United States Office of Air Quality EPA-450/3-85-013
Environmental Protection Planning and Standards December 1985
Agency Research Triangle Park NC 27711
Air "
Opacity Provisions
Background
Information
For Promulgated
Amendments
-------
EPA-450/3-85-013
Opacity Provisions —
Background Information
For Promulgated Amendments
Emission Standards and Engineering Division
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Air and Radiation
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
December 1985
-------
This report has been reviewed by the Emission Standards and Engineering Division of the Office of Air
Quality Planning and Standards, EPA, and approved for publication. Mention of trade namesorcommerical
products is not intended to constitute endorsement or recommendation for use. Copies of this report are
available through the Library Services Office (MD-35), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research
Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711; or, for a fee, from the National Technical Information Services, 5285
Port Royal Road, Springfield, Virginia 22161.
-------
Table of Contents
Section Page
1.0 Summary 1-1
1.1 Summary of Changes Since Proposal 1-1
2.0 Summary of Public Comments 2-1
Table 2-1. List of Commenters on the
Proposed Opacity Provisions 2-36
Table 2-2 Cost of Visible Observations
Using Method 9 2-39
m
-------
1.0 SUMMARY
On July 31, 1984, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
proposed a requirement for owners and operators of affected facilities
subject to opacity standards in 40 CFR Part 60 to conduct opacity observations,
and record and report the opacity of emissions during each performance
test. This requirement was proposed under the authority of Section 114 of
the Clean Air Act, as amended, and was based on the Administrator's
determination that the recordkeeping and reporting was necessary to
demonstrate compliance with the respective opacity standards. The data
would also be used during 4-year reviews of standards of performance for
new stationary sources so that EPA could decide whether revisions to the
respective opacity standards were necessary. The proposed opacity provisions
were published in the Federal Register (49 FR 30676) with a request for
public comments. The opportunity for a public hearing was provided but a
hearing was not held because it was not requested. A total of 19 comment
letters were received from industry, state and local air pollution control
agencies, and a law firm representing members of the Utility Air Regulatory
Group (UARG). The comments that were submitted, along with responses to
these comments, are summarized in this document. The summary of comments
and responses serves as the basis for the revisions made to the opacity
provisions between proposal and promulgation.
1.1 SUMMARY OF CHANGES SINCE PROPOSAL
In response to public comments received on the proposed rulemaking and
as a result of EPA revaluation, three major changes were made in the
proposed opacity provisions prior to promulgation. The proposed requirement
to conduct opacity observations and to record and report the opacity results
1-1
-------
during each performance test has been changed to require that these tasks
be performed during the initial performance test only.
The promulgated revisions allow a source owner or operator to request
the Administrator to use an EPA certified observer, if available, to conduct
and record the opacity observations. These requests will be included in the
notification required under Section 60.7(a)(6). If, for some reason, EPA
cannot furnish a certified observer, then the source owner or operator must
obtain a certified observer to conduct and record the opacity. In either
case, it is the responsibility of the source owner or operator to report
the opacity results. The inability of a source owner or operator to secure
a visible emissions observer will not be considered a reason for not conducting
the opacity observations concurrent with the initial performance test.
If visibility or other conditions prevent the opacity observations
from being taken concurrently with the initial performance test, the opacity
observation test would be rescheduled as soon after the performance test as
possible, but not later than 30 days after the initial test. In these
cases, the promulgated revisions also allow the 30-day prior notice to the
Administrator of the opacity observation test for compliance purposes to be
waived. The visible emissions observer will determine whether visibility
or other conditions prevent the opacity observations from being made concurrently
with the initial performance test based on procedures in Method 9 of Appendix
B (40 CFR Part 60) and on the observer's past experience in reading opacity.
In addition to the previously discussed changes which are being
promulgated, a separate revision to the opacity provisions in 40 CFR Part
60 is being proposed in response to public comments and EPA revaluation.
The proposed revision would allow a source owner or operator the option of
1-2
-------
submitting to the Administrator the results of continuous opacity monitoring
by transmissometer for the purpose of determining compliance with the
respective opacity standard in lieu of Method 9 results. If monitoring
results are submitted for compliance purposes, the owner or operator would
not be required to conduct an opacity observation test using Reference
Method 9.
1-3
-------
2.0 SUMMARY OF PUBLIC COMMENTS
The list of commenters, their affiliations, and the EPA docket number
for each of the comments are shown in Table 2-1. Nineteen letters
commenting on the proposed opacity provisions were received. A public
hearing was not held because it was not requested. All of the comments
and responses are discussed in this chapter. A summary of changes made
in the final opacity provisons is included in Chapter 1. The docket
reference is indicated in parentheses in each comment.
2.1 OPACITY PROVISIONS
2.1.1 Comment: A trade association (IV-D-1) agreed that recordkeeping by
owners and operators of affected facilities subject to opacity standards
was desirable; however, the commenter did not agree that reporting the
results was necessary. The commenter expressed a reluctance to furnish
EPA with data that would be used to determine best demonstrated technology
(BDT) because the association felt that EPA had a history of misusing
data in determining standards for the aggregate industry. As an example
of this, the trade association cited AP-42, "Compilation of Air Pollutant
Emission Factors," which it felt grossly overestimated the aggregate
industry's contribution to air pollution. The association suggested that
EPA work with aggregate producers and equipment manufacturers when the
Agency reviews the new source performance standards (NSPS) at 4-year
intervals. The commenter recommended that owners and operators of affected
facilities subject to opacity standards be required to record opacity
observations and retain the records for 4 years. Another trade association
(IV-D-14) believed that reporting of opacity observations in all instances
2-1
-------
was unnecessary. It was suggested that the owner or operator of affected
facilities record and retain opacity observations on their premises and
make them available to EPA for inspection and enforcement purposes.
Response: In the Administrator's judgment, the requirement to report
the results of opacity observation tests is just as important as the
requirement to record the data. As stated in the proposal preamble, the
primary reason for the opacity observation recordkeeping and reporting
requirement is to determine compliance with the opacity standard. It
would serve no useful purpose for the Agency to require that the opacity
observations made during compliance testing be recorded and retained in
the plant files because neither the Agency nor the State or local
enforcement office (if States have received delegation authority) is
sufficiently staffed to be able to visit each source to review the opacity
results to determine compliance. Indeed, even if enough enforcement
staff were available to accomplish this, it would not be making the best
use of the Agency's available resources in terms of time and money. The
Administrator believes that reporting the observation test results is
necessary for determining compliance and, therefore, no change has been
made in the reporting requirement. Also, since the reporting requirement
is being kept, it would not be necessary to retain the opacity observation
results for 4 years as recommended. A 2-year records retention period is
still appropriate.
One of the commenters expressed a reluctance to furnish EPA with
data that would be used to determine BDT and cited an example of how
AP-42 grossly overestimated the aggregate industry's contribution to air
pollution. First, it should be noted that Section 114 of the Clean Air
2-2
-------
Act (CAA) has given EPA broad authority to secure information needed in
the development of NSPS for new stationary sources under Section 111 of
the Act, such as conducting tests, examining records, and any other
information reasonably required for the purpose of developing such standards.
The data accumulated during this NSPS development process are also
used to develop the emission factors for the particular emission source
category. The term "emission source category" is used to indicate a
separate emission factor report. These reports may be categorized by
industry, by process, by product, by fuel, or by other common denominators.
The AP-42 is a compilation of emission factor reports that provide persons
working in air pollution with documented, technically acceptable estimates
of emission rates for sources. The EPA believes that the quality of the
emission factor reports can only be enhanced by the availability of
additional data and that, in general, controversy occurs when the data are
limited. Moreover, with regard to standard setting and BDT determinations,
the applicable industry has ample opportunity during the standards development
process to review and comment on the data collected, the associated
emission limit, and the NSPS emission factors. For example, in the early
stages of development, source owners and operators and equipment manufacturers
are contacted for information on the industrial process, the sources of
emissions, technology available to control the emissions, and the associated
emission control levels. This information is documented in a background
information document (BID) along with estimated economic and other impact
considerations and sent to the applicable industry and equipment vendors
for review and comment.
2-3
-------
The affected industry and other interested parties usually also have
an opportunity to present their views and comments at an open meeting of
the National Air Pollution Control Techniques Advisory Committee (NAPCTAC)
before an NSPS is proposed in the Federal Register. After proposal, the
Agency will hold a public hearing, if requested, and a comment period, usually
of 75 days, is allowed for interested parties to submit comments on any
aspect of a proposed NSPS. In addition, EPA relies upon the data which
evolves in the NSPS process to develop or update the AP-42 sections for
the emission source category.
2.1.2 Comment: A law firm (IV-D-7) suggested that EPA consider adding a
provision to allow for the waiver of opacity tests after the initial
performance test. The National Council of the Paper Industry for Air and
Stream Improvement (NCASI) (IV-D-8) felt that the statement in proposed
Section 60.11(e)(l) which indicates additional Method 9 observations
shall be taken "at such times as may be required by the Administrator"
should be clarified to state that Method 9 observations are not required
during periodic particulate emission tests conducted after the initial
performance test. The commenter went on to say that many States which have
received delegation authority from EPA to carry out the NSPS program do
require sources to perform periodic particulate emission tests for compliance
purposes, in addition to requiring excess emission reports based on
continuous opacity monitoring.
Response: In consideration of these comments and in an effort to
reduce the recordkeeping and reporting costs associated with periodic
opacity observations, the final rule has been revised to require that the
owner or operator of an affected facility, to which an opacity standard
2-4
-------
applies, conduct, record, and report opacity observations during the
initial performance test only. Generally, NSPS require only an initial
compliance test for each affected facility. Therefore, the opacity
recordkeeping and reporting requirements have been limited to the initial
compliance test. However, this limitation does not affect either the
EPA's or the States' authority to require a source owner or operator to
conduct periodic emission and opacity observation tests after the initial
performance test.
2.1.3 Comment: A State agency (IV-D-5) noted that some States specifically
exempt colored gas plumes, such as those from nitric acid plants, from
their opacity regulations. The commenter did not think that Method 9 was
developed with the intent of applying it to colored gases and suggested
that colored gas plumes be specifically exempted from the opacity
recordkeeping and reporting requirements. The NCASI (IV-D-8) requested
that EPA clarify that Method 9 observations are only required during
performance tests for particulate matter and that observations are not
required during performance tests for $03, NOX, TRS, or other pollutants
regulated under a particular NSPS. One corporation (IV-D-13) strongly
opposed the proposed revisions because they believed the proposal would
impose an unjustifiably burdensome and costly increase in opacity testing.
The commenter was concerned about the requirement to conduct opacity
observations concurrently with each performance test because it encompassed
all performance tests (both initial and subsequent tests) without discrimination
as to type of pollutant. The commenter believed the EPA's intent was to
limit the proposed requirement to a new source's initial performance test
for particul ate emissions and recommended that the final revision be
clarified to reflect this intent.
2-5
-------
Response: These amendments do not affect the applicability of Method 9.
The method is used for determining the opacity of colored gas plumes,
such as those from nitric acid plants, and therefore colored gas plumes
will not be exempted from the opacity recordkeeping and reporting requirements.
As stated in the previous response, the final revision has been
changed to require an owner or operator of an affected facility to which
an opacity standard applies to conduct opacity observations, record the
opacity, and report the results only for the initial performance test,
not for subsequent tests. The phrase "to which an opacity standard
applies" eliminates the need to designate the type of pollutant for which
the opacity observation is to be conducted because the applicable NSPS
would specify the particular pollutant for which the opacity observation
is to be performed. This final rule would not extend the opacity standard
beyond what is required by a particular NSPS.
2.1.4 Comment: A trade association (IV-D-1) questioned whether the 30-
day prior notification to EPA of the opacity observation was practical
because there is no assurance that the plant would actually be operating
on a specific day, or that visibility conditions would permit opacity
observations on that date. The commenter felt that the uncertainty of
operating and visibility conditions at a future date did not justify the
cost of this procedure and, therefore, recommended that the 30-day prior
notice to EPA of the opacity observation not be implemented. A second
commenter (IV-D-14) felt that requiring advance notification of opacity
observations in all instances was unnecessary, but offered no support for
this conclusion.
A law firm (IV-D-7) was concerned about the provision which states
". . . if visibility conditions prevent opacity observations [concurrently
2-6
-------
with the performance test], then observations shall be conducted wi-thin
60 days after achieving the maximum production rate . . . but no later
than 180 days after initial start-up . . ." The commenter stated that
start-up problems could delay a facility from achieving the maximum
production rate or otherwise force a facility to conduct the initial
performance test near the end of the 180-day period. For example, if
weather conditions did not permit the opacity observation to be taken
simultaneously with the performance test and there was not enough time to
reschedule the opacity observation within the 180-day time period, a
source could fail to meet the provision through no fault of its own.
Further, such a situation might not permit a source to give the 30-day
notice required. Thus, the commenter recommended that the provision be
revised to allow the opacity observations to be rescheduled within 60
days of the completion of the performance test if visibility conditions
prevent opacity observations concurrently with the performance test.
Response: The purpose of the 30-day prior notification to EPA of
the opacity observation test is to allow time for the appropriate EPA,
State, or local enforcement agency to have an observer present during
testing. Once a source reaches its maximum production level and the level
at which the opacity observation would be performed, it can be assumed
that it will continue to operate at that level on a daily basis unless
something unforeseen occurs, such as a breakdown in the process or
emission control equipment or adverse weather conditions. However, the
prediction of these types of occurrences is beyond the control of both
the source owner or operator and EPA. The Agency cannot justify
eliminating the 30-day prior notification requirement based on the likelihood
2-7
-------
that something unforeseen might prevent the opacity observation from
taking place on the scheduled date. The Administrator believes the 30-
day prior notification requirement is practical and necessary. However,
if visibility or other conditions prevent the opacity observation from
being taken on a scheduled date or prevent the opacity observation from
being taken simultaneously with the initial performance test required
under 40 CFR 60.8, then the opacity observation should be rescheduled as
soon after the mass emission performance test as possible, but not later
than 30 days after the initial test, depending on the particular circumstances,
In these cases, the 30-day prior notice to EPA would be waived and the
source owner or operator would advise EPA of the rescheduled date for the
opacity observation. The rescheduled opacity observations will be conducted
(to the extent possible) under the same operating conditions that existed
during the initial performance test conducted under Section 60.8. The
visible emissions observer will determine whether visibility or other
conditions prevent the opacity observation from being made concurrently
with the initial performance test in accordance with procedures contained
in Method 9 of Appendix B (40 CFR Part 60) and based on the observer's
experience in reading opacity. Also, if the affected facility is already
using a continuous opacity monitor, an amendment to Section 60.11(b) is
being proposed to allow the submittal of those monitoring results for
compliance purposes along with the mass emission test results in lieu of
conducting an opacity observation.
In addition, it does not appear that the cost of this procedure
would be a significant factor because (1) the 30-day notification would be
required only for the initial opacity observation test, and (2) if an
2-8
-------
EPA, State or local official is present during the opacity observation,
the owner or operator may elect to request that official to record the opacity
readings in lieu of contracting for that function, thus eliminating the
cost of an observer. The Administrator believes that the 30-day prior
notification to EPA of the opacity observation is necessary for effective
enforcement and, therefore, this requirement has not been changed in the
promulgated revision.
2.1.5 Comment: Several commenters (IV-0-7, IV-D-8, IV-D-13, IV-D-15,
IV-D-16, IV-D-19) requested that consideration be given to reducing the
proposed minimum opacity observation period of 30 6-minute averages (3
hours) for each performance test for the following reasons:
1. A 3-hour period probably would not produce better data and may
decrease the quality of the data by increasing the burden on the opacity
observer, i.e., visual fatigue, and a corresponding reduction in the
validity of the Method 9 results.
2. This quantity of testing is not necessary to determine compliance
with opacity limitations.
3. It would require several extra persons on every test in order to
take readings every 15 seconds over a 3-hour period.
4. A 3-hour period is excessive and redundant. If a unit is
operating smoothly and at a steady production rate, the opacity should
not be fluctuating over the course of 3 hours.
5. The requirement to conduct 720 opacity readings (30 6-minute
averages) without concurrent performance testing appears unreasonable.
The commenters offered the following alternatives for minimum opacity
observation periods:
2-9
-------
1. 75 opacity readings (3 Method 9 runs).
2. One (1) hour of observations taken concurrently with one of the
three particulate runs.
3. A minimum of two representative 6-minute average opacity readings
taken concurrently with each one of the required three particulate sampling
runs.
4. Four 6-minute average opacity observations during a performance
test.
5. One (1) hour of observations during the same time period as required
for performance tests in Section 60.8 or as approved by the Administrator.
6. Thirty 6-minute readings only for the initial performance test,
not for subsequent performance tests.
Response: The EPA has considered the reasons given for
reducing the minimum opacity observation period of 30 6-minute averages
(3 hours) for a performance test and the alternatives offered by the
commenters and has decided that a minimum of 30 6-minute averages for the
opacity observation test is necessary in order to provide the Agency with
enough data upon which to determine compliance with the opacity standard.
During the standard-setting process, opacity data from many different
emission sources are obtained. An analysis of the opacity data will
result in identifying the highest opacity levels reached by one or more
emission sources. The opacity standard is based on consideration of the
highest opacity levels normally expected from complying sources within
the source category.
The Administrator does not agree that a 3-hour period would result
in visual fatigue for the observer, a corresponding reduction in the
2-10
-------
validity of the Method 9 results, or would require extra persons for
every test. Most sources subject to an opacity standard are also subject
to a mass emission limit. In these cases, the initial performance tests
to determine compliance with both standards should, if possible, be
conducted simultaneously. The performance tests would consist of three
separate runs using the applicable test method. Generally, each run
would last at least 1 hour, but these three test runs would seldom
be made without a break in between. It would be necessary to allow time
after each run to prepare for the next one, which would also provide a
rest period for the opacity observer. Even if the opacity observation
test were not conducted concurrently with a mass emission performance
test (for example, some affected facilities are subject only to an opacity
standard), the opacity observer should take periodic breaks during the
3-hour period to avoid any visual fatigue as described in the method.
This procedure would ensure the validity of the Method 9 results and
would alleviate any need for extra persons in conducting the opacity
observation test.
Another reason given by the commenters for reducing the 3-hour period
was that the opacity should not fluctuate over the course of 3 hours.
However, it has been the Agency's experience that opacity does sometimes
vary during the 3-hour period. For example, in the NSPS for lime
manufacturing plants promulgated on April 6, 1984 (49 FR 18076), the
opacity standard for kilns was revised from 10 percent to 15 percent
based upon available data. A total of over 1,200 Method 9
6-minute averages were gathered simultaneously with Reference Method 5 mass
emission tests (each test lasted 3 hours); 889 were zero, but 4 of the
2-11
-------
6-minute average opacities exceeded 10 percent. All opacity averages
were normalized to a 3.0 meter stack diameter. Test data for one facility
showed that there were two 6-minute average opacities at 10.6 percent
during the 3-hour period. This clearly illustrates that opacity does
sometimes vary during a 3-hour period. Consequently, in order to protect
the source owner or operator, it is important to conduct enough observations
to assess variations during the performance test to ensure that representative
opacity data are collected.
Although the comments offered several alternative minimum time
periods of 1 hour or less, the Administrator does not believe that these
time periods are of sufficient length to obtain enough data to ensure
that representative results are obtained.
For these reasons, the Administrator believes that a 3-hour observation
period is reasonable and has not reduced the minimum opacity observation
period of 30 6-minute averages. However, as discussed previously, the
opacity observation, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements apply only
to the initial performance test, not to any subsequent performance tests.
2.1.6 Comment: (IV-D-10, IV-D-11, IV-D-12, IV-D-18, IV-D-19) Several
commenters recommended that facilities required to install continuous
opacity monitors be exempt from the opacity observation test for the
following reasons:
1. Opacity monitors cannot be used as an enforcement tool; the
opacity monitor could supply opacity data which, however, would indicate
whether revisions to opacity limits are needed.
2. The opacity monitor results should be more reliable than opacity
observations. The proposal requires 30 6-minute average opacity observations
2-12-
-------
(720 15-second observations), whereas the opacity monitor can record
continuous readings (unaffected by the normal problems encountered with
opacity observations (meteorological conditions, fatigue).
3. Requiring opacity observations during performance tests would
require using additional testing personnel. The costs in terms of time
and money outweigh any perceived benefit from the data collected. Use of
the opacity monitor to obtain the necessary data would eliminate this
expense to the source operator.
4. Requiring opacity observations is of particular concern for
owners or operators of facilities with tall stacks, which must be observed
at a significant distance from the stack. In some cases, a transmissometer
may be the only accurate method for obtaining opacity readings from tall
and large diameter stacks and plumes which contain condensed, uncombined
water vapor.
5. The use of opacity monitors would be less costly, especially in
the Northwest where clouds often preclude visual readings. Since the
transmissometer is used to calibrate/certify the Method 9 observers, it
seems appropriate to permit its use for sources which do not contain
significant condensable matter.
6. Continuous opacity monitors are already required by EPA at
affected facilities. Therefore, to require Method 9 visual observations
also would place another burden on owners/operators to collect data
already being recorded by the continuous opacity monitor.
Response: After review and consideration of these comments, the
Administrator has determined that sources already required to use continuous
opacity monitors (COM) should be allowed the option of submitting monitoring
2-13
-------
results in lieu of conducting a Method 9 visual observation during the
initial performance test or any subsequent performance test for the purpose
of determining compliance. Recent studies (Docket A-85-08, Item II-A-1)
have shown that COM results are reliable if the monitors have been properly
operated and maintained. Since COM are capable of producing reliable
data, it is therefore reasonable to allow those results to be used in
lieu of Method 9 results. In a separate Federal Register notice, the
Agency is proposing to revise the General Provisions, 40 CFR 60.11(b), to
allow for the alternative of submitting COM results for compliance determination
in lieu of conducting an opacity observation during any performance test
requested by the Administrator (see response to comment 2.1.2).
2.1.7 Comment: A utilities company (IV-D-9) asked EPA to consider the
proposed requirement for facility owners or operators to conduct opacity
observations rather than EPA furnish-ing qualified observers for the
following reasons. Observers would have to come from engineering
consultants, test firms, or from the owner or operator's own staff if the
Agency were to discontinue furnishing them. Such observers would likely
never achieve the experience level of the present EPA observers because
they would probably conduct opacity observations much less frequently.
As a result, EPA would be required to train and certify a significantly
larger, non-agency observer force than would otherwise be required and
the present quality of opacity compliance observations would be at risk.
Another company (IV-D-11) stated that 40 CFR 60.11(e)(l) presently allows
an owner or operator of an affected facility to request the Administrator
to determine the opacity of emissions. The commenter added that EPA,
State, and local agencies already have certified visible emissions readers
2-14
-------
on staff. The owner or operator may not have this capability and, therefore,
would have to train someone or contract someone to collect the data
requested. The commenter cited a specific example of a recent performance
test where the local agency had a certified inspector record opacity, and
the owner/operator contracted for a certified reader to also record
opacity because he thought that was required by the proposal.
An air pollution control agency (IV-D-4) expressed concern over the
objectivity of industry-collected opacity data, especially in instances
where it is used to demonstrate compliance with opacity standards. The
agency believed that Method 9 observations either by the firm conducting
the emission test or by State/local air officials would be a more viable
alternative.
Response: It is the source owner or operator's responsibility to
conduct the opacity observations, and to record and report the opacity
during the initial performance test. In order to accomplish this, the
owner or operator may (1) request a certified visible emissions observer
from the EPA, State, or local agency to conduct the test, or (2) conduct the
opacity test in-house, or (3) hire a contractor to conduct the test.
Prior to the proposed revision of Section 60.11(e)(l), an
owner or operator could request the Administrator to determine the opacity
of emissions from the affected facility during the initial performance
tests, but there was no specification as to the number of observations or
provision for recording and reporting the results. The proposed revision
of Section 60.11(e)(l) required that the owner or operator of an affected
facility subject to an opacity standard conduct opacity observations,
record, and report the opacity results. It was not the Agency's intent
2-15
-------
that an owner or operator should contract for a certified visible emissions
reader if an EPA, State, or local certified reader were available during
the test to record the opacity. Therefore, the final rule
[Section 60.11(e)(3)] has been clarified to indicate that the owner or
operator of an affected facility may request a certified visible emissions
reader from the EPA, State, or local agency, if available, to conduct
opacity observations and to record the opacity readings. These requests would
be included in the notification required under Section 60.7(a)(6). If for
some reason, the EPA, State or local official cannot be present during
the test or cannot conduct the opacity observation, then it is the responsibility
of the owner or operator to obtain a certified reader to conduct and
record the opacity. In addition, the owner or operator is responsible
for maintaining the data file and reporting the test results. The
inability of the source owner or operator to secure a visible emissions
observer will not be considered a reason for not conducting the opacity
observations concurrent with the initial performance test.
2.1.8 Comment: (IV-D-7) The commenter, a law firm representing UARG,
was concerned that the proposed revision requiring the owner or operator
to provide a certified observer to make opacity observations "concurrently
with each performance test required in Section 60.8" may be broader than
intended. The revision, as written, could be construed to require, for
source categories subject to an opacity limit, an opacity observation
during every performance test required under Section 60.8 instead of only
those involving a standard which contains an opacity limit. Therefore,
the commenter suggested the language be clarified to require an opacity
reading only if the standard for which the performance test is being run
2-16
-------
contains an opacity limitation.
Response: The intent of the proposed revision was to require sources
to conduct opacity observations concurrently with every performance test
(provided that the performance test is-for a pollutant for which an
opacity standard has been established) required under Section 60.8.
However, as discussed in a previous response, the final rule has been
revised to require sources subject to an opacity standard to conduct
opacity observations concurrently with the initial performance test only
as required under Section 60.8, not for any subsequent performance tests.
2.1.9 Comment: The NCASI (IV-D-8) referred to proposed Section 60.11(e)(l)
which allows Method 9 observations to be conducted at a different time from
the performance test if visibility conditions prevent opacity observations.
The commenter did not see any benefit to making visible opacity readings
if they could not be made at the same time as the particulate emissions tests,
since the main purpose of gathering opacity data appeared to be the
examination of simultaneous opacity readings and particulate mass emission
measurements.
Response: The opacity standard is a separate enforceable standard
for sources subject to an opacity limit. The main purpose of the opacity
observation is to determine a source's compliance with the opacity
standard. The Agency agrees that it would be most useful to conduct
the mass emission and opacity observation tests simultaneously, but it is not
essential to do so, and as discussed in the previous comment, this
may not always be possible. Therefore, in instances where the mass
emission and opacity observation tests cannot be conducted simultaneously,
the final revision allows Method 9 opacity observations to be conducted
2-17
-------
at a different time from the mass emission performance test.
2.1.10 Comment: A utilities service company (IV-D-17) believed that opacity
observations were a useful tool for determining potential opacity problems,
but that violations of opacity standards should be based upon review of
transmissometer recorded opacity data which more accurately reflect
opacity conditions. The commenter stated that Reference Method 9, the
procedure used to observe opacity emissions, indicates that there is a
statistical error of +_ 7.5 percent for observed opacity readings. This
compares with a _+ .5 percent error expected from continuous opacity
monitoring equipment. Furthermore, unlike transmissometers, opacity
observations cannot be performed during adverse weather such as fog,
rain, snow, and overcast conditions, thereby limiting the periods when
emission tests can be conducted.
The commenter also felt that the use of observed opacity data as a
means of determining compliance with an opacity emission standard was
antiquated because Federal and State regulatory agencies require the use
of "best available technology." Given the inherent inaccuracies of
observed opacity, and in order to provide EPA with accurate opacity data
on which to base its review of performance standards, the commenter
recommended that only transmissometer data be required to be reported.
It was also recommended, based on the inaccuracies of observed data, that
if continuous opacity recording equipment has been installed at a source,
no opacity observations be required during performance tests.
Response: As discussed in a previous comment and response, a revision
to the opacity provisions is being proposed to allow new sources using
COM (transmissometers) to, at the option of the source owner or operator,
2-18
-------
record continuous monitoring data in lieu of Method 9 data and to report
those monitoring results for compliance purposes. No visual opacity
observations would be required if COM results are recorded and reported
for the initial performance test. The proposed revision to the opacity
provisions also allows the source owner or operator the alternative of
submitting COM results in lieu of Method 9 data for the purpose of determining
compliance with the opacity standard during any performance test conducted
after the initial performance test.
Reference Method 9 is the method specified in the General Provisions
for determining compliance with the respective opacity standard. As
described by the commenter, there may be some advantage to using a
COM over conducting visual observations for determining compliance with
the opacity standard. Further, EPA believes that COM do provide reliable
data, if properly operated and maintained.
With regard to the commenter's reference to a statistical
error of _* 7.5 percent for observed opacity readings, the introductory
paragraphs in Method 9 describe the range of the "positive observational
error" which would be taken into account for enforcement purposes.
(Positive error is a reading higher than the actual opacity level.) The
purpose of these paragraphs is only to make clear that sources subject to
opacity standards are not to be penalized for apparent violations that
are due to observational error.
More specifically, the introduction to Method 9 provides that the
accuracy of the method be considered for enforcement purposes and describes
that accuracy in terms of the following ranges of positive error derived
from extensive data obtained in the field:
2-19
-------
1) For black plumes . . .,100 percent of the sets were read with a
positive error of less than 7.5 percent opacity; 99 percent were read
with a positive error of less than 5 percent opacity.
2) For white plumes . . .,99 percent of the sets were read with a
positive error of less than 7.5 percent opacity; 95 percent were read
with a positive error of less than 5 percent opacity.
This language does not suggest a statistical error of _+ 7.5 percent.
Rather, it describes the range of single 6-minute observations.
2.1.11 Comment: A company (IV-D-18) referred to EPA's use of a new
equipment data base (referring to the initial performance test that would
be conducted on a new facility that will be using new emissions control
equipment) which would be used later to update opacity standards. It was
felt that a more appropriate data base could be obtained by including
older, well-maintained precipitators, which are approaching the end of
their useful life, but are still able to meet NSPS particulate mass levels.
Response: The Agency agrees that data taken under conditions described
by the commenter are useful. As part of its routine 4-year review of each
NSPS, the Agency contacts the affected sources and solicits such data. However,
the General Provisions (40 CFR 60.8) require that new, modified, or reconstructed
sources conduct an initial performance test to determine if the source is
in compliance with the applicable NSPS. Often this is the only time mass
tests are performed and, therefore, provides the only opportunity to
obtain opacity data while knowing the source is in compliance with mass
emission limits. The Agency believes that, although slight degradation
is possible over time, older control equipment that is properly designed,
operated, and maintained should be able to achieve the same level of
opacity during its useful life as new control equipment. It is, therefore,
reasonable to obtain and use data from initial compliance tests during
2-20
-------
subsequent standard reviews. As noted above, however, the Agency also
welcomes and in fact directly solicits all available data for consideration
during the review of a standard.
2.1.12 Comment: (IV-D-8) The commenter recommended that EPA consider
reducing excessive amounts of plume observations in certain situations.
The example cited was that of an electrostatic precipitator with two
chambers and two separate stacks that would require a minimum of 6 hours
of particulate emission testing (three 1-hour runs on each stack) to develop
the mass emission rates and, as implied by the proposal, 6 hours of
Method 9 observations.
Response: As discussed in a previous response, the Administrator
does not consider 3 hours of opacity observations for each stack to be
excessive. However, in cases where COM are being used on an affected
facility, a change to the General Provisions is being proposed to allow
the owner or operator the alternative of submitting those monitoring
results in lieu of conducting Method 9 observations for compliance purposes.
If COM are not being used, the owner or operator may petition the Administrator
under Section 60.11(b) for approval of an alternative compliance procedure.
Because the Administrator does not believe the opacity observation period
of 3 hours per stack in the cited example is excessive and because of
other possible alternatives available, no change has been made in the
final rule with regard to reducing the 3-hour observation in these situations.
2.1.13 Comment: Two State air pollution control agencies (IV-D-2 and
IV-D-5) fully supported the proposed opacity recordkeeping and reporting
requirements. One of the State agencies has used the procedures proposed
for several years and they have proved to be a useful method of making
2-21
-------
assessments of a source's continued compliance with the applicable mass
emission limitation. Other commenters (IV-D-4 and IV-D-6), however,
questioned the purpose of the proposed revisions and suggested that the
opacity data base EPA seeks may already be established and that EPA
should contact the State and local agencies for such data. For example,
one of the commenters is a local agency (IV-D-4) that routinely conducts
opacity observations using Method 9 to ensure compliance with the opacity
limits required by new source permits. One company (IV-D-6) stated that
data collection for the purpose of NSPS review by EPA could be accomplished
by noting the number of violations of local standards. For example,
California's opacity regulations are more stringent than those of EPA;
therefore, compliance with EPA opacity standards could be confirmed by
reviewing local Air Pollution Control District (APCD) records for compliance
with California opacity regulations.
Response: Contrary to the suggestion that the opacity data base EPA
seeks may already be established, it has been the Agency's experience that
the opacity compliance data are not generally available. This is
because prior to the proposed opacity provisions, there was no requirement
for the opacity data to be recorded and reported. As stated previously,
the primary purpose of the revision is to demonstrate compliance with the
respective opacity standard. The opacity data obtained for compliance
purposes would also be useful during the 4-year review process in determining
whether revisions to opacity limits are needed but this would be an added
benefit, not the primary purpose of the opacity revision. It is true
that some State regulations do exceed EPA standards. Section 60.8(b) of
the General Provisions allows a performance test to be waived if the
Administrator is satisfied that a source has demonstrated by other means
2-22
-------
that it is in compliance. In addition, the Agency, in delegating enforcement
authority to a State under Section lll(c) of the Clean Air Act, may
approve reporting requirements or an alternative means of compliance (under
40 CFR 60.8) adopted by the State. In that event, affected sources
within the State would be relieved of the obligation to comply with
duplicative EPA requirements, provided the source owner or operator
complies with comparable requirements established by the State.
2.1.14 Comment: A utilities company (IV-D-15) questioned the need for the
proposal because he believed that most of the proposed provisions were
already required by Section 60.4 with significant requirements for opacity
testing, monitoring reporting, and data retention. The commenter, who
provides electric energy to about one-third of the population of Texas,
stated that all of their units were regularly checked for opacity compliance
both visually and with continuous monitoring instruments. Since State
agencies and EPA have access to such data from all types of emission
sources, the commenter did not believe it was justified to establish
additional data collection requirements. Another company (IV-D-11) asked
if EPA could set up a mechanism to have the opacity data, which are already
being collected, submitted to EPA.
Response: Section 60.4 of 40 CFR Part 60 provides only the mailing
address for submittal of all requests, reports, applications and other
communications to the Administrator in accordance with requirements
contained in Part 60, including the appropriate mailing addresses for
those States which have received delegation authority to implement and
enforce NSPS for sources located in those States. This section does not
contain any requirements for opacity testing, monitoring, reporting, or
data retention. Rather, these requirements are contained in other sections
2-23
-------
of the General Provisions in Part 60. The Administrator does have the
authority under Section 114 of CAA to request opacity data from sources
subject to NSPS and often does request the data. However, the Agency has
found the opacity data to be limited. Even when the data are available,
the data are not always useful because it lacks supporting information
regarding the operating conditions under which the data were obtained.
Therefore, the opacity requirements are necessary.
2.1.15 Comment: A State air pollution control agency (IV-D-19) expressed
support of the recordkeeping and reporting requirements of the opacity
observations for the purpose of demonstrating compliance with applicable
opacity standards. However, the commenter did not agree with the approach
of combining two activities, compliance determination and opacity standard
adjustment, under one set of criteria. The commenter was of the opinion
that the result of this approach would be overly intensive data requirements
for determination of compliance with an opacity standards (e.g., 3 hours
testing concurrently with each performance test) and a weak procedure for
establishing adjusted opacity standards. The commenter recommended the
following changes be made in the proposed Section 60.11 to address these
concerns raised above: (1) 1 hour of observations during the same time
period as required for performance tests in Section 60.8, or as approved
by the Administrator, (2) allow the results of continuous monitoring by
transmissometer to be used in place of visual observations, (3) rewording
of the existing provisions in Section 60.11(e) allowing the owner or
operator of an affected facility to petition the Administrator to make
adjustment to an opacity standard, and (4) addition of procedures (a
new appendix which they identified as Appendix E to 40 CFR Part 60) for
2-24
-------
performance testing and analysis, and opacity observations made for the
purpose of establishing an adjusted opacity standard. Also, facilities
using a COM would record the monitoring produced during each performance
test required under the recommended new Appendix E.
Response: The first two suggested changes are discussed in previous
comments and responses. The proposed revision was not intended to combine
opacity compliance determinations and opacity standard adjustments. Indeed,
the proposal did not change any of the existing provisions contained in
Section 60.11(e) with regard to procedures to be followed in requesting
and establishing an adjusted opacity standard. The suggested rewording
of the existing provisions in Section 60.11(e) and the recommended addition
of a new Appendix E to 40 CFR Part 60 regarding procedures for establishing
an adjusted opacity standard have been evaluated. The procedures contained
in the State air pollution control agency's recommended appendix are very
specific and, in some cases, may be appropriate for establishing an
adjusted opacity standard. However, the existing general provisions
allowing for an adjusted opacity standard were written to allow flexibility
for opacity standard adjustment on a case-by-case basis. Each source
requesting establishment of an adjusted opacity standard would likely
make such requests because of some unique circumstances that would prevent
it from complying with the applicable opacity standard. The Administrator
believes the procedures for establishing an adjusted opacity standard
should be general enough to accommodate a range of situations. Therefore,
no changes have been made with regard to either the suggested rewording
of the existing provisions in Section 60.11(e) or the addition of a new
Appendix E containing procedures for establishing an adjusted opacity
standard.
2-25
-------
2.1.16 Comment: A State agency (IV-D-3) was concerned that the proposed
opacity provisions (1) did not mention whether the values are visual
readings, instrument readings or both, and (2) did not mention how often
the visual or instrument readings are to be taken.
Response: The proposed revision in Section 60.11(e)(l) stated "...
The minimum total time of opacity observations shall be 30 6-minute
averages for each .performance test or other set of observations. . . ."
The final opacity provisions in Section 60.11 require opacity testing only
during the initial performance test. A separate revision to the opacity
provisions is being proposed to allow COM (transmissometer) readings to
be reported in lieu of visual observations during any performance test
requested by the Administrator.
2.1.17 Comment: (IV-D-8, IV-D-13) These commenters were concerned that the
proposed revisions did not address how the opacity observation would be
conducted where two or more sources share a common stack. When this happens,
no meaningful comparison can be made between opacity and particulate
emissions because of the mixing of flue gases from multiple sources prior
to the chance for opacity observation. As a result, it was requested
that EPA exempt sources sharing a common stack from the opacity observation
test.
Response: The concerns raised by the commenters would exist independent
of and are not affected by the proposed revisions. The Agency addresses
these type situations on a case-by-case basis. Depending upon the circumstances,
the source owner or operator may measure the combined particulate mass
emissions, where two or more sources share a common stack, and compare
those results to the applicable combined mass emission limits for those
sources to determine compliance. The opacity observation requirement, in
2-26
-------
these cases, could be decided based upon site-specifics such as ducting
configurations. The Administrator does not believe it is necessary to
exempt sources sharing a common stack from the opacity observation test
and will review these situations on a case-by-case basis as in the past.
2.1.18 Comment: (IV-D-7) One commenter noted that Section 60.11(e)(2),
which states that continuous data "produced during every performance test
required by this paragraph" must be recorded and reported, does not itself
require performance tests. Instead, Section 60.8 requires performance
tests.
Response: The commenter is correct. This sentence has been revised
to read "... data produced during every performance test required by
§60.8 . . ."
2.1.19 Comment: (IV-D-15) One company stated that many of the new provisions
in Section 60.11 were identical to existing provisions in Section 60.8,
such as testing within 180 days after start-up, pre-test notification, and
submittal of written reports. Therefore, the commenter recommended
including opacity in Section 60.11(a) rather than repeating all the
requirements of Section 60.8 in Section 60.11(b).
:
Response: Section 60.8 of 40 CFR Part 60 contains provisions for
conducting performance tests; Section 60.11(a) contains provisions for
determining compliance with standards other than opacity standards; and
Section 60.11(b) through 60.11(e)(4) contains provisions for determining
compliance with opacity standards. Therefore, it is not appropriate to
include opacity provisions in Section 60.11(a). It was necessary to
repeat a few of the existing provisions in Section 60.8 again in Sections
60.7 and 60.11 in order to make those requirements applicable under the
new opacity provisions.
2-27
-------
2.1.20 Comment: A law firm (IV-D-7) referred to docket item II-F-1
which contains the estimated annual industry burden hours associated with
the proposed recordkeeping and reporting. The estimate for steam generators
(Subparts D and Da) was 128 hours per year, based on a total of 32
respondents. The commenter stated that the estimated burden seemed low
for two reasons: (1) EPA had omitted the burden that would accompany
Subpart Db regulations, and (2) the estimate appeared to ignore the fact
that the revision would apply to compliance determinations made at any
time not just those at initial start-up, and would include pollutants in
addition to particulate matter. The commenter claimed that there are
over 160 steam generators subject to the NSPS and that compliance
determinations are made approximately once per year. Therefore, the
burden for the electric utility industry could be five times higher than
estimated.
A second commenter (IV-D-10) believed that EPA had significantly
underestimated the average annual industry-wide recordkeeping and reporting
burden because it did not include approximately 800 new steam generators
proposed to be regulated over a 5-year period under 40 CFR Part 60,
Subpart Db, and possibly an equal number of affected sources under the
advanced notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPR) for industrial boilers
smaller than 250 million Btu/hr.
Response: The estimated annual industry burden hours associated
with the proposed recordkeeping and reporting requirements for steam
generators (Subparts D and Da) did not include compliance determinations
made after the initial compliance test. This is consistent with
the final revision which requires opacity recordkeeping and reporting
2-28
-------
only during the initial compliance test and, therefore, it is not necessary
to recalculate the average annual industry-wide burden. The annual industry
burden estimate included only source categories for which opacity standards
had been promulgated as of January 1984. Therefore, the opacity recordkeeping
and reporting requirement for Subpart Db sources and sources under the
ANPR for industrial boilers smaller than 250 million Btu/hr were not
included in the estimate. Rather, the opacity recordkeeping and reporting
burden associated with these source categories, as well as other source
categories promulgated after January 1984, will be calculated and submitted
to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval on a
standard-by-standard basis.
The OMB agreed to review one information collection requirement
(ICR) for the opacity recordkeeping and reporting to cover 20 source
categories. It was also agreed that once OMB approves the ICR and the
final opacity provisions are promulgated, the appropriate burden hours
from this ICR will be moved to the ICR's for each of the 20 source categories.
Any necessary adjustments in the opacity recordkeeping and reporting
burden will be made in the ICR for the individual source category.
2.1.21 Comment: The NCASI (IV-D-8) stated that EPA apparently did not
consider the total costs associated with the proposal. Travel time and
expenses for a Method 9 observer would be in addition to the 3 hours for
plume viewing. If the particulate testing results were found to be
unacceptable or could not be carried out as scheduled or, for some reason,
the Method 9 observation could not be conducted, the observer would have
to return. According to the commenter, some industrial facilities may
have a certified observer on site who could be used for the Method 9
observations. However, this observer would have to maintain his or her
2-29
-------
qualification by being recertified every 6 months, which normally involves
travel and expenses for attending a government-run smoke reading certification
program.
Another commenter (IV-D-18) was also concerned about the costs
for obtaining a certified observer. This commenter estimated that a
2-day compliance test would cost between $1,000-2,000. This cost could
double because of delays attributable to poor reading conditions. According
to the commenter, most facilities cannot justify the costs involved in
keeping a reader certified and, therefore, would require the use of
consultants. A law firm (IV-D-7) requested that EPA identify for OMB
review the costs to train additional certified observers or hire consultants
and the costs of scheduling the necessary tests. It was requested that
EPA address these cost considerations prior to promulgating the proposed
requirements.
Response: The final opacity provisions allow a source owner or
operator to use an EPA-certified visible emissions observer, if available,
to conduct and record the opacity observations. However, if an EPA
observer is not available, it is estimated that the certification costs
for a visible emissions observer employed by the source would be about
$1400 (includes travel, per diem, hotel, and wages for 2 days, twice a
year; the twice-a-year assumption is very conservative in that only a one-
time test is being required and no more than one certification would be
necessary); the visible emission observation costs for a 3-hour test
would be about $100 (includes 1 hour for data reduction). Therefore, the
maximum total certification and observation costs are estimated to be
about $1,500. (A breakdown of the estimated costs is contained in Table
2-30
-------
2-2.) If the source's observer is employed at a central facility off-site
(for example, in the headquarters' environmental department), there would
be travel time but this would be offset by the fact that the certification
cost would be prorated among the various plants owned by the firm.
The Administrator believes that, in many cases, an EPA, State or
local agency certified opacity observer would be available to conduct and
record the opacity observations during the performance test and there
would be no costs involved for the source owner or operator. In the
event one is not available, the Administrator believes the total costs
would be reasonable and, in addition, would be only a fraction of the
total cost of a performance test conducted under Section 60.8.
2.1.22 Comment: A utilities company (IV-D-9) asked EPA to consider the
proposed requirement to record and report continuous opacity monitoring
data during compliance testing. The commenter stated that monitor certification
typically involves 1 or 2 weeks of field activity, about 30 days for
report preparation and about an equal amount of time for agency analysis
and response. Since compliance demonstrations are required to be conducted
within 60 days after achieving the maximum production rate, certification
procedures may not be complete at the time the demonstration is conducted.
Therefore, EPA may have to accept opacity compliance demonstration reports
pending the outcome of instrument certification.
Response: The General Provisions for NSPS (40 CFR 60.13) currently
require that (1) all continuous monitoring systems be installed and
operational prior to conducting a performance test, (2) verification of
operational status must include, as a minimum, completion of the manufacturer's
requirements for installation, operation, and calibration of the monitoring
device, and (3) monitoring system performance evaluations must be conducted
2-31
-------
during the performance test or within 30 days thereafter and a written
report of the results must be submitted within 60 days.
Much of the certification of opacity monitors is performed initially
by the manufacturer; that is, the manufacturer certifies that the monitor
does meet design criteria in Performance Specification 1 (Appendix B, 40
CFR Part 60). However, as required in Performance Specification 1 and in
Section 60.13, after the monitor is installed, it must be operated for a
specified length of time and its performance evaluated to ensure conformance
with specific operational criteria. This evaluation requires a week to
complete. This period of evaluation should take place before the opacity
compliance test is conducted to ensure the accuracy of the monitoring
results. Therefore, a change to Section 60.13(c) is being made to specify
that the COM be certified according to Performance Specification 1
in Appendix B before the compliance test is conducted.
It is important to note that a COM provides the only means through •
which an owner or operator can with precision assess the relative
performance of a control device (Docket A-83-43, entry IV-J-1). As such,
the monitor represents a valuable tool which can be used to optimize
control equipment and process operations during the time these are coming
on line. In most cases, it is to the advantage of the source to utilize
the monitor for such purposes before performing the mass compliance test.
2.1.23 Comment: Comments submitted by a law firm on behalf of the UARG
(IV-D-7) questioned the second purpose of the proposed revision (to
provide EPA with data to use in developing possible revisions to the
standards). It was felt that the opacity data would be imprecise and
site-specific because the time of day and the intensity of the sunlight
2-32
-------
greatly influenced Method 9 opacity results and transmissometer data
would vary according to site-specific factors such as type of coal and
whether a scrubber is used on the unit. According to the commenter, high
opacity readings were not necessarily an indicator of high particulate
loadings since opacity may be a function of the nature of the particles
not the amount. As a result, the opacity data may not be very useful in
developing any industry-wide opacity revisions. The commenter added that
since much of the data that would be produced under the proposed revision
would be taken during the initial performance test when the control device is
new, it would not necessarily be representative of levels achievable over
the life of the equipment. Therefore, the commenter recommended that EPA
minimize the burdens imposed on individual sources because of the limitations
regarding the usefulness of opacity data. A technical service and support
company (IV-D-10) also questioned the second purpose of the proposed
revision for reasons similar to those of the previous commenter and urged
EPA to avoid computing the industry-wide average opacity for a given mass
emission rate and setting that opacity as a standard for all plants, many
of which could not meet the opacity standard.
A utilities service company (IV-D-17) requested that EPA discontinue
the practice of correlating opacity (recorded or observed) with mass
emissions because (1) transmissometer readings would be affected directly
by changes in particle index of refraction, but not necessarily in proportion
to changes in grain loading, and (2) observed opacity readings were subject
to a number of possible errors such as water vapor, color of the sky,
distance of observer from the stack, sun angle, and human error. The
NCASI (IV-D-8) of the paper industry did not believe it was possible to
2-33
-------
determine the compatibility of a plume appearance regulation with an
allowable mass emission rate.
Response: The Administrator does not agree with the statement that
much of the data produced would result from the initial performance test
when the control device is new and therefore would not necessarily be
representative of levels achievable over the life of the equipment. As
noted in the response to comment 2.1.11, the Agency believes that, although
slight degradation is possible over time, older control equipment that is
properly designed, operated, and maintained should be able to achieve the
same level of opacity during its useful life as new control equipment.
Because it is not the purpose of this rulemaking to revise opacity
standards or opacity test methods, the comments pertaining to mass/opacity
relationships are not relevant to the revision which is being considered
here. Nevertheless, the Agency believes it is important that there be no
misunderstanding as to how opacity standards are used. Opacity limits
used in conjunction with mass emission limits are to ensure proper operation
and maintenance of control equipment, to lower compliance testing costs,
and to simplify enforcement procedures. Effective enforcement includes
initial demonstration of compliance and routine evaluation of control
equipment operation and maintenance.
Compliance with particulate mass emission limits can be demonstrated
only with EPA Method 5 performance tests. However, Method 5 tests may be
too expensive and time consuming to be used routinely to monitor for the
proper operation and maintenance of emission control equipment, which is
the key factor in continuous compliance with the emission limit. In
contrast, EPA Method 9 opacity tests are quicker, simpler, and less
expensive than EPA Method 5. Therefore, opacity limits have been adopted
2-34
-------
in the standards as an effective tool to assure proper operation and
maintenance of control equipment (CAA, Section 302(k)). The opacity
limits are set at levels designed to be no more restrictive than the
participate mass emission limits to ensure that any observed violations
of the opacity standards accurately indicate a violation of the particulate
mass emission limits. The Agency does not base standards on computations
of industry-wide average opacity, but rather, opacity standards are based
on consideration of the highest opacity levels normally expected from
complying sources within the source category. As such, additional data
can only benefit the quality of the standard setting process.
Finally, it should be noted that the United States Court of Appeals for
the District of Columbia Circuit has specifically upheld the use of
opacity standards as a means of assuring control of mass emissions under
NSPS in Portland Cement Association v. Train, 513 F.2d 506, 508 (1975).
2-35
-------
Table 2-1
LIST OF COMMENTERS ON THE PROPOSED
OPACITY PROVISIONS
Docket Entry No.a Commenter/Affiliation
IV-D-1 Robert A. Wilkinson, P.E., Managing Director
Ohio Aggregates Association
20 South Front St., Suite 200
Columbus, Ohio 43215
IV-D-2 Harold E. Hodges, P.E., Technical Secretary
Tennessee Air Pollution Control Board
Bureau of Environment
T.E.R.R.A. Bldg.
150 Ninth Avenue, North
Nashville, Tennessee 37203
IV-D-3 Leonard D. Verrelli
Air Quality Program Manager
Dept. of Environmental Conservation
Division of Environmental Quality
Pouch 0
Juneau, Alaska 99811
IV-D-4 William T. Burkhart, Supervisor
Regional Air Pollution Control Agency
451 W. Third-Street
P. 0. Box 972
Dayton, Ohio 45422
IV-D-5 John D. Ledger, Manager
Monitoring and Compliance Section
Idaho Air Quality Bureau
Department of Health and Welfare
Statehouse
Boise, Idaho 83720
IV-D-6 Donald G. Russell
Vice President, Production
Shell Oil Company
One Shell Plaza
P. 0. Box 2463
Houston, Texas 77001
IV-D-7 F. William Brownell
Mel S. Schulze
Hunton & Williams
2000 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
P. 0. Box 19230
Washington, D.C. 20036
2-36
-------
IV-D-8 John E. Pinkerton
Air Quality Program Manager
National Council of the Paper Industry for
Air and Stream Improvement, Inc.
260 Madison Ave.
New York, New York 10016
IV-D-9 Gerald L. Bennett, P.E.
Results Engineer
Kansas City Power & Light Co.
1330 Baltimore Avenue
P. 0. Box 679
Kansas City, Missouri 64141
IV-D-10 Joel D. Patterson
Manager, Environmental Affairs
Middle South Services, Inc.
Box 61000
New Orleans, Louisiana 70161
IV-D-11 M. E. Miller, Jr.
Manager, Environmental Engineering Unit
R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co.
Winston-Sal em, North Carolina 27102
IV-D-12 J. J. Moon, Manager
Environmental and Consumer Protection
Phillips Petroleum Company
Bartlesville, Oklahoma 74004
IV-0-13 R. A. Thorne, Director
Corporate Office of Environmental Affairs
Union Camp Corporation
P.O. Box 1391
Savannah, Georgia 31402
IV-D-14 Richard A. Morris
Vice President of Government Relations
and Public Affairs
National Sand and Gravel Association
900 Spring St.
Silver Spring, Maryland 20910
IV-D-15 H. B. Coffman, Manager
Environmental Services
Texas Utilities Generating Company
Skyway Tower
400 North Olive St., L.B. 81
Dallas, Texas 75201
2-37
-------
IV-D-16 L. G. Arnel, General Manager
Gulf Oil Products Company
Safety, Health & Environmental Regulatory Coordination
P. 0. Box 2001
Houston, Texas 77252
IV-D-17 W. G. Counsil, Senior V.P.
C. F. Sears, V. P.
Northeast Utilities
P. 0. Box 270
Hartford, Connecticut 06141-0270
IV-D-18 K. M. Karch, Manager
Environmental & Regulatory Affairs
Weyerhaeuser Company
Tacoma, Washington 98477
IV-D-19 J. Michael Valentine, Director
Division of Air Quality
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
1935 West County Road B2
Roseville, Minnesota 55113-2785
aThese designations represent docket entry numbers for Docket No. A-83-43.
These documents are available for public inspection at:
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Central Docket Section
West Tower Lobby, Gallery 1, Waterside Mall
401 M Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20460
2-38
-------
TABLE 2-2
COST OF VISIBLE OBSERVATIONS USING METHOD 9
Certification Costs9
1. Certification fee ($150/time, 2 times/yr) $300
2. Mileage (200 miles/trip, $0.20/mile, 2 times/yr) 80
3. Per Diem ($25/day, 2 days/time, 2 times/yr) 100
4. Hotel ($35/night, 1 night/time, 2 times/yr) 70
5. Wages, benefits, and overhead ($26.50/hr, 8 hr/day, 848
2 days/time, 2 times/yr)^
CERTIFICATION COST: $1,398
Visible emission observation costsc
1. Duration of readings=3 hours per test $ 79.
(30 6-minute readings)
2. Data reduction=l hour per test 26.50&
OBSERVATION COST: $ 106.00
TOTAL COSTS: 1,504.00
aFor one person to be certified.
^Labor cost is based on an hourly rate of $26.50 which includes overhead,
Observation costs are for initial performance test only.
2-39
-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
(Please read Instructions on the reverse before completing)
REPORT NO.
EPA-450/3-85-013
2.
3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSION NO.
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE
Opacity Provisions—Background Information for
Promulgated Amendments
5. REPORT DATE
December 1985
6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
7. AUTHOR(S)
I. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO.
9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
Director for Air Quality Planning and Standards
Office of Air and Radiation
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
Final
14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
EPA/200/04
15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
16. ABSTRACT
The promulgated opacity provisions require owners or operators of affected
facilities that are subject to opacity standards in 40 CFR Part 60 to record
and report the opacity of emissions during the initial performance test.
These provisions implement Section 114 of the Clean Air Act.
17.
KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
DESCRIPTORS
b.IDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS C. COSATI Held/Group
Air pollution
Pollution control
Standards of performance
Recordkeeping and reporting
Air Pollution Control
13 B
18. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
Unlimited
19. SECURITY CLASS (This Reportj
Unclassified
21 NO. OP PAGES
45
20. SECURITY CLASS IThis page)
Unclassified
22. PRICE
SPA Form 2220—1 (Rev. 4-77) PREVIOUS EDITION is OBSOLETE
------- |