BOBBY JINDAL GO\'ERKOR

## ~tate 

# of JLouistana
DEPARTMENT OF**ENVII~ONMENTAL** QUALITY 

### ENVIRONMENTALSERVICES

Mr. Thomas H. Diggs Associate Director for Air HAROLD LEGGETT, 

### PH.D. SECRETr\RY

0 

## ?!:::::a co ::OM 

## g 

# ,C)
-1**.~**

' J>o< I.D 

# z,.,., U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 6 

### 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 1200 :z:C..l 

# ., :z: :J: Clo·, 

### Concerns with Louisiana's New Source Review Reform State Implementation Plar.t:' U>-u 

### Submittal o !

..

# ,,? r:o ("') 

### Dallas,Texas 75202-2733 

### RE:

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 ofEnvironmental Quality's (LDEQ's) rules under LAC 33:JII.504 (Nonattainment New Source Review Procedures) and LAC 33:Ill.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: (I) 

### the use ofvariances to authorize emissions from startups, shutdowns, and malfunctions when calculating the "baseline actual emissions" and "projected actual**--~mis~ions·~~_Q)~i~ PMl.i.~~ti_on**  

### for the major source**J;?larrtwi9~ J~QP-li~abllity**  

### Jimi!Lill._ nonattainment areas; and (3) 

### the definitions of"malfunction." EPA also requests that LDEQ commit to implementing the "reasonable possibility" provisions in LAC 33:1ll.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. Ifyou have any questions or would like to discuss these matters further, please contact Bryan D. Johnston ofthe Air Permits Division at (225) 219-3001. Sincerely, ,. 

# cJtvL
Cheryl Sonnier Nolan Assistant Secretary

Date 

### CSN:BDJ**Po~r** ( )fficc B.,:o.; .j_;J_; •**B:H~>n Rnu~c.**  l.ransi:lna**-11~21-.J.'il.)** • P!mnt· 22::,.,2f'.L)fr;J • hx 22:1·21')-.'.";orJ**\\"\\"W.deq.louisi~**IU.,l!< •Yf •


## .. I! '

. IMr. Thomas H. Diggs Page 2

NNSRPlantwide Applicability Limit (PAL) PublicParticipation Rule 

### L We understand that LDEQ intends for 

### § 504.1.5. to mimic the Federal NNSR PAL Public Pa,rticipation 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 following 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 

### wiJI initiate rulemaking once the remaining issues with the NSRRefonn submittal are resolved. REQUESTED ACTION: EPA Region 

### 6 requests that LDEQ include a schedule for expeditiously adoptingthe above changes and submittingthem to EPA for approval. LDEQ'sResponse: 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 formal proposal). New Definition for theTerm "Malfunctions" 

### I. In its NSR Reform SIP revisions, LDEQ adopted a new definition of"malfunctions" in LAC 33:1II.504.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**mal~nction** definition defines "malfunctions" as:**Ma~fimctions-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 Page 3

33:11Ll507.B and 2307.C.2, but exclude 

### any emissions that are not compliant with Federal or State standards. II. The NSR malfunction definition differs from the SIP-approved (and SIP-wide app1icab1e) definition of "malfunction" in LAC 33:lll.l11 (hereinafter "SIP-wide malfunction definition"). Furthermore, whereas the SIP-wide malfunction definition 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 ofexcessemissions 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 general SIP-wide definition and would be 

### a relaxation ofthe existing SIP. And, as you are aware, any SIP relaxation request must meet section 

### 11O(l) 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 oftheAct (e.g., PSD increments). Because EPA'sexcess emissions guidancehas been-based-·on-the-Act's·requirements to protect attainment-of-tlleNAAQS and·/ PSD increments, and not aggravate air qualityt it is difficult to conceptualize an approvable Section 110(1) demonstration due tothe nature 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 NSR malfunction defmition: 1. The NSR malfunction definition is not limited to sudden unavoidable breakdowns that are beyondthe control ofthe owneror 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 maintenan<;e, which are the types ofactivities orevents that EPA does not considerto bemalfunctions. lJI. 

### 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 \Vas not LDEQ's intent. then EPA Region 6 suggests'. 

# . . • • 

# . .

Mr. Thomas 

### H. Diggs Page 4

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

### Malfunctions-shall mean "malfunction" as defined in LAC 33.III.lll and, for purposes ofcalculating baseline actual emissions and projected actual emissions under this section, shall include any such emissions authorized by pennit, variance, or the on·line operating adjustment provisions of LAC 33.III.l507.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 betweenthe proposed NSRdefinition ofmalfunctions, the current SIPapproved definition ofmalfunction, 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:III.lll. Because "malfunction" is not defined in 40 CFR 51.165, 51.166, or 52.21, the definition of"malfunctions" will be deleted from LAC 33:111.504 and 509. 

### Variances 

### I. Louisiana's NSR Refonn 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**~()}li_~!~~ -A-dministFat-ive-Gede-(-bA~J....IJI-.$09-.B-{relating--to---Fr:eventiorr-of**  Significant Deterioration applicability) and at LAC 33.1I1.504.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 lega11y enforceable emission limitations, pursuant to 40 Code of Federal Regulations 51.165(a)())(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 33.1II.917. I. LAC 33.111.917 provides:

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 variapce 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. 

### 11. EPARegion 6'sconcernsregardingLDEQ'sissuance ofvariances. A. EPApolicy and guidance on excess emissions. L EPA policy and guidance on excess emJss1ons 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 pellllits. Therefore, the 1982 and 1983 Guidance focused on EPA Regions disapprovingorworking with states torevise any deficient SIP revision that provided automatic exemptions for excess emissions during periods of**_8U/SD,..mainten~ce..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 permits 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 excessemissions 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 

### 1999 Guidance, as well as add the affinnative 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 tenns. As a consequence of settlement, EPA issued the 2001 Re·issuance ofClarification ofthe 

### 1999 Guidance to explicitly confinn 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 SlP provisions," nor to alter the status of any existing SIP provisions addressing excess emissions. The 2001 Re-issuance also confirms that EPA wil1 consider the 1999 Guidance (that incorporates the t977, 1982, and 1983 guidance) and the statutory principles upon which it is based in the context of foture SIP rules and permit tenns 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. Inclusion 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 reflect the legalpositions andpoliciesdelineated 

### in EPA's excessemissions guidance. We explainfurther below. B. General concernsabout LDEQ'streatment ofSU/SD emissions in airpermitting. 

### 1. It is unclear whetherpermits issued by LDEQ address emissions associated with routine SUISD.

a. Louisiana has not historically required routine SU/SD emissions to be ·-speemeally-addressed-in-its-:pennits,-although-b'9EQ-st-ated-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 ofnorma! 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 Availab1e Control Technology (BACT) (or where appropriate, Lowest Achievable Emission Rate, or "LAER") limits are being appropriately applied duringperiods 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

·· --- -··----- __ "'

___ ... -----------.-----·-**-E~A-and-citizen-enfot=Gement--aGtiea-fer-e*Gess-emissions:·--****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 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 51.102(a)(3) and 51.104(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 iss1.,1ance ofthe variance wiII not interferewithMr. Thomas H. Diggs Page 8

attainment and maintenance of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). · b. This variance SIP rule does not require that the Secretary make a finding 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 perfonned limited analysis to verify that the variances meetthe 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 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 fol1owing aspects ofits airpermitting program: A. Transparently and explicitly address routine SU/SD emissions in air permitting.

__.. In addition, submit to EPA a 

### plan on how 

### tbe.-State.

..:will .implement-a formalprocessfor updatingitspermits 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 affirmative 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.Ill.917 and other variance provisions to be consistent with 40 CFR 51.104 and SI.l02(a)(3). D. Include a schedule for expeditiously adopting the above changes and submitting themto EPA for SIP approval. LDEQ'sResponse: EPA'scomments extend weB beyond the context ofNSR Reform 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 LDEQ revise LAC 33:III.917 and other variance provisions to be consistent with 

### 40 CFR 51.104 and 51.l02(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 fo 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 otherw1se 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 should be noted that LDEQ does not have the authority to suspend ormodify federal regulations via variance procedures. Variances issued pursuant to LAC 33:III.917 may address federal regulations 

### as they are incorporated by

### reference into state regulation$ (LAC 33:IIJ.3003, 5116, 5122, 5311}, but federal regulations remain independently applicable and enforceable by EPA. With respect to LAC 33:Ill.504 and 509, the tenn "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 moredetail at EPA's convenience; however, they should not impede EPA's approval ofLDEQ'sNSRReform rules. 

### Reasonable Possibility

### Provision L The submitted regulations include the "reasonable possibility'' provisions that were promulgated in the NSR Reform rules dated December 31, 2002. Louisiana adopted these provisionsin Sections 504.D.9 and 509.R.6. 

### On June 24, 2005, the Circuit Court ofAppeals for the District ofColumbiaremanded the reasonable possibility provisions to EPA for further consideration. On December 21, 2007, EPA promulgated its final rule clarifyingthe "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 final rule promulgated December 21. 2007. Although arevision to your "reasonable . ....

### ---

# . ' 

# .. Mr. Thomas H. Diggs 

### Page 10

possibility" provisions may not immediately be necessary for us to approve LDEQ's NSR Reform 

### 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 Reform rules. Should LDEQ choose to adopt such revisions, those revisions must be submittedto EPA for SlP approval byDecember21, 2010. · LDEQ'sResponse: LDEQ is and will continue to implement the "reasonable possibility" provisions in LAC 33:III.504.D.9 and 

### 509.R.6 in a manner consistent with EPA's**~~Reasonable** Possibility in Recordkeeping" rule promulgated onDecember21, 2007 (72 FR72607). 

### Remaining Differences Between Federal and State NSRRules Proposed revisions to LAC 33:111.504 and LAC 33:III.509 discussed in thecorrespondence are included as Attaclunent A. The federal NSR Reform 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.**----l~)----biiBQ-does--not-pennit--emissioas-assooiated---with---malfunstiens.-** -·-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 

### itless likely that a project would triggerNSR. 3.) In determiningprojected 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.ATTACHMENTA

'- ·-------

### Title 33 

## ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY PartIII.Air
Chapter5. PermitProcedures §504. 

### NonattainmentNew 

### SourceReview 

### Procedures A-D.8.d.
9. Thefollowing specificprovisions apply withrespect to any regulated NSR pollutant emitted from projects at existing emissionsunits at a major stationary source (other than projects at a source with a PAL)in circumstanceswhere there is a reasonable possibility, within the meaning ofSubparagraphD.9.a ofthis Section,that a projectthat is not a partofa majormodification

### may result in a significant emissions increase ofsuchpollutant andthe owneroroperatorelectstouse themethod specifiedin Subparagraphs

### K.ProjectedActual Emissions.a-c ofthis Section.for calculatingprojected actual emissions.

### For euistiBg emissieas uaits 

### at amajoF statiOJ'lary seuree, ether

### than prejeets 

### at a souree

### 'Nitfl 

### a

### P,A'"L• ift

### eireumstBRees v.<ftere t»ere is a 

### reasoaable pessieilitythat a }Jl'ejeet

### that is :aot

### apart ofa 

### major

### modifieatiea 

### may resultia a sigflifieRBtemissieasiaerea:se 

### aaa the o'Wfler 

### or eperater**ele~** to use, 

### for tke plH'J)Ose of

### ealealatiagpl'ejeeted aelual 

### emissieas, themetked speei:fieEl isSuhparegmpks 

### K.JlrojeetetiAelwalEmieaions.a e efthis SeetiOfl, thefellewiag skall 

### &J:)f'ly.
!:. 

### A "reasonablepossibility" under Paragraph 0.9ofthis Section



### _______.JlPCUl],whenthe owneroroperatorcalculatesthep19jecttoresultin either:

... _ ·--·--·- -·· 

## h. A proiected actualemissions increase ofatleast50percent ofthe applicable triggervalue listed in Subsection L, Table 1 (withoutreference to the amount that is a significant net emissions increase). for the regulated NSRpollutant; or



### . ii. A projected actual emissions increase that, added tothe amount ofemissionsexcludedunder Subparagraph

### K.ProjectedActualEmissions.c. sums to at least SO percent ofthe applicable triggervalue listed in Subsection L, Table 1{withoutreference to the amount thatis a significant net emissions increase). for theregulatedNSRpollutant Fora projectfor which a reasonablepossibility occursonly within the meaning ofClause 504.D.9.a.ii ofthis Section. and not also within the meaning ofClause 504.0.9.a.i ofthis Section, then provisions Subparagraphs D.9.c-fdo not apply to theproject.
al!. Before beginning actual construction ofthe project, the owner or operator shall document and maintain a record ofthe following infonnation: 1. a description ofthe project; 

### ii. identification ofthe emissions units whose emissions ofa regulated pollutant could 

### be affected by the project; and m. 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 Subparagraph

# , -



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

such amount 

### was**exclud~d,** 

### and any netting calculations, ifapplicable. 

## e£. Ifthe emissions unit is an existingelectric utility steam generating unit, before beginning actual construction, the owner or operator shall provide a copy ofthe information set out in Subparagraph D.9.a}2 ofthis Section to the administrative authority. e.Q. 

### The owner or operator shaiJ monitor the emissions ofany regulated pollutantthat could increase as aresultofthe project and that is emitted by any emissions unit identified in Clause D.9.a.Q.ii ofthis Section, and calculate and maintain a record ofthe annual emissions, in tonsperyear on acalendaryearbasis, for aperiod offive years following resumption ofregularoperations afterthe change, or for aperiod ofl0

### years following resumption ofregularoperations after the change ifthe projectincreases the design capacity or potential to emit ofthat regulated po1lutl;l11t atsuch emissions unit.**~.** 

### Ifthe unit is an existingelectric utility steam generating unit, the owner or operator shall submitareport to the administrative authority within 60

### days afterthe end ofeach yearduringwhich records mustbe generated under Subparagraph D.9.e4,ofthis Section setting outtheunit's annual emissionsduring the yearthatpreceded submission ofthe report. ef. 

### Ifthe unitis 

### an existing unitotherthan an electricutility steam generating unit, the owner oroperatorshall submit areport to the administrative authority ifthe annual emissions, in tonsperyear, from the project identified in Subparagraph D.9.a.Qofthis 

### Section, exceed the base1ine actual emissions, as documented and maintained in 

### accordance with Clause D.9.a.Q.iii ofthis Section,by a significant amount, as definedin Subsection K 

### ofthis Section, for

--- - .that.regulated_.pollutantrand-i£such-emissions.differ-from.the.preconstmction-ptoJ.ectiQll...aS.__-

. documented andmaintained in accordance with Clause D.9.a}2.iii ofthis Section. Suchreport shall be submittedto the administrative authority within 60 

### days after the end ofsuch year. The report shall contain the following: · 1. 

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

### the annual emissions as calcu]ated in accordance with Subparagraph D.9.eg ofthis Section; and 

### m. any otherinformation thatthe owner or operatorwishesto include inthe report (e.g., an explanation as to why the emissions differfrom the preconstruction projection). D.l

### 0.- J.3.a.
b. calculations ofthe baseline actual emissions with supporting documentation. Baseline actual emissjons are to 

### include emissions associated 

### not only with operation ofthe unit, but also authori7.ed 

### emissions associated with startup; and shutdown;-i.Hld-**~;** 

### 3.c.- 4.b

....

# • • 

### :

## .

5. Public Participation Requirement for PALs. Procedures to establish, renew, or increase PALs forexisting major stationary sources shall be**thfs~e** 

### as the**~eedmes** 

## fuJ:.,p$it

### is&\lanee:ie**ae.e9f4~e**

### with**L.~** 

### ..

## c**3S:ijl.$l~~consistentwilli~40:'~FR**

### 5L

## 16tlatnl 51

## J61. These include the requirement that the administrative authority providethe public with notice ofthe proposed approval ofa PALpennitand at least a 30-dayperiod for submittalof public comments. The administrative authority shaH address all 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;.artd**shutdo~ ~.~~;**  7.e. -15.b

.... 

### K. Defmitions. Theterms inthis Section are used as defined in 

### LAC 33:III.111 with the exception ofthose terms specificallydefined as follows.


### K.Actua/Emissions.c.- KA/lowableEmissions.c

. ... BaselineActualEmissions-the rate ofemissions, in tons peryear, of

### aregulated pollutant, determined 

### as follows.



### a
....

__ -------·-·--- __________i. 

### The avera2e rate**shall.in~fugitive** ..emissiQJJs.to-the·extent quantifiable, and authorized emissions associated with**startupst~mfa shutdownsi·lJitt~**  

## ··aifi::H:\tie Hl. 

### a:a**~-** a.ii.- b

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

### mafft.iBetit)ft.s.
b.ii.- d

.... 

### K.BeginActual Construction- K.MajorStationarySource

### .e
.... MslfoHctiens for purposes ofthis Section, 

### malfitneliel'i!i shall include 

### any such emissions al:ltkorized by pennit, varianee. orthe on 1ine opeFating adjustment provisions ofLAC 33 :Ill.l507.B and 2307.C.2, but exch1de any emissions that are not eompliant •.vith federal or state standards. 

### K.Mandatory Federal Class IArea- K.Project

. ...

### ProjectedActualEmissions -themaximum annual rate, in tons peryear, at which an existing emissions unit is projected to emit a regulated pollutant inany one ofthe 

### 5years (12- month period) following the date the unit resumes regularoperation aftertheproject, or in any one ofthe I0 years following that date, ifthe project involves increasingthe emissions unit's design capacity orits potential to emit ofthat regulated pollutant and full utilization ofthe unit would result in a significant emissions increase ora significant net emissions increase at the major stationary source. 

### In determining the

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



### a.
b. shall include fugitive emissions to the extent quantifiable, and authorized emissions associated wi1h startups; @lid**shutdowns;'Eili4:m.~ans;** and



### c.- d

.... 

### K.RegulatedPollutant- 

### M.3.
AUTHORITYNOTE: Promulgated in accordance with R.S. 30:2054. HISTORICALNOTE: Promulgated bythe Department ofEnvironmental Quality, Office ofAir Quality and Radiation Protection,Air Quality Division, LR 19:176 (February 1993), repromulgated LR 19:486 (April1993), amended LR 19:1420 (November 1993), LR 21: 1332 (December 1995), LR 23:197 (February 1997), amended by the Office of Environmental Assessment, Environmental PlanningDivision, LR26:2445 (November2000), LR27:2225 (December2001), LR 30:752 (April2004), amended bythe'Office of

__**J~:nvironmental** Assessment, LR 30:2801**.{Decem~r 200~),**  amended by**th~_Q_ffi.c_e**

## gfthe

_______ Secretary, LegalAffairs Division, LR 31:2436 (October2005), LR31 :3123, 3155 (December 2005), LR 32:1599 (September2006), LR 33:2082 (October2007), LR 34:_ '----- 2008). 

### §509. Prevention ofSignificant Deterioration
A. -A.6

... B. Definitions. For the purpose of this Section, the terms below shall have the meaning specifiedherein as follows.


### BActualEmissions.c.- BAJ/owab/e Emissions.c

. ... BaselineActual Emissions-the rate ofemissions, in tons per year, ofa regulated NSR pollutant, determined as follows.



### a
....I

i. The average rate shall include fugitive emissions to the extent quantifiable, and authorized emissions associated with startups;and shutdownsfB:IlEi**malfUheti~as.** a.ii.- b

.... 

### i. The average rate shall include fugitive emissions to the extent quantifiable, and authorized emissions associated with startups; and shutdowns;-aa&- 

## m&lfunetief!s. b.ij.- d

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

. ... Alslfimetif»>9 

### fer purposes oft:liis Seetion, ma/fottetiens 

### shall ine)ade 

### any sueh emissiollB**aathori~ed ~·permit,**  

### varianee, orthe on liae OJJerating adjustment provisions ofLAC 33:111.1 507.B and 2307.C.2,

# eateM:elude any 

### emissioas that

### are aeteompH:antwith fedeYal or state standareis. B.NecessaryPreconstructionApprovals orPermits- B.Project

. ... ProjectedActualEmissions-the maximum annual rate, intons per year, at which an existing emissions unit is projectedto emit

### aregulated poJlutant inany one ofthe 

### 5 years 

### (12· month period) folJowing the date the unit resumes regularoperation after the project, or in any one ofthe 10 years foJlowing that date, ifthe project involves increasing the emissions unit's

_**----~esign** capacityor 

### jtsp_otential to emit ofthat regulated**pollut~!_@d fitlll.!~Wza!ign**  ofthe.**~!lit_** would result 

### in a significant emissions increase or

### a significantnet emissions increase.atthe major stationary source. In determiningtheprojectedactual emissions before beginning actual construction, the owneroroperatorofthe major stationary source:



### a.
b. shall include fugitive emissions tothe extent quantifiable, and authorized emissions associated with startups;and shutdowns,

### EtftEl'.mal:fuaetiO:ns; and
c.-d

.... B.ReasonablyAvailable Control Technology (RAC1).c- 

### R.5.
6. 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 oossibilitv. 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 Actual Emissions.a-c ofthis Section for calculating projected actual emissions. The provisions ofthis

### Paragraph apply 

### to projects at em el'tistiRg emissioRs unit at a major statioRary soUFee, other than projects at a source with a 

### PAL, iH eireumstaRees where there is a reasenaele possibility that a project that is not a part ofa major medifieation may result in a signifiermt emissioAS iRerease aRd 

### the O'Mle£ 

### or operator eleets to Bse 

### the memod specified in 

### Sl:tbpBfQgraphs B.Projeetee z'\etl'ltti emissions.a 

### e

### ofthis SeotioA: for ealeulatiRg 

### projected actual emissioRS

..

a. A "reasonable possibility" under Paragraph R.6 of this Section occurs when the owner oroperator 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 of this 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.ProjectedActual 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 tothe amount that is a significant netemissions increase). for the regulated NSR pollutant. For a J2roject for which 

### a reasonable possibility occurs only within the mc:aning of Clause S09.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 tothe project. 

### a-1;!. Before beginning actual construction oftheproject, the owneroroperator shall document and maintain arecord ofthe following information: 

### i. a description oftheproject; ii. identification ofthe emissionunits whose emissions ofa regulated NSRpollutant could 

### be affected bythe project; and

__ .__________ ____ili

__ _a:.description.of:the-applicability...test.used-to.detenninetbaUhe---- projectis not a majormodificationfor anyregulatedNSR**pollutant~** including the baseline actual emissions, the projected actual emissions, the amountofemissions excludedunder Subparagraph B.Projected Actual Emissions.c ofthis Section and anexplanation forwhy such amount was excluded, and anynettingcalculations, ifapplicable.**~-** lfthe emissions unit is an existing electricutility steam generatingunit, before beginning actual construction, the owner oroperatorshall provide a copy ofthe information set out in Subparagraph R.6.eh ofthis Sectionto the administrative authority. 

### eQ. The owner or operator shall monitorthe emissions ofany regulated NSR pollutantthat could increase as a resu1t oftheproject and that is emitted by any emissions unit identified in ClauseR.6.el;!.ii ofthis Section, and calculate and maintain arecord ofthe annual emissions, in tons per year on a calendar year basis, for a period offive years fo11owing resumption ofregular operations after the change, orfor a period of 1 0 years following resumption ofregular operations after the change ifthe project increases the design capacity of or potential to emit that regulated NSR pnllutant at such emissions unit**El~.** lftheunit is an existing electric uti1ity steam generating unit, the owner or operator shall submit a report to the administrative authority v.'ithin 60 days after the end ofeachf•

year during which records must be generated under Subparagraph R.6.eg ofthis Section setting outthe unifs annual emissions during the calendaryearthat preceded submission ofthe report. 

## ef. Ifthe unit is an existing unit other than an electric utility steam generating unit, the owneroroperator shall submit a report to the administrative authority ifthe annual emissions, in tonsperyear, from the project identified in SubparagraphR.6.ah ofthis Section, exceed the baseline actual emissions, as documented and maintained in accordance with Clause R.6.a2.iii ofthis Section, by a significant amount, as defined in Subsection 

### B.Significantofthis Section, for thatregulatedNSRpollutant, and ifsuch emissions differfrom thepreconstruction projection as documented and maintained in accordance with Clause R.6.a]2.iii ofthis Section. Suchreport shall besubmitted tothe administrative authority within 60 days aftertheend of suchyear. The report shall containthe foJlowing: 

### i. 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 infonnationthat the owneroroperatorwishesto include inthe 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**emtSSions~** with supporting documentation. Baseline actual emissions are to include emissions associated not only with**~p~z:c:!i~~,.?fthe unit~**  but also authorized emissions associated with**startu~\~ shutdo~**  ___**m'~~Wa;** 

## -·---------- . -----·-···---··· ·--·-··-- ----- --·- _ .. 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 Environmental Assessment, Environmental Planning Division, LR 26:2447 (November 2000), LR 27:2234 (December 200)), 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·



### ATTACHMENT Bt.



### Incorporation ofStartup andShutdown Emissions into Title V Permits EPA'sComment Since 2002. we have been working with LDEQ on an internal guidance document they were drafting to assist theirpermitwriters with the process 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**(se~** 

### Appendix 

### F). Among our major concerns are public notice procedures, BACTILAER application, and whether or not the procedures to incorporate these emissions into permits 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 encourageLDEQ to work with EPA to address the concerns. LDEO'sResponse To be dear, LDEQ has not formally adopted the guidance document referenced in EPA's January 18, 2005 correspondence. LDEQ does, however, now include startup and shutdown emissions in all permit actions where such emissions are greater than emissions associated with

..

routine" operations. The fo1lowing are LDEQ's responses to the concerns raised in the 2005 letter. 

### l.) Clarify whether incorporation of 

### SIS emissions is mandatory for new and revised air permits. We recommend that the State revise its air permitting programs to require mandatory



### .···-·- ----incorporation-o£-routine-SIS-.emissions-into-all-Dew-arul.r:e.vised-pennits-in arder· to-avoidconfusion as to applicable regulatory requirements and to facilitate enforcement ofpermit limitations. LDEQ's Response: As previously mentioned. LDEQ includes startup and shutdown emissions in all permit actions where such emissions are greaterthan emissions associated with normal operations. "Routine" startup and shutdown emissions not disclosed by the applicant, when in excess of emissions attributed to "normal" 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 normal operation of a source should be considered in the permit review. 

### SIS emissions from norma] operation must be accounted for in the design, planning, 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**~SR ~ermit** **~llowable,** are**ambient-b~sed** standards designed to protect the National Ambient**A~r Qua~Ity**  Standards and the mcrements. Because excess emissions may aggravate au 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 authonty, program requirements must dearly 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 that LDEQ adopt definitions ofroutine 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 ofpermit limitations for S/S 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 ofthe State's upset rule. LDEQ's Response: Only "routine" startup and shutdown emissions are accounted for in permits. LDEQ does not permit any emissions resulting from upsets or malfunctions, nor does LDEQ consider startup and shutdown emissions that are in excess of typical norms 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 ofstartups and shutdowns per year, whereas a simplecycle peaking turbine may experience a startup and shutdown almost**ev.~ry** __**cl.!l:X_QyringJ~!------**



### - -. -- ---hat-summer-menths). · ·---- ·- · LDEQ is contemplatingrevising LAC 33:III.5 1 7.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. infonnation regarding the duration and frequency of such events based on the facility's prior five year history, unless another time period is more representative ofnonnal 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.18.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:Ill.lll and the subsequent startup (but not those associated with the malfunction itself), may be included in the emission rates. Startup and shutdown emissions resulting from improperly designed equipment, lack of preventative maintenance, careless or improper operation, operator error, or any other preventable upset condition shall not be included. iii. a description of the measures proposed to minimize emissions during such events consistent with Paragraphs 0.6 and 8 of this Section.

## " '·

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 :III.517.D.6 and D.8 require the "identification and description of pol1ution control equipment utilized orproposed to be utilized and any other methods which will be taken 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 allow review ofthat determinationby the State, EPA, andcitizens. Region 

### 6 recommends thatthe 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, andreview ofoff-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 

### limitfor SIS emissions. Also, clarifyhow the State would determine if a reduc1ion of actual 

### SIS emissions is creditable as**~-~** . · ·-·- ·---emissien-reduetien-erediH>r-as-a-eentemperaneaus-emissitms--deerease;·- ----·---- ···· LDEQ's Response: Regarding additional permit application requirements, see Item 2 above. LAC 33:III.517 specifies the contents of a permit application. Generally, because most sources are permitted for continuous operation (8760 hours per year), and because a varying amountof 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. ln 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:lii.507.G.5 for startup and shutdownconditions). Both the air permit application and pennit itself should clearly note under what conditions each limit applies.
In order for a reduction in startup and shutdown emissionsto qualify as a decrease forNSR 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:Ill.Chapter 6 may also apply.4.) Provide accurate accounting of actual ernlSSlon baselines necessary to detennine**a.~mlicability** ofPSD and NNSRrequirements.
In order to detennine 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 howhistorical baselines will be detennined 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 S/S emissions. We note that this change is required when the State adopts NSRreform regulations. 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 33:111.504 and LAC 33:III.509requires consideration ofstartup and shutdown emissions. The average rate shaH include

. . . authorized emissions associated with startups, shutdowns

... Where startup and shutdown emissions were not evaluated, the definition of "baseline actual emissions"is clearthat: Theaverage rate shall be adjusted downward to exclude any non-compliant emissions that occurred while the source was operating above any emission limitation that 

### was**~egally** enforceableduring the consecutive 24-monthperiod. Consequently,this wouldincreasethe likelihood that such emissions wouldtriggerNSR. ----r.) 

### EnsUJe that Fedexai tegohenrents (sgch as title V**operating=permit;-NSPS;·ME~** 

### are--- triggered in permits where incorporation of 

### SIS emissions cause the facility to exceed major sourcethresholds. LDEQ'sResponse: Startup and shutdown emissions are considered when detennining the facility's potential to emitfor evaluation ofapplicable requirements (e.g., 95 TPY of"routine''NOx emissionsplus I0 1PYofstartupand shutdownNOxemissions equals a major source). 6.) Ensure that 

### SIS emissions in PSD and NNSR pennits are subject to all program requirements. AU 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, re·cordkeeping and reporting requirements. Separate pennit 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 S/S emissions incorporated into those permits.

## ,,

LDEQ's Response: LDEQ agrees that startup and shutdown emissions resulting from or increasing as a result ofa physical change or change in the method ofoperation at a major stationary source (as defined in LAC33:l11.504 or 509) must be reviewed to determine applicability ofPSD or NNSR, as appropriate. 

### Ifa 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 with40 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 ofa physical change or change in the method of operation, does not require retroactiveNSR, even ifsuchemissions exceedNSR significance levels. 7.) Ensure .that 

### SIS emissions will be subject to short-term Jimits which are protective of ambient air standards. Please provide further information explaining how 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 rolling average permit limitation for 

### SIS emissions 

### will facilitate compliance and ensure attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS and increments. LDEQ'sResponse:**-----·-·-~·-----·** All permits are reviewed by LDEQ's Air Quality Assessment Division to ensure permitted 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**typi~ally** undergo a 

### fuiJ turnaround on a less than onceperyearbasis. Because permits specify the maximum amountthat may be emitted in a calendar year (orrolling 12- calendar monthbasis ifindicated), attributing one·startup and shutdown to each yearwould result in over-permitting ofemissions. The maximum hourly or maximwn 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 will 

### be used for any modeling for anypollutant with an annual averaging period. · 8.) Public Participation Requirements. Incorporation of

### SIS emissions into new and existing PSD and NNSR pennits are permit conditions which must be subject to public 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, PSDAppeal No. 99-1 (EAB. August 25, 1999).t

... !



### and to file petitions for review. Without public participation during the NSRpermit review process, amendments to incorporate the change into a Title V operating permit would also require pub1ic 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 ]tern 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 SOGApermit 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.

---·-·--- ........-



### ---- ·-----··

## ----·

--- ···-