UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY WASHlNGTON, D.C. 20460 FEB 15 1983 OFFICE OF AIR, NOISE AND RADIATION MEMORANDUM SUBJECT: Policy on Excess Emissions During Startups, Shutdown, Maintenance, and Malfunctions FROM: Kathleen M. Bennett, Assistant Administrator for Air, Noise and Radiation TO: Regional 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 that "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 "[i]f 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 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, 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 2 formation of chemicals which would cause severe damage to control equipnont if the effluent were allowed to pass through the control equipment. Therefore, during this latter situation, if effluent gases are bypassed which cause an emission limitation to be exceeded, this excess need not be treated as a violation if the source can show that the excesses could not have been prevented through careful and prudent planning and design and that bypassing was unavoidable to prevent loss of life, personal injury, or severe property damage. I have clarified the policy concerning this issue. A copy is attached. Attachment Attachment 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 planned, 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 PR 58171 (November 8,,.1977), and 42 PR 21372 (April 27, 1977). As a result# EPA cannot approve any SIP r*visions that provides automatic exemptions for malfunctions. *The term "excess emission' means an air emission rate which exceeds any applicable emission limitation, and "malfunction" means 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 discretion approach". Such an approach can require the source to demonstrate 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. 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 emissions; 2. Repairs 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 that such repairs were made as expeditiously as practicable; 3. The amount and duration of the excess emissions (including any bypass) were minimized to the maximum extent practicable during periods of such emissions; 4. All possible steps were taken to minimize the impact of the excess emissions on ambient air quality; and 5. The excess emissions are not part of a recurring pattern indicative of inadequate design, operation, or maintenance. II. EXCESS EMISSIONS DURING-STARTUP, SHUTDOWN, AND MAINTENANCE 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. 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 procedures 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 as 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 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 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 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 practices. UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460 SEP 28 1982 OFFICE OF AIR, NOISE ANO RADIATION MEMORANDUM SUBJECT: Policy on Excess Emissions During Startup, Shutdown, Maintenance, and Malfunctions FROM: Kathleen M. Bennett Assistant Administrator for Air, Noise and Radiation TO: Regional Administrators, Regions I-X 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. Excess emission provisions for startup, shutdown, maintenances, and malfunctions were often included as 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, not enough attention was given to the adequacy, enforceability, and consistency of these provisions. Consequently, many SIPs were approved with broad and loosely-defined provisions to control excess emissions. In 1978, EPA adopted an excess emissions policy after many, less effective attempts to rectify problems that existed with these provisions. This policy disallowed automatic exemptions by defining all periods of excess emissions as violations of the applicable standard. States can, of course, consider any demonstration by the source that the-excess emissions were due to an unavoidable occurrence in determining whether any enforcement action is required. The rationale for establishing these emissions as violations, as opposed to granting automatic exemptions, is that SIPs are ambient-based standards and any 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 document basically reiterates the earlier policy, with some refinement of the policy regarding excess emissions during periods of scheduled maintenance. A question has also been raised as to what extent operating permits can be used to address excess emissions in cases where the SIP is silent on this issue or where the SIP is deficient. Where the SIP is silent on excess emissions, the operating permit may contain excess emission provisions which should 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 contact Ed Reich at (382-2807). Attachment Attachment POLICY ON EXCESS EMISSIONS DURING START-UP, SHUTDOWN, MAINTENANCE, AND MALFUNCTIONS. Several of the existing State implementation plans (SIPs) provide for an automatic emission limitation exemption durinq periods of excess emission due to start-up, 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 planned 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 provision on malfunctions. [For more specific guidance on malfunction provisions for RACT SIPs, see the April 11 1978 workshop manual for preparing nonattainment plans]. I. EXCESS EMISSION FROM MALFUNCTIONS A. AUTOMATIC EXEMPTION APPROACH If a SIP contains a malfuncticn 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 58171 (November 8, 1977) and 42 FR 21372 (April 27, 1977). As a result, EPA cannot approve any SIP revision that provides automatic exemptions for malfunctions. The term "excess enmission" means an air emission rate which exceeds any applicable emission limitation, and "malfunction" means a sudden and unavoidable breakdown of process or control equipment. B. ENFORCEMENT DISCRETION APPROACH--SIP EMISSION LIMITATION ADEQUATE TO ATTAIN AMBIENT STANDARDS EPA can approve SIP revisions which incorporate the "enforcement discretion approach". Such an approach can require the source to demonstrate 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: 1. To the maximum extent practicable the air pollution control equipment, process equipments or processes were maintained and operated in a manner consistent with good practice for minimizing emissions; 2. Repairs 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 that such repairs were made as expeditiously as practicable; 3. The amount and duration of the excess emissions (including any bypass) were minimized to the maximum extent practicable during periods of such emissions; 4. All possible steps were taken to minimize the impact of the excess emissions on ambient air quality; and 5. The excess emissions are not part of a recurring pattern indicative of inadequate design, operation, or maintenance. II. EXCESS EMISSIONS DURING START-UP, SHUTDOWN, AND MAINTENANCE 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 practices is not a malfunction. In such cases, the control agency must enforce for violations of the emission limitation. Other such common events are, start-up and shutdown of equipment, and scheduled maintenance. Start-up 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. If excess emissions occur during 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 discresion of the operator, and which can therefore be made to coincide with maintenance on production equipment, or other source shutdowns. Consequently, excess curing periods of scheduled maintenance should be treated as a violation unless a source can demonstrate that such limitations could not have been avoided through better scheduling for maintenance or through better operation and maintenance practices.