Eric Swisher presented "The Good vs. Bad: The Specifics for Validating CMS Data" at the 4C Conference in Austin, TX in February 2016.

1. 3/2/2016 Page 1
The Good vs. Bad: The Specifics for Validating
CMS Data
The Good vs. Bad: The Specifics
for Validating CMS Data
Eric Swisher
Technical Manager
610.422.1117
eswisher@all4inc.com
Kristin Gordon
Houston Office Director
281.937.7553 x301
kgordon@all4inc.com

2. 3/2/2016 Page 2
The Good vs. Bad: The Specifics for Validating
CMS Data
Continuous Monitoring System (CMS) Data
• Data collected by CMS can be:
• Good – Use for demonstration of compliance while unit is subject to
monitoring.
• Quality Assured
• Accurate (Representative Measurement)
• Bad – Quantified as CMS downtime.
• Out-of-Control (OOC)
• Non-representative Measurement

3. 3/2/2016 Page 3
The Good vs. Bad: The Specifics for Validating
CMS Data
CMS Downtime
• CMS downtime classified as periods during which the CMS are:
• Inoperative
• Routine Maintenance or Other Repair
• Out-of-Control (OOC)
• Operating not Generating Accurate Data
• Cannot express measurements in terms of the emission standard

4. 3/2/2016 Page 4
The Good vs. Bad: The Specifics for Validating
CMS Data
Excess Emission & CMS Performance
Summary Report

5. 3/2/2016 Page 5
The Good vs. Bad: The Specifics for Validating
CMS Data
CMS Performance Summary
• Step 1: Reconcile Data
• Good vs. Bad CMS Data
• Quality Assurance Activities
• Logbook Entries
• Operational Status
• Subject to Monitoring
• Step 2: Assign to appropriate “Reporting Buckets”
• Monitoring Equipment Malfunction, Non-Monitoring Equipment Malfunction,
Quality Assurance Calibration, Other Known Causes, Other Unknown Causes

6. 3/2/2016 Page 6
The Good vs. Bad: The Specifics for Validating
CMS Data
CMS Performance Summary
• CMS Downtime “Reporting Buckets”
• Monitoring Equipment Malfunction
• Non-Monitoring Equipment Malfunction
• Quality Assurance Calibration
• Other Known Causes
• Other Unknown Causes
• U.S. EPA Guidance: [Handbook for the Review of Excess Emission
Reports (May 1986)]

7. 3/2/2016 Page 7
The Good vs. Bad: The Specifics for Validating
CMS Data
Monitoring Equipment Malfunction
CMS downtime caused by events such as:
• Malfunction of any component of the CMS [other than the data
acquisition systems (DAS)] that prevents the CMS from producing
accurate, quality-assured data.
• Heated probe
• Sample line
• Sample conditioning system
• Sample pump
• Analyzer

8. 3/2/2016 Page 8
The Good vs. Bad: The Specifics for Validating
CMS Data
Non-monitoring Equipment Malfunction
CMS downtime caused by events such as:
• Malfunction of any equipment that is necessary to transfer, compute,
and record CMS data.
• Failures or problems with the data acquisition systems (DAS).

9. 3/2/2016 Page 9
The Good vs. Bad: The Specifics for Validating
CMS Data
Quality Assurance Calibration
CMS downtime caused by events such as:
• Calibration
• Does not include:
• Routine daily zero/upscale verification or calibration.
• Calibration after a corrective maintenance. The CMS downtime should assigned to
appropriate malfunction category.
• Routine or Preventive Maintenance
• Additional Quality Assurance Activities
• Quarterly Cylinder Gas Audits (CGAs)

10. 3/2/2016 Page 10
The Good vs. Bad: The Specifics for Validating
CMS Data
Other Known Cause
CMS downtime or inaccuracy caused by other known reasons such
as:
• Power failures
• Human Error
• Severe Weather
• “Relatively Unusual Events”

11. 3/2/2016 Page 11
The Good vs. Bad: The Specifics for Validating
CMS Data
Other Unknown Cause
• CMS downtime in which information is insufficient to determine the
appropriate reason category.

12. 3/2/2016 Page 12
The Good vs. Bad: The Specifics for Validating
CMS Data
CMS Downtime Duration
[ADI-NSPS-9800094 (Data Availability)]
• Opacity: 1 or 6-min increments
• CEMS: 1-hr increments

13. 3/2/2016 Page 13
The Good vs. Bad: The Specifics for Validating
CMS Data
CMS Downtime (What does it mean?)
• CMS QA/QC Program
• Regulatory Inspection

14. 3/2/2016 Page 14
The Good vs. Bad: The Specifics for Validating
CMS Data
CMS Downtime (Enforcement)
• How is it enforced? [U.S. EPA Region 4 CEM Enforcement Plan]
• ≤ 2.0%
• Written Acknowledgement
• Encouragement
• >2.0% and ≤5.0%
• Written or Verbal Warning

15. 3/2/2016 Page 15
The Good vs. Bad: The Specifics for Validating
CMS Data
CMS Downtime (Enforcement)
• How is it enforced? (U.S. EPA Region 4 CEM Enforcement Plan)
• >5.0% and ≤10.0%
• Written Warning
• Additional Information of Occurrences
• Corrective Action Plan
• >5.0% and ≤10.0% for 2 consecutive quarters OR >10%
• Notice of Violation (NOV)
• Performance Testing and Recertification
• Corrective Action Plan

16. 3/2/2016 Page 16
The Good vs. Bad: The Specifics for Validating
CMS Data
Excess Emissions Summary
• Step 3: Calculate Excess Emissions or Operating Limits Deviations
• Compliance averages (in terms of applicable standards)
• Good Data Only
• Operational Status
• Step 4: Assign to appropriate “Reporting Buckets”
• Startup/Shutdown, Control Equipment Problems, Process Problems, Other
Known Causes, Other Unknown Causes

17. 3/2/2016 Page 17
The Good vs. Bad: The Specifics for Validating
CMS Data
Excess Emissions (Enforcement)
• How is it enforced? (U.S. EPA Region 4 CEM Enforcement Plan)
• 2.0%
• >2.0% and ≤5.0%
• >5.0% and ≤10.0%
• >5.0% and ≤10.0% for 2 consecutive quarters OR >10%

18. 3/2/2016 Page 18
The Good vs. Bad: The Specifics for Validating
CMS Data
Summary
• Data can be either good or bad.
• When determining CMS downtime and excess emission events,
consider:
• Operational status
• Averaging period
• Minimize CMS downtime to avoid additional “headaches.”

19. 3/2/2016 Page 19
The Good vs. Bad: The Specifics for Validating
CMS Data
Eric Swisher
Technical Manager
610.422.1117
eswisher@all4inc.com
Kristin Gordon P.E.
Houston Office Director
(281) 937-7553 x301
kgordon@all4inc.com
Philadelphia | Atlanta | Houston | Washington DC