### RULE EVALUATION 

### FORM TO SE COMPLETED BY DI5TRICT District: Santa Barbara uie no.: 206 Date adopted: 10/15/91 :tie: Conditional Approval of Authority To Construct or Permit To Operate Cute submitted to ARE: November 8, 199bate last submitted tD ARE: NA 

### Pollutants regulated by this rule (ctrcie): NOx 502 PM1O VOC TAt (Name of 

### TAC) NA Is this rule intended to be sent to 

### the EPA as 

### a SIP revision? 

## ( ) Yes; 

## ( N:. SUMWRY 

### OF RULE CHANGES: 

## ( ) New rule 

## ( X 

### Amended rule The rule revision clarifies that permit holders must comply with all air pollution control laws, and that failure to comply with a permit Condition is a violation of the rule. The revision addresses Section 44382 of the Air Toxics “Hot Spots” Act, requiring permit conditions.


### NET EFFECT OH EMI5SIONS: 

## ( ) Increase 

## ( ) Decrease 

## ( ) No change 

## C x) N/A Attach calculation sheet showing how information provided here was arrived at; reference emissions factors, etc.

- Emissions before rule 

### adoption/amendment: NA tons/day 

### Emissions reduction connitment in SIP for this source: NA tonsday 

### Calculated emissions change 

### from this rule adoption/amendment: NA 

### tons/day SOURCES/ATTAINMENT STATUS:fj District is : 

## ( ) Attainment; (X 

## ) Nonattainment; 

## ( ) Split (3pproximate number of minor (<100 TPY) sources controlled by rule: NA Percent in nonattainment area: NA Number of major (1100 TPY) sources controlled: NA 

### Percent in nonattainment area: NA Location: City: NA County: NA (Attach additional sheets as necessary.) EMISSIONS REDUCTION TECHNOLOGY: Does rule include emission limits that are continuous? Yes; (X) No. If 

### yes, those limits are in Section(s) __________________



### of the rule. Other-methods in the rule for achieving emissions reductions are:

OTHER REQUIREMENTS: The rule contains: 1) Emission limits in Section(s) NA 2) Work practice standards in Section(s) NA 

### 3) Recordkeeping requirements in Section(s) NA 

### 4) Reporting requirements in Section(s) NA 

### Attach a completed EPA Enforcement Unit List or provide an equivalent compliance/enforcement strategy statement. r&MCT ON 

### AIR QUALITY PLAN: (X) 

### No Impact 

## ( ) Impacts RFP 

## ( ) Impacts Attainment scuss i

### on:

1/2 

## IL See attachment for instructions.

### TO BE COMPLETED BY ARE Date submitted to EPA: Date last submitted to EPA: QEnforceabi 1 ity: Conznents: Enforceable 

## ( ) Not enfcrceabie 

## ) Very difficult :2 

### enfor:e

RULE IS CONSISTENT WITH; 

## ( ) Health and Safety Code 

## ( ) ARE Guidelines (SCMs and Model Rules) 

## ( ) TRG Recomendation 

## ( ) Nonattainment Area Plan 

## ( ) Clean Air Act and 40 CFR 51 

## ( ) Availability of emission data (51.10) 

## ( ) NSR procedures (51.18) 

## ( ) Legal authority (51.11) 

## ( ) Emission monitoring procedures (5i.:; 

## ( ) Prevention of emergency episodes (51.15) 

## ( ) Emission limitations (CTGs) (51.22) 

## ( ) PSD Procedures (51.24) 

## ( ) Variance procedures (51.34) 

## ( ) Approve 

## ( ) Disapprove+ 

## ( ) Submit with reservation ARE RECOMMENDED ACTION: Discuss ion:

+Not tobe submitted to EPA as SIP revision. Evaluator: ___________________________________

Division: Date:

TO BE COMPLETED BY EPA Date Received by EPA: EPA Proposed Action: 

## ( 

## ) Approve Date Last Received by EPA: 

## ( ) Disapprove 

## ( Other

Evaluator: Phone: Date: _______________



### SIP (9/6/89)

2/2Attachment 1
Submittal Package for Rule 206 (Conditional Approval of Authority to Construct or Permit to Operate) Adopted October 15, 1991
Santa Barbara County Air Pollution Control District

SIP CONPLETENESS CHECKLISTS

### SIP COMPLETENESS CHECKLIST (To Be CDleted By 

### District)
DISTRICT Santa Barbara RULE NUMBER 206 DATE ADOPTED 10/15/91 RULE TITLE Conditional Approval of Authority To Construct or Permit To Operat ADMINISTRATIVE MATERIALS 

### Attached/Hot Attached’ 

## ( x) 

## ( ) COMPLETE COPY OF THE RULE. If amended rule, indicate Attachment 4 changes in underline and strikeout format, compared to existing approved SIP version. X) REFERENCE TO OTHER RULES. If the rule contains a reference to any other rule, attach a copy of that other rule unless it has already been submitted to EPA as a part of a previous SIP submittal. x) 

## ( ) PuBLIC NOTICE EVIDENCE. Include a copy of the newspaper Attachment clipping certification with date of publication. Include a copy of notice from each newspaper. X) 

## ( ) RESOLUTION/MINUTE ORDER. Must include Board Clerk Attachment certification that hearing was held in accordance with information in the public notice; must also include list of rules adopted or amended, date of public hearing, and statement of compliance with H&SC Sectior.s 40725—40728 [Administrative Procedures Act). 

## ( x) 

## ( ) PUBLIC COMMENTS AND RESPONSES. Any written coments Attachment 7 

### submitted to the District during public notice period or at the hearing; also include any. written responses prepared by the. District as normal District procedure.
TECHNICAL 

### K&ThRIALS Cómo1 eted 

## C xi RULE EVALUATION FORM. Complete and include that form. In completing it, refer to and check off the following material to make sure you provide what is required. 

## (x) POLLUTANTS REGULATED BY RULE. Simple listing of the pollutants being regulated by the rule or rule amendments. (X 

## ) SUMhtARY OF RULEIRUI.E CHANEES. Brief description of rule or rule amendments as adopted. (X 

## ) DUANTIFICATION OF EFFECT ON EMISSIONS. Include calculations of the rule’s effect on emissions, wherever possible; in some cases, only estimate of directional change is appropriate. (X 

## ) IDENTIFICATION OF SOURCES 

### AND ATTAINMENT STATUS. Specify attainment status of district. State the name, city, and county for each major source 

## ta 100/TflJ in nonattainment area; for minor sources [under 100 TPI), provide total number in nonattainment area.

1/2X) 

### LYIDENCE THAT EXISSION LIMITATIONS ARE BASED ON CONTINUOUS EMISSIONS REDUCTION 

### TECHNOLOGY. Include reference to section of rule [or another rule) indicating that emission limits are continuous; specify type if another method for achieving emission reductions wjfl be used [i.e., AECP, etc.]; if another rule is referenced, submit that rule if not previously submitted. 

## ( x) IDENTIFY LOCATION IN RULE OF EMISSION LIMITS. WORK PRACTICE STANDARDS, ANDIOR RECORDKEEPING/REPORTING REOUIREMENTS. Identify and submit different rule if that is referenced and if it affects this rule’s enforceability. Attach completed EPA enforcement checklist, as appropriate. 

## Cx) DEMONSTRATION THAT NMOS/PSD INCREMENTS/RFP ARE PROTECTED. Attach, as appropriate, justification fo— any increase in 

### emission limits, where that will occur, and a comitment for compensating deceases in emissions. Severe increases may require modeling demonstration. See also item on modeling support, below.

OTHER INFORMATION Other supporting documentation used 

### in the adoption of the regulation, 

### including but not limited to: modeling of impacts; economic and technical justifications for deviations from EPMARB policies; and any other appropriate material. Attached/Not Attached 

## ( ) C x) 1. MODELING SUPPORT. Provide as appropriate; not required for VOC and NOx rules; reuired where rule is a relaxation in an attainment area for 502, P1410, CO or NOx [for HOE purposes); for relaxation or shift of emissions in nonattainment area for 502, P1410, CO, and NOx, give reference to the approved SIP. 

## ( ) ( x) 2. ECONOMICITECHNICAL JUSTIFICATION FOR DEVIATIONS FROM EPA POLICIES. As appropriate, describe special circumstances, i.e., where alternative RACT is used, extended compliance dates included, etc.tt 

## ( X) 

## C ) 3. ADDITIONAIMATERIALS. Any other supporting information, such as staff reports, which are included with the rule package but not specifically required in the checkhst above. Staff Report (Attachment 7)

* 

### Attach separate sheet for each rule explaining why any materials are not included and when they will be submitted to the MB. Completed enforcement checklist will fulfill this requirement.

2/2Attachment 3
Submittal Package for Rule 206 (Conditional Approval of Authority to Construct or Permit to Operate) Adopted October 15, 1991
Santa Barbara County Air Pollution Control District

SIP APPROVABILITY CHECKLISTS

- ENFORCEABILITY0 0 0SIPAPPCNAIII(.I’LYClIECKFIST—ENFVHCEAI)ILl’!?Sit’t’ackcjuLb.Dalelice.DateDue________________grATE:California(SantaBarbaraCojjnJy)Subject1atter:Rule206(ConditionalApprovalofAuthoritytoConstructorPermittoOperate)EnforceabilityAnalysiastateSubmittalEPARequirementApprovability(ApprovableorNot)justresrc,inen)1.Applicabilitya.Whattiourcenarebciii’jChicIlyregulated?NAb.WhatarecriteriaforClarityexeiiiption?NAc.IscalculationExamplecalculationorprocedureforexemptionNAclearexplanationofclearlyspecified?hOwtodetermineexemption(linebyline,etc.)d.18emissionInventoryInventoryincludinglistedintheallowableandactualbackgrounddocumentemissionsinsourceofthe.attalnmentcategoryshouldbedetionstration?NAincluded,EarenforcementpurposesandindependentofanyCleanAirActrequirements,intheattainmentdenni—strattonLfsuchdataisnecessaryfordeterniin—ingbaselinesinregulations.0

•0 0
Eiiforceahjjy}qjyn in

e. hi Sw averagiricj LUnch;)

used In the rule cliff er—

eat from that of 11w athtent standard?

f. WILIL aLU the 111)115 Ut
t111V ii ZIIICC (1 bi vcx: V2 I gallon of solids zipplied less water, grains per 8tandard cubic foot?)

cj. Tn bnlhl 1Mg or averacj—

incj of any type allowed? If yes, utate

criteria. Could a U.S. ePt inspcctor I ndependcnbl y determine

if the crileria were met?

EPA have to approve
each cwm? state Silbi” I tin) NA NA NA !2’A Ilerni I rcnent_________ j1pprovahi lily (ipprovab1 e or Hot)

flie averaqincj time In the

rule must be consistent

with protecting the ambient standard in question. Normally, it should be equal

to or shorter than the

time associated with the standard. Longer term averaging is available
only• lii 1 hulLed instances provided that the ambient standard is not compromised. Clearly stated rule in the Explicit descriptIon of

how averaging, buthiinq,

or equIvalency 13 to be determined. VOC ecuivalency must be on

a

“sol his iippl led” I)asis. Any iiiethod iiiunt

he

independently re-- producible.

Provision

must be explicit as to whether EPA case—by—
case approval required.

If provision intended

to be “generic” then EPA bubble policy must be

met. 2/5I’Eriforcc&ct:yAnalysisIi.IfUieccit;aridwiI‘jna—Lion,willthischaivjetheemissionlimita—tiono?Ifyes,whichonesmid110w?StateSubmittalNAirementRegulation‘naynotautomaticallyallowforselfriullificattonuponredesignationofareatoattainment.Newmaintenancedernnstra—tionrequiredinordertodroprequlation.Approvability(ApprovableNot)2.CouiplizwceDates3.SpecificityofConducta.Whattestmethodiiirequired?U.Whattotheaveragingtimeincompliancetest,,iëthiod?c.Isacompliancecalculationorevaluationrequired?(i.e.,dailyweightedaeiivjeforVLX)1.Ifyesto“c,°listtheformula,periodccxnpliance,and/orMustnotbelaterthanapprovedorabouttobeapproveddateofattainmentunlessemissionreductionsnotnecessaryforattain—inert.Insomecases,itwilibenecessaryfortheregulationtospecifydatesincomplianceschedulesthatarerequiredtobesubnittedbysourcetostate.Testmethodmustbeexplicitlystated.Averagingtimeandapplicatiopoflimitmustbeexplicit.Formulamustbeexplicit.a.Whatiscompliancedate?U.Whatistheattainmentdate?NANAofEnforceability Analysis State Submittal IEPA Recuirement Approvahility (Approvable c

4. Incorporation by Ilefurence

a. What is state authority

for rulemaking?

U. Ate uieLtiudu/rulus incorporated by teLjrQiict in the

r I qht manlIer

5. Itecori Ik*t’ )I ‘0 Air Toxic “Hot Spots” Act, Sect

ion 44382 NA

a. What records are

n..qui rod to determ I no ccnpl lance?

b. Tn what form or units (lbs/gal, gr/dscf, etc.) must the records be kept? On
what time basis (iw;Lantaneously, hourly, daily)?

C. Doen the rule officio— atively recuire the records be kept? Records to be kept must be consistent with units of compliance in the per formance rec I rements, including the appli cable time period. There must be a clear separatelS’ enforceable provision that requires records La be kept. Clarity

NA NA NA 4/50 0 0

Kiiforceabjlity Analysis State Subniilztal EPA Requirement ApprovabHfty (Approvable or Not)

6. Exentj’tio;iu NA

a. List any exemptions ilust be clearly defined

alloQed. and distinguishable from

what constitutes a

b. Is the crLteria for violation.
application clear?

7. MalfunctIon Provisions NA Rule must specify what

exceedances may be excused, how the standard is to be applied, and who makes

the determination.
5/5Attacftuent 6
Submittal Package for Rule 206 (Conditional Approval of Authority to Construct or Permit to Operate) Adopted October 15, 1991

Santa Barbara County Air Pollution Control District

MINUTE ORDERBOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE SAI1TA BARBARA COUNTY AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT STATE OF CALIFORNIA

.‘__•.JL_1 d• MINUTE ORDER 

### Nfl’/071331

nfl ,Dr-fl October 15, 1991, in the a.m. Present: Directors William B. Wallace, Gloria Megino Ochoa, Thomas A. Rogers, Dianne Owens, and Mike Stoker; and Zandra Cholmondeley, Clerk (Allen)
Director Wallace in the Chair

RE: Hearing (Air Pollution Control District)

— To consider proposed revision to District Rule 206- (Conditional Approval of Authority to Construct or Permit to Operate), as follows: (91-16,906) (CONTINUED FROM MARCH 26, MAY 14, JUNE 11 AND 

# Q SEPTEMBER 10, 1991) a) Adopt proposed revision to District Rule 206; b) Adopt associated 

### findings pursuant to Health and Safety Code, §40727 regarding authority, necessity, clarity and consistency; c) Approve exemptions from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Owens/Stoker a) Adopted. b) Adopted. c) Approved.Attachment 4
Submittal Package for Rule 206 (Conditional Approval of Authority to Construct or Permit to Operate) Adopted October 15, 1991
Santa Barbara County Mr Pollution Control District

ADOPTED RULE 206

### KEUhIVED 

### AUG29 199? Ss CO. APCD 

# C RULE 206. CONDITIONAL APPROVAL OF AUThORITY TO CONSTRUCT OR PERMIT TO OPERATE The Control Officer may issue an Authority to Construct or Permit to Operate to any new, modified, or reevaluated source for which a 

### permit is required, subject to specified written conditions which will bring tho operation of any machine, aniclo, equipment or other contrivance Such conditions are for the purpose of ensuring that construction and operation of the source complies with all applicable local, state, and federal air quality laws, rules, and regulations within the standards of Rule 205. This includes, but is not limited to, Section 44382 of the Health and Safety Code. Commencing construction or operation under such aa Authority to Construct or Permit to Operate shall be deemed acceptance of all the specified conditions. The Control Officer shall issue a new Permit to Operate with revised conditions upon receipt of an application, if the applicant demonstrates that the source article, machine, equipment or other contrivance can operate in compliance with within the standards of all applicable local, state and federal air quality laws, rules and regulations Rule 205 under the revised conditions. Failure to comply with any condition specified pursuant to the provisions of this rule shall be a violation of this rule as well as of the applicable section of the Health and Safety Code.

APPROVED AS TO FORM: David Nawi County Counsel

By: ________________

Deput County Counsel

Rule 206 (Proposed) 206

- 1 September 10, 1991

### RULE 206. CONDITIONAl APPROVAL OF AUTHORITY TO CONSTRUCT OR PERMIT TO OPERATE The Control Officer may issue an Authority to Construct or Permit to Operate to any new, modified, or reevaluated source for which a permit is required, subject to specified written conditions. Such conditions are for the purpose ofensuring that construction and operation ofthe source complies with all applicable local, state, and federal air quality laws, rules, and regulations. This includes, but is not limited to, Section 44382 ofthe Health and Safety Code. Commencing construction or operation under such an Authority to Construct or Permitto Operate shall be deemed acceptance of all the specified conditions. The Control Officer shall issue a new Permit to Operate with revised conditions upon receipt ofan application, ifthe applicant demonstrates that the source can operate in compliance with all applicable local, state and federal air quality laws, rules and regulations. Failure to complywith any condition specified pursuant to the provisions ofthis rule shall be a violation ofthis rule as well as ofthe applicable section ofthe Health and Safety Code.

Rule 206 206

- 

### 1 October 1991Attachment 5
Submittal Package for Rule 206 (Conditional Approval of Authority to Construct or Permit to Operate) Adopted October 15, 1991

Santa Barbara County Air Pollution Control District

PUBLIC NOTICES

### Santa Barbara County A POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT
NOTICE 

### OF PUBLIC HEARING PROPOSED CHANGES TO RULE 206 (CONDiTIONAL

APPROVAL OF AUThORiTY TO CONSTRUCT OR PERMIT TO OPERATE) OCTOBER 15, 1991 COUNTY ADMINISTRATION BLDG

- 

### 4Th FLOOR 105 E. ANAPAMU STREET SANTA BARBARA

The Air Pollution Control District Board of Directors will hold a public hearing to consider adoption of the above rule revision. The hearing will be held during the regularly scheduled meeting of the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors, which begins at 9:00 A.M. Who is affected: All APCD permit holders. About the Rule Change: The proposed revision will clarify that permit holders must comply with all air pollution control laws, including, but not limited to, AB 2588, the Air Toxics “Hot Spots information act of 1987. It will also clarify District permitting procedures regarding new, modified, or reevaluated sources. It will provide that failure to comply with any condition of a permit will constitute a violation of the rule as well as of the applicable state law. A copy of the proposed rule revision may be inspected at the following locations: Santa Barbara County APCD Santa Barbara County APCD 26 Castilian Drive, B-23 240 East Hwy. 246, Ste. 207 Goleta, California 93117 Buellton, California 93427 County Clerk’s Office County Clerk’s Office 401 East Cypress, Ste. 101 312-C E. Cook Street Lompoc, California 93436 Santa Maria, California 93454 Please send written comments by September 27, 1991 to: Bette Easton, Rule Development Section, Santa Barbara County APCD, 26 Castilian Drive, B—23, Goleta, California 93117, telephone (805)961—8898.(V / C L. ‘ / 

### Thursday, September5, 1991

SantaBarbaraCounty AIRPOLLUTIONCONTROLDISTRICT 

## NOTICEOFPUBLIC HEARING PROPOSEDCRANGESTORULE206 (CONDITiONAL APPROVALOFAUTHORIYTOCONSTRUCTOR PERMITTOOPERATE) OCTOBER 15, 1991 COUNTYADMINISTRATIONBLDG

- 

### 4THFLOOR 105E. ANAPAMUSTREET SANTABARBARA TheAirPollution Control DistrictBoardofDirectors willhold apublic hearingtoconsideradoption oftheaboverulerevision. Thehearingwillbe heldduringtheregularly scheduledmeetingoftheSantaBarbaraCounty BoardofSupenisors, whichbeginsat9:00A.M. Whoisaffected: MIAPCDpermitholders. AbouttheRuleChange: Theproposedrevisionwillclarifythatpermitholders mustcomplywithall air pollutioncontrol laws,including, butnotlimitedto,AB 2588, theAirToxics 1’HotSpots”information actof1987. Itwill alsoclarifyDistrictpermitting proceduresregardingnew,modified,orreevaluated sources. Itwillprovide thatfailuretocomplywithanyconditionofapermitwillconstituteaviolation ofthenile aswellas theapplicablestatelaw.

Acopyoftheproposednile

### revisionmaybeinspectedatthefollowing

### locations:
SantaBarbaraCountyAPCD SantaBarbaraCountyAPCD 26CastIllanDrive, B-23 240EastHwy. 246, Ste. 207 Goleta, CalIfornia93117 Buellton, California93427 CountyClerk’sOffice County Clerk’sOffice 401 EastCypress, Ste. 101 312-CE. CookStreet I.ompoc. California93436 SantaMaria. California93454

Pleasesendwrittencommentsby September27,1991 to: BetteEaston. RuleDevelopmentSection SantaBarbaraCountyAPCD, 26 Castiian Drive, B•23, Goleta, California93117, telephone (805) 961.8898.

# County ofSantaBarbara “V 15 99i 

# AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRKt° 26 CASTIUAN DRIVE B-23, GOLETA, CALIFORNIA 93l1rResourc 600rd PHONE: (805) 961-8800 FAX (805) 961-8801 JAMES ?.t RYERSON AirPollution Control Officer
November 8, 1991 Mr. Ronald A. Friesen Stationary Source Division California Mr Resources Board P. 0. Box 2815 Sacramento, California 95812 Subject: doption of District Rule 206 (Conditional Approval of hority to Construct or Permit to Operate) Dear

. n sen: On October 15, 1991, the Santa Barbara County Air Pollution Control District Board of Directors held a public hearing on proposed revisions to Rule 206 (Conditional Approval of Authority to Construct or Permit to Operate). After the public hearing, the Board adopted the rule revisions. Rule 206 was revised to address a requirement of the Air Toxics “Hot Spots” Information and Assessment Act of 1987. The revision clarifies that permit holders must comply with all air pollution control laws and that failure to comply with a condition placed upon a permit shall be a violation of Rule 206- As required by Section 44382 of the Air Toxics “Hot Spots” Act, the revision requires the Control Officer to adopt the requirements of the Air Toxics ‘Hot Spots” Act as a condition of every permit issued. If you have any questions regarding this submittal, please contact Doug Allard at (805) 961-8928.

Attachments: 1. SIP Completeness Checklists 2. Rule Evaluation Forms 3. SIP Approvability Checklists

- Enforceability 4. Adopted Rule 206 5. Public Notices WUJJAM A. MASTER Assistant Director


# 1,

Si

5, M. Ryprson r Pollutidn Control Officer6. Minute Order 7. Board PacketAttachment 7

Submittal Package for Rule 206 (Conditional Approval of Authority to Construct or Permit to Operate) Adopted October 15, 1991

Santa Barbara County Air Pollution Control District

BOARD PACKET

## SANTA BARBARA COUNTY Agenda Number _________ 

## AGENDA REPORT Department: 

### APCD Agenda Date: OCT 15, 1991

Otflca ci the County Ctarlc•Raporl.r of ba Board ovtsron, Room 407 

### Agenda: DEPT .aW5 6. Mapamu St. Santa Barbara, CA 93101 - 568.2240 

### Estimated Time: 10 Minutes

2C: y TO: Board of Directors Ad 

### Z FROM: fr{V,.JJames M. Ryerson, Rule 

# r Air Pollution Control Officer

. &Ction STAFF nitResources BCOrd CONTACT: Bette Easton (805)961—8898 SUBJECT: Rule 206 (Conditional Approval of Authority to Construct or Permit to Operate)

RECOMMENDATIONS: A.O. Recommendation: ___________

That the Board of Directors:

A. Hold a public hearing to receive testimony on the proposed revision to Rule 206. Adopt the proposed revision to Rule 206 (Attachment 1—1). C. Adopt the associated findings pursuant to Health and Safety Code Section 60727 regarding authority, necessity, clarity and consistency (Attachment 2). D. Approve the exemption from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act.

DISCUSSION AND EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: Rule 206 describes the authority of the District to issue permits subject to certain conditions. The proposed revision clarifies that permit holders must comply with all air pollution control laws. It also clarifies that failure to comply with a condition placed upon a permit shall be a violation of Rule 206.(Continued) Current Yr. Next Year Concurrences Obtained Yes/No/NA Budget Unit: 8910 Chg. $ 0 S 

### o Auditor-Controller NA

Less County Counsel YES

Revenue +/ 0 0 Risk Manager NA Inter-Dept Transfer 

### +1- 0 0 Personnel NA NETCOUNTYCOST $ 0 $ 0 POLICY CHANGE NO (yrm. Positions Chg.(flE) 0 0 Fee Increase NO 

### 4. Hip/Contract Chg. (flE) 0 0 Continued item YES

A.O. Budget Target Recommendation: cLT4 11/89In particular, the proposed revision addresses a requirement of the Air Toxics “Hot Spots” Information and Assessment Act of 1987. The purpose of this act was to make assessments of the health risks posed by stationary sources releasing substances hazardous to public health. The act is included in the California Health and Safety Code as Part 6 of Qvision 26.

As required by Section 44382 of the Air Toxics ‘Hot Spots’ Act, the proposed revision of Rule 206 is intended to require the Control Officer to adopt the requirements of the Air Toxics ‘Hot Spots’ Act as a condition of every permit issued. Fiscal Impacts:
No significant fiscal impact is expected from the proposed revision to Rule 206.

ATTACHMENTS:
1. Staff Report 2. Proposed Board Findings 3. Notice of Exemption

cc: Jean Silva, Administrative Office Bill Dillon, County Counsel B of S Chron File PLNC Chron FileAttachwent 1

STAFF REPORTSTAFF REPORT Proposed Revision to Rule 206 (Conditional Approval of Authority to Construct or Permit to Operate’)
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: Rule 206 describes the authority of the District to issue permits subject to certain conditions. The proposed revision clarifies that permit holders must comply with all air pollution control laws. It also clarifies that failure to comply with a condition placed upon a permit shall be a violation of Rule 206. In particular, the proposed revision addresses a requirement of the Mr Toxics ‘Hot Spots’ Information and Assessment Act of 1987. The purpose of this act was to make assessments of the health risks posed by stationary sources releasing substances hazardous to public health. The act is included in the California Health and Safety Code as Part 6 of Division 26. As required by Section 44382 of the Air Toxics “Hot Spots’ Act, the proposed revision of Rule 206 is intended to require the Control Officer to adopt the requirements of the Mr Toxics “Hot Spots” Act as a condition of every permit issued.
RECOMMENDATIONS: It is recommended that the Santa Barbara County Air Pollution Control District Board of Directors: 1. Hold a public hearing to receive public testimony on the proposed revision 2. Adopt the proposed revision to District Rule 206 (Attachment 1-1). 3. Adopt associated findings pursuant to Health and Safety Code Section 40727 regarding authority, necessity, clarity and consistency (Attachment 2 to the Board Packet). 4. Approve the exemption from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act. BACKGROUND: 1. Air Quality

Staff Report

- 1

- October 15, 1991Many stationary sources release into the surrounding air significant levels of substances proven to be or potentially hazardous to public health. 2. Health Risks Releases of hazardous substances may create localized concentrations or “Hot Spots where emissions from specific sources may expose individuals and population groups to elevated risks of adverse health affects.
3. Regulatory Background In order to implement control strategies for those materials posing an unacceptable risk to public health, information on the sources of potentially hazardous air pollutants is necessary. The California State Legislature enacted the Air Toxics “Hot Spots’ Information and Assessment Act of 1987 (Act) to ascertain and quantify the amounts and types of hazardous air contaminant releases and potentially hazardous releases from specific sources that may be exposing people to health risk and to assess the health risk to those who are exposed. The Act is codified in Part 6 of Division 26 of the California Health and Safety Code in Sections 44300 through 44384 inclusive. Rule 206 provides authority to the Control Officer to issue permits subject to specific written conditions which would bring the operation of the source within the standards of Rule 205, New Source Review. The proposed revision would require the Control Officer to issue permits subject to conditions which require compliance with Part 6 of Division 26 of the Health and Safety Code. In addition, the proposed revision clarifies that permit holders must comply with all air pollution control laws and clarifies that failure to comply with a condition placed upon a permit shall be a violation of Rule 206. 4. Description of Process Section 44382 of the California Health and Safety Code stipulates that every District shall, by regulation, adopt the requirements of Division 26, Part 6 as a condition of every permit issued for all new and modified facilities.

PROPOSED ACTION:

1. Proposed Rule Revision Staff Report

— 2

— October 15, 1991In order to implement the requirements stipulated in Section 44382 of the Health and Safety Code the District proposes to modify Rule 206

- Conditional Approval of Authority to Construct or Permit to Operate, by revising the rule to require the Control Officer to condition all new and modified permits to require compliance with all local, state and federal air quality laws, rules and regulations.

2. Control Technoloqy This rule revision specifies administrative procedures and information submittal and does not require the control of emissions or the installation of control technology.

ASSESSMENT OF PROPOSED ACTION: 1. Affected Sources All sources subject to District permit are affected by this rule modification. This includes all sources subject to the provisions of the Air Toxics ‘Hot Spots’ Information and Assessment Act of 1987 which also require a District permit. 2. Estimated Emission Reductions This proposed rule modification is an implementation of administrative requirements of the Health and Safety Code and will not, in itself, result in reductions of emissions. 3. Health Effects This proposed rule modification is an implementation of administrative requirements of the Health and Safety Code and does not, in itself, affect public health. It will, however, help to ensure that other provisions of state and local laws are effectively implemented. For example, the information provided as a result of the implementation of the Act will assist the District in assessing the health effects of toxic and potentially toxic air contaminant releases. 4. Cost Effectiveness Not applicable. 5. Environmental Effects The proposed revision to Rule 206 has been determined to be exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act. A Staff Report

- 3

- October 15, 1991Notice of Exemption has been prepared and appears as Attachment 3 to the Board Letter.
PUBLIC REVIEW: The formal Public Comment period was opened March 26, 1991. Notices were published in the Santa Barbara News Press, the Independent, the Santa Maria Times, and the Lompoc Record. Copies of the proposed rule revision were mailed to all known affected parties and to the subscribers to the District’s rule notification service. A publicly noticed workshop was held on March 4, 1991 in Goleta. Language changes were made to the proposed rule revision as a result of the workshop. Written comments on the proposed rule revision appear in Attachment 1—2 and District response to comments appears in Attachment 1-3. REFERENCES: California Health and Safety Code, Division 26, Part 6, Section 44382. ATTACHMENTS: 1—1 Proposed Revision of Rule 206 1—2 Public Comments 1—3 District Responses to Comments

Staff Report

— 4

— October 15, 1991Attachment 1-2

COMMENTS ON PROPOSED REVISION TO RULE 206STATE OF CALIFORNIA PETE WILSON, Governor 

### AIR RESOURCES BOARD 1102 0 STREET P.O. Box 2815 SACRAMENTO, CA 95812

Septerp.ber 26, 1991

Mr. James M. Ryerson Air Pollution Control Officer Santa Barbara County Air Pollution Contro’ District 26 Castilian Drive, 5—23 Goleta, CA 93117 Dear Mr. Ryerson5Z’ The staff of the Air Resources Board has reviewed proposed Rule 206, Conditional Approval Of Authority To Construct Or Permit To Ooerate, that is scheduled for a public hearing to be held before your District Board on October 15, 1991. We find Rule 206 acceptable as proposed and we have no comments. Thank you for keeping us informed during your rule development process. Sincere

Venturini, Chief Stationary Source DivisionJOHN S. POLJCHER RICHARD C. MONM GEORGE A, REMPE fl STCVEN EVANS ORBY BRADFORD F: CINDER OHM C. BUSBY SUSAN H. MCCOLLUM RICHARD C. RRAVCrZ ROBERT L BRACE JULIE & TURNER ANNE H. HUTCHINS RAUL J. NEISERGS OF COUNSEL WILLIAM A. SPACE
RETI BED 

### C .2. JAMES .4CLLISTCR 

### APOn. 1656.013

COUNTY OF SANTA BARBARA Air Pollution Control District 25 Casfilian, Suite B-23 Goleta, CA 93117 March 19, 1991

Attn: Betty Easton, Rule Development Division Ted Bixler, Rule Development Division Re: Comments on Proposed Amendments to Rules 206 and 1001 Dear Ms. Easton & Mr. Bbder: These comments on the proposed amendments to Rules 206 and 1001 are submitted on behalfof a number of our clients who hold Permits to Operate issued by the District. Rule 206 (Conditional Anproval ofATC & PTO) suggested following: We have attached a copy ofproposed Rule 206 as proposed by the District, with our changes. Most ofour suggestions are for clarification and would accomplish the Clarify that this rule does not authorize the District to issue permits for sources otherwise exempt from the District’s permit requirements.

o 

### Use consistent terminology throughout, e.g., “source”.
o 

### Clarify that permit conditions are only for the purpose of requiring compliance with applicable law. For example, in a

# rro reevaluation the District would not subject the source to Rule 205C (NSR/PSD) conditions, which only apply to new or modified sources. Make it unnecessaiy for a source seeking to change its PTO comply with the rules intended to apply to physical facility (unless the changes in conditions would otherwise constiflite a within the meaning of Rule 205C). conditions to modifications “modification HOLLISTER & BRACE
A BROFESSIONAL CORPORATION J*Oøfl%StZSoSZ6%

125 SANTA 8ARBARA STREET SANTA BARBARA, CALIFORNIA 93101 NAILING ADDRESS POST OFFICE Box 830 SANTA BARBARA, CALIFORNIA 3IO2 TCLEP.ONE IBDS g3.e?II FAx (SCSI B65O329
VFfI 

### Mp 

## 2
nfl ‘--SHOLLISTER & BRACE

A PPQrES5IQN.L CORPORATION 

### rt Betty Easton Ted Bixler March 19, 1991 Page 2

Eliminate the provision that would make noncompliance with a permit condition a violation ofRule 206, as well as of the Health & Safety Code. There are already in place onerous penalty provisions for failure to comply with the airpollution control laws, includingpermits. We see nojustification for adding to them in the manner proposed. As a final comment on the proposed Rule 206 changes, we do not believe that the District’s proposal has beenfairlypresented to the public. The proposedrule changes were advertised as being simply for the purpose of requiring compliance with AB 2588 (Air Toxic Hot Spots Act). This is very misleading. AB 2588 is self-contained and nothing in the state law requires any change to Rule 206. Also, the District’s proposed revisions go farbeyond the scope ofthe public notice and a large number ofpeople, including affected industry, are likely to remain misinformed ifthe District does not correct the error. We suggestthat a new, fully informative noticebeprepared and anotherworkshop held, so that people wifi be properly advised ofthe implications ofthe District’s proposal. Rule 1001 (NESHAPS) At this point, our only request is for written confirmation by the District of the opinion expressed by Ted Bixler at the APCD workshop held on March 4, 1991. Mr. Bbder at that time opined that no existing source in the County will actually be affected by any ofthe NESHAPS. We thank you for the opportunity to comment on the proposed amendments. We look forward to working with you further on this effort. Please continue to keep me on your mailing list. Very truly yours, HOLUSThR & BRACE
By___ Steven Evans Kirby SEK:sg
1656.013\Bix]eritr.pcsRULE 206. CONDITIONAL APPROVAL OF AUTHORITY TO CONSTRUCT OR PERMIT
TO OPERATE
The Control Officer may issue an Authority to Construct or Permit 

# 1

to Operate to any new, modified or reevaluated source for whlàh a permit is requit&1 (See Rule 201*A&B And 202), subject to specified

# J written conditions. SUäW äàiiditiàñtháãfórtitu±j6á 

# 1 ensuring that construction and operati3ffotthá Obräë which nih 2

ensure that the construction and operation of any machine, article, equipment or other contrivance complies with all applicable Rules and Regulations of the District and any applicable state or federal
statutes or regulations In connection with a permit reevaluation,
the District shall 

### not require review of the source or impose conditions under Rule 

## aoc which applies only to applications to Oànsttüàtormódifysóurceth. local, state, and federal air 

### quality laws, rules, and regulations. Conunencing construction under such

an Authority to Construct or operation ündèr suth & Perit to Operate or operation under such a 

## rcnit to Operate or Authontj
to Construct shall be deemed acceptance of all of the specified 

# J conditions, unless an appeal is filed pursuant to these Rules 

### and Regulations.

The Control Officer shall issue a new Permit to Operate with revised conditions upon receipt of a new an application therefore 6
for modification of the source, if the applicant demonstrates that the source article, machine, equipment or other contrivance can operate within the applicable within the standards of these Rules 

# Jw•Dip)3;tttt$-oH:-—rn0.H•Pct•m&H.t:1P3H•t-.aortmfrjE.inrnp0H’Ha..rn•iiHog•1<I.0Eli.0:040•F-’H•H.0n.•ain1’)•H•F.in-ctCD0..jI—.

### RECEIVED 

### MAR 14 1991
CONS U LI ANTS. I K C. 

### SB CO. APCD

8 

### March 1991



### Doug Allard Planning Division Manager Santa Barbara County Air Pollution Control District 26 Castilian Drive, B-23 Goleta, CA 93117 Dear Mr. Ailard: EMC was unable to attend the rulemaking workshop on 4 March 1991 at the District’s Goleta office concerning proposed District rules 206, 340, and 1001. We were able to obtain copies of these proposed rule revisions from one of the workshop attendees. We find it difficult to understandwhythese proposed rule revisions were announced at such a shortnotice, orwhythe District did not provide a workshop in the north county. Proposed revisions to Rule 206, Conditional Approval ofAuthority to Construct or Permit to Operate, are notjust “administrative changes” as characterized by the District. Such revisions will have a dramatic effect on the permitting process ofboth our clients andthe membership organizations ofthe Coalition ofLabor, Agriculture and Business (COLAB). Therefore, the short-noticing and absence ofa north county workshop was quite inappropriate when measured against the impacts of the proposed rule revisions. We, therefore, requestthat the District provide aworkshop in the north county so that our cLients, COLAB members, and other interested parties may have an opportunity to express their comments before District representatives. We also request that the District provide an expandedwritten commentdeadline sothat interested parties may have moretimeto fullyreview the proposed revisions and provide written comments to the District. We have the following comments concerning these District proposed rules: COMMENTS, RULE 206: 1) Health and Safety Code Section 40727 states the following: “Before adopting, amending, or repealing a rule or regulation, the district board shall make findings ofnecessity, authority, clarity, and consistency...”. The District has not provided any justification for these proposed revisions or its authority to propose such new requirements.

Box602 Lompoc. (2493438 Telephone (805) 733-4607 ENYINONMINIAL MANAGEMENT

### Doug Allard 8 March 1991 

### Page Two

2) The District’s announcement of this rule mentions that the purpose of this rule is to “require the Control Officer to issue permits subject to conditions which require compliance with Air Toxics ‘Hot Spots’ Information and Assessment Act of 1987”. However, no such language is contained within the proposed Rule 206 whIch references Air Toxic “Hot Spots” requirements. 3) Thegreatly expanded proposed conditions forissuance ofanAuthorityto Construct (ATC) or Permitto Operate (PTO), i.e., “complies with all local, state, and federal air quality laws, rules and regulations”, allows the District entirely too much discretion in the issuance ofpermits. Please provide us with the justification for expanding the scope of such requirements beyond those requirements contained within the current District Rule 205. 4) District staffhave informed us thatthe proposed language revisions also allowthe District the authority to revise permits beyond those revisions requested by the applicant in a permit modification application. For example, if an applicant applies for a change of location, the Districtwill have the authority to revise the remaining portions ofthe permit. Such a “reopening” procedure of permit modifications is an unacceptable practice and beyond the authority ofthe District. 5) The proposed language of this rule revision will allow the District to refuse to issue or reevaluate a permit if a Notice ofViolation (NO\’) has been issued to the permit owner! operator by the District. The issuance of an NOV and settlement thereof by the permit operator should have no bearing on District permit issuance decisions. 6) We request clarification ofthe last sentence ofthis rule: “Failure to comply with any condition specified pursuantto the provisions ofthis rule shall be aviolation ofthis rule as well as of the applicable section of the Health and Safety Code.” This appears to be a restatement ofthe same new provisions listed within the first sentence ofthe rule. COMMENTS. RULE 340, 1001: Due to the short public noticing of the proposed new Rule No. 340 and revisions to Rule No. 1001, we have not had time to researchthese proposed rules. We have requested an extension from the 8 March 1991 deadline forwritten comments to comparethese requirements againstthe CaliforniaAir Resources Board (CARB) proposed control measure guidancefor localAir Pollution Control Districtsforthe control ofdioxinsfrom medicalwaste Incinerators. In addition, werequest justification for the revisions to the Applicability Section of District Rule 1001.

### Doug Allard 5 March 1991 Page Three

Should you have any questions concerning our comments and requests for information concerning District proposed Rule Nos. 206, 340 and 1001, please feelfree to contact me at 505- 733-4607. Sincerely, 

# &;&( Kevin U. Wright Air Quality Manager, EMC Chairman) APCD Task Force, COLAB

cc: Michael B. Stoker, Supervisor, Fifth District Diane Owens, Supervisor, Fourth District Tom Fuiks, Santa Maria Valley Chamber of Commerce Charles Cappel, Chairman, Board of Directors, COLAS EMCOO2BAttachment 1-3

RESPONSES TO CONMENTS ON PROPOSED REVISIONS TO RULE 206RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ON PROPOSED REVISIONS TO RULE 206 Response to Flolljster and Brace comments: The suggested language changes are responded to below according to the numbering system in the comment letter. In addition, the letter raised the issue of noticing. The District reviewed the original public notice issued pursuant to this rule and believes that the rule change was fairly presented to the public. Nevertheless, in response to this comment, we continued the rule adoption hearing and we issued another public notice. This notice emphasized the provision which clarifies that failure to comply with a permit condition shall be a violation of Rule 206. Number Response 1 Suggested wording was incorporated except for unnecessary reference to other District rules.

- - 2 Suggested wording was incorporated. 3 The language of this section was revised. Rule 205c defines applicability. Language was not deleted as suggested, but the word “applicable’ was inserted. 4 Suggested wording change was not incorporated. The added language is a repetition of language suggested to be struck. 5 Suggested wording not incorporated since it could be construed to allow continued construction or operation after an appeal is filed. 6 The word “therefore1 is unnecessary. 7 Language was deleted as suggested. 8 The suggested wording is not necessary. NSR/PSD review requirements are spelled out in Rule 205c. 9 Wording was not deleted as suggested. The language is necessary to stress that permit conditions are enforceable and to emphasize that non—compliance is a violation of the rules.

Response to Comments

— 

## a

- October 15, 1991Response to Environmental Management Consultants. Inc. comments: The changes proposed in Rule 206 

### are for clarification and emphasis and do not constitute any new powers or discretion for the District. For this reason, the District feels that the changes are not controversial and that extensive workshops are unnecessary. Copies of the public notice for the workshop were mailed to ENC on February 20, 1991 and copies of the draft rule were mailed to the persons who had subscribed for this service. Written comments may be submitted at any time up to the adoption hearing. Number Response 1 The Board Findings (H&SC Section 40727) referred to are findings adopted by the District Board at the time of rule adoption and are not a part of the rule development workshop process. 2 Revision of Rule 206 to include language relating to all air pollution laws rules and regulations includes AB 2588 requirements. Specific mention of AB 2588 was not made since this could be interpreted as limiting the rule to that particular law. 3 The revision of Rule 206 does not add any new restrictions or discretion to the permitting process. The District is required to ensure compliance with appropriate state and federal laws, as evidenced in Rule 101. The revision of Rule 206 merely clarifies this requirement. 4 The proposed revision does not alter what is presently contained in the District Rules and Regulations. Note that Rule 203 states that a permit cannot be transferred from one location to another. Therefore, when such a move is made, a yj permit is required for the new location and the application is subject to all the requirements of the Rules and Regulations. 5 Rule 206 does not address the subject of Notices of Violation. A history of non—compliance could be grounds for revocation of permit; however, a single Notice of Violation resulting in correction of a problem would not constitute such a history. Note also that the District already has this authority regardless of the changes to Rule 206. Response to Comments

— 2

— October 15, 19916 The first sentence of the rule revision states that the District may specify permit conditions to ensure compliance. The last sentence states that failure to comply with a permit condition is a violation of Rule 206.

Response to Comments

— 3

— October 15, 1991Attachment 2

PROPOSED BOARD FINDINGS ON RULE 206AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT FINDINGS REGARDING ADOPTION OF PROPOSED REVISION TO RULE 206 (CONDITIONAL APPROVAL OF AUTHORITY TO CONSTRUCT OR PERMIT TO OPERATE)

Pursuant to Health and Safety Code Section 40727, the Board makes the following findings regarding authority, necessity, clarity and consistency. The Board has reviewed the response to comments prepared by staff in the staff reports and hereby approves and adopts those response to comments as findings of this Board. Authority The Board finds that we have the authority to adopt the proposed revision to District Rule 206. pursuant to Health and Safety Code Section 40000, the District has “the primary responsibility for control of air pollution from all sources, other than emissions from motor vehicles”. Section 40001 of the Health and Safety Code provides that local districts ‘shall adopt and enforce rules and regulations to achieve and maintain the state and federal ambient air quality standards in all areas affected by emission sources under their jurisdiction”. Necessity The Board finds that the revision of Rule 206 is necessary to incorporate provisions for the Control Officer to issue permits subject to conditions which require compliance with the Air Toxics “Hot Spots” Information and Assessment Act of 1987. Clarity The Board finds that the rule revision is clear. The revision was provided to affected parties, a public presentation was held and the revision was modified as necessary by the District to ensure that the provisions are clear. Consistency The Board finds that the rule revision is consistent with existing statutes, court decisions, and state and federal regulations.

Board Findings

— 1

— October 15, 1991Attachment 3

NOTICE OF EXEMPTION

### NOTICE OF EXEMPTION TO: Clerk of the Board County of Santa Barbara 105 East Anapamu Street Santa Barbara, CA 93101 FROM: Santa Barbara County Air Pollution Control District 26 CastiHan Drive, 8—23 Goleta, CA 93117 The following activity is not a “project” or is an emergency or categorically exempt project as defined in the County Guidelines for the implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) of 1970. Project 1.0.: Rule 206 Revision Project Title: Revision of Air Pollution Control District Conditional Approval of Authority to Construct Operate Rule 206, or Permit to
Location: N/A Assessor Parcel No.(s): N/A Project Description: Revised Section 206A eliminates ambiguity linking a violation of permit conditions to a violation of the Rules and Regulations. Revised Section 206B implements Section 44382 of the California Health and Safety Code which stipulates that every District shall, by regulation, adopt the requirements of Part 6, Division 26 of the Health and Safety Code as a condition of every permit issued for all new and modified facilities. Exempt Status: (Check One) X Not A Project (Section 15378) _____



### Ministerial (Section 15268) Declared Emergency (Section 15269) Emergency Project (Section 15269) X Exemption CEQA Section(s): Section 15061(b)(3) Reasons Why Project is Exempt: Revision of Rule 206 does for causing a significant effect on the environment.
Contact Person: Bette Easton

Bobbie Bratz, Supervijor Interagency Review Section not have the potential

Clerk of the Board Date and Time Stamp Date: Telephone: (805) 

# gsi-aaga -



### James M. Ryersd?E Air Pollution Control Officer