ANTELOPE VALLEY AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT


RULE 1303. - REQUIREMENTS

(Adopted Oct. 5, 1979)(Amended March 7, 1980)(Amended Sept. 10, 1982)
(Amended July 12, 1985)(Amended August 1, 1986)(Amended June 28, 1990)
(Amended May 3, 1991)(Amended December 7, 1995)(Amended May 10, 1996)

(a) Best Available Control Technology:

  1. The Executive Officer or designee shall deny the Permit to Construct for any relocation or for any new or modified source which results in an emission increase of any nonattainment air contaminant, any ozone depleting compound, or ammonia, unless Best Available Control Technology is employed for the new or relocated source or for the actual modification to an existing source.
  2. In implementing subdivision (a), the Executive Officer or designee shall periodically publish guidelines indicating the administrative procedures and requirements for commonly permitted sources. Best Available Control Technology for other source categories shall be determined on a case-by-case basis using the definition of Best Available Control Technology in Rule 1302 and the general administrative procedures and requirements of the Best Available Control Technology Guidelines.
  3. Where the requirement of paragraph (a)(1) is applicable to a small business that is not a major polluting facility, the Executive Officer or designee shall consider cost in determining the level of Best Available Control Technology required for new or modified sources at such a facility, provided that the applicant fully substantiates his eligibility as a small business as defined in Rule 1302. Notwithstanding the preceding sentence, Best Available Control Technology for such sources shall be at least as stringent as Lowest Achievable Emission Rate as defined in the federal Clean Air Act Section 171(3) [42 U.S.C. Section 7501(3)].
  4. The Best Available Control Technology requirements of this paragraph shall apply regardless of any modeling or offset exemption in Rule 1304.

(b) The Executive Officer or designee shall, except as Rule 1304 applies, deny the Permit to Construct for any new or modified source which results in a net emission increase of any nonattainment air contaminant at a facility, unless each of the following requirements is met:

  1. Modeling
    The applicant substantiates with modeling, according to Appendix A or other analysis approved by the Executive Officer or designee, that the new facility or modification will not cause a significant increase in an air quality concentration as specified in Table A-2 of Appendix A.
  2. Emission Offsets
    Unless exempt from offsets requirements pursuant to Rule 1304, emission increases shall be offset by either Emission Reduction Credits approved pursuant to Rule 1309, or by allocations from the Priority Reserve in accordance with the provisions of Rule 1309.1. Offset ratios shall be 1.2-to-1.0 for Emission Reduction Credits and 1.0-to-1.0 for allocations from the Priority Reserve, except for facilities located in the Southeast Desert Air Basin, where the offset ratio for Emission Reduction Credits only shall be 1.2-to-1.0 for VOC, NOX, SOXand PM10 and 1.0-to-1.0 for CO.
  3. Sensitive Zone Requirements
    Unless credits are obtained from the Priority Reserve, facilities located in the South Coast Air Basin are subject to the Sensitive Zone requirements specified in Health and Safety Code Section 40410.5. A facility in zone 1 may obtain Emission Reduction Credits originated in zone 1 only, and a facility in zone 2A may obtain Emission Reduction Credits from either zone 1 or zone 2A, or both, or demonstrate to the Executive Officer or designee a net air quality benefit in the area impacted by the emissions from the subject facility.
  4. Facility Compliance
    The subject facility complies with all applicable rules and regulations of the District.
  5. Major Polluting Facilities
    In addition to the above requirements, any new major polluting facility or major modification at an existing major polluting facility shall comply with the following requirements:
      (A) Alternative Analysis
      Conduct an analysis of alternative sites, sizes, production processes, and environmental control techniques for such proposed source and demonstrate that the benefits of the proposed project outweigh the environmental and social costs associated with that project.

      (B) Statewide Compliance
      Demonstrate prior to the issuance of a Permit to Construct, that all major stationary sources, as defined in the jurisdiction where the facilities are located, that are owned or operated by such person (or by any entity controlling, controlled by, or under common control with such person) in the State of California are subject to emission limitations and are in compliance or on a schedule for compliance with all applicable emission limitations and standards under the Clean Air Act.

      (C) Protection of Visibility

        (i) Conduct a modeling analysis for plume visibility in accordance with the procedures specified in Appendix B if the net emission increase from the new or modified source exceeds 15 tons/year of PM10 or 40 tons/year of NOX; and the location of the source, relative to the closest boundary of a specified Federal Class I area, is within the distance specified in Table C-1.

        Table C-1

        Federal Class I Area

        Distance

        (km)
           
        Agua Tibia 28
           
        Cucamonga 28
           
        Joshua Tree 29
           
        San Gabriel 29
           
        San Gorgonio 32
           
        San Jacinto 28

        (ii) In relation to a permit application subject to the modeling analysis required by clause (b)(5)(C)(i), the Executive Officer shall:

          (I) deem a permit application complete only when the applicant has complied with the requisite modeling analysis for plume visibility pursuant to clause (b)(5)(C)(i);

          (II) notify and provide a copy of the complete permit application file to the applicable Federal Land Manager(s) within 30 calendar days after the application has been deemed complete and at least 60 days prior to final action on the permit application;

          (III) consider written comments, relative to visibility impacts from the new or modified source, from the responsible Federal Land Manager(s), including any regional haze modeling performed by the Federal Land Manager(s), received within 30 days of the date of notification, when determining the terms and conditions of the permit;

          (IV) consider the Federal Land Manager(s) findings with respect to the geographic extent, intensity, duration, frequency and time of any identified visibility impairment of an affected Federal Class I area, including how these factors correlate with times of visitor use of the Federal Class I area, and the frequency and timing of natural conditions that reduce visibility; and,

          (V) explain its decision or give notice as to where to obtain this explanation if the Executive Officer finds that the Federal Land Manager(s) analysis does not demonstrate that a new or modified source may have an adverse impact on visibility in an affected Federal Class I area.

        (iii) If a project has an adverse impact on visibility in an affected Federal Class I area, the Executive Officer may consider the cost of compliance, the time necessary for compliance, the energy and non-air quality environmental impacts of compliance, and the useful life of the source and other relevant factors in determining whether to issue or deny the Permit to Construct or Permit to Operate.

      (D) Compliance Through California Environmental Quality Act
      The requirements of subparagraph (b)(5)(A) may be met through compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act in the following manner:

        (i) if the proposed project is exempt from California Environmental Quality Act analysis pursuant to a statutory or categorical exemption pursuant to Title 14, California Code of Regulations Sections 15260 to 15329, subparagraph (b)(5)(A) shall not apply to that project;

        (ii) if the proposed project qualifies for a negative declaration pursuant to Title 14 California Code of Regulations Section 15070, or for a mitigated negative declaration as defined in Public Resources Code Section 21064.5; subparagraph (b)(5)(A) shall not apply to that project, or

        (iii) the proposed project has been analyzed by an environmental impact report pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21002.1 and Title 14 California Code of Regulations Section 15080 et seq., subparagraph (b)(5)(A) shall be deemed to be satisfied.



APPENDIX A

The following sets forth the procedure for complying with the air quality modeling requirements of Rule 1303(b). An applicant must either (1) provide an analysis, approved by the Executive Officer or designee, or (2) show by using the Screening Analysis below, that a significant increase in air quality concentration will not occur. Modeling for VOC and SOXis not required.

Table A-1 of the screening analysis is subject to change by the Executive Officer or designee, based on improved modeling data.

SCREENING ANALYSIS

Compare the emissions from the source you are applying for to those in Table A-1. If the emissions are less than the allowable emissions, no further analysis is required. If the emissions are greater than the allowable emissions, a more detailed air quality modeling analysis is required.

Table A-1
Allowable Emissions
for Noncombustion Sources and for
Combustion Sources less than or equal to 40 Million BTUs per hour

Heat Input Capacity NOx CO PM10
(million BTUs/hr)

NOx
(lbs/hr)

CO
(lbs/hr)

PM10
(lbs/hr)


Noncombustion Source

0.068

3.7

0.41

< 2

0.20

11.0

1.2

>2 < 5

0.31

17.1

1.9

>5 < 10

0.47

25.9

2.8

>10 < 20

0.86

47.3

5.2

>20 < 30

1.26

69.3

7.6

>30 <40

1.31

72.1

7.9

TABLE A-2

Most Stringent Ambient Air Quality Standard and
Allowable Change in Concentration
For Each Air Contaminant/Averaging Time Combination

Air
Contaminant

Averaging
Time

Most Stringent
Air Quality
Standard

Significant Change in
Air Quality
Concentration


Nitrogen
Dioxide

1-hour
Annual

25 pphm - 500 µg/m3
5.3 pphm - 100 µg/m
3

1 pphm - 20 µg/m3
0.05 pphm - 1 µg/m
3

 

 

 

 

Carbon
Monoxide

1-hour
8-hour

20 ppm - 23 mg/m3
9.0 ppm - 10 mg/m
3

1 ppm - 1.1 mg/m3
0.45 ppm - 0.50 mg/m
3

 

 

 

 

Suspended
Particulate

24-hour

50 µg/m3

2.5 µg/m3

 

 

 

 

Matter-<10um
(PM10)

Annual
Geometric Mean

30 µg/m3

1 µg/m3

 

 

 

 

Sulfate

24-hour

25 µg/m3

1 µg/m3



APPENDIX B
MODELING ANALYSIS FOR VISIBILITY

(a) The modeling analysis performed by the applicant shall consider:

  1. the net emission increase from the new or modified source; and
  2. the location of the source and its distance to the closest boundary of specified Federal Class I area(s).

(b) Level 1 and 2 screening analysis for adverse plume impact pursuant to subparagraph (b)(5)(C) of this rule for modeling analysis of plume visibility shall consider the following applicable screening background visual ranges:

Federal Class I Area

Screening Background Visual Range (km)

Agua Tibia

171

Cucamonga

171

Joshua Tree

180

San Gabriel

175

San Gorgonio

192

San Jacinto

171

For level 1 and 2 screening analysis, no adverse plume impact on visibility results when the total color contrast value (Delta-E) is 2.0 or less and the plume contrast value (C) is 0.05 or less. If these values are exceeded, the Executive Officer shall require additional modeling. For level 3 analysis the appropriate background visual range, in consultation with the Executive Officer, shall be used. The Executive Officer may determine that there is no adverse visibility impact based on substantial evidence provided by the project applicant.

(c) When more detailed modeling is required to determine the project’s visibility impact or when an air quality model specified in the Guidelines below is deemed inappropriate by the Executive Officer for a specific source-receptor application, the model may be modified or another model substituted with prior written approval by the Executive Officer, in consultation with the federal Environmental Protection Agency and the Federal Land Managers.

(d) The modeling analysis for plume visibility required pursuant to subparagraph (b)(5)(C) of this rule shall comply with the most recent version of:

  1. “Guideline on Air Quality Model (Revised)” (1986), supplement A (1987), supplement B (1993) and supplement C (1994), EPA-450/2-78-027R, US EPA, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards Research Triangle Park, NC 27711; and
  2. “Workbook for Plume Visual Impact Screening and Analysis (Revised),” EPA-454-/R-92-023, US EPA, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711;
  3. “User’s Manual for the Plume Visibility Model (PLUVUE II) (Revised),” EPA-454/B-92-008, US EPA, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711 (for Level-3 Visibility Analysis)