## 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-2007-0924-0006M. J. "MIKE" FOSTER, JR. GOVERNOR 9 r



### stateof pouisinnn
OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR pafanpauge POST OFFICE DCY " 04 January27,2003

Mr. Lany E. Starfield Acting Regional Administrator US EPA Region 6 1445Ross Avenue, Suite 1200 Dallas. TX 75202-2733 RE: 1999-2001GeneralRevisions to the StateImplementation Plan Dear Mr. Starfield: ThestateofLouisiana hasapprovedand issubmittingrevisionstothe 1999-2001 General Revisionstothe State Implementation Plan. Please contact theenvironmental planning staffthrough James H. Brent,Ph.D.,at(225)765-0261ifyou 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 OFAQ 145 2 FINAL REVISED REGULATION

. AQ 145

................................................................................. 3 RULES PROMULGATED DURING 1999-200 1 SORTEDBY DATE PROMULGATED

............22 RULES PROMULGATED DURING 1999-2001 SORTEDBY SECTION

...................................27

APPENDIX A

. FINAL REVISED REGLTLATlONS

APPENDIX B

. SIP PUBLIC PARTlCIPATION AND NOTIFICATION PROOF OFPUBLICATION

........................................................................................... 320 PUBLIC HEARINGTRANSCRIPT

............................................................................... 327 COMMENTS

..................................................................................................................333 RESPONSE TOCOMMENTS

........................................................................................ 337

### INTRODUCTION PURPOSE This StateImplementation Plan (SIP) submittal incorporates revisions made to Louisiana Administrative Code (LAC) 33:III.Chapters 2, 5, 6, 

### 11,19, and 2 1during 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 ofthe revised regulations incorporate changes made during 1999-2001,which have not yet been sent to EPAfor 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 accordancewith 40 Code ofFederal Regulations (CPR) Part 51Appendix 

### V and policy established by EPARegion 6.

# RULES PROMULGATED DURING 1999-2001 SORTED BY SECTION1 I D 

### I I 1 

### I I I - 

### 1 i 1 

### --- 

### -- b.-- 1

, 

## -" i

-.> _1 

### - 

## --- , 

### 1, 

### --- 4 

## - -"--4 

### I, I t. fi 

### RULES PROMIJLGATEDDURING 1999

### - 2001 SORTEDBY SECTION

I 

# I being amended, because the enhancedMotor Vehicle Inspection/Maintenance (IM)Program prescribedby this rule was never implemented due to lack of reauthorization by the Louisiana Legislature in 1997. TheLegislature, by Act 576 of the 1999 Regular Session, did authorize a low enhanced, vehicle

### IM program for the control and abatement ofmotor vehicle emissionsin this 5-parish;Baton Rouge ozone Nonattainment area. The low enhanced vehicle (I/M) program is governed by the Department ofPublic Safetyand Corrections, Oficeof StatePolice (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 2001 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, necessaryto implement the requirements ofthe low enhanced vehicle emissions

### I/M program. The federal Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990(CAAA) require implementationof a clean-fuelfleet program (CFFP) in ozone nonattainment areas classified as serious or above. Accordingly,the department submitted a StateImplementation Plan (SIP) revision for a CFFP in October 1994, and the SIP was approved by the EPA on October 23, 1995. Stateregulations governing the CFFP are codified in LAC 33 111 1951

### -1973 The department submitted a SIP revision toEPA 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 33.111.223Thebasis and rationale for this proposed rule are to take advantage of the CAAAopt-out provisions for a clean-fuel fleet program that has been shown to provide only marginal emission reduction benefits in theBaton 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

CleanFuel Fleet Program This proposed rule changes submittal dates for banking credits.

The limitation on the shade or appearance of emissionswill be changed from Number 1on 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 ofvisible emissions. This rule applies to flares and other similardevices used forburning in connection with pressure valve releases for control over process upsets.Thebasis and rationale for this rule are to clarihthe existinglanguage 

## I The existing regulations at LAC 33:III.1901-1935 and the appendix atthe1 end of Chapter 19arebeing 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 implementeddue to lack of reauthorization by the Louisiana Legislature in 1997. TheLegislature, by Act 576 of the 1999 Regular Session, did authorize a low enhanced, vehicleUM program for the control and 

# 1 abatement ofmotor vehicle emissions

## & this 5-parish;Baton Rouge ozone Nonattainment area. The low enhanced vehicle 

### (UM) program will be governed by the Department ofPublic Safety and Corrections, Ofice of StatePolice (DPS), with DEQ providing oversight, data collection support, and liaison activities. In accordance withR.S. 32: 1306(C), DPS promulgated a final rule on December 20, 1999,necessary to implementthe requirements of the low enhanced vehicle emissions

### YM program. The federal Clean Air Act Amendmentsof 1990 (CAAA) require

. 

### - implementation ofaclean-fuel fleet program (CFFP) in ozone 

# I nonattainment areas classified as serious or above. Accordingly,the department submitted a StateImplementation Plan (SIP) revision for a CFFP in October 1994,and the SP was approved by the EPA on October 23, 1995. Stateregulations governing the CFFP are codified in LAC 33:III.1951-1973. The department submitted a SIP revisiontoEPA for a substituteplan, 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.Thebasis and rationale for this proposed rule are to take - - 

### advantage ofthe CAAA opt-out provisions for a clean-fuel fleet programOffice of Envi ronn~entalPlanning Division, LR 26:4

RULE Departmentof Environmental Quality

Office of EnvironmentalAssessment

Environmental Planning Division Emission Reduction Credits Banking

(LAC 33:111.6 13and 6 15)(AQ199) Under the authority of the Environmental Quality Act, RS. 30:2001 et seq., and in accordance with the provisions ofthe 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 AQ190, which was published in the September 1999 Louisiana Register, was only fivemonthsafter promulgation. Thebasis and rationale for the rule are to correct the datepromulgated inAQ190 in theemission 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. Title33 ENVLRONMENTALQUALlTY Part 111. Air Chapter 6. Regulationson Control of Emissions Through the Use of Emission Reduction CreditsBanking $613. ERCBankBalanceSheet * * * I [SeePrior 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 sixmonths 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 asERCs. * * * [SeePrior Text in E-F] AUTHORINNOTE: Promulgated in accordance with R.S. 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),amendedby the Office of Environmental Assessment, Environmental Planning Division, LR ' 16:486 (March 2000). $615. Schedule for Submitting Applications * * * [SeePrior 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. * * * [SeePrior Text in C-Dl AUTHORINNOTE: 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 21:68 1 (July 1995), LR 25:1623 (September 1999), amended by the Office of Environmental Assessment, EnvironnlentalPlanningDivision, LR26:486 (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 D 

# OILAND 

# GAS ASSOCIATION 

# -
801NORTH BOULEVARD, SUITE 201, BATON ROUGE, LA 70802-5727
I TELEPHONE (225) 387-320

### 5

# + FAX (225) 344-5502

# +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 BankingRule 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, 1995deadline. 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 CoordinatorI 

### s+evd 

### Kevio LOUISIANA CHEMICAL ASSOCIATION

Hand Delivered


### January 24,2000 Ms. Patsy Deaville Regulation Development Section La. Department ofEnvironmental Quality P 0

### Box 82175 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 AQ199). 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 emissionsbanking submittals. LCA is grateful for DEQ1sprompt action in correcting this oversight with the proposed rule. Your consideration and final adoption ofAQ 199is 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;TSE('I.IOSSummary Report/ February 10,2000 

### Comment Summary (AQ199) Amendments to the Air Quality Regulations LAC33:III.613 and 615



### COMMENT 1: 

### The commentor supports amendments to the Air Quality Regulations, 

### LAC ?3:111.613 and 

### 615.

RESPONSE 1: 

### The department appreciatesthe support.

Comment Key (AQ199) Amendments to the Air Quality Regulations LAC33911.613 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 

# ORIGINAL

I 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 REP0RTERS, 

## INC. (225) 216-20361 

### 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

UtleeCab-l Rcy!~t?cr in andfor $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) 216-2036CAPITAL 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.

MyCommission Expires: Indefinite

. . ..



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

# 1 RECEIVED221 JEFFERSON STREET



# - Lafayette, LA 70502 Acadiana's Daily Newspaper 

# THE ADVERTISER

PHONE: (318) 289-6300 FAX : (318) 289-6466 

### AFFlDAVlT OF 

### PUBLICATION

C
LYNN WlLBANKS 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, inthe 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

L

I

I

I 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 Dcparlmsntof 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 weladgives 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 8111613 ad615 (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 II 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- dudloncredils~?~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- I 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*, LA71203; Stat* OM- UUIB~P IUS Fairfield AW- Sworn to and subscribed before 

### me this .nu* fhrrr*&rt LA 11101' 1519 I palrkk SI~-I ~ih* chart& LA 10~5' 3501 dhataau Boul8;brd a wed hmK8nw LA 7M la6 , 16th day 

### of DECEMBER rma edutevsrh SU~I* '151 A.D., 19 

### 99 Catavrile. LA 7~d; ,104 LXOC~ Or~veRacelad 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 NCNORLEANS ADVERTISER 0ST BERNARDADVERTISER 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 SectiC P.0. BOX 82178 II Baton Rouqe, La. 70884-2178

L Was published in The Times Picayune 

# -

I on the following dates December 16, 1999

I

### RECEIVED 

### JAN 

## 3" 2GCO STATE OF LOUISIANA PARISH OF CADDO Before me, the undersigned authority, personally came and appeared

Brenda Bullock , personally knownto
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#AQ199) 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, real991.6 ~~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 (3s.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 appllcatronsfor .. ,.. bankingeniission reductionL.": .:. creditslThe rule requlresSIX -1.) 

### ( months for submdtals lothe denartment afterommulaat~an af b I herule. howejer theict& - date p&mulgated I" A01 90 y!Y:'"" whlch was published Inthe 8ep- tember 1999 Lou~srana Req~ster. 

# I

was only fivemonths after-..

.. ;<,; mmul atron. The bashand ra- : 

### P tonale

### 7 or the proposed.ruleare ': to correctthe date pmmulgated.

.. inA0190 Inthe emlssionreduc-i: lion credits banklng rule. ~Z~kaj:.. : Thirproposedmle meetsan exce lion listedin R.S. 30:2019,:::; (0)

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



# F the? org;no re rtrega@tngY'lr envtronmental/ralth benehts,::. and sociaVeconomrccosts is re- r: quired. pispmposed~le has ,!s.! no.known'inpact onfam~ly lor-

. -, mation, stabllrty.'and autonomy-'." as describdInR.S.49:472.

.,,,i;& A public hearin wrllbe held .{:

.. onJanuary24.2100 at t.30;rr it:?, p'm in the ~roker ~iildln'~..S&- ,. o~d'~loor'7240 Bluebanq& :. 260- ~oulevard BatonRo,uQe;LA :, :I 70810. lnthested personsarg;;+ ,. invitedto attend and subm~t oral ..I comments on the.pmposed ' 7: .n. arnendmepts. Should indrviduali.? with'a*is+bility need an accom- : modatlonInorderto art~c~~atei;", contact palsy ~eavtli at theaddress wen below or at (225)
. ,: 765.$99 !I .

-).i',wI 

### ei~!Fi .Allinternsled $e&ns are in- ':I, vitedto'bubmit wntten comments an the pmposed regulations. Commentonshould reference "- this prysedmgulition :.~',i:.!? 3y401, 9 Suchcornments ..q. 6,- must bemcetvedno laterthan ,:,, January 31, 2000. at 430 p.m.. :,;, ' and shouldbe rent to Patsy.:.-.5'. )eavdle, UegulationDevelop- ::

... nentSection. Box 82178, Baton 3ou e L470884-2178 or to FAX 225?7k-0486. Cooiesof this

.. 

### GANNETTCO.INC. Publisher of 

### THE NEWS STAR 

### MONROE,LOUISIANA PROOFOFPUBLICATION 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 mokyoder Is required nadvance for each copy .: . . - : 11Ail199.0 ' ' -.i,:;.l~. :,

. This roposed regulationis :. .. lvailagleforinspection at the , ! ollowingOEO office locations ' rom8 a.m. until 430p.m.: 7290 !luebonnet Boulevard. Fourth -. .loor. Baton Rouge. LA 70810:

.. 104Thirtpirst Street. Monroe; ,I A 7120 StateOft~ce Burldlng 525.~~i~&~~venue. Shreve-'. iort LA 71101.3519 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~70394or on he Internetat httpYtwww.deq. itate.la.udp~nnins/m,gs/index. !m. .'., :,.

. . . . 

### .. . , .
... .:James H. Brent; Ph.0 :.'I1- AtsistvltSecretaly .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: I11.613 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 promulgationof 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 inthe emission reduction credits bonking rule.

. ...- . . - . meets on exception listed in R.S. 30:2019 (0)(31ond 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-onfomll~~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 

# ofPublication

REG~II.ATION DEvEI.OPXIENT SECT10 

### STATE OF LOUISIANA Parish of Calcasieu Beforeme, 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 anewspaperpublished daily at4900 Highway 90East, Lake Charles,Louisiana, 70615. (Mail address: P.O. Box 

### 2893, Lake Charles,LA70602) 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, 1999atLake Charles, LA

~otG Public 14100654-000 LA DEPT ENVIRONMENTAL

......

This prawsed regulation is avoiloble for Inspection at the followin DEQ affice locotions fgm8 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 FolrfieldAvenue. 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;4or on the Internet at htt~://Www.deq.state.lo.us /~loninslregwlndex.htm:. James H. Brent. Ph.D,

Assistant Secretory. Derrmh~r .In 1 t --[SeePrior Text inNote 1

### -161 * * *

Division,LR 26: SubchapterB. 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 FORADMINISTRATIVE RULES Program

Robert E. Hosse General Government Section LegislativeFiscal Office NOTICEOFINTENT 

# \ Department of Environmental Quality

Office of Environmental Assessment

EnvironmentalPlanningDivision 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 datepromulgated in AQ190, which was published in the September I999 Louisiana Register, was only five months after promulgation. Thebasis 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

I 2531 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 ofEmission Reduction CreditsBanking $613. ERC Bank Balance Sheet * * * [SeePrior 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 havebeen 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 SubsectionE 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 asERCs. * * * [See PriorText 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). amendedLR 25:1622 (September 1999),amended by the Office of Environmental Assessment, Environmental Planning Division, LR 26: $615. Schedule for SubmittingApplications *** [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 21:681 (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, 7290Bluebonnet Boulevard, Baton Rouge, LA 70810. 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 givenbelow 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 82178,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 ofAQ199.

This proposed regulation is available for inspection at the following DEQ office locations from 8 a.m. until 4:30 p.m.: 7290Bluebonnet Boulevard, Fourth Floor, Baton Rouge, LA 70810; 804 Thirty-first Street, Monroe, LA 71203; State Office Building, 1525 Fairfield Avenue, Shreveport, LA 71 101; 3519 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 STATEOR LOCALGOVERNMENTUNITS(Summary) No costs to state or local governments are anticipated as a result ofthe implementationofthis rule. U. ESTIMATEDEFFECTONREVENUECOLLECnONSOFSTATE OR LOCALGO-AL UNITS (Summary) There should be no effect on revenue collectionsof state or local governmentsas a result ofthe implementationofthis 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 ofthe implementationofthisrule. N. ESTIMATEDEFFECT ONCOMPETITIONANDEMPLOm (Summary) Competition and employment are not expected to be significantly effected as a result of the implementation of this rule. JamesH Brent, Ph.D. RobertE. Hosse AssistantSecretary General GovernmentSection Director 9912#086 LegislativeFiscal Office Louisiana Register Val. 25, No. 12 December 20, 1999 - z532Alternative 11

line41 Yes No 

### -- --

-- 10. Have financial statenien Information Administration? 

### --

-- 12. Has financial informati Dun and Bradstreef and has

have been met.] 

### --

line41 inthe US. [requiredonly if 

# \- 

# / lessthan 90pe centofassets;& located in theU.S.]

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

urrent liabilities et working capital [subtract line 13from

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 510)(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 5I0(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 December20, 2001defined 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 isjustified. d. For phased

as appropriate, at th 18 months prior to of construction of each

ofMRACT. Chapter 5. Permit Procedures $509. Prevention of Significant Deterioration * * * [SeePriorText in A -B.BaselineArea.I] 2. All parishes are designated as attainment for all pollutants except the following parishes are designated nonattainment forozone only:

*** [SeePriorText in B.BaselineConcentration-S.4] AUTHORITY NOTE: Promulgated in accordance with R.S. 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 Radiation Protection, Air Quality Division,LR 17:478(May 199I), 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 onProposed Rule AQ218 

### RECEIVED
JUN 

### 2 

## 8 2001

DEQ:OEA/EPU



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

### in the Calcasieu Parish area. These comments are submitted on behalf ofthe LALA. The LAlA appreciates this opportunity to submit comments in response to the above referencedrule, which was proposed through aNotice ofIntent 

### in the May 20,2001 State Register. Regulation Development Section iKEG~'I.~TIO~ DEVI;I.OIJX(ENTSE(-rIOS 

### Louisiana Department ofEnvironmental 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 1.3107. Sincerely yours,

Larry DeRoussel LAlA Executive Director

### LAKE AREA INDUSTRY ALLIANCE LAKE CHARLESICALCASIEU PARISH, LA RESPONSETO SOLICITATION FOR COMMENTS ONPROPOSED RULE "PERMITPROCEDURES FOR NEW EMISSIONS SOURCES AND MAJOR MODIFICATIONS IN SPECIFIED PARISHES, LOG NO.AQ218"

The LakeArea Industry Alliance (LALA) submits these comments in response to the . LDEQ's solicitation for comments on "Permit Procedures for New Emissions Sources and MajorModification in SpecifiedParishes" LogNo. AQ218,which was published as a Notice ofIntent in the Louisiana StateRegister on May 20, 2001. The LALA is comprised of

## -manufacturing companies in the Calcasieu Parish area. Thesecomments are submitted on behalf of the companies represented by the LALA. TheLAIA generally supports the LDEQ's efforts to ensure that Calcasieu Parish continues to maintain attainment with the National Ambient 

### Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) forozone. LALA members and the LDEQ have a longhistory ofcooperatively working toward attainment ofthe ozone NAAQS in Calcasieu Parish. Thls cooperative effort led to the successful redesignation ofCalcasieu Parish to ozone attainment statusin 1997.LALA members desire to continue the cooperative spirit that has prevailed overthe .' 

### last 12 years ofworking 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 ofIntent, the LDEQ states that AQ218proposes to establish a control technology requirement forNOx 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 ofcontrol is beingproposed 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 ofthe ozoneNAAQS. And, in accordance with contingency measures establishedin 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 isproposed to be applicableto Beauregard, Cameron, Calcasieu, and Jefferson Davis parishes.

### LAIAdoes not disagreekith the fact that 6 exceedances ofthe 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 Supportpage on LDEQYs website, "According to the approved SIP for Calcasieu Parish, contingencymeasures must be implemented when a violation of the Ozone NAAQS has occurred that isnot attributable to transport 

### (emphasis added)." Back-wind trajectory analysis completed by LDEQpersonnel 

### in early-2001 strongly suggests that exceedance events recorded on August 19, 1999, May 22,2000,July 20, 2000, and September 1,2000were 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 fiomTexas). The other two exceedance events, those that occurred on October 1, 1998, and August 16, 1999, were only slightly above the 1hour ambient air ozone standard and appear to be the result of Calcasieu Parish activities. Because ofthis, 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 ofthe worst air quality in the nation with respect to ground level ozone. Given that preliminary air dispersion modeling has indicated that 4 ofthe 6 exceedances are the result oftransport from Texas, it is not hard to envision a scenario where all LALA facilities could be shut down and still have exceedances ofthe ozone NAAQS simplybecause ofthe close proximity to Houston and BPA, and prevailing winds. Lmposition ofthis rule on LALA members is premature and should only be done after it is demonstrated that reductions ofVOC andlorNOx would actually help to insure on-going compliancewith the ozoneNAAQS. This demonstration should be done byrigorous analysisusing 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 orrepeal the rule iffuture studies demonstratethe rule is overly prescriptive or its benefits are superceded by new rules developed by either EPA or the Department.


### COMMENT 2: 

### IMPOSITION OFOFFSETS 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 ofNOx or VOC reductions, it is not known whether NOx orVOC reductions imposed by the proposed rulewill 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 offset's appears to be based on the hope that "doing anything is better than doing 

# e', rather than the applicationofgood science and careful, deliberate analysis. TheFiscal 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 thepotential supply ofERCs in the Calcasieu area cannot be predicted asthe specific emissionreductions which are eligibleto be banked asERCshave not been catalogued. Consequently, "an ERC cost woufd be difficult to predict, except that it shouldbe 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 ERCprogram run 

### by the LDEQ. LDEQ personnel have stated to LAIA member companies that ERCs can onlybe established for VOCNOxreductions that have occurred since 

### 6/2/97, the date that CaIcasieuParish was redesignated ozone attainment. There isno evidence that ERCs will become available, that there will be a secondary market for any that do become available, that potential ERCs that are identifiedwill actuallybe creditable for 

### LAIA members to use, orthat EPA will not object to, and possibly disqualify, any ERCs that are proposed by LAIAmember companies. The FEIS summarily dismisses the potential significant cost to LAIA membersby saying that the cost ofERCs shouldbe comparable to that in the Baton Rouge area without any real data onthe existence and possible use ofERCs 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 disadvantagein the global marketplace. Once again, it appearsthat the LDEQ is getting the cart before thehorse. There is no assurancethat imposing offsets on 

### LAIA member facilities would decrease ground level ozone in Calcasieu Parish. Imposition of this rule on LAIAmembers ispremature and should only be required after it is demonstrated that reductions ofVOC andlorNOx 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 isno new growth in emissions, then a 1: 1

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

### ratio would also providebetter control overNOx sothat the chances of aNOx "disbenefit" are avoided. 

### COMMENT 3: 

### THIS RULE 

### PUTS LAIA 

### MEMBER COMPANIESAT 

### A 

### COMPETITIVE DISADVANTAGE 

### The

### FEIS states that "There is no effect on competition since all facilitiesmust followthe samerules. 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.LAMmember companies must compete with companies in other states and counlnes and this rule increases the competitive pressure that each

### LALA company faces daily. The LDEQhas not conclusively demonstrated the need for AQ218. AQ218 

### imposes 

### air emission control abatement requirements without having clearly demonstratedthe rule's implementation as being practical or economically feasible.

### Paper Division Southern Operations P.O. Box 1060 Hwy. 190 West DeRidder, Louisiana 70634-1060 337-462-4300 

### June 27,2001 Boise Cascade I


## 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 commentson the Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality (LDEQ) proposed regulations AQ218and AQ2 19. 

### By promulgation of these regulations, the 

### LDEQ seeks to establish control technology requirementsforNOx and VOC emissions and require emission offset requirements fornew and existing major sources and for major modificationsin 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 emissioncontrols 

### in accordance with the air quality Maintenance Plan for CalcasieuParish. 

### 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 airqualityof 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 believesthat the LDEQ proposal lackq sound scientific and technical basis. BCC also believes that a completeeconomic impact statement has not been performed by LDEQ in accordancewith 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 formationof May to

### September, is from the southeast to the northwest. This results in emissions from BeauregardParish moving away from Calcasieu Parish.This prevents any industrial air emissions from Beauregard Parish and specifically the DeRiddermill 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 33LAC Chapter 

### 5 which treats NOx as aprecursor to ozone in current ozone nonattainment area. Approval for this change to the Louisiana StateLmplementationPlan (SIP)was published in the May 31, 2001Federal Register 

### (FR). USEPA's approval was based on a demonstration by LDEQ that additionalNOx 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 SIPand 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 tojustify inclusion of the five adjacent parishes. 

### In addition, five of the six ozone exceedance days were due to the Vinton monitoring site locatedin the western portion of the parish near the Texas border(Attachment 2). Based on the BackwindTrajectory 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 

### inTexas (Attachment 3). BCC does not believe that the regulation of emissions fromthe 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 aFiscal and Economic Lmpact Statement (FEIS) as 

### required by R.S. 49:953 A. (1) (b) (iii). 

### However. this FEIS does not meet the requirementsof 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' (AQ219)

### can be expected to establish a disincentive for economic development within Beauregard Parish. TheFEIS wrongly concludes that there will be no effect on employment or competition since all the facilities follow the samerules. 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. Therule 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 ofan 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 ofthe 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 concentrationsin 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 forregulation of point sources in Beauregard Parish due to the fact that during the ozone format~on period in the summerthe wind is out ofthe southeast carrying emissions from these sources away from Calcasieu Parish. It also is clear that WEQhas 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

I



### ATTACHMENT 2

# Back Wind Trajectory 

# for Vinton 

# Site Exceedance 

# on August 19, 

# 1999

ATTACHMENT 3

# Back Wind Trajectory 

# for 

# Vinton Site Exceedance 

# on May22,2000

TEXAS

ATTACHMENT 4 Area Monitoring S'Res 

### 5/22/2000 

# - Srnto 12pm 5C221200a.- 12pmto 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 oUdG: :rp$cf*, .*#&-&f $i$#.,q.H~umlatu' ATTORNEYS AT LAW 

# - BATON ROUGE NEW ORLEANS COVINGTON LAKE CHARLES -- PLAQCTE;WNE TWENTY-SECONDFLOOR ONE AMENCAN PLACE BATON ROUGE. LOUISIANA 70825 MAILINGADDRESS POSTOFFICE 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.com



### 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 ofEnvironmentalQuality has requested comments regarding the May 20,2001, draft proposed revisions to LAC 33:III.509 and the addition ofrules 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 ofproceedings in connection with the above-referenced notice. Office ofEnvironmental Assessment LouisianaDepartment of

Environmental Quality 7290 Bluebonnet Blvd., 4th Floor Baton Rouge, Louisiana 708 10

LCArequeststhat

### DEQrespond in writingto all comments on the proposed regulationsprior

. 

### to seekinglegislative oversightoftheproposed 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 

## Jut 2 

# i'

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. 

### Thankyou for all ofyour assistance and cooperation. 

### RE: Comments ofthe Louisiana Chemical Association ' 

### Log # 

### AQ218 OurFile No.: 3645-226

Very truly yours,

Maureen N. Harbourt cc: Mr. Henry 

### T. Graham, Jr.

537681-1

### COMMENTS OF THE LOUISIANA CHEMCALASSOCIATION

PROPOSAL TO ENACT VOC AND 

### NOX RULES BEAUREGARD, CALCASIEU, CAMERON AND 

### JEFFERSON DAVIS PARISHES

I. INTRODUCTION TheLouisiana Chemical Association ("LCA")is a nonprofit Louisiana corporation, composed of seventy-five (75) 

### member business organizations which conduct manufacturing operations at over onehundred (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 ozoneexceedance days duringthe three year period from 1998

### - 2000. Because the ozone NAAQS is violated when there aremore than four exceedances during any consecutive three years, the contingency measures adopted in the
I 

### approved airquality Maintenance Plan must be implemented. DEQindicates that the Maintenance Plan requires DEQ to developacontrol strategy to implement appropriatemeasures to protect and maintain the air quality in Calcasieu Parish and in the adjoining parishes of Beauregard, Cameron .r 

### 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 theproposed rule meets the exception listed in La. R.S. 30:2019(D)(3) and La. R.S. 49:953(G)(3). rn 

### 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 I 

### Ozone Alert webpage explains this requirement as follows: EPA'stest 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 areato be classified attainment, a monitoring stationin 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. Thismust be three exceedances at the SAMEmonitoring 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 124ppb 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 ofmore than oneexceedance and only that station exceeded the NAAQS. TheCarlyss stationhad 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 ofthe Calcasieustations 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 ofthe Calcasieu Parish industries. It is, however, downwind oftheHouston/Galveston severeozone 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 sirrnificantlvcontributes 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. 

### Themodeling supportingthe attainment deadline extension for the BeaumontIPort Arthur and the DallasIFt. Worth area also reveals that transport of ozone precursors from Houston continues well beyond theTexas 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. Toprovide forthepossibility of futureNAAQS violations, the maintenance plan must contain contingency measures, with a scheduIe for implementation, adequate to assure prompt correction ofany air qualityproblems. Inthis document.. .EPA finds that Louisiana's submittalmeets 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 DEQprepare 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." DEQhas 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 ensurethat all modeling assumptions areas accurate as possible. The modeling shouldtake into account an analysis of whether transport of ozoneprecursors from the Houston/Galveston nonattainment area and/or the BeaumontIPortArthur 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 Texasnonattainment areas. LCA is concernedthat ifDEQdoes not take the control measuresthat will bephased inBeaumont 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 

### DEQproposes to apply control technology requirements to the construction or "reconstructionn of "emissions units" at new or existing major stationary sources, asdefined 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 sentenceappears 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 submitsthat 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, DEQhas not provided a definitionof reconstruction for thepurposes 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 60and 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 theboundaries ofan "emission unit" are unclear, particularly with respect to determining what shouldbe a "reconstruction". Again, because DEQisconcernedwith maintaining emission rates, reconstructions which do not increase emissions should not be covered. Further comments concerning definitions areprovided below. Section 510.B.1 

### - MRACT Reauirement DEQshould allow a sourceto "net out" of the MRACTrequirement 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 theproposed 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 iscommonly accepted asRACT. LCA suggests the following language be added: 

### d. those thattriggercontrol requirements under 40 CFRPan 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 40CFR 

### Parts 61and 63without describing them as "MACT". Inactuality, the Part 61standardsprobably would be defmed as MACT, but thephrase "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 hazardousairpollutants in40 

### CFRPart 61orPart 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 offsetrequirements 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 sometypes 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 1to 1offset 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 suchthat they arenot available to react to formozone, reducingNOx 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 1offset 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 1to 1ratioallows DEQ to be more selective in controlling NOx where it needs to be controlled (ifin factreductions beyond those that will occur in Beaumont and Houston areneeded). Because this can be determined only by photochemical assessment monitoring, DEQ should use a 1to 1 ratio until the monitoring is complete. LCA is also concerned about the requirement foruse of offsets in light of the currentstate 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 onthe 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 reconciliationbut not due to aphysical change ora change in

### method ofoperation 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 sameproblems with clarity asdiscussed above. LCA assumesthatby "major modificationnDEQis stillreferring 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., 1994WL 615380 (EPA), for an application of the definition of emission unit C 

### 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 appropriateto treat each separate pollutant emitting activity that can be independently controlled rn 

### as a separateemission 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.

eP 

### 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 P 

### 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 REGION 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, 

### SrriteL200 

### Dallas, Texas 75202-3733



# FAXFORM - Numbers ofPages, 

# i~cluding 

# cover

# sheet: 

# 4

.. , .I..

r 1



# To: 

# De4\1;~l~ From: D~ra.1 

# P, -)

### 9


# Phone: 

# Phone: (214) 

# '665- 1 

# d

# a

# a ~ax:[~b~)' - 

# 76

# 5-03 8 

# 7. 

# Fax: (214)665-

bI* 6PD EPR REGiON 6 2146657263 P.02/04 

## Caeci VN~D STATES ENVIRONMENTALPROTECTKIN AGENCY 

# 00026&.&& I REGION6 1465 ROSS AVENUE. SUITE 1200 DALLAS,TX 75202-2733 

## hk

C



### Ms. Patsy

### Deavillc Regulation Development Section LouisianaDepamnent 

### of

Environmental Quality 

### P.O. Box 82178 Baton 

### Rouge,

### LA 70884-21 78 

### RE: Pedt

### Procedures forNew Emissions 

### Sources

### andMajor Modifications

### in Specified 

### Parishes (LouisianaAdministrative Codc 

### (LAC) 33:II1.509andLAC 33:UI.

### 510) 

### (AQ 218) 

### andDraftRule 

### Changesto

### LAC33:IIL504(AQ212) 

### Dear

### Ms.Deaville: --- I 

### - - - - 

### This letter

### shall provide you

### with 

### the 

### cornments ofthe 

### Air

### Permits Section of

### Region 6 

### of 

### the Environmental Protection

### Agency 

### @FA) 0x1

### the de changes 

### toLAC 33:II1.509

### and

### LAC I 

### 33:1n.510 (AQ218) 

### and LAC 33:III.504 (AQ212)

### that werepublished in

### the Louisiana

### Register on 

### May 

### 20,2001. We 

### support

### the efforts ofthe 

### LouisianaDepartment

### ofEnvironmental

### Quality
I 

### for

### attemptingto strengthenyour des

### in order

### to attain and

### maintain the national 

### ambientair 

### qualitystandards 

### TheAir

### Pdts Section

### hasreviewed

### the

### rule changes 

### andhas comments as follows. Our

### revim

### andtherefore our comments are

### limited to thcscregulations or

### portions I 

### thereof.



### 1. Section 51O.C 

### and 510.C.l 

### .a Theseprovisions

### appeartobe 

### inconsistent. Section 

### 510.Cstatesthat 

### itsprovisions 

### (relating to

### offsets)apply to both

### major

### stationary

### sources 

# - andto major modifications. 

### Section 510.C. 

### 1.a 

### limits the offset

### provisions only to

### major 

### modifications. The preamble 

### alsostates 

### that 

### offsetsare applicable

### to major

### modifications.The 

### finalrule

### shouldclarify 

### thetypes ofchanges 

### that are 

### subjectto

### the

### rule. L
I 

### 2. Section 

### 510.C.

### I .b.v. 

### This Section only 

### refers to 

### emissions of

### volatile organic
I 

### compounds 

### (VOC). Consistent

### with 

### thepreamble 

### andthe definitionof "regulatedpollutant" 

### under Section 

### 51

### 0.E, it appears thatthe 

### regulationshould

### reference 

### bothVOC and nitrogen oxides 

### (Nox). II6PD EPR REGION 6

3. 

### Section 510.C.2 

### (Source Information) should also includeinformation sufficientto 

### ensurethat emission reductions

### used as offsetsmeet the criteria

### in Section 51O.C. 

### I.b atthe

### time that 

### such reduction 

### credits are

### used to 

### satisfythe ofketprovisions of

### thisregulation.

We 

### concur

### withthe

### proposedchangesto your rulc

### regarding

### thehigher offset ratios, 

### as theyhave the capabilityto 

### strengthenyourplan. However, youwilI need toincludeadditional technical justification to 

### support

### yourpropasal to 

### allow interprmortrading between

### VOC and 

### NOx, to ensurethat 

### we

### will be ableto approve

### the

### proposed changes that allow interprecursor wading. This includes technical analyseswhich demonstratethat

### the interprecursorbades

### yield the 

### same, or cquivalcnt,

### environmentalbenefits as 

### trading

### VOC 

### for

### VOC andNOx for

### NOx. 

### It must also ensurethat suchtrading is consistent withyour 

### strategyto 

### demonstrateattainment

### of the ambient air qualitystandard forozone. 

### This will involve complex analyseswhich 

### may involve airquality modeling,

### monitoring, and 

### otherappropriate air impact

### analyses. 

### These technical analyses will necessarily 

### interact

### withyour

### banking program 

### andwith 

### otherelements ofyour plan which 

### arenot part ofyourpermit regulations, and 

### for

### which ourAir

### Planning Section 

### is responsibleforreviewing. 

### Youshouldsubmit

### the demonstration 

### as describedabove 

### forreview and approvalby the 

### Region6

### AirPlanning Section before we 

### can 

### approve anyplan 

### allowing 

### forinterprecursor~ading. The

### followingcomments 

### outline the 

### itcms which 

### yourplan must include 

### and which 

### theAirPlanning Sectionmust approve. 1.Such aprogram would needtohave a

### soundtechnical basis 

### (based onreactive modeling ofthe current 

### emission sources) andwould needtohave a 

### system forcontinuously evaluating the trading ratios as 

### the

### mix ofprecursoremission sources changesovertime. 

### Such 

### tradesneed to be

### justified on an area

### by area

### basis

### by airquality simdation orobservational modeling analyses 

### (with EPA 

### approvedmodels)which suggest

### that

### the direction ofthe

### proposed

. trade (e.g.,

### more VOC far 

### less 

### NOx,moreNOx forless VOC 

### control, etc.) is 

### appropriate. Interprecursorrelationships 

### are likely 

### to vary fiom area

### to area 

### aswell 

### as under 

### different seasonal environmental conditions. A 

### substitution ofNOx for

### VOC 

### or visa 

### vmawill 

### not necessarilybe on a one

### to one

### basis. Note that the

### ratio

### may not

### be the

### samefor

### differentareas 

### within the samenonattainment 

### area. 2.The program should include

### an approvable andreplicableprocedure

### by whichthe interprecursortrading ratio

### will bc 

### calculated orthe credits 

### will be exchanged. If

### therule itself does 

### not containthe 

### procedure, at 

### a minimum, 

### the

### rule shouldrefercnce an 

### approvablcprocedure that

### the Statewill 

### use

### wh& applying

### thisprovision. 3.

### The

### program should makesurethat 

### anytradingthat 

### occurs 

### is consistent

### witb 

### the attainmmt 

### demonsnation, insofar

### as the modeling 

### has 

### takeninto accountthe 

### trading of precursorswhen 

### developing the control strategies.
4. 

### Also, Section 504 

### should 

### linkthe offset andnetting credits

### to the 

### banking 

### rule 

### and should state

### that 

### offsets

### munbe creditable,surplus,mforceable. quantifiable and

### permanent 

### when used.6PD EPQ REGION 6



### TheEPAwilluse

### itsguidanceentitled 

### "ImprovingAir Qudrty 

### withEconomicIncentivts 

### 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

### finalrule

### be consistent with that 

### guidance, 

### partidady section 

### 16.9. 

### In addition,any

### permit 

### app~icatians that

### havenot 

### been 

### deemedto 

### be complete

### priorto

### the effective date

### ofthe rule

### mustcomply

### withthe

### New Source

### Review

### (NSR) requirements, consistent

### with 

### thepoIicy set

### forth

### inthe

### EPA'sNSR Supplemental

### Guidance

### memorandumdatedSeptember3,1992,

### fromJohn Sehq

### Direaor, 

### =A's Office

### of

### Air Qdty

### Planningand 

### Standards. Permit applications

### which are

### deecned complct~ 

### priorto the 

### effectivedate

### may

### alsoberequired to

### complywirb the

### regulations

### iftheydo 

### not

### comply

### with 

### theSeptember

### 3, 1992, 

### guidance. 

## Thankyou 

### forthe

### opportunity

### to providecomments.

## We lookforward to seeing

### any 

### revisionsbeforethe ha1 ruIe

### is submitted. 

### Ifyou have

### any questions,please call

### me

### at (2 

### 14) 665-7250, 

### Stanley

## M Spruiell

### ofmy staffat (214) 665-7212, 

### orDaron Page 

### ofmy 

### staff

### at (214) 

### 665-7222. 

### Sincerelyyours,



### Chief 

### AirPermits Section



### cc: 

## Ms.Annette 

### Sharp LouisianaDepm 

### 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' (AQ219): 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. Ifthe 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. 7001 Ftderal Register (FR).the EP.4 approved a revision to the Louisiana State Implementation Plan ISIP)to remove a provision from Title 33 LAC Chapter5 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 ofNOx 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 17?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 I Parishes

### - 1991

### ".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 [naybe much more significant than the point-source emissions from the 

# - surroundingparishes (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 ozonenonattainment I 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 surroundingparishes and. also, the impact if additional VOCNOxmeasures 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 I 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 rn 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 I 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. LI 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 ozoneNAAQS. The Vinton monitoring site is in the western portion of the parish. Based on LDEQ "Back Wind I 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. Ifthis is the case, Westvaco does not believe the LDEQ can adequately I 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. I 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. Inreviewing 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 30%Based on daily average wind direction from the Lake Charles station for year 2000, a north-east to north-west wind occurred at the followingapproximate 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 (AQ219),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 2153 of Chapter 21, 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 18and 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 m 

# OIL AND 

# GAS ASSOCIATION 

# - / Ji %

?o? 

### . *



### . +ox 801NORTH BOULEVARD, SUITE 201, BATON ROUGE, LA 70502-5727 

# - TELEPHONE (225) 357-3205

# + FAY (225) 344-5502 

# +EL 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 GasAssociation 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 whotogether produce, transport, refine and market crude oil, natural gas, petroleum products and electric power in Louisiana. Several Mid-Continent member companies (including two refineries) operatein the 4-parish area covered by theproposal. Enclosed are Mid-Continent's detailed comments on theproposed rule. In addition to these comments, Mid-Continent would like to express our belief that the overwhelming cause ofthe 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 ofthis action until full ozone modeling is performed. However, due to the mandates, including the mandate to address NOx reductions, Ivlid-Continent believes theproposed rule is the most appropriate course ofaction 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-ContinentOil and Gas Association On the Proposed Permit Procedure RuleAmendments 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 therule. Mid-Continent understmds that the Depz-trnentis 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 thefollowing 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 innature. 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 

### ortheDepartment. 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 sudoundingparishes 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.section5PO.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 ofthese projects to the detriment ofthe environment. lhs request is alsojustifiable from an environmental standpoint. Thereduction 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 theseprojects 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. TheEPA is currentlynegotiatiiig 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 VOCcredits 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. Comment7 

### -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 SIPrequires 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 ofthe 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 1be 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 ormodified 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 150t/y ofNOx 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 forthis type offacility. Mid-Continent recommends that the threshold values and trigger values for the surroundingparishes 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 sourcesrepresented 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.

IAPPEARANCES

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 : 

### NonePage 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 neededto achieve the goal of .therequired 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, DEQwill reexamine the ozone control strategy applied to the Calcasieu area.

COMMENT 

### 2: 

### -DEQ has not demonstrated the needfor 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 inthe Calcasieu area due to ozone exceedances. RESPONSE 2: 

## - In accordance with contingency measures established in the approved air quality Maintenance Planfor Calcasieu Parish, aPage2 of2 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 inthe area. It is more practical and economically feasible to implementa control strategy to maintain air quality in Calcasieu than to take no action, which could potentially result in a redesignation to nonattainment by EPAwith greater adverse economic consequences for the parish. After further review and consideration, DEQ has removed the parishes of Beauregard, Cameron, and Jefferson Davisfrom 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 Davisfrom the list of affected parishes in 51O.A of the proposed rule.

COMMENT 4: 

## - In the May 31, 2001 Federal Register, EPA approved a revision to the Louisiana State Implementation Planto remove a provision from, chapter five of the Air Quality regulationswhich treats NOx as a precursor to ozone in current ozone nonattainment areas. The inclusion of NOx control technology requirements inthe proposed rule is inconsistent with the FR notice and supporting demonstration. The comment is not relative to this proposed rule; no argumentsare necessary. Page 3 of 3 AQ218 Summary

RESPONSE 

### 4: The Federal Register notice referenced inthe comment applies to the Baton Rouge nonattainment area and is not applicableto this proposed rule for Calcasieuwhich 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 inthose 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 NOxand 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 inthe 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 NOxand VOC emissions originating inthe Beaumont-Port Arthur and Houston-Galveston ozone nonattainment areas on the air quality in Calcasieu Parish area as well as impact from adjoining parishes.Page4 of 4 AQ218 Summary 

### The parishes of Beauregard, Cameron, and Jefferson Davis have been removedfrom the list of affected parishes identified in 5510.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 NOxand VOC emissions originating in Beauregard, Cameron, andJefferson 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 precursorsfrom 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 9510.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 inthe proposed rule.

COMMENT 10: -The Maintenance Plan for Calcasieu Parish is predicated upon the ozone exceedances inthat parish resultingfrom 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 inCalcasieu. RESPONSE 10: -Urban air shed modeling is currently scheduledto commence in late 2001. Modeling results will allow DEQ to determine the influence of NOxand 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 ins510.A. However to address "homegrown" exceedances, the department is prodosing implementation of this ruleto prevent degradation of air quality inthe Calcasieu area.
COMMENT 11

### : 

### -The department has inadequately demonstrated that the surrounding parishes, specifically Beauregard, contribute to thePage 6 of 6 AQ218 Summary 

### ozone nonattainment status of Calcasieu parish. DEQ's website concerning the Calcasieu Ozone Task Force states 

### "Accordingto 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 in5510.A. Urban air shed modeling is currently scheduled to commence in late 2001. Modeling results will allow DEQ to determine the influence of NOxand VOC emissions originating 

### in Beauregard, Cameron, and Jefferson Davis Parishes onthe 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 inthe 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 seemPage 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 inthe reduction of VOCs on the order of 1544tons 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 NOxand VOC emissions originating in Beauregard, Cameron, and Jefferson Davis Parishes onthe air quality in Calcasieu Parish.

COMMENT 14: 

### -Beauregard Parish is 73%forestland. The impact of biogenic VOC emissions upon Calcasieu Parishfrom the surrounding parishes may be much more significant than the point-source emissions inthose parishes. This aspect should be included inthe 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 modelingto be conductedfor 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 provisionof the proposed rule, but not the portion of the rule imposing controlPage8 of 8 AQ218 Summary 

### requirements. Further, the required offset should bea 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 1.1to 1 offset ratio will temper emissions from growth inthe 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 potentialto emit ("PTE") of 25 tons per year or more of NOxor VOC. To determine PTE, any physical or operational limitation on the capacity of the unit to emit NOxor VOC, including pollution control equipment, may be taken into account if it is enforceable. S510.B does not require retrofit of existing units. A 1.1to 1 offset ratio is necessary because §510will not, and is not intended to, prohibit the expansion of industry in Calcasieu Parish. Rather, it is intended to moderate NOxandVOC 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 realizedwithout the need to obtain offsets. Requiring slightly higher than a 1:l ratio will allow emissions associated with continued growth to betempered 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 inthe 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 forPage 9 of 9 AQ218 Summary the proposed rule. With new federal regulations such as the 8- hour ozone NAAQS scheduled to be implementedwithin the coming years, DEQ anticipates that ozone will be an issue inthe 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 inthe Bator~ Rouge area" and that "one Emission Reduction Credit has a market value of approximately $5,000 inthe Baton Rouge nonattainment area." Such information was obtained via conversations with industry environmental representatives, consultants, and environmental brokerage services. The potential supply of ERC inthe 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 

### thePage 10of 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 FElSwas completed for the proposed rule to the extent that informationwas 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 varyconsiderably..." 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

## - "Withouthaving 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 inthe FElSwere identifiedto the extent practical and were quantified where feasible. RESPONSE 19: 

## - It is impossibleto predict a cost per pound of pollutant reduced. The control technology portion of the rule applies only to new emissions units; §51O.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 inthe Baton Rouge area" and that "one Emission Reduction Credit has a market value of approximately $5,000 inthe 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 inthe 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: NOXand VOC." Granted, there has never been a needto bank NOXreductions because of the state's nonattainment areas' 5182(f) NOxexemptions, 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-lpcomingchanges in Nonattainment New Soclrce Review ("NNSR") procedures andthe participation of Calcasieu Parish inthe banking system.

J 

### COMMENT 21: 551O.A 

## -A specific exerr~ption should beadded 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 realizedas 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 inthe 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: §51O.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 loweringPage 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 NOxor VOC err~issions that is a direct result of and incidental to the installation of abatement equipment or implementation of a control technique requiredto 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 5510.

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 Planwas 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 5510.A.

COMMENT 24: §51O.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 intoPage 14 of 14 AQ218 Summary account I] an analysis of possible precursors originating from the HoustonIGalveston andlor BeaumonffPortArthur 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 intoo 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 Davisfrom the list of affected parishes identified in s510.A. Modeling for the Calcasieu area will take into account emissions from the BeaumonffPort Arthur and HoustonIGalveston areas as well as recently approved control requirements for the II 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. IL
RESPONSE 25: 

### -Applicability of MRACT is intendedto be consistent with New 

# - Source Performance Standards. s510.B.l.bwill be modified to read "All new, modified, or reconstructed emissions units at new or existing major stationary sources shall apply MRACT reqyirements..



### .

### ". Modification and 

### reconstructionwill have the same meanings attributed to them in40 CFR 60.14 and 60.1 5,

. respectively.

COMMENT 26: 551O.B 

### -Define "reconstruction" as it appliesto the proposed rule. As proposed, the control technology requirement applies to aPage 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 determiningwhat should be a "reconstruction". Because the goal of the rule isto maintain emission rates, reconstructions which do not increase emissions should not be covered. FOR: Clarifying the terms being usedwill reduce confusion when implementing the rule. AGAINST: The basicterms are already defined inthe regulations and used as intended. RESPONSE 26: 

## -Applicability of MRACT is intended to be consistent with New Source Performance Standards. §51O.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 reconstructionwill have the same meanings attributed to them in40 CFR 60.14 and 60.1 5, respectively. The department feels that reconstructionwould provide ample opportunity for an emissions unit to be retrofitted with current RACT technology.

COMMENT 27: 5510.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 inthe 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 nettingwere 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 ofPage 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 inorder. 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 

### CFRpart 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 GasTurbines, can be in excess of 100parts 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 NOxemissions of 9 to 25 ppmvd 

### @ 15% 02, depending on load and ambient conditions,when fired with pipelinePage 17of 17 AQ218 Summary quality naturalgas. To avoidthis 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 II.Chapter 51, reading: e. those that are subject to MACT control requirements underLAC 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 55109.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. Insuch 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. 5510.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 needfor 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 modelingfor the area can be completed to determine the type and level of controls needed inthe 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 inthe Calcasieu area, DEQ feels there is a needto impose offsets at this time until modelingfor the area can becompleted 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 inthe 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 inan 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 becontrolled if, infact, reductions beyond those that will occur in Beaumont andPage 19 of 19 AQ218 Summary Houston areneeded. 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 NOxand 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 .themajor 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 LEANto comment on issues of concern inthe proposed banking rule. Should any revisionsto this proposed rule become necessary resultingfrom 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 LEANto comment on issues of concern inthe 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 ofPage20 of 20 AQ218 Summary 

### administrative completeness has been eliminated as a criterionfor determining applicability of the rule.

COMMENT 35: §51O.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 andwhich 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 inthe 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. Establishingthe 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: §51O.C 

### -Clarify whether changes to permit limitations that are "paper changes" only, such as resultingfrom changes inemission 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 operationwithin 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 inthe 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 inthe 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 resultingfrom updated emission factors or incorporation of stack testing data, are not considered modifications. Nofurther clarification inthe rule is necessary.

COMMENT 37: 551O.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.awill be rewordedto read, "The emissions increase from a 

### new major source or major modification as defined in LAC 33:111.509shall be offset in accordance with the provisions of this Section at the ratio specified inTable 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 inthe 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.Page22 of22 AQ218 Summary 

### If UAM indicates that further controlling NOxemissions 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 inthese other locations, DEQwill 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 provisionto 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 provisionto not discredit emission reductionsfrom all state regulations. AGAINST: Current language is consistent with LAC 33:III.Chapter 6. 

### RESPONSE 40: 

### - Inorder 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 usedas offsets meet the criteria in951O.C.l .bat the time that such reduction credits are usedto satisfy the offset provisions of this regulation.Page23 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 "surpluswhen 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: §51O.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 December20, 2001.

COMMENT 43: §51O.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 inthe regulations. RESPONSE 43: 

### -Modification and reconstruction, as they pertain to MRACT (551 O.B), will have the same meanings attributed to them in40 CFR 60.1 4 and 60.15, respectively. Majormodification, as it pertains to offsets (§510.C),will havethe same definition as in LACPage 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. AGAINST: The intended definitions are clearly stated inthe 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 havethe meaning attributed to them by 5510.E.

COMMENT 45: §510.E, Definition of 

### Maintenance RACT- The definition should state that DEQ will useACT 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
'Thedepartment 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 in40 CFR 60.14 and 60.1 5, respectively. The department feels that reconstructionwould 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 inthe 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 inthese parishes inthe 100t/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 ,thearea while providing aPage 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 Davisfrom the list of affected parishes identified in 

### s510.A.Page 1of 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 LAC33:111.509 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 LakeArea 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) 343-20208 

### 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) 343-2020CERTIFICATION 

### 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

## YAY 

## 24 2001 

# L

Publisher

### of 

# THE ADVOCATE
PROOF OF PUBLICATION
The hereto attached notice was published inTHE 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, inthe issues of:

LegalIPublic Notices Representative NOT&- brwrrwr .-

## - .

' 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. 49950m q.. the secretary gNeS mike hE@mk'klgPa cedures haw bean..inilialed lo amend the Air -Quality regula1- LAC33'IUS09 and 5X)I&! :*$Q&)$&*;$ p. " - 

### . . C - ms to establish a conhot ledmbgyrequ~rement tor NO. and VOC'emiss~ons at new aniuimm vrtts localed at new aMexh~..'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;chan extent as lo mairiw:the .atfa-t : slatud oc ~hq pdrbh. or exwie or 01 mam

an ad>dp ~'Nient nea*y par*. SUMI ~amecjl.;,~. partshes

. are I Beaure&,;-&qieron. Cab- sieu end.' Davis.Caw sieu' ;pi&wwrienced - six oron;'b~c~e day. durhg the yen .-<jtepg. endm. Four or -.srceedarnes d?f- ing anic&&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 inme ap- I proved au-q~alitfMaintenance ! Plan tor CammuParish,a con- I and appropriate conlrot meas- ures mptementedn 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& mesrld amr,qua)i(y the ediaanng m 9%

### ( parishe. 01 Beauregard. Carr erm. and JenapnDavuend to continam- IO iwql Ikel National ArnbienlAir Wlily Sfandard tor Sworn and subscribed before me by the person whose signatureappears 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 iror&# lo penicipate.

### . contact PatsyQeaville at thn ad-

:drq'gkbe+ or at (25) 765.(1398.. .?luur.nr -

AII irtsr&t@.peno& ere n- vitda~.~rinen rinsnts .on ad propmad regulations. P~cannantiq should relerervle thiq proposed regulatw byAQ2W &dl cornmantamust be recsiud m hter than July 2, j 2001. at 4-30pm.. and sharld be sari( m;paby Dssville. ~egulalion Development Section. Boa 82178.Baton-Rouge, LA 70884- 2178 a to (u (225) 765-0389 Copm01 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 dlA021e..

This pmposod 'regulatrar is avaireble tor hpect~on at me rotlow~:D60 onre localms Iran8 ai;l-unlil4:30 pm.:7290 Bkrebaurel Bouievard. Fourth 

# -. M m. LA mem; 804 Thk(y-IbtrSLlwt. Monroe; L4 7Pm; StaleOnice 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 atThn =coned rull ,mds m ex- CeO(b I11Ied In R1 302019 101 (11 alw Rl(rm (GI 01. msr Iorr. no remerl reairdin. 

# Ienv~ronmenlallhea~tn -P~~III; admc~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 ~TNEIJII~W mesuch+b( 6ti^ and+ia~ecOnornm costs;I-+ ~ronmmcal Q- AcLRS. i 

# t4uwsdiTht* propoladrule nas 

### Publisher of mS STAR

~ - &j=m

. I.

~ '-, : =+ l.w Interested&I am . 

# @I/ S/O/ 

# d.ud MONROE,LOUISIANA ' [ 

### PROOFOFPUBLICATION The hereto attached advertisement Was published in the NEWS-STAR, A Daily newspaper of general circulation, published in ~onroe,&uisiana,

nbientAir Qualily

..' AAOSI. In ac ntinaencv rn-- ' 

### Parish of Ouachita, in the issues of:

FalrfteMAvenue. Shreve: L471101;3519 Patnck t.'lalteCharles. U 70605: 

### L~GAL AD 

## DEPT. nanOavisand to conthueto IETWlococbDrfua,RwFtcehnd.LA ----.--- I DOjpqoemlheInternetat 

### 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\! asmandate.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'pchrm.ex- trrt.m ru. malntafn the at- tolarneqt stptlra of tho? 'milah. oiC*xp8dltr or ' ~lntain- thc':onatnrnenf 

### MAY 

## 23 

## BOl 

# El

' 

### STATE 

### OFLOUISIANA

--1s- ._ ._ 

### Parish 

### of Calcasieu

stplus at.an-adlacent or nearby Pariah.. Namely. thssc mrlshaare Beaureoacd. Cameron&-Calcasku, and-Jetfenon Davis. Calcarleu Parish experimvced SIX ozone cxceed- ana Qvsdwlno 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). Inac- cordance wlth contlngm marures established In ?hmapproved olr quallty Mmlntenance Plan for Calcasleu Parlsh, a control 1tratePY:mustbe 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 Stundardtor 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~osedCure has no knawn Impacton. 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 rh below or 0-tm) 761. m;

. .:- -. . .. 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 at4900 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 16thday 

### of May,2001 at Lake Charles, LA 

# /'/k&7tC/b/wj,

tax ,- (225) u

-7650369.

nmu-2171 Copln

r to Iof this prapommd ~ewula- 

# I
18100144-000 LA STATE

### DEQ ACCOUNTS I tlon can be eurchammd at NO[; 

# 1the above referenced oddress. Contactfhe 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'con

### STATE 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 ClassifiedAdvertising Manager of TheTimes, and that the atad+fi$";:"p;s;., ~dvertisement .- . entitled:

. .:> ..7 .,::.
. 

### . !%U&'.-: Indl*ldumli' 

# -

. .:.,.- - . . .wflw!~trta6111~.~0~a'.

,,3.;;;; .-,+..,: L.. .~~ii~rc~omn~eilon In Notik'ofIntent ,~nl$d~3~D~~vlIl~, otLb Jclprto; Department of Environmental Quality .&ii:ths;-, ,- MS ivcn I Office of Environmental Assessment -b&i$.-;~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~ntm :on

## : , Major Modifications in Specified Parishes : ' o&::wgulq-

.-Pro$

. .. ;,<, - :tlha:

. wsonh morn-- <&$ ;=&$*t$!mu&t':. I As of advertisement hereto annexed, was published in The y&yiilQminbl:latarTimes onthe following dates to wit:' .~hin%~dy.~k,:,~~t. 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 methis 21st day of May, 2001.

ALTHEA C. GOOOWIN, NOTARY PUBLIC CADDO PARISH, t3UISIANA MY CC.hiMISSION Is FOE LIFEaql Y31M SUTPU~ Pm IOOZ '02 AeN PaleP

anssraql 

### JIM SUT~U~U~UIO~ suo!pasu! 3iT103

pres

### 30 anssr
.anlua


### . pmnln8alaqju! paqsgqnd

# THE ADVERTISER

221 JEFFERSON STREET Lafayette, LA 70502 PHONE: (337) 289-6300 FAX : (337) 289-6466 w


### AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION

LYNN WILBANKS ACCT. #: L-DEQ 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 I

was published in 

### THEADVERTISER 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 notice that

# t

making proceduns 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- OJ9v.

. &or stationary sour.

ca as welb: as.. mandate an offset requim-. mmtfor major modlflcations as define& in LAC UIIIIJP~.: ..rhis rule wula &.a ole to sar- 

# !%z in parish- "Where emissions must :be regulated tasuch 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 fuPmtecl 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. bb70884-2171orto fax .(~SL 76s-am. Copies af' this proposed regu- .latlon: :can be purchased at the above

..

proposed &,fa.

, tI'OI%ifavailable 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--rU94or 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 SecretaryNOTICE OFINTENT [SeeRiorText ill B.BarelineConcetuntion

### - 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),amendedby the Office of Air Quality and hdiation Protection, Air Quality Division, LR 17:478 (May 199I), 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 PlanningDivision Permit Procedures for New Emissions Sources and Major Modifications in Specified Parishes (LAC 33:111.509 and 51O)(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. 49950et seq., the secretary gives notice that rulemaking procedures have been initiated to amend the Air Quality regulations, LAC 33:LII.509 and 510(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 andMajor Modifications in Specified Parishes
Cameron, nd Jefferson Davis.

emissions uhts at new or existing major stationh sources,

Section.

sourceis 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 n 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 AirQuality 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 construction is not regarding environmental/healtl~ benefits and social/economic 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 [SeePriorText in A - ~.~os:lirie Area.I] 2. All parishes are designated as attairunent for all pollutants except the following parishes are desgnated nonattainment forozone only:

proposed date of construction is greater than 18 mo ths the date that the approval to construct would beco 

# be

# Public Participation( A Correct Copy of Publication )

POTPOURRI 

## 1 Department of Environmental Qualitv Otfice of Environmental Assessment 1999-2001State 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 ytPrevlously 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

## oneinsertions 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 [

:.' /

, 9POTPOURRI

lepartment &I Environmental
2 

### .Qualily ' Mnca'bfEnvironmental -- 

# 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 OFPUBLICATION 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 subscribedbefore me by

.I, 

### NOTARY PUBLI



## RECEIVED SEP 

## 3 0 2002 

### DEQ-FINANCIALSERVICES

### RECEL-VE?>I


## NOV 1 9 

### 2002 ! 

### Publisher of

*-"a- 

### 1 

# I THENEWS STAR 

## 534

Thehereto 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.subscribedbefore 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

--Ys 

## 000323

Acadiana's Daily Newspaper

221 JEFFERSON STREET Lafayette, LA 70501 

# THEADVERTISER 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 amthe LEGALCLERK 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

(0209Pot1

### 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-2001State '

## '

, ImPlementation Plan; (SIP) 

### . I G,eneralRevisions 

### / ' (W09P0tl) ,I 

### .

NOTARY 

### PUBLIC 

# II OT~RRI. bpadant ol Environmental uualiiOtfi d Envlrwt mentalAssessment 1999-2001 State Impb '5entahon Plan (SIP)

,enera1R&smS rmpoti)undyme a* itto 0lmeEnwronmental "'hat4 m, R.S. &n:2051, et seq,, me set3taryg~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 <elchamBuilding, 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, insteadot mesecun- ty desk inthe 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 commentson ithe proposed vis, to a

## F'E ,merits must be submitted no later than 4:30 p.m. on November 1. m2.Cmnwntsshould ;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 advancefor 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: StateOffice 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 

### SEP 2 6 

### 2002 

# El ZKht aimesl

STATE OFLOUISIANA 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 saysthat sheisthe Assistant to the Classified Advertising Manager ofThe Times, and that the attached Advertisement entitIed: POTPOURRI Department ofEnvironmental Quality Office ofEnvironmental Assessment 1999-200 1SteImplementation Plan (SIP) General Revisions (0209Potl) #N02-03-070

As per copy of advertisement hereto annexed,was published in TheTimes on the following dates to wit: September 14, 

### 2002
(Signed) 

# ffw

Swornto and subscribed beforemethis 16~~ day of September 2002.

Diana W. Taylor Notary Public Caddo Parish. Louisiana 

## RECEIVED SEP 

## 2 0 

### 2002 DEQ-FIXASCUL SERVICES

# CAPITAL CITY 

# PREII
Publisher of 

## THE ADVOCATE L

.. - , I, ;..
, 

### SEP 2 6 

### 2002



### PROOFOF PUBLICATION

The herotoattached noticewas

publishedinTHE ADVOCATE, a daily newspaperof general circulation

publishedin BabnRoug~, Louisiana, and the OfficialJournal of the Stateof Louisiana, the City of Baton Rouge, a~id :haPsrist: sf hs: Batac kor;gcf in the folbwng issues

Sworn andsubscribedbeforeme bythe personwhose sigatureappears above inBaton 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.

a

I, (actingthe 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.to430p.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 13-11Derarfmmlof Environmental Qualib OfficedEnvlronmmld Aasenrnml 1W-ZWIStale 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 loIh. 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 (2lnl(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 kmmndkbm at (1251 161-0841. A check or moner order 11requlred 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~ortLA 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 inthe City of New Orleans and the State of Louisiana, and that the attached 

# 1 LEUEUTICE RE: 1999-2001 STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLAN (SIP)GENERAL RE-

~ - -- VISIGNS (0209POtl) NOTICE OF PROPOSED &F&, REVISIONS 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

### WLSERVICES 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) 343-2020APPEARANCES

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. 1/11be 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 tonusif 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) 343-2020REPORTER'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) 343-2020CERTIFICATION 

### 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 REGION6 1445 ROSSAVENUE, SUITE 1200 DALLAS,TX 75202-2733


## NOV 2 6 

### 2q02 Ms. SandraHilton Oficeof Environmental Assessment EnvironmentaIPlanning Division LouisianaDepartment ofEnvironmental Quality P.O. Box 82178 Baton Rouge,LA 70884-2178 DearMs. Hilton:

.. 

### On October4,2002,the

### U.S. EnvironmentalProtectionAgency (EPA) received a copyof the proposed revisionsto the General State Implementation Plan (SIP) for the State ofLouisiana for the years 1999,2000,and 2001. This lettertransmits EPA's commentson those proposed revisions forAQs 145, 183, 189, 192,209, and 213. Comments dealing with AQs 190, 199, 195, and 218 arebeing transmitted under separate coverby David Neleigh, Chiefof our Permits Section. 

### AQs 145,189,192,201, 

### and 209: We have no commentsconcerning these revisions. 

### AQs213 Incorpomtion by 

### Reference:

I 

### The incorporationby reference ofNSPS fallsunder section 11 1of the CleanAir Act and therefore doesnot need to be 

### a 

### SIPrevision.

I 

### The definitionofBE is defined 

### as "a building orroomenclosurethat contains aprocess that emitsVOC. 

### Ifa BE is to serve as'a

### PTE or 

### TTE, the appropriaterequirementsgiven m

### 40 CFR, Part 

### 5 1,appendix

### M, method 204, section 3.4must be met." However, section 3.4does I 

### not contain any requirements. Section 3.4reads 

### 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 

### - abuilding or roomenclosurethat contains aprocess that I 

### emitsVOC. 

### If a 

### BE is to serve as 

### a F'TE 

### orTIE,

### the appropriate requirementsgivenin 

### 40 CFR, 

### Part 51, appendix

### M,method 204, sections5 and 

### 6mustbe met." Sections5 and 

### 6 are the
C 

### requirements for

### PTE and ITE,

### respectively. I 

### AQ 183 Control of

### Emissions ofSmoke: I 

### The old rule limited visible emissionsto no greaterthan Ringlernann No. 1. Therevision changes the limit to an 

### opacityno greater than 20percent. The rule refers to LAC 33:IJI.1105, I 

### which specifiesthe use ofMethod 

### 9or 22 in AppendixA of40 CFR 

### Part 60, 

### as the methodsfor

Internet Address (URL)-http://www.epa.qov/earthl r6/ Recycled/Recyclable- Printedwith Yegetable Oil Based Inks on Recycled Paper (Minimum30% Postconsumer)determining compliance. Although the rule specifiesthe 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 opacityrequirement, is not clear as to how the flare opacity will be measured, and doesnot speclfy an averaging time for the 20 percent standard. 40 CFR 5 1.212(a) and (b) and Section 1lO(a)(l)(F)(ii) of the Clean

### Air Act provide that a 

### SP include provisions for periodic testing and inspectionand periodic reporting on the nature and amounts of emissions. The LDEQ should addresshow these provisions are met. 

### A 6-minuterolling averagemay be adequate. Furthermore, under Part 70, an operating permit must contain provisions for periodic monitoring which is sufficientto yield reliable data that are representative of compliance. See 40 CFR 70.6(a)(3). 

### Ifthe underlying applicable requirement does not containprovisions for periodic monitoring then the operating permit must include such periodic monitoring. Because a significantnumber of sources subject to Section 1105must also obtain a permit under Part 70, it would be prudent for LDEQ to includeperiodic monitoring in its SIP. 

### If you have any questionsconcerningthese commentsplease contact Maria L. Martinez, ofmy staff, at 214-665-2230.

Sincerelyyours, 

# nb

Thomas

### H. Diggs Chief Air Planning Section
cc: Terie Lanoue, LDEQ

### UNITEDSTATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTIONAGENCY REGION 6 1445 ROSSAVENUE, SUITE 1200 DALLAS,TX 75202-2733 

# OCT 3 12002

Ms. SandraHilton Office ofEnvironmental Assessment Environmental Planning Division Louisiana Department ofEnvironmental 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 DearMs.Hilton:

II 

### We appreciate the opportunityto review theLouisiana Department ofEnvironmental Quality 1999-2001General Revision to the StateImplementation Plan (SIP) dated October 2002. We are only providing comments on portions ofthe document that pertain to actionsperformed I 

### 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 ofEmission Throughthe Use ofEmission Reduction Credits Banking: EPA understands that this rulehas been included in this General Revision to the 

### SIP as a hstorical reference ofrevisions to the Chapter 6 rule andhas been included in this document becauseitwas not submittedto the EPA for rulemaking after being published in theLouisiana Register in 1999. Wealso 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 21

### 1) These most current Emission Reduction Credits Banking regulations were formally approvedby theEPA on September 27, 2002 (67FR 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

### - Title33

### Part 

### TII. Air Chapter2. Rules and Regulations forFeq System ofthe Air Quality Program. 

### LnAQ 195, LDEQrevised Section 207

## - ApplicationFees and Section 2 1 1

## - Methodology. Inresponseto the March 29,2002, and August 7,2002, Audit Reports fromthe Office ofInspector General, the EPA is planning to perform afee audit ofLouisiana's permit fees beginning about December 2002. Prior to completion ofthe fee audit, itis not possible to determine that these feerules meet our requirements. Upon completion ofthe fee audit, wemay find that the feerules are inadequate and that revisions will be needed to correct any Internet Address (URL)- ,http://w.epa.qov/earthl r6/ RecycledlRecyclable- Printedwith Vegetable Oil Based Inks on Recycled Paper (Minimum30% Postcoymer) t;.

### deficiencies that wemay identify. Wetherefore request that theFebruary 20, 2000, Chapter 2revisions be removed fromthis General SIPpackage. The appropriatetime to submitfeeregulations is afterwe 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 supportto your rulemaking process. Should you have any questions or require additional information please do not hesitate to contactme at (214) 665-7250 or Stanley Spruiell at (214) 665-7212. Sincerely, 

# WYJ /David Nele 

# , ,

### chefL/I AirPernits Sc'cti~il

### Summary ofCommentsand 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 speciethese items 

### in the Louisiana 

### SIP, DEQ would prefer to speciethe opacity periodic monitoring requirements 

### in all permits including Title 

### V Permits.

Comment 1: EPA requeststhat AQ 190 be removed to eliminateconfbsion over which Emission Reduction CreditsBankingRequirementsare 

### in effect. Response 1 : AQ 190 will be removed.

Comment 1: EPA requeststhat AQ 195 be removed until EPA completesthe fee audit. Response 1: AQ 195 will be removed and resubmitted if applicable at a fbturedate

Comment I: 

### IBR of

### NSPS [40 CFR Part 511 need not be included. Response 1: EPA withdrew comment via E-mail dated 12-20-2002. Comment 2: The definitionofBE includes requirements that refer to 40 CFR Part 51 appendix 

### M, method 204 section 3.4. There are no requirements at this cite. Response 2: Rulemakingwill be initiated to correct this inadvertent error and this portion ofAQ 213 will be resubmitted with next General 

### SIP revision.