Читать книгу Continuous Emission Monitoring - James A. Jahnke - Страница 72

The use of CEM systems has evolved in other ways for enforcement purposes. The continuous record can be used directly to establish whether the source is in violation of the standard if a compliance CEM system is legally mandated. The CEM system becomes a “compliance monitoring” system, in contrast to a “compliance indicating” system. In this instance, CEM systems can provide an agency with legally enforceable data to issue fines or other penalties if the source is not complying with agency regulations or emissions standards (Hellwig 1980). Much like issuing a speeding ticket, if the source is over the limit, a fine is essentially automatic.

In the United States, individual states are allowed to develop regulations more stringent than the federal requirements and, as early as 1969 (McKee 1974), mandated CEM systems to be the compliance method. States have also used source operating permits, variances, compliance orders, and other regulatory tools to require the installation of CEM systems for this purpose. Data from CEM systems can be considered legally enforceable data by using these mechanisms.

The federal government has gradually instituted the use of CEM systems for compliance monitoring. The first of such regulations was promulgated for nonferrous smelters (copper, lead, and zinc smelters, Subparts P, Q, and R) in 1976. Continuous emission monitors were established here as the reference test method, but only during periods of time specified as a compliance test period. Only the data obtained during the scheduled period are considered compliance data; otherwise, the CEM system data are regarded as excess emission monitoring data. A much clearer use of CEM systems as compliance monitoring systems came with the promulgation of the NSPS for the Subpart Da Electrical Utilities (73 MW or larger utilities constructed after 18 September 1978). This promulgation (June 1979) requires the installation of SO₂ CEM systems to monitor both compliance with emission standards and the SO₂ removal efficiency of the emission control systems. Similar requirements have since been instituted for other source categories.

In one important ruling in 1987, EPA allowed the use of opacity monitors as a compliance test method, in lieu of the visible emissions observer, but only if the plant operator chose the option (52 FR 9778 26 March 1987 and 40 CFR 60.7. 60.11, and 60.13). Many states now specify the use of opacity monitors as the compliance method and do not offer such an election by the source operator. For specific applications, individual state requirements should be reviewed.

Continuous monitoring systems (CMS) required for sources in the air toxics standard of Part 63 are considered to monitor source compliance, or otherwise determined by the Administrator to be compliance monitors (§63.6). This includes continuous parametric monitoring systems used as the CMS.