ARKANSAS POLLUTION Proposed Changes in CONTROL AND ECOLOGY - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

ARKANSAS POLLUTION Proposed Changes in CONTROL AND ECOLOGY Response to the Startup, COMMISSION REGULATION Shutdown, and Malfunction NO. 19 (SSM) SIP Call

2 BACKGR GROUND ND SSM SSM SIP IP Call ll published June 12, 2015 (80 FR 33840). Responds to Sierra Club petition pertaining to Revises and clarifies provisions in state Establishes a deadline Requires 36 states, EPA’s guidance plans deemed of November 22, 22, 20 2016 6 inc ncluding ng Arkans nsas, to concerning its inconsistent with for submittal of submit corrective SIP interpretation of CAA EPA’s interpretation of corrective SIP Revisions; requirements with Clean Air Act (CAA) revisions; and respect to SSM. requirements for excess emissions during periods of SSM; The Arkansas Attorney General is among 17 Attorneys General that are challenging the SSM SIP Call.

3 ARKANS NSAS S PROVI VISI SIONS S NS SUBJEC JECT T TO SSM SIP IP C CALL LL EPA found provisions in APC&EC R Reg. 1 19.602 and Reg. 1 19.1004(H) (H) substantially inadequate to meet CAA requirements pertaining to periods of SSM. • Specific objections to these provisions were that: • Reg. 19.602 provides a “comple lete affir irmative d defense” for excess emissions that occur during emergency periods • Reg. 19.1004(H) provides an automatic e exempti tion on for excess emissions of volatile organic compounds for sources located in Pulaski County due to malfunctions EPA has determined that automatic exemptions from emission limits during periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction are “impermissible provisions” that are inconsistent with CAA requirements.

4 OPTIO IONS F FOR CORRECTIN ING “IMPERMISSIBLE BLE P PROVIS ISIO IONS” Multiple approaches to complying with the SSM SIP Call all of which require removal of the following: • automatic exemption provisions • director’s discretion provisions • enforcement discretion provisions • affirmative defense provisions Examples provided by EPA: • Removal of “impermissible provision” without altering any other aspects of the SIP provision at issue • Replacing the “impermissible provision” with al altern rnative e emi mission on limit lim itatio ions explicitly applicable to periods of SSM • Removal of the “impermissible provision” and a total revision of emission limitations that apply at all ll tim imes (not just during SSM)

5 ADEQ P PROPOSED SED REVISI SIONS T S TO REGULA LATIO ION 1 19 S SSM P PROVISIONS • Removal of “complete affirmative defense” language • Addition of language establishing Reg. 19.602(A)(1 – 4) as Reg. 19.602(A) criteria and procedures for determining whether excess emissions due to an emergency are avoidable and whether enforcement action by ADEQ is warranted • Removal of language which states that emissions in excess of these regulations due to SSM will not be considered a violation of these regulations Reg. • Addition of language establishing Reg. 19.1004(H)(1)(a – e) 19.1004(H)(1) as criteria and procedures for determining whether excess emissions due to an emergency are avoidable and whether enforcement action by ADEQ is warranted Both revisions include a resci sciss ssion clause se that would restore the complete affirmative defense should the SSM SIP Call be stayed, vacated, or withdrawn.

6 EPA SSM S SIP P POLI LICY FOR E ENFORCEMENT DISCRETION Enforcement discretion provisions may ay not not pr precl clude de EPA PA or any parties who qualify under cit itize zen suit it provisions of the Clean Air Act from seeking injunctive relief, compliance order, monetary penalties or all of the above from the court for the violation. The following criteria should be considered when determining whether an enforcement action is appropriate: Repairs were made in an expeditious fashion To the maximum when the operator knew extent practicable The amount and or should have known the air pollution du duration o of the All possible steps The excess that applicable control equipment, excess e ss emiss ssions s were taken to emissions are not ot emission limitations process equipment (including any min inim imize t the part o t of a recurrin ing were being exceeded. or processes were bypass)were impact t of the patter ern indicative maintai ained ed a and min inim imized to the Off-shift labor and excess emissions of inadequate operated in a maximum extent overtime were utilized, on ambient air design, operation manner consistent practicable during to the extent quality; and or maintenance with good practice periods of such practicable, to ensure for minimizing emissions; that such rep epairs w wer ere emissions; made a e as ex exped editiously as p s practicable;

7 PROPO OPOSED R D REG. 19.602 C CRIT ITERIA AND D PRO ROCE CEDURE RES An “emergency” means any situation arising from the sudden and reasonably unforeseeable events beyond the control of the source with an operating permit, including natural disasters, which situation requires immediate corrective action to restore normal operation, and that causes the source to exceed a technology-based emission limitation under the permit, due to unavoidable increases in emissions attributable to the upset condition. An emergency sha hall not ot include non-complia liance to to the he exten ent cause sed by im improperly ly desig igned eq equipme pment, la lack of preventive ve maintenan ance ce, carel eles ess or or impr mproper operati tion, or or op operator or erro ror. (A) In determining whether a period of excess emissions is avoidable, and whether enforcement action is warranted, the Department, based upon information submitted by the owner or operator through properly signed contemporaneous operating logs, or such other relevant evidence, shall consider whether the following criteria are met: The permittee submitted notice of the upset to the During the period of the Department by the end of emergency, the permittee the next business day An emergency occurred took a all ll reasonable le s steps The permitted facility was after the emergency. This and that the permittee to m min inim imiz ize le levels o of at the time being properly y notice must contain a can identify the cause(s) emissi ssions s that exceeded operated; description of the of the emergency the emission standards, emergency, any ste teps or other requirements in taken t to mitiga itigate the permit; and emissi ssions, and correc ective e actio tions t taken.

8 PROPO OPOSED R D REG. . 19.1004( 004(H)(1) 1) C CRITER ERIA AND P PRO ROCE CEDURE RES In determining whether enforcement action is warranted for emissions in excess of these Regulations which are temporary and result solely from a sudden and unavoidable breakdown, malfunction or upset of process or emission control equipment, or sudden and unavoidable upset of operation, as pe per referenced in Reg. 19.601 and Re Reg. 19.602 02, the Department, based on information submitted by the owner or operator shall consider whether the following criteria are met: within five (5) days after the beginning of the occurrence, a written report is the owner or the owner or submitted to the operator the breakdown or the Director is operator notifies the Director which demonstrates to the upset is determined immediately Department of any includes the cause Director that the by the Director to be notified when such occurrence by and nature of the suggested peri riod o of unavoidable an e and corrective measures the end of the next event, estimated time me f for c r correction not t the e res esult o of have been business day of the quantity of volatile is s as s expeditious a as s negligen ence; and accomplished. occurrence; and organic compounds practicable; and emitted, time of emission and to prevent r recurren ence; and

9 PROPOSED REGULATION 19 ENFORCEMENT DISCRETION PROVISIONS Enforcement discretion provisions in Reg. 19.602 and 19.1004(H) are consistent with EPA’s SSM SIP Policy as of 2015. • The five criteria that EPA states should be considered in determining whether an enforcement action is appropriate during malfunction are covered in 19.602 and 19.1004(H). • Nothing in 19.602 or 19.1004(H) precludes EPA or other parties under citizen suit provisions of the Clean Air Act from seeking injunctive relief, a compliance order, or monetary penalties from the court for excess emissions occurring as a result of malfunction/emergency conditions.

10 RESCISSI SSION C N CLAUSE SE ADEQ acknowledges the Attorney General’s challenge to the SSM SIP Call. Rescission clauses have been included at 19.602(C) and 19.1004(H)(3) in the event the SSM SIP Call is stayed, vacated, or withdrawn. Rescission clauses are modeled after an EPA-approved rescission clause in a revision to the Jefferson County portion of a Kentucky SIP, which modified certain NSR and PSD permitting regulations (77 FR 62150). • Two factors critical in the Jefferson County rulemaking: • Whether the public c will be g given reaso sonable notice ice of any change to the SIP that occurs as a result of the automatic rescission clause; • Whether any future change to the SIP that occurs as a result of the automatic rescission clause will be consi sistent w t with th EPA’s s interpretat ation on of f th the co court a acti ction.