Agenda Item No.16



## MONTEREY BAY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

STAFF REPORT Proposed Revisions to Rule 207 (Review of New or Modified Sources)

Board Adoption Hearing April 20, 2011

Prepared by: Mike Sewell Air Quality Engineer Approved by: Greg Chee, Supervising Air Quality Engineer Mike Gilroy, Deputy Air Pollution Control Officer

PAGE44Agenda Item No.16

PAGE45Agenda Item No. 16
Background

Authority Significant Proposed Provisions

PAGE46 Staffis proposing to revise Rule 207 (Review ofNew or Modified Sources) to incorporate the federal requirements for fine particulate matter. In addition, staffis proposing minor clarifications and clean-up language for the rule. On September 29,2010, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) published a rule which established new requirements for the Clean Air Act's Prevention ofSignificantDeterioration(PSD) program relative to fine particulate matter. EPA's regulation established PSD Increments and Significant ImpactLevels for particulate matter less than 2.5 micrometers in diameter (PM2.5). This regulation also established May 15, 2011 as the deadline by which local Air. Pollution Control Districts will have regulations in place to implement these new requirements.

. The District is authorized to adopt new and revise rules by: CaliforniaHealth

and Safety (HSC) Code Sections 40001 and 40702. To facilitate the interpretation ofthe proposedrevisions to Rule 207, the text proposed to be deleted is indicated with overstriking (everstrikiag) and the text proposed to be added is indicated with redlining (redlining). The revisions proposed would: • Section 2.1: AddPMz.s as an affectedpollutant and rename total suspended particulates (TSP) as particulate matter (PM) to align with present nomenclature, • Section 2.4: Replace TSP with PM2.s andPM 10• • Section 2.5: Addthe baseline date ofOctober 20, 2010 for air quality increments for PMz.s and update the Increments Table by removing TSP and including PMz.s. TSP has been removed because there is no longer a National Ambient Air Quality Standard for TSP, • Section 2.36: Include the PM25 criteria in theNetEmissions Increase defmition andreplace all references to TSP with PM, • Section 2.46: Rename the TSP definition as PM, • Section 2.47: Add a definition for PM2

### .s. • Section 2.51: Include the PM25 fraction in the defmition ofPrecursor, • Section 2.63: Remove the definition ofTSP, • Section 4.1: Update the BACT Table to include PM2

### .s and replace TSP with PM, and addthe applicability date for PM2

### .s. In addition, Asbestos, Beryllium, Mercury, and Vinyl Chloride have been removed from the table as these compounds are regulated under other federal regulations, Section 4.2: Replace TSP with PM,Affected Sources and Potential Fiscal Impact

Socioeconomic Effects Alternative Analysis District Implementation Fiscal Impact npon District California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Status Comments Received Agenda Item No.16

• Section 

### 4.5: Addthe PM2.s criteria for Protection of Class I Areas and replace TSP with PM, • Section 6.8: Update the reference for the required Air Quality Model, • Section 7.4: Addthe applicability date for PM2 .5, • Section 9.1: Update the reference for the required Air Quality Model, and • Section 9.3: Correctthe example calculation. Theproposed regulatory action described herein is exempt from the requirements ofHealth and Safety Code (HSC) Section 

### 40728.5. However, a briefanalysis ofthe potential fiscal impacts upon affected sources is provided herein. · The proposed revisions wouldhave no impact on existing permitted sources. Newprojects with PM25 emissions above specific thresholds would be required to include additional information intheir application which would enable the District to perform an Increments Analysis . The proposed regulatory action described herein would not significantly affect air quality or emissions limitations andtherefore is exempt from Health and Safety Code (HSC) Section 

### 40728.5, which requires that a socioeconomic analysis ofthe proposed action beperformed. Since there are no new control standards being proposed, the proposed regulatory action described herein is exemptfrom California Health and Safety Code (HSC) Section 

### 40727.2, which requires that a comparative alternative analysis ofany new control standardbeperformed. Notice ofthe adoption ofthe revised rule will be made to all potentially affected sources, as part ofthe District's normal rule implementation process. There should be no significantfiscal impact upon the Districtfrom the proposed revisions to this rule. Theproposed revisions to Rule 

### 207 are Categorically Exempt under Section 

### 15308- Actions by Regulatory Agencies for Protection ofthe Environment, and therefore not subject to the requirements ofPublic Resources Code Section 

### 21000 etseq. None.

PAGE47