Santa Barbara County APCD Rule 810 Project 5

- 1 June 20, 2013



### PROJECT DESCRIPTION SUMMARY OF THE EFFECTS OF PROPOSED AMENDED RULE 810, FEDERAL PREVENTION OF SIGNIFICANT DETERIORATION (PSD)

Project Overview :

The Santa Barbara County Air Pollution Control District ( District ) Rule 810 implement s the federal Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) requirements. Under the federal provisions, any new or modified major stationary source must undergo preconstruction review and permitting.

Several years ago the federal Envi ronmental Protection Agency ( EPA ) began to regulate greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. As part of those regulations, the agency adjusted the requirements as to when PSD permitting would be triggered by GHG emissions. The agency accomplished this by establis hing GHG emission thresholds for triggering PSD permits (per the Greenhouse Gas Tailoring Rule). These thresholds are higher than those for “ criteria" air pollutants. ” a



### To promulgate federal PSD rules at the local district level, EPA developed a model PSD rule. However, EPA has since found that the model PSD rule, which we adopted in 2011, needs minor revisions before EPA can incorporate the Rule 810 into the State Implementation Plan (SIP). EPA is working with a number of California air districts on similar rule changes to assure SIP approval. T he District is proposing to amend Rule 810 to facilitate SIP approval

.

Objectives :

Once adopted, the District will submit Rule 810 to the California Air Resources Board (CARB)

and EPA f

or inclusion into :

1. the State Implementation Plan (SIP), and

2

. the federal Outer Continental Shelf Air Regulations.

Inclusion in the SIP will allow for the District to process any PSD permits for major stationary sources with emissions level above PSD permit triggers.

Background

Congress amended the federal Clean Air Act in 1997. Included in those amendments was a requirement that each state (and therefore district) adopt a PSD program. In December 2009, EPA 1) promulgated an “endangerment finding” for GHG emissions, and 2) made the finding that GHGs from new motor vehicles contribute to the GHG pollution, which threatens public health and welfare. As a direct result of these findings, EPA proceeded to control GHG

emissions from new and modified major stationary sour ces as well.

On May 13, 2010, EPA issued a GHG Tailoring Rule that effectively raised the thresholds for GHG emissions that trigger PSD and Title V permits for new and existing major stationary

sources.

a “Criteria” pollutants include oxides of nitrogen, reactive organic compounds, particulate matter, ox ides of sulfur, and carbon monoxide, but not GHGs.Santa Barbara County APCD Rule 810 Project 5

- 2 June 20, 2013



### Working with local air districts and the Califor nia Air Resources Board through the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA), EPA released a PSD model rule on September 21, 2010. Staff modeled Rule 810 on the CAPCOA PSD model rule and the District Board adopted the rule on January 20, 2011. However, recently, EPA indicated that they could not approve Rule 810 into the SIP as it is currently written. The changes necessary are narrow in scope, and EPA has worked with the District on the revised rule text.

Implications to the Regul ated Community :

W HO 

### I S 

### A FFECTED 

### ?

Federal PSD regulations affect existing major sources or new sources when emissions increases of criteria pollutant or GHG emissions are above specified pollutant thresholds. For example, a new source with potential to e mit GHG over 100,000 tons/year would be subject to a federal PSD permit. The amended Rule 810 does not change permit applicability requirements or establish any new requirements on existing sources.

W HAT 

### A RE 

### T

HE 

### P ROPOSED 

### R ULE 

### C HANGES 

### ?

Attachment 4 of the Board Package shows the proposed Rule 810 changes and Attachment A to this Project Description Summary is a table that summarizes the reasons for the rule changes.

The proposed amendments are administrative in nature (e.g., revise fo rmatting, update the in effect date, and improved text for clarity).

Comparisons to Adjacent Local Air Pollution Control Districts :

The San Luis Obispo County APCD and the Ventura County APCD are in the process of amending their PSD rules in a similar fashion. a 

### The San Joaquin Valley Unified APCD Rule 2410 is similar to the District’s Rule 810. EPA approved Rule 2410 into the SIP with the understanding that the SJV APCD would revise the rule for clarity in the future.

Emission Reductions, Cost Effect iveness, and Incremental Cost

- Effectiveness :

The proposed amended rule changes are administrative in nature and they are relative to permitting actions. Rule 810 is not a control measure. Hence, there are no emission reductions expected from the proposed rule action. For this reason there are also no cost

- effectiveness or

incremental cost

- effectiveness figures relative to this rulemaking task. Thus, the requirements of California Health and Safety Code Section 40703 and Section 40920.6 do not ap ply.

Fiscal Impacts to the Regulated Industry due to the Proposed Amended Rule :

There are no additional fiscal impacts to the regulated sources that stem from the rule

amendments.

a Rules 220 and 26.13, respectively

.Santa Barbara County APCD Rule 810 Project 5

- 3 June 20, 2013



### Implications to the District Work Load and Budget :

There are no known impacts. Based on historical data, future federal PSD permit actions are expected to be very low in number.

Public Review :

B efore the May 8, 2013 Community Advisor y Council (CAC) meeting , the District sent notices about the proposed rule amendments to operators of large sources in Santa Barbara County

. Besides explaining the project, the letter mentioned the upcoming CAC Meeting and invited comments on the project.

On May 19, 2013, the District published a public notice announcing that the District Board of Directors will consider adopting the amended Rule 810 at the June 20, 2013 Board Hearing.

Attached:

Attachment A, Summary of Reasons for Proposed Amended Rule 810 ChangesATTACHMENT A

Santa Barbara County APCD Rule 810 Project A

- 1 June 20 , 2013 

### Summary of Reasons for Proposed Amended Rule 810 Changes

Rule 810 Section Changed Proposed Changes in Strikethrough and Underline Formatting Reason for Change

A, Purpose [. . .] Rule 201

, ( Permits Required )

, contains application requirements

and Rule 204

, ( Applications ) , Rule 205

, ( Standards for Granting Applications ) , Rule 206

, ( Conditional Approval of Authority to Construct or Permit to Operate ) , Rule 207

, ( Denial of Applications )

, and Rul e 208

, ( Action on Applications

- Time Limits )

, contain [. . .] Changes make the text consistent with the standard

format used in other rules.

B, Applicability [. . .] 40 Code of Federal Regulations

, Part 52, Section 52.21 (40 CFR 52.21) in effect August 2, 2010 [ date of amended rule adoption ] as incorporated into this rule. This change is consistent with the CAPCOA model rule. By changing the rule’s in effect date to refer to the most

current 40 CFR 52.21 the rule will incorporate by

reference the most recent changes and revisions made to

40 CFR 52.21 (and, by extension, 40 CFR 51.166 )

.

The substantive changes made to these sections include a revision to the definition of “regulated NSR pollutant” so that 1) condensable particulate matter is inc luded as part of the emissions measurements for regulation of PM2.5 and PM10, and 2) the January 22, 2013 D.C. Circuit Court of Appeal Order vacating certain provisions of 40

CFR 51.166 and 40 CFR 52.21.

Addition al information on changes to the 40 CFR 52 .21 may be obtained from this web page: www.epa.gov/nsr/actions.html

. C. Incorporation by

Reference Except as provided below, the provisions of Title 40 CFR 52.21 in

effect August 2, 2010 [ date of amen ded rule adoption ] are incorporated herein by reference [. . .] Same as above.ATTACHMENT A

Santa Barbara County APCD Rule 810 Project A

- 2 June 20 , 2013 

### Summary of Reasons for Proposed Amended Rule 810 Changes

Rule 810 Section Changed Proposed Changes in Strikethrough and Underline Formatting Reason for Change

C.2 2. The following definitions found in 40 CFR 52.21(b) are revised

as follows:

a. The definition of “potential to emit” contained in 40 CFR 52.21(b)(4) is revised so that the phrase “is federally enforceable” shall read “is federally enforceable or enforceable as a practical matter.”

b. The definition of “allowable emissions” contained in 40 CFR 52.21(b)(16) is revised so that:

1 ) the phrase “unless the source is subject to federally enforceable limits which restrict the operating rate, or hours of operation, or both” shall read, “unless the source is subject to enforceable li mits which restrict the operating rate, or hours of operation, or both.”

2 ) paragraph (iii) shall read as follows: “The emissions rate specified as an enforceable permit condition, including those with a future compliance date.” EPA determined that revis ions to the potential to emit

and allowable emissions terms are not necessary for approval.

C.2 (renumbered) The following terms and phrases found in 40 CFR 52.21(b) are

revised as follows: The revision is needed to make the statement consistent

with the sections below it.

C.2.b (renumbered) The phrase “paragraph (q) of this section” in 40 CFR 52.21 (l)(2) and (p)( 1 ) shall read as follows: “ the public notice and comment provisions of Rule 810 Section E below

. ” 40 CFR 52.21(l)(2) also includes t he phra se “paragraph (q) of this section

. ”. Including “below” in the phrase may have been confusing.

C.3 (new) The phrase “permit to construct” found in 40 CFR 52.21(p)(1) means “Authority to Construct” as defined in Rule 102, Definitions. This change is needed for consistency with phrases found in other SBC APCD rules and the D.1 provision

below.

D.1 (renumbered and new) The Control Officer shall provide written notice of any permit application for a proposed major stationary source or major

modification to the Environmental Protection Agency administrator. Such notification shall include a copy of all information relevan t to the permit application and shall be given within 30 days of receipt and at least 60 days prior to any public hearing on the application for an Authority to Construct Upon review and approval of other PSD rules using the CAPCOA Model Rule, EPA determined these revisions are a required element of a PSD program. See 40 CFR

51.166 (p)(1)

. 40 CFR 52.21 does not contain these requirements because the regulation was intended to be administered by EPA.ATTACHMENT A

Santa Barbara County APCD Rule 810 Project A

- 3 June 20 , 2013 

### Summary of Reasons for Proposed Amended Rule 810 Changes

Rule 810 Section Changed Proposed Changes in Strikethrough and Underline Formatting Reason for Change

D.2 (renumbered and new) The Control Officer shall determine whether an application is complete not later than 30 days after receipt of the application or after such longer time as both the applicant and the Control Officer may agree. If the Control Officer determines that the application is not complete, the applicant shall be notified in writing of the decision specifying the information that is required. Upon receipt of any resubmittal of the application, a new 30

- day perio d to determine completeness shall begin. If the Control Officer determines that the application is still not complete, the applicant may appeal that

determination to the Board. The Board shall make its written determination within 60 days after receiving the applicant's appeal. I f

such determination is not made within that 60

- day period, the application with the submitted materials shall be deemed complete. Appeals will be assessed a fee based on the cost reimbursement provisions of Rule 210, Fees. Upo n determination that the application is complete, the Control Officer shall notify the applicant in writing. The date of receipt of the application shall be the date on which the reviewing authority received all required information. Upon review and appro val of other PSD rules using the CAPCOA Model Rule, EPA determined these revisions are a required element of a PSD program. See 40 CFR

51.166 (q)(1)

. 40 CFR 52.21 does not contain these requirements because they are contained in a separate portion of the CFR, which is not included in Rule 810. The specific language chosen is intended to be consistent with how the District already determines application completeness.

E, Public Participation Prior to issuing a federal Prevention of Significant Deteriorati on permit pursuant to this rule and within one year after receipt of a complete application, the Control Officer shall: Upon review and approval of other PSD rules using the CAPCOA Model Rule, EPA determined this additional phrase was inadvertently left out of the Model Rule. This is a required element of a PSD Program [reference

40 CFR 51.166 (q)(2)]

.Attachment 8

Additional Materials: Clean Air Act, Section 110(a)(2)(E)(i) Demonstration

Amended Rule 810, Federal Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD)

(Adopted June 20, 2013)Santa Barbara County APCD



### Clean Air Act, Section 110(a)(2)(E)(i) Demonstration

Pursuant to Section 110(a)(2)(E)(i) of the Clean Air Act, below is a written statement and

citations to demonstrate that the Santa Barbara County Air Pollution Control District ( District ) has adequate personnel, funding, and authority under State and/or local law to implement the Prevention of Significant Deterioration ( PSD ) program within the District.

The District has the primary responsibility for regulating air pollution from all sta tionary sources within Santa Barbara County (see California Health & Safety Code (H&SC) sections 39002 and 40000). The California Air Resources Board oversees the District’s activities and regulates mobile sources of air pollution. Under State law, the D istrict is required to adopt rules to achieve ambient air quality standards and to enforce the provisions of local, State and federal air quality laws (see H&SC section 40001(a)).

The District’s permitting program (which is authorized by H&SC section 4230 0 and must meet the requirements of section 42301), as approved by EPA, currently implements requirements from both the California and federal Clean Air Acts. The District is authorized by state law to enforce its rules, regulations and orders, including conditions contained on District

- issued Title

V (Part 70 Operating Permits) and PSD permits (see H&SC §§ 40752(b); 41513; 42402

- 42403).

The District’s personnel is comprised of approximately 46 allocated positions which includes experienced and capable en gineers, and field inspectors. The Di strict staff has experience processing applications for Major facilities and Title V sources, as well as enforcing all conditions in these permits. The District currently has approximately 880 permitted stationary

so urces; these include approximately eighteen Title V sources and a wide range of minor source

types.

There are currently no stationary sources in Santa Barbara County holding a PSD

- type Authority to Construct permit. However, there is a potential for a fe w new or modified sources to be subject to PSD permitting requirements due to greenhouse gases emission in the future. The District has the adequate personnel to accommodate a potential incremental increase on workload and will recover costs per Rule 210, Fees.

Accordingly, the District has adequate legal authority, personnel

, and funding to implement and enforce the PSD program.