., . 

': 

,UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTI'ON AGENCY 

WASHINGTON, D.C. ZOUO 

, . .. 

SEP -." 28 112. . OFFICE OF , .' AIR., NOISE'AND RAOIATION 

MEMORANDUM 

,.'	 '. 

SUBJECT:	 Policy on E~cess Emis~fons Durin~ Startup,: Shutdown,.
 .Mai~tenance, and Malfu~ctions" >:.. .', .-·...r·
 

FROM: '	 . Kathleen M. Bennett ,'IJ{{l~JJ.ii,~}'1), !)../,,11. 'J~/. .
 

,Assistant Administrator for Air, Noise and Radiation
 . .' ...., . " 

TO: " . Regi:onal .•	 

Administrators, Regions' I-~,'~ " 

.'1.' r' 

This memorandum is in response to. a request 'for. a' .
 clarification of EPA's policy relating to excess: emissions
 

during startup, shutdown, maintenance, and malfunctions.
 . , , ,) . 

. Excess' em'ission provisions for 'start~p~',shutdown, ." .. ,
 maintenance, and malfunctions were often included a~ part of
 

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

Agency ,was inundated with proposed SIPs and had limited'
 , experience in processing them,: Ilot enough atte.ntion was given 

to the adequacy, enforceability, and consistency.of these , provisions.' ,C,onsequently, many SIPs .were apPJ;C?ved with broad 

and loosely-defined provisions to control excess emissions. 

. '.In 1978J . ~~A ~~d~pteda~ 'ex'ces~' e~iSSiO'~' POli~ afte~ . .' 

many, less effective attempts.. to. recEIfy P!'Qb~ems ..£hat fixist4!td
 

wi th these prov.isions. . This policy disallowed automatic, , .
 exem tions defin!'n all rioas of excess emissions as" ,
 

v 0 at ons 0 t e app ca e s an ar. States can, of course,
 

consider any demonstration by the source that the excess •
 

emissIons were due .£0 an unavoidable occurrence In determining
 whether any enforcement actIon 18 requIred.
 

The rationale for establishing these emiSSiOnS as
 

violations, as opposed to granting automaticfexemptions, is
 

that SIPS ,are ambient-based standards and 'anJ emissions above
 

the allowable may cause or contribute to violations of the
 

national ambient air quality standards. Without clear
 

definition and limitations, these automatic exemption .
 provisions could effectively shield,excess emi.sions arising
 from poor operation and maintenance or design,thu8 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.
 

.' 
·, 

, -2­

Attached is a doeument stating EPA',s present poliey -on 

excess emisslons. This document basically reiterates the 

ear.lier policy, ~ith some refinement of the policy regarding 

excess emiSSlons during perlods of scheduled maintenance. 

is 

-' 

If you have any questions concerning this policy, please 

contact Ed Reich at (382-2807). 

Attachment 

,
 

'i 
•••• _ •• .,--_--•• t .....--"--... -.- • . , .' _., ..­ !o.' • '.	 • 

Attachment 

POLICY ON EXCESS EMISSIONS DURING STAnT-CPr SHUTDOh~,

" :- . t->AIlJ'rD:ANCI:, AND '~LFU~C'l"lCl~S.

I.	 ACTOl·iATIC EXEMPTION APPROACH 

If a SIP contains a m.lfuncticn.~rovi8ion, it cannot b& 

the type that provides .for·automatic exemption where a 

malfunction ·is alleged iobya source.· Automatic exemptions' 

m1ght aggravate air quality so a8 not to provide for 

attainment of the ambient air quality standards. Additional 

grounds for disapproving a SIP that includes ~~ automatic 

exemption approach are discusaed in more detail at 42 FR 58171 

(Uovember.8, 1977) and 42 FR 21372 (April 21, 1977). .As a 

result, EPA cannot approve any SIP revision that erovides 

automatic exemptions for malfunctions. . 

II.	 ENFORCEMENT DISCRETION AfPROACH--SIP EMISSION LIMITATION 

ADEC·UATE TO ATTAIN »mIEST S':'ANDARDS . 

EP~ can approve SIP revisions Which incorporate the ~enforeement discretion afproach-. ·Such an approach can 

require the 80urce to a~on8trate t4 ~e appropriate Stete 

ageney thit tH! excell ern;siXon.. ,Gougn cons~f~y£&nq ! 

v4.olation, were due to an unavoidabl~ J!lalfunct1on. Any 

malfunctIon prOV1810D must provIde for the commencement of a 

proc:eed1.Dv to not.ify the source of 'its violation and to 

determine Whether enforc~nt action shoul~ be undertaken tor 

any 'period of exc.e. emission.. In determining whether an 

enforcement action is appropriate(satiefaction of ~e

followinq criteria ahould be cons1deredl 

•	 '!'he term "excess emission· means an air' emission rate Which 

exceeds any applicable emission limitation, and . -malfunction- means a sudden and unavoidable breakdown of 

process or control equipcent. 
. . .. .,	 .. ' ..' .'_t._.·.I'.. . -:, . _ .. '. '..:~.':.	 .' 

.. 

f· -.' 

, I • 

1.' To the maximum extent practicable the air pollution

control equipment, process equipment, or processes were 

maintain.d and operated in a manner consistent with gOOd. practice for minimizing emissions; . . 

. 2. ~epairs were made in an· expeditious fashion when the 

operator kne." or should h~ve known that applicable emission ­ limitations were being exceeded. Off-shift labor and overtime 

must have been utilized, to the extent practicable, to ensure t~t such repairs were made as expeditiously as practi~able:

3. The amount and duration of the excess emissions
 

(including any bypass) were mlnimize~ to the maximum .xtent
 

practicable during periods 'of su~h emissions; .
 

4. All possible steps were ·taken to minimize the impact of the excess emissions on ambient air quality; an~

. s. The 'excess emissions are not pa~t of .a recurring
 

pattern indicative of inadequate design, operation, or
 

maintenance. . . . 

III.	 EXCESS EMISSIONS. DURING START-UP, SHUTDOWN, AND
 

MAINtENANCE
 

Any activity l<or event which can be· foreseen and avo,ided, 

or planned, falls outside of the definition of sudden and 

unavoidable breakdown of equipment. Por example, a su~~en

breakdown which could have been avoided by better operation and maintenance practices. is not a malfunction. 'Insuch 

cases, the control agency must enforce for violations of.the 

emission limitation" Other such C9mmon events are start-up and shutdown of equipment, and scheduled .maintenance. " 

. ,Start-up and shutdown of process equi~ent are part of 

the normal operation of a source ana shoul be accounted for 

in the deslan and fiDlemenEaElon of ,the operating procedure

for the process and control equipment. Accordingly, it is 

reasonable to ex ct that care ul planning will eltmiftitil 

v 0 at ona 0 .s.. m a ons ur r 

, . 1 . 

If e~c... ..Is.Ions occur during rOutine start-up and 

shutdown of such' equipment, they will be considered as hav.ing

resulted from. malfunction only if the source can demonstrate 

that such .missions were actually caused by a sudden and 

unforeseeable breakdown in the equipment; . 

Similarly, scheduled maintenance'is a predictable event
 

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

which·can therefore'be made to coincide with maintenance on
 
•••.••_ - .. ..:. ••_... •••.•. .;. •••" '-.w f _ ••• 'O. 

,.. -. . .. ­ . ~.' . . :" 

. , \­

II _ •.•.• 

,maintenance shoul<1 be 

or otJ:ler source, sh~tdowns.' " 

m u of scheduled 

treated "88"-'8 v 0 etlon unless a sOurce 

can demonsEraEe tliaE su'cn' em~5s1on., could not have Seen' , 

avolded through bett~~ scheduling for JPa~nten~f1ce'or through 

better opera1;ion and m~i~tenanee pract'~ees•. ' .. , 

- .:.;'" "". 

-' 

,', 

" 

',' 

" . 

.'" 

" 

. ". 

" . 

' . .' .., 

, . .,. .. 

.. 

j 

, ' 

, . , " 

.'