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

s cuss 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)

2/2
Attachment 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

Cómo 1 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.

1/2
X) 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.

2/2
Attachment 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 - ENFORCEABILITY
0 0 0

SIP APPCNAIII (.I’LY ClIECKFIST— ENFVHCEAI) ILl’!?

Sit’ t’ackcju Lb. Dale lice. Date Due 

grATE: California (Santa Barbara CojjnJy)

Subject 1atter: Rule 206 (Conditional Approval of Authority to Construct or Permit to Operate)

Enforceability Analysia state Submittal EPA Requirement Approvability (Approvable or Not)

just resrc,inen)

1. Applicability

a. What tiourcen are bciii’j Chic I ly

regulated? NA

b. What are criteria for Clarity

exeiiiption? NA

c. Is calculation Example calculation or

procedure for exemption NA clear explanation ofclearly specified? hOw to determine

exemption (line by line,

etc.)

d. 18 emission Inventory Inventory including

listed in the allowable and actual

background document emissions in sourceof the.attalnment category should bedetionstration? NA included, Ear enforce

ment purposes and

independent of any Clean

Air Act requirements,

in the attainment denni—

stratton Lf such data is

necessary for deterniin—

ing baselines in regula

tions.
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 thecrileria 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. Provisionmust be explicit as to

whether EPA case—by—

case approval required.

If provision intended

to be “generic” then EPA

bubble policy must be

met.

2/5

I’
Eriforcc&c t:y Analysis

Ii. If U ie cc it; a ridwi I ‘jna—

Lion, will this chaivje

the emission limita—tiono? If yes, which

ones mid 110w?

State Submittal

NA

irement

Regulation ‘nay not

automatically allow for

self riullificatton upon

redesignation of area

to attainment. New

maintenance dernnstra—

tion required in order

to drop requlation.

Approvability (Approvable Not)

2. Couiplizwce Dates

3. Specificity of Conduct

a. What test method iii

required?

U. What to the averaging

time in compliance

test ,,iëthiod?

c. Is a compliance

calculation or

evaluation required?

(i.e., daily weighted

aeiivje for VLX)

1. If yes to “c,° list

the formula, period

ccxnpliance, and/or

Must not be later than

approved or about to

be approved date of

attainment unless

emission reductions not

necessary for attain—

inert. In some cases,

it wili be necessary

for the regulation to

specify dates in compli

ance schedules that are

required to be subnitted

by source to state.

Test method must be

explicitly stated.

Averaging time and

applicatiop of limit

must be explicit.

Formula must beexplicit.

a. What is compliance

date?

U. What is the attainment

date?

NA

NA

of
Enforceability 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

4/5
0 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.

5/5
Attacftuent 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 ORDER
BOARD 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 Of ficer

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 of ensuring that construction and

operation of the source complies with all applicable local, state, and federal air quality

laws, rules, and regulations. This includes, but is not limited to, Section 44382 of the

Health and Safety Code. Commencing construction or operation under such an

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 can operate in compliance with all applicable local, state and federal air quality

laws, rules and regulations. 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.

Rule 206 206 - 1 October 1991
Attachment 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

APOLLUTION 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, September 5, 1991

Santa Barbara County

AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING

PROPOSED CRANGES TO RULE 206 (CONDITiONAL

APPROVAL OF AUTHORIY 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

hearingto consider adoption ofthe above rule revision. The hearing will be

held during the regularly scheduled meeting of the Santa Barbara County

Board ofSupenisors, which begins at 9:00 A.M.

Who is affected:

MI 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

1’HotSpots” 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

ofthe nile as well as the applicable state law.

A copy of the proposed nile revision may be inspected at the following locations:

Santa Barbara County APCD Santa Barbara County APCD

26 CastIllan 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-CE. Cook Street

I.ompoc. California 93436 Santa Maria. California 93454

Please send written commentsby September 27,1991 to: Bette Easton.

Rule Development Section Santa Barbara CountyAPCD, 26 Castiian

Drive, B•23, Goleta, California 93117, telephone (805) 961.8898.
County of Santa Barbara “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

Air Pollution 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 Of ficer 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 Officer
6. Minute Order

7. Board Packet
Attachment 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 11/89
In 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 File
Attachwent 1

STAFF REPORT
STAFF 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, 1991
Many 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, 1991
In 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 Of ficer 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, 1991
Notice 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, 1991
Attachment 1-2

COMMENTS ON PROPOSED REVISION TO

RULE 206
STATE 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 Division
JOHN 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

RET I 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 behalf of a number of our clients who hold Permits to Operate issued by the District.

Rule 206 (Conditional Anproval of ATC & PTO)

suggested

following:

We have attached a copy of proposed Rule 206 as proposed by the District, with our

changes. Most of our 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 ‘--S
HOLLISTER & 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 of Rule 206, as well as of the Health & Safety Code.

There are already in place onerous penalty provisions for failure to comply

with the air pollution control laws, including permits. We see no justification

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 been fairly presented to the public. The proposed rule 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

far beyond the scope of the public notice and a large number of people, including affected

industry, are likely to remain misinformed if the District does not correct the error. We

suggest that a new, fully informative notice be prepared and another workshop held, so that

people wifi be properly advised of the implications of the 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

of the 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.pcs
RULE 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 J
w •Di p) 3; tttt$ -

o H: -

— rn

0. H•

P ct

•m

&

H. t:1

P3H •t

-.

a

ort

m frj E. in

rn

p0

H’H

a. . rn

• ii

H

o

g • 1< I.

0Eli.

0:

04

0

• F-’ H•

H.

0

n.

• a in

1’)

• H • F . in - ct

CD

0

..j I —.
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

understand why these proposed rule revisions were announced at such a short notice, or why the

District did not provide a workshop in the north county. Proposed revisions to Rule 206,

Conditional Approval of Authority to Construct or Permit to Operate, are not just “administrative

changes” as characterized by the District. Such revisions will have a dramatic effect on the

permitting process of both our clients and the membership organizations of the Coalition of Labor,

Agriculture and Business (COLAB). Therefore, the short-noticing and absence of a north county

workshop was quite inappropriate when measured against the impacts of the proposed rule

revisions. We, therefore, request that the District provide a workshop 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

expanded written comment deadline so that interested parties may have more time to fully review

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

of necessity, authority, clarity, and consistency...”. The District has not provided any

justification for these proposed revisions or its authority to propose such new

requirements.

Box 602 Lompoc. (24 93438

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) The greatly expanded proposed conditions for issuance of an Authority to Construct (ATC)

or Permit to 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 of permits. 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 staff have informed us that the proposed language revisions also allow the 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 District will have the authority to revise the remaining portions of the permit.

Such a “reopening” procedure of permit modifications is an unacceptable practice and

beyond the authority of the District.

5) The proposed language of this rule revision will allow the District to refuse to issue or

reevaluate a permit if a Notice of Violation (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 of the last sentence of this rule: “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.” This

appears to be a restatement of the same new provisions listed within the first sentence

of the 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 research these proposed rules. We have requested an extension

from the 8 March 1991 deadline for written comments to compare these requirements against the

California Air Resources Board (CARB) proposed control measure guidance for local Air Pollution

Control Districts for the control of dioxins from medical waste Incinerators. In addition, we request

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 feel free 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

EMCOO2B
Attachment 1-3

RESPONSES TO CONMENTS ON PROPOSED

REVISIONS TO RULE 206
RESPONSES 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, 1991
Response 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, 1991
6 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, 1991
Attachment 2

PROPOSED BOARD FINDINGS ON RULE 206
AIR 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 Of ficer 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, 1991
Attachment 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