\

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

. WASH1NCfTON, D".C. ZlJ...O

FEB \ 51983

OFFICE OF

AIR. NOISE AND RAOIATION

MEMORANDUM

SUBJECT:

FROM:

TO:

Policy on Excess Emissions During Startup, Shutdown,

Main,i7.,'?t.~~~~~~ e~~ons .. . .: .

Ka~~~nett, Assistant Administrator

for Air, Noise and Rad.iation

Reyionai 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 tha~ -startup and shutdown of

process equipment are part of the normal operation of. a source

and should be accounted for in the. design and implementation 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 -[i1f 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

planniny can eliminate violations of emission limitations

during startup and shutdown.. I believe that there can be such.

situations. one such situation, which was already mentioned }

in the policy, is a malfunction occurring during these periods.,

A malfunction during startup or.shutdown is to be handled as ' any other malfunction in accordance with the policy as

presently written.

Another situation is one in which careful and prudent planning

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 low to prevent harmful
, '

.1

•

2

ormation of chemicals which would cause severe damage to

control equipment if the effluent were allowed to pass through

the control equipment.

Therefore, during this latter situation, if effluent' gasesare bypassed which cause an emission limitation to be exceeded,

this excess need not be treated as a violationlfllf the source· . ,can showz tha,t the excesses could not have been ,prevented, through c~reful and prudent planning and design an~~hat bypassing was . unavoidahle to prevent loss of life, personal injury', or severe

property damage. -. '

I have clarified the policy concerning this issue. A copy

is attached. '

Attachment

.. '..

c

«,

-)

',' ',', ..

. .1

'.

"

.,

" i

; .... '

'" .

- ,

r

,

- ,

,"

. ,; .

, .- ..

,',

I

,

•
\ . . ..

• /

Attltchment

POLICY ON .EXCESS EMISSIONS DURING STARTUP, SHUTDOWN,

MAINTENANCE, 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 planne~ 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, of course, omit ,any provisions on

'., malfunctions. [For more specific guidance.on malfunction

provisions for RACT SIPs, see the April 1978 workshop manual

for preparing nonattainment plans}. . '

I. EXCESS EMISSION FROM MALFUNCTIONS

A. AUTOMATIC, EXEMPTION APPROACH

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 FR 58171CNovember 8, 1977) and 42 FR

21372 CApril 27, 1977). As a result, EPA cannot approve any

SIP revisions that provides automatic exemptions for malfunctions.

I

• The term -excess emission- means an air emission rate Jhich

exceeds any applicable emission·limitation,and -lIialfuJrctionmeans a sudden and unavoidable breakdown of process or . control equipment.
..

2

B. ENFORCEMENT DISCRETION APPROACH--SIP EMISSION

LIMITATION ADEQUATE TO ATTAIN AMBIENT STANDARDS

EPA can approve SIP revisions which incorporate the'" ',.

-enforcement discr~tion approach-•. Such an approach can require

the source ,to .cl:emonstrate to the, appropriate State agency that

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

tO,an unavoidable malfunction.' Any malfunction provision must

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

source of its violation and to determine whether enforcement

action should be undertaken for any period of excess emissions.

In determining whether an enforcement action· is appropriate, satisfaction' of 'the following criteria should be considered. ,,}. .• . I • . .

1. To the maximum extent practicable the air pollution control equipment, process equipment, or processes were maintained'

and operated in a manner consistent with good practice for

minimizing emis'si~ns7'- . , .-

2. Repairs we're made in an expeditious fashion when the

operator knew or should have known that applicable e~ission

limitations were being exceeded. Off-shift labor and overtime

must have been utilized, to the extent praaticable, to ensure

that such repairs were made as expeditiously as practicable7

3. The amount and duration of the excess emissions

(inciuding any bypass) were minimized to the maximum extent,

practicable .during, periods of such emissions7 " . , ' l. ' . .,' '. . " .•

- I . . . . .

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

of the ,excess emissions on ambient air qualitY7 and .'

. .

..

5.

pattern

The excess emissions 'are not part of a recurring indicative ,of' inadequate design, operation, or maintenance.

II. EXCESS EMISSIONS DURING STARTUP, SHUTDOWN, AND

MAINTENANCE I

i

;,

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 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 proeedures 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 ~s 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. '

If excess emissions occur'duringroutine startup and'

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).

Simi larly, scheduled malnten,ance" is a' pred ictable event

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

which can, therefore, be'made to coincide, with 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

practij:es. ,

I

j

,
" '

,UNITED STATES EN VIRONMENTAL PROTECTI'ON AGENCY

WASHINGTON, D.C. zona

OFFICE OF

AIR., NOISEANO RAOIATION

MEMORANDUM , .. ' I .' .~ . "

SUBJECT:

FROM:

Policy on E~cess Emissions During' Startup,: Shutdown,.

,Mai~tenance, and Malfu,:,ctions·' .: , ,-·"r· , Kathleen H,. Bennett tJ{(l-lJ..bt~h)· h.·tAi. ? ..J. ,

,Assistant Ad~inistrator for Air, Noise and Radiation

TO: '. Regi'onal Administrators, Regions' I-X.'- I , - . -: .

"

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. " ". )

, Exce'ss' 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,: flot enough att'e,ntion was given

to the adequacy, enforceability, and consistency ,of these , provisions.' ,C,onsequently, many SIPs ,were apprqved wfth broad

and loosely-defined provisions to control exc~ss emissions. .... .. ~,' L •

.. '

The rationale for establishing these emissions as

violations, as opposed to granting automaticiexe~ptioris, is

that SIPs ,are ambient-based standards and 'an~ 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 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.

.'
..

. -2-

Attached is a document stating EPA '.s present policy -on

excess emissions. This dpcument basically reiterates the

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

excess emlSSlons durlng perlods of scheduled maln€enance.

A question has also been raised as to what extent

operating permits can be used to address excess emissions in

caees where the SIP is silent on this issue or where the SIP is

deficient. ere the SIP is silent on excess emissions, the ~erating permit may conta n excess em ss on prOV1Slons w c

Should be conslstent wlth the attached polic. Where the SIP

lS e lClen, e s ou e ma e 0 con orm to the present

policy. Approval of the operating permit as part·of the SIP

would accomplish that result.

If you have any questions concerning this policy, please

contact Ed Reich at (382-2807).

Attachment

I

1

. .
,_.... __ .,.. -_~ ..__ _"' __...."A~~_ •

.' ..', _.-

Attachment

PCLI~Y O~ EXCES~ EMISSIONS DURING START-CP, SHUT[O~~,

,,{ HAU1Tn:ANCl:, AND 'hALFUKCTIC1~S.

, • " _ J' • ". .,/' _ ,. .-

Several of th,e eXistinS' State impleme.ntation plans (SIPs)

provide for an autor:atic·eIi!ission.linit~~ion·~xep.ptionduring

'per Lods :of excess er.desicn due to start-up, s~utd~wn, ' _ r:'aint~n~nce, or malfunction. * Generally, EPA-'agrees that the

1. OS1.t1.on of a penalty for sudden and unavoidable

malfunctions caused by C1.rcurnstances ent1.re y yond the

control of the owner andlor.operator 1.S net' appropr1.ate.

However, an activit which can be foreseen and avo1.dea, or

planned'1s not w1.th1.n the def1nition 0 a sudden ar.d

unavo1.daEle breakdown. S1.~ce the SIPs must prov1.de for . atta1.nrnent and ma1.ntenance o£ the national ar.~ient,air quality. standards, 'SIP provisions on malfunctions must be narrowly

drawn. SIP~may, of course, o~it any provision on

malfunctions.•' (Fo'r more specific guidance on malfunction

provisions for ~.CT SIPs, see the April 1978 workshop manual

for preparing nonattainment plans.] .

I. AUTOljATIC CCEMPTION APPROACH

If a SIP contains a rnalfuncticn.Frovision, it cannot

the type that provides .for- -automatic exemption where a

malfunction -is alleged i;bya 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 th~ automatic

exemption approach are discussed in more deta.?.l at 42 FR 58171

(November.a, 1977) and 42 FR 21372 (April 27, 1977)•.As a

result, EPA cannot approve any SIP revision that provides

automatic exemptions for malfunctions. .

II. ENFORCEMENT DISCRETION APPROACH--SIP EMISSION LIMITATION ~EC:'UATE TO ATTAIN A!oIBIENT STANDARDS

EPA, can approve SIP revisions which incorporate the ~enforcement discretion approach". ·Such an approach can

require the source to d~monstrate t~ ~e appropriate State

agency €hat the excess emIssIons, tHough const1tut1.nQ a v~olation, were due to an unavoidabl~ malfunction. Any

malfunct10n prov1s10n must provide for the commencement of a

proceeding to notify the source of its violation and to

determine whether enforceDent action should be undertaken for

any'period of excess emiss10ns. In determining whether an

enforcement action is appropriate, -satisfaction of the

following criteria should be considered:

• The term "excess emssion" means an air emission ra't.e which

exceeds any applicable emission limi't.ation, and

"malfunction" means a sudden and unavoidable breakdOwn of

process or control equipment.
~. ...

.- .... . '....:::.. ..: -_ ...

- . . .

T· .. • •• ' • ~.. • -01 ~~._.- _ ••'":; • .1"" _ •••• _

, I •

I." To the maximum extent practicable the air pollution

control equipment, process equipment, or processes were maintain~d and operated in a manner consistent with gOdd. practice for minimi~ing emissions; " .

2. ~epairs 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 t~t such repairs were made as expeditiously as practl~able:

3. The 'amount and duration of the excess emissions

(including any bypass) were minimized 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. ambie~t air quality; and

"5. 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~or event which can be foreseen and avo~ded,

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 C9MmOn events are start-up and 'shutdown of equipment, and scheduled maintenance. -

If exc••semissiofts occur ~uring rOutine 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; "

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
J

I.

• . _ • " c.. • .

__ .. .. . . . ,;,.~ ••'. """,.:.", ... .·,· ... u· .. _ ........ >

,.. -. . .. ..

production equipment; or otl)er source· sh~tdowns.· " Consequently, excess emlssl0ns aurIng pe,rlods of scheduled

.maintenance should be treated -as-'aviolitlon unless a source

can demonstrate tfiat sucn'em~s~lon~ could not have been'.

avo.ided .thrQugh bett~r scheduling for .~a~nten~J1ce·or through

better opera~ion and m~i~tenance pract~ces•. .. ' ...... ... "n

.-

-,

-'

. ~.,'

. "

"

., .

",

I .

i

"

"

" ~. I ,

.~ ,

< '