Source: https://texreg.sos.state.tx.us/public/readtac$ext.TacPage?sl=T&app=9&p_dir=P&p_rloc=122843&p_tloc=&p_ploc=1&pg=2&p_tac=&ti=30&pt=1&ch=101&rl=223
Timestamp: 2019-05-23 11:48:50
Document Index: 196735773

Matched Legal Cases: ['§101', '§101', '§101', '§101', '§101', '§101', '§101', '§101', '§101', '§101', '§101', '§101', '§101', 'arts 60', '§101']

RULE §101.222 Demonstrations
(a) Excessive emissions event determinations. The executive director shall determine when emissions events are excessive. To determine whether an emissions event or emissions events are excessive, the executive director will evaluate emissions events using the following criteria:
(1) the frequency of the facility's emissions events;
(2) the cause of the emissions event;
(3) the quantity and impact on human health or the environment of the emissions event;
(4) the duration of the emissions event;
(5) the percentage of a facility's total annual operating hours during which emissions events occur; and
(6) the need for startup, shutdown, and maintenance activities.
<?Pub Caret -2> (b) Non-excessive upset events. Upset events that are determined not to be excessive emissions events are subject to an affirmative defense to all claims in enforcement actions brought for these events, other than claims for administrative technical orders and actions for injunctive relief, for which the owner or operator proves all of the following:
(1) the owner or operator complies with the requirements of §101.201 of this title (relating to Emissions Event Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements). In the event the owner or operator fails to report as required by §101.201(a)(2) or (3), (b), or (e) of this title, the commission will initiate enforcement for such failure to report and for the underlying emissions event itself. This subsection does not apply when there are minor omissions or inaccuracies that do not impair the commission's ability to review the event according to this rule, unless the owner or operator knowingly or intentionally falsified the information in the report;
(11) the unauthorized emissions did not cause or contribute to an exceedance of the national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS), prevention of significant deterioration (PSD) increments, or to a condition of air pollution.
(c) Unplanned maintenance, startup, or shutdown activity. Emissions from an unplanned maintenance, startup, or shutdown activity that are determined not to be excessive are subject to an affirmative defense to all claims in enforcement actions brought for these activities, other than claims for administrative technical orders and actions for injunctive relief, for which the owner or operator proves the emissions were from an unplanned maintenance, startup, or shutdown activity, as defined in §101.1 of this title (relating to Definitions), and all of the following:
(1) for a scheduled maintenance, startup, or shutdown activity, the owner or operator complies with the requirements of §101.211 of this title (relating to Scheduled Maintenance, Startup, and Shutdown Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements). For an unscheduled maintenance, startup, and shutdown activity, the owner or operator complies with the requirements of §101.201 of this title and demonstrates that reporting under §101.211(a) of this title was not reasonably possible. Failure to report information that does not impair the commission's ability to review the activity, such as minor omissions or inaccuracies, will not result in enforcement action and loss of opportunity to claim the affirmative defense, unless the owner or operator knowingly or intentionally falsified the information in the report;
(2) the periods of unauthorized emissions from any unplanned maintenance, startup, or shutdown activity could not have been prevented through planning and design;
(3) the unauthorized emissions from any unplanned maintenance, startup, or shutdown activity were not part of a recurring pattern indicative of inadequate design, operation, or maintenance;
(4) if the unauthorized emissions from any unplanned maintenance, startup, or shutdown activity were caused by a bypass of control equipment, the bypass was unavoidable to prevent loss of life, personal injury, or severe property damage;
(5) the facility and air pollution control equipment were operated in a manner consistent with good practices for minimizing emissions;
(6) the frequency and duration of operation in an unplanned maintenance, startup, or shutdown mode resulting in unauthorized emissions were minimized and all possible steps were taken to minimize the impact of the unauthorized emissions on ambient air quality;
(7) all emissions monitoring systems were kept in operation if possible;
(8) the owner or operator actions during the period of unauthorized emissions from any unplanned maintenance, startup, or shutdown activity were documented by contemporaneous operating logs or other relevant evidence; and
(9) unauthorized emissions did not cause or contribute to an exceedance of the NAAQS, PSD increments, or a condition of air pollution.
(d) Excess opacity events. Excess opacity events due to an upset that are subject to §101.201(e) of this title, or for other opacity events where there was no emissions event, are subject to an affirmative defense to all claims in enforcement actions for these events, other than claims for administrative technical orders and actions for injunctive relief, for which the owner or operator proves all of the following:
(1) the owner or operator complies with the requirements of §101.201 of this title. Failure to report information that does not impair the commission's ability to review the event, such as minor omissions or inaccuracies, will not result in enforcement action and loss of opportunity to claim the affirmative defense, unless the owner or operator knowingly or intentionally falsified the information in the report;
(2) the opacity was caused by a sudden, unavoidable breakdown of equipment or process beyond the control of the owner or operator;
(3) the opacity did not stem from any activity or event that could have been foreseen and avoided or planned for, and could not have been avoided by better operation and maintenance practices or by technically feasible design consistent with good engineering practice;
(4) the air pollution control equipment or processes were maintained and operated in a manner consistent with good practice for minimizing opacity;
(5) prompt action was taken to achieve compliance once the operator knew or should have known that applicable opacity limitations were being exceeded and any necessary repairs were made as expeditiously as practicable;
(6) the amount and duration of the opacity event and any bypass of pollution control equipment were minimized and all possible steps were taken to minimize the impact of the opacity on ambient air quality;
(8) the owner or operator actions in response to the opacity event were documented by contemporaneous operation logs or other relevant evidence;
(9) the opacity event was not part of a frequent or recurring pattern indicative of inadequate design, operation, or maintenance; and
(10) the opacity event did not cause or contribute to a condition of air pollution.
(e) Opacity events resulting from unplanned maintenance, startup, or shutdown activity. Excess opacity events, or other opacity events where there was no emissions event, that result from an unplanned maintenance, startup, or shutdown activity that are determined not to be excessive are subject to an affirmative defense to all claims in enforcement actions brought for these activities, other than claims for administrative technical orders and actions for injunctive relief, for which the owner or operator proves the opacity resulted from an unplanned maintenance, startup, or shutdown activity, as defined in §101.1 of this title, and all of the following:
(1) for excess opacity events that result from a scheduled maintenance, startup, or shutdown activity, the owner or operator complies with the requirements of §101.211 of this title. For excess opacity events that result from an unscheduled maintenance, startup, and shutdown activity, the owner or operator complies with the requirements of §101.201 of this title and demonstrates that reporting pursuant to §101.211(a) of this title was not reasonably possible. Failure to report information that does not impair the commission's ability to review the event, such as minor omissions or inaccuracies, will not result in enforcement action and loss of opportunity to claim the affirmative defense, unless the owner or operator knowingly or intentionally falsified the information in the report;
(3) the periods of opacity could not have been prevented through planning and design;
(4) the opacity was not part of a recurring pattern indicative of inadequate design, operation, or maintenance;
(5) if the opacity event was caused by a bypass of control equipment, the bypass was unavoidable to prevent loss of life, personal injury, or severe property damage;
(6) the facility and air pollution control equipment were operated in a manner consistent with good practices for minimizing opacity;
(7) the frequency and duration of operation in a startup or shutdown mode resulting in opacity were minimized;
(8) all emissions monitoring systems were kept in operation if possible;
(9) the owner or operator actions during the opacity event were documented by contemporaneous operating logs or other relevant evidence; and
(f) Obligations. Subsections (b) - (e) and (h) of this section do not remove any obligations to comply with any other existing permit, rule, or order provisions that are applicable to an emissions event or a maintenance, startup, or shutdown activity. Any affirmative defense provided by subsections (b) - (e) and (h) applies only to violations of state implementation plan requirements. An affirmative defense cannot apply to violations of federally promulgated performance or technology based standards, such as those found in 40 Code of Federal Regulations Parts 60, 61, and 63. The affirmative defense is available only for emissions that have been reported or recorded.
(g) Frequent or recurring pattern. Evidence of any past event subject to subsections (b) - (e) of this section is admissible and relevant to demonstrate a frequent or recurring pattern of events, even if all of the criteria in that subsection are proven.
(h) Planned maintenance, startup, or shutdown activity. Unauthorized emissions or opacity events from a maintenance, startup, or shutdown activity that are not unplanned that have been reported or recorded in compliance with §101.211 of this title are subject to an affirmative defense to all claims in enforcement actions brought for these activities, other than claims for administrative technical orders and actions for injunctive relief, for which the owner or operator proves all of the criteria listed in subsection (c)(1) - (9) of this section for emissions, or subsection (e)(1) - (9) of this section for opacity events and the following:
(1) the owner or operator has filed an application to authorize the emissions or opacity by the following dates:
(A) for facilities in Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) code 2911 (Petroleum Refining), one year after the effective date of this section;
(B) for facilities in major group SIC code 28 (Chemicals and Allied Products), except SIC code 2895, two years after the effective date of this section;
(C) for facilities in SIC code 2895 (Carbon Black), four years after the effective date of this section;