Questions or Comments: monops@tceq.texas.gov
You are here:

Test the Workflow

Testing the workflow

Incident Type: Emission Events

Includes upset and unscheduled, unplanned MSS

TCEQ has received your initial notification of an emissions event. Please note that if information contained within this notification changes, a final record must be submitted within two weeks from the end of the event (30 Tex. Admin. Code § 101.201(c)). This incident will be assigned for investigation within 30 days of the end of the event, with a target completion date for review of 90 days. If you have asserted that this reported event or activity, as applicable, meets the applicable affirmative defense criteria, you may be asked to provide additional information. The following will be considered when evaluating if the affirmative defense criteria have been met. (30 Tex. Admin. Code § 101.222):

For non-excessive upset events:

  • for a non-excessive upset event, the owner or operator complies with the requirements of §101.201;
  • the unauthorized emissions were caused by a sudden, unavoidable breakdown of equipment or process, beyond the control of the owner or operator;
  • the unauthorized emissions 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 technically feasible design consistent with good engineering practice;
  • the air pollution control equipment or processes were maintained and operated in a manner consistent with good practice for minimizing emissions and reducing the number of emissions events;
  • prompt action was taken to achieve compliance once the operator knew or should have known that applicable emission limitations were being exceeded, and any necessary repairs were made as expeditiously as practicable;
  • the amount and duration of the unauthorized emissions and any bypass of pollution control equipment were minimized, and all possible steps were taken to minimize the impact of the unauthorized emissions on ambient air quality;
  • all emission monitoring systems were kept in operation if possible;
  • the owner or operator actions in response to the unauthorized emissions were documented by contemporaneous operation logs or other relevant evidence;
  • the unauthorized emissions were not part of a frequent or recurring pattern indicative of inadequate design, operation, or maintenance;
  • the percentage of a facility's total annual operating hours during which unauthorized emissions occurred was not unreasonably high; and
  • 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.

For an unplanned and unscheduled maintenance, startup, or shutdown (MSS) activity:

  • for an unscheduled maintenance, startup, and shutdown activity, the owner or operator complies with the requirements of §101.201 and demonstrates that reporting under §101.211(a) was not reasonably possible;
  • the periods of unauthorized emissions from any unplanned maintenance, startup, or shutdown activity could not have been prevented through planning and design;
  • 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;
  • 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;
  • the facility and air pollution control equipment were operated in a manner consistent with good practices for minimizing emissions;
  • 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;
  • all emissions monitoring systems were kept in operation if possible;
  • 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
  • unauthorized emissions did not cause or contribute to an exceedance of the NAAQS, PSD increments, or a condition of air pollution.

Incident Types: Maintenance, Startup, Shutdown

Includes scheduled, unplanned MSS

TCEQ has received your initial notification of a maintenance, startup, or shutdown event. Please note that if information contained within this notification changes, a final record must be submitted as soon as practicable but no later than two weeks from the end of the event (§ 101.211(b)). This incident will be assigned for investigation within 30 days of the end of the event, with a target completion date for review of 90 days. If you have asserted that this reported event or activity, as applicable, meets the applicable affirmative defense criteria, you may be asked to provide additional information. The following will be considered when evaluating if the affirmative defense criteria have been met. (§ 101.222):

For an unplanned and scheduled maintenance, startup, or shutdown (MSS) activity:

  • for a scheduled maintenance, startup, and shutdown activity, the owner or operator complies with the requirements of §101.211;
  • the periods of unauthorized emissions from any unplanned maintenance, startup, or shutdown activity could not have been prevented through planning and design;
  • 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;
  • 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;
  • the facility and air pollution control equipment were operated in a manner consistent with good practices for minimizing emissions;
  • 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;
  • all emissions monitoring systems were kept in operation if possible;
  • 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
  • unauthorized emissions did not cause or contribute to an exceedance of the NAAQS, PSD increments, or a condition of air pollution.

Incident Types: Opacity

TCEQ has received your initial notification of an excess opacity event. This incident will be assigned for investigation within 30 days of the end of the event, with a target completion date for review of 90 days. If you have asserted that this reported event or activity, as applicable, meets the applicable affirmative defense criteria, you may be asked to provide additional information. The following will be considered when evaluating if the affirmative defense criteria have been met. (101.222):

Excess opacity events due to an upset:

  • for an excess opacity event, the owner or operator complies with the requirements of §101.201;
  • the opacity was caused by a sudden, unavoidable breakdown of equipment or process beyond the control of the owner or operator;
  • 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;
  • the air pollution control equipment or processes were maintained and operated in a manner consistent with good practice for minimizing opacity;
  • 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;
  • 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;
  • all emission monitoring systems were kept in operation if possible;
  • the owner or operator actions in response to the opacity event were documented by contemporaneous operation logs or other relevant evidence;
  • the opacity event was not part of a frequent or recurring pattern indicative of inadequate design, operation, or maintenance; and
  • the opacity event did not cause or contribute to a condition of air pollution.

Opacity events resulting from unplanned maintenance, startup, or shutdown activity:

  • 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;
  • the opacity was caused by a sudden, unavoidable breakdown of equipment or process beyond the control of the owner or operator;
  • the periods of opacity could not have been prevented through planning and design;
  • the opacity was not part of a recurring pattern indicative of inadequate design, operation, or maintenance;
  • 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;
  • the facility and air pollution control equipment were operated in a manner consistent with good practices for minimizing opacity;
  • the frequency and duration of operation in a startup or shutdown mode resulting in opacity were minimized;
  • all emissions monitoring systems were kept in operation if possible;
  • the owner or operator actions during the opacity event were documented by contemporaneous operating logs or other relevant evidence; and
  • the opacity event did not cause or contribute to a condition of air pollution.