1 Final Staff Report with Appendices for 

Revised Proposed Amendments to Rule 4402

SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT 

FINAL STAFF REPORT 

Revised Proposed Amendments to Rule 4402 

(Crude Oil Production Sumps) 

December 15, 2011 

Prepared by: Anna Myers, Senior Air Quality Specialist 

Kristopher Rickards, Air Quality Engineer 

Chelsea Gonzales, Air Quality Specialist 

Nichole Corless, Air Quality Specialist 

Reviewed by: Tina Frederick, Compliance Inspector 

 Ellyce Baldwin, Compliance Supervisor 

 Jessi Fierro, Rule Development Supervisor 

Mike Oldershaw, Compliance Manager 

Leonard Scandura, Permits Manager 

Errol Villegas, Strategies and Incentives Manager 

Samir Sheikh, Director of Strategies and Incentives 

I. SUMMARY

The San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District’s (District) Governing Board 

(Board) adopted amendments to Rule 4402 (Crude Oil Production Sumps) on December 

17, 1992 as a part of an effort to renumber rules from a previous rule-numbering system 

to the current District rule-numbering system. The District submitted the 1992 rule 

revisions to the California Air Resources Board (ARB) for forwarding to the 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as an amendment to the State Implementation 

Plan (SIP) in 2006. 

Upon evaluation of the submitted Rule 4402, EPA finalized a limited approval and 

limited disapproval of the rule as an amendment to the District portion of the SIP

(Revisions to the California State Implementation Plan, San Joaquin Valley Unified Air 

Pollution Control District 2011, 39777-39782), effective on August 8, 2011. In its limited 

disapproval, EPA cited concerns regarding the satisfaction of Reasonably Available 

Control Technology (RACT) requirements through Rule 4402. A copy of the Federal 

Register and the associated Technical Support Document is included as Appendix D of 

this final staff report. 
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT 

Final Staff Report: Rule 4402 December 15, 2011 

2 Final Staff Report with Appendices for 

Revised Proposed Amendments to Rule 4402

Pursuant to Section (§)179 of the Clean Air Act (CAA), unless a rule has been updated 

and approved into the SIP within 18 months after disapproval, EPA shall impose one or 

more sanctions until they determine that the State has attained compliance. The purpose 

of this rule-amending project is to evaluate and address, as appropriate, the concerns 

identified by EPA regarding Rule 4402 and submit adopted revisions to EPA for inclusion 

into the SIP. 

This rule addresses VOC emissions from a source category that is relatively small. 

VOC emissions reductions are generally far less important to the Valley’s long-term 

attainment goals than are NOx emissions reductions. As such, the Valley’s attainment 

strategies generally emphasize NOx reductions. The District will continue to seek as 

much VOC reductions as expeditiously practical, technologically feasible, and as 

economically reasonable as determined by the Governing Board. 

II. RULE DEVELOPMENT PROCESS 

This rule development process is principally focused on ensuring that Rule 4402 meets 

requirements for Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT). Based on the 

District’s evaluation of sources subject to Rule 4402, the District proposes to make a 

number of relatively minor and administrative amendments to the rule. 

District staff hosted a public workshop on October 18, 2011 and two technical 

workgroup meetings with industry representatives in September and October of 2011. 

District staff solicited comments from the public, affected sources, trade organizations, 

ARB, and EPA. Upon review and evaluation, District staff incorporated the comments 

and data into the rule and final staff report as appropriate. 

As part of the District’s new socioeconomic policy adopted by the Board in October 

2011, District staff identified three industry trade associations for this source category: 

the Western States Petroleum Association (WSPA), the Independent Oil Producers 

Associations (IOPA), and the California Independent Petroleum Association (CIPA). 

District staff solicited these groups for feedback on control costs and feasibility of the 

revised proposed rule amendments. At the October 18, 2011, public workshop, District 

staff asked for assistance in identifying other trade organizations that could provide 

additional cost and source-specific data. No additional industry groups have been 

identified at this time. District staff also solicited feedback from affected sources to 

determine if any new Department of Transportation, Occupational Safety and Health 

Administration, safety or other requirements that would result from the revised proposed 

amendments. Thus far no additional requirements have been identified. 

 
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT 

Final Staff Report: Rule 4402 December 15, 2011 

3 Final Staff Report with Appendices for 

Revised Proposed Amendments to Rule 4402

The proposed rule and final draft staff report will be published and made available to 

affected sources and interested parties prior to a public hearing of the District Governing 

Board to consider adoption of the proposed rule amendments. Proposed amendments 

to the rule are scheduled to be presented to the Governing Board during the public 

hearing on December 15, 2011. 

III. BACKGROUND 

A. Crude Oil Production Operations with Sumps 

Oil production operations pump crude oil from the ground and separate the usable 

products from the sand, water, and other fluids that it is entrained in. In most cases, the 

separation process occurs in tanks or a combination of tanks and sumps. The following 

is a simplified overview of the initial separation procedure, which takes place prior to 

product being sent to a sump or tank for additional separation: 

• Oil-water-gas mixtures produced from individual wells are sent to a fluid 

gathering system. 

• The fluid then enters a free-water knockout (FWKO) vessel where initial 

separation of gas, oil, and water takes place. A free-water knockout is a vessel 

designed to reduce the velocity of the produced stream so that free water and 

solids settle out. The knockout may be a tank or pressure vessel. 

• After leaving the FWKO vessel, the oil fraction, which usually contains significant 

amounts of residual water, is sent to a heater treater or tank where additional 

water is separated from the oil and any remaining gas. A heater treater is a 

pressure vessel used in an oil field to break oil-water emulsions. The process 

involves the application of heat and may be accompanied by the addition of 

chemicals upstream or at the treater. 

• If significant gas is released, it may be directed to a vapor collection system; 

otherwise, gas is removed with the oil fraction. The separated oil is then directed 

to a storage tank and eventually sent offsite for sale/distribution. 

The remaining oily water fraction is then directed to a tank or a sump for further 

separation. As identified in the ARB TSD for sumps used in oil production (Suggested 

Control Measure of the Control of Organic Compound Emissions from Sumps Used in 

Oil Production Operations), waste water, also called produced water, needs to be 

disposed of in one or more of the following ways: re-injection into the oil reservoir; 

injection into a favorable subsurface formation; re-direction into a permitted existing 

surface waterway after appropriate treatment to remove contaminants; percolation; or 

evaporation. In the Valley, processed water is commonly disposed of using a 

combination of percolation and evaporation; this is especially true for small and very 

small oil producers. The process of percolation can only be achieved through the use of 

unlined excavations in the ground, commonly referred to as sumps or ponds. 

 
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT 

Final Staff Report: Rule 4402 December 15, 2011 

4 Final Staff Report with Appendices for 

Revised Proposed Amendments to Rule 4402

B. The Purpose and Use of Sumps 

In oil and gas production operations, sumps receive oil-water mixtures for the purpose 

of separating usable oil products from water, sand, and semi-sold hydrocarbons. Sumps 

operate under continuous use during normal operations of oil production. Sumps also 

serve as receptors or holding ponds to allow the disposal of water through evaporation 

and percolation. 

Sumps are separated into the following three classes, based upon where they function 

within the treatment process: 

• First stage (primary) production sump. A sump that receives a stream of crude oil 

and produced water directly from one or more oil production wells or field gathering 

systems. 

• Second stage (secondary) production sump. A sump that receives waste water 

streams (water/oil) from one or more first stage separators (including first stage 

sumps and/or tanks). 

• Third stage (tertiary) production sump. A sump that receives waste water streams 

(water/oil) from one or more second stage separators (including second stage 

sumps and/or tanks). In most cases, there are only small amounts of oil present in 

the waste streams. 

Sumps are further classified by the type of petroleum they receive: 

• Light oil service sumps. Sumps that contain crude oil having an American 

Petroleum Institute (API) gravity of 30 o or greater. 

• Heavy oil service sumps. Sumps that contain crude oil having API gravity less than 

30o

. 

The crude oil and water mixes as it flows through pipelines from upstream sources to 

the sump. Emulsions consisting of small globules of crude oil are dispersed throughout 

the mixture. The stability of the emulsion is an important factor affecting the separation 

of the oil and water phases. Stable emulsions are those in which the dispersed 

globules resist rapid coalescence. Because crude oil is usually less dense than water, 

when the mixture enters the sump, gravity causes the water to settle into a separate 

liquid layer below the oil; allowing the operator to skim the oil from the surface of the 

sump. The efficiency of the oil-water separation process in a sump is also dependent 

upon the amount of time the fluid spends in the sump, or its residence time. As the 

residence time increases, a more complete separation occurs 

The separation of oil and water in a sump happens as a result of density differences 

between the two primary components—oil being less dense than water. De-emulsifiers 

or the application of heat, which can be added to the oil-water mixture upstream of the 
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT 

Final Staff Report: Rule 4402 December 15, 2011 

5 Final Staff Report with Appendices for 

Revised Proposed Amendments to Rule 4402

sump, can enhance the separation process. The oil-water mixture, or emulsion, is often 

held together with other agents such as silts, clays, or naturally occurring surfactants. A 

de-emulsifier is a chemical compound that forms electrochemical bonds with 

electrochemically similar compounds; they attach to certain parts of the mixture, forming 

denser globules that will separate from less-dense parts of the mixture. If mixing is 

adequate, the result is eventual removal of non-soluble globules from the liquid. 

Likewise, the application of heat to the oil-water mixture enhances separation. Heat 

raises the kinetic energy of the oil and water molecules to enhance separation; oil 

molecules, being less dense than water molecules possess a high velocity when 

heated, thus are more effectively separated from water with the application of heat. 

C. Sump Activity in the Valley 

ARB1

 made the determination that, in California, most of the sumps are used by a few 

producers, usually in areas where the production of heavy crude oil is predominant. 

The District’s emissions inventory, as presented in the 2007 Area Source Emission 

Inventory Methodology, supports this determination. 

In the past, some companies used primary sumps to accept crude oil directly from wells. 

However, these primary sumps have been eliminated and operators now direct crude oil 

from wells to tanks or vessels. There are however, secondary and tertiary sumps still used 

in the Valley. The sumps were identified, recorded, and verified through extensive efforts 

by District staff. The surface area of active sumps, by facility size and oil specific gravity 

as determined in the 2007 Area Source Emission Inventory Methodology, are presented in 

the following table: 

Table 1. Total Surface Area of Sumps in the Valley (2007) 

Classification 

First Stage 

Sumps 

Second Stage 

Sumps Third Stage Sumps

(ft2) (ft2) (ft2) 

Large Operations 

Light Oil 0 0 0 

Heavy Oil 0 0 5,440 

Small Operations 

Light Oil 0 6,297 51,971 

Heavy Oil 0 97,298 147,757 

TOTAL 

Light Oil 0 6,297 51,971 

Heavy Oil 0 97,298 153,197 

 

1

 ARB TSD for the Suggested Control Measure of the Control of Organic Compound Emissions from 

Sumps Used in Oil Production Operations
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT 

Final Staff Report: Rule 4402 December 15, 2011 

6 Final Staff Report with Appendices for 

Revised Proposed Amendments to Rule 4402

The table below illustrates the number of active sumps in the Valley as presented in the 

2007 Area Source Emission Inventory Methodology. For purposes of this ruleamending project staff will assume that the quantity of active sumps in the Valley as 

presented in the table below is equivalent to the active sumps in 2011. Even though 

affected sources have pointed out that the use of sumps has been and continues to be 

declining in the Valley. 

Table 2. Active Sumps in the Valley (2007) 

Classification 

First Stage 

Sumps 

Second Stage 

Sumps Third Stage Sumps

(ft2) (ft2) (ft2) 

Large Operations 

 Light Oil 0 0 0 

 Heavy Oil 2 0 0 1 

Small Operations 

 Light Oil 0 6 10 

 Heavy Oil 0 34 44 

TOTAL 

 Light Oil 0 6 10 

 Heavy Oil 0 34 45 

A. Emissions 

Emissions of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) from secondary and tertiary sumps 

depend on the type of crude oil they contain, which is broadly categorized as “light” or 

“heavy” based on its API gravity, and the surface area of the sumps. 

The District reviewed and refined the emission inventory for this source category in 2007. 

The emission factors for crude oil production sumps presented in the following table reflect 

a correction made to the technical guidance document for the “Emission Inventory Criteria 

and Guidelines Regulation” for AB 2588 (Air Toxics “Hot Spots” Information and 

Assessment Act of 1987) by the Kern County Air Pollution Control District. District staff, 

ARB, and stakeholders vetted these emission factors throughout the emission inventory 

update process and through District permit streamlining efforts. These adopted and 

approved emission factors are summarized in the following table: 

 

2

 There is uncertainty about the one third stage heavy oil large operation sump. This sump is currently 

being evaluated to determine the use and purpose of this sump. 
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT 

Final Staff Report: Rule 4402 December 15, 2011 

7 Final Staff Report with Appendices for 

Revised Proposed Amendments to Rule 4402

Table 3. Emission Factors for Sumps 

Classification 

Total Organic 

Gas 

(lb/ft2 -day) 

Fractional 

Reactive Organic 

Gas 

Reactive Organic 

Gas 

(lb/ft2 -day) 

Heavy Oil (API < 30°) 

First Stage 0.10459 0.80 0.0837 

Second Stage 0.05149 0.80 0.0412 

Third Stage 0.00641 0.80 0.0051 

Light Oil (API >30°) 

First Stage 0.143 0.80 0.1144 

Second Stage 0.02 0.80 0.016 

Third Stage 0.01 0.80 0.008 

Table 4 represents the 2007 emissions inventory for oil sumps, reported for each county in 

the District. For specific information regarding calculations and methodology used to 

determine the emission inventory please refer to the 2007 Area Source Emission Inventory 

methodology, available on the District website. 

Table 4. Total Emissions for Crude Oil Production Sumps (2007) 

County Emissions (tpy) 

NOx CO SOx VOC PM10 PM2.5 

Fresno N/A N/A N/A 9.75 N/A N/A 

Kern N/A N/A N/A 761.35 N/A N/A 

Kings N/A N/A N/A 0.00 N/A N/A 

Madera N/A N/A N/A 0.00 N/A N/A 

Merced N/A N/A N/A 0.00 N/A N/A 

San Joaquin N/A N/A N/A 0.00 N/A N/A 

Stanislaus N/A N/A N/A 0.00 N/A N/A 

Tulare N/A N/A N/A 197.34 N/A N/A 

Total N/A N/A N/A 968.44 N/A N/A 

 
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT 

Final Staff Report: Rule 4402 December 15, 2011 

8 Final Staff Report with Appendices for 

Revised Proposed Amendments to Rule 4402

IV. DISCUSSION 

Based on their analysis of the current version of District Rule 4402, EPA identified 

several areas of concern in the rule that preclude its full approval as an amendment 

into the SIP. EPA based its determination on the need for improved rule clarity, 

increased enforceability, and stronger requirements to implement RACT. 

A reasonably available control technology is a control technology that is considered 

reasonable for an operator to install or implement. By EPA definition, RACT must be 

technologically and economically feasible. Whether a control technology is considered 

RACT can vary between air basins and industries as well as over time. A RACT 

analysis integrates several factors, including technological advancements and costs for 

equipment, raw material, or labor. 

The following discussion summarizes the issues identified by EPA as published in 

the Federal Register and includes the District’s responses and revised proposed rule 

amendments to address the issues identified by EPA. Refer to Appendix B of this 

final staff report to review the RACT cost effectiveness analyses used to support the 

District responses to EPA. 

A. Section 1.0 – Purpose 

District staff proposes to remove some language from this section of the rule to 

simplify rule language. This change is administrative in nature and does not change 

the applicability or requirements contained in this rule. 

B. Section 3.0 – Definitions 

 

EPA Comments: Update the definition of Clean Produced Water (CPW) to replace 

EPA Test Methods 4.13.2, 418.2, and 8240, these are outdated test methods that used 

chlorofluorocarbon (CFC) 113 as the extraction solvent, with updated EPA Test 

Methods 1664A and 8260, both of which do not use CFCs. Also, for produced water to 

be considered clean produced water pursuant to Rule 4402 it must have a VOC content 

less than 35 mg/l VOC. In contrast, South Coast Air Quality Management District 

(SCAQMD) Rule 1176(i)(5)(J), Ventura County Air Pollution Control District (VCAPCD) 

Rule 71.4 C.1.c and San Luis Obispo County Air Pollution Control District (SLOCAPCD) 

Rule 419 C.4 define clean produced water as not exceeding 5 mg/l at the inlet. 

District Response (Test Methods): District staff agrees with the EPA assessment that 

the test methods used to test for VOC content of the clean produced water should be 

updated. District staff proposes to amend the definition of Clean Produced Water to 

include updated test methods 1664A and Method 8260. Method 1664A uses hexane 

rather than a CFC to extract volatiles, and test Method 8260 has replaced Method 8240 

in labs. District staff proposes to add these test methods to the rule instead of replacing 

the existing test methods because while EPA may discourage the existing test methods 
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT 

Final Staff Report: Rule 4402 December 15, 2011 

9 Final Staff Report with Appendices for 

Revised Proposed Amendments to Rule 4402

they have not been prohibited, or discredited as ineffective. In fact, a mixture of test 

methods are currently in use (depending on the operator) and inclusion of all methods 

would be appropriate for this source category. District staff does not anticipate 

additional costs to be associated with this proposed amendment because the new test 

methods are currently in use, and operators still have the option to use the older test 

methods. 

District Response (VOC Content for CPW): District staff analyzed the feasibility and 

the cost effectiveness of reducing the VOC content limit for CPW from 35 mg/l to 5 mg/l 

VOC to determine whether this is a RACT option for operators in the Valley. The 

following analysis documents the District’s findings. 

District staff surveyed the existing CPW ponds and sumps and determined that 

operators do in fact store CPW greater than 5 mg/l. If the District were to change the 

CPW limit from 35 mg/l to 5 mg/l then Valley operators would be faced with either 

increasing the processing of the CPW to get the concentration to less than 5 mg/l and 

allow the continued use of sumps and ponds, or stop the use of sumps or ponds and 

send the CPW to either municipal wastewater systems or to reinjection wells. 

Disposal Alternatives 

As discussed above, EPA identified the SCAQMD Rule 1176 as an example of a rule 

that contains requirements to limit the VOC content of CPW to less than 5 mg/l. At the 

public workshop and technical workgroup meetings, affected sources brought it to the 

attention of staff that in the SCAQMD, the operators do not have to comply with the 5 

mg/l required limit because they are not sending their clean produced water to ponds; 

rather they send it to the Los Angeles and Orange County municipal sewer systems 

with oil content of up to 60 ppm to 100 ppm. Another disposal alternative for operators 

is to dispose of the wastewater using reinjection wells instead of treating it and putting it 

in ponds. These two options are not technologically feasible for Valley operators 

because they are not available options to crude oil production facilities in the Valley. 

Crude oil production facilities in the Valley differ greatly from those in other air district 

jurisdictions because they are located in rural areas and not in or near city limits, while 

in other parts of California the facilities are located within city limits. The location of 

these operations prevents them from having access to municipal wastewater systems. 

Also, operators in the Valley have not been able to get the necessary permits required 

to install reinjection wells from the Division of Oil, Gas & Geothermal Resources 

(DOGGR)3

. Because industry has been unable to get the required permits District staff 

determined this is not a technologically feasible option to operators. Additionally, WSPA 

performed a cost effectiveness analysis independent of the District and determined that 

the cost effectiveness of injecting the water would be $679,978 per ton of VOC reduced; 

this is not a cost effective option. The WSPA analysis is presented in detail in Appendix 

B of this final staff report. 

 

3

 Cox, J. (2011, September 04). and Cook, R (2011, November 03). 
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT 

Final Staff Report: Rule 4402 December 15, 2011 

10 Final Staff Report with Appendices for 

Revised Proposed Amendments to Rule 4402

Treatment of Water to Achieve 5 mg/l 

District staff calculated the difference in emissions from 35 to 5 mg of VOC per liter of 

water in three different scenarios using EPA Water9 software. District staff determined 

that the cost effectiveness would for treating water to 5 mg/l would be $54 million per 

ton of VOC reduced. WSPA performed a cost effectiveness analysis independent of the 

District analysis for the treatment of clean produced water to achieve 5 mg/l and 

determined it would cost $8 million per ton of VOC reduced. Staff also performed a 

third cost effectiveness analysis as a worst case scenario cost effectiveness analysis 

using emission factors that we believe to be too high for clean produced water. The 

third analysis resulted in a cost effectiveness of greater than $70,000 per ton of VOC 

reduced. All three scenarios produced the same result; treatment of clean produced 

water from 35mg/l to 5 mg/l is not cost effective. For the detailed discussion of each of 

these three analyses please refer to Appendix B (RACT Cost Effectiveness Analysis) of 

this final staff report. 

Water9 Discussion

EPA staff has expressed to District staff a concern that utilizing the EPA Water 9 

software may not be the appropriate calculation methodology for estimating emissions 

from clean produced water ponds. 

District staff contends that EPA Water9 is appropriate for use in determining emissions 

from ponds used to dispose of produced water in oil production operations, as 

discussed below. Affected sources agree with this assessment, as supported by the 

comment letter submitted to the District incorporated into this discussion. EPA has 

recommended staff perform a mass balance calculation to determine the VOC 

emissions from ponds of clean produced water. District staff has considered this option 

and determined that it would not be an appropriate method for determining the 

emissions from a pond because it would not account for the VOCs that would percolate 

into the soil nor does it compensate for biodegradation that naturally occurs in ponds. 

The user’s manual for EPA Water9 provides information on the applicability of this 

model for various process types. The preface at page ii states that Water9 is used for 

“for estimating air emissions of individual waste constituents in wastewater collection, 

storage, treatment, and disposal facilities ...”. Produced water ponds (use for 

evaporation and percolation of wastewater) are disposal devices used in oil production 

wastewater handling operations. 

 

WSPA pointed out that EPA has used the Water9 model for many years and that these 

models serve as the basis for virtually all of the rulemaking pertaining to emissions of air 

contaminants from surface impounds; WSPA listed six other software programs (See 

Appendix A). According to the EPA Water9 instruction manual: 

Water9 is used to estimate air emissions from site specific water treatment 

plants (including the prediction of biodegradation and sludge sorption of 

organics) for common wastewater treatment units including the following: 
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT 

Final Staff Report: Rule 4402 December 15, 2011 

11 Final Staff Report with Appendices for 

Revised Proposed Amendments to Rule 4402

drains, sumps, weirs, open drains, j traps, manhole covers ... and settling 

ponds. Water9 provides models for the evaluation of landfill, land treatment, 

and impoundment disposal facilities 

In defining the constituents for the wastewater stream, Water9 includes crude oil (as 

decane) in the list of constituents available for use. The VOC constituents in produced 

water are generally heavier hydrocarbons, as the lighter hydrocarbons entrained in the 

produced fluids are released earlier in the production process. As such, using the 

default crude oil constituent is acceptable. 

 

Water9 also allows the concentration (ppmw) of a particular constituent to be used. In 

our calculations, we estimated emissions from ponds using a crude oil concentration of 

35 mg/l (based on current rule exemption levels) and 5 mg/l (based on EPA suggested 

rule exemption levels). 

 

Water9 includes lagoons as a component in the wastewater treatment process. 

Lagoons typically have a long retention time to allow for evaporation of the wastewater. 

Crude oil production ponds likewise have a long retention time for produced water. As 

such, crude oil production ponds serve a similar purpose as lagoons. It is important to 

note however, that Water 9 calculations do not account for percolation of water into the 

soil. Because a significant portion of the produced water (and associated VOCs) do 

percolate, and therefore are not the source of emissions, Water9 results potentially 

overstate the emissions from clean produced water ponds. The emissions modeled in 

Water9 are estimated based on biodegradation and evaporation of a portion of the 

VOCs in the wastewater. Therefore, the District still believes that the Water9 

calculations are appropriate. Nevertheless, as discussed earlier, the District included a 

worst-case analysis that likely overestimates emissions by orders of magnitude. 

Additional Amendments 

Staff proposes to add six definitions to Section 3.0 to improve clarity of rule 

requirements. These are amendments are administrative in nature and do not change 

the applicability or requirements of the rule. The following six definitions to be added 

are: 

• APCO: the Air Pollution Control Officer of the San Joaquin Valley Unified Air 

Pollution Control District. 

• API: American Petroleum Institute. 

• ARB: California Air Resources Board. 

• EPA: United States Environmental Protection Agency. 

• Operator: includes but is not limited to any person who owns, leases, supervises, 

or operates a facility and/or equipment. 

• Volatile Organic Compound (VOC): as defined in Rule 1020 (Definitions). 

 
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT 

Final Staff Report: Rule 4402 December 15, 2011 

12 Final Staff Report with Appendices for 

Revised Proposed Amendments to Rule 4402

C. Section 4.0 – Exemptions 

The Federal Register cites that Rule 4402 has exemptions that are broader than 

exemptions in other air districts in California and that the District should analyze 

whether these exemptions continue to be appropriate. EPA also calls for the District to 

use cost information that is more current than that used in the 2009 RACT Analysis, and 

to consider alternative disposal methods (e.g., underground injection, tanks, or 

additional pretreatment) in addition to sump and pond covers. The Federal Register 

specifies exemption Sections 4.1.1, 4.1.3, and 4.1.7 to be of particular concern. 

Section 4.1 

District staff proposes to include the phrase “... Section 5.0 of ...” to Section 4.1 to 

clarify that these operators are exempt from the requirements section of the rule; in 

order to demonstrate compliance with exemptions in Section 4.1 facilities are required, 

or will be required, to keep records pursuant to Section 6.0. The added phrase will 

improve rule clarity and is an administrative change to rule language. This change does 

not change the intent or requirements of existing rule language. 

Section 4.1.1 

EPA Comment: Section 4.1.1 exempts operations less than 6000 barrels per day with 

sumps less than 1000 ft2

. from substantive requirements. No other neighboring districts 

allow exemptions from small producers, except SBCAPCD Rule 344, which is more 

restrictive. The EPA TSD elaborates on the discussion in the Federal Register to clarify 

that SBCAPCD Rule 344 B.3.a.2. exempts small producers (less than 150 barrels/day 

average over one year) with no restriction on surface area of sump or type of crude oil 

in the sump; additionally, SBCAPCD Rule 344 B.4. exempts any 2nd or 3rd stage sump 

with less than 1000 ft2

 of surface area, also with no restriction on type of crude oil in the 

sump. 

District Response (SBCAPCD): District staff have determined that the two exemptions 

in the SBCAPCD Rule 344 are less stringent then District Rule 4402 exemption 4.1.1. 

The SBCAPCD exemption for producers of less than 150 barrels per day have no 

restriction on the size of the sump or the type of crude in that sump; also, the second 

SBCAPCD Rule 344 exemption exempts any 2nd or 3rd stage sump with less than 1000 

sq. ft with no restriction on the size of producer that can enjoy this exemption and no 

restriction as to the type of oil in the sump. District Rule 4402 exemption 4.1.1 restricts 

the size of the operator, the size of the sump, and the type of oil in the sump. This is 

more restrictive then the SBCAPCD exemptions, which have been found to meet RACT 

requirements by EPA4. 

 

 

4

 Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; California State Implementation Plan Revision; 

Kern County Air Pollution Control District; Santa Barbara County Air Pollution Control District, 1996, 5515 

– 5517). 
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT 

Final Staff Report: Rule 4402 December 15, 2011 

13 Final Staff Report with Appendices for 

Revised Proposed Amendments to Rule 4402

District Response (RACT): If the District were to remove the Section 4.1.1 exemption 

for small producers, operators would have two options available to them. Either comply 

with rule requirements pursuant to Section 5.0, or replace the sumps with tanks, which 

would also require additional processing in addition to the replacement. It is important 

to note that historically, when the rule was amended, and operators became subject to 

the requirements of Section 5.0, they have chosen to remove the sump and install a 

tank; as confirmed at the public workshop on October 18, 2011, and through 

conversations with affected sources. Operators also confirmed at the public workshop 

that this will continue to be industries response to any change to the requirements or the 

exemptions sections of this rule. 

Compliance with Section 5.0 

District Rule 4402 Section 5.0 (Requirements) provides operators with three control 

device options to install for compliance; the three control devices must also comply with 

other requirements specified in the rule. The three control devices available to 

operators as a means of compliance are as follows: 

1. A flexible floating cover 

2. A rigid floating cover equipped with a closure device between the sump wall and 

the cover edge which maintains the gap between the wall and cover at every 

point around the perimeter at no more than one inch

3. A fixed-roof cover 

Staff performed a cost effectiveness analysis for operators to install and maintain and to 

remain compliant with rule requirements for each of these three sump control devices. 

District staff evaluated the cost effectiveness for a small producer to comply with 

Section 5.0 and determined that it is not a cost effective option. 

It is important to note that in determining the cost effectiveness for operators to comply 

with Section 5.0 of Rule 4402, costs used for these analyses are for a 1,000 ft2

 surface 

area sump (the exemption limit for small producers) and are annualized 1986 dollars 

from the ARB TSD document on sump control measures. Staff contacted operators and 

requested additional cost information for sump covers but no facility in the Valley has 

ever installed a cover on a sump. As previously discussed, historically when an 

operator must install a cover on a sump they respond by replacing the sump with a tank. 

Therefore, affected sources do not have any cost information to provide the District for 

costs of sump covers. Operators informed District staff that they had asked vendors 

and were unsuccessful in getting cost data for sump covers from them. District staff did 

additional research to obtain this cost information, including requesting it from EPA, and 

because no facilities use sump covers, District staff were equally unsuccessful in 

obtaining said data; as such, District staff have determined that the cost information 

provided in the ARB TSD is the only cost data available, and therefore it is the 

appropriate cost information for these analyses. Refer to Appendix B for the complete 

discussion of these analyses. 
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT 

Final Staff Report: Rule 4402 December 15, 2011 

14 Final Staff Report with Appendices for 

Revised Proposed Amendments to Rule 4402

Replace a sump with a Tank 

District staff then evaluated the cost effectiveness for a small producer to install a tank 

(with additional required processing) to replace a sump, and again determined that it is 

not a cost effective option. Refer to Appendix B for the complete discussion of this 

analysis. Because there is no cost effective method of compliance or an alternative, 

this exemption demonstrates RACT. District staff proposes to not amend Section 4.1.1. 

Section 4.1.2 

This exemption is for clean produced water in sumps. The Federal Register does not 

cite a deficiency specific to Section 4.1.2; however, the TSD states that clean produced 

water has a limit of 5mg/l in SCAQMD, VCAPCD, and SLOCAPCD. The VOC content 

for clean produced water in the Valley is RACT as there is no additional available 

control technology or processing method reasonably available or feasible, as outlined in 

section 3.0 of the Discussion Section of this final staff report for that analysis and 

discussion. It is important to note that SBCAPCD Rule 344 B.2. has an exemption for 

post tertiary sumps and post tertiary pits, which can be interpreted as an exemption for 

clean produced water in sumps. 

Section 4.1.3 

EPA Comment: Section 4.1.3 exempts operations less than 300 barrels per day with 

sumps less than 5000 sf from substantive requirements. No other neighboring districts 

allow exemptions for very small producers. The EPA TSD elaborates on the discussion 

in the Federal Register to clarify that SBCAPCD Rule 344 exempts small producers 

(less than 150 barrels/day average over one year) with no restriction on surface area of 

sump or type of crude oil in; additionally, SBCAPCD Rule 244 exempts any 2nd or 3rd

stage sump with less than 1000 ft2 of surface area, also with no restriction on type of 

crude oil. 

District Response: Removing the exemption in Sections 4.1.3 would result in very 

small producers either having to comply with rule requirements pursuant to Section 5.0, 

or having to replace the sumps with tanks (and additional required processing). It is 

important to note that historically, when faced with complying with rule requirements, 

operators have chosen to remove the sump and install a tank, as confirmed at the 

public workshop on October 18, 2011. 

District staff evaluated the cost effectiveness for a small producer to comply with 

Section 5.0 and determined that it is not a cost effective option. District staff then 

evaluated the cost effectiveness for a small producer to install a tank to replace a sump, 

and again determined that it is not a cost effective option. A summary of these analyses 

is presented earlier in this final staff report; for the detailed analyses for these refer to 

Appendix B of this final staff report. Because there is no cost effective method of 

compliance or an alternative, this exemption demonstrates RACT. District staff 

proposes to not make this rule amendment. Very small producers have smaller facilities 

and similar, if not more expensive and difficult to implement, cost and feasibility factors 

as small producers; therefore the determination that there is no cost effective option for 
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT 

Final Staff Report: Rule 4402 December 15, 2011 

15 Final Staff Report with Appendices for 

Revised Proposed Amendments to Rule 4402

small producers is also applicable to very small producers. See section 4.1.1 of the 

Discussion section of this final staff report for the analysis. 

Section 4.1.4 

The Federal Register does not cite a deficiency for Section 4.1.4. However, the TSD 

does cite that no other districts were found to have a similar exemption. This exemption 

is for sumps with estimated emissions of 0.007 lb/sq ft per day or less established by 

the ARB flux-box test method. 

District staff researched this exemption and determined that this exemption originated 

from the ARB Suggested Control Measure (SCM) for the Control of Organic Compound 

Emissions from Sumps Used in Oil Production Operations. ARB has not since 

published a revised SCM recommending that air districts no longer offer this exemption 

for crude oil production operations. Therefore, District staff has determined that this 

exemption is still relevant and it continues to be appropriate. District staff proposes to 

keep this exemption in rule language. 

Section 4.1.5 

The Federal Register does not cite a deficiency for Section 4.1.5. However, the TSD 

does cite that no other districts were found to have a similar exemption. This 

exemption, as currently enforced, is for any first, second or third stage sump used not 

more than seven days in any one calendar month and not more than 21 days per 

calendar year. 

District staff has evaluated the relevance of this exemption and have determined that it 

is still relevant and does continue to be an appropriate exemption; therefore, District 

staff propose to keep this exemption in rule language. District staff does however; 

propose to amend this section to remove references to first stage sumps. First stage 

sumps would be prohibited in the Valley on and after January 1, 2013, therefore it would 

be irrelevant to include them in this exemption. Refer to Section 5.0 of the Discussion 

section of this final staff report for further discussion on this proposed prohibition of first 

stage sumps. 

Section 4.1.6 

The Federal Register does not cite a deficiency for Section 4.1.6. The TSD does cite 

that Rule 4402 is intended to control emissions from crude oil production sumps and is 

not meant to address sumps at petroleum refineries. 

 
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT 

Final Staff Report: Rule 4402 December 15, 2011 

16 Final Staff Report with Appendices for 

Revised Proposed Amendments to Rule 4402

Section 4.1.7 

EPA Comment: Section 4.1.7 exempts ponds of “clean produced water” with less than 

35 mg/l VOC from Rule 4402 requirements. In contrast, SCAQMD Rule 1176(i)(5)(J), 

VCAPCD Rule 71.4 C.1.c and SLOCAPCD Rule 419 C.4 exempt wastewater sumps 

only where the VOC content does not exceed 5 mg/l at the inlet. 

District Response: District staff has determined that 35 mg/l VOC for clean produced 

water is RACT. See Section 3.0 of the Discussion section of this final staff report for the 

discussion of that determination. Staff proposes to make no amendments to this 

section of the rule. 

Section 4.1.8

EPA Comment: Rule 4402 does not limit the time that oil or oily water can be kept in an 

emergency pit. In contrast, SLOCAPCD Rule 419 C.2 requires clean-up to begin within 

24 hours and to finish within 15 days. The TSD further states that the SBCAPCD 

exempts pits for emergencies that are used less than 30 days per year and VCAPCD 

also exempts emergency pits. The TSD elaborates, “We understand that many ponds 

in the San Joaquin Valley have been closed under Regional Water Quality Control 

Board (RWQCB) order, but other ponds continue to operate in the district.” Emissions 

from these ponds are not included in the Districts current VOC emission inventory for 

crude oil production sumps because they are exempt. It is not known if the VOC 

emissions from the ponds are significant or not. The ponds that initially receive 

wastewater from oil production would have the highest VOC concentrations and are of 

particular concern. 

District Response: District staff has reviewed this comment and has determined that it 

would be appropriate to require a time limit for use of emergency pits. District staff has 

determined that the use of an emergency pit, as currently enforced, is not an unlimited 

time. If it is determined that a sump is in continuous use it is inspected and regulated as 

a sump; however, staff agree that this amendment could improve enforceability of rule 

requirements. Staff proposes to amend Section 4.1.7 to remove “Pits” from the section 

and to add it to a new section by itself. As such, Section 4.1.8 would be created to 

provide the exemption for pits, and effective on and after January 1, 2013 the use of 

emergency pits would be required to begin within 24 hours after the end of each 

emergency occurrence and for clean-up to be completed within 15 days after the 

beginning of clean-up efforts. It should be noted that the verbage of this exemption as 

presented in the proposed rule published on November 15, 2011 has been revised for 

the sake of clarity; the intent and applicability of this exemption has not changed as a 

result of this revision. This requirement would also contain associated recordkeeping 

requirements pursuant to Section 6.0 of the rule; please see Section 6.0 of Rule 4402 

for recordkeeping requirement language. 

It should be noted that District staff disagree with EPA concerns that VOC emissions 

from ponds may be significant. Ponds are defined to only contain clean produced 

water, which has a VOC content of 35 mg/l of water. This is significantly less than what 
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT 

Final Staff Report: Rule 4402 December 15, 2011 

17 Final Staff Report with Appendices for 

Revised Proposed Amendments to Rule 4402

would be found in a sump with oily water in it. Clean produced water has already been 

through a process to remove the majority of the oil. 

D. Section 5.0 – Requirements 

EPA Comment: Rule 4402 allows 1st stage sumps. In contrast, SBCAPCD Rule 344 

and VCAPCD Rule 71.4 do not allow the operation of 1

st stage sumps. 

District Response: Research of the District permit database, the District emission 

inventory, and field research by District staff indicate that no first stage sumps are in use 

in the Valley. Tanks were installed to replace the first stage sumps over twenty years 

ago, in response to regulatory requirements for air and water quality. District staff 

proposes to add a new section that prohibits first stage sumps as of January 1, 2013; 

this new section would be Section 5.1. All sections under Section 5.0 would be 

renumbered to reflect the addition of the new requirement in Section 5.1. 

Section 5.1.2 

EPA Comment: Section 5.1.2 allows a 1-inch gap and does not require seals for rigid 

floating covers. In contrast, SCAQMD Rule 1176(e)(2)(B)(vi) and SLOCAPCD Rule 419 

D.2.e. require rigid floating covers to have seals, the gap cannot exceed 1/8” for a 

cumulative length of 95% of the perimeter, and no single gap may exceed 1⁄2 inch. 

District Response: Based on staff research and conversations with affected sources 

and staff from other air districts staff have determined that there are no sumps in the 

SLOCAPCD and there are no sumps in SCAQMD. This is further supported by the 

1988 ARB TSD which determined that 95% of the total surface area of sumps in 

California were located in the Valley, and the majority of these sumps were used by 

small producers of heavy crude oil. Only 0.44 percent of the total surface area of sumps 

were located in SLOCAPCD and only two percent of the total surface area of sumps 

were located in the SCAQMD during the years of 1984 – 1986. District staff believes 

that there are no sumps in California complying with the proposed requirements in the 

EPA comment. The requested requirements in the EPA comment are beyond RACT. 

 

It is important to note that sumps in the Valley are excavations in the ground with 

unfinished, and unlined, sides. Covers with a 1/8-inch gap are not a feasible option for 

existing sumps in the Valley because the sides of the sumps erode. No facilities in the 

Valley use covers on their sumps, rigid or otherwise. If the rule requirements are 

amended or exemptions removed resulting in previously exempt sumps becoming 

subject to rule requirements then, based on historical activities and observations, and 

statements from operators, operators will opt to put in a tank to replace the sumps 

rather than invest significant funds to meet new sump requirements. 

Because sumps in the Valley are unlined excavations in the ground and no facility has a 

sump cover, if an operator were to become subject to new rule requirements they would 

be required to install new sumps and new sump covers. As discussed earlier in this 
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT 

Final Staff Report: Rule 4402 December 15, 2011 

18 Final Staff Report with Appendices for 

Revised Proposed Amendments to Rule 4402

final staff report, compliance with requirements pursuant to Section 5.0 is not cost 

effective for small and very small producers. Amending Section 5.0 would be beyond 

RACT for small and very small producers. 

If a large producer were to become subject to rule requirements costs would include the 

installation of new sumps and new sump covers and additional gas capture systems 

and control or destruction technology, in addition to additional labor and maintenance 

costs. According to the 2007 Area Source Emission Inventory Methodology, there are 

seventeen third stage sumps used by large operations producing heavy crude oil. 

There are no second stage sumps used by large operations and no third stage sumps 

used at light oil production facilities. These seventeen active sumps have an average 

surface area of 3,200 ft2. The smallest sized sump that the ARB TSD accounted for 

was a 500 ft2 sump with annualized capital costs of $5,580 for a flexible floating cover 

and $9,480 for a rigid floating cover. 

For purposes of this cost effectiveness analysis, District staff used the cost information 

provided by ARB in the TSD, converted those costs to 2011 costs then added the 

additional costs associated with the necessary capture and control devices. See below 

for the full analysis. District staff used the cost information from the ARB TSD because 

it is the only information available because, as previously discussed, no operators have 

ever installed a sump cover and distributers do not know of any facility in California that 

has a sump cover, therefore they also do not have cost information. Staff used the 

following equation to adjust from the annualized cost at 1986 dollars to 2011 dollars 

(multiplying by 2.75% inflation/yr): 

$/1 + 0.02752011 − 1986 = $		

Table 5. ARB TSD Data for Floating Sump Covers for 500 ft2 Sumps (Adjusted to 

2011 dollars) 

Type of 

Floating 

Cover 

1986 

Annualized 

Capital Costs 

2011 Annualized 

Capital costs 

Control 

Efficiency 

Life Span of 

Cover 

Flexible $5,580 $9,416 98% 5 years 

Rigid $9,480 $15,998 90% 5 years 

ARB makes the statement in the TSD that floating covers pose a safety hazard because 

sumps where methane is produced or dissolved gases can enter the sump with the feed 

stream. The floating cover would not allow the escape of these gases and could create 

a situation that would result in explosions. The ARB TSD further explains that the 

combustible gases that might otherwise accumulate beneath the cover would need to 

be removed and disposed of. The method of disposal of collected gas would be to 

install a combustion device such as a flare. This cost effectiveness analysis accounts 

for these additional costs. Additional costs for the capture and control devices used for 

this analysis, as discussed in detail in Appendix B of the final staff report, include the 

following: 
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT 

Final Staff Report: Rule 4402 December 15, 2011 

19 Final Staff Report with Appendices for 

Revised Proposed Amendments to Rule 4402

• Cost for capture device ($45,068) 

• Cost for control/destruction device ($85,729) 

The adjusted annual cost accounts for the cost of the sump cover, the capture device, 

and the control/destruction device as discussed above are presented in the table below: 

Table 6. Total Adjusted Annualized Costs 

Type of 

Cover 

Cost for Sump 

Cover 

Cost for 

Capture Device

Cost for 

Control Device Total Costs 

Flexible $9,415 $45,068 $85,729 $140,213 

Rigid $15,998 $45,068 $85,729 $146,795 

The ARB TSD costs were combined with the above mentioned costs to perform the cost 

effectiveness analysis as presented in the table below. 

Table 7. Cost Effectiveness for 3rd Stage 500 ft2

 Heavy Oil Sump Equipped with a 

Floating Sump Cover 

Sump VOC 

Emissions 

(tpy) 

Control 

Efficiency 

VOC 

Controlled 

(tpy) 

Adjusted 

Annualized 

Cost 

Cost per ton 

of VOC 

controlled 

Flexible 0.47 98% 0.46 $140,213 $304,810

Rigid 0.47 90% 0.42 $146,795 $349,511

Section 5.2.5 

EPA Comment: Section 5.2.5 requires fixed covers to be equipped with a 

pressure/vacuum (PV) valve set to within ten percent of maximum safe working 

pressure. In contrast, SCAQMD Rule 1176(2)(A)(ii) and (6)(A) and SBCAPCD Rule 344 

D.2.b.2 require that fixed covers be equipped with a 95% efficient air pollution control 

(APC) device. 

District Response: As discussed earlier in this final staff report, compliance with 

requirements pursuant to Section 5.0 is not cost effective for small and very small 

producers. Amending Section 5.0 would continue to be not cost effective, and therefore 

go beyond RACT for small and very small producers. 

If a large producer were to become subject to rule requirements costs would include the 

installation of new sumps and new sump covers and additional gas capture systems 

and control or destruction technology, in addition to additional labor and maintenance 

costs. According to the 2007 Area Source Emission Inventory Methodology, the sumps 

used by large operations producing heavy crude oil have an average surface area of 

320 ft2

. The smallest sized sump that the ARB TSD accounted for was a 500 ft2 sump 

with annualized capital costs of $3,920 for a fixed roof cover. For purposes of this cost 

effectiveness analysis, District staff used the cost information provided by ARB in the 

TSD because it is the only information available because, as previously discussed, no 
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT 

Final Staff Report: Rule 4402 December 15, 2011 

20 Final Staff Report with Appendices for 

Revised Proposed Amendments to Rule 4402

operators have ever installed a sump cover and distributers do not know of any facility 

in California that has a sump cover, therefore they also do not have cost information. 

1. The ARB TSD lists $3,920 per year, 90% control efficiency, and a 5 year life. 

Adjusting from the annualized cost at 1986 dollars to 2011 dollars (multiplying by 2.75% 

inflation/yr): 

$3,920



1 + 0.02752011 − 1986 = $6,615			

2. Again, this cost data would be combined with the additional capital costs for 

installing a vapor recovery and destruction device to each sump for safety purposes. 

The adjusted annual cost accounts for the costs discussed are summarized above and 

discussed in detail in Appendix B of the final staff report. Those costs include the 

following: 

• Cost for capture device ($45,068) 

• Cost for control/destruction device ($85,729) 

3. Staff combined the annual capital cost with the cost for the capture device and 

the cost for the control device as follows: 

$6,615 + $45,068 + $85,729 = $137,412 

4. Using the same capital cost data discussed previously in combination with the 

added cost of emptying the sump and storing or disposing of the liquid within it during 

the construction of the new sump would result in the cost effectiveness analysis as 

presented in the table below. 

Table 8. Cost Effectiveness for a Large Producer Heavy Oil 500 ft2 Sump Equipped 

with a Fixed Roof Sump Cover 

Sump VOC 

Emissions 

(tpy) 

Control 

Efficiency 

VOC 

Controlled 

(tpy) 

Adjusted 

Annualized 

Cost 

Cost per ton of 

VOC controlled 

3

rd Stage: 0.93 90% 0.84 $137,412 $115,426

It is important to note that if the rule requirements and exemptions are amended 

resulting in the requirement of facilities to install a 95% control on a sump, then 

operators will install a tank to replace the sumps. Replacing a sump with a tank is not a 

cost effective option, as discussed in the earlier in this final staff report. 

Section 5.3 

EPA Comment: Section 5.3 states: “If replacement tank exclusively serves identical 

function of sump replaced, permitting of such tank shall not be considered an emission 

change for the purposes of Rule 2201 (New and Modified Source Review Rule)”. Any 
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT 

Final Staff Report: Rule 4402 December 15, 2011 

21 Final Staff Report with Appendices for 

Revised Proposed Amendments to Rule 4402

exemptions to NSR requirements should be incorporated within the NSR program. This 

language should be removed. 

District Response: If the NSR exemption were removed from Rule 4402, operators 

who replace sumps with tanks that serve an identical function would be subject to BACT 

when they apply for permits to install those tanks. Although existing Rule 2201 Sections 

4.2.3 and 4.6.8 allow exemptions from BACT and Offset requirements, the exemptions 

apply only to the installation or modification of an emission control technique performed 

solely for the purpose of compliance with the requirements of District, State or Federal 

air pollution control laws, regulations or orders. Such exemptions do not apply to 

replacement units needed to comply with the prohibitory rules. Therefore, District 

propose to retain the existing language in Rule 4402 with the replacement of the word 

“shall” with the word “may” as agreed upon as appropriate for District Rule 4702 by EPA 

and ARB. 

E. Section 6.0 – Administrative Requirements 

EPA Comment: Rule 4402 does not require periodic inspection of covers and APC 

equipment to ensure proper operation. In contrast, SCAQMD Rule 1176(f)(1)(C) 

requires periodic leak inspection and APC testing. 

District Response: It is not technologically feasible for sumps in the Valley to have 

covers; therefore no sumps in the Valley have covers or associated APC equipment. 

Additionally, if this amendment were made, and exemptions were removed to make 

currently exempt sumps subject to rule requirements facilities would respond by 

replacing the sumps with tanks which is not a cost effective option. However, if facilities 

were to install a tank to replace a sum then the tank would become subject to Rule 

4623. As it would be duplicative to put tank requirements in this rule staff propose to 

not amend this section of the rule. 

Section 6.1 

EPA Comment: Add requirement to keep all records for at least two, and preferably five 

years.

District Response: District staff proposes adding requirements to keep records for a 

minimum of five years to Section 6.1. Staff has determined through review of permit 

conditions that crude oil production facilities are already keeping records for a five-year 

period. For any facilities not keeping records for five years, this would be an 

administrative change and would not be associated with significant operational changes 

or increased costs. Staff revised the proposed language to remove the term “on site” 

from the language. Many oil sites are at remote locations with no buildings around 

them, and many operators have several remote locations and a an office at a different 

location, removing the “on site” language will allow operators to have flexibility in where 

they store these records. 

 
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT 

Final Staff Report: Rule 4402 December 15, 2011 

22 Final Staff Report with Appendices for 

Revised Proposed Amendments to Rule 4402

District staff proposes to require operators to keep records pursuant to Section 6.1 and 

make them available to the District, ARB, and EPA upon request instead of requiring 

annual submission of this data. This is not a relaxation because the records will still be 

maintained and made available, but it will streamline the process for both the affected 

source operators and the District. 

EPA Comment: Add requirements to verify the sump surface area and the annual 

production rates for both the small producers and very small producers in section 6.1.1. 

District Response: District staff proposes to amend Section 6.1.1 to clarify and simplify 

rule language and to require that on and after January 1, 2013, operators shall be 

required to keep records that will verify sump surface area and annual production rates. 

District staff assume these facilities are already keeping these records, therefore this is 

an administrative change and will result in no emissions reduce and no additional costs 

to the facility. 

District staff also proposes to create a new Section 6.1.2 and require that after January 

1, 2013, any operator claiming exemption pursuant to Section 4.1.3 keep records that 

document the sump surface area and annual production rates. District staff assumes 

these facilities are already keeping these records; therefore this is an administrative 

change and will result in no emission reductions and no additional costs to the facility. 

EPA Comment: Require documentation justifying any exemptions claimed under 

section 4, including 4.1.7, which exempts pits and ponds. 

District Response: District staff proposes to add Section 6.1.5 to rule language to 

require an operator claiming an exemption pursuant to Section 4.1.6 to keep records to 

justify the exemption. 

EPA Comment: Add requirement to document use of emergency pits, including when 

use started, clean-up started and clean-up finished. 

District Response: District staff proposes to add Section 6.1.6 to rule language to 

require recordkeeping to document the use of emergency pits including when the use of 

the emergency pit began, when clean-up of the pit began, and when clean-up of the pit 

is finished. This is an administrative change and is not expected to result in emissions 

reduced or additional costs to the facility. 

Staff revised the proposed language to clarify that this new recordkeeping requirement 

pertains only to pits used for emergencies. Staff also want to further clarify that the 

emergency pits that are unmanned and at remote locations staff does not expect them 

to know when the emergency began, to fulfill that requirement staff will request that 

operators document when the emergency was discovered. For example, if a facility has 

an emergency on Saturday morning, but the operator doesn’t check on that facility until 

Tuesday, then the documented time of the start of the emergency would be Tuesday. 
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT 

Final Staff Report: Rule 4402 December 15, 2011 

23 Final Staff Report with Appendices for 

Revised Proposed Amendments to Rule 4402

With regards to the clean-up beginning within 24 hours after the end of the emergency, 

this would still apply. If the emergency is discovered Tuesday morning, and has already 

ended, then efforts should begin within 24 hours after the discovery. 

Section 6.2 

EPA Comment: Revise Section 6.2 Test Methods to remove and/or replace 

inappropriate or outdated test methods such as ARB Method 432, which is designed for 

paints and coatings and not oily wastewater. EPA also recommends adding EPA Test 

Method 21 in Section 6.2 for determining leaks. 

District Response: District staff reviewed test methods presented in Section 6.2 and 

determined that the test method ARB Method 432 is not applicable to sumps, therefore 

propose to remove it from the rule. Staff proposes to delete the test method from 

Section 6.2.1 and move test method 422 from Section 6.2.2 to Section 6.2.1. 

Additionally, staff proposes to add a sentence to the beginning of Section 6.2 verifying 

that the test methods pertain to rule requirements in Section 5.0 of the rule. This added 

sentence will improve clarity of rule requirements and does not change the intent or 

requirements of the rule. District staff does not propose the addition of EPA Method 21 

for detection of leaks because there are no leak standards, no seals, and no proposed 

standards or seals in rule language to justify the requirement of a leak test method. 

F. Section 7.0 Compliance Schedule 

EPA Recommendation: EPA recommends deleting Section 7.0 from the rule since it is 

no longer applicable. It is important to note that this is a recommendation and not a 

deficiency. 

District Response: District staff has reviewed this recommendation and rule language, 

and proposes to delete Section 7.0 from rule requirements; this amendment will improve 

rule clarity and simplify rule language, but does not change the intent or requirements of 

the rule. 

G. Additional EPA Comments and Recommendations 

EPA Comment: Provisions should be added in Rule 4402 or Rule 4623 (Storage of 

Organic Liquids) that ensure that tanks used to replace the 1st stage crude oil sumps 

have adequate VOC controls. 

District Response: If a sump is replaced with a tank it becomes subject to Rule 4623; 

which includes the appropriate requirements for tank controls, and has already been 

approved by EPA as at least satisfying RACT. The purpose of this rule-amending 

project is to address EPA cited deficiencies in Rule 4402 only. Adding tank 

requirements to the sump rule would be duplicative. As such, District staff proposes to 

not make any amendments to Rule 4402 to include requirements for tanks. 
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT 

Final Staff Report: Rule 4402 December 15, 2011 

24 Final Staff Report with Appendices for 

Revised Proposed Amendments to Rule 4402

EPA Recommendations: EPA recommends the following improvements for the District 

to consider during rule-amending process: 

1. Increase the requirements for testing wastewater at each inlet to the clean 

produced water ponds from annually to at least quarterly to ensure ongoing 

compliance with wastewater VOC limits. 

2. Rule 4402 does not include controls for crude oil well cellars, evaluate whether to 

include requirements for controlling emissions from crude oil well cellars in Rule 

4402 or as a separate rule. 

District Response: District staff does not feel that increasing the testing from annual to 

quarterly is warranted. Additionally, crude oil well cellars are a very small source of 

emissions in the Valley, with estimated emissions of just 0.05 tons of VOC per day. The 

District will consider these recommendations during future reviews of this rule. 

V. GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE AND GREENHOUSE GASES 

The California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (AB 32) created a comprehensive, 

multi-year program to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in California, with the 

overall goal of restoring emissions to 1990 levels by the year 2020. In the coming 

years, the Air Resources Board (ARB) and the Legislature will be developing policies 

and programs to implement AB 32. The District believes that the evidence and the 

rationale that climate change is occurring is compelling and convincing. In addition to 

the long-term consequences of climate change, the District is concerned with the 

potential ramifications of more moderate but imminent changes in weather patterns. 

The Valley depends heavily on agriculture for its economy and has developed 

agricultural practices based on the last several decades of weather patterns. 

Unanticipated and large fluctuations in these patterns could have a devastating effect 

on the Valley’s economy. 

While there are many win-win strategies that can reduce both GHG and criteria/toxic 

pollutant emissions, when faced with situations that involve tradeoffs between the two, 

District staff believes that the more immediate public health concerns that may arise 

from an increase in criteria or toxic pollutant emissions should take precedence. The 

San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District’s Governing Board adopted the Climate 

Change Action Plan (CCAP) in August 2008. For California Environmental Quality Act 

(CEQA) requirements, one of the goals of the CCAP is to establish District processes 

for assessing the significance of greenhouse gas impacts. The District has developed a 

policy and guidance for addressing greenhouse gases under CEQA. 

 
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT 

Final Staff Report: Rule 4402 December 15, 2011 

25 Final Staff Report with Appendices for 

Revised Proposed Amendments to Rule 4402

VI. HEALTH BENEFITS 

This rule contributes to the Valley’s progress towards federal health-based air quality 

standards (National Ambient Air Quality Standards, or NAAQS). Progressing the Valley 

towards attainment of the NAAQS helps reduce the Valley’s air pollution-related health 

impacts and health-related costs. The District periodically compiles attainment plans to 

quantify the amount of emission reductions needed and identify the individual control 

measures that will achieve these reductions. The control strategy as a whole has 

important public health benefits and health costs savings. 

However, for a number of reasons, it can be difficult or even misleading to attempt to 

subdivide this total plan benefit on a rule-by-rule basis. For example, photochemical 

reactions in the Valley’s atmosphere combine precursor emissions to generate ozone 

and particulate matter in the atmosphere, so it is not always appropriate to attribute the 

health and cost benefits to just one precursor. Also, considering the extensive emission 

reductions that have already been achieved in the Valley over the past several years, 

some emissions sources may appear relatively small and inconsequential from a health 

perspective. In reality, all attainment plan rule commitments are important to the 

District’s overall strategy for reducing ambient air pollutant concentrations and the 

associated health impacts and costs. 

VII. ANALYSES 

A. Emission Reduction 

The revised proposed rule amendments are intended to address the limited approval 

from EPA concerning RACT. District staff reviewed all subjected facility’s permit data 

and determined units are already in compliance with the revised proposed 

amendments. Therefore, no emission reductions are expected from this rule making 

project. 

B. Cost Effectiveness 

Pursuant to California Health & Safety Code Section 40920.6(a), the District is required to 

analyze the cost effectiveness of new rules or rule amendments that implement Best 

Available Retrofit Control Technology (BARCT) or planning requirements to incorporate all 

feasible measures. The revised proposed amendments to this rule would only add federal 

RACT requirements but not BARCT or all feasible measures, and are therefore not subject 

to the cost effectiveness analysis mandate. Given that operators are generally complying 

with the new limits currently and there are no significant emission reductions or 

compliance costs expected from these rule changes, a cost effectiveness analysis has not 

been performed. 
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT 

Final Staff Report: Rule 4402 December 15, 2011 

26 Final Staff Report with Appendices for 

Revised Proposed Amendments to Rule 4402

C. Socioeconomic 

Pursuant to CH&SC 40728.5, “whenever a district intends to propose the adoption, 

amendment, or repeal of a rule or regulation that will significantly affect air quality or 

emissions limitations, that agency shall, to the extent data is available, perform an 

assessment of the socioeconomic impacts of the adoption, amendment, or repeal of the 

rule or regulation.” 

The source category covers crude oil production sumps pits and ponds in the Valley. 

This rule-amending project is not expected to have significant costs associated with it. 

Therefore, staff concludes that, if a detailed socioeconomic analysis were conducted, there 

would be no significant socioeconomic impact from this rule. 

D. Environmental Impact 

Pursuant to §15061 of the Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental 

Quality Act (CEQA), District staff investigated the possible environmental impacts of the 

revised proposed amendments to Rule 4402. Based on the lack of evidence to the 

contrary, District staff has concluded that the revised proposed amendments to this rule 

will not have any significant adverse effects on the environment. Staff recommends 

filing a Notice of Exemption under the provisions of Public Resource Code 15061(b)(3). 

E. Rule Consistency 

Pursuant to CH&SC §40727.2, District staff prepared a rule consistency analysis that 

compared the elements of amendments with the corresponding elements of other 

District rules and federal regulations. District staff found that none of the revised 

proposed amendments would conflict with other District rules, or federal rules, 

regulations, or policies covering similar stationary sources. That analysis is presented 

in Appendix C of this final staff report. 

F. Reasonably Available Control Technology 

CAA §182(b)(2) states that ozone attainment plans shall assure that RACT for VOC is 

applied at certain sources. A RACT analysis requires an examination of a rule against 

Federal rules, regulations, and technology guidelines as well as comparing it against 

rules from other air districts in California. On Thursday, July 7, 2011, EPA published in 

the Federal Register a RACT analysis of District Rule 4402. As documented in the 

Federal Register, EPA determined that Rule 4402 satisfies RACT and the rule is largely 

consistent with the relevant CAA requirements, with a few exceptions. The purpose of 

this rule-amending project is to address the RACT deficiencies as identified by EPA and 

as discussed in this final staff report. As such, this rule satisfies RACT requirements. 

 
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT 

Final Staff Report: Rule 4402 December 15, 2011 

27 Final Staff Report with Appendices for 

Revised Proposed Amendments to Rule 4402

VIII. REFERENCES 

Bay Area Air Quality Management District [BAAQMD]. (Amended September 

15, 2004). Regulation 8 Organic Compounds Rule 8 Wastewater Collections and 

Separation Systems. Retrieved from 

http://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/Files/Planning%20and%20Research/Rules%20

and%20Regs/reg%2008/rg0808.ashx?la=en 

California Air Resources Board [ARB]. (Updated December 1993). Emissions Factors 

for Oil and Gas Production Sumps and Pits 

California Air Resources Board [ARB]. (August 1988). Technical Support Document. 

ARB’s Suggested Control Measure for the Control of Organic Compound 

Emissions from Sumps Used in Oil Production Operations 

Cook, R (2011, November 03). Governor removes DOGGR supervisor from her post. 

Bakersfield.com Retrieved from 

http://www.bakersfield.com/news/business/economy/x1454911264/Governorremoves-DOGGR-supervisor 

Cox, J. (2011, September 04). Local oil industry wary of EPA’s push for tighter rules 

protecting underwater aquifers. Bakersfield.com . Retrieved from 

http://www.bakersfield.com/news/business/economy/x130698618/Local-oilindustry-wary-of-EPAs-push-for-tighter-rules-protecting-undergroundaquifers?utm_campaign=flyout&utm_medium=flyout&utm_source=news_busines

s_economy 

Environmental Protection Agency [EPA]. (October 2010). Technical Support Document. 

EPA’s Analysis of San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District’s Rule 4402, 

Crude Oil Production Sumps 

Federal Register. Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; California State 

Implementation Plan Revision; Kern County Air Pollution Control District; Santa 

Barbara County Air Pollution Control District, 1996, 5515 – 5517). 

Revisions to the California State Implementation Plan, San Joaquin Valley Unified Air 

Pollution Control District [CFR], 76, Fed. Reg. 130, pp 39777-39782. (2011, July 

7). (to be codified at 44 CFR Part 64) 

San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District [District]. (2009, January 23). 

2007 Area Source Emissions Inventory Methodology 310 – Oil Production 

Fugitive Losses 

San Luis Obispo County Air Pollution Control District [SLOCAPCD]. (Adopted July 12, 
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT 

Final Staff Report: Rule 4402 December 15, 2011 

28 Final Staff Report with Appendices for 

Revised Proposed Amendments to Rule 4402

1994). Rule 419 Petroleum Pits, Ponds, Sumps, Well Cellars, and Wastewater 

Separators. Retrieved from 

http://www.arb.ca.gov/DRDB/SLO/CURHTML/R419.htm 

Santa Barbara County Air Pollution Control District [SBCAPCD]. (Adopted 

November 10, 1994). Rule 344 Petroleum Sumps, Pits, and Well Cellars. 

Retrieved from http://www.arb.ca.gov/DRDB/SB/CURHTML/r344.pdf 

South Coast Air Quality Management District [SCAQMD]. (Amended September 13, 

1996). Rule 1176 VOC Emissions from Wastewater Systems. Retrieved from 

http://www.aqmd.gov/rules/reg/reg11/r1176.pdf 

Ventura County Air Pollution Control District [VCAPCD]. (Amended June 8, 1993). 

Rule 71.4 Petroleum Sumps, Pits, Ponds and Well Cellars. Retrieved from 

http://www.arb.ca.gov/DRDB/VEN/CURHTML/R71-4.PDF