	Technical Support Document

	for

	EPA's Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

	on revisions to the 

	California State Implementation Plan 

as submitted by the State of California 

for the Monterey Bay Unified Air Pollution Control District 

	

	EPA's Analysis of

Monterey Bay Unified Air Pollution Control District(s

Rule 400 - Visible Emissions

	United States Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX

	Air Division

	

January 2010

Prepared by Andrew Steckel

Monterey Bay Unified Air Pollution Control District (MBUAPCD)

Rule 400 - Visible Emissions

1.  Rule Adoption and Submittal Chronology - On August 11, 2005 (70 FR
46770), EPA incorporated into the SIP a version of MBUAPCD Rule 400 that
was adopted locally on October 15, 2003, and submitted to EPA on January
15, 2004.  No subsequent version of the rule was submitted besides the
December 15, 2004 version that is described below and is the subject of
this technical support document.

-	On December 15, 2004, the MBUAPCD Governing Board amended Rule 400.  

-	On March 7, 2008, the California Air Resources Board (CARB) submitted
the December 2004 amended Rule 400 to EPA as a revision to the
California State Implementation Plan (SIP).

-	On April 17, 2008, EPA found complete California’s March 2008
submittal of Rule 400.

2.  Rule Summary & Background - MBUAPCD Rule 400 is designed to limit
visible emissions from various activities and sources, primarily by
establishing a 20% opacity standard.  The December 2004 amendment added
a definition of “startup” in section 2.5 and relaxed the opacity
requirement for gas turbines to allow 40% opacity during startup. 
Specifically, new section 3.2.3 reads, “…visible emissions from
gas-fired combustion turbines may exceed Ringlemann 1 during startup,
provided that visible emissions during such startups shall not exceed
Ringelmann 2 (or equivalent 40% opacity) for a period or periods
aggregating more than three minutes in any one hour.”  

3.  Nonattainment History of Monterey Bay Air Basin - Upon enactment of
the Clean Air Act (CAA) Amendments of 1990, the Monterey Bay air basin
was designated nonattainment for ozone and classified as moderate under
CAA §107(d)(4)(B).  However, on October 18, 2000, the area was
designated attainment for the 1-hour ozone standard.  The area also
meets the 8-hour ozone standard, was designated attainment for PM-10,
and meets the PM-2.5 standard.    

4.  Rule Evaluation - EPA is primarily using the following three
criteria to evaluate Rule 400.

a.  Rule Stringency – CAA §§ 172(c) and 182(b)(2) require ozone
nonattainment areas to implement reasonably available control technology
(RACT) for ozone precursors. In approving the Monterey Bay Ozone
Maintenance Plan, EPA found that MBUAPCD had adequately implemented
RACT.  Because Monterey Bay attained the PM standard, the area was not
subject to CAA §189 PM requirements regarding Reasonably or Best
Available Control Measures (RACM or BACM).

b.  Enforceability – CAA §110(a)(2)(A) requires that regulations
submitted to EPA for SIP approval must be clear and legally enforceable.


c.  Anti-Backsliding - CAA §110(l) restricts certain SIP revisions that
would relax existing SIP-approved requirements.  

EPA finds that Rule 400 reasonably fulfills these three criteria except
for the rule deficiency identified below.  

5.  Rule Deficiency - The SIP submittal fails to demonstrate that this
rule revision adequately complies with CAA requirements regarding
enforceability and anti-backsliding as described below.    

-  	New section 3.2.3 places no time limitation on opacity between 20%
and 40% for gas turbines except as defined in the District permit
pursuant to new section 2.5.  This is inconsistent with long-standing
national policy on excess emissions (see attachment 8.c below), which
explains that SIP rules must ensure that emissions during startup
conditions are minimized.  We believe this could be addressed by adding
rule text establishing appropriate time limitations on gas turbine
startup, requiring sources to minimize time and emissions during
startup, and demonstrating in the staff report that the rule minimizes
emissions during startup.

6.  Additional Recommendations for the Next Rule Revision - The
following revision is not currently the basis for rule disapproval, but
is recommended for the next time the rule is amended.

-	Remove the broad exemption for agricultural operations at 1.3.3 or
justify why it is appropriate to treat sources at agricultural
operations differently than identical sources at non-agricultural
operations.

7.  EPA Action – EPA staff recommends full disapproval of the April
17, 2008 submittal of MBUAPCD Rule 400 pursuant to CAA §110(k) because
the submittal would only weaken the SIP and the State has not shown that
the submittal complies with the CAA in light of the deficiency described
above.  There are no CAA §110(c) FIP or §110(m) sanction implications
of this action since this is not a required submittal.  

8.  Attachments

a.  MBUAPCD Rule 400 - Visible Emissions, adopted December 15, 2004.

b.  “Staff Report; Proposed Revisions to Rule 400 (Visible
Emissions)”, MBUAPCD, December 15, 2004.  

c.  “State Implementation Plans: Policy Regarding Excess Emissions
During Malfunctions, Startup, and Shutdown”, USEPA Memorandum,
September 20, 1999.  

 PAGE   

-   PAGE  3  -

Monterey Bay UAPCD – Rule 400, 

Visible Emissions TSD, January 10

