa-requirements-for-non-operating-quarters”][vc_column_text css=””]Technical Manual 1005 (TM1005) requires quarterly quality assurance for CEMS: either a Cylinder Gas Audit (CGA) or a Relative Accuracy Test Audit (RATA) in accordance with Part 60, Appendix F. Under Section 5.1.4 of Appendix F, a CGA is not required in a quarter when the source does not operate. Similarly, if a RATA is due in a quarter when the source does not operate, a RATA is not required (a RATA requires source operation in order to be completed), but the RATA must be done in the quarter when the source recommences operation. However, these exemptions were not intended for continued periods of non-operation. To provide clarity, the following will be required in instances of multiple successive quarters of non-operation when there was a break in quarterly quality assurance:<\/p>\n 1. If a CGA (or RATA) is required in the first quarter of non-operation, the facility may opt to skip the CGA (or RATA) per Section 5.1.4 of Appendix F. However, if non-operation continues into a second consecutive quarter, a CGA will be required regardless of whether the unit operates or not. For extended periods of non-operation, the facility may opt to discontinue quarterly quality assurance, but two or more consecutive quarters without performing any quarterly quality assurance will trigger a recertification event for when operation resumes, using the procedures specified in Number 5 below. 2. If a RATA is due in the second or subsequent full quarter of non-operation, a CGA is required consistent with Number 1 above. For extended periods of non-operation, the facility may opt to discontinue quarterly quality assurance, but two or more consecutive quarters without performing any quarterly quality assurance will trigger a recertification event for when operation resumes, using the procedures specified in Number 5 below.<\/p>\n 3. In the quarter when the source resumes operation and a CGA is due, a CGA is required upon startup, since any operation in that quarter prior to the successful CGA will be considered as downtime, consistent with Section VI.J. of TM1005.<\/p>\n 4. If a RATA is due in the quarter when the source resumes operation, follow the procedures of TM1005, Appendix E, Option 1, except substitute RATA for Performance Specification Test (PST), and exclude references to 7-day drift assessments. Any operation in that quarter prior to the successful CGA will be considered as downtime, consistent with Section VI.J. of TM1005. Alternatively, a full PST can be conducted following TM1005, Appendix E, Option 2.<\/p>\n 5. Five or more consecutive quarters of non-operation which included a quarter without quality assurance (Number 1 above) will be considered a recertification event and a PST will be required following the procedures of TM1005, Appendix E in the quarter when the source resumes operation.<\/p>\n 6. Alternatively, the facility can continue to perform quality assurance in all quarters without any break in quarterly quality assurance, regardless of non-operation in a quarter(s), by performing a CGA in the quarter when a RATA was due. However, six or more consecutive quarters without performing a RATA will be considered a recertification event and a PST will be required following the procedures of TM1005, Appendix E in the quarter when the source resumes operation.<\/p>\n Note that valid data reporting is required upon re-start unless the facility has a Start-up Operating Scenario that allows for something different. Any operation in that quarter prior to the successful CGA (TM1005, Appendix E, Option 1) or prior to Day 1 of the 7-day Calibration Drift Period (TM1005, Appendix E, Option2) will be considered downtime, consistent with Section VI.J. of TM1005. Both Options assume a successful relative accuracy (RA) demonstration.[\/vc_column_text][\/vc_tta_section][vc_tta_section title=”11\/20\/2018 – 2018 Revisions to Test Methods, Performance Specifications, and Testing Regulations for Air Emission Sources” tab_id=”2018-revisions-to-test-methods-performance-specifications-and-testing-regulations-for-air-emission-sources”][vc_column_text css=””]On November 5, 2018, EPA issued a final rule that made corrections and updates to Test Methods, Performance Specifications, and Testing Regulations for Air Emission Sources. The revisions consist of corrections of typographical errors and technical errors in equations and diagrams, updates to procedures, and the addition of alternative methods that EPA has deemed acceptable to use. Testers and facilities are responsible for implementing any changes as applicable. To review the rule, see the link below:<\/p>\n https:\/\/www.epa.gov\/sites\/default\/files\/2018-11\/documents\/2018_final_rev_rule_oct_12_0.pdf<\/a> <\/i><\/p>\n Notice that the EPA has since published notice of a correction to rule document 2018-24747, appearing on pages 56713 through 56734 in the issue of Wednesday, November 14, 2018 to make the following correction:<\/p>\n On page 56732, the asterisks directly above Eq. 323-8 were printed in error and those after were omitted.[\/vc_column_text][\/vc_tta_section][vc_tta_section title=”11\/14\/2018 – Additional Method 25A Quality Control Requirements” tab_id=”additional-method-25a-quality-control-requirements”][vc_column_text css=””]Due to a quirk in the method as currently written, Method 25A allows for continued calibration drift from run-to-run that can result in the post-test drift check value at the end of Run 2 or 3 exceeding the pre-test calibration error criteria and still be technically considered a valid test run. This will be corrected in an upcoming method revision, but in the interim until such time, EMS will require that the post-test drift check values at the conclusion of each test run also meet the pre-test calibration error criteria. Failure to demonstrate this will either invalidate the run, or the facility can elect to do (at risk), a Method 7E drift correction (Method 7E calls this a bias correction, but it really is a drift correction) for the run in question. In either case, a full recalibration is required prior to conducting additional test runs.[\/vc_column_text][\/vc_tta_section][vc_tta_section title=”06\/13\/2018 – Updated Deminimus Reporting Thresholds and Protocol Evaluation Spreadsheet” tab_id=”updated-deminimus-reporting-thresholds-and-protocol-evaluation-spreadsheet”][vc_column_text css=””]New Jersey has changed many of the Hazardous Air Pollutant Reporting Thresholds (previously listed in N.J A.C 7:27-8 and -22 and now found in N.J.A.C 7:27-17). These changes have been incorporated into an updated Protocol Preparation Tool, which can be found on our website under the \u201cConsultant Services\u201d tab (https:\/\/deptest.nj.gov\/dae\/em-technical-manuals-and-methods\/<\/a>). If you have downloaded the prior version, please replace it with the current version[\/vc_column_text][\/vc_tta_section][vc_tta_section title=”06\/07\/2017 – EMS Change of Address and Phone Number” tab_id=”ems-change-of-address-and-phone-number”][vc_column_text css=””]The Emission Measurement Section (EMS) is scheduled to relocate our office during the last week of June 2017. If you do not have time-sensitive submittals, it would be best to avoid mailing\/shipping them during this time period. If you must make a submittal, it would be best to simultaneously email a copy (or a notification that something was sent) to Michael Klein at: michael.klein@deptest.nj.gov<\/a><\/p>\n Our new contact information will be as follows, effective June 28, 2017 (unless delayed):<\/p>\n Mailing Address: Shipping Address: Phone Number: 609-984-3443 We apologize for any inconvenience.[\/vc_column_text][\/vc_tta_section][vc_tta_section title=”01\/18\/2017 – Notice of EPA’s NSPS e-Reporting Rule and the EMS implications” tab_id=”notice-of-epas-nsps-e-reporting-rule-and-the-ems-implications”][vc_column_text css=””]The following is provided for your information. On December 21, 2016, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) expanded its electronic reporting requirements. This rule requires certain industrial sources to electronically submit to the EPA specific air emissions data reports. These reports, required in the New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) in part 60 of chapter 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations, are already being submitted in hard copy. The reports covered by this action include summary reports, excess emissions reports, performance test reports, performance evaluation reports and other similar reports required by specific rules.<\/p>\n This action deals with submittals to EPA (and goes beyond stack testing) and does not change any submittal action requirements to NJDEP (nor does submittal to NJDEP relieve you from any required electronic reporting to EPA). Regarding the stack testing aspects of this action, it requires the use of the Electronic Reporting Tool (ERT) for submitting stack test reports to EPA. As NJ was an early adopter of ERT in our Permits, testers in NJ have had the benefit of gaining experience in its use ahead of this action. Where ERT is required for NSPS stack test submittals that are under our purview, protocols must still come to EMS on CDs, as specified in the Permits. However, in lieu of submitting the final test report on CD, we would accept reports submitted to EPA\u2019s Compliance and Emissions Data Reporting Interface (CEDRI) through the EPA\u2019s Central Data Exchange (CDX). You must notify us if this option is chosen for a particular submittal by the submittal due date, otherwise we will expect the ERT submittal on CD by the due date, per the Permit requirements.<\/p>\n One final aspect of this action that relates to testing is that it requires ERT for submitting affected CEMS RATA reports to EPA. Up to this point, we have not required ERT for submitting the RATA portion of PST submittals to EMS, but if it is required for EPA under this action, then we will expect the use of ERT for the PST. Any RATA or other CEMS reporting to the C&E field offices should continue as currently done, unless directed otherwise..<\/p>\n For more information on EPA\u2019s NSPS e-Reporting rule, see the following link: https:\/\/www.epa.gov\/stationary-sources-air-pollution\/new-source-performance-standards-electronic-reporting<\/a>[\/vc_column_text][\/vc_tta_section][vc_tta_section title=”09\/12\/2016 – Revisions to Test Methods, Performance Specifications, and Testing Regulations for Air Emission Sources” tab_id=”revisions-to-test-methods-performance-specifications-and-testing-regulations-for-air-emission-sources”][vc_column_text css=””]EPA recently published a final rule that revised Test Methods, Performance Specifications, and Testing Regulations for Air Emission Sources. The effective date is October 31, 2016. In many cases, the updates were corrections to methods or procedures that EMS was already aware of and already implementing. Testers and facilities are responsible for implementing any changes. To review the rule, see the link below:<\/p>\n https:\/\/www.federalregister.gov\/documents\/2016\/08\/30\/2016-19642\/revisions-to-test-methods-performance-specifications-and-testing-regulations-for-air-emission<\/a>[\/vc_column_text][\/vc_tta_section][vc_tta_section title=”09\/08\/2016 – Procedure for Certifying a THC CEMS and also Establishing a THC CEMS Allowable” tab_id=”procedure-for-certifying-a-thc-cems-and-also-establishing-a-thc-cems-allowable”][vc_column_text css=””]When a Permit requires the installation and certification of a total hydrocarbons (THC) continuous emissions monitoring system (CEMS), and also requires the establishment of the THC CEMS allowable by correlation during the stack test, the question has arisen as to which of these operations should be completed first, since they are closely linked and dependent on one another.<\/p>\n Since the THC CEMS needs to be providing valid data during the stack test in order to perform the correlation, it should be certified prior to conducting the stack test in which the THC allowable will be established. Assuming that the THC analyzer passes the 7-day calibration drift (CD) as well as the relative accuracy (RA) portion of the Performance Specification Test (PST) using the average reference method (RM) value in the denominator of the RA equation (Equation 2-6 of Performance Specification 2, incorporated by reference into Performance Specification 8 for THC analyzers), then the CEMS is certified and may be used to correlate the CEMS readings to the destruction and removal efficiency (DRE) results during the stack test to arrive at the THC allowable, as outlined in Technical Manual 1005, Appendix D.<\/p>\n However, if the THC CEMS does not pass the RA acceptance criteria using the RM value in the denominator, then the facility has two options:<\/p>\n 1. Repeat the PST and pass as detailed above prior to the stack test.<\/p>\n 2. Conduct the CEMS correlation test during the stack test at risk, and the subsequent THC limit established in this correlation test would then be used in the denominator of the RA equation. As long as the RA passes in this scenario, the THC CEMS is certified and the THC allowable is established. If the THC CEMS still cannot pass the RA criteria, then the THC CEMS is not certified and the THC allowable that was established is not valid. A PST of the CEMS consisting of a 7-day CD and RA determination must be repeated, as well as the establishment of the THC allowable. A full DRE stack test need not be repeated; as long as the operating conditions during the correlation retest are similar to that of the DRE test, then inlet and outlet flows from the original test can be used with newly measured inlet and outlet reference method concentrations. The correlation retesting can also be done in conjunction with the new PST by making three of the RA runs 1-hour in duration instead of 21-minutes in duration.<\/p>\n Questions on these procedures should be directed to the Emission Measurement Section.[\/vc_column_text][\/vc_tta_section][vc_tta_section title=”05\/13\/2016 – Method 4 Traversing and Heating Requirements” tab_id=”method-4-traversing-and-heating-requirements”][vc_column_text css=””]Section 8.1.1.1 of Method 4 specifies traversing the stack in the determination of moisture. Minimum traverse points are listed based on the stack dimensions, but the Method does allow for fewer traverse points with approval. EMS historically has permitted single-point sampling for Method 4 based on this allowance, since gaseous methods previously were all single-point sampling and moisture was considered analogous. However, with the change in instrumental methods to now require a stratification check prior to allowing single-point sampling, we have reassessed our past acceptance of single-point sampling for moisture. From this point forward, we will require the following:<\/p>\n When the stack temperatures is less than or equal to 212 F, or if moisture droplets are expected, the traverse points specified by Method 4 must be used. You must also compare the measured moisture to the saturation moisture at the stack temperature, and use the lower of the two values.<\/p>\n When the stack temperature is greater than 212 F, the traverse points will be as determined by a contaminant\/diluent stratification check performed in accordance with the procedures found in Method 7E. In most cases, this will result in single-point sampling, as is the current practice. Please note that the Method 4 single point will be consistent with Method 7E requirements (the single point from the stratification traverse that most closely matches the mean concentration of the contaminant\/diluent used for the stratification check).<\/p>\n As a reminder, Method 4 requires the sample probe be heated sufficiently to prevent condensation. This is especially important if tubing is used to connect the probe to the impingers, in which case the tubing is considered part of the probe and must also be heated (or shown that it is being kept sufficiently hot to prevent condensation). If tubing is used, the length should be as short as possible and should avoid low spots below the elevation of the first impinger inlet.[\/vc_column_text][\/vc_tta_section][vc_tta_section title=”12\/22\/2015 – Technical Services Update” tab_id=”technical-services-update”][vc_column_text css=””]As some of you may be aware, the Department underwent reorganization in July 2015. As part of this reorganization, the Emission Measurement Section (EMS) of the Bureau of Technical Services was relocated from the Air Permitting Program to Compliance and Enforcement\u2019s Division of Air Enforcement. The EMS now reports to Director Richelle Wormley, Division of Air Enforcement. Although relocated within the Department, our Section\u2019s mission remains the same, overseeing the quality assurance \/ quality control of stack emissions measurements to ensure accurate data.<\/p>\n Permits and other documents will now begin to refer to us as the Emission Measurement Section (or EMS). Existing or new references to either the Bureau of Technical Services (or BTS) in relation to stack testing or monitoring still apply to our Section. We are also still commonly referred to as Technical Services, but not the Bureau of Technical Services. Other than the name change, our contact\/address information is the same.<\/p>\n As some of you may also be aware, Fred Ballay transferred from the Section in March 2015 and is no longer the Supervisor of the CEMS program. CEMS and COMS submittals should be sent to the Section Chief, Michael Klein, until further notice.[\/vc_column_text][\/vc_tta_section][vc_tta_section title=”10\/28\/2015 – Stationary Source Audit Samples for Mercury on Filters are Now Available” tab_id=”stationary-source-audit-samples-for-mercury-on-filters-are-now-available”][vc_column_text css=””]EPA has posted on their website that mercury on filter Stationary Source Audit Samples (SSAS) are now available to quality assure mercury stack tests. This posting started the 60-day clock after which facilities conducting stack tests for mercury are required to purchase Stationary Source Audit Samples for mercury on filters; facilities conducting mercury compliance tests on and after December 26, 2015 will be required to comply and should plan accordingly.<\/p>\n Please visit the EPA website (http:\/\/www.epa.gov\/ttn\/emc\/email.html#audit) for a complete list of available SSAS and for further information on the Audit Sample Program. This EPA page additionally includes a link to The NELAC Institute (TNI) Stationary Source Audit Sample Program (http:\/\/www.nelac-institute.org\/ssas),\u00a0currently the only EPA-approved Audit Sample Program.[\/vc_column_text][\/vc_tta_section][vc_tta_section title=”03\/27\/2015 – CEMS Submittals” tab_id=”cems-submittals”][vc_column_text css=””]Fred Ballay has transferred out of BTS and is no longer the Supervisor for CEMS work. Until such time as a permanent replacement has been identified, please address these submittals and CEMS related emails to Michael Klein, Section Chief.[\/vc_column_text][\/vc_tta_section][vc_tta_section title=”11\/03\/2014 – ERTv5 is now available” tab_id=”ertv5-is-now-available”][vc_column_text css=””]The following is being reposted from the EPA CHIEF Messages:<\/p>\n Version 5 of the ERT is now available. Updates have been made to the ERT application, User\u2019s Manual, Example Project Data Sets, and Instructional Videos to reflect the Version 5 improvements. These updates are available on the ERT Version 5 web page at http:\/\/www.epa.gov\/ttn\/chief\/ert\/index.html . For information on the revisions to the ERT please see the update history at http:\/\/www.epa.gov\/ttn\/chief\/ert\/updatehistory.pdf.<\/p>\n BTS has been informed that Project Data Sets created in Version 4 will be functional in ERTv5.[\/vc_column_text][\/vc_tta_section][vc_tta_section title=”07\/31\/2014 – Analyzer Interference Check Reminders \u2013 AMENDED” tab_id=”analyzer-interference-check-reminders-amended”][vc_column_text css=””]The following are reminders of the interference check requirements for Method 7E and all methods that reference the Method 7E procedures:<\/p>\n 1. Interference check data for each analyzer must be available on-site and included in each test report.<\/p>\n 2. The interference check must be done BOTH with the interferent(s) introduced alone, AND the interferent(s) introduced with the pollutant of interest. Refer to Section 8.2.7(1) of Method 7E for additional details.<\/p>\n 3. The method(s) allow for the interference check to be done on a representative instrument of the same make and model, or have this data provided by the instrument manufacturer. However, in order to be valid, the representative analyzer must be an instrument configured the same as the analyzer used for testing. For example, if the analyzer used for testing includes additional components to remove an interferent (such as an ammonia scrubber on a NOx analyzer), the representative analyzer must also have these components during the interference check. In the example listed, the ammonia scrubber is considered to be part of the gas analyzer.[\/vc_column_text][\/vc_tta_section][vc_tta_section title=”06\/30\/2014 – Change in email address format” tab_id=”change-in-email-address-format”][vc_column_text css=””]We have recently migrated to the Microsoft Office 365 enterprise email platform thus changing the format of our email addresses. Currently we use firstname.lastname@dep.state.nj.us as our email address standard. This has been changed to firstname.lastname@deptest.nj.gov. Note the change is only to the domain suffix (the portion after the “@”).<\/p>\n Addresses using the current format will be valid for at least one year, however, after that time, those addresses will be retired and no longer work.<\/p>\n Feel free to contact us with questions or concerns either by email (BTS@deptest.nj.gov<\/a>) or by phone 609-530-4041.[\/vc_column_text][\/vc_tta_section][vc_tta_section title=”06\/12\/2014 – M201A Calculations and Acceptance Criteria Clarification” tab_id=”m201a-calculations-and-acceptance-criteria-clarification”][vc_column_text css=””]This message is to clarify the calculation procedures for \u2206Pmin\/max for M201A, and to clarify the use of \u2206Pmin\/max in performing the method. Below is a list of the calculation procedures for three possible scenarios:<\/p>\n 1. If testing for PM10 alone: 2. If testing for PM2.5 alone: 3. If testing for PM10 and PM2.5 combined: In Scenario 1 (PM10 alone) and Scenario 3 (PM10 and PM2.5 combined), the calculated Qs will be used in Equations 15, 16 and 17 to calculate Vn, Rmin and Rmax. In Scenario 2 (PM2.5 alone), the calculated QIV is used in place of Qs in Equations 15, 16 and 17 to calculate Vn, Rmin and Rmax. Based on the values of Rmin and Rmax, use the appropriate equations from 18 through 23 to calculate \u2206Pmin and \u2206Pmax.<\/p>\n Moving forward, NJDEP is no longer requiring that the \u2206Pmin \/ \u2206Pmax range be satisfied for each test run. The point-by-point isokinetics, the overall run isokinetics and the cut size criteria are sufficient in proving the validity of a test run. The \u2206Pmin \/ \u2206Pmax range will be used only as a QA\/QC check for nozzle selection during the preliminary velocity profile traverse. One can then choose (and BTS advises it be done) to use the \u2206Pmin \/ \u2206Pmax range calculated from Run 1 data to ensure the continued nozzle acceptability for Run 2, and then Run 2 calculated values for Run 3 continued nozzle acceptability.[\/vc_column_text][\/vc_tta_section][vc_tta_section title=”04\/28\/2014 – M201A Acceptance Criteria (Update to March 4, 2014 Listserv)” tab_id=”m201a-acceptance-criteria-update-to-march-4-2014-listserv”][vc_column_text css=””]The subject message included an error in Item #4. As confirmed with EPA, the 21% of individual traverse points is rounded DOWN to the nearest whole number; so for a 12 point traverse, one is allowed 2 points outside the acceptable isokinetic range, not 3 points as was written in the prior message. A corrected version of the March 4, 2014 message is as follows:<\/p>\n The purpose of this message is to clarify the test run acceptance criteria for EPA Method 201A (M201A) used to determine filterable PM-10 and\/or filterable PM-2.5. Below is a list of the criteria:<\/p>\n 1. The acceptable cut size for the PM-10 cyclone is between 9 \u00b5m and 11 \u00b5m.<\/p>\n 2. The acceptable cut size for the PM-2.5 cyclone is between 2.25 \u00b5m and 2.75 \u00b5m.<\/p>\n 3. The overall isokinetics for the test run must be between 80% and 120%.<\/p>\n 4. As per Section 8.3.4(b), 21% of individual traverse points, rounded down to the nearest whole number, may lie outside of the acceptable isokinetic range of 80% to 120%. For a 12 point traverse, that is 2 points. 5. As per Section 8.5.5(b), these are the acceptable number of traverse points allowed outside of the \u2206Pmin and \u2206Pmax range: Prior to this message, Item #4, above was unclear and not enforced by BTS. Recent conversations with EPA\u2019s Emissions Measurement Center personnel have resolved this issue. Going forward, all M201A test runs will be required to meet this criterion.<\/p>\n All stack test reports must include proof that all five of the acceptance criteria listed above have been met.[\/vc_column_text][\/vc_tta_section][vc_tta_section title=”04\/09\/2014 – EPA Withdrawal of Broadly Approved Alternative Test Methods 061 and 087″ tab_id=”epa-withdrawal-of-broadly-approved-alternative-test-methods-061-and-087″][vc_column_text css=””]EPA has issued a March 10, 2014 withdrawal of Broadly Approved Alternative Test Methods 061 and 087 (ALT-061 and ALT-087.) This withdrawal will be posted on EPA’s website, but it has not been yet.<\/p>\n These Alternative Test Methods, which allowed for gaseous single-point sampling and the waiver of stratification testing for federally regulated engines, are no longer valid and will not be accepted for any upcoming tests. The requirements for stratification testing and minimum sampling points for these affected engines can now be found in the specific applicable Subparts, as published in the “Revisions to Test Methods and Testing Regulations” final rule published on February 27, 2014 (79 FR 11228.)<\/p>\n If you have a currently approved test protocol that includes ALT-061 or ALT-087 procedures for a test that has not yet been performed, you are responsible for updating the protocol and performing the testing in accordance with the regulations. Testing that has been completed prior to this posting using these procedures will be accepted.[\/vc_column_text][\/vc_tta_section][vc_tta_section title=”03\/10\/2014 – Electronic Reporting of Stack Tests to DEP using the Electronic Reporting Tool (ERT)” tab_id=”electronic-reporting-of-stack-tests-to-dep-using-the-electronic-reporting-tool-ert”][vc_column_text css=””]The Air Permitting Program intends to include language in Permits approved on or after July 1, 2014 that will require stack test protocols and stack test reports to be submitted to the Bureau of Technical Services (BTS) using ERT (unless otherwise approved by BTS.) This will not affect any tests where protocols have already been submitted or approved, though ERT use is still encouraged for all tests.<\/p>\n Background<\/p>\n BTS has been interested in moving towards electronic submittals of stack test protocols and reports. The USEPA released Version 1 of ERT in 2006. The ERT is used to electronically create and submit stationary source sampling test plans to regulatory agencies and, after approval, to calculate and submit the test results as an electronic report to the regulatory agency. Beginning in 2007, BTS began encouraging Testers to use the program so that both they and we could gain experience with it, and as a way to suggest refinements and improvements. Since that time, enhancements have been made to ERT (including those made at our request), and BTS sponsored two hands-on training sessions. Future enhancements are also in the works. Throughout this period, we have also repeatedly stated our intention to move towards requiring the use of ERT, including stating this in Technical Manual 1004.<\/p>\n For more information regarding the Electronic Reporting Tool and\/or to download the program, please visit the following website:<\/p>\n http:\/\/www.epa.gov\/ttn\/chief\/ert\/index.html[\/vc_column_text][\/vc_tta_section][vc_tta_section title=”03\/04\/2014 – M201A Acceptance Criteria” tab_id=”m201a-acceptance-criteria”][vc_column_text css=””]The purpose of this message is to clarify the test run acceptance criteria for EPA Method 201A (M201A) used to determine filterable PM-10 and\/or filterable PM-2.5. Below is a list of the criteria:<\/p>\n 1. The acceptable cut size for the PM-10 cyclone is between 9 \u00b5m and 11 \u00b5m.<\/p>\n 2. The acceptable cut size for the PM-2.5 cyclone is between 2.25 \u00b5m and 2.75 \u00b5m.<\/p>\n 3. The overall isokinetics for the test run must be between 80% and 120%.<\/p>\n 4. As per Section 8.3.4(b), 21% of individual traverse points, rounded to the nearest whole number, may lie outside of the acceptable isokinetic range of 80% to 120%. For a 12 point traverse, that is 3 points. 5. As per Section 8.5.5(b), these are the acceptable number of traverse points allowed outside of the \u2206Pmin and \u2206Pmax range: Prior to this message, Item #4, above was unclear and not enforced by BTS. Recent conversations with EPA\u2019s Emissions Measurement Center personnel have resolved this issue. Going forward, all M201A test runs will be required to meet this criterion.<\/p>\n All stack test reports must include proof that all five of the acceptance criteria listed above have been met.[\/vc_column_text][\/vc_tta_section][vc_tta_section title=”02\/28\/2014 – Revisions to Test Methods and Testing Regulations” tab_id=”revisions-to-test-methods-and-testing-regulations”][vc_column_text css=””]The EPA took final action on a “Revisions to Test Methods and Testing Regulations” package and the changes became effective on February 27, 2014. These changes were proposed on January 9, 2012, and updated after public comment. Changes were made to numerous test methods, and to CEMS Performance Specifications and Procedures, as well as to a number of Part 60 and 63 regulations as they pertain to testing. Testers are responsible for incorporating these changes as applicable.<\/p>\n The Summary of the action as posted in the Federal Register states, “This action promulgates technical and editorial corrections for source testing of emissions and operations. Some current testing provisions contain inaccuracies and outdated procedures, and new alternatives that have been approved are being added. These revisions will improve the quality of data and will give testers additional flexibility to use the newly approved alternative procedures.” The Federal Register Notice can be found at the link below:<\/p>\n http:\/\/www.regulations.gov\/#!documentDetail;D=EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0114-0046<\/a>[\/vc_column_text][\/vc_tta_section][vc_tta_section title=”04\/18\/2013 – Audit Program 60-day Clock Has Started” tab_id=”audit-program-60-day-clock-has-started”][vc_column_text css=””]EPA posted a second Accredited Audit Sample Provider (AASP) on their website on April 16, 2013. This posting started the 60-day clock after which facilities conducting stack tests using one of the applicable methods are required to have purchased Stationary Source Audit Samples to quality assure their stack test. Facilities conducting compliance tests on and after June 16, 2013 will be required to comply and should plan accordingly. For details on the methods that are affected, please visit the EPA website (http:\/\/www.epa.gov\/ttn\/emc\/email.html#audit). This EPA page additionally includes links to The NELAC Institute (TNI) Stationary Audit Sample Program (http:\/\/www.nelac-institute.org\/ssas); the only currently EPA approved Audit Sample Program. This TNI page includes information on the Final Standards governing the TNI Program. Module 3 should be of particular interest, as this module details the responsibilities of the participants in the program (Facility, Regulatory Agency, Stationary Source Tester, Laboratory and AASP.) Additionally, there is an FAQ page link, and an Audit Sample Calculation Tool link to assist in the ordering of SSAS.<\/p>\n Should you have any questions, please contact the Bureau of Technical Services.<\/p>\n Background: A Stationary Source Audit Sample (SSAS) is a blind sample whose value is known only to the sample provider and is not revealed to the tested facility until after they report the measured value of the audit sample. They are used as a quality assurance tool for compliance stack testing events.<\/p>\n In September 2010, EPA took final action to promulgate amendments to the General Provisions to allow Accredited Audit Sample Providers (AASPs) to supply Stationary Source Audit Samples (SSAS) and to require sources to obtain and use these samples from the accredited providers instead of from EPA (through NJDEP in NJ), as was the prior practice. In addition to allowing private AASPs to provide audit samples for the stationary source audit program, this action shifted the burden of obtaining an audit sample from the compliance authority (ie: NJDEP) to the source. In the past, the EPA provided the samples to the compliance authorities at no cost, but this action required the source to purchase the samples from an accredited provider. The requirement to use an audit sample during a compliance test applies to all test methods for which a commercially available audit exists; effective 60-days after two providers are accredited for a particular method.[\/vc_column_text][\/vc_tta_section][vc_tta_section title=”04\/02\/2013 – PM-10\/PM-2.5 Sampling in “Small“ stack clarifications” tab_id=”pm-10-pm-2-5-sampling-in-small-stack-clarifications”][vc_column_text css=””]When performing Method 201A (M201A) in smaller stacks where blockage effects will be between 3% and 6%, Section 8.7.2.3 of the Method states that all velocity traverses must be performed according to Method 1A (M1A) criteria. This involves performing velocity traverses at a separate location in accordance with Section 11.1.1 of M1A (although a standard Pitot tube is not required because the stack will be greater than 12″ in diameter), or alternatively for sources with steady flow, performing velocity traverses before and after the test run at the M201A sampling location using a S-type Pitot tube in accordance with Section 11.1.2 of M1A. When using the latter procedure, the flows calculated from the pre and post velocity traverses must agree within 10% to be considered valid. Either procedure is performed with a Pitot tube that is not attached to the M201A sampling head. In either procedure, the Pitot Coefficient (Cp) used for all calculations will be the coefficient determined without the M201A sampling head. The velocities measured will be corrected for blockage using Equation #27 of M201A. If performing the Method 1A traverse at a separate location during the test run, the corrected velocities will be used to calculate dwell times (Equation 24), and all post test run calculations, according to the method. If doing the pre and post velocity readings, the Equation 27 corrected pre readings will be used to calculate dwell times and the method acceptance criteria. The stack flow rate will be calculated using the uncorrected pre and post readings, with the average of the pre-test flow and post-test flow used for subsequent emission rate calculations.<\/p>\n If the M201A sampling train causes blockage between 3% and 6%, simultaneous testing of another sampling train is not allowed, since this will result in additional blockage. If the blockage effects of a M201A sampling train are below 3% but are borderline, simultaneous testing of another train is not allowed, unless calculations submitted as part of the protocol demonstrate that the addition of a second sampling train will not cause the blockage to exceed 3%.<\/p>\n To determine whether your stack suffers from blockage effects, refer to Table 1 in the M201A FAQ page (http:\/\/www.epa.gov\/ttn\/emc\/promgate\/QAs201.pdf). M201A cannot be conducted in stacks where the blockage exceeds 6%.[\/vc_column_text][\/vc_tta_section][vc_tta_section title=”12\/10\/2012 – BTS Guidance Regarding Non-Detect Sample Fractions and Non-Detect Blanks” tab_id=”bts-guidance-regarding-non-detect-sample-fractions-and-non-detect-blanks”][vc_column_text css=””]In general, unless otherwise specified in a rule\/regulation or otherwise approved by BTS, the following practice should be employed when reporting stack test results that include non-detect (ND) fractions and\/or ND blanks.<\/p>\n – ND blanks should be counted as zero. One should never subtract a ND blank.<\/p>\n – If all sample fractions are ND, the detection limit should be used for each fraction and the result reported as a \u201cless than\u201d value.<\/p>\n – If one or more sample fractions are ND but not all fractions are ND, the ND fractions should be counted as zero UNLESS by including the ND fraction(s) a compliant result would become a non-compliant result. In the latter case, the results should be reported as a range, with the first result counting the ND fractions as zero and the second result using the detection limit for each ND fraction.<\/p>\n Should you feel that a deviation from this reporting practice is warranted for your particular test, you should contact BTS to discuss the case-by-case circumstances.[\/vc_column_text][\/vc_tta_section][vc_tta_section title=”11\/08\/2012 – BTS Observer Work Cell Phone Numbers available on-line” tab_id=”bts-observer-work-cell-phone-numbers-available-on-line”][vc_column_text css=””]There may be times when you need to reach or leave a message for a BTS stack test observer during non-office hours (for example, to let the observer know of a delay or cancelation in the test program so that they do not waste a trip to the facility.) Therefore, we have modified our contact information webpage (https:\/\/deptest.nj.gov\/dae\/em-contact-information\/<\/a>) to include the observer\u2019s work cell phone numbers.[\/vc_column_text][\/vc_tta_section][vc_tta_section title=”09\/24\/2012 – Final Notice on ERT Training” tab_id=”final-notice-on-ert-training”][vc_column_text css=””]This is a final notification regarding the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP)’s Bureau of Technical Services (BTS) invitation to participate in hands-on training regarding the use of the Electronic Reporting Tool. The training will start at 9:00 AM on October 1, 2012 in NJDEP’s Computer Testing Room, 1st Floor, 401 E State Street, Trenton, NJ 08625, and should finish no later than 4:30 PM. If you have already sent an RSVP, you will have received an e-mail with specific instructions. If you sent an RSVP and did not receive the specific e-mail, please contact us at bts@dep.state.nj.us or at 609-530-4041. If you have not sent a RSVP but would still like to attend, limited space is available, but you must RSVP as soon as possible.<\/p>\n The training is also being offered as a concurrent Webinar should you be unable to participate in person. Directions for accessing the Webinar can be obtained by e-mailing bts@dep.state.nj.us. Webinar access is limited to the first 25 respondents.<\/p>\n If you have any questions, please contact Michael Klein at 609-530-4041.<\/p>\n Background: BTS is in the process of implementing electronic submittals of stack test protocols and reports, as well as CEMS PST reports. We will be doing this via EPA’s Electronic Reporting Tool (ERT). BTS sponsored a hands-on ERT training session in December 2011, and encouraged voluntary use of the ERT to allow both the testing community and BTS to gain experience in using the software prior to it becoming mandatory. We have received a handful of protocol submittals using the ERT since that time. We have also heard of problems\/questions encountered while using the program that may be slowing more widespread use of the ERT. Therefore, we are now offering a second hands-on training session to further assist you and BTS in incorporating the ERT into the stack testing process before it becomes mandatory.[\/vc_column_text][\/vc_tta_section][vc_tta_section title=”09\/19\/2012 – Extended Certification Periods for EPA Protocol Gases” tab_id=”extended-certification-periods-for-epa-protocol-gases”][vc_column_text css=””]The EPA traceability protocol for gaseous calibration standards was revised in 2012. Among the changes, the certification periods for EPA Protocol Gases were extended because NIST and specialty gas producers have gathered more information about the long-term stability of gas mixtures than was available for the 1997 version of the protocol. Table 2-3 from the protocol gives the maximum certification periods for EPA Protocol Gases. These periods are applicable to newly certified calibration standards and for previously certified calibration standards.<\/p>\n Note that producers may elect to certify their products for shorter periods if they do not have confidence in the stability of their products for the listed periods. Some producers are electing to notify their customers about the extended periods and to send out revised certificates of analysis. Per EPA, the producers can exercise their discretion about the extended certification periods and about the notifications. Accordingly, BTS will require testers to obtain written documentation from the gas producer as to what the extended expiration date is for a particular cylinder in order for it to be used beyond the expiration date listed on the original certification.[\/vc_column_text][\/vc_tta_section][vc_tta_section title=”08\/28\/2012 – Test Programs Delayed by Lack of Method 25 Audits” tab_id=”test-programs-delayed-by-lack-of-method-25-audits”][vc_column_text css=””]As you may be aware, Stationary Source Audit Samples (hereafter referred to as \u201caudits\u201d) have not been available since May 2010, including those for Method 25. An audit is a blind sample whose value is known only to the sample provider and is not revealed to the tested facility until after they report the measured value of the audit sample. They are used as a quality assurance tool for compliance stack testing events. In September 2010, EPA took final action to promulgate amendments to the General Provisions to allow accredited audit sample providers (AASPs) to supply stationary source audit samples and to require sources to obtain and use these samples from the accredited providers instead of from EPA (through NJDEP in NJ), as was the prior practice.<\/p>\n Method 25 is one method where the Department felt that testing could not be sufficiently quality assured without audits. As such, tests where Method 25 was the indicated method have been on hold since that time. Although we had felt that audits would become available within a reasonable timeframe after the EPA audit regulation update, that has not been the case and we cannot predict with any certainty when these audits will become available. Therefore, unless specifically specified by regulation, BTS will accept proposals to test using the best alternative testing procedures, such as Methods 25A\/18, until such time as Method 25 audits become available. If such alternative procedures are not currently included in an approved protocol, an addendum must be submitted for approval. Be advised that any approval to use alternative procedures will not be valid for future test programs after Method 25 audits become available.[\/vc_column_text][\/vc_tta_section][vc_tta_section title=”08\/16\/2012 – Follow-up to July 23, 2012 message: Additional ERT Training” tab_id=”follow-up-to-july-23-2012-listserv-additional-ert-training”][vc_column_text css=””]<\/p>\n This is a follow-up to the July 23, 2012 announcement on this topic.\u00a0 BTS is in the process of implementing electronic submittals of stack test protocols and reports, as well as CEMS PST reports.\u00a0 We will be doing this via EPA’s Electronic Reporting Tool (ERT).\u00a0 BTS sponsored a hands-on ERT training session in December 2011, and encouraged voluntary use of the ERT to allow both the testing community and BTS to gain experience in using the software prior to it becoming mandatory.\u00a0 We have received a handful of protocol submittals using the ERT since that time.\u00a0 We have also heard of problems\/questions encountered while using the program that may be slowing more widespread use of the ERT.<\/p>\n We are now offering a second hands-on training session to further assist you and BTS in incorporating the ERT into the stack testing process before it becomes mandatory.\u00a0 This training has been scheduled for October 1, 2012.\u00a0 The estimated start time will be 8:30 or 9:00 am and the session will run to no later than 4:30 pm.\u00a0 We are also planning to offer this as a concurrent Webinar for those who cannot attend in person.\u00a0 Final details will be forthcoming in a future announcement.<\/p>\n Please send an e-mail to\u00a0bts@deptest.nj.gov<\/a>\u00a0to RSVP.\u00a0 We will need the name(s) and e-mail addresses of all attendees and whether you plan to attend in person or via Webinar.\u00a0 Once again, we plan to arrange to reserve a limited number of parking spaces in the DEP Visitor\u2019s Lot, which will be given on a first-reply basis.\u00a0 Please include your license plate number (and State) if you would like one of the spots.\u00a0 Otherwise, we suggest using one of the nearby parking garages for parking, or mass transit (NJ Transit Trenton Station and River Line light rail\u00a0 Station are only a block away, link to the schedule is below.)<\/p>\n http:\/\/www.njtransit.com\/sf\/sf_servlet.srv?hdnPageAction=MainTo<\/p>\n Finally, feel free to also include in your e-mail items that you would like to see covered during the proposed training session.<\/p>\n [\/vc_column_text][\/vc_tta_section][vc_tta_section title=”08\/16\/2012 – Testing for PM-10 and\/or PM-2.5 in high temperature stacks” tab_id=”testing-for-pm-10-and-or-pm-2-5-in-high-temperature-stacks”][vc_column_text css=””]PM-10 and PM-2.5 are measured using the combination of Method 201A and Method 202. Filterable PM-10 and\/or filterable PM-2.5 is\/are measured using Method 201A, and condensable particulate matter is measured using Method 202. In the past version of Method 201A, sampling was not possible in high temperature stacks because of limitations with the sampling equipment; the threads of the cyclone components could gall or seize, preventing recovery of the sample and rendering the cyclone unusable for future testing. The solution in the past was to test as \u201cworst-case\u201d by using NJATM1 to measure total filterable particulate (in place of Method 201A), in conjunction with Method 202 for condensable particulate matter.<\/p>\n The revised Method 201A (effective January 1, 2011) includes alternate equipment (cyclones with break-away bolts instead of screw-together) for testing in high-temperature stacks (see \u00a78.6.1 of the method.) BTS has been in a bit of a chicken-and-egg situation in regards to this topic. Testers tell us that vendors do not have the equipment\u2026vendors tell us that they have not made the equipment because no one is ordering it. As a result, effective with all pending and future protocols unless otherwise approved, BTS will require the use of Method 201A in high temperature stacks, using the equipment specified in \u00a78.6.1 of the method. It is the facility\u2019s responsibility to ensure that the Tester they have hired has the necessary sampling equipment to perform the method.[\/vc_column_text][\/vc_tta_section][vc_tta_section title=”08\/01\/2012 – CEMS RA and RATA Reference Method Calibrations” tab_id=”cems-ra-and-rata-reference-method-calibrations”][vc_column_text css=””]Please note that the Department does not allow calibrations to be skipped between runs for relative accuracy testing (including relative accuracy test audits). Each reference method data point must be individually quality assured. The averaging of calibration data over multiple runs prohibits individually determined, drift corrected run averages for comparison to the CEMS data. Part 75 procedures also prohibit \u201cskipped calibrations\u201d.<\/p>\n Reports submitted to the Department using the \u201cSkipped Calibration Approach\u201d will be rejected and will have to be repeated.[\/vc_column_text][\/vc_tta_section][vc_tta_section title=”07\/23\/2012 – Electronic Reporting Tool (ERT) – Additional Training” tab_id=”electronic-reporting-tool-ert-additional-training”][vc_column_text css=””]As most of you should be aware, BTS is in the process of implementing electronic submittals of stack test protocols and reports, as well as CEMS PST reports. We will be doing this via EPA’s Electronic Reporting Tool (ERT). BTS sponsored a hands-on ERT training session in December 2011, and encouraged voluntary use of the ERT to allow both the testing community and BTS to gain experience in using the software prior to it becoming mandatory. We have received a handful of protocol submittals using the ERT since that time. We have also heard of problems\/questions encountered while using the program that may be slowing more widespread use of the ERT.<\/p>\n Now that some of you have either used or attempted to use the ERT, we are considering offering a second hands-on training session to further assist you and BTS in incorporating the ERT into the stack testing process before it becomes mandatory. However, before scheduling this session, we would like your feedback regarding your interest and availability. Our current thinking is to hold this training in September 2012. Please send an e-mail to bts@deptest.nj.gov<\/a> and let us know of your interest and availability. Feel free to also include in your e-mail items that you would like to see covered during the proposed training session.[\/vc_column_text][\/vc_tta_section][vc_tta_section title=”06\/04\/2012 – Audit provider availability update” tab_id=”audit-provider-availability-update”][vc_column_text css=””]A stationary source audit sample is a blind sample whose value is known only to the sample provider and is not revealed to the tested facility until after they report the measured value of the audit sample. They are used as a quality assurance tool for compliance stack testing events.<\/p>\n In September 2010, EPA took final action to promulgate amendments to the General Provisions to allow accredited audit sample providers (AASPs) to supply stationary source audit samples and to require sources to obtain and use these samples from the accredited providers instead of from EPA (through NJDEP in NJ), as was the prior practice. In addition to allowing private AASPs to provide audit samples for the stationary source audit program, this action shifted the burden of obtaining an audit sample from the compliance authority (ie: NJDEP) to the source. In the past, the EPA provided the samples to the compliance authorities at no cost, but this action required the source to purchase the samples from an accredited provider.<\/p>\n
\n2. Un-install the Microsoft Office Suite from your system and re-install it.<\/p>\n
\nNJDEP – Compliance & Enforcement
\nAir Enforcement
\nEmission Measurement Section
\nMail Code: 09-01
\nPO Box 420
\nTrenton, NJ 08625-0420<\/p>\n
\nNJDEP – Compliance & Enforcement
\nAir Enforcement
\nEmission Measurement Section
\n9 Ewing Street
\nTrenton, NJ 08625<\/p>\n
\nFax Number: 609-292-3991<\/p>\n
\na. Use Equation 7 to calculate Qs.
\nb. Use a value of 10 for D50T in Equation 7.<\/p>\n
\na. Use Equation 4 to calculate the Cunningham Correction Factor.
\nb. Use a value of 2.5 for D50 in Equation 4.
\nc. Use Equation 8 to calculate QIV.
\nd. Use a value of 2.5 for D50 in Equation 8.
\ne. Use Equation 10 to calculate the Reynolds Number.
\nf. Based on the Reynolds Number, use Equation 8 or 9 to recalculate QIV.
\ng. Do this iterative process a few times to get the best possible QIV.<\/p>\n
\na. Use Equation 4 to calculate the Cunningham Correction Factor.
\nb. Use a value of 2.25 for D50 in Equation 4.
\nc. Use Equations 5 through 7 to calculate Qs.<\/p>\n
\na. Precise dwell times must be recorded for each point in order to get accurate calculations of isokinetics.
\nb. Precise meter volume readings must be recorded for each point in order to get accurate calculations of isokinetics.<\/p>\n
\na. When testing for PM-2.5 alone, 16% of points, rounded to the nearest whole number, are allowed outside the \u2206Pmin and \u2206Pmax range. For a 12 point traverse, that is 2 points.
\nb. When testing for PM-10 alone, 8% of points, rounded to the nearest whole number, are allowed outside the \u2206Pmin and \u2206Pmax range. For a 12 point traverse, that is 1 point.
\nc. When testing for PM-10 and PM-2.5 combined, 8% of points, rounded to the nearest whole number, are allowed outside the \u2206Pmin and \u2206Pmax range. For a 12 point traverse, that is 1 point.<\/p>\n
\na. Precise dwell times must be recorded for each point in order to get accurate calculations of isokinetics.
\nb. Precise meter volume readings must be recorded for each point in order to get accurate calculations of isokinetics.<\/p>\n
\na. When testing for PM-2.5 alone, 16% of points, rounded to the nearest whole number, are allowed outside the \u2206Pmin and \u2206Pmax range. For a 12 point traverse, that is 2 points.
\nb. When testing for PM-10 alone, 8% of points, rounded to the nearest whole number, are allowed outside the \u2206Pmin and \u2206Pmax range. For a 12 point traverse, that is 1 point.
\nc. When testing for PM-10 and PM-2.5 combined, 8% of points, rounded to the nearest whole number, are allowed outside the \u2206Pmin and \u2206Pmax range. For a 12 point traverse, that is 1 point.<\/p>\n