\ 

# e C-p -1**qq~-';,2..5** UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL. PROTECTION AGENCY

, WASH1NCfTON, D".C.**Z~** •• a

O'FlCiO

.. AIR. NOISE AND RADIATION MEMORANDUM

, , SUBJECT: Policy on Excess Emissions During Startup, Shutdown,

### ,Main~~.~~~~~?**~on.'** " . " , FROM:

### Ka~~~nett, Assistant Administrator for Air, Noise, and Ra4iation ' TO: Regionai Administrators, RSgions 

### 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**ope~ation** Of, a source and should be accounted for in the,design and**i~ementation** of the 'operating procedure for the process and control equipment. Accordingly, it is reasonable to. expect that**caref~lplanning** will eliminate violations of emission limitations during such

. periods.· I further stated that -(ilf excess emissions occur

during routine startup and shutdown of SU9h equipment, they will be considered as having resulted 'from a malfunction only if the source can demonstrate that such emissions ware 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. situations. One such situation, which was already,mentioned ) in the policy, 1. 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**tv1~e** a year and during that period there are.a few hours when the**~emperature** of the effluent gas is too low to prevent harmful

,:::, ? 5 le('J'.')
• _.-'

-**,~'** .. f\)\ '**.~**
2
ormation of chemicals which would cause severe damage to control equipntent if the effluent were allowed to pass through the control' equipment. Therefore, during this latter situation, if effluent· gasesare bypassed which cause an**e~ission li~itation**  to 6e exceeded, this excess need not be**treate~** as a**violatio~ftlf'** the source'

. "**~an show~tha~**  the excesses could not have bIen ,prevented ,through c·areful and prudent planning and**designan~~hat** bypassing was unavoidable to prevent loss of life, per:sonal injury', or severe property damage. :' , ., . I have clarified the policy concerning this' issue. A copy is attached. Attachment



### ..... "

­
. ,

-**~!** .. t.- '," 

### ...... ,

,- I

. f"

,.' #:. ,f " '.



# . - 

## -

.

, . 

### .'.

. , .

• I

'\

- f"
.... , ..

" r. • .'
.. 

### .\...... ' ;.' ,. ;. .... r 

### -.

.. 

### ... 0' , 

## ., 

# ..

,­ 

## .

", ;

, 

# ..

### . '


### .. '.

. \



# ­ / Att.-chaent. 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, ormalfunction.'*

. Generally, EPA agrees that the imposition of a penalty for sudden and**u~avoidable** malfunctions caused by circumstances entirely beyond the control of the Owner and/or operator is not appropriate. ·However, any activit.y which can be foreseen and avoided, or**plann.~** is not within the definition of a sudden and. unavoidable breakdown. ,Since the SIPs must provide for attainment and mainten.nce of ,the national ambient air quality .standard."SIP provisions on**~alfunctlons** must be narrowly drawn. SIPs may, of course,' omit ,any provisions on '., malfunctions. (For more**spe~ific** gUidance ,on malfunction prOVisions for RACT SIPs, see the, April 1978 workshop manual

the type that provides for automatic exemption where a.malfunction for preparing nonattainment plans}. " I. EXCESS EMISSION FROM MALFUNCTIONS

.. A. AUTOMATIC, EXEMPTION APPROACH . ' If a SIP contains a malfunction provision, it cannot be,' is alleged by a source. Automatic,exemptions might**aggrava~e** 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 5817lCNovember 8, 1977) and 42 

### rR 21372 (April 27, 1977).A8 a result, EPA cannot approve any SIp· revisions that provide. automatic exemptions for malfunctions.

" t

,. The term -excess emission- means an air emission rate Jhich ,exceeds any applicable emission, ,limitation, and -malfunetionmeans a sudden and unavoidable breakdoWn of process or . control equipment.

# ..



# .

. 2
8. ENFORCEMENT DISCRETION APPROACH--SIP EMISSION LIMITATION ADEQUATE TO ATTAIN**AM~IENT** STANDARDS EPA can approve SIP revisions which incorporate the- " ',. -enforcement**discr~tion** approach- •. $uch an approach can require the source ,to**.~emo~strate** to the,appropriate.State agency that the excess emissions, though constituting, a violation, were due**~o,an** unavoidable malfunction.' Any malfunction provision must provide for the 'commencement of a proceeding to notify**~he** .. source· of its violation and to determine whether enforcement action should 'be undertaken for any period 'of excess·emissions. In determining**~hether** an enforcement**acti~n·is** appropriate, satisfaction of the follC?win,9**crite'ri~** should be**conside~ed.** ,".'. 1. 

## To' the**maxi~WIl** extent practicable the 'air pollution,'

. control equipment·, process equiPment, QI:' processes were maintained' and operated in a manner consistent' with good**pract~ce** for minimizing**emis'~i~n8r:** '. '., ..., .. ',.. . :.. 2. Repairs we't"e made in an expeditious fashion when the operator ·knew or should have known**t~t** applicable**e~ission** limitations were being exceeded. Off-shift labor and overtime must have been utilized, to the extent praa-ticable, to ensure that such repairs were made as expeditiously'as practicable,

. 3.· The amount and duration 'olthaexcess emissions (inciuding 

# any bypass) were minimized to the maximum extent practicable**_duri~~. pe~iods**  of such emissions,**,~** ;;'

. 4 •. All**po~aible step~'''were**  taken**t~** m'inim1ze 'the impact of the excess emissions 9n'**~bient** air quality, and

. 

# . . 

## s. The excess emissions 'are not part of a recurring pattern indicative of' inadequate**design~operation,.or** maintenance. II. EXCESS EMISSIONS DURING**STAR~P,** SHUTDOWN, AND t MAINTENANCE '. i ;. 

### ,., Anyact1vity or' event**whic~** can be foreseen and 'avoided, or planned, fall. outside of the d.finition of sudden and .' unavoidable breakdown of equipment. For example, a sudden.

. breakdown**w~ch** could have been avoided by better operation and maintenance practice' is not a malfunction •. In such case., . the control agency must enforce for violations of the emission limitation. Other such common events are startup and shutdown of equipment, and scheduled maintenance.

# ·.

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 f,or the process 'and control equipment. Accordingly, it is'·reasonable to expect that**caref~l** and prudent planning and**d~sign,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 una\?oidable to**preve~t** loss of life, personal injury, or severe property**d~age.** If excess emissions occur'during'routine 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 mai'ntel\ilnce·· is 

## a predictable event whicb can 

# be scheduled at the discretion of the operator, and which can, therefore, be'made to coincide, with**maintenan~e** on production equipment,**~r** 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**avoi~ed** through better scheduling for maintenance or througb better operation and maintenance**practi~es.** ',. , 

# -'"

,

t a f