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: /—Dep—uty 

04. e Board 

Item #11 

1/14/14 
669 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 rg_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 determining 
Air 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. 

~ ~1 v' 

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