# OAR Box 1811 Prepped by Keeia Richards



### Document

Number: 

# 22 ) ll-A-3 Docket Number: 

# A-84-22

Printed 10/30/20081:19:24 PM Sheet 22 of 82 P. 1P. 2 

# # ~f</^UT-jfrr

3
Unite d State s Offic e o f Ai r Qualit y Specia l Repor t Environmenta l Protectio n Plannin g an d Standard s November , 198 3 Agenc y Washingto n D C 2046 0 Fina l Draft Stationar y Sourc e Complianc e Serie s 

# v°/EP A Evaluatio n o f Visibl e Fugitiv e Emissio n Dat aP. 3

Thi s documen t ha s no t bee n formall yrelease d b yEP Aan d shoul d no t b e construe d t o represen t Agency policy

. I t i s bein g circulate d fo rcommen t o n it s technica l accurac yan d policyimplications

.



## Fina l Draf t


# Evaluatio n o f Visibl e Fugitiv e Emissio n Dat a

Prepare d by : DE L GREE N ASSOCIATES , INC

. 146 5 Stat e Stree t P.O

. Bo x1344 6 Salem , Orego n 9730 9
Contract No

. 68-01-511 0 Tas k Orde r#5 4
EP ATas k Manager : Kir k

Foste r

U.S

. ENVIRONMENTA L PROTECTIO N AGENC Y Offic e of Ai rQualit yPlannin g an d Standard s Stationar ySourc e Complianc e Divisio n Washington , D

C 2046 0 Novembe r198 3P. 4



### ACKNOWLEDGMEN T
De l Gree nAssociates , Inc . (DGA ) wishe s t o acknowledg e Researc hTriangl e Institut e fo r assistanc e i nconductin g al l th e statistica l analyses on th e fugitiv e emission s dat a bas e an do nth e smok e generato r dat a bas e fro m th e alternativ e opacit y method s study ; thei r analyse s wer e utilize di npre parin g thi s report . Th e cooperatio nan deffort s th e o f ai r program s staf f i n Regio nII I t o provid e th e dat a fo r evaluatio nar e greatl y appreciated . Finally , th e assistanc e an dguidanc e provide db

y Mr . Kir k Foste r throughou t th e conduc t o f thi s stud y ar e appreciate dan

dacknowledged .

nP. 5



### TABL E O F CONTENT S Pag e Lis t o f Table s i v Lis t o f Figure s v 1. 0 Introductio n1 2. 0 Technica l Approac h3 2. 1 Emission s Dat a Bas e 3 2. 2 Analysi s Approac h3 3. 0 Result s 9 3. 1 Between-Observe r Precisio n9 3. 2 Compariso no f Method s 1 3 4. 0 Summary

an dConclusion s 1 8 Reference s 1 9 Appendice s Appendi x1 —

Lis t o f Inspector s Appendi x2 —

Dat a Bas e

mP. 6



### LIS T O F TABLE S Pag e Tabl e 1 Facilitie s an dEmissio nSource s 4 Tabl e 2 Differenc e Betwee nObservers : Opacit y 1 0 Averagin g Metho d Tabl e 3 Differenc e Betwee nObservers : Aggregate - 1 1

Tim e Metho d Tabl e 4 Parameter s Chose nfo r Relativ e Stringenc y 1 4 Evaluatio n Tabl e 5 Relativ e Stringenc y o f Thre e Methods 1 5 Tabl e 6 Opacit y

Averagin g Method s Compare dt o the 1 7 Aggregate-Tim e Metho d

i vP. 7



### LIS T OF FIGURE S
Figur e 1 Compariso no f Noncomplianc e b y Thre e Methods . Pag e 1 7P. 8

1. 0 INTRODUCTIO

N Referenc e Metho d 9 —Visua l Determinatio n o f Emission s fro m Stationar ySource s —provide s fo rth e determinatio n o f th e opacit y o f emission s b

yqualifie d observers

. Whe n Metho d 9 wa

s revise d an d repromulgate d i n 1974 , th e procedur e fo rcalculatin g averag e opacit y fo rsix-minut e period s wa s established

. However , th e Preambl e t o Metho d 9 recognize d tha t th e opacit yaveragin g approac h wa s no t appropriat e fo revaluatin g certai n source s o f particulat e matte rwit h intermitten t emissions

. Th e Preambl e als o indicate d tha t alternativ e procedure s fo revaluatin g emission s fro m intermitten t source s woul d be investigated

. Th e Stationar ySourc e Complianc e Divisio n (SSCD ) o f EP Arecentl y has investigate d th e nee d fo ra n alternativ e opacit ymeasuremen t procedur e base d o n nonaveragin g o rshort-ter m averagin g technique s (e.g. , 3-minut e periods)

. Durin g SSCD's investigation , severa l technica l studie s ^,2,3 ) wer e conducte d t o evaluat e variou s opacit y measuremen t techniques

. Thi s repor t present s th e result s o f a stud y mad e t o examin e an d evaluat e differen t opacit ydat a reductio n technique s (i.e. , aggregate-time , 3-minut e averaging ) o n visibl e emission s dat a fro m fugitiv e emissio n sources . Th e principa l purpose s o f thi s stud ywere t o estimat e between-observe rprecisio n fo rinspector s observin g fugitiv e emission s an d t o compar e th e estimat e t o simila r precisio n measurement s obtaine d durin g evaluatio n o f dat a fro m non fugitiv e sources . Also , between-observe rprecisio n estimate s fo rth e fugitiv e dat a obtaine d b yvariou s dat a reductio n method s (e.g. , 3-minute , 6-minut e averaging ) wer e determined

. A s thi s stud yproceeded , anothe rpurpos e wa s identified : t o evaluat e th e relativ e stringenc yo f variou s visibl e emissio n dat a reductio n methods

. A

s a par t o f thi s effort , th e effec t o n a source' s statu s o f complianc e wit h a give n standar d wa s examine d when th e emissio n level s wer e determine d usin g differen t dat a reductio n method s (e.g. , 3-minut e averaging , 6-minut e averaging , o raggregate-time)

. Th e scop e o f thi s stud ywa s limite d t o evaluatin g existin g fugitiv e emission s data

. Sinc e th e primar yobjectiv e o f thi s stud ywa s t o examin e between-observe rprecision , th e majo rcriterio n fo rchoosin g th e fugitiv e 1P. 9



### emission s dat a se t t o be evaluate dwa s th e nee dfo r observation s obtaine d simultaneousl y

b y multipl e inspectors . Th e dat a se t evaluate dinclude d emission s dat a obtaine dfro m 1 6 differen t source s durin g th e perio d October , 197 9 t o June , 1980 . Dat a obtaine dfro m th e Ironan

dStee l Industr y an dth e Nonmetalli c Minera l Industr y wer e examined . Th e dat a se t include da tota l o f 31 0 hour s o f dat a (approximatel y 74,40 0 15-secon d observations ) obtaine db y eac hinspector . Sectio n2. 0 o f thi s repor t present s a summary o f th e dat a se t examine dan

dth e technica l approac hfollowe ddurin g thi s study . Sectio n 3. 0 present s a summary an ddiscussio no f the result s o f th e study . Sectio n4. 0 present s conclusions .P.1 0



### 2. 0 TECHNICA L APPROAC H
2. 1 Emission s Dat a Bas e Sinc e conductin g anactua l fiel dstud y a t fugitiv e source s wa s outsid e th e scop e o f thi s study , dat a onfil e wer e obtaine dan devaluated . Dat a wer e obtaine dfro m th e Offic e o f Ai r Qualit y Plannin g an

dStandard s (OAQPS ) andfro

m EP A Regio nIII . Th e OAQP S dat a wer e obtaine dfro m inspection s o f basi c oxyge nfurnac e (BOF ) roo f monitor s an dnonmetalli c minera l (NMM ) processin g facilities ; thes e dat a hadbee ncollecte di n suppor t o f developin g Ne w Sourc e Performanc e Standard s (NSPS ) fo r thos e sourc e categories . Dat a fro m th e fina l tes t report s obtaine dfro m OAQP S wer e code dan

dloade donth e compute r fo r analysis . Tabl e 1 list s th e facilitie s fro

m whic hregiona l inspectio ndat a wer e obtaine dan danalyzed . Th e dat a obtaine dfro

m Regio nII I wer e collecte db y regiona l personne l (o r contracto r personne l unde r regiona l authority ) fro m variou s ironand stee l source s insevera l EPA region s durin g routin e inspectio nan d enforcemen t activities . Thes e dat a ha dbee ninclude di nth e Visibl e Emissio nInformatio nSystem (VEIS) , a visibl e emissio ndat a bas e managemen t syste m maintaine dfo r EPA . Th e regiona l dat a selecte dfo r analysi s durin g thi s stud

y wer e limite dt o dat a tha t hadbee narchive di nth e VEI S Dat a Bas e Managemen t System . Furthermore , regiona l dat a wer e use donl y fro m thos e facilitie s wher e simultaneou s observation s b y company inspector s wer e availabl e sinc e observation s wer e obtaine donl y b y a singl e regiona l observer . Inmos t cases , company personne l observe demission s simultane ousl y wit hth e regiona l observer , an dthes e dat a wer e submitte dt o EP A an dmaintaine da s par t o f th e inspectio nrecord . Durin g thi s study , th e dat a obtaine db

y company inspector s wer e code ddirectl y fro m th e fiel d dat a records . Th e code ddat a wer e loade dint o th e compute r fo r analysi s b y Researc hTriangl e Institut e (RTI) . 2. 2 Analysi s Approac h Th e primar y

objectiv e o f thi s stud y wa s t o evaluat e th e observe r precisio nassociate dwit hopacit y reading s obtaine db

y certifie dobserver s a t intermitten t fugitiv e emissio nsources . Durin g th e study, th e effec t o f differen t dat a reductio nmethod s (e.g. , 3-minut e versu s 6-minut e opacit y averaging ) ondeterminin g th e complianc e statu s o f a sourc e wit hrespec t t o a give nemissio nstandar dals o wa s investigated . 3

### TABL E 1 . FACILITIE S AN D EMISSIO N

SOURCE S p.1 1

Facilit y Bethlehe m Stee l Corp

. Bethlehem , P

A Republi c Stee l Co

. Cleveland , O

H Republi cStee l Co

. Sout h Chicago , I L
Inlan d Stee l Eas t Chicago , I N Dat e 6/23-26/8 0

6/09-13/8 0

6/02-06/8 0

5/12-16/8 0 Source(s )

BO F Monito r

BO F Monito r
BO F Monito r

BO F Monito r Dat a Referenc e Emissio n Tes t Report: * EM B 80-B0F- 9 October , 1980 Emissio n Tes t Report: 1 EM B 80-B0F- 8 October , 198 0 Emissio n Tes t Report: * EM B 80-B0F- 7 October , 1980 Emissio n Tes t Report: 1 EM B 80-B0F- 6
Vulca n Material s Co

. Garrisonville , V

A 10/22/7 9 Crushe r September , 198 0 Emissio n Tes t Report : EM B 79-NMM-11 D April , 1980 Vulca n Material s Co

. Helena , A

L Castl e Concret e Co

. Colorad o Springs , C

O
Branna n San d an d Grave l Co

. Denver , C

O Wheelin g Pittsburg h Stee l U.S

. Stee l Duquesne , P

A U.S

. Stee l Edga rThompso n Work

s Flintkot e Corporatio n Frederick , M

D 10/02-03/7 9

10/08-11/7 9

10/15-22/7 9

3/02/80
- 4/10/8 0 6/11-15/7 9 9/02-05/8 0 6/25/79
- 7/26/7 9 10/26-30/7 9 Crushe r

Screen s Crushe r Screen s Transfe r Crushe r Transfe r Blas t Furnac e Cas t House BO F Monito r BO F Monito r Crushe r Emissio n Tes t Report :

EM B 79-NMM-11 A April , 1980 Emissio n Tes t Report : EM B 79-NMM-11 B April , 1980 Emissio n Tes t Repor t EM B 79-NMM-11 C April , 1980 VEIS 2
VEIS 2
VEIS 2
Emissio n Tes t Report : EM B 79-NMM-ll E April , 1980 

# r Emissio nTes t Report , U.S . EP A Offic e o f Ai r Qualit y Plannin g and Standards , Researc hTriangl e Park , NC . > 

### VEI S — Visibl e Emissio nInventor y Syste mP.1 2

I n th e cas e o f industria l proces s fugitiv e sources , n o tru e opacit y measuremen t i s availabl e t o whic h observe ropacit ymeasurements ma yb e compared ; i.e. , n o transmissomete ro rstac k continuou s opacit ymonito ri s present
. Consequently , th e onl ymeasur e tha t ca n b e use d t o asses s observe r erro ri s between-observe rprecision

. Th e nee d fo rdat a obtaine d simultaneousl y b ymultipl e observer s i s apparent , an d thi s criterio n wa s th e primar yfacto r i n determinin g th e fugitiv e dat a bas e t o b e studied

. Al l th e dat a t o b e studie d where code d b yfacility , date , ru n number , cloc k time , an d inspector

. Thi s permitte d analyse s t o be conducte d i n a numbe ro f differen t ways ; fo rexample , b ycompariso n o f individua l 15-secon d readings , b

ycompariso n o f th e mea n opacit y6-minut e period , o rb ycompariso n o f th e emission s fo reac h one-hou r"run"

. Th e between-observe rprecisio n wa s estimate d b

ycalculatin g th e standar d deviatio n o f th e differenc e betwee n observation s obtaine d b ydifferen t inspec
tor s accordin g t o Equatio n 1 : / N M / 1- 1 j= i / N - 1 - X-
- ) 2 A i j ' S D = (Var ) V 2 = / 1= 1 j= 1 ^ (1 ) V where : S D = Standar d Deviation ; Va r= Variance ; N = Numbe ro f observation s (dependin g upo n th e analysi s bein g conducted , a n observatio n i s define d a s a 3-minut e opacit yaverage , a 6-minut e opacit yaverage , etc.) ; M = Numbe ro f inspectors ; Xj = Observe d valu e fo rinspecto rj ( 1 M ) fo rru n i ( 1 N) ; an d 

### X-j = Mea nobserve dvalue fo r al l inspector s fo r ru ni . Th e standar ddeviatio no f th e differenc e betwee nobserver s wa s calculate d fo r severa l differen t cases , including :P.1 3

1 ) Time-Average d opacit y- - a ) individua l 15-secon d opacit yreading , b ) 3-minut e averag e opacity , an d c ) 6-minut e averag e opacity ; an d 2 ) Aggregate-Tim e - - a ) observe d tim e (seconds ) greate rtha n 15 % opacity ; b ) observe d tim e (seconds ) greate rtha n 20 % opacity ; c ) observe d tim e (seconds ) greate rtha n 25 % opacity ; an d d ) observe d tim e (seconds ) greate r tha n 30 % opacity

. Afrequenc ydistributio n als o wa s calculate d t o asses s th e differenc e betwee n observers

. Th e percen t o f tota l determination s (individua l 15 - secon d readings , 3-minut e averages , etc. ) wit h a between-observe r differenc e o f les s tha n o requa l t o 7.5% opacit ywa s calculate d an d reported

. I n orde rt o compar

e th e "applicability " o f potentia l tes t methods , th e relativ e stringenc yo f th e method s i n determinin g noncomplianc e wit h a typica l emissio n standar d wa s compare d fo rthre e method s o f dat a reduction : 1 ) aggregate time , 2 ) 3-minut e opacit yaverage , an d 3 ) 6-minut e opacit yaverage . Fo rth e aggregate-tim e method , th e discret e 15-secon d measurements ar e aggregate d t o determin e th e accumulate d tim e durin g whic h opacit yexceed s a standard ; 15 - second s o f tim e ar e accumulate d fo reac h readin g tha t exceed s th e standard

. Fo r3-minut e (6-minute ) opacit yaveraging , th e arithmeti cmea n o f th e 1 2 (24 ) individua l 15-secon d opacit yobservation s i s calculate d t o determin e th e averag e opacit yfo rth e tim e period

. I n conductin g th e relativ e stringenc yanalysis , th e dat a were analyze d b yal l th e differen t tes t method s an d the n th e number s o f noncomplianc e period s indicate d b

yeac h metho d were compared

. Whe n performin g th e re lativ e stringenc yanalysis , a n allowanc e fo r"observe rerror " wa s some time s include d b

yadjustin g th e noncomplianc e leve l b ya give n amount
. Fo rexample , i f th e standar d wa s establishe d a t les s tha n o requa l t o 20 % opacity , bu t an observe rerro rallowanc e o f 7.5 % opacit ywa s desired , the n noncomplianc e woul d no t b e indicate d unti l a n opacit ymeasuremen t i n exces s o f 27.5 % wa

s obtained

. Durin g thi s study , th e relativ e stringenc yo f variou s method s wa

s evaluate d bot h wit h an d withou t an observe rerro rallowance

. Furthermore , tw o separat e analyse s wer e conducte d usin g differen t allowanc e level s fo robserve rerror .P. M

Durin g on e evaluation , a n opacit yleve l no t t o equa l o rexcee d 20 % wa s chose n a

s th e basi s fo rth e standard

. Fo ra give n observatio n period , th e sourc e wa

s considere d i n noncomplianc e b yth e aggregate-tim e metho d i f th e opacit ywa

s greate rtha n o requa l t o 20 % fo rmor

e tha n 3 minute s (18 0 seconds ) pe rhou ro r1. 5 minute s (9 0 seconds ) pe rone-hal f hou robservatio n period

. Fo r th e opacit yaveragin g methods , th e sourc e wa s considere d i n noncomplianc e i f an y3 - o r6-minut e averag e durin g th e observatio n perio d wa s equa l t o o rgreate r tha n 20 % tha n 20

% opacity

. Th e numbe ro f noncomplianc e period s obtaine d b yeac h metho d wa

s tabulate d an d compared

. Fo rth e relativ e stringenc yanalysi s where a n allowanc e fo robserve rerro r wa s included , th e erro rallowanc e fo rth e aggregate-tim e metho d wa s a com binatio n o f observe d tim e an d opacity

. Th e erro rallowanc e use d wa s 10 % opacit y fo reac h individua l 15-secon d reading , plu s a tim e erro rallowanc e o f 1 5 second s fo reac h 6-minut e observatio n perio d use d t o accumulat e tim e abov e th e standard

. Thi s observe rerro rallowanc e i s base d o n fou rfiel d tes t conducte d b yEPA.(5 ) Th e exampl e time-exemptio n opacit ylimi t chose n fo rthi s relativ e stringenc y evaluatio n specifie d tha t emission s coul d no t equa l o rexcee d 20 % opacit yfo r mor e tha n thre e minute s pe rhou r(o r1. 5 minute s pe rhalf-hour)

. Usin g th e opacit yan d tim e erro rmargin s jus t described , th e dat a wa s evaluate d as follows :

- Fo reac h dat a se t (3 0 o r6 0 minut e reading) , onl yindividua l 15-secon d reading s equa l t o o rgreate rtha n 30 % were counte d (20

% opacit ylimi t plu s 10 % opacit yerro rmargin)

.

- Fo ra 30 minut e dat a set , a "violation " wa s declare d i f th e opacit y limi t (wit h opacit yerro rmargin ) wa s exceede d fo rmor

e tha n 1 1/

2 minute s plu s th e tim e erro rmargin

. Fo ra 6 0 minut e dat a set , a violatio n wa

s declare d i f th e opacit ylimi t (wit h opacit yerro rmargin ) wa s exceede d fo rmor

e tha n 3 minute s plu s th e tim e erro rmargin

.

- Th e tim e erro rmargi n allowe d pe r30 minut e o r6 0 minut e dat a se t varie d dependin g o n whethe renoug h 15-secon d reading s i n exces s o f th e opacit y standar d t o demonstrat e a violatio n were containe d i n on e 6-minut e segmen t o f th e dat a set , o rwhethe rmor e tha n on e 6-minut e segmen t with
i n th e dat a se t wa

s require d t o demonstrat e th e violation

. Fo rexample ,P.1 5

i n a 6 0 minut e dat a set , ther e i s on e six-minut e segmen t where eac h 15 - secon d readin g wa

s ove r30

% opacity

. Aviolatio n i s demonstrate d wit h onl ytha t on e 6-minut e segment
. Th e give n tim e erro rmargi n woul d therefor e be 1 5 seconds , sinc e onl yon e 6-minut e segmen t wa s neede d t o sho wa violation

. I f tw o 6-minut e segments withi n a dat a se t wer e neede d t o sho

wa violation , the n 2X1 5 second s o r30 second s tim e erro rmargi n woul d be required

.

- I n thi s study , eac h 30 - o r60-minut e dat a se t wa s broke n int o 6-minut e segments
. Th e 6-minut e segmen t wit h th e mos t numbe ro f 15-secon d read
ing s a t o rabove 30

% opacit ywer e counted , an d multiplie d b y0.2 5 minute / readings

. I f th e tim e a t o rabove 30 % wa s mor e tha n th e tim e exemptio n i n th e rul e plu s 1 5 second s fo rth e tim e erro rmargin , the n th e dat a se t wa s rule d a violation

. I f th e tim e wa s no t mor

e tha n th e tim e exemptio n afte revaluatin g th e firs t 6-minut e segment , the n th e nex t wors t 6-minut e segmen t wa s evaluated , an d so o n unti l eithe ra violatio n wa s shown , o ral l 6-minut e segments were evaluate d an d complianc e wa s shown

. A15-secon d tim e erro rmargi n i s require d fo reac h 6-minut e segmen t i n a dat a se t tha t i s use d t o establis h a violation

. Fo rth e opacit yaveragin g methods , th e observe rerro ruse d wa s 11.8 % (12%) opacit yfo rth e 3-minut e opacit yaveragin g metho d an d 7.5 % opacity ! fo rth e 6 - minut e opacit yaveragin g method

. Th e 12 % opacit yerro ri s base d o n smok e generato r dat a (whit e smoke

) obtaine d durin g th e RT P fiel d tes t C ) fro m th e alternativ e opacit ymetho d study

. Th e valu e o f 12 % i s base d o n th e observe d 95t h percentil e erro rdistributio n fo rth e smok e generato rtest
. I n othe rwords , fo ral l observer s an d al l tes t runs , th e measure d erro rwa s les s tha n 12

% opacit y95

% o f th e time

. Thus , fo rth e 3-minut e opacit yaveragin g method , th e noncomplianc e leve l wit h allowanc e fo robserve rerro rwa s establishe d a t greate rtha n 31.8 % opacit y(i.e. , 31.9%) ; th e noncomplianc e leve l wit h observe rerro rfo rth e 6-minut e opacit y averagin g metho d wa

s establishe d a t greate rtha n 27.5 % opacit y(i.e. , 27.6%)

. 1 Thi s erro rmargi n fo rth e 6-minut e averag e wa s establishe d durin g test s fo rth e 197

4 re-promulgatio n o f Metho d 9.(4 )P.1 6

3. 0 RESULT

S
3. 1 Between-Observe rPrecisio n Tabl e 2 summarize s th e result s o f th e analyse s t o determin e th e differenc e betwee n observer s fo ropacit yaveragin g methods

. Th e standar d deviatio n o f th e differenc e betwee n observer s wa s calculate d t o estimat e between-observe rpreci
sion

. I n addition , th e cumulativ e frequenc yo f observation s wit h a differenc e betwee n observer s o f les s tha n o requa l t o 7.5 % opacit ywa s als o tabulated

. Th e valu e o f 7.5 % opacit ywa s use d becaus e thi s i s th e maximu m observe rerro rtypi
call yassociate d wit h Metho d 9 6-minut e opacit yaveraging

. Tabl e 3 present s th e result s o f th e between-observe rerro ranalysi s fo rth e aggregate-tim e dat a reductio n method

. Fo rth e aggregate-tim e method , th e paramete ro f interes t i s th e aggregat e second s o f observe d emission s tha t ex cee d th e leve l o f th e opacit ystandard ; consequently , th e standar d deviatio n betwee n observer s i s expresse d a s seconds

. Th e result s presente d i n Tabl e 2 indicat e tha t fo rove r90 % o f th e tota l observation s fo r2-minute , 3-minute , an d 6-minut e opacit yaveraging , th e reading s o f tw o observer s compare d withi n 7.5 % opacity

. Onl ya smal l in
- creas e i n between-observe rprecisio n i s note d whe n th e averagin g tim e i s decrease d fro m 6 minute s t o 2 minutes

. Th e standar d deviatio n use d t o estimat e between-observe rprecisio n range s fro m 2.6 % opacit yfo ra 2-minut e r \ averag e t o 2.1 % opacit yfo ra 6-minut e average . Th e measiixeiLdifferenc e C-pi^^ betwee n observer s i s a t a leve l tha t compare s wit h dat a obtaine d durin g >^JAX- r . • • • ~~ ~ — ' ~ -7-v- v—*" * ^ 'if I A th e pane l stud yconducte d prio rt o reprpmulgatio n o f Metho d 9 { *>. Durin g *> - llu v "fJfiFTRTtFibd 9 study , th e composit e between-observe rstandar d deviatio n fo r 6-minut e opacit yaveragin g wa s estimate d a t 2.6 % opacity

. Durin g th e smok e generato rstudies , th e between-observe rbia s wa s no t estimate d fo rtime
average d opacity

.

### TABL E 2 . DIFFERENC E BETWEEN OBSERVERS : OPACIT YAVERAGIN GMETHO D

Opacit y Averagin g Perio d
2 minute s 3 minute s 6 minute s 15-secon d singl e readin g Numbe r o f Observation s 17,69 4 11,83 6 5,95 4 140,25 0 Standar d Deviatio n ( % Opacity )
2. 6 2. 4 2. 1 3. 4 

### Frequenc y o f Differenc e Betwee n Observer s < 7.5 % Opacit y Tpercen t o f observations )
9 2 9 2 9 3 8 7

1 0

### TABL E 3 . DIFFERENC E BETWEEN OBSERVERS : AGGREGATE-TIM E METHO D

Paramete r
Observe dTime > 15 % opacit y Observe dTime >

^ 20 % opacit y Observe dTime >

^ 25 % opacit y Observe dTime > 30 % opacit y Mea n Aggregat e Time (seconds ) 52 0 29 6 18 3 12 9 Standar d

Deviatio n (seconds ) 23 9 19 0 13 0 10 4 Relativ e Standar d

Deviation 1 

### (percent ) 4 6 6 4 7 1 8 1 MEA N VALU E 16 6 6 6

^Standar dDeviation/Mean ) x10 0

1 1P.1 9



### Fo r comparison , result s fo r 15-secon dsingl e observatio nperiod s ar e als o reporte di nTabl e 3 . Th e measur e o f variatio nbetwee nobserver s (SD ) doe s increas e t o 3. 4 second s fro m th e 2. 1 second s measure dfo r 6-minut e opacit y averaging . A s expected , th e percentag e o f observation s wit ha differenc e betwee nobserver s exceedin g 7.5 % opacit y als o increases . Th e result s presente di nTabl e 3 indicat e tha t th e mea nbetween observe r erro r fo r th e fugitiv e emission s dat a analyze ddurin g thi s stud y wa s 16 6 seconds , wit ha rang e o f 104-23 9 seconds , whe ndeterminin g th e aggregat e time exceedin g standard s o f fro m 10 % t o 25 % opacity . Althoug h th e between-observe r precisio nappear s t o decreas e a s th e opacit y decisio n leve l increase s (i.e. , S D goe s fro m 23 9 second s fo r th e observe dtime greate r tha n15 % opacit y t o 10 4 second s fo r th e observe dtime greate r tha n30 % opacity) , th e between-observe r precisio nactuall y increase s i f i t i s determine dona basi s relativ e t o th e mea naggregat e emissio ntime . Th e mea nbetween-observe r erro r o f 16 6 second s compare s favorabl y t o th e between-observe r erro r o f 15 9 second s determine ddurin g th e RT P smok e generato r stud

y (*' . Thi s i s a

nindicatio ntha t th e observer s performe d abou t a s wel l i nth e fiel dobservin g th e fugitiv e emission s a s they di d observin g th e smok e generato r emissions . In_oth.er words . th e Jiariaticm betwee ndifferen t inspector s observin g th e fuqiti've_emj^.sJ-aas-jyas_ab.o.u. t fJHe~same~a s "th

e variatio namon g inspector s observin g smok e generator ^ •enri"sTi"orrs":—

" "" " ~~ ~ I t i s importan t t o remembe r tha t no measuremen t o f observe r bia s (error ) ca nb e obtaine dfo r th e fugitiv e data , sinc e no "tru e value " i s availabl e t o whic hth e observers ' measurement s ca nb e directl y compared .

1 2P.2 0



### 3. 2 Compariso no f Method s
A majo r consideratio ni nevaluatin g a nopacit y

regulation/readin g metho dcombinatio ni s ho w stringen t th e combinatio nis , compare dt o othe r possibl e opacit y

regulation/readin g methods . Fo r example , fo r a give n emissio nsource , wil l mor e violation s occu r wit ha £20 % opacit y leve l an

d a 3-minut e time exemptio nregulatio n(aggregate-time readin g method) , o r wit ha < • 20 % opacit y

leve l regulatio n(3-minut e average) , o r wit ha £ 20 % opacit y leve l regulatio n(6-minut e average) ? Th e fugitiv e emissio ndat a se t wa s use dt o represen t typica l fugitiv e emissio nsources , an

da relativ e stringenc y analysi s wa s conducte dusin g thre e opacit y regulation/readin g metho dcombinations . Th e relativ e stringenc y whe ndeterminin g noncomplianc e wit ha typica l emissio nstandar dwa s compare d fo r thre e methods : 1 ) aggregate-time , 2 ) 3-minut e opacit y averaging , and3 ) 6-minut e opacit y

averaging . Fo r th e sam e fugitiv e emission s dat a set , th e number s o f noncomplianc e period s obtaine db y eac hmetho dwer e tabulate dan d compared . Noncomplianc e wa s determine dfo r th e cas e wher e allowanc e wa s mad e fo r observe r erro r i ndeterminin g opacit y levels , a s wel l a s fo r th e cas e wher e th e noncomplianc e leve l wa s no t adjuste dfo r observe r error . Tabl e 4 summarize s th e parameter s use ddurin g th e noncomplianc e comparisons . Sectio n2. 0 abov e provide da mor e detaile dexplanatio no f th e erro r allowanc e parameter s chose n an dth e reason s fo r th e choices . Tabl e 5 present s th e result s o f th e relativ e stringenc y analysis . Th e method s ar e liste daccordin g t o th e leve l o f noncomplianc e wit hth e chose n standard ; th e mos t stringen t metho di s liste dfirst . Figur e 1 present s th e result s graphically , wit hth e stringenc y expresse drelativ e t o th e aggregat e tim e noncomplianc e withou t observe r erro r (i.e. , aggregate-time wit hno erro r allowanc e i s equivalen t t o a noncomplianc e leve l o f 1) . Th e result s indicat e tha t withou t erro r allowance , th e aggregate-time metho di s th e mos t stringent . However , wit herro r allowance , th e aggregate-time metho dan dth e 3-minut e opa cit y averagin g metho dindicat e noncomplianc e wit habou t th e sam e frequency . Six-minut e opacit y

averagin g i s th e leas t stringen t metho dfo r thi s dat a set .

1 3P.2 1

TABL E 4 . PARAMETER S CHOSE N FO R RELATIV E STRINGENC YEVALUATION

Paramete r Aggregate-Tim e Metho d 3-Minut e Averagin g Metho d 6-Minut e Averagin g Metho d Regulation s Compared :

Erro rMargin :

Noncomplianc e Leve l withou t Erro rAllowance :

Noncomplianc e Level wit h Erro rAllowanc e No t equa l t o o r

i n exces s o f 20

% opacit yexcep t fo rthre e minute s pe rhou r 10 % opacit y plu s 1 5 second s exemp tio n pe r6-minut e observatio n period 1 (u p t o 2. 5 minute s pe rhour) wher e exces s emis sion s ar e note d 3.2 5 minute s (1 3 readings ) >

_20 % opacit yfo rone hou rperio d o r1.7 5 minute s ( 7 readings ) >

_20 % opacit yfo r one-hal f hou rperio d 3.5 0 minute s (1 4 readings ) >

_30 % opacit yfo rone hou rperiod s ("• ' o r2.0 0 minute s ( 8 readings ) >

_30 % opacit yfo rone hal f hou rperiods^ 1 ' No t t o excee d20 % opacit y No t t o excee d20 % opacit y

11.8 % Opacit

y 7.5% Opacit y

20.1 % Opacit

y 20.1 % Opacit y

31.9 % Opacit

y 27.6 % Opacit y

1 On e extr a readin g (0.2 5 minute ) i s allowe d fo robserve rerro rfo reac h additiona l 6-minut e observatio n perio d where 15-secon d reading s ar e i n exces s o f th e opacit y noncomplianc e level , i.e. , > 30 % opacity

.

1 4P.2 2



### TABL E 5 . RELATIVE STRINGENC YO F THRE E METHOD S

Metho d Noncomplianc e (percen t o f runs) 1 Aggregate-time , withou t erro rmargi n 3-Minut e opacit yaverage , withou t erro rmargi n 6-Minut e opacit yaverage , withou t erro rmargi n Aggregate-time , wit h erro rmargin 2 3-Minut e opacit yaverage , wit h erro rmargin 3 6-Minut e opacit yaverage , wit h erro rmargin * 

### 9 7 7 5 5 6 4 6 4 5 3 6

1 

### Percen t o f run s where noncomplianc e occurre db y a t leas t on e metho d
2 

### 10 % Opacit y

plu s 0.2 5 minut e additiona l tim e exemptio n 3 

### 11.8 % Opacit y 4 

### 7.5 % Opacit y

1 5P.2 3

100 * ERRO R ALLOWANCE , percen t

' 1 0 % OPACITY , 0.2 5 mi n FO R AGGREGAT E TIME ; 11.8 % OPACIT Y FO R 3-mi n AVERAGING ; AN D 7.5 % OPACIT Y FO R 6-mi n AVERAGIN G

Figur e 1

. Compariso n o f noncomplianc e b ythre e methods

.



### 16 .P.2 4

TABL E 6 . OPACIT YAVERAGIN GMETHOD S COMPARE D T O TH E AGGREGATE-TIM E METHOD 1

**%• •• • Opacit y Readin g Metho d

• * Aggregate-Tim e Metho d Wit hno erro r margi n Wit herro r margi n Three-Minut e Averag e Wit hno erro r margi n Wit herro r margi n Six-Minut e Averag e Wit hn o erro r margi n Wit h7.5 % erro r margi n Nonmetalli c M i nera l Source s (2 1 sets ) # Set s



### 2 1 3

6 2

5 2 % Set s



### 100 1 4

2 9 1 0

2 4 1 0 Iron&

Stee l Source s (13 7 sets ) # Set s



### 13 3 69

11 3 69

8 4 5 5 % Set s



### 97 5 0

8 2 5 0

6 1 40 Al l Sources observatio n perio d< 3 0 minute s (8 9 sel # Set s


### 8 6 3 1

5 6 2 6

3 6 1 5 is ) % Set s


### 97 3 5

63 2 9

40 1 7 Al l Sources — 60-minut e obsevatio n per i o d (6 9 se l # Set s



### 68 4 1

63 4 5

5 3 4 2 :s ) % Set s


### 9 9 5 9

9 1 6 5

7 7 6 1 TOTA L Al l Sources al l reading s (15 8 sets ) # Set s



### 15 4 72

11 9 7 1

89 5 7 % Set s


### 97 4 6

75 4 5

5 6 3 6

1 35 6 dat a set s total , wit htw o reading s (tw

o observers ) fo r eac ho f th e 35 6 dat a sets . Th e firs t readin g o f eac hpai r wa s chose nfo r evaluation . Onl y thos e reading s showin g a 'violatio nb

y an y o f th e thre e method/standar dcombination s wer e include di nth e 15 8 sets .

1 7P.2 5



### Tabl e 6 provide s a mor e detaile dcompariso no f opacit y averagin g method s it hth e aggregate-time method . w i


### 4. 0 SUMMAR

YAN D CONCLUSION S
Actua l fiel d dat a fro m fugitive-typ e emissio n source s were evaluate d i n orde rt o determin e ho wobserve rerro rfo rth e 3-minut e opacit yaveragin g metho d compare d t o observe rerro rassociate d wit h th e 6-minut e opacit yaveragin g method

. I n addition , th e degre e t o whic h th e thre e method s (aggregate-time , 3-minut e opacit yaveraging , an d 6-minut e opacit yaveraging ) indicate d noncomplianc e i n relatio n t o a specifie d standar d wa s als o examine d t o illustrat e th e relativ e stringenc yo f th e methods

. Result s o f thi s stud yindicat e th e following : a ) Th e between-observe rerro rfo rth e 3-minut e opacit yaveragin g metho d i s essentiall yequivalen t t o th e observe rerro rfo rth e 6-minut e opacit yaveragin g method ; result s obtaine d fro m othe rstudie s (1.4 ) a - ] S 0 SU ppor t thi s conclusion

. b ) Th e differenc e i n measure d opacit yb ytwo observer s wa

s les s tha n o r equa l t o 7.5 % opacit yfo r92 % an d 93

% o f th e tota l observation s usin g th e 3 - minut e opacit yaveragin g metho d an d th e 6-minut e opacit yaveragin g method , respectively

. c ) Between-observe rerro rfo robservatio n o f fugitiv e intermitten t emission s usin g th e aggregate-tim e metho d has bee n estimate d an d i s o f th e sam e orde ro f magnitud e as th e erro restimat e obtaine d fro m th e RT P smok e generato rstud y(D

. d ) Fo rth e dat a se t examined , th e 6-minut e opacit yaveragin g metho d i s no t a s stringen t a

s eithe rth e 3-minut e opacit yaveragin g o raggregate-tim e methods. ; thi s i s tru e regardles s o f whethe ro rno t erro rmargin s ar e used

. e ) Fo rth e dat a se t examined , th e aggregate-tim e an d 3-minut e opacit y averagin g method s ar e abou t equall ystringen t whe n erro rmargi n i s used

. f ) Whe n no erro rmargin s ar e used , th e aggregate-tim e metho d i s th e mos t stringen t o f th e thre e method s compare d durin g thi s study

.

1 8P.2 6



### REFERENCE S

1 . Fiel dEvaluatio no f Opacit y Readin g Method s fo r Intermitten t Plumes , De l Gree nAssociates , Inc. , December , 1981 . 2 . Evaluatio no f Opacit y Frequenc y

Metho donContinuou s Plumes , De l Gree nAssociates , Inc. , December , 1981 . 3 . Evaluatio no f Opacit y Frequenc y

Metho do

nSlowl y Changin g Plumes , De l Gree nAssociates , Inc. , December , 1981 . 4 . Evaluatio nan

dCollaborativ e Stud

y o f Metho dfo r Visua l Determinatio no f Opacit y o f Emission s fro

m Stationar y

Sources . U.S . Environmenta l Protectio n Agency . EPA

650/4-75-009 , January , 1975 . 5 . Statistica l Analysi s o f Visibl e Emission s Fiel dTests , Researc hTriangl e Institute , February , 1982 .

1 94, i*

Unite d State s Environmenta l Protectio n Agenc y Offic e o f Ai r Qualit y Plannin g an d Standard s Stationar y Sourc e Complianc e Divisio n Washingto n D.C . 2046 0

Officia l Busines s Penalt y fo r Privat e Us e S30 0 Publicatio n No . Specia l Repor t Postag e an d Fee s Pai d Environmenta l Protectio n Agenc y EP A 33 5

I f you r addres s i s incorrect , pleas e chang e o n th e above label tea r off ; an d retur n t o th e abov e address . I f yo u d o no t desir e t o continu e receivin g thi s technica l repor t series . CHEC KHER E D ; tea r off label ; an d retur n i t t o th e abov e address .