•. At 

BOBBY JINDAL 

GOVER;'! OR 

HAROLD LEGGETT, PH.D. 

SECRETi\RY 

~tate of I.ouisiana 

DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY 

ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES 

Mr. Thomas H. Diggs 

Associate Director for 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 

'"":') 

Dear Mr. 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 of Environmental Quality's (LDEQ's) rules 

under LAC 33:Ill.504 (Nonattainment New Source Review Procedures) and LAC 33:III.509 

(Prevention of Significant Deterioration) differ slightly from the federal versions of these 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 of variances 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 state NSR programs. 

If you have any questions or would like to discuss these matters further, please contact Bryan 

D. Johnston of the Air Pennits Division at (225) 219·3001. 

Sin() viCheryl Sonnier Nolan 

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 ' . I 

Mr. Thomas H. Diggs 

Page 2 

NNSR Plantwide Applicability Limit (PAL) Public Participation Rule 

I. We understand that LDEQ intends for § 504.1.5. to mimic the Federal NNSR PAL 

Public Participation rule, 40 CFR 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. Public participation Requirement for PALs. Procedures to establish, renew, or 

increase PALs for 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 of the proposed approval of a PAL 

permit and at least a 30-day period for submittal of public comments. The 

administrative authority shall address all material comments before taking final 

action on the permit. 

B. We believe this revised language addresses our previous concerns and would be 

approvable into the SIP. 

C. LDEQ staff confirmed 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 the NSR Refonn submittal are resolved. 

REQUESTED ACTION: EPA Region 6 requests that LDEQ include a schedule for 

expeditiously adopting the above changes and submitting them 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 new definition 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.ll I (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 of the 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 of NSR (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 of excess 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 of the 

existing SIP. And, as you are aware, any SIP relaxation request must meet 

section 110(1) of the 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 

of the Act (e.g., PSD increments). Because EPA'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 the nature of malfunctions. 

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 

about the LDEQ NSR malfunction definition: 

1. The NSR malfunction definition is not limited to sudden unavoidable 

breakdowns that are beyond the control of the owner or operator; 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 of activities or events that EPA does not 

consider to 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 of baseline 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. For example: 

Malfunctions-shall mean "malfunction" as defined in LAC 33.1II.lll 

and, for purposes of calculating 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 NSR definition of malfunctions, the current SIPapproved definition of malfunction, and EPA policy. 

LDEQ's Response: 

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 be deleted 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 of the 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.ll1.91 7 provides: 

a. Where, upon written application of the 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 of a nuisance, 

or a danger to public health 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. EPA Region 6's concerns regarding LDEQ's issuance of variances. 

A. EPA policy 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 

disapproving or working 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 pennits could be 

used to address excess emissions, rather than 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 due to 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 some way "invalidated" a State's already issued permits and its 

related SIP terms. As a consequence of settlement, EPA issued the 200 1 

Re-issuance of Clarification of the 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 reflect 
Mr. Thomas H. Diggs 

Page 6 

approved SIP provisions," nor to alter the status of any existing SIP 

provisions addressing excess emissions. The 200 I Re-issuance also 

confirms that EPA will consider the I 999 Guidance (that incorporates the 

I 977, 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 of NSR 

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 of these 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 of excess 

emissions should reflectthe legal positions and policies delineated in EPA's 

excess emissions guidance. We explain further below. 

B. General concerns about LDEQ's treatment of SU/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 of normal operations and are addressed in the permit. 

Therefore, due to the State's historical omission of permit 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 of SU/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's position on excess emissions. 

C. Specific concerns about LDEQ's issuance of variances. 

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

enforcement. 

a. Because careful and prudent planning and design are expected to 

eliminate violations of emission 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 of automatic 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 of variances effectively acts as such a bar to enforcement of 

emissions that exceed permitted limits. 

2. No EPA or public 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 51.1 02( 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 of variances prior to issuance by LDEQ. 

a. This variance SIP rule does not explicitly require that the Secretary 

make a finding that the issuance of the 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 of the 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 of NSR 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 likely that a proposed modification would constitute 

a significant emissions increase and trigger major NSR (PSD or 

Nonattainment NSR). 

REQUESTED ACTION: EPA Region 6 believes that LDEQ should address the following 

aspects of its air permitting program: 

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- · 

process for 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 

them to EPA for SIP approval. 

LDEQ's Response: 

EPA's comments extend well beyond the context ofNSR Refonn rules and focus on LDEQ's 

treatment of startup 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's comments 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 of a 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 of variances 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 air permit (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 should be noted that LDEQ does not have the authority to suspend or modify federal 

regulations via variance procedures. Variances issued pursuant to LAC 33:111.917 may 

address federal regulations as they are incorporated by 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 of incorporating startup and shutdown emissions 

into air permits and the use of variances 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!~· 

Reasonable Possibility 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 

of Appeals for the District of Columbia remanded 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 NSR Reform rules. See 72 FR 72607. 

II. The preamble to the December 21, 2007 rulemaking states: 

In the case of NSR SIP revisions that include the term "reasonable possibility" 

but EPA has not yet approved, we will approve the SIP revision if the 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 of the 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 December 21,2007 (72 FR 72607). 

Remaining Differences Between Federal and State NSR Rules 

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 consecutive 24-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 trigger NSR. 

3.) In determining projected actual emissions, it would be improper for an owner/operator to 

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. 
~· 

ATTACHMENT A 
Title 33 

ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY 

Part III. Air 

Chapter 5. Permit Procedures 

§504. Nonattainrnent New Source Review Procedures 

A-D.8.d. 

9. The following specific provisions apply with respect to any regulated NSR 

pollutant emitted from projects at existing emissions units at a major stationary source (other 

than projects at a source with a PAL) in circumstances where there is a reasonable possibility. 

within the meaning of Subparagraph D.9.a of this 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 K.Projected Actual 

Emissions.a-c ofthis Section for calculating projected actual emissions. Fer e~dstiRg emissieas 

units at a majer stat:ieBary souree, ether than projects at a seuree v:ith a PAL, iB eireumstanees 

>tvhere there is a reasoaable possibility that a projeet that is not a part efa majer modification 

may result ia .a sigffifieant emissiens iaerease and the O>;llffler or operator eleets to liSe, fur the 

ptifPose of eale:ulatiBg prejeeted aemal emissioos, the methed speeified in Stibparagraphs 

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

a. A "reasonable possibility" under Paragtaph D.9 of this Section 

______ _.2ccurs when the owner or operator calculates the project to result in either: ... ··-····· 

h A projected actual emissions increase of at least 50 percent 

of the applicable trigger value listed in Subsection L, Table 1 (without reference to the amount 

that is a significant net emissions increase), for the regulated NSR pollutant; or 

. ii. A projected actual emissions increase that, added to the 

amount of emissions excluded under Subparagraph K.Projecled Actual Emissions.c, sums to at 

]east 50 percent of the applicable trigger value listed in Subsection L. Table 1 (without reference 

to the amount that is a significant net emissions increase), for the regylated NSR pollutant For a 

project for which a reasonable possibility occurs only within the meaning of Clause 504.D.9.a.ii 

of this Section, and not also within the meaning of Clause 504.D.9.a.i ofthis Section, then 

provisions Subparagraphs D.9.c-f do not apply to the project 

a]2. Before beginning actual construction of the project, the owner or 

operator shall document and maintain a record of the following infonnation: 

1. a description of the project~ 

iL identi tication of the emissions units whose emissjons of a 

regulated pollutant could be affected by the project; and 

111. a description of the 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 of emissions excluded under Subparagraph 
t. 

, . 

K.Projected Actual Emissions.c of this Section (i.e., demand growth) and an explanation for why 

such amount was exclud~d, and any netting calcu]ations, if applicable. 

e£. If the emissions unit is an existing electric utility steam generating unit, 

before beginning actual construction, the owner or operator shall provide a copy of the 

information set out in Subparagraph D.9.a2 of this Section to the administrative authority. 

eg. The owner or operator shall monitor the emissions of any regulated 

pollutant that could increase as a result of the project and that is emitted by any emissions unit 

identified in Clause D.9.a!;!.ii of this Section, and calculate and maintain a record ofthe annual 

emissions, in tons per year on a calendar year basis, for a period of five years following 

resumption of regular operations after the change, or for a period of 10 years following 

resumption of regular operations after the change if the project increases the design capacity or 

potential to emit of that regulated pollufl;lnt at such emissions unit. 

~. If the unit is an existing electric utility steam generating unit, the owner or 

operator shall submit a report to the administrative authority within 60 days after the end of each 

year during which records must be generated under Subparagraph D.9.eQ_ofthis Section setting 

out the unit's annual emissions during the year that preceded submission of the report. 

ef. If the unit is an existing unit other than an electric utility steam generating 

unit, the owner or operator shall submit a report to the administrative authority if the annual 

emissions, in tons per year, from the project identified in Subparagraph D.9.a2 of this Section, 

exceed the baseline actual emissions, as documented and maintained in accordance with Clause 

D.9.a2.iii of this Section, by a significant amount, as defined in Subsection K of this 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 ofthis Section. Such report 

shall be submitted to the administrative authority within 60 days after the end of such year. The 

report shall contain the following: 

1. the name, address, and telephone number of the major stationary 

source; 

ii. the annual emissions as calculated in accordance with 

Subparagraph D.9.eg of this Section; and 

m. any other information that the owner or operator wishes to include 

in the report (e.g., an explanation as to why the emissions differ from the preconstruction 

projection). 

D.l 0.- J.3.a. 

b. calculations of the baseline actual emissions with supporting 

documentation. Baseline actual emissions are to include emissions associated not only with 

operation of the 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 existing major 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!€FR 5L 160 antl 

51.161. These include the requirement that the administrative authority provide the public with 

notice of the proposed approval of a PAL pennit and at least a 30-day period 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. a requirement that emission calculations for compliance purposes 

include emissions associated with startup;.and shutdown;·~~tm; 

7.e. -15.b .... 

K. Definitions. The terms in this Section are used as defined in LAC 31:III.lll with 

the exception of those terms specifically defined as follows. 

K.Actua/ Emissions.c.- KAllowable Emissions.c . ... 

Baseline Actual Emissions-the rate of emissions, in tons per year, of a regulated 

pollutant, determined as follows. 

a .... 

---- __ ------...... _________ j. The average rate sh_all..in~rnde.Jugitiv .. ttemissi®s to-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.Begin Actual Construction- K.Major Stationary Source.e . ... 

Melfunctio"s for ;purposes of this Section, mflljune!ions shall include any sucll 

emissions authorized by peFJRit, variance, or the on line operating adjustment pro•1isions of LAC 

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 1 Area- K.Project . ... 
Projected Actual Emissions -the maximum annual rate, in tons per year, at which an 

existing emissions unit is projected to emit a regulated pollutant in any one of the 5 years (12-

month period) following the date the unit resumes regular operation after the project, or in any 

one of the 10 years following that date, if the project involves increasing the emissions unit's 

design capacity or its potential to emit of that regulated pollutant and full utilization of the unit 

would result in a significant emissions increase or a significant net emissions increase at the 

major stationary source. In determining the projected actual emissions before beginning actual 

construction, the owner or operator of the major stationary source: 

a. 

b. shall include fugitive emissions to the extent quantifiable, and authorized 

emissions associated wi)h startups; .. and shutdowns:w'~'m~as; and 

c.- d .... 

K.Regulated Pollutant- M.3. 

AUTHORITY NOTE: Promulgated in accordance with R.S. 30:2054. 

HISTORICAL NOTE: Promulgated by the Department of Environmental Quality, 

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

Environmental Assessment, Environmental Planning Division, LR 26:2445 (November 2000), 

LR 27:2225 (December 2001 ), LR 30:752 (April 2004), amended by the ·office of 

Environmental Assessment, LR 30:2801.{December 200~, amendefuJh.e..Q.ffi.c.e gJth.e ···-

. -Secretary, Legal Affairs Division, LR 31:2436 (October 2005), LR 31 :3123, 3155 (December 

2005), LR 32:1599 (September 2006), LR 33:2082 (October 2007), LR 34:_ ..____ __ 

2008). 

§509. Prevention of Signifieant Deterioration 

A.-A.6 ... 

B. Definitions. For the purpose of this Section, the terms below shall have the 

meaning specified herein as follows. 

BActual Emissions.c.- B.Allowable Emissions.c . ... 

Baseline Actual Emissions~the rate of emissions, in tons per year, of a regulated NSR 

pollutant, determined as foJ1ows. 

a .... 
J . 

i • 

i. The average rate shall include fugitive emissions to the extent 

quantifiable, and authorized emissions associated with startups; and shutdowns~ 

malf\ifteti~. 

a.ii.- b .... 

i. The average rate shall include fugitive emissions to the extent 

quantifiable, and authorized emissions associated with startups~ ~d shutdowns,amim&lfuaenoils. 

b.ii. -d .... 

B.Baseline Area.c- B.Major Stationary Source.e . ... 

Mslfi:meti6na for p'l:ll}loses of this SeetioH, mtilfoneti61t9 shaU iHelude aHY sueh 

emissioHs authorized by permit, variaHee, or the 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.ssary Preconstruction Approvals or Permits- B.Project . ... 

Projected Actual Emissions -the maximum annual rate, in tons per year, at which an 

existing emissions unit is projected to emit a regulated pollutant in any one of the 5 years (12-

moilth period) following the date the unit resumes regular operation after the project, or in any 

one of the l 0 years following that date, if the project involves increasing the emissions unit's 

---~esign capacity or its potential to emit of that regulated pollut~t m:td fi:ill_y_tiJjza!i_Qn oftll.t? ~t 

would result in a significant emissions increase or a significant net emissions increase. at the 

major stationary source. In determining the projected actual emissions before beginning actual 

construction, the owner or operator of the major stationary source: 

a. 

b. shall include fugitive emissions to the extent quantifiable, and authorized 

emissions associated with startups; and shutdowns, and malfftnetiofts; and 

c.-d .... 

B.Reasonably Available Control Technology {RAC1).c- R.S. 

6. The following specific provisions apply with 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 of Subparagraph R.6.a of this 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 of this Section for calculating projected actual emissions. The provisions of this 
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 of a 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 e of this 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 project to result in either: 

L A projected actual emissions increase of at least 50 percent of the 

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; 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 of the 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 of this Section, then provisions of Subparagraph R.6.c-f of this Section do not apply 

to the project. 

e-:Q. Before beginning actual construction of the project, the owner or operator 

shall document and maintain a record of the following information: 

1. a description of the project; 

ii. identification of the emission units whose emissions of a regulated 

NSR pollutant could be affected by the project; and 

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

project is not a major modification for any regulated NSR pollutant, including the baseline actual 

emissions, the projected actual emissions, the amount of emissions excluded under Subparagraph 

B.Projected Actual Emissions.c of this Section and an explanation for why such amount was 

excluded, and any netting calculations, if applicable. 

h,!;!. lfthe emissions unit is an existing electric utility steam generating unit, 

before begitming actual construction, the owner or operator shall provide a copy of the 

information set out in Subparagraph R.6.a:Q of this Section to the administrative authority. 

eg. The owner or operator shaU monitor the emissions of any regulated NSR 

pollutant that could increase as a result of the project and that is emined by any emissions unit 

identified in Clause R.6.aJ2.ii of this Section, and calculate and maintain a record of the annual 

emissions, in tons per year on a calendar year basis, for a period of five years following 

resumption of regular operations after the change, or for a period of I 0 years following 

resumption of regular operations after the change if the project increases the design capacity of 

or potential to emit that regulated NSR pollutant at such emissions unit. 

e~. If the unit is an existing electric utility steam generating unit, the owner or 

operator shall submit a report to the administrative authority within 60 days after the end of each 
year during which records must be generated under Subparagraph R.6.eg of this Section setting 

out the unit's annual emissions during the calendar year that preceded submission of the report. 

ef. If the unit is an existing unit other than an electric utility steam generating 

unit, the owner or operator shall submit a report to the administrative authority ifthe annual 

emissions, in tons per year, from the project identified in Subparagraph R.6.aQ of this Section, 

exceed the baseline actual emissions, as documented and maintained in accordance with Clause 

R.6.a.Q.iii of this Section, by a significant amount, as defined in Subsection B.Significant of this 

Section, for that regulated NSR pollutant, and if such emissions differ from the preconstruction 

projection as documented and maintained in accordance with Clause R.6.ah.iii of this Section. 

Such report shall be submitted to the administrative authority within 60 days after the end of 

such year. The report shall contain the fo1lowing: 

1. the· name, address, and telephone number of the major stationary 

source; 

ii. the annual emissions as calculated in accordance with 

Subparagraph R.6.eg of this Section; and 

ii. any other information that the owner or operator wishes to include 

in the report (e.g., an explanation as to why the emissions differ from 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 of the unit, but als.o authorized emissions associated with startuJ>i;·and shutdo~ 

noo~~~~B; m '"' -~----·- .... • .... "0 O -· ,.-·· 

3.c. -15.b. 

AUTHORITY NOTE: Promulgated in accordance with R.S. 30:2054. 

HISTORICAL NOTE: Promulgated by the Department of Environmental Quality, 

Office of Air Quality and Nuclear Energy, Air Quality Division, LR 13:741 (December 1987), 

amended LR 14:348 (June 1988), LR 16:613 (July 1990), amended by the Office of Air Quality 

and Radiation Protection, Air Quality Division, LR 17:4 78 (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 of the 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· 

ATTACHMENT B 
t. 

Incorporation of Startup and Shutdown Emissions into Title V Permits 

EPA's Comment 

Since 2002. we have been working with LDEQ on an internal guidance document they were 

drafting to assist their permit writers with the process of adding 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 to work with EPAto address the concerns. 

LDEQ's Response 

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 of pennit . 

limitations. 

LDEQ's Response: 

As previously mentioned, LDEQ includes startup and shutdown emissions in all permit 

actions where such emissions are greater than emissions associated with 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.) Distinguish routine 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 of SIS. 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 of SIP limits and subject to an 

enforcement action for noncompliance) from authorized emissions. 

Region 6 recommends that LDEQ adopt definitions of routine startup and 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 of permit limitations for SIS emissions will no 

longer be subject to the State's variance rule. Such exceedances will instead be subject to 

the reporting, recordkeeping, and other requirements of the State's upset 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 a handful of startups 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 contemplating revising LAC 33:111.517 .D to 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 of normal operation; 

ii. information regarding emissions consistent with Paragraph 

D.3 of this Section associated with such events in each year of the 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, or any 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 of this 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 or concentration}. 

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 or proposed to be utilized and any other methods which will be taken to 

minimize emissions of air· pollutants, including the estimated efficiency of such equipment 

and methods," and "information regarding any limitations on source operation or any 

applicable work practice standards." 

3.) Ensure accurate accounting of SIS emissions. 

Although owners and operators will make initial estimates of routine 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 allow review 

of that determination by the State, EPA, and citizens. 

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 regarding the type, quantity, and frequency of all SIS emissions from 

the facility, applicable pollution control equipment, and review of off-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, clarify how 

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's Response: 

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), and because 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 under LAC 33:lll.507.G.5 for startup and shutdown conditions). 

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 

6 may also apply. 
4.) Provide accurate accounting of actual em1sS1on baselines necessary to determine 

applicability of PSD and NNSR requirements. 

-----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 as the baseline actual emissions. Please explain how historical 

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 

NSR reform regulations. 

LDEQ's Response: 

The referenced correspondence pre-dates LDEQ's adoption of EPA'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 of startup 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 clear that: 

The average rate shall 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 consecutive 24-month period. 

Consequently. this would increase the likelihood that such emissions would trigger NSR. 

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 

major source thresholds. 

LDEQ's Response: 

Startup and shutdown emissions are considered when determining the facility's potential to 

emit for evaluation of applicable requirements (e.g., 95 TPY of"routine, NOx emissions plus 

10 TPY of stat11;tp and shutdown NOx emissions 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 of production operations and may require separate 

controls, practices, recordkeeping and reporting requirements. Separate permit or 

regulatory requirements to mandate operation of pollution 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's Response: 

LDEQ agrees that startup and shutdown emissions resulting from or increasing as a result 

of a physical change or change in the method of operation at a major stationary source (as 

defined in LAC 33:III.504 or 509) must be reviewed to detennine applicability of PSD or 

NNSR, as appropriate. If a significant net emissions increase 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 

participation consistent with 40 CFR 51.161 must also be provided. 

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 of historical 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 not require retroactive NSR, even if such emissions exceed NSR 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 emissions in the State's attainment 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 

sources that typk.ally undergo a full turnaround on a less than once per year basis. Because 

pennits specify the maximum amount that may be emitted in a calendar year {or rolling 12-

calendar month basis if indicated), attributing one startup and shutdown to each year would 

result in over-permitting of emissions. 

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 of SIS 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 NSR permit review 

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 of ways to eliminate or reduce 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. 

----··--- ~-