\ 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,.ormaintenance.
 

II. EXCESS EMISSIONS DURING STAR~P, SHUTDOWN, AND 

MAINTENANCE t

'. 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