# OAR Box 1115 Prepped byRyan Dugan



### Document

Number: 

# 76 ) ll-A- 8 Docket Number: 

# A-84-2 2

Printed 4/18/200810:52:08AM _______________________________________^____^__

_

Sheet 76 of 94 p. 1

# i r P. 2



## EPA-450/2-74-023 NOVEMBE

R197 4 

# EP A RESPONSE TO REMAN D ORDERED B

Y U.S . COUR

T O F APPEAL S FORTH E DISTRIC T O

F COLUMBI

A I NPORTLAN

D CEMEN

T ASSOCIATIONV. RUCKELSHAUS (48 6 F . 2 d 375 , JUN

E 29 , 1973 )

^ PRO^ °



## U.S . ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTIO N AGENC Y Offic eo f

Ai rantl Wast eManagemen t Offic eo f

Ai rQualit yPlannin gan d Standard s Researc h Triangl ePark , Nort h Carolin a2771 1P. 3



## EPA-450/2-74-02 3



# EPA RESPONS E T O REMAND ORDERE D B Y U.S . COURT OF APPEAL S FORTHE DISTRIC T OF COLUMBI A INPORTLAN D CEMENT ASSOCIATIO NV . RUCKELSHAU S (48 6 F . 2 d 375 , JUNE 29 , 1973 )

Emissio nStandard s and Engineerin g Divisio n

U.S . ENVIRONMENTA L PROTECTIO NAGENC Y Offic e o f Ai r and Wast e Managemen t Offic e o f Ai r Qualit yPlannin g and Standard s Researc hTriangl e Park , Nort hCarolin a 2771 1

Novembe r 197 4P. 4

Thi s repor t

i s issue db y th eEnvironmenta lProtectio nAgenc y t o repor t technica ldat aof

interes t t o alimite dnumbe r

of readers . Copie s ar e availabl efre eof

charg et o Federa lemployees , curren t contractor s an d grantees , an dnonprofi t organization s -a s supplie s permi t - fro mth e Ai r Pollutio nTechnica lInformatio nCenter , Environmenta lProtectio n Agency , Researc hTriangl ePark , Nort hCarolin a27711 ; o r fo r afee , fro mth eNationa lTechnica lInformatio nService , 528 5 Por t Roya lRoad , Springfield , Virgini a22161 .



# mm

Publicatio nNo . EPA-450/2-74-02 3

i iP. 5

EP ARespons e t o Remand Ordere d b y U . S . Cour t o f Appeal s fo r th e Distric t o f Columbi a i nPortlan d Cemen t Associatio n v . Ruckelshau s (48 6 F.2 d 375 , Jun e 29 , 1973 )

O nJun e 29 , 1973 , th e U . S . Cour t o f Appeal s fo r th e Distric t o f Columbi a remande d t o EP Ath e ne wsourc e performanc e standard s fo r Portlan d cemen t plant s (4 0 C.F.R . 60.6 0 e t seq. ) promulgate d b yEP A unde r §11 1 o f th e Clea nAi r Act . EP Aha s reviewe d it s standard s fo r thes e plant s pursuan t t o th e reman d and ha s conclude d tha t th e standard s othe r tha nth e opacit ystandar d shoul d no t b e revised . Th e base s fo r thes e standard s ar e se t fort hi nful l below . Thi s descriptio no f th e base s fo r th e standard s respond s t o concern s expresse d b

yth e Cour t i nit s opinio nexplainin g th e base s fo r th e remand . I norde r t o assur e tha t al l o f th e Court' s concern s ar e addressed , Appendi xI i s provide d whic hlist s th e question s raise d byth e Cour t and EPA' s response s t o thes e questions . ••.-•sia->» f

11 1•wT i P. 6

EPAsough t and receive d corrment s fro mth e publi c and th e affecte d industr yi ndevelopin g th e challenge d standard s prio r t o proposa l an d durin g th e proposa l perio d prio r t o promulgation . Criticism s o f thes e standard s wer e agai n raise d b ypetitioner s and intervenor s i nconnectio nwit h th e lega l challeng e t o thes e standard s and wer e als o carefull y reviewed . EPAhas , o f course , carefull yconsidere d th e comment s a s wel l a s th e orde r o f th e U.S . Cour t o f Appeal s fo r th e Distric t o f Columbi a Circui t i nrespondin g t o thi s remand . However , t o furthe r insur e tha t th e affecte d industrie s ha d a nopportunit yt o commen t o nEPA' s respons e t o th e reman d and t o insur e tha t a reviewin g cour t woul d hav e th e benefi t o f EPA' s respons e t o suc hcomments , a propose d reman d respons e wa s submitte d fo r commen t t o th e petitione r and intervenor s i nthi s case . A t th e reques t o f Appalachia nPowe r Co . and Esse xChemica l Corporation , petitioner s i nanothe r cas e i nwhic hne wsourc e performanc e standard s wer e remanded , Esse xChemica l Corp . v . EP Aand Appalachia nPowe r Co . v . EPA , 48 6 F.2 d 42 7 (C.A.D.C . 1973) , copie s o f th e reman d respons e wer e als o submitte d t o thes e companie s fo r comment . Th e remande d issue s i nth e latte r decisio ninclude d a nissu e raise d i nthi s case , i.e . reliabilit y o f opacit yreadings , an d EP Abelieve d i t appropriat e t o obtai n

i v 

## $£!£ $P. 7

th e comment s o f thes e companie s wit hrespec t t o thi s issue . Comment s wer e receive d fro mbot hcompanies . Th e comment s receive d wer e carefull yreviewe d and hav e persuade d th e agenc ytha t n o revisio nshoul d b e mad e t o th e standard s othe r tha nth e opacit ystandard . Becaus e i t wa s no t foun d necessar yo r desirabl e t o revis e th e standard s i n anyothe r respec t a s a resul t o f th e comment s received , th e propose d respons e a s submitte d t o petitioner s i s se t fort h a s a fina l response . (Mino r correction s hav e bee nmad e t o th e tex t o f th e respons e o npage s 8 , 26 , an d 39. ) Th e comment s receive d wit hrespec t t o issue s othe r tha nopacit yand EPA' s respons e t o thes e comment s ar e se t fort hi nAppendi xII . Becaus e substantia l revision s wer e deeme d necessar yt o EPA' s draf t reman d respons e o nth e issu e o f opacity , EPA' s discussio no f opacit yand justificatio nfo r th e revise d opacit ystandar d ar e se t fort hi nful l i nAppendi xII I o f thi s response . Copie s o f document s reference d herei nar e availabl e fro m Emissio nStandard s and Engineerin g Division , Environmenta l Protectio nAgency , Researc hTriangl e Park , Nort hCarolin a 27711 , Attention : Mr . Do nR . Goodwin .

Dat e / /yActin o Administrato r -_iJi«' ;: :<v.^. 'P. 8

CONTENT S Sectio n Pag e HISTOR YO F CONTRO L TECHNIQUE S 1 COMPARISO NO F WE T PROCES S AN D DR YPROCES S EMISSIO NCONTROL S 4 TESTIN G7 CONTRO L EQUIPMEN T VENDO RSTATEMENT S 1 5 OPACIT YSTANDAR D 1 6 COST S 2 9 ADVERS E ENVIRONMENTA L IMPACT S 3 0 SUMMAR Y3 4 APPENDICE S I . EP ARESPONSE S T O SPECIFI C ISSUE S RAISE D BYTH E COUR T 3 7 REFERENCE S FO RBOD YO F RESPONS E AN D APPENDI XI 5 9 II . EPARESPONS E T O PETITIONERS ' COMMENT S REGARDINGEPA RESPONS E T O REMAN D 6 1 REFERENCE S FO RAPPENDI XI I . 8 2 III . PORTLAN D CEMEN T REMAND RESPONSE . 8 3 PAR T A : OPACIT YSTANDAR D 8 5 REFERENCE S FO RAPPENDI XIII , PAR T A12 4 PAR T B : PREAMBL E AN D AMENDMENT S T O REGULATION S 12 7 TECHNICA L REPOR T DATASHEE T 15 2 \%iW&



### vnP. 9

HISTOR Y O F CONTRO L TECHNIQUE S Prio r t o Decembe r 1 9 7 0 whe n th e Clea n Ai r Ac t wa s amended , EP Aan d it s predecesso r agencie s ha d acquire d extensiv e knowledg e o f portlan d cemen t operations . A stud yo f th e industr yha d bee n mad e b yth e U . S . Depart men t o f Health , Education , an d Welfar e an d i n 1 9 6 7 a re por t wa s publishe d entitled , "Atmospheri c Emission s fro m th e Manufactur e o f Portlan d Cement" , PH S Publicatio n No .



## 1 / 999-AP-17 . Engineer s fro mEPA' s predecesso r agencie s ha d inspecte d numerou s plant s an d discusse d contro l technolog y wit hvendor s an d knowledgeabl e individual s withi n th e cemen t industr yan d ha d provide d technica l assistanc e t o Stat e an d loca l ai r pollutio n contro l agencie s regardin g ai r pollutio n problem s associate d wit hcemen t plants . Furthe r informatio n regardin g cemen t plant s wa s develope d b yEP Aengineer s fo r publication s concernin g cemen t plan t cont-ro l technology , e.g. , AP-51 , "Contro l Technique s fo r 

## V Particulat e Ai r Pollutants" , 1969 . I n addition , a repor t date d Septembe r 30 , 1970 , relatin g t o th e establishmen t o f nationa l emissio n standard s fo r portlan d cemen t manufacturin g plant s ha d bee n prepare d unde r contrac t b yth e Researc h 3 / Triangl e Institut e an d Pedco-Environmental , Incorporated. - Thes e reference s wer e use d t o obtai n genera l knowledg e o f cemen t plan t operation , contro l an d natur e an d quantit y 

### 1 •jix_s:Viri.*:iS >""w i -ip pi n..j***!-pi ! P.1 0



### o f emissions . The ywer e als o use d fo r thei r enumeratio n o f cemen t plant s i n th e Unite d States . I t wa s recognize d tha t a t portland cemen t plants , ther e ar e severa l source s o f dust,

- v/it hsome mor e difficul t an d mor e costl yt o contro l tha n others . Kiln s wer e recognize d a s th e mos t difficul t an d costl yt o control . Exhaus t gase s fromkiln s ar e hot , contai n heav yconcentra tion s o f veryfin e dust , an d ofte n larg e fraction s o f wate r vapor . Clinke r cooler s whic har e used-t o coo l th e produc t fromthe kil n wer e considere d easie r t o contro l becaus e theycontai n mor e coars e particulate s an d les s moisture . Othe r equipmen t i n cemen t plant s wa s generall yoperate d a t X^-* : 

### ambien t temperature , an d therefor e easie r t o control . Fo r instance , grinder s and conveyor s ofte n produce d heav ycon centration s o f veryfin e particulates , bu t sinc e thi s dus t i s handle d a t roo mtemperature , i t ca n b e collecte d i n fabri c filter s o r baghouse s whic hth e cemen t industryacknow

ledge d t o b e extremel yeffectiv e i n controllin g dust . Fo r thos e source s operate d a t ambien t temperature , ther e ha s neve r bee n a n argumen t wit hth e cemen t industry a s t o ho wtheyshoul d b e controlled . Th e industryacknow

ledge d tha t baghouse s wer e th e mos t effectiv e device s an d sinc e theycollecte d a large r fractio n o f thei r product — cement—tha n an

yothe r availabl e device , th e industryP.1 1



### readil yuse d suc hdevices . I n th e cas e o f clinke r coolers , manycemen t plant s ha d use d onl ycentrifuga l collector s t o remov e th e coars e particulat e fromexhaus t gases . However , i n 1970 , i t wa s observe d tha t severa l plant s wer e installin g mor e effectiv e devices , usuall yelectrostati c precipitator s o r baghouses . EP Aobservation s indicate d tha t bot helectro

stati c precipitators.an d baghouse s appeare d t o b e effectiv e i n controllin g particulat e emissions . I n th e cas e o f cemen t kilns , b y197 0 industryha d generall ysupplemente d centrifugal , collector s wit helectro

stati c precipitator s o r baghouses . (Centrifuga l collector s '$01$% ar e no t capabl e o f collectin g th e veryfin e particulate s tha t ar e release d from th e kiln s an

d woul d no t therefor e b e acceptabl e i n mos t communitie s i n th e Unite d States. ) Ther e ar e man

ymor e kiln s i n th e Unite d State s equippe d wit hprecipitator s tha n wit hbaghouse s bu t baghouse s hav e bee n applie d t o bot hwe t an d dryproces s kilns . Precipitator s ca n b e designe d t o achiev e extremel yhig hefficiencie s bu t th e highe r th e efficienc yth e mor e costl yth e unit . Becaus e precipitator s ca n b e purchase d whic hwil l operat e ove r a rang e o f efficiencies , plan t operator s tha t wishe d t o contro l emission s bu t no t necessaril yt o th e hig h efficienc ytha t baghouse s achiev e generall yselecte d lowe r efficiency , an

d thu s lowe r cost , precipitators , A s publi cP.1 2



### pressur e an

d loca l regulation s .caused plan t operator s t o instal l highe r efficienc yequipment , mor e plan t operator s chos e t o instal l baghouses . Th e bes t controlle d kiln s observe d an

d -teste

d b yEPAwer e controlle d b ybaghouses . Late r dat a v/hic

hv/il l b e discusse d belo wshov/ tha t precipitato r controlle d plant s ca n als o mee t th e standards .

COMPARISONOF WE T PROCES S AND DRY PROCES S EMISSIONCONTROL S Bot hprecipitator s an d baghouse s ar e use d o n we t proces s a s wel l a s dryproces s kilns . Th e onl ydifferenc e betwee n controllin g emission s fromth e tw o processe s i s tha t the gase s fromthe v/e

t proces s kil n contai n 25-4 0 percen t moistur e b yvolum e wherea s thos e froma dryproces s kil n contai n les s tha n 5 percen t moisture . A t on e time , plan t operator s feare d tha t thi s additiona l moistur e v/ould clo g bag s an d caus e shutdowns . I t wa s als o feare d tha t baghouse s coul d no t b e use d o n we t proces s plant s i n col d climate s becaus e o f con densation . Thi s apprehensio n i s wh yther e ar e fewe r bag

house s o n we t proces s plant s tha n o n dryproces s plants . However , a t actua l installation s thes e problem s hav e bee n resolve d b

yinsulatin g an

d i f necessar yheatin g the exhaus t emission s t o kee p th e moistur e fromcondensing . Ther e ar e presentl ywe t proces s plant s wit hbaghouse s operatin g successfull yi n suc hcol d an d mois t climate s a s Thomaston , %§&0i®P.1 3



### Main e (Dragon Cemen t Company) , Lak e Oswego , Orego n (Oregon Portland Cemen t Company) , an d Northampton , Pennsylvani a (Universa l Atla s Company) . The existenc e o f th e greate r moistur e conten t in-v/e t proces s gase s mean s tha t a greate r volum e o f emission s mus t b e controlle d a t suc hplants . Thus , controllin g emis

sion s fromwe t proces s kiln s wil l cos t more , bot hfo r heat

ing an d insulatio n a s wel l a s treatin g th e additiona l volum e o f gases , tha n wil l controllin g emission s fromdry proces s plants . Th e cos t o f insulatin g a we t proces s bag

hous e o r precipitato r woul d depend o n th e externa l tempera tur e range . Nevertheless , th e differentia l cos t o f insulatin g P^i p a we t a s oppose d t o a dryproces s plan t i s no t significan t compare d t o othe r dus t contro l costs . Th e greate r volum e o f ga s from a we t proces s plan t re quire s an equivalen t increas e i n baghous e o r precipitato r size . Fo r a 10,00 0 bb l pe r dayplant , th e cos t o f a we t proces s baghous e woul d b e approximatel y$890,00 0 a s oppose d t o approximatel y$730,00 0 fo r a dryproces s baghouse . Corre

sponding cost s fo r a n electrostati c precipitato r ar e esti

mate d a s $750,00 0 and $650,00 0 fo r we t an d dryproces s plants, 

### 4 / respectively. - 

### However , thes e additiona l cost s fo r a v/e t proces s plan t ar e largel yoffse t b yth e fac t tha t a we t proces s plan t doe s no t nee d t o contro l -.aissions fromth e grindin gP.1 4 " 1



### proces s befor e the rawmateria l i s pu t i n th e kilns . Thi s emissio n contro l equipmen t fo r a 10,00 0 bb l a daydryproces s 4 / plan t cost s approximatel y$90,00 0 , Achievin g th e same mas s particulat e limi t pe r to n o f cemen t produce d i s mor e difficul t fo r a v/e t proces s plan t tha n a dr

yproces s plan t becaus e o f th e greate r volum e o f emission s an

d becaus e o f inheren t limitation s o f dus t collectors , Baghouse s an d precipitator s ca n onl yreduc e concentration s o f particulate s o f ga s emission s dow n t o certai n levels . Sinc e we t proces s kiln s emi t greate r volume s o f ga s tha n dryproces s kiln s o f equivalen t size , a give n concentratio n o f particulate s emitte d wil l resul t i n a greate r tota l amoun t o f particulate s bein g emitte d froma we t proces s kil n pe r uni t o f cemen t produced . Fo r example , i f a baghous e o r precipitato r ca n reduc e concentration s o f particulate s down t o a certai n numbe r o f grain s pe r actua l cubi c foo t o f ga s emitted , th e tota l emis

sion s o f particulate s froma we t proces s plan t pe r uni t o f cemen t produce d wil l b e 25-4 0 percen t highe r tha n th e tota l emission s o f particulate s from a dryproces s plan t becaus e o f th e 25-4 0 percen t greate r volum e o f gase s whic hwe t proces s plant s emit . Thus , th e highes t leve l o f particulat e control , expresse d i n pound s pe r to n o f dryfeed , whic ha we t proces s plan t ca n achiev e woul d resul t i n abou t 25-4 0 percen t mor e emission s tha n tha t froma dr yproces s plant . A s wil l b e discusse d later , EP Atoo k thi s int o accoun t i n settin g th e standard . 6 :t:Wti&m.P.1 5



### TESTIN G Whil e EP Awa s knowledgeabl e i n 1 9 7 0 regardin g applica

bl e contro l device s fo r cemen t plants , theypossesse d very littl e sourc e tes t informatio n wit hregar d t o th e emissio n o f particulate s fromcemen t plants . Mos t o f th e tes t dat a ha d bee n collecte d usin g the America n Societ yo f Mechanica l Engineer s (ASME ) Powe r Tes t Code' . Thi s i s considerabl yles s specifi c an

d a s a resul t differen t fromth e EPAparticulat e sampling metho d v/hic hhad bee n utilize d t o a large ' degre e wit hincinerator s an d combustio n sources . I t wa s recog nize d tha t an appreciabl e effor t woul d b e require d t o surve y an d selec t plant s demonstratin g bes t contro l technology an d t o evaluat e th e emission s fromthes e source s usin g th e EP Aparticulat e samplin g method . Earl yi n 1971 , EP Aengineer s contacte d th e Portland Cemen t Association , th e Burea u o f Mines , an d knowledgeabl e vendor s o f ai r pollutio n contro l equipment . Theyprocure d pertinen t informatio n regardin g wha t appeare d t o b e th e bette r controlle d plant s an d arrange d inspectio n tour s t o evaluat e the apparen t efficienc yo f th e ai r pollutio n contro l equipmen t a t variou s plants . Durin g thes e inspections , EP A engineer s observe d tha t thos e plants—bot hdryan d we t process—equippe d wit hbaghouse s appeare d t o operat e wit h les s particulat e emission s tha n di d thos e plant s a t whic h a~? Th e ASM E cod e i s broadl ydefine d suc htha t i t cover s severa l technique s includin g eve n th e EP Ametho d wit han d withou t impingers . However , mos t ASM E test s hav e bee n conducte d wit ha differen t filte r an d unde r differen t condition s than EP AMetho d 5 suc htha t result s ar e no t normall ycomparabl e t o the EP Amethod .P.1 6\

th e kilns wer e equippe dwit hprecipitators . Nevertheless , some precipitator-equippe dkiln s als o exhibite dwha t appeare dt o be goodcontro l o f particulates . The basi s fo r th e initia l judgmen t o f th e effectivenes s o f contro l wa s th e amoun t o f visibl e emission s emanatin gfro

m stack s andleak s inductwork , etc. , a s wel l a s observatio no f the quantit y o f dus t deposite donsurface s o f roofs , floors , equipment , etc. , withi nth e plant . Fou r plant s wer e inspecte d wher e kiln s equippe dwit hbaghouse s hadminimu m dus t emission s an

d appeare dt o be operate dinanextremel y clea nmanner . Thes e fou r plant s wer e operate db y Idea l Cemen t a t Tijeras , Ne w Mexico ; Drago n Cemen t a t Northampton , Pennsylvania ; Orego nPortlandCemen t a t Lak e Oswego , Oregon ; andCop!ay Cemen t Company

a t Nazareth , Pennsylvania . Ther e wer e fou r plant s wher e kiln s equippe dwit hprecipitator s als o appeare dt o be wel l operate dan dwit hminimu

m dus t emissions . Thes e kiln s wer e a t plant s operate db y th e Idea l Cemen t Company inSeattle , Washington ; th e Maul e Industrie s plan t a t Hialeah , Florida ; th e Lon e Sta r Cemen t plan t a t Greencastie , Indiana ; andth e Idea l Cemen t plan t a t Castl e Hayne , Nort hCarolina . Cemen t plant s equippe dwit hbot h type s o f contro l device s wer e observe dwhic hexhibite dheav y concentration s o f dus t inandaroundth e building s andinth e gase s bein gdischarge d fro m stack s servingth e kilns . Th e latte r instance s appeare dt o b e th e resul t o f inadequat e maintenanc e and/o r dus t collectio nequipmen t deficiencies . •?*$&£-»•? $P.1 7



### A s a resul t o f plan t visits , EP Aselecte d plant s fo r it s testin g programo f kilns , clinke r coolers , an d finis hmills . Fiv e kil n installation s wer e teste d a s wel l a s thre e clinke r coolers , on e rawmill , an d thre e finis hmills . Thes e include d a we t proces s kil n wit ha baghous e a t Harleyville , Sout h Carolin a whic happeare d t bb e s o poorl ymaintaine d tha t result s woul d b e questionsable . Nevertheless , wit hth e tim e constraint s i n th e Clea n Ai r Act , it . wa s deeme d necessar y t o tes t thes e installation s t o gathe r informatio n fo r set ting ou r standards . I t i s emphasize d tha t th e selectio n o f tes t site s wa s a compromis e betwee n wha t appeare d t o b e bes t availabl e contro l an d th e abilit yt o conduc t representativ e sourc e tests . Fou r plant s ha d t o b e discounte d becaus e th e kil n contro l device s wer e no t constructe d i n a manne r tha t woul d allo wthemt o b e tested . Thes e wer e th e Idea l Cemen t Compan yi n Tijeras , Ne wMexico ; th e Universa l Atla s plan t i n Northhampton , Pennsylvania ; th e Lon e Sta r Cemen t Compan yi n Greencastie , Indiana ; an d th e CoplayCemen t Compan yi n Nazareth , Pennsylvania . Thes e include d ope n discharg e baghouse s and precipitator s i n whic hth e configuratio n o f th e ductwor k mad e testin g impossible . Th e kiln s tha t wer e teste d befor e proposa l wer e operate d b yDrago n Cemen t Compan yi n Northampton , Pennsylvani a (dr

yproces s wit hbaghouse , Emissio n Testin g Repor t

5 / ET B Tes t Numbe r 71-MM-05) ; b yIdea l Cemen t Compan yi n Seattle , Washingto n (we t proces s wit hprecipitator , ET B Tes t Numbe r 71-MM-03) ; b yMaul e Industrie s i n Hialeah , Florid a 

## JJ (we t proces s wit hprecipitator , ET B Tes t Numbe r 71-MM-01) ; 0M$!$$iP.1 8 

### 1

an d by'Gian t Portlan d Cemen t i n Harleyville , Sout hCarolin a 8 / (we t proces s wit hbaghouse , ET B Tes t Numbe r 71-MM-07) T Th e tes t dat a .obtaine d fro mthes e kiln.*". , includ e th e amoun t o f particulate s collecte d i n bot hth e fron t hal f an d th e bac k hal f o f th e EP Asamplin g train . A t th e tim e EP A propose d thes e standards , i t wa s anticipated

- tha t complianc e wit hth e standard s woul d b e determine d b ymeasurin g particu

late s capture d i n th e tota l trai n (fron t hal f plu s th e bac k hal f o f th e samplin g train) . Howeyer , th e standar d a s pro mulgate d require s tha t complianc e b e determine d b ymeasurin g onl yth e particulate s collecte d i n th e fron t hal f o f th e train . Thi s chang e i n samplin g technique s require d fo r complianc e i n n o wa ybring s th e tes t dat a int o questio n sinc e EP Aobtaine d dat a o n th e catc hi n th e fron t hal f o f th e train , Th e onl yeffec t o f th e chang e i s tha t bac k hal f tes t result s ar e n o longe r use d fo r complianc e purposes . Al l particulat e emissio n dat a referre d t o i n thi s Notic e refer s t o th e fron t hal f catc hunles s otherwis e noted . Th e tes t result s fo r th e fou r plant s showe d th e follow

in g averages :

Drago n Cemen t Compan y0,0 7 lbs/to n Idea l Cemen t Compan y0,8 8 lbs/to n *M?W;- S



### 1 0P.1 9

Maul e Industrie s 1.1 5 lbs/to n Gian t Portlan d Cemen t 0.5 2 lbs/to n A s thes e result s show , th e Drago n Cemen t dr yproces s kil n equippe d wit ha baghous e wa s operatin g wel l belo wth e

__ / standar d bu t non e o f th e othe r thre e plants , al l o f whic h wer e we t proces s operations , me t th e eventua l limi t o f . 3 poun d o f particulat e pe r to n o f feed . However , th e contro l device s o n thes e plant s di d no t appea r t o b e operatin g a t optimu meffectivenes s durin g th e tes t period . Fo r example , th e baghous e a t th e Gian t Portlan d Cemen t Compan yplan t i n Harleyville , Sout hCarolin a v/a s actuall ya 24-compartmen t uni t wit h1 2 separat e stacks . EP Ateste d eac ho f th e 1 2 stack s an d average d th e results' . P.esult s showe d emission s ^".KS

wel l i n exces s o f th e propose d standard ; however , visibl e emission s fro msom e stack s looke d bette r tha n other s indicatin g tha t th e bag s i n som e o f th e compartment s wer e i n bette r condi

tio n tha n i n others . Ther e wa s considerabl e evidenc e o f poo r maintenanc e i n tha t dus t wa s observe d o n th e roo f o f th e baghous e an d o n othe r horizonta l surface s i n proximit yt o th e baghous e discharges . Takin g int o accoun t tha t th e onl ydifferenc e betwee n th e emission s o f we t an d dr yproces s plant s i s th e highe r moistur e conten t o f th e we t proces s emissions , EP Aestimate d

Lw 7 Subsequen t t o th e EP Atests , th e plan t operator s conducte d compariso n test s usin g a somewha t differen t tes t procedure . Result s wer e similar , averagin g 7 percen t lov/er tha n EP A measurements . Th e company , Marti n Mariett a Cement , ha s state d tha t the ybeliev e th e tw o tes t procedure s giv e th e sam e re suit s an d requeste d tha t EP Acertif yit s particulat e tes t met. , equivalen t t o Metho d 5 . N o actio n wa s take n o n th e reques t becaus e EP Aha d no t establishe d guideline s fo r determinin g equivalenc yan d fel t tha t mor e comparativ e testin g wa s neede d befor e th e metho d coul d b e deeme d equivalent . 11

### fromthe dryproces s tes t tha t we t proces s plant s coul d achiev e th e standar d b ya reasonabl e margin . Th e Drago n tes t showe d tha t particulat e concentration s i n gase s coul d b e controlle d t o approximatel y.0 0 5 grain s pe r actua l cubi c foo t o f ai r emitted . I f th e volum e o f ai r emitte d froma we t proces s kil n wer e 40 % greate r pe r to n o f fee d du e t o greate r moistur e content , th e same concentration , .00 5 grain s pe r actua l cubi c foo t o f ai r emitted , woul d resul t i n 40 % mor e pound s o f particulat e pe r to n o f fee d or , base d o n the Drago n test , woul d b e abou t 0. 1 pound s pe r to n o f feed . Thi s woul d b e wel l belo wth e standard . Althoug hi t wa s EPA' s judgmen t base d o n thi s estimat e an d statement s o f contro l equipmen t vendor s tha t we t a s wel l a s dryproces s plant s coul d b e controlle d t o mee t th e standards , EP Adecide d t o conduc t anothe r tes t o n a v/e t proces s plant . Awe t proces s kil n equippe d wit ha baghous e a t th e Orego n Portland Cemen t installatio n a t Lak e Oswego , 

## 2 / Oregon , wa s selecte d an d a tes t wa s run i n Augus t o f 1 9 7 1 shortl yafte r th e standard s wer e proposed . Durin g th e test , i t wa s observe d tha t ther e wer e visibl e emission s from th e stac k a t somewha t greate r opacitie s tha n ha d bee n observe d durin g the initia l inspection . Th e proces s wa s upse t durin g testing an

d EP Aengineer s believ e tha t bag s wer e broken . Subse

quen t evaluatio n o f th e dat a shov/e d tha t emission s wer e con siderabl ygreate r tha n emission s from 1 2P.2 1



### th e Drago n Cemen t 'Company—averagin g .6 0 pound pe r to n o f feed . Discussion s v/er e hel d wit hcompan ypersonne l an

d i t wa s agree d tha t effort s woul d b e mad e t o repai r th e syste m suc htha t i t woul d operat e i n a mor e representativ e manner . Suc hrepair s wer e mad e althoughi t mus t b e emphasize d tha t th e repair s v/er

e stil l no t o f th e typ e tha t woul d b e con sidere d goo d operatin g an d maintenanc e practice . I n mos t instances , the broke n bag s wer e merel yblocke d o r tie d of f i n th e systemsuc htha t theyn o longe r serve d a s filte r media . Th e EPAenginee r supervisin g th e tes t estimate d 1 5 percen t o f th e bag s v/er e tie d of f durin g th e test . Thi s effectivel yremove d som e o f th e fabri c filte r are a fromth e syste man

d mean t tha t th e remainin g bag s wer e require d t o perfor mth e tas k tha t th e entir e baghous e woul d perform unde r wel l maintaine d conditions . Thi s decrease d filte r are a tende d t o caus e greate r wea r o n th e bag s an d coul d hav e resulte d i n greate r particulat e emissions . Nevertheless , test s o n thi s plan t wer e ru n i n Octobe r o f 1971 , whic h showe d averag e emission s o f 0.2 8 lbs/to n (Emissio n Testin g Repor t ET B Tes t Numbe r 71-MM-15) V Thus , a t th e time EP A promulgate d th e standar d bot ha we t an d a dryproces s plan t ha d show

n i n test s tha t theycoul d mee t th e standard . 0$rWk



### 1 3

### Sinc e th e standar d wa s promulgated , summarytes t dat a o n othe r Portland cemen t plan t kiln s hav e bee n obtaine d b y EPAfroma Stat e ai r pollutio n contro l agency . On e tes t wa s conducte d b

ya privat e testing firmcommissione d b yth e plan t operato r an

d th e othe r tes t wa s conducte d b yplan t personnel . Th e dat a ma yb e obtaine d fromEPA . The ysho w th e following : Tes t Dat e Nam e o f Compan yflmissions i n

lbs/to n o f dryfee d 4/18-25/7 2 LehighPortland Cemen t 0.12 5

Company , Unio n Bridge , Md. , dryprocess,electrica l precipitato r jo / £$A0% 7/11-14/7 3 Marquett e Cemen t Manufacturin g 0.08 7

Company , Hagerstown , Md. , dry process,electrica l precipitato r — ' Thus , tv/o additiona l portland cemen t plan t kiln s appea r capabl e o f meetin g th e standard . T o date , therefore , bot h a we t an

d dryproces s plan t usin g a baghous e hav e bee n shown b yEP Atest s t o hav e achieve d th e standar d and dat a submitte d t o a Stat e ai r pollutio n contro l agenc yindicate s tha t tw o additiona l dryproces s plant s usin g precipitator s hav e achieve d th e standard . Th e EP Atest s whic hshowe d emission s abov e th e standar d d o no t shov/ tha t thos e source s coul d no t mee t th e standard . Theyonl yshowe d tha t theywer e no t meetin g i t whe n tested , whethe r du e t o inadequat e maintenance , inadequat e contro l equipment , temporaryupset , o r som e othe r reason . 1 4P.2 3



### CONTRO L EQUIPMENT VENDO R STATEMENT S Contro l equipmen t vendor s hav e state d tha t thei r equipmen t wil l permi t th e attainmen t o f th e standards . Mr . T . A . Brown o f th e Kopper s Compan yi n a lette r t o EP A date d Septembe r 30 , 1 9 71 , sai d tha t h e sawn o proble mmeet ing th e standar d wit helectrostati c precipitators . Wheelabrator-Fry e i n a lette r date d A.pri l 7 , 1972 , sai d i t woul d guarante e Medus a Portland Cemen t Companytha t it s precipitator s an

d baghouse s woul d limi t emission s belov / th e standard . Buel l Environ-tec hi n a lette r date d May10 , 1972 , and Kaise r Engineer s i n a lette r date d Ma y10 , 1972 , sai d thei r precipitator s woul d limi t emission s fromwe t proces s plant s t o th e standard . EP Abelieve s tha t thes e statement s ar e usefu l supple

mentar yevidenc e confirmin g tha t th e standard s ca n b e met . Whil e consideration s o f sel f interes t coul d lea d a contro l equipmen t vendo r t o advocat e a stringen t standard , i t woul d b e contrar yt o th e self-interes t o f suc ha vendo r t o repre*

- sen t tha t hi s equipmen t coul d mee t th e standar d i f i t coul d not . I t woul d b e especiall ycontraryt o the " self-interes t o f th e vendo r t o represen t o r guarante e t o a potentia l purchase r o f hi s equipmen t tha t i t coul d mee t th e standar d sinc e th e vendo r woul d b e liabl e fo r failur e t o satisf yhi s obligations . Furthermore , al l o f thes e vendor s hav e goo d

1 5 ?S\y^TJfe. ; i*f ,m n j wp i i 1 1 P.2 4



### reputation s an

d theywoul d no t hav e achieve d no r coul d theymaintai n thei r reputation s i f theymisrepresente d the capabilit yo f thei r equipment . Becaus e o f thes e factor s an

d becaus e th e vendo r statement s supplemen t th e sourc e test s rathe r tha n serv e a s a sol e basi s fo r th e standard , EP Abelieve s tha t th e expenditur e o f time and resource s neede d t o independentl yverif yth e vendors ' statement s i s no t warranted . On e o f th e factor s whic hsevera l o f th e vendor s and man ycemen t plan t operator s expresse d doub t abou t wa s whethe r th e standar d coul d b e rrte t a t al l time s includin g period s o f startup , shutdown , and upset . EP Aha s promul

gate d regulation s whic hmak e i t clea r tha t EPA' s mas s emis

sio n limit s appl yonl ydurin g performanc e test s rathe r tha n a t al l times . Th e standard s d o no t appl ydurin g period s o f startup , shutdown , an d malfunction . (3 8 F.R . 25864 , Octobe r 15 , 1973) . OPACITY STANDAR D EP Apromulgate d opacit ylimit s a s wel l a s mas s emis

sio n limit s becaus e opacit ylimit s provid e an effectiv e and easil yutilize d mean s o f determinin g relativ e mas s emission s a s wel l a s wethe r contro l equipmen t i s bein g properl ymain

taine d an

d operated . EPApersonne l observe d durin g testin g tha t tv/

o plant s v/hic

hme t th e mas s emissio n standar d di d no t excee d 1 0 percen t opacit ydurin g emissio n tes t periods . 1 6 (_$$& $P.2 5



### An additiona l cemen t kil n v/a s observe d tha t ha d n o visibl e emissions , bu t i t coul d no t b e teste d fo r mas s emission s du e t o physica l limitations . Asummaryo f mas s particulat e emission s an

d observe d opacitie s fo r cemen t kiln s investi

gate d b yEP Ai s shown i n Tabl e 1 .

i&TsJf t



### 1 7P.2 6



### Tabl e 1 . PARTICULAT E MATTE R AN D OPACITY O F EMISSION S FRO MCEMEN T KILN

S

Cemen t Plan t Measure d Parti

- Opacit yo f culat e Emissions , Visibl e lbs/to n feed , Emissions , % , fromkil n fro mkil n Drago n Cemen t Compan y0.070 5 5-1 0 Northhampton , Pa . Orego n Portland Cemen t Lak e Osv/ego , Orego n Tes t No . 1 , Augus t 197 1 0.5 6 1 0 - 3 0 Tes t No . 2 , Octobe r 197 1 0.27 2 0-1 0 Gian t Portland Cemen t 0.57 4 0-3 5 Harleyville , S . C . Idea l Cemen t Compan y0.88 3 2 0 Seattle , Washingto n e i 

### i.ji.;:&: j Idea l Cemen t Compan y0 Tijeras , Ne wMexic o

1 8P.2 7



### EP Aha s give n adequat e consideratio n t o th e problem s o f measurin g opacit yb yus e o f th e traine d an d qualifie d observer . Us e o f a huma n observe r t o measur e stac k opacit y entail s essentiall yth e same consideration s tha t woul d b e give n t o us e o f a mechanica l instrument , i.e. , th e calibration , accuracy , an d precisio n o f th e instrument . Calibratio n o f anyinstrumen t i s achieve d bycomparin g th e tes t instrument' s outpu t agains t a known standard . Similarly , a huma n observe r mus t b e qualifie d o r "calibrated " b ycomparin g hi s observation s o f 2 5 whit e an d 2 5 blac k plume s wit hth e measurement s o f a calibrate d smok e indicato r o r ligh t transmissio n meter . Se e Appendi xt o 4 0 C.F.R . Par t 60 , Tes t Metho d 9 (3 6 F R 24895 , Decembe r 23 , 1971) . EP Aha s evaluate d th e accurac yand th e precisio n o f th e qualifie d observer . Precisio n o f a n instrumen t refer s t o th e abilit yt o consistentl yproduc e essentiall yth e sam e measuremen t o r respons e whe n subjecte d t o th e sam e se t o f tes t conditions . Aprecis e instrumen t i s no t necessaril y accurat e becaus e interference s o r imprope r tes t condition s ma yproduc e a bia s tha t woul d caus e th e measuremen t t o b e consistentl yi n erro r whe n compare d wit hth e "true " valu e o f th e quantit ybein g measured . I n th e documen t entitled , Optica l Propertie s an d Visua l Effect s o f Smok e !_i^t& ?

12 / Stac k Plume s (Publi c Healt hServic e Publicatio n No . 999-AP-30.) , 1 9P.2 8

a descriptio n i s give n o f test s designe d t o evaluat e th e precisio n an d accurac yo f th e qualifie d observe r (sectio n title : Evaluatio n o f Plume s byTraine d Observers , page s 23-29) . Th e evaluatio n showe d tha t the. , precisio n o f th e qualifie d observe r wa s reasonabl ygood , i.e. , "Grou p assess ment s showe d goo d agreemen t fo r simila r sun-plume-viewe r geometries " (p . 25) , howeve r tiie accurac yo f th e observatio n wa s greatl yaffecte d byth e positio n o f th e observe r wit h respec t t o th e su n an d plum e du e t o ligh t scatterin g effect s o f th e plum e (Figure s 16 , 17 , an d 19 , an d Table s 1 an d 2) . Thi s ligh t scatterin g interferenc e v/a s essentiall ynullifie d ^H* ' bypositionin g th e observe r v/it hhi s bac k t o th e su n a s i s show n i n Figur e 1 6 (East : 9:30 , 10:00 , 10:3 0 a.m. ) an d Figur e 1 7 (East : 9;45 , 10:15 , 10:4 5 a.m.) . Figure s 1 6 an d 1 7 sho wtha t a qualifie d observe r wit hth e su n a t hi s bac k wa s abl e t o determin e th e opacit yo f bot hwhit e an d blac k plume s wit hver ygoo d agreemen t (accuracy ) wit hth e in-stac k ligh t transmissio n mete r measurements . Thu s petitioner s miscite d tes t dat a i n Tabl e 2 o f th e Optica l Propertie s repor t a s indicatin g tha t opacit y test s ar e unreliable . Dat a i n thi s tabl e wer e develope d withou t regar d t o th e placemen t o f observer s wit hrespec t t o th e su n an d plume . A s discusse d previously , th e su n mus t b e t o th e observer' s bac k t o accuratel ydetermin e

2 0P.2 9



### opacit yo f a plume . Th e EP Ates t metho d fo r opacit y specificall yrequire s tha t "Th e qualifie d observe r stand s a t approximatel ytw o stac k heights , bu t no t mor e tha n a quarte r o f a . mil e fro mth e bas e o f th e stac k wit hth e su n t o hi s back. " (4 0 CF RPar t 6 0 Appendix , Tes t Metho d 9) . EP Aperiodicall yconduct s smok e readin g course s fo r th e purpos e o f qualifyin g candidate s a s smok e observer s i n accordanc e wit hth e requirement s o f Tes t Metho d 9 . I n th e smok e school , a n observe r i s show n and"assign s opacit yread

ing s t o 2 5 differen t blac k plume s an d 2 5 differen t whit e plumes . Th e readings , whic har e recorde d o n dat a sheets , W0). ar e assigne d i n eve n 5 percen t increments . I n orde r t o qualify , n o singl e readin g ma yb e i n erro r b ymor e tha n 1 5 percen t opacity ; th e averag e erro r ma yno t excee d 7. 5 per cen t opacit yi n eac hcategory . I n orde r t o asses s th e accurac yan d precisio n wit h whic hqualifie d observer s rea d plumes , th e result s o f 5 0 individual s v/er e selecte d a t rando mfro mcandidate s i n nin e smok e schoo l course s conducte d i n 197 2 an d 1973 . Thi s provide d a tota l o f 250 0 observation s fo r analysis . Thes e result s ar e availabl e i n a repor t title d Averag e Observationa l 19 / Erro r Associate d wit hSmok e Plume s a t Levels

- o f Know n Opacity . — Th e analysi s o f thes e observation s considere d tw o parameters : 2 1P.3 0



### 1 . th e average , erro r mad e i n observatio n o f plume s o f know n opacity , an d 2 . th e precisio n o f individua l observation s o f plume s o f know n opacity . Th e result s o f thes e analyse s ar e describe d belov/ . Fo r eac hsmok e plum e whic hv/as observe d th e erro r o r differenc e betwee n th e observe d opacit yan d th e actua l opacit y(observe d opacit yminu s actua l opacity ) v/as recorded . Fo r plume s o f 0% , 5% , 10% , an d 15 % opacity , thes e error s wer e tabulate d separatel yfo r th e respectiv e plume . Abov e thi s leve l plume s wer e combine d int o 10 % opacit yinterval s fo r convenienc e o f calculation . Thu s a 5 % erro r associate d \8$M& wit ha plum e o f eithe r 20 % o r 25 % wa s tabulate d unde r th e actua l opacit yo f "20 % o r 25%. " Tw o calculation s wer e mad e usin g th e abov e data : th e "averag e error, " an d th e "averag e absolut e error. " Th e followin g exampl e illustrate s thes e calculations : Dat a fo r a plum e o f actua l opacit y=10 % - 5 % erro r = 2 0 % erro r = 3 1 +5 % erro r = 3 1 +10 % erro r = 2 3 +15 % erro r = _6_

9 3 tota l observation s 2(-5% ) + 31(5% ) + 23(10% ) + 6(15% ) Averag e erro r =9 3 = +5.0 % 2(5% ) + 31(5% ) + 23,(10% ) 4 6(15% ) Averag e absolut e erro r = 9" 3 = 5. 2 2 2 iP.3 1



### Th e "averag e error " indicate s th e overal l bia s o f th e grou p wit hrespec t t o a particula r plume . Apositiv e valu e woul d indicat e tha t th e averag e observatio n i s greate r tha n th e actua l plume , an d vice-versa . A s example , a -5 % erro r an d a +5 % erro r v/oul d resul t i n a

n "averag e error " o f 0% . Th e "averag e absolut e error " indicate s the averag e absolut e accurac yattaine d b yth e observers . A s example , a -5 % erro r an

d a +5 % erro r woul d resul t i n an averag e absolut e erro r o f 5% . Th e result s o f thes e calculation s ar e shov/n i n Tabl e 2 . Tabl e 2 . AVERAG E OBSERVATIONA L ERRO R 

### Averag e Absolut e Actua l Numbe r o f Averag e Erro r Erro r Opacity * Observation s % Opacit y% Opacit y 0 1 2 +3. 3 3. 3 5 1 2 +2. 5 2. 5 1 0 9 3 +5. 0 5. 2 1 5 9 6 +2. 8 5. 4 2 0 o r 2 5 33 1 +2. 5 5. 0 3 0 o r 35 . 40 9 +0. 1 5. 1 4 0 o r 4 5 60 6 -0. 1 5. 5 5 0 o r 5 5 39 3 -0. 1 6. 0 6 0 o r 6 5 23 5 -0. 2 6. 2 - 7 0 o r 7 5 18 5 -1. 2 6. 1 8 0 o r 8 5 12 0 -2. 4 6. 0 9 0 o r 9 5 9 6 -2. 6 4. 6 10 0 1 2 -5. 8 5. 8 •Measure d wit ha photoelectri c transmissomete r locate d i n th e smok e generato r stack . t 

### Arevie wo f Tabl e 2 show s tha t o n th e average , th e smok e reading s can b e mad e wit hgoo d accuracy . Wit htw o exceptions ,

2 3 ij^jil? ^P.3 2



### th e averag e accurac yi s withi n +3. 3 percent . A t tw o level s o f opacity , 10 % an d 100% , th e averag e erro r wa s note d t o b e 5 % an

d 5.8 % respectively . N o tes t metho d i s invariabl yperfectl yaccurate . Wate r vapo r doe s no t caus e majo r problem s i n opacit ytesting . Whe n stac k emission s contai n appreciabl e wate r vapor , th e vapo r become s visibl e whe n th e gase s ar e coole d belo wth e de wpoin t an

d wate r condense s i n fin e droplets . Some wate r plume s ar e detache d v/hil e other s ar e visibl e a s release d fromth e stack . However , sinc e ambien t ai r i s normall y muc hdrie r tha n stac k emissions ' containin g visibl e wate r vapor , dilutio n cause s the gase s a t some poin t t o becom e unsaturated . A t thi s point , condense d wate r evaporate s and visuall ydisappear s fromth e plume . Traine d smok e observer s ca ndiscriminat e betwee n condense d wate r vapo r an d visibl e pollutant s b

ydeterminin g th e opacit ya t o r afte r tha t poin t i n th e plum e wher e th e wate r vapo r dissipates . Unde r relativel ywarm and dryconditions , th e visibl e wate r plum e evaporate s an d become s invisibl e withi n a shor t distanc e o f th e stack . I n col d weather , ai r ha s muc hles s capacit yt o carrywate r vapor , th e wate r plum e Q/ Th e phenomeno n o f a "detache d plume " i s ofte n observe d whe n a warm

mois t ga s stream

i s release d int o a coole r atmosphere , e.g. , whe n hot , v/e t exhaus t gase s froma we t proces s kil n ar e release d t o th e atmosphere . Her e th e gase s ar e clea r a t th e poin t o f discharg e bu t becom e opaqu e a s th e we t gase s mi xwit hcoole r ai r i n the atmos phere . 2 4 

### W&M

### froma give n sourc e i s usuall ymuc hmor e pronounce d an d ha s a longe r path . Du e t o th e characte r o f th e dus t an d atmospheri c condition s existin g a t a give n poin t i n time , i.e. , humidity , cloud cover , rain , snow , etc. , i t mayno t b e possibl e i n som e case s t o evaluat e opacitie s o f the particulat e fractio n wit hsufficien t precisio n t o warran t enforcemen t action . I n suc hcases , i t i s necessaryt o mak e multipl e observation s unde r varyin g atmospheri c conditions . Opacit yand v/ate

r vapo r phenomen a ar e shov/n photographicall y i n th e EP Arepor t entitled , " ARepor t o n Contaminate d Wate r

18 / Vapo r Plumes" . Th e prope r plac e t o dea l wit hsuc hsmal l variation s i s a t th e time o f enforcement . Fo r example , th e agenc ywoul d no t take , an d th e court s v/ould no t sustain , enforcemen t actio n base d upo n opacit yobservation s tha t d o no t excee d th e standar d b ymor e tha n th e averag e opacit y erro r associate d wit hth e particula r opacit ystandard . I t i s importan t t o not e i n thi s connectio n tha t unde r §113(c)(1)(C ) o f th e Clea n Ai r Ac t crimina l sanction s can onl yb e impose d o n person s wh o "knowingly " violat e §11 1 standards . Als o order s issue d unde r §113(a)(4 ) mus t tak e int o accoun t "th e seriousnes s o f th e violatio n and an ygoo d fait heffort s t o compl ywit happlicabl e requirements. "

2 5P.3 4

Opacit ystandard s hav e bee n teste d bytime , experience , and litigation . Californi a enacte d a statutor yopacit y requiremen t i n 1947 . Californi a Healt han d Safet yCod e 24242 , Stats . 1947 , ch . 63251 . I n a n analysi s prepare d fo r EP Ab

yL . J . Dunca n o f Th e Mitr e Corporatio n title d Analysi s o f Fina l Stat e Implementatio n Plan s - Rule s an d 16 / Regulations , (APTD-1334 , Jul y1972) , Tabl e XV I (p . 51-52 ) show s tha t ever yStat e ha s equivalen t opacit yrestriction s applicabl e t o particulat e emissions . Thes e rang e fro m0 % opacit y("n

o visibl e discharges" ) t o 40 % opacit ydurin g norma l operation s wit hmos t restriction s bein g 20 % opacity . Bott i Marylan d (i n tw o Ai r Qualit yContro l Regions ) an d th e Distric t o f Columbi a hav e n o visibl e discharg e limitations . Variou s court s hav

e upheld th

e validit

yo f opacit

y requirements . See , e.g . Stat e v . Fr yRoofin g Co. , 49 5 F.2 d 751 , 4 ER C 111 6 (Orego n Cour t o f Appeal s 1972) ; Peopl e v . Plywoo d Manufacturers , 29 1 F.2 d 58 7 (Superior Cour t o f Lo s Angeles , California , 1955) . Opacit ystandard s ar e a necessar ysupplemen t t o mas s emissio n standards . Opacit ystandard s hel p assur e tha t source s and emissio n contro l system s continu e t o b e properl y maintaine d an d operate d s o a s t o compl ywit hmas s emissio n standards . Particulat e testin g b yEP AMetho d 5 an d mos t othe r technique s require s a n expenditur e o f $3,00 0 t o $10,00 0 2 6 M&&LP.3 5

pe r tes t includin g abou t 30 0 man-hour s o f technica l personnel . Furthermore , schedulin g an d preparatio n ar e require d suc h tha t i t i s seldo mpossibl e t o conduc t a tes t wit hles s tha n tw o week s notice . Therefore , Metho d 5 particulat e test s ca n b e conducte d onl yo n a n infrequen t basis . I f ther e wer e n o standard s othe r tha n mas s emissio n standards , operator s coul d inadequatel yoperat e o r maintai n pollutio n contro l equipmen t a t al l time s excep t durin g period s o f performanc e testing . Operator s ar e awar e tha t tw o week s o r longe r ar e necessar yt o schedul e a typica l stac k test . I f onl ysmal l repair s wer e required , e.g. , pum p o r fa n repai r o r replacemen t o f fabri c filte r bags , th e operato r coul d dela ysuc hremedia l actio n an d continu e t o pollut e unti l shortl ybefor e th e tes t i s conducted . Fo r som e type s o f equipmen t suc ha s scrubbers , th e operato r coul d reduc e th e energ yinpu t (th e pressur e dro p throug hth e system ) whe n stac k test s weren' t bein g conducte d an d coul d releas e signi

ficantl ymor e particulat e tha n normal . Therefore , EP Aha s require d tha t operator s properl ymaintai n ai r pollutio n con tro l equipmen t a t al l time s (4 0 CF R 60.11(d) ) an d mee t opacit ystandard s a t al l time s excep t period s o f startup , shutdown , malfunction , an d a s otherwis e provide d i n th e applicabl e standar d (4 0 CF R 60.11(c)) . d_ 7 Cos t applicabl e t o retest s only . Initia l performanc e tes t i s usuall ymor e costl ybecaus e o f nee d t o erec t platforms , scaffolding , o r othe r samplin g facilities . 2 7 

### §Mm» i r ' • • P.3 6



### Opacit yo f emission s i s indicativ e o f whethe r contro l equipmen t i s properl ymaintaine d an d operated . However , i t i s establishe d a s a n independen t enforceabl e standard , rathe r tha n a n indicato r o f maintenanc e an d operatin g condition s becaus e informatio n concernin g th e latte r i s peculiarl y withi n th e contro l o f th e plan t operator . Furthermore , th e tim e an d expens e require d t o prov e tha t prope r procedure s hav e no t bee n followe d ar e s o grea t tha t th e provision s o f 4 0 CF R 60.11(d ) b

ythemselve s (withou t opacit ystandards ) woul d no t provid e an economicall yfeasibl e mean s o f insurin g o n a day-to-daybasi s tha t emission s o f pollutant s ar e withi n allowabl e limits . Opacit ystandard s requir e nothin g mor e tha n a traine d observe r an d ca n b e performe d wit hn o prio r notice . However , i n some cases , includin g time s whe n opacit y standard s mayno t b e violated , a ful l investigatio n o f operatin g an

d maintenanc e condition s wil l b e desirable . Accord

ingly , EP Aha s requirement s fo r bot hopacit ylimit s and prope r operatin g an d maintenanc e procedures . Fo r th e foregoin g reasons , EP Abelieve s tha t opacit y standard s ar e suc ha n indispensibl e ai r pollutio n contro l too l fo r th e State s and Federa l government , an d tha t th e rang e o f uncertaint yi n applyin g suc hstandard s i s s o smal l tha t thi s typ e o f standar d shoul d continu e t o b e use d b yEP Aa s wel l a s th e States . 2 8 

## m$&%P.3 7

COST S Th e onl ycos t issu e v/hichth e Cour t remande d t o EPA _ wa s whethe r th e cost s o f a standar d whic hpreclude d th e us e o f we t proces s kiln s an d precipitator s wer e reasonable . EPA' s standar d wil l no t preclud e us e o f we t proces s kiln s no r o f precipitators . Thi s issu e v/a s discusse d abov e alon g wit h-th

e relativ e cost s o f contro l equipmen t fo r we t an d dr yproces s kilns . Fo r purpose s o f thi s remand , i t i s sufficien t t o stat e tha t EP Acontinue s t o believ e tha t tlie economi c cost s associate d wit hth e standar d ar e reasonable . Thi s conclu

sio n i s base d primaril yo n th e reports : "Th e Financia l Impac t o f Ai r Pollutio n Contro l Upo n th e Portlan d Cemen t 4 / Industry " byJ . R . Elia s an d J . M . Demenfan d "Th e Cemen t Industry : Economi c Impac t o f Pollutio n Contro l Costs " b y 13 / th e Bosto n Consultin g Group .



### 2 9P.3 8



### ADVERS E ENVIRONMENTA L IMPACT S Th e ne wsourc e performanc e standard s fo r Portland cemen t plant s ar e no t expecte d t o resul t i n significan t advers e environmenta l impact . Th e possibl e area s o f advers e environ

menta l impac t are : 1 ) increase d pollutio n fromgeneration , o f electricit yrequire d t o operat e precipitators , 2 ) wate r pollutio n fromdisposa l o f collecte d particulat e matter . Neithe r o f thes e i s a seriou s problem . Th e electri c powe r rat e require d t o operat e a precipitato r tha t woul d mee t th e ne wsourc e standar d o n a typica l v/e t proces s kil n woul d b e approximatel y11 5 kilowatts . Thi s shoul d b e compare d wit hth e tota l electri c powe r rat e consump tio n o f a typica l cemen t plan t whic happroximate s 530 0 kilowatt s an

d wit hth e 500,00 0 kilowat t outpu t o f a typica l ne w steamgeneratin g electri c powe r plant . Th e additiona l 11 5 kilowatt s v/il l thu s hav e littl e incrementa l impac t o n pollutio n create d b yelectri c powe r generatio n generall y and tha t create d b yelectri c powe r generatio n fo r Portland cemen t plant s specifically . Th e abov e figure s wer e develope d o n th e followin g assumptions : Atypica l cemen t plan t producin g 2. 5 millio n bb l o f cemen t annuall ywoul d exhaus t gase s a t a rat e o f 230,00 0 cfm . (Rober t Elia s an d Joh n Dement , "Financia l Impac t o f Ai r Pollutio n Contro l Upo n th e Portland Cemen t



## i / Industry") . I n orde r t o mee t th e ne wsourc e performanc e 3 0 J3?i>S^P.3 9

standard s o f 0. 3 poun d pe r to n kil n fee d (1. 6 to n fee d pe r to n product) , base d o n a n emissio n facto r o f 23 5 pound s per.to n o f cemen t product , a precipitato r woul d hav e t o hav e a collectio n efficienc yo f approximatel y 99.9 2 percent . Astud yconducte d bySouther n Research

Institut e show s tha t precipitator s recentl yinstalle d o n tv/ o we t proces s plant s whic hhav e collectio n efficiencie s o f 99.9 2 an d 99.95 percen t ha d powe r rate s o f 44 0 watt s pe r 100 0 cf man d 52 0 watt s pe r 100 0 cf mrespectively . ( Amanua l o f Electrostati c Precipitato r Technology , Contrac t CP A 22-69-7 3 fo r NAPCA , Figur e 18.10 , Par t I I - Applicatio n Areas) W A t a powe r rat e o f 50 0 watt s pe r 100 0 cfm , a precipitato r handlin g 230,00 0 cf ma t a collectio n efficienc y o f 99.9 2 percen t woul d requir e 11 5 kilov/atts . Th e tota l electrica l consumptio n (excludin g fuel ) o f a cemen t plan t i s 12 0 kilowatt s pe r metri c to n product . Fo r th e typica l plan t producin g 44-4 5 metri c ton s pe r hou r (2. 1 millio n bb l pe r year) , th e tota l plan t energ yconsumptio n approximate s 5 30 0 kilowatts . (Souther n Researc hInstitute , "Developmen t Documen t fo r Effluen t Limitation s Guideline s an d Standard s o f Performance : Cemen t Manufacturin g Industry, "

• 15 / Contrac t 68-01-0599 ) ~ Stat e implementatio n pla n requirement s woul d requir e u p t o 8 1 kilowatt s t o b e consume d i n th e precipitato r o f th e typica l cemen t kil n eve n i f ther e wer e n o t"s?i*f? £

3 1P.4 0



### applicabl e nov

/ sourc e standards . Stat e implementatio n plan s requir e control s c n th e emissio n o f particulat e matte r b

ycemen t plant s rangin g from0.3 6 t o 0.8 9 lb . pe r to n feed . ("Analysi s o f Fina l Stat e Implementatio n Plan s - 16 / Rule s an

d Regulations, " APTD-1334) . Thes e standard s requir e collectio n efficiencie s o f 99.76-99.9 Upercent . Th e pov/e r rate s associate d wit hthes e efficiencie s ar e betv/ee n 125-35 0 v/att s pe r cfm . Aprecipitato r wit han approximat e siz e o f 230,00 0 cf mwoul d thu s requir e betwee n 2 9 an d 8 1 kilowatt s t o mee t Stat e Implementatio n "Pla n standards . Althoughhighe r efficienc ydus t collector s wil l increas e th e amoun t o f materia l collected , th e ne wsourc e performanc e standard s v/il l no t substantiall yincreas e th e lan d disposa l problem s face d b

ycemen t plants . Furthermore , i t wil l requir e th e collectio n o f dus t v/hic hwoul d otherwis e b e vente d t o th e atmospher e an d indiscriminatel ydeposite d o n lan d i n the vicinit yo f th e cemen t plant . Th e presen t practic e i n th e cemen t industr yi s t o dispos e o f th e collecte d kil n dus t tha t canno t b e returne d t o th e kiln . Th e wast e dus t i s haule d o r slurrie d t o a n unuse d par t o f th e quarr y fromwhic hth e rawmateria l cam e o r i s landfilled . Tabl e 3 summarize s th e method s employe d b y8 0 cemen t plant s t o dispos e o f kil n dust . !*•>'$**• *



### 3 2P.4 1

Tabl e 3 . METHOD S O F DISPOSA L O F COLLECTE D KIL NDUS T B Y CEMEN T PLANT S (a ) Metho d Numbe r o f Percen t o f 8 0 Plant s Reportin g Plant s Reporting ( D

al l dus t returne d t o kil n 2 7 3 4 surfac e pilin g (dry ) 2 9 3 6 returne d t o quarr y(dry ) 1 1 1 4 leache d 9 1 1 slurrie d an d discarde d 7 9 som e sol d o r haule d awa y8 1 0 bycontracto r (a ) Source : Souther n Researc hInstitute , "Developmen t Documen t fo r Effluen t Limitation s Guideline s an d Standard s o f Per formance : Cemen t Manufacturin g industry, " Contrac t 6 8-01

- 0599.15 / (b j Percentag e tota l i s greate r tha n 10 0 becaus e som e plant s repor t mor e tha n on e method .

Stat e implementatio n plan s requir e control s o n th e emi- : sio n o f particulat e matte r b ycemen t plant s rangin g fro m0.3 6 t o 0.8 9 lb . pe r to n feed . Complianc e wit hthes e standard s wil l requir e cemen t plant s t o dispos e o f substantia l amount s o f material . Th e amoun t o f additiona l dus t collecte d t o mee t th e ne wsourc e performanc e standard s o f 0.3 0 lb . pe r to n fee d wil l no t b e significantl ygreate r tha n tha t collecte d t o mee t th e stat e implementatio n pla n standards . 3 3P.4 2



### Fo r simila r reasons , th e increase d amoun t o f materia l collecte d b

yhighe r efficienc ydus t collector s wil l no t substantiall yincreas e th e ris k o f wate r pollution . Presen t lan d disposa l method s coul d permi t dus t v/it ha high alkalin e conten t to-caus e potentia l v/ate r pollutio n problem s fromrainfal l runof f o r b ypercolatio n int o stream s and rivers . I f alkala i dus t wer e no t controlle d bu t instea d wer e release d t o th e atmosphere , i t woul d als o find it s wayint o stream s and rivers . However , containmen t and treatmen t o f runof f fromkiln-dus t pile s wil l eliminat e th e dange r o f wate r pollurio n resultin g from alkala i cemen t dust . Th e Souther n Researc hInstitut e stud ypreviousl ycite d 15 / (EP AContrac t 68-01-0599r^indicate s tha t technologyexist s t o trea t th e contaminate d wate r resultin g fromleachin g and describe s tha t technology . I n an yevent , th e increas e i n th e collectio n o f particulat e du e t o ne wsourc e performanc e standard s a s compare d t o th e collectio n o f particulate s resultin g fromth e applicatio n o f stat e implementatio n pla n requirement s wil l b e insignificant . SUMMAR Y EP Athu s conclude s tha t th e standard s ar e achievabl e an d hav e bee n achieve d b ybot hwe t an

d dryproces s kilns , tha t th e economi c cost s ar e reasonabl e and tha t th e advers e environmenta l impac t i s minimal . EP Afurthe r conclude s 3 4 «$#&• &P.4 3

tha tth e opacit ystandar d i s a vali d an d necessar ystandar d whic h meet s th e requirement s o f§11 1 o fth e Clea n Ai rAct

. Therefore , EPA , afte rreconsiderin g th e standard s pursuan tt o th e reman d o fth e U

. S

. Cour to fAppeal s fo rth e Distric to fColumbia , ha s conclude d tha tth e standard s shoul d no tb e changed

.

SfSS^S S

35P.4 4

APPENDI XI EP ARESPONSE S T O SPECIFI C ISSUE S RAISE D B YTH E COUR T



### 3 7P.4 5

APPENDIX' I Thi s appendi xcontain s response s t o specifi c issue s raise d byth e U.S . Cour t o f Appeal s fo r th e Distric t o f Columbi a i n th e Portlan d Cemen t case . Reference s ar e t o th e Sli p Opinion . Issu e 1 O n page - 21 , th e Cour t ask s EP At o respon d t o petitioner' s comment s concernin g possibl e advers e environmenta l impac t o f th e standards . Respons e Thes e impact s ar e discusse d i n th e tex t above . Issu e 2 O n pag e 2 3 an d 2 4 an d agai n o n pag e 41 , th e Cour t ask s EP At o conside r th e justificatio n fo r an d economi c impac t o f standard s tha t woul d terminat e th e us e o f we t proces s kiln s an d precipitato r contro l o f bot hwe t an d dr yproces s emissions . Respons e EPA' s standard s d o no t preclud e th e us e o f eithe r we t proces s kiln s o r precipitators . Tes t result s sho wbot hhav e me t th e standards . Thi s i s discusse d i n th e tex t above , alon g wit heconomi c considerations .

3 9 

## S®"* ^P.4 6

Issu e 3 I n footnot e 5 5 th e Cour t s?id : "I f th e sam e technolog yi s no wavailabl e an d i n us e fo r incinerators , stea mpowe r plant s an d cemen t plants , th e Administrato r o n reman d ma ywis h t o offe r som e furthe r explanatio n o f th e differenc e i n standard s se t simultaneousl yfo r th e thre e industries. " Respons e A t th e tim e th e cement , incinerato r an d stea mgenerato r standard s wer e promulgated , EP Aha d dat a showin g tha t bag

house s woul d enabl e bot hwe t an d dr yproces s Portlan d cemen t kiln s t o achiev e concentratio n level s o f .0 3 grain s pe r dr y standar d cubi c foo t (gr/dscf ) o r less . EP Ajudge d bu t $$#$&?$ ha d no t confirme d tha t a precipitato r coul d achiev e th e sam e levels . EP Aals o suspecte d bu t ha d inadequat e dat a t o confir mtha t incinerator s an d stea mgenerator s coul d us e baghouse s t o achiev e concentratio n level s approximatin g thos e achieve d b ycemen t kil n baghouses . Becaus e differen t type s o f source s emi t gase s o f differen t compositio n a t differen t velocities , i t canno t b e assume d tha t a devic e tha t remove s particulate s wil l b e equall yeffectiv e i n removin g ever ytyp e o f particulat e fro mever ytyp e o f source . Furthermore , differen t type s o f source s ma yemi t substance s v/hic hwil l interfer e wit h th e operatio n o f th e contro l equipment .

4 0Thu s EP Abase d it s incinerator , stea mgenerato r an d

cemen t standard s primaril yo n applyin g baghouse s t o cemen t plant s an d assume d les s efficien t precipitator s woul d b e use d fo r incinerators ' an d stea mgenerators , althoug hEP A ha d indication s tha t baghouse s coul d b e applie d t o incinerator s an d stea mgenerator s an d tha t precipitator s coul d achiev e emissio n concentration s simila r t o thos e o f baghouses . A s note d i n th e tex t above , precipitator s o n cemen t kiln s d o achiev e th e standards . A s dat a i s gathere d show

in g precipitators , baghouses , o r othe r dus t collector s o n incinerator s an d stea m generator s als o ca n achiev e simila r concentratio n levels , th e standard s fo r thes e source s wil l b e revised . An ydat a th e cemen t industr yha s o n th e emissio n level s whic hca n b e achieve d b yincinerator s an d stea m generator s shoul d b e submitte d t o EP At o facilitat e th e revie wo f th e standard s fo r thes e tw o sourc e classes . : W*K ?



### 4 1

### ISSUE 4

O n pag e 3 7 th e Cour t direct s EP At o conside r conten tion s presente d i n brief s t o thi s Court , thoughno t pre viousl yraised , unles s EPAexplain s wh ytheyar e no t material . RESPONS E

• Th e abov e tex t an d thes e response s t o question s raise d b yth e Cour t effectivel yrespond t o th e point s raise d b ypetitioners . ISSU E 5 I n footnot e 7 3 th e Cour t say s i t i s uncertai n whethe r the tes t v/a

s referre d t o i n th e Background Documen t a s no t availabl e a t th e tim e thi s documen t wa s publishe d v/a s o f on e o f the two kiln s teste d a t th e Drago n Plan t o r v/a s locate d a t stil l anothe r plant . RESPONS E Th e missin g tes t wa s tha t o f th e Gian t Portland Cemen t plan t i n Harleyville , Sout hCarolina , a we t proces s plan t wit ha baghouse . ISSU E 6 O n pag e 40 , the Cour t question s whethe r a singl e tes t i s a n adequat e basi s fo r inferrin g tha t al l ne w cemen t plant s woul d b e abl e t o mee t th e propose d standards .

4 2 $8?P.4 9



### RESPONS E A t th e time th e standar d wa s promulgated , EPAha d teste d two plant s whic hme t th e standar d (Th e Drago n an

d Orego n plants) . Eac htes t consiste d o f thre e repitition s o f two hou r samplin g period s o r si xtota l hour s o f testing . EPAha s sinc e obtaine d tes t result s fro m tw o othe r plant s whic hsho wemission s v/ e 1 1 belov / th e standard : Th e Lehigh Portland Cemen t Co . an d Marquett e Cemen t Manufacturin g Co . test s reference d i n th e tex t above . Th e Cour t i n raisin g thi s issu e referre d t o a lette r fromMr . Kreichel t whic hv/a s critica l o f EPA' s basin g th e standar d o n test s whic hshowe d th e standar d wa s me t a t onl yon e plant . A s thre e additiona l plant s hav e sinc e bee n teste d v/hic

hmee t th e standard , Mr . Kreichelt' s criticis m i s n o longe r applicable . However , eve n i f i t were , th e following consideration s shoul d b e take n int o accoun t i n evaluatin g hi s criticism . Firs t i t wa s base d o n th e assump tion , correc t a t tha t time , tha t EPA' s tes t metho d woul d includ e particulate s collecte d i n th e impinge r portio n o f th e samplin g train . Upo n thi s assumption , the on e tes t resul t (Dragon Cement ) referre d t o b yMr . Kreichel t showin g th e standar d coul d b e me t woul d sho wan averag e o f .18 4 pound s pe r to n compare d wit hth e standar d o f . 3 pound s pe r ton . However , th e deletio n i n th e promulgate d standar d o f 4 3P.5 0

th e requiremen t tha t impinge r catc hmus t b e included-mean s tha t th e Drago n plan t i n fac t teste d a t .0 7 pound s pe r to n o r les s tha n one-fourt ho f th e standard . Second , a s noted , tes t result s hav e sinc e becom e availabl e v/hic

hshov / thre e mor e plants , includin g a we t proces s plant , hav e me t th e standard . Third , eve n i f EP Adi d no t hav e thes e additiona l tes t results , th e Agenc yi s no t constraine d t o accep t Mr . Kreichelt' s definitio n o f v/hat i s "achievable. " Th e greate r th e numbe r o f test s require d t o prov e a standar d ca n b e me t befor e th e standar d ca n b e promulgated , th e greate r th e likelihoo d th e ne wsourc e performanc e standard s v/oul d reflec t onl yth e feS-'^'i? technolog yan d maintenanc e requirement s v/hic hexistin g plant s hav e chose n t o apply . However , EP Awa s testin g t o determin e th e bes t level s o f contro l bein g achieve d a t existin g plants . Engineerin g judgmen t was . the n applie d by EP At o determin e whethe r ne wplant s coul d b e constructe d t o perfor ma t contro l efficiencie s equa l t o o r bette r tha n tha t observe d a t th e teste d existin g plants . EP Awa s no t attempt in g t o determin e th e statistica l averag e performanc e o f existin g plants . ISSU E 7 O n pag e 41 , th e Cour t question s whethe r validit yo f standar d i s affecte d byth e differen t testin g metho d 4 4P.5 1

require d b

yEP Ai n th e promulgate d standard s an d tha t use d byEP Ai n it s test s i n developin g th e standards . Th e Cour t firs t refer s t o th e eliminatio n o f th e require

men t i n th e pr-"-- ' .lighted standar d tha t th e impinge r catc h o f th e samplin g trai n b e include d i n determinin g th e parti

culat e emissions . RESPONS E I n EPA' s propose d standard s th e particulat e samplin g metho d require d tha t bot hth e fron t hal f (probe , cyclon e an d filter ) an d bac k hal f (impinger ) catche s o f th e samplin g trai n b e measured . Whe n EP Ateste d th e Drago n an d Orego n plants , i t calculate d th e pound s o f particulat e pe r to n o f ^iJU t fee d byaddin g th e amount s collecte d i n bot hth e fron t an d bac k hal f o f th e samplin g train . However , EP Aseparatel y measure d bot hfron t an d bac k hal f catches . (Se e Summarie s o f Tes t Dat a fo r Standard s o f Performanc e fo r Ne wStationar y 

## UJ Sources , Augus t 1 9 71. ) Thus , th e chang e i n tes t method s i n n o wa yinvalidate d EPA' s tes t results . I t onl yrendere d som e o f th e dat a valueless . Base d onl yo n th e probe,cyclon e an d filte r catc hdata , th e Drago n Cemen t plan t emitte d a n averag e o f 0. 0 7 pound s pe r to n durin g th e tes t o f tha t plan t (Se e Summarie s o f Tes t Dat a an d Emissio n Testin g Report , 5 / ET B Tes t Numbe r 71-MM-05 T an d th e Orego n plan t emitte d a n averag e o f 0.2 8 pound s pe r to n (Se e Emissio n Testin g Report , 9 / ET B Tes t Numbe r 71-MM-15) . 4 5P.5 2



### ISSU E 8 O n pag e 42 , th e Cour t ask s th e Administrato r t o explain ' wh ycomplianc e v/it

hth e standar d i s base d o n a two-hou r tes t whil e the dat a bas e v/a s develope d o n 30-minut e tests ? RESPONS E Ther e wer e fou r port s t o b e sample d a t Drago n Cement ; during eac ho f th e thre e test s eac hpor t wa s teste d fo r 3 0 minute s fo r a tota l samplin g time o f 2 hours , th e time require d fo r complianc e test . Thus , ther e ar e inevitabl e time period s durin g whic hn o sampling wil l b e don e a s i t take s tim e t o correctl y^,-»y ; positio n an

d adjus t th e sample r a t eac htravers e point . Th e Source s subjec t t o thi s standar d wil l als o hav e suc h gap s i n thei r ow

n tests , whic hgap s wil l no t invalidat e thei r tests . Th e genera l provision s o f 4 0 CF R 6 0 ar e bein g revise d t o clarif yth e fac t tha t a ru n o r repetitio n ma yb e eithe r continuou s o r intermittent , consisten t wit hgoo d engineerin g practice . Thi s revisio n doe s no t alte r th e tes t method ; i t onl ymake s clea r th e fac t tha t th e norma l practic e o f inter

ruptin g run s fo r suc hpurpose s a s movin g samplin g equipmen t o r sampling cycli c processe s is , i n fact , expecte d an d i s an accepte d procedur e whic hi s withi n the scop e o f th e tes t method . 4 6P.5 3



### issur : 9 O n pag e 42 , th e Cour t raise s th e questio n on th e basi s o f a handwritte n not e mad e b yth e EP Acontractor , a s t o whethe r th e teste d plan t v/a s operatin g a t maximu mper formanc e durin g testing . Th e contracto r ha d noted , "Bag hous e i s undersiz e an d productio n i s hel d bac k du e t o this. " Complianc e test s unde r the regulatio n require , however , tha t "Al l performanc e test s shal l b e conducte d whil e the affecte d facilit yi s operatin g a t o r abov e th e maximu m productio n rate . ... " RESPONS E Th e handwritte n not e o f th e EPA

_ contracto r refer s t o a presurve ynot e o f a n EP/-

_engineer . Tha t not e referre d t o th e potentia l productio n capacit yo f th e plan t a s re porte d b

yplan t personne l an d di d no t indicat e tha t th e Drago n Cemen t kil n wa s bein g operate d a t an abnormall ylo w productio n rate . Acemen t plant' s productio n rat e i s relate d t o man y variable s i n th e system . Afe wo f th e variable s tha t coul d influenc e o r limi t th e productio n rat e are : th e capacit y o f th e grinders , th e siz e o f th e kiln , th e siz e o f th e fan s o r pump s i n the syste mo r th e siz e o f contro l equipmen t installe d t o contro l particulat e emission s fromth e kiln . I n addition,.variable s suc ha s kil n temperature , pressure , Bt u conten t o f fuel , exces s ai r fo r combustio n and moistur e conten t o f th e fee d coul d al l directl yo r indirectl yaffec t the productio n rat e O f the cemen t plant . 47 S&£i_is 6 <Sp£$ pTh e baghous e installe d a t Drago n Cemen t wa s size d fo r

th e productio n rat e desire d b yth e compan ytakin g int o accoun t th e othe r variable s -i n th e system . Durin g th e tes t period , th e plan t wa s operate d a t it s norma l maximu mproductio n rate . ISSU E 1 0 O n pag e 4 2 an d 43 , th e Cour t restate d petitioner' s contentio n tha t EP Aerre d i n th e Drago n tes t i n (a ) no t usin g observe d measure d values , (b ) substitutin g lowe r readin g fro m

anothe r tes t ru n fo r a readin g base d o n con taminatio n o f th e sample r bysolids , an d (c ) pourin g [&&?*#? ; liqui d obtaine d fro mon e ru n int o th e beake r use d t o hol d liqui d fro m

anothe r run . Th e Cour t wen t o n t o sa y "However , deviation s fro mprescribe d measuremen t technique s ar e no t necessaril ysignifican t a s t o testin g results , an d i f petitioner s pres s thi s poin t o n reman d the ymus t establis htha t suc htes t deviation s bea r significan t conse quences. " Nevertheless , i n th e interes t o f providin g a complet e respons e t o th e Court' s reman d EP Av/il l respon d t o thi s issue . RESPONS E Petitioner' s comment s v/ere base d o n comment s mad e b v 5 / EP Ao n pag e 7 o f th e Drago n Tes t Report , ET B Tes t No . 71-MM-G5 . EP Aha s t o tes t existin g plant s a s the yare . Th e Drago n plan t ha d allov/ed solid s t o buil d u p i n th e duc t downstrea m o f th e baghouse . Thes e solids , v/hichEP Awa s unawar e o f 4 8P.5 5

unti l afte r Tes t Ru n 1 , contaminate d th e prob e an d cyclon e an d als o reduce d th e cros s sectio n o f th e duct . I n orde r t o correc t fo r thes e solids , EP Aha d t o comput e th e cros s sectio n o f th e duc t throug hwhic hai r coul d pass* . Th e catc ho f th e fron t hal f o f th e samplin g trai n i s measure d byaddin g togethe r th e prob e an d cyclon e catc h an d th e filte r catch . Th e prob e an d cyclon e captur e larg e particle s an d th e filte r catche s smalle r particles . I t wa s observe d tha t th e prob e an d cyclon e i n Tes t Ru n 1 capture d 9 8. 1 m g o f particulate s whil e th e prob e an d cyclon e catc hi n Ru n 2 v/a s 15. 9 m g and'i n Ru n 3 wa s 18. 0 mg . I t wa s als o observe d tha t a t on e samplin g poin t i n th e duc t th e ga s velocit ywa s zero . Thi s le d t o a n inspectio n o f th e duc t whic hshowe d tha t solid s v/ere i n fac t deposite d o n th e bottom . Th e prob e an d cyclon e ha d obviousl ycollecte d som e o f thes e particles . Therefore , th e catc ho f th e prob e an d cyclon e v/a

s assume d t o b e 17. 0 mg , th e averag e o f Run s 2 an d 3 . Th e actua l filte r catc hi n Ru n 1 , 38. 6 mg , v/a s used . Thu s a par t o f th e Ru n 1 result s wer e calculate d rathe r tha n measured . However , th e possibl e erro r intro

duce d i n thi s on e portio n o f on e Tes t Ru n a t th e Drago n plan t wa s s o smal l tha t i n th e opinio n o f EP Ai t doe s no t substantivel yprejudic e th e result s o f th e Drago n tes t an d certainl yno t th e standard , v/hic hwa s base d o n othe r test s i n additio n t o th e Drago n tests . 4 9 \ffl&&$P.56 _

Th e mistak e i npourin g liqui d obtaine d i non e ru ni nth e wron g beake r i s no wirrelevan t sinc e th e liqui d wa s impinge r water . Th e promulgate d standar d delete d th e requiremen t tha t impinge r catc hb e adde d i nascertainin g compliance . ISSU E 1 1 Onpage s 43-44 , th e Cour t direct s EPAt o respon d t o criticism s expresse d b

yMr . Strike r t o th e effec t tha t EP Aunderestimate d th e stac k ga s flo wrate , an d thu s th e amoun t o f particulate s emitted , b y a facto r o f two . RESPONS E Befor e respondin g t o specifi c allegation s o f erro r mad e b y Mr . Striker , i t i s importan t t o not e tha t eve ni f Mr . Strike r wer e correc t i nhi s allegations , and EPAbelieve s tha t h e i s not , th e test s woul d stil l sho wtha t th e Drago nCemen t Plan t me t th e EP A promulgate d ne wsourc e performanc e standard . Mr . Strike r conclude d tha t th e "correc t emissio no f particulat e matte r i s i nth e neighborhoo d o f .40 4 pound s pe r to no f kil nfeed. " Bu t thi s figur e wa s reache d b yusin g 0. 2 lbs/to nbase d o nth e entir e trai nfo r th e first , an d maximum , o f thre e tests . Afte r changin g t o a front-hal f catc honly , (th e term s o f th e promulgate d ne wsourc e performanc e standard) , th e resul t fro mthi s tes t wa s 0.1 1 lbs/to nan d eve ni f th e erro r tha t Mr . Strike r claim s ha d bee npossibl e an d ha d occurred , tes t result s fro mthi s maximum

tes t woul d b e 0.2 2 lbs/to nand averag e tes t result s woul d chang e fro m

.0 7 lbs/to nt o .1 4 lbs/ton , wel l belo wth e standar d o f 0. 3 lbs/ton . 5 0 *#%M*.&'.5 7

I t i s thi s averag e o f thre e test s tha t i s t o b e use d fo r complianc e wit hth e ne wsourc e performanc e standard . Thi s plan t woul d stil l b e wel l belo wne wsourc e performanc e standard s o f .3 0 lbs/ton . I nanyevent , EP Aha s thoroughl yconsidere d Mr . Striker' s specifi c allegation s o f erro r and disagre e wit hhim . Mr . Striker' s allegation s ar e wel l summarize d byth e Cour t a s follows :

Finally , enginee r Strike r claim s significan t error s o f measuremen t wer e mad e i ndeterminin g th e measuremen t o f th e cubi c fee t o f stac k ga s pe r minute , and a resultin g under

statemen t o f th e tru e volum e o f calcinin g carbo ndioxid e include d i ntota l stac k gas . H e state s tha t commonl y"35 % (plu s o r minu s 1% ) o f ra wfee d i s converte d int o carbo n dioxid e i nth e burnin g process. " H e the nnote s tha t a n accurat e measur e o f ra wfee d i s th e volum e o f calcinin g carbo ndioxid e appearin g i nstac k gas , whic hi ntur ndepend s o na naccurat e measur e o f th e volum e o f stac k gas . Hi s own calculations , base d o nEP Adat a showin g a stac k flo wrat e o f 51,18 7 cubi c fee t pe r minut e o f dr ygas , indicat e tha t ther e wer e 2,15 3 cubi c fee t pe r hou r o f stac k ga s i nth e tes t attributabl e t o calcinin g carbo ndioxid e comin g fro m th e ra wfee d an d tha t "a s a matte r o f basi c chemistry " 215 3 cubi c fee t o f calcinin g carbo ndioxid e "come s onl y fro m22.1 1 ton s o f ra wfeed. " Thi s wa s a t varianc e fro m th e kil nrat e o f 44.0 3 ton s o f ra wfee d pe r hou r reporte d i nth e test . H e conclude s tha t th e erro r layno t i nth e measuremen t o f th e ra wfeed , bu t i nth e tes t dat a reporte d o nth e stac k ga s volum e - - flo wrat e o f 51,18 7 - - whic hi n hi s judgmen t require s mor e sophisticate d equipmen t fo r recordin g tha ndoe s th e ra wfee d whic hi s easil ymeasureable . Havin g correcte d th e stac k ga s figure , h e state s hi s opinio n tha t th e EP Aassumptio no f emissions ' satisfyin g it s ultimat e 0.3 0 standar d wa s i nerror . H e concluded : I t i s mypersona l opinio ntha t th e particulat e matte r emission s o f .20 2 pound s i ntes t 1 pe r to no f kil nfee d reporte d .. . i s grossl yerroneou s and tha t th e correc t emissio no f particulat e matte r i s i nth e neighborhoo d o f .40 4 pound s pe r to no f kil n feed . 

### 5 1P.5 8

We ar e no t competen t t o decid e i f Mr . Striker' s methodolog y and conclusion s ar e correct . We ca nnote , however , tha t h e claim s tha t a s a matte r o f "basi c chemistry " tw o tes t values , fo r fee d and ga s volume , canno t co-exist . Thi s i s certainl yth e typ e o f criticis mEPAshoul d b e require d t o discus s o nremand . Th e possibl e erro r i nmeasuremen t o f dr ystac k ga s volum e ha s bee ngon e ove r repeatedl yb yEPAengineer s and Mr . Striker . Basicall y th e situatio ni s this : Mr . Strike r claim s tha t th e C0 ? doe s no t balanc e i nth e system , i.e. , tha t th e calculate d C0 ? fro mcombustio n plu s C0 ? drive nof f fro mth e calcium carbonat e i s no t equa l t o th e COp calculate d fro mOrsa t (ga s composition ) reading s and stac k ga s flo wmeasurement . Mr . Striker' s C0 ? calculation s o nth e C0 ? balanc e appea r t o b e essentiall ycorrect . Mr . Striker' s erro r lie s i nhi s assumptio no f th e caus e o f thi s C0 ? discrepancy . Ther e i s n o conceivabl e sourc e o f erro r i nmeasuremen t o f th e stac k ga s flo wrat e tha t coul d eve napproac h100% . Moreove r th e ga s flo wrat e wa s measure d consistentl y durin g twelv e traverse s a t a tota l o f 18 0 points . Nowher e doe s Mr . Strike r saywher e suc ha nerro r coul d occur . Aflo wrat e a s suggeste d b yMr . Strike r wa s impossibl e becaus e o f th e plan t design . Neithe r th e fa nno r th e baghous e coul d hav e possibl y handle d suc ha volume . Thi s ha s bee nconfirme d wit hth e plan t management . Furthe r evidenc e o f th e correctnes s o f EPAmeasurement s (an d th e 

### 5 2P.5 9

incorrectnes s o f Mr . Striker' s assertions ) i s containe d i n late r tes t resul- s fro mth e Drago n Cemen t plan t cite d by Edwar d Klei n o f Martin-Mariett a (owner s o f Drago n Cemen t Co.) . Thes e result s shov / flo wrate s ver yclos e t o thos e measure d 20 / byEP Aa t ful l productio n (a s i n EP Atests) . Th e summar yo f thes e tes t result s supplie d byMr . Klei n i s availabl e fro m EPA . Thu s Mr . Striker' s allegation s woul d violat e th e basi c law s o f natur e ha d the ybee n correct . Mr . Strike r assume s tha t everythin g measure d v/a s correc t excep t fo r a 100 % erro r i n stac k ga s volume . Unde r tha t assumptio n ou r numbe r whe n expresse d a s pound s pe r to n o f fee d shoul d hav e bee n twic e tha t stated . A s show n above , thi s coul d no t b e th e case . Ther e ar e tv/ o othe r possibl e source s o f thi s C0 2 error : fee d rat e an d Orsa t (ga s composition ) analyses. ' Mr . Strike r agree s tha t kil n fee d rat e i s no t i n error . Th e plan t wa s operatin g steadil ya t ful l productio n rate . Achec k wit h plan t personne l show s ou r fee d rat e an d thei r record s t o b e i n agreement . I t shoul d b e pointe d ou t tha t Orsa t analysi s fo r oxygen , carbo n dioxide , an d othe r combustio n gase s wer e onl yincidentia l t o particulat e testing . The y i n n o wa yaffec t results . Kil n fee d i s th e chie f variabl e o f cemen t productio n an d carefu l contro l i s maintained . An ysubstantia l variatio n v/oul d hav e bee n notice d byth e plant . Thus , th e onl ypossibilit yi s tha t th e erro r wa s i n th e Orsa t analysi s ( % o f eac hga s i n effluent) . Calculation s 5 3 W$*mP.6 0



### performe d b

yEPAexpert s o n thi s indicat e tha t the CO 2 absorbing solutio n i n the Orsa t wa s exhauste d an d C0 2 

### i n th e stac k gase s v/a s no t measure d a s CO 2 bu t rathe r a s oxygen . Check s wit hEPAemissio n testing engineer s wh o supervise d th e tes t confirm tiia t thi s v/a

s th e sourc e o f discrepanc yi n th e C0 2 

### balances . I n orde r t o determin e th e pound s o f particulat e pe r to n o f fee d i t i s necessaryt o sampl e th e amoun t o f particulate s pe r uni t o f ga s emitte d an d the n multipl y thi s figur e b

yth e tota l amoun t o f ga s emitte d durin g th e perio d a measure d amoun t o f fee d i s consumed . Thi s i s wha t EPAdi d i n calculatin g the emissio n rate s from th e plant s tested . If , Mr . Striker' s allegation s wer e correct , th e emissio n rat e woul d indee d nee d t o b e changed . Th e erro r i n th e Orsa t analysi s explain s th e apparen t violatio n o f th e law s o f "basi c chemistry " bu t doe s no t necessitat e an

ychang e i n th e tes t result s reported . ISSU E 1 2 O n pag e 4 4 and 4 5 an d i n footnot e 90 , th e Cour t suggest s tha t i f thei r stud yo f th e matte r i s correct , th e Orego n we t proces s kil n tes t result s t o b e compare d wit h th e standard , i.e . fron t hal f catc honly , ar e .247 , .30 9 an d .26 1 lbs/to n rathe r than .535 , .36 1 an d .29 1 lbs/ton . RESPONS E Th e cour t i s correct . Th e averag e tes t result s fo r th e Orego n tes t v/hic hshoul d b e compare d wit hth e standar d i s .2 8 lbs/ton . 5 4 

# mmP.6 1



### ISSU E 1 3 O n page s 4 5 t o 47 , th e Cour t expresse s concer n tha t problem s a t the Orego n plan t cause d interruption s i n th e sampling . Th e Cour t suggest s tha t a provisio n allowin g fo r malfunction s coul d b e take n int o accoun t i n consider

ing thi s issu e o n remand . RESPONS E Th e testin g o f th e Orego n plan t i s describe d i n th e tes t above . Durin g th e testin g perio d ."i t Orego n Portland Cemen t plant , a tes t wa s begun o n 10/7/7 1 an d discontinue d du e t o kil n shutdown . Th e tes t wa s resume d an d complete d o n 10/8/71 . Tw o additiona l test s v/er e ru n o n 10/8/7 1 v/it h onl yshor t interruption s t o chang e port s a s require d b y th e tes t method . O n Octobe r 5 and 6 , 1 9 71 , tw o earlie r attempt s wer e mad e a t measuremen t o f emission s bu t condition s prevente d meaningfu l measurements . Th e importan t thing s t o not e ar e tha t proces s operatio n wa s extremel yupse t durin g thes e attempt s and di d no t represen t norma l operatin g condition s an

d tha t th e manne r i n whic hth e earl yattempt s a t testin g were - performe d v/a s a n attemp t t o mak e a tes t a t norma l operatin g conditions . Th e second and thir d test s recorde d wer e a t norma l operatin g condition s (no t artificiall y idea l conditions ) t o b e expecte d durin g norma l cemen t plan t operation . No stop-star t testing , a s describe d i n th e 5 5P.6 2



### petitioners ' quote , wa s use d (excep t a s note d i n th e respons e t o Issu e 8) . Th e firs t tes t recorde d had onl yon e interruptio n (other-than por t changes ) du e t o th e kil n shutting down . Th e circumstance s describe d abov e ar e 9 / i n ET B Tes t Repor t Numbe r 71-MM-15 , (page s 1 6 an d 47) , the same repor t quote d b ypetitioner . Th e fac t tha t th e Orego n plan t v/a s no t bein g properl y operate d o r maintaine d doe s no t limi t EPAt o standard s base d o n test s conducte d durin g period s o f malfunction . EP Aattempt s t o determin e th e bes t level s tha t a plan t can achieve . I n an yevent , th e testing a t th e Orego n Portland Cemen t plan t v/a s consisten t wit hth e manne r o f conductin g performanc e test s unde r th e propose d revisio n t o §60.8(c ) o f Titl e 40 , Cod e o f Federa l Regulations . 3 8 Fed . Reg . 10820-2 1 (Ma y2 , 1973) . Tha t sectio n provide s tha t complianc e test s shal l b e base d upo n representativ e performance , whic hshal l no t includ e period s o f startup , shutdov/n , an

d upset . EP Aha s promulgate d regulation s whic hmak e i t clea r tha t EPA' s mas s emissio n limit s appl y oni ydurin g performanc e test s rathe r tha n a t al l times . (3 8 Fed . Reg , 28565 , Octobe r 15 , 1973) . ISSU E 1 4 On pag e 48 , th e Cour t direct s EP At o stat e wit h specificit yv/ha

t literatur e i s relie d o n t o suppor t th e standard . 5 6 ••j- » 7 •>•*••• •P.6 3



### RESPONS E Thi s i s discusse d i n th e tex t above . A s indicate d i n th e text , a principa l literatur e sourc e wa s a governmen t publication , resultin g froma stud yconducte d i n cooperatio n wit hrepresentativ e companie s manufacturin g portland cemen t entitled , "Atmospheri c Emission s fromthe Manufactur e o f Portland Cement" . Thi s principa l literatur e sourc e provide d basi c informatio n regardin g cemen t plan.ts , includin g proces s details , proces s equipment , type s o f contro l equipmen t utilized , an

d documentatio n tha t baghouse s coul d b e use d fo r th e contro l o f particulate s frombot hv/e t an d dr yproces s kilns , i.e . tha t baghous e contro l i s "adequatel ydemonstrated. " I n addition , th e name s o f cemen t companie s - locatio n an d siz e o f cemen t plant s wer e liste d an d thi s informatio n wa s utilize d b

ylocatin g th e bes t controlle d plant s t o b e considere d fo r inspectio n an d possibl e sourc e testin g i n conjunctio n wit hth e developmen t o f ne wsourc e performanc e standards . Sourc e tes t dat a include d i n th e repor t wer e no t relie d o n b

yEP At o sho wtha t th e standar d wa s bein g met . ISSU E 1 5 I n footnot e 9 5 , th e Cour t state s tha t i f vendo r repre sentation s ar e t o b e relie d on , mor e migh t b e require d tha n mer e comments . 5 7P.6 4



### RESPONS E Th e relevanc e c f vendo r statement s i s discusse d i n th e tex t above . Th e test s EP Aconducte d v/er e sufficiently

supportiv e o f EPA' s standard s tha t vendo r representations , althoughrelevan t t o confirmthe standar d can b e met , ar e no t o f suc hcrucia l importanc e tha t the time an d effor t require d t o g o beyon d thei r professiona l representation s i s warranted . ISSU E 1 6 O n page s 49-52 , th e Cour t direct s EP At o reconside r th e opacit ystandard . '*' iSfe 

### * RESPONS E Thi s i s discusse d i n th e tex t above .

5 8P.6 5

BOD Y O F RESPONSE AN

D APPENDIX I Atmospheri c Emission s fro mth e Manufactur e o f Portlan d Cement , U . S . Dlj-7' 7 ?I-"S , Nationa l Cente r fo r Ai r Pollu

tio n Control , Cincinnati , Ohio , PH S Publicatio n No . 999-AP-17 , 1967 . Contro l Technique s fo r Particulat e Ai r Pollutants , U.S . DHEW , PKS , CPEHS , Nationa l Ai r Pollutio n Contro l Admin

istration , Washington , D . C , NAPC APublicatio n No . AP 51 , 1969 . Establishmen t o f Nationa l Emissio n Standard s fo r Stationar y Sources , Volum e VI , Portlan d Cemen t Manufacturin g Plants , Contrac t No . CPA-70-1 6 4 , Tas k Orde r No . 2 , Prepare d fo r th e Nationa l Ai r Pollutio n Contro l Administration , Durham , N . C , b

yResearc hTriangl e Institut e an d PEDC o Environ

menta l Specialists , Incorporated , 1970 . Th e Financia l Impac t o f Ai r Pollutio n Contro l Upo n th e Portlan d Cemen t Industry , Interna l document , Environ

menta l Protectio n Agency , Raleigh , Nort hCarolina , 197 1 l^'-V--" - ?"^

- Emissio n Testin g Report , Environmenta l Protectio n Agency , ET B Tes t Numbe r 71-MM-05 , Drago n Cemen t Company , Northampton , Pennsylvania . Emissio n Testin g Report , Environmenta l Protectio n Agency , ET B Tes t Numbe r 71-MM- 0 3 , Idea l Cemen t Company , Seattle , Washington . Emissio n Testin g Report , Environmenta l Protectio n Agency , ET B Tes t Numbe r 71-MM-01 , Maul e Industries , Hialeah , Florida .

9 .

1 0 Emissio n Testin g Report , Environmenta l Protectio n Agency , ET B Tes t Numbe r 71-MM-07 , Gian t Portlan d Cemen t Company , Harleyville , Sout hCarolina . Emissio n Testin g Report , Environmenta l Protectio n Agency , ET B Tes t Numbe r 71-MM-15 , Orego n Portlan d Cemen t Company , Lak e Oswego , Oregon . Emissio n Testin g Report , Lehig hPortlan d Cemen t Company , Unio n Bridge , Maryland , dr yprocess , electrica l precipita

tor , Unio n Bridg e N o ' ' ' " " ' Inc. , 1972 . 4 kiln , Teste d b yResource s Research ,

5 9P.6 6

11 . Emissio n Testin g Report , Marquett e Cemen t Manufacturin g Company , Hagor s •*

: ov;n , Marylrnd , dr yprocess , electrica l precipitator , T;;. . Le d b yMarquett e Cemen t Manufacturin g Company , 1 9 72 . 12 . Optica l Propertie s and Visua l Effect s o f Smoke-Stac k Plumes , U . S . DHIIW , PHS , Burea u o f Diseas e Preventio n an d Environmenta l Control , Cincinnati , Ohio , PH S Publica

tio n No . 999-AP-30 , 1967 . 13 . Th e Cemen t Industry : Economi c Impac t o f Pollutio n Con

tro l Costs , Volum e I , Contrac t No . EQC-2 0 4 , Prepare d fo r th e Counci l o n Environmenta l Qualit yan d tli e Environ

menta l Protectio n Agency , Washington , D . C. , byth e Bosto n Consultin g Group , 1971 . 14 . AManua l o f Electrostati c Precipitato r Technology , Par t II—Applicatio n Areas , Contrac t No . CP A22-69-73 , Parepare d fo r th e Nationa l Ai r Pollutio n Contro l Administration , Cincinnati,'Ohio , bySouther n Researc h Institute , pp . 609-640 , 1970 . 15 . Developmen t Documen t fo r Effluen t Limitation s Guide

line s an d Standard s o f Performance , Cemen t Manufacturin g Industry , Contrac t No . 68-01-0599 , Draf t repor t prepare d fo r th e U . S . Environmenta l Protectio n Agency , Washington , D . C , bySouther n Researc hInstitute , 1973 . 16 . Analysi s o f Fina l Stat e Implementatio n Plans—Rule s an d Regulations , Contrac t No . 68-02-0248 , Prepare d fo r th e U . S . Environmenta l Protectio n Agency , Researc h Triangl e Park , N . C . byth e Mitr e Corporation , Offic e o f Ai r Programs , Publicatio n No . APTD-1334 , 1972 . 17 . Standard s o f Performanc e fo r Ne wStationar ySources , Summarie s o f Tes t Data , Interna l document , U . S . Environ

menta l Protectio n Agency , Durham , N . C. , 1971 . 18 . Arepor t o n Contaminate d Wate r Vapo r Plumes , Interna l document , U . S . Environmenta l Protectio n Agency , Durham , N . C , 1973 . 19 . Averag e Observationa l Erro r Associate d Wit hSmok e Plume s At Level s O f Know n Opacity , Interna l Document , U . S . Environmenta l Protectio n Agency , Durham , N.C . 1973 . 20 . Lette r Fro

mMarti n Mariett a Cemen t Compan y(Formerl yDragon Cemen t Company) , Confirmin g Ga s Flo

wRate s As Measure d B yEP ADurin g Tes t No . 71-MM-05 , Dated Augus t 24 , 1972 . 6 0APPENDI X I I EPARESPONS E TO PETITIONERS'tCOMMENT S REGARDIN G EPARESPONS E TO REMAN D

0%P&3ii

6 1APPENDI XI I

Portlan d Cemen t Associatio nComment s P.6 8

Advers e Environmenta l Impac t Portlan d Cemen t Associatio n(PCA ) objecte d t o th e draf t respons e t o th e issu e o f th e environmenta l impac t associate d wit hth e electricit y require d t o operat e th e contro l technology . I nparticular , PCAobjecte d tha t th e Agenc yshoul d no t hav e compare d th e electricit yrequire d t o operat e th e contro l technolog yneede d t o mee t EPAstandard s wit hth e electricit yrequire d t o mee t Stat e pollutio ncontro l standards . PCA believe d tha t Stat e regulations "d o no t furnis ha vali d basi s t o excus e EP Afro mit s statutor ydut ybecaus e mos t o f thos e regulations , wer e i n effect , mandate d b

yEP Aitself. " EP Adi d no t mandat e specifi c Stat e particulat e emissio nlimitations . Prio r t o th e dat e tha t ne wsourc e performanc e standard s and implementatio nplan s wer e proposed , man yprogressiv e Stat e and loca l ai r pollutio ncontro l agencie s ha d promulgate d rule s an d regulation s tha t wer e a s stric t o r stricte r tha nthos e require d b yEPAt o assur e tha t nationa l ambien t ai r qualit ystandard s woul d be met . Fo r example , th e Stat e o f Marylan d ha d promulgate d regulations

—tha t allowe d n o visibl e emission s and mas s emissio nstandard s tha t ar e a s stringen t a s EP Ane wsourc e performanc e standards . Afte r th e Clea nAi r Ac t wa s signe d int o law , EPAwa s require d t o revie wStat e implementatio nplan s t o determin e whethe r the ywoul d achiev e and maintai nnationa l ambien t ai r qualit ystandards , includin g standard s Bj^SS^f t



### 6 3P.6 9



### fo r particulates . I nsom e cases , EPApromulgate demissio nlimit s wher e th e Stat e plan s di dno t adequatel yachiev e o r maintai nth e nationa l ambien t standards . However , th e Stat e wa s fre e t o determin e whic h emissio nsource s shoul db e reduce dt o mee t th e ambien t standard s o r t o achiev e mor e stringen t ambien t levels . I t is , therefore , incorrec t tha t EPA"mandated " specifi c Stat e particulat e emissio nlimitations . Furthermore , EPAdi dno t limi t it s consideratio no f th e advers e environmenta l impac t o f th e electricit yrequire dt o operat e th e contro l equipmen t t o a compariso no f th e impac t o f EPA' s standard s wit hth e impac t o f Stat e standards . EPAi nit s reman drespons e compare dth e approximatel y11 5 kilowatt s require dt o operat e a precipitato r tha t woul dmee t th e ne wsourc e performanc e standard s wit hth e tota l electri c powe r rat e consumptio no f a typica l cemen t plan t whic happroximate s f#*-*->>*'* « 5,30 0 kilowatt s andwit hth e 500,00 0 kilowat t outpu t o f a typica l ne w steam generatin g electri c powe r plant . EP Abelieve s tha t thi s compariso n alon e indicate s tha t a detaile ddiscussio no f th e incrementa l andenvironmenta l impac t associate dwit hth e additiona l 115 kilowatt s require dt o mee t th e ne wsourc e performanc e standard s i s unwarranted . Furthermore , EP Awoul d not e tha t th e 11 5 kilowat t incremen t i s base dupo nth e assumptio ntha t emission s woul dotherwis e b e totall yuncontrolled . I t i s nearl yinconceivabl e tha t State s and/o r loca l government s woul dpermi t Portlan dcemen t plant s t o b e operate dwithou t anyparticulat e contro l whatsoeve r bu t fo r EPA' s require

men t o f suc hcontrol . PCAals o object s tha t EPA' s consideratio no f th e environmenta l impac t o f wate r pollutio nfro mth e run-of f fro mkil ndus t pile s ha s bee n inadequatel yconsidered . First , i t shoul db e note dtha t wate r

64P.7 0

pollutio nresultin g fro m particulat e matte r i s no t a questio no f whethe r wate r pollutio noccurs , bu t wher e i t occurs . Uncontrolle d emission s deposi t th e particulate s throughou t th e countrysid e wher e i t the nwashe s int o wate r supplies . O nth e othe r hand , removin g particulate s fro mexhaus t gase s enable s th e sourc e t o collec t th e particulat e matte r and thu s contro l wate r run-of f o f th e particulat e matte r shoul d i t occur . Second , muc ho f th e particulat e matte r collecte d b yemissio ncontro l device s ca nb e use d b yPortlan d cemen t plants . Thus , th e tota l amoun t o f particulate s dispose d o f wil l b e les s i f collecte d b yemissio ncontro l device s tha ni f vente d uncontrolle d int o th e atmosphere . Th e technolog yfo r contro l o f wate r run-of f fro mdus t pile s i s simila r t o tha t require d fo r coa l pil e drainage , yar d drains , an d run-of f fromconstruction . Thes e stream s mus t b e wholl yo r partiall ydetaine d durin g stor mevent s i norde r t o minimiz e overal l treatmen t costs . Diking , ditching , an d holdin g technolog yca npracticall yb e utilize d i nconjunctio nwit h facilitie s fo r sedimentatio no r filtratio nfo r solid s remova l and fo r p H 8 / control. - EPAdoe s no t believ e tha t wate r run-of f fro mpile s o f particulat e emission s fro mPortlan d cemen t plant s i s a majo r problem . T o th e exten t ther e i s a problem , i t i s th e judgmen t o f th e Administrato r tha t th e proble mo f wate r ru nof f fro m collecte d pile s o f particulat e matte r i s les s tha nth e proble mo f uncontrolle d release s o f particulat e matte r int o th e atmosphere . Cost-Benefi t Analysi s PCAargue s tha t EPAshoul d d o a cos t benefi t analysis . Suc ha n analysi s ha s no t bee nmad e becaus e reasonabl e mean s fo r doin g s o d o no t ye t exist , i nth e opinio no f EPA . Anemissio nlimitatio no na specifi c typ e o f emissio nsourc e wil l hav e differen t effect s o nambien t level s i n differen t places . Ambien t level s ar e affecte d no t onl yb yemissio n 

### P§i# SP.7 1



### level s o f specifi c source s bu t also-th e placemen t o f suc hsource s relativ e t o othe r source s andt o meteorologica l condition s aroun d eac ho f suc hsources . Furthermore , source s var yi nthei r geographica l relationship s t o populations , wildlife , vegetatio nandothe r factor s whic hwoul db e impacte db yth e emissio nsource . Thu s relatin g th e cos t o f contro l t o th e benefit s o f th e contro l a t leas t a t thi s tim e i s a practica l impossibility . W e believ e tha t Congres s intende d§11 1 t o b e use dt o establis h emissio nlimitation s whic har e th e lowes t tha t ca nb e achieve db ytha t industry . Wher e th e cos t o f meetin g suc hstandard s woul db e s o grea t tha t th e industr ycoul dno t bea r th e cost s andsurvive , suc hstandard s coul dno t be implemente db yth e industr yregardles s o f technologica l •».,*,>.._* , ifl'St''.-)?--**.'''' - 

### feasibility . Ther e ar e als o case s wher e a reductio ni nemission s tha t woul db e achieve db

ya particula r contro l techniqu e woul db e s o grossl y disproportionat e t o th e cos t o f th e contro l techniqu e tha t i t woul dno t be required . However , thes e determination s ar e necessaril yjudgmenta l andar e lef t specificall yt o th e Administrato r i n§111 . EPAdoe s no t believ e tha t cos t benefi t analysi s ca nb e establishe dfo r standard s unde r §11 1 no r doe s i t believ e tha t Congres s intende dtha t standard s b e establishe do r justifie do nth e basi s o f suc ha nanalysis . Althoug hEPAha s no t conducte da cos t benefi t analysi s fo r thes e standards , w e hav e considere dPCA' s criticism s o f th e standard s base d o ncos t benefi t analysis . PCArelie s heavil yo na conceptua l char t publishe di na nHE Wpublication : Contro l Technique s fo r Particulat e Ai r Pollutants , Pub . No . AP-51 . Thi s char t show s a smoot hcurv e relatin g "Capita l Costs " (althoug hn o unit s ar e showno nth e chart ) t o efficienc y o f th e contro l techniques . Th e char t show s th e curv e risin g asymptoticall y a s efficienc yapproache s 10 0 percent . However , thi s char t doe s no t represen t 6 6 Ith e realitie s o f contro l o f particulat e emission s ir . th e Portlan

d cemen t industry . The primar ymetho d o f contro l relie d on b yEP Aa t th e tim

e th e standard s wer e develope d wa s contro l b ybaghouses . Baghouse s whe n properl y designed , installed , an d maintaine d operat e a t nearl ythe sam e collectio n efficiency , thu s the relationshi p betwee n cos t an d efficiencyi s somewha t inelastic . I t i s wel l establishe d tha t properl ydesigne d an d maintaine d baghouse s can limi t emission s t o .0 3 grain s pe r actua l cubi c foo t (ACF ) o f emission ai r an

d gases . EP

Atest s confirme d tha t baghouse s alread y installed o n Portlan d cemen t plant s wer e capabl e o f achieving .0 3 gr/ac f i f properl ymaintaine d an d operated . I

n fact , EP

Abelieve s an

d recen t test s confir

mtha t baghouse s ca n achiev e highe r remova l efficiencies . However , a t som

e poin t o f contro l wher e emissio n level s ar e les s tha n .0 3 gr/ac f the remova l efficiencie s wil l no t increas e t o an ygrea t exten t l^f^ S regardles s o f the cos t o f th e equipment . I t i s onl ycoincidenta l tha t the standar

d fo r Portlan

d cemen t plant s result s in cost s tha t fal l below the leve l wher e cost s ris e sharpl ycompare d t o increased remova l efficiency . Thi s typ e o f cost-effectivenes s analysi s wa s neithe r th e basi s fo r setting the Portlan

d cemen t standard no r an yothe r newsourc e performanc e standard . I n general , a standar d wil l no t b

e establishe d a t a leve l a t whichthe cos t o f complianc e woul d resul t i n the inabilit yo f newplant s t o compet e wit h establishe d firms in the industry . Thi s typ e o f analysi s i s no t based upon cos t effectivenes s bu t rathe r upon th e economi c structur e o f the industr ya s a whole . PC Acommente d tha t i f cos t benefi t comparison s wer e mad e betwee n th e standard s fo r Portlan d cemen t plant s on the on e han d an d coal-fire d powe r plant s an d incinerator s o

n the other , the

ywoul d indicat e tha t the Portlan d cemen t standard s shoul d be loosene d an d the other s shoul d be tightened t o achieve a cos t benefi t equality . Th e particulat e standard s fo r coal-fire d powe r plant s an

d incinerator s wer e based o n th e us e o f precipitators . Althoug h

6 7P.7 3

ther e wer e indication s a t th e tim e th e standard s wer e promulgate d tha t precipitator s coul d b e use d o n Portlan d cemen t plant s an d baghouse s coul d b e use d o n coal-fire d powe r plant s and incinerators , EPA . base d it s standard s o n th e method s whic hha d bee n establishe d a s applicabl e t o th e sourc e subjec t t o th e standard . Furthermore , EP Abase d it s particulat e standard s fo r powe r plant s an d incinerator s o n emissio n level s bein g achieve d a t existin g plants . Becaus e th e remova l efficiencie s bein g achieve d b

yproperl ymaintaine d an d operate d baghouse s o n Portlan d cemen t plant s wer e superio r t o thos e bein g achieve d b ypowe r plant s an d incinerators , th e effectiv e emissio n concentratio n limit s wer e mor e restrictiv e fo r Portlan d cemen t plants . I t no wappear s tha t precipitato r technolog yma yachiev e th e sam e level s o f control , i.e. , belo w.0 3 gr/acf , require d o f th e Portlan d cemen t industr yan d tha t baghouse s ca n b e applie d t o th e othe r tw o industries . EP Awil l conside r whethe r th e particulat e standard s fo r th e othe r tw o industrie s shoul d b e tightened . However , EPAdoe s no t believ e tha t inequalitie s betwee n th e effectiv e emissio n concentratio n limit s betwee n thes e thre e type s o f source s shoul d b e eliminate d b y loosenin g th e standard s applicabl e t o Portlan d cemen t plant s a s urge d b y PCAt o permi t suc hplant s t o emi t a n additiona l "10,00 0 ton s pe r year " (PCA 1 s figure ) o f particulat e matte r t o th e atmosphere . Cos t Estimat e PCAcommente d tha t EP Aunderestimate d th e cos t o f achievin g th e standards . PCAparticularl yobjecte d tha t EP Adi d no t us e cos t figure s supplie d b

yth e industry . EP Adoe s no t agre e wit hth e industry' s cos t estimates . Th e cost s presente d b yPC Adi d no t spea k specificall yt o th e cost s resultin g fro mth e standar d o f performanc e fo r ne wcemen t plants . Th e estimate s reflec t th e tota l cost s necessar yt o mee t Stat e emissio n standard s 6 8 £&-$$ !P.7 4

and th e Federa l standard . I t i s no t possibl e t o separat e th e tw o cos t estimate s i nth e submitta l b yPCA . I naddition , PCAspok e onl yt o th e investmen t cos t fo r pollutio ncontro l and di d no t presen t anycost s fo r operatin g and maintainin g th e equipment . A s a result , th e cos t estimate s submitte d b

yPCAwer e o f n o valu e i nestimatin g th e cost s resultin g fro m th e standar d o f performance . Astudyo f th e economi c impac t o f pollutio ncontro l cost s upo nth e cemen t industr ywa s performe d b yth e Bosto nConsultin g Group and 2 / publishe d i n1971.

—On e o f th e conclusion s reache d wa s a s follows : "Th e combine d effect s o f plan t siz e advantage , require d pollutio ncontro l expenditure s o nexistin g plants , and labo r cos t pressur e wil l motivat e a rat e o f plan t construc tio ni nexces s o f th e rat e o f deman d growth , whic hitsel f

. wil l excee d tha t o f th e pas t decade . Th e consequenc e wil l b e a substantia l increas e i nplan t construction , virtuall y al l o f whic hwil l b e i nplant s wit hkil nsize s o f 2. 5 millio n barrel s and above. " Althoug hth e cost s use d i nthi s studywer e supplie d b yEPA , th e repor t goe s o nt o state : "I f th e industr yestimate s o f tota l and anticipate d pollutio n contro l cost s wer e used , instea d o f th e EPAfigures , th e fore

goin g conclusion s woul d no t b e changed , bu t woul d b e intensified. " I nsummary , th e Bosto nConsultin g Grou p studyforecast s a nincreas e i n ne wconstruction , no t a decrease . PCAfurthe r argue s tha t inflatio nwil l chang e th e cos t figures . I t i s tru e tha t inflatio nwil l chang e th e absolut e magnitud e o f th e cos t figures . I t i s als o true , however , tha t cemen t price s hav e rise na t a rat e a t leas t equa l t o th e overal l rat e o f inflation . Th e existenc e o f inflatio ni s no t a facto r tha t invalidate s th e cos t impac t originall y presente d sinc e i t tend s t o affec t al l items , revenue s a s wel l a s costs , 5**-*_3R£ :



### 6 9P.7 5

and leave s th e relativ e impac t unchanged . PCAals o criticize s th e Bosto nConsultin g Grou p studyo nth e basi s tha t i t considere d a mode l plan t rathe r tha n"widel yrangin g variation s i nra wmateria l availabilit yfue l cost s and availability , and regiona l marketin g considerations. " PC Aargue s tha t EP Ashoul d sho w tha t capita l wil l b e obtainabl e t o financ e pollutio ncontro l equipment . Raisin g capita l doe s no t appea r t o b e muc ho f a proble mfo r cemen t plants , eve nfo r pollutio ncontro l equipment . Th e followin g comment s ar e take nfro mth e Januar y197 4 volum e o f Pi t and Quarry , a neditio ntha t highlighte d pas t and futur e development s i nth e cemen t industry : "N o ne wplant s wen t int o operatio ni n1973 . Ther e were , however , eigh t majo r expansion s involvin g ne wkilns , a t leas t thre e o f whic hmigh t b e considere d a s a ne wplan t alongsid e a nolde r one . I nall , seve nne wkiln s an d 1 7 grindin g mill s ar e knownt o hav e bee ninstalle d durin g th e year. " Obviously , capita l wa s availabl e fo r thes e expansions . Specificall ywit hregar d t o pollutio ncontro l equipment , th e Pi t and Quarr yarticl e mentione d abov e state s tha t "197 3 wa s anothe r recor d yea r fo r th e installatio no f dus t collectors . A t leas t 3 4 electrostati c precipitators . 1 7 baghouses , and 2 grave l be d filter s ar e knownt o hav e bee ninstalled , mos t o f the mo nkilns , bu t som e als o o ncoolers . Thes e figure s ar e fa r abov e thos e i n197 2 and 1971 , whic hwer e recor d installatio nyears . Th e rat e o f installatio no f smalle r collectio nunit s wa s als o undoubtedl yahea d o f anypreviou s year. " I nligh t o f th e above , w e fin d i t difficul t t o believ e tha t capita l availabilit yi s a proble mi nth e cemen t industry . EP Abelieve s i t ha s adequatel yconsidere d cos t eve nthoug hi t ha s no t conducte d a nanalysi s o f th e cost s fo r pollutio ncontro l fo r eac hand ever y projecte d ne wplan t and ha s no t shownwher e and ho wth e capita l fo r pollutio n 7 0 ;^-<r¥* ?P.7 6

contro l equipmen t i s t o b e raise d b ysuc hplants . Th e cos t o f pollutio n contro l i s on e o f severa l factor s tha t migh t affec t a company' s decisio n t o locat e a plan t a t a give nsite . EPAdoe s no t believ e tha t §11 1 demand s th e finel ytune d cos t analysi s demande d b yPCA . Furthermore , th e agenc y believe s tha t a plan t b yplan t analysi s i s impractica l an d tha t th e mode l plan t representin g averag e facilitie s i s th e bes t approach . Demonstratio no f Achievabilit y PCAcriticize s th e testin g procedure s whic hEP Ause d t o determin e tha t th e standar d ca nb e achieved . PC Aadmit s th e standard s ca nb e achieved . The ystat e that :

"Petitione r doe s no t conten d tha t th e .0 3 gr/sc f Standar d canno t b e achieved . Indeed , a s state d i nSectio nI I above , i t i s believe d tha t efficiencie s i nexces s o f 99. 9 percen t ca nb e achieve d wit hexistin g technolog yand availabl e equipmen t applie d t o man ytraditiona l stationar ysource s o f particulat e pollutants , includin g cemen t plants. " (PCAComment s t o EP Adraf t response , p . 13 , not e 7. ) Thi s shoul d b e dispositiv e o f thi s issue . However , EPAha s considere d eac hspecifi c criticis mo f PCAo nthi s issu e and fo r purpose s o f developin g a complet e response , wil l addres s eac hissu e here . Apparentl yth e base s o f PCA' s criticism s ar e tha t som e test s showe d th e standard s wer e no t bein g met , tha t eac htes t tha t showe d th e standard s coul d b e me t ha d som e defec t o r wa s no t adequatel yverifie d b yEP Aand i n particula r tha t EPAdiscontinue d testin g on e plan t (th e Orego nplant ) tha t wa s poorl ymaintaine d unti l broke nbag s wer e tie d off . PCAapparentl yconstrue s §11 1 a s requirin g EP At o se t a standar d o f performanc e fo r ne wsource s tha t i s th e lowes t emissio nleve l achieve d a t anyexistin g plan t regardles s o f ho wpoorl yth e pollutio ncontro l equipmen t i s maintaine d o r operated . Th e purpos e o f §11 1 i s clearl yt o requir e ne wsource s t o us e th e bes t pollutio ncontro l equipmen t whic h ne wsource s ca nobtain . I norde r t o determin e wha t emissio n level s 7 1P.7 7

'ne wsource s ca nobtain , EP Ai s require d t o loo k a t th e bes t equipmen t use d b yexistin g plants , no t th e averag e an d certainl yno t th e worst . Furthermore , §11 1 standard s ar e no t require d t o permi t ne wsource s t o us e inadequat e maintenanc e simpl ybecaus e som e existin g plant s ar e inadequatel ymaintained . Turnin g no wt o specifi c criticism s b yPCAo f EPA' s testing , PCA argue s tha t a t th e Drago ncemen t plan t tes t th e admitte d presenc e o f settle d dus t i nth e duc t a t th e tes t poin t raise s furthe r doubt s a s t o th e accurac yo f th e result s obtained . Th e Drago ncemen t plan t tes t wa s conducte d b

yexper t sourc e tes t personnel . Th e settle d dus t i nth e duc t wa s recognized . Th e laye r o f dus t reduce d th e cross-sectiona l are a and thi s wa s considere d i ncalculation s fo r th e tota l volumetri c flo wrate . PCAobject s tha t th e locatio no f th e tes t poin t i nth e Drago ncemen t plan t di d no t compl ywit hth e EP Ates t procedure s se t fort hi nFedera l Registe r Vol . 36 , No . 247 , Sectio n60.85 . Th e tes t conducte d a t Drago nCemen t plan t wa s conducte d befor e tes t procedure s wer e detaile d i nth e Federa l Registe r fo r ne wplants . I t mus t furthe r b e realize d tha t testin g ha d t o b e conducte d a t existin g plant s t o sho wwha t level s o f emissio ncontro l wer e achievabl e b yne wplants . EPAcoul d no t construc t well-controlle d plant s wit hprope r duc t configuration s solel yfo r standard-settin g purposes . I t i s concede d tha t ductwor k a t th e plan t wa s no t ideal ; however , i norde r t o compensat e fo r this , samplin g wa s conducte d a t a large r numbe r o f travers e point s tha nwoul d normall y b e use d a t a tes t locatio nwit ha suitabl e ductwor k configuratio nand a precisio nlow-rang e incline d manomete r wa s use d fo r th e velocit y measurements . Thi s typ e o f manomete r permitte d a highe r standar d o f precisio nb

yexpandin g th e scal e t o improv e readibilit yand sensitivit y $?$$ $P.7 8

o f th e velocit yhea d measurements . I n addition , thre e separat e tes t run s wer e conducted , eac ho f whic hindicate d complianc e wit hth e standard . I f result s o f eac htes t ru nha d varie d widely , the n ther e coul d hav e bee nseriou s doubt s concernin g th e tes t results . Thi s wa s no t th e case . PC Aobject s tha t th e Orsa t analysi s whic hEP Aadmit s wa s inaccurat e affect s th e result s o f th e sourc e tes t conducte d a t th e Drago n Cemen t plant . Whil e petitione r i s technicall ycorrect , th e inaccurat e Orsa t analysi s introduce d onl ya smal l erro r du e t o th e slightl ydifferen t densit yo f th e gases . I t appear s tha t th e actua l carbo n dioxid e conten t i nTes t No . 1 wa s 15. 4 percen t instea d o f 7. 5 percen t a s reported r There

fore , th e dr ymolecula r weigh t o f th e gase s woul d hav e bee n 30.9 3 pound s pe r cubi c foo t rathe r tha n29.8 2 pound s pe r cubi c foot . Thi s facto r coul d hav e introduce d a nerro r o f n o mor e tha n 1. 8 percen t i n reporte d s'fs*S&j ? emissio nlevels . EP Arelie d o nmeasure d value s a s th e critica l parameter s i nth e Drago ntest . Th e fac t tha t on e measure d valu e whic hwa s no t critica l an d whic hi s strongl ysuspec t t o b e i n error , woul d lea d t o calculate d value s which.disagre e wit hth e measure d value s doe s no t suppor t excludin g th e Drago n tes t fro mconsideratio no f whethe r th e standar d ca n b e achieved . PC Aobject s tha t th e Orego nPortlan d Cemen t plan t ha d a nestimate d 1 5 percen t o f th e bag s tie d of f thu s creatin g a nunrepresentativ e operatin g condition . EP Awa s face d wit hth e necessit yo f testin g existin g Portlan d cemen t plant s t o se t a standar d fo r ne wsources . Th e recor d show s tha t mos t existin g plant s wer e poorl ymaintained . Althoug hth e plan t operator s ha d bee nnotifie d tha t thei r plant s wer e goin g t o b e sourc e teste d fo r ne w sourc e performanc e standards , bot hth e Orego n Portlan d Cemen t plan t an d th e Gian t Portlan d Cemen t plan t operation s wer e bein g operate d wit hhole s i n thei r bag

house , bag s a t th e tim e tha t sourc e testin g wa s scheduled . Abnormalitie s a_ / A s note d o npag e 1-1 2 o f th e propose d respons e t o reman d orde r b vU.S . Cour t o f Appeal s fo r th e Distric t o f Columbia , eve ni f Mr . Striker'wer e correct , th e particulat e emissio ntes t result s fo r th e maximu mtes t woul d b e 0.2 2 lbs/ton , 3 0 percen t les s tha nth e standard . 7 3i nthei r baghous e operatio nwer e detecte db y visibl e emissions . In bot hcases , EPA

engineer s recognize dthes e excessiv e emissions , stoppe d the testing , andrequeste dplan t maintenanc e personne l t o ente r th e baghous e an

dti e of f bag s tha t wer e leakin gexcessiv e emission s o f dus t throughhole s inth e bags . Inth e cas e o f th e Orego nPortlandCemen t plant , i t wa s estimate d tha t 1 5 percen t o f th e bag s wer e tie doff ; however , eve nwit hthi s relativel y

larg e numbe r o f bag s tie doff , th e baghous e contro l system wa s capabl e of>beingoperate d(withth e kil ninnorma l operation ) withi n the limit s o f the propose dmas s emissio nan dvisibl e emissio nstandards . PC A argue s furthe r onthi s poin t that : "Specia l repair s mad e fo r the purpos e o f thi s tes t . . . presen t anethica l issu e simila r t o th e FordMoto r Company maintenanc e procedure s fo r whic hFordwa s prosecuted . ... " (PC A Comments , p . 15 , not e 9) . EPA believe s tha t th e ethica l distinction s betwee nadjustin gequipmen t a t EPA' s reques t an

dunauthorize dtamperin gwit hcar s undergoin gcertificatio n test s ar e sel f evident . PC A criticize drelianc e onth e Marquett e an dLehightest s i nMaryland becaus e the y

wer e performe do

nnew facilitie s jus t brough t upt o productio n rate . PC

A believe s tha t thes e wer e ideal , rathe r tha nrepresentative , condition s andtherefor e shouldn' t b e relie don . I t i s pointe dou t tha t th e cove r lette r fro

m the Stat e o f Marylan dstate s tha t th e equipmen t fo r bot h plant s wa s installe dnew i n1970 . Th e sourc e test s wer e no t conducte dunti l 1972 . Sourc e test s fo r complianc e wit hnew sourc e performanc e standard s wil l b e conducte donnew o r substantiall y

modifie dfacilities . Ther e i s n o reaso ntha t contro l equipmen t canno t b e installed , maintained , an doperate da s necessar y t o mee t th e standar dlongafte r th e plan t ha s 7 4P.8 0

bee ni noperation . Test s o f th e Drago nand Oregu n plant s confir mthis . PC Aargue s tha t EP Adi d no t conduc t th e sourc e test s o nth e Marquett e and Lehig hplants . The yclai mEPAshouldn' t rel yo nth e repor t o f anothe r agency . Th e tes t report s fo r th e Marquett e and Lehig hPortlan d Cemen t plant s wer e officia l document s submitte d byth e companie s t o a Stat e ai r pollutio ncontro l agency . Th e tes t report s stat e tha t th e test s wer e conducte d followin g EPAtes t method s and tes t result s indicate d complianc e wit hth e NSPS . Test s t o determin e complianc e wit hth e standard s i nquestio nwoul d b e conducte d i nessentiall yth e sam e manner . Subsequen t t o Novembe r 26 , 1973 , th e U . S . Environmenta l Protectio n Agenc yha s receive d additiona l sourc e tes t dat a and informatio nindicatin g tha t additiona l Portlan d cemen t plan t kiln s and clinke r cooler s ar e capabl e Itllfl i o f bein g operate d i ncomplianc e wit hne wsourc e performanc e standards . I t i s pointe d ou t tha t thi s dat a and informatio nha s no t bee npresente d t o th e petitioner s becaus e o f th e tim e elemen t involved ; however , becaus e o f it s relevancy , th e dat a ar e summarize d i nTabl e I . Tabl e I Emission s i nLbs/To n Tes t Dat e Nam e o f Companyo f DryFee d 6/25-27/7 4 Unite d Cemen t Company ^ 0.20 9 Artesia , Mississippi , kiln , we t process , electrica l precipitato r 8-20-7 4 Unite d Cemen t Company,- / 0.0 4 Artesia , Mississippi , clinke r cooler , cyclon e and we t scrubber . 5/23-24/7 4 Sante e Portlan d Cemen t Company-- 7 0.10 7 Holl yHill , Sout hCarolina , kiln , we t process , tw o electrica l precipitator s 

### 75P.8 1

Emissio ni nLbs/To n Tes t Dat e Nam e o f Companyof'Dr yFee d 6/12-14/7 4 Monarc hCemen t Company

- 0.19 6

Humboldt , Kansas , kil n No . 4 , dr yprocess , baghous e 6/12-14/7 4 Monarc hCemen t Company1 / 0.017 4

Humboldt , Kansas , clinke r cooler , No . 4 kil nsystem , baghous e

$2&5 ^



### 76NORTHWESTERNSTATE S PORTLAN D CEMEN T COMPANYCOMMENT S Comment s o nAffidavi t o f Mr . Strike r Mr . Strike r commente d rathe r extensivel yo nth e Orsa t analysi s use d a t th e Drago nCemen t plan t test . Bot hMr . Striker' s comment s o nthi s issu e and EPA' s response-&r e highl ytechnica l and ar e no t include d here . Copie s o f bot ho f thes e document s ma ybe obtaine d fro mth e Emissio n Standard s an d Engineerin g Division , Researc hTriangl e Park , Nort h Carolin a 27711 , Attention : Mr . Do nR . Goodwin . I t wil l onl yb e note d her e tha t EP Adisagree s wit hMr . Striker' s conclusions . Furthermore , eve ni f Mr . Striker' s conclusion s wer e correct , th e Drago ntes t stil l me t th e standar d a s di d th e test s take na t thre e othe r plants , a s note d i nth e tex t o f thi s response . Mr . Strike r comment s a s follows : "Th e standar d i s inferentiall ybase d o n th e premis e tha t al l cemen t plant s ar e essentiall yalik e althoug hthi s i s no t th e case . Ever yplan t i s custo mdesigne d and a uniqu e operation. " Nearl yevery stationar ysourc e i s a "uniqu e operation" . Availabilit yo f loca l material s and loca l labo r forc e a s wel l a s sitin g and othe r uniqu e constraint s var ywit heac hplant . I t woul d b e infeasibl e an d Congres s di d no t inten d fo r EPAt o se t a differen t standar d fo r eac h ne wPortlan d cemen t plant . However , i t i s th e judgmen t o f EP Atha t al l ne wplant s ca nmee t th e standar d regardles s o f ra wmaterial s used . Contro l equipmen t installe d t o minimiz e particulat e emission s fro mPortlan d cemen t plan t kiln s ar e no t off-the-shel f typ e items . Eac huni t mus t b e carefull yengineere d an d consideratio nmus t b e give nt o al l variable s tha t ca naffec t th e efficien t operatio no f th e equipment . 7 7P.8 3

Mr . Strike r hasn' t showntha t th e fou r plant s whic hwer e found t o mee t th e particulat e standar d wer e uniqu e i nanyrespect . Neithe r ha s h e showntha t ne wplant s whic hinstal l equall yeffectiv e control s won' t mee t th e standard . Operator s hav e reasonabl e option s i n choosin g site s and ra wmaterial s fo r ne wplants . I f operator s wer e i nfac t convince d tha t ther e wer e factor s whic hadversel yaffecte d particulat e emissions , thes e coul d b e avoide d i nth e buildin g o f ne w plants . Mr . Stt'ke r claim s tha t independen t sourc e test s and summar ytes t dat a submitte d t o EP AbyDrago nCemen t Compan yar e o f littl e value . I t i s EPA' s opinio ntha t summar ytes t dat a submitte d b yDrago nCemen t Companyshowin g th e result s o f a tes t conducte d independentl yb yth e Companywhic htend t o suppor t th e standar d ar e o f grea t value . Further

more , th e volum e o f gases , th e dus t concentration , and emission s reporte d i nth e summar yagre e favorabl ywit hEP Ates t results . Mr . Strike r believe s th e Drago nCemen t tes t shoul d b e fre e fro mal l doubt s and shoul d stan d up unde r critica l inspectio nfro manystandpoint . Th e Drago nCemen t result s ar e a s fre e fro mdoub t a s almos t anyothe r sourc e test . Examinatio nshow s tha t th e configuratio no f th e ductwor k wa s no t idea l bu t tha t EP Amodifie d th e samplin g procedur e a s muc ha s possibl e t o offse t thes e conditions . I naddition , al l reasonabl e analysi s includin g informatio nan d test s supplie d b yth e operatin g companyconfir m tha t th e exhaus t volum e rat e i s a s measure d i nth e EP Atest,no t th e muc h large r valu e predicte d b yMr . Striker . W e believ e th e operatin g compan y i s muc hmor e knowledgeabl e o f th e kil nsyste mtha nMr . Striker . Mr . Strike r suggest s th e Lehig hPortlan d Cemen t test s o nNo . 4 kil n a t Unio nBridge , Maryland , appea r erroneous . Mr . Strike r ha s provide d 7 8 

## &S »P.8 4

n o basi s fo r thi s conclusion . A s i nothe r instances , i t appear s tha t estimate s wer e use d t o mak e theoretica l determination s tha t d o no t agre e wit hth e measure d values . Mr . Strike r ha s submitte d n o factua l informatio nt o prov e tha t hi s determination s ar e correct .



### m&

79P.8 5

Comment s o f Mr . Photiade s Mr . Photiade s commente d tha t manufacturer' s warrantie s ar e limited . Th e inferenc e o f thi s comment i s tha t suc hwarrantie s shoul d no t b e greatl yrelie d o n t o suppor t th e standard . A s EPAnote d i n th e tex t o f it s response , vendo r representation s wer e no t o f critica l importanc e i n supportin g th e standard . However , sinc e a vendo r ha s a reputatio n t o maintai n a s wel l a s a financia l obligatio n t o mee t th e stric t term s o f a warranty , representation s o f a reputabl e vendo r tha t it s equipmen t wil l mee t th e standar d i s o f som e valu e i n supportin g th e standar d eve n i f th e warrant yo f it s equipmen t i s limited . Vendor s usuall ylimi t thei r warrantie s no t becaus e o f doub t abou t th e reliabilit yo f th e equipmen t s o muc ha s du e t o th e fac t tha t the yhav e n o contro l ove r operatio n and maintenanc e o f &$?$; $ th e equipment . Mr . Photiade s als o comment s tha t inflatio n an d othe r factor s hav e cause d price s t o increas e sinc e th e tim e EP Apromulgate d th e standard . Mr . Photiade s cite s bid s mad e o n a Northwester n baghous e t o suppor t hi s contention . EP Acanno t disagre e tha t cost s hav e rise n du e primaril y t o inflatio n ove r th e 1971-197 4 period ; however , i t i s als o pointe d ou t tha t th e cost s o f othe r cemen t plan t component s a s wel l a s th e revenue s fro m 

## y th e cemen t sol d hav e likewis e rise n ove r th e sam e period . N o informatio n o r dat a hav e bee n presente d tha t EP Aestimate s o f cost s a s shown i n th e documen t entitled , "Th e Financia l Impac t o f Ai r Pollutio n Contro l Upo n th e Portlan d Cemen t Industry " byR . J . Elia s and J . M . Demen t ar e grossl yi n error . Th e bid s mad e o n on e baghous e neithe r prov e th e study i s invali d no r tha t th e standar d shoul d b e changed , particularl ywhe n th e norma l variabilit yi n capita l expenditure s i s considered . I t i s als o importan t t o not e tha t Mr . Photiade s di d no t provid e sufficien t b/Th e averag e cemen t pric e ros e fro m$3.52/bb l i n 197 1 (Mineral s Yearbook ,

— 197 2 Edition , pag e 259 ) t o $5.79/bb l i n 197 4 (Engineerin g News-Record , 8 0P.8 6

detai l i nhi s estimat e t o enabl e EP At o separat e th e financia l impac t resultin g fro mth e Stat e Implementatio n Plan s fro mth e impac t resulting , fro mne wsourc e performanc e standards . Comment s o f Mr . Shepar d Mr . Shepard , counse l fo r Northwester ncriticize s EPA' s relianc e o nth e Orego ntes t becaus e EP Astoppe d th e tes t unti l broke nbag s wer e tie d off . H e believe s tha t thi s prejudice d th e tes t becaus e i nhi s opinio nbroke nbag s represen t "norma l operatin g procedure " whic hmus t b e reflecte d i nth e tes t and therefor e th e standard . H e als o expresse d concer ntha t EP Adi d no t stat e tha t test s wer e no t unde r norma l operatin g procedure s unti l h e sa wth e draf t EPArespons e date d Novembe r 26 , 1973 . fei$§ EPAdi d no t and doe s no t conside r inadequat e maintenanc e o r kil n operatio nfixe d a t a lowe r tha nnorma l fee d rat e a s norma l operatin g procedur e whic hmus t b e permitte d unde r th e standard . A s fo r Mr . Shepard' s commen t tha t h e didn' t kno wtha t EPAdiscontinue d th e tes t unti l broke n bag s wer e tie d off , eve ni f tha t wer e materia l h e ha s had a nopportunit y t o commen t o nthi s issu e a s hi s clients ' comment s o nth e draf t o f thi s EP A respons e t o th e reman d wer e solicited . Indee d h e ha s commente d o nth e issue,s o i t i s no t clea r ho whi s client s wer e prejudice d byan yallege d failur e o f EP A t o suppl yinformatio na t som e poin t i nth e past . Mr . Shepar d als o suggest s tha t EPA' s reques t t o th e Orego noperato r t o ti e of f it s bag s i s equivalen t t o For d Moto r Company' s unauthorize d tamperin g wit hcar s undergoin g Federa l pollutio ncontro l test s fo r whic h For d wa s fine d $7,000,000 . A s note d earlie r i nthi s Appendi x(pag e 74) , :; ~ th e distinctio nbetwee nth e activitie s i s self-evident . 8 1P.8 7

REFERENCE S FO R APPENDI XI I 1 . Stat e o f Maryland , 43P0 4 regulation s governin g th e contro l o f ai r pollutio n i n are a II I (a s amende d throug hDecembe r 23 , 1971) . 2 . Th e Cemen t Industr y- Economi c Impac t o f Pollutio n Contro l Costs , Bosto n Consultin g Group , Novembe r 1971 , Vol . 1 , p . 11 . 3 . Emissio n Testin g Report , Unite d Cemen t Company , Artesia , Mississippi , kiln , we t process , electrica l precipitator , teste d b ycompanyper sonnel , 1974 . 4 . Emissio n Testin g Report , Unite d Cemen t Company , Artesia , Mississippi , clinke r cooler , cyclon e an d we t scrubber , teste d b ycompanyperson ne l , 1974 . 5 . Emissio n Testin g Report , Sante e Portlan d Cemen t Corporation , Holl y Hill , Sout hCarolina , kil n No . 2 , we t process , tw o electrica l precipitators , teste d b yPollutio n Control-Walther , Inc. , 1974 . 6 . Emissio n Testin g Report , Monarc hCemen t Company , Humboldt , Kansas , kiln , dr yproces s an d clinke r cooler , tw o baghouses , teste d b yth e Fulle r Company , 1974 . 7 . Memorandu m

fro mRoge r T . Shigehar a and Clyd e E . Rile yt o Rober t T . Walsh , date d Apri l 23 , 1974 , correcte d Jul y26 , 1974 . 8 . Development Documen t fo r Effluen t Limitation s Guideline s and Ne w Sourc e Performanc e Standard s fo r the Cemen t Manufacturin g Category , U.S . Environmenta l Protectio n Agency , EPA-440/l-74-005-a , 1974 . *?&!$ #



### 8 2P.8 8

APPENDI XII I PORTLAN D CEMEN

TREMAND RESPONS E

&rS5& T

8 3PORTLAN D CEMEN T REMAN D RESPONSE : APPENDI XIII , PAR T A : OPACIT YSTANDAR D P.8 9

I nth e cas e o f othe r point s a t issu e i nthi s Remand Response , i t ha s bee nnecessar yonl yt o supplemen t th e November , 197 3 Draf t Respons e t o dea l wit hth e comment s o f th e Portlan d Cemen t Associatio n and other s o ntha t Draf t Response . I norde r t o respon d full yt o th e comment s wit hrespec t t o opacity , i t ha s bee nnecessar yt o prepar e th e rewritten , extensiv e respons e foun d i nthi s Appendi xIII . Th e respons e containe d herei nshoul d therefor e b e considere d t o superced e tha t portio n o f th e Draf t Respons e dealin g wit hth e opacit ystandards , and th e presen t Appendi xII I constitute s th e Administrator' s ful l and complet e positio nwit hregar d t o thi s issue . EP Apromulgate d opacit ylimit s a s wel l a s mas s emissio nlimit s primaril ybecaus e EP Abelieve s tha t opacit ylimit s provid e th e onl y effectiv e and practica l metho d fo r determinin g whethe r emissio n contro l equipment , necessar yfo r a sourc e t o mee t th e mas s emissio n limits , i s continuousl ymaintaine d and operate d properly . I t ha s no t bee nEPA' s positio ntha t a single , constantl yinvarian t and precis e correlatio nbetwee nopacit yand mas s emission s mus t b e iden

tifie d fo r eac hsourc e unde r al l condition s o f operation . Suc ha correlatio ni s unnecessar yt o th e opacit ystandard , sinc e th e Administrato r consistentl ydevelop s opacit ystandard s fo r eac hclas s o f source s a t a leve l n o mor e restrictiv e tha nth e correspondin g mas s emissio nlimitatio nwit hdu e consideratio ngive nt o al l condition s §0$J&



### 8 5P.9 0

1 2 3 o f operation . ' Any sourc e whic hi s meetin gth e mas s limi t wil l there for e als o be meetin gth e opacit y limit ; i f a sourc e i s no t meetin g th e opacit y

limit , thi s wil l be du e t o th e failur e o f tha t sourc e t o properly maintai nandoperat e it s emissio ncontro l equipment . Andi f th e equipmen t necessar y t o mee t th e mas s emissio nstandar di s no t properly maintaine dandoperated , th e sourc e wil l als o fai l t o mee t th e mas s emissio nstandard . Opacit y standard s ar e a necessar y supplemen t t o mas s emissio n standards , sinc e ther e i s no reliabl e instrumen t t o directl y measur e mas s emission s currentl y available . I f onl y mas s emissio n standard s wer e i neffect , operator s woul dno t be compelle dt o assur e prope r maintenanc e andoperatio no f pollutio ncontro l equipmen t a t time s othe r thandurin gperiod s o f performanc e testing . Tw o week s o r longe r ar e necessar y t o schedul e a typica l stac ktest , du e t o th e preparatio ninvolved . I f relativel y mino r repair s wer e al l tha t wer e neede dina give ncase , suc ha s pum po r fanrepai r o r replace men t o f fabri c filte r bags , a plan t operato r coul ddelay such repair s andcontinu e t o pollut e unti l shortl y befor e the stac ktes t wa s conducted . Fo r some type s o f contro l equipment , suc ha s scrubbers , the operato r coul dreduc e th e inpu t o f energy (the pressur e dro pthroughth e system ) thereby partiall y

o r totall y

defeatin gth e ai r pollutio ncontro l system whe nstac ktest s wer e no t being conducte dan

dthroughsuc hactio ncoul dreleas e significantl y mor e particulat e matte r tha npermissibl e unde r th e mas s emissio nstandards . &*§&&$; •



### 8 6P.9 1

Furthermore , stac ktest s canonl y be conducte dwit hlimite dfrequency , sinc e they

ofte ncos t u

pt o $10,00 0 t o perform . Therefore , EP A ha s require dtha t operator s properl y maintai nandoperat e ai r pollutio n contro l equipmen t at al l time s [4 0 CFR60.11(d) ] an dmee t opacit y standard s a t al l time s excep t durin gperiod s o f startup , shutdown , malfunction , an

da s otherwis e provide dinth e applicabl e standar d[4 0 CFR60.11(d)] . Opacit y i s establishe da s anindependent , enforceabl e standard , rathe r thanmerel y a s a nindicato r o f maintenanc e an d operatin gconditions , becaus e informatio nregardin gthos e condition s i s peculiarl y

withi nthe contro l o f th e operator . Th e time an dexpens e require dt o prov e tha t prope r procedure s hav e no t bee nfollowe dar e s o grea t tha t the provision s o f 4 0 CFR60.11(d ) b y themselve s (withou t opacit y standards ) woul dno t provid e a practica l mean s fo r ensurin g tha t o na day-to-da y

basi s the pollutio ncontro l equipmen t i s main taine dan

doperate dinth e wa y necessar y

t o mee t th e mas s emissio n limitations . Opacit y standards , incontrast , requir e onl y a qualifie d observe r an

dcanbe performe dwit hno prio r notice . I nsome cases , o f course , a ful l investigatio no f operatin gandmaintenanc e condition s wil l b e desirable . Accordingly , th e opacit y standard s an

dmaintenanc e requirement s wer e bot hpromulgated , andwor kintandem t o guarante e tha t prope r maintenanc e an doperatio no f pollutio ncontro l equipment , th e sin e qu a nono f continuou s complianc e wit hemissio nlimits , cani n fac t b e require dan

dmonitored . Two primar y

aspect s o f the opacit y standards , raise db y Petitione r PortlandCemen t Association , wer e identifie db y th e Cour t o f Appeal s a s



### 87P.9 2

th e base s o f it s concern : 1 ) .th e inheren t reliabilit y o f opacit y standards , i.e . whethe r measurement s o f opacit y ca nbe mad e wit h reasonabl e accuracy , an d2 ) th e achievabilit y o f th e opacit y

standar d se t fo r portlandcemen t plants . RELIABILIT YO F OPACIT YSTANDARD S Accurac y o f Opacit y

Measurement s inDetectin gViolation s Th e PortlandCemen t Associatio n(PCA ) contend s tha t opacit y measurement s canno t b e mad e wit hreasonabl e accuracy . PC A indicates , i nparticular , tha t individua l observe r reading s unde r certai ncon dition s ar e ofte ninerro r b y 1 0 percen t opacit y

o r more , andtherefor e tha t "equivalen t opacity—a t an y leve l — i s a ninherentl y

inadequat e an dinvali dmeasur e t o determin e complianc e with , o r violatio no f a n anti-pollutio nlaw. " I nsuppor t o f thi s contention , PC A argue s tha t observe dopacit y

ma y b e affecte db

y suc hfactor s as : dar knights , contaminate dwate r vapo r o r detache dplumes , lac ko f contrastin gback ground(e.g. , whit e plume viewe dagains t a novercas t sky) , andwind velocity . Th e PC A an dothe r commentator s contendals o tha t EP A smok e schoo l requirement s an

dprocedure s ar e inadequat e t o ensur e tha t qualifie d observer s wil l mak e accurat e readings . Th e procedur e whereby trainin g plume s ar e show

ninadvanc e o f certificatio nruns , an dunde r whic h observer s ar e allowe dt o us e fixe d(non-sky ) contrastin gbackground s ar e note da s specifi c deficiencies . I nrespons e t o th e question s raise db y th e Cour t an

dth e PCA , EP A ha s reviewe davailabl e dat a concernin gth e accurac y o f qualifie d



### 88P.9 3

4 5 6 observers ; ' ' ha s reviewe dthe theor y o f equivalent opacity , particularl y

concerningth e effec t o f variabl e viewin gcondition s o n 5 6 accuracy ; ' ha s reviewe dth e smok e schoo l certificatio nprocedures ; an dha s conducte dextensiv e fiel dtest s involvin gbot hspeciall y generate dplume s andindustria l plumes . Onth e basi s o f thi s extensiv e review , EPA

conclude s tha t th e accurac y o f Referenc e Metho d9 ha s bee n wel l established , tha t it s erro r toleranc e i s reasonabl e andi s withi n limit s considere dnorma l b y th e scientifi c an

dengineerin gcommunity , an dtha t whe ntha t erro r toleranc e i s accounte dfo r inassessin gth e result s o f opacit y

readings , th e metho di s vali dan dreliabl e fo r determinin gcomplianc e wit hprescribe dopacit y standards . EPA

als o conclude s tha t th e smok e schoo l certificatio nprocedure s ar e adequat e t o assur e prope r qualificatio nan daccurac y

o f qualifie dobservers . Th e basi s fo r thes e conclusion s i s se t fort hbelow. PC A contend s tha t plume s o f th e same actua l opacit y wil l appea r t o hav e somewha t differen t opacitie s unde r dissimila r condition s o f viewing . EPA

agree s tha t thi s i s true . A plume wil l appea r mos t visibl e t o anobserve r whe nth e plume i s viewe dagains t a contrastin g

5 6 background . ' A

whit e plume therefor e wil l be mor e visibl e whe n viewe dagains t a blac kbackgroundo r a blu e sky tha ni t wil l whe n 5 viewe dagains t a haz y o r overcas t sky . Indeed , a whit e plume viewe d agains t a whit e backgroun dma y wel l b e invisible . PC A conclude s tha t becaus e a plume wil l appea r o f lesse r opacit y unde r les s contrastin g conditions , EPA' s opacit y standards , whic hlimi t allowabl e opacit y



### 8 9P.9 4

eve nunde r condition s o f maximu m apparen t opacity , ar e inaccurat e and unreliable . I t i s wit hthi s illogica l conclusio ntha t EP A disagrees . Cemen t plan t operator s ar e i nn o wa yprejudice d b yth e fac t tha t unde r les s contrastin g condition s th e opacit yo f thei r plum e ma yb e rea d a t les s tha nit s actua l value ; obviously , thi s i s t o thei r advantage . Thei r onl yrea l concern , therefore , i s wit hth e accurac y o f opacit yreading s unde r viewin g condition s o f highes t apparen t opacity . Sinc e opacit yappear s greates t unde r condition s o f hig hbackgroun d contrast , i t i s unde r suc hcondition s tha t th e potentia l fo r positiv e observe r erro r (observe d opacit ygreate r tha ntru e opacity ) i s greatest . Thi s i s verifie d b yth e availabl e data , whic hsho wtha t positiv e observe r erro r (averag e o f 2 5 readings ) ca napproac h+ 7. 5 &&# § percen t unde r relativel yhig hcontras t condition s suc ha s ar e encountere d a t a smok e school , whe na trainin g plum e i s observe d 4 7 agains t a contrastin g background . ' Agains t a les s contrastin g background , a plum e wil l b e les s visibl e and observe r error s wil l tend t o b e negativ e (observe d opacit yles s tha ntru e opacity) . Acolla

borativ e tes t performe d a t a powe r plan t wher e a whit e plum e wa s observe d o na novercas t da yconfirme d tha t thi s downwar d bia s ca nb e significant , t o th e exten t tha t th e probabilit yo f positiv e error s eve ni nsingl e reading s i s essentiall ynon-existen t unde r suc h

4 conditions . I t i s clea r therefor e tha t i nassessin g th e reliabilit yo f th e opacit ystandards , th e possibilit yo f positiv e error s i s o f primar y concern , sinc e suc herror s coul d i ntheor yresul t i nth e determinatio n



### 9 0P.9 5

o f a violatio nwhe ntru e opacit ywa s belo wth e standard . Whil e negativ e error s ar e undesirabl e fro manenforcemen t poin t o f view , the yd o no t plac e a complyin g sourc e i njeopardy . I t i s onl ynecessar y therefor e t o quantif yth e positiv e error , whic hma yoccu r unde r hig h contras t viewin g conditions , t o demonstrat e tha t th e metho d doe s measur e opacit ywit hth e reasonabl e accurac yrequire d o f anenforceabl e standard . A s th e Cour t o f Appeal s note s i nAmoc o Oi l Companyv . E.P.A. , 50 1 F2 d 722_ . (6ER C 1481 , Ma y1 , 1974 , sli p op . a t pp . 38-39) : Petitioner s als o conten d tha t an ytes t method s adopte d wil l involv e a certai ncapacit yfo r statistica l error . W e fai l t o appreciat e th e forc e o f thi s argument . Th e possibilit yo f statistica l measuremen t error , whic hi s ofte nunavoidabl e wher e regulation s se t quantitativ e standards , doe s no t detrac t fro managency' s powe r t o se t suc hstandards . I t merel ydeprive s th e agenc yo f th e powe r t o find a violatio n o f th e standards , in enforcemen t proceedings , wher e th e measure d departur e fro mthe mi s withi nth e boundarie s o f probabl e measure men t error . (Emphasi s i noriginal. ) Th e followin g dat a provid e a basi s fo r suc hquantificatio nan d lea d t o th e conclusio nthat , usin g anaverag e o f 2 5 reading s obtaine d unde r th e condition s prescribe d i nMetho d 9 , qualifie d observer s ar e abl e t o consistentl yassig nopacit yvalue s unde r relativel yidea l conditions , wit ha positiv e erro r seldo mexceedin g 7. 5 percen t opacity . (a ) Octobe r 197 3 repor t title d "Averag e Observatio nErro r Asso 4 date dwit hSmok e Plume s a t Level s o f Know nOpacity" . Thi s repor t i n additio nt o showin g tha t eac hobserver me t th e +

_7. 5 percen t require

ment , show s tha t whe nth e reading s o f al l observer s ar e averaged , th e larges t positiv e erro r associate d wit ha give nopacit yleve l wa s 5. 0 

### 8, 9 «S f 

## mm*

9 1P.9 6

percen t opacit ywhic hoccurre d whe n th e tru e opacit ywa s 1 0 percent . Fo r plume s betwee n 1 5 percen t and 9 0 percen t opacity , th e averag e erro r di d no t excee d + 2. 8 percen t opacity . Thi s i s a clea r demonstratio n o f th e inheren t accurac yo f th e techniqu e o f determinin g plum e opacit y throug hobservatio n b yqualifie d observers . (b ) In a tes t conducte d Novembe r 19-20 , 1973 , nin e qualifie d observer s wer e shown plume s generate d b ya smok e generator . Th e plume s wer e presente d i n run s o f 2 5 eac hdurin g whic heac hobserve r assigne d opacit yusin g th e procedure s se t fort hi n Metho d 9 . Atota l o f 13 3 set s o f 2 5 observation s usin g blac k smok e an d 17 0 set s o f 2 5 observa

tion s usin g whit e smok e wer e made . Th e result s o f thi s tes t ar e a s follows . Fo r whit e plumes , 9 9 percen t (16 8 o f 170 ) o f th e set s o f observation s wer e mad e wit ha n erro r o f les s tha n + 7. 5 percen t opacity . Ninety-fiv e percen t o f th e set s o f observation s wer e mad e wit ha n erro r o f les s tha n +5. 8 percen t opacity . Fo r blac k plumes , th e accurac ywa s eve n better : 9 9 percen t o f th e set s o f observation s wer e mad e wit ha n erro r o f les s tha n + 5 percen t opacity ; 9 5 percen t wer e mad e wit ha n erro r o f les s tha n +2. 7 percen t opacity . (c ) Ates t wa s conducte d a t a powe r plan t i n Charlotte , Nort h Carolina , o n Septembe r 30 , and Octobe r 1 , 1974 . I n thi s test , 8 qualifie d observer s mad e a tota l o f 16 8 set s o f 2 5 observation s and »;'vyi t '.-._ .



### 9 2P.9 7

assigne d opacit yaccordin g t o th e procedure s o f Metho d 9. * Eac hrun consiste d o f 2 5 individua l readings . Al l observer s ha d bee ncertifie d accordin g t o Metho d 9 . Tw o o f th e 8 observer s ha d no t had previou s fiel d experienc e and tw o ha d onl ylimite d fiel d experience . Th e powe r plan t plum e (whic hwa s monitore d wit ha nin-stac k transmissometer ) wa s whit e i nappearanc e an d wa s viewe d agains t a constrastin g clea r blu e sky(no condense d wate r vapo r wa s presen t i nth e plume) . Th e plum e wa s hel d relativel yconstan t durin g som e run s and wa s varie d durin g othe r run s i norde r t o simulat e th e variou s condition s whic hcoul d b e encountere d i nth e field . Th e tes t result s showe d tha t 9 9 percen t (16 6 o f 168 ) o f th e observation s (averag e o f 2 5 readings ) wer e mad e wit h a nerro r o f les s tha n+6. 2 percen t opacity ; 9 5 percen t wit ha nerro r o f les s tha n+ 4. 7 percen t opacity , an d 9 0 percen t wit ha nerro r o f les s tha n+2. 6 percen t opacity . (d ) Ates t wa s conducte d a t a sulfuri c aci d plan t o nJanuar y29-30 , 1974 . Th e plan t wa s equippe d wit ha nin-stac k transmissometer.* * 

### ft^fi

* Thi s tes t wa s conducte d wit hth e 8 observer s divide d int o tw o group s o f 4 each . On e group , th e contro l group , mad e al l reading s fro ma n optimu mviewin g location . Th e secon d group mad e reading s unde r differin g conditions . Onl yth e reading s whic hwer e mad e accordin g t o Metho d 9 criteri a ar e reporte d here , excep t tha t 3 2 set s o f reading s ar e als o include d whic hdi d no t confor mprecisel yt o Metho d 9 . Inthes e sets , observer s wer e locate d a t a noptimumlocatio nan d assigne d opacit yi n 1 percen t increments , no t 5 percen t increment s a s specifie d i nth e method . Th e onl yothe r dat a collecte d bu t no t include d i nth e total s show nhere , wa s rea d wit hth e su noutsid e th e 140 ° secto r t o th e observer' s back . Thi s i s no t acceptabl e unde r Metho d 9 . * * No t require d a t sulfuri c aci d plant s b yEPAstandards .



### 9 3P.9 8 ^PHT'i nj-Mh-f I IJ P m ,

Observe r reading s wer e mad e accordin g t o Metho d 9 agains t a contrastin g backgroun d and wer e compare d wit hth e transmissomete r readings . Th e result s ar e a s follows : Atota l o f 29 8 set s o f 2 5 reading s wer e made . Tw o set s o f reading s wer e mad e wit ha naverag e erro r o f + 8 percen t opacity . Atota l o f nin e set s o f reading s wer e mad e wit ha naverag e erro r o f + 5 percen t opacit yo r greater . Th e remainin g 28 9 set s o f reading s wer e mad e wit herror s o f les s tha n+ 5 percen t opacity . Insummary , a tota l o f 63 6 run s o f 2 5 reading s eac hwer e mad e usin g whit e plume s and 13 3 run s o f 2 5 reading s eac husin g blac k plume s fo r th e specifi c purpos e o f quantifyin g th e degre e o f positiv e erro r possibl e i nMetho d 9 . Th e reading s wer e mad e agains t contrastin g backgrounds , th e conditio nunde r whic ha plum e i s mos t visibl e and i s mos t conduciv e t o positiv e observe r errors . Th e result s sho wtha t singl e observers , o nth e basi s o f singl e set s o f 2 5 readings , ar e abl e t o assig nopacit ywit herror s o f les s tha n+7. 5 percen t wit hgoo d consistenc y(63 0 o f 63 6 fo r whit e plumes ; 13 3 ou t o f 13 3 fo r blac k plumes) . Error s i nexces s o f - t 7. 5 percen t ca noccur , althoug hver y infrequently . I nshort , o nth e basi s o f thi s extensiv e researc ho f th e ver ysor t demande d b yPCA , observe r reading s o f opacit yhav e bee n shownt o b e withi na nerro r toleranc e o f + 7. 5 opacit ywit ha frequenc y o f approximatel y99. 3 percen t (76 3 o f 76 9 tota l set s o f observations) . Thi s indicate s clearl ytha t opacit yobserver s d o i nfac t mee t th e + 7. 5 percen t opacit yaccurac ylimi t whic hi s specifie d explicitl yi nth e introductio nt o (amended ) Referenc e Metho d 9 . '&#&&



### 9 4P.9 9

Finall ywit hregar d t o observe r accurac yand th e inheren t relia

bilit yo f opacit yreadings , muc ho f th e concer no f th e Cour t o f Appeal s i s relate d t o PCA' s contention , base d o na nHE Wstudy , tha t a t lo w level s opacit yreading s canno t b e mad e reliably . Th e Cour t note s tha t PCA' s clai mtha t Tabl e 2 o npag e 2 8 o f tha t studyshow s tha t th e si x traine d observer s rate d a plum e knownt o hav e 0 percen t opacit ya t mor e tha n0 percen t opacity , and thre e rate d i t a t mor e tha n2 0 percent . Th e Cour t note s furthe r tha t a plum e knownt o b e 2 0 percen t opacit ywa s rate d highe r tha n2 0 percen t b yfiv e o f th e si xobservers , base d als o o nTabl e 2 . Aclos e readin g o f Tabl e 2 shows , however , tha t Petitioner s hav e wholl ymisconstrue d th e natur e o f tha t tes t and th e dat a presente d i n Tabl e 2 . Infact , th e studyspecifie s tha t "test s o f traine d observer s sho wtha t th e observer s tha t viewe d whit e plume s o na clea r da yfacin g th e sunassesse d th e plume s a t a highe r Ringelman nnumbe r (lowe r trans mittance ) tha ndi d observer s tha t viewe d th e plume s wit h th e sunt o thei r backs . Fo r darker , plume s th e effec t wa s les s pronounced . Grou p assessment s showe d goo d agreemen t fo r simila r sun-plume-viewe r geometries' ^ (emphasi s added) . EP Aagree s tha t viewin g plume s whil e facin g th e sunma yproduc e inaccurat e g readings . I t i s fo r thi s ver yreaso ntha t Referenc e Metho d 9 require s observation s t o b e mad e wit hth e su na t th e viewer' s back . Whe nTabl e 2 i s examine d i nthi s regard , th e "goo d agreement " fo r apparen t simila r geometrie s divide s th e observer s int o tw o groups . Th e first , consistin g o f Inspector s 1 , 2 , and 3 , ha d simila r reading s amon g [&&_--£_- *



### 9 5

### themselves . Th e secondgroup , consistin go f Inspector s 4 , 5 , and6 , als ohadgoodagreemen t amon gthemselves . Th e level s o f th e second groupar e significantl y

highe r thanthos e o f th e firs t group , indicatin g tha t the secondgroupwa s viewin gint othe sun , whil e the firs t group(1 , 2 , an d3 ) wa s viewin gwit hth e su nt othei r backs . Thi s probabilit y i s confirme db

y the repor t itself , whic hstate s tha t norestrictio nwa s place donviewingdirection . Sinc e onl y Inspector s 1 , 2 , and3 appa. - entl y mad e thei r observation s wit hth e su na t thei r backs , i t i s onl y thei r result s tha t ar e a t al l relevan t t oth e questio no f observationa l reliabilit y

o r accuracy . Thes e results , fo r th e lo w level s o f opacit y concernin gth e Court , ar e reproduce dbelow : Tabl e 2 . AP-30 , Evaluatio no f Whit e Plumes 6 

### $0&m In-stac ktransmittance , percen t 75 % 90 % Eguiv . Ring . No . 1.0 0 0 . Insp . No . 1 1.0 3 0.0 3 Insp . No . 2 1.1 3 0.1 6 Insp . No . 3 0.9 7 0.1 7 It i s a t onc e apparen t tha t th e observation s o f Inspector s 1,2 , and3 reflec t a very

highdegre e o f accuracy , contrar y t oPCA' s conten tions . Close r examinatio no f thi s table , moreover , show s tha t th e dat a itsel f i s presente dina way no t correspondin gwit hEPA' s standards . I t wil l b e note dtha t eac hcolum ni s heade db

y two figures : th e "equivalen t RingelmannNo." , andth e "In-stac kTrans mittance , Percent. " Transmittance , o f course , represent s th e percentag e o f ligh t no t blocke db y th e smoke , s oth e 7 5 percen t mittanc e i s a 1 0 percen t opacity . A s th e Cour t notes , th e presentl y

9 6P. 1

accepte dequivalency

betwee nRinqelmannnumber s an dopacit y

o f whit e smok e i s 20:1 , i.e . RingelmannNo . 2 = 4 0 percen t opacity , Ringelmann No . 1 = 2 0 percen t opacity , RinglemannNo . . 5 = 1 0 percen t opacity , RingelmannNo . 0 = 0 percen t opacity , etc . Th e Tabl e 2 colum nheadings , however , reflec t a differen t equivalency : there , RingelmannNo . 1 correspond s t o 2 5 percen t opacit y (7 5 percen t transmittance) , an d Ringelmann0 correspond s t o 1 0 percen t opacit y (9 0 percen t transmittance) , Sinc e EPA' s opacit y

standard s ar e predicate duponan dexpresse dinterm s o f th e transmissio nandobscuratio no f light , i t i s therefor e onl y th e transmittanc e figure s whic har e a t al l relevan t t o evaluatin gEPA' s standards . Th e discrepanc y

betwee nthe equivalenc y usedinTabl e 2 an

dth e presentl y

accepte dRingelmann-opacit y equivalency

exist s becaus e durin g th e middl e nineteen-sixtie s whe nth e dat a wer e obtained , ther e wa s littl e interes t i nreadin glow opacit y plumes , sinc e visibl e emission s stan dard s wer e generall y

a t abou t fort y

percen t opacity . Th e test s wer e conducte dwit hsmok e reader s a t a smok e schoo l where^th e Ringelmann Char t wa s considere dthe'primar y standard , an

dth e school' s smok e genera to r transmissometer s wer e calibrate dinterm s o f Ringelmannnumber s ( a procedur e no t usedtoday) . Thi s nonlinea r calibratio nresulte din whit e plume s below

thirtee npercen t opacit y bein gassigne da Ringleman n numbe r o f zero . Blac kplume s below five percen t opacit y wer e als o assigne da Ringelmannnumbe r o f zero . I t i s clea r therefor e tha t thi s equivalenc y

(no w replace db

y th e standar d20: 1 ratio ) wa s no t intende dP. 2

t o dea l wit hlo

w opacit y plumes , sinc e al l si xinspector s infac t reporte dseeingsmok e a t "wha t wa s suppose dt o be Ringlemannzero . A s a resul t o f thes e flaws , th e dat a inTabl e 2 canonl y b e partiall y

converte dt o opacit y percentage s fo r purpose s o f evaluatin g observe r accurac y

an dar e no t completel y

reliabl e fo r thi s purpos e a s the observation s wer e no t mad e i naccordanc e wit hcurren t procedure s specifie db

y Metho d9 . Sinc e a definit e rati o o f 25:1.0 0 wa s usedt o calibrat e the observer s a t the 2 5 percen t level , thos e figure s ca nb e expresse da s opacit y percentages . Th e conversio nfo r the 1 0 percen t opacit y

colum ni s les s exact , bu t th e fac t tha t al l observer s di dobserv e smok e wit ha know n1 0 percen t opacit y

plum e allow s th e us e o f th e standar drati o (Ringelmann. 5 = 1 0 percen t opacity ) a s a clos e approximatio nfo r purpose s o f conversion . Th e result s o f thi s conversio n appea r below . Tabl e 2 . AP-30 , Evaluatio no f Whit e Plumes 6 In-stac ktransmittance , percen t 75 % 90 % Opacity , percen t 25 % 1 <0 Inspecto r No . 1 Ringelmannobserve d1.0 3 0.0 3 Equivalen t opacit y

25.75 % 0.6 % Inspecto r No . 2 Ringelmannobserve d1.1 3 0.1 6 Equivalen t opacit y

28.25 % 3.2 % Inspecto r No . 3 Ringelmannobserve d0.9 7 0.1 7 Equivalen t opacit y

24.25 % 3.4 % I t i s apparen t from

thi s mor e properl y

presente ddat a tha t Tabl e 2 infac t refutes , rathe r thansupports , PCA' s claim s o f unreliabl y 

### 98 

## i<P$ ^P. 3

hig hreading s a t lo wlevel s o* opacity . Indeed , th e columnwhic hPCA treate d a s 0 percen t opacit yi s i nfac t 1 0 percen t opacity ; i nthi s colum nal l thre e inspector s rate d th e opacit ya t wel l belo wit s actua l value . Likewise , th e columnwhic hPCAtreate d a s 2 0 percen t i s actuall y 2 5 percen t opacity . I ntha t column , al l observer s rate d th e opacit ya t value s very

clos e t o th e actua l level , and wel l withi nth e 7. 5 percen t opacit ytoleranc e t o whic hobserver s ar e limite d byMetho d 9 . Becaus e o f th e fundamenta l difference s i nth e metho d o f relatin g and calibratin g Ringelman nnumber s wit hequivalen t opacit ybetwee nth e metho d use d a t th e smok e schoo l wher e th e abov e dat a v/er e gathere d and th e presen t approac huse d b yEPA(a s reflecte d i nMetho d 9) , th e autho r o f AP-3 0 state s tha t th e dat a i nTabl e 2 canno t b e use d t o 5 asses s th e reliabilit yo f EPA' s metho d o r opacit yreading s i ngeneral . Th e abov e discussio ni s therefor e presente d solel yt o demonstrat e that , contrar yt o PCA' s belief , thos e dat a d o no t i nan ywa yindicat e th e unreliabilit yo f EPA' s use . o f qualifie d observers . Th e Agenc yi s no t relyin g o nthos e dat a a s par t o f it s demonstratio no f th e accurac yo f Metho d 9 . I naccordanc e wit hth e Amoc o cas e discusse d above , thi s erro r toleranc e o f + 7. 5 percen t opacit ymus t b e accounte d fo r i nth e enforce

men t process , s o tha t n o sourc e whic hi s i nfac t 1 ncomplianc e wit hth e applicabl e opacit ystandar d i s cite d fo r a violatio ndu e merel yt o norma l observationa l error . EP Aha s consistentl ymaintaine d tha t i t doe s i nfac t tak e thi s erro r toleranc e int o accoun t i nth e enforcemen t



### 9 9P. 4

process . I

nanearlie r draf t respons e t o thi s remand(November , 1973) , fo r example , th e Administrato r state dtha t "the agenc y woul dno t take , an dth e court s woul dno t sustain , enforcemen t actio nbase duponopacit y observation s tha t d o no t excee dth e standar db y mor e thanthe averag e opacit y erro r associate dwit hth e particula r opacit y standard. " PCA , however , ha s bee nunsatisfie db y thi s assurance , apparentl y fearin gtha t EPA i nit s enforcemen t decision s woul dignor e the establishe derro r tolerance . T o provid e th e certaint y desire db

y PC A andothers , EP

A i s therefor e now

amendin gth e applicabl e regulation s (4 0 CFR60 , Appendi x A , Referenc e Metho d9 ) b y addin ganintroductor y sectio nwhic hdiscusse s th e concep t o f visibl e emissio nreading s anddescribe s the effec t o f variabl e viewin gconditions . Thi s sectio npresent s pertinen t portion s &$&$$ o f th e abov e dat a andnote s specificall y tha t th e accurac y

o f th e metho d mus t be take nint o accoun t whe ndeterminin gpossibl e violation s o f applicabl e opacit y

standards . A

copy o f th e revise dregulatio nappear s i nPar t B o f Appendi xII I o f thi s Response . EPA i s als o now

amendin gth e provision s o f Referenc e Metho d9 t o mak e clea r tha t th e determinatio no f anopacit y leve l reportabl e a s a violatio ninvolve s averagin g2 4 reading s take na t 15-secondintervals . Thi s wil l mak e clea r tha t a singl e highreadin gwil l no t be cite da s a violation . I t wil l als o ensure , a s PCA requests , tha t suc hindividua l readings , whic hma y

resul t unde r norma l plan t operation s fro m brie f event s suc ha s shakin go f fabri c filte r bag s inbaghouse s o r rappin g o f electrode s i nelectrostati c precipitators , wil l no t resul t i n



### 10 0P. 5

determination s o f violation . Thi s amendmen t t o Referenc e Metho d 9 i s se t fort hi nPar t B o f Appendi xIII . (Thi s approac hi s a satisfactor y mean s o f enforcin g opacit ystandard s i ncase s wher e th e violatio ni s a continuin g on e an d tim e exception s ar e no t par t o f th e applicabl e opacit ystandard . However , th e opacit ystandard s fo r stea melectri c generator s i n4 0 CF R60.4 2 and flui d catalyti c crackin g uni t catalys t regenerator s i n4 0 CF R60.10 2 and numerou s opacit ystandard s i nStat e Implementatio nPlan s specif yvariou s tim e exceptions . ManyStat e and loca l ai r pollutio ncontro l agencie s us e a differen t approac hi n enforcin g opacit ystandard s tha nth e six-minut e averag e perio d specifie d i nthi s revisio nt o Metho d 9 . EPArecognize s tha t certai ntype s o f opacit yviolation s tha t ar e intermitten t i nnatur e requir e a differen t approac hi napplyin g th e opacit ystandard s tha nthi s revisio nt o Metho d 9 . I t i s EPA' s inten t t o propos e anadditiona l revisio nt o Metho d 9 specifyin g analternativ e metho d t o enforc e opacit ystandards . I t i s ou r inten t tha t thi s metho d specif ya minimu mnumbe r o f reading s tha t mus t b e taken , suc ha s a minimu m o f te nreading s abov e th e standar d i n anyon e hou r perio d prio r t o citin g a violation . EP Ai s i nth e proces s o f analyzin g availabl e dat a and determinin g th e erro r involve d i n readin g opacit yi nthi s manne r and wil l propos e thi s revisio nt o Metho d 9 a s soo na s thi s analysi s i s completed . Th e Agenc ysolicit s comment s an d recommendation s o nth e nee d fo r thi s additiona l revisio nt o Metho d 9 and woul d welcom e anysuggestion s particularl yfro mai r pollutio n contro l agencie s i nho ww e migh t mak e Metho d 9 mor e responsiv e t o th e need s o f thes e agencies. ) ; ; i?7/;>,7;9*;V, S j u *5'> J ^!V';^?._

- - j



### 101P. 6

PCAals o contend s tha t th e win d velocit ydurin g a give nse t o f observation s ca naffec t th e opacit ylevel s rea d byobservers . EP A agree s tha t thi s i s true . However , a s i s th e cas e wit hlac k o f contras tin g backgroun d i nviewin g a plume , th e resul t o f hig hwind s i s a negativ e erro r i nreadin g th e opacit yo f th e plume ; thi s result s fro m th e dissipatio no f th e plum e cause d b yth e wind . Sinc e a negativ e erro r i nreadin g th e opacit yo f th e plum e canno t prejudic e anoperator , thi s consideratio ni s no t relevan t t o th e reliabilit yo f th e metho d fo r assessin g violation s o f th e opacit ystandards . PCAcontend s tha t th e viewin g angl e o f th e observe r wit hrespec t t o th e sunand th e plum e ca nproduc e erroneousl yhig hreadings ; i f th e observe r read s th e plum e whil e facin g th e sun , PCAsays , suc hhig h readin g ma yresult . EP Aagrees , a s wa s note d above , and fo r thi s reaso n Referenc e Metho d 9 ha s alway s require d th e observe r t o rea d th e plum e wit hth e suna t hi s back . Referenc e Metho d 9 i s no wbein g amende d t o includ e eve nmore , specifi c criteri a concernin g observe r positio nwit h respec t t o th e sun . Th e metho d wil l no wrequir e tha t th e su nshal l b e withi na 140 ° secto r t o th e observer' s back . Thi s amendmen t appear s i n Par t B o f Appendi xIII . Th e fina l aspec t o f opacit yobservation s wit hwhic hPC Aan d th e Cour t o f Appeal s wer e concerne d i s th e procedur e employe d byqualifie d observer s t o evaluat e plume s containin g condense d (visible ) wate r vapor , o r "steamplumes. " Whe nstac k emission s contai nappreciabl e wate r vapor , th e vapo r become s visibl e whe nth e gase s ar e coole d belo wth e de wpoin t 

### <wmi

### 10 2P. 7

and wate r condense s i nfin e droplets . Som e stea mplume s ar e detache d •kick whil e other s ar e visibl e a s release d fro m th e stack . However , sinc e ambien t ai r i s normall ymuc hdrie r tha nstac k emission s containin g visibl e wate r vapor , dilutio ncause s th e gase s a t som e poin t t o becom e unsaturated . A t thi s point , condense d wate r evaporate s and i s n o longe r visibl e i nth e plume , PCAcontend s tha t thes e plume s canno t b e rea d properly , and th e Cour t o f Appeal s als o note s concer nove r th e wa y i nwhic hstea mplume s ar e t o b e read . Thi s issu e wa s addresse d i npar t 2 4 i nth e repor t title d " ARepor t o nContaminate d Wate r Vapo r Plumes. " A s EP Aha s previousl ynoted , instructio ni s give ni nth e smok e schoo l a s t o ho wsuc hplume s ar e t o b e read ; th e abov e repor t illustrate s ho w qualifie d observer s ca nreadil ydistinguis hth e poin t a t whic hal l visibl e wate r vapo r ha s evaporate d fro mth e plume . I t i s thi s poin t a t whic h th e opacit yreadin g i s made . Sinc e th e plum e ha s bee nsomewha t dissi

pate d bytha t point , th e readin g i s ofte nlowe r tha ntha t whic hwoul d hav e bee nfound a t th e li p o f th e stack , ha d th e plum e bee nfre e fro m visibl e wate r vapor . Thi s erro r i s negative , however , and i nn o wa y prejudice s th e plan t operator . EP Aagrees , however , tha t th e prio r languag e o f Metho d 9 di d no t sufficientl ymak e thi s procedur e clear . Metho d 9 i s therefor e no wbein g amende d t o remedytha t deficiency ;

** * Th e phenomeno no f a "detache d plume " i s ofte nobserve d whe na warm , mois t ga s strea mi s release d int o a coole r atmosphere , e.g . whe nhot , we t exhaus t gase s fro ma we t proces s kil nar e release d t o th e atmosphere . Her e th e gase s ar e clea r a t th e poin t o f discharg e bu t becom e opaqu e a s th e we t gase s mi xwit hcoole r ai r i nth e atmosphere .



### 10 3P. 8

whe nth e ne w

guideline s ar e adhere dt o (a s the y wer e i nth e past , thoug h no t formall y

articulate di nth e Method) , an y error s du e t o th e presenc e o f wate r vapo r ca nb e eliminated . Thes e amendment s appea r i nPar t B o f Appendi xIII . I nadditio nt o proposin gspecifi c procedures , EP A i s currentl y investigatin gtechnique s whic hcoul db e employe di nth e smok e schoo l t o furthe r enhanc e a nobserver' s capabilit y t o accuratel y

identif y contaminate dwate r plumes . Thi s investigatio ni s bein gundertake nb y a contractor—Pacifi c Environmenta l Services , Inc.--an db y EP A staf f a s par t o f a noveral l progra m t o develo pfurthe r guideline s concernin g

1 2 opacit y trainin gan dfiel dobservation . Procedure s use db y Stat e an d loca l regulator y

agencie s t o observ e contaminate dwate r vapo r plume s *'••#> & ar e bein greviewed , an dth e us e o f suc htrainin gaid s a s movie s an d apprenticeshi ptrainin gwil l b e considered . Th e basi c questio ninvolve di s no t whethe r a nobserve r ca naccuratel y assig nopacit y

t o a contaminate dwate r plume , bu t rathe r i s whethe r a n observe r ca ndistinguis hbetwee ncondense dwate r vapo r an dvisibl e particulat e matter . T o accuratel y evaluat e we t plume s pursuan t t o revise dMetho d9 , i t i s necessar y onl y fo r a nobserve r t o distinguis h betwee ncondense dwate r vapo r an dvisibl e particulat e ai r pollutants . I nn o cas e i s th e observe r require dt o assig na nopacit y t o a plum e 1 3 whic hcontain s visibl e (condensed ) wate r droplets . A s note di nth e previousl y cite dreport , wate r plume s presen t a n entirel y differen t appearanc e t o a nobserve r tha na dus t plume . A



### 10 4P. 9

traine d ai r pollutio ninspecto r i s familia r wit hbot htype s o f plumes , and ha s n o difficult ydistinguishin g betwee nth e two . Whil e muc ho f hi s abilit yi nthi s are a stem s fro msmok e schoo l training , hi s backgroun d i ninspectin g industria l processe s i s als o a factor . Inspector s employe d b

ycontro l agencie s ar e require d t o becom e familia r wit ha broa d spectrumo f source s and t o evaluat e opacitie s fro mthe munde r al l weathe r conditions . Fo r instanc e the ykno wwhic hsource s emplo y scrubbers , whic hcemen t plant s emplo ywe t an d dryproces s system s and generall ywhic hsource s tend t o produc e we t plumes . The yals o kno wtha t extrem e weather condition s ca ncreat e visibl e wate r plume s a t source s whic hreleas e onl ynegligibl e particulat e matter , e.g . natura l gas-fire d boiler s and wate r heaters . Thus , whe na traine d ai r pollutio ninspecto r W%&& evaluate s a we t plum e sourc e h e relie s o nal l o f thi s backgroun d i n makin g a judgment . I nfollowin g Metho d 9 h e firs t identifie s tha t portio no f th e plum e whic hcontain s condense d water . A s explaine d i n th e previousl ycite d report , fluff ywate r plume s ma ytrai l 10 0 fee t o r 2 4 mor e fro mth e stack . Whe nth e wate r plum e disappears , h e evaluate s th e opacit yo f th e remainin g dus t plum e which , i f o f violatin g opacity , wil l persis t fo r a muc hlonge r distance . A t thi s point , whe nwate r droplet s evaporat e and ceas e t o b e visible , th e dus t plum e ha s bee ndilute d considerabl ybelo wth e concentratio na t th e stac k exit . Onl yi f th e dus t plum e i s stil l o f greate r tha nallowe d opacit ya t th e poin t o f complet e evaporatio nca na ninspecto r conside r a citatio no f violation . Hi s norma l procedur e i s t o ente r th e plan t and evaluat e th e proces s



### 105P.1 0

•** • I p p I I

operatio nbefor e infac t issuin gth e notic e o f violation . Thu s i t i s obviou s tha t th e procedur e allow s a grea t dea l o f latitud e t o th e operato r o f a we t plume process . Fa r fro m citin gunjustl y

fo r violativ e visibl e emissions , th e ai r pollutio ninspecto r wil l ofte nbe force dt o ignor e period s o f margina l violation s simpl y becaus e th e visibl e dus t plume i s maske db

y visibl e wate r droplets . Th e revision s i nReferenc e Metho d9 mak e clea r tha t th e abov e o procedur e i s t o b e followed . Fo r attache dsteam plumes , th e observe r i s t o mak e hi s reading s a t the poin t wher e al l visibl e wate r vapo r ha s evaporate dan

donl y particulate s remai ni nthe plume . H e i s to . recor d th e readin gmad e a t tha t poin t inth e plume , andi s no t (a s PCA fears ) t o extrapolat e bac kt o an y hypothetica l valu e at the li po f th e stack . Fo r detache dsteam

plumes , th e observe r i s t o rea dthe opacit y value a s usua l a t th e li po f th e stack , providin gtha t n o visibl e wate r vapo r i s presen t there , i.e . providin gtha t there i s a ga pbetwee nth e li po f th e stac kan dthe poin t o f initia l condensatio nint o steam . •-•lily''*"' 1 " '



### 10 6P.1 1

EVALUATIO NO F SMOK E SCHOO L PROCEDURE S Th e purpos e o f a smok e schoo l i s two-fold . I t provide s a mean s fo r trainin g a nobserver , an d fo r certifyin g tha t a nobserve r is , i nfact , capabl e o f makin g opacit yobservation s wit hreasonabl e accuracy . I nthi s sense , th e schoo l serve s t o calibrat e (o r re-calibrate ) observers , an d reject s candidate s wh o ar e no t capabl e o f accuratel y readin g opacity . Th e questio no f whethe r th e schoo l adequatel yserve s thes e purpose s canno t primaril yb e answere d b yexaminin g th e procedure s used . Rather , i t i s necessar yt o examin e th e accurac yo f observer s wh o hav e bee ntraine d and certifie d i nth e school , i.e. , th e result s o f thos e procedures . If , a s th e dat a discusse d earlier demonstrate , qualifie d observer s ca nrea d plume s wit hreasonabl e accuracy , th e procedure s and instructio nuse d a t th e smok e schoo l must , b y definition , b e accomplishin g th e desire d results . Wit hregar d t o PCA' s criticis mconcernin g th e abilit yo f an observe r t o accuratel yrea d emission s unde r variou s fiel d condition s whic hwer e no t encountere d i nth e trainin g school , i t i s necessar y t o refe r agai nt o th e factor s affectin g apparen t opacity . A s discusse d above , observation s mad e unde r condition s o f hig hcontras t ar e mos t conduciv e t o positiv e errors . T o th e exten t possible , observer s emplo y contrastin g background s durin g qualification . I t i s tru e tha t thi s procedur e ma ytend t o limi t th e accurac yo f a nobserve r unde r les s tha n idea l conditions . However , sinc e a plum e wil l presen t a nappearanc e o f lowe r opacit yunde r suc hconditions , th e resulting,bia s wil l b e negative . A s discusse d above , thi s effec t i s confirme d b ytheor yand b

yfiel d observation . 10 7 

### ^H tP.1 2

PCAha s note d th e fac t tha t smok e schoo l trainee s ar e give n repeate d opportunitie s t o pas s th e certificatio ntest . Thus , a n observe r ma yb e certifie d onon e runeve nthoug hth e certificatio n criteri a wer e no t me t o npreviou s runs . Presumably , h e coul d als o fai l t o mee t th e criteri a o nsubsequen t runs . Petitioner s ar e correc t i nthi s description—particularl ywhe nne wo r relativel y inexperience d person s ar e bein g tested . I t doe s no t follow , however , tha t th e smok e schoo l procedure s ar e deficien t o r inadequat e i nthi s respect . First , a s note d above , th e adequac yo f th e smok e schoo l canno t b e determine d solel yb yreviewin g th e procedures ; evaluatio n ca nals o b e mad e b

ytestin g th e abilit yo f observer s wh o hav e passe d th e certificatio ntest . Secondl ywit hrespec t t o th e certificatio nprocedures , i t shoul d b e recognize d tha t th e +7.5 % criterio ni s particularl yrestrictiv e i ntha t i t involve s th e absolut e error , no t simpl yth e averag e take nove r 2 5 readings . Thus , negativ e and positiv e error s ar e no t compensatin g (i.e; , a -5 % erro r and a + 7 erro r resul t i nanaverag e absolut e erro r o f +6%) . Thi s i s unlik e th e fiel d observatio nprocedur e wher e negativ e and positiv e error s ar e compensatin g ( a -5 % erro r an d a + 7 erro r resul t i na n averag e erro r o f +1%) . Durin g anEP Asmok e schoo l conducte d o n Octobe r 9 , 1974 , a recor d wa s kep t fo r al l observer s wh o attende d an d

g wer e certified . Thi s recor d include s bot hrun s durin g whic hth e observer s passe d th e certificatio ncriteri a and durin g whic hobserver s faile d t o mee t th e criteria . Thes e dat a sho wtha t eve no nthes e run s whe nobserver s faile d t o qualify , ove r two-third s o f the mme t W$$k

### 10 8P.1 3



### g 7.5 % averag e erro r limi t impose db yMetho d9 . Sinc e th e Referenc e Metho d9 involve s anaverag e o f 2 4 reading s a s a mean s o f determinin g plum e opacity , failur e t o continuousl ymee t th e mor e stringen t certificatio nrequirement s i s relativel yunimportan t a s long a s th e averag e readin g i s consistentl ywithi nth e prescribe dcriterio n o f les s tha n+7.5 % averag e opacity . Fo r example , th e requiremen t tha t n o singl e readin g b e misse db ymor e tha n+15 percen t i s somewha t arbitrary , andcoul db e relaxe dt o +2 0 percen t t o reduc e th e number o f observer s failin g th e certificatio ntest . EPAha s concluded , however , tha t th e stringen t certificatio ncriterio nserve s th e intende d purpos e o f forcin g a traine e t o lear nt o assig nopacit ywithi na reasonabl e rang e o f precisio nandtherefor e shoul dno t b e relaxed . $&&$& EPAha s furthe r concluded , i nsummary , tha t whil e anychange s recommende db

yth e contracto r Pacifi c Environmenta l Service s wil l b e carefull yconsidered , th e trainin g progra mdoe s i nfac t effectivel y trai nobserver s t o rea dplume s unde r fiel dcondition s wit h reasonabl e accuracy . Summar y EP Abelieve s tha t th e abov e dat a hav e convincingl ydemonstrate d tha t th e opacit ystandard s ar e inherentl yreliable.*** * Th e dat a sho w tha t observer s can , wit ha ver yhig hconfidenc e level , rea dplume s t o withi nth e certifie derro r toleranc e o f 7.5% . Tha t toleranc e i s take nint o accoun t i nth e enforcemen t process , a s provide d

*** * ANe wJerse ycour t ha s recentl yreache dth e sam e conclusion . Se e Ne wJerse yv . LLoydA . FryRoofin g Co. , Docke t no . C-3682-7 2 (Superio r Court , Sept . 30 , 1974) . 10 9P.1 4

explicitl yb

yth e (amended ) regulations . EP Afurthe r believe s tha t th e effectivenes s o f th e trainin g progra mi s wel l prove nbyth e resultin g accurac yo f it s graduate s unde r actua l fiel d conditions . I nthos e fe wsituation s wher e th e languag e o f th e regulation s o r Referenc e Metho d 9 wa s insufficientl yclea r o r inadequate , thos e regulation s ar e bein g o r hav e bee namende d t o remedysuc hdeficiencies . Th e Administrato r concludes , therefore , tha t sinc e th e concern s o f th e Cour t o f Appeal s and th e Portlan d Cemen t Associatio ni nthi s regar d hav e al l bee nsatisfactoril ydeal t with , th e Agenc yshoul d continu e t o us e opacit ystandard s fo r ne wsource s unde r Sectio n11 1 o f th e Clea nAi r Act . EPAdoes , however , recogniz e tha t som e operator s o f Portlan d cemen t plant s ma yinstal l in-stac k transmissometer s 1 4 fo r th e purpos e o f continuou s monitorin g o f particulat e emissions . EP Awil l therefor e accep t a s probativ e (thoug hno t conclusive ) evidenc e th e result s o f suc hcontinuou s monitorin g b ytrans missomete r whic hindicat e tha t th e opacit ya t th e tim e reading s wer e take nb

yReferenc e Metho d 9 wa s no t i nexces s o f th e standard , provide d tha t th e sourc e shal l mee t th e burde no f provin g tha t th e instrumen t use d meet s (a t th e tim e o f th e allege d violation ) th e 1 4 applicabl e technica l specifications , ha s bee nproperl ymaintaine d and (a t th e tim e o f th e allege d violation ) calibrated , and tha t th e resultin g dat a hav e no t bee ntampere d wit hi nan yway . Th e applicabl e regulation s ar e bein g amende d t o reflec t thi s provisio nand appea r i n Par t B o f Appendi xIII . j£t&Bg& £

11 0P.1 5

EP Awil l o f cours e continu e t o revie wth e degre e o f accurac y and nee d fo r opacit ymeasurement s a s ne wdat a and informatio nar e acquired . Fo r example , a t th e reques t o f th e Departmen t o f Commerce , EP Asolicite d suc hinformatio ni nth e preambl e t o ne wsourc e performanc e standard s recentl ypropose d (3 9 FR37466) . However , a t thi s tim e th e dat a and informatio navailabl e t o EP Asuppor t th e positio ntake ni nthi s response . ACHIEVABILIT YO F TH E OPACIT YSTANDARD S FO RPORTLAN D CEMEN T PLANT S Unde r Sectio n11 1 o f th e Clea nAi r Act , EP Aha s establishe d 1 0 percen t opacit ya s th e standar d whic hma yno t b e exceede d b y ne wkiln s a t Portlan d cemen t plants . PC Acontend s tha t som e ne w plant s wil l o r ma yb e unabl e t o achiev e complianc e wit hthi s visibl e emission s limit . EP Apolic yi s tha t opacit ylimit s shoul d b e se t a t suc hlevel s tha t anysourc e whic hmeet s th e mas s emissio n limit s wil l als o mee t th e opacit ylimits . EP Aha s conducte d a n intensiv e revie wo f it s opacit ystandards , includin g conductin g ne w test s and gatherin g ne wdata , an d ha s conclude d tha t althoug hth e 10 % opacit ystandar d i s achievabl e byalmos t al l ne wPortlan d cemen t plants , tha t standar d shoul d nevertheles s b e relaxed N t o 20 % opacit yt o accomo dat e certai nextrem e circumstances . EP Afurthe r conclude s tha t a t thi s ne wlevel , practica l circumstance s unde r whic hanycombinatio no f th e factor s cite d b

yPC Ao r th e Cour t a s havin g a possibl e effec t o nopacit y (transmittance ) o f smok e plume s tha t coul d caus e a ne wsourc e t o b e unabl e t o mee t th e opacit ystandar d i s exceedingl yrare . Th e



### 11 1P . 1 6

reason s fo r thes e conclusion s ar e se t fort hbelow . PCAcontend s tha t th e opacit ystandard s fo r Portlan d cemen t plant s ar e unachievabl e fo r tw o primar yreasons , bot hrelate d t o th e theor yo f transmittanc e o f ligh t throug ha plume . PC Astates , first , tha t opacit yvarie s wit hparticl e siz e and shape , s o tha t a give nmas s concentratio no f particle s —whic hcoul d b e compose d o f variou s combination s o f differen t siz e and shap e particle s — coul d resul t i ndifferin g opacities . EP Aagree s tha t thi s correctl y state s th e theor yo f plum e transmittanc e (opacity ) a s i t relate s t o particl e dimensions . PCAconclude s fro mthi s statemen t o f theory , disregardin g th e result s o f th e applicatio no f th e theor yt o operatio n o f Portlan d cemen t plants , tha t suc hplant s migh t hav e widel yvaryin g opacitie s whil e stil l meetin g th e mas s emissio nlimits . I t i s wit h PCA' s conclusio ntha t EP Adisagrees . Th e relevan t questio ni s wha t variation s i nopacit yar e i n fac t produce d byth e particl e size-shap e distribution s actuall ypresen t i nPortlan d cemen t plant s unde r norma l operatio nand wit hprape r maintenanc e and operatio no f pollutio n contro l equipment . I t i s thi s questio nwhic hi s nex t addressed . I t i s knownfro mvariou s studie s an d experienc e tha t uncontrolle d gase s vente d fro mcemen t kiln s contai nheavyconcentration s o f coars e a s wel l a s fin e partic!ate , i.e. , i nth e rang e o f 5 t o 1 5 grain s 1 5 pe r standar d cubi c foot . Standard s o f performanc e fo r ne wsource s requirin g bes t availabl e technology , necessitat e th e installatio no f hig hefficienc ycollectors . Collector s o f 99. 4 t o 99. 8 percen t efficienc yar e necessar yt o reduc e exi t concentration s t o approximatel y



### 11 2P.1 7



### 0.0 3 grain s pe r standar dcubi c foo t whic hi s necessar y t omee t the mas s emissio nstandard. ' ..Thes e collectors , fabri c filter s o r electrostati c precipitators , ar e mor e effectiv e inremovin gcoars e particle s tha nfin e particles . Thu s emission s fro m collectors , i.e. , visibl e emissions , tendt obe mad e u po f muc hgreate r fraction s o f fin e particulate s thancoars e particulates . Intypica l highefficienc y collecto r exhaus t gase s ther e ar e generall y few particulate s large r tha n4 0 micron s diameter . ' Th e predominan t numbe r o f particle s ar e betwee n0. 5 an d1 0 micron s wit h 2 1 7 th e averag e siz e beingabou t 2- 4 microns . ' Maximu

m ligh t scatterin g i s generall y

acknowledge dt ob

e cause db

y particle s inth e siz e rang e o f 0. 2 t o2. 0 micron . ' Availabl e dat a indicat e tha t th e siz e dis - ?$?$$$. tributio no f particulate s release dfro m wel l controlle dcemen t kiln s ar e simila r withi na narrow rang e (approximatel y

2 t o6 microns ) fro

m on e kil nt oanother , an

dtherfor e fro

m on e plan t t oanother . Wha t th e above dat a andstudie s indicate , inshort , i s tha t th e siz e o f particle s emitte db y plant s wit hsuc hcontro l equipmen t varie s onl y withi na very

narrow range . Thi s variabilit y inaverag e siz e i s theoreticall y

no t sufficien t t ocaus e mor e tha na + 5 percen t variationinopacit y

fo r typica l cemen t kilns . Thes e dat a ar e wholl y incompatibl e wit hPCA' s speculatio ntha t widel y varyin gparti cl e size s migh t produc e muc hlarge r variation s inopacit y a t cemen t plant s meetin gth e mas s emissio nstandard . Th e shap e o f particle s emitte dfro m well-controlle d portlandcemen t plant s may vary a s PC A contends . However , we disagre e wit hthei r conclusion s tha t suc hvariation s i nshap e woul daffec t th e

11 3P.1 8

opacit yo f emission s perceive d b ya qualifie d observe r o r in-stac k transmissometer . Anyirregularl yshape d particle s woul d b e randoml yori

ente d therebysmoothin g o r averagin g ou t anysignifican t variation s o f opacit ytha t coul d possibl yresult . I naddition , i t i s likel ytha t th e particle s wil l b e abrade d o r wil l condens e int o spherica l shape s fo r th e followin g reasons : 1 ) fee d material s ar e groun d t o les s tha n7 5 micron s i nalmos t al l cases ; 2 ) furthe r attritio nand siz e reductio noccur s a s th e fee d materia l passe s throug hth e hig htemperatur e rotatin g kiln ; an d 3 ) alkalin e materia l tend s t o vaporiz e and condens e a s a fume. 1 5

- 1 6 ' 1 7 Also , th e recen t microscopi c examinatio no f particle s from th e exhaus t gase s o f a precipitato r controlle d kil nshowe d tha t 2 almos t al l particle s wer e approximatel yspherica l i nshape . Give ntha t particl e siz e and shap e d o no t var yt o th e exten t necessar yt o substantiat e PCA' s speculation , i t i s apparen t tha t norma l operation s eve nfro mplan t t o plan t wil l no t produc e vari

ation s sufficien t t o significantl yaffec t th e opacit yobserve d a t th e poin t o f emissio nfro mth e stack . Therefore , i f th e opacit y standard s ar e se t i naccordanc e wit hth e opacit yactuall yproduce d b ynorma l operations , the nwit hprope r maintenanc e and operatio n o f contro l equipmen t th e very sligh t variation s whic hma yoccu r fro mplan t t o plan t o r fro mtim e t o tim e withi nanindividua l plan t wil l no t caus e th e sourc e t o excee d th e opacit ystandard . An d if , fo r anyreasons , som e unusua l desig nfeatur e o f a give nplan t cause d i t t o excee d th e opacit ystandar d bu t no t th e mas s emissio n



### 114P.1 9

standard , th e varianc e procedur e describe dbelow woul delimi nat e any prejudic e t o suc hsource . Th e secondmajo r facto r whic hPC A claim s affect s opacit y (transmittance ) t o th e exten t tha t som e plant s ma y

excee dth e opacit y standar dwhil e meetin gthe mas s emissio nstandar di s th e diamete r o f th e duc t involved ; i.e. , th e pat hlengt hthroug h whic hth e ligh t mus t pass . EP A agree s tha t th e greate r th e pat h lengt hthroughwhic hthe ligh t mus t pass , th e mor e ligh t wil l b e attenuated , an

dth e greate r wil l be th e opacity . EPA agai ndis agrees , however , wit hPCA' s conclusion , whic hi s agai nindisregar d o f th e actua l circumstance s c f plan t desig nan doperation , tha t some plant s wil l therefor e be unabl e t o mee t th e opacit y standards , thoug hmeetin gth e mas s standard . EPA believe s tha t th e prope r issu e inthi s regar di s th e actua l rang e o f stac kdiameter s resultin gfro

m th e engineerin gan

deconomi c necessitie s o f plan t design . Thi s questio ni s addresse dbelow . Stac kdiamete r affect s opacit y directl y

becaus e i t govern s th e lengt ho f th e pat hthroug hwhic hth e ligh t i s attenuate dbefor e i t reache s th e observe r viewin gth e plume . Th e large r th e diamete r o f th e stack , an

dtherefor e the plume , th e mor e ligh t wil l be attenuate da s i t passe s throug hth e plume , an dth e greate r wil l be th e opacit y

o f th e plume . Stack s ventin ghighefficienc y contro l equipment , suc ha s tha t servin gkiln s at portlan dcemen t plants , ar e designe dt o ventilat e th e proces s t o th e degre e necessar y wit hth e minimu m pressur e dro panda t the lowes t cost . Thes e engineerin g an deconomi c factor s resul t i nth e constructio no f stack s i nwhic h 

### 11 5 r$$3t2? ?P.2 0

th e ga s velocitie s approximat e 3 0 t o 10 0 fee t pe r second , sinc e a t highe r velocitie s frictio nlosse s become excessive , necessitatin g muc hlarge r horsepowe r fans . At lowe r velocities , th e siz e o f th e stac krequire dwoul dresul t i ndisproportionatel y

larg e capita l costs . Thus , stac kdiamete r tend s t o be directl y relate dt o and characteristi c o f plan t size , varyin gonl y withi na relativel y limite drange . Stac kga s exi t velocit y i s controlle db

y stac kdiameter . Exi t velocit y

i s directl y

proportiona l t o th e volume o f gase s vente dfro

m a kil nandinversel y proportiona l t o th e cross-sectiona l are a o f th e stack . Fo r plume s o f a give ncross-section , velocit y ha s no effec t uponopacity , sinc e opacit y i s a functio no f pat h lengt han

di s proportiona l t o th e concentratio nan dcharacteris tic s o f particle s inth e ga s stream . Th e velocit y a t whic hth e ga s stream

move s throug hth e viewer' s lin e o f visio nha s n o effec t o nopacity . I t follows , therefore , tha t a nextremel y

larg e diamete r stac kcoul dtheoreticall y be installe da t a cemen t plant , eve n thoug hit s cos t woul db e muc hgreate r tha nnormal . I hth e cours e o f EPA' s surve y

o f th e cemen t industry , th e larges t siz e kil n stac ktha t ha s come t o ou r attentio ni s 1 5 foo t i ndiameter . I n th e unlikel y

even t tha t large r stack s wer e use do r othe r abnorma l condition s o f desig no r operatio nwer e encountere dtha t coul d caus e a violatio no f anapplicabl e opacit y standard , EPA

woul devaluat e opacit y durin gth e performanc e test s fo r th e mas s emissio nstandard . I f i t wer e show

nnecessary , a suitabl e opacit y leve l greate r tha n 

### 11 6P.2 1

2 0 percen t woul dbe establishe dfo r tha t specifi c kil ninstallation . Althoug hsuc ha

neventualit y

i s highl y

unlikely , appropriat e lan guag e i s bein gpromulgate dinthe genera l provision s o f th e regulatio n t o accomodat e suc hsituation s an dappear s inPar t B o f Appendi xII I . EPA concludes , onth e basi s o f th e actua l stac kdiameter s employe db

y the industry , tha t stac kdiamete r wil l no t cause a plan t meetin gth e mas s emissio nstandar dt o excee dthe opacit y standard . T o dea l wit hth e uncertaintie s cite db y PC A a s t o how plume s fro

m baghouse s wit hstubstack s ar e t o be read , EPA i s revisin gMetho d9 t o specif y tha t a ro

w o f suc hstubstacks , o r an y non-circula r stack , i s t o be readalon git s shortes t axi s (perpendicula r t o it s longe r axis) . Thi s ensure s tha t th e shorte r pat hlengt hwil l be usedt o determin e opacity , andwil l eliminat e any

concer ntha t a longrow o f stubstacks , commo non baghouses , migh t be readalongit s longaxis , producin ghighe r opacity . Give ntha t particl e size-shap e an dstac kdiamete r do no t pro duc e opacit y

variation s sufficien t t o caus e a sourc e whic hmigh t otherwis e mee t the opacit y standard , an

dwhic hi s meetin gth e mas s standard , t o excee dth e opacit y standard , th e onl y

remainin gissu e i s whethe r well-controlle dportlan dcemen t plant s can , infact , mee t th e opacit y

standard . EP

A ha s accumulate ddat a fo r portlan d cemen t plan t kiln s tha t ar e vente dt o highefficienc y contro l equipmen t tha t i s properl y designed , operate dan dmaintained . Thes e dat a ar e summarize di nTabl e I . Opacit y reading s wer e als o take no f •K&Bsii *



### 11 7P.2 2

Tabl e I

Nam e o f th e Company , Dat e o f Tes t an d Typ e Contro l Equipmen t Drago n Cemen t Co . Northampton , Pa . 4/29-30/7 1 Baghous e Orego n Portlan d CementCo

. Lake Oswego , Orego n 10/7-8/7 1 Baghous e Sante e Portlan d Cemen t Co . Holl yHill , S

. C

. 5/23-25/7 4 Electrica l Precipitato r Unite d Portlan d CementCo

. Artesia , Miss

. 6/25-27/7 4 Electrica l Precipitato r Monarc hCemen t Co . Humboldt , Kansa s 6/12-14/7 4 Baghous e Marquett e CementCo

. Nevill e Island , Pa

. 6/19-21/7 4 Electrica l Precipitato r Particulat e Emission s Tes tDuratio n 2,19-2 3

9 hour s - 0 minute s lbs/to n

o fdr y fee d 6 hour s 0.07 0

6 hour s 0.27 2

8 hour s - 0.10 7 2 minute s

8 hour s - 0.20 9 2 3 minute s

12. 5 minute s 0.19 6

0.33 9 Stac k Dia .

1T0 "

4'4 " (velocit y cone ) 12'0 "

1T3 '

7'0 "

12'6 " Max

.

Averag e Singl e Opacit yReadin g <1 0 <1 0

<1 0 <1 0

< 5 < 5

3. 8

18*

*Base d o n transmissomete r data .

11 8severa l additiona l wel l controlle d portlan d cemen t plan t kil n stack s I Q b yan EPAcontractor . Mas s emissio n test s wer e no t conducte d i n thes e instances , however , i n ligh t o f th e petitioner s contentio n tha t th e mas s standard s ar s overl yrestrictive , i t woul d see m unlikel ytha t thes e plant s woul d b e operatin g significantl ybelo w th e mas s emissio n standard . Asummar yo f thes e installation s i s shown i n Tabl e I I . Tabl e I I Opacit yo f Visibl e Emission s fromCemen t Kiln s Controlle d b yFabri c Filter s 1 3

Nam e o f Company Dat e o f Tes t and Contro l Equipmen t Whitehal l Ce m Cementon , Pa . 7/2 9 & 8/1/7 4 Baghous e Copla y(Egypt ) Cemen t Co . Egypt , Pa . 7/29-31/7 4 Baghous e Hercule s Cemen t Co . Stockerton , Pa . 7/2 9 & 8/2/7 4 Duratio n o f Tes t (hours , min. ) 8 h2 m

7h15 m Stac k Siz e

(feet ) 15 ' dia . ( 1 stack )

4 ' 10 " dia . each . ( 7 stacks ) Averag e

Opacit y (percent ) Maximum

6-Minut e Averag e Opacit y 0. 2

3. 8 Maximu m

Singl e Readin g

5 h16 m

Penn-Dixi e Cemen t Co. * 7 h5 5 m Nazareth , Pa . 7/29-30/7 4 Baghous e 13 ' dia . ( 1 stack ) 2'x V each . (1 2 stacks ) 5'xll ' eac hwit h cente r divider . ( 8 stacks ) 0 0 10-1 5 0

0 1 5 0

0 2 5 

### W&M&

*Thes e observation s wer e take n acros s th e shorte r axi s o f .th e eigh t stack s (40 ' path

length) . I f th e observation s ha d bee n take n acros s th e longe r axi s o f an yon e stack , th e pathlengt hwoul d hav e bee n 1 1 feet . Th e estimate d maximum6-minut e averag e opacit y unde r thes e latte r condition s woul d b e 4. 4 percen t rathe r tha n 1 5 percent . Like

wise , th e maximu msingl e readin g woul d b e 7.5% . Referenc e Metho d 9 no wrequire s thes e observation s t o b e mad e acros s th e 11 ' axis . 11 9P.2 4



### Wit hth e exceptio no f Marquett e Cement ' Co . al l o f th e kiln s identifie di nTabl e I were - 

### operatin g belo wth e mas s andopacit y standard s promulgate di n197 1 (i.e. , 0. 3 lb/to no f dryfee dand 10%) . Th e dat a fo r Marquett e Cemen t Co . indicat e tha t th e kil n wa s no t i ncomplianc e wit hth e mas s emissio nstandar d(0.33 9 versu s 0. 3 lb/to no f dryfeed) . Th e opacit ydat a wer e collecte d wit hanin-stac k transmissometer . Th e stac k diamete r i s 12'6" , th e averag e opacit ydurin g th e mas s emissio ntest s wa s 18% , andth e averag e siz e o f emitte dparticle s wa s determine dt o b e approximatel y

2 2 micron s diameter . I f th e stac k diamete r wer e 15' , whic hi s th e larges t diamete r stac k EPAha s observe doncemen t plants , th e averag e opacit ywoul dhav e bee n21% . Th e mas s emissio ntest s fo r Marquett e %<$$•'* Cemen t Co . consiste do f thre e separat e runs . Th e result s o f th e thre e run s are : Tabl e II I 2 3

Opacit yandMas s Emission s fo r a Kil n* Particulat e Averag e opacit yAverag e opacit y Emissions , (percent ) a t (percent ) extrap Runlbs/ton s o f actua l stac k con - olate dt o 15 ' diamete r Numbe r drykil nfee ddition s (12'6" ) stac k condition s 2 5 2 0 1 8 Th e particulat e matte r emission s fro mMarquett e Cemen t Co . wer e analyze dt o determin e th e particl e siz e distribution . Thi s analysi s indicate dtha t th e averag e particl e diamete r wa s approximatel y2 micron s 1 2 3 0.38 6

0.33 9 0.29 2 2

2 1 7 1 5



### 12 0P.2 5

whic hi s very

lo w fo r portlan dcemen t plants . Thes e dat a indicat e tha t fo r a plan t wit ha nunusuall y

larg e stac kdiamete r and wit hparticulat e emission s havin gvery smal l averag e particl e diamete r properties , a 20 % opacit y standar di s mor e reasonabl e thana 10 % standard . Th e achievabilit y

o f a 2 0 percen t standar di s ampl y demonstrate db

y the dat a inTable s I an dI I whic hillustrat e tha t mos t portlandcemen t kiln s hav e no difficult y i nmeetin geve na 1 0 percen t opacit y standard . Th e Marquett e Cemen t Company tes t result s illustrat e tha t eve nunde r the combinatio no f condition s tha t woul dproduc e th e maximu m obscuratio n o f ligh t (i.e. , larg e stac kdiameters , smal l averag e particl e sizes , an dconcentration s nea r th e mas s emissio nstandard) , a 2 0 percen t standar d(Tabl e III , ru nnumbe r 3 ) woul dbe achieved . I t shoul dbe additionall y

note dtha t the combinatio no f condition s fo r maximu m opacity , eventhoughaccommodate db y th e 2 0 percen t standard , wil l occu r infrequently . Therefore , i t i s conclude dtha t a plan t wit ha 15 ' diamete r stac kwhic hmeet s th e mas s emissio nstandar dwil l als o mee t a 20 % opacit y

standar dandwhe ni t exceed s th e mas s emissio nstandar d wil l excee dth e opacit y standard . Fo r stack s smalle r than1 5 fee t in diameter , a portlandcemen t kil ntha t violate s a 20 % opacit y standar dwil l als o violat e th e mas s emissio nstandar db y a sub stantia l amount . Dat a i nTabl e I I show tha t insevera l cases , opacit y o f emission s fro

m wel l controlle dcemen t kiln s ar e appreciabl y

les s tha n20 % eve nwher e large r stack s ar e employe d e.g. , 0.2 % fro

m a 1 5 foo t diamate r stac kandzer o fro m a 1 3 foo t diamete r stack . Base donthese-dat a andEPA' s polic y tha t opacit y standard s be establishe da t level s whic hrequir e prope r operatio n 

### 12 1 #$?t *P.2 6



### andmaintenanc e o f contro l systems , th e opacit ystandar dfo r portlan dcemen t plan t kiln s i s bein g change dfro m1 0 t o 2 0 percent . Thi s chang e appear s i nPar t B o f Appendi xIII . I nadditio nt o consideration s o f th e averag e opacit ystandards , EP Aha s evaluate dth e nee dfo r possibl e tim e exemption s i nth e opacit ystandard . I t i s recognize dtha t durin g norma l operatio no f portlan dcemen t kilns , proces s variations , shakin g o f bag s i nbag

houses , rappin g o f electrode s i nelectrica l precipitators , etc. , ca nproduc e mas s emission s tha t ar e no t perfectl yconstant . I t follow s tha t sligh t variation s i nopacit yca nals o occu r unde r thes e conditions . However , wit hth e clarificatio nt o Metho d9 whereb ya minimum

o f 2 4 opacit yreading s mus t b e take na t 1 5 &&$• secon dinterval s ove r a 6 minut e perio dan dwit hth e averagin g o f observation s fo r determinin g complianc e wit hth e opacit y standard , i t i s apparen t tha t suc hinstantaneou s opacit yreading s wil l no t constitut e a violatio no f th e standard . Changin g th e opacit y standar dfo r portlan dcemen t kiln s from1 0 t o 2 0 percen t furthe r ensure s tha t suc htemporar yincident s wil l no t caus e th e opacit y standar dt o b e exceeded . Sinc e th e chang e i nth e opacit ystandar d merel yrepresent s a relaxatio no f th e standard , i t wil l b e appli

cabl e t o al l source s whic hcommence dconstructio nsubsequen t t o th e promulgatio no f th e original , mor e stringen t level . T o aneve n greate r degre e tha nth e 10 % standard , thi s 20 % standar di s significantl yles s stringen t tha nth e mas s emissio nlimi t fo r portlan dcemen t kilns . 122P.2 7

A s discusse d i nthi s reman d response , th e chang e o f th e opacit ystandar d fro m1 0 percen t t o 2 0 percen t wa s mad e t o insur e tha t n o plan t tha t i s meetin g th e mas s emissio nstandar d i s cite d fo r violatin g th e opacit ystandard . I t doe s no t chang e th e degre e o f particulat e contro l require d o f ne wportlan d cemen t plants . Accordingly , thi s relaxatio no f th e opacit ystandar d doe s no t requir e a nenvironmenta l impac t statement .



### 12 3P.2 8

APPENDI XII I Reference s 1 . K.W . Buhn e an

dL . Duwel . Recordin gDus t Emissio nMeasurement s in th e Cemen t Industr y

wit hth e RM 4 Instrument . Staub . Vol.32 , No . 19 . 197 2 (i nEnglish) . 2 . Preliminary

Tes t Result s o f Marquett e Cemen t Manufacturin g Compan y fo r Tas kNumbe r 11 . Cottrel l Environmenta l Sciences . EPA Contrac t No . 68-02-0239 . Augus t 26 , 1974 . 3 . Rober t L . Ajax . Memo t o Jac kR . Farmer , Credibilit y o f Emissio nTes t Dat a Containe di nth e Marquett e Cemen t Manufacturin gCompany' s Report . Octobe r 24 , 1974 . 4 . Averag e Observationa l Erro r Associate dwit hSmok e Plume s a t Level s of Know nOpacity . EPA , OAWP , OAQPS , ESE DReport . Octobe r 1973 . 5 . W . D . Conner . Memo t o R . L . Ajax , Measuremen t o f Opacit y b y Transmissomete r andSmok e Readers . Octobe r 16 , 1974 . 6 . Optica l Propertie s andVisua l Effect s o f Smok e Stac kPlumes . PH S Publicatio nNo . 999-AP-30 . 7 . Henry

F . Hammill , Richar dE . Thomas , andNolli e F . Swynnerton . 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 : Interi m Report . Octobe r 1974 . 8 . Federa l Register : 3 9 F R32857 , Septembe r 11 , 1974 . 9 . Evaluatio no f EPA Smok e Schoo l Results . EPA , OAWM , OAQPS , ESE DReport . Octobe r 9 , 1974 . 10 . PortlandCemen t Associatio nv . Ruckelshaus . 48 6 F.2 d375 , No . 72-1073 . Jun e 29 , 1973 . 11 . Coons , J . D. , e t al . Development , Calibration , an dUs e o f a Plume Evaluatio nTrainin gUnit . Journa l o f Ai r Pollutio nContro l Association . Vol . 15 . May

1965 . pp . 199-205 . 12 . Tas kOrder : Preparatio no f Guidelin e fo r Evaluatio no f Visibl e Emissio nOpacit y

by Traine dObservers . EPA Contrac t No . 68-02-1390 , Tas k2 , Jun e 5 , 1974 . 13 . Federa l Register : 3 9 F R32854 , Septembe r 11 , 1974 . 14 . Federa l Register : 3 9 F R32852 , Septembe r 11 , 1974 . 15 . R . Emme t Doherty . Curren t Statu s an dFutur e Prospect s - Cemen t Mil l Ai r Pollutio nControl . Proceedings , Th e Thir dNationa l Conferenc e o nAi r Pollution , Washington , D . C . Decembe r 12-14 , 1966 . 

### 12 4 rn**?TMP.2 9

16 . AManua l o f Electrostati c Precipitato r Technology , Par t II- - Applicatio n Areas . Souther n Researc hInstitute . Contrac t No . 22-69-73 . 1970 . pp . 609-640 . 17 . Particulat e Pollutan t Syste mStudy , Volum e II--Fin e Particulat e Emissions . Midwes t Researc hInstitute . Contrac t No . CP A22-69-104 . 1971 . 18 . Visibl e Emissio n Testin g a t Fou r Portlan d Cemen t Plants . Scot t Environmenta l Technology , Inc . Contrac t No . 68-02-1400 . 1974 . 19 . Emissio n Testin g Repor t (teste d bycompan ypersonnel) . Unite d Cemen t Company , Artesia , Mississippi . 1974 . 20 . Emissio n Testin g Repor t (kil n No . 2) . Sante e Portlan d Cemen t Corporation , Holl yHill , Sout hCarolina . Pollutio n Control

Walthe r Inc . 1974 . 21 . Emissio n Testin g Report . Monarc hCemen t Company , Humboldt , Kansas . Fulle r Company . 1974 . 22 . Emissio n Testin g Report . Drago n Cemen t Company , Northampton , _?!*«&# / Pennsylvania . EPA , OAWM , OAQPS , ESE D Report . Marc h1972 . 23 . Emissio n Testin g Report . Orego n Portlan d Cemen t Company , Lak e Oswego , Oregon . EPA , OAWM , OAQPS , ESE D Report . Marc h1972 . 24 . Contaminate d Wate r Plumes . EPA , OAWM , OAQPS , ESE D Report . 1973 .



### 12 5PORTLAN D CEMEN T REMAN D RESPONS E

APPENDI XIII , PAR T B

PREAMBL E AND AMENDMENT S T O REGULATION S



### 127P.3 1

Titl e 40--Protectio n o f the Environmen t CHAPTE R I—ENVIRONMENTA L PROTECTIO NAGENCY Subchapte r C--Ai r Program s PART 60—STANDARD S O F PERFORMANC E FO R NE WSTATIONAR

Y SOURCE S Opacit yProvision s O n Jun e 29 , 1973 , the Unite d State s Cour t o f Appeal s fo r the Distric t o f Columbi a in Portlan d Cemen t Associatio n v . Ruckelshaus , 48 6 F . 2

d 37 5 (1973 ) remande d t o EP Athe standard o f performanc e fo r Portlan d cemen t plant s (4 0 CF R 60.6 0 e_t . seq. ) promulgate d b yEP A unde r sectio n 11 1 o f the Clean Ai r Act . I n the remand , the Cour t directe d EP

At o reconside r amon g othe r thing s the us e o f the opacit y standards . EP

Aha s prepare d a respons e t o the remand . Copie s o f thi s respons e ar e availabl e fro mthe Emissio n Standard s an d Engineering Division , Environmenta l Protectio n Agency , Researc hTriangl e Park , N . C . 27711 , Attn : Mr . Don R . Goodwin . I n developing the response , EP Acollecte d an

d evaluate d a substantia l amoun t o f informatio n whic h i s summarize d an

d reference d in the response . Copie s o f thi s informa

tio n ar e availabl e fo r inspectio n during norma l offic e hour s a t EPA' s Offic e o f Publi c Affairs , 40 1 MStreet , S.W. , Washington , D . C . EP A determine d tha t th e Portlan d cemen t plan t standard s generall ydi d no t requir e revisio n bu t di d fin d tha t certai n revision s ar e appro priat e t o th e opacit yprovision s o f the standards . Th e provision s promulgate d herei n includ e a revisio n t o §60.11 , Complianc e wit h Standard s an

d Maintenanc e Requirements , a revisio n t o the opacit y iMs p



### 12 9P.3 2



### standar dfo r Portlan t cemen t plants , andrevision s t o Referenc e Metho d9 . Th e base s fo r th e revision s ar e discusse di ndetai l i n th e Agency' s respons e t o th e remand . The yar e summarize dbelow . Th e revision s t o §60.1 1 includ e th e modificatio no f paragrap h(b ) andth e additio no f paragrap h(e) . Paragrap h(b ) ha s bee nrevise d t o indicat e tha t whil e Referenc e Metho d9 remain s th e primar yand accepte dmean s fo r determinin g complianc e wit hopacit ystandard s i n thi s part , EPAwil l accep t a s probativ e evidenc e i ncertai nsituation s andunde r certai ncondition s th e result s o f continuou s monitorin g by transmissomete r t o determin e whethe r a violatio nha s i nfac t occurred . Th e revisio nmake s clea r tha t eve ni nsuc hsituation s th e result s o f opacit yreading s b

yMetho d9 remai npresumptivel yvali dandcorrect . &>$&•& Th e provision s i nparagrap h(e ) provid e a mechanis mfo r anowne r o r operato r t o petitio nth e Administrato r t o establis ha nopacit y standar dfo r anaffecte dfacilit ywher e suc hfacilit ymeet s al l applicabl e standard s fo r whic ha performanc e tes t i s conducte dunde r §60. 8 bu t fail s t o mee t anapplicabl e opacit ystandard . Thi s provisio n i s intende dprimaril yt o appl yt o case s wher e a sourc e install s a ver ylarg e diamete r stac k whic hcause s th e opacit yo f th e emission s t o b e greate r tha ni f a stac k o f th e diamete r ordinaril yuse d i nth e industr ywer e Installed . Althoug hthi s situatio ni s considere d t o b e very

unlikel yt o occur , thi s provisio nwil l accommodat e suc h a situation . Th e provisio ncoul dals o appl yt o othe r situation s wher e fo r anyreaso na naffecte dfacilit ycoul dfai l t o mee t opacit y standard s whil e meetin g mas s emissio nstandards , althoug hn o suc h situation s ar e expecte dt o occur . 13 0Arevisio n t d th e opacit ystandar d fo r Portlan d cemen t plant s

i s promulgate d herein . Th e revisio n change s th e opacit ylimi t fo r kiln s fro m1 0 percen t t o 2 0 percent . Thi s revisio n i s base d o n EPA' s polic yo n opacit ystandard s and th e ne wemissio n dat a fro mPortlan d cemen t plant s evaluate d b yEP Adurin g it s reconsidera

tion . Th e preambl e t o th e standard s o f performanc e whic hwer e pro mulgate d o n Marc h3 , 197 4 (3 9 FR9308 ) set s fort hEPA' s polic yo n opacit ystandards : (1 ) opacit ylimit s ar e independen t enforceabl e standards ; (2 ) wher e opacit yand mass/concentratio n standard s ar e applicabl e t o th e sam e source * th e mass/concentratio n standard s ar e establishe d a t a leve l whic hwil l resul t i n th e design , installation , and operatio n o f th e bes t adequatel ydemonstrate d syste mo f emissio n reductio n (takin g cost s int o account) ; and (3) th e opacit ystandard s ar e establishe d a t a leve l whic hwil l requir e prope r operatio n and maintenanc e o f suc hcontro l systems . Th e ne wdat a indicat e tha t Increasin g th e opacit ylimi t fo r kiln s fro m1 0 percen t t o 2 0 percen t i s justified , becaus e suc ha standar d wil l stil l requir e th e design , installation , and operatio n o f th e bes t adequatel ydemonstrate d syste mo f emissio n reductio n (takin g cost s int o account ) whil e eliminatin g o r minimizin g th e situation s wher e i t wil l b e necessar y t o promulgat e a ne wopacit ystandar d unde r §60.11(e) . I n evaluatin g th e accurac yo f result s fro mqualifie d observer s followin g th e procedure s o f Referenc e Metho d 9 , EP Adetermine d tha t som e revision s t o Referenc e Metho d 9 ar e appropriate . Th e evaluatio n showe d tha t observer s traine d and certifie d i n accordanc e wit hth e procedure s prescribe d unde r Referenc e Metho d 9 ar e consistentl yabl e t o rea d opacit ywit herror s no t exceedin g +7. 5 percen t base d upo n 13 1P.3 4

singl e set s o f th e averag e o f 2 4 readings . Th e revision s t o Referenc e Metho d 9 includ e th e following : 1 . Anintroductor ysectio ni s added . Thi s include s a dis

cussio no f th e concep t o f visibl e emissio nreadin g and describe s th e effec t o f variabl e viewin g conditions . Informatio ni s als o presente d concernin g th e accurac yo f th e metho d notin g tha t th e accurac yo f th e metho d mus t be take nint o accoun t whe ndeterminin g possibl e violation s o f applicabl e opacit ystandards . 2 . Provision s ar e adde d whic hspecif ytha t th e determinatio no f opacit yrequire s averagin g 2 4 reading s take na t 15-secon d intervals . Th e purpos e fo r takin g 2 4 reading s i s bot ht o exten d th e averagin g tim e ove r whic hth e observation s ar e made , and t o tak e sufficien t reading s t o insur e acceptabl e accuracy . 3 . Mor e specifi c criteri a concernin g observe r positio nwit h respec t t o th e su nar e added . Specifically , th e su nmus t b e withi n a 140 ° secto r t o th e observer' s back . 4 . Criteri a concernin g anobserver' s positio nwit hrespec t t o th e plum e ar e added . Specifi c guidanc e i s als o provide d fo r readin g emission s fro mrectangula r emissio npoint s wit hlarg e lengt h t o widt hratios , and fo r readin g emission s fro mmultipl e stacks . I n eac ho f thes e cases , emission s ar e t o b e rea d acros s th e shortes t pat hlength . 5 . Provision s ar e adde d t o mak e clea r tha t opacit yo f contami

nate d wate r o r stea mplume s 1 s t o b e rea d a t a poin t wher e wate r doe s no t exis t i ncondense d form . Tw o specifi c instruction s ar e provided :



### 13 2 -»!&£$ •on e fo r the cas e wher e opacit ycan b e observe d prio r t o the formatio n o f the condense d wate r plume , an d one fo r the cas e wher e opacit yi s t o be observe d afte r the condense d wate r plum e ha s dissipated . 6 . Specification s ar e adde d fo r the smok e generato r used fo r qualificatio n o f observer s s o tha t Stat e o r loca l ai r pollutio n contro l agencie s mayprovid e observe r qualificatio n training consisten t wit hEP

Atraining . I n developing thi s regulatio n w e have taken int o accoun t the comment s receive d in respons e t o th e Septembe r 11 , 197 4 (3 9 F R 35852 ) notic e o f propose d rulemaking whic hpropose d among othe r thing s certai n mino r change s t o Referenc e Metho d 9 . Thi s regulatio n repre sent s the rulemaking wit hrespec t t o the revision s t o Metho d 9 . Th e determinatio n o f complianc e wit happlicabl e opacit ystandard s wil l b e base d o

n a n averag e o f 2 4 consecutiv e opacit yreading s take n a t 1 5 secon

d intervals . Thi s approac hi s a satisfactorymean s o f enforcing opacit ystandard s in case s wher e the violatio n i s a con tinuing on e an

d time exception s ar e no t par t o f the applicabl e opacit ystandard . However , the opacit ystandard s fo r stea melectri c generator s in 4 0 CFR 60.4 2 an d flui d catalyti c cracking uni t catalys t regenerator s in 4 0 CFR 60.10 2 an d numerou s opacit ystandard s 1n Stat e implementatio n plan s specif yvariou s time exceptions . Man yStat e an d loca l ai r pollutio n contro l agencie s us e a differen t approac h 1n enforcing opacit ystandard s than the s1x-minut e averag e perio d specifie d in thi s revisio n t o Metho d 9 . EP Arecognize s tha t certai n



### 13 3P.3 6

type s o f opacit yviolation s tha t ar e intermitten t i n natur e requir e -

a differen t approac hi n applyin g th e opacit ystandard s tha n thi s revisio n t o Metho d 9 . I t i s EPA' s inten t t o propos e an additiona l revisio n t o Metho d 9 specifyin g an alternativ e metho d t o enforc e opacit ystandards . I t i s ou r inten t tha t thi s metho d specif ya minimumnumbe r o f reading s tha t mus t b e taken , suc ha s a minimumo f te n reading s abov e th e standar d i n an yon e hou r perio d prio r t o citin g a violation . EP Ai s i n th e proces s o f analyzin g availabl e dat a and determinin g th e erro r involve d i n readin g opacit yi n thi s manne r and wil l propos e thi s revisio n t o Metho d 9 a s soo n a s thi s analysi s i s completed . Th e Agenc ysolicit s comment s and recommendation s o n th e nee d fo r thi s additiona l revisio n t o Metho d 9 and woul d welcom e an ysuggestion s particularl yfro mai r pollutio n contro l agencie s o n ho ww e migh t mak e Metho d 9 mor e responsiv e t o th e need s o f thes e agencies . Thes e action s ar e effectiv e o n (dat e o f publication) . Th e Agenc y find s goo d caus e exist s fo r no t publishin g thes e action s a s a notic e o f propose d rulemakin g and fo r makin g the meffectiv e immediatel y upo n publicatio n fo r th e followin g reasons : (1 ) Onl ymino r amendment s ar e bein g mad e t o th e opacit ystandard s whic hwer e remanded . (2 ) Th e U . S . Cour t o f Appeal s fo r th e Distric t o f Columbi a Instructe d EPAt o complet e th e reman d proceedin g wit hrespec t t o th e Portlan d cemen t plan t standard s byNovembe r 5 , 1974 . (3 ) Becaus e opacit ystandard s ar e th e subjec t o f othe r litiga

tion , i t i s necessar yt o reac ha fina l determinatio n wit hrespec t t o 

### 13 4 •••••*:: 'P.3 7

th e basi c issue s involvin g opacit ya t thi s tim e i n orde r t o properl y respon d t o thi s issu e wit hrespec t t o suc hothe r litigation . Thes e regulation s ar e issue d unde r th e authorit yo f section s 11 1 and 11 4 o f th e Clea n Ai r Act , a s amende d (4 2 U.S.C . 1857c- 6 and 9) .



### Dlt F Administrato r



### 13 5P.3 8

Par t 6 0 o f Chapte r I , Titl e 4 0 o f th e Cod e o f Federa l Regula

tion s i s amende d a s follows : 1 . Sectio n 60.1 1 i s amende d b yrevisin g paragrap h(b ) and addin g paragrap h(e) , readin g a s follows :

* * * * . * (b ) Complianc e wit hopacit ystandard s i n thi s par t shal l b e determine d b

yconductin g observation s i n accordanc e wit hReferenc e Metho d 9 i n Appendi xAo f thi s part . Opacit yreading s o f portion s o f plume s whic hcontai n condensed , uncombine d wate r vapo r shal l no t b e use d fo r purpose s o f determinin g complianc e wit hopacit ystandards . Th e result s o f continuou s monitorin g b ytransmissomete r whic h indicat e tha t th e opacit ya t th e tim e visua l observation s wer e mad e wa s no t i n exces s o f th e standar d ar e probativ e bu t no t conclusiv e evidenc e o f th e actua l opacit yo f an emission , provide d tha t th e sourc e shal l mee t th e burde n o f provin g tha t th e instrumen t use d meet s (a t th e tim e o f th e allege d violation ) Performanc e Specificatio n 1 i n Appendi xB o f thi s part , ha s bee n properl y maintaine d and (a t th e tim e o f th e allege d violation ) calibrated , an dtha t th e resultin g dat a hav e no t bee n tampere d wit hi n anyway . * * * * * (e)(1 ) An owne r o r operato r o f an affecte d facilit yma y reques t th e Administrato r t o determin e opacit yo f emission s fro mth e affecte d facilit ydurin g th e initia l performanc e test s require d b y§60.8 .



### 13 6

### (2 ) Upo nreceip t fro m suc howne r o r operato r o f th e writte n repor t o f th e result s o f th e performanc e test s require db y§60.8 , th e Administrato r wil l mak e a findin g concernin g complianc e wit h opacit yandothe r applicabl e standaro.. . I f th e Administrato r find s tha t a naffecte dfacilit yi s i ncomplianc e wit hal l applicabl e standard s fo r whic hperformanc e test s ar e conducte di naccordanc e wit h§60. 8 o f thi s par t bu t durin g th e tim e suc hperformanc e test s ar e bein g conducte dfail s t o mee t anyapplicabl e opacit ystandard , h e shal l notif yth e owne r o r operato r andadvis e hi mtha t h e ma y petitio nth e Administrato r withi n1 0 day s o f receip t o f notificatio n t o mak e appropriat e adjustmen t t o th e opacit ystandar dfo r th e affecte dfacility . WJJA (3 ) Th e Administrato r wil l gran t suc ha petitio nupo na demon

stratio nb

yth e owne r o r operato r tha t th e affecte dfacilit yand associate dai r pollutio ncontro l equipmen t wa s operate dandmain

taine di na manne r t o minimiz e th e opacit yo f emission s durin g th e performanc e tests ; tha t th e performanc e test s wer e performe dunde r th e condition s establishe db yth e Administrator ; andtha t th e affecte dfacilit yandassociate dai r pollutio ncontro l equipmen t wer e Incapabl e o f bein g adjuste do r operate dt o mee t th e applicabl e opacit ystandard . (4 ) Th e Administrato r wil l establis hanopacit ystandar dfo r th e affecte dfacilit ymeetin g th e abov e requirement s a t a leve l a t whic hth e sourc e wil l b e able , a s indicate db yth e performanc e and opacit ytests , t o mee t th e opacit ystandar da t al l time s durin g whic hth e sourc e i s meetin g th e mas s o r concentratio nemissio nstandard . 13 7Th e Administrato r wil l promulgat e th e ne wopacit ystandar d i n

th e Federa l Register . 2 . I n §60.62 , paragrap h(a)(2 ) i s revise d t o rea d a s follow s §60.6 2 Standar d fo r particulat e matte r * * * (a ) * * * (2 ) Exhibi t greate r than 2 0 percen t opacity . 3 . Appendi xA-Referenc e Method s i s amende d b yrevisin g Referenc e Metho d 9 a s follows :



### 13 8 \<-MW.P.4 1

METHO D 9--VISUA

L DETERMINATIO

NO F TH E OPACITY OF EMISSION S FROMSTATIONAR Y SOURCE S

Man ystationarysource s discharg e visibl e emission s int o the atmosphere ; thes e emission s ar e usuall yi n th e shap e o f a plume . Thi s metho d involve s the determinatio n o f plume opacit yb yqualifie d observers . Th e metho d include s procedure s fo r the training an d certi

ficatio n o f observers , an d procedure s t o be used i n the fiel d fo r determinatio n o f plume opacity . Th e appearanc e o f a plume a s viewed b yan observe r depend s upo n a numbe r o f variables , som e o f whic hmay be controllabl e an

d some o f whic hmayno t be controllabl e i n the field . Variable s whic hca n be controlle d t o a n exten t t o whic htheyno longe r exer t a significan t influenc e upon plume appearanc e include : angl e o f i^&ji i th e observe r wit hrespec t t o the plume ; angl e o f the observe r wit hrespec t t o the sun ; poin t o f observatio n o f attache d an d detache d stea

mplume ; an

d angl e o f th e observe r wit hrespec t t o a plume emitte d froma rectangula r stac k wit ha larg e lengt ht o widt hratio . Th e metho d include s specifi c criteri a applicabl e t o thes e variables . Othe r variable s whic hma yno t be controllabl e in the fiel d ar e luminescenc e an

d colo r contras t betwee n the plume an d the backgroun

d agains t whic hth e plume i s viewed . Thes e variable s exer t a n influenc e upo n th e appearanc e o f a plume a s viewe d b yan observer , an

d can affec t th e abilit yo f th e observe r t o accuratel yassign opacit yvalue s t o the observe d plume . Studie s o f the theoryo f plume opacit yan d fiel d studie s hav e demonstrate d tha t a plume 1 s mos t visibl e an d present s th e greates t apparen t opacit ywhe n viewe d agains t a contrasting background . I t follow s 13 9P.4 2

fro m this , an

di s confirme db

y fiel dtrials , tha t th e opacit y

o f a plume , viewe dunde r condition s wher e a contrastin gbackgroundi s presen t canb e assigne dwit hthe greates t degre e o f accuracy . However , th e potentia l fo r a positiv e erro r i s als o th e greates t whe na plume 1 s viewe dunde r suc hcontrastingconditions . Unde r condition s presentin g a les s contrastin gbackground , the apparen t opacit y o f a plum

e i s les s an dapproache s zer o a s the colo r an dluminescenc e contras t decreas e towar dzero . A s a result , significan t negativ e bia s an dnegativ e error s canbe mad e whe na plume i s viewe dunde r les s contrastin gconditions . A negativ e bia s decrease s rathe r thanincrease s th e possibilit y tha t a plan t operato r wil l b e cite dfo r a violatio no f opacit y standard s du e t o observe r error . Studie s have bee nundertake nt o determin e th e magnitud e o f positiv e error s whic hcanbe mad e b y qualifie dobserver s whil e readingplume s unde r contrastin gcondition s an dusingth e procedure s se t fort hinthi s method . Th e result s o f thes e studie s (fiel dtrials ) whic hinvolve a tota l o f 76 9 set s o f 2 5 reading s eac har e a s follows : (1 ) Fo r blac kplume s (13 3 set s a t a smok e generator) , 100 % o f th e set s wer e readwit ha positiv e error * o f les s than7.5 % opacity ; 99 % wer e readwit ha positiv e erro r o f les s than5 % opacity . (2 ) Fo r whit e plume s (17 0 set s at a smok e generator , 16 8 set s a t a coal-fire dpowe r plant , 29 8 set s a t a sulfuri c aci dplant) , 99 % o f th e set s wer e readwit ha positiv e erro r o f les s than7.5 % opacity ; 95 % wer e readwit ha positiv e erro r o f les s tha n5 % opacity .

*r~or a set , positiv e error = averag e opacit y

determine db

y observer' s 2 5 observation s - averag e opacit y determine dfro

m transmissometer' s 2 5 recordings . 

# $m&

14 0Th e positiv e observationa l erro r as'sociate d wit ha

n averag e o f twenty-fiv e reading s 1 s therefor e established . Th e accurac yo f the metho d mus t be take n int o accoun t whe n determining possibl e violation s p f applicabl e opacit ystandards . 1 . Principl e an

d applicability . -1. 1 Principle . Th e opacit yo f emission s fromstationarysource s 1 s determine d visuall yb ya qualifie d observer . 1. 2 Applicability . Thi s metho d 1 s applicabl e fo r th e determinatio n o f the opacit yo f emission s fro mstationar

ysource s pursuan t t o §60.11(b ) an

d fo r qualifying observer s fo r visuall ydetermining opacit yo f emissions . 2 . Procedures . Th e observe r qualifie d in accordanc e wit hparagraph3 o f thi s metho d shal l us e th e following procedure s fo r visuall y determining the opacit yo f emissions : 2. 1 Position . Th e qualifie d observe r shal l stan d a t a distanc e sufficien t t o provid e a clea r vie wo f the emission s wit hth e su n oriente d 1 n the 14 0 secto r t o hi s back . Consisten t wit hmaintaining the abov e . requirement , th e observe r shall , a s muc ha s possible , mak e hi s observation s fro ma positio n suc htha t hi s line o f visio n i s approximatel y perpendicula r t o th e plume direction , an d whe n observing opacit yo f emission s fro

mrectangula r outlet s (e.g . roo f monitors , ope n baghouses , noncircula r stacks) , approximatel yperpendicula r t o the longe r axi s o f the outlet . Th e observer' s line o f sigh t shoul d no t includ e mor e than on e plume a t a time whe n multipl e stack s ar e involved , an d in an ycas e 

### mmm

141P.4 4

th e observe r shoul d mak e hi s observation s wit hhi s lin e o f sigh t per pendicula r t o th e longe r axi s o f suc ha se t o f multipl e stack s (e.g . stu bstack s o n baghouses) . 2. 2 Fiel d records . Th e observe r shal l recor d th e nam e o f th e plant , emissio n location , typ e facility , observer' s nam e and affiliation , and th e dat e o n a fiel d dat a shee t (Figur e 9-1) . Th e time , estimate d distanc e t o th e emissio n location , approximat e win d direction , estimate d win d speed , descriptio n o f th e skyconditio n (presenc e and colo r o f clouds) , an d plum e backgroun d ar e recorde d o n a fiel d dat a shee t a t th e tim e opacit yreading s ar e initiate d and completed . 2. 3 Observations . Opacit yobservation s shal l b e mad e a t th e poin t o f greates t opacit yi n tha t portio n o f th e plum e wher e condense d wate r vapo r i s no t present . Th e observe r shal l no t loo k continuousl ya t th e plume , bu t instea d shal l observ e th e plum e momentaril ya t 15-secon d intervals . 2.3. 1 Attache d stea mplumes , whe n condense d wate r vapo r i s presen t within th e plum e a s i t emerge s fro m th e emissio n outlet , opacit y observation s shal l b e mad e beyon d th e poin t i n th e plum e a t whic hcon dense d wate r vapo r 1 s n o longe r visible . Th e observe r shal l recor d th e approximat e distanc e fro mth e emissio n outle t t o th e poin t in th e plum e a t whic hth e observation s ar e made . 2.3. 2 Detache d stea m plume . Whe n wate r vapo r i n th e plum e condense s and become s visibl e a t a distinc t distanc e fro m th e emission-outlet , th e opacit yo f emission s shoul d b e evaluate d a t th e emissio n outle t prio r t o



### 142P.4 5

th e condensatio n o f wate r vapo r an d the formatio n o f th e stea mplume . 2. 4 Recording observations . Opacit yobservation s shal l be recorde d t o th e neares t 5 percen t a t 15-secon d interval s o

n a n observationa l record sheet . (Se e Figur e 9- 2 fo r a n example. ) Aminimu mo f 2 4 observation s shal l b e recorded . Eachmomentaryobservatio n recorde d shal l be deeme d t o represen t the averag e opacit yo f emission s fo r a 15-secon d period . 2. 5 Dat a Reduction . Opacit yshal l be determine d a s a n averag e o f 2 4 consecutiv e observations-recorde d a t 15-secon d intervals . Divid e the observation s recorde d o n the record shee t int o set s o f 2 4 consecutiv e observations . Ase t i s compose d o f an y2 4 consecutiv e observations . Set s nee d no t be consecutiv e i n time an

d in n o cas e shal l two set s overlap . Fo r eac hse t o f 2 4 observations , calculat e the averag e b y summing th e opacit yo f the 2 4 observation s an d dividing thi s su mb y24 . I f an applicabl e standar d specifie s a n averaging time requiring mor e tha n 2 4 observations , calculat e the averag e fo r al l observation s mad e during the specifie d time period . Record the averag e opacit yon a record sheet . (Se e Figur e 9- 1 fo r a n example. ) 3 . Qualification s an d testing . 3. 1 Certificatio n requirements . T o receiv e certificatio n a s a qualifie d observer , a candidat e mus t be teste d an d demonstrat e the abilit yt o assign opacit yreading s in 5 percen t increment s t o 2 5 differen t blac k plume s an d 2 5 differen t whit e plumes , wit ha n erro r no t t o excee d 15.percen t opacit yon an yon e reading an

d a n averag e erro r no t t o excee d 7. 5 percen t opacit y1n eac hcategory . Candidate s shal l b e teste d according t o the procedure s describe d 1n paragraph3.2 . Smok e generator s use d pursuan t t o paragraph3. 2 shal l b e equippe d wit h a smok e mete r whic hmeet s the requirement s o f paragraph3.3 . 

### 14 3P.4 6

Th e certificatio n shal l be vali d fo r a period o f 6 months , a t whic h time th e qualificatio n procedur e mus t be repeate d b yan yobserve r in orde r t o retai n certification . 3. 2 Certificatio n procedure . Th e certificatio n tes t consist s o f show

in g th e candidat e a complet e ru n o f 5 0 plumes--2 5 blac k plume s an d 2 5 whit e plumes—generate d b ya smok e generator . Plume s withi n eachse t o f 2 5 blac k an

d 2 5 whit e run s shal l be presente d in rando morder . Th e candidat e assign s a n opacit yvalu e t o eachplume an d record s hi s observatio n on a suitabl e form . At the completio n o f eachru n o f 5 0 readings , th e scor e o f th e candidat e i s determined . I f a candidat e fail s t o qualify , th e complet e ru n o f 5 0 reading s mus t be repeate d in an y retest . Th e smok e tes t mayb e administere d a s par t o f a smok e schoo l •%#» ' o r training program , an d mayb e precede d b ytraining o r familiarizatio n run s o f the smok e generato r during whic hcandidate s ar e show n blac k an

d whit e plume s o f know n opacity . 3. 3 Smok e generato r specifications . An ysmok e generato r used fo r th e purpose s o f paragraph3. 2 shal l b e equippe d wit ha smok e mete r installe d t o measur e opacit yacros s th e diamete r o f the smok e generato r stack . Th e smok e mete r outpu t shal l displa yin-stac k opacit ybase d upon a pathlengt hequa l t o th e stac k exi t diameter , on a ful l 0 t o 10 0 percen t char t recorde r scale . Th e smok e mete r optica l desig n an d performanc e shal l mee t th e specification s show n in Tabl e 9-1 . Th e smok e mete r shal l be calibrate d a s prescribe d in paragraph3.3. 1 prio r t o the conduc t o f eac hsmok e reading test . A t the completio n o f eac htest , th e zer o an d span drif t shal l b e checke d an d i f the drif t exceed s + 1 percen t



### 14 4P.4 7

opacity , the conditio n shal l b e correcte d prio r t o conducting .an y subsequen t tes t runs . Th e smok e mete r shal l be demonstrated , a t the time o f installation , t o mee t the specification s listed 1n Tabl e 9-1 . Thi s demonstratio n shal l be repeate d following an ysubsequen t repai r o r replacemen t o f the photocel l o r associate d electroni c circuitry including the char t recorde r or outpu t meter , o r every 6 months , which

eve r occur s first . TABL E 9- 1 SMOK E METE R DESIG NAN D PERFORMANC E SPECIFICATION S Paramete r Specificatio n a . Ligh t sourc e Spectra l respons e o f photocel l

c . Angl e o f vie w d . Angl e o f projectio n e . Calibratio n erro r f . Zer o an

d span drif t g . Respons e time Incandescen t lam p operate d a t nomina l rated voltag e Photopi c (Dayligh t spectra l respons e o f the human eye referenc e 4.3 ) 15 ° maximu

mtota l angl e 15 ° maximu

mtota l angl e +

_3 % opacity , maximu m +

_1 % opacity , 3 0 minute s < 5 second s 3.3. 1 Calibration . Th e smok e mete r 1 s calibrate d afte r allow

in g a minimu

mo f 3 0 minute s warmu p b yalternatel yproducing simulate d opacit yo f 0 percen t an d 10 0 percent . Whe n stabl e respons e a t 0 percen t o r 10 0 percen t i s noted , th e smok e mete r i s adjuste d t o produc e an outpu t o f 0 percen t o r 10 0 percent , a s appropriate , thi s calibratio n shal l be repeate d unti l stabl e 0 percen t an d 10 0 percen t reading s ar e produce d withou t adjustment . Simulate d 0 percen t an d 10 0



### 14 5P.4 8

percen t opacit yvalue s maybe produce d b yalternatel yswitching the powe r t o the ligh t sourc e o n an d of f whil e the smok e generato r i s no t producing smoke . 3.3. 2 Smok e mete r evaluation . Th e smok e mete r design an d per formanc e ar e t o be evaluate d a s follows : 3.3.2. 1 Ligh t source . Verif yfrommanufacturer' s dat a an d fro mvoltag e measurement s mad e a t the lamp , a s Installed , tha t the lam p 1 s operate d withi n +

_5 percen t o f the nomina l rate d voltage . 3.3.2. 2 Spectra l respons e o f photocell . Verif yfro mmanu facturer' s dat a tha t the photocel l ha s a photopi c response ; i.e. , the spectra l sensitivit yo f the cel l shal l closel yapproximat e the standard spectral-luminosit ycurve fo r photopi c visio n whic hi s is^a a reference d in (b ) o f Tabl e 9-1 . 3.3.2. 3 Angl e o f view . Chec k constructio n geometryt o ensur e tha t the tota l angl e o f viewo f the smok e plume , a s seen b ythe photocell , doe s no t exceed 15° . Th e tota l angl e o f vie wmay be calculate d from : o = 2 tan " d/2L , wher e e = tota l angl e o f view ; d= the su

mo f th e photocel l diamete r + the diamete r o f the limiting aperture ; an

d L = th e distanc e fro mthe photocel l t o the limiting aperture . Th e limiting apertur e i s the poin t in the pat hbetwee n the photocel l an

d the smok e plum

e wher e the angl e o f vie wi s mos t restricted . I

nsmok e generato r smok e meter s thi s i s normall yan orific e plate . 3.3.2. 4 Angl e o f projection . Chec k constructio n geometry t o ensur e tha t the tota l angl e o f projectio n o f the lam p o n the smok e



### 14 6P.4 9

plume doe s no t excee d 15° . Th e tota l angl e o f projectio n maybe calculate d from : e- 2 tan " d/2L , wher e e = tota l angl e o f projection ; d = the su

mo f the lengt ho f the lam p filamen t + the diamete r o f the limiting aperture ; an d L = the distanc e fro mthe lam

p t o the limiting aperture . 3.3.2. 5 Calibratio n error . Using neutral-densit yfilter s o f know n opacity , chec k the erro r betwee n th e actua l respons e an d the theoretica l linea r respons e o f th e smok e meter . Thi s chec k i s accomplishe d b

yfirs t calibrating the smok e mete r according t o 3.3. 1 an d then inserting a serie s o f thre e neutral-densit yfilter s o f nomina l opacit yo f 20 , 50 , an d 7 5 percen t 1n the smok e mete r pathlength . Filter s calibrate d withi n + 2 percen t shal l b e used . Car e shoul d be take n whe n inserting the filter s t o preven t stra yligh t fro

maffecting th e meter . Mak e a tota l o f five nonconsecutiv e reading s fo r eac h filter . Th e maximu merro r on an

yon e reading shal l b e 3 percen t opacity . 3.3.2. 6 Zer o an

d spa n drift . Determin e the zer o an d span drif t b ycalibrating an

d operating the smok e generato r 1n a norma l manne r ove r a 1-hour period . Th e drif t 1 s measure d b ychecking the z e ^ an d span a t the en

d o f thi s period . 3.3.2. 7 Respons e time . Determin e the respons e time b yproducing a serie s o f five simulate d 0 percen t an d 10 0 percen t opacit yvalue s an d observing the time require d t o reac hstabl e response . Opacit y value s o f 0 percen t an d 10 0 percen t maybe simulate d b yalternatel y switching th e powe r t o the ligh t sourc e of f an d on whil e the smok e generato r 1 s no t operating . 14 7P.5 0

4 . References . 4. 1 Ai r Pollutio n Contro l Distric t Rule s and Renulations , Lo s Angele s Count yAi r Pollutio n Contro l District , Regulatio n IV , Prohibitions , Rul e 50 . 4. 2 Weisburd , Melvi n I. , Fiel d Operation s an d Enforcemen t Manua l fo r Air , U . S . Environmenta l Protectio n Agency , Researc hTriangl e Park , N . C , APTD-1100 , Augus t 1972 , pp . 4.1-4.36 . 4. 3 Condon , E . U. , and Odishaw , H. , Handboo k o f Physics , McGraw-Hil l Co. , N . Y. , N . Y. , 1958 , Tabl e 3.1 , p . 6-52 . 

### $$wp

14 8COMPAN Y

LOCATIO N TES T NUMBER

_ DAT E TYP E FACILIT Y CONTRO L DEVIC E Figur e 9-1 . Fiel d dat a sheet . HOURS'O F OBSERVATION , OBSERVE R OBSERVE RCERTIFICATIO NDATE _ OBSERVE RAFFILIATIO N POIN T O F EMISSION S HEIGH T O F DISCHARG E POIN T

CLOC K TIM E OBSERVE RLOCATIO N Distanc e t o Discharg e Directio n fro mDischarg e Heigh t o f Observatio n Poin t BACKGROUN D DESCRIPTIO N WEATHE RCONDITION S Win d Directio n Wind Spee d Ambien t Temperatur e SK YCONDITION S (clear , overcast , %clouds , etc. ) PLUM E DESCRIPTIO N Color Distanc e Visibl e OTiic a INTONATIO N Initia l Fina l SUMMAR YO F AVERAG E OPACIT Y

Reading s range d fro m t o Se t Numbe r Tim e

Start--En d 0pacit > '

Su m 'verag e !

! i i 

### i i

' !

i

%opacii. y Th e sourc e was/wa s no t i n complianc e wit h th e tim e evaluatio n wa s made . a tCOMPANY

LOCATIO N_ TES T NUMBER " DAT E P.5 2

FIGUR E 9- 2 OBSERVATIO NRECOR D PAG E 

### O F OBSERVE R TYP E FACILIT Y POIN T O F EMISSION S



### Hr .

1 Min . 

### 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 0 1 1 1 2 1 3 1 4 1 5 1 6 1 7 1 8 1 9 2 0 21 2 2 2 3 2 4 2 5 2 6 2 7 2 8 2 9 Second s 

### T T 1 5 3 0 4 5 STEA MPLUME (check i f anplicable ) Attache d Detache d COMMENT S

^



### 15 0P.5 3

FIGUR E 9- 2 OBSERVATIO NRECOR D

(Continued ) PAG E 

### O F COMPAN Y LOCATIO N TES T NUMBE R DAT E OBSERVE R TYP E FACILIT Y POIN T O F EMISSION S



### Hr .

, Min . 3 0 3 1 3 2 3 3 3 4 3 5 3 6 3 7 3 8 3 9 4 0 4 1 4 2 4 3 4 4 4 5 4 6 4 7 4 8 4 9 5 0 5 1 5 2 5 3 5 4 5 5 5 6 5 7 5 8 5 9 Second s 0 

### 15 3 0 4 5 STEA MPLUM E (check i f applicable) . Attache d Detache d COMMENT S



### 15 1TECHMICA L REPOR TDAT A {Please read

Instructions on the reverse before completing) 1

. REPOR TNO

. EPA-450/2-74-02 3 3

. RECIPIENT' S ACCESSIO N NO

. 4

. TITL E AN D SUBTITL E 5

. REPOR TDAT E EP ARespons e t o Reman d Ordere d b yU.S

. Cour to fAppeal s fo rth e Distric to fColumbi a i n Portlan d CementAssoc iatio n v . Ruckelshau s (48 6 F

. 2 d 375 , Jun e 29 , 1973)

. 6

. PERFORMIN G ORGANIZATIO N COD E

7

. AUTHOR(S ) 8

. PERFORMIN G ORGANIZATIO N REPOR TNO

.

9

. PERFORMIN G ORGANIZATIO N NAM E AN D ADDRES S Environmenta l Protectio n Agenc y Offic e o f Ai r Qualit yPlannin g an d Standard s Researc hTriangl e Park , N . C . 2771 1

12

. SPONSORIN G AGENC YNAM E AN D ADDRES S Novembe r 197 4

10

. PROGRA M ELEMEN TNO

. 1 1

. CONTRACT/GRAN TNO

.

13

. TYP E O F REPOR TAN D PERIO D COVERE D 14

. SPONSORIN G AGENC YCOD E

15

. SUPPLEMENTAR YNOTE S

16

. ABSTRAC T On Jun e 29 , 1973 , th e U.S . Cour t o f Appeal s fo r th e Distric t o f Columbi a remande d t o EP Ath e standard s o f performanc e fo r Portlan d cemen t plant s promulgate d unde r sectio n 11 1 o f th e Clea n Ai r Act , directin g th e Agenc yt o reconside r th e standard s and provid e additiona l explanatio n o f th e actio n taken . EP Aha s reviewe d th e standard s fo r thes e plant s pursuan t t o th e reman d an d ha s conclude d tha t th e standard s othe r tha n th e opacit ystandar d shoul d no t b e revised . Thi s documen t i s a detaile d technica l justificatio n and explanatio n o f th e action s take n b yth e Administrato r i n promulgatin g th e standard s fo r Portlan d cemen t plants . Include d i s th e justificatio n fo r revisin g th e opacit ystandard .

KE YWORD S AN D DOCUMEN TANALYSI S DESCRIPTOR S Ai r pollutio n Opacit ystandard s Visua l observation s Portlan d cemen t plant s Particulat e matte r Emission s IS

. DISTRIBUTIO N STATEMEN T Unlimite d b.IDENTIFIERS/OPE N ENDEDTERM S c . COSAT Il 7 icld/Group Ai rpollutio n contro l

19

. SECURIT YCLAS S (This Report) Unclassifie d 20

. SECURIT YCLAS S {This page) Unclassifie d 2 1

. NO

. O F PAGE S 15 2

EP AFor m 2220- 1 (9-73 ) 752 $&$$ •I O

ENVIRONMENTA L PROTECTIO N AGENC Y

Technica l Publication s Branc h Offic e o fAdministratio n Researc h Triangl e Park . N.C . 2771 1 POSTAG E AN O FEE S PAI D ENVIRONMENTA L PROTECTIO N AGENC Y

EP A- 33 5

OFFICIA L BUSINES S A N EQUA L OPPORTUNIT YEMPLOYE R

Retur n thi s shee ti fyo u d o NO Twis h t o receiv e thi s materia l H. - ! , o ri fchang e o faddres s i s neede d JA). (Indicat e change , includin g ZI P code.)

.



## PUBLICATIO NNO . EPA-450/2-74-02 3