State of California
AIR RESOURCES BOARD
Bonaventure Hotel
5th and Figueroa
San Diego Room
Los Angeles, CA
January 24, 1979
10:00 a.m.
AGENDA
Page
79-2-1 Approval of Minutes of December 14, 1978 001
79-2-2 Public Meeting to Consider a Proposed Model New
Source Review Rule 005
79-2-3 Other Business -
a. Executive Session - Personnel & Litigation
b. Research Proposals
c. Delegations to Executive Officer
ITEM NO.: 79-2-2
Public Meeting to Consider a Proposed Model New Source Review
Rule.
RECOMMENDATION
Approve the attached proposed model new source review rule, and
direct the staff to distribute the rule to local air pollution
control districts with a recommendation for adoption.
SUMMARY
During the last two years the staff has received many comments
from other government agencies, local air pollution control
districts, and regulated industries regarding the process by
which permits to construct are issued for new and modified
stationary sources of emissions. The basic process incorporated
in previous ARB model new source review rules included a detailed
review for large proposed sources, with requirements for the use
of "best available control technology" (BACT) and a demonstration
that the proposed project would result in a net air quality
benefit. Generally, the net air quality benefit would be
demonstrated by use of emissions trade-offs or offsets, whereby
and applicant would reduce emissions at an existing facility by
more than the amount of the emissions increase from the proposed
new facility.
The proposal before the Board today includes the same two basic
concepts of BACT and emissions offsets. There are several
important changes in how these concepts are applied, however:
(1) There is one cutoff level used to determine when the BACT
and offset requirements apply to a proposed source; current
model rules have two separate cutoffs, one for BACT and one
for offsets.
(2) The single cutoff level for BACT and offsets applies only to
the increase in emissions to the proposed project; under
current model rules, the cutoff levels apply to the absolute
emissions from the proposed source regardless of the extent
of the increase.
(3) The BACT requirement only applies to new sources or
modifications to existing sources; current rules require
BACT for existing sources under some circumstances.
(4) The procedures and assumptions to be used to calculate the
emissions (and net increases in emissions) from proposed new
sources and modifications are detailed in the proposed rule;
current rules give little guidance in this area.
(5) Detailed conditions are set forth on the requirements for,
and acceptability of, emissions trade-offs, covering the
size, geographic and temporal relationships between the
proposed new source and required emissions offsets; again,
current rules give little guidance on these subjects.
(6) Provisions are proposed for the treatment of emissions
banking, a policy whereby emissions reductions obtained at
one point in time can be "banked" and used to offset the
emissions from a future, unspecified project.
The proposed model rule provides for limited banking under three
sets of circumstances:
-- "community-wide banking", under which a local district or
other regulatory agency, or industry, can reduce emissions
from existing facilities to provide offsets for future
projects of community-wide interest, such as cogeneration
and refuse-derived fuels projects.
-- excess offsets banking, under which an applicant can bank
excess offsets obtained for one project for use by the
applicant on future nearby projects.
-- power plant banking, under which utilities can establish
offset banks for proposed power plant projects early in the
Energy Commission's review process, to allow for the
unusually ling regulatory lead time utilities are faced
with.
(7) The air quality review for proposed power plants are
coordinated within the time frame of the Energy Commission's
review process, consistent with the proposed Joint Policy
Statement scheduled for consideration by the Board on
January 23, 1979.
(8) A mechanism for interested parties to appeal district permit
decisions to the ARB within existing statutory time frames
is proposed to replace the "written concurrence" requirements
contained in current model rules.
In summary, the staff believes that the proposed model new
source review rule will provide much greater certainty and
consistency to the requirements imposed on new source
proponents, while continuing to provide a mechanism for
economic growth consistent with the need to protect
California's air quality.
Public Meeting to Consider a Proposed Model New Source Review
Rule
Table of Contents
I. Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1
II. Need and Legal Basis for New Source Review Rules. . . . . . . . . . .2
III. Discussion of Proposed Revised Model NSR Rule . . . . . . . . . . . .5
A. General Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6
B. Applicability. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7
C. Exemptions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8
D. Calculation of Emissions and Air Quality Impacts . . . . . . . 10
E. Best Available Control Technology and Mitigation
Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
F. Permit Conditions Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
G. Analysis, Notice, and Reporting. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
H. Power Plants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
I. Definitions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
IV. Rule II . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
V. Environmental and Economic Impacts
A. Impacts of Air Pollution and Emissions Prevented . . . . . . . 28
B. Possible Adverse Environmental Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
C. Economic Impacts of the Rule . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
VI. Recommendation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
References
Attachments
List of Figures
Figure 1. Yearly Emissions Profile. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Figure 2a. Emission offset Profile . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Figure 2b. Adjusted Emission Offset Profile. . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Figure 2c. Comparison of Emissions Profile and Adjusted
Emissions Offset Profile. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17