•. At BOBBY JINDAL GOVER;'!OR HAROLD LEGGETT, 

### PH.D. SECRETi\RY

## ~tate 

# of I.ouisiana
DEPARTMENT OFENVIRONMENTALQUALITY 

### ENVIRONMENTALSERVICES

Mr. Thomas H. Diggs Associate Directorfor Air U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 

### 6 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 1200 Dallas, Texas 75202·2733 I \.0



### RE: Concerns with Louisiana's New Source Review Reform State Implementation Plaf):" Submittal :::::l '"":') DearMr. Diggs: By letter dated January 24, 2008, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) submitted comments on Louisiana's New Source Review.(NSR) rules promulgated on December·20, 2005. As you know, the Louisiana Department ofEnvironmental Quality's (LDEQ's) rules under LAC 33:Ill.504 (Nonattainment New Source Review Procedures) and LAC 33:III.509 (Prevention ofSignificant Deterioration) differ slightly from the federal versions ofthese rules (67 FR 80186,December 31, 2002; amended at 68 FR 63021, November 7, 2003). EPA identified the following 3 areas of concern which 

### will be addressed in this correspondence: (1) the use ofvariances to authorize emissions from startups, shutdowns, and malfunctions when calculating the "baseline actual emissions" and "projected actual emissionsll;-(-2}--·public--participation for the·major-source-plantwide--appticability-·limits-·irr--

- nonattainment areas; and (3) the definitions of"malfunction." EPA also requests that LDEQ commit to implementing the "reasonable possibility" provisions in LAC 33:III.504.D.9 and 509.R.6 

### in a manner consistent with EPA's final rule promulgated on December 21, 2007 (72 FR 72607). Finally, the letter will summarize the remaining differences between the federal and stateNSRprograms. Ifyou have any questions or would like to discuss these matters further, please contact Bryan 

### D. Johnston ofthe Air Pennits Division at (225) 219·3001. 

# Sin()viCheryl SonnierNolan Assistant Secretary

Date CSN:BDJ

J',>t l H!in B(>X -\31.' • Bc11n11 R•'\H.:_t·,**L(Jui~iam** -0821 --1313 • Phone 22'i-2 I'!-.> 181 • hx 25-21')- ))(•') w\\·w.dc(j.lnui>i**ana.~.-.,.**

# ,.
., 't '

. IMr. Thomas H. Diggs Page 2

NNSRPlantwide Applicability Limit (PAL) PublicParticipation Rule I. We understand that LDEQ intends for § 504.1.5. to mimic the Federal NNSR PAL Public Participation rule, 40CFR 51.165(f)(5), thereby requiring the same elements for public participation as those required under 40 CFR 51.165(f)(5), and, therefore, those required under 40 CFR 51.160 and 51.161. 

### II. LDEQ e-mailed the fol1owing language, proposing to revise § 504.1.5, to reflect this intent: A. 

### Publicparticipation Requirementfor PALs. Procedures to establish, renew, or increase PALsfor existing major stationary sources shall be consistent with 40 CFR 51.160 and 51.161. These include the requirement that the administrative authority provide the public with notice ofthe proposed approval ofa PAL permit and at least a 30-day periodfor submittal of public comments. The administrative authority shall address all material comments before takingfinal action on thepermit. B. We believe this revised language addresses our previous concerns and would be approvable into the SIP. C. LDEQ staffconfirmed during a conference call on May 3, 2007, that they still plan to revise § 504.1.5 accordingly and 

### will initiate rulemaking once the remaining issues with theNSRRefonn submittal are resolved. REQUESTED ACTION: EPA Region 6 requests that LDEQ include a schedule for expeditiously adopting the above changes and submittingthem to EPA for approval. LDEQ's Response: LDEQ 

### will initiate rulemaking as expeditiously as possible once EPA confirms that the other rule revisions discussed in the correspondence acceptably address EPA concerns. It is anticipated that such revisions can be proposed 2 to 3 months after confirmation from EPA is received (Louisiana's rulemaking procedures require all rulemaking packages to be submitted to the Legislative Fiscal Office one month before fonnal proposal). New Definition for the Term "Malfunctions" I. In its NSR Reform SIP revisions, LDEQ adopted a newdefinition of"malfunctions" in LAC 33:IIL504.K and LAC 33:III.509.B. (together hereinafter referred to as the "NSR malfunction definition"). The LDEQ adopted the NSR malfunction definition in conjunction with its rule amendment to include only "authorized" emissions resulting from startup, shutdown, and malfunction in baseline actual emissions and projected actual emissions calculations. The NSR malfunction definition defines "malfunctions" as: MaUimctions-for purposes of this Section, maljimctions shall include any such emissions authorized by permit, variance, or the on-line operating adjustment provisions of LAC\. 

# . 

# . • • 

# ..

Mr. Thomas H. Diggs Page3

33:1IL1507.B and 2307.C.2, but exclude any emissions that are not compliant with Federal or State standards. 1I. The NSR malfunction definition differs from the SIP-approved (and SIP-wide applicable) definition of "malfunction'' in LAC 

### 33:lll.llI (hereinafter "SIP-wide malfunction definition''). Furthermore, whereas the SIP-wide malfunction defmition closely tracks the use of "malfunction'' in EPA's excess emissions guidance (and therefore is consistent with EPA policy), the NSR malfunction definition does not appear to be consistent with EPA policy nor meet EPA's long-standing legal interpretation ofthe Act A. Because the LDEQ NSR malfunction definition fails to reference the SIP-wide malfunction definition, it appears on 

### its face to replace the SIP-wide malfunction definition for purposes ofNSR (NNSR under 504 and PSD under 509) with a definition inconsistent with both the SIP-wide malfunction definition and with EPA policy. It also appears to condone certain types of malfunction events, contrary to how malfunctions are typically conceptualized (i.e., automatic emission limitation exemptions during periods ofexcess emissions due to SU/SD, maintenance, and malfunction are not allowed). B. The NSR malfunction definition adopted with the Louisiana NSR Reform is less stringent than the genera) SIP-wide definition and would be a relaxation ofthe existing SIP. And, as you are aware, any SIP relaxation request must meet section 110(1) ofthe Act. Section 110(1) requires the State to demonstrate that such a relaxation will not interfere with any applicable requirement concerning attainment and reasonable further progress, or any other applicable requirement ofthe Act (e.g., PSD increments). BecauseEPA's excess emissions guidance has been-based"'orr·the·-Act's·requirements to protect attainment-of-the N.AAQS and

..·· PSD increments, and not aggravate air quality, it is difficult to conceptualize an approvable Section 110(1) demonstration due to thenature ofmalfunctions. C. In addition to a lack of other conditions that should characterize which malfunctions are eligible for enforcement discretion or the affirmative defense option offered in the 1999 Guidance, EPA Region 6 has two major concerns aboutthe LDEQ NSRmalfunction definition: 1. The NSR malfunction definition is not limited to sudden unavoidable breakdowns that are beyond the control ofthe owner oroperator; and 2. The NSR malfunction definition could include an activity or event that was foreseeable and could have been avoided by better operation and**maintenam~e.** which are the types ofactivities or events that EPA does not considerto be .malfunctions. III. In reading LDEQ's responses to comments and preamble to the LDEQ NSR malfunction definition rule, 

### it appears that LDEQ's intent was not to substitute the NSR malfunction definition for the SIP-wide malfunction definition for purposes of NSR, but rather to clarify the types of emissions associated with malfunctions that should be included in the calculation ofbaseline actual emissions and projected actual emissions. If substitution was not LDEQ's intent. then EPA Region 

### 6 suggests' 

# . 

# . • 

### :
Mr. Thomas H. Diggs Page4

clarifying the NSR malfunction definition by referencing the SIP·wide malfunction definition. Forexample: 

### Malfunctions-shall mean "malfunction" as defined in LAC 33.1II.lll and, for purposes ofcalculating baseline actual emissions and projected actual emissions under this section, shall include any such emissions authorized by permit, variance, or the on·line operating adjustment provisions of LAC 33.III.1507.B and 2307.C.2, but exclude any emissions that are not compliant with Federal or State standards. REQUESTED ACTION: Please further explain LDEQ's intent regarding the NSR malfunction definition and propose actions (including a timeline for such action) to correct the current inconsistencies between the proposed NSRdefinition ofmalfunctions, the current SIPapproved definition ofmalfunction, and EPA policy. LDEQ'sResponse: EPA is correct in that LDEQ's intent was not to substitute the definition of"malfunctions" set forth in LAC 33:III.504.K and LAC 33:111.509.B with the SIP-approved definition established by LAC 33:111.111. Because "malfunction" is not defined in 40 CFR 51.165, 51.166, or 52.21, the definition of"malfunctions"will bedeleted from LAC 33:III.504 and 509. 

### Variances I. Louisiana's NSR Reform SIP submittal provides that baseline actual emissions include "authorized emissions associated with startups, shutdowns, and malfunctions" (emphasis added). See the definitions of "baseline actual emissions" at**L.C>.!l)~~~ll~** -A-dmini5tmtive-Gooe-{-LAGj-JJ...IIJ..$09.B-(relating-to--Frevention-of Significant

Deterioration applicability) and at LAC 33.1II.504.K (relating to nonattainment new source review (NNSR) applicability). A. Louisiana's definition differs from the Federal definition by addition ofthe word "authorized." B. Generally, use of the term "authorized emissions" would meet Federal requirements because it excludes emissions that exceed legally enforceable emission limitations, pursuant to 40 Code of Federal Regulations 51.165(a)(1 )(xxxv)(A)(2) and (B)(2)-(3) and 51.166(b)(47)(i)(b) and 

### (ii)(bHc). C. "Authorized emissions" in the Louisiana SIP, however, can include excess emissions authorized by variances that the LDEQ issues under LAC 33.III.917. 1. LAC 33.ll1.917provides:

a. Where, upon written application ofthe responsible person or persons, the administrative authority finds that by reason of exceptional circumstances strict conformity with any provision of these regulations would cause undue hardship, would be unreasonable, impractical or not feasible under the circumstances, the administrative authority may permit a variance from these regulations.

# .. • 

### • I Mr. Thomas H. Diggs Page 

### 5

b. No variartce may permit or authorize the maintenance ofa nuisance, ora dangerto publichealth 

### or safety. 

### 2. Louisiana issues hundreds of variances per year for excess emissions originating from, for example, routine startup/shutdown (SU/SD) events and what LDEQ calls "temporary equipment emission sources" (e.g., a backup control device while the normal control device is being repaired). The LDEQ stated during a conference call that it does not issue variances for malfunctions, although nothing in the rule explicitly prevents LDEQ from doing so. 

### II. EPARegion 6's concerns regardingLDEQ'sissuance ofvariances. 

### A. EPApolicy and guidance on excess emissions. I. EPA policy and guidance on excess enuss10ns has evolved through preambles of two EPA rules promulgated in 1977 and five guidance memorandums issued in 1982, 1983, 1993, 1999, and 2001 (collectively hereinafter, for purposes of this comment letter, "EPA's excess emissions guidance"). 2. The 1982 and 1983 Guidance assumed that States adequately addressed and provided for "routine" SU/SD/Maintenance emissions in its permits. Therefore, the 1982 and 1983 Guidance focused on EPA Regions disapprovingorworking with states to revise any deficient SIP revision that provided automatic exemptions for excess emissions during periods of _8UfSD, maintenance,_and..malfunctions. 3. If the existing SIP was silent on treatment of excess emissions due to malfunctions, the 1982 and 1983 Guidance stated that SIP pennitscould be used to address excess emissions, ratherthan adopting and submitting a rule to EPA for approval into the SIP. The 1982 and 1983 Guidance also acknowledged that enforcement discretion could be another option for addressing excess emissions dueto a malfunction and delineated the criteria a State was to consider when drafting an approvable SIP revision relying upon an enforcement discretion decision to address excess emissions due to malfunctions. · 4. The 1999 Guidance recognized that SIPs continued to be deficient throughout the nation by still providing for automatic exemptions for malfunctions. Although EPA's intent merely was to reaffirm the 1982 and 1983 Guidance in the 

### 1 999 Guidance, as well as add the affirmative defense option and clarify how to address excess emissions during SU/SD for some certain source categories, litigation occurred on the issue that the 1999 Guidance in someway "invalidated" a State's already issued permits and its related SIP terms. As a consequence of settlement, EPA issued the 200 1 Re-issuance ofClarification ofthe 1999 Guidance to explicitly confim1 that the 1999 Guidance "was not intended to affect existing permit terms or conditions regarding malfunctions, startups and shutdowns that reflectMr. Thomas H. Diggs Page 6

approved SIP provisions," nor to alter the status of any existing SIP provisions addressing excess emissions. The 200I Re-issuance also confirms that EPA will consider the I999 Guidance (that incorporates the I977, 1982, and 1983 guidance) and the statutory principles upon which it is based 

### in the context of future SIP rules and permit terms and conditions that reflect approved SIP provisions. 5. Although we understand that Louisiana's variance provisions have been SIP-approved and utilized (or some time now, it is in the context ofNSR Reform SIP rulemaking that EPA Region 6 believes Louisiana's variance provisions, as written, are no longer a viable element of Louisiana's regulatory scheme. Indusion ofthese variance-authorized excess emissions . in the baseline actual emissions calculation could inflate the baseline, decreasing the likelihood that a proposed modification would constitute a significant emissions increase and trigger major NSR (PSD or NNSR). In order for Louisiana's NSR Reform rules to comply with Federal permitting requirements, Louisiana's air permitting rules.and policies on treatment of "routine" SU/SD/Maintenance emissions in NSR SIP permits and ofexcess emissions should reflectthe legal positions and policiesdelineated in EPA's excess emissions guidance. We explain further below. B. General concernsaboutLDEQ'streatment ofSU/SD emissions in air permitting. 1. It is unclear whether permits issued by LDEQ address emissions associated with routine SU/SD.

a. Louisiana has not historically required routine SU/SD emissions to be

-··-speeifieaHy-addressed-in-its-permits,-altheugh--bf>EQ-stated-in a·recentconference call that emissions associated with routine SU/SD events are now, as a general practice, included in the permits. However, Louisiana has stated that if the permit is silent on routine SU/SD emissions, one can assume that routine SU/SD emissions are considered part ofnormal operations and are addressed in the permit. Therefore, due to the State's historical omission ofpermit provisions addressing routine SU/SD emissions and the State's current treatment of SU/SD emissions in its permits (i.e., possibly silent), it is unclear on the face of each permit whether the permit addresses emissions associated with routine SU/SD events. b. Because it is unclear whether LDEQ-issued permits address emissions associated with SU/SD, it is resulting unclear whether Best Available Control Technology (BACT) (or where appropriate, Lowest Achievable Emission Rate, or "LAER") limits are being appropriately applied during periods ofSU/SD. 2. On January 18, 2005, EPA provided comments to Louisiana on its SU/SD guidance. To date, LDEQ has not shared with EPA revised draft rules and/or guidance to address the deficiencies identified by those comments, deficiencies largely stemming from inconsistency with EPA's long-standing legal position and policies regarding excess emissions during malfunction,

# . ' Mr. Thomas H. Diggs Page?

startup, and shutdown. Consequently, lack of regulatory clarity persists, which contributes to our concern that LDEQ's air permitting program is inconsistent with EPA'sposition on excess emissions. 

### C. Specific concerns about LDEQ's issuance ofvariances. 

### 1. Inappropriate use of variances as an "automatic exemption" from enforcement.

a. Because careful and prudent planning and design are expected to eliminate violations ofemission limitations, including during periods of SU/SD and scheduled maintenance, all excess emissions are considered violations. However, enforcement of excess emissions violations can be discretionary where the source demonstrates the excess emissions were caused by a malfunction, including a malfunction during periods of routine SU/SD and/or scheduled maintenance. b. In contrast to an enforcement discretion approach, LDEQ's variances appear to operate more like automatic exemptions, which EPA considers inconsistent with the Act because of their potential to aggravate air quality and interfere with attainment/maintenance 

### of ambient air quality standards. In fact, EPA's excess emissions guidance explicitly forbids the use ofautomatic exemptions for excess emissions.

c. Variances, which are not subject to EPA or public review, also limit



### ---·· ------- -- ------- ---.------EF-A--and--citizen--**enfo~ment--aetien-for--exeess--sm.issions;·· A:l~ss**  · emissions should be considered violations, and any decision by LDEQ not to pursue enforcement should not bar EPA and citizen enforcement of the applicable requirements. However, LDEQ's. issuance ofvariances effectively acts as such a bar to enforcement of emissions that exceed permitted limits. 2. No EPA orpublic review.

a. LDEQ issues variances without public participation. b. By its terms, this variance SIP rule does not require a variance to be submitted to EPA for approval as a revision to the SIP, and Louisiana does not submit variances to EPA for SIP approval.

c. In contrast, see 40 CFR 51.102(a)(3) and 51.1 04(d), which respectively require public participation for variances and submittal of variances as revisions to the SIP. 3. Minimal substantive review ofvariances prior to issuance by LDEQ.

a. This variance SIP rule does not explicitly require that the Secretary make a finding that the issuance ofthe variance will not interfere with• #"

. 

# . Mr. Thomas H. Diggs Page 

### 8

attainment and maintenance of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). 

### b.**Thi~** variance**SI~** rule does not require that the Secretary make a findmg that the Issuance of the variance is consistent with SIPapproved control strategies. 

### 4. Additionally, LDEQ's issuance of variances appears to be an improper implementation ofthe variance SIP rule. A review by EPA Region 6 staff of selected variances issued by LDEQ appears to indicate that LDEQ performed limited analysis to verify that the variances meet the section 

### 917 variance requirements. In several instances, LDEQ indicated that a requirement of section 

### 917 was met by using a check mark and did not include any data, technical analysis, or documentation to demonstrate how the relevant requirements (e.g., exceptional circumstances exist) were met. 5. Further, in the context ofNSR Reform, EPA Region 6 is concerned that inclusion of these variance-authorized excess emissions in the baseline actual emissions calculation could inflate, or at the very least skew, the baseline, making it less likelythat a proposed modification would constitute a significant emissions increase and trigger major NSR (PSD or NonattainmentNSR). REQUESTED ACTION: EPA Region 6 believes that LDEQ should address the following aspects ofits air permittingprogram: A. Transparently and explicitly address routine SU/SD emissions in air pennitting.

. ....

___ In addition, submit to EPA a plan on how 

### the_State__will jmplement-a formar- · processfor updating its permits to explicitly address "routine'' SU/SD emissions. B. In accordance with EPA's excess emissions guidance, appropriately address excess emissions through enforcement, enforcement discretion, and/or (under certain circumstances) an affmnative defense, and revise LDEQ's rules and Louisiana's SIP to reflect this approach, rather than addressing excess emissions through variances. C. Revise LAC 

### 33.111.917 and other variance provisions to be consistent with 40 CFR 51.104 and 51.102(a)(3). D. Include a schedule for expeditiously adopting the above changes and submitting themto EPA for SIP approval. LDEQ's Response: EPA's comments extend well beyond the context ofNSR Refonn rules and focus on LDEQ's treatment ofstartup and shutdown emissions in air permits_ EPA cites correspondence dated January 18, 2005, in which the agency provided comments on LDEQ's startup and shutdown guidance. This correspondence was also cited by EPA in its draft Audit Report summarizing the agency's 2007 review and evaluation of the LDEQ's Title V Operating Permit Program. EPA'scomments and LDEQ's responses are included as Attachment B.

# .. 

### • Mr. Thomas H. Diggs Page 

### 9

EPA's comments also address the use of variances to authorize "excess emissions." EPA suggests that 

### WEQ revise LAC 33:III.917 and other variance provisions to be consistent with 40 CFR 51.104 and 51.102(a)(3). As per 40 CFR 51.100(y), a variance is "the temporary deferral ofa final compliance date for an individual source subject to an approved regulation, or a temporary change to an approved regulation 

### as it applies to an individual source." As such, the majority ofvariances issued by LDEQ would not conform to this definition, as they neither temporarily defer a final compliance date nor temporarily change an approved regulation. As discussed with EPA on several occasions, most variances address temporary equipment or activities not included in a source's pennit or activities occurring at 

### a facility or location that is not otherwise required to obtain an airpermit (e.g., emergency generators, well tests, pipeline maintenance). In such situations, the variance would be from the provisions of LAC 33:III.50l.C.2, but would require compliance with all other applicable federal and state provisions

... Further, it shouldbe noted that LDEQ does not have the authority to suspend ormodify federal regulations via variance procedures. Variances issued pursuant to LAC 33:111.917 may address federal regulations as they are incorporatedby reference into state regulations (LAC 33:III.3003, 5116, 5122, 5311), but federal regulations remain independently applicable and enforceable by EPA. With respect to LAC 33:111.504 and 509, the term "variance" is used only in the definition of "malfunctions." As previously discussed, the definition of "malfunctions" will be deleted from LAC 33:III.504 and 509. The matters ofincorporating startup and shutdown emissions into air permits and the use ofvariances to authorize "excess emissions" should be addressed separately. LDEQ is willing to discuss these issues in more detail at EPA's convenience;

### ·--.~~w=~~·**th~!'** should

### ~~!!~pede EPA's approval

### ofL~EQ~~-~~R Reform

### ru!~· ReasonablePossibility Provision
I. · The submitted regulations include the "reasonable possibility" provisions that were promulgated in the NSR Reform rules dated December 31, 2002. Louisiana adopted these provisions in Sections 504.D.9 and 509.R.6. On June 24, 2005, the Circuit Court ofAppeals forthe District ofColumbiaremanded the reasonable possibility provisions ·to EPA for further consideration. On December 21, 2007, EPA promulgated its final rule clarifying the "reasonable possibility" recordkeeping and reporting standard ofthe 2002 NSRReform rules. See 72 FR 72607. 

### II. The preamble to the December 21, 2007 rulemaking states: In the case ofNSR SIP revisions that include the term "reasonable possibility" but EPA has not yet approved, 

### we will approve the SIP revision 

### ifthe State or local agency commits to implementing the "reasonable possibility" standard in a manner consistent with our final rule. See 72 FR 72613. REQUESTED ACTION: EPA Region 6 requests LDEQ submit a commitment to implement the "reasonable possibility" provisions in Sections 504.D.9 and 509.R.6 in a manner consistent with EPA fina] rule promulgated December 21. 2007. Although a revision to your "reasonable**-~-··---**

### •
- ' ' 

# .. Mr. Thomas H. Diggs Page 10

possibility" provisions may not immediately be necessary for us to approve LDEQ's NSR Refonn SIP revision submittal currently before us, we encourage LDEQ-for purposes of regulatory clarity-to adopt revisions (and submit those revisions to EPA for SIP approval) reflecting EPA• s clarification of the "reasonable possibility" recordkeeping and reporting standard ofthe 2002 NSR Refonn rules. Should LDEQ choose to adopt such revisions, those revisions must be submitted to EPA for SIP approval by December 21,2010. LDEQ's Response: LDEQ is and will continue to implement the ••reasonable possibility" provisions in LAC 33:III.S04.D.9 and 509.R.6 in a manner consistent with EPA's "'Reasonable Possibility in Recordkeeping" rule promulgated on December21,2007 (72 FR 72607). RemainingDifferences BetweenFederaland StateNSRRules Proposed revisions to LAC 33:1II.504 and LAC 33:III.509

### discussed in the correspondence are included as Attachment A. The federal NSR Refonn rules require emissions from malfunctions to be included 

### in "baseline actual emissions" and "projected actual emissions"; however, at this time, LDEQ proposes to delete the term "malfunctions" from these definitions. When LDEQ chooses to adopt provisions that differ from federal requirements, LDEQ must demonstrate that such provisions are equivalent to, or more stringent than, the corresponding federal provisions. LDEQ's position is that the emissions 

### change (i.e., projected actual emissions minus baseline actual emissions) due to malfunctions should 

### be zero for several reasons.

---- ------J-;.)--b[)eQ·-dees--not--permit--emissions-asswiated-with---malfunetions.--When-- .calculating

..**~**.-· 

### baseline actual emissions, both federal and state rules require the average rate to be adjusted downward to exclude any**non~compliant** 

### emissions that occurred while the source was operating above any emission limitation that was legally enforceable during the consecutive24-month period. 2.) In determining projected actual emissions, 

### it is not likely that an owner/operator would project fewer malfunction emissions than historical records indicate, no matter how well equipment is maintained. Further, doing so would actually minimize the difference between baseline actual emissions and projected actual emissions and make it less likely that a project would triggerNSR. 3.) In determining projected actual emissions, it 

### would be improper for an owner/operatorto project more malfunction emissions than have occurred in the past (though this is not likely because it would exacerbate the difference between baseline actual emissions and projected actual emissions). Nor would it be proper for an owner/operator's estimate of projected actual emissions to exceed the potential to emit (i.e., permit limit) for the emissions unit(s) in question.**~·**

ATTACHMENTA

### Title 33 ENVIRONMENTALQUALITY 

## PartIII.Air

Chapter5. PermitProcedures §504. NonattainrnentNew 

### SourceReview Procedures
A-D.8.d.
9. The following specificprovisions apply withrespect to any regulated NSR pollutantemitted from projects at existingemissionsunits at a major stationary source (other than projects at a source with a PAL) in circumstanceswhere thereis a reasonable possibility. within themeaningofSubparagraphD.9.a ofthis Section, that a projectthat isnot a part ofa major modification may result in a significant emissions increase ofsuchpollutant. andthe owner oroperatorelectsto usethe method specified in Subparagraphs

### K.ProjectedActual 

### Emissions.a-c ofthisSectionfor calculating projected actual emissions. Fer**e~dstiRg** emissieas units at a majer

### stat:ieBary souree, etherthan projects 

### at a seuree

### v:ith a PAL,

### iB eireumstanees >tvhere there is a reasoaablepossibility

### that a projeetthat isnot a part efamajermodification may resultia.a sigffifieant emissiens iaerease and the O>;llffler or operatoreleets to liSe, fur the 

### ptifPose ofeale:ulatiBgprejeeted aemal emissioos, 

### the methed 

### speeified in Stibparagraphs &.PFfJjeetedAetuftl

### Emiesiens.a e efthis Seetien, t.fle fullowing shall apply.

a. A "reasonablepossibility"underParagtaphD.9 ofthis Section

_______.2ccurs whenthe owneroroperatorcalculates the projectto result in either:

... ··-····· 

## h A projected actual emissions increase ofatleast50percent ofthe applicable trigger value listed in Subsection L, Table 1 (withoutreferencetothe amount that is a significantnet emissions increase), for the regulated NSRpollutant; or



### . ii. A projected actual emissionsincrease that, added tothe amount ofemissionsexcluded under Subparagraph

### K.ProjecledActual

### Emissions.c, sums to at ]east 50percent ofthe applicable triggervalue listed in SubsectionL. Table 1(without reference to the amount that is a significant net emissions increase), for theregylated NSRpollutantFora project for which a reasonable possibility occurs only within the meaning ofClause 504.D.9.a.ii ofthis Section, and not also within the meaning ofClause 504.D.9.a.i ofthis Section, then provisions Subparagraphs D.9.c-fdo not apply to the project a]2. Before beginning actual construction ofthe project, the owner or operator shall document and maintain a record ofthe following infonnation: 1. a description ofthe**project~** 

### iL identitication ofthe emissionsunits whose emissjons ofa regulated pollutant could be affected by the project; and 111. a description ofthe applicability test used to determine that the project is not a major modification for any regulated pollutant, including the baseline actual emissions, the projected actual emissions. the amount ofemissions excluded under Subparagrapht. 

# , .



### K.Projected Actual Emissions.c ofthis Section (i.e., demand growth) and an explanation for why such amount was**exclud~d,** 

### and any netting calcu]ations, ifapplicable. 

## e£. Ifthe emissions unit is an existing electric utility steam generating unit, before beginning actual construction, the owner or operator shall provide a copy ofthe information set out in Subparagraph D.9.a2 ofthis Sectionto the administrative authority. 

## eg. The owneroroperatorshall monitorthe emissions ofany regulated pollutant that could increase as aresultofthe project and that is emitted by any emissions unit identified in Clause D.9.a!;!.ii ofthis Section, and calculate and maintain arecord oftheannual emissions, intons peryear on acalendar yearbasis, for aperiod offive years following resumption ofregular operations afterthe change, orfor aperiod of 10years following resumption ofregularoperations after the changeifthe project increases the design capacity or potential to emit ofthatregulated pollufl;lnt at such emissions unit.**~.** 

### Ifthe unitis

### an existing electric utility steam generatingunit, the owner or operatorshall submit areport to the administrative authority within60 days afterthe end ofeach yearduring whichrecordsmust be 

### generated under Subparagraph D.9.eQ_ofthis Section setting outthe unit's annual emissions duringthe yearthatpreceded submission ofthe report. 

## ef. Ifthe unit is an existing unit otherthan an electric utility steam generating unit, the owner or operatorshall submit areport to

### the administrative authority 

### ifthe annual emissions, in tons per

### year, from the

### project identified in Subparagraph D.9.a2ofthis

### Section, exceed the baseline actual emissions, as 

### documented and maintained in accordance with Clause D.9.a2.iii ofthis 

### Section,by a 

### significant amount, as defined in Subsection K 

### ofthis Section, for

-· that-regulated-pollutant,..and-it:such-emi.ssions-differ-from..the.pr.econstmc;:tion..projectioll...aS---. documented and maintained in accordance with Clause D.9.a!;!.iii ofthisSection. Suchreport shall be submitted to the administrative authority within 60 days afterthe end ofsuchyear. The report shall contain the following: 1. 

### the name, address, and telephone number ofthe major stationary source; ii. 

### the annual emissions as calculated in accordance with Subparagraph D.9.eg ofthis Section; and m. 

### any other information that the owner or operatorwishesto include in the report (e.g., an explanation as to why the emissions differfrom thepreconstruction projection). D.l0.- 

### J.3.a.
b. calculations ofthe baseline actual emissions with supporting documentation. Baseline actual emissions are to include emissions associated not only with operation ofthe unit, but also authorized emissions associated with startup; and shutdown,...andrnalfim,ctioH;
3.c.- 4.b

....! • 

# ••

5. Public Participation Requirement for PALs. Procedures to establish, renew, or increase PALs for existingmajor stationary sources shall bethe.'saJfie

### as the}:ltoeedl:lfes 

### fa[**.p~i,m.it iSSt-i~~:i:a.** **~e:~-~e**

### with

### LAC a3:Iil.519-consistentWjth.t4!f!€FR5L

### 160antl 51.161. These include therequirement that the administrative authority provide the public with notice oftheproposed approval of

### a PALpennit and 

### at least a 30-dayperiod for submittal of public comments. The administrative authority shall address alJ material comments before taking final action on the permit.


### 6.a. -7.c.
d. arequirement that emission calculationsfor compliance purposes include emissions associated with startup;.and**shutdown;·~~tm;** 

### 7.e. -15.b

.... K. Definitions. The termsin this Section are used as defined in 

### LAC 31:III.lll with the exception ofthose terms specificallydefined as follows.
K.Actua/Emissions.c.- KAllowable Emissions.c

. ... BaselineActualEmissions-therate ofemissions, in tons peryear, ofaregulated pollutant, determined 

### as follows.

a
....

---- __ ------ ...... _________j. The average rate**sh_all..in~rnde.Jugitiv** .. ttemissi®sto-the-extent 

### .--- quantifiable, and authorized emissions associated with**startup~;.a(l** shutdowns;;_.,,

### m~ari$. a.ii.- 

### b

.... i. The average rate shall include fugitive emissions to the extent quantifiable, and authorized emissions associated with**startups~;~fid shutdowns~**  

## mat:fu)ls'tieas.
b.ii.- d

.... K.BeginActual Construction- K.MajorStationarySource.e

. ... Melfunctio"s 

### for ;purposes ofthis Section, mflljune!ions

### shall include 

### any sucll emissions authorized by peFJRit, variance, orthe on line operating adjustment

### pro•1isions ofLAC 33:IIl.l507.B and 2307.C.2, but exclude any emissions that are not compliant with federal or state standards. K}vfandatory Federal Class 1Area- K.Project

. ...

### ProjectedActualEmissions 

### -themaximum annual rate, intons per year, at which an existing emissions unitis projected to emit a regulated pollutant in any one ofthe 

### 5years (12- 

### month period) following the date the 

### unitresumes regularoperation afterthe project, or

### in any one ofthe 10 yearsfollowing that date, ifthe 

### project involves increasing the emissions unit's design capacity orits potential to emit ofthat regulated pollutant and full 

### utilization ofthe unit would result in 

### a significant emissions increase or asignificant net emissions increase atthe major stationary source. In determiningtheprojectedactual emissions 

### before beginning actual construction, the owner or operatorofthe major stationary source:



### a. b. 

### shall include fugitive emissionstothe extent quantifiable, and authorized emissions associated wi)h startups;

..

### and**shutdowns:w'~'m~as;** 

### and

c.- 

### d

.... K.RegulatedPollutant- 

### M.3.
AUTHORITYNOTE: Promulgated in accordance with R.S. 30:2054. HISTORICALNOTE: Promulgated by the Department ofEnvironmental Quality, Office ofAir Quality and Radiation Protection, Air QualityDivision, LR 19:176 (February 1993), repromulgated LR 19:486 (Apri11993), amended LR 19:1420 (November 1993),LR 21:1332 (December 1995), LR 23:197 (February 1997), amended by the Officeof Environmental Assessment, Environmental PlanningDivision, LR 26:2445 (November2000), LR 27:2225 (December2001), LR 

### 30:752 (April 2004), amendedby the·officeof Environmental Assessment, LR 30:2801.{December**200~,** 

### amendefuJh.e..Q.ffi.c.e gJth.e ···-

.-Secretary, LegalAffairs Division, LR 31:2436 (October2005), LR31 :3123, 3155 (December

2005), LR 32:1599 (September 2006), LR 33:2082 (October2007), LR 34:_..____ __ 2008). §509. Prevention ofSignifieant Deterioration 

### A.-A.6

... B. 

### Definitions. For the purpose of this Section, the terms below shall have the meaning specified herein as follows.
BActualEmissions.c.- B.Allowable Emissions.c

. ... BaselineActual**Emissions~the** 

### rate ofemissions, in tons peryear, ofa

### regulated NSR pollutant, 

### determined as foJ1ows.



### a
....J

. i •



### i. The average rate shall include fugitive emissions to theextent quantifiable, and authorized emissions associated with startups;and**shutdowns~ malf\ifteti~.**  

### a.ii.- 

### b

.... i. Theaveragerate shall include fugitive emissionsto the extent quantifiable, and authorized emissions associated with**startups~ ~d**  shutdowns,ami

## m&lfuaenoils.
b.ii. -d

.... 

### B.BaselineArea.c-B.MajorStationarySource.e

. ... Mslfi:meti6na forp'l:ll}loses ofthis SeetioH, 

### mtilfoneti61t9 shaU 

### iHelude aHY sueh emissioHs 

### authorized by

### permit, variaHee, 

### orthe 

### OH lifte op8!'8tiHg adjastmeHt

### provisioas ofLAG 33:1II.l507.B aHd 2307.C.2, 'hut

### eKelude any 

### emissioas that 

### are Rot

### eompliaRt 

### ·,vith federal er state 

### smadards. 

### B.Nece.ssaryPreconstructionApprovals orPermits-B.Project

. ... ProjectedActualEmissions -themaximumannual rate, intonsperyear, at which an existingemissionsunit

### is projectedto emit aregulated pollutant inany one ofthe 

### 5years (12- moilthperiod) following the datethe unit resumes regularoperation after the project, orin any one ofthe 

### l 0 years following thatdate, ifthe project involves increasingtheemissions unit's**---~esign** capacityor

### its potential to emitofthat regulated**pollut~t** m:td fi:ill_y_tiJjza!i_Qn oftll.t?**~t** would result

### in a significantemissions increase or

### a significantnet emissions increase.atthe major stationary source. Indeterminingtheprojected

### actualemissions beforebeginning actual construction, the owneroroperator ofthe major stationary source:



### a.
b. 

### shall include fugitive emissions tothe extent quantifiable, and authorized emissionsassociated with startups;

### and shutdowns,

### andmalfftnetiofts; and
c.-d

.... B.Reasonably

### Available Control Technology 

### {RAC1).c- 

### R.S.
6. The following specific provisions applywith respect to any regulated NSR pollutant emitted from projects at existing emissions units at a major station!Y)' source (other than projects at a source with a PAL) in circumstances where there is a reasonable possibilitY. within the meaning ofSubparagraph R.6.a ofthis Section, that a project that is not a part of.a major modification may result in a significant emissions increase of such pollutant, and the owner or operator elects· to use the method specified 'in Subparagraphs B.Projected Acwal 

### Emissions.a-c ofthis Section for calculating projected actual emissions. The provisions ofthis

### Pafagraph apply to projects at 

### aa existiag emissioas ooit at a major statioaary**sotlf'c~,** 

### other than projects 

### at a source 'Nith 

### a PAL, in 

### eirel:J:ffistanees where there 

### is a reasonable possibility that 

### a project that 

### is not a part ofa major modification BUlJ' 

### result in a sigeifieam emissions increase and the oweer 

### or operator eleets 

### to ase the 

### method specified in SabpB:fagraphs B.Projeeted 

### Actaal Emissions.a eofthis Section for ealeulatiag**projee~ed** 

### acrua) emissions.
!!:. 

### A "reasonable possibility" under Paragraph R.6 of this Section occurs when the owner or operator calculates the projectto result in either: 

## L A projected actual emissions increase ofat least 50 percent ofthe amount that is a "significant emissions increase;' as defined in Subsection B ofthis Section (without reference to the amount that is a significant net emissions increase), for the regulated NSRpollutant; or ii. 

### A projected actual emissions increase that, added to the amount of emissions excluded under Subparagraph B.Projected Actual Emissions.c. 

### sums to at least 50 percent ofthe amount that is a "significant emissions increase," as defined in Subsection B of this Section (without reference to the amount that is a significant net emissions increase), for the regulated NSR pollutant. For a project for which a reasonable possibility occurs only within the meaning of Clause 509.R.6.a.ii·of this Section, and not also within the meaning of Clause 509.R.6.a.i ofthis Section, then provisions ofSubparagraph R.6.c-fofthis Section do not apply to the project. e-:Q. 

### Before beginning actual constructionofthe project, the owneroroperator shall document andmaintain a record ofthe following information: 1. 

### a description ofthe project; ii. 

### identification ofthe emission units whose emissions ofaregulated NSRpollutant could be 

### affected by theproject; and

.. . ____..__________jjL.._.a;.description.ot:the.applicability..tesLused.to detennine.that.the

.... projectisnot a major modification for any regulatedNSRpollutant, includingthe baseline actual emissions, the projected actual emissions, the amountofemissions excludedunder Subparagraph B.Projected Actual Emissions.c ofthis Section and an explanation for why such amount was excluded, and any netting calculations, ifapplicable. h,!;!. lfthe emissions unit is an existing electric utility steam generating unit, before begitming actual construction, the owner or operatorshall provide acopy ofthe information set out in Subparagraph R.6.a:Q ofthis Section to the administrative authority. 

## eg. The owner or operator shaU monitor the emissions ofany regulatedNSR pollutant that could increase as a result ofthe project and that is eminedby any emissions unit identified in Clause R.6.aJ2.ii ofthis Section, and calculate and maintain arecord ofthe annual emissions, in tons per year on a calendar year basis, for aperiod offive years following resumption ofregular operations after the change, or for aperiod ofI0 years following resumption ofregular operations afterthe change if

### the project increases the design capacity of or potential to emit that regulated NSR pollutant at such emissions unit.**e~.** 

### Ifthe unit is an existing electric utility steam generating unit, the owner or operator shall submit areport to the administrative authority within 60 days after the end ofeachyear during which records must be generated under Subparagraph R.6.eg ofthis Section setting out the unit's annual emissions during the calendaryear that preceded submission ofthe report.
ef. Ifthe unit is an existing unit other than an electric utility steam generating unit, the owner oroperator shall submit a report to the administrative authority ifthe annual emissions, in tons peryear, from the project identified in Subparagraph 

### R.6.aQ ofthis Section, exceed the baseline actual emissions, as documented and maintained in accordance with Clause R.6.a.Q.iii ofthis Section, by a significant amount, as defined in Subsection B.Significant ofthis Section, for that regulated NSRpollutant, and ifsuch emissions differfrom the preconstruction projection as documented and maintained in accordance with Clause R.6.ah.iii ofthis Section. Such report shall besubmitted tothe administrative authority within 60 days after the end of such year. The report shall contain the fo1lowing: 1. the·name, address, and telephone numberofthe major stationary source; ii. the annual emissions as calculated in accordance with Subparagraph R.6.egofthis Section; and ii. any other information that the owneroroperatorwishes to include in the report (e.g., an explanation as to why the emissions differfrom the preconstruction projection).


### R.7 -AA.3.a.
b. calculations of the baseline actual emiSSions, with supporting documentation. Baseline actual emissions are to include emissions associated not only 

### with operation ofthe unit, but als.o authorized emissions associated with startuJ>i;·and**shutdo~ noo~~~~B;**  

## m'"'**-~----·-** 

## .... •
.... "

0 O -· ,.-·· 

### 3.c. -15.b.
AUTHORITYNOTE: Promulgated in accordance with R.S. 30:2054. HISTORICALNOTE: Promulgated by the Department ofEnvironmental Quality, Office ofAir 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 ofAir Quality and Radiation Protection, Air Quality Division, LR 17:478 (May 1991), 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 Office of Envirorunental Assessment, Environmental Planning Division, LR 26:2447 (November 2000), LR 27:2234 (December 2001), amended by the Office ofthe Secretary, Legal Affairs Division, LR 31:2437 (October 2005), LR 31:3135, 3156 (December 2005), LR 32:1600 (September 2006), LR 32:1843 (October 2006), LR 34:_{ 2008).I·



### ATTACHMENTBt.



### Incorporation ofStartup and Shutdown Emissions into Title VPermits EPA's Comment Since 

### 2002. we have been working with LDEQ on an internal guidance document they were drafting to assist theirpermitwriters with theprocess ofadding 

### SIS emissions into active Title V permits. As recently as January 

### 18, 

### 2005, EPA commented on these procedures, and LDEQ did not respond to the comments (see Appendix F). Among our major concerns are public notice procedures, BACTILAER application, and whether or not the procedures to incorporate these emissions into pennits are consistent with their NSR SIP approved program. 

### It has recently come to our attention that LDEQ decided to implement the guidance document and add 

### SIS emissions to Title

### V permits using those procedures. EPA has previously expressed concerns with this strategy, and we encourage LDEQ towork with EPAto addressthe concerns. LDEQ'sResponse To be clear, LDEQ has not formaJly adopted the guidance document referenced in EPA's January 

### 18, 2005 correspondence. LDEQ does, however, now include startup and shutdown emissions in all pennit actions where such emissions are greater than emissions associated with "routine" operations. The foJlowing are LDEQ's responses to the concerns raised in the 

### 2005 letter. · 1.) Clarify whether incorporation of 

### SIS emissions 

### is mandatory for new and revised air permits. We recommend that the State revise its air pennitting programs to require mandatory ---incor.por.ation..o.:f.:routine-S/S...emissions-intO-all-new-and--revised-permits-in-order- to-avoidconfusion as to applicable regulatory requirements and to facilitate enforcement ofpennit

. limitations. LDEQ's Response: As previously mentioned, LDEQ includes startup and shutdown emissions in all permit actions where such emissions are greaterthan emissions associatedwith normal operations. "Routine" startup and shutdown emissions not disclosed by the applicant, when in excess of emissions attributed to "nonnal" operations, would be considered unpermitted and subject to enforcement action. 2.) Distinguishroutine 

### SIS emissions from nonroutine 

### SIS emissions. The State's permitting programs must clearly distinguish between routine 

### SIS emissions (from normal operation) and nonroutine 

### SIS emissions (from malfunctions or upsets, poor operation or maintenance). Only emissions that are predictable, quantifiable, tied to a specific narrow event of limited duration, and are part of nonnal operation of a source should be considered in the permit review. 

### SIS emissions from normal operation must be accounted for in the design, plam1ing, and operating procedures for the facility. Without clear definitions and permitting requirements, the source could effectively shield excess emissions arising from poor operation, maintenance, or design. The LDEQ notes that Federal technology standards, such as New Source Performance Standards INSPS) and National Emission Standard for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) regulations. provide} 

### .



### exemptions from certain periods ofSIS. However, SIP emission limitations, such as PSD and NNSR permit allowablet are ambient-based standards designed to protect the National Ambient Air Quality Standards and the increments. Because excess emissions may aggravate air quality so as to prevent attainment or interfere with maintenance of the ambient air quality standards, EPA views all excess emissions as violations of the applicable emission limitation. Therefore, to preserve LDEQ, EPA, and citizen enforcement authority, program requirements must clearly identify and distinguish malfunctions and nonroutine emissions (that are violations ofSIP limits and subject to an enforcement action for noncompliance) from authorized emissions. Region 

### 6 recommends thatLDEQ adopt definitions ofroutine startupand routine shutdown that distinguish planned repeatable activities associated with nonnal operation from nonroutine activities and adopt a requirement that emission calculations for recordkeeping and reporting requirements for compliance purposes include emissions from startups and shutdowns. Region 

### 6 also recommends that LDEQ's rules clarify that emissions from malfunctions or upsets and other nonroutine 

### SIS emissions 

### will not be authorized 

### as allowable emissions. The LDEQ should also clarify that where 

### SIS emissions have been incorporated into air permits, exceedances ofpermit limitations for 

### SIS emissions 

### will no longer be subject to the State's variance rule. Such exceedances 

### will instead be subject to thereporting,recordkeeping, and other requirements ofthe State'supset rule. LDEQ's Response: Only

..routine" startup and shutdown emissions are accounted for in pennits. LDEQ does not pennit any emissions resulting from upsets or malfunctions, nor does LDEQ consider startup and shutdown emissions that are in excess of typical nonns for the process or industrial category (e.g., it is not typical for a base-load electric utility steam generating unit to undergo more than 

### ahandful ofstartups and shutdowns per year, whereas a simplecycle peaking turbine may experience a startup and shutdown almost**ev~ry_dJlY. duringJ~!E.---·**  

### ··· ·-- -· hat-summet=-menths). · ·---- · · LDEQ is contemplatingrevisingLAC 33:111.517

### .Dto read as follows: 

### 18. the following data concerning startup and shutdown events when such events result in emissions in excess of those associated with routine operations: i. 

### information regarding the duration and frequency of such events based on the facility's prior five year history, unless another time period is more representative ofnormal operation; ii. information regarding emissions consistent with Paragraph D.3 ofthis Section associated with such events in each year ofthe 5 year period identified in Clause D.l8.i of this Section. Emissions from routine startups and shutdowns, as well as emissions from controlled partial or full shutdowns resulting from a malfunction as defined in LAC 33:lll.lll 

### and the subsequent startup (but not those associated with the malfunction itself), may be included in the emission**rate~.** 

### Startup and shutdown. emiss.ions resulting from improperly designed equipment, lack of preventative mamtenance, careless or improper operation, operator error,orany other preventable upset condition shall not be included.

. . .iii. a**descripti~n** 

### of**~he** 

### measures proposed to minimize emJssJons dunng such events consistent w1th Paragraphs 0.6 and 8 ofthis Section.1- 

## '·

These may include, but are not limited to, a description of operating practices, a startup/shutdown plan, suggested limits on duration and frequency, or suggested alternative emission limits (e.g., on mass orconcentration}.
For reference, LAC 33:III.517.D.3 requires information regarding emissions from the source of all regulated air pollutants (e.g., location. rate, composition, etc.). LAC 

### 33:111.517.D.6 and 

### 0.8 require the "identification and description of pollution control equipment utilized orproposed to be utilized and any other methods which 

### will betaken to minimize emissions ofair·pollutants, including the estimated efficiency ofsuch equipment and methods," and "information regarding any limitations on source operation or any applicable work practicestandards." 3.) Ensure accurateaccounting of

### SIS emissions. Although owners and operators 

### will make initial estimates ofroutine 

### SIS emissions, the emissions should be compared to the type and quantity of emissions that the source 

### is currently reporting under the State's variance and upset provisions and annual emissions inventory requirements. Additional permit application requirements are necessary to obtain adequate information to determine appropriate permit allowances and allowreview ofthat determinationbythe State,EPA, andcitizens. Region 6 recommends that the State revise 

### its permit application requirements to mandate. information necessary to accurately evaluate all 

### SIS emissions from the facility. For example, information regardingthetype, quantity, and frequency ofall 

### SIS emissions from the facility, applicablepollution control equipment, and reviewofoff-site property impacts during normal operating conditions should be included in permit application requirements. Also, please clarify whether permits 

### will incorporate 

### SIS emissions into overall emission limitations or into a separate secondary emission 

### limit for 

### SIS emissions. Also, clarifyhow the State would determine if a reduction of actual 

### SIS emissions is creditable as SID-----**---4e~mRissi&n-reduetien-eredit-&r-as-a-oo~raneous-emissions-deerease;--** --------·--- · c LDEQ'sResponse: Regarding additionalpermit application requirements, see Item 2 above. LAC 33:IIL517 specifies the contents of 

### a permit application. Generally, because most sources are pennitted for continuous operation 

### (8760 hours per year), andbecause a varying amount of downtime is intrinsically associated with a startup and shutdown event, it is often not necessary to adjust annual ton per year (TPY) limits to incorporate startup and shutdown emissions. In this case, multiple maximum pound per hour limits may be established for a single emissions unit (e.g., one to reflect "routine" operations and another to establish an alternative operating scenario underLAC 

### 33:lll.507.G.5 for startup and shutdownconditions). Both the air permit application and permit 

### itself should clearly note under what conditions each limit applies.
In order for 

### a reduction in startup and shutdown emissions to qualify as 

### a decrease for NSR netting or Emission Reduction Credit (ERC) purposes, such decrease would 

### be creditable only to the extent that the old level of actual startup and shutdown emissions or the old level of allowable startup and shutdown emissions, whichever is lower, exceeds the new level of allowable startup and shutdown emissions, which must be "enforceable as a practical matter." For ERC purposes, other limitations as described in LAC 33:Il1.Chapter 

### 6may also apply.4.) Provide accurate accounting of actual em1sS1on baselines necessary to determine applicability ofPSD and NNSRrequirements.

-----5:) In order to determine whether a significant emissions increase subject to New Source Review (NSR) requirements has occurred, the projected actual emissions must be calculated on the same basis asthe baseline actual emissions. Pleaseexplain howhistorical baselines will be determined for years in which the State did not evaluate 

### SIS emissions. Region 

### 6 recommends revision of the State's definition of actual baseline emissions to include routine 

### SIS emissions. We note that this change is required when the State adopts NSRreformregulations. LDEQ's Response: The referenced correspondence pre-dates LDEQ's adoption ofEPA's NSR Reform rules on December 20, 2005. The definition of"baseline actual emissions" in LAC 33:III.504 and 

### LAC 33:Ill.509 requires consideration ofstartup and shutdown emissions. The average rate shall include

... authorized emissions associated with startups, shutdowns

... Where startup and shutdown emissions were not evaluated, the definition of "baseline actual emissions" is clearthat: The average rate shall 

### be adjusted downward to exclude any non-compliantemissions that occurred while the source was operating above any emission limitation that was
. legally enforceableduringthe consecutive 24-monthperiod. Consequently.this would increasethe likelihoodthat such emissionswouldtriggerNSR. 

### Ensure that Fedetai 

### reguiteme.uts (sgch as title V operating=permit;-NSPS;-NESHitPs}are---- triggered in permits where incorporation of 

### SIS emissions cause the facility to exceed majorsourcethresholds. LDEQ'sResponse: Startup and shutdown emissions are considered when determining the facility's potential to emitfor evaluation ofapplicable requirements (e.g., 95 TPY of"routine,NOx emissionsplus 10TPY ofstat11;tp and shutdownNOxemissions equals a major source). 6.) Ensure that 

### SIS emissions in PSD and NNSR permits are subject to all program requirements. All Section 504 and 509 requirements are applicable to S/S emissions incorporated into PSD and NNSR permits, including control including control technology evaluation, source impact analysis, air quality analysis, additional impact analyses and public participation requirements. For revisions to existing permits, emission offsets are required where a modification causes an increase in 

### SIS emissions over existing levels of 

### SIS emissions. Best Available Control Technology and Lowest Achievable Emission Rate review of 

### SIS emissions maybe distinct from review ofproduction operations and may require separate controls, practices, recordkeeping and reporting requirements. Separate permit or regulatory requirements to mandate operation ofpollution control equipment during SIS periods should be considered. Region 6 recommends that LDEQ clarify that all NSR and PSD requirements apply to 

### SIS emissions incorporated into 1hose permits.LDEQ'sResponse: LDEQ agrees that startup and shutdown emissions resulting from or increasing as a result of

### aphysical change or change 

### in the method ofoperation at a major stationary source (as defined in LAC 

### 33:III.504 or 

### 509) must be reviewed to detennine applicability ofPSD or NNSR, as appropriate. 

### Ifa significant net emissionsincrease results, LDEQ acknowledges that such emissions would 

### be subject to BACT or LAER1

, as appropriate, applicable air quality analyses, and may require distinct controls, work practices, and monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements. In this instance, an opportunity for public participationconsistent with

### 40 CFR

### 51.161 must also beprovided. Where startup and shutdown emissions were inadvertently omitted from an NSR permit, but should have been included, retroactive NSR (and thus BACT or LAER, air quality analyses, and public participation) 

### is necessary. LDEQ maintains, however, that the inclusion ofhistorical startup and shutdown emissions in a Title V permit, where such emissions are not the result of a physical change or change in the method of operation, does notrequire retroactiveNSR, even 

### ifsuch emissionsexceedNSR significance levels. 7.) Ensure that S/S emissions will be subject to short-term Jimits which are protective of ambient 

### air standards. Please provide further information explaining bow this revision 

### is consistent with the quantification. averaging times. and other parameters used to evaluate 

### SIS emissionsinthe State'sattainment demonstration. Please explain how 

### a five year rolJing average 

### permit limitation for 

### SIS emissions 

### wilJ facilitate compliance and ensure attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS and increments. LDEQ's Response:



### ---------------·---·- All permits are reviewed by LDEQ's Air Quality Assessment Division to ensure pennitted limits 

### will not result in violations of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) or Louisiana Ambient Air Standards (AAS). Limiting startup and shutdown emissions below a prescribed threshold on a 5-year rolling average basis 

### is appropriate for sourcesthat typk.ally undergo a full turnaround on

### aless thanonceperyearbasis. Because pennits specify the maximum amountthat may be emitted in a calendar year {orrolling 12- calendar month basis ifindicated), attributing one startupand shutdown to each yearwould result in over-permitting ofemissions. The maximum hourly or maximum daily limits (depending on the pollutant and averaging period) will be used to establish the potential to emit for any short-term modeling. Maximum annual emissions win be used for any modeling for any pollutant with an annua1 averaging period. · 8.) Public Participation Requirements. Incorporation ofSIS emissions into new and existing PSD and NNSR permits are permit conditions which must be subject to pubJic notice and an opportunity to submit comments

1 In re Tallmadge Energy Center, PSD Appeal No. 02-12 (EAB, May 21, 2003)

In re RockGen Energy Center, PSD Appeal No. 99-1 (EAB. August 25, 1999)**.~** .•. !



### and to file petitions for review. Without public participation during the NSRpermitreview process, amendments to incorporate the change into a Title V operating permit would also require public notice and comment. The administrative record must document the pennitting authority's consideration ofways to eliminate orreduce excess emissions during 

### SIS, and how applicable program requirements were addressed in the review. LDEQ's Response: See Item 6 above. 9.) Evaluate appropriate revisions to any standard permits or general permits for minor sources. LDEQ's Response: LDEQ does not currently have any general permits applicable to minor sources. LDEQ does employ one standard permit, that being the Standard Oil and Gas Air (SOGA) permit applicable to certain minor source oil and gas production facilities (SICC 1311). The SOGA permit limits facility-wide annual emissions, including those associated with startup and shutdown, below prescribed thresholds. It is not necessary to modify the SOGA permit template to address startup and shutdown emissions.

----··---**~-**