# ec-P-1q9P-2-5 9 UNITE0STATESENVIRONMENPRLPROTECTIONAGENCY WASHlN~TON. D.C. 20160 

# FEB 151983 OFFICEOF AIR. NOISEANDRADIATION MEMORANDUM SUBJECT: Policy 

### on Excess Emissions During Startup, Shutdown, 

# -FROM: Administrator 

### for Air, Noise and Radiation 

### TO: Regional Administrators, Regions I-X Ihave been asked to clarify my memorandum of September 28, 1982, concerning policy 

### on excess emissions.during startup and shutdown. Specifically, 

### I stated that "startup and shutdown of process equipment are part 

### of the normal operation of a source and should be accounted for in the design and iwementation

### 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 during such periods.. 

### I further stated that '[ilf excess emissions occur during routine startup and shutdown of such equipment, they will be considered as having resulted from a malfunction only 

## . if the source can demonstrate that such emissions were actually caused by a sudden and unforeseeable breakdown in the equipment.. A question has been posed 

### as towhether there can be situations in which it 

### is unreasonable to expect that careful planning can eliminate violations of emission limitations during startup and shutdown. 

### I believe that there can be such. in the policy, 

### is amalfunction occurring during these period$.. A malfunction during startup or shutdown 

### is to be handled as any other malfunction 

### in accordance with the policy as presently written. and design will not totally eliminate infrequent short periods of excesses during startup and shutdown. An example 

### of this situation would be a source that starts up 

### or shuts down once Or twice a year and during that period there are 

### a few hours when the temperature of the effluent gas 

### is too lo\j to prevent harmful situations. One such situation, which was already mentioned i

Another situation 

### is one in which careful and prudent plan'ning

# I- 2 omationof chemicalsvhichwould 

### cause severe damage to controlequipment if theeffluentwere allowed topass through the control equipent. Therefore, during thislatter situation, if effluent'gases

## - arebypassed which cause an emission limitationtobe exceeded, thisexcess need 

### not be treated asa violationlfiif the source 

### can showthat the

### excesses could 

### not have been prevented through careful and prudent planning and design an&khat bypassing was unavoidable toprevent 

### loss 

### of life, 

### personal 

### injury, or severe property damage. I have clarified thepolicy concerningthis issue. A copy 

### is attached. 

### .. Attachment

~. 1. ..

.. .. I. 

### . . . .i .. r ., . .. .. '-1.

## - .

I .. ..

.. .I 

### '. i' i ,,I. ' '~ ..

## ".

.. ., ..
I- .. .. I, .. .. ..

,. 

### . < ..

.. ~ .. I

~ ,. .. . -

. 

### .. , .

.

### .. 

## . ,~- 

### . .t ,..,..

.. . .. .. .. ,. . : 

## ..:.rr , .. . . , 

### . . ..,I; . '%. , .. f .. . . .-

..

.I. .. e.' 

### '.

### ., .. ..

,. ..

.. -. . .. .. 5'. *.\ . 

## .

.. .. ... ..

.. ,. , ,,. .

.. i ..

. . :. .. .. 

### .. -. .. .. . ,, .,. .

### .. 

## .'.

.

..

.. .- 

### . 

# ..

.. / -' 

# . - Attachment POLICY ON EXCESS EMISSIONS DURING STARTUP, SHUTDOWN, UAINTENANCE, AND MALFUNCTIONS 

## - Introduction Several of the existing State implementation plans (SIPS) provide for an automatic emission limitation exemption during periods of excess emission due to startup, shutdown, maintenance, or malfunction.' Generally, EPA agrees that the imposition 

### of a penalty for sudden and unavoidable malfunctions caused by circumstances entirely beyond the control 

### of the owner and/or operator is not appropriate. However, any activity which can be foreseen and avoided, or planned, is not within the definition of 

### a sudden and unavoidable breakdown. Since the SIPs must provide for attainment and maintenance of the national ambient 

### air quality standards, SIPprovisions on malfunctions must be narrowly drawn. SIPS may, a€course, omit any provisions on malfunctions. [For more specific guidance 

### on malfunction provisions €or

### RACT SIPs, see the April 1978 workshop manual for preparing nonattainment plans]. I. EXCESS EMISSION FROM MALFUNCTIONS 

## -

A. AUTOMATIC EXEMPTION APPROACH L If a SIP contains a malfunction provision, it cannot be the type that provides for automatic exemption where a malfunction

~ is alleged by a source. Automatic exemptions might aggravate air quality 

### so as not to provide for attainment of the ambient 

### air quality Standards. Additional grounds for disapproving a SIP that includes the automatic exemption approach are discussed 

### in more detail at 

### 42 PR 58171 (November 8, 1977) and 42

### PR 21372 (April 27, 1977). As a result, EPA cannot approve any SIP revisions that provides automatic exemptions formalfunctions. The term mexcessemission" means an air emission rate jhich exceeds any applicable emission limitation, and 'malfurrctionm means a sudden and unavoidable breakdown of process 

### or control equipaent.

# .. -

., -.. 2

.. .. .r E. ENFORCEMENT DISCRETION .APPROACH--SIP EMISSION EPA can approve SIP revisions which incorporate the sinforcement discretion approach". the source ,to',demonstrate to the,appropriateState agency that the excess emissions', though constituting. a violation, were due to an unavoidable malfunction.. Any malfunction provision must source. 

### of its,violationand to .determinewhether enforcement action should be undertaken for any period .ofexcess-emissions. LIMITATION ADEQUATE TO ATTAIN AMBIENT STANDARDS

,,

## ..,- ." S,uchan approach can require



### .

.. provide for the 'commencementof a proceeding tonotify the In determining whether an enforcement.action.isappropriate,

.. . satisfaction'of'the following criteria should be considered. I

,'3.

... .. 

### . .. . 

### 1. TO-the maximum extent practicable the airpollution

. ' , '6 control equipment.,process equipment, 

### or processes were maintained' and operated in a manner consistent'withgood practice for '**

.. .. 

### . ..

.. 

### . minimizing emissions;. 

## . 2'. Repairs we're made in an expeditious'fashion when the .. operator .knewor should have known that applicable emission limitations were being exceeded. Off-shift labor and overtime must have 

### ,henutilized, to the extent 

### practicable, to ensure that suchrepairswere made as expeditiously.aspracticable: 

### . (includingany bypass) were minimized tothemaximum extent 

### . ' 3.. The amount and duration .of'the"excess emissSons

.. practicable .during 1. 'periods .> of

.. suchemissions: ., i; 4. ,Allpossible steps:were taken tominimize .theimpact The excess emissions 'arenot.partof a recurring' 

### of the excess emissions on.ambientair quality: and pattern indicative .of' inadequate design,'.operation,. 

### or maintenance. ".' ,' 5. 11. EXCESS EMISSIONS DURING STARTUP, SHUTDOWN, AND 

### f ; 7. 

## -. .. ir



### . MAINTENANCE Any'actlvityor'eventwhich can 

### be foreseen and 'avoided, - orplanned, falls outside of the'definition

### of sudden and.;
' unavoidable breakdown of equipment. For example, a sudden.
. breakdown which could have been avoided by better operation and maintenance practice.isnot a malfunction. ' In such cases, .the control agency must enforce for violations of the emission limitation. Other suchcommon events are startup and shutdown of equipment, and scheduled maintenance.

I...- .. ..

### . .. . .. . ' ... ... .. 

### .. 

# '.

.

. 

# . .-.. 

# ..

. .. . * .3 

# - startup and shutdown 

### of process equipment are part 

### of the normal operation of a source and should be accounted for in the planning, design and implementation of operating procedures 

### for the process and control equipment. Accordingly, it is 'reasonable to expect that careful and prudent planning and design will eliminate violations of emission limitations during such periods. 

## - However, for a few sources there may exist infrequent short periods of excess emissions during startup and shutdown which cannot be avoided. Excess emissions during these infrequent short periods need not be treated 

### as violations providing that the source adequately shows that the excess could not have been prevented through careful planning and design and that bypassing of control equipment was unavoidable toprevent loss of life, personal injury, 

### or severe property damage. shutdown due toa malfunction, then those instances will be treated as othermalfunctions which are subject to themalfunction provisions of thispolicy. (ReferencePart I above). which can be scheduled at the discretion 

### of the operator, and which can, therefore, bemade tocoincide wirh maintenance on production equipment, 

### or other source shutdowns. Consequently, excess emissions during periods 

### of scheduled maintenance should be treated as

### a violation unless a source can demonstrate that such emissions couldhave 

### been avoided through better scheduling for maintenance 

### or through better operation and maintenance practises. / 

## -

If excess emissions occur during routine startup and Similarly, scheduled mafnteqnce 

### is a predictable event 

## -

!e-

- f' i .. 

# ....... .. .


### . . ...

### .. 

# I
2 

# *. UNITEDSTATESENVIRONMENTALPROTECTIONAGENCY WASHINGTON,D.C. 20460 /



### .. c OFFICEOF 

# s28

# m.

.. I.

,, AIR.,NOISE'AND RADIATION '. 

### .. , : .. I. MEMORANDUM ' ,., * I. 

### .. ..
. : .. -. .. .. .' SUBJECT: Policy on Excess Emissions During Startup,:Shutdown,. Maintenance, and Malfunctionsi' ' 

# - - FROM: Kathleen TO: Assistant 

### ,.

., .. .. .. .. . ..,'.Regiional Administrators, Regions 'I-X:- '*. , 3 ? .. This memorandum 

### is in re'sponseto.a request *for. 

### a
Excess'emission provisions for 'startup,..shutdown, ., .. 

### . . clarification of EPA'S policy relating to excess:emissions ..,. during startup, shutdown, maintenance, and malfunctions. maintenance, and malfunctions .wereoften included as. part 

### of the original SIPs approved in 1971 and 1972.

.Because the Agency,wasinundated with proposed SIPs and had limited experience in processing then,: Qot enough attention was given to the adequacy, enforceability, and consistency,ofthese provisions..
,.Consequently, many SIPs .wereapproved with broad and loosely-defined provisions to control excess emissions.
., .. .. ., 

### .. 3

'

.



### .-. ,

### . , , . ,

### . .. In 1978,.EPA adopted an excess emissions policy after many, less effective attempts.to rectify problems .that existed with these provisions. .Thispolicy disallowed automatic exemptions by defining all periods of excess emlssions as 

## . violations of the applicable standard. States can, of course, consider any demonstration by tne source that the excess emissions were due to an unavotdable occurrence in determining whether any enforcement action 

### is required. The rationale for establishing these emissions as violations, as opposed togranting autometicfexemptions, 

### is that SIPs are ambient-based standards and any emissions above the allowable may cause or contribute to violations 

### of the na'tional ambient air quality standards. definition and limitations, these automatic exemption provisions could effectively shield excess emissions arising from poor operation and maintenance or design, thus precluding attainment. Additionally, by establishing an enforcement discretion approach and by requiring the source to demonstrate the existence of an unavoidable malfunction on the source, good maintenance procedures are indirectly encouraged. Without clear,-2- Attached 

### is a document statina EPA's present Dolicv-on excess emissions. earlier policy, with some refinement of the policy regaraing excess emissions during periods 

### or scheduiea maintenance. 

# - This dDcument basically- reiterates t6e
A question has also been raised as towhat extent operating permits can be used to address excess emissions in caseswhere the SIP 

### is silent 

### on this issue 

### or where the SIP is 

## - deficient. ere the SIP 

### is silent on excess emissions, the operating permit may contain excess emission provisions which should be consistent with the attached policy. Where the SIP is deficient, the SIP Should De made to conform to the present policy. Approval 

### of the operating permit 

### as part of the SIP would accomplish that result. contact Ed Reich at (382-2807). Attachment If you have any questions concerning this policy, please

.. ,

..

### ,__., _._-___. :.--_- -_...-__ . ._,__. .. . , , .. ,

### ..- Attachment PCLICY OM 'EXCESE EXISSIONS CURING START-UP, S~~LITEOKK, 

### *. Vi1NTEKW7CE; ~D ~PtkLFlXCTIGI4S.

.~ .. . 

### -. .. Severalof theexistins State inplenardation plans (SIFs) provide for an autonatic.enission,linitation,.exenption durinq 'periods.ofexcess eniesicn'due to start-uc. shutzown, - .. iaintenance. ormalfunction.

### * Generally,*EPA'.ccrees that the impositionof a penalty for sueden and unavoidable malfunctions caused by circunstances entirelybeyond the .- controlofthe Owner and/or.ogerator isnct appropriate. However, any activitywhich can be foreseen and avoided, or .' planned%h not within the definition of a sudden ar.d unavoidaEle hreaKdown. b ince +ne bLr s must provide for attainment and naintenance of.the national arkient,airquality. standards, 'SIPprovisions on Malfunctions must be narrowly 'drawn. SIPSmay, of course, onit any provision on malfunctions..

, [For more specific guidanceon malfunction provisions for RACT SIPS, see the April 107e workshop manual 

### forpreparing nonattainment plans.] ..



### ..

..

I. hUTOliATIC EXEMPTION APPROACH If a SIP contains a nalfuncticn Frovision, it cannot be the type that provides for automatic exemption where a malfunction is allegeekby a source. Automatic exemptions night aggravate airquality so asnot toprovide for attainment of the ambient 

### air quality standards. MMitional qrounds for disapproving a SIPthat includes the automatic exemption approach are discussed

### inmore detail at 42 FR 58171 (November 8. 19771 and 42 FR 21372 (ADril 27. 1977). As a result, EPA-cannot approve any SIP rebision 

### that provides automatic exemptions formalfunctions. 11. ENFORCEMENT DISCRETION APPROACH--SIP EMISSION LIMITATION AEECUATE TO ATTAIN AMBIENT STANDARDS EPA can approve SIPrevisions which incorporate the Such an approach can :enforcement discretion approach". rewire the sourcetodemonstrate

### tdthe auvrooriate State -. 

# - -- 

# .- __ agency tn at m e excess emssions. m ouan constatutrnq a violation, were due to an unavoidable malfunction. Any malfunctionDrovisron must crovide for the commencement of a

- proceeding

## & notify the source of its violation and to determinevhether enforceaent action should be undertaken for any period of 

### excess edssione. 

### Indetermininq whether an enforcement actionis appropriate, satisfaction of the followingcriteria shouldbe considered: The term 

### "excess emission" means an 

### airemission rate which exceeds any applicable emission limitation. and "malfunction' means a mudden and unavoidablebreakdown of process or control equipment.1. To the maximum extent practicable the air pollution control equipment, process equipment, 

### or processes were maintained and operated in a manner consistent with godd. practice forminimizing 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 the extent practicable, to ensure that such repairs were made as expeditiously as practicable; 3. The 'amountand duration of the excess emissions (including any bypass) were minimized to the maximum extent practicable during periods of such emissions; of the excess emissions on ambient air quality: and pattern indicative of inadequate design, operation, or maintenance. 111. EXCESS EMISSIONS DURING START-UP, SHUTDOWN, AND 

## -

I 

# -
4. All possible stepswere taken to minimize the impact 5. The excess emissions are not part 

### of a recurring

MAINTENANCE Any activity'or event which can be foreseen and avoided, orplanned, falls outside of the definition of sudden and unavoidable breakdown of equipment. For example, a sudden breakdown which could have been avoided by better operation and maintenance practices 

### is not a malfunction. In such cases, the control agency must enforce for violations of the emission limitation. Other such common events are start-up and shutdown of equipment, and scheduled maintenance.

31 equipment. Accordingly, it 

### is reasonabie toexpect that caresul Dlannina will elim 

## - inate violations OS emission Limitations-auring sucn Perl==- If 

### excess 

### emissions occurhuring rdutine start-up and shutdown

### of such equipment, they will be considered as having resulted 

### from a malfunction only if the source can demonstrate that such emissions were actually caused by a sudden and unforeseeable breakdown in the equipment.' which can be scheduled at the discretion of the operator, and which can therefore be made to coincide with maintenance on Similarly, scheduled maintenance is a predictable eventproduction equipment, Of other source shitdowns. Xonsequently, excess emlSslOns -

## ___ auting 

## - perioas of scheduled maintenance sh-as a violat'ion unless a source can demonstrate that SUCK einissions could not have been -

~~ avoided through better scheduling 

### for maintenaqceor thr0ug.h,- , , 

## - better operation and maintenance practices.. 

### .. 

## . ...... -. ..
.. 

## . ~- 

# . ., ..