# Yolo-Solano

Air Quality Management

District 1947 Galileo

Court,

Suite

103 Davis,

CA 95618 (530) 757-3650 www.ysaqmd.org

c”

a \frI41ANAG% 

# PROPOSED

ADOPTION

OF RULE

3.24, PREVENTION

OF SIGNIFICANT DETERIORATION FINAL

STAFF REPORT May

29, 2012 Prepared

by:

Paul Hensleigh,

Deputy

Air Pollution

Control

Officer

# 0’TableofContentsPageI.EXECUTIVESUMMARYIA.BACKGROUNDIII.DISCUSSIONOFPROPOSEDRULE3.24REQUIREMENTS3III.COMPARISONTOOTHERAPPLICABLEREGULATIONSANDREQUIREMENTS4IV.IMPACTSOFTHEPROPOSEDRULE4V.ENVIRONMENTALIMPACTSOFMETHODSOFCOMPLIANCE6VI.REGULATORYFINDINGS6VII.PUBLICCOMMENTSANDSTAFFRESPONSES7VIII.REFERENCES7ATTACHMENTAPROPOSEDRULE3.24,PREVENTiONOFSIGNIFICANTDETERIORATION;STRIKE-OUTUNDERLINEVERSIONATTACHMENTBNOTICEOFEXEMPTION.FROMCEQAGUIDELINESATTACHMENTCRESOLUTIONNO.12-06ATTACHMENTDWRITTENCOMMENTSRECEIVED



# 0DraftStaffReport-Rule3.24,PreventionofSignificantDeteriorationMay29,2012EXECUTiVESUMMARYOnJune13,2012,theYolo-SolanoAirQualityManagementDistrict(District)BoardofDirectorswillconsiderproposedRule3.24Preventionof.SignificantDeterioration(PSD).Theruleadoptsbyreferencetheprovisionsof40CodeofFederalRegulations(CFR)Part52,SubpartA,section52.21(40CFR52.21),andisbasedonmodelrulelanguagewhichwasdevelopedbytheCaliforniaAirPollutionControlOfficersAssociation(CAPCOA)andapprovedbytheEnvironmentalProtectionAgency(EPA),Region9.AdoptionofthisRulewillnotaddanynewapplicablerequirementstoanysourceinourjurisdiction;itmerelymakestheDistrictthepermittingauthorityoftheprogram,insteadofEPARegion9.TherearecurrentlynosourcesinourjurisdictionwithaP50permit;howeveraPSDapplicationwasfiledwithEPAin2008byCPVVacaville,LLC.Foranypotentiallyaffectedsources,ifourDistrictisthepermittingauthority,thepermittingprocessshouldbesimpler—thecompanywouldonlyneedtoworkwithoneagency(theDistrict)forairpermittinginsteadoftwo(theDistrictandEPA).TheDistrictdoesnotexpecttheproposedruletohaveeitherasignificantnoradetrimentaleffectontheenvironment.Therefore,staffhaspreparedaNoticeofExemption(NOE)tosatisfytheCaliforniaEnvironmentalQualityAct(CEQA)requirements.TheNOEstatesthattheadoptionofthisproposedruleisexemptfromtherequirementsofCEQApursuanttoSection15308,ActionsbyRegulatoryAgenciesforProtectionoftheEnvironment.A.BACKGROUNDTheFederalCleanAirAct(CM),sections110(a)(2)(C)and161actuallyrequireeachstate(andthereforedistrict)toadoptaPSDprogram.However,historicallyEPAhasnotenforcedthisrequirement,whichtheycoulddobyissuingaFederalImplementationPlan(FIP).RecentlyEPAregion9hasmadeastrongpushtohaveallCaliforniadistrictsimplementthePSDprogram.Acceptingdelegationforthisprogram(andadoptionofthisrule)isacriticalcomponentinourDistrict’sworkplanforthepilotEPAsection105grantwhichtheDistrictreceivedin2011.PSDisafederalpre-constructionpermittingprogramfornewmajorstationarysourcesandsignificantmodificationstoexistingmajorsourceslocatedinareasclassifiedas“attainmentforanycriteriaairpollutant.PSDispartoffederalNewSourceReview(NSR)fromTitle1oftheCM.TheothercomponentsoffederalNSRarenonattainmentNSRandminorsourceNSR,whichwealreadyadministerthroughourRule3.4.TheotherfederalpermittingprogramswhichourDistricthasexperiencewitharetheTitleVFederalOperatingPermitProgram(whichisformajorsourcesofpollutantsregardlessofattainmentstatus)andtheAcidRainProgram(whichappliestofossilfuelfiredpowerplants).Fortheseother2federalpermittingprograms,theDistrictisthepermittingauthority,asdelegatedbyEPA.ByadoptingthisruleandgettingtheruleapprovedintotheStateImplementationPlan(SIP),ourDistrictwouldalsobecomethepermittingauthorityofthePSDprogramforourjurisdiction.Page1DraftStaffReport-Rule3.24,PreventionofSignificantDeteriorationMay29,2012Inadditiontothebenefittosourcestoonlydealingwithoneairagency,therearetwoadditionalbenefitstohavingtheDistricttakeovertheprogram.-IftheDistrictisthepermittingauthority,anyappealsofthePSDpermitwouldbehandledlocally(bytheDistrict’sHearingBoard)insteadofthefederalEnvironmentalAppealsBoard(EAB)inWashingtonDC,asisthecaseifEPAisthepermittingauthority.-IfEPAisthepermittingauthority,thefederalFishandWildlifeServiceandtheNationalMarineFisheriesServicemustbeconsultedregardingtheEndangeredSpeciesAct(ESA)requirementsbecauseissuanceofthePSDpermitisconsideredafederalaction.IftheDistrictisthepermittingauthority,thisconsultationisnotrequired,althoughthesourceisstillrequiredtocomplywithanyapplicableESArequirements.II.DISCUSSIONOFPROPOSEDRULE3.24REQUIREMENTSWhoisSubjecttoPSDPermitting?Apre-constructionPSDpermitwouldberequiredforanynewmajorsource(ormajormodificationofanexistingmajorsource)ofanypollutantdesignatedasattainmentorunclassifiableintheDistrict,aswellasotherpollutantssubjecttoregulationundertheFederalCleanAirAct.ForourDistrict,thesepollutantsinclude,butarenotlimitedto:-CarbonMonoxide(CC),-NitrogenDioxide(N02),-SulfurDioxide(S02),-ParticulateMatterlessthan10microns(PMIO),-ParticulateMatterlessthan2.5microns(PM2.5),-‘Lead,or-GreenhouseGases(GHG).However,oftheseonlyCOorGHGarelikelytoactuallytriggerasourceintothePSDprograminourdistrict.NewMajorSourcesAmajorsourceisafacilitythatemits250tonsperyearofanapplicablepollutant,exceptforGHGswhichthefacilitymustemit100,000tonsperyearintermsofCarbonDioxideequivalentunits(C02e).Forthesesources,fugitiveemissionsdonotcounttowardsthethreshold.Thereare28typesofindustrieswhereamajorsourceisdefinedas100tonsperyearofanapplicablepollutant,withthesameexceptionforGHGs.Forsourcesinthesecategories,fugitiveemissionsareincluded.MajormodificationsatexistingmaiorsourcesAmajormodificationofanexistingmajorsourceisdefinedasamodificationthatresultsinasignificantemissionsincrease.Anincreaseofmorethan100tonsperyear(TPY)ofPage2DraftStaffReport-Rule3.24,PreventionofSignificantDeteriorationMay29,2012CarbonMonoxide,15TPYofPM10,10TPYofPM2.5(directly),40TPYofNitrogenDioxideorSulfurDioxide,0.6TPYofLead,or75,000TPYofGHGsmeasuredasC02equivalentsareconsideredsignificant.ThereareadditionalthresholdsforotheruncommonregulatedNSRpollutants,suchasH2S04.ForaregulatedNSRpollutantthatdoesnothaveathresholdestablishedanyemissionincreaseisconsideredsignificant.WhataretherequirementsofPSD?ThethreemainrequirementsofeachPSDpermitareBestAvailableControlTechnology(BACT),an‘airqualityimpactanalysis’,andpublicnotice.BACTBACTmustbeemployedoneachemissionsunitthatemitsanapplicableairpollutantinexcessofthesignificantmodificationthresholdforthatpollutant.IftheDistrictreceivedaPSDapplication,staffwouldperformacase-by-caseanalysistodeterminethemaximumdegreeofreductionavailablefortheproposedsourceormodification.ItshouldbenotedthatBACTisalreadyrequiredbytheDistrict’sNSRrule.AirQualitylmiactAnalysisThe‘airqualityimpactanalysis’ismodelingwhichmustdemonstratethattheemissionsincreasefromthesourcewillnotcauseorcontributetoanexceedanceofaNationalAmbientAirQualityStandard(NAAQS)orimpactClassIareassuchasNationalParks.ThisanalysiscomparesthebackgroundconcentrationofapollutantplusthepotentialtoemitofthenewemissionsunitstotheNAAQSonanhourbyhourbasisoverthecourseofayear.Inordertodeterminethebackgroundconcentrationofapollutant,eitherapublicmonitoringsitenearbywhichhascollectedthreetofiveyearsofambientdata,oroneyearofsite-specificmonitoringisrequiredwherethepollutantconcentrationandweatherdataiscollectedonanhourlybasis.IftheairqualityimpactanalysisshowsanexceedanceoftheNAAQS,thenadditionalemissioncontrolsoroperationallimitationsmustbeimposedtopreventtheexceedance.IfthereisstillconcernthattheNAAQSmaybeexceeded,thenpost-projectairqualitymonitoringmaybeimposedontheapplicant.ThefederalregulationsimposeamaximumamountofconcentrationthatasinglesourcecanincreasetheambientairconcentrationregardlessofwhethertheNAAQSisexceededornot.Thisiscalledanambientairincrementandisdifferentforeachpollutantandismeasuredinmicrogramspercubicmeter.TherearenoNAAQSorambientairincrementestablishedforGHGs,thereforetheairqualityimpactanalysisisnotrequiredforGHGs.Rule3.24exemptstheapplicantfromsomeoftheairqualityanalysesforGHGs.PublicNoticePage3DraftStaffReport-Rule3.24,PreventionofSignificantDeteriorationMay29,2012



# ()IftheDistrictreceivedaPSDapplication,staffwouldperformpublicnoticeandsolicitcommentsinaccordancewiththeCleanAirActand40CFR51.166.ExciusionsThesubsectionsof40CFRPart52.21thatareexcludedfromourruleinclude:-(a)(1)PlanDisapproval,(g)Redesignationin1974,(p)(6)-(8)ClassIS02VariancesbytheGovernor,(t)Disputedpermitsorredesignations,and(u)Delegationofauthority,asthesesectionsdonothavearoleintheDistrict’simplementationofaPSDpermittingprogram.-(b)(55)-(58)processunitdefinitionsstruckdownbyDCCircuitCourtbutnotyetremovedfromtheCFR,and(cc)RoutineMaintenance,RepairandReplacementprovisionsstruckdownbyDCCircuitCourtbutnotyetremovedfromtheCFR.-(f),(x),(y),and(z),asthesesectionsarereservedforfutureuseandcontainnorequirements.-(i)(1)(i)-(v)and(ix)-(x),and(i)(6)-(8),astheseareexemptionsthatnolongerapply,-(k)(2),becauseofongoinglitigation-(s)Environmentalimpactstatements,asthisrequirementappliestopermitsissuedbyfederalagenciesonly.InCalifornia,CEQArequirementsgovernDistrictpermittingactionsinasimilarway.-(w)Permitrescission,asallpermittingprocesses,includingrescindingpermitsthatareonlongeractiveornecessary,wouldbehandledundertheDistrictRegulationIll.TherearenoNAAQSorambientairincrementsestablishedforGHGs,thereforetheairqualityimpactanalysisisnotrequiredforGHGs,andwillbeexemptedfromsections(k)and(m).Ill.COMPARISONTOOTHERAPPLICABLEREGULATIONSANDREQUIREMENTSCH&SCSection40727.2requiresdistrictstoperformacomparativealternativeanalysisofanynewcontrolstandard.Specifically,theDistrictisrequiredtoprepareawrittenanalysis(usuallyintheformofamatrix)thatidentifiesallexistingfederalairpollutioncontrolrequirements,inclUding,butnotlimitedtoemissioncontrolstandardsconstitutingbestavailablecontroltechnology(BACT)thatappliestothesameequipmentorsourcetypeastheruleorregulationproposedforadoptionormodificationbytheDistrict.Inaddition,theanalysisshallidentifyanyotherDistrictrule,regulation,orguidelinethatappliestothesameequipmentorsourcetype.-PursuanttoCH&SCSection40727.2(g)aruleconsistencyanalysisofthedraftnileisnotrequired.Thedraftruledoesnotstrengthenemissionlimitsorimposemorestringentmonitoring,reporting,orrecordkeepingrequirements.IV.IMPACTSOFTHEPROPOSEDRULEEmissionsImpactsAdoptionofthisruleisnotexpectedtohaveanimpactonemissions—whethertheDistrictadoptsthisruleornot,sourceswithemissionsabovethethresholdswouldstill



# 0Page4DraftStaffReport-Rule3.24,PreventionofSignificantDeteriorationMay29,2012besubjecttoPSDandanyapplicablelimitations.TheonlydifferenceiswhethertheEPAortheDistrictisthepermittingauthority.CostEffectivenessCH&SCSection40703requirestheDistrict,intheprocessoftheadoptionofanyregulation,toconsiderandmakepublicitsfindingsrelatedtothecosteffectivenessofacontrolmeasure.Costeffectivenessforrulemakingpurposesiscalculatedbydividingthecostofairpollutioncontrolsrequiredbytherulebytheamountofairpollutionreduced.ForanypotentialPSDsources,thecostsassociatedwiththisrulewillbefeefortheDistricttoprocessthePSDpermit.InaccordancewithDistrictrule4,1,thefeeforaTitleVpermitisbasedontheactualhoursspentprocessingthepermit(usingtheDistrict’sstandardtimeandmaterialrate).AnyPSDpermitapplicationwereceivewouldbeprocessedinconjunctionwithaTitleVpermitapplication.Therefore,thefeeforthePSDITitIeVpermitwouldbebasedontheactualtimeittooktoprocess.Sincetherearenoreductionsexpectedfromtheadoptionofthisrule,nocosteffectivenesscalculationscanbeperformed.SocioeconomicImpactsCH&SCSection40728.5(a)requirestheDistrict,intheprocessoftheadoptionofanyruleorregulation,toconsiderthesocioeconomicimpactifairqualityoremissionlimitsmaybesignificantlyaffected.However,districtswithapopulationoflessthan500,000personsareexemptfromtheprovisionsofSection40728.5(a).TheDistrict’spopulationisestimatedtobeapproximately332,000andwellbelowthe500,000personthreshold.Therefore,asocioeconomicanalysisforthisrulemakingisnotrequired.IncrementalCostEffectivenessCH&SCSection40920.6requiresanassessmentoftheincrementalcost-effectivenessforproposedregulationsrelativetoozone,CarbonMonoxide(CO),SulfurOxides(SOx),NitrogenOxides(NOx),andtheirprecursors.Incrementalcost-effectivenessisdefinedasthedifferenceincontrolcostsdividedbythedifferenceinemissionreductionsbetweentwopotentialcontroloptionsthatcanachievethesameemissionreductiongoalofaregulation.Thereisnoincrementalcosteffectivenessforthisrule,sincetherearenoexpectedreductions,ImpactstotheDistrictItisanticipatedthattheproposedrulewillhavelittletonoimpactonstaffworkloadattheDistrict.ItisexpectedthatanyadditionalworkloadsuchasdevelopmentofapplicationformsandpermitevaluationandissuancecanbeabsorbedwithinthestationarysourcedivisionattheDistrict.Asstatedabove,anyactualapplicationsreceivedwouldbechargedfeesbasedontheactualtimespentprocessingtheapplicationbyDistrictstaff.V.ENVIRONMENTALIMPACTSOFMETHODSOFCOMPLIANCEPage5DraftStaffReport-Rule3.24,PreventionofSignificantDeteriorationMay29,2012 

# California

Public Resource

Code Section

21159 requires

the District

(at

the

time

of adopting

a rule requiring

the installation

of pollution

control equipment,

or

a performance standard)

to perform

an environmental

analysis

of the reasonably

foreseeable

methods of compliance.

This

rule

does

not require installation

of control equipment

or

a performance

standard,

therefore

this analysis

is not required. The adoption

of Rule

3.24

will

not have

a significant

effect

or,

the environment

or humans

due

to unusual circumstances.

In addition,

proposed

Rule

3.24

is

an action taken

to protect

the environment.

Therefore,

staff

have determined

that

the project

is categorically

exempt

from

the requirements

of the CEQA pursuant

to Section

15308, Actions

by Regulatory

Agencies

for Protection

of the Environment.

Staff prepared

a Notice

of Exemption

(NOE)

to meet

the CEQA Guidelines (Attachment

B). VI. REGULATORY

FINDINGS Section 40727(a)

of the CH&SC

requires

that

prior

to adopting

or amending

a rule

or regulation,

an

air district’s

board

make findings

of necessity,

authority,

clarity, consistency, nonduplication,

and reference.

The findings

must

be based

on

the following: 1. Information

presented

in the District’s

written analysis,

prepared

pursuant

to CH&SC

Section 40727.2; 2. Information

contained

in the rulemaking

records pursuant

to CH&SC

Section 40728;

and 3. Relevant information

presented

at the Board’s

hearing

for adoption

of the rule. The required

findings

are: Necessity:

This

rule adoption

is required

by Section

1 10(a)(2)(C)

and

161

of the federal Clean

Air Act. Authority:

The District

is authorized

to adopt

rules

and regulations

by CH&SC,

Sections 40001,

40702,

40716,

41010

and 41013. Clarity:

District

staff believes

that

this

rule

can

be understood

by the affected

industry.

In addition,

the record contains

no evidence

that

the persons

directly

affected

by

the

rule cannot understand

the rule. Consistency:

The proposed

rule

does

not conflict

with

and

is

not contradictory

to, existing

statutes,

court decisions,

or state

or federal regulations. Non-Duplication:

The proposed

rule does

not duplicate

any state

laws

or regulations. Reference:

Any statutes,

court decisions,

or other provisions

of law

that

the District implements,

interprets,

or makes

specMc

by adopting

the

rule

are incorporated

into

this analysis

and

this finding

by reference.

0 Page

6DraftStaffReport-Rule3.24,PreventionofSignificantDeteriorationMay29,2012VII.PUBLICCOMMENTSANDSTAFFRESPONSESStaffheldapublicworkshoponMay4,2012,todiscusstheproposedadoptionofRule3.24.Notificationofthepublicworkshop(andpublichearingforJune13,2012)wassenttosurroundingAirDistricts,CityManagerswithintheDistrict,building/planning/communitydevelopmentdepartmentswithintheDistrict,allcityandcountylibrarieswithintheDistrict,allBoardmembers,andpermittedsources.ThenoticewasalsopublishedintheWestSacramentoPress,DixonTribune,VacavilleReporter,WoodlandDailyDemocrat,RioVistaRiverNewsHerald,WintersExpress,andtheDavisEnterprise.Acopyofthepublicnotice,draftstaffreport,anddraftrulelanguage,waspostedontheDistrict’swebpage.TheDistrictreceivednocommentsonthisrule.Acopyoftheupdateddocuments(finalstaffreport/finalrulelanguage)isbeingprovidedtotheGoverningBoardpriortothehearingandpostedontheDistrict’swebpage.VIII.REFERENCES1.40CFR52.21Page7

# Preliminary

Staff Report- 

# Rule

3.24, Prevention

of Significant Deterioration

May

29, 2012 ATTACHMENT

A PROPOSED

RULE

3.24, PREVENTION

OF SIGNJFICANT DETERIORATION STRIKE-OUT

UNDERLINE

VERSION



# 0 0