., . ': ,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 1978 J .

# ~~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

, '

, 

## .

, "



### . '