Louisiana Revisions to LAC 33:III.509, 613 and 615 

submitted to EPA January 27, 2003 (LA-65) with the 

Louisiana 1999-2001 General Rules Update 

This document contains only the Louisiana Revisions to 

LAC 33:III.509, 613 and 615 submitted to EPA January 

27, 2003 (LA-65) with the Louisiana 1999-2001 General 

Rules Updates. The entire submittal is available at: 

LA021.06 Louisiana 1999-2001 General Rules Updates, LAC 33:III, Chapters 2, 5, 6, 11, 19, 21, 

61; Submitted to EPA January 27, 2003 (LA-65). 360 pages 16.5 MB r35

Document ID: EPA-R06-OAR-2007-0924-0006 
M. J. "MIKE" FOSTER, JR. 

GOVERNOR 

9 

r 

state of pouisinnn 

OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR 

pafan pauge POST OFFICE DCY " 04 

January 27,2003 

Mr. Lany E. Starfield 

Acting Regional Administrator 

US EPA Region 6 

1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 1200 

Dallas. TX 75202-2733 

RE: 1999-2001 General Revisions to the State Implementation Plan 

Dear Mr. Starfield: 

The state of Louisiana has approved and is submitting revisions to the 1999-2001 General Revisions to the 

State Implementation Plan. 

Please contact the environmental planning staffthrough James H. Brent, Ph.D., at (225) 765-026 1 ifyou 

have any questions. 

M.J. "Mike" Foster, Jr. \ 

Enclosure 

c: Dr. L. Hall Bohlinger, LDEQ 

Dr. James H. Brent, LDEQ 
REVISION TC 

ATION PLAN 

THE 
TABLE OF CONTENTS 

1999-2001 GENERAL REVISION TO THE 

STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLAN 

INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................... 1 

PURPOSE ........................................................................................................................... 1 

AUTHORITY .................................................................................................................... I 

SUMMARY OF RULE REVISION OF AQ 145 .......................................................................... 2 

FINAL REVISED REGULATION . AQ 145 ................................................................................. 3 

RULES PROMULGATED DURING 1999-200 1 SORTED BY DATE PROMULGATED ............ 22 

RULES PROMULGATED DURING 1999-200 1 SORTED BY SECTION ................................... 27 

APPENDIX A . FINAL REVISED REGLTLATlONS 

APPENDIX B . SIP PUBLIC PARTlCIPATION AND NOTIFICATION 

PROOF OF PUBLICATION ........................................................................................... 320 

PUBLIC HEARING TRANSCRIPT ............................................................................... 327 

COMMENTS .................................................................................................................. 333 

RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ........................................................................................ 337 
INTRODUCTION 

PURPOSE 

This State Implementation Plan (SIP) submittal incorporates revisions made to Louisiana 

Administrative Code (LAC) 33:III.Chapters 2, 5, 6, 1 1,19, and 2 1 during 1999-2001. In 

agreement with 105 grant objectives, the Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality 

(LDEQ) is incorporating revisions made to regulations included in the Louisiana SIP. All of the 

revised regulations incorporate changes made during 1999-2001, which have not yet been sent to 

EPA for approval and inclusion in Louisiana's SIP. 

Revisions or adoptions to the Air Quality rules and regulations are made in accordance 

with Louisiana R. S. 30:2019. The SIP revision is made in accordance with 40 Code of Federal 

Regulations (CPR) Part 5 1Appendix V and policy established by EPA Region 6. 
RULES PROMULGATED DURING 

1999-2001 SORTED BY SECTION 
RULES PROMIJLGATED DURING 1999 - 2001 SORTED BY SECTION 

I 

I 

being amended, because the enhanced Motor Vehicle 

Inspection/Maintenance (IM) Program prescribed by this rule was never 

implemented due to lack of reauthorization by the Louisiana Legislature in 

1997. The Legislature, by Act 576 of the 1999 Regular Session, did 

authorize a low enhanced, vehicle IM program for the control and 

abatement of motor vehicle emissions in this 5-parish; Baton Rouge ozone 

Nonattainment area. The low enhanced vehicle (I/M) program is governed 

by the Department of Public Safety and Corrections, Ofice of State Police 

(DPS), with DEQ providing oversight, data collection support, and liaison 

Q 

Q 

0 

a 

€4 

4 

223 

509 

613 

March 2000 

LR 26.485 

AQ 197 

December 200 1 

LR 27.2234 

AQ 218 

March 2000 

LR 26.486 

AQ 199 

Clean Fuel Fleet 

Program 

Permit Procedures 

Emission 

Reduction Credits 

Banking 

activities. In accordance with R S 32.1306(C), DPS promulgated a final 

rule on December 20, 1999, necessary to implement the requirements of the 

low enhanced vehicle emissions I/M program. 

The federal Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 (CAAA) require 

implementation of a clean-fuel fleet program (CFFP) in ozone 

nonattainment areas classified as serious or above. Accordingly, the 

department submitted a State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision for a 

CFFP in October 1994, and the SIP was approved by the EPA on October 

23, 1995. State regulations governing the CFFP are codified in LAC 

33 111 195 1 - 1973 The department submitted a SIP revision to EPA for a 

substitute plan, which was approved by direct final rule and became 

effective on September 17, 1999. As a result, the department is repealing 

the state CFFP (LAC 33.111.1951-1973) and applicable fee requirements in 

LAC 33.111.223 The basis and rationale for this proposed rule are to take 

advantage of the CAAA opt-out provisions for a clean-fuel fleet program 

that has been shown to provide only marginal emission reduction benefits 

in the Baton Rouge ozone nonattainment area. 

This proposed rule removes Calcasieu and Pointe Coupee from the list of 

ozone nonattainment parishes in 509.B.2 

This proposed rule changes submittal dates for banking credits 
RULES PROMULGATED DURING 1999 - 2001 SORTED BY SECTION 

March 2000 

LR 26:486 

AQ 199 

April 1999 

LR 26:656 

AQ 183 

August 2000 

LR 26: 1607 

AQ 200 

March 2000 

LR 26:485 

AQ 197 

Emission 

Reduction Credits 

Banking 

Control of 

Emissions of 

Smoke 

Emission Control 

from Motor 

Vehicles and 

Related Fees 

Clean Fuel Fleet 

Program 

This proposed rule changes submittal dates for banking credits. 

The limitation on the shade or appearance of emissions will be changed 

from Number 1 on the Ringlemann Chart to 20 percent opacity. The 

regulation mentions Chapter 15, Table 4, which references 40 CFR Part 60 

Method 9 and Method 22 for measurement of visible emissions. This rule 

applies to flares and other similar devices used for burning in connection 

with pressure valve releases for control over process upsets.The basis and 

rationale for this rule are to clarih the existing language I 

The existing regulations at LAC 33:III.1901-1935 and the appendix atthe1 

end of Chapter 19 are being repealed, and the fees at LAC 33:111.223 are 

being amended, because the enhanced Motor Veliicle 

InspectionlMaintenance (UM) Program prescribed by this rule was never 

implemented due to lack of reauthorization by the Louisiana Legislature in 

1997. The Legislature, by Act 576 of the 1999 Regular Session, did 

authorize a low enhanced, vehicle UM program for the control and 1 

abatement of motor vehicle emissions & this 5-parish; Baton Rouge ozone 

Nonattainment area. The low enhanced vehicle (UM) program will be 

governed by the Department of Public Safety and Corrections, Ofice of 

State Police (DPS), with DEQ providing oversight, data collection support, 

and liaison activities. In accordance with R.S. 32: 1306(C), DPS 

promulgated a final rule on December 20, 1999, necessary to implement the 

requirements of the low enhanced vehicle emissions YM program. 

The federal Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 (CAAA) require . - 

implementation ofa clean-fuel fleet program (CFFP) in ozone I 

nonattainment areas classified as serious or above. Accordingly, the 

department submitted a State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision for a 

CFFP in October 1994, and the SP was approved by the EPA on October 

23, 1995. State regulations governing the CFFP are codified in LAC 

33:III. 195 1-1973. The department submitted a SIP revision to EPA for a 

substitute plan, which was approved by direct final rule and became 

effective on September 17, 1999. As a result, the department is repealing 

the state CFFP (LAC 33:III. 195 1-1973) and applicable fee requirements in 

LAC 33:111.223.The basis and rationale for this proposed rule are to take - - 

advantage of the CAAA opt-out provisions for a clean-fuel fleet program 

Office of Envi ronn~ental Planning 

Division, LR 26:4 

RULE 

Department of Environmental Quality 

Office of Environmental Assessment 

Environmental Planning Division 

Emission Reduction Credits Banking 

(LAC 33:111.6 13 and 6 15)(AQ 199) 

Under the authority of the Environmental Quality Act, 

RS. 30:2001 et seq., and in accordance with the provisions 

of the Administrative Procedure Act, RS. 49:950 et seq., the 

secretary has amended Air Quality regulations, LAC 

33:111.6 13 and 6 15 (Log #AQ199). 

The rule corrects the date fiom January 20, 1995 to 

Febluary 20, 1995, for submittal of all applications for 

banking emission reduction credits. The rule requires six 

months for submittals to the department after promulgation 

of the rule; however, the actual date promulgated in AQ 190, 

which was published in the September 1999 Louisiana 

Register, was only five months after promulgation. The basis 

and rationale for the rule are to correct the date promulgated 

in AQ190 in the emission reduction credits banking rule. 

This rule meets an exception listed in RS. 30:2019 (D)(3) 

and RS.49:953 (G)(3); therefore, no report regarding 

environmental/health benefits and sociaUecono~nic costs is 

required. This rule ' has no known impact on family 

formation, stability, and autonomy as described in RS. 

49:972. 

Title 33 

ENVLRONMENTAL Q UALlTY 

Part 111. Air 

Chapter 6. Regulations on Control of Emissions 

Through the Use of Emission Reduction 

Credits Banking 

$613. ERC Bank Balance Sheet 

* * * I 

[See Prior Text in A-C] 

D. Schedule. All applications for banking ERCs in the 

parishes of Ascension, East Baton Rouge, Iberville, 

Livingston, and West Baton Rouge where the emission 

reductions occurred before August 20, 1994, must have been 

submitted prior to February 20, 1995. First-time applications 

for banking ERCs for attainment parishes may be submitted 

at any time. If a parish is redesignated as ozone 

nonattainment by the EPA, applications for banking ERCs 

for those parishes must be submitted within six months after 

the effective date of the EPA designation. All applications 

for banking ERCs where the emission reductions occurred 

after the date this banking rule was adopted for an area shall 

be submitted by March 1 following the year in which the 

reduction occurred. The balances (i.e., the balance available 

for netting and the balance available for offsets) &om the 

ERC bank balance sheets of Subsection A of this. Section 

shall be submitted to the department by March 1 of each 

year together with the certification specified in Subsection E 

of this Section. All emission reductions must meet the 

timing restrictions set forth in LAC 33:111.607.D in order to 

be eligible for banking as ERCs. 

* * * 

[See Prior Text in E-F] 

AUTHORIN NOTE: Promulgated in accordance with R.S. 

30:2054. 

HISTORICAL NOTE: Promulgated by the Department of 

Environmental Quality, Office of Air Quality and Radiation 

Protection, Air Quality Division, -LR 20:877 (August 1994), 

amended LR 25: 1622 (September 1999), amended by the Office of 

Environmental Assessment, Environmental Planning Division, LR ' 

16:486 (March 2000). 

$615. Schedule for Submitting Applications * * * 

[See Prior Text in A] 

B. All applications for banking ERCs in the parishes of 

Ascension, East Baton Rouge, Iberville, Livingston, and 

West Baton Rouge where the emission reductions occurred 

before August 20, 1994, must have been submitted prior to 

Feb~vary 20, 1995. First-time applications for banking ERCs 

for attainment parishes may be submitted at any time. If a 

parish is redesignated as ozone nonattainrnent by the EPA, 

application for banking ERCs for those parishes must be 

submitted within six months after the effective date of the 

EPA designation. Once a banking application has been filed,, 

the bank balance and the applicant's certification should be 

submitted annually on March 1. 

* * * 

[See Prior Text in C-Dl 

AUTHORIN NOTE: Promulgated in accordance with R.S. 

302054. 

HISTORICAL NOTE: Promulgated by the Department of 

Environmental Quality, Office of Air Quality and Radiation 

Protection, Air Quality Division, LR 20:878 (August 1994), 

amended LR 2 1:68 1 (July 1995), LR 25:1623 (September 1999), 

amended by the Office of Environmental Assessment, 

Environnlental Planning Division, LR 26:486 (March 2000). 

James H. Brent, Ph.D. 

Assistant Secretary 

- Louisiana Register Vo1. 26. No. 03 March 20, 2000 486 
P" OOOl.48 -. ~kvl 

Keviq LOUISIANA MID-CONTINENT 

OIL AND GAS ASSOCIATION 

801 NORTH BOULEVARD, SUITE 201, BATON ROUGE, LA 70802-5727 

TELEPHONE (225) 3 87-320 5 + FAX (225) 344-5 502 + E-MAIL LMOGA@LMOGA.CO~ 

January 24,2000 

Ms. Patsy Deaville 

Regulation Development Section 

Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality 

Post Office Box 82 178 

Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70884-2 178 

Re: Emission Banking Rule 

Amendments (Log #AQ-199) 

Dear Ms. Deaville: 

The Louisiana Mid-Continent Oil and Gas Association appreciates the opportunity to submit comments 

on the proposed amendment to the Chapter 6 Emission Banking Regulation (Log #AQ-199) cited in the 

December 20, 1999 Louisiana Register. Mid-Continent is an industry organization which represents 

individuals and companies that produce, transport, refine and market approximately 90% of the oil and 

natural gas in Louisiana. 

Mid-Continent supports the proposed amendment to the regulation. As stated in the Notice of Intent, an 

unintentional error occurred in the amendments promulgated in the September 20, 1999 Louisiana 

Register. This error could have caused problems for facilities that submitted emission banking 

information prior to the February 20, 1995 deadlines as required in the original final rule but after the . newly adopted January 20, 1995 deadline. The amendment corrects this unintentional error. 

Once again, Mid-Continent appreciates the opportunity to submit these comments. 

Sincerely, 

Richard T. Metcalf 

Health, Safety and Environmental 

Affairs Coordinator 
I s+e vd 

Kevio 

LOUISIANA CHEMICAL ASSOCIATION 

Hand Delivered 

January 24,2000 

Ms. Patsy Deaville 

Regulation Development Section 

La. Department of Environmental Quality 

P 0 Box 82 175 

Baton Rouge, LA, 70884-2 175 

Ref: Log #AQ199 

Dear Ms. Deaville: 

The Louisiana Chemical Association (LCA) hereby submits the following comments 

concerning proposed revisions to the Air Quality Regulations (LAC 33: 111.613 and 615) (Log 

AQ 199). 

LCA is a trade association representing chemical manufacturers at over 100 plant 

locations in the State of Louisiana. Many of our members participate in the emission reduction 

banking program and could be affected by the proposed rule. 

LCA supports the adoption of AQ199. The proposed rule corrects an error in the time 

frame for submittal of applications for banking emission reduction credits that was promulgated 

in the September 1999 La. Register on AQ 190. The rules governing emission reduction credits 

banking allowed six months from promulgation of the original regulations which were adopted 

on August 20, 1994. In AQ190, DEQ inadvertently adopted a January 20, 1995 deadline. The 

proposed rule corrects this error and provides a deadline of February 20, 1995 for the original 

emissions banking submittals. 

LCA is grateful for DEQ1s prompt action in correcting this oversight with the proposed 

rule. Your consideration and final adoption of AQ 199 is greatly appreciated. 

Sincerely, 

Henry Mraham, Jr., P.E. u 

Director, Environmental Sr Legal Services I 

RECEIVED 

JAN 24 2000 

DEQ;OEAIEPU 

;H E(;lll.ATION I)EVlil.Ol'~lliF;T SE('I.IOS 
Summary Report/ February 10,2000 

Comment Summary (AQ199) 

Amendments to the Air Quality Regulations 

LAC 33:III.613 and 615 

COMMENT 1 : The commentor supports amendments to the Air Quality 

Regulations, LAC ?3:111.613 and 61 5. 

RESPONSE 1 : The department appreciates the support. 

Comment Key (AQ199) 

Amendments to the Air Quality Regulations 

LAC 33911.613 and 615 

COMMENT# SUGGESTED BY: 

Richard bletcalfl Louisiana Mid-Continent Oil and Gas 

Association 

Henry Graham/ Louisiana Chemical Association. 
000151 ,, 

; ij 

DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY 

STATE OF LOUISIANA 

ORIGINA

RULE TITLE: CORRECTICN TO EMISSION 

REDUCTION CREDITS RULE 

Report of Hearing 

held at 

The Trotter Building 

2nd Floor, 7290 Bluebonnet Boulevard 

Baton Rouge, Louisiana 

January 24, 2000, 1:00 p.m. 

RECEIVED 

FEB -8 

DEQ/OEA/EPV 

WEGlII.ATIOFi DEVE1.OPMENT SEC'SIOS 

ASSOCIATED REP0 RTERS, I NC. 

(225) 216-2036 
1 DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY 

2 REGULATION DEVELOPMENT SECTION 

3 LOG NO. AQ199 

4 PUBLIC HEARING 

5 JANUARY 24, 2000 

8 MR. SKY-PECK: 

9 Good afternoon. My name is Steve 

10 Sky-Peck. I'm employed with the Louisiana 

11 Department of Environmental Quality. 1'11 be 

12 serving as hearing officer this afternoon to 

13 receive comments regarding proposed 

14 amendments to the Air Quality, Hazardous 

15 Waste, and Office of the Secretary 

16 regulations. 

17 The comment period for these 

18 amendments began on December 20, 1999, when 

19 the notice of intent was published in the 

20 Louisiana Register. The comment period will 

21 close at 4:30 p.m., today, January 24, 2000, 

22 for the Log Number HW072*, and at 4:30 p.m., 

23 January! 31, 2000, for the Log Numbers AQ197, 

24 AQ198 and AQ199 and at 4:30 p.m. on February 

2 5 29, 2000, for Log Number OS034. Please note 

ASSOCIATED REPORTERS, INC. (225) 216-2036 
3 

the comment period deadline has been extended 

for OS034. It would be helpful to us if all 

oral comments received today were followed up 

in writing. 

This public hearing provides a forum 

for all interested parties to present 

comments on the proposed changes. I'll ask 

that each commentor begin by stating their 

name and affiliation for the record. 

The next amendment is designated by 

Log Number AQ199. 

The proposed rule corrects the date 

from January 20, 1995, to February 20, 1995, 

for submittal of all applications for banking 

emission reduction credits. The rule 

requires six months for submittals to the 

department after promulgation of the rule; 

however, the actual date promulgated in Log 

Number AQ190, which was published in the 

September 1999 Louisiana Register, was only 

five months after promulgation. 

We do have one speaker signed up, 

Henry G,raham. 

MR. GRAHAM: 

Good afternoon. My name is Henry 

ASSOCIATED REPORTERS, INC. (225) 216-2036 
Graham. I'm with the Louisiana Chemical 

Association. LCA is a trade association of 

chemical manufacturers in the state of 

Louisiana. Some of our companies have 

emission reduction credits as part of the 

emissions banking program, and some of those 

members may be impacted by the proposed rule. 

We want to thank the department for 

promptly discovering and correcting a minor 

error inthe adoption of AQ19O where they had 

originally published the incorrect deadline 

for submittal those original emission 

c r e d i t s , a n d we support the adoption of AQ199 

to make this correction. We appreciate your 

allowing us to comment. Thank you. 

MR. SKY-PECK: 

Thank you, Mr. Graham. Does anyone 

else care to comment on this regulation? 

(No response.) 

If not, the hearing on AQ199 is 

closed. 

ASSOCIATED REPORTERS-, INC. (225) 216-2036 
CERTIFICATE 

I, Lynda D. Habig, a Certified Court 

Reporter in good standing with the State of 

Louisiana, do hereby certify that the 

foregoing testimony was heard before the 

Honorable Steve Sky-Peck, Hearing Officer, on 

January 24, 2000, in the Trotter Building, 

2nd Floor, 7290 Bluebonnet Boulevard, Baton 

Rouge, Louisiana; that I did report the 

proceedings thereof; that the foregoing 

pages, numbered 1-4, inclusive, constitute a 

true and correct transcript of the 

procee dings there 

Utlee Cab-l Rcy!~t?cr 

in and for $r Stale oi !.or~nima 

Cortifiwtc Nuvbw 95081 =/ CaMicate ?xpi~~r. ,I 2-21-00 

LYNDA D. HABIG, CCR 

LOUISIANA LICENSE NO. 95081 

ASSOCIATED REPORTERS. INC. (225) 216-2036 
CAPITAL CITY PRESS 

Publisher of 

THE ADVOCATE 

PROOF OF PUBLICATION 

The hereto attached notice was published in 

THE ADVOCATE, a daily newspaper of general 

circulation, published in Baton Rouge, touisiana, and the Official Journal of the State of 

Louisiana, the City of Baton Rouge and the 

Parish of East Baton Rouge, in the issues of: 

Dec. 16. 1999 n 

Advertising Representative 

Sworn and subscribed before me by the person 

whose signature appears above in Baton 

Rouge, La. on this 

16th dayof Dec. 19" AD. 

My Commission Expires: Indefinite 

. . . . - . . .JAMES H. BRENT. Ph.0 Assistan1 Secrelary 1830494.dec 16.11 

1 RECEIVED 
221 JEFFERSON STREET 

- Lafayette, LA 70502 

Acadiana's Daily Newspaper 

THE ADVERTISER 

PHONE: (318) 289-6300 

FAX : (318) 289-6466 

AFFlDAVlT OF PUBLICATION C 

LYNN Wl LBANKS ACCT #: L-DEQ 

' REGULAR DEVELOPMENT SECTION AD #: 07512821 

DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY AD TOTAL: $72.00 

P.O. BOX 82178 AD INCHES: 12" 

- BATON ROUGE, LA 70884-2178 **In order to insure proper credit 

please refer to your account number andlor 

ad number when making payment. 

- 

I, LORETTA SCHOUEST, do solemnly swear that I am the LEGAL CLERK of THE 

, ADVERTISER, a newspaper printed and published at Lafayette, in the Parish of Lafayette, State of Louisiana, 

and that from my personal knowledge and reference to the files of said publication, the advertisement of . 

- AQ199 - CORRECTION TO EMISSION REDUCTION CREDITS RULE 

- was published in THE ADVERTISER on the following dates: 

Sworn to and subscribe , 1999. - 

- I I 

'J 

NOTARY PUBLIC 

RECEIVED 

DEC 2 8 lM 

DEQIOEAIEPU 

H EtiIII.A'I'ION DEVI!I.OI'XIL!N'I' SI:C1'10$ 
000158 

3800 HOWARD AVENUE. NEW ORLEANS. LOUISIANA 70140-1097 TELIPHoNE(soReRwED 

State of Louisiana 

Parish of Orleans 

1 4 

i 

DEQIOEAIEPI) 

FREGCII-AT~~~ DEVEI.OP~IENT sI-:(-rwx NOTICE~F_!~~~~+~~:~-. ,, City of New Orleans 

Dcparlmsnt of Env*onmenlal 

Persorlally appeared before me, a Notary in and 

for the parish of Orleans, Robert'J. Chiasson 

NZWI CI ssp., and ~n accordance who deposes and says that he is the Accounts w~lh he provlsbns of Ihe Admln- Isfratlve PrOCldure Act R.S 499% et aea the welad gives 

Receivable Manager, of the Times-Picayune nolicn Ihal iulemaklng pro<*- Publishing Corporation, a Louisiana Corpora- 

dures have been Initlaled lo amend Ihe Alr Qualllv reaula- lions uc 8111 613 ad 615 (LM tion, Publishers of The Times-Picayune, Daily 

y&9~';! - . The proposed~rulq correcla Ihe and Sunday, of general circulation; doing dale from January 20 1995 10 business in the City of New Orleans and the 

February 2.0. 1995, tor stibmillal of aU appllcal~ons far banking emis- sion reducllon credlls. T~O rule State of Louisiana, and that the actached 

requlraa SIX monlhs tor submll- lals to Ihr dnrartmenl afler pro- mulgatlon of Iha rule however the actual dale proniut aled 1; I 

AQI90 which war oubl?shcd In, LEGAL NOTICES 

 he ~;olember 1919 Louisiana Realstar, was only flve monlhs af- Ier promulaallon. The basls and ralionale !or the proeased rule are lo correct the dale D~o~uI- galad In APT90 In the enl~llc4 re- dudlon credils~?~kl~a r!.&n-, m<:-;:-~:,dd 4 -8 .,, ..b<...k* 

Thla prdboud rulr meets an ax- ceollon Ilslad In R.S. 30.2019 (0)tl)kand R 10:953(C) 31 tkarrtorr no iriarl reaardln6 ~nvlro~m'enlallhrrlth b*neflls and sodab uonmlc coslr la re- qulr.dlTh/s woeoscd rule has no known Irnorcl on lamllv forma- IIl,"b;&b/~~s.;"y$~~np~ ",-, 

A pub~lc hearlna will be held on January 24 10W at 1:m om. In the Troller BGlldlnb, Second Floor. 1290 Bluebonnel Boulevard Ba- ton Rouge LA 70810 lnle;esled persons tr'e lnvlled l.'allend and submll oral cammml% on the pro- posed amandmenla Should Indl- vlduals WII~ a dlsab~l~lv need an accomrnadallon In order to Oar. IIC~~~IC conlad Palsy Dcavllle al he ahress given be*. or a1 (nsiias~w. - . 

AII Inleresled persona are lnvlled lo submll wrlllen commrnls on the prooosed reaulallonr Com- mentors should reter*nca this proposed regulallon by AqllP. such c mmls muat b. rscelved m ralwwfian anuarJ 11. 1000, at I:M p,rn., and should be rent lo' patsy O*aville Rwulallon DevClopmenl sectlol; BOX IZIB Baton ROUQ~ LA 1064-2178 or io FAX (ns) f6~-04a& Cwles ol lhls Pro- posed reaulallon can be pur- chased a1 the above referenced address Cantact Ihe Rmaulallon oevc!oemenl Section a1 (225) 76s-0199 for orlclno Informallon. chuk or monev order la required In advance lor each COPV of 

A41W. 

~hls prowsad rcaulalbn Is avail- 

for Inspeclion a1 Ihe falbwin9 DEQ offlce laallons from I a.m. until 1.10 P m . 1290 Bluebonnel I aoulejard '~&rth Flmr ,Baton ROUP*, LA) 7011P. (04 ~h~hV-flrsl Slreel. Monro*, LA 71203; Stat* OM- UUIB~P IUS Fairfield AW- Sworn to and subscribed before me this .nu* fhrrr*&rt LA 11101' 1519 

palrkk SI~-I ~ih* chart& LA 10~5' 3501 dhataau Boul8;brd a 

wed hm K8nw LA 7M la6 , 16th day of DECEMBER rma edutevsrh SU~I* '151 A.D., 19 99 

Catavrile. LA 7~d; ,104 LXOC~ 

Or~ve Racelad LA 70394 or on In8 ltilernel a1 'hllp:llwww deq. stale Ia.urlplann~nolreaslIn- dex.hlm. . , lames H Brml Ph D. , r 

~sustaniscuc/ar; 

FORM 1IbN 

My commission expires at my death. 

0 E*ST JEFFERSON ADVERTISER O WEST BANK ADVERTISER O ST TAMMANY ADVERTISER a EAST NCN ORLEANS ADVERTISER 0 ST BERNARD ADVERTISER Cl RIVER PARISHES ADVERTISER 

THURSOAY AND SUNDAY 

- . ,.- --^. - .-. --- _-- - --* r ..,.. .^, C".,"#-" -I ,,.--.. . - --- _-- - --- - --- --- 

( 

I 

~ 

RE: The Secretary gives notice that rulemaking 

procedures have been initiated to wd the P.i1 

Quality regulation LAC 33:III. 613 & 615 LogAQ1' 

Advertisement of Regulation Development Secti C 

P.0. BOX 82178 

Baton Rouqe, La. 70884-2178 

Was published in The Times Picayune 

on the following dates December 16, 1999 
RECEIVED 

JAN 3" 2GCO 

STATE OF LOUISIANA 

PARISH OF CADDO 

Before me, the undersigned authority, personally came and appeared 

Brenda Bullock , personally known to 

me, who being duly sworn, deposes and says that she is the Assistant 

to the Classified Advertising Manager of The Times, and that the attached 

Advertisement entitled: 

NOTICE OF INTENT: Department of Environmental Quality Office of 

Environmental Assessment Environmental Planning Division. 

(Log #AQ 199) 

NOTICE OF 1 

INTENT , 

Department of ' 

- ' Envlronmenlal 

Ouallty Office 

of Envlronmental ; 

Assessment I 

Envlronmental I 

Planning Dlvlsion ; - Under the authority of 

the Environmental 

Ouall-ty Act. R.S. 

30:2001 et seq., and In 

accordance with the - provisions of the Administrative Procedure ' Act, R.S. 49:950 et 

seq.. the secretary 

glves notlce that rulemaklng . procedures! 

I have been lnltlated to/ 

amend the Air Ouality 

regulatlons, LAC/ 

33:111.613 nd 615 (Log, 

real 991.6 

~~s~-~ro~osed. rule 

corrects. the date from 

January 20, 1995 to 

February 20, 1995, for 

submltlal of all applications for banking ! 

- emlsslon reduction 

credits. The rule re- quires blx months for ' submittals to the department after promul- 

'gallon of the rule; 1 - however, the actual! 

date romulgated in 

A(119t which wsr. published In the Sap-! 

tember 1999 l.cwlslana, 

Register, was only flve - months atter promul- 1 

gation. The basis and 

rationale for the pro-,; 

posed rule are to cor- , 

rect the date promul- / 

gated In Aolw, which - was publlsh~d In the.' 

September 1999 Lo'uislana Regl~ter, was, , only flve months after I 

promulgatlon. The ba- ! 

- sis and rationale for 

the proposed rule are : to correct the date 

promulgated In' A0190 

In the emlsslon reduc-: 

tlon credits banklng , 

As per copy of advertisement hereto annexed, was published in The 

Times on the following dates to wit: 

nber 25, 1999 

- rule. ... : 1 opmint- ~ectlon, BOX ~hl~ propos~dA rule 82178, Baton Rouge. 

meets an exception listed In R.S. 30:2019 

LA 7°884-2178 Or 

FAX (225 765-0488. 

ronmentahealtx be-, dress. Contact the 

(Its and soclalleco;l Regulation Develop-/ 

nomlc costa Is re- ( Section at (225) 1 

qulred. This proposed 765-0399 for pricing - ~le has na known I,. Information. Check or (Signed) 

pact on family forme 1 mne order IS re- 1 

tion. stability, and a+ ,I quireJ in advance lor ! 

tonomy as described j each COPY of 4199 

In R.S. 493972. , This proposed reguia- , 

A public hearing will ' tion IS availabk for in- : I be held on January 24.1 SpeclioIl at the follow2000, at 1:3O p.m. in DEO offlce locathe Trotter ~ulldln~,' tion8 from 8 a.m. until to and subscribed before me this 27th day of December, 1999 Second Floor, 7290, 4% p.m.: 7290 BlueBluebonnet Boulevard.' bonnet Boulevard. 

- Baton Rouge, LA Fourth Floor, Baton 

'70810. Interested per- Rouge, LA 70810: 804 

sons are Invited to at- ' Thirty-first Street, 

tend and submit oral: Monroe. LA 71203; comments on the pr* State Oftlce Bulldlng, 

posed amendments. 1525 Fairfleld Avenue, - Should lndl~ldual~ Shreveport. LA 71101; 

wlth a dlsabillty n-d, 3519 Patrlck Street. an accommodatlon 1" Lake Charles. LA u,J 

order to partlclpate, i 70605; 3501 'Chateau 

contact Patsy Deavlilg Boulevard, West Wing. (Notary) 

D (3 s.4 G COP~~S 01 this pro3); therefore. no re- Posed regulation can 

I 1 . be purchased at the 

regardin envC-1 above referenced adat the address Ivan - below or at 7225) 

7-99. 

All .Interested persons 

are lnvlted to submit 

Kenner. LA 70065: 100 

Asma Boulevard. Suite 

151, Lafayette. LA 

70508; 104 Lococo 

Drive, Raceland, LA 

written comments on ' 70394 or on the ' 

the proposed regula- Internet at http:// - tlons. Cornmentors www.deq.etate.la.us1 ' 

shouid reference th~a plannlnglregal In- 1 

proposed reguiatlon 1 de*.htm, 

by Aq199. Such com- ) ments must be re- Jwnes H. Bwnt, Ph.D. / 

ceived no later than Aylstant 9cr0tav 

.lanlrnrv 31. 2000. rt I -".-~ I 
. . - .. . . - - - - . - - LOG # A0199 , .. , 

NOTICE OF INTENT 

the da?efhm-~anuav2~%5 .. 

to Iebruay 20,1995, for sub- / 

mlttal of a1 appllcatrons for .. , .. banking eniission reductionL.": .:. 

creditslThe rule requlres SIX -1.) ( months for submdtals lo the denartment after ommulaat~an af b I 

he rule. howejer the ict& - 

date p&mulgated I" A01 90 y!Y:'"" 

whlch was published In the 8ep- tember 1999 Lou~srana Req~ster. I was only five months after-.. .. ;<,; 

mmul atron. The bash and ra- : P tonale 7 or the proposed.rule are ': 

to correct the date pmmulgated. .. in A01 90 In the emlssion reduc- i: 

lion credits banklng rule. ~Z~kaj:.. 

: Thirproposedmle meets an exce lion listedin R.S. 30:2019,:::; 

(0) (3 and,R..S.49:953 (G) (3); 

the? F org;no re rt rega@tng Y'lr envtronmental/ralth benehts, ::. 

and sociaVeconomrc costs is re- r: quired. pis pmposed ~le has ,!s.! 

no.known'inpact on fam~ly lor- . -, 

mation, stabllrty.'and autonomy -'." as describd In R.S.49:472. . ,,,i;& A public hearin wrll be held .{: .. 

on January 24.2100 at t.30;rr it:?, 

p'm in the ~roker ~iildln'~..S&- ,. 

o~d'~loor'7240 Bluebanq& :. 260- 

~oulevard Baton Ro,uQe;LA :, :I 

7081 0. lnthested persons arg;;+ ,. invited to attend and subm~t oral ..I 

comments on the.pmposed ' 7: .n. 

arnendmepts. Should indrviduali.? 

with'a*is+bility need an accom- : 

modatlon In order to art~c~~atei;", 

contact palsy ~eavtli at the address wen below or at (225) . ,: 765.$99 !I . -).i',wI ei~!Fi 

.All internsled $e&ns are in- ':I, 

vited to'bubmit wntten comments an the pmposed regulations. Commenton should reference "- 

this prysed mgulition :.~',i:.!? 

3y 401, 9 Suchcornments ..q. 6,- 

must be mcetved no laterthan ,:,, January 31, 2000. at 430 p.m.. :,;, ' 

and should be rent to Patsy .:.-. 5'. 

)eavdle, Uegulation Develop- :: ... nent Section. Box 821 78, Baton 

3ou e L4 70884-21 78 or to FAX 

225?7k-0486. Cooies of this .. 

GANNETT CO. INC. 

Publisher of 

THE NEWS STAR 

MONROE, LOUISIANA 

PROOF OF PUBLICATION 

The hereto attached advertisement 

Was published in the NEWS-STAR, A 

Daily newspaper of general circulation, 

Published in Monroe, Louisiana, 

Parish of Ouachita. in the issues of: 

Sworn and subscribed before me by 

~rooosed reoulaftin can be our- 1 

The person whose signature appears above in Monroe, La on this 

:heck or moky oder Is required n advance for each copy .: . . - : 11 Ail1 99.0 ' ' -.i,:;.l~. :, . 

This roposed regulation is :. .. lvailagle for inspection at the , ! 

ollowing OEO office locations ' 

rom 8 a.m. until 430 p.m.: 7290 

!luebonnet Boulevard. Fourth -. 

.loor. Baton Rouge. LA 7081 0: .. 

104 Thirtpirst Street. Monroe; ,I 

A 71 20 State Oft~ce Burldlng 525.~~i~&~~venue. Shreve- '. 

iort LA 71 101.3519 Patrick . . 

;tr&t Lake ~harles LA 70605. 

1501 Chateau 8oule;ard. west' 

Wing, Kenner. LA 70065; 100 , . tsma Bouleved Suite 151 La-, 

ayelte LA TOW& 104 ~ocdco 

lnve. Aace~ami, i~ 70394 or on he Internet at httpYtwww.deq. itate.la.udp~nnins/m,gs/index. 

!m. .'., :,. . . . . .. . , . ... .:James H. Brent; Ph.0 :.'I1- Atsistvlt Secretaly .ion6e. LA 7 . .. . ,.. . . 

lecember 19, 1999 . ' ,-'.; 

day of /&,!?a 19 Qq AD 

w 

NOTARY PUBLIC 
,.". ,---. .... -... Deportment of Environmental Quolitv Office of Environmental Assessment Environmental Pl0ntrotive Procedure Act, 

R.S. 49:950 et seq., the secretary gives notice that 

rulemaking procedures 

hove been initloted to 

omend the Air Quality regulations,. LAC 33: I1 1.613 

and 615 (Log rAQ199). 

The proposed rule cor- rects the date from Jonuory 20. 1995 to February 

20, 1995, for submlttal of 

oll applications for bonking emission reductlon 

credits. The rule requires 

six months for submittals 

to the deportment ofter 

promulgation of the rule; 

however, the actuai dote 

promulgated in AQ190. 

whtch wos published in the 

September I999 Louisiona 

Register, was only five 

months ofter promulgation. the basis ond rationale for the proposed rule ore to correct the date promulgated in AQ 190 in the 

emission reduction credits 

bonking rule. . . . . - . . - . meets on exception listed 

in R.S. 30:2019 (0)(31 ond 

R.S:49:953(G) (]);,there-' 

fore, no report regordins envlronmentoV health ben-; 

efits and social/ economic 

;costs Is iequired.. This Pro-' 

posed rule has.n&lknown! 

Impact-on fomll~~foima-1 1. tion. stabilitv. and autonoore Invited tp attend ond 

submit oiol cominents'onl 

the proposed amend-' 

ments. Shauld ~ndividuals 

with 0 disability need an 

accommodation in order 

partlcipote. contact 

Patsv Deaville at the od-. 

dress given below or at 

(225) 7656399. 

All interested persons: ore invited to submit !Wit-j 

ten comments on the pro-, 

oased reoulatlons. €om-\ 

&%tors should reference 

this proposed regulation 1 

by A4199. such comments 

must be received no later 

than Jonuorv 31. 2000. at 

4:30 p.m., and should be 

sent to Patsy Deavllle. 

Regulation Development 

Section, Box 82178. Baton 

Rouge, LA 70884-21 78 or to FOX (225) 765-0486. Co~!es 

of this proposed regulot~on can be purchased at the 

above referenced address. 

Contact the Regulation 

Development Section Ot 

(225) 765-0399 for prlclng 

information. Check or money order Is requlred In 

odvonce for each COPY of I Aalw. 

Affidavit of Publication 

REG~II.ATION DEvEI.OPXIENT SECT10 

STATE OF LOUISIANA 

Parish of Calcasieu 

Before me, the undersigned authority, personally came and appeared 

$L Yq$$.$$> w eing duly sworn, depo e 

He/She is a duly authorized agent of 

LAKE CHARLES AMERICAN PRESS 

a newspaper published daily at 4900 Highway 90 East, 

Lake Charles, Louisiana, 70615. (Mail address: P.O. Box 2893, 

Lake Charles, LA 70602) 

The attached Notice was published in said newspaper in its issue(s) 

dated: 

18503567 - $3 1 .OO 

December 20, 1999 

Duly Authorized Agent 

Subscribed and sworn to before me this 20th day of December, 

1999 at Lake Charles, LA 

~otG Public 

14 100654-000 

LA DEPT ENVIRONMENTAL 

. ..... 

This prawsed regulation 

is avoiloble for Inspection 

at the followin DEQ affice locotions fgm 8 0.m. 

untll 4:30 p.m.; 7290 Bluebonnet Boulevard. Fourth 

Floor. Baton Rouge, LA 

70810; 804 Thlrtv-first 

Street, Monroe. LA 71203; 

State offlce Bullding. 1525 

Folrfield Avenue. Shreveport. LA 71101 :3519 Potrick Street. Lake Charles, I 

LA 70605;3401 Chateau 

Boulevard, West Wing, 

Kenner. LA 70065; 100 ASma Boulevord. Sulte 151, 

Lofovette, LA 70508; 105 

Lococo Drlve. Roceland, 

LA 7039;4 or on the Internet 

at 

htt~://Www.deq.state.lo.us 

/~loninslregwlndex.htm:. 

James H. Brent. Ph.D, 

Assistant Secretory. Derrmh~r .In 1 t 

-- 
[See Prior Text in Note 1 - 161 

* * * 

Division, LR 26: 

Subchapter B. Repea 

uary 24, 2000, at 1 :30 

loor, 7290 Bluebonnet 

accommodation in o ipate, contact Patsy 

Deaville at the address 

LA 70884-2 17 

James H. Brent, Ph.D. 

Assistant Secretary 

FOR ADMINISTRATIVE RULES 

Program 

Robert E. Hosse 

General Government Section 

Legislative Fiscal Office 

NOTICE OF INTENT \ 

Department of Environmental Quality 

Office of Environmental Assessment 

Environmental Planning Division 

Emission Reduction Credits Banking 

(LAC 33:III.613 and 615)(AQ199) 

Under the authority of the Environmental Quality Act, 

R.S. 30:2001 et seq., and in accordance with the provisions 

of the Administrative Procedure Act, RS. 49:950 et seq., the. 

secretary gives notice that rulemaking procedures have been 

initiated to amend the Air Quality regulations, LAC 

33:111.613 and 615 (Log #AQ199). 

The proposed rule corrects the date from January 20, 1995 

to February 20, 1995, for submittal of all applications for 

banking emission reduction credits. The rule requires six 

months for submittals to the department after promulgation 

of the rule; however, the actual date promulgated in AQ190, 

which was published in the September I999 Louisiana 

Register, was only five months after promulgation. The basis 

and rationale for the proposed rule are to correct the date 

promulgated in AQ190 in the emission reduction credits 

banking rule. 

This proposed rule meets an exception listed in R.S. 

30:20 19 (D)(3) and R.S .49:953 (G)(3); therefore, no report 

regarding environmental/health benefits and sociaUeconomic 

253 1 loursiana Register Vol. 25, No. 12 December 20, 1999 

# 
costs is required. This proposed rule has no known impact 

on family formation, stability, and autonomy as described in 

R.S. 49:972. 

Title 33 

ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY 

Part 111. Air 

Chapter 6. Regulations on Control of Emissions 

Through the Use of Emission Reduction 

Credits Banking 

$613. ERC Bank Balance Sheet * * * 

[See Prior Text in A-C] 

D. Schedule. All applications for banking ERCs in the 

parishes of Ascension, East Baton Rouge, Iberville, 

Livingston, and West Baton Rouge where the emission 

reductions occurred before August 20, 1994, must have been 

submitted prior to February 20, 1995. First-time applications 

for banking ERCs for attainment parishes may be submitted 

at any time. If a parish is redesignated as ozone 

nonattainment by the EPA, applications for banking ERCs 

for those parishes must be submitted within six months after 

the effective date of the EPA designation. All applications 

for banking ERCs where the emission reductions occurred 

after the date this banking rule was adopted for an area shall 

be submitted by March 1 following the year in which the 

reduction occurred. The balances (i.e., the balance available 

for netting and the balance available for offsets) from the 

ERC bank balance sheets of Subsection A of this Section 

shall be submitted to the department by March 1 of each 

year together with the certification specified in Subsection E 

of this Section. All emission reductions must meet the 

timing restrictions set forth in LAC 33dII.607.D in order to 

be eligible for banking as ERCs. * * * 

[See Prior Text in E-F] 

AUTHORITY NOTE: Promulgated in accordance with RS. 

30:2054. 

HISTORICALNOTE: Promulgated by the Department of 

Environmental Quality, Office of Air Quality and Radiation 

Protection, Air Quality Division, LR 20:877 (August 1994). 

amended LR 25:1622 (September 1999), amended by the Office of 

Environmental Assessment, Environmental Planning Division, LR 

26: 

$615. Schedule for Submitting Applications *** 

[See Prior Text in A] 

B. All applications for banking ERCs in the parishes of 

Ascension, East Baton Rouge, Iberville, Livingston, and 

West Baton Rouge where the emission reductions occurred 

before August 20, 1994, must have been submitted prior to 

February 20, 1995. First-time applications for banking ERCs 

for attainment parishes may be submitted at any time. If a 

parish is redesignated as ozone nonattainment by the EPA, 

application for banking ERCs for those parishes must be 

submitted within six months after the effective date of the 

EPA designation. Once a banking application has been filed, 

the bank balance and the applicant's certification should be 

submitted annually on March 1. 

* * * 

[See Prior Text in C-D] 

AUTHORITY NOTE: Promulgated in accordance with RS. 

30:2054. 

HISTORICALNOTE: Promulgated by the Department of 

Environmental Quality, Office of Air Quality and Radiation 

Protection, Air Quality Division, LR 20:878 (August 1994), 

amended LR 2 1 :68 1 (July 1995), LR 25: 1623 (September 1999), 

amended by the Office of Environmental Assessment, 

Environmental Planning Division, LR 26: 

A public hearing will be held on January 24,2000, at 1 :30 

p.m. in the Trotter Building, Second Floor, 7290 Bluebonnet 

Boulevard, Baton Rouge, LA 708 10. Interested persons are 

invited to attend and submit oral comments on the proposed 

amendments. Should individuals with a disability need an 

accommodation in order to participate, contact Patsy 

Deaville at the address given below or at (225) 765-0399. 

All interested persons are invited to submit written 

comments on the proposed regulations. Cornmentors should 

reference this proposed regulation by AQ199. Such 

comments must be received no later than January 3 1, 2000, 

at 4:30 p.m., and should be sent to Patsy Deaville, 

Regulation Development Section, Box 82 178, Baton Rouge, 

LA 70884-2178 or to fax (225) 765-0486. Copies of this 

proposed regulation can be purchased at the above 

referenced address. Contact the Regulation Development 

Section at (225) 765-0399 for pricing information. Check or 

money order is required in advance for each copy of AQ 199. 

This proposed regulation is available for inspection at the 

following DEQ office locations from 8 a.m. until 4:30 p.m.: 

7290 Bluebonnet Boulevard, Fourth Floor, Baton Rouge, LA 

70810; 804 Thirty-first Street, Monroe, LA 71203; State 

Office Building, 1525 Fairfield Avenue, Shreveport, LA 

7 1 10 1; 35 19 Patrick Street, Lake Charles, LA 70605; 3501 

Chateau Boulevard, West Wing, Kenner, LA 70065; 100 .. 

Asma Boulevard, Suite 151, Lafayette, LA 70508; 104 

Lococo Drive, Raceland, LA 70394 or on the Internet at 

http://~~~.deq.state.la.udplanning/regdindex.htm. 

James H. Brent, Ph.D. 

Assistant Secretary 

FISCAL AND ECONOMIC IMPACT STATEMENT 

FOR ADMINISTRATIVE RULES 

RULE TITLE: Emission Reduction Credits Banking ' 

I. ESTIh4ATED IMPLEMENTATION COSTS (SAVINGS) TO 

STATE OR LOCAL GOVERNMENT UNITS (Summary) 

No costs to state or local governments are anticipated as a 

result of the implementation of this rule. 

U. ESTIMATED EFFECT ON REVENUE COLLECnONS OF STATE 

OR LOCAL GO-AL UNITS (Summary) 

There should be no effect on revenue collections of state or 

local governments as a result of the implementation of this rule. 

III. ESTIMATED COSE ANWOR ECONOMIC BENEFITS TO 

DIRECTLY AFFECTED PERSONS OR NONGOVERNMENTAL 

GROUPS (Summary) 

There should be no costs andfor economic benefits as a 

result of the implementation of this rule. 

N. ESTIMATED EFFECT ON COMPETITION AND EMPLOm 

(Summary) Competition and employment are not expected to be 

significantly effected as a result of the implementation of this 

rule. 

James H Brent, Ph.D. Robert E. Hosse 

Assistant Secretary General Government Section Director 

99 12#086 Legislative Fiscal Office 

Louisiana Register Val. 25, No. 12 December 20, 1999 - z532 

Alternative 11 

line 41 

Yes No 

-- 

-- 

-- 10. Have financial statenien 

Information Administration? -- 

-- 12. Has financial informati 

Dun and Bradstreef and has 

have been met.] -- 

line 41 

in the US. [required only if \- / less than 90 pe cent of assets;& located 

in the U.S.] 

[If "No," complete line I I.] 

urrent liabilities 

et working capital [subtract line 13 from 

Yes No ' 

-- 

this statement.] 

specified in LAC 33:Xl.l I 

date shown immediately be1 

[Signature] 

Pame1 

[Title] 

/ James H. Brent, Ph.D. 

Assistant Secretary 

RULE 

Department of Environmental Quality 

Office of Environmental Assessment 

Environmental Planning Division 

Permit Procedures for New Emissions Sources and Major 

Modifications in Specified Parishes 

(LAC 33:III.509 and 5 10)(AQ2 18) 

Under the authority of the Environmental Quality Act, 

R.S. 30:2001 et seq., and in accordance with the provisions 

of the Administrative Procedure Act, R.S. 49:950 et seq., the 

secretary has amended the Air Quality regulations, LAC 

33:III.509 and 5 I0 (Log #AQ218). 

This rule establishs a control technology requirement for 

NOx and VOC emissions at new emissions units located at 

new and existing major stationary sources, as well as 

mandate an offset requirement for major modifications as 

2233 Louisiana Register Vol. 27, No. 12 December 20, 2001 
defined in LAC 33:111.509. This rule would be applicable to 

sources located in parishes where emissions must be 

missions units at new or existing major stationary sourc s, 

defined herein, provided the source is located withi a 

p rish specified in Subsection A of this Se ion. 

M dijcation and reconstruction shall have the same 

me ings attributed to them in 40 CFR 60.14 and 60.1 . iblaint Tech ology (MRACT) enance Requirements Reasonably Available lo

The potential to emit of a stationary so rce shall 

regulated to such an extent as to maintain the attainment 

status of that parish, or expedite or maintain the attainment 

status of an adjacent or nearby parish. Namely, these 

parishes are Beauregard, Cameron, Calcasieu, and Jefferson 

Davis. Calcasieu Parish experienced six ozone exceedance 

days during the years 1998, 1999, and 2000. Four or more 

exceedances during any consecutive 3-year period constitute 

a violation of the ozone National Ambient Air Quality 

Standard (NAAQS). In accordance with contingency 

the major stationary 

1 of this Section to 

measures established in the approved air quality b. \~ach new modified or reconstructgb emissions 

Maintenance Plan for Calcasieu Parish, a control strategy 

must be developed and appropriate control measures 

implemented in an effort to maintain Calcasieu's current 

attainment designation and to protect air quality in the area. 

The basis and rationale for this rule are to protect and 

maintain the air quality in Calcasieu Parish and the adjoining minimus value\hall represent the potent$il to emit of the 

parishes of Beauregard, Cameron, and Jefferson Davis and 

to continue to meet the National Ambient Air Quality 

Standard for ozone. 

This rule meets an exception listed in R.S. 30:2019(D)(2) 

and R.S.49:953(G)(3); therefore, no report regarding 

environmental/health benefits and social/economic costs is 

emissions unit only and shall 

contemporaneous \ increases and decre 

I have the same 

construction is not ommenced w thin 18 months after 

receipt of such approv , if construc on is discontinued for a 

period of 18 months r more, if construction is not , 

completed within \easonab/time. For a phased 

required. This proposed rule has no known impact on family 

formation, stability, and autonomy as described in R.S. 

49:972. 

Title 33 

ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY 

Part 111. Air 

month period upon a satis showing that an extension 

is justified. 

d. For phased 

as appropriate, at th 

18 months prior to of construction of each 

of MRACT. 

Chapter 5. Permit Procedures 

$509. Prevention of Significant Deterioration * * * 

[See Prior Text in A -B. Baseline Area. I] 

2. All parishes are designated as attainment for all 

pollutants except the following parishes are designated 

nonattainment for ozone only: 

*** 

[See Prior Text in B.Baseline Concentration -S.4] 

AUTHORITY NOTE: Promulgated in accordance with R.S. 

30:2054. 

HISTORICAL NOTE: Promulgated by the Department of 

Environmental Quality, Office of Air Quality and Nuclear Energy, 

Air Quality Division, LR 13:741 (December 1987), amended LR 

14:348 (June 1988), LR 16:6 13 (July 1990), amended by the Office 

of Air Quality and Radiation Protection, Air Quality Division, LR 

17:478 (May 199 I), LR 21:170 (February 1995), LR 22:339 (May 

1996). LR 23:1677 (December 1997). LR 24:654 (April 1998). LR 

24: 1284 (July 1998), repromulgated LR 15:259 (February 1999), 

amended by the Office of Environmental Assessment, 

egister Vo1. 27, No. 12 December20, 2001 

desi n and plant layout; f b. a detailed schedule for construction of 

e$ssions unit(s); and 
Dear Ms. Deaville: 

June 29,2001 

Ms. Patsy Deaville 

Re: Solicitation for Comments on Proposed Rule AQ2 18 

RECEIVED 

JUN 2 8 2001 

DEQ:OEA/EPU 

The Lake Area Industry Alliance (LAIA) is composed of 24 manufacturing companies in 

the Calcasieu Parish area. These comments are submitted on behalf of the LALA. The 

LAlA appreciates this opportunity to submit comments in response to the above 

referenced rule, which was proposed through a Notice of Intent in the May 20,2001 State 

Register. 

Regulation Development Section iKEG~'I.~TIO~ DEVI;I.OIJX(ENT SE(-rIOS 

Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality 

P. 0. Box 82178 

Baton Rouge, LA 70884-2 178 

Should you have any questions about these comments, please contact Mr. Larry 

DeRoussel, LALA Executive Director at 337.436.6800, or Mr. Morgan French, HSE 

Manager, Lyondell Chemical Company, at 337.49 1.3 107. 

Sincerely yours, 

Larry DeRoussel 

LAlA Executive Director 
LAKE AREA INDUSTRY ALLIANCE 

LAKE CHARLESICALCASIEU PARISH, LA 

RESPONSE TO SOLICITATION FOR COMMENTS ON PROPOSED RULE 

"PERMIT PROCEDURES FOR NEW EMISSIONS SOURCES AND MAJOR 

MODIFICATIONS IN SPECIFIED PARISHES, LOG NO. AQ218" 

The Lake Area Industry Alliance (LALA) submits these comments in response to the . 

LDEQ's solicitation for comments on "Permit Procedures for New Emissions Sources 

and Major Modification in Specified Parishes" Log No. AQ2 18, which was published as 

a Notice of Intent in the Louisiana State Register on May 20, 2001. 

The LALA is comprised of - manufacturing companies in the Calcasieu Parish area. 

These comments are submitted on behalf of the companies represented by the LALA. 

The LAIA generally supports the LDEQ's efforts to ensure that Calcasieu Parish 

continues to maintain attainment with the National Ambient Air Quality Standard 

(NAAQS) for ozone. LALA members and the LDEQ have a long history of cooperatively 

working toward attainment of the ozone NAAQS in Calcasieu Parish. Thls cooperative 

effort led to the successful redesignation of Calcasieu Parish to ozone attainment status in 

1997. LALA members desire to continue the cooperative spirit that has prevailed over the .' 

last 12 years of working on hs issue. 

The LALA respectllly submits the following comments on proposed rule AQ218. 

COMMENT 1: CALCASIEU PARISH'S OZONE PROBLEM IS A PROBLEM 

TRANSPORTED FROM TEXAS 

In the Notice of Intent, the LDEQ states that AQ218 proposes to establish a control 

technology requirement for NOx and VOC emissions at new emissions units located at 

new and existing major stationary sources, as well as mandate an offset requirement for 

major modifications as defined in LAC 33:111.509. This additional level of control is 

being proposed because Calcasieu Parish experienced 6 ozone exceedance days during 

the years 1998, 1999, and 2000. Four or more exceedances during any consecutive 3-year 

period constitute a violation of the ozone NAAQS. And, in accordance with contingency 

measures established in the approved air quality Maintenance Plan for Calcasieu Parish, a 

control strategy must be developed and appropriate control measures implemented to 

maintain Calcasieu's current attainment designation. This rule is proposed to be 

applicable to Beauregard, Cameron, Calcasieu, and Jefferson Davis parishes. 
LAIA does not disagree kith the fact that 6 exceedances of the ozone NAAQS occurred 

over the 3 year period. However, data presented by the LDEQ strongly suggests that 4 of 

the exceedance events were caused by atmospheric transport from Texas. And, as stated 

on the Calcasieu Ozone Support page on LDEQYs website, "According to the approved 

SIP for Calcasieu Parish, contingency measures must be implemented when a violation of 

the Ozone NAAQS has occurred that is not attributable to transport (emphasis added)." 

Back-wind trajectory analysis completed by LDEQ personnel in early-2001 strongly 

suggests that exceedance events recorded on August 19, 1999, May 22,2000, July 20, 

2000, and September 1,2000 were caused by transport from Texas as evidenced by the 

exceedances occurring at the Vinton monitoring station. The Vinton monitoring station 

was originally installed to identify ozone transport from west of the Sabine River (i.e., 

corning fiom Texas). The other two exceedance events, those that occurred on October 1, 

1998, and August 16, 1999, were only slightly above the 1 hour ambient air ozone 

standard and appear to be the result of Calcasieu Parish activities. 

Because of this, the LAIA believes that the LDEQ is getting the cart before the horse 

with this rule. 

Houston, TX and Beaumont-Port Arthur (BPA), TX, have some of the worst air quality 

in the nation with respect to ground level ozone. Given that preliminary air dispersion 

modeling has indicated that 4 of the 6 exceedances are the result of transport from Texas, 

it is not hard to envision a scenario where all LALA facilities could be shut down and still 

have exceedances of the ozone NAAQS simply because of the close proximity to 

Houston and BPA, and prevailing winds. 

Lmposition of this rule on LALA members is premature and should only be done after it is 

demonstrated that reductions of VOC andlor NOx would actually help to insure on-going 

compliance with the ozone NAAQS. This demonstration should be done by rigorous 

analysis using the best air dispersion models available and should be completed before 

additional controls and offsets are required by LALA member companies. 

However, as an alternative, the LALA requests the Department consider this rule, if 

adopted, as temporary in nature. LALA requests that the LDEQ be willing to quickly 

amend or repeal the rule if future studies demonstrate the rule is overly prescriptive or its 

benefits are superceded by new rules developed by either EPA or the Department. 

COMMENT 2: IMPOSITION OF OFFSETS IS PREMATURE I 

The requirement for VOC and NOx offsets is premature and arbitrary. 

Given that no rigorous air dispersion modeling has been done with respect to the impact 

of NOx or VOC reductions, it is not known whether NOx or VOC reductions imposed by 

the proposed rule will actually reduce ground level ozone concentrations. Given the 

complex nature of atmospheric chemistry, it is possible that NOx reductions required by 
this rule could actually increase ground level ozone concentrations. Requiring VOCMOx 

e', offset's appears to be based on the hope that "doing anything is better than doing rather than the application of good science and careful, deliberate analysis. 

The Fiscal and Economic Impact Statement (FEIS) states that Emission Reduction 

Credit's (ERCs) could be used to meet the proposed offset requirement. Additionally, it is 

stated that the potential supply of ERCs in the Calcasieu area cannot be predicted as the 

specific emission reductions which are eligible to be banked as ERCs have not been 

catalogued. Consequently, "an ERC cost woufd be difficult to predict, except that it 

should be comparable to that in the Baton Rouge area." 

It is true that ERCs have not been catalogued as Calcasieu Parish has not been eligible to 

participate in the ERC program run by the LDEQ. LDEQ personnel have stated to LAIA 

member companies that ERCs can only be established for VOCNOx reductions that have 

occurred since 6/2/97, the date that CaIcasieu Parish was redesignated ozone attainment. 

There is no evidence that ERCs will become available, that there will be a secondary 

market for any that do become available, that potential ERCs that are identified will 

actually be creditable for LAIA members to use, or that EPA will not object to, and 

possibly disqualify, any ERCs that are proposed by LAIA member companies. 

The FEIS summarily dismisses the potential significant cost to LAIA members by saying 

that the cost of ERCs should be comparable to that in the Baton Rouge area without any 

real data on the existence and possible use of ERCs in Calcasieu Parish. The cost to 

LAIA members could be significantly greater than that experienced by the Baton Rouge 

area, which could put LAIA members at a significant economic disadvantage in the 

global marketplace. 

Once again, it appears that the LDEQ is getting the cart before the horse. There is no 

assurance that imposing offsets on LAIA member facilities would decrease ground level 

ozone in Calcasieu Parish. Imposition of this rule on LAIA members is premature and 

should only be required after it is demonstrated that reductions of VOC andlor NOx 

would actually help to insure on-going compliance with the ozone NAAQS. 

As an alternative, the Department should also consider a 1: 1 offset ratio rather than the 

1.1 : 1 offset ratio proposed in AQ2 18. If the goal is no new growth in emissions, then a 

1: 1 ratio satisfies that goal. This is particularly true of NOx emissions. In addition, a 1: 1 

ratio would also provide better control over NOx so that the chances of a NOx 

"disbenefit" are avoided. 

COMMENT 3: THIS RULE PUTS LAIA MEMBER COMPANIES AT A 

COMPETITIVE DISADVANTAGE 

The FEIS states that "There is no effect on competition since all facilities must follow the 

same rules. There is no estimated effect on employment in the public and private 

sectors." 
This statement appears to assume that LALA member companies compete with one 

another, and this rule will affect all LAIA member companies in the same manner. What 

it fails to recognize is that most LAIA member companies do not compete with one 

another. LAM member companies must compete with companies in other states and 

counlnes and this rule increases the competitive pressure that each LALA company faces 

daily. 

The LDEQ has not conclusively demonstrated the need for AQ2 18. AQ2 18 imposes air 

emission control abatement requirements without having clearly demonstrated the rule's 

implementation as being practical or economically feasible. 
Paper Division 

Southern Operations 

P.O. Box 1060 

Hwy. 190 West 

DeRidder, Louisiana 70634-1 060 

337-462-4300 

June 27,2001 

Boise Cascade 

RECEIVED 1 

VIA CERTIFIED MAIL 

RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED 

Ms. Patsy Deaville 

Regulatory Development Section 

Office of Environmental Assessment 

LA Department of Environmental Quality 

P.O. Box 82178 

Baton Rouge, LA 70884-2 178 

lU: LDEO Notice of Intent - Mav 20,2001 Proposed Rule A0218 

Dear Ms. DeavilIe: 

On behalf of Boise Cascade Corporation (BCC) and the BCC DeRidder mill, I am submitting 

comments on the Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality (LDEQ) proposed 

regulations AQ2 18 and AQ2 19. 

By promulgation of these regulations, the LDEQ seeks to establish control technology 

requirements for NOx and VOC emissions and require emission offset requirements for new 

and existing major sources and for major modifications in Calcasieu and three surrounding 

parishes (Beauregard. Cameron, Jefferson Davis). Calcasieu Parish has experienced six 

ozone exceedance days in a three year period. LDEQ maintains that it is necessary to adopt 

emission controls in accordance with the air quality Maintenance Plan for Calcasieu Parish. 

The stated purpose for these emission controls is to maintain Calcasieu Parish's current 

attainment designation and to protect air quality in the area. 

Boise-Cascade Corporation does not believe that regulation of the three adjacent parishes will 

have any demonstrated effect on the air quality of Calcasieu Parish. Furthermore, BCC 

strongly believes, and the evidence certainly demonstrates, that emissions from industry in 

Beauregard Parish have no effect on ozone formation in Calcasieu Parish. BCC believes that 

the LDEQ proposal lackq sound scientific and technical basis. BCC also believes that a 

complete economic impact statement has not been performed by LDEQ in accordance with 

the statutes of the state of Louisiana. 

BCC wishes to make the following points: 

Based on review of site specific meteorological data from the DeRidder mill, it is clear 

that the predominant wind vectors, during the prime period of ozone formation of May to 
September, is from the southeast to the northwest. This results in emissions from 

Beauregard Parish moving away from Calcasieu Parish. This prevents any industrial air 

emissions from Beauregard Parish and specifically the DeRidder mill from serving as 

ozone precursors for Calcasieu Parish. This is demonstrated by the wind rose included as 

Attachment 1. 

LDEQ recently requested that the United States Environmental Protection Agency 

(USEPA) approve the removal of a provision from Title 33 LAC Chapter 5 which treats 

NOx as a precursor to ozone in current ozone nonattainment area. Approval for this 

change to the Louisiana State Lmplementation Plan (SIP) was published in the May 31, 

2001 Federal Register (FR). USEPA's approval was based on a demonstration by LDEQ 

that additional NOx reductions would not contribute to attainment of the NAAQS for 

ozone in either Calcasieu Parish or in Baton Rouge - the two ozone nonattainment areas 

in Louisiana. The.NOx control technology requirements in AQ218 are inconsistent with 

the modification to the SIP and the supporting demonstration. 

The most recent Emission Inventory Survey (EIS) data show Beauregard Parish's annual 

emissions of VOCs and NOx are approximately 12% and 17% of Calcasieu Parish's 

annual emissions, respectively. The emissions from Beauregard Parish point sources are 

comparatively minor. It is unlikely that air emission sources within Beauregard Parish 

contribute to Calcasieu Parish's ozone nonattainment status. In addition, on April 16, 

2001, the DeRidder mill completed major modifications resulting in reductions of VOC's 

on the order of 1544 tons per year. This results in a further reduction in comparison to 

Calcasieu Parish. 

It is BCC's understanding that LDEQ has not conducted an urban air shed model'to 

provide a technical basis for regulating the three parishes adjoining Calcasieu Parish as 

was conducted in the Baton Rouge area to justify inclusion of the five adjacent parishes. 

In addition, five of the six ozone exceedance days were due to the Vinton monitoring site 

located in the western portion of the parish near the Texas border(Attachment 2). Based 

on the Backwind Trajectory Data available form LDEQ's website, it is clear to BCC that . 

the Vinton site is impacted by pollutant transport from the Golden Triangle and oust on 

areas in Texas (Attachment 3). BCC does not believe that the regulation of emissions 

from the three-parish area and specifically Beauregard will mitigate this situation. BCC 

strongly requests that LDEQ execute an air shed model to determine the effect of 

interstate transport of pollutants before promulgating regulations affecting Louisiana 

industries. 

The LDEQ proposed rule AQ218 includes a Fiscal and Economic Lmpact Statement 

(FEIS) as required by R.S. 49:953 A. (1) (b) (iii). However. this FEIS does not meet the 

requirements of paragraph (3) (b) as follows: 

The FEIS wrongly concludes that there will be no costs or savings to local 

government as a result of the proposed rules. The FEIS fails to consider the impact 

on local government in potential lost revenue base. AQ 218 and AQ219 can be 

expected to provide an economic disincentive to either new industry locating or 
existing industries expanding in the affected parishes. The proposed rule and the 

'upcoming proposal' (AQ2 19) can be expected to establish a disincentive for 

economic development within Beauregard Parish. 

The FEIS wrongly concludes that there will be no effect on employment or 

competition since all the facilities follow the same rules. This argument is plainly 

inaccurate because it ignores the fact that these rules do not apply outside of the fourparish area referenced in the rule. Therefore, industries in other areas of Louisiana 

and outside the state do not have the additional economic burden imposed by these 

regulations and would naturally have a competitive economic advantage over 

industries outside the affected area. As stated above these regulations result in an 

economic disincentive to new industries locating or existing industries expanding in 

the effected parishes. 

The FEIS fails to determine the cost of the regulation to the regulated community as 

required by R. S. 4953. The rule does not provide a cost per pound of pollutant 

reduced, since, as the FEIS states "...reasonably available control technology 

(RACT) as determined on a case-by-case basis by the Department may vary 

considerably ..." Additionally, the FEIS fails to predict the cost of an Emission 

Reduction Credit (ERC) which would be the key to trading emission offsets. This 

section concludes with the statement by LDEQ that ... "Without having more detailed ' 

information on the long-term plans of the relevant facilities, it is not possible to make 

a more detailed cost projection." LDEQ, by its own admission, fails in meeting the 

referenced statutory requirement. 

In conclusion, LDEQ has demonstrated that Calcasieu Parish has experienced six ozone 

exceedance days in a three year period. What has not been demonstrated by LDEQ is that 

regulation of Calcasieu Parish industries will reduce ozone concentrations in the parish since 

the majority of the exceedances appear to be due to interstate transport from Texas. Further, 

what also has not been demonstrated is the necessity for regulation of point sources in 

Beauregard Parish due to the fact that during the ozone format~on period in the summer the 

wind is out of the southeast carrying emissions from these sources away from Calcasieu 

Parish. It also is clear that WEQ has not complied with its statutory responsibility to 

determine the economic impact of these proposed regulations on both the regulated industries 

and the affected local communities. Based on the points outlined in these comments, Boise 

Cascade Corporation strongly objects to the promulgation of these rules and respectfully 

requests LDEQ to rescind the proposed rule or, at a minimum, amend the proposal to 

establish control technology only for Calcasieu Parish. 

Sincerely, 

I 

Blaine Butaud 

Environmental Manager 

Southern Operations 
ATTACHMENT 1 
Number of Ozone Exceedance Days 

Lake Charles Area 

as of December 31, 2000 

I 1 Number of Exeeedance Davs Bv Monitor Bv Year I 

#of Exce. Days for Lake Charles Area I 1) 31 2 3 01 2 21 5 31 2' 31 2' 2 0 11 0 1- 1 

ATTACHMENT 2 
Back Wind Trajectory for Vinton Site 

Exceedance on August 19, 1999 

ATTACHMENT 3 
Back Wind Trajectory for Vinton Site 

Exceedance on May 22,2000 

TEXAS 

ATTACHMENT 4 

Area Monitoring S'Res 

5/22/2000 - Srn to 12pm 

5C221200a.- 12pm to 6pm 

Texas Bdrder 

Louisiana 
Back Wind Trajectory for Vinton Site 

Exceedance on J.uly 20, 2000 

ATTACHMENT 5 
Back Wind Trajectory for Vinton Site 

Exceedance on September 1,200-0 

ATTACHMENT 6 
- KEAN, MILLER, HAWTHORNE, D'ARMOND, & JARMAN, L.L.P. ,#.I oUd

:rp$

.*#&-&f $i$#.,q.H~umla

ATTORNEYS AT LAW 

- BATON ROUGE 

NEW ORLEANS 

COVINGTON 

LAKE CHARLES 

-- PLAQCTE;WNE 

TWENTY-SECOND FLOOR 

ONE AMENCAN PLACE 

BATON ROUGE. LOUISIANA 70825 

MAILING ADDRESS 

POST OFFICE BOX 3513 

BA~N ROUGE. LOUEWNA 70821-3513 

July 2, 2001 

TELEPHONE: (225) 387-0999 

F.4CSIMILE: (225) 358-9133 

www.keanmder.com 

MAUREEN N. HARBOURT 

PARTNER 

Direct Dial: 225 382-3412 

Maureen.Harboun@keanm~Iler.co

Dear Ms. Deaville: 

Ms. Patsy Deaville Via Hand Deliverv 

Regulation Development Section 

Our firm represents the Louisiana Chemical Association. ("LCA"). As you know, the 

Department of Environmental Quality has requested comments regarding the May 20,2001, draft 

proposed revisions to LAC 33:III.509 and the addition of rules applicable to the Calcasieu Area 

under proposed LAC 33:III. 5 10. (Log# AQ218). On behalf of the LCA I am submitting the 

attached comments to the Department for inclusion in the administrative record of proceedings in 

connection with the above-referenced notice. 

Office of Environmental Assessment 

Louisiana Department of 

Environmental Quality 

7290 Bluebonnet Blvd., 4th Floor 

Baton Rouge, Louisiana 708 10 

LCA requests that DEQ respond in writing to all comments on the proposed regulations prior . 

to seeking legislative oversight ofthe proposed rules. LCA also requests that, prior to any legislative 

oversignt hearings, DEQ provide to LCA a draft of any proposed changes to the draft rules. 

RECEIVED 

i' Jut 2 

DEOIOEAIEPD 

REG1'r.~TIO~ DEVELOP~~ENT SF('T[Ox 

Should you have any questions regarding the written comments of LCA, please do not 

hesitate to contact me. Thank you for all of your assistance and cooperation. 

RE: Comments of the Louisiana Chemical Association ' 

Log # AQ218 

Our File No.: 3645-226 

Very truly yours, 

Maureen N. Harbourt 

cc: Mr. Henry T. Graham, Jr. 

537681-1 
COMMENTS OF THE LOUISIANA CHEMCAL ASSOCIATION 

PROPOSAL TO ENACT VOC AND NOX RULES 

BEAUREGARD, CALCASIEU, CAMERON AND JEFFERSON DAVIS PARISHES 

I. INTRODUCTION 

The Louisiana Chemical Association ("LCA") is a nonprofit Louisiana corporation, composed of 

seventy-five (75) member business organizations which conduct manufacturing operations at over 

one hundred (100) plant sites in Louisiana. ( A membership list is attached.) A number of LCA 

members are located in the parishes subject to this rule and may be substantially affected by the 

DEQ's rulemaking in this matter. LCA and its members appreciate the opportunity to provide 

comments on this proposal. 

A. General 

DEQ states that because Calcasieu Parish experienced six ozone exceedance days during the three 

year period from 1998 - 2000. Because the ozone NAAQS is violated when there are more than 

four exceedances during any consecutive three years, the contingency measures adopted in the 

approved air quality Maintenance Plan must be implemented. DEQ indicates that the Maintenance 

Plan requires DEQ to develop a control strategy to implement appropriate measures to protect and 

maintain the air quality in Calcasieu Parish and in the adjoining parishes of Beauregard, Cameron 

and Jefferson Davis. DEQ further states in the Notice of Intent that no cost benefit analysis is ' 

required under La. R.S. 30:2019 because the proposed rule meets the exception listed in La. R.S. 

30:2019(D)(3) and La. R.S. 49:953(G)(3). 

As an initial matter, it should be noted that an area violates the ozone NAAQS only when one 

monitor in an area has four or more exceedance days over a rolling three-year period. DEQ's 

Ozone Alert webpage explains this requirement as follows: 

EPA's test for determining attainment of the l-hour ozone standard specifies that 

the expected numbkr of days per year on which the level is exceeded is to be less 

than or equal to 1.0 (values equal to or greater than 1.05 roundup) averaged over 

a 3-year period, and that specific adjustments are to be made for missing data. 

The current National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) is applied on a 

site-by-site basis; data from multiple air quality monitoring sites not combined. 
In other words, for an area to be classified attainment, a monitoring station in that area must have 

no more than three exceedances in a consecutive three year period such that the annual average 

is no more than 1 exceedance per year. This must be three exceedances at the SAME monitoring 

station: Exceedances at multiple monitoring sites in the same area are not averaged together. 

Data from the DEQ website indicates that of the six days of exceedances (i.e., a monitor reading 

of greater than 124 ppb ozone) in Calcasieu Parish during 1998-2000, four of these occurred at 

the Vinton monitoring station. Thus, only the Vinton monitoring station had an annual average 

of more than one exceedance and only that station exceeded the NAAQS. The Carlyss station had 

only one exceedance in the three-year period, in October 1998. The Westlake station had only 

one exceedance in the three-year period, also in 1998. Thus, none of the Calcasieu stations other 

than Vinton had any exceedances since 1998. See 

http://www .deq.state.la.us/evaluation/ozone/vio 03. txt. 

The Vinton station is located just a few miles north of 1-10 outside of Vinton, which is 

only miles from the Texas border and which is upwind of virtually all of the Calcasieu Parish 

industries. It is, however, downwind of the Houston/Galveston severe ozone nonattainment area 

and the BeaumontJPort Arthur ozone nonattainment area. 

The Houston/Galveston area surpassed Los Angeles in having the worst ozone problem in the 

nation in 1997. See http://www.pacificresearch.org issues enviro 01 index air. htrnl. In 2000, 

the Houston area had a higher peak violation, 208 ppb, than Los Angeles's worst day which 

recorded 180 ppb. See story Dallas Morning News, August 26, 2000. EPA has already 

specifically extended the attainment deadlines for Beaurnont/Port Arthur and DallasIFort 

Worth areas based on the find in^ that the HoustonJGalveston area sirrnificantlv contributes 

to ozone nonattainment due to transuort of ozone precursors to those areas. 66 Fed. Rep. 

26914, May 15,2001, and 66 Fed. Reg. 4256, January 18,2001. The modeling supporting the 

attainment deadline extension for the BeaumontIPort Arthur and the DallasIFt. Worth area also 

reveals that transport of ozone precursors from Houston continues well beyond the Texas border 

into Louisiana. 

Louisiana has submitted modeling data to EPA Region 6 indicative of the significant contribution 

of the Houston/Galveston area on the Baton Rouge area's nonattainment status. Louisiana's 

Ozone Task Force is nearing completion of extensive modeling that will further illustrate the 

impact of transport from Texas. 

B. Specific Comments 

Section SlO.A., ~pplicability 

DEQ is proposing that this rule apply not only in Calcasieu Parish, but also in surrounding 

parishes. The ozone attainment Maintenance Plan was adopted and approved only for Calcasieu 

Parish. See 62 Fed.Reg.5555, February 6, 1997. The approval notice for this plan stated: 
The (maintenance] plan must demonstrate continued attainment of the applicable 

NAAQS for at least ten years after the Administrator approves a redesignation to 

attainment. Eight years after the redesignation, the State must submit a revised 

maintenance plan which demonstrates attainment for the ten years following the 

initial ten-year period. To provide for the possibility of future NAAQS violations, 

the maintenance plan must contain contingency measures, with a scheduIe for 

implementation, adequate to assure prompt correction of any air quality problems. 

In this document.. .EPA finds that Louisiana's submittal meets the requirements of 

section 175A of the Act. 

Because neither the Maintenance Plan nor the Clean Air Act require that control measures be 

adopted for the surrounding parishes, and because DEQ is relying upon its state law authority to 

adopt such measures, DEQ should provide a cost benefit analysis in accordance with La. R.S. 

30:2019. Thus, LCA respectfully requests that DEQ prepare a cost benefit analysis for extending 

the rule to adjoining parishes and then renotice the proposed rule for further public comment. 

With respect to enacting measures within Calcasieu Parish, DEQ's website concerning the 

Calcasieu Ozone Task Force states " According to the approved SIP for Calcasieu Parish, 

contingency measures must be implemented when a violation of the Ozone NAAQS has occurred 

that is not attributable to transport." DEQ has not completed studies to make this determination. 

DEQ should extend control measures outside of the Calcasieu Parish area only if DEQ makes a 

substantive finding that VOC and NOx emissions from such parishes significantly contribute to 

ozone formation in Calcasieu Parish. This finding should be made based upon full modeling of 

the area, after a careful review to ensure that all modeling assumptions are as accurate as possible. 

The modeling should take into account an analysis of whether transport of ozone precursors from 

the Houston/Galveston nonattainment area and/or the BeaumontIPort Arthur nonattainment area 

are significant contributors to ozone formation both with Calcasieu Parish and within the 

neighboring area. It should also take into account an analysis of the impacr of the control 

requirements that have recently been approved by EPA for these two Texas nonattainment areas. 

LCA is concerned that if DEQ does not take the control measures that will be phased in Beaumont 

and Houston into consideration, this rule could actually result in too much NOx reduction which 

couId cause higher ozone levels in some areas. 

Section 510.B. Control Technolo~v Requirements I 

Introductory Paragraph 

DEQ proposes to apply control technology requirements to the construction or "reconstructionn 

of "emissions units" at new or existing major stationary sources, as defined herein, provided that 
such source or "modification" is located within a parish specified in subsection A. 

As an initial matter, this paragraph is confusing because the beginning of the sentence appears to 

apply only to construction and reconstruction, whereas the latter part of the sentence refers to a 

modification. DEQ should make it clear as to whether the provisions apply to construction. 

reconstruction or modification, or any one or combination of those "triggers". LCA submits that 

the rule should apply only to construction or modification, not reconstruction, because, by 

debtion, there is no increase in emissions associated with a reconstruction. (A "reconstruction" 

occurs when a facility is rebuilt, but without an emission increase. If the facility is rebuilt with 

an increase then a "modification results. " 

Moreover, DEQ has not provided a definition of reconstruction for the purposes of this rule. To 

the best of LCA's knowledge, the term "reconstruction" is presently defined only with respect 

to New Source Performance Standards under 40 CFR Part 60 and under MACT standards in 40 

CFR Part 63. In both cases, the term applies only to reconstruction of an "affected facility" and 

each particular NS~S or MACT standard very carefully defines what equipment constitutes an 

"affected facility". In the case of this proposed rule, DEQ is planning to apply the control 

technology requirement to a "new emission unit" at either a new or an existing major stationary 

source. LCA is concerned that the boundaries of an "emission unit" are unclear, particularly with 

respect to determining what should be a "reconstruction". Again, because DEQ is concerned with 

maintaining emission rates, reconstructions which do not increase emissions should not be 

covered. 

Further comments concerning definitions are provided below. 

Section 510.B.1 - MRACT Reauirement 

DEQ should allow a source to "net out" of the MRACT requirement by a source's making 

reductions equivalent or greater than the increase. Such netting is allowed under NSR for the 

Baton Rouge nonattaiment area per LAC 33:111.504 and should be allowed in the Calcasieu area 

as well. This would be compatible with DEQ's stated purpose of maintaining the air quality in 

the area. 

Section 510.B.2. Source Information 

This paragraph refers to a "proposed major stationary source or major modification." 

Again, the applicability is unclear. This should be consistent with 510.B.l.b. which applies to 

%ew emission units" at a new or existing major stationary source. I 

Section 510.B.3. Exemutions 

LCA supports the proposed exemptions, but requests that DEQ also add an exemption for 

sources that trigger NSPS requirements. NSPS requirements are generally more stringent than 
Ch. 21 requirements and are generally equivalent to BACT requirements. In any case, they are 

more stringent than what is commonly accepted as RACT. LCA suggests the following language 

be added: 

d. those that trigger control requirements under 40 CFR Pan 60 fir either VOCs 

or NOx.) 

LCA also requests that DEQ add an exemption for sources subject to MACT under LAC 

33:III.Ch. 51 as follows: 

e. those that are subject ro MACT control requirements under LAC 33:III.5109 

(with respect to VOCs) 

LCA also requests that the exemption for MACT standards be revised slightly so that it refers 

only to the control requirements of 40 CFR Parts 61 and 63 without describing them as "MACT". 

In actuality, the Part 61 standards probably would be defmed as MACT, but the phrase "MACT" 

is not a term of art with respect to the Part 61 standards, even though they are extremely 

stringent. Thus, this exemption should read: 

b. those that are subject ro control requirements under the national emission 

standards for hazardous air pollutants in 40 CFR Part 61 or Part 63 (with regard 

to VOC control only); 

Section 510.C. Offset Reauirernents 

In its submittal of a proposed Maintenance Plan to EPA concerning Calcasieu Parish, DEQ 

indicated that the offset requirements associated with NSR should not be imposed as part of the 

maintenance plan. EPA agreed with this conclusion, stating: 

The maintenance plan proposed for approval with this notice does demonstrate 

maintenance of the ozone standard without NSR. See memorandum from Mary 

Nichols, Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation, dated October 14, 1994 

entitled "Part D New Source Review (part D NSR) Requirements for Areas 

Requesting Redesignation to Attainment". [citations omitted] 

In addition, the state permits program, the Prevention of Significant Deterioration 

permits program, dnd the Federal Operating Permits program will help counteract 

future emissions growth. 

62 Fed. Reg. 5555, at 5556-5557. 
Before imposing an offset requirement, DEQ should examine its original demonstration to see if 

it was flawed. If there is no need for offsets, or no need for offsets from some types of emission 

units, then DEQ should not require them. The role played by NOx in ozone formation is 

complex, as acknowledged in many DEQ publications. 

LCA requests that DEQ adopt a 1 to 1 offset ratio rather than the ratio proposed. If the goal is 

no new growth in emissions during the time period while DEQ conducts further study of the 

Calcasieu situation, then requiring offsets at a 1 to 1 ratio satisfies that goal. Because NOx 

emissions "scavenge" VOCs such that they are not available to react to form ozone, reducing NOx 

too much can cause ozone to form more rapidly in some locations. DEQ has a significant 

indication that ozone is being caused by transport. If DEQ imposes a "blanket" requirement for 

a greater than 1 to 1 offset ratio, DEQ cannot control how much NOx reductions may actually 

occur because this factor would be determined by new emissions units being built or by major 

modifications at existing sources. This could result in more NOx reductions than are desirable. 

A 1 to 1 ratio allows DEQ to be more selective in controlling NOx where it needs to be controlled 

(if in fact reductions beyond those that will occur in Beaumont and Houston are needed). Because 

this can be determined only by photochemical assessment monitoring, DEQ should use a 1 to 1 

ratio until the monitoring is complete. 

LCA is also concerned about the requirement for use of offsets in light of the current state of flux 

over the existing emissions banking rules contained in LAC 33:III.Ch. 6. In the June 20, 2001 

Louisiana Register, LDEQ published a notice of a proposed settlement with EPA and the 

Louisiana Environmental Action Network concerning EPA's approval of DEQ's use of banked 

emission reduction credits as contingency measures in the SIP for the Baton Rouge Area. LCA 

believes that DEQ should delay action on AQ218 until after it notices for comment any proposed 

regulatory revisions to the banking rules that may arise as a result of this proposed settlement. 

LCA members potentially subject to this offset requirement cannot adequately review and 

comment on the impact of the offset requirement without knowing what changes will be made to 

the banking rules. 

LCA specifically requests that DEQ state either in this rule or in a written response to 

comments in this rule, that DEQ will allow regulated entities to bank andlor to use as offsets any 

VOC or NOx emission reduction made after 1993 (year of modeling for Calcasieu ozone 

attainment) that was not required by law and which has been or is made enforceable. 

LCA also requests that DEQ allow interpollutant trading where such is determined to have a 

positive impact on ozone formation. This is being proposed by DEQ for the Baton Rouge Area 

and has been accepted throughout much of the country by EPA-.~~ providing for more flexibility 

to achieve ozone attainmerit. 

Finally, LCA requests that LDEQ clearly indicate either within the rule or in a written response 

to comments that changes to permit limitations that are "paper changes" only, such as resulting 

from changes in emission factors due to better data fr.om stack testing or amendments to AP-42 
factors, are not modifications that would trigger the applicability of the offset requirement. In 

other words, if the permit revision is a reconciliation but not due to a physical change or a change 

in method of operation within the meaning of "major modification" as defined in LAC 33:III.509 

then no offset should be required. 

Section 510.D. Compliance Schedule 

LCA supports the inclusion of this provision. LCA notes that this provision also uses the term 

"major modification" as well as construction or reconstruction, so it causes the same problems 

with clarity as discussed above. LCA assumes that by "major modificationn DEQ is still referring 

to the definition in LAC 33:111.509. If a different definition is intended, it should be stated. 

Section 510.E. Definitions 

The term "emissions unit" is vague and should be much better defined as it is the primary 

definition which triggers applicability of the MRACT requirement. At a minimum, it should be 

defined as a point source and not as a fugitive source. DEQ should refer to the case In Re: 

Masonite Corn., 1994 WL 615380 (EPA), for an application of the definition of emission unit 

under the PSD program. In Masonite, the EPA Environmental Appeals Board indicated that 

because a BACT review is required for each "individualn emission unit that is modified, it is 

appropriate to treat each separate pollutant emitting activity that can be independently controlled 

as a separate emission unit. In that case, a press line and a grain line were each considered to be 

separate emission units because each was amenable to different types of control. 

The term "Maintenance RACT" should state that DEQ will use ACT or CTG documents as 

presumptive RACT which can be adjusted on a case-by-case basis depending upon site specific 

factors. Also, the first sentence of Subsection "b" of this definition is unnecessary. The 

exemptions already provide that if one is subject to PSD or MACT or NESHAP part 61, those 

standards apply instead of RACT. As noted above, extending the exemptions to cover NSPS 

sources will also make this provision unnecessary. 

The definition of "new" should delete the reference to reconstruction, for the reasons stated 

above. 
6PD E?Q REG ION 6 

7 DCll/c\A 

, JLIL-02-2001 18: 25 RECElVED 

JUL 3 m 

United States Envirosmzntal Protec-tion DEQiOEAIEPU 

Region 6 

Multimedia Planning i.4 Permitting Division (6PD) 

1445 3oss ~vekue, Srrite L200 

Dallas, Texas 75202-3733 

FAX FORM 

- 

Numbers .. , of Pages, i~cluding .I.. cover sheet: 4 

r 1 

To: De4\1;~l~ From: D~ra.1 P, -) 9 

Phone: Phone: (2 14) '665- 1 d a a 

~ax:[~b~)' - 76 5- 03 8 7. Fax: (214)665- b 
6PD EPR REGiON 6 2146657263 P .02/04 

Caeci 

VN~D STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTKIN AGENCY 00026&.&& 

REGION 6 

1465 ROSS AVENUE. SUITE 1200 

DALLAS, TX 75202-2733 

hk 

Ms. Patsy Deavillc 

Regulation Development Section 

Louisiana Depamnent of 

Environmental Quality 

P.O. Box 82178 

Baton Rouge, LA 70884-21 78 

RE: Pedt Procedures for New Emissions Sources and Major Modifications in Specified 

Parishes (Louisiana Administrative Codc (LAC) 33:II1.509 and LAC 33:UI. 510) 

(AQ 21 8) and Draft Rule Changes to LAC 33:IIL504 (AQ212) 

Dear Ms. Deaville: --- 

- 

- - - 

This letter shall provide you with the cornments of the Air Permits Section of Region 6 of 

the Environmental Protection Agency @FA) 0x1 the de changes to LAC 33:II1.509 and LAC 

33:1n.510 (AQ218) and LAC 33:III.504 (AQ212) that were published in the Louisiana Register 

on May 20,200 1. We support the efforts of the Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality 

for attempting to strengthen your des in order to attain and maintain the national ambient air 

quality standards The Air Pdts Section has reviewed the rule changes and has comments as 

follows. Our revim and therefore our comments are limited to thcsc regulations or portions 

thereof. 

1. Section 51 O.C and 510.C.l .a These provisions appear to be inconsistent. 

Section 510.C states that its provisions (relating to offsets) apply to both major stationary sources 

and to major modifications. Section 51 0.C. 1 .a limits the offset provisions only to major 

modifications. The preamble also states that offsets are applicable to major modifications. The 

final rule should clarify the types of changes that are subject to the rule. 

I 

2. Section 5 10.C. I .b.v. This Section only refers to emissions of volatile organic 

compounds (VOC). Consistent with the preamble and the definition of "regulated pollutant" 

under Section 51 0.E, it appears that the regulation should reference both VOC and nitrogen 

oxides (Nox). 
6PD EPR REGION 6 

3. Section 5 1 0.C.2 (Source Information) should also include information sufficient to 

ensure that emission reductions used as offsets meet the criteria in Section 51 O.C. I .b at the time 

that such reduction credits are used to satisfy the ofket provisions of this regulation. 

We concur with the proposed changes to your rulc regarding the higher offset ratios, as 

they have the capability to strengthen your plan. However, you wilI need to include additional 

technical justification to support your propasal to allow interprmor trading between VOC and 

NOx, to ensure that we will be able to approve the proposed changes that allow interprecursor 

wading. This includes technical analyses which demonstrate that the interprecursor bades yield 

the same, or cquivalcnt, environmental benefits as trading VOC for VOC and NOx for NOx. It 

must also ensure that such trading is consistent with your strategy to demonstrate attainment of 

the ambient air quality standard for ozone. This will involve complex analyses which may 

involve air quality modeling, monitoring, and other appropriate air impact analyses. These 

technical analyses will necessarily interact with your banking program and with other elements 

of your plan which are not part of your permit regulations, and for which our Air Planning 

Section is responsible for reviewing. You should submit the demonstration as described above 

for review and approval by the Region6 Air Planning Section before we can approve any plan 

allowing for interprecursor ~ading. The following comments outline the itcms which your plan 

must include and which the Air Planning Section must approve. 

1. Such a program would need to have a sound technical basis (based on reactive 

modeling of the current emission sources) and would need to have a system for continuously 

evaluating the trading ratios as the mix of precursor emission sources changes over time. Such 

trades need to be justified on an area by area basis by air quality simdation or observational 

modeling analyses (with EPA approved models) which suggest that the direction of the proposed . 

trade (e.g., more VOC far less NOx, more NOx for less VOC control, etc.) is appropriate. 

Interprecursor relationships are likely to vary fiom area to area as well as under different 

seasonal environmental conditions. A substitution of NOx for VOC or visa vma will not 

necessarily be on a one to one basis. Note that the ratio may not be the same for different areas 

within the same nonattainment area. 

2. The program should include an approvable and replicable procedure by which the 

interprecursor trading ratio will bc calculated or the credits will be exchanged. If the rule itself 

does not contain the procedure, at a minimum, the rule should refercnce an approvablc procedure 

that the State will use wh& applying this provision. 

3. The program should make sure that any trading that occurs is consistent witb the 

attainmm t demonsnation, insofar as the modeling has taken into account the trading of 

precursors when developing the control strategies. 

4. Also, Section 504 should link the offset and netting credits to the banking rule and 

should state that offsets mun be creditable, surplus, mforceable. quantifiable and permanent 

when used. 
6PD EPQ REGION 6 

The EPA will use its guidance entitled "Improving Air Qudrty with Economic Incentivts 

progmn~s" (January 2001) when reviewing and taking action on this rule as a revision to 

huisiana's State hplemdon Plan. Therefbre, we recommend that the final rule be consistent 

with that guidance, partidady section 16.9. In addition, any permit app~icatians that have not 

been deemed to be complete prior to the effective date of the rule must comply with the New 

Source Review (NSR) requirements, consistent with the poIicy set forth in the EPA's NSR 

Supplemental Guidance memorandum dated September 3,1992, from John Sehq Direaor, 

=A's Office of Air Qdty Planning and Standards. Permit applications which are deecned 

complct~ prior to the effective date may also be required to comply wirb the regulations if they do 

not comply with the September 3, 1992, guidance. 

Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments. We look forward to seeing any 

revisions before the ha1 ruIe is submitted. If you have any questions, please call me at 

(2 14) 665-7250, Stanley M Spruiell of my staff at (214) 665-7212, or Daron Page of my staff at 

(214) 665-7222. 

Sincerely yours, 

Chief 

Air Permits Section 

cc: Ms. Annette Sharp 

Louisiana Depm of 

Environmental Quality 
000266 

RECEIVED 

I I 

June 8.7001 

RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED 

Ms. Patsy Deavillc 

Regulatory Development Section 

Office of Environmental .Assessment 

LA Department of Environmental Quality 

P.O. Box 82175 

Baton Rouge. L.4 70854-' I75 

RE: * LDEQ Sotice of Intent - May 20.2001 Proposed Rule AQ218 

Dear hls. Deaville: 

Following are \j'estvaco Corporation's comments on thc Louisiana Department of Environmental 

Quality (LDEQ) proposed regulations (AQ2 I S) and the 'upcoming proposed regulations' 

(AQ2 19): 

The proposed air regulations (.4Q2I 8)will establish control technology requirements for NOx 

and VOC emissions and require emission offset requirements for Calcasieu and surrounding 

parishes (Beauregard. Ccllneron. Jefferson Davis'). This control strategy is being pursued in 

accordance with rlie air quality maintenance plan for Calcasieu Parish. In view of the potential 

economic impact. \Vcstvaco does not believe the LDEQ has adequalel!, demonstrated that the 

surrounding parishes. specifically Beauregard. contribute to the ozone nonattainment status ot' 

Calcasieu Parish. If the LDEQ believes that it has demonstrated this point. then Westvaco 

I-ecommends the demonstration be issued for public re\.iew andcomment. 

Westvaco bases the abo\.e statements on the following: 

In the hlay 3 1. 700 1 Ftderal Register (FR). the EP.4 approved a revision to the Louisiana 

State Implementation Plan ISIP) to remove a provision from Title 33 LAC Chapter 5 which 

treats NOS as a precursor to ozone in current ozone nonattainment areas. This final rule was 

based on a demonstration that additional NOS reductions would not contribute to attainment 

of the NAAQS for ozone in either Calcasieu Parish or in Baton Rouge - the two ozone 

- nonattainment areas in Louisiana. The inclusion of NOx control technolosy requirements, in 

AQ2 18 appears to be inconsistent with the May 3 1 FR notice and supporting demonstration. I 

Based on Emission In\.entory Survey (€IS) data Rom the LDEQ. Beauregard Parish's annual 

- emissions of L'OCs and NOS are approximately I"% and 1 7?4 of the Calcasieu Parish's 

annual emissions. respecti\.ely. The emissions from Beauregard Parish point sources seem 

relatively minor and. therefore. Westvaco does not believe the LDEQ has adequately shown 

- that point sources \\ irhin Beauregard Parish concrib~~te to Calcasieu Parish's ozone 

nonattain~nent status. 

Chemical Division 

400 Crosby Road 

DeRidder. LA 70634 Talnnhnnn 777 AC9 9AAi 

-. 
Based on a US Department of Agriculture document titled "Forest Statistics for Louisiana 

Parishes - 199 1 ". Beauregard Parish is approximately 73% forestland / timberland or 542,200 

acres of forest. The impact of biogenic VOC emissions upon Calcasieu Parish from the 

surrounding par~slies [nay be much more significant than the point-source emissions from the 

surrounding parishes (specifically Beauregard). Westvaco is not aware that the LDEQ has 

considered this point and, therefore, does not believe the LDEQ has shown that point sources 

within Beauregard Parish adequately contribute to Calcasieu Parish's ozone nonattainment 

status. 

Westvaco understands that the LDEQ has modeled the impact to the Baton Rouge Area from 

Calcasieu and surrounding parishes and the impact if additional VOC measures were taken 

in these parishes. Westvaco would suggest the same type of modeling to determine the 

impact to Calcasieu Parish from the surrounding parishes and. also, the impact if additional 

VOCNOx measures were taken in those surrounding parishes. 

The LDEQ proposed rule (AQ218) includes a 'Fiscal and Economic tmpact Statement'. 

The Impact Statement implies there is no effect on revenue collections of local 

government from the proposed rule. The proposed rule and the 'i~pcoming proposal' 

(AQ219) can be expected to establish a disincentive for econo~nic development within 

Beauregard Parisli. The potential impact toward both new business and expansion of 

existing business may have a negative economic impact on the local tax basis and 

government. 

This Impact Statement implies there is no effect on competition and no effect on 

employment. Businesses affected by AQ218 and AQ219 will certainly be at a 

disadvantage to competitors in other areas who are not faced with the same 

'nonattainment-type' requirements. If, as stated previously, AQ2 18 and AQ219 adversely 

affect economic development (e.g., disincentive to expand operations or even maintain 

certain operations that will be impacted by AQ2 19), then employment may be negatively 

impacted as \veil. 

Of the three ozone-monitoring sites in Calcasieu Parish, the Vinton site experienced 5 of the 

6 ozone exceedance days and it alone caused the parish to violate the ozone NAAQS. The 

Vinton monitoring site is in the western portion of the parish. Based on LDEQ "Back Wind 

Trajectory" models from tl~e ozone exceedance days, it seems that the Vinton site may be 

primarily impacted from sources to the south and south-west of the site. and possibly from 

the Beaumont area. If this is the case, Westvaco does not believe the LDEQ can adequately 

demonstrate that point sources within Beauregard Parish contribute to Calcasieu Parish's 

ozone nonattainment status. Westvaco believes that the LDEQ should perform modeling to 

determine the sources that are impacting the Vinton site as opposed to the other two sites. 

Based on wind direction data from the National Weather Service and the NOAA, Westvaco 

does not believe the LDEQ has shown that point sources within Beauregard Parish contribute 

to Calcasieu Parish's ozone nonattainment status. In reviewing the following data, please 

note that Beauregard Parish is located predominantly north of Calcasieu Parish. 

Based on annual wind roses from the Leesville/Fort Polk station (No. 722390), a northeast to north-west wind occurred at the following approximate frequencies: 

Year Frequency 

1997 3 0% 
Based on daily average wind direction from the Lake Charles station for year 2000, a 

north-east to north-west wind occurred at the following approximate frequencies during 

the ozone season (May - Se~t): 

Based on historical data fro111 the Lake Charles station, the monthly prevailing wind 

Month 

May 

June 

July 

direction (in degrees) during the ozone season (May - Sept) are: 

1 Month Wind Direction (degrees) 

Frequency 

6.5% 

10% 

13% 

Aug~lst i 9.7% 

September 30% 

1 Julv I 200 (south-southwest1 1 

May 

As indicated, the above discussion is also applicable to the 'upcoming' proposed regulations 

(AQ2 19), which would require Benuregard, Cameron, and Jefferson Davis parish facilities to 

comply with several Sections of LAC 33:III.Chapter 21 (Control of Emissions of Organic 

Compounds). Pertaining specifically to Section 2 149. 2 15 1, and 21 53 of Chapter 2 1, Westvaco 

again believes the LDEQ must demonstrate that point sources within the surrounding parishes 

contribute to Calcasieu Parish's current ozone nonattainment status and that implementation of 

this control strategy will beneficially contribute to the attainment of the NAAQS for ozone in 

Calcasieu Parish. 

180 [south] 

In summary. the arbitrary promulgation of AQ2 18 and AQ2 19, without adequate demonstration 

that point sources within the surrou~iding parishes contribute to the ozone nonattainment of 

Calcasieu Parish. will impose an unjust economic burden on both the parishes and the businesses 

within these parishes. 

0 

If you have any questions or comments on this submittal, please contact Quentin Cannatella at 

(337) 462-4294. 

Sincerely, 

Quentin P. Cannatella 

Environmental Engineer 

cc: Mr. Henry Graham, LCA 

Mr. Frank Lambert, Westvaco Corp. 
. \ UULL 

@ /g/ 000269u LOUISIANA MID-CONTINENT bum 

/ OIL AND GAS ASSOCIATION 

Ji % 

?o? . * . +ox 

80 1 NORTH BOULEVARD, SUITE 201, BATON ROUGE, LA 70502-5727 

TELEPHONE (225) 357-3205 + FAY (225) 344-5502 + E

July 2,2001 

Ms. Patsy Deaville 

Regulation Development Section 

2epGrlaCi . I .. cr ?z--.:-- -11 YIIV~E~~G~CL: Qudi;j. 

Post Office Box 82178 

Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70584-2 178 

Re: Proposed Calcasieu Area Permit 

Procedures (Log #AQ -2 18) 

Dear Ms. Deaville: 

The Louisiana Mid-Continent Oil and Gas Association appreciates the opportunity to comment on the proposed permit 

procedures for the Calcasieu area (Log #AQ-218) which appeared in the May 20, 2001 Louisiana Register. MidContinent is an industry trade association which represents individuals and companies who together produce, transport, 

refine and market crude oil, natural gas, petroleum products and electric power in Louisiana. Several Mid-Continent 

member companies (including two refineries) operate in the 4-parish area covered by the proposal. 

Enclosed are Mid-Continent's detailed comments on the proposed rule. In addition to these comments, Mid-Continent 

would like to express our belief that the overwhelming cause of the Calcasieu Parish attainment problem at the Vinton 

monitor is pollutant transport from Texas. Mid-Continent requests that the Department, as part of any submittal to the 

EPA regarding the Calcasieu status, include that evidence readily available at the current time to support this position. 

Mid-Continent recognizes the approved State Implementation Plan (SIP) requires the Department to undertake specific 

actions in a short'period of time. It is only for this mandate and the potential for redesignation to marginal and/or 

lawsuit for failure to comply with the SIP that Mid-Continent cm accede to th.is ~~1z~akA.g ze this he. If nzt f~r 

these potentials, Mid-Continent would oppose this action as being premature and would request deferral of this action 

until full ozone modeling is performed. However, due to the mandates, including the mandate to address NOx 

reductions, Ivlid-Continent believes the proposed rule is the most appropriate course of action for the time being. 

Once again, Mid-Continent appreciates the opportunity to submit these comments. 

Very truly yours, 

I 

Richard T. Metcalf 

Health, Safety and Environmental Affairs Coordinator 

Attachment ..' 
Comments of the Louisiana &lid-Continent Oil and Gas Association 

On the Proposed Permit Procedure Rule Amendments 

for the Calcasieu Parish Area 

Log #AQ-218 

The Louisiana Mid-Continent Oil and Gas Association appreciates the opportunity to 

comment on the above captioned proposed rule. Mid-Continent represents several 

member companies including oil and gas production, pipeline, refining and power 

generation facilities in the four-parish area potentially affected by the rule. 

Mid-Continent understmds that the Depz-trnent is required to assess possible additional 

rules for Calcasieu Parish as part of the ozone attainment demonstration State 

Implementation Plan (SIP). This proposal is part of the Department's rulemaking 

package under consideration. It is with this understanding that Mid-Continent submits 

the following comments. 

Comment 1 -Scientific Justification for the Rules 

Mid-Continent recognizes that the schedule afforded the Department by the EPA 

approved SIP to assess and adopt rules is limited. The Department therefore does not 

have time to perform ozone modeling and rule effectiveness assessment typically 

performed for the preparation of a SIP submittal. Because of this, Mid-Continent is 

concerned that the proposed rule may be more stringent than needed to achieve the goal 

of the required SIP submittal which is to reduce the frequency of ozone violations to be 

consistent with "attainment" status. It is Mid-Continent's understanding that this rule is 

intended to limit emissions growth in the region while the Department fbrther assesses 

the final solutions necessary to return to full attainment status. 

As such, Mid-Continent requests the Department consider this rule, if and when adopted, 

as temporary in nature. Mid-Continent requests that the Department be willing to quickly 

amend or repeal the rule if future studies demonstrate the rule is overly prescriptive or its 

benefits are superceded by new mies deveioped by either the EPA or the Department. 

Comment 2 - Geographic Area of Coverage 

Mid-Continent believes the Department has not adequately demonstrated that the three 

parishes surrounding Calcasieu negatively affect ozone formation in Calcasieu Parish and 

specifically at the Vinton monitor which is the monitor of greatest concern. Extension of 

the rule to the three sudounding parishes greatly increases the impact of the rule to MidContinent members. 

Jefferson Davis Parish has very few point sources and has minimal emissions compared 

to the sources in Calcasieu. Beauregard and Cameron Parishes each have emission totals 

for both NOx md VOCs approximately 10% of that of Calcasieu. In addition, the 
monitor in Beauregard Parish continues to demonstrate compliance with the ozone 

standard. 

Mid-Continent does however recognize that the Department intends for this rule to limit 

new emissions growth and expanded the geographic area to protect against very large 

sources being located just outside Calcasieu. 

The proposed rule treats the four parishes as equivalent and imposes the same 

requirement on facilities regardless of parish. Mid-Continent does not believe this is 

justified at this time, and Mid-Continent will recommend amendments in comments to 

follow to treat the three surrounding parishes differently than Calcasieu. 

Comment 3 - Sub.section 5PO.A. Agplic&iLiQ~ 

Mid-Continent recommends that a specific exemption be added to exclude from coverage 

those facilities being permitted and constructed to comply with EPA's Tier 2 gasoline 

sulfur standards (40 CFR 80 Subpart H). America's refineries are under tremendous time 

pressure to design, permit, and construct those facilities needed to reduce sulfur content 

in gasoline. Changing the permitting rules in the middle of the permitting process could 

seriously delay the construction of these projects to the detriment of the environment. 

lhs request is also justifiable from an environmental standpoint. The reduction in sulfur 

content will increase the life of automobile catalyst, thereby reducing NOx emissions 

from mobile sources. 

Once again, Mid-Continent believes it is very important not to change the permitting 

rules for these projects at this late date and requests the DEQ include a specific 

exemption for these projects from this rule. 

Comment 4 - Subsection 510.A. Applicability 

Mid-Continent recommends that an additional specific exemption be added to exclude 

from coverage those facilities that may be constructed as part of an EPA andlor 

Depmclent consex decree. The EPA is currently negotiatiiig comprehensive settlements 

with several refineries. These settlements, while probably greatly lowering emissions, 

may cause VOC emission increases above the Table 1 de minimis values. Due to the 

overwhelming NOx reductions and costs associated with these settlements, MidContinent requests that no additional burden to provide further offsets be placed upon 

these facilities in these instances. 

Comment 5 - Subsectibn 510.C.b.i. 

Mid-Continent does not understand why the Department is prohibiting interprecursor 

pollutant trading for the Calcasieu area when at the same time it is proposing it for the 

Baton Rouge area (Log #AQ-212). It is increasingly more difficult for sources to 

generate VOC credits due to the numerous existing federal and state rules. It is 
anticipated that it will be much more cost effective to create NOx credits than VOC 

credits. Mid-Continent recommends the Department reconsider this position in the 

adoption of the final rule. 

Comment 6 - Subsection 51O.C.b.viii 

Mid-Continent recommends that this Subsection be amended to discredit emission 

reductions from state regulations for the "control of ozone precursors" and not from all 

state regulations. This is consistent with Federal requirements for emission credits and 

would allow reductions made as part of the state-only air toxics program to be used as 

credits. As stated earlier, the generation of VOC credits will be more difficult and costly 

and this change may generate additional VOC credits. 

Comment 7 - Subsection 510.D. 

Mid-Continent recommends the Department add a date certain in the rule to insure the 

regulated community knows where the rule will take effect. Mid-Continent recommends 

October 20, 2001 be the effective date for the following two reasons: 1) the SIP requires 

sources be in compliance with new rules one year after the contingency measures in the 

SIP were triggered (October 18, 2000); and 2) the October 20 date is expected to be the 

date the "banking" rules (which these sources may be subject to procedurally comply 

with this offset rule) are expected to be final. For these reasons, Mid-Continent 

recommends the effective date of the rule be specifically stated as October 20, 2001. 

Comment 8 - Subsection 510.E. - Table 1. 

Mid-Continent recommends that the "threshold values" and "trigger values" in Table 1 be 

adjusted upward for facilities in the three parishes surrounding Calcasieu. The limits are 

appropriate for Calcasieu since they are compatible with the New Source Review 

permitting requirements for new or modified sources. 

As stated in Comment 2, Mid-Continent has concerns that these parishes are designated 

as attaining the ozone standard and have emission inventories much smaller than 

Calcasieu. 

Mid-Continent's biggest concern is the fact that oil and gas production and pipeline 

sources in these parishes in the 100 t/y to 250 t/y range may not have sufficient 

capabilities to generate offsets from "onsite" point sources. 

For example: a facility may only emit 150 t/y of NOx emissions from a single lean bum, 

two-cycle internal combustion (IC) engine. If the source wants to add a 30 t/y NOx 

source, the only onsite reduction available is selective catalytic reduction controls on the 

IC engine. This is a very expensive control technology for this type of facility. 

Mid-Continent recommends that the threshold values and trigger values for the 

surrounding parishes be raised to the PSD levels (250 t/y and 40 t/y) respectively. Mid- 
Continent also reco~nmends the offset ratio for the surrounding parishes be 1 : 1 instead of 

1.1 : 1 as proposed. These changes should provide adequate protection for the area while 

providing a significant relief to small sources represented by Mid-Continent. 
STATE OF LOUISIANA 

DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY 

IN RE: * * 

PERMIT PROCEDURES FOR NEW * 

EMISSIONS SOURCES AND MAJOR * 

MODIFICATIONS IN SPECIFIED * 

PARISHES * 

LOG #AQ218 * * 

PUBLIC HEARING * *************** 

The Public Hearing held by the 

Louisiana Department of Environmental 

Quality, Regulation Development Section, at 

the Maynard Ketcham Building,' 3rd Floor 

Hearing Room, Room-326, 7290 Bluebonnet 

Boulevard, Baton Rouge, Louisiana, on Monday, 

June 25, 2001, beginning at 1:42 p.m. 

Before Lori Overland, Certified 

Stenomask Reporter, in and for the State of 

Louisiana. 

I 
APPEARANCES 

FOR THE LOUISIANA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL 

QUALITY: 

BY: CHERYL FLORY 

Hearing Officer 

Departme.nt of Environmental 

Quality 

P.O. Box 82282 

Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70884-2282 

INDEX 

EXHIBITS : 

None 
Page 1 of 1 

AQ218 Summary 

Comment Summary-Response & Concise Statement (AQ218) 

Amendments to the Air Quality Regulations 

Permit Procedures for New Emissions Sources and Major Modifications 

in Specified Parishes 

LAC 33:111.509 and 510 

COMMENT 1: - Due to the various mandates and time limitations associated 

with the NOx reductions, etc., in the preparation of the SIP, the 

proposed rule is the most appropriate course of action for the time 

being. However, it may be more stringent than needed to achieve 

the goal of .the required SIP submittal, which is to reduce the 

frequency of ozone violations to be consistent with "attainment" 

status. The proposed rule should be considered temporary and 

the department should be willing to quickly amend or repeal it if 

future studies demonstrate the need. 

No arguments necessary; comment does not suggest amendment or change. 

RESPONSE 1 : After further review and consideration, DEQ has removed the 

parishes of Beauregard, Cameron and Jefferson Davis from the list 

of affected parishes in 510.A. of the proposed rule. Urban air shed 

modeling for the Calcasieu area is currently scheduled to 

commence in late 2001. If the modeling results show that NOx 

decreases do not reduce ozone concentrations in the area or that 

further VOC reductions are not effective, DEQ will reexamine the 

ozone control strategy applied to the Calcasieu area. 

COMMENT 2: - DEQ has not demonstrated the need for AQ218. The proposed 

rule imposes air emission control abatement requirements without 

having clearly demonstrated the rule's implementation as being 

practical or economically feasible. 

FOR: Demonstrate that implementation of the rule is practical or 

economically feasible. 

AGAINST: The rule is necessary to address triggered contingency measures 

in the Calcasieu area due to ozone exceedances. 

RESPONSE 2: - In accordance with contingency measures established in the 

approved air quality Maintenance Plan for Calcasieu Parish, a 
Page 2 of 2 

AQ218 Summary 

control strategy must be developed and appropriate control 

measures implemented in an effort to maintain Calcasieu's current 

attainment designation and to protect air quality in the area. It is 

more practical and economically feasible to implement a control 

strategy to maintain air quality in Calcasieu than to take no action, 

which could potentially result in a redesignation to nonattainment 

by EPA with greater adverse economic consequences for the 

parish. After further review and consideration, DEQ has removed 

the parishes of Beauregard, Cameron, and Jefferson Davis from 

the list of affected parishes in 510.A. of the proposed rule. 

COMMENT 3: - Regulation of the three adjacent parishes will not have any 

demonstrated effect on the air quality of Calcasieu Parish. 

Moreover, evidence certainly demonstrates that emissions from 

industry in Beauregard Parish have no effect on ozone formation in . 

Calcasieu Parish. DEQ's proposed regulation lacks sound 

scientific and technical basis. 

FOR: Provide the scientific and technical basis for the proposed rule. 

AGAINST: There are ozone-forming pollutants emitted to some degree from 

all parishes included in the proposed rule. 

RESPONSE 3: - Until urban air shed modeling is completed to demonstrate 

whether or not VOC and NOx emissions from parishes adjoining 

Calcasieu have a negative effect on Calcasieu air quality, DEQ has - 

removed the parishes of Beauregard, Cameron and Jefferson 

Davis from the list of affected parishes in 51 O.A of the proposed 

rule. 

COMMENT 4: - In the May 31, 2001 Federal Register, EPA approved a revision 

to the Louisiana State Implementation Plan to remove a provision 

from, chapter five of the Air Quality regulations which treats NOx as 

a precursor to ozone in current ozone nonattainment areas. The 

inclusion of NOx control technology requirements in the proposed 

rule is inconsistent with the FR notice and supporting 

demonstration. 

The comment is not relative to this proposed rule; no arguments 
are necessary. 

Page 3 of 3 

AQ218 Summary 

RESPONSE 4: The Federal Register notice referenced in the comment applies to 

the Baton Rouge nonattainment area and is not applicable to this 

proposed rule for Calcasieu which is an ozone maintenance area. 

COMMENT 5: - The same type of urban air shed modeling the department used 

to demonstrate the impact to the Baton Rouge area from Calcasieu 

should be used to determine the impact on Calcasieu Parish from 

the surrounding parishes and, also, the impact if additional 

VOCINOx measures were taken in those surrounding parishes. 

The department agrees with the comment; no arguments are necessary. 

RESPONSE 5: - Urban air shed modeling for the Calcasieu area is currently 

scheduled to commence in late 2001.. Modeling results will allow 

DEQ to determine the influence of NOx and VOC emissions 

originating in Beauregard, Cameron, and ~efferson Davis Parishes 

on the air quality in Calcasieu Parish. 

COMMENT 6: - The Vinton site, alone, experienced five of the six ozone 

exceedance days. Based on DEQ's "Back Wind Trajectory" 

models, Vinton may be primarily affected by sources to the south 

and southwest of the site, possibly from the Beaumont area. 

Before triggering control mechanisms in the four parishes, the 

department should perform the modeling to determine which 

sources are affecting the Vinton site differently from the rest of the 

parish. 

The department generally agrees with the comment; no arguments are 

necessary. 

RESPONSE 6: - EPA does not accept backwind trajectories as conclusive 

evidence that an exceedance was caused by ozone transport. 

Urban air shed modeling for the Calcasieu area is currently 

scheduled to commence in late 2001. Modeling results will allow 

DEQ to determine the influence of NOx and VOC emissions 

originating in the Beaumont-Port Arthur and Houston-Galveston 

ozone nonattainment areas on the air quality in Calcasieu Parish 

area as well as impact from adjoining parishes. 
Page 4 of 4 

AQ218 Summary 

The parishes of Beauregard, Cameron, and Jefferson Davis 

have been removed from the list of affected parishes identified in 

551 0.A. 

COMMENT 7: - Based on wind direction data from the National Weather Service 

and NOAA, DEQ has not shown that point sources within 

Beauregard Parish contribute to Calcasieu Parish's ozone 

nonattainment status. 

No arguments necessary; comment does not suggest amendment or 

change. 

RESPONSE 7: - After further review and consideration, DEQ has removed 

Beauregard, Cameron, and Jefferson Davis from the list of affected 

parishes identified in s510.A. 

Urban air shed modelivg is currently scheduled to 

commence in late 2001. Modeling results will allow DEQ to 

determine the influence of NOx and VOC emissions originating in 

Beauregard, Cameron, and Jefferson Davis Parishes on the air 

quality in Calcasieu Parish. 

COMMENT 8: - The modeling supporting the attainment deadline extension for 

the BeaumontIPort Arthur and the DallasIFt. Worth areas also 

reveals that transport of ozone precursors from Houston continues 

well beyond the Texas border into Louisiana. Vinton is a relatively 

short distance from the Texas border, upwind of virtually all of the . Calcasieu Parish industries, but downwind of the 

Houston/Galveston severe ozone nonattainment area and the 

Beaumont/ Port Arthur ozone nonattainment area. Louisiana has 

submitted modeling data to EPA Region 6 indicative of the 

significant contribution of the HoustonIGalveston area on the Baton 

Rouge area's nonattainment status. Louisiana's Ozone Task 

Force is nearing completion of extensive modeling that will further 

illustrate the impact of transport from Texas. 

No argumdnts necessary; comment does not suggest amendment or 

change. 

RESPONSE 8: -After further review and consideration, DEQ has removed 

Beauregard, Cameron, and Jefferson Davis from the list of affected 

parishes identified in 951 0.A. 
Page 5 of 5 

AQ218 Summary 

COMMENT 9: - Based upon meteorological data from .the DeRidder mill, the 

predominant wind vectors during the ozone months are from the 

southeast to the northwest - resulting in emissions from 

Beauregard Parish moving awav from Calcasieu Parish. 

No arguments necessary; comment does not suggest amendment or 

change. 

RESPONSE 9: --After further review and consideration, DEQ has remov.ed 

Beauregard, Cameron and Jefferson Davis from the list of affected 

parishes identified in the proposed rule. 

COMMENT 10: -The Maintenance Plan for Calcasieu Parish is predicated upon 

the ozone exceedances in that parish resulting from transport 

of ozone precursors from Texas, but DEQ has not yet completed its 

analysis concerning whether the ozone exceedance at the Vinton 

station was or was not caused by transport, making the proposed 

regulation inappropriate at this time. 

FOR: Until a transport analysis is complete, rulemaking is premature. 

AGAINST: Rulemaking is not premature since there have also been 

''homegrown" ozone exceedances in Calcasieu. 

RESPONSE 10: -Urban air shed modeling is currently scheduled to commence in 

late 2001. Modeling results will allow DEQ to determine the 

influence of NOx and VOC emissions originating in Texas as well 

as Beauregard, Cameron, and Jefferson Davis Parishes on the air 

quality in Calcasieu Parish. After further review and consideration, 

DEQ has removed Beauregard, Cameron, and Jefferson Davis 

from the list of affected parishes identified in s510.A. 

However to address "homegrown" exceedances, the department is 

prodosing implementation of this rule to prevent degradation of air 

quality in the Calcasieu area. 

COMMENT 11 : - The department has inadequately demonstrated that the 

surrounding parishes, specifically Beauregard, contribute to the 
Page 6 of 6 

AQ218 Summary 

ozone nonattainment status of Calcasieu parish. DEQ's website 

concerning the Calcasieu Ozone Task Force states "According to 

the approved SIP for Calcasieu Parish, contingency measures 

must be implemented when a violation of the Ozone NAAQS has 

occurred that is not attributable to transpod." DEQ has not 

completed studies to make this determination. A proper 

demonstration should be issued for public review and comment. 

FOR: A demonstration that Beauregard Parish contributes to the ozone 

exceedances in Calcasieu should be made for public review and 

comment. 

AGAINST: A modeling demonstration for the area is not required by EPA in 

order to promulgate rules that are protective of air quality for the 

area. 

RESPONSE 11: - After further review and consideration, DEQ has removed 

Beauregard, Cameron and Jefferson Davis from the list of affected 

parishes identified in 551 0.A. 

Urban air shed modeling is currently scheduled to 

commence in late 2001. Modeling results will allow DEQ to 

determine the influence of NOx and VOC emissions originating in 

Beauregard, Cameron, and Jefferson Davis Parishes on the air 

quality in Calcasieu Parish. The results of the modeling 

demonstration will be made available for public review and 

comment. 

COMMENT 12: - DEQ's Ozone Alert webpage states that there must be no more 

than three exceedances at the SAME monitoring station for an area 

to be classified "attainment". Exceedances at multiple monitoring 

sites in the same area are not averaged together. Only the Vinton 

monitoring station had an annual average of more than one 

exceedance and only that station exceeded the NAAQS. 

No arguments necessary, comment does not suggest amendment or 

change. 

RESPONSE 12: The department generally agrees with the comment. 

COMMENT 13: - The emissions from Beauregard Parish point sources seem 
Page 7 of 7 

AQ218 Summary 

relatively minor (1 2% VOCs and 17% NOx of Calcasieu's annual 

emissions) and have not been shown to be significant factors in 

Calcasieu Parish's ozone nonattainment status. Completed major 

modifications (4/16101) at the DeRidder mill have resulted in the 

reduction of VOCs on the order of 1544 tons per year, further 

reducing the comparison between the two parishes. DEQ has not 

demonstrated the necessity for regulation of point sources in 

Beauregard Parish. 

The department agrees with the comment; no arguments are necessary. 

RESPONSE 13: - After further review and consideration, the department has 

removed Beauregard, Cameron, and Jefferson Davis from the list 

of affected parishes identified in s510.A. 

Urban air shed modeling is currently scheduled to 

commence in late 2001. Modeling results will allow DEQ to 

determine the influence of NOx and VOC emissions originating in 

Beauregard, Cameron, and Jefferson Davis Parishes on the air 

quality in Calcasieu Parish. 

COMMENT 14: - Beauregard Parish is 73% forestland. The impact of biogenic 

VOC emissions upon Calcasieu Parish from the surrounding 

parishes may be much more significant than the point-source 

emissions in those parishes. This aspect should be included in the 

department's demonstration of the overall nonattainment 

evaluation. 

The department agrees with the comment; no arguments are necessary 

RESPONSE 14: - DEQ agrees with this comment. Biogenic emissions will be 

included in urban air shed modeling to be conducted for the 

Calcasieu area. After further consideration, the department has 

decided to remove Beauregard, Cameron, and Jefferson Davis 

from the list of affected parishes identified in s510.A. However, the 

anthropogenic and biogenic emissions inventory from these 

parishes will be included in urban air shed modeling to be 

conducted for the Calcasieu area in the establishment of boundary 

conditions for modeling. 

COMMENT 15: - The department should simply adopt the offset provision of the 

proposed rule, but not the portion of the rule imposing control 
Page 8 of 8 

AQ218 Summary 

requirements. Further, the required offset should be a 1:1 ratio. 

FOR: The control requirements of the rule are unnecessary. 

AGAINST: The control requirements portion of the proposed rule is designed 

to ensure that the latest control technology is implemented on units 

subject to the rule. The 1.1 to 1 offset ratio will temper emissions 

from growth in the area until modeling is completed. 

RESPONSE 15: - The department disagrees. It should be noted that the control 

technology portion of the rule (MRACT) applies only to new, 

modified, or reconstructed emissions units with a potential to emit 

("PTE") of 25 tons per year or more of NOx or VOC. To determine 

PTE, any physical or operational limitation on the capacity of the 

unit to emit NOx or VOC, including pollution control equipment, 

may be taken into account if it is enforceable. S510.B does not 

require retrofit of existing units. 

A 1.1 to 1 offset ratio is necessary because §510 will not, 

and is not intended to, prohibit the expansion of industry in 

Calcasieu Parish. Rather, it is intended to moderate NOx and VOC 

emissions associated with such growth, and allow the department 

to ensure that proper, up-to-date control technology is 

implemented. Establishing the major modification threshold at 40 

tons per year (see LAC 33:111.509) will allow for the vast majority of 

projects to be realized without the need to obtain offsets. 

Requiring slightly higher than a 1:l ratio will allow emissions 

associated with continued growth to be tempered while urban air 

shed modeling is conducted. 

COMMENT 16: - The rule should include a "sunset" date at which time it expires. 

FOR: Having a sunset date will ensure that the rule is not implemented 

after it is necessary by requiring a re-examination of the issue at 

some specified time. 

AGAINST: It is bnnecessary to specify a "sunset" date in the proposed rule. 

Following the completion of modeling, should the control strategy 

for the area change, DEQ may consider amendment of or repeal of 

the rule. 

RESPONSE 16: - The department does not feel a sunset date is appropriate for 
Page 9 of 9 

AQ218 Summary 

the proposed rule. With new federal regulations such as the 8- 

hour ozone NAAQS scheduled to be implemented within the 

coming years, DEQ anticipates that ozone will be an issue in the 

area for sonie time to come. 

COMMENT 17: FElS -The analysis summarily dismisses the potentially 

significant cost to business by saying that the cost of ERCs should 

be comparable to that in the Baton Rouge area without any real 

data on the existence and possible use of ERCs in Calcasieu 

Parish. 

FOR: DEQ's contention about insignificant costs to businesses 

necessitates proof, not merely comparisons between unlike areas. 

AGAINST: lrr~plementation costs have been identified to the maximum extent 

practical and where feasible, quantified. 

RESPONSE 17: -The Fiscal Economic Impact Statement ("FEIS") does not 

dismiss the potential cost to business. 

The FElS states "an ERC cost would be difficult to predict, 

except that it should be comparable to that in the Bator~ Rouge 

area" and that "one Emission Reduction Credit has a market value 

of approximately $5,000 in the Baton Rouge nonattainment area." 

Such information was obtained via conversations with industry 

environmental representatives, consultants, and environmental 

brokerage services. 

The potential supply of ERC in the Calcasieu area cannot 

be predicted, as the specific emission reductions, which are 

eligible to be banked as ERC, have not been catalogued. This 

information is due to be submitted to DEQ by March 31, 2002. 

Without having information on the long-term plans of affected 

facilities, it is not possible to make a more detailed cost projection. 

The applicable portion of R.S. 30:2019 (subparagraph (l)(b) of 

subiection D) reads, "The written determination, at a minimum, 

shall include an assessment of the environmental and public health 

benefits to be derived from the proposed rule; the estimated 

economic cost to all persons directly affected by the proposed rule; 

and an explanation of the data, assumptions, and methods used in 

making the determination. These factors shall be identified to the 
Page 10 of 10 

AQ218 Summary 

maximum extent practical and, where feasible, quantified." 

(Emphasis added). The department has done this; thus, the FElS 

complies with R.S. 30:2019. 

Note that the rule does not prevent a company from 

mitigating the cost of offsets. Concurrently with the project, a 

facility can make the most cost-effective reductions possible in an 

effort to avoid major PSD review or to minimize the number the 

offsets required. 

COMMENT 18: FElS - The FElS ignores the fact that these rules do not apply 

outside the four-parish area referenced in the rule. The proposed 

rule actually establishes a disincentive for economic development 

within Beauregard Parish. The potential impact on both new 

business and expansion of existing business may have a negative 

economic impact on the local tax base and government and as a 

disadvantage to competition with other areas not faced with the 

same requirements, as well serving as a negative impact on 

employment among the disadvantaged businesses. A complete 

FElS has not been performed by DEQ in accordance with the 

statutes of the state. 

FOR: The FElS prepared by DEQ is not complete. 

AGAINST: The department disagrees that a complete FElS has not been 

developed. The FElS was completed for the proposed rule to the 

extent that information was available. 

RESPONSE 18: - LAC 33:111.510 will not be a disincentive for economic 

development within Beauregard Parish, nor will it be as great a 

disincentive in Calcasieu Parish as a nonattainment designation 

would be if no action is taken to address air quality issues. After 

further review and consideration, DEQ has removed Beauregard, 

Cameron and Jefferson Davis from the list of affected parishes 

identified in s510.A. 

i 

COMMENT 19: FElS - The proposed rule does not provide a cost per pound of 

pollutant reduced since, as the FElS states "...reasonably available 

control technology (RACT) as determined on a case-by-case basis 

by the department may vary considerably ..." The document also 

fails to predict the cost of an Emission Reduction Credit (ERC) 
Page 11 of 11 

AQ218 Summary 

which would be the key to trading emission offsets. By its own 

admissior~ in the conclusion - "Without having more detailed 

information on the long-term plans of the relevant facilities,' it is not 

possible to make a more detailed cost projection" - DEQ fails to 

meet the referenced statutory requirement. 

FOR: Insufficient data makes the FElS incomplete and represents 

additional input required from the department for this rulemaking. 

AGAINST: Cost factors in the FElS were identified to the extent practical and 

were quantified where feasible. 

RESPONSE 19: - It is impossible to predict a cost per pound of pollutant reduced. 

The control technology portion of the rule applies only to new 

emissions units; §51 O.B does not require retrofit of existing units. 

MRACT will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis, and the 

appropriate control technology's capital and operating costs may 

vary considerably depending on the emissions unit, fuel, operating 

schedule, etc. 

The Fiscal Economic Impact Statement ("FEIS") does not 

fail to predict the cost of an Emission Reduction Credit. It states 

"an ERC cost would be difficult to predict, except that it should be 

comparable to that in the Baton Rouge area" and that "one 

Emission Reduction Credit has a market value of approximately 

$5,000 in the Baton Rouge nonattainment area." Such information 

was obtained via conversations with industry environmental 

representatives, consultants, and environmental brokerage 

services. 

The potential supply of ERC in the Calcasieu area cannot 

be predicted, as the specific emission reductions which are eligible 

to be banked as ERC have not been catalogued. This information 

is due to be submitted to DEB by March 31, 2002. Without having 

information on the long-term plans of affected facilities, it is not 

possible to make a more detailed cost projection. 

COMMENT 20: FElS - Existing banking rules at LAC 33:III.Chapter 6 apply only 

to VOCs, not to NOx, so there has been no "bank" established for 

NOx ERCs. For this reason, DEQ's analysis of the potential 

economic impact is yet incomplete. 

FOR: DEQ is using a non-existent instrument in its analysis, so the 

analysis is inappropriate. 
Page 12 of 12 

AQ218 Summary 

AGAINST: DEQ disagrees that the analysis of the potential economic impact 

of the rule is incomplete. Cost factors in the FElS were identified 

to the extent practical and were quantified where feasible. 

RESPONSE 20: - LAC 33:III.Chapter 6 clearly states in 5603 that "the rule shall 

apply to the following pollutants: NOX and VOC." Granted, there 

has never been a need to bank NOX reductions because of the 

state's nonattainment areas' 51 82(f) NOx exemptions, but the 

mechanism to identify and preserve NOx reductions for future use 

as offsets has been in place. 

Revisions to LAC 33:III.Chapter 6 have been proposed in a 

separate rulemaking to address the I-lpcoming changes in 

Nonattainment New Soclrce Review ("NNSR") procedures and the 

participation of Calcasieu Parish in the banking system. 

J 

COMMENT 21: 551 O.A - A specific exerr~ption should be added to exclude from 

coverage those facilities being permitted and constructed to 

cornply with EPA's Tier 2 gasoline sulfur standards (40 CFR 80 

subpart H) since changing the permitting rules in the middle of the 

permitting process could seriously delay the construction of these 

projects to the detriment of the environment. The reduction in 

sulfur content will increase the life of automobile catalysts, thereby 

reducing NOx emissions from mobile sources. 

The department agrees with the comment; no arguments are necessary. 

RESPONSE 21: - DEQ agrees with the commentor and has clarified in §510.C.3.a 

of the proposed rule. New emissions units that must be installed 

and/or significant net increases in NO> and/or VOC emissions that 

will be realized as a direct result of modifications or process 

changes required to comply with the Tier 2 Motor Vehicle 

Emissions Standards and Gasoline Sulfur Control Requirements 

published in the Federal Register on February 10, 2000, at 65 FR 

6697-6870, shall be exempt from the MRACT and offset 

reqyirements imposed by S510. 

COMMENT 22: §51 O.A - A specific exemption should be added to exclude from 

coverage those facilities that may be constructed as part of an EPA 

and/or DEQ consent decree which, while probably greatly lowering 
Page 13 of 13 

AQ218 Summary 

emissions, may cause VOC emission increases above the Table 1 

de minimis values. 

The department agrees with the comment; no arguments are necessary. 

RESPONSE 22: - DEQ generally agrees and has added such as exemption in 

5510.C.3.b consistent with EPA's guidance on pollution control 

projects and New Source Review applicability dated July 1, 1994. 

Any significant net emissions increase in NOx or VOC 

err~issions that is a direct result of and incidental to the installation 

of abatement equipment or implementation of a control technique 

required to comply with another state or federal regulation, comply 

with a consent decree or other enforcement action requiring a 

pollution control project, etc., shall be exempt from the offset 

requirements of 551 0. 

COMMENT 23: 5510.A - DEQ is proposing that this rule apply not only in 

Calcasieu Parish, but also in surrounding parishes although the 

ozone attainment Maintenance Plan was adopted and approved 

only for Calcasieu Parish. Because neither the Maintenance Plan 

nor the CAA require that control measures be adopted for 

surrounding parishes and because the department is relying upon 

its state authority to adopt such measures, DEQ should provide a 

cosubenefit analysis in accordance with La. R.S. 30:2019 and then 

repropose for further public comment. 

FOR: A codbenefit report should address all affected parishes. 

AGAINST: The affected area has been redefined, so an expanded costlbenefit 

report is unnecessary. 

RESPONSE 23: - After further review and consideration, DEQ has removed 

Beauregard, Cameron, and Jefferson Davis from the list of affected 

parishes identified in 551 0.A. 

COMMENT 24: §51 O.A - DEQ should extend control measures outside of the 

Calcasieu Parish area only if the department makes a substantive 

finding that VOC and NOx err~issions from such parishes 

significantly contribute to ozone formation in Calcasieu Parish. 

The modeling to demonstrate emissions irr~pact should take into 
Page 14 of 14 

AQ218 Summary 

account I] an analysis of possible precursors originating from the 

HoustonIGalveston andlor BeaumonffPort Arthur areas and 21 an 

analysis of the impact of the control requirements that have 

recently been approved by EPA for these two Texas nonattainment 

areas. If DEQ does not take into account these federal control 

requirements, this rule could actually result in too much NOx 

reduction which could cause higher ozone levels in some areas. 

The department agrees with the comment; no arguments are necessary. 

RESPONSE 24: - After further review and consideration, DEQ has removed 

Beauregard, Cameron, and Jefferson Davis from the list of affected 

parishes identified in s510.A. 

Modeling for the Calcasieu area will take into account 

emissions from the Beaumonff Port Arthur and HoustonIGalveston 

areas as well as recently approved control requirements for the 

areas. 

COMMENT 25: s510.B - The introduction paragraph is confusing because the 

first part appears to apply only to construction and reconstruction, 

whereas the latter part of the sentence refers to a modification. 

Clarify what is actually meant. The rule should apply only to 

construction or modification, not reconstruction because, by 

definition, there is no increase in emissions associated with a 

reconstruction; any increase results in a modification. 

The department agrees with the comment; no arguments are necessary. 

RESPONSE 25: - Applicability of MRACT is intended to be consistent with New 

Source Performance Standards. s510.B.l .b will be modified to 

read "All new, modified, or reconstructed emissions units at new or 

existing major stationary sources shall apply MRACT 

reqyirements.. . ". Modification and reconstruction will have the 

same meanings attributed to them in 40 CFR 60.14 and 60.1 5, . 

respectively. 

COMMENT 26: 551 O.B - Define "reconstruction" as it applies to the proposed 

rule. As proposed, the control technology requirement applies to a 
Page 15 of 15 

AQ218 Summary 

"new emission unit" at either a new or an existing major stationary 

source, but the boundaries of an "emission unit" are unclear, 

particularly with respect to determining what should be a 

"reconstruction". Because the goal of the rule is to maintain 

emission rates, reconstructions which do not increase emissions 

should not be covered. 

FOR: Clarifying the terms being used will reduce confusion when 

implementing the rule. 

AGAINST: The basic terms are already defined in the regulations and used as 

intended. 

RESPONSE 26: - Applicability of MRACT is intended to be consistent with New 

Source Performance Standards. §51 O.B.l .b has been modified to 

read "All new, modified, or reconstructed emissions units at new or 

existing major stationary sources shall apply MRACT 

requirements.. . ". Modification and reconstruction will have the 

same meanings attributed to them in 40 CFR 60.14 and 60.1 5, 

respectively. 

The department feels that reconstruction would provide 

ample opportunity for an emissions unit to be retrofitted with 

current RACT technology. 

COMMENT 27: 551 0.B. 1 - DEQ should allow a source to "net out" of the MRACT 

requirement by a source's making reductions equivalent to or 

greater than the increase. Such netting is allowed under NSR for 

the Baton Rouge nonattainment area per LAC 33:111.504 and 

should be allowed in the Calcasieu area, as well. This would be 

compatible with DEQ's stated purpose of maintaining the air quality 

in the area. 

FOR: Netting out is already allowed in Baton Rouge and should be 

allowed in the Calcasieu area also. 

AGAINST: Netting out in this case would restrict the application of MRACT 

more severely than the department intends. 

RESPONSE 27: - The department disagrees. If netting were allowed, MRACT 

would be triggered only if the net emissions increase, as defined in 

LAC 33:111.509, was between 25 and 40 tons per year. 'The date of 
Page 16 of 16 

AQ218 Summary 

construction, modification, or reconstruction will serve as the 

criteria for determining applicability of s510.B. 

COMMENT 28: 9510.8.2 - Clarify "proposed major stationary source or major 

modification" since the provision should be consistent with 

s510.B. 1. b. 

The department agrees with the comment; no arguments are necessary. 

RESPONSE 28: - The department agrees that clarification is in order. s510.B.2 

has been modified to read, "The owner or operator of an affected 

emissions unit at a new or existing major stationary source shall . . I, 

COMMENT 29: s510.B.3 - The exemptions are reasonable, but another should 

be added for sources that trigger NSPS requirements since those 

are generally more stringent than Chapter 21 requirements and are 

generally equivalent to BACT requirements. Add the following text: 

d. those that trigger control requirements under 40 CFR part 60 

(for either VOCs or NOx). 

FOR: The exemption suggested represents sources operating under 

more stringent requirements already and are generally equivalent 

to BACT requirements. 

AGAINST: There are additional situations that such an exemption would cover 

which do not correspond to the department's intention. 

RESPONSE 29: -The department disagrees. While DEQ anticipates that the 

control technologies required to comply with limits imposed by 

many New Source Performance Standards will be equivalent to or 

even more stringent than MRACT, there are some notable 

exceptions. 

For example, the NOx limit established by §60.332(a)(1) of 

40 OFR part 60 subpart GG-Standards of Performance for 

Stationary Gas Turbines, can be in excess of 100 parts per million 

on a dry volume basis, corrected to 15 percent oxygen (ppmvd @ 

15% 04. New combustion turbines equipped with dry, low NOx 

burners can achieve NOx emissions of 9 to 25 ppmvd @ 15% 02, 

depending on load and ambient conditions, when fired with pipeline 
Page 17 of 17 

AQ218 Summary 

quality natural gas. To avoid this kind of undesirable situation, DEQ 

does not want to grant a blanket exemption to all of 40 CFR part 

60. 

COMMENT 30: s510.B.3 - Add an exemption for sources subject to MACT under 

LAC 33: I I I.Chapter 51, reading: e. those that are subject to MACT 

control requirements under LAC 33:111.5109 (with respect to VOCs) 

FOR: This added exemption addresses sources already regulated 

elsewhere. 

AGAINST: The department must guard against some cases where MACT may 

be deemed "no further control". 

RESPONSE 30: - LAC 33:IlI.Chapter 51 is a state-only rule which regulates toxic 

air pollutants ("TAPs"), a group of corr~pounds comprised largely of 

metals and volatile organics. The maximum achievable control 

technology ("MACT") standards of 551 09.A apply to an even 

smaller group of TAPs classified as Class I and Class 11. Often, 

TAPs comprise a small percentage of the volatile compounds in a 

given process stream, resulting in minimal emissions of such 

pollutants. In such cases, MACT may be deemed "no further 

control." 

In order to prevent any confusion about what level of 

"control" qualifies for an exemption and to keep the regulation of 

VOC and TAPs distinct, references to Chapter 51 will not be 

included in this rule. As with NSPS, DEQ anticipates that the 

control technologies required to comply with s5109.A will be 

equivalent to or even more stringent than MRACT. 

COMMENT 31 : s510.B.3. b - Revise the exemption for MACT standards to read 

"b. . . . control requirements under the national emission standards 

for hazardous ..." rather than describing them as "MACT" since that 

is ndt a term of art with respect to the part 61 standards. 

The department agrees with the comment; no arguments are necessary. 

RESPONSE 31: - The department agrees. 551 0.B.3.b has been reworded. 
Page 18 of 18 

AQ218 Summary 

COMNIENT 32: s510.C - In its submittal of a proposed Maintenance Plan to EPA 

concerning Calcasieu Parish, DEQ indicated that the offset 

requirements associated with NSR should not be imposed as part 

of the maintenance plan; EPA agreed. Before imposing an offset 

requirement, DEQ should reexamine its original demonstration. If 

there is no need for offsets or no need for offsets from some types 

of emission units, then DEQ should not require them. 

FOR: There is no need to impose offsets for Calcasieu Parish. 

AGAINST: DEQ feels there is a need to impose offsets at this time until 

modeling for the area can be completed to determine the type and 

level of controls needed in the area to maintain attainment with the 

ozone standard. 

RESPONSE 32: -A minimal offset program was successful in reducing the number 

of ozone exceedances in Calcasieu Parish such that the area 

achieved compliance with the 1 -hour ozone NAAQS. With the 

number of exceedances in the Calcasieu area, DEQ feels there is 

a need to impose offsets at this time until modeling for the area can 

be completed to determine the type and level of controls needed in 

the area to maintain attainment with the ozone standard. 

Because the more stringent requirements of nonattainment 

new source review ("NNSR) have not hindered development in the 

Baton Rouge area, DEQ does not have a reason to believe this 

rule would have a significant negative economic impact in 

Calcasieu Parish. 

Note that the rule does not prevent a company from 

mitigating the cost of offsets. Concurrently with the project, a 

facility can make the most cost-effective reductions possible in an 

effort to avoid major PSD review or to minimize the number the 

offsets required. 

COMMENT 33: s510.C -A 1:1 ratio will satisfy the department's goal of no new 

growth in emissions during the time period while it conducts further 

studies of the Calcasieu situation. This ratio allows DEQ to be 

more selective in controlling NOx where it needs to be controlled if, 

in fact, reductions beyond those that will occur in Beaumont and 
Page 19 of 19 

AQ218 Summary 

Houston are needed. 

FOR: A 1:l ratio is sufficient until completed arialyses are conducted. 

AGAINST: A 1.1 to 1 offset is slightly more protective. 

RESPONSE 33: -At least a 1.1 to 1 offset ratio is intended to moderate NOx and 

VOC emissions associated with expansion of industry in Calcasieu, 

and allow the department to ensure that proper, up-to-date control 

technology is implemented. Establishing .the major modification 

threshold at 40 tons per year (see LAC 33:111.509) will allow for the 

vast majority of projects to be realized without the need to obtain 

offsets. Requiring slightly higher than a 1:l ratio, however, will 

allow emissions associated with continued growth to be tempered 

until the results of urban air shed modeling for the area can be 

evaluated and a control strategy further developedfor the area. 

COMMENT 34: S510.C - DEQ should delay action on the proposed rule until after 

it notices any proposed regulatory revisions to the banking rules 

that may arise as a result of the proposed settlement with EPA and 

LEAN concerning EPA's approval of DEQ's use of banked 

emission reduction credits as contingency measures in the SIP for 

the Baton Rouge area. 

FOR: It is advisable to wait until after the EPNLEAN settlement before 

doing rulemaking that may be affected by the settlement details. 

AGAINST: Revisions to Chapter 6 have been subject to public notice and 

comment requirements allowing EPA and LEAN to comment on 

issues of concern in the proposed banking rule. Should any 

revisions to this proposed rule become necessary resulting from 

the proposed EPNLEAN settlement, the department will address 

these in a separate n~lemaking. 

RESPONSE 34: - DEQ has set the effective date of §510 as December 20, 2001, 

to cdincide with promulgation of the revisions to LAC 33:IiI.Chapter 

6. Revisions to Chapter 6 have been subject to public notice and 

comment requirements allowing EPA and LEAN to comment on 

issues of concern in the proposed banking rule. §510 will apply to 

all affected sources for which an application to construct or modify 

is received on or after December 20, 2001. The date of 
Page 20 of 20 

AQ218 Summary 

administrative completeness has been eliminated as a criterion for 

determining applicability of the rule. 

COMMENT 35: §51 O.C - DEQ should allow regulated entities to bank and/or to 

use as offsets any VOC or NOx emission reduction made after 

1993 (the year of modeling for Calcasieu ozone attainment) that 

was not required by law and which has been or is made 

enforceable. Establishing ERCs only for VOC/NOx reductions 

occurring since 6/2/97 - the date that Calcasieu Parish was 

redesignated ozone attainment - is incorrect. 

FOR: Adjusting the effective year for bankable ERCs would correct an 

error in the proposed date. 

AGAINST: Using a date prior to June, 1997, could render the offset portion of 

the current rule ineffective due to requires that all emission 

reductions claimed as offset the large number of credits that may 

be banked. 

RESPONSE 35: - The department disagrees. §51O.C.l .b.ii credit must have 

occurred on or after June 2, 1997. Establishing the date before 

June 2, 1997, could render the offset portion of the current rule 

ineffective due to the large number of credits that may be banked. 

COMMENT 36: §51 O.C - Clarify whether changes to permit limitations that are 

"paper changes" only, such as resulting from changes in emission 

factors due to better data from stack testing or amendments to AP42 factors, are not modifications that would trigger the applicability 

of the offset requirement. That is, if the permit revision is a 

reconciliation, but not due to a physical change or a change in 

method of operation within the meaning of "major modification" as 

defined in LAC 33:111.509, then no offset should be required. 

FOR: Clarjfying the application of the rule relative to kinds of 

modifications that might trigger applicability of the offset 

requirement will reduce confusion. 

AGAINST: The intent of applicable "modifications1' is already clear in the 

regulations. 
Page 21 of 21 

AQ218 Summary 

RESPONSE 36: - By referencing LAC 33:111.509, modifications are limited to "any 

physical change in or change in the method of operation of a major 

stationary source." A physical change in or change in the method 

of operation does not include those situations outlined in item 3 of 

the definition of major modification. 

"Paper changes," such as those resulting from updated 

emission factors or incorporation of stack testing data, are not 

considered modifications. No further clarification in the rule is 

necessary. 

COMMENT 37: 551 O.C & C. 1 .a - These provisions appear to be inconsistent. 

EPA's preamble also states that offsets are applicable to major 

modifications. 

The department agrees with the comment; no arguments are necessary. 

RESPONSE 37: - 5510.C.l .a will be reworded to read, "The emissions increase 

from a new major source or major modification as defined in LAC 

33: 111.509 shall be offset in accordance with the provisions of this 

Section at the ratio specified in Table 1 of this Section." 

COMMENT 38: 5510.C.l .b.i - Clarify why interprecursor pollutant trading is 

prohibited for the Calcasieu area when, at the same time, it is 

proposed for the Baton Rouge area (log #AQ212). It is anticipated 

that it will be much more cost-effective to create NOx credits than 

VOC credits. 

FOR: It is important to know why these two areas with similar problems 

are being treated differently. 

AGAINST: Modeling is not complete to determine that the two areas should 

be treated the same way. 

RESPONSE 38: - DEQ fully anticipates the urban air shed modeling ("UAM") 

results for the Calcasieu area, when completed, to be consistent 

with similar modeling conducted in Baton Rouge and in the nearby 

ozone nonattainment areas of Beaumont-Port Arthur and HoustonGalveston, Texas. DEQ would prefer to substantiate these 

assumptions with UAM prior to making a rule change. 
Page 22 of 22 

AQ218 Summary 

If UAM indicates that further controlling NOx emissions is 

key to reducing the ambient ozone concentration, DEQ will 

seriously consider allowing interprecursor trading. If, by chance, 

the UAM results are not consistent with the findings in these other 

locations, DEQ will reexamine the ozone control strategy applied in 

the Calcasieu area. 

COMMENT 39: 5510.C.l .b.v - In order to be consistent with the EPA preamble 

and the definition of "regulated pollutant" under 510.E, the 

proposed rule should reference both VOC and NO,. 

FOR: Commentor recornmends referencing VOC and N0,for consistency 

with EPA preamble. 

AGAINST: This clause has been deleted. 

RESPONSE 39: -The clause is unnecessary and has been deleted. 

COMMENT 40: $31 0.C. 1 .b.viii - Amend the provision to discredit emission 

reductions from state regulations specifically for the "control of 

ozone precursors", and not from all state regulations. This is 

consistent with federal requirements for emission credits and would 

allow reductions made as part of the state-only air toxics program 

to be used as credits. 

FOR: Recornmend amendment to rule provision to not discredit emission 

reductions from all state regulations. 

AGAINST: Current language is consistent with LAC 33:III.Chapter 6. 

RESPONSE 40: - In order to be consistent with LAC 33:III.Chapter 6, the 

Department did not make this change.. 

i 

COMMENT 41: §510.C.2 - This provision should also include information 

sufficient to ensure that emission reductions used as offsets meet 

the criteria in 951 O.C.l .b at the time that such reduction credits are 

used to satisfy the offset provisions of this regulation. 
Page 23 of 23 

AQ218 Summary 

The department agrees with the comment; no arguments are necessary. 

RESPONSE 41: -The department agrees. DEQ intends to use LAC 33:III.Chapter 

6 as the mechanism to bank, transfer, and withdraw credits in 

Calcasieu Parish. Ensuring that the reductions used to generate 

offsets are "surplus when used" can most easily be done by 

incorporated language into §510 referencing Chapter 6, which, as 

of the effective date of this rule, will address this topic in great 

detail. 

COMMENT 42: §51 O.D ---The effective date for the proposed rule should be 

October 20, 2001 because 1] the SIP requires sources be in 

compliance with new rules one year after the contingency 

measures in the SIP were triggered (October 18, 2000) and 21 the 

October 20 date is expected to be the date the "banking" rules 

(which these sources may be subject to procedurally comply with 

this offset rule) are expected to be final. 

FOR: An October 20, 2001 effective date is most appropriate for the rule. 

AGAINST: A December 20, 2001 effective date coincides with promulgation of 

. . other related DEQ regulations. 

RESPONSE 42: - DEQ will set the effective date of §510 as December 20,2001, 

to coincide with promulgation of the revisions to LAC 33:III.Chapter 

6. §510 will apply to all affected sources for which an application 

to construct or modify is received on or after December 20, 2001. 

COMMENT 43: §51 O.D - This is a reasonable provision, but the terms "major - 

modification" and "reconstruction" need clarification as to whether 

the same definition is intended as used in S509. 

FOR: Clarifying the terms will reduce confusion. 

AGAINST: Thejterms are sufficiently defined in the regulations. 

RESPONSE 43: - Modification and reconstruction, as they pertain to MRACT 

(551 O.B), will have the same meanings attributed to them in 40 

CFR 60.1 4 and 60.15, respectively. Major modification, as it 

pertains to offsets (§510.C), will have the same definition as in LAC 
Page 24 of 24 

AQ218 Summary 

COMMENT 44: §510.E, Definition of Emissions Unit - The definition is vague, 

needing much more clarification since it is the primary definition 

which triggers applicability of the MRACT requirement. At a 

minimum, it should be defined as a point source and not as a 

fugitive source. 

FOR: Clarifying the definition will reduce confusion. 

AGAIN ST: The intended definitions are clearly stated in the regulations. 

RESPONSE 44: -The definition of emissions unit is identical to that found in LAC 

33:111.504.G, except that the terms major stationary source and 

regulated pollutant were conditioned to have the meaning 

attributed to them by 551 0.E. 

COMMENT 45: §510.E, Definition of Maintenance RACT- The definition should 

state that DEQ will use ACT or CTG documents as presumptive 

RACT which can be adjusted on a case-by-case basis depending 

upon site-specific factors. 

FOR: Clarifying the definition will make implementation more effective. 

AGAINST: It is not necessary to incorporate such references into the rule. 

RESPONSE 45: -The department agrees that ACT and CTG documents will be a 

valuable source of information regarding RACT control 

technologies, but feels it is not necessary to incorporate such 

references into the rule. 

COMMENT 46: $51 0. E, Definition of Maintenance RACT - The first sentence of 

subsection "b" is unnecessary. The exemptions already provide 

that, if one is subject to PSD or MACT or NESHAP part 61, those 

standards apply instead of RACT. Extending the exemptions to 

cover NSPS sources will also make this provision unnecessary. 
Page 25 of 25 

AQ218 Summary 

'The department agrees with the comment; no arguments are necessary. 

RESPONSE 46: - The department agrees that the reference to Section 112 of the 

Clean Air Act is not necessary and a change has been made to the 

rule. 

COMMENT 47: §510.E, Definition of New - Delete the reference to reconstruction 

because, by definition, there is no increase in emissions 

associated with a reconstruction. 

FOR: The term, as used, is incorrect. 

AGAINST: Despite the fact that reconstruction does not entailincreased 

emissions, the regulations provide an opportunity for sources to 

retrofit with current RACT technology. 

RESPONSE 47: -Applicability of MRACT is intended to be consistent with New 

Source Performance Standards. §510.B. I. b will be modified to 

read "All new, modified, or reconstructed emissions units at new or 

existing major stationary sources shall apply MRACT 

requirements.. . ". Modification and reconstruction will have the 

same meanirrgs attributed to them in 40 CFR 60.14 and 60.1 5, 

respectively. 

The department feels that reconstruction would provide 

ample opportunity for an err~issions unit to be retrofitted with 

current RACT technology. 

COMMENT 48: Table 1 - The "threshold values" and "trigger values" should be 

adjusted upward (to the PSD levels - 250 t/y and 40 t/y, 

respectively) for facilities in the three parishes surrounding 

Calcasieu. The limits are appropriate for Calcasieu since they are 

compatible with the New Source Review permitting requirements 

for riew or modified sources. Oil and gas production and pipeline 

sources in these parishes in the 100 t/y to 250 t/y range may not 

have sufficient capabilities to generate offsets from "onsite" point 

sources. Furthermore, the offset ratio for the surrounding parishes 

should be 1 : 1 instead of 1.1 : 1 as proposed. These changes 

should provide adequate protection for ,the area while providing a 
Page 26 of 26 

AQ218 Summary 

significant relief to small sources. 

The department generally agrees with comment; no arguments necessary 

RESPONSE 48: - After further review and consideration, the department has 

removed Beauregard, Cameron, and Jefferson Davis from the list 

of affected parishes identified in s510.A. 
Page 1 of 1 

AQ218 Key 

Corr~ment Summary-Response & Concise Statement Key (AQ218) 

Amendments to the Air Quality Regulations 

Permit Procedures for New Emissions Sources and Major Modifications in 

Specified Parishes 

LAC 33:111.509 and 510 

COMMENT # SUGGESTED BY 

4-7,11,13,14,18 Quentin Cannatella I Westvsco 

37,39,41 Jole Luehrs I EPA, Region 6 

1,11,21,22,38,40,42,48 Richard Metcalf I LaMOGA 

8,11,12,23-36,43-47 Maureen Harbourt I Kean, Miller, et al. for LCA 

3-6,9,11,13,18,19 Blaine Butaud I Boise Cascade 

1,2,6,10-12,15-18,20, Larry DeRoussel I Lake Area Industry Alliance 

24,33,35 
***** 

MS. FLORY: 

Good afternoon! My name is Cheryl 

Flory. I'm employed with the Louisiana 

Department of Environmental Quality. I'll be 

serving as hearing officer this afternoon to 

receive comments regarding proposed 

amendments to the Air Quality and Hazardous 

Waste regulations. 

The comment period for these amendments 

began on May 20, 2001, when the notice of 

intent was published in the Louisiana 

Register. The comment period will close at 

4:30 p.m., t o d a y , J u n e 25, 2001, for Log 

Number HW077* and at 4:30 p.m., July 2, 2001, 

for the Log Numbers AQ212, AQ213, AQ216, and 

AQ218. It would be helpful to us if all oral 

comments received today were followed up in 

writing. 

The public hearing provides a forum for 

all interest parties to present comments on 

the proposed changes. I'll ask that each 

person commenting begin by stating their name 

and affiliation for the record. 

The next amendment is designated by the 
1 Log Number AQ218. 

2 This rule proposes to establish a 

3 control technology requirement for NOx and 

4 VOC emissions at new emissions units located 

5 at new and existing major stationary sources, 

6 as well as mandate an offset requirement for 

7 major modifications as defined in LAC 

8 33:III.509. This rule would be applicable to 

9 sources located in parishes where emissions 

10 must be regulated to such an extent as to 

maintain the attainment status of that 

parish, or expedite or maintain the 

attainment status of an adjacent or nearby 

parish. Namely, these parishes are 

Beauregard, Cameron, Calcasieu, and Jefferson 

Davis. Calcasieu Parish experienced six 

ozone exceedance days during the years 1998, 

1999, and 2000. Four or more exceedances 

during any consecutive 3-year period 

constitute a violation of the ozone National 

Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS). In 

accordance with contingency measures 

established in the approved air quality 

Maintenance Plan for Calcasieu Parish, a 

control strategy must be developed and 

- ASSOCIATED REPORTERS, INC. (504) 343-2020 

- .- -- - - .- 
appropriate control measures implemented in 

an effort to maintain Calcasieu's current 

attainment designation and to protect air 

quality in the area. 

Comments will' begin with Mr. Richard 

Metcalf. 

MR. METCALF: 

Once again, my name is Richard Metcalf. 

I am the Health Safety and Environmental 

Affairs Coordinator for the Louisiana Mid 

Continent Oil and Gas Association. 

Mid Continent is an industry trade 

association representing all aspects of the 

oil and gas industky in Louisiana, including 

production, transportation, refining, 

marketing, and power generation activities. 

Mid Continent appreciates the 

opportunity to comment on the proposed permit 

procedures rule for the Calcasieu area. 

Mid Continent represents two refineries 

and several other facilities in the 4-parish 

area potentially subject to the rule. 

Mid Continent' understands that the 

department is required to assess possible 

additional rules for Calcasieu parish as part 

ASSOCIATED REPORTERS, INC. (504) 343-2020 
of the ozone attainment demonstration state 

implementation plan or SIP. And that this 

proposal is part of the department's 

rulemaking package under consideration. 

It is with this understanding that Mid 

Continent submits the following comments: 

Mid Continent recognizes that the 

schedule afforded the department by the EPA 

approved SIP to assess and adopt rules is 

limited. The department therefore does not 

have the time topreform ozone modeling and 

rule-effectiveness assessment typically 

performed for the preparation of an SIP 

submittal. Because of this, Mid Continent is 

concerned that the proposed rule may be more 

stringent than needed to achieve the goal of 

the required SIP submittal, which is to 

reduce the frequency of ozone violations to 

consistent with attainment status. 

As such, Mid Continent request the 

department consider this rule, if and when 

adopted, as temporary in nature. 

Mid Continent request. that the 

department be willing to quickly amend or 

repeal the rule if future studies demonstrate 

ASSOCIATED REPORTERS, INC. (504) 343-2020 
the rule is overly prescriptive or its' 

benefits are superseded by new rules 

developed by either the EPA or the 

department. 

Mid Continent believes the department 

has not adequately demonstrated that the 

three parishes surrounding Calcasieu 

negatively affect ozone formation in 

Calcasieu parish and specifically at the 

Vinton monitor, which is the monitor of 

greatest concern. 

Extension of the rule to these three 

surrounding parishes greatly increases the 

impact of the rule to Mid Continent members. 

Mid Continent does, however, recognize 

that the department intends for this rule to 

limit new emissions growth and expand the 

geographic area to protect against very large 

sources being located just outside of 

Calcasieu. 

The proposed rule treats the four 

parishes as equivalent and imposes the same 

requirement on facilities, regardless of i 

parish. 

Mid Continent does not believe this is 

ASSOCIATED REPORTERS, INC. (504) 343-2020 
8 

justified at this time and Mid Continent will 

submit written comments to treat the three 

surrounding parishes differently than 

Calcasieu. 

Mid Continent' recommends that a 

specific exemption be added to exclude from 

coverage those facilities being permitted and 

constructed to comply with EPA Tier Two 

Gasoline Sulfur Standards. 

America's refineries are under 

tremendous time pressures to design, permit, 

and construct those facilities needed to 

reduce sulfur content in gasoline. 

Changing the 'permitting rules in the 

middle of the permitting process could 

seriously delay the construction of these 

projects to the detriment of the environment. 

Finally, Mid Continent does not 

understand why the department is prohibiting 

interprecusor pollutant trading for the 

Calcasieu area when at the same time, it is 

proposing it for the Baton Rouge area. It is 

increasingly more difficult for sources to 

generate VOC credits due to the numerous 

existing federal and state rules. It is 

- ASSOCIATED REPORTERS, INC. --- (504) 343-2020 
anticipated that it will be much more cost 

effective to create nitrogen oxide credits 

than VOC credits. Mid Continent recommends 

the department reconsider this position in 

the adoption of the final rule. 

Once again, Mid Continent appreciates 

the opportunity to submit these comments. 

Mid Continent plans to submit written 

comments by the July 2, 2001 deadline in 

support of the comments made today. 

Thank you. 

MS. FLORY: 

Thank you, Mr. Metcalf. Does anyone 

else care to comment on this regulation? 

If not, the hearing on AQ218 is closed 

I'd like to thank you for your 

attention and participation. 

This hearing is closed. 

THE HEARING CONCLUDED AT 1:47 P.M. 

ASSOCIATED REPORTERS, INC. (504) 343-2020 
CERTIFICATION 

I, the undersigned reporter, do hereby 

certify that the above and foregoing is a 

true and correct transcription of the 

stenomask tape of the proceedings had herein, 

taken down by me and transcribed under my 

supervision, to the best of my ability and 

understanding, at the time and place 

hereinbefore noted, in the above-entitled 

cause. 

I further certify that the witness was 

duly sworn by me in my capacity as a 

Certified Court Reporter pursuant to the 

provisions of R.S. 37:2551 et seq. in and for 

the state of Louisiana; that I am not of 

counsel nor related to any of the counsel of 

any of the parties, nor in the employ of any 

of parties, and that I have no interest in 

the outcome of this action. 

I further certify that my license is in 

good standing as a court reporter in and for 

the state of Louisiana. 

1 

Lori Overland, C.C.R. 

ASSOCIATED REPORTERS, INC. (504) 343-2020 
L YAY 24 2001 

Publisher of 

THE ADVOCATE 

PROOF OF PUBLICATION 

The hereto attached notice was published 

in THE ADVOCATE, a daily newspaper of 

general circulation, published in Baton Rouge, 

Louisiana, and the Official Journal of the 

State of Louisiana, the City of Baton Rouge, 

and the Parish of East Baton Rouge, 

in the issues of: 

LegalIPublic Notices Representative 

NOT&- br wrrwr .- - . ' DeperVnenfol Em~ronmsnlal Quality 

Onice 01 

Envimmmm~al Assessment Environmental Pbmng Orvision Under the aulhorily of the En- : vironnentar Quality Act. R.S. 

50:2001 el seq. and in accordance wbh droviions o! the 

Acbnni9tralive P!ocadure Act. 

R.S. 49950 m q.. the secretary 

gNeS mike hE@mk'klg Pa cedures haw bean.. inilialed lo amend the Air -Quality regula1- LAC33'IUS09 and 5X) I&! :*$Q&)$&*;$ 

p. " - . . C - ms to establish 

a conhot ledmbgy requ~rement tor NO. and VOC'emiss~ons at 

new aniuimm vrtts localed at 

new aM exh~..'major slatm- 

.a- sources. as welt as mandate an otfaet requirement for mapr 

madiliitions adelined n IAC m:lll.!%S. This Nk WCUU be 

plrable to .sources located n 

parishea where-.missions InIJSt 

be ra~uletdlq.u;ch an extent as lo mairiw:the .atfa-t : 

slatud oc ~hq pdrbh. or exwie or 01mam an ad>dp ~'Nient nea*y par*. SUM I 

~amecjl.;,~. partshes . are I 

Beaure&,;-&qieron. Cab- sieu end.' Davis. Caw sieu' ;pi&wwrienced - six 

oron;'b~c~e day. durhg the yen .-<jtepg. end m. Four or -.srceedarnes d?f- ing ani c&&a~tNs. 3-year p rlod -t*b .:violation ot tht ozone hlbdl.:. Amblent Alr 

Ouatity ..Se!i (NAn$). In accmdance'?w~tt%. .contngeocy 

trol strategy must be developed 

mearum- klabtlbhsd in me ap- I 

proved au-q~alitfMaintenance ! Plan tor Cammu Parish, a con- I 

and appropriate conlrot meas- ures mptemented n an enon to 

maintain CaWieu's current altatnment deqignalKxl and to' proteq .ak quality h the area. 

The basis and ratonale for mis 

pm,pos?cl ~b,a!e m protect and mamlan saeu Par& me srld amr,qua)i(y the ediaanng m 9% ( 

parishe. 01 Beauregard. Carr 

erm. and JenapnDavu end to 

continam- IO iwql Ikel National 

Arnbienl Air Wlily Sfandard tor 

Sworn and subscribed before me by the 

person whose signature appears above 

in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, on 

Mav 15,2001 

7Pofary Public' 

My wmission Expires: Indefinite 

RECEIVED 

DEQ - REGULATION 

LYNN WILBANKS 

PO BOX 82231 

BATON ROUGE LA 70884 

miti&, stabikty. and autonomy / ar &scribed h R.S. 49B72: 1 A publii heam witl.be heid on ~ura 25..~ldt 13.pm. in 0 

me Maynard. Katcham Buildmg. ! 

Roan 326. 7290 Bluebonnet i .Boulevard. Bat- Rouge. LA ! 

70810; hlwmstafpersons are n- I rited 1o.anend and.wiubmit Oral , 'ma -,,i-'lhe pro~osed ;

amemhmm. 6hould ind~duds wilh 'a dkabiliy'need an accom i modstion ir or&# lo penicipate. . contact Patsy Qeaville at thn ad- 

: drq'gk be+ or at (25) 

765.(1398.. .?luur.nr - AII irtsr&t@.peno& ere n- vitd a ~.~rinen rinsnts .on ad propmad regulations. 

P~cannantiq should relerervle thiq proposed regulatw 

byAQ2W &dl cornmanta must be recsiud m hter than July 2, j 2001. at 4-30 pm.. and sharld be sari( m;paby Dssville. ~egulalion Development Section. Boa 82178. Baton-Rouge, LA 70884- 

2178 a to (u (225) 765-0389 Copm 01 this proposed regulation can ba purchased at (he 

abovs ' relerqced address. cmw me Rngulatlon Devel- opment Sgtron a1 (225) 765- 0399- for pnig 'mlormatwn. 

Checlca : order o re- auired h advz for each COPY 

dl A021e.. 

This pmposod 'regulatrar is avaireble tor hpect~on at me rotlow~:D60 onre localms Iran 8 ai;l-unlil4:30 pm.: 7290 

Bkrebaurel Bouievard. Fourth -. M m. LA mem; 804 Thk(y-IbtrSLlwt. Monroe; 

L4 7Pm; Stale Onice Buildmg. 152s '-"Fairtmld Avenue. Shraremn. LA 71Xl1: 3519 Pat- r-kk: s~&< --& ylane;. ii 70605: at Evans Road. Ewtd~ 4. Sulte 420. Nsu Orbans LA 

70G: XX) .Aorna -~~Kard. 

Su~le 151. Latayette. LA 70508. 

X)4 LOmeO 01~9. Raurhnd. LA M394 01 on the Internet at 
Thn =coned rull ,mds m ex- CeO(b I11Ied In R1 302019 101 (11 alw Rl(rm (GI 01. msr Iorr. no remerl reairdin. 

I env~ronmenlallhea~tn -P~~III; 

ad mc~ailaman~c ann s re- Qulrcb Thir ommud ru(e has ( 

m kmm bout m hnJr hi- i mahm rlabdlh and aul~romr U~U;~~C~I~~CPJR I 

Was published in m TTMES ~TNE 
IJII~W me such+b( 6 ti^ and+ia~ecOnornm costs ;I-+ 

~ronmmcal Q- AcLRS. i t 4uwsdi Tht* propolad rule nas 

Publisher of 

mS STAR ~ - &j=m . I. ~ '- , :=+ l.w Interested &I am . @I/ S/O/ d.ud MONROE, LOUISIANA ' [ PROOF OF PUBLICATION 

The hereto attached advertisement 

Was published in the NEWS-STAR, A 

Daily newspaper of general circulation, 

published in ~onroe,&uisiana, 

nbient Air Qualily . .' 

AAOSI. In ac ntinaencv rn-- ' 

Parish of Ouachita, in the issues of: 

FalrfteM Avenue. Shreve: 

L471101; 3519 Patnck 

t.'lalte Charles. U 70605: 

L~GAL AD DEPT. nan Oavis and to conthue to I ETWlococbDrfua, RwFtcehnd. LA ----.--- I DOjpq oe mlhe Internet at 

Sworn and subscribed before me by 

- 

The pet Dn whose sigriature appears above in Monroe, La onthis 

r / / dayot 

u NOTARY PUBLI~ 
NOTICE OFIHTENT 

Dcoartnwnt of Envlronmental Oualltv Otttcc of 

Envlronm.ntol' Assessment Environmental Plannlng Dlvlslon Under the outhorltv of the 

Envlronmentol Ouolitv 

Act. R.S. 30:2001 et seq., 

and in accordoncc w~th the 

Provislonr ot the Admlnlrtratlve Procedure Act. 

R.S. 49:950 et seq.. thm sec- retory gives natlce that 

rulemaklng Procedures 

have been lnltiated to 

omend the Alr OualiG re& 

ulatlons UC 13.11\~99 

ond 510 &#~a!li.~$;*$ , 

Thlr. ruletProwsa:ta es- - 

tobllsh o control technolo- I 

000314 

RECEIVED 

PY requirement tor NOx 

and VOC emlulowat new emlsslans unlh Located at 

new.and. exlstlno maior 

rtatlanaw saurces,as we\! as mandate. an-'~ft~et re- quirernenttoc.rnalor md- , Itlcatlona as defined. In 

LAC 33:111'509. Thlscule 

would ba-applicable. to raurur Iwted In wrlshaairhe& emTiitons must. 

b.~rroulotd. b'pch rm.ex- trrt. m ru. malntafn the at- tolarneqt stptlra of tho? 

'milah. oiC*xp8dltr or ' ~lntain- thc':onatnrnenf 

El MAY 23 BOl 

' 

STATE OF LOUISIANA --1s- ._ ._ Parish of Calcasieu 

stplus at.an-adlacent or 

nearby Pariah.. Namely. 

thssc mrlsha are Beaureoacd. Cameron&- Calcasku, and-Jetfenon Davis. 

Calcarleu Parish experimvced SIX ozone cxceed- ana Qvs dwlno the yean 

1391. 1W9. and. 2000. Four 

or morr, ' excsedanccl dur- - ing anv consuutlve 3-year wrlod canstltute a violatkn of the. OZM~ National 

Amhlent Alr. Qualltv 

Standard (NAAQS). In ac- cordance wlth contlngm marures established In 

?hm approved olr quallty Mmlntenance Plan for Calcasleu Parlsh, a control 

1tratePY:must be developed and appropriate con- tmt measures implement. 

Calcaslem current analnrndnt derlonotlon and to 

protect alr quality In the area. Thebasls and ro- tlonale for thls Proposed 

rule are to protect and 

malntaln the alr qualllv in , Calcasieu Parlsh and the 

adlolnlno partshes of 

Beaureaard, Comeron, 

and JeCtswn Oavls and to 

contfnue to meet the Natlonal Amblent Alr Quall- IY Stundard tor ozone. Thls Proposed rule 

meets an exceptlon listed 

In RS. 30:2019 (Dl. (1) and 

..R.S.49:9=-~.G~~t3~ii..therc. 

fare6 na report rcaordlng 

mvlronmentaVhealth heneflts and saclaUeconamic 

carts Is requlnrd- Thls 

Pro~osed Cure has no knawn Impact on. tamlly 

tarmation. stabllltv; and 

1 autonamv as doscrlbed In 

R.1; 493972; . '. A:-wbllchearlng will k held on June 25. 20Q1. aC 1:30 p.m. Inthe Maynard Ketcham 

Bulldlno. Room 326, 7290 

Bluebannet Baulevard. 

Bulon Rauge,- LA 70810. 

itihf~tsd WMnS are in- Vn8d to attend and submit 

-1 comments on the. pro4*.ed amendments , SWuld fndlvlduals wlth 6 

&blltty nw on occom- modatton In order to. parHtf~atr/ contact Patsy . havllle at the address 

m; rh below or 0-t m) 761. . . :- -. . . . 

Before me, the undersigned authority, personally came and appeaed 

( 

who being duly sworn, deposes and says: 

HelShe is a duly authorized agent of 

LAKE CHARLES AMERICAN PRESS 

a newspaper published daily at 4900 Highway 90 East, 

Lake Charles, Louisiana, 70615. (Mail address: P.O. Box 2593, 

Lake Charles, LA 70602) 

The attached Notice was published in said newspaper in its issue(s) 

dated: 

18507756 - $22.00 

May 16,2001 

Duly Authorized A,bent 

Subscribed and sworn to before me this 16th day of May, 2001 at 

Lake Charles, LA 

/'/k&7tC/b/wj, tax ,- (225) u -7650369. nmu-2171 Coplnr to 

I of this prapommd ~ewula- I 

18 100144-000 

LA STATE DEQ ACCOUNTS 

I tlon can be eurchammd at NO[; 1 the above referenced oddress. Contact fhe RCPU~D. I 

tlon Develownent. Seetlon 

at..(225) 76543W tor .prlc- 

-Inn Intoimatlon."ChMk or my order Is mold In 

odvancs for each co~v.of 

AQ211; . :.:"I.. :!ir: ?%-, . . 

Thls proposed reprllatian 

Is .avallable:far inspection 

at the followlng.DE4.-oftlce locatlons.tramA'~a.m. 

untll A:30 .p.rn.i,i~T1PQ.~~k 

bonnet Boulevard,+outTh 

Floor, Balon Rouoe. LA 

70k10; 104 :~h~rtv-first 

Street, Monrm. LK7lZW; 

State Otflce ' Bulldlm; 1525 

Drive. ~a&lahdij~.mJw or on !he-kImtemst-~! 
. oi&~iri.i:,Na onal 

mblanl: -krty~!allty. 

rndard: U(&AQS). h' 

~cordance~~witWl'conSTATE OF LOUISIANA 

PARISH OF CADDO 

Before me, the undersigned authority, penknalty came and appeared 

, personalty known to ~ > 

dC etU on 'ounm ZS. 

rn!iIlt .*,a. $.me I;+ 

the )It8vnad-Kotaham 

me, who being duly sworn, deposes and says that she is the ~ssistant &$$!0~,9:: to the Classified Advertising Manager of The Times, and that the atad+fi$";:"p;s;., 

~dvertisement .- . entitled: . . :> . . 7 .,::. . . !%U&'.-: Indl*ldumli' 

. .:.,.- - . . .wflw!~trta6111~.~

,,3.;;;; .-,+..,: L.. .~~ii~rc~omn~eiIn 

Notik'of Intent ,~nl$d~3~D~otLb Jclprto; 

Department of Environmental Quality .&ii:ths;-, , - MS ivcn 

Office of Environmental Assessment -b&i$.-;~r (j .hi, ''h25): 

355.~~~y::i.. 8 .. ......-.* ..a$!) . :- :,:. .' ' . ;. 

Environmental Planning Division .AII ~nt;iestma pirsona.: 

AQ218 - Permit Procedures for New Emissions Sources and are-.- lnVlte~:'to-.aubmlt ' wrl~sri~~~comh~nt

:on : 

Major Modifications in Specified Parishes : ' o&::wgulq- . -Pro$ . .. ;,<, - :tlha: . wsonh morn-- 

<&$ ;=&$*t$!mu&t':. 

As of advertisement hereto annexed, was published in The y&yiilQminbl:latarTimes on the following dates to wit:' .~hin%~dy.~k,:,~

at; ,.:. . ,:4*W.:'pG. rd.3ihouId~ .. . - bii ~.,&:?~~.ck.Y~... 

May 20, 2001 Jllr;:Rq tkr J~C~F

:o>.*u%lbP::..r,: 

* . ,!P$ ;.;:-. , .'3!.. 1 < 

.'82!YIl;~~Bifbh-~Rdugc 

:Li;lC !rOBs4-2:17JJTs"'ar to 

,.- .. (Signed) 1 :COD~I~.O .F~X :::]3?,~j ,%this-'.D~o- !?a'ldpc03ag. : 1 

Sworn to and subscribed before me this 21st day of May, 2001. 

ALTHEA C. GOOOWIN, NOTARY PUBLIC 

CADDO PARISH, t3UISIANA 

MY CC.hiMISSION Is FOE LIFE 
PaleP AeN '02 OOZ I Pm SUTPU~ Y31M aql 

103 3iT suo!pasu! SUT~U~U~UIO~ JIM aql anssr 

paqsgqnd u! aqj nln8al pm . anlua . anssr 30 pres 
THE ADVERTISER 

221 JEFFERSON STREET 

Laf ayette, LA 70502 

PHONE: (337) 289-6300 

FAX : (337) 289-6466 

AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION 

LYNN WILBANKS ACCT. #: L-D EQ 

REGULATION DEVELOPMENT SECTION AD NUMBER: 07516944 

DEPT. OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY AD TOTAL: $75.00 

P.O. BOX 82178 AD INCHES: IS 

BATON ROUGE, LA 70884 **IN ORDER to insure proper credit please 

refer to your account number and/or ad 

Requisition No.: N02-01-338 number when making payment. 

I, ROSE PENFOLD, do solemnly swear that I am the LEGAL CLERK of THE ADVERTISER, 

a newspaper printed and published at Lafayette, in the Parish of Lafayette, State of Louisiana, and 

that fram my personal knowledge and reference to the files of said publication, the advertisement Of 

AQ218 - PERMIT PROCEDURES FOR NEW EMISSI0NS;SOURCES AND 

M A J O R M O D I F I C A T I O N S IN SPECIFIED PARISHES 

was published in THE ADVERTISER on the following dates: 

. I RECEIVED I 

MAY 16, 2001 

JUN 1 m1 

Legal Clerk 

Sworn to and subscribed before me this 1-b dayof Mh$ ,2001. 

RECEIVED 
-Eqwy>- ' 

' mgCP*L .n<r.. c.- 

-ICE OF;!,pENT 

- . .<..%--' apartmedoc 

, Enviroam~l.Qualitv,,, 

Office of 

Environmental 

I . Aueument.. 

Environmental 

Ptannin Division 1. .:...: :.,. a Under the arthoclW 

d ihe Envimnmental 

Quality Act. . R.sa 

mZM1 et M., and In 

accordance. wlth the 

provisions of the Ad-. 

mini%rativc. .. PTUCCdure Act. R.S. 4 :950 

1 e! seq.. the set : 

1 gives 

making 

notice 

proceduns 

that t 

have aeon inltlated. ta 

amend the AIrQ$<a&% 

regu(ations. 

y:III.MP and. Si0' ((.a9 

jk~1181. . ,: .-G; 

This rule proposes to 

establish a control 

technoiogy Pkblrp ment for NO^. and 

VOC emisw'bns atnew 

emissions units located , at new and exisiini). 

7190 Bluebonml Bwlc 

vard. Baton Rouge. 

LA 70810, Irnw~taQ 

persons are invlted to 

attend and submit oral 

comments on the proposed - amendments. 

Should Indlvlduals 

with a disability need 

an accommodation in 

order to participate. 

contact Patsy Oeaville 

at the address given 

belaw or at (22.5) 765- 

OJ 9v. 

. 

&or stationary sour. 

ca as welb: as.. mandate an offset requim-. 

mmt for major modlflcations as define& in 

LAC UIIIIJP~.: ..rhis 

rule wula &.a 

ole to sar- !%z 

in parish- "Where 

emissions must : be 

regulated ta such an 

extent as to. maintain 

the attainment 'status 

of mat parldl;WWW ' dite or malntaln. the 

attainment ';statGs::.of 

an adiacent or.nearbV 

current attainment 

designation and to pmtect alr quallw In the 

area. The badl and 

rationale for tnls pro 

posed rule am fu Pmtecl and matntaln the 

air qualiw In CalCasleu Parlsj end the 

adioln~ng arlshes of 

Beauregard, Cameron. 

and Jefferson Davis 

and to contlnue to meet the Natlonal Ambent Air Qual~tv 

Standard for orone. This proposed rule 

meets an exception 

listed In R.S. 10:201V 

(0) (3) and R.5.49:PSJ 

(G) (3); therefore, no report regarding envlronmental/health benefits and . wclal/eCOnomlc costs lo re- quired. Thls pro~& rule has no known impact on fqmllw-tormatlon. s?abllll$-and autanarnv 'asl deSCrlaed 

All interested per- sons are invited to 

Submit written comments on the proposed 

regylations. Persons 

commenting should 

reference this proposed regulation by 

AQ218. Such comments must., be re- ceived no? :later than: 

July 1. 2001. at 430 

p.m., and should be sent to Patsy Oeaville. 

Regulatian Development Section. Box 

82178. Baton Rouge. 

bb 70884-2171 or to fax 

.(~SL 76s-am. Copies 

af' this proposed regu- 

.latlon: :can be purchased at the above 

.. 

proposed &,fa. 

, tI'OI%if available for inHpection at the follow- 

, log' OEQ office loca- 

: tions Imm 8 a.m. until j 420 p.m.: 7290 Blueb;aflnet Boulevard. 

Fbuoh -' Floor, Baton 

Rouge. LA 70810; 804 

Thirty-first Street. 

Monroe, LA 71203; 

Stale Office Buildlng. 

15U Fairfield Avenue. 

Shreveport, L4 71101; 

IS9 Patrick Street. . Lake Charles. LA 

7WS; 201 Evans Road. 

- 

,a 

'J 

parish. Namely,: these 

parishes are Beaure 

gard,. Camemn;.. C,alC&- 

sieu. and.=?Jderson 

Davis Calcasieui Parish erperleflced"? SIX 

oznne ' weedance 

days ducinq, the ,yead 

lm, 1999. andw,lWOkur or mdrq-micecdarises durinq &$r'ton; 

secutive Xyear 'period 

constilute. a 'vlalalloii 

d the ozone National 

Ambient Air Quality 

Standard , ,(t+waSl. 

In -accordance ., w~th 

contingency measures 

established. in the aw 

proved air quality 

Maintenance Plan" for 

Calcasieu Parkh. a control strategy must 

Buildlng 1. Suite 420. 

New Orleans, LA 

70123; 1W Asma Boulevard. Suite 151. Lafayette, LA 70508; 104 Lo. 

coca Orive, Raceland. 

Ln--rU94 or on the Internet at 

itvsL 

planr~ing/regs/lnder.ht be developed an& appropriate control 

I measures lmplimented in .an to maintain Calcasleu's 

m. 

James H. Brent, Ph.0. 

Assistant Secretary 
NOTICE OF INTENT 

[See Rior Text ill B.Bareline Concetuntion - S.41 

AUTHORITY NOTE: Promulgated in accordance with RS. 

30:2054. 

HISTORICALNOTE: Promulgated by the Department of 

Environmental Quality, Office of Air Quality and Nuclear Energy, 

Air Quality Division, LR 13:741 (December 1987), amended LR 

14:348 (June 1988), LR 16:613 (July 1990), amended by the Office 

of Air Quality and hdiation Protection, Air Quality Division, LR 

17:478 (May 199 I), LR 21:170 (February 1995). LR 22:339 (May 

1996), LR 23:1677 (December 1997), LR 24:654 (April 1998), LR 

24:1284 (July 1998), repromulgated LR 25:259 (February 1999), 

amended by the Ofice of Environmental Assessment, 

Department of Environmental Quality 

Office of Environmental Assessment 

Environmental Planning Division 

Permit Procedures for New Emissions Sources and Major 

Modifications in Specified Parishes 

(LAC 33:111.509 and 5 1O)(AQ2 18) 

Under the authority of the Environmental Quality Act, 

R.S. 30:2001 et seq., and in accordance with the provisions 

of the Administrative Procedure Act. R.S. 49950 et seq., the 

secretary gives notice that rulemaking procedures have been 

initiated to amend the Air Quality regulations, LAC 

33:LII.509 and 5 10 (Log #AQ218). 

This rule proposes to establish a control technology 

requirement for NOx and VOC emissions at new emissions 

units located at new and existing major stationary sources, as 

well as mandate an offset requirement for major 

modifications as defined in LAC 33:111.509. This proposed 

rule would be applicable to sources located in parishes 

where emissions must be regulated to such an extent as to 

maintain the attainment status of that parish, or expedite or 

maintain the attainment status of an adjacent or nearby 

parish. Namely, these parishes are Beauregard, Cameron, 

Calcasieu, and Jefferson Davis. Calcasieu Parish 

experienced six ozone exceedance days during the years 

1998, 1999, and 2000. Four or more exceedances during any 

consecutive 3-year period constitute a violation of the ozone 

National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS). In 

~nvironrnental Planning Division. LR 26:2447 (November 2000); 

LR 27: 

$510, New Emissions Sources and Major 

Modifications in Specified Parishes 

Cameron, nd Jefferson Davis. 

emissions uhts at new or existing major stationh sources, 

Section. 

source is major. accordance with contingency measures established in the 

approved air quality Maintenance Plan for Calcasieu Parish, 

a control strategy must be developed and appropriate coi~trol 

measures implemented in an effort to maintain Calcasieu's 

current attainment designation and to protect air quality in 

would emit, or have 

than or equal to the 

this Section. The 

the area. The basis and rationale for this proposed rule are to 

protect and maintain the air quality in Calcasieu Parish and A potential to emit of the emi ons unit only and shall not 

consider any contemporane us increases and decreases at 

the facility. 

c. Approval to c nstruc shall become invalid if. 

the adjoining parishes of Beauregard, Cameron, and 

Jefferson Davis and to continue to meet the National 

Ambient Air Quality Standard for ozone. 

This proposed rule meets an exception listed in R.S. 

30:2019(D)(3) and R.S.49:953(G)(3); therefore, no report 

construction is not co&enced bithin 18 months after 

is discontinued for a 

regarding environmental/healtl~ benefits and social/economic construction is not 

costs is required. This proposed rule has no ki~owi~mpact 

on family formation, stability, and autonomy as described 111 

R.S. 49972. 

Title 33 

ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY 

Part 111. Air 

Chapter 5. Permit Procedures 

completed within { reasonable the. For a phased 

9509. Prevention of Significant Deterioration 

[See Prior Text in A - ~.~os:lirie Area. I] 

2. All parishes are designated as attairunent for all 

pollutants except the following parishes are desgnated 

nonattainment for ozone only: 

proposed date of construction is greater than 18 mo ths 

the date that the approval to construct would beco b e 
Public 

Participation 
( A Correct Copy of Publication ) 

POTPOURRI 1 

Department of 

Environmental Qualitv 

Otfice of Environmental 

Assessment 

1999-2001 State 

Implementation Plan 

(SIP) General Revisions . (0209Potl) 

amendments to various air 

qualitv rules in LAC 

33:III.Cha~ters 2. 5. 6, 11. 19 and 21, that were Previbslv promulgated beginning Januaw 1. 1999 

through December 31. ZW!. 

and which were yt Prevlously included In other 

revisions to the SIP. 

LoGiiiGa. Interested per- sons are invited to attend 

and submit oral comments. Attendees should. report 

directly to the hearms location for DEQ visitor registration, instead of the XUriw desk in the OEQ 

Headquarters building. 

Should individuals with a 

I rliuhilitv need an accomAII interested persons, are invited to submit wrltten 

comments on me prowsed general revisions to the SIP. 

Comments must be submitted no later than 4:30 

p.m. on November 1. 2002. comments should be 

mailed to Sandra Hilton. 

Office of Environmental 

Assessment. Plan 

opvrlaornent Section. P.O. 

tactin. the Records 

Management Section at (225) 765-08U. A check or money order is rmuired in 

advance for each COPY of 

the document. ! 

I, Bill Buschmann, Classified Advertising Director 

of THE TOWN TALK, published at Alexandria, 

Louisiana do solemnly swear that the 

Public Notice 

advertisement, as per clipping attached, was 

published in the regular and entire issue of said 

newspaper, and not in any supplement thereof 

for one insertions commencing with the issue 

September 17, 2002 and ending with the 

dated September 17, 2002. RECEIVED 

Subscribed and sworn to before me 

this day of & Se 'tember 2002 

: /' Notary Public [ 

:.' / , 9 
POTPOURRI 

lepartment &I Environmental 2 . Qualily ' 

Mnca'bf Environmental -- I 

OCT 12002 GANNETT CO. INC. 

Publisher of 

~l:.Q.~li,~-'liPll 

K~~;~~l.d,~l()y ~~:~~~~.~)~~~II:s'~ Si:.('.i'i()h~ THE NEWS STAR 

MONROE, LOUISIANA 

PROOF OF PUBLICATION 

k The hereto attached advertisement 

Was published in the NEWS-STAR, A /yB;ldg ZbJ 

Daily newspaper of general circulation, 

Published in Monroe, Louisiana, 

Parish of Ouachita, in the issues of: 

LEGAL AD DEFT. 

Sworn and subscribed before me by 

.I, 

NOTARY PUBLI 

RECEIVED 

SEP 3 0 2002 

DEQ-FINANCIAL SERVICES 
RECEL-VE?>I 

NOV 1 9 2002 ! 

Publisher of 

1 I THE NEWS STAR 

The hereto attached advertisement 

Was ~ublished in the NEWS-STAR, A 

Daily newspaper of general circulation, 

Published in Monroe, Louisiana, 

Parish of Ouachita, in the, issues of: 

Sworn and.subscribed before me by 

The person whose signature appears above in Monroe, La on this 

/ day of A/@P, 20 n& AD 

. - . -. . - ,, , 

-RECEIVED 

' NOV.1 4 2002 

DEQ-FINANCIAL SERVICES 

-- 
Acadiana's Daily Newspaper 

221 JEFFERSON STREET 

Lafayette, LA 70501 

THE ADVERTISER 

W[I(;lJI.ATION DLI\:f.I. 

i PHONE: (33f 

FAX : (33 

AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION 1 

DEPT. OF E N V I R O N M E N T A L Q U A L I T Y 

REGULATION DEVELOPMENT SECTION 

At'in: Lynn '~Vilbanks 

P.O. BOX 82178 

BATON ROUGE, LA 70884 

Requisition No. N02-03-065 

Account No.: LAd Number: 07 

Ad Total: $6 

Ad Inches: 9 

++IN ORDER to insure p 

please refer to your acco 

or ad number when rnak 

I, ROSE PENFOLD, do solemnly swear that I am the LEGAL CLERK of THE ADV 

a newspaper printed and published at Lafayette, in the Parish of Lafayette, 

that from my personal knowledge and reference to the files of said publication, 

POTPOURRI 

(0209 Pot1 1 

was published in THE ADVERTISER on the following dates: 

+tf *THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 12, 2002 

Legal CI~CI< 

Department of 

Envlronrnental Quality 

Off~ce of 

Envlronmental* . Assessment 

199P-2001 State ' ' , ImPlementation Plan; (SIP) . I G,eneral Revisions / ' (W09P0tl) ,I . 

NOTARY PUBLIC I 
I 

OT~RRI. bpadant ol Environmental 

uualii Otfi d Envlrwt 

mental Assessment 

1999-2001 State Impb 

'5entahon Plan (SIP) 

,enera1 R&smS 

rmpoti) undy me a* 

itto 0lmeEnwronmental "'hat4 m, R.S. 

&n:2051, et seq,, me set3tary g~es not= 01 pro- osed general revisions I the air quali State lm 

!p~ementatmn &an (SIP). 

'The revisions include 

I?rmendments to various 

.ir uality rules in LAC 

9:I!.~hapters 2. 5. 6. 

'1. 19. and21. mat were prmiously pnxnulgated begmlng January 1, 

-9 mnwgh Decem*r 

11. 2001. and whh vere not previous& in- 

).m. in Ma ard 

<elcham Building, room 326. 7290 Bluebonnet 

Baton 

ouge. Louisiana. Inter: 

sted persons are in*- 

?d to attend and submd 

~ral amrments Anend- 

: ees should report d~rect- 

'ty to me hearing location 

&or DEQ visitbr registr? tion, instead ot me secun- ty desk in the DEQ Headtipate, contact Palsy 

Deaville. Regulation De 

.velopment Section, Box 

'82178 Baton Rou 

;76884:2178 (zTi2 -m~. All interested per- sons are irmi\ed to submlt written comments on ithe proposed 

vis, to a F'E 

,merits must be submitted no later than 4:30 

p.m. on November 1. 

m2. Cmnwnts should 

;be mailed to Sandra 

Hlnon. Office of Env~row 

dmntal Assessment;. 

PbnDKebgment Section; P.0: ox 82178. 

 ato on Rouge, Louisiana 

i70884-2178 or taxed to 

'(225) 765-061 7. Coples 

-01 this document can be 

purchased by cantactlng the Records Manage- ,merit Section at (225) 76s-OW. A check or \honey. order is required 

-in advance for each Copy 

01 the document. A copy of the general revisions 

:to me :SIP may be 

(viewed Monday through 

,Friday. from 8:00 a.m. to 

4:30 km., at the ,follow- 

!ing D O locat~ons. 7290 

,~luebonnet Boulevard. 

,Fourth Floor. Baton 

Rouge, LA 70810; 1823 

,Highway 546. West Mon- 

,roe, LA 71292: State Office Building. 1525 Fair- 

;field Avenue. Shreveport. LA 71101; 3519 

:Patrick Street. Lake 

-I~harles. LA 70605; 201 

I Evans Road. Bulldlng 4. 

Suite 420. New Orleans. 

ILA 70123: 111 New 

Center Drive. Lalayette, 

!LA M508. or on the 

-Internet at 

~http://www.deq.sf~t~.la.u 

!slplann~nglregsl 

:mdex.hlm. James H. 

Brent. Ph.D. Assistant 

-(~ecrotary. The l7mes: 

1Se~tember,~4~~2 

ZKht aimesl El SEP 2 6 2002 

STATE OF LOUISIANA 

PARISH OF CADDO 

RECEIVED 

Before me, the undersigned authority, personally came and appeared ............ . . . . ... ..... . ... ,. . .. , 

2' .: , , <.. ;.; .,,; . , , !., - ,..;.:<;;;,; &., $2 $::.*;.; t':y;2$:;,g (',$;::?: ............ . .. ..... .. . . ?<, ,,,;7c,.,., ?,> -& !A*.:;*. ';,>*->;?;: ... ,.$ ; ,.,;.;. . ,.;:. . re, ... ..,W.">Z$.{.??~& ;. Altheas Critton, ' ' .......... personally known to' me,. , . ' .,. 

Who being duly sworn, deposes and says that she is the Assistant to the 

Classified Advertising Manager of The Times, and that the attached 

Advertisement entitIed: 

POTPOURRI Department of Environmental Quality Office 

of Environmental Assessment 1999-200 1 Ste Implementation Plan 

(SIP) General Revisions (0209Potl) #N02-03-070 

As per copy of advertisement hereto annexed, was published in 

The Times on the following dates to wit: 

September 14, 2002 

(Signed) ffw 

Sworn to and subscribed before me this 16~~ day ofSeptember 2002. 

Diana W. Taylor Notary Public 

Caddo Parish. Louisiana RECEIVED 

SEP 2 0 2002 

DEQ-FIXASCUL SERVICES 
CAPITAL CITY PREII 

Publisher of 

THE ADVOCATE 

.. - , I, ;.. , SEP 2 6 2002 

PROOF OF PUBLICATION 

The heroto attached notice was 

published in THE ADVOCATE, 

a daily newspaper of general circulation 

published in Babn Roug~, Louisiana, 

and the Official Journal 

of the State of Louisiana, 

the City of Baton Rouge, 

a~id :ha Psrist: sf hs: Batac kor;gcf 

in the folbwng issues 

Sworn and subscribed before me 

by the person whose sigature appears above 

in Baton Rougef Louisiena, on 

"%" mission Lxpirorr Indefinite 

. , NOTICE,: ' '':-' . '" ' 

.-- . .. 

. :., *. 

. . Depari+ent t: .':; :: 

Environmental Office of Qualify . '; ..

I Environmental Assessmen( ,. 1999-2001 State ' , 

lmpremenlalion Plan (SIP) .; 1 General Rev~sions. .:-..,; 

I - . (0209~0n~ i: - .- .-; 

1 ,Under the authorltY.01 the W-.-, vtronmental Quality Act; R.S. 

I, (acting the Records My\agmenL. .Section.'at (225) 765-0843; A check or mey order o requored. 

in amance tor each copy 01 the 

document. . A cow the' gkei.~ ;&isions to the SIP ma be viewed Man 

.dey through Friday I!- a+, am. to430 p.m.;at (he following 

OEQ locations: 7290 Bluebonnet 

RECEIVED in ex.htm. . JAM& $ BRENT. ~h.0. " ' ' 

SEP 2 4 2002 

DEQ-FINANCIAL SERVICES 

DEQ - REGULAllON 

PO BOX 82931 

BATON ROUGE 

9467774 

Ass~Stant Secretary ' 2467774-sep 13-11 
Derarfmml of Environmental Qualib Office d Envlronmmld Aasenrnml 

1W-ZWI Stale Imnlrmenlation Ran (SIP1 Gmud Rwiaiona ~rnpoll) 

\ Under Ihc aulhorilv of Iha Environmental Qualllv Act R.s. 10:2011 el seu. Ihe aecr;larv 

gives notice d Lronored general reviaionr lo the air uualitv Slate tm~lemmlatlon Plan (SIP1 The revisions indude ammdm~ls to varloua air qualilv rules in LAC 3l'III Chaolera 1 5 6 11 19. and 

, li. '1h.1 we;e.'r,'rer.;~ous~r ~romul~aled berlnnlnp January ! 1. 1999 lhrourh December 31 1001, and which w.re no; Prev!oualv Included In other rwlvma lo Ih. SIP. 

A&I~~$, win be held on a1 b90 P.m. in the ~avnird Kelcham Buildinp Room 326 7290 Bluebonnel ~ou~evarb Baton ~ouge Louisiana. inleroled paraon; are invited lo and ud rubmil 01.1 comments. Allendeer should report directlv lo the hnrinp bcalla fw DEQ vidlw rcplatrallon inalead of Ihe aacurltr dish in the DEQ HwCuarlwa hiidine Should indirdwk with diubhh nd an rccommodallon In order lo ~arlicI~ate, contact Patav Deavlllb Rcpulallon D.vebwmat 'sKti0" Bol Qln s.1~ ROUO~, LA 1h-11n 4 

(2ln l(Mm. 

All inleresled Persons are invited to submit wrlllan 

- . - - - - - - reneral revisions-to the SIP Comments must be submillei I later than dim p.m. 0. November I, 2001. Cammenla should br mailed lo Sandra Hilten. OMce ot Enriramtd 

I Asaeaammt, Plan Devrlomrenl kcllon P.O. Bol nl78 Baton' RW. '~wiri- law-i~n / 111.d to 1n5t ILI-UII c- I . - -. .. . - - . . . --- .- - of lhla document can be rurchaaed br cont~cllny the Records kmmnd kbm at (1251 161-0841. A check or moner order 11 requlred In advance lor rach cwv 01 me I A COPV 01 the ganual rrvidam lo Ihe SIP mar be viewed Mondav lhrourh Friar lrm I:W a.m. lo CIO 0.m. 'at tka followina DEQ localio;~: 7m Illuebonnel louleVlrd Fourth Floor Baton Rouaa <A 7mtm tm liighwav wh, LA 11292; ~lat%in Buildinp, 1515 Fairlirld Avenue Shrevr~ort LA 11101~ 1314 Patrick ~trkt Lake ct;arles. LA 10b05. 201 Evanr Road Buildino i suite AIO me; Orleans. LA 70121; 111 new Center Drlve Lafavatla LA 70531 or on 'lhe lntern;~ at hlt~:/lwww.de~.alate.l~.u~~ 

&nr**/m khm 

I 'I 

FORM 16-N 

State of Louisiana 

Parish of Orleans 

City of New Orleans 

Personally appeared before me, a Notary in and for the 

parish of Orleans, Robert J. Chiasson who deposes and 

says that he is the Accounts Receivable Manager, of 

The Times-Picayune Publishing Corporation, a Louisiana 

Corporation, Publishers of The Times-Picayune, Daily 

and Sunday, of general circulation; doing business in the 

City of New Orleans and the State of Louisiana, and that 

the attached 1 LEU EUTICE 

RE: 1999-2001 STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLAN (SIP)GENERAL ~ - R

-

VISIGNS (0209POtl) NOTICE OF PROPOSED &F&, REVISION

TO THE AIR QUALITY STATE IMPLENTATION PLAN (SIP) 

Advertisement of DEPT. OF FW-.TTV 

P.O. BOX 82231 -- ---*--- 

K@rtLl V EM 

BATON ROUGE, LA. 70884-2231 

I SEP 1 6 2002 

DEQ-FINAKC WL SERVICES 

Was published in-s PTCM~\JE 

on the following dates SEmER 12, 2002 

Sworn to and subscribed before me this 

~otar~'gublic 

My commission expires at my death. 
STATE OF LOUISIANA 

DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY 

*************** 

* 

IN RE: * * 

1999-2001 STATE * 

IMPLEMENTATION PLAN (SIP) .* * 

LOG#: 0209Potl * * 

PUBLIC HEARING t *************** 

The Public Hearing held by the 

Louisiana Department of Environmental 

Quality, Regulation Development Section, at 

the Maynard Ketcham Building, 3rd Floor 

Hearing R o o m , R o o m 326, 7290 Bluebonnet 

Boulevard, Baton Rouge, Louisiana, on Friday, 

October 25, 2002, beginning at 1:32 p.m. 

Before Lori Overland, Certified 

Stenomask Reporter, in and for the State of 

Louisiana. 

I 

ASSOCIATED. REPORTERS, 

(504) 343-2020 
APPEARANCES 

FOR THE LOUISIANA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL 

QUALITY: 

BY: CHERYL FLORY 

Hearing Officer 

Department of Environmental 

Quality 

P.O. Box 82282 

Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70884-2282 

INDEX 

EXHIBITS: 

None 
***** 

MS. CHERYL FLORY: 

Good Afternoon! My name is Cheryl 

Flory. I'm employed with the Louisiana 

Department of Environmental Quality. 1/11 be 

serving as hearing officer this afternoon to 

receive comments regarding the 1999-2001 

S t a t e I m p l e m e n t a t i o n P l a n ( S I P ) General 

Revisions and the Revision to the Water 

Quality Management Plan, Volume 1: Continuing 

Planning Process. 

The comment period for these amendments 

began on September 20, 2002, when the 

potpourri notices were published in the 

Louisiana Register. The comment period will 

close at 4:30 p.m., November 1, 2002. It 

would be helpful tonus if all oral comments 

received today were followed up in writing. 

This public hearing provides a forum 

for all interested parties to present 

comments on the proposed changes. 1/11 ask 

that each person commenting step up here and 

begin by stating his or her name and 

/ affiliation for the record. 

The first amendment is for the 1999- 

ASSOCIATED REPORTERS, INC. (504) 343-2020 
4 

2001 State Implementation Plan (SIP) General 

Revisions. 

The revisions include amendments to 

various air quality rules in LAC 

33:III.Chapters 2, 5, 6, 11, 19, and 21, that 

were previously promulgated beginning January 

1, 1999 through December 3 1 , 2 0 0 1 , and which 

were not previously included in other 

revisions to the SIP. 

Does anyone care to comment on this 

amendment? 

If not, the hearing on the 1999-2001 

State Implementation Plan General Revisions 

is closed. 

I'd like to thank you for your 

attention and participation. 

This hearing is closed. 

THE HEARING WAS CONCLUDED AT 1:34 P.M. 

***** 

ASSOCIATED REPORTERS, INC. (504) 343-2020 
REPORTER'S PAGE 

I, Lori B. Overland, Certified Court 

Reporter, in and for the State of Louisiana, 

the officer, as defined in Rule 28 of the 

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and/or 

Article 1434(b) of the Louisiana code of 

Civil Procedure, before whom this sworn 

testimony was taken, do hereby state on the 

Record: 

That due to the interaction in the 

spontaneous discourse of this proceeding, 

dashes - - have been .used to indicate 

pauses, changes in thought, and/or talk 

overs; that same is the proper method for a 

Court Reporters's transcription of 

proceeding, and that the dashes -- do not 

indicated that words or phrases have been 

left ,out of this transcript; 

That any words and/or names which could 

not be verified through reference material 

have been denoted with the phrase 

ASSOCIATED REPORTERS, INC. (504) 343-2020 
CERTIFICATION 

I, the undersigned reporter, do hereby 

certify that the above and foregoing is a 

true and correct transcription of the 

stenomask tape of the proceedings had herein, 

taken down by me and transcribed under my 

supervision, to the best of my ability and 

understanding, at the time and place 

hereinbefore noted, in the above-entitled 

cause. 

I further certify that the witness was 

duly sworn by me in my capacity as a 

Certified Court Reporter pursuant to the 

provisions of R.S. 37:2551 et seq. in and for 

the state of Louisiana; that I am not of 

counsel nor related to any of the counsel of 

any of the parties, nor in the employ of any 

of parties, and that I have no interest in 

the outcome of this action. 

I further certify that my license is in 

good standing as a court reporter in and for 

the state of Louisiana 

Lori Overland, C;C.R. 

ASSOCIATED REPORTERS, INC. (504) 343-2020 
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

REGION 6 

1445 ROSS AVENUE, SUITE 1200 

DALLAS, TX 75202-2733 

NOV 2 6 2q02 

Ms. Sandra Hilton 

Ofice of Environmental Assessment 

EnvironmentaI Planning Division 

Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality 

P.O. Box 82178 

Baton Rouge, LA 70884-2178 

Dear Ms. Hilton: . . 

On October 4,2002, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) received a copy of 

the proposed revisions to the General State Implementation Plan (SIP) for the State of Louisiana 

for the years 1999,2000, and 2001. This letter transmits EPA's comments on those proposed 

revisions for AQs 145, 183, 189, 192,209, and 213. Comments dealing with AQs 190, 199, 195, 

and 21 8 are being transmitted under separate cover by David Neleigh, Chief of our Permits 

Section. 

AQs 145,189,192,201, and 209: 

We have no comments concerning these revisions. 

AQs 213 Incorpomtion by Reference: 

The incorporation by reference of NSPS falls under section 11 1 of the Clean Air Act and 

therefore does not need to be a SIP revision. 

The definition of BE is defined as "a building or room enclosure that contains a process 

that emits VOC. If a BE is to serve as' a PTE or TTE, the appropriate requirements given m 40 

CFR, Part 5 1, appendix M, method 204, section 3.4 must be met." However, section 3.4 does 

not contain any requirements. Section 3.4 reads as follows: "Building Enclosure (BE). An 

- existing building that is used as ?TE." For the purpose of clarity we suggest the following 

language change to the definition: "BE - a building or room enclosure that contains a process that 

emits VOC. If a BE is to serve as a F'TE or TIE, the appropriate requirements given in 40 CFR, 

Part 51, appendix M, method 204, sections 5 and 6 must be met." Sections 5 and 6 are the 

requirements for PTE and ITE, respectively. 

I 

AQ 183 Control of Emissions of Smoke: 

The old rule limited visible emissions to no greater than Ringlernann No. 1. The revision 

changes the limit to an opacity no greater than 20 percent. The rule refers to LAC 33:IJI.1105, 

which specifies the use of Method 9 or 22 in Appendix A of 40 CFR Part 60, as the methods for 

Internet Address (URL)- http://www.epa.qov/earthl r6/ 

Recycled/Recyclable - Printed with Yegetable Oil Based Inks on Recycled Paper (Minimum 30% Postconsumer) 
determining compliance. Although the rule specifies the method to be used for determining 

compliance, it does not specify a frequency for periodically determining compliance, does not 

provide for periodic reporting to the State on the compliance with the opacity requirement, is not 

clear as to how the flare opacity will be measured, and does not speclfy an averaging time for the 

20 percent standard. 40 CFR 5 1.2 12(a) and (b) and Section 1 lO(a)( l)(F)(ii) of the Clean Air Act 

provide that a SP include provisions for periodic testing and inspection and periodic reporting 

on the nature and amounts of emissions. The LDEQ should address how these provisions are 

met. A 6-minute rolling average may be adequate. 

Furthermore, under Part 70, an operating permit must contain provisions for periodic 

monitoring which is sufficient to yield reliable data that are representative of compliance. See 

40 CFR 70.6(a)(3). If the underlying applicable requirement does not contain provisions for 

periodic monitoring then the operating permit must include such periodic monitoring. Because a 

significant number of sources subject to Section 1105 must also obtain a permit under Part 70, it 

would be prudent for LDEQ to include periodic monitoring in its SIP. 

If you have any questions concerning these comments please contact Maria L. Martinez, 

of my staff, at 214-665-2230. 

Sincerely yours, nb 

Thomas H. Diggs 

Chief 

Air Planning Section 

cc: Terie Lanoue, LDEQ 
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

REGION 6 

1445 ROSS AVENUE, SUITE 1200 

DALLAS, TX 75202-2733 

OCT 3 1 2002 

Ms. Sandra Hilton 

Office of Environmental Assessment 

Environmental Planning Division 

Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality 

P.O. Box 82178 

Baton Rouge, LA 70884-2 178 I-- .< 

RE: LDEQ 1999-2001 General ~eviiiin to the ,S&e?mplementation Plan (SIP) Dated - 

Octob~r 2002 

Dear Ms. Hilton: 

We appreciate the opportunity to review the Louisiana Department of Environmental 

Quality 1999-2001 General Revision to the State Implementation Plan (SIP) dated October 2002. 

We are only providing comments on portions of the document that pertain to actions performed 

by the Air Permits Section . The Air Planning Section may also provide separate comments. 

Louisiana Register Citation A@ 190 - ~itlejj Part TII. Air Chapter 6. Regulation on 

Control of Emission Through the Use of Emission Reduction Credits Banking: EPA 

understands that this rule has been included in this General Revision to the SIP as a 

hstorical reference of revisions to the Chapter 6 rule and has been included in this 

document because it was not submitted to the EPA for rulemaking after being published 

in the Louisiana Register in 1999. We also understand that this rule is no longer current 

and has been completely superseded by Emission Reduction Credits Banking regulations 

published in the Louisiana Register on February 20, 2002 (Vol 28, No. 02; Louisiana 

Register Citation AQ 2 1 1) These most current Emission Reduction Credits Banking 

regulations were formally approved by the EPA on September 27, 2002 (67 FR 60871). 

we request that these September 20, 1999, Chapter 6 revisions be removed from this 

General SIP revision package. Inclusion may cause conhsion over which requirements 

are currently in effect. 

Louisiana Register Citations AQ 195 - Title 33 Part TII. Air Chapter 2. Rules and 

Regulations for Feq System of the Air Quality Program. Ln AQ 195, LDEQ revised 

Section 207 - Application Fees and Section 2 1 1 - Methodology. In response to the 

March 29,2002, and August 7,2002, Audit Reports from the Office of Inspector General, 

the EPA is planning to perform a fee audit of Louisiana's permit fees beginning about 

December 2002. Prior to completion of the fee audit, it is not possible to determine that 

these fee rules meet our requirements. Upon completion of the fee audit, we may find 

that the fee rules are inadequate and that revisions will be needed to correct any 

Internet Address (URL) - ,http://w.epa.qov/earthl r6/ 

RecycledlRecyclable - Printed with Vegetable Oil Based Inks on Recycled Paper (Minimum 30% Postcoymer) 

t;. 
deficiencies that we may identify. We therefore request that the February 20, 2000, 

Chapter 2 revisions be removed from this General SIP package. The appropriate time to 

submit fee regulations is after we complete our fee audit and LDEQ has made any 

changes that are necessary to correct any deficiencies that may be identified in the audit. 

Region 6 offers these comments as support to your rulemaking process. Should you have 

any questions or require additional information please do not hesitate to contact me at 

(214) 665-7250 or Stanley Spruiell at (214) 665-7212. 

Sincerely, 

/David WYJ Nele , , chefL/I 

Air Pernits Sc'cti~il 
Summary of Comments and Responses 

1999-2001 State Implementation Plan (SIP) 

Comment 1: The rule change does not specitj, a frequency for determining opacity 

compliance, does not provide for periodic reporting, and does not specifj, 

an averaging period. 

Response 1: Although it may be prudent to specie these items in the Louisiana SIP, 

DEQ would prefer to specie the opacity periodic monitoring requirements 

in all permits including Title V Permits. 

Comment 1: EPA requests that AQ 190 be removed to eliminate confbsion over which 

Emission Reduction Credits Banking Requirements are in effect. 

Response 1 : AQ 190 will be removed. 

Comment 1: EPA requests that AQ 195 be removed until EPA completes the fee audit. 

Response 1 : AQ 195 will be removed and resubmitted if applicable at a fbture date 

Comment I: IBR of NSPS [40 CFR Part 5 11 need not be included. 

Response 1: EPA withdrew comment via E-mail dated 12-20-2002. 

Comment 2: The definition of BE includes requirements that refer to 40 CFR Part 5 1 

appendix M, method 204 section 3.4. There are no requirements at this 

cite. 

Response 2: Rulemaking will be initiated to correct this inadvertent error and this 

portion of AQ 213 will be resubmitted with next General SIP revision.