Fugitive emissions opacity determination using the digital opacity compliance system (DOCS).
Maintenance of Department of Defense (DoD) weapon systems, conducting battlefield training exercises as well as meeting military construction and/or demolition schedules, invariably generate fugitive air emissions, many of which are visible. Although there is no codified federal method for quantifying fugitive emissions opacity, many state and local air regulatory agencies have instituted enforceable fugitive emission opacity standards at DoD facilities. The current study focused on comparing the performance of the digital opacity compliance system (DOCS) with U.S. Environment Protection Agency Method 9 (Method 9) certified human observers in quantifying the visible opacity associated with fugitive emissions produced using a commercial fog generator. By systematically repositioning both DOCS cameras and Method 9-certified observers during field testing, differences in method performance as a function of observational locations were documented. At both the 30- and 300-ft off-set distances, opacity levels reported by the DOCS technology and Method 9-certified smoke readers were found to be statistically different at the 99% confidence level. Alternatively, at the 90- and 150-ft off-set distances, results suggested that there was an insignificant difference at the 99% confidence level between the two methods. Comparing the magnitude of the each method's standard deviation suggested that, at the 30-ft off-set distance, the DOCS technology was consistently more precise than Method 9-certified readers regardless of the observer's downwind distance. However, at the 90, 150, and 300-ft off-set distances, method precision seemed to vary as a function of both off-set and downwind distance. The primary factor affecting the consistency in opacity measurements appeared to be the impact of ground-level air turbulence on fog plume dispersion and transport. Field observations demonstrated that localized wind shear played a critical and decisive role in how and to what extent fugitive emissions opacity could be determined, regardless of the method selected.
McFarland
Michael J
MJ
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Utah State University, Logan, UT 84321, USA. farlandm@msn.com
Olivas
Arthur C
AC
Atkins
Sally G
SG
Kennedy
Robert L
RL
Patel
Kalpesh
K
D000393:Air Pollutants / Q000032:analysis* / Q000737:chemistry; D000397:Air Pollution / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence; D004784:Environmental Monitoring / Q000379:methods*; D006801:Humans; D014481:United States; D014484:United States Environmental Protection Agency
D000393:Air Pollutants