MINUTES
VENTURA COUNTY AIR POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD LINDA PARKS, SUPERVISOR, COUNTY OF VENTURA — CHAIR CARMEN RAMIREZ, COUNCIL MEMBER, CITY OF OXNARD — VICE' CHAIR

STEVE BENNETT, SUPERVISOR, COUNTY OF VENTURA PETER C. FOY, SUPERVISOR, COUNTY OF VENTURA KATHY 1. LONG, SUPERVISOR, COUNTY OF VENTURA MIKE MORGAN, COUNCIL MEMBER, CITY OF CAMARILLO DAVID POLLOCK, COUNCIL MEMBER, CITY OF MOORPARK JONATHAN SHARKEY, COUNCIL MEMBER, CITY OF PORT HUENEME DOUG TUCKER, COUNCIL MEMBER, CITY OF FILLMORE JOHN C. ZARAGOZA, SUPERVISOR, COUNTY OF VENTURA

January 14, 2014 at 11:00 a.m.

Public Hearing Regarding Adoption of Proposed Revisions to Rule 54, Sulfur Compounds and Rule 42, Permit Fees; and Direct the Air Pollution Control Officer, or His Designee, to File a California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Notice of Exemption Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15062 for Both Rulemaking Projects. (X) AII board members are present, except Board Member Foy.

(X) The following persons are heard: Tyler Harris and Michael Villegas.

(X) The Board holds a public hearing.

(X) Upon motion of Board Member Morgan, seconded by Board Member Tucker, and duly carried, the Board hereby approves the attached staff recommendations.

By

CLERK'S CERTIFICATE I hereby certify that the annexed instrument Is a true and correct copy of the document which is on file in this office. Michael Powers, Clerk of the Board of Supervisors, County of Ventura, State of California.
Dated: A& Z ~ By: 

### /

— 

### D ep

— uty 0 

### 4. e Board

Item #11 1/14/14669 County Square Drive Ie1805/645•1400 Mir.hael Villegas Ventura, Colifornia 93003 lax 805/645-1444 Air Pollution Control OKiccr vnvw.vcapcd.org Vontura County

~ Air Pollution Coritrol District
Janual'y 14, 2014

Air Pollution Control Board 800 South Victoria Avenue Ventura, CA 93009 SUBJECT: PUBLIC HEARING TO APPROVE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO RULE 54,

SULFUR COMPOUNDS AND RULE 42, PERMIT FEES; AND DF,TERMINATION THAT BOTH RULE-MAKING PROJECTS ARE CATEGORICALLY OR STATUTORILY EXF,MPT UNDER THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT
RECOMMENDED ACTIONS:
1. Approve the use of CEQA Categorical and Statutory Exemptions for the amendments to Rule 54 and Rule 42 (Attachment 1).
2. Approve and Adopt the proposed Legislative Findings for the amendments to Rulc 54 and Rule 42 (Attachment 2).
3. Approve and Adopt amended Rule 54 (Attachment 3).
4. Approve and Adopt amended Rule 42 (Attachment 4).
5. Direct the Clerk of the Board to forward two certified minute oi

- ders, and an affidavit of publication of the public hearing notice, for all proposed actions to the Air Pollution Control District within twenty days.
6. Direct Air Pollution Control Officer or his designee to file a CEQA Notice of Exemption pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15062 for these rulemaking projects.
STATEMENT OF MATTER FOR BOARD CONSIDERATION:
Back r g_ound On J>.,uie 22, 2010, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USF.PA ) strengthened the federal health-based or "primary" National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) for sulfur dioxide (S02) emissions. USEPA established a new standard for l-hour average S02 concentrations at 75 parts per billion (ppb) to protect public health from the adverse health effects of S02. With that action, USEPA revoked the existing federal 24-hour and annual S02 standards set in 1971. In addition, USEPA changed the form of the standard to a"design value" for determiningAir Pollution Control Board

Januaey 14, 2014 Page 2 compliance with the SOz NAAQS. And since the ground or sea level SOZ concentration limits in Rule 54 are inconsistent with the new SOZ NAAQS, those concentration limits must also be updated. The last time Rule 54 was amended was in June 1994. On April 19, 2000, the USF,PA finalized a limited approval of the revisions. The approval was limited due to the following minor deticiency identified in Rule 54 by USEPA: "The rule specifies a 300 ppm S021imit at the point of discharge for any combustion operation. The rule should also indicate that the standard is on a dry basis and should specify the percent excess air." The 1994 revisions to Rule 54 included an excess emission fee for planned flaring events on outcr continental shelf oil platfonms that exceed the emission rate limits in Section 13.1 of the rule. However, the rule requirements adopted in 1994 were not exactly aligned with the intent as described in the May 12, 1994 rule adoption staff report. In response, the District Compliance Division manager at that time issued a policy to clarify the excess emission fee requirements to correspond with the staff report. This proposed revision includes changes to Rule 54 to codify the current practice regarding the excess einission fees. Similar changes to Rule 42 Section N are proposed to maintain consistency between the two rules. Although this proposal may affect approximately 185 operations in Ventura County that are currently permitted by the District with S02 emissions greater than zero, staff expects the actual impacts of the proposed revisions will be minimal. The proposed amendments to Rules 54 and 42 are being handled as a single rule action because only the affected portions of Rule 42 directly related to Rule 54 are being proposed for revision. Proposed Rule Action 'fhe proposed revisions to Rule 54, Sulfur Compounds, are summarized below and a detailed discussion of these revisions is contained in the staff report (Attachment 5):
1. Staff is proposing to add the 2010 SOZ NAAQS of 75 parts per billion as a ground or sea level concentration limit to the rule's current concentration limits. 2. Staff is proposing to clarify the combustion source emission limit in Subsection B.1.a by adding the requirement that the limit is on a diy basis corrected to a percent oxygen based on the combustion source type to address the EPA comment. This clarification should have no impact on the existing emission limits. "Che proposed rule revisions clarify the method of calculating the planned flaring excess emission fee. The proposal sets the baseline period for sources operating prior to January 1, 1988 as the period from January 1, 1988 through December 31, 1993. This aligns the rules with the current policy in effect with the District Compliance Division and the 1994 staff report. Since 1999, the District has collected less than $120 in excess S02 emission fees. The proposed revisions, which codify existing policy, will not impact the current excess S02 emission fee structure.Air Pollution Control Board

January 14, 2014 Page 3 Expected Emission Reductions and Cost Analysis The current perinitted S02 emissions from all permitted operations in Ventura County are about 266 tons of SOZ per year. Since the proposed rule actions do not directly affect allowed emissions or change the limits cuiTently applicable to the affected stationary sources, it is difficult at this time to determine if any S02 emissions reductions will result from these amendments. The addition of the 2010 SOZ NAAQS as a ground level limit should not affect emissions. Emission reductions will only occur it'modeling or monitoring data shows a facility is causing an exceedance of the ground or sea level limits. Based on historical data, it is unlikely that the proposed ground level limits will result in any additional emission reductions above and beyond those already required for new or moditied sourccs subject to Best Available Control Technology requirements in Rule 26.
The claritication ofthe combustion emission limit should not affect S02 emissions. Most source tests already report SOZ emissions on a dry basis corrected to the percent oxygen corresponding to other pollutant emission limits. Recent source test results have indicated no exceedances of the combustion S02 exhaust concentration limit, so it is unlikely emission reductions will be required. In addition, analysis shows any combustion source that complies with the fuel sulfur content limits in Rule 64, Sulfur Content of Fuels, will automatically be in compliance with the combustion exhaust limit in Rule 54 after correction for a dry basis and oxygen content. The proposed amendments should not increase the cost of compliance with Rule 54. Compliance with the 2010 NAAQS limit is required regardless of the atnendments to Rule 54, so the proposed revisions will not increase costs. Since the combustion emission limit is less restrictive than the Rule 64 limits even with the correction for oxygen content and dry basis, it is unlikely that any source will exceed the limit and incur additional cost. The proposed changes to the planned flaring excess emission fee calculation merely align the rule text with actual practice, so no increase in fees is expected. 'I'he staff rcport (Attachment 5) contains a more comprehensive analysis of emission and socioeconomic impacts.
Public Comments A public workshop for the proposed revisions was held on August 7, 2013. Staff notified all 185 permitted sources of S02 within the District's jurisdiction, but no comments were received. On September 24, 2013, the Advisory Committee unanimously recommended approval of the proposed revisions (Attachment 6). 'I'he Advisory Committee received one letter of general support for the rule amendments from Phil White, former Director of the District and President of AE Group Mechanical Engineers, Inc. Comments from the California Air Resources Board and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency wcre included in the proposal, but these changes had no impact on the proposed requirements.Air Pollution Control Board

January 14, 2014 Nage 4

PROPOSED LEGISLATIVE FINDINGS: Health and Safety Code Sections 40703, 40727, 40727.2, 40728.5 and 40920.6(a) direct that, prior to adopting revisions to Rules 54 and 42, your Board adopt tindings of necessity, authority,clarity, consistency, non-duplication, reference, cost-effectiveness, incremental costeffectiveness, and socioeconomic impacts, based upon relevant information presented at the hearing. 1-iealth and Safety Code Section 40727.2 requires a written analysis, comparison, and consideration of existing air pollution regulations that apply to the same type of source (see Staff Report, Attachment 5). Therefore, if your Board approves the proposed revisions to these rules, it is recommended that your Board also adopt the proposed findings (Attachment 2) that address these statutory requirements. CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT COMPLIANCE: The proposed revisions to Rule 54 have been determined by District staff to be within the scope of the categorical exemptions from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) under state CEQA guideline Sections 15307, Protection of Natural Resources, and 15308, Protection of Environment (14 Calif. Code of Regs., §§ 15307 and 15308). The proposed revisions to Rule 42 have been determined by District staff to be within the scope of the statutory exemption from CEQA pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21080(b)(8) and CEQA Guideline Section 15273(a), Rates, Tolls, Fares and Charges. The Notice of Exemption (14 Calif. Code of Regs., § 15062) with respect to these CEQA exemptions is included as Attachment 1. This proposal has been reviewed by District Counsel. If you have any questions, please contact Mike Villegas at 645-1440 or Tyler Harris at 645-1407.



# v' 

# ~ ~1

MICHAEL VILLEGAS Air Pollution Control Officer
Attachments: 1. Proposed Notice of CEQA Exemption 2. Proposed Legislative Findings 3. Strikeoutlunderline version of revised Rule 54 4. Strikeout/underline version of revised Rule 42 5. Final Staff Report 6. Advisory Committee Voting Record