EPA Guidance on Excess Emissions - 1983

8/3/2019 EPA Guidance on Excess Emissions - 1983

1/10

e c-P- q9P-2-59UNITE0 STATES ENVIRONMENPRL PROTECTION AGENCY

W A S H l N ~ T O N . .C. 20160

FEB 151983OFFICE OF

AIR. NOISE AND RADIATION

MEMORANDUMSUBJECT: Policy on Excess Emissions During Startup, Shutdown,-FROM: Administratorfor Air, Noise and RadiationTO : Regional Administrators, Regions I - X

I have been asked to clarify my memorandum ofSeptember 28, 1982, concerning policy on excess emissions.duringstartup and shutdown.Specifically, I stated that "startup and shutdown ofprocess equipment are part of the normal operation of a sourceand should be accounted for in the design and i w e m e n t a t i o n ofthe operating procedure for the process and control equipment.Accordingly, it is reasonable to expect that careful planningwill eliminate violations of emission limitations during suchperiods.. I further stated that '[ilf excess emissions occurduring routine startup and shutdown of such equipment, theywill be considered as having resulted from a malfunction only .if the source can demonstrate that such emissions were actuallycaused by a sudden and unforeseeable breakdown in the equipment..A question has been posed as to whether there can besituations in which it is unreasonable to expect that carefulplanning can eliminate violations of emission limitationsduring startup and shutdown. I believe that there can be such.

in the policy, is a malfunction occurring during these period$..A malfunction during startup or shutdown is to be handled asany other malfunction in accordance with the policy aspresently written.and design will not totally eliminate infrequent short periodsof excesses during startup and shutdown. A n example of thissituation would be a source that starts up or shuts down once Ortwice a year and during that period there are a few hours whenthe temperature of the effluent gas is too lo\j to prevent harmful

situations. One such situation, which was already mentioned i

Another situation is one in which careful and prudent plan'ning


2/10

- 2o m a t i o n of c h e m i c a l s v h i c h would cause severe damage t oc o n t r o l e q u i p m e n t i f t h e e f f l u e n t were al lowed t o pass t h r o u g ht h e c o n t r o l e q u i p e n t .

T h e re f o re , d u r i n g t h i s l a t t e r s i t u a t i o n , i f e f f l u e n t ' g a s e s -a r e bypassed which cause an emission l i m i t a t i o n t o be exceeded ,t h i s excess need not be t r ea t ed a s a v i o la t i on l fi i f t h e s o u r c ecan s h o w t h a t t h e excesses c o u l d n o t h a v e b e e n p r e v e n t e d t h r o u g hc a r e f u l a nd p r u d e n t p l a n n i n g a n d d e s i g n a n & k h a t bypass ing wasunavo i dab l e t o p r e v e n t los s of l i f e , personal i n j u r y , or s e v e r eproper ty damage.I h av e c l a r i f i e d t h e p o l i cy c o n ce rn i ng t h i s i ss u e. A copyis a t t a c h e d . . .

Attachment

~. 1 .. .. .. .. . . . .i . .

r, . . ..' - 1 . - .I . .. .. . . I '. i i , , I . ' '~. . ". ..,.

I - . .. .

I ,. ..., . .< . . . . ~. .

~ ,. . .... , . ..., ~ -.t ,..,.. . . .. . .. ,. .: . : . r r , . . ., . . . . , I ; . ' % . , . .f.. . . - . .I . . .

e .'.. . ..,

. .. .. ...

5 ' .

*.\ . .. . . . . . . . .

. . , . ,,... . i. .

. . : . . .. . . - .... ., ,, . .


3/10

. .' . .. . . .- .. . ./' .- AttachmentPOLICY ON EXCESS EMISSIONS DURING STARTUP, SHUTDOWN,UAINTENANCE, AND MALFUNCTIONS

IntroductionSeveral of the existing State implementation plans (SIPS)provide for an automatic emission limitation exemption duringperiods of excess emission due to startup, shutdown, maintenance,or malfunction.' Generally, EPA agrees that the imposition ofa penalty for sudden and unavoidable malfunctions caused bycircumstances entirely beyond the control of the owner and/oroperator is not appropriate. However, any activity which canbe foreseen and avoided, or planned, is not within the definitionof a sudden and unavoidable breakdown. Since the SIPs mustprovide for attainment and maintenance of the national ambientair quality standards, SIP provisions on malfunctions must benarrowly drawn. SIPS may, a course, omit any provisions onmalfunctions. [For more specific guidance on malfunctionprovisions or RACT SIPs, see the April 1978 workshop manualfor preparing nonattainment plans].

I. EXCESS EMISSION FROM MALFUNCTIONS

-

A. AUTOMATIC EXEMPTION APPROACH LIf a SIP contains a malfunction provision, it cannot bethe type that provides for automatic exemption where a malfunctionis alleged by a source. Automatic exemptions might aggravateair quality so as not to provide for attainment of the ambientair quality Standards. Additional grounds for disapproving aSIP that includes the automatic exemption approach are discussedin more detail at 42 PR 58171 (November 8, 1977) and 42 PR21372 (April 27, 1977). As a result, EPA cannot approve anySIP revisions that provides automatic exemptions for malfunctions.

The term mexcess emission" means an air emission rate jhichexceeds any applicable emission limitation, and 'malfurrctionmmeans a sudden and unavoidable breakdown of process orcontrol equipaent.


4/10

.. -. ,- . . 2

. ..rE. ENFORCEMENT DISCRETION .APPROACH--SIP EMISSION

EPA can approve SIP revisions which incorporate thesinforcement discretion approach".the source ,to',demonstrate o the,appropriate State agency thatthe excess emissions', though constituting. a violation, were dueto an unavoidable malfunction.. Any malfunction provision mustsource. f its ,violation and to .determine whether enforcementaction should be undertaken for any period .of excess-emissions.

LIMITATION ADEQUATE TO ATTAIN AMBIENT STANDARDS,,. ,-"

S,uch an approach can require.. .provide for the 'commencement of a proceeding to notify the

In determining whether an enforcement. ction.is appropriate, . . .satisfaction'of'the ollowing criteria should be considered. , ' 3 .. ... . . . .1. TO-the aximum extent practicable the air pollution . ' ,control equipment., process equipment, or processes were maintained'and operated in a manner consistent'with good practice for

'* *. .. .. . .. .inimizing emissions;. .2'. Repairs we're made in an expeditious' fashion when the .operator .knew or should have known that applicable emissionlimitations were being exceeded. Off-shift labor and overtimemust have , h e n tilized, to the extent practicable, to ensurethat such repairs were made as expeditiously.as practicable: .

(including any bypass) were minimized to the maximum extent

. '3.. The amount and duration .of 'the"excess emissSons

. .practicable .during. ' periods> of .uch emissions: ., i;4. ,All possible steps:were taken to minimize .the impactThe excess emissions 'are no t. part of a recurring'

of the excess emissions on.ambient air quality: andpattern indicative .of' nadequate design,' .operation,. r maintenance. ".

, '5.

11. EXCESS EMISSIONS DURING STARTUP, SHUTDOWN, AND f; 7 ...irAINTENANCEAny'actlvity or'e vent 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 andmaintenance practice.is not a malfunction. ' In such cases, .thecontrol agency must enforce for violations of the emissionlimitation. Other suc h common events are startup and shutdownof equipment, and scheduled maintenance.

I .


5/10

..-.. .. .. .. . .. . ... .'. .. .- ... . . .* .3- startup and shutdown of process equipment are part of thenormal operation of a source and should be accounted for in theplanning, design and implementation of operating procedures forthe process and control equipment. Accordingly, it is 'reasonableto expect that careful and prudent planning and design willeliminate violations of emission limitations during such periods.- However, for a few sources there may exist infrequent shortperiods of excess emissions during startup and shutdown whichcannot be avoided. Excess emissions during these infrequentshort periods need not be treated as violations providing thatthe source adequately shows that the excess could not have beenprevented through careful planning and design and that bypassingof control equipment was unavoidable to prevent loss of life,personal injury, or severe property damage.

shutdown due t o a malfunction, then those instances will betreated as other malfunctions which are subject to the malfunctionprovisions of this policy. (Reference Part I above).which can be scheduled at the discretion of the operator, andwhich can, therefore, be made to coincide wirh maintenance onproduction equipment, or other source shutdowns. Consequently,excess emissions during periods of scheduled maintenance shouldbe treated as a violation unless a source can demonstrate thatsuch emissions cou ld have been avoided through better schedulingfor maintenance or through better operation and maintenancepractises. /

-

If excess emissions occur during routine startup and

Similarly, scheduled mafnteqnce is a predictable event -

!

- f 'i. .


6/10

. . . . . . . . .. .. . .

2 .NITED STA TES ENVIRO NMEN TAL PROTECTION AGENCYW A S H I N G T O N , D.C. 20460 /

. .c

OFFICE OFs 8 m.. .., , AIR.,NOISE'AND RADIATION.,:.I .

MEMORANDUM ',., * I.. .. . :... . ..' SUBJECT: Policy on Excess Emissions During Startup,: Shutdown,.Maintenance, and Malfunctionsi' '- -FROM: KathleenTO:

Assistant , .. ,

.. . .. ... .

, ' . Regiional Administrators, Regions 'I-X:- '* . ,3 ?.

This memorandum is in re'sponse to. request *for.

Excess' emission provisions for 'startup,..shutdown, ., .. . .clarification of EPA'S policy relating to excess: emissions . . , .during startup, shutdown, maintenance, and malfunctions.maintenance, and malfunctions .were often included as. part ofthe original SIPs approved in 1971 and 1972. . Because theAgency,was inundated with proposed SIPs and had limitedexperience in processing then,: Qot enough attention was givento the adequacy, enforceability, and consistency,of theseprovisions.. .Consequently, many SIPs .were approved with broadand loosely-defined provisions to control excess emissions. ,

. .. . ,. 3

' ..-. ,. , , ., . ..In 1978,.EPA adopted an excess emissions policy after

many, less effective attempts. to rectify problems .that existedwith these provisions. .This policy disallowed automaticexemptions by defining all periods of excess emlssions as .violations of the applicable standard. States can, of course,consider any demonstration by tn source that the excessemissions were due to an unavotdable occurrence in determiningwhether any enforcement action is required.The rationale for establishing these emissions asviolations, as opposed to granting autometicfexemptions, isthat SIPs are ambient-based standards and any emissions abovethe allowable may cause or contribute to violations of the

na'tional ambient air quality standards.definition and limitations, these automatic exemptionprovisions could effectively shield excess emissions arisingfrom poor operation and maintenance or design, thus precludingattainment. Additionally, by establishing an enforcementdiscretion approach and by requiring the source to demonstratethe existence of an unavoidable malfunction on the source, goodmaintenance procedures are indirectly encouraged.

Without clear


7/10

, -2-Attached is a document statina EPA's present Dolicv-onexcess emissions.earlier policy, with some refinement of the policy regaraingexcess emissions during periods or scheduiea maintenance. -

This dDcument basically- reiterates t6e

A question has also been raised as to what extentoperating permits can be used to address excess emissions incases where the SIP is silent on this issue or where the SIP is- deficient. ere the SIP is silent on excess emissions, theoperating permit may contain excess emission provisions whichshould be consistent with the attached policy. Where the SIPis deficient, the SIP Should D made to conform to the presentpolicy. Approval of the operating permit as part of the SIPwould accomplish that result.contact Ed Reich at (382-2807).Attachment

If you have any questions concerning this policy, please

.. ,

. .


8/10

,__.,. ._-___..--_-_...-__ . ._,_ _ . .. ., , .. , . -

AttachmentPCLICY OM 'EXCESE EXISSIONS CURING START-UP, S~~LITEOKK,*. Vi1NTEKW7CE; ~D ~PtkLFlXCTIGI4S.

.~ .. . - ..S e v e r a l of t h e e x i s t i n s S t a t e i n p l e n a r d a t i o n p l a n s ( S I F s )p r o v i d e fo r an autonatic.enission,linitation,.exenption ur i nq' p e r i o d s . o f excess e n i e s i c n ' d u e t o s t a r t - u c . s hu tzo wn , -.i a i n t e n a n c e . o r m al fu n ct i on . * Genera l l y , * EPA'.ccrees t h a t t h ei m p o s i t i o n o f a p e n a l t y f o r s u ed en and u n a v o id a b lem a l f u n c t i o n s c a us e d by c i r c u n s t a n c e s e n t i r e l y b eyond the .-c o n t r o l of t h e Owner and/or .ogera tor i s n c t a p p r o p r i a t e .However, any a c t i v i t y which can be foreseen and avoided, or .'p l a n n e d % h o t w i t h i n t h e d e f i n i t i o n o f a sudden ar.dunavoidaEle hreaKdown. b n c e +ne b L rs m u s t p r o v i d e fora t t a i n m e n t a nd n a i n t e n a n c e of. t h e n a t io n a l a r k i e n t , a i r q u a l i t y .s t a n d a r d s , ' S I P pro v i s i on s on Ma l func t i ons m u s t be narrowly'drawn. SIPS may, of c o u r s e , o n i t a ny p r o v i s i o n onmalfunct ions. . , [For more spec i f i c guidance on m a l f u n c t i o np r o v i s i o n s f o r RACT SIPS, see the A p r i l 107e workshop manualf o r p r e p a r i n g n o n a tt a i nm e n t p l a n s . ]

. .

.. . .

I. h U T O l i A T I C EXEMPTION APPROACHI f a S I P c o n t a i n s a n a l f u n c t i c n F r o v i s i o n , it canno t bet h e t ype t ha t p r o v i d e s fo r automat ic exempt ion where am a l f u n c t i o n i s a l l eg eek by a sour ce . Automat ic exempt ionsn i g h t a g g r a v a t e a i r q u a l i t y so a s n o t t o p r o v i d e f o ra t t a i n m e n t of the ambient air q u a l i t y s t a n d a r d s . M M i t i o n a lqrounds fo r d i s a p p r o v i n g a S IP t h a t i n c l u d e s th e a u t o m a t i cexemption approach a re d i s c u s s e d i n more d e t a i l a t 42 FR 58171(November 8 . 19771 and 42 FR 21372 ( A D r i l 27. 1977). As ar e s u l t , EPA-canno t approve any S I P r e b i s i o n t h a t p r o v i d e sa u t o m a t i c e x em p ti o ns f o r m a l f u n c t i o n s .

11. ENFORCEMENT DISCRETION APPROACH--SIP EMISSION LIMITATIONAEECUATE TO ATTAIN AMBIENT STANDARDSEPA c an a p p r o v e S I P r e v i s i o n s which i n c o r p o r a t e theSuch an approach canenforcement d i s c r e t i o n approach" .r ew i r e th e s o u r c e t o d e m o n s t r a t e t d the a u v r o o r i a t e S t a t e ---. -_agency tn t me excess emss ions . m u a n c o n s t a t u t r n q av i o l a t i o n , were due t o an unavo i dab l e ma l func t i on . Anymal func t i on Drov i s ron mus t c ro v i d e fo r the commencement of a

p r o c e e d i n g & n o t i f y the source of i t s v i o l a t i o n a n d t od e t e r m i n e vhether e n f o r c e a e n t a c t i o n s ho ul d be unde r t aken fo rany p e r i o d of excess e d s s i o n e . I n d e t e r m i n i n q whether anenforcement a c t i o n i s appropr ia te , s a t i s f a c t i o n o f t h ef o l l o w i n g c r i t e r i a s h o u l d be c o n s i d e r e d :

The t e r m "excess emis s ion " means a n a i r e m i s s i o n ra te whichexceeds any appl icable e m i s si o n l i m i t a t i o n . and"malfunct ion ' means a mudden and unavoidable breakdown ofprocess or c o n t r o l e qu ip m en t.


9/10

1. To the maximum extent practicable the air pollutioncontrol equipment, process equipment, or processes weremaintained and operated in a manner consistent with godd.practice for minimizing emissions ;2. Repairs were made in a n expeditious fashion when theoperator knew or should have known that applicable emissionlimitations were being exceeded. Off-shift labor and overtimemust have been utilized, to the extent practicable, to ensurethat 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 extentpracticable during periods of such emissions;

of the excess emissions on ambient air quality: andpattern indicative of inadequate design, operation, ormaintenance.111. EXCESS EMISSIONS DURING START-UP, SHUTDOWN, AND

-I4. All possible steps were taken to minimize the impact

5. The excess emissions are not part of a recurring

MAINTENANCEAny activity'or event which can be foreseen and avoided,or planned, falls outside of the definition of sudden andunavoidable breakdown of equipment. For example, a suddenbreakdown which could have been avoided by better operationand maintenance practices is not a malfunction. In such

cases, the control agency must enforce for violations of theemission limitation. Other such common events are start-upand shutdown of equipment, and scheduled maintenance.

31 equipment. Accordingly, it isreasonabie to expect that caresul Dlannina will eliminateviolations OS emission Limitations-auring sucn Perl==-If excess emissions occur huring rdutine start-up and

shutdown of such equipment, they will be considered as havingresulted from a malfunction only if the source can demonstratethat such emissions were actually caused by a sudden andunforeseeable breakdown in the equipment.'which can be scheduled at the discretion of th operator, andwhich can therefore be made to coincide with maintenance on

Similarly, scheduled maintenance is a predictable event


10/10

product ion equipment , Of o t h e r s o u r c e s h i t d ow n s .X o n s e qu e n t l y , e x c e s s e m l Ss l On s _ _ _u t i n g p e r i o a s o f s chedu ledmaintenance sh-as a v i o l a t ' i o n u n l e s s a sourcecan demonstrate that SUCK e i n i s s i o n s c o u l d n o t h a ve b e e n -~a v oi d e d t h ro ug h b e t t e r s c h e d u l i n g for maintenaqce or thr0ug.h - ,-e t t e r o p e r a t i o n and m a in t en an ce p r a c t i c e s . . .. .. . . . . .... . . ~- . .,.

Documents

EPA Guidance on Excess Emissions - 1983