e c-P-1q9P-2-5 

9 

UNITE0 STATES ENVIRONMENPRL PROTECTION AGENCY 

WASHlN~TON. D.C. 20160 

FEB 151983 

OFFICE OF 

AIR. NOISE AND RADIATION 

MEMORANDUM 

SUBJECT: Policy on Excess Emissions During Startup, Shutdown, 

- 

FROM: Administrator 

for Air, Noise and Radiation 

TO : Regional Administrators, Regions I-X 

I have 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 to whether 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 a malfunction 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 

omation of chemicals vhich would cause severe damage to 

control equipment if the effluent were allowed to pass through 

the control equipent. 

Therefore, during this latter situation, if effluent'gases - 

are bypassed which cause an emission limitation to be exceeded, 

this excess need not be treated as a violationlfiif the source 

can showthat the excesses could not have been prevented through 

careful and prudent planning and design an&khat bypassing was 

unavoidable to prevent loss of life, personal injury, or severe 

property damage. 

I have clarified the policy concerning this 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, SIP provisions 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 for malfunctions. 

The term mexcess emission" 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,appropriate State agency that 

the excess emissions', though constituting. a violation, were due 

to an unavoidable malfunction.. Any malfunction provision must 

source. of its ,violation and to .determine whether enforcement 

action should be undertaken for any period .of excess-emissions. 

LIMITATION ADEQUATE TO ATTAIN AMBIENT STANDARDS 

,, . .,- ." 

S,uch an approach can require 

. .. provide for the 'commencement of a proceeding to notify the 

In determining whether an enforcement. action.is appropriate, .. . 

satisfaction'of'the following criteria should be considered. 

I 

, '3. 

.. . .. . .. . 1. TO-the maximum extent practicable the air pollution . ' , '6 

control equipment., process equipment, or processes were maintained' 

and operated in a manner consistent'with good practice for 

'* * .. .. . .. 

minimizing emissions;. .. . . 

2'. Repairs we're 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 ,hen utilized, to the extent practicable, to ensure 

that such repairs were made as expeditiously.as practicable: . 

(including any bypass) were minimized to the maximum extent 

. ' 

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

practicable .during .. 1. ' periods .> of .. such emissions: ., i; 

4. ,All possible steps:were taken to minimize .the impact 

The excess emissions 'are not.part of a recurring' 

of the excess emissions on.ambient air quality: and 

pattern indicative .of' inadequate design,' .operation,. or maintenance. ".' 

,' 

5. 

11. EXCESS EMISSIONS DURING STARTUP, SHUTDOWN, AND f 

-. ; 7. .. ir . MAINTENANCE 

Any'actlvity 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 been avoided by better operation and 

maintenance practice.is not a malfunction. ' In such cases, .the 

control agency must enforce for violations of the emission 

limitation. Other such common 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 to prevent loss of life, 

personal injury, or severe property damage. 

shutdown due to a malfunction, then those instances will be 

treated as other malfunctions which are subject to the malfunction 

provisions of this policy. (Reference Part I above). 

which can be scheduled at the discretion of the operator, and 

which can, therefore, be made to coincide 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 could have 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 *. UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460 / 

.. c s 

OFFICE OF 

28 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'sponse to. 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 .were often included as. part of 

the original SIPs approved in 1971 and 1972. . Because the 

Agency,was inundated with proposed SIPs and had limited 

experience in processing then,: Qot enough attention was given 

to the adequacy, enforceability, and consistency,of these 

provisions.. , .Consequently, many SIPs .were approved 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. .This policy disallowed automatic 

exemptions by defining all periods of excess emlssions as . violations of the applicable standard. States can, of course, 

consider any demonstration by tn e 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 to granting 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 to what extent 

operating permits can be used to address excess emissions in 

cases where 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 b e consistent with the attached policy. Where the SIP 

is deficient, the SIP Should D e 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. 

.~ .. . -. .. 

Several of the existins State inplenardation plans (SIFs) 

provide for an autonatic.enission,linitation,.exenption durinq 

'periods.of excess eniesicn'due to start-uc. shutzown, .. - iaintenance. or malfunction. * Generally,* EPA'.ccrees that the 

imposition of a penalty for sueden and unavoidable 

malfunctions caused by circunstances entirely beyond the .- 

control of the Owner and/or.ogerator is nct appropriate. 

However, any activity which can be f oreseen 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 ,air quality. 

standards, 'SIP provisions on Malfunctions must be narrowly 

'drawn. SIPS may, of course, onit any provision on 

malfunctions.. , [For more specific guidance on malfunction 

provisions for RACT SIPS, see the April 107e workshop manual 

for preparing 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 air quality so as not to provide for 

attainment of the ambient air quality standards. MMitional 

qrounds for disapproving a SIP that includes the automatic 

exemption approach are discussed in more 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 for malfunctions. 

11. ENFORCEMENT DISCRETION APPROACH--SIP EMISSION LIMITATION 

AEECUATE TO ATTAIN AMBIENT STANDARDS 

EPA can approve SIP revisions which incorporate the 

:enforcement discretion approach". Such an approach can 

rewire the source to demonstrate td the auvrooriate State -. __ .- -- - 

agency tn at m e excess emssions. m ouan constatutrnq a 

violation, were due to an unavoidable malfunction. Any 

malfunction - Drovisron must crovide for the commencement of a 

proceeding & notify the source of its violation and to 

determine vhether enforceaent action should be undertaken for 

any period of excess edssione. In determininq whether an 

enforcement action is appropriate, satisfaction of the 

following criteria should be considered: 

The term "excess emission" means an air emission rate which 

exceeds any applicable emission limitation. and 

"malfunction' means a mudden and unavoidable breakdown 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 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 the extent practicable, to ensure 

that such repairs were made as expeditiously as practicable; 

3. The 'amount and 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 steps were 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, 

or planned, 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 to expect that caresul Dlannina - will elim inate 

violations OS emission Limitations-auring sucn Perl==- 

If excess emissions occur huring 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 th e operator, and 

which can therefore be made to coincide with maintenance on 

Similarly, scheduled maintenance is a predictable event 
production 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 maintenaqce or thr0ug.h ,- , , 

- better operation and maintenance practices.. .. . ...... -. .. 

.. . ~- . ., ..