UN'TED STATES'ENVIRONMENT~L PROTECTION AGENCY '. I

WAIHINGTON. D.C. 10410

SSJ 28 em.

. ..;.. ....... '''"1''';'''~.':t -. "'0 ~~""":,,~~~,, .-...... .........y"'·."'.:I-~.I.·.'!t ...

o",eE OP. . AIR.N,OI" AND RADIATION

.:t .' , .. ...... ;;.... ~_ ....~-- .~_. ~or ....

SUBJECTa

FROM a

I ,

Policy on Excess Emissionsl During ~tartup, Shutdown,

Maintenance, and Malfunctf,ons. .. , I' ..r '

L) I: l /)'1' ~,..r,,11..1\.J' . Kathleen M. Bennett 'fl~l-.,lit'''---f I' . .

Assistant Administrato for Air, Noise and Radiation

I

I

I

.. '

TO'

I

I

Regional Administrators, Regions I-X

I

. TbiG "memorandum is in response :to a 'request for a

clarlf'ict.l.:ion of EPA'., policy relating to excess emiss10ns

during st lrtup, shutdown, maintenance, and malfunctions. ' . I

I Excess emission provisions for;startup,shutdown, ~.intenanc., and malfunctions were 9ften included as ·part of

the orig ina1 SIPs 'approved in 1971 and 1972. Because the

Agency was inundated' with proposed $IPS and had' U.m!ted

experience in p~oces.ing them, not ;nough atte~tiQn was given

to the 'adequacy, enforceabi11ty, and'consistency of these·

provisions. Consequently, many SIPs were approved with broad'

and locsely-defined provisions to cfntrol excess emissi.ons'.: .

In 1918, EPA adopted an excess! emissions policy after. 'I

,many, 1'S8 eftective attempts to re~t1fy problems that existed .1

with the•• p~ovision.. This policYI disallowed automatic;

exemptions by defining all periods "f excess emis8ions as. ',.,

violations of the applicable standard. States can, of course, I

consider any demonstration by the 81bur ce that the exceS8. . ~ II

emissions were due to an unavoidable oc~urr.nce ,in determining wbether any enforcement action is tequ~r.d. .

-. The rationale for .8tablf.shin~ these emiS810ns as. 1

violations, as opposed to granting :automatic exemptions, is I

that SIPs are ambi,nt-based standa~ds and any emissions above ' . . the allowable may cause or contrlb~te to violations of the· . I.

"national ambient air quality 8tand~r~s. Without clear . . . I

definition and limitat:ions, ,these automatic exemption -.,"1

provisions could. effectively 8hiel~ excess emissions arising from. poor operation and maintenane~ or,d,s!;n, thus precluding .ttalnmen~. Additionally, by establishing an enforcement

discretion approach and byrequ·iri~g the source to demonstrate

the existence of an unavoidable malfunction on the source, good .mainten,an,ce procedures are. in<51reetly encouraged. . .....: .. '.:-.

o.:...~. :.,~"

'>

,

\

'''. -," ~.~ '. ~.... . - ,. - .

.~ 1-.. ''/.'
,.

...•

'. -2-

(7:> Att.ached is a document stating EPA'. present policy on

'.,. axce•••m.l.ss1~n.. This document basically reiterates tlJ.. . ~_ ' .•,Z:lyr..policy., with .ome refinement· of the 'policy regarding '.' .. exc••• emiaslons during periods of scheduled maintenance.. . .,

A question has alao'been raised as to what extent

operating pe~its can ~e used to address exeess emissions in

cas•• where the SIP 1s silent on· this issue or where the SIP Is'

'deficient. Where the S'IP is silent on excess emisslons', the

operating per.mit may contain excess emission provis1ons which' .houl~ be consistent with the attached policy. Where' the SIP

is deficient, the SIP should be made to conform '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:

aotttact: Ed Iteich at (382-2a07).

-Attachment

e :

..

I

ff

-::;' _.

-"'~' . "::."

.., .....

~-~~_ .......---_------:.~-----~.,-, ..
•

"

,

, ,

II. ENFORCEMENT DISCRETION APPROACH--SIP EMISSION LINITAT10N

.ADECUA'l'E TO ATTAIN MIBIEN: S'l'MlDARDS I

EPA can approve SIP revisions ~ich incorpora~e the

"enforcement discretion approa¢h"_ such an approach can

require the source ~o demonstrate to the appropria~. State . agencY.that the excess emissions, though constituting a

violation, ~ere due,to an unav~1dable malfunction. Any malfunc~ion provision must provide for the commencement of a

proceeding notify the sourc. of its viOlation and to

determine Whether enforce~ent action shOUld be un~ertaken for

any period of ·.excess emissions:- In determining whether an enforce~ent action is appropri~te. satisfaction of tha

fOllowing criteria should be oonBide~eal

* The term "excess emissionIt means an air emission rat.e

exceeds any applicable emiss'ion -limitation, anc5

"malfunction tt means a sudderi and unavoidable b'reakc!oWl? I , process or cont.rol equipr.lent;_

At'tachlften1:

I

POLI.CY O~l &XC~St· tMISSIONS DORING STAnT-CP,Si1UTtO\'m f

t-~Ii1'tEt:M~, At:D/ hAUt.il\C'l'IC1~S_

Several of the existin~ State 1~1.m.ntation pl.ns (SIP.,

,provide for. an.autor'1atic emissi.on litlit.J,t191\.,.exef.\p:t1on durins ,"'

'periods of excesa el:\isaion due tp start-up, ,shutdown', •j .. maintenance, or ~alfunction.· Generally, EPA a;rees t~hat the'

imposition of a penalty for BUdd.n and unavoidable ' malfunctions caused by circumstances e~tirely beyond the

.control of the owner and/or operator is not appropriate • . However, any activity which can !be foreseen and avo1ded, or

'planned'!s net within the definition of a sudden and

unavoidable breakdown. Since'~e SIPsmus~ prOVide for attain~ent and main~er.ance of t~e national ar.ri~nt air Quality standards, SIP provisions en malfunctions must be narrowly drawn.'SIPs may, of course, Qr.t~t. any provision on . ,malfunc~ions. eFor more specific gUidance on malfunction

provisions for RAeT SIPs, see the A~.ri.l 1978 workshop manual ~or preparing l~""l&.t.t.ainment pLanS - J . • I

,

I • AUTOt,~TXC EXEHP'l'ION APPROACH

If SIP contains a malf~n~ticn -Frovision, it cannot be,

the type that provides lor auto~atic exemption where a

malfunction is alleged by a .ou~c••, Auto~atic exem~ion.

~9bt aggravate air 'quality so as not to provide for

attainment of the ambient air qUality standards. Ad~itional

grounds fer disapproving a SIP that includes the automatic

exe=ption approach are discussed-in more detail at 42 FR S8171 (t~ovember a, 1977) and 42 Fit 21:372 (April 27, 197'). As a !.. r.sul~, EPA cannot approve any iSIP revision that. provides automatic exemptions for malfunctions. . . _._-----
. .

.

•

n

.<, ". a. : -, v-:

::.":>';/

;

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

aaintained and operated in • manner consistent with good

practice for. 1I!1"~i,~1.z:lng emi~8_ipn:S' .' ,. " • t • •

2. ~.pairs were made £n an expeditious fashion ·when the·

operator knew or should have known tha~ applicable emission

l1mitations were being exceeded. Off-shift labor and overtime

must have been utilized, to the extent practicable, to. ensure

that such rep~irs were.made .s expeditiously a8 practicable, . • ..' i

3. Tbe ".mount and duratfon of the excess emissions

(including an~ by~Ass) were minimized to the maximum extent

practicable during pe~!ods of such emissions, . "

4.' Al'l pos$fbl. steps were taken to minimize the impact of the excess emissions on ambient air qual~tYI and

,.1 " ,

5. The excesa emissions are not part of a recurring

pattern indicAtiv.,of inadeqUAte design~ operation, or

maintenance. .

III. EXCESS EMISSION$'OORING START-UP, SHUTDOWN, AND

MAINTENANCE "

"Any activity or event Which can.be foreseen and avoided,

or pl'anned, falls o~t.lde Qf the definition of sudden and

unavoidable breakdown of' equipment. For example, a sudden

brea,kdown which could have been avoided by better. operation and maintenance practice. 18 not • malfunction. In such

ca•••, the control agency must'enforce for violations of t~ • • ml.81on,11m1tation~ Other such common ~yents are start-up and ahu'tdown of equi'pment, and scheduled'-nraintenance• •

Start-up and shutdown of process equipment are part of ' the normal operation'of a source and 8ftould be accounted for

in the design and implementation of the operating procedure for the process and ~ontrol equipment. Accordingly, it is

rea.onable to expect! that careful planning will eliminate

violationS of emlssipn limitations dU~ing such periods. .. '.... . . If excess emissions occur during routine start-up and'

ahutdown of such equipment,' they w~ll be oonsidered as having resulted from a malfunction only if the source can demonstrate

that such emissions were actually caused by • sudden an.d'

unforeseeable breakdown in the equipment.", .

Similarly, scheduled maintenance is a predictable event ~hlch can be scheduled at the discretion of the operator, and

"bleh can therefore be made to coincide with maintenance on .'

I

i

I

1 •

I
.-r -.. . .. ~,

/<>::;::prOduetion equipment, or other s~urcft shutdowns.

\',:.'.: :.: consequent.ly, exc.ess emiaslot'ls during periods of scheduled . maintenance should be treated .a a violation unl••• a Sourc.

can demonstrate that such emissions bould not bave,be.n~. avoidecS thro\igh'··bette"r 8chedu11n~(fo~ maintenance' or through e.

better operation and maintenance practices. .

". 'e

'::':::'::.',

....:....

~.

i

I .

I

I

I

to

j

I

I