1.  RULE (citation and description): 340-208-0110, Visible Air Contaminant Limitations

2.  PROBLEM(S):

a.  Opacity limits are not a good standard for fugitive emissions sources because it is difficult to quantify emissions due to interferences and poorly defined plumes.

b.  Current rules apply to all sources whether or not more specific requirements apply in other Divisions, NSPS, or NESHAP. Source specific rules are developed taking into consideration process designs and controls so they should take precedents over general standards.

c.  A source can have multiple standards depending on the type of equipment and when it was installed, whether it was an “existing” wood waste boiler. Including multiple limits in a permit for similar type equipment is confusing.

d.  There are different standards for sources located in inside and outside of “special control areas”. This creates an inequity for sources and can be confusing to inspectors.

e.  The 40% opacity limit for grand-fathered wood-fired boilers is obsolete. These boilers more than likely have been modified so they should meet the 20% standard.

f.  The basis of the standard (e.g., 3 minute aggregate in any 60 minute period) is difficult to administer and no longer appropriate. When the standards were first established, compliance was determined periodically by DEQ inspectors that were certified using Oregon’s certification procedures. Many sources now monitor compliance using continuous opacity monitoring systems (COMS) and also do their own manual observations and everyone is now certified according to EPA Method 9. COMS usually come with data acquisition systems that reduce the date to 6-minute averages and it is costly to modify them to reduce the data according to Oregon’s standard for no environmental benefit. In addition, the 3 minute aggregate is inconsistent with EPA standards.

3.  AFFECTED PROGRAMS:

a.  ACDP

b.  Title V Permitting

c.  Complaints related to non-permitted sources

4.  REGULATORY STREAMLINING (Executive Order Number EO-03-01):

Permitting:  Changes would make it easier to write permits because fewer standards would have to be included in the permits. This would simplify applicability criteria and streamline permitting requirements

Compliance:  Changes would improve enforceability because the standards would be enforceable as a practical matter using the EPA Method 9 Reference Method and eliminate the need to modify the test method.

5.  RULE FIX OPTIONS:

a.  Limit applicability of these general visible emission rules to non-fugitive sources.

b.  Limit applicability to sources that do not have specific visible emission limitations in other Divisions, NSPS, or NESHAP.

c.  Eliminate the 40% standard and make the 20% standard applicable state wide.

d.  Change the basis of the standard to a 6 minute average, thereby putting it on the same basis as the federal standards. This also makes it possible to use EPA Reference Method 9 for determining compliance rather than having to use a modified Method 9. A six minute average is also more in line with the plume evaluation certification procedures (e.g., 25 consecutive readings).

6.  ISSUES:

Statutory authority:  ORS 468.020 and 468A.025

Stringency:  

a.  Eliminating opacity limits for fugitive sources may be considered a relaxation. We need to make the argument that visual emissions limits were never intended to be used for fugitive sources. We will also need to make sure that 208-0210 will adequately cover fugitive sources in lieu of opacity limits. It may be necessary to add additional work practice requirements as in 340-240-0180.

b.  Eliminating the 40% opacity limit will be more stringent for some sources. We should probably identified who will be affected and include a compliance schedule. Some of the affected sources will probably have to reduce emissions anyway due to future regulations, such as the Boiler and Industrial furnace MACT. We should also point out that having two standards creates an unequal playing field for industry; especially since new sources can be as much as 33 years old. In addition, more and more areas of the state are special control areas due to population increases. We might also want to mention the regional haze rules.

c.  It will be difficult to explain that a standard based on a 6 minute average is no more or less stringent than a standard based on an aggregate of 3 minutes in any hour. Theoretically, either basis could be more stringent than the other, but practically, sources do not typically have intermittent puffs of smoke. If there is an upset that lasts longer than 3 minutes, it usually lasts longer than 6 minutes, as well.

d.  Other reasons for changing to a 6 minute average include:

1.  A reference compliance method has not been developed for the 3 minute standard.

2.  EPA method 9 results are reported as 6 minute averages.

3.  The 3 minute standard adds more cost to data acquisition systems for continuous opacity monitoring systems. Many of the COMS are designed for 6 minute averages, so they have to be modified to record and report data for the 3 minute standard.

4.  Compliance with a 6 minute average can be determined with 24 readings (6 minute observation period); whereas, compliance with the 3 minute standard may require as many as 240 readings (60 minute observation period). In addition, it is the Department’s policy that the inspector observes the source for at least 6 minutes before making a compliance determination.

•  PM2.5 standards are on the horizon and some of these sources are located in areas that will have problems meeting the standards.

•  Many of the sources have conducted tests that demonstrate compliance with the lower limits. Reducing the limits would just mean more careful operations, not necessarily additional controls.

•  Phased compliance is always an option.

One of the ideas that arose in the meeting was to not change the 40% opacity and 0.2 grain loading stds to 20% and 0.1, but instead to establish a rule that says what triggers a change from "existing" source to "new" or "modified", something like what triggers a change from existing to new or modified in the NSPS or NESHAP. As equipment ages and mods or rebuids occur, then the source would go from 40% and 0.2 to 20% and 0.1. I think this might be a good compromise approach.

Environmental backsliding:

a.  Eliminating the visual emission limits for fugitive sources will be considered backsliding unless we can demonstrate that there are adequate work practice standards in place to control fugitive emissions.

b.  Exempting some sources from the state standards may be considered backsliding because the federal standards don’t usually apply during startup, shutdown, or malfunctions. However, we just need to point out that we would not pursue formal enforcement action for excess emissions during these periods because they are considered unavoidable.

c.  Changing from a 3 minute to 6 minute standard should have no effect on the environment. It is important to point out that visual emissions are only an indicator of actual pollutant emissions because for most sources, there is no correlation between visual emissions and pollutant emissions.

SIP revision - Appendix 7 (protection of NAAQS and PSD increment):

a.  Somehow we have to show EPA that the changes will not have an effect on the air quality.

b.  We may be able to rely on other states that have recently revised their SIPs for similar reasons.

7.  RECOMMENDATIONS:

Rule language:  see redline

Degree of difficulty (1 to 10 with 10 the most difficult):  Probably 10 because of the numerous changes.

Stake holder meetings/advisory group:  To be determined, but probably need to involve regulated sources early in the rulemaking process.