3805 RISE St. James, Et Al. Formosa Air Permits Cmmts W-Exhibits - 2019aug12 PDF

August 12, 2019
VIA EMAIL & HAND DELIVERY
Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality

Public Participation Group
602 N. 5th Street
Baton Rouge, LA 70802
deq.publicnotices@la.gov
Re: Comments on 14 Proposed Initial Title V/Part 70 Air Permits, Proposed Initial
Prevention of Significant Deterioration Permit, and the Associated Environmental
Assessment Statement for FG LA, LLC (Formosa) Chemical Complex
AI No.: 198351
Permit Nos.: 3141-V0, 3142-V0, 3143-V0, 3144-V0, 3145-V0, 3146-V0, 3147-
V0, 3148-V0, 3149-V0, 3150-V0, 3151-V0, 3152-V0, 3153-V0,
3154-V0, PSD-LA-812
Activity Nos.: PER20150001 through PER20150015
Dear Public Participation Group:
On behalf of RISE St. James, 1 Louisiana Bucket Brigade, 2 Sierra Club, 3 Center for Biological
1
RISE St. James is a faith-based environmental and social justice organization working to save its
community.
2
Louisiana Bucket Brigade is an environmental health and justice organization working with
communities that neighbor the state’s oil refineries and chemical plants.
3
Sierra Club is one of the oldest and largest national nonprofit environmental organizations in the
country, with approximately 3.5 million members and supporters dedicated to exploring, enjoying, and
protecting the wild places and resources of the earth; practicing and promoting the responsible use of the
Earth’s ecosystems and resources; educating and enlisting humanity to protect and restore the quality of
the natural and human environment; and using all lawful means to carry out these objectives. One of
Sierra Club’s priority national goals is promoting and improving air quality. In particular, Sierra Club
seeks to reduce the unnecessary and often harmful use of fossil fuels in facilities like the proposed
Formosa Chemical Complex.
9 0 0 C AM P S T R EET , S UI TE 3 0 3 NEW ORLEANS, LA 7013 0
T: 415 .2 17 .2000 F: 415 .217 .2 040 W WW .EAR THJU STICE.ORG

RISE St. James, et al, Comments
Re: Proposed Air Permits – FG LA (Formosa)
August 12, 2019
Page 2 of 82
Diversity, 4 Healthy Gulf, 5 Earthworks,6 No Waste Louisiana, 7 and 350 New Orleans. 8
(“Commenters”), we submit these comments on the 14 proposed initial Title V/Part 70 air
permits, initial Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) permit, and associated
Environmental Assessment Statement (EAS) for the FG LA, LLC (Formosa) 9 Chemical
Complex planned for construction in St. James, Louisiana.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................................... 6
CLEAN AIR ACT FRAMEWORK ............................................................................................ 8
4
The Center for Biological Diversity ("Center") is a non-profit organization with more than 1.4 million
members and online activists throughout the United States, including over 9,000 in Louisiana. The
Center's mission is to ensure the preservation, protection and restoration of biodiversity, native species,
ecosystems, public lands and waters and public health. The Center believes in and advocates for
environmental justice for all species, including people. In furtherance of these goals, the Center seeks to
reduce U.S. greenhouse gas emissions and other air pollution to protect biological diversity, the
environment, and human health and welfare.
5
Healthy Gulf was founded in 1994 and has more than 25,000 members and supporters in all five Gulf
states committed to uniting and empowering people to protect and restore the natural resources of the
Gulf Region.
6
Earthworks is a nonprofit organization dedicated to protecting communities and the environment from
the impacts of oil, gas, mining, and petrochemical development while seeking sustainable solutions. For
more than 25 years, Earthworks has worked to advance policy reforms, safeguard land and public health,
and improve corporate practices. Its team works with local communities, partner organizations, public
agencies, and elected officials to advance these goals nationwide, including in Louisiana. Earthworks has
212 supporters living in Louisiana, including in St. James Parish.
7
No Waste Louisiana is an alliance of local chapters dedicated to supporting waste prevention policies
and community practices of reduction, reuse, and refill, moving Louisiana away from the landfill and
protecting our neighborhoods, bayous, and parks from pollution.
8
350 New Orleans' mission is to support initiatives that raise consciousness and promote sound policy
around climate change. 350 New Orleans was created because the climate crisis poses unprecedented
threats to life, and coastal Louisiana is especially vulnerable. It supports frontline communities in "Cancer
Alley" in their fight for clean air, soil, water and a livable climate.
9
According to the company website, FG LA is a member of Formosa Plastics Group, which is
Taiwanese-based conglomerate. About Us, SunshineProjectLA.com (last visited July 8, 2019),
http://www.sunshineprojectla.com/about-us. Formosa Plastics Corporation, U.S.A. is affiliated with the
Taiwan-based Formosa Plastics Group (FPG). Id. Formosa Plastics Corporation owns and operates a
chemical plant in Baton Rouge. Formosa Plastics, fpusa.com (last visited July 8, 2019),
http://www.fpcusa.com/about.html.
August 12, 2019
Page 3 of 82
I. PREVENTION OF SIGNIFICANT DETERIORATION AND THE STATE

IMPLEMENTATION PLAN........................................................................................... 8
II. THE LOUISIANA STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLAN ............................................... 9
III. TITLE V........................................................................................................................ 10
DETAILED COMMENTS ........................................................................................................ 11
I. FORMOSA FAILED TO COMPLY WITH AIR QUALITY IMPACT

REQUIMENTS. ............................................................................................................ 11
A. Formosa Failed to Demonstrate That its Proposed Complex Will Not

Cause or Contribute to Air Pollution, in Violation of PSD Requirements. .......... 11
B. Formosa Failed to Follow Mandatory Modeling Requirements, thus

Invalidating its Air Quality Analysis. ................................................................. 14
C. Formosa’s Class II Air Quality Modeling violates Louisiana Regulations,

EPA Guidance, and Deviates from Formosa’s own Modeling Protocol in
ways that Could Underestimate its Criteria Pollutants. ....................................... 18
II. FORMOSA PERVASIVELY UNDERESTIMATES ITS POTENTIAL TO

EMIT............................................................................................................................. 20
III. THE EMISSION LIMITS DO NOT REFLECT THE BEST AVAILABLE

CONTROL TECHNOLOGY (BACT). .......................................................................... 24
A. Best Available Control Technology (BACT)—Legal Background...................... 24
B. The Proposed PSD Permit Fails to Require BACT. ............................................ 27
1. The BACT determination does not correctly utilize a top-down

analysis. ................................................................................................. 27
2. The BACT analysis failed to incorporate rate and other factors

necessary to establish emissions limits. ................................................... 29
3. The Proposed Permit Failed to require BACT to reduce GHG

emissions. ............................................................................................... 30
4. The proposed permit impermissibly rejects BACT based on cost

without basis. ......................................................................................... 30
IV. LDEQ SHOULD REQUIRE LOWEST ACHIEVABLE EMISSION RATE

(LAER) STANDARDS FOR PM2.5 AND NOX SOURCES. ........................................ 31
August 12, 2019
Page 4 of 82
V. THE PROPOSED TITLE V PERMITS FAIL TO ASSURE COMPLIANCE

WITH EMISSION LIMITS DUE TO THE FAILURE TO REQUIRE
CONTINUOUS EMISSIONS MONITORING, FAILURE TO REQUIRE
ENFORCEABLE CONDITIONS FOR PARAMETIC MONITORING, AMONG
OTHER REASONS. ...................................................................................................... 32
VI. LDEQ SHOULD DENY THE PERMITS BECAUSE OF FORMOSA’S

SIGNIFICANT RECORD OF ENVIRONMENTAL NONCOMPLIANCE. .................. 33
A. Louisiana regulations require LDEQ to consider Formosa Plastic Group’s

and Formosa Petrochemical Corp.’s long history of environmental
violations when reviewing FG LA’s proposed air permits. ................................. 34
B. FPG’s history of environmental violations demonstrate an unwillingness

or inability to comply with the proposed permits. ............................................... 34
C. LDEQ should conduct a supplemental evaluation of FPG’s and FPC’s

management at other U.S. facilities if it allows the project to move
forward. ............................................................................................................. 38
VII. FORMOSA’S ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT STATEMENT (EAS) IS

FLAWED AND FAILS TO INCLUDE INFORMATION NECESSARY FOR
LDEQ TO CARRY OUT ITS PUBLIC TRUSTEE DUTY. ........................................... 38
A. Overview of LDEQ’s Public Trust Duty and Environmental Assessment

Statement Requirements. .................................................................................... 40
B. Formosa’s EAS fails to include a full risk assessment of its toxic

emissions in combination with existing sources for this area which already
has an unacceptable cancer risk. ......................................................................... 42
1. Background on risk values. ..................................................................... 44
2. Formosa’s emissions compared with IRIS toxicity values. ...................... 44
3. LDEQ must require Formosa to conduct a full assessment of its toxic

emissions in combination with the current and authorized future
emissions for the St. James area, using the IRIS values…………………46
August 12, 2019
Page 5 of 82
C. Formosa’s EAS fails to show the real and potential effects of its proposed
Ethylene Oxide emissions on human health. ....................................................... 48
1. Ethylene Oxide’s harmful effects. ........................................................... 48
2. Formosa’s Ethylene Oxide Emissions & Modeling Flaws. ...................... 51
D. Formosa’s EAS fails to include any information about the potential and
real adverse environmental effects of Formosa’s greenhouse gas
emissions, nor does it include any information about the associated costs
to society............................................................................................................ 57
E. The EAS Fails to Address Severe Weather and Accident Risk. .......................... 58
1. Formosa Failed to Adequately Address the Storm-Related

Chemical Risks. ...................................................................................... 59
a. Formosa did not analyze the risk of storm-related chemical

releases in its EAS. ..................................................................... 59
b. Formosa failed to properly evaluate the extent of its flood

risk or to prove that it was justified in siting a
petrochemical complex in a floodplain. ....................................... 60
2. Formosa provided no Proof it is Sufficiently Insured to Protect the

Environment and Public from Reasonably Foreseeable Hazards. ............ 64
F. Formosa’s lopsided cost-benefits analysis fails to include environmental

and social costs. ................................................................................................. 67
VIII. LDEQ MUST COMPLY WITH FEDERAL CIVIL RIGHTS REGULATIONS. ........... 68
A. Adverse Impacts from Formosa’s Proposed Complex Would

Disproportionally Impact Communities of Color. ............................................... 68
B. Major Sources of Air Pollution Are Clustered in the Minority Community

Surrounding the Proposed Site. .......................................................................... 70
C. Purported Compliance With NAAQS or Other Standards Does Not

Constitute per se Environmental Justice Compliance. ......................................... 79
CONCLUSION ......................................................................................................................... 80
August 12, 2019
Page 6 of 82
INTRODUCTION
Formosa proposes to construct 14 separate major facilities, including 10 chemical plants, in St.
James, a community that lives and breathes within “Cancer Alley,” a region that stretches along
the Mississippi River from Baton Rouge to New Orleans. Cancer Alley is so-named because it
experiences the highest cancer risk in the nation due to a plethora of industrial facilities. 10
Formosa’s proposed chemical facilities would manufacture ethylene and propylene, and produce
polyethylene, propylene, and ethylene glycol primarily to produce plastics. The other four
facilities, including electric- and steam-generating units, would support these operations. 11 The
complex would operate just one-half mile from the residential community of Union across the
Mississippi River, and approximately one mile upriver from Fifth Ward Elementary School and
the residential community of Welcome. 12 This project’s massive air pollution emissions would
vastly add to the significant environmental and health burden that African American
communities in and around St. James already bear from the existing plants. 13 Indeed, Formosa’s
own air modeling confirms what residents already know—the air is already saturated with
pollution. Moreover, the project’s emissions would add to those Louisiana Department of
Environmental Quality (LDEQ) recently approved for the area. These include two new major
petrochemical plants, Yuhuang Chemical Inc.’s YCI Methanol Plant and South Louisiana
Methanol’s St. James Methanol Plant, along with Nucor Steel Louisiana major expansion
project. And there are more new major sources in the permitting stages. In addition to criteria
pollutants and air toxics, this project would produce over 13 million tons of greenhouse gas
emissions annually, making it the second largest greenhouse gas emitter in the state. A decision
to permit such significant greenhouse gas emissions would be irresponsible given this region’s
extreme vulnerability to climate change. As St. James residents told LDEQ at the recent public
hearing, Formosa’s chemical complex would only bring sickness and destroy the local
environment. As proposed, these permits would violate the Clean Air Act and raise serious
public trustee and Title VI concerns.
10
Seven of the top ten census tracts with the highest cancer risk in the nation are located along this
corridor, concentrated around point sources located in St. John the Baptist Parish and St. Charles Parish.
See National Air Toxics Assessment, 2014 NATA: Assessment Results, EPA (last updated Aug. 27, 2018),
https://www.epa.gov/national-air-toxics-assessment/2014-nata-assessment-results#nationwide.
11
The Utility 2 plant will contain two combustion turbines with associated heat recovery steam
generators. The electricity produced by the combustion turbine generators and steam turbine generator
will be used in the process areas. In addition to the cogeneration units, the Utility 2 Plant will use a boiler
to produce steam. The boiler fires natural gas and will be rated at a nominal heat input of 1,200
MMBtu/hr. LDEQ Statement of Basis at 53.
12
See Attach. A, Affidavit of Justin Kray (Kray Aff.), Ex. 1, Map of New & Existing Industrial Facilities
Map (showing Formosa site relative to residential communities); see also Attach. B, Formosa’s Map
showing “Distance to Fifth Ward Elementary School.”
13
See Attach. A, Kray Aff., Ex. 1, Map of New & Existing Industrial Facilities in St. James.
August 12, 2019
Page 7 of 82
For the following reasons, which are detailed further below, LDEQ must deny the proposed
permits:
• Formosa failed to demonstrate that its proposed chemical complex will not “cause or, or
contribute to” air pollution in violation of the Clean Air Act’s Prevention of Significant
Deterioration (PSD) requirements.
• Formosa’s refined air modeling shows clear exceedances of the National Ambient Air
Quality Standards (NAAQS) for PM2.5 24-hour and NO2 1-hour.
• Formosa failed to comply with mandatory air modeling requirements, invalidated its
Class I modeling for the Breton Wilderness Area and violating Louisiana’s regulations
governing estimates of ambient concentrations.
• Formosa’s Class II air quality modeling violates Louisiana regulations and EPA
guidance, resulting in potential underestimated air quality impact analysis.
• Formosa’s failed to get approval for its decision to significantly deviate from its air
modeling protocol.
• Formosa underestimated the potential emissions from its proposed complex.
• The limits established in the proposed PSD permit do not reflect Best Available Control
Technology (BACT).
• LDEQ should have required Lowest Achievable Emission Rate (LAER) standards for
PM2.5 and NOx sources.
• The proposed Title V permits fail to assure compliance with emission limits due to,
among other reasons, failure to require continuous emissions monitoring and adequate
conditions for parametric monitoring.
• Formosa’s parent company has a long and significant history of environmental violations,
calling into serious question Formosa’s ability to comply with the proposed permits.
• Formosa’s Environmental Assessment Statement (EAS) submissions are incorrect in

concluding that LDEQ’s approval of the petrochemical complex, as proposed, would
satisfy the agency’s public trustee duty under Article IX of the Louisiana Constitution.
• Formosa’s EAS fails to include a full assessment of its toxic emissions in combination
with existing sources for the area, which already has an unacceptable cancer risk.
August 12, 2019
Page 8 of 82
• Formosa’s EAS fails to show the real and potential effects of its proposed Ethylene Oxide
emissions, which would be among the top in the U.S.
• Formosa’s EAS fails to include any information about the potential and real adverse
environmental effects of Formosa’s greenhouse gas emissions, nor does it include any
information about the associated costs to society.
• Formosa did not analyze the risk of storm-related chemical releases in its EAS.
• Formosa failed to properly evaluate the extent of its flood risk or to prove that it was
justified in siting a petrochemical complex in a floodplain.
• Formosa provides a lopsided cost-benefits analysis that fails to include environmental

and social costs.
• Adverse impacts from Formosa’s proposed complex would disproportionately impact

communities of color, potentially violating federal civil rights regulations.
CLEAN AIR ACT FRAMEWORK
The Clean Air Act requires EPA to adopt and periodically update National Ambient Air Quality
Standards (“NAAQS”) for certain harmful air pollutants. See 42 U.S.C. § 7409. The NAAQS
protect people’s health by limiting the concentration of each such pollutant allowable in the
ambient air people breathe. Id. § 7409(b). Because of their role within the overall statutory
scheme, the NAAQS are generally considered to be “the engine that drives nearly all of Title I of
the [Clean Air Act].” Whitman v. Am. Trucking Ass'ns, 531 U.S. 457, 468 (2001). To date, the
EPA has promulgated NAAQS for six types of air pollutants. See 40 C.F.R. pt. 50. Achieving
and maintaining attainment with the NAAQS is “central” to the Clean Air Act’s regulatory
scheme. Union Electric Co. v. EPA, 427 U.S. 246, 258 (1976). After setting a NAAQS, EPA
designates areas as “attainment” or “nonattainment” based on whether they meet that standard.
Id. § 7407(d). LDEQ currently classifies St. James Parish as “attainment” for all criteria
pollutants, 14 but Formosa’s modeling concludes that St. James would be in non-attainment for at
least two separate NAAQS if Formosa’s complex, and other permitted facilities in the area, are
built.
I. Prevention of Significant Deterioration and the State Implementation Plan
Every state must develop for EPA approval a state implementation plan (SIP) to ensure that the
NAAQS are achieved and maintained. 42 U.S.C. § 7410(a)(1)-(2), (l). In areas designated
attainment, the Clean Air Act requires the prevention of significant deterioration of air quality.
Id. §§ 7470-7479 (the “PSD provisions”). Clean Air Act regulations command that “each
14
See https://deq.louisiana.gov/page/ambient-air-monitoring-program.
August 12, 2019
Page 9 of 82
applicable State Implementation Plan . . . shall contain emission limitations and such other
measures as may be necessary to prevent significant deterioration of air quality.” 40 C.F.R. §
51.166. The Clean Air Act defines the “significant deterioration” that must be prevented in two
parts. First, new construction or modification of large stationary sources of air pollution (like
Formosa’s chemical complex) must not cause or exacerbate a violation of any NAAQS. Alabama
Power Co. v. Costle, 636 F.2d 323, 362 (D.C. Cir. 1979); see 42 U.S.C. § 7475(a)(3)
(establishing preconstruction review requirements). Second, to ensure air quality does not
degrade significantly, the Act required EPA to set maximum allowable increases in air pollution
levels (“increments”), 42 U.S.C. § 7476; see also id. § 7473 (establishing by statute certain
increments), and required that new construction or modification of such sources of air pollution
also not cause or contribute to a violation of any increment. Alabama Power, 636 F.2d at 362; 42
U.S.C. § 7475(a)(3).
The “principal mechanism” for monitoring compliance with the NAAQS and “the consumption
of allowable increments” is the preconstruction review and permitting process in 42 U.S.C. §
7475. Alabama Power, 636 F.2d at 362. No new or modified “major emitting facility” 15 may be
built in an attainment area unless it receives a preconstruction permit, and any applicant for such
a permit must demonstrate that new emissions from the proposed project “will not cause, or
contribute to,” an exceedance of any NAAQS or any increment. 42 U.S.C. § 7475(a)(3). Through
SIPs, most states, including Louisiana, implement a permit program that requires each new and
modified major stationary source of pollution to seek a pre-construction permit that sets
emissions limitations for that source. 42 U.S.C. § 7410(a)(2)(C). The PSD program requires
states to issue pre-construction permits that impose emissions limitations “necessary ... to
prevent significant deterioration of air quality.” 42 U.S.C. § 7471. A major new or modified
source seeking a PSD permit must certify that it will comply with several requirements,
including the application of best available control technology (“BACT”) for each pollutant
subject to the PSD program, id. § 7475(a)(4), and a “demonstration” that its emissions “will not
cause, or contribute to, air pollution in excess of any ... [NAAQS] in any air quality control
region.” Id. § 7475(a)(3).
II. The Louisiana State Implementation Plan
Louisiana SIP provisions that incorporate the Clean Air Act’s PSD requirements are in Louisiana
Administrative Code (LAC) 33:III.509. 40 C.F.R. § 52.970(c) (identifying EPA approved
regulations in the Louisiana SIP); see also 40 C.F.R. § 52.999(c) and 52.986. Major stationary
sources as defined under LAC 33:III.509.B must meet the state’s PSD requirements under LAC
33:III.509.J-R. LAC 33:III.509.A.2. “No new major stationary source or major modification to
which the requirements of Subsection J-Paragraph R.5 of this Section apply shall begin actual
construction without a permit that states that the major stationary source or major modification
will meet those requirements.” LAC 33:III.509.A.3. Such requirements include, among other
things, the following:
15
Major emitting facilities are those with the potential to emit at least 100 tons per year of any air
pollutant, in certain source categories, or 250 tons per year in any other source category. Id. § 7479(1).
August 12, 2019
Page 10 of 82
(1) Application of “best available control technology [“BACT”] for each regulated NSR
pollutant [i.e., PSD pollutant] that [the source] would have the potential to emit in
significant amounts.” LAC 33:III.509.J.2.
(2) Demonstration by the “owner or operator of the proposed source . . . that allowable
emission increases from the proposed source [], in conjunction with all other
applicable emissions increases or reductions, including secondary emissions, would
not cause or contribute to air pollution in violation of: a. any national ambient air
quality standard in any air quality control region; or b. any applicable maximum
allowable increase over the baseline concentration in any area.” LAC 33:III.509.K.1.
(3) A “preliminary determination [by LDEQ] whether construction should be approved,

approved with conditions, or disapproved.” LAC 33:III.509.Q.1.
(4) Public availability “of all materials the applicant submitted, a copy of the preliminary
determination, and a copy or summary of other materials, if any, considered in
making the preliminary determination,” along with public notice, public comment,
and an opportunity for a public hearing. LAC 33:III.509.Q.2.b-c.
III. Title V
The Clean Air Act requires each state to develop and submit to EPA an operating permit
program intended to meet the requirements of Title V of the Act. 42 U.S C. § 7661a(d)(l). The
state of Louisiana submitted a title V program governing the issuance of operating permits on
November 15, 1993, and revised this program on November I 0, 1994. 40 C.F.R. part 70,
Appendix A. The EPA granted full approval to Louisiana’s title V operating permits program in
1995. 60 Fed. Reg. 47296 (September 12, 1995); 40 C.F.R. part 70, Appendix A. This program,
which became effective on October 12, 1995, is codified in LAC, Title 33, Part III, Chapter 5.
All major stationary sources of air pollution and certain other sources are required to apply for
Title V operating permits that include emission limitations and other conditions as necessary to
assure compliance with applicable requirements of the CAA, including the requirements of the
applicable state implementation plan (SIP). CAA §§ 502(a) and 504(a), 42 U.S.C. §§ 7661a(a)
and 7661c(a); see also LAC 33:III.507.C.2. Title V permits are the primary method for enforcing
and assuring compliance with the Clean Air Act’s pollution control requirements for major
sources of air pollution. Operating Permit Program, 57 Fed. Reg. 32,250, 32,258 (July 21,
1992). Each Title V permit must list all applicable federally-enforceable requirements and
contain enough information to determine how applicable requirements apply to units at the
permitted source. The Clean Air Act makes clear that Title V permits must “include enforceable
emission limitations and standards . . . and such other conditions as are necessary to assure
compliance with applicable requirements of [the Clean Air Act and applicable State
Implementation Plan (“SIP”)].” 42 U.S.C. § 7661c(a) (emphasis added); see also Sierra Club v.
August 12, 2019
Page 11 of 82
EPA, 536 F.3d 673 (D.C. Cir. 2008). The Title V operating permit program does not generally
impose new substantive air quality control requirements, but does require permits to contain
monitoring, recordkeeping, reporting, and other requirements to assure compliance by sources
with existing applicable emission control requirements. 57 Fed. Reg. 32250, 32251 (July 21,
1992) (EPA final action promulgating the Part 70 rule). The part 70 regulations contain
monitoring rules designed to satisfy this statutory requirement.
As a general matter, permitting authorities must take three steps to satisfy the monitoring
requirements in the EPA's part 70 regulations. First, a permitting authority must ensure that
monitoring requirements contained in applicable requirements are properly incorporated into the
title V permit. 40 CFR 70.6(a)(3) (i)(A). Second, if the applicable requirements contain no
periodic monitoring, permitting authorities must add monitoring “sufficient to yield reliable data
from the relevant time period that are representative of the source's compliance with the permit.”
40 CFR 70.6(a)(3)(i)(B). Third, if the applicable requirement has associated periodic monitoring
but the monitoring is not sufficient to assure compliance with permit terms and conditions, a
permitting authority must supplement monitoring to assure compliance. See 40 CFR 70.6(c)(1).
The regulations make clear that the term “applicable requirement” is very broad and includes,
among other things, “[a]ny term or condition of any preconstruction permit” or “[a]ny standard
or other requirement provided for in the applicable implementation plan approved or
promulgated by EPA through rulemaking under title I of the [Clean Air] Act.” 40 C.F.R. § 70.2;
see also LAC 33:III.507.A.3 (“Any permit issued under the requirements of this Section shall
incorporate all federally applicable requirements for each emissions unit at the source.”). Indeed,
“applicable requirements” includes the duty to obtain a construction permit that meets the
requirements of the Act’s Prevention of Significant Deterioration (“PSD”) program. See 42
U.S.C. § 7475. Thus, Title V permits must incorporate the terms and conditions of the PSD
permit because they are applicable requirements.
DETAILED COMMENTS
I. FORMOSA FAILED TO COMPLY WITH AIR QUALITY IMPACT

REQUIMENTS.
A. Formosa Failed to Demonstrate That its Proposed Complex Will Not Cause
or Contribute to Air Pollution, in Violation of PSD Requirements.
Formosa’s refined modeling for F shows exceedances of the NAAQS. Statement of Basis, p. 65,
EDMS 11687336. That is, the PM2.5 24-hour maximum modeled concentration, plus
background, is 51.66 μg/m3, which exceeds the NAAQS limit of 35 μg/m3. Id. In addition, the
NO2 1-hour maximum modeled concentration, plus background, is 422.53 μg/m3, which vastly
exceeds the NAAQS limit of 189 μg/m3. Id. at 66. Further, Formosa’s refined modeling for PM2.5
24-hour shows increment consumption at receptor locations. Id. This modeling therefore shows
clear exceedances of the NAAQS, along with increment consumption.
August 12, 2019
Page 12 of 82
Formosa, attempting to avoid the plain result of these modeled violations—Nonattainment New
Source Review permitting—utilized an extralegal method set out in LDEQ’s Air Quality
Monitoring Procedures (AQMP) to purportedly demonstrate compliance. LDEQ AQMP, p. 2-5.
Specifically, the AQMP provides that “if the maximum contribution from the proposed project is
less than the significance level at the receptor(s) and time(s) of the potential exceedance(s), the
proposed project will not cause nor significantly contribute to the potential NAAQS
exceedance(s).” LDEQ AQMP, p. 2-6. Formosa determined that its contribution to the
exceedances of the NAAQS and Class II increment were below the relevant Significant Impact
Levels (SILs) and that its complex therefore was in compliance. Statement of Basis, p. 65–66. 16
The Clean Air Act unambiguously prohibits Formosa’s use of SILs. The Act’s and Louisiana’s
PSD provisions require Formosa to demonstrate that the emissions from its proposed complex
will “not cause, or contribute to” an exceedance of any NAAQS or any increment. See 42 U.S.C.
§ 7475(a)(3); LAC 33:III.509.K.1. Congress used mandatory and expansive language throughout
§ 7475(a) to make its directive clear and leave no gaps for EPA or LDEQ: “no” covered source
may be constructed, “unless” that source “demonstrates” that it “will not” “cause, or contribute
to,” “any” violation of the NAAQS or “any” increment. 42 U.S.C. § 7475(a)(3); see Consumer
Electronics Ass’n v. FCC, 347 F.3d 291, 298 (D.C. Cir. 2003) (“the Supreme Court has
consistently instructed that statutes written in broad, sweeping language should be given broad,
sweeping application.”). Congress specifically used the terms “cause” and “contribute” together
to ensure the PSD program would prevent increments and the NAAQS from being exceeded by
considering all possible violations or contributions to violations. Alabama Power Co. v. Costle,
636 F.2d 323, 362 (D.C. Cir. 1979); H.R. Rep. No. 95-294, at 9; S. Rep. No. 95-127, at 11, 32
(1977). By including “or contribute to,” Congress unambiguously covered any triggering or
worsening of a NAAQS or increment violation. See North Carolina v. EPA, 531 F.3d 896, 910
(D.C. Cir. 2008) (where statute uses disjunctive “or” to connect terms, terms have different
meaning). Within the plain meaning of the Clean Air Act, Formosa has shown that its facility
will contribute to NAAQS violations and exceedance of a Class II increment.
This result also is consistent with the purpose and broader structure of the PSD program. The
“emphatic goal of PSD is to prevent [increments] from being exceeded,” as well as to prevent
exceedances of NAAQS. Alabama Power, 636 F.2d at 362 (“On their face, these provisions
establish the thresholds as limitations that are not to be exceeded ….”); Sierra Club v. EPA, 705
F.3d 458, 465 (D.C. Cir. 2013) (permitting authorities must “prevent violations by requiring
demonstration that a proposed source or modification will not cause [or contribute to] a
16
Specifically, Formosa completed additional modeling to “show [Formosa’s] NO2 contribution to the
maximum modeling concentration to be 0.019 μg/m3 which is below the 7.5 SIL and the PM2.5
contribution to the maximum modeling concentration is 0.052 μg/m3 which is below the 1.2 μg/m3 SIL.”
Statement of Basis, p. 65. Also following this extralegal method, Formosa completed additional modeling
to purportedly demonstrate that the proposed emissions from its proposed chemical complex do not cause
or contribute to the modeled increment consumption at the receptor locations that showed increment
consumption. “The results show [Formosa’s] PM2.5 contribution to the maximum modeled PM2.5
Increment [] is 0.00163 μg/m3 which is below the 1.2 μg/m3 SIL.” Statement of Basis, p. 66.
August 12, 2019
Page 13 of 82
violation.”); see also 42 U.S.C. § 7473(b)(4) (defining “maximum allowable concentration” for
pollutant as being no greater than NAAQS for that pollutant); See also H.R. Rep. No. 95-294, at
9 (1977), reprinted at 1977 U.S.C.C.A.N. 1077, 1087 (“The purpose of the permit is to assure
that the allowable increments and [NAAQS] will not be exceeded as a result of emissions from
any new or modified major stationary source.”). By allowing Formosa nonetheless to use SILs to
avoid the consequences of those violations, LDEQ would be authorizing rather than preventing
significant deterioration.
Formosa’s proposed use of the SILs also is illegal under the Clean Air Act, because it improperly
allows the agency to wear blinders, focusing only on Formosa’s compliance with the SIL, rather
than the quality of the area’s ambient air and any other impacts projected to occur, such as the
construction of other sources. By ignoring this information, LDEQ impermissibly frees itself to
issue permits to sources that will in fact violate the standards or increments—in fact, LDEQ
could continue to issue these permits to new sources in the same area, one after the other, that
each model NAAQS and Class II exceedances but individually contribute less than the SIL.
Finally, the illegality of the SILs is consistent with recent case law. The D.C. Circuit vacated
EPA’s regulations establishing PM2.5 significant monitoring concentrations, which are closely
analogous exemptions from statutory air monitoring, on the ground that they violate the
“extraordinary rigid” language of the Clean Air Act on PSD preconstruction monitoring. See
Sierra Club v. E.P.A., 705 F.3d 458, 466 (D.C. Cir. 2013). The Court remanded the PM2.5 SIL,
without reaching the same issue of whether the SILs are in violation of the Act’s language on
procedural grounds. Id. at 464, 466. 17 But as explained above, Section 7475 leaves no room for
doubt. Neither Formosa nor any other major source that causes or contributes to a violation of
the NAAQS or an increment can absolve itself of the violation.
Formosa attempts to defend LDEQ’s method of using SILs to demonstrate that the proposed
project does not cause or contribute to an exceedance of the NAAQS as an EPA-approved
practice. See Formosa Supp. EAS, pp. 5-6 (referencing an EPA April 17, 2018 memo). But, as
explained, EPA’s practice is likewise illegal. EPA cannot authorize a violation of the NAAQS,
and indeed any such attempt runs counter to the Act’s clear mandate that EPA set the NAAQS at
17
The D.C. Circuit left open the possibility it could invalidate the SILs as unlawful under the Clean Air
Act, just like significant monitoring concentrations, should the EPA persist in proposing them:
We disagree with the Sierra Club that it is necessary to decide the EPA’s authority to
promulgate SILs at this point. To do so would require that we answer a question not
prudentially ripe for determination. On remand the EPA may promulgate regulations that
do not include SILs or do include SILs that do not allow the construction or modification
of a source to evade the requirements of the Act as do the SILs in the current rule. In such
an event, we would not need to address the universal disallowance of all de minimis
authority. If the EPA promulgates new SIL provisions for PM2.5 and those provisions are
challenged, we can then consider the lawfulness of those SIL provisions.
Sierra Club, 705 F.3d at 464.
August 12, 2019
Page 14 of 82
a level that is “requisite to protect the public health,” with “an adequate margin of safety.” 42
U.S.C. § 7409(b)(1).18 The Supreme Court has construed this mandate as requiring the NAAQS
to be set at levels “not lower or higher than is necessary – to protect the public health with an
adequate margin of safety.” Whitman v. Am. Trucking Ass’ns, 531 U.S. 457, 475-76 (2001).
Because by law the NAAQS must already reflect the absolute pollution limit requisite to protect
health, EPA cannot specify that pollution levels higher than the NAAQS are permissible.
Formosa has not demonstrated that its PM2.5 emissions will “not cause, or contribute to” an
exceedance of the PM2.5 24-hour NAAQS or increment, nor has it demonstrated that its NOX
emissions will “not cause, or contribute to” an exceedance of the NO2 1-hour NAAQS. Instead,
its modeling shows NAAQS and increment violations. LDEQ must not kick the can down the
road through its extralegal grafting of the SILs and let Formosa off the hook. LDEQ must
address the NAAQS and increment violations based on Formosa’s modeling and examine the
regional sources.
B. Formosa Failed to Follow Mandatory Modeling Requirements, thus
Invalidating its Air Quality Analysis.
Louisiana SIP regulations require Formosa to demonstrate that emissions from the proposed
complex will not cause or contribute to an exceedance of any applicable PSD increment. See
LAC 33:III.509.K. 19 This includes a demonstration that emissions from the proposed complex
will not cause or contribute to an exceedance of applicable Class I PSD Increments for NO2,
SO2, PM10, and PM2.5 at the Breton Wilderness Class I Area. To make this demonstration, the
regulations mandate that “[a]ll estimates of ambient concentrations required under this
Subsection [i.e., LAC 33:III.509, Prevention of Significant Deterioration] shall be based on
applicable air quality models, databases, and other requirements specified in Appendix W of 40
CFR Part 51 (Guideline on Air Quality Models).” LAC 33:III.509.L.1. There is no question,
18
Attempting to inject ambiguity into the statute, EPA now argues § 7475(a)(3) is ambiguous because the
Act does not define the terms “cause” or “contribute.” EPA, Legal Memorandum: Application of
Significant Impact Levels in the Air Quality Demonstration for Prevention of Significant Deterioration
Permitting under the Clean Air Act, 2 (Apr. 2018). But EPA undermines itself, for it also recognizes that
“absence of a statutory definition does not by itself establish that a term is ambiguous.” Id.; NRDC v.
EPA, 489 F.3d 1250, 1258 (D.C. Cir. 2007) (rejecting the argument from EPA that “Congress’s failure to
provide a statutory definition” created ambiguity, and holding “[t]here is no such rule of law”).
19
K. Source Impact Analysis
1. The owner or operator of the proposed source or modification shall demonstrate that
allowable emission increases from the proposed source or modification, in conjunction with all
other applicable emissions increases or reductions, including secondary emissions, would not
cause or contribute to air pollution in violation of:
a. any national ambient air quality standard in any air quality control region; or
b. any applicable maximum allowable increase over the baseline concentration in
any area.
August 12, 2019
Page 15 of 82
therefore, that Formosa was required to follow Appendix W requirements for its modeling, but it
failed to do so.
The Breton Wilderness Class I area is approximately 180 kilometers away from Formosa’s
proposed chemical complex. Formosa Class I Modeling Protocol, Sept. 7, 2018, at 1. Appendix
W mandates the “screening approach” “[t]o determine if a compliance demonstration for
NAAQS and/or PSD increments may be necessary beyond 50 km (i.e., long-range transport
assessment).” 40 C.F.R. § Pt. 51, App. W, 4.2.c. The mandated screening approach has two
steps. First, Formosa must “determine the significance of the ambient impacts at or about 50 km
from [the proposed chemical complex]” “[b]ased on application in the near-field of the
appropriate screening and/or preferred model.” 40 C.F.R. § Pt. 51, App. W, 4.2.c.i. Formosa
stipulated to a significant ambient impact on the Class I area at 50 km. 20
Step 2 requires further assessment “[i]f a near-field assessment is not available or this initial
analysis indicates there may be significant ambient impacts at that distance ….” Id. This step 2
assessment required Formosa to consult with EPA Region 6 to determine the appropriate
model. 21 Appendix W specifically mandates that “applicants shall reach agreement on the
specific model and modeling parameters on a case-by-case basis in consultation with the
appropriate reviewing authority (paragraph 3.0(b)) and EPA Regional Office. 40 C.F.R. § Pt. 51,
App. W, 4.2.c.ii (emphasis added). Formosa skipped this requirement. It never consulted with
EPA “to reach agreement on the specific model and modeling parameters,” to use. 22 See id.
Formosa’s error was particularly egregious here. EPA made certain to emphasize that the air
quality model that Formosa used, the CALPUFF modeling system, was no longer EPA’s
20
See Email from K. Olson (Formosa Consultant) to A. Randall (LDEQ), Dec. 11, 2018, EDMS
11454853, http://edms.deq.louisiana.gov/app/doc/view.aspx?doc=11454853&ob=yes&child=yes.
21
40 C.F.R. § Pt. 51, App. W, 4.2.c.ii.
22
Commenters submitted a Freedom of Information (FOIA) request to EPA for “all records in the
possession, custody, or control of EPA Region 6 that refer or relate to FG LA, LLC’s modeling protocol
and consultation in connection with its Prevention of Significant Deterioration permit application and
associated Class I increment modeling for its planned Chemical Complex in St. James, Louisiana.” FOIA
Request, July 3, 2019, EPA-R6-2019-00783,
https://foiaonline.gov/foiaonline/action/public/submissionDetails?trackingNumber=EPA-R6-2019-
007083&type=request. EPA responded on July 18, 2019. Attach. C, Affidavit of Corinne Van Dalen, Ex.
1, Letter from Susanne Andrews, Acting Deputy Region Counsel to Corinee [sic] Van Dalen, July 18,
2018 (EPA final deposition for EPA-R6-2019-007083 showing no documents were withheld)). EPA
released records to the public on July 19, 2019. See FOIA Online,
https://foiaonline.gov/foiaonline/action/public/submissionDetails?trackingNumber=EPA-R6-2019-
007083&type=request. These records are completely devoid of any document showing that Region 6 was
“consulted in determining the appropriate and agreed upon screening technique to conduct the second
level assessment.” Id. Likewise, EPA has no record that shows that Formosa “reach[ed] agreement on the
specific model and modeling parameters on a case-by-case basis in consultation with the . . . EPA
Regional Office,” as mandated by Appendix W. 40 C.F.R. § Pt. 51, App. W, 4.2.c.ii. Id.
August 12, 2019
Page 16 of 82
preferred model when it amended Appendix W in 2017. See 40 C.F.R. § Pt. 51, App. W, 4.2.c,
App. A; Revisions to the Guideline on Air Quality Models: Enhancements to the AERMOD
Dispersion Modeling System and Incorporation of Approaches to Address Ozone and Fine
Particulate Matter, 82 FR 5182-01 (final rule) (Jan. 17, 2017). 23, 24 In revising Appendix W, EPA
stated that “EPA has fully documented the past and current concerns related to the regulatory use
of the CALPUFF modeling system and believes that these concerns, including the well-
documented scientific and technical issues with the modeling system, support the EPA’s decision
to remove it as a preferred model in appendix A of the Guideline.” 82 Fed. Reg. at 5195. EPA
referenced years of studies on the CALPUFF modeling system that raise piercing questions
about the model’s reliability. 25
The Interagency Workgroup on Air Quality Monitoring (the “Workgroup”), which includes EPA
and Federal Land Manager representatives, has studied the CALPUFF modeling system since at
least 1998.26 In a 2016 report, the Workgroup cited its own studies and outside reviews showing
the ease with which modelers could manipulate the meteorological data component of the
CALPUFF model, CALMET, that “has often resulted in an ‘anything goes’ process, whereby
model control option selection can be leveraged as an instrument to achieve a desired modeled
outcome, without regard to the scientific legitimacy of the options selected.” 27 Beyond the
inconsistencies in meteorological data, the Workgroup explained that studies show CALPUFF
fails to analyze the core chemical reactions necessary to accurately predict ozone formation from
single sources. 28
23
https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2017-01-17/pdf/FR-2017-01-17.pdf.
24
EPA’s revisions to Appendix W took effect May 22, 2017. Further Delay of Effective Dates for Five
Final Regulations Published by the Environmental Protection Agency Between December 12, 2016 and
January 17, 2017, 82 FR 14324-01 (Mar. 20, 2017). EPA gave permitting agencies discretion to continue
to accept modeling protocols submitted in keeping with the old rule for one year, until May 22, 2018, id.
at 5182, but Formosa submitted the instant protocol in September 2018, see Formosa Class I Modeling
Protocol, Sept. 7, 2018, EDMS 11776548,
https://edms.deq.louisiana.gov/app/doc/view.aspx?doc=11776548&ob=yes&child=yes.
25
See EPA, Resp. to Comments on Revisions to the Guidelines on Air Quality Models, Dkt No. EPA-
HQ-OAR-2015-0310-0156, p. 69 (Dec. 20, 2016), available at
https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0310-0156.
26
EPA, “Reassessment of the Interagency Workgroup on Air Quality Modeling (IWAQM) Phase 2
Summary Report: Revisions to Phase 2 Recommendations,” EPA-454/R-16-007, at p. iv (Dec. 2016),
available at
https://www3.epa.gov/ttn/scram/appendix_w/2016/IWAQM_Phase2_Reassessment_2016.pdf.
27
Id. at p. 2.
28
Id. at p. 42.
August 12, 2019
Page 17 of 82
All of these issues can lead to model predictions that are off target. In 2012, EPA commissioned
a detailed study of CALPUFF’s predictive accuracy, along with that of competing models,
against data from field observation studies of emissions tracers taken in the United States and in
Europe.29 This study also concluded that the CALPUFF model results were highly variable and
CALMET parameters were in practice vulnerable to manipulation “to obtain a desired outcome
in CALPUFF.” 30 The study also found there was no single set of “pass through” CALMET
inputs that would ensure consistency and fully address CALPUFF’s variability concerns. 31
Moreover, several other long-range-transport models proved more accurate in predicting tracer
data than CALPUFF. 32 As the study noted in reviewing one European tracer analysis, all of the
other “[f]our of the five [long-range-transport-assessment] models were able to reproduce the
observed tracer bifurcation at the farther downwind distances,” but, even after the researchers
explored ways to manipulate the model, CALPUFF produced results that showed the plume
traveling too far north. 33
The revised Appendix W requires case-by-case consultation with EPA to avoid these
documented concerns with the CALPUFF modeling system. These concerns warrant particular
scrutiny by EPA here because of the high volumes of relevant criteria pollutants Formosa would
be permitted to release, in conjunction with the emissions from several other large major sources
of air pollutants that have been proposed to be built in or near the Breton Wilderness’s air shed.
Because Formosa failed to comply with the mandatory air modeling requirements in Appendix
W, Formosa invalidated its Class I modeling and violated Louisiana Air Regulations and SIP
provision governing estimates of ambient concentrations under LAC 33:III.509.L.1. Formosa,
thus, failed to demonstrate that its proposed chemical complex will not cause or contribute to an
exceedance of any Class I PSD increment as required by LAC 33:III.509.K. LDEQ must
withdraw its approval of Formosa’s Class I air modeling protocol and order Formosa to engage
in consultation with EPA Region 6 and LDEQ to determine an “appropriate and agreed-upon”
long-range-transport modeling protocol. See 40 C.F.R. Part 51, App’x W, 4.2.c.ii. Formosa must
then submit the new modeling protocol for approval and public comment.
29
See Environ Int’l., “Documentation of the Evaluation of CALPUFF and Other Long Range Transport
Models Using Tracer Field Experiment Data,” EPA-454/R-12-003, at pp. 5–7 (Introduction) (May 2012),
available at https://www3.epa.gov/ttn/scram/reports/EPA-454_R-12-003.pdf.
30
Environ Int’l, supra, at p. 29–30 (Executive Summary, “Conclusions of LRT Dispersion Model Tracer
Test Evaluation.”)
31
Id.
32
Id. at 31 (Executive Summary, “Conclusions of LRT Dispersion Model Tracer Test Evaluation.”), 141
(Conclusions).
33
Id. at 141.
August 12, 2019
Page 18 of 82
Moreover, because Formosa failed to comply with modeling requirements it has no basis for its
claim that it has minimized air quality effects by complying with applicable regulations. See
Formosa EAS, July 18, 2018, p. 8, EDMS 112230529.
C. Formosa’s Class II Air Quality Modeling violates Louisiana Regulations,

EPA Guidance, and Deviates from Formosa’s own Modeling Protocol in
ways that Could Underestimate its Criteria Pollutants.
As explained by Commenters’ air quality modeling expert, Todd Cloud, Formosa violates
applicable regulations and guidance in its NAAQs and Class II increment modeling. 34 The result
of these errors is that Formosa could have significantly understated its modeled air quality
impacts and exceedances of air quality standards. DEQ must require Formosa to submit a revised
NAAQs and Class II increment modeling protocol.
Most broadly, Formosa improperly submitted NAAQs and Class II increment modeling starting
at the edge of its property line, rather than above the complex itself. This is inconsistent with
Louisiana regulations that do not make any exception from the definition of “ambient air,” for
portions of the source’s property. 35 Formosa’s decision almost certainly reduced modeled
pollution concentrations. 36
Although Formosa’s exclusion of its property from the modeling was not allowed under state
law, Formosa did not even follow EPA’s more permissive guidance that would allow “ambient
air” to “begin[] at a fence line (i.e., controlled access) and not a property line” that is unpatrolled
or ungated.37 Without justification, Formosa placed its receptor grids at its more distant, property
line boundaries that likely will not be enclosed from public access. 38 This unjustified decision to
extend outward the point at which Formosa begins to measure its air quality impacts very likely
served to decrease the modeled concentrations detected for all criteria pollutants. LDEQ must
therefore require Formosa to remodel the NAAQs and Class II increment from the source of
emissions without excluding air above its facility.
Formosa’s Class II increment modelling of PM10 and PM2.5 violates applicable regulations both
in Formosa’s estimates of the available increment and its own increment consumption. This is
34
See Attach. D, Affidavit of Todd Cloud (Cloud Aff.), Ex. 2, pp. 3–10.
35
LAC 33:III.111 (defining “ambient air” to mean, “the outdoor air or atmosphere which surrounds the
earth”).
36
See id. at 3.
37
Id. at 3; see generally, Draft Guidance: Revised Policy On Exclusions from “Ambient Air,” USEPA
(November 2018), https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2018-
11/documents/draft_ambient_air_guidance_110818.pdf
38
Attach. D, Cloud Aff., Ex. 2, p. 3.
August 12, 2019
Page 19 of 82
particularly egregious because, even with these errors, Formosa modeled that it would exceed the
allowable Class II increment for the 24-hour PM2.5 standard.
For one, it is unclear whether Formosa accurately estimated its own PM2.5 emissions in the
model. In addition to the many potential inaccuracies in Formosa’s PM emissions calculations
discussed in the expert report of Dr. Ranajit Sahu, 39 Formosa provided no justification for its
speciation of PM2.5 emissions as a percentage of its PM10 emissions. 40 In some cases, Formosa
projected PM2.5 emissions at less than 20 percent of its PM10 emissions, even for combustion
sources for which “PM10 and PM2.5 are generally equivalent.” 41 The result is that Formosa may
have further “drastically underestimate[d] emissions and therefore ambient impacts.” 42 LDEQ
must therefore require Formosa to provide detailed support for its PM2.5 estimates or re-model
with higher projected PM2.5 emissions.
Formosa also failed to adhere to applicable regulations in calculating the PM10 and PM2.5
increments consumed by other regional sources. Under 40 C.F.R. Part 51, Appendix W, Section
8.2.2, 43 Formosa was required to model “potential” emissions based on each source’s maximum
permitted emission limit or “actual” emissions” calculated using the specific formula that
multiplies the maximum allowable emission limit (or federally enforceable permit limit) times
the actual operating level and actual operating factor, both of which represent the average over
the most recent 2 years. Indeed, Formosa committed in its 2015 and 2018 modeling protocols to
LDEQ that it would do just that, and gather off-property source emissions data based on “permit
allowable emission rates.”44
Instead of following the agreed protocol, Formosa provided historical, 2016 PM emissions for
several large regional sources, including every PM2.5 source. 45 There is no evidence in the record
that LDEQ knew or ever approved of Formosa’s decision to deviate from the method in
Appendix W and to rely on historic emissions for other sources, let alone approved the change in
39
Attach. E, Affidavit of Ranajit Sahu (Sahu Aff.), Ex. 1, Technical Comments on the Proposed FG LA
Complex (Sahu Report).
40
Attach. D, Cloud Aff., Ex. 2, 7.
41
Id.
42
Id.
43
33 La. Admin. Code Pt III, 509(L), provides that “[a]ll estimates of ambient concentrations required
under this Subsection shall be based on applicable air quality models, databases, and other requirements
specified in Appendix W of 40 CFR Part 51 (Guideline on Air Quality Models).” Any deviation from
Appendix W standards must be approved in writing by the state administrator and the modification must
be subject to notice and opportunity for public comment. Id.
44
Id. at 5.
45
Id. at 4.
August 12, 2019
Page 20 of 82
writing. 46 Formosa also failed to document its method for determining which regional sources to
include in the increment analysis for PM2.5, 47 leading to a concern that Formosa’s modeling of
the increment could be under inclusive. Once again, this likely served to substantially understate
existing PM10 and PM2.5 emissions. This also violated Formosa’s obligation to obtain LDEQ
approval for its modeling protocol. LDEQ must therefore require Formosa to create a
documented inventory of other sources included in the Class II increment model. After
completing supplemental modeling, Formosa must then be held to account for any NAAQs or
Class II increment violations revealed.
II. FORMOSA PERVASIVELY UNDERESTIMATES ITS POTENTIAL TO EMIT.
As documented at length in Section 3 of Dr. Sahu’s expert report, Formosa’s permit applications
rely routinely on underestimated, and often inappropriate, emissions factors for assessing the
petrochemical complex’s potential to emit (“PTE”). 48 Accurate PTE estimates are critical for
determining the complex’s overall emissions profile and impacts on ambient air quality. As Dr.
Sahu concluded, “[t]aken as a whole, the PTE emissions estimates provided in the permitting
record underestimate PTE emissions for every single pollutant, and as a result, the impact of the
facility’s emissions are also underestimated.” 49 LDEQ must order Formosa to revise its PTE
calculations with fully supported, more accurate representations of each source’s maximum
potential emissions.
The likely inaccurate PTE estimates are consequential, because they call into question whether
Formosa complies with the health-based NAAQS and Class II increments. 50 As described in
Section I, Formosa has already modelled that St. James would be in nonattainment, by wide
margins, for the 1-hour NOX (NO2) and 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS standards and nearly exceeds the
PM2.5 annual standard. 51 Formosa’s modeling already shows that its complex would consume the
Class II increment for 24-hour PM2.5 and nearly consume the increment for annual NO2. 52
Formosa only narrowly avoided conducting refined modelling of its 1-hour SO2 emissions. 53 The
46
See LAC 33:III.509.L.
47
Attach. D, Cloud Aff., Ex. 2, 7.
48
See Attach. E, Sahu Aff., Ex. 1, Sahu Report, pp. 9–42.
49
Id. at 9.
50
The distortionary impact of the inaccurate PTE figures discussed here is likely magnified by other
errors in Formosa’s air quality modeling, outlined in the report of Todd Cloud (Attach. D, Ex. 2) and in
Section I above.
51
Attach E, Sahu Aff., Ex. 1, Sahu Report at 7.
52
Id.
53
Id. at 5.
August 12, 2019
Page 21 of 82
pervasive underestimates in Formosa’s PTE calculations may well outstrip what, if any, margin
for error Formosa has left from violating these or other NAAQS standards. 54 Air quality and
public health in St. James may be even more clearly at risk than Formosa’s modeling presently
reveals. Because of the lack of rigor in the Title V permits’ monitoring conditions, described in
Section V and Dr. Sahu’s expert report, Formosa regularly could emit more pollution than its
permit limits allow without LDEQ or the public knowing.
The problems with Formosa’s PTE estimates fall into several categories. First, PTE is required to
be determined based on the “maximum capacity of a stationary source to emit any air pollutant
under its physical and operational design.” 55 But Formosa repeatedly looked to the AP-42
emissions factors to produce its PTE estimates, which are not based on maximum but, at best,
average emissions from a source category. 56 Indeed, EPA counsels against using AP-42
emissions factors in permitting determinations except as a “last resort,” when better information
is unavailable. 57 In particular, EPA cautions against using AP-42 factors in situations in which
the consequences for a poor estimate may be high. 58 State environmental agencies have echoed
EPA’s warnings against using AP-42 factors in permitting. 59
54
Id. at 7–8.
55
LAC 33:III.502 (emphasis added); see United States v. Louisiana.-Pacific Corp., 682 F. Supp. 1141,
1158 (D. Colo. 1988) (“The concept contemplates the maximum emissions that can be generated while
operating the source as it is intended to be operated and as it is normally operated.”).
56
Attach E, Sahu Aff., Ex. 1, Sahu Report at 10–11; see AP-42 Manual, Fifth Ed., Introduction, pp. 1–2
(Jan. 1995) (“In most cases, these factors are simply averages of all available data of acceptable
quality.”), available at https://www.epa.gov/air-emissions-factors-and-quantification/ap-42-compilation-
air-emissions-factors.
57
AP-42 Manual, Introduction, supra, at p. 3. For example, EPA warns:
Before simply applying AP-42 emission factors to predict emissions from new or
proposed sources, or to make other source-specific emission assessments, the user should
review the latest literature and technology to be aware of circumstances that might cause
such sources to exhibit emission characteristics different from those of other, typical
existing sources. Care should be taken to assure that the subject source type and design,
controls, and raw material input are those of the source(s) analyzed to produce the
emission factor. This fact should be considered, as well as the age of the information and
the user's knowledge of technology advances.
Id. at 4.
58
AP-42 Manual, Introduction, supra, at p. 3.
59
See, e.g., NJ DEP Memorandum from John Preczewski, P.E., Assistant Director of Air Quality
Permitting Program, to Air Quality Permitting Staff 1 (Dec. 14, 2007) (“Use of emissions factors, AP-42
and others, can be problematic and permit applicants may only use them in the absence of other reliable
methods.”), available at
http://www.state.nj.us/dep/aqpp/permitguide/GuidelinesEvalPropEmissRates.pdf.
August 12, 2019
Page 22 of 82
Because the AP-42 emission factors reflect average emissions rates, Formosa is likely
underestimating PTE for nearly every source in which it relies on AP-42 emissions factors, in
violation of Louisiana air regulations and EPA guidance. Formosa also made this same error
even for some sources that do not rely on AP-42 factors, like its fugitive VOC emissions
estimates that are based on EPA data explicitly listed as averages. 60 LDEQ must require Formosa
to modify all PTE estimates that rely on AP-42 factors, or average emissions rates, and instead
provide well-supported, more accurate estimates of a source’s maximum potential emissions.
Formosa further compounded the error of relying on AP-42 factors by often using inapposite AP-
42 factors or relying on low-confidence AP-42 data, without justifying these decisions. For
example, rather than applying the high end of AP-42 emissions rate testing data for NOX from
flares, 0.2 lb./MMBtu, Formosa used an emissions factor one-third as high, 0.068 lb./MMBtu. 61
To make matters worse, the testing data from which this factor was derived was from burning a
nearly pure propylene gas—in contrast to Formosa’s own report of its waste gas streams, which
it believes will contain far lower concentrations of propylene and, often, higher concentrations of
NOx-forming nitrogen. 62 Formosa repeated this error in the emissions factors it used for its
combustion control devices, like its thermal oxidizers. 63 In other words, at times, Formosa is not
just inappropriately relying on average, AP-42 factors, but is stretching to make apples-to-
oranges comparisons between those factors and its own emissions sources.
In addition, AP-42 factors are ranked from A (the best) to E (the worst), based on the reliability
of the data used to create them. 64 EPA warns that test data informing some emissions factors in
the AP-42: “may vary by an order of magnitude or more. . . . Even when the major process
variables are accounted for, the emission factors developed may be the result of averaging source
tests that differ by factors of five or more.”65
Formosa relied on D-rated factors in estimating particulate matter emissions from natural-gas
combustion. 66 D-rated sources are “below average,” in that “there may be reason to suspect that
these facilities do not represent a random sample of the industry.” 67 By contrast, Formosa
60
Attach E, Sahu Aff., Ex. 1, Sahu Report, p. 30.
61
Id. at 21–22.
62
Id.
63
Id. at 22–23.
64
AP-42 Manual, Introduction, supra, at pp. 8–10.
65
AP-42 Manual, Introduction, supra, at p. 3.
66
Attach E, Sahu Aff., Ex. 1, Sahu Report, p. 14.
67
AP-42 Manual, Introduction, supra, p 10.
August 12, 2019
Page 23 of 82
rejected using D- or E-rated AP-42 data for hazardous air pollutants from natural-gas
combustion. 68 But rather than project emissions of these pollutants, using other, more reliable
data sources, Formosa simply omitted the pollutants altogether.69 And these hazardous air
pollutants comprised the large majority of HAPs from natural-gas combustion. 70 This is
particularly concerning given the significant amounts of air toxics Formosa is already projecting
it will release and the vast quantities of natural gas it would burn in its process. LDEQ must
order Formosa to develop an accurate inventory of its maximum potential emissions from each
source, looking to references beyond the AP-42 where necessary.
Finally, in some cases Formosa provided no basis at all for its emissions assumptions. For
instance, Formosa assumed that each of its flares would have relatively high destruction
efficiencies of 98 or 99 percent, regardless of the flare type, the waste gas composition, or the
flow rate to the flare. 71 But Formosa cited no active guidance justifying this decision, particularly
since a flare’s actual destruction efficiency is heavily dependent on operating conditions. 72 Even
small differences in real-world flare efficiency could have enormous consequences for actual
emissions of hazardous and criteria pollutants from the flares, particularly in high-flow-rate
scenarios, like Maintenance, Startup, and Shutdown and upsets. 73 To instead represent true PTE,
Formosa should have assumed the lowest potential destruction efficiencies for each flare. 74
In another consequential example, Formosa assumed, without providing support, that PM2.5
would only be 0.197 percent of total PM emissions from its cooling towers.75 Dr. Sahu opined
that this was “an extraordinary assumption,” that appears to be “dramatically wrong,” as readily
available cooling tower emissions data show PM2.5 to be more than double the share of PM
assumed without support by Formosa. 76
LDEQ must require Formosa to revise its PTE estimates, using emissions data that reflect
maximum potential emissions and that are supported by verifiable and relevant data. As it stands,
Formosa’s PTE estimates may deeply underestimate its potential emissions, including of
68
Attach E, Sahu Aff., Ex. 1, Sahu Report, pp.15, 17–18.
69
Id. at 15.
70
See id. at 15, 17–18.
71
Id. at 18–20.
72
Id. at 19–20.
73
Id.
74
Id. at 20.
75
Id. at 23.
76
Id. at 23–24.
August 12, 2019
Page 24 of 82
pollutants like PM2.5 and NOX that Formosa’s existing modeling already shows could pose
concern for human health.
III. THE EMISSION LIMITS DO NOT REFLECT THE BEST AVAILABLE

CONTROL TECHNOLOGY (BACT).
A. Best Available Control Technology (BACT)—Legal Background.
The Clean Air Act requires that a permit issued to a major new source of air pollution in an
attainment area include emission limits that reflect the installation of BACT for each regulated
air pollutant. 77 A permit cannot issue without proper BACT limits. 78 The limits proposed in the
draft permits do not represent BACT because they fail to reflect the maximum emission
reductions that are achievable.
The Clean Air Act defines BACT as an:
emission limitation based on the maximum degree of reduction of each pollutant

subject to regulation under this chapter emitted from or which results from any
major emitting facility, which the permitting authority, on a case-by-case basis,
taking into account energy, environmental, and economic impacts and other
costs, determines is achievable for such facility through application of
production processes and available methods, systems, and techniques, including
fuel cleaning, clean fuels, or treatment or innovative fuel combustion techniques
for control of each such pollutant. 79
Louisiana’s federally approved State Implementation Plan (SIP) similarly makes clear that
BACT is, “an emissions limitation…based on the maximum degree of reduction from each
pollutant subject to regulation under this Section that would be emitted from any proposed major
stationary source or modification…” 80
The BACT review “is one of the most critical elements of the PSD permitting process” because
it determines the amount of pollution that a source will be allowed to emit over its lifetime. 81 As
77
42 U.S.C. §§ 7471, 7475(a)(2), 7479(3).
78
42 U.S.C. § 7475(a)(4); Alaska Dep’t of Envtl. Conservation v. EPA, 540 U.S. 461 (2004) (upholding
EPA’s authority to block a PSD permit where the state permitting authority’s BACT determination was
unreasonable).
79
42 U.S.C. § 7479(3).
80
LAC 33:III.509.B (providing BACT definition).
81
In re Mississippi Lime, 15 E.A.D. 349, 361 (E.A.B. 2011); In re Knauf, 8 E.A.D. 121, 123-24 (E.A.B.
1999).
August 12, 2019
Page 25 of 82
such, the BACT analysis must be “well documented” and a decision to reject a particular control
option or a lower emission limit “must be adequately explained and justified.” 82 While the
applicant has the duty to supply a BACT analysis and supporting information in its application,
“the ultimate BACT decision is made by the permit-issuing authority.” 83 Therefore, LDEQ has
an independent responsibility to review and verify the applicant’s BACT analyses and the
information upon which those analyses are based to ensure that the limits in any permit reflect
the maximum degree of reduction achievable for each regulated pollutant. 84 As demonstrated by
Dr. Sahu,85 many of the emission limits in the proposed PSD permit do not represent BACT.
BACT requires a case-by-case 86 analysis in order to determine the lowest emission rate for the
pollutant in question for the source in question, reflecting the maximum degree of emissions
reduction 87 that is achievable considering collateral factors such as cost, energy, and other
environmental impacts. By using the terms “maximum” and “achievable,” the Clean Air Act sets
forth a “strong, normative” requirement that “constrain[s]” agency discretion in determining
BACT. 88 Pursuant to those requirements, “the most stringent technology is BACT” unless the
applicant or agency can show that such technology is not feasible or should be rejected due to
specific collateral impact concerns. 89 The collateral impacts exception is a limited one, designed
only to act as a “safety valve” in the event that “unusual circumstances specific to the facility
make it appropriate to use less than the most effective technology.” 90 If the agency proposes
permit limits that are less stringent than those for recently permitted similar facilities, the burden
is on the applicant and agency to explain and justify why those more stringent limits were
82
In re Mississippi Lime, 15 E.A.D. at 361; In re Knauf., 8 E.A.D. at 131.
83
In re: Genesee Power Station Ltd. Partnership, 4 E.A.D. at 832, 835.
84
See 42 U.S.C. § 7479(3) (“permitting authority” makes BACT determination); 40 C.F.R. § 70.7(a)(5).
85
Attach. E, Sahu Aff., Ex. 1, Sahu Report, Section 4.
86
42 U.S.C. § 7479(3); New Source Review Workshop Manual: Prevention of Significant Deterioration
and Nonattainment Area Permitting, Draft, (“NSR Manual”), p. B-5, EPA's Office of Air Quality
Planning and Standards (Oct. 1990), https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-
07/documents/1990wman.pdf.
87
NSR Manual, pp. B.1-B.2, B.23.
88
Alaska, 540 U.S. at 485-86.
89
Alaska Dep’t of Envtl. Conserv. v. EPA, 298 F.3d 814, 822 (9th Cir. 2002).
90
In re Kawaihae Cogeneration Project, PSD Appeal Nos. 96-6, 96-10, 96-11, 96-14, 96-16, 7 E.A.D.
107, 117 (E.A.B. Apr. 28, 1997); In re World Color Press, Inc., 3 E.A.D. 474, 478 (Adm’r 1990)
(collateral impacts clause focuses on the specific local impacts); In re Columbia Gulf Transmission Co.,
PSD Appeal No. 88-11, 2 E.A.D. 824, 827 (Adm’r 1989); NSR Manual at B.29.
August 12, 2019
Page 26 of 82
rejected. 91 The need to aim for the lowest limits achievable as part of the BACT analysis was
emphasized by the Environmental Appeals Board, which stated in reversing a permit issuance:
If reviewing authorities let slip their rigorous look at ‘all’ appropriate

technologies, if the target ever eases from the ‘maximum degree of reduction’
available to something less or more convenient, the result may be somewhat
protective, may be superior to some pollution control elsewhere, but it will not
be BACT. 92
BACT’s focus on the maximum emission reduction achievable makes the standard both
technology-driven and technology-forcing. 93 A proper BACT limit must account for both general
improvements within the pollution control technology industry and the specific applications of
advanced technology to individual sources, ensuring that limits are increasingly more stringent.
BACT may not be based solely on prior permits, or even emission rates that other plants have
achieved, but must be calculated based on what available control options and technologies can
achieve for the project at issue and set standards accordingly. 94 For instance, technology transfer
from other sources with similar exhaust gas conditions must be considered explicitly in making
BACT determinations.
The U.S. EPA established a top-down approach for making BACT determinations to ensure that
BACT determinations are “reasonably moored” to the Clean Air Act’s statutory requirement that
BACT represent the maximum achievable reduction. 95 While an agency is not required to utilize
the top-down process as laid out in the NSR Manual, where, as here, it purports to do so, the
91
In re Indeck-Elwood, LLC, PSD Appeal 03-04, 13 E.A.D. 184-190 (E.A.B. Sept. 27, 2006); In re Knauf
Fiber Glass, GMBH, PSD Permit No. 97-PO-06, 8 E.A.D. 121, 131-32 (E.A.B. Feb. 4, 1999).
92
In re: Northern Michigan University Ripley Heating Plant, PSD Appeal No. 08-02, slip op. at 16 (EAB
2009) (hereinafter “In re NMU”); see also Utah Chapter of Sierra Club, 226 P.3d at 734-35 (remanding
permit where there “was evidence that a lower overall emission limitation was achievable”).
93
See NSR Manual, pp. B.12, B.5, B.16.
94
An agency must choose the lowest limit “achievable.” While a state agency may reject a lower limit
based on data showing the project does not have “the ability to achieve [the limit] consistently,” In re
Newmont, PSD Appeal No. 05-04, 12 E.A.D. at 429, 443 (E.A.B. Dec. 21, 2005), it may only do so based
on a detailed record establishing an adequate rationale, see id. Moreover, actual testing data from other
facilities is relevant to establishing what level of control is achievable given a certain technology. Id. at
*30. The word “achievable” does not allow a state agency to only look at past performance at other
facilities, but “mandates a forward-looking analysis of what the facility [under review] can achieve in the
future.” Id. at *32. Thus, the agency cannot reject the use of a certain technology based on the lack of
testing data for that technology, where the record otherwise establishes that the technology is appropriate
as an engineering matter. NSR Manual, at B.5.
95
Alaska, Dep't of Envtl. Conservation v. U.S. E.P.A., 540 U.S. 461, 485, 488–89 (2004)
August 12, 2019
Page 27 of 82
process must be applied in a “reasoned and justified manner.” 96 Louisiana purports to follow
EPA’s top down approach to determine BACT. 97
In a top-down analysis, the first step is to identify all potential available control technologies for
the unit. 98 This includes all technologies or techniques with “practical potential for applications.”
These technologies should not be limited to those used within the United States.
The second step is to eliminate technically infeasible options. Now, technical infeasibility should
be “clearly documented” to show that the control technology would not be successful, due to
difficulties based on physical, chemical, and engineering principles.
In the third step, the applicant ranks the remaining control technologies by control effectiveness
for each pollutant and for each unit subject to BACT analysis. Here, the list should present
information on the 1) control efficiencies; 2) expected emission rate; 3) expected emission
reduction; 4) environmental impacts; 5) energy impacts; and 6) economic impacts.
Finally, the applicant evaluates the most effective controls and document results and selects the
most effective control measure not eliminated during the evaluation process. Measures are
eliminated from top to bottom based on well-documented energy, environmental, or economic
impacts.
B. The Proposed PSD Permit Fails to Require BACT.
Formosa’s proposed permit does not correctly utilize the top down approach and ultimately fails
to require BACT or the proper emissions limits for many of its sources. Specifically, the
proposed permit is deficient because it: (1) fails to properly implement LDEQ’s own top down
BACT determination analysis; (2) fails to select the BACT emissions rate based on Best
Achievable Rate for the technology selected as BACT, and; (3) rejects BACT based on cost
considerations without basis.
1. The BACT determination does not correctly utilize a top-down

analysis.
In the first step in the top down BACT analysis, the applicant considers all control options with a
“practical potential for application to the emission unit under evaluation.” A control option is
considered “available” if “there are sufficient data indicating (but not necessarily proving)” the
96
Alaska, Dep't of Envtl. Conservation v. U.S. E.P.A., 298 F.3d 814, 822 (9th Cir. 2002),
540 U.S. 461 (2004)

97
“Consistent with EPA guidance, LDEQ utilizes the ‘top-down’ approach to determine BACT.” LDEQ
Preliminary Determination Summary, p. 7, EDMS 1187336.
98
NSR Manual at p. B-5.
August 12, 2019
Page 28 of 82
technology “will lead to a demonstrable reduction in emissions of regulated pollutants or will

otherwise represent BACT.” 99 Formosa’s draft permit fails to consider key technologies, and at
times fails to include any limitations resembling BACT. LDEQ, thus, must deny the permit and
require Formosa to conduct a proper analysis and implement BACT.
As Dr. Sahu discusses in detail in his report, the proposed permit’s SO2 BACT determination for
Boilers, Heaters, and Pyrolysis Furnaces is incomplete in that it failed to consider dry sorbent
injection (DSI) to reduce emissions. 100 Instead, the permit selects fuel gas as BACT, which can
result in higher levels of sulfur compound emissions. In connection with the same equipment,
and adding the turbines, the BACT determination is incomplete by omitting any consideration of
the condensable portion of PM. 101
Further, the BACT determination is incomplete in failing to consider Optical Gas Imaging
(OGI), which pin points larger leaking sources more quickly than LDAR (Leak Detection and
Repair technology). 102 As Dr. Sahu explains, this responsiveness is essential to keeping fugitive
VOC emissions low. Id. Notably, Formosa rejected leakless technology in part because it is not
available for all components. 103 But the top-down analysis, and the Clean Air Act, require a
rational basis for eliminating technology that would otherwise constitute BACT.
In other cases, the proposed permit fails to require BACT at all. While technologies for PM10 and
PM2.5 from the process vents were explored, LDEQ failed to select any of them. Sahu Report at
51. Similarly, on a number of sources with fugitive emissions, the permit relies on either
Maximum Achievable Control Technology (“MACT”) or National Emission Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAPs) to reduce VOC emissions. 104 But, counterintuitively,
MACT, also known as “the MACT floor,” sets the minimum standard that industry must meet to
comply. MACT and NESHAPs standards are used in this permit to establish critical conditions
such as leak threshold, monitoring frequency, and time allowed for repair. Applying these less
stringent results in a permit that is weaker than what BACT requires.
99
In re Spokane Regional Waste-to-Energy Applicant, 2 E.A.D. 809, slip op. at 22 (Adm’r June 9, 1989).
100
Attach. E, Sahu Aff., Ex. 1, Sahu Report, pp. 49-50.
101
Id. at 50.
102
Id. at 52.
103
See id. at 52-53.
104
Id. at 53.
August 12, 2019
Page 29 of 82
2. The BACT analysis failed to incorporate rate and other factors

necessary to establish emissions limits.
BACT encompasses all of the factors required to achieve an emissions limitation, including
factors such as rate, concentration, and averaging time. As the BACT clearinghouse manual
explains, BACT is not an equipment requirement but a performance requirement. 105
It is interesting to note that BACT is somewhat of a misnomer. The form of the requirement is
defined as an emission limitation and not as an equipment standard. Therefore, one is constrained
to assume that the emission limitation would, in many cases, correspond to the emission rate
achieved with either basic or control equipment which would otherwise be determined to be an
appropriate control technology requirement. In other words, BACT should be established as a
performance requirement, not as an equipment requirement, on authorities to construct and
permits to operate. 106
Moreover, BACT is forward-looking and technology forcing, evaluated on a case-by-case basis.

It is not determined based simply on reviewing previously issued permits. Here, the proposed
permit selected rates and other factors based on previously issued permits. Specifically, the
permit failed to consider the rate for:
 Vapor combustors
 Thermal oxidizers
 Bag filters
 Draft eliminators
 Furnaces NOx
The permit also neglected to consider the concentration in determining the NOx emissions for
the heater and boilers and the averaging time when determining the NOx emissions for the
turbines. 107
The BACT analysis must incorporate rate and other factors necessary to establish emissions
limits.
105
CAPCOA BACT Clearinghouse Resource Manual VIII. Control Technology Definitions,
https://ww3.arb.ca.gov/bact/docs/controltech.htm
106
Id.
107
See Attach. E, Sahu Aff., Ex. 1, Sahu Report, p. 49.
August 12, 2019
Page 30 of 82
3. The Proposed Permit Failed to require BACT to reduce GHG

emissions.
The project would emit nearly 14 million tons of greenhouse gas emissions, making this complex
the second largest GHG emitter in Louisiana and one of the largest in the U.S. These emissions
will have an impact well beyond the communities surrounding the facilities. Greenhouse gases
emitted from this project include CO2, N2O, methane, and sulfur hexafluoride.
Despite these significant emissions, Formosa identifies general design features and controls that
could maintain high levels of thermal efficiency and waste heat recovery, that could, in turn
reduce CO2e emissions, but adopts none of them. One option the applicant did identify as
feasible and cost effective explicitly was not incorporated into the GHG emission calculations or
the enforceable conditions of the permit. Ultimately, the proposed permit does not include BACT
for greenhouse gas emissions, and no emission rate reduction is anticipated. 108 This failure to
apply BACT to greenhouse gas emissions would violate the Clean Air Act.
4. The proposed permit impermissibly rejects BACT based on cost

without basis.
When determining if the most effective pollution control option has sufficiently adverse
economic impacts to justify rejecting that option and establishing BACT as a less effective
option, a permitting agency must determine that the cost-per-ton of emissions reduced is beyond
“the cost borne by other sources of the same type in applying that control alternative.” 109 This
high standard for eliminating a feasible BACT technology exists because the collateral impacts
analysis in BACT step 4 is intended only as a safety valve for when impacts unique to the facility
make application of a technology inapplicable to that specific facility. To reject pollution control
option, BACT requires a demonstration that the costs per ton of pollutant removed are
disproportionately high for the specific facility compared to the cost per ton to control emissions
at other facilities.
Formosa rejected catalytic oxidation for four units based on a cost ranging from $3,720 and
$5,673 per ton, yet it provided absolutely no basis for its conclusion that this amount was
excessive. In fact, projects spend significantly more money on BACT per ton.110 The record
must include evidence that the value is not cost effective. A control technology is considered to
be “cost effective” for BACT if its cost effectiveness in dollars per ton of pollutant removed falls
108
Id. at 63-64.
109
NSR Manual at B.44; See also Steel Dynamics, Inc., 9 E.A.D. 165, 202 (E.A.B. 2000); Inter-Power, 5
E.A.D. at 135 (“In essence, if the cost of reducing emissions with the top control alternative, expressed in
dollars per ton, is on the same order as the cost previously borne by other sources of the same type in
applying that control alternative, the alternative should initially be considered economically achievable,
and, therefore, acceptable as BACT.” (quoting NSR Manual at B.44) (emphasis original)).
110
Attach. E, Sahu Aff., Ex. 1, Sahu Report, pp. 46-47.
August 12, 2019
Page 31 of 82
within a reasonable range of cost-effectiveness estimates where other costs are calculated using
the same methodology.
IV. LDEQ SHOULD REQUIRE LOWEST ACHIEVABLE EMISSION RATE (LAER)

STANDARDS FOR PM2.5 AND NOx SOURCES.
While the Clean Air Act requires that new major sources in attainment areas receive emissions
limits that reflect BACT, the Lowest Achievable Emission Rate (LAER) standards, which are
more stringent than BACT, are required for new stationary sources located in non-attainment
areas. One notable difference between the two standards is that LAER requires the applicant to
install the technology regardless of cost; cost is not a consideration. As described earlier, the
modeling demonstrates that the area around the proposed project site exceeds both the 24-hour
PM2.5 and the NO2 1-hour NAAQS, and is frighteningly close to non-attainment for the PM2.5
annual NAAQS. Further, Formosa’s modeling already shows consumption of the Class II
increment for 24-hour PM2.5 and near consumption of the increment for annual NO2. 111
Due to these modeling results, LDEQ should require Formosa to conduct a LAER analysis for
these pollutants. Specifically, LDEQ should require Formosa to perform a LAER analysis for
PM2.5 and NOx emissions for the cooling towers, boilers, furnaces, heaters, and turbines.
LDEQ’s public trustee duty, discussed in detail in Section VII below, requires the agency to
address, among other things, whether “[t]he potential and real adverse environmental effects of
the proposed facility been avoided to the maximum extent possible.” 112 This is a high standard
and requires LDEQ to consider the application of LAER to prevent further degradation of the air
notwithstanding an official nonattainment designation for the area, which could take years.
Application of LAER would most certainly be a “mitigating measure[] which would offer more
protection to the environment than the facility as proposed without unduly curtailing non-
environmental benefits.” 113 Indeed, LDEQ’s public trustee duty requires it to do more than
simply apply its own regulations; it has to show it performed its public trustee analysis. 114 For
these reasons, LDEQ must require LAER for PM2.5 and NOX emissions.
111
Id. at 7.
112
In re American Waste and Pollution Control Co., 633 So. 2d 188, 194 (La. App. 1 Cir. 1993)
(detailing the analysis mandated by the Louisiana Supreme Court in Save Ourselves to meet the Louisiana
Constitution’s public trustee provision). LDEQ refers to this 5-part inquiry as the “IT Requirements” or
“IT Questions” after the name of the permittee in Save Ourselves.
113
See id.
114
Save Ourselves, 452 So. 2d at 1160 (stating, “From our review it appears that the agency may have
erred by assuming that its duty was to adhere only to its own regulations rather than to the constitutional
and statutory mandates.”); see also In re Oil & Gas Exploration, 70 So. 3d at 110–11 (finding LDEQ did
not support its determination by a preponderance of the evidence that the proposed permit minimized or
avoided potential and real adverse environmental impacts to the maximum extent, even though there were
environmentally-protective conditions therein, because the record lacked a display of LDEQ’s
“individualized consideration or a fair balancing of environmental factors.”).
August 12, 2019
Page 32 of 82
V. THE PROPOSED TITLE V PERMITS FAIL TO ASSURE COMPLIANCE WITH

EMISSION LIMITS DUE TO THE FAILURE TO REQUIRE CONTINUOUS
EMISSIONS MONITORING, FAILURE TO REQUIRE ENFORCEABLE
CONDITIONS FOR PARAMETIC MONITORING, AMONG OTHER REASONS.
The Clean Air Act requires that each Title V permit “shall include enforceable emission
limitations and standards . . . and such other conditions as are necessary to assure compliance
with applicable requirements of [the Act], including the requirements of the applicable
implementation plan.” 42 U.S.C. § 7661c(a) (emphasis added). Applicable requirements include
“any standard or other requirement provided for in the applicable implementation plan approved
or promulgated by EPA through rulemaking under title I of the Act that implements the relevant
requirements of the Act” and “any term or condition of any preconstruction permits issued
pursuant to regulations approved or promulgated through rulemaking under title I, including
parts C or D, of the Act.” 40 C.F.R. §70.2. Terms and conditions of PSD permits are thus
“applicable requirements” which must be incorporated into the Title V permit. Consistent with
the Act, LDEQ Title V regulations provide that the agency “shall incorporate into each permit
sufficient terms and conditions to ensure compliance with all state and federally applicable air
quality requirements and standards at the source and such other terms and conditions as
determined by the permitting authority to be reasonable and necessary.” LAC 33:III.501.C.6.
BACT is an emissions limitation that must be enforceable in a Title V permit. The Louisiana SIP
defines BACT as “an emissions limitation…based on the maximum degree of reduction from
each pollutant subject to regulation under this Section that would be emitted from any proposed
major stationary source or modification…” LAC 33:III.509.B. In order for BACT to actually
“limit” emissions it must be enforceable. Indeed, the Louisiana SIP requires that BACT be
incorporated as enforceable conditions of the permit, either through emission limits or operating
parameters. See id. That is, where a specific numeric limit is technically or economically
infeasible, the Louisiana SIP provides that “a design, equipment, work practice, or operational
standard or combination thereof may be prescribed instead to satisfy the requirement for best
available control technology.” Id. The provision further stresses that “[s]uch standard shall, to
the degree possible, set forth the emission reduction achievable by implementation of such
design, equipment, work practice or operation, and provide for compliance by means that
achieve equivalent results.” Id.
Permit limits must be both legally and practically enforceable (i.e., enforceable as a practical
matter). See In the Matter of Yuhuang Chemical Inc. Methanol Plant, Order on Petition No. VI-
2015-03 at 14 (August 31, 2016). As EPA has explained, in order to be enforceable as a practical
matter, the permit must, among other things, “clearly specify how emissions will be measured or
determined for purposes of demonstrating compliance.” Id. To accomplish this, “limitations must
be supported by monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements sufficient to enable
regulators and citizens to determine whether the limit has been exceeded and, if so, to take
August 12, 2019
Page 33 of 82
appropriate enforcement action.” Id. (emphasis added). As Dr. Ranajit Sahu details in Sections
5.1-5.7 of his expert report, 115 many conditions the proposed permits are not practically
enforceable.
Each of the proposed Title V permits includes the following Louisiana Air Emission Permit
General Condition: “Failure to install, properly operate, and/or maintain all proposed control
measures and/or equipment as specified in the application and supplemental information shall be
considered a violation of the permit and LAC 33:III.501.” LAC 33:III.551, Table 1, I. But this
condition is meaningless unless all inputs and assumptions from the application are made
enforceable and include proper monitoring and recordkeeping. As Dr. Sahu discusses, the Title V
permits must contain explicit conditions for all assumptions used to calculate the potential to
emit where there are no requirements for Continuous Emissions Monitors (CEMS). Sahu Report
at 5.1.
Further, where LDEQ does not require CEMS as suggested by Dr. Sahu (Sahu Report at 5.2), it
must provide adequate rationale to support its decision. Dr. Sahu discusses technically available
CEMS for various combustion sources, explaining that CEMS “reduce uncertainty in confirming
emissions in order to assure compliance with limits.” Id. Since the use of CEMS allow LDEQ
and the public to assess compliance with emission limits, LDEQ must require such monitors as
measures to avoid or mitigate adverse environmental impacts whenever available. In addition,
LDEQ must require stack testing as suggested by Dr. Sahu (Sahu Report at 5.3) where CEMS are
not available, with parameter monitoring to assure compliance between stack tests. Again, since
these measures would help assure compliance with the emissions discussed, LDEQ must require
such measures.
VI. LDEQ SHOULD DENY THE PERMITS BECAUSE OF FORMOSA’S
SIGNIFICANT RECORD OF ENVIRONMENTAL NONCOMPLIANCE.
Louisiana Regulations require that “an applicant shall [] have no history of environmental
violation(s)” demonstrating “an unwillingness or inability to achieve and maintain compliance
with the permit for which the application is being made.” LAC 33:I.1707.A. The sole exception
to this rule is if LDEQ makes a determination that “the applicant’s history of environmental
violation(s) can be adequately addressed by permit conditions.” Id. Given Formosa’s extensive
history of environmental violations, LDEQ must deny the permits or add conditions to the
permits that adequately address that history.
115
Attach. E, Sahu Aff., Ex. 1.
August 12, 2019
Page 34 of 82
A. Louisiana regulations require LDEQ to consider Formosa Plastic Group’s

and Formosa Petrochemical Corp.’s long history of environmental violations
when reviewing FG LA’s proposed air permits.
LAC 33:I.1707 was promulgated in accordance with La. R.S. § 30:2014.2, which orders LDEQ
to adopt rules setting out the requirements for “a person seeking [a] permit.” The statute defines
“person” as “an individual, partnership, corporation, or other entity who owns a controlling
interest in a company or who participates in the environmental management of the facility for an
entity applying for a permit or an ownership interest in a permit.” La. R.S. § 30:2014.2(B). Thus
the “applicant” referenced in the Louisiana regulations under § 1707 must encompass all
“persons” as defined by the underlying statute.
Formosa Plastics Group (“FPG”) and Formosa Petrochemical Corp. (“FPC”) squarely fall within
this definition of “person” as entities “who own a controlling interest in” and/or will
“participate[] in the environmental management of” the facility for which the permits are sought.
Id. FG LA LLC is operated by FG Inc., which is a fully owned subsidiary of FPC. 116 In April of
last year, Gov. John Bel Edwards and FPC executive Keh-Yen Lin issued a joint announcement
that FPC purchased the 2,400-acre site in St. James, and that “Formosa plans to operate the
complex” under its Louisiana registered subsidiary, FG LA LLC. 117 Keh-Yen Lin serves as both
the CEO of the FG LA LLC project and as the executive vice president of FPC. 118 These
connections qualify both FPG and FPC as “persons” under La R.S. § 30:2014.2(B). Therefore,
Louisiana regulations require LDEQ to consider both groups’ history of environmental violations
when evaluating the proposed air permits.
B. FPG’s history of environmental violations demonstrate an unwillingness or

inability to comply with the proposed permits.
In the U.S., at least 98 state or federal civil enforcement cases have been filed against FPC, 53 of
which were for Clean Air Act violations. 119 Since 2000, FPC has paid a total of $20,790,268 in
penalties, $19,936,707 of which were for environmental violations. 120 In 2009, Formosa Plastics
116
About Us, SUNSHINE PROJECT LA (last visited July 24, 2019),
http://www.sunshineprojectla.com/about-us 9 (stating that FG LA is a member of Formosa Plastics Group
(FPG).
117
Office of the Governor, Formosa Selects St. James Parish for $9.4 Billion Louisiana Project,
LOUISIANA.GOV (Apr. 23, 2018), http://gov.louisiana.gov/news/sunshine-project.
118
Id.
119
Enforcement Case Search Results, EPA ECHO, https://echo.epa.gov/facilities/enforcement-case-search
(search “Find Name(s) That:” for “Formosa Plastics Company”; select “Any” for “Case Lead”; then
follow “Search” hyperlink).
120
Violation Tracker Parent Company Summary: Formosa Plastics, GOOD JOBS FIRST (last visited July
23, 2019), https://violationtracker.goodjobsfirst.org/prog.php?parent=formosa-plastics.
August 12, 2019
Page 35 of 82
Corp., Texas, and Formosa Plastics Corp., Louisiana, agreed to spend more than $10 million on
pollution controls to address air, water, and hazardous waste violations at two petrochemical
plants in Point Comfort, Texas, and Baton Rouge, Louisiana, in addition to $2.8 million in civil
penalties. 121 In a report issued at the beginning of this year, Environment Texas named Formosa
Plastics the No. 1 worst polluter in the Corpus Christi area. 122 But then again in June 2019, the
Southern District of Texas granted monetary and injunctive relief against Formosa for 1,149
continuous days of discharging plastic pellets in violation of the Clean Water Act, and for failure
to report those violations to state or federal authorities as required by Formosa’s permits. 123 The
Court concluded that Formosa’s “violations are enormous” and that “Formosa is a serial
offender.” 124
In Louisiana, Formosa has consistently failed to remedy documented violations at its Baton
Rouge facility. The surrounding neighborhood is 92% African American, with over 50% of
households living below the federal poverty level. 125 The facility has registered “high priority
violations” of the Clean Air Act every single month since August 2009. 126 All of these high
priority violations include excessive emissions of vinyl chloride, a known human carcinogen. 127
Since 2006, the facility has released at least 10,000 pounds per year of vinyl chloride from
fugitive emissions alone. 128 EPA has also registered the facility as a “significant noncomplier” of
121
In its complaint, the U.S. alleged that Formosa violated Clean Air Act provisions regulating the leaks
of air pollutants from chemical manufacturing equipment and emissions of vinyl chloride, RCRA
provisions governing hazardous waste management, and Clean Water Act wastewater discharge limits.
The U.S. also alleged that the Texas facility violated Clean Air Act provisions regulating benzene waste
operations and Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (“EPCRA”) toxic release
inventory reporting obligations. Civil Enforcement Case Report, Case Number: 06-2006-3410, EPA
ECHO (last updated July 10, 2019), https://echo.epa.gov/enforcement-case-report?id=06-2006-3410.
122
Luke Metzger & Grant Durow, Air Pollution from Industrial Malfunctions and Maintenance in Texas
in 2017, ENVIRONMENT TEXAS 35 (Jan. 2019),
https://environmenttexas.org/sites/environment/files/reports/TX_MajorMal_scrn.pdf.
123
Waterkeeper v. Formosa Plastics Corp, Texas, No. 6:17-CV-0047, 2019 WL 2716544, at *8–9 (S.D.
Tex. June 27, 2019).
124
Id. at *8.
125
Detailed Facility Report, FRS ID: 110000597444, EPA ECHO (last updated July 10, 2019),
https://echo.epa.gov/detailed-facility-report?fid=110000597444.
126
127
Toxicological Review of Vinyl Chloride, EPA (May 2000),
https://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/iris/iris_documents/documents/toxreviews/1001tr.pdf.
128
TRI On-Site and Off-Site Reported Disclosed or Otherwise Released Trend Report for Formosa
Plastics Corp Louisiana for Vinyl Chloride, EPA (last updated April 2019),
https://iaspub.epa.gov/triexplorer/release_trends?tri=70805FRMSPGULFS&p_view=TRYR&trilib=TRI
August 12, 2019
Page 36 of 82
the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (“RCRA”) every month since April 2004. 129 Over
the last two years, the facility has been subject to one formal RCRA enforcement action and four
formal Clean Air Act enforcement actions, including a federal penalty of $277,200 for, inter alia,
failure to correct deficiencies reported in its 2008 and 2011 compliance audits. 130 In addition, in
2003 the state fined Formosa over $4 million after an operator at the Baton Rouge facility
opened the bottom valve on the wrong reactor, releasing 8,000 pounds of vinyl chloride into the
atmosphere. The Chemical Safety Board (“CSB”) later found that Formosa knew of the potential
for severe consequences resulting from opening the bottom valve on a reactor under pressure
before the incident occurred. 131
FPC also recently closed operations at its Delaware City PVC plant, which was listed as a U.S.
Superfund site in 1983 due to groundwater contamination from earthen lagoons and pits used to
dispose of PVC waste and sludge. 132 In 1996, a second groundwater plume was discovered
Q1&sort=_VIEW_&sort_fmt=1&state=All+states&county=All+counties&chemical=000075014&industr
y=ALL&core_year=&tab_rpt=1&FLD=AIRLBY&FLD=E1&FLD=E2&FLD=E3&FLD=E4&FLD=E41
&FLD=E42&FLD=E5&FLD=E52&FLD=E53&FLD=E53A&FLD=E53B&FLD=E54&FLD=E51&FLD
=E51A&FLD=E51B&FLD=TSFDSP&FLD=m10&FLD=m41&FLD=m62&FLD=potwmetl&FLD=m71
&FLD=m81&FLD=m82&FLD=m72&FLD=m63&FLD=m64&FLD=m65&FLD=m66&FLD=m67&FL
D=m73&FLD=m79&FLD=m90&FLD=m94&FLD=m99&FLD=RELLBY.
129
130
On February 7, 2017, EPA Region 6 issued a Consent Agreement Final Order (CAFO) citing Formosa
for the following violations: (1) failure to maintain data used to estimate population and environmental
receptors for the offsite consequence analyses; (2) failure to ensure that process hazard analysis (PHA)
findings and recommendations are resolved in a timely manner; (3) failure to update process hazard
analysis every five years; (4) failure to conduct an adequate PHA for the vinyl chloride monomer (VCM)
process; (5) failure to properly implement certain operating procedures; (6) failure to conduct a
management of change; and (7) failure to correct deficiencies in 2008 and 2011 compliance audits. Civil
Enforcement Case Report, Case Number: 06-2016-3361, EPA ECHO (last updated July 20, 2019),
https://echo.epa.gov/enforcement-case-report?id=06-2016-3361.
131
CSB Issues Final Report and Safety Video on Formosa Plastics Explosion in Illinois, Concludes That
Company and Previous Owner Did Not Adequately Plan for Consequences of Human Error, CSB (Mar.
6, 2017), https://www.csb.gov/csb-issues-final-report-and-safety-video-on-formosa-plastics-explosion-in-
illinois-concludes-that-company-and-previous-owner-did-not-adequately-plan-for-consequences-of-
human-error/; Civil Enforcement Case Report, Case Number: LA000A00002203300000200163, EPA
ECHO (last updated July 10, 2019), https://echo.epa.gov/enforcement-case-
report?id=LA000A0000220330000200163.
132
Superfund Site: Delaware City PVC Plant, EPA (last updated July 23, 2019),
https://cumulis.epa.gov/supercpad/SiteProfiles/index.cfm?fuseaction=second.cleanup&id=0300091.
August 12, 2019
Page 37 of 82
beneath the Formosa PVC plant.133 In 2003, the Acting Director of EPA’s Hazardous Site
Cleanup Division sent a letter to Formosa regarding ongoing groundwater contamination beneath
the site impacting both the Columbia and Potomac aquifers. 134 In 2014—thirty-one years after
the site was placed on the Superfund Program’s National Priorities List—EPA found the extent
of that groundwater contamination, and its potential impact on the surrounding community, had
still not been fully evaluated. 135 The next five-year evaluation of the site is scheduled for
September of this year.
FPG’s international environmental compliance record is also replete with gross violations of
environmental standards. In 2009, the German environmental organization Ethecon Foundation
named Formosa Executives as the recipients of its annual “Black Planet Award” for documented
injuries and fatalities at or near Formosa facilities; explosions (including one at a facility in
Illinois, triggering the evacuation of nearby communities); and repeated dumping of toxic
materials in Taiwan and Cambodia. 136 In 2016, Formosa Steel—a subsidiary of FPG—took
responsibility for an accidental chemical spill in Vietnam, affecting more than 40,000 workers
who rely on fishing and tourism. 137 The spill is now considered “Vietnam’s worst environmental
disaster.” 138 In 2017, an environmental justice group discovered that Formosa Petrochemical’s
No6 Naphtha Cracker Complex in Taiwan exceeded pollutant and particulate emission standards
over 25,000 times, yet never paid the proper fines for those emissions. 139
Though this summary is not exhaustive, these examples illustrate FPG’s and FPC’s record of
persistent environmental violations, demonstrating a clear “unwillingness or inability to achieve
and maintain compliance” with environmental regulations in Louisiana, nationwide, and abroad.
LAC 33:I.1707.A.1. LDEQ must therefore reject the proposed permits or include additional
permit conditions that the agency determines will adequately address that history. Id.
133
Fourth Five-Year Review Report, Delaware City PVC Plant Site, EPA 6 (Sep. 2, 2014),
https://semspub.epa.gov/work/03/2184664.pdf.
134
Id. at 6.
135
Id. at 25.
136
Statement Black Planet Award 2009, ETHECON (last visited July 23, 2019),
https://www.ethecon.org/en/902.
137
Angel. L. Martínez Cantera, ‘We are jobless because of fish poisoning’: Vietnamese fishermen battle
for justice, THE GUARDIAN (Aug. 14, 2017), https://www.theguardian.com/global-
development/2017/aug/14/vietnamese-fishermen-jobless-fish-poisoning-battle-justice.
138
Id.
139
Chih-hsin Liu & Aaron Wytze, Open Data VS. Taiwan’s Largest Petrochemical Plant, G0V.NEWS
(Feb. 3, 2017), https://g0v.news/open-data-vs-taiwans-largest-petrochemical-plant-d6a62ee35fc7.
August 12, 2019
Page 38 of 82
C. LDEQ should conduct a supplemental evaluation of FPG’s and FPC’s

management at other U.S. facilities if it allows the project to move forward.
Louisiana regulations grant agencies the authority to evaluate the applicant’s management of any
facilities or activities subject to federal environmental regulations. LAC 33:I.1707.B. If, pursuant
to that evaluation, the agency finds “the applicant has demonstrated an unwillingness or inability
to achieve and maintain compliance with the permit for which application is being made,” the
agency may deny the permit or include additional conditions as “reasonably deemed necessary
for the protection of human health and the environment.” Id. Given Formosa’s persistent history
of environmental noncompliance, LDEQ should conduct an evaluation of Formosa’s past and
present activities in the U.S., if it allows this project to move forward at all. This evaluation
should address, at minimum, if and how the proposed permits take into account Formosa’s
persistent record over nearly a decade of “high priority Clean Air Act violations” at its Baton
Rouge facility, and “serial” Clean Water Act noncompliance in Point Comfort, TX. This
evaluation can also include Formosa’s international activities, as nothing in the regulations
expressly limit the evaluation to domestic activities. If this evaluation reveals an unwillingness or
inability on Formosa’s behalf to comply with applicable environmental laws, then LDEQ must
deny the permits or include conditions “as reasonably deemed necessary for the protection of
human health and the environment.” LAC 33:I.1707.B.1.
VII. FORMOSA’S ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT STATEMENT (EAS) IS

FLAWED AND FAILS TO INCLUDE INFORMATION NECESSARY FOR
LDEQ TO CARRY OUT ITS PUBLIC TRUSTEE DUTY.
Formosa’s Environmental Assessment Statement (EAS) submissions are incorrect in concluding

that LDEQ’s approval of the petrochemical complex, as proposed, would satisfy the agency’s
public trustee duty under Article IX of the Louisiana Constitution. In making its claim, Formosa
relies heavily on the argument that it has complied with the NAAQS and therefore has
minimized health impacts. 140 Formosa also asserts that “[g]enerally, the avoidance of any real
and potential effects of the Facility on human health has been achieved by the proper siting of
the Facility.” 141 Formosa is mistaken about both conclusions, and omits to address many of the
considerable potential and real environmental harms the complex could impose.
As explained in Section I, Formosa’s modeling shows that St. James would be in nonattainment
for the NAAQS 1-hour NO2 and 24-hour PM2.5 standards and would nearly exceed the PM2.5
annual standard. As detailed in Sections I.C and II, Formosa’s emissions estimates and air
quality impacts modeling likely significantly understate the degree to which its complex and
140
Formosa Initial EAS at 1, 15, 44 (July 18, 2018), EDMS No. 11230529; Formosa Supp’l EAS at 5–6,
21–22 (Jan 7, 2019), EDMS No. 11457119.
141
Formosa Initial EAS at 8 (July 18, 2018), EDMS No. 11230529. Formosa repeatedly invokes this
argument as the basis for its finding that approval of the plant would be justified. See also Formosa
Supp’l EAS at 4 (Jan 7, 2019), EDMS No. 11457119.
August 12, 2019
Page 39 of 82
other regional facilities may be contributing to air pollution, raising concern about even greater
nonattainment and Class II increment consumption. The area’s nonattainment also renders
Formosa’s alternative-site-selection process arbitrary and capricious by its own criteria, as the
company claimed that the “important environmental consideration” of attainment status was its
sole, “first tier,” criteria for selecting a site. 142
Formosa would also be permitted to emit 1.6 million pounds toxic air pollutants each year. It
could emit over 100,000 pounds per year of a trio of known and probable human carcinogens,
ethylene oxide, benzene, and formaldehyde, making it one of the largest sources of these
pollutants in Louisiana, as explained in Section VII.B–C below. EPA has already designated
several census tracts in St. James Parish as exceeding the lifetime exposure risk to cancer-
causing chemicals and Formosa failed to address how its facility would exacerbate this
preexisting problem. To top it off, the proposed Title V permits simply do not contain
monitoring that is sufficient to ensure that Formosa will remain in compliance with its permitted
emissions, as described in Section V.
Formosa will become one of the largest sources of greenhouse gas emissions in Louisiana, at a
time when worsening storms and rising seas greatly menace Louisianans, as explained in Section
VII.D. And in the face of increasing likelihood of intense storms due to climate change, Formosa
failed to grapple with its flood risk from severe storms, address the risk of storm-induced
chemical releases, or prove that it would be adequately insured in the event of these or similar
hazards, as outlined in Section VII.E. It is simply not the case that Formosa has minimized the
risks to residents’ health and the environment. It is in fact a deadly threat.
Formosa’s claim that it made a “proper siting” is simply misplaced. Formosa would reshape the
character of St. James west bank residential communities, placing fourteen major source plants
about a half mile from the residents of Union, just over a mile from an elementary school, and in
proximity to other, already-overburdened communities—predominately African-American,
historic communities. In fact, Formosa entirely ignores the community of Union, directly across
the river from the complex, incorrectly claiming that it would be sited at least a mile away from
residents. 143
Formosa seems to believe that somehow all of this is inevitable, including that “it simply would
not be possible to place the site along the river without an African-American community being
present somewhere in the general vicinity.” 144 LDEQ should not oblige the mistaken thinking
that any Louisianans must accept elevated cancer, health, and environmental risks.
142
Initial EAS at 37.
143
See, for example, Supp’l EAS at 4.
144
Supp’l EAS at 26.
August 12, 2019
Page 40 of 82
The considerable and numerous real and potential adverse effects of this plant, to the
environment and human health, along with the massive economic costs in tax exemptions and
public services, far outweigh the economic benefits Formosa claims it will bring. LDEQ should
reject Formosa’s application.
A. Overview of LDEQ’s Public Trust Duty and Environmental Assessment

Statement Requirements.
Louisiana’s public trust doctrine is in the state Constitution under Article IX, § 1. It provides:
The natural resources of the state, including air and water, and the healthful,
scenic, historic, and esthetic quality of the environment shall be protected,
conserved, and replenished insofar as possible and consistent with the health,
safety, and welfare of the people. The legislature shall enact laws to implement
this policy. 145
The Louisiana Supreme Court interpreted Article IX, § 1 as a mandate to LDEQ, requiring the
agency “to determine that adverse environmental impacts have been minimized or avoided as
much as possible consistently with the public welfare” “before granting approval of proposed
action affecting the environment.” 146 To make this mandatory determination, the Supreme Court
made clear that LDEQ must “consider whether alternate projects, alternate sites, or mitigative
measures would offer more protection for the environment than the project as proposed without
unduly curtailing non-environmental benefits.” Id. The First Circuit elaborated on this
requirement, turning it into a 5-part inquiry that must address whether:
(1) The potential and real adverse environmental effects of the proposed facility
have been avoided to the maximum extent possible;
(2) A cost benefit analysis of the environmental impact costs balanced against
the social and economic benefits of the proposed facility demonstrate that
the latter outweighs the former;
(3) There are alternative projects which would offer more protection to the
environment than the proposed facility without unduly curtailing non-
environmental benefits;
(4) There are alternative sites which would offer more protection to the
environment than the proposed facility site without unduly curtailing non-
environmental benefits;
145
La. Const. art. IX, § 1.
146
Save Ourselves v. La. Envtl. Control Comm’n, 452 So. 2d 1152, 1157 (La. 1984).
August 12, 2019
Page 41 of 82
(5) There are mitigating measures which would offer more protection to the
environment than the facility as proposed without unduly curtailing non-
environmental benefits? 147
Courts have made clear that “as public trustee, the LDEQ is duty-bound to demonstrate that it
has properly exercised the discretion vested in it by making basic findings supported by evidence
and ultimate findings that flow rationally from the basic findings; and it must articulate a rational
connection between the facts found and the order, or in this case, the permit issued.” 148
The Supreme Court further explained that “[L]DEQ’s actions must be diligent, fair, and faithful
to protecting the public interest in the state's resources.” 149 The Court went on to say that
“[LDEQ’s] role as the representative of the public interest does not permit it to act as an umpire
passively calling balls and strikes for adversaries appearing before [the Secretary]; the rights of
the public must receive active and affirmative protection at the hands of [LDEQ].”150 Critically,
the Court made clear that LDEQ has to do more than simply apply its own regulations; it has to
show it performed its public trustee analysis. 151
The Supreme Court explained that “[t]he regulatory scheme provided by constitution and statute
mandates a particular sort of careful and informed decision-making process and creates judicially
enforceable duties.” 152 Further, “if the decision was reached procedurally, without individualized
consideration and balancing of environmental factors conducted fairly and in good faith,” the
Supreme Court instructed that “it is the courts’ responsibility to reverse.” 153 Indeed, the First
147
In re American Waste and Pollution Control Co., 633 So. 2d 188, 194 (La. App. 1 Cir. 1993). LDEQ
refers to this 5-part inquiry as the “IT Requirements” or “IT Questions” after the name of the permittee in
Save Ourselves.
148
In re Oil & Gas Exploration, Development, & Production Facilities, Permit No. LAG260000, 2010-
1640, p. 4 (La. App. 1 Cir. 6/10/11); 70 So. 3d 101, 104 (emphasis in original) (citing Save Ourselves,
Inc., 452 So. 2d at 1159–60).
149
In re Am. Waste and Pollution Control Co., 93-3163, p. 9 (La. 9/15/94); 642 So. 2d 1258, 1262) (citing
Save Ourselves, 452 So.2d at 1157).
150
Save Ourselves, 452 So. 2d at 1157.
151
Save Ourselves, 452 So. 2d at 1160 (stating, “From our review it appears that the agency may have
erred by assuming that its duty was to adhere only to its own regulations rather than to the constitutional
and statutory mandates.”); see also In re Oil & Gas Exploration, 70 So. 3d at 110–11 (finding LDEQ did
not support its determination by a preponderance of the evidence that the proposed permit minimized or
152
Save Ourselves, 452 So. 2d at 1159.
153
Id. at 1158.
August 12, 2019
Page 42 of 82
Circuit warned that “until [L]DEQ, as the agency designated by the legislature with the
responsibility to protect the environment, fully complies with its responsibilities and obligations,
any action taken not in compliance therewith, e.g., the issuance of the permit herein, is null and
void and must be vacated.” 154
The Louisiana Environmental Quality Act incorporates the public trustee requirements as
follows: “The secretary [of LDEQ] shall act as the primary public trustee of the environment,
and shall consider and follow the will and intent of the Louisiana Constitution and Louisiana
statutory law in making any determination relative to the granting or denying of permits.” 155 The
Act also provides that “[t]he applicant for a new permit or a major modification of an existing
permit as defined in rules and regulations that would . . . constitute a major source under the
rules of the department shall submit an environmental assessment statement as a part of the
permit application.” 156 Importantly, the Act goes on to say that “[t]he environmental assessment
statement provided for in this Section shall be used to satisfy the public trustee requirements of
Article IX, Section 1 of the Constitution of Louisiana.” 157 But as detailed below, Formosa’s EAS
and Supplemental EAS fail to satisfy these requirements, and thus are insufficient to enable
LDEQ to satisfy its public trustee duty under the state Constitution.
B. Formosa’s EAS fails to include a full risk assessment of its toxic emissions in
combination with existing sources for this area which already has an
unacceptable cancer risk.
The proposed permits would allow Formosa to emit over 800 tons, or 1,600,000 pounds per year
of toxic air pollutants. 158 Three of these toxic air pollutants (Ethylene Oxide, Benzene, and
Formaldehyde) 159 are regulated by LDEQ as “known and probable human carcinogens.” 160
Based on 2017 Toxic Release Inventory (TRI) data, 161 only two other sources in the U.S., and
154
In re Rubicon, Inc., 95-0108, p. 9, (La. App. 1 Cir. 2/14/1996); 670 So.2d 475, 489.
155
La. R.S. 30:2014(A)(4).
156
La. R.S. § 30:2018.A; see also La. R.S. § 30:2018.B (mandating that the EAS address the required
public trustee analysis).
157
La. R.S. § 30:2018.B.
158
LDEQ Statement of Basis at 55–56.
159
Id.
160
LAC 33:III.5112, Table 51.1.
161
TRI On-Site and Off-Site Reported Disposed of or Other Released Top 100 Facilities for Ethylene
Oxide, IASPUB.EPA.GOV (last visited Jun 26, 2019),
https://iaspub.epa.gov/triexplorer/release_fac?p_view=USFA&trilib=TRIQ1&TAB_RPT=1&Fedcode=&
LINESPP=&sort=RE_TOLBY&industry=ALL&FLD=RELLBY&FLD=TSFDSP&sort_fmt=2&TopN=
&STATE=All+states&COUNTY=All+counties&chemical=000075218&year=2017&report=&BGCOLO
August 12, 2019
Page 43 of 82
one source in the state, reported Ethylene Oxide emissions that exceed Formosa’s proposed limit
of 7.70 tons per year (tpy) or 15,400 pounds/yr. 162 The proposed permits would also allow
Formosa to emit 36.58 tpy or 73,160 lbs./yr. of Benzene. 163 Again, only one plant in Louisiana
reported that it emitted more than that amount of Benzene in 2017, and only 5 other plants in the
country topped that amount. 164 In addition, the proposed permits would allow Formosa to emit
8.90 tpy or 17,800 lbs./yr. of Formaldehyde. 165 Just nine of the thirty Louisiana facilities that
reported Formosa releases in 2017, released more Formaldehyde than LDEQ is proposing to
allow Formosa to emit. 166
As explained below, several census tracts in St. James and surrounding parishes have cancer
risks exceeding EPA’s upper limit of acceptable risk for total lifetime cancer. Where the
National Air Toxics Assessment (NATA) shows elevated cancer risks, EPA recommends
conducting “more detailed assessments, including emissions testing and more refined modeling”
in order to “better understand local risks.” 167 Formosa has not conducted any site-specific studies
investigating how its emissions of Ethylene Oxide, Benzene, and Formaldehyde—the three
primary drivers of cancer risk in the United States—will contribute to cumulative cancer risk in
the surrounding area, as recommended by EPA. Given the proximity of the elementary school,
residential communities, and a church to these cancer-causing emissions, LDEQ must require a
comprehensive assessment.
R=%23D0E0FF&FOREGCOLOR=black&FONT_FACE=arial&FONT_SIZE=10+pt&FONT_WIDTH=
normal&FONT_STYLE=roman&FONT_WEIGHT=bold.
162
Formosa Title V Permits for EG-1 and EG-2.
163
LDEQ Statement of Basis at 55.
164
See TRI On-Site and Off-Site Reported Disposed of or Other Released for all 30 Facilities for
Formaldehyde, IASPUB.EPA.GOV (last visited Aug. 7, 2019),
165
LDEQ Statement of Basis at 55.
166
See TRI On-Site and Off-Site Reported Disposed of or Other Released Top 100 Facilities for Benzene,
IASPUB.EPA.GOV (last visited July 8, 2019),
&STATE=22&COUNTY=All+counties&chemical=000050000&year=2017&report=&BGCOLOR=%23
D0E0FF&FOREGCOLOR=black&FONT_FACE=arial&FONT_SIZE=10+pt&FONT_WIDTH=normal
&FONT_STYLE=roman&FONT_WEIGHT=bold
167
Id.
August 12, 2019
Page 44 of 82
Other highly concerning toxic emissions allowed by the proposed permits include 1-3-Butadiene
at 23.89 tpy, Acetaldehyde at 17.78 tpy, Ammonia at 436.75 tpy, n-Hexane at 146.72 tpy, and
Vinyl acetate at 59.84 tpy, among others. Only one other facility in the U.S. reported Vinyl
acetate releases in excess of the proposed Formosa limit based on 2017 TRI data. 168 These
pollutants should also be included in the assessment, along with the over 40 additional air toxics
that would be emitted from the proposed complex that Formosa failed to consider. 169
1. Background on risk values.
The Integrated Risk Information System (“IRIS”) program is an independent, scientist-led office
at EPA, intentionally insulated from regulatory processes to ensure a health-protective and
science-based approach. 170 EPA IRIS values represent the best available science on the human
health effects associated with exposure to various chemicals, and are “the preferred source of
toxicity information used by EPA.” 171 There are several IRIS toxicity values that express
inhalation risk. The most common values are the inhalation unit risk (IUR) and reference
concentration value (RfC), used for cancer and noncancer assessments respectively:
• Noncancer Assessment - RfC: The inhalation RfC is an estimate (with uncertainty
spanning perhaps an order of magnitude) of a daily inhalation exposure of the human population
(including sensitive subgroups) that is likely to be without an appreciable risk of deleterious
effects during a lifetime.
• Cancer Assessment - IUR: The IUR is the upper-bound excess lifetime cancer risk
estimated to result from continuous exposure to an agent at a concentration of 1 µg/m3 in air. The
interpretation of inhalation unit risk would be as follows: if unit risk = 2 × 10⁻⁶ per µg/m³, 2
excess cancer cases (upper bound estimate) are expected to develop per 1,000,000 people if
exposed daily for a lifetime to 1 µg of the chemical per m³ of air.
2. Formosa’s emissions compared with IRIS toxicity values.
The table below shows the maximum modeled concentration of some of Formosa’s toxic
emissions as compared to EPA IRIS toxicity values, and then estimates health risk from
168
See TRI On-Site and Off-Site Reported Disposed of or Other Released Top 100 Facilities for Vinyl
Acetate, IASPUB.EPA.GOV (last visited Aug. 2, 2019),
https://iaspub.epa.gov/triexplorer/release_fac?p_view=USFA&trilib=TRIQ1&sort=RE_TOLBY&sort_fm
t=2&state=All+states&county=All+counties&chemical=000108054&industry=ALL&year=2017&tab_rpt
=1&fld=RELLBY&fld=TSFDSP.
169
See Attach. D, Cloud Aff., Ex. 2, Section 1.5.3.
170
Basic Information about the Integrated Risk Information System, EPA (last updated Oct. 22, 2018),
https://www.epa.gov/iris/basic-information-about-integrated-risk-information-system.
171
Id.
August 12, 2019
Page 45 of 82
inhalation exposure. IURs are expressed in per μg/m3, and thus cannot be directly compared with
Formosa’s concentration estimates. For purposes of comparing Formosa’s anticipated emissions
of various air toxins, RfC values are used. Because the RfC value is generally used for noncancer
health assessments, these comparisons provide a useful estimated threshold for exposure beyond
which a person will experience deleterious health effects, but do not capture the full risks that
may be associated with exposure to carcinogenic pollutants. In the case of Ethylene Oxide, the
IRIS program does not provide an RfC value, but instead calculates a concentration value
associated with a cancer risk of 1-in-1 million, as described below the table. 172 The rows
highlighted in gray show where Formosa’s maximum modeled concentrations exceed the EPA’s
IRIS values for that pollutant—i.e., exceed the “a continuous inhalation exposure to the human
population (including sensitive subgroups) that is likely to be without an appreciable risk of
deleterious effects during a lifetime.” 173
Max. IRIS RfC IRIS RfC

Modeled (noncancer) for (noncancer) for MMC/RfC (or
Pollutant Con. Inhalation Inhalation other value used
(“MMC”) Exposure Exposure if applicable)***
(µg/m3) 174 (mg/m3) (µg/m3)
Ethylene Oxide 0.41 -- 0.0002* 2050
Benzene 2.62 0.03 30 0.08733
Formaldehyde** 0.03 -- -- --
1,3-Butadiene 0.72 0.002 2 0.36
Acetaldehyde 3.59 0.009 9 0.39889
Ethylene Glycol** 134.18 -- -- --
n-Hexane 342.59 0.7 700 0.489414286
Propionaldehyde 0.15 0.008 8 0.01875
Vinyl Acetate 213.73 0.2 200 1.06865
Ammonia 44.82 0.5 500 0.08964
Sulfuric Acid 0.55 Not evaluated by the IRIS program
*There is no RfC value for EtO inhalation exposure. Instead, the IRIS value used reflects the
lower-bound commensurate lifetime chronic exposure level of EtO corresponding to an
increased cancer risk of 1-in-1 million. Source:
172
All of the information in the table comes from Formosa’s initial Air Quality Analysis, July 2018,
EDMS 11246153, except for the information for Ethylene Oxide and Ethylene Glycol, which is from
Formosa’s Updated Ethylene Oxide and Ethylene Glycol Analysis, Dec. 2018, EDMS 11431688.
173
Basic Information about the Integrated Risk Information System, EPA (last updated Oct. 22, 2018)
(describing Reference Concentration (RfC)), https://www.epa.gov/iris/basic-information-about-
integrated-risk-information-system.
174
Formosa Air Quality Analysis at 37–38 (unless noted otherwise).
August 12, 2019
Page 46 of 82
https://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/iris/iris_documents/documents/subst/1025_summary.pdf#nameddest=
cancerinhal at 5.
**There is no concentration-based inhalation IRIS value for this pollutant that can be easily
compared to Formosa’s modeled concentration.
***The values in this column were calculated by dividing Formosa’s Max. Modeled
Concentration figure in the column on the far left by the corresponding figure for that toxic
pollutant in the column that is second from the right (IRIS RfC (noncancer) for Inhalation
Exposure (µg/m3)), which is the IRIS value for 1 in 1 million cancer risk.
3. LDEQ must require Formosa to conduct a full assessment of its toxic

emissions in combination with the current and authorized future
emissions for the St. James area, using the IRIS values.
Formosa’s models do not account for pre-existing cancer risk in St. James, despite the fact that
several census tracts in St. James and surrounding parishes have cancer risks exceeding EPA’s
upper limit of acceptable risk for total lifetime cancer exposure (1-in-10,000, aka 100-in-1
million). 175 Where the NATA shows elevated cancer risks, EPA recommends conducting “more
detailed assessments, including emissions testing and more refined modeling” in order to “better
understand local risks.” 176 Formosa has not conducted any site-specific studies investigating how
its emissions of Ethylene Oxide, Benzene, and Formaldehyde will contribute to cumulative
cancer risk in the surrounding area, as recommended by EPA. Formosa also has not conducted
any assessments, emissions testing, or refined modeling showing how its emissions will affect
cancer risk in these already over-burdened areas. As public trustee, LDEQ must require Formosa
to model the total risk that will result from Formosa’s total carcinogenic emissions on top of
existing cancer risk using EPA’s IRIS values 177 to accurately reflect the increased lifetime health
risk to surrounding communities. 178
175
National Air Toxics Assessment, 2014 NATA: Assessment Results, EPA (last updated Aug. 27, 2018),
176
Id.
177
Louisiana’s Toxic Air Pollutant Ambient Standards at most include annual exposure standards, though
some only have 8-hour standards for acute exposure (i.e., n-Hexane, Propionaldehyde, and Ammonia).
See LAC 33:III.5112, Table 51.2. Many of these standards are based on outdated information that does
not represent the best available science. See id. at Historical Note (showing last amendment in Dec.
2007). Generally, EPA’s IRIS values represent lifetime risk, i.e. daily inhalation exposure over 70 years.
For this reason, it is critical that LDEQ require Formosa to use the IRIS cancer assessment values when
conducting its full analysis.
178
See, e.g., In re General Permit for Discharges from Oil and Gas Exploration, Dev. & Prod. Facilities,
2010-1640 (La. App. 1 Cir. 6/10/11); 70 So. 3d 101, 106 (holding LDEQ abused its discretion when it
relied on general studies to issue a LPDES permit for produced water discharges without conducting
individualized, direct studies of the cumulative impact of those discharges on the particular area in
question).
August 12, 2019
Page 47 of 82
A comprehensive assessment is particularly needed here, where a petrochemical complex would

be built near sensitive receptors and residences in an area already saturated with toxic pollutants
from existing and permitted facilities. The site is just a half a mile from the residential
community of Union across the river on the east bank, and approximately one mile upriver from
Fifth Ward Elementary School and the residential community of St. James on the west bank. 179
LDEQ must require Formosa to conduct a full assessment of its toxic emissions in combination
with the current and authorized future emissions for the area using IRIS values for the agency’s
public trustee analysis.
LDEQ claims that Formosa will comply with National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants. But even if Formosa complies with these standards, the pollutants will still adversely
impact the surrounding area. The community will still suffer from exposure to these pollutants—
especially in combination with the pollutants that already impact the area. The Louisiana
Supreme Court made clear that LDEQ has to do more than simply apply its own regulations; it
has to show it performed its public trustee duty by analyzing these effects and requiring
mitigative measures. 180
Formosa claims that it has avoided “any real and potential effects of the Facility on human health
. . . by the proper siting of the Facility.” 181 But the site places the facility one mile from an
elementary school and approximately one half mile from the residential community of Union.
How could siting the facility with its enormous toxic emissions—many of which are cancer-
causing—this close to children and homes possibly mitigate harmful effects to these people?
Formosa goes on to say that it will plant trees within the mere 300-foot buffer between emission
units and its property line “to mitigate any potential environmental effects.” 182 Aside from the
fact that this is just absurd, it is completely unsupported.183 Formosa provides no support
whatsoever on how trees could somehow mitigate both acute and chronic inhalation exposure to
Ethylene Oxide, Benzene—or any toxic emissions.
179
See Attach. A, Kray Aff., Ex. 1, Map of New & Existing Industrial Facilities (showing Formosa site
relative to residential communities); see also Attach. B, Formosa’s Map showing “Distance to Fifth Ward
Elementary School.”
180
See Save Ourselves, 452 So. 2d at 1160 (“From our review it appears that the agency may have erred
by assuming that its duty was to adhere only to its own regulations rather than to the constitutional and
statutory mandates.”); see also In re Oil & Gas Exploration, 70 So. 3d at 110–11 (finding LDEQ did not
support its determination by a preponderance of the evidence that the proposed permit minimized or
181
Formosa EAS at 8.
182
Id.
183
Id.
August 12, 2019
Page 48 of 82
Further, the Parish granted Formosa’s land use application based on its finding that “the physical
and environmental impacts . . . are substantially mitigated by the physical layout of the facility,
and the location of the site in proximity to existing industrial uses and away from residential
uses.” 184 But Formosa’s site plan shows that the ethylene oxide-emitting plants (Ethylene Glycol
Plant 1 and Ethylene Glycol Plant 2 and the associated flares) would be towards the front of the
2300-acre site adjacent closest to the school, church, and neighborhoods across and
downriver. 185 This calls into question what information the Parish was relying on to conclude
that the facility layout somehow mitigates impacts when the layout places the most dangerous
parts of the facility closest to a school and residences.
The Parish has required Formosa to conduct fenceline monitoring along the eastern boundary of
its property line to provide data on 1,3-butadiene, vinyl acetate, and ethylene oxide emissions in
accordance with 40 C.F.R. § 63.658.186 This requirement must be incorporated into the permits
as enforceable operating conditions, along with fenceline monitoring provisions for VOCs and
additional HAPs, including benzene, formaldehyde, hexane, toluene, and xylenes. Fenceline
monitoring is especially important to detect leaks and fugitive emissions of dangerous toxic
pollutants, and to measure the maximum ground-level impacts spikes (i.e., Ethylene Oxide
emissions jump from 0.75 µg/m3to 0.41 µg/m3).
C. Formosa’s EAS fails to show the real and potential effects of its proposed
Ethylene Oxide emissions on human health.
1. Ethylene Oxide’s harmful effects.
According to EPA, Ethylene Oxide is linked to breast cancer, non-Hodgkin lymphoma, and
lymphocytic leukemia. 187 In addition to significant cancer risks, the Agency for Toxic
Substances and Disease Registry (“ATSDR”) warns that acute respiratory exposure to Ethylene
184
See Attach. F, St. James Parish Council Resolution 19-07, Denying the Appeal of RISE St. James and
Approving the Application of FG LA LLC under the St. James Parish Land Use Ordinance, with
Conditions (Jan. 24, 2019); see also St. James Parish Council, Jan, 23, 2019 Minutes,
https://www.stjamesla.com/AgendaCenter/ViewFile/Minutes/_01232019-179.
185
See Formosa Area Map, Facility Overview, FG LA, Feb. 7, 2018 (showing Ethylene Glycol plants as
EG1 and EG2 and associated flares as EG1-FLR and EG2-FLR); see also Attach B, Formosa’s Map
“Distance to Fifth Ward Elementary School.”
186
See Attach. F, St. James Parish Council Resolution 19-07, Denying the Appeal of RISE St. James and
Approving the Application of FG LA LLC under the St. James Parish Land Use Ordinance, with
Conditions (Jan. 24, 2019); see also St. James Parish Council, Jan, 23, 2019 Minutes,
https://www.stjamesla.com/AgendaCenter/ViewFile/Minutes/_01232019-179.
187
Evaluation of the Inhalation Carcinogenicity of Ethylene Oxide, EPA 3-66 (Dec. 2016),
https://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/iris/iris_documents/documents/toxreviews/1025tr.pdf.
August 12, 2019
Page 49 of 82
Oxide may cause narrowing of the bronchi and partial lung collapse. 188 Inhalation of Ethylene
Oxide can also produce central nervous system (“CNS”) depression, and in extreme cases,
respiratory distress and coma. 189 The ATSDR also notes that children may be more vulnerable
to Ethylene Oxide exposure, especially chronic exposure. 190 EPA and the ATSDR have also
warned that inhalation exposure to Ethylene Oxide can lead to spontaneous abortions. 191
In 2016, EPA scientists in the agency’s IRIS program produced an updated risk value for
Ethylene Oxide exposure. 192 The IRIS program found Ethylene Oxide is far more carcinogenic
than previously understood,193 and linked long-term exposure to Ethylene Oxide to increased
risk of cancers of the white blood cells, including non-Hodgkin lymphoma, myeloma, and
lymphocytic leukemia, as well as breast cancer in females. 194 EPA’s 2014 National Air Toxics
Assessment (“NATA”) estimated that Ethylene Oxide “significantly contributes to potential
elevated cancer risks in some census tracts across the U.S.” 195 Other scientists and health
experts have independently confirmed EPA’s findings, including the National Toxicology
Program, the International Agency for Research on Cancer, and the Occupational Safety and
188
Ethylene Oxide ([CH2]2O), ASTDR (last visited July 12, 2019),
https://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/MHMI/mmg137.pdf.
189
Id.
190
Id.
191
Ethylene Oxide: Hazard Summary, https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-
09/documents/ethylene-oxide.pdf; Toxicological Profile for Ethylene Oxide,
https://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxprofiles/tp137.pdf.
192
Ethylene Oxide: History, EPA:IRIS (last updated July 28, 2018),
https://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/iris2/chemicalLanding.cfm?substance_nmbr=1025#tab-3 (describing IRIS’s
work from 2006−16 on the 2016 IRIS value for inhalation carcinogenicity); see Notice of a Public
Comment Period on the Draft IRIS Carcinogenicity Assessment for Ethylene Oxide, 78 Fed. Reg. 44,117
(July 23, 2013); see Evaluation of the Carcinogenicity of Ethylene Oxide Docket, REGULATIONS.GOV (last
visited July 12, 2019) https://www.regulations.gov/docket?D=EPA-HQ-ORD-2006-0756; Evaluation of
the Inhalation Carcinogenicity of Ethylene Oxide, Executive Summary, EPA (Dec. 2016),
https://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/iris/iris_documents/documents/subst/1025_summary.pdf; Evaluation of the
Inhalation Carcinogenicity of Ethylene Oxide, EPA (Dec. 2016),
https://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/iris/iris_documents/documents/toxreviews/1025tr.pdf [hereinafter EtO
Carcinogenicity Evaluation].
193
See EtO Carcinogenicity Evaluation, supra note 193.
194
See EtO Carcinogenicity Evaluation, supra note 193 at 2.
195
Background Information on Ethylene Oxide, EPA (last updated Feb. 27, 2019),
https://www.epa.gov/hazardous-air-pollutants-ethylene-oxide/background-information-ethylene-oxide;
2014 NATA: Assessment Results, EPA (last updated Aug. 27, 2018), https://www.epa.gov/national-air-
toxics-assessment/2014-nata-assessment-results.
August 12, 2019
Page 50 of 82
Health Administration. 196
The IRIS program produced its updated Ethylene Oxide risk value following a rigorous, 10-year
long, peer-reviewed process, including public notice and comment.197 IRIS determined that the
“full lifetime total cancer unit risk estimate,” including age-dependent adjustment factors due to
early-life inhalation exposure to Ethylene Oxide, is 5.0 x 10-3 or 0.005 per μg/m3. 198 The
commensurate chronic (lower-bound) exposure level of Ethylene Oxide corresponding to an
increased cancer risk of 10-6 (1-in-1 million) is 2 x 10-4 or 0.0002 μg/m3. 199 IRIS determined that
EPA has “relatively high” confidence in the unit risk estimate, “based on strong epidemiological
evidence supplemented by other lines of evidence,” including “a large, high-quality
epidemiology study with individual worker exposure estimates,” and found that the method of
linear low-exposure extrapolation used “is strongly supported,” and that “[c]onfidence . . . is
particularly high for the breast cancer component,” based on “over 200 incident cases.” 200
On May 3, 2019, the National Environmental Justice Advisory Council, which is a federal
advisory committee to the EPA, sent a letter to EPA voicing concerns about the impacts of
Ethylene Oxide on environmental justice communities. NEJAC called on the EPA to “take
prompt regulatory action under the Clean Air Act that assures the emission reductions needed
from all chemical manufacturing and other sources, to protect public health from exposure to
Ethylene Oxide, together with other toxic pollutants.” 201
196
National Toxicology Program, Report on Carcinogens, Fourteenth Addition, Ethylene Oxide (2016),
https://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/ntp/roc/content/profiles/ethyleneoxide.pdf; International Agency for Research on
Cancer, IARC Monographs 100F Ethylene Oxide (2012), https://monographs.iarc.fr/wp-
content/uploads/2018/06/mono100F-28.pdf; Occupational Safety and Health Administration, OSHA Fact
Sheet Ethylene Oxide (2002), https://www.osha.gov/OshDoc/data_General_Facts/ethylene-oxide-
factsheet.pdf.
197
See, e.g., Letter from Scientists to EPA (Apr. 26, 2019) (filed by J. Sass, NRDC); Testimony of
Jennifer Sass, Senior Scientist, NRDC (Mar. 27, 2019); Testimony of Michelle Mabson, Staff Scientist,
Earthjustice (Mar. 27, 2019); see also Jennifer Sass, ACC/TSCA Attack on IRIS: Formaldehyde,
Chloroprene, EtO, NRDC (Mar. 26, 2019), https://www.nrdc.org/experts/jennifer-sass/acctsca-attack-iris-
formaldehyde-chloroprene-eto.
198
EPA, Evaluation of the Inhalation Carcinogenicity of Ethylene Oxide, Executive Summary at 5−6
(Dec. 2016), https://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/iris/iris_documents/documents/subst/1025_summary.pdf.
199
Id. at 2.
200
Id. at 5.
201
Available at: https://comingcleaninc.org/assets/media/documents/NEJAC-Letter-Ethylene%20Oxide-
May-3-2019-Final.pdf.
August 12, 2019
Page 51 of 82
2. Formosa’s Ethylene Oxide Emissions & Modeling Flaws.
Despite the well-documented risks, LDEQ proposes to allow Formosa to emit 15,400 pounds of
Ethylene Oxide a year, 202 which would make Formosa the third largest source of Ethylene Oxide
in the country, and the second largest source in the state. 203 Indeed, Formosa’s modeled ground-
level Ethylene Oxide concentrations dwarf background Ethylene Oxide concentrations in
surrounding communities. The table below illustrates the potential effect of Formosa’s Ethylene
Oxide emissions on Ethylene Oxide concentrations in the areas immediately surrounding the
proposed site’s census tract (highlighted in gray). 204 Using Formosa’s modeled maximum
ground-level concentration of Ethylene Oxide, the far right column in the table below shows
these emissions would lead to a 1,320 to 7,764 percent increase over 2014 background Ethylene
Oxide exposure concentrations 205 in the census tracts surrounding the proposed site. This is an
extraordinary increase in the 2014 background levels of Ethylene Oxide, a known carcinogen, in
an already over-burdened region of the country.
2014 2014 Formosa

Total Risk/Nat. Max
Cancer Avg. 2014 EC EtO Ground-
County Tract Pop.
Risk (µg/m3) Level
EtO/EC**
*
Ascension 3030 13,72 130.29 4.34 0.0311 1320%
Ascension 3060 5,123 88.34 2.94 0.0139 2949%
St. James 4030 3,382 91.60 3.05 0.0099 4130%
202
See LDEQ Statement of Basis at 55.
203
TRI On-Site and Off-Site Reported Disposed of or Other Released Top 100 Facilities for Ethylene
Oxide, IASPUB.EPA.GOV (last visited Jun 26, 2019),
204
Id.
205
These estimates do not capture the highest risk in a county, though general spatial patterns are
“reasonably accurate.” Id. To calculate these concentrations, the NATA relied on emissions data compiled
for a single year as inputs to air quality models to estimate ambient air concentrations. EPA then
combined those modeled concentrations with census data and other information to calculate exposure
concentrations, i.e. long-term-average concentrations to which people are exposed after accounting for
human activities. The NATA then developed census tract-level risk estimates by applying health
benchmark data to the exposure concentrations. Technical Support Document: EPA’s 2014 National Air
Toxics Assessment, EPA.GOV (Aug. 2018), https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2018-
09/documents/2014_nata_technical_support_document.pdf.
August 12, 2019
Page 52 of 82
Ascension 3100 6,760 78.27 2.61 0.0097 4239%

Ascension 3050 8,843 74.72 2.49 0.0073 5635%
Ascension 3090 4,165 74.50 2.48 0.0136 3017%
St. James 4040 2,565 72.15 2.40 0.0073 5648%
Assumptio 5010 3,788 65.65 2.19 0.0066 6225%
St. James 4050 2,155 64.94 2.16 0.0062 6561%
Assumptio 5030 3,884 57.48 1.92 0.0053 7764%
Formosa Modeled Max Ground-Level Con. 0.41*
206
*Does not include background sources.
***The figures in this column were calculated by dividing Formosa’s Max Modeled
Concentration for Ethylene Oxide (0.41) by the column second from the far right (2014 EC EtO
(µg/m3), which are the existing exposure concentrations taken from the NATA database for each
census tract hear the facility.
Formosa’s modeled ground-level Ethylene Oxide concentration is also at least two thousand
times greater than the IRIS risk value for Ethylene Oxide, which corresponds to an increased
cancer risk of 1-in-1 million (see table below). Formosa’s EAS is silent on this shocking
comparison and the associated cancer risks, despite the fact that the IRIS program constitutes the
best available science on this matter. LDEQ must require Formosa to apply EPA’s IRIS risk
value in its analysis, for reasons discussed in the sections below.
IRIS EtO Exposure

Max. Modeled
Level Corr. to
Doc. No. Doc. Title Date Con. (“MMC”) MMC/IRIS
Increased Cancer Risk
(µg/m3)
of 10-6 (µg/m3)
Updated EtO
Dec.
11431688 and Et glycol 0.41 2.0 x 10-4 2,050***
2018
analysis
***This value was calculated by dividing Formosa’s Max. Modeled Concentration of 0.41 by
.0002, the IRIS value for 1 in 1 million cancer risk.
Furthermore, Formosa only maps the extent of modeled Ethylene Oxide concentrations greater
than 0.02 µg/m3 (equivalent to 1-in-10,000 risk). 207 Even at this overly conservative risk level,
Formosa’s own map shows that its Ethylene Oxide emissions adversely affect the residential
community of Union, as illustrated below. 208 The map on the left is Formosa’s Ethylene Oxide
206
Formosa’s Updated EtO and Et Glycol Analysis at 4.
207
See Attach. G, Formosa Supp. EAS (Jan. 7, 2019) at P-1 (FG LA Ethylene Oxide Contour Map, Dec.
2018), LDEQ Doc 11457119.
208
See Attach. G, Formosa Supp. EAS (Jan. 7, 2019) at P-1 (FG LA Ethylene Oxide Contour Map, Dec.
2018), LDEQ Doc 11457119, Ex.
August 12, 2019
Page 53 of 82
Contour Map (i.e., cancer risk plot), where the red line represents the extent of its modeled
Ethylene Oxide concentrations greater than 0.02 µg/m3 (i.e., 1-in-10,000 risk). 209 The red line
extends to the residential community of Union, as illustrated by the map on the right. 210
A 1-in-10,000 risk level reflects EPA’s upper limit of acceptable risk 211 and does not account for
any margin of error, nor the cumulative effect of Formosa’s carcinogenic emissions combined
with background cancer risk. In order to accurately reflect the potential cancer risk to
neighboring communities, LDEQ must require Formosa to model the extent of a 1-in-100,000
and 1-in-1,000,000 risk associated with its Ethylene Oxide emissions, taking into consideration
age-dependent adjustment factors and background cancer risk levels with a margin of error. This
is what Todd Cloud has done using Formosa’s own modeling data. 212 As Mr. Cloud’s cancer risk
plot shows, Formosa’s Ethylene Oxide concentrations exceed the 1-in 100,000 risk level at the
elementary school, and this does not include age-dependent adjustment factors or background
cancer risk levels. 213
209
Id. (image showing portion of contour map).
210
See Attach. A, Kray Aff., Ex. 1, Map of New & Existing Industrial Facilities (showing Formosa site
relative to residential communities).
211
National Air Toxics Assessment, 2014 NATA: Assessment Results, EPA (last updated Aug. 27, 2018),
212
See Attach. D, Cloud Aff., Ex. 2, ¶¶ 6-9 (attaching 1 in 100,000 risk plot and 1 in 1,000,000 risk plot).
213
Id.
August 12, 2019
Page 54 of 82
Formosa’s modeled ground-level concentrations of Ethylene Oxide fail to account for potentially
significant margins of error. At least two plants in the Formosa complex will emit Ethylene
Oxide: Ethylene Glycol 1 (“EG1”) and Ethylene Glycol 2 (“EG2”) (proposed Ethylene Oxide
emissions for both plants are shown in the table below). 214 Accounting for margins of error is
critically important to determining whether Ethylene Oxide emissions from these sources may
reach nearby residents including students at Fifth Ward Elementary, members of a nearby
church, and Union residents across the river. LDEQ must require Formosa to include margin of
error estimates in its total projected Ethylene Oxide emissions and update all relevant models
relying on those estimates in order to enable the agency and the public to understand the
potential and real health risks posed by Formosa’s Ethylene Oxide emissions.
Facility EtO Emission Pt. Avg lb/hr. Max lb/hr. Tpy EtO
EG1-TO 0.66 0.66 2.88
EG1-FLR 0.08 38.29 0.36
EG1
EG1-FUG 0.14 0.14 0.61
Subtotal 3.85
EG2-TO 0.66 0.66 2.88
EG2-FLR 0.08 38.29 0.36
EG2
EG2-FUG 0.14 0.14 0.61
Subtotal 3.85
TOTAL 7.7
Formosa also fails to account for acute Ethylene Oxide exposure that may occur during flaring
events. Formosa estimates that its emissions of Ethylene Oxide may reach as high as 38 pounds
per hour during these events, again, only a half-mile from Union and one mile away from the
214
Formosa has released two different values for the maximum ground-level impact concentration of EtO
during the permitting process. In its initial Air Quality Analysis dated July 2018, Formosa modeled a
maximum ground-level impact concentration for EtO of 0.74 µg/m3 (a mere 0.01 µg/m3 less than 75% of
the Ambient Air Standard (“AAS”)—the threshold for requiring additional TAPs modeling). Five months
later, Formosa released an updated EtO and ethylene glycol analysis, reducing the ground-level impact
concentration for EtO by 45% to 0.41 µg/m3. See Formosa Updated TAPs Modeling Analysis for
Ethylene Oxide and Ethylene Glycol, EDMS 11432533. The sole rationale for these reductions was that
Formosa had provided “updated equipment component counts and stream speciation, which affected the
fugitive emission estimate” for EG1 and EG2. Yet, the data provided in the original AQA and updated
EtO and Et glycol analysis are identical for EtO emission points, including fugitive emissions. Thus, the
public has no ability to independently analyze whether such drastic reductions in Formosa’s modeled EtO
ground-level impact concentrations are warranted. This gap is especially significant as the ground-level
impact concentrations dictate how far out into neighboring communities the 25% EtO AAS buffer
reaches, including the level of exposure at the nearby elementary school, residences, and church. See
Formosa Supp. EAS, Exhibit P, EDMS 11457119.
August 12, 2019
Page 55 of 82
Fifth Ward Elementary School. 215 Acute inhalation exposure to Ethylene Oxide poses significant
health risks including partial lung collapse, pulmonary edema, seizures, loss of consciousness
and coma. Children are not little adults and have very real physiological differences that make
them more susceptible to the harmful effects from exposure to Ethylene Oxide. For instance,
children may be more vulnerable to these risks due to their relatively higher respiratory minute
volume as compared to adults. 216 There is additional concern for smaller children due to the fact
that Ethylene Oxide is heavier than ambient air and higher concentrations detected nearer to the
ground may result in higher exposure for children, especially those attending school at the
elementary school. Yet nowhere in Formosa’s EAS does it model the geographic range of
potential acute exposure during these flare events. LDEQ must require Formosa to model the
extent of acute exposure risk to Ethylene Oxide that will occur during flaring events, and include
both margins of error and age-dependent adjustment factors in those estimates in order to
account for the increased susceptibility of minors to acute Ethylene Oxide inhalation exposure.
Formosa’s EAS is silent on the increased cancer risk that its proposed Ethylene Oxide emissions
pose to children. Both chronic and acute Ethylene Oxide inhalation exposure can produce more
severe health impacts, including increased cancer risk, in children due to their relatively higher
respiratory minute volume as compared to adults. 217 EPA guidance states that age-dependent
adjustment factors (ADAFs) should be used to account for these enhanced risks to children. 218
Formosa, however, has not considered these factors in any of its models. LDEQ must require
Formosa to apply these factors in its EAS, and include margins of error estimates. This is
especially critical given that in Formosa’s Supplemental EAS, the 0.02 µg/m3 boundary appears
to reach the residential community of Union and is less than a quarter of a mile west 219 of the
closest church and Fifth Ward Elementary School, which serves hundreds of pre-kindergarten to
sixth grade students. 220
3. Formosa’s EAS is silent on the long-term cancer risks posed by Ethylene Oxide
and other project emissions.
Formosa’s EAS is silent on the long-term cancer risk posed by its proposed emissions of
Ethylene Oxide and other carcinogens, instead focusing only on present cancer rates in the
215
See Proposed Title V Permit for Ethylene Glycol Plant 1, 3142-V0, EDMS Doc 11687337; Title V
Permit for Ethylene Glycol Plant 2, 3151-V0, EDMS 11687491.
216
Ethylene Oxide, ATSDR 5–6 (last updated Oct. 21, 2014)
https://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/MHMI/mmg137.pdf.
217
See EtO Carcinogenicity Evaluation, supra note 193 at 3-66.
218
Id.
219
Id.
220
St. Louis Academy, http://stjamesfwe.sharpschool.net/ (last visited Jun. 25, 2019).
August 12, 2019
Page 56 of 82
Industrial Corridor recorded between 2011 and 2015. 221 The most severe health concerns related
to Ethylene Oxide exposure occur over the long term. It is therefore inadequate for Formosa to
focus solely on four-year-old data on existing cancer rates without considering the potential
increased cancer risk and other health impacts that will result from long-term inhalation exposure
to Ethylene Oxide, and other carcinogens, over the project’s lifetime. This gap is especially
significant given that the two sources of Ethylene Oxide—EG1 and EG2—sit a mere mile away
from an elementary school and a half mile from the nearby community of Union.
4. Formosa fails to cite independent, peer-reviewed studies to support its cursory

critiques of the best available science on Ethylene Oxide-related health risks.
Formosa suggests in its Supplemental EAS that the IRIS risk factor for Ethylene Oxide, as
applied by the 2014 NATA, is 19,000 times lower than the naturally occurring levels of Ethylene
Oxide created by the human body. 222 But Formosa provides no citation for this claim. Further,
the calculations and assumptions on which the claim is based are not cited in the EAS or
Supplemental EAS. For this reason alone, LDEQ must disregard this information. Formosa’s
claims also ignore the fact that the IRIS risk value for Ethylene Oxide quantifies cancer risk
above background levels, including endogenous levels of Ethylene Oxide produced by the
human body. 223 As for Formosa’s reference to the American Chemistry Council’s Request for
Correction with EPA, that request cites only one study, which was funded by the Council’s own
Ethylene Oxide Panel. 224 Best available science does not include studies funded by the very
industries that are subject to regulation. LDEQ must only consider independent, peer-reviewed
studies that are scientifically defensible.
5. LDEQ must require Formosa to consider the best available science on Ethylene
Oxide-related health risks and that of other Toxic Air Contaminants, and must
include emissions reductions where necessary to protect the public health.
Louisiana’s Air Regulations require that all air permit applications “at minimum” contain “such
other data as may be necessary for a thorough evaluation of the source and existing or proposed
activities.” La. Admin. Code § 33.III.517.D.18 (emphasis added). The definition of
221
Formosa Supp. EAS, at 8−9.
222
Formosa Supp. EAS, at 8.
223
Comments Regarding Ethylene Oxide (EtO) On the National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants: Hydrochloric Acid Production Residual Risk and Technology Review, NRDC.ORG 2 (Apr. 26,
2019), https://www.nrdc.org/sites/default/files/eto-neshap-letter-20190426.pdf.
224
Request for Correction under the Information Quality Act: 2014 National Air Toxics Assessment
(NATA), American Chemistry Council (Sep. 20, 2018), https://www.americanchemistry.com/EO/Request-
for-Correction-under-the-Information-Quality-Act-2014-NATA.pdf; C.R. Kirman & S.M. Hays,
Derivation of endogenous equivalent values to support risk assessment and risk management decisions
for an endogenous carcinogen: Ethylene oxide, 91 Reg. Tox. & Pharm. 165, 171 (2017).
August 12, 2019
Page 57 of 82
“thorough”—meaning “carried through to completion; exhaustive” 225—necessarily requires, at

minimum, consideration of the best available science to understand the health risks posed by a
permittee’s proposed emissions, especially where those emissions include thousands of pounds
per year of known carcinogens. 226 Otherwise, a permittee would simply be able to select the data
most beneficial to its analysis, reading “thorough” out of the regulation entirely. Given the word
“thorough” only appears three times in the State’s Air Regulations, its insertion here should not
be ignored, but rather interpreted to require all that would be necessary for an exhaustive analysis
of a source’s existing or proposed activities. LDEQ must therefore require Formosa to engage
with the best science available on the health risks posed by Ethylene Oxide, benzene, and other
carcinogens, namely the IRIS risk values for each and the 2014 NATA estimates of existing
cancer risk. Should that analysis reveal that additional emission reductions at the Formosa
facility are necessary to protect the public health of local residents, LDEQ must require Formosa
to implement such emission reductions consistent with its public trustee duty under the Louisiana
Constitution.
D. Formosa’s EAS fails to include any information about the potential and real
adverse environmental effects of Formosa’s greenhouse gas emissions, nor
does it include any information about the associated costs to society.
LDEQ proposes to allow Formosa to emit 13,628,091 million tons per year of greenhouse gases
(measured in carbon dioxide equivalents, “CO2e”). Formosa’s greenhouse gas emissions would
constitute the largest new source planned or permitted in the U.S. since 2012. 227 Its greenhouse
gas emissions would match those of Big Cajun II, the largest coal-fired power plant and biggest
existing source of greenhouse gas emissions in the state, at 13,901,727 tons per year. 228 Despite
Formosa’s enormous greenhouse gas emissions, the EAS fails to provide any information or
analysis on the potential and real adverse environmental effects of these emissions on the climate
associated costs to society such as sea level rise and associated human displacement, extreme
weather events, increased ambient temperatures, altered precipitation patterns, and loss of habitat
and species. Formosa’s silence on the effects of its greenhouse gas emissions is especially
egregious given that Louisiana’s coast is disappearing due to the effects of climate change-
225
Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary (11th ed. 2011).
226
See also La R.S. § 30:2060(C) (requiring LDEQ to “place emphasis on those sources of emissions
representing the greatest risk to human health” in order to reduce statewide TAPs emissions by 50% of
1987 levels by 1996).
227
See Tracking Oil and Gas Infrastructure Emissions, ENVIRONMENTALINTEGIRTY.ORG (2019, May 31),
http://www.environmentalintegrity.org/oil-gas-infrastructure-emissions; Greenhouse Gases from a
Growing Petrochemical Industry, ENVIRONMENTALINTEGRITY.ORG (February 29, 2016),
http://www.environmentalintegrity.org/reports/greenhouse-gases-from-a-growing-petrochemical-
industry/.
228
Big Cajun II Title V Permit No. 2260-00012-V6, issued 4/25/19, at pdf p. 8, EDMS Doc. 11624907,
http://edms.deq.louisiana.gov/app/doc/view.aspx?doc=11624907&ob=yes&child=yes.
August 12, 2019
Page 58 of 82
induced sea level rise. Indeed, Louisiana's Comprehensive Master Plan for a Sustainable Coast
published in 2017 blames Louisiana’s disappearing coast on “the effects of climate change,”
among other causes. 229 For this reason alone, LDEQ must deny the permits. Formosa must
provide information about the potential and real adverse environmental effects of its greenhouse
gas emissions and the costs to society imposed by these effects. As further support, Commenters
adopt the detailed comments provided by Sierra Club on this subject, which are included and
made part of these comments as Attachment H.
E. The EAS Fails to Address Severe Weather and Accident Risk.
As a public trustee, LDEQ has a duty to ensure that Formosa’s proposed petrochemical complex
will not create undue chemical hazards to the public and the environment, particularly in the face
of increasingly intense storms and worsening flood risks that could impact the facility during its
lifetime. It has a corresponding duty to require Formosa to mitigate any remaining risk, such as
with proof of adequate planning and insurance. 230 LDEQ has not discharged that duty here.
The Clean Air Act’s General Duty Clause, Section 112(r)(1), additionally, imposes a duty that
chemical facilities that handle “extremely hazardous substance[s],” 231
identify hazards which may result from such releases using appropriate hazard
assessment techniques, to design and maintain a safe facility taking such steps as
229
Louisiana’s Comprehensive Master Plan for a Sustainable Coast, COASTAL.LA.GOV ES-2 (June 2,
2017), http://coastal.la.gov/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/2017-Coastal-Master-Plan_Web-Book_CFinal-
with-Effective-Date-06092017.pdf.
230
See, e.g., Save Ourselves, Inc. v. La. Envt’l Control Comm’n, 452 So. 2d 1152, 1157 (La. 1984)
(holding agency failed to provide sufficient reasons responding to petitioners’ concerns about potential
threat to New Orleans’ water supply from, among other things, flooding from hazardous waste landfill
near Mississippi River); Matter of Rubicon, Inc., 95-0108 (La. App. 1 Cir. 2/14/96), 670 So. 2d 475, 483
(requiring public trustee to ensure that “the potential and real adverse environmental effects of the
proposed project have been avoided to the maximum extent possible,” and to address whether “there are
alternative projects or alternative sites or mitigating measures which would offer more protection to the
environment than the proposed project without unduly curtailing non-environmental benefits to the extent
applicable.”).
231
EPA has compiled a list of “extremely hazardous substances,” based on the criteria that these
chemicals “are known to cause or may reasonably be anticipated to cause death, injury, or serious adverse
effects to human health or the environment.” 42 U.S.C. § 7412(r)(3)-(4). Congress specifically mandated
that ethylene oxide, which Formosa would release in large quantities, be included on the list. See 42
U.S.C. § 7412(r)(3). EPA, pursuant to congressional directive, has promulgated a much longer list of
toxic, explosive, and flammable chemicals that include other chemicals Formosa would be permitted to
emit. See 40 C.F.R. § 68.130. The General Duty Clause applies regardless of the amount of the listed
substance the facility has onsite. 40 C.F.R. § 68.1; United States v. Gibson Wine Co., 2017 WL 1064658,
at *2 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 20, 2017).
August 12, 2019
Page 59 of 82
are necessary to prevent releases, and to minimize the consequences of accidental

releases which do occur.
42 U.S.C. § 7412(r)(1). Section 112(r) further requires the project proponent to create a plan that
addresses, among other process hazards, “reasonably anticipated external events as well as
internal failures” such as hurricanes and floods. 232
Formosa acknowledges that it is subject to Section 112(r), 233 yet it has neither identified the risks
of chemical releases, in the context of severe storms, nor taken measures necessary to identify
and to protect the public and environment against those risks.
This section begins with a discussion of the threat Formosa’s complex could face from storms
and storm-related chemical releases, and the standard by which Formosa should demonstrate it
has addressed those significant threats. It then discusses Formosa’s failure to document that it
has sufficient insurance to protect against this and other hazards it could face.
1. Formosa Failed to Adequately Address the Storm-Related Chemical

Risks.
Formosa has not documented how it would protect workers and nearby communities from the
hazard of chemical releases due to the increasingly severe storms that its complex is likely to
face. LDEQ must require Formosa to: analyze the risk of chemical releases in storms, follow
FEMA standards concerning chemical facilities in floodplains, produce a detailed site elevation
study, evaluate the accelerating threat of severe storms especially due to climate change, and to
adopt measures designed to mitigate the risk of storm-induced releases. This task is especially
urgent because of Formosa’s refusal to adopt a 2-mile buffer from the nearby Fifth Ward
elementary school and its proximity to St. James Parish communities. 234
a. Formosa did not analyze the risk of storm-related chemical

releases in its EAS.
Formosa’s permit application fails to anticipate and sufficiently address the risk of chemical
spills and other disasters due to storms. Formosa offered several chemical-release failure
scenarios in a letter-filing to St. James Parish written to persuade the Parish not to impose a 2-
232
“If you are in an area subject to earthquakes, hurricanes, or floods, you should examine whether your
process would survive these natural events without releasing the substance.” EPA, General Guidance on
Risk Management Programs for Chemical Accident Prevention, at p. 6-11,
https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2013-11/documents/chap-06-final.pdf (accessed July 27,
2019); see generally 40 CFR Part 68 (EPA Risk Management Plan regulations)
233
See Ex. R to Formosa Supp’l EAS at p.4 (Jan. 2019), EDMS No. 11457119 [hereinafter “Buffer Zone
Letter”]; 42 U.S.C. § 7412(r)(7)(B)(ii).
234
See Buffer Zone Letter.
August 12, 2019
Page 60 of 82
mile buffer zone to protect children at Fifth Ward Elementary School and other nearby
residents. 235 None of the failures listed by Formosa relate to the potential for chemical releases
from storms. 236 Formosa’s drainage impact and hydrological modification impact studies also
fail to discuss storm-related chemical releases. 237 DEQ must require Formosa actually to analyze
the risks to employees and residents from storm-induced chemical releases.
b. Formosa failed to properly evaluate the extent of its flood risk

or to prove that it was justified in siting a petrochemical
complex in a floodplain.
In doing so, DEQ must also require Formosa to undertake a detailed analysis of its flood and
storm risk, to understand the petrochemical complex’s vulnerability to increasingly severe storms
that could lead to flood damage and releases. This analysis should be at least searching as
analogous FEMA regulations and standards applied by the federal government. The drainage
studies Formosa submitted with its EAS fell well short of this mark.
The St. James Parish flood map indicates that the entire Formosa petrochemical site is either the
100-year or 500-year floodplain. 238 But while Formosa examined drainage from its facility in
smaller-scale storms and a 100-year flood, it did not address rainfall events more significant than
a 100-year storm. 239
That showing would not suffice under regulations for projects in which FEMA is involved.
FEMA regulations impose special constraints on the agency from taking any “critical action” in a
floodplain. 240 “Critical action” refers to activities carrying a high level of public risk from flood
235
See Id. at p. 2; Formosa’s Supp’l EAS at p. 12 (Jan. 2019), EDMS No. 11457119.
236
See Ex. A to Buffer Zone Letter.
237
See Exs. Q-1 – Q-2, Formosa Supp’l EAS (Jan. 2019), EDMS No. 11457119.
238
http://maps.lsuagcenter.com/floodmaps/?FIPS=22093.
239
Exhibits Q-1 – Q-2, Formosa Supp’l EAS, EDMS No. 11457119. Formosa’s Hydrological
Modification Impact Analysis reviewed what it claims is an “extreme storm event.” But it was simply an
examination of what would happen if a 100-year rainstorm occurred at the same time that the receiving
canal for the plant’s floodwaters, St. James Canal, was elevated at 4’ above normal levels. Id. Formosa
did not examine a 500-year flood or undertake an analysis of its likely future risk from storms.
240
See 44 C.F.R. Part 9. In the case of “critical actions,” the term “floodplain” is defined to “mean the
area subject to inundation from a flood having a 0.2 percent chance of occurring in any given year (500–
year floodplain).” Id. § 9.4.
These regulations were promulgated pursuant to Executive Order 11988 on Floodplain Management. See
44 C.F.R. § 9.1. Executive Order 11988 directs all federal agencies not “to conduct, support, or allow an
action to be located in a floodplain,” absent first considering “alternatives to avoid adverse effects and
August 12, 2019
Page 61 of 82
damage. 241 It encompasses “an action for which even a slight chance of flooding is too great,”
including creating or extending “the useful life of structures or facilities . . . . Such as those
which produce, use or store highly volatile, flammable, explosive, toxic, or water-reactive
materials.” 242 Approving Formosa’s petrochemical complex would be such a “critical action” if
undertaken by FEMA. FEMA’s regulations would bar the agency from acting to authorize such a
petrochemical complex in a 500-year floodplain, absent in-depth scrutiny to determine its
necessity, minimize adverse impacts, and exhaust all non-floodplain alternatives. 243 And at
bottom: “FEMA shall not act in a floodplain or wetland unless it is the only practicable
location”; and “[i]f a practicable alternative exists outside the floodplain or wetland FEMA must
locate the action at the alternative site.” 244
FEMA likewise recommends that state and local governments or private actors not build any
similarly defined, at-risk facilities in a floodplain. 245 If such a facility must be built within a
floodplain, “[t]he more common standards—freeboard, elevation above the 500-year floodplain
and elevated access ramps—should be required.” 246 Here, Formosa has made no showing that it
is necessary to construct its facility in a floodplain, let alone documented how it examined
mitigation measures or exhausted any alternatives outside of the floodplain. Formosa has not
incompatible development in the floodplains.” E.O. No. 11988, “Floodplain Management,” 42 Fed. Reg.
29651 (May 24, 1977).
241
See 44 C.F.R. § 9.4. “Critical Action,” also includes actions concerning structures that enable essential
services, like hospitals and power plants. See id. The FEMA terms “critical action,” and “critical facility,”
also appear in both the International Building Code and the American Society of Engineers standards. See
FEMA Mitigation Assessment Team, Hurricane Sandy, “Definitions of Critical Facilities and Risk
Categories,” https://www.fema.gov/media-library-data/1385591327349-
677ba8c4e88360b7436338fb87221af2/Sandy_MAT_AppI_508post.pdf (last visited Aug. 7, 2019).
Those standard-setting entities include critical facilities or actions in their highest “Risk Category IV,”
denoting buildings, damage to which would pose “risk to human life, health, and welfare. Id. Like the
FEMA definitions, Risk Category IV includes both buildings that, if damaged, would disrupt provision of
essential community services, like hospitals, and “facilities containing extremely hazardous materials that
would threaten the public if released.” Id.
242
44 C.F.R. § 9.4.
243
See 44 C.F.R. §§ 9.6, 9.9–9.11.
244
44 C.F.R. § 9.6; see also id. § 9.9(d)(2) (“For critical actions, the Agency shall not locate the proposed
action in the 500–year floodplain if a practicable alternative exists outside the 500–year floodplain.”).
245
FEMA, Managing Floodplain Development through the Nat’l. Flood Insurance Program, p. 6-18,
https://www.fema.gov/media-library-data/20130726-1535-20490-8858/is_9_complete.pdf (last visited
Aug. 7, 2019); see also FEMA, Critical Facility, Definition/Description, https://www.fema.gov/critical-
facility (“A critical facility should not be located in a floodplain if at all possible.”) (last visited Aug. 7,
2019).
246
Id.
August 12, 2019
Page 62 of 82
provided data showing it has sufficiently elevated its structures to reduce flood risk. In its EAS,
Formosa only committed to elevate structures onsite to 1-foot above the 100-year flood
elevation, plainly insufficient to meet FEMA’s recommended standard. 247
In addition, Formosa must address the risk climate-change fueled storms pose to its operations in
the future, particularly the likelihood of flood- or storm-induced chemical releases. Formosa’s
economic impact analysis anticipates the petrochemical complex could operate until well after
2070, 248 and federal government studies conclude that future storms may be substantially more
frequent and intense than today.
Research is making clear that the risk of intense storms already is increasing by alarming levels,
making the traditional 100-year and 500-year floodplain values increasingly inaccurate measures
of safety. Following the devastating August 2016 floods in Baton Rouge and across a wide
swathe of South Louisiana, a study led by researchers from U.S. National Oceanographic and
Atmospheric Agency (NOAA) found that climate change had raised the chance of that rainstorm
by at least 40 percent and may have doubled the odds of it occurring. 249 The study explained that
what is presently called a “100-year storm,” has already become more like a 70-year (or more
frequent) storm, and will become even more likely as the climate continues to change. 250
Similarly, the federal government’s National Climate Assessment states that in the southeastern
United States, “[c]limate model simulations of future conditions project increases in temperature
and extreme precipitation,” by mid-century, even if the world acts to limit its overall greenhouse
gas emissions. 251 And under scenarios that model our current consumption of fossil fuels—a
trend that Formosa’s more than 13 million tons-per-year of permitted greenhouse gas emissions
would go far to reinforce—“much larger changes” in rainfall are projected for the late 21st
century. 252 Formosa nowhere addresses this accelerating flood risk. LDEQ, as a public trustee,
must require Formosa to address the potential—indeed, to some degree, inevitable—risks that
247
See Formosa Supp’l EAS at pp. 10 (Jan. 19, 2019), EDMS No. 11457119.
248
Ex. L to Formosa EAS, p. 7 (stating “the ongoing production process . . . may last for another 50
years” after Formosa’s currently projected capital spending on the plant ends in 2028).
249
NOAA, “Climate Change Increased Chances of Record Rains in La. by at least 40 Percent,”
https://www.noaa.gov/media-release/climate-change-increased-chances-of-record-rains-in-louisiana-by-
at-least-40-percent (Sept. 7, 2016) (visited July 18, 2019); K. van der Wiel et al., “Rapid attribution of the
August 2016 flood-inducing extreme precipitation in south Louisiana to climate change,” 21 Hydrol.
Earth Syst. Sci. 897, 912 (Jan 19, 2017) (underlying study, after peer-review), https://www.hydrol-earth-
syst-sci.net/21/897/2017/ (visited July 19, 2019).
250
K. van der Wiel, et al., supra, at 913.
251
Fourth Nat’l Climate Assessment, Ch. 19, Southeast, p. 751, available at
https://nca2018.globalchange.gov/downloads/NCA4_Ch19_Southeast_Full.pdf (visited Aug. 7, 2019).
252
Id. at p. 752.
August 12, 2019
Page 63 of 82
storms in a changing climate will create for chemical safety and releases at the facility during the
complex’s expected lifetime.
The potential consequences of Formosa’s failure to seriously grapple with its current and future
flood risk could be stark. In 2018, the U.S. Chemical Safety Board (“CSB”) concluded a detailed
investigation of the chemical fire at Arkema’s Crosby, Texas chemical plant that occurred during
Hurricane Harvey. 253 The CSB’s report concluded that Arkema had failed to prepare adequately
for flooding, even though Arkema had been aware for a decade that its plant was entirely within
either the 100-year or 500-year floodplain. 254 The company had built low-temperature
warehouses, which stored highly combustible, organic peroxide, and power generators and
transformers necessary to keep the organic peroxide cold, in lower lying areas of the site. 255
During Harvey, the site flooded two feet higher than the 500-year mark, swamping transformers
and backup generators, as well as the low-temperature warehouses and backup refrigerated
trailers. 256 Eventually, the plant’s crew were forced to evacuate the site, and 350,000 pounds
organic peroxide eventually combusted into a large chemical cloud that migrated over an
evacuation route and threatened both nearby residents and first responders as the storm continued
to rage.257
Only after the storm did Arkema perform a fine-grained site-elevation survey that showed the
elevation and exact location of each relevant point at the facility, as well as a hydrological study
focused on extreme weather events, such as hurricanes. 258 This sort of report would have enabled
nuanced flood prevention, by pinpointing the safest and most vulnerable areas onsite for
chemical storage in reasonably probable, extreme storm conditions.
Troublingly, the CSB concluded that the poor planning that allowed the Arkema explosion to
occur was not unique: “other companies also might be unaware of the potential for flood risks to
create process safety hazards at their facilities if flood-related information is not typically
compiled or assessed in required safety analyses.” 259 The CSB warned that “more robust industry
guidance is needed to help hazardous chemical facilities better prepare for extreme weather
253
CSB, “Organic Peroxide Decomposition, Release, and Fire at Arkema Crosby Following Hurricane
Harvey Flooding” (May 2018), https://www.csb.gov/arkema-inc-chemical-plant-fire-/ [hereinafter:
“Arkema Report”].
254
Arkema Report at 14, 81–84, 103.
255
Arkema Report at 37.
256
Arkema Report at 10–11.
257
Arkema Report at 8–9.
258
259
August 12, 2019
Page 64 of 82
events, such as flooding, hurricanes, snowstorms, tornadoes, or droughts.”260
Formosa’s failure to address the risks of severe floods and climate-induced storm risks, such as a
500-year and greater floods, falls short of existing standards, let alone the evolving industry
standard that the CSB determined is necessary to protect against chemical disasters like
Arkema’s.
To comply with its public-trustee obligations and to ensure Formosa is meeting its responsibility
under the Clean Air Act’s Section 112(r), LDEQ must order Formosa to at least:
1) conduct risk analyses concerning the potential for chemical releases or spills
onsite and outside of the complex’s boundaries during storm events;
2) follow FEMA’s standard in examining non-floodplain alternatives, mitigation

measures, and providing sufficient justification for siting this complex in a
floodplain;
3) provide a detailed site-elevation study of the complex;
4) model a range of extreme storm scenarios exceeding the 100-year and 500-year
levels and including hurricanes that is informed by climate science; and
5) to adopt measures designed to protect against the risk of storm-induced

releases.
2. Formosa provided no Proof it is Sufficiently Insured to Protect the

Environment and Public from Reasonably Foreseeable Hazards.
Not only has Formosa failed to adequately address storm-related hazards, Formosa has submitted
no evidence that it has obtained insurance sufficient to cover liabilities from any likely
environmental risks, including storm damage, releases, and chemical explosions. Neither LDEQ
nor St. James Parish sought information on Formosa’s insurance coverage. 261 Without such
evidence, it is possible that the $9.4-billion Formosa complex could become a costly
environmental liability left for Louisianans to bear. LDEQ must require Formosa to file a
certificate of insurance confirming that the complex will be adequately insured in the case of
potential large-scale losses.
Under Article IX, LDEQ must ensure Formosa adopts “mitigating measures which would offer
more protection to the environment than the proposed project without unduly curtailing non-
260
261
See Attach. J, Affidavit of Michael Brown and accompanying exhibits.
August 12, 2019
Page 65 of 82
environmental benefits.” 262 Providing a guarantee of sufficient insurance to cover expected

harms to the environment and public health, so that the losses can be timely, completely, and
affordably redressed, is a critical “mitigating measure” that would protect the environment and
improve the non-environmental benefits LDEQ believes would flow from the proposal.
The risks to the environment, communities, and plant workers of a large petrochemical
complex’s failure to possess sufficient financial assurance can be dramatic. Less than one month
ago, the largest refinery on the East Coast, Philadelphia Energy Solutions, was forced to file for
Chapter 11 bankruptcy, close operations, and fire more than 1,000 workers after it was rocked by
a damaging explosion and blaze. 263 The refinery’s property damage and loss of business
insurance, that otherwise would have staved off the closure and bankruptcy filing, turned out to
be inadequate to address the plant’s full loss. 264 The potentially bankrupt company is now left
with the unprecedented, complex task of safely recovering more than 30,000 barrels of highly
toxic hydrochloric acid from the site, located within one of the country’s largest cities. 265 This
problem could have been avoided. The refinery’s ownership admitted in its 2015 prospectus to
investors that one of its business risks is underinsurance for the many hazards the refinery could
face. 266
262
Matter of Rubicon, 670 So. 2d at 483.
263
L. Kearney, Reuters, “Bank Drops Objection to Financing Request by Bankrupt Philadelphia Energy
Solutions” (July 23, 2019), https://www.reuters.com/article/us-pes-bankruptcy-insurance/bank-drops-
objection-to-financing-request-by-bankrupt-philadelphia-energy-solutions-idUSKCN1UI2KU (visited
Aug 4, 2019); Claire Sasko, Philadephia Magazine, “Kenney: PES Refinery ‘Intends to Shut Down’ as
Blast Investigation Begins” (June 26, 2019), https://www.phillymag.com/news/2019/06/26/philadelphia-
energy-solutions-closure/ (visited Aug. 7, 2019).
264
Id.
265
L. Kearney, Reuters, “Shut Philadelphia refinery begins risky job of removing toxic chemical” (Aug.
2, 2019), https://www.reuters.com/article/us-pes-bankruptcy-acid/shut-philadelphia-refinery-begins-risky-
job-of-removing-toxic-chemical-idUSKCN1US1RB (visited Aug. 4, 2019).
266
The company’s prospectus stated:
Our assets may experience physical damage as a result of an accident or natural

disaster. These hazards can also cause personal injury and loss of life, severe damage to
and destruction of property and equipment, pollution or environmental damage, and
suspension of operations. We are insured under property, liability and business
interruption policies, subject to the deductibles and limits under those policies. In
addition, such insurance policies do not cover every potential risk associated with our
operating facilities, and we cannot ensure that such insurance will be adequate to
protect us from all material expenses related to potential future claims for personal and
property damage, or that these levels of insurance will be available in the future at
commercially reasonable prices. As we continue to grow, we will continue to evaluate
August 12, 2019
Page 66 of 82
Here, we have no proof Formosa is insured at all, let alone proof that it has enough insurance to
adequately cover potential losses at its massive complex. The Philadelphia Energy Solutions
example makes clear that Louisianans cannot simply trust that Formosa will have purchased
adequate insurance on its own.
It is important to bear in mind that significant accidents in the U.S. petrochemical industry are
foreseeable, and significant prevention activities are required to reduce these risks to
communities. In 2016, a Houston Chronicle and Texas A&M investigation found that a chemical
explosion, fire, or toxic release occurs once every six weeks in the greater Houston area alone. 267
Between April 2019 and the filing of this comment, in August 2019, at least four fires at
petrochemical facilities raged in the Houston area, including a fire at a polypropylene unit. 268
Formosa offers no proof that it would have access to insurance to safely survive significant
incidents at its petrochemical complex to address environmental liabilities or to even provide
continued employment to its workers. As explained in Section VI, above, Formosa’s history of
industrial accidents, like its catastrophic spill in Vietnam, makes this no academic question. The
environment of the state, the health of its residents, and Louisiana’s massive investment of tax
incentives into the project could be thrown into jeopardy.
In spite of this risk, in response to a public records request, LDEQ averred that “there is no
requirement for ‘an insurance policy or liability coverage’ in the air regulations,” and indicated
that it would only demand such information from Formosa as required by the regulations for
solid and hazardous waste permitting. 269 Formosa has not sought a solid or hazardous waste
permit, and the insurance requirements for those permits likely would not extend to most of the
our policy limits and deductibles as they relate to the overall cost and scope of our
insurance program.
Philadelphia Energy Solutions, SEC Form S-1 at p. 143 (Feb. 17, 2015),
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1632808/000104746915000839/a2223083zs-
1.htm#cg42503_risks_related_to_our_business; see also id. at p. 21 (warning of same).
267
M. Collette et al., Houston Chronicle, “Chemical Breakdown: Dangerous Chemicals, Roadblocks to
Information Combine to Create Hidden Dangers” (May 7, 2016),
https://www.houstonchronicle.com/news/investigations/article/Dangerous-chemicals-roadblocks-to-
information-7420931.php (visited Aug. 4, 2019).
268
M. Dempsey et al., Houston Chronicle, “Explosion, Fire at Exxon Mobil Baytown Plant Injures 37”
(July 31, 2019), https://www.houstonchronicle.com/news/houston-texas/houston/article/ExxonMobil-s-
Baytown-fire-the-latest-in-a-
14270558.php?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=HC_AfternoonReport&ut
m_term=news&utm_content=headlines (visited Aug. 4, 2019).
269
See Attach. J, Aff. of Michael Brown, Ex. 1, LDEQ Public Records Request Corr.
August 12, 2019
Page 67 of 82
risks Formosa could face in its active operations. 270 LDEQ’s reading of the air regulations is
misplaced, because the Clean Air Act’s Section 112(r) General Duty Clause and risk
management plan regulations do make it incumbent upon Formosa to take the measure of
chemical risks and to mitigate them. 271 And Article IX also imposes a public trust obligation on
LDEQ that is more searching than the bare requirements of the air regulations. 272 The time to
undertake that analysis is now, “before granting approval of proposed action affecting the
environment.”273 It is not clear that any other agency ever will evaluate Formosa’s level
insurance if LDEQ does not do so here. As noted, St. James Parish, in responding to a public
records request, stated “that our process for industry does not include the requirement of
certificates of insurance.” 274
LDEQ has made no effort to assure that Formosa has mitigated its environmental risks with
purchase of adequate insurance. 275 To discharge its duty as a public trustee, LDEQ must demand
that Formosa produce a certificate of insurance demonstrating adequate coverage.
F. Formosa’s lopsided cost-benefits analysis fails to include environmental and
social costs.
LDEQ’s analysis “requires a balancing process in which environmental costs and benefits must
be given full and careful consideration along with economic, social and other factors.”276 But
Formosa’s cost-benefit analysis only discusses alleged economic and other benefits without
detailing environmental costs.277 These costs must include, at minimum, the anticipated public
health costs of toxic emissions inhalation exposure borne by the surrounding communities,
calculated over the project’s lifetime and adjusted for age-dependent factors. Without this
information, LDEQ cannot balance such costs, as its public trustee duty requires, against the
alleged benefits of the project. The EAS is thus facially insufficient under the Louisiana
Constitution and La. R.S. § 30:2018.B for failing to address in any way the environmental
impact costs of the project, including but not limited to Ethylene Oxide lifetime inhalation
270
See 33 LAC, Pt. V, Ch. 37; 33 LAC, Pt. VII, Ch. 13.
271
See 42 U.S.C. § 7412(r)(1), (r)(7)(B)(ii); 40 C.F.R. Part 68.
272
See Save Ourselves, 452 So. 2d at 1160 (“From our review it appears that the agency may have erred
by assuming that its duty was to adhere only to its own regulations rather than to the constitutional and
statutory mandates.”)
273
See Save Ourselves, 452 So. 2d at 1157 (emphasis added).
274
Attach. J, Aff. of Michael Brown, Ex. 1, St. James Parish Public Records Request Corr.
275
Matter of Rubicon, Inc., 670 So. 2d at 483.
276
Save Ourselves, Inc. v. Louisiana Envtl. Control Comm'n, 452 So. 2d 1152, 1157 (La. 1984).
277
See EAS at 30-33, Supp. EAS at 19.
August 12, 2019
Page 68 of 82
exposure. Accordingly, LDEQ must reject the permits.
Moreover, the EAS ignores that this project’s adverse health impacts would fall
disproportionately on African-Americans. Formosa’s EAS fails to consider the fact that the
African-American community of St. James is already over-burdened with air pollution and that
adding to this pollution exacerbates this burden. 278 But LDEQ cannot ignore this fact. Indeed, the
agency must examine the disparate impact of the added pollution to this African-American
community in order to fully examine the social costs of the proposed plant. LDEQ must conduct
a disparate impact analysis and consider less discriminating alternatives before it can issue a
decision on the proposed permits. LDEQ may not issue these permits if less discriminating
alternatives exist.
In addition to these comments on Formosa’s deficient cost-benefit analysis, Commenters adopt

the detailed comments provided by Healthy Gulf on this subject, which are included and made
part of these comments as Attachment I.
VIII. LDEQ MUST COMPLY WITH FEDERAL CIVIL RIGHTS REGULATIONS.
Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 provides that “[n]o person in the United States shall, on
the ground of race, color, or national origin . . . be subjected to discrimination under any program
or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.” 42 U.S.C. § 2000d (2012). Acceptance of
federal funding and/or assistance from the EPA creates an obligation on the recipient to comply
with EPA’s implementing regulations. See 40 C.F.R. § 7.30. Although the Supreme Court has
held that disproportionate impact is not the “sole touchstone of an invidious racial
discrimination,” the EPA regulations prohibit recipients of federal funds, such as LDEQ, from
using “criteria or methods of administering its program or activity which have the effect of
subjecting individuals to discrimination because of their race, color, [or] national origin, . . . or
have the effect of defeating or substantially impairing accomplishment of the objectives of the
program or activity with respect to individuals of a particular race, color, [or] national origin.”
Village of Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Housing Development Corporation, 429 U.S. 252,
265 (1977); 40 C.F.R. § 7.35(b). Because LDEQ receives federal financial assistance from EPA,
it must comply with federal regulations in implementing its air permitting program. The data
below raises serious questions as to whether LDEQ’s air permitting program meets EPA’s
regulations.
A. Adverse Impacts from Formosa’s Proposed Complex Would

Disproportionally Impact Communities of Color.
The communities immediately surrounding the proposed facilities (centered at 30.05900556, -

90.91452222) are disproportionately minority. See Attach. K, EPA EJScreen Summary Reports
for Welcome, Salsburg, Central, White Hall, Union, and St. James Parish. EJScreen is EPA’s
environmental justice screening and mapping tool that provides EPA with a nationally consistent
278
See Section VIII, infra.
August 12, 2019
Page 69 of 82
dataset and approach for combining environmental and demographic indicators. 279 The EJScreen
data show that Welcome, Salsburg, Central, White Hall, and Union, all towns within three miles
of the proposed facility, are 93%, 78%, 65%, 64% and 64% minority, respectively. Id.; see also
2010 Census Block Group for St. James Parish. 280 Additionally, the 2010 Census Tract data
show that the tract containing the proposed facility (Tract 405) shows that 87.1% of the total
population identifies as “Black or African American.” See Attach. L. 2010 Census Tract
Reference Map (showing census tracts); Attach. M, 2010 Demographic Profile Data (providing
demographic data for Tract 405). 281 For perspective, St. James Parish is 52% minority, and
Louisiana is only 41% minority on average. See Attach. K, EPA EJScreen Summary Reports for
Welcome, Salsburg, Central, White Hall, Union, and St. James Parish. The data thus show that
the proposed site for the facility is located within an area that has a significantly higher minority
population than the parish as a whole or the state. Permitting the proposed facility would force
residents of this predominantly minority area to live in the shadow of an ethane cracking plant.
EJScreen also demonstrates the relative environmental justice concerns for designated areas in
“EJ Indexes.” Due to the pollution that already inundates Welcome, Salsburg, Central, White
Hall, and Union, the area is of significant environmental justice concern. For instance, the
relevant EJ indexes show that the people who live within three miles of the center of the
proposed facility site have a greater potential for exposure to PM2.5, greater risk of cancer from
toxic air pollution, and greater risk of respiratory illness than more than 75% of Louisiana’s
population. See Attach. O, EPA EJScreen Summary Report for Formosa Site; see
https://www.epa.gov/ejscreen/how-interpret-standard-report-ejscreen.
The site selection process for the petrochemical complex raises particular disparate impact
concerns. The proposed facility would be in the 5th district and just across the river from the 4th
district, which are districts that were unilaterally redesignated by St. James Parish in its 2014
Land Use Plan. 282 In the 2014 plan, the 4th and 5th districts were designated as “Residential /
Future Industrial,” though they were designated as “Residential” in the 2011 Land Use Plan. Id.
The Planning Commission also adopted a buffer zone map alongside the Land Use Plan in 2014,
identifying areas like schools and churches in some parts of the parish where additional review
would be required before permitting new industrial facilities. Id. at 11. The buffer map excluded
almost every church and school in the 4th and 5th districts. Id. In fact, the map excluded an
279
EJScreen is available at https://www.epa.gov/ejscreen.
280
U.S. Census Bureau,
https://www2.census.gov/geo/maps/dc10map/GUBlock/st22_la/county/c22093_st_james/DC10BLK_C22
093_000.pdf.
281
U.S. Census Bureau,
https://factfinder.census.gov/bkmk/table/1.0/en/DEC/10_DP/DPDP1/1400000US22093040400|1400000U
S22093040500?slice=GEO~1400000US22093040500.
282
See Attach A, Kray Aff., Ex. 2, A Plan Without People: Why the St. James Parish 2014 Land Use Plan
Must Be Changed, p. 5.
August 12, 2019
Page 70 of 82
African-American church and the Fifth Ward Elementary school, which are both within a mile of
the proposed facility.
Just following the enactment of the 2014 Land Use plan, in 2015, Formosa and the Louisiana
Department of Economic Development partnered in the effort that led choosing the current
proposed site. 283
Including the churches and schools on the map would have created an opportunity for public
input on the location of major industrial facilities like the proposed facility. Id. Instead,
excluding the churches and schools left the predominantly minority communities surrounding the
proposed facility vulnerable to industrial pollution, as FG partially relies on the incomplete
buffer zone map to justify building the proposed facility in these communities. Id.; Supplemental
EAS, Ex. R.
B. Major Sources of Air Pollution Are Clustered in the Minority Community

Surrounding the Proposed Site.
There are already significant documented impacts to public health and environment of the
communities surrounding the proposed facility. The area immediately surrounding the proposed
plant is home to dozens of sources of industrial pollution. See EPA EJScreen Map of sites
reporting to EPA below.
283
Formosa Initial EAS, July 18, 2018, p. 36.
August 12, 2019
Page 71 of 82
Indeed, four of the top five toxic chemical releasers in St. James Parish are within four miles of
the proposed site, and nearby Donaldsonville is among the 50 most toxin-producing cities in the
United States. See Attach. N, 2017 TRI Factsheet for St. James Parish; see
https://blog.odetoclean.com/the-united-states-of-toxins-1e219e5a701f. Moreover, St. James
Parish ranks number 56 in total releases per square mile against more than 2,300 ranked counties
in the United States. See TRI National Analysis Interactive Map,
https://www.epa.gov/trinationalanalysis/where-you-live.
Following are just some of the major local sources of air pollution that are already permitted by
LDEQ.
• CF INDUSTRIES NITROGEN LLC, AI 2416, located 39018 Highway 13089,

Donaldsonville, La.
The Air Permit Briefing Sheet for the facility shows the types and amounts of air pollutants that
LDEQ allows this facility to emit per year pursuant to an air permit. EDMS Doc ID 11584844, p.
9 of 170. 284 According to the Air Permit Briefing Sheet, the permit allows the following criteria
pollutants expressed in tons per year:
PM10 673.58
PM2.5 646.07
SO2 23.40
NOx 4507.88
CO 2598.73
VOC 267.87
Acetaldehyde 9.99
Methanol 4697.47
Ammonia 2.00
Formaldehyde 253.32
Nitric Acid 107.66
(plus other hazardous air pollutants)

Total toxic air pollutant total – 5,061.88
CF Industries released 4,250.76 tons (8,501,522 pounds) of toxic pollutants into the air in
2017. 285 These pollutants included ammonia, chlorine, formaldehyde, methanol, and nitric
284
http://edms.deq.louisiana.gov/app/doc/view.aspx?doc=11584844&ob=yes&child=yes
285
See U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, TRI Facility Report: CF INDUSTRIES NITROGEN LLC
(70346CFNDSHWY30), EPA (July 1, 2019),
https://enviro.epa.gov/enviro/tris_control_v2.tris_print?pPrev=1&tris_id=70346CFNDSHWY30.
August 12, 2019
Page 72 of 82
acid. 286
• AMERICAS STYRENICS LLC, AI 2384, located 9901 Highway 18, St. James, La.
PM10 120.08
PM2.5 112.59
S02 28.63
NOx 938.45
CO 1,121.11
VOC 203.63
Total toxic air pollutants - 115.29
America’s Styrenics released 58.84 tons (117,673 pounds) of toxic pollutants into the air in
2017. 288 These pollutants included benzene, ethylbenzene, ethylene, styrene, and toluene. 289
• MOSAIC PHOSPHATES CO FAUSTINA PLANT, AI 2425, located at 9959 Hwy 18, St.
James, La.
LDEQ allows this facility to emit per year pursuant to an air permit. EDMS ID 10959649, p. 8 of
83. 290 According to the Air Permit Briefing Sheet, the permit allows the following criteria
PM10 413.25
PM2.5 407.68
S02 4.69
NOx 22.56
CO 18.41
286
Id.
287
288
See U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, TRI Facility Report: AMERICAS SYTRENICS
LLC(70086CHVRNHWY18), EPA (July 1, 2019),
https://enviro.epa.gov/enviro/tris_control_v2.tris_print?pPrev=1&tris_id=70086CHVRNHWY1.
289
Id.
290
August 12, 2019
Page 73 of 82
VOC 3.53
Total toxic air pollutants – 1,780.39 (over 1,675 for ammonia)
Mosaic Phosphates released 316.50 tons (632,994 pounds) of toxic pollutants to the air in
2017. 291 These pollutants included ammonia and methanol. Id.
• PLAINS MARKETING, LP / ST. JAMES TERMINAL, AI 129733, 6410 Plains Terminal

Road, St. James, La.
PM10 3.70
PM2.5 3.70
S02 2.65
NOx 76.78
CO 112.18
VOC 253.27
• NUSTAR LOGISTICS, LP / ST. JAMES TERMINAL, AI 36538, located 7167 Koch

Road, St. James, La.
PM10 13.47
S02 24.34
NOx 95.26
CO 95.94
VOC 361.87
291
See U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, TRI Facility Report: MOSAIC PHOSPHATES CO
FAUSTINA PLANT(70346GRCCHLAHIG), EPA (July 1, 2019),
https://enviro.epa.gov/enviro/tris_control_v2.tris_print?pPrev=1&tris_id=70346GRCCHLAHIG.
292
293
August 12, 2019
Page 74 of 82
• MARATHON PIPELINE COMPANY, LP / ST. JAMES CAPLINE TERMINAL, AI

9292, located 6770 Highway 18, St. James, La.
PM10 0.30
PM2.5 0.30
S02 0.28
NOx 4.23
CO 0.91
VOC 207.22
• AIR PRODUCTS & CHEMICALS, INC. (APCI) / CONVENT HYDROGEN PLANT, AI

120995, located 10759 Convent Way (LA Hwy 70 at Hwy 44) Convent, La.
PM10 27.84
PM2.5 27.84
SO2 0.34
NOx 87.03
CO 63.45
VOC 41.97
Total toxic air pollutants – 27.73 (19.01 for ammonia and 7.94 for methanol)
Air Products & Chemicals/Convent Hydrogen Plant released 8.05 tons (16,107 pounds) of
methanol into the air in 2017. 296
294
295
296
See U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, TRI Facility Report: AIR PRODUCTS & CHEMCIALS
INC – CONVEN SMR (70723RPRDC1759C), EPA (July 2, 2019),
https://enviro.epa.gov/enviro/tris_control_v2.tris_print?pPrev=1&tris_id=70723RPRDC1759C.
August 12, 2019
Page 75 of 82
• MOTIVA CONVENT REFINERY, AI 2719, located at the foot of Sunshine Bridge – LA

Highway 44, Convent, La.
PM10 752.23
PM2.5 710.10
S02 1175.25
NOx 2177.23
CO 1511.09
VOC 1963.14
H2SO4 262.21
Total toxic air pollutants – 933.48
Motiva Convent Refinery released more than 361.57 tons (723,145 pounds) of toxic air
pollutants into the air in 2017. 298
• NUCOR STEEL LOUISIANA –DRI Plant, AI 157847, located 9101 Highway 3125,
Convent, La.
PM10 163.18
PM2.5 109.26
S02 28.34
NOx 159.43
CO 1216.33
VOC 42.17
CO2e 908,956.00
297
298
See U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, TRI Facility Report: CONVENT REFINERY
(70723TXCRFFOOTO), EPA (July 2, 2019),
https://enviro.epa.gov/enviro/tris_control_v2.tris_print?pPrev=1&tris_id=70723TXCRFFOOTO.
299
August 12, 2019
Page 76 of 82
Nucor Steel Louisiana released 8.09 tons (16,180 pounds) of ammonia into the air in 2017. 300
• OCCIDENTAL CHEMICAL CORPORATION (OXYCHEM) / OXYCHEM - CONVENT

FACILITY, AI 3544, located 7377 Highway 3214, Convent, La.
PM10 22.93
PM2.5 21.99
S02 1.10
NOx 432.96
CO 34.91
VOC 27.07
Total toxic air pollutants - VOC TAPs – 14.34, Non-VOC TAPs 9.52
Oxychem-Convent Facility released 5.94 tons (11,885 pounds) toxic air pollutants into the air in
2017, which include: 1,1,2-trichloroethane, 1, 2-dichloroethane, 1,3-dichlorobenzene, ammonia,
asbestos, bis(2-chloroethyl) ether, carbon tetrachloride, chlorine, chloroethane, dioxin and
dioxin-like compounds, ethylene, ethylidene dichloride, hydrochloric acid, lead compounds,
methanol, naphthalene, sulfuric acid, tetrachloroethylene. 302
• TRANSCONTINENTAL GAS PIPELINE COMPANY, LLC-COMPRESSOR STATION,

AI 7129, located 8797 Helvetia Street, Convent, La.
300
See U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, TRI Facility Report: NUCOR STEEL LOUISIANA LLC
(7072WNCRST911HW), EPA (July 2, 2019),
https://enviro.epa.gov/enviro/tris_control_v2.tris_print?pPrev=1&tris_id=7072WNCRST911HW.
301
302
See U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, TRI Facility Report: OCCIDENTAL CHEMCIAL
HOLDING CORP (70723CCDNTHIGHW), EPA (July 1, 2019),
https://enviro.epa.gov/enviro/tris_control_v2.tris_print?pPrev=1&tris_id=70723CCDNTHIGH.
303
August 12, 2019
Page 77 of 82
PM10 6.74
PM2.5 6.74
S02 0.58
NOx 3,005.63
CO 487.69
VOC 95.90
Total toxic air pollutants – 48.59 (36.00 for formaldehyde)
• YUHUANG CHEMICAL, AI 194165, located 5327 St. James Co-Op Street, St. James, La.
PM10 0.29
PM2.5 0.29
S02 0.02
NOx 3.81
CO 3.20
VOC 14.78
Total toxic air pollutants – 14.64 (14.57 for methanol)
• SOUTH LOUISIANA METHANOL / ST. JAMES METHANOL PLANT, AI 188074,

located at 7719-1 Highway 18, St. James, La.
LDEQ allows this facility to emit per year pursuant to an air permit. EDMS ID 11552176, p. 10
of 64. 305 According to the Air Permit Briefing Sheet, the permit allows the following criteria
PM10 125.02
PM2.5 121.11
S02 10.18
NOx 221.62
CO 273.17
CO2e 1,389,582.00
Acetaldehyde 9.99
Methanol 26.16
304
305
August 12, 2019
Page 78 of 82
Ammonia 91.45
Formaldehyde 1.28
n-Hexane 29.94
(plus other hazardous air pollutants)
• ERGON MODA, AI 212862, located 7405 Highway 18, St. James, La.
LDEQ would allow this facility to emit per year if it chose to issue the pending air permit.
EDMS Doc ID 11330775, p. 4-5 of 155.306 According to the Air Permit Briefing Sheet, the
permit would allow the following criteria pollutants expressed in tons per year:
NOx 0.65
CO 0.02
VOC 50.27
Benzene 0.05
n-Hexane 1.43
Ammonia 4,697.47
Toluene 0.04
Moreover, more than half of these facilities have committed permit violations, and the Motiva
Convent Refinery has a repeat history of violations. See, e.g., EDMS IDs 2598025, 5361012,
8709749, 2369890, 3049445, 5526992, 2687434, 2369488, 5915560, 1836695. The emissions of
these existing facilities as reported to the TRI and their permit violations, coupled with the high
incidence of pollution-related disease in the Parish, suggest background ambient air pollutant
concentrations may be elevated. See National Cancer Institute State Cancer Profiles,
https://statecancerprofiles.cancer.gov; see Cancer in Louisiana, http://sph.lsuhsc.edu/wp-
content/uploads/2018/10/Vol33.pdf. While FG argues in its Supplemental EAS that cancer
incidence rates in Louisiana’s Industrial Corridor (comprised of Ascension, East Baton Rouge,
Iberville, St. Charles, St. James, St. John the Baptist, and West Baton Rouge parishes) do not
differ significantly from rates in the rest of Louisiana for white men, black men, and black
women, FG ignores the fact that these groups’ cancer incidence rates in St. James parish alone
are significantly higher than in rest of Louisiana. See id. at 52, 58, 61. Permitting yet another
major source of air pollution in the minority communities of Welcome, Salsburg, Central, White
Hall, and Union would further exacerbate the disproportionate adverse impacts to those
communities.
306
August 12, 2019
Page 79 of 82
C. Purported Compliance with NAAQS or Other Standards Does Not

Constitute per se Environmental Justice Compliance.
Formosa claims that by meeting the NAAQS, “there is no adverse impact and no claim on non-
compliance with Title VI.” Formosa EAS, July 18, 2018, EDMS 11230529. But EPA has
recognized that “[c]ompliance with environmental laws does not constitute per se compliance
with Title VI.” Draft Title VI Guidance for EPA Assistance Recipients Administering
Environmental Permitting Programs (Draft Recipient Guidance) and Draft Revised Guidance for
Investigation Title VI Administrative Complaints Challenging Permits (Draft Revised
Investigation Guidance), 65 Fed. Reg. 39649, 39650-01 (June 27, 2000). EPA explained that
“[f]requently, discrimination results from policies and practices that are neutral on their face, but
have the effect of discriminating . . . [T]here may be instances in which environmental laws do
not regulate certain concentrations of sources, or take into account impacts on some
subpopulations which may be disproportionately present in an affected population.” Id. at 39680.
Additionally, EPA’s most recent environmental justice guidance document eliminates the
rebuttable presumption that compliance with NAAQS shields a federally-funded permitting
authority from being found in violation of Title VI. Draft Policy Papers Environmental Health-
Based Thresholds, and Role of Complainants and Recipients in the Title VI Complaints and
Resolution Process, 78 Fed. Reg. 24739 (April 26, 2013.)307 The EPA has made clear that it will
consider “the existence of hot spots, cumulative impacts, the presence of particularly sensitive
populations that were not considered in the establishment of the health-based standard,
misapplication of environmental standards, or the existence of site-specific data demonstrating
an adverse impact despite compliance with the health-based threshold.” Id. at 24742.
There is no doubt that the communities and areas surrounding Welcome, Salsburg, Central,
White Hall, and Union are hot spots for harmful air emissions that result from the dense
industrial activities that LDEQ has permitted for the area. These permitted emissions have a
cumulative adverse impact that disproportionately affects minorities.
307
The EPA recognizes this 2013 draft guidance as its current Title VI policy. See U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, EPA’s Title VI – Policies, Guidance, Settlements, Laws and Regulations (Apr. 20,
2016), https://www.epa.gov/ocr/epas-title-vi-policies-guidance-settlements-laws-and-regulations (last
visited Aug. 12, 2019).
August 12, 2019
Page 81 of 82
Sharon Lavigne
Founder and President
RISE St. James
Darryl Malek-Wiley
Senior Organizing Representative
Sierra Club, Environmental Justice and Community Partnership Program
Lauren Packard
Staff Attorney
Center for Biological Diversity
Jane Patton
Director
No Waste Louisiana
Renate Heurich
Vice President
350 Louisiana
Cyn Sarthou
Executive Director
Health Gulf
Ethan Buckner
Energy Campaigner
Earthworks
cc:
Bryan Johnson, Administrator

Anthony Randall
Air Permits Division
602 North 5th St.
bryan.johnson@la.gov
anthony.randall@la.gov
Cheryl Nolan, Administrator

Office of Environmental Services
August 12, 2019
Page 82 of 82
Public Participation and Permit Support Division

602 North 5th St.
cheryl.nolan@la.gov
Jeffrey Robinson, Section Chief

U.S. EPA Region 6, Air Permitting
1445 Ross Ave., Suite 1200
Mail Code – ARPE
Dallas, TX 75202-2733
robinson.jeffrey@epa.gov
Brad Toups, Louisiana Air Program Contact

U.S. EPA Region 6, Air Permitting
1445 Ross Ave., Suite 1200
Mail Code: ARPE
Dallas, TX 75202-2733
toups.brad@epa.gov
LOUISIANA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIORNMENTAL QUALITY
Proposed Prevention of Significant Deterioration Permit (PSD-LA-812)
14 Proposed Title V Permits (3141-VO through 3154-VO)
Associated Environmental Assessment Statement
FG LA Chemical Complex (AI 198351)

Welcome, St. James Parish, Louisiana
AFFIDAVIT OF JUSTIN KRAY
I, Justin Kray, state:

1. I am a person above the age of majority who is competent to make this affidavit. I have
personal knowledge of the statements made below.
2. I reside in New Orleans, Louisiana. I graduated in 2007 from the Pratt Institute with a
Master's Degree in City and Regional Planning. I am a planner and cartographer, with an
expertise in geographic information system (GIS) mapping and urban data science. I have
extensive experience in developing data sets from prope1ty and other public records and
turning them into maps and reports that are useful for understanding policy problems.
3. I have worked for the Louisiana Bucket Brigade on issues affecting communities in St.
James Parish. In the course of this work, I have made many trips to St. James to interview
residents and officials, research property records, and study local land uses. I have also
conducted extensive public-records research concerning St. James Parish's prope1ty
records and the work of the Parish on land-use planning.
4. Attached as "Exhibit 1," is a true and correct copy of a map I created as pa1t of my work
in St. James. It is entitled, "New and Existing Industrial Facilities St James." I created
this map primarily from underlying public records data from St. James Parish, the Port of
South Louisiana, and the U.S. Department of Agriculture. The map generally reflects the
property boundaries of proposed and existing industrial uses in the Parish, as compared to
agricultural, residential, and undeveloped uses.
5. Attached as "Exhibit 2," is a true and correct copy of the rep01t, "A Plan without People,"
that I co-authored concerning St. James Parish's land-use planning process. I produced
the maps included within the repo1t, using maps already included in the Parish's draft
2011 land-use plan prepared by South Central Planning & Development Commission, the
Parish's 2014 land-use plan, information from site-visits and interviews, and public
records of prope1ty and land-use data.
[Signature Block Follows on Next Page]
ATTACHMENT A
ATTACHMENT A
New & Existing Industrial Facilities St James
Data Sources:
St James Parish Assessor Office, GIS Office
St James Parish Clerk of Court, Planning Commission
Port of South Louisiana Development Sites
US Dept of Agriculture Imagery Service, 2017
Map created: 3/27/19 by Justin Kray
LEGEND
St James Wards
Residential Communities
Water features
Status of Industry
New
Existing
ATTACHMENT A
Agricultural areas
Ex. 1
Undeveloped area
6989 84 2479
45 23458
945!
ATTACHMENT A Ex. 2
45ÿ789:ÿ;<=ÿ>?8@;AÿBÿ=@:ÿC@ÿDEÿFG=@;ÿH==GIÿ
=@:ÿC@ÿDEÿJ8KLÿH==GÿBÿ8@HÿM;NÿO8D:AÿP8GCA7ÿ
Q;7ÿRCA;GCK;ÿCAÿ;7:ÿ=@?Eÿ>?8K:ÿ5S9:ÿ:9:Gÿ?C9:Hÿ
C@ÿDEÿ?CF:NÿT@HÿC;SAÿ?CL:ÿ8ÿA?8>ÿC@ÿ;7:ÿF8K:ÿ
FG=Dÿ=UGÿ>=?C;CKC8@Aÿ;=ÿK=D:ÿC@ÿ8@HÿVUA;ÿ?:;ÿ
8??ÿ;7:A:ÿ>?8@;AÿK=D:ÿC@ÿ8@Hÿ;8L:ÿ=UGÿ?C9:ANÿ
5ÿ789:ÿ<8;K7:Hÿ;==ÿD8@Eÿ=FÿDEÿG:?8;C9:Aÿ;=ÿ
HC:ÿFG=DÿK8@K:GNW
XÿZ[\]^_ÿ̀_^]abcÿZd\efÿdgdhbi]ÿj_d]fÿk^^_[cÿ
lmnopqmpÿsmtqÿuovÿwxyzpx{|ÿ}~oÿ
012345ÿ07849ÿ
1ÿ ÿ423ÿ1ÿ973ÿÿ234 ÿ973ÿ
234ÿ011ÿ
8ÿ21 ÿ
3ÿ14ÿ!"#ÿ$!484 ÿ
ÿ

41%#3%ÿ!ÿ&'ÿ9(ÿ)83ÿ8%ÿ973ÿ$188ÿ*#39ÿ*4+8%3
,4993ÿ!ÿ-3ÿ1"3ÿ8%ÿ)9ÿ.48
3384#73%ÿ!ÿ)9ÿ.48 ÿ-3ÿ1"3ÿ8%ÿ.893ÿ#&917
8ÿ#43893%ÿ!ÿ)9ÿ.48
'%93%ÿ!ÿ"91ÿ083993 ÿ49"3ÿ/3"91 ÿ0844ÿ)137 ÿ7841ÿ$82+3 ÿ18"ÿ$3*13 ÿ
.893ÿ#&917ÿ8%ÿ*84!848ÿ,87+91
278ÿ1ÿ91ÿ973ÿ3!34ÿ1ÿ973ÿ1"%843ÿ
3914ÿ14ÿ%+ÿ97ÿ4133#9(
3 +ÿ8%ÿ"819ÿ!ÿ3
ATTACHMENT A
+ÿ-#91ÿ01""3#923(Ex. 2
!" #!$% ! ! &!$%
' '!"( !) '$) * &(!+ (,
%! '- ! '!(, '!"(. /!%$/
) !" #!$% ! !
&(!+ '$ +%"+!(0
1 2345678 976678:;< =>? @8:5; A8B7;4 CDEFG76 :55>7FH< I?JK?IL
NO PQRS TUV WXYOZ [X\]ZN ^X_` aZO [bX_ a_]h_j xhYOd]bbOj uh_dO_U X_` sN]UO yXbb X\O h_
123454676 93 946 45 5 6 5
NXZ cXdO` UNO eXf gh\ YXZZ]dO ]_ìZU\]Xb UNO kNhcc]_l pbhkzV
ÒdObhcYO_U hg TUV WXYOZ [X\]ZNj rg kNX_lOZ X\O _hU YXÒj UNO TUV WXYOZ [X\]ZN ^X_`
`\XZU]kXbbf kNX_l]_l UNO giUi\O gh\ UNhiZX_`Z hg aZO [bX_ e]bb p\]_l YXZZ]dO ]_ìZU\]Xb chbbiU]h_ Uh
\OZ]Ò_UZ b]d]_l ]_ UNOZO N]ZUh\]k khYYi_]U]OZV UNO O_U]\O cX\]ZN X_` Ob]Y]_XUO Ueh hg UNO UN\OO
mNO [X\]ZN lhdO\_YO_U ]Z ZUOO\]_l ]_ìZU\f YXqh\]Uf {g\]kX_ {YO\]kX_ `]ZU\]kUZ ]_ TUV WXYOZ
]_Uh UNO SUN X_` nUN o]ZU\]kUZ X_` ZipqilXU]_l [X\]ZN e]UN]_ UNO _O|U ÒkXÒV }~
UNO ]_UO\OZUZ hg \OZ]Ò_UZV r_ UNO nUN o]ZU\]kUj UNO ~ ~ ~
khYYi_]U]OZ i_Ò\ UN\OXU ]_kbiÒ ÔYX_d]bbOj ~ ~ ~ ~
sObkhYOj t\OOUhe_j uNXUYX_Uhe_j vX\\]Zj X_` ~ ~ ~
whh_ZN]_OV r_ UNO SUN o]ZU\]kUj UNO khYYi_]U]OZ hg
ATTACHMENT A Ex. 2
0
uvwÿxyzyw{ÿ|wzx}~ÿ}|ÿ}~w~y|zy~ÿ~{xy|ÿ~ÿ ãäåæÿ æèéêèÿëèêèÿìíÿîëèÿïåðèêíåêéñÿ
yvwÿ=yvÿz~{ÿKyvÿxy|yxÿxÿyvzyÿyvwÿ}zy}~ÿ òóôõöÿ øòÿùúûöÿúÿüýöúÿþÿøùÿùÿ01ÿøòÿýöøÿ
xÿ{~{~ÿz~{ÿyvw|wÿxÿyywÿ~wÿ|wx{w~yzÿ ùÿ
}~xy|y}~Z@ÿÿÿÿÿÿ 0ÿ 23òþÿùòþÿþöÿóööýÿú34ÿøòÿüýöúÿ5üò3ÿ
zxÿy}ÿz~}w{wÿyvwÿzywÿ|}wÿyvzyÿyvwÿz|xvÿ ùÿ 6ÿùöú7ø8ÿ9òÿýöøÿùÿ0ÿ23òþÿþöÿú7öÿùö7ö1ÿ
xÿz~ÿÿ{x~wxy~ÿ~ÿyvwxwÿ}~ywxÿ ú34ÿ þöÿþú3øÿùÿ0ÿøòÿüýú
ÿú3ÿÿ3øö7úýÿ
vwÿzyÿyvwÿxzwÿywÿ}~w~y|zy~ÿ}y~ÿ üú7øÿ ÿ3ÿ4öúýÿ3ÿþÿøùÿøùöÿö0ÿ66ÿò36ÿú34ÿ
~{xy|ÿyvw|wZ 6øòüüÿ3ÿ0ò7öÿüöø7òõùö0ÿõúýÿüýú3ø6ÿú34ÿ
uvwÿz|xvÿxÿ}x~ÿxw|wxÿ ÿxv}}x<ÿzÿ}xyÿ
¡ÿÿ¢ÿÿ¢£ÿ£ÿ¤ÿÿÿ¥ÿ
ÿ3456ø7ÿö68 ÿ\naifmaÿe]]a_jÿi_`ÿ
ÿ¦ÿ§ÿ̈ÿÿ©ÿÿÿÿ iimfgnÿainÿkaojÿs
~{~ÿ}|ÿ}~yÿxw|wxÿvwÿw|yy~ÿ
}~xÿ}ÿ{}z|xÿ}ÿ~wÿ~{xy|zÿ}~xy|y}~Zÿ |wxy|ywÿzx<ÿzÿ}ÿxw|wxÿz~{ÿz~ÿ~{xy|zÿ
uvwÿªz~{ÿ«xwÿ¬z~ÿ|wxy|yxÿvzyÿw}wÿz~ÿ{}ÿ }~xzvy<ÿyvwÿ¬z|xvÿxÿz~ÿyvwxwÿz|wzxÿ
yvÿyvw|ÿ|}w|y<ÿy~ÿyvwÿx{x}~ÿz~{ÿxzwÿ ~~vzyzwZ
}ÿ|wx{w~yzÿ|}w|yÿy}ÿzÿww|xZÿyvÿ
ÿÿÿ!"#
$%&ÿ'(%)'*% +%&ÿ'(%)'*% %ÿ,-.(ÿ,)'(&
/0123ÿ5067321809 ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ;<;=>ÿ ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ;<;?;ÿ ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ;@<>?Aÿ
B32CDÿEFG HIJ ?=J KIJ
LM81NÿEFG OJ >?J =HJ
PNQ829ÿR07SNM03QÿT9C0UN V>I<;?> V=K<=?H VK;<IKK
5NWS09Sÿ89ÿ60XNW1YÿEFG >@Z@J ;?ZIJ @KZ?J
[M83QWN9ÿ89ÿ60XNW1YÿEFG ?@Z;J =AZ;J ;KZKJ
\]^_àbÿd\ÿeafg^gÿh^_ai^jÿkla_m̀ifÿe]ll^fmnoÿ\^_paoÿqrstÿ
1234ÿ367ÿ89
43ÿÿÿÿ 23299ÿ 46ÿ1294
®¯°±²¯³´±µ¶ÿ¸¹´¹º¯ÿ»³²¹°´º±µ¶¼ÿ
½yÿyvwÿvwz|yÿ}ÿyvwÿ¾yZÿ¿zwxÿ¬z|xvÿ;I@=ÿªz~{ÿ«xwÿ¬z~ÿxÿzÿzyw}|ÿyvzyÿzwxÿ~}ÿxw~xwÀÿ
Áwx{w~yzÿÂÿÃy|wÿÄ~{xy|zZÿuvxÿzyw}|ÿzxÿxw{ÿ}~ÿ~ÿyvwÿ=yvÿz~{ÿKyvÿxy|yxZÿuvwÿ
|}xwÿ}ÿz~{ÿxwÿxÿy}ÿ|}ywyÿw}w<ÿy}ÿxwz|zywÿ|wx{w~yzÿz~{ÿ~{xy|zÿxwxZÿ
Å}yÿ}~ÿ{}wxÿyvwÿzyw}|ÿÁwx{w~yzÿÂÿÃy|wÿÄ~{xy|zÿzÿy}ÿ|}ywyÿ=yvÿz~{ÿKyvÿxy|yÿ
|wx{w~yx<ÿyÿyz|wyxÿyvwxwÿ{xy|yx<ÿzyzy~ÿz~ÿ~{xy|zÿyzw}w|ÿyvzyÿyv|wzyw~xÿyvw|ÿvwzyvÿ
z~{ÿ|w~{w|xÿyvw|ÿv}wxÿ}|yvwxxZ
ATTACHMENT ËÑÌÍÔÎÿ×ÍÌØÿÙÑÐÍËØÿÚÌÌÔÐÎÖÒÿÛÍÓÌÔÐÿEx.
ÆÇÿÉÊËÌÍÎÿÏÐÑÒÿÍÎÿÓÔÎÕÖÐA ÜÐÑÎÓÝ2ÍÖ×ÍÓÞÿßàááàÆâÇ
0
z{|}z~ÿ
NINIJÿRÿOGKÿÿQHIÿLKÿPQHIÿNLÿKFKPONK
rXgyÿ\lÿuWlugWÿZ[ÿ\]Wÿ^\]ÿX[_ÿ̀\]ÿaZY\VZb\YÿX[_ÿ\]WvÿcZggÿ\Wggÿvloÿ\]WvÿcWVWÿblxugW\Wgvÿo[Z[wlVxW_ÿXslo\ÿ
ÿÿÿÿÿ ¡¢ÿ£ÿ¤¥¦ÿ§ÿÿ̈©ª«ÿ¬ÿ§ÿ¡ ÿ¥ÿ
Z[_oY\VvÿZYÿ[lcÿaZVWb\lVÿlwÿ®uWVX\Zl[YÿX[_ÿVlo\Z[Wgvÿb]XZVYÿ\]WÿuXVZY]ÿ̄gX[[Z[dÿ°lxxZYYZl[ÿxWW\Z[dYqiÿÿ±Wÿ
bgXZxYÿ\]X\ÿuWlugWÿZ[ÿ\]Wÿ^\]ÿX[_ÿ̀\]ÿaZY\VZb\YÿVW²oWY\W_ÿ\]Wÿb]X[dWYÿ\lÿ\]WÿgX[_ÿoYWÿxXuq³ÿ́o\ÿuWlugWÿ
Z[ÿ\]WYWÿ_ZY\VZb\YÿcZggÿ\Wggÿvloÿ\]X\ÿ\]ZYÿ_WYZd[X\Zl[ÿZYÿo[cX[\W_ÿX[_ÿcXYÿXÿblxugW\WÿYoVuVZYWqÿµ¶·ÿ̧·¹º»ÿ
¼¹½½·¾¿ÿ¿¶ÀÿÁ·ÂÃÀ¾¼Ä·Âÿ·Åÿ¿¶ÀÄ¾ÿÂÀÄÆ¶Ç·¾¶··»ÿ¿·ÿ½·ºº¹¿ÄÂÆÿÄÂ»¹¼¿¾ÈÉ
U\ÿ\]Wÿ]WXV\ÿlwÿ\]WÿxX\\WVÿXVWÿ\clÿ_ZwwWVW[\ÿgX[_ÿoYWÿugX[YÊÿ\]Wÿe°lxuVW]W[YZtWÿ̄gX[ÿij³khÿc]Zb]ÿcXYÿ
uosgZY]W_ÿZ[ÿijkkÿsvÿ\]WÿËlo\]ÿ°W[\VXgÿ̄gX[[Z[dÿX[_ÿaWtWgluxW[\ÿ°lxxZYYZl[ÿso\ÿ[WtWVÿZ[\Vl_obW_ÿX[_ÿ
uXYYW_ÿXYÿXÿgX[_ÿoYWÿugX[ÿX[_ÿ\]Wÿijk^ÿÌX[_ÿÍYWÿ̄gX[ÿc]Zb]ÿcXYÿX_lu\W_ÿÿsvÿ\]Wÿ̄XVZY]ÿ°lo[bZgqÿ
r]lYWÿc]lÿ_WwW[_ÿ\]Wÿijk^ÿÌX[_ÿÍYWÿ̄gX[ÿbgXZxÿ\]X\ÿ\]WVWÿcXYÿX[ÿWÎ]XoY\ZtWÿuosgZbÿuVlbWYYÿwlVÿ\]WÿugX[qÿ
Ïÿ¦ÿÿÿ§Ðÿ¡Ñÿÿ̈©ªªÿ ÿ§ÿÿÿ̈©ªÒÿ¢ÿÏ¬ÿÿ̈©ªªÿÿ̈©ªÒÿ
ÿÑÿÿÓ¦ÿÿÑÿ¡ÿ¢ÿ£ÿÿÿÿÿÿÓ¢ÿÿÔÿÿ §ÿ§ ÿ
sW\cWW[ÿ\]WÿijkkÿX[_ÿijk^ÿugX[YÿX[_ÿZ\ÿZYÿo[VWXYl[XsgWÿ\lÿbgXZxÿ\]X\ÿ\]Wÿijk^ÿugX[ÿcXYÿuosgZbgvÿtW\\W_ÿ
o[_WVÿ\]WÿijkkÿuVlbWYYq
Ôÿ§ÐÿÑÿ§Óÿ¡ÕÿÿÓ¡ÿÿÿ̈©ªÒÿÖÿ×ÿØÿÖÙ
ÚÛÜÝÞÝßàáÿãäåÿæçèééêéëÿìíîîêïïêíéÿðåñêåòÿóíîîêããååÿòíðôåõÿòêãäÿãäåÿõðèöÿ÷çèéÿêéÿõåãèêçáÿòêãäÿ
èÿïãðíéëÿåî÷äèïêïÿíéÿãäåÿøùãùðåÿçèéõÿùïåÿ÷çèéÿèïÿèÿãííçÿøíðÿëùêõêéëÿãäåÿçíéëÿãåðîÿõåñåçí÷îåéãÿíøÿàãúÿ
ûèîåïÿæèðêïäáÿèéõÿãäèãÿóíîîêããååÿðåóíîîåéõåõÿãíÿãäåÿøùççÿæçèééêéëÿìíîîêïïêíéÿèÿøùãùðåÿçèéõÿùïåÿ
÷çèéÿüýþüÿ01ÿ20334ÿü262307ÿãíÿãäåÿ÷çèéÿ÷ðí÷íïåõÿêéÿãäåÿõðèöÿóíî÷ðåäåé
ïêñåÿ÷çèéáÿèéõÿãäåÿóíîîêããååÿ
èçïíÿðåóíîîåéõåõÿðåëùçèãêíéïÿãíÿêî÷çåîåéãÿãäåÿøùãùðåÿçèéõÿùïåÿ÷çèé89
FGHIJKLÿNIÿOGKÿPQHIR ÿÿÿÿÿÿ
Sÿ UVWXYÿZ[ÿ\]Wÿ^\]ÿX[_ÿ̀\]ÿaZY\VZb\Yÿc]Zb]ÿcWVWÿ
_WYZd[X\W_ÿXYÿefWYZ_W[\ZXghÿZ[ÿijkkÿXVWÿ ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ
!ÿ"ÿÿ#ÿ
123454676ÿ93
ÿ946ÿÿÿÿ45ÿ5 ÿ65
b]X[dW_ÿ\lÿefWYZ_W[\ZXgÿmÿno\oVWÿp[_oY\VZXghÿZ[ÿ
ijk^q $%ÿ ÿÿ"ÿ&"ÿ
Sÿ r]WVWÿXVWÿ[WcÿVWY\VZb\Zl[Yÿl[ÿYos_ZtZ_Z[dÿ ÿ'ÿÿÿÿ
VWYZ_W[\ZXgÿuVluWV\vÿcZ\]Z[ÿfWYZ_W[\ZXgÿmÿno\oVWÿ ÿÿÿ(ÿÿÿÿ
p[_oY\VZXgÿXVWXYq !%ÿ)ÿÿÿÿ
Sÿ r]WÿugX[ÿZ[bgo_WYÿXÿsowwWVÿxXuÿ\]X\ÿ ÿÿ"ÿÿ*+%,ÿ
Xby[lcgW_dWYÿX[_ÿuVl\Wb\YÿYb]llgYÿX[_ÿ
b]oVb]WYÿZ[ÿYlxWÿuXV\Yÿlwÿ\]WÿuXVZY]ÿc]ZgWÿ -ÿ/012ÿ3445678ÿ92:6;44<ÿ=0>6ÿ
Zd[lVZ[dÿX[_ÿlxZ\\Z[dÿb]oVb]WYÿX[_ÿYb]llgYÿZ[ÿ ?@A?BA?C
\]Wÿ^\]ÿX[_ÿ̀\]ÿaZY\VZb\Yqÿ
ÿÿ !"ÿ#ÿ$%&'ÿ&()ÿ*ÿ+ÿ#,-ÿ. /-ÿ'Ex.

ATTACHMENT A
"-ÿ*&ÿ2012ÿ&ÿ, ( -*ÿ /03ÿ%ÿ4"!&ÿ5&!,6/ÿ78ÿ97:ÿ
;ÿ#1-*ÿ</2ÿ'&*ÿ&*!/-&*ÿ=ÿ>-ÿ?/!&-ÿ7@9@97A
0
ÿÿÿÿ
9:;;ÿ=>?@ÿABC?DEFÿ 9:;Gÿ=>?@ÿAHDDIJI?>F
74/$ÿO4'&'+%+
VWXYZ[\]ÿ_X̀W
)#" '//#0ÿ'%ÿK
aCbcIBb@EI?>f aCbcIBb@EI?>dÿ
DeEeCbÿI@BecECI?>f
ÿ !"#$#%&'(#ÿ)*+%ÿ,-"+./ÿ0+/#0ÿ1232ÿ+4/$"#0ÿ KÿL#%#"+*'M#0ÿN4/4"#ÿO+%0ÿP&#ÿ)*+%Qÿ0+/#0ÿ22ÿ

56ÿ7)-8 ,.RS'+**6ÿ+0!/#0ÿ56ÿ)+"'&$ÿT"0'%+%S#ÿKUÿ%ÿK22K8
ghijÿlmnÿomjipmlqirsÿtÿuvqvwmÿxlpvjqwirsÿ
yrqmz{w|ÿijÿpmym}qi~ms|ÿjiisrwÿ{lÿqhmÿÿ
r}ÿwm}wmjmlqmpÿilÿqhmÿjrmÿ|mss{ntmizmÿ
y{s{wÿqhrqÿnrjÿomjipmlqirsÿ{lÿqhmÿÿr}
1234ÿ367ÿ89
43ÿÿÿÿ
ATTACHMENT A Ex. 2
0
ÿÿÿ!"#$$ÿ"!ÿ :K<562bÿc56ÿ9?@;ÿ0@<ÿ3;4:/2KF62ÿ4/ÿ456ÿ>?@;;3;eÿ
#!%ÿÿ&'(ÿ)%ÿ*$ÿ)%ÿ 7/883<<3/;ÿ/;ÿj/=68E6:ÿBCkÿBCDlÿ@;2ÿ9@<<62ÿ
+%$ÿ$#!,ÿ%ÿ!*$-ÿ /;ÿm9:3?ÿBkÿBCDGbÿc56:6ÿ06:6ÿ40/ÿ9KE?3Fÿ56@:3;e<kÿ
./0ÿ232ÿ456ÿ7/89:656;<3=6ÿ>?@;ÿA:/8ÿBCDDÿ EK4ÿ456<6ÿ06:6ÿ56?2ÿ03453;ÿ@ÿ40/ÿ066iÿ<9@;ÿnopqrÿ
E6F/86ÿ456ÿBCDGÿH@;2ÿI<6ÿ>?@;Jÿ MPQÿsX`YÿRỲXÿP`[ÿ̀YSQ`[tÿ^QQXÿWXMSN[ZTQ[ÿ^tÿMPQÿ
u4bÿv@86<ÿ>@:3<5ÿ7/K;F3?bÿÿm4ÿ456ÿE6e3;;3;eÿ/Aÿ456ÿ
>KE?3Fÿ:6F/:2<ÿ:6LK6<4<ÿA/:ÿ2/FK86;4<ÿ:6?@462ÿ sSUMÿPQ`SWX\ÿWXÿw`TPQSWQ_ÿxNZXTWYÿxP`WSÿyQMTPQXUÿ
MNÿMPQÿRSNTQUUÿÿVÿWXTYZ[WX\ÿTN]]WMMQQÿ]Q]^QSU_ÿ <4@462ÿÿ45@4ÿz{4|<ÿ;/4ÿ@ÿLK6<43/;ÿ@;2ÿ@;<06:bbb}ÿ
]QQMWX\ÿ[`MQUÿaÿ]WXZMQU_ÿQ]`WYÿTNSSQURNX[QXTQÿVÿ <6<<3/;b~ÿ6<326;4<ÿF/K?2ÿ=/3F6ÿ4563:ÿ/93;3/;<ÿEK4ÿ
5@=6ÿ4K:;62ÿK9ÿ;/ÿ:6<K?4<bÿc56:6ÿ3<ÿ<389?dÿ;/453;eÿ 0/K?2ÿÿe64ÿ;/ÿ@;<06:<bÿc56ÿ9?@;ÿ0@<ÿ@99:/=62ÿ
3;ÿ456ÿ9KE?3Fÿ:6F/:2ÿ45@4ÿ<5/0<ÿ5/0ÿ456ÿ26F3<3/;ÿ 388623@46?dÿ@A46:ÿ456ÿ<6F/;2ÿ56@:3;eÿ3;ÿ7/;=6;4b
0@<ÿ8@26ÿ4/ÿ26f8@9ÿ?/;e<4@;23;eÿ:6<326;43@?ÿ 7/;4:@<4ÿ453<ÿLK3Fiÿ@;2ÿ<6F:643=6ÿ9:/F6<<ÿ0345ÿ456ÿ
F/88K;3436<bg d6@:f@;2f@f5@?Aÿ?/;ekÿ4:@;<9@:6;4ÿ9?@;;3;eÿ45@4ÿ
h5@4ÿ06ÿ2/ÿi;/0ÿ3<ÿ45@4ÿ456ÿ9:/F6<<ÿ0@<ÿ F:6@462ÿ456ÿBCDDÿ7/89:656;<3=6ÿ>?@;bÿ
2
55ÿ2ÿ ÿÿÿ 2
55ÿ2ÿ ÿÿ67ÿ
2754ÿ167 5ÿ167
u6=6;4dÿ9@e6ÿ:69/:4ÿ/;ÿ456ÿ9:/F6<<ÿ@;2ÿ9K:9/<6ÿ/Aÿ456ÿ 6=3<62ÿ9?@;ÿ@99:/=62ÿEdÿ>?@;;3;eÿ
9?@;ÿu4bÿv@86<ÿ>@:3<5ÿ/=6:;86;4ÿ7/89:656;<3=6ÿ>?@;ÿ 7/883<<3/;ÿ/;ÿDDBCDlbÿj/ÿ83;K46<ÿ
BClD @=@3?@E?6b
j3;6466;ÿu466:3;eÿ7/8834466ÿ68E6:<ÿF:6@462ÿ456ÿ9?@;ÿ u466:3;eÿF/8834466ÿ23<</?=62ÿ3;ÿBCDBbÿ
u4bÿv@86<ÿ>@:3<5ÿ/=6:;86;4ÿ7/89:656;<3=6ÿ>?@;ÿBClDkÿ j/ÿ:6F/:2ÿ/Aÿ5/0ÿ9?@;ÿ:6=3<3/;<ÿ06:6ÿ
9bÿD F:6@462b
ZMSQ`TPÿ̀^NZMÿMPQÿRỲXÿMNÿMPQÿTN]]ZXWMtÿẀÿtQSU_ÿ j/ÿ/K4:6@F5ÿ@E/K4ÿ456ÿ9?@;
96:</;@?ÿ3;=34@43/;<ÿ@4ÿF3=3Fÿ86643;e<ÿ@;2ÿ?6446:<ÿ4/ÿ
83;3<46:<ÿu4bÿv@86<ÿ>@:3<5ÿ7/89:656;<3=6ÿ>?@;ÿBClDkÿ9bÿ
123454676ÿ93
j3;6ÿ9KE?3Fÿ86643;e<ÿ@;2ÿ@22343/;@?ÿA/FK<ÿe:/K9<ÿ56?2ÿ c0/ÿ9KE?3Fÿ86643;e<ÿ3;ÿ40/ÿ066i<
/=6:ÿ@ÿDCÿ8/;45ÿ<9@;ÿu4ÿv@86<ÿ>@:3<5ÿ/=6:;86;4ÿ
7/89:656;<3=6ÿ>?@;ÿBClDÿ9bÿfDC
=6:ÿGCCÿ:6<326;4<ÿ@446;262ÿu4bÿv@86<ÿ>@:3<5ÿ/=6:;86;4ÿ ÿRQNRYQÿ̀MMQX[Q[ÿMPQÿPQ`SWX\UÿsQÿ
7/89:656;<3=6ÿ>?@;ÿBClDkÿ9bÿ 06:6ÿ@e@3;<4ÿ34ÿ/:ÿ@<i62ÿA/:ÿ@ÿ26?@dÿ
3;K46<kÿlbgbDGÿ56@:3;eÿ@;2ÿGbBbDGÿu4bÿ
v@86<ÿ>@:3<5ÿ7/K;F3?ÿ6643;eb
zc56ÿu4bÿv@86<ÿ7/89:656;<3=6ÿ>?@;ÿ6=/?=62ÿ/=6:ÿ 3=6ÿ8/;45<ÿA:/8ÿ3;4:/2KF43/;ÿ@4ÿ456ÿ
@;ÿDÿ8/;45ÿ96:3/2b}ÿu4bÿv@86<ÿ>@:3<5ÿ/=6:;86;4ÿ 9?@;;3;eÿF/883<<3/;ÿ4/ÿ9@<<@e6ÿEdÿ
7/89:656;<3=6ÿ>?@;ÿBClDkÿ9bÿ~ 456ÿF/K;F3?
ÿ ¡¢£¤¥ÿ¦§¥¨©ª«ÿ¦§¬¡§«ÿ®ÿ̄°±§«ÿ °©¤«²ÿ³´³µ´³¶·ÿ̧´´³¶·ÿ̧´³¶´³¶·ÿ̧´¸¹´³¶
ºÿ®ÿ̄°±§«ÿ °©¤«²ÿ»¨¡¼A
ATTACHMENT Ex.
¥¤£ÿ ©¨¥§§ª¤¼½«ÿ̈¾ÿ ¡¢£¤¥ÿ¿§°©¤¼½ÿ̈¼ÿ²§2ÿ̧À³µÿÁ°¼ªÿÂ«§ÿ £°¼ÿÃ°©¥²ÿ³¶·ÿ̧À³µ
Äÿ¯¡«¤¼ÿÅ©°Æÿ§£§Ç²¨¼§ÿ¥¨¼È§©«°¤̈¼ÿÉ¤²ÿÊ£°¤«§ÿË©°È¨¤«ÿ´¸¸´³¶ 0
ÿ ÿ
ÿ#/#&#.ÿ#ÿ+!

ÿ
ÿ&#.ÿ#ÿ+!
KCBCÿH?ÿIFÿHIVFBGA@HFIÿHIÿ@KCÿX[T]HEÿBCEFBDÿATF[@ÿSKFÿBC?@AB@CDÿ@KCÿXBFEC??ÿFBÿSKFÿSA?ÿ
HIYF]YCDÿHIÿ@KH?ÿEKAIJCÿ@KA@ÿBC?[]@CDÿHIÿ@KCÿHID[?@BHA]H¡A@HFIÿFVÿ@KCÿ@KÿAIDÿa@Kÿ¢H?@BHE@?Pÿÿ
ÿÿ!"#ÿÿ#ÿ$ÿ%&'ÿ
ÿ#ÿ#ÿ(ÿ)ÿ#ÿ*++ÿ
,"#ÿ#ÿ-&&.#!'ÿ* &'ÿ.ÿ#ÿ
++ #.ÿ/ÿ&#0&!ÿ+!1ÿ
2#ÿ+ (#ÿÿÿ!!3ÿ)ÿ4&#ÿ5!!#3ÿ
& 00/#ÿÿ#ÿ6& /+/!ÿ
4+#!ÿÿ21ÿ7 ÿ81ÿ9##:ÿ;ÿ
*1ÿÿ.ÿÿ#ÿ&;.1
<=ÿ?@AB@CDÿEFGHIJÿ@Fÿ@KCÿLM=NOÿN@PÿQAGC?RÿGCC@HIJ?ÿFIÿ@KCÿ
CA?@ÿAIDÿ@KCÿSC?@ÿTAIUÿLFVÿ@KCÿWH??H??HXXHÿMHYCBRPÿZ[@ÿ@KCÿXCF\
X]CÿSCBCÿVCABV[]ÿAIDÿVCABÿH?ÿ@FBGCI@Pÿ^FDÿKA?ÿIF@ÿJHYCIÿ[?ÿ@KCÿ
?XHBH@ÿFVÿVCABÿT[@ÿFVÿ]FYC_ÿXFSCBÿAIDÿAÿ?F[IDÿGHIDP
W`ÿBC]A@HYC?ÿSFBUÿA@ÿ@KCÿX]AI@?PÿÿZ[@ÿHIÿ@KCÿ]A?@ÿ@CIÿ̀CAB?ÿ=ÿ?A@ÿDFSIÿAIDÿSBF@Cÿ
1234ÿ367ÿ89
43ÿÿÿÿ 23299ÿ 46ÿ1294
ATF[@ÿabÿXCFX]Cÿ@KA@ÿ=ÿUIFSÿXCB?FIA]]`ÿKA?ÿDHCDÿFVÿEAIECB_ÿG`ÿ?H?@CBÿTCHIJÿFICÿFVÿ
@KCGPÿNKCÿSA?ÿacÿ̀CAB?ÿF]DÿAIDÿ?KCÿKADÿGC@A?@A@HEÿ][IJÿEAIECBPÿdIDÿG`ÿXBA`CBÿ
XAB@ICBÿSKFÿSCI@ÿFIÿ@FÿJ]FB`PÿNKCÿDHCDÿVBFGÿEAIECBP
eÿghiÿjklÿmnoÿipqrÿsnolÿeÿtnuÿvwtÿeÿtnwxiÿskwiÿipqrÿygpiuÿeÿtqtwxiÿskwiÿipqrÿygpiuÿz{iÿ
h|ho}ÿiq~hÿeÿio}ÿinÿrk}ÿeÿkqwxiÿygpiqwgÿ~}ÿntÿkwhrinorxÿrqoqirÿoqrhÿ{ÿqwÿ~hÿkwtÿ
rk}ÿn{x|hÿgniÿinÿygpiÿ}n{x|hÿgniÿinÿygpiuÿ
W`ÿJBCA@\JBCA@\JBAIDGF@KCBÿEAGCÿF[@ÿVBFGÿ?]AYCB`_ÿAIDÿHIÿcÿ?KCÿX[BEKA?CDÿ
ÿAEBC?ÿFVÿ]AIDÿ@KA@ÿH?ÿ?@H]]ÿHIÿF[BÿVAGH]`ÿ@FDA`Pÿ=ÿEAI@ÿ[?@ÿ?H@ÿDFSIÿAIDÿ]C@ÿHID[?@B`ÿ
n~hÿqwÿkwtÿtnÿipqrÿinÿ{ruÿeiÿ{riÿkwxiÿpkhwuÿnÿex~ÿygpiqwguÿex~ÿygpiqwgÿkwtÿ
ex~ÿgnqwgÿinÿlhhÿnwÿygpiqwgu
k~hrÿkoÿnwhrÿrkqtÿpqrÿktt}ÿintÿpq~ÿemÿ}n{ÿrhhÿkÿgnntÿygpiÿ{~ÿqwu
pqrÿqrÿkÿgnAntÿygpiÿkwtÿex~ÿqwuÿex~ÿqwuEx.
ATTACHMENT 2
0
6JKÿLMJÿ<NOMPNQMÿRSPKRTUÿVKRPOÿRWÿ
XWYRNPÿVXPTKWÿZYÿ[ZSSXMNZW\
-./012ÿ405/6170ÿ89076ÿ ]"ÿI&AI_ÿ̀"`"_ÿ"aÿÀ"aÿ
b#"""_ÿcÿIdAÿ#_AI#"ÿdÿ
:-1//1.7/ÿ;8.57</= bIAÿ_dÿbAÿ`Àeÿÿ)ÿf"_A"#ÿ"_ÿ
!"#$ #$dÿc"ÿ"dI_A@(ÿg&`ÿ"Aÿ̀ I"ÿ
(* "_ÿAd@ÿ&$"aÿ"ÿ"&`__"GÿbAÿA_"d_ÿ
ÿ"eÿ@ÿ"e_(ÿhÿ&Aÿ"dI_A@ÿ
&e_ÿ"ÿeA@ÿ@A(ÿ

''()* 6i:ÿ-./012ÿ2.-807>jÿÿ
405/6170ÿ0--.710ÿ89076
%&&"
, +'(,* 6JKÿ[SRWMÿPKSKROKTÿklLÿMZWOÿZYÿMZmNQÿ
QJKnNQRSOÿNWÿkolpÿ;6ZmNQÿqKSKROKÿ
1WrKWMZPU=\ÿÿÿ
s&a"ÿÿ?Iÿbÿt"GA@ÿu)ÿ
_vÿ_d"aÿwÿÿ@IAÿI_ÿGIÿ
0-/6>ÿ:-1//1.7/ÿ;8.57</= #&`_dÿbÿw"#ÿ#&"#_ÿÿd"__"`ÿ
dÿ̀ Iÿÿ"Aÿc"ÿeA@ÿaI_ÿbÿc"d(ÿ
HII 0nnZWNRÿGIA_ÿÿA_`"AA@ÿA#ÿdÿ
'('* _$"(
123454676ÿ93
F@GE -KMJRWZSÿ#I__ÿI_ÿG"d__ÿdÿ
C()* 'CB _"EIA_(ÿ
F@
,(C* BB+B 0-:q1207ÿ/6>q:712/
?@A
DE ),' +()* sÿC,ÿ%&?@ÿ&"dÿLxÿMZWOÿZYÿMZmNQÿ
(,* QJKnNQRSOÿuHw"#ÿg_ÿseA@v(
+,',
yKWzKWKÿKm[ZOXPKÿ#I__ÿ##Aÿdÿ
&"(
/MUPKWKÿKm[ZOXPKÿ#I__ÿ#A"#ÿb"aIÿ
{|}~ÿÿ||ÿ|ÿÿÿÿÿÿ dÿdÀ__"(ÿ
ATTACHMENT
|¡ |¢~A
¡|~~~|~£ £~Ex.
¤2|
¥¦¦§¨©¥ª¨«¬
0
RSÿUVWXÿWYÿZXXÿWUXÿ[V\]ÿSÿ^_X`ÿabÿY\ÿ
cY\WVde\VWX]ÿWUXÿ̀VfÿeWÿeZgÿh\YaÛÿeZÿ
X\YaÛgi jÿlmnoÿqrstruvÿwÿxmyrztt{ÿqn|rwÿ}~}}
ÿÿÿÿ

?:'ÿ$1"7ÿ>15/!B /'%(!)
5'%7"ÿ.(B%'!7" /'%(!)
8.(%*ÿ+,, /'%(!)
O%)1!ÿ.(,ÿ95'"*ÿK!7, $1%ÿOA/!"1!ÿ'!0!)
!"ÿ$%&'(!)*ÿ+,, /'%(!)
OAA1!$1Nÿ/'!'ÿ>15/!B /'%(!)
$%(:1!ÿ/'ÿ+!'*ÿ++> /'%(!)
>/!'ÿ/'!'ÿ>15/!B*ÿ++> /'%(!)
QB18ÿQ%0)'*ÿ++> /'%(!)
>Kÿ$'(:!1ÿ!'*ÿ++> @!0'%ÿ>1!"(%87(1!
.18(:ÿ+18"!ÿ$'(:!1 @!0'%ÿ>1!"(%87(1!
G1%51"ÿ"(7"ÿ>1%/1%(1! %1/1"'0
>Oÿ/'!' %1/1"'0
+!0'ÿB0%1)'!ÿ!( %1/1"'0
.B!)" %1/1"'0
ÿ936ÿÿ641ÿ6ÿ236126ÿ
9243ÿ
1234ÿ367ÿ89
43ÿÿÿÿ 23299ÿ 46ÿ1294
!"ÿ$%&'(!)*ÿ+,-ÿ./'0ÿ12'%ÿ34ÿ5 1!ÿ)1!"ÿ16ÿ7%80'ÿ1ÿ!ÿ.(,ÿ95'"ÿ!ÿ$%7:ÿ16ÿ
4;3<,=ÿ
$%(:1!ÿ/'!'*ÿ++>-ÿ?:%18):18(ÿ(:'ÿ@!('0ÿ.(('"*ÿ"/'0ÿ//%1A5('Bÿ1!'ÿ5 1!ÿ
)1!"ÿ16ÿ:C%018"ÿD80"ÿ6%15ÿ("ÿ//'!'"ÿ"!7'ÿ4;;E,F
%1/1"'0ÿG1%51"ÿHGIJ-ÿK!ÿ9!8%B*ÿG1%51"L"ÿ?'A"ÿ/!(ÿM"ÿ7('0ÿNBÿ(:'ÿ?'A"ÿ>155 ""1!ÿ
1!ÿO!2%1!5'!(ÿP8(Bÿ61%ÿ%''"!)ÿ4;;ÿ(1!"ÿ16ÿ/"(7ÿ/''("ÿ!(1ÿ+27ÿQBÿ!0ÿ(:'ÿI86ÿ
16ÿ$'A71,3;ÿ
ÿÿ ¡¢£¤¥¦§ÿ̈©ª«ÿ¬¥®£¯°ÿ ¡¦¢£¯¦¡ÿª¡¯¥¡¤ÿ±²²¡¦¦¡³ÿ́µÿ¶·ÿ¸ÿ¹¥¥¢º»»¯¤²¼¦²½¾®°»
¸ÿÿ¿®¢¡°®¯¡ÿÀ̄²®³¡¯¥ÿÿÁ¡¤ÿÂ¤¡¯³¦§ÿ¿Ã´©±ÿ±²²¡¦¦¡³ÿÄ¡Å¤¼¤µÿ·ÿ¸ÿ¹¥¥¢¦º»»ÆÆÆ¢¹¾¦
³£¥½£Ç»³¥È¯³È¦¥¥®¦¥®²¦»¢®¢¡°®¯¡»¢®¢¡°®¯¡È®¯²®³¡¯¥ÈÈµ¡¤È¥¤¡¯³¦
ÿÉ¼²Ê·ÿ́¤®¦¦A
ATTACHMENT ÿÄ£¤¾£¦Ë¦ÿÂ¡Ì¦ÿ¢°¯¥ÿÍ¯¡³ÿÎEx.
·ÿ2Ï¥¡¤ÿ¢°¦¥®²ÿ¢¡°°¡¥ÿ¦¢®°°§ÿÿ
0 Â¹¡ ÿ
Ã£ ¼¦¥
£ ¯ÿª¹ ¤
£¯®²°
¡·ÿ
Ñ ¯ ¼¤
µÿ ·
ÿ¸
0123124ÿ678ÿ90
192ÿ9
192ÿ (&D"'ÿ)"IÿD&!!)'Iÿ"D('Jÿÿ#&(!ÿ
12112ÿ923ÿ
1 ÿ9
ÿ ÿ'"'ÿKLMNÿOPQQRSÿTUVÿQUMWNÿKXÿMYZWP[RÿUWTXNKÿ
2ÿ 2ÿ2 3ÿ12ÿ ÿ00
ÿ R\RS]ÿZLPSZLÿUY[ÿNZLXXWÿ^MKLMYÿKLRÿ_KLÿUY[ÿ̀KLÿ
2 ÿ9 3MNKSMZKNaÿ
ÿÿ!"#ÿ$"ÿ"%&#'%ÿ"(&)*%ÿ'ÿ+")%ÿ bÿ'ÿD&&(ÿ")%ÿDDÿ)ÿ'ÿc'ÿ")%ÿd'ÿ
,-.ÿ0123ÿ43ÿ56789ÿ:;4-ÿ<2=ÿ4>.3?4@.-ÿ2A.2-ÿBC4?;43ÿ e'D'ÿ"%ÿ)ÿ)D(%%fÿ'ÿ$&(%ÿ"GÿD"'%ÿ
'ÿ("DEÿDD(Fÿ$ÿ"%%'&)"(ÿG$ÿ$&(%ÿ ")ÿ&##&')'Iÿ&ÿ#(Dÿ)#'ÿ&)ÿ'ÿ(&D"'&)ÿ
ÿH%ÿ&ÿ#!'')*ÿ)$ÿ)%'Iÿ'&ÿ &ÿG"(ÿ!"g&ÿ)%'"(ÿ"D('ÿ"%g"D)'ÿ'&ÿ
ÿÿ ÿ¡¢£¤ÿÿ
¥ÿ¦§ ¢¤ÿ¨©ª«¬
®92912ÿ®ÿÿ
923ÿ
ÿ̄MÿPQQRS
£§¤ÿÀ§¢ÁÿÀ ¥ÿÿÿÿ ¤ÿ¤ÂÿÃÄ¤
topÿ°ÿrmuoptÿ~mrÿvukmqkÿmÿ±~oxkÿru|qkvqokÿ²jkuÿq|ÿru|qkvqÿv|~~jloq{ÿ
mvoxoqokp³ÿ²jqÿmoxkÿq|ÿoklqo{ÿ~ml{ÿmvqokÿvtjuvtkpÿmlÿpvt||xp´
ÿ µijklmÿnopqmÿimrqopqÿstjuvt ÿ · zqÿsmxmu{ÿimrqopqÿstjuvt
ÿ ¶ wtoxxoromlÿimrqopqÿstjuvt ÿ ¹ wkmvkjxÿo|lÿimrqopqÿstjuvt
ÿÿ¸ yqÿzmu{ÿsmqt|xovÿstjuvt ÿ ¼ zqÿuoj~rtÿimrqopqÿstjuvt
ÿ » wox}uo~ÿjxxÿ|prkxÿimrqopqÿ ÿ º ijuq|lÿmlkÿstjuvtÿÿzqÿikqtkx
st j uv
t ÿµ¾ yqÿwmjxÿstjuvtEx. 2
½ yqÿ|jopÿzmqtÿmlÿkmolA}ÿ
ÿ ATTACHMENT
vmk~{ÿ|u~kux{ÿqtÿmuÿ
xk~klqmu{ yqÿm~kpÿwxmllol}ÿs|~~oppo|lÿ ¿
ÿ ÿÿÿÿÿÿ àbcÿefgehighjkÿabcÿlÿihmnjhgokÿpqoÿ
ÿÿ !ÿ" ÿ #ÿ$ÿ hrhisÿonchÿsfqÿtouhÿvlinmuÿefqgenwxÿ
% ÿ ÿ&ÿ#ÿ ÿ'( ÿ&%% ÿ$ ÿ%ÿ ulrhÿofÿclyhÿlÿvnrfolwÿjhenmnfgÿzuhgÿ
ÿ)*+ÿ,-ÿ)ÿ %ÿ.ÿ,-ÿ noÿefchmÿofÿouhÿ{wleyÿefccqgnos|ÿzhÿ
)ÿ ÿ"-ÿ,-ÿ)ÿÿ ÿ/ÿ jfgboÿ}hoÿouhÿmqvvfiokÿ~gÿouhÿplsfqÿ
0ÿ1 +ÿÿ#ÿ2#ÿÿÿÿ
ÿÿ3 $ÿ4 +! tpinj}hxÿvnvhwnghÿsfqÿjnjgboÿrfohÿznouÿ
56789:;<=8ÿ5;?@Aÿ566BACÿCABCADA8EDÿ qmkÿuhgÿnoÿefchmÿofÿmhinfqmÿmoqÿ
EFAÿG:HEFÿI:DEC:9E oulobmÿlheong}ÿouhÿ{wleyÿefccqgnos|ÿ
zuhgÿlihÿzhÿ}fng}ÿofÿclyhÿouhÿ
JKLÿNOPQRSÿTOLÿPQRÿUSLPÿVWSKXOYÿVZRSKXOYÿR[RXPR\ÿ in}uoÿjhenmnfgÿouloÿznwwÿuhwvÿoufmhÿ
ÿ ÿ-ÿÿÿ$ÿ& ÿ efccqgnonhmÿ
QRÿKLÿ]YRÿÔSKLQÿ]WUXKO[ÿTQ]ÿQOLÿLP]]\ÿ_^ÿP]ÿPQRÿ
- ÿ+! ÿÿÿÿÿÿ
ÿÿÿÿÿ
2345ÿ478ÿ9
54ÿÿÿÿ
ATTACHMENT A Ex. 2
01
WXYZ[\ÿ^_àb`cbÿdè\ÿ^_Ybfgÿh\_cXi[\jÿ
kelÿ^XY_mÿnXYoeoà`ÿp\_màX[
qrÿtuvwxÿyz{ÿy|}~{ÿÿrÿÿvÿÿÿ ÿvwÿÿwrwwÿrvwrÿwÿÿvwÿº¿¼ÿ
ÿvwÿrwxÿuuvÿÿrÿÿ rÿrÿuuvxÿvÿÿvwÿrwxÀ}}
xr{ÿÿxrrwrÿwwrÿxÿÿuwxÿ ÿvwÿuuvÿÿuuxwwr{ÿÿrÿ
wrÿÿrwvÿÿuuxwwrÿvÿrÿ ÿvuxÿwrÿvÿÿxÿwÿuvwÿrÿ
wrvwxÿwxwwÿrÿÿvwrwxÿvÿ ÿwÿÿÿrÿvÿÿÿrr¾rvwrÿ
ÿuuxwr ÿwrÿÿvwrwxÿvÿwÿvxÿÿwxxwrrÿ
}ÿvuxÿrvrwrx{ÿÿurÿÿ ¢ÁÿÂ¬£©µ±ÿ¢ÁÃª©¬¶µÿ¡¢ÿÄµ¥ÿ¡±¥ÿ¶¬¤´ÿÄµ¥ÿ²¶¬¤ÿ¡¢ÿµ¡¥¥£ÿ
ÿÿwxÿÿrÿrÿvÿwrÿÿÿ xurÿÿvÿvwrÿvwrwxÿvÿÿ
wvw ÿvwÿ
yÿÿwwrÿrx{ÿÿxvÿrxÿ Åÿy|}Æ{ÿÿwwrÿrxÿÇÈÿÿwrÿÿ
uxrÿÿÿwxÿwrÿÿÿwvw wwxvÿwwrÿÿvuxÿwrÿy|}~ÿÅÿÿw{ÿ
¡¡¢£¤¥¦ÿ̈©ªÿ«£¬¤ª©¥®©ª¯°ÿ®±¢ÿ²£¢³©´¥µÿ¶¥·¬¶ÿ ÿrÿÿxrÿwrÿÿuvÿÿÿÿwvwÿ
rxÿrÿxrÿÿvÿÿÿvw{ÿ ÿrÿÿvwrwxÿvÿrvÿÿ
vÿÿwwrÿ̧vÿÿuxwÿ xvwuÿÿrwxrÿxÿuvÿvuvÿ
vv vvÿwrwÿÿÿwÿrÿvÿwrÿxrÿ
vÿwvÿuvÿrwxÿvÿwÿr
¹º̧vrww»¼ÿrÿÿÿxrÿuvÿÿ ÿwwrÿrxÿxÿÿrÿ
vuxÿÿÿvÿÿvÿxrÿÿuÿ xÿÿÿÿrvÿÿvuxÿrÿrÿ
ÿuvrÿÿÿxrrwrÿwwrÿrÿ rwvÿÿrr¾rvwrÿÿwrÿÿvwrwxÿ
ÿuxwÿ½ÿrxÿÿÿwxwÿÿwrÿÿ v
rr¾rvwrÿvÿrÿvv{ÿÿrÿÿ
ÿÿÿ! !"#ÿ$#"%&ÿÿ' ÿ' (ÿ%ÿ%")ÿ

!"ÿ*ÿ'"%ÿ' ÿ"#"+ÿ", ÿ -ÿ./ÿ&ÿ/0ÿ ÿ
123454676ÿ93
$/%ÿ/ÿ12%0ÿ3" &ÿ4"&ÿ5/!# &6ÿÿ*7!ÿ%ÿ%") ÿ
!"ÿ*ÿ$ $#08
9ÿ;<=>?@ÿA<@@BÿC?=DEFGÿH>IÿC<JD=ÿ;<@K=FÿL?MNOKPÿQDD>KNRGÿSTISUISV
ÉÉÊÿÌÍÊÿÎÏÐÑÒÿÓÔÏÕÕÖÕ×ÿØÙÐÐÖÒÒÖÙÕÊÿÚÑÑÍÖÕ×ÿÚÖÕÛÍÑÒÊÿÜÝÞÖÔÿßàáÿßâÉãÊ
ATTACHMENT A Ex. 2
00
ÿ%ÿ24ÿ24ÿ14ÿÿ/6ÿÿÿ
4ÿ
9:;<=>ÿ@ABC<:D=ÿ>:EFÿGFHIÿ@JIÿIK@ÿ<LMJ=I;<:Dÿ k\OÿZOW]NOUVWÿRgÿj]WVZ]^Vÿvwÿ[\]^\ÿxR_U^]QTYUÿ
NOPOQRSTOUVWÿUOYZÿ[\]VOÿ^RTT_U]V]OWÿ̀aRQPOZ]UOÿ yYWRUÿoTYVRÿWOOzWÿVRÿSZRVO^VwÿYZOÿTRZOÿV\YUÿ{|}ÿ
YUNÿbOVZRSQOcdÿe_VÿV\OÿWYTOÿSZRVO^V]RUÿ\YWÿURVÿ [\]VOd~ÿk\OÿbYZ]W\ÿ\YWÿURVÿNOTRUWVZYVONÿV\OÿWYTOÿ
fOOUÿRggOZONÿVRÿV\OÿhV\ÿYUNÿiV\ÿj]WVZ]^VWdÿ []QQ]UlUOWWÿVRÿSZRVO^VÿV\OÿZOW]NOUVWÿRgÿj]WVZ]^VWÿhÿ
k\OÿSYZ]W\ÿ\OQNÿV[RÿS_fQ]^ÿTOOV]UlWÿYgVOZÿV\Oÿ YUNÿiwÿ[\]^\ÿYZOÿTYRZ]VuÿogZ]^YUÿoTOZ]^YUÿWOOÿ
mYUNÿnWOÿbQYUÿ[YWÿ]UVZRN_ÔNdÿoVÿRUOÿRgÿV\RWOÿ NOTRlZYS\]^WÿVYfQOÿRUÿSYlOÿhd
pFFI<Lq=rÿs@JLC<Dp:Lÿtp:I@ÿ:AB;pFMÿI>FÿLFFMÿI@ÿ
SZRVO^VÿZOW]NOUVWÿgZRTÿ]UN_WVZudÿ
ÿ ÿ!"#$"#%ÿ&'()ÿ*+,ÿÿ*ÿ-.#%ÿ/+0ÿ1ÿ2(+ÿ*(0ÿ
'3ÿ*ÿ4"ÿ5+ ÿ2+*ÿ6)(ÿÿ)7)ÿ8*ÿ*ÿ4"ÿ5+ ÿ
2+*ÿ2(+,ÿ6
ÿÿÿÿ ÿ¡ÿÿ ÿÿ¢£¡ÿÿ ÿÿ¤ÿ£ÿ¥¦¢ÿ¤¤¡ÿ£ÿ
¥¦¢ÿ£§ ̈¦§ÿ̈¦ÿÿ©ªª¦¨¥«ÿ¬§ÿ§¥®ÿ̄ÿ£ ̈ÿ ¦ÿ̈¦ÿ°£®ÿ°©±££¥§ÿ ¨§£¨©¡ÿ
²¨§£¨©ÿ³¡ÿ́µ¨ÿ¶ ̈µ¨§¨¦®ÿ·§ÿÿ̧¥¦¢ÿ̧ª¨¨§®ÿ¹¥ÿÿ¥¡ÿª¦®ÿ¬§ÿÿ
£§£¨© ÿ§ µ̈¨§¨¦ÿ¦ ÿ¥ÿ̧ÿ¤£¥ÿ§©£ÿ£̈ÿ¤£¤£¥ÿ̈§ÿ¢¦¦ÿÿµ ÿ
¸£ªÿ£ÿ¦ÿ¡ÿ̧£ÿ¦¥ÿ¥£§ÿ¤§ÿÿÿ©¦ÿ¤ÿ¦ÿ̈¦ §£¥ÿ¦ºÿÿª®»
¼ÿ±¦©¨ª¦ÿ½§¦ÿ¾ª
¿ÀÁÿÃÄÿÅÆÇÈÉÈÿÊÉËÆÌÉÍÿÎÏÆËÐÑÌÇÿÅÒÏÏÉÇÐÓÔÿÄÉËÕÆÔÿÀÖ¿×Á
2345ÿ478ÿ9
54ÿÿÿÿ 343

ÿ57ÿ23
5
ATTACHMENT A Ex. 2
01
ÿ ÿ !"ÿ
#!
$!
%&'(ÿ)ÿ*!ÿ+,0-ÿ.' ÿ/!ÿ01'
234565787ÿ
4 ÿ
57 ÿÿÿÿ56 ÿ6ÿ7 6
ATTACHMENT A Ex. 2
01
ÿ !ÿ"#$ ÿ$ÿ%&$ 'ÿ(ÿ)*+ÿ',ÿ-. &!ÿ
ÿ'&ÿ&/ 0ÿ'ÿ' ÿ1#2 ÿ+. '2ÿ3ÿ4(0ÿ
ÿ' ÿ&/ÿ(ÿ5678
9:ÿ<=>ÿ?@ABÿCBÿDEFÿG=HI>ÿJ=AC>Kÿ<KIBÿGCHÿLA@<ÿ>ECMMÿANMIOFÿP=QC>EÿM=<>ÿH=OIÿ>NAIÿEK=EÿH=BRÿ?M=QSÿ
T@NC>C=B=B>ÿ<IAIÿNB=?MIÿE@ÿU=AECQCU=EIÿCBÿOIH@QA=QRFÿ
VWÿYZ[ÿ\]]^ÿ_à]ÿWYZ^ÿbcÿd]Za[ÿ[e^f]ÿWY]ÿg`We^hÿiehYW[ÿjfWÿZ^kÿWY]ÿlemenÿiehYW[ÿjfWoÿ\pWÿWY]ÿ
UA@U@>IOÿq@AH@>=ÿJM=>ECQ>ÿJM=BEÿ>K@<>ÿEK=EÿOIH@QA=QRÿK=>ÿB@EÿrNMMRÿQ@HIÿE@ÿDEFÿG=HI>ÿJ=AC>KFÿ:rÿHRÿ
Q@HHNBCERÿK=Oÿ=ÿ>=RsÿT@NC>C=B=ÿ<@NMOÿB@Eÿ?Iÿ>UIBOCBtÿuvFwÿ?CMMC@BÿE@ÿ=EEA=QEÿ=ÿr@AICtBÿU@MMNEIAFÿ:rÿHRÿ
Q@HHNBCERÿK=Oÿ=ÿ>=Rsÿ<Iÿ<@NMOÿB@Eÿ=MM@<ÿ=ÿUM=>ECQ>ÿUA@ONQCBtÿUM=BEÿE@ÿ?NMMO@xIÿyFwÿ>zN=AIÿHCMI>ÿ@rÿ
{]WnZ^k[ÿZ^kÿ[phZaÿfZ^]ÿ|]nk[}ÿ~à_`[ZÿYZ[ÿZÿW]aae\n]ÿWaZfÿa]fàkÿZ[ÿZaÿZ[ÿWa]ZWe^hÿ{à]a[oÿWY]eaÿ
>=rIERÿ=BOÿ@NAÿIBCA@BHIBEF
ÿÿÿ
2345ÿ478ÿ9
54ÿÿÿÿ 343

ÿ57ÿ23
5
ATTACHMENT A Ex. 2
01
ÿÿÿ!"#ÿ"$ÿ%ÿ&ÿÿÿ'()ÿ&*ÿ'ÿ+,-.ÿ*ÿ*ÿ/!ÿ(ÿ*ÿ0*ÿ
12345264ÿ8ÿ9:ÿ;<9=ÿ8ÿ>?3ÿ@<A=BÿC<5ÿ2ABD3452?EÿD3=Fÿ
(ÿ'"ÿ#ÿÿ)ÿ/!'"*Gÿ&ÿ*!ÿHI!ÿ!'ÿ!ÿ/H'ÿI!$ÿJÿK!(!*ÿH!K*ÿ
L3;ÿ?ABÿ3;529Mÿ2Aÿ4;=ÿN2332332MM2ÿO2P=5FÿQD5ÿLRÿ?ABÿM=6?Aÿ45==3ÿS=M4ÿD3ÿ>=EEÿC=Bÿ?ABÿ=P=AÿM5<P2B=Bÿ
K*ÿ(ÿ"ÿÿ"II$ÿTÿ&!"ÿ/!H(Iÿ!ÿU'$ÿV&ÿ*ÿI!ÿ!ÿ*'Kÿ*!ÿK&"ÿÿ'ÿ'"ÿ
M<23<AFÿW<>ÿ<D5ÿ;<D3=3ÿ?5=ÿX<<B2ARÿ>;=Aÿ4;=5=Y3ÿ;=?P:ÿ5?2AF
Z*ÿ[''Iÿ\'K*"ÿ]Hÿ!ÿ*ÿ^'"'!!ÿ["''ÿ!ÿ"//"ÿÿ/HÿI!H#ÿH))''"ÿ()ÿ
*'"ÿ/ÿ(ÿ')!Iÿ!H'")$ÿZ*ÿ*!ÿÿ'ÿ[!Hÿ]II$ÿ_ÿ!KH'"ÿ!ÿÿ"!)/'Kÿ
ÿ/)'ÿ*!ÿH)"ÿ!H""ÿ*'ÿ"#"$ÿ%*ÿ&ÿH!IIÿ*ÿ̀/!)ÿ(ÿa')!Iÿb!I'ÿ
!ÿ!ÿ 'Iÿ")IIÿ'ÿ*ÿ!'ÿ*ÿH)ÿÿ*ÿ!"ÿI!ÿ!ÿIIÿ"ÿ*ÿcÿ")IIÿ!*'K$ÿ
d!ÿ!(ÿ!Gÿÿ^'"'!!ÿIK'"I!"ÿ*!ÿeHÿ)!"ÿ(ÿ!'ÿ)'"ÿ!ÿ'"'!Iÿ"'"ÿ
&'*ÿ!ÿ*'"ÿ(ÿ!'ÿ/)'ÿ'I!'"$
f)ÿ*ÿ))ÿTÿ*!ÿ!ÿf)"!GÿTÿ&!"ÿIÿ*!ÿ'ÿ&!"ÿ!ÿÿ!I$ÿZ*ÿK)ÿ*!ÿ
ÿÿ'""ÿ!ÿ/)'"Gÿÿ*ÿ"!ÿ&!"ÿ!I!ÿHI!'Kÿ*ÿ!H)ÿ(ÿ*ÿ/eH$
%*!ÿ*ÿ!ÿ!H!IIÿHI!'Kÿ'"ÿÿe"ÿ/'"'Kÿÿ!'ÿ!ÿ'#'Kÿ&!Gÿÿ!I"ÿ*ÿ!'ÿ
!ÿ&!ÿ(ÿ"'"ÿ(ÿ^H*Gÿ^!gI!HGÿJ!''ÿ!ÿV&ÿ_ I!"$ÿ]'ÿ!ÿ&!ÿÿÿ"/ÿ!ÿ
*ÿ/!'"*ÿI'$
]ÿ"!Iÿ/!'"*ÿIIÿ*!'K"GÿÿIH!Iÿ"'ÿ&*ÿ"/#Gÿ"/#ÿÿ!K!'"ÿ*ÿ/I!$ÿZ*ÿ
"H'ÿ*&ÿ*'ÿH*'Iÿ*!ÿIÿ!*'KGÿ*&ÿ*ÿ*!ÿÿ!Iÿ&'*ÿ"#'ÿ!"*"Gÿ"ÿ
I"Gÿ"/'!ÿ!'I)"GÿH!H$ÿZ*ÿ/I!ÿ&'*ÿ*ÿHH'Iÿÿÿ/)'ÿÿ!*ÿ
*)K"ÿh'Hÿ/I!$ÿZ*ÿ/I!c"ÿ"//"ÿ")ÿÿÿ!IIÿZ!'&!"ÿhH'"ÿ!ÿ&!I*ÿ
"'"")ÿ&*ÿI'ÿ"!(Iÿ"'ÿ[!Hÿ]II$ÿZ*ÿ/!'"*ÿÿÿ!//ÿ*ÿ/eHÿ!&!$ÿ
Z*'"ÿ'"ÿÿI!Gÿ*'"ÿ'"ÿÿ*)Gÿ!ÿ&ÿ!ÿ"!'Kÿ/ÿK*ÿÿ(ÿ'$ÿi$ÿj!)"ÿ'"ÿ'"'K$k
tuvwxyÿ{|y}
234565787ÿ
4 ÿ
57 ÿÿÿÿ56 ÿ6ÿ7 6
Tÿ+,-lGÿÿ^!ÿ&!"ÿHI"ÿ&'*ÿh/I!!'$ÿ
ÿ^!ÿ&!"ÿ*ÿIÿIH!Iÿ!ÿHH'Kÿ&ÿ
)!eÿ"!ÿ!"Gÿ\'ÿ\!ÿÿm'K*&!ÿn-+oÿ'ÿ*ÿ
0*ÿ̀'"'H$ÿÿ^!ÿ/I!ÿ!ÿ')/!ÿIÿ!"ÿ!ÿ
HH'Kÿ"ÿ!ÿ!H!'ÿÿ(ÿ"'"ÿ'ÿ
H!"ÿ(ÿ!ÿ'"'!Iÿ!HH'$ÿ
p;=5=ÿ;?3ÿq==AÿE2Mÿ3=5P26=ÿqD4ÿA<ÿ?642<Aÿ<AÿLAB2ARÿ?Aÿ
!I!'ÿrÿ*ÿ/!'"*ÿK)ÿ*!"ÿ'"H""ÿ
4;=ÿM5<qE=9ÿC<5ÿLP=ÿ:=?53sÿqD4ÿB<A=ÿA<4;2ARFÿO=32B=A43ÿ
!ÿ&ÿ!//ÿÿh/!'Kÿ'"ÿ!ÿ&*!ÿ'"ÿ&ÿ!ÿ
!ÿÿ!$
ATTACHMENT A Ex. 2
01
ÌÍÎÏÎÿÑÒÓÎÔÕÏÿÒÔÖÿÕÍÎ×ÓÿØÍ×ÙÖÓÎÔÿÙÎÖÿÕÍÎÿ×ÔÕÎÚÓÒÕ×ÛÔÿÛÜÿÕÍÎÿÝÕÞÿßÒàÎÏÿÑáâÙ×ØÿÏØÍÛÛÙÏÿ×ÔÿÕÍÎÿãäåæÏÞÿ
ÿ !"
#$ÿ&'()*'ÿ+,-./0ÿ+'-1.2/ÿ3-,42'5ÿ/.46'ÿ20'ÿ7,45ÿ8/'ÿ9:,4ÿ;,/ÿ,5)+2'5<ÿ
.46:=5.43ÿ>)-1)/,<ÿ20'ÿ?-3)4ÿ'@+,4/.)4<ÿAB43,/<ÿA)=20ÿ7)=./.,4,ÿC'20,4):<ÿ
D,40=,<ÿEFG<ÿ7.45'ÿ,45ÿ20'ÿHF?ÿ+.+':.4'$ÿIJKLKÿNKOPQRLÿSKOKÿQLLTKUÿTVUKOÿWÿ
XYZ[\]ÿ_[à[bcd[ÿeYf\ÿg_[ÿheYfÿbiYbÿbYaj[b_ÿbi[ÿkeY`lÿ̀mnngfcbopÿÿqbi[aÿhYac_i[_ÿ
JWrKÿRWsKVÿWtRQuVÿRuÿNOuRKtRÿRJKQOÿOKLQUKVRLÿvOuPÿKPQLLQuVLwÿÿxKvvKOLuVÿyWOQLJzÿvuOÿ
K{WPN|KzÿOKrusKUÿWÿNKOPQRÿQRÿJWUÿQLLTKUÿvuOÿWÿt}WVQUKÿN|WVRw~
$ÿ-,2ÿ,45ÿ,5)+2ÿ,4ÿ,1'451'42ÿ2)ÿ20'ÿ:,45ÿ=/'ÿ1,+ÿ)-5.4,46'ÿRuÿNOuNKO|}ÿ
t|WLLQv}ÿRJKÿOKLQUKVRQW|ÿWOKWLÿuvÿRJKÿRJÿWVUÿRJÿQLROQtRLÿWLÿKLQUKVRQW|ÿWVUzÿSJKOKÿ
WNNOuNOQWRKzÿOQtT|RTOW|wÿIJKLKÿQVJWQRKUÿWOKWLÿWOKÿJuPKÿRuÿurKOÿzÿOKLQUKVRLzÿ
WVUÿSQRJuTRÿNOuNKOÿUKLQVWRQuVÿuVÿRJKÿ|WVUÿTLKÿPWNzÿRJKQOÿtuPPTVQRQKLÿJWrKÿVuÿ
NOuRKtRQuVÿvOuPÿQVUTLROQW|ÿK{NWVLQuVÿWVUÿtuVLROTtRQuVw
$ÿG4('/2.3,2'ÿ20'ÿ1=-*Bÿ+-)6'//ÿBÿ;0.60ÿ20'ÿ#ÿ7,45ÿ8/'ÿ9:,4ÿ;,/ÿ6-',2'5zÿ
QVt|TUQVÿJuSÿRJKÿN|WVÿSWLÿOKLTOOKtRKUÿWVUÿtJWVKUwÿuTQLQWVWLÿOKNTRWRQuVÿ
vuOÿtuOOTNRQuVÿQVt|TUKLÿLJKVWVQWVLÿQVÿLPW||ÿNWOQLJKLwÿIJKÿyWOQLJÿyOKLQUKVRÿWVUÿ
QOKtRuOÿuvÿNKOWRQuVLÿJWrKÿKKVÿQVUQtRKUÿvuOÿPW|vKWLWVtKÿQVÿUKW|QVLÿSQRJÿ
2345ÿ478ÿ9
54ÿÿÿÿ 343

ÿ57ÿ23
5
QVUTLRO}ÿQVÿRJKÿNWOQLJw~ÿIJKÿ~ÿWVUÿLKÿy|WVÿSWLÿWÿNOQPKÿuNNuORTVQR}ÿvuOÿ
tuOOTNRQuVÿQrKVÿRJKÿOQtJÿWVUÿNuSKOvT|ÿQVUTLROQKLÿQVru|rKUw
$ÿ&'()*'ÿ20'ÿ6)4/2-=62.)4ÿ+'-1.2ÿ)-ÿA)=20ÿ7)=./.,4,ÿC'20,4):ÿ+:,42$ÿIJKÿyWOQLJÿ
tWVÿTLKÿRJKÿLWPKÿOKWLuVQVÿTLKUÿRuÿUKV}ÿyKROuN|K{ÿÿUQUÿVuRÿuSVÿRJKÿ|WVUÿWRÿ
bi[ÿbcn[ÿmÿYÿ_cjfc`YfbÿeYf\ÿg_[ÿ̀iYfj[p
$ÿ&')+'4ÿ=-2)4ÿ7,4'ÿWVUÿW||uSÿOKLQUKVRLÿRuÿOKLTPKÿRJKQOÿ|uVÿRQPKÿTLKÿuvÿRJKÿ
OuWUw
ÿ ¡¢£¤¥ÿ¦ §¨ÿ©ª«¢¬®§ÿ̄°¢¬±ÿ̄§ ²±ÿ §³¡´§®ÿµ«ÿ¶§··§ ¸¡¬ÿ¹¢ ¸¤ÿª¡º¬£°ÿ¬ÿ§»± ¢¡ ®¬¢ «ÿ¢µ¡º±¼·¢£§½ÿ¾¡°¢£¡²¥ÿ¿¯ °ÿÀ¥ÿÁÂÃ
ÄÿÅ±£¤§°°¥ÿ¦¢³®ÿ¶Aÿ©Æ±ÿ¶¢²§¸ÿ¡·Ç£¢°̧ÿ¢££§¯±ÿ²²º¬Ex.
ATTACHMENT ±«ÿ®§¢2°̧ÿ·¡ ÿ±§¸±²¡¬«ÿ¬ÿ̄¢ ¸¤ÿ̄ §¸®§¬±Ȩ̀ÿ̄ ¡¸§£º±¡¬½ÿÉ¤§ÿ¿®³¡£¢±§¥ÿÅ¢«ÿÊ¥ÿ
ÁÂË
01
01233435ÿ78994
483ÿ9 ÿ23ÿ411ÿ

8ÿ2ÿ2ÿ
ÿ01233435ÿ78994
483ÿ2435ÿ83ÿÿ88

ÿ
232ÿ79421ÿ0123
ÿ"#$ÿ%&'&(ÿÿ)#$*%&+ÿ,-'.-"#ÿ*-.&/ÿÿ"#0+ÿ1-2ÿ34-)ÿ)%#$ÿ.#4(ÿ0$5"ÿ6--+ÿ7-'ÿ$%&ÿ8#'0"%/ÿ
9-2ÿ34-)ÿ&*-4-.0*"(ÿ$%&15:&ÿ#;)#1"ÿ$-;+ÿ.&ÿ$%#$ÿ$%'-26%ÿ#;;ÿ.1ÿ1&#'"<<$%#$ÿ$%&ÿ8#'0"%ÿ'&#;;1ÿ
4&&+&+ÿ$%&ÿ.-4&1ÿ#4+ÿ#;;ÿ$%#$/ÿÿ"$#'$&+ÿ$-ÿ;--3ÿ=#*3(ÿ6-$ÿ%-.&(ÿ#4+ÿ7&;$ÿ#ÿ;0$$;&ÿ620;$1/ÿ
ÿ#045$ÿ2"&+ÿ$-ÿ+-046ÿ$%0"(ÿ=2$ÿ5.ÿ6-44#ÿ$&;;ÿ1-2ÿ.1ÿ%&#'$/ÿ5.ÿ$#;3046ÿ7'-.ÿ.1ÿ%&#'$ÿ'06%$ÿ4-)/ÿ
ÿ6-$ÿ#ÿ7#.0;1/ÿÿ6-$ÿ*%0;+'&4/ÿÿ6-$ÿ6'#4+*%0;+'&4/ÿ5.ÿ-4&ÿ-7ÿ$%&ÿ7&)ÿ$%#$ÿ*#4ÿ
>?@ÿBCDEFÿGDÿH?IJÿK@ÿLMF>ÿNMGHMOÿPIJÿKMQJ>ÿDRÿKJSÿTÿH?IJÿRDECÿLMF>SÿUQQÿDRÿ
$%&.ÿ*#.&ÿ%-.&ÿ=&*#2"&ÿ$%&1ÿ;-:&ÿV$/ÿW#.&"ÿX#'0"%/ÿY2$ÿ"-ÿ.#41ÿ-7ÿ
.1ÿ7'0&4+"ÿ#'&ÿ6-4&/ÿ9&"(ÿ$%&1ÿ)-'3ÿ04ÿV$/ÿW#.&"ÿX#'0"%(ÿ=2$ÿ4-(ÿ$%&1ÿ
+-45$ÿ)#44#ÿ;0:&ÿ04ÿV$/ÿW#.&"ÿX#'0"%/ÿZ%&1ÿ.-:&+ÿ$-ÿ"-.&ÿ-$%&'ÿ
8#'0"%/ÿ9&"ÿ)&ÿ6-$ÿ6'&#$ÿ[-="(ÿ$%&1ÿ6-$ÿ6'&#$ÿ[-="/ÿZ%&1ÿ)-45$<<
0$5"ÿ$%&ÿ0.8#*$(ÿ$%&ÿ&4:0'-4.&4$#;ÿ0.8#*$ÿ$%&1ÿ82$$046ÿ-4ÿ$%&0'ÿ
7#.0;0&"/ÿZ%#$5"ÿ)%#$ÿ$%&"&ÿ8&-8;&ÿ#'&ÿ"*#'&+ÿ-7/ÿ\-$ÿ$%#$ÿ1-25'&ÿ
#ÿ=#+ÿ*-.8#41/ÿ]&ÿ)-'3&+ÿ7-'ÿ$%&.(ÿ)&ÿ.#+&ÿ#ÿ6'&#$ÿ;0:046ÿ04ÿ
$%&ÿ*%&.0*#;ÿ8;#4$"(ÿ=2$ÿ1&$(ÿ)&ÿ34-)ÿ)%#$ÿ)&4$ÿ-4/ÿ
ÿ+-45$ÿ34-)ÿ%-)ÿ$-ÿ82$ÿ0$(ÿ=2$ÿÿ6-$ÿ#ÿ"$'-46ÿ$'#+0$0-4ÿ7-'ÿ7#.0;1(ÿ
#4+ÿ5.ÿ8'-2+ÿ$-ÿ"#1ÿ$%#$ÿ5.ÿ4-$ÿ04ÿ7#:-'ÿ-7ÿ1-2ÿ#;;/ÿ\-$ÿ=&*#2"&ÿ
1-25'&ÿ4-$ÿ#ÿ6--+ÿ*-.8#41ÿ=&*#2"&ÿÿ+-45$ÿ34-)(ÿ=2$ÿ=&*#2"&ÿÿ
=&;0&:&ÿ04ÿ7#.0;1/ÿ^3#1/ÿ$ÿ.&#4"ÿ#ÿ;-$ÿ$-ÿ.&/ÿ_4+ÿ0$ÿ*-.&"ÿ-2$ÿ7'-.ÿ.1ÿ
%&#'$(ÿ5.ÿ$#;3046ÿ7'-.ÿ.1ÿ%&#'$ÿ4-)/ÿÿ)#4$ÿ.1ÿ30+"ÿ$-ÿ"$#1ÿ%-.&/ÿÿ=&;0&:&ÿ X%-$-aÿW2;0&ÿb&'.#4"31
04ÿ$'#+0$0-4/ÿÿ34-)ÿ)%#$5"ÿ%#88&4046ÿ04ÿV$/ÿW#.&"ÿX#'0"%/ÿZ%#$5"ÿ#;;ÿÿ6-$ÿ$-ÿ"#1/̀
ATTACHMENT A Ex. 2
ATTACHMENT A Ex. 2
ATTACHMENT B
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION 6
1201 ELM STREET, SUITE 500
DALLAS, TEXAS 75270
VIA FOIAOnline
Ms. Corinee Van Dalen

Earthjustice
900 Camp Street Unit 303
New Orleans, LA 70130
RE: Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) Request: EPA-R6-2019-007083
Dear Ms. Van Dalen:
This letter concerns the above-referenced FOIA request, received by the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA or Agency) on July 5, 2019, in which you requested,
“Request under the Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”), 5 U.S.C. § 552. Specifically, we
request all records in the possession, custody, or control of EPA Region 6 that refer or relate to
FG LA, LLC’s modeling protocol and consultation in connection with its Prevention of
Significant Deterioration permit application and associated Class I increment modeling for its
planned Chemical Complex in St. James, Louisiana.”
The EPA Region 6 has concluded its search and uploaded records responsive to your request to the
FOIAonline system. You can access your records by going to FOIAonline at
https://foiaonline.gov/foiaonline/action/public/home and searching by your FOIA request number.
This letter concludes our response to your request. You may appeal this response by email at
hq.foia@epa.gov, or by mail to the EPA’s National FOIA Office, U.S. EPA, 1200 Pennsylvania
Avenue, N.W. (2310A), Washington, DC 20460 or through FOIAonline if you are an account holder. If
you are submitting your appeal by hand delivery, courier service, or overnight delivery, you must
address your correspondence to 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Room 5315, Washington, DC 20460.
Your appeal must be in writing, and it must be received no later than 90 calendar days from the date of
this letter. The Agency will not consider appeals received after the 90-calendar-day limit. Appeals
received after 5:00 p.m. EST will be considered received the next business day. The appeal letter should
include the FOIA tracking number listed above. For quickest possible handling, the subject line of your
email, the appeal letter, and its envelope, if applicable, should be marked "Freedom of Information Act
Appeal." Additionally, you may seek dispute resolution services from EPA's FOIA Public Liaison at
hq.foia@epa.gov or (202) 566-1667, or from the Office of Government Information Services (OGIS).
You may contact OGIS in any of the following ways: by mail, Office of Government Information
Services, National Archives and Records Administration, Room 2510, 8610 Adelphi Road, College
Park, MD 20740-6001; email, ogis@nara.gov; telephone, (202) 741-5770 or (877) 684-6448; or fax,
(202) 741-5769.
ATTACHMENT C Ex. 1
FOIA Request EPA-R6-2019-007083
This is a final response to your request, and you may receive a final billing (if appropriate) from the
Regional FOIA Office. If you have any questions concerning this response, you may contact the
Regional FOIA Officer, Nancy Ho, who can be reached at r6foia@epa.gov.
Sincerely,
7/18/2019
X Suzanne Andrews
Suzanne Andrews
Signed by: Environmental Protection Agency

Acting Deputy Regional Counsel
This paper is printed with vegetable-oil-based inks and is 100-percent postconsumer recycled material,
chlorine-free-processed and recyclable
ATTACHMENT C Ex. 1
ATTACHMENT D
ATTACHMENT D
Todd Cloud
Summary Education
Years of Experience Bachelor, Chemical Engineering, Georgia Tech
20+ Juris Doctorate, University of Georgia School of Law
Industries
Pulp & Paper
•
Recent Project Experience
• Wood Products
Sun Bio Materials (U.S.) Company
• Oil and Gas
Arkadelphia, AR
• Upstream/Midstream
Secured the Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) pre-
• Onshore construction authorizations for $2,000,000,000 softwood pulp
mill and linerboard manufacturing facility in Arkadelphia, AR.
Types of Facilities
Supported pre-engineering and design efforts needed to secure
• Production Facilities air permit. Completed all federal Class II National Ambient Air
• Terminal Quality Standards (NAAQS) and PSD Increment air dispersion
modeling demonstrations. Completed all federal Class I PSD
• Refineries
Increment and Air Quality Related Values (AQRV) modeling
Areas of Expertise demonstrations for Federal Land Manager (FLM) review and
approval for three Class I areas. Negotiated Best Available
• Federal/major New Source
Control Technology (BACT) emission limits as well as draft permit
Review (NSR), state/minor NSR
conditions. Supported Sun Bio through contentious public
• Prevention of Significant hearing process.
Deterioration (PSD)
Harbor Island Crude Oil Terminal
• Reasonably Available Control Corpus Christi, TX
Technology (RACT)
Secured the Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) pre-
• Best Available Control
construction authorizations for $1,400,000,000 crude oil storage
Technology (BACT)
terminal (200,000,000 bbl) and marine loading (160,000 bph)
• Lowest Achievable Emission facility in Corpus Christi, TX. Supported pre-engineering and
Rate (LAER) determinations design efforts needed to secure air permit. Completed all
federal Class II National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS)
• Air dispersion modeling
and PSD Increment air dispersion modeling demonstrations.
(ISCST3, AERMOD, CALPUFF)
Completed the state-only Effects Screening Level (ESL) air
• Auditing and compliance dispersion modeling risk assessments. Assessed best achievable
program development control technologies (BACT) for all new or modified emission
• Notice of Violation (NOV) units.
response and mitigation Colombo Energy
• Expert witness and litigation Greenwood, SC
support
Reviewed, revised, and revamped all previously secured state-
only pre-construction authorizations for a $140,000,000 wood
pellet manufacturing facility (500,000 metric ton/year) located in
Greenwood , South Carolina. Affirmed Prevention of Significant
January 2019
Page 1 of 3
ATTACHMENT D Ex. 1
Todd Cloud
Recent Project Experience (continued)

Deterioration (PSD) minor source status of facility pursuant to a concurrent enforcement action and plant
divestiture. Completed all state Class II National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS air dispersion
modeling demonstrations. Supported engineering and design efforts for additional air pollution controls
on the pellet cooler operations. Completed the state-only air dispersion modeling air toxic risk assessments.
Sunoco Logistics Partners

Nederland, TX
Secured Texas minor New Source Review (NSR) pre-construction authorizations to modify the existing
Nederland, TX marine terminal operations to accommodate 500,000 bpd ethane receiving, compression,
storage and transport facility. Supported pre-engineering and design efforts needed to secure air permit
Assessed best achievable control technologies (BACT) for all new or modified emission units. Completed
all federal Class II National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) and PSD Increment air dispersion
modeling demonstrations. Completed Effects Screening Level (ESL) dispersion modeling risk assessments.
Fram Renewable Fuels

Various Locations, GA
Supported all aspects of Clean Air Act compliance for the combined 1,000,000 metric ton/year Fram
Renewable Fuels operations in Baxley, GA (Appling County Pellets), Hazlehurst, GA (Hazlehurst Wood
Pellets), Nahunta, GA (Archer Forest Products), and Telfair, GA (Telfair Forest Products) including (but not
limited to) pellet certification compliance, construction permits, semiannual and annual Title V reporting,
Tier 2 submittals, Toxic Release Inventory (TRI) reports, internal auditing and compliance program
improvement, emission fees, emission inventories, Notice of Violation (NOV) response and mitigation,
greenhouse gas (GHG) life-cycle and emissions reporting, etc.
Koch Pipeline Company

LP Clearbrook, MN
Secured all Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) pre-construction authorizations pursuant to Minn.
R. 7007.0750 to construct four (4) additional 300,000 barrel external floating roof tanks to an existing crude
oil terminal in Clearbrook, MN. The existing volatile organic compound (VOC) emission calculation
infrastructure was employed to estimate a revised facility VOC potential to emit (PTE) with four (4) additional
tanks at the current terminal maximum throughput of 430,200 bbl/day.
Northern Tier Energy/Flint Hills Resources

Wausau, WI
Assisted client in determining what regulatory gaps existed upon purchase and restart of the gasoline
storage tanks and loading rack at a mothballed gasoline terminal in Wausau, WI. The gap assessments
concluded that, upon terminal restart, the site would likely lose its exemption from 40 Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR) Part 60, Subpart XX Standards of Performance for Bulk Gasoline Terminals but would
likely retain its exemption from 40 CFR Part 60, Subpart Kb Standards of Performance for Volatile Organic
Liquid Storage Vessels (Including Petroleum Liquid Storage Vessels). With the gap assessments complete,
the air permit application materials necessary to obtain Wisconsin Department of Environmental Resources
(DENR) authorization to restart the terminal under the terms of Wisconsin's FESOP program codified at
NR407 of the Wisconsin Administrative Code.
January 2019
Page 2 of 3
ATTACHMENT D Ex. 1
Todd Cloud
Professional Bio
Mr. Cloud has 20 years of consulting experience in interpreting and implementing the 1970 Clean Air Act
(CAA) and subsequent amendments. Mr. Cloud’s areas of expertise include (but are not limited to):
federal/major New Source Review (NSR), state/minor NSR, non-attainment NSR, Prevention of Significant
Deterioration (PSD), Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT), Best Available Control Technology
(BACT), and Lowest Achievable Emission Rate (LAER) determinations, air dispersion modeling (ISCST3,
AERMOD, CALPUFF), auditing and compliance program development, Notice of Violation (NOV) response
and mitigation, expert witness, and litigation support. Mr. Cloud also completes risk based analyses in the
context of compliance and due diligence audits, identifies areas of CAA concern, prioritizes potential
liabilities, and provides CAA risk management recommendations.
Professional History
• Wood Environment & Infrastructure Solutions, Associate Scientist, Atlanta, Georgia + Houston, Texas
• Sage Environmental Consulting, Senior Project Manager, Atlanta, Georgia, 2010–2014
• ERM, Project Manager, Atlanta, Georgia, 2006–2010
• SECOR International, Senior Consultant, Atlanta, Georgia, 2003–2006
• Trinity Consultants, Consultant, Atlanta, Georgia, 1998–2003
Publications / Presentations
• Todd Cloud and David Wilsford, “Under Construction, Round II: U.S.-Japanese Negotiations to Open
Japan's Construction Markets to American Firms, 1988-92,” Pew Case Studies, Georgetown University
(1990)
• Todd Cloud, “Exploring the NSPS and PSD “Alternative Fuels” Exemption,” Air Issues Review (June
2001)
• Todd Cloud, “NSR Reform – Where We Stand Today, Air Issues Review” (December 2001)
• Todd Cloud, “NSR Reform Update,” Air Issues Review (May 2002)
• Todd Cloud, “PAL Permits: Friends for Life?,” presented at the Air and Waste Management Association
Southern Section Annual Meeting and Technical Conference, Nashville, Tennessee (August 2005)
• Todd Cloud, “Clean Air Act Regulatory Update,” presented at the Georgia Environmental Conference,
Savannah, Georgia (August 2012)
• Todd Cloud, “Requirements and Considerations in Designing Initial Performance Tests for Multi-Fuel
Boilers – Panel Discussion, presented at the NCASI Southern Regional Meeting, Savannah, Georgia
(June 2014).
January 2019
Page 3 of 3
ATTACHMENT D Ex. 1
Comments to
on the
Proposed Prevention of Significant Deterioration Permit (PSD-LA-812)
14 Proposed Title V Permits (3141-V0 - 3154-V0)
Associated Environmental Assessment Statement
FG LA Chemical Complex (AI 198351)

Welcome, St. James Parish, Louisiana
August 5, 2019
Prepared for
RISE St. James, Louisiana Bucket Brigade, and Sierra Club
By Todd Cloud
ATTACHMENT D Ex. 2
1.1 Introduction
FG LA LLC (Formosa) proposes to construct and operate a chemical complex in St. James, Louisiana
comprised of fourteen facilities to manufacture ethylene and propylene, ultimately producing
high and low density polyethylene, propylene, and ethylene glycol. Formosa plans to construct
the complex on the west bank of the Mississippi River between state Highway 18 (River Road) and
state Highway 3127 on agricultural land. The site chosen for the complex is approximately 0.5
mile from the residential area of Union across the Mississippi River, and approximately one mile
from residential areas downriver in St. James.
St. James Parish is currently designation “attainment” or “unclassifiable” for all criteria pollutants.
As such, the Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) program applies. Formosa submitted its
original PSD application in September 2015 to the Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality
(LDEQ). A revised PSD application was submitted in February 2018 and was supplemented various
times over the next 12 months. The PSD application was deemed complete in January 2019. The
proposed Formosa complex triggers PSD review for oxides of nitrogen (NOx), carbon monoxide
(CO), sulfur dioxide (SO2), particulate matter (PM), particulate matter less than 10 microns
(PM10), particulate matter less than 2.5 microns (PM2.5), volatile organic compounds (VOC), and
greenhouses gases (expressed carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e)). LDEQ issued a proposed PSD
permit and a Statement of Basis (SOB) for public comment in May 2019.
1.2 Documents Reviewed
The following documents were reviewed. Bold entries indicate documents specifically relied
upon to formulate the opinions and conclusions presented herein.
• Application Completeness Letter (LDEQ/September 2015)

• Part 70 Application, Volume I – PSD Application (Zephyr Environmental Corporation
(Zephyr)/September 2015)
• Part 70 Application, Volume II – Ethylene 1 (Zephyr/September 2015)
• Part 70 Application, Volume III – Ethylene Glycol 1 (Zephyr/September 2015)
• Part 70 Application, Volume IV – HDPE 1 (Zephyr/September 2015)
• Part 70 Application, Volume V – LLDPE (Zephyr/September 2015)
• Part 70 Application, Volume VI – Propylene (Zephyr/September 2015)
• Part 70 Application, Volume VII – Polypropylene (Zephyr/September 2015)
• Part 70 Application, Volume VIII – Logistics (Zephyr/September 2015)
• Part 70 Application, Volume IX – Utility 1 (Zephyr/September 2015)
• Part 70 Application, Volume X – Wastewater (Zephyr/September 2015)
• Part 70 Application, Volume XI – Ethylene 2 (Zephyr/September 2015)
• Part 70 Application, Volume XII – Ethylene Glycol 2 (Zephyr/September 2015)
• Part 70 Application, Volume XIII – HDPE 2 (Zephyr/September 2015)
• Part 70 Application, Volume XIV – LDPE (Zephyr/September 2015)
• Part 70 Application, Volume XV – Utility 2 (Zephyr/September 2015)
• FLM Consultation Letter (Zephyr/September 2015)
• Air Quality Modeling Protocol (Zephyr/September 2015)
• Protocol Approval (LDEQ/September 2015)
Page |1
ATTACHMENT D Ex. 2
• EAS Submission Confirmation (Zephyr/October 2015)
• Public Notice Publication (Zephyr/October 2015)
• LDEQ/Zephyr Meeting Agenda (February 2016)
• Administrative Hold Email (Zephyr/June 2016)
• Expedited Review Requests – (Zephyr/October 2017)
• Part 70 Application, Volume I (Revision 1) – PSD Application (Zephyr/February 2018)
• Part 70 Application, Volume II (Revision 1) – Ethylene 1 (Zephyr/December 2017)
• Part 70 Application, Volume III (Revision 1) – Ethylene Glycol 1 (Zephyr/November 2017)
• Part 70 Application, Volume IV (Revision 1) – HDPE 1 (Zephyr/November 2017)
• Part 70 Application, Volume V (Revision 1) – LLDPE (Zephyr/November 2017)
• Part 70 Application, Volume VI (Revision 1) – Propylene (Zephyr/December 2017)
• Part 70 Application, Volume VII (Revision 1) – Polypropylene (Zephyr/November 2017)
• Part 70 Application, Volume VIII (Revision 1) – Logistics (Zephyr/December 2017)
• Part 70 Application, Volume IX (Revision 1) – Utility 1 (Zephyr/February 2018)
• Part 70 Application, Volume X(Revision 1) – Wastewater (Zephyr/February 2018)
• Part 70 Application, Volume XI (Revision 1) – Ethylene 2 (Zephyr/December 2017)
• Part 70 Application, Volume XII (Revision 1) – Ethylene Glycol 2 (Zephyr/November 2017)
• Part 70 Application, Volume XIII (Revision 1) – HDPE 2 (Zephyr/November 2017)
• Part 70 Application, Volume XIV (Revision 1) – LDPE (Zephyr/November 2017)
• Part 70 Application, Volume XV (Revision 1) – Utility 2 (Zephyr/February 2018)
• Air Quality Modeling Protocol (Revision 1) (Zephyr/February 2018)
• Protocol Approval (Revision 1) (LDEQ/April 2018)
• NAAQS/PSD Increment Analysis (Zephyr/July 2018)
• EAS Submittal (Revision 1) (Zephyr/July 2018)
• Part 70 Application, Volume III (Revision 2) – Ethylene Glycol 1 (Zephyr/August 2018)
• Part 70 Application, Volume IV (Revision 2) – HDPE 1 (Zephyr/June 2018)
• Part 70 Application, Volume IV (Revision 3) – HDPE 1 (Zephyr/August 2018)
• Part 70 Application, Volume IV (Revision 4) – HDPE 1 (Zephyr/September 2018)
• Part 70 Application, Volume V (Revision 2) – LLDPE (Zephyr/June 2018)
• Part 70 Application, Volume VII (Revision 2) – Polypropylene (Zephyr/June 2018)
• Part 70 Application, Volume VIII – Logistics (Zephyr/ August 2018)
• Part 70 Application, Volume IX (Revision 2) – Utility 1 (Zephyr/July 2018)
• Part 70 Application, Volume XII (Revision 2) – Ethylene Glycol 2 (Zephyr/August 2018)
• Part 70 Application, Volume XIII (Revision 2) – HDPE 2 (Zephyr/June 2018)
• Part 70 Application, Volume XIII (Revision 3) – HDPE 2 (Zephyr/August 2018)
• Part 70 Application, Volume IV (Revision 4) – HDPE 2 (Zephyr/September 2018)
• Part 70 Application, Volume XIV (Revision 2) – LDPE (Zephyr/July 2018)
• Part 70 Application, Volume XV (Revision 2) – Utility 2 (Zephyr/July 2018)
• NAAQS/PSD Increment Analysis (Revision 1) (Zephyr/October 2018)
• TAP Impact Analysis (Revision 1) (Zephyr/December 2018)
• Permitting Timeline Email Exchanges (Zephyr/October 2018)
• EIQ Updater (Zephyr/October 2018)
• FLM Notification Email Exchange (Zephyr/December 2018)
• BACT Email Exchange (Zephyr/December 2018)
• EAS Submittal (Revision 2) (Zephyr/January 2019)
Page |2
ATTACHMENT D Ex. 2
• Response to Air Quality Analysis Comments (Zephyr/January 2019)
• BACT Email Exchange (Zephyr/March 2019)
• Statement of Basis (LDEQ/June 2019)
1.3 Spreadsheets Reviewed
• PM25 ActualEmissionsReport 2016.xlsx

• PM25 PermittedEmissionsReport 2016.xlsx
• PM10 ActualEmissionsReport 2016.xlsx
• PM10 PermittedEmissionsReport 2016.xlsx
• NOX ActualEmissionsReport 2016.xlsx
• NOX PermittedEmissionsReport 2016.xlsx
• CO ActualEmissionsReport 2016.xlsx
• CO PermittedEmissionsReport 2016.xlsx
• SO2 ActualEmissionsReport 2016.xlsx
• SO2 PermittedEmissionsReport 2016.xlsx
• OFF-PROPERTY SOURCES 2018.07.08.xlsx
1.4 Additional Sources
• Evaluation of the Inhalation Carcinogenicity of Ethylene Oxide (CASRN 75-21-8) (December

2016) in Support of Summary Information on the Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS)
https://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/iris2/chemicalLanding.cfm?substance_nmbr=1025.
1.5 Findings and Observations
1.5.1 NAAQS and Class II Increment
• ISSUE #1 – The NAAQS and Class II Increment modeling efforts do not comport with
the regulatory definition or EPA guidance with respect to the treatment of ambient
air.
- Ambient air is defined in LAC 33:III.111 as “the outdoor air or atmosphere which
surrounds the earth,” and in 40 CFR 50.1(e) as “that portion of the atmosphere,
external to buildings, to which the general public has access.” Pursuant to EPA’s
definition, the usual and customary treatment of ambient air begins at a fence
line (i.e., controlled access) and not a property line. Louisiana regulations do not
allow for a restrictive treatment of ambient air.
- EPA’s ambient air policy, consistent with its discretion available under the
regulatory definition of ambient air, holds that an applicant may exclude from the
modeling analysis only the atmosphere over land owned or controlled by the
stationary source where the owner or operator of the source employs measures
that are effective in deterring or precluding access to the land by the general
Page |3
ATTACHMENT D
public. See, generally, Draft Guidance: Revised Policy On Exclusions from
“Ambient Air,” USEPA (November 2018). 1
- Anything short of continuous, patrolled fencing (such as three-strand barb-wire

fence or “no trespassing” signs) are not considered adequate to precluding access
to the land by the general public. It is highly unlikely that Formosa intends to
fence off and actively patrol all 2,300 acres.
- Formosa’s receptor grids begin at the property line and extend out, improperly
excluding all Formosa property from the consideration of ambient air. By
assessing ambient impacts using the property line, Formosa is drastically
underestimating maximum pollutant impacts. The maximum pollutant impacts
are underestimated even if receptor grids begin at the fence line.
• ISSUE #2 – The Class II Increment modeling efforts do not comport with 40 CFR Part
51, Appendix W or 33 LAC III.509(L) with respect to the modeling of actual PM10 and
PM2.5 emissions.
- Per LAC 33:III.509(L), all modeling of ambient concentrations shall be based on

applicable air quality models, databases, and other requirements specified in
Appendix W of 40 CFR Part 51 (Guideline on Air Quality Models).
- 40 CFR Part 51, Appendix W, Section 8.2.2 provides that the new or modifying
source shall be modeled with “potential” emissions in accordance with the
emissions input data shown in Table 8-2. As part of a cumulative impact analysis,
Table 8-2 allows modeling “actual” emissions from regional sources calculated
using the specific formula provided.
- This formula multiplies the maximum allowable emission limit (or federally
enforceable permit limit) times the actual operating level and actual operating
factor, both of which represent the average over the most recent 2 years. The
typical result is a modeled emission rate below potentials but above actuals.
- Formosa employed actual 2016 emissions in the Class II Increment PM10

modeling efforts for the following regional sources: the Americas Styrenics LLC -
St James Plant (AI2384), the Mosaic Fertilizer LLC - Faustina Plant (AI2425), and
the Mosaic Fertilizer LLC - Uncle Sam Plant (AI2532). Formosa also employed
actual 2016 emissions in the Class II Increment PM2.5 modeling efforts for every
single PM2.5 regional source.
- Utilizing actual 2016 emissions does not comport with the 40 CFR Part 51,
Appendix W, Section 8.2.2 requirement to model actual emissions (a) using the
most recent 2 years of data and (b) calculated utilizing the 40 CFR Part 51,
Appendix W, Section 8.2.2 formulas.
1
https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2018-11/documents/draft_ambient_air_guidance_110818.pdf
Page |4
ATTACHMENT D Ex. 2
• ISSUE #3 – The Class II Increment modeling efforts do not comport with 40 CFR Part 51,
Appendix W or 33 LAC III.509(L) with respect to the modeling protocol approvals.
- Per LAC 33:III.509(L), all modeling of ambient concentrations shall be based on

applicable air quality models, databases, and other requirements specified in
Appendix W of 40 CFR Part 51 (Guideline on Air Quality Models).
- 40 CFR Part 51, Appendix W, Section 9.2.1 provides a modeling protocol should
be established to define the procedures to be followed, the data to be collected,
the model to be used, and the analysis of the source and concentration data to
be performed. The protocol should be written and agreed upon by the parties
concerned. The protocol establishes a common understanding of how the
demonstration required to meet regulatory requirements will be made.
- Formosa submitted two modeling protocols addressing the NAAQS and Class II
Increment modeling. The first modeling protocol was submitted in September
2015 while the second was submitted in February 2018. In both protocols,
Formosa committed to using potential emissions in the NAAQS and Class II
Increment modeling.
 September 2015, Section 4.2.1: “If the results of the preliminary impact
analysis indicate that a full-impact analysis is required, an inventory of
off-property source will be obtained from the DEQ Emissions Reporting
and Inventory Center (ERIC). The inventory will include permit allowable
emission rates and stack parameter information for off-property sources
located within 50 kilometers of the plant location.” (emphasis supplied)
 February 2018, Section 5.2.1: “If the results of the preliminary impact
analysis indicate that a full-impact analysis is required, an inventory of
off-property source will be obtained from the DEQ Emissions Reporting
and Inventory Center (ERIC). The inventory will include permit allowable
emission rates and stack parameter information for off-property sources
located within 15 kilometers of the plant location.” (emphasis supplied)
 February 2018, Section 5.2.3: “In order to assure that the off-property
data provides a reasonable representation of existing emissions and
associated potential predicted ambient air concentrations...” (emphasis
supplied)
- Per the September 2015 and April 2018 LDEQ modeling protocol approval letters,
any deviation from these protocol requires the submittal of an amended protocol
and subsequent approval.
- The change from potentials to actuals required amending the modeling protocol
and submittal for agency review and re-approval. There is no indication in the
record Formosa obtained LDEQ approval for the change in modeled emission
rates.
Page |5
ATTACHMENT D Ex. 2
• ISSUE #4 – The Class II Increment modeling efforts do not comport with 40 CFR Part 51,
the LDEQ AQMP, and/or the usual and customary approach with respect to the
identification and documentation of PM2.5 increment consuming sources.
- Increment consumption is based on potential emission increases since the

pollutant-specific baseline date. Increment expansion is based on actual emission
decreases since the pollutant-specific baseline date. See New Source Review
Workshop Manual, Section II.B National Ambient Air Quality Standards and PSD
Increments (1990).
- Three dates related to the PSD Increment concept are important in understanding
how to calculate the amount of increment consumed by an emissions increase
associated with a new source or modification: 1) trigger date; 2) major source
baseline date; and 3) minor source baseline date.
 The trigger date for PM2.5 (October 20, 2010) is the date that initiates
the overall increment consumption process. The major and minor source
baseline dates are necessary to properly account for the emissions that
are to be counted toward the amount of increment consumed following
the trigger date.
 The major source baseline date for PM2.5 (October 20, 2011) is the date
after which emissions increases associated with construction at any
major stationary source consume the PSD increment.
 The minor source baseline date is the earliest date after the trigger date
on which a source or modification submits the first complete application
for a PSD permit in a particular area. After the minor source baseline date,
any increase in emissions from both major and minor sources consumes
PSD increment for that area.
- If a new source or modification subject to PSD review for PM2.5 causes modeled
impacts that exceed the SIL, the applicant must evaluate within the SIA the
increment consumption associated with the source's proposed emissions
increase, along with other PM2.5 emissions increases or decreases from any
sources in the area, which have occurred since the minor source baseline date
established for that area.
- If the minor source baseline date has not been established, then only PM2.5
emissions from the new source or modification and actual PM2.5 emissions
changes at major sources after October 20, 2011 (i.e., the major source baseline
date) would have to be included in the PSD Increment Analysis.
- The Formosa PSD permit application is utterly devoid of any discussion of trigger
date, major source baseline date, and minor source baseline date with respect to
PM2.5.
Page |6
ATTACHMENT D Ex. 2
 It is impossible from the record to review either Formosa’s or LDEQ’s
decision making process with respect to what sources were included as
PM2.5 increment consumers, expanders, or baseline sources.
 Formosa must review all permit actions since the major source baseline
date for PM2.5 (October 20, 2011) and compile a source-by-source,
stack-by-stack regional inventory identifying all baseline, expanding, and
consuming emissions for LDEQ review and approval. Only then will there
exist a sufficient record upon which meaning public comment can be
based.
• ISSUE #5 – The NAAQS and Class II Increment modeling efforts do not comport with
40 CFR Part 51, the LDEQ AQMP, and/or the usual and customary approach with
respect to the speciation of PM2.5 as a subset of PM10 emissions.
- A complete NAAQS and Class II Increment potential emissions inventory was

provided by LDEQ for PM10. PM2.5 emissions have only been regulated since
2010. As such, the NAAQS and Class II Increment potential emissions inventory
for PM2.5 provided by LDEQ has little information. See PM25
PermittedEmissionsReport 2016.xlsx
- PM2.5 is a subset of PM10. Formosa created a PM2.5 inventory using the PM10
inventory as a starting point to arrive at PM2.5 emission estimates. Formosa
estimated in some cases PM2.5 emissions as less than 1/5 of PM10 emissions.
- The Formosa PSD permit application is utterly devoid of any discussion of the
PM2.5 speciation rationale. No documentation or justification of any kind was
supplied by Formosa (either in the application, the September 2015 modeling
protocol, the April 2018 modeling protocol, the initial July 2018 modeling
submittal, the October 2018 modeling submittal follow-up, or the January 2019
modeling follow-up) supporting these speciation efforts.
- Considering the combustion sources involved, PM10 and PM2.5 are generally
equivalent. Formosa’s technically suspect and wholly undocumented speciation
efforts serve to drastically underestimate emissions and therefore ambient
impacts. As part of the modeling protocol re-submittals, Formosa must justify
any and all instances where PM2.5 emissions are less than PM10. Only then will
there exist a sufficient record upon which meaning public comment can be based.
1.5.2 Class I Increment
• ISSUE #6 – Formosa did not consult or reach agreement with EPA Region 6 prior to
determining the appropriate second level screening methods and techniques to
complete the Class I Increment assessment as required by 40 CFR Part 51, Appendix
W, Section 4.2(b)(ii).
- There exists a two-step screening approach to address long range transport

(beyond 50 kilometers) for purposes of assessing Class I PSD Increments.
Page |7
ATTACHMENT D Ex. 2
- The first screening step relies upon the near-field application of AERMOD to
determine ambient impacts up to 50 kilometers. Until recently, the second
screening step relied upon the far-field application of CALPUFF to determine the
significance of ambient impacts beyond 50 kilometers. If either screening step
indicated impacts below the applicable Class I SIL, no further modeling efforts
were required. Otherwise, a cumulative impact analysis for NAAQS and/or PSD
Increments beyond 50 kilometers is necessary.
- EPA removed CALPUFF as a preferred model in 40 CFR Part 51, Appendix W for
long range transport assessments. As such, while the first screening step
(AERMOD up to 50 kilometers) remains unchanged, there no longer exists a
preferred model or screening approach for the second screening step at distances
beyond 50 kilometers.
- 40 CFR Part 51, Appendix W, Section 4.2(b)(ii) clearly states that applicants shall
reach agreement on the specific model and modeling parameters for the second
screening step on a case-by-case basis in consultation with the appropriate
reviewing authority (LA DEQ) and EPA Regional 6. If a cumulative impact analysis
for NAAQS and/or PSD Increments beyond 50 kilometers is necessary, the
alternative model approval procedures in 40 CFR Part 51, Appendix W, Section
3.2.2(e) must also be followed.
- The Class I Increment screening efforts triggered mandatory consultation

requirements under 40 CFR Part 51, Appendix W, Section 4.2(b)(ii).
1.5.3 Air Toxics
• The current air toxics assessment is limited to the air toxics listed in LAC 33:III.5105 et
seq. These air toxics are a small subset of the total number of air toxics emitted from
the proposed site. There exist over 40 additional air toxics from the combustion of
natural gas alone. See AP-42, Chapter 1.4, Tables 1.4-3 and 1.4-4.
https://www3.epa.gov/ttnchie1/ap42/ch01/final/c01s04.pdf.
• For the subset of air toxics included in LAC 33:III.5105 et seq., the Minimum Emission
Rate (MER) and Ambient Air Standards (AAS) are 20+ years old and simply do not
reflect current data on risk as summarized in the Integrated Risk Information System
(IRIS). https://www.epa.gov/iris
• Formosa did try to bring the ethylene oxide (EtO) assessment up to modern standards
with a revised AAS of 0.02 microgram per cubic meter (ug/m3) annual average.
However, this reflects an assumed acceptable cancer risk of 1 in 10,000.
• The attached plots have been generated using Formosa’s own data showing the
(substantially increased) exposed populations at 1 in 100,000 and 1 in 1,000,000
cancer risks.
Page |8
ATTACHMENT D Ex. 2
1.6 Paths Forward
• LDEQ must require Formosa to submit for LDEQ’s review and approval a new NAAQS and Class
II Increment modeling protocol which corrects the following deficiencies:
- Appropriately treats “ambient air” based on available guidance;
- With respect to the NAAQS and PSD Increment regional inventory, estimate actual
emissions (a) using the most recent 2 years of data and (b) calculated utilizing the 40 CFR
Part 51, Appendix W, Section 8.2.2 formulas.
- Reviews all permit actions since the major source baseline date for PM2.5 (October 20,
2011) and compile a documented inventory of baseline, expanding, and consuming
sources;
- Assumes PM10 emissions are equal to PM2.5 emissions unless speciation data exists in
the literature for that type of source; and
• LDEQ must require Formosa to then remodel in strict accordance with the revised and agency-
approved NAAQS and Class II Increment modeling protocol and address any NAAQS or Class
II Increment violations that may result.
• Formosa must compile and submit for LDEQ and EPA Region 6 review and approval a Class I
Increment modeling protocol in accordance with 40 CFR Part 51, Appendix W, Section
4.2(b)(ii).
- Formosa must remodel in strict accordance with the revised and agency-approved Class I
Increment modeling protocol.
- If a cumulative impact analysis is necessary, Formosa must follow the alternative model
approval procedures in 40 CFR Part 51, Appendix W, Section 3.2.2(e)
- LDEQ must require Formosa to then remodel in strict accordance with the revised and
agency-approved Class I Increment modeling protocol and address any Class I Increment
violations that may result.
• LDEQ must require Formosa to then remodel in strict accordance with the revised and agency-
approved Class I Increment modeling protocol and address any Class I Increment violations
that may result.
• LDEQ must require Formosa to submit for LDEQ’s review and approval a new air toxics
assessment which corrects the following deficiencies with the current approach:
- Expands the library of air toxics under consideration;
- Utilizes acceptable ambient concentrations that reflect current toxicology knowledge and
approach; and
- For known or suspected carcinogens utilize either the 1 in 1,000,000 cancer risk threshold.
Page |9
ATTACHMENT D Ex. 2
Map created by Todd Cloud, Chemical
Engineer, using Updated TAP Modeling
Analysis (December 11, 2018) submi ed
by Zephyr Environmental Corpora on in
support of the FG LA Chemical Complex
PSD Applica on
AERMOD Output file

FGLA-MG-13_2017_EO.GRF
C
EtO Full life me IUR = 0.005 per EPA IRIS A
1 in 100,000 cancer risk = 0.002 ug/m3 B
Total cancer risk based on human data.

Lymphoid cancer incidence and
breast cancer incidence in females.
A = Sugar Hill RV Park

B = Fi h Ward Elementary School
C = Union (Residential Community)
ATTACHMENT D
Map created by Todd Cloud, Chemical
Engineer, using Updated TAP Modeling
Analysis December 11, 2018 submi ed
by Zephyr Environmental Corpora on in
support of the FG LA Chemical Complex
PSD Applica on
AERMOD Output file

FGLA-MG-13_2017_EO.GRF
EtO Full life me IUR = 0.005 per EPA IRIS

1 in 1,000,000 cancer risk = 0.0002 ug/m3 C
A
Total cancer risk based on human data. B
Lymphoid cancer incidence and
breast cancer incidence in females.
A = Sugar Hill RV Park

B = Fi h Ward Elementary School
C = Union (Residential Community)
ATTACHMENT D
ATTACHMENT E
ATTACHMENT E
Technical Comments on the Proposed
FG LA Complex
(Welcome, St. James Parish, Louisiana)
PSD Permit: PSD-LA-812 and

14 Associated Title V Permits
by
Dr. Ranajit (Ron) Sahu

Consultant1
August 9, 2019
1
Resume provided in Attachment A
Ex. 1
ATTACHMENT E
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION 1 – INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY ................................................................... 1
1.1 Description of the Proposed Plant .................................................................................... 1
1.2 Organization of the Report ............................................................................................... 2
1.3 Summary of Key Findings ............................................................................................... 3
SECTION 2 – RESULTS OF THE APPLICANT’s MODELED AIR QUALITY IMPACTS ..... 5
2.1 Preliminary Screening ...................................................................................................... 5
2.1 National Ambient Air Quality Standards ......................................................................... 6
2.3 PSD Increments ................................................................................................................ 7
SECTION 3 – EMISSIONS............................................................................................................ 9
3.1 Potential to Emit (PTE) .................................................................................................... 9
3.2 General Discussion - AP-42 Is Not a Proper Basis for Estimating PTE ........................ 10
3.2.1 AP-42 Is Designed, At Best, to Provide Estimates of Average Emissions and Not
PTE ......................................................................................................................... 12
3.2.2 The Reliability of AP-42 As Reflected in Rankings Should Be Considered .......... 13
3.3 Specific Examples Where PTE is Underestimated ........................................................ 14
3.3.1 Combustion Sources ............................................................................................... 14
3.3.2 Flares – VOC and HAP Emissions ......................................................................... 18
3.3.3 Flares - NOx Emissions ........................................................................................... 21
3.3.4 Combustion Control Devices – NOx Emissions ..................................................... 22
3.3.5 Cooling Towers – PM (PM10, PM2.5) Emissions .................................................... 23
3.3.6 Cooling Towers – VOC Emissions ......................................................................... 24
3.3.7 Fugitive Leaks from Components - VOC and HAP Emissions.............................. 24
3.3.8 Loading Capture Efficiencies – VOC and HAP Emissions .................................... 32
3.3.9 Storage Tanks – VOC and HAP Emissions ............................................................ 33
3.3.10 Emissions Calculations That Rely on Unspecified Vendor “Guarantees” ............. 33
3.3.11 Emissions Calculations That Rely on Unspecified “Industry” Data ...................... 34
3.3.12 Emissions Calculations That Rely on Unspecified “Design” Data ........................ 35
3.3.13 Emissions Calculations That Rely on Modeling, with No Documentation ............ 38
3.3.14 Additional Examples of Emissions Calculations That Rely on Unsupported
Assumptions............................................................................................................ 38
SECTION 4 – BACT .................................................................................................................... 43
i
Ex. 1
ATTACHMENT E
4.1 General Deficiencies ...................................................................................................... 43
4.1.1 Applicant and DEQ Should Have Conducted a LAER Analysis for PM2.5 and NOx
43
4.1.2 The BACT Analysis is Backward-Looking and Not Technology Forcing ............ 43
4.1.3 DEQ Does Not Correctly Implement Its Own Top-Down BACT Determination
Analysis................................................................................................................... 45
4.1.4 The BACT Emission Rate is Not Selected Based on the Best Achievable Rate for
the Technology Selected As BACT ........................................................................ 45
4.1.5 The BACT Determination Improperly Rejects Certain BACT Based on Cost
Considerations......................................................................................................... 45
4.2 Examples of Specific Deficiencies in the BACT Analysis ............................................ 47
SECTION 5 – MONITORING AND VERIFICATION .............................................................. 65
5.1 The Permits Should Contain Enforceable Conditions for Verifying Each Assumption
Made in the Applications ............................................................................................... 65
5.2 Continuous Emissions Monitors .................................................................................... 65
5.3 More Frequent Stack Testing and Parametric Monitoring ............................................. 69
5.4 Verification of Destruction Efficiencies for Flares Using VISR ................................... 69
5.5 Verification of Fugitive Leaks Using Optical Gas Imaging .......................................... 70
5.6 Fenceline Monitoring ..................................................................................................... 71
5.7 Additional Comments on Certain LAC Permit Conditions ........................................... 74
5.7.1 Permit Conditions Driven By Federal Regulations ................................................ 74
5.7.2 Permit Conditions Pertaining to LAC Regulations Reiterating BACT .................. 74
5.7.3 Permit Conditions Pertaining to LAC Regulations for Opacity ............................. 75
5.7.4 Additional Examples of Unenforceable LAC Regulation-Driven Conditions ....... 75
Attachment A ................................................................................................................................ 78
Annex A .................................................................................................................................... 83
Attachment B ................................................................................................................................ 95
ii
Ex. 1
ATTACHMENT E
SECTION 1 – INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY
In this comment report I provide technical comments on the proposed PSD and 14 Title V permits 2
for the Formosa plastics plants in St. James Parish, Louisiana. My comments are based on my
review of the record for these proposed permits – i.e., permit applications including updates,
Emission Inventory Questionnaires (EIQs), the proposed permits, correspondence between the
Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality (LDEQ or DEQ) and the applicant and its
consultants, technical analyses provided by the applicant including those for calculation of hourly
and annual Potential to Emit (PTE) emissions for criteria and hazardous air pollutants, Best
Available Control Technology (BACT), air dispersion modeling, cost calculations, and the DEQ’s
Statement of Basis and Preliminary Determination Summary documents.
My comments are also informed by my qualifications and experience as an engineer, with almost
three decades as a consultant on chemical process industries, their emissions and impacts,
applicable pollution control technologies and work practices, and monitoring and verification
techniques. I have provided expert comments on Clean Air Act permitting actions in many
jurisdictions, including several Louisiana Clean Air Act cases. In addition to my consulting work,
I have taught university courses on air pollution, process hazard analysis, and hazardous waste
management, including at UCLA, UC Riverside, Loyola Marymount University, University of
Southern California, and my alma mater, Caltech. More information on my qualifications and past
experience is provided in Attachment A to these comments.
Through my body of work, I have gained deep experience with the Federal and state rules and
regulations governing Clean Air Act permitting, including those for New Source Review (NSR) –
Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) and Non-Attainment NSR (NNSR), the ambient air
quality standards that must be met, and other standards such as the Federal New Source
Performance Standards (NSPS), National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants
(NESHAPs), Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT), screening values for various
HAPs, and other state-only requirements.
1.1 Description of the Proposed Plant
As stated in the LDEQ Statement of Basis accompanying this proposed permitting action, FG LA,
LLC is proposing to construct a chemical complex in Louisiana (the FG LA Complex). FG LA’s
proposed site is located in St. James Parish, Louisiana along the Mississippi River. The FG LA
Complex will use ethane and propane to make ethylene and propylene, ultimately producing high-
and low-density polyethylene, propylene, and ethylene glycol. The complex will also include
support facilities, such as utilities (including a cogeneration power plant), a central wastewater
treatment plant, logistics, and storage and loading operations.
Although not a technical comment, it was not clear why the facility is proposing 14 Title V permits.
There is significant duplication in the emissions, BACT, regulatory analysis, monitoring and other
aspects of these inter-related Title V permits. It is my opinion that just one single Title V permit
2
The proposed Title V Operating Permits include: 3141-VO, 3142-VO, 3143-VO, 3144-VO, 3145-VO, 3146-VO,
3147-VO, 3148-VO, 3149-VO, 3150-VO, 3151-VO, 3152-VO, 3153-VO, and 3154-VO. The PSD Permit is PSD-
LA-812.
1
Ex. 1
ATTACHMENT E
would have been sufficient for the complex. And doing so would be more consistent with the
goals of Title V, which was to provide the public with a single location for all applicable
requirements. The proposed permitting action directly defeats that goal by fragmenting the Title
V permits, with no explanation as to the necessity of doing so.
1.2 Organization of the Report
My report is organized as follows. I start with the estimated impacts of air pollutants as analyzed
by the applicant and as accepted by the DEQ. I focus on those pollutants that even the applicant’s
analyses indicate are over or very close to the relevant standards. Next, I analyze the PTE
emissions from many of the processes and sources at the proposed facility, showing that the PTE
for most pollutants are under-estimated. While I agree that the facility is a major source of most
pollutants, nonetheless a proper and accurate estimate of the PTEs for various pollutants is crucial
because these emission estimates are a key input into the air impacts analysis models.
Underestimation in emissions directly leads to underestimation of impacts. My comments then
focus on the BACT analyses, including the improper rejection of certain BACT based on cost-
effectiveness. That is followed by comments on the lack of enforceable monitoring/verification
provisions in the proposed permits. The lack of proper monitoring and verification is made even
more problematic because of the potential that the applicant underestimated its PTE emissions.
While I do not have a separate section addressing modeling issues, I note that the modeling
analyses provided in the record contain significant deficiencies such as: lack of baseline site-
specific data collection for pollutants and meteorological data; improper source characterization
such as for flares (which are all modeled with a constant exit gas temperature and velocity, relying
on dubious and unsupported “guidance” with no engineering basis; and the lack of monitoring to
confirm the modeled non-attainment of PM2.5 and NOx as well as SO2) in the modeling analyses
presented by the applicant. I recognize that additional modeling comments are being presented by
another expert, Mr. Todd Cloud. I have reviewed Mr. Cloud’s modeling comments and I agree
with his findings and conclusions concerning the shortcomings in the applicant’s modeling efforts.
The goal of my review was not to identify and critique every single deficiency that I found. In the
interests of time and resources, I chose to focus and prioritize my work for the more critical and
important short-comings. Attachment B shows a chart of the current estimated PTE for various
pollutants for various sources. In part, I used the chart in Attachment B to prioritize areas that I
have focused on in these comments. Thus, I stress that there are still many additional deficiencies
that I do not explicitly comment on – such as in the emissions calculations for the smaller sources
or activities, including lack of support for many of the assumptions made in those calculations; the
BACT analyses for certain activities such as for engines; the lack of enforceability of many of the
permit conditions because of their vague wording; and the like.
2
Ex. 1
ATTACHMENT E
1.3 Summary of Key Findings
My review of the permitting record for this facility shows that it is deficient in almost every key
aspect that I have reviewed, other than its representation as a major source. 3 Major findings, in
no particular order, are as follows:
(a) PTE estimates are unsupported in the majority of instances, relying on assumptions that are not
subject to verification. This includes: reliance on unidentified vendor or manufacturer
“guarantees;” engineering assumptions with little or no basis; and reliance on process assumptions
which are subject to change (and are likely to evolve over the life of the plant in any case) since
facility design is clearly not complete at the time of permit application in 2017-2018;
(b) PTE emissions are under-estimated based on a clear mis-application of US EPA AP-42 as the
basis of many of the PTE calculations;
(c) PTE estimates in many other instances are under-estimated due to the use of unsupported and
unverified assumptions of very high levels of control efficiency, such as for flares, vapor
combustors, thermal oxidizers, etc.;
(d) BACT analyses for many of the pollutant/source combinations are deficient leading to less
stringent limits proposed as BACT. Proposed BACT limits are not based on the proper application
of the top-down method purported to be used by the applicant and DEQ. Rather that forward-
looking and technology-forcing, as BACT (and LAER, applicable for NOx as noted above) are
intended to be, the analysis presented is simply rooted in the past and relies exclusively on prior
BACT analysis at other facilities. It is simply not BACT for a facility, that once built, will last
decades into the future;
(e) in cases where BACT technologies and work practices were rejected based on cost
effectiveness considerations, there are significant flaws in the analysis as well as in the assumed
cost-effectiveness thresholds;
(f) modeled air quality impacts for all pollutants including HAPs are under-estimated since they
use under-estimated PTE emissions values are inputs. This means that health impacts on the
surrounding community have not been properly estimated;
(g) modeled air quality impacts are also uncertain because of additional modeling deficiencies
including improper source characterization; use of non-representative meteorological data; and use
of non-representative monitoring data. On the last point, even though the facility and LDEQ have
had almost 4 years since this permitting action began, no ambient monitoring has been conducted
on site for any pollutant;
3
I note that none of the emissions calculations or regulatory analyses tables contained in each of the 14 Title V permits
was available to me for review in developing these comments in native Excel format – which was clearly how the
consultant for the applicant had done the calculations and presented the regulatory review. This created an
unnecessary roadblock in developing these comments. More importantly, it was clear to me that the LDEQ’s review
did not include any technical review of the emissions calculations and the like since the DEQ did not have the native
Excel files either. It is fair to conclude that the DEQ’s review was therefore inadequate.
3
Ex. 1
ATTACHMENT E
(h) for NOxthe applicant’s own modeling clearly shows that the area in which the plant will be
located is in non-attainment for the 1-hour NOx National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS)
– and therefore the proper construction permit should be a NNSR and not a PSD permit. Further,
this means that the NOx BACT analysis should be replaced by a NOx Lowest Achievable
Emissions Rate (LAER) analysis as required under the NNSR provisions; that emissions offsets
of the proper amounts be acquired; and that all other applicable NNSR requirements be met;
(i) for PM2.5 24-Hour NAAQS, the applicant’s own modeling clearly shows that the area in which
the plant will be located is in non-attainment - and therefore the proper construction permit should
be a NNSR and not a PSD permit. Further, this means that the PM2.5 BACT analysis should be
replaced by a PM2.5LAER analysis as required under the NNSR provisions; that emissions offsets
of the proper amounts be acquired; and that all other applicable NNSR requirements be met;
(j) compliance verification conditions in the permit are so weak as to be meaningless. Thus, there
is simply no way to confirm actual emissions from this plant once it begins operations and whether
actual emissions will exceed assumed emissions in the air impacts analysis. There is also no way
to verify that applicable regulatory requirements are being met.
(k) monitoring conditions are also very weak. This includes source monitoring as well as
monitoring in the community outside the fence line of the proposed plant; and
(l) this proposed facility will emit vast quantities of greenhouses gases (GHG) – i.e., carbon
dioxide, CO2; methane, CH4; nitrous oxide, N2O; as well as sulfur hexafluoride, SF6 – the latter a
potent GHG. Yet, the permit contains no quantitative (and, therefore, no enforceable) conditions
to ensure that only the least quantities of these gases are emitted into the atmosphere. In effect,
the BACT conditions limiting GHG from this proposed facility are toothless.
Individually, these are glaring deficiencies and collectively, they are fatal. Especially so for a plant
that will be located in an area where the population in the surrounding area which will feel the
brunt of the impacts is already subject to the impacts of many existing major sources of criteria
and toxic air pollutants. The DEQ must address these and other comments and re-propose a new
set of proper draft permits for this facility along with provisions for a new round of public
comments.
4
Ex. 1
ATTACHMENT E
SECTION 2 – RESULTS OF THE APPLICANT’s MODELED AIR QUALITY IMPACTS
I begin with a summary of the applicant’s own modeling analyses. As I discuss in these comments
it is my opinion that the applicant’s modeling of its impacts understate the potential impacts from
the facility. Before explaining those modeling deficiencies, it is appropriate to summarize, as I do
in this section, how close the applicant’s modeling of air quality impacts already comes, in several
cases, to the applicable thresholds. Thus, it is important to note the small margin for error the
applicant left for itself, even under its own analysis. And any increases in projected emissions
could easily lead to violation of several air quality standards. This alone is cause for concern.
Below, I show specific summary tables, taken from the DEQ’s Preliminary Determination
Summary. In each instance, I highlight, in red coloring, those instances where the applicant’s
modeling either exceeds or is so close to the applicable standard as to leave almost no margin for
compliance unless all of the assumptions made by the applicant are true and verifiable – which is
simply impossible in the permits as proposed.
2.1 Preliminary Screening
As the DEQ states, this preliminary screening was done in order to determine if refined modeling
was required, as shown in the last column. While I agree with all of the “Yes” values in the last
column, I disagree with the “No” for the SO2 1-hour averaging period. The preliminary screening
value of 7.48 ug/m3 is, in my opinion, too close to the applicable Significant Impact Level (SIL)
of 7.8 ug/m3 given the underestimation of emissions which I discuss later. Therefore this is a
critical error and refined modeling for SO2 for the 1-hour averaging period should have been
conducted. By not doing so, the record provides no additional information regarding whether or
not the area around the facility – both before and after the proposed plant – meets the 1-hour SO2
NAAQS. DEQ should require the applicant to conduct refined modeling for SO2 for 1-hour
averaging period, regardless of whether DEQ also orders changes based on the other significant
deficiencies I outline in the sections that follow.
Averaging Preliminary Level of Refined

Pollutant Period Screening Significant Modeling
Concentration Impact (SIL) Required?
(µg/m3) (µg/m3)
PM2.5 24-hour 9.44 – Yes
Annual 1.68 – Yes
PM10 24-hour 11.03 5 Yes
Annual 2.21 1 Yes
SO2 1-hour 7.48 7.8 No
3-hour 25.83 25 Yes
24-hour 3.12 5 No
Annual 0.2 1 No
NO2 1-hour 74.05 7.5 Yes
Annual 6.58 1 Yes
5
Ex. 1
ATTACHMENT E
CO 1-hour 1310.13 2000 No
8-hour 677.53 500 Yes
2.1 National Ambient Air Quality Standards
The following table shows the applicant’s summary of the modeling conducted with regards to
NAAQS compliance demonstration. As noted above, the modeling for the 1-hour SO2 NAAQS is
missing because it was eliminated without any technical judgement at the preliminary screening
level.
Maximum
Averaging Maximum Modeled
Pollutant Period Background Modeled Concentration+ NAAQS
Concentration Background
(µg/m3) (µg/m3) (µg/m3) (µg/m3)
PM2.5 24-hour 19.00 32.16 51.66 35
Annual 8.20 3.59 11.56 12
PM10 24-hour 76.00 24.21 100.21 150
SO2 3-hour 27.10 65.57 92.67 1300
NOx (NO2) 1-hour 28.81 393.71 422.53 189
Annual 7.54 20.37 27.91 100
CO 8-hour 1143.84 1548.91 2692.75 10,000
While the table shows on-paper compliance with the PM10, PM2.5 annual, PM10 24-hour, SO2 3-
hour, NO2 annual, and CO 8-hour NAAQS, simple examination of the results indicates that
compliance with the PM2.5 annual NAAQS has little margin (predicted modeled concentration plus
background of 11.56 ug/m3 versus NAAQS concentration of 12 ug/m3). It is my opinion that even
the slightest increase in, for example, the emissions of PM2.5 would show exceedance of this
NAAQS. And, I will show later that the PTE estimates for PM2.5 which have been used in the
modeling severely underestimate the PTE and therefore its modeled impacts. Since there is little
to no margin for the PM2.5 annual NAAQS compliance, and the PTE is underestimated, the DEQ
should not have accepted this slimmest of “compliance” demonstration for this critical pollutant.
For PM2.5 24-hour and NOx (NO2) 1-hour NAAQS, the applicant’s own modeling clearly shows
NAAQS violations in the summary table above. While the applicant has provided supplemental
modeling showing that its contributions to these modeled NAAQS violations are smaller than the
respective SILs, it does not detract from (in fact it reinforces) the fact that the applicant’s own
modeling shows that for these two pollutants – the area around the facility is already in non-
attainment for NOx 1-hour and close to non-attainment for PM2.5 24-hour.
6
Ex. 1
ATTACHMENT E
The straight-forward implication of this is that for PM2.5 and NOx, the proper type of construction
permit is not the PSD permit (which is only for areas in attainment of the NAAQS) but rather a
NNSR permit. Thus, proposing to issue a PSD permit, as the DEQ has noticed in this matter for
PM2.5 and NOx is a fatal error. DEQ must, at a minimum, require the applicant to comply with
NNSR permitting rules for the PM2.5 24-hour and NOx 1-hour standards.
2.3 PSD Increments
These only apply to PSD pollutants. As noted in the previous sections, PM2.5 (24-hour - definitely
and annual – most likely), and NOx 1-hour all show exceedances of their respective NAAQS or
very close to exceedances of their respective NAAQS.
Not surprisingly, per DEQ’s summary as shown in the table below, the modeled PSD increment
consumption for several of the pollutants and averaging times, shown in red, are above or close to
their Class II increment values. This includes the PM2.5 24-hour increment which is clearly
exceeded and the NOx annual increment which is close to being exceeded. While the applicant
has provided modeling that purports to show small impacts from the facility on PM2.5 24-hour
increment, there is simply no increment left to consume for PM2.5 24-hour averaging period. In
other words, this reinforces the idea that this area is already in non-attainment for PM2.5 24-hour
NAAQS.
Modeled
Increment Class II Increment
Pollutant Averaging Period Consumption (µg/m3)
(µg/m3)
PM2.5 24-hour 12.96 9
Annual 2.18 4
PM10 24-hour 17.31 30
Annual 5.30 17
SO2 3-hour 65.57 512
NO2 Annual 20.37 25
In summary, first, the applicant’s own modeling demonstrates that the area around the proposed
plant is in non-attainment for the PM2.5 24-hour and NOx 1-hour NAAQS. Thus, NNSR and not
PSD permitting applies for these pollutants.
Second, the applicant’s modeling also shows that the area around the plant is close to non-
attainment for the PM2.5 annual NAAQS. Since I will discuss the significant underestimation of
PTE emissions of all pollutants including PM2.5, it is a certainty that proper modeling using correct
PTE estimates would have shown that the area around the plant is non-attainment for the PM2.5
annual NAAQS as well.
Third, the applicant’s analysis shows that it should have conducted refined modeling for SO2 1-
hour NAAQS, given the very narrow margin by which it its modeling was below the applicable
7
Ex. 1
ATTACHMENT E
SIL and given the underestimation in SO2 emissions (exacerbated by no verification or compliance
monitoring in the permits) which I will discuss later.
Finally, the applicant’s modeling shows that the increment for PM2.5 24-hour is consumed and that
for NOx annual averaging is almost all consumed. For NOx, this is a certainty given the significant
underestimation of the NOx PTE emissions which I will discuss later in these comments.
8
Ex. 1
ATTACHMENT E
SECTION 3 – EMISSIONS
Although the facility is undisputedly a major source of air pollution, nonetheless accurate PTE
estimates are essential because they are a key input in the air dispersion modeling that is required
as part of the NSR analysis. As discussed in Section 2, even setting aside all of the technical
deficiencies in the modeling (some of which are discussed in the Comment Report of Mr. Cloud,
and others noted earlier in Section 1, the results of the modeling show that the impacts from the
facility are close to or exceed critical thresholds for several pollutants including NOx, PM2.5, and
SO2, among others. For PM2.5 and NOx, I note that the applicant’s own modeling shows that the
area is in non-attainment of the NAAQS. Thus, a proper estimate of PTE is essential, and more
accurate estimates likely would demonstrate further NAAQs violations and PSD increment
consumption.
In this section, I will first discuss, in general terms, the deficiencies in the emissions calculations,
generally leading to underestimation of emissions of all pollutants from the proposed facility – i.e.
underestimation of the potential-to-emit (PTE) of various pollutants. I will then discuss some
specific examples. As with my other analyses in these comments, I do not discuss each and every
emission calculation but rather the general deficiencies and some specific examples. Taken as a
whole, the PTE emissions estimates provided in the permitting record underestimate PTE
emissions for every single pollutant, and as a result, the impact of the facility’s emissions are also
underestimated. This affects not only the impacts on criteria pollutants discussed in Section 2 but
also the impacts from the many HAPs that will be emitted and which will increase the health
impacts and risks in the surrounding communities.
The PTE underestimation is compounded by the lack of meaningful enforceability in the permit,
which I discuss in Section 5.
3.1 Potential to Emit (PTE)
Under Louisiana regulations (and similar to the Federal definition) as approved in its State
Implementation Plan (SIP) by the EPA, PTE is defined as follows:
“Potential to Emit -- the maximum capacity of a stationary source to emit any air
pollutant under its physical and operational design. Any physical or operational
limitation on the capacity of a source to emit an air pollutant, including air pollution
control equipment and restrictions on hours of operation or on the type or amount
of material combusted, stored, or processed, shall be treated as part of its design if:
a. the limitation is enforceable by the administrator, when the potential to emit is

being considered with regard to federally applicable requirements; or
b. the limitation is enforceable by the DEQ Air Quality Division, when the
potential to emit is being considered with regard to state applicable requirements.” 4
(emphasis added)
4
LAC 33:III Ch. 5 Section 502 – Definitions, available at https://www.epa.gov/sips-la/louisiana-sip-lac-33iii-ch-5-
section-502-definitions
9
Ex. 1
ATTACHMENT E
As the definition above makes clear, the fact that the PTE reflects the maximum capacity of a
source to emit the pollutant in question is not arguable. And, that the PTE can only be limited by
enforceable conditions, is also not arguable. My comments in this Section and the Section 5 show
that the current permit analysis fails on both grounds.
3.2 General Discussion - AP-42 Is Not a Proper Basis for Estimating PTE
The EPA document commonly referenced as AP-42 has been widely used and cited as the basis
for many of the PTE emissions estimates in the current permits. Although not an exhaustive list,
examples of this include the following instances taken directly from the respective Title V permit
applications:
ET1 and ET2 – Tank Emissions
Emissions from Fixed Roof Tanks
Reference 1: AP-42, Fifth Edition, Volume 1, Chapter 7.1 Organic Liquid Storage Tanks November
2006
Tank Maintenance - Emissions from Vacuum Truck / Truck Loading
Reference: AP-42. Fifth Edition, Volume 1, Chapter 5.2 Transportation and Marketing of Petroleum
Liquids - January 1995
Tank Maintenance - Emissions from Floating Roof Landings
Reference: AP-42, Fifth Edition, Volume 1, Chapter 7: Liquid Storage Tanks - November 2006
Tank Maintenance - Emissions from Floating Roof Tank Refilling
Reference: AP-42, Fifth Edition, Volume 1, Chapter 7: Liquid Storage Tanks - November 2006
ETl and ET2 – Tank Truck Loading

AP-42, Fifth Edition, Volume 1, Chapter 5.2 Transportation and Marketing of Petroleum Liquids
July 2008
ET1 and ET2 - Plant Fuel Gas Properties and PM10 , PM2.5 , S02, VOC and HAP Emission
Factors
Note [2] The SO2 emission factor is calculated by adjusting the AP-42 emission factor of 0.6
lb/MMscf, which is based on 2000 grains of sulfur and the % of NG blended
Note [4] HAP emission factors for non-metal HAP compounds with an emission factor rating of
"C" or better, from AP-42 Table 1.4-3.
Utility 1 and 2 – Boilers (2) EFs
PR-WHB
“…emissions from this activity are estimated using emission factors provided by AP-42 or the
licensor.
10
Ex. 1
ATTACHMENT E
PR-RCHTR (Reactor Charge Heater)
Emission factors for PM/PM10/PM2.5 and HAPs are taken from AP-42
HDPE1 Thermal Oxidizer A and B
EG1-Thermal Oxidizer
NOx AP-42 Emission Factor (lb/MMscf) from Table 1.4-1, normalized by Natural Gas Heat Value
(1,020 Btu/scf)
RTO 1 and RTO 2

Note [2] Natural gas combustion emission factors from Tables 1.4-1 and 1.4-2 of AP-42 Chapter
1.4, Natural Gas Combustion (July 1998)
LLD-TO A and B
(1,020 Btu/scf)
Polypropylene - Thermal Oxidizer

(1,020 Btu/scf)
Logistics - Vapor Combustor A and B

(1,020 Btu/scf)
Logistics- Uncontrolled Truck Loading Emissions, EPN LOG-TRK

AP-42, Fifth Edition, Volume 1, Chapter 5.2 Transportation and Marketing of Petroleum Liquids -
July 2008
11
Ex. 1
ATTACHMENT E
Logistics - Uncontrolled Railcar Loading Emissions, EPN LOG-RC
July 2008
Logistics - Uncontrolled Ship Loading Emissions, EPN LOG-SHP

July 2008
Logistics - Uncontrolled Barge Loading Emissions, EPN LOG-BG

July 2008
These examples illustrate the variety of ways that the AP-42 was either directly used or was the
basis for the PTE calculations in many instances in the present permitting analysis.
I discuss why that is not appropriate in the following discussion.
3.2.1 AP-42 Is Designed, At Best, to Provide Estimates of Average Emissions and Not PTE
As the U.S. EPA itself explicitly acknowledges, there are many flaws and short-comings inherent
to its use of AP-42; the EPA accordingly cautions users to take those flaws into account. These
caveats, however, are neither recognized nor respected in FG LA’s applications or in DEQ’s
analysis record, and, as a result, the PTE emissions estimates – the critical foundation of the
proposed permits -- are deeply flawed. The persistent bias introduced by this inappropriate reliance
on the AP-42 is that resulting emissions projected are major underestimates.
The primary limitation on the use of AP-42 for PTE calculations is that its factors are designed
only to approximate average emission rates, not the maximum emission rate necessary to
appropriately calculate PTE for permitting purposes. As stated by U.S. EPA:
“In most cases, these factors are simply averages of all available data of acceptable
quality, and are generally assumed to be representative of long-term averages for
all facilities in the source category (i.e., a population average).” 5 (emphasis added)
“Emission factor ratings in AP-42…provide indications of the robustness, or
appropriateness, of emission factors for estimating average emissions for a source
activity.” 6 (emphasis added)
“Emission factors in AP-42 are neither EPA-recommended emission limits . . . nor
standards. . . Use of these factors as source-specific permit limits and/or as emission
regulation compliance determination is not recommended by EPA. Because
emission factors essentially represent an average of a range of emission rates,
approximately half of the subject sources will have emission rates greater than the
emission factor and the other half will have emission rates less than the factor.” 7
5
AP-42 Introduction, p. 1. Available at https://www.epa.gov/air-emissions-factors-and-quantification/ap-42-
compilation-air-emissions-factors
6
Ibid., p. 2.
7
Ibid, p. 2 (emphasis added).
12
Ex. 1
ATTACHMENT E
And, additionally:
“Average emissions differ significantly from source to source and, therefore,
emission factors frequently may not provide adequate estimates of the average
emissions for a specific source. The extent of between-source variability that exists,
even among similar individual sources, can be large depending on process, control
system, and pollutant. . . As a result, some emission factors are derived from tests
that may vary by an order of magnitude or more. Even when the major process
variables are accounted for, the emission factors developed may be the result of
averaging source tests that differ by factors of five or more.” 8
Based on the above, it is clear that AP-42 emission factors are inappropriate for developing PTE
estimates, since PTE, per the definition provided earlier, is supposed to represent the “potential”
or high-end emission estimate value. In contrast, AP-42 emission factors represent “average” and
not maximum emission rates.
Thus, in each instance that the applicant’s PTE calculations rely on AP-42 emission factors – such
as in the examples listed previously– the resultant PTE emissions (all other criticisms aside) are
unquestionably underestimates. This has material consequences as previously discussed since the
PTE estimates are a key input in the modeling impacts analysis. DEQ should require FG LA to
redo all PTE emissions estimates that rely on AP-42 factors, instead using data that more accurately
reflect the source’s maximum emissions rate. This can include modifying AP-42 based emission
factors or methods.
3.2.2 The Reliability of AP-42 As Reflected in Rankings Should Be Considered
Even if it were proper to rely on the AP-42 factors to calculate PTE, which it is not, FG LA’s
reliance on low-ranked and/or inaccurate AP-42 factors should be rejected by DEQ. Neither the
applicant nor the DEQ mentions or discusses the reliability (i.e., accuracy) of AP-42 emission
factors. 9 AP-42 uses a rating system, quoted below, to provide the user with the accuracy of a
particular emission factor:
“Each AP-42 emission factor is given a rating from A through E, with A being the
best. A factor’s rating is a general indication of the reliability, or robustness, of that
factor. This rating is assigned based on the estimated reliability of the tests used to
develop the factor and on both the amount and the representative characteristics of
those data. In general, factors based on many observations, or on more widely
accepted test procedures, are assigned higher rankings. Conversely, a factor based
on a single observation of questionable quality, or one extrapolated from another
factor for a similar process, would probably be rated much lower….
The AP-42 emission factor rating is an overall assessment of how good a factor is,
based on both the quality of the test(s) or information that is the source of the factor
and on how well the factor represents the emission source. Higher ratings are for
factors based on many unbiased observations, or on widely accepted test
procedures. For example, ten or more source tests on different randomly selected
plants would likely be assigned an "A" rating if all tests are conducted using a single
8
Ibid., p. 3.
9
This is true with one exception. For some of the HAP calculations such as from the combustion of natural gas, the
applicant simply does not include any of the HAPs that have AP-42 ratings below C. Omitting these pollutants
altogether is highly inappropriate, as I discuss later.
13
Ex. 1
ATTACHMENT E
valid reference measurement method. Likewise, a single observation based on
questionable methods of testing would be assigned an "E", and a factor extrapolated
from higher-rated factors for similar processes would be assigned a "D" or an "E".
AP-42 emission factor quality ratings are thus assigned:
A — Excellent. Factor is developed from A- and B-rated source test data taken
from many randomly chosen facilities in the industry population. The source
category population is sufficiently specific to minimize variability.
B — Above average. Factor is developed from A- or B-rated test data from a
"reasonable number" of facilities. Although no specific bias is evident, it is not clear
if the facilities tested represent a random sample of the industry. As with an A
rating, the source category population is sufficiently specific to minimize
variability.
C — Average. Factor is developed from A-, B-, and/or C-rated test data from a
reasonable number of facilities. Although no specific bias is evident, it is not clear
if the facilities tested represent a random sample of the industry. As with the A
rating, the source category population is sufficiently specific to minimize
variability.
D — Below average. Factor is developed from A-, B- and/or C-rated test data from
a small number of facilities, and there may be reason to suspect that these facilities
do not represent a random sample of the industry. There also may be evidence of
variability within the source population.
E — Poor. Factor is developed from C- and D-rated test data, and there may be
reason to suspect that the facilities tested do not represent a random sample of the
industry. There also may be evidence of variability within the source category
population.” 10
Note, in particular, the very poor reliabilities of “D” and “E” rated factors. As I will show in the
examples below, the applicant and DEQ have used unreliable D and E rated factors in numerous
instances to estimate the PTEs of many pollutants.
3.3 Specific Examples Where PTE is Underestimated
In this section I will review and identify, with respect to specific facility emission sources, critical
problems in developing the PTE estimates. This includes the use of AP-42 as a basis for identifying
the potential to emit for both criteria and toxic pollutants. And, it addresses non-AP-42
assumptions made in the calculations as well.
3.3.1 Combustion Sources
As noted, the applicant has used and the DEQ has accepted emission factors for criteria pollutants
such as NOx, PM/PM10/PM2.5 as well as HAPs from AP-42. Tables 1.4-1, 1.4-2, and 1.4-3/1.4-4,
taken from AP-42 show emission factors for NOx, CO, PM, as well as HAPs and are reproduced
below. 11 None of the factors used are A-rated. The PM condensable and PM total factors are rated
D, “below average”. The VOC factor is rated as C. With few exceptions, most of the emission
10
Ibid., pp. 8-10.
11
AP-42, Ch. 1 Natural Gas Combustion, Tables 1.4-1 through 1.4-3,
https://www3.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ap42/ch01/final/c01s04.pdf
14
Ex. 1
ATTACHMENT E
factors for the HAP that the facility will emit from combustion of natural gas are rated D or E –
“below average” or “poor.”
I have previously noted that for HAPs the applicant has only included those HAPs with rating of
C or better in its calculations. While it certainly confirms that the applicant is aware of the
importance of the AP-42 ratings, it raises two major issues.
First, simply omitting HAPs with ratings of D and E underestimates the HAP PTE. Ratings of D
or E do not mean that those HAPs are not emitted, the practical effect of simply omitting them
from the inventory altogether, as the applicant has done. It means that better estimates of the
emissions are needed – and one practical way to do that is to look for other sources of emission
factors for these HAPs. It also means that the permits should contain conditions requiring testing
to verify the emissions factors for all HAPs, including those rated D and E from fuel combustion
sources. In effect, by simply not including HAPs rated D and E in AP-42, the emissions estimates
for HAPs are unequivocally and indefensibly underestimated. DEQ is obligated to require FG LA
to produce estimates of these HAP too, based on more accurate sources.
Second, omitting HAPs with C and D ratings raises an issue of inconsistency. As the tables from
AP-42 that are reproduced below show, the total PM emission factor (7.6 lb/MMscf, Table 1.4-2)
is rated D. Yet, this D rated factor is used for PM estimates while other D rated factors from Table
1.4-3 are not considered for HAP estimates. I ask the DEQ to explain this inconsistency.
15
Ex. 1
ATTACHMENT E
16
Ex. 1
ATTACHMENT E
17
Ex. 1
ATTACHMENT E
3.3.2 Flares – VOC and HAP Emissions
Poor AP-42 emissions factors aside, estimated VOC emissions from flaring are significantly
underestimated. Specifically, because the PTE calculations for each of the flares assumes that
VOCs in the flares gases will always either be destroyed at a rate of 99% (for small-molecules
such as methane, ethane, methanol, acetylene, ethylene, propane, propylene, methyl acetate, etc.)
or 98% (rest of the VOCs). This is true regardless of the waste gas flow to the flare. The table
below lists the flares as well as their flow rates as stated in the EIQs.
Figure Sahu 1 – Flare Parameters Summary
Nitrogen
Waste
Content
Gas Flow NOx Modeled
Waste Propylene in Waste Modeled
Flare Rate Unit VOC Emission Exit
Condition Gas Flow (mol %) Gas Temp
Location of (DRE), % Factor Velocity
Rate [b] Stream (K)
Measure (lb/MMBtu) (m/s)
(mol %)
[a]
[b]
ET1 Normal 36377 MMscf/hr 29.93 98 // 99 0.16 0.068 1273 20
ET1 MSS 6073352 MMscf/hr 4.69 98 // 99 0.01 0.068 1273 20
ET2 Normal 36377 MMscf/hr 29.97 98 // 99 0.16 0.068 1273 20
ET2 MSS 6086539 MMscf/hr 4.67 98 // 99 0.01 0.068 1273 20
Propylene Normal 294 scf/hr 28.69 98 // 99 - 0.068 1273 20
Propylene MSS 344424 scf/hr 37.68 98 // 99 - 0.068 1273 20
Polypropylene Normal 17875 lb/hr 50.26 98 // 99 30.35 0.068 1273 20
Polypropylene MSS 169038 lb/hr 60.52 98 // 99 21.08 0.068 1273 20
HDPE1 Normal 66548 scf/hr - 98 // 99 64.82 0.068 1273 20
HDPE1 MSS 751864 scf/hr - 98 // 99 84.8 0.068 1273 20
HDPE2 Normal 66548 scf/hr - 98 // 99 64.82 0.068 1273 20
HDPE2 MSS 751864 scf/hr - 98 // 99 84.8 0.068 1273 20
EG1 Normal 1205407 scf/hr <0.01 98 // 99 1.31 0.068 1273 20
EG1 MSS 2928705 scf/hr 0.08 98 // 99 4.74 0.068 1273 20
EG2 Normal 947613 scf/hr - 98 // 99 1.1 0.068 1273 20
EG2 MSS 2928705 scf/hr - 98 // 99 4.77 0.068 1273 20
LDPE Normal 6000 scf/hr 2.04 98 // 99 - 0.068 1273 20
LDPE MSS 1124062 scf/hr 4.12 98 // 99 0.58 0.068 1273 20
LLDPE Normal 1040815 scf/hr - 98 // 99 62.23 0.068 1273 20
LLDPE MSS 719075[c] scf/hr - 98 // 99 41.63 0.068 1273 20
18
Ex. 1
ATTACHMENT E
[a] I presume that the waste gas flow rates for Ethylene 1 and 2 are correct. The EIQ states that the flows are in
MMscf/hr.
[b] Propylene and nitrogen concentrations are taken from the hourly waste gas composition, for sake of consistency.
[c] For the LLDPE flare, I note that the flow rate under MSS conditions is listed as being lower than under normal
conditions. This is inconsistent with all of the other flares – where MSS flows are typically greater than normal
flows.
As the table above clearly shows, flow rates can vary dramatically between the flares and based
on mode (i.e., normal operations and what the applicant has termed as
maintenance/startup/shutdown (MSS) operations). VOC emissions vary dramatically as well
between the flares and modes or operation, as noted in the emissions calculations. With no design
details in the public record whatsoever for the various flares, and the great variation in flow rate
and emissions composition between normal and MSS conditions, assuming the same set of
destruction efficiencies for each flare is simply without technical merit and support. While the
application references an October 2000 Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ)
Guidance document in support of the flare efficiency assumptions, a review of active TCEQ
guidance documents does not show any such document. 12 A 2004 guidance document for flares
is shown and that document showed no technical support for its recommendations.
It is well known that flare DE (and combustion efficiency (CE), a closely related term) depends
on many factors which cannot be controlled in actual operating conditions. See for example, a
technical review of flare emissions prepared by EPA. 13 Even when flares have been tested under
ideal conditions, their destruction and combustion efficiencies can vary widely. The chart below
is excerpted from some controlled testing done on flares to compare CE using two techniques –
extractive sampling and Video Imaging Spectral Radiometry (VISR), using a product called
MANTIS. 14
12
https://www.tceq.texas.gov/permitting/air/memos
13
https://www3.epa.gov/airtoxics/flare/2012flaretechreport.pdf 13
https://www3.epa.gov/airtoxics/flare/2012flaretechreport.pdf
14
https://www.providencephotonics.com/events
19
Ex. 1
ATTACHMENT E
As the chart shows CE, (and by extension, DE, which closely tracks CE), even under controlled
conditions, can drop from high values to very low values (55% or so in this case). So, simply
assuming that destruction efficiency levels will always be 98% or 99%, as has been done for the
applicant’s proposed flare calculations, is not realistic and the evidence establishes that achieving
such rates is not feasible or not consistently achievable, such as with rapidly varying flow rates
and waste gas compositions.
Compounding the problem, while flares are difficult to test using conventional means, that is
generally the case for stack flares. All of the flares in the proposed facility are ground flares, with
stacks – which could therefore be tested and also equipped with continuous emissions monitoring
devices, which I address later. Yet, the permit simply ignored the need for verification of the
assumed flare DE values assumed for every flare/condition. Such neglect is unacceptable because
the assumed destruction efficiency makes a large impact on the estimated emissions. Consider, as
an example, a flare whose VOC emissions have been estimated to be 100 pounds/year using a DE
of 99%. If that flare achieved not 99% but just 98% DE, its emissions would double to 200
pounds/years. If the DE dropped to 95%, the VOC emissions would rise to 500 pounds/year, or
five times more than in the DE was 99%. . In calculating PTE, the applicant should have used the
lowest achievable DE in all cases, because it would help represent the maximum emissions rate
for that source. Since there is no reason to believe, based on actual flare monitoring data noted
above, that even well designed and well operated flares can achieve 98/99% DE under all
circumstances and that actual DE's can be far lower, it is clear that VOC (and associated HAP)
emissions PTE have been dramatically underestimated by the applicant and impermissibly
accepted by the DEQ.
20
Ex. 1
ATTACHMENT E
3.3.3 Flares - NOx Emissions
Next, let us consider the NOx emission factor for flares. As my summary of flare parameters in
Figure Sahu 1 shows, in every single instance the applicant has used a NOx emission factor of
0.068 lb/MMBtu. While the referenced source for this constant emission factor is a TCEQ
document noted by the applicant, the TCEQ figure is based on AP-42 Table 13.5-1, shown
below. 15
Table 13.5-1 (English Units). THC, NOx AND SOOT EMISSIONS FACTORS FOR FLARE
OPERATIONS FOR CERTAIN CHEMICAL MANUFACTURING PROCESSESa
Emissions
Emissions Factor Grade or
Pollutant SCCe Factor
Units Representativeness
Value
30190099;
30119701;
THC, elevated
30119705; 0.14b,f lb/106 Btu B
flaresc
30119709;
30119741
THC, enclosed lb/106 scf gas
8.37j
ground flaresg,h burned
or Moderately
Low Percent lb/106 Btu heat
3.88e-3f
Loadi input
THC, enclosed lb/106 scf gas
2.56j
ground flaresg,h burned
or Moderately
Normal to High lb/106 Btu heat
1.20e-3f
Percent Loadi input
Nitrogen oxides,
0.068b,k lb/106 Btu B
elevated flaresd
Soot, elevated
0 – 274b μg/L B
flaresd
b Reference 1. Based on tests using crude propylene containing 80% propylene and 20% propane.
The 0.068 lb/MMBtu value in AP-42 above is derived from testing discussed in Reference 1, a
1983 document which discusses a range of flare NOx emissions, as high as 0.2 lb/MMBtu (or three
times as high as the “average” 0.068 lb/MMBtu in the table below). Importantly, all of the flare
testing data upon which the 0.068 lb/MMBtu NOx emission factor in AP-42 is based were
developed based on testing conducted on an idealized propylene-only flare – contrary to what is
stated in FN a to the table above, boxed in red. A cursory review of Reference 1 in FN a to the AP-
42 Table 13.5-1 makes that clear.
In the current situation, however, as shown in Figure Sahu 1, not one single flare is expected to
burn 100% propylene, like the flare that is the basis of AP-42’s NOx emission factor. The highest
listed propylene concentration is just under 61 percent.
Furthermore, as shown in Figure Sahu 1, some of the waste gases to be flared contain nitrogen and
in not insubstantial amounts. This is crucially important for NOx emissions since the nitrogen in
the flare waste gases will increase NOx formation during combustion when the waste gases pass
15
https://www3.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ap42/ch13/final/C13S05_02-05-18.pdf
21
Ex. 1
ATTACHMENT E
through the flare. NOx formation is driven by combustion of atmospheric nitrogen (the so-called
thermal NOx formation pathway - as reflected in the AP-42 emission factor when burning only
propylene). In addition, any nitrogen in the fuel can enhance this thermal NOx formation. As
Figure Sahu 1 shows, nitrogen levels can be as high as almost 85 mol percent in some of the
proposed flares. Thus, not only is the waste gas composition that will be flared dramatically
different at the proposed facility – crucially, many of these gases contain substantial nitrogen,
which will therefore contribute to significantly greater NOx than a propylene-only flare.
Thus, the applicant has mis-applied the NOx emission factor for flares uniformly and with no
technical support. In doing so the applicant has made several compound errors that underestimate
flare NOx PTE emissions: using the average NOx emission factor from AP-42 and not the
maximum NOx emission factor (which, as noted above is roughly three times greater, 0.2
lb/MMBtu); and completely ignoring the even greater NOx formation in flares where, as the
applicant’s own data suggest, the waste gases will contain appreciable nitrogen. In summary, NOx
emissions from flares are substantially underestimated.
3.3.4 Combustion Control Devices – NOx Emissions
NOx emissions from the various combustion control devices such as vapor combustors, thermal
oxidizers, etc. are also underestimated similar to those for flares discussed above, because the
emission factors used in the calculations bear no relation to and do not take into account the
significant quantities of nitrogen present in the waste gases that will be combusted in some of these
devices.
Figure Sahu 2 below shows the various devices and the nitrogen contents in the waste streams for
these devices, taken from the permit applications.
Figure Sahu 2 – Combustion Control Devices and Parameters
VOC/HAP
NOx EF
TO // RTO // N2 Mol. Control
Location Waste Gas,
VC % Efficiency,
lb/MMBtu
%
ET1 VC A and B 48.82 0.14 98

ET2 VC A and B 48.82 0.14 98
Propylene VC A and B - 0.1 98
Polypropylene TO 30.59 0.06 99.9
HDPE1 TO A and B 64.82 0.098 99.9
HDPE2 TO A and B 64.82 0.098 99.9
EG1 TO 1.31 0.098 99.9
EG2 TO 1.31 0.098 99.9
LDPE RTO 1 and 2 ~Air 0.06 99
LLDPE TO A and B 78.18 0.098 99.9
Logistics VC A and B - 0.14 98
22
Ex. 1
ATTACHMENT E
The third and fourth columns in the Figure above show the nitrogen content of the waste stream
and the assumed NOx emission factor used in the calculations, respectively. For the RTO, I could
not find the nitrogen content per se, but the waste gas speciation indicated that most of the waste
gas would be substantially air, which contains around 78% nitrogen, of course.
As noted in the discussion for flares, nitrogen in the waste gas will increase NOx formation, above
and beyond the nitrogen already present in the air that is used for combustion. The inconsistencies
in the NOx emission factors for the various devices, vis-à-vis the nitrogen contents in the waste
streams is apparent. DEQ should require the applicant to justify why it used emission factors that
are not sensitive to the wide variation in nitrogen contents in the gases to be combusted in the
control devices listed above.
3.3.5 Cooling Towers – PM (PM10, PM2.5) Emissions
Next, let us consider cooling tower emissions, a large contributor to PM emissions from the
proposed facility. Figure Sahu 3 below summarizes the parameters used by the applicant in its
applications in estimating PM, PM10, and PM2.5 emissions as well as VOC emissions from each of
the cooling towers at the facility.
Figure Sahu 3 – Cooling Tower Parameters Summary
Water Hourly // PM10/PM

Cooling Tower TDS Drift PM2.5/PM
Circulation Annual VOC Fraction,
Location (ppm) Rate (%) Fraction, %
Rate (gpm) Content (ppb) %
ET1 230000 4000 0.001 100 // 50 38.33 0.197

ET2 230000 4000 0.001 100 // 50 38.33 0.197
Utility 1 35223 4000 0.001 100 // 50 38.33 0.197
Utility 2 - CT1 35223 4000 0.001 100 // 50 38.33 0.197
Utility 2 - CT2 105669 4000 0.001 100 // 50 38.33 0.197
Propylene 100306 4000 0.001 100 // 50 38.3 0.2 [a]
Polypropylene 71000 4000 0.001 100 // 50 38.33 0.197
HDPE1 72645 4000 0.001 100 // 50 38.33 0.197
HDPE2 72645 4000 0.001 100 // 50 38.33 0.197
EG1 158500 4000 0.001 100 // 50 38.33 0.197
EG2 158500 4000 0.001 100 // 50 38.33 0.197
LDPE 50000 4000 0.001 100 // 50 38.33 0.197
LLDPE 30000 4000 0.001 100 // 50 38.33 0.197
[a] the application for this permit alone states that this is “from linear regression of data” with no details as to source
of the data or what linear regression was done.
The reason that the PTE for PM2.5 in particular from the cooling towers is underestimated is due
to the assumption that only 0.197% of the PM emissions from these cooling towers will be PM2.5.
This is an extraordinary assumption, for which the applicant provides absolutely no support. As I
have noted in FN [a] to the Figure Sahu 3 above, in only one of the permit applications – that for
23
Ex. 1
ATTACHMENT E
the cooling tower in the propylene area – the values for PM10 and PM2.5 fractions (of PM) are noted
as being “from linear regression of data” with no further details as to the source of the data or
anything else. Given the similarity of the PM10 and PM2.5 fractions in all of the cases, I presume
that the same, unknown, linear regression of some mystery data, is the “support” for the mass
fractions. Clearly this is inappropriate. More importantly, it is also likely to be dramatically
wrong. For example, using the Air Sciences, Inc. online cooling tower calculator 16 using a drift
rate of 0.001% as used by the applicant, the PM2.5 mass fraction is 0.4% or more than double the
value used by the applicant.
There is no question that the unsupported mass fraction of PM2.5 used by the applicant significantly
underestimates the PM2.5 emissions from each and every one of the cooling towers.
Thus, as noted in Section 2, the likelihood that the PM2.5 annual NAAQS is in fact exceeded (as
opposed to being barely below, per the applicant’s modeling) is substantiated by this severe
underestimation of PM2.5 emissions from just the cooling towers alone. DEQ must require FG LA
to provide accurate estimates of PM2.5 emissions from the cooling towers, with well-founded and
fully justified PM2.5 mass fractions.
3.3.6 Cooling Towers – VOC Emissions
As shown in Figure Sahu 3 in the previous discussion, the VOC PTE for each of the cooling towers
assumes that the VOC content in the water will be a maximum of 100 parts per billion (ppb) on an
hourly basis and a maximum of 50 ppb on an annual basis.
However, none of the applications provides any support for these VOC content levels in the water.
Coupled with no monitoring requirements on an hourly or annual basis for this VOC content, along
with no verification of the water flow assumptions made in the applications as listed in Figure
Sahu 3, the entire VOC PTE estimate from cooling towers is simply unverifiable. Since leaks of
hydrocarbons into cooling water – such as from heat exchangers, especially as equipment ages –
are common and go unrepaired for long periods of time, it is highly unlikely that the assumed
values of hourly and annual VOC contents in the water are the maximum values, appropriate for
use in PTE calculations. DEQ must require the applicant to provide support for the unlikely
estimates it used for VOC PTE from the cooling towers, particularly in their reliance on
unverifiable VOC concentrations in the cooling water.
3.3.7 Fugitive Leaks from Components - VOC and HAP Emissions
Next, I consider how the PTE for fugitive VOC and HAP emissions from leaking components has
been estimated by the applicant and accepted by the DEQ. These components such as valves,
flanges, relief valves, pump seals, compressor seals, etc. are present in almost every area of the
proposed plant. In general, the PTE calculations follow the same approach with some differences.
Before I critique the PTE calculations, I show examples below, via excerpts from the various
applications, the approach used by the applicant and the types of assumptions used. In each case
16
http://airsci.com/cooling-tower-particulate-air-emissions-calculator/
24
Ex. 1
ATTACHMENT E
I raise questions on some of the assumptions made, as shown in brackets after each example. I
want to reiterate that these are just examples and are provided for illustrative purposes and are not
intended to be exhaustive.
Example 1 - Utility 1 VOC Fugitive Emissions from Natural Gas and Fuel Gas Piping Equipment
[Comment: The emission factors, taken from the referenced EPA document "Protocol for
Equipment Leak Emissions Estimates EPA-453/R-95-017, November 1995” are average emission
factors, not suitable for estimating PTE emissions, as I explain in greater detail below.]
Example 2 - Propylene VOC Fugitive Emissions

VOC emissions from this source are substantial, with the applicant estimated VOC PTE of 62.68
tpy. As before, emissions are based on equipment component emission factors derived from
"Protocol for Equipment Leak Emissions Estimates" (EPA-453IR-95-017, November 1995).
25
Ex. 1
ATTACHMENT E
[Comments:
(i) The component counts are based on preliminary design information, subject to change.
(ii) The emission factors used are average emission factors, not developed for the purpose of
estimating PTE emissions.
(iii) composite emission factors use an unsupported set of leak fractions with very few large
leakers, thereby lowering the overall composite emission factor.
iv) Without any engineering support, calculations assume that there are zero VOC emissions from
relief valves simply because they are equipped with a rupture disk.
(v) HAP emissions are based on an assumed composition, whose stability is questionable, and
which is unenforced under the permit.]
26
Ex. 1
ATTACHMENT E
Example 3 - LDPE VOC Fugitives [current PTE = 25.6 tpy]
[Comments: See same comments as in Example 2 above.]

Example 4 - Polypropylene VOC Fugitives [current PTE = 126.49 tpy]
[Comments: Same as in Example 2 above. In addition,

(vi) the calculation for this area includes the additional unsupported assumption that “[F]or
components in less than 50wt% VOC service, VOC emissions are calculated using 50% of the
27
Ex. 1
ATTACHMENT E
standard EPA VOC emission factors.” There is no technical support for this assumption. In fact
it most certainly underestimates VOC and HAP emissions since VOC and HAPs are typically the
more volatile portions of the underlying process streams in contact with the components,
regardless of their fraction of the overall stream composition.]
Example 5 - HDPE VOC Fugitives [current PTE = 51.51 tpy, each for HDPE 1 and HDPE 2]
[Comments. Same as for Example 4 above]
Example 6 - LLDPE VOC Fugitives [current PTE = 36.05 tpy]
[Comments: Same as for Example 4 above.]
Example 7 - Ethylene Glycol VOC Fugitives [current PTE = 11.78 tpy each from EG1 and EG2]
In addition, this is a good example of the instability of the preliminary design. Note the
significantly smaller number of components in the most recent application shown in the first box
below as compared to the far greater number of connectors in the initial application shown in the
second box below.]
[In addition, note the very different HAP speciation in the final application (first box below) as
compared to the initial application (second box below). Again, this shows how preliminary and
subject-to-change the design for the facility is, as it is going through the permitting process.
There is simply no basis to rely on all of the preliminary process assumptions that have been
used in developing emissions estimates]
28
Ex. 1
ATTACHMENT E
Example 8 - Logistics VOC Fugitives [current PTE = 20.98 tpy]

Based on my review of all of the fugitive VOC and HAP calculations in the various permit
applications and as shown in the comments for the examples above, I identify at least the following
major errors which, in my opinion, dramatically underestimate the PTE for VOCs and HAPs from
fugitive leaking components from the facility.
First, and simplest, the numbers (i.e.., counts) of the various components used in the calculations
are clearly preliminary estimates – subject to change and therefore unreliable. In fact, in almost
all instances, the application contains the following curious admonition:
“Estimated quantity of fugitive components based on preliminary design

information and used for emission calculation purposes only.”
29
Ex. 1
ATTACHMENT E
It is clear based on the note above, that the counts are based on preliminary design and that the
applicant does not want to be bound by them. The use of the counts of components in PTE
emissions estimation is therefore highly improper
Second, whereas potential to emit, as discussed above, is supposed to represent the maximum
potential emissions, it is clear that the actual emission factors used in the fugitive VOC (and HAP)
calculations use average - and not maximum – values. In almost all instances, the emission factors
are taken from an EPA document "Protocol for Equipment Leak Emissions Estimates" (EPA-
453/R-95-017, November 1995). The specific Table 2-1 of this document which is the source of
many of the emission factors is reproduced below. As denoted below, the emission factors are
“average” and not maximum values. Thus, any PTE estimates using these factors is simply not
PTE, setting aside all other assumptions for the purpose of this discussion.
Third, in some instances, the emissions calculations simply assume, without support, that certain
fractions of the component population will leak at different levels. And, based on these
assumptions alone, the application uses “composite” emission factors (still developed using the
underlying average emission factors improperly as noted earlier). This is shown in an example
table excerpted from one of the applications (i.e., HDPE 1). Similar tables are present in the other
applications.
30
Ex. 1
ATTACHMENT E
In each instance that I was above to verify, and regardless of the component type or the types of
service it is in (i.e., gas, light liquid, heavy liquid, etc.), the application assumes that: 0% of the
components will leak at rates below 50 ppm; 98% of the components will leak at rates between
50-500 ppm; 1% of the components will leak at rates between 500-1000 ppm; 0.9% of the
components will leak at rates between 1000-10,000 ppm; and the remaining 0.1% of the
components will leak at rates above 10,000 ppm. There is literally no support for these leak
fraction assumptions. The application does not link how its proposed LDAR program, with all of
its deficiencies (which I briefly touch on next), will ensure that this set of leak fractions will be
maintained throughout the facility.
Fourth, using LDAR (as the applicant has done) to support the fugitive emissions is simply
unreliable and technically obsolete. EPA, in an audit of these types of programs, has noted many
deficiencies, resulting in leak rates that were almost 4 times higher than reported. 17 The common
17
See EPA, Leak Detection & Repair: A Best Practices Guide, at pp. 15–19,
https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2014-02/documents/ldarguide.pdf
31
Ex. 1
ATTACHMENT E
deficiencies include, among others: not identifying all components; using wrong leak definitions;
not following Method 21 properly; failing to monitor the maximum leak location; not monitoring
long enough to identify a leak; holding the Method 21 probe too far away from the component;
using an incorrect or expired calibration gas; not repairing leaking components within the specific
time period; not keeping detailed and/or accurate records; and many others. Essentially, the
effectiveness of LDAR programs has been called into question. Thus, basing the estimates of leak
fractions on the LDAR program in effect, as the applicant has done, underestimates fugitive
emissions from components.
In summary, individually and collectively, per the deficiencies noted in the discussion above, the
VOC (and HAP) fugitive emissions from components are simply significantly underestimated.
DEQ must require the applicant to provide more accurate PTE data on its fugitives.
3.3.8 Loading Capture Efficiencies – VOC and HAP Emissions
Substantial VOC and associated HAP emissions can result from VOC-containing liquid loading
operations. While such waste streams are then routed to one or more combustion control devices,
where the captured VOCs are to be destroyed, the actual degree to which the waste streams will
be captured in the first place are based on unsupported and optimistic assumptions.
A couple of examples are shown below, second example contains multiple such assumptions.
Example 1 - ETl (and ET2) – Tank Truck Loading

The calculations assume that “…Vapors from the tank truck loading of Pyrolysis Fuel Oil are
captured at 95% efficiency and routed to ETl-VCA&B for control.” (emphasis added).
The basis for the assumed 95% capture efficiency, which depends on the engineering details of
how the pyrolysis fuel oil vapors will be captured when loaded onto the tank trucks, are not
discussed in the application or the permitting record. Of course, the uncaptured fraction (in this
case 5%) is emitted directly to the atmosphere with no control. Thus, if for example, the capture
efficiency is less than the assumed 95%, significantly uncaptured and uncontrolled emissions will
result.
It is critical that the basis for the assumed capture efficiency be provided in the record. And, it is
also critical that the permits contain appropriate testing requirements to verify the assumed capture
efficiency.
Example 2 – Logistics, Various

Depending on the destination receiving vessel, the calculations assume various capture
efficiencies, as quoted from the application below:
“For controlled loading of pyrolysis gasoline and heavy oil, the following capture
efficiencies are expected:
• Barge loading is performed under vacuum. Therefore, 100% of emissions are
expected to be captured and routed to the control device.
32
Ex. 1
ATTACHMENT E
• Railcar loading is performed on pressure-rated railcars that have undergone the
Department of Transportation (DOT) Testing. Therefore, 100% of the emissions
are expected to be captured and routed to the control device.
• Tank truck loading is performed on trucks that have undergone an annual NSPS
XX leak check. Therefore, 98.7% of the emissions are expected to be captured and
routed to the control device.” (emphasis added)
There is no requirement in FG LA’s permit to ensure these highly optimistic capture efficiency
assumptions noted above, especially the first two, which assume 100% capture and therefore no
uncontrolled emissions. A 100% capture efficiency is unrealistic from an engineering standpoint.
Even if the loading is done under so-called vacuum conditions, fugitives from barge loading will
still occur, even using barges that are leak tested annually. I have reviewed numerous such annual
leak test reports for barges and all of them show that even barges that pass such test can allow
significant quantities of VOC vapors to escape to the atmosphere without capture and control.
Barges are large vessels and maintaining them in leak-proof conditions during real-world
operations is impossible. So too is maintaining enough vacuum control to avoid any uncaptured
emissions, as implied by the 100% capture efficiency.
If the DEQ allows the use of 100% capture, then DEQ should require that Formosa demonstrate
that there are no uncaptured emissions as opposed to simply accepting the assumptions noted
above, regardless of the references to DOT and the NSPS.
These are critical assumptions that will allow substantial additional VOC emissions and
accompanying HAP emissions to the atmosphere, without actual enforceable verification
conditions.
3.3.9 Storage Tanks – VOC and HAP Emissions
Storage tank VOC and associated HAP emissions have been underestimated. These have been
estimated by using EPA’s AP-42 equations as seen in the various Title V permit applications.
It is now well known (and has been for almost a decade) that VOC emissions calculated using
equations provided in AP-42, under-predict actual emissions from storage tanks by multiples as
high as 3 to 7 - or even more - depending on the properties of the material being stored and the
type of tank. 18 Therefore, the DEQ needs to increase the AP-42-based VOC and HAP PTE
emission estimates to account for the greater emissions from tanks at the facility, particularly the
tanks that will store higher vapor pressure products.
3.3.10 Emissions Calculations That Rely on Unspecified Vendor “Guarantees”
In some instances, the applications reference vendor guarantees as the source of certain emissions
assumptions. An example is provided below using the LDPE RTOs
18 EPA, Critical Review of DIAL Emissions Test Data for BP Petroleum Refinery in Texas City, Texas, EPA 453/R-
10-002, ES-2, Table 1 (Nov. 2010), p. ES-4.
Available at https://www3.epa.gov/airtoxics/bp_dial_review_report_12-3-10.pdf
33
Ex. 1
ATTACHMENT E
Example - RTO 1 and RTO 2
“…NOx emission factor obtained from RTO vendor.” (emphasis added)

However, the record does not contain anything from the RTO vendor in this instance which
provides support for the NOx emission factor in this example
In general, the record does not contain all of the referenced vendor “guarantees” making it
impossible to verify what is being guaranteed and with what limitations. It is not clear how the
DEQ could have accepted such guarantees without even reviewing them.
I ask that the revised permit record explicitly include each such vendor or manufacturer guarantee
so that the public can properly review and understand such guarantees.
3.3.11 Emissions Calculations That Rely on Unspecified “Industry” Data
In some instances, the applicant has relied on “available industry data” in support for its emissions
calculations. A couple of examples are shown below.
Example 1 - HDPE1 - Solids Handling Particulate Emission Calculations

EPNs HD1-ADD-FLT, HD1-DRY-CYC, HD1-PEL-CYC, HD1-REP-CYC, HD1-PDT-FLT, HD1-
RC-FLT, HD1-BAG-FLT, HD1-TRK-FLT
“…Based on available industry data for PE pellet handling facilities.” (emphasis added)
Example 2 - Bagfilter & Cyclones/Solids Handling Particulate Emission Calculations
EPNs LD-DRYER-FL T, LD-BLND-FL T1 , LD-BLND-FL T2, LD-SILO-FL T1, LD-SILO-FL T2,
LD-TRK-FL T, LD-BAG-FL T, and LD-RC-FL T
34
Ex. 1
ATTACHMENT E
“Based on available industry data for LDPE pellet handling facilities.” (Emphasis added).
In the examples above the so-called available industry data are used to support the ratio of PM10
to PM as being 20% for all of the activities listed in the tables.
However, the applications simply contain no further details as to where this “available” industry
data comes from. There are no reports, technical papers, test results, or any references whatsoever
in the applications or the permitting record.
Under these circumstances, the DEQ should simply have rejected these unsupported assumptions.
It did not.
I ask that the applicant and DEQ provide the underlying data that are referenced in these examples
and in all other instances where such “industry data” are relied upon in developing the emission
calculations.
3.3.12 Emissions Calculations That Rely on Unspecified “Design” Data
In many instances the emissions calculations simply refer to “design data” or “design” as the
source for inputs or assumptions. I provide a few examples below, excerpted from the respective
permit applications.
35
Ex. 1
ATTACHMENT E
Example 1 - ET1 Plant Fuel Gas Properties and PM10, PM2.5, SO2, VOC, and HAP Emission
Factors
36
Ex. 1
ATTACHMENT E
Example 2 - HDPE1 - Downstream Pellet Handling VOC Emissions, EPN HD1-PEL-HDLG
Example 3 - PP Downstream Pellet Handling
Example 4 - ET1 (and ET2) Furnace Decoking DK1, DK2
However, the applications did not include any supporting documents or rationale for the “design
data” referenced in the examples above or in similar other instances. Since, as I have previously
noted the design for this facility is at a preliminary stage (see the footnotes accompanying the
fugitive VOC emissions for leaks). Therefore, it is important to understand what design data are
being used in the emission calculations and how they might change and therefore affect the
calculated emissions.
37
Ex. 1
ATTACHMENT E
It is clear that since the support for the design data used by the applicant is not in the public record
nor in the DEQ files, that DEQ did not review or verify any such design data. In any case these
design details – to the extent they are used in or as support for the emissions calculations – need
to be part of the public record.
3.3.13 Emissions Calculations That Rely on Modeling, with No Documentation
VOC emissions from the Central Wastewater Treatment Plant (CWTP) were apparently estimated
using TOXCHEM Model version 6.1, per the application:
“Emissions are calculated using the Toxchem model V6.1 which calculates
emissions based on site specific wastewater characteristics, contaminant properties
and the CWTP process design and operating information. The CWTP consists of
many pieces of equipment including tanks which cover an area of 1,590 ft X 844
ft.”
Neither the inputs to this model nor its output are provided in the application. Since the VOC and
HAP emissions from this source are substantial (VOC = 21.97 tpy), it is important to understand
what “site specific wastewater characteristics” and “process design and operating information”
were used in running the model and the support for these assumptions.
Since the DEQ did not review details regarding these emissions, please provide in the public record
the complete details about the model inputs and their support.
3.3.14 Additional Examples of Emissions Calculations That Rely on Unsupported Assumptions
Previous sections have discussed examples of emissions calculations using unsupported or plainly
deficient assumptions, leading to underestimation of PTE emissions of various pollutants. This
section will provide additional comments on several more emissions calculations.
Example 1 - GHG Emission Calculations - Electrical Equipment Insulated with SF6
Sulfur hexafluoride (SF6) is a very strong GHG, with a Global Warming Potential (GWP) of
16,300 (20 year) and 23,900 (100-year), 19 indicating that it is 16,300 to 23,900 times more potent
than CO2 (which has a GWP of 1, by design).
https://unfccc.int/process/transparency-and-reporting/greenhouse-gas-data/greenhouse-gas-data-unfccc/global-
19
warming-potentials
38
Ex. 1
ATTACHMENT E
The calculations above show that SF6 emissions are calculated on an assumed 0.5% by weight
composition. But this 0.5% by weight assumption is not supported. DEQ should require the
applicant to justify this weight assumption.
Example 2 – PM Emissions from Various Process Areas (HPDE, LPDE, LLDPE, PP, PR, etc.)
PM from Various – Reactors; Drums and Separators; Vessels (Other); Heat Exchanger
Equipment; Dryers; Solid Feed Systems; Filters/Strainers; Tanks; Silos; Valves, Extruders;
Columns and Towers; Mix Pumps
PM from Various - Dryers; Extruders; Filters and Strainers; Mix Pumps; Small Silos; Silos;
Solid Feed Systems
PM from Various - Small Silos; Silos; Bagfilters and Cyclones; Solid Feed Systems; Filters
Strainers
39
Ex. 1
ATTACHMENT E
PM from Various - Bagfilters and Cyclones; Blowers; Filters and Strainers
PM emissions (including PM10 and PM2.5) are estimated in many instances in calculations of the
type shown above, excerpted from the permit applications – and these are just examples of many
similar calculations.
First, almost all of them assume that only 1% of the AP-42 based emissions are PM, as shown in
red boxes above. As noted previously AP-42 itself is not a suitable basis for estimating PTE.
Further, the error is compounded by using the 1% assumption with no technical support at all.
Second, the assumptions relating to the PM10 and PM2.5 fraction of the PM appear to randomly
vary, as seen in the examples above. In some instances, all of the PM is assumed to be PM10 and
PM2.5 while in other instances only a small fraction (20%) of the PM is assumed to be PM10 and
90% of the PM10 is assumed to be PM2.5, making the latter only 18% of the PM. There is no
support provided for these speciation assumptions.
Collectively, PM and especially PM2.5 emissions are quite likely underestimated.
40
Ex. 1
ATTACHMENT E
Example 3 – Various Assumptions Underlying VOC Calculations
I will discuss unsupported assumptions underlying VOC calculations in many instances. I will use
the LDPE area as an example for this discussion. The discussion applies equally to the other
process area permits.
Pellet Blending, Storage and Loadout Silo VOC Emission Calculations
EPNs LD-BLND-FL T1, LD-BLND-FL T2, LD-SILO-FL T1, LO-SILO-FL T2, LD-TRK-FL T, LD-
BAG-FL T, and LD-RC-FL T
The calculations above rest on an assumed VOC concentration of 22% in the exhaust as well as
additional HAP speciation values. Substantial VOC and HAP emissions are predicted. Yet, there
is no support for the critical VOC concentration other than the previously discussed “design data”
and not even that for the HAP speciation (i.e., ethylene and vinyl acetate). These PTE estimates
have no reliability therefore.
Bag Filter/Cyclone Particulate and VOC Emission Calculations
EPNs LLD-DRY-CYC, LLD-EC-CYC1 , LLD-EC-CYC2, LLD-RC-CYC, LLD-TRK-FLT, LLD-
REP-CYC, LLD-SILO-FLT1, LLD-SILO-FLT2, LLD-PWD-FL T, LLD-SILO-FL T1 , LLD-SILO-
FL T2, LLD-PWD-FL T, LLD-SEED-FL T1 , LLD-SEED-FL T2, LLD-SEED-FL T3, LLD-SEED-
FL T4, LLD-EX-FLT
41
Ex. 1
ATTACHMENT E
These emission calculations show completely unsupported and assumed VOC concentrations in
the last column. They range from 1 ppm to 40 ppm for the streams discussed. But given the
complete lack of support, they are no better than complete guesses. Their use in PTE emissions
estimation is simply unsupported.
It is clear to me, as I have reviewed the various PTE estimates that there are significant and fatal
deficiencies. I only discuss some of them in this section. It is my opinion that the entire set of
PTE calculations needs to be redone.
42
Ex. 1
ATTACHMENT E
SECTION 4 – BACT
This section will address deficiencies in the Best Available Control Technology (BACT) analyses
for the proposed facility. The BACT analysis is part of the PSD permit. BACT-driven conditions
have then been carried over into the Title V permits. Thus, all of the deficiencies noted affect not
just the PSD permit but also each of the Title V permits, as applicable. For this discussion, I rely
on the BACT analyses proposed in the various updates provided by the applicant and also on the
DEQ’s Preliminary Determination Summary.
I first discuss the general deficiencies followed by specific examples. For the specific examples,
I do not address each and every BACT analysis for each and every pollutant. Rather, I focus on
some of the more important source/pollutant combinations.
4.1 General Deficiencies
I find that there are five major general deficiencies in the BACT analyses.
4.1.1 Applicant and DEQ Should Have Conducted a LAER Analysis for PM2.5 and NOx
As discussed in Section 2, the applicant’s own modeling shows clearly that the area around the
proposed plant site does not meet the NAAQS for PM2.5 24-hour and 1-hour NO2. It also shows
that the area around the plant site is close to non-attainment for PM2.5 annual NAAQS.
As I have shown in the emissions critique in Section 3, the PTEs for all pollutants including PM2.5
and NOx are significantly underestimated. Therefore, had the proper PTE been used for modeling,
the analysis would have confirmed current non-attainment for both PM2.5 NAAQS and the NO2 1-
hour NAAQS.
Therefore, the proper controls analysis for all three of these pollutants is Lowest Achievable
Emission Rate (LAER) and not BACT. LAER, of course, is more stringent than BACT. In
particular, a LAER analysis does not and should not include any cost considerations – i.e., if a
particular technology or work practice is technologically achievable, it has to be implemented as
LAER, regardless of cost. 20
4.1.2 The BACT Analysis is Backward-Looking and Not Technology Forcing
The entire BACT analysis completely ignores a central concept of BACT – namely that it is
forward-looking and technology-forcing. Instead, in each instance, the BACT analysis simply
surveys what has been done in other facilities and chooses a BACT from that backward-focused
approach. Rather than making an informed determination about the best available control
technology, the DEQ (and the applicant) simply looked back at what had already been permitted
by other states. If this were the way that BACT worked, future BACT controls and work practices
(and the associated emission rates) would be no better than past ones.
20
I also note that because of the non-attainment of the 1-hour NOxNO2 NAAQS, the predicted NOx emissions from
this facility also need to be offset, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 7503(a)(1)(A) and LAC 33:III.504.
43
Ex. 1
ATTACHMENT E
The legislative history of the Clean Air Act is crystal clear on this point. Regarding section 165
of the Clean Air Act (the provision of the statute that requires sources like the proposed facility to
use the BACT for pollutants like NOx and SO2), the Senate Report explained:
This procedure to prevent significant deterioration requires and

case-by-case determination by the States of best available control
technology for any new major emitting facility that will be built in
a clean air region. Thus, each State is free to — and encouraged to
— examine and impose requirements for the use of the latest
technological developments as a requirement in granting the permit.
This approach should lead to rapid adoption of improvements in
technology as new sources are built, not the stagnation that occurs
when everyone works against a single national standard for new
sources.
S. Rep. No. 95-252, 95 Cong. Senate Report 127, *18. In other words, Congress intended BACT
to be technology forcing. By failing to acknowledge the Congressional intent, FGLA and DEQ
have contributed to the stagnation of technology that Congress was trying to prevent.
The notion that BACT is not technology forcing is contrary to EPA’s understanding of the policy
as well. In its 1989 Background Statement on the EPA’s Top-Down Policy (which DEQ claims
to have used 21), EPA explained that
EPA believes that the top-down approach to BACT is supported by

the statutory definition in section 169(3) of the CAA. The
legislative history is clear that Congress intended BACT to perform
a technology forcing function. . . . This construction was reinforced
by [two PSD appeals decided by Environmental Appeals Board]. In
those cases the Administrator interpreted the BACT definition as
requiring the PSD applicant to demonstrate to the permitting
authority why the most stringent control technology “available” is
not “achievable” in that case.
Memorandum From John Calcagni, Director of Air Quality Management Division to Regional
Directors Regarding EPA’s Background Statement on “Top-Down” BACT Analysis at 5 (June 13,
1989).
By failing to acknowledge BACT’s technology forcing function, FGLA and DEQ failed to
properly identify the best achievable control technology for the proposed facility. This failure has
infected DEQ’s PSD permit review and led it to issue the permit without discharging its
fundamental duty to conduct a proper BACT analysis.
21
LDEQ Preliminary Determination Summary, p. 7, EDMS 1187336.
44
Ex. 1
ATTACHMENT E
4.1.3 DEQ Does Not Correctly Implement Its Own Top-Down BACT Determination Analysis
Even as it purports to have used the so-called “top-down” approach to conducting the BACT
analysis, the DEQ, in several instances does not apply it correctly. For example, in the multi-step
top-down approach, Step 1 requires the identification of all of the possible technologies or work
practices that could reduce emissions of the pollutant at issue from the source under consideration.
As DEQ correctly states in the Preliminary Determination Summary,
“Step 1
The first step in a “top-down” analysis is to identify all “available” control options.
Available control options are those air pollution control technologies or techniques
with a practical potential for application to the emissions unit and the regulated
pollutant under evaluation. 22
If, however, a particular technology is missed in Step 1, it cannot be brought back into the analysis
in a later step. Thus, it is critical that Step 1 of the analysis include all of the possible technologies
and work practices. Yet, as specific examples will show later, the Step 1 analysis in many instances
is simply too abbreviated, and therefore, in some instances, misses technologies and work practices
that should have been considered. This results in incorrect BACT determinations in those
instances.
4.1.4 The BACT Emission Rate is Not Selected Based on the Best Achievable Rate for the
Technology Selected As BACT
Even when the top technology/technologies are selected as BACT, the emission rate (and BACT
is an emission rate and not just a technology or work practice) which is selected as BACT is not
derived based on a capability of the top technology. Rather, DEQ seems to have simply selected
a rate (in most instances by reviewing what others may have selected as BACT) and then noted
that the rate selected should be met by the top technology. This is incorrect. The BACT rate
should be forward-looking and be directly related to the ability of the top technology to achieve
the best rate, on a case by case basis. I will illustrate this via examples later in the discussion.
4.1.5 The BACT Determination Improperly Rejects Certain BACT Based on Cost
Considerations
The top-down approach, in Step 4, allows for the elimination of the top technology or work practice
as BACT (but not LAER) based on cost considerations. Typically, this is done by analyzing the
“cost-effectiveness” of the top-technology – on an average as well as incremental basis. Cost-
effectiveness is typically expressed as dollars per ton of pollutant emissions reduced. However,
once the cost-effectiveness calculations are done, whether or not the technology/work practice is
cost-effective (and therefore should be retained) or not (and therefore rejected) depends on
comparing the calculated cost-effectiveness to a threshold cost-effectiveness level, set by policy.
In the current analysis, in several instances, 23 otherwise top-technologies were rejected based on
22
PDS at 7, EDMS 1187336 (emphasis added).
23
See Applicant’s Economic Reasonableness Analysis:
45
Ex. 1
ATTACHMENT E
cost-effectiveness considerations without comparing them to a threshold cost-effectiveness level.
They are shown in the table below.
The last column in the table shows the calculated average cost-effectiveness value in $/ton. Setting
aside the issues with the calculations themselves for the moment, all of the calculated average cost-
effectiveness values except for the PP-HOTOIL, 1&2 for NOx ranged from 3,720 to 5,673 $/ton.
Yet, these were all rejected as not being cost-effective, with no discussion whatsoever as to the
proper cost-effectiveness policy threshold – which, by implication, is below $3,720 $/ton. This is
too low and improper as I discuss next.
While there are no established threshold metrics for the cost-effectiveness threshold by EPA or
DEQ, it is useful to note what sorts of metrics have been used by other agencies. That is entirely
fair given the comparative nature of the cost-effectiveness exercise.
In comparing these metrics, I note that one should pay careful attention to the time when the
metric was used since inflation corrodes the value of money as time passes. For example, in its
BART decisions (which are similar to BACT analyses), Colorado used a cost-effectiveness
threshold of $5,000 per ton of emission reduced (for both criteria pollutants NOx and SO2).
However, it was not clear, in that instance, how that threshold was arrived at or what it is was
based on. Or, when it was created. As noted, the last is important because it was being applied to
judge the appropriate cost-effectiveness values for various pollutants at various units in Colorado
at various times – without any consistent application or adjustment due to inflation. 24 For
“This economic evaluation was performed for the following emission sources and pollutants:
• PP-HOT OIL 1&2 (EQT 0148): CO, VOC, and NOx
• UT1 -BLR1 (EQT 0288), UT1-BLR2 (EQT 0290), AND UT2-BLR (EQT 0312): CO and VOC
• ET1 -FUR1 through ET1-FUR10 (GRP 0001) and ET2-FUR1 through ET2-FUR10 (GRP 0004): CO and VOC
• PR-RCHTR (EQT 0264): CO and VOC”
46
Ex. 1
ATTACHMENT E
example, if the $5,000/ton threshold was based on 2006 dollars, then its value in 2018 dollars
would be higher, simply based on the inflation adjustment between 2006 and 2018.
In 2001, EPA issued guidance related to presumptive BACT for NOx at refineries being modified
to meet EPA's low sulfur gasoline regulation. This guidance used a cost effectiveness threshold
of $10,000 per ton of NOx controlled in 2001 dollars. 25
Further, in 2010, EPA has published a BART proposal for the Four Corners Power Plant for
NOx. 26 EPA noted that “[E]ven if EPA had decided to accept APS’s worst case cost estimates of
$4,887–$6,170/ton of NOx removed, EPA considers that estimate to be cost effective….” Thus,
it is clear, that the cost-effectiveness could be as high as $6,170/ton reduced and be acceptable.
Based on these examples, DEQ should not have rejected as BACT any instances where the
calculated average cost-effectiveness was less than $10,000.
4.2 Examples of Specific Deficiencies in the BACT Analysis
In this section, I will discuss several examples of deficiencies in the BACT analyses presented by
the applicant and accepted by the DEQ.
Organizationally, I will follow the BACT determinations as presented in DEQ’s Preliminary
Determination Summary.
Example 1 - BACT for Boilers and Large Gas-fired Heaters – NOx
This category includes the following three steam boilers in the Utilities area as well as the waste
heat boiler and reactor charge heater in the polypropylene area.
PR Waste Heat Boiler PR-WHB EQT0262
PR Reactor Charge Heater PR-RCHTR EQT0264
UT1 Boiler 1 UT1-BLR1 EQT0288
UT1 Boiler 2 UT1-BLR2 EQT0290
UT2 Boiler UT2-BLR EQT0312
For the utility boilers, NOx BACT is determined to be the use of SCR and LNB to limit NOx emissions
to a rate of 0.01 lb/MMBTU on a 12-month rolling average.
For the PR-WHB, which is also used for heat recovery for a waste gas stream that contains NOx, DEQ
determined that because the waste gas contained NOx, therefore, a lb/MMBtu emission limit was not
24
See letter dated May 10, 2010 from the EPA Region 8 to North Dakota in the matter of the Milton R Young plant
NOx BACT determination. EPA states that “[I]f a permitting authority compares the cost effectiveness of a BACT
determination today with the cost effectiveness of a BACT determination from past years, it must consider the effects
of inflation to properly compare the older project to the one under consideration.”
Memorandum from John S. Seitz, Director, OAQPS, to Air Division Directors regarding BACT and LAER for
Emissions of Nitrogen Oxides and Volatile Organic Compounds at Tier 2/Gasoline Sulfur Refinery Projects
Available at https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-07/documents/t2bact.pdf
26
See 75 FR 64221, dated October 19, 2010.
47
Ex. 1
ATTACHMENT E
an appropriate representation of BACT. It therefore determined BACT for the PR-WHB to be the use
of SCR and LNB with a mass emission rate of 14.41 lb/hr on a 12-month rolling average.
DEQ’s summary does not discuss the NOx BACT for PR-RCHTR.
I disagree with the determinations above. While SCR and LNB are the top technologies for NOx
reduction, the BACT determination in each case should have discussed the concentrations of NOx in
the respective waste gas streams (i.e., uncontrolled NOx concentrations before the SCR) and the SCR
control effectiveness (typically, 90-95% or more, depending on design). Only then should the post-
SCR or controlled NOx concentrations, expressed as lb/MMBtu, been determined. Instead DEQ
simply picks the final limits, with no support and simply states that SCR and LNB would be used to
meet them. This makes no sense.
I also disagree that the averaging time for NOx BACT for these large NOx sources should be 12-
month averages. Keeping in mind that the applicant’s own modeling shows the area in the vicinity
of the plant to be non-attainment for the 1-hour NO2 NAAQS, all of the BACT (indeed LAER)
determinations for NOx should be on a 1-hour averaging time basis. If the DEQ wanted to include
NOx BACT (or LAER) determinations for other averaging time periods (such as 24-hour or annual,
etc.), those should be in addition to the 1-hour NOx BACT (or LAER) emission rates.
Example 2 - BACT for Furnaces – NOx
ET1 Pyrolysis Furnace 1 ET1-FUR1 EQT0077
There are 20 pyrolysis furnaces, listed above in the Ethylene 1 and 2 areas. Using the same flawed
and unsupported logic as in the case of the gas-fired boilers, the DEQ simply states that BACT for
these furnaces is determined to be the use of SCR and LNB with a NOx emissions limit of 0.02
lb/MMBTU on a 12-month rolling average.
My comments on this mirror what I have stated in Example 1 above. I agree that SCR and LNB are
the top NOx reduction technology. However, the NOx limit selected (i.e., 0.2 lb/MMBtu) has no
relationship with what a properly designed SCR, along with LNB, can achieve at these furnaces. The
48
Ex. 1
ATTACHMENT E
record does not discuss what the uncontrolled or pre-SCR NOx concentrations from these furnaces
would be. The record also contains no discussion of the highest degrees of NOx reduction than can
be achieved with SCR (i.e. 90-95% or greater reduction efficiency). The record also does not discuss
what the combination of the expected uncontrolled NOx levels from these furnaces, along with a
properly designed and operated SCR could achieve. Instead, it summarily selects an emission rate
simply based on its backwards review of prior BACT limits. This is improper. BACT (and indeed
LAER) for these furnaces should be significantly lower.
In addition, like in Example 1 above, I disagree with the 12-month averaging time for NOx BACT
from these large NOx sources.
Example 3 - BACT for Turbines – NOx
UT2 Cogeneration Unit No. 1 UT2-COGEN1 EQT0314
UT2 Cogeneration Unit No. 2 UT2-COGEN2 EQT0315
There are two combustion turbines shown above to be used for power generation at the facility. For
NOx BACT from these large NOx sources, DEQ states that the EPA RBLC was searched to determine
recently permitted BACT-required emissions limits and, based on this, the BACT would be the use
of dry low NOx combustor design along with SCR, resulting in an BACT emission rate of 2 ppmvd
(corrected to 15% oxygen) on a 12-month rolling average. DEQ notes that this rate is “ comparable
to the BACT emission limits for recently permitted gas turbines. The proposed rate and controls are
also consistent with readily available state BACT guidance.”
The backwards-looking BACT analysis process used by DEQ is readily apparent in the discussion
above. I agree that dry low NOx combustor technology in combination with SCR is BACT for these
combustion turbines. I also agree that the numerical value of the BACT limit should be 2 ppm,
corrected to 15% oxygen. I disagree that the averaging time should be 12 month rolling average. As
noted above, the NOx BACT analysis should in fact be a NOx LAER analysis in this instance. Other
combustion turbines have 2 ppm limits with much smaller average times, such as 3 hours or even 1
hour. As an example, the CPV energy power plant in Orange County New York, near Middletown,
has a NOx limit of 2 ppm (corrected to 15% oxygen) on a 1-hour average basis. This should be the
limit for the two combustion turbines at FG LA.
Example 4 - BACT for Combustion Sources (Boilers, Heaters, Pyrolysis Furnaces) – SO2
For the sources above, the DEQ BACT determination, in Step 1, identified the following options:
1. Flue Gas Desulfurization (FGD)
2. Use of Natural Gas as Fuel and/or Use of Gaseous Fuels with a Very Low Sulfur Content
Based on this, FGD was eliminated and BACT was determined to be pipeline quality natural gas or
fuel gas. The options considered should have also included dry sorbent injection (DSI) as a potential
method to reduce SO2 (as well as acid gases). Sorbents such as trona, sodium bicarbonate and lime
can be used in powdered form to reduce SO2 levels in exhaust gases.27 The SO2 BACT determination
is incomplete with considering this option.
Even if pipeline quality natural gas is selected as BACT, the DEQ, by including “or fuel gas” makes
the BA for SO2 weaker since higher levels of sulfur compounds can be present in fuel gas (than
compared to pipeline natural gas) and still meet the SO2 limit for these sources. A proper BACT
analysis would include a broader list of SO2 reduction options as discussed above. And, even if it is
27
See, for example, http://www.cleanenergy.org/wp-content/uploads/Final_Sahu_DSI_Report.pdf
49
Ex. 1
ATTACHMENT E
determined that BACT is pipeline natural gas, it should not include an open-ended option of “fuel
gas.” Lastly, given the close to SIL modeling for SO2 noted earlier, the BACT for SO2 from these
sources should be on a 1-hour basis, consistent with meeting the 1-hour NAAQS for this pollutant.
Example 5 - BACT for Combustion Sources (Boilers, Furnaces, Turbines, Heaters) – PM, PM10,
and PM2.5
For all of the above, including the PP Hot Oil Heaters 1 and 2, BACT for all sizes of PM, including
PM2.5 was determined to be the use of pipeline quality natural gas or fuel gas and good combustion
practices.
First, although not explicitly stated, the BACT determination for PM/PM10/PM2.5 seems to have
focused only on the filterable component of PM/PM10/PM2.5 since there is no discussion of BACT
for the condensable portion of PM from these sources anywhere in the record. Therefore, the BACT
determination (which should have really been a LAER determination for PM2.5 as previously
discussed) is simply incomplete and therefore incorrect.
Second, “good combustion practices” noted as BACT for these pollutants is obviously not enforceable
on its face. It must be defined with conditions in the Title V permit that makes it enforceable.
As a general matter, the phrase “good combustion practices” or similar appears in many other BACT
determinations including for CO and VOC from various combustion sources. While I am not
commenting on each such instance, this phrase must be defined in each instance that it is used and
there must be conditions in the Title V permit that makes it enforceable.
Example 6 - BACT for Cooling Towers – PM, PM10, and PM2.5
There are several cooling towers associated with the proposed plant as shown below. Individually
and collectively the PM/PM10/PM2.5 emissions from the cooling towers are considerable. In fact,
most of the PM emissions from the cooling towers are PM2.5. As noted previously, PM2.5 impacts
exceed the 24-hour NAAQS. Thus, this analysis should actually reflect LAER and not BACT.
ET1 Cooling Tower ET1-CT EQT0095

ET2 Cooling Tower ET2-CT EQT0141
EG1 Cooling Tower EG1-CT EQT0049
EG2 Cooling Tower EG2-CT EQT0112
HDPE1 Cooling Tower HD1-CT EQT0213
HDPE2 Cooling Tower HD2-CT EQT0340
LLDPE Cooling Tower LLD-CT EQT0159
PR Cooling Tower PR-CT EQT0253
PP Cooling Tower PP-CT EQT0055
UT1 Cooling Tower 1 UT1-CT1 EQT0279
LDPE Cooling Tower LD-CT EQT0389
Because wet cooling towers provide direct contact between the cooling water and the air passing
through the tower, some of the liquid water may be entrained in the air stream and carried out of
the tower as “drift” droplets. Suspended solids entrained in this water are emitted as particulates.
DEQ identifies the following two approaches as BACT. I do not disagree.
1. High Efficiency Drift Eliminators
50
Ex. 1
ATTACHMENT E
2. Low Total Dissolved Solid (TDS) Cooling Water
Having identified them, however, the DEQ states that “BACT is determined to be the combination
of high efficiency drift eliminators with a maximum drift rate of 0.001% and low TDS cooling
water to limit PM10 and PM2.5 emissions to the rates set forth in Table I of this PSD permit.” I
disagree. First, a drift rate of 0.001% is not BACT. Most high-efficiency drift eliminators can
achieve at least half that rate, i.e., 0.0005%. 28 Almost all power plant cooling towers that I am
familiar with can achieve this lower rate and that is typically the requirement in their permits.
Vendors offer even lower rates. For example, Air Sciences notes, in its calculator, that the high
efficiency drift rate should be 0.0003%. 29 Therefore, the selected drift rate is simply too high and
not BACT, and certainly not LAER.
In addition, DEQ’s second component of the cooling tower BACT, namely “low” total dissolved
solids (TDS) in water is simply noted without any numerical value at all. The calculations
discussed in Section 3 assume a value of 4000 ppm for TDS, with no justification at all as to what
is the “low” value. The revised BACT/LAER analysis for this set of sources should use a drift
rate of 0.0003% and justify, with additional analysis to support the numerical value of the “low”
TDS that will be used.
Example 7 - BACT for LDPE Process Vents with Fabric Filters – PM, PM10, and PM2.5
LDPE Initiator Vent Filter 1 LD-IV1 EQT0434
LDPE Initiator Vent Filter 2 LD-IV2 EQT0435
LDPE Additive Hopper Filter 1 LD-ADD1-FLT EQT0428
LDPE Additive Hopper Filter 2 LD-ADD2-FLT EQT0429
LPDE Additive Hopper Filter 3 LD-ADD3-FLT EQT0430
LDPE Extruder Building Vent Filter LD-EXT EQT0436
LDPE Master Batch Hopper Vent Filter LD-MBH-FLT EQT0438
For the set of PM/PM10/PM2.5 emitting sources, DEQ simply abbreviates the BACT discussion as
follows: “Control strategies that could potentially be employed to abate PM10/PM2.5 emissions
from the LDPE and LLDPE process vents listed above include fabric filters (baghouses),
electrostatic precipitators (ESPs), and cyclones…” DEQ also states that “BACT for PM10 and PM2.5
emissions is determined to be compliance with the applicable process weight rate limitation
established by LAC 33:III.1311.B.”
This is simply not a 5-step top-down BACT analysis at all. DEQ is obligated to decide which of
the technologies is, in fact, the top technology. It is my opinion that it would be baghouses, and
cyclones may also be used in conjunction with the baghouses, as part of the process.
Once the baghouses are selected as the top technology, the relevant emission rate should be based
on the capability of the baghouse. None of that is discussed. Instead, BACT is tied to meeting the
“process weight limitation” established in the referenced Louisiana regulation. Such process weight
limitations have been around since the inception of the Clean Air Act almost 50 years ago and are
largely meaningless in terms of the types of emissions results that can be achieved by controls such
28
See, for example, https://www.process-cooling.com/articles/88583-high-efficiency-drift-eliminators-for-cooling-
towers?v=preview; see also, https://www.brentwoodindustries.com/resources/learning-center/cooling-tower/what-
does-drift-rate-mean/
29
See, http://airsci.com/cooling-tower-particulate-air-emissions-calculator/
51
Ex. 1
ATTACHMENT E
as baghouses today. There is simply no technical basis to tie a BACT determination for
PM/PM10/PM2.5 to process weight limitations in the regulations.
Example 8 - BACT for Fugitives – VOC
Fugitive emissions sources such as valves, flanges, connectors, pump seals, compressor seals and
packings, relief valves, etc. are collectively a very large source of VOC (and HAP) emissions from
the proposed facility. They are present in almost every area of the plant as shown below. Although
DEQ does not list the Central Waste Water Treatment area in the list below, it is my opinion that
fugitive VOCs from components would also be present in that area of the plant.
ET1 Fugitives ET1-FUG FUG0010
ET2 Fugitives ET2-FUG FUG0007
EG Pipeline Equipment Fugitives EG1-FUG FUG0002
EG Fugitives EG2-FUG FUG0005
HDPE1 Fugitives HD1-FUG FUG0006
HDPE2 Fugitives HD2-FUG FUG0013
LLDPE Fugitives LLD-FUG FUG0008
PR Plant Fugitives PR-FUG FUG0011
PP Plant Fugitives PP-FUG FUG0003
LOG Fugitives LOG-FUG FUG0001
LDPE Fugitives LD-FUG FUG0008
There are numerous errors in the BACT determination for these sources. First, as part of Step 1, the
DEQ did not include Optical Gas Imaging (OGI) as a monitoring and control strategy. Instead it
includes Leak Detection and Repair (LDAR) using EPA Method 21 and ultimately selects that as
BACT. I discuss OGI in more detail in the monitoring discussion in Section 5.5 and will not therefore
repeat that discussion here. I will note that OGI is a more efficient and superior leak detection
approach than LDAR, with advantages such as quickly pin-pointing larger leaking sources (which
emit disproportional amounts of the fugitive VOC and HAP emissions). Quickly detecting (and then
repairing) such sources is key to keeping fugitive emissions low. Laborious LDAR programs,
involving manual Method 21 “sniffing” of each component (and there are thousands of such
components in the proposed plant) by human operators has myriad drawbacks – including
inaccessible components (which are not monitored at all), missed components, misapplication of
Method 21 by not holding the probe at the proper distance from the component for the proper length
of time, poorly trained and motivated human agents who must implement the Method 21 process
repeatedly thousands of times, etc. Thus, not including OGI and therefore not considering it all as in
the BACT analysis for fugitive VOCs and HAPs is a major and fatal error.
In addition, DEQ’s BACT analysis is also flawed because it did include a preventive approach – i.e.,
the use of leakless technologies – in Step 1 but then simply eliminated this approach because, as DEQ
notes, “[L]eakless components, like any other piece of mechanical equipment, are subject to
failure. In such circumstances, they are usually not repairable online and may leak until the next
unit shutdown. Further, leakless technology is not available for all piping components (e.g.,
flanges and connectors). For these reasons, leakless technology is not considered technically
feasible.” DEQ’s reasoning is spurious. As to mechanical failure, DEQ provides no evidence of
such failures or failure rates – just speculation, which applies to any piece of hardware. In addition,
there is also no evidence that such failures, if they occur, are not repairable until the next shutdown
as a general matter. Of course, process lines with failed components can be isolated and repaired
in many instances and one does not therefore need to wait till the next shutdown. As to the last
reason DEQ states for not considering leakless technologies – namely that it is not available for all
components – is simply ludicrous and illogical. Just because it is not available for all components
does not mean that it should not be considered for those components for which it is available.
52
Ex. 1
ATTACHMENT E
Perhaps DEQ should have broken its BACT analysis for this class of components on a component
by component basis and avoided this problem. In any case, for multiple reasons, all unsupported
and some illogical, DEQ wrongly eliminated leakless technologies, which I have seen in use since
at least the mid-1990s in chemical plants and refineries as BACT for these sources.
In summary, BACT for this category should include the implementation of leakless technologies
in all circumstances where such technologies are available. In addition, BACT should require OGI
as the primary method of leak detection in all circumstances, with Method 21 LDAR as support or
backup, as needed.
DEQ makes one final error in BACT determination when it identifies a NSPS (40 CFR Part 60) or
MACT (40 CFR Part 63) regulation as BACT for the different plant areas as shown in the table
below.
Process Unit ID LDAR Program
Ethylene Plant 1 ET1-FUG 40 CFR 63 Subpart UU
Ethylene Plant 2 ET2-FUG 40 CFR 63 Subpart UU
Ethylene Glycol Plant 1 EG1-FUG 40 CFR 63 Subpart H
Ethylene Glycol Plant 2 EG2-FUG 40 CFR 63 Subpart H
High Density Polyethylene Plant 1 HD1-FUG 40 CFR 60 Subpart VVa
High Density Polyethylene Plant 2 HD2-FUG 40 CFR 60 Subpart VVa
Linear Low Density Polyethylene Plant 1 LLD-FUG 40 CFR 60 Subpart VVa
Propylene Plant PR-FUG 40 CFR 60 Subpart VVa
Polypropylene Plant PP-FUG 40 CFR 60 Subpart VVa
Logistics Plant LOG-FUG 40 CFR 63 Subpart H
Low Density Polyethylene Plant 1 LD-FUG 40 CFR 60 Subpart VVa
As DEQ is well aware, NSPS and MACT or NESHAPS are just the floor for BACT, which can be
more stringent than an applicable NSPS or NESHAPS/MACT. By simply pointing to the
applicable NSPS and MACT but not going beyond the stringency required in these “floor”
regulations, DEQ has simply avoided a BACT analysis even using its own approach – my earlier
criticisms notwithstanding. The stringency of an LDAR program depends on many factors such
as: the leak threshold (i.e., at what level is a component assumed to be leaking, such as 10,000
ppm, 500 ppm, 250 ppm, 100 ppm, 50 ppm, etc.); the frequency of monitoring the components
(i.e., monthly, quarterly, annually, etc.); the time allowed to repair a component once it is
determined to be leaking (i.e., 2 weeks, 1 week, 3 days, etc.); and others. The referenced NSPS
and MACT regulations in the table above makes choices for these factors. However, a BACT
analysis can and should consider more stringent standards for each of these factors – i.e., the lowest
leak rate (say, 50 or 100 ppm above background), more frequent monitoring (i.e., monthly instead
of quarterly or annually), and quicker repairs (i.e., in 3 days versus 2 weeks, etc.). But all of this
is simply missing because DEQ simply sets BACT as the same as the applicable “floor” regulation
and does not consider anything more stringent.
For all of the reasons above, DEQ’s BACT analysis for this entire category is a complete failure.
It should be redone.
Example 9 - BACT for Process Vents – VOC
For this set of BACT, where DEQ identifies a number of control approaches below, I note two critical
errors below.
53
Ex. 1
ATTACHMENT E
1. Thermal Oxidizers
2. Regenerative Thermal Oxidizer
3. Catalytic Oxidation
4. Flaring
5. Routing Vent Gases through Boilers/Heaters
6. Carbon Adsorption
7. Condensation/Refrigeration
The first critical error appears in Step 3, where technologies are to be ranked by their control
effectiveness. DEQ’s analysis shows the following table for Step 3.
Hierarchy Control Option Control Efficiency

(%)
1. Thermal Oxidization 98 – 99
Regenerative Thermal Oxidization 98 – 99
Flaring 98 – 99
Routing Vent Gas through Boilers/Heaters 98 – 99
Catalytic Oxidation 95 – 99
Carbon Adsorption 95 – 99
7.00 Condensation/Refrigeration 50 – 95
DEQ provides no technical support for any of the assumed control efficiency ranges for the
respective approaches. In each instance the efficiency will depend on the design details which are
not discussed at all. In addition, neither the lower nor the upper bounds noted in the table are hard
stops from an engineering perspective. In each instance, actual efficiencies can be lower than the
lower bound or even higher than the upper bound shown. In some instances, such as flares, the
actual efficiency can be considerably smaller than the 98-99% range shown. I have discussed this
earlier in Section 3. Thus, DEQ’s ranking is simply arbitrary.
Having made this error in Step 3, DEQ compounds its error in its BACT selection by referencing
only the applicable NSPS and NESHAP regulations, which I have noted in the prior discussions,
are only the BACT floors and not BACT by themselves. For BACT, DEQ states “As defined by
the NSPS and NESHAP standards, process vents (excluding relief valves and emergency vents)
determined to be Group 1 process vents are proposed to be routed to one of the control devices listed
above. Process vents with low VOC or VOHAP concentrations, such that they meet a Group 2
classification under applicable NESHAP programs, or the exemption criteria under NSPS programs,
will not be controlled, other than using good operating and maintenance practices as described below
for specific groups of equipment.” In other words, DEQ’s BACT did not consider anything of greater
stringency than what is required in the applicable NSPS or NESHAPS. This is a fatal error and DEQ’s
selections, as noted below, for the specific vents, are therefore not BACT. In each instance, I show
DEQ’s BACT statement in quotes followed by my parenthetical comments […].
ET1 Spent Caustic ET1-

EQT0449
Oxidation Unit Vent OXCC
“BACT is determined to be routing the above process vents through a closed vent
system to ET1-VCA (EQT0097) and ET1-VCB (EQT0098).”
54
Ex. 1
ATTACHMENT E
[No discussion of why the VCA control efficiencies could not be designed to be
greater than assumed – i.e., 98%]
ET2 Spent Caustic Oxidation ET2-
EQT0452
Unit Vent OXCC
“BACT is determined to be routing the above process vents through a closed vent
system to ET2-VCA (EQT0143) and ET2-VCB (EQT0144).”
[No discussion of why the VCA control efficiencies could not be designed to be
greater than assumed – i.e., 98%]
ET1 Caustic Area Carbon ET1-
EQT0450
Canister Vent NAOHCC
ET2 Caustic Area Carbon ET2-
EQT0453
Canister Vent NAOHCC
“BACT is determined to be routing the above process vents to a carbon canister.”
[No engineering basis for the assumed efficiency of the carbon canister.]
ET1 MAPD
ET1-MAPD EQT0451
Regeneration Vent
ET2 MAPD
ET2-MAPD EQT0454
Regeneration Vent
UT1 Boiler 1 UT1-
EQT0447
Natural Gas Vent BLR1NGVENT
UT1 Boiler 2 UT1-
EQT0448
Natural Gas Vent BLR2NGVENT
UT2 Cogeneration
UT2-
Unit No. 1 Lube Oil EQT0405
COGEN1LOVENT
Vent
UT2 Cogeneration
UT2-
Unit No. 2 Lube Oil EQT0406
COGEN2LOVENT
Vent
UT2 Steam Turbine
UT2-ST1LOVENT EQT0407
No. 1 Lube Oil Vent
UT2 Steam Turbine
UT2-ST2LOVENT EQT0408
No. 2 Lube Oil Vent
UT2 Turbine No. 1 UT2-
EQT0409
Natural Gas Vent TURB1NGVENT
UT2 Turbine No. 2 UT2-
EQT0410
Natural Gas Vent TURB2NGVENT
UT2 Duct Burner
UT2-
No. 1 Natural Gas EQT0411
DB1NGVENT
Vent
UT2 Duct Burner
UT2-
No. 2 Natural Gas EQT0412
DB2NGVENT
Vent
UT2 Boiler Natural UT2-
EQT0413
Gas Vent BLRNGVENT
LDPE Compressor
Used Oil Storage LD-CUO EQT0439
and Loading
“BACT for the above process vents is determined to be the use of good operating
practices.”
55
Ex. 1
ATTACHMENT E
[This is simply not BACT as it does not define what “good operating practices"
mean – which may simply be no control at all.]
ET1-
ET1-Distillation Units EQT0296
DISTILLATION
ET2-
ET2-Distillation Units EQT0295
DISTILLATION
“BACT for the above distillation units is determined to be compliance with 40 CFR
60 Subpart NNN and 40 CFR 63 Subpart YY.”
[BACT should be more stringent than the applicable “floor” NSPS and MACT
regulations. Or, the record should provide technical and cost justifications for why
BACT cannot be more stringent than the applicable floors.]
PR-
PR Distillation Units DISTILLATION EQT0474
UNITS
“BACT for the above distillation units is determined to be compliance with 40 CFR
60 Subpart NNN and 40 CFR 63 Subpart G.”
PR-
PR Reactors EQT0473
REACTORS
“BACT for the above reactors is determined to be compliance with 40 CFR 60
Subpart RRR and 40 CFR 63 Subpart G.”
HDPE1 Downstream Pellet HD1-PEL-

EQT0303
Handling HDLG
HDPE2 Downstream Pellet HD2-PEL-
EQT0335
Handling HDLG
PP Downstream Pellet PP-PEL-
EQT0056
Handling HDLG
LDPE Downstream Pellet LD-PEL-
GRP0015
Handling VOC Cap HDLG
LDPE Compressor LD-COMP EQT0440
LD-
LDPE Reactor EQT0441
REACT
LDPE Low Pressure LD-LP-
EQT0442
Separator SEP
LD-HP-
High Pressure Separator EQT0443
SEP
LDPE Extruder LD-EXTR EQT0444
LLDPE Downstream Pellet LLD-PEL-
GRP0007
Handling VOC Cap HDLG
“BACT for the above process vents is determined to be compliance with 40 CFR
56
Ex. 1
ATTACHMENT E
60 Subpart DDD.”
PP-CAT-
PP Catalyst Preparation EQT0467
PREP
PP-POLY-
PP Polymerization Reactors EQT0468
REACT
PP-PP-
PP Polypropylene Recovery EQT0469
REC
PP Extruder PP-EXTR EQT0470
60 Subpart DDD and 40 CFR 63 Subpart FFFF.”
EG1-
EG1 Glycol Dehydrator EQT0166
GLYDEHY
EG1 MEG Purification EG1-
EQT0168
Column PURCOL
EG1-
EG1 Recycle Column EQT0169
RECYCOL
EG1-EG-
EG1 EG Reactors EQT0167
REACT
EG2-
EG2 Glycol Dehydrator EQT0355
GLYDEHY
EG2-EG-
EG2 EG Reactors EQT0356
REACT
EG2 MEG Purification EG2-
EQT0357
Column PURCOL
EG2-
EG2 Recycle Column EQT0358
RECYCOL
63 Subpart G.”
EG1-EO-
EG1 EO Absorber EQT0171
ABS
EG1-EO-
EG1 Reactors EQT0170
REACT
EG2-EO-
EG2 EO Reactors EQT0359
REACT
EG2-EO-
EG2 EO Absorber EQT0360
ABS
63 Subpart RRR.”
57
Ex. 1
ATTACHMENT E
EG1-EO-
EG1 EO Stripper EQT0172
STRP
EG2-EO-
EG2 EO Stripper EQT0361
STRP
60 Subpart NNN and 40 CFR 63 Subpart G.”
LDPE Spent Lube Oil

LD-L-LO EQT0455
Loading
LDPE Wax Loading LD-L-WX1 EQT0392
LDPE Wax Loading LD-L-WX2 EQT0393
LDPE Column Heavy Ends
LD-L-HE EQT0394
Loading
LD-
LDPE Pellet Dryer Vent
DRYER- EQT0395
Filter
FLT
63 Subpart FFFF.”
Example 10 - BACT for Loading Operations – VOC
Loading operations are a large source of VOC and HAP emissions. DEQ’s BACT discussion for
loading operations at the proposed plant largely mirrors the approach noted above in Example 9.
Basically, loading VOCs are routed to one or more control devices such as vapor combustors,
thermal oxidizers, and/or flares.
As in Example 9, EPA provides the following “ranking” of these are additional approaches in the
table below.
Hierarchy Control Option Control Efficiency
(%)
1. Thermal Oxidization 98 – 99
1. Regenerative Thermal Oxidization 98 – 99
1. Flaring 98 – 99
1. Routing Vent Gas through Boilers/Heaters 98 – 99
1. Catalytic Oxidation 95 – 99
1. Carbon Adsorption 95 – 99
7. 00
Condensation/Refrigeration 50 – 95
58
Ex. 1
ATTACHMENT E
My comments on this are the same as in Example 9 above – namely that these ranges of controls
provided are unsupported by any engineering design or details. And, that they can be both higher
or lower than the values shown depending on design. Therefore, DEQ’s ranking in Step 3 is
completely arbitrary. My comments on the flare efficiency being too high is previously discussed
in Section 3. In each instance, I show DEQ’s BACT statement in quotes followed by my
parenthetical comments […].
ET1-
ET1 Tank Truck Loading EQT0239
TRK
“BACT is determined to be routing VOC emissions through a closed vent system to

ET1-VCA – ET1 Vapor Combustor A (EQT0097) or ET1-VCB – ET1 Vapor
Combustor B (EQT0098).”
[The analysis provides no support for the assumed 98% control efficiency for the
vapor combustors.]
ET2-
ET2 Tank Truck Loading EQT0278
TRK

ET2-VCA – ET2 Vapor Combustor A (EQT0143) or ET2-VCB – ET2 Vapor
vapor combustors.]
HD1-
HDPE1 Low Polymer Tank
TRK- EQT0198
Truck Loading
LP
HD1-
HDPE1 Oligomer Tank Truck
TRK- EQT0199
Loading
OLIG

HD1-TOA – HDPE1 Thermal Oxidizer A (EQT0297) and HD1-TOB – HDPE1
Thermal Oxidizer B (EQT0298). During maintenance, start-up, and shutdown of
the thermal oxidizers the VOC emissions will be routed to HD1-FLR – HDPE1
Ground Flare (EQT0211).”
[The analysis provides no support for the assumed 99.9% control efficiency for the
thermal oxidizers and how they will achieve this at all times for all VOCs. The
analysis provides no support for the assumed 98% control efficiency for the flares,
as discussion in Section 3.]
HD2-
HDPE2 Low Polymer Tank
TRK- EQT0319
Truck Loading
LP
HD2-
HDPE2 Oligomer Tank Truck
TRK- EQT0330
Loading
OLIG
59
Ex. 1
ATTACHMENT E
HD2-TOA – HDPE2 Thermal Oxidizer A (EQT0338) and HD2-TOB – HDPE2
Thermal Oxidizer B (EQT0339). During maintenance, start-up, and shutdown of
the thermal oxidizers the VOC emissions will be routed to HD2-FLR – HDPE2
Ground Flare (EQT0336).”
[The analysis provides no support for the assumed 99.9% control efficiency for the
thermal oxidizers and how they will achieve this at all times for all VOCs. The
analysis provides no support for the assumed 98% control efficiency for the flares,
as discussion in Section 3.]
PR-
PR Tank Truck Loading EQT0261
TRK
“BACT is determined to be routing VOC emissions through a closed vent system
to PR-VCA&B – PR Vapor Combustor A & B (EQT0260).”
vapor combustors.]
LOG Uncontrolled Barge

LOG-BG EQT0372
Dock Loading (Heavy Oil)
LOG-BG
LOG Barge Loading
(Pyrolysis EQT0464
(Pyrolysis Gasoline)
Gasoline)

LOG-VCA – LOG Vapor Combustor A (EQT0366) or LOG-VCB – LOG Vapor
vapor combustors.]
LOG Uncontrolled Railcar LOG-

EQT0370
Loading RC
“When Pyrolysis Gasoline and/or Heavy Oil is being loaded, then BACT is
determined to be compliance with all applicable provisions of 40 CFR 63 Subpart
YY and by routing VOC emissions through a closed vent system to either LLD-FLR
– LLDPE Ground Flare (EQT0157) or PP-FLR – PP Ground Flare (EQT0151).
When Spent Wash Oil and/or Ethylene Glycol is being loaded then BACT is
G.”
BACT cannot be more stringent than the applicable floors. In addition, the flare
efficiency value of 98% is unsupported as discussed in Section 3.]
LOG-
LOG Tank Truck Loading EQT0037
TRK
60
Ex. 1
ATTACHMENT E
“When Pyrolysis Gasoline and/or Heavy Oil is being loaded, then BACT is
YY and by routing VOC emissions through a closed vent system to either LOG-
VCA – LOG Vapor Combustor A (EQT0366) or LOG-VCB – LOG Vapor
Combustor B (EQT0368).
When Spent Wash Oil and/or Ethylene Glycol is being loaded then BACT is
G.”
BACT cannot be more stringent than the applicable floors. In addition, the flare
efficiency value of 98% is unsupported as discussed in Section 3.]
LOG-
LOG Tanker Dock Loading EQT0371
SHP
“BACT is determined to be submerged loading.”
[The design details for submerged loading are not provided in the record.]
Example 11 - BACT for Control Devices: Flares, Vapor Combustors, and Thermal Oxidizers -
PM, PM10, PM2.5, SO2, NOx, CO, VOC, and CO2e
As discussed previously, the facility will use a number of VOC destruction devices as listed
below by the DEQ.
ET1 Ground Flare ET1-FLR EQT0232

ET2 Ground Flare ET2-FLR EQT0142
EG1 Ground Flare EG1-FLR EQT0162
EG2 Ground Flare EG2-FLR EQT0191
HDPE1 Ground Flare HD1-FLR EQT0211
HDPE2 Ground Flare HD2-FLR EQT0336
LLDPE Ground Flare LLD-FLR EQT0157
PR Ground Flare PR-FLR EQT0258
PP Ground Flare PP-FLR EQT0151
LDPE Ground Flare LD-FLR EQT0391
ET1 Vapor Combustor A ET1-VCA EQT0097
ET1 Vapor Combustor B ET1-VCB EQT0098
ET2 Vapor Combustor A ET2-VCA EQT0143
ET2 Vapor Combustor B ET2-VCB EQT0144
PR Vapor Combustor A PR-VCA EQT0260
PR Vapor Combustor B PR-VCB EQT0446
LOG Vapor Combustor A LOG-VCA EQT0366
LOG Vapor Combustor B LOG-VCB EQT0368
EG1 Thermal Oxidizer EG1-TO EQT0040
EG2 Thermal Oxidizer EG2-TO EQT0103
HDPE1 Thermal Oxidizer A HD1-TOA EQT0297
HDPE1 Thermal Oxidizer B HD1-TOB EQT0298
HDPE2 Thermal Oxidizer A HD2-TOA EQT0338
HDPE2 Thermal Oxidizer B HD2-TOB EQT0339
PP Thermal Oxidizer PP-TO EQT0150
LDPE Regenerative Thermal Oxidizer A LD-RTO1 EQT0403
61
Ex. 1
ATTACHMENT E
LDPE Regenerative Thermal Oxidizer B LD-RTO2 EQT0404
LLDPE Thermal Oxidizer A LLD-TOA EQT0265
LLDPE Thermal Oxidizer B LLD-TOB EQT0266
All of these devices use fuel to create a high temperature environment in which the VOCs in the
waste gases or vent streams are supposed to be destroyed. And, as in common in any combustion
device using air as the oxidant, additional pollutants such as various sizes of PM, SO2 (from the
combustion of sulfur compounds in the fuel, waste gas, vent gas, etc.), CO and residual VOCs
(from the inevitable partial combustion or incomplete combustion of the fuel and the waste and
vent gases), NOx, and CO2 will be created.
First, given this wide range of possible pollutants from these “control” devices, DEQ should have
broken its BACT analysis into at least the categories of devices (i.e., flares, vapor combustors,
thermal oxidizers, etc.) instead of lumping them all together into one BACT analysis.
Second, and more important, DEQ should have separately considered the different pollutants.
Strategies to reduce NOx from these devices (i.e., low NOx burners; internal flue gas recirculation;
external flue gas recirculation, Selective Non-Catalytic Reduction, Selective Catalytic Reduction)
are not the same as the strategies to reduce SO2 (i.e., DSI). And strategies to reduce NOx or SO2
will not be the same as reducing VOCs and CO by achieving more complete combustion. In fact,
the strategies may conflict with one another – for example, an approach to reducing CO or VOCs
may actually increase NOx. Thus, DEQ’s attempt to simply lump all of these devices and conduct
one set of BACT analyses for all of the relevant pollutants that will be emitted is not technical
sound or defensible.
DEQ considered the following approaches in Step 1 of its BACT analysis.
1. Waste process gas minimization
2. Supplemental fuel minimization
3. Equipment design
4. Good combustion practices
5. Use of natural gas for pilot or supplemental fuel
I agree with DEQ that one strategy that will provide pollutant emission reductions in all situations
is prevention – i.e., minimizing the underlying waste gas volumes that will need to be “controlled”
by these devices. But disappointingly, DEQ’s overall discussion of this or any of the other
approaches such as Items 2, 3, and 4 in particular, are far too general and non-specific to be of any
practical use. I quote DEQ’ discussion of these ideas below:
Emissions associated with combusting waste process gas can be reduced by
minimizing the volume of waste process gas that is routed to a control device for
destruction. Waste process gas will be minimized through process gas recovery and
recycle within the process units.
The combustion units (flares, vapor combustors, and thermal oxidizers) will be
designed and operated to ensure that they provide the required destruction
efficiency. Supplemental fuel will be minimized by measuring the flow rate and
heat content of waste gas streams and adjusting the amount needed to maintain the
required minimum heat value for combustion. Specifically, the flares will be
monitored to ensure that there is ignition at all times that waste gas may be directed
to the flares. For the vapor combustors and thermal oxidizers, combustion will be
optimized through proper equipment design and maintenance per manufacturer
62
Ex. 1
ATTACHMENT E
recommendations, monitoring, and automated response systems. Pipeline quality
natural gas will be used for any supplemental fuel. 30
None of the underlined statements above are supported by details and are therefore simply
unenforceable under the terms of the Title V permits. And some are not even true. For example,
simply ensuring that a flare has a pilot light (i.e., there is ignition at all times) does not ensure a
proper flare operation or destruction efficiency. Although the last statement implies that only
pipeline natural gas will be used as supplemental fuel, the permits do not restrict that via any
enforceable permit condition. As to the rest, the statements I have underlined are mere expressions
of hope and have no practical significance in reducing emissions of the stated pollutants from these
many combustion sources. Thus, the BACT for this category of sources is not correctly supported
or determined.
Example 12 – All Sources (Fugitive, Combustion) - Greenhouse Gases
The proposed project has the capacity to emit 13,628,091 tons of GHG (carbon dioxide equivalent
or CO2e) on an annual basis by the applicant’s own calculations. That is more than all but the 13
largest emitters reported to the US Greenhouse Gas Inventory in 2017. 31
CO2, a greenhouse gas, will be directly emitted from the various combustion sources at the facility.
In addition, N2O, another GHG will also be emitted from combustion sources. Methane and sulfur
hexafluoride, additional and potent GHG, will be emitted from numerous fugitive sources
throughout the facility.
PSD regulations require BACT for all of these GHG. However, a meaningful BACT analysis for
GHG from the facility as a whole or from its different processes is simply lacking. The analysis
rejects carbon sequestration as prohibitively expensive as BACT for GHG, and instead determines
BACT to be unspecified design features and operational controls that will maintain high levels of
thermal efficiency and, by recovering and reusing waste heat, reduce fuel consumption and CO2e
emissions. None of these design and operational features are made enforceable, however, and they
have no apparent effect on the maximum CO2e emission rates (hourly and annual) presented in the
various permit applications, which are based on industry-wide average emission factors, for natural
gas combustion, etc.
As far as specific design methods and operational practices to reduce GHG, the draft PSD permit
notes the following from the boilers:
…use of a heat exchanger to recover heat from the exhaust gas to preheat incoming
boiler feedwater and maximize energy…By using an economizer (heat trap)
downstream of the boiler to use the energy in the flue gas to preheat the feedwater
entering the boiler, the boiler efficiency can be increased by 4-5%...
…return hot condensate for use as boiler feedwater, reducing the required preheater
feedwater and improving thermal efficiency…
…monitoring of oxygen concentration in the flue gas and adjusting the inlet flow
to maximize thermal efficiency… 32
30
PDS at 61-62, EDMS 1187336 (emphasis added).
31
Based on CO2e emissions reported to the USEPA Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory in 2017.
32
Draft PSD permit, page, 34.
63
Ex. 1
ATTACHMENT E
The permit recognizes that these options are technically feasible and cost-effective, and therefore
qualify as BACT for the control of GHG as follows: “BACT is determined to be the use of natural
gas or fuel gas as fuel, energy efficient design, and operational/maintenance practices as defined
in Step 4 above.” 33 Yet, despite this finding, the design and operational practices identified as
BACT were not incorporated into the GHG emissions calculations and are not incorporated as
enforceable conditions of the permit.
For example, the draft permit proposes a maximum CO2e emission rate for each of the UT1 and
UT2 boilers of 615,294 tons per year. That is actually slightly higher than the amount determined
by multiplying EPA emission factors (116.7 lbs CO2e/MMBtu) 34 by the maximum heat input of
each boiler operating 24 hours a day:
1200 MMBtu/hour x 116.7 lbs/CO2e/MMBtu x 8760 hours = 613,533 tons CO2e per year.
The EPA default emission factor does not include the kind of design and operational improvements
to thermal efficiency, i.e., recycling waste or hot condensate, that DEQ has identified as BACT for
control of greenhouse gases. The Clean Air Act requires pollution control methods that qualify as
BACT for specific sources or pollutants to be made enforceable in a major NSR permit. That can
be accomplished at the proposed plant by anticipating the impact the proposed efficiency
improvements will have on fuel consumption and reducing estimated emissions and making them
enforceable. The Title V permits must also establish operating parameters to ensure that
combustion is efficient and waste heat or condensate is recycled, and include continuous
monitoring and the disclosure and correction of deviations when parameters are not met.
The draft PSD permit identifies BACT pollution control methods that can limit CO2e from the
pyrolysis furnaces and cogeneration turbines. Like the boilers, however, these technically feasible
and cost-effective design and operating practices are not reflected in the CO2e emissions
calculations from the furnaces and turbines, which are not enforceable limits, in any case.
33
Id. at 35. (emphasis added).
34
https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2018-03/documents/emission-factors_mar_2018_0.pdf
64
Ex. 1
ATTACHMENT E
SECTION 5 – MONITORING AND VERIFICATION
As a preliminary matter, it was not clear why the facility is proposing 14 Title V permits. There
is significant duplication in the emissions, BACT, regulatory analysis, monitoring and other
aspects of these inter-related Title V permits. It is my opinion that just one single Title V permit
would have been sufficient for the complex. And doing so would be more consistent with the
goals of Title V, which was to provide the public with a single location for all applicable
requirements. The proposed permitting action directly defeats that goal by fragmenting the Title
V permits, with no explanation as to the necessity of doing so.
Turning to my review of the 14 Title V permits, the Clean Air Act is clear that major source permits
“shall include enforceable emission limitations and standards.” 42 USC 7661c(a). Yet, many of
the standards and limits in the proposed permits lack the specificity necessary to be enforceable as
a practical or legal matter. I discuss specific monitoring issues and provide suggestions to improve
monitoring and verification of emissions from the facility.
5.1 The Permits Should Contain Enforceable Conditions for Verifying Each
Assumption Made in the Applications
As a threshold matter, the entire permitting analysis but especially the modeling and impacts
analysis, and to an extent the BACT analysis (where certain BACT were rejected based on cost-
effectiveness grounds), depends on the accuracy of the emissions estimates. As I have discussed
in Section 3, it is clear that the PTE for all pollutants have been underestimated. Thus, it is critical
to have proper verification conditions in the permits. I discuss strengthening the verification
approaches in the next couple of sections below suggesting additional use of Continuous Emissions
Monitors (CEMS) and more frequency stack testing for some of the larger sources where such
approaches are technically feasible.
However, there are significant emissions from fugitive sources and smaller sources at the proposed
facility for which CEMS and stack testing may not be feasible or practical on an ongoing basis.
For those situations other types of testing – such as the confirmation of capture and control
efficiencies assumed by the applicant, the confirmation of the composition of various waste
streams, the confirmation of vendor-guaranteed emission rates, etc. – the Title V permits need to
contain explicit and detailed verification condition for all of the assumptions made in the PTE
calculations. Without such conditions the entire analysis rests on unverified assumptions and are
therefore not enforceable.
5.2 Continuous Emissions Monitors
Figure Sahu 4 below shows the types of CEMS currently incorporated in the various permits and
certain other parameters for the relevant sources. CEMS are the most direct means of continuously
collecting emissions data from sources. It is my opinion that therefore CEMS should be widely
used in order to reduce the uncertainty in confirming emissions in order to assure compliance with
limits. CEMS are also useful to the plant and process operators themselves since they provide a
65
Ex. 1
ATTACHMENT E
continuous measurement of emissions, which provide important details into the operational health
of the sources that are so monitored. Thus, where technically available, additional CEMS should
be included in the permits, along with the requisite requirements for initial certification, ongoing
calibration, periodic relative accuracy testing per approved quality assurance/quality control
(QA/QC) plans that is customary whenever CEMS are used. Where LDEQ does not require
available CEMs as suggested below, it must provide a rationale for its decision.
Figure Sahu 4 – Selected Parameters for Combustion Sources, Including Current CEMS
Heater / Boiler / Heat Input NH3 Slip

Location Mode SCR CatOx CEMS
Turbine (MMBtu/hr) (ppm)
ET1 Furnaces 1-10 MSS 155 Yes 15 // 10 NOx, CO, NH3

ET2 Furnaces 1-10 MSS 155 Yes 15 // 10 NOx, CO, NH3
ET1 Furnaces 1-10 Normal 372 Yes NOx, CO, NH3
ET2 Furnaces 1-10 Normal 372 Yes NOx, CO, NH3
Utility 1 Boiler (each) MSS 400 Yes 15 // 10 NOx
Utility 1 Boiler (each) Normal 1200 Yes NOx
Utility 2 Boiler MSS 400 Yes 15 // 10 NOx
Utility 2 Boiler Normal 1200 Yes NOx
Utility 2 Cogen - CT (each) MSS Yes Yes 10?? NOx
Utility 2 Cogen - CT (each) Normal Yes Yes 10?? NOx
Propylene Waste Heat Boiler Yes Yes 2 // 2 NOx, CO
Propylene Reactor Charge Heater Yes NOx
The last column in Figure Sahu 4 shows the types of CEMS currently included. The figure above
shows that although a few CEMS are now required, there are many additional opportunities for
CEMS.
First, as shown in Figure Sahu 4, each of the sources included will control NOx using SCR.
Ammonia is used as the reagent in the SCRs and will therefore be emitted, as evidenced by the
allowed ammonia “slip” shown in the table above. Thus, each source should have an ammonia
(NH3) CEMS. Many of the sources are currently missing the ammonia CEMS. On a related note,
each of these sources should also include ammonia slip limits – since several of them current are
missing such limits. I should add that, although I did not elaborate on this earlier, the ammonia
slip values in most cases are too high. There is no reason why any of the ammonia slip values
should be greater than 5 ppm. This is clearly entirely feasible because the ammonia slip for the
WHB is proposed to be 2 ppm. Therefore, even generously, slip should not exceed 5 ppm. Where
DEQ allows slip limits to exceed 5 ppm, it must provide a rationale for why the limit cannot be
less.
66
Ex. 1
ATTACHMENT E
Second, all of the sources above should have CO CEMS. It is especially important that the
combustion turbines, whose CO and VOC emissions are controlled by catalytic oxidation (CatOx
in the Figure above) include such CEMS in order to ensure that the CatOx controls are working
properly.
Third, as has been mentioned throughout these comments, properly estimating and controlling PM
(especially PM2.5) emissions are of critical importance given the modeled NAAQS violation for
the 24-hour NAAQS for this pollutant and the near-violation of the annual NAAQS for this
pollutant. Currently, only the filterable component of such PM emissions can be monitored using
CEMS. It is my opinion that each of the sources above include filterable PM2.5 CEMS. Where
LDEQ does not require CEMS for the filterable component of PM, it must provide a rationale for
such decision in the record.
Fourth, opacity should be monitored for each of the sources above using Continuous Opacity
Monitors (COMS). This will provide direct opacity measurements from these sources and avoid
the need to have manual Method 9 measurements. Where LDEQ does not require COMS for these
sources, it must provide a rationale for such decision in the record.
Fifth, each of the sources above should also have SO2 CEMS given the flexibility that they have
to burn not just pipeline quality natural gas but also fuel gas, which can contain varying amounts
of sulfur, which will convert to SO2 upon combustion. As noted earlier, the applicant’s modeling
was very close to the SO2 SIL and it avoided refined, cumulative modeling by the barest of
margins. Given that any margin of error would put the SO2 emissions over the SILs, DEQ must
require SO2 CEMS to assure compliance.
Sixth, each of the sources above should have CEMS for CO2, the most common GHG which will
be emitted by these combustion sources. As noted previously, current GHG emission estimates
use off-the-shelf emission factors for GHG, which do not properly represent CO2 (and other GHG)
emissions from the sources at this complex given the varying carbon contents of the fuel gas that
will be used in the sources listed in Figure Sahu 3. For this reason, DEQ must require CEMS for
CO2.
Seventh, each of the sources above should be required to have a continuous flow measurement of
the exhaust effluent or flue gases (sometimes called a “flow CEMS”). In combination with the
pollutant CEMS listed above, all of which measure the concentrations of the respective gases, the
flow CEMS will allow the calculation of pollutant mass emissions (i.e., pounds per hour) from
these sources. That will allow direct verification of the hourly emissions estimated from these
sources as noted in the applications.
Last, and as is typical, it is customary to also have an oxygen CEMS in order to make diluent
corrections as needed by various regulations (such as correcting a measured value to 3% or 15%
oxygen, etc.). DEQ must make clearly require that diluent CEMS be installed at the sources above.
Figure Sahu 2 below shows the locations of various VOC (and HAP) controls proposed for the
various plant areas. These include vapor combustors (VC), thermal oxidizers (TO), and
regenerative thermal oxidizers (RTO). Flares are not included in this list because their designs are
67
Ex. 1
ATTACHMENT E
not currently known and it is not clear if each of the flares will have stacks for which emissions
can be monitored or not. If any of the flares are the typical stack flare, direct emissions monitoring
from those is not possible. I have suggested a monitoring method for those flares in a later section.
Figure Sahu 2 – VOC (and HAP) Control Devices and Parameters
N2 Content, NOx EF Waste Gas,

Location TO // RTO // VC VOC/HAP Control Efficiency, %
Mol. % lb/MMBtu
ET1 VC A and B 48.82 0.14 98

ET2 VC A and B 48.82 0.14 98
Propylene VC A and B - 0.1 98
Polypropylene TO 30.59 0.06 99.9
HDPE1 TO A and B 64.82 0.098 99.9
HDPE2 TO A and B 64.82 0.098 99.9
EG1 TO 1.31 0.098 99.9
EG2 TO 1.31 0.098 99.9
LDPE RTO 1 and 2 ~Air 0.06 99
LLDPE TO A and B 78.18 0.098 99.9
Logistics VC A and B - 0.14 98
First, the purpose of these control devices listed in Figure Sahu 2 above is to control VOC and
HAP emissions and to achieve the listed control efficiencies shown in the last column. The proper
verification therefore is to install two VOC CEMs – one at the inlet and one at the outlet - for each
of the devices listed above.
Second, to the extent that all of the ground flares have stacks that can be monitored, the same two
VOC CEMS should also be included for each flares. In addition, the flare stakes should also be
monitored using CEMS for NOx, SO2, CO2, and filterable PM as well as COMs for opacity.
Third, in addition, as discussed for flares in Section 3 and also applicable to these sources, the
applications make unsupported (and incorrect) assumptions as to the NOx emission factors for
these sources, not taking into account the high levels of nitrogen in the waste gases to be combusted
in these source – and thereby underestimating NOx emissions from these sources. Therefore, NOx
CEMS should be required for each of these sources.
Fourth, COMS should be installed on each of these CEMS since opacity is a good indicator of
incomplete combustion conditions in each of these control devices.
Fifth, while not all of these sources might be candidate for other CEMS such as for SO2, filterable
PM, and CO2 etc. given their sizes, the largest of these sources should also be equipped with these
CEMS.
68
Ex. 1
ATTACHMENT E
5.3 More Frequent Stack Testing and Parametric Monitoring
As noted previously, CEMS are not currently available for all pollutants. These include
condensable PM (mostly PM2.5 various VOC HAPs, metal HAPs, etc. For these pollutants, stack
tests are the typical means of measuring emissions on a periodic basis. The permits currently do
not contain specific stack testing requirements with the proper frequency for each of these
pollutants.
Stack testing for these pollutants should be required for each of the flares that have stacks, each of
the sources listed in Figure Sahu 4, and each of the sources listed in Figure Sahu 2.
In addition to the customary initial stack tests that are typically required once the facility becomes
operational, the permits should require stack tests for these pollutants at least on an annual basis.
If the results of the first several such annual tests show marginal compliance or exceedances of the
assumed emissions from these sources, the frequency should be increased to quarterly. If, on the
other hand, annual tests show consistently lower-than-expected emissions under representative
conditions, then the frequency of such testing can be reduced.
In addition, since even periodic stack testing does not provide assurances with regard to
compliance between stack tests, the permits should include enforceable continuous parametric
monitoring. In parametric monitoring, appropriate process parameters are identified which affect
the emission of the pollutant at issue – such as a specific minimum temperature for a combustion
device to achieve a minimum destruction efficiency, for example. These parameters are monitored
during a compliant stack test and specific levels of these parameters are established during the test,
knowing that these specific levels ensure compliance with the related emission limit. Thereafter,
once the stack test is completed, the parameter is tracked to make sure that it is maintained at the
necessary level established during the stack test.
5.4 Verification of Destruction Efficiencies for Flares Using VISR
In previous discussion, I have commented on the optimistic and high values of destruction
efficiency assumed in the case of flares. Thus, verification of the DE is of paramount importance.
For those flares which will have stacks and not just an open flame at the top of a stack, previously
discussed methods – i.e., the use of CEMS (NOx, CO, SO2, CO2, opacity – at the stack; VOC – at
inlet and at the stack) should be used. In addition, stack testing for condensable PM, VOC HAPs
and metal HAPs should be required as discussed in the previous section.
For stack flares with open flames, however, direct testing is not possible. And as noted earlier, the
DE (and CE) depends on many factors which cannot be controlled in actual operating conditions.
Further, I have discussed how, even under ideal conditions, DE and CE can vary dramatically.
These measurements are now possible using techniques such as extractive sampling and Video
Imaging Spectral Radiometry (VISR), the latter using a product called MANTIS. 35
35
https://www.providencephotonics.com/events
69
Ex. 1
ATTACHMENT E
To address the lack of monitoring for stack flares, the respective permits should incorporate VISR
or similar methods in order to confirm, in real time, flare destruction efficiencies assumed for each
flare and to ensure that these efficiency values are being maintained under all conditions including
malfunction, startup and shutdown.
5.5 Verification of Fugitive Leaks Using Optical Gas Imaging
Deficiencies of LDAR programs, proposed to be used solely and extensively for managing leaks
from the thousands of components at the proposed facility, have been previously discussed in
Section 3. Because of these deficiencies, LDAR programs are being supplemented or replaced
with direct optical imaging programs, also called remote imaging. Optical imaging programs are
far more efficient at leak detection while also bringing the environmentally significant benefit of
quantifying leak emissions. These advantages as a control technology are so substantial that U.S.
EPA has since 2016 included optical gas imaging (OGI) in its NSPS standards for oil and natural
gas facilities, see 40 CFR Part 60, Subpart OOOOa.
Even industry has recognized that LDAR programs have many deficiencies and that OGI is a
superior method (as compared to LDAR) that can be used more effectively to detect the larger
leaks (which form the bulk of the emissions) quickly and then focus the repair effort on the larger
leakers. 36 This results in a more efficient process, better for both the operator and the environment.
In fact, the benefits of OGI and its superiority over LDAR in not only detecting but also quantifying
emissions have been recognized by industrial companies such as Exxon. Exxon owns IntelliRed,
an autonomous gas leak detection system described as follows:
“The system is designed primarily for process safety applications, but can be used
for environmental monitoring and product loss prevention. An IntelliRed™ system
includes one or more fixed IR cameras connected to a computer where a
sophisticated gas plume recognition algorithm resides. The algorithm constantly
processes the images generated by the IR camera, filters out non-gas plume objects
or other changes in the scene, and singles out gas plumes that may be present in the
scene. When gas plumes are detected, the system automatically sends an alert to
designated personnel….IntelliRed™ technology allows real-time gas plume
highlighting, with multistage leak confirmations, while filtering out common
interferences such as people and vehicles
36
There are many variants of OGI. As a recent paper by Ravikumar, et. al.
(http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.6b03906) states:
“The most common OGI technology for methane detection relies on infrared (IR) imaging. A
commonly used IR camera creates images of a narrow range of the mid-IR spectrum (3.3−3.4 μm
wavelength) which methane and other light hydrocarbons actively absorb. More advanced
technologies are under active development. For example, hyperspectral imaging acquires spectrally
resolved images, allowing differentiation between different hydrocarbon gas plumes. A related
technique called infrared gas-correlation, have been used to quantify leak rates of gases.”
70
Ex. 1
ATTACHMENT E
Remotely and autonomously detect hydrocarbon gas leaks at distances up to 500
feet
● Class 1, Division 2 classification and IP67 rating
● Ideal for installation on offshore platforms, drilling rigs, and other hazardous areas
where hydrocarbon gases could be present
● Various alarm options available for proactive leak detection and repair” 37
In fact, Exxon staff describe the differences between LDAR and OGI graphically as follows:
The advantages of OGI are obvious.
Considering the massive size of this plant, its location in an area where there are already impacts
by other sources, the adoption of optical imaging in the NSPS program, the DEQ should require
OGI at this facility as the tool to monitor for fugitive leaks, as a verification tool for the
effectiveness of any repairs made to VOC fugitive components, and to ensure that VOC (and
accompanying toxic HAP compound) emissions are minimized from the thousands of fugitive
components on an ongoing basis.
5.6 Fenceline Monitoring
I also recommend that the permits include conditions requiring the facility, given its large size,
proximity to an elementary school and residences, and the extensive quantities of fugitive VOC
37
https://www.providencephotonics.com/leak-detection
71
Ex. 1
ATTACHMENT E
emissions – which simply cannot be directly monitored, also include fenceline monitoring for
VOCs and selected hazardous air pollutants. For starters, the permits must include the conditions
for fenceline monitoring that required in the St. James Parish Council’s Jan. 23, 2019 resolution
approving Formosa’s land use application. That resolution requires Formosa conduct fenceline
monitoring to provide data on 1,3-butadiene, vinyl acetate, and ethylene oxide emissions in
accordance with 40 CFR 63.658. These requirements must be included as an operating condition
in the permits. In addition, the fenceline monitoring conditions should be expanded to include
VOC and additional HAPs benzene, formaldehyde, hexane, toluene, and xylenes. Further, the
complete monitoring plan must be made available to the public for comment.
Fenceline monitoring enables regulators to monitor what is leaving a facility and entering the
surrounding community and would provide monitoring necessary to assess whether the facility is
complying with standard permit requirements and determine whether the facility is emitting gases,
vapors, and other substances into the air in such manner and amounts as to endanger the health,
safety or welfare of the public. Without fenceline monitoring, there is no monitoring to ensure
VOCs from fugitive emissions, for example, are not entering the ambient air at levels that will
endanger the health, safety, and welfare of the surrounding community.
Fenceline monitoring has been successfully employed by a number of chemical plants such as
refineries and petrochemical plants over the past several decades. Examples include the Phillips
66 San Francisco Refinery, the Chevron Richmond Refinery in Richmond, California, the Shell Deer
Park Refinery and chemical Plant in Deer Park, Texas, and the Flint Hills Resources chemical plant in
Port Arthur, Texas. Notably, fenceline monitoring is also planned for a Shell petrochemical facility
under construction in the Ohio River Valley in Beaver County, Pennsylvania.
The fenceline monitoring proposed for the Beaver County Shell petrochemical facility was the
result of a settlement agreement following the administrative appeal of the facility’s air permit.
As part of the settlement, Shell agreed to employ fenceline monitoring that includes the use of at
least four continuous air monitoring systems (one upwind of the facility and three downwind of
the facility), each consisting of a Total Volatile Organic Compound Photo Ionization Detector
Analyzer capable of measuring and registering total VOC concentrations on a continuous basis
and reducing to 5-minute averages at a minimum detection level of 20 parts per billion by volume
(ppbv) and a Summa canister to be deployed when an action level is reached. 38 The Summa
canister must be sent to a third-party lab within two days of sample collection and must be replaced
with a new canister within 24 hours of deployment. 39
38
Settlement Agreement Between Shell Chemical Appalachia LLC and Clean Air Council and Environmental
Integrity Project (August 25, 2017) at Appendix A, 1-3, available at https://cleanair.org/wp-content/uploads/Final-
Settlement-Agreement-1.pdf.
39
Id.
72
Ex. 1
ATTACHMENT E
The fenceline monitoring system in place at the Phillips 66 San Francisco Refinery uses open-path
Fourier Transform Infrared (OP-FTIR) configurations on the north and south fencelines of the plant
and has been in operation since 1997. 40 The systems monitor twenty-six different compounds at
different concentration levels, with a monitoring frequency of five minutes, and they will sound
an alarm if a concentration level is exceeded. 41 In addition, the system has a “spectral library” of
over 300 chemicals, which it monitors and reports on a monthly basis. 42 The system also provides
real-time data that the facility makes available publicly online. 43 The Chevron Richmond Refinery
also provides real-time data to the public online, monitoring for benzene, toluene, xylene,
hydrogen sulfide, carbon disulfide, ozone, and sulfur dioxide. 44
The Shell Deer Park facilities installed their fenceline monitoring system as part of a July 2013
consent decree with EPA for Clean Air Act violations. 45 The Deer Park system includes an open-
path ambient air monitor to measure and record benzene concentrations in the ambient air at the
fence line and a meteorological station to record weather variables simultaneously, both of which
monitor on a five-minute frequency. If a “Screening Condition” is triggered, the operator must
begin a field investigation within twenty-four hours to identify the source of the emissions. 46
The fenceline monitoring system maintained by Flint Hills Resources chemical plant is also a
result of a settlement with EPA for Clean Air Act violations in March 2014. 47 As part of the
consent decree, Flint Hills Resources maintains two fenceline monitoring systems, each equipped
with a one-hour gas chromatograph that monitors concentrations of benzene and 1,3-butadiene on
an hourly basis, and a fifteen-minute gas chromatograph that monitors benzene concentrations
every fifteen minutes. 48 If any of these monitors reach the “Action Level,” Flint Hills Resources
personnel must conduct an investigation within twenty-four hours to identify the source of the
EPA, VOC Fugitive Losses: New Monitors, Emission Losses, and Potential Policy Gaps, 2006 International
40
Workshop D-3 (2006), available at http://www.epa.gov/ttnchie1/efpac/documents/wrkshop_fugvocemissions.pdf.

41
Id.
42
Id.
43
See http://www.fenceline.org/rodeo/data.php (last accessed December 5, 2018).
44
See http://www.fenceline.org/richmond/data.php (last accessed December 5, 2018).
45 See EPA, Shell Deer Park Settlement, http://www2.epa.gov/enforcement/shell-deer-park-settlement (last visited

Dec 5, 2018).
46
See Consent Decree, App. 2.9, United States v. Shell Oil Co., No. 4:13-cv-2009 (S.D. Tx. July 10, 2013),
available at http://www2.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2014-07/documents/sdp-cd.pdf.
47
See EPA, Flint Hills Resources, Port Arthur Clean Air Act Settlement, http://www2.epa.gov/enforcement/flint-
hills-resources-port-arthur-clean-air-act-settlement (last visited Dec. 5, 2018).
48
See Consent Decree, App. 5.1, at 1, United States v. Flint Hill Resources Port Arthur, LLC, No. 1:14CV169 (E.D.
Tx. March 20, 2014).
73
Ex. 1
ATTACHMENT E
emissions. 49 As part of the investigation, personnel are to contact the LDAR Group for leak
detection assistance, and LDAR technicians can assist using their TVA or a FLIRT IR Gas
Detection Camera. 50
Benzene is widely understood to be a risk to human health and is a known human carcinogen via
all routes of exposure. 51 To address this risk, U.S. EPA requires fenceline monitoring for benzene
for Petroleum Refineries subject to Maximum Achievable Control Technology regulations. 52 EPA
has stated that fenceline monitoring is an “improvement in the way fugitive emissions are managed
and will provide an extra measure of protection for surrounding communities.” 53 The adoption of
such technologies by numerous refineries and petrochemical plants demonstrates that this
technology is not only achievable, but a readily available and cost-effective technology for
managing fugitive emissions that is already being employed in the region.
5.7 Additional Comments on Certain LAC Permit Conditions
5.7.1 Permit Conditions Driven By Federal Regulations
Each of the Title V permits contains several permit conditions derived from applicable regulations.
One group of such permit conditions is based on applicable NSPS (i.e., 40 CFR Part 60),
NESHAPS (i.e., 40 CCFR Part 61), or MACT (i.e., 40 CFR Part 63) Federal regulations. While
enforceability of each of these provisions, especially to ensure continuous compliance, is an issue,
I will not be addressing, in this report, specific short-comings with regards to these regulations. I
will also not be addressing some of the LAC conditions that directly relate to or reiterate
compliance with these Federal regulations.
5.7.2 Permit Conditions Pertaining to LAC Regulations Reiterating BACT
In addition to the federal regulation driven conditions, the permits also contain LAC-derived
conditions. Of these, some simply reiterate the BACT limits which were established as part of the
PSD permit – and for which I have provided comments in Section 4 of this report. These are noted
as LAC 33:III.509 conditions in the respective permits. Therefore, Section 4, as applicable (since
I did not address each and every single BACT analysis), should be read as directly addressing these
LAC 33:III.509 BACT conditions.
49
Id., App. 5.1, at 2-3.
50
Id., App. 5.1, at 3.
51
EPA, Petroleum Refinery Fenceline Monitoring Stakeholder Engagement, Webinar for EJ Groups, Fenceline
Communities and the Public (June 22, 2016), available at https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-
06/documents/community_webinar_june_2016.pdf (last visited Dec 5, 2018).
52
Petroleum Refinery Sector Risk and Technology Review and New Source Performance Standards, 80 Fed. Reg.
75177 (Dec. 1, 2015).
53
Id.
74
Ex. 1
ATTACHMENT E
5.7.3 Permit Conditions Pertaining to LAC Regulations for Opacity
Some of the other LAC conditions deal with opacity. For example: LAC 33:III.1101.B; LAC
33:III.1311.C; LAC 33:III.1313.C; LAC 33:III.507.H.l.a; LAC 33:III.1105, etc. These appear in
each of the Title V permits in some combination. All of them deal with opacity from stack exhaust
sources such as all of the combustion devices discussed in these comments and from engines.
None of them use or consider COMS as the method of compliance. As is evident from its name,
COMS provides a continuous record of opacity from the source. Instead, all of the opacity related
regulations simply refer to the manual once-per-day type of Method 9 measurements as the means
of demonstrating compliance. This is simply inadequate. Manual methods, using human certified
“opacity readers” were developed at a time when COMS were not available. Manual methods
have obvious limitations. Clearly, they cannot be implemented frequently. Thus, as a token,
measurements are taken based on practicality (i.e., once per day, etc.) rather than on how the source
is or might be operating. In practice, Method 9 measurements for the types of sources at issue here
provide sporadic data for compliance. Method 9 measurements also have sighting and lighting
constraints that do not allow for valid measurements when the observer is not in the proper position
in relation to the source and the sun. Of course, such measurements are typically limited only to
daytime hours, while sources operate at all times. Given these significant limitations, it makes
sense to use COMS to the maximum extent possible – they provide continuous readings for
opacity, they can be used at all times, and they are readily available technology.
5.7.4 Additional Examples of Unenforceable LAC Regulation-Driven Conditions
I will discuss a few examples of permit conditions that appear in the Title V permit which are
simply not enforceable as written, and therefore meaningless. The examples given apply to every
instance that the insufficient condition appears in any of the 14 Title V permits.
Example 1
[LAC 33:III.507.H.1.a] (LDPE GRP 0015, Condition 186). “Equipment/operational data

monitored by technically sound method continuously.”
On its face, this requirement is completely vague and therefore meaningless. The “technically
sound method” should be specified.
Example 2
[LAC 33:III.2103.B] (Logistics EQT 0006, Condition 113) “Maintain working pressures sufficient
at all times under normal operating conditions to prevent vapor or gas loss to the atmosphere.”
This is another vague condition which could be made enforceable by simply noting the pressure
values – i.e., using numbers instead of words.
75
Ex. 1
ATTACHMENT E
Example 3
[LAC 33: III.5109.C.2] Ammonia only: Develop a standard operating procedure (SOP) within 120
days after achieving or demonstrating compliance…..”
This condition appears in several permits, where SCR is used to control NOx from combustion
sources and ammonia is the reagent used in the SCR process. The condition seems backwards.
The SOP for safe storage and handling of ammonia should be developed before any ammonia is
brought onto the facility and not “120 days after achieving compliance….” Furthermore, given
the location and proximity to residences and an elementary school, the SOP should be subject to
public comment before it is finalized.
Example 4
[LAC 33.III.2901.D] “Discharges of odorous substances at or beyond property lines which cause
a perceived odor intensity of six or greater on the specified eight point butanol scale as determined
by Method 41 of LAC 33:III.2901.G are prohibited.”
This condition appears in most of the permits, if not all of them. Yet, it is not clear how the
prohibition will actually be enforced. In a previous subsection, I discuss fenceline monitoring for
various organic compounds (which can cause odors) as a practical tool, now available and being
implemented in other chemical processing facilities. Such fenceline monitoring coupled with odor
verification can provide an enforceable approach to limiting odors as required by this regulation.
As written, this condition is unenforceable as a practical matter and therefore meaningless. To the
extent that this condition is reactive – i.e., it comes into effect after an odor is detected, such as by
a compliant from the public, the cause of that odor has to persist for hours and days before the
inspection to verify the odor can even occur. By then it is typically too late because odors from
chemical plants are episodic in nature both as to source and varying meteorological conditions. In
general, due to the lag in reacting to an odor compliant and then not being able to verify it, such
complaints, even though completely legitimate, are often dismissed since they could not be
verified. Fenceline monitoring will provide actual data which can be correlated to odor
compliance.
Example 5
[LAC 33:III.1103] “Emissions of smoke which pass onto or across a public road and create a traffic
hazard by impairment of visibility defined in LAC 33:III.111 or intensifies an existing traffic
hazard condition are prohibited.”
[LAC 33.III.1303 B] “Emissions of particulate matter which pass onto or across a public road and
create a traffic hazard by impairment of visibility or intensify an existing traffic hazard condition
arc prohibited.”
76
Ex. 1
ATTACHMENT E
These related (one for smoke and the other for particulate matter) general conditions appear in
every one of the Title V permits.
As written these conditions are only likely to come into effect in the event of a significant release
from a facility – such as during a fire or explosion. Of course, “prohibiting” smoke or particulate
matter from escaping the facility is typically the least of the worries under such circumstances.
As far as allowing such conditions to persist under routine circumstances, any emissions of smoke
or particulate matter across the facility boundary should be prohibited – and not just when the
smoke creates or exacerbates a traffic problem. No detectable smoke or particulate matter (for
example by members of the public or by observable visibility by plant staff) should be prohibited.
Example 6
[LAC 33:III.1305.A] “Prevent particulate matter from becoming airborne by taking all reasonable
precautions including, but not limited to, those specified in LAC 33:III.1305.A.1 through A.7.”
This condition or conditions similar to it appear in several of the Title V permits. The language is
vague, including in the referenced A.1 through A.7 portions of the regulation.
To make this condition enforceable, generally written “reasonable precautions” should be

strengthened to make them quantitative to the extent possible. That provides specific direction to
the facility as to what should be done and it also makes the condition enforceable.
Example 7
[LAC 33:III.2113.A] “Maintain best practical housekeeping and maintenance practices at the
highest possible standards to reduce the quantity of organic compounds emissions. Good
housekeeping includes, but is not limited to, the practices listed in LAC 33:III.2113.A.1 through
A.5.”
This condition or conditions similar to it appear in several of the Title V permits. The language is
vague, including in the referenced A.1 through A.5 portions of the regulation.
To make this condition enforceable, generally written “reasonable precautions” should be

strengthened to make them quantitative to the extent possible. That provides specific direction to
the facility as to what should be done and it also makes the condition enforceable.
77
Ex. 1
ATTACHMENT E
Attachment A
RANAJIT (RON) SAHU, Ph.D., QEP, CEM (Nevada)
CONSULTANT, ENVIRONMENTAL AND ENERGY ISSUES
311 North Story Place

Alhambra, CA 91801
Phone: 702.683.5466
e-mail (preferred): sahuron@earthlink.net
EXPERIENCE SUMMARY
Dr. Sahu has over twenty eight years of experience in the fields of environmental, mechanical, and chemical
engineering including: program and project management services; design and specification of pollution control
equipment for a wide range of emissions sources including stationary and mobile sources; soils and groundwater
remediation including landfills as remedy; combustion engineering evaluations; energy studies; multimedia
environmental regulatory compliance (involving statutes and regulations such as the Federal CAA and its
Amendments, Clean Water Act, TSCA, RCRA, CERCLA, SARA, OSHA, NEPA as well as various related state
statutes); transportation air quality impact analysis; multimedia compliance audits; multimedia permitting (including
air quality NSR/PSD permitting, Title V permitting, NPDES permitting for industrial and storm water discharges,
RCRA permitting, etc.), multimedia/multi-pathway human health risk assessments for toxics; air dispersion modeling;
and regulatory strategy development and support including negotiation of consent agreements and orders.
He has over twenty five years of project management experience and has successfully managed and executed
numerous projects in this time period. This includes basic and applied research projects, design projects, regulatory
compliance projects, permitting projects, energy studies, risk assessment projects, and projects involving the
communication of environmental data and information to the public.
He has provided consulting services to numerous private sector, public sector and public interest group clients.
His major clients over the past twenty five years include various trade associations as well as individual companies
such as steel mills, petroleum refineries, cement manufacturers, aerospace companies, power generation facilities,
lawn and garden equipment manufacturers, spa manufacturers, chemical distribution facilities, and various entities in
the public sector including EPA, the US Dept. of Justice, several states, various agencies such as the California DTSC,
various municipalities, etc.). Dr. Sahu has performed projects in all 50 states, numerous local jurisdictions and
internationally.
In addition to consulting, Dr. Sahu has taught numerous courses in several Southern California universities
including UCLA (air pollution), UC Riverside (air pollution, process hazard analysis), and Loyola Marymount
University (air pollution, risk assessment, hazardous waste management) for the past seventeen years. In this time
period he has also taught at Caltech, his alma mater (various engineering courses), at the University of Southern
California (air pollution controls) and at California State University, Fullerton (transportation and air quality).
Dr. Sahu has and continues to provide expert witness services in a number of environmental areas discussed above
in both state and Federal courts as well as before administrative bodies (please see Annex A).
78
Ex. 1
ATTACHMENT E
EXPERIENCE RECORD
2000-present Independent Consultant. Providing a variety of private sector (industrial companies, land
development companies, law firms, etc.) public sector (such as the US Department of Justice) and
public interest group clients with project management, air quality consulting, waste remediation and
management consulting, as well as regulatory and engineering support consulting services.
1995-2000 Parsons ES, Associate, Senior Project Manager and Department Manager for Air
Quality/Geosciences/Hazardous Waste Groups, Pasadena. Responsible for the management of a
group of approximately 24 air quality and environmental professionals, 15 geoscience, and 10
hazardous waste professionals providing full-service consulting, project management, regulatory
compliance and A/E design assistance in all areas.
Parsons ES, Manager for Air Source Testing Services. Responsible for the management of 8
individuals in the area of air source testing and air regulatory permitting projects located in
Bakersfield, California.
1992-1995 Engineering-Science, Inc. Principal Engineer and Senior Project Manager in the air quality
department. Responsibilities included multimedia regulatory compliance and permitting (including
hazardous and nuclear materials), air pollution engineering (emissions from stationary and mobile
sources, control of criteria and air toxics, dispersion modeling, risk assessment, visibility analysis,
odor analysis), supervisory functions and project management.
1990-1992 Engineering-Science, Inc. Principal Engineer and Project Manager in the air quality department.
Responsibilities included permitting, tracking regulatory issues, technical analysis, and supervisory
functions on numerous air, water, and hazardous waste projects. Responsibilities also include client
and agency interfacing, project cost and schedule control, and reporting to internal and external
upper management regarding project status.
1989-1990 Kinetics Technology International, Corp. Development Engineer. Involved in thermal engineering
R&D and project work related to low-NOx ceramic radiant burners, fired heater NOx reduction, SCR
design, and fired heater retrofitting.
1988-1989 Heat Transfer Research, Inc. Research Engineer. Involved in the design of fired heaters, heat
exchangers, air coolers, and other non-fired equipment. Also did research in the area of heat
exchanger tube vibrations.
EDUCATION
1984-1988 Ph.D., Mechanical Engineering, California Institute of Technology (Caltech), Pasadena, CA.
1984 M. S., Mechanical Engineering, Caltech, Pasadena, CA.
1978-1983 B. Tech (Honors), Mechanical Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology (IIT) Kharagpur, India
TEACHING EXPERIENCE
Caltech
"Thermodynamics," Teaching Assistant, California Institute of Technology, 1983, 1987.
"Air Pollution Control," Teaching Assistant, California Institute of Technology, 1985.
"Caltech Secondary and High School Saturday Program," - taught various mathematics (algebra through
calculus) and science (physics and chemistry) courses to high school students, 1983-1989.
"Heat Transfer," - taught this course in the Fall and Winter terms of 1994-1995 in the Division of Engineering
and Applied Science.
“Thermodynamics and Heat Transfer,” Fall and Winter Terms of 1996-1997.
U.C. Riverside, Extension
79
Ex. 1
ATTACHMENT E
"Toxic and Hazardous Air Contaminants," University of California Extension Program, Riverside, California.
Various years since 1992.
"Prevention and Management of Accidental Air Emissions," University of California Extension Program,
Riverside, California. Various years since 1992.
"Air Pollution Control Systems and Strategies," University of California Extension Program, Riverside,
California, Summer 1992-93, Summer 1993-1994.
"Air Pollution Calculations," University of California Extension Program, Riverside, California, Fall 1993-94,
Winter 1993-94, Fall 1994-95.
"Process Safety Management," University of California Extension Program, Riverside, California. Various years
since 1992-2010.
"Process Safety Management," University of California Extension Program, Riverside, California, at SCAQMD,
Spring 1993-94.
"Advanced Hazard Analysis - A Special Course for LEPCs," University of California Extension Program,
Riverside, California, taught at San Diego, California, Spring 1993-1994.
“Advanced Hazardous Waste Management” University of California Extension Program, Riverside, California.
2005.
Loyola Marymount University
"Fundamentals of Air Pollution - Regulations, Controls and Engineering," Loyola Marymount University, Dept.
of Civil Engineering. Various years since 1993.
"Air Pollution Control," Loyola Marymount University, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Fall 1994.
“Environmental Risk Assessment,” Loyola Marymount University, Dept. of Civil Engineering. Various years
since 1998.
“Hazardous Waste Remediation” Loyola Marymount University, Dept. of Civil Engineering. Various years since
2006.
University of Southern California
"Air Pollution Controls," University of Southern California, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Fall 1993, Fall 1994.
"Air Pollution Fundamentals," University of Southern California, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Winter 1994.
University of California, Los Angeles
"Air Pollution Fundamentals," University of California, Los Angeles, Dept. of Civil and Environmental
Engineering, Spring 1994, Spring 1999, Spring 2000, Spring 2003, Spring 2006, Spring 2007, Spring 2008,
Spring 2009.
International Programs
“Environmental Planning and Management,” 5 week program for visiting Chinese delegation, 1994.
“Environmental Planning and Management,” 1 day program for visiting Russian delegation, 1995.
“Air Pollution Planning and Management,” IEP, UCR, Spring 1996.
“Environmental Issues and Air Pollution,” IEP, UCR, October 1996.
PROFESSIONAL AFFILIATIONS AND HONORS

President of India Gold Medal, IIT Kharagpur, India, 1983.
Member of the Alternatives Assessment Committee of the Grand Canyon Visibility Transport Commission,
established by the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, 1992-present.
80
Ex. 1
ATTACHMENT E
American Society of Mechanical Engineers: Los Angeles Section Executive Committee, Heat Transfer Division,
and Fuels and Combustion Technology Division, 1987-present.
Air and Waste Management Association, West Coast Section, 1989-present.
PROFESSIONAL CERTIFICATIONS
EIT, California (#XE088305), 1993.
REA I, California (#07438), 2000.
Certified Permitting Professional, South Coast AQMD (#C8320), since 1993.
QEP, Institute of Professional Environmental Practice, since 2000.
CEM, State of Nevada (#EM-1699). Expiration 10/07/2017.
PUBLICATIONS (PARTIAL LIST)

"Physical Properties and Oxidation Rates of Chars from Bituminous Coals," with Y.A. Levendis, R.C. Flagan and
G.R. Gavalas, Fuel, 67, 275-283 (1988).
"Char Combustion: Measurement and Analysis of Particle Temperature Histories," with R.C. Flagan, G.R. Gavalas
and P.S. Northrop, Comb. Sci. Tech. 60, 215-230 (1988).
"On the Combustion of Bituminous Coal Chars," PhD Thesis, California Institute of Technology (1988).
"Optical Pyrometry: A Powerful Tool for Coal Combustion Diagnostics," J. Coal Quality, 8, 17-22 (1989).
"Post-Ignition Transients in the Combustion of Single Char Particles," with Y.A. Levendis, R.C. Flagan and G.R.
Gavalas, Fuel, 68, 849-855 (1989).
"A Model for Single Particle Combustion of Bituminous Coal Char." Proc. ASME National Heat Transfer
Conference, Philadelphia, HTD-Vol. 106, 505-513 (1989).
"Discrete Simulation of Cenospheric Coal-Char Combustion," with R.C. Flagan and G.R. Gavalas, Combust.
Flame, 77, 337-346 (1989).
"Particle Measurements in Coal Combustion," with R.C. Flagan, in "Combustion Measurements" (ed. N.
Chigier), Hemisphere Publishing Corp. (1991).
"Cross Linking in Pore Structures and Its Effect on Reactivity," with G.R. Gavalas in preparation.
"Natural Frequencies and Mode Shapes of Straight Tubes," Proprietary Report for Heat Transfer Research
Institute, Alhambra, CA (1990).
"Optimal Tube Layouts for Kamui SL-Series Exchangers," with K. Ishihara, Proprietary Report for Kamui
Company Limited, Tokyo, Japan (1990).
"HTRI Process Heater Conceptual Design," Proprietary Report for Heat Transfer Research Institute, Alhambra,
CA (1990).
"Asymptotic Theory of Transonic Wind Tunnel Wall Interference," with N.D. Malmuth and others, Arnold
Engineering Development Center, Air Force Systems Command, USAF (1990).
"Gas Radiation in a Fired Heater Convection Section," Proprietary Report for Heat Transfer Research Institute,
College Station, TX (1990).
"Heat Transfer and Pressure Drop in NTIW Heat Exchangers," Proprietary Report for Heat Transfer Research
Institute, College Station, TX (1991).
"NOx Control and Thermal Design," Thermal Engineering Tech Briefs, (1994).
“From Purchase of Landmark Environmental Insurance to Remediation: Case Study in Henderson, Nevada,” with
Robin E. Bain and Jill Quillin, presented at the AQMA Annual Meeting, Florida, 2001.
81
Ex. 1
ATTACHMENT E
“The Jones Act Contribution to Global Warming, Acid Rain and Toxic Air Contaminants,” with Charles W.
Botsford, presented at the AQMA Annual Meeting, Florida, 2001.
PRESENTATIONS (PARTIAL LIST)

"Pore Structure and Combustion Kinetics - Interpretation of Single Particle Temperature-Time Histories," with
P.S. Northrop, R.C. Flagan and G.R. Gavalas, presented at the AIChE Annual Meeting, New York (1987).
"Measurement of Temperature-Time Histories of Burning Single Coal Char Particles," with R.C. Flagan, presented
at the American Flame Research Committee Fall International Symposium, Pittsburgh, (1988).
"Physical Characterization of a Cenospheric Coal Char Burned at High Temperatures," with R.C. Flagan and G.R.
Gavalas, presented at the Fall Meeting of the Western States Section of the Combustion Institute, Laguna Beach,
California (1988).
"Control of Nitrogen Oxide Emissions in Gas Fired Heaters - The Retrofit Experience," with G. P. Croce and R.
Patel, presented at the International Conference on Environmental Control of Combustion Processes (Jointly
sponsored by the American Flame Research Committee and the Japan Flame Research Committee), Honolulu,
Hawaii (1991).
"Air Toxics - Past, Present and the Future," presented at the Joint AIChE/AAEE Breakfast Meeting at the AIChE
1991 Annual Meeting, Los Angeles, California, November 17-22 (1991).
"Air Toxics Emissions and Risk Impacts from Automobiles Using Reformulated Gasolines," presented at the Third
Annual Current Issues in Air Toxics Conference, Sacramento, California, November 9-10 (1992).
"Air Toxics from Mobile Sources," presented at the Environmental Health Sciences (ESE) Seminar Series, UCLA,
Los Angeles, California, November 12, (1992).
"Kilns, Ovens, and Dryers - Present and Future," presented at the Gas Company Air Quality Permit Assistance
Seminar, Industry Hills Sheraton, California, November 20, (1992).
"The Design and Implementation of Vehicle Scrapping Programs," presented at the 86th Annual Meeting of the
Air and Waste Management Association, Denver, Colorado, June 12, 1993.
"Air Quality Planning and Control in Beijing, China," presented at the 87th Annual Meeting of the Air and Waste
Management Association, Cincinnati, Ohio, June 19-24, 1994.
82
Ex. 1
ATTACHMENT E
Annex A
Expert Litigation Support
A. Occasions where Dr. Sahu has provided Written or Oral testimony before Congress:
1. In July 2012, provided expert written and oral testimony to the House Subcommittee on Energy and the
Environment, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology at a Hearing entitled “Hitting the Ethanol Blend
Wall – Examining the Science on E15.”
B. Matters for which Dr. Sahu has provided affidavits and expert reports include:
2. Affidavit for Rocky Mountain Steel Mills, Inc. located in Pueblo Colorado – dealing with the technical
uncertainties associated with night-time opacity measurements in general and at this steel mini-mill.
3. Expert reports and depositions (2/28/2002 and 3/1/2002; 12/2/2003 and 12/3/2003; 5/24/2004) on behalf of the
United States in connection with the Ohio Edison NSR Cases. United States, et al. v. Ohio Edison Co., et al., C2-
99-1181 (Southern District of Ohio).
4. Expert reports and depositions (5/23/2002 and 5/24/2002) on behalf of the United States in connection with the
Illinois Power NSR Case. United States v. Illinois Power Co., et al., 99-833-MJR (Southern District of Illinois).
5. Expert reports and depositions (11/25/2002 and 11/26/2002) on behalf of the United States in connection with
the Duke Power NSR Case. United States, et al. v. Duke Energy Corp., 1:00-CV-1262 (Middle District of North
Carolina).
6. Expert reports and depositions (10/6/2004 and 10/7/2004; 7/10/2006) on behalf of the United States in connection
with the American Electric Power NSR Cases. United States, et al. v. American Electric Power Service Corp., et
al., C2-99-1182, C2-99-1250 (Southern District of Ohio).
7. Affidavit (March 2005) on behalf of the Minnesota Center for Environmental Advocacy and others in the matter
of the Application of Heron Lake BioEnergy LLC to construct and operate an ethanol production facility –
submitted to the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency.
8. Expert Report and Deposition (10/31/2005 and 11/1/2005) on behalf of the United States in connection with the
East Kentucky Power Cooperative NSR Case. United States v. East Kentucky Power Cooperative, Inc., 5:04-cv-
00034-KSF (Eastern District of Kentucky).
9. Affidavits and deposition on behalf of Basic Management Inc. (BMI) Companies in connection with the BMI vs.
USA remediation cost recovery Case.
10. Expert Report on behalf of Penn Future and others in the Cambria Coke plant permit challenge in Pennsylvania.
11. Expert Report on behalf of the Appalachian Center for the Economy and the Environment and others in the
Western Greenbrier permit challenge in West Virginia.
12. Expert Report, deposition (via telephone on January 26, 2007) on behalf of various Montana petitioners (Citizens
Awareness Network (CAN), Women’s Voices for the Earth (WVE) and the Clark Fork Coalition (CFC)) in the
Thompson River Cogeneration LLC Permit No. 3175-04 challenge.
13. Expert Report and deposition (2/2/07) on behalf of the Texas Clean Air Cities Coalition at the Texas State Office
of Administrative Hearings (SOAH) in the matter of the permit challenges to TXU Project Apollo’s eight new
proposed PRB-fired PC boilers located at seven TX sites.
14. Expert Testimony (July 2007) on behalf of the Izaak Walton League of America and others in connection with
the acquisition of power by Xcel Energy from the proposed Gascoyne Power Plant – at the State of Minnesota,
Office of Administrative Hearings for the Minnesota PUC (MPUC No. E002/CN-06-1518; OAH No. 12-2500-
17857-2).
83
Ex. 1
ATTACHMENT E
15. Affidavit (July 2007) Comments on the Big Cajun I Draft Permit on behalf of the Sierra Club – submitted to the
Louisiana DEQ.
16. Expert Report and Deposition (12/13/2007) on behalf of Commonwealth of Pennsylvania – Dept. of
Environmental Protection, State of Connecticut, State of New York, and State of New Jersey (Plaintiffs) in
connection with the Allegheny Energy NSR Case. Plaintiffs v. Allegheny Energy Inc., et al., 2:05cv0885 (Western
District of Pennsylvania).
17. Expert Reports and Pre-filed Testimony before the Utah Air Quality Board on behalf of Sierra Club in the Sevier
Power Plant permit challenge.
18. Expert Report and Deposition (October 2007) on behalf of MTD Products Inc., in connection with General Power
Products, LLC v MTD Products Inc., 1:06 CVA 0143 (Southern District of Ohio, Western Division) .
19. Expert Report and Deposition (June 2008) on behalf of Sierra Club and others in the matter of permit challenges
(Title V: 28.0801-29 and PSD: 28.0803-PSD) for the Big Stone II unit, proposed to be located near Milbank,
South Dakota.
20. Expert Reports, Affidavit, and Deposition (August 15, 2008) on behalf of Earthjustice in the matter of air permit
challenge (CT-4631) for the Basin Electric Dry Fork station, under construction near Gillette, Wyoming before
the Environmental Quality Council of the State of Wyoming.
21. Affidavits (May 2010/June 2010 in the Office of Administrative Hearings))/Declaration and Expert Report
(November 2009 in the Office of Administrative Hearings) on behalf of NRDC and the Southern Environmental
Law Center in the matter of the air permit challenge for Duke Cliffside Unit 6. Office of Administrative Hearing
Matters 08 EHR 0771, 0835 and 0836 and 09 HER 3102, 3174, and 3176 (consolidated).
22. Declaration (August 2008), Expert Report (January 2009), and Declaration (May 2009) on behalf of Southern
Alliance for Clean Energy in the matter of the air permit challenge for Duke Cliffside Unit 6. Southern Alliance
for Clean Energy et al., v. Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC, Case No. 1:08-cv-00318-LHT-DLH (Western District
of North Carolina, Asheville Division).
23. Declaration (August 2008) on behalf of the Sierra Club in the matter of Dominion Wise County plant MACT.us
24. Expert Report (June 2008) on behalf of Sierra Club for the Green Energy Resource Recovery Project, MACT
Analysis.
25. Expert Report (February 2009) on behalf of Sierra Club and the Environmental Integrity Project in the matter of
the air permit challenge for NRG Limestone’s proposed Unit 3 in Texas.
26. Expert Report (June 2009) on behalf of MTD Products, Inc., in the matter of Alice Holmes and Vernon Holmes
v. Home Depot USA, Inc., et al.
27. Expert Report (August 2009) on behalf of Sierra Club and the Southern Environmental Law Center in the matter
of the air permit challenge for Santee Cooper’s proposed Pee Dee plant in South Carolina).
28. Statements (May 2008 and September 2009) on behalf of the Minnesota Center for Environmental Advocacy to
the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency in the matter of the Minnesota Haze State Implementation Plans.
29. Expert Report (August 2009) on behalf of Environmental Defense, in the matter of permit challenges to the
proposed Las Brisas coal fired power plant project at the Texas State Office of Administrative Hearings (SOAH).
30. Expert Report and Rebuttal Report (September 2009) on behalf of the Sierra Club, in the matter of challenges to
the proposed Medicine Bow Fuel and Power IGL plant in Cheyenne, Wyoming.
31. Expert Report (December 2009) and Rebuttal reports (May 2010 and June 2010) on behalf of the United States
in connection with the Alabama Power Company NSR Case. United States v. Alabama Power Company, CV-01-
HS-152-S (Northern District of Alabama, Southern Division).
32. Pre-filed Testimony (October 2009) on behalf of Environmental Defense and others, in the matter of challenges
to the proposed White Stallion Energy Center coal fired power plant project at the Texas State Office of
Administrative Hearings (SOAH).
84
Ex. 1
ATTACHMENT E
33. Pre-filed Testimony (July 2010) and Written Rebuttal Testimony (August 2010) on behalf of the State of New
Mexico Environment Department in the matter of Proposed Regulation 20.2.350 NMAC – Greenhouse Gas Cap
and Trade Provisions, No. EIB 10-04 (R), to the State of New Mexico, Environmental Improvement Board.
34. Expert Report (August 2010) and Rebuttal Expert Report (October 2010) on behalf of the United States in
connection with the Louisiana Generating NSR Case. United States v. Louisiana Generating, LLC, 09-CV100-
RET-CN (Middle District of Louisiana) – Liability Phase.
35. Declaration (August 2010), Reply Declaration (November 2010), Expert Report (April 2011), Supplemental and
Rebuttal Expert Report (July 2011) on behalf of the United States in the matter of DTE Energy Company and
Detroit Edison Company (Monroe Unit 2). United States of America v. DTE Energy Company and Detroit Edison
Company, Civil Action No. 2:10-cv-13101-BAF-RSW (Eastern District of Michigan).
36. Expert Report and Deposition (August 2010) as well as Affidavit (September 2010) on behalf of Kentucky
Waterways Alliance, Sierra Club, and Valley Watch in the matter of challenges to the NPDES permit issued for
the Trimble County power plant by the Kentucky Energy and Environment Cabinet to Louisville Gas and Electric,
File No. DOW-41106-047.
37. Expert Report (August 2010), Rebuttal Expert Report (September 2010), Supplemental Expert Report (September
2011), and Declaration (November 2011) on behalf of Wild Earth Guardians in the matter of opacity exceedances
and monitor downtime at the Public Service Company of Colorado (Xcel)’s Cherokee power plant. No. 09-cv-
1862 (District of Colorado).
38. Written Direct Expert Testimony (August 2010) and Affidavit (February 2012) on behalf of Fall-Line Alliance
for a Clean Environment and others in the matter of the PSD Air Permit for Plant Washington issued by Georgia
DNR at the Office of State Administrative Hearing, State of Georgia (OSAH-BNR-AQ-1031707-98-WALKER).
39. Deposition (August 2010) on behalf of Environmental Defense, in the matter of the remanded permit challenge
to the proposed Las Brisas coal fired power plant project at the Texas State Office of Administrative Hearings
(SOAH).
40. Expert Report, Supplemental/Rebuttal Expert Report, and Declarations (October 2010, November 2010,
September 2012) on behalf of New Mexico Environment Department (Plaintiff-Intervenor), Grand Canyon Trust
and Sierra Club (Plaintiffs) in the matter of Plaintiffs v. Public Service Company of New Mexico (PNM), Civil
No. 1:02-CV-0552 BB/ATC (ACE) (District of New Mexico).
41. Expert Report (October 2010) and Rebuttal Expert Report (November 2010) (BART Determinations for PSCo
Hayden and CSU Martin Drake units) to the Colorado Air Quality Commission on behalf of Coalition of
Environmental Organizations.
42. Expert Report (November 2010) (BART Determinations for TriState Craig Units, CSU Nixon Unit, and PRPA
Rawhide Unit) to the Colorado Air Quality Commission on behalf of Coalition of Environmental Organizations.
43. Declaration (November 2010) on behalf of the Sierra Club in connection with the Martin Lake Station Units 1,
2, and 3. Sierra Club v. Energy Future Holdings Corporation and Luminant Generation Company LLC, Case
No. 5:10-cv-00156-DF-CMC (Eastern District of Texas, Texarkana Division).
44. Pre-Filed Testimony (January 2011) and Declaration (February 2011) to the Georgia Office of State
Administrative Hearings (OSAH) in the matter of Minor Source HAPs status for the proposed Longleaf Energy
Associates power plant (OSAH-BNR-AQ-1115157-60-HOWELLS) on behalf of the Friends of the
Chattahoochee and the Sierra Club).
45. Declaration (February 2011) in the matter of the Draft Title V Permit for RRI Energy MidAtlantic Power
Holdings LLC Shawville Generating Station (Pennsylvania), ID No. 17-00001 on behalf of the Sierra Club.
46. Expert Report (March 2011), Rebuttal Expert Report (June 2011) on behalf of the United States in United States
of America v. Cemex, Inc., Civil Action No. 09-cv-00019-MSK-MEH (District of Colorado).
47. Declaration (April 2011) and Expert Report (July 16, 2012) in the matter of the Lower Colorado River Authority
(LCRA)’s Fayette (Sam Seymour) Power Plant on behalf of the Texas Campaign for the Environment. Texas
Campaign for the Environment v. Lower Colorado River Authority, Civil Action No. 4:11-cv-00791 (Southern
District of Texas, Houston Division).
85
Ex. 1
ATTACHMENT E
48. Declaration (June 2011) on behalf of the Plaintiffs MYTAPN in the matter of Microsoft-Yes, Toxic Air Pollution-
No (MYTAPN) v. State of Washington, Department of Ecology and Microsoft Corporation Columbia Data
Center to the Pollution Control Hearings Board, State of Washington, Matter No. PCHB No. 10-162.
49. Expert Report (June 2011) on behalf of the New Hampshire Sierra Club at the State of New Hampshire Public
Utilities Commission, Docket No. 10-261 – the 2010 Least Cost Integrated Resource Plan (LCIRP) submitted by
the Public Service Company of New Hampshire (re. Merrimack Station Units 1 and 2).
50. Declaration (August 2011) in the matter of the Sandy Creek Energy Associates L.P. Sandy Creek Power Plant on
behalf of Sierra Club and Public Citizen. Sierra Club, Inc. and Public Citizen, Inc. v. Sandy Creek Energy
Associates, L.P., Civil Action No. A-08-CA-648-LY (Western District of Texas, Austin Division).
51. Expert Report (October 2011) on behalf of the Defendants in the matter of John Quiles and Jeanette Quiles et al.
v. Bradford-White Corporation, MTD Products, Inc., Kohler Co., et al., Case No. 3:10-cv-747 (TJM/DEP)
(Northern District of New York).
52. Declaration (October 2011) on behalf of the Plaintiffs in the matter of American Nurses Association et. al.
(Plaintiffs), v. US EPA (Defendant), Case No. 1:08-cv-02198-RMC (US District Court for the District of
Columbia).
53. Declaration (February 2012) and Second Declaration (February 2012) in the matter of Washington Environmental
Council and Sierra Club Washington State Chapter v. Washington State Department of Ecology and Western
States Petroleum Association, Case No. 11-417-MJP (Western District of Washington).
54. Expert Report (March 2012) and Supplemental Expert Report (November 2013) in the matter of Environment
Texas Citizen Lobby, Inc. and Sierra Club v. ExxonMobil Corporation et al., Civil Action No. 4:10-cv-4969
(Southern District of Texas, Houston Division).
55. Declaration (March 2012) in the matter of Center for Biological Diversity, et al. v. United States Environmental
Protection Agency, Case No. 11-1101 (consolidated with 11-1285, 11-1328 and 11-1336) (US Court of Appeals
for the District of Columbia Circuit).
56. Declaration (March 2012) in the matter of Sierra Club v. The Kansas Department of Health and Environment,
Case No. 11-105,493-AS (Holcomb power plant) (Supreme Court of the State of Kansas).
57. Declaration (March 2012) in the matter of the Las Brisas Energy Center Environmental Defense Fund et al., v.
Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, Cause No. D-1-GN-11-001364 (District Court of Travis County,
Texas, 261st Judicial District).
58. Expert Report (April 2012), Supplemental and Rebuttal Expert Report (July 2012), and Supplemental Rebuttal
Expert Report (August 2012) on behalf of the states of New Jersey and Connecticut in the matter of the Portland
Power plant State of New Jersey and State of Connecticut (Intervenor-Plaintiff) v. RRI Energy Mid-Atlantic
Power Holdings et al., Civil Action No. 07-CV-5298 (JKG) (Eastern District of Pennsylvania).
59. Declaration (April 2012) in the matter of the EPA’s EGU MATS Rule, on behalf of the Environmental Integrity
Project.
60. Expert Report (August 2012) on behalf of the United States in connection with the Louisiana Generating NSR
Case. United States v. Louisiana Generating, LLC, 09-CV100-RET-CN (Middle District of Louisiana) – Harm
Phase.
61. Declaration (September 2012) in the Matter of the Application of Energy Answers Incinerator, Inc. for a
Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity to Construct a 120 MW Generating Facility in Baltimore City,
Maryland, before the Public Service Commission of Maryland, Case No. 9199.
62. Expert Report (October 2012) on behalf of the Appellants (Robert Concilus and Leah Humes) in the matter of
Robert Concilus and Leah Humes v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection
and Crawford Renewable Energy, before the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Environmental Hearing Board,
Docket No. 2011-167-R.
63. Expert Report (October 2012), Supplemental Expert Report (January 2013), and Affidavit (June 2013) in the
matter of various Environmental Petitioners v. North Carolina DENR/DAQ and Carolinas Cement Company,
before the Office of Administrative Hearings, State of North Carolina.
86
Ex. 1
ATTACHMENT E
64. Pre-filed Testimony (October 2012) on behalf of No-Sag in the matter of the North Springfield Sustainable
Energy Project before the State of Vermont, Public Service Board.
65. Pre-filed Testimony (November 2012) on behalf of Clean Wisconsin in the matter of Application of Wisconsin
Public Service Corporation for Authority to Construct and Place in Operation a New Multi-Pollutant Control
Technology System (ReACT) for Unit 3 of the Weston Generating Station, before the Public Service Commission
of Wisconsin, Docket No. 6690-CE-197.
66. Expert Report (February 2013) on behalf of Petitioners in the matter of Credence Crematory, Cause No. 12-A-J-
4538 before the Indiana Office of Environmental Adjudication.
67. Expert Report (April 2013), Rebuttal report (July 2013), and Declarations (October 2013, November 2013) on
behalf of the Sierra Club in connection with the Luminant Big Brown Case. Sierra Club v. Energy Future
Holdings Corporation and Luminant Generation Company LLC, Civil Action No. 6:12-cv-00108-WSS (Western
District of Texas, Waco Division).
68. Declaration (April 2013) on behalf of Petitioners in the matter of Sierra Club, et al., (Petitioners) v Environmental
Protection Agency et al. (Respondents), Case No., 13-1112, (Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit).
69. Expert Report (May 2013) and Rebuttal Expert Report (July 2013) on behalf of the Sierra Club in connection
with the Luminant Martin Lake Case. Sierra Club v. Energy Future Holdings Corporation and Luminant
Generation Company LLC, Civil Action No. 5:10-cv-0156-MHS-CMC (Eastern District of Texas, Texarkana
Division).
70. Declaration (August 2013) on behalf of A. J. Acosta Company, Inc., in the matter of A. J. Acosta Company, Inc.,
v. County of San Bernardino, Case No. CIVSS803651.
71. Comments (October 2013) on behalf of the Washington Environmental Council and the Sierra Club in the matter
of the Washington State Oil Refinery RACT (for Greenhouse Gases), submitted to the Washington State
Department of Ecology, the Northwest Clean Air Agency, and the Puget Sound Clean Air Agency.
72. Statement (November 2013) on behalf of various Environmental Organizations in the matter of the Boswell
Energy Center (BEC) Unit 4 Environmental Retrofit Project, to the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission,
Docket No. E-015/M-12-920.
73. Expert Report (December 2013) on behalf of the United States in United States of America v. Ameren Missouri,
Civil Action No. 4:11-cv-00077-RWS (Eastern District of Missouri, Eastern Division).
74. Expert Testimony (December 2013) on behalf of the Sierra Club in the matter of Public Service Company of New
Hampshire Merrimack Station Scrubber Project and Cost Recovery, Docket No. DE 11-250, to the State of New
Hampshire Public Utilities Commission.
75. Expert Report (January 2014) on behalf of Baja, Inc., in Baja, Inc., v. Automotive Testing and Development
Services, Inc. et. al, Civil Action No. 8:13-CV-02057-GRA (District of South Carolina, Anderson/Greenwood
Division).
76. Declaration (March 2014) on behalf of the Center for International Environmental Law, Chesapeake Climate
Action Network, Friends of the Earth, Pacific Environment, and the Sierra Club (Plaintiffs) in the matter of
Plaintiffs v. the Export-Import Bank (Ex-Im Bank) of the United States, Civil Action No. 13-1820 RC (District
Court for the District of Columbia).
77. Declaration (April 2014) on behalf of Respondent-Intervenors in the matter of Mexichem Specialty Resins Inc.,
et al., (Petitioners) v Environmental Protection Agency et al., Case No., 12-1260 (and Consolidated Case Nos.
12-1263, 12-1265, 12-1266, and 12-1267), (Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit).
78. Direct Prefiled Testimony (June 2014) on behalf of the Michigan Environmental Council and the Sierra Club in
the matter of the Application of DTE Electric Company for Authority to Implement a Power Supply Cost
Recovery (PSCR) Plan in its Rate Schedules for 2014 Metered Jurisdictional Sales of Electricity, Case No. U-
17319 (Michigan Public Service Commission).
79. Expert Report (June 2014) on behalf of ECM Biofilms in the matter of the US Federal Trade Commission (FTC)
v. ECM Biofilms (FTC Docket #9358).
87
Ex. 1
ATTACHMENT E
80. Direct Prefiled Testimony (August 2014) on behalf of the Michigan Environmental Council and the Sierra Club
in the matter of the Application of Consumers Energy Company for Authority to Implement a Power Supply Cost
Recovery (PSCR) Plan in its Rate Schedules for 2014 Metered Jurisdictional Sales of Electricity, Case No. U-
17317 (Michigan Public Service Commission).
81. Declaration (July 2014) on behalf of Public Health Intervenors in the matter of EME Homer City Generation v.
US EPA (Case No. 11-1302 and consolidated cases) relating to the lifting of the stay entered by the Court on
December 30, 2011 (US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia).
82. Expert Report (September 2014), Rebuttal Expert Report (December 2014) and Supplemental Expert Report
(March 2015) on behalf of Plaintiffs in the matter of Sierra Club and Montana Environmental Information Center
(Plaintiffs) v. PPL Montana LLC, Avista Corporation, Puget Sound Energy, Portland General Electric Company,
Northwestern Corporation, and Pacificorp (Defendants), Civil Action No. CV 13-32-BLG-DLC-JCL (US
District Court for the District of Montana, Billings Division).
83. Expert Report (November 2014) on behalf of Niagara County, the Town of Lewiston, and the Villages of
Lewiston and Youngstown in the matter of CWM Chemical Services, LLC New York State Department of
Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) Permit Application Nos.: 9-2934-00022/00225, 9-2934-00022/00231,
9-2934-00022/00232, and 9-2934-00022/00249 (pending).
84. Declaration (January 2015) relating to Startup/Shutdown in the MATS Rule (EPA Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2009-0234) on behalf of the Environmental Integrity Project.
85. Pre-filed Direct Testimony (March 2015), Supplemental Testimony (May 2015), and Surrebuttal Testimony
(December 2015) on behalf of Friends of the Columbia Gorge in the matter of the Application for a Site Certificate
for the Troutdale Energy Center before the Oregon Energy Facility Siting Council.
86. Brief of Amici Curiae Experts in Air Pollution Control and Air Quality Regulation in Support of the Respondents,
On Writs of Certiorari to the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, No. 14-46, 47, 48. Michigan et.
al., (Petitioners) v. EPA et. al., Utility Air Regulatory Group (Petitioners) v. EPA et. al., National Mining
Association et. al., (Petitioner) v. EPA et. al., (Supreme Court of the United States).
87. Expert Report (March 2015) and Rebuttal Expert Report (January 2016) on behalf of Plaintiffs in the matter of
Conservation Law Foundation v. Broadrock Gas Services LLC, Rhode Island LFG GENCO LLC, and Rhode
Island Resource Recovery Corporation (Defendants), Civil Action No. 1:13-cv-00777-M-PAS (US District Court
for the District of Rhode Island).
88. Declaration (April 2015) relating to various Technical Corrections for the MATS Rule (EPA Docket ID No. EPA-
HQ-OAR-2009-0234) on behalf of the Environmental Integrity Project.
89. Direct Prefiled Testimony (May 2015) on behalf of the Michigan Environmental Council, the Natural Resources
Defense Council, and the Sierra Club in the matter of the Application of DTE Electric Company for Authority to
Increase its Rates, Amend its Rate Schedules and Rules Governing the Distribution and Supply of Electric Energy
and for Miscellaneous Accounting Authority, Case No. U-17767 (Michigan Public Service Commission).
90. Expert Report (July 2015) and Rebuttal Expert Report (July 2015) on behalf of Plaintiffs in the matter of
Northwest Environmental Defense Center et. al., v. Cascade Kelly Holdings LLC, d/b/a Columbia Pacific Bio-
Refinery, and Global Partners LP (Defendants), Civil Action No. 3:14-cv-01059-SI (US District Court for the
District of Oregon, Portland Division).
91. Declaration (August 2015, Docket No. 1570376) in support of “Opposition of Respondent-Intervenors American
Lung Association, et. al., to Tri-State Generation’s Emergency Motion;” Declaration (September 2015, Docket
No. 1574820) in support of “Joint Motion of the State, Local Government, and Public Health Respondent-
Intervenors for Remand Without Vacatur;” Declaration (October 2015) in support of “Joint Motion of the State,
Local Government, and Public Health Respondent-Intervenors to State and Certain Industry Petitioners’ Motion
to Govern, White Stallion Energy Center, LLC v. US EPA, Case No. 12-1100 (US Court of Appeals for the District
of Columbia).
92. Declaration (September 2015) in support of the Draft Title V Permit for Dickerson Generating Station (Proposed
Permit No 24-031-0019) on behalf of the Environmental Integrity Project.
88
Ex. 1
ATTACHMENT E
93. Expert Report (Liability Phase) (December 2015) and Rebuttal Expert Report (February 2016) on behalf of
Plaintiffs in the matter of Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., Sierra Club, Inc., Environmental Law and
Policy Center, and Respiratory Health Association v. Illinois Power Resources LLC, and Illinois Power
Resources Generating LLC (Defendants), Civil Action No. 1:13-cv-01181 (US District Court for the Central
District of Illinois, Peoria Division).
94. Declaration (December 2015) in support of the Petition to Object to the Title V Permit for Morgantown
Generating Station (Proposed Permit No 24-017-0014) on behalf of the Environmental Integrity Project.
95. Expert Report (November 2015) on behalf of Appellants in the matter of Sierra Club, et al. v. Craig W. Butler,
Director of Ohio Environmental Protection Agency et al., ERAC Case No. 14-256814.
96. Affidavit (January 2016) on behalf of Bridgewatch Detroit in the matter of Bridgewatch Detroit v. Waterfront
Petroleum Terminal Co., and Waterfront Terminal Holdings, LLC., in the Circuit Court for the County of Wayne,
State of Michigan.
97. Expert Report (February 2016) and Rebuttal Expert Report (July 2016) on behalf of the challengers in the matter
of the Delaware Riverkeeper Network, Clean Air Council, et. al., vs. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Department
of Environmental Protection and R. E. Gas Development LLC regarding the Geyer well site before the
Pennsylvania Environmental Hearing Board.
98. Direct Testimony (May 2016) in the matter of Tesoro Savage LLC Vancouver Energy Distribution Terminal,
Case No. 15-001 before the State of Washington Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council.
99. Declaration (June 2016) relating to deficiencies in air quality analysis for the proposed Millenium Bulk Terminal,
Port of Longview, Washington.
100. Declaration (December 2016) relating to EPA’s refusal to set limits on PM emissions from coal-fired power
plants that reflect pollution reductions achievable with fabric filters on behalf of Environmental Integrity Project,
Clean Air Council, Chesapeake Climate Action Network, Downwinders at Risk represented by Earthjustice in
the matter of ARIPPA v EPA, Case No. 15-1180. (D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals).
101. Expert Report (January 2017) on the Environmental Impacts Analysis associated with the Huntley and Huntley
Poseidon Well Pad on behalf citizens in the matter of the special exception use Zoning Hearing Board of Penn
Township, Westmoreland County, Pennsylvania.
102. Expert Report (January 2017) on the Environmental Impacts Analysis associated with the Apex Energy Backus
Well Pad on behalf citizens in the matter of the special exception use Zoning Hearing Board of Penn Township,
Westmoreland County, Pennsylvania.
103. Expert Report (January 2017) on the Environmental Impacts Analysis associated with the Apex Energy Drakulic
104. Expert Report (January 2017) on the Environmental Impacts Analysis associated with the Apex Energy Deutsch
105. Affidavit (February 2017) pertaining to deficiencies water discharge compliance issues at the Wood River
Refinery in the matter of People of the State of Illinois (Plaintiff) v. Phillips 66 Company, ConocoPhillips
Company, WRB Refining LP (Defendants), Case No. 16-CH-656, (Circuit Court for the Third Judicial Circuit,
Madison County, Illinois).
106. Expert Report (March 2017) on behalf of the Plaintiff pertaining to non-degradation analysis for waste water
discharges from a power plant in the matter of Sierra Club (Plaintiff) v. Pennsylvania Department of
Environmental Protection (PADEP) and Lackawanna Energy Center, Docket No. 2016-047-L (consolidated),
(Pennsylvania Environmental Hearing Board).
107. Expert Report (March 2017) on behalf of the Plaintiff pertaining to air emissions from the Heritage incinerator
in East Liverpool, Ohio in the matter of Save our County (Plaintiff) v. Heritage Thermal Services, Inc.
(Defendant), Case No. 4:16-CV-1544-BYP, (US District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, Eastern
Division).
89
Ex. 1
ATTACHMENT E
108. Rebuttal Expert Report (June 2017) on behalf of Plaintiffs in the matter of Casey Voight and Julie Voight
(Plaintiffs) v Coyote Creek Mining Company LLC (Defendant), Civil Action No. 1:15-CV-00109 (US District
Court for the District of North Dakota, Western Division).
109. Expert Affidavit (August 2017) and Penalty/Remedy Expert Affidavit (October 2017) on behalf of Plaintiff in
the matter of Wildearth Guardians (Plaintiff) v Colorado Springs Utility Board (Defendant,) Civil Action No.
1:15-cv-00357-CMA-CBS (US District Court for the District of Colorado).
110. Expert Report (August 2017) on behalf of Appellant in the matter of Patricia Ann Troiano (Appellant) v. Upper
Burrell Township Zoning Hearing Board (Appellee), Court of Common Pleas of Westmoreland County,
Pennsylvania, Civil Division.
111. Expert Report (October 2017), Supplemental Expert Report (October 2017), and Rebuttal Expert Report
(November 2017) on behalf of Defendant in the matter of Oakland Bulk and Oversized Terminal (Plaintiff) v City
of Oakland (Defendant,) Civil Action No. 3:16-cv-07014-VC (US District Court for the Northern District of
California, San Francisco Division).
112. Declaration (December 2017) on behalf of the Environmental Integrity Project in the matter of permit issuance
for ATI Flat Rolled Products Holdings, Breckenridge, PA to the Allegheny County Health Department.
113. Expert Report (Harm Phase) (January 2018) and Rebuttal Expert Report (Harm Phase) (May 2018) on behalf of
Plaintiffs in the matter of Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., Sierra Club, Inc., and Respiratory Health
Association v. Illinois Power Resources LLC, and Illinois Power Resources Generating LLC (Defendants), Civil
Action No. 1:13-cv-01181 (US District Court for the Central District of Illinois, Peoria Division).
114. Declaration (February 2018) on behalf of the Chesapeake Bay Foundation, et. al., in the matter of the Section 126
Petition filed by the state of Maryland in State of Maryland v. Pruitt (Defendant), Civil Action No. JKB-17-2939
(Consolidated with No. JKB-17-2873) (US District Court for the District of Maryland).
115. Direct Pre-filed Testimony (March 2018) on behalf of the National Parks Conservation Association (NPCA) in
the matter of NPCA v State of Washington, Department of Ecology and BP West Coast Products, LLC, PCHB
No. 17-055 (Pollution Control Hearings Board for the State of Washington.
116. Expert Affidavit (April 2018) and Second Expert Affidavit (May 2018) on behalf of Petitioners in the matter of
Coosa River Basin Initiative and Sierra Club (Petitioners) v State of Georgia Environmental Protection Division,
Georgia Department of Natural Resources (Respondent) and Georgia Power Company (Intervenor/Respondent),
Docket Nos: 1825406-BNR-WW-57-Howells and 1826761-BNR-WW-57-Howells, Office of State
Administrative Hearings, State of Georgia.
C. Occasions where Dr. Sahu has provided oral testimony in depositions, at trial or in similar
proceedings include the following:
117. Deposition on behalf of Rocky Mountain Steel Mills, Inc. located in Pueblo, Colorado – dealing with the
manufacture of steel in mini-mills including methods of air pollution control and BACT in steel mini-mills and
opacity issues at this steel mini-mill.
118. Trial Testimony (February 2002) on behalf of Rocky Mountain Steel Mills, Inc. in Denver District Court.
119. Trial Testimony (February 2003) on behalf of the United States in the Ohio Edison NSR Cases, United States, et
al. v. Ohio Edison Co., et al., C2-99-1181 (Southern District of Ohio).
120. Trial Testimony (June 2003) on behalf of the United States in the Illinois Power NSR Case, United States v.
Illinois Power Co., et al., 99-833-MJR (Southern District of Illinois).
121. Deposition (10/20/2005) on behalf of the United States in connection with the Cinergy NSR Case. United States,
et al. v. Cinergy Corp., et al., IP 99-1693-C-M/S (Southern District of Indiana).
122. Oral Testimony (August 2006) on behalf of the Appalachian Center for the Economy and the Environment re.
the Western Greenbrier plant, WV before the West Virginia DEP.
90
Ex. 1
ATTACHMENT E
123. Oral Testimony (May 2007) on behalf of various Montana petitioners (Citizens Awareness Network (CAN),
Women’s Voices for the Earth (WVE) and the Clark Fork Coalition (CFC)) re. the Thompson River Cogeneration
plant before the Montana Board of Environmental Review.
124. Oral Testimony (October 2007) on behalf of the Sierra Club re. the Sevier Power Plant before the Utah Air Quality
Board.
125. Oral Testimony (August 2008) on behalf of the Sierra Club and Clean Water re. Big Stone Unit II before the
South Dakota Board of Minerals and the Environment.
126. Oral Testimony (February 2009) on behalf of the Sierra Club and the Southern Environmental Law Center re.
Santee Cooper Pee Dee units before the South Carolina Board of Health and Environmental Control.
127. Oral Testimony (February 2009) on behalf of the Sierra Club and the Environmental Integrity Project re. NRG
Limestone Unit 3 before the Texas State Office of Administrative Hearings (SOAH) Administrative Law Judges.
128. Deposition (July 2009) on behalf of MTD Products, Inc., in the matter of Alice Holmes and Vernon Holmes v.
Home Depot USA, Inc., et al.
129. Deposition (October 2009) on behalf of Environmental Defense and others, in the matter of challenges to the
proposed Coleto Creek coal fired power plant project at the Texas State Office of Administrative Hearings
(SOAH).
130. Deposition (October 2009) on behalf of Environmental Defense, in the matter of permit challenges to the
proposed Las Brisas coal fired power plant project at the Texas State Office of Administrative Hearings (SOAH).
131. Deposition (October 2009) on behalf of the Sierra Club, in the matter of challenges to the proposed Medicine
Bow Fuel and Power IGL plant in Cheyenne, Wyoming.
132. Deposition (October 2009) on behalf of Environmental Defense and others, in the matter of challenges to the
proposed Tenaska coal fired power plant project at the Texas State Office of Administrative Hearings (SOAH).
(April 2010).
133. Oral Testimony (November 2009) on behalf of the Environmental Defense Fund re. the Las Brisas Energy Center
before the Texas State Office of Administrative Hearings (SOAH) Administrative Law Judges.
134. Deposition (December 2009) on behalf of Environmental Defense and others, in the matter of challenges to the
proposed White Stallion Energy Center coal fired power plant project at the Texas State Office of Administrative
Hearings (SOAH).
135. Oral Testimony (February 2010) on behalf of the Environmental Defense Fund re. the White Stallion Energy
Center before the Texas State Office of Administrative Hearings (SOAH) Administrative Law Judges.
136. Deposition (June 2010) on behalf of the United States in connection with the Alabama Power Company NSR
Case. United States v. Alabama Power Company, CV-01-HS-152-S (Northern District of Alabama, Southern
Division).
137. Trial Testimony (September 2010) on behalf of Commonwealth of Pennsylvania – Dept. of Environmental
Protection, State of Connecticut, State of New York, State of Maryland, and State of New Jersey (Plaintiffs) in
connection with the Allegheny Energy NSR Case in US District Court in the Western District of Pennsylvania.
Plaintiffs v. Allegheny Energy Inc., et al., 2:05cv0885 (Western District of Pennsylvania).
138. Oral Direct and Rebuttal Testimony (September 2010) on behalf of Fall-Line Alliance for a Clean Environment
and others in the matter of the PSD Air Permit for Plant Washington issued by Georgia DNR at the Office of
State Administrative Hearing, State of Georgia (OSAH-BNR-AQ-1031707-98-WALKER).
139. Oral Testimony (September 2010) on behalf of the State of New Mexico Environment Department in the matter
of Proposed Regulation 20.2.350 NMAC – Greenhouse Gas Cap and Trade Provisions, No. EIB 10-04 (R), to
the State of New Mexico, Environmental Improvement Board.
140. Oral Testimony (October 2010) on behalf of the Environmental Defense Fund re. the Las Brisas Energy Center
before the Texas State Office of Administrative Hearings (SOAH) Administrative Law Judges.
91
Ex. 1
ATTACHMENT E
141. Oral Testimony (November 2010) regarding BART for PSCo Hayden, CSU Martin Drake units before the
Colorado Air Quality Commission on behalf of the Coalition of Environmental Organizations.
142. Oral Testimony (December 2010) regarding BART for TriState Craig Units, CSU Nixon Unit, and PRPA
Rawhide Unit) before the Colorado Air Quality Commission on behalf of the Coalition of Environmental
Organizations.
143. Deposition (December 2010) on behalf of the United States in connection with the Louisiana Generating NSR
Case. United States v. Louisiana Generating, LLC, 09-CV100-RET-CN (Middle District of Louisiana).
144. Deposition (February 2011 and January 2012) on behalf of Wild Earth Guardians in the matter of opacity
exceedances and monitor downtime at the Public Service Company of Colorado (Xcel)’s Cherokee power plant.
No. 09-cv-1862 (D. Colo.).
145. Oral Testimony (February 2011) to the Georgia Office of State Administrative Hearings (OSAH) in the matter
of Minor Source HAPs status for the proposed Longleaf Energy Associates power plant (OSAH-BNR-AQ-
1115157-60-HOWELLS) on behalf of the Friends of the Chattahoochee and the Sierra Club).
146. Deposition (August 2011) on behalf of the United States in United States of America v. Cemex, Inc., Civil Action
No. 09-cv-00019-MSK-MEH (District of Colorado).
147. Deposition (July 2011) and Oral Testimony at Hearing (February 2012) on behalf of the Plaintiffs MYTAPN in
the matter of Microsoft-Yes, Toxic Air Pollution-No (MYTAPN) v. State of Washington, Department of Ecology
and Microsoft Corporation Columbia Data Center to the Pollution Control Hearings Board, State of Washington,
Matter No. PCHB No. 10-162.
148. Oral Testimony at Hearing (March 2012) on behalf of the United States in connection with the Louisiana
Generating NSR Case. United States v. Louisiana Generating, LLC, 09-CV100-RET-CN (Middle District of
Louisiana).
149. Oral Testimony at Hearing (April 2012) on behalf of the New Hampshire Sierra Club at the State of New
Hampshire Public Utilities Commission, Docket No. 10-261 – the 2010 Least Cost Integrated Resource Plan
(LCIRP) submitted by the Public Service Company of New Hampshire (re. Merrimack Station Units 1 and 2).
150. Oral Testimony at Hearing (November 2012) on behalf of Clean Wisconsin in the matter of Application of
Wisconsin Public Service Corporation for Authority to Construct and Place in Operation a New Multi-Pollutant
Control Technology System (ReACT) for Unit 3 of the Weston Generating Station, before the Public Service
Commission of Wisconsin, Docket No. 6690-CE-197.
151. Deposition (March 2013) in the matter of various Environmental Petitioners v. North Carolina DENR/DAQ and
Carolinas Cement Company, before the Office of Administrative Hearings, State of North Carolina.
152. Deposition (August 2013) on behalf of the Sierra Club in connection with the Luminant Big Brown Case. Sierra
Club v. Energy Future Holdings Corporation and Luminant Generation Company LLC, Civil Action No. 6:12-
cv-00108-WSS (Western District of Texas, Waco Division).
153. Deposition (August 2013) on behalf of the Sierra Club in connection with the Luminant Martin Lake Case. Sierra
Club v. Energy Future Holdings Corporation and Luminant Generation Company LLC, Civil Action No. 5:10-
cv-0156-MHS-CMC (Eastern District of Texas, Texarkana Division).
154. Deposition (February 2014) on behalf of the United States in United States of America v. Ameren Missouri, Civil
Action No. 4:11-cv-00077-RWS (Eastern District of Missouri, Eastern Division).
155. Trial Testimony (February 2014) in the matter of Environment Texas Citizen Lobby, Inc and Sierra Club v.
ExxonMobil Corporation et al., Civil Action No. 4:10-cv-4969 (Southern District of Texas, Houston Division).
156. Trial Testimony (February 2014) on behalf of the Sierra Club in connection with the Luminant Big Brown Case.
Sierra Club v. Energy Future Holdings Corporation and Luminant Generation Company LLC, Civil Action No.
6:12-cv-00108-WSS (Western District of Texas, Waco Division).
157. Deposition (June 2014) and Trial (August 2014) on behalf of ECM Biofilms in the matter of the US Federal
Trade Commission (FTC) v. ECM Biofilms (FTC Docket #9358).
92
Ex. 1
ATTACHMENT E
158. Deposition (February 2015) on behalf of Plaintiffs in the matter of Sierra Club and Montana Environmental
Information Center (Plaintiffs) v. PPL Montana LLC, Avista Corporation, Puget Sound Energy, Portland
General Electric Company, Northwestern Corporation, and Pacificorp (Defendants), Civil Action No. CV 13-
32-BLG-DLC-JCL (US District Court for the District of Montana, Billings Division).
159. Oral Testimony at Hearing (April 2015) on behalf of Niagara County, the Town of Lewiston, and the Villages of
Lewiston and Youngstown in the matter of CWM Chemical Services, LLC New York State Department of
Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) Permit Application Nos.: 9-2934-00022/00225, 9-2934-00022/00231,
9-2934-00022/00232, and 9-2934-00022/00249 (pending).
160. Deposition (August 2015) on behalf of Plaintiff in the matter of Conservation Law Foundation (Plaintiff) v.
Broadrock Gas Services LLC, Rhode Island LFG GENCO LLC, and Rhode Island Resource Recovery
Corporation (Defendants), Civil Action No. 1:13-cv-00777-M-PAS (US District Court for the District of Rhode
Island).
161. Testimony at Hearing (August 2015) on behalf of the Sierra Club in the matter of Amendments to 35 Illinois
Administrative Code Parts 214, 217, and 225 before the Illinois Pollution Control Board, R15-21.
162. Deposition (May 2015) on behalf of Plaintiffs in the matter of Northwest Environmental Defense Center et. al.,
(Plaintiffs) v. Cascade Kelly Holdings LLC, d/b/a Columbia Pacific Bio-Refinery, and Global Partners LP
(Defendants), Civil Action No. 3:14-cv-01059-SI (US District Court for the District of Oregon, Portland
Division).
163. Trial Testimony (October 2015) on behalf of Plaintiffs in the matter of Northwest Environmental Defense Center
et. al., (Plaintiffs) v. Cascade Kelly Holdings LLC, d/b/a Columbia Pacific Bio-Refinery, and Global Partners LP
(Defendants), Civil Action No. 3:14-cv-01059-SI (US District Court for the District of Oregon, Portland
Division).
164. Deposition (April 2016) on behalf of the Plaintiffs in UNatural Resources Defense Council, Respiratory Health
Association, and Sierra Club (Plaintiffs) v. Illinois Power Resources LLC and Illinois Power Resources
Generation LLC (Defendants), Civil Action No. 1:13-cv-01181 (Central District of Illinois, Peoria Division).
165. Trial Testimony at Hearing (July 2016) in the matter of Tesoro Savage LLC Vancouver Energy Distribution
Terminal, Case No. 15-001 before the State of Washington Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council.
166. Trial Testimony (December 2016) on behalf of the challengers in the matter of the Delaware Riverkeeper
Network, Clean Air Council, et. al., vs. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection
and R. E. Gas Development LLC regarding the Geyer well site before the Pennsylvania Environmental Hearing
Board.
167. Trial Testimony (July-August 2016) on behalf of the United States in United States of America v. Ameren
Missouri, Civil Action No. 4:11-cv-00077-RWS (Eastern District of Missouri, Eastern Division).
168. Trial Testimony (January 2017) on the Environmental Impacts Analysis associated with the Huntley and Huntley
Poseidon Well Pad Hearing on behalf citizens in the matter of the special exception use Zoning Hearing Board
of Penn Township, Westmoreland County, Pennsylvania.
169. Trial Testimony (January 2017) on the Environmental Impacts Analysis associated with the Apex energy Backus
Well Pad Hearing on behalf citizens in the matter of the special exception use Zoning Hearing Board of Penn
170. Trial Testimony (January 2017) on the Environmental Impacts Analysis associated with the Apex energy
Drakulic Well Pad Hearing on behalf citizens in the matter of the special exception use Zoning Hearing Board of
Penn Township, Westmoreland County, Pennsylvania.
171. Trial Testimony (January 2017) on the Environmental Impacts Analysis associated with the Apex energy Deutsch
Well Pad Hearing on behalf citizens in the matter of the special exception use Zoning Hearing Board of Penn
172. Deposition Testimony (July 2017) on behalf of Plaintiffs in the matter of Casey Voight and Julie Voight v Coyote
Creek Mining Company LLC (Defendant) Civil Action No. 1:15-CV-00109 (US District Court for the District of
North Dakota, Western Division).
93
Ex. 1
ATTACHMENT E
173. Deposition Testimony (November 2017) on behalf of Defendant in the matter of Oakland Bulk and Oversized
Terminal (Plaintiff) v City of Oakland (Defendant,) Civil Action No. 3:16-cv-07014-VC (US District Court for
the Northern District of California, San Francisco Division).
174. Deposition Testimony (December 2017) on behalf of Plaintiff in the matter of Wildearth Guardians (Plaintiff) v
Colorado Springs Utility Board (Defendant) Civil Action No. 1:15-cv-00357-CMA-CBS (US District Court for
the District of Colorado).
175. Deposition Testimony (January 2018) in the matter of National Parks Conservation Association (NPCA) v. State
of Washington Department of Ecology and British Petroleum (BP) before the Washington Pollution Control
Hearing Board, Case No. 17-055.
176. Trial Testimony (January 2018) on behalf of Defendant in the matter of Oakland Bulk and Oversized Terminal
(Plaintiff) v City of Oakland (Defendant,) Civil Action No. 3:16-cv-07014-VC (US District Court for the Northern
District of California, San Francisco Division).
177. Trial Testimony (April 2018) on behalf of the National Parks Conservation Association (NPCA) in the matter of
NPCA v State of Washington, Department of Ecology and BP West Coast Products, LLC, PCHB No. 17-055
(Pollution Control Hearings Board for the State of Washington.
94
Ex. 1
ATTACHMENT E
Attachment B
95
Ex. 1
ATTACHMENT E
Formosa - Annual Inventory (from Statement of Basis), tons/year
Ethylene 1 Ethylene 2 EG 1 EG 2 HDPE 1 HDPE 2 LLDPE LDPE Propylene Polypropylene Logistics Utility 1 Utility 2 WWT ALL %, Highlighted
PM10 64.02 64.02 CT; Pyrolysis Furnaces; Vapor Combustors 8.79 8.79 5.4 5.4 2.84 5.42 10.07 8.4 0.05 62.86 Boilers 143.33 Boiler; Cogens 389.39 0.858
PM2.5 56.32 56.32 CT; Pyrolysis Furnaces; Vapor Combustors 3.49 3.49 2.82 2.82 1.61 3.46 6.72 5.51 0.05 60.52 Boilers 138.63 Boiler; Cogens 341.76 0.912
SO2 15.12 15.12 Furnaces; Flare 0.14 0.14 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.06 32.26 Waste Heat Boiler 0.02 0.03 6.21 Boilers 13.71 Boiler; Cogens 82.9 0.994
NOx 361.89 361.8 Furnaces; Flares; Combustors 47.33 47.28 Thermal Oxidizer 10.15 10.15 12.14 14.92 71.25 WHB; Reactor Charge Heater 13.29 0.93 114.18 Boilers 177.22 Boiler; Cogens 1242.53 0.950
CO 806.22 805.8 47.23 46.95 10.05 10.05 20.44 58.09 153.6 31.6 2.07 418.57 358.26 2768.93
VOC, total 255.19 254.25 Furnaces; Flares; Combustors; CT; Fugitives) 33.85 33.19 95.88 95.88 Fugitives; Pellet Handling; CT 81.89 Fugitives; Flares; CT; TO; Pellet Handling 221 Fugitives; Flares; CT; TO; Pellet Handling; Plus Others 137.73 Fugitives; CT, Flare; WHB; Reactor Charge Heater 224.95 Fugitives; CT; Pellet Handling; Oil Heater; Flares; TO 31.5 Fugitives, Vapor Combustors 69.65 Boilers 110.96 Boiler; Cogens 21.97 Fugitives 1667.89 0.928
CO2e 3900085 3899871 459801 459674 16027 16027 20539 90750 631588 32627 724 1234249 2866129 13628091
1,3-Butadiene 10.63 10.29 See VOC 0.33 Missing 0.05 0.5 0.09 2 23.89
Acetaldehyde 4.94 4.94 7.9 17.78 1.000
Ammonia 72.91 72.91 See NOx 0.02 0.02 15.73 48.86 See NOx 226.27 See NOx 0.03 436.75 0.964
Benzene 11.08 11.08 See VOC 0.02 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.47 0.01 1.3 0.48 10.49 0.04 0.26 1.31 36.58 0.893
Cumene 0.53 0.53 0.01 0.01 0.05 1.13
Dibutyl Phthalate 0.01 0.01
Dimethyl Sulfate 0.04 0.04 0.08
Ethyl Benzene 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.01 0.03 0.01 0.14 0.19 0.46
Ethylene Glycol 6.82 6.82 3.57 3.57 23.97 0.01 44.76 0.840
Ethylene Oxide 3.85 3.85 7.7 1.000
Formaldehyde 1.36 1.36 See VOC 0.05 0.05 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.04 0.01 0.01 0.78 See VOC 5.17 See VOC 0.03 8.9 0.974
Hydrogen Sulfide 0.03 0.03 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.01 0.13
Methanol 0.02 0.02 0.04
Naphthalene 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.16
n-Hexane 5.37 5.37 See VOC 0.02 0.02 51.73 51.73 See VOC 0.01 25.95 See VOC 5.19 0.86 0.04 0.43 146.72 0.991
Phenol 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.03 0.11
Propionaldehyde 0.48 0.48
Styrene 0.31 0.31 0.02 0.03 0.02 0.13 0.82
Sulfuric Acid 0.4 5.62 6.02 0.934
Toluene 1.64 1.64 See VOC 0.02 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.08 0.01 0.36 0.08 1.2 0.06 2.49 See VOC 0.79 8.41 0.923
Vinyl Acetate 59.84 See VOC 59.84 1.000
Xylenes 0.16 0.16 0.02 0.73 See VOC 0.02 1.09 2.18 0.835
Total TAP 104.16 103.82 16.13 15.8 55.33 55.33 0.68 60.35 18.78 26.68 44.31 51 239.85 10.73 802.95
Ex. 1
ATTACHMENT E
Councilman _____ moved, seconded by Councilman _______ for adoption of the following
resolution regarding the appeal by RISE St. James of the St. James Parish Planning Commission’s
October 30, 2018 approval of the land use application by FG LA LLC to build a chemical manufacturing
complex:
RESOLUTION 19-
ST. JAMES PARISH COUNCIL
A RESOLUTION DENYING THE APPEAL OF RISE ST. JAMES AND

APPROVING THE APPLICATION OF FG LA LLC UNDER THE ST. JAMES
PARISH LAND USE ORDINANCE, WITH CONDITIONS
WHEREAS, FG LA LLC (“FG”) requested approval of a proposed chemical manufacturing

complex in an application dated June 25, 2018, as supplemented (the original application and
supplemental information collectively referred to in this resolution as the “Application,” and identified
in the records of the St. James Parish Planning Commission as Item #18-30); and
WHEREAS, representatives of FG presented an overview of the application at the planning

commission’s July 27, 2018 meeting, at which the commission heard public comments on the proposal;
WHEREAS, public hearings were held on FG’s proposal on September 5, 2018 in Convent
and on September 19, 2018 in Vacherie after public notice; and
WHEREAS, based on concerns expressed at the public hearings and on an evaluation of the
requirements of the St. James Parish land use ordinance, the parish administration requested FG to
evaluate potential failure scenarios, with particular attention paid to the locations of concern nearest the
operating units of the proposed complex, those locations being St. Louis Academy and the new Mount
Calvary Baptist Church near Big Boy Road on Louisiana Highway 18; and
WHEREAS, the planning commission approved the Application on October 30, 2018 under
Section 86-37(f) of the St. James Parish Code of Ordinances after considering the information presented
in the Application, presentations made to the Planning Commission, comments presented at public
hearings, and the analyses of the parish administration and consultants, along with the provisions of
Section 86-37 of the Code of Ordinances and the St. James Parish Comprehensive Plan; and
WHEREAS, RISE St. James timely appealed the foregoing approval in a letter dated
November 28, 2018, as supplemented by an addendum to that letter dated November 29, 2018; and
WHEREAS, FG responded to RISE St. James’ appeal in a letter dated December 17, 2018;
and
WHEREAS, at its December 19, 2018 meeting, the council heard arguments on the appeal
from representatives of both RISE St. James and FG, along with public comments on the appeal, as
provided for in the Louisiana Open Meetings Law; and
WHEREAS, in its Application, in various presentations to the planning commission and the
parish council, as confirmed and augmented in its presentation to the parish council on December 19,
2018, FG voluntarily committed to implement training and hiring practices to enhance employment
opportunities for residents of St. James Parish; to support developing an alternative access route between
River Road/Highway 18 and Highway 3127; to support free health screenings for residents; and to
support beautification efforts in District 5; and environmental monitoring; and
WHEREAS, FG has entered into a Cooperative Endeavor Agreement (CEA) with the State of
Louisiana (Louisiana) and the Louisiana Department of Economic Development (LED), in which,
among other things, Louisiana and LED agreed to provide customized workforce support through the
LED FastStart Program, including assistance with employee recruitment, screening, and training
development and delivery; and
WHEREAS, FG has adopted a “Think Local Policy” in which FG committed to strive to give
preference to qualified persons and firms in St. James Parish and the State of Louisiana (commensurate
with applicable federal, state, and local laws); and
WHEREAS, FG’s Think Local Policy solidifies its commitment to hire qualified, local
residents and use local businesses as much as possible throughout the construction and operation phases.
In the CEA, the State of Louisiana and LED agreed to provide customized workforce support through
the LED FastStart Program, including assistance with employee recruitment, screening, and training
development and delivery. It is expected that through the LED FastStart Program and other programs,
mechanisms, or processes, FG will be able to identify and hire “qualified persons,” that is, persons who
are qualified to perform the task(s) of the position(s) for which they are hired; and
WHEREAS, In the CEA, FG agreed to LED tracking, through a Contract Monitor, FG’s
obligations in the CEA, including the establishment of the facility, capital expenditures for the facility,
jobs and payroll, the use of Louisiana manufacturers, suppliers, contractors and subcontractors; and
ATTACHMENT F
WHEREAS, at its December 19, 2018 meeting, the parish council determined that RISE St.
James appeal should be denied, subject to conditions on the approval of the application in addition to
those adopted by the planning commission;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that under Section 86-37(f) of the St. James Parish
Code of Ordinances, the parish council hereby denies the RISE ST. James appeal and upholds the
planning commission’s approval of FG’s Application, subject to the conditions stated below, which
include the conditions originally adopted by the planning commission, along with additional conditions
deemed necessary by the parish council to achieve the anticipated benefits of FG’s facility in a way that
would be commensurate with its physical and environmental impacts.
A. Extent of Approval and Future Changes within the Facility Footprint: This
approval is limited to the facility as presented in the Application, including both Phase I and Phase II
described therein, along with reasonable modifications and expansions, subject to the following
limitations on any modification or expansion:
(1) Process or production facilities shall not extend beyond the footprint within
the 300 foot civil buffer depicted in the plot plan submitted with the
Application;
(2) Any modification or expansion must be designed so that it does not materially
increase risks to the community towards the east;
(3) Changes must comply with all requirements of the Louisiana Department of
Environmental Quality and all other public entities having regulatory
jurisdiction;
(4) The materials produced and the processes utilized must be substantially
similar to the materials and processes described in the Application; and
(5) Changes must comply with Section 30-64 of the St. James Parish Code of
Ordinances (“Defensive Emergency Protective Measures”).
B. Start Date Limitation. Construction must commence within 24 months after the last
public entity regulatory approval is issued, or within 24 months after the termination of any
administrative or judicial appeal process that may follow from the issuance of any required permit,
whichever is later. For the purposes of this limitation, construction is defined as: permanent on-site
fabrication, erection, or installation of the proposed facility (such as preloading, pile driving, installing
structural supports and foundations, laying underground pipework, or constructing permanent storage
structures) that is continuously pursued with reasonable diligence to complete the permitted facility
within a reasonable time. Construction delays caused by natural disaster or labor disputes, and periods
between operational phases of construction shall not be construed as interrupting construction that is
otherwise continuously pursued.
C. Emergency Measures: The facility must comply with Section 30-64 of the St. James
Parish Code of Ordinances (“Defensive Emergency Protective Measures”).
D. Training, Hiring, and Contracting
(1) FG will establish, fund, and implement the FG Workforce Academy to help
train and prepare residents for full-time employment at its facility. The
academy will include the following features:
a. The FG Workforce Academy will be designed to:
● Bridge the semi-skilled or underemployed worker with job

opportunities at FG;
● Provide preparatory training for the semi-skilled or
underemployed worker who demonstrates high technical
and/or mechanical aptitude, or has a desire to secure an
opportunity in industry; and
● Provide educational and employment opportunities for the
citizens of St. James Parish who are at least 18 years old.
b. FG will work with entities, such as River Parishes Community

College, Baton Rouge Community College, Louisiana Workforce
Commission, LED, , and local workforce development officials, to
develop a curriculum that will provide the necessary training and/or
skills required to work at the facility. The ADDIE Framework
(Assess, Design, Develop, Implement, Evaluate) will be utilized to
create the curriculum for the FG Workforce Academy.
c. FG will provide St. James Parish residents top priority for entrance
to the academy.
d. In the first year of the FG Workforce Academy, FG will allow those

residents living in Districts 5, 6, and 7 who meet objective
employment-related admission criteria established by FG for the
academy (such as a clean drug test and passing criminal record
ATTACHMENT F
checks, etc.) to enroll at the academy. Admission of all residents
who are qualified may be spread over multiple sessions and/or
classes, with scheduling of the sessions and/or classes based on FG’s
hiring needs.
e. In addition to those who apply directly, FG will consider referrals of

applicants to the academy from an office designated for this purpose
by the parish, subject to the admission criteria described above.
f. FG will give all St. James Parish residents who successfully

complete the academy’s training program an opportunity to
interview for open job positions at its facility.
(2) To the extent allowed by law, FG will give preference to those qualified
residents and qualified firms based within St. James Parish for construction
and other contracts at the facility, during both construction and operation of
the facility, and will require, through contractual provisions which it will
enforce in good faith, that its contractors impose this requirement downward
through the subcontracting chain.
(3) To the extent allowed by law, FG will give preference to qualified vendors
based within St. James Parish for FG’s purchase of non-specialized
equipment, services, or supplies that are based within St. James Parish, and
will require, through contractual provisions which it will enforce in good
faith, that its contractors impose this requirement downward through the
subcontracting chain.
(4) FG will conduct outreach efforts on its website and other local venues on an
ongoing basis to acquaint businesses in Louisiana and St. James Parish with
contracting, service, and supplier business opportunities with FG, and to
provide those businesses with information on how to compete for such
opportunities directly from FG as well as its contractors and subcontractors.
(5) FG shall publish information on its website for persons and businesses to
inquire about and receive information about working for or doing business
with FG, its contractors, and subcontractors and will provide similar
information to an office or person designated by St. James Parish who will
be responsible for disseminating that information within the parish.
(6) FG will apply the Think Local Policy in good faith and to the best of its
ability.
E. Alternative Access Route: FG will participate in a cooperative effort with the parish,
the state, and other industries in the area to develop an alternative access route between River
Road/Highway 18 and Highway 3127. Such participation shall include the contribution of financial (or
comparable substitute) resources on an equitable basis commensurate with contributions of the industries
in the affected area.
F. Health Screening: FG will participate in a cooperative effort with the St. James
Parish Hospital to provide free health screenings for residents of District 5. Such participation shall
include the contribution of financial (or comparable substitute) resources.
G. Beautification
(1) To screen the facility from residential areas to the east, FG shall provide a
forested buffer along its eastern boundary. The forested buffer will include
a sufficient amount and placement of trees and vegetation which, at tree or
vegetation maturation, will provide an aesthetic buffer between the
community to the east and the facility to mitigate the visual impacts on
residential areas.
(2) In cooperation with St. James Parish, FG will seek out and support projects
in District 5 that are designed to enhance the aesthetic value and nature of the
community. Such support shall include the contribution of financial (or
comparable substitute) resources. One such project shall be the beautification
of the public park in District 5.
H. Environmental Monitoring: FG shall provide air quality monitoring along its

eastern property boundary, with a sufficient number and type of monitors on the eastern property
boundary to provide data on air emissions potentially impacting the surrounding community and which
will be in accordance with the standards set forth in 40 CFR 63.658, modified as follows:
(1) 40 CFR 63.658(a) shall be revised to read as follows:
ATTACHMENT F
The owner or operator shall conduct sampling along the facility’s eastern
property boundary and analyze the samples in accordance with Methods
325A and 325B of appendix A of this part and paragraphs (b) through (e) of
this section.
(2) In 40 CFR 63.658(b), the target analytes shall be 1,3-butadiene, vinyl acetate,
and ethylene oxide instead of benzene.
(3) 40 CFR 63.658(c) shall be revised to read as follows:
The owner or operator shall determine passive monitor locations along the
eastern property boundary in accordance with Section 8.2 of Method 325A
of appendix A of this part.
(4) 40 CFR 63.658(c)(1) shall be revised to read as follows:
As it pertains to this subpart, known sources of VOCs, as used in Section

8.2.1.3 in Method 325A of appendix A of this part for siting passive monitors,
means a wastewater treatment unit, process unit, or any emission source with
the potential to emit any of the target analytes, including marine vessel
loading operations. For marine vessel loading operations, one passive
monitor should be sited on the shoreline adjacent to the dock.
(5) 40 CFR 63.658(c)(1)(i) through (iv) shall be deleted.
(6) 40 CFR 63.658(c)(2) shall be deleted.
(7) 40 CFR 63.658(c)(4) shall be revised to read as follows:
The owner or operator shall follow the procedure in Section 9.6 of Method
325B of appendix A of this part to determine the detection limit of the target
analytes for each sampler used to collect samples, co-located samples, and
blanks.
(8) 40 CFR 63.658(e)(2) and (e)(3) shall be deleted.
(9) The initial sampling collection frequency shall be once each continuous 14-
day sampling period, such that the beginning of the next 14-day sampling
period begins immediately upon the completion of the previous 14-day
sampling period. After 52 consecutive samples, if none exceeds the ambient
air standard for the applicable analyte, the sampling frequency may be
reduced to once per month. After an additional 24 consecutive samples, if
none exceeds the ambient air standard for the applicable analyte, the sampling
frequency may be reduced to one sampling period every three months.
(10) In determining annual average concentrations for comparison to ambient air

standards, FG shall calculate the average based on all samples from the most
recent 12-month period.
(11) 40 CFR 63.658(f) through (k) shall be deleted.
The data produced by the monitoring shall be made available to the parish in response to the parish’s
reasonable request. Semi-annual summary reports shall be provided to the parish. The summary reports
shall include a comparison of the monitoring results against the ambient air standards for each target
analyte.
If the Environmental Protection Agency promulgates regulations with fence-line hazardous air pollutant
monitoring requirements for the specific plants that FG proposes to construct, and those requirements
are of reasonably comparable rigor to those contained in this Section H, those requirements shall be
applied by FG in lieu of the requirements contained in this Section H, with the understanding that the
target analytes, as well as the reporting described in the preceding paragraph, shall remain the same.
I. Reporting
(1) In addition to the environmental monitoring reports required under condition

(H), FG shall provide annual reports to St. James Parish on FG’s performance
related to conditions (D), (F), and (G). Such reports shall include the number
of residents and businesses provided with employment and business
opportunities.
(2) St. James Parish may audit the reports provided to the parish and the
information presented to the parish council, provided that the parish shall not
reveal any personal identification, matters protected by the Health Insurance
Portability and Accountability Act, or any FG trade secrets.
ATTACHMENT F
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the parish council concurs with planning commission’s
finding that this approval is justified under the factors stated in Section 86-37(h) of the St. James Parish
Code of Ordinances. The impacts of the proposed facility would not be different from the impacts of
allowable uses in the Industrial use area in which it will be located. The public benefits of the proposal
are significant, as set out in the Application. The physical and environmental impacts of the proposal
are within allowable limits, and are substantially mitigated by the physical layout of the facility, and the
location of the site in proximity to existing industrial uses and away from residential uses. The public
benefits outweigh the impacts, and the proposal will not impair the ability of the parish to attract other
beneficial development. The vested rights/constitutional protection factor in Section 86-37(h)(4) is not
implicated by this approval.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the parish council concurs with planning commission’s
consideration of the need for a buffer zone under Sections 86-37(i)(2) and 86-37(j) of the St. James
Parish Code of Ordinances. The parish council concurs with planning commission’s finding that the
overall location of the site, placement of the production and process components on the site, and the
proposed 300 foot civil buffer within the footprint of the site provide adequate buffer zones. The
adequacy of these provisions is demonstrated by the potential failure scenario evaluation provided by
FG as part of the Application and reviewed by the parish’s consultants. The approval conditions
described in this resolution would preserve the benefits of the buffer zones described in the Application
regarding any future modifications or expansions.
This resolution having been submitted to a vote, the vote thereon was as follows:
YEAS:
NAYS:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
And the resolution was declared adopted on this, the 23rd day of January 2019.
_________________________________________
Council Chairman
_________________________________________
Secretary
Delivered to Parish President: ___________________________
Approved: ____________________________
Disapproved: __________________________
_________________________________________
Parish President
Returned to Secretary on: ____________________________
At ______________________ AM/PM
Received by _________________________________________
* * * * *
C E R T I F I C A T E
I, Linda Hubbell, Secretary of the Council of the Parish of St. James, State of Louisiana, hereby
certify that the foregoing is a true and correct copy of a resolution adopted by the St. James Parish
Council in regular meeting held on the 23rd day of January 2019.
Signed at Vacherie, Louisiana, this 24th day of January 2019.
_______________________________
Linda Hubbell
(S E A L) Secretary
ATTACHMENT F
DECEMBER 2018 ETHYLEN E OXIDE
Legend
MODELED CONCENTRATIONS GREATER
D Property Boundary THAN 0.02 µG/M
-
Ethylene Oxide Modeled
Concentrations Greater than 0.02
2 Mile Radius
0
0, 2
CONTOUR MAP
FG LA LLC
MileS
i Future Church ST. JAMES PARISH, LOUISIANA
ATTACHMENT G
August 12, 2019
VIA EMAIL

Public Participation Group
602 N. 5th Street
deq.publicnotices@la.gov
Re: Comments on 14 Proposed Initial Title V/Part 70 Air Permits, Proposed Initial
Prevention of Significant Deterioration Permit, and the Associated Environmental
Assessment Statement for FG LA, LLC (Formosa) Chemical Complex
AI No.: 198351
Permit Nos.: 3141-V0, 3142-V0, 3143-V0, 3144-V0, 3145-V0, 3146-V0, 3147-
V0, 3148-V0, 3149-V0, 3150-V0, 3151-V0, 3152-V0, 3153-V0,
3154-V0, PSD-LA-812
Dear Public Participation Group:
Sierra Club submits these comments concerning the greenhouse gas impacts associated with the
14 proposed initial Title V/Part 70 air permits, initial Prevention of Significant Deterioration
(“PSD”) permit, and associated Environmental Assessment Statement (“EAS”) for the FG LA,
LLC (“Formosa”) 1 Chemical Complex planned for construction in St. James, Louisiana.
Formosa expects its proposed facility to emit 13.6 million metric tons (“MMT”) of carbon
dioxide equivalent (“CO2e”) per year. EAS at 9. This is roughly equivalent to the emissions from
approximately 2.89 million passenger vehicles or 3.5 coal-burning power plants. 2 Yet, the EAS
1
According to the company website, FG LA is a member of Formosa Plastics Group, which is a Taiwan-based
conglomerate. See http://www.sunshineprojectla.com/about-us. Formosa Plastics Corporation, U.S.A. is affiliated
with the Taiwan-based Formosa Plastics Group (FPG). Id. Formosa Plastics Corporation owns and operates a
chemical plant in Baton Rouge. See http://www.fpcusa.com/about.html.
2
See U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Energy and the Environment: Greenhouse Gas Equivalencies
Calculator (updated Dec. 2018), https://www.epa.gov/energy/greenhouse-gas-equivalencies-calculator.
ATTACHMENT H
fails to adequately consider the proposed facility’s contribution to global greenhouse gas
(“GHG”) emissions and the consequent impacts on global climate and human welfare.
According to NASA, the greater than one-third increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration
caused by humans since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution is the most important
prolonged cause of climate change. 3 Despite the known effect of GHG emissions on climate
warming, the EAS fails to address the impact of the proposed facility’s GHG emissions on the
climate and the consequent global impacts on human welfare, such as sea level rise and
associated human displacement, extreme weather events, increased ambient temperatures, altered
precipitation patterns, ocean acidification, and loss of habitat and species.
The GHG emissions associated with the proposed facility would constitute 0.2% of all CO2e
emissions in the entire United States, contributing measurably to human-caused climate
warming. 4 And although GHG emissions in the United States have decreased since 2005, they
are still higher than 1990 emissions levels, the first year the EPA conducted its Inventory of U.S.
Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks. 5 Moreover, GHG emissions in the United States have
been decreasing at progressively slower rates since 2015, and global GHG emissions have been
increasing. 6 Regardless of whether the proposed facility employs best available control
technology (“BACT”), the proposed facility will make a non-zero contribution to the
continuation of these global trends— the EAS fails to consider this contribution. Moreover,
because the EAS does not demonstrate that the proposed facility must be built elsewhere (if
Louisana prohibits construction), a reasoned decision to deny the proposed facility’s air permits
would prevent the facility’s contribution to the continuation of these global trends altogether.
The EAS fails to consider this possibility.
The EAS also neglects the social costs associated with the proposed facility’s GHG emissions,
which it must consider in order for the Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality
(“LDEQ”) to satisfy its public trustee duty on the basis of the EAS. In fact, the National
Environmental Policy Act (“NEPA”), which the Louisiana Supreme Court relied on to define
several foundational principles of the public trustee duty, expressly requires agencies to analyze
and disclose the environmental effects of their actions, including “ecological…aesthetic, historic,
cultural, economic [and] health” impacts.” 7 Agencies’ obligation to analyze the costs associated
with GHG emissions under NEPA was also directly affirmed by the court in High Country
Conservation Advocates v. U.S. Forest Service, 52 F. Supp. 3d 1174 (D.Colo. 2014). NEPA also
specifically directs agencies to evaluate a project’s impacts “based upon theoretical approaches
or research methods generally accepted in the scientific community” when “information relevant
to reasonably foreseeable significant adverse impacts cannot be obtained because the overall
3
See https://climate.nasa.gov/causes.
4
See U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”), “Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks:
1990-2017” at ES-4, available at https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2019-04/documents/us-ghg-inventory-
2019-main-text.pdf.
5
EPA, “Fast Facts from the Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990–2017” (April 2019),
available at https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2019-04/documents/2019_fast_facts_508_0.pdf.
6
See https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2019-04/documents/2019_fast_facts_508_0.pdf;
https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/global-greenhouse-gas-emissions-data.
7
40 C.F.R. § 1508.8(b); see also Save Ourselves, Inc. v. Louisiana Envtl. Control Comm’n, 452 So.2d 1152, 1157-
1158 (La. 1984).
ATTACHMENT H
costs of obtaining it are exorbitant or the means to obtain it are not known.” 8 The social cost of
carbon—a federal agency-created measurement based on generally accepted research methods
and years of peer-reviewed scientific and economic studies—should be used here, as it would
allow LDEQ to quantify and disclose the harm caused by the proposed facility’s GHG emissions.
The social cost of carbon is a method for estimating the long-term damage associated with a
small increase in CO2 emissions, conventionally one metric ton, in a given year. 9 It is intended to
capture various damages associated with climate disruption, including changes in net agricultural
productivity, human health, property damages, and the value of ecosystem services, all of which
climate change can degrade. 10 As such, the social cost of carbon includes not only
socioeconomic harm but also harm to the environment. Instead of employing the social cost of
carbon to inform the public about the impacts of the proposed facility’s GHG emissions, the EAS
only quantifies the amount of GHG pollution the proposed facility will emit.
Moreover, the EAS does not acknowledge that the environmental impacts of GHG emissions nor
resulting climate change effects are particularly observable in Louisiana. According to a team of
scientists from the National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration and scientists with World
Weather Attribution, “[h]uman-caused climate warming increased the chances of the torrential
rains that unleashed devastating floods in south Louisiana in mid August [2016] by at least 40
percent.” 11 More broadly, “[b]etween 1932 and 2010, Louisiana’s coast lost more than 1,800
square miles of land; and from 2004 through 2008 alone, more than 300 square miles of
marshland were lost to Hurricanes Katrina, Rita, Gustav, and Ike.” 12 Louisiana’s Master Plan for
a Sustainable Coast cites climate change as a contributing cause of this land loss. 13
In 2010, seven independent researchers examined the coast’s provision of ecosystem services, or
the benefits that the environment provides to people. Their report stated that the Mississippi
River Delta provides at least $12 to $47 billion in benefits to people each year. If this natural
capital were treated like an economic asset, its total economic benefit to the nation would be
$330 billion to $1.3 trillion per year. Over a 100-year period, the value of the coast’s ecological
services alone would be between $237 billion to $4.7 trillion. 14 More generally, many sources
conclude that carbon emissions are associated with high social costs. In 2016, the EPA estimated
8
40 C.F.R. § 1502.22(b)(4).
9
EPA, “EPA Fact Sheet: Social Cost of Carbon” at 1(Dec. 2016), available at
https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-12/documents/social_cost_of_carbon_fact_sheet.pdf.
10
Interagency Working Group on Social Cost of Carbon, “Technical Support Document: Social Cost of Carbon for
Regulatory Impact Analysis Under Executive Order 12866” (Feb. 2010), available at
https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-12/documents/scc_tsd_2010.pdf.
11
U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, “Climate change increased
chances of record rains in Louisiana by at least 40 percent” (Sept. 7, 2016), available at
https://www.noaa.gov/media-release/climate-change-increased-chances-of-record-rains-in-louisiana-by-at-least-40-
percent.
12
Coastal Protection and Restoration Authority of Louisiana, “Louisiana’s Comprehensive Master Plan for a
Sustainable Coast” at ES-2 (June 2, 2017), available at http://coastal.la.gov/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/2017-
Coastal-Master-Plan_Web-Book_CFinal-with-Effective-Date-06092017.pdf.
13
See id.
14
Batker, D., Torre, I., Costanza, R., Swedeen, P., Day, J., Boumans, R., Bagstad, K. (2010), Gaining Ground.
Wetlands, Hurricanes and the Economy: The Value of Restoring the Mississippi River Delta. Earth Economics.
Tacoma, WA.
ATTACHMENT H
the social cost of CO2 will range from $12 to $123 per metric ton in 2020. 15 Even relying on the
EPA’s most conservative estimate, the social cost of the proposed facility’s CO2e emissions
would be $163.2 million per year, which significantly exceeds the $33 million per year in state
and local tax receipts that Formosa predicts the proposed facility will generate. EAS at 19. Given
that emitted GHGs can remain in the atmosphere for centuries, distributing throughout the global
atmosphere, the proposed facility’s emissions are certain to contribute to the local environmental
costs of climate change felt by Louisianans. 16 The EAS overlooks these costs and the proposed
facility’s role in contributing to them.
Lastly, the EAS fails to adequately address “…relevant approved federal, regional, state, tribal,
or local plans, policies, or laws for GHG emission reductions or climate adaptation to make clear
whether [the] proposed project's GHG emissions are consistent with such plans or laws.” 17 The
public trustee obligation requires LDEQ to discuss such plans, which LDEQ cannot do on the
basis of the current EAS.
The U.S. has set ambitious climate reduction targets and established itself as an international
leader in climate protection. For example, in December 2015 the international climate summit in
Paris produced a historic agreement establishing the ambitious goal of limiting warming to 1.5 to
2 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial times, a target that will require ambitious emission
reductions beyond those previously identified. 18 In Louisiana, the City of New Orleans has
adopted a similarly ambitious climate plan, and the state has adopted a Comprehensive Master
Plan for a Sustainable Coast. 19 The EAS addresses only Louisiana’s Comprehensive Master
Plan, and ignores the other relevant plans and policies. EAS at 16. And the EAS does not discuss
whether the proposed facility’s GHG emissions are consistent with Louisiana’s Comprehensive
Master Plan in the context of the emissions’ contribution to climate change. See id.
Instead of considering its shortcomings, the EAS “rel[ies] on boilerplate text to avoid meaningful
[climate] analysis,” an approach the Council on Environmental Quality specifically directed
against in its “Revised Draft Guidance on the Consideration of Greenhouse Gas Emissions and
the Effects of Climate Change in NEPA Reviews.” 20 LDEQ must evaluate the proposed facility’s
contribution to global climate change and the consequent impacts on human welfare to make an
15
EPA Fact Sheet: Social Cost of Carbon at 4 (December 2016), available at
https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-12/documents/social_cost_of_carbon_fact_sheet.pdf.
16
Regulating Greenhouse Gas Emissions Under the Clean Air Act, 73 Fed. Reg. 44353, 44401 (proposed July 30,
2008), available at https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2008-07-30/pdf/E8-16432.pdf.
17
Council on Environmental Quality (“CEQ”), Memorandum for Heads of Federal Departments and Agencies:
Final Guidance for Federal Departments and Agencies on Consideration of Greenhouse Gas Emissions and the
Effects of Climate Change in National Environmental Policy Act Reviews at 28-29 (Aug. 1, 2016) , available at
https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/sites/whitehouse.gov/files/documents/nepa_final_ghg_guidance.pdf.
18
United Nations, Paris Agreement at 3 (2015), available at
https://treaties.un.org/doc/Treaties/2016/02/20160215%2006-03%20PM/Ch_XXVII-7-d.pdf.
19
See City of New Orleans, “Climate Action for a Resilient New Orleans” (July 2017) available at
https://www.nola.gov/nola/media/Climate-Action/Climate-Action-for-a-Resilient-New-Orleans.pdf; see also Coastal
Protection and Restoration Authority of Louisiana, “Louisiana’s Comprehensive Master Plan for a Sustainable
Coast” (June 2, 2017), available at http://coastal.la.gov/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/2017-Coastal-Master-
Plan_Web-Book_CFinal-with-Effective-Date-06092017.pdf.
20
CEQ, NEPA Revised Draft GHG Guidance at 6 (Dec. 2014), available at
https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/sites/default/files/docs/nepa_revised_draft_ghg_guidance_searchable.pdf.
ATTACHMENT H
informed and reasoned decision, as required by the public trustee obligation. The EAS for
Formasa’s proposed Chemical Complex is an inadequate basis for such a decision because of its
failure to consider the environmental costs associated with greenhouse gas emissions.
Respectfully submitted,
________________________
Joshua Smith
Sierra Club
2101 Webster Street, Suite 1300
Oakland, CA 94612
(415) 977-5560
joshua.smith@sierraclub.org
ATTACHMENT H
P.O. Box 4313
Baton Rouge, LA 70821-4313
August 10, 2019
Re: AI 198351, FG LA, LLC and FG LA Complex
Dear Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality,
I am writing on behalf of Healthy Gulf, a diverse coalition of more than 25,000 individual citizens
and local, regional, and national organizations committed to uniting and empowering people to
protect and restore the natural resources of the Gulf of Mexico.
At the July 9, 2019, Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality hearing for the Formosa
Plastic Pollution Complex, the local St. James residents who live within two miles of the
proposed facility were unanimous in their opposition to this project. They talked mostly about the
health impacts of living near industrial plants, which are significant and well documented. While
it’s not possible to weigh the value of human lives, this comment will address the other
economic impacts to the residents, the parish, and the state.
As part of the Environmental Assessment Statement required for its 15 air permits, Formosa
contracted with Dr. James A. Richardson and Harris, Deville, and Associates to prepare “An
Economic Analysis of the Construction and Operation of a Major Manufacturing Facility by FG
LA LLC in St. James Parish.” The document is less an analysis than it is a persuasive document
designed to mislead the reader. Its failure to include a complete cost-benefit analysis also
means Formosa’s air permit application is incomplete and must be denied.
Even with Formosa’s best-case projections, Richardson acknowledges that only 20-40 percent
of the project’s construction costs will originate in Louisiana. That makes the $9.4 billion price
tag already highly misleading, as up to 80 percent of those costs won’t benefit Louisiana at all.
Formosa uses an average salary when presenting its job numbers. Because manufacturing
complexes tend to have a few extremely high management salaries that are statistical outliers,
the average salary will be much higher than what the majority of workers will actually earn. The
median salary would provide a much more accurate picture, but Formosa’s report doesn’t
provide that figure.
1/8
ATTACHMENT I
Formosa’s report notes that a heavy concentration of manufacturing dominates the parish. “It is
easy to understand that any expansion of these activities will have a major impact on the overall
health of the local economies,” the report says. This tautology is not supported with any data
elsewhere in the report other than the preparer’s own projections.
A complete analysis would identify both the economic costs and benefits of the project and
weigh them against each other. Instead we get nothing but an inflated sense of what the
supposed benefits would be with no mention of costs at all. These costs must be accounted for.
1. Loss of property values
A 2015 study by researchers from Princeton, the University of California and the University of
Chicago looked at the effects on both birth weight and housing prices of 1,600 toxic chemical
plants that have opened and closed in the U.S.1 In addition to lower birth weights for residents,
the study found that home prices near plants fell by 11 percent and often never recovered. The
presence of industry also makes their homes harder to sell. Because people tend to have most
of their wealth and savings stored in their homes, this represents a serious economic burden to
both the residents and the parish that collects property taxes on those homes.
Typically the damage is done mostly to the area directly surrounding the plants, but a high
concentration of toxic plants can have a parish-wide effect. This is especially true in St. James
Parish and can be shown by looking at incomes and home prices in the parish.
In general, there is a positive correlation between income and home prices2. That means when
incomes go up, you expect to find higher home values. St. James Parish has a median
household income of $51,386, which is 13.8% higher than the state median income of $45,146.3
The higher incomes most likely come from the higher concentration of chemical plants. The
plants must pay higher wages to offset the risk of harmful health effects associated with working
in the chemical industry.
One would assume that all that extra income would create higher property values in St. James,
but the effect has actually been the opposite. St. James has a median property value of
$134,500, which is 14.9% below the state median of $158,000.4 This difference is also probably
caused by the high concentration of chemical plants, but again there is no analysis of home
prices in Formosa’s report.
2. Loss of Tax Base
1
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4847734/
2
http://www.creativeclass.com/_v3/creative_class/2009/07/29/housing-and-the-crisis-part-iv/
3
https://datausa.io/profile/geo/st.-james-parish-la/?compare=louisiana
4
https://datausa.io/profile/geo/st.-james-parish-la/?compare=louisiana
2/8
ATTACHMENT I
As a St. James planning commissioner noted at a chemical plant hearing on March 29, 2019,
many residents are moving away from St. James Parish because they don’t want to live near
emitters of known carcinogens5. Data shows that St. James has experienced population decline
every year since 20106.
Louisiana as a whole is also experiencing this effect. Louisiana has the sixth highest amount of
toxic releases of any state7. The most recent five years of data shows that Louisiana has the
seventh highest rate of new cancer cases in the country8. It’s likely no coincidence that
Louisiana is also the seventh fastest shrinking state9.
When the parish or state loses residents from death, disability from illness, or flight, tax
revenues go down. Nowhere in the Formosa report is this mentioned as a potential cost of the
project.
3. Healthcare costs
The state of Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality acknowledges that benzene and
ethylene oxide are known human carcinogens. From Formosa’s own estimates of its emissions,
this new chemical complex would be the second highest emitter of benzene AND the second
highest emitter of ethylene oxide in the state.
It is inevitable that releasing additional cancer-causing agents will cause at least some
additional cancer. Countless studies have linked air pollution to cancer and a 2010 study by the
U.S. Department of Health found that “the true burden of environmentally induced cancer has
been grossly underestimated.”10
A study by the American Cancer Society found that “roughly $87.8 billion was spent in 2014 in
the U.S. on cancer-related health care. These costs were paid by employers, insurance
companies, and taxpayer-funded public programs like Medicare and Medicaid, as well as by
cancer patients and their families [emphasis mine].”11
https://www.desmogblog.com/2019/03/28/cancer-coalition-against-death-alley-louisiana-expanding-petroc
hemical-industry
6
http://worldpopulationreview.com/us-counties/la/st-james-parish-population/
7
https://www.forbes.com/sites/priceonomics/2017/11/07/the-most-and-least-toxic-places-in-america/#660a
d1d84ac1
8
https://gis.cdc.gov/Cancer/USCS/DataViz.html
9
https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2019/01/31/population-growth-rate-fastest-growing-shrinking-stat
es/38918791/
10
https://deainfo.nci.nih.gov/advisory/pcp/annualreports/pcp08-09rpt/pcp_report_08-09_508.pdf
11
https://www.fightcancer.org/sites/default/files/Costs%20of%20Cancer%20-%20Final%20Web.pdf
3/8
ATTACHMENT I
“The Louisiana Medicaid Program is one of the largest state programs with total expenditures of
approximately $10.6 billion” in 2016, according to a report by the Louisiana Department of
Health12. The report showed 35 percent of St. James’s residents are enrolled in the state’s
Medicaid program. With St. James having the 16th highest per capita income of the 64 parishes
in the state13, one has to wonder how well the “multiplier effect” is working when more than a
third of its residents are on Medicaid.
Census Tract 405, which would include the proposed Formosa chemical complex, has the
lowest median income in the parish14.
Because St. James Parish is so impoverished, Formosa’s environmentally induced cancers

would increase healthcare costs that would be passed on to the state. Richardson’s report for
Formosa completely omits the economic costs of healthcare.
4. Harm to fisheries
In 2016, Formosa was responsible for what is considered to be the worst environmental disaster
in Vietnamese history15. A spill from one of its steel plants killed more than 70 tons of fish,
destroyed more than 225 hectares of coral reef, and harmed more than 40,000 workers who
12
http://ldh.la.gov/assets/medicaid/AnnualReports/2016AnnualReport.pdf
13
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Louisiana_locations_by_per_capita_income
14
https://datausa.io/profile/geo/st.-james-parish-la
15
https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2017/aug/14/vietnamese-fishermen-jobless-fish-poisoni
ng-battle-justice
4/8
ATTACHMENT I
relied on fishing and tourism. Two years later, the fishing industry still hadn’t recovered16. But
even in the absence of highly publicized accidents and when Formosa’s plants on operating at a
normal and supposedly safe capacity, there will still be negative impacts to fisheries.
Formosa’s plastic plant in Port Lavaca, Texas, had been operating for years with the state’s
blessing. Only when seafood harvester Diane Wilson started collecting her own water samples
and sued the company in 2017 did the state take note of the constant stream of plastic pollution
originating from the plant17. Formosa called the pollution “trace amounts” and noted that it was
legally allowed under its permit to discharge trace amounts of plastic pellets. But a federal judge
disagreed and calculated that “trace amounts” amounted to more than 28,000 plastic pellets per
day18. The judge found that Formosa was a “serial offender” and liable for more than a thousand
documented days of violating its environmental permits. This finding does not include the plastic
pollution that likely escaped before Wilson started documenting the releases, but damages
could still top $162 million19.
As National Geographic noted, “Plastic reduces the appetites and growth rates of fish that
consume it. That could affect reproduction and ultimately population size.”20 While the harm
from microplastics is not fully understood yet, a paper titled “Marine microplastic debris: An
emerging issue for food security, food safety and human health” makes the case that
microplastics are a threat to both human health and economic security.21 Formosa’s location on
the Mississippi River near the Gulf of Mexico makes it a particularly grave threat to Louisiana
fisheries.
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration estimates that Louisiana’s seafood and
fishing industry accounts for more than 33,000 jobs22 and an impact of more than $2.4 billion
annually23. Because “trace amounts” of plastic pollution are an inevitable side effect of
Formosa’s operations, the economic costs of microplastics’ harms to this important industry
must be included in any cost-benefit analysis.
16
https://www.ucanews.com/news/vietnamese-fishermen-still-victims-of-marine-disaster/82028
17
https://www.expressnews.com/news/local/article/Some-Gulf-Coast-residents-sue-Formosa-over-1172186
5.php
18
https://www.texastribune.org/2019/06/28/federal-judge-rules-lawsuit-formosa-plastics-texas-pollution-case
/
19
https://www.houstonchronicle.com/business/energy/article/Judge-finds-Formosa-liable-for-plastic-pollution
-14060091.php
20
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/magazine/2019/05/microplastics-impact-on-fish-shown-in-pictures/
21
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0025326X1830376X
22
https://www.st.nmfs.noaa.gov/Assets/economics/publications/FEUS/FEUS-2015/Report-Chapters/FEUS
%202015-AllChapters_Final.pdf
23
https://www.lafisheriesforward.org/fisheries/industry-information/
5/8
ATTACHMENT I
5. Effects on Surrounding Businesses
Two24 reports25 by the United State Small Business Administration show that 99.5 percent of
businesses in Louisiana are small businesses and account for 53.2 percent of all employees in
the state. Despite all of the industrial development in St. James, the SBA shows that St. James
lost up to 2.5 percent of its jobs in 2015
.
In that same year, St. James and the other river parishes that are also full of industrial
development had some of the lowest small business employment rates in the states. This casts
doubt on the multiplier effect of industrial development that is supposed to stimulate or create
other small businesses in the area.
24
https://www.sba.gov/sites/default/files/advocacy/2018-Small-Business-Profiles-LA.pdf
25
https://www.sba.gov/sites/default/files/advocacy/Louisiana.pdf
6/8
ATTACHMENT I
From 2005 to 2016, the overall number of businesses in Louisiana increased by more than
1,700 according to the United States Census Bureau26. Yet in that same time period, the
number of businesses fell in St. James Parish. Again we find that St. James Parish with its large
concentration of industrial development is an economic outlier when it comes to other
commercial development.
It could be that businesses are losing customers from early death or flight, but it also could be
that St. James’s small businesses are playing on an uneven field. As The Advocate newspaper
reported, “Louisiana’s Industrial Tax Exemption Program [ITEP] essentially pays large
corporations to cut jobs.”27 The controversial program’s economic stimulus effects are dubious
at best.
A report by the group Together Baton Rouge found that ITEP has the effect of shifting the tax
burden to other small businesses and actually raises taxes on those businesses. Looking at
East Baton Rouge, a neighboring parish with a similarly high concentration of industrial
development, the report found that ITEP raises taxes on the 99.8 percent of other businesses
that don’t qualify for the program and have to pick up the slack.
26
https://factfinder.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?pid=BP_2016_00A1&prodT
ype=table
27
https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/togetherbr/pages/2421/attachments/original/1513895266/2017-12-
17_Advocate_No_strings_attached_All_Final.pdf?1513895266
7/8
ATTACHMENT I
Formosa would receive $12 million in direct cash payments from the state and another $1.5
billion in tax breaks28. Is the shifting of tax burden that could harm other small businesses
mentioned anywhere in Formosa’s report? Again, the answer is “no” because it’s not an
objective analysis that looks at both costs and benefits. It’s a persuasive document but not one
that is particularly informative. Until a full accounting of the true economic costs are accounted
for, Formosa’s application is incomplete and its 15 permits must be denied.
For a healthy Gulf,
Kendall Dix
Campaign Organizer
28
https://gnoinc.org/news/publications/press-release/formosa-selects-st-james-parish-for-9-4-billion-louisian
a-project/
8/8
ATTACHMENT I
From: Melinda Molieri
To: Michael Brown
Subject: FW: Public Records Request 0043620
Date: Tuesday, July 30, 2019 6:18:47 AM
Good Morning:
Our DEQ contact said there is no requirement for an "insurance policy or liability coverage" in the air quality
regulations. Financial assurance is associated with solid and hazardous waste permitting.
Pleae let me know if you have any questions.
Thank you,
Melinda Molieri
Access Sciences Public Records Technician
Phone: 225.219.3168
Email: melinda.molieri@la.gov
Records Management: Access - Integrity – Security

-----Original Message-----
From: publicrecords@la.gov <publicrecords@la.gov>
Sent: Friday, July 26, 2019 12:24 PM
To: _DEQ-WWW Public Records Requests <_DEQ-WWWPublicRecordsRequests@LA.GOV>
Subject: Public Records Request 0043620
REQUESTOR INFORMATION
---------------------
CONTACT NAME .... Michael L. Brown
ORGANIZATION .... Earthjustice
MAILING ADDRESS-1 .... 900 Camp Street, Unit 303 MAILING ADDRESS-2 ....
CITY .... New Orleans
STATE .... LA
ZIP .... 70130
PHONE .... 415-217-2000 x2042
FAX NUMBER ....
EMAIL .... mlbrown@earthjustice.org
AI NUMBERS
---------------------
198351
DOCUMENT IDS
---------------------
REQUEST DETAILS
---------------
Any record submitted to LDEQ that describes or contains the insurance policy or liability coverage for the FG LA,
LLC, "Sunshine Project," that is the subject of AI# 198351.
I respectfully request a waiver or reduction of fees, pursuant to the Free or Reduced Rate Copy Certification form
that I will submit by email.
Thank you very much for your time and effort. I am mindful of the agency resources that go into responding to
ATTACHMENT J Ex. 1
records requests. Please do not hesitate to reach out to me if I can assist in anyway.
DELIVERY METHOD
---------------
Send copies electronically if available
ATTACHMENT J Ex. 1
From: Amber Shepard
To: Michael Brown
Subject: St. James Parish Public Records Request
Date: Wednesday, July 31, 2019 2:40:32 PM
Attachments: ATT00001.png
ATT00002.png
Good Afternoon,
After speaking with several directors, it has been concluded that our process for industry does not
include the requirement of certificates of insurance. At this time, there is no information to be
provided. If for some reason information is found, I will forward to you.
Kindest Regards,
Amber Shepard
Public Information Officer
St. James Parish Government
P.O. Box 106 | Convent, La 70723
o: 225.562.2336 | c: 225.933.3439
www.stjamesla.com
NOTICE:
This message is to notify you that St. James Parish Government recently changed domains. My
new email address is amber.shepard@stjamesparishla.gov. Please update my contact
information.
St. James Parish Government
ATTACHMENT J Ex. 2
From: noreply@civicplus.com
To: Michael Brown
Subject: Online Form Submittal: Public Records Request Form
Date: Tuesday, July 30, 2019 6:02:03 PM
Public Records Request Form
St. James Parish Government Public Records Request Form
First Name Michael
Last Name Brown
Organization/Company Earthjustice
Address 1 900 Camp Street, Unit 303
Address 2 Field not completed.
City New Orleans
State LA
Zip 70130
Phone Number (415)-217-2042
Email Address mlbrown@earthjustice.org
Records Any record submitted to St. James Parish, by or on behalf of FG

LA, LLC, that describes or contains an insurance policy or
insurance coverage for the proposed FG LA, LLC, "Sunshine
Project." This would include, but not be limited to, any "certificate
of insurance."
I request a waiver or reduction of fees because my use of any

records response "will be limited to a public purpose, including
but not limited to use in a hearing before any governmental
regulatory commission." See La. Stat. Ann. § 44:32(3). Any
records produced would be evaluated for use in ongoing
regulatory proceedings concerning the Sunshine Project.
I would prefer your response be in electronic format.
Thank you very much for your time and effort. I am mindful of the
resources that go into responding to
records requests. Please do not hesitate to reach out to me if I
can assist in anyway.
Michael L. Brown
ATTACHMENT J Ex. 2
Fee and Payment Fee Schedule
Information
Requestor's Signature Michael L. Brown
Date Sent 7/30/2019
ATTACHMENT J Ex. 2
6/21/2019 EJSCREEN Report
Save as PDF
EJSCREEN Report (Version 2018)

1 mile Ring Centered at 30.057759,-90.889417
LOUISIANA, EPA Region 6
Approximate Population: 1,064
Input Area (sq. miles): 3.14
Welcome
Selected Variables Percentile in State Percentile in EPA Region Percentile in USA

EJ Indexes
EJ Index for Particulate Matter (PM 2.5) 89 78 86
EJ Index for Ozone 89 77 85
EJ Index for NATA* Diesel PM 86 82 84
EJ Index for NATA* Air Toxics Cancer Risk 89 82 88
EJ Index for NATA* Respiratory Hazard Index 86 80 85
EJ Index for Traffic Proximity and Volume 71 59 70
EJ Index for Lead Paint Indicator 85 84 83
EJ Index for Superfund Proximity 65 55 66
EJ Index for RMP Proximity 87 82 88
EJ Index for Hazardous Waste Proximity 85 80 81
EJ Index for Wastewater Discharge Indicator 93 89 91
EJ Index for the Selected Area Compared to All People's Blockgroups in the State/Region/US
100
75
Percentile
50
25
0
PM Oz NA NA NA Tr Le Su RM Ha Wa
2. on TA TA TA aff ad pe PP za ste
5 e Di Ca Re ic Pa r fun ro rd wa
es nc sp Pr int xim ou
el ira ox dP sW ter
PM er im In ro ity Di
Ris to ity dica xim as sc
k ry to te ha
HI r ity Pr rg
ox eI
im nd
ity ic ato
r
EJ Indexes
State Percentile Regional Percentile USA Percentile
This report shows the values for environmental and demographic indicators and EJSCREEN indexes. It shows environmental and demographic raw data (e.g., the estimated concentration of
ozone in the air), and also shows what percentile each raw data value represents. These percentiles provide perspective on how the selected block group or buffer area compares to the entire
state, EPA region, or nation. For example, if a given location is at the 95th percentile nationwide, this means that only 5 percent of the US population has a higher block group value than the
average person in the location being analyzed. The years for which the data are available, and the methods used, vary across these indicators. Important caveats and uncertainties apply to
this screening-level information, so it is essential to understand the limitations on appropriate interpretations and applications of these indicators. Please see EJSCREEN documentation for
discussion of these issues before using reports.
ATTACHMENT K
https://ejscreen.epa.gov/mapper/ejscreen_SOE.aspx 1/3
Sites reporting to EPA

Superfund NPL 0
Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities (TSDF) 0
EPA
State Percentile Percentile in USA Percentile
Selected Variables Value Region
Average in State EPA Region Average in USA
Average
Environmental Indicators
Particulate Matter (PM 2.5 in µg/m3) 9.22 9.03 67 9.55 31 9.53 40
Ozone (ppb) 37 37.4 42 40.4 27 42.5 16
NATA* Diesel PM (µg/m3) 0.904 0.891 62 0.721 70-80th 0.938 60-70th
NATA* Air Toxics Cancer Risk (risk per MM) 48 49 57 42 80-90th 40 70-80th
NATA* Respiratory Hazard Index 1.8 1.9 38 1.8 50-60th 1.8 50-60th
Traffic Proximity and Volume (daily traffic count/distance to road) 20 250 32 320 25 600 26
Lead Paint Indicator (% pre-1960s housing) 0.18 0.21 61 0.18 69 0.29 49
Superfund Proximity (site count/km distance) 0.0063 0.067 4 0.07 5 0.12 3
RMP Proximity (facility count/km distance) 0.99 0.88 70 0.8 74 0.72 76
Hazardous Waste Proximity (facility count/km distance) 0.77 0.74 69 0.86 68 4.3 59
Wastewater Discharge Indicator (toxicity-weighted concentration/m distance) 0.0054 0.49 81 0.38 80 30 77
Demographic Indicators
Demographic Index 71% 40% 86 44% 83 36% 89
Minority Population 93% 41% 90 51% 88 38% 92
Low Income Population 49% 40% 68 38% 68 34% 76
Linguistically Isolated Population 0% 2% 63 6% 35 4% 44
Population with Less Than High School Education 21% 16% 69 17% 68 13% 78
Population under Age 5 9% 7% 71 7% 67 6% 75
Population over Age 64 11% 14% 34 13% 46 14% 36
*The National-Scale Air Toxics Assessment (NATA) is EPA's ongoing, comprehensive evaluation of air toxics in the United States. EPA developed the NATA to prioritize air toxics, emission
sources, and locations of interest for further study. It is important to remember that NATA provides broad estimates of health risks over geographic areas of the country, not definitive risks to
specific individuals or locations. More information on the NATA analysis can be found at: https://www.epa.gov/national-air-toxics-assessment.
For additional information, see: www.epa.gov/environmentaljustice
EJSCREEN is a screening tool for pre-decisional use only. It can help identify areas that may warrant additional consideration, analysis, or outreach. It does not provide a basis for decision-
making, but it may help identify potential areas of EJ concern. Users should keep in mind that screening tools are subject to substantial uncertainty in their demographic and environmental
data, particularly when looking at small geographic areas. Important caveats and uncertainties apply to this screening-level information, so it is essential to understand the limitations on
appropriate interpretations and applications of these indicators. Please see EJSCREEN documentation for discussion of these issues before using reports. This screening tool does not
ATTACHMENT K
provide data on every environmental impact and demographic factor that may be relevant to a particular location. EJSCREEN outputs should be supplemented with additional information and
local knowledge before taking any action to address potential EJ concerns.
ATTACHMENT K
Save as PDF

Approximate Population: 361
Salsburg

EJ Indexes
100
75
Percentile
50
25
0
el ira ox dP sW ter
k ry to te ha
HI r ity Pr rg
ox eI
im nd
ity ic ato
r
EJ Indexes
ATTACHMENT K

Superfund NPL 0
EPA
Average
Ozone (ppb) 37.4 37.4 45 40.4 29 42.5 18
ATTACHMENT K
ATTACHMENT K
Save as PDF

Central

EJ Indexes
100
75
Percentile
50
25
0
el ira ox dP sW ter
k ry to te ha
HI r ity Pr rg
ox eI
im nd
ity ic ato
r
EJ Indexes
ATTACHMENT K

Superfund NPL 0
EPA
Average
Ozone (ppb) 37.8 37.4 47 40.4 31 42.5 19
ATTACHMENT K
ATTACHMENT K
Save as PDF

White Hall

EJ Indexes
100
75
Percentile
50
25
0
el ira ox dP sW ter
k ry to te ha
HI r ity Pr rg
ox eI
im nd
ity ic ato
r
EJ Indexes
ATTACHMENT K

Superfund NPL 0
EPA
Average
Ozone (ppb) 37.9 37.4 48 40.4 31 42.5 19
ATTACHMENT K
ATTACHMENT K
Save as PDF

Union

EJ Indexes
100
75
Percentile
50
25
0
el ira ox dP sW ter
k ry to te ha
HI r ity Pr rg
ox eI
im nd
ity ic ato
r
EJ Indexes
ATTACHMENT K

Superfund NPL 0
EPA
Average
Ozone (ppb) 37.9 37.4 48 40.4 31 42.5 19
ATTACHMENT K
ATTACHMENT K
30.176290N
90.972157W
2010 CENSUS - CENSUS TRACT REFERENCE MAP: St. James Parish, LA 30.174972N
90.633093W
941
LEGEND
SYMBOL DESCRIPTION SYMBOL LABEL STYLE
Federal American Indian
Blind R iv
Reservation L'ANSE RES 1880
Sorrento 71225
Off-Reservation Trust Land,
Hawaiian Home Land T1880
70
Oklahoma Tribal Statistical Area,
Alaska Native Village Statistical Area,
Tribal Designated Statistical Area
KAW OTSA 5340
61
44 State American Indian
3140 Bour g eois Cnl Reservation Tama Res 4125
State Designated Tribal
22 Statistical Area Lumbee STSA 9815
Alaska Native Regional
Corporation NANA ANRC 52120
10 10 B yu F
State (or statistically
usi
l
equivalent entity) NEW YORK 36
61 County (or statistically
equivalent entity) ERIE 029
005
C E N SION Minor Civil Division
Bristol town 07485
AS 93
(MCD) 1,2
MES 0
22
ST. JA Byu Se c r et
Consolidated City MILFORD 47500
942
44
Boyce Tower
Rd
Incorporated Place 1,3 Davis 18100
Census Designated Place Incline Village 35100
(CDP) 3
18
Census Tract 33.07
IST 095
44
093
401
THE BAPT
DESCRIPTION SYMBOL DESCRIPTION SYMBOL
ST. JAMES
Mississippi Riv se Rd Interstate 3 Water Body Pleasant Lake
nterpri
Star E
nt Way St U.S. Highway 2
ST. JOHN
Conve 70 J am
Buena Vista St Motiva es Swamp or Marsh Okefenokee Swamp
P ar
ish 4
C State Highway
nl
Lemannville 43255 Rd Glacier Bering Glacier
e Marsh Ln
Jun Other Road
4WD Trail, Stairway,

3120 61 Alley, Walkway, or Ferry
Military Fort Belvoir
61
e St Southern RR
Fr ontag Lo 641 Raiload
70 d Cnl uis National or State Park,
eR line i an Yosemite NP
nta
g
St
Pipe aa Forest, or Recreation Area
Fr o Pipeline or
St
ns ide nd
Bur Ar
Helvetia
St Rd k an Power Line
Rd ion da
d
Leg an sa
A
ie R
bu
rg Am sR Inset Area
lw
nn
als y Ridge or Fence

Wi
3089 Rd
3089 da Property Line Outside Subject Area
l St
an
Am
Lutcher
Hyme
3089
Nonvisible Boundary
70 St 46720 or Feature Not
Union 77035 Gramercy 30550
t
Elsewhere Classified
o dis
70 Me
th 404 Garyville 28345
d
St
aR
18
t
tS
onn
J am
d
R
d is
ved
61 61
ng
es P
ho
St
t
Ste
Where state, county, and/or MCD boundaries coincide, the map shows the boundary
ori
Me
ed
dre
tral
t
ct S
ari
v
Cen
Ste
symbol for only the highest-ranking of these boundaries.

Rd
Proje
xna
sh
St
St
e
ame
Cn
Sch
14th
Helvetia
St
l
ill
No N
arh
St 1 A ' ° ' following an MCD name denotes a false MCD. A ' ° ' following a place name
Sug
le
vil
r St
me indicates that a false MCD exists with the same name and FIPS code as the place;
Romeville 65850
Este
Ro
la 642
la 44
3213 the false MCD label is not shown.
44
t
la 44 44 641
eS
Der
t
pic
sS
Dey
2 MCD boundaries are shown in the following states in which MCDs have functioning
la State
La
rg i
och
3213
Ha
Say
NA
eC
governments: Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota,
irlin
St
ir
402
Hwy 6
eA
New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont,
NM
ve
3213
41
Gramercy and Wisconsin.
illet
River Rd n St
3274 Evacuatio
Ave
3213
18 18
3 Place label color correlates to the place fill color.
la 642
Cab
d
River R
a
St a ud
nos
t
St
Grand Point
St
aso S
t
St
th S
od
eA
n 44
r
Well pL
uf B
E4 44
Mill
pal
Tuli
Wo
ve
30900
n St
44
St
la
Villav
Co
St
NM
Head Rd
Leboe
Hwy 642
St
31 641
View
rre
ille
Geaso
Calvary
25
Pecan
St
Gravois St
Lut
t Av
Pie
Rd
Pa come
403 3213
Dennis
44
NM
King
NK
e
c
ck
her
St
d
Bro
agn
l
kR
ing
Mount
We
rk
Ave
3rd
18
olia
oc
Ave
NC
Br
St
t
Sch
St
oy S
our
NC
18
sea
Adm
ool
St J ame s P
44
Big B
ult
ent
St
St
irals
St
he
ral
WL
T Poc 3193 18 18
Ave
Lan
Welcome 80360
ebr
y
la 642 641 Hw
ding
ay
ar rson
Lio
Longvie
NN
Lou
ish ffe
St
St
St
e
EJ
nel
isia
C
obil
St
tion
Main
nl
t
ni
na
Ellis
S
Wa
eS
w
u
Oubre Rd
Ave
Tex
nie
St
Evacua
mm
la 642
shi
St
t
St
as
Co
Min
44
ngt
S
St Rd Ricky Ln
Bel
t
on
wn rds
Nic rt St
vu
le
eto Edwa eL
A
St
es
hol
lbe
Fre St Jam a
as
Earline Rd
ke
St
Nicole
3213
sS
Ln
Hester Rd
ort Rd
t
Freep
Rd
t
Ln
sS
Rom
ard 44
SM
Mo
18
Joe Accard
Edw 44 Kenmore
eS
St. James 67355
rga nac S
artin
Uncle
t
Brig
nS
Dr
3127 18 Rd Plantation
la 44
t
lso Sam
Welham
Rd
Ne
SN
River R
St
Cypress Ln
ul 18
Redwood
Pa
ob
t
Rd
H Farm t Wendy
St Paulina il
18
Wallace 79275
Hester St
t
eS
euf S
d
Suga
oS Lebo Sugar 59375
t
Ln
Com 18
Kin
Ge ismar St
r Hou
d St
R Rd House
ler
bco rrier on Hester 34085
Bend St
Fa Po
-Wils
St Ph
St
Noo
la 642
se Ln
Kirklin Dr
St Babin
nS
illi p
land
ther
St
St
Sou Kir land L
la B che St
44 n
el St
Denise Rd
Effie Rd
T Po
Hayd n St
ouk
t
an S
Bell
t tatio 44 k
Mich
eles nt S atric
in S
Antio
e la St P
vue
C v
Con
Kahn St
el Rd
t
Ln
ch
Illinois Central RR
St
St Ja
Welham
Belmont Ln 44
St
St Pa St
la 4
Rd
4
mes
20
trick
Hwy 44
S t Rd t 8 20
Tank ry S
Dr
Bu rton 44 la 1
line O
Cap Rd 8
Hwy 44
ne rgy 18 la 1
nt of E 18 North
me Vacherie
De part t t
S
e ls S c ott 56170
ha sS
K ilm
ap R
d 44 Mic ma
St
Elma
Loc o
er S
Old
Th
Mag
Zeno
v
Re
Vach
nolia
Rd
t
n St
st S
Fran
ou
Falg
erie
Heig
klin S
18
Perk
St
18
Felicite R
hts S
t
Coll
Sim
Chu
n Rd
ins S
Proje
405 o
ins S
Burt
t
N Ba
on S
rch S
Convent 17180
St
d
t
ct D
t
Oak Alley Ln
Valcour Aime
n Rd ime
t
nk Ln
el St Valcour A
t
Field
r
s uckle
Oak All
tatio Hym
18 Ln
Plan y4
4
Mbc
Rd
St
St Joe Plan
Hw
Oubre
8
y1
y
ey
ne
Harris
Clinton R d
Hw
Ho
Far m
St 2
t
tella S
on
18
Baytre
Rd
tation Rd
St
Aubre
Cana
Domino
e St
y 18
St
Oak All
Op
Co-
y
Hw
St
s
me
St
Ja
ey Dr
nl St
ne C
Pipeli Hwy 4 4
au St
S Ba
nk Ln
Trude
St
J am
18
Rd
406
es P
ney
Sid
ari
18
shC
R
cific R
nl
uri Pa
Misso
Rd
St
y
ma
ce
ST. JAMES 093

no
Em
Bessie
ba
t
St
Penn S
P ike
Ca
Post Office St
Old
s Pe
ASSUMPTION 007
Martin St Landry-G
K Rd
St Luk
20
ak S
Judg
St
Cho
t
Caze
e
St
pin
Becn
Rd
el Ln
Barras St
B yu L
easo
as
se ne
n Rd
3219
By
u Las sene
3127
s Rd N Coteau Rd
Dick
S Coteau
Rd
Moonshine 51800
Tower R
Webre Stieb Rd
Br aza n Cnl
d
l
t Cn
N Oak St
NS
e Boa
Inness Ln
High Ridge Dr
Red Falgoust St
pruc
Forrestal St
Maple St
N Peach St
e St
g
Dred
Terre
South Vacherie 72092
Hau
te S
t
644
S Peach St
Melon Ln
Eliza
Palm St
Shell Hill Ln
20
Braz
Falgoust St
Desire St
Pine St
beth
Rd
an Rd
la 20
Oak St
Apricot
Ln 643
Walnut St
la Belle Rue Rd
Ellis St Ash St
Sugar Estates S t
Louise Rd
Lemon St
Ellis St
Fern St
Redbud St
St
Margar et St
erry
Mulb
ming
St
Swim
Pool
St
Fig
Rd
20 Leon n
wn L
S Sp
y To
Harr
407
ruce
St
Gr
an
dB
yu
C it amon
Pleasure Bend 61160
Byu
Gr
Pipe
line
an
Cnl
d By
u
Location of County within State

ST. JAMES 093
LAFOURCHE 057 20
ASSUMPTION 007
Chackbay 14100
LAFOURCHE 057
Byu Chevr e u il
95
T HE BAPTIST 0
JOHN
1014 ST. E 057
R CH
307 LAFOU
29.881797N 29.880482N
90.973156W 90.63512W
All legal boundaries and names are as of January 1, 2010. The boundaries shown on this Projection: Albers Equal Area Conic
map are for Census Bureau statistical data collection and tabulation purposes only; their Datum: NAD 83 PARENT SHEET 1 NAME: St. James Parish (093)
depiction and designation for statistical purposes does not constitute a determination of Spheroid: GRS 80 0 1 2 3 4 5 Kilometers ENTITY TYPE: County or statistically equivalent entity
jurisdictional authority or rights of ownership or entitlement. 1st Standard Parallel: 29 32 56 Total Sheets: 1
2nd Standard Parallel: 32 19 31 ST: Louisiana (22)
Geographic Vintage: 2010 Census (reference date: January 1, 2010)
0 0.8 1.6 2.4 3.2 4 Miles - Index Sheets: 0
Central Meridian: -91 18 06
Data Source: U.S. Census Bureau's MAF/TIGER database (TAB10ST22)
The plotted map scale is 1:44712 - Parent Sheets: 1
Latitude of Projection's Origin: 28 51 17
Map Created by Geography Division: November 24, 2010
False Easting: 0
- Inset Sheets: 0
False Northing: 0 2010 CENSUS TRACT REF MAP (PARENT)
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Economics and Statistics Administration U.S. Census Bureau USCENSUSBUREAU 205022093001
ATTACHMENT L
DP-1 Profile of General Population and Housing Characteristics: 2010
2010 Demographic Profile Data
NOTE: For more information on confidentiality protection, nonsampling error, and definitions, see http://www.census.gov/prod/cen2010/doc/dpsf.pdf.
Geography: Census Tract 405, St. James Parish, Louisiana
Subject Number Percent

SEX AND AGE
Total population 2,155 100.0
Under 5 years 131 6.1
5 to 9 years 142 6.6
10 to 14 years 155 7.2
15 to 19 years 201 9.3
20 to 24 years 168 7.8
25 to 29 years 149 6.9
30 to 34 years 109 5.1
35 to 39 years 95 4.4
40 to 44 years 135 6.3
45 to 49 years 164 7.6
50 to 54 years 160 7.4
55 to 59 years 171 7.9
60 to 64 years 120 5.6
65 to 69 years 83 3.9
70 to 74 years 67 3.1
75 to 79 years 46 2.1
80 to 84 years 29 1.3
85 years and over 30 1.4
Median age (years) 36.5 (X)
16 years and over 1,681 78.0

Male population 1,072 49.7

5 to 9 years 67 3.1
10 to 14 years 75 3.5
15 to 19 years 120 5.6
20 to 24 years 91 4.2
25 to 29 years 73 3.4
30 to 34 years 54 2.5
35 to 39 years 51 2.4
40 to 44 years 62 2.9
45 to 49 years 75 3.5
50 to 54 years 70 3.2
55 to 59 years 84 3.9
60 to 64 years 57 2.6
ATTACHMENT M
1 of 5 07/25/2019
65 to 69 years 40 1.9
70 to 74 years 28 1.3
75 to 79 years 18 0.8
80 to 84 years 12 0.6

Female population 1,083 50.3

5 to 9 years 75 3.5
10 to 14 years 80 3.7
15 to 19 years 81 3.8
20 to 24 years 77 3.6
25 to 29 years 76 3.5
30 to 34 years 55 2.6
35 to 39 years 44 2.0
40 to 44 years 73 3.4
45 to 49 years 89 4.1
50 to 54 years 90 4.2
55 to 59 years 87 4.0
60 to 64 years 63 2.9
65 to 69 years 43 2.0
70 to 74 years 39 1.8
75 to 79 years 28 1.3
80 to 84 years 17 0.8

RACE
One Race 2,140 99.3
White 249 11.6
Black or African American 1,876 87.1
American Indian and Alaska Native 7 0.3
Asian 0 0.0
Asian Indian 0 0.0
Chinese 0 0.0
Filipino 0 0.0
Japanese 0 0.0
Korean 0 0.0
Vietnamese 0 0.0
Other Asian [1] 0 0.0
Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander 0 0.0
Native Hawaiian 0 0.0
Guamanian or Chamorro 0 0.0
Samoan 0 0.0
ATTACHMENT M
2 of 5 07/25/2019
Other Pacific Islander [2] 0 0.0
Some Other Race 8 0.4
Two or More Races 15 0.7
White; American Indian and Alaska Native [3] 0 0.0
White; Asian [3] 0 0.0
White; Black or African American [3] 5 0.2
White; Some Other Race [3] 0 0.0
Race alone or in combination with one or more other

races: [4]
White 254 11.8
Black or African American 1,891 87.7
American Indian and Alaska Native 16 0.7
Asian 1 0.0
Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander 0 0.0
Some Other Race 8 0.4
HISPANIC OR LATINO
Hispanic or Latino (of any race) 53 2.5
Mexican 29 1.3
Puerto Rican 0 0.0
Cuban 0 0.0
Other Hispanic or Latino [5] 24 1.1
Not Hispanic or Latino 2,102 97.5
HISPANIC OR LATINO AND RACE

Hispanic or Latino 53 2.5
White alone 39 1.8
Black or African American alone 5 0.2
American Indian and Alaska Native alone 0 0.0
Asian alone 0 0.0
Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander alone 0 0.0
Some Other Race alone 8 0.4
Not Hispanic or Latino 2,102 97.5
White alone 210 9.7
Black or African American alone 1,871 86.8
American Indian and Alaska Native alone 7 0.3
Asian alone 0 0.0
Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander alone 0 0.0
Some Other Race alone 0 0.0
RELATIONSHIP
In households 2,120 98.4
Householder 707 32.8
Spouse [6] 288 13.4
Child 766 35.5
Own child under 18 years 376 17.4
Other relatives 294 13.6
Nonrelatives 65 3.0
Unmarried partner 29 1.3

In group quarters 35 1.6
ATTACHMENT M
3 of 5 07/25/2019
Institutionalized population 35 1.6
Male 34 1.6
Female 1 0.0
Noninstitutionalized population 0 0.0
Male 0 0.0
Female 0 0.0
HOUSEHOLDS BY TYPE
Total households 707 100.0
Family households (families) [7] 558 78.9
With own children under 18 years 199 28.1
Husband-wife family 288 40.7

Male householder, no wife present 59 8.3
Female householder, no husband present 211 29.8
Nonfamily households [7] 149 21.1
Householder living alone 138 19.5
Male 76 10.7
Female 62 8.8
Households with individuals under 18 years 275 38.9

Households with individuals 65 years and over 198 28.0
Average household size 3.00 (X)

Average family size [7] 3.42 (X)
HOUSING OCCUPANCY
Total housing units 793 100.0
Occupied housing units 707 89.2
Vacant housing units 86 10.8
For rent 7 0.9
Rented, not occupied 5 0.6
For sale only 4 0.5
Sold, not occupied 17 2.1
For seasonal, recreational, or occasional use 7 0.9
All other vacants 46 5.8
Homeowner vacancy rate (percent) [8] 0.7 (X)

Rental vacancy rate (percent) [9] 4.2 (X)
HOUSING TENURE
Occupied housing units 707 100.0
Owner-occupied housing units 551 77.9
Population in owner-occupied housing units 1,624 (X)
Average household size of owner-occupied units 2.95 (X)
Renter-occupied housing units 156 22.1

Population in renter-occupied housing units 496 (X)
Average household size of renter-occupied units 3.18 (X)
X Not applicable.
[1] Other Asian alone, or two or more Asian categories.
[2] Other Pacific Islander alone, or two or more Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander categories.
[3] One of the four most commonly reported multiple-race combinations nationwide in Census 2000.
[4] In combination with one or more of the other races listed. The six numbers may add to more than the total population, and the six
ATTACHMENT M
4 of 5 07/25/2019
percentages may add to more than 100 percent because individuals may report more than one race.
[5] This category is composed of people whose origins are from the Dominican Republic, Spain, and Spanish-speaking Central or South American
countries. It also includes general origin responses such as "Latino" or "Hispanic."
[6] "Spouse" represents spouse of the householder. It does not reflect all spouses in a household. Responses of "same-sex spouse" were edited
during processing to "unmarried partner."
[7] "Family households" consist of a householder and one or more other people related to the householder by birth, marriage, or adoption. They do not
include same-sex married couples even if the marriage was performed in a state issuing marriage certificates for same-sex couples. Same-sex couple
households are included in the family households category if there is at least one additional person related to the householder by birth or adoption.
Same-sex couple households with no relatives of the householder present are tabulated in nonfamily households. "Nonfamily households" consist of
people living alone and households which do not have any members related to the householder.
[8] The homeowner vacancy rate is the proportion of the homeowner inventory that is vacant "for sale." It is computed by dividing the total number of
vacant units "for sale only" by the sum of owner-occupied units, vacant units that are "for sale only," and vacant units that have been sold but not yet
occupied; and then multiplying by 100.
[9] The rental vacancy rate is the proportion of the rental inventory that is vacant "for rent." It is computed by dividing the total number of vacant units
"for rent" by the sum of the renter-occupied units, vacant units that are "for rent," and vacant units that have been rented but not yet occupied; and
then multiplying by 100.
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2010 Census.
ATTACHMENT M
6/24/2019 2017 TRI Factsheet for St. James Parish County, LA | TRI Explorer | US EPA
2017 TRI Factsheet: County – St. James Parish, LA
Data Source: 2017 Updated Dataset (released April 2019)
The Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) tracks the management of certain toxic chemicals that may pose a threat to human health and the environment.
Certain industrial facilities in the U.S. must report annually how much of each chemical is recycled, combusted for energy recovery, treated for
destruction, and disposed of or otherwise released on- and off-site. This information is collectively referred to as production-related waste managed.
Map of TRI Facilities in St. James Parish County, LA Quick Facts for 2017
St. James Parish County, LA United States
+
Number of 11 21,456
– TRI
Facilities:
5
Total 25.9 million lbs 30.5 billion lbs
2
Production-
3
Related
1
Waste
Managed:
Total On- 3.7 million lbs 3.9 billion lbs
site and Off-
site
0 5 10mi
Disposal or
Esri, HERE, Garmin, USGS, NGA, EPA,… Other
Releases:
Total On-site: 3.2 million lbs 3.4 billion lbs
• Air: 1.6 million lbs 600.5 million lbs
• Water: 295.7 thousand lbs 190.5 million lbs
• Land: 1.3 million lbs 2.7 billion lbs
Total Off-Site: 511.5 thousand lbs 424.9 million lbs
Lousiana ranks 4 out of 56 states/territories nationwide based on total releases
per square mile (Rank 1 = highest releases)
Looking at production-related waste managed over time helps track progress in reducing waste generated and moving toward safer waste
management methods. EPA encourages facilities to first eliminate waste at its source (source reduction). For waste that is generated, the
preferred management method is recycling, followed by energy recovery, treatment, and as a last resort, disposing of or otherwise releasing
the waste. Under the Pollution Prevention Act of 1990, TRI collects information to track industry progress in reducing waste generation and
moving towards safer waste management alternatives. Learn more about Pollution Prevention and TRI.
Production-related waste managed in

St. James Parish County, LA, 2003 - 2017
150M
Millions of Pounds
100M
50M
0
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 *
Year
Recycling Energy Recovery Treatment Disposal or Other Releases
*click to view this year's data as a pie chart.
The following charts represent releases of TRI-covered chemicals to the environment in St. James Parish County, LA. A "release" of a chemical
means that it is emitted to the air or water, placed in some type of land disposal, or transferred off-site for disposal or release.
ATTACHMENT N
https://enviro.epa.gov/triexplorer/tri_factsheet.factsheet?pZip=&pCity=&pCounty=ST.+JAMES+PARISH&pState=LA&pYear=2017&pDataSet=TRIQ1&… 1/2
6/24/2019 2017 Total
TRI Factsheet
On-sitefor St. Jamesby
Releases Parish County, LA | TRI
Environmental Explorer | US EPA
Medium
St. James Parish County, LA, 2003 - 2017
8M
Land
Water
Air
6M
Millions of Pounds
4M
2M
0
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 *
Year
*click to view this year's data as a pie chart.
Top Five Establishments by Total Disposal or Other Releases

St. James Parish County, LA, 2017
CONVENT REFINERY
(Industry Sector 324 - Petroleum)
NORANDA ALUMINA
Facility (Industry)
(Industry Sector 331 - Primary Metals)
MOSAIC PHOSPHATES CO FAUSTINA PLANT

(Industry Sector 325 - Chemicals)
MOSAIC FERTILIZER LLC UNCLE SAM PLANT

AMERICAS STYRENICS LLC

0 200k 400k 600k 800k 1,000k 1,200k 1,400k 1,600

Millions of Pounds
Air Water Land Off-site Disposal or Other Releases
Top Five Chemicals Released to Air and Water

St. James Parish County, LA, 2017
AIR WATER
1.6 million pounds 295.7 thousand pounds
SULFURIC ACID (1994 AND AFTER NITRATE COMPOUNDS: 64%

"ACID AEROSOLS" ONLY): 29% AMMONIA: 32%
N-HEXANE: 24% ZINC COMPOUNDS: 3%
AMMONIA: 15% LEAD COMPOUNDS: 1%
METHANOL: 10% NICKEL COMPOUNDS: 0%
**STYRENE**: 4% Other: 0%
1/2
Note: **=Carcinogenic Chemical

Note: Trend graphs were created using the 2001 core chemicals/industries list.
ATTACHMENT N
https://enviro.epa.gov/triexplorer/tri_factsheet.factsheet?pZip=&pCity=&pCounty=ST.+JAMES+PARISH&pState=LA&pYear=2017&pDataSet=TRIQ1&… 2/2
Save as PDF

Approximate Population: 2,165
Formosa Site

EJ Indexes
100
75
Percentile
50
25
0
2. on TA TA TA aff adP pe PP zar ste
5 e Di Ca Re ic ain r fun ro do wa
es nc sp Pr xim us
el ira ox tI dP ter
PM erR im nd ro ity Wa Di
isk to ity ica xim ste sc
ry to ha
HI r ity Pr rg
ox eI
im nd
ity icato
r
EJ Indexes
ATTACHMENT O

Superfund NPL 0
EPA
Average
Ozone (ppb) 37.3 37.4 44 40.4 28 42.5 17
ATTACHMENT O
ATTACHMENT O

3805 RISE St. James, Et Al. Formosa Air Permits Cmmts W-Exhibits - 2019aug12 PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

3805 RISE St. James, Et Al. Formosa Air Permits Cmmts W-Exhibits - 2019aug12 PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

August 12, 2019

VIA EMAIL & HAND DELIVERY

Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality

Dear Public Participation Group:

9 0 0 C AM P S T R EET , S UI TE 3 0 3 NEW ORLEANS, LA 7013 0

T: 415 .2 17 .2000 F: 415 .217 .2 040 W WW .EAR THJU STICE.ORG

CLEAN AIR ACT FRAMEWORK ............................................................................................ 8

I. PREVENTION OF SIGNIFICANT DETERIORATION AND THE STATE

II. THE LOUISIANA STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLAN ............................................... 9

III. TITLE V........................................................................................................................ 10

DETAILED COMMENTS ........................................................................................................ 11

I. FORMOSA FAILED TO COMPLY WITH AIR QUALITY IMPACT

A. Formosa Failed to Demonstrate That its Proposed Complex Will Not

B. Formosa Failed to Follow Mandatory Modeling Requirements, thus

C. Formosa’s Class II Air Quality Modeling violates Louisiana Regulations,

II. FORMOSA PERVASIVELY UNDERESTIMATES ITS POTENTIAL TO

III. THE EMISSION LIMITS DO NOT REFLECT THE BEST AVAILABLE

A. Best Available Control Technology (BACT)—Legal Background...................... 24

B. The Proposed PSD Permit Fails to Require BACT. ............................................ 27

1. The BACT determination does not correctly utilize a top-down

2. The BACT analysis failed to incorporate rate and other factors

3. The Proposed Permit Failed to require BACT to reduce GHG

4. The proposed permit impermissibly rejects BACT based on cost

IV. LDEQ SHOULD REQUIRE LOWEST ACHIEVABLE EMISSION RATE

V. THE PROPOSED TITLE V PERMITS FAIL TO ASSURE COMPLIANCE

VI. LDEQ SHOULD DENY THE PERMITS BECAUSE OF FORMOSA’S

A. Louisiana regulations require LDEQ to consider Formosa Plastic Group’s

B. FPG’s history of environmental violations demonstrate an unwillingness

C. LDEQ should conduct a supplemental evaluation of FPG’s and FPC’s

VII. FORMOSA’S ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT STATEMENT (EAS) IS

A. Overview of LDEQ’s Public Trust Duty and Environmental Assessment

B. Formosa’s EAS fails to include a full risk assessment of its toxic

1. Background on risk values. ..................................................................... 44

2. Formosa’s emissions compared with IRIS toxicity values. ...................... 44

3. LDEQ must require Formosa to conduct a full assessment of its toxic

1. Ethylene Oxide’s harmful effects. ........................................................... 48

2. Formosa’s Ethylene Oxide Emissions & Modeling Flaws. ...................... 51

1. Formosa Failed to Adequately Address the Storm-Related

a. Formosa did not analyze the risk of storm-related chemical

b. Formosa failed to properly evaluate the extent of its flood

2. Formosa provided no Proof it is Sufficiently Insured to Protect the

F. Formosa’s lopsided cost-benefits analysis fails to include environmental

A. Adverse Impacts from Formosa’s Proposed Complex Would

B. Major Sources of Air Pollution Are Clustered in the Minority Community

C. Purported Compliance With NAAQS or Other Standards Does Not

• Formosa underestimated the potential emissions from its proposed complex.

• Formosa’s Environmental Assessment Statement (EAS) submissions are incorrect in

• Formosa provides a lopsided cost-benefits analysis that fails to include environmental

• Adverse impacts from Formosa’s proposed complex would disproportionately impact

CLEAN AIR ACT FRAMEWORK

I. Prevention of Significant Deterioration and the State Implementation Plan

II. The Louisiana State Implementation Plan

(3) A “preliminary determination [by LDEQ] whether construction should be approved,

I. FORMOSA FAILED TO COMPLY WITH AIR QUALITY IMPACT

C. Formosa’s Class II Air Quality Modeling violates Louisiana Regulations,

III. THE EMISSION LIMITS DO NOT REFLECT THE BEST AVAILABLE

A. Best Available Control Technology (BACT)—Legal Background.

The Clean Air Act defines BACT as an:

emission limitation based on the maximum degree of reduction of each pollutant

If reviewing authorities let slip their rigorous look at ‘all’ appropriate

B. The Proposed PSD Permit Fails to Require BACT.

1. The BACT determination does not correctly utilize a top-down

540 U.S. 461 (2004)

ÿÿ !"ÿ#ÿ$%&'ÿ&()ÿ*ÿ+ÿ#,-ÿ. /-ÿ'Ex.

ÿ !"#$#%&'(#ÿ)+%ÿ,-"+./ÿ0+/#0ÿ1232ÿ+4/$"#0ÿ KÿL#%#"+'M#0ÿN4/4"#ÿO+%0ÿP&#ÿ)*+%Qÿ0+/#0ÿ22ÿ

ÿÿÿ! !"#ÿ$#"%&ÿÿ' ÿ' (ÿ%ÿ%")ÿ

483ÿ9 ÿ23ÿ411ÿ

483ÿ2435ÿ83ÿÿ88