Opinion ID: 621128
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Limits on Flares during SSM

Text: Montana Sulphur contends that the EPA acted arbitrarily and capriciously by imposing numerical limits on flaring emissions during periods of unusual operations such as SSM. The FIP requires that emissions not exceed 150 lbs/3 hrs and also provides an affirmative defense to penalties for emissions that are beyond the company's control, such as during unusual events like SSM. See 73 Fed.Reg. at 21,431-21,437 (addressing comments to FIP); 73 Fed.Reg. at 21,459 (flare requirements); 73 Fed.Reg. at 21,464-21,465 (affirmative defense). Montana Sulphur argues that: a numerical limit on flaring emissions is infeasible and violations will assuredly occur, see Bunker Hill Co. v. EPA, 572 F.2d 1286 (9th Cir.1977); the EPA is acting inconsistently with its history of exempting flaring during SSM; the 150 lb./3-hour figure is based on unsupported state modeling; no deference should be given to the EPA's internal excess emissions policy (the EEP) [8] ; and enforcement discretion cannot compensate for infeasible requirements, see Marathon Oil Co. v. EPA, 564 F.2d 1253 (9th Cir.1977). In turn, the EPA responds that it must provide for attainment of NAAQS at all times so a total exemption for SSM during flaring is inadequate, see Sierra Club v. EPA, 551 F.3d 1019 (D.C.Cir.2008); it is reasonable to encourage minimizing flare emissions, whether they are routine or during SSM; the numerical requirements are generally consistent with longstanding internal policies such as the EEP, see Ariz. Public Serv. Co. v. EPA, 562 F.3d 1116, 1129 (10th Cir.2009); and the FIP provides relief for truly unavoidable emissions with an affirmative defense to penalties, 73 Fed.Reg. at 21,464-21,465. Although not always consistently employed, as early as 1983, the EPA adopted a policy requiring continuous compliance with the Clean Air Act requirements but acknowledging that some leeway might be necessary for unusual events such as SSM. [9] In 1999, the EPA's EEP identified several SIPs that did not comply with its policy and urged regions to review for compliance; this later memo also clarified that while outright exemptions for SSM were not acceptable, states could adopt an affirmative defense to penalties for unforeseeable and unavoidable exceedances, although noting that this may not be appropriate for SO2 emissions where attainment problems are caused by one or only a few sources. The FIP here contains such an affirmative defense, and the EPA indicates that other regulatory agencies, including the State of Colorado and Maricopa County, Arizona, have adopted similar criteria. 73 Fed.Reg. at 21,432. The EPA explains that although including the defense in the FIP is a slight deviation from the EEP (because in the Billings/Laurel area one or more sources may have the potential to cause an exceedance of the SO2 limits), [10] experience since the time the EEP was issued led the agency to conclude that the elements of the affirmative defense provide a very significant incentive for facilities to do all they can to comply with their emission limits and that this approachnumerical limits plus the affirmative defenseappropriately and reasonably addresses industry concerns regarding safety. 73 Fed.Reg. at 21,435. Other circuits have endorsed the EPA's position that the Clean Air Act requires continuous compliance, including during SSM. The Sixth Circuit rejected a challenge to the EPA's disapproval of a Michigan SIP which had provided an automatic exemption from emission limits during SSM. Mich. Dep't of Envtl. Quality v. Browner, 230 F.3d 181 (6th Cir.2000). The Sixth Circuit deferred to the EPA's interpretation of the Clean Air Act that broad exclusions from compliance with emissions limitations during SSM could jeopardize ambient air quality and upheld the SIP disapproval. Id. at 185; see also Ariz. Public Serv. Co., 562 F.3d at 1127, 1129 (rejecting challenge to EPA's refusal to exempt excess emissions caused by malfunctions, and concluding that the policy is a reasonable interpretation of the Clean Air Act because excess emissions resulting from malfunctions are violations of the Clean Air Act, for such emissions can interfere with attainment of the national air standards). In fact, when the EPA attempted to be more lax under another section of the Clean Air Act by permitting good work practices for emissions during SSM events rather than imposing numerical emission limits, the D.C. Circuit concluded that the SSM exemption violates the [Clean Air Act's] requirement that some section 112 standard apply continuously, and vacated the exemption. Sierra Club, 551 F.3d at 1028. Montana Sulphur also contends that the actual numerical limits imposed by the EPA are arbitrary, going beyond what is necessary to satisfy the NAAQS, claiming the EPA simply seized upon and accepted Montana's decision to impose a 150 lb/3-hour limitation on flares. However, in response to a similar comment, the EPA explained in its final rule: Emission inputs to the model were established using criteria contained in 40 CFR part 51, Appendix W, Section 8. The emission limits set by the modeling analysis are based on emission rates that would just meet the NAAQS. They are not based on arbitrary limits that go far beyond protecting the NAAQS. For example, with the limits we are establishing and the SIP limits we approved, our modeling resulted in a high value of 354 µg/m which would exactly meet the 24-hour SO2 NAAQS of 365 µg/m when background concentrations of 11 µg/m are considered. 73 Fed.Reg. at 21,439 (emphasis added). Finally, the EPA acknowledges that violations are likely inevitable, but relies on the provision of an affirmative defense to compensate for the infeasibility problem. Montana Sulphur claims that the possibility of enforcement discretion is insufficient to require compliance with an infeasible limitation. However, here the EPA does not rely on enforcement discretion alone, but specifically promulgates an affirmative defense in the FIP, which clearly defines the requirements to avoid penalties. Although Montana Sulphur argues that there is no rational basis to limit the affirmative defense to penalties and that the defense should extend to injunctive relief as well, the EPA persuasively explains that [t]here could be instances in which malfunctions are unavoidable based on current plant layout and operating parameters but in which some form of corrective action would still be appropriate and that it is reasonable to retain the authority to seek injunctive relief for all exceedances of emission limits so that we remain able to protect the NAAQS, regardless of source `culpability' for any specific exceedance. 73 Fed.Reg. at 21,435-21,437. In sum, we conclude that the EPA reasonably interpreted the Clean Air Act to require continuous limits on emissions and that the actual numerical limits imposed by the FIP are neither arbitrary nor capricious.