.... _. 

MDE 

. ' 1'' .

DEPARTMENT OF THE ENVIRONMENT 

AIR AND RADIATION MANAGEMENT ADMINISTRATION 

RESPONSE TO COMMENTS 

for the 

PUBLIC HEARING held on March 3, 2010 

in BALTIMORE, MD 

relating to: 

( 1) amendments to Regulations .01 and .05, repeal of existing Regulations .1 0 and .11, 

and adoption of new Regulation!; 1

.1 0 and .i·t' Wider CO MAR 26.11 .01 General 

Administrative Provisions; and : · · 1 • ~ ' · 

(2) amendments to Regulations 0 1 and' .05' under CO MAR 26.11.09 Control of FuelBurning Equipment, Stationary Internal Combustion Engines, and Certain Fuel-Burning 

Installations. 

Purpose of Hearing: The purpose of this hearing is to allow for public comment on the 

Department's proposal regarding opacity requirements for fuel burning equipment that 

demonstrate compliance with Continuous Opacity Monitoring (COM) data. 

Date and Location: The public hearing was held on March 3, 2010 at 10:00 am., at 1800 

Washington Boulevard, 1st Floor Aeris Conference Room, Baltimore MD 21230. 

Hearing Officer: Deborah Rabin, Regulations Coordinator, Air and Radiation 

Management Administration, served as Hearing Officer. 

Attendance: The public hearing was attended by David Cramer of Mirant and by 

Steve McLain of Panda-Brandywine. 

I I 

Statement: The Department's stateqteqt was ~ubmitted into the record by Diane Franks, 

Program Manager of the Air Quality Plaklng,J?rogram of the Air and Radiation 

Management Administration, Depiutment :of ~e Environment. 

. Comments and Responses: The comments that were received by the Department during 

the 30-day comment period that relate directly to the proposed action have been 

summarized and the Department's responses are provided below. 

COMMENT: The commenter states that Maryland's opacity standards help to minimize 

dangerous particulate emissions and move the state closer to attainment of the federal 

Clean Air Act standards designed to limi~ exposure to fine particles. 

RESPONSE: This is true and in 2008, EPA recognized that Maryland measured fine 

particle levels that are actually below the current daily and annual federal fine particle 

t 

' t I ~ 
standards as noted in FR/Volume 74, No.7, January 1,2, .2009, page 1146 and FR/Volume 

74, No. 146, July 31, 2009, page 38161. These reductions were due to controls currently 

in place. This equates directly to greater P..l;i,b.lidhe'Atth pr6tection for Maryland's citizens. 

The particulate matter emissions reduced by ~he· existing' opacity regulations are an 

important part of the current control program:'especially for fuel burning equipment and 

other combustion sources not covered by this revision of the regulations. But reductions 

from affected sources under this regulation pale in comparison to the reductions being 

achieved by these same sources under the Maryland Healthy Air Act of2006, the 

cornerstone of Maryland's State Implementation Plan (SIP) to comply with federal air 

quality standards for fine particles. With the additional reductions mandated by the 

Healthy Air Act but yet to occur, Maryland is to be on track to meet an even tougher fine 

particle standard that EPA is expected to finalize over the next 2 years. 

COMMENT: The commenter recognizes that the Department is revising the regulations 

and eliminating the use of the enforcement policy contained in Technical Memorandum 

90-0 I (TM90-0 1) to improve the opacity requirements. The commenter states that 

TM90-0 I contains an enforcement policy that weakens emission standards in the SIP and 

limits the Department's ability to enforce the SIP. 

I ' I I> ' ' . 

RESPONSE: The Department is revising'th~·opadity re~ulations and eliminating the use 

of the enforcement policy contained in TM90-0 I ia strengthen enforcement of the opacity 

requirements. The TM90-0l is part of the approved opacity SIP and, as such, establishes 

the enforcement requirements that the Department uses to determine whether sources 

comply with the opacity standard. The TM90-0I does not limit the Department's ability 

to enforce as stated by the commenter but instead sets the enforcement standard and 

establishes what a violation is. The commenter composes several scenarios in which the 

commenter states that the TM90-0llimits the Department's ability to enforce emission 

standards without realizing that as part of the SIP, TM90-0I sets the requirements for 

enforcement, and these scenarios are not the basis for comparison· of the revised 

regulations to the existing regulations. The Department's authority to administer the 

Title V operating permit program is not compromised. 

COMMENT: The commenter states the Department must eliminate the "one day" cap 

on penalties for violations of the opacity standards because it undermines the opacity 

standards and the proposed· rule limits all violations of the opacity standard in a 24 hour 

period to a single violation. The commenter states this limitation compromises the 

Department's authority to administer the State's Title)!. operating permit program. The 

commenter includes a table of violations comparing their interpretation of current 

regulations to their interpretation of the proposed regula'tions. 

• I 

RESPONSE: As stated previously, the Department is eliminating the use of the 

enforcement policy contained in TM90-0l which is part of the approved opacity SIP and, 

2 

r 
.. .. 

as such, establishes the enforcement requirements that the Department currently uses to 

detennine whether sources comply with the opacity standard. The proposed regulations 

contain new regulatory language which establishes stricter enforcement standards by 

providing for violations of the daily standard as well as the quarterly standard. 

With regard to the number of potential violations, under the proposed amendments it is 

possible for a plant to have multiple violations on a single day. Depending on the 

specific circumstances of noncompliance, a unit could be cited for up to six violations a 

day. See CO MAR 26. I I .09 .058(2). Violations of daily and quarterly limits are separate 

violations. Moreover, every succ·essive day of a quarter in which a unit operates in 

violation of a quarterly limitation is a separat~ violation. There is no "one day" cap on 

penalties for violations of the opacity standards. The Department's authority to 

administer the Title V operating pennit program is not compromised. 

Even though the commenter again composes several scenarios in which the commenter 

claims that the TM90-0llimits the Department's ability to enforce emission standards, 

the TM90-0 1 as part of the SIP sets the requirements for enforcement, and these 

scenarios are not the basis for comparison of the revised regulations to the existing 

regulations. The table provided by the commenter tabulates violations incorrectly both 

for the current regulations and the proposed regulations. 

COMMENT: The commenter states that Maryland should eliminate the special 

exemptions from compliance for cycling units and keep ~e current exceptions in 

COMAR 26.11.09.05A(3) intact because the special exceptions weaken the current 

opacity standards. The commenter states that the current rule authorizes exceedances 

10% of the time for units operating ov~r 300 hours and the new rule would authorize 

exceedances between 5 and 10% of the time. 

' 

' .. . 

RESPONSE: The commenter ri9tes, that the:proposed regulations are more stringent 

than the existing regulations regarding percentage of time allowed above the standard. 

The commenter also notes that opacity exceedances at power plants tend to occur in 

bunches around malfunctions, startup, and shutdown events as opposed to isolated six 

minute increments. The Department agrees with both these statements. The commenter 

then states MOE's sole focus on the percentage of operating time a plant is excused from 

compliance oversimplifies the problem and does not address the nature of opacity 

exceedances. The Department cont~nds that focusing on the percentage of time a unit is 

excused from compliance does addr~ss the nature of opacity exceedances. The 

Department has eliminated the general exception for startup and other allowed exceptions 

of the existing regulations and consolidated these exceptions into a specific time 

allowance above the opacity standard. The elimination of startup, shutdown and 

malfunction is in keeping with new EPA policies and results in a more stringent 

regulation. Less time exceeding the standard generally equates to less emissions. 

Low capacity units are called on to operate during times of peak demand and only for 

short periods when additional power is needed. Because low capacity units as a rule 

• I 'I 3 , I. 
startup and shut down much more frequently than base load units, they operate in startup 

and shut down mode for a much larger proportion of the total quarterly operating time. 

As discussed above, opacity is generally muc~ more d~fficult to control during startup, 

shutdown and load changing events. Other tat~s allow ekemptions from opacity 

standards during startup and shutdown fot •tfiis teas6n, e:g., North Carolina, Virginia and 

Alabama. Maryland has declined to exclude ~n\issions· during startup and shutdown from 

the compliance demonstration. 

COMMENT: The commenter states that the proposed rules do not contain sufficient 

monitoring for condensable particulate matter. The commenter supports the use of 

continuous emission monitors for particulate matter but requests that continuous opacity 

monitoring continue at the same time. 

RESPONSE: The purpose of the opacity egulations is to set an opacity standard and 

criteria to determine compliance with that standard. These amendments to the 

regulations retain the original standards and recognize and incorporate technology 

advances that have occurred with respect to opacity measurements. While opacity 

standards assist in maintaining lower levels of particle pollution, continuous opacity 

monitors do not differentiate the size of particles comprising the opacity measurements 

and therefore cannot be a surrogate for condensable paqiculate matter. Other approved 

methods of measuring particulate matter which do ~iff rentiate between the condensable 

fraction and coarse fraction of particulate matter in 'ambient air and from stacks are part 

of the Department's plan to comply with federal fi~e parti.cle air quality standards. 

In some cases, flue gas desulfurization controls interfere with the accurate measurement 

of opacity for sources that use continuous monitors, hence the Department included the 

limited exception. When a source demonstrates the operation of flue gas desulfurization 

controls interferes with measurements from the continuous opacity monitor, the proposed 

regulations allow the source to operate a continuous emission monitor for particulate 

matter (PM CEMs) as long as opacity levels are monitored regularly using an approved 

alternative method. As stated earlier, current air quality monitoring for fine particles in 

Maryland demonstrates compliance with the current standard and shows a downward 

trend which is expected to continue. Significant additional controls are scheduled for 

implementation in 2010 to continue the downward trend in fine particle pollution and the 

Department maintains the exception is appropriate and does not jeopardize further air 

quality improvements. 

.. , · II' I f •.,. 

•, 

4 

--... ... . 
:\tJ..\R\'L.\~0 OF.P..\RT:\IE~T OF TilE E;\1\'IRO~:\Ifo:;\JT 

I ~Ill) W.tshingtun Buull.!\·;m.l • B.dtinhlf~ \I() 212JI) 

\l.trlllll l \1.1lk~ 

' " '' a:rnnr 

\rtlho•ll~ (r Bh•\\n 

I ''' l~n.nlll ,,,~n11•r 

.JI0-5J7-JOilO • l-~00-63)-hllll 

\larch 30. ~010 

The Honorable Paul Pinsky. S~nator 

2:!0 James Senate Office Building 

11 Bladen Street 

Annapolis MD 21-JO 1 

Dear Senator Pinsky: 

.... h.U I r ~~\ 1d '' f1 

.. .1&:111~ 

l(o •I><: II \I '- llllll~h l'h I) 

l.:pul~ \~~M II) 

(am responding to your inc.~uiry regarding the proposed amendments to Maryland's opacity regulations 

tor fuel-burning ~quipment presently under consideration by the AELR Committee. These regulations are 

very complex and the questions are good ones. The enclosed tact sheet explains the regulations and 

addresses the three specific issues you rJise. The proposed amendments are the product of a lengthy 

two-year process in consultation with a workgroup comprised of environmental advocates and 

representatives of regulated entities. 

The proposed amendments eliminate the applicability of the Technical Memorandum and the existing 

~nthrc~ment policy as it applies to power plants and other fuel-burning sources. This, coupled with uthcr 

proposed changes. results in regulations that are signiticantly more stringent than the existing 

requirements. If adopted, these proposed amendments will rank among the most stringent state opacity 

regulations in the Country. 

Opacity. as yuu know. is important as an indirect indkator of particulate emissions. the primary pollutant 

nf concern. While limjtatinns un the opacity of stack cmissi,lns arc important to reduce particulate 

.:missions. much greater n:ductions in particulate emissions \\ill he achieved through implementation uf 

the llt:althy :\ir. \ct. This is hecausc ~missiuns of :"'iO, and S02. "hich t'llrrn P\1 through secondary 

chemical n:actions in the atnmsphcrc. arc hy IJr the hi g~st cnntrihutors to tine particulate It:\ ds in 

\faryland. In this regard. the nc\\S is good. lmpl~rncntati n ,,fthc llcalthy .\ir .\r.:t has already 

dramatically rcJuceJ :\0, '-'missions and ..;igm licant SO~ cmissil lO reJuctillllS .1rc c.xpcch.:J this ) car as the 

tirst pl1.1se S< >~emissions cap wkcs ~.·ffcct. I hcsc reductions arc producing mcasur~tbh: air quality 

hcnclits. In 2009. our .ur quality nwnitnrs n:cordcd tine particulat.: )~:\ds in the ambient air that arc 

hchm the curr~nt J•1ily and annual tine particulate -;tanJi.lrJs. \\'c rccogni1.c. uf course. thar llC\\ nwrc 

:.tring.:nt P\t!, and lllllllC standards arc li"dy tn he adopted hy I·.P.\ in the ncar tcnn. hut \\t: art: 

l.'ontiJI..'nt that the s~l.'ond ph.1sc ~0, and SO: reductions rc4uir~d hy the I h:•Lithy . \ir. \ct in ~0 I~ anJ 

2111.1. n:.,p.:~.:thdy . '' ill g'> a long \\il}' hmanJ hdping us ml..'ctthosc -;tandarJs. 

\\ \\ \\o .mllc. 'tatc.md.u.s I I Y I ' ,.;r\ I ·:-illll- 1' ·2 !1 

\ '·' \l,tr~J ,ll(~l.n '~'''~.: 
I h~ I h lllllf.1bl\! S~n 111 lr Paul Pin:-.k~ 

Pag~ l\\1l 

' ..... . ... 

I h~ lkp;utm\!nl \\ouiJ lik\! tn linalil\! th\! pn1pnscJ am\!ndrn\!nls as .;nnn as pn~..;ihlc ..;,, that thl• JdJith,nal 

public h\!ahh l'l\!ndits c.m he r\!ali1cJ. If~ llU \\oulJ like tn discuss this further. pl\!asc tllmc at 

41 0-5J 7-J0~4 . 

• Y· L .iz 

Secretary 

Enclosure 

cc: Kathy Kinsey, S~!nior Policy Advisor 

Tad Abum, Dir\!ctor, Air and Radiation Management Administration 

I fcath~r Barthd, Director of legislation and Policy 

\\ '" \\ .mdc ... tatc.md.u-; 
' . ... 

.\IJlliTIO~AL l~FOI{.\IATIO~ ON "AR\'l.\~D'S t•ltOPOSl-:1) 

OP.\CITY ..\~11-:~D~IE~TS 

Fl!bruary ~010 

IJackground 

Do the proposed amendments !ltrengthcn or weaken the nisting opadty standards'! 

The proposl!d amendments to Maryland's opacity regulations lor powl!r plants and other 

fuel-burning l!quipmcnt clearly tighten the requirements by lowering the percentage of 

time that sources may exceed the standards through establishing daily limitations in 

addition to q_uarterly limitations. The proposed amendments will result in lower levds of 

opacity and line particle emissions. Overall, the proposed amendments are 

approximately four times more restrictive than the existing opacity regulations as they are 

being implemented by the Department. Based on our review of other state programs and 

our discussions with EPA, we believe that Maryland's proposed amendments are among 

the most stringent in the Country. 

How did the development or Continuous Opacity Montiton (COMs) affect 

implementation and enforcement of opacity standards? 

The current opacity regulations were developed in the 1970's and 80's. Except in rural 

areas of the State, emissions that are visible to the human observer are prohibited. A 20% 

opacity level is allowed in rural areas of the State. When these standards were adopted, 

compliance was demonstrated through a periodic visual observation of the plume exiting 

the stack. Opacity is most difficult to control during periods of startup, shutdown, load 

\.:hanging Jnd malfunction, \\hen combustion is often incomplete or control equipment 

has not reached proper operating conditions. This is why the c~isting regulations allow 

\!:<ccedanccs of the standard during periods of startup and load changing. St!f! CO MAR 

26.11.09.05(A)(3 ). 

rhc advent of automatc.:d continuous !!mission monitoring cq_uipmcnt in the late 1980's 

'" ith its cap;.tc ity to ~untinuously record opadty at levels below what could be \ isually 

~>bserved '" ith the human eye led to development of the Technical ~h:moranJum (J0-0 I 

( l"\.1) in 1990 lor sources that instalh:d ;.md operate a continuous emission monitor fur 

opacity. !"he T\.1 n:cogni1.1!d that pcrlcd compliancl! with a /.cro visible l!missilm 

-;tanJard on a continuous hasis may nut ah\ays be possible. especially Juring periods uf 

o.;tartup and shutdown. !"he ~l. thcrdorc. alllmcd l!:<cecdancl!s ufthe opacity stamJanJs 

Juring a spccilh:d pen:entagc uf a unit's lJUarterly uperating time. 

I his current proposal is the lir'il major rc\ isiun tu the npacity n:gulations in the ~0 years 

-;incc the 1'\.1 \\as aJopli:J. ,.\!though the propuscJ amcnJmcnts retain the same basic 

.1pproach hl demonstrating ClHllpliam:c. in recognition uf impnm:d pm\cr plant pollution 
~nntrnl h:dmology and npcrating pra~tic~s. they cstahlish nwrc stringent rcquin:rncnts 

tiHU press the li.mits oftcchnolngy anJ arc more prntedivc llf .1ir quality. 

lfnw do the prnpnsed amendments change rhe existing requirements'! 

First, it i!i important to note that the proposed amendments Jo nnt re\ isc the currcnt1.cro 

'isihility stanJard for the urhan areas of the State, or the 2011.'0 llpacity standard for rural 

••reas. The standards remain unchanged. Rather. the pruposed amendments revise the 

requirements for demonstrating compliance with the applicable standard by power plants 

and other fuel burning sources that are required to have continuous opacity monitors .. As 

discussed in more detail below, the proposed amendments eliminate existing exemptions 

tor startup, load changing, sootblowing and adjustments to control equipment when 

demonstrating compliance though COMs data, and instead allow limited daily and 

quarterly exemptions from the applicable standard based on a unit's hours or percentage 

of quarterly operating time. 

The Existing Regulations. The existing regulations allow excccdances of the applicable 

opacity standard during startup, load changing, sootblowing and adjustments to control 

equipment for a 6-minute period· in each operating hour, which is equivalent to I 0% of a 

unit's operating ~ime. The Department's enforcement policy, which is set forth in the 

Technical Memorandum (TM 90-01) and incorporated by reference into the regulations, 

allows excccdances for an additional 5-l 0% of a unit's quarterly operating time. Thus, 

total cxceedances ofbetween 15 and 20% of a unit's quarterly operating time are 

permitted under the existing regulations. 

The Proposed Amendments. hi contrast, the proposed amendments eliminate permitted 

cxceed<l:flccs for startup, load changing, sootblowing and adjustments to control 

equipment and limit allowable exceedances for base load units to 2% of quarterly 

llpcrating time, 6% of lJUartcrly operating time tor low capacity units that operate I(Jr JO() 

hours or more per quarter and 12 hours per quarter for low capacity units that operate less 

than 300 hours per quarter. In addition, all units are subject to a daily cap of ~.1 hours 

within which there arc limits on the permissible level of opacity. The daily limits were 

established based on air lJUality modeling to ensure protection of ambient air lJUality 

standards for particulate matter. 

The Con~ent Decree~. In developing the proposed amendments. the Department 

~onsidcrcd recent impro\'cd compliam:c \\ ith existing opacity standards by the State's 

~.:nal-tircd power plants achic\'cd as a result of equipment upgrJdes and improved 

npcratinnal practices required by the terms of three Consent Decrees with \firant and 

C\mstcllation rcsoh ing ent(m:cmcnt actions fnr npacity \'iolations. Tht! ohligations nf the 

C\111scnt Decrees remain in r.:fti.:ct and hoth \lirant and ConstdiJtinn remain suhjccttn the 

existing opacity regulations. 

.., 

-

.. . ~ 
.,. . . 

a quarter. this is stilll~ss than I 0'!1o \lf the unit's quarterly operating time and mmc 

rc .. ari~tiv..: th.m th~ existing regulations. 

For low capadty units that npcrah! less than I JO hours Juring a quan..:r, the 12 hour 

limitation is ncc..:ssary. Low capacity units .ue called unto operate Juring times of peak 

demand and only for short periods \\hen :1Jditiunal po\\t.:r is needed. Because low 

capacity units as a rule startup and shut Jown much more frequently than base load units, 

they operate in startup and shut down mode for a much larger proportion of the total 

I.JUartcrly operating time. As discussed above, opacity is generally much more difficult to 

control during startup, shutdown and load changing events. Other states allow 

exemptions from opacity standards during startup and shutdown for this reason, e.g., 

North Carolina, Virginia and Alabama. Maryland has declined to exclude emissions 

during startup and shutdown from the compliance demonstration, instead electing to 

allow a slightly higher overall exceedance percentage for low capacity units. 

The proposed amendments also limit the level of opacity during permitted exccedances. 

During startup and shutdown most opacity levels fall between I 0 and 20%, with 

occasional spikes between 40% and 70% and even fewer spikes above 70% opacity. The 

proposed amendments limit the duration of opacity at these higher levels as an alternative 

to exempting startup and shutdown emissions from the standard altogether. This approach 

will result in lower particulate matter emissions. These changes were modeled to ensure 

that the proposed amendments will not result in exccedances of ambient air quality 

standards tor particulate matter. 

Comment #2: "Other base-load plants could now blow their opacity limit.'! up to .J 

lwur.'l a day. Currelft law limits any exceedunces to 2 hour.'l and 2-1 minutes. " 

Re!lponse: In developing the proposed amendments, the Department performed various 

air 4uality mudding analyses that support a tiered approach to opacity standards and 

ensure compliance with daily air quality standards. The daily exceedance limit is 

intended to ensure maintenance of the daily PM coarse standard. While it is true that the 

proposed amendments allow a longer period of daily cxccedancc, air quality modeling 

d~monstratcs that this longer period of cxcccdance will nut cause or contribute to 

..:xc~cdanccs of the ambient air quality standard . .\-forcovcr. as explained below. the 

I.Jllartcrly limitation actually operates to signiticantly reduce from existing requirements, 

the total number of days and hours that a unit can exceed the standards. 

l'ndcr the cxisting n:gulatinns, all plants arc allowed the same daily total ~A hour 

CXI!mptiun t(lr each day 0 r the l) I days in a quarter. \\ hich for hase load plants that 

npcratc continuously. would he approximately 21M hours. Plants with a capadty factor of 

kss than 25n~ op\!rating JOO hours ( 1:!.5 da)·S) could exceed the opacity limit \!\'~ry day 

li.lr J Iota/ nf 30 lwur" in th~ quartcr. 

lly cnmparisun. under the proposed am\!nJmcnts, all pl.mts .trc suhj\!ct tn the same -l.l 

hour Jaily limit. ,\base lthtJ plant that exceeded 1hc daily limitlilr -l.l hours ~i.u:h day 

\\ould reach the 2n-o quarterly limit in II days alkr -lJ hours uf cxccedancc. Plants , .. ith .1 
Why ill ;\II>E rctauc.sting adoption uf this regulation ~•s ~In emergency actiun'! 

l"h~ Dl!partinl!nt n:I.Jlh!St~J ~:mcrgcncy action so thl! n~gulati,ms wouiJ be dti.!ctin: •ll the 

neg inning of the tirst I.Jlli.lrtcr of ~0 to for three reasons. First, the proposed .tmcnJrncnts 

arc more stringent than the curnmt regulations. Emergency actiun wouiJ implement the 

new regulations on thl! earliest possible timcframe. 

Sl!cond, compliance with both the current and pmposed upacity regulations is 

Jcmonstrah:d on a I.JUarterly basis. l'he opacity continuous emission monitors utilile 

sotiware devdopcd to prodUI.::e a quarterly cmissions report consistent with the reporting 

r~I.Juircments of the regulations. fransitioning to new regulatory re4uiremcnts in midI.JUartcr would unneccssarily complicate compliance determinations for that quarter. 

Finally, the operation of tlue gas desulfurization S02 controls required by the l lcalthy Air 

Act produces a water vapor plume that is known to i.ntcrfcre \\,.ilh the ability of 

continuous opacity monitors to accurately measure opacity. Even though a water vapor 

plume adds no particulate emissions, the opacity monitor records elevated opacity 

readings. The proposed amendments address this problem by allowing a source to 

measure particulate matter emissions directly on a continuous basis in lieu of operating 

continuous opacity monitors, provided certain conditions are satisfied. 

Response to Specific Comments 

The following responses to the three specitic questions you raise are provided below. 

Comment #1 : "Plants tlwt operate less than a quarter o.ltlre time-- C.P. Crane, Chalk 

L'nits 1 and .J, llA. Wugner and R . Paul Smith could vialtlle their opacity limits "as much 

as J(J pttrc.:ent or more ofoperuting time. Theil is a .\·ignifkantly higher le\.'t!l lifl'iolutian.v 

them we f.lpical/y we at tlle.'it! plt~nts tadCiy. " 

l{esponse: This is not correct. First, \\o'e note that C. P. Crane is a base load phmt, and as 

such, is subject to the 2% limitation. 

Second, the proposed amendments are, overall, more stringent than the ~xisting 

r~gulations for units that are not base load plants. l'he current regulations allow power 

plants to ~ccl!d the opacity standard up to 10% uf their I.JUUrterly operating time and the 

1'~1 allows additional cxcccdances he yond the I 0% of bemccn 5% anJ IO"la. 

In contrast. the proposed Jmcndmcnts limit permitted I.JUartcrly c:<cccdanccs Jt lnw 

capacity plants that npcratl! 300 huur"l nr nwrc during ,l ')Uartcr to a maximum nf .:!0 

hours. !'his is e4uh alent to 6'!

1

1) of the unit's uperaling time •md much more n:stricti \ e 

than the ~: xisting rcgulatiuns. 

l.uw ~.:;~padty pl:..ints that 0pcrah! less than JUO hours a l{Ui.lrtcr arc allU\wJ .1 111<1.'< imum uf 

12 hours uf ~:x~.:ccJanccs in the quarter. For units that operate hcl\\ecn 130 anJ 300 hour~ 

3 
> • # • 

~ap>t~:ity fa~tor less than 25% upcrating JOO hours would r~ach the quarterly ''padty limit 

in 5 Jays a tier .20 hours of cxcccdance. rhus, even \\ ith a daily allo\\ance of .J.I hours, 

the proposed amcmlmcnts allow signilkantly li.!wcr days and hours of cxcccJanccs than 

do the existing regulations. 

Comment l#l: ··on a quarterly and amw,tl htt:•i.v. ''ioltttions ,,r hct 'l~~lottd plttllls \rcmM 

he limited to 2% ofoperuting time. But big plants rarely e:cc:eed thutlewltode~y. Also, 

the new rul~s wuulcllimit l'iolatimrs I(} no more than one per day, wlrereus c:rtrrmt rules 

mttke the indu.l·try liable for em:h six minute \'iolation. In other words, lt!t's say you 

l!.n·eeded the more generous new l'landards, by operctting with si.t hours afopadty 

\'iolt~tions in a l'ingle day ul a base-loud plant. instetld oft he ulrectdy generous four hours 

tire new rule allowed Under the old "·ulc:ultttions. tile plant would be liable for twmty 

violutions (1 hours divided by the six minute .\·tandurds = 20 violcllions). Under tire new 

rule, you'd only be liub/e jor one. " 

Response: lt is correct that most, but not all, plants rarely exceed the 2% level today. 

This is due in large part, however, to the recent equipment upgrades and improved 

operating practices required by the Consent Decrees. 

With regard to the number of potential violations, under the proposed amendments it is 

possible for a plant to have multiple violations on a single day. Depending on the 

specific circwnstances of noncompliance, a unit could be cited for up to six violations a 

day. See CO MAR 26.11.09.058(2). Violations of daily and quarterly limits are separate 

violations. Moreover, every successive day of a quarter in which a unit operates in 

violation of a quarterly limitation is a separate violation. 

5