\
UNITEDSTATESENVIRONMENTALPROTECTIONAGENCY

.WASH1NCfTON, D".C. ZlJ

...O 

## FEB \51983

OFFICEOF 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 memorandumof 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.- ." . Aquestion 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., Amalfunction 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 showztha,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. Acopy 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 FR58171CNovember 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.' Anymalfunction 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~ns**7'-
. , .- 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). Similarly, scheduled malnten,ance"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 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


### ," ' ,UNITEDSTATESENVIRONMENTALPROTECTI'ONAGENCY WASHINGTON, D.C. zona

OFFICEOF AIR.,NOISEANORAOIATION 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 ofan 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. Aquestion 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 :ofexcess 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 ofthe 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 allegedi;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 €hatthe 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 ,**.~** ,

< '