vvEPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Air and Hazardous
Materials Division
230 South Dearborn Street
Chicago, Illinois 60604
EPA-905/2-80-006
Region V's Guidance
for Developing a State
Malfunction Notification
and Correction Program
-------
EPA-905/2-80-006
December, 1980
REGION V's GUIDANCE
FOR DEVELOPING A STATE
MALFUNCTION NOTIFICATION AND
CORRECTION PROGRAM
by
Henry Onsgard
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region V
Air Programs Branch
230 South Dearborn
Chicago, Illinois 60604
U.S. Enwonmental Protection Agency
Pigion 5, Library (PL-12J)
-------
This report is issued by the United States Environmental Protection Agency
(USEPA) Region V to inform a limited number of citizens and governmental
agencies about regional guidance on the technical issue of malfunction.
Copies are available (in limited quantities) from USEPA, Region V; or
for a fee, from the National Technical Information Service, 5285 Port Royal
Road, Springfield, Virginia 22161.
Publication Number EPA-905/2-80-006
-------
Contents
Page
Purpose and Introduction 1
Malfunction Policy
Introduction 2
Definition of Malfunctions 2
Malfunction Policy 3
Region V's States' Malfunction Policies
Introduction 7
Illinois 8
Indiana 9
Michigan 10
Minnesota 11
Ohio 12
Wisconsin 13
Appendices
A Ohio S02 Implementation Plan (41 FR 36324)
B Nonattainment Plan Revisions Malfunction and
Exemption Provisions Excerpt from Workbook
Nonattainment Area Plans
C Region V's Example Regulation
D March 13, 1979 Letter to Mr. Jacob D. Dumelle,
Chairman of the Illinois Pollution Control Board
E Illinois Environmental Protection Agency's
March 16, 1979 Proposed Malfunction Regulation Revision
F Illinois Pollution Control Board March 29, 1979
Interim Order
G Indiana Air Pollution Control Board's Draft
Regulation
H Michigan Department of Natural Resources'
Malfunction Plan
I Minnesota Air Pollution Control Board's Proposed
Malfunction Plan
J USEPA Testimony at Minnesota
K Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources'
Malfunction Peculation
n i
-------
Purpose and Introduction
This report is intended to summarize the development of the malfunction policy
of the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) Region V, Region V's
States' malfunction regulations and to assist other States outside of Region V
with the review of their malfunction regulations.
Region V's malfunction policy was announced in the promulgation of the Ohio
Sulfur Dioxide Plan (41 FR 36324, August 27, 1976). The USEPA's malfunction
policy was restated in the Utah Sulfur Dioxide Control Strategy for a
Kennocott Copper Corporation smelter located in Salt Lake City, Utah (42 FR
21472, April 27, 1977). In the Idaho Sulfur Dioxide Control Strategy for
the Bunker Hill Company smelter located in Kellogg, Idaho (42 FR 58171,
November 8, 1977), the USEPA Administrator affirmed the USEPA malfunction
policy promulgated in the Utah Sulfur Dioxide Control Strategy and indicated
that the USEPA was reviewing all State implementation plans to verify that
all malfunction regulations were adequate and consistant with the USEPA
policy. During 1978, USEPA provided national guidance on malfunction in the
Workshops on Requirements for Nonattainment Area Plans. Also in 1978,
Region V sent all of the States in Region V a sample regulation as guidance
in reviewing their current malfunction regulations. This report also
contains a summary of each of Region V's States' action on malfunction.
-------
Malfunction Policy Introduction
To accomplish the goals of the Clean Air Act, the States have established
air pollutant emission 1 imitations. To achieve and maintain compliance with
these limitations, industries and utilities have installed air pollution
control equipment. As the air pollution control equipment ages, it like all
of man's creations commences to deteriorate and fail. With this deterioration,
the pollution source and the related air pollution control equipment may no
longer be in continuous compliance. To prevent the deterioration and main-
tain compliance, many of the industries and utilities have started preventive
maintenance programs. Even with an excellent preventive maintenance program,
there are instances where the equipment malfunctions and the resulting pollutant
emissions are unavoidable. The USEPA and the States hesitate to penalize the
industries and utilities for these unavoidable emissions. However, industries
ana utilities must be in compliance with the emission standards except during
periods of these unavoidable emissions. To achieve this goal of nonpenalty,
the USEPA has established a malfunction policy for periods of unavoidable
excess emissions.
Definition of Malfunction
Before one may develop a malfunction policy, the term, malfunction, has to
be aefined. This have been accomplished by the USEPA in 40 CFR 60.2(q),
definitions section of the Standards of Performance for New Stationary Sources,
which defines malfunction as meaning "any sudden and unavoidable failure of
air pollution control equipment or process equipment or a process to operate
in a normal or usual manner. Failures that are caused entirely or in part by
poor maintenance, careless operation, or any other preventable upset condition
or preventable equipment breakdown shall not be considered malfunctions."
2
-------
It should be noted that excess emissions due to scheduled maintenance are
not defined as a malfunction and are considered at all times to be a violation
of the applicable standard.
rial function Policy
To correct deficiencies in the sulfur dioxide (S02) Ohio Implementation Plan,
the USEPA on August 27, 1976 (41 FR 36324) promulgated substitute S02
regulations designed to attain and maintain the national ambient air quality
standards (NAAQS) in Ohio. As an integral part of the plan, the USEPA
addressed the issue of malfunction. The USEPA Region V's position was that
a source can raise the issue of malfunction in enforcement proceedings under
Section 113 of the Clean Air Act. Then after reviewing the source's explanation
of the excess emissions and if the USEPA found that the equipment was well
maintained and operated, was repaired expeditiously, and that excess emissions
were minimized, USEPA would likely take no further enforcement action against
the source. For further details, the full text of the malfunction section from
the Ohio S02 Implementation Plan is given in Appendix A.
The USEPA malfunction policy was promulgated on April 27, 1977 (42 FR 21472)
as a regulation related to excess emissions due to start-up, shutdown and
malfunction at the Kennecott Copper Corporation smelter located in Salt Lake
City, Utah. The intend of this regulation was to attempt to reduce the
number ana the extent of the excess emissions, encourage good operating and
maintenance practices, and to notify the company that all periods of excess
emissions regardless of cause were violations, however, that the USEPA
intencea to use enforcement discretion during periods of malfunctions. The
regulation required Kennecott Copper to supply the USEPA the following
information when there were periods of excess emissions:
3
-------
1. laentification of the emission point(s);
2. The magnitude of the excess emissions;
3. The identity of the process or control equipment
causing the excess emissions;
4. The cause and nature of the excess emissions; and
5. A description of the steps taken by the source to
remedy the cause of the excess emissions, prevent
a recurrence and limit the amount of the excess
emissions.
It should be noted that this regulations does not relieve the source of its
requirement under the Clean Air Act to not cause violations of the NAAQS
at all times including periods of excess emissions regardless of cause.
In reply to the portion of the promulgated final rulemaking concerning excess
emissions due to start-up, shutdown and malfunction, Kennecott Copper
contended that this malfunction regulation was inconsistent with the malfunction
regulations approved by the USEPA as a part of the state implementation plans
(SIPs). During the same period of time, Bunker Hill Company which operates a
smelter in Kellogg, Idaho was contesting the USEPA's January 22, 1976 proposed
rulemaking (41 FR 3320) amending the Idaho S02 Implementation Plan relating
to the excess emissions due to start-up, shutdown and malfunction. Bunker
Hill Company argued that the proposed regulation affecting their smelter was
inconsistent with the malfunction regulations already approved by the USEPA
as a portion of the SIPs of several of the western States. In reply to Kennecott
Copper and the court remand of the malfunction regulation in the case of The
Bunker Hill Company v. EPA (9th Cir., No. 75-3670), the USEPA on November 8,
1977 promulgated final rulemaking (42 FR 58171) on the Idaho S02 Implementation
4
-------
Plan regarding the Bunker Hill Company's Kellogg smelter. The USEPA's Acting
Administrator as part of the final rulemaking committed the USEPA to continue
its ongoing nationwide review of the States' malfunction regulations to assure
consistency with this regulation (policy).
Briefly, the regulation for the Bunker Hill Company's Kellogg smelter defines
all periods of excess emissions as violations of the applicable emissions
standards and establish a procedure whereby the owner or operator of the Bunker
Hill smelter may supply additional information to the Administrator. Although
the information to be supplied is not limited in scope, the regulation does
require that if information is given to the Agency, it include:
1. Identification of the emission point(s);
2. The magnitude of the excess emissions;
3. The identity of the process or control equipment
causing the excess emissions;
4. The cause and nature of the excess emissions; and
5. A description of the steps taken by the owner or
operator of the subject smelter to remedy the situation
causing the emissions to prevent a recurrence and to
limit the excess emissions. Finally, nothing in the
regulation relieves the sources of its obligation to
protect NAAOS for S02 in its designated liability area
nor precludes the Administrator from initiating at any
time any appropriate actions under Sections 113, 119 and
303 of the Act.
During early 1978, the USEPA held workshops on the requirements for nonattainment
area implementation plans. At these workshops the USEPA reiterated its position
5
-------
on malfunction as detailed in Kennecott Copper (42 FR 58171) and Bunker Hill
(42 FR 21372). Attached in Appendix 3 is a copy of the section of the workshop
regarding malfunction. As additional guidance, the USEPA Region V sent each of
the States in its region an example regulation on malfunction, attached in
Appendix C. Also, Region V sent to each State in the region a copy of the
March 13, 1979 letter to Mr. Jacob D. Dumelle, Chairman of the Illinois Pollution
Control Board, regarding the USEPA malfunction policy, copy attached in Appendix D.
-------
State Malfunction Policy Introduction
As an integral part of the 1979 SIP revisions as mandated by the 1977 amendments
to the Clean Air Act, the States in Region V have submitted to the USEPA either
new or modified malfunction regulations. Each of these regulations are in
a different stage of review and approval by the USEPA. Each State's action
is individually summarized in the following section.
-------
Ill inols
The Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (IEPA) proposed to revise
rules 101, 103 and 105 of Chapter 2, Air Pollution (Permit Conditions and
Maintenance Programs). Attached in Appendix E is a copy of the March 16,
1979 proposed revisions. To support the IEPA before the Illinois Pollution
Control Board (IPCB), the USEPA sent Mr. Jacob Dumelle, Chairman of the IPCB,
a letter summarizing the USEPA malfunction policy, copy attached in Appendix
D. It was read into the record at one of the public hearings. During the
public hearings, the IEPA modified their proposed revisions, copy attached
in Appendix F. These proposed revisions were adopted by the IPCB on March 29,
1979 as an Interim Order. Then as required by Illinois law an economic impact
analysis, Document Number 79/10, was done on the Interim Order by the Illinois
Institute of Natural Resources. On July 2, 1979, the USEPA in proposed rulemaking
on the Illinois SIP (44 FR 38595) stated that it would approve the March 29,
1979 Interim Order. As of November 7, 1980, the IPCB has not adopted a Final
Order for these proposed revisions.
-------
Indiana
The Indiana Air Pollution Control Board (IAPCB) added a new regulation,
APC-11, Malfunction. On March 27, 1980 as a part of USEPA's proposed rule-
making on the Indiana SIP (45 FR 20432), the USEPA stated that the USEPA
had reviewed this regulation and proposed to disapprove the regulation for
the following deficiencies:
1. The regulation does not require that all excess emissions
due to malfunctions be considered violations of the
applicable standards. The source may demonstrate
four criteria and then receives an automatic exemption
for the excess emissions.
2. The regulation contains a provision, Section 5(a)(l),
permitting fossil fuel steam generators to exceed the
applicable sulfur dioxide emission limitation in no
more than three 24-hour periods during any calendar
month.
During the public comment period to the proposed rulemaking, the IAPCB
indicated that it would remedy the second deficiency by removing that section
from the regulation. On November 5, 1980, the IAPCB deleted Section 5(a)(l)
thus satisfying the second deficiency. However, the IAPCB has not satisfied
the first deficiency as of November 5, 1980. Attached in Appendix G is a copy
of the proposed regulation, APC-11.
-------
Michigan
The Michigan Department of Natural Resources proposed to their commission
new regulations, R336.1911, Malfunction abatement plans, and R336.1912,
Abnormal conditions and breakdown of equipment, copy attached in Appendix
H. These regulations were adopted by the commission and forwarded to the
USEPA for review as part of the SIP. After reviewing these regulations, the
USEPA on August 13, 1979 proposed rulemaking on the SIP (44 FR 47350) of
approving these regulations. On May 6, 1980, the USEPA gave final approval
to these regulations in final rulemaking on the SIP (45 FR 29800).
10
-------
Minnesota
Tne Air Quality Division of the Minnesota Air Pollution Control Board (MAPCB)
has written a malfunction and breakdown regulation, APC-20, copy attached
in Appendix I. The USEPA notified the i^APCB that the proposed regulation was
acceptable to Region V and during the public hearings on July 23, 1979 the
USEPA testified on behalf on the regulation. A copy of the testimony is given
in Appendix J. At the conclusion of the public hearings, the hearing officer
recommended that MAPCB and the industries get together to work out their
differences and then have the MAPCB reintroduce the regulation for public
hearinas.
11
-------
Ohio
During 1979, Ohio Environmental Protection Agency (OEPA) submitted to the
USEPA a copy of the draft proposed revisions to regulation 3745-15-06,
Malfunction of equipment; scheduled maintenance; reporting. The USEPA
reviewed the submittal and notified OEPA of its comments. As of November 7,
1980, OEPA has not made a formal submittal to the USEPA for rulemakinq.
12
-------
Uisconsin
Tne Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (WDNR) amended their regulation,
NR 154.U2, Applicability, delayed compliance, variance, and added reaulation
MR 154.06(9), Malfunction prevention and abatement plans. Attached in
Appendix K, are regulations NR 154.02 and NR 154.06(9). The USEPA on April
4, 1980 (45 FR 22986) published proposed rulemakinq on the implementation
plan submittal including these regulations. The USEPA stated that the reaulation,
NR 154.02, should be modified so that the regulation explicitly declares that
an excess emission caused by an equipment malfunction is a violation of the
applicable regulation. As of November 7, 1980, the WDNR has not responded
to the USEPA1s comment.
13
-------
Appendix A
Lxcerpt from the Ohio S02 Implementation Plan (41 FR 36324) page 36326.
Malfunctions
The proposed regulations did not include a section dealing with malfunctions,
and the preamble requested comments on how the problem of malfunctions could
be addressed. Several commentators offered sample regulations or suggested
regulations presently utilized in other states as a means of dealing with
the malfunction problem. After reviewing the comments, the Administrator
has concluded that to penalize a prudent operator for emissions that are
beyond his control is unreasonable. The issuance of an administrative order
or the initiation of judicial action following a period of excess emission
caused by circumstances beyond the control of the operator is not appropriate.
However, automatic exemption for these periods of unavoidable excess emissions
are also not appropriate.
The Administrator recognizes that some relief should be afforded during certain
upset conditions, but the promulgation of an upset regulation could serve as
a disincentive to develop better operating and maintenance procedures. The
Administrator has concluded that malfunctions and upsets beyond the reasonable
control of an operator can be raised in the context of a Section 113 enforce-
ment proceeding and prior to the issuance of an administrative order. When
a Notice of Violation is issued to an operator for a violation resulting from
a malfunction or upset condition, the Administrator will consider any informa-
tion developed by the source which more fully explains the circumstances of
the violation, its seriousness, and efforts of the operator to comply. If the
Administrator determines that the subject equipment was well maintained and
operated, was repaired expeditiously, and that excess emissions were minimized,
no further action would be warranted. In the Administrator's view this approach
both encourages good operating practice and provides a forum for mitigating
evidence in the context of the Agency's enforcement process.
-------
Appendix B
(
; . A >> H n • I - j
OAQPSNo. 1.2-103
REVISED EDITION
APRIL 1978
PHILADELPHIA
FEB. 28-MARCH 1, 1978
SAN FRANCISCO
MARCH 9- 10, 1978
KANSAS CITY, MO.
MARCH 6-7, 1978
-------
NONATTAINMENT PLAN REVISIONS
MALFUNCTION AND EXEMPTION PROVISIONS
Several of the existing State irppletnertatlon plans (SIP) prc-
.!de .'or an autonafic ernlia'io.i Im.-itaUcn exemption during periods
of excess emissions due to start-up, shutdown, or malfunction.
Generally, EPA agrees that the Imposition of a penalty for sudden
'and unavoidable malfunctions caused by circumstances entirely be-
yond the control of the owner and/or operator is not appropriate
under certain conditions. However, since the SIPs must provide
for attainment and maintenance of the national ambient air quality
standards, SIP provisions on malfunctions must be narrowly drawn.
(SIPs may, of course, omit any provision on malfunctions.)
I. AUTOMATIC EXEMPTION APPROACH
If a nonattainment plan revision contains a malfunction pro-
vision, it cannot be the type that provides for automatic exemp-
tion where a malfunction is alleged by a source. Automatic
exemptions might aggravate air quality so as to result in not pro-
viding for attainment of the ambient air quality standards as
required by Section 172 of the Clean Air Act, as amended. Addi-
tional grounds for disapproving a SIP that includes the automatic
exemption approach are discussed in more detail at 42 FR 58171
(November 8, 1977) and 42 FR 21372 (April 27, 1977). As a result,
EPA will disapprove any nonattainment plan revision that provides
for an automatic exemption in those Instances where a source claims
excess emissions were caused by start-up, shutdown, or malfunction.
II. ENFORCEMENT DISCRETION APPROACH-SIP EMISSION LIMITATION
ADEQUATE TO ATTAIN AMBIENT STANDARDS
EPA could approve nonattainment plan submittals which Incor-
porate the "enforcement discretion approach." Such plans could
Include a requirement that places the burden on the source of
demonstrating to the appropriate State agency's satisfaction that
the excess emissions though constituting a violation were due to
an unavoidable malfunction. For nonattainment plan revisions that
provide for attainment of the ambient air quality standards for a
pollutant by 1982, any malfunction provisions must provide for
the commencement of a proceeding to notify the source of Its viola-
tion and to determine whether enforcement action should be under-
taken for any period of excess emissions, whether due to malfunc-
tions or otherwise. (The term "excess emission" means air emis-
sion rate which exceeds any applicable emission limitation.)
229
-------
Commencement of such a proceeding could be by Issuance of a
notice of violation (or some equivalent State mechanism) with the
source being provided the opportunity to establish that the viola-
tion was due to an unavoidable malfunction. The malfunction pro-
vision should provide that the burden is entirely upon the source
to establish that the excess emissions resulted from a true mal-
function. (A malfunction is defined as a sudden and unavoidable
breakdown of process or air pollution control equipment.)
Based on information submitted by the source, the State
must determine whether additional enforcement action is necessary.
The following factors must, at a minimum, be considered:
1. The air pollution control equipment, process equipment,
or processes were at all times maintained and operated, to the
maximum extent practicable, in a manner consistent with good
practice for minimizing emissions;
2. Repairs were made in an expeditious fashion when the
operator knew or should have known that applicable emission
limitations were being exceeded. Off-shift labor and overtime
must have been utilized to insure that such repairs were made
as expeditiously as possible;
3. The amount and duration of the excess emissions (includ-
ing any bypass) were minimized to the maximum extent practicable
during periods of such emissions;
4. All possible steps were taken to minimize the impact of
the excess emissions on ambient air quality; and
5. The excess emissions are not part of a recurring pattern
indicative of inadequate design, operation, or maintenance.
The malfunction provision must provide that only if the State
determines that each of these criteria are satisfied, no additional
course of action could reasonably have been expected of the owner
or operator. In such situations, the malfunction provision could
provide that the State would not follow the initial notice of vio-
lation with any further enforcement action.
III. SOURCE DEMONSTRATION APPROACH—RACT LIMITATION NOT ADEQUATE
TO ATTAIN AMBIENT STANDARDS
Section 172 requires that those nonattainment submittals for
photochemical oxidants and carbon monoxide that will not be able
to demonstrate attainment by December 31, 1982, must provide for
implementation of all reasonably available control measures (RACT).
230
-------
In a recent Federal court decision (Marathon Oil Co. y. EPA,
F.2d (9th Cir. , November 21, 1977) [a decision on malfunction
provisions in certain water pollution requirements]), the court
distinguishes requirements that are technology based (e.g., non-
attainment plans based on RACT rather than attainment of ambient
standards) from requirements that are health based (e.g., SIP emis-
sion limitations for attainment of the ambient standards). The
enforcement discretion approach could be approved in RACT SIPs if
modified as set forth below. A State may choose, however, as
part of the RACT submittal not to provide a malfunction provision
(i.e., Section 116). An acceptable malfunction provision for
periods of excess emissions could require a source exceeding
applicable emission limitations to report the five categories of
Information set forth in II above. The source could be given the
opportunity to demonstrate that the excess emissions resulted from
an unavoidable breakdown of process or control equipment, or from
unavoidable production problems. Until such information is evalua-
ted by the State, issuance of a notice of violation (or some
equivalent State mechanism) would not be required. An approvable
malfunction provision should specify that if the source does not
sustain its burden of proof to the State's satisfaction, the
excess emissions are a SIP violation and appropriate enforcement
proceedings will be initiated by the State. If the source is
able to demonstrate that the malfunction was genuinely unavoidable,
it will not constitute a violation of the emission limitation. •
It should be understood that if over a period of time, appli-
cation of either the enforcement discretion approach or the source
demonstration approach does not significantly curtail malfunctions
to the extent that they are the cause of ambient violations, the
malfunction portion of the SIP will either have to be further
revised by the State or EPA will have to disapprove the SIP.
IV. PHASING IN AND OUT OF EQUIPMENT, ROUTINE MAINTENANCE, BYPASS
PROVISIONS, AND PRODUCTION PROCESS EXCESS EMISSIONS
Any activity or event which can be foreseen and avoided, or
planned falls outside of the definition of sudden and unavoidable
breakdown of equipment. For example, a sudden breakdown which
could have avoided by better maintenance procedures is not a mal-
function. In such cases, the control agency must enforce for
violations of the emission limitation. Two such common events are
phasing in and out of equipment, and routine maintenance.
Phasing in and out of process equipment is part of the normal
operation of a source and should be accounted for in the design
and implementation of the operating procedure for the process and
control equipment. Accordingly, it is reasonable to expect that
careful planning will eliminate violations of emission limitations
231
-------
during such periods. If excess emissions should occur during
routine phasing in and out of such equipment, the excess emis-
sions will not be considered as having resulted from a malfunc-
tion unless the source can demonstrate that such emissions were
actually caused by a sudden and unforeseeable breakdown in the
equipment.
Routine maintenance is a predictable event, which can be
scheduled at the discretion of the operator, and which can there-
fore be made to coincide with maintenance on production equipment,
or other source shutdowns. Most sources have the ability to
build and maintain inventory upon which the source can draw during
periods of shutdown for routine maintenance. Consequently, no
excess emissions may be allowed for periods of routine maintenance.
It is recognized that in certain circumstances, it is neces-
sary to bypass control equipment to avoid endangering life or
sustaining severe property damage. Such bypassing will not be con-
sidered a violation of a RACT SIP under the source demonstration
approach if the source sustains its burden of proof in the excess
emissions report, but will be considered a violation of the attain-
ment SIP under the enforcement discretion approach.
In addition to malfunctions, it is recognized that excess
emissions may occasionally occur during normal production pro-
cesses, even when the control equipment is well designed, operated
and maintained. If the source can demonstrate, in its required
excess emissions report, that it was operating the plant according
to the above malfunction criteria, and that it was scheduling
operations to preclude fluctuations, but that the emission limita-
tion was nevertheless violated for production reasons beyond the
control of the source, the excess emissions will not be considered
a violation of the RACT SIP under the source demonstration
approach, but will be considered a violation of the attainment SIP
under the enforcement discretion approach.
232
-------
MISCELLANEOUS PART 51 REQUIREMENTS—SUMMARY
1. S 51.4 Public hearings (also required under S 172(b)
(I))—Before a State submits the plan, a compliance schedule or
a plan revision to EPA, it must hold a public hearing on the plan,
schedule, or revision. The State must also give proper public
notice for the hearing at least 30 days prior to the hearing.
Although this section specifies formal requirements for the
notice and holding of public hearings, a State can obtain EPA
approval to use alternative procedures that EPA deems adequate.
2. § 51.5 Submission of plans; preliminary review of plans—
The State must submit at least five copies of the plan revision
to the appropriate Regional Office.
3. S 51.19 Source surveillance—The plan must provide for
monitoring the status of compliance with any rules and regulations
that constitute the control strategy. As a minimum, the plan must
provi de—
--Procedures for requiring owners or operators of sources
to maintain records of emissions and report periodically to
the States;
--Periodic testing and Inspection of sources;
--A system of detection of violations of rules and regu-
jtions through enforcement of a visible emission limitation
and for investigating compliants;
--Procedures for obtaining and maintaining data on
emissions reductions achieved through transportation control
measures; and
--Procedures to require sources to Install and use emis-
sion monitoring devices.
4. S 51.22 Rules and regulations—The State must adopt all
rules and regulations necessary for attainment and maintenance of
the national standard. The plan must contain copies of all such
rules and regulations.
234
-------
Appendix C
REGION V's EXAMPLE REGULATIONS ON MALFUNCTIONS
A. No source shall be operated unless the air pollution control device(s)
and/or measures are also in operation simultaneously and are not bypassed,
unless necessary to prevent damage to the control devices.
B. Definitions
(a) The term "excess emissions" means an emission rate which exceeds
any applicable emission limitation prescribed by rule , NSPS,
permit conditions, etc. The averaging time and test procedures for
determining such excess emissions shall be as specified as part of
the applicable emission limitation. Excess emissions during periods
of routine phasing in or out of process equipment shall not be con-
sidered to be the result of a malfunction.
(b) The term "malfunction" means any sudden and unavoidable failure
of air pollution control equipment or process equipment or a process
to operate in a normal and usual manner. Failures that are caused
entirely or in part by poor maintenance, careless operation or any
other preventable upset condition or preventable equipment breakdown
shall not be considered malfunctions.
(c) The term "violation" means any incident of excess emissions
regardless of the circumstances of the occurrence.
C. Malfunction Abatement Plans
(1) A person responsible for operation of a source of an air
contaminant (not listed in rules through inclusively), shall prepare
a malfunction abatement plan to prevent, detect and correct malfunctions
or equipment failures resulting in emissions exceeding any applicable
emission limitation.
(2) A malfunction abatement plan (required by rule ) shall be
in writing and shall as a minimum specify the following:
(a) A complete preventative maintenance program, including
identification of the individual(s) responsible for inspecting,
maintaining and repairing air cleaning devices, a description of
the items or conditions that will be inspected, the frequency of
these inspections or repairs, and an identification and quantities
of the replacement parts which will be maintained in inventory for
quick replacement.
(b) An identification of the source and air cleaning device
operating variables and outlet variables (including opacity,
grain loading, pollutant concentration, etc.) that will be
monitored in order to detect a malfunction or failure, the
normal operating range of these variables, and a description of
the method of monitoring or surveillance procedures and of inform-
ing operating personnel of any malfunction, including alarm
-------
systems, lights and/or other indicators.
(c) A description of the corrective procedures that will be
taken in the event of a malfunction or failure in order to
achieve compliance with the applicable emission limits, opacity
standards and equipment standards as expeditiously as possible
but not longer than the time necessary to discontinue operation
of the source consistent with safe operating procedures.
(3) A malfunction abatement plan (required by subrule (1)) shall be
submitted to the agency upon request and shall be subject to review
and approval by the agency. If in the opinion of the agency the plan
does not adequately carry out the objectives (as set forth in subrules
(1) and (2)), the agency may disapprove the plan, state its reasons
for disapproval, and order the preparation of an amended plan within
the time period specified in the order. If within the time period
specified in the order an amended plan is submitted which in the opinion
of the agency fails to meet the objective, the agency on its own
initiative may amend the plan to cause it to meet the objective.
(4) Within 180 days after the effective date of this rule, a
person responsible for the operation of the source shall implement
the malfunction abatement plan (required by subrule (1)). Logs
shall be maintained to show that the 0 & M plan is implemented faith-
fully. The log shall be subject to inspection by the agency or its
representative, at any time upon written request.
D. Abnormal Conditions and Breakdown of Equipment
(1) The owner or operator of a source of emissions exceeding any
applicable emission limit as a direct result of abnormal conditions
in or breakdown of, process or control equipment shall promptly
begin an investigation to determine the cause(s) of the excess
emission and immediately initiate corrective procedures to achieve
compliance with the applicable emission limits, opacity and equipment
standards as expeditiously as possible but not longer than the time
necessary to discontinue operation of the source consistant with safe
operating procedures. If the excess emissions last for more than
2 hours or exceed 200 pounds, the owner or operator shall:
(a) Notify the agency as soon as is reasonably possible but
not later than one working day subsequent to the start of mal-
function.
(b) Submit to the agency in writing, within ten days, a
detailed report including (but not limited to):
(i) identification of the sources, stacks, instrumentation
and control devices involved in the malfunction;
(ii) time and duration of the violation;
(iii) estimate of the magnitude of the violation;
-------
3
(iv) nature and probable causes of the violation; and
(v) all remedial action taken
(c) The preventative measures outlined in (b)(v) above will
incorporated into any malfunction abatement plan required (by
rule ).
-------
UNITED STATES
\ ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
3 REGSOS V
233 SOUTH DEA=3O3N 5T
"%, ,tv'S CHICAGO. ILUNC 5 :.2-.Z*
Appendix D
MAR 131979
Mr. Jacob D. Dumelle
Chairman
Illinois Pollution Control Board
309 West Washington
Chicago, Illinois 60506
Dear Chairman Oumelle:
The United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) policy on
malfunction was stated in the Ohio Implementation Plan revisions for
Sulfur Dioxide (41 FR 36324) and the Utah Implementation Plan for
Sulfur Dioxide relating to Kennecott Copper Corporation's smelter
located in Salt Lake City, Utah, (42 FR 21472). USEPA is currently
reviewing all State Implementation Plans (SIPs) to verify conformance
of the States' malfunction regulations with the policy,
Basic to USEPA's malfunction regulation policy is the fact that
all excess emissions are violations of the applicable emission
standards. However, USEPA doesn't desire to penalize a prudent
operator for emissions that are beyond his control but would use
enforcement discretion depending on the circumstances. At no
time should there be automatic exemptions for periods of unavoid-
able excess emissions or can these emissions be tolerated if there
is a violation of the ambient air quality standards. For incidences
of unavoidable excess emissions, it is expected a source should
take steps to minimize such excess emissions which would include
a reduction in the level of operation and shutting down the opera-
tion unless such shutdowns would cause physical damage to equipment
or disrupt essential community services. Sources should also bring
the facility back into compliance on an expedited basis.
••The USEPA policy is to have the source report all malfunctions.
Immediately upon learning of a malfunction, the source would report
to the States' appropriate agency the following minimum information
about the malfunction:
1. Identification of the emission points
2. The magnitude of the excess emissions
3. The identity of the process or control equipment causing
the excess emissions
-------
• 4. The cause and nature of the excess emissions
5. A description of the steps taken by the owner or operator
to remedy the situation causing the emissions, prevent a
recurrence and limit the excess emissions.
USEPA recognizes that incidences of excess emissions could be reduced
by good operation and maintenance practice and a comprehensive pre-
ventive maintenance program. With these practices, existing control
equipment will provide its maximum benefit. The policy outlined
above is embodied in the attached, exar.ple regulation. The example
regulation requires the source to have a malfunction abatement plan
to be kept at the source and to be subnitted to the agency for review
only upon the agency's request.
It is not the intent of this regulation to have the State agency
review all malfunction abatement plans. The regulation states that
these plans will be reviewed only on a selective basis. We believe
that this will conserve the agency's resources by subjecting to
review only those malfunction plans of sources in which a malfunc-
tion could result in significant air quality impacts or whose
operation and maintenance plan has not been functioning properly.
USEPA believes that this approach is superior to the automatic
review of all plans based on a minimum cutoff limit.
We encourage the State to adopt a regulation which would be con-
sistent with the policy.
Sincerely yours,
Robert L.
Director
Air and Hazardous Materials Division
Attachment
-------
REGION V's EXAMPLE REGULATIONS ON MALFUNCTIONS
A. No source shall be operated unless the air pollution control device(s)
and/or measures are also in operation simultaneously and are not bypassed,
unless necessary to prevent damage to the control devices.
B. Definitions
(a) The term "excess emissions" means an emission rate which exceeds
any applicable emission limitation prescribed by rule , NSPS,
permit conditions, etc. The averaging time and test procedures for
determining such excess emissions shall be as specified as part of
the applicable emission limitation. Excess emissions during periods
of routine phasing in or out of process equipment shall not be con-
sidered to be the result of a malfunction.
(b) The term "malfunction" means any sudden and unavoidable failure
of air pollution control equipment or process equipment or a process
to operate in a normal and usual manner. Failures that are caused
entirely or in part by poor maintenance, careless operation or any
other preventable upset condition or preventable equipment breakdown
shall not be considered malfunctions.
(c) The term "violation" means any incident of excess emissions
regardless of the circumstances of the occurrence.
C. Malfunction Abatement Plans
(1) A person responsible for operation of a source of an air
contaminant (not listed in rules through inclusively), shall prepare
a malfunction abatement plan to prevent, detect and correct malfunctions
or equipment failures resulting in emissions exceeding any applicable
emission limitation.
(2) A malfunction abatement plan (required by rule ) shall be
in writing and shall as a minimum specify the following:
(a) A complete preventative maintenance program, including
identification of the individual(s) responsible for inspecting,
maintaining and repairing air cleaning devices, a description of
the items or conditions that will be inspected, the frequency of
these inspections or repairs, and an identification and quantities
of the replacement parts which will be maintained in inventory for
quick replacement.
(b) An identification of the source and air cleaning device
operating variables and outlet variables (including opacity,
grain loading, pollutant concentration, etc.) that will be
monitored in order to detect a malfunction or failure, the
normal operating range of these variables, and a description of
the method of monitoring or surveillance procedures and of inform-
ing operating personnel of any malfunction, including alarm
-------
systems, lights and/or other indicators.
(c) A description of the corrective procedures that will be
taken in the event of a malfunction or failure in order to
achieve compliance with the applicable emission limits, opacity
standards and equipment standards as expeditiously as possible
but not longer than the time necessary to discontinue operation
of the source consistent with safe operating procedures.
(3) A malfunction abatement plan (required by subrule (1)) shall be
submitted to the agency upon request and shall be subject to review
and approval by the agency. If in the opinion of the agency the plan
does not adequately carry out the objectives (as set forth in subrules
(V) and (2)), the agency may disapprove the plan, state its reasons
for disapproval, and order the preparation of an amended plan within
the time period specified in the order. If within the time period
specified in the order an amended plan is submitted which in the opinion
of the agency fails to meet the objective, the agency on its own
initiative may amend the plan to cause it to meet the objective.
(4) Within 180 days after the effective date of this rule, a
person responsible for the operation of the source shall implement
the malfunction abatement plan (required by subrule (!))• Logs
shall be maintained to show that the 0 & M plan is implemented faith-
fully. The log shall be subject to inspection by the agency or its
representative, at any time upon written request.
D. Abnormal Conditions and Breakdown of Equipment
(1) The owner or operator of a source of emissions exceeding any
applicable emission limit as a direct result of abnormal conditions
in or breakdown of, process or control equipment shall promptly
begin an investigation to determine the cause(s) of the excess
emission and immediately initiate corrective procedures to achieve
compliance with the applicable emission limits, opacity and equipment
standards as expeditiously as possible but not longer than the time
necessary to discontinue operation of the source consistent with safe
operating procedures. If the excess emissions last for more than
2 hours or exceed 200 pounds, the owner or operator shall:
(a) Notify the agency as soon as is reasonably possible but
not later than one working day subsequent to the start of mal-
function.
(b) Submit to the agency in writing, within ten days, a
detailed report including (but not limited to):
(i) identification of the sources, stacks, instrumentation
and control devices involved in the malfunction;
(ii) time and duration of the violation;
(iii) estimate of the magnitude of the violation;
-------
3
(iv) nature and probable causes of the violation; ana
(v) all remedial action taken
(c) The preventative measures outlinea in (b)(v) above will
incorporated into any malfunction abatement plan required (by
rule ).
-------
BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
IN THE MATTER OF: ) Appendix E
)
PROPOSED REVISIONS TO RULES 101, ) PCB R79-3
103, AND 105 OF CHAPTER 2, ) (Agency File N780-F, I)
AIR POLLUTION (PERMIT CONDITIONS AND )
MAINTENANCE PROGRAMS) )
AMENDED PROPOSAL
The Environmental Protection Agency (the Agency) proposes the following
amendments to Rules 101, 103 and 105 of the Board's Air Pollution Control
Regulations. Language to be deleted is lined through; language to be
added is underlined, except for the additions to Rule 101.
1. The Agency proposes that the following definitions be added to Rule
101 of Chapter 2 in their alphabetically appropriate positions:
Excess Emissions: An emission rate that exceeds any standard or
limitation set forth in Part II, IX, or X of Chapter 2. 9i
Malfunction: Any sudden and unavoidable failure of air pollution
control equipment or process equipment or a process to operate in a
normal and usual manner which -result in excess emissions. Any
failure that is caused entirely or in part by poor maintenance,
careless operation, chronic or repeated overloading, lack of
compliance w'ith a required maintenance program, or any other
preventable upset condition or preventable equipment breakdown shall
not be considered a malfunction.
Plant: Any building, structure or installation that contains an
emission source and which is located on one or more contiguous or
adjacent properties and which is owned or operated by the same person
(or by persons under common control).
Startup: The setting into operation of any air pollution control
equipment or process equipment for any purpose, except routine
phasing in of process equipment. Any requirement contained in these
Rules applicable to startups shall also apply to shutdowns.
Shutdown: The cessation of operation of any air pollution control
equipment or process equipment for any purpose, except routine
phasing out of process equipment. Any requirement contained in these
Rules applicable to startups shall also apply to shutdowns.
March 16, 1979
-------
- 2 -
2. The Agency proposes that Rule 103(b) be amended to provide as follows:
(b) (1) - (2) Stet
(3) Application.
(A) An application for an operating permit shall contain, as a
minimum, the data and information specified in paragraph (a)(2)
of this Rule 103. Each application shall list all individual
emission sources for which a permit is sought. Any applicant
may seek to obtain from the Agency a permit for each emission
source, or such emission sources as are similar in design or
principle of operation or function, or for all emission sources
encompassed in an identifiable operating unit. To the extent
that the above specified data and information has have
•previously been submitted to the Agency pursuant to tnis Rule
103, the data and information need not be resubmitted; provided,
however, that the applicant must certify that the data and
information previously submitted remains true, correct and
current. An application for an operating permit shall contain a
description of the startup procedure for each emission source,
the duration and frequency of startups, the types and quantities
of emissions during startup, anc the applicant's efforts to
minimize any such startup emissions, duration of individual
startups, and frequency of startups. The Agency may adopt
procedures which require data and information in addition to and
in amplification of the matters specified in the first sentence
of this paragraph (b-)(3), wnich are reasonably designed to
determine compliance with the Act, this Chapter, and ambient air
quality standards, and which set forth the format by which all
data and information shall be submitted. Sueh-pFeseaufas-aRd
£eFfflatS7-afid-Fev454efls-fefceKet97-5ha44-fl9fe-beeeffle-effee£4ve-HRfe4 t-
f 4469^4 tk-tfce--Jfldex-94v4s4efl-eF-tfce-9ff-4ee-9£-;the- Sestet apy-ef
State-as- Fe^u4 Fed- by-- AH- Aet-e eB6e*p.4R§-edw4H4stpat 4 ye-!°bi4es T"
appf eves'-
(B) The applicant shall submit to the Agency with the application
for operating permit an outline of an operation and maintenance
program that meets the requiTernents of Rule 103(b)(9)
(i) if the applicant requests permission under Rule 105 (_b) to
operate the emission source during any malfunction; jnd i
the plant at which the emission sourc e_ Ts 'Toc'aTed~'has~"the
_
capability to emit any sgeci f i e a a i r "c o"n~tam TnaTTt , "at
maximum rated capacity and Tn the absence pf~aTr~poTlution
control equipment, dt a rate of rnoreThar i 100 ^ _tons__n_gr"
year, or 17000 pounds per day or 100 pounds p3~hour;~
March 16, 1979
-------
(ii) if, based o n past oper a t i ons , the Agency de terrcn nes that
it is necessary for the 'ap'p lj_cant to prove that the
emission source will not have excess emissions for the
period of the operating permit; or
( i i i ) j_f uncontrolled emissions released from the emission
source constitute an immediate or acute danger to health.
The outline of the operation and maintenance program shall
briefly set out that program, the location at the s'ource or
plant where the program vnll be available, and the
organizational position of the person responslFie for the
program's implementation.
(4) - (5) Stet
(6) Standards for Issuance. No operating permit shall be granted
unless the applicant submits proof to the Agency that:
(A) - (G) Stet
( H ) the applicant has submitted, where applicable, an outline
of an operation and maintenance program, that meets the
requirements of Rule 103(b)(9)._
(b) (7) Conditions
(A) The Agency may impose such conditions in an operating permit as
may be necessary to accomplish the purposes of the Act, and as
are not inconsistent with the regulations promulgated by the
Board thereunder. Except as herein specified, nothing in this
Chapter shall be deemed to limit the power of the Agency in this
regard.
(B)
epeFat4R§-peicfii4-eT The Agency shall may require that
the permittee maintain the air~po"TTutioni control equipment
covered by the permit in accordance with any operation and
maintenance program prepared by the permittee in accordance with
Rule 103(b)(9). To assure that such an operation and
maintenance
program is 84aflRed followed the Agency may require
that the permittee keep such maintenance records as are
necessary to demonstrate compliance with this condition
of the operating permit. pF9v4dedT-beweveFT-fehe-AgeHsy-5toa:n-n6fe-
March 16, 1979
-------
All such maintenance records shall he made available to the
Agency upon request at any reasonable time.
(8) Stet
(9) Operation and Maintenance Programs.
(A) If the circumstances identified in Rule 103(b) (3)(B)(i) ,
103(b)(3)(B)(ii), or 103(b)(3)(B)(i1i) arc present, the '
Agency shall require that the permittee establish and carry
but an operation and maintenance program wnlch shall
include the following, where applicable:
( i ) A sufflfnayy description of the preventive maintenance
program for the source, including identification of
the positions of persorTs responsible for inspecting,
maintaining and repairing the air poi Tin: ion control
equipment, a listing ofthe items or conditions that
will be inspected, the frequency of these
inspections or repairs, and identification of the
replacement parts essential to operation of the air
pollution control equipment in accordance with its
operating permit, which will be either maintaTne~a~in
inventory for'-quick replacement or avai 1 able from a
repair f ac i 1 [ty or supplier w i t h i n 2 4 h o u r s ;
( i i ) Identification of the source and air pollution
control equipment operating variables that wi I'l be
monitored in order to detect a malfunction "oT
failure, the normal operating range of these
variables, and identification of the method'"of
monitoring or surveillance procedures," ancT
(iii) Identification of corrective procedures that will be
taken in the event of a malfunction or fai_Uire jjT
order to achieve compliance with the ap'pl i cable
emission limits as expeditiously as p'ossible.
( 8 ) The_Agency may require the submittal of an entir e operation
and maintenance program for a d e terminalion"that~such
program is in accordance with fFis rule it'T
( i ) the outline as, submitted indicates that the program
may be inadequate,
March 16, 1979
-------
- 5 -
( i i ) inspection of the plant or source or. review of the
program In the field indicates that the program may
oe inadequate, is not available as stated in the
outline or that there is no person with
responsibl 1 ity for its implementation, ~or
(iii) if malfunction, breakdown or startup problems
Fepeatedly occur meriting such a requirement.
3. The Agency proposes that Rule 105 be amended to provide as follows:
Rule 105: Malfunctions, Breakdowns, Startups or Shutdowns
f
(a) Prohibition.
• (1) No person shall cause or allow the continued operation of
an emission source during malfunction or breakdown of the
emission source or related air pollution control equipment
if such operation would cause a-v494a£49R-9f-£Re-stafldaFds-
? excess emissions unless the current operating
permit granted by the Agency provides for operation during
a malfunction or breakdown, and the emission source is
being operated in compliance with all conditions in the
current operating permit concerning malfunctions.
(2) No person shall cause or allow excess emissions v4g4afe4eR-
during startup unless the
current operating permit granted by the Agency provides for
excess emissions v4o4afc4eR-9f-syeR-stemdaFds-9F-44m4laU9HS-
during startup and the emission source is being operated in
compliance with all conditions' in the current operating
permit concerning startups.
(3) In the following townships, no person shall replace the air
pollution control equipment on any source of part icu late
matter with a less effective kind of~ control equipment:
Cook - Al 1 townships
bake — Sb4e4g'sy-WaHkegaR-aBd-WaieFeR
BbPage — Add4s9R7-W4RMe4d-aRd-Y9^k
Will - DuPage, Plainfield, Lockport, Joliet, Channahon,
Peotone and FTorence
ecatur and Hickory Point
March 16, 1979
-------
- 6 -
l:aSa44e— -
Madison - Alton, Chouteau, Cglli n svj lie, Edwa r dsville, Fort
~ Russell, Godfrey, Granite TTt"y, N'ameoki, "Venice and"
5 Wood River :
(b) Contents of Request for Permission to Operate During a
Malfunction, Breakdown or Startup.
(1) A request for permission to continue to operate during a
malfunction or breakdown, if desired, shall be included as
an integral part of the application for an operating permit
pursuant to Rule 103, and shall include as a minimum: a
f-«44-aRd-deta44ed aji explanation of why such continued
operation is necessary; the anticipated nature, sources and
quantities of emissions which will occur during such
continued operation; the anticipated length of time during
which such operation will continue; measures, such as use
of off-shift labor or equipment which will be taken to
minimize the quantity of air contaminant emissions and
length of time during which such operation will continue.
When excess emissions
i 1 1 be v4e4a^ad caused during startup,
request for permission to v494afca-SHea-s*aH8Vds-9F
cause such excess emissions shall be an
integral part of the application for an operating permit
pursuant to Rule 103, and shall include, as a minimum: a
description of the startup procedure for each emission
source, the duration and frequencies of such startups, the
types and quantities of emissions during such startups, and
the applicant's efforts to minimize any such startup
emissions, duration of individual startups, and frequency
of startups.
(2) The Agency may adopt procedures which require data and
information in addition to or in amplification of the
matters set forth in paragraph (b)(l) of this Rule 105, and
which sets forth the format in which all data and
information shall be submitted.
March 16, 1979
-------
- 7
(c) Standards for Granting Permission to Operate During a
Malfunction, Breakdown or Startup. No person shall cause or
allow excess emissions except as provided for in an operating
permit and subject to the provisions of Rule 105(e)._
(I) Permission shall not be granted to allow continued
operation during a malfunction or breakdown unless the
applicant submits proof to the Agency that: such continued
operation is necessary to prevent injury to persons or
severe damage to equipment; or that such continued
operation is required to provide essential services;
provided, however, that continued operation solely for the
economic benefit of the owner or operator shall not be a
sufficient reason for granting permission.
(2) Permission shall not be granted to allow excess emissions
F during startup unless the applicant has
affirmatively demonstrated that all reasonable efforts have
been made to minimize startup emissions, duration of
individual startups, and frequency of startups.
(d) Records and Reports. Any person who causes or allows the continued
operation of an emission source da»:4Rg-a-ma^yR6t49R-9)e-Bfeakdewn-9f
feRe-em45s4eR-s9bieee-9ie-pe4a£ee'7a4i'5-B944ut4eH-eentP94-eqw4pmeHfe when
such continued operation would cause excess^emissions, shall, if the
excess emissions last for more than 2 hours and exceed 200 pounds, or
if the excess emissions include 'any air contaminant which may
constitute an Immediate or acute danger to health:
(1) Notify the agency as soon as is reasonably possible but not
Tater than one working day subsequent to the start of
malfunction.
(2) Submit to the agency in writing, within ten working days, a
report including:
(A) identification of the sources, stacks, instrumentation and
control devices involved in the malfunction;
(B) time and duration of the excess emissions;
|C) estimate of the magnitude of the excess emissions;
(D) nature and probable causes of the excess
emissions; and ~
IE) remedial action taken.
March 16, 1979
-------
(e) Deleted
(e)ff-) — Effeefe-9f— GFaRfe4Rg-9£-Pe)cmss49R-t9-9p3f:ate Effect of Operating
During a Malfunction, Breakdown or Startup as a Defense to an~
Enforcement Action.
(1) The granting of permission to operate during a malfunction or
breakdown, or to v4e4dte-fehe-staRdai!:^s-eic-44H>4tafe49HS-9f-PaF*-2
ef-tMs-ShaeteF cause excess emissions during startup
and full compliance with any terms and" conditions connected
therewith, shall be a prima facie defense to an enforcement
action alleging a violation of paragraph (a) of this Rule 105
but shall not be a defense to an enforcement acti on alleging a
violation of the emission and a ir quality "standards of this
Chapter, and of the prohibition of air pollution during the time
• of such malfunction, breakdown, or startup.
(2) It shall be a defense to an enforcement action alleging a
violation of any applicable ermss ion o r air quality standard or
of the prohibition of air pollution, during malfunction or
startup if the owner or operator of the emission source
demonstrates that:
(A) The air pollution control equipment, process equipment, and
processes have been operated
(i)' |n fu1! compliance with an operation and
ma intenance program which meets the requirements of
Rule 103(b)(9), wiiere applicable, and ~~
( i i ) to the maximum extent practicable, in _a_ manner
consistent with good practice for liTrn7m'JTi n'g
emissions;
(B) Repairs were made promptly when the operator knew or should
have known that appi Icable emission. 1 ""itatjbnswere or
were likely to be exceeded. The use of 5fT~s'hTft labor' and
overtime shall be evidence of expeditious repair efforts;
(C) The amount and duration of excess emis s i ons (including a ny
bypass) were minimized as much as" possible during ^period's
of such emissions;
{DJ All reasonable steps were taken to minimize the effect of
the excess emissions on ambient air quality; and ~
ill Tne excess emissions were not part of a recurring
indicative of inadequate design, operation or maintenance.
GK:mad/5916A/spl-S
March 16, 1979
-------
ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
March 29, 1979
Appendix F
IN THE MATTER OF:
PROPOSED REVISIONS TO RULES 101,
103, and 105 OF CHAPTER 2, AIR
POLLUTION (PERMIT CONDITIONS AND
MAINTENANCE PROGRAMS)
R79-3
INTERIM ORDER OF THE BOARD (by Mr. Goodman):
In order to meet the federal deadline for submittal of
State Implementation Plan revisions pursuant to the Clean
Air Act, 42 U.S.C. §7401 et s_ea. (1977), the Board hereby
proposes the following amendments to Rules 101, 103 and 105
of Chapter 2: Air Pollution Regulations. The Board orders
that the Hearing Officer set further hearings or set aside
time during the economic impact hearings to receive testimony
on these proposed amendments. These proposed amendments are
not a final action in this matter for any purpose.
PROPOSED ORDER
1. It is proposed that the following definitions be added
to Rule 101 in their alphabetically appropriate positions
Excess Emissions: Emissions that exceed any standard
or limitation set forth in Part II, IX, or X of Chapter
2.
Malfunction: Any sudden and unavoidable failure of air
pollution control equipment or an emission source to
operate in a normal and usual manner.
Breakdown: Any failure of air pollution control equip-
ment or an emission source to operate in a normal and
usual manner if such failure is caused entirely or in
part by poor maintenance, careless operation, chronic
or repeated overloading, lack of compliance with a
required maintenance program, or any other preventable
upset condition or preventable equipment failure.
Startup: The setting into operation of any air pollution
control equipment or an emission source for any purpose,
except routine phasing in of process equipment. Any
requirement contained in these Rules applicable to
startups shall also apply to shutdowns.
-------
Shutdown; The cessation of operation of any air
pollution control equipment or an emission source for
any purpose, except .routine phasing out' of .process
equipment. Any requirement contained in these Rules
applicable to startups shall also apply to shutdowns.
2.
3.
Rule 103 - It is proposed that Rule 103(b)(7) be amended
as follows: '
Rule 103(b)(7) Conditions. The Agency may impose
conditions in an Operating Permit as may be necessary
to accomplish the purposes of the Act, and as are not
inconsistent with the regulations promulgated by the
Board thereunder. Except as herein specified, nothing
in this Chapter shall be deemed to limit the power of
the Agency in this regard. -When—doomod-^apfigo^g-iO'tO' ao'
—fe&e-
^^i£^
-fehe- -a-jrf?-
Ru1e 105 - Delete the current Rule 105 and substitute
the following:
Rule 105: Maintenance, Malfunctions, Breakdowns,
Startups and Shutdowns
(a) Prohibition
(1) No person shall cause or allow the continued
operation of an emission source during break-
down of the emission source or related air
pollution control equipment if such operation
would cause excess emissions.
(2) No person shall cause or allow the continued
operation of an emission source during malfunc-
tion of the emission source or related air
pollution control equipment if such operation
would cause excess emissions unless the
conditions prescribed in paragraphs 105(c),
Records and Reports, and 105(d)," Operation
during Malfunction, Startup or Shutdown, are
met.
(3) No person shall cause or allow excess emissions
during startup or shutdown unless the current
-------
operating permit granted by the Agency provides
for excess emissions during startup or shutdown
and the emission source is being operated in
compliance with all conditions in the current
operating permit concerning startups or
shutdowns. When the standards or limitations
of Part 2 of this Chapter 2 will be violated
during startup, a request for permission to
violate such standards or limitations shall
be an integral part of the application for an
Operating Permit pursuant to Rule 103 and
shall include, as a minimum: a description
of the startup procedure for each emission
source, the duration and frequencies of such
startups, the types and quantities of emis-
sions during such startups and the applicant's
efforts to minimize any such startup emissions,
duration of individual startups, and frequency
of startups.
(4) In the following townships, no person shall
replace the air pollution control equipment
on any source of particulate matter with a
less effective kind of control equipment:
Cook - All townships
Will - DuPage, Plainfield, Lockport, Joliet,
Peotone, and Florence
Macon - Decatur and Hickory Point
Madison - Alton, Chouteau, Collinsville,
Sdwardsville, Fort Russell,
Godfrey, Granite City, Nameoki,
Venice and Wood River
(b) Maintenance. Every owner or operator of an emis-
sion source or air pollution control equipment
shall maintain such source or equipment in accor-
dance with a maintenance program. Such program
shall be designed to prevent a breakdown which
could lead to excess emissions and to minimize
excess emissions to the maximum extent practicable
if a malfunction or breakdown occurs. The owner
or operator shall inform the Agency of the person
or persons responsible for administering the
maintenance program and upon request shall describe
the program to the Agency; provided, however, that
the Agency shall not have the authority to approve
the maintenance programs required by this paragraph.
Every owner of an emission source or air pollution
control equipment shall comply with this paragraph
within 90 days of [the effective date of this
Rule].
-------
(c) Records and Reports. Any person who causes or
allows the continued operation of an emission
source during a malfunction of the emission source
or related air pollution control equipment when
such continued operation causes excess emissions
shall, if the excess emissions last for more than
2 hours and exceed 200 pounds or if the excess
emissions include any air contaminant which may
constitute an immediate or acute danger to health:
(1) Notify the Agency as soon as is reasonably
possible but not later than one working day
subsequent to the start of the malfunction;
and
(2) Submit to the Agency in writing, within ten
working days, a report including:
(A) identification of the sources, stacks,
instrumentation and control devices
involved in the malfunction;
(B) time and duration of the excess emissions;
(C) estimate of the magnitude of the excess
emissions;
(D) nature and probable causes of the excess
emissions;
(E) a description of the steps taken by such
person to remedy the situation causing
the excess emissions, prevent a recurrence,
and limit the excess emissions; and
(F) a statement of the reasons why such
continued operation was necessary to
prevent injury to persons or severe
damage to equipment or to provide
essential services.
(d) Operation during Malfunction, Startup or Shutdown.
It shall be a defense to an enforcement action
alleging a violation of any applicable emission
limitation or air quality standard that:
(1) the violation occurred as a result of a
malfunction, startup or shutdown;
(2) the emission source and air pollution control
equipment have been operated in accordance
with the maintenance program required by Rule
105(b);
-------
(3) repairs were made promptly when the operator
knew or should have known that applicable
emission limitations were or were likely to
be exceeded;
(4) the amount and duration of excess emissions
(including any bypass) were minimized as much
as practicable during periods of such emissions;
(5) All reasonable steps were taken to minimize
the effect of the excess emissions on ambient
air quality;
(6) the excess emissions were not part of a
recurring pattern indicative of inadequate
design, operation or maintenance; and
(7) continued operation during the malfunction
was necessary to prevent injury to persons or
severe damage to equipment or to provide
essential services; provided, however, that
continued operation solely for the economic
benefit of the owner or operator shall not be
sufficient.
Mr. Young and Mr. Dumelle concur.
I, Christan L. Moffett, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution
Control Board, hereby certify the above Interim Order was
adopted on the ^ n day of /Tr\g^J\_ , 1979 by a vote of
Christan L. Moffett'",1 Clerk
Illinois Pollutiorr"Control Board
-------
Appendix G
AIR POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
OF THE STATE OF INDIANA
REGULATION APC 11
MALFUNCTIONS
This is a new regulation promulgated pursuant to the authority
granted in 1C 13-1-1 and 1C 13-7, establishing a reporting procedure for
malfunctions, a maintenance program requirement for emission control equip-
ment and facilities and a malfunction emission reduction program.
Section 1. Definitions
(a) Definitions applicable to this regulation are set forth in
Regulation APC 1.
Section 2. Applicability
(a) The requirements of this regulation shall apply to the owner or
operator of any facility which has the potential to emit 25
pounds per hour of particulates, 100 pounds per hour of volatile
organic compounds or SO,,, or 2,000 pounds per hour of any other
pollutant; or to the owner or operator of any facility with
emission control equipment which suffers a malfunction that
causes emissions in excess of the applicable limitation.
Section 3. Reporting
(a) A record shall be kept of all malfunctions, including startups or
shutdowns of any facility or emission control equipment which
result in violations of applicable air pollution control regula-
tions or applicable emission limitations and such records shall be
retained for a period of three years and shall be made available
to the Board upon request. When a malfunction of any facility or
emission control equipment occurs which lasts more than one hour,
said condition shall be reported to the Technical Secretary or
bis appointed representative. Notification shall be made by
telephone or telegraph, as soon as practicable, but in no event
later than four (A) daytime business hours after the beginning of
said occurrence. Failure to report a malfunction of any emission
control equipment subject to the requirements of this regulation
shall constitute a violation of this regulation and any other
applicable regulations. Information of the scope and expected
duration of the malfunction shall be provided including the
following:
(1) Identification of the specific emission control device to be
taken out of service, as well as the location and permit
number of such equipment.
-------
(2) The expected length of time that the emission control
equipment will be out of service.
(3) The nature and quantity of emissions of air contaminants
likely t~o occur during the shutdown period.
(A) Any measures such as the use of off-shift labor on equipment
that will be utilized to minimize the length of the shutdown
period.
(5) Any reasons that shutdown of the facility operation during
the maintenance period would be impossible for the following
reason:
(i) Continued operation is required to provide essential
services, provided, however, that continued operation
solely for the economic benefit of the owner or operator
shall not be sufficient reason;
(ii) Continued operation is necessary to prevent injury to
persons or severe damage to equipment.
(6) A demonstration that interim control measures have reduced
or will reduce emissions from the facility during the shut-
down period.
Section 4. Maintenance
(a) Any person responsible for operating any facility subject to
Section 2(a) of this regulation shall prepare and maintain a
preventative maintenance plan including the following information:
(1) Identification of the individual(s) responsible for inspect-
ing, maintaining and repairing emission control devices;
(2) A description of the items or conditions that will be inspected
and the inspection schedule for said items or conditions.
(3) Identification and quantification of the replacement parts
which will be maintained in inventory for quick replacement.
(b) Preventative maintenance plans shall be submitted to the Board
upon request and shall be subject to review and approval by the
Board. As deemed necessary by the Board, any person operating a
facility shall comply with the requirements of Subsection (a)
above.
(c). Facility owners or operators shall be responsible for operating
and maintaining all emission control equipment and combustion or
process equipment or processes in compliance with all applicable
rules and regulations of the Board. Emissions temporarily exceeding
the standards which are due to malfunctions of facilities or
emission control equipment shall not be considered a violation of
the regulations; provided the source demonstrates that:
-------
(1) All reasonable measures were taken to correct, as expedi-
tiously as practicable, the conditions causing the emissions
to exceed the allowable limits, including the use of off-shift
and over-time labor, if necessary.
(2) All possible steps were taken to minimize the impact of the
excessive emissions on ambient air quality which may include
but not be limited to curtailment of operation and/or shutdown
of the facility.
(3) Malfunctions have not exceeded 5%, as a guideline, of the
normal operational time of the facility.
(4) The malfunction is not due to the negligence of the operator.
(d) No facility shall be operated unless the air pollution control
device(s) and measures are also in operation simultaneously and
are not bypassed, unless necessary to prevent damage to equipment
or injury to persons or unless there is a malfunction and the
requirements set forth in Subsection (c) .above are met.
(e) Correction - Excessive emissions shall be brought into compliance
with all practicable speed, and appropriate action, including
those set forth above, to correct the conditions causing such
emissions to exceed applicable limits; to reduce the frequency of
occurrence of such conditions, to minimize the. amount by which
said limits are exceeded, and to reduce the length of time for
which said limits are exceeded. These actions shall be initiated
as expeditiously as practicable.
Section 5. Board Action
(a) The Board may consider the following guidance in determining
cases of excessive malfunctions. Where records show that repeated
malfunctions exceed 5% of the normal operational time for any one
control device or combustion or process equipment, the Board nay
require that the maintenance program be improved or that the
defective or faulty equipment or emission control device be
replaced. The Board may require curtailment of operation of a
facility if the owner or operator of the facility or emission
control device cannot demonstrate that for the most recent 12-month
period the facility and/or the emission control device has operated
in compliance with the applicable Indiana Air Pollution Control
regulations at least 95% of the operating time of said equipment,
except for electric utility steam generating units which shall
comply with the following requirement for sulfur dioxide emissions
only.
(l) Any owner or operator of an electric utility steam generating
unit capable of combusting more than 73 megawatts (MW) heat
input (250 million BTU/hour) of fossil fuel may operate said
facility so that the applicable sulfur dioxide emission
limitations may be exceeded up to three 24-hour periods
during any calendar month; however, the sulfur dioxide
-------
emissions must be reduced to less than 25 percent of the
potential combustion concentration (75 percent reduction) at
all times. This includes the periods when the emission
limitation is being exceeded. Malfunctions should not
exceed 5% of the normal operational time of the control
device or combustion or process for the most recent 12 month
period.
Section 6. Malfunction Emission Reduction Program
(a) Any owner or operator of a facility which has the potential to
emit concentration in excess of the concentrations stated in
Section 2(a) of this regulation shall submit within 180 days
after the effective date of this regulation a malfunction emission
reduction program. Said program shall include, but not be limited
to, the normal operating enission rate and the program proposed
to reduce emissions in the event of a malfunction to an emission
rate which will not contribute to the cause of the violation of
the ambient air quality standards established in Regulation
APC 14. The program shall be based on the best estimates of type
and number of startups, shutdowns, and malfunctions experienced
during normal operation of the facility or emission control
device and the scope and duration of such conditions.
(1) Said program may be subject to review and approval by the
Board.
Section 7. Force and Effect
Any emission limitation or control strategy set forth in Regulation
APC 3 promulgated October 7, 1974, which is revised or replaced by a corre-
sponding emission limitation or control strategy in this regulation shall
remain in force and effect until the emission limitation or control strategy
set forth herein becomes legally enforceable and binding under Indiana lav
for affected facilities and sources.
Section 8. Severability
If any section, paragraph, sentence, clause, phrase, or word of
this regulation, or any other part thereof, is declared unconstitutional or
invalid for any reason, the remainder of said regulation shall not be
affected thereby and shall remain in full force and effect.
-------
Appendix H
State of Michigan
PART 9. EMISSION LIMITATIONS AND PROHIBITION'S—MISCELLANEOUS
R 336.1911. Malfunction abatement plans.
Rule 911. (1) Upon request of the commission, a person responsible
for the operation of a source of an air contaminant shall prepare a malfunc-
tion abatement; plan to prevent, detect, and correct malfunctions or equipment
failures resulting in emissions exceeding any applicable emission limitation.
(2) A malfunction abatement plan required by subrule (1) shall be in
writing and shall, at a minimum, specify all of the following:
(a) A complete preventative maintenance program, including identifi-
cation of the supervisory personnel responsible for overseeing the inspec-
tion, maintenance and repair of air-cleaning devices, a description of
the items or conditions that shall be inspected, the frequency of these
inspections or repairs, and an identification of the major replacement
parts that shall be maintained in inventory for quick replacement.
(b) An identification of the source and air-cleaning device operating
variables that shall be monitored to detect a malfunction or failure, the
normal operating range of these variables, and a description of the method
of monitoring or surveillance procedures.
(c) A description of the corrective procedure? or operational channes
that shall be Laken in the event of a malfunction or failure to achieve
compliance with the applicable emission limits.
(3) A malfunction abatement plan required by subrule (1) shall be sub-
mitted to the commission and shall be subject to review and approval by
the commission. If, in the opinion of the commission, the plan does not
adequately carry out the objectives as set forth in subrules (1) and (2),
the commission may disapprove the plan, state its reasons for disapproval
and order the preparation of an amended plan within the time period specified
in the order. If, within the time period specified in the order, an amended
plan is submitted which, in the opinion of the conmission, fails to meet
the objective, the cormiission, on its own initiative, may amend the plan
to cause it to meet the objective.
(4) Within 180 days after the commission approves a malfunction abatement
plan, a person responsible for the preparation of a malfunction abatement
plan shall implement the malfunction abatement plan required by subrule
R 336.1912. Abnormal conditions and breakdown of equipment.
Rule 912. The owner or operator of a source of emissions exceeding any
applicable emission limit as a direct result of abnormal conditions in
or breakcown of, process or control equipment continuing for more than
2 hours shall do both of the following:
(a) Notify the correnlsslon or the air quality division as soon as is
reasonably possible.
(b) Submit to the cormission, 1n writing, within 10 days, a detailed
report, including probable causes, duration of violation, remedial action
taken, and what steps are being undertaken to prevent a reoccurrence
These preventative steps shall become a part of any malfunction abatement
plan required by rule 911.
-------
DRAFT - 1 -
State of Minnesota Appendix I
May 8, 1979
KPC-20 Malfunctions and Breakdowns
A. Definitions. As used in this rule the following words
shall have the meanings defined herein.
1. "Breakdown" means any sudden and unavoidable failure
if air pollution control equipment or process equipment to
>perate in a normal and usual manner.
2. "Excess emissions" means an emission rate which
•xceeds any applicable standard of performance prescribed by
linnesota Pollution Control Agency Rules, or which violates any
:ondition in a permit.
?. "Malfunction" means any failure of air pollution
control equipment or process equipment to operate in a normal
and usual manner which is caused entirely or in part by poor
naintenance, careless operation, or any other preventable upset
condition or preventable process equipment failure.
%. "Potential to emit" means the capability at maximum
capacity to emit an air pollutant in the absence of air pollution
control equipment. Air pollution control equipment includes
control equipment which is not, aside from air pollution control
laws and rules, vital to production of the source or to its
normal operation. Annual potential shall be based on the maximum
-------
DRAFT - 2 -
nnual rated capacity of the source, unless the source is subject
o enforceable permit conditions which limit the hours of
peration. Enforceable permit conditions on the type or amount
f materials combusted or processed may be used in determining
he potential emission rate of a source.
5. "Process equipment" means any equipment which is a
art of an emission facility which may upon malfunction or
•eakdown cause excess emissions to occur.
E. Startup and Shutdown
Excess emissions during periods of routine startup or
lutdown of an emission facility shall not be considered to be
le result of a malfunction.
C. Standard for Control Equipment Availability
No person shall operate an emission facility unless the
ir pollution control equipment is also in proper operation and
s not bypassed, unless the control equipment is bypassed only to
revent damage to the control equipment or unless a bypass is
pecifically allowed in a permit. No person shall operate an
'mission facility unless the applicable control measures or
irocess equipment for abatement of the emissions therefrom as
specified in the permit application, permit, or applicable rule
are being followed, or are in operation.
-------
. DRAFT
D. Enforcement
Excess emissions during malfunction or breakdown are a
/iolation of the applicable limitation, and the owner or operator
jf the emission facility that is causing the excess emissions is
;ubject to appropriate enforcement action.
E. Maintenance and Abatement Plan
1. Plan. An owner or operator of an emission facility
ith potential to emit more than 500 tons per year from the
•mission facility shall prepare, implement, and submit a
isintenance and abatement plan to prevent, detect, and correct
lalfunctions and breakdowns of control equipment and process
•quipment. The owner or operator of an emission facility with
>otential to emit less than or equal to 500 tons per year shall
>repare, have available, and implement a maintenance and
abatement plan, and may be required to submit the plan to the
Agency upon request by the Director. Criteria upon which the
Director will rely in determination of the need to submit a
maintenance and abatement plan are (1) Excessive malfunctions and
breakdowns resulting in excess emissions, (2) Failure to prepare
maintenance and abatement plan, (3) Failure to do adequate
maintenance and abatement, (4) Failure to report malfunctions
and breakdowns, (5) Ambient air violations in the vicinity of
and to which the source is contributing.
-------
DRAFT
2. Contents of Plan. The maintenance and abatement plan
sHall be in writing and shall as a minimum specify the following:
a. A complete preventive maintenance program for
avoidance of excess emissions including identification of the
individual(s) responsible for inspecting, maintaining, and
repairing the process equipment and control equipment, a
description of the equipment that will be inspected, the
frequency of these inspections or repairs, and an identification
and quantities of the replacement parts which will be maintained
in inventory for quick replacement.
b. An identification of operating conditions and
outlet variables (such as opacity, grain loading, pollutant
concentration, and pressure drop across collector) for the
process equipment and control equipment that will be monitored in
order to detect a malfunction or breakdown, and the normal
operating range of these variables, and a description of.the
method of detecting and of informing operating personnel of any
malfunction or breakdown, including alarm systems, lights, and
other indicators.
c. A description of the corrective procedures that
will be taken in the event of a malfunction or breakdown in order
to achieve compliance with the applicable emission limitations
and permit conditions as expeditiously as possible, including but
not limited to reducing production.
-------
DRAFT - 5 -
d. A description of the procedures that will be taken
in,the event of a malfunction or breakdown in order to limit
>xcess emissions as much as possible, including but not limited
;o reducing production.
e. A statement(s) of the time period(s) that would be
equired to safely shut down the emission facility or portion
hereof causing excess emissions.
f. A description of the records that will be kept to
how that the plan is implemented.
g. Any other reasonable and pertinent information that
ay be required by the Director.
2. Records. The owner or operator of an emission
acility who is required to prepare a maintenance and abatement
Ian shall maintain records to show that the plan is implemented.
'he records shall include at least, the times and dates of
.nspections, the inspection results, any recommendations, and any
action taken as response to recommendations. The records shall
3e subject to inspection by the Agency and shall be maintained
for two years following the date of such recording.
4. Submission of Plan. The owner or operator of an
emission facility who is required to submit a maintenance and
abatement plan shall submit the plan as part of the permit
-------
DRAFT - 6 -
application for the emission facility. The owner or operator of
an emission facility who has an operating permit for the emission
["ability on the effective date of this rule shall submit the
laintenance and abatement plan when a request for reissuance of
.he permit is submitted or upon request of the Director,
hichever comes first.
5. Permit. No permit shall be issued or reissued unless
he owner or operator who is required by this rule to do so, has
ubmitted a maintenance and abatement plan that meets the
equirements of this rule.
F. Breakdown or Malfunction of Control Equipment or Process
i pment .
The owner or operator of an emission facility where
xcess emissions occur as a direct result of a malfunction or
reakdown of process equipment or control equipment shall:
1. Promptly begin an investigation to determine the
ause(s) of the excess emissions;
2. Immediately initiate corrective procedures to
ichieve compliance with the applicable emission limitations and
>ermit conditions as expeditiously as possible;
3. Notify the Agency immediately of the malfunction or
-------
DRAFT - 7 -
breakdown;
H. Submit to the Agency in writing, within ten days
ifter the beginning of the excess emissions, a report containing
:he following information:
a. Identification of the process equipment,
tacks, instrumentation, and control equipment involved in the
alfunction or breakdown;
b. Time and duration of the excess emissions;
c. Estimate of the amount of excess emissions;
d. Nature and causes of the malfunction or
ireakcown ;
e. All remedial action taken to bring the emission
'acility into compliance with the applicable emission
.imitations, arrd measures taken to limit excess emissions as much
as possible.
5. The owner or operator of an emission facility who
used remedial measures outlined in E.^.e. shall incorporate such
remedial measures into the maintenance and abatement plan
required in this rule.
-------
DRAFT - 8 -
. C. Cessation of Operation During Malfunction or Breakdown
The Director may order cessation of operation of all
r part of the entire emission facility if necessary to preserve
ublic health and welfare. The Director shall consider quantity
nd quality of emission, what portion of the emission facility
ould have to be shut down, cause of breakdown or malfunction,
ength of time needed to correct, and other factors affecting the
ublic and the owner or operator of the emission facility.
H. Revocation of Operating Permit
No person shall operate an emission facility which has
i unreasonable malfunction or breakdown frequency of control
quipment or process equipment. In addition to any other reason
rovided by law, the Director may modify or revoke the operating
errr.it of the owner or operator of an emission facility upon, (1)
ailure to submit an acceptable maintenance and abatement plan,
2) failure to abide by the maintenance and abatement plan, (3)
ailure to noti'fy the Agency of malfunctions or breakdowns, CO
'xcessive periods of excess emissions due to breakdowns or
lalfunctions.
-------
Appendix J
Testimony of Henry Onsgard
to the State of Minnesota
July 23, 1979
Good Morning Laaies and Gentlemen
My name is Henry Onsgard. I am employed as a Physical Scientist in the
Technical Analysis Section, Air Programs Branch, Air and Hazardous
Materials Division, Untied States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA)
Region V. My principal duties are technical review of applications
submitted under the Prevention of Significant Deterioration of Air
Quality Regulations (PSD), State Implementation Plans, including State
regulations, and air quality redesignations.
I am here today to testify on behalf of the USEPA and at the request of
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (Agency) on the proposed Rule APC-20,
Malfunction and Breakdown. It should be noted that the USEPA has defined
the words malfunction and breakdown just the reverse of the Agency.
This is only semantics. However, when I am referring to USEPA publications,
I will use USEPA definitions to be consistant with the reference; other-
wise, I shall try to use the Agency's definitions.
The USEPA Region V's policy on malfunction was stated in the Ohio Sulfur
Dioxide Plan (41 FR 36324, August 27, 1976). The general USEPA malfunction
policy has been stated in the Utah Sulfur Dioxide Control Strategy as it
related to the Kennocott Copper Corporation smelter located in Salt Lake
City, Utah (42 FR 21472, April 27, 1977) and in Idaho Sulfur Dioxide
Control Strategy as it related to the Bunker Hill Company smelter located
in Kellogg, Idaho (42 FR 58171, November 8, 1977).
In light of the Kennocott- Copper Corporation's case challenging the
USEPA promulgated malfunction regulation for their smelter, the USEPA
committed itself to review all State's malfunction regulations for their
adequacy and consistancy with the Utah Kennocott Copper promulgated
malfunction regulation. In the Idaho Bunker Hill promulgation, the
USEPA indicated that it was already undertaking such a review. This
review has continued as the USEPA Region V evaluates all of the States
Implementation Plans (SIPs) to verify conformance of the State's Mal-
function regulations with the USEPA malfunction policy.
Basic to the USEPA malfunction policy is the fact that all excess emissions
are violations of the applicable emission standards (the same way that
excess speed on the highway is a violation). However, the USEPA doesn't
desire to penalize a prudent operator for emissions that are beyond his
control but woulo use enforcement discretion depending on the circum-
stances. This position was detailed in the Idaho Bunker Hill promulgation
that stated:
-------
"The Agency (USEPA) believes the procedure best-suited
to accomplishing the goal of excusing unavoidable malfunctions
without undermining the impetus towards sound operating and
maintenance procedures is to allow the source to show, after
an episode of excess emission, that the violation was due to
an unavoidable malfunction. Whether further enforcement
would follow such a notice would be a matter of enforcement
discretion resulting from an evaluation of that showing."
In other words, at no time shall there be automatic exemptions from
enforcement for periods of unavoidable excess emissions or can these
emissions be tolerated if there is an exceedance of the national ambient air
quality standards. For incidences of unavoidable excess emissions, it is
expected that a source should take steps to minimize such excess emissions
which would include reducing the level of operation and/or shutting down
the operation unless such shutdowns would cause physical damage to
equipment or disrupt essential community services. Sources should also
bring the facility back into compliance on an expedited basis. The USEPA
policy is to have the source report all excess emissions and malfunctions.
Immediately upon learning of a malfunction, the source would report to
the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency the following minimum information
about the malfunction:
1. Identification of the emission points.
2. The magnitude of the excess emissions.
3. The identification of the process or control equipment causing
the excess emissions.
4. The cause and nature of the excess emissions.
5. A description of the steps taken by the owner or operator to
remedy the situation causing the emissions, prevent a recurrence
and limit the excess emissions.
In addition, USEPA recognizes that incidences of excess emissions could be
reduced by good operation and maintenance practices and a comprehensive
preventive maintenance program. With these practices, existing control
equipment will provide its maximum benefit.
A comprehensive preventive maintenance program is to help ensure that
the air pollution control equipment is being operated at its optimum.
Part of a comprehensive preventive maintenance program is routine external
surveillance and periodic internal inspection. Routine external surveillance
can help detect possible problems through recording and analyzing operating
parameters such as pressure drop, opacity, scrubbant flow, vibrations,
ductwork condition, etc. For specific operation and maintenance procedures,
the operator should refer to the owner's manual provided by the manufacturer
of his equipment.
USEPA encourages Minnesota to adopt a malfunction regulation consistent
with the policy.
-------
Appendix K
State of Wisconsin
NR 154.02 is amended to read:
NR 154.02 Applicability, delayed compliance, variances.
(1) APPLICABILITY. The provisions of this chapter govern the release
of air contaminants to the ambient air and the regulation of air contaminant
sources by the department.
(2) DELAYED COMPLIANCE ORDERS. The department aay, by order issued
under section I44.35(l)(b), Wis. Stats., authorize a source not in
compliance with an emission limitation prescribed in this chapter after
•J'si7"$±--±3:ry- to es?irs on the date stated in the ordery if it dctcr=±nes
that NR ±5*r£HHr Wisr AdaT €0057 appries and that a™ the conditions
iisted in scch rais and hcresnder are nctr to achieve coanliance -is
•Mi^MMB««*»lMBM«B«HW^MMk«M«^M«BMWBa>MNM^^B*t«M. *
expeditiously as practicable but not later than three years after such
requirement became applicable. The department shall hold a public
hearing in accordance with its rules prior to granting any such defrrrar
which exceeds 98 dsys in totai duration and shair r.otr withcrtrt the
expres-s apprtsvcri or s aajori-ty of the natter si resources' boardj grant
any deferral which eTceed? one year in totai deration authorizing any
^period of delayed compliance which exceeds 30 days in duration. Prior
to anthori-rins any snch deferrairr the department shairi detcraine-r
No such order shall be issued unless:
(a) The cause of the violation was a mechanicat breakdown,• malfunction,
equipraent failure, act of God, or some other condition beyond the
entity's control?, when usinp, all prudent planning;
-------
(b) The air contaminant source is located so that it will not
delay attainment or affect maintenance of an ambient air quality
standard at any point beyond the property line of the entity;
(c) Good faith efforts have been made to comply with this chapter;
and the catrse of noncumpiiance couid not hare been forestatied
by normal maintenance procedures £inciuding advanced purchase
of inventory and rep-iaeeoent
(d) if the sonrce is a new so-orce, the caose of the violation
was a mechanical breakdown or act of Sod which was dencrnstrabiy
beyond the entity^-s controi when asing aii prndent planning?
If the violation was caused by a malfunction or equipcent failure,
any plan required to be prepared by NK. 154.06(9) was conplied with;
(e) The air contaminant for which a deferral is sought is not a
hazardous pollutant for which an emission standard has been established
by the administrator of the U.S. environmental protection agencyr;
«
(f) The conditions listed in NR -154.09(1) , if applicable, are met;
(g) The order contains:
1. An express provision whereby the order recipient consents
to its issuance;
2. A requirement that the order recipient employ reasonable
emission monitoring techniques to assess compliance with any
interim requirements imposed by the order;
_-
-------
3. A- requirement for subtnittal of reports showing whether
any interim requirements, increments of progress, and final
compliance have been achieved;
4. A provision prohibiting the reduction of employe wages
where supplemental, intermittent or other dispersion-dependent
control methods are to be used;
5. In the case of a major stationary source, a notice that
It may be required to pay administrative tioncompliance penalties
for failure to comply with the order and that no order issued
under this subsection shall be effective until it is approved
by the administrator of the U.S. environmental protection
agency or his designee.
(h) All reasonably available alternative operating procedures and
interim control measures to minimize emissions shall be .utilized by
the air contaminant source during the period of -any aiiowed
exemptrcmT delayed compliance.
(3) RACT VARIANCES. (a) The department may grant source-specific
revisions to the state implementation plan setting alternate compliance
schedules or alternate emission limitations, or both, where compliance
with" general RACT requirements of this chapter are shown to bo technologically
or economically infeasible, provided that:
. 1. The revision will not delay attainment or prevent maintenance
of any ambient air quality standard, as determined by methods
acceptable to the department.
-------
2. Construction or modification of the air contaminant
source for which a revision is requested was commenced on or
before July 1, 1979.
3. The owner or operator of the air contaminant source for
which a revision is requested demonstrates that all direct or
portable sources owned or operated in the state by such person
are in compliance with all applicable requirements of this
chapter or are on a schedule for compliance with such requirements,
A. The owner or operator submits to the department information
concerning the conditions or special circumstances which
demonstrates, to the department's satisfaction, that the
applicable general RACT requirements from which variance is
sought are technologically or economically infeasible. In
addition,
a. Where an alternate compliance schedule is sought.
the owner or operator shall submit a proposed schedule
which demonstrates reasonable further progress and contains
a date for final compliance as soon as practicable.
b. Where alternate emission limitations are sought, the
owner or operator shall submit proposed emission limitations,
C. Requests for revisions shall be signed by the principle
executive officer; partner; sole proprietor; or principal
governmental executive or elected official or a duly
authorized representative, AS appropriate.
-------
-------
(d) When the department grants, modifier, or revokes a source-
specific revision to a general RACT requirement which has been
approved by the administrator of the U.S. environmental protection
agency as part of the state implementation plan, such revision
shall not become effective until:
1. It has been submitted to the administrator pursuant to
applicable law, including but not limited to 42 U.S.C. 7410,
as amended, and 40 CFR Parts 51 and 52, as amended, and all
such requirements have been net, and
2. It has been approved by the administrator or his designee
•
as a revision to the state implementation plan.
(A) ALTERNATE FUEL VARIANCES. The department may grant temporary
variances from the emission irmi-trs limitations of this chapter to air
contaminant sources which request such variances in order to switch from
a regular ruel to an alternate fuel which is in more plentiful supply,
provided that the conditions of this subsection are met.
(a) If the office of state planning and energy has certified that
a switch from the fuel regularly used by the applicant to an alternate
fuel would cause an emission iinait limitation to be exceeded is
needed to protect public health, safety or welfare in the applicant's
part of the state, the department may grant a temporary variance
from eafssicm tirmits such requirements provided that:
-------
1. The applicant has submitted a list of steps which will be
implemented without delay to minimize adverse effects caused
by the switch in fuels permitted by the variance, including
all feasible steps to minimize use of the alternate fuel
through energy conservation and other measures; and
2. The applicant has provided, or has agreed to provide
within 5 days after the date the variance is granted, information
on the type, quantity and quality -of fuel and rate of consumption
In use before and to be used after the switch in fuels; and
3. Granting the variance would be unlikely to cause or exacerbate
a violation of any primary ambient air quality standard; and
4. Litigation for violation of an emission ir=rt limitation
prescribed in this chapter or an ambient air quality standard
prescribed in Wis. Adm. Code chapter. NR 155 is not presently
pending; and
5. The' applicant has agreed to submit no later than 90 days
from the date that the variance is granted a.plan and tine
schedule for preventing the recurrence of the conditions which
necessitated a variance request; and
6. The applicant submitted and implemented in good faith any
plan required to be submitted as a condition to a previously-
granted variance; and
-------
7. After July 1, 1978, if the applicant uses natural gas or
distillate oil as a regular fuel, the applicant has submitted
and received department approval of a plan to minimize dependence
on these fuels while complying with the emission irnits limitations
of this chapter.
(b) If the office of state planning and energy has not certified
that a switch in fuels is needed, the department may grant a temporary
variance from the emission irarts limitations of this chapter only
If the conditions of (4)(a)l. through 7. are m&t and the applicant
has submitted documentation of the unavailability of the fuel
regularly used and of any alternate fuel which.the air contaminant
source has the capability to burn in compliance with emission irmrtrs
•
limitations.
(c) When granting a variance is likely to cause a secondary standard
(but not a primary standard) to be violated or exacerbated, the
following conditions shall apply:
1. The variance must specify an expiration date no later than
A3 days from the date the variance is granted.
2. Prior to granting a variance extension which expires on a
date more than A5 days after the date the variance was originally
granted, the department shall:
a* Determine either that the applicant's regular fuel is
unavailable or that certification by the office of state
planning and energy of the need for a switch in fuels in
_ the applicant's part of the state remains in effect; and
*"' "
-------
b. Evaluate through ambient air quality monitoring and/or
dispersion modeling the air quality impact of granting the
variance and determine that maintenance of the primary standards
is not being endangered; and
c. Solicit and consider public comment on permitting the
extension.
(d) When granting a variance is unlikely to cause any ambient air
quality standard to be violated, the following conditions shall
apply:
1. The variance must specify an expiration date no later than
60 days from the date the variance is granted.
2. Prior to granting a variance extension which expires on a
date more than 60 days after the date the variance was originally
granted, the department shall:
a. Determine either that the applicant's regular fuel is
unavailable or that certification by the office of state
planning and energy of the need for a switch in fuels in
the applicant.1 s part of the state remains in effect; and
b. Evaluate through ambient air monitoring and/or dispersion
modeling the air quality impact of granting the variance.
If the evaluation indicates that maintenance of the air
ctandards Is not being endangered, an extension may be
-------
granted. If the evaluation indicates that a secondary
air standard has been or may be violated, the procedure
set forth in subsection (4)(c)2. shall apply.
(e) The Department nay rescind or amend a variance granted under
NR 154.02(4) at any time.
(5) The issuance or granting of any order or variance under subsection
(2), (3), or (4) shall not relieve any person of the duty to comply with
all other applicable federal, state and local laws and rules.
-------
(9) MALFUNCTION PREVENTION AND ABATEMENT PLANS.
(a) The owner or operator of any direct or portable source which
may emit hazardous substances or emits more than 15 pounds in any
day or 3 pounds in any hour of any air contaminant for which air
standards have been adopted shall prepare a malfunction prevention
and abatement plan to prevent, detect and correct malfunctions or
equipment failures which may cause any emissions limitation to be
violated or which nay cause air pollution. The plan shall be in writing,
updated as needed, and shall include:
1. Identification of the individual(s) responsible for
inspecting, maintaining, and repairing the air pollution
control equipment.
2, The maximum intervals for inspection and routine maintenance.
3. A description of the items or conditions that will be
checked.
4. A listing of materials and spare parts that will be
«
maintained in inventory.
5. An identification of the source and air pollution control
equipment operation variables that will be monitored in order
to detect a malfunction or failure; the correct operating
range of these variables; and a description of the method of
monitoring or surveillance procedures, or a reference to specific
pages containing this information in ma minis or other documents
kept by the owner or operator.
o/
-------
6. A description of the corrective procedures that will be
taken in the event of a malfunction or failure in order to
achieve and maintain compliance with the applicable emission
limitations as expeditiously as possible but not longer than the
time necessary to discontinue operation of the source consistent
with safe operating procedures.
7. Such other information as the department shall
pertinent.
(b) The department nay order any owner or operator to submit the plan
required by par. (a) for review and approval. The department may
amend the plan if deemed necessary for malfunction prevention or the
reduction of excess emissions during malfunctions.
(c) No owner or operator shall .fail to carry out a plan required under
part, (a) or as amended under par. (b).
-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
{Please read Instructions on the reverse before completing/
; SE = CrlT NO. 2.
FPA-Qn5/?-ftn_no5
- T,7L= A,\O 5USTITLE
Region V's Guidance for Developing A State Malfunct
Notification and Correction Program
1 AUTHOHISi
Henry OrKnarH
9. PERF<5RMING"ORGANIZATION MAME AND ADDRESS
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
United States Environmental Protection Aqency
Region V
Air Programs Branch
230 South Dearborn, Chicago, Illinois 60604
3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSIOr»NO.
5. REPORT DATE
December, 1980
1 On 6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO.
10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
11. CONtRACT/GRANT NO.
13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVEFtED
14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
16. ABSTRACT
This report is intended to summarize the development of the United States Environmental
Protection Agency, Region V's malfunction policy, Region V's States malfunction
regulations and to, provide assistance to the States outside of Region V in reviewing
their malfunction regulations.
17, KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
a. DESCRIPTORS b.lDENTIFI
Air Pollution Malfunc
13. OISTRISUTION STATEMENT 19. SECURI
None
Unlimited _ 20. SECURI
None
ERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS C. COSATI Field/Group
rtion 13 B
TY CLASS (This Report} 21 . NO. OF PAGES
72
TY CLASS (This page) 22. PRICE
i
EPA Form 2220-1 (9-73)
------- |